The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 David Irving Archive
Introduction to HITLER'S WAR
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
shutterstock_184347203

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

“No praise can be too high for [Mr. Irving's] indefatigable scholarly industry. He has sought and found scores of new sources, including many private diaries. He has also tested hitherto accepted documents and discarded many of them as forgeries. His portrait of Hitler is thus, he claims, firmly based on solid primary evidence…An exact and scrupulous historian.”— Hugh Trevor-Roper (Lord Dacre), Regius Professor of Modern History at Oxford.

“The reader is gripped at once, because the writer is so obviously in his element; he is there…For he is presenting the events of 1939-45 ‘as far as possible through Hitler’s eyes, from behind his desk.’ In this it seems to me he is brilliantly successful—I have read nothing except the Table Talk which gives so immediate a feeling of Hitler’s thinking”—The Times of London.

“Two books in English stand out from the vast literature of the Second World War. Chester Wilmot’s The Struggle for Europe, published in 1952, and David Irving’s Hitler’s War,which appeared three years ago…They do so because, from exactly opposing angles of vision, each tackles the strategy of the whole war and makes impressive if doctrinaire sense of it…The second book has not yet worked its way into our general understanding of the conflict, though it undoubtedly will do so when controversy over its sensationalist elements is exhausted.”—Sir John Keegan, Defence Editor of The Daily Telegraph in The Times Literary Supplement.

“The best study we have of the German side of the Second World War”—Prof. Gordon Craig, Stanford University.

“To historians is granted a talent that even the gods are denied – to alter what has already happened!”

I bore this scornful saying in mind when I embarked on this study of Adolf Hitler’s twelve years of absolute power. I saw myself as a stone cleaner – less concerned with architectural appraisal than with scrubbing years of grime and discoloration from the facade of a silent and forbidding monument. I set out to describe events from behind the Führer’s desk, seeing each episode through his eyes. The technique necessarily narrows the field of view, but it does help to explain decisions that are otherwise inexplicable. Nobody that I knew of had attempted this before, but it seemed worth the effort: after all, Hitler’s war left forty million dead and caused all of Europe and half of Asia to be wasted by fire and explosives; it destroyed Hitler’s ‘Third Reich,’ bankrupted Britain and lost her the Empire, and it brought lasting disorder to the world’s affairs; it saw the entrenchment of communism in one continent, and its emergence in another.

In earlier books I had relied on the primary records of the period rather than published literature, which contained too many pitfalls for the historian. I naïvely supposed that the same primary sources technique could within five years be applied to a study of Hitler. In fact it would be thirteen years before the first volume, Hitler’s War, was published in 1977 and twenty years later I was still indexing and adding to my documentary files. I remember, in 1965, driving down to Tilbury Docks to collect a crate of microfilms ordered from the U.S. government for this study; the liner that brought the crate has long been scrapped, the dockyard itself levelled to the ground. I suppose I took it all at a far too leisurely pace. I hope however that this biography, now updated and revised, will outlive its rivals, and that more and more future writers find themselves compelled to consult it for materials that are contained in none of the others. Travelling around the world I have found that it has split the community of academic historians from top to bottom, particularly in the controversy around ‘the Holocaust.’ In Australia alone, students from the universities of New South Wales and Western Australia have told me that there they are penalised for citing Hitler’s War; at the universities of Wollongong and Canberra students are disciplined if they don’t. The biography was required reading for officers at military academies from Sandhurst to West Point, New York, and Carlisle, Pennsylvania, until special-interest groups applied pressure to the commanding officers of those seats of learning; in its time it attracted critical praise from the experts behind the Iron Curtain and from the denizens of the Far Right.

Not everybody was content. As the author of this work I have had my home smashed into by thugs, my family terrorised, my name smeared, my printers firebombed, and myself arrested and deported by tiny, democratic Austria – an illegal act, their courts decided, for which the ministerial culprits were punished; at the behest of disaffected academics and influential citizens, in subsequent years, I was deported from Canada (in 1992), and refused entry to Australia, New Zealand, Italy, South Africa, and other civilised countries around the world (in 1993).

In my absence, internationally affiliated groups circulated letters to librarians, pleading for this book to be taken off their shelves. From time to time copies of these letters were shown to me. A journalist for Time magazine dining with me in New York in 1988 remarked, ‘Before coming over I read the clippings files on you. Until Hitler’s War you couldn’t put a foot wrong, you were the darling of the media; but after it…’

I offer no apology for having revised the existing picture of the man. I have tried to accord to him the kind of hearing that he would have got in an English court of law – where the normal rules of evidence apply, but also where a measure of insight is appropriate.

ORDER IT NOW

There have been sceptics who questioned whether the heavy reliance on – inevitably angled – private sources is any better as a method of investigation than the more traditional quarries of information. My reply is that we certainly cannot deny the value of private sources altogether. As the Washington Post noted in its review of the first edition in 1977, ‘British historians have always been more objective toward Hitler than either German or American writers.’

* * *

My conclusions on completing the manuscript startled even me. Hitler was a far less omnipotent Führer than had been believed, and his grip on his subordinates had weakened with each passing year. Three episodes – the aftermath of the Ernst Röhm affair of June 30, 1934, the Dollfuss assassination a month later, and the anti-Jewish outrages of November 1938 – show how his powers had been pre-empted by men to whom he felt himself in one way or another indebted. While my Hitler’s central and guiding prewar ambition always remains constant, his methods and tactics were profoundly opportunistic. Hitler firmly believed in grasping at fleeting opportunities. ‘There is but one moment when the Goddess of Fortune wafts by,’ he lectured his adjutants in 1938, ‘and if you don’t grab her then by the hem you won’t get a second chance!’ The manner in which he seized upon the double scandal in January 1938 to divest himself of the over conservative army Commander in Chief, Werner von Fritsch, and to become his own Supreme Commander too, is a good example.

His geographical ambitions remained unchanged. He had no ambitions against Britain or her Empire at all, and all the captured records solidly bear this out. He had certainly built the wrong air force and the wrong navy for a sustained campaign against the British Isles; and subtle indications, like his instructions to Fritz Todt (page 21) to erect huge monuments on the Reich’s western frontiers, suggest that for Hitler these frontiers were of a lasting nature. There is equally solid proof of his plans to invade the east – his secret speech of February 1933 (page 25), his memorandum of August 1936 (pages 40–41), his June 1937 instructions for the expansion of Pillau as a Baltic naval base (page 50), and his remarks to Mussolini in May 1938 (page 88), that ‘Germany will step out along the ancient Teutonic path, toward the east.’ Not until later that month, it turns out (page 92), did Hitler finally resign himself to the likelihood that Britain and France would probably not stand aside.

These last pre-war years saw Hitler’s intensive reliance on psychological warfare techniques. The principle was not new: Napoleon himself had defined it thus: ‘The reputation of one’s arms in war is everything, and equivalent to real forces.’ By using the records of the propaganda ministry and various editorial offices I have tried to illustrate how advanced the Nazis were in these ‘cold war’ techniques. Related to this theme is my emphasis on Hitler’s foreign Intelligence sources. The Nazis’ wiretapping and code breaking agency, the Forschungsamt, which destroyed all its records in 1945, holds the key to many of his successes. The agency eavesdropped on foreign diplomats in Berlin and – even more significantly – it fed to Hitler hour by hour transcripts of the lurid and incautious telephone conversations conducted between an embattled Prague and the Czech diplomats in London and Paris during September 1938 (pages 118–126). From the time of Munich until the outbreak of war with Britain Hitler could follow virtually hourly how his enemies were reacting to each Nazi ploy, and he rightly deduced by August 22, 1939, that while the western powers might well formally declare war they would not actually fight – not at first, that is.

The war years saw Hitler as a powerful and relentless military commander, the inspiration behind great victories like the Battle of France in May 1940 and the Battle of Kharkov in May 1942; even Marshal Zhukov later privately admitted that Hitler’s summer 1941 strategy – rather than the general staff’s frontal assault on Moscow – was unquestionably right. At the same time however Hitler became a lax and indecisive political leader, who allowed affairs of state to stagnate. Though often brutal and insensitive, he lacked the ability to be ruthless where it mattered most. He refused to bomb London itself until Mr. Churchill forced the decision on him in late August 1940. He was reluctant to impose the test of total mobilisation on the German ‘master race’ until it was too late to matter, so that with munitions factories crying out for manpower, idle German housewives were still employing half a million domestic servants to dust their homes and polish their furniture. Hitler’s military irresolution sometimes showed through, for example in his panicky vacillation at times of crisis like the battle for Narvik in 1940. He took ineffectual measures against his enemies inside Germany for too long, and seems to have been unable to act effectively against strong opposition at the very heart of his High Command. In fact he suffered incompetent ministers and generals far longer than the Allied leaders did. He failed to unite the feuding factions of Party and Wehrmacht for the common cause, and he proved incapable of stifling the corrosive hatred of the War Department (OKH) for the Wehrmacht High Command (OKW).

I believe that I show in this book that the more hermetically Hitler locked himself away behind the barbed wire and minefields of his remote military headquarters, the more his Germany became a Führer Staat without a Führer. Domestic policy was controlled by whoever was most powerful in each sector – by Hermann Göring as head of the powerful economics agency, the Four Year Plan; by Hans Lammers as chief of the Reich chancellery; or by Martin Bormann, the Nazi Party boss; or by Heinrich Himmler, minister of the interior and Reichsführer of the evil famed SS.

Hitler was a problem, a puzzle to even his most intimate advisers. Joachim von Ribbentrop, his foreign minister, wrote in his Nuremberg prison cell in 1945:

I got to know Adolf Hitler more closely in 1933. If I am asked to day however whether I knew him well – how he thought as a politician and statesman, what kind of man he was – then I’m bound to confess that I know only very little about him; really, nothing at all. The fact is that although I went through so much together with him, in all the years of working with him I never came closer to him than on the first day we met, either personally or otherwise.

The sheer complexity of that character is evident from a comparison of his brutality in some respects with his almost maudlin sentimentality and stubborn adherence to military conventions that others had long abandoned. We find him cold bloodedly ordering a hundred hostages executed for every German occupation soldier killed; dictating the massacre of Italian officers who had turned their weapons against German troops in 1943; ordering the liquidation of Red Army commissars, Allied commando troops, and captured Allied aircrews; in 1942 he announced that the male populations of Stalingrad and Leningrad were to be exterminated. He justified all these orders by the expediencies of war. Yet the same Hitler indignantly exclaimed, in the last week of his life, that Soviet tanks were flying the Nazi swastika as a ruse during street fighting in Berlin, and he flatly forbade his Wehrmacht to violate flag rules. He had opposed every suggestion for the use of poison gases, as that would violate the Geneva Protocol; at that time Germany alone had manufactured the potentially war winning lethal nerve gases Sarin and Tabun. In an age in which the governments of the democracies attempted, engineered, or condoned the assassinations, successfully or otherwise, of the inconvenient[1]The CIA documents on planned assassinations and assassination techniques can now be viewed on the George Washington University website, at www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv. – from General Sikorski, Admiral Darlan, Field Marshal Rommel, and King Boris of Bulgaria to Fidel Castro, Patrice Lumumba, and Salvador Allende – we learn that Hitler, the world’s most unscrupulous dictator, not only never resorted to the assassination of foreign opponents but flatly forbade his Abwehr to attempt it. In particular he rejected Admiral Canaris’s plans to assassinate the Red Army General Staff.

ORDER IT NOW

The biggest problem in dealing analytically with Hitler is the aversion to him deliberately created by years of intense wartime propaganda and emotive post-war historiography. I came to the subject with almost neutral feelings. My own impression of the war was limited to snapshot memories – 1940 summer picnics around the wreckage of a Heinkel bomber in the local Bluebell Woods; the infernal organ note of the V 1 flying bombs passing overhead; convoys of drab army trucks rumbling past our country gate; counting the gaps in the American bomber squadrons straggling back each day from Germany; waving to the troopships sailing in June 1944 from Southsea beach to Normandy; and of course, VE day itself, with the bonfires and beating of the family gong. Our knowledge of the Germans ‘responsible’ for all this was not profound. In Everybody’s magazine, long defunct, I recall ‘Ferrier’s World Searchlight’ with its weekly caricatures of a clubfooted dwarf called Goebbels and the other comic Nazi heroes.

The caricatures have bedevilled the writing of modern history ever since. Confronted by the phenomenon of Hitler himself, historians cannot grasp that he was a walking, talking human weighing some 155 pounds with greying hair, largely false teeth, and chronic digestive ailments. He is to them the Devil incarnate: he has to be, because of the sacrifices that we made in destroying him.

The caricaturing process became respectable at the Nuremberg war crimes trials. History has been plagued since then by the prosecution teams’ methods of selecting exhibits and by the subsequent publication of them in neatly printed and indexed volumes and the incineration of any document that might have hindered the prosecution effort. At Nuremberg the blame for what happened was shifted from general to minister, from minister to Party official, and from all of them invariably to Hitler. Under the system of ‘licensed’ publishers and newspapers established by the victors in post-war Germany the legends prospered. No story was too absurd to gain credence in the history books and memoirs.

Among these creative writers the German General Staff take pride of place. Without Hitler few of them would have risen above colonel. They owed him their jobs, their medals, their estates and endowments, and not infrequently their victories too. After the war those who survived – which was sometimes because they had been dismissed and thus removed from the hazards of the battlefield – contrived to divert the blame for final defeat. In the files of Nuremberg prosecutor Justice Robert H. Jackson I found a note warning about the tactics that General Franz Halder, the former chief of General Staff, proposed to adopt: ‘I just wanted to call your attention to the CSDIC intercepts of Halder’s conversations with other generals. He is extremely frank on what he thinks should be suppressed or distorted and in particular is very sensitive to the suggestion that the German General Staff was involved in anything, especially planning for war.’

Fortunately this embarrassed offsetting between conscience and memory was more than once recorded for posterity by the hidden microphones of the CSDIC (Combined Services Detailed Interrogation Centre). Thus the cavalry general Rothkirch, the III Corps commander, captured at Bitburg on March 6, 1945, was overheard three days later describing how he had personally liquidated Jews in a small town near Vitebsk, Russia, and how he had been warned not to disturb mass graves near Minsk as these were about to be exhumed and incinerated so as to destroy all traces. ‘I have decided,’ he told fellow prisoners, ‘to twist every statement I make so that the officer corps is white washed – relentlessly, relentlessly![2]CSDIC (UK) report SRGG.1133, March 9, 1945, in Public Record Office, London, file WO.208/4169. And when General Heinz Guderian and the arrogant, supercilious General Leo Geyr von Schweppenburg were asked by their American captors to write their own history of the war, they first sought Field Marshal Wilhelm Leeb’s permission as senior officer at the Seventh Army’s CSDIC. Again hidden microphones recorded their talk:

Leeb: Well, I can only give you my personal opinion…. You will have to weigh your answers carefully when they pertain to objectives, causes, and the progress of operations, in order to see where they may impinge on the interests of our Fatherland. On the one hand we have to admit that the Americans know the course of operations quite accurately; they even know which units were employed on our side. However they are not quite so familiar with our motives. And there is one point where it would be advisable to proceed with caution, so that we do not become the laughingstock of the world. I do not know what your relations were with Hitler, but I do know his military capacity…. You will have to consider your answers a bit carefully when approached on this subject so that you say nothing that might embarrass our Fatherland….

Geyr von Schweppenburg: The types of madness known to psychologists cannot be compared with the one the Führer suffered from. He was a madman surrounded by serfs. I do not think we should express ourselves quite as strongly as that in our statements. Mention of this fact will have to be made, however, in order to exonerate a few persons.

After agonising over which German generals, if any, advocated war in 1939, Leeb suggested: ‘The question is now whether we should not just admit openly everything we know.’

Geyr: Any objective observer will admit that National Socialism did raise the social status of the worker, and in some respects even his standard of living.

Leeb: This is one of the great achievements of National Socialism. The excesses of National Socialism were in the first and final analysis due to the Führer’s personality.

Guderian: The fundamental principles were fine.

Leeb: That is true.

In writing this biography I therefore adopted strict criteria in selecting my source material. I have used not only the military records and archives; I have burrowed deep into the contemporary writings of his closest personal staff, seeking clues to the real truth in diaries and private letters written to wives and friends. For the few autobiographical works I have used I preferred to rely on their original manuscripts rather than the printed texts, as in the early post-war years apprehensive publishers (especially the ‘licensed’ ones in Germany) made drastic changes in them – for example in the memoirs of Karl Wilhelm Krause, Hitler’s manservant. Thus I relied on the original handwritten memoirs of Walter Schellenberg, Himmler’s Intelligence chief, rather than on the mutilated and ghost-written version subsequently published by André Deutsch.

ORDER IT NOW

I would go so far as to warn against several works hitherto accepted as ‘standard’ sources on Hitler – particularly those by Konrad Heiden, the Abwehr/OSS double agent Hans Bernd Gisevius, Erich Kordt, and Hitler’s dismissed adjutant Fritz Wiedemann. (The latter unashamedly explained in a private 1940 letter to a friend, ‘It makes no difference if exaggerations and even falsehoods do creep in.’) Professor Carl Jakob Burckhardt’s ‘diary’ quoted in his memoir, Meine Danziger Mission 1937–1939, is impossible to reconcile with Hitler’s actual movements; while Hermann Rauschning’s Conversations with Hitler (Zürich, 1940) has bedevilled analysis of Hitler’s policies ever since it was published by the evil propagandist Emery Reves (Imre Revész) along with a host of other fables. Rauschning, a former Nazi Danzig politician, met Hitler on only a couple of formal occasions. It was being republished in Vienna as recently as 1973, although even the otherwise uncritical West German historian Professor Eberhard Jäckel – who carelessly included 78 forgeries in a serious volume of Hitler’s manuscripts, and then dismissed this poisonous injection as making up less than 5 percent of the total volume! – emphasised in a learned article in Geschichte in Wissenschaft und Unterricht (No. 11, 1977) that Rauschning’s volume has no claim to credibility at all. Reves was also publisher of that other famous ‘source’ on early Nazi history, Fritz Thyssen’s ‘memoirs,’ I Paid Hitler (London, 1943). Henry Ashby Turner, Jr., has pointed out in a paper in Vierteljahrsheft für Zeitgeschichte (No. 3, 1971) that the luckless Thyssen never even saw eight of the book’s nineteen chapters, while the rest were drafted in French! The list of such spurious volumes is endless. The anonymous ‘memoirs’ of the late Christa Schroeder, Hitler Privat (Düsseldorf, 1949), were penned by Albert Zoller, a French army liaison officer to the U.S. Seventh Army. Martin Bormann’s alleged notes on Hitler’s final bunker conversations, published with an introduction by Professor Hugh Trevor-Roper in 1961 as The Testament of Adolf Hitler and – regrettably – published by Albrecht Knaus Verlag in German as Hitlers Politisches Testament: Die Bormann-Diktate (Hamburg, 1981), are in my view quite spurious: a copy of the partly typed, partly handwritten original is in my possession, and this leaves no doubt.

Historians are however quite incorrigible, and will quote any apparently primary source no matter how convincingly its false pedigree is exposed. Albert Speer’s memoirs Inside the Third Reich made him a personal fortune after the West Berlin firm of Propyläen published the book in 1969. The volume earned him wide respect for his disavowal of Hitler. Some critics were however puzzled that the American edition differed substantially from the German original Erinnerungen and the British edition. I learned the truth from the horse’s mouth, being one of the first writers to interview Speer after his release from Spandau prison in 1966. The former Reichsminister spent an afternoon reading out loud to me from his draft memoirs. The book subsequently published was very different, having been written, he explained, by my own in house editor at the Ullstein publishing house (Annette Engel née Etienne), by their chief editor Wolf Jobst Siedler, and by historian Joachim Fest, editor of the prestigious Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. Miss Etienne confirmed this. When I challenged Speer in private at a Frankfurt publishing dinner in October 1979 to publish his original memoirs, he replied rather wistfully that he wished he could: ‘That would be impossible. That manuscript was quite out of keeping with the modern nuances. Even the captions to the chapters would have caused difficulties.’ A courageous Berlin author, Matthias Schmidt, later published a book[3]Matthias Schmidt, Albert Speer: The End of a Myth (New York, 1984). exposing the Speer legend and the ‘memoirs’; but it is the latter volume which the lazy gentlemen of my profession have in their libraries, not Schmidt’s, thus proving the opening words of this introduction to be true.

It was symptomatic of Speer’s truthfulness to history that while he was in Spandau he paid for the entire wartime diaries of his office (Dienststelle) to be retyped omitting the more unfortunate passages, and donated these faked documents to the Bundesarchiv in Koblenz. My comparison of the 1943 volume, housed in the original in British Cabinet Office archives, with the Bundesarchiv copy made this plain, and Matthias Schmidt also reveals the forgery. In fact I have been startled by the number of such ‘diaries’ which close scrutiny proves to have been faked or tampered with – invariably to Hitler’s disadvantage.

Two different men claimed to possess the entire diaries of Vice Admiral Wilhelm Canaris, the legendary Abwehr chief hanged by Hitler in April 1945. The first, Klaus Benzing, produced ‘documents of the post-war German Intelligence Service (BND)’ and original papers ‘signed by Canaris’ in his support; the second, the German High Court judge Fabian von Schlabrendorff, announced that his set of the diaries had recently been returned by Generalísimo Francisco Franco to the West German government. Forensic tests on the paper and ink of a ‘Canaris document’ supplied by the first man, conducted for me by the London laboratory of Hehner & Cox Ltd., proved them to be forgeries. An interview with Franco’s chef de bureau – his brother in law Don Felipe Polo Valdes – in Madrid disposed of the German judge’s equally improbable claim.

Similarly the Eva Braun diaries published by the film actor Luis Trenker were largely forged from the memoirs written decades earlier by Countess Irma Larisch-Wallersee; the forgery was established by the Munich courts in October 1948. Eva Braun’s genuine diaries and voluminous intimate correspondence with Hitler were acquired by the CIC team of Colonel Robert A. Gutierrez, based in Stuttgart Backnang in the summer of 1945; after a brief sifting by Frau Ursula Göhler on their behalf, these papers have not been seen since.

I visited Gutierrez twice in New Mexico – he subsequently released Eva Braun’s wedding dress and silver flatware (which he admitted having retained) to my researcher colleague Willi Korte, but he has not conceded an inch over the missing papers and diaries.

The oft quoted diaries of Himmler’s and Ribbentrop’s Berlin masseur Felix Kersten are equally fictitious – as for example the ‘twenty six page medical dossier on Hitler’ described in chapter xxiii (pp. 165–171 of the English edition) shows when compared with the genuine diaries of Hitler’s doctor, Theo Morell, which I found and published in 1983. The genuine Kersten diaries which Professor Hugh Trevor Roper saw in Sweden were never published, perhaps because of the political dynamite they contained on Sweden’s elite including publisher Albert Bonnier, alleged to have offered Himmler the addresses of every Jew in Sweden in return for concessions in the event of a Nazi invasion. Similarly the ‘diaries’ published by Rudolf Semler in Goebbels – the Man Next to Hitler (London, 1947) are phoney too, as the entry for January 12, 1945, proves; it has Hitler as Goebbels’s guest in Berlin, when the Führer was in fact still fighting the Battle of the Bulge from his headquarters in western Germany.

ORDER IT NOW

There are too obvious anachronisms in Count Galeazzo Ciano’s extensively quoted ‘diaries’: for example Marshal Rodolfo Graziani’s ‘complaints about Rommel’ on December 12, 1940 – two full months before Rommel was appointed to Italy’s North Africa theatre! In fact Ciano spent the months after his dismissal in February 1943 rewriting and ‘improving’ the diaries himself, which makes them readable but useless for the purposes of history. Ribbentrop warned about the forgery in his prison memoirs – he claimed to have seen Ciano’s real diaries in September 1943 – and the Nazi interpreter Eugen Dollmann described in his memoirs how the fraud was actually admitted to him by a British officer at a prison camp. The OSS files on this are in the Allen W. Dulles papers (unfortunately still closed) at the Mudd Library, Princeton University; but even the most superficial examination of the handwritten original volumes reveals the extent to which Ciano (or others) doctored them and interpolated material – yet historians of the highest repute have quoted them without question as they have Ciano’s so called ‘Lisbon Papers,’ although the latter too bear all the hallmarks of subsequent editing. (They have all been retyped on the same typewriter although ostensibly originating over the six years 1936–42.)

Some diaries have been amended in relatively harmless ways: the Luftwaffe Chief of Staff Karl Koller’s real shorthand diary often bears no resemblance to the version he published as Der letzte Monat (Mannheim, 1949). And Helmuth Greiner, keeper of the official OKW operations staff war diary until 1943, seized the opportunity in 1945, when asked by the Americans to retranscribe his original notes for the lost volumes from August 1942 to March 1943, to excise passages which reflected unfavourably on fellow prisoners like General Adolf Heusinger – or too favourably on Hitler; and no doubt to curry favour with the Americans, he added lengthy paragraphs charged with pungent criticism of Hitler’s conduct of the war which I found to be missing from his original handwritten notes. This tendency – to pillory Hitler after the war – was also strongly evident in the ‘diaries’ of the late General Gerhard Engel, who served as his army adjutant from March 1938 to October 1943. Historiographical evidence alone – e.g., comparison with the 1940 private diaries of Reichsminister Fritz Todt or the wife of General Rudolf Schmundt, or with the records of Field Marshal von Manstein’s Army Group Don at the time of Stalingrad – indicates that whatever they are, they are not contemporaneous diaries; tests on the age of the paper confirmed it. Regrettably, the well known Institut für Zeitgeschichte in Munich nonetheless published them in a volume, Heeresadjutant bei Hitler 1938–1943 (Stuttgart, 1974), rather feebly drawing attention to inconsistencies in the ‘diaries’ in a short introduction.

With the brilliant exception of Hugh Trevor Roper (now Lord Dacre), whose book The Last Days of Hitler was based on the records of the era and is therefore virtually unassailable even today, each successive biographer repeated or embraced the legends created by his predecessors, or at best consulted only the most readily available works of reference themselves. In the 1960s and 1970s a wave of weak, repetitive, and unrevealing Hitler biographies had washed through the bookstores. The most widely publicised was that written by a German television personality and historian, Joachim Fest; but he later told a questioner that he had not even visited the magnificent National Archives in Washington, which houses by far the largest collection of records relating to recent European history. Stylistically, Fest’s German was good; but the old legends were trotted out afresh, polished to an impressive gleam of authority.

The same Berlin company also published my Hitler biography shortly after, under the title Hitler und seine Feldherren; their chief editor, Siedler, found many of my arguments distasteful, even dangerous, and without informing me suppressed or even reversed them. In their printed text Hitler had not told Himmler (on November 30, 1941) that there was to be ‘no liquidation’ of a consignment of Jews from Berlin; he had told him not to use the word ‘liquidate’ publicly in connection with their extermination programme. Thus history is falsified! For this and similar reasons I prohibited further printing of the book, two days after its appearance in Germany, and litigated for ten years to regain the right to publish it in its original form. To explain their actions, the Berlin publishers argued that my manuscript expressed some views that were ‘an affront to established historical opinion’ in their country.

My idle predecessors had gratefully lamented that most of the documents had been destroyed. They had not – they survived in embarrassing superabundance. The official papers of Luftwaffe Field Marshal Erhard Milch, Göring’s deputy, were captured by the British and total over 60,000 pages; the entire war diary of the German naval staff, of immense value far beyond purely naval matters, survived; it took many months to read the 69 volumes of main text, some over 900 pages long, in Washington and to examine the most promising of the 3,800 microfilm records of German naval records held in Washington. After the first edition of this book appeared in Berlin in 1975 further volumes of the diaries of Joseph Goebbels were released in the West; I had some qualms that they might reveal some of my more dangerous hypotheses to have been hollow. (Neither those first volumes, nor the missing Goebbels diaries first exploited by me in the Moscow archives in 1992, nor the rest of them, have yielded any evidence that I was wrong.)

Many sources of prime importance are still missing. That diplomatic historians never once bothered in thirty years to visit the widow of Joachim von Ribbentrop’s state-secretary Ernst von Weizsäcker, father of the subsequent West German president, was a baffling mystery to me. Had they looked for the widow of Walther Hewel, Ribbentrop’s liaison officer to Hitler, they would have learned about his diaries too. And who are these over-emotional historians of the Jewish tragedy who, until I did so, never troubled themselves even to open a readily available file of the SS chief Heinrich Himmler’s own handwritten telephone notes, or to read his memoranda for his secret meetings with Adolf Hitler? Alas, apart from pocket diaries for 1935 and 1939, of which I have donated copies to the Bundesarchiv, the diaries of Himmler have largely vanished – partly carried off as trophies to Moscow, from where most of the pages for 1941–42 have only recently been retrieved,[4]Der Dienstkalender Heinrich Himmlers 1941/42, ed. Peter Witte, with foreword by Uwe Lohalm and Wolfgang Scheffler (Hamburg, 1999). No praise is too high for this edition. and partly removed to Tel Aviv, Israel; Chaim Rosenthal, a former attaché at the Israeli Consulate in New York, obtained some Himmler diaries by the most questionable means and donated them to the University of Tel Aviv in 1982, but following extensive litigation against Rosenthal – now non grata in the U.S.A. – the university returned the volumes to him.

ORDER IT NOW

Other diaries are also sorely missed. Those of former Gestapo executive Werner Best were last seen in the Royal Danish Archives in Copenhagen in 1945; those of Karl Wolff were last seen at Nuremberg. The diaries of Hans Lammers, Wilhelm Brückner, and Karl Bodenschatz vanished into American or French hands; those of Professor Theo Morell vanished too, to turn up miraculously in my presence in Washington in 1981 (I published a full edited transcript two years later).

Nicolaus von Below’s are probably in Moscow. Alfred Rosenberg’s remaining unpublished diaries were illicitly held by the late Dr. Robert M. W. Kempner, an American lawyer based in Frankfurt; his papers, salvaged in Lansdowne, Pennsylvania, are now the object of an unseemly dispute between Jewish archives and his family. The rest of Milch’s diaries, of which I obtained and placed on microfilm some five thousand pages in 1967, have vanished, as have General Alfred Jodl’s diaries covering the years 1940 to 1943; they were looted along with his private property by the British 11th Armoured Division at Flensburg in May 1945. Only a brief fragment of Benito Mussolini’s diary survives: the SS copied the originals and returned them to him in January 1945, but both the originals and the copy placed in Ribbentrop’s files are missing now. The important diaries of Rudolf Schmundt were, unhappily, burned at his request by his fellow adjutant Admiral Karl Jesco von Puttkamer in April 1945, along with Puttkamer’s own diaries. The Hoover Institution, Stanford, California, holds the diary of SS Obergruppenführer Friedrich Wilhelm Krüger – another item wilfully overlooked by West Germany’s historians.

My search for sources that might throw light on Hitler’s character was sometimes successful, sometimes not. Weeks of searching with a proton magnetometer – a kind of supersensitive mine detector – in a forest in East Germany failed to unearth a glass jar containing stenograms of Goebbels’s very last diaries, although at times, according to the map in my possession, we must have stood right over it. In writing this biography however I did obtain a significant number of authentic, little known diaries of the people around Hitler, including an unpublished segment of Jodl’s diary; the official diary kept for OKW chief Wilhelm Keitel by his adjutant Wolf Eberhard, and Eberhard’s own diary for the years 1936 through 1939; the diary of Nikolaus von Vormann, army liaison officer to Hitler during August and September 1939; and the diaries kept by Martin Bormann and by Hitler’s personal adjutant Max Wünsche relating to Hitler’s movements.

In addition I have used the unpublished diaries of Fedor von Bock, Erhard Milch, Erich von Manstein, Wilhelm Leeb, Erwin Lahousen, and Eduard Wagner – whose widow allowed me to copy some two thousand pages of his private letters. Christa Schroeder, one of Hitler’s private secretaries, made available exclusively to me her important contemporary papers. Julius Schaub’s family let me copy all his manuscripts about his twenty years as Hitler’s senior aide, as did Wilhelm Brückner’s son.

I am the first biographer to have used the private papers of Staatssekretär Herbert Backe and his minister, Richard Walter Darré, and the diaries, notebooks, and papers of Fritz Todt. The British government kindly made available to me precious fragments of the diary of Admiral Canaris. Scattered across Germany and America I found the shorthand and typed pages of Erwin Rommel’s diaries, and the elusive diaries and notebooks that Reichsmarschall Hermann Göring had kept from his childhood on.

Among the most revealing documents used in this biography are the manuscripts written by Generaloberst (Colonel-General) Werner Freiherr von Fritsch in 1938 and 1939; these I obtained from a Soviet source. Jutta Freifrau von Richthofen allowed me access to the voluminous unpublished diaries of her husband, the late field marshal.

In short, every member of Hitler’s staff or High Command whom I located seemed to have carefully hoarded diaries or papers which were eventually produced for my exploitation here. They were mostly in German, but the research papers on the fringe of my work came in a Babel of other languages: Italian, Russian, French, Spanish, Hungarian, Romanian, and Czech. Some cryptic references to Hitler and Ribbentrop in the Hewel diaries defied all my puny code breaking efforts, and then proved to have been written in Indonesian!

All of these records I have now donated to the Institute of Contemporary History in Munich, where they are available as the Author’s collection to other writers. Second World War researchers will find microfilms of all the materials that I collected while researching this and other books available from Microform Academic Publishers Ltd., Main Street, East Ardsley, Wakefield, Yorkshire, WF3 2AT, England (e-mail: [email protected]; phone +44 1924–825 700, fax 1924–871 005).

 

Of the now available collections of records four are worthy of note – the formerly Top Secret CSDIC-series interrogation reports in Class WO208 at the Public Records Office, Kew, London; the coded radio messages of the SS and German police units, intercepted and decoded by the British at Bletchley Park, and now archived in the same place as Classes HW1, HW3, and HW16; the ‘Adolf Hitler Collection,’ housed in three file boxes at the Seeley G. Mudd Library, Princeton University, New Jersey; and some five hundred pages of Joachim von Ribbentrop’s pre ministerial letters and memoranda to Hitler, 1933‒36, found in the ruins of the Reich chancellery and now in the Louis Lochner papers at the Hoover Institution’s archives, Stanford, California.

ORDER IT NOW

The ‘Hitler Collection’ was purloined by Private Eric Hamm of the U.S. Army’s war crimes branch from Hitler’s residence in Munich, and eventually sold by a Chicago auction house. It reflects Hitler’s career well – archive photographs of his sketches and paintings, ambassadors’ dispatches, reports on the shooting of ‘professional criminals’ while ‘resisting arrest,’ a 1925 hotel registration filled out by Hitler (who entered himself as ‘stateless’), documents on the Spanish civil war, Röhm’s preparations for the 1923 beer hall putsch, an instruction by Martin Bormann that Hitler had agreed to cover bills run up by the peripatetic Princess Hohenlohe but would pay no more, extensive documentation on the Party’s relations with the Church; on December 20, 1940, Pierre Laval wrote to Hitler ‘desiring from the bottom of my heart that my country shall not suffer,’ and assuring him: ‘The policy of collaboration with Germany is supported by the vast majority of the French.’ Hjalmar Schacht several times protested to Hitler about the economic damage caused by anti-Jewish strictures; on August 24, 1935, he wrote that Robert Ley’s instruction that Woolworth & Co. was not to buy from Jewish suppliers would result in the company’s head office cancelling ten million marks of orders from Germany annually: ‘It is not clear to me, and never has been, how I am supposed to bring in foreign currency in the face of such policies.’ On March 30, 1936, Schacht asked Hitler to receive a certain American silk manufacturer who had been requested by President Roosevelt to ‘convey personal greetings to the Führer.’

On June 20, 1938, Count Helldorff, police chief of Berlin, sent to Hitler a report on organised anti Jewish razzias in Berlin. Later that year the police sent to Hitler a file on the Jewish assassin Herschel Grynszpan, confirming that his parents had been dumped back over the Polish border at Neu Bentschen on October 29 – a few days before he gunned down a German diplomat in Paris – pursuant to the Reich’s drive against Polish Jews who had settled in Germany. In February 1939 Hitler endorsed the refusal of his embassy in Washington to pay Danegeld to Kurt Lüdecke, a former Nazi who had invited the Party publishing house or some other Reich agency to buy up all rights in his scurrilous memoirs to prevent their publication. The same file shows Hitler acting to stop the Nazi heavyweight Max Schmeling staging a return fight against the Negro Joe Louis. (‘As you know,’ Julius Schaub wrote to the sports minister on March 2, 1939, ‘the Führer was against the fight in the first place.’)

Most enigmatic of these documents is one evidently originated by the Gestapo after 1940, typed on the special ‘Führer typewriter,’ reporting ugly rumours about Hitler’s ancestry – ‘that the Führer was an illegitimate child, adoptive son of Alois, that the Führer’s mother’s name was Schicklgruber[5]In fact Hitler’s father was the illegitimate son of Maria Anna Schicklgruber. Nazi newspapers were repeatedly, e.g., on December 16, 1939, forbidden to speculate on his ancestry. Werner Maser states in Die Frühgeschichte der NSDAP (Bonn, 1965) that on August 4, 1942, Heinrich Himmler instructed the Gestapo to investigate the Führer’s parentage; their bland findings were graded merely geheim (secret). The document quoted above is, however, stamped with the highest classification, Geheime Reichssache. before the adoption and that the Schicklgruber line has produced a string of idiots.’

Among the latter was a tax official, Joseph Veit, deceased in 1904 in Klagenfurt, Austria. One of his sons had committed suicide, a daughter had died in an asylum, a surviving daughter was half mad, and a third daughter was feebleminded. The Gestapo established that the family of Konrad Pracher of Graz had a dossier of photographs and certificates on all this. Himmler had them seized ‘to prevent their misuse.’

The Ribbentrop files reflect his tortuous relations as ‘ambassador extraordinary’ with Hitler and his rivals. He had established his influence by making good contacts with Englishmen of influence – among them not only industrialists like E. W. D. Tennant and newspaper barons like Lord Rothermere, Lord Astor, and Lord Camrose, but also the Cabinet ministers of the day, including Lord Hailsham, Lord Lloyd, Lord Londonderry, and young Anthony Eden, in whom Ribbentrop saw the rising star of the Conservative party. The files contain records of Ribbentrop’s meetings with Stanley Baldwin and Ramsay MacDonald in 1933 and 1934. They also reflect the tenuous links established between Sir Oswald Mosley and his lieutenants with the Nazi Party leadership in Berlin.

Typical of the many handwritten letters from Ribbentrop to Hitler was one dated January 6, 1935, thanking him for the show of confidence betokened by his new appointment to Reichsleiter – ‘Not only does this clearly define my status in the Party, removing any doubts as to your views on me and my activities, but the appointment also gives me a different position vis à vis the foreign ministry both externally and internally.’ He signed it ‘your trusty Ribbentrop.’

 

Nothing created such agony when this biography was first published as my analysis of Hitler’s role in the Jewish tragedy. Pure vitriol spilled from the pens of my critics, but I see no reason to revise my central hypothesis, which is based on the records of the day: that Hitler grasped quite early on that antisemitism would be a powerful vote catching force in Germany; that he had no compunction against riding that evil steed right up to the portals of the chancellery in 1933; but that once inside and in power, he dismounted and paid only lip service to that part of his Party creed.

The Nazi gangsters under him continued to ride to hounds, however, even when Hitler dictated differently, e.g., in November 1938.

As for the concentration camps he comfortably left that dark side of the Nazi rule to Himmler. He never visited one; those senior officials and foreigners who did obtain privileged access to Dachau, like Ernst Udet or General Erhard Milch or British Members of Parliament in 1933 and 1934 were favourably impressed (but those were early days). Himmler is known to have visited Auschwitz in 1941 and 1942. Hitler never did.

The scale of Germany’s Jewish problem is revealed by an unpublished manuscript by Hitler’s predecessor as chancellor, Dr. Heinrich Brüning. Writing in American exile in 1943 he stated that after the inflation there was only one major German bank not controlled by Jews, some of them ‘utterly corrupt.’ In 1931 he had brought the banks under government supervision, and had had to keep the government’s findings of dishonesty in the banks secret ‘for fear of provoking antisemitic riots.’ Brüning blamed foreign correspondents for exaggerating the ‘occasional ill treatment of Jews’ at the beginning of the Nazi regime:

In the spring of 1933 foreign correspondents reported that the River Spree [in Berlin] was covered with the corpses of murdered Jews. At that time hardly any Jews except for leaders of the Communist party… had been attacked…. If,’ he pointedly added, ‘the Jews had been treated so badly from the beginning of the regime, it could not be explained that so very few of them left the country before 1938.’

In 1948 Brüning would write to the editors of Life forbidding them to publish an August 1937 letter he had written to Winston Churchill revealing that ‘from October 1928 the two largest regular contributors to the Nazi Party were the general managers of two of the largest Berlin banks, both of Jewish faith, and one of them the leader of Zionism in Germany.’[6]Brüning’s 1943 manuscript is in the Dorothy Thompson collection of the George Arents Research Library, Syracuse University, New York. His letter to Daniel Longwell, editor of Life, dated February 7, 1948, is in Longwell’s papers in the Butler Library, Columbia University, New York.

 

ORDER IT NOW

I had approached the Nazi maltreatment of the Jews from the traditional viewpoint prevailing in the 1960s. Supposing Hitler was a capable statesman and a gifted commander, the argument ran, how does one explain his ‘murder of six million Jews’? If this book were simply a history of the rise and fall of Hitler’s Reich it would be legitimate to conclude: ‘Hitler killed the Jews.’ He after all had created the atmosphere of hatred with his speeches in the 1930s; he and Himmler had created the SS; his speeches, though never explicit, left the clear impression that ‘liquidate’ was what he meant.

For a full length war biography of Hitler, I felt that a more analytical approach to the key questions was necessary. Remarkably, I found that Hitler’s own role in the ‘Final Solution’ had never been examined. German historians, otherwise the epitome of painstaking essaying, had developed monumental blind spots when Hitler himself cropped up: bald statements were made without a shadow of evidence in support. British and American historians willingly conformed. Others quoted them. For thirty years our knowledge of Hitler’s part in the atrocity had rested on inter historian incest.

Many people, particularly in Germany and Austria, had an interest in propagating the version that the order of one madman originated the entire tragedy. Precisely when this order was given was, admittedly, left vague.

Every document actually linking Hitler with the treatment of German Jews takes the form of an embargo, from the 1923 beer hall putsch (when he purportedly disciplined a Nazi squad lieutenant for having looted a Jewish delicatessen) right through to 1943 and 1944. In the newly discovered Goebbels diaries we find that Hitler lectured the gauleiters in September 1935 that ‘above all’ there were to be no excesses against the Jews and no persecution of ‘non-Aryans.’ Goebbels tried to talk him out of this soft line, but noted: ‘Jewish problem not resolved even now. We debated it for a long time but the Führer still can’t make his mind up.’ And what are we to make of the edict issued ‘to all Gau directorates for immediate action’ by Hitler’s deputy, Rudolf Hess, during the Night of Broken Glass in November 1938, ordering an immediate stop to arson attacks on Jewish premises ‘on orders from the very highest level’? Every other historian has shut his eyes and hoped that this horrid, inconvenient document would somehow go away.

It has been joined by others, like the extraordinary note dictated by Staatssekretär Franz Schlegelberger in the Reich Ministry of Justice in the spring of 1942: ‘Reich Minister Lammers,’ this states, ‘informed me that the Führer has repeatedly pronounced that he wants the solution of the Jewish Question put off until after the war is over.’ Whatever way one reads this document, it is incompatible with the notion that Hitler had ordered an urgent liquidation programme. (The document’s original is in justice ministry file R22/52 in the archives at Koblenz.) Göring himself is on record as stressing at a Berlin conference on July 6, 1942, how much Hitler deprecated the harassment of Jewish scientists, for example:

I have discussed this with the Führer himself now; we have been able to use one Jew two years longer in Vienna, and another in photographic research, because they have certain things that we need and that can be of the utmost benefit to us at the present.

It would be utter madness for us to say now: ‘He’ll have to go. He was a magnificent researcher, a fantastic brain, but his wife is Jewish, and he can’t be allowed to stay at the University,’ etc.

The Führer has made similar exceptions in the arts all the way down to operetta level; he is all the more likely to make exceptions where really great projects or researchers are concerned.[7]First session of the newly formed Reich Research Council, July 6, 1942; a stenographic record is in the Milch documents, vol. 58, pp. 3640 ff.

Of course from 1939 on Hitler uttered several harsh statements in public; but on many occasions in 1942 and 1943 he made – in private – statements which are incompatible with the notion that he knew that an all-out liquidation programme had begun. In October 1943, even as Himmler was disclosing to privileged audiences of SS generals and gauleiters that Europe’s Jews had been systematically murdered, Hitler was still forbidding liquidations – e.g., of the Italian Jews in Rome – and ordering their internment instead. (This order his SS also disobeyed.) In July 1944, overriding Himmler’s objections, he ordered that Jews be bartered for foreign currency or supplies; there is some evidence that like contemporary terrorists he saw these captives as a potential asset, a means whereby he could blackmail his enemies. Wholly in keeping with his character, when Hitler was confronted with the facts he took no action to rebuke the guilty; he would not dismiss Himmler as Reichsführer SS until the last day of his life. It is plausible to impute to him that not uncommon characteristic of heads of state who are over-reliant on powerful advisers: a conscious desire ‘not to know.’ The proof of this is however beyond the powers of an historian.

ORDER IT NOW

For the want of hard evidence – and in 1977 I offered a thousand pounds to any person who could produce even one wartime document showing explicitly that Hitler knew, for example, of Auschwitz – my critics resorted to arguments ranging from the subtle to the sledgehammer (in one instance, literally). They postulated the existence of Führer orders without the slightest written evidence of their existence. John Toland, Pulitzer prize winning author of a Hitler biography published in the United States, appealed emotionally in Der Spiegel for historians to refute my hypothesis, and they tried by fair means and foul. Perplexed by Himmler’s handwritten note about a phone conversation with Heydrich from Hitler’s bunker on November 30, 1941 – ‘Arrest [of] Dr. Jekelius. Alleged son Molotov. Consignment [Transport] of Jews from Berlin. No liquidation.’ – these wizards of modern history scoffed that probably Molotov’s son was believed to be aboard a trainload of Jews from Berlin concealed as ‘Dr. Jekelius’ and was on no account to be liquidated. In fact Molotov had no son; Dr. Jekelius was probably Erwin Jekelius, the Viennese neurologist involved in the Euthanasia programme;[8]Cf. Benno Müller Hill, Tödliche Wissenschaft. Die Aussonderung von Juden, Zigeunern und Geisteskranken 1933‒45 (Rowohlt, Hamburg), p. 107. The editors of Der Dienstkalender Heinrich Himmlers, 1941/42 (Christians Verlag, Hamburg, 1999), p.207, have belatedly come to the same conclusion. – We reproduce relevant documents on page 455. and the trainload of Jews from Berlin had that morning arrived at Riga and had already been liquidated by the local SS commander by the time that Himmler scribbled down what seems clearly to have been Hitler’s injunction.[9]See page 455. The most spine chilling account of the plundering and methodical mass murder of these Jews at Riga in November 1941 is in CSDIC (UK) report srgg.1158 (in file wo.208/4169 of the Public Record Office): the 54-year-old Major General Walther Bruns, an eye-witness, describes it to fellow generals in British captivity in a German prison camp on April 25, 1945, unaware that hidden microphones are recording every word. Of particular significance: his qualms about bringing what he had seen to the Führer’s attention, and the latter’s orders that such public massacres were to stop forthwith. With HM Stationery Office permission, I shall shortly publish a volume of these extraordinarily revealing CSDIC transcripts. Why else communicate by telephone with Heydrich ‘from the bunker’ at the Wolf’s Lair unless Hitler himself was behind it?

So far the conformist historians have been unable to help Mr. Toland, apart from suggesting that the project was so secret that only oral orders were issued. Why however should Hitler have become so squeamish in this instance, while he had shown no compunction about signing a blanket order for the liquidation of tens of thousands of fellow Germans (Philipp Bouhler’s T-4 euthanasia programme); his insistence on the execution of hostages on a one hundred to one basis, his orders for the liquidation of enemy prisoners (the Commando Order), of Allied airmen (the Lynch Order), and Russian functionaries (the Commissar Order) are documented all the way from the Führer’s headquarters right down the line to the executioners.

Most of my critics relied on weak and unprofessional evidence. For example, they offered alternative and often specious translations of words in Hitler’s speeches (apparently the Final Solution was too secret for him to sign an order, but simultaneously not so secret that he could not brag about it in public speeches); and quotations from isolated documents that have however long been discarded by serious historians as worthless or fakes, like the Gerstein Report[10]On which see the dissertation by Henri Roques: ‘Les “confessions” de Kurt Gerstein. Etude comparative des différentes versions,’ submitted at the University of Nantes, France, in June 1985. This reveals the extent to which conformist historians had been deceived by the various versions of the ‘report.’ Such was the outcry aroused that Roques was stripped of his doctoral degree. I have ensured that his 372 page thesis is freely available in the Author’s collection at the Institute of Contemporary History, Munich. or the ‘Bunker conversations’ mentioned earlier.

Of explicit, written, wartime evidence, the kind of evidence that could hang a man, they have produced not one line. Thus, in his otherwise fastidious analysis of Hitler and the Final Solution (London, 1983) Professor Gerald Fleming relied on war crimes trial testimonies, which are anything but safe; reviewing that book, Professor Gordon Craig concluded that even Fleming had failed to refute my hypothesis. Professor Martin Broszat, director of the Institute of Contemporary History in Munich, crudely assailed my biography in a 37 page review in the institute’s journal, then refused space for a reply. Unfamiliar with my sources, and unaware that I had in several cases used original files which he and other historians had read only in English translation, he accused me of distorting and even inventing quotations.[11]‘Hitler and the Genesis of the Final Solution, an Assessment of David Irving’s Thesis,’ Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte, No. 25, 1977, pp. 739–75; republished without correction in Aspects of the Third Reich (ed. H. W. Koch, Macmillan, New York, 1985) pp. 390–429, and in Yad Vashem Studies, No. 13, 1979, pp. 73–125, and yet again, still uncorrected, in Nach Hitler: der schwierige Umgang mit unserer Geschichte (Oldenburg, 1988); and extensively quoted by Charles W. Sydnor in ‘The Selling of Adolf Hitler,’ in Central European History, No. 12, 1979, pp. 169–99, 402–5. Amidst such libels and calumnies, which are easily uttered, Broszat was, however, forced to concede: ‘David Irving has perceived one thing correctly when he writes that in his view the killing of the Jews was partly a Verlegenheitslösung, “the way out of an awkward dilemma.”’

Broszat’s corollary, that there was no central Hitler Order for what happened, caused an uproar among the world’s historians, a Historikerstreit which is not politically limited to Left versus Right. My own conclusion went one logical stage further: that in wartime, dictatorships are fundamentally weak – the dictator himself, however alert, is unable to oversee all the functions of his executives acting within the confines of his far flung empire; and in this particular case, I concluded, the burden of guilt for the bloody and mindless massacres of the Jews rests on a large number of Germans (and non Germans), many of them alive today, and not just on one ‘mad dictator,’ whose order had to be obeyed without question.

 

I also found it necessary to set very different historical accents on the doctrinaire foreign policies which Hitler enforced – from his apparent unwillingness to humiliate Britain when she lay prostrate in 1940, to his damaging and emotional hatred of the Serbs, his illogical and over loyal admiration of Benito Mussolini, and his irrational mixtures of emotions toward Joseph Stalin.

Being a modern English historian there was a certain morbid fascination for me in inquiring how far Adolf Hitler really was bent on the destruction of Britain and her Empire – a major raison d’être for our ruinous fight, which in 1940 imperceptibly replaced the more implausible reason proffered in August 1939, the rescue of Poland from outside oppression. Since in the chapters that follow evidence extracted again and again from the most intimate sources – like Hitler’s private conversations with his women secretaries in June 1940 – indicates that he originally had neither the intention nor the desire to harm Britain or destroy the Empire, surely British readers at least must ask themselves: what, then, were we really fighting for? Given that the British people bankrupted themselves (by December 1940) and lost their Empire in defeating Hitler, was the Führer right after all when he noted that Britain’s attitude was essentially one of ‘Après moi le déluge – if only we can get rid of the hated National Socialist Germany’?

Unburdened by ideological idealism, the Duke of Windsor suspected in July 1940 that the war was continuing solely in order to allow certain British statesmen (he meant Mr. Churchill and his friends) to save face, even if it meant dragging their country and Empire into financial ruin. Others pragmatically argued that there could be no compromise with Adolf Hitler and the Nazis. Did Britain’s leaders in fact believe this, however? Dr. Bernd Martin of Freiburg University has revealed the extent to which secret negotiations on peace continued between Britain and Germany in October 1939 and long after – negotiations on which, curiously, Mr. Churchill’s files have officially been sealed until the twenty first century, and the Cabinet records blanked out. Similar negotiations were carried on in June 1940, when even Mr. Churchill showed himself momentarily willing in Cabinet meetings to deal with Hitler if the price was right.

Of course, in assessing the real value of such negotiations and of Hitler’s publicly stated intentions it is salutary to know that on June 2, 1941, he admitted to Walther Hewel: ‘For myself personally I would never tell a lie; but there is no falsehood I would not perpetrate for Germany’s sake!’ Nevertheless one wonders how much suffering might have been spared if both sides had pursued the negotiations – might all that happened after 1940, the saturation bombing, the population movements, the epidemics, even the Holocaust itself, have been avoided? Great are the questions, yet modern historiography has chosen to ignore the possibility, calling it heresy.

The facts revealed here concerning Hitler’s recorded actions, motivations, and opinions should provide a basis for fresh debate. Americans will find much that is new about the months leading up to Pearl Harbor. The French will find additional evidence that Hitler’s treatment of their defeated nation was more influenced by memories of France’s treatment of Germany after World War I than by his respect for Mussolini’s desires. Russians can try to visualise the prospect that could conceivably have unfolded if Stalin had accepted Hitler’s offer in November 1940 of inclusion in the Axis Pact; or if, having achieved his ‘second Brest Litovsk’ peace treaty (as momentarily proposed on June 28, 1941), Stalin had accepted Hitler’s condition that he rebuild Soviet military power only beyond the Urals; or if Hitler had taken seriously Stalin’s alleged peace offer of September 1944.

What is the result of these twenty years’ toiling in the archives? Hitler will remain an enigma, however hard we burrow. Even his intimates realised that they hardly knew him. I have already quoted Ribbentrop’s puzzlement; but General Alfred Jodl, his closest strategic adviser, also wrote in his Nuremberg cell on March 10, 1946:

Then however I ask myself, did you ever really know this man at whose side you led such a thorny and ascetic existence? Did he perhaps just trifle with your idealism too, abusing it for dark purposes which he kept hidden deep within himself? Dare you claim to know a man, if he has not opened up the deepest recesses of his heart to you – in sorrow as well as in ecstasy? To this very day I do not know what he thought or knew or really wanted. I only knew my own thoughts and suspicions. And if, now that the shrouds fall away from a sculpture we fondly hoped would be a work of art, only to reveal nothing but a degenerate gargoyle – then let future historians argue among themselves whether it was like that from the start, or changed with circumstances.

I keep making the same mistake: I blame his humble origins. Then however I remember how many peasants’ sons have been blessed by History with the name, The Great.

‘Hitler the Great’? No, contemporary History is unlikely to swallow such an epithet. From the first day that he ‘seized power,’ January 30, 1933, Hitler knew that only sudden death awaited him if he failed to restore pride and empire to post Versailles Germany. His close friend and adjutant Julius Schaub recorded Hitler’s jubilant boast to his staff on that evening, as the last celebrating guests left the Berlin chancellery building: ‘No power on earth will get me out of this building alive!’

History saw this prophecy fulfilled, as the handful of remaining Nazi Party faithfuls trooped uneasily into his underground study on April 30, 1945, surveyed his still warm remains – slouched on a couch, with blood trickling from the sagging lower jaw, and a gunshot wound in the right temple – and sniffed the bitter almonds smell hanging in the air.

Wrapped in a grey army blanket, he was carried up to the shell blasted chancellery garden. Gasoline was slopped over him in a reeking crater and ignited while his staff hurriedly saluted and backed down into the shelter. Thus ended the six years of Hitler’s War.

We shall now see how they began.

David Irving
London, January 1976 and January 1989

A Note on the Millennium Edition

The millennium edition of Hitler’s War brings the narrative up to date with the latest documents discovered, primarily in American and former Soviet archives, since the 1991 edition was published. I was in 1992 the first author permitted by the Moscow authorities to exploit the microfiched diaries of Dr. Joseph Goebbels, which contain further vital information about Hitler’s role in the Röhm Purge, the Kristallnacht of 1938, the Final Solution, and other matters of high historical importance. From a Californian source I obtained the original Gestapo interrogations of Rudolf Hess’s staff, conducted in the first few days after his flight to Scotland. The British secret service has now released to the public domain the intercepts of top secret messages sent in code by Himmler and other SS commanders.

These are just a few examples of the new materials woven into the fabric of this story. I am glad to say I have not had to revise my views as originally expressed: I was always confident that if one adheres to original documents, one will not stray far from Real History. The new archival material has however made it possible to refine the narrative, and to upgrade the documentary basis of my former assertions.

David Irving
London, January 12, 2002

ORDER IT NOW

David Irving is the son of a Royal Navy commander. Imperfectly educated at London’s Imperial College of Science & Technology and at University College, he subsequently spent a year in Germany working in a steel mill and perfecting his fluency in the language. Among his thirty books (including three in German), the best-known include Hitler’s War ; The Trail of the Fox: The Life of Field Marshal Rommel; Accident, the Death of General Sikorski ; The Rise and Fall of the Luftwaffe ; Göring: a Biography , and Nuremberg, the Last Battle . He has translated several works by other authors including the autobiographies by Field-Marshal Wilhelm Keitel, General Reinhard Gehlen, and Nikki Lauda. He lives near Grosvenor Square, London, and has raised five daughters.

In 1963 he published The Destruction of Dresden . This became a best-seller in many countries. In 1996 he issued a revised edition, Apocalypse 1945, as well as his important biography, Goebbels. Mastermind of the Third Reich . A second volume of Churchill’s War appeared in 2001 and he is now completing the third. His works are available as free downloads on his Internet website at www.fpp.co.uk/books.

Notes

[1] The CIA documents on planned assassinations and assassination techniques can now be viewed on the George Washington University website, at www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv.

[2] CSDIC (UK) report SRGG.1133, March 9, 1945, in Public Record Office, London, file WO.208/4169.

[3] Matthias Schmidt, Albert Speer: The End of a Myth (New York, 1984).

[4] Der Dienstkalender Heinrich Himmlers 1941/42, ed. Peter Witte, with foreword by Uwe Lohalm and Wolfgang Scheffler (Hamburg, 1999). No praise is too high for this edition.

[5] In fact Hitler’s father was the illegitimate son of Maria Anna Schicklgruber. Nazi newspapers were repeatedly, e.g., on December 16, 1939, forbidden to speculate on his ancestry. Werner Maser states in Die Frühgeschichte der NSDAP (Bonn, 1965) that on August 4, 1942, Heinrich Himmler instructed the Gestapo to investigate the Führer’s parentage; their bland findings were graded merely geheim (secret). The document quoted above is, however, stamped with the highest classification, Geheime Reichssache.

[6] Brüning’s 1943 manuscript is in the Dorothy Thompson collection of the George Arents Research Library, Syracuse University, New York. His letter to Daniel Longwell, editor of Life, dated February 7, 1948, is in Longwell’s papers in the Butler Library, Columbia University, New York.

[7] First session of the newly formed Reich Research Council, July 6, 1942; a stenographic record is in the Milch documents, vol. 58, pp. 3640 ff.

[8] Cf. Benno Müller Hill, Tödliche Wissenschaft. Die Aussonderung von Juden, Zigeunern und Geisteskranken 1933‒45 (Rowohlt, Hamburg), p. 107. The editors of Der Dienstkalender Heinrich Himmlers, 1941/42 (Christians Verlag, Hamburg, 1999), p.207, have belatedly come to the same conclusion. – We reproduce relevant documents on page 455.

[9] See page 455. The most spine chilling account of the plundering and methodical mass murder of these Jews at Riga in November 1941 is in CSDIC (UK) report srgg.1158 (in file wo.208/4169 of the Public Record Office): the 54-year-old Major General Walther Bruns, an eye-witness, describes it to fellow generals in British captivity in a German prison camp on April 25, 1945, unaware that hidden microphones are recording every word. Of particular significance: his qualms about bringing what he had seen to the Führer’s attention, and the latter’s orders that such public massacres were to stop forthwith. With HM Stationery Office permission, I shall shortly publish a volume of these extraordinarily revealing CSDIC transcripts.

[10] On which see the dissertation by Henri Roques: ‘Les “confessions” de Kurt Gerstein. Etude comparative des différentes versions,’ submitted at the University of Nantes, France, in June 1985. This reveals the extent to which conformist historians had been deceived by the various versions of the ‘report.’ Such was the outcry aroused that Roques was stripped of his doctoral degree. I have ensured that his 372 page thesis is freely available in the Author’s collection at the Institute of Contemporary History, Munich.

[11] ‘Hitler and the Genesis of the Final Solution, an Assessment of David Irving’s Thesis,’ Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte, No. 25, 1977, pp. 739–75; republished without correction in Aspects of the Third Reich (ed. H. W. Koch, Macmillan, New York, 1985) pp. 390–429, and in Yad Vashem Studies, No. 13, 1979, pp. 73–125, and yet again, still uncorrected, in Nach Hitler: der schwierige Umgang mit unserer Geschichte (Oldenburg, 1988); and extensively quoted by Charles W. Sydnor in ‘The Selling of Adolf Hitler,’ in Central European History, No. 12, 1979, pp. 169–99, 402–5.

 
• Category: History • Tags: Germany, Hitler, World War II 
Hide 483 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. CanSpeccy says: • Website

    Being a modern English historian there was a certain morbid fascination for me in inquiring how far Adolf Hitler really was bent on the destruction of Britain and her Empire – a major raison d’être for our ruinous fight, which in 1940 imperceptibly replaced the more implausible reason proffered in August 1939, the rescue of Poland from outside oppression

    How ruinous was Britain’s fight?

    Britain suffered 382,600 military deaths plus 67,199 civilian casualties. Horrific indeed, but compared with the losses suffered by Germany and Russia, quite trivial.

    It is true that after the war, Britain was no longer a great power. But Britain’s prewar great power status was fast waning for the obvious reason that Britain was a small country which no longer retained its industrial head-start on the rest of the world. Britain’s decline in power and influence was thus inevitable, war or no war. The question was, would Britain succumb to the tyranny of a resurgent Germany, or the tyranny of a resurgent Russia, or was there another option. British diplomacy contributed to the confrontation of Russia and Germany, with, for Britain and the rest of Western Europe, the fortunate consequence that these tyrannies inflicted a terrible toll upon one another.

    Inevitably, however, one or other of those antagonists would be the victor, so the critical question for Britain was how to restrain whichever tyranny emerged on top. This restraint the United States provided, preventing the Soviets from rolling to the Atlantic shore, as they surely would have had United States forces not been in place to prevent them. As a result, Britain became, in effect, a US vassal, a status much to be preferred, so most Britons would surely have agreed, than that of a colony of either Hitler’s Reich or Stalin’s Soviet Union.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Moi
    Being a vassal of the US is preferable because the US only wants full-spectrum domination of the world--its stated policy. Anything happening in any small corner of the world is America's business. I guess we can now celebrate world peace. LOL!
    , @Rurik

    As a result, Britain became, in effect, a US vassal, a status much to be preferred, so most Britons would surely have agreed, than that of a colony of either Hitler’s Reich...
     
    don't you mean ZUS vassal?

    since we all know the ZUS doesn't fart unless it gets permission from Israel

    and as to how well England is fairing as a sycophantic vassal of Zion..

    one must wonder, were Germany victorious, would England's school girls today be little more than sexual amusements for the dregs of Pakistan?

    I'm guessing not.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. Anon[425] • Disclaimer says:

    David Irving is a sad case.

    He started out as a serious historian but ruined his reputation with needless provocations and mindless apologies for Hitler, blaming everything on his henchmen. At some point, he began to willfully court controversy just to trigger people. And willfully appeal to neo-Nazi nutjobs.

    A huge waste of real talent.

    Read More
    • Agree: Momus
    • Replies: @Ron Unz

    David Irving is a sad case.

    He started out as a serious historian but ruined his reputation with needless provocations and mindless apologies for Hitler, blaming everything on his henchmen. At some point, he began to willfully court controversy just to trigger people. And willfully appeal to neo-Nazi nutjobs.

    A huge waste of real talent.
     

    Well, since this totally ignorant comment surely represents the thinking of some other readers as well, I would strongly urge everyone to read this discussion of Irving's career, which had already been provided as a link above:

    http://www.unz.com/announcement/the-remarkable-historiography-of-david-irving/

    What's so amusing is that some readers on this website apparently still believe that the MSM is always 100% correct and unbiased about absolutely everything...

    , @Tyrion 2
    The late great John Keegan clearly noticed this in the quote provided. He must have been quite disappointed by Irving's pointless attention seeking.

    “Two books in English stand out from the vast literature of the Second World War. Chester Wilmot’s The Struggle for Europe, published in 1952, and David Irving’s Hitler’s War,which appeared three years ago…They do so because, from exactly opposing angles of vision, each tackles the strategy of the whole war and makes impressive if doctrinaire sense of it…The second book has not yet worked its way into our general understanding of the conflict, though it undoubtedly will do so when controversy over its sensationalist elements is exhausted.”—Sir John Keegan, Defence Editor of The Daily Telegraph in The Times Literary Supplement.
    , @Lot
    Agreed.

    Left out of Ron Unz's defense is that the case that bankrupted Irving was a libel action brought by Irving as the plaintiff, and that Irving quite liberally sued and threatened to sue people for libel.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irving_v_Penguin_Books_Ltd
    , @Harbinger

    "David Irving is a sad case."
     
    How many books has he released?
    How respected was he as a historian before the Jews got their claws into him?
    How much has he fought to get the German story across, the Jewish controlled west wants hidden away under lock and key?
    And tell me, what have you done that come remotely close in your life, to gain the same, worldwide acclaim, that Irving has?

    "He started out as a serious historian but ruined his reputation with needless provocations and mindless apologies for Hitler, blaming everything on his henchmen. At some point, he began to willfully court controversy just to trigger people. And willfully appeal to neo-Nazi nutjobs."
     
    Irving opened up the world to the 'other story'. He, courtesy of working in Germany and learning how to speak German fluently, listened to the Germans' story. He, couldn't quite fathom how a brilliant people could turn into monsters overnight and like all people who search for the truth on WW2 and the German people, come to the horrifying truth, that they've been lied to all their lives, but a heavily controlled Jewish msm, Hollywood and academia, which paints Jews as the eternal victims and those who do wrong to them are horrible, evil, monsters.

    David Irving, unlike other historians who merely quoted one another, actually took the time to seek out prominent German figures, gaining their trust for his book on the bombing of Dresden, which then opened up the truth, something other western historians were alien to writing about. Not one of them could ever gain the trust of the Germans, so wrote what they were told to write, most certainly funded by Jewish organizations, most notably the publishing houses their books were printed in.

    And again, the attempts at defamation with the ubiquitous 'neo nazi' slurs. Well, firstly there will be many people who read Irving and become an admirer of him, from all walks of like. More so, I'm sure that there are murderers, rapists, pedophiles who read, watch, listen to and follow many famous people in this world. Shall we tar them, as you have Irving, because of certain elements within their fan base?

    There is no other historian, on this earth, more knowledgeable on Hitler, the Third Reich, Germany and WWII than David Irving. To castigate, pillory and lambaste him as you have not only shows that you are utterly ignorant on Irving, but I suspect that you are most certainly an employ of some Jewish organization, here to troll a debate on him.

    The Jews are panicking because their house of cards is beginning to tumble. They despise the truth, when its uncovered because it destroy century upon century of Jewish deceit.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. I hardly read the article, reading hundreds of books in a period of over ten years gradually made me realise that mainstream history is mainly nonsense.
    FDR, Churchill and Stalin wanted war, Hitler did not want war.
    Unless someone again wants me to specify the most convincing books, less than ten, from which I reached this conclusion, I’m taking the trouble to specify them again.
    And about ‘real’ historians, hardly anyone, in my opinion, who is or was objective.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  4. As much as I was facinated by this book it totally ignores anything east of the Oder river.
    For me it is the typical glass half empty.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  5. It’s hard not to be impressed with the tenacious, rigorous and unbridaled scholarship of David Irving. I saw Irving give a speech once in Wash. DC along with the brilliant (and marginalized) Joseph Sobran. Later, I caught Irving in Orange County at Mark Weber’s Institute of Historical Review. Agree with him or not, Irving has done his homework.

    My first introduction to Irving’s ‘unacceptable’ scholarship however came in San Francisco back in the early 80′s. David Irving was slated to give a lecture at Berkeley one night but just as his presentation began, he was set upon by a hateful group of ‘Leftists’ calling themselves the Spartacus League.

    For the sin of ‘humanizing’ Adolf Hitler, this un-merry band of crypto-Israelis physically attacked David Irving in the auditorium at Berkeley and successfully shut down his speech before it commenced. Free speech denied. Zionist victory!

    Censorship is a key objective of ‘anti-fascist’ activists here in the Land of the Free. Thou shalt not speak. Ironically, these pseudo-intellectual thugs typically identify themselves with ‘openness’, ‘liberalism’ and ‘inclusiveness’. Their delusions would be funny if they weren’t so grotesque.

    Naturally, the local press applauded these commie tactics since Irving was a notorious ‘anti-Semite’ and therefore unworthy of Constitutional protections. Case closed.

    This disturbing incident was a revealing introduction to (((Berkeley))) politics and the totalitarian tendencies of the pc journalists and intellectuals who reside there. The irony is hard to miss.

    Incredibly, Irving–who does indeed qualify as a first rate scholar–has been hounded and persecuted by Leftists and crypto-Zionists for decades. Like Joe Sobran, Irving’s career has been sabotaged because he’s determined to report facts and dispense the truth as he’s found it and sees it.

    But that’s not acceptable.

    David Irving has therefore been targeted for destruction.

    Irving’s and Sobran’s tortured experiences are a reminder to us all.

    Beware: if you fail to proclaim the ‘fact’ that Adolf Hitler as the most bad-evil-sadistic-psychopathic anti-Semite on earth (and maybe even the entire universe) they will ruin you.

    Thank you, David Irving.

    Read More
    • Agree: Moi
    • Replies: @anon111

    My first introduction to Irving’s ‘unacceptable’ scholarship however came in San Francisco back in the early 80′s. David Irving was slated to give a lecture at Berkeley one night but just as his presentation began, he was set upon by a hateful group of ‘Leftists’ calling themselves the Spartacus League.

    For the sin of ‘humanizing’ Adolf Hitler, this un-merry band of crypto-Israelis physically attacked David Irving in the auditorium at Berkeley and successfully shut down his speech before it commenced. Free speech denied. Zionist victory!
     
    i listened to audio of an Irving youtube file and in it he describes one of his fans? attempting to infiltrate an "antifa" group in California about 10 years ago. What i found interesting is the focus of the leader of this group on "protecting European jewry" as though the wealthiest, most privileged group on the planet needs his help. Its not really about being "Anti-fascist" its just an arm of jewish power and violence that useful idiots can join.
    , @Wally
    Good points, Mark.

    However Irving 'went south' after being imprisoned for Thought Crimes.
    He has since made preposterous claims about a "holocaust-lite" which are simply not sustainable when placed under rational scrutiny.
    His curious early release from jail gives the game away.
    www.codoh.com

    The David Irving Phenomenon: https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=8001
    and:
    Grubach’s Letters to David Irving on the Hoefle telegram https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=4563
    and:
    Irving’s ‘holocaust’ lite / but what ’2.4 million document’? http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=4548
    and:
    ‘Irving attempts ‘rehabilitation’ via the Hoefle Telegram’ http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=4558

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. He lives.

    Only his Hugo Boss overcoat is a bit tattered.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  7. David JW says:

    Wait a minute. How is a book preface from 2002 news in 2018?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  8. Anon[411] • Disclaimer says:

    Placing Stalin along Hitler at the top of the unz website frontpage looks like a symbol of editorial policy. Is it revisionism? Revisionist narrative, Brzezinski-style is as follows: there is a concept of ‘totalitarian state’, and since both Hitler and Stalin are heads of the states, so they are both the bad guys. Since we have bad guys, they are guilty, and we always find the bad things they did, and even more – we (The Enlightened English-Speakers of the ‘Free World’) would blame then for every bad thing whoever did, including ourselves. WW2 is indeed a bad thing. Some of us will blame Stalin for inciting the war or doing the war in a wrong way. Some of us will blame Hitler for everything else during the war. And the following questions will never again be asked:

    1) What powers helped Hitler to gain power and raise a war machine against USSR?
    2) Why no sanctions or other economic measures were imposed by the West to stop 3rd reich?
    3) Why military resistance in the Western Front was so weak? Was it a match fixing?
    4) How Munich accord, Strange war, and Hess flight to England became possible?
    5) What parts of German and Europeam MIC during WW2 had US or British stakeholders?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Malla
    More important questions would be

    Why would a seemingly Christian, Capitalist, free democratic United States of America support the Communist Soviet Union via the land lease program?
    Well how is that even possible, it happened for sure, no doubts about that. But how is that even possible. Why would the USA support a communist nation which supported communist revolution around the war and was a major threat to the established American way of life?

    Why did Jacob Schiff, a rich capitalist Wall Street banker finance Lenin and the Bolshevik Communist takeover of Russia?

    Why and how did David Rockefeller get special landing rights in Soviet Moscow? He visited the Soviet Union more times than all American Presidents combined. Why was he not arrested by Soviet Authorities on arrival in Moscow, tried for being an exploiter of the proletariat (because in his case, he really is one) and punished?

    How is it that once, Henry Kissinger represented both the United States as well as the Soviet Union?

    , @anon111

    Since we have bad guys, they are guilty, and we always find the bad things they did, and even more – we (The Enlightened English-Speakers of the ‘Free World’) would blame then for every bad thing whoever did, including ourselves.
     
    English-speakers get blamed for everything already

    and stop trying to lump yourself in with me with all the "some of us" "some of us" "some of us"

    speak for yourself
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. Ron Unz says:
    @Anon
    David Irving is a sad case.

    He started out as a serious historian but ruined his reputation with needless provocations and mindless apologies for Hitler, blaming everything on his henchmen. At some point, he began to willfully court controversy just to trigger people. And willfully appeal to neo-Nazi nutjobs.

    A huge waste of real talent.

    David Irving is a sad case.

    He started out as a serious historian but ruined his reputation with needless provocations and mindless apologies for Hitler, blaming everything on his henchmen. At some point, he began to willfully court controversy just to trigger people. And willfully appeal to neo-Nazi nutjobs.

    A huge waste of real talent.

    Well, since this totally ignorant comment surely represents the thinking of some other readers as well, I would strongly urge everyone to read this discussion of Irving’s career, which had already been provided as a link above:

    http://www.unz.com/announcement/the-remarkable-historiography-of-david-irving/

    What’s so amusing is that some readers on this website apparently still believe that the MSM is always 100% correct and unbiased about absolutely everything…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis
    I have a long history with David Irving, including having met him personally in New York in 2003 (where he autographed my copy of Denying the Holocaust, by Deborah Lipstadt), and e-mail correspondences in the 1990s and 2000s, which were as rancorous as you might imagine.

    I think the comment to which you're responding, Mr. Unz, is a wholly accurate one. I also think your use of sneer quotes in describing Holocaust denial -- which Irving no longer engages in but certainly did at the same he very stupidly sued Deborah Lipstadt -- is troubling, and I'd welcome the opportunity to educate you on this point, should you be interested. I assisted in a tiny way in the Lipstadt case, assisting one of the expert witnesses with his research. I can demonstrate that Irving knew that the case he was presenting in court consisted of some fairly big lies. I can also demonstrate that Irving is, at the very least, a full-blown anti-Semite, although I suspect you know that.

    That said, Irving certainly made significant contributions to our understanding of WWII history, even in the volume you publish today. These contributions are not without their own problems, though: I wrote a rebuttal to one of the points made in his introduction, which can be read here:

    http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2016/02/keine-liquidierung-eine-neubeurteilung.html

    What I hope to demonstrate in this essay is that, on the point discussed, Irving seized on an extremely unlikely meaning for the source that he located instead of exhaustively surveying the available evidence and finding the more likely explanation.

    I welcome any comments.
    , @Svigor
    Leftists have invested everything in their Narrative.
    , @Crimson2
    Geez, Ron. You run a shitty website that attracts the worst people on the internet. You truck in mindless conspiracies and have the gall to attack the media. It won't be long till one of your bloggers shoots up a Waffle House and this whole insane pile of cards comes crashing down.

    Try to run for office again and see how it goes. I'll expose your bullshit personally.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. Malla says:

    This video interview featuring James Perloff on WW2 is absolutely GOLD.
    He shows how the Axis powers Germany and Japan were unjustly vilified and destroyed by Churchill and FDR to forward global Communism. Check out the last part about Rudolf Hess. Besides that he also explains why all the massive amount of official propaganda about WW2 by the mainstream media and academia. That is because they did not want to repeat the mistake of WW1.

    By the way James Perloff is of Jewish ancestry himself. I hope Mr. Perloff did not or does not go through the hardships, what Mr. Irving faced, for just telling the truth.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  11. Moi says:
    @CanSpeccy

    Being a modern English historian there was a certain morbid fascination for me in inquiring how far Adolf Hitler really was bent on the destruction of Britain and her Empire – a major raison d’être for our ruinous fight, which in 1940 imperceptibly replaced the more implausible reason proffered in August 1939, the rescue of Poland from outside oppression
     
    How ruinous was Britain's fight?

    Britain suffered 382,600 military deaths plus 67,199 civilian casualties. Horrific indeed, but compared with the losses suffered by Germany and Russia, quite trivial.

    It is true that after the war, Britain was no longer a great power. But Britain's prewar great power status was fast waning for the obvious reason that Britain was a small country which no longer retained its industrial head-start on the rest of the world. Britain's decline in power and influence was thus inevitable, war or no war. The question was, would Britain succumb to the tyranny of a resurgent Germany, or the tyranny of a resurgent Russia, or was there another option. British diplomacy contributed to the confrontation of Russia and Germany, with, for Britain and the rest of Western Europe, the fortunate consequence that these tyrannies inflicted a terrible toll upon one another.

    Inevitably, however, one or other of those antagonists would be the victor, so the critical question for Britain was how to restrain whichever tyranny emerged on top. This restraint the United States provided, preventing the Soviets from rolling to the Atlantic shore, as they surely would have had United States forces not been in place to prevent them. As a result, Britain became, in effect, a US vassal, a status much to be preferred, so most Britons would surely have agreed, than that of a colony of either Hitler's Reich or Stalin's Soviet Union.

    Being a vassal of the US is preferable because the US only wants full-spectrum domination of the world–its stated policy. Anything happening in any small corner of the world is America’s business. I guess we can now celebrate world peace. LOL!

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    Being a vassal of the US is preferable because the US only wants full-spectrum domination of the world–its stated policy.
     
    You have muddled the tenses. I said:

    Britain became, in effect, a US vassal, a status much to be preferred, so most Britons would surely have agreed, than that of a colony of either Hitler’s Reich or Stalin’s Soviet Union.
     
    You, we are to understand, had you been a British citizen at the time, would have preferred domination by Hitler's Germany or the Soviets. Each to his own, but my assertion is almost certainly correct.
    , @anon111

    Being a vassal of the US is preferable because the US only wants full-spectrum domination of the world–its stated policy. Anything happening in any small corner of the world is America’s business. I guess we can now celebrate world peace. LOL!
     
    i guess that's why we need a $738 billion/year "defense" budget - so we can stick our nose in everyone else's business

    a $25 billion one time expenditure on a wall though, will never happen because all this money is not about defense anyway
    , @Svigor
    Gotta be a retard to think being a "vassal" of the USA isn't preferable to being a vassal of Nazi Germany or the USSR.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. Malla says:
    @Anon
    Placing Stalin along Hitler at the top of the unz website frontpage looks like a symbol of editorial policy. Is it revisionism? Revisionist narrative, Brzezinski-style is as follows: there is a concept of 'totalitarian state', and since both Hitler and Stalin are heads of the states, so they are both the bad guys. Since we have bad guys, they are guilty, and we always find the bad things they did, and even more - we (The Enlightened English-Speakers of the 'Free World') would blame then for every bad thing whoever did, including ourselves. WW2 is indeed a bad thing. Some of us will blame Stalin for inciting the war or doing the war in a wrong way. Some of us will blame Hitler for everything else during the war. And the following questions will never again be asked:

    1) What powers helped Hitler to gain power and raise a war machine against USSR?
    2) Why no sanctions or other economic measures were imposed by the West to stop 3rd reich?
    3) Why military resistance in the Western Front was so weak? Was it a match fixing?
    4) How Munich accord, Strange war, and Hess flight to England became possible?
    5) What parts of German and Europeam MIC during WW2 had US or British stakeholders?

    More important questions would be

    Why would a seemingly Christian, Capitalist, free democratic United States of America support the Communist Soviet Union via the land lease program?
    Well how is that even possible, it happened for sure, no doubts about that. But how is that even possible. Why would the USA support a communist nation which supported communist revolution around the war and was a major threat to the established American way of life?

    Why did Jacob Schiff, a rich capitalist Wall Street banker finance Lenin and the Bolshevik Communist takeover of Russia?

    Why and how did David Rockefeller get special landing rights in Soviet Moscow? He visited the Soviet Union more times than all American Presidents combined. Why was he not arrested by Soviet Authorities on arrival in Moscow, tried for being an exploiter of the proletariat (because in his case, he really is one) and punished?

    How is it that once, Henry Kissinger represented both the United States as well as the Soviet Union?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Cold N. Holefield

    Why would a seemingly Christian, Capitalist, free democratic United States of America support the Communist Soviet Union via the land lease program?
     
    Indeed. Why would Fred Koch, an alleged anti-communist, build Stalin's refineries?

    Fred Koch's second son, Charles Koch, is born. At some point in the mid-1930s, according to Mayer, the Kochs hire a Nazi governess to help raise their boys.
     
    , @Andrew E. Mathis

    Why would a seemingly Christian, Capitalist, free democratic United States of America support the Communist Soviet Union via the land lease program?
     
    That's "lend lease." And the U.S. would support the USSR against Germany because Germany was already at war with our chief ally, the U.K.

    Well how is that even possible, it happened for sure, no doubts about that. But how is that even possible. Why would the USA support a communist nation which supported communist revolution around the war and was a major threat to the established American way of life?
     
    It was an uneasy alliance at best and shattered when the war was over.

    Why did Jacob Schiff, a rich capitalist Wall Street banker finance Lenin and the Bolshevik Communist takeover of Russia?
     
    He didn't. He supported the February revolution in Russia -- as did most of the world -- but he withdrew support when the Bolsheviks seized power. The part primarily responsible for Lenin taking over in Russia is the German Kaiser, who sent Lenin back to Russia in April 1917 to overthrow the Provisional Government and end the war.

    Why and how did David Rockefeller get special landing rights in Soviet Moscow? He visited the Soviet Union more times than all American Presidents combined. Why was he not arrested by Soviet Authorities on arrival in Moscow, tried for being an exploiter of the proletariat (because in his case, he really is one) and punished?
     
    No idea on this one.

    How is it that once, Henry Kissinger represented both the United States as well as the Soviet Union?

     

    I don't think he did. Do you have a source on this?
    , @Bombercommand
    Malla, the Soviet Union did not benefit from the Lend Lease program, it was a specialized program to facilitate transfers of US Navy warships to the United Kingdom while the United States was still neutral before December 7, 1941. I suspect you are trying to promote the goofy myth that the United States gifted the Soviet Union with billions of dollars in war materiel during WWII. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Soviet Union was required to pay for every M4 tank, P39 Airacobra, and can of pork stew, up front, not on credit, and not in Rubles, in gold bullion.
    , @Svigor
    Yeah, it's very weird. Best bet would have been to either stay out of it, let Germany and Russia annihilate each other, or aid the weaker player, Germany, enough to balance and thus prolong the conflict. Aiding the more powerful, murderous, and barbarous regime, the USSR, seems like insanity.
    , @Astraea
    Kissinger still seems to be The Boss behind the scenes - or it looks like it because he is seen quite often in either the Oval Office or The Kremlinor in Beijing and in all three places he is greete with deep respect - and by Putin with great affection. Putin behaves like a star struck boy in that Kissinger's presence.
    I was very much more impressed with Vladimir Putin until I saw his adoration of this rather evil dwarf.
    What exactly isKissinger's role inour World? OUR World!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. Read Wall Street and The Rise of Hitler by Anthony Sutton and the Crime and Punishment of I. G. Farben by Joseph Borkin and Trading With the Enemy by Charles Hingham, all can be had on amazon.com., and will open eyes and minds.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Svigor
    HITLER COULD HAVE BEEN STOPPED

    Yale historian Henry Ashby Turner has made a career out of debunking myths about German history. In his 1986 book German Big Business and the Rise of Hitler he painstakingly refuted the Marxist dogma that large corporations funded Hitler's rise to power.
     

     
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. Surely making it illegal to even question the details of something, as Canada and several European countries have done with the Jewish holocaust, is a reason to suspect that the event in question is on pretty shaky ground factually.

    If men like David Irving, Arthur Butz and others are simply wrong about the Jewish holocaust, refute their arguments and prove them wrong. By trying to silence them and destroy their lives, Jews have only shown that so called “holocaust deniers” are probably right.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  15. @Malla
    More important questions would be

    Why would a seemingly Christian, Capitalist, free democratic United States of America support the Communist Soviet Union via the land lease program?
    Well how is that even possible, it happened for sure, no doubts about that. But how is that even possible. Why would the USA support a communist nation which supported communist revolution around the war and was a major threat to the established American way of life?

    Why did Jacob Schiff, a rich capitalist Wall Street banker finance Lenin and the Bolshevik Communist takeover of Russia?

    Why and how did David Rockefeller get special landing rights in Soviet Moscow? He visited the Soviet Union more times than all American Presidents combined. Why was he not arrested by Soviet Authorities on arrival in Moscow, tried for being an exploiter of the proletariat (because in his case, he really is one) and punished?

    How is it that once, Henry Kissinger represented both the United States as well as the Soviet Union?

    Why would a seemingly Christian, Capitalist, free democratic United States of America support the Communist Soviet Union via the land lease program?

    Indeed. Why would Fred Koch, an alleged anti-communist, build Stalin’s refineries?

    Fred Koch’s second son, Charles Koch, is born. At some point in the mid-1930s, according to Mayer, the Kochs hire a Nazi governess to help raise their boys.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. Anonymous[155] • Disclaimer says:

    Is David Irving a “Holocaust Denier”? Wikipedia claims he is but I’m not sure exactly what “Holocaust denier” means. Seems vague.

    In any event, I do believe he said that “not much happened” at Auschwitz. To the “Holocaust Deniers”: Is it not indeed true that there were approximately 4-6 million fewer Jews in Europe (and on Earth) after the war than before? The World Almanac did update to reflect this fact, contrary to some claims.

    Where did the ~4.5 million Jews go between 1941 and 1949 (according to the Almanac figures. 15.75 million vs 11.27 million)? Did they shed their Jewish identities and disappear into the Soviet Union?

    Read More
    • Replies: @republic
    video on Zionist editing of Wikipedia

    https://youtu.be/t52LB2fYhoY
    , @Wally
    According to the "Holocau$t Industry" Jews went to enormous 'known' mass graves.

    Signs have been erected at the alleged sites supposedly pointing out mass grave sites etc., but guess what, they are not there, in spite of attempts to find them.

    Treblinka as an example:


    historian’ Raul Hilberg wrote in his three-volume book entitled “The Destruction of the European Jews” that there were 700,000 – 900,000 bodies buried at Treblinka.
     

    “The mass graves were opened and the corpses were taken out, to be consumed by the flames of huge pyres (the ‘roasts’). The bones were crushed and, together with the ashes, were reburied in the same graves.”
    - Israel Gutman (ed.), Encyclopedia of the Holocaust, 4 vols., Macmillan, New York 1990, vol. 4, p. 1481-87
     
    www.codoh.com
    , @Wally
    How Israel and Its Partisans Work to Censor the Internet
    http://www.unz.com/article/how-israel-and-its-partisans-work-to-censor-the-internet/?highlight=wikipedia

    www.codoh.com
    , @Svigor
    Hell if I know. If they were murdered by the Nazi regime, there should be an overabundance of forensic evidence. If the leftist regime were confident, they'd have found it already; it's the crime of the millenium, after all.

    If memory serves, censuses should show tens and tens of millions fewer people after the war than before; did Hitler gas all of them, too?

    P.S., isn't THE holocaust supposed to have claimed 12m lives? Or are the non-Jews just chopped liver not worth mentioning?

    , @Harbinger

    "Is David Irving a “Holocaust Denier”? Wikipedia claims he is but I’m not sure exactly what “Holocaust denier” means. Seems vague."
     
    A Holocaust denier, today, is anyone who questions the official story of that part of history. Unlike other history, it is not allowed to be revised, as in doing so is anti Semitic and hateful to Jews. There's only one conclusion to this definition - if you do not allow people to revise a certain part of history, it simply means you are hiding something that you do not wish known.

    "In any event, I do believe he said that “not much happened” at Auschwitz. To the “Holocaust Deniers”: Is it not indeed true that there were approximately 4-6 million fewer Jews in Europe (and on Earth) after the war than before? The World Almanac did update to reflect this fact, contrary to some claims."
     
    Interesting, the World Almanac, that never lies, updated the number of Jews. Hmm....
    What's even more interesting is that the changed figure accounts for the deaths of some 4.5million Jews, when today, recent finding have shown that the 6million death toll has been reduced to around 2 million and less.

    "Where did the ~4.5 million Jews go between 1941 and 1949 (according to the Almanac figures. 15.75 million vs 11.27 million)? Did they shed their Jewish identities and disappear into the Soviet Union?"
     
    They changed their names and moved into the west.
    The 6million figure is a laughable lie and nothing more.
    , @my2cents
    The counting goes something like this:
    There were a total of 5 million Jews under German occupation during WW2
    Of those 4 million were gassed in non-existing gas chambers
    The remaining 5 million immigrated, changed their names, some repeatedly and have
    extorted money from Germany for the past 70 years.
    Very lucrative...You cannot make it up, but questioning it turns you into an Anti-Semite, a Nazi or another Hitler.
    I survived German occupation and 3 bombings by the Americans with a faulty atlas. But I am an "anti-semite" a "Nazi" and a "Hitler" in order to shut me up.
    , @Peripatetic commenter
    David Irving claims that there is evidence that 1.24M Jews were exterminated at Riga and their valuables looted by the SS.

    Some of this is discussed in _Hitlers War_ at page 481 (PDF page number) and on in this version:

    http://www.fpp.co.uk/books/Hitler/2001/HW_Web_dl.pdf.

    However, the claim for 1.24M at Riga was made in one of his videos, possibly this one, but I am not sure:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxVq7JjjFMk&bpctr=1528844615

    Note, there is a scary youtube thing at the front designed to prevent you from viewing it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. What a breathtaking, magisterial introduction. That’s all I can say at the moment.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    Thanks
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. utu says:

    David Irving did not have to sue Deborah Lipstadt. Why did he think he could win? Why did he let his career to be ruined, his archives to be lost? The answer is vanity and hubris that lead to his poor judgment and possibly somebody whispered to his ear.

    Now about Hitler. Did he have to attack Poland? Was it really the best idea that he could have come up with in 1939? Who whispered to Hitler’s ear to be so reckless and eventually suicidal?

    Read More
    • Replies: @fnn
    The German-Polish dispute over Danzig, the Corridor and the mistreatment of ethnic Germans in Poland was a pretty lame excuse for FDR and Churchill to pursue a conflict that would take upwards of 60 million lives. A largely forgotten fact is that there were 70,000 ethnic German refugees from Poland in camps in Danzig and Germany at the time the war started. Based on the historical record, there's enough material there for England, US and Israel to start at least a dozen wars.


    FDR constantly seems like someone trying to remove the barriers to war:
    http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/p/timeline-to-war-begini.html

    31 August Roosevelt, who has known of the secret protocol between the Soviets and Germans (with the agreement that East Poland will be lost), on this day wraps himself in silence. (1:623)
    xix. US Ambassador in Paris, Bullitt, assures his Polish colleague, Count Łukasiewicz, that there is a secret protocol, but it only involves the three Baltic States – not Poland.
     
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. @Ron Unz

    David Irving is a sad case.

    He started out as a serious historian but ruined his reputation with needless provocations and mindless apologies for Hitler, blaming everything on his henchmen. At some point, he began to willfully court controversy just to trigger people. And willfully appeal to neo-Nazi nutjobs.

    A huge waste of real talent.
     

    Well, since this totally ignorant comment surely represents the thinking of some other readers as well, I would strongly urge everyone to read this discussion of Irving's career, which had already been provided as a link above:

    http://www.unz.com/announcement/the-remarkable-historiography-of-david-irving/

    What's so amusing is that some readers on this website apparently still believe that the MSM is always 100% correct and unbiased about absolutely everything...

    I have a long history with David Irving, including having met him personally in New York in 2003 (where he autographed my copy of Denying the Holocaust, by Deborah Lipstadt), and e-mail correspondences in the 1990s and 2000s, which were as rancorous as you might imagine.

    I think the comment to which you’re responding, Mr. Unz, is a wholly accurate one. I also think your use of sneer quotes in describing Holocaust denial — which Irving no longer engages in but certainly did at the same he very stupidly sued Deborah Lipstadt — is troubling, and I’d welcome the opportunity to educate you on this point, should you be interested. I assisted in a tiny way in the Lipstadt case, assisting one of the expert witnesses with his research. I can demonstrate that Irving knew that the case he was presenting in court consisted of some fairly big lies. I can also demonstrate that Irving is, at the very least, a full-blown anti-Semite, although I suspect you know that.

    That said, Irving certainly made significant contributions to our understanding of WWII history, even in the volume you publish today. These contributions are not without their own problems, though: I wrote a rebuttal to one of the points made in his introduction, which can be read here:

    http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2016/02/keine-liquidierung-eine-neubeurteilung.html

    What I hope to demonstrate in this essay is that, on the point discussed, Irving seized on an extremely unlikely meaning for the source that he located instead of exhaustively surveying the available evidence and finding the more likely explanation.

    I welcome any comments.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    Except that Irving was imprisoned for Thought Crimes and was released early.
    Hence, he made a deal, therefore his laughably impossible "holocaust-lite" was an 'arrangement'.
    The ridiculous '6M Jews' is an easily debunked fraud and Andrew Mathis cannot present proof of it.
    BTW, Jews have been claiming the '6M' lies since at least 1823.
    recommended:
    The David Irving Phenomenon: https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=8001
    and:
    Grubach's Letters to David Irving on the Hoefle telegram
    https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=4563
    Irving's 'holocaust' lite / but what '2.4 million document'?
    http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=4548
    and:
    'Irving attempts 'rehabilitation' via the Hoefle Telegram'
    http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=4558
    Still waiting for Andrew Mathis to show us the supposedly known immense Jew remains.

    www.codoh.com

    , @Wally
    Andrew Mathis posted this absurdiity:
    http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2016/02/keine-liquidierung-eine-neubeurteilung.html

    Now see the truth in a take down of Mathis who also posts as Thames Darwin.
    Himmler's note infers Hitler knew of liquidation ? NOT
    https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2143

    and yet another demolition:
    Has anybody been able to kind of convince you to believe official holo. narrative / Andrew Mathis, "Holo. Controversies"
    https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=11770&p=88197


    See the 'Holocaust Controversies" mangled here. It's not even close.

    The “Extermination Camps” of “Aktion Reinhardt”
    An Analysis and Refutation of Factitious “Evidence,” Deceptions and Flawed Argumentation of the “Holocaust Controversies” Bloggers
    By Jürgen Graf , Carlo Mattogno , Thomas Kues
    https://codoh.com/library/document/3052/?lang=en
     

    www.codoh.com
    , @Rurik

    What’s so amusing is that some readers on this website apparently still believe that the MSM is always 100% correct and unbiased about absolutely everything…
     
    I was going to reply to Mr. Unz that I doubt very much that the people attracted to his site are thus duped. But more likely, they're simply knowingly parroting the lies that are shilled by the MSM, for ideological reasons.

    sneer quotes in describing Holocaust denial —
     
    I was raised to believe in the holy lampshades, and the holy soap

    I only learned later of the holy geysers of blood and tossing babies out of the back of lories onto bonfires, etc..

    that these things, including the numbers of millions killed at Auschwitz - all turned out to be devil's lies, has had an impact on my gullibility vis-a-vis the rest of the narrative.

    If they lied about Germans making soap out of Jewish fat, then what else have they lied about, eh?
    , @anon111

    I can also demonstrate that Irving is, at the very least, a full-blown anti-Semite
     
    OMG the greatest sin

    there are so many virulent anti-whites openly operating in the (((media))) today, do you have a special word for them?
    , @peterAUS

    I welcome any comments.
     
    O.K. Just one, then.
    A question of sort, in fact.

    Based on what Johnny Smoggins posted

    Surely making it illegal to even question the details of something, as Canada and several European countries have done with the Jewish holocaust, is a reason to suspect that the event in question is on pretty shaky ground factually.

    If men like David Irving, Arthur Butz and others are simply wrong about the Jewish holocaust, refute their arguments and prove them wrong. By trying to silence them and destroy their lives, Jews have only shown that so called “holocaust deniers” are probably right.
     
    why , really, making that illegal and even imprisoning people for that in "free world" ?
    All other cases of prosecuting people for saying/writing something have been proven, I believe, wrong, for a couple of reasons.
    Why is the same (prosecuting) in this case O.K.?

    I mean, the very countries which do prosecute "Holocaust deniers" (quotes or not) are, at the same time, very keen on pointing the wrong of the method somewhere else for something else.

    Say, based on
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties_of_the_Soviet_Union
    Putin imprisoning people for saying that there wasn't 20 million, but "only" (quotes or not), 16 million.

    One can get prosecuted, in this case, for saying there weren't 6 million, but 2 million. At least a man can lose his job etc.

    What do you think, why is that?

    Simple question I guess.
    , @Anon
    I also think your use of sneer quotes in describing Holocaust denial — which Irving no longer engages in but certainly did at the same he very stupidly sued Deborah Lipstadt — is troubling... I can also demonstrate that Irving is, at the very least, a full-blown anti-Semite, although I suspect you know that.

    I don't like the term 'Holocaust Denial' because it sounds like a religious concept. We are expected to worship Holocaust as some kind of faith. But when it comes to actual history, we either know or don't know, believe or disbelieve what we are told. It's not a matter of Denying.
    If someone knows little or nothing about the Ukraine Famine, he can't be a called a Famine Denier. He just doesn't know. Also, if his understanding of the Event runs counter to the account of the Ukrainian government, he is less a denier than a disbeliever of the Official Narrative. The current Ukrainian Narrative says 8 million died in the 'Holodomor'. But there are studies that show the numbers were more likely 3.5 million. So, if one chooses the latter number, is he a 'denier'?

    There are two kinds of people who muck up the Holocaust debate:

    Those who insist on Faith and Worship. So, we are to never question the 6 million figure. Never ask why there was such hostility toward Jews. Just believe that pure-as-snow 6 million Jews were killed for totally irrational reasons. This is a cult or neo-religion, not history.

    Then, you got those who have a hardon for Hitler Cult and Nazis OR hate Jewish Power so much that they are willing to believe that the Holocaust was just a big hoax. Hitler was just a misunderstood Nice Guy and if some Jews died, it was all an accident or due to typhus... or Hitler's henchmen did it behind his back. These people are not interested in history. They just want to desecrate what has become holy to Jews. It's all a quasi-religious battle between Holocaust iconographers and Holocaust iconoclasts.

    But then, same is true of some on the Left. Godfree Robert's apologies for Mao are incredible, and they were actually commonplace prior to revelations of Mao's true record under Deng. This sort of thing is more a psychological phenomenon, the need to worship something in our godless age. Maybe if Godfree became Godfull, he wouldn't need false idols to worship. If Godfree Roberts believed as he did before the revelations of Mao's monstrosities, it'd be somewhat understandable. But the fact that he continues to apologize for Mao even after so much of the truth has come out shows that some people have a certain psychological condition that must BELIEVE in something. I don't think Godfree Roberts is evil. He is just 'possessed'.

    David Irving was a sly kind of Holocaust Desecrator. He didn't outright reject historical accounts or facts. He just played dumb or feigned ignorance on certain matters. Or, his standards for historical veracity on the subject became impossibly high. So, even though he was more than willing to accept the standard statistics on Stalin's mass-killing, he demanded absolute proof on Nazi mass-killings. His double-standard readily accepted stats on leftist violence but insisted on absolute veracity when it came to Nazi mayhem. Irving could believe Stalin ordered all those mass-killings but played 'where's the beef?' on Nazi mass-killings, i.e. unless some document connecting Hitler to the Holocaust could be unearthed, we were to remain skeptical of the Fuhrer's responsibility. But this kind of moral logic is ridiculous. Hitler was the top dog and set the tone for Nazi Germany. Even if he didn't give a directive for the mass killing, he was still responsible in the way that Mao was responsible for the mass deaths of Great Leap and Cultural Revolution. He set in the motion the terrible events and created a climate of total fanaticism.

    As for Lipstadt, she is a monster. When the Irving trial was unfolding, I sympathized with her because MSM gave the impression that Irving was against free speech, i.e. she opined about Irving and was sued for defamation. I figured no one should be sued for an opinion. But more recently, I learned that it was Lipstadt and her ilk who used muscle to prevent Irving's work from being published. So, Irving was acting to defend his career as an important historian.

    Lipstadt is one of those monsters who toss the term 'denier' as a smear campaign against any counter-narrative thought-criminal. She even used the term against Ernest Nolte even though he never discounted the Holocaust Narrative. Nolte said the Nazis, though evil and destructive, were reacting to comparably evil and destructive forces of communism. But that made him a 'denier' according to Lipstadt. And given all the ludicrous antipathy toward Putin, Russia, Assad, Syria, and Iran from Jewish globalist power, I think more people are waking up the fact that MSM is full of crap.

    The recent Hollywood movie about Churchill has him being friendly with a Negro on a London subway. In fact, Churchill had very low opinion of dark folks and was a total imperialist who believed in British mastery over non-white subjects. Also, it's funny that a historian can write awful things AS LONG AS they suck up to Jewish Power. Take Andrew Roberts who is favored by MSM. This guy wrote about how it was justified for the British Imperialists to mow down people in India to maintain order. But he gets a pass because he's always sucking up to Zionists and so weepy-poo about the Holocaust. And consider all the academic hacks who are favored because they favor 'new cold war' with Russia and destruction of Syria and Libya.

    https://newrepublic.com/article/61052/white-man-the-job-bushs-imperial-historian

    As for Irving's 'antisemitism', I don't find that to be a problem. Where does it say that anyone must like a certain people? Many American scare-monger about Chinese, Russians, Iranians, Muslims, Mexicans, and etc. And many Jews express hostility toward Russians, White Evangelicals, Muslims, Palestinians, Iranians, Mormons, and etc. Who says anyone has to like anyone or any people? Plenty of people dislike Gypsies. Plenty of people are put off by Hindus. And plenty of Hindus are put off by Muslims. Mexicans love to bash gringos. So, why is it some kind of sin to not like Jews? Jews don't have to like all peoples, and no people should be expected to like Jews as a cosmic law. But in the West, three peoples -- Jews, blacks, and homos -- MUST be liked. Why? It sounds supremacist to me. If blacks can dislike any people, any people should be free to dislike blacks.

    So, if Irving doesn't like Jews, that's okay... just like it's okay if Jews don't like Iranians or Russians. (Just read what Ann Applebaum has written on Russian people and culture.) With Irving, the problem is he let his personal feelings get in the way of assessing history, and that's been a big minus. Eric Hobsbawm had a similar blindspot with Stalin even though he finally admitted that Stalin killed a lot of people.

    https://newrepublic.com/article/107966/eugene-genovese-eric-hobsbawm-age-of-extremes

    I think Irving's worldview is, at the root, similar to that of Paul Johnson. Both are romantics of British Imperialism. They see it as mostly glorious than wicked. They believe the world benefited greatly as the White Man's Burden. Brits were the rightful lords of the world. So, Johnson even makes light of the British opium trade in China and blamed the Chinese for becoming addicted to the stuff. Both mourn the passing of the Empire. Despite similar sentiments about the Empire, where they diverge is in the Why(the empire fell) and How(the Brits should cope in the New Order).
    Johnson blames Moral Relativism unleashed by WWI and overt German aggression. Instead of being more civil and well-mannered in international affairs, the Germans got too eager and boorish and messed things up for everyone.
    In contrast, Irving's position is a harder version of Buchanan's that the British should have sided with their racial brethren the Germans instead of fighting a Anglo vs German brothers' war in both WWI and WWII. Irving sees Jews as mucking up the racial-brotherly relations between Anglos and Germans.

    I suspect Johnson privately has a lot of trepidation about Jews as well, but his hopes are like those of Jared Taylor. He believes the West has no choice but to be philosemitic because the Holocaust was too horrible and Jews have gotten too rich and powerful. So, unless the Right can win over Jews, it is at a serious disadvantage in moral and monetary terms.
    Therefore, Johnson's shtick is that Antisemitism was really the result of Moral Relativism, Radical Modernity, and Teutonic irrationalism that were heroically countered by rational, moderate, and Christian civilization of the enlightened British Empire. So, Jews should NOT see Anglos and Germans as equal 'racists' but forge an alliance with Anglos as fellow enlightened imperialists who should rule over the world. The template for what the Saker calls the Anglo-Zionist World Order.
    , @renfro

    long history with David Irving, including having met him personally in New York in 2003 (where he autographed my copy of Denying the Holocaust, by Deborah Lipstadt),
     
    You know... I knew what you are the minute I read that comment. The kind of petty Jew lurking in the shadows, their beady eyes darting around, watching the gentile trade with jealousy, greed and resentment.....the kind that twain and t.s. Elliot described so well.
    Only a Jew like yourself would think that such an insult is something to brag about.

    Only a Jew like you would threaten a lady for refusing to help him destroy the career and name of someone who disagreed with his Jewish holocaust cult:

    http://www.angelfire.com/fl4/fci/andysjew.html
    FROM: "Andrew E Mathis"
    TO: [email protected]
    DATE: Sun, 5 Jan 2003
    Subject: Fred Leuchter
    Andrew E Mathis wrote:
    Dear Ms. Lee:

    I am a board member of the Holocaust History Project (http://www.thhp.org/ ) a non-profit Holocaust education foundation based physically in San Antonio, Texas, but operating with a worldwide membership primarily as a Web presence.

    We got a tip from someone that you had had personal correspondence with Fred Leuchter, he of the film *Mr. Death* and the Zündel Holocaust denial trial in Canada. In your correspondence with Mr. Leuchter, he indicates that he is an engineer. He has been legally barred from representing himself as such in the state of Massachusetts, where he indicates he is writing from.

    While I realize this is a large request from someone that you don't know from Adam, would it be possible for you to forward, with the full headers, the e-mails you received from Leuchter, if you are still in possession of them? Mr. Leuchter has apparently broken the law, and there is no time limit on the agreement he signed wherein he agreed not to represent himself as an engineer in the state of Massachusetts.

    Speaking for myself, I am not interested in pursuing the personal ruin of Fred Leuchter; he's done that just fine himself. What I am interested in doing is making sure that Leuchter does not further violate the law by representing himself as something that he is not.
    If such behavior as Leuchter's is not controlled, the entire process of expert witnesses in civil and criminal trials can be brought into jeopardy.

    I would greatly appreciate your assistance in this matter. I will gladly answer any questions you may have. I look forward to hearing from you.

    Yours truly,

    Andrew E. Mathis, Ph.D.

    Mr. Mathis. Indeed, you are right. You are a total stranger and Your request is a bit offensive.
    I'm sorry, but I cannot be a part of the continued effort to destroy this man's life when all I can see is that he used the tools and knowledge at his disposal at the time (so long ago) and came up with a decision a lot of people don't agree with.
    Goodness, You are part of such a wonderful and powerful group that you could do so much good if all your energy were put into something positive, instead of making an example out of this man. Do you plan to haunt him unto death? That's a bit unGodly, don't you think?
    I just spent a year working with the most wonderful Jewish man of all (in my heart), Richard "Dick" Korn, PhD. He accomplished great things because he was not bogged down with a hatred of Mr. Leuchter, nor of any other man. If you want to be a credit to your religion, you must get on to things of more urgency to your creator.
    I don't keep old emails and if I did, I wouldn't send them. You'll have to set up your own correspondence with Mr. Leuchter. Besides, everything I have from Mr. Leuchter is on the website.
    I do hope you find peace in forgiveness.
    Kay Lee

    To: [email protected]
    CC: [email protected]
    From: "Andrew E Mathis"
    Subject: Re: Fred Leuchter
    Date: Sun, 05 Jan 2003 10:18:51 -0800 (PST)
    Kay Lee wrote:

    '' Mr. Mathis. Indeed, you are right. You are a total stranger and Your request is a bit offensive. I'm sorry, but I cannot be a part of the continued effort to destroy this man's life when all I can see is that he used the tools and knowledge at his disposal at the time (so long ago) and came up with a decision a lot of people don't agree with.''

    Mr. Mathis wrote:

    Ms. Lee, he did quite a bit more than that. Quite simply, he lied. Under oath, to boot. If you think that his conclusions are of no importance, then consider that he got paid $35,000 Canadian for them. Consider also that the man who paid him is a sworn neo-Nazi who once co-authored a book entitled *The Hitler We Loved and Why*. If Fred Leuchter was willing to undertake his "work" and deny the Holocaust and claims that he is unaware that this is a neo-Nazi endeavor, then he is either (1) lying or (2) the most stupid man in the world.

    '' Goodness, You are part of such a wonderful and powerful group that you could do so much good if all your energy were put into something positive, instead of making an example out of this man. Do you plan to haunt him unto death? That's a bit unGodly, don't you think? ''

    I for one would not dare to guess the mind of God. And I wonder what "powerful group" I'm a part of, but we'll leave that one for the moment.

    '" I just spent a year working with the most wonderful Jewish man of all (in my heart), Richard "Dick" Korn, PhD. He accomplished great things because he was not bogged down with a hatred of Mr. Leuchter, nor of any other man. If you want to be a credit to your religion, you must get on to things of more urgency to your creator. ''

    Wow. I wasn't aware that wonderful men fell into two categories: Jews and non-Jews.

    But I digress: You claim that I hate Mr. Leuchter. I do not hate him, nor could I, because I do not know him. Nevertheless, I despite what he stands for, which is the continued attempt to rehabilitate National Socialism by denying the deaths of twelve million completely innocent human beings. If you don't think there's something evil about that, then I think you need to adjust your moral compass.

    As for my "getting on," Fred Leuchter is nothing but a blip on rather large radar. He's been professionally refuted three times -- once by one of my colleagues, so effectively, in fact, that David Irving (a Jew-hating Holocaust denier and one of Leuchter's principal defenders) was forced to withdraw a report from another "expert," Germar Rudolf, because it was so inferior by comparison.
    Leuchter's continuing error, in my opinion, is two-fold: (1) He either plays dumb or is dumb about the evil nature of his work for Zündel; and (2) He is in direct violation of a court order. Had I more time at my disposal and a real mean streak, I could just call the Massachusetts Department of Justice and have all of these things subpoenaed, and Leuchter could end up in jail, paying a fine, or both. But as I said, I have no interest in destroying a man who has already self-destructed. I have an interest in protecting the judicial process in my country -- a process that is daily being eroded in the name of national security.''

    This goes way beyond the Holocaust for me, Ms. Lee. Our system of justice is endangered by those who flagrantly violate our laws, as Mr. Leuchter and you, as an accessory, have done.

    ''I don't keep old emails and if I did, I wouldn't send them. You'll have to set up your own correspondence with Mr. Leuchter. Besides, everything I have from Mr. Leuchter is on the website.''

    I would suggest you remove the materials regarding Mr. Leuchter from your Web site for your own good. There are people in this world far more vindictive than me who would, in fact, like to see Leuchter in jail or bankrupt. And they'll be the ones filing a case in the Massachusetts courts, not me.

    ""I do hope you find peace in forgiveness.''

    Frankly, Ms. Lee, I am content that I am doing God's work.

    I hope you sleep well tonight.

    Andrew Mathis



    FURTHERMORE....you are not a member of some world wide group and your web site is defunct , your ' holocaust foundation' consist of 8 other nutcase Jews. You are only a' adjunct' Professor hired to teach one holocaust course and you are not a member of the Villanova faculty.
    In short you are a nobody loser Jew using the holocaust to try and make yourself somebody and get attention and since being a Jew is all you've got in your sicko life the only club you have to attacker your betters is the 'denier' and' anti semite' hurl.
    Holocaust History Project is defunct http://www.spitecast.com/aemathisphd/ and http://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-history.org/ and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust_History_Project

    I think you need a lesson in manners...there's a lot of your libelous, threatening and profane crap out on the net...lets send it to Villanova and see if they cant find a better adjunct' than you.
    , @iffen
    Wot's this? No 1600 word response from R. Unz? Must be too busy coding and making money.
    , @Bob
    @Momus

    The gassing chamber at Auschwitz main camp was originally the morgue/crematorium. At the end of 1941 it was converted into a ‘homicidal gas chamber’

    During the war, in late 1944, it was converted into an air-raid shelter; after the war it was restored by the authorities to represent the original state. The attempt was partially symbolic and partially botched.

    As far as the ‘windows’ go there were no windows in the gassing chamber. There was a door to the washroom with a window. During the post war reconstruction of the crematorium from air raid shelter, the wall from the washroom to the morgue/crematorium was mistakenly removed giving the impression that the gassing room was served with a windowed door.

    The inward opening/swinging door door denier point has been extensively debunked by referring to the SS’s own plans. The gassing chamber did indeed have outward opening doors but a drafting mistake and a subsequent lazy copy of the same drawing showed them inward opening. Of course during the conversion to a gas chamber the job was site run and outward opening doors fitted.

    After the conversion to air raid shelter the wall and door was completely removed.

    The details of Auschwitz and Birkenau have been researched in meticulous detail and building details like the ones deniers make claims about can be refuted by simple examination of the Nazi SS’s own drawings.
     
    The room was a morgue and later an air raid shelter. Without taking proper documentation of the scene Poles tampered with the evidence in 1947 and we know thanks to the botched changes that the so called Zyklon holes never existed and were constructed in 1947 for the first time as proven by the fact they were measured from the walls which did not exist in the morgue.

    http://carolynyeager.net/new-eric-hunt-3d-imagery-demonstrates-auschwitz-hole-hoax

    The plan from period when the room was allegedly used as a homicidal gas chamber shows the room had door which swings through both sides and the room was a morgue, when that contradicts the gas chamber story does not mean the plan is mistaken. There is no documentation on conversion to homicidal gas chamber.

    Examination of drawings refutes claims exterminationists make about homicidal gas chambers.


    At Birkenau, Crematoria 4 and 5 had openings in the wall that were used to introduce the Zyklon pellets.

    These windows/apertures, were heavily grilled on the inside and with sealed shutters on the outside.
     
    Openings are not associated with homicidal gassing. Heavily grilled openings cannot be used to introduce Zyklon B pellets.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. @Malla
    More important questions would be

    Why would a seemingly Christian, Capitalist, free democratic United States of America support the Communist Soviet Union via the land lease program?
    Well how is that even possible, it happened for sure, no doubts about that. But how is that even possible. Why would the USA support a communist nation which supported communist revolution around the war and was a major threat to the established American way of life?

    Why did Jacob Schiff, a rich capitalist Wall Street banker finance Lenin and the Bolshevik Communist takeover of Russia?

    Why and how did David Rockefeller get special landing rights in Soviet Moscow? He visited the Soviet Union more times than all American Presidents combined. Why was he not arrested by Soviet Authorities on arrival in Moscow, tried for being an exploiter of the proletariat (because in his case, he really is one) and punished?

    How is it that once, Henry Kissinger represented both the United States as well as the Soviet Union?

    Why would a seemingly Christian, Capitalist, free democratic United States of America support the Communist Soviet Union via the land lease program?

    That’s “lend lease.” And the U.S. would support the USSR against Germany because Germany was already at war with our chief ally, the U.K.

    Well how is that even possible, it happened for sure, no doubts about that. But how is that even possible. Why would the USA support a communist nation which supported communist revolution around the war and was a major threat to the established American way of life?

    It was an uneasy alliance at best and shattered when the war was over.

    Why did Jacob Schiff, a rich capitalist Wall Street banker finance Lenin and the Bolshevik Communist takeover of Russia?

    He didn’t. He supported the February revolution in Russia — as did most of the world — but he withdrew support when the Bolsheviks seized power. The part primarily responsible for Lenin taking over in Russia is the German Kaiser, who sent Lenin back to Russia in April 1917 to overthrow the Provisional Government and end the war.

    Why and how did David Rockefeller get special landing rights in Soviet Moscow? He visited the Soviet Union more times than all American Presidents combined. Why was he not arrested by Soviet Authorities on arrival in Moscow, tried for being an exploiter of the proletariat (because in his case, he really is one) and punished?

    No idea on this one.

    How is it that once, Henry Kissinger represented both the United States as well as the Soviet Union?

    I don’t think he did. Do you have a source on this?

    Read More
    • Replies: @SimplePseudonymicHandle

    Why and how did David Rockefeller get special landing rights in Soviet Moscow? He visited the Soviet Union more times than all American Presidents combined. Why was he not arrested by Soviet Authorities on arrival in Moscow, tried for being an exploiter of the proletariat (because in his case, he really is one) and punished?
     

    No idea on this one.
     
    I don't know either, but as a speculative answer and taking the matter at its face it immediately brings to mind a Russian idiom about the war that I haven't heard for twenty years so am sure to get wrong but comes back to me as "the Americans would provide munitions and hard money, Russians would provide blood".

    Many times in Russian and Soviet and post-Soviet history I've seen the problem of finding "hard money" come up. This is probably less a matter in the late-Putin era because of petroleum but one can guess it will continue to be a recurrent theme as a constraint on Russian international agency. Ideology notwithstanding, push-come-shove, Russia as all nations needs something it can trade with in international commerce. It's not hard for me to imagine Rockefeller perceiving a variety of interests in underwriting this. From a communist POV the arrangement could probably easily be rationalized by citing Engels.
    , @Malla

    And the U.S. would support the USSR against Germany because Germany was already at war with our chief ally, the U.K
     
    In a logical world, under no condition would a capitalist free country like the USA support a huge Communist country which wanted to spread communism throughout the world and was a direct threat to the American way of life. A very poor excuse and very suspicious behaviour on the part of the USA.

    It was an uneasy alliance at best and shattered when the war was over.
     
    Did not seem like an uneasy alliance.

    He didn’t. He supported the February revolution in Russia — as did most of the world — but he withdrew support when the Bolsheviks seized power. The part primarily responsible for Lenin taking over in Russia is the German Kaiser, who sent Lenin back to Russia in April 1917 to overthrow the Provisional Government and end the war.
     
    He supported both the Mensheviks as well as the Bolsheviks
    https://jamesperloff.com/tag/russian-revolution/
    Jacob Schiff and Federal Reserve founder Paul Warburg ran Kuhn, Loeb & Co. – the Rothschilds’ New York banking satellite. Schiff supplied $20 million in gold to Trotsky, who sailed from New York with 275 other terrorists on a passport obtained through pressure the bankers put on the Wilson administration.

    Also more here
    The Rothschilds, through Milner, planned the Russian Revolution, and along with Schiff (who gave $20 million), Sir George Buchanan, the Warburgs, the Rockefellers, the partners of J.P. Morgan (who gave at least $1 million), Olaf Aschberg (of the Nye Bank of Stockholm, Sweden), the Rhine Westphalian Syndicate, a financier named Jovotovsky (whose daughter later married Leon Trotsky), William Boyce Thompson (a director of Chase National Bank who contributed $1 million), and Albert H. Wiggin (President of Chase National Bank), helped finance it.

    As far as the Kaiser, you are right, he did play a role in sending Lenin to Russia. That was because the commies promised to stop Russian participation in WW2. With this, the Germans could move a large number of men and material to the Western front against the British and French.

    More from Perloff's website
    "It is a myth that Kerensky and the Bolsheviks were adversaries. Kerensky received $1 million from Jacob Schiff. During summer 1917, when it was revealed the Bolsheviks were on Germany’s payroll – treason during wartime – Kerensky protected them. When the Bolsheviks moved to seize power that autumn, he declined the option of requesting troops to preserve the government. Lenin and Trotsky gave Kerensky money and safe passage out. He died wealthy in 1970 in New York, where the Russian Orthodox Church refused him burial services.

    • Postwar Britain sent the Bolsheviks rifles and ammunition for 250,000 men. With this and other Western assistance, the Reds crushed the White opposition. Loans and technology from Western capitalists poured in for decades, as documented in such books as Antony Sutton’s Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution and Joseph Finder’s Red Carpet."

    As far as that Kissinger thing, I will get back on that one later.
    , @Beefcake the Mighty
    “That’s “lend lease.””

    Uh-oh, here come the internet grammar Nazis.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Moi
    Being a vassal of the US is preferable because the US only wants full-spectrum domination of the world--its stated policy. Anything happening in any small corner of the world is America's business. I guess we can now celebrate world peace. LOL!

    Being a vassal of the US is preferable because the US only wants full-spectrum domination of the world–its stated policy.

    You have muddled the tenses. I said:

    Britain became, in effect, a US vassal, a status much to be preferred, so most Britons would surely have agreed, than that of a colony of either Hitler’s Reich or Stalin’s Soviet Union.

    You, we are to understand, had you been a British citizen at the time, would have preferred domination by Hitler’s Germany or the Soviets. Each to his own, but my assertion is almost certainly correct.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. republic says:
    @Anonymous
    Is David Irving a "Holocaust Denier"? Wikipedia claims he is but I'm not sure exactly what "Holocaust denier" means. Seems vague.

    In any event, I do believe he said that "not much happened" at Auschwitz. To the "Holocaust Deniers": Is it not indeed true that there were approximately 4-6 million fewer Jews in Europe (and on Earth) after the war than before? The World Almanac did update to reflect this fact, contrary to some claims.

    Where did the ~4.5 million Jews go between 1941 and 1949 (according to the Almanac figures. 15.75 million vs 11.27 million)? Did they shed their Jewish identities and disappear into the Soviet Union?

    video on Zionist editing of Wikipedia

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. Wally says:
    @Andrew E. Mathis
    I have a long history with David Irving, including having met him personally in New York in 2003 (where he autographed my copy of Denying the Holocaust, by Deborah Lipstadt), and e-mail correspondences in the 1990s and 2000s, which were as rancorous as you might imagine.

    I think the comment to which you're responding, Mr. Unz, is a wholly accurate one. I also think your use of sneer quotes in describing Holocaust denial -- which Irving no longer engages in but certainly did at the same he very stupidly sued Deborah Lipstadt -- is troubling, and I'd welcome the opportunity to educate you on this point, should you be interested. I assisted in a tiny way in the Lipstadt case, assisting one of the expert witnesses with his research. I can demonstrate that Irving knew that the case he was presenting in court consisted of some fairly big lies. I can also demonstrate that Irving is, at the very least, a full-blown anti-Semite, although I suspect you know that.

    That said, Irving certainly made significant contributions to our understanding of WWII history, even in the volume you publish today. These contributions are not without their own problems, though: I wrote a rebuttal to one of the points made in his introduction, which can be read here:

    http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2016/02/keine-liquidierung-eine-neubeurteilung.html

    What I hope to demonstrate in this essay is that, on the point discussed, Irving seized on an extremely unlikely meaning for the source that he located instead of exhaustively surveying the available evidence and finding the more likely explanation.

    I welcome any comments.

    Except that Irving was imprisoned for Thought Crimes and was released early.
    Hence, he made a deal, therefore his laughably impossible “holocaust-lite” was an ‘arrangement’.
    The ridiculous ’6M Jews’ is an easily debunked fraud and Andrew Mathis cannot present proof of it.
    BTW, Jews have been claiming the ’6M’ lies since at least 1823.
    recommended:
    The David Irving Phenomenon: https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=8001
    and:
    Grubach’s Letters to David Irving on the Hoefle telegram

    https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=4563

    Irving’s ‘holocaust’ lite / but what ’2.4 million document’?

    http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=4548

    and:
    ‘Irving attempts ‘rehabilitation’ via the Hoefle Telegram’

    http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=4558

    Still waiting for Andrew Mathis to show us the supposedly known immense Jew remains.

    http://www.codoh.com

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis
    How much longer will Wally be allowed to spam this site with such wild abandon?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. I read ‘Hitler’s War’ shortly after publication and gave away my copy decades ago, not being obsessed with the historical period.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  25. @Andrew E. Mathis

    Why would a seemingly Christian, Capitalist, free democratic United States of America support the Communist Soviet Union via the land lease program?
     
    That's "lend lease." And the U.S. would support the USSR against Germany because Germany was already at war with our chief ally, the U.K.

    Well how is that even possible, it happened for sure, no doubts about that. But how is that even possible. Why would the USA support a communist nation which supported communist revolution around the war and was a major threat to the established American way of life?
     
    It was an uneasy alliance at best and shattered when the war was over.

    Why did Jacob Schiff, a rich capitalist Wall Street banker finance Lenin and the Bolshevik Communist takeover of Russia?
     
    He didn't. He supported the February revolution in Russia -- as did most of the world -- but he withdrew support when the Bolsheviks seized power. The part primarily responsible for Lenin taking over in Russia is the German Kaiser, who sent Lenin back to Russia in April 1917 to overthrow the Provisional Government and end the war.

    Why and how did David Rockefeller get special landing rights in Soviet Moscow? He visited the Soviet Union more times than all American Presidents combined. Why was he not arrested by Soviet Authorities on arrival in Moscow, tried for being an exploiter of the proletariat (because in his case, he really is one) and punished?
     
    No idea on this one.

    How is it that once, Henry Kissinger represented both the United States as well as the Soviet Union?

     

    I don't think he did. Do you have a source on this?

    Why and how did David Rockefeller get special landing rights in Soviet Moscow? He visited the Soviet Union more times than all American Presidents combined. Why was he not arrested by Soviet Authorities on arrival in Moscow, tried for being an exploiter of the proletariat (because in his case, he really is one) and punished?

    No idea on this one.

    I don’t know either, but as a speculative answer and taking the matter at its face it immediately brings to mind a Russian idiom about the war that I haven’t heard for twenty years so am sure to get wrong but comes back to me as “the Americans would provide munitions and hard money, Russians would provide blood”.

    Many times in Russian and Soviet and post-Soviet history I’ve seen the problem of finding “hard money” come up. This is probably less a matter in the late-Putin era because of petroleum but one can guess it will continue to be a recurrent theme as a constraint on Russian international agency. Ideology notwithstanding, push-come-shove, Russia as all nations needs something it can trade with in international commerce. It’s not hard for me to imagine Rockefeller perceiving a variety of interests in underwriting this. From a communist POV the arrangement could probably easily be rationalized by citing Engels.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. Wally says:
    @Anonymous
    Is David Irving a "Holocaust Denier"? Wikipedia claims he is but I'm not sure exactly what "Holocaust denier" means. Seems vague.

    In any event, I do believe he said that "not much happened" at Auschwitz. To the "Holocaust Deniers": Is it not indeed true that there were approximately 4-6 million fewer Jews in Europe (and on Earth) after the war than before? The World Almanac did update to reflect this fact, contrary to some claims.

    Where did the ~4.5 million Jews go between 1941 and 1949 (according to the Almanac figures. 15.75 million vs 11.27 million)? Did they shed their Jewish identities and disappear into the Soviet Union?

    According to the “Holocau$t Industry” Jews went to enormous ‘known’ mass graves.

    Signs have been erected at the alleged sites supposedly pointing out mass grave sites etc., but guess what, they are not there, in spite of attempts to find them.

    Treblinka as an example:

    historian’ Raul Hilberg wrote in his three-volume book entitled “The Destruction of the European Jews” that there were 700,000 – 900,000 bodies buried at Treblinka.

    “The mass graves were opened and the corpses were taken out, to be consumed by the flames of huge pyres (the ‘roasts’). The bones were crushed and, together with the ashes, were reburied in the same graves.”
    – Israel Gutman (ed.), Encyclopedia of the Holocaust, 4 vols., Macmillan, New York 1990, vol. 4, p. 1481-87

    http://www.codoh.com

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    Raul Hilberg, ‘The destruction of the European Jews’, student edition, Teaneck, 1985
    Just one volume.
    I can recommend reading it, already on page 300 or so one reads that Auschwitz was a big industrial centre.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. Wally says:
    @Anonymous
    Is David Irving a "Holocaust Denier"? Wikipedia claims he is but I'm not sure exactly what "Holocaust denier" means. Seems vague.

    In any event, I do believe he said that "not much happened" at Auschwitz. To the "Holocaust Deniers": Is it not indeed true that there were approximately 4-6 million fewer Jews in Europe (and on Earth) after the war than before? The World Almanac did update to reflect this fact, contrary to some claims.

    Where did the ~4.5 million Jews go between 1941 and 1949 (according to the Almanac figures. 15.75 million vs 11.27 million)? Did they shed their Jewish identities and disappear into the Soviet Union?
    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. nickels says:

    Absolutely gripping book. The way the Empire expands through the first years of the war, the giddy optimism, and then the stall, and, the most gripping and terrifying part, the slow and eventual shrinking and collapse, with the tanks and shells coming within earshot, the growing and eventual doom-this is like no other book I have read.

    Highly suggested.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  29. Rurik says:
    @CanSpeccy

    Being a modern English historian there was a certain morbid fascination for me in inquiring how far Adolf Hitler really was bent on the destruction of Britain and her Empire – a major raison d’être for our ruinous fight, which in 1940 imperceptibly replaced the more implausible reason proffered in August 1939, the rescue of Poland from outside oppression
     
    How ruinous was Britain's fight?

    Britain suffered 382,600 military deaths plus 67,199 civilian casualties. Horrific indeed, but compared with the losses suffered by Germany and Russia, quite trivial.

    It is true that after the war, Britain was no longer a great power. But Britain's prewar great power status was fast waning for the obvious reason that Britain was a small country which no longer retained its industrial head-start on the rest of the world. Britain's decline in power and influence was thus inevitable, war or no war. The question was, would Britain succumb to the tyranny of a resurgent Germany, or the tyranny of a resurgent Russia, or was there another option. British diplomacy contributed to the confrontation of Russia and Germany, with, for Britain and the rest of Western Europe, the fortunate consequence that these tyrannies inflicted a terrible toll upon one another.

    Inevitably, however, one or other of those antagonists would be the victor, so the critical question for Britain was how to restrain whichever tyranny emerged on top. This restraint the United States provided, preventing the Soviets from rolling to the Atlantic shore, as they surely would have had United States forces not been in place to prevent them. As a result, Britain became, in effect, a US vassal, a status much to be preferred, so most Britons would surely have agreed, than that of a colony of either Hitler's Reich or Stalin's Soviet Union.

    As a result, Britain became, in effect, a US vassal, a status much to be preferred, so most Britons would surely have agreed, than that of a colony of either Hitler’s Reich…

    don’t you mean ZUS vassal?

    since we all know the ZUS doesn’t fart unless it gets permission from Israel

    and as to how well England is fairing as a sycophantic vassal of Zion..

    one must wonder, were Germany victorious, would England’s school girls today be little more than sexual amusements for the dregs of Pakistan?

    I’m guessing not.

    Read More
    • Agree: Stonehands
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    don’t you mean ZUS vassal?
     

    and as to how well England is fairing as a sycophantic vassal of Zion..
     
    I was stating what I believe to have been a fact relating to opinion in Britain several generations ago. Your obsession with Jewish political influence is irrelevant to my point.

    Apparently, had you been in a position to decide, you would have had Britain throw in her lot with Hitler or Stalin, rather than Roosevelt. OK. But who cares?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. Wally says:
    @Andrew E. Mathis
    I have a long history with David Irving, including having met him personally in New York in 2003 (where he autographed my copy of Denying the Holocaust, by Deborah Lipstadt), and e-mail correspondences in the 1990s and 2000s, which were as rancorous as you might imagine.

    I think the comment to which you're responding, Mr. Unz, is a wholly accurate one. I also think your use of sneer quotes in describing Holocaust denial -- which Irving no longer engages in but certainly did at the same he very stupidly sued Deborah Lipstadt -- is troubling, and I'd welcome the opportunity to educate you on this point, should you be interested. I assisted in a tiny way in the Lipstadt case, assisting one of the expert witnesses with his research. I can demonstrate that Irving knew that the case he was presenting in court consisted of some fairly big lies. I can also demonstrate that Irving is, at the very least, a full-blown anti-Semite, although I suspect you know that.

    That said, Irving certainly made significant contributions to our understanding of WWII history, even in the volume you publish today. These contributions are not without their own problems, though: I wrote a rebuttal to one of the points made in his introduction, which can be read here:

    http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2016/02/keine-liquidierung-eine-neubeurteilung.html

    What I hope to demonstrate in this essay is that, on the point discussed, Irving seized on an extremely unlikely meaning for the source that he located instead of exhaustively surveying the available evidence and finding the more likely explanation.

    I welcome any comments.

    Andrew Mathis posted this absurdiity:

    http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2016/02/keine-liquidierung-eine-neubeurteilung.html

    Now see the truth in a take down of Mathis who also posts as Thames Darwin.
    Himmler’s note infers Hitler knew of liquidation ? NOT

    https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2143

    and yet another demolition:
    Has anybody been able to kind of convince you to believe official holo. narrative / Andrew Mathis, “Holo. Controversies”

    https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=11770&p=88197

    See the ‘Holocaust Controversies” mangled here. It’s not even close.

    The “Extermination Camps” of “Aktion Reinhardt”
    An Analysis and Refutation of Factitious “Evidence,” Deceptions and Flawed Argumentation of the “Holocaust Controversies” Bloggers
    By Jürgen Graf , Carlo Mattogno , Thomas Kues

    https://codoh.com/library/document/3052/?lang=en

    http://www.codoh.com

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis
    You posted a link to a thread begun a decade before I published my essay and that engages none of the primary sources I cite in my essay. That you think this is some kind of refutation is actually sort of hilarious. Thanks for sharing it.

    Since I didn't make any specific arguments in the second link you offer, I can't say that I can see how I've been "demolished" in that one either. Seriously, you're slipping. Too much to drink this morning?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. @Wally
    Except that Irving was imprisoned for Thought Crimes and was released early.
    Hence, he made a deal, therefore his laughably impossible "holocaust-lite" was an 'arrangement'.
    The ridiculous '6M Jews' is an easily debunked fraud and Andrew Mathis cannot present proof of it.
    BTW, Jews have been claiming the '6M' lies since at least 1823.
    recommended:
    The David Irving Phenomenon: https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=8001
    and:
    Grubach's Letters to David Irving on the Hoefle telegram
    https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=4563
    Irving's 'holocaust' lite / but what '2.4 million document'?
    http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=4548
    and:
    'Irving attempts 'rehabilitation' via the Hoefle Telegram'
    http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=4558
    Still waiting for Andrew Mathis to show us the supposedly known immense Jew remains.

    www.codoh.com

    How much longer will Wally be allowed to spam this site with such wild abandon?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    My my, Mathis has his panties in a twist.

    IOW, Mathis cannot refute what I post, has embarrassed himself, and now whines like a stuck Zionist pig.
    Leave it to Andrew Mathis to call for suppression of free speech about his laughably impossible "holocau$t". Only liars demand censorship.

    recommended:
    'Some Technical and Chemical Considerations
    about the 'Gas Chambers' of Auschwitz and Birkenau'

    by master chemist Germar Rudolf
    http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/dth/fndgcger.html

    , @Per/Norway
    wtf is wrong with people like you?
    why do some people always want to silence and censor everyone that you dont agree with or everyone that beats you in a discussion?
    codoh.com is not spam,, not my fav site but there is still tons of info there.

    here are other sites with links to original documents and such that are not codoh.com, are these sites spam to?

    https://holocaustdeprogrammingcourse.com

    http://www.rense.com/general69/factua.htm

    http://www.whatreallyhappened.info/decrypts/deaths_at_auschwitz_1942_v3.pdf

    http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=85432

    https://wearswar.wordpress.com/2017/10/31/repeated-claims-of-6-million-jews-dying-decades-before-hitler-vs-ignored-soviet-death-camp-tolls/

    please reconsider your urge to censor everyone that is not you, only loosers and people that fear truth censors other humans. (just see what the UK is doing to dissenting voices)

    the only person that fear the truth is the lier.
    , @Beefcake the Mighty
    Why do you care? It’s not your site and as far as I know you’re not being forced to post here.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. @Wally
    Andrew Mathis posted this absurdiity:
    http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2016/02/keine-liquidierung-eine-neubeurteilung.html

    Now see the truth in a take down of Mathis who also posts as Thames Darwin.
    Himmler's note infers Hitler knew of liquidation ? NOT
    https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2143

    and yet another demolition:
    Has anybody been able to kind of convince you to believe official holo. narrative / Andrew Mathis, "Holo. Controversies"
    https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=11770&p=88197


    See the 'Holocaust Controversies" mangled here. It's not even close.

    The “Extermination Camps” of “Aktion Reinhardt”
    An Analysis and Refutation of Factitious “Evidence,” Deceptions and Flawed Argumentation of the “Holocaust Controversies” Bloggers
    By Jürgen Graf , Carlo Mattogno , Thomas Kues
    https://codoh.com/library/document/3052/?lang=en
     

    www.codoh.com

    You posted a link to a thread begun a decade before I published my essay and that engages none of the primary sources I cite in my essay. That you think this is some kind of refutation is actually sort of hilarious. Thanks for sharing it.

    Since I didn’t make any specific arguments in the second link you offer, I can’t say that I can see how I’ve been “demolished” in that one either. Seriously, you’re slipping. Too much to drink this morning?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    Excuses, excuses. LOL
    You said what you said.

    More in Andrew Mathis's own words:

    CODOH routs Industry spokesman Andrew Mathis:
    https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=4451&p=72138&hilit=mathis+thames+mulegino#p72138
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. Rurik says:
    @Andrew E. Mathis
    I have a long history with David Irving, including having met him personally in New York in 2003 (where he autographed my copy of Denying the Holocaust, by Deborah Lipstadt), and e-mail correspondences in the 1990s and 2000s, which were as rancorous as you might imagine.

    I think the comment to which you're responding, Mr. Unz, is a wholly accurate one. I also think your use of sneer quotes in describing Holocaust denial -- which Irving no longer engages in but certainly did at the same he very stupidly sued Deborah Lipstadt -- is troubling, and I'd welcome the opportunity to educate you on this point, should you be interested. I assisted in a tiny way in the Lipstadt case, assisting one of the expert witnesses with his research. I can demonstrate that Irving knew that the case he was presenting in court consisted of some fairly big lies. I can also demonstrate that Irving is, at the very least, a full-blown anti-Semite, although I suspect you know that.

    That said, Irving certainly made significant contributions to our understanding of WWII history, even in the volume you publish today. These contributions are not without their own problems, though: I wrote a rebuttal to one of the points made in his introduction, which can be read here:

    http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2016/02/keine-liquidierung-eine-neubeurteilung.html

    What I hope to demonstrate in this essay is that, on the point discussed, Irving seized on an extremely unlikely meaning for the source that he located instead of exhaustively surveying the available evidence and finding the more likely explanation.

    I welcome any comments.

    What’s so amusing is that some readers on this website apparently still believe that the MSM is always 100% correct and unbiased about absolutely everything…

    I was going to reply to Mr. Unz that I doubt very much that the people attracted to his site are thus duped. But more likely, they’re simply knowingly parroting the lies that are shilled by the MSM, for ideological reasons.

    sneer quotes in describing Holocaust denial —

    I was raised to believe in the holy lampshades, and the holy soap

    I only learned later of the holy geysers of blood and tossing babies out of the back of lories onto bonfires, etc..

    that these things, including the numbers of millions killed at Auschwitz – all turned out to be devil’s lies, has had an impact on my gullibility vis-a-vis the rest of the narrative.

    If they lied about Germans making soap out of Jewish fat, then what else have they lied about, eh?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis
    I'd be very shocked if you could identify a single historical event about which exaggerations, false memories, and lies didn't form part of the record. It's the nature of eyewitness testimony in particular. It hardly leads logically to the conclusion that everything that's been said about the historical event is a lie. There's a middle ground between all truth and all lies, is there not?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Rurik

    As a result, Britain became, in effect, a US vassal, a status much to be preferred, so most Britons would surely have agreed, than that of a colony of either Hitler’s Reich...
     
    don't you mean ZUS vassal?

    since we all know the ZUS doesn't fart unless it gets permission from Israel

    and as to how well England is fairing as a sycophantic vassal of Zion..

    one must wonder, were Germany victorious, would England's school girls today be little more than sexual amusements for the dregs of Pakistan?

    I'm guessing not.

    don’t you mean ZUS vassal?

    and as to how well England is fairing as a sycophantic vassal of Zion..

    I was stating what I believe to have been a fact relating to opinion in Britain several generations ago. Your obsession with Jewish political influence is irrelevant to my point.

    Apparently, had you been in a position to decide, you would have had Britain throw in her lot with Hitler or Stalin, rather than Roosevelt. OK. But who cares?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    Apparently, had you been in a position to decide, you would have had Britain throw in her lot with Hitler or Stalin, rather than Roosevelt.
     
    Britain did throw in its lot with Stalin, in case you didn't know.

    And had she stayed neutral, then England today wouldn't be a stinking shithole of political correctness, moral and spiritual rot, and ethnic suicide.

    OK. But who cares?
     
    likely the millions of Brits who watched with distain as the royal wedding was turned into a 'diversity' farce, and the one man willing to talk about the death of England is summarily imprisoned for his temerity.

    I know where you stand. I'm not writing for you.

    I'm writing to point out that England's "victory" over Germany, has resulted in humiliations far, far worse than sharing the global limelight with an ascendant Germany.

    when guys like this are raping your 12 and 13 year old school girls and daughters wholesale

    http://www.blazingcatfur.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/clip_image0015.jpg

    http://www.frontpagemag.com/sites/default/files/uploads/2014/09/da.gif

    and if you complain, it's you that they'll put into prison, then at least when Germany lost the war, was when their women and girls were raped wholesale by sub-human orcs

    it looks like "winning" the war hasn't been all that beneficial

    when it means your country will be ruled by pedophiles and Zionists

    and there will be zero future for ethnic Brits - in England
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. Malla says:
    @Andrew E. Mathis

    Why would a seemingly Christian, Capitalist, free democratic United States of America support the Communist Soviet Union via the land lease program?
     
    That's "lend lease." And the U.S. would support the USSR against Germany because Germany was already at war with our chief ally, the U.K.

    Well how is that even possible, it happened for sure, no doubts about that. But how is that even possible. Why would the USA support a communist nation which supported communist revolution around the war and was a major threat to the established American way of life?
     
    It was an uneasy alliance at best and shattered when the war was over.

    Why did Jacob Schiff, a rich capitalist Wall Street banker finance Lenin and the Bolshevik Communist takeover of Russia?
     
    He didn't. He supported the February revolution in Russia -- as did most of the world -- but he withdrew support when the Bolsheviks seized power. The part primarily responsible for Lenin taking over in Russia is the German Kaiser, who sent Lenin back to Russia in April 1917 to overthrow the Provisional Government and end the war.

    Why and how did David Rockefeller get special landing rights in Soviet Moscow? He visited the Soviet Union more times than all American Presidents combined. Why was he not arrested by Soviet Authorities on arrival in Moscow, tried for being an exploiter of the proletariat (because in his case, he really is one) and punished?
     
    No idea on this one.

    How is it that once, Henry Kissinger represented both the United States as well as the Soviet Union?

     

    I don't think he did. Do you have a source on this?

    And the U.S. would support the USSR against Germany because Germany was already at war with our chief ally, the U.K

    In a logical world, under no condition would a capitalist free country like the USA support a huge Communist country which wanted to spread communism throughout the world and was a direct threat to the American way of life. A very poor excuse and very suspicious behaviour on the part of the USA.

    It was an uneasy alliance at best and shattered when the war was over.

    Did not seem like an uneasy alliance.

    He didn’t. He supported the February revolution in Russia — as did most of the world — but he withdrew support when the Bolsheviks seized power. The part primarily responsible for Lenin taking over in Russia is the German Kaiser, who sent Lenin back to Russia in April 1917 to overthrow the Provisional Government and end the war.

    He supported both the Mensheviks as well as the Bolsheviks

    https://jamesperloff.com/tag/russian-revolution/

    Jacob Schiff and Federal Reserve founder Paul Warburg ran Kuhn, Loeb & Co. – the Rothschilds’ New York banking satellite. Schiff supplied $20 million in gold to Trotsky, who sailed from New York with 275 other terrorists on a passport obtained through pressure the bankers put on the Wilson administration.

    Also more here
    The Rothschilds, through Milner, planned the Russian Revolution, and along with Schiff (who gave $20 million), Sir George Buchanan, the Warburgs, the Rockefellers, the partners of J.P. Morgan (who gave at least $1 million), Olaf Aschberg (of the Nye Bank of Stockholm, Sweden), the Rhine Westphalian Syndicate, a financier named Jovotovsky (whose daughter later married Leon Trotsky), William Boyce Thompson (a director of Chase National Bank who contributed $1 million), and Albert H. Wiggin (President of Chase National Bank), helped finance it.

    As far as the Kaiser, you are right, he did play a role in sending Lenin to Russia. That was because the commies promised to stop Russian participation in WW2. With this, the Germans could move a large number of men and material to the Western front against the British and French.

    More from Perloff’s website
    “It is a myth that Kerensky and the Bolsheviks were adversaries. Kerensky received $1 million from Jacob Schiff. During summer 1917, when it was revealed the Bolsheviks were on Germany’s payroll – treason during wartime – Kerensky protected them. When the Bolsheviks moved to seize power that autumn, he declined the option of requesting troops to preserve the government. Lenin and Trotsky gave Kerensky money and safe passage out. He died wealthy in 1970 in New York, where the Russian Orthodox Church refused him burial services.

    • Postwar Britain sent the Bolsheviks rifles and ammunition for 250,000 men. With this and other Western assistance, the Reds crushed the White opposition. Loans and technology from Western capitalists poured in for decades, as documented in such books as Antony Sutton’s Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution and Joseph Finder’s Red Carpet.

    As far as that Kissinger thing, I will get back on that one later.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis
    Why not provide some sources from actual historians who have studied actual primary sources? You're posting bullshit conspiracy theories. I'm not interested.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. CanSpeccy says: • Website

    [Hitler] had no ambitions against Britain or her Empire at all, and all the captured records solidly bear this out. He had certainly built the wrong air force and the wrong navy for a sustained campaign against the British Isles

    Obviously Hitler did not want a repeat of the two-front war that resulted in Germany’s defeat in 1918. But had Germany defeated Russia, then she would have dominated Europe from the Urals to the Pyrenees. Whether formally or otherwise, with violence or otherwise, Britain would then have been totally subordinated to Germany’s vastly increased power.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    Hitler did not want any war:
    A J P Taylor, 'The Origins of the Second World War', 1961, 1967, Londen
    Patrick J. Buchanan, ‘Churchill, Hitler and “The unnecessary war”, How Britain lost its empire and the west lost the world’, New York, 2008
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. @Rurik

    What’s so amusing is that some readers on this website apparently still believe that the MSM is always 100% correct and unbiased about absolutely everything…
     
    I was going to reply to Mr. Unz that I doubt very much that the people attracted to his site are thus duped. But more likely, they're simply knowingly parroting the lies that are shilled by the MSM, for ideological reasons.

    sneer quotes in describing Holocaust denial —
     
    I was raised to believe in the holy lampshades, and the holy soap

    I only learned later of the holy geysers of blood and tossing babies out of the back of lories onto bonfires, etc..

    that these things, including the numbers of millions killed at Auschwitz - all turned out to be devil's lies, has had an impact on my gullibility vis-a-vis the rest of the narrative.

    If they lied about Germans making soap out of Jewish fat, then what else have they lied about, eh?

    I’d be very shocked if you could identify a single historical event about which exaggerations, false memories, and lies didn’t form part of the record. It’s the nature of eyewitness testimony in particular. It hardly leads logically to the conclusion that everything that’s been said about the historical event is a lie. There’s a middle ground between all truth and all lies, is there not?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    We are all waiting for Andrew Mathis to post the names, their exact words, and the claimed dates, of his favorite three "holocaust survivors".

    Get to work Andrew Mathis.

    www.codoh.com
    , @Beefcake the Mighty
    Except you’re on record here affirming belief in a 5.7M number, so clearly you’re not open to any notion of exaggeration with this topic.
    , @Maple Curtain

    There’s a middle ground between all truth and all lies, is there not?
     
    You mean, we should split the difference between truth and Jew lies and settle at 3 million?

    Ya, that should do it.

    You're losing the debate to truth, goy-hater.

    Ten more years should finish off the Holy Hoax Industry.
    , @MrB
    Eyewitness statements are indeed always part of the record of events, but that doesn't automatically make them correct. As for all eyewitnesses to the holocaust being deliberately liars that's not how it was. Rumours spread and frightened people connected dots that weren't actually there. Some heard there were gas chambers and that all those chosen would be killed instantly after arrival at Auschwitz etc.

    Additionally we heard many times that a large number from any jewish family arrived at Auschwitz only to never see them again. The claim thereafter has always been these people were gassed. The truth of that scenario is simple; people were separated by age and gender and then had their hair shaved and changed into a uniform. Thus they would not be recognisable in any event. Indeed testimony of exactly that has been seen many times. Also many inmates were sent elsewhere in the large (40sq km) camp for work, for that's what Auschwitz was, a work camp.

    No surprise that many never saw their relatives again.

    Take a modern view on this process. 911 we were told on the day and for some time after had up to 20,000+++ people in the towers and that could been the death toll. Happily it turned out to be less than 3000. Are there still people claiming 20,000+++ dead? No because people knew the truth.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. Wally says:
    @Andrew E. Mathis
    You posted a link to a thread begun a decade before I published my essay and that engages none of the primary sources I cite in my essay. That you think this is some kind of refutation is actually sort of hilarious. Thanks for sharing it.

    Since I didn't make any specific arguments in the second link you offer, I can't say that I can see how I've been "demolished" in that one either. Seriously, you're slipping. Too much to drink this morning?

    Excuses, excuses. LOL
    You said what you said.

    More in Andrew Mathis’s own words:

    CODOH routs Industry spokesman Andrew Mathis:

    https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=4451&p=72138&hilit=mathis+thames+mulegino#p72138

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis
    You literally are making no sense. You need to put down the crack pipe.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. Wally says:
    @Andrew E. Mathis
    How much longer will Wally be allowed to spam this site with such wild abandon?

    My my, Mathis has his panties in a twist.

    IOW, Mathis cannot refute what I post, has embarrassed himself, and now whines like a stuck Zionist pig.
    Leave it to Andrew Mathis to call for suppression of free speech about his laughably impossible “holocau$t”. Only liars demand censorship.

    recommended:
    Some Technical and Chemical Considerations
    about the ‘Gas Chambers’ of Auschwitz and Birkenau’

    by master chemist Germar Rudolf

    http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/dth/fndgcger.html

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis
    Ron Unz isn't the government, bonehead. Neither can I. As such, neither of us can "censor" you.

    Get a grip.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. @Malla
    More important questions would be

    Why would a seemingly Christian, Capitalist, free democratic United States of America support the Communist Soviet Union via the land lease program?
    Well how is that even possible, it happened for sure, no doubts about that. But how is that even possible. Why would the USA support a communist nation which supported communist revolution around the war and was a major threat to the established American way of life?

    Why did Jacob Schiff, a rich capitalist Wall Street banker finance Lenin and the Bolshevik Communist takeover of Russia?

    Why and how did David Rockefeller get special landing rights in Soviet Moscow? He visited the Soviet Union more times than all American Presidents combined. Why was he not arrested by Soviet Authorities on arrival in Moscow, tried for being an exploiter of the proletariat (because in his case, he really is one) and punished?

    How is it that once, Henry Kissinger represented both the United States as well as the Soviet Union?

    Malla, the Soviet Union did not benefit from the Lend Lease program, it was a specialized program to facilitate transfers of US Navy warships to the United Kingdom while the United States was still neutral before December 7, 1941. I suspect you are trying to promote the goofy myth that the United States gifted the Soviet Union with billions of dollars in war materiel during WWII. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Soviet Union was required to pay for every M4 tank, P39 Airacobra, and can of pork stew, up front, not on credit, and not in Rubles, in gold bullion.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Malla

    the Soviet Union did not benefit from the Lend Lease program
     
    You must be kidding me. Land Lease played a big part in the survival of the Soviet Union during WW2.

    According to the Russian historian Boris Vadimovich Sokolov, Lend-Lease had a crucial role in winning the war:
    "On the whole the following conclusion can be drawn: that without these Western shipments under Lend-Lease the Soviet Union not only would not have been able to win the Great Patriotic War, it would not have been able even to oppose the German invaders, since it could not itself produce sufficient quantities of arms and military equipment or adequate supplies of fuel and ammunition. The Soviet authorities were well aware of this dependency on Lend-Lease. Thus, Stalin told Harry Hopkins [FDR's emissary to Moscow in July 1941] that the U.S.S.R. could not match Germany's might as an occupier of Europe and its resources."

    Nikita Khrushchev, having served as a military commissar and intermediary between Stalin and his generals during the war, addressed directly the significance of Lend-lease aid in his memoirs:
    "I would like to express my candid opinion about Stalin's views on whether the Red Army and the Soviet Union could have coped with Nazi Germany and survived the war without aid from the United States and Britain. First, I would like to tell about some remarks Stalin made and repeated several times when we were "discussing freely" among ourselves. He stated bluntly that if the United States had not helped us, we would not have won the war. If we had had to fight Nazi Germany one on one, we could not have stood up against Germany's pressure, and we would have lost the war. No one ever discussed this subject officially, and I don't think Stalin left any written evidence of his opinion, but I will state here that several times in conversations with me he noted that these were the actual circumstances. He never made a special point of holding a conversation on the subject, but when we were engaged in some kind of relaxed conversation, going over international questions of the past and present, and when we would return to the subject of the path we had traveled during the war, that is what he said. When I listened to his remarks, I was fully in agreement with him, and today I am even more so"

    Major George Racey Jordan was an actual Land Lease officer in Alaska. Check out his book
    From Major Jordan's Dairies about the enormous amount of help given by the USA to the Soviet Union.
    http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/wars/jordan/01.html

    But a Christian Capitalist Freedom loving democracy like the USA helping a communist country or making an alliance with any Communist country just makes no sense. How is this possible? How? Not only the USA but even Great Britain while the Soviet Union was actively trying to dismantle the British Empire. Yet Britain and Canada helped the Soviet Union. How is this even possible? Is this reality or lala land? How can people be so dumb to accept something like this?
    In a normal world, it would have been in the interest of the United States as well as Britain to see the complete of communism as well as the Soviet Union, now would that be a positive or a negative thing for the world is a different question all together, but that is how it would have been.
    , @jilles dykstra
    Completely new for me.
    LendLease made it possible for FDR to supply any country with whatever he liked for 'free'.
    However, strings were attached, GB had to promise to remove trade barriers around the empire.
    R.F. Harrod, ‘THE PROF, A personal memoir of Lord Cherwell’, London, 1959
    Stalin paid with Russian blood.
    , @Anon
    Correct that lend lease was before the US was a combatant and it was a transfer of ships and other material to Britain, not Russia.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. fnn says:
    @utu
    David Irving did not have to sue Deborah Lipstadt. Why did he think he could win? Why did he let his career to be ruined, his archives to be lost? The answer is vanity and hubris that lead to his poor judgment and possibly somebody whispered to his ear.

    Now about Hitler. Did he have to attack Poland? Was it really the best idea that he could have come up with in 1939? Who whispered to Hitler's ear to be so reckless and eventually suicidal?

    The German-Polish dispute over Danzig, the Corridor and the mistreatment of ethnic Germans in Poland was a pretty lame excuse for FDR and Churchill to pursue a conflict that would take upwards of 60 million lives. A largely forgotten fact is that there were 70,000 ethnic German refugees from Poland in camps in Danzig and Germany at the time the war started. Based on the historical record, there’s enough material there for England, US and Israel to start at least a dozen wars.

    FDR constantly seems like someone trying to remove the barriers to war:

    http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/p/timeline-to-war-begini.html

    31 August Roosevelt, who has known of the secret protocol between the Soviets and Germans (with the agreement that East Poland will be lost), on this day wraps himself in silence. (1:623)
    xix. US Ambassador in Paris, Bullitt, assures his Polish colleague, Count Łukasiewicz, that there is a secret protocol, but it only involves the three Baltic States – not Poland.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    FDR constantly seems like someone trying to remove the barriers to war.
     
    Is that hard to understand?

    If Germany and Russia could be induced to fight one another to the point of exhaustion, then the US would dominate the world.

    The tricky part was to ensure that neither Germany nor the Soviets won an outright victory. Hence the US intervention in Europe, which first aided the Soviets resist the German onslaught, and then, when Germany buckled, put a halt to the Soviet Westward tide.
    , @utu
    Why Hitler started war that destroyed Germany? It is not about Churchill an Roosevelt? They were a part of reality that apparently Hitler was not able to read.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. Tyrion 2 says:
    @Anon
    David Irving is a sad case.

    He started out as a serious historian but ruined his reputation with needless provocations and mindless apologies for Hitler, blaming everything on his henchmen. At some point, he began to willfully court controversy just to trigger people. And willfully appeal to neo-Nazi nutjobs.

    A huge waste of real talent.

    The late great John Keegan clearly noticed this in the quote provided. He must have been quite disappointed by Irving’s pointless attention seeking.

    “Two books in English stand out from the vast literature of the Second World War. Chester Wilmot’s The Struggle for Europe, published in 1952, and David Irving’s Hitler’s War,which appeared three years ago…They do so because, from exactly opposing angles of vision, each tackles the strategy of the whole war and makes impressive if doctrinaire sense of it…The second book has not yet worked its way into our general understanding of the conflict, though it undoubtedly will do so when controversy over its sensationalist elements is exhausted.”—Sir John Keegan, Defence Editor of The Daily Telegraph in The Times Literary Supplement.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. David Irving is suggesting essentially that it was bureaucracy itself that was responsible for the holocaust. I find this easily believable. The main purpose of bureaucracy is to protect everyone in it from any accountability or even the feeling of accountability. And we all know that Germans make consummate bureaucrats. I believe this is the source for the expression of “the banality of evil”. In other words, bureaucracy really is evil, as anyone who has ever tried to do anything “outside the system” knows full-well.

    The Spielberg film “Schindler’s List” did a good job of depicting some of the bureaucracy carrying out the Holocaust when it showed the SS bureaucrats setting up their tables, chairs, papers and stamps to “process” the Jews before they were loading onto the trains to be transported to the camps. Everything was done in a neat, orderly manner with all of the paperwork in proper notation and place. It was this scene, more than any other, that made the most impression on me from this film.

    A lot of what Irving’s book said about Hitler’s attitude towards the British Empire and the eastward Teutonic push is written in great detail by Hitler himself in his second book. Hitler’s second book is readily available on Amazon.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ivan K.

    David Irving is suggesting essentially that it was bureaucracy itself that was responsible for the holocaust.
     
    From following what hehas said on several occassions through the years, while even disregarding the above text, I'd say that's a pretty accurate one-word summary.

    written in great detail by Hitler himself in his second book. Hitler’s second book is readily available on Amazon.
     
    I'm not aware that Hitler wrote such a book. Hitler's Table Talk is a collection of transcriptions of his talks during dinner c. 1940-1944, published after WW2. In recent years, their veracity has become more doubtful, unfortunately (https://media.8ch.net/pdfs/src/1429265963793.pdf). That just gives more force to David Irving's point from this Introduction: Hitler's inner life remains a big historical enigma.

    ...

    I came here to express satisfaction with the promotion of David Irving on unz.com. To my surprise, I was faced with a long series of uninformed, naysaying comments.
    Excluding your comment, of course.
    , @Ivan K.
    Terrific. Thanks to your comment, I'm leafing through "Hitler's Second Book" already.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. VICB3 says:

    Trying to find an affordable hard or paper bound copy of the book in English is pretty much a waste of time. (Go ahead, see for yourself.) Rendering it unavailable to the reader, whatever powers that be that feel threatened by its contrary narrative inadvertently attest to the veracity of the the books contents. The truth needs no defense, and censorship always fails in the end, though usually long after those who seek to avoid blame or embarrassment (or seek greater profit) have passed on.

    Fortunately there’s the internet, and the reality that once it’s out there in cyberspace, then it’s out there forever. For those who might wish to read the book and judge for themselves vs being told what to think by the gatekeepers of the approved (and one-dimensional overall) fairytale, a PDF can be found here:

    ia800603.us.archive org/20/items/HitlersWarTheWarPath/HitlersWarTheWarPath-Irving.pdf

    Other formats of the book here:

    archive org/details/HitlersWarTheWarPath

    Please note that inasmuch some comments that include links are frequently flagged as Spam,
    the “dot” in the “dot org” parts of the URLs have been left out. One need only add the https:// and dot then copy and past to your browser to download.

    Not as good as having a hardbound copy to put on the shelf, but certainly better than nothing.

    Hope this helps!

    Just a thought.

    VicB3

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ron Unz

    Trying to find an affordable hard or paper bound copy of the book in English is pretty much a waste of time. (Go ahead, see for yourself.) ...Fortunately there’s the internet, and the reality that once it’s out there in cyberspace, then it’s out there forever. For those who might wish to read the book and judge for themselves vs being told what to think by the gatekeepers of the approved (and one-dimensional overall) fairytale, a PDF can be found
     
    Actually, I think the HTML version now provided on this website is much superior for reading purposes than a PDF, which also being fully searchable:

    http://www.unz.com/book/david_irving__hitlers-war/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. anon111 says:
    @mark green
    It's hard not to be impressed with the tenacious, rigorous and unbridaled scholarship of David Irving. I saw Irving give a speech once in Wash. DC along with the brilliant (and marginalized) Joseph Sobran. Later, I caught Irving in Orange County at Mark Weber's Institute of Historical Review. Agree with him or not, Irving has done his homework.

    My first introduction to Irving's 'unacceptable' scholarship however came in San Francisco back in the early 80's. David Irving was slated to give a lecture at Berkeley one night but just as his presentation began, he was set upon by a hateful group of 'Leftists' calling themselves the Spartacus League.

    For the sin of 'humanizing' Adolf Hitler, this un-merry band of crypto-Israelis physically attacked David Irving in the auditorium at Berkeley and successfully shut down his speech before it commenced. Free speech denied. Zionist victory!

    Censorship is a key objective of 'anti-fascist' activists here in the Land of the Free. Thou shalt not speak. Ironically, these pseudo-intellectual thugs typically identify themselves with 'openness', 'liberalism' and 'inclusiveness'. Their delusions would be funny if they weren't so grotesque.

    Naturally, the local press applauded these commie tactics since Irving was a notorious 'anti-Semite' and therefore unworthy of Constitutional protections. Case closed.

    This disturbing incident was a revealing introduction to (((Berkeley))) politics and the totalitarian tendencies of the pc journalists and intellectuals who reside there. The irony is hard to miss.

    Incredibly, Irving--who does indeed qualify as a first rate scholar--has been hounded and persecuted by Leftists and crypto-Zionists for decades. Like Joe Sobran, Irving's career has been sabotaged because he's determined to report facts and dispense the truth as he's found it and sees it.

    But that's not acceptable.

    David Irving has therefore been targeted for destruction.

    Irving's and Sobran's tortured experiences are a reminder to us all.

    Beware: if you fail to proclaim the 'fact' that Adolf Hitler as the most bad-evil-sadistic-psychopathic anti-Semite on earth (and maybe even the entire universe) they will ruin you.

    Thank you, David Irving.

    My first introduction to Irving’s ‘unacceptable’ scholarship however came in San Francisco back in the early 80′s. David Irving was slated to give a lecture at Berkeley one night but just as his presentation began, he was set upon by a hateful group of ‘Leftists’ calling themselves the Spartacus League.

    For the sin of ‘humanizing’ Adolf Hitler, this un-merry band of crypto-Israelis physically attacked David Irving in the auditorium at Berkeley and successfully shut down his speech before it commenced. Free speech denied. Zionist victory!

    i listened to audio of an Irving youtube file and in it he describes one of his fans? attempting to infiltrate an “antifa” group in California about 10 years ago. What i found interesting is the focus of the leader of this group on “protecting European jewry” as though the wealthiest, most privileged group on the planet needs his help. Its not really about being “Anti-fascist” its just an arm of jewish power and violence that useful idiots can join.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. anon111 says:
    @Anon
    Placing Stalin along Hitler at the top of the unz website frontpage looks like a symbol of editorial policy. Is it revisionism? Revisionist narrative, Brzezinski-style is as follows: there is a concept of 'totalitarian state', and since both Hitler and Stalin are heads of the states, so they are both the bad guys. Since we have bad guys, they are guilty, and we always find the bad things they did, and even more - we (The Enlightened English-Speakers of the 'Free World') would blame then for every bad thing whoever did, including ourselves. WW2 is indeed a bad thing. Some of us will blame Stalin for inciting the war or doing the war in a wrong way. Some of us will blame Hitler for everything else during the war. And the following questions will never again be asked:

    1) What powers helped Hitler to gain power and raise a war machine against USSR?
    2) Why no sanctions or other economic measures were imposed by the West to stop 3rd reich?
    3) Why military resistance in the Western Front was so weak? Was it a match fixing?
    4) How Munich accord, Strange war, and Hess flight to England became possible?
    5) What parts of German and Europeam MIC during WW2 had US or British stakeholders?

    Since we have bad guys, they are guilty, and we always find the bad things they did, and even more – we (The Enlightened English-Speakers of the ‘Free World’) would blame then for every bad thing whoever did, including ourselves.

    English-speakers get blamed for everything already

    and stop trying to lump yourself in with me with all the “some of us” “some of us” “some of us”

    speak for yourself

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @fnn
    The German-Polish dispute over Danzig, the Corridor and the mistreatment of ethnic Germans in Poland was a pretty lame excuse for FDR and Churchill to pursue a conflict that would take upwards of 60 million lives. A largely forgotten fact is that there were 70,000 ethnic German refugees from Poland in camps in Danzig and Germany at the time the war started. Based on the historical record, there's enough material there for England, US and Israel to start at least a dozen wars.


    FDR constantly seems like someone trying to remove the barriers to war:
    http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/p/timeline-to-war-begini.html

    31 August Roosevelt, who has known of the secret protocol between the Soviets and Germans (with the agreement that East Poland will be lost), on this day wraps himself in silence. (1:623)
    xix. US Ambassador in Paris, Bullitt, assures his Polish colleague, Count Łukasiewicz, that there is a secret protocol, but it only involves the three Baltic States – not Poland.
     

    FDR constantly seems like someone trying to remove the barriers to war.

    Is that hard to understand?

    If Germany and Russia could be induced to fight one another to the point of exhaustion, then the US would dominate the world.

    The tricky part was to ensure that neither Germany nor the Soviets won an outright victory. Hence the US intervention in Europe, which first aided the Soviets resist the German onslaught, and then, when Germany buckled, put a halt to the Soviet Westward tide.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Malla
    My take is a bit different. It seems that during WW2, the USA just got rid off some of the best, most powerful opponents of Communism (National Socialist Third Reich Germany, Imperial Japan, Fascist Italy, Romania etc...) and soon communism spread to half of Eurasia. And Cultural Marxism soon spread into the western nations themselves.
    At the same time Israel was actually created and the League of Nations was replaced by the United Nations.
    So the three smelly sewers of Zionism, Communism and Globalism keep flowing and the current strengthens after each World War.

    WW1
    Zionism: Balfour Declaration
    Communism: Bolshevik Revolution
    Globalism: League of Nations
    Ottoman Empire, Hapsburg Austro Hungarian Empire, Tsarist Russia etc... destroyed

    WW2
    Zionism: Creation of Israel
    Communism: Communism spreads to half of Eurasia
    Globalism: United Nations
    Japanese Empire, Italian Empire, Third Reich destroyed.
    British Empire, French Empire, Dutch Empire, Portuguese Empire etc... eventually destroyed.

    WW3/WW4
    Zionism: Greater Israel, superpower of the World. Arab nations utterly destroyed.
    Communism: Global Corporate Communism under One World Govt.
    Globalism: One World Government with Jerusalem as capital, One World Army, One World currency ruled by a banker rabbi cabal.
    USA, European nations including Russia, Japan, China etc... destroyed as powers.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. Rurik says:
    @CanSpeccy

    don’t you mean ZUS vassal?
     

    and as to how well England is fairing as a sycophantic vassal of Zion..
     
    I was stating what I believe to have been a fact relating to opinion in Britain several generations ago. Your obsession with Jewish political influence is irrelevant to my point.

    Apparently, had you been in a position to decide, you would have had Britain throw in her lot with Hitler or Stalin, rather than Roosevelt. OK. But who cares?

    Apparently, had you been in a position to decide, you would have had Britain throw in her lot with Hitler or Stalin, rather than Roosevelt.

    Britain did throw in its lot with Stalin, in case you didn’t know.

    And had she stayed neutral, then England today wouldn’t be a stinking shithole of political correctness, moral and spiritual rot, and ethnic suicide.

    OK. But who cares?

    likely the millions of Brits who watched with distain as the royal wedding was turned into a ‘diversity’ farce, and the one man willing to talk about the death of England is summarily imprisoned for his temerity.

    I know where you stand. I’m not writing for you.

    I’m writing to point out that England’s “victory” over Germany, has resulted in humiliations far, far worse than sharing the global limelight with an ascendant Germany.

    when guys like this are raping your 12 and 13 year old school girls and daughters wholesale

    and if you complain, it’s you that they’ll put into prison, then at least when Germany lost the war, was when their women and girls were raped wholesale by sub-human orcs

    it looks like “winning” the war hasn’t been all that beneficial

    when it means your country will be ruled by pedophiles and Zionists

    and there will be zero future for ethnic Brits – in England

    Read More
    • Replies: @Malla
    Britain's declaration of war on Germany in WW2 should be studied as a case of civilisation-al and racial suicide.
    Third Reich Germany, unlike the Germany of the Kaiser, actually (initially) supported the British Empire as a bulwark against the communist menace. Indeed the Third Reich was more supportive of the British Empire than even the USA.
    The Soviet Union on the other hand was playing an active role in trying to destroy the British Empire from it's very start and was a threat to the British way of life.
    And yet Britain allied with the Soviet Union and provided them with arms and material to destroy the Third Reich. THIS MAKES NO SENSE WHAT SO EVER. Only a fool would believe this is normal and logical behaviour. Was Britain fighting for itself or for the interest of some other group?
    If Britain would have been neutral or if democratic Britain would have engineered a war where the Soviets and the National Socialists would destroy each other, it would have made sense. But what Britain did, makes no sense at all.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. @Wally
    Excuses, excuses. LOL
    You said what you said.

    More in Andrew Mathis's own words:

    CODOH routs Industry spokesman Andrew Mathis:
    https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=4451&p=72138&hilit=mathis+thames+mulegino#p72138

    You literally are making no sense. You need to put down the crack pipe.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    You're taking quite a beating here by numerous chaps. LOL
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. Ron Unz says:
    @VICB3
    Trying to find an affordable hard or paper bound copy of the book in English is pretty much a waste of time. (Go ahead, see for yourself.) Rendering it unavailable to the reader, whatever powers that be that feel threatened by its contrary narrative inadvertently attest to the veracity of the the books contents. The truth needs no defense, and censorship always fails in the end, though usually long after those who seek to avoid blame or embarrassment (or seek greater profit) have passed on.

    Fortunately there's the internet, and the reality that once it's out there in cyberspace, then it's out there forever. For those who might wish to read the book and judge for themselves vs being told what to think by the gatekeepers of the approved (and one-dimensional overall) fairytale, a PDF can be found here:

    ia800603.us.archive org/20/items/HitlersWarTheWarPath/HitlersWarTheWarPath-Irving.pdf

    Other formats of the book here:

    archive org/details/HitlersWarTheWarPath

    Please note that inasmuch some comments that include links are frequently flagged as Spam,
    the "dot" in the "dot org" parts of the URLs have been left out. One need only add the https:// and dot then copy and past to your browser to download.

    Not as good as having a hardbound copy to put on the shelf, but certainly better than nothing.

    Hope this helps!

    Just a thought.

    VicB3

    Trying to find an affordable hard or paper bound copy of the book in English is pretty much a waste of time. (Go ahead, see for yourself.) …Fortunately there’s the internet, and the reality that once it’s out there in cyberspace, then it’s out there forever. For those who might wish to read the book and judge for themselves vs being told what to think by the gatekeepers of the approved (and one-dimensional overall) fairytale, a PDF can be found

    Actually, I think the HTML version now provided on this website is much superior for reading purposes than a PDF, which also being fully searchable:

    http://www.unz.com/book/david_irving__hitlers-war/

    Read More
    • Replies: @VICB3
    You're right! Didn't even know that Unz had it. Didn't even think to look. Maybe it ought to be highlighted with a link in the header.

    Now, if only somebody were brave enough to print up the damned thing in hardbound and at an affordable price, say, oh, $35 (+ Free Shipping!!!)* with decent quality paper and glossy illustrations. Thought I'd found a source, but no deal.

    Suggestion: Maybe Unz ought to go into the "Forbidden Books" publishing business. This book and others by Irving. Or an English translation of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's Two Hundred Years Together. Or, well....

    Just a thought.

    VicB3

    *Amazon sure as hell isn't doing it. $524.99 for a hardcover. That's no typo. Yikes!
    , @Allan
    Thanks for the link. It led me to the following helpful URL. The page offers free downloads in PDF of the updated millenium edition, with illustrations.

    http://www.fpp.co.uk/books/Hitler/index.html
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. Z-man says:

    In my absence, internationally affiliated groups circulated letters to librarians, pleading for this book to be taken off their shelves. From time to time copies of these letters were shown to me. A journalist for Time magazine dining with me in New York in 1988 remarked, ‘Before coming over I read the clippings files on you. Until Hitler’s War you couldn’t put a foot wrong, you were the darling of the media; but after it…’

    Quite similar to Douglas Reed after he wrote the seminal ‘Controversy of Zion’.
    From Wiki: “Reed spent the duration of the Second World War in England; in 1948, he moved to Durban, South Africa. In 1951 his book Far and Wide he wrote: “During the Second World War I noticed that the figures of Jewish losses, in places where war made verification impossible, were being irresponsibly inflated, and said so in a book. The process continued until the war’s end when the figure of six millions was produced… No proof can be given”. Reed was subsequently virtually banned by establishment publishers and booksellers, and his previous titles were often removed from library shelves.[5]“

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  52. anon111 says:
    @Moi
    Being a vassal of the US is preferable because the US only wants full-spectrum domination of the world--its stated policy. Anything happening in any small corner of the world is America's business. I guess we can now celebrate world peace. LOL!

    Being a vassal of the US is preferable because the US only wants full-spectrum domination of the world–its stated policy. Anything happening in any small corner of the world is America’s business. I guess we can now celebrate world peace. LOL!

    i guess that’s why we need a $738 billion/year “defense” budget – so we can stick our nose in everyone else’s business

    a $25 billion one time expenditure on a wall though, will never happen because all this money is not about defense anyway

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. @Andrew E. Mathis
    How much longer will Wally be allowed to spam this site with such wild abandon?

    wtf is wrong with people like you?
    why do some people always want to silence and censor everyone that you dont agree with or everyone that beats you in a discussion?
    codoh.com is not spam,, not my fav site but there is still tons of info there.

    here are other sites with links to original documents and such that are not codoh.com, are these sites spam to?

    https://holocaustdeprogrammingcourse.com

    http://www.rense.com/general69/factua.htm

    http://www.whatreallyhappened.info/decrypts/deaths_at_auschwitz_1942_v3.pdf

    http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=85432

    https://wearswar.wordpress.com/2017/10/31/repeated-claims-of-6-million-jews-dying-decades-before-hitler-vs-ignored-soviet-death-camp-tolls/

    please reconsider your urge to censor everyone that is not you, only loosers and people that fear truth censors other humans. (just see what the UK is doing to dissenting voices)

    the only person that fear the truth is the lier.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis
    Wally is legally allowed to do what he likes. Ron Unz is also legally allowed to prevent people from spamming his site.

    And yes, the links from Wally are spam. He almost never posts new information.

    So maybe learn the meanings of terms before posting?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. Wally says:
    @Andrew E. Mathis
    I'd be very shocked if you could identify a single historical event about which exaggerations, false memories, and lies didn't form part of the record. It's the nature of eyewitness testimony in particular. It hardly leads logically to the conclusion that everything that's been said about the historical event is a lie. There's a middle ground between all truth and all lies, is there not?

    We are all waiting for Andrew Mathis to post the names, their exact words, and the claimed dates, of his favorite three “holocaust survivors”.

    Get to work Andrew Mathis.

    http://www.codoh.com

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis
    Sure, I'll get right on that, as soon as you, Jonnie Hargis, can provide me with the postwar locations of even 1% of the 1.5 million Jews sent to Belzec, Treblinka, and Sobibor.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. anon111 says:
    @Andrew E. Mathis
    I have a long history with David Irving, including having met him personally in New York in 2003 (where he autographed my copy of Denying the Holocaust, by Deborah Lipstadt), and e-mail correspondences in the 1990s and 2000s, which were as rancorous as you might imagine.

    I think the comment to which you're responding, Mr. Unz, is a wholly accurate one. I also think your use of sneer quotes in describing Holocaust denial -- which Irving no longer engages in but certainly did at the same he very stupidly sued Deborah Lipstadt -- is troubling, and I'd welcome the opportunity to educate you on this point, should you be interested. I assisted in a tiny way in the Lipstadt case, assisting one of the expert witnesses with his research. I can demonstrate that Irving knew that the case he was presenting in court consisted of some fairly big lies. I can also demonstrate that Irving is, at the very least, a full-blown anti-Semite, although I suspect you know that.

    That said, Irving certainly made significant contributions to our understanding of WWII history, even in the volume you publish today. These contributions are not without their own problems, though: I wrote a rebuttal to one of the points made in his introduction, which can be read here:

    http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2016/02/keine-liquidierung-eine-neubeurteilung.html

    What I hope to demonstrate in this essay is that, on the point discussed, Irving seized on an extremely unlikely meaning for the source that he located instead of exhaustively surveying the available evidence and finding the more likely explanation.

    I welcome any comments.

    I can also demonstrate that Irving is, at the very least, a full-blown anti-Semite

    OMG the greatest sin

    there are so many virulent anti-whites openly operating in the (((media))) today, do you have a special word for them?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis
    Since I don't believe they actually exist, then answer is "no."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. @Per/Norway
    wtf is wrong with people like you?
    why do some people always want to silence and censor everyone that you dont agree with or everyone that beats you in a discussion?
    codoh.com is not spam,, not my fav site but there is still tons of info there.

    here are other sites with links to original documents and such that are not codoh.com, are these sites spam to?

    https://holocaustdeprogrammingcourse.com

    http://www.rense.com/general69/factua.htm

    http://www.whatreallyhappened.info/decrypts/deaths_at_auschwitz_1942_v3.pdf

    http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=85432

    https://wearswar.wordpress.com/2017/10/31/repeated-claims-of-6-million-jews-dying-decades-before-hitler-vs-ignored-soviet-death-camp-tolls/

    please reconsider your urge to censor everyone that is not you, only loosers and people that fear truth censors other humans. (just see what the UK is doing to dissenting voices)

    the only person that fear the truth is the lier.

    Wally is legally allowed to do what he likes. Ron Unz is also legally allowed to prevent people from spamming his site.

    And yes, the links from Wally are spam. He almost never posts new information.

    So maybe learn the meanings of terms before posting?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    Leave it to debunked & discredited 'holocaust' True Believer and unhinged Zionist, Andrew Mathis, to call information which he cannot refute "spam". LOL

    My posts consists of a wide range of information which obliterate the truly absurd & impossible holocaust' fantasies. Anyone can select my name here and see that for themselves.

    Andrew Mathis is finding out that there are now many who have thrown off the yoke stupid Jew supremacist nonsense and he doesn't like it one bit. A Jew privilege thing.

    Too bad, free speech means free speech

    Challenging the ridiculously fake '6M Jews' is now mainstream:
    https://www.lewrockwell.com/2018/05/paul-craig-roberts/morality-truth-facts/
    get used to it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. Wally says:
    @mark green
    It's hard not to be impressed with the tenacious, rigorous and unbridaled scholarship of David Irving. I saw Irving give a speech once in Wash. DC along with the brilliant (and marginalized) Joseph Sobran. Later, I caught Irving in Orange County at Mark Weber's Institute of Historical Review. Agree with him or not, Irving has done his homework.

    My first introduction to Irving's 'unacceptable' scholarship however came in San Francisco back in the early 80's. David Irving was slated to give a lecture at Berkeley one night but just as his presentation began, he was set upon by a hateful group of 'Leftists' calling themselves the Spartacus League.

    For the sin of 'humanizing' Adolf Hitler, this un-merry band of crypto-Israelis physically attacked David Irving in the auditorium at Berkeley and successfully shut down his speech before it commenced. Free speech denied. Zionist victory!

    Censorship is a key objective of 'anti-fascist' activists here in the Land of the Free. Thou shalt not speak. Ironically, these pseudo-intellectual thugs typically identify themselves with 'openness', 'liberalism' and 'inclusiveness'. Their delusions would be funny if they weren't so grotesque.

    Naturally, the local press applauded these commie tactics since Irving was a notorious 'anti-Semite' and therefore unworthy of Constitutional protections. Case closed.

    This disturbing incident was a revealing introduction to (((Berkeley))) politics and the totalitarian tendencies of the pc journalists and intellectuals who reside there. The irony is hard to miss.

    Incredibly, Irving--who does indeed qualify as a first rate scholar--has been hounded and persecuted by Leftists and crypto-Zionists for decades. Like Joe Sobran, Irving's career has been sabotaged because he's determined to report facts and dispense the truth as he's found it and sees it.

    But that's not acceptable.

    David Irving has therefore been targeted for destruction.

    Irving's and Sobran's tortured experiences are a reminder to us all.

    Beware: if you fail to proclaim the 'fact' that Adolf Hitler as the most bad-evil-sadistic-psychopathic anti-Semite on earth (and maybe even the entire universe) they will ruin you.

    Thank you, David Irving.

    Good points, Mark.

    However Irving ‘went south’ after being imprisoned for Thought Crimes.
    He has since made preposterous claims about a “holocaust-lite” which are simply not sustainable when placed under rational scrutiny.
    His curious early release from jail gives the game away.
    http://www.codoh.com

    The David Irving Phenomenon: https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=8001
    and:
    Grubach’s Letters to David Irving on the Hoefle telegram https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=4563
    and:
    Irving’s ‘holocaust’ lite / but what ’2.4 million document’? http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=4548
    and:
    ‘Irving attempts ‘rehabilitation’ via the Hoefle Telegram’ http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=4558

    Read More
    • Agree: L.K
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. Wally says:
    @Andrew E. Mathis
    You literally are making no sense. You need to put down the crack pipe.

    You’re taking quite a beating here by numerous chaps. LOL

    Read More
    • Troll: Andrew E. Mathis
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. @anon111

    I can also demonstrate that Irving is, at the very least, a full-blown anti-Semite
     
    OMG the greatest sin

    there are so many virulent anti-whites openly operating in the (((media))) today, do you have a special word for them?

    Since I don’t believe they actually exist, then answer is “no.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon111

    Since I don’t believe they actually exist
     
    lol, i'm not surprised
    , @Stonehands
    You're not supposed to pound the troll button after you've lost the debate, moron!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. @Wally
    We are all waiting for Andrew Mathis to post the names, their exact words, and the claimed dates, of his favorite three "holocaust survivors".

    Get to work Andrew Mathis.

    www.codoh.com

    Sure, I’ll get right on that, as soon as you, Jonnie Hargis, can provide me with the postwar locations of even 1% of the 1.5 million Jews sent to Belzec, Treblinka, and Sobibor.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    Look at desperate little Andrew Mathis. He's afraid to give us information on a mere THREE so called "holocau$t survivors" of his choice.
    Obviously Mathis knows he will be blown out of the water if he responds.

    Then he tries the desperate & illogical 'Where did they go/' canard. Yet Jews & their "Holocaust Industry" say that ’6M Jews & 5M others’ went to huge mass graves, they claim to know the exact locations of these alleged enormous mass graves, yet they cannot show us the alleged massive human remains.
    recommended:
    See here, some links about Jews being moved around, & much more.:
    'J. Graf and the illogical canard: 'Where did Jews go then?' / & more'
    viewtopic.php?f=2&t=8272

    Postwar locations of Jews? Child's play:
    "That shitty little country" Israel, US, S. America, Australia, wherever Jews are.

    Unz readers, see more on Andrew Mathis here:
    https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=4451&p=72138&hilit=mathis+thames+mulegino#p72138
    recommended, NEW!
    'The Einsatzgruppen Trial' / from the journal, Inconvenient History.
    https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=11791

    Please do not refer to me by an incorrect name. I am not that guy, though you do have an obsession for saying people are who they are not. In some cases you have said that some people are many different people. LOL Everyone, the word is that perverted Andrew Mathis also has the Zionist fondness for stalking & threatening people.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. @Malla

    And the U.S. would support the USSR against Germany because Germany was already at war with our chief ally, the U.K
     
    In a logical world, under no condition would a capitalist free country like the USA support a huge Communist country which wanted to spread communism throughout the world and was a direct threat to the American way of life. A very poor excuse and very suspicious behaviour on the part of the USA.

    It was an uneasy alliance at best and shattered when the war was over.
     
    Did not seem like an uneasy alliance.

    He didn’t. He supported the February revolution in Russia — as did most of the world — but he withdrew support when the Bolsheviks seized power. The part primarily responsible for Lenin taking over in Russia is the German Kaiser, who sent Lenin back to Russia in April 1917 to overthrow the Provisional Government and end the war.
     
    He supported both the Mensheviks as well as the Bolsheviks
    https://jamesperloff.com/tag/russian-revolution/
    Jacob Schiff and Federal Reserve founder Paul Warburg ran Kuhn, Loeb & Co. – the Rothschilds’ New York banking satellite. Schiff supplied $20 million in gold to Trotsky, who sailed from New York with 275 other terrorists on a passport obtained through pressure the bankers put on the Wilson administration.

    Also more here
    The Rothschilds, through Milner, planned the Russian Revolution, and along with Schiff (who gave $20 million), Sir George Buchanan, the Warburgs, the Rockefellers, the partners of J.P. Morgan (who gave at least $1 million), Olaf Aschberg (of the Nye Bank of Stockholm, Sweden), the Rhine Westphalian Syndicate, a financier named Jovotovsky (whose daughter later married Leon Trotsky), William Boyce Thompson (a director of Chase National Bank who contributed $1 million), and Albert H. Wiggin (President of Chase National Bank), helped finance it.

    As far as the Kaiser, you are right, he did play a role in sending Lenin to Russia. That was because the commies promised to stop Russian participation in WW2. With this, the Germans could move a large number of men and material to the Western front against the British and French.

    More from Perloff's website
    "It is a myth that Kerensky and the Bolsheviks were adversaries. Kerensky received $1 million from Jacob Schiff. During summer 1917, when it was revealed the Bolsheviks were on Germany’s payroll – treason during wartime – Kerensky protected them. When the Bolsheviks moved to seize power that autumn, he declined the option of requesting troops to preserve the government. Lenin and Trotsky gave Kerensky money and safe passage out. He died wealthy in 1970 in New York, where the Russian Orthodox Church refused him burial services.

    • Postwar Britain sent the Bolsheviks rifles and ammunition for 250,000 men. With this and other Western assistance, the Reds crushed the White opposition. Loans and technology from Western capitalists poured in for decades, as documented in such books as Antony Sutton’s Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution and Joseph Finder’s Red Carpet."

    As far as that Kissinger thing, I will get back on that one later.

    Why not provide some sources from actual historians who have studied actual primary sources? You’re posting bullshit conspiracy theories. I’m not interested.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Malla
    Oh Please, your interest is none of my concern. You are free to ignore facts if they go against your official propaganda.
    Anyways I repeat, a free capitalist democratic country like the USA supporting a huge Communist country which wanted to spread communism throughout the world and was a direct threat to the American way of life goes against all logic and common sense and nor you or any official historian can explain this away. Capice.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. @Wally
    My my, Mathis has his panties in a twist.

    IOW, Mathis cannot refute what I post, has embarrassed himself, and now whines like a stuck Zionist pig.
    Leave it to Andrew Mathis to call for suppression of free speech about his laughably impossible "holocau$t". Only liars demand censorship.

    recommended:
    'Some Technical and Chemical Considerations
    about the 'Gas Chambers' of Auschwitz and Birkenau'

    by master chemist Germar Rudolf
    http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/dth/fndgcger.html

    Ron Unz isn’t the government, bonehead. Neither can I. As such, neither of us can “censor” you.

    Get a grip.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. @Andrew E. Mathis

    Why would a seemingly Christian, Capitalist, free democratic United States of America support the Communist Soviet Union via the land lease program?
     
    That's "lend lease." And the U.S. would support the USSR against Germany because Germany was already at war with our chief ally, the U.K.

    Well how is that even possible, it happened for sure, no doubts about that. But how is that even possible. Why would the USA support a communist nation which supported communist revolution around the war and was a major threat to the established American way of life?
     
    It was an uneasy alliance at best and shattered when the war was over.

    Why did Jacob Schiff, a rich capitalist Wall Street banker finance Lenin and the Bolshevik Communist takeover of Russia?
     
    He didn't. He supported the February revolution in Russia -- as did most of the world -- but he withdrew support when the Bolsheviks seized power. The part primarily responsible for Lenin taking over in Russia is the German Kaiser, who sent Lenin back to Russia in April 1917 to overthrow the Provisional Government and end the war.

    Why and how did David Rockefeller get special landing rights in Soviet Moscow? He visited the Soviet Union more times than all American Presidents combined. Why was he not arrested by Soviet Authorities on arrival in Moscow, tried for being an exploiter of the proletariat (because in his case, he really is one) and punished?
     
    No idea on this one.

    How is it that once, Henry Kissinger represented both the United States as well as the Soviet Union?

     

    I don't think he did. Do you have a source on this?

    “That’s “lend lease.””

    Uh-oh, here come the internet grammar Nazis.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. @Andrew E. Mathis
    How much longer will Wally be allowed to spam this site with such wild abandon?

    Why do you care? It’s not your site and as far as I know you’re not being forced to post here.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. @Andrew E. Mathis
    I'd be very shocked if you could identify a single historical event about which exaggerations, false memories, and lies didn't form part of the record. It's the nature of eyewitness testimony in particular. It hardly leads logically to the conclusion that everything that's been said about the historical event is a lie. There's a middle ground between all truth and all lies, is there not?

    Except you’re on record here affirming belief in a 5.7M number, so clearly you’re not open to any notion of exaggeration with this topic.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. Malla says:
    @Bombercommand
    Malla, the Soviet Union did not benefit from the Lend Lease program, it was a specialized program to facilitate transfers of US Navy warships to the United Kingdom while the United States was still neutral before December 7, 1941. I suspect you are trying to promote the goofy myth that the United States gifted the Soviet Union with billions of dollars in war materiel during WWII. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Soviet Union was required to pay for every M4 tank, P39 Airacobra, and can of pork stew, up front, not on credit, and not in Rubles, in gold bullion.

    the Soviet Union did not benefit from the Lend Lease program

    You must be kidding me. Land Lease played a big part in the survival of the Soviet Union during WW2.

    According to the Russian historian Boris Vadimovich Sokolov, Lend-Lease had a crucial role in winning the war:
    “On the whole the following conclusion can be drawn: that without these Western shipments under Lend-Lease the Soviet Union not only would not have been able to win the Great Patriotic War, it would not have been able even to oppose the German invaders, since it could not itself produce sufficient quantities of arms and military equipment or adequate supplies of fuel and ammunition. The Soviet authorities were well aware of this dependency on Lend-Lease. Thus, Stalin told Harry Hopkins [FDR's emissary to Moscow in July 1941] that the U.S.S.R. could not match Germany’s might as an occupier of Europe and its resources.”

    Nikita Khrushchev, having served as a military commissar and intermediary between Stalin and his generals during the war, addressed directly the significance of Lend-lease aid in his memoirs:
    “I would like to express my candid opinion about Stalin’s views on whether the Red Army and the Soviet Union could have coped with Nazi Germany and survived the war without aid from the United States and Britain. First, I would like to tell about some remarks Stalin made and repeated several times when we were “discussing freely” among ourselves. He stated bluntly that if the United States had not helped us, we would not have won the war. If we had had to fight Nazi Germany one on one, we could not have stood up against Germany’s pressure, and we would have lost the war. No one ever discussed this subject officially, and I don’t think Stalin left any written evidence of his opinion, but I will state here that several times in conversations with me he noted that these were the actual circumstances. He never made a special point of holding a conversation on the subject, but when we were engaged in some kind of relaxed conversation, going over international questions of the past and present, and when we would return to the subject of the path we had traveled during the war, that is what he said. When I listened to his remarks, I was fully in agreement with him, and today I am even more so”

    Major George Racey Jordan was an actual Land Lease officer in Alaska. Check out his book
    From Major Jordan’s Dairies about the enormous amount of help given by the USA to the Soviet Union.

    http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/wars/jordan/01.html

    But a Christian Capitalist Freedom loving democracy like the USA helping a communist country or making an alliance with any Communist country just makes no sense. How is this possible? How? Not only the USA but even Great Britain while the Soviet Union was actively trying to dismantle the British Empire. Yet Britain and Canada helped the Soviet Union. How is this even possible? Is this reality or lala land? How can people be so dumb to accept something like this?
    In a normal world, it would have been in the interest of the United States as well as Britain to see the complete of communism as well as the Soviet Union, now would that be a positive or a negative thing for the world is a different question all together, but that is how it would have been.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bombercommand
    Malla, to support my assertion that the Soviet Union paid the United States gold bullion for shipments of war supplies, I offer the case of HMS Edinburgh, a WWII Royal Navy cruiser sunk April 30, 1942 near Murmansk, while carrying 465 gold bars from the Soviet Union destined for the United States Treasury in payment for a convoy of war materiel. Note the early date, less than 5 months after America's entry into WWII, and the large size of the payment( a 1981 salvage operation of HMS Edinburgh recovered 431 ingots weighing over 5 tons).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  67. VICB3 says:
    @Ron Unz

    Trying to find an affordable hard or paper bound copy of the book in English is pretty much a waste of time. (Go ahead, see for yourself.) ...Fortunately there’s the internet, and the reality that once it’s out there in cyberspace, then it’s out there forever. For those who might wish to read the book and judge for themselves vs being told what to think by the gatekeepers of the approved (and one-dimensional overall) fairytale, a PDF can be found
     
    Actually, I think the HTML version now provided on this website is much superior for reading purposes than a PDF, which also being fully searchable:

    http://www.unz.com/book/david_irving__hitlers-war/

    You’re right! Didn’t even know that Unz had it. Didn’t even think to look. Maybe it ought to be highlighted with a link in the header.

    Now, if only somebody were brave enough to print up the damned thing in hardbound and at an affordable price, say, oh, $35 (+ Free Shipping!!!)* with decent quality paper and glossy illustrations. Thought I’d found a source, but no deal.

    Suggestion: Maybe Unz ought to go into the “Forbidden Books” publishing business. This book and others by Irving. Or an English translation of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s Two Hundred Years Together. Or, well….

    Just a thought.

    VicB3

    *Amazon sure as hell isn’t doing it. $524.99 for a hardcover. That’s no typo. Yikes!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mike P
    Have you looked at David Irving's home page? He offers his books for sale there ("Hitler's War" for $45).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. @Bombercommand
    Malla, the Soviet Union did not benefit from the Lend Lease program, it was a specialized program to facilitate transfers of US Navy warships to the United Kingdom while the United States was still neutral before December 7, 1941. I suspect you are trying to promote the goofy myth that the United States gifted the Soviet Union with billions of dollars in war materiel during WWII. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Soviet Union was required to pay for every M4 tank, P39 Airacobra, and can of pork stew, up front, not on credit, and not in Rubles, in gold bullion.

    Completely new for me.
    LendLease made it possible for FDR to supply any country with whatever he liked for ‘free’.
    However, strings were attached, GB had to promise to remove trade barriers around the empire.
    R.F. Harrod, ‘THE PROF, A personal memoir of Lord Cherwell’, London, 1959
    Stalin paid with Russian blood.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. @CanSpeccy

    [Hitler] had no ambitions against Britain or her Empire at all, and all the captured records solidly bear this out. He had certainly built the wrong air force and the wrong navy for a sustained campaign against the British Isles
     
    Obviously Hitler did not want a repeat of the two-front war that resulted in Germany's defeat in 1918. But had Germany defeated Russia, then she would have dominated Europe from the Urals to the Pyrenees. Whether formally or otherwise, with violence or otherwise, Britain would then have been totally subordinated to Germany's vastly increased power.

    Hitler did not want any war:
    A J P Taylor, ‘The Origins of the Second World War’, 1961, 1967, Londen
    Patrick J. Buchanan, ‘Churchill, Hitler and “The unnecessary war”, How Britain lost its empire and the west lost the world’, New York, 2008

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu

    Hitler did not want any war:
     
    So, why did he start one?
    , @UncommonGround
    @ jilles dykstra

    Are there other books you would reccomend?
    , @CanSpeccy

    Hitler did not want any war.
     
    No, Hitler did not want war with Britain, while waging war on Russia.

    As for France, no, Hitler did not want war, but he wanted conquest, which is why he waged war on France and occupied it in ten days, beginning May 10, 1940.

    The occupation of France covered Hitler's back, so far as it could be covered, and opened the way to the invasion of Russia in 1941, in accordance with his well known intention, as revealed to Winston Churchill by Von Ribbentrop during a visit to Britain in 1937.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. @Wally
    According to the "Holocau$t Industry" Jews went to enormous 'known' mass graves.

    Signs have been erected at the alleged sites supposedly pointing out mass grave sites etc., but guess what, they are not there, in spite of attempts to find them.

    Treblinka as an example:


    historian’ Raul Hilberg wrote in his three-volume book entitled “The Destruction of the European Jews” that there were 700,000 – 900,000 bodies buried at Treblinka.
     

    “The mass graves were opened and the corpses were taken out, to be consumed by the flames of huge pyres (the ‘roasts’). The bones were crushed and, together with the ashes, were reburied in the same graves.”
    - Israel Gutman (ed.), Encyclopedia of the Holocaust, 4 vols., Macmillan, New York 1990, vol. 4, p. 1481-87
     
    www.codoh.com

    Raul Hilberg, ‘The destruction of the European Jews’, student edition, Teaneck, 1985
    Just one volume.
    I can recommend reading it, already on page 300 or so one reads that Auschwitz was a big industrial centre.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    Auschwitz was a big industrial centre.
     
    Yes, the labor camp was built originally to accomodate slave labor for use by the Silesian Steel Corporation, in the management of which Prescott Bush was involved as an agent for Thyssen.
    , @Greg Bacon
    That is correct, Auschwitz supplied the thousands of laborers needed each shift for the adjacent, huge Monowitz complex, that made many different military items needed by Germany, like making fuel and tires from artificial sources, like coal.

    But you'll never see that in a Speilberg movie.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. utu says:
    @fnn
    The German-Polish dispute over Danzig, the Corridor and the mistreatment of ethnic Germans in Poland was a pretty lame excuse for FDR and Churchill to pursue a conflict that would take upwards of 60 million lives. A largely forgotten fact is that there were 70,000 ethnic German refugees from Poland in camps in Danzig and Germany at the time the war started. Based on the historical record, there's enough material there for England, US and Israel to start at least a dozen wars.


    FDR constantly seems like someone trying to remove the barriers to war:
    http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/p/timeline-to-war-begini.html

    31 August Roosevelt, who has known of the secret protocol between the Soviets and Germans (with the agreement that East Poland will be lost), on this day wraps himself in silence. (1:623)
    xix. US Ambassador in Paris, Bullitt, assures his Polish colleague, Count Łukasiewicz, that there is a secret protocol, but it only involves the three Baltic States – not Poland.
     

    Why Hitler started war that destroyed Germany? It is not about Churchill an Roosevelt? They were a part of reality that apparently Hitler was not able to read.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. anon111 says:
    @Andrew E. Mathis
    Since I don't believe they actually exist, then answer is "no."

    Since I don’t believe they actually exist

    lol, i’m not surprised

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  73. Malla says:
    @Andrew E. Mathis
    Why not provide some sources from actual historians who have studied actual primary sources? You're posting bullshit conspiracy theories. I'm not interested.

    Oh Please, your interest is none of my concern. You are free to ignore facts if they go against your official propaganda.
    Anyways I repeat, a free capitalist democratic country like the USA supporting a huge Communist country which wanted to spread communism throughout the world and was a direct threat to the American way of life goes against all logic and common sense and nor you or any official historian can explain this away. Capice.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis
    It doesn't go against common sense at all. If you had common sense, you'd realize that.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  74. utu says:
    @jilles dykstra
    Hitler did not want any war:
    A J P Taylor, 'The Origins of the Second World War', 1961, 1967, Londen
    Patrick J. Buchanan, ‘Churchill, Hitler and “The unnecessary war”, How Britain lost its empire and the west lost the world’, New York, 2008

    Hitler did not want any war:

    So, why did he start one?

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    "Hitler did not want any war"

    So, why did he start one?
     

    Because it was now or never for Germany.

    The balance of world power changed radically between 1918 and 1939.

    The West European nations with their rather unproductive and restive overseas possessions no longer dominated the world stage economically or militarily.

    America, a continental country with almost twice Germany's population and an oceanic moat, had become an industrial giant with vast military potential, while Russia, even larger than the US and with a greater population, was back, militarily.

    For Germany, therefore, to slough off the bonds of the Versailles Treaty and achieve a place in the sun, it was now or never.

    If Germany was to achieve the status of a world power it had to seize territory, resources and population sufficient to contend with Russia and the US. That was Hitler's goal.

    , @Malla
    He did not want war, it was forced upon him. He wanted to create a better society with a combination of socialism and free market and to improve the standards of the German people in health, culture etc... free from globalist bankers. War was the last thing he ever wanted.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  75. @jilles dykstra
    Hitler did not want any war:
    A J P Taylor, 'The Origins of the Second World War', 1961, 1967, Londen
    Patrick J. Buchanan, ‘Churchill, Hitler and “The unnecessary war”, How Britain lost its empire and the west lost the world’, New York, 2008

    @ jilles dykstra

    Are there other books you would reccomend?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  76. @Malla
    Oh Please, your interest is none of my concern. You are free to ignore facts if they go against your official propaganda.
    Anyways I repeat, a free capitalist democratic country like the USA supporting a huge Communist country which wanted to spread communism throughout the world and was a direct threat to the American way of life goes against all logic and common sense and nor you or any official historian can explain this away. Capice.

    It doesn’t go against common sense at all. If you had common sense, you’d realize that.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Malla
    It goes against all common sense and I have a lot of it. Thank you. The world is full of educated fools unfortunately.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  77. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @jilles dykstra
    Hitler did not want any war:
    A J P Taylor, 'The Origins of the Second World War', 1961, 1967, Londen
    Patrick J. Buchanan, ‘Churchill, Hitler and “The unnecessary war”, How Britain lost its empire and the west lost the world’, New York, 2008

    Hitler did not want any war.

    No, Hitler did not want war with Britain, while waging war on Russia.

    As for France, no, Hitler did not want war, but he wanted conquest, which is why he waged war on France and occupied it in ten days, beginning May 10, 1940.

    The occupation of France covered Hitler’s back, so far as it could be covered, and opened the way to the invasion of Russia in 1941, in accordance with his well known intention, as revealed to Winston Churchill by Von Ribbentrop during a visit to Britain in 1937.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    Hitler's hope was to force Churchill to make peace
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  78. Greg Bacon says: • Website

    Two years ago, bought and read this fantastic book that is extremely well-written. Over 100 pages of supporting notes, showing Mr. Irving’s tenacious dedication to getting the facts right.

    Any lover of history would do well to get a copy and read what you never learned about in high school or college history classes about WWII.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  79. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @jilles dykstra
    Raul Hilberg, ‘The destruction of the European Jews’, student edition, Teaneck, 1985
    Just one volume.
    I can recommend reading it, already on page 300 or so one reads that Auschwitz was a big industrial centre.

    Auschwitz was a big industrial centre.

    Yes, the labor camp was built originally to accomodate slave labor for use by the Silesian Steel Corporation, in the management of which Prescott Bush was involved as an agent for Thyssen.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  80. Ivan K. says: • Website
    @Abelard Lindsey
    David Irving is suggesting essentially that it was bureaucracy itself that was responsible for the holocaust. I find this easily believable. The main purpose of bureaucracy is to protect everyone in it from any accountability or even the feeling of accountability. And we all know that Germans make consummate bureaucrats. I believe this is the source for the expression of "the banality of evil". In other words, bureaucracy really is evil, as anyone who has ever tried to do anything "outside the system" knows full-well.

    The Spielberg film "Schindler's List" did a good job of depicting some of the bureaucracy carrying out the Holocaust when it showed the SS bureaucrats setting up their tables, chairs, papers and stamps to "process" the Jews before they were loading onto the trains to be transported to the camps. Everything was done in a neat, orderly manner with all of the paperwork in proper notation and place. It was this scene, more than any other, that made the most impression on me from this film.

    A lot of what Irving's book said about Hitler's attitude towards the British Empire and the eastward Teutonic push is written in great detail by Hitler himself in his second book. Hitler's second book is readily available on Amazon.

    David Irving is suggesting essentially that it was bureaucracy itself that was responsible for the holocaust.

    From following what hehas said on several occassions through the years, while even disregarding the above text, I’d say that’s a pretty accurate one-word summary.

    written in great detail by Hitler himself in his second book. Hitler’s second book is readily available on Amazon.

    I’m not aware that Hitler wrote such a book. Hitler’s Table Talk is a collection of transcriptions of his talks during dinner c. 1940-1944, published after WW2. In recent years, their veracity has become more doubtful, unfortunately (https://media.8ch.net/pdfs/src/1429265963793.pdf). That just gives more force to David Irving’s point from this Introduction: Hitler’s inner life remains a big historical enigma.

    I came here to express satisfaction with the promotion of David Irving on unz.com. To my surprise, I was faced with a long series of uninformed, naysaying comments.
    Excluding your comment, of course.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    recommended:

    Hitler's “Table Talk”: A Study in Academic Fraud & Scandal

    https://www.inconvenienthistory.com/9/3/4880

    With no proof of 'Nazi homicidal gas chambers', no massive human remains that would necessarily exist, and no physical evidence by the thousands of tons that would be readily found IF the impossible 'holocaust' storyline was factual, we are then left with desperate, unhinged Zionists.
     
    www.codoh.com
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  81. peterAUS says:
    @Andrew E. Mathis
    I have a long history with David Irving, including having met him personally in New York in 2003 (where he autographed my copy of Denying the Holocaust, by Deborah Lipstadt), and e-mail correspondences in the 1990s and 2000s, which were as rancorous as you might imagine.

    I think the comment to which you're responding, Mr. Unz, is a wholly accurate one. I also think your use of sneer quotes in describing Holocaust denial -- which Irving no longer engages in but certainly did at the same he very stupidly sued Deborah Lipstadt -- is troubling, and I'd welcome the opportunity to educate you on this point, should you be interested. I assisted in a tiny way in the Lipstadt case, assisting one of the expert witnesses with his research. I can demonstrate that Irving knew that the case he was presenting in court consisted of some fairly big lies. I can also demonstrate that Irving is, at the very least, a full-blown anti-Semite, although I suspect you know that.

    That said, Irving certainly made significant contributions to our understanding of WWII history, even in the volume you publish today. These contributions are not without their own problems, though: I wrote a rebuttal to one of the points made in his introduction, which can be read here:

    http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2016/02/keine-liquidierung-eine-neubeurteilung.html

    What I hope to demonstrate in this essay is that, on the point discussed, Irving seized on an extremely unlikely meaning for the source that he located instead of exhaustively surveying the available evidence and finding the more likely explanation.

    I welcome any comments.

    I welcome any comments.

    O.K. Just one, then.
    A question of sort, in fact.

    Based on what Johnny Smoggins posted

    Surely making it illegal to even question the details of something, as Canada and several European countries have done with the Jewish holocaust, is a reason to suspect that the event in question is on pretty shaky ground factually.

    If men like David Irving, Arthur Butz and others are simply wrong about the Jewish holocaust, refute their arguments and prove them wrong. By trying to silence them and destroy their lives, Jews have only shown that so called “holocaust deniers” are probably right.

    why , really, making that illegal and even imprisoning people for that in “free world” ?
    All other cases of prosecuting people for saying/writing something have been proven, I believe, wrong, for a couple of reasons.
    Why is the same (prosecuting) in this case O.K.?

    I mean, the very countries which do prosecute “Holocaust deniers” (quotes or not) are, at the same time, very keen on pointing the wrong of the method somewhere else for something else.

    Say, based on

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties_of_the_Soviet_Union

    Putin imprisoning people for saying that there wasn’t 20 million, but “only” (quotes or not), 16 million.

    One can get prosecuted, in this case, for saying there weren’t 6 million, but 2 million. At least a man can lose his job etc.

    What do you think, why is that?

    Simple question I guess.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis
    I'm against those laws because I think they are counterproductive and provide too easy an excuse for Holocaust deniers to claim that they must be saying something right.

    That said, a couple of points to bear in mind about these laws:
    * In many of the countries with these laws, the law isn't about Holocaust denial per se but rather a law against inciting racial hatred, and Holocaust denial included under that.
    * In many of these countries, there are also laws against denying Soviet atrocities.

    But I agree, the laws are not good.

    As for whether there should or should not be moral opprobrium or social consequences for one's beliefs, no law protects people from such consequences.
    , @Anon
    You know what's funny?

    When the fake Hitler Diaries were published by Newsweek(LOL), Irving saw through the phoniness right away whereas Hugh Trevor Roper got suckered big time. But then, Trevor-Roper had second thoughts and reversed his position just when Irving inexplicably reversed himself to lend weight to the hoax.

    WWII drives everyone nuts.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  82. Heros says:

    “‘from October 1928 the two largest regular contributors to the Nazi Party were the general managers of two of the largest Berlin banks, both of Jewish faith, and one of them the leader of Zionism in Germany.’”

    In the book “The Seventh Million” the jewish author and historian Thomas Segev, translated from hebrew, goes into detail about NSDAP and Zionist cooperation after the Havara agreement. All the major Zionists were to be seen in Berlin with NSDAP officials. Germany provided training and apprenticeships to eugenically selected jewish zionists, who were later sent to Palestine with personal belongings. In Palestine they were known as “yeckels”, yiddish for “jackets”, because they wore their German jackets and lived in luxury with all the goods and tools that the Germans had shipped over for them.

    The Zionists were working hand in hand with the NSDAP even after the victories of June, 1941 and until the bitter end in Stalingrad in 1943. This is one reason why the US Ashkenazi jews were not supporters of Zion in Palestine. Stalin wasn’t either, he had already stolen the lands from Christians for a new Zion in Crimea.

    The Zionists and the NDSAP worked closely together, with the Zionists emulating the NSDAP down to the uniforms. Then they manipulated the word they created themselves, “Nazi”, to a completely new level of abomination. They have made it one of their scape goats from the ancient times and projected all their OWN sins onto it. Now we are faced with peeling back the lies.

    Why can’t we just say it, Zionists are the ultimate Nazi’s.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  83. @peterAUS

    I welcome any comments.
     
    O.K. Just one, then.
    A question of sort, in fact.

    Based on what Johnny Smoggins posted

    Surely making it illegal to even question the details of something, as Canada and several European countries have done with the Jewish holocaust, is a reason to suspect that the event in question is on pretty shaky ground factually.

    If men like David Irving, Arthur Butz and others are simply wrong about the Jewish holocaust, refute their arguments and prove them wrong. By trying to silence them and destroy their lives, Jews have only shown that so called “holocaust deniers” are probably right.
     
    why , really, making that illegal and even imprisoning people for that in "free world" ?
    All other cases of prosecuting people for saying/writing something have been proven, I believe, wrong, for a couple of reasons.
    Why is the same (prosecuting) in this case O.K.?

    I mean, the very countries which do prosecute "Holocaust deniers" (quotes or not) are, at the same time, very keen on pointing the wrong of the method somewhere else for something else.

    Say, based on
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties_of_the_Soviet_Union
    Putin imprisoning people for saying that there wasn't 20 million, but "only" (quotes or not), 16 million.

    One can get prosecuted, in this case, for saying there weren't 6 million, but 2 million. At least a man can lose his job etc.

    What do you think, why is that?

    Simple question I guess.

    I’m against those laws because I think they are counterproductive and provide too easy an excuse for Holocaust deniers to claim that they must be saying something right.

    That said, a couple of points to bear in mind about these laws:
    * In many of the countries with these laws, the law isn’t about Holocaust denial per se but rather a law against inciting racial hatred, and Holocaust denial included under that.
    * In many of these countries, there are also laws against denying Soviet atrocities.

    But I agree, the laws are not good.

    As for whether there should or should not be moral opprobrium or social consequences for one’s beliefs, no law protects people from such consequences.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
    “I’m against those laws because I think they are counterproductive and provide too easy an excuse for Holocaust deniers to claim that they must be saying something right.”

    The implication being, you’re only opposed to them for pragmatic, political reasons, not because of commitment to free speech or open debate. (So if there were no political implcations, you’d have no issues with them.) Which of course is what people like Wally have been saying about you all along.
    , @peterAUS

    I think they are counterproductive and provide too easy an excuse for Holocaust deniers to claim that they must be saying something right.

     

    Of course.
    Now, people ruling there aren't stupid. They must know that and, still, they push for those laws.
    Something.........does..........not...........compute.........here.

    One could surmise that there is really something not quite right there.

    My take:
    NUMBERS have certain impact on average person.
    It has to be a certain number to create a certain reaction, emotional of course.

    Then, more importantly, the current paradigm is built on the victory over Nazi Germany. As a sidenote not over, also, equally racist fascist Italy and definitely racist Japan. Germany.
    Interestingly enough, Japan racism was against Anglo-Saxons. German was against, well we know who re this very topic.
    The current paradigm is built on a certain ..ahm...truth/perception of truth/story.....about that victory.

    So, if you allow just a little bit of chipping of that....truth....you open a real chance of challenging the paradigm. Not only the power but the very social order.
    Dangerous.........

    So, you nip the thing in the bud.

    And....hehe....now..I don't really think that all of the people against those laws are just for freedom of speech.

    So, there is obvious, but unspoken, game play here.
    "We protect our power and social order by stomping on that right in this particular case".
    vs
    "We want to challenge that power and the social order by having that right in this particular case".

    ...the law isn’t about Holocaust denial per se but rather a law against inciting racial hatred, and Holocaust denial included under that.
     
    Makes sense. On the surface.
    If one is to dig just a little below that surface something interesting pops up.
    Who are the people (race, ethnicity, even religion) who are at the receiving end of those laws.

    So, things aren't so clear cut here as your side would like to believe.

    One could even say that more the power pushes for implementation of those laws more it appears it is worried about the current state of affairs.
    , @iffen
    As for whether there should or should not be moral opprobrium or social consequences for one’s beliefs, no law protects people from such consequences

    And rightly so, or we should just forget the whole damn thing.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  84. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @utu

    Hitler did not want any war:
     
    So, why did he start one?

    “Hitler did not want any war”

    So, why did he start one?

    Because it was now or never for Germany.

    The balance of world power changed radically between 1918 and 1939.

    The West European nations with their rather unproductive and restive overseas possessions no longer dominated the world stage economically or militarily.

    America, a continental country with almost twice Germany’s population and an oceanic moat, had become an industrial giant with vast military potential, while Russia, even larger than the US and with a greater population, was back, militarily.

    For Germany, therefore, to slough off the bonds of the Versailles Treaty and achieve a place in the sun, it was now or never.

    If Germany was to achieve the status of a world power it had to seize territory, resources and population sufficient to contend with Russia and the US. That was Hitler’s goal.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    So why people keep saying “Hitler did not want any war” or that it was pushed on him?
    , @David In TN
    You just admitted Hitler started the war.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  85. anon111 says:

    What is the explanation for Dunkirk today?

    Books i read thirty years ago usually claimed it was some kind of blunder by Hitler and the Germans, now seems more likely they disliked the idea of shooting fish in a barrel

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    The Wehrmacht essentially let them escape because they did not want a wider war.

    www.codoh.com
    , @Bombercommand
    Anon111, you shouldn't thank "Wally" for bull-poop. The Wehrmacht was unable to reduce the Dunkirk Enclave because of the heroism of the French First Army, which formed a blocking force, standing its ground and taking casualties to shield the evacuation. The French First Army in counterattack even captured a Wehrmacht General.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  86. Anon[425] • Disclaimer says:
    @peterAUS

    I welcome any comments.
     
    O.K. Just one, then.
    A question of sort, in fact.

    Based on what Johnny Smoggins posted

    Surely making it illegal to even question the details of something, as Canada and several European countries have done with the Jewish holocaust, is a reason to suspect that the event in question is on pretty shaky ground factually.

    If men like David Irving, Arthur Butz and others are simply wrong about the Jewish holocaust, refute their arguments and prove them wrong. By trying to silence them and destroy their lives, Jews have only shown that so called “holocaust deniers” are probably right.
     
    why , really, making that illegal and even imprisoning people for that in "free world" ?
    All other cases of prosecuting people for saying/writing something have been proven, I believe, wrong, for a couple of reasons.
    Why is the same (prosecuting) in this case O.K.?

    I mean, the very countries which do prosecute "Holocaust deniers" (quotes or not) are, at the same time, very keen on pointing the wrong of the method somewhere else for something else.

    Say, based on
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties_of_the_Soviet_Union
    Putin imprisoning people for saying that there wasn't 20 million, but "only" (quotes or not), 16 million.

    One can get prosecuted, in this case, for saying there weren't 6 million, but 2 million. At least a man can lose his job etc.

    What do you think, why is that?

    Simple question I guess.

    You know what’s funny?

    When the fake Hitler Diaries were published by Newsweek(LOL), Irving saw through the phoniness right away whereas Hugh Trevor Roper got suckered big time. But then, Trevor-Roper had second thoughts and reversed his position just when Irving inexplicably reversed himself to lend weight to the hoax.

    WWII drives everyone nuts.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  87. Wally says:
    @Andrew E. Mathis
    Wally is legally allowed to do what he likes. Ron Unz is also legally allowed to prevent people from spamming his site.

    And yes, the links from Wally are spam. He almost never posts new information.

    So maybe learn the meanings of terms before posting?

    Leave it to debunked & discredited ‘holocaust’ True Believer and unhinged Zionist, Andrew Mathis, to call information which he cannot refute “spam”. LOL

    My posts consists of a wide range of information which obliterate the truly absurd & impossible holocaust’ fantasies. Anyone can select my name here and see that for themselves.

    Andrew Mathis is finding out that there are now many who have thrown off the yoke stupid Jew supremacist nonsense and he doesn’t like it one bit. A Jew privilege thing.

    Too bad, free speech means free speech

    Challenging the ridiculously fake ’6M Jews’ is now mainstream:

    https://www.lewrockwell.com/2018/05/paul-craig-roberts/morality-truth-facts/

    get used to it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis
    Your posts are the same things over and over again, usually from the same source. Everyone can see that.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  88. Wally says:
    @anon111
    What is the explanation for Dunkirk today?

    Books i read thirty years ago usually claimed it was some kind of blunder by Hitler and the Germans, now seems more likely they disliked the idea of shooting fish in a barrel

    The Wehrmacht essentially let them escape because they did not want a wider war.

    http://www.codoh.com

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon111
    thx
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  89. Mike P says:
    @VICB3
    You're right! Didn't even know that Unz had it. Didn't even think to look. Maybe it ought to be highlighted with a link in the header.

    Now, if only somebody were brave enough to print up the damned thing in hardbound and at an affordable price, say, oh, $35 (+ Free Shipping!!!)* with decent quality paper and glossy illustrations. Thought I'd found a source, but no deal.

    Suggestion: Maybe Unz ought to go into the "Forbidden Books" publishing business. This book and others by Irving. Or an English translation of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's Two Hundred Years Together. Or, well....

    Just a thought.

    VicB3

    *Amazon sure as hell isn't doing it. $524.99 for a hardcover. That's no typo. Yikes!

    Have you looked at David Irving’s home page? He offers his books for sale there (“Hitler’s War” for $45).

    Read More
    • Replies: @VICB3
    Guess again. I had already gone to the Irvingbooks website, and they don't seem to offer it. When you click on the homepage link, you get a 404 page not found. Searched through the rest of the site - categories and all that - and it simply is not there.

    I can't help but suspect that somebody doesn't want it read and is doing everything that they can to keep it out of print. In this case, perhaps it's tied up in a court case or something. And yes, I know that's conspiracy stuff, all tinfoil hat and everything, but the fact remains that a reasonably priced copy doesn't seem to be available at this time.

    To repeat, perhaps Unz should become a reseller. Plenty of forbidden books out there that might interest the reader.

    Just a thought.

    VicB3

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  90. Wally says:
    @Ivan K.

    David Irving is suggesting essentially that it was bureaucracy itself that was responsible for the holocaust.
     
    From following what hehas said on several occassions through the years, while even disregarding the above text, I'd say that's a pretty accurate one-word summary.

    written in great detail by Hitler himself in his second book. Hitler’s second book is readily available on Amazon.
     
    I'm not aware that Hitler wrote such a book. Hitler's Table Talk is a collection of transcriptions of his talks during dinner c. 1940-1944, published after WW2. In recent years, their veracity has become more doubtful, unfortunately (https://media.8ch.net/pdfs/src/1429265963793.pdf). That just gives more force to David Irving's point from this Introduction: Hitler's inner life remains a big historical enigma.

    ...

    I came here to express satisfaction with the promotion of David Irving on unz.com. To my surprise, I was faced with a long series of uninformed, naysaying comments.
    Excluding your comment, of course.

    recommended:

    Hitler’s “Table Talk”: A Study in Academic Fraud & Scandal

    https://www.inconvenienthistory.com/9/3/4880

    With no proof of ‘Nazi homicidal gas chambers’, no massive human remains that would necessarily exist, and no physical evidence by the thousands of tons that would be readily found IF the impossible ‘holocaust’ storyline was factual, we are then left with desperate, unhinged Zionists.

    http://www.codoh.com

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  91. @Wally
    Leave it to debunked & discredited 'holocaust' True Believer and unhinged Zionist, Andrew Mathis, to call information which he cannot refute "spam". LOL

    My posts consists of a wide range of information which obliterate the truly absurd & impossible holocaust' fantasies. Anyone can select my name here and see that for themselves.

    Andrew Mathis is finding out that there are now many who have thrown off the yoke stupid Jew supremacist nonsense and he doesn't like it one bit. A Jew privilege thing.

    Too bad, free speech means free speech

    Challenging the ridiculously fake '6M Jews' is now mainstream:
    https://www.lewrockwell.com/2018/05/paul-craig-roberts/morality-truth-facts/
    get used to it.

    Your posts are the same things over and over again, usually from the same source. Everyone can see that.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    Only lying Zionists who I've demolished say that. But hey, anyone can select my name, see my posts and see the vast array of 'holocau$t' debunking information I have posted. Hurts don't it?

    I am your daddy. LOL

    more recommended:
    The Myth of a Nazi Extermination of Homosexuals by Jack Wikoff
    http://www.cwporter.com/homo.htm
    and:
    homosexuals - Yad Vashem ...http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=1930

    www.codoh.com

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  92. Wally says:
    @Andrew E. Mathis
    Sure, I'll get right on that, as soon as you, Jonnie Hargis, can provide me with the postwar locations of even 1% of the 1.5 million Jews sent to Belzec, Treblinka, and Sobibor.

    Look at desperate little Andrew Mathis. He’s afraid to give us information on a mere THREE so called “holocau$t survivors” of his choice.
    Obviously Mathis knows he will be blown out of the water if he responds.

    Then he tries the desperate & illogical ‘Where did they go/’ canard. Yet Jews & their “Holocaust Industry” say that ’6M Jews & 5M others’ went to huge mass graves, they claim to know the exact locations of these alleged enormous mass graves, yet they cannot show us the alleged massive human remains.
    recommended:
    See here, some links about Jews being moved around, & much more.:
    J. Graf and the illogical canard: ‘Where did Jews go then?’ / & more’
    viewtopic.php?f=2&t=8272

    Postwar locations of Jews? Child’s play:
    “That shitty little country” Israel, US, S. America, Australia, wherever Jews are.

    Unz readers, see more on Andrew Mathis here:

    https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=4451&p=72138&hilit=mathis+thames+mulegino#p72138

    recommended, NEW!
    ‘The Einsatzgruppen Trial’ / from the journal, Inconvenient History.

    https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=11791

    Please do not refer to me by an incorrect name. I am not that guy, though you do have an obsession for saying people are who they are not. In some cases you have said that some people are many different people. LOL Everyone, the word is that perverted Andrew Mathis also has the Zionist fondness for stalking & threatening people.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis
    Yawn: http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2006/10/why-jonnie-hargis-is-pathetic-and.html

    You can't even conclusively locate 1% of the Jews sent to three camps over the course of 1.5 years. That's sad. Your whole denier universe built on nothing but Nazi lies, and you can't find ONE PERCENT.

    Sad!

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  93. Malla says:
    @CanSpeccy

    FDR constantly seems like someone trying to remove the barriers to war.
     
    Is that hard to understand?

    If Germany and Russia could be induced to fight one another to the point of exhaustion, then the US would dominate the world.

    The tricky part was to ensure that neither Germany nor the Soviets won an outright victory. Hence the US intervention in Europe, which first aided the Soviets resist the German onslaught, and then, when Germany buckled, put a halt to the Soviet Westward tide.

    My take is a bit different. It seems that during WW2, the USA just got rid off some of the best, most powerful opponents of Communism (National Socialist Third Reich Germany, Imperial Japan, Fascist Italy, Romania etc…) and soon communism spread to half of Eurasia. And Cultural Marxism soon spread into the western nations themselves.
    At the same time Israel was actually created and the League of Nations was replaced by the United Nations.
    So the three smelly sewers of Zionism, Communism and Globalism keep flowing and the current strengthens after each World War.

    WW1
    Zionism: Balfour Declaration
    Communism: Bolshevik Revolution
    Globalism: League of Nations
    Ottoman Empire, Hapsburg Austro Hungarian Empire, Tsarist Russia etc… destroyed

    WW2
    Zionism: Creation of Israel
    Communism: Communism spreads to half of Eurasia
    Globalism: United Nations
    Japanese Empire, Italian Empire, Third Reich destroyed.
    British Empire, French Empire, Dutch Empire, Portuguese Empire etc… eventually destroyed.

    WW3/WW4
    Zionism: Greater Israel, superpower of the World. Arab nations utterly destroyed.
    Communism: Global Corporate Communism under One World Govt.
    Globalism: One World Government with Jerusalem as capital, One World Army, One World currency ruled by a banker rabbi cabal.
    USA, European nations including Russia, Japan, China etc… destroyed as powers.

    Read More
    • Agree: mark green
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  94. anon111 says:
    @Wally
    The Wehrmacht essentially let them escape because they did not want a wider war.

    www.codoh.com

    thx

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  95. Wally says:
    @Andrew E. Mathis
    Your posts are the same things over and over again, usually from the same source. Everyone can see that.

    Only lying Zionists who I’ve demolished say that. But hey, anyone can select my name, see my posts and see the vast array of ‘holocau$t’ debunking information I have posted. Hurts don’t it?

    I am your daddy. LOL

    more recommended:
    The Myth of a Nazi Extermination of Homosexuals by Jack Wikoff

    http://www.cwporter.com/homo.htm

    and:
    homosexuals – Yad Vashem …http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=1930

    http://www.codoh.com

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  96. Hoo-boy! This article about David Irving’s Hitler’s War sure did stir up a shit storm.

    For those who deny the severity of the European holocaust please read Hitler’s Shadow War (2002) by Clemson history professor Donald McKale. In it he details how even in retreat from the Eastern Front, with the Red Army at their heels, the Wehrmacht were directed to assist SS units like Einsatzgruppen in the killing of Jews. The Nazi cult’s obsession with Jews went so far as to through basic military strategy and tactics out the window. Besides Lebensraum, the war in the East was really about the extermination of the Jewish people.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    Besides Lebensraum, the war in the East was really about the extermination of the Jewish people.
     
    no it wasn't

    it was about the extermination of Bolshevik murderous and genocidal commies, who had recently genocided several million of the best of the people under its Satanic reign in the most cruel and excruciating way imaginable.

    It was because Germany was threatened with the same fate, that Hitler invaded Russia.

    Nazism was a survival response to genocidal Bolshevism. That most of the Bolsheviks were Jews, and because Jewish banksters in London and NYC had funded the Bolsheviks, and their subsequent reign of terror in Russia, is why Germany interned many Jews and others who they considered threats to Germany. Just as the US interned Japanese nationals for the same reason.

    Yet many loyal Jews served in the German army.

    If Hitter and the Nazis wanted to kill all the Jews, then they wouldn't have filled ships full of them and allowed them to emigrate to the US and elsewhere. Nor would there have been millions upon millions of 'Holocaust survivors'.

    Germany lost, and so the blood libels have become ever more shrill with each passing year.
    , @Wally
    said:
    "In it he details how even in retreat from the Eastern Front, with the Red Army at their heels, the Wehrmacht were directed to assist SS units like Einsatzgruppen in the killing of Jews."

    Really? So then, show us these "details", show us the orders to the Wehrmacht where they were supposedly "directed to assist SS units like Einsatzgruppen in the killing of Jews."
    We're waiting. While you're at, show us the alleged massive remains that are supposedly known to exist.

    The Fraudulent 'holocau$t' Industry now claims that ca. 2,000,000 Jews were shot by the Einsatzgruppen into huge pits, so, anyone, please SHOW us the actual excavations, the enormous mass graves, & remains that are claimed to exist, their locations are allegedly known.
    Is that:
    100 graves of 20,000?
    200 graves of 10,000?
    400 graves of 5,000?
    500 graves of 4,000?
    1000 graves of 2000?
    2000 graves of 1000?

    recommended:
    'The Einsatzgruppen Trial' / from the journal, Inconvenient History.
    https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=11791
    and: former Einsatzgruppen Members Reject Bizarre Claims of Mass Shootings / Babi Yar, etc.
    https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=11396

    www.codoh.com

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  97. @Wally
    Look at desperate little Andrew Mathis. He's afraid to give us information on a mere THREE so called "holocau$t survivors" of his choice.
    Obviously Mathis knows he will be blown out of the water if he responds.

    Then he tries the desperate & illogical 'Where did they go/' canard. Yet Jews & their "Holocaust Industry" say that ’6M Jews & 5M others’ went to huge mass graves, they claim to know the exact locations of these alleged enormous mass graves, yet they cannot show us the alleged massive human remains.
    recommended:
    See here, some links about Jews being moved around, & much more.:
    'J. Graf and the illogical canard: 'Where did Jews go then?' / & more'
    viewtopic.php?f=2&t=8272

    Postwar locations of Jews? Child's play:
    "That shitty little country" Israel, US, S. America, Australia, wherever Jews are.

    Unz readers, see more on Andrew Mathis here:
    https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=4451&p=72138&hilit=mathis+thames+mulegino#p72138
    recommended, NEW!
    'The Einsatzgruppen Trial' / from the journal, Inconvenient History.
    https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=11791

    Please do not refer to me by an incorrect name. I am not that guy, though you do have an obsession for saying people are who they are not. In some cases you have said that some people are many different people. LOL Everyone, the word is that perverted Andrew Mathis also has the Zionist fondness for stalking & threatening people.

    Yawn: http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2006/10/why-jonnie-hargis-is-pathetic-and.html

    You can’t even conclusively locate 1% of the Jews sent to three camps over the course of 1.5 years. That’s sad. Your whole denier universe built on nothing but Nazi lies, and you can’t find ONE PERCENT.

    Sad!

    Read More
    • Replies: @redmudhooch
    No one here needs to prove the holocaust story is bs. The Israelis do it every time they shoot a Palestinian child in the back. Every time they bulldoze a familys home. Every time they call for the extermination of Palestinians or Arabs in general. Every time they're caught supporting genocidal cannibals like ISIS or Al Nusra. Every time the attempt to stir up another war and get Americans to die fighting it. Every time they call for censorship, every time the step on the Constitution.
    I believed it up till a few years ago, the Israelis and Zionists here in America convinced me it was a lie, not anyone here at Unz or the internet..
    Thats the predicament Zionists are in now, cause they're not going to stop acting the way they do, they've been getting away with it for so long that they can't stop or they will perish, they've gone too far and theres no turning back. Theres really nothing anyone can do to stop whats coming. Not good.
    When the truth comes out about 9/11 for all to see, they're done in America as well. People are waking up, nothing you can do about that.
    , @Wally
    Why would anyone trust psychopath Andrew Mathis? He's a known stalker and attacker of free speech advocates. The word is that he calls the workplace of those he thinks are Revisionists, he calls their supposed homes, he even posts the addresses, phone numbers & pictures like wanted posters of those he thinks are Revisionists. Ask Run Unz. Ron deleted some of his criminal crap at this very website.
    He now has me, two guy who post at CODOH, and yet another guy as being about TEN different people, one guy we are all supposed to be is dead. LOL
    Only a psychopath behaves like he behaves. Sad, but true.

    Then the not too bright Mathis tries the desperate & illogical ‘Where did they go/’ canard.
    Yet Jews & their “Holocaust Industry” say that ’6M Jews & 5M others’ went to huge mass graves, they claim to know the exact locations of these alleged enormous mass graves, yet they cannot show us the alleged massive human remains.
    So pyscho-Mathis, show us your alleged remains of millions of Jews.
    recommended:
    See here, some links about Jews being moved around, & much more.:
    ‘J. Graf and the illogical canard: ‘Where did Jews go then?’ / & more’
    viewtopic.php?f=2&t=8272
    Postwar locations of Jews? Child’s play:
    “That shitty little country” Israel, US, S. America, Australia, wherever Jews are.

    Unz readers, see even more on Andrew Mathis here, in his own words. Oops:
    https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=4451&p=72138&hilit=mathis+thames+mulegino#p72138

    www.codoh.com

    , @renfro

    You can’t even conclusively locate 1% of the Jews sent to three camps over the course of 1.5 years.
     
    Er.....its you and the H-Industry that can't locate them.
    , @Wally
    Oh my, just for a perverted criminal like yourself:

    http://fotos.fotoflexer.com/36b768423959ddf0f7bb82636e604428.jpg

    www.codoh.com
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  98. Malla says:
    @utu

    Hitler did not want any war:
     
    So, why did he start one?

    He did not want war, it was forced upon him. He wanted to create a better society with a combination of socialism and free market and to improve the standards of the German people in health, culture etc… free from globalist bankers. War was the last thing he ever wanted.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Incitatus
    “He [Hitler] did not want war, it was forced upon him.”

    Who forced it on him”

    “He [Hitler] wanted to create a better society with a combination of socialism and free market and to improve the standards of the German people in health, culture etc… free from globalist bankers.”

    Is that why he imprisoned tens of thousands of political opponents? Murdered loyal SA, chancellor Schleicher and his wife, and dozens of others in Operation Hummingbird? Assassinated Dollfuß in an unsuccessful coup? Illegally rearmed, then revoked Versailles and reinstituted conscription? Engineered Anschluß and Müncher Abkommen? Invaded rump Czechoslovakia and Poland? Invaded Denmark, Norway, Luxembourg, Belgium, Netherlands, France?. Invaded North Africa, Yugoslavia, Greece, Crete, Eastern Poland, USSR? Declared war on the USA? Killed 200,000 helpless Germans in Aktion T4?

    All because he “wanted to create a better society with a combination of socialism and free market”? Why did he chose to do it in everybody else’s country?

    “War was the last thing he [Hitler] ever wanted”

    Why was war the first option he chose?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  99. Anon[425] • Disclaimer says:
    @Andrew E. Mathis
    I have a long history with David Irving, including having met him personally in New York in 2003 (where he autographed my copy of Denying the Holocaust, by Deborah Lipstadt), and e-mail correspondences in the 1990s and 2000s, which were as rancorous as you might imagine.

    I think the comment to which you're responding, Mr. Unz, is a wholly accurate one. I also think your use of sneer quotes in describing Holocaust denial -- which Irving no longer engages in but certainly did at the same he very stupidly sued Deborah Lipstadt -- is troubling, and I'd welcome the opportunity to educate you on this point, should you be interested. I assisted in a tiny way in the Lipstadt case, assisting one of the expert witnesses with his research. I can demonstrate that Irving knew that the case he was presenting in court consisted of some fairly big lies. I can also demonstrate that Irving is, at the very least, a full-blown anti-Semite, although I suspect you know that.

    That said, Irving certainly made significant contributions to our understanding of WWII history, even in the volume you publish today. These contributions are not without their own problems, though: I wrote a rebuttal to one of the points made in his introduction, which can be read here:

    http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2016/02/keine-liquidierung-eine-neubeurteilung.html

    What I hope to demonstrate in this essay is that, on the point discussed, Irving seized on an extremely unlikely meaning for the source that he located instead of exhaustively surveying the available evidence and finding the more likely explanation.

    I welcome any comments.

    I also think your use of sneer quotes in describing Holocaust denial — which Irving no longer engages in but certainly did at the same he very stupidly sued Deborah Lipstadt — is troubling… I can also demonstrate that Irving is, at the very least, a full-blown anti-Semite, although I suspect you know that.

    I don’t like the term ‘Holocaust Denial’ because it sounds like a religious concept. We are expected to worship Holocaust as some kind of faith. But when it comes to actual history, we either know or don’t know, believe or disbelieve what we are told. It’s not a matter of Denying.
    If someone knows little or nothing about the Ukraine Famine, he can’t be a called a Famine Denier. He just doesn’t know. Also, if his understanding of the Event runs counter to the account of the Ukrainian government, he is less a denier than a disbeliever of the Official Narrative. The current Ukrainian Narrative says 8 million died in the ‘Holodomor’. But there are studies that show the numbers were more likely 3.5 million. So, if one chooses the latter number, is he a ‘denier’?

    There are two kinds of people who muck up the Holocaust debate:

    Those who insist on Faith and Worship. So, we are to never question the 6 million figure. Never ask why there was such hostility toward Jews. Just believe that pure-as-snow 6 million Jews were killed for totally irrational reasons. This is a cult or neo-religion, not history.

    Then, you got those who have a hardon for Hitler Cult and Nazis OR hate Jewish Power so much that they are willing to believe that the Holocaust was just a big hoax. Hitler was just a misunderstood Nice Guy and if some Jews died, it was all an accident or due to typhus… or Hitler’s henchmen did it behind his back. These people are not interested in history. They just want to desecrate what has become holy to Jews. It’s all a quasi-religious battle between Holocaust iconographers and Holocaust iconoclasts.

    But then, same is true of some on the Left. Godfree Robert’s apologies for Mao are incredible, and they were actually commonplace prior to revelations of Mao’s true record under Deng. This sort of thing is more a psychological phenomenon, the need to worship something in our godless age. Maybe if Godfree became Godfull, he wouldn’t need false idols to worship. If Godfree Roberts believed as he did before the revelations of Mao’s monstrosities, it’d be somewhat understandable. But the fact that he continues to apologize for Mao even after so much of the truth has come out shows that some people have a certain psychological condition that must BELIEVE in something. I don’t think Godfree Roberts is evil. He is just ‘possessed’.

    David Irving was a sly kind of Holocaust Desecrator. He didn’t outright reject historical accounts or facts. He just played dumb or feigned ignorance on certain matters. Or, his standards for historical veracity on the subject became impossibly high. So, even though he was more than willing to accept the standard statistics on Stalin’s mass-killing, he demanded absolute proof on Nazi mass-killings. His double-standard readily accepted stats on leftist violence but insisted on absolute veracity when it came to Nazi mayhem. Irving could believe Stalin ordered all those mass-killings but played ‘where’s the beef?’ on Nazi mass-killings, i.e. unless some document connecting Hitler to the Holocaust could be unearthed, we were to remain skeptical of the Fuhrer’s responsibility. But this kind of moral logic is ridiculous. Hitler was the top dog and set the tone for Nazi Germany. Even if he didn’t give a directive for the mass killing, he was still responsible in the way that Mao was responsible for the mass deaths of Great Leap and Cultural Revolution. He set in the motion the terrible events and created a climate of total fanaticism.

    As for Lipstadt, she is a monster. When the Irving trial was unfolding, I sympathized with her because MSM gave the impression that Irving was against free speech, i.e. she opined about Irving and was sued for defamation. I figured no one should be sued for an opinion. But more recently, I learned that it was Lipstadt and her ilk who used muscle to prevent Irving’s work from being published. So, Irving was acting to defend his career as an important historian.

    Lipstadt is one of those monsters who toss the term ‘denier’ as a smear campaign against any counter-narrative thought-criminal. She even used the term against Ernest Nolte even though he never discounted the Holocaust Narrative. Nolte said the Nazis, though evil and destructive, were reacting to comparably evil and destructive forces of communism. But that made him a ‘denier’ according to Lipstadt. And given all the ludicrous antipathy toward Putin, Russia, Assad, Syria, and Iran from Jewish globalist power, I think more people are waking up the fact that MSM is full of crap.

    The recent Hollywood movie about Churchill has him being friendly with a Negro on a London subway. In fact, Churchill had very low opinion of dark folks and was a total imperialist who believed in British mastery over non-white subjects. Also, it’s funny that a historian can write awful things AS LONG AS they suck up to Jewish Power. Take Andrew Roberts who is favored by MSM. This guy wrote about how it was justified for the British Imperialists to mow down people in India to maintain order. But he gets a pass because he’s always sucking up to Zionists and so weepy-poo about the Holocaust. And consider all the academic hacks who are favored because they favor ‘new cold war’ with Russia and destruction of Syria and Libya.

    https://newrepublic.com/article/61052/white-man-the-job-bushs-imperial-historian

    As for Irving’s ‘antisemitism’, I don’t find that to be a problem. Where does it say that anyone must like a certain people? Many American scare-monger about Chinese, Russians, Iranians, Muslims, Mexicans, and etc. And many Jews express hostility toward Russians, White Evangelicals, Muslims, Palestinians, Iranians, Mormons, and etc. Who says anyone has to like anyone or any people? Plenty of people dislike Gypsies. Plenty of people are put off by Hindus. And plenty of Hindus are put off by Muslims. Mexicans love to bash gringos. So, why is it some kind of sin to not like Jews? Jews don’t have to like all peoples, and no people should be expected to like Jews as a cosmic law. But in the West, three peoples — Jews, blacks, and homos — MUST be liked. Why? It sounds supremacist to me. If blacks can dislike any people, any people should be free to dislike blacks.

    So, if Irving doesn’t like Jews, that’s okay… just like it’s okay if Jews don’t like Iranians or Russians. (Just read what Ann Applebaum has written on Russian people and culture.) With Irving, the problem is he let his personal feelings get in the way of assessing history, and that’s been a big minus. Eric Hobsbawm had a similar blindspot with Stalin even though he finally admitted that Stalin killed a lot of people.

    https://newrepublic.com/article/107966/eugene-genovese-eric-hobsbawm-age-of-extremes

    I think Irving’s worldview is, at the root, similar to that of Paul Johnson. Both are romantics of British Imperialism. They see it as mostly glorious than wicked. They believe the world benefited greatly as the White Man’s Burden. Brits were the rightful lords of the world. So, Johnson even makes light of the British opium trade in China and blamed the Chinese for becoming addicted to the stuff. Both mourn the passing of the Empire. Despite similar sentiments about the Empire, where they diverge is in the Why(the empire fell) and How(the Brits should cope in the New Order).
    Johnson blames Moral Relativism unleashed by WWI and overt German aggression. Instead of being more civil and well-mannered in international affairs, the Germans got too eager and boorish and messed things up for everyone.
    In contrast, Irving’s position is a harder version of Buchanan’s that the British should have sided with their racial brethren the Germans instead of fighting a Anglo vs German brothers’ war in both WWI and WWII. Irving sees Jews as mucking up the racial-brotherly relations between Anglos and Germans.

    I suspect Johnson privately has a lot of trepidation about Jews as well, but his hopes are like those of Jared Taylor. He believes the West has no choice but to be philosemitic because the Holocaust was too horrible and Jews have gotten too rich and powerful. So, unless the Right can win over Jews, it is at a serious disadvantage in moral and monetary terms.
    Therefore, Johnson’s shtick is that Antisemitism was really the result of Moral Relativism, Radical Modernity, and Teutonic irrationalism that were heroically countered by rational, moderate, and Christian civilization of the enlightened British Empire. So, Jews should NOT see Anglos and Germans as equal ‘racists’ but forge an alliance with Anglos as fellow enlightened imperialists who should rule over the world. The template for what the Saker calls the Anglo-Zionist World Order.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Malla
    Great post except that

    So, Johnson even makes light of the British opium trade in China and blamed the Chinese for becoming addicted to the stuff.
     
    It was at it's core more of a Jewish Indian trade. Check out the Jewish Sassoons and Gujrati traders of Bombay who were a major driving force and profiteers of that trade.
    , @peterAUS
    Good post overall, IMHO.
    Especially from:

    I don’t like the term ‘Holocaust Denial’ because it sounds like a religious concept....
     
    to

    ....It’s all a quasi-religious battle between Holocaust iconographers and Holocaust iconoclasts.
     
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  100. Malla says:
    @Andrew E. Mathis
    It doesn't go against common sense at all. If you had common sense, you'd realize that.

    It goes against all common sense and I have a lot of it. Thank you. The world is full of educated fools unfortunately.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  101. Malla says:
    @Anon
    I also think your use of sneer quotes in describing Holocaust denial — which Irving no longer engages in but certainly did at the same he very stupidly sued Deborah Lipstadt — is troubling... I can also demonstrate that Irving is, at the very least, a full-blown anti-Semite, although I suspect you know that.

    I don't like the term 'Holocaust Denial' because it sounds like a religious concept. We are expected to worship Holocaust as some kind of faith. But when it comes to actual history, we either know or don't know, believe or disbelieve what we are told. It's not a matter of Denying.
    If someone knows little or nothing about the Ukraine Famine, he can't be a called a Famine Denier. He just doesn't know. Also, if his understanding of the Event runs counter to the account of the Ukrainian government, he is less a denier than a disbeliever of the Official Narrative. The current Ukrainian Narrative says 8 million died in the 'Holodomor'. But there are studies that show the numbers were more likely 3.5 million. So, if one chooses the latter number, is he a 'denier'?

    There are two kinds of people who muck up the Holocaust debate:

    Those who insist on Faith and Worship. So, we are to never question the 6 million figure. Never ask why there was such hostility toward Jews. Just believe that pure-as-snow 6 million Jews were killed for totally irrational reasons. This is a cult or neo-religion, not history.

    Then, you got those who have a hardon for Hitler Cult and Nazis OR hate Jewish Power so much that they are willing to believe that the Holocaust was just a big hoax. Hitler was just a misunderstood Nice Guy and if some Jews died, it was all an accident or due to typhus... or Hitler's henchmen did it behind his back. These people are not interested in history. They just want to desecrate what has become holy to Jews. It's all a quasi-religious battle between Holocaust iconographers and Holocaust iconoclasts.

    But then, same is true of some on the Left. Godfree Robert's apologies for Mao are incredible, and they were actually commonplace prior to revelations of Mao's true record under Deng. This sort of thing is more a psychological phenomenon, the need to worship something in our godless age. Maybe if Godfree became Godfull, he wouldn't need false idols to worship. If Godfree Roberts believed as he did before the revelations of Mao's monstrosities, it'd be somewhat understandable. But the fact that he continues to apologize for Mao even after so much of the truth has come out shows that some people have a certain psychological condition that must BELIEVE in something. I don't think Godfree Roberts is evil. He is just 'possessed'.

    David Irving was a sly kind of Holocaust Desecrator. He didn't outright reject historical accounts or facts. He just played dumb or feigned ignorance on certain matters. Or, his standards for historical veracity on the subject became impossibly high. So, even though he was more than willing to accept the standard statistics on Stalin's mass-killing, he demanded absolute proof on Nazi mass-killings. His double-standard readily accepted stats on leftist violence but insisted on absolute veracity when it came to Nazi mayhem. Irving could believe Stalin ordered all those mass-killings but played 'where's the beef?' on Nazi mass-killings, i.e. unless some document connecting Hitler to the Holocaust could be unearthed, we were to remain skeptical of the Fuhrer's responsibility. But this kind of moral logic is ridiculous. Hitler was the top dog and set the tone for Nazi Germany. Even if he didn't give a directive for the mass killing, he was still responsible in the way that Mao was responsible for the mass deaths of Great Leap and Cultural Revolution. He set in the motion the terrible events and created a climate of total fanaticism.

    As for Lipstadt, she is a monster. When the Irving trial was unfolding, I sympathized with her because MSM gave the impression that Irving was against free speech, i.e. she opined about Irving and was sued for defamation. I figured no one should be sued for an opinion. But more recently, I learned that it was Lipstadt and her ilk who used muscle to prevent Irving's work from being published. So, Irving was acting to defend his career as an important historian.

    Lipstadt is one of those monsters who toss the term 'denier' as a smear campaign against any counter-narrative thought-criminal. She even used the term against Ernest Nolte even though he never discounted the Holocaust Narrative. Nolte said the Nazis, though evil and destructive, were reacting to comparably evil and destructive forces of communism. But that made him a 'denier' according to Lipstadt. And given all the ludicrous antipathy toward Putin, Russia, Assad, Syria, and Iran from Jewish globalist power, I think more people are waking up the fact that MSM is full of crap.

    The recent Hollywood movie about Churchill has him being friendly with a Negro on a London subway. In fact, Churchill had very low opinion of dark folks and was a total imperialist who believed in British mastery over non-white subjects. Also, it's funny that a historian can write awful things AS LONG AS they suck up to Jewish Power. Take Andrew Roberts who is favored by MSM. This guy wrote about how it was justified for the British Imperialists to mow down people in India to maintain order. But he gets a pass because he's always sucking up to Zionists and so weepy-poo about the Holocaust. And consider all the academic hacks who are favored because they favor 'new cold war' with Russia and destruction of Syria and Libya.

    https://newrepublic.com/article/61052/white-man-the-job-bushs-imperial-historian

    As for Irving's 'antisemitism', I don't find that to be a problem. Where does it say that anyone must like a certain people? Many American scare-monger about Chinese, Russians, Iranians, Muslims, Mexicans, and etc. And many Jews express hostility toward Russians, White Evangelicals, Muslims, Palestinians, Iranians, Mormons, and etc. Who says anyone has to like anyone or any people? Plenty of people dislike Gypsies. Plenty of people are put off by Hindus. And plenty of Hindus are put off by Muslims. Mexicans love to bash gringos. So, why is it some kind of sin to not like Jews? Jews don't have to like all peoples, and no people should be expected to like Jews as a cosmic law. But in the West, three peoples -- Jews, blacks, and homos -- MUST be liked. Why? It sounds supremacist to me. If blacks can dislike any people, any people should be free to dislike blacks.

    So, if Irving doesn't like Jews, that's okay... just like it's okay if Jews don't like Iranians or Russians. (Just read what Ann Applebaum has written on Russian people and culture.) With Irving, the problem is he let his personal feelings get in the way of assessing history, and that's been a big minus. Eric Hobsbawm had a similar blindspot with Stalin even though he finally admitted that Stalin killed a lot of people.

    https://newrepublic.com/article/107966/eugene-genovese-eric-hobsbawm-age-of-extremes

    I think Irving's worldview is, at the root, similar to that of Paul Johnson. Both are romantics of British Imperialism. They see it as mostly glorious than wicked. They believe the world benefited greatly as the White Man's Burden. Brits were the rightful lords of the world. So, Johnson even makes light of the British opium trade in China and blamed the Chinese for becoming addicted to the stuff. Both mourn the passing of the Empire. Despite similar sentiments about the Empire, where they diverge is in the Why(the empire fell) and How(the Brits should cope in the New Order).
    Johnson blames Moral Relativism unleashed by WWI and overt German aggression. Instead of being more civil and well-mannered in international affairs, the Germans got too eager and boorish and messed things up for everyone.
    In contrast, Irving's position is a harder version of Buchanan's that the British should have sided with their racial brethren the Germans instead of fighting a Anglo vs German brothers' war in both WWI and WWII. Irving sees Jews as mucking up the racial-brotherly relations between Anglos and Germans.

    I suspect Johnson privately has a lot of trepidation about Jews as well, but his hopes are like those of Jared Taylor. He believes the West has no choice but to be philosemitic because the Holocaust was too horrible and Jews have gotten too rich and powerful. So, unless the Right can win over Jews, it is at a serious disadvantage in moral and monetary terms.
    Therefore, Johnson's shtick is that Antisemitism was really the result of Moral Relativism, Radical Modernity, and Teutonic irrationalism that were heroically countered by rational, moderate, and Christian civilization of the enlightened British Empire. So, Jews should NOT see Anglos and Germans as equal 'racists' but forge an alliance with Anglos as fellow enlightened imperialists who should rule over the world. The template for what the Saker calls the Anglo-Zionist World Order.

    Great post except that

    So, Johnson even makes light of the British opium trade in China and blamed the Chinese for becoming addicted to the stuff.

    It was at it’s core more of a Jewish Indian trade. Check out the Jewish Sassoons and Gujrati traders of Bombay who were a major driving force and profiteers of that trade.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  102. Lot says:
    @Anon
    David Irving is a sad case.

    He started out as a serious historian but ruined his reputation with needless provocations and mindless apologies for Hitler, blaming everything on his henchmen. At some point, he began to willfully court controversy just to trigger people. And willfully appeal to neo-Nazi nutjobs.

    A huge waste of real talent.

    Agreed.

    Left out of Ron Unz’s defense is that the case that bankrupted Irving was a libel action brought by Irving as the plaintiff, and that Irving quite liberally sued and threatened to sue people for libel.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irving_v_Penguin_Books_Ltd

    Read More
    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
    Yes, it is comically absurd that people are declaring Irving a martyr for free speech when his really big court loss came from him trying to use the courts to shut down someone from criticising him.

    In particular, those who (rightly) argue that holocaust denial should not be a crime are desperate to prostrate themselves before someone who tried to legally prohibit another from calling him a 'holocaust denier".

    What an amazing line of logic that would be! It's dandy, even admirable, to be a 'holocaust denier'...but its horribly libellous to call someone out on it...
    , @James Kabala
    And Irving also threatened to sue John Lukacs, a highly respected figure in traditionalist/paleoconservative circles, although ultimately he did not.

    Any discussion of Irving that does not make clear that he sued Lipstadt, not vice versa, is dishonest. (Unz comes closer to admission of this fact in his other post, but still buried in deliberately vague language that merely says the controversy "spawned a lawsuit.")
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  103. utu says:
    @CanSpeccy

    "Hitler did not want any war"

    So, why did he start one?
     

    Because it was now or never for Germany.

    The balance of world power changed radically between 1918 and 1939.

    The West European nations with their rather unproductive and restive overseas possessions no longer dominated the world stage economically or militarily.

    America, a continental country with almost twice Germany's population and an oceanic moat, had become an industrial giant with vast military potential, while Russia, even larger than the US and with a greater population, was back, militarily.

    For Germany, therefore, to slough off the bonds of the Versailles Treaty and achieve a place in the sun, it was now or never.

    If Germany was to achieve the status of a world power it had to seize territory, resources and population sufficient to contend with Russia and the US. That was Hitler's goal.

    So why people keep saying “Hitler did not want any war” or that it was pushed on him?

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    So why people keep saying “Hitler did not want any war” or that it was pushed on him?
     
    Hitler did not want war with Britain while invading Russia, hence, presumably, his expression of admiration for the British empire, Hess's peace mission to Britain, etc.

    Why people claims Hitler did not want the war in the East that he said he wanted is more difficult to understand. But since wars of aggression are both illegal and immoral, I suppose the Nazi apologists here wish to deny Germany's guilt.

    , @Jake
    Who claims that Hitler did not want ANY war?

    Hitler clearly wished to move German rule eastward across almost all Slavic lands, and he would have been tickled to kill as many as necessary.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  104. Malla says:
    @Rurik

    Apparently, had you been in a position to decide, you would have had Britain throw in her lot with Hitler or Stalin, rather than Roosevelt.
     
    Britain did throw in its lot with Stalin, in case you didn't know.

    And had she stayed neutral, then England today wouldn't be a stinking shithole of political correctness, moral and spiritual rot, and ethnic suicide.

    OK. But who cares?
     
    likely the millions of Brits who watched with distain as the royal wedding was turned into a 'diversity' farce, and the one man willing to talk about the death of England is summarily imprisoned for his temerity.

    I know where you stand. I'm not writing for you.

    I'm writing to point out that England's "victory" over Germany, has resulted in humiliations far, far worse than sharing the global limelight with an ascendant Germany.

    when guys like this are raping your 12 and 13 year old school girls and daughters wholesale

    http://www.blazingcatfur.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/clip_image0015.jpg

    http://www.frontpagemag.com/sites/default/files/uploads/2014/09/da.gif

    and if you complain, it's you that they'll put into prison, then at least when Germany lost the war, was when their women and girls were raped wholesale by sub-human orcs

    it looks like "winning" the war hasn't been all that beneficial

    when it means your country will be ruled by pedophiles and Zionists

    and there will be zero future for ethnic Brits - in England

    Britain’s declaration of war on Germany in WW2 should be studied as a case of civilisation-al and racial suicide.
    Third Reich Germany, unlike the Germany of the Kaiser, actually (initially) supported the British Empire as a bulwark against the communist menace. Indeed the Third Reich was more supportive of the British Empire than even the USA.
    The Soviet Union on the other hand was playing an active role in trying to destroy the British Empire from it’s very start and was a threat to the British way of life.
    And yet Britain allied with the Soviet Union and provided them with arms and material to destroy the Third Reich. THIS MAKES NO SENSE WHAT SO EVER. Only a fool would believe this is normal and logical behaviour. Was Britain fighting for itself or for the interest of some other group?
    If Britain would have been neutral or if democratic Britain would have engineered a war where the Soviets and the National Socialists would destroy each other, it would have made sense. But what Britain did, makes no sense at all.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    Was Britain fighting for itself or for the interest of some other group?
     
    a rhetorical question to be sure.

    just as today, the West is engaged in murderous rapine the world over, and not one bit of it to benefit the citizens of England, France or the ZUSA.

    How, one wonders did it benefit France or England or America to bomb Libya into the stone age?

    How does it benefit France to menace Syria?

    are the millions of Muslim refugees pouring into Europe the side benefit to England and France?

    Or does it benefit the Fiend, who dreams of seeing every last British school girl force-impregnated until there isn't one more Nazi (white European person) born in the British Isles? Or in France or the ZUS for that matter.

    The West is going through an upheaval, a tectonic shift, from enduring as a people and culture for thousands of years, to repudiating itself and bashing its future on the rocks of Rothschild's Zion.

    We either have to demand that we be replaced, or we're all Nazis.

    What other option is there?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  105. @Andrew E. Mathis
    I'm against those laws because I think they are counterproductive and provide too easy an excuse for Holocaust deniers to claim that they must be saying something right.

    That said, a couple of points to bear in mind about these laws:
    * In many of the countries with these laws, the law isn't about Holocaust denial per se but rather a law against inciting racial hatred, and Holocaust denial included under that.
    * In many of these countries, there are also laws against denying Soviet atrocities.

    But I agree, the laws are not good.

    As for whether there should or should not be moral opprobrium or social consequences for one's beliefs, no law protects people from such consequences.

    “I’m against those laws because I think they are counterproductive and provide too easy an excuse for Holocaust deniers to claim that they must be saying something right.”

    The implication being, you’re only opposed to them for pragmatic, political reasons, not because of commitment to free speech or open debate. (So if there were no political implcations, you’d have no issues with them.) Which of course is what people like Wally have been saying about you all along.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  106. @Andrew E. Mathis
    Yawn: http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2006/10/why-jonnie-hargis-is-pathetic-and.html

    You can't even conclusively locate 1% of the Jews sent to three camps over the course of 1.5 years. That's sad. Your whole denier universe built on nothing but Nazi lies, and you can't find ONE PERCENT.

    Sad!

    No one here needs to prove the holocaust story is bs. The Israelis do it every time they shoot a Palestinian child in the back. Every time they bulldoze a familys home. Every time they call for the extermination of Palestinians or Arabs in general. Every time they’re caught supporting genocidal cannibals like ISIS or Al Nusra. Every time the attempt to stir up another war and get Americans to die fighting it. Every time they call for censorship, every time the step on the Constitution.
    I believed it up till a few years ago, the Israelis and Zionists here in America convinced me it was a lie, not anyone here at Unz or the internet..
    Thats the predicament Zionists are in now, cause they’re not going to stop acting the way they do, they’ve been getting away with it for so long that they can’t stop or they will perish, they’ve gone too far and theres no turning back. Theres really nothing anyone can do to stop whats coming. Not good.
    When the truth comes out about 9/11 for all to see, they’re done in America as well. People are waking up, nothing you can do about that.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Brewer
    Good comment. I too entered this controversy through the back door of the Israel/Palestine conflict when I detected that something was not quite right with the established narrative. I am now appalled at my former self, standing on a chair cheering the Israelis in '67.
    Having studied History at graduate level in youth I began to look into Palestine about the time when the "New Historians" were publishing. Quite frankly, it changed my view of the validity of Historical method and the way it is taught (not to mention the politically motivated manipulation of what I had thought to be a pure science). Howard Zinn opened my eyes to other systemic failures.
    I concluded that the great narratives of History are mostly false. They are the fables of their time.
    I think Irving does a brilliant job of History. He sets out to get into the mind of Hitler, leaving aside the prejudices that bowdlerize other triers. His "Hitler's War" offers readers an opportunity to view the man, not the arch-villain of fantasy novels.

    Given that the Holocaust narrative is so intrinsic to the Zionist view of the World and the Palestinian situation is so often presented as a solution or recompense for it, it is inevitable that Holocaust veracity enters the debate.
    I cannot pretend to any special knowledge of the subject but, from what I have learned, the established narrative is flawed. For this reason alone, attempts to outlaw revisionism is, in my opinion, wrong.
    It will, I sincerely hope, soon become instantly recognizable that labels such as "holocaust denier", "anti-Semite" etc. are, to debate, what chemical weapons are to warfare - indiscriminate, unconscionable and evil.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  107. Rurik says:
    @SunBakedSuburb
    Hoo-boy! This article about David Irving's Hitler's War sure did stir up a shit storm.

    For those who deny the severity of the European holocaust please read Hitler's Shadow War (2002) by Clemson history professor Donald McKale. In it he details how even in retreat from the Eastern Front, with the Red Army at their heels, the Wehrmacht were directed to assist SS units like Einsatzgruppen in the killing of Jews. The Nazi cult's obsession with Jews went so far as to through basic military strategy and tactics out the window. Besides Lebensraum, the war in the East was really about the extermination of the Jewish people.

    Besides Lebensraum, the war in the East was really about the extermination of the Jewish people.

    no it wasn’t

    it was about the extermination of Bolshevik murderous and genocidal commies, who had recently genocided several million of the best of the people under its Satanic reign in the most cruel and excruciating way imaginable.

    It was because Germany was threatened with the same fate, that Hitler invaded Russia.

    Nazism was a survival response to genocidal Bolshevism. That most of the Bolsheviks were Jews, and because Jewish banksters in London and NYC had funded the Bolsheviks, and their subsequent reign of terror in Russia, is why Germany interned many Jews and others who they considered threats to Germany. Just as the US interned Japanese nationals for the same reason.

    Yet many loyal Jews served in the German army.

    If Hitter and the Nazis wanted to kill all the Jews, then they wouldn’t have filled ships full of them and allowed them to emigrate to the US and elsewhere. Nor would there have been millions upon millions of ‘Holocaust survivors’.

    Germany lost, and so the blood libels have become ever more shrill with each passing year.

    Read More
    • Agree: Them Guys
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  108. peterAUS says:
    @Andrew E. Mathis
    I'm against those laws because I think they are counterproductive and provide too easy an excuse for Holocaust deniers to claim that they must be saying something right.

    That said, a couple of points to bear in mind about these laws:
    * In many of the countries with these laws, the law isn't about Holocaust denial per se but rather a law against inciting racial hatred, and Holocaust denial included under that.
    * In many of these countries, there are also laws against denying Soviet atrocities.

    But I agree, the laws are not good.

    As for whether there should or should not be moral opprobrium or social consequences for one's beliefs, no law protects people from such consequences.

    I think they are counterproductive and provide too easy an excuse for Holocaust deniers to claim that they must be saying something right.

    Of course.
    Now, people ruling there aren’t stupid. They must know that and, still, they push for those laws.
    Something………does……….not………..compute………here.

    One could surmise that there is really something not quite right there.

    My take:
    NUMBERS have certain impact on average person.
    It has to be a certain number to create a certain reaction, emotional of course.

    Then, more importantly, the current paradigm is built on the victory over Nazi Germany. As a sidenote not over, also, equally racist fascist Italy and definitely racist Japan. Germany.
    Interestingly enough, Japan racism was against Anglo-Saxons. German was against, well we know who re this very topic.
    The current paradigm is built on a certain ..ahm…truth/perception of truth/story…..about that victory.

    So, if you allow just a little bit of chipping of that….truth….you open a real chance of challenging the paradigm. Not only the power but the very social order.
    Dangerous………

    So, you nip the thing in the bud.

    And….hehe….now..I don’t really think that all of the people against those laws are just for freedom of speech.

    So, there is obvious, but unspoken, game play here.
    “We protect our power and social order by stomping on that right in this particular case”.
    vs
    “We want to challenge that power and the social order by having that right in this particular case”.

    …the law isn’t about Holocaust denial per se but rather a law against inciting racial hatred, and Holocaust denial included under that.

    Makes sense. On the surface.
    If one is to dig just a little below that surface something interesting pops up.
    Who are the people (race, ethnicity, even religion) who are at the receiving end of those laws.

    So, things aren’t so clear cut here as your side would like to believe.

    One could even say that more the power pushes for implementation of those laws more it appears it is worried about the current state of affairs.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  109. Rurik says:
    @Malla
    Britain's declaration of war on Germany in WW2 should be studied as a case of civilisation-al and racial suicide.
    Third Reich Germany, unlike the Germany of the Kaiser, actually (initially) supported the British Empire as a bulwark against the communist menace. Indeed the Third Reich was more supportive of the British Empire than even the USA.
    The Soviet Union on the other hand was playing an active role in trying to destroy the British Empire from it's very start and was a threat to the British way of life.
    And yet Britain allied with the Soviet Union and provided them with arms and material to destroy the Third Reich. THIS MAKES NO SENSE WHAT SO EVER. Only a fool would believe this is normal and logical behaviour. Was Britain fighting for itself or for the interest of some other group?
    If Britain would have been neutral or if democratic Britain would have engineered a war where the Soviets and the National Socialists would destroy each other, it would have made sense. But what Britain did, makes no sense at all.

    Was Britain fighting for itself or for the interest of some other group?

    a rhetorical question to be sure.

    just as today, the West is engaged in murderous rapine the world over, and not one bit of it to benefit the citizens of England, France or the ZUSA.

    How, one wonders did it benefit France or England or America to bomb Libya into the stone age?

    How does it benefit France to menace Syria?

    are the millions of Muslim refugees pouring into Europe the side benefit to England and France?

    Or does it benefit the Fiend, who dreams of seeing every last British school girl force-impregnated until there isn’t one more Nazi (white European person) born in the British Isles? Or in France or the ZUS for that matter.

    The West is going through an upheaval, a tectonic shift, from enduring as a people and culture for thousands of years, to repudiating itself and bashing its future on the rocks of Rothschild’s Zion.

    We either have to demand that we be replaced, or we’re all Nazis.

    What other option is there?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  110. peterAUS says:
    @Anon
    I also think your use of sneer quotes in describing Holocaust denial — which Irving no longer engages in but certainly did at the same he very stupidly sued Deborah Lipstadt — is troubling... I can also demonstrate that Irving is, at the very least, a full-blown anti-Semite, although I suspect you know that.

    I don't like the term 'Holocaust Denial' because it sounds like a religious concept. We are expected to worship Holocaust as some kind of faith. But when it comes to actual history, we either know or don't know, believe or disbelieve what we are told. It's not a matter of Denying.
    If someone knows little or nothing about the Ukraine Famine, he can't be a called a Famine Denier. He just doesn't know. Also, if his understanding of the Event runs counter to the account of the Ukrainian government, he is less a denier than a disbeliever of the Official Narrative. The current Ukrainian Narrative says 8 million died in the 'Holodomor'. But there are studies that show the numbers were more likely 3.5 million. So, if one chooses the latter number, is he a 'denier'?

    There are two kinds of people who muck up the Holocaust debate:

    Those who insist on Faith and Worship. So, we are to never question the 6 million figure. Never ask why there was such hostility toward Jews. Just believe that pure-as-snow 6 million Jews were killed for totally irrational reasons. This is a cult or neo-religion, not history.

    Then, you got those who have a hardon for Hitler Cult and Nazis OR hate Jewish Power so much that they are willing to believe that the Holocaust was just a big hoax. Hitler was just a misunderstood Nice Guy and if some Jews died, it was all an accident or due to typhus... or Hitler's henchmen did it behind his back. These people are not interested in history. They just want to desecrate what has become holy to Jews. It's all a quasi-religious battle between Holocaust iconographers and Holocaust iconoclasts.

    But then, same is true of some on the Left. Godfree Robert's apologies for Mao are incredible, and they were actually commonplace prior to revelations of Mao's true record under Deng. This sort of thing is more a psychological phenomenon, the need to worship something in our godless age. Maybe if Godfree became Godfull, he wouldn't need false idols to worship. If Godfree Roberts believed as he did before the revelations of Mao's monstrosities, it'd be somewhat understandable. But the fact that he continues to apologize for Mao even after so much of the truth has come out shows that some people have a certain psychological condition that must BELIEVE in something. I don't think Godfree Roberts is evil. He is just 'possessed'.

    David Irving was a sly kind of Holocaust Desecrator. He didn't outright reject historical accounts or facts. He just played dumb or feigned ignorance on certain matters. Or, his standards for historical veracity on the subject became impossibly high. So, even though he was more than willing to accept the standard statistics on Stalin's mass-killing, he demanded absolute proof on Nazi mass-killings. His double-standard readily accepted stats on leftist violence but insisted on absolute veracity when it came to Nazi mayhem. Irving could believe Stalin ordered all those mass-killings but played 'where's the beef?' on Nazi mass-killings, i.e. unless some document connecting Hitler to the Holocaust could be unearthed, we were to remain skeptical of the Fuhrer's responsibility. But this kind of moral logic is ridiculous. Hitler was the top dog and set the tone for Nazi Germany. Even if he didn't give a directive for the mass killing, he was still responsible in the way that Mao was responsible for the mass deaths of Great Leap and Cultural Revolution. He set in the motion the terrible events and created a climate of total fanaticism.

    As for Lipstadt, she is a monster. When the Irving trial was unfolding, I sympathized with her because MSM gave the impression that Irving was against free speech, i.e. she opined about Irving and was sued for defamation. I figured no one should be sued for an opinion. But more recently, I learned that it was Lipstadt and her ilk who used muscle to prevent Irving's work from being published. So, Irving was acting to defend his career as an important historian.

    Lipstadt is one of those monsters who toss the term 'denier' as a smear campaign against any counter-narrative thought-criminal. She even used the term against Ernest Nolte even though he never discounted the Holocaust Narrative. Nolte said the Nazis, though evil and destructive, were reacting to comparably evil and destructive forces of communism. But that made him a 'denier' according to Lipstadt. And given all the ludicrous antipathy toward Putin, Russia, Assad, Syria, and Iran from Jewish globalist power, I think more people are waking up the fact that MSM is full of crap.

    The recent Hollywood movie about Churchill has him being friendly with a Negro on a London subway. In fact, Churchill had very low opinion of dark folks and was a total imperialist who believed in British mastery over non-white subjects. Also, it's funny that a historian can write awful things AS LONG AS they suck up to Jewish Power. Take Andrew Roberts who is favored by MSM. This guy wrote about how it was justified for the British Imperialists to mow down people in India to maintain order. But he gets a pass because he's always sucking up to Zionists and so weepy-poo about the Holocaust. And consider all the academic hacks who are favored because they favor 'new cold war' with Russia and destruction of Syria and Libya.

    https://newrepublic.com/article/61052/white-man-the-job-bushs-imperial-historian

    As for Irving's 'antisemitism', I don't find that to be a problem. Where does it say that anyone must like a certain people? Many American scare-monger about Chinese, Russians, Iranians, Muslims, Mexicans, and etc. And many Jews express hostility toward Russians, White Evangelicals, Muslims, Palestinians, Iranians, Mormons, and etc. Who says anyone has to like anyone or any people? Plenty of people dislike Gypsies. Plenty of people are put off by Hindus. And plenty of Hindus are put off by Muslims. Mexicans love to bash gringos. So, why is it some kind of sin to not like Jews? Jews don't have to like all peoples, and no people should be expected to like Jews as a cosmic law. But in the West, three peoples -- Jews, blacks, and homos -- MUST be liked. Why? It sounds supremacist to me. If blacks can dislike any people, any people should be free to dislike blacks.

    So, if Irving doesn't like Jews, that's okay... just like it's okay if Jews don't like Iranians or Russians. (Just read what Ann Applebaum has written on Russian people and culture.) With Irving, the problem is he let his personal feelings get in the way of assessing history, and that's been a big minus. Eric Hobsbawm had a similar blindspot with Stalin even though he finally admitted that Stalin killed a lot of people.

    https://newrepublic.com/article/107966/eugene-genovese-eric-hobsbawm-age-of-extremes

    I think Irving's worldview is, at the root, similar to that of Paul Johnson. Both are romantics of British Imperialism. They see it as mostly glorious than wicked. They believe the world benefited greatly as the White Man's Burden. Brits were the rightful lords of the world. So, Johnson even makes light of the British opium trade in China and blamed the Chinese for becoming addicted to the stuff. Both mourn the passing of the Empire. Despite similar sentiments about the Empire, where they diverge is in the Why(the empire fell) and How(the Brits should cope in the New Order).
    Johnson blames Moral Relativism unleashed by WWI and overt German aggression. Instead of being more civil and well-mannered in international affairs, the Germans got too eager and boorish and messed things up for everyone.
    In contrast, Irving's position is a harder version of Buchanan's that the British should have sided with their racial brethren the Germans instead of fighting a Anglo vs German brothers' war in both WWI and WWII. Irving sees Jews as mucking up the racial-brotherly relations between Anglos and Germans.

    I suspect Johnson privately has a lot of trepidation about Jews as well, but his hopes are like those of Jared Taylor. He believes the West has no choice but to be philosemitic because the Holocaust was too horrible and Jews have gotten too rich and powerful. So, unless the Right can win over Jews, it is at a serious disadvantage in moral and monetary terms.
    Therefore, Johnson's shtick is that Antisemitism was really the result of Moral Relativism, Radical Modernity, and Teutonic irrationalism that were heroically countered by rational, moderate, and Christian civilization of the enlightened British Empire. So, Jews should NOT see Anglos and Germans as equal 'racists' but forge an alliance with Anglos as fellow enlightened imperialists who should rule over the world. The template for what the Saker calls the Anglo-Zionist World Order.

    Good post overall, IMHO.
    Especially from:

    I don’t like the term ‘Holocaust Denial’ because it sounds like a religious concept….

    to

    ….It’s all a quasi-religious battle between Holocaust iconographers and Holocaust iconoclasts.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  111. I have always been an admirer id David Irving and have two of his books, the millennium edition of “Hitlers’ War” and “The Last Crusade”, the latter his book on Nuremberg.

    I have listed to many of Irving’s lectures and have only found disagreement with him on a single point; the murder of Jews in the east. Sanning, a demographic statistician, has shown that the majority of Jews in the east were in fact transported into the Soviet Union. He was able to show this through research into all the available census data for that period of time.

    Also, the idea that the German Wehrmacht or the SS would execute people, bury them, and then return to exhume all of the graves to avoid an evidence of the crime makes little sense considering that units were the most professional military forces in world history as many historians have concluded. What highly professional military would come up with such a topsy-turvy plan?

    The other points I would like to make are one; that in later years David Irving showed that Adolph Hitler had been suffering for years from a heart ailment which increasingly got worse as the war years wore on. He suggested that this medical issue gave rise to his increasing in coherent decsion making at times.

    Second. the fighting in the east was some of the most brutal in modern history where even the famed German fighting men crouched in terror when not in combat due to the incessant and consistent attacks on their forces by Soviet partisan guerrillas that no amount of counterinsurgency operations could mitigate.

    Is it possible that the Jews who died in the east were the result of this brutal warfare beyond the individual atrocities that took place?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
    Good comment. Also, there is no archeological evidence that these claimed, massive exhumations took place; not to mention, the disposal method - open air cremations - is absurd. And as Wally has noted, cremains don’t exactly vanish, in fact they can cause great environmental damage to plant life, something not observed at places like Treblinka.
    , @peterAUS
    Forgive me, but I must ask.

    How do you....manage..... writing this:

    ....units were the most professional military forces in world history as many historians have concluded.
     
    and this

    ....even the famed German fighting men crouched in terror when not in combat due to the incessant and consistent attacks on their forces by Soviet partisan guerrillas that no amount of counterinsurgency operations could mitigate.
     
    Seriously, how do you put those two paragraphs in one post?

    You.....send an impression that you are mature and educated person.
    So...how do you do that?

    How can a German military unit, when not in combat be under incessant and consistent attack by partisan guerrillas?
    Not in combat/under incessant and consistent attack, relationship.
    Then, members of the most professional, hence competent, hence efficient, military vs guerrillas, crouch in terror?

    What's your method?
    Please.

    I know of cases where German unit (say, from squad up) was in shock due to overwhelming artillery fire/bombing run on their position. Or individuals in shock in intensive combat with heavy own casualties. All those involved enemy at least equal in size/weaponry. Especially in weaponry.
    I don't know one case where a German unit (say, from squad up) was "crouching in terror" under partisan attack.
    Would you be so kind to point to relevant source, please? Just one.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  112. Tyrion 2 says:
    @Lot
    Agreed.

    Left out of Ron Unz's defense is that the case that bankrupted Irving was a libel action brought by Irving as the plaintiff, and that Irving quite liberally sued and threatened to sue people for libel.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irving_v_Penguin_Books_Ltd

    Yes, it is comically absurd that people are declaring Irving a martyr for free speech when his really big court loss came from him trying to use the courts to shut down someone from criticising him.

    In particular, those who (rightly) argue that holocaust denial should not be a crime are desperate to prostrate themselves before someone who tried to legally prohibit another from calling him a ‘holocaust denier”.

    What an amazing line of logic that would be! It’s dandy, even admirable, to be a ‘holocaust denier’…but its horribly libellous to call someone out on it…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  113. Wally says:
    @Andrew E. Mathis
    Yawn: http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2006/10/why-jonnie-hargis-is-pathetic-and.html

    You can't even conclusively locate 1% of the Jews sent to three camps over the course of 1.5 years. That's sad. Your whole denier universe built on nothing but Nazi lies, and you can't find ONE PERCENT.

    Sad!

    Why would anyone trust psychopath Andrew Mathis? He’s a known stalker and attacker of free speech advocates. The word is that he calls the workplace of those he thinks are Revisionists, he calls their supposed homes, he even posts the addresses, phone numbers & pictures like wanted posters of those he thinks are Revisionists. Ask Run Unz. Ron deleted some of his criminal crap at this very website.
    He now has me, two guy who post at CODOH, and yet another guy as being about TEN different people, one guy we are all supposed to be is dead. LOL
    Only a psychopath behaves like he behaves. Sad, but true.

    Then the not too bright Mathis tries the desperate & illogical ‘Where did they go/’ canard.
    Yet Jews & their “Holocaust Industry” say that ’6M Jews & 5M others’ went to huge mass graves, they claim to know the exact locations of these alleged enormous mass graves, yet they cannot show us the alleged massive human remains.
    So pyscho-Mathis, show us your alleged remains of millions of Jews.
    recommended:
    See here, some links about Jews being moved around, & much more.:
    ‘J. Graf and the illogical canard: ‘Where did Jews go then?’ / & more’
    viewtopic.php?f=2&t=8272
    Postwar locations of Jews? Child’s play:
    “That shitty little country” Israel, US, S. America, Australia, wherever Jews are.

    Unz readers, see even more on Andrew Mathis here, in his own words. Oops:

    https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=4451&p=72138&hilit=mathis+thames+mulegino#p72138

    http://www.codoh.com

    Read More
    • Replies: @Incitatus
    All that bold text Wally. Sweating profusely? Working yourself into a panic attack?

    Remember Al Rosenberg’s advice: “Please, take a deep breath. Calm down. Call Mrs. Wally (is she wearing a helmet?). Breathe in. Breathe out. Say out loud ‘the world is not flat. It's not my fault. Hitler is dead. It's not my fault. The world understands. It's not my fault.”

    Helpful hint: Aside from “it’s not my fault” Al used to whisper “nicht schuldig” [“not guilty”] to himself all the time. Second thoughts about invasions, extermination or child kidnapping – you guessed it – forgotten in an instant! Came in handy at Nüremberg too!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  114. Wally says:
    @SunBakedSuburb
    Hoo-boy! This article about David Irving's Hitler's War sure did stir up a shit storm.

    For those who deny the severity of the European holocaust please read Hitler's Shadow War (2002) by Clemson history professor Donald McKale. In it he details how even in retreat from the Eastern Front, with the Red Army at their heels, the Wehrmacht were directed to assist SS units like Einsatzgruppen in the killing of Jews. The Nazi cult's obsession with Jews went so far as to through basic military strategy and tactics out the window. Besides Lebensraum, the war in the East was really about the extermination of the Jewish people.

    said:
    “In it he details how even in retreat from the Eastern Front, with the Red Army at their heels, the Wehrmacht were directed to assist SS units like Einsatzgruppen in the killing of Jews.”

    Really? So then, show us these “details”, show us the orders to the Wehrmacht where they were supposedly “directed to assist SS units like Einsatzgruppen in the killing of Jews.”
    We’re waiting. While you’re at, show us the alleged massive remains that are supposedly known to exist.

    The Fraudulent ‘holocau$t’ Industry now claims that ca. 2,000,000 Jews were shot by the Einsatzgruppen into huge pits, so, anyone, please SHOW us the actual excavations, the enormous mass graves, & remains that are claimed to exist, their locations are allegedly known.
    Is that:
    100 graves of 20,000?
    200 graves of 10,000?
    400 graves of 5,000?
    500 graves of 4,000?
    1000 graves of 2000?
    2000 graves of 1000?

    recommended:
    ‘The Einsatzgruppen Trial’ / from the journal, Inconvenient History.

    https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=11791

    and: former Einsatzgruppen Members Reject Bizarre Claims of Mass Shootings / Babi Yar, etc.

    https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=11396

    http://www.codoh.com

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  115. renfro says:
    @Andrew E. Mathis
    Yawn: http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2006/10/why-jonnie-hargis-is-pathetic-and.html

    You can't even conclusively locate 1% of the Jews sent to three camps over the course of 1.5 years. That's sad. Your whole denier universe built on nothing but Nazi lies, and you can't find ONE PERCENT.

    Sad!

    You can’t even conclusively locate 1% of the Jews sent to three camps over the course of 1.5 years.

    Er…..its you and the H-Industry that can’t locate them.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  116. Incitatus says:
    @Wally
    Why would anyone trust psychopath Andrew Mathis? He's a known stalker and attacker of free speech advocates. The word is that he calls the workplace of those he thinks are Revisionists, he calls their supposed homes, he even posts the addresses, phone numbers & pictures like wanted posters of those he thinks are Revisionists. Ask Run Unz. Ron deleted some of his criminal crap at this very website.
    He now has me, two guy who post at CODOH, and yet another guy as being about TEN different people, one guy we are all supposed to be is dead. LOL
    Only a psychopath behaves like he behaves. Sad, but true.

    Then the not too bright Mathis tries the desperate & illogical ‘Where did they go/’ canard.
    Yet Jews & their “Holocaust Industry” say that ’6M Jews & 5M others’ went to huge mass graves, they claim to know the exact locations of these alleged enormous mass graves, yet they cannot show us the alleged massive human remains.
    So pyscho-Mathis, show us your alleged remains of millions of Jews.
    recommended:
    See here, some links about Jews being moved around, & much more.:
    ‘J. Graf and the illogical canard: ‘Where did Jews go then?’ / & more’
    viewtopic.php?f=2&t=8272
    Postwar locations of Jews? Child’s play:
    “That shitty little country” Israel, US, S. America, Australia, wherever Jews are.

    Unz readers, see even more on Andrew Mathis here, in his own words. Oops:
    https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=4451&p=72138&hilit=mathis+thames+mulegino#p72138

    www.codoh.com

    All that bold text Wally. Sweating profusely? Working yourself into a panic attack?

    Remember Al Rosenberg’s advice: “Please, take a deep breath. Calm down. Call Mrs. Wally (is she wearing a helmet?). Breathe in. Breathe out. Say out loud ‘the world is not flat. It’s not my fault. Hitler is dead. It’s not my fault. The world understands. It’s not my fault.”

    Helpful hint: Aside from “it’s not my fault” Al used to whisper “nicht schuldig” [“not guilty”] to himself all the time. Second thoughts about invasions, extermination or child kidnapping – you guessed it – forgotten in an instant! Came in handy at Nüremberg too!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    Yawn.
    You're in over your slow Zionist head.
    My responses to you make you look ridiculous, because you're defending and easily debunked lie.
    Here's even more for you:
    Chemistry of Auschwitz / Birkenau
    https://youtu.be/SUc6Y_E5zb0

    Holocaust Handbooks, Documentaries, & Videos
    http://holocausthandbooks.com/index.php?main_page=1

    http://holocausthandbooks.com/img/HHS-300x127.jpg

    Still waiting for you to show us the millions of Jew remains that Jews claim exist in known locations.
    www.codoh.com

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  117. @Steve Naidamast
    I have always been an admirer id David Irving and have two of his books, the millennium edition of "Hitlers' War" and "The Last Crusade", the latter his book on Nuremberg.

    I have listed to many of Irving's lectures and have only found disagreement with him on a single point; the murder of Jews in the east. Sanning, a demographic statistician, has shown that the majority of Jews in the east were in fact transported into the Soviet Union. He was able to show this through research into all the available census data for that period of time.

    Also, the idea that the German Wehrmacht or the SS would execute people, bury them, and then return to exhume all of the graves to avoid an evidence of the crime makes little sense considering that units were the most professional military forces in world history as many historians have concluded. What highly professional military would come up with such a topsy-turvy plan?

    The other points I would like to make are one; that in later years David Irving showed that Adolph Hitler had been suffering for years from a heart ailment which increasingly got worse as the war years wore on. He suggested that this medical issue gave rise to his increasing in coherent decsion making at times.

    Second. the fighting in the east was some of the most brutal in modern history where even the famed German fighting men crouched in terror when not in combat due to the incessant and consistent attacks on their forces by Soviet partisan guerrillas that no amount of counterinsurgency operations could mitigate.

    Is it possible that the Jews who died in the east were the result of this brutal warfare beyond the individual atrocities that took place?

    Good comment. Also, there is no archeological evidence that these claimed, massive exhumations took place; not to mention, the disposal method – open air cremations – is absurd. And as Wally has noted, cremains don’t exactly vanish, in fact they can cause great environmental damage to plant life, something not observed at places like Treblinka.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  118. @CanSpeccy

    "Hitler did not want any war"

    So, why did he start one?
     

    Because it was now or never for Germany.

    The balance of world power changed radically between 1918 and 1939.

    The West European nations with their rather unproductive and restive overseas possessions no longer dominated the world stage economically or militarily.

    America, a continental country with almost twice Germany's population and an oceanic moat, had become an industrial giant with vast military potential, while Russia, even larger than the US and with a greater population, was back, militarily.

    For Germany, therefore, to slough off the bonds of the Versailles Treaty and achieve a place in the sun, it was now or never.

    If Germany was to achieve the status of a world power it had to seize territory, resources and population sufficient to contend with Russia and the US. That was Hitler's goal.

    You just admitted Hitler started the war.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    You just admitted Hitler started the war.
     
    So?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  119. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @utu
    So why people keep saying “Hitler did not want any war” or that it was pushed on him?

    So why people keep saying “Hitler did not want any war” or that it was pushed on him?

    Hitler did not want war with Britain while invading Russia, hence, presumably, his expression of admiration for the British empire, Hess’s peace mission to Britain, etc.

    Why people claims Hitler did not want the war in the East that he said he wanted is more difficult to understand. But since wars of aggression are both illegal and immoral, I suppose the Nazi apologists here wish to deny Germany’s guilt.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS
    Agree with most in your posts in this thread.
    The element I feel you are missing a bit is the race when understanding Nazi push against Soviet Union.
    Nazis and Slavs. Not Communists. Slavs.
    , @Wally
    So then you are a Empire apologist.

    Germany's guilt for what?

    www.codoh.com
    , @jilles dykstra
    Nobody ever was able to define 'war of agression'.
    But Hitler's attack on Russia was defensive:
    Bogdan Musial, ‘Kampfplatz Deutschland, Stalins Kriegspläne gegen den Westen’, Berlin 2008
    The initial success of the Wehrmacht was that Stalin had planned the attack three weeks after Hitler attacked.
    The Red Army was in disarray.
    , @headrick
    I think Hitler wanted a rail link to the actually German city of Danzig which was given to Poland at the end of WWI, with no road or rail link to Germany. So when the Poles told Hitler to pound sand, (at the urging of Churchill) Hitler became unreasonably angry, and did not believe the war guarantee given to Poland if Germany attacked. Who the hell would go to war over that? Well England. So Hitler did not lust for war with England. He did not like Russia at all especially since he was at war in the streets of Germany literally with the
    Socialists backed by Russia. Invading Russia- well Hitler had a good deal of mental support for that.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  120. Greg Bacon says: • Website
    @jilles dykstra
    Raul Hilberg, ‘The destruction of the European Jews’, student edition, Teaneck, 1985
    Just one volume.
    I can recommend reading it, already on page 300 or so one reads that Auschwitz was a big industrial centre.

    That is correct, Auschwitz supplied the thousands of laborers needed each shift for the adjacent, huge Monowitz complex, that made many different military items needed by Germany, like making fuel and tires from artificial sources, like coal.

    But you’ll never see that in a Speilberg movie.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    Yet even Wiesel describes it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  121. peterAUS says:
    @Steve Naidamast
    I have always been an admirer id David Irving and have two of his books, the millennium edition of "Hitlers' War" and "The Last Crusade", the latter his book on Nuremberg.

    I have listed to many of Irving's lectures and have only found disagreement with him on a single point; the murder of Jews in the east. Sanning, a demographic statistician, has shown that the majority of Jews in the east were in fact transported into the Soviet Union. He was able to show this through research into all the available census data for that period of time.

    Also, the idea that the German Wehrmacht or the SS would execute people, bury them, and then return to exhume all of the graves to avoid an evidence of the crime makes little sense considering that units were the most professional military forces in world history as many historians have concluded. What highly professional military would come up with such a topsy-turvy plan?

    The other points I would like to make are one; that in later years David Irving showed that Adolph Hitler had been suffering for years from a heart ailment which increasingly got worse as the war years wore on. He suggested that this medical issue gave rise to his increasing in coherent decsion making at times.

    Second. the fighting in the east was some of the most brutal in modern history where even the famed German fighting men crouched in terror when not in combat due to the incessant and consistent attacks on their forces by Soviet partisan guerrillas that no amount of counterinsurgency operations could mitigate.

    Is it possible that the Jews who died in the east were the result of this brutal warfare beyond the individual atrocities that took place?

    Forgive me, but I must ask.

    How do you….manage….. writing this:

    ….units were the most professional military forces in world history as many historians have concluded.

    and this

    ….even the famed German fighting men crouched in terror when not in combat due to the incessant and consistent attacks on their forces by Soviet partisan guerrillas that no amount of counterinsurgency operations could mitigate.

    Seriously, how do you put those two paragraphs in one post?

    You…..send an impression that you are mature and educated person.
    So…how do you do that?

    How can a German military unit, when not in combat be under incessant and consistent attack by partisan guerrillas?
    Not in combat/under incessant and consistent attack, relationship.
    Then, members of the most professional, hence competent, hence efficient, military vs guerrillas, crouch in terror?

    What’s your method?
    Please.

    I know of cases where German unit (say, from squad up) was in shock due to overwhelming artillery fire/bombing run on their position. Or individuals in shock in intensive combat with heavy own casualties. All those involved enemy at least equal in size/weaponry. Especially in weaponry.
    I don’t know one case where a German unit (say, from squad up) was “crouching in terror” under partisan attack.
    Would you be so kind to point to relevant source, please? Just one.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  122. Jake says:
    @utu
    So why people keep saying “Hitler did not want any war” or that it was pushed on him?

    Who claims that Hitler did not want ANY war?

    Hitler clearly wished to move German rule eastward across almost all Slavic lands, and he would have been tickled to kill as many as necessary.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    For which you have no proof. Empty talk.

    If Hitler wanted to, then he would have.

    “we’ve often fantasized about drawing up an indictment against Adolf Hitler himself. And to put into that indictment the major charge: the Final Solution of the Jewish question in Europe, the physical annihilation of Jewry. And then it dawned upon us, what would we do? We didn’t have the evidence.”
    - "holocaust historian" Raul Hilberg
     
    www.codoh.com
    , @jilles dykstra
    What Britain feared was Germany's economic expansion to the south east, what they also feared before the first world war.
    Lawrence R. Pratt, 'East of Malta, West of Suez', London, 1975
    Edward Mead Earle, Ph.D., ‘Turkey, The Great Powers and The Bagdad Railway, A study in Imperialism’, 1923, 1924, New York
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  123. peterAUS says:
    @CanSpeccy

    So why people keep saying “Hitler did not want any war” or that it was pushed on him?
     
    Hitler did not want war with Britain while invading Russia, hence, presumably, his expression of admiration for the British empire, Hess's peace mission to Britain, etc.

    Why people claims Hitler did not want the war in the East that he said he wanted is more difficult to understand. But since wars of aggression are both illegal and immoral, I suppose the Nazi apologists here wish to deny Germany's guilt.

    Agree with most in your posts in this thread.
    The element I feel you are missing a bit is the race when understanding Nazi push against Soviet Union.
    Nazis and Slavs. Not Communists. Slavs.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    The element I feel you are missing a bit is the race when understanding Nazi push against Soviet Union.
     
    Perhaps the territorial ambition came first, the racism second.

    If you are going to steal territory and kill or enslave the inhabitants, its awkward if they are the same blued-eyed Nordic type as yourself, especially if they are children of the same God. But if they're Catholics or Orthodox or Slavs or whatever, and you're a Lutheran, then no prob.

    As non-Christians, and as among the chief architects of the anti-Christian Bolshevik revolution and the short-lived, post WW1 Bolshevik regimes in Bavaria and Hungary, Jews were naturally primary targets for slaughter in German Nazi-occupied territory. Often the killings was conducted by local nationalists, acting with German encouragement, although where the local Christians would not kill their Jewish neighbors, as according to Solzhenitsyn in Belorus, then the Germans carried out the extermination program themselves.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  124. KenH says:

    Hitler’s War by David Irving is highly recommended for serious students of WWII history. Irving taught himself German and his information is based on primary sources and he spoke to many of the primary personalities during that time. This book wasn’t penned in the ivory towers of academia.

    Irving’s also one of the very few historians who can write dispassionately and objectively about Hitler and the national socialists, so every 3-4 pages isn’t filled with denunciations, condemnations and bile towards them. Albert Seaton and John Toland are two notable historian who’ve been able to paint objective portrayals of the Germans during WWII.

    The only gripe is that on several occasions Irving alludes to the holocaust as being a real event, but this book was published long before he changed his mind based on further research into the matter.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  125. Incitatus says:
    @Malla
    He did not want war, it was forced upon him. He wanted to create a better society with a combination of socialism and free market and to improve the standards of the German people in health, culture etc... free from globalist bankers. War was the last thing he ever wanted.

    “He [Hitler] did not want war, it was forced upon him.”

    Who forced it on him”

    “He [Hitler] wanted to create a better society with a combination of socialism and free market and to improve the standards of the German people in health, culture etc… free from globalist bankers.”

    Is that why he imprisoned tens of thousands of political opponents? Murdered loyal SA, chancellor Schleicher and his wife, and dozens of others in Operation Hummingbird? Assassinated Dollfuß in an unsuccessful coup? Illegally rearmed, then revoked Versailles and reinstituted conscription? Engineered Anschluß and Müncher Abkommen? Invaded rump Czechoslovakia and Poland? Invaded Denmark, Norway, Luxembourg, Belgium, Netherlands, France?. Invaded North Africa, Yugoslavia, Greece, Crete, Eastern Poland, USSR? Declared war on the USA? Killed 200,000 helpless Germans in Aktion T4?

    All because he “wanted to create a better society with a combination of socialism and free market”? Why did he chose to do it in everybody else’s country?

    “War was the last thing he [Hitler] ever wanted”

    Why was war the first option he chose?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    said:
    "Who forced it on him”

    The "Allies" forced war on Germany. Pay attention.

    said:
    "Is that why he imprisoned tens of thousands of political opponents? Murdered loyal SA, chancellor Schleicher and his wife, and dozens of others in Operation Hummingbird? Assassinated Dollfuß in an unsuccessful coup? Illegally rearmed, then revoked Versailles and reinstituted conscription? Engineered Anschluß and Müncher Abkommen? Invaded rump Czechoslovakia and Poland? Invaded Denmark, Norway, Luxembourg, Belgium, Netherlands, France?. Invaded North Africa, Yugoslavia, Greece, Crete, Eastern Poland, USSR? Declared war on the USA? Killed 200,000 helpless Germans in Aktion T4?
    All because he “wanted to create a better society with a combination of socialism and free market”? Why did he chose to do it in everybody else’s country?"

    - What political opponents? Communist thugs? Yep and rightly so.
    - Traitors? You bet, everyone did & does go after them.
    - So no one else had conscription? LOL
    - Took back Germany's land and protected it's people. Yep, & rightly so.
    - BTW, it's called WWII, those who aided & abetted Germany's enemies were asking for trouble.
    - How can Germany "invade" N. Africa when N. Africa had already been invaded by Britain & France? Empires are a bitch.
    - The Allies did nothing when the communist USSR invaded Finland, Poland and numerous other countries.
    - The Allies did nothing when Poland seized part of Czechoslovakia.
    - Nothing illegal about a country arming itself. Everyone else did and does.
    - As has shown repeatedly. you have no proof for your laughably alleged '200,000 murders within the T4 euthanasia program, which exist everywhere today.

    ssaid: "Why was war the first option he chose?"

    - Is wasn't. Simple.
    www.codoh.com
    , @jilles dykstra
    " Illegally rearmed, then revoked Versailles and reinstituted conscription? "

    How illegally ?
    When someone is blackmailed into signing an 'agreement' in any system of justice that agreement is null and void.
    When the Weimar Republic signed in Versailles already 900.000 Germans had died of hunger because Britain had continued the blockade.
    The food situation in Germany was such that British occupation troops were on the verge of insurrection.
    It takes too much space and time to reject the other nonsense.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  126. Wally says:
    @Incitatus
    “He [Hitler] did not want war, it was forced upon him.”

    Who forced it on him”

    “He [Hitler] wanted to create a better society with a combination of socialism and free market and to improve the standards of the German people in health, culture etc… free from globalist bankers.”

    Is that why he imprisoned tens of thousands of political opponents? Murdered loyal SA, chancellor Schleicher and his wife, and dozens of others in Operation Hummingbird? Assassinated Dollfuß in an unsuccessful coup? Illegally rearmed, then revoked Versailles and reinstituted conscription? Engineered Anschluß and Müncher Abkommen? Invaded rump Czechoslovakia and Poland? Invaded Denmark, Norway, Luxembourg, Belgium, Netherlands, France?. Invaded North Africa, Yugoslavia, Greece, Crete, Eastern Poland, USSR? Declared war on the USA? Killed 200,000 helpless Germans in Aktion T4?

    All because he “wanted to create a better society with a combination of socialism and free market”? Why did he chose to do it in everybody else’s country?

    “War was the last thing he [Hitler] ever wanted”

    Why was war the first option he chose?

    said:
    “Who forced it on him”

    The “Allies” forced war on Germany. Pay attention.

    said:
    “Is that why he imprisoned tens of thousands of political opponents? Murdered loyal SA, chancellor Schleicher and his wife, and dozens of others in Operation Hummingbird? Assassinated Dollfuß in an unsuccessful coup? Illegally rearmed, then revoked Versailles and reinstituted conscription? Engineered Anschluß and Müncher Abkommen? Invaded rump Czechoslovakia and Poland? Invaded Denmark, Norway, Luxembourg, Belgium, Netherlands, France?. Invaded North Africa, Yugoslavia, Greece, Crete, Eastern Poland, USSR? Declared war on the USA? Killed 200,000 helpless Germans in Aktion T4?
    All because he “wanted to create a better society with a combination of socialism and free market”? Why did he chose to do it in everybody else’s country?”

    - What political opponents? Communist thugs? Yep and rightly so.
    - Traitors? You bet, everyone did & does go after them.
    - So no one else had conscription? LOL
    - Took back Germany’s land and protected it’s people. Yep, & rightly so.
    - BTW, it’s called WWII, those who aided & abetted Germany’s enemies were asking for trouble.
    - How can Germany “invade” N. Africa when N. Africa had already been invaded by Britain & France? Empires are a bitch.
    - The Allies did nothing when the communist USSR invaded Finland, Poland and numerous other countries.
    - The Allies did nothing when Poland seized part of Czechoslovakia.
    - Nothing illegal about a country arming itself. Everyone else did and does.
    - As has shown repeatedly. you have no proof for your laughably alleged ’200,000 murders within the T4 euthanasia program, which exist everywhere today.

    ssaid: “Why was war the first option he chose?”

    - Is wasn’t. Simple.
    http://www.codoh.com

    Read More
    • Replies: @Incitatus
    “The “Allies” forced war on Germany. Pay attention”

    How? Did they order mobilization of German troops and invasions? Please tell us how the Allies “forced war on Germany”. Telekinisis? Did FDR call Eva and get her to hypnotize Dolf into invading Czechoslovakia and Poland? Did Fala send Blondie a drugged milkbone designed to make her bite the Führer into attacking neighbors? Give us a hint. We’re paying attention. Are you?

    [Don’t forget: breathe in, breath out. The world is not flat. It’s not my fault. Hitler’s dead. It’s not my fault. The world understands. It's not my fault. Nicht schuldig (Not guilty)! Ich habe nur Befehle ausgeführt (I was just following orders)! Jeder macht es (Everybody does it)!]

    “What political opponents? Communist thugs? Yep and rightly so”

    Chancellor Schleicher and his wife (shot in their foyer) were Communists? Herbert von Bose (shot ten times in the back)? Generalmajor Ferdinand von Bredow (shot in the face opening his door)? Catholic journalist Fritz Gerlich (murdered at Dauchau)? Conservative lawyer Edgar Julius Jung (shot, dumped in an Oranienburg ditch)? Catholic politician and Papen associate Erich Klausener (shot by the SS)? Catholic youth leader Adalbert Probst (abducted, “shot while trying to escape”)? Funny, none are recorded with any ties to Communists.

    How about Gustav Ritter von Kahr, the former Bavarian commissioner who suppressed the Nov ’33 Putsch? He was found hacked to death with pickaxes in a wood outside of Munich. No known ties to Communists.

    Otto Ballerstedt, an electrical engineer, veteran, writer, leader of Bayernbund? He was personally assaulted and severely injured by Hitler 14 Sep 1921 when the latter broke-up his lecture in Munich Löwenbräukeller, then dragged out of the Hall. Hitler and Hermann Esser were arrested, convicted 27-29 Jan ’22 of breach of the peace, public indecency and assault. Hitler served less than a month (a third of his sentence). Ballerstedt retired from politics in ’25, but it seems Hitler still considered him a threat. He was arrested by the SS 30 Jun ’34 and killed near or in Dauchau. His body was found 1 Jul ’34 in the forest near Gündinger Neuhimmelreich – he’d been shot in the back of the head. No known ties to Communists.

    Or Bernhard Stempfle, a Catholic priest, journalist, and confidant of Hitler who helped write ‘Mein Kampf’. He was arrested in June ’34 and deported to Dachau. What’d’ya know? He was found dead 1 Jul ’34 in the woods near Harlaching. Reports noted ‘broken neck’ and shot in the heart “while trying to escape”. Most think he knew too much about Hitler and/or Christian Weber. No known ties to Communists.

    Here’s the best victim, Wally. Willi Schmid, music critic for the Müncher Neueste Nachtricten. No known ties to Communists. He was arrested 30 Jun ’34 in front of his family while playing the cello in his study. His body was returned to his family in a sealed casket four days later with written instructions from the SS not to open it in any circumstances. Seems he was innocently mistaken for SA ‘Willi Schmidt’ at assassination central. Rudolf Hess visited his widow a few days later to express regret for the murder mistake and offered her a state pension. What a guy! She emigrated to US. Wonder why, eh Wally?

    Röhm and the other SA were Communists? That would have been news to them, since most spent a great deal of time and effort fighting Communists.

    “Traitors? You bet, everyone did & does go after them”

    Does “go after” mean murder Wally? You’ll decide who’s a traitor? Without trial? No problem if you make a mistake, arrest some poor innocent in front of his family, murder him in a way that merits a sealed casket, then try to band-aid over your crime?

    Please list countries that do that.

    “BTW, it’s called WWII, those who aided & abetted Germany’s enemies were asking for trouble”

    Germany lost, you moron. Criminally incompetent leaders, abetted by imbecilic bigots like you, led normal Germans to disaster. Thankfully they know enough to spot you for what you are: an impotent fabricator and rabble-rouser that would lead them, once again, to ruin.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  127. @Andrew E. Mathis
    Since I don't believe they actually exist, then answer is "no."

    You’re not supposed to pound the troll button after you’ve lost the debate, moron!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  128. Wally says:
    @Jake
    Who claims that Hitler did not want ANY war?

    Hitler clearly wished to move German rule eastward across almost all Slavic lands, and he would have been tickled to kill as many as necessary.

    For which you have no proof. Empty talk.

    If Hitler wanted to, then he would have.

    “we’ve often fantasized about drawing up an indictment against Adolf Hitler himself. And to put into that indictment the major charge: the Final Solution of the Jewish question in Europe, the physical annihilation of Jewry. And then it dawned upon us, what would we do? We didn’t have the evidence.”
    - “holocaust historian” Raul Hilberg

    http://www.codoh.com

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  129. Wally says:
    @CanSpeccy

    So why people keep saying “Hitler did not want any war” or that it was pushed on him?
     
    Hitler did not want war with Britain while invading Russia, hence, presumably, his expression of admiration for the British empire, Hess's peace mission to Britain, etc.

    Why people claims Hitler did not want the war in the East that he said he wanted is more difficult to understand. But since wars of aggression are both illegal and immoral, I suppose the Nazi apologists here wish to deny Germany's guilt.

    So then you are a Empire apologist.

    Germany’s guilt for what?

    http://www.codoh.com

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  130. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @David In TN
    You just admitted Hitler started the war.

    You just admitted Hitler started the war.

    So?

    Read More
    • Replies: @David In TN
    Well stupid, you said he didn't want war.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  131. Wally says:
    @Incitatus
    All that bold text Wally. Sweating profusely? Working yourself into a panic attack?

    Remember Al Rosenberg’s advice: “Please, take a deep breath. Calm down. Call Mrs. Wally (is she wearing a helmet?). Breathe in. Breathe out. Say out loud ‘the world is not flat. It's not my fault. Hitler is dead. It's not my fault. The world understands. It's not my fault.”

    Helpful hint: Aside from “it’s not my fault” Al used to whisper “nicht schuldig” [“not guilty”] to himself all the time. Second thoughts about invasions, extermination or child kidnapping – you guessed it – forgotten in an instant! Came in handy at Nüremberg too!

    Yawn.
    You’re in over your slow Zionist head.
    My responses to you make you look ridiculous, because you’re defending and easily debunked lie.
    Here’s even more for you:
    Chemistry of Auschwitz / Birkenau

    Holocaust Handbooks, Documentaries, & Videos

    http://holocausthandbooks.com/index.php?main_page=1


    Still waiting for you to show us the millions of Jew remains that Jews claim exist in known locations.
    http://www.codoh.com

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  132. Wally says:
    @Andrew E. Mathis
    Yawn: http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2006/10/why-jonnie-hargis-is-pathetic-and.html

    You can't even conclusively locate 1% of the Jews sent to three camps over the course of 1.5 years. That's sad. Your whole denier universe built on nothing but Nazi lies, and you can't find ONE PERCENT.

    Sad!

    Oh my, just for a perverted criminal like yourself:

    http://www.codoh.com

    Read More
    • Replies: @Them Guys
    Wally, great info! Note also that these holyhoax promoters aka jews make use of the exact same method of....if Zero/No/None evidence exists nor can be found?...No problem, just switch the actual real word meanings so to mean a totally Different thing!

    And by same method I am referring to the largest sect of idiotic brainwashed and always unquestionable, defenders of all issues or agendas jewish or Israel state...That being Americas 60+ Million of jewdeo-zio-christians. Only difference is that where hoax promotor jews switch word meanings from say, Resettlement into meaning of "extermination of jews" etc....


    Those braindead jew and Israel firster apostate Christians named prior, instead switch word meanings from, in all biblical verses locations the word of "Israel" or Israelite" can be found...They switch the actual word meanings into the word of "Jew" or "Jews"...This way they can conjure up various end times prophetic claims and interpretations, then search or back track thru as many bible verses until they find the words of "Israel", and then substitute the word "jew" so to make every prophetic interpretation Fit!


    It seems that every group and also individuals who become infatuated by jews, like those jewdeo Christian sects, along with polititions and msm members etc. And almost the entire dem lib party, African negros, Fags & Dykes, and any others I forgot to name here.....All sooner or later become almost 100% the same as a jew in all of the various nefarious ways of international jewry are famous for being.


    A good example I'd say, is how most dem libs, negroes, and other jew firsters or jew defenders, always use the very same jewish tactics of denial of facts, rejection of proven truths, and none are ever able to ever admit to being wrong on any jew or political or racial issues period. And when all those tactics fail, or the people they are rejecting such facts from refuse to cave in to such jewish tactics...They, same as a jew, always resort to use of vile name callings of Nazis and anti-Semite and racist....In order to finally stifle and shut down entirely ALL forms free speech/talk of the type those loony lefties reject or dislike.


    This is a pattern of behavior that has swept the entire nation of America via pc and cultural Marxist controls of most forms msm and medias today, and one group maintains such rigid strict msm media control of thought and speech allowed, and it is jews who have that control.


    Today and for some while long now, one can accurately claim that Americas citizenry has been almost totally Judaized and Talmudized and Zionized to the proverbial Inth-Degree!


    Yet even while so many have been trained like Pavlovs Dogs, to Think-Believe-Act- like jews,and Unquestionably always kneejerk-defend all issues jew, until they act more like a jew than a jew does, they also fail to comprehend that no matter how or what they do in their mad quest of "Is it good for jews"?....They Fail to see that never ever are jews going to actually accept such idiot Goys as one of jews own eh....jews will always treat even the most out going pro jew goy like them the same as they treat awake folk goy like Us...With abject hatred of goyim from jewry as a whole.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  133. renfro says:
    @Andrew E. Mathis
    I have a long history with David Irving, including having met him personally in New York in 2003 (where he autographed my copy of Denying the Holocaust, by Deborah Lipstadt), and e-mail correspondences in the 1990s and 2000s, which were as rancorous as you might imagine.

    I think the comment to which you're responding, Mr. Unz, is a wholly accurate one. I also think your use of sneer quotes in describing Holocaust denial -- which Irving no longer engages in but certainly did at the same he very stupidly sued Deborah Lipstadt -- is troubling, and I'd welcome the opportunity to educate you on this point, should you be interested. I assisted in a tiny way in the Lipstadt case, assisting one of the expert witnesses with his research. I can demonstrate that Irving knew that the case he was presenting in court consisted of some fairly big lies. I can also demonstrate that Irving is, at the very least, a full-blown anti-Semite, although I suspect you know that.

    That said, Irving certainly made significant contributions to our understanding of WWII history, even in the volume you publish today. These contributions are not without their own problems, though: I wrote a rebuttal to one of the points made in his introduction, which can be read here:

    http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2016/02/keine-liquidierung-eine-neubeurteilung.html

    What I hope to demonstrate in this essay is that, on the point discussed, Irving seized on an extremely unlikely meaning for the source that he located instead of exhaustively surveying the available evidence and finding the more likely explanation.

    I welcome any comments.

    long history with David Irving, including having met him personally in New York in 2003 (where he autographed my copy of Denying the Holocaust, by Deborah Lipstadt),

    You know… I knew what you are the minute I read that comment. The kind of petty Jew lurking in the shadows, their beady eyes darting around, watching the gentile trade with jealousy, greed and resentment…..the kind that twain and t.s. Elliot described so well.
    Only a Jew like yourself would think that such an insult is something to brag about.

    Only a Jew like you would threaten a lady for refusing to help him destroy the career and name of someone who disagreed with his Jewish holocaust cult:

    [MORE]

    http://www.angelfire.com/fl4/fci/andysjew.html

    FROM: “Andrew E Mathis”
    TO: [email protected]
    DATE: Sun, 5 Jan 2003
    Subject: Fred Leuchter
    Andrew E Mathis wrote:
    Dear Ms. Lee:

    I am a board member of the Holocaust History Project (http://www.thhp.org/ ) a non-profit Holocaust education foundation based physically in San Antonio, Texas, but operating with a worldwide membership primarily as a Web presence.

    We got a tip from someone that you had had personal correspondence with Fred Leuchter, he of the film *Mr. Death* and the Zündel Holocaust denial trial in Canada. In your correspondence with Mr. Leuchter, he indicates that he is an engineer. He has been legally barred from representing himself as such in the state of Massachusetts, where he indicates he is writing from.

    While I realize this is a large request from someone that you don’t know from Adam, would it be possible for you to forward, with the full headers, the e-mails you received from Leuchter, if you are still in possession of them? Mr. Leuchter has apparently broken the law, and there is no time limit on the agreement he signed wherein he agreed not to represent himself as an engineer in the state of Massachusetts.

    Speaking for myself, I am not interested in pursuing the personal ruin of Fred Leuchter; he’s done that just fine himself. What I am interested in doing is making sure that Leuchter does not further violate the law by representing himself as something that he is not.
    If such behavior as Leuchter’s is not controlled, the entire process of expert witnesses in civil and criminal trials can be brought into jeopardy.

    I would greatly appreciate your assistance in this matter. I will gladly answer any questions you may have. I look forward to hearing from you.

    Yours truly,

    Andrew E. Mathis, Ph.D.

    Mr. Mathis. Indeed, you are right. You are a total stranger and Your request is a bit offensive.
    I’m sorry, but I cannot be a part of the continued effort to destroy this man’s life when all I can see is that he used the tools and knowledge at his disposal at the time (so long ago) and came up with a decision a lot of people don’t agree with.
    Goodness, You are part of such a wonderful and powerful group that you could do so much good if all your energy were put into something positive, instead of making an example out of this man. Do you plan to haunt him unto death? That’s a bit unGodly, don’t you think?
    I just spent a year working with the most wonderful Jewish man of all (in my heart), Richard “Dick” Korn, PhD. He accomplished great things because he was not bogged down with a hatred of Mr. Leuchter, nor of any other man. If you want to be a credit to your religion, you must get on to things of more urgency to your creator.
    I don’t keep old emails and if I did, I wouldn’t send them. You’ll have to set up your own correspondence with Mr. Leuchter. Besides, everything I have from Mr. Leuchter is on the website.
    I do hope you find peace in forgiveness.
    Kay Lee

    To: [email protected]
    CC: [email protected]
    From: “Andrew E Mathis”
    Subject: Re: Fred Leuchter
    Date: Sun, 05 Jan 2003 10:18:51 -0800 (PST)
    Kay Lee wrote:

    ” Mr. Mathis. Indeed, you are right. You are a total stranger and Your request is a bit offensive. I’m sorry, but I cannot be a part of the continued effort to destroy this man’s life when all I can see is that he used the tools and knowledge at his disposal at the time (so long ago) and came up with a decision a lot of people don’t agree with.”

    Mr. Mathis wrote:

    Ms. Lee, he did quite a bit more than that. Quite simply, he lied. Under oath, to boot. If you think that his conclusions are of no importance, then consider that he got paid $35,000 Canadian for them. Consider also that the man who paid him is a sworn neo-Nazi who once co-authored a book entitled *The Hitler We Loved and Why*. If Fred Leuchter was willing to undertake his “work” and deny the Holocaust and claims that he is unaware that this is a neo-Nazi endeavor, then he is either (1) lying or (2) the most stupid man in the world.

    ” Goodness, You are part of such a wonderful and powerful group that you could do so much good if all your energy were put into something positive, instead of making an example out of this man. Do you plan to haunt him unto death? That’s a bit unGodly, don’t you think? ”

    I for one would not dare to guess the mind of God. And I wonder what “powerful group” I’m a part of, but we’ll leave that one for the moment.

    ‘” I just spent a year working with the most wonderful Jewish man of all (in my heart), Richard “Dick” Korn, PhD. He accomplished great things because he was not bogged down with a hatred of Mr. Leuchter, nor of any other man. If you want to be a credit to your religion, you must get on to things of more urgency to your creator. ”

    Wow. I wasn’t aware that wonderful men fell into two categories: Jews and non-Jews.

    But I digress: You claim that I hate Mr. Leuchter. I do not hate him, nor could I, because I do not know him. Nevertheless, I despite what he stands for, which is the continued attempt to rehabilitate National Socialism by denying the deaths of twelve million completely innocent human beings. If you don’t think there’s something evil about that, then I think you need to adjust your moral compass.

    As for my “getting on,” Fred Leuchter is nothing but a blip on rather large radar. He’s been professionally refuted three times — once by one of my colleagues, so effectively, in fact, that David Irving (a Jew-hating Holocaust denier and one of Leuchter’s principal defenders) was forced to withdraw a report from another “expert,” Germar Rudolf, because it was so inferior by comparison.
    Leuchter’s continuing error, in my opinion, is two-fold: (1) He either plays dumb or is dumb about the evil nature of his work for Zündel; and (2) He is in direct violation of a court order. Had I more time at my disposal and a real mean streak, I could just call the Massachusetts Department of Justice and have all of these things subpoenaed, and Leuchter could end up in jail, paying a fine, or both. But as I said, I have no interest in destroying a man who has already self-destructed. I have an interest in protecting the judicial process in my country — a process that is daily being eroded in the name of national security.”

    This goes way beyond the Holocaust for me, Ms. Lee. Our system of justice is endangered by those who flagrantly violate our laws, as Mr. Leuchter and you, as an accessory, have done.

    ”I don’t keep old emails and if I did, I wouldn’t send them. You’ll have to set up your own correspondence with Mr. Leuchter. Besides, everything I have from Mr. Leuchter is on the website.”

    I would suggest you remove the materials regarding Mr. Leuchter from your Web site for your own good. There are people in this world far more vindictive than me who would, in fact, like to see Leuchter in jail or bankrupt. And they’ll be the ones filing a case in the Massachusetts courts, not me.

    “”I do hope you find peace in forgiveness.”

    Frankly, Ms. Lee, I am content that I am doing God’s work.

    I hope you sleep well tonight.

    Andrew Mathis

    FURTHERMORE….you are not a member of some world wide group and your web site is defunct , your ‘ holocaust foundation’ consist of 8 other nutcase Jews. You are only a’ adjunct’ Professor hired to teach one holocaust course and you are not a member of the Villanova faculty.
    In short you are a nobody loser Jew using the holocaust to try and make yourself somebody and get attention and since being a Jew is all you’ve got in your sicko life the only club you have to attacker your betters is the ‘denier’ and’ anti semite’ hurl.
    Holocaust History Project is defunct http://www.spitecast.com/aemathisphd/ and http://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-history.org/ and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust_History_Project

    I think you need a lesson in manners…there’s a lot of your libelous, threatening and profane crap out on the net…lets send it to Villanova and see if they cant find a better adjunct’ than you.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    Wow. Ms. Kay Lee summed up this Andrew Mathis character pretty well:

    In short you are a nobody loser Jew using the holocaust to try and make yourself somebody and get attention and since being a Jew is all you’ve got in your sicko life the only club you have to attacker your betters is the ‘denier’ and’ anti semite’ hurl.
     
    Good job bringing it up.
    , @Anon
    Great post Renfro. Thanks for doing the research to out Mathias. I’ve noticed that holocaust activism is both social climbing and a great means of grant hustling.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  134. Svigor says:
    @Ron Unz

    David Irving is a sad case.

    He started out as a serious historian but ruined his reputation with needless provocations and mindless apologies for Hitler, blaming everything on his henchmen. At some point, he began to willfully court controversy just to trigger people. And willfully appeal to neo-Nazi nutjobs.

    A huge waste of real talent.
     

    Well, since this totally ignorant comment surely represents the thinking of some other readers as well, I would strongly urge everyone to read this discussion of Irving's career, which had already been provided as a link above:

    http://www.unz.com/announcement/the-remarkable-historiography-of-david-irving/

    What's so amusing is that some readers on this website apparently still believe that the MSM is always 100% correct and unbiased about absolutely everything...

    Leftists have invested everything in their Narrative.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  135. Svigor says:
    @Moi
    Being a vassal of the US is preferable because the US only wants full-spectrum domination of the world--its stated policy. Anything happening in any small corner of the world is America's business. I guess we can now celebrate world peace. LOL!

    Gotta be a retard to think being a “vassal” of the USA isn’t preferable to being a vassal of Nazi Germany or the USSR.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    How is that? Please explain

    And who says that's the choice?

    www.codoh.com

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  136. Svigor says:
    @Malla
    More important questions would be

    Why would a seemingly Christian, Capitalist, free democratic United States of America support the Communist Soviet Union via the land lease program?
    Well how is that even possible, it happened for sure, no doubts about that. But how is that even possible. Why would the USA support a communist nation which supported communist revolution around the war and was a major threat to the established American way of life?

    Why did Jacob Schiff, a rich capitalist Wall Street banker finance Lenin and the Bolshevik Communist takeover of Russia?

    Why and how did David Rockefeller get special landing rights in Soviet Moscow? He visited the Soviet Union more times than all American Presidents combined. Why was he not arrested by Soviet Authorities on arrival in Moscow, tried for being an exploiter of the proletariat (because in his case, he really is one) and punished?

    How is it that once, Henry Kissinger represented both the United States as well as the Soviet Union?

    Yeah, it’s very weird. Best bet would have been to either stay out of it, let Germany and Russia annihilate each other, or aid the weaker player, Germany, enough to balance and thus prolong the conflict. Aiding the more powerful, murderous, and barbarous regime, the USSR, seems like insanity.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  137. Svigor says:
    @DESERT FOX
    Read Wall Street and The Rise of Hitler by Anthony Sutton and the Crime and Punishment of I. G. Farben by Joseph Borkin and Trading With the Enemy by Charles Hingham, all can be had on amazon.com., and will open eyes and minds.

    HITLER COULD HAVE BEEN STOPPED

    Yale historian Henry Ashby Turner has made a career out of debunking myths about German history. In his 1986 book German Big Business and the Rise of Hitler he painstakingly refuted the Marxist dogma that large corporations funded Hitler’s rise to power.

    Read More
    • Replies: @KenH
    Hitler as a creation and tool of the capitalists was always another neat and tidy Marxist narrative.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  138. Svigor says:
    @Anonymous
    Is David Irving a "Holocaust Denier"? Wikipedia claims he is but I'm not sure exactly what "Holocaust denier" means. Seems vague.

    In any event, I do believe he said that "not much happened" at Auschwitz. To the "Holocaust Deniers": Is it not indeed true that there were approximately 4-6 million fewer Jews in Europe (and on Earth) after the war than before? The World Almanac did update to reflect this fact, contrary to some claims.

    Where did the ~4.5 million Jews go between 1941 and 1949 (according to the Almanac figures. 15.75 million vs 11.27 million)? Did they shed their Jewish identities and disappear into the Soviet Union?

    Hell if I know. If they were murdered by the Nazi regime, there should be an overabundance of forensic evidence. If the leftist regime were confident, they’d have found it already; it’s the crime of the millenium, after all.

    If memory serves, censuses should show tens and tens of millions fewer people after the war than before; did Hitler gas all of them, too?

    P.S., isn’t THE holocaust supposed to have claimed 12m lives? Or are the non-Jews just chopped liver not worth mentioning?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
    It’s 11M. But Organized Jewry has admitted even this number is fake after Trump made an acknowledgement of ALL victims of Nazism. They were forced to admit the “5M others” was just a fabrication to stir up a non-Jewish stake in the Holocaust. You know what they say about lying once.
    , @Anon
    Standard Jewish propaganda is that all non Jews in German occupied territory were evil collaborators whose only interest was killing Jews and streaking their property.

    The Jewish publications blame all of Europe, even the neutral countries for the horrible holocaust.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  139. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @peterAUS
    Agree with most in your posts in this thread.
    The element I feel you are missing a bit is the race when understanding Nazi push against Soviet Union.
    Nazis and Slavs. Not Communists. Slavs.

    The element I feel you are missing a bit is the race when understanding Nazi push against Soviet Union.

    Perhaps the territorial ambition came first, the racism second.

    If you are going to steal territory and kill or enslave the inhabitants, its awkward if they are the same blued-eyed Nordic type as yourself, especially if they are children of the same God. But if they’re Catholics or Orthodox or Slavs or whatever, and you’re a Lutheran, then no prob.

    As non-Christians, and as among the chief architects of the anti-Christian Bolshevik revolution and the short-lived, post WW1 Bolshevik regimes in Bavaria and Hungary, Jews were naturally primary targets for slaughter in German Nazi-occupied territory. Often the killings was conducted by local nationalists, acting with German encouragement, although where the local Christians would not kill their Jewish neighbors, as according to Solzhenitsyn in Belorus, then the Germans carried out the extermination program themselves.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS

    Perhaps the territorial ambition came first, the racism second.
     
    Perhaps.

    Or, perhaps, there was something else there.
    Something not easily explained by rational approach and analysis.

    I don't pretend to even start understanding that, but, I can recognize...something.

    There is/was something in Nazi ideology that... resonates....for a lack of better word.

    This isn't the time and place to discuss it and I really don't think this Website would be up to a task, but, there is something.

    Even BBC made that "The Occult History of the Third Reich" in attempt to fill the picture. Couldn't, of course.

    Yup, easy to dismiss all that and move on, hands down.

    But, for some people, that creates the "splinter"
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRnr3MiGWmo
    from 0:43 to 1:10.

    TPTBs know something about that. At least that it exists and mustn't be allowed to pop up, again.
    Jews, everywhere, feel and fear it. The one thing that definitely brings all of them together, no mater what.
    Slavs too.....Russians in particular.

    Anyway.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  140. Svigor says:

    Aren’t Jews kinda famous for not liking anyone counting them? I seem to recall them fighting insurrections in ancient times over the issue (maybe having to do with the taxes supposed to follow? My memory’s hazy).

    Don’t some Jews claim a religious injunction against censuses of Jews, something to do with part of their scriptures saying Jews will be “uncountable”?

    Mightn’t a great many Jews have had good reason not to want to be counted, after WWII? In fact, isn’t this a big part of American Jews’ explanation for why they’ve successfully lobbied to keep the issue of religion off of US census forms, making USA one more place where only Jews are allowed to count Jews?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    Indeed.
    The alleged number of Jews is complete nonsense. There are many, many more then they let on.
    Most Jews are not 'religious' so they do not say they are Jews in census questions about religion. They consider themselves Jews nonetheless. They want you to think they are so few & helpless victims when in fact they create massive resentment towards themselves by their owns actions.

    According to Jewish law Jews are to avoid being counted.

    "To actually count Jews directly is forbidden (Talmud, Yoma 22b), as the prophet says: "And the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which shall neither be measured nor counted."
    http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/896203/jewish/Laws-of-Counting-Jews.htm
     
    and:
    'Why is it forbidden to count Jews?'
    http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/18472

    "This opening verse of our Biblical portion teaches that it is forbidden to take a number count of the Israelites, a census activity which Jewish organizations are constantly involved in doing. This prohibition is reinforced by the prophet Hosea (chapter 2), when he declares: “The number of the children of Israel shall be as the sands of the sea, which cannot be numbered and cannot be counted…” And historically even King David learned the bitter lesson of the power of this command, when- against the will of his Chief Commander Joab - he ordered a census, and the Israelites suffered a plague (II Samuel, 24). "
     
    and:

    "We reached the [Balfour] Declaration not by miracles, but through persistent propaganda, through unceasing demonstration of the life force of our people. We told the responsible authorities: We will establish ourselves in Palestine whether you like it or not. You can hasten our arrival or you can equally retard it. It is however better for you to help us so as to avoid our constructive powers being turned into a destructive power which will overthrow the world."

    - World Zionist leader [1st President of Israël] Chaim Weizmann, speech in Jerusalem, December 1919.
     
    www.codoh.com
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  141. anon111 says:

    one of the things i find interesting is that imo the Holodomor was virtually unknown to Americans until maybe the last two years with internet memes and then OTOH you have for ex the Spanish Inquisition, which i heard about maybe a few times every year and was led to believe was ghastly and horrific. A few weeks ago i finally did some reading on the SI and according to wikipedia during its most active period, 2000 people were killed over fifty years. Apparently the worst thing about it was that 99% of the victims were jews. Then going back to the Holodomor you have 5-10 million (white Christian) victims and its perpetrated by bolshevik (jews?) and nobody’s ever heard of it.

    same thing going on with the holocaust – 58 million people died in WW2 but only the jews matter?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    And the Jew part of that WWII "holocaust" is an easily debunked lie.

    www.codoh.com
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  142. @Malla

    the Soviet Union did not benefit from the Lend Lease program
     
    You must be kidding me. Land Lease played a big part in the survival of the Soviet Union during WW2.

    According to the Russian historian Boris Vadimovich Sokolov, Lend-Lease had a crucial role in winning the war:
    "On the whole the following conclusion can be drawn: that without these Western shipments under Lend-Lease the Soviet Union not only would not have been able to win the Great Patriotic War, it would not have been able even to oppose the German invaders, since it could not itself produce sufficient quantities of arms and military equipment or adequate supplies of fuel and ammunition. The Soviet authorities were well aware of this dependency on Lend-Lease. Thus, Stalin told Harry Hopkins [FDR's emissary to Moscow in July 1941] that the U.S.S.R. could not match Germany's might as an occupier of Europe and its resources."

    Nikita Khrushchev, having served as a military commissar and intermediary between Stalin and his generals during the war, addressed directly the significance of Lend-lease aid in his memoirs:
    "I would like to express my candid opinion about Stalin's views on whether the Red Army and the Soviet Union could have coped with Nazi Germany and survived the war without aid from the United States and Britain. First, I would like to tell about some remarks Stalin made and repeated several times when we were "discussing freely" among ourselves. He stated bluntly that if the United States had not helped us, we would not have won the war. If we had had to fight Nazi Germany one on one, we could not have stood up against Germany's pressure, and we would have lost the war. No one ever discussed this subject officially, and I don't think Stalin left any written evidence of his opinion, but I will state here that several times in conversations with me he noted that these were the actual circumstances. He never made a special point of holding a conversation on the subject, but when we were engaged in some kind of relaxed conversation, going over international questions of the past and present, and when we would return to the subject of the path we had traveled during the war, that is what he said. When I listened to his remarks, I was fully in agreement with him, and today I am even more so"

    Major George Racey Jordan was an actual Land Lease officer in Alaska. Check out his book
    From Major Jordan's Dairies about the enormous amount of help given by the USA to the Soviet Union.
    http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/wars/jordan/01.html

    But a Christian Capitalist Freedom loving democracy like the USA helping a communist country or making an alliance with any Communist country just makes no sense. How is this possible? How? Not only the USA but even Great Britain while the Soviet Union was actively trying to dismantle the British Empire. Yet Britain and Canada helped the Soviet Union. How is this even possible? Is this reality or lala land? How can people be so dumb to accept something like this?
    In a normal world, it would have been in the interest of the United States as well as Britain to see the complete of communism as well as the Soviet Union, now would that be a positive or a negative thing for the world is a different question all together, but that is how it would have been.

    Malla, to support my assertion that the Soviet Union paid the United States gold bullion for shipments of war supplies, I offer the case of HMS Edinburgh, a WWII Royal Navy cruiser sunk April 30, 1942 near Murmansk, while carrying 465 gold bars from the Soviet Union destined for the United States Treasury in payment for a convoy of war materiel. Note the early date, less than 5 months after America’s entry into WWII, and the large size of the payment( a 1981 salvage operation of HMS Edinburgh recovered 431 ingots weighing over 5 tons).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Who sunk the cruiser? German navy? Maybe the Soviet’s did it to get their gold back.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  143. KenH says:
    @Svigor
    HITLER COULD HAVE BEEN STOPPED

    Yale historian Henry Ashby Turner has made a career out of debunking myths about German history. In his 1986 book German Big Business and the Rise of Hitler he painstakingly refuted the Marxist dogma that large corporations funded Hitler's rise to power.
     

     

    Hitler as a creation and tool of the capitalists was always another neat and tidy Marxist narrative.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  144. @Svigor
    Hell if I know. If they were murdered by the Nazi regime, there should be an overabundance of forensic evidence. If the leftist regime were confident, they'd have found it already; it's the crime of the millenium, after all.

    If memory serves, censuses should show tens and tens of millions fewer people after the war than before; did Hitler gas all of them, too?

    P.S., isn't THE holocaust supposed to have claimed 12m lives? Or are the non-Jews just chopped liver not worth mentioning?

    It’s 11M. But Organized Jewry has admitted even this number is fake after Trump made an acknowledgement of ALL victims of Nazism. They were forced to admit the “5M others” was just a fabrication to stir up a non-Jewish stake in the Holocaust. You know what they say about lying once.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Momus
    No one can know the number murdered and nor does it really matter.

    What is beyond any doubt is that Hitler's Nazis prepared the ideological ground and constructed a massive slave labor and extermination apparatus to exploit, cause the death of, and murder Europe's Jews.

    The evidence of a monumental crime and the perpetrators gargantuan efforts to hide the evidence is overwhelming.

    A very small benthic community of deniers and Jew haters chews away at this carcass but those who matter, the vast majority broadly accept the truth of evil Nazis without having to masticate the details.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  145. peterAUS says:
    @CanSpeccy

    The element I feel you are missing a bit is the race when understanding Nazi push against Soviet Union.
     
    Perhaps the territorial ambition came first, the racism second.

    If you are going to steal territory and kill or enslave the inhabitants, its awkward if they are the same blued-eyed Nordic type as yourself, especially if they are children of the same God. But if they're Catholics or Orthodox or Slavs or whatever, and you're a Lutheran, then no prob.

    As non-Christians, and as among the chief architects of the anti-Christian Bolshevik revolution and the short-lived, post WW1 Bolshevik regimes in Bavaria and Hungary, Jews were naturally primary targets for slaughter in German Nazi-occupied territory. Often the killings was conducted by local nationalists, acting with German encouragement, although where the local Christians would not kill their Jewish neighbors, as according to Solzhenitsyn in Belorus, then the Germans carried out the extermination program themselves.

    Perhaps the territorial ambition came first, the racism second.

    Perhaps.

    Or, perhaps, there was something else there.
    Something not easily explained by rational approach and analysis.

    I don’t pretend to even start understanding that, but, I can recognize…something.

    There is/was something in Nazi ideology that… resonates….for a lack of better word.

    This isn’t the time and place to discuss it and I really don’t think this Website would be up to a task, but, there is something.

    Even BBC made that “The Occult History of the Third Reich” in attempt to fill the picture. Couldn’t, of course.

    Yup, easy to dismiss all that and move on, hands down.

    But, for some people, that creates the “splinter”

    from 0:43 to 1:10.

    TPTBs know something about that. At least that it exists and mustn’t be allowed to pop up, again.
    Jews, everywhere, feel and fear it. The one thing that definitely brings all of them together, no mater what.
    Slavs too…..Russians in particular.

    Anyway.

    Read More
    • Agree: Rurik
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    There is/was something in Nazi ideology that… resonates….for a lack of better word.
     
    All group conflicts over territory are fundamentally racist. It's a matter of our group replacing your group. Racism is built into the genome as the result of natural selection. Whatever, promotes the propagation of your genes at the expense of mine increases the frequency of genes like yours in future generations.

    The Nazis were just more proactive in their racism than most, and have thus, since their defeat, been pilloried for it by their chief victims.

    But the blather we hear today about racism is mostly just anti-white racism, promoted by globalists who seek to destroy the European nations states, these being the greatest obstacle to the globalists's goal of global governance, i.e., a system under which a caste of super rich people enslave the mass of humanity, thereby creating the world of two races, the ruling Eloi and the Morlock slaves, that H.G. Wells envisaged.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  146. Wally says:
    @Svigor
    Gotta be a retard to think being a "vassal" of the USA isn't preferable to being a vassal of Nazi Germany or the USSR.

    How is that? Please explain

    And who says that’s the choice?

    http://www.codoh.com

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  147. Wally says:
    @anon111
    one of the things i find interesting is that imo the Holodomor was virtually unknown to Americans until maybe the last two years with internet memes and then OTOH you have for ex the Spanish Inquisition, which i heard about maybe a few times every year and was led to believe was ghastly and horrific. A few weeks ago i finally did some reading on the SI and according to wikipedia during its most active period, 2000 people were killed over fifty years. Apparently the worst thing about it was that 99% of the victims were jews. Then going back to the Holodomor you have 5-10 million (white Christian) victims and its perpetrated by bolshevik (jews?) and nobody's ever heard of it.

    same thing going on with the holocaust - 58 million people died in WW2 but only the jews matter?

    And the Jew part of that WWII “holocaust” is an easily debunked lie.

    http://www.codoh.com

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  148. utu says:
    @renfro

    long history with David Irving, including having met him personally in New York in 2003 (where he autographed my copy of Denying the Holocaust, by Deborah Lipstadt),
     
    You know... I knew what you are the minute I read that comment. The kind of petty Jew lurking in the shadows, their beady eyes darting around, watching the gentile trade with jealousy, greed and resentment.....the kind that twain and t.s. Elliot described so well.
    Only a Jew like yourself would think that such an insult is something to brag about.

    Only a Jew like you would threaten a lady for refusing to help him destroy the career and name of someone who disagreed with his Jewish holocaust cult:

    http://www.angelfire.com/fl4/fci/andysjew.html
    FROM: "Andrew E Mathis"
    TO: [email protected]
    DATE: Sun, 5 Jan 2003
    Subject: Fred Leuchter
    Andrew E Mathis wrote:
    Dear Ms. Lee:

    I am a board member of the Holocaust History Project (http://www.thhp.org/ ) a non-profit Holocaust education foundation based physically in San Antonio, Texas, but operating with a worldwide membership primarily as a Web presence.

    We got a tip from someone that you had had personal correspondence with Fred Leuchter, he of the film *Mr. Death* and the Zündel Holocaust denial trial in Canada. In your correspondence with Mr. Leuchter, he indicates that he is an engineer. He has been legally barred from representing himself as such in the state of Massachusetts, where he indicates he is writing from.

    While I realize this is a large request from someone that you don't know from Adam, would it be possible for you to forward, with the full headers, the e-mails you received from Leuchter, if you are still in possession of them? Mr. Leuchter has apparently broken the law, and there is no time limit on the agreement he signed wherein he agreed not to represent himself as an engineer in the state of Massachusetts.

    Speaking for myself, I am not interested in pursuing the personal ruin of Fred Leuchter; he's done that just fine himself. What I am interested in doing is making sure that Leuchter does not further violate the law by representing himself as something that he is not.
    If such behavior as Leuchter's is not controlled, the entire process of expert witnesses in civil and criminal trials can be brought into jeopardy.

    I would greatly appreciate your assistance in this matter. I will gladly answer any questions you may have. I look forward to hearing from you.

    Yours truly,

    Andrew E. Mathis, Ph.D.

    Mr. Mathis. Indeed, you are right. You are a total stranger and Your request is a bit offensive.
    I'm sorry, but I cannot be a part of the continued effort to destroy this man's life when all I can see is that he used the tools and knowledge at his disposal at the time (so long ago) and came up with a decision a lot of people don't agree with.
    Goodness, You are part of such a wonderful and powerful group that you could do so much good if all your energy were put into something positive, instead of making an example out of this man. Do you plan to haunt him unto death? That's a bit unGodly, don't you think?
    I just spent a year working with the most wonderful Jewish man of all (in my heart), Richard "Dick" Korn, PhD. He accomplished great things because he was not bogged down with a hatred of Mr. Leuchter, nor of any other man. If you want to be a credit to your religion, you must get on to things of more urgency to your creator.
    I don't keep old emails and if I did, I wouldn't send them. You'll have to set up your own correspondence with Mr. Leuchter. Besides, everything I have from Mr. Leuchter is on the website.
    I do hope you find peace in forgiveness.
    Kay Lee

    To: [email protected]
    CC: [email protected]
    From: "Andrew E Mathis"
    Subject: Re: Fred Leuchter
    Date: Sun, 05 Jan 2003 10:18:51 -0800 (PST)
    Kay Lee wrote:

    '' Mr. Mathis. Indeed, you are right. You are a total stranger and Your request is a bit offensive. I'm sorry, but I cannot be a part of the continued effort to destroy this man's life when all I can see is that he used the tools and knowledge at his disposal at the time (so long ago) and came up with a decision a lot of people don't agree with.''

    Mr. Mathis wrote:

    Ms. Lee, he did quite a bit more than that. Quite simply, he lied. Under oath, to boot. If you think that his conclusions are of no importance, then consider that he got paid $35,000 Canadian for them. Consider also that the man who paid him is a sworn neo-Nazi who once co-authored a book entitled *The Hitler We Loved and Why*. If Fred Leuchter was willing to undertake his "work" and deny the Holocaust and claims that he is unaware that this is a neo-Nazi endeavor, then he is either (1) lying or (2) the most stupid man in the world.

    '' Goodness, You are part of such a wonderful and powerful group that you could do so much good if all your energy were put into something positive, instead of making an example out of this man. Do you plan to haunt him unto death? That's a bit unGodly, don't you think? ''

    I for one would not dare to guess the mind of God. And I wonder what "powerful group" I'm a part of, but we'll leave that one for the moment.

    '" I just spent a year working with the most wonderful Jewish man of all (in my heart), Richard "Dick" Korn, PhD. He accomplished great things because he was not bogged down with a hatred of Mr. Leuchter, nor of any other man. If you want to be a credit to your religion, you must get on to things of more urgency to your creator. ''

    Wow. I wasn't aware that wonderful men fell into two categories: Jews and non-Jews.

    But I digress: You claim that I hate Mr. Leuchter. I do not hate him, nor could I, because I do not know him. Nevertheless, I despite what he stands for, which is the continued attempt to rehabilitate National Socialism by denying the deaths of twelve million completely innocent human beings. If you don't think there's something evil about that, then I think you need to adjust your moral compass.

    As for my "getting on," Fred Leuchter is nothing but a blip on rather large radar. He's been professionally refuted three times -- once by one of my colleagues, so effectively, in fact, that David Irving (a Jew-hating Holocaust denier and one of Leuchter's principal defenders) was forced to withdraw a report from another "expert," Germar Rudolf, because it was so inferior by comparison.
    Leuchter's continuing error, in my opinion, is two-fold: (1) He either plays dumb or is dumb about the evil nature of his work for Zündel; and (2) He is in direct violation of a court order. Had I more time at my disposal and a real mean streak, I could just call the Massachusetts Department of Justice and have all of these things subpoenaed, and Leuchter could end up in jail, paying a fine, or both. But as I said, I have no interest in destroying a man who has already self-destructed. I have an interest in protecting the judicial process in my country -- a process that is daily being eroded in the name of national security.''

    This goes way beyond the Holocaust for me, Ms. Lee. Our system of justice is endangered by those who flagrantly violate our laws, as Mr. Leuchter and you, as an accessory, have done.

    ''I don't keep old emails and if I did, I wouldn't send them. You'll have to set up your own correspondence with Mr. Leuchter. Besides, everything I have from Mr. Leuchter is on the website.''

    I would suggest you remove the materials regarding Mr. Leuchter from your Web site for your own good. There are people in this world far more vindictive than me who would, in fact, like to see Leuchter in jail or bankrupt. And they'll be the ones filing a case in the Massachusetts courts, not me.

    ""I do hope you find peace in forgiveness.''

    Frankly, Ms. Lee, I am content that I am doing God's work.

    I hope you sleep well tonight.

    Andrew Mathis



    FURTHERMORE....you are not a member of some world wide group and your web site is defunct , your ' holocaust foundation' consist of 8 other nutcase Jews. You are only a' adjunct' Professor hired to teach one holocaust course and you are not a member of the Villanova faculty.
    In short you are a nobody loser Jew using the holocaust to try and make yourself somebody and get attention and since being a Jew is all you've got in your sicko life the only club you have to attacker your betters is the 'denier' and' anti semite' hurl.
    Holocaust History Project is defunct http://www.spitecast.com/aemathisphd/ and http://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-history.org/ and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust_History_Project

    I think you need a lesson in manners...there's a lot of your libelous, threatening and profane crap out on the net...lets send it to Villanova and see if they cant find a better adjunct' than you.

    Wow. Ms. Kay Lee summed up this Andrew Mathis character pretty well:

    In short you are a nobody loser Jew using the holocaust to try and make yourself somebody and get attention and since being a Jew is all you’ve got in your sicko life the only club you have to attacker your betters is the ‘denier’ and’ anti semite’ hurl.

    Good job bringing it up.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    quote about Andrew Mathis:

    "In short you are a nobody loser Jew using the holocaust to try and make yourself somebody and get attention and since being a Jew is all you’ve got in your sicko life the only club you have to attacker your betters is the ‘denier’ and’ anti semite’ hurl."

    Pure gold.

    Plus the primate & criminal stalking pervert Mathis doesn't even know the story that he tries to uphold.

    www.codoh.com

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  149. Wally says:
    @Svigor
    Aren't Jews kinda famous for not liking anyone counting them? I seem to recall them fighting insurrections in ancient times over the issue (maybe having to do with the taxes supposed to follow? My memory's hazy).

    Don't some Jews claim a religious injunction against censuses of Jews, something to do with part of their scriptures saying Jews will be "uncountable"?

    Mightn't a great many Jews have had good reason not to want to be counted, after WWII? In fact, isn't this a big part of American Jews' explanation for why they've successfully lobbied to keep the issue of religion off of US census forms, making USA one more place where only Jews are allowed to count Jews?

    Indeed.
    The alleged number of Jews is complete nonsense. There are many, many more then they let on.
    Most Jews are not ‘religious’ so they do not say they are Jews in census questions about religion. They consider themselves Jews nonetheless. They want you to think they are so few & helpless victims when in fact they create massive resentment towards themselves by their owns actions.

    According to Jewish law Jews are to avoid being counted.

    “To actually count Jews directly is forbidden (Talmud, Yoma 22b), as the prophet says: “And the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which shall neither be measured nor counted.”

    http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/896203/jewish/Laws-of-Counting-Jews.htm

    and:

    ‘Why is it forbidden to count Jews?’

    http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/18472

    “This opening verse of our Biblical portion teaches that it is forbidden to take a number count of the Israelites, a census activity which Jewish organizations are constantly involved in doing. This prohibition is reinforced by the prophet Hosea (chapter 2), when he declares: “The number of the children of Israel shall be as the sands of the sea, which cannot be numbered and cannot be counted…” And historically even King David learned the bitter lesson of the power of this command, when- against the will of his Chief Commander Joab – he ordered a census, and the Israelites suffered a plague (II Samuel, 24). “

    and:

    “We reached the [Balfour] Declaration not by miracles, but through persistent propaganda, through unceasing demonstration of the life force of our people. We told the responsible authorities: We will establish ourselves in Palestine whether you like it or not. You can hasten our arrival or you can equally retard it. It is however better for you to help us so as to avoid our constructive powers being turned into a destructive power which will overthrow the world.”

    - World Zionist leader [1st President of Israël] Chaim Weizmann, speech in Jerusalem, December 1919.

    http://www.codoh.com

    Read More
    • Agree: Svigor
    • Replies: @Them Guys
    What they get wrong totally on counting or numbering jews is that....Those two biblical verse sections quoted actually refer to...."Like the sand of seas cant be counted"= Nobody can count each piece of sand in the worlds seas and shores/beaches because obviously the number of sand particles globally number so huge an amount it is impossible for any person to count them all in a lifetime of attempting to do so. And it is not to be taken as a Literal meaning either. It simply meant that One day in Far Future times decendants of all 12 tribes Israel will number far greater population when compared to several Thousands years past when it was orig written.

    As for jews king Davids ordeal mentioned....What it actually meant is that King David was supposed to Rely upon God ALONE and Gods total Powers for Davids army to win whichever battle that bible part speaks of.....But..David was uncertain in his mind weather he indeed had enough jew army soldiers to win said upcoming battle....So He on his Own decided to do a census type head count of his army......That pissed off God to no end!

    So to punish David and teach all present jews there a good lesson about only placing absolute trust in the Lord God and His mighty powers that would be used Via Godly intervention for jews to win every war or battle etc.....God caused something like 10 or 20 times as many as david counted to perish dead.

    I do not from memory recall exact times count number punished dead?....But it was a greater number than actually counted by davids census.

    IMPORTANT: Aspect to consider here folks!!

    If as most every number of jews as stated or numbered Today as well as in WWII and Prior Eras say, that worldwide jewry consists of Only aprox 14-15-Million Total jews.

    Then when one considers how the bible states "Israel members shall number like the entire sand grains globally in existence"....

    Well That fully Refutes ALL Claims by jews as to jews being the very peoples all those Future promised great blessings pertain to eh!

    Promised future blessings such as "Thru Abraham and his seed,(singular seed Not plural as in "seed's"), I the Lord God will Bless...EVERY Nation on earth and even Every Family within every nation on earth"....

    Now a couple important Facts need be understood regards such future promised blessings.

    First, God blessed Abram (prior to his name changed to Abraham) in Gen. 12:3, which is the very verse ALL evangelical dupes insist as proof jews are the "Chozens even today".


    But that nonsence evangels toss out and believe in is Rejected and fully Refuted in the new testement book of Galatians...Where there Paul states that the very word of abes "Seed" Pertains ONLY to Christ who was yet to get born...And it was a future blessing of Spiritual Salvation thru Jesus Christ, which is what new testement aka a New Covenant that Replaced old covenant with 12 tribes of israel peoples, is about....Hence..."I God shall bless every nation and even each family in said nations"....Was fulfilled by/thru Christ...With still yet to come, Material Physical Future blessings too.


    Now also consider that actual Proven History of at least past 2,000 years, proves beyond All doubt that the jews NEVER were claimed nor proven to ever yet number "Like sands of the Seas or aka Number so huge nobody can count jews".....No....Thats a huge Fail, for jews typically number NO greater globally than 15-Million total alive at same time.


    And within those promised future blessings were Also a bunch of actual Physical Material blessings such as great Prosperity, Great and Massive Huge Land Mass in a NEW nation that is NOT of the nation I the lord gave to your(12 tribes israelites) Fathers! but RATHER a NEW great Land mass nation where in the Latter days I the lord shall RE-Gather the true decendants etc etc....


    Stay with this now....Ok now think about the say, past 2,000 years...WHEN or WHERE and WHOM as a peoples/nations. Has Ever been blessed in Any good way by or thru or due to Jews?!


    That is an laughable question almost no?....For rather than anybody non jew being ever greatly blessed by or due to jews, the total opposite has occured...Every Host nations non-jew peoples has sooner or later got so fed up with jews that they Booted jews Out eh.


    And since this New Lands for a regathering is NOT of the lands given to their forefathers...HOW can todays state of Israel possibly be a "Fullfilment of one of Gods promised blessings to jews" as most jews and every duped jewdeo-christian claims has happened in 1948? In Fact, not only does Any place biblically, Not state of Any Blessings for "jews".....But also the very word of "jew" is NOT even found until 2nd book of Kings, Chapter 16 vs. 12!...which is aprox. almost 500 pages After page One of Genesis!!!....What? Did old Abe and Moses Et al in OT books simply forget to declare they was a jew or what? heheheh...Not.....very...Likely eh folks. This is why so many folks get confused about "who and whats a...jew?"....and also how jewry has played goys and jewdeo-christian apostates for total suckers!.....the word of jew went thru at Least three different word meanings prior to birth of Christ alone.


    But if one reads every single one of the mentioned great future blessings of the Material and Physical type Promiced by God to a latter days (the latter days or end times Age began when Christ Died on the cross and continues untill whenever an actual end of this age occurs, be it in Our times or hundreds more years from 2018 don't matter, for it Began when He died on cross.).


    If you read those promiced material phys blessings....And compare Both the Land Mass/New nation promiced, the Numbers of persons like the seas sand grains aka too many to count, along with all the already granted blessings proven to have happened so far, with yet a few more yet to come....


    There is but ONE nation, and ONE people group that fits and is who such blessings TO other nations and families of nations were done Thru or By.....and it is obviously America and its Main Founding European WHITE christian peoples that got said blessings and spoken of Land mass.


    This is easy to see when you just read the many, many blessings as written of, and especially when you compare every little detail written of regards that New Land/Nation-Not Of the lands or nation given to your(12 tribed Israelites, fathers).....NO other land mass globally fulfills the many specific details but america.


    And also those blessings first spoken of to Abram, aka abraham, and repeated to Issac,and to his son Jacob (latter name changed to Israel)....And mentioned several times through out OT books.


    Were All Promiced, then due to israel tribes peoples fuck ups, and various false god entities worshipped etc etc....Due to so much and so many and so often Isrsaelites abject Failures to Obey God etc....Those blessings were Halted Three distinct seperate times. And each time god Witheld said blessings from orig 12 tribes, god multiplied the Wait period by Seven Fold!


    I can't recall the exact number years accumulated due to Three times blessings being Delayed/Withheld.....But it is something like, after 3rd and final time, added up to a grand total of 2,540-Years, or close to that anyways.....Meaning when calculated Via clanders and eras past, and that after third time blessings were withheld or delayed....God said at an end point of the total of years, aka 2,540 or so years, then no matter what....The blessings Would get done or fulfilled.


    Okay....That actual time frame of a fulfillment of 25+centuries, ended around beginning of 1,800 A.D.Era.....Maybe 1802, 1804 or so I cannot recall actual proper dates now. But If such has really occured and gods blessings has been poured out as is written to....There is NO other land mass or nation on earth, that totaly fits every specific detail and NO other peoples BUT for Euro Whites and White Christians that have been so greatly blessed, and then Shared blessings and done so much for Other nations, like America and its White Euro and white christian peoples has done period.


    Just compare how that, while so called "chozens" were very busy doing every possible rip off, using usury/intrest to swindle goys, jews use of deceptions and subterfuges to cause Wars among goy nations (WWI & WWII the biggies), never ending massive Lies, scams, perfidies, etc etc. to as many goyim peoples and nations as they could do to, and thru out all recorded history.


    During most of that same time frame, European Whites/Christians did the exact opposite...Like sent priests and others to spread the gospel, spread enlightened knowledges and wisdoms with lesser able tribes and nations etc....Euro Whites always have gladly shared our god given blessings with most every others on earth...Jews kept very busy stealing what others had/have eh.


    Yes I am well aware several naysayers and usa haters, anti whites, atheists types etc, are going to complain and point to how badly usa has been doing via wars in iraq etc....And many more good reasons to naysay.....However one Must also consider the whole 500 years time frame in comparing america, and remember it is mainly only since 1960's era that usa began so bad of a downslide in so many ways.


    But regardless if one believes or not in biblical prophecy etc...The bottom line is that after you read of the many promiced blessings, and specific details of a new land etc....And compare Numbers of Euro Whites globally Vs. jews worldwide total number....Well it is a no brainer that jews never have numbered like sands of sea, but euro whites have.


    And further note that due to Euro Whites, but especially in America as well as the nation of america itself, having been the actual recipents of all those blessings as promiced biblically etc, with still perhaps a few more yet to come,....That IS the Main Major reason #1 as to why jewry has infiltrated most often a White peopled nation, and whichever such nation became the Host nation to at least 1/2 or more of worlds jews. Has always been royally screwed and ripped off etc.


    Because of, yet another biblical issue this has occured. That issue being, and is also verified in jews own jewish almanacs, that while calling selves as "jews" and playing the role as such, what jewry actually is and represents is/are...EDOM and Edomite Decendants.


    Now anybody who has read the bible somewhat has to know that, while the 12 tribe israel is decended from Jacob, Abrahams grandson, Abes Other grandson and Jacobs Twin Brother whom was actually the elder and eligable for first borns birthright blessing, which means All their daddy owned got handed down or inherited by the elder Son.....Yet as the story goes Esua traded away his birth right as first born twin son, To, Jacob for a Pot/bowel of Bean Soup!


    Who are/were Esaus decendants?...EDOMITES! aka Khazar Fake jewry!..... Now we see reasons jews have been trying to swindle and scam and steal/cheat make use of Usury and overall fully Destroy Euro White and Cristian Whites ever since at least 2,000 yrs ago eh.


    Because in reality jews aka edmoites are simply doing what they were taught to do since day one when Esau who is their Main Forefather swore a blood oath to seek out, and get back every part of orig Birthright Blessings he traded away for that pot/bowel of bean soup....And to also seek out and Mass Kill off every of jacobs decendants no matter how long it take....


    Esau also swore he'd teach this to his kids and grandkids etc and make them swear an oath to pass down said teachings of steal back blessings and Kill off members of brother Jacobs decendants…


    Christ told the jews in his day, "I was sent ONLY to/for the Lost Sheep of Israel"...So whats that mean? Easy answer. Lost sheep of Israel refers to the 10-Lost tribes which also are the only tribes that Kept the name of "Israel" and "Israelites" ever since King Solomon, first temple era, died when the Northern ten tribes split apart from the two tribes in Southern Kingdom of Judah, with Benjamin tribe being the 2nd Judah nation tribe. Ever since they split apart, 10(?) centuries prior to Christ, the 10 northern tribes as Prophesied to do so by jacob when he first arrived in Egypt and re-discovered his thought to be dead favorite son of Joseph, said that His new name of Israel shall be given to josephs two sons aka Jacob/Israel's two grandsons. ONLY they and all their 10 northern tribe decendants shall Keep the name of and be known of as Israel...NOT Judah jews nor anybody else But the 10 tribes that would exist far into future from when it was said.


    And so from time of tribal north vs south split, Judah nor jews were ever called or known of as Israel. (until pastor John Hagee got a TV show of apostasy and fake jewry).


    And it appears that those lost 10 tribes aint so lost. They just became Christians and called another name of European White Folks.....and various proven ancient Maps with plenty of written materials show that in tracing those lost 10 tribes pathways traveled, they are todays euro whites.


    Maybe this is reason Christ Himself stated how "You have those among you that call themselves jews but are NOT jews and Are of the synagogue of satan" Rev. 2:9 & 3:9 or in John 8:44 where again Christ says..."You (jews) are Of Your father the devil satan, and his works you will do! IE: Lie-Steal-Murder, same as their father satan is guilty of." I paraphrased the bible verses so not word for word perfect but close enough to get picture eh.


    So " if " America is that long ago promised land mass, and if the lost sheep of israel are in fact modern day euro white Christians etc....Then one must Re-Think quite a lot of what we thought and got told prior as bible and jewry truths eh. Things we now can know of thanks to internet ability, as well as seeing jews ongoing various issues and deeds...Sure makes it fit proper. So no wonderment as to why jewry never changes or repents and whole worlds nations continue a downward spiral to evils and wrongs and wars etc eh?


    When you consider all these issues, compare with real proven history of various events and actions done by or caused by jewry for past 2,000 yrs and longer, there is no denying that all we see and know of about this and are even affected now today due to it, that it well compares with the Protocols of Elders of Zion, in how ironicly accurate each segment or prediction has and is being done or fulflled step by step eh.


    And yet another Cohencidence!...Both the Protocols of zion as well as what I stated here of biblical nature prophecy etc has the very Same main major component as the main Culprits...jews. OyVey!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  150. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Bombercommand
    Malla, the Soviet Union did not benefit from the Lend Lease program, it was a specialized program to facilitate transfers of US Navy warships to the United Kingdom while the United States was still neutral before December 7, 1941. I suspect you are trying to promote the goofy myth that the United States gifted the Soviet Union with billions of dollars in war materiel during WWII. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Soviet Union was required to pay for every M4 tank, P39 Airacobra, and can of pork stew, up front, not on credit, and not in Rubles, in gold bullion.

    Correct that lend lease was before the US was a combatant and it was a transfer of ships and other material to Britain, not Russia.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    fact:
    The US was attacking German vessels long before the US was a declared combatant.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  151. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Bombercommand
    Malla, to support my assertion that the Soviet Union paid the United States gold bullion for shipments of war supplies, I offer the case of HMS Edinburgh, a WWII Royal Navy cruiser sunk April 30, 1942 near Murmansk, while carrying 465 gold bars from the Soviet Union destined for the United States Treasury in payment for a convoy of war materiel. Note the early date, less than 5 months after America's entry into WWII, and the large size of the payment( a 1981 salvage operation of HMS Edinburgh recovered 431 ingots weighing over 5 tons).

    Who sunk the cruiser? German navy? Maybe the Soviet’s did it to get their gold back.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bombercommand
    Scuttled by the Royal Navy. HMS Edinburgh had been torpedoed by a German submarine and was attempting to return to Murmansk, but was at risk of being intercepted by German naval vessels. The United States still got paid, for that shipment and numerous others, in gold bullion, hence received nothing from the 1981 salvage operation(of the 431 bars recovered, the UK salvage consortium received 45% and the remaining 55% was split 2/3rds to Soviet Union and 1/3 to UK). A second salvage operation in 1986 recovered 29 of the remaining 34 gold bars, five gold bars are unaccounted for to this day( HMS Edinburgh carried 465 gold bars when scuttled). "Anon", you just have to get used to the historical fact that the Soviet Union didn't get any "free stuff" in WWII, but the United States did get Soviet gold bullion for cans of pork stew.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  152. anon[317] • Disclaimer says:

    I observe that the very establishment of a division of the earth into nation states, implies that Pharaohs will find ways to use the resources the nation state sucks from those it governs, not to protect the governed slaves, but to allow the Pharaohs and their corporations to use the awesome national resources assembled from the governed, to enslave, threaten, regulate, murder, control and exploit the governed. Basically the Pharaohs and their corporations, work through the middle men, but they use the nation state as a whip(weapon).
    I have often wondered why humanity allows this to happen. 8 billion humans and fewer than a million own it all, control it all, and enjoy it all, while the rest survive as best they can.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  153. Wally says:
    @utu
    Wow. Ms. Kay Lee summed up this Andrew Mathis character pretty well:

    In short you are a nobody loser Jew using the holocaust to try and make yourself somebody and get attention and since being a Jew is all you’ve got in your sicko life the only club you have to attacker your betters is the ‘denier’ and’ anti semite’ hurl.
     
    Good job bringing it up.

    quote about Andrew Mathis:

    “In short you are a nobody loser Jew using the holocaust to try and make yourself somebody and get attention and since being a Jew is all you’ve got in your sicko life the only club you have to attacker your betters is the ‘denier’ and’ anti semite’ hurl.”

    Pure gold.

    Plus the primate & criminal stalking pervert Mathis doesn’t even know the story that he tries to uphold.

    http://www.codoh.com

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  154. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Svigor
    Hell if I know. If they were murdered by the Nazi regime, there should be an overabundance of forensic evidence. If the leftist regime were confident, they'd have found it already; it's the crime of the millenium, after all.

    If memory serves, censuses should show tens and tens of millions fewer people after the war than before; did Hitler gas all of them, too?

    P.S., isn't THE holocaust supposed to have claimed 12m lives? Or are the non-Jews just chopped liver not worth mentioning?

    Standard Jewish propaganda is that all non Jews in German occupied territory were evil collaborators whose only interest was killing Jews and streaking their property.

    The Jewish publications blame all of Europe, even the neutral countries for the horrible holocaust.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  155. Crimson2 says:

    The morons who deny the Holocaust deserve that fate themselves. If it happens, I promise to never pretend that it didn’t. In fact, I’ll celebrate the anniversary.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
    Aww, you’re so sweet.
    , @Wally
    said:
    "In fact, I’ll celebrate the anniversary."

    Indeed, there are people who "celebrate" witchcraft, those who howl at the moon.

    Face it, now that you've had the lies slapped across your face, you will never be the same again.

    www.codoh.com
    , @Svigor
    Listen to how worked up these people get. "You don't believe what I believe," ergo, I hope you're murdered."

    The real cream of humanity.

    Or maybe it's "I don't believe in the holocaust either, and I hope nothing happens to holocaust 'deniers'"?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  156. Wally says:
    @Anon
    Correct that lend lease was before the US was a combatant and it was a transfer of ships and other material to Britain, not Russia.

    fact:
    The US was attacking German vessels long before the US was a declared combatant.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  157. Crimson2 says:
    @Ron Unz

    David Irving is a sad case.

    He started out as a serious historian but ruined his reputation with needless provocations and mindless apologies for Hitler, blaming everything on his henchmen. At some point, he began to willfully court controversy just to trigger people. And willfully appeal to neo-Nazi nutjobs.

    A huge waste of real talent.
     

    Well, since this totally ignorant comment surely represents the thinking of some other readers as well, I would strongly urge everyone to read this discussion of Irving's career, which had already been provided as a link above:

    http://www.unz.com/announcement/the-remarkable-historiography-of-david-irving/

    What's so amusing is that some readers on this website apparently still believe that the MSM is always 100% correct and unbiased about absolutely everything...

    Geez, Ron. You run a shitty website that attracts the worst people on the internet. You truck in mindless conspiracies and have the gall to attack the media. It won’t be long till one of your bloggers shoots up a Waffle House and this whole insane pile of cards comes crashing down.

    Try to run for office again and see how it goes. I’ll expose your bullshit personally.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    Oh my, we're so scared. Ron too, no doubt. LOL

    You must live in 'Israel'.

    So show us what's wrong with what you want suppressed here.
    Of course, you can't.

    Your cognitive dissonance has gotten the best of you.
    Only liars try to prevent free speech.

    remember this:


    The 'holocaust' storyline is one of the most easily debunked narratives ever contrived. That is why those who question it are arrested and persecuted. That is why violent, racist, & privileged Jewish supremacists demand censorship. What sort of truth is it that denies free speech and the freedom to seek the truth? Only liars demand censorship.
     
    www.codoh.com
    , @anon111

    Geez, Ron. You run a shitty website that attracts the worst people on the internet. You truck in mindless conspiracies and have the gall to attack the media.
     
    you prob believe Assad gassed his own people right after Trump said he was going to pull the troops out of Syria
    , @Rurik

    and have the gall to attack the media.
     
    !

    what next?

    Obama? The Clintons?!?! The United States Senate?!?!!!

    is there nothing sacrosanct anymore?

    I've even read things on this webzine that are unflattering to America's premiere war hero and statesman; John McCain!

    and even Bibi!!!!!

    can you imagine anyone criticizing Bibi?!!!!

    I thought we hanged Himmler and Eichmann!

    and now they're back, and criticizing Israel and even the (((media)))!!!!!

    http://tpo.nl/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/curb-your-enthusiasm-263621l.jpg
    , @SimplePseudonymicHandle
    Mr. Unz,
    Crimson here may be jumping the shark just a bit, but about the point where he gets to Waffle House, he has a point.
    The posture you are assuming here is worrisome, I guess maybe if its in the spirit of Howard W. Campbell Jr then, well, that is one helluva a sacrifice, but speaking for myself only, I doubt that kind of sacrifice is required.

    I have generally considered the work you do here to be in the spirit of Ben Shapiro on this recent broadcast: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVkxAWQPYMc

    There are ways to do this work and keep your moral compass, it starts with knowing that you sometimes need a moral compass. We are all human and that makes it's possible to go into places where things become confusing and we all stand to be morally mislead.

    Here's a few more signposts and guides. There is a such thing as moral anorexia. You don't have it, but especially if you don't know to recognize it when you see it you can become confused or misled by people who do.

    There's mis-attribution of cause. If I have an employee and I fail to give him an opportunity, he may see my failure as all manner of faults and he may eventually quit and I've lost a good employee. He may be wrong about my motives for failure, but the outcome is the same - a bad outcome. But I don't have to be guilty of malfeseance to have failed to give him an opportunity, I just can be guilty of being a flawed human being. Same problem applies with groups and in that respect, it's as much an employee's responsibility to seize opportunities as it is an employer's responsibility to provide them - the failure of the latter, doesn't excuse the former.

    And the past - I think it less likely in 1937 that things were moved along by puppet strings than in 2018. Our systems are bigger, more interconnected, there are fewer concentrations of power. 1937, especially in the US, was more a galley than a steamship.

    You grew up with the Americans who fought WWII. They were not duped. They were all on board. That they were on board, that they fought for the side they fought for, is on account of the fact that they saw things clearly and were not confused. Remember them.
    , @Svigor
    "Worst people on the Internet" = people who refuse to worship at the altar of my god, profess my faith, etc.

    Listen to yourself, son. Your religion has you all tied up in knots.

    In case you are somehow ignorant of the fact: you are a textbook bigot, full of bile, spewed from spittle-flecked lips.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  158. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @renfro

    long history with David Irving, including having met him personally in New York in 2003 (where he autographed my copy of Denying the Holocaust, by Deborah Lipstadt),
     
    You know... I knew what you are the minute I read that comment. The kind of petty Jew lurking in the shadows, their beady eyes darting around, watching the gentile trade with jealousy, greed and resentment.....the kind that twain and t.s. Elliot described so well.
    Only a Jew like yourself would think that such an insult is something to brag about.

    Only a Jew like you would threaten a lady for refusing to help him destroy the career and name of someone who disagreed with his Jewish holocaust cult:

    http://www.angelfire.com/fl4/fci/andysjew.html
    FROM: "Andrew E Mathis"
    TO: [email protected]
    DATE: Sun, 5 Jan 2003
    Subject: Fred Leuchter
    Andrew E Mathis wrote:
    Dear Ms. Lee:

    I am a board member of the Holocaust History Project (http://www.thhp.org/ ) a non-profit Holocaust education foundation based physically in San Antonio, Texas, but operating with a worldwide membership primarily as a Web presence.

    We got a tip from someone that you had had personal correspondence with Fred Leuchter, he of the film *Mr. Death* and the Zündel Holocaust denial trial in Canada. In your correspondence with Mr. Leuchter, he indicates that he is an engineer. He has been legally barred from representing himself as such in the state of Massachusetts, where he indicates he is writing from.

    While I realize this is a large request from someone that you don't know from Adam, would it be possible for you to forward, with the full headers, the e-mails you received from Leuchter, if you are still in possession of them? Mr. Leuchter has apparently broken the law, and there is no time limit on the agreement he signed wherein he agreed not to represent himself as an engineer in the state of Massachusetts.

    Speaking for myself, I am not interested in pursuing the personal ruin of Fred Leuchter; he's done that just fine himself. What I am interested in doing is making sure that Leuchter does not further violate the law by representing himself as something that he is not.
    If such behavior as Leuchter's is not controlled, the entire process of expert witnesses in civil and criminal trials can be brought into jeopardy.

    I would greatly appreciate your assistance in this matter. I will gladly answer any questions you may have. I look forward to hearing from you.

    Yours truly,

    Andrew E. Mathis, Ph.D.

    Mr. Mathis. Indeed, you are right. You are a total stranger and Your request is a bit offensive.
    I'm sorry, but I cannot be a part of the continued effort to destroy this man's life when all I can see is that he used the tools and knowledge at his disposal at the time (so long ago) and came up with a decision a lot of people don't agree with.
    Goodness, You are part of such a wonderful and powerful group that you could do so much good if all your energy were put into something positive, instead of making an example out of this man. Do you plan to haunt him unto death? That's a bit unGodly, don't you think?
    I just spent a year working with the most wonderful Jewish man of all (in my heart), Richard "Dick" Korn, PhD. He accomplished great things because he was not bogged down with a hatred of Mr. Leuchter, nor of any other man. If you want to be a credit to your religion, you must get on to things of more urgency to your creator.
    I don't keep old emails and if I did, I wouldn't send them. You'll have to set up your own correspondence with Mr. Leuchter. Besides, everything I have from Mr. Leuchter is on the website.
    I do hope you find peace in forgiveness.
    Kay Lee

    To: [email protected]
    CC: [email protected]
    From: "Andrew E Mathis"
    Subject: Re: Fred Leuchter
    Date: Sun, 05 Jan 2003 10:18:51 -0800 (PST)
    Kay Lee wrote:

    '' Mr. Mathis. Indeed, you are right. You are a total stranger and Your request is a bit offensive. I'm sorry, but I cannot be a part of the continued effort to destroy this man's life when all I can see is that he used the tools and knowledge at his disposal at the time (so long ago) and came up with a decision a lot of people don't agree with.''

    Mr. Mathis wrote:

    Ms. Lee, he did quite a bit more than that. Quite simply, he lied. Under oath, to boot. If you think that his conclusions are of no importance, then consider that he got paid $35,000 Canadian for them. Consider also that the man who paid him is a sworn neo-Nazi who once co-authored a book entitled *The Hitler We Loved and Why*. If Fred Leuchter was willing to undertake his "work" and deny the Holocaust and claims that he is unaware that this is a neo-Nazi endeavor, then he is either (1) lying or (2) the most stupid man in the world.

    '' Goodness, You are part of such a wonderful and powerful group that you could do so much good if all your energy were put into something positive, instead of making an example out of this man. Do you plan to haunt him unto death? That's a bit unGodly, don't you think? ''

    I for one would not dare to guess the mind of God. And I wonder what "powerful group" I'm a part of, but we'll leave that one for the moment.

    '" I just spent a year working with the most wonderful Jewish man of all (in my heart), Richard "Dick" Korn, PhD. He accomplished great things because he was not bogged down with a hatred of Mr. Leuchter, nor of any other man. If you want to be a credit to your religion, you must get on to things of more urgency to your creator. ''

    Wow. I wasn't aware that wonderful men fell into two categories: Jews and non-Jews.

    But I digress: You claim that I hate Mr. Leuchter. I do not hate him, nor could I, because I do not know him. Nevertheless, I despite what he stands for, which is the continued attempt to rehabilitate National Socialism by denying the deaths of twelve million completely innocent human beings. If you don't think there's something evil about that, then I think you need to adjust your moral compass.

    As for my "getting on," Fred Leuchter is nothing but a blip on rather large radar. He's been professionally refuted three times -- once by one of my colleagues, so effectively, in fact, that David Irving (a Jew-hating Holocaust denier and one of Leuchter's principal defenders) was forced to withdraw a report from another "expert," Germar Rudolf, because it was so inferior by comparison.
    Leuchter's continuing error, in my opinion, is two-fold: (1) He either plays dumb or is dumb about the evil nature of his work for Zündel; and (2) He is in direct violation of a court order. Had I more time at my disposal and a real mean streak, I could just call the Massachusetts Department of Justice and have all of these things subpoenaed, and Leuchter could end up in jail, paying a fine, or both. But as I said, I have no interest in destroying a man who has already self-destructed. I have an interest in protecting the judicial process in my country -- a process that is daily being eroded in the name of national security.''

    This goes way beyond the Holocaust for me, Ms. Lee. Our system of justice is endangered by those who flagrantly violate our laws, as Mr. Leuchter and you, as an accessory, have done.

    ''I don't keep old emails and if I did, I wouldn't send them. You'll have to set up your own correspondence with Mr. Leuchter. Besides, everything I have from Mr. Leuchter is on the website.''

    I would suggest you remove the materials regarding Mr. Leuchter from your Web site for your own good. There are people in this world far more vindictive than me who would, in fact, like to see Leuchter in jail or bankrupt. And they'll be the ones filing a case in the Massachusetts courts, not me.

    ""I do hope you find peace in forgiveness.''

    Frankly, Ms. Lee, I am content that I am doing God's work.

    I hope you sleep well tonight.

    Andrew Mathis



    FURTHERMORE....you are not a member of some world wide group and your web site is defunct , your ' holocaust foundation' consist of 8 other nutcase Jews. You are only a' adjunct' Professor hired to teach one holocaust course and you are not a member of the Villanova faculty.
    In short you are a nobody loser Jew using the holocaust to try and make yourself somebody and get attention and since being a Jew is all you've got in your sicko life the only club you have to attacker your betters is the 'denier' and' anti semite' hurl.
    Holocaust History Project is defunct http://www.spitecast.com/aemathisphd/ and http://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-history.org/ and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust_History_Project

    I think you need a lesson in manners...there's a lot of your libelous, threatening and profane crap out on the net...lets send it to Villanova and see if they cant find a better adjunct' than you.

    Great post Renfro. Thanks for doing the research to out Mathias. I’ve noticed that holocaust activism is both social climbing and a great means of grant hustling.

    Read More
    • Replies: @renfro
    lol........yea I hate bullies like this squirt.

    Total loser who thinks to himself what can I do to have some power?....and the only thing he can come up with is..."hey I'm a Jew so maybe I can use that to try and over power people and make them fear me".

    I've seen his kind before.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  159. @Andrew E. Mathis
    I'd be very shocked if you could identify a single historical event about which exaggerations, false memories, and lies didn't form part of the record. It's the nature of eyewitness testimony in particular. It hardly leads logically to the conclusion that everything that's been said about the historical event is a lie. There's a middle ground between all truth and all lies, is there not?

    There’s a middle ground between all truth and all lies, is there not?

    You mean, we should split the difference between truth and Jew lies and settle at 3 million?

    Ya, that should do it.

    You’re losing the debate to truth, goy-hater.

    Ten more years should finish off the Holy Hoax Industry.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  160. Wally says:
    @Crimson2
    Geez, Ron. You run a shitty website that attracts the worst people on the internet. You truck in mindless conspiracies and have the gall to attack the media. It won't be long till one of your bloggers shoots up a Waffle House and this whole insane pile of cards comes crashing down.

    Try to run for office again and see how it goes. I'll expose your bullshit personally.

    Oh my, we’re so scared. Ron too, no doubt. LOL

    You must live in ‘Israel’.

    So show us what’s wrong with what you want suppressed here.
    Of course, you can’t.

    Your cognitive dissonance has gotten the best of you.
    Only liars try to prevent free speech.

    remember this:

    The ‘holocaust’ storyline is one of the most easily debunked narratives ever contrived. That is why those who question it are arrested and persecuted. That is why violent, racist, & privileged Jewish supremacists demand censorship. What sort of truth is it that denies free speech and the freedom to seek the truth? Only liars demand censorship.

    http://www.codoh.com

    Read More
    • Replies: @Momus
    Benthic Wally at it again.

    Not all speech is free speech. If you incite hate and promulgate violence against a certain group in your society you are breaking the social contract.

    That certain species of denier dog whistling is as socially undesirable as someone with a full blown infectious disease like Ebola lying that they are clean.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  161. anon111 says:

    re the Balfour Declaration, what was in it for the British to give Palestine to the Jews?

    i’ve seen people speculate that the Jews promised to use their American media outlets to whip up a pro-war sentiment to get the U.S. into WWI on the side of the British but it seems like if there was evidence of this there would have been a huge scandal.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    If there was evidence that 9/11 was an inside job would that generate a huge scandal?

    So then?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  162. anon111 says:
    @Crimson2
    Geez, Ron. You run a shitty website that attracts the worst people on the internet. You truck in mindless conspiracies and have the gall to attack the media. It won't be long till one of your bloggers shoots up a Waffle House and this whole insane pile of cards comes crashing down.

    Try to run for office again and see how it goes. I'll expose your bullshit personally.

    Geez, Ron. You run a shitty website that attracts the worst people on the internet. You truck in mindless conspiracies and have the gall to attack the media.

    you prob believe Assad gassed his own people right after Trump said he was going to pull the troops out of Syria

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  163. renfro says:
    @Anon
    Great post Renfro. Thanks for doing the research to out Mathias. I’ve noticed that holocaust activism is both social climbing and a great means of grant hustling.

    lol……..yea I hate bullies like this squirt.

    Total loser who thinks to himself what can I do to have some power?….and the only thing he can come up with is…”hey I’m a Jew so maybe I can use that to try and over power people and make them fear me”.

    I’ve seen his kind before.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  164. Brewer says:
    @redmudhooch
    No one here needs to prove the holocaust story is bs. The Israelis do it every time they shoot a Palestinian child in the back. Every time they bulldoze a familys home. Every time they call for the extermination of Palestinians or Arabs in general. Every time they're caught supporting genocidal cannibals like ISIS or Al Nusra. Every time the attempt to stir up another war and get Americans to die fighting it. Every time they call for censorship, every time the step on the Constitution.
    I believed it up till a few years ago, the Israelis and Zionists here in America convinced me it was a lie, not anyone here at Unz or the internet..
    Thats the predicament Zionists are in now, cause they're not going to stop acting the way they do, they've been getting away with it for so long that they can't stop or they will perish, they've gone too far and theres no turning back. Theres really nothing anyone can do to stop whats coming. Not good.
    When the truth comes out about 9/11 for all to see, they're done in America as well. People are waking up, nothing you can do about that.

    Good comment. I too entered this controversy through the back door of the Israel/Palestine conflict when I detected that something was not quite right with the established narrative. I am now appalled at my former self, standing on a chair cheering the Israelis in ’67.
    Having studied History at graduate level in youth I began to look into Palestine about the time when the “New Historians” were publishing. Quite frankly, it changed my view of the validity of Historical method and the way it is taught (not to mention the politically motivated manipulation of what I had thought to be a pure science). Howard Zinn opened my eyes to other systemic failures.
    I concluded that the great narratives of History are mostly false. They are the fables of their time.
    I think Irving does a brilliant job of History. He sets out to get into the mind of Hitler, leaving aside the prejudices that bowdlerize other triers. His “Hitler’s War” offers readers an opportunity to view the man, not the arch-villain of fantasy novels.

    Given that the Holocaust narrative is so intrinsic to the Zionist view of the World and the Palestinian situation is so often presented as a solution or recompense for it, it is inevitable that Holocaust veracity enters the debate.
    I cannot pretend to any special knowledge of the subject but, from what I have learned, the established narrative is flawed. For this reason alone, attempts to outlaw revisionism is, in my opinion, wrong.
    It will, I sincerely hope, soon become instantly recognizable that labels such as “holocaust denier”, “anti-Semite” etc. are, to debate, what chemical weapons are to warfare – indiscriminate, unconscionable and evil.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  165. Momus says:
    @Beefcake the Mighty
    It’s 11M. But Organized Jewry has admitted even this number is fake after Trump made an acknowledgement of ALL victims of Nazism. They were forced to admit the “5M others” was just a fabrication to stir up a non-Jewish stake in the Holocaust. You know what they say about lying once.

    No one can know the number murdered and nor does it really matter.

    What is beyond any doubt is that Hitler’s Nazis prepared the ideological ground and constructed a massive slave labor and extermination apparatus to exploit, cause the death of, and murder Europe’s Jews.

    The evidence of a monumental crime and the perpetrators gargantuan efforts to hide the evidence is overwhelming.

    A very small benthic community of deniers and Jew haters chews away at this carcass but those who matter, the vast majority broadly accept the truth of evil Nazis without having to masticate the details.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous

    What is beyond any doubt is that Hitler’s Nazis prepared the ideological ground and constructed a massive slave labor and extermination apparatus

     

    What exactly was this extermination apparatus? I grew up sincerely believing in the gas chambers and yet, after careful consideration, I'm now convinced that no homocidal gas chambers ever existed. I'm also inclined to believe that most of the deaths were due to what Assange calls the 'squalor of war' and, after reading a letter from one of the camp commandants to his superior, I am also inclined to believe that the Germans took reasonable measures to prevent unnecessary deaths but were simply overwhelmed by the destruction being wrought upon their economy.

    tldr: sorry, not buying it.
    , @anon111

    What is beyond any doubt is that Hitler’s Nazis prepared the ideological ground and constructed a massive slave labor and extermination apparatus to exploit, cause the death of, and murder Europe’s Jews.
     
    who prepared the ideological ground to exterminate tens of millions of Russians and Ukrainians in the old Soviet Union?

    who was that?

    for some reason one event has been covered ad nauseum, and the others?

    , @Svigor
    Exploiting labor and murdering seem like mutually exclusive goals.

    But again, wtf were the 6m non-Jews who were supposedly murdered? Chopped liver? Or were you implying that Hitler's plan for them was a mint on their pillows?

    P.S., love how you're sticking to that "absence of evidence is evidence" schtick.

    P.P.S., the majority opinion and $2 will buy you a cup of coffee.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  166. I just want to express my deep gratitude to Ron Unz for his incredible work in imagining, building and maintaining this website.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Svigor
    Already used up my "agree."

    Yeah I was skeptical when Steve first moved here. I mean, I knew Ron Unz was a total mensch, having read his piece on the ethnic angle in the Ivy League, but I had no idea how much of a mensch he really is. Easily top of my "righteous Jew" list. Actually he's kinda only an honorary member because I only consider him Jewish insofar as somebody told me he's Jewish at some point. In a blind taste test I'd have no friggin' idea whatsoever.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  167. MrB says:
    @Andrew E. Mathis
    I'd be very shocked if you could identify a single historical event about which exaggerations, false memories, and lies didn't form part of the record. It's the nature of eyewitness testimony in particular. It hardly leads logically to the conclusion that everything that's been said about the historical event is a lie. There's a middle ground between all truth and all lies, is there not?

    Eyewitness statements are indeed always part of the record of events, but that doesn’t automatically make them correct. As for all eyewitnesses to the holocaust being deliberately liars that’s not how it was. Rumours spread and frightened people connected dots that weren’t actually there. Some heard there were gas chambers and that all those chosen would be killed instantly after arrival at Auschwitz etc.

    Additionally we heard many times that a large number from any jewish family arrived at Auschwitz only to never see them again. The claim thereafter has always been these people were gassed. The truth of that scenario is simple; people were separated by age and gender and then had their hair shaved and changed into a uniform. Thus they would not be recognisable in any event. Indeed testimony of exactly that has been seen many times. Also many inmates were sent elsewhere in the large (40sq km) camp for work, for that’s what Auschwitz was, a work camp.

    No surprise that many never saw their relatives again.

    Take a modern view on this process. 911 we were told on the day and for some time after had up to 20,000+++ people in the towers and that could been the death toll. Happily it turned out to be less than 3000. Are there still people claiming 20,000+++ dead? No because people knew the truth.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Svigor
    Eyewitness testimony isn't decisive, even at its best. And the eyewitness testimony in this case is thoroughly tainted.

    When cops want to get good statements from people, they don't let them talk with one another before going on the record. That's because such contact inevitably taints the evidence beyond repair; people start yakking about what happened, and before you know it they've decided on a narrative before they go on the record. There have been studies on this. Tons of real information is lost because people are social, herd animals and even their thinking and memory are tainted by the process; they literally forget the shit that isn't agreed-upon by the group.

    That's clearly what has happened with the holocaust narrative. I implore people who aren't fanatically devoted to holocaustianity to just go and read a good number of holocaust testimonials with a critical eye. If one is a capable critical thinker, they are the opposite of supportive of the orthodox narrative of the holocaust.

    And don't forget to read all the stuff that has been debunked (lampshades and soap made from Jews, steam rooms used to kill Jews, electric-shock floor plating used to kill Jews, etc.).

    , @Svigor

    Rumours spread and frightened people connected dots that weren’t actually there. Some heard there were gas chambers and that all those chosen would be killed instantly after arrival at Auschwitz etc.
     
    BINGO. Not just frightened. Angry and vengeful, too. A lot of Jews have a pretty ingrained sense of their own superiority over the rest of humanity. Imagine their indignation at being treated as enemies of the state and herded into prison camps. Jews are pretty ethnocentric, and well known for having aggressive and rather vindictive personalities, especially against antisemites.

    It's not hard to do the math on this, which is why I give testimony so little weight. This is before we even get to all the testimony that is clearly bullshit (retroactive omniscience where somehow Jews knew exactly what was going on, at all times, despite the fact that they were sitting in prison camps and had very little in the way of hard data to go by).

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  168. @Jake
    Who claims that Hitler did not want ANY war?

    Hitler clearly wished to move German rule eastward across almost all Slavic lands, and he would have been tickled to kill as many as necessary.

    What Britain feared was Germany’s economic expansion to the south east, what they also feared before the first world war.
    Lawrence R. Pratt, ‘East of Malta, West of Suez’, London, 1975
    Edward Mead Earle, Ph.D., ‘Turkey, The Great Powers and The Bagdad Railway, A study in Imperialism’, 1923, 1924, New York

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  169. @Incitatus
    “He [Hitler] did not want war, it was forced upon him.”

    Who forced it on him”

    “He [Hitler] wanted to create a better society with a combination of socialism and free market and to improve the standards of the German people in health, culture etc… free from globalist bankers.”

    Is that why he imprisoned tens of thousands of political opponents? Murdered loyal SA, chancellor Schleicher and his wife, and dozens of others in Operation Hummingbird? Assassinated Dollfuß in an unsuccessful coup? Illegally rearmed, then revoked Versailles and reinstituted conscription? Engineered Anschluß and Müncher Abkommen? Invaded rump Czechoslovakia and Poland? Invaded Denmark, Norway, Luxembourg, Belgium, Netherlands, France?. Invaded North Africa, Yugoslavia, Greece, Crete, Eastern Poland, USSR? Declared war on the USA? Killed 200,000 helpless Germans in Aktion T4?

    All because he “wanted to create a better society with a combination of socialism and free market”? Why did he chose to do it in everybody else’s country?

    “War was the last thing he [Hitler] ever wanted”

    Why was war the first option he chose?

    ” Illegally rearmed, then revoked Versailles and reinstituted conscription? ”

    How illegally ?
    When someone is blackmailed into signing an ‘agreement’ in any system of justice that agreement is null and void.
    When the Weimar Republic signed in Versailles already 900.000 Germans had died of hunger because Britain had continued the blockade.
    The food situation in Germany was such that British occupation troops were on the verge of insurrection.
    It takes too much space and time to reject the other nonsense.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Incitatus
    Illegally rearmed, then revoked Versailles and reinstituted conscription?
    "How illegally?"

    Germany violated Versailles from day one. Rearming. 300,000-400,000 Freikorps. Failure to pay reparations for damage inflicted on neighboring countries. In other words, German leaders lied. They never intended to honor their word. They sought to buy time, to maintain and enhance military strength. German soil remained untouched by the war they waged. They looked for a rematch.

    Again, German leaders lied from day one. They lied to their own people, they lied to the Allies, they lied to themselves. They started the war in 1914, murdered many of their own men, and, caught in failure, lied to save their own necks from mutiny.

    “When someone [Germany] is blackmailed into signing an ‘agreement’ in any system of justice that agreement is null and void”

    “Blackmailed”?

    Shouldn’t leaders in Germany and Austria-Hungary have thought of that when they refused mediation, declared war and initiated hostilities in 1914? Invaded neutral countries? Burned priceless libraries, cathedrals and civilian housing? Shelled Paris with special long-range terror weapons? Shot thousands of civilians? Destroyed villages, bridges, farms, orchards? Expelled hundreds of thousands of civilians? Initiated sustained aerial terror bombing of London? Created a meatgrinder killing hundreds of thousands (including their own men) at Verdun? Declared unrestricted submarine warfare? Attempted to get Mexico to attack the USA? Gave Lenin $100 million and injected him into Russia?

    Shouldn’t German leaders have considered the risk of losing when they started and conducted brutal war? War that never touched German soil?

    Was Ludendorff’s Treaty of Brest-Litovsk (3 Mar 1918) ‘blackmail’? Over a million square miles (home to 50 million), 33% of rails, 73% of iron, 89% of coal, 5000 factories, and 6 billion marks extorted from Russia? Was that fair jilles? Was it “blackmail”?

    Was Bismarck’s pound of flesh - 5 billion gold francs and Alsace-Lorraine in 1871 – ‘blackmail’? Germany occupied northern France until it was paid. Was that fair jilles? Was it “blackmail”?

    The reason German leaders found themselves unfortunate victims of Versailles was because of their own hubris and criminal incompetence. They subjected ordinary Germans to four years of slaughter and famine. When it was their turn to screw Russia, they couldn’t take enough. German lives? Nitwit Ludendorff had no regrets losing 880,000 of his own men in his glorious spring offensive 21 Mar – Jul 1918. If Ludendorff thought so little of his own countrymen, why should the Allies care more?

    When German soldiers began to mutiny, Ludendorff and Hindenburg demanded the Reichstag (civilians) negotiate Armistice. The German General Staff was on the point of total failure, about to be exposed for the frauds they were. Hindenburg and Ebert instructed Matthias Erzberger to sign. They then engineered the myth than civilians, Jews, Freemasons betrayed German victory. Erzberger was killed by two Organisation Consul assassins 26 Aug 1921 while on a walk. The assassins, smuggled out of country, returned after Hindenburg’s immunity decree 21 Mar 1933 and led short happy careers - Heinrich Tillessen in the SA, Heinrich Schulz the SS.

    German leaders signed the agreement because of their supreme, arrogant incompetence. They created failure and were about to be exposed as morons. No more, no less. You blame everyone else. It was Wilson, France, the Jews…You seem eager to conceal odious crimes and criminal incompetence. You are the ordinary German’s nightmare.

    “When the Weimar Republic signed in Versailles already 900.000 Germans had died of hunger because Britain had continued the blockade.”

    Terrible indeed. Most estimate 763,720 civilians. As usual, you inflate German deaths and never mention their victims.

    Roughly 1.18% of German civilian population perished. Belgium lost 1.16% (about of third deliberately executed by Germans, the rest to famine and exposure after Germans burned their dwellings). Tiny Serbia won the lottery: 17.78% civilian deaths (27.78% of total population perished). Any tears for them jilles?

    Why do German leaders, who launched war, exclusively deserve pity? No one forced them to invade.

    Why didn’t German leadership adequately plan against famine when they started the war? Were they incompetent? Why blame the Allies for the incompetence of German leadership?

    Germany blockaded the UK with U-Boats and unrestricted warfare. Was that OK?

    “It takes too much space and time to reject the other nonsense.”

    Agree. Real estate in your brain is scarce. Devoted to “Hitler did not want any war” (he launched it, but never mind); “FDR as war monger, Wilson the same, Wilson’s Eighteen Points to dismember the Habsburg empire, Churchill war criminal and war monger” (Germany and Austria-Hungary launched it, but never mind). Add to that obvious spite, envy, and holy passive-aggressive posturing against the USA. All by an economist that can’t add casualty and population numbers. Too much Gouda and tulips?

    With all due respect, here’s the joke. Under the rule of the Hitler you worship, you – useless eater – would have been snuffed long ago. Would you crow happiness when injected, express loving praise of the Führer while loaded into a sealed van? Perhaps Wally could make you feel better with his “Traitors? You bet, everyone did & does go after [murder] them.” Naturally Wally decides who’s a “traitor”, but that need not bother you.

    What’s the word? Zielig idioot?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  170. @Greg Bacon
    That is correct, Auschwitz supplied the thousands of laborers needed each shift for the adjacent, huge Monowitz complex, that made many different military items needed by Germany, like making fuel and tires from artificial sources, like coal.

    But you'll never see that in a Speilberg movie.

    Yet even Wiesel describes it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  171. @CanSpeccy

    So why people keep saying “Hitler did not want any war” or that it was pushed on him?
     
    Hitler did not want war with Britain while invading Russia, hence, presumably, his expression of admiration for the British empire, Hess's peace mission to Britain, etc.

    Why people claims Hitler did not want the war in the East that he said he wanted is more difficult to understand. But since wars of aggression are both illegal and immoral, I suppose the Nazi apologists here wish to deny Germany's guilt.

    Nobody ever was able to define ‘war of agression’.
    But Hitler’s attack on Russia was defensive:
    Bogdan Musial, ‘Kampfplatz Deutschland, Stalins Kriegspläne gegen den Westen’, Berlin 2008
    The initial success of the Wehrmacht was that Stalin had planned the attack three weeks after Hitler attacked.
    The Red Army was in disarray.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  172. Momus says:
    @Wally
    Oh my, we're so scared. Ron too, no doubt. LOL

    You must live in 'Israel'.

    So show us what's wrong with what you want suppressed here.
    Of course, you can't.

    Your cognitive dissonance has gotten the best of you.
    Only liars try to prevent free speech.

    remember this:


    The 'holocaust' storyline is one of the most easily debunked narratives ever contrived. That is why those who question it are arrested and persecuted. That is why violent, racist, & privileged Jewish supremacists demand censorship. What sort of truth is it that denies free speech and the freedom to seek the truth? Only liars demand censorship.
     
    www.codoh.com

    Benthic Wally at it again.

    Not all speech is free speech. If you incite hate and promulgate violence against a certain group in your society you are breaking the social contract.

    That certain species of denier dog whistling is as socially undesirable as someone with a full blown infectious disease like Ebola lying that they are clean.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    Momus, you lie because that's your last resort.

    Just one more false strawmen argument from the desperate Usual Enemies of Free Speech.

    There are no Revisionist attacks on Jews, but plenty of Jew attacks against Revisionists.

    It's Jew violence that is the real issue.

    There was the firebombing by Jews of Ernst Zundel's home, the arson attack by Jews against the IHR.

    And the beating of Dr. Faurisson.
    https://codoh.com/library/document/300/?lang=en
    https://codoh.com/media/files/Faurisson16.09.1989-700x1043.jpg

    www.codoh.com

    Revisionists are just the messengers, the absurd impossibility of the 'holocaust' storyline is the message.

    , @anon111

    If you incite hate and promulgate violence against a certain group in your society you are breaking the social contract.
     
    i've never heard this ^^^ but i suspect if you are behind the importation of tens of millions of foreigners against the wishes of the native populations you are doing more than "breaking the social contract"

    That certain species of denier dog whistling is as socially undesirable....
     
    according to who?
    , @Wally
    Staged 'antisemitic' crimes are the rule, not the exception.
    These are never 'crimes' where someone is charged and tried in courts of law.
    These are only what some people 'report' as 'hate crimes'.

    IOW, if someone is looking to gain political advantage or is pissed off at what someone said or thinks, they then manufacture & report a 'hate crime'.
    Fake SPLC style numbers are then used as if they were real crime stats.
    The question to always ask is: 'Who Benefits?'

    see these:
    Jewish suspects arrested over swastika graffiti on synagogues
    http://www.timesofisrael.com/jewish-suspects-arrested-over-swastika-graffiti-on-synagogues/

    Jew arrested for dozens of fake 'hate crimes'
    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/03/23/israeli-jew-19-arrested-antisemitic-hate-crime-hoax-spree/
    excerpt: "last month concerned a suspect who allegedly vandalized Chicago’s Loop Synagogue and was apparently caught on surveillance video camera. The man, already facing a March trial on unrelated charges, was charged with a hate crime.

    Man Caught Spray Painting Swastika On College Campus Is Black
    http://dailycaller.com/2017/10/16/man-caught-spray-painting-swastika-on-college-campus-is-black-report-says/

    Fake Hate? ‘Trump Rules’ & Poorly Drawn Swastikas Spray-Painted On Monument In Milwaukee
    https://www.prisonplanet.com/fake-hate-trump-rules-poorly-drawn-swastikas-spray-painted-on-monument-in-milwaukee.html

    Bomb threats to Jewish centers & schools were really a dark web moneymaking scheme ? FBI
    https://www.rt.com/usa/399027-bomb-jcc-kadar-warrant-alphabay/

    JCC bomb hoaxer charged with vast list of offenses, including threats to execute children, blow up planes
    US-Israeli teen hacker accused in Israeli court of making over 2,000 intimidating calls to Jewish institutions, malls, schools, airlines and police in US and worldwide; threatening US senator and top defense official
    http://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-files-massive-indictment-against-jcc-bomb-hoaxer-for-thousands-of-counts-of-threats-extortion-fraud/
    www.codoh.com
    , @Svigor
    Jews: "Disagreeing with the Jewish narrative = inciting hate and promulgating violence, which should be a jailing offense."

    Also Jews: Palestinians are animals and terrorists.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  173. Ivan K. says: • Website
    @Abelard Lindsey
    David Irving is suggesting essentially that it was bureaucracy itself that was responsible for the holocaust. I find this easily believable. The main purpose of bureaucracy is to protect everyone in it from any accountability or even the feeling of accountability. And we all know that Germans make consummate bureaucrats. I believe this is the source for the expression of "the banality of evil". In other words, bureaucracy really is evil, as anyone who has ever tried to do anything "outside the system" knows full-well.

    The Spielberg film "Schindler's List" did a good job of depicting some of the bureaucracy carrying out the Holocaust when it showed the SS bureaucrats setting up their tables, chairs, papers and stamps to "process" the Jews before they were loading onto the trains to be transported to the camps. Everything was done in a neat, orderly manner with all of the paperwork in proper notation and place. It was this scene, more than any other, that made the most impression on me from this film.

    A lot of what Irving's book said about Hitler's attitude towards the British Empire and the eastward Teutonic push is written in great detail by Hitler himself in his second book. Hitler's second book is readily available on Amazon.

    Terrific. Thanks to your comment, I’m leafing through “Hitler’s Second Book” already.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  174. Anonymous[680] • Disclaimer says:
    @anon111
    re the Balfour Declaration, what was in it for the British to give Palestine to the Jews?

    i've seen people speculate that the Jews promised to use their American media outlets to whip up a pro-war sentiment to get the U.S. into WWI on the side of the British but it seems like if there was evidence of this there would have been a huge scandal.

    If there was evidence that 9/11 was an inside job would that generate a huge scandal?

    So then?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  175. Anonymous[680] • Disclaimer says:
    @Momus
    No one can know the number murdered and nor does it really matter.

    What is beyond any doubt is that Hitler's Nazis prepared the ideological ground and constructed a massive slave labor and extermination apparatus to exploit, cause the death of, and murder Europe's Jews.

    The evidence of a monumental crime and the perpetrators gargantuan efforts to hide the evidence is overwhelming.

    A very small benthic community of deniers and Jew haters chews away at this carcass but those who matter, the vast majority broadly accept the truth of evil Nazis without having to masticate the details.

    What is beyond any doubt is that Hitler’s Nazis prepared the ideological ground and constructed a massive slave labor and extermination apparatus

    What exactly was this extermination apparatus? I grew up sincerely believing in the gas chambers and yet, after careful consideration, I’m now convinced that no homocidal gas chambers ever existed. I’m also inclined to believe that most of the deaths were due to what Assange calls the ‘squalor of war’ and, after reading a letter from one of the camp commandants to his superior, I am also inclined to believe that the Germans took reasonable measures to prevent unnecessary deaths but were simply overwhelmed by the destruction being wrought upon their economy.

    tldr: sorry, not buying it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Momus

    What exactly was this extermination apparatus?
     
    Are you trying to prove you are mentally retarded?

    after reading a letter from one of the camp commandants blah blah blah
     
    You don't consider hundreds of thousands of innocent people being rounded up and rail trucked to specially constructed camps run by the SS an indicator of Nazi mendacity?
    , @Svigor
    I've often asked Jews for diagrams of the gas chambers. I get pics of a door, pics of a few dozen emaciated corpses in a ditch, I get invective, but I never get diagrams of the gas chambers.

    The murder weapon in the crime of the millennium and nobody has a diagram.

    People call me a holocaust denier, because that's how their narrow-minded little brains are wired, but I'm not. I just don't take the orthodox narrative seriously because its purveyors don't take it seriously. They promote it like a fanatical religion, not like a topic for serious thought.

    , @Svigor
    "Not buying"; precisely! I'm just not convinced. I smell a horde of rats.

    That makes me a denier heretic who must be punished.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  176. @Crimson2
    The morons who deny the Holocaust deserve that fate themselves. If it happens, I promise to never pretend that it didn't. In fact, I'll celebrate the anniversary.

    Aww, you’re so sweet.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  177. Them Guys says:
    @Wally
    Oh my, just for a perverted criminal like yourself:

    http://fotos.fotoflexer.com/36b768423959ddf0f7bb82636e604428.jpg

    www.codoh.com

    Wally, great info! Note also that these holyhoax promoters aka jews make use of the exact same method of….if Zero/No/None evidence exists nor can be found?…No problem, just switch the actual real word meanings so to mean a totally Different thing!

    And by same method I am referring to the largest sect of idiotic brainwashed and always unquestionable, defenders of all issues or agendas jewish or Israel state…That being Americas 60+ Million of jewdeo-zio-christians. Only difference is that where hoax promotor jews switch word meanings from say, Resettlement into meaning of “extermination of jews” etc….

    Those braindead jew and Israel firster apostate Christians named prior, instead switch word meanings from, in all biblical verses locations the word of “Israel” or Israelite” can be found…They switch the actual word meanings into the word of “Jew” or “Jews”…This way they can conjure up various end times prophetic claims and interpretations, then search or back track thru as many bible verses until they find the words of “Israel”, and then substitute the word “jew” so to make every prophetic interpretation Fit!

    It seems that every group and also individuals who become infatuated by jews, like those jewdeo Christian sects, along with polititions and msm members etc. And almost the entire dem lib party, African negros, Fags & Dykes, and any others I forgot to name here…..All sooner or later become almost 100% the same as a jew in all of the various nefarious ways of international jewry are famous for being.

    A good example I’d say, is how most dem libs, negroes, and other jew firsters or jew defenders, always use the very same jewish tactics of denial of facts, rejection of proven truths, and none are ever able to ever admit to being wrong on any jew or political or racial issues period. And when all those tactics fail, or the people they are rejecting such facts from refuse to cave in to such jewish tactics…They, same as a jew, always resort to use of vile name callings of Nazis and anti-Semite and racist….In order to finally stifle and shut down entirely ALL forms free speech/talk of the type those loony lefties reject or dislike.

    This is a pattern of behavior that has swept the entire nation of America via pc and cultural Marxist controls of most forms msm and medias today, and one group maintains such rigid strict msm media control of thought and speech allowed, and it is jews who have that control.

    Today and for some while long now, one can accurately claim that Americas citizenry has been almost totally Judaized and Talmudized and Zionized to the proverbial Inth-Degree!

    Yet even while so many have been trained like Pavlovs Dogs, to Think-Believe-Act- like jews,and Unquestionably always kneejerk-defend all issues jew, until they act more like a jew than a jew does, they also fail to comprehend that no matter how or what they do in their mad quest of “Is it good for jews”?….They Fail to see that never ever are jews going to actually accept such idiot Goys as one of jews own eh….jews will always treat even the most out going pro jew goy like them the same as they treat awake folk goy like Us…With abject hatred of goyim from jewry as a whole.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Momus
    You have 6 million jews living in your head rent free mate.

    You are such a pathetic victim.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  178. Momus says:
    @Anonymous

    What is beyond any doubt is that Hitler’s Nazis prepared the ideological ground and constructed a massive slave labor and extermination apparatus

     

    What exactly was this extermination apparatus? I grew up sincerely believing in the gas chambers and yet, after careful consideration, I'm now convinced that no homocidal gas chambers ever existed. I'm also inclined to believe that most of the deaths were due to what Assange calls the 'squalor of war' and, after reading a letter from one of the camp commandants to his superior, I am also inclined to believe that the Germans took reasonable measures to prevent unnecessary deaths but were simply overwhelmed by the destruction being wrought upon their economy.

    tldr: sorry, not buying it.

    What exactly was this extermination apparatus?

    Are you trying to prove you are mentally retarded?

    after reading a letter from one of the camp commandants blah blah blah

    You don’t consider hundreds of thousands of innocent people being rounded up and rail trucked to specially constructed camps run by the SS an indicator of Nazi mendacity?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    said:
    "You don’t consider hundreds of thousands of innocent people being rounded up and rail trucked to specially constructed camps run by the SS an indicator of Nazi mendacity?"
    IOW:
    You don’t consider the millions of innocent Japanese-Americans being rounded up and rail trucked to specially constructed camps run by the US government an indicator of Allied mendacity?

    The '6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers' are scientifically impossible frauds.
    see the 'holocaust' scam debunked here: http://codoh.com
    No name calling, level playing field debate here: http://forum.codoh.com

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  179. Momus says:
    @Them Guys
    Wally, great info! Note also that these holyhoax promoters aka jews make use of the exact same method of....if Zero/No/None evidence exists nor can be found?...No problem, just switch the actual real word meanings so to mean a totally Different thing!

    And by same method I am referring to the largest sect of idiotic brainwashed and always unquestionable, defenders of all issues or agendas jewish or Israel state...That being Americas 60+ Million of jewdeo-zio-christians. Only difference is that where hoax promotor jews switch word meanings from say, Resettlement into meaning of "extermination of jews" etc....


    Those braindead jew and Israel firster apostate Christians named prior, instead switch word meanings from, in all biblical verses locations the word of "Israel" or Israelite" can be found...They switch the actual word meanings into the word of "Jew" or "Jews"...This way they can conjure up various end times prophetic claims and interpretations, then search or back track thru as many bible verses until they find the words of "Israel", and then substitute the word "jew" so to make every prophetic interpretation Fit!


    It seems that every group and also individuals who become infatuated by jews, like those jewdeo Christian sects, along with polititions and msm members etc. And almost the entire dem lib party, African negros, Fags & Dykes, and any others I forgot to name here.....All sooner or later become almost 100% the same as a jew in all of the various nefarious ways of international jewry are famous for being.


    A good example I'd say, is how most dem libs, negroes, and other jew firsters or jew defenders, always use the very same jewish tactics of denial of facts, rejection of proven truths, and none are ever able to ever admit to being wrong on any jew or political or racial issues period. And when all those tactics fail, or the people they are rejecting such facts from refuse to cave in to such jewish tactics...They, same as a jew, always resort to use of vile name callings of Nazis and anti-Semite and racist....In order to finally stifle and shut down entirely ALL forms free speech/talk of the type those loony lefties reject or dislike.


    This is a pattern of behavior that has swept the entire nation of America via pc and cultural Marxist controls of most forms msm and medias today, and one group maintains such rigid strict msm media control of thought and speech allowed, and it is jews who have that control.


    Today and for some while long now, one can accurately claim that Americas citizenry has been almost totally Judaized and Talmudized and Zionized to the proverbial Inth-Degree!


    Yet even while so many have been trained like Pavlovs Dogs, to Think-Believe-Act- like jews,and Unquestionably always kneejerk-defend all issues jew, until they act more like a jew than a jew does, they also fail to comprehend that no matter how or what they do in their mad quest of "Is it good for jews"?....They Fail to see that never ever are jews going to actually accept such idiot Goys as one of jews own eh....jews will always treat even the most out going pro jew goy like them the same as they treat awake folk goy like Us...With abject hatred of goyim from jewry as a whole.

    You have 6 million jews living in your head rent free mate.

    You are such a pathetic victim.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    Get used to it Momus, the world is awakening to your 6M scam and your psychopathic brethren are taking a beating at Unz.

    Look at yourselves, Nothing but girly foot stomping fits. It is very enjoyable to see those reactions. YOu have nothing.

    And do tell us why Jews have been trying their laughable fake 6M since at least 1823.

    www.codoh.com

    , @Them Guys
    You are a, Prime Grade-A, top notch Poster boy/girl example of why so many, many, many goys are finally waking up and also getting very jewized up.

    And you and your ilk of fellow travelers posting here and at various other website forums, show us the best ever evidence that you jews are really getting very worried to say the least!


    Folks at many web forums ask as to why do we see so many issues seeming to be moving faster, and seeing more and more issues being added daily and weekly now. This is due to they are them what aint as yet jewized up awakened.


    But we who are, know we are very correct that it is all due to a frenetic fanatical fear based jewish mindset. A massive group wide fear of..."They Know! Oy Vey! Them damn Goys, They...KNOW!"


    And be certain we who do know have been working over time to awaken as many fellow goys as humanly possible. Which very soon shall cause what can be called the Snowball Effect.


    Like a small hand tossed snowball downhill, as it rolls downhill, it picks up both more snow and faster speed...Until very soon now, it will reach a state of a Giant size mountain sized snowball rolling right over every sick in the head ziojew and antichrist jew along with rolling over every of the too many to list jewish hoax fabels and lies.


    And as so, so, intelligent as jewry claims jews to be, the best ever proof they aint so smart is how jews have placed every and all of their scam crapolas, like eggs into the same basket!


    In other words you stupid jews, ALL you have is a huge fable full of lies in one giant basket thats everything jew stands on. Which is certain soon to abjectly Fail big. And with that big Failure also goes every fuckin dime and every former defense or support you had or got from goys and their prosperous nations....Then what, eh jew?


    Worse yet for not just jews but also for usa negroes is the fact that jewry taught negroes to act like and use exact same vile jew tactics to blame whites. And same as jewry has foolishly done, blacks in usa also put all they have into one basket of "Call whites Rayssis!".


    Be it call whites racist or call em anti-Semites and Nazis its all the same stupid fail game plan.


    And if you think whites can be a real huge future problem for jewry? Just wait till you jews get a load of 50-Million usa very pissed off black savages once they too get jewized up!!!!


    Only This time around, unlike our parents of the Greatest DUPED Generation of Jew War II era..


    This time us whites will NOT come to the rescue of jews, who well deserve whatever befalls them for all they have scammed and done, and will never cease doing until somebody deals with it all.


    But you fraud khazar fake jews Know all of this and its the main reason foolish jews such as You are keep doing what you do on sites like here eh. its due to a 100% Real abject FEAR!


    A Fear You types created and caused. Even biblically God states to several of israels greatest prophets that He, God is baffled by total jewish stiff necked stubbornness and idiocy of never being able to ever admit when they are wrong. Even the few long past historic biblical eras that jews actually did admit to being wrong and evil etc, each of the few times, it was always very short lived before jews returned to their own VOMIT!...Same as a Dog that will puke and then Return to its Own Vomit to lick and eat it eh!!


    Daily I Thank God He Made me a White Man and not a jew nor a negro. And in that respect, yes I do feel sorry for you jews, kinda, a tiny bit at least heheheh.


    PS: Momus, have you ever yet discovered any jews that actually have had the wisdom to inquire as to just why a 109 host nations have booted out jews and did so around 300 separate times?


    I have heard Endless jews, endless number of times complain of how badly jews got/get treated by gentiles and goy nations...yet never yet even once have I myself heard a single jew answer that complain with an honest answer such as "Well gee maybe if we jews stopped acting so jewy jewish and obnoxiously whining and crying about the big holohoax events, and took a real mirror self look see at our jewish selves...Just maybe we could change and act normal like most euro whites do eh"


    I am age 65 yrs old, have likely met far more jews, and spent an entire 25+ years of 40+ Hrs per week working at and Inside jewish homes and at their many varied business's, than a couple dozen folks combined totals of contact with jews.


    And after spending from typically 1/2 a day to a full 8 hr work day every month inside the same jewish home and being able to observe typical jewish behavior in said homes. Seeing their small kids grow to adult hood during a 25 year span of time doing so.


    Causes a person like me to really get to know jews almost as well as a jew can know a jew.


    And these folks represented all types jews. From avg middle class worker types in avg homes, to some, Many of the very most wealthy within state of Michigan at several mainly jewish suburbs around Detroit. These are wealthy and famous jews everyone here would recognize if I named them.


    So yes when it comes to "oy Vey! They KNOW! the Goys Know!" Indeed I sure do fit that to a T.


    And I can honestly say I have never in all those years of monthly home worksite visits ever yet heard one single jew person young nor old, speak about any self created fault or jew caused miseries so many jews claim to suffer. I rekon stiff necked stubborn jewry fits well also eh.


    Its all okay though as I stated prior sooner or later jews will likely have, this time around a Real true issue to whine or cry about once enough fed up goys get so fed up.


    And then same as a few weeks ago at the united nations council meeting, while niky halie defends indefensible jews and Israel state vs pallies there being so persecuted by jews , and the rest of UN members that represent 7-Billion Non jew goys globally Rejected Israel and jews at rate of 100% rejection level, Vs only usa/Haly being for jews or Israel speaks volumes no? Well its going to get worse yet once the fed up act. So good luck jewy jews you gonna need it I rekon.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  180. ohmy says:

    I find it interesting that today the level of hate of Russia promoted by the MSM is astonishingly similar to the level of hate for Germany this same MSM was publishing during the years just prior to World Wars 1 & 2. It is almost a cut and paste promotion.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  181. @Lot
    Agreed.

    Left out of Ron Unz's defense is that the case that bankrupted Irving was a libel action brought by Irving as the plaintiff, and that Irving quite liberally sued and threatened to sue people for libel.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irving_v_Penguin_Books_Ltd

    And Irving also threatened to sue John Lukacs, a highly respected figure in traditionalist/paleoconservative circles, although ultimately he did not.

    Any discussion of Irving that does not make clear that he sued Lipstadt, not vice versa, is dishonest. (Unz comes closer to admission of this fact in his other post, but still buried in deliberately vague language that merely says the controversy “spawned a lawsuit.”)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  182. Rurik says:
    @Crimson2
    Geez, Ron. You run a shitty website that attracts the worst people on the internet. You truck in mindless conspiracies and have the gall to attack the media. It won't be long till one of your bloggers shoots up a Waffle House and this whole insane pile of cards comes crashing down.

    Try to run for office again and see how it goes. I'll expose your bullshit personally.

    and have the gall to attack the media.

    !

    what next?

    Obama? The Clintons?!?! The United States Senate?!?!!!

    is there nothing sacrosanct anymore?

    I’ve even read things on this webzine that are unflattering to America’s premiere war hero and statesman; John McCain!

    and even Bibi!!!!!

    can you imagine anyone criticizing Bibi?!!!!

    I thought we hanged Himmler and Eichmann!

    and now they’re back, and criticizing Israel and even the (((media)))!!!!!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  183. Astraea says:
    @Malla
    More important questions would be

    Why would a seemingly Christian, Capitalist, free democratic United States of America support the Communist Soviet Union via the land lease program?
    Well how is that even possible, it happened for sure, no doubts about that. But how is that even possible. Why would the USA support a communist nation which supported communist revolution around the war and was a major threat to the established American way of life?

    Why did Jacob Schiff, a rich capitalist Wall Street banker finance Lenin and the Bolshevik Communist takeover of Russia?

    Why and how did David Rockefeller get special landing rights in Soviet Moscow? He visited the Soviet Union more times than all American Presidents combined. Why was he not arrested by Soviet Authorities on arrival in Moscow, tried for being an exploiter of the proletariat (because in his case, he really is one) and punished?

    How is it that once, Henry Kissinger represented both the United States as well as the Soviet Union?

    Kissinger still seems to be The Boss behind the scenes – or it looks like it because he is seen quite often in either the Oval Office or The Kremlinor in Beijing and in all three places he is greete with deep respect – and by Putin with great affection. Putin behaves like a star struck boy in that Kissinger’s presence.
    I was very much more impressed with Vladimir Putin until I saw his adoration of this rather evil dwarf.
    What exactly isKissinger’s role inour World? OUR World!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Momus

    What exactly isKissinger’s role inour World? OUR World!
     
    Nothing sinister. Wise wizened sage, entertaining story teller, charismatic celebrity. Racontuer.
    , @edNels

    What exactly isKissinger’s role inour World? OUR World!
     
    Kissinger is sort of a wise old uncle who was a wiz kid from the upper West Side, he is seen in all the right places with great looking women, He wispers shit in peoples ears, like Merrill lynch... Nixon liked him so much he made him WH mascot. Don't matter what he says, with that gravelly Col. Klink accent it's gatta be important!

    It's good to be a Rockefeller protege, (in the biography, both of them I think.) Maybe Putin is too. Didn't read about that yet though.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  184. @Anon
    Who sunk the cruiser? German navy? Maybe the Soviet’s did it to get their gold back.

    Scuttled by the Royal Navy. HMS Edinburgh had been torpedoed by a German submarine and was attempting to return to Murmansk, but was at risk of being intercepted by German naval vessels. The United States still got paid, for that shipment and numerous others, in gold bullion, hence received nothing from the 1981 salvage operation(of the 431 bars recovered, the UK salvage consortium received 45% and the remaining 55% was split 2/3rds to Soviet Union and 1/3 to UK). A second salvage operation in 1986 recovered 29 of the remaining 34 gold bars, five gold bars are unaccounted for to this day( HMS Edinburgh carried 465 gold bars when scuttled). “Anon”, you just have to get used to the historical fact that the Soviet Union didn’t get any “free stuff” in WWII, but the United States did get Soviet gold bullion for cans of pork stew.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon111

    ...but the United States did get Soviet gold bullion for cans of pork stew.
     
    were they supposed to take rubles?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  185. anon111 says:
    @Momus
    No one can know the number murdered and nor does it really matter.

    What is beyond any doubt is that Hitler's Nazis prepared the ideological ground and constructed a massive slave labor and extermination apparatus to exploit, cause the death of, and murder Europe's Jews.

    The evidence of a monumental crime and the perpetrators gargantuan efforts to hide the evidence is overwhelming.

    A very small benthic community of deniers and Jew haters chews away at this carcass but those who matter, the vast majority broadly accept the truth of evil Nazis without having to masticate the details.

    What is beyond any doubt is that Hitler’s Nazis prepared the ideological ground and constructed a massive slave labor and extermination apparatus to exploit, cause the death of, and murder Europe’s Jews.

    who prepared the ideological ground to exterminate tens of millions of Russians and Ukrainians in the old Soviet Union?

    who was that?

    for some reason one event has been covered ad nauseum, and the others?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Momus

    who prepared the ideological ground to exterminate tens of millions of Russians and Ukrainians in the old Soviet Union?
     
    Sounds dire. Where do your figures come from?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  186. anon111 says:
    @Bombercommand
    Scuttled by the Royal Navy. HMS Edinburgh had been torpedoed by a German submarine and was attempting to return to Murmansk, but was at risk of being intercepted by German naval vessels. The United States still got paid, for that shipment and numerous others, in gold bullion, hence received nothing from the 1981 salvage operation(of the 431 bars recovered, the UK salvage consortium received 45% and the remaining 55% was split 2/3rds to Soviet Union and 1/3 to UK). A second salvage operation in 1986 recovered 29 of the remaining 34 gold bars, five gold bars are unaccounted for to this day( HMS Edinburgh carried 465 gold bars when scuttled). "Anon", you just have to get used to the historical fact that the Soviet Union didn't get any "free stuff" in WWII, but the United States did get Soviet gold bullion for cans of pork stew.

    …but the United States did get Soviet gold bullion for cans of pork stew.

    were they supposed to take rubles?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  187. Wally says:
    @Momus
    You have 6 million jews living in your head rent free mate.

    You are such a pathetic victim.

    Get used to it Momus, the world is awakening to your 6M scam and your psychopathic brethren are taking a beating at Unz.

    Look at yourselves, Nothing but girly foot stomping fits. It is very enjoyable to see those reactions. YOu have nothing.

    And do tell us why Jews have been trying their laughable fake 6M since at least 1823.

    http://www.codoh.com

    Read More
    • Replies: @Momus
    Benthic Wally.

    As I've said before, I'm agnostic on the numbers of Jews Hitler caused to die: you have the 6 million zombies in your skull.

    You are in a tiny, dark, low oxygen ecosystem, getting poor nutrition from the excreted waste products of those few deep dwellers around you.

    The details of the Holocaust are unimportant to the majority of the worlds population; They know beyond doubt Hitler and his SS set up a brutal apparatus for the enslaving and killing of Europe's Jews.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  188. Wally says:
    @Momus

    What exactly was this extermination apparatus?
     
    Are you trying to prove you are mentally retarded?

    after reading a letter from one of the camp commandants blah blah blah
     
    You don't consider hundreds of thousands of innocent people being rounded up and rail trucked to specially constructed camps run by the SS an indicator of Nazi mendacity?

    said:
    “You don’t consider hundreds of thousands of innocent people being rounded up and rail trucked to specially constructed camps run by the SS an indicator of Nazi mendacity?”
    IOW:
    You don’t consider the millions of innocent Japanese-Americans being rounded up and rail trucked to specially constructed camps run by the US government an indicator of Allied mendacity?

    The ’6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers’ are scientifically impossible frauds.
    see the ‘holocaust’ scam debunked here: http://codoh.com
    No name calling, level playing field debate here: http://forum.codoh.com

    Read More
    • Replies: @Momus

    You don’t consider the millions of innocent Japanese-Americans being rounded up and rail trucked to specially constructed camps run by the US government an indicator of Allied mendacity?
     
    Pretty average lying effort that one Benthic Wally. Japanese internees according to the US records numbered 117000 and transport to the camps was by various means- but not rail truck: rail coach or carriage or commercial buses were used.

    Not the finest episode in the US's history but trying to compare it with Hitler's SS treatment of Jews is laughable.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  189. Wally says:
    @Momus
    Benthic Wally at it again.

    Not all speech is free speech. If you incite hate and promulgate violence against a certain group in your society you are breaking the social contract.

    That certain species of denier dog whistling is as socially undesirable as someone with a full blown infectious disease like Ebola lying that they are clean.

    Momus, you lie because that’s your last resort.

    Just one more false strawmen argument from the desperate Usual Enemies of Free Speech.

    There are no Revisionist attacks on Jews, but plenty of Jew attacks against Revisionists.

    It’s Jew violence that is the real issue.

    There was the firebombing by Jews of Ernst Zundel’s home, the arson attack by Jews against the IHR.

    And the beating of Dr. Faurisson.
    https://codoh.com/library/document/300/?lang=en
    http://www.codoh.com

    Revisionists are just the messengers, the absurd impossibility of the ‘holocaust’ storyline is the message.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    "Jewish Berserkers" as Ron Unz put it. Just like the antifa crowd, their criminal acts get a free pass on account of their alleged victim status.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  190. @Crimson2
    Geez, Ron. You run a shitty website that attracts the worst people on the internet. You truck in mindless conspiracies and have the gall to attack the media. It won't be long till one of your bloggers shoots up a Waffle House and this whole insane pile of cards comes crashing down.

    Try to run for office again and see how it goes. I'll expose your bullshit personally.

    Mr. Unz,
    Crimson here may be jumping the shark just a bit, but about the point where he gets to Waffle House, he has a point.
    The posture you are assuming here is worrisome, I guess maybe if its in the spirit of Howard W. Campbell Jr then, well, that is one helluva a sacrifice, but speaking for myself only, I doubt that kind of sacrifice is required.

    I have generally considered the work you do here to be in the spirit of Ben Shapiro on this recent broadcast:

    There are ways to do this work and keep your moral compass, it starts with knowing that you sometimes need a moral compass. We are all human and that makes it’s possible to go into places where things become confusing and we all stand to be morally mislead.

    Here’s a few more signposts and guides. There is a such thing as moral anorexia. You don’t have it, but especially if you don’t know to recognize it when you see it you can become confused or misled by people who do.

    There’s mis-attribution of cause. If I have an employee and I fail to give him an opportunity, he may see my failure as all manner of faults and he may eventually quit and I’ve lost a good employee. He may be wrong about my motives for failure, but the outcome is the same – a bad outcome. But I don’t have to be guilty of malfeseance to have failed to give him an opportunity, I just can be guilty of being a flawed human being. Same problem applies with groups and in that respect, it’s as much an employee’s responsibility to seize opportunities as it is an employer’s responsibility to provide them – the failure of the latter, doesn’t excuse the former.

    And the past – I think it less likely in 1937 that things were moved along by puppet strings than in 2018. Our systems are bigger, more interconnected, there are fewer concentrations of power. 1937, especially in the US, was more a galley than a steamship.

    You grew up with the Americans who fought WWII. They were not duped. They were all on board. That they were on board, that they fought for the side they fought for, is on account of the fact that they saw things clearly and were not confused. Remember them.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    IOW, you're having a fit because Ron Unz allows 'holocaust' Revisionist research & views to be aired. That bothers you because you cannot refute informed Revisionists.
    In addition, your childhood memories / fantasies of 'The Good War' have been shattered.
    Those are what bothers you, aka: cognitive dissonance.

    Your feigned "moral compass" is a fraud. You are in fact 'faking it'. Your faux morality is offensive to all of us who apply science, logic & rational thought to our endeavors.

    So tell us exactly, specifically, what is incorrect in the posts here that you do not like.
    Please present you proof for the alleged '6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers'.

    Quit dodging the real issues.


    "Alone the fact that one may not question the Jewish "holocaust" and that Jewish pressure has inflicted laws on democratic societies to prevent questions—while incessant promotion and indoctrination of the same averredly incontestable ‘holocaust’ occur—gives the game away. It proves that it must be a lie. Why else would one not be allowed to question it? Because it might offend the "survivors"? Because it "dishonors the dead"? Hardly sufficient reason to outlaw discussion. No, because the exposure of this leading lie might precipitate questions about so many other lies and cause the whole ramshackle fabrication to crumble."

    - Gerard Menuhin / righteous Revisionist Jew, son of famous violinist
     

    www.codoh.com
    , @Rurik

    You grew up with the Americans who fought WWII. They were not duped. They were all on board. That they were on board, that they fought for the side they fought for, is on account of the fact that they saw things clearly and were not confused. Remember them.
     
    how's that for mendacity, eh?

    "They were not duped" = they were duped

    "They were all on board" = they were uniformly duped

    "that they fought for the side they fought for, is on account of the fact that they saw things clearly and were not confused" = they fought for the Jews because they we duped them and confused them with our ubiquitous lies.

    "Remember them" = create a new generation of duped goyim who will "not" be confused, and continue to fight and die for the Jews'

    lol

    I must say that these semi-cryptic warning shots from Mr. Unz fellow tribal members are a little too hilarious.

    don't they know by now that the cat is out of the bag? (and we can read between their lines?)

    so Jewish supremacists, please stop blaming Ron Unz for the truths made available by the Internet.

    I've known of David Irving for decades. I've known of his work and the relentless persecutions he's endured, like so many others. Like Ernst Zundel, Sylvia Stolz and so many (thousands of) others.

    Irving used to call these ((forces)) the "traditional enemies of truth". Indeed, and that's what they are.

    That's what this little comment was all about. 'We lied to get the stupid goyim to destroy Germany, and now our lies are destroying England and France and N. America', just as they've destroyed so many nations in the Middle East that were not 'good for the Jews!' 'If you allow people to tell the truth on your site, then our lies will be less effective!'

    Is that what you really want, Mr. Unz?!
    , @Them Guys
    Speak Truth to your enemies, for when you speak truth to an enemy(antichrist-antiwhite jew/zios) it works the same as if you took a shovel, and scooped up a heaping shovel full of hot coals, and then dumped those coals on top of their head! advice from Jesus Christ.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  191. VICB3 says:
    @Mike P
    Have you looked at David Irving's home page? He offers his books for sale there ("Hitler's War" for $45).

    Guess again. I had already gone to the Irvingbooks website, and they don’t seem to offer it. When you click on the homepage link, you get a 404 page not found. Searched through the rest of the site – categories and all that – and it simply is not there.

    I can’t help but suspect that somebody doesn’t want it read and is doing everything that they can to keep it out of print. In this case, perhaps it’s tied up in a court case or something. And yes, I know that’s conspiracy stuff, all tinfoil hat and everything, but the fact remains that a reasonably priced copy doesn’t seem to be available at this time.

    To repeat, perhaps Unz should become a reseller. Plenty of forbidden books out there that might interest the reader.

    Just a thought.

    VicB3

    Read More
    • Agree: Mike P
    • Replies: @anarchyst
    Focal Point publishing has all of the Irving books, and many more...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  192. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @peterAUS

    Perhaps the territorial ambition came first, the racism second.
     
    Perhaps.

    Or, perhaps, there was something else there.
    Something not easily explained by rational approach and analysis.

    I don't pretend to even start understanding that, but, I can recognize...something.

    There is/was something in Nazi ideology that... resonates....for a lack of better word.

    This isn't the time and place to discuss it and I really don't think this Website would be up to a task, but, there is something.

    Even BBC made that "The Occult History of the Third Reich" in attempt to fill the picture. Couldn't, of course.

    Yup, easy to dismiss all that and move on, hands down.

    But, for some people, that creates the "splinter"
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRnr3MiGWmo
    from 0:43 to 1:10.

    TPTBs know something about that. At least that it exists and mustn't be allowed to pop up, again.
    Jews, everywhere, feel and fear it. The one thing that definitely brings all of them together, no mater what.
    Slavs too.....Russians in particular.

    Anyway.

    There is/was something in Nazi ideology that… resonates….for a lack of better word.

    All group conflicts over territory are fundamentally racist. It’s a matter of our group replacing your group. Racism is built into the genome as the result of natural selection. Whatever, promotes the propagation of your genes at the expense of mine increases the frequency of genes like yours in future generations.

    The Nazis were just more proactive in their racism than most, and have thus, since their defeat, been pilloried for it by their chief victims.

    But the blather we hear today about racism is mostly just anti-white racism, promoted by globalists who seek to destroy the European nations states, these being the greatest obstacle to the globalists’s goal of global governance, i.e., a system under which a caste of super rich people enslave the mass of humanity, thereby creating the world of two races, the ruling Eloi and the Morlock slaves, that H.G. Wells envisaged.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS
    Agree with most.

    The element which, maybe, could be expanded upon is

    The Nazis were just more proactive in their racism than most...
     
    I am not quite sure that (semantics?) "proactive" describes that well.
    "Efficient" maybe? "Well structured and organized"?

    Japanese were quite proactive too, then. Not much about that in public sphere.

    My take is that there is, again, that word "something" when Nazi ideology is concerned and the Western man, or more precisely, Northern Western Man.
    Not (white) Slavs, not even "Southerners" (from Portugal to Italy).

    There is something that resonates, deep, when watching the symbols, ceremonies, rallies and such.

    I guess it works on subconscious level, don't know, but.....

    Take a look, for example, at that BBC show (I mean, of all the people...BBC...).
    The feeling when watching all that.

    I guess that is something which makes all the Left/progressive/whatever jumpy and willing to do anything to clamp on that.
    They don't understand it, but feel its (dormant?) power and work hard on keeping it dormant.

    Bottom line is, there is something in those....visuals....that ....resonate.

    And...hehe...more one wants to dismiss it via rational approach....more the visuals stay.

    Masses don't analyze. They feel, get triggered and act.
    The paradigm makes them them feel, visuals make them triggered.....

    Conundrum, a?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  193. @anon111
    What is the explanation for Dunkirk today?

    Books i read thirty years ago usually claimed it was some kind of blunder by Hitler and the Germans, now seems more likely they disliked the idea of shooting fish in a barrel

    Anon111, you shouldn’t thank “Wally” for bull-poop. The Wehrmacht was unable to reduce the Dunkirk Enclave because of the heroism of the French First Army, which formed a blocking force, standing its ground and taking casualties to shield the evacuation. The French First Army in counterattack even captured a Wehrmacht General.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon111
    what kept the Luftwaffe at bay?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  194. Them Guys says:
    @Wally
    Indeed.
    The alleged number of Jews is complete nonsense. There are many, many more then they let on.
    Most Jews are not 'religious' so they do not say they are Jews in census questions about religion. They consider themselves Jews nonetheless. They want you to think they are so few & helpless victims when in fact they create massive resentment towards themselves by their owns actions.

    According to Jewish law Jews are to avoid being counted.

    "To actually count Jews directly is forbidden (Talmud, Yoma 22b), as the prophet says: "And the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which shall neither be measured nor counted."
    http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/896203/jewish/Laws-of-Counting-Jews.htm
     
    and:
    'Why is it forbidden to count Jews?'
    http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/18472

    "This opening verse of our Biblical portion teaches that it is forbidden to take a number count of the Israelites, a census activity which Jewish organizations are constantly involved in doing. This prohibition is reinforced by the prophet Hosea (chapter 2), when he declares: “The number of the children of Israel shall be as the sands of the sea, which cannot be numbered and cannot be counted…” And historically even King David learned the bitter lesson of the power of this command, when- against the will of his Chief Commander Joab - he ordered a census, and the Israelites suffered a plague (II Samuel, 24). "
     
    and:

    "We reached the [Balfour] Declaration not by miracles, but through persistent propaganda, through unceasing demonstration of the life force of our people. We told the responsible authorities: We will establish ourselves in Palestine whether you like it or not. You can hasten our arrival or you can equally retard it. It is however better for you to help us so as to avoid our constructive powers being turned into a destructive power which will overthrow the world."

    - World Zionist leader [1st President of Israël] Chaim Weizmann, speech in Jerusalem, December 1919.
     
    www.codoh.com

    What they get wrong totally on counting or numbering jews is that….Those two biblical verse sections quoted actually refer to….”Like the sand of seas cant be counted”= Nobody can count each piece of sand in the worlds seas and shores/beaches because obviously the number of sand particles globally number so huge an amount it is impossible for any person to count them all in a lifetime of attempting to do so. And it is not to be taken as a Literal meaning either. It simply meant that One day in Far Future times decendants of all 12 tribes Israel will number far greater population when compared to several Thousands years past when it was orig written.

    As for jews king Davids ordeal mentioned….What it actually meant is that King David was supposed to Rely upon God ALONE and Gods total Powers for Davids army to win whichever battle that bible part speaks of…..But..David was uncertain in his mind weather he indeed had enough jew army soldiers to win said upcoming battle….So He on his Own decided to do a census type head count of his army……That pissed off God to no end!

    So to punish David and teach all present jews there a good lesson about only placing absolute trust in the Lord God and His mighty powers that would be used Via Godly intervention for jews to win every war or battle etc…..God caused something like 10 or 20 times as many as david counted to perish dead.

    I do not from memory recall exact times count number punished dead?….But it was a greater number than actually counted by davids census.

    IMPORTANT: Aspect to consider here folks!!

    If as most every number of jews as stated or numbered Today as well as in WWII and Prior Eras say, that worldwide jewry consists of Only aprox 14-15-Million Total jews.

    Then when one considers how the bible states “Israel members shall number like the entire sand grains globally in existence”….

    Well That fully Refutes ALL Claims by jews as to jews being the very peoples all those Future promised great blessings pertain to eh!

    Promised future blessings such as “Thru Abraham and his seed,(singular seed Not plural as in “seed’s”), I the Lord God will Bless…EVERY Nation on earth and even Every Family within every nation on earth”….

    [MORE]

    Now a couple important Facts need be understood regards such future promised blessings.

    First, God blessed Abram (prior to his name changed to Abraham) in Gen. 12:3, which is the very verse ALL evangelical dupes insist as proof jews are the “Chozens even today”.

    But that nonsence evangels toss out and believe in is Rejected and fully Refuted in the new testement book of Galatians…Where there Paul states that the very word of abes “Seed” Pertains ONLY to Christ who was yet to get born…And it was a future blessing of Spiritual Salvation thru Jesus Christ, which is what new testement aka a New Covenant that Replaced old covenant with 12 tribes of israel peoples, is about….Hence…”I God shall bless every nation and even each family in said nations”….Was fulfilled by/thru Christ…With still yet to come, Material Physical Future blessings too.

    Now also consider that actual Proven History of at least past 2,000 years, proves beyond All doubt that the jews NEVER were claimed nor proven to ever yet number “Like sands of the Seas or aka Number so huge nobody can count jews”…..No….Thats a huge Fail, for jews typically number NO greater globally than 15-Million total alive at same time.

    And within those promised future blessings were Also a bunch of actual Physical Material blessings such as great Prosperity, Great and Massive Huge Land Mass in a NEW nation that is NOT of the nation I the lord gave to your(12 tribes israelites) Fathers! but RATHER a NEW great Land mass nation where in the Latter days I the lord shall RE-Gather the true decendants etc etc….

    Stay with this now….Ok now think about the say, past 2,000 years…WHEN or WHERE and WHOM as a peoples/nations. Has Ever been blessed in Any good way by or thru or due to Jews?!

    That is an laughable question almost no?….For rather than anybody non jew being ever greatly blessed by or due to jews, the total opposite has occured…Every Host nations non-jew peoples has sooner or later got so fed up with jews that they Booted jews Out eh.

    And since this New Lands for a regathering is NOT of the lands given to their forefathers…HOW can todays state of Israel possibly be a “Fullfilment of one of Gods promised blessings to jews” as most jews and every duped jewdeo-christian claims has happened in 1948? In Fact, not only does Any place biblically, Not state of Any Blessings for “jews”…..But also the very word of “jew” is NOT even found until 2nd book of Kings, Chapter 16 vs. 12!…which is aprox. almost 500 pages After page One of Genesis!!!….What? Did old Abe and Moses Et al in OT books simply forget to declare they was a jew or what? heheheh…Not…..very…Likely eh folks. This is why so many folks get confused about “who and whats a…jew?”….and also how jewry has played goys and jewdeo-christian apostates for total suckers!…..the word of jew went thru at Least three different word meanings prior to birth of Christ alone.

    But if one reads every single one of the mentioned great future blessings of the Material and Physical type Promiced by God to a latter days (the latter days or end times Age began when Christ Died on the cross and continues untill whenever an actual end of this age occurs, be it in Our times or hundreds more years from 2018 don’t matter, for it Began when He died on cross.).

    If you read those promiced material phys blessings….And compare Both the Land Mass/New nation promiced, the Numbers of persons like the seas sand grains aka too many to count, along with all the already granted blessings proven to have happened so far, with yet a few more yet to come….

    There is but ONE nation, and ONE people group that fits and is who such blessings TO other nations and families of nations were done Thru or By…..and it is obviously America and its Main Founding European WHITE christian peoples that got said blessings and spoken of Land mass.

    This is easy to see when you just read the many, many blessings as written of, and especially when you compare every little detail written of regards that New Land/Nation-Not Of the lands or nation given to your(12 tribed Israelites, fathers)…..NO other land mass globally fulfills the many specific details but america.

    And also those blessings first spoken of to Abram, aka abraham, and repeated to Issac,and to his son Jacob (latter name changed to Israel)….And mentioned several times through out OT books.

    Were All Promiced, then due to israel tribes peoples fuck ups, and various false god entities worshipped etc etc….Due to so much and so many and so often Isrsaelites abject Failures to Obey God etc….Those blessings were Halted Three distinct seperate times. And each time god Witheld said blessings from orig 12 tribes, god multiplied the Wait period by Seven Fold!

    I can’t recall the exact number years accumulated due to Three times blessings being Delayed/Withheld…..But it is something like, after 3rd and final time, added up to a grand total of 2,540-Years, or close to that anyways…..Meaning when calculated Via clanders and eras past, and that after third time blessings were withheld or delayed….God said at an end point of the total of years, aka 2,540 or so years, then no matter what….The blessings Would get done or fulfilled.

    Okay….That actual time frame of a fulfillment of 25+centuries, ended around beginning of 1,800 A.D.Era…..Maybe 1802, 1804 or so I cannot recall actual proper dates now. But If such has really occured and gods blessings has been poured out as is written to….There is NO other land mass or nation on earth, that totaly fits every specific detail and NO other peoples BUT for Euro Whites and White Christians that have been so greatly blessed, and then Shared blessings and done so much for Other nations, like America and its White Euro and white christian peoples has done period.

    Just compare how that, while so called “chozens” were very busy doing every possible rip off, using usury/intrest to swindle goys, jews use of deceptions and subterfuges to cause Wars among goy nations (WWI & WWII the biggies), never ending massive Lies, scams, perfidies, etc etc. to as many goyim peoples and nations as they could do to, and thru out all recorded history.

    During most of that same time frame, European Whites/Christians did the exact opposite…Like sent priests and others to spread the gospel, spread enlightened knowledges and wisdoms with lesser able tribes and nations etc….Euro Whites always have gladly shared our god given blessings with most every others on earth…Jews kept very busy stealing what others had/have eh.

    Yes I am well aware several naysayers and usa haters, anti whites, atheists types etc, are going to complain and point to how badly usa has been doing via wars in iraq etc….And many more good reasons to naysay…..However one Must also consider the whole 500 years time frame in comparing america, and remember it is mainly only since 1960′s era that usa began so bad of a downslide in so many ways.

    But regardless if one believes or not in biblical prophecy etc…The bottom line is that after you read of the many promiced blessings, and specific details of a new land etc….And compare Numbers of Euro Whites globally Vs. jews worldwide total number….Well it is a no brainer that jews never have numbered like sands of sea, but euro whites have.

    And further note that due to Euro Whites, but especially in America as well as the nation of america itself, having been the actual recipents of all those blessings as promiced biblically etc, with still perhaps a few more yet to come,….That IS the Main Major reason #1 as to why jewry has infiltrated most often a White peopled nation, and whichever such nation became the Host nation to at least 1/2 or more of worlds jews. Has always been royally screwed and ripped off etc.

    Because of, yet another biblical issue this has occured. That issue being, and is also verified in jews own jewish almanacs, that while calling selves as “jews” and playing the role as such, what jewry actually is and represents is/are…EDOM and Edomite Decendants.

    Now anybody who has read the bible somewhat has to know that, while the 12 tribe israel is decended from Jacob, Abrahams grandson, Abes Other grandson and Jacobs Twin Brother whom was actually the elder and eligable for first borns birthright blessing, which means All their daddy owned got handed down or inherited by the elder Son…..Yet as the story goes Esua traded away his birth right as first born twin son, To, Jacob for a Pot/bowel of Bean Soup!

    Who are/were Esaus decendants?…EDOMITES! aka Khazar Fake jewry!….. Now we see reasons jews have been trying to swindle and scam and steal/cheat make use of Usury and overall fully Destroy Euro White and Cristian Whites ever since at least 2,000 yrs ago eh.

    Because in reality jews aka edmoites are simply doing what they were taught to do since day one when Esau who is their Main Forefather swore a blood oath to seek out, and get back every part of orig Birthright Blessings he traded away for that pot/bowel of bean soup….And to also seek out and Mass Kill off every of jacobs decendants no matter how long it take….

    Esau also swore he’d teach this to his kids and grandkids etc and make them swear an oath to pass down said teachings of steal back blessings and Kill off members of brother Jacobs decendants…

    Christ told the jews in his day, “I was sent ONLY to/for the Lost Sheep of Israel”…So whats that mean? Easy answer. Lost sheep of Israel refers to the 10-Lost tribes which also are the only tribes that Kept the name of “Israel” and “Israelites” ever since King Solomon, first temple era, died when the Northern ten tribes split apart from the two tribes in Southern Kingdom of Judah, with Benjamin tribe being the 2nd Judah nation tribe. Ever since they split apart, 10(?) centuries prior to Christ, the 10 northern tribes as Prophesied to do so by jacob when he first arrived in Egypt and re-discovered his thought to be dead favorite son of Joseph, said that His new name of Israel shall be given to josephs two sons aka Jacob/Israel’s two grandsons. ONLY they and all their 10 northern tribe decendants shall Keep the name of and be known of as Israel…NOT Judah jews nor anybody else But the 10 tribes that would exist far into future from when it was said.

    And so from time of tribal north vs south split, Judah nor jews were ever called or known of as Israel. (until pastor John Hagee got a TV show of apostasy and fake jewry).

    And it appears that those lost 10 tribes aint so lost. They just became Christians and called another name of European White Folks…..and various proven ancient Maps with plenty of written materials show that in tracing those lost 10 tribes pathways traveled, they are todays euro whites.

    Maybe this is reason Christ Himself stated how “You have those among you that call themselves jews but are NOT jews and Are of the synagogue of satan” Rev. 2:9 & 3:9 or in John 8:44 where again Christ says…”You (jews) are Of Your father the devil satan, and his works you will do! IE: Lie-Steal-Murder, same as their father satan is guilty of.” I paraphrased the bible verses so not word for word perfect but close enough to get picture eh.

    So ” if ” America is that long ago promised land mass, and if the lost sheep of israel are in fact modern day euro white Christians etc….Then one must Re-Think quite a lot of what we thought and got told prior as bible and jewry truths eh. Things we now can know of thanks to internet ability, as well as seeing jews ongoing various issues and deeds…Sure makes it fit proper. So no wonderment as to why jewry never changes or repents and whole worlds nations continue a downward spiral to evils and wrongs and wars etc eh?

    When you consider all these issues, compare with real proven history of various events and actions done by or caused by jewry for past 2,000 yrs and longer, there is no denying that all we see and know of about this and are even affected now today due to it, that it well compares with the Protocols of Elders of Zion, in how ironicly accurate each segment or prediction has and is being done or fulflled step by step eh.

    And yet another Cohencidence!…Both the Protocols of zion as well as what I stated here of biblical nature prophecy etc has the very Same main major component as the main Culprits…jews. OyVey!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  195. anon111 says:
    @Momus
    Benthic Wally at it again.

    Not all speech is free speech. If you incite hate and promulgate violence against a certain group in your society you are breaking the social contract.

    That certain species of denier dog whistling is as socially undesirable as someone with a full blown infectious disease like Ebola lying that they are clean.

    If you incite hate and promulgate violence against a certain group in your society you are breaking the social contract.

    i’ve never heard this ^^^ but i suspect if you are behind the importation of tens of millions of foreigners against the wishes of the native populations you are doing more than “breaking the social contract”

    That certain species of denier dog whistling is as socially undesirable….

    according to who?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  196. Wally says:
    @Momus
    Benthic Wally at it again.

    Not all speech is free speech. If you incite hate and promulgate violence against a certain group in your society you are breaking the social contract.

    That certain species of denier dog whistling is as socially undesirable as someone with a full blown infectious disease like Ebola lying that they are clean.

    Staged ‘antisemitic’ crimes are the rule, not the exception.
    These are never ‘crimes’ where someone is charged and tried in courts of law.
    These are only what some people ‘report’ as ‘hate crimes’.

    IOW, if someone is looking to gain political advantage or is pissed off at what someone said or thinks, they then manufacture & report a ‘hate crime’.
    Fake SPLC style numbers are then used as if they were real crime stats.
    The question to always ask is: ‘Who Benefits?’

    see these:
    Jewish suspects arrested over swastika graffiti on synagogues

    http://www.timesofisrael.com/jewish-suspects-arrested-over-swastika-graffiti-on-synagogues/

    Jew arrested for dozens of fake ‘hate crimes’

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/03/23/israeli-jew-19-arrested-antisemitic-hate-crime-hoax-spree/

    excerpt: “last month concerned a suspect who allegedly vandalized Chicago’s Loop Synagogue and was apparently caught on surveillance video camera. The man, already facing a March trial on unrelated charges, was charged with a hate crime.

    Man Caught Spray Painting Swastika On College Campus Is Black

    http://dailycaller.com/2017/10/16/man-caught-spray-painting-swastika-on-college-campus-is-black-report-says/

    Fake Hate? ‘Trump Rules’ & Poorly Drawn Swastikas Spray-Painted On Monument In Milwaukee

    https://www.prisonplanet.com/fake-hate-trump-rules-poorly-drawn-swastikas-spray-painted-on-monument-in-milwaukee.html

    Bomb threats to Jewish centers & schools were really a dark web moneymaking scheme ? FBI

    https://www.rt.com/usa/399027-bomb-jcc-kadar-warrant-alphabay/

    JCC bomb hoaxer charged with vast list of offenses, including threats to execute children, blow up planes
    US-Israeli teen hacker accused in Israeli court of making over 2,000 intimidating calls to Jewish institutions, malls, schools, airlines and police in US and worldwide; threatening US senator and top defense official

    http://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-files-massive-indictment-against-jcc-bomb-hoaxer-for-thousands-of-counts-of-threats-extortion-fraud/

    http://www.codoh.com

    Read More
    • Replies: @Them Guys
    Wally, also Most of all those school shooter perps since first one at Columbine event, when klinton as Prez needed a few such school shooter events to get assault weapon ban enacted, have been proved to be jewish shooter gunman perps.


    Including that batman movie nutcase shooter guy, and the jewish guy who shot us rep gabby giffords. MSM on every channel went totally wild with non stop 24/7 claims of a neonazi shooter, an anti-Semite white guy shooter, an skinhead racist anti-Semite gunman etc etc....But then all a sudden thanks to internet sites, truth came out and lo and behold all them gunman evil shooter guys were...Wait for it!....Were all jew perps! That's when typically every major msm drops the whole story...Then returns to it briefly with cops details of arrest etc. Soon as badguy perp turns out to be a jew again, every msm goes silent running!


    I think its due to the life long since a small kid, jewish yeshiva schools jewish teachings, such as Talmud teaches "Yes even the Best of the Goys Should be Killed"....along with constant teaching jew kids that they are superior and special and "Chozen" while a lowly goyim is "Sub-Human Animal" at best eh?....Note how most school shooter perps first asked victim kids are you a Christian? or asked "Do You believe in Jesus"?....Then when kid answered Yes...The jew perp fired a shotgun blast point blank at face or head....How many usa jews acted outraged or condemned those jewish perps?...None I recall did. and even MSM failed to out perps as a jew too.


    Same thing happened when back around 1972 or so, the Biggest ever yet scandal happened when a half dozen NeoNazis headed by a Frank Collins guy as head hitler wannabe. Asked for and received a parade march protest permit from the city near Chicago called Skokie Ill.


    It was really big due to Skokie ill is the worlds largest group of holyhoax "so called survivahs"!


    The skiokie city jews rallied and got the parade permit canceled...But the ACLU jewish lawyers took the case for free and went all the way to the us supreme court!.....Finally Frank Collins aka neonazi Hitler wannabe, and his merry band of 5 follower neonazi membership, won their free speech 1st ammendt case in us supremes….Got parade permit anewed, and began the march parade...Complete with swastika arm bands and red swastika Nazi flags flying high.


    Then entire town of skiokie jew survivahs came outside and physically attacked Collins and crew!


    It made every msm station tv worldwide, a huge issue complete with crying survivor jews and tall tale hox stories and claims as per usual....And then....


    Someone discovered that Frank Collins aka Neo Nazi Hitler leader guy was actually a jew! and had a real jew name different from frank Collins....Soon the Ill police and FBI investigated and found it was All Paid for and originated by the jewish ADL Org.!!


    All done in order to create mass hysteria about the holyhoax events of jew War II.


    This is mainly when Hollywood movies, newer hoax movies began to mention stuf like gassings etc...Recall Older WWII era movies never mentioned or showed gas chambers or any six million claims...Frank Collins parade events were done to change it all and make excuses to remake old wwii movies with now mentions of such gassings etc.


    The final straw was when soon after parade event era, Collins main HQ Nazi Club House got FBI Raided for....Frank Collins the jewish fake hitler Nazi leader guy was found inside his HQ with a 10 year old little boy! With Frankie kneeling in front of 10 yr old boy and giving kid a blow job!


    Frank Collins was arrested and convicted of chid sex abuse etc...And discovered to actually be jewish!....Yet Another jewish neo Nazi Hitler with arm bands and Nazi flags parading streets of Skokie survivah HQ town.....


    One cannot just make this stuff up eh...Yet ADL and SPLC jews with helper jews keep doing so non stop it seems. There is a bunch of info with full color photos of frank Collins and crew and flags etc online with full story details...Jews like at adl will stoop as Low as need be to create a Faked event . Then adl begs for donations of more $$$!!! To Halt Antisemitism no less!
    , @Momus
    Benthic Wally

    You neatly make my point with mention of the bashing of Faurrison.

    He was a virulent denier and dog whistler who broke the social contract with hate speech.

    The results of this were a vicious attack on a member of you would have it oppressed minority: himself.

    Too funny, too ironic too true and the reason why hate speech laws exist: to protect people from the violence that may be triggered (for more good examples of race hate speech incitement resulting in ironic violence and death, refer to the recent Hamas fence attacks).





    https://codoh.com/media/files/Faurisson16.09.1989-700x1043.jpg
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  197. Wally says:
    @SimplePseudonymicHandle
    Mr. Unz,
    Crimson here may be jumping the shark just a bit, but about the point where he gets to Waffle House, he has a point.
    The posture you are assuming here is worrisome, I guess maybe if its in the spirit of Howard W. Campbell Jr then, well, that is one helluva a sacrifice, but speaking for myself only, I doubt that kind of sacrifice is required.

    I have generally considered the work you do here to be in the spirit of Ben Shapiro on this recent broadcast: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVkxAWQPYMc

    There are ways to do this work and keep your moral compass, it starts with knowing that you sometimes need a moral compass. We are all human and that makes it's possible to go into places where things become confusing and we all stand to be morally mislead.

    Here's a few more signposts and guides. There is a such thing as moral anorexia. You don't have it, but especially if you don't know to recognize it when you see it you can become confused or misled by people who do.

    There's mis-attribution of cause. If I have an employee and I fail to give him an opportunity, he may see my failure as all manner of faults and he may eventually quit and I've lost a good employee. He may be wrong about my motives for failure, but the outcome is the same - a bad outcome. But I don't have to be guilty of malfeseance to have failed to give him an opportunity, I just can be guilty of being a flawed human being. Same problem applies with groups and in that respect, it's as much an employee's responsibility to seize opportunities as it is an employer's responsibility to provide them - the failure of the latter, doesn't excuse the former.

    And the past - I think it less likely in 1937 that things were moved along by puppet strings than in 2018. Our systems are bigger, more interconnected, there are fewer concentrations of power. 1937, especially in the US, was more a galley than a steamship.

    You grew up with the Americans who fought WWII. They were not duped. They were all on board. That they were on board, that they fought for the side they fought for, is on account of the fact that they saw things clearly and were not confused. Remember them.

    IOW, you’re having a fit because Ron Unz allows ‘holocaust’ Revisionist research & views to be aired. That bothers you because you cannot refute informed Revisionists.
    In addition, your childhood memories / fantasies of ‘The Good War’ have been shattered.
    Those are what bothers you, aka: cognitive dissonance.

    Your feigned “moral compass” is a fraud. You are in fact ‘faking it’. Your faux morality is offensive to all of us who apply science, logic & rational thought to our endeavors.

    So tell us exactly, specifically, what is incorrect in the posts here that you do not like.
    Please present you proof for the alleged ’6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers’.

    Quit dodging the real issues.

    “Alone the fact that one may not question the Jewish “holocaust” and that Jewish pressure has inflicted laws on democratic societies to prevent questions—while incessant promotion and indoctrination of the same averredly incontestable ‘holocaust’ occur—gives the game away. It proves that it must be a lie. Why else would one not be allowed to question it? Because it might offend the “survivors”? Because it “dishonors the dead”? Hardly sufficient reason to outlaw discussion. No, because the exposure of this leading lie might precipitate questions about so many other lies and cause the whole ramshackle fabrication to crumble.”

    - Gerard Menuhin / righteous Revisionist Jew, son of famous violinist

    http://www.codoh.com

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  198. Wally says:
    @Crimson2
    The morons who deny the Holocaust deserve that fate themselves. If it happens, I promise to never pretend that it didn't. In fact, I'll celebrate the anniversary.

    said:
    “In fact, I’ll celebrate the anniversary.”

    Indeed, there are people who “celebrate” witchcraft, those who howl at the moon.

    Face it, now that you’ve had the lies slapped across your face, you will never be the same again.

    http://www.codoh.com

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  199. Rurik says:
    @SimplePseudonymicHandle
    Mr. Unz,
    Crimson here may be jumping the shark just a bit, but about the point where he gets to Waffle House, he has a point.
    The posture you are assuming here is worrisome, I guess maybe if its in the spirit of Howard W. Campbell Jr then, well, that is one helluva a sacrifice, but speaking for myself only, I doubt that kind of sacrifice is required.

    I have generally considered the work you do here to be in the spirit of Ben Shapiro on this recent broadcast: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVkxAWQPYMc

    There are ways to do this work and keep your moral compass, it starts with knowing that you sometimes need a moral compass. We are all human and that makes it's possible to go into places where things become confusing and we all stand to be morally mislead.

    Here's a few more signposts and guides. There is a such thing as moral anorexia. You don't have it, but especially if you don't know to recognize it when you see it you can become confused or misled by people who do.

    There's mis-attribution of cause. If I have an employee and I fail to give him an opportunity, he may see my failure as all manner of faults and he may eventually quit and I've lost a good employee. He may be wrong about my motives for failure, but the outcome is the same - a bad outcome. But I don't have to be guilty of malfeseance to have failed to give him an opportunity, I just can be guilty of being a flawed human being. Same problem applies with groups and in that respect, it's as much an employee's responsibility to seize opportunities as it is an employer's responsibility to provide them - the failure of the latter, doesn't excuse the former.

    And the past - I think it less likely in 1937 that things were moved along by puppet strings than in 2018. Our systems are bigger, more interconnected, there are fewer concentrations of power. 1937, especially in the US, was more a galley than a steamship.

    You grew up with the Americans who fought WWII. They were not duped. They were all on board. That they were on board, that they fought for the side they fought for, is on account of the fact that they saw things clearly and were not confused. Remember them.

    You grew up with the Americans who fought WWII. They were not duped. They were all on board. That they were on board, that they fought for the side they fought for, is on account of the fact that they saw things clearly and were not confused. Remember them.

    how’s that for mendacity, eh?

    “They were not duped” = they were duped

    “They were all on board” = they were uniformly duped

    “that they fought for the side they fought for, is on account of the fact that they saw things clearly and were not confused” = they fought for the Jews because they we duped them and confused them with our ubiquitous lies.

    “Remember them” = create a new generation of duped goyim who will “not” be confused, and continue to fight and die for the Jews’