Discussion:
Adolf Hitler as an elven-leader in D&D???
Add Reply
Victor Smootbank
2007-09-29 01:31:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
I think that the elves are something like the Aryan Herrenrasse
of the D&D universe.

In my storyline, Hitler escaped from Berlin,1945, through a
portal to the D&D universe, but was changed into an elf.

Together with him cam Himmler, Goebbels and Mengele
who were also changed into elves.

They quickly establish a 4th Reich in the D&D universe and
start to destroy subhumans like orcs, goblins and similar
critters in destruction camps.

Quickly, war erupts and nazi elves are fighting against humans,
orcs, trolls, goblins,mongrels and other critters for racial
superiority.

Do you think that's a good scenario or are nazi-elves a little
bit too far-fetched???
Sir Salman Rushdie
2007-09-29 01:40:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Victor Smootbank
I think that the elves are something like the Aryan Herrenrasse
of the D&D universe.
In my storyline, Hitler escaped from Berlin,1945, through a
portal to the D&D universe, but was changed into an elf.
Together with him cam Himmler, Goebbels and Mengele
who were also changed into elves.
They quickly establish a 4th Reich in the D&D universe and
start to destroy subhumans like orcs, goblins and similar
critters in destruction camps.
Quickly, war erupts and nazi elves are fighting against humans,
orcs, trolls, goblins,mongrels and other critters for racial
superiority.
Do you think that's a good scenario or are nazi-elves a little
bit too far-fetched???
That's your best one yet. Victor.
PMSL
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Hadsil
2007-09-29 14:18:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Godwin's Law already?

Gerald Katz
Reginald Blue
2007-10-01 22:09:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Hadsil
Godwin's Law already?
Is it possible to Godwin on the first post? I wouldn't think that was...
allowed.

On the other hand... it's certainly a unique troll.
--
Reginald Blue
"I have always wished that my computer would be as easy to use as my
telephone. My wish has come true. I no longer know how to use my
telephone."
- Bjarne Stroustrup (originator of C++) [quoted at the 2003
International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces]
Brent
2007-09-29 14:43:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Victor Smootbank
I think that the elves are something like the Aryan Herrenrasse
of the D&D universe.
In my storyline, Hitler escaped from Berlin,1945, through a
portal to the D&D universe, but was changed into an elf.
Together with him cam Himmler, Goebbels and Mengele
who were also changed into elves.
They quickly establish a 4th Reich in the D&D universe and
start to destroy subhumans like orcs, goblins and similar
critters in destruction camps.
Quickly, war erupts and nazi elves are fighting against humans,
orcs, trolls, goblins,mongrels and other critters for racial
superiority.
Do you think that's a good scenario or are nazi-elves a little
bit too far-fetched???
I always include elves in my campaign as racial elitist ubermenschen.
They are. However I think it may be a bit too fr to actually bring
Hitler and his crew to D&D world as elves. Better to make real elven
leaders reminiscent of Hitler and co.
Veljko Dobrijevic
2007-09-29 15:24:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Victor Smootbank
Do you think that's a good scenario or are nazi-elves a little
bit too far-fetched???
IMHO, the idea of Hitler and the other nazis as elves is ridiculous, because
I see the elves as beeing noble and enlightened (compared to humans), and
beautifull and elegant. Even if they do look down on humans slightly, they
have reason to do so.
And besides, pointy ears and Adolf's mustache don't mix well... :)
As for bringing Hitler and the nazis into the D&D world, as far-fetched as
it seems, it could work, but I'd leave them as they are (human).
I think that arrogance, egoism, racial hatred, and cruelty are
characteristics much more fitting to humans than elves. The elves are
supposed to be above that (well, at least the majority). Humans in the the
D&D world could become nazis just as well as humans in the real worl, under
the right circumstances and a little propaganda.
You need to consider the impact of modern weapons (unless this portal only
transports living flesh) on the D&D world and the impact of the D&D world
(the existence of magic and creatures of fantasy) on the nazis (their
psychology and their social structure). The lot of them might just go
crazy... :)
Very interesting idea, all in all...
Veljko Dobrijevic
2007-09-29 15:29:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Veljko Dobrijevic
psychology and their social structure). The lot of them might just go
crazy... :)
On second thought, can you go crazy if you're already crazy ? :)
Hadsil
2007-09-29 18:47:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Veljko Dobrijevic
Post by Victor Smootbank
Do you think that's a good scenario or are nazi-elves a little
bit too far-fetched???
IMHO, the idea of Hitler and the other nazis as elves is ridiculous, because
I see the elves as beeing noble and enlightened (compared to humans), and
beautifull and elegant. Even if they do look down on humans slightly, they
have reason to do so.
Let's go full Godwin

The idea of Hitler and other nazis as elves is obvious because they
say themselves as being noble and enlightened (compared to Jews), and
beautiful and elegant. Even if they do look down on Jew slightly,
they have reason to do so.

Gerald Katz
Malachias Invictus
2007-09-29 20:43:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Hadsil
Post by Veljko Dobrijevic
Post by Victor Smootbank
Do you think that's a good scenario or are nazi-elves a little
bit too far-fetched???
IMHO, the idea of Hitler and the other nazis as elves is ridiculous, because
I see the elves as beeing noble and enlightened (compared to humans), and
beautifull and elegant. Even if they do look down on humans slightly, they
have reason to do so.
Let's go full Godwin
The idea of Hitler and other nazis as elves is obvious because they
say themselves as being noble and enlightened (compared to Jews), and
beautiful and elegant. Even if they do look down on Jew slightly,
they have reason to do so.
Well played, sir.
--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.

from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley
Zimri
2007-09-29 22:22:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Victor Smootbank
I think that the elves are something like the Aryan Herrenrasse
of the D&D universe.
In my storyline, Hitler escaped from Berlin,1945, through a
portal to the D&D universe, but was changed into an elf.
Together with him cam Himmler, Goebbels and Mengele
who were also changed into elves.
They quickly establish a 4th Reich in the D&D universe and
start to destroy subhumans like orcs, goblins and similar
critters in destruction camps.
Quickly, war erupts and nazi elves are fighting against humans,
orcs, trolls, goblins,mongrels and other critters for racial
superiority.
Do you think that's a good scenario or are nazi-elves a little
bit too far-fetched???
Although this has to be a troll... it's not trollish enough! :^)

Elves and Germans both consider themselves arboreal and enlightened
creatures; but Elves don't breed in nearly the numbers that 19th century
Germans did (and besides, Hitler was an Austrian... heh). Elves don't want
living space unless it is their own ancestral homeland, and they don't want
dominion beyond keeping everyone else out of their long and beautiful hair.
Drow are the obvious exception but they prove the rule.

There are evil elves besides drow, but elvish character flaws (arrogant
superiority, territoriality) don't lend themselves to the evil of a Hitler.

I always thought the Armach-nesti elves in Taladas ("Time of the Dragon")
were stand-ins for Zionist Jews. Taladas was, IIRC, the homeland of elves in
Krynn; but when some of them came back, they found a gaggle of
semiagricultural bumpkin humans where their songs told them they used to
live. Yecch! So, they drove off and killed the ones in their chosen patch of
coastland, and continue to ensure that the rest can't take revenge; although
they disdain to expand any further. Carrying on the analogy, those who
resent the "Armach entity" the most are converting to the worship of an evil
god - Hith - who doesn't, in fact, care a hill of beans for the locals,
except insofar as it helps his primary aim to conquer the rest of the world.
So one must choose one's poison.

The best evil elves are those of Caer Sidi in "Demonweb Pits" and their
analogy / homage in Malhavoc's "Beyond Countless Doorways". The Trialans,
aka Pharisees, are the opposite of Armach-nesti; they are not territorial at
all, and they are so enlightened that they act for the good of *all* races.
These races can't be trusted to run their own affairs, and so the Trialans
are forced - quite against their will of course - to extend their authority.
Trialan elves would be great for a "Firefly"-inspired campaign. We haven't
yet had a genocide engineered by a "market-dominant minority" with
universalist pretensions, unless you count Communism during 1918-1935 and
the Ukraine famine...
--
zimriel sbc dot
at global net
.
http://pages.sbcglobal.net/zimriel/
*new improved shorter .sig*
Jasin Zujovic
2007-09-30 09:19:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Zimri
The best evil elves are those of Caer Sidi in "Demonweb Pits"
There's a place in The Demonweb Pits called Caer Sidi? Some more
details, please?
--
Jasin
Zimri
2007-09-30 18:02:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Zimri
The best evil elves are those of Caer Sidi in "Demonweb Pits"
There's a place in The Demonweb Pits called Caer Sidi? Some more details,
please?
You get there from the last layer of the 'Web above the other three
intertwined layers; whence Lolth is branching out to other dimensions in
addition to Oerth. This Caer Sidi is, I've always been told, taken from a
Poul Anderson story: "Three Hearts and Three Lions"; this may or may not be
true but Wiki claims the story influenced D&D elsewhere.

Wikipedia had a few things to say about Caer Sidi in Wales: "the name of a
legendary otherworld fortress mentioned in two Middle Welsh mythological
poems in the Book of Taliesin."
--
zimriel sbc dot
at global net
.
http://pages.sbcglobal.net/zimriel/
*new improved shorter .sig*
Jasin Zujovic
2007-09-30 18:36:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Zimri
Post by Zimri
The best evil elves are those of Caer Sidi in "Demonweb Pits"
There's a place in The Demonweb Pits called Caer Sidi? Some more details,
please?
You get there from the last layer of the 'Web above the other three
intertwined layers; whence Lolth is branching out to other dimensions in
addition to Oerth. This Caer Sidi is, I've always been told, taken from a
Poul Anderson story: "Three Hearts and Three Lions"; this may or may not be
true but Wiki claims the story influenced D&D elsewhere.
Wikipedia had a few things to say about Caer Sidi in Wales: "the name of a
legendary otherworld fortress mentioned in two Middle Welsh mythological
poems in the Book of Taliesin."
Right, that's where I heard the name first. (Well, not actually the Book
of Taliesin, but Celtic myth.) I don't recall it being mentioned in
Three Hearts and Three Lions, but the elves there are sometimes called
Pharisees, and their ruler's name is Alfric, just like in The Demonweb Pits.
--
Jasin
Topaz
2007-09-30 15:15:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
"Precisely because we are nationally minded, for that very reason we
have respect for the national feelings of other peoples. And our
national pride does not mean we scorn other peoples, it means that we
respect and love our own people. It is precisely the Internationalists
who prevent peoples from coming to understand one another."
Adolf Hitler

"Not hatred toward other peoples, but love toward the German nation."
Hitler, Berlin October 24, 1933

General Leon Degrelle was the leader of the Belgian contingent of the
Waffen SS. He was in 75 hand-to-hand combat actions against the
Marxists. This is what he wrote:
"German racialism has been deliberately distorted. It never was
"anti-other race"... National Socialist racialism was not against the
other races, it was for its own race. It aimed at defending and
improving its race and wished that all other races did the same for
themselves. It was demonstrated when the Waffen
SS enlarged its ranks to include 60,000 Islamic SS troops.
The Waffen SS respected their way of life, their customs and their
religious beliefs. Each Islamic SS battalion had an iman; each company
had a mullah. It was our common wish that their qualities found their
highest expression... I was present when each of my Islamic comrades
received a personal gift from Hitler during the new year. It was a
pendant with a small Koran. He was honouring them with what was the
most important aspect of their lives and their history."



http://www.ihr.org/ http://www.natvan.com

http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.nsm88.com/

http://wsi.matriots.com/jews.html
Bruce L Grubb
2007-10-02 11:54:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Topaz
"Precisely because we are nationally minded, for that very reason we
have respect for the national feelings of other peoples. And our
national pride does not mean we scorn other peoples, it means that we
respect and love our own people. It is precisely the Internationalists
who prevent peoples from coming to understand one another."
Adolf Hitler
"Not hatred toward other peoples, but love toward the German nation."
Hitler, Berlin October 24, 1933
General Leon Degrelle was the leader of the Belgian contingent of the
Waffen SS. He was in 75 hand-to-hand combat actions against the
"German racialism has been deliberately distorted. It never was
"anti-other race"... National Socialist racialism was not against the
other races, it was for its own race. It aimed at defending and
improving its race and wished that all other races did the same for
themselves. It was demonstrated when the Waffen
SS enlarged its ranks to include 60,000 Islamic SS troops.
The Waffen SS respected their way of life, their customs and their
religious beliefs. Each Islamic SS battalion had an iman; each company
had a mullah. It was our common wish that their qualities found their
highest expression... I was present when each of my Islamic comrades
received a personal gift from Hitler during the new year. It was a
pendant with a small Koran. He was honouring them with what was the
most important aspect of their lives and their history."
http://www.ihr.org/ http://www.natvan.com
http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.nsm88.com/
http://wsi.matriots.com/jews.html
This nonsense can be disproved by going to Hitler's Mein Kampf: "While
the Jew robbed the whole nation and pressed it beneath his domination,
an agitation was carried on against the 'Prussians.' ", "In it I could
only see the craftiest trick of the Jew, calculated to distract the
general attention from himself and to others"
"At a blow they would awaken the bourgeois world to see the madness of
thinking that the Jewish drive towards world-conquest can be
effectually opposed by means of Western Democracy." "That work [Marx's
book] was not written for the masses, but exclusively for the
intellectual leaders of the Jewish machine for conquering the
world."<http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/> and on and on it
goes.

Only those races thought to have connection to the Ayran race would
have been been given a chance at "highest expression", and the others?
Well the Holocaust shows what the fate of the others was to be.
Strangely, part of this idea held that some of the Ayran race left
their traces and bloodline Tibet.

That all said if any D&D race would adopt Nazism I would say it would
have to be the Orcs. Many concepts of Nazism fit into what the Orcs
do anyhow and militarism would thrill them no end.
Topaz
2007-10-02 22:00:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bruce L Grubb
This nonsense can be disproved by going to Hitler's Mein Kampf: "While
the Jew robbed the whole nation and pressed it beneath his domination,
an agitation was carried on against the 'Prussians.' ", "In it I could
only see the craftiest trick of the Jew, calculated to distract the
general attention from himself and to others"
Today it's the Muslims instead of the Prussians.
Post by Bruce L Grubb
"At a blow they would awaken the bourgeois world to see the madness of
thinking that the Jewish drive towards world-conquest can be
effectually opposed by means of Western Democracy." "That work [Marx's
book] was not written for the masses, but exclusively for the
intellectual leaders of the Jewish machine for conquering the
world."<http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/> and on and on it
goes.
Only those races thought to have connection to the Ayran race would
have been been given a chance at "highest expression", and the others?
Well the Holocaust shows what the fate of the others was to be.
During World War Two the Germans put Jews and Communists in
concentration camps. The USA locked also up the Japanese and their
political opponents and for less reason. At the end of the war there
was a lot of deaths in the German camps from disease and starvation
because Germany was being bombed to rubble. There is no evidence that
the Germans had gas chambers or an extermination plan.

Newsweek magazine May 15, 1989 says on page 64:
"the way the Nazis did things: the secrecy, the unwritten orders, the
destruction of records and the innocent-sounding code names for the
extermination of the Jews. Perhaps it was inevitable that historians
would quarrel over just what happened"
The real reason there are no records of an extermination plan is
because there was no extermination plan. The Germans planned to deport
the Jews out of Germany. The records show that they planned to move
them to Madagascar.

Here is part of the Leuchter Report:
"Thirty-one samples were selectively removed from the alleged gas
chambers at Kremas I, II, III, IV and V. A control sample was taken
from delousing facility #1 at Birkenau. The control sample was removed
from a delousing chamber in a location where cyanide was known to have
been used and was apparently present as blue staining. Chemical
testing of the control sample #32 showed a cyanide content of 1050
mg/kg, a very heavy concentration. The conditions at areas from which
these samples were taken are identical with those of the control
sample, cold, dark, and wet. Only Kremas IV and V differed, in the
respect that these locations had sunlight (the buildings have been
torn down) and sunlight may hasten the destruction of uncomplexed
cyanide. The cyanide combines with the iron in the mortar and brick
and becomes ferric-ferro-cyanide or prussian blue pigmentation, a very
stable iron-cyanide complex.
"The locations from which the analyzed samples were removed are set
out in Table III.
"It is notable that almost all the samples were negative and that the
few that were positive were very close to the detection level
(1mg/kg); 6.7 mg/kg at Krema III; 7.9 mg/kg at Krerma I. The absence
of any consequential readings at any of the tested locations as
compared to the control sample reading 1050 mg/kg supports the
evidence that these facilities were not execution gas chambers. The
small quantities detected would indicate that at some point these
buildings were deloused with Zyklon B - as were all the buildings at
all these facilities"

Professional holocaust believers have admitted that the "gas chamber"
which is shown to the tourists at Auschwitz was actually built by the
allies after the war was over. This is what they wrote:
Brian Harmon <***@msg.ucsf.edu> wrote in article
<080620000051136373%***@msg.ucsf.edu>...
"You're confusing Krema I with Kremas II-V. Krema I is a
reconstruction, this has never been a secret. Kremas II-V are in
their demolished state as they were left."
Charles Don Hall <cdhall-***@erols.com> wrote in article
<***@news.erols.com>...
"Certainly not! The word "fake" implies a deliberate attempt to
deceive.
"The staff of the Auschwitz museum will readily explain that the Nazis
tried to destroy the gas chambers in a futile attempt to conceal their
crimes. And they'll tell you that reconstruction was done later on. So
it would be dishonest for me to call it a "fake". I'll cheerfully
admit that it's a "reconstruction" if that makes you happy."
They admit that the "gas chamber" shown to the tourists at Auschwitz
was built by the allies after the war was over. There is no physical
evidence that the Germans had gas chambers. No bodies of people who
died from gas have been found. The Communists were the first to enter
the camps. How do the other allies know the Communists didn't blow up
the buildings? Then they could claim that these demolished buildings
used to be gas chambers.

But then the believers will say the Germans confessed. Their main
confession is from Hoess. Here are the details:
"In the introduction to Death Dealer [Buffalo: Prometheus, 1992], the
historian Steven Paskuly wrote: "Just after his capture in 1946, the
British Security Police were able to extract a statement from Hoess by
beating him and filling him with liquor." Paskuly was reiterating what
Rupert Butler and Bernard Clarke had already described.
In 1983, Rupert Butler published an unabashed memoir (Legions of
Death, Hamlyn: London) describing in graphic detail how, over three
days, he and Clarke and other British policemen managed to torture
Hoess into making a "coherent statement." According to Butler [Legions
of Death, p. 237], he and the other interrogators put the boots to
Hoess the moment he was captured. For starters, Clarke struck his face
four times to get Höess to reveal his true identity.
<quote>
The admission suddenly unleashed the loathing of Jewish sergeants in
the arresting party whose parents had died in Auschwitz following an
order signed by Höss.
The prisoner was torn from the top bunk, the pajamas ripped from his
body. He was then dragged naked to one of the slaughter tables, where
it seemed to Clarke the blows and screams were endless.
Eventually, the Medical Officer urged the Captain: "Call them off,
unless you want to take back a corpse."
A blanket was thrown over Höss and he was dragged to Clarke's car,
where the sergeant poured a substantial slug of whisky down his
throat. Höss tried to sleep.
Clarke thrust his service stick under the man's eyelids and ordered in
Geffnan: "Keep your pig eyes open, you swine."
For the first time Höss trotted out his oft-repeated justification: "I
took my orders from Himmler. I was a soldier in the same way as you
are a soldier and we had to obey orders."
The party arrived back at Heide around three in the morning. The snow
was swirling
still, but the blanket was torn from Höss and he was made to walk
completely nude
through the prison yard to his cell.
</quote>

An article in the British newspaper Wrexham Leader [Mike Mason, "In a
cell with a Nazi war criminal-We kept him awake until he confessed,"
October 17, 1986] following the airing of a TV documentary on the case
of Rudolf Hoess included eyewitness recollections by Ken Jones:
<quote>
Mr. Ken Jones was then a private with the Fifth Royal Horse Artillery
stationed at
Heid[e] in Schleswig-Holstein. "They brought him to us when he
refused to
cooperate over questioning about his activities during the war. He
came in the winter
of 1945/6 and was put in a small jail cell in the barracks," recalls
Mr. Jones. Two
other soldiers were detailed with Mr. Jones to join Höss in his cell
to help break
him down for interrogation. "We sat in the cell with him, night and
day, armed with
axe handles. Our job was to prod him every time he fell asleep to
help break down
his resistance," said Mr. Jones. When Höss was taken out for exercise
he was made
to wear only jeans and a cotton shirt in the bitter cold. After three
days and
nights without sleep, Höss finally broke down and made a full
confession to
the authorities.
</quote>

The confession Hoess signed was numbered document NO-1210; later
revamped, as document PS-3868, which became the basis for an oral
deposition Hoess made for the IMT on April 15, 1946, a month after it
had been extracted from him by torture...
Since what people confess to after they have been captured by the
Communists and their liberal comrades is not proof of anything, this
leaves only the stories of survivors. These contradict each other and
not believable. One professional survivor said that he could tell if
the Germans were gassing German Jews or Polish Jews by the color of
the smoke.
The fact that there are so many "survivors" is not proof of an
extermination plan. There may be six million survivors. Just about
every Jew that is old says he is a survivor.

The real "holocaust" was when the Communist Jews murdered millions of
Christians. Communism was Jewish. Here is proof:

Article Winston Churchill wrote in 1920:
"This movement amongst the Jews (the Russian Revolution) is not new.
From the days of Spartacus Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down
to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kuhn (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany)
and Emma Goldman (United States), this world wide conspiracy for the
overthrow of civilization and the reconstruction of society on the
basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible
equality, has been steadily growing. It played, as a modern writer,
Mrs. Nesta Webster, has so ably shown, a definitely recognizable part
in the tragedy of the French Revolution. It has been the mainspring of
every subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century; and now at
last this band of extraordinary personalities has gripped the Russian
people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the
undisputed masters of that enormous empire. There is no need to
exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the
actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution by these international
and for the most part atheistic Jews. Moreover, the principal
inspiration and driving power comes from Jewish leaders." (ibid)

Lev Trotzky wrote a book called "Stalin: An Appraisal of the Man and
His Influence", Harper Bros., New York and London, 1941, translated by
Charles Malamuth.

In this book he told who the principle members of the October Central
Committee were. This group was the leadership of the Bolshevik Party
during the October Revolution. This is what he wrote:

"In view of the Party's semi-legality the names of persons elected by
secret ballot were not announced at the Congress, with the exception
of the four who had received the largest number of votes. Lenin--133
out of a possible 134, Zinoviev--132, Kamenev--131, Trotzky--131."

Of these four top leaders of the Bolshevik Party the last three were
known Jews. Lenin was thought to be a gentile married to a Jewess. It
was later proven that he was one quarter Jewish, London Jewish
Chronicle April 21, 1995, Lenin: Life and Legacy.

David Francis, the American Ambassador to Russia at the time of the
Revolution, wrote:
"The Bolshevic leaders here, most of whom are Jews and 90 percent of
whom are returned exiles, care little for Russia or any other country
but are internationalists and they are trying to start a world-wide
revolution."

The Director of British Intelligence to the U.S. Secretary of State
wrote this:
"There is now definite evidence that Bolshevism is an international
movement controlled by Jews."

In 1945 the FBI arrested six individuals for stealing 1700 highly
confidential documents from State Department files. This was the
Amerasia case they were:

Philip Jaffe, a Russian Jew who came to the U.S. in 1905. He was at
one time the editor of the communist paper "Labor Defense" and the
ringleader of the group arrested.
Andrew Roth, a Jew.
Mark Gayn, a Jew, changed his name from Julius Ginsberg.
John Service, a gentile.
Emmanuel Larsen, nationality unknown
Kate Mitchel, nationality unknown.
In 1949 the Jewess Judith Coplin was caught passing classified
documents from Justice Department files to a Russian agent.

The highest ranking communist brought to trial in the U.S. was Gerhart
Eisler. He was a Jew. He was the secret boss of the Communist Party
in the U.S. and commuted regularly between the U.S. and Russia.

In 1950 there was the "Hollywood Ten" case. Ten leading film writers
of the Hollywood Film Colony were convicted for contempt of Congress
and sentenced to prison. Nine of the ten were Jews. Six of the ten
were communist party members and the other four were flagrantly
pro-communist.

One of the top new stories of 1949 was the trial of Eugene Dennis and
the Convicted Eleven. This group comprised the National Secretariat of
the American Communist Party. Six were Jews, two gentiles, three
nationality unknown.

Also in 1949 the German-born atomic scientist Klaus Fuchs was
convicted for passing atomic secrets to the Russians. Acting on
information obtained from Fuchs the FBI arrested nine other members of
the ring. All of them were convicted. Eight of the nine were Jews.

Here are some quotes from a very pro-Jewish book that was first
published in 1925. The book is "Stranger than Fiction" by Lewis
Browne.

"But save for such exceptions, the Jews who led or participated in the
heroic efforts to remold the world of the last century, were neither
Reform or Orthodox. Indeed, they were often not professing Jews at
all.
"For instance, there was Heinrich Heine and Ludwig Borne, both
unfaltering champions of freedom. And even more conspicuously, there
was Karl Marx, one of the great prophetic geniuses of modern times.
"Jewish historians rarely mention the name of this man, Karl Marx,
though in his life and spirit he was far truer to the mission of
Israel than most of those who were forever talking of it. He was born
in Germany in 1818, and belonged to an old rabbinic family. He was not
himself reared as a Jew, however, but while still a child was baptized
a Christian by his father. Yet the rebel soul of the Jew flamed in him
throughout his days, for he was always a 'troubler' in Europe."
"Then, of course, there are Ludwig Borne and Heinrich Heine, two men
who by their merciless wit and sarcasm became leaders among the
revolutionary writers. Karl Marx, Ferdinand Lassalle, Johann Jacoby,
Gabriel Riesser, Adolphe Cremieux, Signora Nathan- all these of Jewish
lineage played important roles in the struggle that went throughout
Europe in this period. Wherever the war for human liberty was being
waged, whether in France, Germany, Austria, Hungary, or Italy, there
the Jew was to be found. It was little wonder that the enemies of
social progress, the monarchists and the Churchmen, came to speak of
the whole liberal movement as nothing but a Jewish plot."

The book "Soviet Russia and the Jews" by Gregor Aronson and published
by the American Jewish League Against Communism, quotes Stalin in an
interview in 1931 with the Jewish Telegraph Agency. Stalin said:

"...Communists cannot be anything but outspoken enemies of
Anti-Semitism. We fight anti-Semites by the strongest methods in the
Soviet Union. Active anti-Semites are punished by death under the
law."

The following quotes are taken directly from documents available from
the
U.S. Archives:
State Department document 861.00/1757 sent May 2, 1918 by U.S. consul
general in Moscow, Summers: "Jews prominent in local Soviet
government, anti-Jewish feeling growing among population...."

State Department document 861.00/2205 was sent from Vladivostok on
July 5, 1918 by U.S. consul Caldwell: "Fifty percent of Soviet
government in each town consists of Jews of the worst type."

From the Headquarters of the American Expeditionary Forces, Siberia on
March 1, 1919, comes this telegram from Omsk by Chief of Staff, Capt.
Montgomery Shuyler: "It is probably unwise to say this loudly in the
United States but the Bolshevik movement is and has been since it's
beginning, guided and controlled by Russian Jews of the greasiest
type" type."

A second Schuyler telegram, dated June 9, 1919 from Vladivostok,
reports on the make-up of the presiding Soviet government: "...(T)here
were 384 'commissars' including 2 negroes, 13 Russians, 15 Chinamen,
22 Armenians, AND MORE THAN 300 JEWS. Of the latter number, 264 had
come to Russia from the United States since the downfall of the
Imperial Government.

The Netherlands' ambassador in Russia, Oudendyke, confirmed this:
"Unless Bolshevism is nipped in the bud immediately, it is bound to
spread in one form or another over Europe and the whole world as it is
organized and worked by Jews who have no nationality, and whose one
object is to destroy for their own ends the existing order of things."

"The Bolshevik revolution in Russia was the work of Jewish brains, of
Jewish dissatisfaction, of Jewish planning, whose goal is to create a
new order in the world. What was performed in so excellent a way in
Russia, thanks to Jewish brains, and because of Jewish dissatisfaction
and by Jewish planning, shall also, through the same Jewish mental an
physical forces, become a reality all over the world." (The American
Hebrew, September 10, 1920 "In the Bolshevik era, 52 percent of the
membership of the Soviet communist party was Jewish, though Jews
comprised only 1.8 percent of the total population." (Stuart Kahan,
The Wolf of the Kremlin, p. 81)

Interestingly, one of the first acts by the Bolsheviks was to make
so-called "anti-Semitism" a capital crime. This is confirmed by Stalin
himself:
"National and racial chauvinism is a vestige of the misanthropic
customs characteristic of the period of cannibalism. Anti-semitism, as
an extreme form of racial chauvinism, is the most dangerous vestige of
cannibalism...under USSR law active anti-Semites are liable to the
death penalty." (Stalin, Collected Works, vol. 13, p. 30).

Here is a quote from Mein Kampf:
"Making an effort to overcome my natural reluctance, I tried to read
articles of this nature published in the Marxist Press; but in doing
so my aversion increased all the more. And then I set about learning
something of the people who wrote and published this mischievous
stuff. From the publisher downwards, all of them were Jews. I
recalled to mind the names of the public leaders of Marxism, and then
I realized that most of them belonged to the Chosen Race- the Social
Democratic representatives in the Imperial Cabinet as well as the
secretaries if the Trades Unions and the street agitators. Everywhere
the same sinister picture presented itself. I shall never forget the
row of names- Austerlitz, David, Adler, Ellonbogen, and others. One
fact became quite evident to me. It was that this alien race held in
its hands the leadership of that Social Democratic Party with whose
minor representatives I had been disputing for months past."

Solzhenitsyn named in his book the six top administrators of the
Soviet death camps. All six of them were Jews.

Here is something the National Socialists wrote:
"The Soviet Union was in fact a paradise for one group: the Jews. Even
at times when for foreign policy reasons Jews were less evident in the
government, or when they ruled through straw men, the Jews were always
visible in the middle and lower levels of the administration."
Post by Bruce L Grubb
Strangely, part of this idea held that some of the Ayran race left
their traces and bloodline Tibet.
That all said if any D&D race would adopt Nazism I would say it would
have to be the Orcs. Many concepts of Nazism fit into what the Orcs
do anyhow and militarism would thrill them no end.
The Jews control your media and your mind.

Hitler said on 19 July 1940: "My intention was never to wage war, but
to build a new social state with the highest level of culture. Each
year of war keeps me from this work."

http://www.ihr.org/ http://www.natvan.com

http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.nsm88.com/

http://wsi.matriots.com/jews.html
Malachias Invictus
2007-10-02 22:08:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Topaz
Post by Bruce L Grubb
That all said if any D&D race would adopt Nazism I would say it would
have to be the Orcs. Many concepts of Nazism fit into what the Orcs
do anyhow and militarism would thrill them no end.
The Jews control your media and your mind.
Gnomes, then?
--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.

from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley
Topaz
2007-10-03 11:21:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 2 Oct 2007 15:08:19 -0700, "Malachias Invictus"
Post by Malachias Invictus
Post by Topaz
Post by Bruce L Grubb
That all said if any D&D race would adopt Nazism I would say it would
have to be the Orcs. Many concepts of Nazism fit into what the Orcs
do anyhow and militarism would thrill them no end.
The Jews control your media and your mind.
Gnomes, then?
Elves obviously.


By Robert N. Proctor

The problem with the "science vs. fascism" thesis is that it fails to
take into account the eagerness with which many scientists and
physicians embraced the Reich, and the many scientific disciplines
which actually flourished under the Nazis. Anyone who has ever
examined
a V-2 engine will have few doubts about this, and there are numerous
other examples. During the Nazi era, German scientists and engineers
either developed or greatly improved television, jet-propelled
aircraft
(including the ejection seat), guided missiles, electronic computers,
the electron microscope, atomic fission, data-processing
technologies,…
The first magnetic tape recording was of a speech by Hitler,…

The story of science under German fascism is not, as conventional
wisdom would have it, only a narrative of suppression and survival; a
truthful account will explain how and why Nazi ideology promoted
certain areas of inquiry, and how projects and policies were
championed or disappeared because of political considerations.

In this article, I want to explore some of the obstacles that have
hindered our efforts to understand Nazi science and medicine. I will
concentrate on two myths: the myth of flawed science and the myth of
abandoned ethics. The Nazis, I shall suggest, supported many kinds of
science, left politics (as we often think of it) out of most, and did
not abandon ethics. There was an ethics of Nazi medical practice-
sometimes explicit, sometimes not; often cruel, but sometimes not.
This
is important to understand if we are not to perceive the German
physicians who endorsed Nazism as absolutely alien and otherworldly…

Nazi Ideology and Anti-Tobacco Research
If you ask most experts when the first good evidence arose that
tobacco was a major cause of lung cancer, they will point to a series
of epidemiological studies by English and American researchers in the
early 1950s. If you ask when a medical consensus on this question
first arose, they will most likely point to the 1964 Surgeon General's
report, which took a strong stand on this question, or a similar
report by Britain's Royal College of Physicians two years earlier.

I have become convinced, however, that there was an earlier and
overlooked consensus, a consensus within the German medical and
scientific community, that emerged during the Nazi period. The Nazis
had a powerful anti-tobacco movement, arguably the most powerful in
the world at that time. Tobacco was opposed by racial hygienists
fearing the corruption of the German "germ plasm" (i.e., genetic
material), by industrial hygienists fearing a reduction of people's
capacity to work, by nurses and midwives fearing harm to the "maternal
organism." Tobacco was said to be a "corrupting force in a rotting
civilization that has become lazy." The Nazis' anti-tobacco rhetoric
drew from an earlier generation's eugenics rhetoric and also reflected
an ethic of bodily purity and zeal for work.3 Tobacco use was attacked
as an "epidemic," a "plague," as "dry drunkenness," and as "lung
masturbation"; tobacco and alcohol abuses were "diseases of
civilization" and "relics of a liberal lifestyle."

Anti-tobacco research flourished in the Third Reich…
Third Reich scientists also performed extensive work in the area of
occupational carcinogenesis. Physicians documented the health hazards
of asbestos, and in 1943 Germany became the first nation to recognize
lung cancer and mesothelioma caused by asbestos inhalation as
compensable occupational illnesses. Nazi Germany also pioneered what
we now call experimental epidemiology: two striking papers-a 1939
article by Franz H. Mueller of Cologne, and a 1943 paper by Eberhard
Schairer and Erich Schueniger of Jena-presented the most convincing
demonstrations up to that time that cigarettes were a major cause of
lung cancer. ..

How should we interpret such studies? How can we explain the fact that
Nazi Germany was home to the world's foremost tobacco-cancer
epidemiology and the world's strongest cancer prevention policy? Do we
say that "pockets of innovation" existed in Nazi Germany, resistant to
ideological influence?8 What if we find, on closer inspection, that
Germany's anti-tobacco research flourished not in spite of the Nazis,
but in large part because of the Nazis? And would it then be
appropriate, from a moral point of view, to cite such research in
scientific studies today?9

I ask this last question partly because the two tobacco studies I have
just discussed have, in fact, been repeatedly cited by postwar
scientific researchers, though rarely with any mention of the social
context within which they were carried out. There is never any
mention, for example, of the fact that the founding director of
Schueniger and Schairer's Institute was Karl Astel, Rector of the
University of Jena, a vicious racial hygienist, and an SS officer. One
never hears that the grant application for the Institute was written
by Gauleiter Fritz Sauckel, chief organizer of Germany's system of
forced labor and a man hanged after the war for crimes against
humanity (most leaders of Nazi Germany's anti-tobacco movement were
silenced in one way or another after 1945). No mention is ever made of
the fact that funding for Astel's Institute, and therefore for
Schairer and Sch=F6niger's study, came from a gift of 100,000
Reichsmarks from the Fuehrer-himself an ardent anti-smoking activist.
It is clear to anyone who follows the money trail and the research
interests that Schairer and Schueniger's study would not have been
undertaken had it not been for Hitler's anti-tobacco sentiments and
those of his like-minded underlings. Hitler once even attributed the
rise of German fascism to his quitting smoking: the young
artist-architect had smoked a couple of packs a day until 1919, when
he threw his cigarettes into the Danube and never reached for them
again.

Again, how should we interpret such Nazi-era papers? How should we
judge the fact that Nazi ideology in this case (and there are others)
appears not to have hindered research, but actually to have promoted
it?…

I raise the questions I do about Nazism and science because it is poor
scholarship and perhaps even dangerous to caricature the Nazis as
irrational or anti-science. What we have to look at more carefully is
the relationship between science and ideology at this time. It is not
the case, for example, that the papers on tobacco epidemiology I have
mentioned were uninfluenced by Nazi ideology. The Reich's anti-tobacco
program was motivated by Nazi ideals of bodily purity and racial
hygiene: there was a kind of "homeopathic paranoia" pervading Nazi
ideology that led many of its adherents to believe that tiny,
corrosive
elements were insinuating themselves into "the German body," sapping
its strength, causing harm. Appreciating this helps us understand how
Nazi science/ideologues could declare that tobacco tar, lead, mercury,
asbestos-and Jews-all posed a threat to the Nordic race. It also
may help us better understand why so many doctors were supporters of
Hitler's regime…

Why were German doctors such avid fans of fascism?
Why did nearly half of all German physicians join the Nazi party?
I don't think it was the tirades of Julius Streicher in Der Stuermer
that attracted their interest, but rather the promises of Nazi leaders
to solve Germany's problems medically, surgically. The Nazi state was
supposed to be a hygienic state; Nazism was supposed to be "applied
biology" (Fritz Lenz coined this phrase in 1931). Hitler was
celebrated
as the "great doctor" of German society and as the "Robert Koch of
politics" (Koch was a nineteenth century pioneer in studying the
bacterial origin of diseases). The seductive power of National
Socialism for many physicians lay in its promise to cleanse German
society of its corrupting elements-not just communism and Jews, but
also metallic lead and addictive tobacco, along with homosexuality…

The relation of science and politics in Nazi Germany was therefore
more complex than most people like to think. Part of the
misunderstanding, I would suggest, lies in the widely accepted belief
that when science is politicized, "real" science inevitably suffers:
the freedom of scientists is abrogated, distorting biases are
introduced into research, minds are closed, avenues of inquiry are
blocked. In many areas of science, of course, that is indeed what
happened in Nazi Germany; one thinks of the fate of Einstein's
relativity theory, for example. But in other areas-e.g., many areas of
public health- that was not the case at all.

Biology was another field that thrived. Ute Deichmann in her book,
Biologists Under Hitler (Harvard University Press, 1996), shows that
the majority of biologists in the Thirties and early Forties joined
the Nazi party; but it was still quite possible for non-Nazi
biologists to obtain grants from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft,
Germany's leading scientific grant agency. Not only possible but easy:
Deichmann discovered that there was no correlation at all between a
researcher receiving a grant and whether that researcher belonged to
the Nazi party. I would argue that biology prospered under the Nazis
because it was so integral to their worldview. Apart from the reasons
I have already discussed, there is the fact that Nazism placed a much
higher value on nature than on nurture in the development of human
talents and disabilities.

I am not sure I would agree with Deichmann that scientists in the
Third Reich were more independent of the regime than we usually think.

Independent research flourished in many fields but it was, after all,
also in the Nazi state's interest to cultivate a strong scientific
community, at least in certain disciplines. What is clearly wrong
about
the autonomy thesis, applied to science and medicine as a whole, is
that many professionals did not retreat into the purely technical. It
took a lot of medical enthusiasm to forcibly sterilize 350,000
Germans,…
There is nothing inherently evil about physicians working and
cooperating with their government. The moral failure of the German
medical profession was its willingness to collaborate with the Nazi
state, its willingness to serve Nazi values. There is nothing wrong
with physicians working to preserve the health of a larger community;
that, after all, is the essence of responsible public health. What
differentiated National Socialist public health from genuine public
health in a reasonably civilized society was the exclusive nature of
what the Nazis considered "the community." Nazi values excluded Jews
and others deemed racially or genetically unfit from the volkisch
community...

It is just as misguided to believe that scientists who cooperated with
the Nazis were bereft of ethics as to believe the Nazis were
intrinsically hostile to science. There was an ethic of Nazi medical
practice, and it should be examined and understood…

It might be hard to believe, but there were, in fact, ethical
standards that governed medical research and the practice of medicine
in the Third Reich. Medical students took courses on medical ethics;
medical textbooks in Nazi Germany discussed medical ethics. There was
a great deal of attention given to the obligations of physicians to
society, the state, and sometimes even to the individual. Nazi medical
philosophers were critical of the ideal of value-free science, which
was often equated with useless ivory-tower liberal-or Jewish-

"science for its own sake." Science was supposed to be "for the
people," though not of course for all people: Science was supposed to
be at the service of the German Volk, the healthy and productive white
races of Europe. Nazi medical ethics was underpinned by sexist
paternalism, Nordic supremacy, cleanliness, punctuality, orderliness,
unquestioned obedience to authority, and public and environmental
health. It tended to emphasize preventive medicine, cost efficiency,
the natural lifestyle, and the superiority of the productive worker.
Clearly, Nazi medicine was imbued with ethical principles ..

One sees evidence of these principles in Nazi public health practice.
Nazi health officials cleaned up water supplies and removed lead and
mercury from consumer products. Doctors were urged to counsel patients
against tobacco use, to maintain the efficiency of workers, safeguard
public and genetic health, and ensure the best possible medical care
for every pregnant woman and newborns judged "genetically fit." There
were debates about medical malpractice-whether, for example, natural
healers were to be barred from treating cancer patients (they
eventually were) -- and the limits of medical confidentiality and
medical disclosure. A 1943 article in a leading German cancer journal
cited the "demands of medical ethics" to inform patients of the
severity of their diseases, and in at least one case a physician was
prosecuted for failing to inform a woman she had cancer (physicians
protested the ruling in print)…

The Nazi doctors were not madmen; that is why we must work so hard to
understand the origins of Nazism if we are to have any success in
preventing its resurgence.

Robert N. Proctor is professor of the history of science at
Pennsylvania State University.

http://www.ihr.org/ http://www.natvan.com

http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.nsm88.com/

http://wsi.matriots.com/jews.html
Blackheart
2007-10-03 19:51:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Malachias Invictus
Post by Topaz
Post by Bruce L Grubb
That all said if any D&D race would adopt Nazism I would say it would
have to be the Orcs. Many concepts of Nazism fit into what the Orcs
do anyhow and militarism would thrill them no end.
The Jews control your media and your mind.
Gnomes, then?
yup. Gnomes.

damn, dirty Gnomes
Malachias Invictus
2007-10-04 03:36:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Blackheart
Post by Malachias Invictus
Post by Topaz
Post by Bruce L Grubb
That all said if any D&D race would adopt Nazism I would say it would
have to be the Orcs. Many concepts of Nazism fit into what the Orcs
do anyhow and militarism would thrill them no end.
The Jews control your media and your mind.
Gnomes, then?
yup. Gnomes.
damn, dirty Gnomes
There is something about them. They are the most hated race in my group.
That may, of course, have something to do with the way people tend to play
gnomes in my group.
--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.

from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley
azothath
2007-10-05 04:16:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Malachias Invictus
Post by Blackheart
Post by Malachias Invictus
Post by Topaz
Post by Bruce L Grubb
That all said if any D&D race would adopt Nazism I would say it would
have to be the Orcs. Many concepts of Nazism fit into what the Orcs
do anyhow and militarism would thrill them no end.
The Jews control your media and your mind.
Gnomes, then?
yup. Gnomes.
damn, dirty Gnomes
There is something about them. They are the most hated race in my group.
That may, of course, have something to do with the way people tend to play
gnomes in my group.
--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^
perhaps only gnomes could fail at the Professional skill Paperhanger?

This is why it makes no sense for elves, as aesthetics you know they'd
have that paper up and the the curtains just right.
It could be a genetic thing...
We need more testing and vivisections...

azothath
ok - I'm gonna touch a troll... but in the right spot!
Topaz
2007-10-05 23:18:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Leon Degrelle
"We have the power. Now our gigantic work begins."
Those were Hitler's words on the night of January 30, 1933, as
cheering crowds surged past him, for five long hours, beneath the
windows of the Chancellery in Berlin.
His political struggle had lasted 14 years. He himself was 43, that
is, physically and intellectually at the peak of his powers. He had
won over millions of Germans and organized them into Germany's largest
and most dynamic political party, a party girded by a human rampart of
hundreds of thousands of storm troopers, three fourths of them members
of the working class. He had been extremely shrewd. All but toying
with his adversaries, Hitler had, one after another, vanquished them
all.
Standing there at the window, his arm raised to the delirious throng,
he must have known a feeling of triumph. But he seemed almost torpid,
absorbed, as if lost in another world.
It was a world far removed from the delirium in the street, a world of
65 million citizens who loved him or hated him, but all of whom, from
that night on, had become his responsibility. And as he knew-as almost
all Germans knew on January 1933 -- that this was a crushing, an
almost desperate responsibility.
Half a century later, few people understand the crisis Germany faced
at that time. Today, it's easy to assume that Germans have always been
well-fed and even plump. But the Germans Hitler inherited were virtual
skeletons.
During the preceding years, a score of "democratic" governments had
come and gone, often in utter confusion. Instead of alleviating the
people's misery, they had increased it, due to their own instability:
it was impossible for them to pursue any given plan for more than a
year or two. Germany had arrived at a dead end. In just a few years
there had been 224,000 suicides - a horrifying figure, bespeaking a
state of misery even more horrifying.
By the beginning of 1933, the misery of the German people was
virtually universal. At least six million unemployed and hungry
workers roamed aimlessly through the streets, receiving a pitiful
unemployment benefit of less than 42 marks per month. Many of those
out of work had families to feed, so that altogether some 20 million
Germans, a third of the country's population, were reduced to trying
to survive on about 40 pfennigs per person per day.
Unemployment benefits, moreover, were limited to a period of six
months. After that came only the meager misery allowance dispensed by
the welfare offices.
Notwithstanding the gross inadequacy of this assistance, by trying to
save the six million unemployed from total destruction, even for just
six months, both the state and local branches of the German government
saw themselves brought to ruin: in 1932 alone such aid had swallowed
up four billion marks, 57 percent of the total tax revenues of the
federal government and the regional states. A good many German
municipalities were bankrupt.
Those still lucky enough to have some kind of job were not much better
off. Workers and employees had taken a cut of 25 percent in their
wages and salaries. Twenty-one percent of them were earning between
100 and 250 marks per month; 69.2 percent of them, in January of 1933,
were being paid less than 1,200 marks annually. No more than about
100,000 Germans, it was estimated, were able to live without financial
worries.
During the three years before Hitler came to power, total earnings had
fallen by more than half, from 23 billion marks to 11 billion. The
average per capita income had dropped from 1,187 marks in 1929 to 627
marks, a scarcely tolerable level, in 1932. By January 1933, when
Hitler took office, 90 percent of the German people were destitute.
No one escaped the strangling effects of the unemployment. The
intellectuals were hit as hard as the working class. Of the 135,000
university graduates, 60 percent were without jobs. Only a tiny
minority was receiving unemployment benefits.
"The others," wrote one foreign observer, Marcel Laloire (in his book
New Germany), "are dependent on their parents or are sleeping in
flophouses. In the daytime they can be seen on the boulevards of
Berlin wearing signs on their backs to the effect that they will
accept any kind of work."
But there was no longer any kind of work.
The same drastic fall-off had hit Germany's cottage industry, which
comprised some four million workers. Its turnover had declined 55
percent, with total sales plunging from 22 billion to 10 billion
marks.
Hardest hit of all were construction workers; 90 percent of them were
unemployed.
Farmers, too, had been ruined, crushed by losses amounting to 12
billion marks. Many had been forced to mortgage their homes and their
land. In 1932 just the interest on the loans they had incurred due to
the crash was equivalent to 20 percent of the value of the
agricultural production of the entire country. Those who were no
longer able to meet the interest payments saw their farms auctioned
off in legal proceedings: in the years 1931-1932, 17,157 farms-with a
combined total area of 462,485 hectares - were liquidated in this way.
The "democracy" of Germany's "Weimar Republic" (1918 -1933) had proven
utterly ineffective in addressing such flagrant wrongs as this
impoverishment of millions of farm workers, even though they were the
nation's most stable and hardest working citizens. Plundered,
dispossessed, abandoned: small wonder they heeded Hitler's call.
Their situation on January 30, 1933, was tragic. Like the rest of
Germany's working class, they had been betrayed by their political
leaders, reduced to the alternatives of miserable wages, paltry and
uncertain benefit payments, or the outright humiliation of begging.
Germany's industries, once renowned everywhere in the world, were no
longer prosperous, despite the millions of marks in gratuities that
the financial magnates felt obliged to pour into the coffers of the
parties in power before each election in order to secure their
cooperation. For 14 years the well-blinkered conservatives and
Christian democrats of the political center had been feeding at the
trough just as greedily as their adversaries of the left…
One inevitable consequence of this ever-increasing misery and
uncertainty about the future was an abrupt decline in the birthrate.
When your household savings are wiped out, and when you fear even
greater calamities in the days ahead, you do not risk adding to the
number of your dependents.
In those days the birth rate was a reliable barometer of a country's
prosperity. A child is a joy, unless you have nothing but a crust of
bread to put in its little hand. And that's just the way it was with
hundreds of thousands of German families in 1932…
Hitler knew that he would be starting from zero. From less than zero.
But he was also confident of his strength of will to create Germany
anew-politically, socially, financially, and economically. Now legally
and officially in power, he was sure that he could quickly convert
that cipher into a Germany more powerful than ever before.
What support did he have?
For one thing, he could count on the absolute support of millions of
fanatical disciples. And on that January evening, they joyfully shared
in the great thrill of victory. Some thirteen million Germans, many of
them former Socialists and Communists, had voted for his party.
But millions of Germans were still his adversaries, disconcerted
adversaries, to be sure, whom their own political parties had
betrayed, but who had still not been won over to National Socialism.
The two sides-those for and those against Hitler-were very nearly
equal in numbers. But whereas those on the left were divided among
themselves, Hitler's disciples were strongly united. And in one thing
above all, the National Socialists had an incomparable advantage: in
their convictions and in their total faith in a leader. Their highly
organized and well-disciplined party had contented with the worst kind
of obstacles, and had overcome them…
In the eyes of the capitalists, money was the sole active element in
the flourishing of a country's economy. To Hitler's way of thinking,
that conception was radically wrong: capital, on the contrary, was
only an instrument. Work was the essential element: man's endeavor,
man's honor, blood, muscles and soul.
Hitler wanted not just to put an to the class struggle, but to
reestablish the priority of the human being, in justice and respect,
as the principal factor in production…
For the worker's trust in the fatherland to be restored, he had to
feel that from now on he was to be (and to be treated) as an equal,
instead of remaining a social inferior. Under the governments of the
so-called democratic parties of both the left and the right, he had
remained an inferior; for none of them had understood that in the
hierarchy of national values, work is the very essence of life; …
The objective, then, was far greater than merely getting six million
unemployed back to work. It was to achieve a total revolution.
"The people," Hitler declared, "were not put here on earth for the
sake of the economy, and the economy doesn't exist for the sake of
capital. On the contrary, capital is meant to serve the economy, and
the economy in turn to serve the people."
It would not be enough merely to reopen the thousands of closed
factories and fill them with workers. If the old concepts still ruled,
the workers would once again be nothing more than living machines,
faceless and interchangeable…
Nowhere in twentieth-century Europe had the authority of a head of
state ever been based on such overwhelming and freely given national
consent. Prior to Hitler, from 1919 to 1932, those governments piously
styling themselves democratic had usually come to power by meager
majorities, sometimes as low as 51 or 52 percent.
"I am not a dictator," Hitler had often affirmed, "and I never will
be. Democracy will be rigorously enforced by National Socialism."
Authority does not mean tyranny. A tyrant is someone who puts himself
in power without the will of the people or against the will of the
people. A democrat is placed in power by the people. But democracy is
not limited to a single formula. It may be partisan or parliamentary.
Or it may be authoritarian. The important thing is that the people
have wished it, chosen it, established it in its given form.
That was the case with Hitler. He came to power in an essentially
democratic way. Whether one likes it or not, this fact is undeniable.
And after coming to power, his popular support measurably increased
from year to year. The more intelligent and honest of his enemies have
been obliged to admit this, men such as the declared anti-Nazi
historian and professor Joachim Fest, who wrote:
For Hitler was never interested in establishing a mere tyranny. Sheer
greed for power will not suffice as explanation for his personality
and energy-He was not born to be a mere tyrant. He was fixated upon
his mission of defending Europe and the Aryan race ... Never had he
felt so dependent upon the masses as he did at this time, and he
watched their reactions with anxious concern.
These lines weren't written by Dr. Goebbels, but by a stern critic of
Hitler and his career…
When it came time to vote, Hitler was granted plenary powers with a
sweeping majority of 441 votes to 94: he had won not just two thirds,
but 82.44 percent of the assembly's votes. This "Enabling Act" granted
Hitler for four years virtually absolute authority over the
legislative as well as the executive affairs of the government…
After 1945 the explanation that was routinely offered for all this was
that the Germans had lost their heads. Whatever the case, it is a
historical fact that they acted of their own free will. Far from being
resigned, they were enthusiastic. "For the first time since the last
days of the monarchy," historian Joachim Fest has conceded, "the
majority of the Germans now had the feeling that they could identify
with the state."…
"You talk about persecution!" he thundered in an impromptu response to
an address by the Social Democratic speaker. "I think that there are
only a few of us [in our party] here who did not have to suffer
persecutions in prison from your side ... You seem to have totally
forgotten that for years our shirts were ripped off our backs because
you did not like the color . . . We have outgrown your persecutions!"
"In those days," he scathingly continued, "our newspapers were banned
and banned and again banned, our meetings were forbidden, and we were
forbidden to speak, I was forbidden to speak, for years on. And now
you say that criticism is salutary!"…
Hitler's millions of followers had rediscovered the primal strength of
rough, uncitified man, of a time when men still had backbone…
Gustav Noske, the lumberjack who became defense minister - and the
most valiant defender of the embattled republic in the tumultuous
months immediately following the collapse of 1918 - acknowledged
honestly in 1944, when the Third Reich was already rapidly breaking
down, that the great majority of the German people still remained true
to Hitler because of the social renewal he had brought to the working
class…
Here again, well before the collapse of party-ridden Weimar Republic,
disillusion with the unions had become widespread among the working
masses. They were starving. The hundreds of Socialist and Communist
deputies stood idly by, impotent to provide any meaningful help to the
desperate proletariat.
Their leaders had no proposals to remedy, even partially, the great
distress of the people; no plans for large-scale public works, no
industrial restructuring, no search for markets abroad.
Moreover, they offered no energetic resistance to the pillaging by
foreign countries of the Reich's last financial resources: this a
consequence of the Treaty of Versailles that the German Socialists had
voted to ratify in June of 1919, and which they had never since had
the courage effectively to oppose…
In 1930, 1931 and 1932, German workers had watched the disaster grow:
the number of unemployed rose from two million to three, to four, to
five, then to six million. At the same time, unemployment benefits
fell lower and lower, finally to disappear completely. Everywhere one
saw dejection and privation: emaciated mothers, children wasting away
in sordid lodgings, and thousands of beggars in long sad lines.
The failure, or incapacity, of the leftist leaders to act, not to
mention their insensitivity, had stupefied the working class. Of what
use were such leaders with their empty heads and empty hearts-and,
often enough, full pockets?
Well before January 30, thousands of workers had already joined up
with Hitler's dynamic formations, which were always hard at it where
they were most needed. Many joined the National Socialists when they
went on strike. Hitler, himself a former worker and a plain man like
themselves, was determined to eliminate unemployment root and branch.
He wanted not merely to defend the laborer's right to work, but to
make his calling one of honor, to insure him respect and to integrate
him fully into a living community of all the Germans, who had been
divided class against class.
In January 1933, Hitler's victorious troops were already largely
proletarian in character, including numerous hardfisted street
brawlers, many unemployed, who no longer counted economically or
socially.
Meanwhile, membership in the Marxist labor unions had fallen off
enormously: among thirteen million socialist and Communist voters in
1932, no more than five million were union members. Indifference and
discouragement had reached such levels that many members no longer
paid their union dues. Many increasingly dispirited Marxist leaders
began to wonder if perhaps the millions of deserters were the ones who
saw things clearly. Soon they wouldn't wonder any longer.
Even before Hitler won Reichstag backing for his "Enabling Act,"
Germany's giant labor union federation, the ADGB, had begun to rally
to the National Socialist cause. As historian Joachim Fest
acknowledged: "On March 20, the labor federation's executive committee
addressed a kind of declaration of loyalty to Hitler." (J. Fest,
Hitler, p. 413.)
Hitler than took a bold and clever step. The unions had always
clamored to have the First of May recognized as a worker's holiday,
but the Weimar Republic had never acceded to their request. Hitler,
never missing an opportunity, grasped this one with both hands. He did
more than grant this reasonable demand: he proclaimed the First of May
a national holiday…
I myself attended the memorable meeting at the Tempelhof field in
1933. By nine o'clock that morning, giant columns, some of workers,
others of youth groups, marching in cadence down the pavement of
Berlin's great avenues, had started off towards the airfield to which
Hitler had called together all Germans. All Germany would follow the
rally as it was transmitted nationwide by radio…
In the dark, a group of determined opponents could easily have heckled
Hitler or otherwise sabotaged the meeting. Perhaps a third of the
onlookers had been Socialists or Communists only three months
previously. But not a single hostile voice was raised during the
entire ceremony. There was only universal acclamation.
Ceremony is the right word for it. It was an almost magical rite.
Hitler and Goebbels had no equals in the arranging of dedicatory
ceremonies of this sort. First there were popular songs, then great
Wagnerian hymns to grip the audience. Germany has a passion for
orchestral music, and Wagner taps the deepest and most secret vein of
the German soul, its romanticism, its inborn sense of the powerful and
the grand.
Meanwhile the hundreds of flags floated above the rostrum, redeemed
from the darkness by arrows of light.
Now Hitler strode to the rostrum. For those standing at the of the
field, his face must have appeared vanishingly small, but his words
flooded instantaneously across the acres of people in his audience.
A Latin audience would have preferred a voice less harsh, more
delicately expressive. But there was no doubt that Hitler spoke to the
psyche of the German people.
Germans have rarely had the good fortune to experience the enchantment
of the spoken word. In Germany, the tone has always been set by
ponderous speakers, more fond of elephantine pedantry than oratorical
passion. Hitler, as a speaker, was a prodigy, the greatest orator of
his century. He possessed, above all, what the ordinary speaker lacks:
a mysterious ability to project power.
A bit like a medium or sorcerer, he was seized, even transfixed, as he
addressed a crowd. It responded to Hitler's projection of power,
radiating it back, establishing, in the course of myriad exchanges, a
current that both orator and audience gave to and drew from equally.
One had to personally experience him speaking to understand this
phenomenon.
This special gift is what lay at the basis of Hitler's ability to win
over the masses. His high-voltage, lightning-like projection
transported and transformed all who experienced it. Tens of millions
were enlightened, riveted and inflamed by the fire of his anger,
irony, and passion.
By the time the cheering died away that May first evening, hundreds of
thousands of previously indifferent or even hostile workers who had
come to Tempelhof at the urging of their labor federation leaders were
now won over. They had become followers, like the SA stormtroopers
whom so many there that evening had brawled with in recent years.
The great human sea surged back from Tempelhof to Berlin. A million
and a half people had arrived in perfect order, and their departure
was just as orderly. No bottlenecks halted the cars and busses. For
those of us who witnessed it, this rigorous, yet joyful, discipline of
a contented people was in itself a source of wonder. Everything about
the May Day mass meeting had come off as smoothly clockwork.
The memory of that fabulous crowd thronging back to the center of
Berlin will never leave me. A great many were on foot. Their faces
were now different faces, as though they had been imbued with a
strange and totally new spirit. The non-Germans in the crowd were as
if stunned, and no less impressed than Hitler's fellow countrymen.
The French ambassador, André François-Poncet, noted:
The foreigners on the speaker's platform as guests of honor were not
alone in carrying away the impression of a truly beautiful and
wonderful public festival, an impression that was created by the
regime's genius for organization, by the night time display of
uniforms, by the play of lights, the rhythm of the music, by the flags
and the colorful fireworks; and they were not alone in thinking that a
breath of reconciliation and unity was passing over the Third Reich.
"It is our wish," Hitler had exclaimed, as though taking heaven as his
witness, "to get along together and to struggle together as brothers,
so that at the hour when we shall come before God, we might say to
him: 'See, Lord, we have changed. The German people are no longer a
people ashamed, a people mean and cowardly and divided. No, Lord! The
German people have become strong in their spirit, in their will, in
their perseverance, in their acceptance of any sacrifice. Lord, we
remain faithful to Thee! Bless our struggle!" (A. François-Poncet,
Souvenirs d'une ambassade à Berlin, p. 128.)
Who else could have made such an incantatory appeal without making
himself look ridiculous?
No politician had ever spoken of the rights of workers with such faith
and such force, or had laid out in such clear terms the social plan he
pledged to carry out on behalf of the common people.
The next day, the newspaper of the proletarian left, the "Union
Journal," reported on this mass meeting at which at least two thirds-a
million-of those attending were workers. "This May First was victory
day," the paper summed up.
With the workers thus won over, what further need was there for the
thousands of labor union locals that for so long had poisoned the
social life of the Reich and which, in any case, had accomplished
nothing of a lasting, positive nature?
Within hours of the conclusion of that "victory" meeting at the
Tempelhof field, the National Socialists were able to peacefully take
complete control of Germany's entire labor union organization,
including all its buildings, enterprises and banks. An era of Marxist
obstruction abruptly came to an end : from now on, a single national
organization would embody the collective will and interests of all of
Germany's workers.
Although he was now well on his way to creating what he pledged would
be a true "government of the people," Hitler also realized that great
obstacles remained. For one thing, the Communist rulers in Moscow had
not dropped their guard-or their guns. Restoring the nation would take
more than words and promises, it would take solid achievements. Only
then would the enthusiasm shown by the working class at the May First
mass meeting be an expression of lasting victory.
How could Hitler solve the great problem that had defied solution by
everyone else (both in Germany and abroad): putting millions of
unemployed back to work?
What would Hitler do about wages? Working hours? Leisure time?
Housing? How would he succeed in winning, at long last, respect for
the rights and dignity of the worker?
How could men's lives be improved-materially, morally, and, one might
even say, spiritually? How would he proceed to build a new society fit
for human beings, free of the inertia, injustices and prejudices of
the past?
"National Socialism," Hitler had declared at the outset, "has its
mission and its hour; it is not just a passing movement but a phase of
history."
The instruments of real power now in his hands-an authoritarian state,
its provinces subordinate but nonetheless organic parts of the
national whole-Hitler had acted quickly to shake himself free of the
last constraints of the impotent sectarian political parties.
Moreover, he was now able to direct a cohesive labor force that was no
longer split into a thousand rivulets but flowed as a single, mighty
current.
Hitler was self-confident, sure of the power of his own conviction. He
had no intention, or need, to resort to the use of physical force.
Instead, he intended to win over, one by one, the millions of Germans
who were still his adversaries, and even those who still hated him.
His conquest of Germany had taken years of careful planning and hard
work. Similarly, he would now realize his carefully worked out plans
for transforming the state and society. This meant not merely changes
in administrative or governmental structures, but far-reaching social
programs.
He had once vowed: "The hour will come when the 15 million people who
now hate us will be solidly behind us and will acclaim with us the new
revival we shall create together." Eventually he would succeed in
winning over even many of his most refractory skeptics and
adversaries.
His army of converts was already forming ranks. In a remarkable
tribute, historian Joachim Fest felt obliged to acknowledge
unequivocally:
Hitler had moved rapidly from the status of a demagogue to that of a
respected statesman. The craving to join the ranks of the victors was
spreading like an epidemic, and the shrunken minority of those who
resisted the urge were being visibly pushed into isolation-The past
was dead. The future, it seemed, belonged to the regime, which had
more and more followers, which was being hailed everywhere and
suddenly had sound reasons on its side.
And even the prominent leftist writer Kurt Tucholsky, sensing the
direction of the inexorable tide that was sweeping Germany, vividly
commented: "You don't go railing against the ocean." (J. Fest, Hitler,
pp. 415 f.)
"Our power," Hitler was now able to declare, "no longer belongs to any
territorial fraction of the Reich, nor to any single class of the
nation, but to the people in its totality."
Much still remained to be done, however. So far, Hitler had succeeded
in clearing the way of obstacles to his program. Now the time to build
had arrived.
So many others had failed to tackle the many daunting problems that
were now his responsibility. Above all, the nation demanded a solution
to the great problem of unemployment. Could Hitler now succeed where
others had so dismally failed?…
Unemployment could be combated and eliminated only by giving industry
the financial means to start up anew, to modernize, thus creating
millions of new jobs.
The normal rate of consumption would not be restored, let alone
increased, unless one first raised the starvation-level allowances
that were making purchases of any kind a virtual impossibility. On the
contrary, production and sales would have to be restored before the
six million unemployed could once again become purchasers.
The great economic depression could be overcome only by restimulating
industry, by bringing industry into step with the times, and by
promoting the development of new products…
Nearly ten years earlier, while in his prison cell, Hitler had already
envisioned a formidable system of national highways. He had also
conceived of a small, easily affordable automobile (later known as the
"Volkswagen"), and had even suggested its outline. It should have the
shape of a June bug, he proposed. Nature itself suggested the car's
aerodynamic line.
Until Hitler came to power, a car was the privilege of the rich. It
was not financially within the reach of the middle class, much less of
the worker. The "Volkswagen," costing one-tenth as much as the
standard automobile of earlier years, would eventually become a
popular work vehicle and a source of pleasure after work: a way to
unwind and get some fresh air, and of discovering, thanks to the new
Autobahn highway network, a magnificent country that then, in its
totality, was virtually unknown to the German worker.
From the beginning, Hitler wanted this economical new car to be built
for the millions. The production works would also become one of
Germany's most important industrial centers and employers.
During his imprisonment, Hitler had also drawn up plans for the
construction of popular housing developments and majestic public
buildings.
Some of Hitler's rough sketches still survive. They include groups of
individual worker's houses with their own gardens (which were to be
built in the hundreds of thousands), a plan for a covered stadium in
Berlin, and a vast congress hall, unlike any other in the world, that
would symbolize the grandeur of the National Socialist revolution.
"A building with a monumental dome," historian Werner Maser has
explained, "the plan of which he drew while he was writing Mein Kampf,
would have a span of 46 meters, a height of 220 meters, a diameter of
250 meters, and a capacity of 150 to 190 thousand people standing. The
interior of the building would have been 17 times larger than Saint
Peter's Cathedral in Rome." (W. Maser, Hitler, Adolf, p. 100.)
"That hall," architect Albert Speer has pointed out, "was not just an
idle dream impossible of achievement."
Hitler's imagination, therefore, had long been teeming with a number
of ambitious projects, many of which would eventually be realized.
Fortunately, the needed entrepreneurs, managers and technicians were
on hand. Hitler would not have to improvise.
Historian Werner Maser, although quite anti-Hitler-like nearly all of
his colleagues (how else would they have found publishers?) - has
acknowledged: "From the beginning of his political career, he [Hitler]
took great pains systematically to arrange for whatever he was going
to need in order to carry out his plans."
"Hitler was distinguished," Maser has also noted, "by an exceptional
intelligence in technical matters." Hitler had acquired his knowledge
by devoting many thousands of hours to technical studies from the time
of his youth.
"Hitler read an endless number of books," explained Dr. Schacht. "He
acquired a very considerable amount of knowledge and made masterful
use of it in discussions and speeches. In certain respects he was a
man endowed with genius. He had ideas that no one else would ever have
thought of, ideas that resulted in the ending of great difficulties,
sometimes by measures of an astonishing simplicity or brutality."
Many billions of marks would be needed to begin the great
socioeconomic revolution that was destined, as Hitler had always
intended, to make Germany once again the European leader in industry
and commerce and, most urgently, to rapidly wipe out unemployment in
Germany. Where would the money be found? And, once obtained, how would
these funds be allotted to ensure maximum effectiveness in their
investment?
Hitler was by no means a dictator in matters of the economy. He was,
rather, a stimulator. His government would undertake to do only that
which private initiative could not.
Hitler believed in the importance of individual creative imagination
and dynamism, in the need for every person of superior ability and
skill to assume responsibility.
He also recognized the importance of the profit motive. Deprived of
the prospect of having his efforts rewarded, the person of ability
often refrains from running risks. The economic failure of Communism
has demonstrated this. In the absence of personal incentives and the
opportunity for real individual initiative, the Soviet "command
economy" lagged in all but a few fields, its industry years behind its
competitors.
State monopoly tolls the death of all initiative, and hence of all
progress.
For all men selflessly to pool their wealth might be marvelous, but it
is also contrary to human nature. Nearly every man desires that his
labor shall improve his own condition and that of his family, and
feels that his brain, creative imagination, and persistence well
deserve their reward.
Because it disregarded these basic psychological truths, Soviet
Communism, right to the end, wallowed in economic mediocrity, in spite
of its immense reservoir of manpower, its technical expertise, and its
abundant natural resources, all of which ought to have made it an
industrial and technological giant.
Hitler was always adverse to the idea of state management of the
economy. He believed in elites. "A single idea of genius," he used to
say, "has more value than a lifetime of conscientious labor in an
office."
Just as there are political or intellectual elites, so also is there
an industrial elite. A manufacturer of great ability should not be
restrained, hunted down by the internal revenue services like a
criminal, or be unappreciated by the public. On the contrary, it is
important for economic development that the industrialist be
encouraged morally and materially, as much as possible.
The most fruitful initiatives Hitler would take from 1933 on would be
on behalf of private enterprise. He would keep an eye on the quality
of their directors, to be sure, and would shunt aside incompetents,
quite a few of them at times, but he also supported the best ones,
those with the keenest minds, the most imaginative and bold, even if
their political opinions did not always agree with his own.
"There is no question," he stated very firmly, "of dismissing a
factory owner or director under the pretext that he is not a National
Socialist."
Hitler would exercise the same moderation, the same pragmatism, in the
administrative as well as in the industrial sphere.
What he demanded of his co-workers, above all, was competence and
effectiveness. The great majority of Third Reich functionaries - some
80 percent-were never enrolled in the National Socialist party.
Several of Hitler's ministers, like Konstantin von Neurath and
Schwerin von Krosigk, and ambassadors to such key posts as Prague,
Vienna and Ankara, were not members of the party. But they were
capable…
"Herr Schacht," he said, "we are assuredly in agreement on one point:
no other single task facing the government at the moment can be so
truly urgent as conquering unemployment. That will take a lot of
money. Do you see any possibility of finding it apart from the
Reichsbank?" And after a moment, he added: "How much would it take? Do
you have any idea?"
Wishing to win Schacht over by appealing to his ambition, Hitler
smiled and then asked: "Would you be willing to once again assume
presidency of the Reichsbank?" Schacht let on that he had a
sentimental concern for Dr. Luther, and did not want to hurt the
incumbent's feelings. Playing along, Hitler reassured Schacht that he
would find an appropriate new job elsewhere for Luther.
Schacht then pricked up his ears, drew himself up, and focused his big
round eyes on Hitler: "Well, if that's the way it is," he said, "then
I am ready to assume the presidency of the Reichsbank again."
His great dream was being realized. Schacht had been president of the
Reichsbank between 1923 and 1930, but had been dismissed. Now he would
return in triumph. He felt vindicated. Within weeks, the ingenious
solution to Germany's pressing financial woes would burst forth from
his inventive brain.
"It was necessary," Schacht later explained, "to discover a method
that would avoid inflating the investment holdings of the Reichsbank
immoderately and consequently increasing the circulation of money
excessively."
"Therefore," he went on, "I had to find some means of getting the sums
that were lying idle in pockets and banks, without meaning for it to
be long term and without having it undergo the risk of depreciation.
That was the reasoning behind the Mefo bonds."
What were these "Mefo" bonds? Mefo was a contraction of the
Metallurgische Forschungs-GmbH (Metallurgic Research Company). With a
startup capitalization of one billion marks - which Hitler and Schacht
arranged to be provided by the four giant firms of Krupp, Siemens,
Deutsche Werke and Rheinmetall-this company would eventually promote
many billions of marks worth of investment.
Enterprises, old and new, that filled government orders had only to
draw drafts on Mefo for the amounts due. These drafts, when presented
to the Reichsbank, were immediately convertible into cash. The success
of the Mefo program depended entirely on public acceptance of the Mefo
bonds. But the wily Schacht had planned well. Since Mefo bonds were
short-term bonds that could be cashed in at any time, there was no
real risk in buying, accepting or holding them. They bore an interest
of four percent-a quite acceptable figure in those days-whereas
banknotes hidden under the mattress earned nothing. The public quickly
took all this into consideration and eagerly accepted the bonds.
While the Reichsbank was able to offer from its own treasury a
relatively insignificant 150 million marks for Hitler's war on
unemployment, in just four years the German public subscribed more
than 12 billion marks worth of Mefo bonds!
These billions, the fruit of the combined imagination, ingenuity and
astuteness of Hitler and Schacht, swept away the temporizing and
fearful conservatism of the bankers. Over the next four years, this
enormous credit reserve would make miracles possible.
Soon after the initial billion-mark credit, Schacht added another
credit of 600 million in order to finance the start of Hitler's grand
program for highway construction. This Autobahn program provided
immediate work for 100,000 of the unemployed, and eventually assured
wages for some 500,000 workers.
As large as this outlay was, it was immediately offset by a
corresponding cutback in government unemployment benefits, and by the
additional tax revenue generated as a result of the increase in living
standard (sping) of the newly employed.
Within a few months, thanks to the credit created by the Mefo bonds,
private industry once again dared to assume risks and expand. Germans
returned to work by the hundreds of thousands.
Was Schacht solely responsible for this extraordinary turnaround?
After the war, he answered for himself as a Nuremberg Tribunal
defendant, where he was charged with having made possible the Reich's
economic revival:
I don't think Hitler was reduced to begging for my help. If I had not
served him, he would have found other methods, other means. He was not
a man to give up. It's easy enough for you to say, Mr. Prosecutor,
that I should have watched Hitler die and not lifted a finger. But the
entire working class would have died with him!
Even Marxists recognized Hitler's success, and their own failure. In
the June 1934 issue of the Zeitschrift für Sozialismus, the journal of
the German Social Democrats in exile, this acknowledgement appears:
Faced with the despair of proletarians reduced to joblessness, of
young people with diplomas and no future, of the middle classes of
merchants and artisans condemned to bankruptcy, and of farmers
terribly threatened by the collapse in agricultural prices, we all
failed. We weren't capable of offering the masses anything but
speeches about the glory of socialism.
VI. The Social Revolution
Hitler's tremendous social achievement in putting Germany's six
million unemployed back to work is seldom acknowledged today. Although
it was much more than a transitory achievement, "democratic"
historians routinely dismiss it in just a few lines. Since 1945, not a
single objective scholarly study has been devoted to this highly
significant, indeed unprecedented, historical phenomenon.
Similarly neglected is the body of sweeping reforms that dramatically
changed the condition of the worker in Germany. Factories were
transformed from gloomy caverns to spacious and healthy work centers,
with natural lighting, surrounded by gardens and playing fields.
Hundreds of thousands of attractive houses were built for working
class families. A policy of several weeks of paid vacation was
introduced, along with week and holiday trips by land and sea. A
wide-ranging program of physical and cultural education for young
workers was established, with the world's best system of technical
training. The Third Reich's social security and workers' health
insurance system was the world's most modern and complete.
This remarkable record of social achievement is routinely hushed up
today because it is embarrasses those who uphold the orthodox view of
the Third Reich. Otherwise, readers might begin to think that perhaps
Hitler was the greatest social builder of the twentieth century…
Nevertheless, restoring work and bread to millions of unemployed who
had been living in misery for years; restructuring industrial life;
conceiving and establishing an organization for the effective defense
and betterment of the nation's millions of wage earners; creating a
new bureaucracy and judicial system that guaranteed the civic rights
of each member of the national community, while simultaneously holding
each person to his or her responsibilities as a German citizen: this
organic body of reforms was part of a single, comprehensive plan,
which Hitler had conceived and worked out years earlier.
Without this plan, the nation would have collapsed into anarchy.
All-encompassing, this program included broad industrial recovery as
well as detailed attention to even construction of comfortable inns
along the new highway network.
It took several years for a stable social structure to emerge from the
French Revolution. The Soviets needed even more time: five years after
the Bolshevik revolution of 1917, hundreds of thousands of Russians
were still dying of hunger and disease. In Germany, by contrast, the
great machinery was in motion within months, with organization and
accomplishment quickly meshing together…
Hitler personally dug the first spadeful of earth for the first
Autobahn highway, linking Frankfurt-am-Main with Darmstadt. For the
occasion, he brought along Dr. Schacht, the man whose visionary credit
wizardry had made the project possible. The official procession moved
ahead, three cars abreast in front, then six across, spanning the
entire width of the autobahn…
Hitler's plan to build thousands of low-cost homes also demanded a
vast mobilization of manpower. He had envisioned housing that would be
attractive, cozy, and affordable for millions of ordinary German
working-class families. He had no intention of continuing to tolerate,
as his predecessors had, cramped, ugly "rabbit warren" housing for the
German people. The great barracks-like housing projects on the
outskirts of factory towns, packed with cramped families, disgusted
him.
The greater part of the houses he would build were single story,
detached dwellings, with small yards where children could romp, wives
could grow vegetable and flower gardens, while the bread-winners could
read their newspapers in peace after the day's work. These
single-family homes were built to conform to the architectural styles
of the various German regions, retaining as much as possible the
charming local variants.
Wherever there was no practical alternative to building large
apartment complexes, Hitler saw to it that the individual apartments
were spacious, airy and enhanced by surrounding lawns and gardens
where the children could play safely.
The new housing was, of course, built in conformity with the highest
standards of public health, a consideration notoriously neglected in
previous working-class projects.
Generous loans, amortizable in ten years, were granted to newly
married couples so they could buy their own homes. At the birth of
each child, a fourth of the debt was cancelled. Four children, at the
normal rate of a new arrival every two and a half years, sufficed to
cancel the entire loan debt.
Once, during a conversation with Hitler, I expressed my astonishment
at this policy. "But then, you never get back the total amount of your
loans?," I asked. "How so?" he replied, smiling. "Over a period of ten
years, a family with four children brings in much more than our loans,
through the taxes levied on a hundred different items of consumption."
As it happened, tax revenues increased every year, in proportion to
the rise in expenditures for Hitler's social programs. In just a few
years, revenue from taxes tripled. Hitler's Germany never experienced
a financial crisis.
To stimulate the moribund economy demanded the nerve, which Hitler
had, to invest money that the government didn't yet have, rather than
passively waiting-in accordance with "sound" financial principles-for
the economy to revive by itself.
Today, our whole era is dying economically because we have succumbed
to fearful hesitation. Enrichment follows investment, not the other
way around…
Even before the year 1933 had ended, Hitler had succeeded in building
202,119 housing units. Within four years he would provide the German
people with nearly a million and a half (1,458,128) new dwellings!
Moreover, workers would no longer be exploited as they had been. A
month's rent for a worker could not exceed 26 marks, or about an
eighth of the average wage then. Employees with more substantial
salaries paid monthly rents of up to 45 marks maximum.
Equally effective social measures were taken in behalf of farmers, who
had the lowest incomes. In 1933 alone 17,611 new farm houses were
built, each of them surrounded by a parcel of land one thousand square
meters in size. Within three years, Hitler would build 91,000 such
farmhouses…
Everywhere industry was hiring again, with some firms-like Krupp, IG
Farben and the large automobile manufacturers-taking on new workers on
a very large scale. As the country became more prosperous, car sales
increased by more than 80,000 units in 1933 alone. Employment in the
auto industry doubled. Germany was gearing up for full production,
with private industry leading the way.
The new government lavished every assistance on the private sector,
the chief factor in employment as well as production. Hitler almost
immediately made available 500 million marks in credits to private
business.
This start-up assistance given to German industry would repay itself
many times over. Soon enough, another two billion marks would be
loaned to the most enterprising companies. Nearly half would go into
new wages and salaries, saving the treasury an estimated three hundred
million marks in unemployment benefits. Added to the hundreds of
millions in tax receipts spurred by the business recovery, the state
quickly recovered its investment, and more.
Hitler's entire economic policy would be based on the following
equation: risk large sums to undertake great public works and to spur
the renewal and modernization of industry, then later recover the
billions invested through invisible and painless tax revenues. It
didn't take long for Germany to see the results of Hitler's recovery
formula.
Economic recovery, as important as it was, nevertheless wasn't
Hitler's only objective. As he strived to restore full employment,
Hitler never lost sight of his goal of creating a organization
powerful enough to stand up to capitalist owners and managers, who had
shown little concern for the health and welfare of the entire national
community.
Hitler would impose on everyone-powerful boss and lowly wage earner
alike-his own concept of the organic social community. Only the loyal
collaboration of everyone could assure the prosperity of all classes
and social groups.
Consistent with their doctrine, Germany's Marxist leaders had set
class against class, helping to bring the country to the brink of
economic collapse. Deserting their Marxist unions and political
parties in droves, most workers had come to realize that strikes and
grievances their leaders incited only crippled production, and thus
the workers as well.
By the of 1932, in any case, the discredited labor unions were
drowning in massive debt that realistically could never be repaid.
Some of the less scrupulous union officials, sensing the oncoming
catastrophe, had begun stealing hundreds of thousands of marks from
the workers they represented. The Marxist leaders had failed:
socially, financially and morally.
Every joint human activity requires a leader. The head of a factory or
business is also the person naturally responsible for it. He oversees
every aspect of production and work. In Hitler's Germany, the head of
a business had to be both a capable director and a person concerned
for the social justice and welfare of his employees. Under Hitler,
many owners and managers who had proven to be unjust, incompetent or
recalcitrant lost their jobs, or their businesses.
A considerable number of legal guarantees protected the worker against
any abuse of authority at the workplace. Their purpose was to insure
that the rights of workers were respected, and that workers were
treated as worthy collaborators, not just as animated tools. Each
industrialist was legally obliged to collaborate with worker delegates
in drafting shop regulations that were not imposed from above but
instead adapted to each business enterprise and its particular working
conditions. These regulations had to specify "the length of the
working day, the time and method of paying wages, and the safety
rules, and to be posted throughout the factory," within easy access of
both the worker whose interests might be angered and the owner or
manager whose orders might be subverted.
The thousands of different, individual versions of such regulations
served to create a healthy rivalry, with every factory group vying to
outdo the others in efficiency and justice.
One of the first reforms to benefit German workers was the
establishment of paid vacations. In France, the leftist Popular Front
government would noisily claim, in 1936, to have originated legally
mandated paid vacations-and stingy ones at that, only one week per
year. But it was actually Hitler who first established them, in 1933
-- and they were two or three times more generous.
Under Hitler, every factory employee had the legal right to paid
vacation. Previously, paid vacations had not normally exceed four or
five days, and nearly half of the younger workers had no vacation time
at all. If anything, Hitler favored younger workers; the youngest
workers received more generous vacations. This was humane and made
sense: a young person has more need of rest and fresh air to develop
his maturing strength and vigor. Thus, they enjoyed a full 18 days of
paid vacation per year.
Today, more than half a century later, these figures have been
surpassed, but in 1933 they far exceeded European norms.
The standard vacation was twelve days. Then, from the age of 25 on, it
went up to 18 days. After ten years with the company, workers got a
still longer vacation: 21 days, or three times what the French
socialists would grant the workers of their country in 1936.
Hitler introduced the standard forty-hour work week in Europe. As for
overtime work, it was now compensated, as nowhere else in the
continent at the time, at an increased pay rate. And with the
eight-hour work day now the norm, overtime work became more readily
available.
In another innovation, work breaks were made longer: two hours each
day, allowing greater opportunity for workers to relax, and to make
use of the playing fields that large industries were now required to
provide.
Whereas a worker's right to job security had been virtually
non-existent, now an employee could no longer be dismissed at the sole
discretion of the employer. Hitler saw to it that workers' rights were
spelled out and enforced. Henceforth, an employer had to give four
weeks notice before firing an employee, who then had up to two months
to appeal the dismissal. Dismissals could also be annulled by the
"Courts of Social Honor" (Ehrengerichte).
This Court was one of three great institutions that were established
to protect German workers. The others were the "Labor Commissions" and
the "Council of Trust."
The "Council of Trust" (Vertrauensrat) was responsible for
establishing and developing a real spirit of community between
management and labor. "In every business enterprise," the 1934 "Labor
Charter" law stipulated, "the employer and head of the enterprise
(Führer), the employees and workers, personnel of the enterprise,
shall work jointly toward the goal of the enterprise and the common
good of the nation."
No longer would either be exploited by the other-neither the worker by
arbitrary whim of the employer, nor the employer through the blackmail
of strikes for political ends.
Article 35 of the "Labor Charter" law stated: "Every member of an
enterprise community shall assume the responsibility required by his
position in said common enterprise." In short, each enterprise would
be headed by a dynamic executive, charged with a sense of the greater
community-no longer a selfish capitalist with unconditional, arbitrary
power.
"The interest of the community may require that an incapable or
unworthy employer be relieved of his duties," the "Labor Charter"
stipulated. The employer was no longer unassailable, an all-powerful
boss with the last word on hiring and firing his staff. He, too, would
be subject to the workplace regulations, which he was now obliged to
respect no less than the least of his employees. The law conferred the
honor and responsibility of authority on the employer only insofar as
he merited it…
In the Third Reich, the worker knew that "exploitation of his physical
strength in bad faith or in violation of his honor" was no longer
tolerated. He had obligations to the community, but he shared these
obligations with every other member of the enterprise, from the chief
executive to the messenger boy. Finally, the German worker had clearly
defined social rights, which were arbitrated and enforced by
independent agencies. And while all this had been achieved in an
atmosphere of justice and moderation, it nevertheless constituted a
genuine social revolution…
Factories and shops, large and small, were altered or transformed to
conform to the strictest standards of cleanliness and hygiene:
interiors, so often dark and stifling, were opened up to light;
playing fields were constructed; rest areas where workers could unbend
during break, were set aside; employee cafeterias and respectable
locker rooms were opened. The larger industrial establishments, in
addition to providing the normally required conventional sports
facilities, were obliged to put in swimming pools!
In just three years, these achievements would reach unimagined
heights: more than two thousand factories refitted and beautified;
23,000 work premises modernized; 800 buildings designed exclusively
for meetings; 1,200 playing fields; 13,000 sanitary facilities; 17,000
cafeterias.
To assure the healthy development of the working class, physical
education courses were instituted for younger workers. Some 8,000 were
eventually organized. Technical training was equally emphasized.
Hundreds of work schools, and thousands of technical courses were
created. There were examinations for professional competence, and
competitions in which generous prizes were awarded to outstanding
masters of their craft.
Eight hundred departmental inspectors and 17,300 local inspectors were
employed to conscientiously monitor and promote these improvements.
To provide affordable vacations for German workers on a hitherto
unprecedented scale, Hitler established the "Strength through Joy"
program. As a result, hundreds of thousands of workers were now able
to make relaxing vacation trips on land and sea each summer.
Magnificent cruise ships were built, and special trains brought
vacationers to the mountains and the seashore. In just a few years,
Germany's working-class tourists would log a distance equivalent to 54
times the circumference of the earth! And thanks to generous state
subsidies, the cost to workers of these popular vacation excursions
was nearly insignificant…
Was Hitler's transformation of the lot of the working class
authoritarian? Without a doubt. And yet, for a people that had grown
sick and tired of anarchy, this new authoritarianism wasn't regarded
as an imposition. In fact, people have always accepted a strong man's
leadership.
In any case, there is no doubt that the attitude of the German working
class, which was still two-thirds non-Nazi at the start of 1933, soon
changed completely. As Belgian author Marcel Laloire noted at the
time:
When you make your way through the cities of Germany and go into the
working-class districts, go through the factories, the construction
yards, you are astonished to find so many workers on the job sporting
the Hitler insignia, to see so many flags with the swastika, black on
a bright red background, in the most densely populated districts.
Hitler's "German Labor Front" (Deutsche Arbeitsfront), which
incorporated all workers and employers, was for the most part eagerly
accepted. The steel spades of the sturdy young lads of the "National
Labor Service" (Reichsarbeitsdienst) could also be seen gleaming along
the highways.
Hitler created the National Labor Service not only to alleviate
unemployment, but to bring together, in absolute equality, and in the
same uniform, both the sons of millionaires and the sons of the
poorest families for several months' common labor and living.
All performed the same work, all were subject to the same discipline;
they enjoyed the same pleasures and benefited from the same physical
and moral development. At the same construction sites and in the same
barracks, Germans became conscious of what they had in common, grew to
understand one another, and discarded their old prejudices of class
and caste.
After a hitch in the National Labor Service, a young worker knew that
the rich man's son was not a pampered monster, while the young lad of
wealthy family knew that the worker's son had no less honor than a
nobleman or an heir to riches; they had lived and worked together as
comrades. Social hatred was vanishing, and a socially united people
was being born.
Hitler could go into factories-something few men of the so-called
Right would have risked in the past-and hold forth to crowds of
workers, at times in the thousands, as at the huge Siemens works. "In
contrast to the von Papens and other country gentlemen," he might tell
them, "in my youth I was a worker like you. And in my heart of hearts,
I have remained what I was then."
During his twelve years in power, no untoward incident ever occurred
at any factory he visited. Hitler was at home when he went among the
people, and he was received like a member of the family returning home
after making a success of himself.
But the Chancellor of the Third Reich wanted more than popular
approval. He wanted that approval to be freely, widely, and repeatedly
expressed by popular vote. No people was ever be more frequently asked
for their electoral opinion than the German people of that era-five
times in five years.
For Hitler, it was not enough that the people voted from time to time,
as in the previous democratic system. In those days, voters were
rarely appealed to, and when they expressed an opinion, they were
often ill-informed and apathetic. After an election, years might go
by, during which the politicians were heedless and inaccessible, the
electorate powerless to vote on their actions.
To enable the German public to express its opinion on the occasion of
important events of social, national, or international significance,
Hitler provided the people a new means of approving or rejecting his
own actions as Chancellor: the plebiscite.
Hitler recognized the right of all the people, men and women alike, to
vote by secret ballot: to voice their opinion of his policies, or to
make a well-grounded judgment on this or that great decision in
domestic or foreign affairs. Rather than a formalistic routine,
democracy became a vital, active program of supervision that was
renewed annually.
The articles of the "Plebiscite Law" were brief and clear:
1. The Reich government may ask the people whether or not it
approves of a measure planned by or taken by the government. This may
also apply to a law.
2. A measure submitted to plebiscite will be considered as
established when it receives a simple majority of the votes. This will
apply as well to a law modifying the Constitution.
3. If the people approves the measure in question, it will be
applied in conformity with article III of the Law for Overcoming the
Distress of the People and the Reich.
The Reich Interior Ministry is authorized to take all legal and
administrative measures necessary to carry out this law.
Berlin, July 14, 1933.
Hitler, Frick…
From the first months of 1933, his accomplishments were public fact,
for all to see. Before end of the year, unemployment in Germany had
fallen from more than 6,000,000 to 3,374,000. Thus, 2,627,000 jobs had
been created since the previous February, when Hitler began his
"gigantic task!" A simple question: Who in Europe ever achieved
similar results in so short a time?…
In his detailed and critical biography of Hitler, Joachim Fest limited
his treatment of Hitler's extraordinary social achievements in 1933 to
a few paragraphs. All the same, Fest did not refrain from
acknowledging:
The regime insisted that it was not the rule of one social class above
all others, and by granting everyone opportunities to rise, it in fact
demonstrated class neutrality-These measures did indeed break through
the old, petrified social structures. They tangibly improved the
material condition of much of the population. (J. Fest, Hitler, pp.
434-435.)
Not without reason were the swastika banners waving proudly throughout
the working-class districts where, just a year ago, they had been
unceremoniously torn down.

http://www.ihr.org/ http://www.natvan.com

http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.nsm88.com/

http://wsi.matriots.com/jews.html
Jasin Zujovic
2007-10-08 19:30:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
tl;dr
Post by Topaz
Leon Degrelle
"We have the power. Now our gigantic work begins."
Those were Hitler's words on the night of January 30, 1933, as
cheering crowds surged past him, for five long hours, beneath the
windows of the Chancellery in Berlin.
His political struggle had lasted 14 years. He himself was 43, that
is, physically and intellectually at the peak of his powers. He had
won over millions of Germans and organized them into Germany's largest
and most dynamic political party, a party girded by a human rampart of
hundreds of thousands of storm troopers, three fourths of them members
of the working class. He had been extremely shrewd. All but toying
with his adversaries, Hitler had, one after another, vanquished them
all.
Standing there at the window, his arm raised to the delirious throng,
he must have known a feeling of triumph. But he seemed almost torpid,
absorbed, as if lost in another world.
It was a world far removed from the delirium in the street, a world of
65 million citizens who loved him or hated him, but all of whom, from
that night on, had become his responsibility. And as he knew-as almost
all Germans knew on January 1933 -- that this was a crushing, an
almost desperate responsibility.
Half a century later, few people understand the crisis Germany faced
at that time. Today, it's easy to assume that Germans have always been
well-fed and even plump. But the Germans Hitler inherited were virtual
skeletons.
During the preceding years, a score of "democratic" governments had
come and gone, often in utter confusion. Instead of alleviating the
it was impossible for them to pursue any given plan for more than a
year or two. Germany had arrived at a dead end. In just a few years
there had been 224,000 suicides - a horrifying figure, bespeaking a
state of misery even more horrifying.
By the beginning of 1933, the misery of the German people was
virtually universal. At least six million unemployed and hungry
workers roamed aimlessly through the streets, receiving a pitiful
unemployment benefit of less than 42 marks per month. Many of those
out of work had families to feed, so that altogether some 20 million
Germans, a third of the country's population, were reduced to trying
to survive on about 40 pfennigs per person per day.
Unemployment benefits, moreover, were limited to a period of six
months. After that came only the meager misery allowance dispensed by
the welfare offices.
Notwithstanding the gross inadequacy of this assistance, by trying to
save the six million unemployed from total destruction, even for just
six months, both the state and local branches of the German government
saw themselves brought to ruin: in 1932 alone such aid had swallowed
up four billion marks, 57 percent of the total tax revenues of the
federal government and the regional states. A good many German
municipalities were bankrupt.
Those still lucky enough to have some kind of job were not much better
off. Workers and employees had taken a cut of 25 percent in their
wages and salaries. Twenty-one percent of them were earning between
100 and 250 marks per month; 69.2 percent of them, in January of 1933,
were being paid less than 1,200 marks annually. No more than about
100,000 Germans, it was estimated, were able to live without financial
worries.
During the three years before Hitler came to power, total earnings had
fallen by more than half, from 23 billion marks to 11 billion. The
average per capita income had dropped from 1,187 marks in 1929 to 627
marks, a scarcely tolerable level, in 1932. By January 1933, when
Hitler took office, 90 percent of the German people were destitute.
No one escaped the strangling effects of the unemployment. The
intellectuals were hit as hard as the working class. Of the 135,000
university graduates, 60 percent were without jobs. Only a tiny
minority was receiving unemployment benefits.
"The others," wrote one foreign observer, Marcel Laloire (in his book
New Germany), "are dependent on their parents or are sleeping in
flophouses. In the daytime they can be seen on the boulevards of
Berlin wearing signs on their backs to the effect that they will
accept any kind of work."
But there was no longer any kind of work.
The same drastic fall-off had hit Germany's cottage industry, which
comprised some four million workers. Its turnover had declined 55
percent, with total sales plunging from 22 billion to 10 billion
marks.
Hardest hit of all were construction workers; 90 percent of them were
unemployed.
Farmers, too, had been ruined, crushed by losses amounting to 12
billion marks. Many had been forced to mortgage their homes and their
land. In 1932 just the interest on the loans they had incurred due to
the crash was equivalent to 20 percent of the value of the
agricultural production of the entire country. Those who were no
longer able to meet the interest payments saw their farms auctioned
off in legal proceedings: in the years 1931-1932, 17,157 farms-with a
combined total area of 462,485 hectares - were liquidated in this way.
The "democracy" of Germany's "Weimar Republic" (1918 -1933) had proven
utterly ineffective in addressing such flagrant wrongs as this
impoverishment of millions of farm workers, even though they were the
nation's most stable and hardest working citizens. Plundered,
dispossessed, abandoned: small wonder they heeded Hitler's call.
Their situation on January 30, 1933, was tragic. Like the rest of
Germany's working class, they had been betrayed by their political
leaders, reduced to the alternatives of miserable wages, paltry and
uncertain benefit payments, or the outright humiliation of begging.
Germany's industries, once renowned everywhere in the world, were no
longer prosperous, despite the millions of marks in gratuities that
the financial magnates felt obliged to pour into the coffers of the
parties in power before each election in order to secure their
cooperation. For 14 years the well-blinkered conservatives and
Christian democrats of the political center had been feeding at the
trough just as greedily as their adversaries of the left…
One inevitable consequence of this ever-increasing misery and
uncertainty about the future was an abrupt decline in the birthrate.
When your household savings are wiped out, and when you fear even
greater calamities in the days ahead, you do not risk adding to the
number of your dependents.
In those days the birth rate was a reliable barometer of a country's
prosperity. A child is a joy, unless you have nothing but a crust of
bread to put in its little hand. And that's just the way it was with
hundreds of thousands of German families in 1932…
Hitler knew that he would be starting from zero. From less than zero.
But he was also confident of his strength of will to create Germany
anew-politically, socially, financially, and economically. Now legally
and officially in power, he was sure that he could quickly convert
that cipher into a Germany more powerful than ever before.
What support did he have?
For one thing, he could count on the absolute support of millions of
fanatical disciples. And on that January evening, they joyfully shared
in the great thrill of victory. Some thirteen million Germans, many of
them former Socialists and Communists, had voted for his party.
But millions of Germans were still his adversaries, disconcerted
adversaries, to be sure, whom their own political parties had
betrayed, but who had still not been won over to National Socialism.
The two sides-those for and those against Hitler-were very nearly
equal in numbers. But whereas those on the left were divided among
themselves, Hitler's disciples were strongly united. And in one thing
above all, the National Socialists had an incomparable advantage: in
their convictions and in their total faith in a leader. Their highly
organized and well-disciplined party had contented with the worst kind
of obstacles, and had overcome them…
In the eyes of the capitalists, money was the sole active element in
the flourishing of a country's economy. To Hitler's way of thinking,
that conception was radically wrong: capital, on the contrary, was
only an instrument. Work was the essential element: man's endeavor,
man's honor, blood, muscles and soul.
Hitler wanted not just to put an to the class struggle, but to
reestablish the priority of the human being, in justice and respect,
as the principal factor in production…
For the worker's trust in the fatherland to be restored, he had to
feel that from now on he was to be (and to be treated) as an equal,
instead of remaining a social inferior. Under the governments of the
so-called democratic parties of both the left and the right, he had
remained an inferior; for none of them had understood that in the
hierarchy of national values, work is the very essence of life; …
The objective, then, was far greater than merely getting six million
unemployed back to work. It was to achieve a total revolution.
"The people," Hitler declared, "were not put here on earth for the
sake of the economy, and the economy doesn't exist for the sake of
capital. On the contrary, capital is meant to serve the economy, and
the economy in turn to serve the people."
It would not be enough merely to reopen the thousands of closed
factories and fill them with workers. If the old concepts still ruled,
the workers would once again be nothing more than living machines,
faceless and interchangeable…
Nowhere in twentieth-century Europe had the authority of a head of
state ever been based on such overwhelming and freely given national
consent. Prior to Hitler, from 1919 to 1932, those governments piously
styling themselves democratic had usually come to power by meager
majorities, sometimes as low as 51 or 52 percent.
"I am not a dictator," Hitler had often affirmed, "and I never will
be. Democracy will be rigorously enforced by National Socialism."
Authority does not mean tyranny. A tyrant is someone who puts himself
in power without the will of the people or against the will of the
people. A democrat is placed in power by the people. But democracy is
not limited to a single formula. It may be partisan or parliamentary.
Or it may be authoritarian. The important thing is that the people
have wished it, chosen it, established it in its given form.
That was the case with Hitler. He came to power in an essentially
democratic way. Whether one likes it or not, this fact is undeniable.
And after coming to power, his popular support measurably increased
from year to year. The more intelligent and honest of his enemies have
been obliged to admit this, men such as the declared anti-Nazi
For Hitler was never interested in establishing a mere tyranny. Sheer
greed for power will not suffice as explanation for his personality
and energy-He was not born to be a mere tyrant. He was fixated upon
his mission of defending Europe and the Aryan race ... Never had he
felt so dependent upon the masses as he did at this time, and he
watched their reactions with anxious concern.
These lines weren't written by Dr. Goebbels, but by a stern critic of
Hitler and his career…
When it came time to vote, Hitler was granted plenary powers with a
sweeping majority of 441 votes to 94: he had won not just two thirds,
but 82.44 percent of the assembly's votes. This "Enabling Act" granted
Hitler for four years virtually absolute authority over the
legislative as well as the executive affairs of the government…
After 1945 the explanation that was routinely offered for all this was
that the Germans had lost their heads. Whatever the case, it is a
historical fact that they acted of their own free will. Far from being
resigned, they were enthusiastic. "For the first time since the last
days of the monarchy," historian Joachim Fest has conceded, "the
majority of the Germans now had the feeling that they could identify
with the state."…
"You talk about persecution!" he thundered in an impromptu response to
an address by the Social Democratic speaker. "I think that there are
only a few of us [in our party] here who did not have to suffer
persecutions in prison from your side ... You seem to have totally
forgotten that for years our shirts were ripped off our backs because
you did not like the color . . . We have outgrown your persecutions!"
"In those days," he scathingly continued, "our newspapers were banned
and banned and again banned, our meetings were forbidden, and we were
forbidden to speak, I was forbidden to speak, for years on. And now
you say that criticism is salutary!"…
Hitler's millions of followers had rediscovered the primal strength of
rough, uncitified man, of a time when men still had backbone…
Gustav Noske, the lumberjack who became defense minister - and the
most valiant defender of the embattled republic in the tumultuous
months immediately following the collapse of 1918 - acknowledged
honestly in 1944, when the Third Reich was already rapidly breaking
down, that the great majority of the German people still remained true
to Hitler because of the social renewal he had brought to the working
class…
Here again, well before the collapse of party-ridden Weimar Republic,
disillusion with the unions had become widespread among the working
masses. They were starving. The hundreds of Socialist and Communist
deputies stood idly by, impotent to provide any meaningful help to the
desperate proletariat.
Their leaders had no proposals to remedy, even partially, the great
distress of the people; no plans for large-scale public works, no
industrial restructuring, no search for markets abroad.
Moreover, they offered no energetic resistance to the pillaging by
foreign countries of the Reich's last financial resources: this a
consequence of the Treaty of Versailles that the German Socialists had
voted to ratify in June of 1919, and which they had never since had
the courage effectively to oppose…
the number of unemployed rose from two million to three, to four, to
five, then to six million. At the same time, unemployment benefits
fell lower and lower, finally to disappear completely. Everywhere one
saw dejection and privation: emaciated mothers, children wasting away
in sordid lodgings, and thousands of beggars in long sad lines.
The failure, or incapacity, of the leftist leaders to act, not to
mention their insensitivity, had stupefied the working class. Of what
use were such leaders with their empty heads and empty hearts-and,
often enough, full pockets?
Well before January 30, thousands of workers had already joined up
with Hitler's dynamic formations, which were always hard at it where
they were most needed. Many joined the National Socialists when they
went on strike. Hitler, himself a former worker and a plain man like
themselves, was determined to eliminate unemployment root and branch.
He wanted not merely to defend the laborer's right to work, but to
make his calling one of honor, to insure him respect and to integrate
him fully into a living community of all the Germans, who had been
divided class against class.
In January 1933, Hitler's victorious troops were already largely
proletarian in character, including numerous hardfisted street
brawlers, many unemployed, who no longer counted economically or
socially.
Meanwhile, membership in the Marxist labor unions had fallen off
enormously: among thirteen million socialist and Communist voters in
1932, no more than five million were union members. Indifference and
discouragement had reached such levels that many members no longer
paid their union dues. Many increasingly dispirited Marxist leaders
began to wonder if perhaps the millions of deserters were the ones who
saw things clearly. Soon they wouldn't wonder any longer.
Even before Hitler won Reichstag backing for his "Enabling Act,"
Germany's giant labor union federation, the ADGB, had begun to rally
to the National Socialist cause. As historian Joachim Fest
acknowledged: "On March 20, the labor federation's executive committee
addressed a kind of declaration of loyalty to Hitler." (J. Fest,
Hitler, p. 413.)
Hitler than took a bold and clever step. The unions had always
clamored to have the First of May recognized as a worker's holiday,
but the Weimar Republic had never acceded to their request. Hitler,
never missing an opportunity, grasped this one with both hands. He did
more than grant this reasonable demand: he proclaimed the First of May
a national holiday…
I myself attended the memorable meeting at the Tempelhof field in
1933. By nine o'clock that morning, giant columns, some of workers,
others of youth groups, marching in cadence down the pavement of
Berlin's great avenues, had started off towards the airfield to which
Hitler had called together all Germans. All Germany would follow the
rally as it was transmitted nationwide by radio…
In the dark, a group of determined opponents could easily have heckled
Hitler or otherwise sabotaged the meeting. Perhaps a third of the
onlookers had been Socialists or Communists only three months
previously. But not a single hostile voice was raised during the
entire ceremony. There was only universal acclamation.
Ceremony is the right word for it. It was an almost magical rite.
Hitler and Goebbels had no equals in the arranging of dedicatory
ceremonies of this sort. First there were popular songs, then great
Wagnerian hymns to grip the audience. Germany has a passion for
orchestral music, and Wagner taps the deepest and most secret vein of
the German soul, its romanticism, its inborn sense of the powerful and
the grand.
Meanwhile the hundreds of flags floated above the rostrum, redeemed
from the darkness by arrows of light.
Now Hitler strode to the rostrum. For those standing at the of the
field, his face must have appeared vanishingly small, but his words
flooded instantaneously across the acres of people in his audience.
A Latin audience would have preferred a voice less harsh, more
delicately expressive. But there was no doubt that Hitler spoke to the
psyche of the German people.
Germans have rarely had the good fortune to experience the enchantment
of the spoken word. In Germany, the tone has always been set by
ponderous speakers, more fond of elephantine pedantry than oratorical
passion. Hitler, as a speaker, was a prodigy, the greatest orator of
a mysterious ability to project power.
A bit like a medium or sorcerer, he was seized, even transfixed, as he
addressed a crowd. It responded to Hitler's projection of power,
radiating it back, establishing, in the course of myriad exchanges, a
current that both orator and audience gave to and drew from equally.
One had to personally experience him speaking to understand this
phenomenon.
This special gift is what lay at the basis of Hitler's ability to win
over the masses. His high-voltage, lightning-like projection
transported and transformed all who experienced it. Tens of millions
were enlightened, riveted and inflamed by the fire of his anger,
irony, and passion.
By the time the cheering died away that May first evening, hundreds of
thousands of previously indifferent or even hostile workers who had
come to Tempelhof at the urging of their labor federation leaders were
now won over. They had become followers, like the SA stormtroopers
whom so many there that evening had brawled with in recent years.
The great human sea surged back from Tempelhof to Berlin. A million
and a half people had arrived in perfect order, and their departure
was just as orderly. No bottlenecks halted the cars and busses. For
those of us who witnessed it, this rigorous, yet joyful, discipline of
a contented people was in itself a source of wonder. Everything about
the May Day mass meeting had come off as smoothly clockwork.
The memory of that fabulous crowd thronging back to the center of
Berlin will never leave me. A great many were on foot. Their faces
were now different faces, as though they had been imbued with a
strange and totally new spirit. The non-Germans in the crowd were as
if stunned, and no less impressed than Hitler's fellow countrymen.
The foreigners on the speaker's platform as guests of honor were not
alone in carrying away the impression of a truly beautiful and
wonderful public festival, an impression that was created by the
regime's genius for organization, by the night time display of
uniforms, by the play of lights, the rhythm of the music, by the flags
and the colorful fireworks; and they were not alone in thinking that a
breath of reconciliation and unity was passing over the Third Reich.
"It is our wish," Hitler had exclaimed, as though taking heaven as his
witness, "to get along together and to struggle together as brothers,
so that at the hour when we shall come before God, we might say to
him: 'See, Lord, we have changed. The German people are no longer a
people ashamed, a people mean and cowardly and divided. No, Lord! The
German people have become strong in their spirit, in their will, in
their perseverance, in their acceptance of any sacrifice. Lord, we
remain faithful to Thee! Bless our struggle!" (A. François-Poncet,
Souvenirs d'une ambassade à Berlin, p. 128.)
Who else could have made such an incantatory appeal without making
himself look ridiculous?
No politician had ever spoken of the rights of workers with such faith
and such force, or had laid out in such clear terms the social plan he
pledged to carry out on behalf of the common people.
The next day, the newspaper of the proletarian left, the "Union
Journal," reported on this mass meeting at which at least two thirds-a
million-of those attending were workers. "This May First was victory
day," the paper summed up.
With the workers thus won over, what further need was there for the
thousands of labor union locals that for so long had poisoned the
social life of the Reich and which, in any case, had accomplished
nothing of a lasting, positive nature?
Within hours of the conclusion of that "victory" meeting at the
Tempelhof field, the National Socialists were able to peacefully take
complete control of Germany's entire labor union organization,
including all its buildings, enterprises and banks. An era of Marxist
obstruction abruptly came to an end : from now on, a single national
organization would embody the collective will and interests of all of
Germany's workers.
Although he was now well on his way to creating what he pledged would
be a true "government of the people," Hitler also realized that great
obstacles remained. For one thing, the Communist rulers in Moscow had
not dropped their guard-or their guns. Restoring the nation would take
more than words and promises, it would take solid achievements. Only
then would the enthusiasm shown by the working class at the May First
mass meeting be an expression of lasting victory.
How could Hitler solve the great problem that had defied solution by
everyone else (both in Germany and abroad): putting millions of
unemployed back to work?
What would Hitler do about wages? Working hours? Leisure time?
Housing? How would he succeed in winning, at long last, respect for
the rights and dignity of the worker?
How could men's lives be improved-materially, morally, and, one might
even say, spiritually? How would he proceed to build a new society fit
for human beings, free of the inertia, injustices and prejudices of
the past?
"National Socialism," Hitler had declared at the outset, "has its
mission and its hour; it is not just a passing movement but a phase of
history."
The instruments of real power now in his hands-an authoritarian state,
its provinces subordinate but nonetheless organic parts of the
national whole-Hitler had acted quickly to shake himself free of the
last constraints of the impotent sectarian political parties.
Moreover, he was now able to direct a cohesive labor force that was no
longer split into a thousand rivulets but flowed as a single, mighty
current.
Hitler was self-confident, sure of the power of his own conviction. He
had no intention, or need, to resort to the use of physical force.
Instead, he intended to win over, one by one, the millions of Germans
who were still his adversaries, and even those who still hated him.
His conquest of Germany had taken years of careful planning and hard
work. Similarly, he would now realize his carefully worked out plans
for transforming the state and society. This meant not merely changes
in administrative or governmental structures, but far-reaching social
programs.
He had once vowed: "The hour will come when the 15 million people who
now hate us will be solidly behind us and will acclaim with us the new
revival we shall create together." Eventually he would succeed in
winning over even many of his most refractory skeptics and
adversaries.
His army of converts was already forming ranks. In a remarkable
tribute, historian Joachim Fest felt obliged to acknowledge
Hitler had moved rapidly from the status of a demagogue to that of a
respected statesman. The craving to join the ranks of the victors was
spreading like an epidemic, and the shrunken minority of those who
resisted the urge were being visibly pushed into isolation-The past
was dead. The future, it seemed, belonged to the regime, which had
more and more followers, which was being hailed everywhere and
suddenly had sound reasons on its side.
And even the prominent leftist writer Kurt Tucholsky, sensing the
direction of the inexorable tide that was sweeping Germany, vividly
commented: "You don't go railing against the ocean." (J. Fest, Hitler,
pp. 415 f.)
"Our power," Hitler was now able to declare, "no longer belongs to any
territorial fraction of the Reich, nor to any single class of the
nation, but to the people in its totality."
Much still remained to be done, however. So far, Hitler had succeeded
in clearing the way of obstacles to his program. Now the time to build
had arrived.
So many others had failed to tackle the many daunting problems that
were now his responsibility. Above all, the nation demanded a solution
to the great problem of unemployment. Could Hitler now succeed where
others had so dismally failed?…
Unemployment could be combated and eliminated only by giving industry
the financial means to start up anew, to modernize, thus creating
millions of new jobs.
The normal rate of consumption would not be restored, let alone
increased, unless one first raised the starvation-level allowances
that were making purchases of any kind a virtual impossibility. On the
contrary, production and sales would have to be restored before the
six million unemployed could once again become purchasers.
The great economic depression could be overcome only by restimulating
industry, by bringing industry into step with the times, and by
promoting the development of new products…
Nearly ten years earlier, while in his prison cell, Hitler had already
envisioned a formidable system of national highways. He had also
conceived of a small, easily affordable automobile (later known as the
"Volkswagen"), and had even suggested its outline. It should have the
shape of a June bug, he proposed. Nature itself suggested the car's
aerodynamic line.
Until Hitler came to power, a car was the privilege of the rich. It
was not financially within the reach of the middle class, much less of
the worker. The "Volkswagen," costing one-tenth as much as the
standard automobile of earlier years, would eventually become a
popular work vehicle and a source of pleasure after work: a way to
unwind and get some fresh air, and of discovering, thanks to the new
Autobahn highway network, a magnificent country that then, in its
totality, was virtually unknown to the German worker.
From the beginning, Hitler wanted this economical new car to be built
for the millions. The production works would also become one of
Germany's most important industrial centers and employers.
During his imprisonment, Hitler had also drawn up plans for the
construction of popular housing developments and majestic public
buildings.
Some of Hitler's rough sketches still survive. They include groups of
individual worker's houses with their own gardens (which were to be
built in the hundreds of thousands), a plan for a covered stadium in
Berlin, and a vast congress hall, unlike any other in the world, that
would symbolize the grandeur of the National Socialist revolution.
"A building with a monumental dome," historian Werner Maser has
explained, "the plan of which he drew while he was writing Mein Kampf,
would have a span of 46 meters, a height of 220 meters, a diameter of
250 meters, and a capacity of 150 to 190 thousand people standing. The
interior of the building would have been 17 times larger than Saint
Peter's Cathedral in Rome." (W. Maser, Hitler, Adolf, p. 100.)
"That hall," architect Albert Speer has pointed out, "was not just an
idle dream impossible of achievement."
Hitler's imagination, therefore, had long been teeming with a number
of ambitious projects, many of which would eventually be realized.
Fortunately, the needed entrepreneurs, managers and technicians were
on hand. Hitler would not have to improvise.
Historian Werner Maser, although quite anti-Hitler-like nearly all of
his colleagues (how else would they have found publishers?) - has
acknowledged: "From the beginning of his political career, he [Hitler]
took great pains systematically to arrange for whatever he was going
to need in order to carry out his plans."
"Hitler was distinguished," Maser has also noted, "by an exceptional
intelligence in technical matters." Hitler had acquired his knowledge
by devoting many thousands of hours to technical studies from the time
of his youth.
"Hitler read an endless number of books," explained Dr. Schacht. "He
acquired a very considerable amount of knowledge and made masterful
use of it in discussions and speeches. In certain respects he was a
man endowed with genius. He had ideas that no one else would ever have
thought of, ideas that resulted in the ending of great difficulties,
sometimes by measures of an astonishing simplicity or brutality."
Many billions of marks would be needed to begin the great
socioeconomic revolution that was destined, as Hitler had always
intended, to make Germany once again the European leader in industry
and commerce and, most urgently, to rapidly wipe out unemployment in
Germany. Where would the money be found? And, once obtained, how would
these funds be allotted to ensure maximum effectiveness in their
investment?
Hitler was by no means a dictator in matters of the economy. He was,
rather, a stimulator. His government would undertake to do only that
which private initiative could not.
Hitler believed in the importance of individual creative imagination
and dynamism, in the need for every person of superior ability and
skill to assume responsibility.
He also recognized the importance of the profit motive. Deprived of
the prospect of having his efforts rewarded, the person of ability
often refrains from running risks. The economic failure of Communism
has demonstrated this. In the absence of personal incentives and the
opportunity for real individual initiative, the Soviet "command
economy" lagged in all but a few fields, its industry years behind its
competitors.
State monopoly tolls the death of all initiative, and hence of all
progress.
For all men selflessly to pool their wealth might be marvelous, but it
is also contrary to human nature. Nearly every man desires that his
labor shall improve his own condition and that of his family, and
feels that his brain, creative imagination, and persistence well
deserve their reward.
Because it disregarded these basic psychological truths, Soviet
Communism, right to the end, wallowed in economic mediocrity, in spite
of its immense reservoir of manpower, its technical expertise, and its
abundant natural resources, all of which ought to have made it an
industrial and technological giant.
Hitler was always adverse to the idea of state management of the
economy. He believed in elites. "A single idea of genius," he used to
say, "has more value than a lifetime of conscientious labor in an
office."
Just as there are political or intellectual elites, so also is there
an industrial elite. A manufacturer of great ability should not be
restrained, hunted down by the internal revenue services like a
criminal, or be unappreciated by the public. On the contrary, it is
important for economic development that the industrialist be
encouraged morally and materially, as much as possible.
The most fruitful initiatives Hitler would take from 1933 on would be
on behalf of private enterprise. He would keep an eye on the quality
of their directors, to be sure, and would shunt aside incompetents,
quite a few of them at times, but he also supported the best ones,
those with the keenest minds, the most imaginative and bold, even if
their political opinions did not always agree with his own.
"There is no question," he stated very firmly, "of dismissing a
factory owner or director under the pretext that he is not a National
Socialist."
Hitler would exercise the same moderation, the same pragmatism, in the
administrative as well as in the industrial sphere.
What he demanded of his co-workers, above all, was competence and
effectiveness. The great majority of Third Reich functionaries - some
80 percent-were never enrolled in the National Socialist party.
Several of Hitler's ministers, like Konstantin von Neurath and
Schwerin von Krosigk, and ambassadors to such key posts as Prague,
Vienna and Ankara, were not members of the party. But they were
capable…
no other single task facing the government at the moment can be so
truly urgent as conquering unemployment. That will take a lot of
money. Do you see any possibility of finding it apart from the
Reichsbank?" And after a moment, he added: "How much would it take? Do
you have any idea?"
Wishing to win Schacht over by appealing to his ambition, Hitler
smiled and then asked: "Would you be willing to once again assume
presidency of the Reichsbank?" Schacht let on that he had a
sentimental concern for Dr. Luther, and did not want to hurt the
incumbent's feelings. Playing along, Hitler reassured Schacht that he
would find an appropriate new job elsewhere for Luther.
Schacht then pricked up his ears, drew himself up, and focused his big
round eyes on Hitler: "Well, if that's the way it is," he said, "then
I am ready to assume the presidency of the Reichsbank again."
His great dream was being realized. Schacht had been president of the
Reichsbank between 1923 and 1930, but had been dismissed. Now he would
return in triumph. He felt vindicated. Within weeks, the ingenious
solution to Germany's pressing financial woes would burst forth from
his inventive brain.
"It was necessary," Schacht later explained, "to discover a method
that would avoid inflating the investment holdings of the Reichsbank
immoderately and consequently increasing the circulation of money
excessively."
"Therefore," he went on, "I had to find some means of getting the sums
that were lying idle in pockets and banks, without meaning for it to
be long term and without having it undergo the risk of depreciation.
That was the reasoning behind the Mefo bonds."
What were these "Mefo" bonds? Mefo was a contraction of the
Metallurgische Forschungs-GmbH (Metallurgic Research Company). With a
startup capitalization of one billion marks - which Hitler and Schacht
arranged to be provided by the four giant firms of Krupp, Siemens,
Deutsche Werke and Rheinmetall-this company would eventually promote
many billions of marks worth of investment.
Enterprises, old and new, that filled government orders had only to
draw drafts on Mefo for the amounts due. These drafts, when presented
to the Reichsbank, were immediately convertible into cash. The success
of the Mefo program depended entirely on public acceptance of the Mefo
bonds. But the wily Schacht had planned well. Since Mefo bonds were
short-term bonds that could be cashed in at any time, there was no
real risk in buying, accepting or holding them. They bore an interest
of four percent-a quite acceptable figure in those days-whereas
banknotes hidden under the mattress earned nothing. The public quickly
took all this into consideration and eagerly accepted the bonds.
While the Reichsbank was able to offer from its own treasury a
relatively insignificant 150 million marks for Hitler's war on
unemployment, in just four years the German public subscribed more
than 12 billion marks worth of Mefo bonds!
These billions, the fruit of the combined imagination, ingenuity and
astuteness of Hitler and Schacht, swept away the temporizing and
fearful conservatism of the bankers. Over the next four years, this
enormous credit reserve would make miracles possible.
Soon after the initial billion-mark credit, Schacht added another
credit of 600 million in order to finance the start of Hitler's grand
program for highway construction. This Autobahn program provided
immediate work for 100,000 of the unemployed, and eventually assured
wages for some 500,000 workers.
As large as this outlay was, it was immediately offset by a
corresponding cutback in government unemployment benefits, and by the
additional tax revenue generated as a result of the increase in living
standard (sping) of the newly employed.
Within a few months, thanks to the credit created by the Mefo bonds,
private industry once again dared to assume risks and expand. Germans
returned to work by the hundreds of thousands.
Was Schacht solely responsible for this extraordinary turnaround?
After the war, he answered for himself as a Nuremberg Tribunal
defendant, where he was charged with having made possible the Reich's
I don't think Hitler was reduced to begging for my help. If I had not
served him, he would have found other methods, other means. He was not
a man to give up. It's easy enough for you to say, Mr. Prosecutor,
that I should have watched Hitler die and not lifted a finger. But the
entire working class would have died with him!
Even Marxists recognized Hitler's success, and their own failure. In
the June 1934 issue of the Zeitschrift für Sozialismus, the journal of
Faced with the despair of proletarians reduced to joblessness, of
young people with diplomas and no future, of the middle classes of
merchants and artisans condemned to bankruptcy, and of farmers
terribly threatened by the collapse in agricultural prices, we all
failed. We weren't capable of offering the masses anything but
speeches about the glory of socialism.
VI. The Social Revolution
Hitler's tremendous social achievement in putting Germany's six
million unemployed back to work is seldom acknowledged today. Although
it was much more than a transitory achievement, "democratic"
historians routinely dismiss it in just a few lines. Since 1945, not a
single objective scholarly study has been devoted to this highly
significant, indeed unprecedented, historical phenomenon.
Similarly neglected is the body of sweeping reforms that dramatically
changed the condition of the worker in Germany. Factories were
transformed from gloomy caverns to spacious and healthy work centers,
with natural lighting, surrounded by gardens and playing fields.
Hundreds of thousands of attractive houses were built for working
class families. A policy of several weeks of paid vacation was
introduced, along with week and holiday trips by land and sea. A
wide-ranging program of physical and cultural education for young
workers was established, with the world's best system of technical
training. The Third Reich's social security and workers' health
insurance system was the world's most modern and complete.
This remarkable record of social achievement is routinely hushed up
today because it is embarrasses those who uphold the orthodox view of
the Third Reich. Otherwise, readers might begin to think that perhaps
Hitler was the greatest social builder of the twentieth century…
Nevertheless, restoring work and bread to millions of unemployed who
had been living in misery for years; restructuring industrial life;
conceiving and establishing an organization for the effective defense
and betterment of the nation's millions of wage earners; creating a
new bureaucracy and judicial system that guaranteed the civic rights
of each member of the national community, while simultaneously holding
each person to his or her responsibilities as a German citizen: this
organic body of reforms was part of a single, comprehensive plan,
which Hitler had conceived and worked out years earlier.
Without this plan, the nation would have collapsed into anarchy.
All-encompassing, this program included broad industrial recovery as
well as detailed attention to even construction of comfortable inns
along the new highway network.
It took several years for a stable social structure to emerge from the
French Revolution. The Soviets needed even more time: five years after
the Bolshevik revolution of 1917, hundreds of thousands of Russians
were still dying of hunger and disease. In Germany, by contrast, the
great machinery was in motion within months, with organization and
accomplishment quickly meshing together…
Hitler personally dug the first spadeful of earth for the first
Autobahn highway, linking Frankfurt-am-Main with Darmstadt. For the
occasion, he brought along Dr. Schacht, the man whose visionary credit
wizardry had made the project possible. The official procession moved
ahead, three cars abreast in front, then six across, spanning the
entire width of the autobahn…
Hitler's plan to build thousands of low-cost homes also demanded a
vast mobilization of manpower. He had envisioned housing that would be
attractive, cozy, and affordable for millions of ordinary German
working-class families. He had no intention of continuing to tolerate,
as his predecessors had, cramped, ugly "rabbit warren" housing for the
German people. The great barracks-like housing projects on the
outskirts of factory towns, packed with cramped families, disgusted
him.
The greater part of the houses he would build were single story,
detached dwellings, with small yards where children could romp, wives
could grow vegetable and flower gardens, while the bread-winners could
read their newspapers in peace after the day's work. These
single-family homes were built to conform to the architectural styles
of the various German regions, retaining as much as possible the
charming local variants.
Wherever there was no practical alternative to building large
apartment complexes, Hitler saw to it that the individual apartments
were spacious, airy and enhanced by surrounding lawns and gardens
where the children could play safely.
The new housing was, of course, built in conformity with the highest
standards of public health, a consideration notoriously neglected in
previous working-class projects.
Generous loans, amortizable in ten years, were granted to newly
married couples so they could buy their own homes. At the birth of
each child, a fourth of the debt was cancelled. Four children, at the
normal rate of a new arrival every two and a half years, sufficed to
cancel the entire loan debt.
Once, during a conversation with Hitler, I expressed my astonishment
at this policy. "But then, you never get back the total amount of your
loans?," I asked. "How so?" he replied, smiling. "Over a period of ten
years, a family with four children brings in much more than our loans,
through the taxes levied on a hundred different items of consumption."
As it happened, tax revenues increased every year, in proportion to
the rise in expenditures for Hitler's social programs. In just a few
years, revenue from taxes tripled. Hitler's Germany never experienced
a financial crisis.
To stimulate the moribund economy demanded the nerve, which Hitler
had, to invest money that the government didn't yet have, rather than
passively waiting-in accordance with "sound" financial principles-for
the economy to revive by itself.
Today, our whole era is dying economically because we have succumbed
to fearful hesitation. Enrichment follows investment, not the other
way around…
Even before the year 1933 had ended, Hitler had succeeded in building
202,119 housing units. Within four years he would provide the German
people with nearly a million and a half (1,458,128) new dwellings!
Moreover, workers would no longer be exploited as they had been. A
month's rent for a worker could not exceed 26 marks, or about an
eighth of the average wage then. Employees with more substantial
salaries paid monthly rents of up to 45 marks maximum.
Equally effective social measures were taken in behalf of farmers, who
had the lowest incomes. In 1933 alone 17,611 new farm houses were
built, each of them surrounded by a parcel of land one thousand square
meters in size. Within three years, Hitler would build 91,000 such
farmhouses…
Everywhere industry was hiring again, with some firms-like Krupp, IG
Farben and the large automobile manufacturers-taking on new workers on
a very large scale. As the country became more prosperous, car sales
increased by more than 80,000 units in 1933 alone. Employment in the
auto industry doubled. Germany was gearing up for full production,
with private industry leading the way.
The new government lavished every assistance on the private sector,
the chief factor in employment as well as production. Hitler almost
immediately made available 500 million marks in credits to private
business.
This start-up assistance given to German industry would repay itself
many times over. Soon enough, another two billion marks would be
loaned to the most enterprising companies. Nearly half would go into
new wages and salaries, saving the treasury an estimated three hundred
million marks in unemployment benefits. Added to the hundreds of
millions in tax receipts spurred by the business recovery, the state
quickly recovered its investment, and more.
Hitler's entire economic policy would be based on the following
equation: risk large sums to undertake great public works and to spur
the renewal and modernization of industry, then later recover the
billions invested through invisible and painless tax revenues. It
didn't take long for Germany to see the results of Hitler's recovery
formula.
Economic recovery, as important as it was, nevertheless wasn't
Hitler's only objective. As he strived to restore full employment,
Hitler never lost sight of his goal of creating a organization
powerful enough to stand up to capitalist owners and managers, who had
shown little concern for the health and welfare of the entire national
community.
Hitler would impose on everyone-powerful boss and lowly wage earner
alike-his own concept of the organic social community. Only the loyal
collaboration of everyone could assure the prosperity of all classes
and social groups.
Consistent with their doctrine, Germany's Marxist leaders had set
class against class, helping to bring the country to the brink of
economic collapse. Deserting their Marxist unions and political
parties in droves, most workers had come to realize that strikes and
grievances their leaders incited only crippled production, and thus
the workers as well.
By the of 1932, in any case, the discredited labor unions were
drowning in massive debt that realistically could never be repaid.
Some of the less scrupulous union officials, sensing the oncoming
catastrophe, had begun stealing hundreds of thousands of marks from
socially, financially and morally.
Every joint human activity requires a leader. The head of a factory or
business is also the person naturally responsible for it. He oversees
every aspect of production and work. In Hitler's Germany, the head of
a business had to be both a capable director and a person concerned
for the social justice and welfare of his employees. Under Hitler,
many owners and managers who had proven to be unjust, incompetent or
recalcitrant lost their jobs, or their businesses.
A considerable number of legal guarantees protected the worker against
any abuse of authority at the workplace. Their purpose was to insure
that the rights of workers were respected, and that workers were
treated as worthy collaborators, not just as animated tools. Each
industrialist was legally obliged to collaborate with worker delegates
in drafting shop regulations that were not imposed from above but
instead adapted to each business enterprise and its particular working
conditions. These regulations had to specify "the length of the
working day, the time and method of paying wages, and the safety
rules, and to be posted throughout the factory," within easy access of
both the worker whose interests might be angered and the owner or
manager whose orders might be subverted.
The thousands of different, individual versions of such regulations
served to create a healthy rivalry, with every factory group vying to
outdo the others in efficiency and justice.
One of the first reforms to benefit German workers was the
establishment of paid vacations. In France, the leftist Popular Front
government would noisily claim, in 1936, to have originated legally
mandated paid vacations-and stingy ones at that, only one week per
year. But it was actually Hitler who first established them, in 1933
-- and they were two or three times more generous.
Under Hitler, every factory employee had the legal right to paid
vacation. Previously, paid vacations had not normally exceed four or
five days, and nearly half of the younger workers had no vacation time
at all. If anything, Hitler favored younger workers; the youngest
workers received more generous vacations. This was humane and made
sense: a young person has more need of rest and fresh air to develop
his maturing strength and vigor. Thus, they enjoyed a full 18 days of
paid vacation per year.
Today, more than half a century later, these figures have been
surpassed, but in 1933 they far exceeded European norms.
The standard vacation was twelve days. Then, from the age of 25 on, it
went up to 18 days. After ten years with the company, workers got a
still longer vacation: 21 days, or three times what the French
socialists would grant the workers of their country in 1936.
Hitler introduced the standard forty-hour work week in Europe. As for
overtime work, it was now compensated, as nowhere else in the
continent at the time, at an increased pay rate. And with the
eight-hour work day now the norm, overtime work became more readily
available.
In another innovation, work breaks were made longer: two hours each
day, allowing greater opportunity for workers to relax, and to make
use of the playing fields that large industries were now required to
provide.
Whereas a worker's right to job security had been virtually
non-existent, now an employee could no longer be dismissed at the sole
discretion of the employer. Hitler saw to it that workers' rights were
spelled out and enforced. Henceforth, an employer had to give four
weeks notice before firing an employee, who then had up to two months
to appeal the dismissal. Dismissals could also be annulled by the
"Courts of Social Honor" (Ehrengerichte).
This Court was one of three great institutions that were established
to protect German workers. The others were the "Labor Commissions" and
the "Council of Trust."
The "Council of Trust" (Vertrauensrat) was responsible for
establishing and developing a real spirit of community between
management and labor. "In every business enterprise," the 1934 "Labor
Charter" law stipulated, "the employer and head of the enterprise
(Führer), the employees and workers, personnel of the enterprise,
shall work jointly toward the goal of the enterprise and the common
good of the nation."
No longer would either be exploited by the other-neither the worker by
arbitrary whim of the employer, nor the employer through the blackmail
of strikes for political ends.
Article 35 of the "Labor Charter" law stated: "Every member of an
enterprise community shall assume the responsibility required by his
position in said common enterprise." In short, each enterprise would
be headed by a dynamic executive, charged with a sense of the greater
community-no longer a selfish capitalist with unconditional, arbitrary
power.
"The interest of the community may require that an incapable or
unworthy employer be relieved of his duties," the "Labor Charter"
stipulated. The employer was no longer unassailable, an all-powerful
boss with the last word on hiring and firing his staff. He, too, would
be subject to the workplace regulations, which he was now obliged to
respect no less than the least of his employees. The law conferred the
honor and responsibility of authority on the employer only insofar as
he merited it…
In the Third Reich, the worker knew that "exploitation of his physical
strength in bad faith or in violation of his honor" was no longer
tolerated. He had obligations to the community, but he shared these
obligations with every other member of the enterprise, from the chief
executive to the messenger boy. Finally, the German worker had clearly
defined social rights, which were arbitrated and enforced by
independent agencies. And while all this had been achieved in an
atmosphere of justice and moderation, it nevertheless constituted a
genuine social revolution…
Factories and shops, large and small, were altered or transformed to
interiors, so often dark and stifling, were opened up to light;
playing fields were constructed; rest areas where workers could unbend
during break, were set aside; employee cafeterias and respectable
locker rooms were opened. The larger industrial establishments, in
addition to providing the normally required conventional sports
facilities, were obliged to put in swimming pools!
In just three years, these achievements would reach unimagined
heights: more than two thousand factories refitted and beautified;
23,000 work premises modernized; 800 buildings designed exclusively
for meetings; 1,200 playing fields; 13,000 sanitary facilities; 17,000
cafeterias.
To assure the healthy development of the working class, physical
education courses were instituted for younger workers. Some 8,000 were
eventually organized. Technical training was equally emphasized.
Hundreds of work schools, and thousands of technical courses were
created. There were examinations for professional competence, and
competitions in which generous prizes were awarded to outstanding
masters of their craft.
Eight hundred departmental inspectors and 17,300 local inspectors were
employed to conscientiously monitor and promote these improvements.
To provide affordable vacations for German workers on a hitherto
unprecedented scale, Hitler established the "Strength through Joy"
program. As a result, hundreds of thousands of workers were now able
to make relaxing vacation trips on land and sea each summer.
Magnificent cruise ships were built, and special trains brought
vacationers to the mountains and the seashore. In just a few years,
Germany's working-class tourists would log a distance equivalent to 54
times the circumference of the earth! And thanks to generous state
subsidies, the cost to workers of these popular vacation excursions
was nearly insignificant…
Was Hitler's transformation of the lot of the working class
authoritarian? Without a doubt. And yet, for a people that had grown
sick and tired of anarchy, this new authoritarianism wasn't regarded
as an imposition. In fact, people have always accepted a strong man's
leadership.
In any case, there is no doubt that the attitude of the German working
class, which was still two-thirds non-Nazi at the start of 1933, soon
changed completely. As Belgian author Marcel Laloire noted at the
When you make your way through the cities of Germany and go into the
working-class districts, go through the factories, the construction
yards, you are astonished to find so many workers on the job sporting
the Hitler insignia, to see so many flags with the swastika, black on
a bright red background, in the most densely populated districts.
Hitler's "German Labor Front" (Deutsche Arbeitsfront), which
incorporated all workers and employers, was for the most part eagerly
accepted. The steel spades of the sturdy young lads of the "National
Labor Service" (Reichsarbeitsdienst) could also be seen gleaming along
the highways.
Hitler created the National Labor Service not only to alleviate
unemployment, but to bring together, in absolute equality, and in the
same uniform, both the sons of millionaires and the sons of the
poorest families for several months' common labor and living.
All performed the same work, all were subject to the same discipline;
they enjoyed the same pleasures and benefited from the same physical
and moral development. At the same construction sites and in the same
barracks, Germans became conscious of what they had in common, grew to
understand one another, and discarded their old prejudices of class
and caste.
After a hitch in the National Labor Service, a young worker knew that
the rich man's son was not a pampered monster, while the young lad of
wealthy family knew that the worker's son had no less honor than a
nobleman or an heir to riches; they had lived and worked together as
comrades. Social hatred was vanishing, and a socially united people
was being born.
Hitler could go into factories-something few men of the so-called
Right would have risked in the past-and hold forth to crowds of
workers, at times in the thousands, as at the huge Siemens works. "In
contrast to the von Papens and other country gentlemen," he might tell
them, "in my youth I was a worker like you. And in my heart of hearts,
I have remained what I was then."
During his twelve years in power, no untoward incident ever occurred
at any factory he visited. Hitler was at home when he went among the
people, and he was received like a member of the family returning home
after making a success of himself.
But the Chancellor of the Third Reich wanted more than popular
approval. He wanted that approval to be freely, widely, and repeatedly
expressed by popular vote. No people was ever be more frequently asked
for their electoral opinion than the German people of that era-five
times in five years.
For Hitler, it was not enough that the people voted from time to time,
as in the previous democratic system. In those days, voters were
rarely appealed to, and when they expressed an opinion, they were
often ill-informed and apathetic. After an election, years might go
by, during which the politicians were heedless and inaccessible, the
electorate powerless to vote on their actions.
To enable the German public to express its opinion on the occasion of
important events of social, national, or international significance,
Hitler provided the people a new means of approving or rejecting his
own actions as Chancellor: the plebiscite.
Hitler recognized the right of all the people, men and women alike, to
vote by secret ballot: to voice their opinion of his policies, or to
make a well-grounded judgment on this or that great decision in
domestic or foreign affairs. Rather than a formalistic routine,
democracy became a vital, active program of supervision that was
renewed annually.
1. The Reich government may ask the people whether or not it
approves of a measure planned by or taken by the government. This may
also apply to a law.
2. A measure submitted to plebiscite will be considered as
established when it receives a simple majority of the votes. This will
apply as well to a law modifying the Constitution.
3. If the people approves the measure in question, it will be
applied in conformity with article III of the Law for Overcoming the
Distress of the People and the Reich.
The Reich Interior Ministry is authorized to take all legal and
administrative measures necessary to carry out this law.
Berlin, July 14, 1933.
Hitler, Frick…
From the first months of 1933, his accomplishments were public fact,
for all to see. Before end of the year, unemployment in Germany had
fallen from more than 6,000,000 to 3,374,000. Thus, 2,627,000 jobs had
been created since the previous February, when Hitler began his
"gigantic task!" A simple question: Who in Europe ever achieved
similar results in so short a time?…
In his detailed and critical biography of Hitler, Joachim Fest limited
his treatment of Hitler's extraordinary social achievements in 1933 to
a few paragraphs. All the same, Fest did not refrain from
The regime insisted that it was not the rule of one social class above
all others, and by granting everyone opportunities to rise, it in fact
demonstrated class neutrality-These measures did indeed break through
the old, petrified social structures. They tangibly improved the
material condition of much of the population. (J. Fest, Hitler, pp.
434-435.)
Not without reason were the swastika banners waving proudly throughout
the working-class districts where, just a year ago, they had been
unceremoniously torn down.
http://www.ihr.org/ http://www.natvan.com
http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.nsm88.com/
http://wsi.matriots.com/jews.html
Topaz
2007-10-09 21:19:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Here are some quotes from the book "Kampfzeit", (period of
struggle), by Hans Hinkel:

"Faster than lightening a lie about us spread throughout the country,
spread in every attic room where poor people lived by newspapers owned
or obedient to the opponent. It took a week of work by us National
Socialists to deal with a three-line lie in an opposing newspaper. As
soon as one lie was dealt with, a hundred more sprang up. Like a
hydra, the opponent's horror stories about National Socialism and its
supporters spread. There was not a speech by the Führer or his
associates that was not immediately twisted and tastefully served up
to the gullible Michael at breakfast or dinner. Adolf Hitler had "spat
out the communion wafer." Hermann Göring was smuggling opium or
morphine. Robert Ley has "lost a 'v'" in his name Pastor Münchmeyer
was guilty of "moral crimes" in Borkum. We often would have laughed
had we not hourly learned the amazing gullibility of millions of
German citizens who were trapped in the enemy's web of lies. The only
answer was for everyone to set to work with the people, going
everywhere to fight, speak and educate. Sooner or later the opponent
would have to face us and be revealed as a liar to the public."
"The city was like an upset anthill on that cold winter night. Roland
Freisler ran out from the chattering council meeting and went with us
to the nearby Friedrich Square where we spoke with the starving
masses. We forgot the middle class niceties! We had to stop Moscow
from winning over these citizens driven crazy by hunger, making them
wiling subjects of the insane ideas of Bolshevism"
"Only a few weeks later, I needed an escort to leave or return to my
apartment. Several loyal S.A. men had to be with me all the time,
since Communist unemployed men, unscrupulously incited against us
National Socialists, wanted to attack me now that they knew who I was.
Every day I joined the unemployed who demonstrated in the large
courtyard of the labor office on Giesberg Street. More than once I had
to be met by party members at the Kassel train station to protect me
from lurking Communist terror troops. It was the same or worse for all
of our prominent Kassel party members and S.A. men, just as for the
storm troops of our movement who risked their lives every day and
every hour in every city and every village of Germany. The enemy
naturally was particularly after us speakers. According to the law, we
had to be unarmed. We would have been in deep trouble if a body search
had found a weapon! A nail file was thought to be a weapon. Later even
a party badge, since it had a long needle!"
"The attempts of our party comrades to hold a National Socialist
meeting failed a half dozen times or more. Most meetings were made
impossible by the thousand-fold numerical superiority of the opponent,
or else broken up before they could finish. Our protective service
-every party member in each local group belongs - is still too weak in
most areas to stand up against the red avalanche, driven more and more
by the Communists. One National Socialist against five hundred or even
a thousand citizens, that is how it always is there!"
"After I had spoken about twenty minutes, a worker jumped up on a
table and called upon the "comrades" to leave the meeting of the
"Fascist band." Several dozen start singing the "Internationale" and
we have no choice but to overpower the growling of the comrades with
"Deutschland, Deutschland über alles." Another several hundred leave
the hall. The singing quieted down and peace was slowly restored. I
spoke to several hundred people at the end, all that were left of the
more than a thousand who were there to start."
"For years now we speakers have been traveling through every Gau in
Germany. I speak primarily in Saxony, Brandenburg, Hessen-Nassau and
in the West. We see that even red Saxony is streaming more and more to
National Socialism. The meetings are difficult, but always
successful."
"For how long? When would this hard battle end? When would more
Germans wake up? When would hundreds of thousands finally be ready to
march into battle behind the banner of National Socialism?! - None of
us thinks about the "when." Forward! - Only forward! Each heart won
over is a victory! The day will come...!"






http://www.ihr.org/ http://www.natvan.com

http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.nsm88.com/

http://wsi.matriots.com/jews.html
c***@yahoo.com
2007-10-05 06:40:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Malachias Invictus
Post by Blackheart
Post by Malachias Invictus
Post by Topaz
Post by Bruce L Grubb
That all said if any D&D race would adopt Nazism I would say it would
have to be the Orcs. Many concepts of Nazism fit into what the Orcs
do anyhow and militarism would thrill them no end.
The Jews control your media and your mind.
Gnomes, then?
yup. Gnomes.
damn, dirty Gnomes
There is something about them. They are the most hated race in my group.
That may, of course, have something to do with the way people tend to play
gnomes in my group.
Or what Dragonlance did to them.

Brandon
Decaying Atheist
2007-10-05 17:16:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Malachias Invictus
Post by Blackheart
Post by Malachias Invictus
Post by Topaz
Post by Bruce L Grubb
That all said if any D&D race would adopt Nazism I would say it would
have to be the Orcs. Many concepts of Nazism fit into what the Orcs
do anyhow and militarism would thrill them no end.
The Jews control your media and your mind.
Gnomes, then?
yup. Gnomes.
damn, dirty Gnomes
There is something about them. They are the most hated race in my group.
That may, of course, have something to do with the way people tend to play
gnomes in my group.
--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^
It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Captain of my soul.
from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley
I might go as far as to say that Gnomes are the least played race in the
PHB,
as far as every group I've ever been in.

DA
Topaz
2007-10-04 21:25:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Here are some quotes from the official NSDAP book on the proceedings
of the 1936 Nuremberg Rally by Dr. Walther Schmitt:
Adolf Hitler's double proclamation to the party rally makes clear the
inner National Socialist unity of political accomplishment and
cultural guidance. That alone says more about the National Socialist
movement than all the intellectual analysts could say with a thousand
essays. The combination of politics and culture in the party rally's
program is clear proof of the enormous confidence that fills the
German renewal movement, and which as always spurs it on to still
greater accomplishments. No matter how splendid and triumphant the
political accomplishments discussed in the morning are, come evening
the party reports on it cultural strengths and achievements. It knows
that great political accomplishments also demand great works of art,
and that only these will justify its position in history. As the
Führer has said, National Socialism sees artistic creations as the
highest expression of a nation's being. This view, which breaks
decisively from the past, was expressed in the conclusion of his
speech about the new German cultural era at Nuremberg in 1936: "Art is
the only truly immortal product of human activity."...
Adolf Hitler announced at the conclusion of the 1936 party rally that
it will in the future become a great German Olympic festival: "What
came of the pitiable rallies of our former opponents! Now we see a
great exhibition of the nation in political, military, spiritual,
cultural and economic arenas. The physical activity of the nation must
also be included in the splendid new facilities of the party rally
grounds. It will be a new Olympia, one in modern form and under a
different name!" Once again the Führer revealed in these words the
greatness of an idea which is not a dead teaching, rather part of our
innermost being, an ever living appeal to all sound feelings and to
the creative strength of each German...
We sense that just as Napoleon transformed Paris into the glittering
center of his state with monumental plans, so too the national capital
of Berlin will become a source of pride and greatness for the entire
nation.
It finally would be improper if the artistic level of the ceremonies
themselves were not of a level keeping with their vast new
surroundings. This was evident both in the youth ceremonies and those
of the Labor Service at the 1936 Party Rally of Honor. Their simple
clarity and almost architectural form were a deep expression of the
new German life. The same was true of the powerful oath of political
leaders of the movement, held under the deep black night sky. As Adolf
Hitler was greeted, spotlights suddenly shot up 150 kilometers into
the heavens, creating a dome of light of unimaginable splendor above
the Zeppelin Field. This political roll call of National Socialism
took place under a symphony of flags, light and disciplined columns,
towered over by the marble platform.
Every moment of this party really demonstrated the creative,
constructive will of the National Socialist movement. Everyone in
Nuremberg felt this and was swept away by its force. The spiritual
strength of the party of construction led to an inevitable
confrontation with Jewish-International Bolshevism, whose systematic
work of destruction has brought one nation after another in Europe to
crisis and misery.
As a proud victor, the Führer in his opening proclamation could list
the accomplishments of his government and the movement, which National
Socialism has done in less than four years since it took power. The
battle against unemployment and the large new economic undertakings
are part of a long series of accomplishments that only four years ago
seemed an impossible dream, but today are already part of a history
that National Socialism hardly speaks about any longer. Yet these
great achievements are not the party's crowning glory. More beautiful
and glorious is the educational work of the movement, its building of
a new German man. The accomplishments thus far have never been rivaled
by any previous government in so short a time..
The Führer spoke of the lessons of political development in recent
years. He spoke as well of the experiences that Germany and the
National Socialist movement have had with the destructive Bolshevist
idea. He proclaimed the iron will of the new Germany to drive back
with force any Bolshevist attack. In this moment the Führer of Germany
became the greatest political prophet in all of Europe.
The National Socialists who heard Germany's Führer know that the words
Adolf Hitler spoke in Nuremberg are the result of serious, mature
reflection, careful observation, and irresistable logic. Here speaks a
man who knows better than anyone else the bestial nature and methods
of Bolshevism. His warning and firm bearing were therefore a political
prophecy that will guide the future development of European politics.
The movement in Nuremberg understood. The thanks and jubilation of his
followers doubled as he called up the old iron laws and virtues of the
National Socialist movement to stand up to Bolshevism, hammering them
once more into the hearts of his followers. Our brown army overcame
Jewish-Bolshevist anarchy in Germany, marching under the eagles of the
National Socialist standards and our red battle flags. The spirit that
led the German war for independence against Moscow will make Germany
strong in the future, defeating any Bolshevist attack on Central
Europe. That is the message of Nuremberg.






http://www.ihr.org/ http://www.natvan.com

http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.nsm88.com/

http://wsi.matriots.com/jews.html
D.J.
2007-10-02 23:11:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 17:00:44 -0500, Topaz <***@hotmail.com>
wrote:
]During World War Two the Germans put Jews and Communists in
]concentration camps. The USA locked also up the Japanese and their
]political opponents and for less reason. At the end of the war there
]was a lot of deaths in the German camps from disease and starvation
]because Germany was being bombed to rubble. There is no evidence that
]the Germans had gas chambers or an extermination plan.

Liar.

D.J.
--
http://www.linuxgazette.net/ Linux Gazette
http://crestar.drivein-jim.net/blog/ Oct 1, 2007 1E AD&D blog
http://www.drivein-jim.net/ August 12, 2007: Drive-In movie theatres
http://poetry.drivein-jim.net/ poetry blog July 9, 2007
tussock
2007-10-03 01:48:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Topaz
Post by Bruce L Grubb
This nonsense can be disproved by going to Hitler's Mein Kampf: "While
the Jew robbed the whole nation and pressed it beneath his domination,
an agitation was carried on against the 'Prussians.' ", "In it I could
only see the craftiest trick of the Jew, calculated to distract the
general attention from himself and to others"
Today it's the Muslims instead of the Prussians.
One might better suggest that today it's the "Islamic terrorist" in
place of the "communist Jew". Like how the Islamic terrorists threatened
the whole nation while agitation was carried on against the secular
Iraqis.
Post by Topaz
Post by Bruce L Grubb
"At a blow they would awaken the bourgeois world to see the madness of
thinking that the Jewish drive towards world-conquest can be effectually
opposed by means of Western Democracy." "That work [Marx's book] was not
written for the masses, but exclusively for the intellectual leaders of
the Jewish machine for conquering the
world."<http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/> and on and on it
goes.
Only those races thought to have connection to the Ayran race would have
been been given a chance at "highest expression", and the others? Well
the Holocaust shows what the fate of the others was to be.
During World War Two the Germans put Jews and Communists in
concentration camps. The USA locked also up the Japanese and their
political opponents and for less reason.
For the exact same reason, really; not being within the racially
defined majority. In Australia they locked up the Italians and the
Aboriginies. One might also point to more modern patterns of imprisonment
in various parts of the world.
Post by Topaz
At the end of the war there was a lot of deaths in the German camps
from disease and starvation because Germany was being bombed to rubble.
Interestingly, the deaths continued in the allied run POW camps after
the surrender. Two million german POWs died after the war in Western
europe, and far more in Russia; but it's not unfair to note the post-war
famine played a part in that.
There's another reason the Europeans still aren't keen on war. Famine
is teh suck.
Post by Topaz
There is no evidence that the Germans had gas chambers or an
extermination plan.
Except for where there's a lot of it. I'm as good a denier as the
next bloke, but the Berkenau part of Aushwitz-Berkenau was pretty clearly
a giant execution chamber. It's kinda difficult to accidently kill a
million people in a few months.
Post by Topaz
Newsweek magazine May 15, 1989 says on page 64: "the way the Nazis did
things: the secrecy, the unwritten orders, the destruction of records
and the innocent-sounding code names for the extermination of the Jews.
Perhaps it was inevitable that historians would quarrel over just what
happened" The real reason there are no records of an extermination plan
is because there was no extermination plan.
That might even be true, it matches a few odds an ends. Still, they
were keen on filling vacancies at the camps, even once they knew that
vacancies where being deliberately made via mass executions.
So while they possibly didn't /plan/ it as such, they did knowingly
facilitate and reward it once it got going, which is no different.
Post by Topaz
The Germans planned to deport the Jews out of Germany. The records show
that they planned to move them to Madagascar.
And Palestine, and to the United States, and various other
impossibilities. In reality, the non-people got disposed of in a
different way, and the world got the international convention on the
treatment of refugees so it couldn't happen so easily again.
Bla bla bla. How did you miss the bit where they found cyanide, and
*burnt the bodies*!? Good greif.
Post by Topaz
But then the believers will say the Germans confessed. Their main
<snip: torture, etc>

Messy wasn't it? Funny how we hung all their torturers while giving
all ours medals, and still do to this day. Such is the way of the world,
Saddam killed hundreads of thousands of Iraqis in the name of a stable
government, so must die, while the west kills millions in the name of a
stable government and it's all cool.
Remember kids, when they do it, it's bad.
Post by Topaz
There may be six million survivors. Just about every Jew that is old
says he is a survivor.
Just about every european Jew from that time *is* (was) a survivor
from some ghetto or camp, duh. They were mostly rounded up in the
occupied territories. Again, not even an official policy as such in most
places, but those who did so were well rewarded.
Post by Topaz
The real "holocaust" was when the Communist Jews murdered millions of
Hitler said it, so it must be true.
That's not thaught to be authentic. Net hoax. Still, hardly
surprising that a high-placed Engishman was a racist peice of shit in
1920. See what they were doing to the Irish, much? Read any WWI
propaganda?

<snip: communists and bolshies were all Jews>

They were all left-handed too. The bastards.
Never a good place to start. Classic stuff though, "Foreign Fighters
lead the Iraqi insurgency" sort of thing.
Post by Topaz
Here is something the National Socialists wrote: "The Soviet Union was
in fact a paradise for one group: the Jews.
Heard of the pograms, much? Suffering Genocide is an interesting
definition of paradise. Also, we all tend to refer to the "National
Socialists" as Nazis 'round here, and recognise them as telling a few
lies about the Jews (and even the communists on occaision).
Post by Topaz
Even at times when for foreign policy reasons Jews were less evident in
the government, or when they ruled through straw men, the Jews were
always visible in the middle and lower levels of the administration."
Left-handed people. There's always some of them in the middle and
lower levels of the administration.
Post by Topaz
The Jews control your media and your mind.
The war machine controls the media, they're obviously running down
society at the behest of our secret intergalactic masters, the Grays.
Post by Topaz
Hitler said on 19 July 1940: "My intention was never to wage war, but
to build a new social state with the highest level of culture. Each year
of war keeps me from this work."
Funny how he invaded all those countries then, eh. Bombing for peace
no doubt, all seems somehow familiar.


Love the x-post, BTW. I don't think my server carries alt.fan.adolf-
hitler, but I guess it will now. So much for my career in politics.
--
tussock

Aspie at work, sorry in advance.
Topaz
2007-10-03 11:34:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by tussock
One might better suggest that today it's the "Islamic terrorist" in
place of the "communist Jew". Like how the Islamic terrorists threatened
the whole nation while agitation was carried on against the secular
Iraqis.
No, Jews are the problem.


"Knowing who did the terrorism of September 11 is important, but why
they did
it is even more important to us.

Yet, strangely, there has been little discussion in the mass media on
why the attack occurred. Politicians and media personalities have
given us completely inadequate explanations why a couple of dozen
young men would blow themselves up to get at us. In fact, they have
told us absurd lies to keep Americans from understanding the real
reason for the attacks.

We have been told that the attackers were simply crazy, cowardly men
who committed a quote "unprovoked attack." Media and government
spokesmen repeatedly assured us that these attacks had "nothing to do
with America's support of Israel." The official view, as expressed by
the President to the U.S. Congress, was that the terrorists attacked
us because they hate our freedom! Here is an excerpt of his remarks
before Congress

"Americans are asking, "Why do they hate us?"

"They hate what they see right here in this chamber: a democratically
elected government. Their leaders are self-appointed. They hate our
freedoms."

I am not trying to be disrespectful, but what he said is so ridiculous
that even this intellectually challenged President cannot really
believe it. Does Bush really think that a bunch of young men would
give up their families, their homes, and immolate themselves in a huge
ball of fire simply because they hate our democracy! Right on Mr.
President! Next week, will we will hear about Islamic kamikazes
crashing planes into Iceland, the oldest enduring democracy on earth.

Mr. Bush is asking America to support a massive war over the next ten
years. We are being asked to support a massive conflict whose huge
costs could well bankrupt America and cause the loss of great numbers
of American lives. Before we can make such a crucial decision, we
deserve to have the whole truth concerning this cataclysmic event.

Of course, Mr. Bush did not tell us the truth; he simply repeated the
Big Lie put out by the American mass media.

Saying that these acts were born out of hatred for freedom is a
calculated lie to divert us from associating this disaster with our
support for Israel.

You see, associating the attack with our Israeli policy would be bad
public relations for Israel and the Jewish Lobby. The last thing they
want is for the American people to realize that our unconditional
support of Israel has directly led to this disaster.

If the American people clearly understand that fact, people might
begin to ask a similar question to the one asked by Leslie Stahl, "Is
our support of Israel really worth it?"

To keep people from asking that obvious question, the media made up
the Big Lie that the men of October 11 were simply crazy, cowardly
people who hated freedom and democracy!

The real reason for the attack

Even the date the terrorists chose for this attack shows their true
motivation.

The attack occurred on September 11. That is the anniversary of the
League of Nations proclaiming in Palestine the British Mandate in
1922. The date represents the first physical step toward the
implementation of the Balfour Declaration and the establishment of
Israel.

Why has the mass media kept this important fact from the American
people?

Frankly, this fact has been suppressed because the American media are
thoroughly dominated by Jews. Many Americans suspect that Jews have
disproportionate influence in the press, but their actual power is
more than most people imagine. If you want documented proof of their
enormous media power, just go to my web page, www.davidduke.com and
read the "Who Runs the Media?" chapter from my book, My Awakening.
(Located at http://www.davidduke.com/awakening/chapter19_01.html)

Just as Jewish Israel-Firsters dominate the mass media, so the Israeli
Lobby afflicts Congress and the President. It should anger every
American to think that the most powerful lobby in Congress is in the
service of a foreign nation. Yet, the immense power of the Jewish
Lobby is a proven fact, and nobody on Capitol Hill will dare defy this
all-powerful lobby. Even one of the most powerful U.S. Senators in
American history, William Fulbright, bluntly said on CBS's Face the
Nation, that, "Israel controls the U.S.
Senate."

Recently, a Hebrew Israeli radio station, Kol Yisrael, on October 3rd
reported that during an argument in an Israeli cabinet meeting, Shimon
Peres warned Prime Minister Ariel Sharon that unless he would heed
American requests for a cease fire with the Palestinians, he could
cause America to turn against Israel. In a fit of anger, Sharon
responded to Peres:

"Every time we do something, you tell me America will do this and will
do that . . . I want to tell you something very clear: Don't worry
about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control
America, and the Americans know it." (2)

The media bosses and the Israel-bought politicians know the real
reasons behind this terrorism. They have read the interviews of Osama
Bin Laden. He and almost every other Islamic opponent of America has
put support for Israel at the top of their top ten reasons for hating
America. Bin Laden and countless millions in the Muslim world regard
the attacks on Lebanon, on Iraq, on Libya, on Iran, on Afghanistan and
on Sudan as a direct result of Israel's control over America.

They point out that the many Israeli massacres of Palestinians, the
ongoing torture of thousands of prisoners, the use of assassination of
political enemies, the bombing of refugee camps, and the expansive
wars launched by Israeli's against their Arab neighbors; that all
these Israeli crimes are completely dependent on unconditional
American aid. They also see the deaths of the 500,000 Iraqi children,
as admitted by our former Jewish Secretary of State, as a direct
result of Jewish control of America.

The American people, who are under the bombardment of a biased
multimedia, might not realize the Jewish control of American foreign
policy, but the Palestinians and their allies such as Bin Laden, all
understand it; and they hate us for it.

In fact, the same mass media that are giving out the Big Lie that the
terrorist motivation is "hate for freedom," are clearly aware of Bin
Laden's real motivations.

I can easily prove the true motivation of bin Laden and I can prove
the media has known the truth all along. In May of 1998 reporter John
Miller of ABC interviewed Bin Laden. Bin Laden talks about why he
seeks to attack America. You can find it on the ABC and the PBS web
sites. Here are excerpts of bin Laden's own words.

"For over half a century, Muslims in Palestine have been slaughtered
and assaulted and robbed of their honor and of their property. Their
houses have been blasted, their crops destroyed.

"This is my message to the American people: to look for a serious
government that looks out for their interests and does not attack
other people's lands, or other people's honor. And my word to American
journalists is not to ask why we did that but ask what their
government has done that forced us to defend ourselves."

"So we tell the Americans as people, and we tell the mothers of
soldiers and American mothers in general that if they value their
lives and the lives of their children, to find a patriotic government
that will look after their interests and not the interests of the
Jews."

I say to them that they have put themselves at the mercy of a disloyal
government, and this is most evident in Clinton's administration. We
believe that this administration represents Israel inside America.
Take the sensitive ministries such as the Secretary of State and the
Secretary of Defense and the CIA, you will find that the Jews have the
upper hand in them. They make use of America to further their plans
for the world.

In the interview, bin Laden never said one word about opposing
democratic principles, nor has he ever done so in his lifetime. So,
now we know Laden's true motivation. He attacked us not because he
"hates democracy", but because he thinks Israel controls and uses
America to attack his people."

David Duke

(1) THE SUNDAY MAIL (2001) Sept. 16
(2) Israeli Hebrew radio, Col Yisrael Wednesday

---------------------------------------------------------------

Your support makes our work possible. We need your help now more than
ever.
Please help our efforts with an online donation today.

Make a donation today by clicking here:
http://www.whitecivilrights.com/donate.shtml


IMPORTANT ONLINE LINKS

Learn more about EURO at: http://www.whitecivilrights.com/faq.shtml
How to join EURO online: http://www.whitecivilrights.com/join.shtml
How to download an application and mail it in:
http://www.whitecivilrights.com/join.shtml
Where to find local EURO Chapters:
http://www.whitecivilrights.com/ero_contacts.shtml
Where to read our press releases:
http://www.whitecivilrights.com/news/
Watch news clips and interviews:
http://www.davidduke.com/video/index.html
Where to buy books, tapes or stickers: www.davidduke.net
Read sample chapters online from David Duke's book "My Awakening":
http://www.davidduke.com/awakening/toc.html
Post by tussock
For the exact same reason, really; not being within the racially
defined majority. In Australia they locked up the Italians and the
Aboriginies. One might also point to more modern patterns of imprisonment
in various parts of the world.
ADOLF HITLER
SCHWERIN, GUSTLOFF'S FUNERAL
SPEECH OF FEBRUARY 12, 1936

. . . BEHIND every murder stood the same power which is responsible
for this murder; behind these harmless insignificant fellow-countrymen
who were instigated and incited to crime stands the hate-filled power
of our Jewish foe, a foe to whom we had done no harm, but who none the
less sought to subjugate our German people and make of it its slave -
the foe who is responsible for all the misfortune that fell upon us in
1918, for all the misfortune which plagued Germany in the years that
followed. Those members of the Party and honorable comrades of ours
all fell, and the same fate was planned for others: many hundreds
survived as cripples or severely wounded, blinded or lamed; more than
40,000 others were injured. And among them were so many loyal folk
whom we all knew and who were near and dear to us, of whom we were
sure that they could never do any harm to anyone, that they had never
done any harm to anyone, whose only crime was that they devoted
themselves to the cause of Germany.

In the ranks of those whose lives were thus sacrificed there stood
also Horst Wessel, the singer who gave to the Movement its song, never
dreaming that he would join those spirits who march and have marched
with us.

And now on foreign soil National Socialism has gained its first
conscious martyr - a man who did nothing save to enter the lists for
Germany which is not only his sacred right but his duty in this world:
a man who did nothing save remember his homeland and pledge himself to
her in loyalty. He, too, was murdered, just like so many others. Even
at the time when on January 30 three years ago we had come into power,
precisely the same things happened in Germany, at Frankfort on the
Oder, at Köpenick, and again at Brunswick. The procedure was always
the same: a few men come and call someone out of his house and then
stab or shoot him down.

That is no chance: it is the same guiding hand which organized these
crimes and purposes to do so again. Now for the first time one who is
responsible for these acts has appeared in his own person. For the
first time he employs no harmless German fellow-countryman. It is a
title to fame for Switzerland, as it is for our own Germans in
Switzerland, that no one let himself be hired to do this deed so that
for the first time the spiritual begetter of the act must himself
perform the act. So our comrade has fallen a victim to that power
which wages a fanatical warfare not only against our German people but
against every free, autonomous, and independent people. We understand
the challenge to battle and we take up the gage! My dear comrade! You
have not fallen in vain!
Post by tussock
Interestingly, the deaths continued in the allied run POW camps after
the surrender. Two million german POWs died after the war in Western
europe, and far more in Russia; but it's not unfair to note the post-war
famine played a part in that.
There's another reason the Europeans still aren't keen on war. Famine
is teh suck.
Post by Topaz
There is no evidence that the Germans had gas chambers or an
extermination plan.
Except for where there's a lot of it. I'm as good a denier as the
next bloke, but the Berkenau part of Aushwitz-Berkenau was pretty clearly
a giant execution chamber. It's kinda difficult to accidently kill a
million people in a few months.
Auschwitz: Myths and facts
by Mark Weber

Nearly everyone has heard of Auschwitz, the German wartime
concentration camp where many prisoners-most of them Jewish-were
reportedly exterminated, especially in gas chambers. Auschwitz is
widely regarded as the most terrible Nazi extermination center. The
camp's horrific reputation cannot, however, be reconciled with the
facts.
Scholars challenge Holocaust story
Astonishing as it may seem, more and more historians and engineers
have been challenging the widely accepted Auschwitz story. These
"revisionist" scholars do not dispute the fact that large numbers of
Jews were deported to the camp, or that many died there, particularly
of typhus and other diseases. But the compelling evidence they present
shows that Auschwitz was not an extermination center and that the
story of mass killings in "gas chambers" is a myth.
The Auschwitz camps
The Auschwitz camp complex was set up in 1940 in what is now
south-central Poland. Large numbers of Jews were deported there
between 1942 and mid-1944.
The main camp was known as Auschwitz I. Birkenau, or Auschwitz II, was
supposedly the main extermination center, and Monowitz, or Auschwitz
III, was a large industrial center where gasoline was produced from
coal. In addition there were dozens of smaller satellite camps devoted
to the war economy.
Four million victims?
At the postwar Nuremberg Tribunal, the Allies charged that the Germans
exterminated four million people at Auschwitz. This figure, which was
invented by the Soviets, was uncritically accepted for many years. It
often appeared in major American newspapers and magazines, for
example. (note 1)
Today no reputable historian, not even those who generally accept the
extermination story, believes this figure. Israeli Holocaust historian
Yehuda Bauer said in 1989 that it is time to finally acknowledge the
familiar four million figure is a deliberate myth. In July 1990 the
Auschwitz State Museum in Poland, along with Israel's Yad Vashem
Holocaust Center, suddenly announced that altogether perhaps one
million people (both Jews and non-Jews) died there. Neither
institution would say how many of these people were killed, nor were
any estimates given of the numbers of those supposedly gassed. (note
2) One prominent Holocaust historian, Gerald Reitlinger, has estimated
that perhaps 700,000 or so Jews perished at Auschwitz. More recently,
Holocaust historian Jean-Claude Pressac has estimated that about
800,000 persons-of whom 630,000 were Jewish-perished at Auschwitz.
While even such lower figures are incorrect, they show how the
Auschwitz story has changed drastically over the years. (note 3)
Bizarre tales
At one time it was seriously claimed that Jews were systematically
electrocuted at Auschwitz. American newspapers, citing a Soviet
eyewitness report from liberated Auschwitz, told readers in February
1945 that the methodical Germans had killed Jews there using an
"electric conveyor belt on which hundreds of persons could be
electrocuted simultaneously [and] then moved on into furnaces. They
were burned almost instantly, producing fertilizer for nearby cabbage
fields." (note 4)
And at the Nuremberg Tribunal, chief U.S. prosecutor Robert Jackson
charged that the Germans used a "newly invented" device to
instantaneously "vaporize" 20,000 Jews near Auschwitz "in such a way
that there was no trace left of them." (note 5) No reputable historian
now accepts either of these fanciful tales.
The Höss 'confession'
A key Holocaust document is the "confession" of former Auschwitz
commandant Rudolf Höss of April 5, 1946, which was submitted by the
U.S. prosecution at the main Nuremberg trial. (note 6)
Although it is still widely cited as solid proof for the Auschwitz
extermination story, it is actually a false statement that was
obtained by torture.
Many years after the war, British military intelligence sergeant
Bernard Clarke described how he and five other British soldiers
tortured the former commandant to obtain his "confession." Höss
himself privately explained his ordeal in these words: "Certainly, I
signed a statement that I killed two and half million Jews. I could
just as well have said that it was five million Jews. There are
certain methods by which any confession can be obtained, whether it is
true or not." (note 7)
Even historians who generally accept the Holocaust extermination story
now acknowledge that many of the specific statements made in the Höss
"affidavit" are simply not true. For one thing, no serious scholar now
claims that anything like two and a half or three million people
perished in Auschwitz.
The Höss "affidavit" further alleges that Jews were already being
exterminated by gas in the summer of 1941 at three other camps:
Belzec, Treblinka and Wolzek. The "Wolzek" camp mentioned by Höss is a
total invention. No such camp existed, and the name is no longer
mentioned in Holocaust literature. Moreover, the story these days by
those who believe in the Holocaust legend is that gassings of Jews did
not begin at Auschwitz, Treblinka, or Belzec until sometime in 1942.
No documentary evidence
Many thousands of secret German documents dealing with Auschwitz were
confiscated after the war by the Allies. Not a single one refers to a
policy or program of extermination. In fact, the extermination story
cannot be reconciled with the documentary evidence.
Many Jewish inmates unable to work
For example, it is often claimed that all Jews at Auschwitz who were
unable to work were immediately killed. Jews who were too old, young,
sick, or weak were supposedly gassed on arrival, and only those who
could be worked to death were temporarily kept alive.
But the evidence shows that, in fact, a very high percentage of the
Jewish inmates were not able to work, and were nevertheless not
killed. For example, an internal German telex message dated Sept. 4,
1943, from the chief of the Labor Allocation department of the SS
Economic and Administrative Main Office (WVHA), reported that of
25,000 Jewish inmates in Auschwitz, only 3,581 were able to work, and
that all of the remaining Jewish inmates-some 21,500, or about 86
percent-were unable to work. (note 8)
This is also confirmed in a secret report dated April 5, 1944, on
"security measures in Auschwitz" by Oswald Pohl, head of the SS
concentration camp system, to SS chief Heinrich Himmler. Pohl reported
that there was a total of 67,000 inmates in the entire Auschwitz camp
complex, of whom 18,000 were hospitalized or disabled. In the
Auschwitz II camp (Birkenau), supposedly the main extermination
center, there were 36,000 inmates, mostly female, of whom
"approximately 15,000 are unable to work." (note 9)
These two documents simply cannot be reconciled with the Auschwitz
extermination story.
The evidence shows that Auschwitz-Birkenau was established primarily
as a camp for Jews who were not able to work, including the sick and
elderly, as well as for those who were temporarily awaiting assignment
to other camps. That's the considered view of Dr. Arthur Butz of
Northwestern University, who also says that this was the reason for
the unusually high death rate there. (note 10)
Princeton University history professor Arno Mayer, who is Jewish,
acknowledges in a recent book about the "final solution" that more
Jews perished at Auschwitz as a result of typhus and other "natural"
causes than were executed. (note 11)
Anne Frank
Perhaps the best known Auschwitz inmate was Anne Frank, who is known
around the world for her famous diary. But few people know that
thousands of Jews, including Anne and her father, Otto Frank,
"survived" Auschwitz.
The 15-year-old girl and her father were deported from the Netherlands
to Auschwitz in September 1944. Several weeks later, in the face of
the advancing Soviet army, Anne was evacuated along with many other
Jews to the Bergen-Belsen camp, where she died of typhus in March
1945.
Her father came down with typhus in Auschwitz and was sent to the camp
hospital to recover. He was one of thousands of sick and feeble Jews
who were left behind when the Germans abandoned the camp in January
1945, shortly before it was overrun by the Soviets. He died in
Switzerland in 1980.
If the German policy had been to kill Anne Frank and her father, they
would not have survived Auschwitz. Their fate, tragic though it was,
cannot be reconciled with the extermination story.
Allied propaganda
The Auschwitz gassing story is based in large part on the hearsay
statements of former Jewish inmates who did not personally see any
evidence of extermination. Their beliefs are understandable, because
rumors about gassings at Auschwitz were widespread.
Allied planes dropped large numbers of LEAFLETS , written in Polish
and German, on Auschwitz and the surrounding areas which claimed that
people were being gassed in the camp. The Auschwitz gassing story,
which was an important part of the Allied wartime propaganda effort,
was also broadcast to Europe by Allied radio stations. (note 12)
Survivor testimony
Former inmates have confirmed that they saw no evidence of
extermination at Auschwitz.
An Austrian woman, Maria Vanherwaarden, testified about her camp
experiences in a Toronto District Court in March 1988. She was
interned in Auschwitz-Birkenau in 1942 for having sexual relations
with a Polish forced laborer. On the train trip to the camp, a Gypsy
woman told her and the others that they would all be gassed at
Auschwitz.
Upon arrival, Maria and the other women were ordered to undress and go
into a large concrete room without windows to take a shower. The
terrified women were sure that they were about to die. But then,
instead of gas, water came out of the shower heads.
Auschwitz was no vacation center, Maria confirmed. She witnessed the
death of many fellow inmates by disease, particularly typhus, and
quite a few committed suicide. But she saw no evidence at all of mass
killings, gassings, or of any extermination program. (note 13)
A Jewish woman named Marika Frank arrived at Auschwitz-Birkenau from
Hungary in July 1944, when 25,000 Jews were supposedly gassed and
cremated daily. She likewise testified after the war that she heard
and saw nothing of "gas chambers" during the time she was interned
there. She heard the gassing stories only later. (note 14)
Inmates released
Auschwitz internees who had served their sentences were released and
returned to their home countries. If Auschwitz had actually been a top
secret extermination center, the Germans would certainly not have
released inmates who "knew" what was happening in the camp. (note 15)
Himmler orders death rate reduced
In response to the deaths of many inmates due to disease, especially
typhus, the German authorities responsible for the camps ordered firm
counter-measures.
The head of the SS camp administration office sent a directive dated
Dec. 28, 1942, to Auschwitz and the other concentration camps. It
sharply criticized the high death rate of inmates due to disease, and
ordered that "camp physicians must use all means at their disposal to
significantly reduce the death rate in the various camps."
Furthermore, it ordered:
The camp doctors must supervise more often than in the past the
nutrition of the prisoners and, in cooperation with the
administration, submit improvement recommendations to the camp
commandants . . . The camp doctors are to see to it that the working
conditions at the various labor places are improved as much as
possible.
Finally, the directive stressed that "the Reichsfhrer SS [Heinrich
Himmler] has ordered that the death rate absolutely must be reduced."
(note 16)
German camp regulations
Official German camp regulations make clear that Auschwitz was not an
extermination center. They ordered: (note 17)
New arrivals in the camp are to be given a thorough medical
examination, and if there is any doubt [about their health], they must
be sent to quarantine for observation.
Prisoners who report sick must be examined that same day by the camp
physician. If necessary, the physician must transfer the prisoners to
a hospital for professional treatment.
The camp physician must regularly inspect the kitchen regarding the
preparation of the food and the quality of the food supply. Any
deficiencies that may arise must be reported to the camp commandant.
Special care should be given in the treatment of accidents, in order
not to impair the full productivity of the prisoners.
Prisoners who are to be released or transfered must first be brought
before the camp physician for medical examination.
Telltale aerial photos
Detailed aerial reconnaissance photographs taken of Auschwitz-Birkenau
on several random days in 1944 (during the height of the alleged
extermination period there) were made public by the CIA in 1979. These
photos show no trace of piles of corpses, smoking crematory chimneys
or masses of Jews awaiting death, things that have been repeatedly
alleged, and all of which would have been clearly visible if Auschwitz
had been the extermination center it is said to have been. (note 18)
Absurd cremation claims
Cremation specialists have confirmed that thousands of corpses could
not possibly have been cremated every day throughout the spring and
summer of 1944 at Auschwitz, as commonly alleged.
For example, Mr. Ivan Lagace, manager of a large crematory in Calgary,
Canada, testified in court in April 1988 that the Auschwitz cremation
story is technically impossible. The allegation that 10,000 or even
20,000 corpses were burned every day at Auschwitz in the summer of
1944 in crematories and open pits is simply "preposterous" and "beyond
the realm of reality," he declared under oath. (note 19)
Gassing expert refutes extermination story
America's leading gas chamber expert, Boston engineer Fred A.
Leuchter, carefully examined the supposed "gas chambers" in Poland and
concluded that the Auschwitz gassing story is absurd and technically
impossible.
Leuchter is the foremost specialist on the design and installation of
gas chambers used in the United States to execute convicted criminals.
For example, he designed a gas chamber facility for the Missouri state
penitentiary.
In February 1988 he carried out a detailed onsite examination of the
"gas chambers" at Auschwitz, Birkenau and Majdanek in Poland, which
are either still standing or only partially in ruins. In sworn
testimony to a Toronto court and in a technical report, Leuchter
described every aspect of his investigation.
He concluded by emphatically declaring that the alleged gassing
facilities could not possibly have been used to kill people. Among
other things, he pointed out that the so-called "gas chambers" were
not properly sealed or vented to kill human beings without also
killing German camp personnel. (note 20)
Dr. William B. Lindsey, a research chemist employed for 33 years by
the Dupont Corporation, likewise testified in a 1985 court case that
the Auschwitz gassing story is technically impossible. Based on a
careful on-site examination of the "gas chambers" at Auschwitz,
Birkenau and Majdanek, and on his years of experience, he declared: "I
have come to the conclusion that no one was willfully or purposefully
killed with Zyklon B [hydrocyanic acid gas] in this manner. I consider
it absolutely impossible." (note 21)
www.ihr.org
Post by tussock
Post by Topaz
Newsweek magazine May 15, 1989 says on page 64: "the way the Nazis did
things: the secrecy, the unwritten orders, the destruction of records
and the innocent-sounding code names for the extermination of the Jews.
Perhaps it was inevitable that historians would quarrel over just what
happened" The real reason there are no records of an extermination plan
is because there was no extermination plan.
That might even be true, it matches a few odds an ends. Still, they
were keen on filling vacancies at the camps, even once they knew that
vacancies where being deliberately made via mass executions.
So while they possibly didn't /plan/ it as such, they did knowingly
facilitate and reward it once it got going, which is no different.
Here is part of the Leuchter Report:
"Thirty-one samples were selectively removed from the alleged gas
chambers at Kremas I, II, III, IV and V. A control sample was taken
from delousing facility #1 at Birkenau. The control sample was removed
from a delousing chamber in a location where cyanide was known to have
been used and was apparently present as blue staining. Chemical
testing of the control sample #32 showed a cyanide content of 1050
mg/kg, a very heavy concentration. The conditions at areas from which
these samples were taken are identical with those of the control
sample, cold, dark, and wet. Only Kremas IV and V differed, in the
respect that these locations had sunlight (the buildings have been
torn down) and sunlight may hasten the destruction of uncomplexed
cyanide. The cyanide combines with the iron in the mortar and brick
and becomes ferric-ferro-cyanide or prussian blue pigmentation, a very
stable iron-cyanide complex.
"The locations from which the analyzed samples were removed are set
out in Table III.
"It is notable that almost all the samples were negative and that the
few that were positive were very close to the detection level
(1mg/kg); 6.7 mg/kg at Krema III; 7.9 mg/kg at Krerma I. The absense
of any consequential readings at any of the tested locations as
compared to the control sample reading 1050 mg/kg supports the
evidence that these facilities were not execution gas chambers. The
small quantities detected would indicate that at some point these
buildings were deloused with Zyklon B - as were all the buildings at
all these facilities"
Post by tussock
And Palestine, and to the United States, and various other
impossibilities. In reality, the non-people got disposed of in a
different way, and the world got the international convention on the
treatment of refugees so it couldn't happen so easily again.
"There is no factual evidence to support the claims of the Holocaust.
After the war ended, the first assertions made by the Holocaust
industry had nothing to do with homicidal gassings and in fact,
Winston Churchill in his six-volume history of World War II and Dwight
D. Eisenhower in his memoirs, made not a single reference to homicidal
gassing chambers. In addition, autopsies made by Allied medical
personnel at the camps found that the inmates died of disease and
absolutely not a single shred of physical or forensic evidence found
post war showed that anyone was ever "gassed."
There is no doubt that people died of Typhus, and the shaving of hair,
removal of clothes and showers was typical of a program of delousing
to promote prisoner health, while if killing was your goal they would
have no reason to follow the delousing procedures so common during the
war as they did. It just does not add up."

Theodore Herzl
Post by tussock
Bla bla bla. How did you miss the bit where they found cyanide, and
*burnt the bodies*!? Good greif.
You didn't read it. It proved you wrong.
Post by tussock
Messy wasn't it? Funny how we hung all their torturers while giving
all ours medals, and still do to this day. Such is the way of the world,
Saddam killed hundreads of thousands of Iraqis in the name of a stable
government, so must die, while the west kills millions in the name of a
stable government and it's all cool.
Remember kids, when they do it, it's bad.
Just about every european Jew from that time *is* (was) a survivor
from some ghetto or camp, duh. They were mostly rounded up in the
occupied territories. Again, not even an official policy as such in most
places, but those who did so were well rewarded.
Hitler said it, so it must be true.
That's not thaught to be authentic. Net hoax. Still, hardly
surprising that a high-placed Engishman was a racist peice of shit in
1920. See what they were doing to the Irish, much? Read any WWI
propaganda?
They were all left-handed too. The bastards.
Never a good place to start. Classic stuff though, "Foreign Fighters
lead the Iraqi insurgency" sort of thing.
Heard of the pograms, much? Suffering Genocide is an interesting
definition of paradise. Also, we all tend to refer to the "National
Socialists" as Nazis 'round here, and recognise them as telling a few
lies about the Jews (and even the communists on occaision).
Your side lies.


Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf that the Jews tell big lies. The
Jewish media took his words out of context and claimed that Hitler was
in favor of big lies. This was in itself a big lie and proof that
Hitler was right. Here is what Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf and in
context:

"But it remained for the Jews, with their unqualified capacity
for falsehood, and their fighting comrades, the Marxists, to impute
responsibility for the downfall precisely to the man who alone had
shown a superhuman will and energy in his effort to prevent the
catastrophe which he had foreseen and to save the nation from that
hour of complete overthrow and shame. By placing responsibility for
the loss of the world war on the shoulders of Ludendorff they took
away the weapon of moral right from the only adversary dangerous
enough to be likely to succeed in bringing the betrayers of the
Fatherland to justice. All this was inspired by the principle--which
is quite true in itself--that in the big lie there is always a certain
force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always
more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature
than consciously or voluntarily, and thus in the primitive simplicity
of their minds they are more readily fall victims to the big lie than
the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little
matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It
would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and
they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort
truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so
may be brought clearly to their minds, they still doubt and waver and
will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For
the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it
has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in
this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying. These
people know only too well how to use falsehood for the basest
purposes.
"From time immemorial, however, the Jews have known better than
any others how falsehood and calumny can be exploited. Is not their
very existence founded on one great lie, namely, that they are a
religious community, whereas in reality they are a race? And what a
race! One of the greatest thinkers that mankind has produced has
branded the Jews for all time with a statement which is profoundly and
exactly true. He (Schopenhauer) called the Jew 'The Great Master of
Lies'. Those who do not realize the truth of that statement, or do not
wish to believe it, will never be able to lend a hand in helping Truth
to prevail."
Post by tussock
Left-handed people. There's always some of them in the middle and
lower levels of the administration.
The war machine controls the media, they're obviously running down
society at the behest of our secret intergalactic masters, the Grays.
Funny how he invaded all those countries then, eh. Bombing for peace
no doubt, all seems somehow familiar.
The Diaries of Charles A. Lindbergh, p.986

"That young girl riding on her bicycle - she must know that on the
day the Russians come she will probably be raped by a dozen soldiers.
When do they come? In days? In weeks? That, we have not told the
Germans. She has a good face - nicely dressed in old but clean and
brightly colored garments - like the daughter of a middle class
American family. I realize that we Americans are holding her at
Dessau. She cannot flee to safety.
We will not let her pass our sentries on the roads. We are turning her
and thousands of
others like her over to the Soviet soldiers for their sport. I feel
ashamed."

p.961
"German children look in through the window. We have more food than
we need, but regulations prevent giving it to them. It is difficult to
look at them. I feel ashamed of myself, of my people, as I eat and
watch those children. They are not to blame for the war. They are
hungry children. What right have we to stuff ourselves while they look
on - well-fed men eating, leaving unwanted food on plates, while
hungry children look on."

Berlin Correspondent, The Times, September 10th, 1945

"...Another small boy turned out of Danzig had a scrawled postcard
attached to him stating that his soldier father was long since missing
and that his mother and two sisters had died of hunger."

At this time, Denmark, formerly occupied by the Germans as a means
of denying the allies a North Sea bridgehead was bursting at the seams
with surplus food and was pleading with the allies to put it to good
use. It was refused.
Post by tussock
Love the x-post, BTW. I don't think my server carries alt.fan.adolf-
hitler, but I guess it will now. So much for my career in politics.
http://www.ihr.org/ http://www.natvan.com

http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.nsm88.com/

http://wsi.matriots.com/jews.html
c***@yahoo.com
2007-10-03 17:03:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Topaz
Post by tussock
One might better suggest that today it's the "Islamic terrorist" in
place of the "communist Jew". Like how the Islamic terrorists threatened
the whole nation while agitation was carried on against the secular
Iraqis.
No, Jews are the problem.
Blame Canada. They aren't even a real country anyway.

Brandon
Sheldon England
2007-10-03 20:33:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by c***@yahoo.com
Post by Topaz
No, Jews are the problem.
Blame Canada. They aren't even a real country anyway.
Yeah! Hey, wait ...


- Sheldon, as Canadian as possible under the circumstances
c***@yahoo.com
2007-10-03 22:47:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sheldon England
Post by c***@yahoo.com
Post by Topaz
No, Jews are the problem.
Blame Canada. They aren't even a real country anyway.
Yeah! Hey, wait ...
- Sheldon, as Canadian as possible under the circumstances
Sorry, was watching thwe South Park movie recently ;)

Brandon
Sheldon England
2007-10-04 00:28:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by c***@yahoo.com
Post by Sheldon England
Post by c***@yahoo.com
Blame Canada. They aren't even a real country anyway.
Yeah! Hey, wait ...
Sorry, was watching thwe South Park movie recently ;)
Heh. I knew the source and assure you I took no offense. I very much
enjoyed that movie and song.


- Sheldon
Matt Frisch
2007-10-06 07:07:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by c***@yahoo.com
Post by Sheldon England
Post by c***@yahoo.com
Post by Topaz
No, Jews are the problem.
Blame Canada. They aren't even a real country anyway.
Yeah! Hey, wait ...
- Sheldon, as Canadian as possible under the circumstances
Sorry, was watching thwe South Park movie recently ;)
All canadian-american citizens are to report themselves for the death camps
right away. Did I say death camps? I meant happy camps!
Topaz
2007-10-04 21:31:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by c***@yahoo.com
Blame Canada. They aren't even a real country anyway.
I heard Izzy Asper died so the following article is outdated. But it
still gives a lot of insight on Canada.

By Dr. William Pierce

"As you may be aware, the mass media in
Canada are as much under Jewish control as in the United States. The
undisputed top media mogul in Canada is Israel Asper, who is commonly
known by his nickname "Izzy." With his sons Leonard and David and
other family members, Izzy Asper owns CanWest Global Communications
Corporation.
A Gentile, Conrad Black, also used to be a major player in the
Canadian media, but a little over a year ago Black's Southam News,
Inc., was bought out by Izzy. CanWest now owns more than 60 per cent
of Canada's newspapers and other media outlets. That's more than 60
per cent of all of Canada's mass media in the hands of one Jew.
Included are 14 metropolitan dailies and 128 local newspapers across
the country, including the Vancouver Sun, the Vancouver Province, the
Calgary Herald, and the Montreal Gazette. CanWest also owns the
National Post, which is distributed throughout Canada. In addition
Izzy owns media in the United States, Australia, New Zealand, and
Northern Ireland.
Last month Izzy issued a written directive to his newspapers,
instructing them that from now on they must print nothing critical of
Israel or of Israeli actions or policies. This is a rare thing.
Usually directives of this sort are oral only, and great care is taken
to keep them from coming to the attention of the public. But Izzy,
with even more brass than is customary for his tribe, made his
directive public. He announced that, beginning three weeks ago,
December 12, the editorial content of all of his newspapers would be
homogenized, and they all would be pro-Israel.
Now here's the interesting part: if all of Izzy's Gentile underlings
were simply corrupt-were simply paid mercenaries who wrote what they
were told to write-then there would be no controversy; all of the
local editors and reporters and columnists simply would follow orders.
But there is a controversy. A group of reporters and writers at the
Montreal Gazette have rebelled, at least for the moment. One of them,
Bill Marsden, an investigative reporter, revealed on a Canadian
Broadcasting Corporation radio program called "As It Happens" that his
editor at the Gazette had instructed him never to report anything that
might reflect badly on Israel. Paraphrasing Izzy's directive, Marsden
said, and I quote: "We do not run in our newspaper op-ed pieces that
express criticism of Israel and what it is doing in the Middle East."
· end of quote-Marsden and 54 other reporters at the Montreal
Gazette went on strike in protest at what they describe as undue
corporate interference with freedom of the press.

Their strike has infuriated Izzy. Izzy's son David characterized the
striking reporters as "childish" and "self-righteous." He said, and I
quote: "Why don't they just quit and have the courage of their
convictions? Maybe they should go out and, for the first time in their
lives, take a risk, put their money where their mouth is, and start
their own newspaper."-end of quote-
How's that for chutzpah, as the Jews like to call it? One can read in
David Asper's reaction to the reporters the thought, "How dare these
mere Gentiles, these mere goyim, question what we, God's Chosen
People, decide should be the party line for Canada's newspapers! How
dare they!" I mean it's not just that Izzy owns the Montreal Gazette,
and so he is entitled to set the editorial policy, and other
newspapers can set different policies. Izzy thinks that he is entitled
to set the editorial policy for all of Canada's newspapers and
determine what all Canadians think.
The man chosen by the Aspers to write the editorials for all of their
newspapers is Murdoch Davis. When asked by "As It Happens" whether or
not one of CanWest's newspapers would be permitted to buck the party
line on Israel, Davis replied, and I quote: "No. It is clearly the
intent that the newspapers will speak with one voice on certain issues
of overarching national or international importance."-end of quote --
When asked specifically whether or not one of the Asper newspapers
would be permitted to raise the question of Israel's long-standing
violation of international law and its defiance of UN resolutions
calling for withdrawal from illegally occupied Palestinian territory,
Davis again responded in the negative.
So that's the present situation with freedom of the press in Canada:
not really very different from the situation in the United States. So
what about the mentality of journalists? The fact that the reporters
at the Montreal Gazette are protesting Izzy's directive that they can
report nothing negative about Israel indicates that they are not
entirely mercenary. To me, however, it does not indicate that they are
independent thinkers. I believe that they are as much lemmings as the
dullest couch potato or sports fan. What caused their protest was the
arrogant and contemptuous way in which the Aspers went about
reconciling two conflicting elements in the Jewish party line.
On the one hand journalists have been taught that the United Nations
is a splendid and admirable organization, whose resolutions should be
obeyed. They also have been taught that all races and ethnic groups
are equal-in fact, essentially the same-but that racial minorities and
underdogs generally deserve our special sympathy, and that in any
conflict with a ruling group the underdogs are in the right. That's
standard liberal dogma. You have to believe that in order to be a
journalist. On the other hand, journalists have been taught that Jews
are wonderful people who can do no wrong, and that to think otherwise
is anti-Semitism, which is as bad as or worse than racism. It's hard
enough reconciling the elevated status of Jews with the concept of
racial and ethnic equality, but most journalists by working at it are
able to do it-except where the conflict between Jews and Palestinians
is concerned. That requires a special effort and really careful
handling by their Jewish bosses. How do you explain to a journalist
who already believes all of the liberal dogma that if Iraq ignores a
UN resolution it should be bombed into the Stone Age and then starved
into submission with a rigid trade embargo, but if Israel ignores 14
UN resolutions we should respond by sending the Israelis more military
and economic aid?
How do you explain to a journalist who has been taught that when South
Africa used to be a White country and practiced apartheid, and the
South African police sometimes beat information out of captured Black
terrorists, it was a terrible thing and had to be condemned in the
strongest terms, but when Israel practices apartheid, assassinates
Palestinian leaders, and tortures Palestinian prisoners, nothing
should be said about it?
How do you explain to a journalist that it is an intolerable threat to
the security of the world if some Muslim country develops weapons of
mass destruction, and the United States is justified in a preemptive
strike to destroy the weapons production facilities, but when a
psychotic little country like Israel builds an arsenal of chemical,
nuclear, and biological weapons, using materials and technology stolen
from us, it's OK, and we should ignore it?
How do you explain to a journalist steeped in the tenets of feminism
that he shouldn't say anything about Israel's booming slave trade in
girls and women kidnapped from eastern Europe and forced to work as
sex slaves?
How do you explain to a journalist who believes wholeheartedly in
egalitarianism that it's perhaps regrettable but certainly excusable
when Jews rocket Palestinian villages and use Palestinian children for
target practice, but it's "terrorism" and completely unjustifiable
when the Palestinians hit back?
Believe me, explaining these things is tricky, but it can be done, if
it's done with patience and care. It can be done, because when it
comes to matters of faith, a lemming really isn't rational. He's quite
capable of believing two mutually contradictory things at the same
time. The problem that brought on the mini-rebellion at the Montreal
Gazette is that Izzy wasn't patient and careful. He was arrogant and
contemptuous of his Gentile reporters. But they'll get over it, I'm
sure. They always do. They're lemmings.
But, as I said, what is happening now in Canada is interesting. It
gives us insight into the workings of journalists' minds, and it also
brings out into the open not only the monopoly Jewish control of the
Canadian mass media but also the way in which that control is used to
slant the news and Canadian public opinion so as to serve Jewish
interests to the detriment of Canadian interests.
Do you think that any of these revelations will be of benefit to
Canadians? Will the average Canadian say, "Oh, my goodness! I didn't
realize that one man, and a Jew at that, controls more than 60 per
cent of all the mass media in Canada and is using that control to
deceive Canadians as to what is happening in the Middle East. That's
terrible! We'd better have our lawmakers do something to break up this
media monopoly, so that we will have a better chance to learn the
truth about what's happening in the world when we read a newspaper or
watch a television news program."
What do you think? I think that about 98 per cent of Canadians won't
even look up from their ball games. I think that there's not a
politician in Canada who will dare go up against Izzy Asper. This
whole tempest at the Montreal Gazette will blow over in a few days,
and all of Izzy's newspapers and other media will toe the party line
as if nothing had happened.
And now I'm talking only to the two or three or four per cent of
Canadians-and also to the two or three or four per cent of
Americans-who aren't so absorbed in their ball games that they don't
notice things like this and don't really care either. I'm talking to
the small portion of the White population in both countries -- and in
fact, in countries around the world-who do notice and do care. I want
you to understand that this is the way nations lose their freedom.
More than that, this is the way races become extinct.
The majority of the population in Canada and the United States and in
every country in Europe consists of lemmings, who always have been
manipulated by whoever is in power. For approximately the last 100
years the power to manipulate the thinking of the lemmings-of the
masses, if you prefer-has been shifting from the authority figures in
the government and in the churches to the people who control the mass
media. These days the people who control the media also control the
government for all practical purposes, and the churches have become
irrelevant, which is why the Canadian government won't try to break up
Izzy's media monopoly and why the politicians in the United States
will never go beyond pretending to be concerned about too much sex and
violence on television when they have a mock fight with the media.
Controlling a country's mass media doesn't mean just being able to
exert a decisive influence on a country's foreign policy, as Izzy
Asper is doing in Canada, and as his fellow Jews long have done in the
United States. It doesn't mean just getting a country involved in
unnecessary wars and subjecting its citizens to retaliatory terrorist
attacks. It means influencing immigration policy. It means influencing
educational policy. It means influencing social policy. It means being
able to control the way most of a country's people think about
everything: about race and morality and lifestyles and other countries
and freedom and the meaning of life. Most of the degenerative changes
that have taken place in America and in Canada since the Second World
War have been consequences of Jewish media influence. As that
influence continues to grow, the chances of our people being able to
throw off the yoke and regain control of our own destiny become
smaller and smaller.
In Canada at the moment, Izzy Asper's surfeit of chutzpah has brought
to the attention of the public-that is to the attention of that small
portion of the public that cares about such things-his monopoly
control of Canada's mass media and his intent to use those media for
Jewish propaganda purposes. Light has been cast on this grave
situation because most journalists are lemmings, and a few of them are
chattering excitedly now about things such as "freedom of the press."
Really, the whole debate is silly. Canada had no freedom of the press
even before Izzy got his greedy hands on most of Canada's newspapers.
For years it has been illegal in Canada to publish anything considered
"racist" or "anti-Semitic" or even Politically Incorrect. When a
Canadian buys copies of any of my books and they are mailed to him,
the Canadian secret police confiscate them at the border. Publicly
challenging the details of the Jewish "Holocaust" story can result in
a prison term for a Canadian. Canada's journalists thought all of
that-stopping "hate," as they called it-was just fine. Pretty soon
they will realize that requiring all mass media to say only nice
things about what the Jews are doing to the Palestinians is also part
of the noble effort to stop "hate," and that also will be just fine
with them.
We can't change the nature of lemmings. Someone always will manipulate
them. What is of the utmost importance is who it is that manipulates
them, because whoever that is will determine the course taken by the
whole society, by the nation, by the race. In the past, when it was a
king or a pope or a dictator who set the party line, many mistakes
were made, sometimes due to selfishness or irresponsibility, sometimes
due to ignorance or carelessness or stupidity or prejudice. But at
least the people setting the party line for the masses were our
people, members of our own race. Now, increasingly, the arbiters of
the party line are Jews or people wholly under Jewish influence. And
the Jews, as always, are looking out only for their own interests, not
for ours. To them we are merely tools to be used in advancing their
interests.
And that's at best. At worst they are pursuing policies intended not
only to advance their interests, but also to destroy us. Don't try to
debate this matter with the Jews; they will, of course, deny it. Just
look at the policies they have been pushing for the past 50 years and
where those policies have been taking us. Just consider the facts, not
their specious arguments designed to keep you demoralized and
non-resisting.
My fellow Americans and my fellow Canadians: we are in a bad
situation. Let us stop ignoring it. Let us begin deciding what we're
going to do about it. I'm doing what I can do in speaking out about it
and getting others to speak out. You must decide what you are able and
willing to do and then begin doing it.
Thanks for being with me again today."
The text above is based on a broadcast of the American Dissident
Voices radio program sponsored by National Vanguard Books. It is
distributed by e-mail each Saturday to subscribers of ADVlist.


http://www.ihr.org/ http://www.natvan.com

http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.nsm88.com/

http://wsi.matriots.com/jews.html
Tetsubo
2007-10-03 17:07:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Topaz
Post by tussock
One might better suggest that today it's the "Islamic terrorist" in
place of the "communist Jew". Like how the Islamic terrorists threatened
the whole nation while agitation was carried on against the secular
Iraqis.
No, Jews are the problem.
Actually, bigoted trolls are the problem...
--
Tetsubo
--------------------------------------
"The apparent lesson of the Inquisition is that insistence on
uniformity of belief is fatal to intellectual, moral and spiritual health."
-The Uses Of The Past-, Herbert J. Muller

BLUP
Matt Frisch
2007-10-03 19:25:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Topaz
During World War Two the Germans put Jews and Communists in
concentration camps. The USA locked also up the Japanese and their
political opponents and for less reason. At the end of the war there
was a lot of deaths in the German camps from disease and starvation
because Germany was being bombed to rubble. There is no evidence that
the Germans had gas chambers or an extermination plan.
Yes, because the 10 million people that went missing were not killed.
That's all just made up!

Your woeful ignorance is a blight on all of humanity. Please kill yourself.
I'm completely serious. Die.
c***@yahoo.com
2007-10-03 22:45:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Matt Frisch
Post by Topaz
During World War Two the Germans put Jews and Communists in
concentration camps. The USA locked also up the Japanese and their
political opponents and for less reason. At the end of the war there
was a lot of deaths in the German camps from disease and starvation
because Germany was being bombed to rubble. There is no evidence that
the Germans had gas chambers or an extermination plan.
Yes, because the 10 million people that went missing were not killed.
That's all just made up!
Your woeful ignorance is a blight on all of humanity. Please kill yourself.
I'm completely serious. Die.
No. Send him back to Germany in 1939 with absolute proof on him that
he's Jewish.

Brandin
Topaz
2007-10-04 21:33:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Leon Degrelle
"We have the power. Now our gigantic work begins."
Those were Hitler's words on the night of January 30, 1933, as
cheering crowds surged past him, for five long hours, beneath the
windows of the Chancellery in Berlin.
His political struggle had lasted 14 years. He himself was 43, that
is, physically and intellectually at the peak of his powers. He had
won over millions of Germans and organized them into Germany's largest
and most dynamic political party, a party girded by a human rampart of
hundreds of thousands of storm troopers, three fourths of them members
of the working class. He had been extremely shrewd. All but toying
with his adversaries, Hitler had, one after another, vanquished them
all.
Standing there at the window, his arm raised to the delirious throng,
he must have known a feeling of triumph. But he seemed almost torpid,
absorbed, as if lost in another world.
It was a world far removed from the delirium in the street, a world of
65 million citizens who loved him or hated him, but all of whom, from
that night on, had become his responsibility. And as he knew-as almost
all Germans knew on January 1933 -- that this was a crushing, an
almost desperate responsibility.
Half a century later, few people understand the crisis Germany faced
at that time. Today, it's easy to assume that Germans have always been
well-fed and even plump. But the Germans Hitler inherited were virtual
skeletons.
During the preceding years, a score of "democratic" governments had
come and gone, often in utter confusion. Instead of alleviating the
people's misery, they had increased it, due to their own instability:
it was impossible for them to pursue any given plan for more than a
year or two. Germany had arrived at a dead end. In just a few years
there had been 224,000 suicides - a horrifying figure, bespeaking a
state of misery even more horrifying.
By the beginning of 1933, the misery of the German people was
virtually universal. At least six million unemployed and hungry
workers roamed aimlessly through the streets, receiving a pitiful
unemployment benefit of less than 42 marks per month. Many of those
out of work had families to feed, so that altogether some 20 million
Germans, a third of the country's population, were reduced to trying
to survive on about 40 pfennigs per person per day.
Unemployment benefits, moreover, were limited to a period of six
months. After that came only the meager misery allowance dispensed by
the welfare offices.
Notwithstanding the gross inadequacy of this assistance, by trying to
save the six million unemployed from total destruction, even for just
six months, both the state and local branches of the German government
saw themselves brought to ruin: in 1932 alone such aid had swallowed
up four billion marks, 57 percent of the total tax revenues of the
federal government and the regional states. A good many German
municipalities were bankrupt.
Those still lucky enough to have some kind of job were not much better
off. Workers and employees had taken a cut of 25 percent in their
wages and salaries. Twenty-one percent of them were earning between
100 and 250 marks per month; 69.2 percent of them, in January of 1933,
were being paid less than 1,200 marks annually. No more than about
100,000 Germans, it was estimated, were able to live without financial
worries.
During the three years before Hitler came to power, total earnings had
fallen by more than half, from 23 billion marks to 11 billion. The
average per capita income had dropped from 1,187 marks in 1929 to 627
marks, a scarcely tolerable level, in 1932. By January 1933, when
Hitler took office, 90 percent of the German people were destitute.
No one escaped the strangling effects of the unemployment. The
intellectuals were hit as hard as the working class. Of the 135,000
university graduates, 60 percent were without jobs. Only a tiny
minority was receiving unemployment benefits.
"The others," wrote one foreign observer, Marcel Laloire (in his book
New Germany), "are dependent on their parents or are sleeping in
flophouses. In the daytime they can be seen on the boulevards of
Berlin wearing signs on their backs to the effect that they will
accept any kind of work."
But there was no longer any kind of work.
The same drastic fall-off had hit Germany's cottage industry, which
comprised some four million workers. Its turnover had declined 55
percent, with total sales plunging from 22 billion to 10 billion
marks.
Hardest hit of all were construction workers; 90 percent of them were
unemployed.
Farmers, too, had been ruined, crushed by losses amounting to 12
billion marks. Many had been forced to mortgage their homes and their
land. In 1932 just the interest on the loans they had incurred due to
the crash was equivalent to 20 percent of the value of the
agricultural production of the entire country. Those who were no
longer able to meet the interest payments saw their farms auctioned
off in legal proceedings: in the years 1931-1932, 17,157 farms-with a
combined total area of 462,485 hectares - were liquidated in this way.
The "democracy" of Germany's "Weimar Republic" (1918 -1933) had proven
utterly ineffective in addressing such flagrant wrongs as this
impoverishment of millions of farm workers, even though they were the
nation's most stable and hardest working citizens. Plundered,
dispossessed, abandoned: small wonder they heeded Hitler's call.
Their situation on January 30, 1933, was tragic. Like the rest of
Germany's working class, they had been betrayed by their political
leaders, reduced to the alternatives of miserable wages, paltry and
uncertain benefit payments, or the outright humiliation of begging.
Germany's industries, once renowned everywhere in the world, were no
longer prosperous, despite the millions of marks in gratuities that
the financial magnates felt obliged to pour into the coffers of the
parties in power before each election in order to secure their
cooperation. For 14 years the well-blinkered conservatives and
Christian democrats of the political center had been feeding at the
trough just as greedily as their adversaries of the left…
One inevitable consequence of this ever-increasing misery and
uncertainty about the future was an abrupt decline in the birthrate.
When your household savings are wiped out, and when you fear even
greater calamities in the days ahead, you do not risk adding to the
number of your dependents.
In those days the birth rate was a reliable barometer of a country's
prosperity. A child is a joy, unless you have nothing but a crust of
bread to put in its little hand. And that's just the way it was with
hundreds of thousands of German families in 1932…
Hitler knew that he would be starting from zero. From less than zero.
But he was also confident of his strength of will to create Germany
anew-politically, socially, financially, and economically. Now legally
and officially in power, he was sure that he could quickly convert
that cipher into a Germany more powerful than ever before.
What support did he have?
For one thing, he could count on the absolute support of millions of
fanatical disciples. And on that January evening, they joyfully shared
in the great thrill of victory. Some thirteen million Germans, many of
them former Socialists and Communists, had voted for his party.
But millions of Germans were still his adversaries, disconcerted
adversaries, to be sure, whom their own political parties had
betrayed, but who had still not been won over to National Socialism.
The two sides-those for and those against Hitler-were very nearly
equal in numbers. But whereas those on the left were divided among
themselves, Hitler's disciples were strongly united. And in one thing
above all, the National Socialists had an incomparable advantage: in
their convictions and in their total faith in a leader. Their highly
organized and well-disciplined party had contented with the worst kind
of obstacles, and had overcome them…
In the eyes of the capitalists, money was the sole active element in
the flourishing of a country's economy. To Hitler's way of thinking,
that conception was radically wrong: capital, on the contrary, was
only an instrument. Work was the essential element: man's endeavor,
man's honor, blood, muscles and soul.
Hitler wanted not just to put an to the class struggle, but to
reestablish the priority of the human being, in justice and respect,
as the principal factor in production…
For the worker's trust in the fatherland to be restored, he had to
feel that from now on he was to be (and to be treated) as an equal,
instead of remaining a social inferior. Under the governments of the
so-called democratic parties of both the left and the right, he had
remained an inferior; for none of them had understood that in the
hierarchy of national values, work is the very essence of life; …
The objective, then, was far greater than merely getting six million
unemployed back to work. It was to achieve a total revolution.
"The people," Hitler declared, "were not put here on earth for the
sake of the economy, and the economy doesn't exist for the sake of
capital. On the contrary, capital is meant to serve the economy, and
the economy in turn to serve the people."
It would not be enough merely to reopen the thousands of closed
factories and fill them with workers. If the old concepts still ruled,
the workers would once again be nothing more than living machines,
faceless and interchangeable…
Nowhere in twentieth-century Europe had the authority of a head of
state ever been based on such overwhelming and freely given national
consent. Prior to Hitler, from 1919 to 1932, those governments piously
styling themselves democratic had usually come to power by meager
majorities, sometimes as low as 51 or 52 percent.
"I am not a dictator," Hitler had often affirmed, "and I never will
be. Democracy will be rigorously enforced by National Socialism."
Authority does not mean tyranny. A tyrant is someone who puts himself
in power without the will of the people or against the will of the
people. A democrat is placed in power by the people. But democracy is
not limited to a single formula. It may be partisan or parliamentary.
Or it may be authoritarian. The important thing is that the people
have wished it, chosen it, established it in its given form.
That was the case with Hitler. He came to power in an essentially
democratic way. Whether one likes it or not, this fact is undeniable.
And after coming to power, his popular support measurably increased
from year to year. The more intelligent and honest of his enemies have
been obliged to admit this, men such as the declared anti-Nazi
historian and professor Joachim Fest, who wrote:
For Hitler was never interested in establishing a mere tyranny. Sheer
greed for power will not suffice as explanation for his personality
and energy-He was not born to be a mere tyrant. He was fixated upon
his mission of defending Europe and the Aryan race ... Never had he
felt so dependent upon the masses as he did at this time, and he
watched their reactions with anxious concern.
These lines weren't written by Dr. Goebbels, but by a stern critic of
Hitler and his career…
When it came time to vote, Hitler was granted plenary powers with a
sweeping majority of 441 votes to 94: he had won not just two thirds,
but 82.44 percent of the assembly's votes. This "Enabling Act" granted
Hitler for four years virtually absolute authority over the
legislative as well as the executive affairs of the government…
After 1945 the explanation that was routinely offered for all this was
that the Germans had lost their heads. Whatever the case, it is a
historical fact that they acted of their own free will. Far from being
resigned, they were enthusiastic. "For the first time since the last
days of the monarchy," historian Joachim Fest has conceded, "the
majority of the Germans now had the feeling that they could identify
with the state."…
"You talk about persecution!" he thundered in an impromptu response to
an address by the Social Democratic speaker. "I think that there are
only a few of us [in our party] here who did not have to suffer
persecutions in prison from your side ... You seem to have totally
forgotten that for years our shirts were ripped off our backs because
you did not like the color . . . We have outgrown your persecutions!"
"In those days," he scathingly continued, "our newspapers were banned
and banned and again banned, our meetings were forbidden, and we were
forbidden to speak, I was forbidden to speak, for years on. And now
you say that criticism is salutary!"…
Hitler's millions of followers had rediscovered the primal strength of
rough, uncitified man, of a time when men still had backbone…
Gustav Noske, the lumberjack who became defense minister - and the
most valiant defender of the embattled republic in the tumultuous
months immediately following the collapse of 1918 - acknowledged
honestly in 1944, when the Third Reich was already rapidly breaking
down, that the great majority of the German people still remained true
to Hitler because of the social renewal he had brought to the working
class…
Here again, well before the collapse of party-ridden Weimar Republic,
disillusion with the unions had become widespread among the working
masses. They were starving. The hundreds of Socialist and Communist
deputies stood idly by, impotent to provide any meaningful help to the
desperate proletariat.
Their leaders had no proposals to remedy, even partially, the great
distress of the people; no plans for large-scale public works, no
industrial restructuring, no search for markets abroad.
Moreover, they offered no energetic resistance to the pillaging by
foreign countries of the Reich's last financial resources: this a
consequence of the Treaty of Versailles that the German Socialists had
voted to ratify in June of 1919, and which they had never since had
the courage effectively to oppose…
In 1930, 1931 and 1932, German workers had watched the disaster grow:
the number of unemployed rose from two million to three, to four, to
five, then to six million. At the same time, unemployment benefits
fell lower and lower, finally to disappear completely. Everywhere one
saw dejection and privation: emaciated mothers, children wasting away
in sordid lodgings, and thousands of beggars in long sad lines.
The failure, or incapacity, of the leftist leaders to act, not to
mention their insensitivity, had stupefied the working class. Of what
use were such leaders with their empty heads and empty hearts-and,
often enough, full pockets?
Well before January 30, thousands of workers had already joined up
with Hitler's dynamic formations, which were always hard at it where
they were most needed. Many joined the National Socialists when they
went on strike. Hitler, himself a former worker and a plain man like
themselves, was determined to eliminate unemployment root and branch.
He wanted not merely to defend the laborer's right to work, but to
make his calling one of honor, to insure him respect and to integrate
him fully into a living community of all the Germans, who had been
divided class against class.
In January 1933, Hitler's victorious troops were already largely
proletarian in character, including numerous hardfisted street
brawlers, many unemployed, who no longer counted economically or
socially.
Meanwhile, membership in the Marxist labor unions had fallen off
enormously: among thirteen million socialist and Communist voters in
1932, no more than five million were union members. Indifference and
discouragement had reached such levels that many members no longer
paid their union dues. Many increasingly dispirited Marxist leaders
began to wonder if perhaps the millions of deserters were the ones who
saw things clearly. Soon they wouldn't wonder any longer.
Even before Hitler won Reichstag backing for his "Enabling Act,"
Germany's giant labor union federation, the ADGB, had begun to rally
to the National Socialist cause. As historian Joachim Fest
acknowledged: "On March 20, the labor federation's executive committee
addressed a kind of declaration of loyalty to Hitler." (J. Fest,
Hitler, p. 413.)
Hitler than took a bold and clever step. The unions had always
clamored to have the First of May recognized as a worker's holiday,
but the Weimar Republic had never acceded to their request. Hitler,
never missing an opportunity, grasped this one with both hands. He did
more than grant this reasonable demand: he proclaimed the First of May
a national holiday…
I myself attended the memorable meeting at the Tempelhof field in
1933. By nine o'clock that morning, giant columns, some of workers,
others of youth groups, marching in cadence down the pavement of
Berlin's great avenues, had started off towards the airfield to which
Hitler had called together all Germans. All Germany would follow the
rally as it was transmitted nationwide by radio…
In the dark, a group of determined opponents could easily have heckled
Hitler or otherwise sabotaged the meeting. Perhaps a third of the
onlookers had been Socialists or Communists only three months
previously. But not a single hostile voice was raised during the
entire ceremony. There was only universal acclamation.
Ceremony is the right word for it. It was an almost magical rite.
Hitler and Goebbels had no equals in the arranging of dedicatory
ceremonies of this sort. First there were popular songs, then great
Wagnerian hymns to grip the audience. Germany has a passion for
orchestral music, and Wagner taps the deepest and most secret vein of
the German soul, its romanticism, its inborn sense of the powerful and
the grand.
Meanwhile the hundreds of flags floated above the rostrum, redeemed
from the darkness by arrows of light.
Now Hitler strode to the rostrum. For those standing at the of the
field, his face must have appeared vanishingly small, but his words
flooded instantaneously across the acres of people in his audience.
A Latin audience would have preferred a voice less harsh, more
delicately expressive. But there was no doubt that Hitler spoke to the
psyche of the German people.
Germans have rarely had the good fortune to experience the enchantment
of the spoken word. In Germany, the tone has always been set by
ponderous speakers, more fond of elephantine pedantry than oratorical
passion. Hitler, as a speaker, was a prodigy, the greatest orator of
his century. He possessed, above all, what the ordinary speaker lacks:
a mysterious ability to project power.
A bit like a medium or sorcerer, he was seized, even transfixed, as he
addressed a crowd. It responded to Hitler's projection of power,
radiating it back, establishing, in the course of myriad exchanges, a
current that both orator and audience gave to and drew from equally.
One had to personally experience him speaking to understand this
phenomenon.
This special gift is what lay at the basis of Hitler's ability to win
over the masses. His high-voltage, lightning-like projection
transported and transformed all who experienced it. Tens of millions
were enlightened, riveted and inflamed by the fire of his anger,
irony, and passion.
By the time the cheering died away that May first evening, hundreds of
thousands of previously indifferent or even hostile workers who had
come to Tempelhof at the urging of their labor federation leaders were
now won over. They had become followers, like the SA stormtroopers
whom so many there that evening had brawled with in recent years.
The great human sea surged back from Tempelhof to Berlin. A million
and a half people had arrived in perfect order, and their departure
was just as orderly. No bottlenecks halted the cars and busses. For
those of us who witnessed it, this rigorous, yet joyful, discipline of
a contented people was in itself a source of wonder. Everything about
the May Day mass meeting had come off as smoothly clockwork.
The memory of that fabulous crowd thronging back to the center of
Berlin will never leave me. A great many were on foot. Their faces
were now different faces, as though they had been imbued with a
strange and totally new spirit. The non-Germans in the crowd were as
if stunned, and no less impressed than Hitler's fellow countrymen.
The French ambassador, André François-Poncet, noted:
The foreigners on the speaker's platform as guests of honor were not
alone in carrying away the impression of a truly beautiful and
wonderful public festival, an impression that was created by the
regime's genius for organization, by the night time display of
uniforms, by the play of lights, the rhythm of the music, by the flags
and the colorful fireworks; and they were not alone in thinking that a
breath of reconciliation and unity was passing over the Third Reich.
"It is our wish," Hitler had exclaimed, as though taking heaven as his
witness, "to get along together and to struggle together as brothers,
so that at the hour when we shall come before God, we might say to
him: 'See, Lord, we have changed. The German people are no longer a
people ashamed, a people mean and cowardly and divided. No, Lord! The
German people have become strong in their spirit, in their will, in
their perseverance, in their acceptance of any sacrifice. Lord, we
remain faithful to Thee! Bless our struggle!" (A. François-Poncet,
Souvenirs d'une ambassade à Berlin, p. 128.)
Who else could have made such an incantatory appeal without making
himself look ridiculous?
No politician had ever spoken of the rights of workers with such faith
and such force, or had laid out in such clear terms the social plan he
pledged to carry out on behalf of the common people.
The next day, the newspaper of the proletarian left, the "Union
Journal," reported on this mass meeting at which at least two thirds-a
million-of those attending were workers. "This May First was victory
day," the paper summed up.
With the workers thus won over, what further need was there for the
thousands of labor union locals that for so long had poisoned the
social life of the Reich and which, in any case, had accomplished
nothing of a lasting, positive nature?
Within hours of the conclusion of that "victory" meeting at the
Tempelhof field, the National Socialists were able to peacefully take
complete control of Germany's entire labor union organization,
including all its buildings, enterprises and banks. An era of Marxist
obstruction abruptly came to an end : from now on, a single national
organization would embody the collective will and interests of all of
Germany's workers.
Although he was now well on his way to creating what he pledged would
be a true "government of the people," Hitler also realized that great
obstacles remained. For one thing, the Communist rulers in Moscow had
not dropped their guard-or their guns. Restoring the nation would take
more than words and promises, it would take solid achievements. Only
then would the enthusiasm shown by the working class at the May First
mass meeting be an expression of lasting victory.
How could Hitler solve the great problem that had defied solution by
everyone else (both in Germany and abroad): putting millions of
unemployed back to work?
What would Hitler do about wages? Working hours? Leisure time?
Housing? How would he succeed in winning, at long last, respect for
the rights and dignity of the worker?
How could men's lives be improved-materially, morally, and, one might
even say, spiritually? How would he proceed to build a new society fit
for human beings, free of the inertia, injustices and prejudices of
the past?
"National Socialism," Hitler had declared at the outset, "has its
mission and its hour; it is not just a passing movement but a phase of
history."
The instruments of real power now in his hands-an authoritarian state,
its provinces subordinate but nonetheless organic parts of the
national whole-Hitler had acted quickly to shake himself free of the
last constraints of the impotent sectarian political parties.
Moreover, he was now able to direct a cohesive labor force that was no
longer split into a thousand rivulets but flowed as a single, mighty
current.
Hitler was self-confident, sure of the power of his own conviction. He
had no intention, or need, to resort to the use of physical force.
Instead, he intended to win over, one by one, the millions of Germans
who were still his adversaries, and even those who still hated him.
His conquest of Germany had taken years of careful planning and hard
work. Similarly, he would now realize his carefully worked out plans
for transforming the state and society. This meant not merely changes
in administrative or governmental structures, but far-reaching social
programs.
He had once vowed: "The hour will come when the 15 million people who
now hate us will be solidly behind us and will acclaim with us the new
revival we shall create together." Eventually he would succeed in
winning over even many of his most refractory skeptics and
adversaries.
His army of converts was already forming ranks. In a remarkable
tribute, historian Joachim Fest felt obliged to acknowledge
unequivocally:
Hitler had moved rapidly from the status of a demagogue to that of a
respected statesman. The craving to join the ranks of the victors was
spreading like an epidemic, and the shrunken minority of those who
resisted the urge were being visibly pushed into isolation-The past
was dead. The future, it seemed, belonged to the regime, which had
more and more followers, which was being hailed everywhere and
suddenly had sound reasons on its side.
And even the prominent leftist writer Kurt Tucholsky, sensing the
direction of the inexorable tide that was sweeping Germany, vividly
commented: "You don't go railing against the ocean." (J. Fest, Hitler,
pp. 415 f.)
"Our power," Hitler was now able to declare, "no longer belongs to any
territorial fraction of the Reich, nor to any single class of the
nation, but to the people in its totality."
Much still remained to be done, however. So far, Hitler had succeeded
in clearing the way of obstacles to his program. Now the time to build
had arrived.
So many others had failed to tackle the many daunting problems that
were now his responsibility. Above all, the nation demanded a solution
to the great problem of unemployment. Could Hitler now succeed where
others had so dismally failed?…
Unemployment could be combated and eliminated only by giving industry
the financial means to start up anew, to modernize, thus creating
millions of new jobs.
The normal rate of consumption would not be restored, let alone
increased, unless one first raised the starvation-level allowances
that were making purchases of any kind a virtual impossibility. On the
contrary, production and sales would have to be restored before the
six million unemployed could once again become purchasers.
The great economic depression could be overcome only by restimulating
industry, by bringing industry into step with the times, and by
promoting the development of new products…
Nearly ten years earlier, while in his prison cell, Hitler had already
envisioned a formidable system of national highways. He had also
conceived of a small, easily affordable automobile (later known as the
"Volkswagen"), and had even suggested its outline. It should have the
shape of a June bug, he proposed. Nature itself suggested the car's
aerodynamic line.
Until Hitler came to power, a car was the privilege of the rich. It
was not financially within the reach of the middle class, much less of
the worker. The "Volkswagen," costing one-tenth as much as the
standard automobile of earlier years, would eventually become a
popular work vehicle and a source of pleasure after work: a way to
unwind and get some fresh air, and of discovering, thanks to the new
Autobahn highway network, a magnificent country that then, in its
totality, was virtually unknown to the German worker.
From the beginning, Hitler wanted this economical new car to be built
for the millions. The production works would also become one of
Germany's most important industrial centers and employers.
During his imprisonment, Hitler had also drawn up plans for the
construction of popular housing developments and majestic public
buildings.
Some of Hitler's rough sketches still survive. They include groups of
individual worker's houses with their own gardens (which were to be
built in the hundreds of thousands), a plan for a covered stadium in
Berlin, and a vast congress hall, unlike any other in the world, that
would symbolize the grandeur of the National Socialist revolution.
"A building with a monumental dome," historian Werner Maser has
explained, "the plan of which he drew while he was writing Mein Kampf,
would have a span of 46 meters, a height of 220 meters, a diameter of
250 meters, and a capacity of 150 to 190 thousand people standing. The
interior of the building would have been 17 times larger than Saint
Peter's Cathedral in Rome." (W. Maser, Hitler, Adolf, p. 100.)
"That hall," architect Albert Speer has pointed out, "was not just an
idle dream impossible of achievement."
Hitler's imagination, therefore, had long been teeming with a number
of ambitious projects, many of which would eventually be realized.
Fortunately, the needed entrepreneurs, managers and technicians were
on hand. Hitler would not have to improvise.
Historian Werner Maser, although quite anti-Hitler-like nearly all of
his colleagues (how else would they have found publishers?) - has
acknowledged: "From the beginning of his political career, he [Hitler]
took great pains systematically to arrange for whatever he was going
to need in order to carry out his plans."
"Hitler was distinguished," Maser has also noted, "by an exceptional
intelligence in technical matters." Hitler had acquired his knowledge
by devoting many thousands of hours to technical studies from the time
of his youth.
"Hitler read an endless number of books," explained Dr. Schacht. "He
acquired a very considerable amount of knowledge and made masterful
use of it in discussions and speeches. In certain respects he was a
man endowed with genius. He had ideas that no one else would ever have
thought of, ideas that resulted in the ending of great difficulties,
sometimes by measures of an astonishing simplicity or brutality."
Many billions of marks would be needed to begin the great
socioeconomic revolution that was destined, as Hitler had always
intended, to make Germany once again the European leader in industry
and commerce and, most urgently, to rapidly wipe out unemployment in
Germany. Where would the money be found? And, once obtained, how would
these funds be allotted to ensure maximum effectiveness in their
investment?
Hitler was by no means a dictator in matters of the economy. He was,
rather, a stimulator. His government would undertake to do only that
which private initiative could not.
Hitler believed in the importance of individual creative imagination
and dynamism, in the need for every person of superior ability and
skill to assume responsibility.
He also recognized the importance of the profit motive. Deprived of
the prospect of having his efforts rewarded, the person of ability
often refrains from running risks. The economic failure of Communism
has demonstrated this. In the absence of personal incentives and the
opportunity for real individual initiative, the Soviet "command
economy" lagged in all but a few fields, its industry years behind its
competitors.
State monopoly tolls the death of all initiative, and hence of all
progress.
For all men selflessly to pool their wealth might be marvelous, but it
is also contrary to human nature. Nearly every man desires that his
labor shall improve his own condition and that of his family, and
feels that his brain, creative imagination, and persistence well
deserve their reward.
Because it disregarded these basic psychological truths, Soviet
Communism, right to the end, wallowed in economic mediocrity, in spite
of its immense reservoir of manpower, its technical expertise, and its
abundant natural resources, all of which ought to have made it an
industrial and technological giant.
Hitler was always adverse to the idea of state management of the
economy. He believed in elites. "A single idea of genius," he used to
say, "has more value than a lifetime of conscientious labor in an
office."
Just as there are political or intellectual elites, so also is there
an industrial elite. A manufacturer of great ability should not be
restrained, hunted down by the internal revenue services like a
criminal, or be unappreciated by the public. On the contrary, it is
important for economic development that the industrialist be
encouraged morally and materially, as much as possible.
The most fruitful initiatives Hitler would take from 1933 on would be
on behalf of private enterprise. He would keep an eye on the quality
of their directors, to be sure, and would shunt aside incompetents,
quite a few of them at times, but he also supported the best ones,
those with the keenest minds, the most imaginative and bold, even if
their political opinions did not always agree with his own.
"There is no question," he stated very firmly, "of dismissing a
factory owner or director under the pretext that he is not a National
Socialist."
Hitler would exercise the same moderation, the same pragmatism, in the
administrative as well as in the industrial sphere.
What he demanded of his co-workers, above all, was competence and
effectiveness. The great majority of Third Reich functionaries - some
80 percent-were never enrolled in the National Socialist party.
Several of Hitler's ministers, like Konstantin von Neurath and
Schwerin von Krosigk, and ambassadors to such key posts as Prague,
Vienna and Ankara, were not members of the party. But they were
capable…
"Herr Schacht," he said, "we are assuredly in agreement on one point:
no other single task facing the government at the moment can be so
truly urgent as conquering unemployment. That will take a lot of
money. Do you see any possibility of finding it apart from the
Reichsbank?" And after a moment, he added: "How much would it take? Do
you have any idea?"
Wishing to win Schacht over by appealing to his ambition, Hitler
smiled and then asked: "Would you be willing to once again assume
presidency of the Reichsbank?" Schacht let on that he had a
sentimental concern for Dr. Luther, and did not want to hurt the
incumbent's feelings. Playing along, Hitler reassured Schacht that he
would find an appropriate new job elsewhere for Luther.
Schacht then pricked up his ears, drew himself up, and focused his big
round eyes on Hitler: "Well, if that's the way it is," he said, "then
I am ready to assume the presidency of the Reichsbank again."
His great dream was being realized. Schacht had been president of the
Reichsbank between 1923 and 1930, but had been dismissed. Now he would
return in triumph. He felt vindicated. Within weeks, the ingenious
solution to Germany's pressing financial woes would burst forth from
his inventive brain.
"It was necessary," Schacht later explained, "to discover a method
that would avoid inflating the investment holdings of the Reichsbank
immoderately and consequently increasing the circulation of money
excessively."
"Therefore," he went on, "I had to find some means of getting the sums
that were lying idle in pockets and banks, without meaning for it to
be long term and without having it undergo the risk of depreciation.
That was the reasoning behind the Mefo bonds."
What were these "Mefo" bonds? Mefo was a contraction of the
Metallurgische Forschungs-GmbH (Metallurgic Research Company). With a
startup capitalization of one billion marks - which Hitler and Schacht
arranged to be provided by the four giant firms of Krupp, Siemens,
Deutsche Werke and Rheinmetall-this company would eventually promote
many billions of marks worth of investment.
Enterprises, old and new, that filled government orders had only to
draw drafts on Mefo for the amounts due. These drafts, when presented
to the Reichsbank, were immediately convertible into cash. The success
of the Mefo program depended entirely on public acceptance of the Mefo
bonds. But the wily Schacht had planned well. Since Mefo bonds were
short-term bonds that could be cashed in at any time, there was no
real risk in buying, accepting or holding them. They bore an interest
of four percent-a quite acceptable figure in those days-whereas
banknotes hidden under the mattress earned nothing. The public quickly
took all this into consideration and eagerly accepted the bonds.
While the Reichsbank was able to offer from its own treasury a
relatively insignificant 150 million marks for Hitler's war on
unemployment, in just four years the German public subscribed more
than 12 billion marks worth of Mefo bonds!
These billions, the fruit of the combined imagination, ingenuity and
astuteness of Hitler and Schacht, swept away the temporizing and
fearful conservatism of the bankers. Over the next four years, this
enormous credit reserve would make miracles possible.
Soon after the initial billion-mark credit, Schacht added another
credit of 600 million in order to finance the start of Hitler's grand
program for highway construction. This Autobahn program provided
immediate work for 100,000 of the unemployed, and eventually assured
wages for some 500,000 workers.
As large as this outlay was, it was immediately offset by a
corresponding cutback in government unemployment benefits, and by the
additional tax revenue generated as a result of the increase in living
standard (sping) of the newly employed.
Within a few months, thanks to the credit created by the Mefo bonds,
private industry once again dared to assume risks and expand. Germans
returned to work by the hundreds of thousands.
Was Schacht solely responsible for this extraordinary turnaround?
After the war, he answered for himself as a Nuremberg Tribunal
defendant, where he was charged with having made possible the Reich's
economic revival:
I don't think Hitler was reduced to begging for my help. If I had not
served him, he would have found other methods, other means. He was not
a man to give up. It's easy enough for you to say, Mr. Prosecutor,
that I should have watched Hitler die and not lifted a finger. But the
entire working class would have died with him!
Even Marxists recognized Hitler's success, and their own failure. In
the June 1934 issue of the Zeitschrift für Sozialismus, the journal of
the German Social Democrats in exile, this acknowledgement appears:
Faced with the despair of proletarians reduced to joblessness, of
young people with diplomas and no future, of the middle classes of
merchants and artisans condemned to bankruptcy, and of farmers
terribly threatened by the collapse in agricultural prices, we all
failed. We weren't capable of offering the masses anything but
speeches about the glory of socialism.
VI. The Social Revolution
Hitler's tremendous social achievement in putting Germany's six
million unemployed back to work is seldom acknowledged today. Although
it was much more than a transitory achievement, "democratic"
historians routinely dismiss it in just a few lines. Since 1945, not a
single objective scholarly study has been devoted to this highly
significant, indeed unprecedented, historical phenomenon.
Similarly neglected is the body of sweeping reforms that dramatically
changed the condition of the worker in Germany. Factories were
transformed from gloomy caverns to spacious and healthy work centers,
with natural lighting, surrounded by gardens and playing fields.
Hundreds of thousands of attractive houses were built for working
class families. A policy of several weeks of paid vacation was
introduced, along with week and holiday trips by land and sea. A
wide-ranging program of physical and cultural education for young
workers was established, with the world's best system of technical
training. The Third Reich's social security and workers' health
insurance system was the world's most modern and complete.
This remarkable record of social achievement is routinely hushed up
today because it is embarrasses those who uphold the orthodox view of
the Third Reich. Otherwise, readers might begin to think that perhaps
Hitler was the greatest social builder of the twentieth century…
Nevertheless, restoring work and bread to millions of unemployed who
had been living in misery for years; restructuring industrial life;
conceiving and establishing an organization for the effective defense
and betterment of the nation's millions of wage earners; creating a
new bureaucracy and judicial system that guaranteed the civic rights
of each member of the national community, while simultaneously holding
each person to his or her responsibilities as a German citizen: this
organic body of reforms was part of a single, comprehensive plan,
which Hitler had conceived and worked out years earlier.
Without this plan, the nation would have collapsed into anarchy.
All-encompassing, this program included broad industrial recovery as
well as detailed attention to even construction of comfortable inns
along the new highway network.
It took several years for a stable social structure to emerge from the
French Revolution. The Soviets needed even more time: five years after
the Bolshevik revolution of 1917, hundreds of thousands of Russians
were still dying of hunger and disease. In Germany, by contrast, the
great machinery was in motion within months, with organization and
accomplishment quickly meshing together…
Hitler personally dug the first spadeful of earth for the first
Autobahn highway, linking Frankfurt-am-Main with Darmstadt. For the
occasion, he brought along Dr. Schacht, the man whose visionary credit
wizardry had made the project possible. The official procession moved
ahead, three cars abreast in front, then six across, spanning the
entire width of the autobahn…
Hitler's plan to build thousands of low-cost homes also demanded a
vast mobilization of manpower. He had envisioned housing that would be
attractive, cozy, and affordable for millions of ordinary German
working-class families. He had no intention of continuing to tolerate,
as his predecessors had, cramped, ugly "rabbit warren" housing for the
German people. The great barracks-like housing projects on the
outskirts of factory towns, packed with cramped families, disgusted
him.
The greater part of the houses he would build were single story,
detached dwellings, with small yards where children could romp, wives
could grow vegetable and flower gardens, while the bread-winners could
read their newspapers in peace after the day's work. These
single-family homes were built to conform to the architectural styles
of the various German regions, retaining as much as possible the
charming local variants.
Wherever there was no practical alternative to building large
apartment complexes, Hitler saw to it that the individual apartments
were spacious, airy and enhanced by surrounding lawns and gardens
where the children could play safely.
The new housing was, of course, built in conformity with the highest
standards of public health, a consideration notoriously neglected in
previous working-class projects.
Generous loans, amortizable in ten years, were granted to newly
married couples so they could buy their own homes. At the birth of
each child, a fourth of the debt was cancelled. Four children, at the
normal rate of a new arrival every two and a half years, sufficed to
cancel the entire loan debt.
Once, during a conversation with Hitler, I expressed my astonishment
at this policy. "But then, you never get back the total amount of your
loans?," I asked. "How so?" he replied, smiling. "Over a period of ten
years, a family with four children brings in much more than our loans,
through the taxes levied on a hundred different items of consumption."
As it happened, tax revenues increased every year, in proportion to
the rise in expenditures for Hitler's social programs. In just a few
years, revenue from taxes tripled. Hitler's Germany never experienced
a financial crisis.
To stimulate the moribund economy demanded the nerve, which Hitler
had, to invest money that the government didn't yet have, rather than
passively waiting-in accordance with "sound" financial principles-for
the economy to revive by itself.
Today, our whole era is dying economically because we have succumbed
to fearful hesitation. Enrichment follows investment, not the other
way around…
Even before the year 1933 had ended, Hitler had succeeded in building
202,119 housing units. Within four years he would provide the German
people with nearly a million and a half (1,458,128) new dwellings!
Moreover, workers would no longer be exploited as they had been. A
month's rent for a worker could not exceed 26 marks, or about an
eighth of the average wage then. Employees with more substantial
salaries paid monthly rents of up to 45 marks maximum.
Equally effective social measures were taken in behalf of farmers, who
had the lowest incomes. In 1933 alone 17,611 new farm houses were
built, each of them surrounded by a parcel of land one thousand square
meters in size. Within three years, Hitler would build 91,000 such
farmhouses…
Everywhere industry was hiring again, with some firms-like Krupp, IG
Farben and the large automobile manufacturers-taking on new workers on
a very large scale. As the country became more prosperous, car sales
increased by more than 80,000 units in 1933 alone. Employment in the
auto industry doubled. Germany was gearing up for full production,
with private industry leading the way.
The new government lavished every assistance on the private sector,
the chief factor in employment as well as production. Hitler almost
immediately made available 500 million marks in credits to private
business.
This start-up assistance given to German industry would repay itself
many times over. Soon enough, another two billion marks would be
loaned to the most enterprising companies. Nearly half would go into
new wages and salaries, saving the treasury an estimated three hundred
million marks in unemployment benefits. Added to the hundreds of
millions in tax receipts spurred by the business recovery, the state
quickly recovered its investment, and more.
Hitler's entire economic policy would be based on the following
equation: risk large sums to undertake great public works and to spur
the renewal and modernization of industry, then later recover the
billions invested through invisible and painless tax revenues. It
didn't take long for Germany to see the results of Hitler's recovery
formula.
Economic recovery, as important as it was, nevertheless wasn't
Hitler's only objective. As he strived to restore full employment,
Hitler never lost sight of his goal of creating a organization
powerful enough to stand up to capitalist owners and managers, who had
shown little concern for the health and welfare of the entire national
community.
Hitler would impose on everyone-powerful boss and lowly wage earner
alike-his own concept of the organic social community. Only the loyal
collaboration of everyone could assure the prosperity of all classes
and social groups.
Consistent with their doctrine, Germany's Marxist leaders had set
class against class, helping to bring the country to the brink of
economic collapse. Deserting their Marxist unions and political
parties in droves, most workers had come to realize that strikes and
grievances their leaders incited only crippled production, and thus
the workers as well.
By the of 1932, in any case, the discredited labor unions were
drowning in massive debt that realistically could never be repaid.
Some of the less scrupulous union officials, sensing the oncoming
catastrophe, had begun stealing hundreds of thousands of marks from
the workers they represented. The Marxist leaders had failed:
socially, financially and morally.
Every joint human activity requires a leader. The head of a factory or
business is also the person naturally responsible for it. He oversees
every aspect of production and work. In Hitler's Germany, the head of
a business had to be both a capable director and a person concerned
for the social justice and welfare of his employees. Under Hitler,
many owners and managers who had proven to be unjust, incompetent or
recalcitrant lost their jobs, or their businesses.
A considerable number of legal guarantees protected the worker against
any abuse of authority at the workplace. Their purpose was to insure
that the rights of workers were respected, and that workers were
treated as worthy collaborators, not just as animated tools. Each
industrialist was legally obliged to collaborate with worker delegates
in drafting shop regulations that were not imposed from above but
instead adapted to each business enterprise and its particular working
conditions. These regulations had to specify "the length of the
working day, the time and method of paying wages, and the safety
rules, and to be posted throughout the factory," within easy access of
both the worker whose interests might be angered and the owner or
manager whose orders might be subverted.
The thousands of different, individual versions of such regulations
served to create a healthy rivalry, with every factory group vying to
outdo the others in efficiency and justice.
One of the first reforms to benefit German workers was the
establishment of paid vacations. In France, the leftist Popular Front
government would noisily claim, in 1936, to have originated legally
mandated paid vacations-and stingy ones at that, only one week per
year. But it was actually Hitler who first established them, in 1933
-- and they were two or three times more generous.
Under Hitler, every factory employee had the legal right to paid
vacation. Previously, paid vacations had not normally exceed four or
five days, and nearly half of the younger workers had no vacation time
at all. If anything, Hitler favored younger workers; the youngest
workers received more generous vacations. This was humane and made
sense: a young person has more need of rest and fresh air to develop
his maturing strength and vigor. Thus, they enjoyed a full 18 days of
paid vacation per year.
Today, more than half a century later, these figures have been
surpassed, but in 1933 they far exceeded European norms.
The standard vacation was twelve days. Then, from the age of 25 on, it
went up to 18 days. After ten years with the company, workers got a
still longer vacation: 21 days, or three times what the French
socialists would grant the workers of their country in 1936.
Hitler introduced the standard forty-hour work week in Europe. As for
overtime work, it was now compensated, as nowhere else in the
continent at the time, at an increased pay rate. And with the
eight-hour work day now the norm, overtime work became more readily
available.
In another innovation, work breaks were made longer: two hours each
day, allowing greater opportunity for workers to relax, and to make
use of the playing fields that large industries were now required to
provide.
Whereas a worker's right to job security had been virtually
non-existent, now an employee could no longer be dismissed at the sole
discretion of the employer. Hitler saw to it that workers' rights were
spelled out and enforced. Henceforth, an employer had to give four
weeks notice before firing an employee, who then had up to two months
to appeal the dismissal. Dismissals could also be annulled by the
"Courts of Social Honor" (Ehrengerichte).
This Court was one of three great institutions that were established
to protect German workers. The others were the "Labor Commissions" and
the "Council of Trust."
The "Council of Trust" (Vertrauensrat) was responsible for
establishing and developing a real spirit of community between
management and labor. "In every business enterprise," the 1934 "Labor
Charter" law stipulated, "the employer and head of the enterprise
(Führer), the employees and workers, personnel of the enterprise,
shall work jointly toward the goal of the enterprise and the common
good of the nation."
No longer would either be exploited by the other-neither the worker by
arbitrary whim of the employer, nor the employer through the blackmail
of strikes for political ends.
Article 35 of the "Labor Charter" law stated: "Every member of an
enterprise community shall assume the responsibility required by his
position in said common enterprise." In short, each enterprise would
be headed by a dynamic executive, charged with a sense of the greater
community-no longer a selfish capitalist with unconditional, arbitrary
power.
"The interest of the community may require that an incapable or
unworthy employer be relieved of his duties," the "Labor Charter"
stipulated. The employer was no longer unassailable, an all-powerful
boss with the last word on hiring and firing his staff. He, too, would
be subject to the workplace regulations, which he was now obliged to
respect no less than the least of his employees. The law conferred the
honor and responsibility of authority on the employer only insofar as
he merited it…
In the Third Reich, the worker knew that "exploitation of his physical
strength in bad faith or in violation of his honor" was no longer
tolerated. He had obligations to the community, but he shared these
obligations with every other member of the enterprise, from the chief
executive to the messenger boy. Finally, the German worker had clearly
defined social rights, which were arbitrated and enforced by
independent agencies. And while all this had been achieved in an
atmosphere of justice and moderation, it nevertheless constituted a
genuine social revolution…
Factories and shops, large and small, were altered or transformed to
conform to the strictest standards of cleanliness and hygiene:
interiors, so often dark and stifling, were opened up to light;
playing fields were constructed; rest areas where workers could unbend
during break, were set aside; employee cafeterias and respectable
locker rooms were opened. The larger industrial establishments, in
addition to providing the normally required conventional sports
facilities, were obliged to put in swimming pools!
In just three years, these achievements would reach unimagined
heights: more than two thousand factories refitted and beautified;
23,000 work premises modernized; 800 buildings designed exclusively
for meetings; 1,200 playing fields; 13,000 sanitary facilities; 17,000
cafeterias.
To assure the healthy development of the working class, physical
education courses were instituted for younger workers. Some 8,000 were
eventually organized. Technical training was equally emphasized.
Hundreds of work schools, and thousands of technical courses were
created. There were examinations for professional competence, and
competitions in which generous prizes were awarded to outstanding
masters of their craft.
Eight hundred departmental inspectors and 17,300 local inspectors were
employed to conscientiously monitor and promote these improvements.
To provide affordable vacations for German workers on a hitherto
unprecedented scale, Hitler established the "Strength through Joy"
program. As a result, hundreds of thousands of workers were now able
to make relaxing vacation trips on land and sea each summer.
Magnificent cruise ships were built, and special trains brought
vacationers to the mountains and the seashore. In just a few years,
Germany's working-class tourists would log a distance equivalent to 54
times the circumference of the earth! And thanks to generous state
subsidies, the cost to workers of these popular vacation excursions
was nearly insignificant…
Was Hitler's transformation of the lot of the working class
authoritarian? Without a doubt. And yet, for a people that had grown
sick and tired of anarchy, this new authoritarianism wasn't regarded
as an imposition. In fact, people have always accepted a strong man's
leadership.
In any case, there is no doubt that the attitude of the German working
class, which was still two-thirds non-Nazi at the start of 1933, soon
changed completely. As Belgian author Marcel Laloire noted at the
time:
When you make your way through the cities of Germany and go into the
working-class districts, go through the factories, the construction
yards, you are astonished to find so many workers on the job sporting
the Hitler insignia, to see so many flags with the swastika, black on
a bright red background, in the most densely populated districts.
Hitler's "German Labor Front" (Deutsche Arbeitsfront), which
incorporated all workers and employers, was for the most part eagerly
accepted. The steel spades of the sturdy young lads of the "National
Labor Service" (Reichsarbeitsdienst) could also be seen gleaming along
the highways.
Hitler created the National Labor Service not only to alleviate
unemployment, but to bring together, in absolute equality, and in the
same uniform, both the sons of millionaires and the sons of the
poorest families for several months' common labor and living.
All performed the same work, all were subject to the same discipline;
they enjoyed the same pleasures and benefited from the same physical
and moral development. At the same construction sites and in the same
barracks, Germans became conscious of what they had in common, grew to
understand one another, and discarded their old prejudices of class
and caste.
After a hitch in the National Labor Service, a young worker knew that
the rich man's son was not a pampered monster, while the young lad of
wealthy family knew that the worker's son had no less honor than a
nobleman or an heir to riches; they had lived and worked together as
comrades. Social hatred was vanishing, and a socially united people
was being born.
Hitler could go into factories-something few men of the so-called
Right would have risked in the past-and hold forth to crowds of
workers, at times in the thousands, as at the huge Siemens works. "In
contrast to the von Papens and other country gentlemen," he might tell
them, "in my youth I was a worker like you. And in my heart of hearts,
I have remained what I was then."
During his twelve years in power, no untoward incident ever occurred
at any factory he visited. Hitler was at home when he went among the
people, and he was received like a member of the family returning home
after making a success of himself.
But the Chancellor of the Third Reich wanted more than popular
approval. He wanted that approval to be freely, widely, and repeatedly
expressed by popular vote. No people was ever be more frequently asked
for their electoral opinion than the German people of that era-five
times in five years.
For Hitler, it was not enough that the people voted from time to time,
as in the previous democratic system. In those days, voters were
rarely appealed to, and when they expressed an opinion, they were
often ill-informed and apathetic. After an election, years might go
by, during which the politicians were heedless and inaccessible, the
electorate powerless to vote on their actions.
To enable the German public to express its opinion on the occasion of
important events of social, national, or international significance,
Hitler provided the people a new means of approving or rejecting his
own actions as Chancellor: the plebiscite.
Hitler recognized the right of all the people, men and women alike, to
vote by secret ballot: to voice their opinion of his policies, or to
make a well-grounded judgment on this or that great decision in
domestic or foreign affairs. Rather than a formalistic routine,
democracy became a vital, active program of supervision that was
renewed annually.
The articles of the "Plebiscite Law" were brief and clear:
1. The Reich government may ask the people whether or not it
approves of a measure planned by or taken by the government. This may
also apply to a law.
2. A measure submitted to plebiscite will be considered as
established when it receives a simple majority of the votes. This will
apply as well to a law modifying the Constitution.
3. If the people approves the measure in question, it will be
applied in conformity with article III of the Law for Overcoming the
Distress of the People and the Reich.
The Reich Interior Ministry is authorized to take all legal and
administrative measures necessary to carry out this law.
Berlin, July 14, 1933.
Hitler, Frick…
From the first months of 1933, his accomplishments were public fact,
for all to see. Before end of the year, unemployment in Germany had
fallen from more than 6,000,000 to 3,374,000. Thus, 2,627,000 jobs had
been created since the previous February, when Hitler began his
"gigantic task!" A simple question: Who in Europe ever achieved
similar results in so short a time?…
In his detailed and critical biography of Hitler, Joachim Fest limited
his treatment of Hitler's extraordinary social achievements in 1933 to
a few paragraphs. All the same, Fest did not refrain from
acknowledging:
The regime insisted that it was not the rule of one social class above
all others, and by granting everyone opportunities to rise, it in fact
demonstrated class neutrality-These measures did indeed break through
the old, petrified social structures. They tangibly improved the
material condition of much of the population. (J. Fest, Hitler, pp.
434-435.)
Not without reason were the swastika banners waving proudly throughout
the working-class districts where, just a year ago, they had been
unceremoniously torn down.

http://www.ihr.org/ http://www.natvan.com

http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.nsm88.com/

http://wsi.matriots.com/jews.html
Topaz
2007-10-04 21:32:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
<http://www.ety.com/tell/books/jgjewstats/03.htm>

[ . . . ] Furthermore, regardless of how you define a Jew, the
statistics about the Jewish world population are very contradictory
and suspect from the very beginning because the figures are more often
than not furnished by the Jewish organizations, which evidently have
to respect the Holocaust dogma according to which roughly one third of
the Jews were exterminated during World War Two. The leading pre-war
expert on Jewish population statistics, Arthur Ruppin, stated that
there were 16.7 million Jews in the world in 1939 (13). For the
immediate postwar years, the World Almanac gave the following figures:
15.19 million in 1945 and 15.7 million in the following four years,
from 1946 to
1949. But it its 1949 issue, the World Almanac quoted the figures
furnished by the American Jewish committee according to which there
had been 16.6 million Jews in 1939 and only 11.2 million in 1947 (14).
On the other hand, in an article published in the Jewish-owned New
York Times in early 1948, Hanson Baldwin, a military expert and
specialist on Palestine, stated that there were between 15 and 18
million Jews worldwide...

"In other words, "statistics" from Jewish organizations tend to
"prove" that 5 to 6 million died or disappeared during WWII (surprise
surprise), while those from more neutral sources show that the Jewish
world population remained about the same, or increased slightly, over
the war years."

Seneca





http://www.ihr.org/ http://www.natvan.com

http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.nsm88.com/

http://wsi.matriots.com/jews.html
Mart van de Wege
2007-10-05 16:41:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Topaz
During World War Two the Germans put Jews and Communists in
concentration camps. The USA locked also up the Japanese and their
political opponents and for less reason. At the end of the war there
was a lot of deaths in the German camps from disease and starvation
because Germany was being bombed to rubble. There is no evidence that
the Germans had gas chambers or an extermination plan.
One of your own heroes says it himself:

"Es hat jeden geschaudert und doch war sich jeder klar darüber, dass er
es das nächste Mal wieder tun würde, wenn es befohlen wird und wenn es
notwendig ist.

Ich meine jetzt die Judenevakuierung, die Ausrottung des jüdischen
Volkes."

Translation:

Everyone was horrified, but absolutely clear to himself, that he
would act again the next time, when the orders come and when it is
necessary.

I am talking about the 'evacuation' of the Jews, of the
extermination of the Jewish people.

Translation mine, from the speech Heinrich Himmler gave to several
Gauleiters in October 1943. Evacuation in quotes, because the context
in the original German makes it quite clear that Himmler equates it
with extermination. I didn't download the audio sample, but I wouldn't
be surprised if he actually is being sarcastic.

It's rather hard to deny the extermination of the Jews, if the
exterminators themselves brag about it.

Now fuck of and die, Nazi scum.

Mart
--
"We will need a longer wall when the revolution comes."
--- AJS, quoting an uncertain source.
Topaz
2007-10-05 23:20:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
"On July 19, 1942, Himmler issued a directive setting a timetable
for the expulsion (got that? "expulsion") of Jews from the
Government-General. The Jews were not to be killed, they were to be
resettled. The order stated:

(Begin quote)
"I herewith order that the resettlement of the entire Jewish
population of the Government-General be carried out and completed by
December 31, 1942.

"From December 31, 1942, no persons of Jewish origin may remain
within the Government-General, unless they are in collection camps
in Warsaw, Cracow, Czestochowa, Radom, and Lublin. All other work on
which Jewish labor is employed must be finished by that date, or, in
the event that this is not possible, it must be transferred to one of
the collection camps."
(End quote)

That order was followed up by a similar order by Himmler in a
letter to Frank, the governor of Poland, on May 26, 1943. Jews were to
be evacuated, not gassed.

(Begin quote)
"The evacuation of the last 250,000 Jews, which will undoubtedly
cause unrest for some weeks, must despite all the difficulties be
completed as quickly as possible."
(End quote)

The evidence shows that the Jews were deported, not executed.
There was no "Holocaust".

Morghus

http://www.ihr.org/ http://www.natvan.com

http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.nsm88.com/

http://wsi.matriots.com/jews.html
c***@yahoo.com
2007-10-06 00:17:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Topaz
The evidence shows that the Jews were deported, not executed.
There was no "Holocaust".
Denying the Holocaust only makes you look like an ignorant fool.

Brandon
Sea Wasp
2007-10-06 03:37:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by c***@yahoo.com
Post by Topaz
The evidence shows that the Jews were deported, not executed.
There was no "Holocaust".
Denying the Holocaust only makes you look like an ignorant fool.
Or something far worse than a mere fool.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://seawasp.livejournal.com
Topaz
2007-10-06 13:56:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
by Theodore J. O'Keefe

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

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

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

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

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

A Different Reality

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

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

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

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

Typhus, Not Poison Gas

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No 'Human Skin' Lampshades

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

'Gas Chambers'

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Propaganda Intensifies

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

Time for the Truth

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

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

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

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

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


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





http://www.ihr.org/ http://www.natvan.com

http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.nsm88.com/

http://wsi.matriots.com/jews.html
c***@yahoo.com
2007-10-06 20:24:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sea Wasp
Post by c***@yahoo.com
Post by Topaz
The evidence shows that the Jews were deported, not executed.
There was no "Holocaust".
Denying the Holocaust only makes you look like an ignorant fool.
Or something far worse than a mere fool.
I'm starting to think that he's an automated bot, posting from a
limited number of pre-written responses, the exact response determined
by certain keywords

Brandon
Topaz
2007-10-07 09:40:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Auschwitz: Myths and facts
by Mark Weber

Nearly everyone has heard of Auschwitz, the German wartime
concentration camp where many prisoners-most of them Jewish-were
reportedly exterminated, especially in gas chambers. Auschwitz is
widely regarded as the most terrible Nazi extermination center. The
camp's horrific reputation cannot, however, be reconciled with the
facts.
Scholars challenge Holocaust story
Astonishing as it may seem, more and more historians and engineers
have been challenging the widely accepted Auschwitz story. These
"revisionist" scholars do not dispute the fact that large numbers of
Jews were deported to the camp, or that many died there, particularly
of typhus and other diseases. But the compelling evidence they present
shows that Auschwitz was not an extermination center and that the
story of mass killings in "gas chambers" is a myth.
The Auschwitz camps
The Auschwitz camp complex was set up in 1940 in what is now
south-central Poland. Large numbers of Jews were deported there
between 1942 and mid-1944.
The main camp was known as Auschwitz I. Birkenau, or Auschwitz II, was
supposedly the main extermination center, and Monowitz, or Auschwitz
III, was a large industrial center where gasoline was produced from
coal. In addition there were dozens of smaller satellite camps devoted
to the war economy.
Four million victims?
At the postwar Nuremberg Tribunal, the Allies charged that the Germans
exterminated four million people at Auschwitz. This figure, which was
invented by the Soviets, was uncritically accepted for many years. It
often appeared in major American newspapers and magazines, for
example. (note 1)
Today no reputable historian, not even those who generally accept the
extermination story, believes this figure. Israeli Holocaust historian
Yehuda Bauer said in 1989 that it is time to finally acknowledge the
familiar four million figure is a deliberate myth. In July 1990 the
Auschwitz State Museum in Poland, along with Israel's Yad Vashem
Holocaust Center, suddenly announced that altogether perhaps one
million people (both Jews and non-Jews) died there. Neither
institution would say how many of these people were killed, nor were
any estimates given of the numbers of those supposedly gassed. (note
2) One prominent Holocaust historian, Gerald Reitlinger, has estimated
that perhaps 700,000 or so Jews perished at Auschwitz. More recently,
Holocaust historian Jean-Claude Pressac has estimated that about
800,000 persons-of whom 630,000 were Jewish-perished at Auschwitz.
While even such lower figures are incorrect, they show how the
Auschwitz story has changed drastically over the years. (note 3)
Bizarre tales
At one time it was seriously claimed that Jews were systematically
electrocuted at Auschwitz. American newspapers, citing a Soviet
eyewitness report from liberated Auschwitz, told readers in February
1945 that the methodical Germans had killed Jews there using an
"electric conveyor belt on which hundreds of persons could be
electrocuted simultaneously [and] then moved on into furnaces. They
were burned almost instantly, producing fertilizer for nearby cabbage
fields." (note 4)
And at the Nuremberg Tribunal, chief U.S. prosecutor Robert Jackson
charged that the Germans used a "newly invented" device to
instantaneously "vaporize" 20,000 Jews near Auschwitz "in such a way
that there was no trace left of them." (note 5) No reputable historian
now accepts either of these fanciful tales.
The Höss 'confession'
A key Holocaust document is the "confession" of former Auschwitz
commandant Rudolf Höss of April 5, 1946, which was submitted by the
U.S. prosecution at the main Nuremberg trial. (note 6)
Although it is still widely cited as solid proof for the Auschwitz
extermination story, it is actually a false statement that was
obtained by torture.
Many years after the war, British military intelligence sergeant
Bernard Clarke described how he and five other British soldiers
tortured the former commandant to obtain his "confession." Höss
himself privately explained his ordeal in these words: "Certainly, I
signed a statement that I killed two and half million Jews. I could
just as well have said that it was five million Jews. There are
certain methods by which any confession can be obtained, whether it is
true or not." (note 7)
Even historians who generally accept the Holocaust extermination story
now acknowledge that many of the specific statements made in the Höss
"affidavit" are simply not true. For one thing, no serious scholar now
claims that anything like two and a half or three million people
perished in Auschwitz.
The Höss "affidavit" further alleges that Jews were already being
exterminated by gas in the summer of 1941 at three other camps:
Belzec, Treblinka and Wolzek. The "Wolzek" camp mentioned by Höss is a
total invention. No such camp existed, and the name is no longer
mentioned in Holocaust literature. Moreover, the story these days by
those who believe in the Holocaust legend is that gassings of Jews did
not begin at Auschwitz, Treblinka, or Belzec until sometime in 1942.
No documentary evidence
Many thousands of secret German documents dealing with Auschwitz were
confiscated after the war by the Allies. Not a single one refers to a
policy or program of extermination. In fact, the extermination story
cannot be reconciled with the documentary evidence.
Many Jewish inmates unable to work
For example, it is often claimed that all Jews at Auschwitz who were
unable to work were immediately killed. Jews who were too old, young,
sick, or weak were supposedly gassed on arrival, and only those who
could be worked to death were temporarily kept alive.
But the evidence shows that, in fact, a very high percentage of the
Jewish inmates were not able to work, and were nevertheless not
killed. For example, an internal German telex message dated Sept. 4,
1943, from the chief of the Labor Allocation department of the SS
Economic and Administrative Main Office (WVHA), reported that of
25,000 Jewish inmates in Auschwitz, only 3,581 were able to work, and
that all of the remaining Jewish inmates-some 21,500, or about 86
percent-were unable to work. (note 8)
This is also confirmed in a secret report dated April 5, 1944, on
"security measures in Auschwitz" by Oswald Pohl, head of the SS
concentration camp system, to SS chief Heinrich Himmler. Pohl reported
that there was a total of 67,000 inmates in the entire Auschwitz camp
complex, of whom 18,000 were hospitalized or disabled. In the
Auschwitz II camp (Birkenau), supposedly the main extermination
center, there were 36,000 inmates, mostly female, of whom
"approximately 15,000 are unable to work." (note 9)
These two documents simply cannot be reconciled with the Auschwitz
extermination story.
The evidence shows that Auschwitz-Birkenau was established primarily
as a camp for Jews who were not able to work, including the sick and
elderly, as well as for those who were temporarily awaiting assignment
to other camps. That's the considered view of Dr. Arthur Butz of
Northwestern University, who also says that this was the reason for
the unusually high death rate there. (note 10)
Princeton University history professor Arno Mayer, who is Jewish,
acknowledges in a recent book about the "final solution" that more
Jews perished at Auschwitz as a result of typhus and other "natural"
causes than were executed. (note 11)
Anne Frank
Perhaps the best known Auschwitz inmate was Anne Frank, who is known
around the world for her famous diary. But few people know that
thousands of Jews, including Anne and her father, Otto Frank,
"survived" Auschwitz.
The 15-year-old girl and her father were deported from the Netherlands
to Auschwitz in September 1944. Several weeks later, in the face of
the advancing Soviet army, Anne was evacuated along with many other
Jews to the Bergen-Belsen camp, where she died of typhus in March
1945.
Her father came down with typhus in Auschwitz and was sent to the camp
hospital to recover. He was one of thousands of sick and feeble Jews
who were left behind when the Germans abandoned the camp in January
1945, shortly before it was overrun by the Soviets. He died in
Switzerland in 1980.
If the German policy had been to kill Anne Frank and her father, they
would not have survived Auschwitz. Their fate, tragic though it was,
cannot be reconciled with the extermination story.
Allied propaganda
The Auschwitz gassing story is based in large part on the hearsay
statements of former Jewish inmates who did not personally see any
evidence of extermination. Their beliefs are understandable, because
rumors about gassings at Auschwitz were widespread.
Allied planes dropped large numbers of LEAFLETS , written in Polish
and German, on Auschwitz and the surrounding areas which claimed that
people were being gassed in the camp. The Auschwitz gassing story,
which was an important part of the Allied wartime propaganda effort,
was also broadcast to Europe by Allied radio stations. (note 12)
Survivor testimony
Former inmates have confirmed that they saw no evidence of
extermination at Auschwitz.
An Austrian woman, Maria Vanherwaarden, testified about her camp
experiences in a Toronto District Court in March 1988. She was
interned in Auschwitz-Birkenau in 1942 for having sexual relations
with a Polish forced laborer. On the train trip to the camp, a Gypsy
woman told her and the others that they would all be gassed at
Auschwitz.
Upon arrival, Maria and the other women were ordered to undress and go
into a large concrete room without windows to take a shower. The
terrified women were sure that they were about to die. But then,
instead of gas, water came out of the shower heads.
Auschwitz was no vacation center, Maria confirmed. She witnessed the
death of many fellow inmates by disease, particularly typhus, and
quite a few committed suicide. But she saw no evidence at all of mass
killings, gassings, or of any extermination program. (note 13)
A Jewish woman named Marika Frank arrived at Auschwitz-Birkenau from
Hungary in July 1944, when 25,000 Jews were supposedly gassed and
cremated daily. She likewise testified after the war that she heard
and saw nothing of "gas chambers" during the time she was interned
there. She heard the gassing stories only later. (note 14)
Inmates released
Auschwitz internees who had served their sentences were released and
returned to their home countries. If Auschwitz had actually been a top
secret extermination center, the Germans would certainly not have
released inmates who "knew" what was happening in the camp. (note 15)
Himmler orders death rate reduced
In response to the deaths of many inmates due to disease, especially
typhus, the German authorities responsible for the camps ordered firm
counter-measures.
The head of the SS camp administration office sent a directive dated
Dec. 28, 1942, to Auschwitz and the other concentration camps. It
sharply criticized the high death rate of inmates due to disease, and
ordered that "camp physicians must use all means at their disposal to
significantly reduce the death rate in the various camps."
Furthermore, it ordered:
The camp doctors must supervise more often than in the past the
nutrition of the prisoners and, in cooperation with the
administration, submit improvement recommendations to the camp
commandants . . . The camp doctors are to see to it that the working
conditions at the various labor places are improved as much as
possible.
Finally, the directive stressed that "the Reichsfhrer SS [Heinrich
Himmler] has ordered that the death rate absolutely must be reduced."
(note 16)
German camp regulations
Official German camp regulations make clear that Auschwitz was not an
extermination center. They ordered: (note 17)
New arrivals in the camp are to be given a thorough medical
examination, and if there is any doubt [about their health], they must
be sent to quarantine for observation.
Prisoners who report sick must be examined that same day by the camp
physician. If necessary, the physician must transfer the prisoners to
a hospital for professional treatment.
The camp physician must regularly inspect the kitchen regarding the
preparation of the food and the quality of the food supply. Any
deficiencies that may arise must be reported to the camp commandant.
Special care should be given in the treatment of accidents, in order
not to impair the full productivity of the prisoners.
Prisoners who are to be released or transfered must first be brought
before the camp physician for medical examination.
Telltale aerial photos
Detailed aerial reconnaissance photographs taken of Auschwitz-Birkenau
on several random days in 1944 (during the height of the alleged
extermination period there) were made public by the CIA in 1979. These
photos show no trace of piles of corpses, smoking crematory chimneys
or masses of Jews awaiting death, things that have been repeatedly
alleged, and all of which would have been clearly visible if Auschwitz
had been the extermination center it is said to have been. (note 18)
Absurd cremation claims
Cremation specialists have confirmed that thousands of corpses could
not possibly have been cremated every day throughout the spring and
summer of 1944 at Auschwitz, as commonly alleged.
For example, Mr. Ivan Lagace, manager of a large crematory in Calgary,
Canada, testified in court in April 1988 that the Auschwitz cremation
story is technically impossible. The allegation that 10,000 or even
20,000 corpses were burned every day at Auschwitz in the summer of
1944 in crematories and open pits is simply "preposterous" and "beyond
the realm of reality," he declared under oath. (note 19)
Gassing expert refutes extermination story
America's leading gas chamber expert, Boston engineer Fred A.
Leuchter, carefully examined the supposed "gas chambers" in Poland and
concluded that the Auschwitz gassing story is absurd and technically
impossible.
Leuchter is the foremost specialist on the design and installation of
gas chambers used in the United States to execute convicted criminals.
For example, he designed a gas chamber facility for the Missouri state
penitentiary.
In February 1988 he carried out a detailed onsite examination of the
"gas chambers" at Auschwitz, Birkenau and Majdanek in Poland, which
are either still standing or only partially in ruins. In sworn
testimony to a Toronto court and in a technical report, Leuchter
described every aspect of his investigation.
He concluded by emphatically declaring that the alleged gassing
facilities could not possibly have been used to kill people. Among
other things, he pointed out that the so-called "gas chambers" were
not properly sealed or vented to kill human beings without also
killing German camp personnel. (note 20)
Dr. William B. Lindsey, a research chemist employed for 33 years by
the Dupont Corporation, likewise testified in a 1985 court case that
the Auschwitz gassing story is technically impossible. Based on a
careful on-site examination of the "gas chambers" at Auschwitz,
Birkenau and Majdanek, and on his years of experience, he declared: "I
have come to the conclusion that no one was willfully or purposefully
killed with Zyklon B [hydrocyanic acid gas] in this manner. I consider
it absolutely impossible." (note 21)
www.ihr.org

http://www.ihr.org/ http://www.natvan.com

http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.nsm88.com/

http://wsi.matriots.com/jews.html
Matt Frisch
2007-10-07 23:02:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Topaz
At the postwar Nuremberg Tribunal, the Allies charged that the Germans
exterminated four million people at Auschwitz. This figure, which was
invented by the Soviets, was uncritically accepted for many years. It
often appeared in major American newspapers and magazines, for
example. (note 1)
Today no reputable historian, not even those who generally accept the
extermination story, believes this figure. Israeli Holocaust historian
Yehuda Bauer said in 1989 that it is time to finally acknowledge the
familiar four million figure is a deliberate myth. In July 1990 the
Auschwitz State Museum in Poland, along with Israel's Yad Vashem
Holocaust Center, suddenly announced that altogether perhaps one
million people (both Jews and non-Jews) died there. Neither
institution would say how many of these people were killed, nor were
any estimates given of the numbers of those supposedly gassed. (note
2)
The thing I love about this ignorant fuckhead is how he's trying to justify
it because "It wasn't 4 million, it was only 1 million", like 4 million
would have been rude, but 1 million was tolerable.

Also, he harps a lot on the "gassed" part. Because if they weren't gassed,
well there's really no other way for a person to die, aside from age or
illness, is there? None of them were shot, beaten, cooked, or starved to
death. Those things don't even kill anybody anyway, they just kind of
tickle a little.
Topaz
2007-10-08 13:07:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Auschwitz: Myths and facts
by Mark Weber

Nearly everyone has heard of Auschwitz, the German wartime
concentration camp where many prisoners-most of them Jewish-were
reportedly exterminated, especially in gas chambers. Auschwitz is
widely regarded as the most terrible Nazi extermination center. The
camp's horrific reputation cannot, however, be reconciled with the
facts.
Scholars challenge Holocaust story
Astonishing as it may seem, more and more historians and engineers
have been challenging the widely accepted Auschwitz story. These
"revisionist" scholars do not dispute the fact that large numbers of
Jews were deported to the camp, or that many died there, particularly
of typhus and other diseases. But the compelling evidence they present
shows that Auschwitz was not an extermination center and that the
story of mass killings in "gas chambers" is a myth.
The Auschwitz camps
The Auschwitz camp complex was set up in 1940 in what is now
south-central Poland. Large numbers of Jews were deported there
between 1942 and mid-1944.
The main camp was known as Auschwitz I. Birkenau, or Auschwitz II, was
supposedly the main extermination center, and Monowitz, or Auschwitz
III, was a large industrial center where gasoline was produced from
coal. In addition there were dozens of smaller satellite camps devoted
to the war economy.
Four million victims?
At the postwar Nuremberg Tribunal, the Allies charged that the Germans
exterminated four million people at Auschwitz. This figure, which was
invented by the Soviets, was uncritically accepted for many years. It
often appeared in major American newspapers and magazines, for
example. (note 1)
Today no reputable historian, not even those who generally accept the
extermination story, believes this figure. Israeli Holocaust historian
Yehuda Bauer said in 1989 that it is time to finally acknowledge the
familiar four million figure is a deliberate myth. In July 1990 the
Auschwitz State Museum in Poland, along with Israel's Yad Vashem
Holocaust Center, suddenly announced that altogether perhaps one
million people (both Jews and non-Jews) died there. Neither
institution would say how many of these people were killed, nor were
any estimates given of the numbers of those supposedly gassed. (note
2) One prominent Holocaust historian, Gerald Reitlinger, has estimated
that perhaps 700,000 or so Jews perished at Auschwitz. More recently,
Holocaust historian Jean-Claude Pressac has estimated that about
800,000 persons-of whom 630,000 were Jewish-perished at Auschwitz.
While even such lower figures are incorrect, they show how the
Auschwitz story has changed drastically over the years. (note 3)
Bizarre tales
At one time it was seriously claimed that Jews were systematically
electrocuted at Auschwitz. American newspapers, citing a Soviet
eyewitness report from liberated Auschwitz, told readers in February
1945 that the methodical Germans had killed Jews there using an
"electric conveyor belt on which hundreds of persons could be
electrocuted simultaneously [and] then moved on into furnaces. They
were burned almost instantly, producing fertilizer for nearby cabbage
fields." (note 4)
And at the Nuremberg Tribunal, chief U.S. prosecutor Robert Jackson
charged that the Germans used a "newly invented" device to
instantaneously "vaporize" 20,000 Jews near Auschwitz "in such a way
that there was no trace left of them." (note 5) No reputable historian
now accepts either of these fanciful tales.
The Höss 'confession'
A key Holocaust document is the "confession" of former Auschwitz
commandant Rudolf Höss of April 5, 1946, which was submitted by the
U.S. prosecution at the main Nuremberg trial. (note 6)
Although it is still widely cited as solid proof for the Auschwitz
extermination story, it is actually a false statement that was
obtained by torture.
Many years after the war, British military intelligence sergeant
Bernard Clarke described how he and five other British soldiers
tortured the former commandant to obtain his "confession." Höss
himself privately explained his ordeal in these words: "Certainly, I
signed a statement that I killed two and half million Jews. I could
just as well have said that it was five million Jews. There are
certain methods by which any confession can be obtained, whether it is
true or not." (note 7)
Even historians who generally accept the Holocaust extermination story
now acknowledge that many of the specific statements made in the Höss
"affidavit" are simply not true. For one thing, no serious scholar now
claims that anything like two and a half or three million people
perished in Auschwitz.
The Höss "affidavit" further alleges that Jews were already being
exterminated by gas in the summer of 1941 at three other camps:
Belzec, Treblinka and Wolzek. The "Wolzek" camp mentioned by Höss is a
total invention. No such camp existed, and the name is no longer
mentioned in Holocaust literature. Moreover, the story these days by
those who believe in the Holocaust legend is that gassings of Jews did
not begin at Auschwitz, Treblinka, or Belzec until sometime in 1942.
No documentary evidence
Many thousands of secret German documents dealing with Auschwitz were
confiscated after the war by the Allies. Not a single one refers to a
policy or program of extermination. In fact, the extermination story
cannot be reconciled with the documentary evidence.
Many Jewish inmates unable to work
For example, it is often claimed that all Jews at Auschwitz who were
unable to work were immediately killed. Jews who were too old, young,
sick, or weak were supposedly gassed on arrival, and only those who
could be worked to death were temporarily kept alive.
But the evidence shows that, in fact, a very high percentage of the
Jewish inmates were not able to work, and were nevertheless not
killed. For example, an internal German telex message dated Sept. 4,
1943, from the chief of the Labor Allocation department of the SS
Economic and Administrative Main Office (WVHA), reported that of
25,000 Jewish inmates in Auschwitz, only 3,581 were able to work, and
that all of the remaining Jewish inmates-some 21,500, or about 86
percent-were unable to work. (note 8)
This is also confirmed in a secret report dated April 5, 1944, on
"security measures in Auschwitz" by Oswald Pohl, head of the SS
concentration camp system, to SS chief Heinrich Himmler. Pohl reported
that there was a total of 67,000 inmates in the entire Auschwitz camp
complex, of whom 18,000 were hospitalized or disabled. In the
Auschwitz II camp (Birkenau), supposedly the main extermination
center, there were 36,000 inmates, mostly female, of whom
"approximately 15,000 are unable to work." (note 9)
These two documents simply cannot be reconciled with the Auschwitz
extermination story.
The evidence shows that Auschwitz-Birkenau was established primarily
as a camp for Jews who were not able to work, including the sick and
elderly, as well as for those who were temporarily awaiting assignment
to other camps. That's the considered view of Dr. Arthur Butz of
Northwestern University, who also says that this was the reason for
the unusually high death rate there. (note 10)
Princeton University history professor Arno Mayer, who is Jewish,
acknowledges in a recent book about the "final solution" that more
Jews perished at Auschwitz as a result of typhus and other "natural"
causes than were executed. (note 11)
Anne Frank
Perhaps the best known Auschwitz inmate was Anne Frank, who is known
around the world for her famous diary. But few people know that
thousands of Jews, including Anne and her father, Otto Frank,
"survived" Auschwitz.
The 15-year-old girl and her father were deported from the Netherlands
to Auschwitz in September 1944. Several weeks later, in the face of
the advancing Soviet army, Anne was evacuated along with many other
Jews to the Bergen-Belsen camp, where she died of typhus in March
1945.
Her father came down with typhus in Auschwitz and was sent to the camp
hospital to recover. He was one of thousands of sick and feeble Jews
who were left behind when the Germans abandoned the camp in January
1945, shortly before it was overrun by the Soviets. He died in
Switzerland in 1980.
If the German policy had been to kill Anne Frank and her father, they
would not have survived Auschwitz. Their fate, tragic though it was,
cannot be reconciled with the extermination story.
Allied propaganda
The Auschwitz gassing story is based in large part on the hearsay
statements of former Jewish inmates who did not personally see any
evidence of extermination. Their beliefs are understandable, because
rumors about gassings at Auschwitz were widespread.
Allied planes dropped large numbers of LEAFLETS , written in Polish
and German, on Auschwitz and the surrounding areas which claimed that
people were being gassed in the camp. The Auschwitz gassing story,
which was an important part of the Allied wartime propaganda effort,
was also broadcast to Europe by Allied radio stations. (note 12)
Survivor testimony
Former inmates have confirmed that they saw no evidence of
extermination at Auschwitz.
An Austrian woman, Maria Vanherwaarden, testified about her camp
experiences in a Toronto District Court in March 1988. She was
interned in Auschwitz-Birkenau in 1942 for having sexual relations
with a Polish forced laborer. On the train trip to the camp, a Gypsy
woman told her and the others that they would all be gassed at
Auschwitz.
Upon arrival, Maria and the other women were ordered to undress and go
into a large concrete room without windows to take a shower. The
terrified women were sure that they were about to die. But then,
instead of gas, water came out of the shower heads.
Auschwitz was no vacation center, Maria confirmed. She witnessed the
death of many fellow inmates by disease, particularly typhus, and
quite a few committed suicide. But she saw no evidence at all of mass
killings, gassings, or of any extermination program. (note 13)
A Jewish woman named Marika Frank arrived at Auschwitz-Birkenau from
Hungary in July 1944, when 25,000 Jews were supposedly gassed and
cremated daily. She likewise testified after the war that she heard
and saw nothing of "gas chambers" during the time she was interned
there. She heard the gassing stories only later. (note 14)
Inmates released
Auschwitz internees who had served their sentences were released and
returned to their home countries. If Auschwitz had actually been a top
secret extermination center, the Germans would certainly not have
released inmates who "knew" what was happening in the camp. (note 15)
Himmler orders death rate reduced
In response to the deaths of many inmates due to disease, especially
typhus, the German authorities responsible for the camps ordered firm
counter-measures.
The head of the SS camp administration office sent a directive dated
Dec. 28, 1942, to Auschwitz and the other concentration camps. It
sharply criticized the high death rate of inmates due to disease, and
ordered that "camp physicians must use all means at their disposal to
significantly reduce the death rate in the various camps."
Furthermore, it ordered:
The camp doctors must supervise more often than in the past the
nutrition of the prisoners and, in cooperation with the
administration, submit improvement recommendations to the camp
commandants . . . The camp doctors are to see to it that the working
conditions at the various labor places are improved as much as
possible.
Finally, the directive stressed that "the Reichsfhrer SS [Heinrich
Himmler] has ordered that the death rate absolutely must be reduced."
(note 16)
German camp regulations
Official German camp regulations make clear that Auschwitz was not an
extermination center. They ordered: (note 17)
New arrivals in the camp are to be given a thorough medical
examination, and if there is any doubt [about their health], they must
be sent to quarantine for observation.
Prisoners who report sick must be examined that same day by the camp
physician. If necessary, the physician must transfer the prisoners to
a hospital for professional treatment.
The camp physician must regularly inspect the kitchen regarding the
preparation of the food and the quality of the food supply. Any
deficiencies that may arise must be reported to the camp commandant.
Special care should be given in the treatment of accidents, in order
not to impair the full productivity of the prisoners.
Prisoners who are to be released or transfered must first be brought
before the camp physician for medical examination.
Telltale aerial photos
Detailed aerial reconnaissance photographs taken of Auschwitz-Birkenau
on several random days in 1944 (during the height of the alleged
extermination period there) were made public by the CIA in 1979. These
photos show no trace of piles of corpses, smoking crematory chimneys
or masses of Jews awaiting death, things that have been repeatedly
alleged, and all of which would have been clearly visible if Auschwitz
had been the extermination center it is said to have been. (note 18)
Absurd cremation claims
Cremation specialists have confirmed that thousands of corpses could
not possibly have been cremated every day throughout the spring and
summer of 1944 at Auschwitz, as commonly alleged.
For example, Mr. Ivan Lagace, manager of a large crematory in Calgary,
Canada, testified in court in April 1988 that the Auschwitz cremation
story is technically impossible. The allegation that 10,000 or even
20,000 corpses were burned every day at Auschwitz in the summer of
1944 in crematories and open pits is simply "preposterous" and "beyond
the realm of reality," he declared under oath. (note 19)
Gassing expert refutes extermination story
America's leading gas chamber expert, Boston engineer Fred A.
Leuchter, carefully examined the supposed "gas chambers" in Poland and
concluded that the Auschwitz gassing story is absurd and technically
impossible.
Leuchter is the foremost specialist on the design and installation of
gas chambers used in the United States to execute convicted criminals.
For example, he designed a gas chamber facility for the Missouri state
penitentiary.
In February 1988 he carried out a detailed onsite examination of the
"gas chambers" at Auschwitz, Birkenau and Majdanek in Poland, which
are either still standing or only partially in ruins. In sworn
testimony to a Toronto court and in a technical report, Leuchter
described every aspect of his investigation.
He concluded by emphatically declaring that the alleged gassing
facilities could not possibly have been used to kill people. Among
other things, he pointed out that the so-called "gas chambers" were
not properly sealed or vented to kill human beings without also
killing German camp personnel. (note 20)
Dr. William B. Lindsey, a research chemist employed for 33 years by
the Dupont Corporation, likewise testified in a 1985 court case that
the Auschwitz gassing story is technically impossible. Based on a
careful on-site examination of the "gas chambers" at Auschwitz,
Birkenau and Majdanek, and on his years of experience, he declared: "I
have come to the conclusion that no one was willfully or purposefully
killed with Zyklon B [hydrocyanic acid gas] in this manner. I consider
it absolutely impossible." (note 21)
www.ihr.org

http://www.ihr.org/ http://www.natvan.com

http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.nsm88.com/

http://wsi.matriots.com/jews.html
Topaz
2007-10-06 13:55:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by c***@yahoo.com
Denying the Holocaust only makes you look like an ignorant fool.
The Jews control your media and your mind.

By Faurisson

The Unraveling of the Witnesses at the First Zündel Trial (1985)

The important victory won by revisionism in France on April 26, 1983,
would go on to confirm itself in 1985 with the first Zündel trial in
Toronto. I would like to dwell a moment on this trial in order to
underscore the impact on one's point of view, and especially as far as
the testimonies on the Auschwitz gas chambers are concerned: for the
first time since the war, Jewish witnesses were subjected to a regular
cross-examination. Moreover, without wanting to minimize the
importance of the second Zündel trial (that of 1988), I should like it
to be understood that the 1985 trial already contained the seeds for
all that was attained in the 1988 trial, including the report by
Leuchter and all the scientific reports which, in the aftermath, would
proliferate in the wake of the Leuchter Report.

In 1985, as also afterwards in 1988, I served as advisor to Ernst
Zündel and his lawyer, Douglas Christie. I accepted this heavy
responsibility only under condition that all the Jewish witnesses
would, for the first time, be cross-examined on the material nature of
the reported facts, bluntly and without discretion. I had noted, in
effect, that from 1945 to 1985, Jewish witnesses had been granted
virtual immunity. Never had any defense lawyer thought or dared to ask
them for material explanations about the gas chambers (exact location,
physical appearance, dimensions, internal and external structure), or
about the homicidal gassing (the operational procedure from beginning
to end, the tools employed, the precautions taken by the executioners
before, during and after execution).

On rare occasions, as at the trial of Tesch, Drosihn and
Weinbacher,[5] lawyers formulated some unusual questions of a material
nature, hardly troublesome for the witness, but these always found
themselves on the fringes of the more fundamental questions which
should have been asked. No lawyer ever demanded clarifications on a
weapon which, indeed, he had never seen and that no one had ever shown
him. At the major Nuremberg Trial of 1945-46, the German lawyers had
manifested total discretion on this point. At the proceedings against
Eichmann in Jerusalem in 1961, the lawyer Dr. Robert Servatius had not
wanted to raise the question; in a letter on this subject dated June
21, 1974, he wrote me: "Eichmann hat selbst keine Gaskammer gesehen;
die Frage wurde nicht diskutiert; er hat sich aber auch nicht gegen
deren Existenz gewandt" [Eichmann himself had not seen any gas
chamber; the question was not discussed; but neither did he raise the
issue of their existence].[6]

At the Frankfurt Trial of 1963-65, the lawyers showed themselves to be
particularly timid. I should mention that the atmosphere was rather
inhospitable for the defense and the accused. This show trial will
remain as a blot on the honor of German justice as on the person of
Hans Hofmeyer, initially Landgerichtsdirektor, then Senatspräsident.
During more than 180 sessions, the judges and juries, the public
prosecutors and the private parties, the accused and their attorneys,
as well as the journalists who had come from around the world,
accepted as a complete physical representation of the 'crime weapon' a
mere map of the camp of Auschwitz and a map of the camp of Birkenau,
whereupon five minuscule geometric figures were inscribed for the
location of each of the alleged homicidal gas chambers, with the
words, for Auschwitz: "Altes Krematorium", and for Birkenau:
"Krematorium II", "Krematorium III", "Krematorium IV", and
"Krematorium V"! These maps[7] were displayed in the courtroom.

The Revisionists have often compared the Frankfurt trial with the
1450-1650 trials against witchcraft. Nevertheless, at least during
those trials, someone sometimes bothered to describe or depict the
witches' sabbath. At the Frankfurt trial, even among the lawyers who
made difficulties for a witness like Filip Müller, not one asked of a
Jewish witness or a repentant German defendant to describe for him in
greater detail what he was purported to have seen. Despite two
judicial visits to the scene of the crime at Auschwitz, accompanied by
some German lawyers, it seems not one of the latter insisted on any
technical explanations or criminological expertise regarding the
murder weapon. To the contrary, one of them, Anton Reiners, a
Frankfurt lawyer, pushed complacency to the point of having himself
photographed by the press while raising the chute cover by which the
SS supposedly sprinkled Zyklon B granules into the alleged Auschwitz
gas chamber.

And so at Toronto in 1985, I had fully decided to do away with these
anomalies, to break the taboo and, for starters, pose, or rather have
Douglas Christie pose, questions to the experts and Jewish witnesses
as one normally poses in every trial where one is supposed to
establish whether a crime has been committed and, if so, by whom, how
and when.

Fortunately for me, Ernst Zündel accepted my conditions and Douglas
Christie consented to adopt this course of action and to pose to the
experts and witnesses the questions that I would prepare for him. I
was convinced that, in this manner, all might change, and the veil
woven by so many false testimonies could be torn away. While I was not
counting on Ernst Zündel's acquittal and we were all resigned to
paying the price for our audacity, I nevertheless had hope that with
the aid of this far-sighted man of character, and thanks to his
intrepid lawyer, history, if not justice, would at last carry him into
historical prominence.

From the moment of the first cross-examination, a tremor of panic
began to creep its way amid the ranks of the prosecution. Every
evening and throughout most of the night, I would prepare the
questions to ask. In the morning, I would turn over these questions,
accompanied by the necessary documents, to lawyer Doug Christie who,
for his part and with the aid of his female collaborator, conducted
the essentially legal aspects of the effort. During the
cross-examinations, I maintained a position close to the lawyer's
podium and unremittingly furnished, on yellow notepads, supplementary
and improvisational questions according to the experts' and witnesses'
responses.

The expert cited by the prosecution was Dr. Raul Hilberg, author of
The Destruction of European Jews. Day after day, he was subjected to
such humiliation that, when solicited in 1988 by a new prosecutor for
a new trial against Ernst Zündel, Prof. Hilberg refused to return to
give witness; he explained the motive for his refusal in a
confidential letter wherein he acknowledged his fear of having to once
again confront the questions of Douglas Christie. From the
cross-examination of Dr. Raul Hilberg, it was definitively brought out
that no one possessed any proof for the existence either of an order,
a plan, an instruction, or a budget for the presumed physical
extermination of the Jews. Furthermore, no one possessed either an
expertise of the murder weapon (whether gas chamber or gas van), or an
autopsy report establishing the murder of a detainee by poison gas.
However, in the absence of evidence regarding the weapon and victim,
did there exist witnesses of the crime?

A testimony must always be verified. The usual first means of
proceeding to this verification is to confront the assertions of the
witness with the results of investigations or expert opinion regarding
the material nature of the crime. In the case at hand, there were
neither investigations, nor expertise relative to the alleged
Auschwitz gas chambers. Here is what made any cross-examination
difficult. Yet, this difficulty should not serve as an excuse, and one
might even say that a cross-examination becomes ever more
indispensable because, without it, there no longer remains any way of
knowing whether the witness is telling the truth or not.

Jewish Witnesses Finally Cross-Examined:
Arnold Friedman and Dr. Rudolf Vrba

For those persons interested in the technical and documentary means by
which we were nevertheless in a position to severely cross-examine the
two principal Jewish witnesses, Arnold Friedman and Dr. Rudolf Vrba, I
can do no better than to recommend a reading of the trial
transcript.[8] Pages 304-371 cover the questioning and
cross-examination of Arnold Friedman; the latter breaks down on pages
445-446 when he ends by acknowledging that he in fact saw nothing,
that he had spoken from hearsay because, according to him, he had met
persons who were convincing; perhaps, he added, he would have adopted
the position of Mr. Christie rather than that of these other persons
if only Mr. Christie had been able to tell him back then what he was
telling him now!

Dr. Vrba was a witness of exceptional importance. One might even say
about this trial in Toronto that the prosecution had found the means
of recruiting 'Holocaust' expert number one in the person of Dr. Raul
Hilberg, and witness number one in the person of Dr. Rudolf Vrba. The
testimony of this latter gentleman had been one of the principal
sources of the famous War Refugee Board Report on the German
Extermination Camps - Auschwitz and Birkenau, published in November
1944 by the Executive Office of President Roosevelt. Dr. R. Vrba was
also the author of I Cannot Forgive,[9] written in collaboration with
Alan Bestic who, in his preface, declares with regard to him:

"Indeed I would like to pay tribute to him for the immense trouble he
took over every detail; for the meticulous, almost fanatical respect
he revealed for accuracy." (p.2).

,Never perhaps, had a court of justice seen a witness express himself
with more assurance on the Auschwitz gas chambers. Yet, by the end of
the cross-examination, the situation had reversed itself to the point
where Dr. R. Vrba was left with only one explanation for his errors
and his lies: in his book he had, he confessed, resorted to "poetic
license" or, as he was wont to say in Latin, to "licentia poetarum"!

In the end, a bit of drama unfolded: Mr. Griffiths, the prosecutor who
had himself solicited the presence of this witness numero uno and yet
now apparently exasperated by Dr. Vrba's lies, fired off the following
question:

"You told Mr. Christie several times in discussing your book I Cannot
Forgive that you used poetic license in writing that book. Have you
used poetic license in your testimony?" (p. 1636).

The false witness tried to parry the blow but prosecutor Griffiths hit
him with a second question equally treacherous, this time concerning
the number of gassing victims which Vrba had given; the witness
responded with garrulous nonsense; Griffiths was getting ready to ask
him a third and final question when suddenly, the matter was cut short
and one heard the prosecutor say to the judge:

"I have no further questions for Dr. Vrba" (p. 1643).

Crestfallen, the witness left the dock. Dr. Vrba's initial
questioning, cross-examination and final questioning filled 400 pages
of transcripts (pp. 1244-1643). These pages could readily be used in
an encyclopedia of law under a chapter on the detection of false
witnesses.

The Prosecution Gives up on Calling Witnesses

Three years later, in 1988, during the second trial against Ernst
Zündel, the public prosecutor deemed it prudent to abandon any
recourse to witnesses. Canadian justice had apparently understood the
lesson of the first trial: there were no credible witnesses to the
existence and operation of the 'Nazi gas chambers'.

Little by little, every other country in the world has learned this
same lesson. At the trial of Klaus Barbie in France, in 1987, there
was talk about the gas chambers of Auschwitz but no one produced any
witnesses who could properly speak about them.[10] The attorney
Jacques Vergès, courageous yet not foolhardy, preferred to avoid the
subject. This was a stroke of luck for the Jewish lawyers who feared
nothing so much as to see me appearing at the side of Mr. Vergès. If
this gentleman had accepted my offer to counsel him, we in France
might have been able to strike a tremendous blow against the myth of
the gas chambers.

All the while in France, during several revisionist trials, Jewish
witnesses sometimes came to evoke the gas chambers but none of them
testified before the court as to having seen one or having
participated in a homicidal gassing by hauling bodies out of the 'gas
chambers'.

Today, gas chamber witnesses are making themselves extremely scarce
and the Demjanjuk trial in Israel, which once again has revealed how
much false testimony is involved in the matter, has contributed to the
suppression. Several years ago, it happened that I was aggressively
questioned at the rear of a law court by elderly Jews who presented
themselves as "living witnesses to the gas chambers of Auschwitz",
showing me their tattoos. It was necessary for me only to ask them to
look me in the eyes and to describe for me a gas chamber that
inevitably they retorted:

"How could I do this? If I had seen a gas chamber with my own eyes I
would not be here today to speak with you; I myself would have been
gassed also."

This brings us back, as one can see, to Simone Veil and her
declaration of May 7, 1983, about which we already know what we should
think…

http://www.ihr.org/ http://www.natvan.com

http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.nsm88.com/

http://wsi.matriots.com/jews.html
Mart van de Wege
2007-10-06 09:49:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Topaz
The evidence shows that the Jews were deported, not executed.
There was no "Holocaust".
And in his Posener speech Himmler made it quite clear that
'evacuation' was used as a euphemism of 'extermination'. I gave you
the text yesterday, I see you haven't taken the time to adress that.

I wonder why that is? Maybe because Nazis are always good at ignoring
facts?

Mart
--
"We will need a longer wall when the revolution comes."
--- AJS, quoting an uncertain source.
Topaz
2007-10-06 13:58:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 11:49:26 +0200, Mart van de Wege
Post by Mart van de Wege
And in his Posener speech Himmler made it quite clear that
'evacuation' was used as a euphemism of 'extermination'. I gave you
the text yesterday, I see you haven't taken the time to adress that.
I wonder why that is? Maybe because Nazis are always good at ignoring
facts?
"On July 19, 1942, Himmler issued a directive setting a timetable
for the expulsion (got that? "expulsion") of Jews from the
Government-General. The Jews were not to be killed, they were to be
resettled. The order stated:

(Begin quote)
"I herewith order that the resettlement of the entire Jewish
population of the Government-General be carried out and completed by
December 31, 1942.

"From December 31, 1942, no persons of Jewish origin may remain
within the Government-General, unless they are in collection camps
in Warsaw, Cracow, Czestochowa, Radom, and Lublin. All other work on
which Jewish labor is employed must be finished by that date, or, in
the event that this is not possible, it must be transferred to one of
the collection camps."
(End quote)

That order was followed up by a similar order by Himmler in a
letter to Frank, the governor of Poland, on May 26, 1943. Jews were to
be evacuated, not gassed.

(Begin quote)
"The evacuation of the last 250,000 Jews, which will undoubtedly
cause unrest for some weeks, must despite all the difficulties be
completed as quickly as possible."
(End quote)

The evidence shows that the Jews were deported, not executed.
There was no "Holocaust".

Morghus

http://www.ihr.org/ http://www.natvan.com

http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.nsm88.com/

http://wsi.matriots.com/jews.html
Mart van de Wege
2007-10-06 15:27:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Topaz
On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 11:49:26 +0200, Mart van de Wege
Post by Mart van de Wege
And in his Posener speech Himmler made it quite clear that
'evacuation' was used as a euphemism of 'extermination'. I gave you
the text yesterday, I see you haven't taken the time to adress that.
I wonder why that is? Maybe because Nazis are always good at ignoring
facts?
<snip same babble>

I gave you a direct quote. Why do you persist in ignoring that?

Himmler said himself, in his speech in Posen, dated October 4th 1943:

"Ich meine jetzt die Judenevakuierung, die Ausrottung des jüdischen Volkes."

You see that word 'Ausrottung' there? Do you know what that means? Do
you deny now still that Himmler was talking about the extermination of
the Jews?

Here's the link:

http://www.nationalsozialismus.de/dokumente/textdokumente/heinrich-himmler-posener-rede-vom-04101943-volltext

Here's even an audio fragment of that passage, which has the
undeniable voice of Himmler on it:

http://www.nationalsozialismus.de/dokumente/tondokumente/heinrich-himmler-posener-rede-vom-04101943-auszug-5-min-mp3

You cannot refute what the Nazis themselves boasted of.

Mart
--
"We will need a longer wall when the revolution comes."
--- AJS, quoting an uncertain source.
Tetsubo
2007-10-06 19:09:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mart van de Wege
Post by Topaz
On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 11:49:26 +0200, Mart van de Wege
Post by Mart van de Wege
And in his Posener speech Himmler made it quite clear that
'evacuation' was used as a euphemism of 'extermination'. I gave you
the text yesterday, I see you haven't taken the time to adress that.
I wonder why that is? Maybe because Nazis are always good at ignoring
facts?
<snip same babble>
I gave you a direct quote. Why do you persist in ignoring that?
"Ich meine jetzt die Judenevakuierung, die Ausrottung des jüdischen Volkes."
You see that word 'Ausrottung' there? Do you know what that means? Do
you deny now still that Himmler was talking about the extermination of
the Jews?
http://www.nationalsozialismus.de/dokumente/textdokumente/heinrich-himmler-posener-rede-vom-04101943-volltext
Here's even an audio fragment of that passage, which has the
http://www.nationalsozialismus.de/dokumente/tondokumente/heinrich-himmler-posener-rede-vom-04101943-auszug-5-min-mp3
You cannot refute what the Nazis themselves boasted of.
Mart
Yes he can. Because he wants too. Because by ignoring your words and
the words of Himmler his world view will remain intact. So long as this
is the world view he wants to maintain, he will ignore those words that
contradict that point of view. The easiest person in the world to fool
is yourself...
--
Tetsubo
--------------------------------------
"The apparent lesson of the Inquisition is that insistence on
uniformity of belief is fatal to intellectual, moral and spiritual health."
-The Uses Of The Past-, Herbert J. Muller

BLUP
Topaz
2007-10-07 11:06:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
"That is just what the Jew wants. He can invent a new lie every day
for the enemy to respond to, and the result is that the enemy spends
so much time defending himself that he has no time to do what the Jew
really fears: to attack."

Goebbels
http://www.ihr.org/ http://www.natvan.com

http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.nsm88.com/

http://wsi.matriots.com/jews.html
Mart van de Wege
2007-10-07 12:43:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Topaz
"That is just what the Jew wants. He can invent a new lie every day
for the enemy to respond to, and the result is that the enemy spends
so much time defending himself that he has no time to do what the Jew
really fears: to attack."
'to attack'? I thought they were merely being 'resettled', not
'attacked'?

You know, the problem with citing bad translations from English
Neo-Nazi sites is that there are people in the world that have read
the original writings of the Nazis in their original German. A
language that you obviously don't understand, given your other posts.

Mart
--
"We will need a longer wall when the revolution comes."
--- AJS, quoting an uncertain source.
Topaz
2007-10-08 13:09:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Dr Joseph Goebbels, Der Angriff, 21 January 1929.

The Jew
by Joseph Goebbels

Everything is discussed openly in Germany, and every German claims the
right to have an opinion on any and all questions. One is Catholic,
the other Protestant, one an employee, the other an employer, a
capitalist, a socialist, a democrat, an aristocrat. There is nothing
dishonorable about choosing one side or the other of a question.
Discussions happen in public, and where matters are unclear or
confused one settles it by argument and counter argument. But there is
one problem that is not discussed publicly, one that it is delicate
even to mention: the Jewish question. It is taboo in our republic.
The Jew is immunized against all dangers: one may call him a
scoundrel, parasite, swindler, profiteer, it all runs off him like
water off a raincoat. But call him a Jew and you will be astonished at
how he recoils, how injured he is, how he suddenly shrinks back: "I've
been found out."
One cannot defend himself against the Jew. He attacks with lightening
speed from his position of safety and uses his abilities to crush any
attempt at defense.
Quickly he turns the attacker's charges back on him, and the attacker
becomes the liar, the troublemaker, the terrorist. Nothing could be
more mistaken than to defend oneself. That is just what the Jew wants.
He can invent a new lie every day for the enemy to respond to, and the
result is that the enemy spends so much time defending himself that he
has no time to do what the Jew really fears: to attack. The accused
has become the accuser, and loudly he shoves the accuser into the
dock. So it always was in the past when a person or a movement fought
the Jew. That is what would happen to us as well were we not fully
aware of his nature, and if we lacked the courage to draw the
following radical conclusions:
1. One cannot fight the Jew by positive means. He is a negative, and
this negative must be erased from the German system, or he will
forever corrupt it.
2. One cannot discuss the Jewish question with the Jews. One can
hardly prove to a person that one has the duty to render him harmless.
3. One cannot allow the Jew the same means one would give an honest
opponent, for he is no honorable opponent. He will use generosity and
nobility only to trap his enemy.
4. The Jew has nothing to say about German questions. He is a
foreigner, an alien, who only enjoys the rights of a guest, rights
that he always abuses.
5. The so-called religious morality of the Jews is no morality at all,
rather an encouragement to betrayal. Therefore, they have no claim to
protection from the state.
6. The Jew is not smarter than we are, rather only cleverer and
craftier. His system cannot be defeated economically-he follows
entirely different moral principles than we do. It can only be broken
through political means.
7. A Jew cannot insult a German. Jewish slanders are but badges of
honor for a German opponent of the Jews.
8. The more a German person or a German movement opposes the Jew, the
more valuable it is. If someone is attacked by the Jews, that is a
sure sign of his virtue. He who is not persecuted by the Jews, or who
is praised by them, is useless and dangerous.
9. The Jew evaluates German questions from the Jewish standpoint. As a
result, the opposite of what he says must be true.
10. One must either affirm or reject anti-Semitism. He who defends the
Jews harms his own people. One can only be a Jewish lackey or a Jewish
opponent. Opposing the Jews is a matter of personal hygiene.
These principles give the anti-Jewish movement a chance of success.
Only such a movement will be taken seriously by the Jews, only such a
movement will be feared by them.
The fact that he shouts and complains about such a movement therefore
is only a sign that it is right. We are therefore delighted that we
are constantly attacked in the Jewish gazettes. They may shout about
terror. We answer with Mussolini's familiar words: "Terror? Never! It
is social hygiene. We take these individuals out of circulation just
as a doctor does to a bacterium.


http://www.ihr.org/ http://www.natvan.com

http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.nsm88.com/

http://wsi.matriots.com/jews.html
Malachias Invictus
2007-10-08 17:52:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Topaz
One cannot defend himself against the Jew. He attacks with lightening
speed from his position of safety and uses his abilities to crush any
attempt at defense.
Really? That sounds just like my Whisper Gnome Warlock. Maybe he is really
a Jew and just doesn't know it.
--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.

from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley
Topaz
2007-10-07 10:59:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 17:27:36 +0200, Mart van de Wege
Post by Mart van de Wege
I gave you a direct quote. Why do you persist in ignoring that?
Because it would take some time and work rather than a cut and paste.
Here is what I came up with:


Himmler said "evacuation".

I am thinking now of the evacuation of the Jews, the extirpation
<Ausrottung> of the Jewish people.

("Ausrotten" is used figuratively by Hitler in his famous Berlin
Sportpalast speech of February 1933: "den Marxismus und seine
Begleiterscheinungen aus Deutschland auszurotten" -- "to extirpate
Marxism and its accompanying phenomena from Germany".)


It is one of those things that's easy to say: "The Jewish people will
be extirpated" <wird ausgerottet>, says every Party comrade, "that's
quite clear, it's in our programme: elimination <Ausschaltung> of the
Jews, extirpation <Ausrottung>; that's what we're doing...

since we know how hard it would be for us if we still had the Jews, as
secret saboteurs, agitators, and slander-mongers, among us now, in
every city -- during the bombing raids, with the suffering and
deprivations of the war...

We had the moral right, we had the duty to our own people, to kill
this people which wanted to kill us <dieses Volk, dass uns umbringen
wollte, umzubringen:

( translator's note: it is unclear whether the writer is referring to
the Jews as a race, or to the Jews as saboteurs, agitators, and
slander-mongerers; see above)

Himmler was certainly right to want to get rid of Jews. Jews were
behind Communism and they are an enemy race. But wouldn't he want them
to work? They could be put in a concentration camp and made to work.

(Regarding an Allied radio broadcast announcement that the Jews were
being exterminated): "Really, the Jews should be grateful to me for
wanting nothing more than a bit of hard work from them."

Adolf Hitler


http://www.ihr.org/ http://www.natvan.com

http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.nsm88.com/

http://wsi.matriots.com/jews.html
Mart van de Wege
2007-10-07 12:39:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Topaz
On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 17:27:36 +0200, Mart van de Wege
Post by Mart van de Wege
I gave you a direct quote. Why do you persist in ignoring that?
Because it would take some time and work rather than a cut and paste.
Himmler said "evacuation".
I am thinking now of the evacuation of the Jews, the extirpation
<Ausrottung> of the Jewish people.
Heh.

You *do* know that there folks on this newsgroup that know German, do you?

Ausrottung does *not* mean 'extirpation'. It means 'extermination'. Period.

Idiot.

Mart
--
"We will need a longer wall when the revolution comes."
--- AJS, quoting an uncertain source.
c***@yahoo.com
2007-10-07 18:58:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mart van de Wege
Post by Topaz
On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 17:27:36 +0200, Mart van de Wege
Post by Mart van de Wege
I gave you a direct quote. Why do you persist in ignoring that?
Because it would take some time and work rather than a cut and paste.
Himmler said "evacuation".
I am thinking now of the evacuation of the Jews, the extirpation
<Ausrottung> of the Jewish people.
Heh.
You *do* know that there folks on this newsgroup that know German, do you?
Ausrottung does *not* mean 'extirpation'. It means 'extermination'. Period.
Idiot.
Hell, aven Babel Fish says it means "extermination."

Brandon
Topaz
2007-10-08 13:26:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by c***@yahoo.com
Hell, aven Babel Fish says it means "extermination."
Here is a quote from Mein Kampf:

"the problem of how the future of the German nation can be secured is
the problem of how Marxism can be exterminated."

But the Communists were only put in concentration camps.

In fact, no physical evidence has ever been found to support even
one of the silly holocaust gassing stories. No holes, no hollow
pillars, no wire mesh baskets, no Zyklon B residue in the walls, and
no special ventillation fans. What's more, there is not a sign of
physical remains of hundreds of thousands of bodies of victims who
were supposed to be gassed.

All we have is talk, talk, talk--tales, tales, tales--moaning,
lamentations, whining, and finger-pointing. We have movies, TV
programs, magazine articles, essays, opinions, lectures, and
legends--but no physical evidence.

Leuchter went to auschwitz looking for some physical evidence of
gas chambers. He found nothing, the same thing everyone else found
over the last fifty years. Leuchter was right on every point: no gas
chambers at Auschwitz."

Morghus

http://www.ihr.org/ http://www.natvan.com

http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.nsm88.com/

http://wsi.matriots.com/jews.html
L***@gmx.de
2007-10-08 10:28:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mart van de Wege
Post by Topaz
On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 17:27:36 +0200, Mart van de Wege
Post by Mart van de Wege
I gave you a direct quote. Why do you persist in ignoring that?
Because it would take some time and work rather than a cut and paste.
Himmler said "evacuation".
I am thinking now of the evacuation of the Jews, the extirpation
<Ausrottung> of the Jewish people.
Heh.
You *do* know that there folks on this newsgroup that know German, do you?
Right.
Post by Mart van de Wege
Ausrottung does *not* mean 'extirpation'. It means 'extermination'. Period.
Right again.
Post by Mart van de Wege
Idiot.
Right. To say the least...

His drivel would probably be 'Volksverhetzung' in Germany
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volksverhetzung) and
"...can lead to up to five years imprisonment.
Volksverhetzung is punishable in Germany even if
committed abroad and even if committed by non-German
citizens, if the incitement of hatred takes effect on German
territory...".

Interesting, does r.g.f.d count as "disseminating in Germany"?

LL
Topaz
2007-10-08 13:27:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Here is part of the Leuchter Report:
"Thirty-one samples were selectively removed from the alleged gas
chambers at Kremas I, II, III, IV and V. A control sample was taken
from delousing facility #1 at Birkenau. The control sample was removed
from a delousing chamber in a location where cyanide was known to have
been used and was apparently present as blue staining. Chemical
testing of the control sample #32 showed a cyanide content of 1050
mg/kg, a very heavy concentration. The conditions at areas from which
these samples were taken are identical with those of the control
sample, cold, dark, and wet. Only Kremas IV and V differed, in the
respect that these locations had sunlight (the buildings have been
torn down) and sunlight may hasten the destruction of uncomplexed
cyanide. The cyanide combines with the iron in the mortar and brick
and becomes ferric-ferro-cyanide or prussian blue pigmentation, a very
stable iron-cyanide complex.
"The locations from which the analyzed samples were removed are set
out in Table III.
"It is notable that almost all the samples were negative and that the
few that were positive were very close to the detection level
(1mg/kg); 6.7 mg/kg at Krema III; 7.9 mg/kg at Krerma I. The absense
of any consequential readings at any of the tested locations as
compared to the control sample reading 1050 mg/kg supports the
evidence that these facilities were not execution gas chambers. The
small quantities detected would indicate that at some point these
buildings were deloused with Zyklon B - as were all the buildings at
all these facilities"

http://www.ihr.org/ http://www.natvan.com

http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.nsm88.com/

http://wsi.matriots.com/jews.html
Mart van de Wege
2007-10-08 18:23:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Topaz <***@hotmail.com> writes:

<snip neo-nazi revisionism>


I see you once again fail to acknowledge that Himmler has openly
talked about *exterminating* the Jews.

Even after being given a link to the text of the speech, an audio
fragment, and confirmation by a German native speaker that Ausrottung
*does* mean 'Extermination'.

I retract my appellation 'idiot'. That would be an insult to idiots
everywhere. You're a prime example of why post-natal abortion would be
a good thing.

Mart
--
"We will need a longer wall when the revolution comes."
--- AJS, quoting an uncertain source.
Topaz
2007-10-09 21:22:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Himmler said "evacuation".

I am thinking now of the evacuation of the Jews, the extermination
<Ausrottung> of the Jewish people.

It is one of those things that's easy to say: "The Jewish people will
be extirpated" <wird ausgerottet>, says every Party comrade, "that's
quite clear, it's in our programme: elimination <Ausschaltung> of the
Jews, extermination <Ausrottung>; that's what we're doing…

(Here is a quote from Mein Kampf:
"the problem of how the future of the German nation can be secured
is the problem of how Marxism can be exterminated."
But Communists leaders were only put in concentration camps and not
killed.)


since we know how hard it would be for us if we still had the Jews, as
secret saboteurs, agitators, and slander-mongers, among us now, in
every city -- during the bombing raids, with the suffering and
deprivations of the war…

We had the moral right, we had the duty to our own people, to kill
this people which wanted to kill us <dieses Volk, dass uns umbringen
wollte, umzubringen:

( translator's note: it is unclear whether the writer is referring to
the Jews as a race, or to the Jews as saboteurs, agitators, and
slander-mongerers)

Himmler was certainly right to want to get rid of Jews. Jews were
behind Communism and they are an enemy race. But wouldn't he want them
to work? They could be put in a concentration camp and made to work.

(Regarding an Allied radio broadcast announcement that the Jews were
being exterminated): "Really, the Jews should be grateful to me for
wanting nothing more than a bit of hard work from them."

Adolf Hitler

All we have is talk, talk, talk--tales, tales, tales--moaning,
lamentations, whining, and finger-pointing. We have movies, TV
programs, magazine articles, essays, opinions, lectures, and
legends--but no physical evidence.

Here is part of the Leuchter Report:
"Thirty-one samples were selectively removed from the alleged gas
chambers at Kremas I, II, III, IV and V. A control sample was taken
from delousing facility #1 at Birkenau. The control sample was removed
from a delousing chamber in a location where cyanide was known to have
been used and was apparently present as blue staining. Chemical
testing of the control sample #32 showed a cyanide content of 1050
mg/kg, a very heavy concentration. The conditions at areas from which
these samples were taken are identical with those of the control
sample, cold, dark, and wet. Only Kremas IV and V differed, in the
respect that these locations had sunlight (the buildings have been
torn down) and sunlight may hasten the destruction of uncomplexed
cyanide. The cyanide combines with the iron in the mortar and brick
and becomes ferric-ferro-cyanide or prussian blue pigmentation, a very
stable iron-cyanide complex.
"The locations from which the analyzed samples were removed are set
out in Table III.
"It is notable that almost all the samples were negative and that the
few that were positive were very close to the detection level
(1mg/kg); 6.7 mg/kg at Krema III; 7.9 mg/kg at Krerma I. The absense
of any consequential readings at any of the tested locations as
compared to the control sample reading 1050 mg/kg supports the
evidence that these facilities were not execution gas chambers. The
small quantities detected would indicate that at some point these
buildings were deloused with Zyklon B - as were all the buildings at
all these facilities"


http://www.ihr.org/ http://www.natvan.com

http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.nsm88.com/

http://wsi.matriots.com/jews.html
Mart van de Wege
2007-10-10 04:29:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Topaz
Himmler said "evacuation".
Yes, and Himmler said in the same sentence what he meant with
'evacuation': 'Ausrottung', *extermination*.

How many times are you going to deny what's there black on white?
Heck, even your bad attempt at weaselling-by-bad-translation fails:
extirpation lists as one of its defitions, sometimes the first one
depending on dictionary, guess what? *EXTERMINATION*.

Gods, you Neo-Nazis are stupid, aren't you?

Mart
--
"We will need a longer wall when the revolution comes."
--- AJS, quoting an uncertain source.
Matt Frisch
2007-10-10 08:48:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 06:29:58 +0200, Mart van de Wege
Post by Mart van de Wege
Post by Topaz
Himmler said "evacuation".
Yes, and Himmler said in the same sentence what he meant with
'evacuation': 'Ausrottung', *extermination*.
How many times are you going to deny what's there black on white?
extirpation lists as one of its defitions, sometimes the first one
depending on dictionary, guess what? *EXTERMINATION*.
Gods, you Neo-Nazis are stupid, aren't you?
Stupidity is the one and only cause of unreasoned bigotry. Being stupid and
being a neo-nazi are like going scuba diving and being surrounded by water.
Malachias Invictus
2007-10-08 17:49:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by L***@gmx.de
Post by Mart van de Wege
Idiot.
Right. To say the least...
His drivel would probably be 'Volksverhetzung' in Germany
Yes. That is sad, really. That law is the antithesis of free speech. I
would rather let the kooks rant.
--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.

from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley
L***@gmx.de
2007-10-08 18:49:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Malachias Invictus
Post by L***@gmx.de
Post by Mart van de Wege
Idiot.
Right. To say the least...
His drivel would probably be 'Volksverhetzung' in Germany
Yes. That is sad, really. That law is the antithesis of free speech. I
would rather let the kooks rant.
It's not an antithesis of free speech, it's a well-founded constraint.
Germany calls itself "Wehrhafte Demokratie", because the central
values of the constitution are actively defended. We have the right
of free speech with the exception that nobody is allowed to abuse
this
right to attack our constitutional values.
So we don't have absolutely free speech, but relatively free speech.

LL
Malachias Invictus
2007-10-09 00:13:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by L***@gmx.de
Post by Malachias Invictus
Post by L***@gmx.de
Post by Mart van de Wege
Idiot.
Right. To say the least...
His drivel would probably be 'Volksverhetzung' in Germany
Yes. That is sad, really. That law is the antithesis of free speech. I
would rather let the kooks rant.
It's not an antithesis of free speech, it's a well-founded constraint.
I strongly disagree.
Post by L***@gmx.de
Germany calls itself "Wehrhafte Demokratie",
That translates to "Fortified Democracy," correct? That sounds like exactly
what the American government is doing right now: fortifying our democracy by
removing the civil liberties of the citizenry.
Post by L***@gmx.de
because the central values of the constitution are actively defended.
A constitution should protect the citizenry from the State, not vice versa.
Post by L***@gmx.de
We have the right of free speech with the exception that nobody is
allowed to abuse this right to attack our constitutional values.
In other words, you have free speech, as long as you don't talk about things
the government has decided you are not allowed to discuss.
--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.

from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley
L***@gmx.de
2007-10-09 09:06:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Malachias Invictus
Post by L***@gmx.de
Post by Malachias Invictus
Post by L***@gmx.de
Post by Mart van de Wege
Idiot.
Right. To say the least...
His drivel would probably be 'Volksverhetzung' in Germany
Yes. That is sad, really. That law is the antithesis of free speech. I
would rather let the kooks rant.
It's not an antithesis of free speech, it's a well-founded constraint.
I strongly disagree.
It's not binary IMO. You seem to believe that either there is
free speech or there isn't.
Post by Malachias Invictus
Post by L***@gmx.de
Germany calls itself "Wehrhafte Demokratie",
That translates to "Fortified Democracy," correct?
Yep.
Post by Malachias Invictus
That sounds like exactly
what the American government is doing right now: fortifying our democracy by
removing the civil liberties of the citizenry.
Post by L***@gmx.de
because the central values of the constitution are actively defended.
A constitution should protect the citizenry from the State, not vice versa.
Defending the constitutional values ensures that they are not removed.
The Weimarer Republik was destroyed because it couldn't defend itself.
So, by defending the constitutional values the citizens are protected
from anybody who would 'hijack' the State to build a policestate,
dictatorship or any other form of opressive and unfree system.
Post by Malachias Invictus
Post by L***@gmx.de
We have the right of free speech with the exception that nobody is
allowed to abuse this right to attack our constitutional values.
In other words, you have free speech, as long as you don't talk about things
the government has decided you are not allowed to discuss.
Yep. I don't want to deny the Holocaust and am glad that those
who want and do are prosecuted, for example.

LL
Topaz
2007-10-09 21:26:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
"They turned Germany into a permanent slave of the Jews after World
War II.
We can't criticize the Jews. We can't examine the REAL historic
background
of the so-called Holocaust. And we are forced to read
Jewish-controlled newspapers, we must watch Jewish-controlled TV shows
and we must pay, pay and pay them, this will never end.

Remember, whenever a German tries some kind of critic, he's branded a
nazi. Whenever a German hits someone not-German, he's branded a nazi.
Whenever we are proud of our nation, we're nazis. And being branded a
nazi means to be an outcast, even a criminal. A "swastika" is
forbidden.
Showing nazi symbols can mean prison. If you have doubts about the
"Holocaust", you will go to prison. Freedom of Speech? Not at all.
Exactly this will happen to Iran if Israel and the US ever invade the
country.
You will NEVER be free again. You'll be slaves forever.
Don't let it happen. Hitler was so right about the Jews. They are the
most treacherous race on this planet. There is a reason nobody likes
them, except their "host", the USA."
Horst Wessel

http://www.ihr.org/ http://www.natvan.com

http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.nsm88.com/

http://wsi.matriots.com/jews.html
Malachias Invictus
2007-10-10 04:49:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by L***@gmx.de
Post by Malachias Invictus
Post by L***@gmx.de
Post by Malachias Invictus
Post by L***@gmx.de
Post by Mart van de Wege
Idiot.
Right. To say the least...
His drivel would probably be 'Volksverhetzung' in Germany
Yes. That is sad, really. That law is the antithesis of free speech.
I
would rather let the kooks rant.
It's not an antithesis of free speech, it's a well-founded constraint.
I strongly disagree.
It's not binary IMO. You seem to believe that either there is
free speech or there isn't.
No. Constraints against speech that causes actual physical danger, such as
shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, and against defamation, are just fine.
Thought policing, which is exactly what Volksverhetzung is, are not.
Post by L***@gmx.de
Post by Malachias Invictus
Post by L***@gmx.de
Germany calls itself "Wehrhafte Demokratie",
That translates to "Fortified Democracy," correct?
Yep.
Post by Malachias Invictus
That sounds like exactly
what the American government is doing right now: fortifying our democracy by
removing the civil liberties of the citizenry.
Post by L***@gmx.de
because the central values of the constitution are actively defended.
A constitution should protect the citizenry from the State, not vice versa.
Defending the constitutional values ensures that they are not removed.
No it doesn't, and it is silly to believe it will.
Post by L***@gmx.de
The Weimarer Republik was destroyed because it couldn't defend itself.
You think Volksverhetzung would have saved it? I hope your knowledge of
German history is better than that. No bullshit laws would have saved that
government; there were simply too many pressures applied both within and
without.
Post by L***@gmx.de
So, by defending the constitutional values the citizens are protected
from anybody who would 'hijack' the State to build a policestate,
dictatorship or any other form of opressive and unfree system.
The thing is, the State is usually the one doing the hijacking. The State,
of course, can change the laws, so claiming these laws somehow protect the
citizenry from itself is, at best, wishful thinking.
Post by L***@gmx.de
Post by Malachias Invictus
Post by L***@gmx.de
We have the right of free speech with the exception that nobody is
allowed to abuse this right to attack our constitutional values.
In other words, you have free speech, as long as you don't talk about things
the government has decided you are not allowed to discuss.
Yep. I don't want to deny the Holocaust
I have no desire to deny *or* affirm the Holocaust. The truth is more
important and relevant than my personal beliefs. The evidence strongly
points to it happening, and I have not seen any evidence that would lead a
reasonable person to believe that it didn't. That does not mean that kooks
and neo-Nazis should be jailed for expressing their thoughts. Should we
jail people who believe in any other nonsense, and dare to express
themselves?
Post by L***@gmx.de
and am glad that those who want and do are prosecuted, for example.
That is nothing more than oppressively policing the thoughts of others, and
I find it utterly reprehensible.
--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.

from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley
L***@gmx.de
2007-10-10 09:47:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Malachias Invictus
Post by L***@gmx.de
Post by Malachias Invictus
Post by L***@gmx.de
Post by Malachias Invictus
Post by L***@gmx.de
Post by Mart van de Wege
Idiot.
Right. To say the least...
His drivel would probably be 'Volksverhetzung' in Germany
Yes. That is sad, really. That law is the antithesis of free speech.
I
would rather let the kooks rant.
It's not an antithesis of free speech, it's a well-founded constraint.
I strongly disagree.
It's not binary IMO. You seem to believe that either there is
free speech or there isn't.
No. Constraints against speech that causes actual physical danger, such as
shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, and against defamation, are just fine.
Thought policing, which is exactly what Volksverhetzung is, are not.
Speech covered by the law against Volksverhetzung *is* speech that
causes actual physical danger and is defamatory. Because of
Volksverhetzung
Neonazi-skinheads attack synagogues, jewish graveyards and
foreign-looking people.
Just like shouting "fire" in a theatre; the shout does not cause
physical
danger, but the ensuing panic does..

<snip>
Post by Malachias Invictus
Post by L***@gmx.de
Defending the constitutional values ensures that they are not removed.
No it doesn't, and it is silly to believe it will.
That's not an argument, that's just contradiction.
For the last 60 years it worked in Germany, that's some evidence...
Post by Malachias Invictus
Post by L***@gmx.de
The Weimarer Republik was destroyed because it couldn't defend itself.
You think Volksverhetzung would have saved it?
I hope you wanted to ask if laws against Volksverhetzung would
have saved it. I don't know, such laws alone probably not.
But that's a strawman and you know it.
Post by Malachias Invictus
I hope your knowledge of German history is better than that.
<yawn>
Post by Malachias Invictus
No bullshit laws would have saved that government;
Laws against "Volksverhetzung" != bullshit laws.
You don't know which laws (if any) would have averted Nazi-Germany,
even historians don't know.
Post by Malachias Invictus
there were simply too many pressures applied both within and
without.
Not done with the strawman yet, I see.
Post by Malachias Invictus
Post by L***@gmx.de
So, by defending the constitutional values the citizens are protected
from anybody who would 'hijack' the State to build a policestate,
dictatorship or any other form of opressive and unfree system.
The thing is, the State is usually the one doing the hijacking.
The State? How can "the State" do anything?
Post by Malachias Invictus
The State,
of course, can change the laws, so claiming these laws somehow protect the
citizenry from itself is, at best, wishful thinking.
We have a legislature (Bundestag and Bundesrat); they are the
people making and changing laws. They are subject to control
by the Verfassungsgericht, which checks (if anybody asks), if
the law in question conforms to the constitution.
Post by Malachias Invictus
Post by L***@gmx.de
Post by Malachias Invictus
Post by L***@gmx.de
We have the right of free speech with the exception that nobody is
allowed to abuse this right to attack our constitutional values.
In other words, you have free speech, as long as you don't talk about things
the government has decided you are not allowed to discuss.
Yep. I don't want to deny the Holocaust
I have no desire to deny *or* affirm the Holocaust. The truth is more
important and relevant than my personal beliefs. The evidence strongly
points to it happening, and I have not seen any evidence that would lead a
reasonable person to believe that it didn't. That does not mean that kooks
and neo-Nazis should be jailed for expressing their thoughts. Should we
jail people who believe in any other nonsense, and dare to express
themselves?
As you said above: if it's causing danger or is defamatory, then yes.
And why not? What's the benefit of letting the hate-mongers spread
their lies?
Post by Malachias Invictus
Post by L***@gmx.de
and am glad that those who want and do are prosecuted, for example.
That is nothing more than oppressively policing the thoughts of others, and
The thoughts are free even in Germany.
Post by Malachias Invictus
I find it utterly reprehensible.
Why?

LL
Malachias Invictus
2007-10-10 16:56:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by L***@gmx.de
Post by Malachias Invictus
Post by L***@gmx.de
Post by Malachias Invictus
Post by L***@gmx.de
Post by Malachias Invictus
Post by L***@gmx.de
Post by Mart van de Wege
Idiot.
Right. To say the least...
His drivel would probably be 'Volksverhetzung' in Germany
Yes. That is sad, really. That law is the antithesis of free speech.
I
would rather let the kooks rant.
It's not an antithesis of free speech, it's a well-founded constraint.
I strongly disagree.
It's not binary IMO. You seem to believe that either there is
free speech or there isn't.
No. Constraints against speech that causes actual physical danger, such as
shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, and against defamation, are just fine.
Thought policing, which is exactly what Volksverhetzung is, are not.
Speech covered by the law against Volksverhetzung *is* speech that
causes actual physical danger and is defamatory.
Denying the Holocaust does not cause actual physical danger, nor is it
defamatory. Saying hateful things about Jews (or any other group, really)
is similarly neither. Advocating and promoting violence against people can
certainly qualify, though. Your law fails to make this distinction, and
punishes people for having "icky" viewpoints.
Post by L***@gmx.de
Because of Volksverhetzung Neonazi-skinheads attack synagogues,
jewish graveyards and foreign-looking people.
Merely shouting about how the Jews want to steal everyone's cheese and make
all children wear funny hats with their mind control machines (or whatever
other stupid things these people blame on the Jews) is *not* the same thing
as saying "we should grab some Jews right now and burn them!" The latter is
acceptable to proscribe. The former is not.
Post by L***@gmx.de
Just like shouting "fire" in a theatre; the shout does not cause
physical danger, but the ensuing panic does..
What "panic" does denying the Holocaust cause? Sensible people consider the
speaker to be a kook.
Post by L***@gmx.de
<snip>
Post by Malachias Invictus
Post by L***@gmx.de
Defending the constitutional values ensures that they are not removed.
No it doesn't, and it is silly to believe it will.
That's not an argument, that's just contradiction.
For the last 60 years it worked in Germany, that's some evidence...
Give me a break. There are so many factors that go into that equation that
to state this particular set of laws is responsible for holding your country
together is completely ignorant. For example, would you have done so well
if we went back in time and exchanged the Marshall Plan for a new, harsher
version of the Treaty of Versailles?
Post by L***@gmx.de
Post by Malachias Invictus
Post by L***@gmx.de
The Weimarer Republik was destroyed because it couldn't defend itself.
You think Volksverhetzung would have saved it?
I hope you wanted to ask if laws against Volksverhetzung would
have saved it.
My apologies. That is indeed what I meant.
Post by L***@gmx.de
I don't know, such laws alone probably not.
That is my point. Removing them would not cause Germany to crumble, either.
Post by L***@gmx.de
But that's a strawman and you know it.
Not really. My point is made. Draconian punishments against "icky" speech
and thoughts makes your country less free, and do not "defend your republic"
in the way you seem to imply.
Post by L***@gmx.de
Post by Malachias Invictus
I hope your knowledge of German history is better than that.
<yawn>
Post by Malachias Invictus
No bullshit laws would have saved that government;
Laws against "Volksverhetzung" != bullshit laws.
Yes, they are. You cannot change the way people think with laws such as
this, and to think you can is hubristic at best. In fact, laws like this
increase the kooks' feelings of righteousness and oppression.
Post by L***@gmx.de
You don't know which laws (if any) would have averted Nazi-Germany,
even historians don't know.
Sure they do. Nazi Germany most likely never would have happened if the
German people had not been continuously humiliated and oppressed from
without, particularly from France and Britain. No country could have
withstood that sort of economic attack and remained functional. It is
understandable that the people of Germany grasped for any straw they could
reach in such times.
Post by L***@gmx.de
Post by Malachias Invictus
there were simply too many pressures applied both within and
without.
Not done with the strawman yet, I see.
Acknowledging historical reality is a straw man? How so? Do you honestly
think that another Hitler would arise if NeoNazi kooks were allowed to speak
their minds? The same conditions simply do not exist, and if they did, no
amount of legislated morality would change the zeitgeist.
Post by L***@gmx.de
Post by Malachias Invictus
Post by L***@gmx.de
So, by defending the constitutional values the citizens are protected
from anybody who would 'hijack' the State to build a policestate,
dictatorship or any other form of opressive and unfree system.
The thing is, the State is usually the one doing the hijacking.
The State? How can "the State" do anything?
The State does plenty. For example, the State of the US is currently
occupying Iraq, and spying on its citizens without warrants.
Post by L***@gmx.de
Post by Malachias Invictus
The State,
of course, can change the laws, so claiming these laws somehow protect the
citizenry from itself is, at best, wishful thinking.
We have a legislature (Bundestag and Bundesrat); they are the
people making and changing laws. They are subject to control
by the Verfassungsgericht, which checks (if anybody asks), if
the law in question conforms to the constitution.
Okay. So if a Nazi-esque party were to somehow gain control of the
legislature, what would stop them from stacking the Bundesverfassungsgericht
with likeminded individuals? The US has a great Constitution, but that has
not stopped individuals in the federal government from eroding it. All it
takes is a President with a cooperative legislature, and a court stacked
with likeminded individuals willing to rule in their favor, or refuse to
review the case.
Post by L***@gmx.de
Post by Malachias Invictus
Post by L***@gmx.de
Post by Malachias Invictus
Post by L***@gmx.de
We have the right of free speech with the exception that nobody is
allowed to abuse this right to attack our constitutional values.
In other words, you have free speech, as long as you don't talk about things
the government has decided you are not allowed to discuss.
Yep. I don't want to deny the Holocaust
I have no desire to deny *or* affirm the Holocaust. The truth is more
important and relevant than my personal beliefs. The evidence strongly
points to it happening, and I have not seen any evidence that would lead a
reasonable person to believe that it didn't. That does not mean that kooks
and neo-Nazis should be jailed for expressing their thoughts. Should we
jail people who believe in any other nonsense, and dare to express
themselves?
As you said above: if it's causing danger
Define "causing danger" in this context. If you are directly inciting to
violent action, that is different from merely saying something hateful.
Post by L***@gmx.de
or is defamatory, then yes.
Defamation is best left to civil damages, not criminal sanctions.
Post by L***@gmx.de
And why not? What's the benefit of letting the hate-mongers spread
their lies?
It gets things out in the open. That is part of what free speech is all
about. Do you forbid religious proselytising under your laws? From my
view, much that is contained in the Christian Bible is hate-mongering
nonsense (I can provide plenty of examples). Do you allow Christians to
spread *their* hateful lies?
Post by L***@gmx.de
Post by Malachias Invictus
Post by L***@gmx.de
and am glad that those who want and do are prosecuted, for example.
That is nothing more than oppressively policing the thoughts of others, and
The thoughts are free even in Germany.
You are allowed to think as you wish, as long as you never express those
thoughts, right?
Post by L***@gmx.de
Post by Malachias Invictus
I find it utterly reprehensible.
Why?
It is nothing more than a step towards policing the thoughts of citizens.
--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.

from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley
Topaz
2007-10-09 21:24:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
By David Irving

The German Government has quietly admitted that over the last twelve
months it prosecuted over 18,000 Germans for offences of "right-wing
extremism," of which only a few hundred involved actual violence: i.e.
they prosecuted over seventeen thousand thought-crimes-people
unwitting displaying the old swastika emblem, or even worse, National
Socialist ideas, and perhaps even "denying the H."

As the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung recently pointed out in a
courageous editorial, most of these new criminal records have been
sprung on ordinary citizens blissfully unaware of the criminality of
their actions and thoughts, because the tame German media are too
cowardly to report any of these cases-even the major trials like those
involving the revisionists Ernst Zundel and Germar Rudolf.

These absurd laws themselves are protected by fresh layers of other,
even more absurd, laws making it impossible even for court-appointed
attorneys to provide an adequate and conscientious defence to those
accused under the thought-crime laws. Any German or Austrian lawyer
who does, can be-and frequently is-himself ordered arrested by the
judge, for having associated himself with these criminal thoughts and
deeds. Zundel's court-appointed defence attorney Sylvia Stolz (right)
made herself unpopular with the prosecutor for "hampering the
prosecution," and is now to be prosecuted for so hampering. Go figure,
as the Americans say.

More than once my chosen Austrian lawyer, Dr Herbert Schaller, left,
arrived in the Vienna prison with fresh horror tales from Zundel's
Mannheim courtroom-the judge Meinerzhagen had warned him that if he
asked certain questions of the court, or made certain defence motions,
he too would be arrested.

I remember that in January 1993, when I was tried in Munich under
Germany's laws for the suppression of free speech, one of my three
lawyers turned up apologetically on the morning of the hearing
apologizing that he could not continue to act for me, as the Munich
Bar Association had threatened him with dismissal-i.e. the end of his
career-if he did. He showed me their actual letter. I was fined thirty
thousand deutschmarks, around twenty thousand dollars, for uttering a
single sentence which the Polish authorities now belatedly admit was
true.

I NOTICED when I was in Viennese prison that the jailhouse, built to
hold eight hundred malfeasors, currently held 1,400 inmates, a quarter
of them Blacks. It was a tight fit but it was possible, provided we
did not all breathe at the same time.

This morning I have received a letter from Frau K., an elderly
Viennese lady in her nineties. Exercising what is the constitutional
right of every citizen in most other countries, on September 27 of
last year she had written a personal letter to the President of
Austria, one Herbert Fischer-a small, straw-haired gentleman of even
smaller character and endowed with all the intellect and bearing of
Lady Chatterley's gardener-to protest against my arrest, trial, and
imprisonment. "What D. I. said was right," she wrote in one passage of
this incriminating letter.

She received no presidential reply? Right.-She heard no more? Wrong.

On March 8 the Austrian criminal authorities sent her a letter fining
her the sum of 200 euros under penalty of jail for having written
these seditious words to their august president. No trial, no hearing,
no defence-no lawyer would have dared to defend her anyway.

This is the new Europe, coming soon to a jailhouse near us. I for one
shall do my damndest to prevent it.


http://www.ihr.org/ http://www.natvan.com

http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.nsm88.com/

http://wsi.matriots.com/jews.html
Tetsubo
2007-10-08 19:13:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Malachias Invictus
Post by L***@gmx.de
Post by Mart van de Wege
Idiot.
Right. To say the least...
His drivel would probably be 'Volksverhetzung' in Germany
Yes. That is sad, really. That law is the antithesis of free speech. I
would rather let the kooks rant.
It does make identifying the kooks so much easier... I used to read
American Survival magazine for that very reason... though there were
occasionally interesting articles...
--
Tetsubo
--------------------------------------
"The apparent lesson of the Inquisition is that insistence on
uniformity of belief is fatal to intellectual, moral and spiritual health."
-The Uses Of The Past-, Herbert J. Muller

BLUP
Topaz
2007-10-09 21:23:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
ADOLF HITLER
SCHWERIN, GUSTLOFF'S FUNERAL
SPEECH OF FEBRUARY 12, 1936

. . . BEHIND every murder stood the same power which is responsible
for this murder; behind these harmless insignificant fellow-countrymen
who were instigated and incited to crime stands the hate-filled power
of our Jewish foe, a foe to whom we had done no harm, but who none the
less sought to subjugate our German people and make of it its slave -
the foe who is responsible for all the misfortune that fell upon us in
1918, for all the misfortune which plagued Germany in the years that
followed. Those members of the Party and honorable comrades of ours
all fell, and the same fate was planned for others: many hundreds
survived as cripples or severely wounded, blinded or lamed; more than
40,000 others were injured. And among them were so many loyal folk
whom we all knew and who were near and dear to us, of whom we were
sure that they could never do any harm to anyone, that they had never
done any harm to anyone, whose only crime was that they devoted
themselves to the cause of Germany.

In the ranks of those whose lives were thus sacrificed there stood
also Horst Wessel, the singer who gave to the Movement its song, never
dreaming that he would join those spirits who march and have marched
with us.

And now on foreign soil National Socialism has gained its first
conscious martyr - a man who did nothing save to enter the lists for
Germany which is not only his sacred right but his duty in this world:
a man who did nothing save remember his homeland and pledge himself to
her in loyalty. He, too, was murdered, just like so many others. Even
at the time when on January 30 three years ago we had come into power,
precisely the same things happened in Germany, at Frankfort on the
Oder, at Köpenick, and again at Brunswick. The procedure was always
the same: a few men come and call someone out of his house and then
stab or shoot him down.

That is no chance: it is the same guiding hand which organized these
crimes and purposes to do so again. Now for the first time one who is
responsible for these acts has appeared in his own person. For the
first time he employs no harmless German fellow-countryman. It is a
title to fame for Switzerland, as it is for our own Germans in
Switzerland, that no one let himself be hired to do this deed so that
for the first time the spiritual begetter of the act must himself
perform the act. So our comrade has fallen a victim to that power
which wages a fanatical warfare not only against our German people but
against every free, autonomous, and independent people. We understand
the challenge to battle and we take up the gage! My dear comrade! You
have not fallen in vain!

http://www.ihr.org/ http://www.natvan.com

http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.nsm88.com/

http://wsi.matriots.com/jews.html
Topaz
2007-10-08 13:12:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
("Ausrotten" is used figuratively by Hitler in his famous Berlin
Sportpalast speech of February 1933: "den Marxismus und seine
Begleiterscheinungen aus Deutschland auszurotten" -- "to extirpate
Marxism and its accompanying phenomena from Germany".)

They did wipe out Marxism. But the dangerous Communists were put in
concentration camps not exterminated.

http://www.ihr.org/ http://www.natvan.com

http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.nsm88.com/

http://wsi.matriots.com/jews.html
Malachias Invictus
2007-10-07 19:21:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Topaz
Himmler was certainly right to want to get rid of Jews. Jews were
behind Communism and they are an enemy race.
Anyone who thinks of an entire race as an enemy is a fucking moron. People
are individuals.
--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.

from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley
Tetsubo
2007-10-07 19:29:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Malachias Invictus
Post by Topaz
Himmler was certainly right to want to get rid of Jews. Jews were
behind Communism and they are an enemy race.
Anyone who thinks of an entire race as an enemy is a fucking moron. People
are individuals.
I've often wondered why people think of Jews as a race at all. Anyone
can be Jewish. You wake up one day and decide to be a Jew, you can be a
Jew. I can't decide to be Asian, or Spanish. Being Jewish is about
having a certain religious belief, not a specific genetic make-up. But I
will of course be told how wrong I am...
--
Tetsubo
--------------------------------------
"The apparent lesson of the Inquisition is that insistence on
uniformity of belief is fatal to intellectual, moral and spiritual health."
-The Uses Of The Past-, Herbert J. Muller

BLUP
Malachias Invictus
2007-10-07 21:43:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tetsubo
Post by Malachias Invictus
Post by Topaz
Himmler was certainly right to want to get rid of Jews. Jews were
behind Communism and they are an enemy race.
Anyone who thinks of an entire race as an enemy is a fucking moron.
People are individuals.
I've often wondered why people think of Jews as a race at all.
You are not the only one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_is_a_Jew#Religious_definitions

There are plenty of opinions on this subject.

Personally, I do not care. If someone wants to call himself a Jew, that is
fine with me. Beliefs and actions are way more important than heritage in
my book.
--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.

from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley
Topaz
2007-10-08 14:01:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
"Maybe we can't assign the blame for the crimes of individual Jews to
the Jewish people as a whole. But it is not wrong to notice that the
Jewish people are a seething nexus of crime against gentiles-a locus
whose probability of producing any given assault on white Western
civilization exceeds randomness by seven leagues and a country mile.
The 20th century has been replete with Jewish-led movements which
wormed, chipped, chewed, hacked and battered their way across American
and European civilization, from the Jewish-led and Jewish-financed
Bolshevik revolution thru political correctness, hate crimes and the
Holohoax to Palestinian genocide, State-sponsored torture, the
shredding of the American Constitution, US and Israeli war crimes and
placing the world on the precipice of World War Three. The list could
literally go on and on, even as the media-and indeed the bulk of its
dumbed-down thoroughly-conditioned politically-correct citizenry-are
paralyzed by the threat of Jewish wrath and the meaningless yet
anaphylactically venomous charge of 'anti-Semitism', with the result
that the few of us who have been screaming that the king has no
clothes watch helplessly as our beloved civilization and its
traditions of freedom and opportunity disappear with increasing
rapidity down the gaping and unforgiving maw of the Orwellian memory
hole. Under these circumstances it is no moral crime to be
anti-Semitic; rather it is a moral obligation."
Author unknown

http://www.ihr.org/ http://www.natvan.com

http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.nsm88.com/

http://wsi.matriots.com/jews.html
Malachias Invictus
2007-10-08 17:37:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Topaz
"Maybe we can't assign the blame for the crimes of individual Jews to
the Jewish people as a whole.
There is no "maybe" about it.
Post by Topaz
But it is not wrong to notice that the
Jewish people are a seething nexus of crime against gentiles
So are the Christian people, the Muslim people, and many other groups. Your
point?
Post by Topaz
-a locus whose probability of producing any given assault on white Western
civilization exceeds randomness by seven leagues and a country mile.
I suppose asking for statistical backup for a claim from a fanatic is
futile.
Post by Topaz
The 20th century has been replete with Jewish-led movements which
wormed, chipped, chewed, hacked and battered their way across American
and European civilization, from the Jewish-led and Jewish-financed
Bolshevik revolution thru political correctness, hate crimes and the
Holohoax to Palestinian genocide, State-sponsored torture,
Funny, but it seems that, at least in America, it is an evangelical
Christian engaging in that.
Post by Topaz
the shredding of the American Constitution,
Once again, evangelical (and generally Dominionist) Christians, as well as
five very famous Roman Catholics. Why aren't you railing against those
religions?
Post by Topaz
US and Israeli war crimes
Israeli war crimes are certainly horrible, but there is opposition to them
even in Israel. As for US war crimes, are you claiming those responsible
are Jewish, or are you claiming the Jews are controlling things with their
Orbital Mind Control Laser?
Post by Topaz
and placing the world on the precipice of World War Three. The list could
literally go on and on, even as the media-and indeed the bulk of its
dumbed-down thoroughly-conditioned politically-correct citizenry-are
paralyzed by the threat of Jewish wrath
Not really. A good number of the paste-eaters that support this nonsense
hate Jews (along with many other ethnic groups and religions). In fact, the
areas in the US with higher Jewish populations seem to be against the
current occupation and general warmongering.
Post by Topaz
and the meaningless yet anaphylactically venomous charge of
'anti-Semitism', with the result that the few of us who have been
screaming that the king has no clothes watch helplessly as our
beloved civilization and its traditions of freedom and opportunity
disappear with increasing rapidity down the gaping and unforgiving
maw of the Orwellian memory hole.
I share these concerns, but exclusively blaming Jews for them is stupid.
Post by Topaz
Under these circumstances it is no moral crime to be
anti-Semitic; rather it is a moral obligation."
It is never moral to be a mindless bigot.
--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.

from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley
Topaz
2007-10-08 13:57:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tetsubo
I've often wondered why people think of Jews as a race at all. Anyone
can be Jewish. You wake up one day and decide to be a Jew, you can be a
Jew. I can't decide to be Asian, or Spanish. Being Jewish is about
having a certain religious belief, not a specific genetic make-up. But I
will of course be told how wrong I am...
How wrong you are.

Jews are an ethnic group. They are not just a religion. If a Jew
becomes a Christian or an atheist he still says he is a Jew. Most of
the Jews in the Jew country are atheist. They say that a Jew is anyone
that has a Jewish mother. Therefore it is a hereditary thing.

We are for having a nation of White people. Jews would be White enough
to join us if it weren't for other important factors. One factor is
that they don't want our race to live. They want to be the only
Caucasians to survive on the earth.

The Jews have their own Jew country, but they demand multi-culture and
pluralism for us. Their leaders agree with something Hitler wrote:

"A State which, in an epoch of racial adulteration, devotes itself to
the duty of preserving the best elements of its racial stock must one
day become ruler of the Earth."


Jews are enemies of White civilization. Here are some quotes
from a very pro-Jewish book that was first published in 1925. The book
is "Stranger than Fiction" by Lewis Browne.

"But save for such exceptions, the Jews who led or participated
in the heroic efforts to remold the world of the last century, were
neither Reform or Orthodox. Indeed, they were often not professing
Jews at all.
"For instance, there was Heinrich Heine and Ludwig Borne, both
unfaltering champions of freedom. And even more conspicuously, there
was Karl Marx, one of the great prophetic geniuses of modern times.
"Jewish historians rarely mention the name of this man, Karl
Marx, though in his life and spirit he was far truer to the mission of
Israel than most of those who were forever talking of it. He was born
in Germany in 1818, and belonged to an old rabbinic family. He was not
himself reared as a Jew, however, but while still a child was baptized
a Christian by his father. Yet the rebel soul of the Jew flamed in him
throughout his days, for he was always a 'troubler' in Europe."


"Then, of course, there are Ludwig Borne and Heinrich Heine, two
men who by their merciless wit and sarcasm became leaders among the
revolutionary writers. Karl Marx, Ferdinand Lassalle, Johann Jacoby,
Gabriel Riesser, Adolphe Cremieux, Signora Nathan- all these of Jewish
lineage played important roles in the struggle that went throughout
Europe in this period. Wherever the war for human liberty was being
waged, whether in France, Germany, Austria, Hungary, or Italy, there
the Jew was to be found. It was little wonder that the enemies of
social progress, the monarchists and the Churchmen, came to speak of
the whole liberal movement as nothing but a Jewish plot."


"The Jews had become the money lenders of Europe for quite
evident reasons. The Church sternly forbade all Christians to engage
in the pursuit...
"So the Jews became the money lenders of Europe. They developed
a great shrewdness and cunning in the one and only field of
opportunity left open to them. And with their shrewdness and cunning
they developed a certain cruelty and greed. That was natural. The
world was cruel to them, so when the chance was theirs, they were
cruel in return..."



http://www.ihr.org/ http://www.natvan.com

http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.nsm88.com/

http://wsi.matriots.com/jews.html
c***@yahoo.com
2007-10-08 14:56:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Topaz
We are for having a nation of White people. Jews would be White enough
to join us if it weren't for other important factors. One factor is
that they don't want our race to live. They want to be the only
Caucasians to survive on the earth.
At least Eric Cartman is funny when he says things like this.

Brandon
Malachias Invictus
2007-10-08 17:42:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by c***@yahoo.com
Post by Topaz
We are for having a nation of White people. Jews would be White enough
to join us if it weren't for other important factors. One factor is
that they don't want our race to live. They want to be the only
Caucasians to survive on the earth.
At least Eric Cartman is funny when he says things like this.
That's because his lines are written by Jews ;-)
--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.

from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley
Topaz
2007-10-08 13:55:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Aren't the Jews telling us Arabs are an enemy race?

The Jewish controlled media tells us that the Jews are America's only
friends in the Middle East. The truth is that before these Jews,
America didn't have any enemies in the Middle East.

http://www.ihr.org/ http://www.natvan.com

http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.nsm88.com/

http://wsi.matriots.com/jews.html
c***@yahoo.com
2007-10-08 14:54:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Topaz
Aren't the Jews telling us Arabs are an enemy race?
The Arabs have been pretty bitter ever since they went under the thumb
of the Ottoman Empire (and no, the Turks aren't Arabs), It also
doesn't help that the Arab's golden age was a millenia ago.

Brandon
Brent
2007-10-03 05:09:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bruce L Grubb
Post by Topaz
"Precisely because we are nationally minded, for that very reason we
have respect for the national feelings of other peoples. And our
national pride does not mean we scorn other peoples, it means that we
respect and love our own people. It is precisely the Internationalists
who prevent peoples from coming to understand one another."
Adolf Hitler
"Not hatred toward other peoples, but love toward the German nation."
Hitler, Berlin October 24, 1933
General Leon Degrelle was the leader of the Belgian contingent of the
Waffen SS. He was in 75 hand-to-hand combat actions against the
"German racialism has been deliberately distorted. It never was
"anti-other race"... National Socialist racialism was not against the
other races, it was for its own race. It aimed at defending and
improving its race and wished that all other races did the same for
themselves. It was demonstrated when the Waffen
SS enlarged its ranks to include 60,000 Islamic SS troops.
The Waffen SS respected their way of life, their customs and their
religious beliefs. Each Islamic SS battalion had an iman; each company
had a mullah. It was our common wish that their qualities found their
highest expression... I was present when each of my Islamic comrades
received a personal gift from Hitler during the new year. It was a
pendant with a small Koran. He was honouring them with what was the
most important aspect of their lives and their history."
http://www.ihr.org/ http://www.natvan.com
http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.nsm88.com/
http://wsi.matriots.com/jews.html
This nonsense can be disproved by going to Hitler's Mein Kampf: "While
the Jew robbed the whole nation and pressed it beneath his domination,
an agitation was carried on against the 'Prussians.' ", "In it I could
only see the craftiest trick of the Jew, calculated to distract the
general attention from himself and to others"
"At a blow they would awaken the bourgeois world to see the madness of
thinking that the Jewish drive towards world-conquest can be
effectually opposed by means of Western Democracy." "That work [Marx's
book] was not written for the masses, but exclusively for the
intellectual leaders of the Jewish machine for conquering the
world."<http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/> and on and on it
goes.
Only those races thought to have connection to the Ayran race would
have been been given a chance at "highest expression", and the others?
Well the Holocaust shows what the fate of the others was to be.
Strangely, part of this idea held that some of the Ayran race left
their traces and bloodline Tibet.
That all said if any D&D race would adopt Nazism I would say it would
have to be the Orcs. Many concepts of Nazism fit into what the Orcs
do anyhow and militarism would thrill them no end.
No way. Fascist totalitarianism is way too regimented a society for
orcs. I'll whack together a list of wacky economic/political doctrines
and which fantasy race they best suit:
Fascism: Elves(superiority complex), Humans (power thirst),
Hobgoblins.
Communism: Dwarves (heavy statist stalinsm), gnomes(light anarcho-
communism- except svirfneblin who would totally be into very heavy
literalist totalitarian communism), Kobolds(Classic leninism), certain
types of undead(Perfect Marxism).
Despotism: Orcs, most savage humanoids including humans.
Ultra-Capitalist Market anarchy: Goblins,Humans, Halfings especially.
Zimri
2007-10-03 05:49:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
"Brent"
Post by Brent
No way. Fascist totalitarianism is way too regimented a society for
orcs. I'll whack together a list of wacky economic/political doctrines
Fascism: Elves(superiority complex), Humans (power thirst),
Hobgoblins.
Communism: Dwarves (heavy statist stalinsm), gnomes(light anarcho-
communism- except svirfneblin who would totally be into very heavy
literalist totalitarian communism), Kobolds(Classic leninism), certain
types of undead(Perfect Marxism).
Despotism: Orcs, most savage humanoids including humans.
Ultra-Capitalist Market anarchy: Goblins,Humans, Halfings especially.
Yeah, I hadn't considered the difference between Italian-style fascism,
pre-1935; and Nazism.

I see Nazism as a movement based on the resentment of a large lower-middle
class against Those Who Have Stabbed Them In The Back. The Jews in Europe
had the misfortune to be the local market dominant minority. Rwandan
Hutu-power would also qualify as a "nazi" movement; ditto the Young Turks
who massacred the Armenians. That makes it the result of an *inferiority*
complex. So, by "fascism", you have to be ruling out the Nazis; you must be
referring to the purer, Italian form.

The problem with the term "fascism" is that even Mussolini didn't define it
very well. Most of it was pageantry as far as I can gather: appropriating
Roman symbols, wearing that ridiculous sheet in public etc. Calling cards
include national pride, a quest for glory, aggression, nostalgia, state
power, and contempt of law - but none of this can amount to a "fascist
constitution".

We don't have many fascist Elves in D&D, or fantasy in general. Certain of
the Sons of Feanor do qualify for the fascist mindset, in the Silmarillion.
But the book doesn't condemn them for their system of government (which is
completely ignored); it condemns them for personal pride.

Maybe if Galadriel had taken the Ring? No more talk of Elvish decline, then!
Greenwood the Great would be purged of its darkness, Elvish riverboats would
own the Anduin, and humans would (perforce) retake their role as the elves'
loyal servants. With time even the Orcs might be remade...
--
zimriel sbc dot
at global net
.
http://pages.sbcglobal.net/zimriel/
*new improved shorter .sig*
Topaz
2007-10-03 11:38:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Mussolini, Benito - The Doctrine of Fascism

Fascism is the name of an ancient way of keeping a group of people
together under a united goal. Dating back to the Roman Empire,
political leaders like Julius Caesar used fascism as a way of
maintaining a consensus between the individuals in his land, as well
as establishing the kind of self-sacrificing heroism that has always
defined the basis for Indo-European culture. Fascism puts focus on the
whole, which includes people, culture, religion and nature.
It is therefore totally opposed to liberalism, which claims that the
freedom of the individual is of highest importance. It can be said
that the essence of fascism is that of an integralist tradition: each
nation is seen as an organic entity, meaning that there are no
internal conflicts between man and nature, nor man and state. In
liberal democracies, there is a constant conflict between the state
and the individual. Left wants to increase the power of the state,
while the Right wants to do the opposite. Fascism solves this by
simply equating the state with the people: what the state wants, the
people want, and vice versa.
Thus fascism is a way of finding a balance between the needs of
different individuals and having them work towards shared goals. This
will always remain as the stable foundation to healthy civilizations.
As soon as a house needs to be built it's absolutely necessary to let
all parts involved focus on their task and work together in order to
fulfill each other with their respective specialization. Opposed to
the democratic view on work, where each individual is assumed to be
able to control and handle any given task, fascism claims the
opposite: only those who are in accordance with the natural abilities
of a specific task may fulfill them with the greatest perfection in
art. Anyone can build a fairly functioning place to stay, but how many
have the inherent skills to make it last for several years? It's thus
not about "who can do what", but merely "who can do it best". As seen
from a democratic point of view, this is promotion of "inequality".
Fascism sees it as natural and is not bound to moral obligations: each
individual has a unique ability and should thus work towards improving
it.
Put into a pragmatic context, this form of political specialization is
solved through the traditional system of guilds, or "corporativism",
as it is also called. This means that all carpenters will unite under
a union for carpenters, all leaders will unite under a union of
leaders etc. The benefits of this are many, but practically it is a
fully mature way of combining cheap and effective education with an
economic stability for all parts involved. It develops each respective
craft and creates a sense of pride in one's own ability and art. The
fascist form of corporativism is therefore a close relative to the
caste society, which focuses on individual specialization and denies
the democratic-capitalist way of valuing people according to money.
Within fascism, the natural ability of the individual is not seen as
an economic question, but a purely pragmatic one, leaving space for
individual improvement and development.
It must therefore be said that fascism is totally against the
political system of socialism, which sees all individuals as equal in
ability, but most importantly, divides the people up into economic
groups called "classes", where the working class is seen as suppressed
by the bourgeois class. Fascism wants to erase this clash and unite
the people under the things that ultimately bind them together:
history, culture and religious belief. In relation to this we can thus
address another common misconception about fascism: it is not simply a
political stance, but an overtly spiritual and transcendentalist
outlook on life…

The most noticeable difference between liberal democracy and a fascist
society, is however the question of leadership. Democracy is built
around the assumption that numerical votes automatically can decide
which idea is the one worth striving towards. Fascism claims the
opposite: no numerical votes or principle of the majority can find the
best solution to our problems. Only by recognizing the inherent
variation in ability among individuals, including leadership, may we
find a way of controlling and managing the issues of the state and its
different organs. Therefore, all traditional fascist societies have
been ruled by political leaders and not by the people, although the
general goals and ideals of both parties remain the same. Note that
this is not an actual hierarchy, as it is often presented from a
democratic point of view: a leader is just as worthy and useful for
society as a whole as a carpenter or an engineer. Corporativism wants
each individual to see his or her own specific place in the organic
order as a whole. Only through this view can we at last lay the
clashes between classes aside and start working for common goals
again…
Ultimately fascism is a philosophy for the future of modern
civilizations. Not until we dare to face the inherent problems with
democracy and its ways of creating moral illusions, can we find a
political system based on natural reality.

http://www.ihr.org/ http://www.natvan.com

http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.nsm88.com/

http://wsi.matriots.com/jews.html
Brent
2007-10-04 04:57:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Zimri
"Brent"
Post by Brent
No way. Fascist totalitarianism is way too regimented a society for
orcs. I'll whack together a list of wacky economic/political doctrines
Fascism: Elves(superiority complex), Humans (power thirst),
Hobgoblins.
Communism: Dwarves (heavy statist stalinsm), gnomes(light anarcho-
communism- except svirfneblin who would totally be into very heavy
literalist totalitarian communism), Kobolds(Classic leninism), certain
types of undead(Perfect Marxism).
Despotism: Orcs, most savage humanoids including humans.
Ultra-Capitalist Market anarchy: Goblins,Humans, Halfings especially.
Yeah, I hadn't considered the difference between Italian-style fascism,
pre-1935; and Nazism.
True, people like to call the Nazis fascist, but they were actually a
little different.
Post by Zimri
I see Nazism as a movement based on the resentment of a large lower-middle
class against Those Who Have Stabbed Them In The Back. The Jews in Europe
had the misfortune to be the local market dominant minority. Rwandan
Hutu-power would also qualify as a "nazi" movement; ditto the Young Turks
who massacred the Armenians. That makes it the result of an *inferiority*
complex. So, by "fascism", you have to be ruling out the Nazis; you must be
referring to the purer, Italian form.
I don't see Nazism as being based upon resentment, so much as
resentment of the jews was a valuable tool the nazis exploited.
Rather, if there was one thing, I would say that the defining aspect
of nazism would be nationalism (bringing it back closer to fascism).
Post by Zimri
The problem with the term "fascism" is that even Mussolini didn't define it
very well. Most of it was pageantry as far as I can gather: appropriating
Roman symbols, wearing that ridiculous sheet in public etc. Calling cards
include national pride, a quest for glory, aggression, nostalgia, state
power, and contempt of law - but none of this can amount to a "fascist
constitution".
What are you talking about? Mussolini defined it very concisely. It
was only afterward that the term was liberally tossed around and lost
it's meaning. There is a great quote from mussolini which surmises
fascism quite nicely: "Anti-individualistic, the fascist conception of
life stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual
only insofar as his interests coincide with those of the State, which
stands for the conscience and the universal will of man as a historic
entity.... The fascist conception of the State is all-embracing;
outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have
value....". It's very simple, an authoritarian, anti-individualist
doctrine which entails a marriage of existing power structures to form
a super-state.
Post by Zimri
We don't have many fascist Elves in D&D, or fantasy in general. Certain of
the Sons of Feanor do qualify for the fascist mindset, in the Silmarillion.
But the book doesn't condemn them for their system of government (which is
completely ignored); it condemns them for personal pride.
Fantasy in general is lacking as a literary genre. Writers, it seems,
feel railroaded into variants of high fantasy, modifying only
technological or magical factors. I have yet to see a fantasy novel
which properly disscusses politics, society, or even the human
condition. The bizarre context is perfect for it (see: Science
fiction) yet we see nothing. I beginning to feel like I should write
one myself.
Post by Zimri
Maybe if Galadriel had taken the Ring? No more talk of Elvish decline, then!
Greenwood the Great would be purged of its darkness, Elvish riverboats would
own the Anduin, and humans would (perforce) retake their role as the elves'
loyal servants. With time even the Orcs might be remade...
Well you can see right there why the elves are so perfect for fascism.
I wasn't so much saying elves are invioably fascist, so much as it is
perfect for them. Compare the germans of the Weimar republic to the
Elves in fantasy. A fading people with much cultural history and
pride, who were once mighty and powerful, but are now dwindling or
otherwise no longer in their prime. Furthermore they are somewhat
resentful of the relative prosperity of what they see to be an
inferior and destructive race.
Topaz
2007-10-04 21:35:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
This web site explains what is going on with the "left" and the
"right" in the modern economic sense.
http://www.michaeljournal.org/myth.htm

The meaning of "right" and "left" has changed. I stay with the
original meaning for the same reason I refuse to call homosexual
perverts "gay". The word "gay" was originally a good thing.

The right is for outlawing homosexual perversion,
prostitution, abortions, heroin, and other bad things. It puts the
good of the nation first and ahead of the freedom of individuals to
corrupt the culture of the nation.

Leftists believe in the Rede of Witchcraft which states-- If it
harm none, do what will you will. This sounds nice, but like the apple
that the witch gave to Snow White it has poison within. The Rede of
Witchcraft is the Bible of liberalism. It would legalize homosexual
perversion, prostitution, drugs, etc.

The right is for building a great nation. Leftists care only
about individual freedom and are opposed to any laws that would make
the nation better. There are beaches where normal families will not go
because homosexual perverts practice their perversion on the beach.
When the liberals say they are for freedom this is kind of thing they
are talking about. Of course people should be free to do what they
want most of the time. There is no argument there. Liberals are
talking about being free to do things that many people object to and
want outlawed. Their philosophy, taken to its logical conclusion,
would not allow the law that says drivers have to stop at the red
lights. Their philosophy would allow heroin to be sold on grocery
store shelves and allow ads promoting heroin on TV. Their philosophy
would result in chaos and degeneracy.

Libertarians are liberals who want freedom for the Ebenezer
Scrooges to be as greedy as they want. They have the same philosophy
as other leftist who want to legalize heroin and prostitution, namely
that the state can't tell them what they can't do. People don't like
laws stopping them from doing things, and we should sympathize with
that, but sometimes that is not the most important thing. Capitalists
want freedom for greed, other liberals want freedom for degeneracy,
but good laws would make a nation good.

The Communists were leftist and they said they were fighting for
freedom. In Spain they sided with the anarchists. The Communists and
the anarchists were the same people or the same type of people. The
Communists were for having government but only temporarily. They said
that their government was necessary only until the whole world was
Communist. After the world was Communist they wanted to dissolve the
government and have an anarchy.


The right wing cares about the future. Leftists only care about the
present. If their philosophy results in a nightmare future like in
Soylent Green or some other futuristic nightmare they are not
interested and insist that nothing could be more important than the
freedom of individuals to be as decadent as they want. To see the kind
of society
libertarians are fighting for see the movie "8MM", they aren't for the
snuff part, but
other than that it shows liberalism in action.

http://www.ihr.org/ http://www.natvan.com

http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.nsm88.com/

http://wsi.matriots.com/jews.html
Malachias Invictus
2007-10-05 20:56:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Topaz
Leftists believe in the Rede of Witchcraft which states-- If it
harm none, do what will you will. This sounds nice, but like the apple
that the witch gave to Snow White it has poison within. The Rede of
Witchcraft is the Bible of liberalism. It would legalize homosexual
perversion, prostitution, drugs, etc.
Sounds good. Where do I get me some?
--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.

from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley
The Rev. Dr. Lt. Chaos Israel
2007-09-29 23:28:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Victor Smootbank
I think that the elves are something like the Aryan Herrenrasse
of the D&D universe.
In my storyline, Hitler escaped from Berlin,1945, through a
portal to the D&D universe, but was changed into an elf.
Together with him cam Himmler, Goebbels and Mengele
who were also changed into elves.
They quickly establish a 4th Reich in the D&D universe and
start to destroy subhumans like orcs, goblins and similar
critters in destruction camps.
Quickly, war erupts and nazi elves are fighting against humans,
orcs, trolls, goblins,mongrels and other critters for racial
superiority.
Do you think that's a good scenario or are nazi-elves a little
bit too far-fetched???
Dan Clore.

--
C.
Blackheart
2007-09-30 00:16:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Victor Smootbank
Do you think that's a good scenario or are nazi-elves a little
bit too far-fetched???
just look at some pictures of him FFS.

Hitler was obviously a gnome.
c***@yahoo.com
2007-10-10 11:13:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Victor Smootbank
Do you think that's a good scenario or are nazi-elves a little
bit too far-fetched???
I've tended to run elves, whatever the game system, as closet racial
supremacists, with a notable minority expressing such views openly. Of
course, one can argue that most races (species, really) in a fantasy
setting will be racially intolerant to some degree.

Brandon
Loading...