Members of this “Education” Forum are already aware that our world is run by the CIA Monolith. (Fred Nietzsche thought God was dead; little did he know that He had only been replaced by the CIA.) Most members are also aware that the biggest issue they will ever confront in this lifetime is the choice whether they do — or do not — believe there has been photographic alteration in the public record of the assassination of US President John F. Kennedy. (The amount of time, energy, and bandwidth spent on this topic — and on related character issues — speaks to its absolute importance for us all.) But not everyone may be aware that there are valid reasons to re-evaluate the historical record of World War II, particularly that part which tends to vilify the role of Nazi Germany.

Ordinarily I’m inclined to be skeptical of the claims of any side in a war to have had “greater virtue” than their opponent(s). Such skepticism I expect is typical of most historians or those whose intellect and/or education is most informed by history (and related areas, like sociology, psychology, etc). Also, more specifically, there is a sometimes dim awareness that war per se is an endeavor in which large numbers of men are organized and armed for the sole purpose of murdering one another and/or anything that might get in the way of achieving their goals. Consequently, it’s a little hard to give much credence to claims of “righteousness” among combatants in wars. On the whole, though, I’m inclined to believe the reports about World War II, and to believe that the Allies were largely justified in doing what they did to defeat the Axis Powers. There are of course some moral problems with this position, since the fire-bombing of Dresden and above all the vaporization of hundreds of thousands of people at Hiroshima and Nagasaki cannot really be “justified” but only “explained” in terms of “military necessities” and the like. (More on this later.)

But the problem is that this “debate” is not really about all that, as far as I can tell. It’s about the promotion of Nazi Revisionist ideas mainly, and partially about current events issues wholly unrelated to World War II. The latter is understandable and easy to sympathize with, since there is so little that “little people” like us can do about current events issues. But to let that become an excuse for helping to promote the former is to me a case of moral and intellectual dishonesty. (More on that later.)

It has been said of our primary promoter of revisionist arguments that he is civil and reasonable, and that he raises valid points with good arguments that ought to be discussed. No doubt.

1) On the subject of German aggression in World War II, the idea was proposed that the Germans were provoked to act preemptively for their justified self-defense. Nothing about Lebensraum in the East that sits right there so openly in the pages of Mein Kampf. Nothing about British and French leaders incrementally selling out the people of Austria and Czechoslovakia, selling out continually until even their meager modicum of honor had had enough and they felt obligated to guarantee Poland’s defense. Nothing in reference to the voluminous public record provided in a classic history such as The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by William Shirer. Nothing really that might suggest that Hitler and his Nazi Party might have been somewhat at fault in what they did in a number of areas.

Instead, we have a number of attempts to “explain” or “excuse” Hitler, one of the more interesting being that at least Hitler possessed the physical courage George W. Bush lacks. A bit of a psychological projection as well as a digression,....and it’s not at all uncommon that a fanatic would “serve well under fire” in wartime. That would make him the best “point man” in an attack — i.e., a true believer without much sense that you would want out front in combat, because his loss wouldn’t mean that much compared with the loss of other comrades who had more sense. (Hitler was apparently regarded as a real pain in the ass by his fellow soldiers because they were all cussing the war and Army life, as most common soldiers will,....and he never did. He liked it.)

And then we get these items for general consumption and despair:
What kind of analysis of the history of that period would suggest that Hitler was NOT manipulated into a larger war, far more dreadful than he imagined?
After all, he (Germany) attacked Poland (following general mobilization of the Polish forces). This triggered a declaration of war from Britain - a declaration that was never rescinded.
Again, it was the “general mobilization of the Polish forces” that the subsequent German (Hitler) attack apparently was caused by. No further background necessary, is there? Nothing about the British (and French) guarantee to the Polish that the Nazis would no longer simply be allowed to gobble up yet more territory and people; that the all too apparent goals of Nazi Germany would finally be stood up to. None of that. Only arguments that Poland provoked its own occupation and destruction and that the British had the gall to declare war and fail to rescind that declaration of war.

If Hitler had realized when invading Poland that it would lead toi the destruction of Germany and his death in a bunker less than six years hence, would he still have invaded? Only someone who believes Hitler was a crazed and suicidal pyschopath would believe that. I guess that's the Len Colby take on Hitler. So mad, he'd burn down his own house out of spite. There is, however, not much evidence for that.
“On March 19 [1945, Hitler] issued a general order that all military, industrial, transportation and communication installations as well as stores in Germany must be destroyed in order to prevent them from falling intact into the hands of the enemy. The measures were to be carried out by the military with the help of the Nazi gauleiters and ‘commissars for defense’....

“Germany was to be made one vast wasteland. Nothing was to be left with which the German people might somehow survive their defeat.

“Albert Speer...had anticipated the barbarous directive from previous meetings with Hitler and on March 15 had drawn up a memorandum in which he strenuously opposed such a criminal step and reiterated his contention that the war was already lost. He presented it to the Fuehrer personally on the evening of March 18....

“But Hitler, his own personal fate sealed, was not interested in the continued existence of the German people, for whom he had always professed such boundless love. He told Speer:

“If the war is lost, the nation will also perish. This fate is inevitable. There is no necessity to take into consideration the basis which the people will need to continue a most primitive existence. On the contrary, it will be better to destroy these things ourselves because the nation will have proved to be the weaker one and the future will belong solely to the stronger eastern nation [Russia]. Besides, those who will remain after the battle are only the inferior ones, for the good ones have been killed.

“...That the German people were spared this final catastrophe was due to...efforts of Speer and a number of Army officers who, in direct disobediance (finally!) [sic] of Hitler’s orders, raced about the country to make sure that vital communications, plants and stores were not blown up by zealously obediant Army officers and party hacks.” (From William L. Shirer. The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. New York: Fawcett Crest, 1960, pp. 1432-1434.)

The French-Algerian author Albert Camus wrote in reference to this:
“Hitler presents the example, perhaps unique in history, of a tyrant who left absolutely nothing to his credit. For himself, for his people, and for the world, he was nothing but the epitome of suicide and murder. Seven million Jews assassinated, seven million Europeans deported or killed, ten million war victims, are perhaps not sufficient to allow history to pass judgement: history is accustomed to murderers. But the very destruction of Hitler’s final justification — that is, the German nation — henceforth makes this man, whose presence in history for years on end haunted the minds of millions of men, into an inconsistent and contemptible phantom. Speer’s deposition at the Nuremberg trials showed that Hitler, though he could have stopped the war before the point of total disaster, really wanted universal suicide and the material and political destruction of the German nation. The only value for him remained, until the bitter end, success. Since Germany had lost the war, she was cowardly and treacherous and she deserved to die. ‘If the German people are incapable of victory, they are unworthy to live.’” (Albert Camus. The Rebel. Trans. Anthony Bower. New York: Vintage Books, 1956, p. 185)

Why would Hitler subsequently have sought to make peace with Britain if Armageddon was his constant and unvarying goal?
Hitler obviously miscalculated when he attacked Poland. Why?
B-b-b-because he was a total whackjob? Could that possibly be it? The transparency of these I-love-Hitler arguments is nearly as nauseating as the arguments themselves. Apparently, according to such arguments, Hitler was not intent on domination of lesser peoples (“races”) and on acquiring “Lebensraum in the East” for German expansion and population growth (despite all the documented evidence of Hitler’s own public pronouncements on the subject). Apparently, he was only interested in a peace denied him by the British. Apparently, all one needs to do is to put forth the idea that Hitler did not desire Ragnarok per se. That’s a fine way to invert everything.

2) On the subject of anti-Semitism in the Christian belief system (Jews as Christ-killers), the counter-argument was proposed that the Talmud contains a “codified anti-Christian” belief system. One would ordinarily expect such literature to deal with the subject of Christ and Christianity by maintaining complete silence. But not if you’re a parrot without many original thoughts you can call your own — where you can only react to what others have said or written, repeating what you like and inverting what you don’t. The repetition itself is tiresome (“What group of people, self-identifying as an ‘in-group,’ cuts farts only they can’t smell?” “What group of people, self-identifying as an ‘in-group,’ made my dick smaller than it ought to be?”), but when faced with something as ridiculous as the proposal about the Talmud, it doesn’t make much sense to post every possible single thing you can come up with in droves as examples of Christian anti-Semitism. It’s not as if someone was actually going to be listening and open to persuasion on the point, is it?

3) On the subject of a Jewish author who died in a death camp, it was suggested that the author cannot truly be said to have been “murdered by the Nazis.” She died of typhus, according to my source. Typhus was rife in German concentration camps, you see, which is why the Nazis “expended considerable effort on delousing.” A fine point of distinction. Or is it a fine, funny little joke? Since Jews are parasitical — much like lice — the Nazis “expended considerable effort” on “delousing.”

That valid points and good arguments were made is highly questionable, yet it can’t be denied that the Nazi Revisionist does appear reasonable and civil. And what would you expect? Not everyone can be as straightforward as the great Hitler was, not everyone has such “courage.” It is in the interests of Nazis, Nazi sympathizers, Nazi apologists, and Nazi Revisionists to “appear reasonable” — otherwise, what have they got going for them (aside from Nazism)?

A primary argument of the original Holocaust Deniers is that 6 million Jews were not exterminated by the Nazis in Germany — instead, those 6 million Jews came to the United States. An all-purpose argument. There was no Holocaust, the Holocaust is a lie perpetrated by Jews who became American “controllers.” They are in “the highest reaches” of the Establishment in the U.S., perpetuating their evil intentions toward all the world. This is why “Patriots” of the militia movement refer to the federal government in Washington, D. C. as the “Zionist Occupational Government.” And it is also one reason that those who are predisposed to a “Left radical” perspective may be seduced by or find common cause with such extreme rightists as are represented in the militia movements; they are “all about” free speech issues, oppressive government issues, mega-conspiracy issues and, of course, “freedom.”

These are some things one ought to know about if one wants to continue to promote the “reasonable argument” that “Jewish power” in the United States is a legitimate topic for discussion. It is, but mostly with respect to uncritical US support of Israel. And arguing along those lines without being aware of the Nazi Revisionist lie about the 6 million Jewish “immigrants,” or about one’s own tendencies to believe in international Jewry conspiracies, serves only to help the Nazi Revisionists in their “cause.”


In our next installment(s?): ideological purity as a cop-out; moral consistency as a good thing; Christian Identity as a way to believe if you’re stupid; and anti-Semitism among the Australians: Good or Bad?

I think you may be losing the plot Daniel.

Incidentally, on the title of your new thread, Hitler had only one ball, according to the ditty I learnt at school.

Recently, the head of United Nations Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief, Jan Egeland, condemned Israel’s use of cluster bombs in Lebanon. According to reports of UN clearance experts, 100,000 of the unexploded munitions were found at 359 separate sites. (Cluster bombs are shells that eject multiple smaller bombs over a wide area, often failing to explode on impact and remaining lethal in a way similar to a minefield. They are almost exclusively used as anti-personnel weapons — i.e., are designed to inflict harm against persons). The overwhelming majority of these types of bombs were used at the very end of active hostilities. According to Egeland’s statement, “What’s shocking and completely immoral is 90 percent of the cluster bomb strikes occurred in the last 72 hours of the conflict, when we knew there would be a resolution.”


On May 24, 2004, Israeli justice minister Yosef Lapid denounced the Sharon government’s bulldozing of the homes of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. Lapid said, “When I saw a picture on the TV of an old woman on all fours in the ruins of her home looking under some floor tiles for her medicines — I did think, ‘What would I say if it were my grandmother?’ We look like monsters in the eyes of the world. This makes me sick.” Lapid lost his father and grandmother in the Holocaust, while he himself survived. He was roundly criticized for making comparisons between what the Nazis had done and what the Israelis were doing.


These are two examples of what I consider moral courage. In a larger sense they are also examples of what I would call “what Israel has become.” While “what Israel has become” is not so clear and exact as to be able to refer to Israel as “a Fascist state,” we would appear to be quibbling and dickering over semantics and precise definitions to some degree. According to The International Relations Dictionary (Jack C. Plano & Roy Olton. 3rd Edition. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, 1982, p. 69), some characteristics in the definition of Fascism are the following: “...Fascism is often based on an exaggerated adulation of the nation, rejecting individualism and democratic concepts of limited government in favor of a system in which a disciplined people gives its full loyalty to an organic, monolithic state.... An aura of xenophobia and militarism often pervades a fascist state. Under fascism, private ownership of land and capital is retained, but all private businesses and organizations are regimented and directed by the state in pursuit of national objectives.” This last sentence is also an adequate defining characteristic of any industrialized state mobilized for “total war,” defined as: “A modern war fought for unrestricted objectives with all means available for marshaling national power.” (ibid, p. 197) Needless to say, I think, but any nation in a constant state of total war mobilization tends towards chauvinism, xenophobia and militarism, which are all characteristics of Fascism even if the “classical” definition also has to include an “ideology of the extreme right which fosters an authoritarian society based on rule by an elite headed by a supreme leader or dictator” (ibid, p. 69).

About a month ago I had the extreme misfortune to read in this forum a post by someone I’d previously had some respect and regard for. In the immediate aftermath of the Israeli’s bombing of the village of Qana, he actually suggested there was reason to believe that Hezbollah might have used a “controlled demolition” to make the atrocity appear worse than it was. The bombing resulted in a couple dozen children blown all to hell, aside from twice as many adults, which was described in a posted article by Robert Fisk (generally regarded as about the most well-informed, objective and reliable journalist on the Middle East). Fisk’s commentary was apparently inadequate as “evidence,” possibly because his hands may not be clean with respect to involvement with “Operation Mockingbird,” so it was proposed that Hezbollah had used a “controlled demolition” and then dropped the resultant dead bodies around the site of the bombing (apparently as a “set-up” to make the Israelis look bad). (A short while thereafter the same member would go on to suggest that the US was responsible for the bombing of a shrine in Iraq, as this would light off and/or increase sectarian warfare; the US apparently did so because civil war there is “in our interests” in order to maintain our position so we can keep Iraqi oil.)

After reading the post about Qana, I was actually happy because I’d privately requested of John Simkin a few days earlier that my membership in this forum should be deleted. Since I assumed this request had been honored, I was relieved to not have to “go off on” the member who’d posted such an abysmally ignorant and pathetic suggestion about the Qana bombing. But as you can tell by now, that request was not honored (for reasons known only to the inscrutable Mr. Simkin — I guess once you’re in, there’s no way out). And now there are two members making a point that I and some others would strongly agree with: that the Israelis should be condemned for war crimes for their use of cluster bombs at the very end of the fighting, knowing that a truce was coming. And what about Qana? And shouldn’t the Israelis be roundly condemned for initiating the full-scale fighting in the first place, “justified” by the kidnapping of 2 Israeli soldiers? Apparently the life of an Israeli is far, far more valuable than any mere Arab or any number of Arabs.

But this only means that the Israelis have reached a degree of “moral common ground” with and have become much like those previously thought to be their enemies (the anti-Semitic and racists of the world). This is, I submit, the problem with Israel and with “what Israel has become”; and it is a problem that any Jewish person of any nationality has to confront and answer. It’s a problem that non-Jewish people need to confront as well, but why is it that some of them can’t denounce what Israel has done (or “become”) without going on to blame Jews as such, much less to go on to make “excuses” for Nazi Germany? That, I submit, speaks more to a predisposition to anti-Semitism and a favorable attitude towards Nazi Germany than it does to any real sincerity on the subject of Israeli wrongs.



(This post has been approved by the UN, the ADL, and the Council on Foreign Relations........ and brought to you by............ your friends at the CIA. “The CIA: Every day, in every way, we’re making your mind a little more like ours.”)

I did not delete your membership because I assumed you did not mean it and that you really wanted to engage with Sid in a debate. I did not want other members to think that I was intent in censoring your views. This has proved correct as you have posted several times since requesting deletion. However, as you have now made a public request for deletion I have followed out your instructions.

I would recommend anyone who's interested in WW2 to get a copy of Albert Speer's autobiography, Spandau - The Secret Diaries.
It provides valuable insight to the dynamics within the high rank Nazi officials.
It's also interesting to read his personal opinions of Hitler and the other Nazis.

http://www.amazon.com/Spandau-Secret-Diari...r/dp/1842120514