Jump to content
The Education Forum

Cover Up!

Terry Adams

Recommended Posts


Deeply faulty analogy for one there's no relation between one views on the Holocaust and astronomy. Arthur Butz is a leading electrical engineer he is also one of America's best known Holocaust deniers. I wouldn't doubt what says about his area of expertise but I would take his claims about anything relating to German history with a few sodium tablets. Second the sun setting in the west is some we know from direct observation not a controversial claim with minimal expert support. So no I'm not taking the Nazi's word for it. Get back to us with evidence.

Yes that was the author's opinion for which he provided no evidence. Odd that if it truely were a war crime no one tried bringing charges against Ike, Truman or the others involved. // END Colby


ODD ?? ODD ?? Winners write history.

There was no shortage of far right groups in Germany after the war, some even elected people to the parliament.There were also leftist groups not tied to the USSR. Odd none of them seem to said anything about this.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 55
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Odd none of them seem to said anything about this. // END Colby

YES PRISONER TOPIC VERBOTEN. SOMETIMES (SOMETIMES) the lack of evidence is evidence.

To talk about German prisoners post war would be considered pro NAZI,thus illegal.

Denazification (German: Entnazifizierung) was an Allied initiative to rid German and Austrian society, culture, press, economy, judiciary, and politics of any remnants of the National Socialist ideology. It was carried out specifically by removing those involved from positions of influence and by disbanding or rendering impotent the organizations associated with it. The program of denazification was launched after the end of the Second World War and was solidified by the Potsdam Agreement.

Is World War II Still ‘the Good War’?


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Odd none of them seem to said anything about this. // END Colby

YES PRISONER TOPIC VERBOTEN. SOMETIMES (SOMETIMES) the lack of evidence is evidence.

To talk about German prisoners post war would be considered pro NAZI,thus illegal.

Obvious BS since:

1) there were parties which were Nazi in all but name and iconography which elected members of parliment

2) the German gov't set up a commission to look into this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You jump from one lame tack to another, the other 7 historians were not associated with the Eisenhower Center. Nor was the Maschke Commission which investigated the deaths of German POWs 1962 - 74. Nor does does any of your babble explain why we didn't have family members or camp survivors saying anything about this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stephen Ambrose, at the time director of the Eisenhower center at the University of Orleans, also organized a conference of eight British, American, and German historians.

Oh,Oh.......Ambrose is going to call his workplace a place honoring a war criminal.or

Forgot to comment on the irony of this. Gaal dismisses not only the work of a noted historian (who documented his claims) over this issue because he worked at the Eisenhower Center but that of the seven others who worked with him (who documented their claims), ad hom. by association. However he unquestioningly accepts the word of an obscure white supremacist/neo-Nazi who supplied no evidence.

Edited by Len Colby
Link to comment
Share on other sites


FBI to review thousands of old cases for flawed evidence

July 12, 2012, NBC News




The Justice Department is going through thousands of cases from the days before DNA testing to see whether the government exaggerated the significance of the FBI's hair analysis. The review, the largest in U.S. history, will focus on work by FBI Laboratory hair and fiber examiners since at least 1985, the Washington Post reported. A reporter at the Post had been working on a story about Donald Gates, a D.C. man released after DNA evidence proved his innocence, when he learned about Frederic Whitehurst, an FBI lab chemist who blew the whistle on the FBI Laboratory in the mid-1990s. Whitehurst said he watched colleagues contaminate evidence and, in court, overstate the significance of their matches. When Whitehurst, a chemist with a doctoral degree from Duke, arrived at the FBI crime lab in 1986, the first thing he noticed was that the place was, as he called it, a pigsty. The equipment was outdated and there was a film of black soot coating the counters – a dust from the vents that the agents called “black rain.” After the first World Trade Center bombing, Whitehurst testified that supervisors pressured him to concoct misleading scientific reports. When he refused to testify that a urea nitrate bomb had been the source of the explosion, the FBI found another lab technician to testify. He learned that an agent had, for the previous nine years, rewritten his scientific reports to support the prosecution.

Note: For deeply revealing reports from reliable major media sources on intelligence agency corruption, click here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mistreatment of German women POWs



My mother, A German POW, held in an open air prison camp for years after the war, if still alive, would have much to dispute with your simple minded assessment of post war prison camps. Many prisoners held in American camps in the USA were, without doubt, considered paradise to those being held in Germany, France, England, or worse, Russian prisons.

It wasn't just the Russians who carried on wholsale rape and torture of German Prisoners. It wasn't just the Russians who treated German POW's worse than anything allowed in the Geneva Convention. I supposes a small moldy slice of white bread and a half pat of butter a day for five years, with a cup of occasional potato soup, amounting to less than 1000 calories a day, constitutes fair and humane treatment. I suppose my mother being raped by an American Staff Sargent, resulting in the birth of my brother, contitutes wonderful treatment legitimate, and humane treatment? I suppose Eisenhower ordering food to be destroyed that was meant for the prisoners is ok. I suppose that ordering the records of all prisoners destroyed, was ok? Even holocaust victims can still trace their families to the camps through meticulously kept German records. I suppose Eisenhower refusing admittance of the Swiss Red Cross to the POW camps, was ok?

My mother married an American GI after her release, because there was no home for her to return to, since it had been bombed to hell three different times. The German economy was left intentionally in shambles and further destroyed by the Marshall Plan. It wasn't until it appeared that Russia was going to take over Europe with their over 4 million man army, compared to our less than 50,000 men in country, that America began to make serious changes in strategy.

Either way, the POW's in country were treated worse than vermin and millions died after the war at the hand of Americans, or by the direct non intervention or direct refusal to allow Germany to rebuild. It was US policy to make the Germans suffer. OK I get it; they caused their own demise. Once a combatant stops being a combatant, they deserve at a minimum, by law, at least half the occupying military ration. That was 2500 calories for an American Soldier. Now, it is considered inhumane treatment to yell at a POW, heaven forbid you make them lay naked on each other or put a pair of underwear on their head.

My mother lived outside in an open camp. no latrines, no shelter, no baths, no decent clothing, not even a friggin bed. At least American POWs had barracks to live in. That is not asking for anything, but a simple note to let you know that your short sighted opinion leaves much to be desired. My mother was drafted into the army. there was no choice. They confiscated her new car she had purchased, for the war effort. Who was she to stop the NAZI war machine? Sha had a degree in agriculture, they took her and made her work as a RADAR operator. Oh, I am so sorry Mr. NAZI, I already have a job, please come another time or I'll catch you on the filp side. Have a nice day. Is that what you think the average German had in mind when Herr Gestapo politely knocked on their door? When I visited my grandfather in the early sixties, in Karlsruhe, Germany, he had just gotten running water in his apartment. There was just one common bath for the entire building. In the house I lived in, we had but on pot bellied stove for heat, and an outhouse for our latrine facilities. We used a chamber pot inside. That was in 1962, Mannheim, Germany.

That is how far into hell we bombed that country.

My family, ( My American Father's side ) has served this country in every War since the late 1800's, with the latest being killed in Afghanistan. I don't know what you friggin agenda is, but no one makes out in war, except maybe you. The only "Jack-ass", is the one who treats the subject with such disdain and contempt.






Board index ‹ Axis History ‹ Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes Change

Treatment of POWs

45th (Thunderbird) Division during the invasion of Sicily


Were atrocities committed by the 45 (US) Division in Sicily?


Forgetting his character in no time


Warcrimes against 17th SS Goetz von Berlichingen


Slaughter of soldiers of the 17.SS-Pz.Gr.Div. "GvB"


GI executions of German POW


American & French (post) war crimes


Alleged massacre of POWs at Chenogne


Alleged massacre of POWs at Webling


US War Crimes and "Foot Soldier"


Alleged orders from Americans not to take POWs for a week


Seidler-De Zayas list of American war crimes


The US 45th Infantry Division at Dachau


Massacre of SS POWs at Dachau


Murder of Dachau guards


Dachau guards


April 30- The Day U.S. Troops Liberated Dachau


American troops 'murdered Japanese PoWs'


Eisenhower refused the SS surrender in Austria


Eisenhower's guilt?


50,000 Germans died in US captivity in one small area??


James Bacque's work on the deliberate starvation


USA dismissed Switzerland as protecting power of German POWS


Guess who’s Bacque


One million German POWs killed by US/UK?


Chock Full of Death; German POWs by James Baque


American and Franch (post) war crimes


German POW treatment by Americans


German POWs


Mass grave found near PWE 337 of Coltano (Tuscany, Italy)


Newspaper clipping file on postwar POW release controversy, beginning at:


Mal-treatment of German POWs


The US and POW Labor in WWII


Western Allies hostage-takings in West Germany 1945-1947


Malmedy Massacre Investigation (Baldwin Report)



Miscellaneous allied war crimes:

What war crimes did the allies admit to?


Czech government acknowledges unacceptable 1945 events


French & Canadian troops


Rapes committed by Germans, Allies & Russian Bolsheviks


Plunder in postwar Germany


Camp guards killed by inmates


Has an allied war criminal ever been sentenced?


German guard beaten up by inmates


US War Crime?


Allied war crimes against Germany's Axis allies


Allied rapists


Treatment of women who had relations with Germans in Europe


Jewish revenge on SS


Brutalities against noncombantants and Germans


Link to comment
Share on other sites

You truly are getting desperate an anonymous poster who only made 3 posts on the forum claims his unnamed and deceased mother was mistreated as a POW, but no one disputes that German POWs were not treated well. Did he make it up or imagine it? If not was his recollection of what she told him accurate? If so had she told him the truth? Even if so she seems not to have told him that large numbers of POWs died he claimed "the POW's in country were treated worse than vermin and millions died after the war at the hand of Americans, or by the direct non intervention or direct refusal to allow Germany to rebuild" but this seems based on Baqcue's book which he'd obviously read.

And you also posted a list of links to threads on the same forum that based on my quick scan don't support your dellusions. As I said your desperation is palpable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

anonymous poster who only made 3 posts on the forum // end COLBY



AN insensitive and low brow crass remark.


Bacque took on the record of a beloved USA hero Eisenhower. If one had a pecuniary motovation to write a book ,even you would admit that there would be eaiser book topics to take persue.

Edited by Steven Gaal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

anonymous poster who only made 3 posts on the forum // end COLBY



AN insensitive and low brow crass remark.

Ironic considering your long string of obnoxious infantile posts filled with personal attacks that left you on the verge of being placed on moderation. My obvious point was that the poster was an unknown quantity making his claims that much more suspect. Several of his claims don't make sense, he wrote:

- "My mother was a radar operator in the wehrmacht. She was captured and held until 1949. She was raped by Americans and was impregnated in 1949, just before her release from captivity."

But Stern reported that "Briten und Amerikaner entließen ihre Gefangenen größtenteils bis Ende 1948" i.e. "British and Americans released their prisoners largely by the end of 1948" true 'largely' is not all but female radar operator is unlikely to have been one of the exceptions according to Wikipedia:

Within weeks of the [open air POW] camps being established, some prisoner releases were started. First to be allowed to leave were members of the
and female personnel who were deemed to have no affiliation with the

Columbia University military historian Earl Frederick Ziemke wrote:

SHAEF issued three disbandment directives in May (1945). Disbandment Directive No. 1 authorized the release of agricultural workers, coal miners, transportation workers, and others in key occupations. No. 2 authorized the discharge of women, and No. 3 of men over fifty years of age."

THE AMERICAN MILITARY OCCUPATION OF GERMANY 1945 – 1953 told the same story:

Disbandment was accomplished as follows. Members of the Home Guard (Volkssturm) were disbanded at once and allowed to go home. German agricultural workers, coal miners, transportation workers, and similar urgently needed persons, and all German women, were released
if they resided in the area in which they were prisoners
and if they were not war criminals, security suspects, or members of the security police (Schutzstaffel – SS). On 18 May 1945 authority was given to release all prisoners of war over fifty years of age, under the same conditions. (page 89)

Changes to the rules were made in June and November 1945 so that they were allowed to return to their home regardless of where it was located in Germany, the Soviet Occupied Zone being an exception. (page 90).





- " A slice of moldy white bread, a half pat butter, occasionally a cup of potato soup, and on a good day a spoon of marmalade, served as her rations during that time. 1944 to 1949."

Someone receiving so little food probably would have died in less than five months let alone 5 years (especially if they were exposed to the elements). This is contradicted by the calorie rations reported by Wikipedia (with citations). Historian/professor/author Dr. Robert C. Doyle reported that "In the Rhine camps, rations were set at 1,000 calories in the beginning. It took a little longer to upgrade the food, build shelters, and discharge the Germans into civilian life."



- "No barrack, no latrine, no fresh clothes, no shelter, all in an open air camp."

It is essentially impossible for a person to have survived one let alone 5 German winters without shelter especially with an extremely reduced calorie intake. Note also that Duyle reported shelter were built. According to Wikipedia "By the end of September 1945 nearly all the Rheinwiesenlager [open air] camps had been closed. Only a camp at Bretzenheim near Bad Kreuznach remained open until 1948 serving as a transit camp for German prisoners released from France."


- "I didn't even know my dad was not my brother's father until he tried to join the ARMY in 1969. He had dual citizenship and his birth certificate had an unknown American listed as his father, and his birthplace as Karlsruhe. One must prove citizenship when joining the military."

This makes no sense he indicated that his brother was an American citizen, then indicated he had to "prove citizenship", in any case resident aliens have long had the right to serve in the military and since the Civil War had been afforded expedited naturalization for signing up*. It is unfathomable the Army would have created barriers for an able bodied18 - 20 year-old man who wanted to volunteer at the height of the Vietnam War.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL31884.pdf CRS-4

To make a long story short he was an unknown quantity who spouted a lot of BS and offered no evidence other than his sayso. But even if you dismiss that he never indicated his parents or anyone else he knew had personal knowledge of POW deaths.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eisenhower biographer Stephen Ambrose, who helped edit Other Losses, wrote I quarrel with many of your interpretations, [but] I am not arguing with the basic truth of your discovery and acknowledged that Bacque had made a "major historical discovery", in the sense that very little attention had hitherto been paid to the treatment of German POWs in Allied hands. He acknowledged he did not now support Bacque's conclusions, but said at the American Military Institute's Annual Meeting in March, 1990: "Bacque has done some research and uncovered an important story that I, and other American historians, missed altogether in work on Eisenhower and the conclusion of the war. When those millions of Wehrmacht soldiers came into captivity at the end of the war, many of them were deliberately and brutally mistreated. There is no denying this. There are men in this audience who were victims of this mistreatment. It is a story that has been kept quiet.[4]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

History and Forgetting Chapter VIII of James Bacque's Crimes and Mercies

For most of my life I hardly thought about the flaws in our democratic system. I thought things were bumping along not too badly until I encountered the crimes of Eisenhower and De Gaulle. Even then, I did not imagine that these crimes revealed anything important about our society today because, after all, they occurred almost half a century ago, under the tremendous force of hatred caused by war. It was only when I interviewed Drew Middleton, a star reporter for the New York Times, that I began to see how events of long ago were affecting our lives today. In Middleton's office in New York in 1988, I told him I had discovered that the US and French armies had committed enormous atrocities in Europe in 1945. Because he had written stories in 1945 denying this following his visits to the prison camps, I wanted his reaction.

Middleton said, 'I'm not surprised that you were able to dig up some bad things from that time.' He then admitted that he had never visited a prison camp. He did not want to read my manuscript. What Middleton told me basically was that, yes, he had lied in 1945 and no, it did not matter to him or the New York Times if I exposed this.

I was deeply impressed by Middleton's indifference. He didn't want to read my manuscript, nor did he threaten me with a libel action, or bring one after the book came out. He was calm in the face of what I had thought for him would be a disaster. I began to see then that the New York Times is so powerful it does not need to threaten people even when it is facing exposure. Middleton's sense of security, his sense of the New York Times' power, took my breath away. But worse than that, Middleton did not care about this atrocity. He did not care in 1945; he did not care in 1988. As we now know, hundreds of thousands of prisoners had died at the hands of his government in one of the worst atrocities in Western history, the New York Times witnessed it, then denied that it had happened. And has gone on denying it into the 1990s.

This seemed to me to be more than a routine journalistic slip. And to be worth some reflection, in the great tradition to which the New York Times aspires.

In the opinion of nearly everybody in the West, the Second World War was a good war. It was necessary to defeat the utter evil of the dictators. If anyone in the post-war years doubted this, they were reminded of the pictures of emaciated bodies in Hitler's death camps. Lofty were the aims of the Allies, noble were their ideals, eloquent the expression of these ideals in such documents as the Geneva Convention, the Atlantic Charter, and the UN Declaration of Human Rights. All these were in the tradition of the liberal reforms which had succeeded in the West for many years, yet all these noble declarations were being broken by one branch of government while they were being written by another. Or, like the Geneva Convention, they were broken as soon as they became applicable. People who say anarchy is impractical are ignoring modern government where anarchy is normal, in the sense that government is constantly changing course, covering up, contradicting and reversing itself and doing these things simultaneously. The Allies clearly did not intend to keep their word in the 1940s. Why not? And why give it?

The answer to the first question is of course that people often don't keep their word, because normal human frailties prevail over the noble resolve to correct them. The more interesting question is, why make such declarations? For one thing, it is reassuring to hear them. And probably it is fun to make them. Think of the well-dressed gentlemen, arriving by limousine in English castle, French chateau or American office block with polished secretaries to sit about a gleaming table making high-toned statements about lofty purposes until lunch. Surely, to a kind of mind that is quite common, this is highly important. But there is another reason, maintained by a delusion prevalent in the West.

That delusion is that the 'good war' led to a good peace: after a 'period of adjustment', Germany was 'put back on her feet' by the Marshall Plan, so she could become a servant of the West during the Cold War. She was, however, not to be trusted because she was still deeply guilty, as she remains today. According to the delusion, the discovery of the death camps had converted Nazi war guilt to collective German guilt.

This is not the record. The record shows very clearly that the Allies were planning a devastating treatment for Germany before Nazi racist crimes were fully comprehended in the West. The Allied policy of starving the Germans was in fact decades old — in 1918/19, after the First World War, the Allies had maintained the sea-blockade, causing the deaths of close to a million Germans. Even the threat of unconditional surrender was not new: the commander of the American armies in France, General Pershing, had advocated imposing unconditional surrender on the failing Germans on 30 October 1918.1

One of President Wilson's closest advisers told him at the same time that 'he would disappoint his own people if he accepted less than unconditional surrender'.2 While the death camps were still mainly a horrifying rumour in the West, in 1943 the Allies were discussing at Washington and Tehran annexation of the eastern quarter of Germany, which, as the Allies well knew, would produce starvation conditions. The Morgenthau Plan was devised and signed in August-September 1944, long before the full horror of the camps was visible to reporters and soldiers. But historians wishing to question the evidence of Allied atrocities keep citing the camps. Stephen Ambrose has recently written: 'Clearly Eisenhower was appalled by what he saw' at several camps.3 He goes on to exculpate Eisenhower for the mass crimes committed in the American POW camps.

Where the German death camps had most influence was clearly not in the planning but in the execution of plans. The war criminals would be tried regardless of what horrors were actually uncovered in the camps. But the possibility of mitigation of Allied war hatred resulting from the work of leaders who actually practiced the noble ideals — Herbert Hoover, Victor Gollancz, the Bishop Of Chichester, Norman Robertson, Rabbi Baeck, Robert Patterson — was postponed by the astounded revulsion felt throughout the West — and in Germany — against the slaughter in Belsen, Buchenwald, Dachau and Auschwitz. This revulsion turned into the sense of collective German guilt, which is still very powerful today. As late as 1996, a book by Daniel Jonah Goldhagen accusing Germans of total collective guilt for war crimes was causing a sensation throughout Western countries.4

Certainly Germans en masse were collectively guilty for some Nazi crimes because they gave Hitler a plurality of votes in the last election before he became Chancellor. They were collectively guilty of vicious crimes of aggression against countries who had given them no casus belli, such as Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Norway, Holland, Belgium, Luxembourg, Yugoslavia, Greece and the Soviet Union. How many Germans were guilty of racist crimes is in dispute, but one thing is for sure: as a people represented by their national government, they have collectively accepted this guilt, and this is recognized throughout Germany and the world. They have paid enormous compensation to the victims, offered humble apologies to the survivors, condemned the crimes in many books, films, ceremonies and monuments.

This sense of collective German guilt is useful in a specially morbid way to her former enemies because it effectively seals off all discussions about the mistreatment of Germans in 1945. Time and again, when anyone reproaches the Allies for their treatment of German women and children in 1945, the reply is heard, 'But look what the Germans did.' This is a common refrain today in Germany itself. But for much of the war and a long time after, it was actually forbidden in the American press to mention the German resistance. President Roosevelt forbade the press to print news of the German resistance, a directive that was enforced even after the war by the American occupation authorities.5

Guilt pervades Germany like a religion. It is the 'Canossa Republic', penitent in pain before its judges.* Guilt is so powerful that it has caused the Canossa Republic repeatedly to deny any intention of reclaiming sovereignty over the eastern lands, although it is a well-established UN principle that no government has the right to waive the claims of individuals to their property. Nor may it impede their right of return to their former homeland. There was wisdom in this renunciation, because the decline of nationalism in Europe has meant the opening of borders to trade, travel, culture and friendship. But that decline of nationalism, like the renunciation, affects the Canossa Republic more than anyone else. Poles and Czechs make it difficult or impossible for individual Germans to buy back their ancient lands. Even Václav Havel, willing to apologize for Czech crimes, cannot contemplate reparations or restoration of stolen property. The Canossa Republic leads the way, but it is hard to discern anyone following it on the path of reconciliation.

It is especially shocking that for many decades the Canossa Republic has failed to ensure historical recognition of the expellees' suffering, as if to prevent future generations from knowing anything at all about the true history of their forebears and their country. It is true that for a few years, under Adenauer and soon after, the West German government helped with the publication of documents on the expulsion, but for many years now German schoolchildren have been taught little or nothing of their ancestors' tragic sufferings after the war.

The Allies' war aims, which included the right of self-determination for all peoples, apparently guaranteed the homelands of the eastern Germans. But all the Allies actually did was to include a phrase in Article XIII of the Potsdam Protocol stipulating that the 'population transfers' should occur under 'humane and orderly conditions'. As the phrase was being typed into the Potsdam agreement, its nauseating hypocrisy was visible to all: millions of miserable, dying expellees were crowding into the remainder of Germany, but the Western Allies were actually preventing help from reaching them. As we have seen, the ICRC, the Quakers, the Mennonites, the Lutherans and many others were not allowed to operate in Germany until many months later. In a memorable phrase, Conor Cruise O'Brien described this sort of thing as a slick coating of the 'hypocrisy and cultivated inattention' that our leaders apply to reduce the friction between our admirable principles and our self-interest. The quote is worth expanding: 'The traditional [Western] ethic will require larger and larger doses of its traditional built-in antidotes — the forces of hypocrisy and cultivated inattention combined with a certain minimum of alms.' 6

Robert Murphy protested eloquently in a Memorandum to the State Department in October 1945, months after Potsdam: 'In the Lehrter Railroad station in Berlin alone our medical authorities state an average of ten have been dying daily from exhaustion, malnutrition and illness. In viewing the distress and despair of these wretches, in smelling the odor of their filthy condition, the mind reverts instantly to Dachau and Buchenwald. Here is retribution on a large scale, practiced not on the Parteibonzen [party big-wigs], but on women and children, the poor, the infirm ...' 7 Article XIII made no difference at all, other than to history. But history is not idle — in other words, the expellees will not go away. On 26 August 1994, the UN Sub-Commission on Human Rights adopted Resolution 1994/24 re-affirming 'the right of refugees and displaced persons to return in safety and dignity to their country of origin and/or within it, to their place of origin or choice ...' The language plainly covers the rights of the dispossessed Germans.

Nevertheless, in agreement with the Allies in 1990, the Canossa Republic recognized the Oder-Neisse frontier, as part of the final settlement to free Germany of the Allied presence. In the words of Alfred de Zayas, the German government 'yielded to international pressure and relinquished its legal claims to the centuries-old homeland. These were claims that for decades after the war had been reaffirmed both inside Germany, and to the rest of the world. But that was the old German generation speaking, through earlier governments that still felt morally obliged to the expelled and the dispossessed. Forty years of re-education have resulted in a different perspective. Renunciation was to be expected. Today, the West either ignores the historical record, or accepts the euphemisms about the expulsions propounded by Polish and German apologists.' 8

This 1990 agreement itself may have been illegal, or ultra vires, since it is clear from many UN resolutions that a crime or abrogation of rights is not made legal even if approved or committed by a government against its own citizens. Such arguments might be seen as 'only legalistic', but the creation of the Israeli state and the modern North American aboriginal land claims were at the beginning more de jure than de facto.

When the state of Israel was founded in 1947, all of the Jewish occupants under the Romans had been dead for almost two thousand years. In North America, not a single Iroquois, Chiapas, Sioux or Cree is left alive of those who were the defeated or defrauded original occupants. Is it legal and just for the German government to banish the claims of living citizens who had been expelled and despoiled? And to do this without even trying to obtain compensation or recognition? Germany in its guilt and poverty found it possible to make apologies and to pay billions of dollars in reparations to the Allies, plus a hundred billion Deutschmarks in restitutions to victims of Nazi atrocities, as well as giving up all claim to some 25 per cent of their national territory, not to mention all the personal goods, land title, factories, schools, houses, farms and so on pertaining to those lands. Millions of German victims of Potsdam have made enormous reparations and humble apologies. They have all been deprived of their human rights, of the right to be judged as individuals, of their right to dignity and equality, of their private land and personal possessions.

As it was in the beginning in 1945, so it was at the end in 1990, our governments and their clients dealt away rights that normally we expect them to uphold. Hardly anyone in the Western democracies even noticed what was being done. Here was German guilt sealing off discussion of the issues of the expellees and other Allied crimes. The only government that could protect their rights signed them away.

We see today great institutions of public opinion — among them Le Monde and the New York Times — feverishly denying the Western Allied atrocities of the post-war period against Germany. For most people in the West, the denials rest on delusion, not evidence. The question never even becomes, 'Did the Allies do such things?' because the answer has been planted in everyone's heads already. 'NO, the Allies did not, because they could not.' For instance, the eminent British historian Michael Howard, reviewing for the Times Literary Supplement a book about Allied atrocities against Germans, admitted that although he was 'an innumerate historian' unqualified to judge the crucial statistics in the book, he could 'apply the criterion of inherent probability' to refute the book. 9 The French press and TV rose with rhetoric uncomplicated by evidence to denounce recent allegations that mass crimes were committed by the French army against the Germans. Stephen Ambrose also attacked a book about allied misdeeds by concluding that 'when scholars do the necessary research they will find [this book] to be worse than worthless'. 10 The answer is known before the evidence is consulted. In other words, belief is everything, evidence means nothing.

Count Nikolai Tolstoy, the renowned English writer, has been driven bankrupt and forbidden to publish on the subject of British treatment of prisoners of war under Lord Aldington. His books have been withdrawn from British libraries. His attempts at redress in British courts have been constantly frustrated in the UK, although the denial of his rights has been condemned by the European Court of Human Rights at Strasbourg. The alleged libel against Lord Aldington was converted by the courts and government into a libel against the history of the state. Against which there is no appeal.

The books of former US Attorney General Ramsey Clark have revealed tremendous civilian deaths in Iraq during the Gulf War which have never been admitted by any of the Allies who caused them. 11 No major publisher in the English-speaking world has dared to bring them out.

My fellow author Alfred de Zayas, a graduate of Harvard and of Göttingen, spent years researching and writing his book Nemesis at Potsdam, about the expulsions from the east of Germany. And then he had to spend ten years sending it round to almost a hundred publishers in the West before the manuscript was finally accepted. The president of one of the biggest houses in New York returned the manuscript with the note that he would never publish a book sympathetic to the Germans.

It is no good to respond that all these authors got published, and so freedom of discussion exists. The full weight of official disapproval has stifled the discussion by shrinking the audience. And once that happens the authors may be silenced by financial distress.

There is an astonishing contrast right now between Russia and the West. We condemned them for many decades precisely because they denied democracy and suppressed discussion. Now, they have demolished suppression, opened their archives, and published the truth about their crimes. They have even admitted that some allegations of German crimes were never true. Public discourse is free and informed on all those topics. And we say, 'Good for you, democracy now has a chance with you.' But in the West, the archives are very often managed in order to present a view of history acceptable to the established authority. Photographs and documents of Allied atrocities have 'disappeared' from archives, and this goes on to the present day. 'In my thirty years as a scholar of American history,' said one American professor, 'I have never known the archives to appear to be so much of a political agency of the executive branch as it is now. One used to think of the Archivist of the United States as a professional scholar. Now he has become someone who fills a political bill.' 12 Many people who have cast doubt on German crimes have been fired from their jobs, vilified, deported, jailed or censored, while anyone who denies our post-war crimes against the Germans is published and praised by press, academe, army and government.

Freedom is diminished when discussion is suppressed, dissidents are jailed, when in fact history is genetically altered, as Stalin showed every time he hid public documents or altered history in the books. If we are to regain the freedoms that we fought for in the war, the official sanctioning against authors must stop, the arrogant abuse of public trust in the archives must end, and full disclosure prevail.

Democracy is generally believed to be the best government because it expresses the public opinion that is normally free, wise and kind. If this were not so, who would defend democracy? If the general belief were that public opinion were normally slavish, stupid and cruel, no one would think democracy was worth defending. And without that faith, democracy dies. Hitler's brilliant propaganda chief Joseph Goebbels said of the German people, 'You can't change the masses. They will always be the same: dumb, gluttonous and forgetful.' Contemptuous of their forgetfulness, he said anything he liked because he believed they were always unaware of what he had said before. 13 We shudder to think that Goebbels' observation might be even slightly true in the Western democracies; on the other hand, our pleasing assumption about democratic public opinion has never been tested.

Public opinion can be discerned but dimly, in primitive jousts such as elections, in referendums or in the tiny samplings passing grandly as public opinion polls. None of these has ever tested us for our freedom, wisdom or kindness. The goodness of public opinion is by and large an article of faith.

But it is a faith that was justified in 1946. Herbert Hoover made many public appeals by radio to the decency, compassion and common sense of the American and Canadian people and was never disappointed. Can anyone in his right mind imagine Henry Morgenthau going on radio with a forthright appeal to the viciousness, vengefulness and hatred of the American people? To do their good deeds in the post-war period, men like Marshall and Hoover, Gollancz and Mackenzie King walked in the open, but their opposites like Morgenthau, Buisson and Eisenhower had to operate under camouflage. Surely this can only be because the widely-based institutions of Western democracy — parliament, literate education, a free press, the rule of law — foster the normal human sympathies that make mass crimes abhorrent. This is why freedom of discussion in democracy is so important; it is a constant corrective to the cruel tendencies in people. Without freedom of discussion, democracy first grows arrogant, then brutal. And the discussion of Allied war crimes has been circumscribed by lies, propaganda and suppression for fifty years.

On no subject is the Western cover-up more profound and tragic than the refusal of Western public opinion-makers to incorporate the fate of the German expellees into the history of the Second World War and its consequences. This of course effectively denies redress not just to the German state, but especially to the millions of robbed and maimed individuals who are still alive. The cover-up is definitely part of that series of misdeeds which Adenauer condemned roundly in 1949, and which continue to haunt 'the uneasy conscience of the West'. Speaking to the Swiss Parliament in Bern, Switzerland, in March 1949, Adenauer compared the expulsions to the misdeeds of the Nazis, and concluded, 'The expulsions resulted from the Potsdam Agreement of 2 August 1945. I am convinced that one day world history will pronounce a very harsh verdict on this document.' 14

*At Canossa in 1077, King Henry IV knelt in the snow for three days as he begged Pope Gregory to release him from excommunication. The phrase was first used by Paul Boytinck in conversation with the author in 1995.

Numbered Footnotes

<a name="fn1">1. Klaus Schwabe, Woodrow Wilson, Revolutionary Germany and Peacemaking, 1918-1919 (Chaptel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press), p.89.

2. Joseph Tumulty to Wilson: Arthur Walworth, Woodrow Wilson (Boston: Houghton Mifflin), Vol. II, p.187.

3. See Bischof and Ambrowse, Eisenhower and the German POWs.

4. The book making the charge was Hitler's Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust (London: Little, Brown, 1996) by Daniel Jonah Goldhagen, which in its first year of publication had sold 20,000 copies in Britain.

5. Klemens von Kemperer, German Resistance Against Hitler (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992), p.386.

6. Conor Cruise O'Brien, quoting an earlier essay, in his book On the Eve of the Millennium, p.141.

7. Murphy to State, 12 October 1945, Foreign Relations of the United States, 1945, Vol. 2, pp. 1290-2. Quoted in De Zayas, Nemesis at Potsdam, p. 115. Bertrand Russell in England wrote strong letters of protest to The Times and the New Leader. De Zayas, op. cit., pp. 108-9.

8. De Zayas to the author, January 1995.

9. Times Literary Supplement, 14-20 September 1990.

10. New York Times Book Review, 25 February 1991, p. 1.

11. See Ramsey Clark, The Fire This Time: US War Crimes in the Gulf

12. Stanley Kutler, Professor of History and Law, University of Wisconsin, in the New Yorker, 14 December 1992, p. 91.

13. David Irving, Goebbels, p. 418.

14. Konrad Adenauer, Memoirs, 1945-1953, p. 148.

James Bacque's
Crimes and Mercies
can be ordered online from
and also directly from the author at his website
Edited by Steven Gaal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in

Sign In Now

  • Create New...