1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/12889/the-taboo-against-truth/

The Taboo Against Truth

June 4, 2010 by


Soviet mass atrocities provide a historical context for Nazi crimes, as do a set of genocidal crimes that few seem willing to bring into the debate: the ones perpetrated, planned, or conspired to by the Western Allies. FULL ARTICLE by Ralph Raico


Abhilash Nambiar June 4, 2010 at 9:40 am

Excellent Article.

Hard Rain June 4, 2010 at 9:46 am


Daniel Hewitt June 4, 2010 at 9:46 am

Worth reading is Solzhenitsyn’s longer account of Churchill handing over the Cossacks to the Soviets, linked below. It’s fresh on my mind as I read volume 1 of The Gulag Archipelago not too long ago.


Also, the fact that Vlasov’s army was willing to fight to the death, just on chance that living under Nazi domination might be better than living under Bolshevik domination, speaks to how the Soviets treated the Cossacks.

maverick muse June 5, 2010 at 1:39 pm

The Cossacks had always responded to the Czar’s call to arms.

michael June 4, 2010 at 9:49 am

This is a breath of fresh air– an article entirely free of ideological taint. In global politics there have been very few good guys, only winners and losers.

A recent book I would recommend exploring the subject of callous and casual violence in WW II is Nicholson Baker’s Human Smoke: The Beginnings of World War Two and the End of Civilization. The crimes were on everyone’s hands.

Dennis June 4, 2010 at 10:58 am

For those interested, the Mises Institute’s David Gordon has reviewed Nicholson Baker’s book:

George June 4, 2010 at 1:09 pm

Agreed; I am still horrified everytime I look back to the history of WW II.

We must be very clear that these crimes were committed by human beings, not by strange, alien, exogenous entities known as “states”. In the end, a human pulled the trigger for each of these massacres, bombings, and killings. If the legal and political circumstances were different so that we were dealing with rogue corporations rather than states, it would make no meaningful difference.

This is why I cannot fall in with “ohhh, all government = bad, all corporations and other non-government = good”, because it ignores the human element. This stuff has been going on since long before there was such a thing as a nation-state, long since before there was even such a thing as written history. So long as we are human, we need to deal with our dark side, and not pretend that we are humble little beings that will simply get along and play nice if not for the evil state. Believing otherwise is simply utopian.

Matthew Swaringen June 5, 2010 at 2:33 pm

Certainly murder existed before nation-states, but murder was never conducted on such a massive scale until they came about.

It is certainly true that there were great hordes/armies under commanders that were merciless killers in ancient times as well, but I would argue that this top-down structure of general over hordes of military was itself the problem, this top-down structure being instituted by force and brutality even amongst the soldiers.

Humans have a great capacity for evil, and I don’t think anyone who blames states denies that it’s humans who are doing the crimes. However, the reason that they do the crimes is just as important as the fact it is they who are doing them. It’s only possible to do this level of crime as a coordinated effort, and such things require a regular dumbing down of the populace to the point where they will accept orders that they know are evil in order to protect themselves or destroy “worse evils” (propaganda tells them so).

This is why the worst crimes in human history have been committed by humans working as part of the state, while privately living lives with more imposition and intervention from government. It’s the reason why communism & socialism were the greatest evils in the WWII period. Certainly we also had our own evils as part of this whole event, but America itself and Great Britain also forced a lot of regulations, laws, price controls, rationing, etc. on their own people. There was much less freedom in that time than in many others, and much more propaganda from the state. This obviously had it’s influence on weakening everyone’s moral character.

David Roemer June 4, 2010 at 2:43 pm

In his book titled Why Jews Are Liberals, Norman Podhoretz titled a chapter, “The Torah of Liberalism.” It is a reference to the large number of Jewish communists there once were. The idea is that when Jewish people lose their faith, they start believing in Das Kapital. Before becoming communists, nazis, fascists, liberals, and progressives, such people become atheistic humanists. Atheistic humanists think religious faith is irrational and that we are better of knowing that life ends in the grave. It is atheistic humanists, however, who are being irrational and immature. They are like children and act out in various ways.

Two examples of atheistic humanists are Karl Marx and Herbert Spencer. Marx was obsessed with the injustice of interest rates and Spencer was obsessed with human progress. It was Spencer, not Darwin, who coined the phrased “survival of the fittest.” Spencer was against the Poor Laws in England because the laws helped poor people (the unfit) to survive. There came a time when laissez faire capitalism stopped satisfying the emotional needs of such as Spencer and they switched to other movements.

Hard Rain June 4, 2010 at 3:50 pm

Wow, guilt by coincidence and association then? Please. Just because some people are “godless” doesn’t mean there’s a greater chance they’ll all become social Darwinists or obsessive ideologues or something…

El Tonno June 5, 2010 at 2:44 am

Pffff. Fixing facts to preconceptions, are we?

Where is the statistical plot of a”strength of atheistic belief” vs. “strength of belief in ideas I find morally repugnant?” Any correlation in there? Of course there is.

As for “Jews being liberal”, that makes about as much sense “as people with large feet being liberal”. And agreeing with Warmonger Poddie on the word “liberal” would probably involve self-mutilation anyway.

Anthony June 6, 2010 at 11:43 pm

David, as soon as you can logically explain to me why I should accept your particular religious beliefs as absolute truth (rather than accepting every other of the thousands of religions) you can call me a child for not believing.

Why are you a Christian (I assume)? Why not Muslim? Their book tells them it is true just as much as yours tells you. Why aren’t you a Buddhist? Do you worship the ancient Roman gods? There is no logical way to decide which religion is right, so how can you possibly take your religion on faith while refusing to have faith in Vishnu?

I hope you can explain it to me, because I sure can’t figure it out.

mikey June 4, 2010 at 2:46 pm

From my own readings – Hitler was more inspired by the Turkish genocide of Armenians than Stalins planned famines, and other genocides.
Still, this was a good article.Some mention of the Katyn massacre would be appropriate also.
Anything by Robert Conquest is worth reading, my favorite is Harvest of Sorrow.

LawLOL June 4, 2010 at 4:18 pm

We should not forget the American mass murders of World War II. When the American military commandeered the railroad in northern India to ship military supplies to the Burma theatre, it resulted in 3 million people starving to death. Perhaps some people would justify this as a cost of war, but it still is 3 million innocent people dying due to American actions.

DJF June 5, 2010 at 1:40 pm

Since Northern India was under British control and since the Burma war theater was a mostly British operation I would think that if this story was true any fingers should be pointed at the British.

Ray Paradise June 4, 2010 at 6:23 pm

I think this is an excellent article.

Present state terror, coercion and aggression, of the American sort, are often justified amongst the general populace (that I speak with) because we are “good” as a result of our efforts in Europe during WWII.

Jake_nonphixion June 5, 2010 at 12:33 am

You should really read into the Milgram experiment.

cnr.berkeley.edu/ucce50/ag-labor/…/article35 .htm

It shows how average individual people become capable of committing horrific acts of violence on their peers by absolving their personal responsibility in the name of the greater good.

On Mises.org we hear and talk a lot about personal motivation, which is really the only way to talk about economic reality, but actions in wartime have very different motivations. Especially when you are talking about some one who say, was a carpenter before the war, who was later in charge of ordering the firing squads to decimate people. This person had no prior violent tendencies and it would have been inconceivable that they would murder hundreds of people before the war. However something changed when the nation handed him a gun. In order to justify his actions he is required by conscience to put faith into a cause greater than himself, be it “the name of science”, or “the honor of Germany”, or “the good of humanity”, etc.

michael June 5, 2010 at 8:22 am

Thanks for pulling Milgram into the conversation. Probably a majority of the human herd do go along with whatever those in authority tell them is good, or just, or true. That’s a problem with the species. We see this also in the structure of corporations. Whenever people are praised or rewarded for following orders, many seem only too happy to do so. They like being part of the team– and don’t ask too many inconvenient questions about their duties.

The other insidious aspect to our psychology is that we’re easily convinced that the flag we carry is somehow good, right and just. Thus we are perfectly justified in doing horrific things to other humans, if they happen to be carrying another flag. The irony is lost on us that most often they feel the same way about us.Were it not for these tendencies propelling us toward war, we’d all be living in conditions of unimaginable abundance today. As it is, nearly everything humans have built in ten thousand years of history has subsequently been destroyed by some army, following the flag of justice and virtue.

Guard June 5, 2010 at 1:46 pm

Right on. Humans need a god to serve, the state being only one of the latest. Invariably, their gods demand human sacrifice. The tendency of the idolater toward brutality is an obvious and unsurprising result of having a god to forgive their sins. The gods are alive and well today. They just have different names.

newson June 5, 2010 at 6:27 am


simon sebag montefiore: stalin, the court of the red tsar (2005). mp3.

Allen Weingarten June 5, 2010 at 6:44 am

Mr. Raico wants us to correct the imbalanced treatment of war crimes and the killing of civilians. Yet when he writes ‘THE GREAT CRIME…was the expulsion…of the Germans from their centuries-old homelands’ he appears to compare it to the crimes committed by the Germans. Has he forgotten that the German occupation of the Sudetenland was an unjustified aggression that was instrumental in bringing on WWII? A balanced treatment of WWII would not place the massacre of the Jews in the same category as the retribution toward the Germans. It is as though he would present dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima as comparable to the attack on Pearl Harbor, or the rape of Nanking.

newson June 5, 2010 at 7:17 am

i agree. hiroshima was a civilian target and pearl harbor a military one.

Predrag June 5, 2010 at 9:14 am

In the former Yugoslavia, there was an island in the Adriatic sea, Goli otok (The Barren Island). It was unpopulated and mainly stony. This is where the “most dangerous reactionaries” were sent. In the morning they would carry stones from one side of the island to the other. In the afternoon, they would bring back the same stones to the same place they brought them from in the morning. This would be repeated for years. Many didn’t come back.

I used to know a guy from my mother’s family who urinated onto some communist WW2 monument. He was sent there and came back after 10 years. After that, he was always full of praise for the “comrades that opened his eyes to see the glory of our progressive communist society and to realize the weight of his own mistakes”. My father often told him: “C’mon, you don’t really believe tat; you are just saying that because you are afraid of being sent back to the island.” The guy always swore that he was being honest.

Michael Hardesty June 5, 2010 at 9:24 am

Weingarten, how could German “occupation” of indisputably GERMAN territory bring on WW2 ?
It was precisely the immoral and illegal Czech occupation of the Sudentenland which brought
on the Munich conference. Czechoslovakia was an artificial state created by the unjust Versailles
Treaty. Neither it nor Yugoslavia could stand and both collapsed after Communism fell. In fact after WW2 over 12 million Germans who had lived there for centuries were expelled by the Poles and Czechs, both Communist governments, with the resultant deaths of at least two million Germans.
The best treatments of the pre-war crisis is in A.J.P. Taylor’s The Origins Of The Second World War
and especially David L. Hoggan’s The Forced War. Rather than mindlessly reiterating all the old
Establishment Party Line lies as Allen Weingarten does. Oh, Allen, the dropping of the atomic bomb
on a civilian population was MUCH WORSE than the attack on a military installation at Pearl Harbor.
See Pearl Harbor by George Morgenstern. Spare us your very selective indignation on Nanking because if you consider the 10-20 million Chinese executed by Chiang and the 100 million plus Mao victims the Japanese are bad but way behind in the atrocity business. Since many more Germans were killed during AND after the war than Jews your right that there is no comparison.

newson June 5, 2010 at 7:02 pm

with regard to your earlier comment (disappeared!), einsatzgruppen were not alone in disposing of “inferior” races, the wehrmacht ably assisted. after the war, the wehrmacht liked to paint the ss as the bad guys, and the regular corps as the professional, good soldiers, but that’s just fanciful. the argument that german manpower would have been insufficient to carry out the final solution isn’t very credible.

michael June 6, 2010 at 11:37 am

A couple of points. First you say “It was precisely the immoral and illegal Czech occupation of the Sudentenland which brought on the Munich conference.

Czechoslovakia was an artificial state created by the unjust Versailles Treaty.”Not really. The Sudeten territories had been part of a multi-ethnic empire for centuries– Austria-Hungary. Germans lived there, as they did in the Bachka, in western Hungary and in Transylvania. So did lots of other ethnicities.

These lands were transferred by international agreement to a new authority. And ethnic Germans were not mistreated by the Czechs. Quite the opposite, in fact. Then the land was gobbled up by the familiar process of invasion and occupation. It was an act of predation, not one with any legal justification.

At the end of Germany’s attempt to kill the populations of Eastern Europe and take their land, there was quite a lot of retaliation. Bloody and lawless, certainly. But I think, in light of the events of 1939-45, understandable. Several million Germans living in Poland, Czechoslovakia and elsewhere were forcibly removed, with accompanying atrocities.

To say that one side was blameless and the other totally in the wrong would be to misread history. Which brings me to this:

“Since many more Germans were killed during AND after the war than Jews your right that there is no comparison.

“Holocaust denial isn’t pretty, nor is it fashionable. What you seem to be peddling is the idea that if the Germans hatched a plan and proceeded to coldly murder 12-15,000,000 Jewish, Rom and Slavic civilians (Hugh Trevor-Roper gives 13 million), it’s no big deal. THEY killed more of US in retaliation!

Predrag June 5, 2010 at 9:31 am

In my neighbourhood, there is a lady from Poland, who is of German ethnicity. She was a cleaner (I didn’t go into detail what that actually meant) in Auschwitz. She avoids even mentioning Hitler’s name, and always says “He”. This lady says: “He (Hither) was the devil, but in the beginning we thought he was an angel. Later, when we realized what was happening, it was too late. Those that say it (Holocaust) didn’t happen, don’t know what they are talking about. I saw. We did not complain because we were all afraid of being killed.”

I don’t know whether what she is saying is true, but I think it would be worthwhile to share.

newson June 5, 2010 at 8:11 pm

when i visited dachau, i was struck by how relatively close it was to the city. it’s unthinkable that people couldn’t have figured out what was happening by the smell of incinerators. i can’t condemn people for staying silent to save themselves or loved ones, but i cannot believe that vast numbers of germans didn’t know what was going on.

Beefcake the Mighty June 5, 2010 at 9:26 pm

But, wasn’t Dachau one of the camps in the West, where even mainstream historians concur that no exterminations took place (the official extermination camps were in eastern territories that fell under communist control after the war)?

BioTube June 5, 2010 at 10:48 pm

Dissidents, criminals and gays were sent to the camps as well; while the genocide part of the equation may have been only in conquered land, the camps were going well before the war began(though at that point the Holocaust proper had yet to start).

newson June 6, 2010 at 5:37 am

no. mass killings commenced there from 1941. (the numbers are less than than the eastern camps, but my point is that you can’t incinerate tens of thousands and have the air smelling like lily of the valley. the town folk knew.)

Beefcake the Mighty June 6, 2010 at 9:38 am

What mass killings occured at Dachau? I don’t think anyone believes there were gas chambers at Dachau (except maybe Netanyahu); I suppose there could have been shootings for various infractions. If you are referring to the pile of emaciated corpses photographed when the western Allies liberated the camps, these photographs are certainly real, but they of course reflect the fact that conditions in the camps at the end of the war were absolutely atrocious, in no small part due to the fact that the Americans and British had bombed the German logistics/railway system into oblivion. Under such circumstances, it is not surprising that these camp inmates (which as is well known consisted not just of Jews, but of other political prisoners and common criminals) would die in large numbers (and of course some of the bodies were disposed of by cremation).

Dave Albin June 6, 2010 at 9:47 am

I think this is interesting. I’ve been to Dachau, and I came away with the impression that mass killings took place there.

newson June 6, 2010 at 8:54 pm

this wasn’t just a crematorium. the gas chamber was built, just not properly, so never worked. but there were those appalling “medical” experiments. and some thirty thousand died in dachau. working someone to death, or freezing them to death in some cruel lab experiment is no different from gassing.

newson October 7, 2010 at 9:28 pm

to beefcake the mighty:
in hindsight, your comment looks wise, and mine naive. pity your earlier comment was made to vanish. not a good look.

michael June 6, 2010 at 11:53 am

“But, wasn’t Dachau one of the camps in the West, where even mainstream historians concur that no exterminations took place..?

Not really. Here’s a link to a description of the killing that took place in Dachau, along with some pictures of the gas chambers there:


High-end estimates of the number of the gassed range around a quarter million people. If that doesn’t quite qualify as being an ‘extermination’ camp, the distinction is purely semantic.

Allen Weingarten June 5, 2010 at 11:00 am

Beefcake the Mighty says I emphasize crimes against Jews to the exclusion of crimes against non-Jews. If one places genocide, the attempt to utterly destroy a whole people, on the same scale as crimes committed against portions of a group, without the intention of murder, he lacks even the willingness to be balanced.

Michael Hardesty claims that the Sudetenland was “undisputed GERMAN territory”, and that it was not used to bring bring on WW2. Historians have of course disputed this, and claim that the Sudetenland was part of Czechoslovakia. Apparently, Michael denies that Hitler planned and carried out a war against the West, which included step-by-step acquisitions (and the use of fifth columns).

He also says “the dropping of the atomic bomb on a civilian population was MUCH WORSE than the attack on a military installation at Pearl Harbor.” Apparently, he sees no difference between an act to save American lives (which incidentally also saved even more Japanese lives), and an aggressive act that begins a war.

Both Beefcake the Mighty and Michael Hardesty do not differentiate between the initiation of aggression, and the defense against it. They argue as though if three people were going to rape and murder a woman, which was prevented by killing them, that it was worse because it cost three lives instead of one. Conversely, Ayn Rand holds that when a country engages in aggression, it loses its right to self-defense.

Gil June 5, 2010 at 11:30 am

I thought it was a give-in that an aggressor could hardly claim self-defence when the victim retaliates.

newson June 5, 2010 at 7:42 pm

killing civilians to demoralize enemy combatants, as in the bombs of nagasaki and hiroshima, is not the same as waging war against men-under-arms. the aggressor is the man with the gun pointing at you, not his 14 year old girl at home. hopefully, people don’t have to refer to ayn rand to get this.

or do you bait your neighbour’s dog when you have an axe to grind with him?

Michael Hardesty June 5, 2010 at 11:41 am

I don’t know which “historians” other than bought and paid for Establishment hacks believe that the Sudentenland was part of a “Czechoslovakia” that never existed before 1920. The aggression was in the Treaty Of Versailles itself. The Sudentenland, the Rhineland, Danzig Corridor area and Austria were all German populated areas that wanted to unite with Germany proper. How any sane person could consider that “aggression” is beyond rational belief. Now Israel is a perfect example of an aggressive state set up by outside parties (UK, UN, US) to forcibly dispossess a people already living there. Hitler never had conquest plans against the West. His focus was entirely on regaining German territories. If he had any imperialist pretensions and the record doesn’t show that, then it would have been towards the USSR, certainly nothing for the West to deplore. France and the UK declared war on Germany because of a totally untenable pledge to Poland, which they knew couldn’t be fulfilled at the time they made it and in fact when the USSR took the eastern half of Poland Churchill & Co. said their pledge didn’t apply to that part of Poland ! So much for “defense” against aggression. Once the war started BECAUSE of the UK-Franco pledge, every country involved had fifth columns. It was not a unique German characteristic. Germany only beat the UK to the punch in invading Norway as the Brits later admitted. Absent the absurd UK-Franco pledge to Poland there would have been no German involvement in the West as the honest historians like Barnes, Tansill, Chamberlin, Taylor, Fleming, Flynn, Sanborn, Toland and Sargent have long noted. There was no military necessity whatsoever for the dropping of the atomic bombs as Japan had been trying to surrender for six months prior to that US war crime. See Hiroshima:Assault On A Beaten Foe by Harry Elmer Barnes, National Review, May 10, 1958. See the book Atomic Diplomacy by Gar Alperowitz. That bomb did not save any lives, it took a great many Japanese lives unnecessarily. Eisenhower, MacArthur and most top military men were opposed to its use. The US never needed or planned to invade the Japanese mainland. A starvation blockade was unnecessary as Japan had been struggling to surrender for at least six month. The only hangup was the insane unconditional surrender and the US waived that the requirement for the Emperor to step down and that was the only remaining obstacle. By Rand’s dictum the US has long forfeited the right to defense as the US has not been in a justified war of self-defense since the American Revolution. Every US war from 1812 to the Civil War to 1898 (look at a map, Allen and tell me that 1898 was not US aggression) to WW1 to WW2 to Korea to Vietnam to Iraq twice to Kosovo and so on has been aggression by the USA. I can go into the specifics of every one. 9-11 happened as Ron Paul noted because we had long been over there before they came over here. Even the seemingly justified Afghan invasion only added 3,000 Afghani civilians to the 3,000 killed at the WTC. Now its sinking into a limitless morass. Rand was a vehement anti-Arab racist, see the Ayn Rand Q&A, she supported Israel only out of an anti-Arab stereotype. Israel like the USA is an aggressor and has forfeited the right of self-defense IF anyone were to Rand’s dictum seriously, which no one in objective reality does.

michael June 7, 2010 at 9:31 am

Michael– I doubt this will have any effect on your thinking, but you make a number of essential errors in this analysis:

“Hitler never had conquest plans against the West. His focus was entirely on regaining German territories. If he had any imperialist pretensions and the record doesn’t show that, then it would have been towards the USSR, certainly nothing for the West to deplore. France and the UK declared war on Germany because of a totally untenable pledge to Poland, which they knew couldn’t be fulfilled at the time they made it and in fact when the USSR took the eastern half of Poland Churchill & Co. said their pledge didn’t apply to that part of Poland ! So much for “defense” against aggression.”

Diplomatic alliances had been the norm for centuries in Europe. However in this instance it had become obvious by mid-September, 1939 that France had informed Poland they could not rush to her defense in the case of invasion. The Germans knew this. So as soon as the ink had dried on Molotov-Ribbentrop, the tanks marched across Poland from either direction. And while the Soviets were mopping up the Baltic states, Hitler’s panzers were securing their side of the line. The plan included dividing up the world into spheres, where Germany would occupy everything from Hungary and the Balkans out to India. Italy would get Africa. Japan would get China, SE Asia and the Pacific Rim. Etcetera.

Then Hitler invaded the Netherlands, Belgium, Norway and France. Did all those countries also pledge themselves to attack Germany? Britain was supposed to surrender, which they did not– so the Battle for Britain proceeded.

None of those nations, from Britain out to the Indian Ocean, were former German territory to the best of my knowledge. What they were were lands occupied by the untermenschen, people fit only to be slaves.

And if we complain about the Sudetenland only having been part of a country cobbled together in 1920, we should keep in mind that Germany itself was only invented in 1871, a mere 50 years earlier. Whereas the Kingdom of Bohemia (historically Slavic since the sixth century) had been part of the Austrian Empire since 1526. See Wikipedia on this.

The history of Europe is one of mixed populations where one ethnicity is temporarily on top and all the others feel like they’re getting the shaft. The Germans had sent colonies out nearly everywhere, from central Russia around Orenburg to Transylvania, through what became Yugoslavia and the Alps. That doesn’t mean they enjoyed the sole right to rule such places, and to kill off populations like the Ukrainians, Poles and Jews so they could have more room for themselves.

I do have that book by Alperowitz, Atomic Diplomacy, and on your recommendation will pick it up again for a closer look. But if you recall what we knew back in 1945, it was that Japan had no culture of surrender. In fact our prisoners were mistreated so brutally because they had no respect for any soldier who permitted himself to be captured. You were supposed to die fighting.

That means that even though the writing was on the wall, they were prepared to fight to the last man defending the Japanese Empire. Estimates were that we could lose up to a quarter million soldiers trying to secure Kyushu, Shikoku, Honshu and the hundreds of smaller islands. A good case can even be made that fighting our way up the archipelago, one kilometer at a time, would have resulted in the loss of more Japanese civilians than the two bomb drops claimed.

It was a very dirty war. All sides committed atrocities. But we should allow first blame to go to the aggressors, the citizens of a defeated and angry Germany who followed Hitler in his crusade to conquer the world. Plus, of course, Stalin, Tojo and Mussolini, for entering into an agreement to divide up the loot.

Predrag June 5, 2010 at 12:31 pm

My personal view is that the tribal mentality that has been developing for tens of thousands of years (and was probably important in ensuring survival) is at the centre of the “we” and “they” mental framework. This mentality is also the necessary ingredient for collective violence, such as war. An effort of reason and will is needed to overcome this mentality. I prefer to replace the “we” and “they” framework with “I” and “you” (singular). The current state of technological development reduces the natural isolation (i.e., due to distance etc.) that lead to the development of the tribal mentality of different groups of people, and it is likely that this trend will continue. In that sense, I see a hope for reducing the incidence of collective violence.

newson June 5, 2010 at 8:29 pm

dr pangloss. go to any european soccer match and take a whiff of the mob menace. this is part of us.

Predrag June 5, 2010 at 8:44 pm

I’ve seen much worse.

newson June 6, 2010 at 8:37 pm

i’m certain you have; i’m surprised you have such an optimistic outlook. i see no new man, only new technology.

maverick muse June 5, 2010 at 1:13 pm


So much European history exposed to which I had yet to come across. I’m looking forward to reading 20th Century European history in terms of Europe’s serial civil war(s). Regarding Ernst Nolte’s public reception, a prophet has no honor in his own country, John 4:44. This posted article was written decades ago in the late 1960s. It seems that today presents a “curiouser” cusp, witnessing a volatile changing guard of public political opinion, selling populations of people off in bulk again. This week, Helen Thomas stated the far left conviction (silence from White House defining approval), heretofore kept mute under the rug, that Jews have no legitimate place in Israel or the Middle East. It would appear that at the most inopportune moment (which isn’t?) all “Western” parties involved are blinded in self defensive CYA mode, totally self invested and unable/unwilling to recognize shared experiences that COULD well unite a conservative alliance against both Marxist autocracy and against violent Islamic aggression. Too many political parties have sold out to socialism in one form or another, and citizens are loath to completely abandon party ship given no “practical” (meaning popular AND established) solid platform, though the public’s anger level has reached reactionary mode.

michael June 7, 2010 at 1:05 pm

You say “This week, Helen Thomas stated the far left conviction (silence from White House defining approval), heretofore kept mute under the rug, that Jews have no legitimate place in Israel or the Middle East.”

In reality this has been the official response: “The final shove out the door came after a denunciation from White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, who called her statements “offensive and reprehensible.”

“Gibbs added that her remarks “do not reflect certainly the opinion of most of the people here and certainly not of the administration.”

“Thomas was also denounced by the White House Correspondents Association, which said it was considering whether to boot her from her customary front-row seat at the White House press room.”

So I would say she’s been promptly censured and chastised, both by the White House and by the press association. Additionally, I would offer that this is very far from the standard left view of Israel. No one anywhere on the left, from Hamas and Hezbollah to ordinary liberals and progressives here, is saying the Jews should get out of the Middle East. Instead what everyone is saying is that Israel should become like every other civilized nation, and extend full citizenship and civil rights to every ethnicity living inside its borders. What we all object to is their categorization of the world into members of the Jewish nation (good) and a subject race with no rights, including neither life nor property.

The divide, pretty much, is between people who believe in a two-state solution, with independent Israel and Palestine living side by side, and a single-state solution (my preference) in which everyone learns to live together in a unified Israel-Palestine, and all enjoy the same rights and privileges under law.

The State of Israel likes neither approach, preferring to follow a pre-1945 notion that the master race should do whatever it wants without the need to consult the people being ruled. It’s very out of fashion, and corrosive to the movement toward world peace.

Israel, stay right where you are. But please, don’t stay ‘just the way’ you are.

maverick muse June 5, 2010 at 1:31 pm

Like plagiarism, revisionism is for lamebrains, performed by quacks and sadistic power mongers, sold by vicious wannabes in a power grab amongst a population of individuals all of whom are unwilling to sustain their own lives through their own labor and sweat. Revisionism is the antithesis of an authentic essence. And btw, Marxism certainly has no monopoly on the practice, failing to be the first philosophy revised in the hope of garnering more appeal and a greater following.

A person misses the mark if he only obsesses about himself and what he considers his own, denying that the unique experience rests within the universal setting. The Nazi genocidal “Jewish Final Solution” was absolutely horrible. But indeed, it was not the first genocide, nor has it been the last. Each is absolutely horrible. To demand that the universe consecrate your own experience with the monopoly on value is the epitome of self indulgence, and is bound to backfire in public opinion.

Lee June 6, 2010 at 6:17 am

I think it’s way past time that many more articles like this appear. For more than sixty years we’ve been virtually force-fed a daily diet of “holocaust” in the mainstream media with rarely a mention of any other groups who’ve suffered far worse. It’s even more rarely mentioned that Hitlers’ prime motivation was to save the white race. If anyone cares from the figures I can find the world percentage of whites has dropped from about 29% a hundred years ago to something less than 10% now. I see more coverage being given to obscure species of rats.

Franklin June 6, 2010 at 7:27 pm

“….he would present dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima as comparable to the attack on Pearl Harbor…”

if I were vaporized while eating my lunch on a Hiroshima sidewalk when the bomb hit, or I was obliterated while walking to the Pearl Harbor commissary to buy a sandwich for a relative I was visiting when the attack occurred, I think I’d probably feel they were comparable.

michael June 7, 2010 at 5:41 pm

The crematoria certainly worked and were in use. There is some question as to whether the gas chambers had actually gone on line by the time the Allies showed up. Here’s some useful info:

“Given the evidence that confronted them, it was not surprising that soldiers, observers, journalists and Congressional investigators should have assumed that the bodies found in the mortuary, on the floor of the gas chamber, and next to the old crematorium had been victims of the gas chamber. A report in a U.S. Army newspaper of the time reported:

“The Dachau crematorium is a long low brick structure with a tall smokestack from which smoke poured day and night. The gas chamber is 20 feet square and has 18 nozzles across the ceiling that look like shower outlets… 32

“It is generally accepted today that most, if not all of the dead found in these areas, perished through starvation, exposure, sickness — particularly typhus — mistreatment, and execution by means other than poison gas. Nonetheless, one survivor of the Dachau camp, Joel Sack, a Polish engineer, who visited the homicidal chamber soon after liberation reports:

“Outside, there was still a plentiful supply of cans with the Zyclon-B [sic] poison. The cans bore the name of the manufacturer, A.E.G. [sic] FARBEN INDUSTRIE

“To the outside of the gas chamber door were attached forms for keeping records:

“Gasheit, Time of gassing. Zu, Close . . . Uhr, Time …

“Auf, Finish . . . Uhr, Time . . .

“Below that was the sign of a skull with two cross bones and a warning:

“Vorsicht, Careful . . . G A S

“Lebensgefahr, Danger to Life

“Nicht Offenen, Do Not Open 33

“Neither the reports by the U.S. Army, Father Hess nor Sack prove conclusively that the homicidal chamber was used to kill people. Until further evidence is discovered, historians will have to conform themselves with the knowledge that it was technically possible to have murdered human beings with poison gas in that room, and that the room, some 16x16x12ft high, was designed for the exclusive purpose of carrying out such a grim task.” etcetera


Tom June 26, 2010 at 2:48 am

Unfortunately, despite the fact, that most of the article is really good, tha author didn’t manage to stay honest to the end. We are talking about war, something we wouldn’t be able to imagine no matter how many books we will read. The war creates tragedies, mass murders and other unbelievable evils. It is the sin of all mankind, everyone is in some way responsible for thing, which happend then. I don’t see point in continual blames that nations throw at each other.
Author stated that we can’t forget about the crimes made on Germans at the end of war and point at Czech, Poles and Russians as those who sholud be blamed. But did those nations have any other choice? They were also replaced from the East of their countries. Most of its East regions were taken from Poland, where people from there should go to? There is no simple ansewers for events happenning 70years ago and we will never understand them.

The tragedy was everywhere and affected every ordinary person. It’s the truth of these times. We should do everything to prevent it from happening in future, nothing else, blames won’t help.

Dennis J. Aceto July 23, 2010 at 3:20 am

I think the proper stand someone who believes in any concept of justice should take on Israel should be to give back all the land that was stolen at the creation of the State. I understand not all the land was stolen but I also understand that most was.
Too many libertarians apply libertarian principles evenly except for one case; Israel.
In the JLS I believe there is a paper claiming that around 11 percent of the land of current Israel was not taken by force. So Helen Thomas’ comment that they should leave should be understood in that context. I am pretty sure she meant they should leave the land they stole not that they should all be expelled from legitimate property.
Leading up to the creation of Israel there was a huge amount of terrorism perpetrated against villages who stood on land which Zionists had their eyes on and it has not stopped since.
Also, as an anarchist, I think the state of Israel should be peacefully dismantled. In agreement with many Hasidic Jews.

Al Blue October 20, 2011 at 7:47 pm

Michael’s response to Michael Hardesty is riddled with errors from start to finish. There was never any Nazi plot to take over the world. The Soviets had lost ten times as much land to the Poles as the Germans at Versailles so they had their own interest in settling scores. It was never a plot with the Germans to divide Poland, both sides distrusted one another.
The Sudenten Germans had lived in those areas hundreds of years before there was a united Germany so your attempted rationale for their expulsion of 15 million and murder of 2-3 million fails.
The bogus plan you listed to divide up the world between the Germans and the Soviets never existed.
You need to read the works that Hardesty recommended starting with A.J.P. Taylor’s The Origins Of The Second World War. The Nazi foreign policy was strictly limited to recovering German populated territories
taken by the vengeful Versailles Treaty, the four foreign policy crises of the Rhineland, Austria, Sudentenland and Poland confirm this.
The Japanese had been trying to surrender for six months prior to the bombing, see the Barnes piece in the May 10, 1958 National Review and the Gar Alperowiz book. Your statement that they had no concept of surrender is racist gibberish. Eisenhower and MacArthur and others said there never would have a US invasion of Japan. They would have been blockaded in the worst case but that was not necessary as they had been trying to surrender long before the militarily unjustified atomic war crimes.
The creamatoriums existed and had nothing to do with any gas chambers, they were necessary because of the huge mortality rate from typhus and other diseases particularly in the last 18 months of the war. Had nothing to do with any mass extermination policy, again check out Debating The Holocaust by Thomas Dalton, Rassinier, Mattogno, Rudolph, Faurisson, Graf, Butz and other revisionists.
Go to the CODOH or IHR or VHO websites to get an alternative view to the standard sources you mindlessly parrot.
Many of us Jews think Thomas was on the money, her real frustration was with AIPAC control of the whole US political structure. If at least many of the Jews did leave the region would be better off. Her censure was the usual mindless Israel First idiots. Even if she over spoke she was right in essentials.
It was only the UK and France who made the unwarranted and untenable pledge to Poland that turned a local conflict into a world war exactly as the Brits did in 1914.
Hitler ONLY attacked the Low Countries to get to France before France attacked the same countries first to get to Germany.
Ergo with Norway, Churchill admitted that the Germans beat them to the punch which is why the Allied claim of aggressive war by Germany at Nuremberg was total hypocrisy.
Franklin, an attack on a military facility like Pearl Harbor is totally different than obliterating a civilian population at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Not even a close call morally.
The Germans never sent out colonies everywhere, Michael. It was the Brits and the French and the Spanish and the Dutch and the Belgians that conquered most of the world outside Europe. The Germans had one African colony which Hitler was never interested in getting back. Hitler also wrote off the Alsace-Lorraine. Your pipe dream of Germany, Japan and Italy dividing the world is a concocted big lie on a par with Roosevelt’s ‘secret map’ of an alleged Nazi plot to take over Latin America. Utter hogwash !
Japan was no more imperialistic in Asia than the West which actually stole most of the territory.
Check out Hardesty’s recommendations on Barnes, Taylor, Beard, Tansill, Chamberlin, Martin, etc. and educate yourself.

mikey June 7, 2010 at 3:47 pm

I was at dachau in1972. I distinctly remember reading that the crematoriums, though built were never used. It was right there on a plate next to the ovens themselves.

Beefcake the Mighty October 7, 2010 at 9:46 pm


Interesting, I did notice the other day that several comments here were deleted. Curious indeed.

newson October 14, 2010 at 3:08 am

ouch! the third rail.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: