Trust, but verify: David Irving and the writing of history
David Irving, historian/Holocaust denier (although if anything should be an oxymoron, that would be it), is facing trial in Austria soon for violating a law against Holocaust denial (or, to be technical for “minimizing the crimes of the Third Reich“).
I’ve been doing some research lately on the despicable Irving. I’ve developed ideas for a number of posts related to him, some of which I may actually get around to writing some day.
But right now I’m going to deal with only one aspect of Irving’s tale. (All the information and quotes in the following post that are not otherwise linked come from the extraordinarily excellent book Lying About Hitler by historian Richard J. Evans, which I’m now in the process of reading).
I only vaguely followed Irving’s sensational trial in 2000, in which he sued Deborah Lipstadt for allegedly libeling him in her book Denying the Holocaust. In it, she wrote that Irving was “one of the most dangerous spokespersons for Holocaust denial,” whose practice was to:
…misstate, misquote, falsify statistics, and falsely attribute conclusions to reliable sources.
British libel laws are notoriously skewed in favor of the plaintiff, and Irving fully expected to win or to force Lipstadt to settle for a tidy sum. But Lipstadt’s publisher Penguin, to its everlasting credit, decided to spare no expense to defend her, and itself.
Historian Richard J. Evans was hired by Penguin as a consultant, and became the star witness for the defense, which was ultimately victorious. They mounted the risky strategy of asserting that everything Lipstadt said about Irving was in fact true, which meant that the burden of proof was on them to prove it to be so. And yet they succeeded, and a verdict was rendered that stated unequivocally that Irving was indeed everything Lipstadt had alleged, and more (or, one might say, less).
Irving was ordered to pay millions, but so far has cannily avoided doing so, as well as somehow managing to keep up his pace of speaking engagements–that is, until he made the mistake of entering Austria, a country from which he’d been banned many years ago and where he knew if he set foot he ran the risk of being arrested. And arrested he was.
Even Lipstadt, however, has defended his right to freedom of speech, (ironic, since he tried so hard to trample on hers), saying Irving should not face imprisonment. Many agree, and I am among them, although I certainly would like to see him pay the money he owes from the British trial.
All of this is mere background, however, to my main topic, which is: how is it that Irving got away for so long with the lies and distortions in his books? After all, is there no fact-checking for historians?
In a certain sense, Irving hadn’t gotten away with it; some criticized him from the start for playing fast and loose with the facts. but only in a general way. No one had taken the time and expended the effort to do a systematic study of his research methods. So when Richard Evans was hired by the defense in the Lipstadt trial he had only a vague familiarity with Irving’s controversial works, and he sat down to a monumental task: to evaluate whether in fact Irving had consistently misrepresented his sources as Lipstadt alleged.
Irving, a university dropout who had never received formal training as a historian and who therefore stood outside the usual professorial system of networking and collegiality, had received mixed reviews from historians but universal praise for his ability to do original research: to dig deep into archival sources, diaries, and arcane papers. He spoke fluent German, and was acknowledged as a tireless worker who ferreted out information no one else could find.
Irving’s specialty was debunking the work of other historians. Irving alleged that other historians (unlike him) were lazy; that they relied on each other’s work far too much, something he referred to contemptuously as “inter-historian incest.” He turned his lack of academic credentials into a point of pride rather than embarrassment, superiority rather than inferiority. According to Evans:
Irving contemptuously almost never cited, discussed, or used the work of other historians in his books. Irving was evidently very proud of his personal collection of thousands of documents and index cards on the history of the Third Reich.
So Irving was a maverick right from the start, a sort of Indiana Jones of the history trade, going his own swashbuckling way. He burst on the scene as a very young man in his twenties, and had a great deal of success early on. But as time passed and his views became more strident, eccentric, and clearly Nazi-philic, and he lost a libel suit in the 70s, his reputation began to suffer greatly. It tanked when he became a Holocaust-denier. But he continued to write, and often to be read.
But still, by the time of the Lipstadt trial, it is a remarkable fact that no one seems to have actually done an in-depth study of Irving’s sources and methods, not even Lipstadt. It seems that history, like many other academic disciplines (research science comes to mind), is an endeavor based at least partially on trust. There is a sort of tacit gentleman’s agreement (forgive the sexism, I’m using it in the metaphoric sense) that we’re all playing by the same rules here.
But with Irving, it turns out it would have been far better to trust, but verify. Because it wasn’t until the lawyers for the defense obtained access to the bulk of Irving’s notes and papers through the liberal British discovery process, and Evans was paid to use his knowledge of German to take the time to do an in-depth study of how Irving’s original sources matched up with Irving’s depiction of them in his writing, that the truly colossal magnitude of Irving’s deception was revealed, as well as the depth of his anti-Semitism.
It’s one of those stories that is very satisfying in its denouement: it turns out that Irving’s own desire to silence his critics started a process in motion that ended up discrediting him in a comprehensive way that most likely would never have occurred had he not started the lawsuit. The wheels of historical justice grind slow, but they grind exceedingly fine.
The larger fact is, however, as Evans writes in his book:
Historians…had to rely on each other’s works. There was noting wrong with this, where the work relied on conformed to the accepted canons of scholarly research and rested on thorough, transparent, and unbiased investigation of the primary sources. So vast was the material with which historians dealt, so numerous were the subjects they covered, so consuming of time, energy, and financial resources was the whole process of historical research, that it would be completely impossible for new historical discoveries and insights to be generated if every historian had to go back to the original sources for everything he or she wanted to say. The need to rely on each other’s work had nothing to do with copywriting or plagarism: on the contrary, the conventions of scholarship ensured that footnotes and other references were used in scholarly historical work to pinpoint precisely where the historian had obtained information, and to allow the reader to check up on this if so desired.
All those conventions of scholarship (that bored most of us to tears back in college), the careful and rigorous footnoting and sourcing, are designed to ensure that errors will not happen and that, if they occur, they will be discovered. But the entire edifice nevertheless rests on trust, because it is difficult if not impossible to check every footnote–and Irving cleverly made sure his were extra-impossible to check.
Not only was Irving in disagreement with other historians, but his footnotes were also unconventional, which should have been a tipoff. Many referred to private papers, and those that didn’t were often lacking crucially important information such as page numbers. In fact, according to Evans’s description, my guess is that if Irving had actually written his books in pursuit of a doctorate, his slipshod methods would probably have led to the degree being denied.
But Irving wasn’t going for a doctorate; he didn’t need one. He became successful without one. And, in fact, part of his stated motive for writing his books appears to have been his desire to show up the more regularly-credentialed historians–at the same time he was relying on their gentlemanly (and gentlewomanly) trust that he was following the same rules they were.
It turns out that he was not following those rules, but it took Evans’s remarkable scholarship and persistence to uncover it, and the peculiar circumstances of the libel trial to prove it. As Evans writes, historians do not ordinarily commit the following offenses, or imagine that other historians have committed them:
…manipulate and distort documents, suppress evidence that ran counter to their interpretations, wilfully mistranslate documents in a foreign language, consciously use unreliable or discredited testimony when it suited their purpose, falsify historical statistics, or apply one standard of criticism to sources that undermined their views and another to those that supported them.
But Evans was able to prove that Irving had consistently done just that.
Historians face a dilemma: they must rely on trust, as Evans says, or otherwise spend all their time checking each others’ work and re-inventing the wheel. And although one of the mottos of the blogosphere is, “we fact-check your ass,” even the internet would have been of no assistance at all in uncovering Irving’s game, unfortunately. He had an almost perfect m.o.: he choose arcane and difficult-to-find sources, and quoted them in ways that made them doubly difficult to trace. He became suspect, but no one had the actual goods on him until classic hubris drove Irving to push the envelope and sue someone who was accusing him of doing exactly what he was in fact doing.
Irving was arrogant enough to believe he would get away with it. Fortunately, he hasn’t. But his tale tells us how very fragile truth can be, if one is determined to falsity it, especially if one adopts the guise of historian (or perhaps, for that matter, journalist).
Fascinating, just fascinating. So many words, and so many people talking past each other.
Hitler? Primary responsibility has to lie with the German electorate.
That does not deny the continual (and continuing) efforts of all the major nations: US, China, NTH and STH Korea, Japan, Britain, France, Germany, Russia, et al to influence the actions of other nations as and when it suits “their interests”.
The means and techniques are manifold – Japan “selecting” little island nations onto the IWB with aid payments being made in return for supporting Japan; the sale of weaponry at bargain prices to third-world nations in return for unfettered access to natural resources; the list is long and open-ended…
If we were to return to the original topic – that of David Irving – then there is one question that must be asked.
How did he get to the prominence he actually achieved without being exposed?
Exposed he was, as was recorded in the head post here, by the media having the guts and determination to say “We are right” in a Court of Law. That is not all. The publishers also knew that if the initial findings went against them, they had the resources to appeal; Irving did not.
Now truly, Neo-Neocon, the path that question leads to MUST be the number of charlatans, the cheats, and outright liars who are not exposed because they have the resources (legal and monetary) to ensure that a definitive conclusion is never reached.
The tobacco companies almost pulled it off. The actions (I think there were three?) by individual States of the US did eventually make the breakthrough. But in large part solely because the States could match (and were prepared to) the resources of the tobacco industry.
As I said, how many in positions of power and influence hold those places through their ability to ward off challenges of process and exposure?
A disappointed W. B. Reeves chimes in for Anon: Anonymous’ makes observations unremarkable to anyone who has investigated the historical facts. To whit: Hitler could not have built or maintained his monstrous Third Reich as he did without the aid, both political and monetary, of elements in the West and that such aid was rooted, primarily, in the fear of Communism.
Readers, that many “elements in the West” supported Hitler & that many of these “elements” also had fascists tendencies & that many of these same “elements” also disliked communism is not disputed by me — a Hitler-supporting closet Fascist such as, say, Henry Ford could hardly be expected to view Communism with approval. And it is probably already known to many readers that, as Reeves pointlessly points out, pre-Pearl Harbor anti-war sentiment in the US ran high. That bit of wisdom, delivered excitedly by Reeves, is news to no historian I’ve read. I readily concede that the US had it’s share of pro-Fascists, pro-Nazis & by the way, pro-Communists. I seek not to “erase the historical record.” Rather, it is the historical significance of such mundane facts that I question. I agree with Reeves on one point: Anons observations are certainly “unremarkable.”
As an aside, the thought just occurred to me that the attack on Pearl turned a bunch of folks into that era’s version of Neoneoconism — Pearl Harbor seemed to have been a consciousness expanding event for many American Isolationists, much like 9/11 has been today.
But back to Reeves post: Isn’t it a form of circular reasoning? Some elements in the US liked Nazism & contributed support in various ways. Correct. Some of these same American elements also disliked Communism. Again, correct. Fascists rarely like Communists, after all. Therefore, these elements ‘created’ Hitler & ‘caused’ the Holocaust because they were fearful of Communism. Huh?
And with all this money & political support from Western fat-cats, did Hitler win? No, because the conduct & outcome of the war had little or nothing to do with the fact that Ford & others sent Hitler some bucks.
And I wouldn’t think of contesting Reeves unnecessary assertion that many people inside America, Europe & elsewhere supported Hitler.
Reeves writes: That elements in the west provided support for Hitler’s Germany, whether from visceral anti-Communism or simply for profit, is a matter of testable fact. Whether this implies a collective guilt on the part the United States and other nations as a whole is a separate question. One which I do not think Anon raised directly.
In response I’m afraid I must bore the reader with some extensive quotes from Anon’s posts with some pertinent phrases bolded:
It should be no surprise, but I’ll warn you anyway, that if Germany was threatened by communism, and Hitler and the Nazi’s were anti-Communist, that he may have had some powerful friends in the west. That his rise to power, and thus responsibility for the holocaust, might just lie with “us”, and the anti-Communist swamp Hitler’s political life was spawned in.
As a side note, Hjalmar Horace Greeley Schacht, Hitler’s finance minister, was American, his father a Wall Street investment banker (of German ancestry of course). Hjalmar was God-father of Montague Norman’s kids, England’s Central Banker, and Montague God-father of Hjalmar’s kids. As to the “why”, which you say has not been addressed here, I’ll offer the same answer I’ve read “everyone” who supported Hitler give: He was anti-Communist. And let your imagination, for now, wander.
Neocon offered this to Anon: “What is also quite an interesting question is why a person[Anon] would want to ascribe it[how and why Hitler came to power] to the US.”
Anons reply: Not only the U.S., rather the pillars of western society that felt threatened by communism, England, France, the Vatican and others.
The way I see it, there are too many naive people who refuse to take responsibility for what Americans (and other beloved western “civil” societies) have done[in regards to Hitler’s rise], or allow to happen to serve our interests. You appear to be one of them.
Most people are absolutely clueless about the desperate times in Germany and how Hitler was being funded for his campaign contribution.
“Most people” perhaps but not most historians of the Nazi era. Exhaustive historical studies have been performed on the pre-WW2 German economy & on the funding of the Nazis, one of which is in a book by Taylor which is cited by Anon for other reasons. To quote one reviewer of the book: “a careful examination of the[funding] records.” Ooops.
Bankers helped him[Hitler] to stop the spread of communism, only to become a greater threat to the world.
Don’t be so naive as to think that powerful elements in England, France and America, the cornerstones of western society, were going to sit back in such heady times as the 1920’s and ’30’s and let Germany turn communist without exerting any influence what-so-ever.
My position is, without “our”[the US] financial and political support Hitler’s army or air force couldn’t get off the ground. No money, no war. It’s simple, and quite relevant.
That’s right, and after they[the Communists & the Nazis] destroy each other “we”[the US] fill the vacuum and take over.
Without industrial and political financing from the west Hitler’s well known views and plans could not have been realised.
Anon’s theories not conspiratorial? They sure seem that way to me but let each reader judge for themselves. I apologize to the readers for the extensive Anon quotes.
Contrary to the hyperbolic rhetoric above, this is not a conspiracy theory.
No, it isn’t a conspiracy theory. How perceptive of you. It is a propaganda line, an unremarkable one, and a very very bad one. If it wasn’t bad, then it might have had some justifications, but not as it is.
It will never erase the history of how Stalin’s communist Russia backed and supported Hitler in both his military and political endeavours. Pro-communists, not anti-communists as some may prefer, were behind the Peace party that allowed Hitler to do everything he planned with Stalin and his communists.
Reeves is a good wordsmith, but he needs to coordinate his story with the others.
But in a court of law “we” would go to jail as conspirators.
Anon nowhere asserts that the various players in these events were operating in concert according to a single agreed upon strategy. Nor is such an all encompassing conspiracy necessary to the case that he presents.
See, it is true that Anon nowhere asserted that such and such players were involved together to form such and such conspiracy. But like a very expertly crafted statement, while it doesn’t lie, it also doensn’t tell the truth either.
What he did say is that in the court of law “we”, meaning the West, would go to jail as conspirators because of our connection to Germany.
However the court record is shaped by those in the know, it doesn’t change the actual words written and spoken.
Well, I thought this thread might present an interesting discussion of the whys and wherefores of David Irving’s career as historical scam artist. In a way it has.
Anyone wondering how the likes of Irving could hawk his snake oil for decades before being busted need only look at the majority of responses to Anonymous posts.
Anonymous’ makes observations unremarkable to anyone who has investigated the historical facts. To whit: Hitler could not have built or maintained his monstrous Third Reich as he did without the aid, both political and monetary, of elements in the West and that such aid was rooted, primarily, in the fear of Communism.
Contrary to the hyperbolic rhetoric above, this is not a conspiracy theory. Anon nowhere asserts that the various players in these events were operating in concert according to a single agreed upon strategy. Nor is such an all encompassing conspiracy necessary to the case that he presents.
Prior to the outbreak of WWII there was significant pro fascist and pro Nazi sentiment in every major western Democracy. It was from such local reservoirs of sympathy that that collaborationist regimes like Petain’s Vichy government were cobbled together.
The existence of similar political currents in Great Britain encouraged the Duke of Windsor to escounce himself in Franco’s Spain, in direct disobedience to orders, after the fall of France in hopes of playing the role of “pretender to the Throne” should the “peace” party succeed in foiling Churchill’s War policy.
Again, contrary to some of the ill informed rhetoric above, the United States was not immune to this phenomenon. The Italian American Friendship Association, The German American Bund and anti-Semitic Radio commentators such as Father Coughlin and Gerald L.K. Smith all enjoyed popular followings. The sympathies of notables such as Lindbergh, Henry Ford and Joseph P. Kennedy are a matter of record as well.
It is pleasant to think that Fascist and Nazi racialist views found no purchase in America prior to WWII. Pleasant but utterly false. That elements in the west provided support for Hitler’s Germany, whether from visceral anti-Communism or simply for profit, is a matter of testable fact. Whether this implies a collective guilt on the part the United States and other nations as a whole is a separate question. One which I do not think Anon raised directly.
What is pertinent to the point Neo Neo raised is the response to Anon. Presented with inconvenient facts, the respondents have, for the most part, ignored them. They have resorted to invective rather than analysis. Having attended a few of David Irving’s traveling medicine shows over the years, I can vouch for the fact that this is Irving’s own prefered method of dealing with critics.
At the end of the day, all the frenetic shouts of “anti-American”, “America hater” and sinister imputations of “psychological” manipulation won’t erase the historical record. Our history, like that of every other democratic nation, is full of crosscurrents and ambiguity. Those who refuse to enlarge their perspective to accomodate that reality are paddling about in the same fetid intellectual swamp as Irving.
Readers, the rise of Hitler, the Holocaust & events leading up to WW2 have been the subject of literally millions of books. The “how and why it happened” was never ignored but rather examined in depth by many historians around the world. When put against this overwhelming evidence to the contrary, Anon’s theories can be seen for the loony delusions that they are.
Anon lists some authors that have written about the complicity of Western corporations & important individuals in American, England & elsewhere in the Nazi rise to power, such as Henry Ford, the Duchess of Windsor, the Chase Manhattan Bank, Errol Flynn, etc. This has all been known & written about numerous times but there was never a war in which the enemy did not have sympathizers. Complicity occurred, yes — but it had no real significance — other than that the wealthy & famous can be as wrongheaded as the rest of us. Yet the paranoid & conspiratorial minded will latch onto these irrelevant facts-sometimes-shading-into-speculation & erect ludicrous theories around them — especially if they hate their own country & seemingly in Anon’s case, love communism & Stalin. Because Henry Ford & others favored the Nazis, because some corporations & banks performed some rather stupid acts of complicity, all of the Western world is to be condemned because Hitler & the Holocaust was ‘created’ by powerful Western individuals.
Anon mentions a name, “Sidney Warburg,” who was supposedly the author of a pamphlet listing acts of complicity by wealthy individuals. Yet Sidney Warburg seems never to have existed. I googled as Anon suggested & read an article on the pamphlet in which the New York Times is quoted:
The pamphlet[by the non-existent Warburg] repeats an old story to the effect that leading Americans, including John D. Rockefeller, financed Hitler from 1929 to 1932 to the extent of $32,000,000, their motive being “to liberate Germany from the financial grip of France by bringing about a revolution.” Many readers of the pamphlet have pointed out that it contains many inaccuracies.
Half truths, inaccuracies, well-known insignificant facts elevated to false positions of importance, such as the universally known, among historians, information that certain individuals, banks & corporations were contributors of money to Hitler, meetings between powerful individuals & a mysterious & erroneous book by a non-existent author is all patched together into a very unsatisfactory garment that falls apart when it is actually tried on.
To the reader who is unfamiliar with WW2 history it might be a bombshell to learn that notables such as Henry Ford supported the Nazis but to those who have happened to read a few books about such matters it is an “old story,” mundane & irrelevant.
Historians have not ignored Communism in pre-war Germany — scores of books have been written that cover the subject. Every detail & instance of the history of Communism has been explored by historians ad infinitum. A search using the words “german communism” on Amazon.com results in 3 pages of books. Nothing has been, as Anon claims, “swept under the rug” on this subject.
You say you’re traveling; hopefully, you’re scouting out another country to you can move to?
Don’t think he lives in any one country, judging by his words.
I can only offer a few things for those that aren’t blinded by our flag and goodness
Then
The Clivedon Clique, or Clivedon Set. The pro-Hitler international salon run out of Lady Astor’s palace in England.
How England […]
“Our flag” means basically, anything he wants it to mean really.
Most people who argue with me tend to get uncomfortable and retreat eventually. While that is one of the intentional end results, I always hope that my opponent can produce something more original than his current propaganda line of argumentation.
Those who have arguments with an internal logic of some sort, I tend to try and reflect their attacks upon their own reasoning. They either bunker up and repeat their assertations cause they feel threatened, or they can modify their own internal reasoning to adapt to the attack, forming around the force like water instead of meeting it head like a rock.
The reasoning of Anon’s latest post, has not changed from the first one. Same tone, same arguments, same facts even. Kind of boring really.
Here’s a classic case of what is a danger to the internal logic of “West creates Hitler”.
That Hitler and Germany were essentially evil, and must take sole blame, does not suffice in my opinion.
Quite a solid logical axiom. Hitler cannot take all the blame.
Without industrial and political financing from the west Hitler’s well known views and plans could not have been realised.
It is true.
Without industrial and political financing from the east, Hitler’s well known views and plans could not have been realized.
Oh wait, did a logic derailing occur? Boo,hoo.
Anon’s arguments cannot handle a precisely calculated attack, straight to his vitals. He can only ignore it, in the hopes that it might hit someone else.
Anon doesn’t want to talk about his logic, he wants to talk about the guilt and criminal competence of the West. I hate generals that attack by the book, they are so unaggressive, so lacking in creativity, and so easy to outmaneuver.
Anonymous:
You say you’re traveling; hopefully, you’re scouting out another country to you can move to?
As I will be travelling this will probably be my last post for a few weeks.
Grackle seems to have a problem with me “picking and choosing”
in Turner’s expose on the little known, yet vital events of January 1933 that brought Hitler out of the ashes and finally into power. I referred to it in the first place to those who wanted to familiarise themselves with it, particularly the Cologne meeting of Jan.4th, 1933 . Cross checking what happened in January with other academic works and newspapers of the day I agree with his findings. Cross checking his assumptions on domestic and international financing of Hitler, I cab say I don’t agree with him on that. I don’t see any contradiction in this. Someone can be right about one thing and wrong about another, ..me included. One must check themselves.
Concerning David Irving and “holocaust denying”, my original point was there was no sense insisting it happened, and that we must never forget it, if questions as to how and why it happened were utterly ignored. That Hitler and Germany were essentially evil, and must take sole blame, does not suffice in my opinion. Without industrial and political financing from the west Hitler’s well known views and plans could not have been realised.
That his plans coincided with many elitist aims of the west, putting Germany back on it’s feet and either destroying or checking communism, is known. What is missing is the “imagination” that western elite’s might wish to take advantage of this bad situation and turn it to our advantage, nor that these elitist sectors of western society have any influence what-so-ever over our political leaders or “democratic” process and decision making. In my opinion it would take one political-historic dilettante not to at least keep an open mind on the subject.
No way to “prove” western complicity in Hitler’s crimes in this short space and time, I can only offer a few things for those that aren’t blinded by our flag and goodness, and might want to investigate further by Googling, or looking up in your library some information on the following.
The Clivedon Clique, or Clivedon Set. The pro-Hitler international salon run out of Lady Astor’s palace in England.
The “Myth of Sidney Warburg”, especially Sutton (a conservative historian from the Wilson Institute).
The Bank of International Settlement, how money was funneled into Germany. How England handed over Czechoslovakia’s gold to Hitler, among other things.
The works and documentation of Charles Higham, James Poole, Isabel Vincent and others, on western elite financing and industrial and technical supplying of Hitler Germany, including the congressional record (Die Commitee). How U.S. patents for synthetic rubber, and others things, were given to Germany but not the U.S. How Ford refused spare parts to England, while continuing shipment to Germany. How Standard oil clandestinely shipped oil to Germany etc. etc.
Works and military assessments on Czechoslovakia’s military defences. Hitler couldn’t have taken it if even if he tried. .So why did “we” give it to him at Munich? .And the world’s largest arms exporting industry in the world? French leader Daladier said when he was in his 80’s “because the bankers told me”.
The St. Pierre incident. Why the Allies refused to take the little Vichy island off New Foundland that was radioing information to the Nazi’s on our shipping convoys to England and Russia. When de Gaulle took it on his own, after he promised he wouldn’t, the diplomatic fire-works were so great Sumner Wells, U.S. Secretary of State, threatened to resign if Vichy was not given it back.
U.S. funding, financial and military to Vichy France, under German occupation.
Why the Allies refused Russian diplomatic efforts, 1933-1940, to form an alliance to contain Hitler , economically, politically and militarily, receiving Russian envoys only with low level diplomats?
Refusing to hear German Generals warnings about Hitler, or assisting them in his overthrow by assuring their recogniztion of the new German government if they did.
(Peter Ustinov, son of a German diplomat, was one of the couriers in this).
Pro-Hitler elements in America and England pushing the isolationist cause with German money and propaganda, stalling U.S. entry into the war.
In my opinion, by lauding the victors in W.W.II, we are lauding the very elements that helped “make” it happen, or allow it to happen in the first place. For a holocaust victim I could think of no worse fate then that. With out taking a closer look at the players, the tangle of western-German business-financial-religious relations before W.W.II, then it is Grackle that’s “picking and choosing”.
To Aubrey:
There has always been a conventional wisdom that sooner or later is shattered. Maybe you’re just part of the stupid herd?
Somebody, possibly neo, said weeks ago that the beauty of a conspiracy theory is that it allows one to think he knows more than the rest of society without having to do the work.
Bush Spied – Terrorists Died!
I’d Rather Hunt With Rumsfeld Than Ride With Kennedy
I seemed to have missed Anon’s post, oh well.
As an addendum, people use it all the time in politics. Pro-choice, hey, who wants to be against a person’s right to liberty, eh?
It makes people feel guilty, cause they are against “choice”. Fight in the psychological territory of the enemy and you will be at a disadvantage.
By examining “German records”? Do you think that the U.S. might have destroyed any records lying around after the occupation?
Look, there were no records. I think you lied when you said that there were, since we didn’t find any. You expect us to believe something exists when we can’t find them? Come on.
von Schroeders
There are too many Schroeders in power now a days.
“Dumb luck”? In Von Papen’s on words: “We bought him (Hitler)”.
In your own words, Schroeder bought them… and there are too many anti-American Schroeders already.
We’re talking about Germany, 1918-45, not about me. Any imformation other then a shallow Fox News commentary?
The battleground is where ever a battle takes place. It’s not a good idea for me to let you pick the site of the battle, I remember Hannibal. Fox News couldn’t equal my understanding of propaganda if they tried and spent 50% of their budget. They got the skills, but lack wisdom and understanding. Sort of like Bush, except Bush both lacks skill, understanding, and desire.
It’s simple, and quite relevant.
Nope, it ain’t. Perhaps you misunderstood. It doesn’t matter whether the war happened because of this that or the other and it doesn’t matter if it didn’t happen because of this, that or the other as well. Logic bifurcation. It does not matter, either way, not that it does not matter because it is one way or another.
But in a court of law “we” would go to jail as conspirators.
If you’re up against the ACLU, sure. But the ACLU is not going to live to see the utopia that they are killing for.
You are naive of world history. Neo has said she is ignorant of a detailed study of world history. I don’t remember recalling saying that I was the same way. Don’t mistake agreement with systemic systems conglomeration.
Why know history when you can shape it? Since you’re shaping it, I don’t understand why you care whether anyone is ignorant of it or not.
You’ve obviously been confused long before this.
Ahh, you misunderstood. I was not confused by your words, I was simply concerned for some in the audience that might have been. Confused people are not amenable to propaganda, and I was just trying to help ya out. You lose control of people and their emotions when they become confused, you have make it simple like. Bush lied, people died. Blood for Oil. Simple logical syllogisms, one leading to another. Stop confusing people, your stuff is too complex.
And that’s precisely what happened
Not even you could air brush the Cold War away. Although with enough resources, I could make the Holocaust and the gulags go away.
although the Russian’s didn’t go down as fast as some of us had hoped for, amiracle they survived really.
That might have had something to do with the fact that Roosevelt was buddy buddy with Stalin, and didn’t stop the armament shipments to Russia, which allowed Russia to win. A miracle, ha, pardon me while I chuckle.
this type of “macht politik” has been around for a few thousand years, where have you been?
Oh, I was studying human politics, in the other thousand years. Which was a different era than you were studying, btw.
Way too much has been swept under the rug. ..And I wonder why
Like I said before, it just don’t matter. It is good decoration, so we don’t bother to sweep it under the rug. That’s too much work, much better to just leave it out in the open. Besides, it might disappear if we don’t pay it any attention. Either way, nobody cares, nobody should care, and everyone should treat it as a religious pile of dust and give a prayer or 5.
My prayers are basically.
I thank the Marines, the Sailors, and the Soldiers who fought at Tarawa, Wake Island, Leyte Gulf, and Saipan. They did what was thought to be impossible if not suicidal. One destroyer took on battleships and cruisers, to do their duty and protect the escort carriers that was all that was available to protect the Marine Invasion of Saipan. Weaving in and out, zig zagging against the 18 inch guns, the 16 inch guns, and the 14 inch guns of the battleships and cruisers. The Johnston and her sister destroyers, did not survive, but they did their duty. Sinking an enemy cruiser, drawing fire from the escort carriers that were too slow to get away, onto their own tin-can hulls and their 5 inch guns.
Perhaps this is not the world history most Americans or international citizens know about. But it is far more important in the end, and its important is due at least to the fact that this is not something you can erase. Since it lives in the souls and the hearts of men.
There are those who might blame Kincaid for not communicating with Halsey, therefore allowing the Japanese Center Force of “an extremely large Japanese Task Force consisting of 4 battleships, 8 cruisers and 11 destroyers heading straight for TAFFY III”. Taffy III, was of course the TU the USS Johnston was apart of. A ship determined to fight against her betters, the ships of the line in the enemy fleet. There are others who would say that the US fleet got what they asked for, after Halsey took the Japanese bait.
But then there are people who recognize the eternal attributes of history, attributes that cannot and will not be erased. They will not go quietly into the night, as people in the 21st century distort their achievements and place stains upon their honor.
“On 25 October 1944, TASK UNIT 77.4.3, nicknamed “TAFFY III” was cruising some forty or fifty miles east of the Island of Samar, Philippine Islands;
TAFFY III consisted of six baby flattops, USS FANSHAW BAY CVE 70 (Flagship) , USS GAMBIER BAY, CVE 73, USS KALININ BAY CVE 68, USS KITKUN BAY CVE 71, USS SAINT LO CVE 63 and USS WHITE PLAINS CVE 66.
These small carriers were being screened by 3 destroyers and 4 destroyer escorts. The three destroyers were; USS HEERMANN DD 532, USS HOEL DD 533 and USS JOHNSTON DD 557. The four destroyer escorts were; USS JOHN C. BUTLER DE 339, USS DENNIS DE 405, USS RAYMOND DE 341 and USS SAMUEL B. ROBERTS DE 413.”
Some might think “Prescott Bush” or “Von Schroeder” banks are the eternal history of the United States. But they are not, they are nothing but drift and chaff compared to the real heart and soul of this nation’s history.
Let no one forget the human spirit and will required for less than a dozen destroyers to take on 4 battleships, 8 cruisers, and 11 destroyers. Where one 18 inch gun turret outweighs a Fletcher class destroyer. They are the power, the glory, and the backbone of this nation.
Let the historians rewrite past events, future events will still require the same spirit and the same determination, that will never change regardless of whose propaganda is believed.
Anon – I should have been more specific. I was referring to the CPUSA’s sudden shift to an anti-war position as a result of the Hitler-Stalin pact. I cannot honestly say how many on “the left” were actually influenced by the policy change. Most, I imagine, were just confused.
There’s a good summary of this issue in the Encyclopedia of the American Left at http://www.marxists.org/history/usa/parties/cpusa/encyclopedia-american-left.htm. Round about paragraph 29, believe. Straight from the horse’s mouth.
Fact checking is good. I still don’t believe the conspircy theory, though…
How do we know if we have been penetrated?
When you start reading websites like the one at the bottom and agreeing with it.
Psychological operations focus on destroying a person’s beliefs and his soul, not in actually killing him. To destroy a patriot requires him to hate his country and to feel guilty for his nation’s actions, while adding a heap of helplessness and the accussation that they can’t do anything about it.
You can’t understand psychology without understanding the destruction of a person
But like all good conspiracy theories it has a kernel of truth.
true, like all good propaganda, it is based upon some truth.
But like all good conspiracy theories it has a kernel of truth. There are all sorts of reasons why the West collectively failed to stand up to Hitler – the treaty of Versailles was massively unjust, German minorities around Europe did feel that they would be better off in Germany, and there certainly was a sentiment that although Hitler was pretty awful at least he was realiably anti-communist, so he wouldn’t be making common cause with the USSR. But there is a big difference between the West not having done all it could to stop Hitler and the West being responsible for Hitler.
As to the Communist Party of the USA and the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact Anon asked for link. Wikipedia says:
“Signing of a pact with Hitler meant that the CPUSA turned its focus from anti-fascism to advocacy of peace. The CPUSA even went so far as to accuse Winston Churchill and Roosevelt of provoking aggression against Hitler and denouncing the Polish government as fascist after the German and Soviet invasion.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/
Sure wikipedia is unreliable, but it’s an easy source to find and I’m lazy. There is all sorts of evidence about the abrupt change in CPUSA policy at that time. All sorts of people left the communist party at that time, and there are all sorts of sources that will demonstrate that the CPUSA did nothing to oppose Hitler between 1939 and 1941.
I havent read anything yet by Anon that makes a convincing argument that the US “conspired” to put Hitler in power. If thats what he’s trying to imply.
There were Americans in the late 30’s who were sympathetic to Hitlers goals and admired him for bringing Germany’s economy around, and some today who felt the victors of WW1 were responsible for creating the conditions for which Hitler arose, but for me this is a stretch to conclude the US was complicit brining Hitler to power.
I certainly dont believe anyone in US government at that time purposely looked for a divide & conquor oppurtunity between Germany & the USSR.
Thats a silly conspiracy theory.
Anon is a person eaten up by hate—hate for his own country, and the people in it. If he’d gone to Russia in the 1920’s, I’m sure he would have been gurgling about how wonderful the new Soviet State was, no matter how many dead bodies he saw.
People like Anonymouse are sad, but they can also be quite dangerous if they ever get some power, and start putting their ideas into action.
(And of course the real reason they hate the US is not because of its supposed atrocities, but because it stands in the way of their Utiopian dream of an all-powerful society, where people like Anonymous can rule the rest of us, and map out our lives for us.)
I once suggested to Anon that he find some other country to live in, but, of course, even there, he wouldn’t be happy.
Anon, with his conspiratorial anti-America historical theories, represents the attitude all too commonplace these days of holding the US responsible for every murder committed by every notably bloodthirsty personage of recent history. Anon’s type usually have this in common: America is variously & vehemently described as somehow ‘creating’ the likes of Hitler, Stalin, Saddam, Ho Chi Minh, Pol Pot, Castro & even bin Laden. None of these murderers, according to the Anons of the world, have had any will or mind of their own, but rather have been lured, Pied Piper-like, by the US into their careers of infamous carnage.
Anons never consider all the facts & draw conclusions based on the weight of evidence. Pick & choose is the main technique of choice but misrepresentation comes a close second: They will peruse some innocuous tome & read something ominous into the most insignificant or coincidental of scraps, completely misreading the author’s intent & the main points of the book — witness our Anon’s farfetched ideas about the contents of the Turner book – a book that he first offers as proof of his theories & then trashes when it is revealed that the book’s conclusions differ from his rather odd historical fantasies.
Anons love to formulate conspiracies, especially regarding the US & Jews. Over the years I’ve found that many times they are avid fans of something called The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, supposedly a text of a plan for Jewish world domination, even though it has been thoroughly debunked as fake. Whether our Anon bites on the Protocols I don’t know but if I were forced to bet I would say not. No, the gist of this Anon’s particular daffy theory, paraphrased, seems to go thusly: By opposing communism, communist leaders & communist aims the US & other countries ‘created’ Hitler & caused Hitler to perform the Holocaust & other murders. Pure delusion.
Once the type is learned, Anons are easy to spot. Take Anon’s method of comment, which is to link together an assortment of half-truths, insignificant, unrelated or coincidental facts, frequently invented out of thin air with minimum or no attribution, such as the mysterious “documentary” about Hollywood & utter misinterpretations, such as the crux of the Turner book, into a quirky, complicated non sequitur that would require days of research to completely refute — it’s a method I’ve seen duplicated by other Anons on this blog & elsewhere.
Sometimes Anons are ludicrously misinformed, as in Anon’s statement: Or was there no western perceived threat of communism then? A most ridiculous assumption.
Anon needs to review the history of the American Communists of the 1920 & 30s. Anon forgets, or perhaps didn’t know, that every lefty in the pre-WW2 Western world traveled breathlessly to Stalin’s Russia, were given the tour & upon return to their countries extolled Stalin’s regime to all who would listen. This, when millions of Russians were starving because of Stalin’s idiotic domestic farming & economic policies. The West didn’t wake up to the threat Stalin represented to the world until he began gobbling up Europe after the war.
Grackle said::
“By a careful examination of the records of all of the major German corporations and of the Nazi Party, Turner[the author] established that the bulk of Nazi funds prior to 1933 came from ordinary Germans and that the political parties patronized by[German] big business, in order of greatest to smallest, were the German People’s Party, the German Nationals People’s Party, the Catholic Center Party; the Nazis were last.”
By examining “German records”? Do you think that the U.S. might have destroyed any records lying around after the occupation? Fortunately international Newspaper articles from the day, and U.S. congressional testimony could not be destroyed, and will ask you to check that trail
instead. Lots has been written about Nazi financing, perhaps you’ll investigate further?
Turner’s book is just what it is, “Thirty Days To Power”, January 1933, how the Nazi’s suprisingly gained power after their political obituary had already been written. It is not a work on the financing of Hitler, nor is it intended to be.
If you had read Turner’s book you may have noticed that in the first half Turner trashes von Papen for being a bumbling, champagne drinking, aristocratic, political novice, then in the second half somehow portrays him as the hardened, consumat political shark, with out offering any explanation how or why. I had always seen that as contridictory.
Stranegly, as few had probably ever heard of the Cologne meeting, the birth hour of the Third Reich, I mentioned Turner’s book as an introduction to it, not as a diffinitive work on all aspects of W.W.II.
As for “dumb luck”, Turner writes in his conclusion that Hitler’s “luck” was: von Papen “just happened” to meet von Schroeder in Berlin’s Herren Klub, somehow unaware that both knew each other well, and von Schroeders elite clique had been petioning Hindenburg to name Hitler Chancellor for already a year. “Dumb luck”? In Von Papen’s on words: “We bought him (Hitler)”.
“Again, the book actually advances a theory the opposite of what Anon contends. “Dumb luck” gained Hitler his power — not an influx of money from corporations — German, American or otherwise.”
Again, the book is not an academic work on the financing of Hitler’s Germany, rather a chronology of January 1933. If thats Turner’s or anyone’s elses opinion I don’t agree with it.
Ymarsakar said:
“I think patriotic Americans have to realize that you’re being taken advantage of. Your natural disgust of Hitler is being made to penetrate your psychological barriers, and lead you into a certain line of thought and argument. The tone is pretty consistent.”
We’re talking about Germany, 1918-45, not about me. Any imformation other then a shallow Fox News commentary?
“The truth is that it doesn’t matter if America supported Hitler or not. It really doesn’t.”
My position is, without “our” financial and political support Hitler’s army or air force couldn’t get off the ground. No money, no war. It’s simple, and quite relevant.
“We’re not the murderers here.”
But in a court of law “we” would go to jail as conspirators.
“We don’t support fascism or socialism or marxism, we end it.”
American’s love to start a story at the end, don’t they.
“Heh, you see my fellow Neo Cons? “Our interests”, as if our interests were to help Stalin and his communists fight the Nazis AND have the Nazis fight the communists. The point is so entangled, in the web we weave when we first practice to deceive.”
You are naive of world history.
“Some people are so confused over their concentration on anti-Americanism that they can’t even figure out which side we are on in a conflict, and so they think we are on ALL sides.”
You didn’t see McFarland get of the plane in Tehran with a birthday cake for Khomenei and a plane full of weapons? Again, read the congressional record. ..Can you read?
“Stop confusing people.”
You’ve obviously been confused long before this.
“Oh, quite indeedy, it is a ridiculous assumption that the Americans are for Hitler and against communism, in which we armed boths sides of the conflict.”
That’s right, and after they destroy each other “we” fill the vacuum and take over. And that’s precisely what happened, although the Russian’s didn’t go down as fast as some of us had hoped for, amiracle they survived really. At any rate, this type of “macht politik” has been around for a few thousand years, where have you been? This alone isn’t proof of what I’m saying, I’m only asking that people take a closer look, and with an open mind. Way too much has been swept under the rug. ..And I wonder why
ymarskar is on to something when he speaks of “penetating your psychological barriers”. How do we know if we have been penetrated?
You know, something I’ve come to realise is that many do not really like freedom. They like the ability to do what they want, but not for me to do what I want (which isn’t freedom). They want to control.
Take for instance the above America supported Hitler – lets even assume that the facts as presented are true. Is that “America”? How can you even claim that corperations that are free to do business as they wish are “America”? – our govt and the general populace detested Hitler – I can not fathom how you can see anything else.
This tends to be a common theme. How many want to outlaw this, outlaw that, outlaw most of what they don’t agree with. Or complain about things that are part of freedom.
What does someone in California care if someone in Tennesse deer hunts, or why does someone in Tennessee care if someone in California smokes a joint? If Yahoo wants to go to bed the the communist dictator in China – more power too them, just another reason for me to never see them again.
But, that is freedom. It’s hard to deal with because someone will choose a path we don’t like. Though I rather suspect that if Annon had thier implied path (I generally think this type of argument is more of an “anti” rant and not really thought about further than that) that they would be MUCH less happy than they are now.
Reading the Federalist Papers by our Founding Fathers I am continually impressed by how much they actually wanted *freedom* – the athiest didn’t care that the Christians cited God and up to some pretty major things. Now, if they had outlawed slavery (about as anti-freedom a concept as you can get) they would have been my real heros, though many did actually understand it but couldn’t get it passed.
As to the “why”, which you say has not been addressed here, I’ll offer the same answer I’ve read “everyone” who supported Hitler give: He was anti-communist. And let your imagination, for now, wander.
I think patriotic Americans have to realize that you’re being taken advantage of. Your natural disgust of Hitler is being made to penetrate your psychological barriers, and lead you into a certain line of thought and argument. The tone is pretty consistent.
The truth is that it doesn’t matter if America supported Hitler or not. It really doesn’t. Just as it no longer matters how many weapons and money we shipped to Stalin to equip his death squads, his central starvation committees, and his gulag special police. The worse thing the communists, socialists, and anti-American fascists (David Duke) can accuse the United States of, is being an adult and taking care of our own messes. Americans aren’t free loaders, socialists and communists are. Perhaps they believe Americans can be made to feel guilty about true or made up evidence of “Schroeder” and “prescott bush” support for Hitler, because they hate Hitler so much for betraying them, but I and probably others don’t really give a damn.
We’re not the murderers here. We don’t support fascism or socialism or marxism, we end it. And perhaps that is the point. Everyone else that is against America wants to start something up, but we are the ones who have ended world conflict time and time again. Not without cost, blood and sacrifice. But neither did we shirk from our duty and paying our debts.
Some Americans may feel guilty, but then if the socialists want to feel guilty for empowering Hitler and communists want to feel guilty for siding with Hitler and then getting stabbed in the kidneys, they can be my guest. I don’t really care what they think they are guilty of or not. Their attempts to spread the guilt and the responsibility to other people, are pretty transparent. They accuse anyone that doesn’t place importance on this “blood guilt” they manufacture, of being Hitler apologists. And perhaps we are Hitler apologists, along with Stalin apologists, but at least be a little bit balanced. If you want to blame America for your purported “Prescott Bush” connections, then blame America for our Stalin and Gulag connections as well. That’s nothing too onerous to do, now is it. All I ask is a bit of a balanced propaganda.
Too bad we didn’t kill Stalin when we got him in a meeting, might have saved a lot of innocent gulag people. But perhaps the gulags don’t matter to some people, only Nazi camps do.
Here’s the collective guilt again. “Not only the US”, as if we share the blood guilt of a bunch of vatican euro diplomats.
Misery loves company.
The way I see it, there are too many
naive people who refuse to take responsibilty for what Americans (and other beloved western “civil” societies) have done, or allow to happen to serve our interests. You appear to be one of them.
Heh, you see my fellow Neo Cons? “Our interests”, as if our interests were to help Stalin and his communists fight the Nazis AND have the Nazis fight the communists. The point is so entangled, in the web we weave when we first practice to deceive.
America armed both sides in the Iran-Iraq war, Al Quaeda, Saddam, and a mirade of other anti-communist goons.
Some people are so confused over their concentration on anti-Americanism that they can’t even figure out which side we are on in a conflict, and so they think we are on ALL sides. Dudes, we are not Kerry, we don’t do the “voted for it before I voted against it before I did it when I didn’t do it”. Stop confusing people.
Or was there no western percieved threat of communism then? A most ridiculous assumption.
Oh, quite indeedy, it is a ridiculous assumption that the Americans are for Hitler and against communism, in which we armed boths sides of the conflict.
Some people don’t even read history anymore. Or maybe they do, but never took logic 101 and somehow fell into the pit of bad reasoning.
Btw,
Grackle’s link.
Grackle Link1
Link 2
To the readers: My embedded links for my quoted sources don’t seem to work, so I’ll list them in their entirety:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Ashby_Turner
http://www.johnreilly.info/htdtp.htm
Anonymous claims: International (and of course German) money financed the Nazi Party from it’s inception, and although varied at times, continued until the war began.
According to a review of the book(Hitler’s thirty days to power : January 1933 ) used by Anon to bolster his argument:, “By a careful examination of the records of all of the major German corporations and of the Nazi Party, Turner[the author] established that the bulk of Nazi funds prior to 1933 came from ordinary Germans and that the political parties patronized by[German] big business, in order of greatest to smallest, were the German People’s Party, the German Nationals People’s Party, the Catholic Center Party; the Nazis were last.”
This is exactly the opposite of what Anon claims the book says.
Another reviewer writes: “By examining the negotiations that led to the fateful swearing-in ceremony in President Paul von Hindenburg’s office, Turner purports to show that the advent of the Nazis to power was in fact largely a matter of dumb luck.”
Again, the book actually advances a theory the opposite of what Anon contends. “Dumb luck” gained Hitler his power — not an influx of money from corporations — German, American or otherwise.
To Grackle:
“Some people will go to ridiculous lengths to try to find some way that the US is responsible for anything bad that has happened in history”
Some people will go to ridiculous lengths to ignore history to find some way “America” had nothing to do with Hitler.
“the “terrain” has been explored ad infinitum(care to guess how many books on Hitler have been written?) & guess what — NOTHING was there — it was an empty landscape.”
The empty landscape is between your ears.
To SB:
“Let’s not forget that most American communists and others on the left vocally opposed US involvement in the war against Hitler – until he invaded the Soviet Union.”
The American Communist Party was always anti-facist, anti-Franco and anti-Hitler, and felt betrayed by the Hitler-Stalin pact, as many did (those that didn’t appreciate the international chess game going on around them anyway). If you have some sources otherwise please post them.
My point of all this? If you’re going to lie in bed with someone like Hitler, don’t complain you got f—ed.
David S. Wyman wrote Paper Walls about the abandonment of the Jews by the American bureaucracy (Full disclosure: I am David N. Wyman, no relation, but have a fondness for the guy). It is no hit job, and Wyman — a credentialed historian and widely recognized as the authority on this topic — gives due weight to complexity, conflicting information, and offsetting interests. His ultimate conclusion was that we were armed with sufficient information to do more, but did not for a variety of reasons: some highly placed officials were anti-Semitic and buried info, some refused to believe, some believed but felt a speedy end to the war was the best response, etc. The real answers, as usual were complicated.
Elie Wiesel is not the only writer who recounts how the Jews themselves failed to understand what was in front of them, even in the ghettoes, even on the trains, even in line entering the work camps, in sight of the oven chimneys.
The German populace is not the main issue. There were fewer Jews in Germany than in Poland, Czechoslovakia, Ukraine, and Hungary. The eastern border of Germany on into Poland, and the area south of this, is where most Jews were killed. The Good Old Days, edited by Klee, Dressen, and Riess, uses contemporary documents to show how many people actually were aware of persecutions and killing of Jews. Few were aware of the widespread nature of the crimes, but many were aware that thugs and soldiers were executing Jews in their area.
As to David Irving, it is a personality characteristic of con men that they reach farther and farther. Each risk that they weather convinces them of their invulnerability. Also, such people usually do uncover a few facts that are unacknowledged by the experts, and buoy their self-righteousness by focussing on these. It is not surprizing that charlatans show up in historical research. Have we not seen religious figures building entire movements off a few stray facts? Isn’t alternative medicine littered with folks who have seized on two facts and a plausible theory? I have certainly seen fads come and go in psychology, all purporting to be The Next Big Thing. There is no reason why history would be exempt from similar abuses.
A clever person with skewed logic and determination can go a long way before being brought to bay. The comparison to the blogosphere and journalism is only partially apt. The MSM, after years of arrogant complacency, present a great deal of low-hanging fruit at present. How well the alternative media will do in the future as the culled and improved stock of the MSM move forward remains to be seen.
If you water a tree don’t complain you’re standing in it’s shadow. And don’t say you didn’t have anything to do with it.
To Neo-neocon:
..”the question has even been asked and (very partially) answered on this very blog (at least, the how part of it, although not the why), here.”
Checked your link, but it left out that the secret “back room meeting” and intrigue between von Papen and Hitler, what German historians call the the birth hour of the Third Reich, took place in the Cologne Villa of Baron Kurt von Schroeder, from the Schroeder Banking family, today the worlds largest private bank. Officers of this bank in New York at the time were Allen Dulles and Prescott Bush.
“Thirty Days To Power” by Turner, Cambridge University Press, gives a play by play on this little known yet vital piece of history, “The Ké¶lner Treff”, the Cologne meeting, January 4, 1933. It was, by the way, supposed to be a secret, and although “forgotten” by many “historians and responsible journalists”, caused quite a stir in Germany (and communist Russia) at the time, and was worthy enough to be reported in the English and American press as well.
As a side note, Hjalmar Horace Greeley Schacht, Hitler’s finace minister, was American, his father a Wall Street investment banker (of German ancertry of course). Hjalmar was God-father of Montague Norman’s kids, England’s Central Banker, and Montague God-father of Hjalmar’s kids.
As to the “why”, which you say has not been addressed here, I’ll offer the same answer I’ve read “everyone” who supported Hitler give: He was anti-communist. And let your imagination, for now, wander.
Assusming this discussion will continue allow me to summarise my position quickly: International (and of course German) money financed the Nazi Party from it’s inception, and although varied at times, continued until the war began. Profits from some of the 400 American companies doing business in Nazi Germany (U.S. Ambassador Dodds estimate) were not allowed to be tranferred out, thus helping finance Nazi Germany’s international balance of payments, and pay for it’s war machine. During the war international money came into Germany through the Bank of International Settlements. Even oil and industrial goods came into Nazi Germany, during the war, clandestinly from U.S. sources.
Patents and technological transfers should also be taken into account.
Perhaps more important then monetary financing, political financing should also be considered, not what “we” did (America, England, France), rather what “we” didn’t do, namely use the many opportunities to stop Hitler in his tracks.
My point in all this is, “if you water a tree don’t complain you’re standing in it’s shadow.”
“What is also quite an interesting question is why a person would want to ascribe it to the US.”
Not only the U.S., rather the pillars of western society that felt threatened by communism, England, France, the Vatican and others.
“..He certainly had his defenders here (Lindbergh, for example, at least early on), but they were not a large factor in his rise.”
The “western” industrial, financial, religious community were not large in numbers, rather large in influence, and by the above statement, more then you seem to realise. Isolationist artricles and opinion in the U.S. press were sometimes even traced back to the German embassy in Washington. Like today the world industrial and financial communities were closely intertwined, and defending mutual interets, foremost among them, trade and anti-communism.
As a side note, I just saw an interesting documentary on how the U.S. government pressured Hollywood (primarily Jewish producers) to abstain from producing anti-German films, no easy task, yet succeded. The first did not appear until 1939 or ’40 I believe. Of course once the war started for us, coincidently after the German attack on Russia failed and Pearl Harbor a few months later, Hollywood was then encouraged and financed to churn anti-German movies.
“There are those, however, who prefer reductionist US-is-to=blame-for-everything-bad-in-history conspiracy theories to looking for the truth.”
The way I see it, there are too many
naive people who refuse to take responsibilty for what Americans (and other beloved western “civil” societies) have done, or allow to happen to serve our interests. You appear to be one of them.
Don’t be so naive as to to think that powerful elements in England, France and America, the cornerstones of western society, were going to sit back in such heady times as the 1920’s and ’30’s and let Germany turn communist without exerting any influence what-so-ever. Or that it wouldn’t suit “our” interests just fine to sit back and watch Russia and Germany slaughter each other. Or what, do you believe “we’re” above such international behaviour? If recent history is a reminder, America armed both sides in the Iran-Iraq war, Al Quaeda, Saddam, and a mirade of other anti-communist goons.
I’m speaking of power politics in the real world, something you don’t seem to be aware of.
If Germany was used by the west as a bulwark against communism after W.W.II, could it not have been used as a bulwark against communism before W.W.II? Or was there no western percieved threat of communism then? A most ridiculous assumption.
Neo, thanks for the link. I don’t doubt that German society was rabidly anti-Semitic, as were(& are) many other peoples throughout the world. Also, I assume that those Germans who needed to know(various government officials & camp guards) about the wholesale murders knew pretty much what was going on, that those who couldn’t help but know(various nearby villagers & workers) knew & that probably some Germans who had learned through other means, such as perhaps from those few talkative members of the first two groups, knew — but that is a far cry from the contention that German society at large had common knowledge of the organized carnage in the camps with the gas chambers.
There was a climate of fear among the Germans themselves — one did not speak out against the Nazis if one wanted to survive. Jews being persecuted in Germany? Sure, the average German citizen probably knew that but the mere fact of Jewish persecution would hardly be historically surprising to the German(or Frenchman, Austrian, Pole, Brit, American, etc.) of that(or this) era, considering that anti-Semitism leading to persecution of Jews, many times unto death, has been a widespread phenomenon rampant over many centuries. Jews being identified, rounded up & transported to camps? Sure, along with other groups.
We must realize that many of the avenues for information that exist now were either attenuated in comparison to the current situation or did not exist at all — ubiquitous television news coverage & the internet come immediately to mind. Whistle-blowers seem to have been rare & to have had less opportunity, compared to the contemporary crop. Once again, for me, awareness of Jewish persecution is quite a different thing than knowing about the Holocaust.
And too, so many are on record as having been surprised(& horrified) upon finding out about the gas chambers & ovens. The Jews themselves who, as the victims, would surely have had more than an inkling & Eisenhower who, as Supreme Commander, would likely have been given a heads up to be on the lookout for the death camps are a couple of quick examples.
Finally, I am very suspicious of the validity of the treatment of certain subjects by historians writing in the post-Vietnam War era. The tendency among so many of them is to invent history to suit their University-inculcated anti-American viewpoint. Even historians with no axe to grind(there must be a few) have to be at least somewhat affected by this all too prevalent tendency among our intellectual class. I’ll readily admit that culpability for the Holocaust has become “a question of some controversy” in recent years but wonder why it was never a source of contention for 20 to 30 years after the war — ample enough time, I think, for the issue to have surfaced, been fully explored & exact blame assigned.
david irving is at focal point
there is revisionist history and there is radioactive history. This question will not be asked until the next century. What happened to the gas chambers?
grackle, et. al – Sorry if I gave the impression that I think the US knew all about the Holocaust but chose to ignore it. That was not my intention.
What I meant was, the US and other Western powers bent over backward to avoid another World War by studiously maintaining “normal” relations with Germany long after it became obvious that Germany was a dangerous, aggressive power. The fact is, there wasn’t much the US could have done anyway given the state of our military and the isolationist atmosphere that prevailed at the time.
As to the Holocaust – Hitler’s policies regarding the Jews were plainly stated in Mein Kampf, elaborated in speeches by him and Goebbels, and freely disseminated by the Nazi-controlled media. In addition, there was no shortage of Jewish refugees to bring us the news that the Nazis were, indeed, implementing those policies. This information was offset by Nazi propaganda about their “generous” emigration policies and country-club-like “relocation camps” specially built for Jews. Under these circumstances, I think the public on both sides of the Atlantic was content to give the Germans the benefit of the doubt and do nothing to antagonize them – if only it would keep the peace.
What I do *not* believe is that there was some high-level conspiracy to ignore the fate of the Jews and support the Nazis so they could fight a proxy battle against the Communists (which seemed to be anonymous’ point). If that had been our intention, then why did we later spend millions on aid for the Soviets after the German invasion? Not to mention the thousands of lives lost running convoys of lend-lease materiel through the wolfpacks.
In a perfect world, we would have stopped Hitler and saved millions of Jews. But then, as now, the situation was complex, uncertain, and frightening. Leaders made wise or foolish decisions depending on their abilities and the information they had available. And sometimes, even if they clearly saw what the “right” decision should be, they had to settle for “good enough” because that was the best the circumstances would allow.
No one has to distort facts to propagandize and mislead. ALl they have to do is to report all the news that is fit to print, and not report the news that isn’t fit to print. If this happens to leave the audience befuddled, brainwashed, and ignorant, then a “fact checker” isn’t going to really help anyone out.
In 1930 and 1950, people tend to forget that they did not have the tele-communications network that we have today. People still exchanged news through letters, primarily as personal correspondence. And wire taps, wire networks, morse code, those were the forms information traveled across seas. A concentration guard or a witness, just couldn’t get access to the technology and spread the information to someone else in the world. There were no whistle blowers, cause they would die before anyone would ever hear of them.
It was not technologically possible for the majority of Germans to know about the concentration camps. The West didn’t believe Hitler was serious when he wrote Mein Kampf outlining his intentions of world domination and racial purification, why should a patriotic German believe the worst propaganda about his own nation and government?
It was only 4 years of war. In that time there were no luxury or leisure hours to prowl the internet, debate, or discuss the facts and non-facts of the Jews and Hitler.
Therefore when someone says that more Germans knew about it than was previously thought to be, doesn’t really matter in the moral scale. Cause the numbers are only statistically higher. It was not enough to produce historical change. Hitler knew how to control human nature, and human nature doesn’t change whether you control 1 million or 100 million.
“That his rise to power, and thus responsibility for the holocaust, might just lie with “us””
It lies with “you”, not with “us”. If you feel guilty, good for you. Others don’t.
After all, anti-communism was the defining theme of the 20th Century.
Anyone who knows history as it should be known, understands that the theme in the 20th was humanity and unintended consequences. Not “anti-communism”.
Why shouldn’t it apply to Germany?
You don’t know how it applies to Germany cause you don’t know what happened in Germany, why it happened, and how to stop it if it happened again. So why shouldn’t you apply it to Germany?
And why do “you” feel so threatened by me raising these legitimate questions?
I produce answers, not questions. Since you’re not providing the answers, there’s no reason why you can’t accept the answers we have already provided.
Germany is a pacifistic French nation of enslaved sex prostitutes, Alles in Ordnung polizei, and weak/corrupt politicians. Americans have nothing to fear from the Germans, because we made sure they would never be our enemies again, ever. Nor do we fear what the Germans have done, are doing, or may do in the future. That solution required an understanding of human nature, it is a solution that your “questions” do not provide.
As I mentioned before in other threads, if people think we’ve created something bad, then we can just as easily destroy our creations. Therefore if you follow the logic, if we can’t destroy something easily or immediately, then we never created it in the first place. Which should satisfy their need to ask “questions” that require “answers”. Which in the end, settles the balance of account. There are two rational distortions adhere to concerning the logic of US-Hitler alliances. Which is, the US is guilty and this is something we fear on a moral scale, because it was not us, but the Russians that won WWII. Wow, I never did think that was a historical and humanistic analysis.
It doesn’t matter if people who make accussations that the US or the fracking weak Euro West they think the US is part of, has some responsibility for the dictators in the world. It doesn’t matter. Because if what they say is true, then we have destroyed what we created, and therefore our debits and credits balance out. If what they say is not true, then we have destroyed Evil when Evil was created by communists and other thugs, which puts us in the Black, not the Red.
So, people that feel guilt, should feel guilt. But there’s no guilt for America, no stain of dishonor, no debt unpaid, and sure as heck no threat of bankruptcy, moral or otherwise.
We’ve paid off our debts. Europe, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Japan have not. We’re debt free, baby, for once in 100 years.
neo and Anon 7:35
The how of Hitler’s rise, as neo point out, has been documented in many books (incl. the latest works of Ian Kershaw and Evans.)
Anon seems to be asking for the “why” of the Holocaust in “civilized” Germany.
1.Primo Levi asked a guard at Auschwitz “why?” The guard replied: “Hier gibt es kein warum.” {“There’s no why here.”) And yet…
2. To get pieces of an ‘answer’, start earlier:
Read Thomas Mann’s 1918 essay “Betrachtungen eines Unpolitischen,” transl as “Reflections of a Non-Political Man.” He draws the distinction between “civilization” (as in France, UK, going back to the Enlightenment) and “culture,” (as in Germany and Russia, rooted in darker and irrational forces.)
To see how some of these forces played out in Hitler’s life, and ultimately in Germany, read: “Hitler’s Vienna: A Dictator’s Apprenticeship” by Brigitte Hamann.
There’s more, but those should make a good start.
If you just want the “how” of the Holocaust. look at Christopher Browning’s “Origins of the Final Solution.”
Neo:
Don’t forget the funding by Rothschild in Hitler’s government as well as by other investors.
Most people are absolutely clueless about the desperate times in Germany and how Hitler was being funded for his campaign contribution.
Bankers helped him to stop the spread of communism, only to become a greater threat to the world.
anonymus 7:35 AM:
Not only has the question of how and why Hitler came to power been asked again and again by historians, journalists, and others, but many answers have been given. Not only that, but the question has even been asked and (very partially) answered on this very blog (at least, the how part of it, although not the why), here.
What is also quite an interesting question is why a person would want to ascribe it to the US. Hitler rose to power mainly because of a combination of his own luck and strategic maneuvering through internal German politics of the late 20s and early 30s (see my post), economic and social conditions in post-WWI Germany (including effects of the Treaty of Versailles), and certain other tendencies in German society and history, including the psychological and anti-Semitic. He certainly had his defenders here (Lindbergh, for example, at least early on), but they were not a large factor in his rise.
There are those, however, who prefer reductionist US-is-to=blame-for-everything-bad-in-history conspiracy theories to looking for the truth.
grackle: It’s actually a question of some controversy as to how large a percentage of Germans knew about the death camps. Writers such as Goldhagen, for example, maintain that far more Germans knew what was happening than was previously thought. Goldhagen’s Hitler’s Willing Executioners is an example of another very controversial history book, by the way. If you study the above link to the Amazon listing for Goldhagen’s book, you’ll see references to other books related to the same question that are part of the ongoing debate on the topic of how much the “ordinary” German of the time knew.
David Irving should be hounded to produce his sources. It is a duty of the academic to do so.
He should not be in jail for his beliefs, or for trying to prove them.
This whole topic is ambivalent to me, because like Irving I’m a historian who has chosen not to travel the academic route. I have watched intelligent people jump through the graduate school and doctorate hoops and seen what an awful mess it can make of a basic sound mind.
Some great work in history-writing has been done by outsiders — Shelby Foote comes to mind. And though I’ve never been to graduate school, I’ve uncovered certain very minor but interesting patterns and facts in U.S. history simply by applying puzzle-solving skills to problems no one else had bothered to examine closely. I’ve been gratified to see my research then picked up by some of the “big names,” who did bother to check my sources.
One problem, I think, is that so much of the training in “history” once you get past college is really training in “historiography.” You spend so much time studying what others have written and learning the coded speech and the ideological foundations, and you spend far too little time with original material, and even less time learning how human beings really live.
That’s why an unscrupulous outsider can come in and scam the profession. If you’ve spent eight years exclusively reading other historians, you’re not going to know another language. Or you’re not going to know anything about economics. Or what it’s like to be shot at. And yet as a historian you’re going to have to write about such things sooner or later, and you’ll be secretly ashamed that you know so little.
The overriding fear at the time, however, was that any aggressive action to stop the Nazis would precipitate another World War. That trumped most other concerns, including – unfortunately – stopping what the Nazis were doing to the Jews.
SB, read a history book or two. If you do you will find that only a few people in Germany knew about the Holocaust until the camps & gas chambers were discovered near the end of the war by Allied soldiers. Your statement implies that the Allies knew about the Holocaust but were more concerned about the possibility of war with Hitler if they interfered with his murders. That is simply not true.
Anon – Nobody feels threatened. It’s no secret that the US government and those of other countries recognized the Nazi government of Germany and maintained diplomatic and economic relations with it. Nazi sympathizers among the European and American elites are well-documented. (Ever heard of Charles Lindbergh?) If you look at it that way, then yes, the West did enable Hitler and, by extension, the Holocaust.
Fear of communism was certainly a major motivation for this spineless behavior – especially among wealthy industrialists in the US and elsewhere. The overriding fear at the time, however, was that any aggressive action to stop the Nazis would precipitate another World War. That trumped most other concerns, including – unfortunately – stopping what the Nazis were doing to the Jews.
Let’s not forget that most American communists and others on the left vocally opposed US involvement in the war against Hitler – until he invaded the Soviet Union. Their priority, obviously, was adhering to the party line – not preventing the Holocaust.
My point is, if *I* can relate all this stuff and professional historians know vastly more than I do about the subject, then the matter of Western culpability in the Holocaust can hardly be the sort of blockbuster that will shock us all out of our bovine complacency, can it?
So what’s your point?
P.S. – I don’t know about yours, but my intellectual jacket is “strait,” not “straight.”
Anonymous 7:35: I wonder if anyone here is willing to take off their intellectual straight-jackets and explore this “forbiden” terrain. It should be no suprise, but I’ll warn you anway, that if Germany was threatened by communism, and Hitler and the Nazi’s were anti-communist, that he may have had some powerful friends in the west. That his rise to power, and thus responsibility for the holocaust, might just lie with “us”, and the anti-communist swamp Hitler’s political life was spawned in.
Some people will go to ridiculous lengths to try to find some way that the US is responsible for anything bad that has happened in history — in this laughable case, Hitler & the Holocaust. Anon 7:35, the “terrain” has been explored ad infinitum(care to guess how many books on Hitler have been written?) & guess what — NOTHING was there — it was an empty landscape.
To Anon 7:35 there is probably no Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot or Ho Chi Minh that was not somehow caused by the US. For people like Anon 7:35 these murderers apparently have no will or mind of their own but instead were somehow made to perform their murder by the US. Threatened? No, I don’t feel threatened at all. What Anon arouses in me is a combination of amusement mixed with disgust & pity.
Anon — Google “useful idiots” & read carefully.
I think it’s ironic justice that a Holocaust denier and Nazi-snuggler was arrested by the Austrian police for his forbidden speech. Isn’t that the kind of thing he wants for us all?
In the context of history and responsible journalism, denying the holocaust is, I believe, a scandal.
Debating whether such rubbish or advocates should be censored or imprisoned or not, I agree with the opinion that our society, and it’s acceptance of all aspects of the holocaust (almost all aspects anyway) is solid enough to let such notions fly freely.
To me though a far more disturbing threat to remembering the holocaust, to history and responsible journalism, exists than “holocaust denying”, with few being aware. Namely: How it could happen in the first place.
How a great civil, industrious and religious society like Germany could end up with a kook (a homeless foreign kook at that) like Hitler? How he and his gang could come to power, and thus initiate their dreadful schemes in the first place? What sense is there to insist the holocaust happened, and that it never be forgotten, but refuse to ask the most simple of questions: How could it happen? Not how a nut like Hitler could happen, becuase there’s nuts everywhere, but how he could come to lead a country considered by some to be a cornerstone of western civilisation?
The details of Hitler’s path to power though, although well documented, are hardly ever taken into consideration. The threat of communism in Germany during and after W.W.I, also well documented, is completely ignored as well, as is Hitler’s, and the Nazi’s rabid anti-communism.
Any discussion about this most basic
historic context in which the holocaust happened is bound to be seen by some (many?) as an attempt to deny responsibility or pass the buck for the holocaust tragedy. Yet I believe it is vital to understand how it could happen, so it never happens again, so those that perished did not do so in vain.
I wonder if anyone here is willing to take off their intellectual straight-jackets and explore this “forbiden” terrain. It should be no suprise, but I’ll warn you anway, that if Germany was threatened by communism, and Hitler and the Nazi’s were anti-communist, that he may have had some powerful friends in the west. That his rise to power, and thus responsibility for the holocaust, might just lie with “us”, and the anti-communist swamp Hitler’s political life was spawned in.
I can hear the screams of “relativism”. “projection” and anti-Americanism et. al. Yet if anyone here really cares at all about the holocaust and it’s victims
you’ll calm down and start talkin’ turkey, “sans baggage”. After all, anti-communism was the defining theme of the 20th Century. Why shouldn’t it apply to Germany?
And why do “you” feel so threatened by me raising these legitimate questions?
“But his tale tells us how very fragile truth can be, if one is determined to falsify it, especially if one adopts the guise of historian (or perhaps, for that matter, journalist).”
And aren’t the palestinians and for that matter, the Islamists quite well aware of that…
“The goal is not to call attention to small, debatable points, but to gross factual errors and distortions.”-Nick B
Put together enough small debateable points that all line up the same way and you create (fabricate might be a better word) a gross factual distortion. Pursuit of the truth is hard work, but we must never tire of it, or we lose everything, we lose meaning.
I think society needs to clearly encourage the development and funding of a profession of “fact checker” — someone whose goal it is to fact check public expressions against known and reliable sources (and even back to *original* sources). Historians could readily justify such a sub-major within their profession, as could the journalists.
The position should be at least partly independent, although clearly many would also be attached to an organization wanting to check on its opponents’ utterances.
The goal is not to call attention to small, debatable points, but to gross factual errors and distortions.
Unfortunately, trust is no longer a viable option, which only leaves verify.
As neo-neocon astutely observes, one of the mottos of the blogosphere is, “we fact-check”…and if there are no extant facts to check, then doubt.
Seriously…
From another perspective, this reminds me of the lawsuit for libel or slander, brought by Oscar Wilde, that was his undoing.
What is it about these guys who are vulnerable going for lawsuits, rather than staying under the radar?
Europe was never an open society, so I don’t see a problem with them imprisoning people that violates their hate speech laws.
The people have decided, and who thinks they are righteous enough to challenge the will of the people of Europe?
Still realizing.
Here is a good link:
http://www.hdot.org/nsindex.html
1. His background is key: unlike the dons at Oxbridge, he is the outsider pricking their balloon: the victor’s version of the war.
2. To do it, he did some work (“Hitler’s Generals”) that is quite good. The rest of it is provocation. He identifies with the vanquished but “superior” German General Staff he has a crush on. (And on the whole, many were excellent field commanders.)
3. His work became the darling of the WWII/Holocaust revisionists and deniers. He cherishes that role.
4. I think the trial in London put him in his place,as did the Evans
testimony and book.
5. He should not be in jail, however. I understand why Germany and Austria have certain laws (the Hitler salute, sale of “Mein Kampf,” Holocaust denial) on the books. But the generation(s) for whom they were intended have departed. Time to make the marketplace of ideas, including stupid and false ones, totally free. Open societies can take it.
So much with historians with an agenda. What bothers me is history as it is being written today.
From Plamegate to NSA wire taps, to Hurricane Katrina, today’s “journalists” do no better than Irving when in search of the truth.
CBS fired Mapes and retired gunga Dan but that one instance is a single story backed with evidence derived from a suspect document on a story that isnt too complicated to understand.
The rest are so intricate, it could take years to find out what actually happened.
I guess this is not news. The explosion aboard the USS Maine that started off the Spanish-American war had been contemporarily mis-reported in its day.
But todays “realities” travel farther, faster, reaching wider audiences.
Im glad we have the “blogisphere” to counter them, (Thanks Al Gore), but is it enough today?
Neo: Do you have web links for Irvings work, the trial, Evans work, the Lipstadt book, the Lipstadt trial … ?
But Irving wasn’t going for a doctorate; he didn’t need one. He became successful without one. And, in fact, part of his stated motive for writing his books appears to have been his desire to show up the more regularly-credentialed historians–at the same time he was relying on their gentlemanly (and gentlewomanly) trust that he was following the same rules they were.
Ward Churchill. Oprah’s infamous “con” incident.
Some people are better at distortion and application of propaganda than even the watchdogs.
If the journalists and historians are the watchdogs, who guards the guardians?
Pingback:atom bomb | anniversary Hiroshima | Fussell