Bradley Smith challenges Norman Finkelstein

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
Posts: 33
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2008 9:45 pm

Postby duckchuck » 1 decade 2 years ago (Thu Mar 20, 2008 7:35 pm)


Will those nice folks who claim that depriving innocent individuals of their freedom and imposing punitive forced labor on them for their nations' crimes is a fair and morally legitimate measure please intern and punish themselves in order to pay for their nations' crimes? Do give us a break and shut up. Thanks.

Sorry ASMarques, I will not be silenced, not by the jews and certainly not by you. How many innocent individuals were deprived of their freedom in Dresden? Do you think those that died in that literal holocaust would have gladly traded places with a jew in Auschwitz? I know I would have. What do you think those little children who were boiled alive in bubling pools of asphalt would have given to trade places with a jew who was swiming in the Auschwitz swiming pool?

I will gladly intern and punish myself if you first jump into a pool of boiling asphalt - deal? I think you might be interested in this -

This real holocaust cannot be denied. For, unlike the holocaust we all grew up hearing about, the numbers are not inflated. There were no soap bars made, nor lamp shades produced, only murder, more murder, and then the cover up of the twentieth century ensued.

Suppressing the knowledge of this post war genocide of over nine million defenseless, helpless, and prostate people for so long was no easy task. Those in government and the news media who did so knew that only by creating a lie so horrible that it would shake the very souls of decent men everywhere could the real terror story of mass murder and genocide by the Allies after the war be cleverly covered up. Thus, in the hearts of evil men, with blood dripping from their hands, were born the stories of Jews being made into soap and lamp shades, gas chambers disguised as showers for millions,3 and the black smoke of furnaces reaching toward the heavens from crematoria. In sum, a holocaust of lies was born...the one we all "know" about, but not one that actually occurred.

It needs to be pointed out that it is true that innocent Jews died by the thousands at the hands of Nazis, just as other innocent people died by the thousands at the hands of the Allies at Dresden, Hiroshima, and elsewhere - DURING THE WAR. However, the massive lies with intent to cover up crimes against humanity committed by the Allies begins with the fabrication of the magnitude of Jewish deaths as well as the method of death. The number of Jews killed during the war were inflated not by thousands, but by millions. The fiendish descriptions of German soap factories, lamp shades, and "death camps" during the war were for the purpose of covering up the real holocaust going on after the war ended, creating such enmity and hatred toward the German people that their murder by the millions would go unnoticed, unreported, and unlamented by the world.4 And thus it has been till this day. The lampshades, the soap, the gas chambers were all to cover up the real holocaust: After the unconditional surrender of Germany, 9.3 million people were killed by the victors...deliberately.5 Dwight D. Eisenhower ran prisoner of war camps where well over one million German men who had laid down their arms were starved to death.6 Then to crown this horrific crime by the allies, another 15 million Germans were expelled from their homes in East Prussia, Pomerania, Sudetenland, Silesia, and elsewhere. The most massive ethnic cleansing of the century- led by the United States.

The deaths of millions in the years after the German surrender can no longer be covered up, nor hidden by distractions. This must be called by what it is: The Real Holocaust.

The above was taken from - The Holocaust As A Mechanism For Suppressing The Truth, By Louis Beam

Posts: 33
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2008 9:45 pm

Postby duckchuck » 1 decade 2 years ago (Thu Mar 20, 2008 9:24 pm)

Hey ASMarques, grenadier and PLAYWRITE, have you ever read Michael Walsh's - WITNESS TO HISTORY? I think you need to read chapter 15:


During the war, more bombs by weight were dropped on the city of Berlin than were released on the whole of Great Britain during the entire war.

All German towns and cities above 50,000 population were from 50% to 80% destroyed. Dresden with a population larger than that of Liverpool was incinerated with an estimated 135,000 civilian inhabitants burned and buried in the ruins.

Hamburg was totally destroyed and 70,000 civilians died in the most appalling circumstances whilst Cologne with a population greater than Glasgow's was turned into a moonscape. As Hamburg burned the winds feeding the three-mile high flames reached twice hurricane speed to exceed 150 miles per hour. Trees three feet in diameter on the outskirts of the city, were sucked from the ground by the supernatural forces of these winds and hurled miles into the city-inferno, as were vehicles, men, women... and children.

The volcanic flames thrown twice the height of Snowdon with gases as high again caused meteorological reaction as high as the stratosphere. Likewise Frankfurt and other cities like them; cities the size of Northampton, Leicester.

Between 1940 and 1945, sixty-one German cities with a total population of 25 million souls were destroyed or devastated in a bombing campaign that was initiated by the British government. Destruction on this scale had no other purpose than the indiscriminate mass murder of as many German people as possible quite regardless of their civilian status. It led to bombing retaliation resulting in 60,000 British dead and 86,000 injured.


The eminent British war historian and strategist, Captain Sir. Basil Liddell Hart declared that using this strategy victory had been achieved

"through practicing the most uncivilized means of warfare that the world had known since the Mongol invasions." The Evolution of Warfare. Baber & Faber, 1946, p.75

"Was absolutely contrary to international law." Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain

"The British Government would never resort to the deliberate attack on women and children for the purposes of mere terrorism." Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain before he was ousted as Prime Minister


Winston Churchill's enthusiasm for behind the lines destruction of civilian populations could be traced back to his comment:

"The air opened paths along which death and terror could be carried far behind the lines of the actual enemy; to women, children, the aged, the sick, who in earlier struggles would perforce have been left untouched." The Great War. Vol.3 P1602


"The construction of bombing airplanes would soon be abandoned as superfluous and ineffective if bombing as such were branded as an illegal barbarity. If, through the Red Cross Convention, it definitely turned out possible to prevent the killing of a defenceless wounded man or prisoner, then it ought to be equally possible, by analogous convention, and finally to stop the bombing of equally defenseless civil populations."

"I owe it to my position not to admit any doubt as to the possibility of maintaining peace. The people want peace. It must be possible for governments to maintain it. We believe that if the nations of the world could agree to destroy all their gas and inflammatory and explosive bombs it would be a much more useful achievement than using them to destroy each other." Adolf Hitler


"Hitler only undertook the bombing of British civilian targets reluctantly three months after the RAF had commenced bombing German civilian targets. Hitler would have been willing at any time to stop the slaughter. Hitler was genuinely anxious to reach with Britain an agreement confining the action of aircraft to battle zones." J.M Spaight., CB., CBE., Bombing Vindicated, p.47., Principal Secretary to the Air Ministry

"Churchill was obsessed with getting America into the war. He tried to frighten Roosevelt with the prospect of an early German victory. He searched for an outrage, such as the sinking of the Lusitania in the First World War, that would arouse American public opinion. German bombing of British civilians might well achieve this. But for weeks it looked as if the Germans had no intention of being so obliging." - The First Casualty, Phillip Knightley, Andre Deutsch. London 1975


"This raid on the night of May 11th 1940, although in itself trivial, was an epoch-marking event since it was the first deliberate breach of the fundamental rule of civilized warfare that hostilities must only be waged against the enemy combatant forces, Their flight marked the end of an epoch which had lasted for two and one-half centuries." F.J.P Veale, Advance to Barbarism, p.172

"The first 'area' air attack of the war, was carried out by 134 British bombers on the German city of Mannheim, on the 16th, December, 1940. The object of this attack, as Air Chief Marshall Peirse later explained, was, 'to concentrate the maximum amount of damage in the center of the town'." The Strategic Air Offensive Against Germany. (H.M Stationery Office, London, 1961)

As early as 1953 H.M. Stationery Office published the first volume of a work, The Royal Air Force, 1939 - 1945, The Fight at Odds.p.122 Described as 'officially commissioned and based throughout on official documents which had been read and approved by the Air Ministry Historical Branch, its author, Dennis Richards, reveals that:

"If the Royal Air Force raided the Ruhr, destroying oil plants with its most accurately placed bombs and urban property with those that went astray, the outcry for retaliation against Britain might prove too strong for the German generals to resist. Indeed, Hitler himself would probably lead the clamor. The attack on the Ruhr was therefore an informal invitation to the Luftwaffe to bomb London."

"We began to bomb objectives on the German mainland before the Germans began to bomb objectives on the British mainland." J.M. Spaight, CB., CBE., Principal Secretary to the Air Ministry

"Because we were doubtful about the psychological effect of propagandist distortion of the truth that it was we who started the strategic bombing offensive, we have shrunk from giving our great decision of May 11th 1940, the publicity it deserves." Bombing Vindicated. J.M. Spaight, CB. CBE., Principal Secretary to the Air Ministry

"Air Marshall Tedder made every effort to be a worthy pupil of his superior, Prime Minister Winston Churchill. The Marshall told high British officers that Germany had lost the war... because she had not followed the principle of total warfare." New York Times, January 10th 1946

"Retaliation was certain if we carried the war into Germany... there was a reasonable possibility that our capital and industrial centers would not have been attacked if we had continued to refrain from attacking those of Germany." J.M. Spaight, CB, CBE. Principal Secretary to the Air Ministry

"The primary purpose of these raids was to goad the Germans into undertaking reprisal raids of a similar character on Britain. Such raids would arouse intense indignation in Britain against Germany and so create a war psychosis without which it would be impossible to carry on a modern war." Dennis Richards, The Royal Air Force, 1939 - 1945; The Fight at Odds. H.M Stationery Office

"It gave Coventry and Birmingham, Sheffield and Southampton, the right to look Kiev and Kharkov, Stalingrad and Sebastopol, in the face. Our Soviet allies would be less critical of our inactivity if they had understood what we had done." J.M. Spaight, CB, CBE, Principal Secretary to the Air Ministry


"It is one of the greatest triumphs of modern emotional engineering that, in spite of the plain facts of the case which could never be disguised or even materially distorted, the British public, throughout the Blitz Period (1940 - 1941), remained convinced that the entire responsibility for their sufferings it was undergoing rested on the German leaders.

"Too high praise cannot, therefore, be lavished on the British emotional engineers for the infinite skill with which the public mind was conditioned prior to and during a period of unparalleled strain." Advance to Barbarism, P.168. Mitre Press, London. F.J.P Veale, British Jurist

"... the inhabitants of Coventry, for example, continued to imagine that their sufferings were due to the innate villainy of Adolf Hitler without a suspicion that a decision, splendid or otherwise, of the British War Cabinet, was the decisive factor in the case." F.J.P Veale. Advance to Barbarism, P.169

"One of the most unhealthy features of the bombing offensive was that the War Cabinet - and in particular the Secretary for Air, Archibald Sinclair (now Lord Thurso), felt it necessary to repudiate publicly the orders which they themselves had given to Bomber Command." R.H.S Crosman. Labour Minister of Housing. Sunday Telegraph, Oct. 1st ,1961

"Is terror bombing now part of our policy? Why is it that the people of this country who are supposed to be responsible for what is going on, are the only people who may not know what is being done in their name? On the other hand, if terror bombing be part of our policy, why was this statement put out at all? I think we shall live to rue the day we did this, and that it, (The bombing of Dresden) will stand for all time as a blot on our escutcheon." Richard Stokes, M.P.

This Member of Parliament was referring to the Associated Press Correspondent of Supreme Allied Headquarters in Paris, which had gloatingly described:

"this unprecedented assault in daylight on the refugee-crowded capital, fleeing from the Russian tide in the East. The report had been widely broadcast in America, and by Paris Radio. It was suppressed in Britain for fear of public revulsion.

"Thus, in a minute dated 28th February, 1943, Sir Archibald Sinclair explained to Sir Charles Portal, Chief of the Air Staff, that it was necessary to stifle all public discussion on the subject because if the truth had been disclosed in response to the enquiries being made by influential political and religious leaders, their inevitable condemnation would impair the morale of the bomber crews and consequently their bombing efficiency." F.J.P Veale, Advance to Barbarism, p.29


"The third and last phase of the British air offensive against Germany began in March, 1942, with the adoption of the Lindemann Plan by the British War Cabinet, and continued with undiminished ferocity until the end of the war in May, 1945.

"The bombing during this period was not, as the Germans complained, indiscriminate. On the contrary. It was concentrated on working class houses because, as Professor Lindemann maintained, a higher percentage of bloodshed per ton of explosives dropped could be expected from bombing houses built close together, rather than by bombing higher class houses surrounded by gardens." Advance to Barbarism, F.J.P Veale, British Author and Jurist


"I am in full agreement (of terror bombing). I am all for the bombing of working class areas in German cities. I am a Cromwellian - I believe in 'slaying in the name of the Lord!" Sir. Archibald Sinclair, Secretary for Air


"They (the British Air Chiefs) argued that the desired result, of reducing German industrial production, would be more readily achieved if the homes of the workers in the factories were destroyed; if the workers were kept busy arranging for the burial of their wives and children, output might reasonably be expected to fall." Advance to Barbarism, F.J.P Veale; Distinguished British Jurist

"It seems to me that the moment has come when the question of bombing German cities simply for the sake of increasing terror, though under other pretexts, should be reviewed." Winston Churchill to Chief of Air Staff, Sir. Charles Portal, March 28th1945


"In the course of the film showing the bombing of German towns from the air, very well and dramatically done, W.C (Winston Churchill) suddenly sat bolt upright and said to me: 'Are we beasts? Are we taking this too far'" - Personal Experiences, Lord Casey. Constable. London 1962


"The long suppressed story of the worst massacre in the history of the world." R. H.S Crosman, Labour Minister

"The devastation of Dresden in February, 1945, was one of those crimes against humanity whose authors would have been arraigned at Nuremberg if that court had not been perverted." Richard.H.S Crosman, Labour Government Minister

"I have read the reviews of the biographies of Sir Arthur Harris with extremely mixed feelings and also Robert Kee's letter. (8th,July).

"On 13th, February, 1945, I was a navigator on one of the Lancaster bombers which devastated Dresden. I well remember the briefing by our Group Captain. We were told that the Red Army was thrusting towards Dresden and that the town would be crowded with refugees and that the center of the town would be full of women and children. Our aiming point would be the market place.

"I recall that we were somewhat uneasy, but we did as we were told. We accordingly bombed the target and on our way back our wireless operator picked up a German broadcast accusing the RAF of terror tactics, and that 65,000 civilians had died. We dismissed this as German propaganda.

"The penny didn't drop until a few weeks later when my squadron received a visit from the Crown Film Unit who were making the wartime propaganda films. There was a mock briefing, with one notable difference. The same Group Captain now said,

'as the market place would be filled with women and children on no account would we bomb the center of the town. Instead, our aiming point would be a vital railway junction to the east.'

"I can categorically confirm that the Dresden raid was a black mark on Britain's war record. The aircrews on my squadron were convinced that this wicked act was not instigated by our much-respected guvnor 'Butch' Harris but by Churchill. I have waited 29 years to say this, and it still worries me." A. Williams, Nottingham; The Observer, August 8th 1984

Welcome and revealing though Mr. Williams letter is, subsequent revelations as to 'Butch' Harris's murderous inclinations expose a similar naiveté on Mr.Williams part:

"What we want to do in addition to the horrors of fire is to bring the masonry crashing down on the Boche, to kill Boche and to terrify Boche." Bomber Butch' Harris, 1942. Sunday Times, January 10th 1993

Nobody knows for sure just how many people innocent civilians were bombed and burned to death in Dresden. What is beyond dispute was that its destruction was of no military significance whatsoever. It did not shorten the war by as much as a minute, nor was it intended to.

The war to all intents and purposes was won and the city itself had no military, political or industrial significance. The British Government were well aware that it was defenseless, which for those whose morality differs from mine, might have been an advantage.

Its 600,000 population (larger than Liverpool's) was swollen by an estimated further 500,000 refugees fleeing from the Red Army.

The RAF were as usual dropping propaganda leaflets on the city, and on the night before the raids, 13th, February, with a leaflet headed, 'Partei Flieft aus Dresden', read by the defeated population, it revealed that:

'All the schools in the city had been closed to provide shelter for an army of refugees arriving from the east.'

When the scale of Bomber Command's 'success' in what was described as 'the worst massacre in the history of the world' became known, it ill became the RAF to afterwards cowardly claim to have known nothing of the refugees.


The strafing of columns of refugees by both American and British fighter planes was par for the course:

".... it is said that these (zoo) animals and terrified groups of refugees were machine-gunned as they tried to escape across the Grosser Garten by low-flying planes and that many bodies riddled by bullets were found later in this park." Der Tod von Dresden, Axel Rodenberger, February 25th 1951

In Dresden,

"Even the huddled remnants of a children's' choir were machine-gunned in a street bordering a park." David Irving, The Destruction of Dresden


"Its horror is revealed in the howling and raging of the firestorms, the hellish noise of exploding bombs and the death cries of martyred human beings as well as the big silence after the raids. Speech is impotent to portray the measure of the horror, which shook the people for ten days and nights and the traces of which were written indelibly on the face of the city and its inhabitants.

"No flight of imagination will ever succeed in measuring and describing the gruesome scenes of horror in the many buried air shelters. Posterity can only bow its head in honour of the fate of these innocents, sacrificed by the murderous lust of a sadistic enemy...."The Police President of Hamburg

"Not even Hiroshima and Nagasaki, suffering the smashing blows of nuclear explosions, could match the utter hell of Hamburg." Martin Caidin, The Night Hamburg Died, Ballantyne Books, New York, 1960

Coventry often comes to mind when justification for the bombing campaign is sought. Notwithstanding the fact that it has since been proved that the bombing of Coventry, like the sinking of the Lusitania was deliberately set up as 'a means to an end', it might be remembered in terms of proportion that Coventry lost 100 acres through bombing.

"In those terrible ten days of mid-1943, the British bombers gutted more than six thousand acres of Hamburg." Martin Caidin

This was the equivalent of sixty Coventrys in just ten days. Three hundred times as many people died in Hamburg during the ten-day blitz as died in Coventry during the entire course of the war.


"The fire and horror lasted ten full days. This is what makes Hamburg - and the loss of some seventy thousand men, women and children - stand out as the worst of the disasters visited upon civilization during the insanity of World War 2." Martin Caidin


"Of the children these dreadful nights, what can be said? Their fright became horror and then panics when their tiny minds became capable of grasping the fact that their parents could no longer help them in their distress. They lost their reason and an overwhelming terror took over. Their world had become the shrieking center of an erupting volcano from which there could be no physical escape. Nothing that hell offered could be feared more.

"By the hand of man they became creatures, human in form but not in mind. Strangled noises hissed from them as they staggered pitifully through the streets in which tar and asphalt ran as streams.

"Some of these tiny creatures ran several hundred feet. Others managed only twenty, maybe ten feet. Their shoes caught fire and then their feet. The lower parts of their legs became flickering sticks of flame. Here were Joans of Arcs... thousands of them. All who had perished unjustly on the fires of the Middle Ages were as nothing when compared with what was happening that night.

"The sounds of many were unintelligible and undoubtedly many more called for their parents from whom they were parted by death or by accident. They grasped their tortured limbs, their tiny burning legs until they were no longer able to stand or run. And then they would crash to the ground where they would writhe in the bubbling tar until death released them from their physical misery." Martin Caidin


"It was murder in the city. I knew that the firestorms that came later were terrible, and unlike anything that ever happened. But the fires in the city were as bad as anything I'd ever seen in the war so far - and I had been on a goodly portion of the major attacks.

"A few of the Lancs got caught in the flue of superheated air as they passed over the city at 16,000 feet, and it was as if they were nothing more than wood chips in a storm at sea. . . they were thrown about by the heat and even flipped over on their backs. Everything sort of went to hell until the Lancs managed to get free of the severe turbulence.

". . . we howled with glee as we listened in on the Jerry wireless and heard them going crazy." A RAF pilot. Bomber Command

"The brutal, allied air offensive against Germany proved to be costly, ineffective and of doubtful morality." An Analyst


The use of phosphorous bombs, by the British government on raids against Germany, were outlawed under international law because its use has no other purpose than to strike terror in its means of causing death and injury. It is a napalm-like chemical which when alight cannot be extinguished. Of its use in a purely military sense:

"The shower of molten burning particles that sprays up from a phosphorous shell burst sears its victims with agonized burns. Used against pill boxes, the flame not only burns occupants, but also suffocates them." Life Magazine, 19th June 1944


"The exploding phosphorous bombs sprayed their contents indiscriminately and clothing caught fire and had to be torn free from the body quickly otherwise the wearer would suffer terrible nightmarish burns. When the liquid splattered on to peoples hair, the victim was doomed. There was no chance to cut off the hair. The chemical globules, like a burning jelly, burned fiercely setting aflame the entire head and indeed, the head itself burned.

"These terrified and pain-wracked people were seen to leap about in frenzy, dashing their heads against the ground in blind panic - anything to douse the flames.

"One can extinguish an ordinary fire by smothering it with clothes but such methods are useless against phosphorous. It continued to burn and set afire any material that was thrown over it. Such people in these circumstances could only be left to their sad fate amidst the terrifying background glow of the streets in flames.

"They writhed in the rubble-strewn roads with their bodies partially ablaze. Others were nearer to the River Alster and dozens of these shrieking demented souls, trailing tongues of flaming smoke and fire, dashed madly to the water to fling themselves into the lifesaving liquid.

"Men, women and children too, ran hysterically, falling and stumbling, getting up, tripping and falling again, rolling over and over. Most of them managed to regain their feet and made it to the water. But many of them never made it and were left behind, their feet drumming in blinding pain on the overheated pavements amidst the rubble, until there came one last convulsing shudder from the smoking 'thing' on the ground, and then no further movement.

"Those who made it to the water found the safety they had sought so desperately - but incredibly, some faced a choice that stuns the mind with horror. Water prevents phosphorous jelly from burning because it denies the chemical the one thing it needs to burn; oxygen.

"Those with the blazing chemical on their arms, legs and their bodies were able to douse the flames by submerging the burning areas. But many had the blazing phosphorous jelly on their faces and heads. Certainly the spluttering chemicals went out as the victims ducked their heads beneath the water, but the moment they brought their heads up again to break the surface and take a breath of air, the phosphorous burst into flames again immediately.

"And so the victims were faced with the choice. Death by drowning or death by burning; men, women and children. While others watched sick and despairingly, the victims of phosphorous on faces and heads thrashed wildly in the brackish waters, screaming with pain and frustration. Spluttering and choking, they alternatively burned or drowned." Martin Caidin

Martin Caidin spent years trying to get details on the use of phosphorous by both the allies, and in his own words he has 'met with less than the success required by the historian to include the episode in a documentary book.' He noted:

"Perhaps the solution to the total absence of any reference in official (post war) German documents is explained in the story told to me by a U.S Army officer, who learned that portions of the documents on the after effects of the Hamburg attacks were ordered to be destroyed and all reference to the surviving victims of phosphorous bombs stricken forever from the records." - Martin Caidin

"Phosphorous burns were not infrequent." U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey

Phosphorous was used

"because of its demonstrated ability to depress the morale of the Germans." Official British source


"A cataclysmic blast of exploding, splintering steel rent the earth before us and it seemed like the world was coming to an end. The Americans were blasting out a path for a forward drive.

"Man and beast shuddered in their tracks. Whole towns were disintegrating. Life seemed to disappear from the scene. It was the most terrifying destructive force of warfare Germany has ever seen.

". . . and for an hour and a half more than 2,000 bombers and hundreds of guns pounded the German countryside, making the earth dance before this mighty man-made force. . . minefields went up as though touched by an electric switch.

"Near the end we were using 11-tonners (bombs) which crews said caused their bombers to bounce up over 500 feet when the huge 25-foot missiles were released." Henry T. Gorrell (UP) Chicago Daily News, November 17th, 1944

"I can tell you that Germany has been destroyed utterly and completely." U.S. General Bradley, Associated Press, London, June 11th 1945

"I just wouldn't know where to begin to rebuild Berlin." U.S. General Eisenhower, Associated Press. London, June 11th, 1945

"The capital of the Third Reich is a heap of gaunt, burned-out, flame-seared buildings. It is a desert of a hundred thousand dunes made up of brick and powdered masonry. Over this hangs the pungent stench of death. . . it is impossible to exaggerate in describing the destruction. . . down town Berlin looked as like nothing man could have contrived. Driving down the famous Frankfurt Alee, I did not see a single building where you could have set up as business of even selling apples." Eddie Gilmore, Associated Press, Berlin, June 9th, 1945


"Towards the end of his life the Prof.' (Lindemann) made a remark on more than one occasion with such an air of seriousness that he seemed to regard it as his testament of wisdom, and I accordingly feel it incumbent upon me to record it here, although not in perfect sympathy with it. He asked:

'Do you know what the future historians will regard as the most important event of this age?'

"Well, what is it?

'It will not be Hitler and the Second World War, it will not be the release of nuclear energy, it will not be the menace of Communism.'

"These negatives seemed very comprehensive. He put on an expression of extreme severity and turned down the corners of his lips.

'It will be the abdication of the White man.'

"Then he nodded his head up and down several times to drive home his proposition." - The Prof., R.F Harrod, McMillan, 1959, p261

The terror bombing offensive cost not only the lives of over a million German civilians and brought about the total destruction of many of Europe's finest and most historical cities, but also cost the lives of 58,888 RAF air crew. . . nearly the same number of British junior officers during the First World War. The great irony of this historical blunder is that it had the opposite effect. German morale rose, as did production.

"This lesson was lost on the British Air Force which continued to hold that 'strategic bombing' was the all and end all of air power. This fallacy not only prolonged the war, but went far to render the 'peace' which followed it unprofitable to Britain and disastrous to the world in general." General J.F.C Fuller, The Second World War, Eyre and Spottiswoode, 1948

"In effect, there is no doubt that in ordering the destruction of large enemy cities, which represented an important part of the very basis of European culture and civilization, the Allied political leaders have incurred a dire responsibility before the bar of history." Major General J.F.C Fuller

"Even the senseless and highly culture-destroying terror acts, against for example, Lubeck and Dresden, carried out by the Allied pilots, should have been investigated and brought before a proper court of justice." Major General H. Bratt, Royal Swedish Army

"A nation which spreads over another a sheet of inevitably deadly gases or eradicates entire cities from the earth by the explosion of atomic bombs, does not have the right to judge anyone for war crimes; it has already committed the greatest atrocity, equal to no other atrocity; it has killed - amidst unspeakable torments - hundreds of thousands of innocent people." Hon. Lydio Machado Bandeira de Mello, Dr. Juris. Brazilian Professor of Criminal Law; author of more than 40 works on law/philosophy

"As for crimes against humanity, those governments which ordered the destruction of German cities, thereby destroying irreplaceable cultural values and making burning torches out of women and children, should also have stood before the bar of justice." Hon Jaan Lattik. Estonian statesman, diplomat and historian

"It was the indiscriminate bombing of civilians by the so-called strategic air forces during the Second World War which culminated in the destruction of Dresden (a wholly non-military objective) in February, 1945, that completely pulverized the code of civilized warfare and returned the treatment of military opponents and civilians to the level of the primary warfare that had prevailed among the savages, the Assyrians, and the medieval Mongols.

"On the basis of the most authoritative British sources, Mr. Veale demonstrates clearly that it was the British and not the Nazis who introduced indiscriminate strategic bombing, despite the efforts of Hitler to avert this reversion to barbaric practices." Professor Harry Elmer Barnes, Ph.D. American historian

"In terms of personal success, there has been no career more fortunate than that of Winston Churchill. In terms of human suffering to millions of people and destruction of the noble edifice of mankind there has been no career more disastrous." The European and English Journal

"One closes these volumes feeling, uneasily, that the true heroes of the story they tell are neither the contending air marshals, nor even the 58,888 officers and men of Bomber Command who were killed in action. They were the inhabitants of the German cities under attack; the men, women and children who stoically endured and worked on among the flaming ruins of their homes and factories, up till the moment when the allied armies overran them." London Times reviewer on the British Official History of the Strategic Air Offensive.

"There are no final figures on the number of civilians killed as a result of the mass-bombing, but 2,000,000 would be a very restrained figure (estimate)." Professor Harry Elmer Barnes, Ph.D. American historian

The impression created by apologists and propagandists suggest that London (and other British cities) fared equally badly. It is however a fact that more Londoners died in the 1952 smog (combination of fog and pollution) than died during the blitz. (Daily Mail, March 13, 2002.


"Kassel suffered over 300 air raids, some carrying waves of 1,000 bombers; British by night, American by day. When on April, 4th, 1945, Kassel surrendered, of a population of 250,000, just 15,000 were left alive." Jack Bell, Chicago Daily News Foreign Service, Kassel, May 15th 1946

"Countless smaller towns and villages had been razed to the ground or turned into ghost towns - like Wiener Neustadt in Austria, which emerged from the air raids and the street fighting with only eighteen houses intact and its population reduced from 45,000 to 860." In the Ruins of the Reich, Douglas Botting. George, Allen & Unwin. London. 1985


Berlin, Hamburg, Dortmund, Essen, Dresden, Frankfurt, Nuremberg, Dusseldorf, Hanover, Bremen, Wuppertal, Vienna, Duisburg. Munich, Magdeburg, Leipzig, Mannheim, Stuttgart, Kiel, Gelsdenkirchen, Bochum, Aachen, Wurzburg, Darmstadt, Krefeld, Munster, Munchen Gladbach,, Braunschweig, Ludwishafen, Remscheid, Pforzheim, Osnabruck, Mainz, Bielefeld, Gieben, Duren, Solingen, Wilhelmshafen, Karlsruhe, Oberhausen, Heilbronn, Augsburg, Hamm, Knittelfeld, Luneburg, Cuxhaven, Kulmback, Hagen, Saarbrucken, Freiburg, Graz, Koblenz, Ulm, Bonn, Bremmenhaven, Wanne-Eickel, Woms, Lubeck, Schweinfurt, Kleve, Wiener Neustadt, Wiesbaden, Paderborn, Bocholt, Hanau, Hildesheim, Emden, Siegen, Pirmasons, Hale, Bayreuth, Kreuznach, Witten, Aschaffenburg, Kaiserlautern, Gladbeck, Dorsten, Innsbruck, Neumunster, Linz, Klagenfurt, Reutlingen, Recklinghausen, Reuel, Regensburg, Homberg, Elmshorn, Wetzler, Vilach, Hamelin, Konigsburg, Moers, Passau, Solbad Hall I.T, Coburg, Attnang-Puchheim, Friedsrichhafen, Frankfurt-Oder, Danzig, Bozen, Chemnitz, Rostock, Schwerte, Plauen, Rome, Bad Kreuznach, Neapel, Genoa, Mailand, Turin.

Posts: 70
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 3:55 am
Location: Baja, Mexico

Postby BradleySmith » 1 decade 2 years ago (Thu Mar 27, 2008 12:33 pm)

I have been watching this thread and hoping that what I see as a simple misunderstanding would be cleared up, but maybe I should put in my two cents.

Marques wrote a couple lines suggesting that the Germans during WWII implemented brutal and inhumane policies toward the Jews of Eastern Europe and elsewhere, effectively destroying their culture and "imprisoning" them in camps such as Auschwitz against their will. Women, children, the old, the guilty and the innocent alike. I agree with Marques.

Duckchuck replied with a substantial quote from Micheal Walsh's A Most Uncivilizaed Means of Warfare which illustrates the murderous Allied air war against German civilians by the American and British air arms. I agree with Walsh/Duckchuck. It is a subject that I turn to again and again in the work I do -- that we hold Germans to one standard of morality and justice, and ourselves to another.

But the fact that the Americans acted out policies of immense brutality toward German (and Japanese) civilians, does not mean, and it cannot be demonstrated, the the Germans did not act out policies of immense brutality against the Jews of Europe and others. That's what happens during war. I'm an American, so I see it as my responisbility to call Americans to account, not Germans. Nevertheless, the Germans did what they did and it was a brutal business.

We are not here -- I do not believe we are -- to decide who acted with the greatest brutality against innocent, unarmed civilians, but to clear up the record and to make it clear that the "unique" brutality of the Germans is a myth exploited obsessively throughout American culture for the political, social, and enconomic benefit of those who benefit from it. This is why we are forwarding the idea of an open debate on the matter, to break the taboo that forbids a real examination of the "unique monstrosity" of the Germans, which will, hopefully, lead to a public awareness and a back and forth on the issues we find in the quote from Walsh provided by Duckchuck.

There is a tendency among revisionists, because of the stupid, one-sided history of WWII that has been institutionalized by our intellectual and political classes, to argue that the Germans are innocent of all wrong doing. I do not believe that can be demonstrated. At the same time, the "monstrosity" of American policies before and during that war are indeed demonstrable, and it is the especial responsibility of Americans who are in this debate to make this known widely throughout the culture. Duckchuck's post from Walsh is an example of the material that can be used.

That does not mean that Germans, during the Hitlerian regime, were innocent of all wrong doing. Which I believe was the drift of Marques' brief post. He has most likely understood by now that a frustrated demand that someone "shut up" on a forum like this is probably not going to work. Of course, he probably understood that a long time ago, but we do what we do.

Nobody is perfect -- except me? Nah -- I'm not going to say it.

J William
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 151
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2003 2:21 pm

Postby J William » 1 decade 2 years ago (Fri Mar 28, 2008 8:37 am)

BradleySmith wrote:I have been watching this thread and hoping that what I see as a simple misunderstanding would be cleared up, but maybe I should put in my two cents.


I, too, have been watching this thread with a sense of foreboding. The post by Bradley summarizes my feeling on the subject. There is no question in my mind that the Germans “…implemented brutal and inhumane policies toward the Jews of Eastern Europe and elsewhere, effectively destroying their culture and "imprisoning" them in camps”.

So what’s new? In wartime all sides in the history of man have carried out excesses considered as normal at the time. There are no “good guys” in warfare. All are , in effect, the “bad guys” but the hooker is that the victors get to write about the “facts” which then become the official history.
The problem becomes one of interpreting the statements made. What exactly does the phrase “implemented brutal and inhumane policies” mean? To me the phrase would mean actions that include the rounding up and deporting of “innocent” persons or groups. To other people it might include the rounding up and transporting of specific groups to camps to carry out the alleged homicidal gassings. Translations from one language to another in most cases reflect the biases of the translator just as the statements about brutal and inhumane treatment conjure up different images in the minds of the beholder.

In the past I have railed against the absolute contention made by some on this board that there was no holocaust. Unfortunately there are many definitions of the word holocaust and I would feel foolish stating that there was no holocaust without defining what I meant by the word holocaust. Of course I feel that there was no holocaust when the definition of the holocaust is the genocide of the Jews by HCN gas.

It is common to use words that mean one thing in the speaker's mind and something else in the listener’s mind. As a remedy I propose we set up something like a Richter Scale for words associated with holocaust revisionism. We would rate the term brutal and inhumane policies on a scale from one to ten. A ten being the deportations of groups to the alleged homicidal gas chambers. A one would be something as mild as a US citizen being addressed on a daily basis as “the little Nazi” in my third grade class in USA during WWII. Mild? I still get angry today 65 years later. Maybe I’ll apply for a lifetime pension for perceived mental anguish, LOL. It qualifies a s inhumane treatment to me.

Back to the thread. I feel the participants are probably talking about different things. According to the Humane Society kicking my dog is an inhumane action but it would not compare with the inhumane action of using the dog as a contestant in a dog fight.

To summarize my thoughts in one sentence rather that this long-winded ramble I would say let us ensure that we are talking about the same subject rather than an item that could mean just about anything. Be specific.

Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 320
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 12:27 am

Postby KostasL » 1 decade 2 years ago (Fri Mar 28, 2008 8:15 pm)

J William wrote:In the past I have railed against the absolute contention made by some on this board that there was no holocaust. Unfortunately there are many definitions of the word holocaust and I would feel foolish stating that there was no holocaust without defining what I meant by the word holocaust. Of course I feel that there was no holocaust when the definition of the holocaust is the genocide of the Jews by HCN gas.

Holocaust means the total destruction/extermination (Holo means total).
By any means though original meaning indicates by fire (caust means burned).
The term holocaust originally derived from the Greek word holókauston, meaning a "completely (holos) burnt (kaustos)" sacrificial offering to a god.

Can be used, perhaps, for a systematic industrial scale extermination even if it didn't succeed to exterminate all or most of the target.

But then it is clear that there is no holocaust matter to discuss.

This word is just inappropriate and could be used only as exageration or if we deliberately LIE.

Today it is used in a conventional way to describe what happened to the jews during ww2 under the Nazi regime.
But then if i call my dog a cat and so does everybody else because i tell them so, does this make my dog a cat ? :roll:

J William
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 151
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2003 2:21 pm

Postby J William » 1 decade 2 years ago (Sat Mar 29, 2008 8:39 am)

KostasL wrote:

"Today it is used in a conventional way to describe what happened to the jews during ww2 under the Nazi regime".

Exactly my point. Just what is one denying when it is stated the "there was no holocaust"? Certainly something happened but what really happened. Was it benign or malignant? Or somewhere between the two extremes. This is what revisionism is all about.

Words are continually evolving and taking on new meanings. The word holocaust is no exception but rather a word which has taken on multiple meanings.

A good article on Holocaust definition is ... ition.html

A small excerpt from it follows.

Value of imprecision
The amorphous nature of the term "Holocaust" is convenient to the extent that it implies an inconceivable sequence and combination of events, which lead to an improbable result, leaving the specifics to the imagination. This has proven convenient on more than one occasion, when a portion of the received knowledge of the Holocaust has had to be jettisoned or altered: because there is no fixed definition, the word can still be made to conjure up just as much horror as it did before the adjustment. Typically, however, these adjustments are recognized only by scholars and researchers, so that word of the change is rarely if ever communicated to the average person.
The dichotomy between the public conception of the "Holocaust" and the facts surrounding the period known by scholars leads to "Holocaust" meaning something different to just about everyone. Because of the imprecision of its definition, the word "Holocaust" is often simultaneously all-inclusive and extremely exclusive. Therefore, by questioning the gas chambers one becomes a "Holocaust denier," even though only in sensationalized media accounts is the "Holocaust" defined as the gassing of Jews.56
Revisionists are often victims of the imprecise definition of "Holocaust." No matter how much of the Holocaust story is acknowledged by a revisionist, the definition of "Holocaust" is so plastic that the "denier" label can still be applied by opponents more interested in ideology than in historical discussion. Conversely, anti-revisionists are allowed the freedom to alter or discount large portions of the Holocaust story without being labelled as "deniers" as long as they are perceived as accepting the Holocaust as a unique and horrific crime against Jews and the Jewish people.57
Lack of precision in defining "Holocaust" is not, of course, part of a conspiracy to make it possible to attack revisionists. Rather, it arises from the fact that there is little if any agreement among those who most use the term, as to what they mean. Add to this the convenience of having a term that can be inflated to make a socio-political weapon of whatever size is necessary, determined only by the volume of hot air that one is willing to inject. Not surprisingly, anti-revisionists virtually never complain when attempts are made to over-inflate the Holocaust.
Before historians can discuss events and implications of the Holocaust, there first must be an understanding about what they mean when they use the word. Such an understanding would not be a straitjacket that stifles debate, but rather one that encourages discussion due to the creation of what semanticists call an "extensional bargain" -- that is, where all participants to the discussion agree on the basic terminology of the subject being discussed. With such an understanding (or definition) in place, there could be no Holocaust "denial" among participants in the discussion, and labelling revisionists as "deniers" then clearly would be shown as the act of bad faith it is.

Posts: 70
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 3:55 am
Location: Baja, Mexico

Postby BradleySmith » 1 decade 2 years ago (Sat Mar 29, 2008 11:13 am)

For myself, this is very much on the mark.

User avatar
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 624
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 12:47 pm

Postby ASMarques » 1 decade 2 years ago (Mon Mar 31, 2008 3:41 am)

J William wrote:So what’s new? In wartime all sides in the history of man have carried out excesses considered as normal at the time. There are no “good guys” in warfare. All are , in effect, the “bad guys” but the hooker is that the victors get to write about the “facts” which then become the official history.

What's new, in a nutshell, is we have -- thanks to revisionism and the emerging truth about the "Holocaust" myth -- the rare opportunity to give war and "wartime" a bad name among the victors, as well as among the vanquished.

But we won't succeed in this if we give in to the sort of idiocy that sees only one guilty party, and insists exclusively on Allied war crimes, while pretending to believe totalitarian N.-S. Germany was really little worse than a travel agency promoting happy vacation trips for Jews and political opponents to the exotic East.

Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 320
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 12:27 am

Postby KostasL » 1 decade 2 years ago (Mon Mar 31, 2008 5:23 am)

ASMarques wrote:
What's new, in a nutshell, is we have -- thanks to revisionism and the emerging truth about the "Holocaust" myth -- the rare opportunity to give war and "wartime" a bad name among the victors, as well as among the vanquished.

But we won't succeed in this if we give in to the sort of idiocy that sees only one guilty party, and insists exclusively on Allied war crimes, while pretending to believe totalitarian N.-S. Germany was really little worse than a travel agency promoting happy vacation trips for Jews and political opponents to the exotic East.

That is true.

If you really seek the truth and justice and your view is humanitarian, the only "sheep" are to be found amongst the victims and the people drug into war and the victims.
The leaderships of the major participants of ww2 are "a pact of wolves".
I, myself tend to speak of them as "Hitler and his mob" but then i ask the question : "was Hitler really the leader of this mob ? maybe it was Stalin or Churchill or...".

Posts: 70
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 3:55 am
Location: Baja, Mexico

Postby BradleySmith » 1 decade 2 years ago (Mon Mar 31, 2008 11:15 am)

Marques: "What's new, in a nutshell, is we have -- thanks to revisionism and the emerging truth about the "Holocaust" myth -- the rare opportunity to give war and "wartime" a bad name among the victors, as well as among the vanquished."

Exactly. Among the victors. To get past the "unique monstrosity" of the Germans, without exchanging it for the "unique monstrosity" of the Allies. Altho, as an American, I feel I have a moral obligation to expose my own "monstrosity" first, not that of the "other." Focusing on the unique monstrosity of the "other" is at the core of how we, as Americans, have come to believe, as Chomsky put it recently, that "We Own The World."

Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 227
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 7:50 pm

Postby Mannstein » 1 decade 2 years ago (Tue Apr 01, 2008 11:04 am)

The American public will owe a certain European country an appology if the war criminal in the Whitehouse along with his minions are not delivered to the Court at the Hague when they leave office.

User avatar
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 624
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 12:47 pm

Postby ASMarques » 1 decade 2 years ago (Tue Apr 01, 2008 2:01 pm)

Mannstein wrote:The American public will owe a certain European country an appology if the war criminal in the Whitehouse along with his minions are not delivered to the Court at the Hague when they leave office.

I disagree. I don't know what "the American public" is. Is it "the American people" in disguise? Is it some sort of immortal entity supposedly responsible for all sorts of crimes by a certain class of dead people, as in the "German public owe a certain ethno-religious minority an apology"? Present-day Americans are not responsible for the Nuremberg farce, any more than they are for the WW2 bombing campaigns. The ones who promoted it -- most of them are dead by now -- were, and only History can now judge them.

If you had said "those folks who continue voting for what Bush and his minions stand for owe a moral apology to the victimized people of a certain invaded Arab country" then you might have a point, and I certainly would agree with the idea of putting Bush & Company on trial for precise and well-established crimes -- even though I'm not a great fan of the Hague tribunal, but, of course, we might (may?) in time be able to change it into something more close to the idea of non-political impartial justice.

Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 262
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2005 12:17 pm
Location: Milwaukee

Postby PLAYWRIGHT » 1 decade 2 years ago (Tue Apr 01, 2008 3:10 pm)

So on Tuesday March 25, I did to go to the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee to listen to Dr. Norman Finkelstein, controversial author of THE HOLOCAUST INDUSTRY and other books that buck the trend.

It was similar to the one he gave at Marquette University two years ago. He again noted that a deliberate air of mystery is hung over problems in the Middle East, which are presented as being impossibly complex with no solution. As Dr. Finkelstein points out, this is just one of many frauds used to confuse people. He points out that the main problem is Israel's land grab by military force, which is no mystery at all and illegal under every international understanding.

He could have pointed out that the principle denying the legitimacy of territory gained by military force was first stated as part of the Atlantic Charter of 1942, the beginning of the United Nations, on board the battleship PRINCE OF WALES in Argentia, Newfoundland, but I suppose that is a minor point. As it is, I think he’s only partially right. If Israel were to return the stolen territories, end their horrific occupation and destroy their weapons of mass destruction that would probably solve America’s problems in the Middle East.

But some of the Middle Eastern kingdoms are pretty brutal despotisms, and those problems would still remain. In particular, Kuwait, the country America “liberated” back in the early 1990’s, is a harsh autocracy, which proves the lie that Bush Incorporated has tried to bring democracy to the Middle East. The problem of poverty and lack of water would also remain.

Lecture was well attended by a friendly audience, with Muslim Arabs in a distinct minority. Nice to see left wing students of the Madison model are still alive and well, brought back fond memories from the early 1970’s to see these earnest young kids still around. Dr. Finkelstein’s admiration for Hezbollah (reflecting my own admiration; they really kicked Israel’s ass in the border war last year) didn’t come up. And as for the Holocaust, his one controversial statement was to point out that there was nothing unique about Jewish suffering during World War II, not even for his mother and father. As Deborah Lipstadt would point out, that’s enough right there to label Dr. Finkelstein a Holocaust Denier.

But, he got his own shot off at Lipstadt when he pointed out how she had lied about Jimmy Carter’s book PEACE NOT APARTHEID. As I said before, he’s a good man who fights his battle well from his corner of it.

The comment about the “uniqueness” of Jewish suffering deserves a thought, for Finkelstein noted it’s a hollow claim. This would put him in agreement with of all people, St. Augustine, who pointed out that the quantum of suffering endured by Christian martyrs was irrelevant to their faith in God, and no proof of it at all. In THE CITY OF GOD, Book V, Augustine notes that no martyr he’d heard of ever endured what Marcus Atilius Regulus endured for the sake of the honor of Rome. After urging the Roman Senate to continue their war against the Carthaginians, Regulus kept his promise to return to Carthage, where he was a hostage on parole. To do otherwise would have been an insult to his honor and that of Rome. And so Regulus, by Augustine’s account, endured having his eyelids cut off, followed by being kept in an iron cage that was pointed towards the sun at all hours, with food and water to prolong his agony. Augustine notes that no Christian ever endured for his faith what Regulus endured for the honor of Rome, and dismisses any cult of martyrs as being a barrier to faith, for the quantum of suffering, or even suffering at all, is proof of nothing except that humans can endure suffering. For what, it doesn’t matter.

Be it Regulus, a Christian martyr in the Roman Coliseum, or a Jew at Auschwitz – suffering in and of itself has no moral proof to it. In any quantity.

Re this thread, I was about to leave CODOH for good, but changed my mind. There really are some neo-Nazi’s on here, and they make me sick. What Nazi policy was has been badly distorted for the advantage of various groups, but from an American viewpoint, it is a repugnant and corrupt ideology, a badly thought out mixture of socialism and nationalism that like Franco’s dictatorship, would have collapsed of its own stupidity even if there had been no war. As Germar Rudolf wrote, Nazism is a dead issue, meaning the Nazis are dead, and good riddance.

That anybody would defend a concentration camp – and the first person EVER to condemn them, Mark Twain (correct!) spared neither the Americans who first built them in the Philippines or the British shortly after in South Africa, OR the Belgians, who engaged in the only mass killing I consider a real holocaust, the Congo Corvee – is flabbergasting. As Paul Rassinier wrote, the problem of concentration camps didn’t begin with Nazi’s, nor did it end with them, but he noted that YES, they are a problem. And a useless one at that, to both sides. Nobody has ever benefited from a concentration camp. The labor the Nazi’s got was, as so many people have pointed out (including Rassinier) worthless, even the most basic work/incentive plan would have gotten them a superior industrial effort. The slave-labor camps the British build in Africa in World War II to procure tin ore were a massive waste that squandered lives and resources and produced no appreciable amounts of tin. The slave labor camps the Belgians built in the Congo to acquire uranium ore for the Manhattan project got the ore, but at a cost in labor and lives that could have been avoided with better resources in the U.S. And the U.S. concentration camps produced no work at all.

There are some outright stupidities here on CODOH too. When I once pointed out that an ex-Nazi guard who claimed that Auschwitz was a pleasure camp had, by his own admission, never been there, I was distressed to come across a contributor who stated that he held people like him to a different standard of truth than people who claimed it was a death camp.

Again, in my Augustinian point of view, that’s just plain ridiculous. As Augustine noted in his CONFESSIONS (And, Bradley Smith, I know you’ve read them, for you’ve quoted them in the past) the truth is something to be loved regardless of the source. Augustine began his career teaching rhetoric and debate under Roman rules, and knew of what he spoke. The source doesn’t matter. If some raging Zionist comes up with the forensic proof that the Holocaust did take place, I’ll cheerfully agree he’s right.

Of course that’s easy to say, since it’s never going to happen. And I still wouldn’t accept it as an excuse for what currently passes as a foundation for morals and ethos.

If I do leave, I’ll continue the good work without you. As some of you know, I completed the first English translation of Jean Plantin’s PAUL RASSINIER: SOCIALIST, PACIFIST AND REVISIONIST, which is available both here on CODOH and on Aaargh!, and have made major contributions to the English Wikipedia article about him, as well as translating several of his newspaper articles from the 1950’s. In September, I travel to France to interview people who knew him (including some famous Revisionist names) to complete the stage play I’m writing that has him as a character. After all, if you’re an actor, you want to know how to play him.

Also in the fall, I’m meeting some correspondents at the engineering school at the University of Wisconsin-Madison to ask them how a gas van could possibly pump exhaust into a closed container full of people without cooking them (modern diesels on an 18-wheeler have an average exhaust temperature of 714 degrees, hotter than the broiler on your oven). The thermal question of the gas vans has never been raised, and I hope to make a unique contribution to a forensic debunking.

Anyway, for Duckchuck and others, I’ve read all the wartime propaganda from both sides, don’t forget, I’m from the town that can claim Austin App as a native son; and see little that helps in the present. Perhaps you should review Germar Rudolf’s lecture “The Controversy about the Extermination of the Jews” with its wonderful first chapter.


Governor Huey Long said Fascism will come to America, it just won’t be called Fascism. Yes, I know Long was murdered by a Jew, but should I condemn all Jews for it, and decide that they must have been defenders of Fascism? The creeping fascism that will ruin the world for future generations does not come from the long-dead negativist movements of the past but from the new generation of would be dictators, who will be neither Jewish, American, Russian or Japanese, nor Catholic or Muslim.

They will only be opportunitists who seize their advantages as they present themselves, without morality, honor, or vision. If there was no money in The Holocaust Industry, then events of the 1940’s would already be as forgotten as the American concentration camps in the Philippines, to which I’ve alluded before. The world has dealt with their type before.

As Germar Rudolf wrote, there are no monsters, just people. Evil and good are not unique traits in anybody. Again, as St. Augustine points out in his tale, the woman who stood on a high moral horse and claimed that she never did anything immoral actually had nothing to brag about. Either the opportunity never presented itself or, in his vision, the Grace of God protected her, which is not her doing. In my cynicism, I’d suggest she was just incompetent at being immoral. Tried, but failed.

And as Paul Rassinier wrote, freedom is for everybody, or it’s for nobody. Dr. Finkelstein is fighting his fight as he sees it, and to accuse him of hypocrisy of any kind is a hollow and meaningless accusation.

Final note: For those of you here who visit sites like Stormfront and condemn hook-nose Jews, be advised that my Jewish girlfriend – who not only supports my revisionist activities, but has been of incredible help with them –well, she does not have a hook nose.

But she does have a great ass.

User avatar
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 624
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 12:47 pm

Postby ASMarques » 1 decade 2 years ago (Wed Apr 02, 2008 3:31 am)

Playwright, I agree with most of your statement, with some marginal disagreement on one account: I've read a good deal about the supposed Congo genocide by Leopold's Belgians, including the tract by Mark Twain and a few historical pieces from the larger campaign behind it, mentioning the evidence (a large part of it anecdotal in nature) brought out by a very few individuals -- such as Roger Casement [*], well-intended but very likely prone to exaggeration -- and I believe the whole thing was, and continues to be, blown out of all proportion.

[*] Casement was the once British consul to the Congo that during the Great War, after retirement from the consular service, joined the underground struggle for Irish independence, went to Germany, landed on the English coast from a German submarine, and was executed by the British in 1916, the first knight of the realm to be charged with high treason in several hundred years. He seems to have been an idealist and a brave man, but his very influential role on the anti-Leopold campaign presented, in my opinion, considerable signs of exaggeration through his claims, as is often the case in otherwise commendable causes.

User avatar
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 624
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 12:47 pm

Postby ASMarques » 1 decade 2 years ago (Fri Apr 04, 2008 9:36 pm)

ASMarques wrote:[...] landed on the English coast from a German submarine [...]

-- Correction: Casement landed on the Irish, not the English coast. He did, however, plan to have an Irish brigade fighting on the German side in Egypt, of all places, joining as he put it "the Irish green with the green of the Prophet." Quite a romantic character, as you can see.

-- Disclaimer: this subject, of course, is off-topic for this forum, and I don't intend to extend it, but please let me edge my previous message by stating that I do recognize a lot of harsh -- criminal even -- aspects to the Belgian colonization of the Congo, such as the corvée system etc.. However, that sort of thing was far from unique to Leopold's Congo. What seems disputable to me is simply the genocidal character of the Belgian colonization and the usual "many millions of victims" figures, based on little more than the impressions of hardly half a dozen travelers and a couple of photos of indigenous people who had had their hands cut off.

Return to “'Holocaust' Debate / Controversies / Comments / News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests