Vincent Reynouard: Revisionism: The Reasons for Germany Silence

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
User avatar
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 3977
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 12:11 pm

Vincent Reynouard: Revisionism: The Reasons for Germany Silence

Postby phdnm » 6 years 2 months ago (Thu Aug 20, 2015 4:33 am)

Revisionism: The Reasons for Germany Silence

Vincent Reynouard explains why this silence in Germany

User avatar
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 3977
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 12:11 pm

Re: Vincent Reynouard: Revisionism: The Reasons for Germany Silence

Postby phdnm » 6 years 2 months ago (Sat Aug 22, 2015 11:38 am)

Vincent Reynouard answers "Why Silence in Germany?"

By Vincent Reynouard

Read the complete text of the video below.

Why this silence in Germany? A subscriber asked me: "Why, since 1945, German people and their leaders -the first concerned by the official lies - keep silence and are not the first to defend the historical reality, and thus some lost honor?''

This question is important because one of the invoked arguments to reject -without examination - revisionist theses says that if revisionists were right, many Germans would rise in numbers in support. So why this silence in Germany? Silence that has been going on since 1945.

Several reasons.

Propaganda and denazification.

In 1945, Germany surrendered without conditions and the defeated regime was immediately swept with the arrest of its leaders. Now in possession of the country, the victors had in hand all the means of action which allowed them to organize a broad operation of propaganda and denazification to bring about arrests, trials and sentences. In such an atmosphere, those who wanted to publicly defend the country's honor not only couldn't, but didn't dare to, fearing imprisonment waiting for the worst.

Paradoxically, the only ones who dared to speak were those who were interviewed in order to investigate the so-called trial of war criminals. But theirs were statements made in the secrecy of a magistrate's office. To discover them, one has to dig into the archives. You can discover, for example, this woman's statement who, during the war, worked as a housekeeper at a high grade officer's home next to Dachau camp. She assured that even in 1944, whereas restrictions worsened, the camp's prisoners who worked outside received a second breakfast at 10 a.m. consisting of 200gr of bread and 100 to 150gr of sausage. She added that during winter the prisoners were not poorly clothed ... they didn't have to freeze... and that she never noticed ill-treatments. She also said that some prisoners were employed to clean her employer's garden. They were considered as part of the household, ate with the family, talked and played with the children. One of the prisoner was even called ''Uncle'' by the children.

Yet in Dachau: This head of the Allach Commando specified that prisoners were treated as civilian workers and they received food supplement in form of bread, sausage, lard, cheese, milk, fruits, spices, tea and mineral water. On January 14th, 1947 during the POHL's team investigation trial, this German told how -once informed of the terrible conditions at Dora camp under construction at the time - the Camp Administration had immediately responded by sending trucks of food, drugs and hygiene materials. On his side, a company manager which employed deportees, emphasized that they not only received coupons that allowed them to buy things at the canteen, but also work clothes, shoes and coats, food supplements, vegetables and potatoes, tobacco, cigarettes and chewing tobacco.

During the so-called ''Nazi Doctors'' investigation trial, a colleague heard as a witness stressed that in the last period of war, camps had received twice as many vaccines against typhoid than the Waffen SS. On May 14th 1947, this German citizen, who worked at the office to provide clothing, revealed that once the supply shortage occurred, clothing were stolen in the Waffen SS to be given to camp prisoners, which was a blatant violation of the regulation.

These actions had also caused incidents. A camp prisoner who had found - in one of the pockets of the clothing he had been given - a letter from the donor, had writtena card to the donor to thank her. But the woman had complained to the authorities claiming that she gave these clothes so that they would benefit a soldier, not a prisoner. The case was fortunately not followed up on.

Nuremberg archives contain many documents relating to such anecdotes. But they were never published. And in the post-war atmosphere, the authors of these stories never repeated them publicly. And those who were lucky enough to escape the allies judicial machine had only one thought: to be forgotten.

This is why a man like Adolf Eichmann, who was perfectly informed on the true story about the ''final solution,'' never stood up to proclaim the truth to the world. He managed to flee and, knowing that he was hunted, he was hiding and was silent. Once he was arrested and sent to Israel for his trial, he adopted a so-called collusion defense hoping to save his life. One could tell me that he knew he was condemned and for that reason he could have told the truth; a typical response of the person who doesn't know what it's like to be caught up in the judicial machine. We then cling to any hope however small it might be, as illusory as it might be. Besides, if he had been telling the truth the hearing would have been interrupted, and in the following days he would have been reportedly found a suicide in his cell.

About Eichmann. I have discovered in the Nuremberg archives some very interesting documents. This is the transcript interview that took place on June 11th, 1946 under the victor's eyes. Between the SS lawyer and Eberhard von Thadden. During the war he was working for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in a division which dealt with the Jewish Question. As such, he had often met Eichmann. During interrogation, he said that Eichmann had rejected all the propaganda rumors on an alleged extermination of the Jews. He explained that Germany was in such need of workforce that it would have been senseless to exterminate the Jews. On the contrary, those who were worked received proper food. Then von Thadden asked him why children and elderly were also deported since they couldn't work. Eichmann answered that the Reich Führer had ordered that no family should be separated, for separation brought a decline in the efficiency of the one who was able to work. For that reason, all the Jewish work camps in the East were established as family camps. Some will shout that it is a lie. But it is consistent with what the Soviet accusation declared on February 8th 1946 in Nuremberg. The Russian prosecutor said: ''The special investigation led by the Special Committee of the State of the Soviet Union established that at the front, beside their first line of defense, the Germans systematically created special concentration camps in which were interned ten of thousand of children, women and elderly not able to work. The outskirts of those camps were mined. Were they not those Jews that Germans had deported to the East with all their families, to park them in the work camps and that they had abandoned at the time they had to retreat?

Why, later on, did von Thadden not reveal to the world all that he knew about the Jewish Question, and notably about what Eichmann had constantly told him? Simply because he feared the justice of his country. In 1950, von Thadden narrowly escaped from its clutches when the charges against him had been dropped. But a few years later, problems resumed again. His fatal car accident in 1958 switched off the prosecution. But that is what prevented him having to stand trial. Von Thadden is the perfect example of the man who knew a lot, but whom, for fear of justice, kept his mouth shut.

I would mention also Walter Dejako and Fritz Hertl, two architect engineers who were responsible for the construction of the Birkenau crematorium. After the war, they were careful not to shout loudly the truth. Caught all the same by the judicature, in 1972 they were brought to trial. A trial that ended in acquittal. But even after that, they chose to be forgotten. Walter Dejako died in 1978 and in July of the same year Professor Faurisson went to see Fritz Hertl. He wanted to obtain information about the crematorium designs that he had discovered earlier in the archives of Auschwitz's Museum. 12 years later Professor Faurisson wrote: ''I met an old man distraught at the prospect of his troubles again. He obstinately refused to give me any information, but he said all the same that he had, for his part, never noticed any gas chambers in Auschwitz or in Birkenau.''

As we can see, even decades later, fear suffices to close many mouths. Germans ''First concerned''? But fear of justice - or more generally fear of problems - is not the only reason. You are surprised, dear subscriber, that the first concerned by the official lies do no react. Your surprise is understandable but did it not occurr to you that most of the Germans would not be the first concerned? One day, a student to whom I gave private lessons told me that during renovations around his house in Normandy the workers had recovered Nazi bullets. In fact, they were German bullets from the Second World War. But my young student's words made me meditate at length. And I understood.

Since 1945, National Socialism is seen as a dark block of suffering, violence and death. National Socialism is like in the movie "Hellriser", the eruption of hell on Earth. Hell with its share of agony. We deduce that National Socialism is not human. It is evil. Therefore, the Third Reich is a Germany possessed by the hitlerien demon. Except it is well known that the possessed is not himself anymore. He retains the same human appearance but he is only the tool of the demon. From that moment, National Socialist Germany could still have the appearance of Germany with its inhabitants and its landscapes, but it was not Germany anymore; it was the Reich, haunted by the dictator Hitler.

In 1945, denazification was just an exorcism on a national scale. They had to take the Nazi demon out of Germany's body. And the Allies did it. For many Germans it is not Germany that lost its honor, it is the National Socialist Reich. Nuance is crucial. For these Democrat Germans, honor is to have been reinstated in the so-called civilized nations. So don't go talk to them about revisionism. This is not of their concern. Because they feel toward the Third Reich just like the parents feel toward their daughter who became possessed by the demon.

And the other Germans? All Germans are not like that; some know that National Socialism is far from this propaganda caricature. But paradoxically, the related speech they hold is the same. Oh, after several years of purgatory, they say, and a good anti-national socialist cure, we have been reintegrated into the community of nations. It was unexpected, therefore we must not squander this chance. And if you insist, they will answer: Of course, not everything was negative in National Socialism. Of course the victors' propaganda exaggerated, but what do you want, the fate of arms was against us. And to reintegrate into the community of nations, we had to accept those lies. National Socialism died in 1945, nothing will revive it, therefore let's look ahead and not behind. It will spare us many problems. We finally find out that moral utility which consists in favoring what is advantageous, regardless of truth or justice. It leaves the field open to liars? Maybe. It is unfair? Yes maybe. But at least we can enjoy life without fearing problems.

Fear of problems and desire to live in peace - these are the two pillars that support the lie. No need to go or see further, all is here.

Yes, you would say, but this fear is aroused by the repressive law. And, in France, the revisionist law was imposed by the action of the Jews led by Laurent Fabius. This is not the Gayssot law, this is the Fabius-Gayssot law! Maybe. So what can we do? Yell ''Death to the Jews''? Accuse them all day long?

I suggest to you something better. As Lanza del Vasto wrote: It is by all means allowed to every honest man to have us beaten or thrown in jail as much as possible in large numbers and all together. Criminal law is based on fear of punishment. It is equipped for prosecution of people hiding and fleeing. Against those who rush to the front of thugs, jailers and executioners, the law is taken aback and confused. Full prisons will have to be opened ...

I have shown the way, but I remain alone, desperately alone. Much like Horst Mahler in Germany, and others elsewhere. However, if tomorrow we were 300, 600 even 1,000 to openly defy, each on our side, the Gayssot law; if we were going to each others trials in a compact group, not to play the justice game and defend ourselves, but to be there and take this opportunity to calmly hand out fliers with revisionist arguments -- do you believe that the case would go unnoticed?

I am told that I am wrong. That people are not responsible for their misfortune, but that they are asleep and fooled by television. OK. Well then, let's wake them up, undeceive them by a manly and courageous action. Let's plan something with the help of social networks. Are you ready to attempt the adventure? Then send me an email. When I would get 300, we will plan something. Some will probably say that it is foolish. I will oppose them with the antisemitic Edouard Drumont, whom, in a book, reminded that the characteristic of the insurgent is to embark on the unknown, to violently force the hand of destiny, and by the mere fact of his will, by the extraordinary power given to him by the sacrifice he makes in advance of his life, to compel Destiny to give birth.

The insurgent basically never knows what will happen as a result of what he does, but he knows that something will happen. He has produced action and this action creates movements, currents, operates displacement of circumstances and beings, disorders that which would have remained dormant without this shake. Are you ready to attempt this adventure with me? I am waiting for you.

Good night.

You like our videos? Help us to continue. Give for the cause.

YOU CAN HELP giving it directly to this account:

Holder: Siegfried VERBEKE


For an international money transfer :

IBAN : BE35 2200 0505 3837


You can also send money in an envelope to the following address:
Siegfried Verbeke
Italiëlei, 203B
B-2000 ANTWERPEN (Belgium)

Or, you can send money to Reynouard on line with Western Union ... ce-germany

Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 352
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 7:01 pm

Re: Vincent Reynouard: Revisionism: The Reasons for Germany Silence

Postby neugierig » 6 years 2 months ago (Sun Aug 23, 2015 1:42 pm)

Thanks for posting this, phdnm, and thanks also to Monsieur Reynouard. What he writes is mostly true, sadly so. However, right after the war there were some books published that were highly critical of the now accepted version of events. Prof Dr. Franz Scheidl comes to mind, as well as Heinrich Härtle and others. This is why the Eichmann trial had to be staged, and staged it was, Gaby Weber has done some excellent work on it (I’m only part way through it, plan to post on it)

This spectacle was then followed by the Frankfurt Auschwitz Trials (1963-1965). Both ‘trials’ were farcical, a perversion of justice, but they brainwashed the younger generations in Germany into believing the lie version of history. This then started to silence those critical, and laws passed later did the rest.

Going through the older publications of the quarterlies (VfZ) published by the Institute of Contemporary History in Munich (IfZ), I found that even Martin Broszat, appearing as an expert witness at that nonsensical Frankfurt proceeding, seems to have had questions as to how this so called “Endlösung” supposedly came about. In 1970 he published an article, performing some dangerous mental gymnastics in an effort to explain ... #more-2305

He followed this up with another article in 1977, advancing a new theory (Hitler und die Genesis der Endlösung). Then in 1985 he published a “Plea for the historicizing of National Socialism”. The later publishing’s brought critics on to the scene, Christopher R. Browning, Shlomo Aronson, Dan Diner as well as Saul Friedländer. They all tried to discredit Broszat, pretending that all was settled. They failed miserably. I started to work on this, as a follow-up to the above article, alas, health problems got in the way.

Phdnm, please do not take this as criticism of Reynouard’s fine work, it is not. It is only to show that some tried to set the record straight, but the Industry prevailed, their efforts shored up by laws.


Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2015 9:51 pm

Re: Vincent Reynouard: Revisionism: The Reasons for Germany Silence

Postby abandoner » 6 years 2 months ago (Wed Aug 26, 2015 3:44 am)

Thanks for the share of these informations.

User avatar
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 3815
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:59 am

Re: Vincent Reynouard: Revisionism: The Reasons for Germany Silence

Postby Hektor » 4 years 2 months ago (Sun Jul 30, 2017 9:12 am)

neugierig wrote:Thanks for posting this, phdnm, and thanks also to Monsieur Reynouard. What he writes is mostly true, sadly so. However, right after the war there were some books published that were highly critical of the now accepted version of events. Prof Dr. Franz Scheidl comes to mind, as well as Heinrich Härtle and others. This is why the Eichmann trial had to be staged, and staged it was, Gaby Weber has done some excellent work on it (I’m only part way through it, plan to post on it)

I am checking it out as well. Gaby Weber doesn't appear to "deny the Holocaust", just the version around how Eichmann was apprehended, brought to Israel etc. She also points out that the person now known as Adolf Eichmann had connections to intelligence services.

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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests