Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
I have not been able to find much else on this book. Does anyone know if it was reviewed in any other publication besides Time? What were the nature of the comments? Did any international or domestic public figures/political leaders endorse or make any reference to it? What, if any, was the extent of its circulation and influence?
One of the things that gives credibility to this book is the Jewish anti-Nazi boycott of 1933 wherein Jewish leaders were quoted of their intention to "starve" Germany into submission. I have found a few scattered references to this boycott, but nothing very comprehensive. Is anyone aware of a good book or article on this very interesting subject?
- Valued contributor
- Posts: 467
- Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2002 11:17 am
- Location: Here and there, mostly there
8x57 wrote:I've read this book on line as well as its review in Time Magazine in March 1941. I have also noted that on-line Judeo-philes are very sensitive to and embarassed by any reference to it and its author, whom they invariably denounce as a "lone nut" and a "crackpot."
Yes, Mr. Kaufman was the Mr. Lee Harvey Oswald of his day.
Here's what Mr. Zimmerman wrote on the subject in his otherwise unfortunate book, Holocaust Denial:
The ideology of Holocaust denial necessarily must deal in moral equivalencies. The Daily Express headline and Chaim Weizmann's letter are two of the most salient examples. However, the most interesting and provocative figure in denial is not a Nazi or even a prominent Jew.
Rather, it is an obscure Jewish writer named Theodore Kaufman. Very little is known about Kaufman. The information available on him suggests that he was a loner with no ties to any organization. Kaufman wrote a book entitled Germany Must Perish in 1941. The theme of his book is that most Germans were an inherently warlike and aggressive people who would forever be starting a war unless something was done to stop them. His solution was to sterilize all Germans so that they could not procreate. However, this sterilization plan did not apply to German-Americans.120
Kaufman's book does not appear to have been reviewed in any publications. It is not listed in the Book Review Digest for 1941 or 1942. This is not unusual since he had to publish the book under the Argyle Press, in Newark, New Jersey. The Argyle Press was a creation of Kaufman himself. Nevertheless, denier Paul Rassinier saw Kaufman's book as constituting a major threat to Germany.121 Similarly, Wilhelm Staglich cited Kaufman as justification for Germany's anti-Jewish policies. 122
Both Kaufman and his book would probably have gone completely unnoticed if it had not been for a Time magazine article on March 24, 1941. This is where David Irving, ever the inventor of historical desideratum, enters the Kaufman fiasco. Underneath a photograph of Kaufman, Irving states that Time magazine "lauds the book."123 Irving writes: "The [book's] dust cover carried endorsements from Time magazine, the Washington Post and the New York Times."124 Irving gives Kaufman prominent attention in several places in his Goebbels book. 125 He even goes so far as to quote from Eichmann's memoirs that "Kaufman's plan for the complete Ausrottung of the German people was known to us at the time when the first order was given for the physical destruction of the Jews."126 Thus, there is an implication, subtly stated, that Germany's destruction of the Jews was a defensive measure. Interestingly, here Irving uses the word ausrottung as meaning extermination.
The cover of the book that Irving reproduces states that this is "The Book that Hitler Fears." However, this cover and the alleged endorsements cited by Irving on the back cover are not from the original book. Germany Must Perish was republished by Liberty Bell Publications in 1980, a printing arm of the neo-Nazi Liberty Lobby. On the inside of the book's front cover we are told that "[t]his book so completely unnerved Dr. Goebbels that he denounced it on the front page of every newspaper in Germany and over the entire German radio network." These claims will now be examined.
Time magazine was said to have called the theme of this book "a sensational idea". Both the book's back cover and an article by Irving quote this portion of the Time article. The reason for this is obvious: both Liberty Bell and Irving are attempting to give the impression that a significant American media outlet was endorsing Kaufman's idea. However, not surprisingly, the quote is taken out of context. Time analogized Kaufman's idea to that of an early 18th century writer, Dean Swift, who proposed that Ireland cure its economic ills by selling "its starving children as dressed meat." Time also notes: "no less grisly than the Dean's it [Kaufman's idea] was not even supposed to be ironic."
Time's article on Kaufman's book is totally derisive. Kaufman is subjected to ridicule and compared to Nazi Jew - baiter and publisher Julius Streicher. Kaufman's book is stated to be "[s]trictly a one man job" and he informed Time that he did not have any organization or backers. He had done all of the legwork in promoting the book. However, the most significant part of the Time article deals with Kaufman's first sterilization plan. In 1939 he advocated sterilizing "Americans so that their children might not become homicidal monsters. In step with the times, Sterilizer Kaufman had simply transferred his basic idea to the enemy."127 Thus, any rational person reading this article would have understood that Kaufman was (1) mentally unbalanced (2) spoke only for himself and (3) had a morbid fascination with sterilization.
The so called endorsement from the New York Times is non-existent. The back cover of the Liberty Bell edition of the book cites the Times as calling Kaufman's idea "A plan for Permanent Peace Among Civilized Nations"! However, the New York Times only discusses Kaufman twice in 1941 and neither article speaks favorably of the book. 128 As for the Washington Post "endorsement" it is as apocryphal as that of the New York Times. Using the methodology of Liberty Bell and Irving one could argue that Irving endorsed the book because he calls it "extraordinary."129
Apparently Kauffman was not the only Jewish luminary with a morbid interest in sterilization.
Professor Bernadotte E. Schmitt
The good professor hated Germany...
James J. Martin wrote:It is possible to argue that, after all, the massacres of civilians in Germany and Japan did not approach by a wide mark n what civilian propagandists had called for as a proper fate for these lands. Bernadotte E. Schmitt, professor of modern history at the University of Chicago, in a speech before the twenty-first annual meeting of the National Council for the Social Studies in Indianapolis on December 1, 1941, before the United States was even an official belligerent, advocated, among other things, for Germany, a reduction of its population by thirty million, method of disposal unspecified but starvation indicated, since he also recommended the country's reduction and confinement to a strictly agricultural economy. "Since there are only 45 million Britons, 45 million Italians, 40 million Frenchmen, and 80 million Poles, as opposed to 80 million Germans, the equilibrium of Europe would be more stable if there were only 50 million Germans,"11 Schmitt concluded. However, he did not disclose how many Russian communists were too many Russian communists for Europe's welfare and stability.
Few Germanophobes subsequently approached Schmitt's standard, though a few months before, it was exceeded by one Theodore Newman Kaufman, who published a book Germany Must Perish!12, a plea for sterilizing the entire adult German population, a project which he calculated might be achieved in about three years. Though privately published, this book received an amazing amount of attention in the spring of 1941, including a major uncritical review in so widely dispersed a journal as Time.13 Strangely enough, two years earlier Kaufman, as chairman of the American Federation of Peace, had suggested sterilization for all adult Americans should Congress permit the United States to become involved in another European war.
11 See long story in Time (December 1, 1941), pp. 57-58, headed "History Lesson." Also useful to the subject is Schmitt's What Shall We Do With Germany? (Public Policy Pamphlets, No. 38, University of Chicago Press, 1943).
12 Newark, New Jersey: Argyle Press, 1941.
13 Time (March 24, 1941), pp. 95-96.
Hope that helps.
- Valued contributor
- Posts: 467
- Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2002 11:17 am
- Location: Here and there, mostly there
Thanks very much for the information on Prof. Schmitt. I was not aware of him, although I have read some of James J. Martin's work.
I have also read that F.A. Von Hayek advocated brutal, genocidal treatment of post-war Germany but I cannot remember that source and frankly did not think it very important at the time, many years ago. Now, having stumbled across the books by Kaufmann and Nizer, as well as Prof. Schmitt, the statement by von Hayek assumes new importance.
As for Nizer, he was really not comparable to Dershowitz, except in his characteristic brand of ethnic savagry and blood lust. Dershowitz teaches and does appellate work but Nizer was a real working lawyer who tried many famous cases and he was up against some pretty tough lawyers on the other side. He wrote and lectured a great deal, but to other working lawyers rather than to law students. Giving credit where it's due, Dershowitz is a big man in a class room full of twenty-something year olds over whom he has absolute power. Nizer as a working lawyer had to face opposing counsel and trial judges over whom he had no power at all, except such power as resulted from his considerable personal and professional skills.
How interesting that the Judeo-philes' highly public and explicit calls for and promulgation of specific plans to exterminate the German people require no similar concealment?
A sense of shame and dishonor associated with mass murder compelled the Nazis to conceal their role in such acts. There is apparently, however, no similar sense of shame and dishonor associated with the open and explicit Jewish calls for the extermination and mass murder of non-Jews such such as the German people.
What an interesting comparison between two cultures and two moralities.
A sense of shame and dishonor associated with mass murder compelled the Nazis to conceal their role in such acts.....
And what 'acts' would those be? I suggest to 8x57 that he post something to a new thread that he feels supports his notion of 'concealed Nazi mass murder'.
I simply wanted to emphasize the double standard. The absense of any written directive/order is given as circumstantial evidence of guilt, since such purported orders were either in writting or destroyed, or concealed in some fashion. The extermination of an entire ethnic or natinal group is not something that would ordinarily be considered praisworthy.
The Jewish calls for extermination of the German people, however, were quite explicit, open and unequivocal.
The double standard lies in the fact that guilt and dishonor are associated with crimes (real or imagined) AGAINST Jews but no guilt or dishonor are associated in the public mind with crimes (whether attempted or completed) BY Jews.
The purpose of this post was not to debate the issue of whether the Holocuast actually occured. I personally think it did not.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: MSN [Bot] and 4 guests