Letters

Incredible

Your web site is incredible! You've greatly helped motivate me to learn all I can about historical truth. I've recently returned to school to study social science, with an emphasis on history, political science and economics.

N. K.
[by e-mail]

Fabulous Search Capability

Just a note of praise for the built-in keyword search engine in your web site. It's fabulous. It makes it possible to instantly locate just about anything one might want.

R. P.
Derry, New Hamp.

The Buchanan Challenge

In his new book, A Republic Not an Empire, Pat Buchanan argues that Hitler posed no threat to the United States in 1940. What is remarkable about this assertion is that a prominent public figure is making it in 1999. In 1940 this was the view of the great majority of Americans, as well as of such knowledgeable individuals as Charles Lindbergh, the pioneer aviator, and Joseph Kennedy, US ambassador to Britain (and father of the President). During the 1940 re-election campaign, President Roosevelt pledged, “again and again and again,” that “your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars.” In November 1941, shortly before the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and America's direct involvement in the war, a Gallup poll showed that a staggering 85 percent of the American people still wanted to stay out of the conflict then raging in Europe.

Today, of course, almost no one is willing to say that our war against Nazi Germany was a mistake, let alone someone who is seeking to be elected President.

An important reason for this complete about-face in public sentiment is the impact of the Nuremberg Tribunal of 1945-46, which, through its dramatic revelations, seemingly proved the wartime Allied propaganda portrayal of the Hitler regime as both uniquely evil and a threat to world peace.

Also important in shaping public opinion in this regard is the relentless decades-long “Holocaust” campaign. Of the litany of Nazi horrors, none is more important than “the Holocaust” in stifling doubts about the righteousness of America's war against Third Reich Germany, and of the farsightedness of Roosevelt's secretive and illegal efforts to push a reluctant United States into the war. The “Holocaust” campaign also greatly intimidates free debate about Israel, and its well-documented record of expulsion and subjugation of the native Palestinians, and more generally, of United States support for the Zionist state.

“The Holocaust” provides essential justification for the US role in World War II, and for the postwar record of Zionism. Subtract “the Holocaust” from our view of 20th century history, and much of the moral legitimacy of the Allied cause in World War II, and of Israel in the decades since, evaporates.

Because so much depends on the “official” view of World War II history, and especially “the Holocaust,” it is no surprise that challenging it is a crime in a host of countries, and that those who do are so ruthlessly denigrated, persecuted and even legally penalized.

If there is one thing that all sides in the still-raging debate on 20th century history agree on, it is that the stakes are indeed high &dnash; nothing less than the legitimacy of the entire postwar social-political order. The Establishment, and its court journalists and historians, attack Pat Buchanan so intensely because they regard him, correctly, as a threat to their interests.

M. J.
Great Neck, New York

Dangerous Perpetrators

I very much like your site. I'm with you, and I'm sure we'll see more sites like yours in the future. The Holocaust is a fraud, a cynical hoax that must be exposed. Those who perpetrate it are very dangerous, and we cannot permit them to continue with their lies. Count on me.

H. L.
Ponce, Puerto Rico
[by e-mail]

Causing Change

We are causing change worldwide. Thanks for being there.

J. G.
August, Ga.

Remembering World War II Outbreak

September 3, 1999, marks the 60th anniversary of the outbreak of the Second World War, one of the greatest tragedies in history. One of the war's most important lasting effects has been the continuing psychological and political debilitation of European man.

The origins of this war were complex, and involved a number of nations. The Versailles Treaty (1919), which the victors dictated to a defeated and starving Germany, not only split the country in two but also subjected large parts of Germany (notably the “Polish Corridor”) to the control of the newly reconstituted Polish state. Millions of Germans lived in these areas and were so badly oppressed that even as early as 1926 hundreds of thousands of them had left to escape ethnic oppression. In addition, the large and almost purely German city of Danzig was detached from the Reich and established as a “Free City.”

In spite of these circumstances, in 1939 Germany proposed a compromise with Poland that would have involved the return of Danzig, a plebiscite in the “Polish Corridor” area, and a rail and motorway line connecting the detached East Prussia province with the main part of Germany. The Poles haughtily rejected this peace proposal because they were confident that their large armed forces could defeat Germany (as they had defeated Communist Russia in 1920), and because they relied on assurances of support given by Britain in March 1939.

On September 1, 1939, German forces attacked Poland, invading formerly German lands that had been taken over by the Polish state in the aftermath of the First World War. Three days later, Britain and France declared war against Germany, thereby converting the limited conflict between Poland and Germany into a world war. When, two weeks later, Soviet forces similarly invaded Poland, neither Britain nor France issued a declaration of war against the USSR. Unlike Germany, the Soviet Union was not a significant economic competitor with Britain for export markets, especially for manufactured goods.

So confident were the Poles that they would defeat Germany that some of them (including Polish military personnel) brutally murdered tens of thousands of ethnic Germans. No doubt the perpetrators were confident that they would never be punished for these crimes. These well-documented atrocities, often referred to as the “Bromberg Bloody Sunday,” doubtless had an influence on the further conduct and prolongation of the war.

Germany's attack against Poland, an action to protect the ethnic German minority living in the Polish state, was only a pretext for the Anglo-French declaration of war against Germany. This was demonstrated by the fact that in 1945 Britain and France cynically abandoned the Poles, along with the other nations of eastern Europe, to Communist tyranny.

Charles E. Weber
Tulsa, Okla.

John Demjanjuk: Victim of Injustice

In 1993 the Israel Supreme Court ruled that John Demjanjuk was, after all, not the notorious guard of Treblinka known as “Ivan the Terrible.” And last year a US federal judge restored his US citizenship.

Now the Justice Department's “Office of Special Investigations” has revived the 22-year-old case by bringing a new legal complaint against the Ukrainian-born Cleveland retiree. Commenting on the matter, an official of the Jewish-Zionist “Anti-Defamation League” recently called the renewed OSI campaign a “matter of justice and the integrity of American citizenship.”

What's really behind this campaign? The worldwide advance of Holocaust revisionism is a dire threat to Jewish-Zionist power and influence. Jewish groups accordingly have used the trial of Demjanjuk and other alleged “Nazi war criminals” to counter this danger to their interests.

Israel's Attorney General, Yitzhak Zamir, publicly admitted as much when he stated: “At a time when there are those who even deny that the Holocaust ever took place, it is important to remind the world of what a fascist regime is capable of… and in this respect the Demjanjuk trial will fulfill an important function.” (Cleveland Jewish News, March 21, 1986, p. 16)

Similarly, in April 1993, as the case against Demjanjuk was falling apart, an Israeli prosecutor close to the case acknowledged a political motive for continuing the campaign. “So the important thing now,” he said, “is at least to prove that Demjanjuk was part of the Nazi extermination machine… otherwise… we will be making a great contribution to the new worldwide movement of those who deny the Holocaust took place.” (Quoted in: Y. Sheftel, Defending Ivan the Terrible, 1996, p. 402.)

When Jewish goals are laid out frankly, they understandably don't receive much support from non-Jews. That's why they are nearly always presented in terms of lofty-sounding, universal principles. As California psychology professor Kevin MacDonald has demonstrated, Jews often deceitfully frame their purely parochial interests and goals in universalist terms. (Separation and its Discontents, esp. p. 193.)

Accordingly, Jewish groups present their self-serving campaign against Demjanjuk and other “war criminals” as a cause for “justice.” But if the ADL and similar Jewish groups were genuinely concerned about this universal principle, they would support efforts to bring Jewish criminals to justice. American-Jewish journalist John Sack has documented the torture and murder of large numbers of Germans by Jewish officials of the postwar Polish regime. Many of these criminals later moved to the United States. (J. Sack, An Eye for an Eye, 1993, p. 150.) Why the double-standard?

In reality, further legal action against John Demjanjuk will only prolong the undeserved sufferings of an elderly man and his family, and could even exacerbate tensions between Jews and non-Jews.

Paul Grubach
Lyndhurst, Ohio

We welcome letters from readers. We reserve the right to edit for style and space. Write: [… since defunct, don't write; ed.]