Revisionism as a Political Factor in Germany

Revisionists have produced considerable scientific achievements during the last decades; however, what is still missing is a general overview of these opinions and the implications they hold for the present political development. An analysis of this last point will make certain reactions from the establishment understandable and the future actions of ruling powers predictable, but what are urgently needed are studies of what will happen politically, should revisionist views prove correct.

In my opinion the probability seems great that, even with acknowledgement of essential revisionist views, the ability to draw necessary conclusions will be lost because orthodox perspectives are already established. Therefore, the issue is no longer correction of the facts, but their interpretation and the control this has over the powers elite. On the other hand, it is possible that revisionism is the starting point from where the fractured post-war order can be corrected so that careers and private interests of the political and cultural elites, especially of post-war Germany, are considerably endangered. The “rat-like rage” diagnosed decades ago by Heinrich Böll, with which the rest of the current system would be defended, would therefore be indeed correct as a phenomenon, although incorrectly placed by its character.

A preliminary remark is still necessary. The following considerations cannot be pushed aside because their foundation presupposes the correctness of objective revisionist research results; essentially, it comes down to the already secured results and the necessary consideration of what were previously ignored questions. Furthermore, it should be indicated that even in current questions a “revisionist” viewpoint is urgently required; here it will only be mentioned that too many prominent deaths occur in Germany, such as the murders of then Deutsche Bank president Herrhausen and chief of East German trust Rohwedder.[1]

I.

The aforementioned point by ancient Greek philosopher Epiktet is prescribed by the constitution and constitutional reality of the German post-war state. Its foundation is formed on one hand by the thesis of sole guilt of Germany for the Second World War (according to the known quotation of German political scientist Theodor Eschenburg that whoever questions this withdraws the foundation of post war politics[2]), and the Holocaust,[3] which is understood to be a historically unique extermination of a definable group of people by the Germans, as per German Superior Court judge Rudolf Wassermann:[4]

The other side is formed by German constitutional law, especially Article 5(3), which states that art, science, research, and education are free,[5] and Article 3, which demands equal legal treatment for everybody, because with reference to Germans, German history etc., unlimited detrimental allegations can be made, and not only in unknown publications but in the mass media; as an example, the reduction of the number of victims of the bombing raid on Dresden on February 13/14, 1945, to 25,000 should be mentioned here.[6] It should also be known that spraying slogans like “Germany perish!” on house walls is no reason for the authorities to intervene.[7]

The contradiction between German constitutional laws and reality cannot be denied and makes it very difficult for German authorities to maintain credibility. This contradiction affects nations far beyond Germany, because the German Basic Law was created under the supervision of the western victorious powers of WWII and therefore represents the constitutional core of “western societies,” and these powers, as the actual beneficiaries of the post-war order, have every reason to prevent a revision of history.

Almost none of us are in a position to form judgments about the most important subjects; we all are understandably inclined to form our opinions based on the reaction of the other side. Here, the German 'democracy' is handicapped: because it can only react with prohibitions and otherwise evidently false allegations. The more considerate thinkers will soon turn away from this system in the long run. This will accelerate the process of transferring Gramsci's “cultural hegemony” to the opposition, since by now political topics once considered to have been classically political left are more and more occupied by the political right, like freedom of speech (“Auschwitz lie”) and the independence of the judiciary (see the case of Orlet[8]), or the question of rights of the accused in show trials according to the example of the trials of Mölln and Solingen[9] in comparison to the Lübeck trial against Safwan Eid.[10]

As further means to strengthen a servile belief into government dogmas, only the mentioned re-interpretations are left in case the previous 'front' can no longer be held. The embarrassing nature of those re-interpretations, however, can hardly be exceeded: Since the revisionist argument can no longer be refuted that the existing version of the Wannsee-Protocol of January 20, 1942, (often claimed to be the key documentation for the decision to exterminate the Jews) is highly suspect to be a forgery,[11] this is simply explained 'away' by claiming that the meaning so far assigned to this document is simply not true, because the mass murders of the Einsatzgruppen and deportations had already been in full swing for half a year at that time.[12] Since the “mass murders of the Einsatzgruppen and deportations” were known of for a long time, the re-interpreter has only one way to explain the old, 'faulty' perception, i.e., the flight into an undefined “desire to connect the decision to a definite place, named persons, and also to the date and time” – which disqualifies all domestic and foreign historians before that dogmatic shift as irrational idiots; it is also clear that the operation of the expensively furnished memorial in the Wannsee Manor in Berlin as a contemporary museum will continue as before. A detail: the sample of the protocol handed to the visitor – at least for some time – is not a facsimile of the copy from the archive of the German Foreign Office or even a copy of the alleged facsimile of the so-called Kempner edition, but a typewritten copy of a transcript, certified by the notary Wilhelm Dieckmann in Berwedelom, September 25, 1950. The purpose is evident: Since the revisionist argument is essentially based on comparison of the written text and similar methods, copies of the alleged originals shall not be distributed amongst people; it would be embarrassing that in the case of the Kempner version the document of a major German war-time office does not have the customary runic “SS,” and the reproduction of the version of the German Foreign Office could inspire comparison with the edition reproduced by Kempner, and this should be prevented: Big Brother of the nineteen-nineties.[13]

II.

In 1995, a book was published by now deceased German historian Dr. Joachim Hoffmann, once director at the German governmental Research Department for Military History, with the title Stalin's War of Extermination.[14] It was provided with a benevolent preface by Manfred Kehrig, director of the German Federal Archive/Military Archive, which lends the work a semi-official status in the eyes of the reader. The work makes the reader hold his breath at times, not so much because of the actual subject (although the chapter titles speak plainly, like chapter 1, “Stalin proclaims the war of aggression,” and chapter 2, “Hitler preempts Stalin's attack,” which tend to clearly present Stalin as acting and Hitler as reacting[15]), but rather because the author dares to touch upon two core areas of the Holocaust that he could have omitted in view of the book's titled subject: on one hand the complex subject of Babi Yar, and on the other hand the 'six million' number of Jewish victims. The massacre at Babi Yar in September 1941 (the “old woman ravine” near Kiev) is assigned the exact number of victims as 33,771 murdered Jews in an “Event Reports USSR.” According to Hoffmann, any believable documentary evidence is missing, as the number of victims varies between “3,000 and 3,000,000” and different statements about the crime site further prove the clearly propagandistic con games surrounding the alleged events at the end of 1943, which was staged by the Soviet Union in order to render the discovery of mass graves of Soviet victims in Katyn and Vinnitsa forgotten and to deflect attention from the actual 300,000 murdered victims by the NKVD in the mass graves of Bykivnia located near Kiev. A closer inspection shows how far Hoffmann actually dared to go: In note 43 on page 214, he refers to a Polish researcher with the name (Marek) Wolski of a “Société d'Historie Polonaise” in the USA, which appears at first glance completely acceptable, because a Pole can be quoted in full without qualm according to the standards of German political correctness. The note itself is conspicuously kept blurred: “Wolski, 'Le massacre de Babi Yar.'” Only a look into the literature index on page 364 explains what it actually is all about, i.e., an article from Robert Faurisson's Revue d'histoire révisionniste, no. 6, 1992, p. 48-58, since closed down because of political pressure; this is, of course, the favorite journal of the 'Devil' himself, since it was published under the authority of Henri Roques, whose doctorate was retracted for political reasons because he objectively dissected in his dissertation the “confessions of Kurt Gerstein,” a central Holocaust testimony,[16] as completely unbelievable and from a dubious source,[17] while the non-person Professor Faurisson stood in the background. If the article is actually read,[18] one is introduced to an important duty of revisionist historians to finally study the abundantly available but barely evaluated air reconnaissance pictures in order to answer the questions about mass graves and other issues.[19]

The common reader, after reading Hoffmann's assertions, will hardly believe that the German murders occurred in the Babi Yar ravine or at any other place in that vicinity – with no crime scene there can be no crime. But Hoffmann touched on a further problem that he did not really answer, which nonetheless causes considerable doubts for the attentive reader: If the alleged German executions in Kiev cannot be proven, then the statements referring to this in the “event reports USSR” lack a basis in reality. Since the existing event reports are not the original reports prepared by the Einsatzgruppen at the site, but are considered summaries prepared by the German Imperial Security Main Office (Reichssicherheitshauptamt, RSHA) in Berlin based on received event reports and are stored in type-written form at the Federal archive in Koblenz,[20] the question arises whether these documents are of any practical value – or may possible be forgeries. It is difficult to comprehend how the slaughter of exactly 33,771 people, which, as seen, did not happen, ended up in these documents, when we are told to accept the remaining “event reports UdSSR” as essentially correct statements.

And another conclusion: If this reasoning is conclusive, does not the main support then disappear for the six million number, to which the Einsatzgruppen allegedly contributed two million or a full third? Of course it cannot be proven whether Hoffmann went so far in his thoughts or intended his readers to make that inference, but in any case he points in that direction.[21] Hoffmann explicitly mentions the six million number at another point[22] by presenting it as a Soviet propaganda number without any relation to reality – since the Soviets could not know the number of Jews killed by the Germans at that time – so that, therefore, the calculations by Wolfgang Benz et al. in their book Dimension des Völkermords must appear as a justification after the fact for Bolshevistic horror propaganda,[23] which Hoffmann of course also does not say, but more than suggests the reader to conclude.

One could easily predict how the German authorities would react to Hoffmann's book. There were three possibilities:

1. Maintain the status quo, pretending that the book does not exist, and hoping that it would be read only by a small group.
2. Hoffmann would be tried in court like Vogt and Rudolf.[24]
3. “Social means”[25] are used against the author (and publisher), but without a trial (since Hoffmann retired right after publishing this book, job related reprisals were not applicable as with Orlet); a media campaign in order to enforce a reconstruction of Germany's Research Department for Military History to become politically correct or to force the erection of sacred Holocaust memorial places.[26]

So far judicial steps like those against Vogt and Rudolf were taboo with people like Hoffmann; just think about the interview German mainstream historian Prof. Dr. Ernst Nolte gave to Germany's leftist political magazine Der Spiegel in 1994, wherein the Berlin retired professor actually maintained “that the investigations of the gas chambers for traces of hydro-cyanide […] is important” and declares that this is “an approach under the consideration of the […] fact that these cyanide traces are almost indestructible.”[27] Nolte was socially punished through a publication ban in Germany's most reputed daily newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung,[28] which used to be his communication channel during Germany's “quarrel of the historians” in the mid 1980s,[29] but legally nothing happened to him. The notables are therefore still protected, because a legal attack on them would be too head-on. The violation of the German basic right of academic freedom, justified only with a simple, therefore secondary penal code standard, would be too flagrantly evident and could lead to solidarization.

Was Hoffmann eligible for the protection granted to notables, or was the danger possibly considered so great already that an example had to be made? Along with Hoffmann, the honorable “Court Vice-President Johann Birk of Freiburg”[30] who checked Hoffmann's manuscript for punishable legal violations, a necessity, which Hoffmann justly denounced as degrading, would also have had to be prosecuted. The real life, however, consistent behavior by the authorities is the last to be expected; Herr Birk could rest assured, nothing would happen to him: the number of martyrs has to be kept as small as possible, because the slaughter of the author himself is sufficient.[31] Just compare the hysteria after the reasoning for the Deckert sentence was published: the presiding judge Wolfgang Müller was quickly removed out of the firing line. The judge Folkerts who likewise participated was not even worthy of a mention, nor were both magistrates Frau Vera Klug and Frau Evelyn Hopp. Of the five judges panel, only Orlett, the actual editor of the written verdict, became the target, although he would have been alone within the five judges panel without a majority.[32]

As it turned out, neither the author Joachim Hoffmann nor evidently his publishers Dr. Wofgang Bergt (1^st edition) or Herbert Fleißner (for all subsequent editions) were ever punished, but an example was made of Dr. Manfred Kehrig, the leading archive director of the German federal military archive in Freiburg, who wrote the preface to the book, adding his official designation. He was given a reprimand and, according to the author who heard it from a third party, Kehrig raised an objection against it, so that now a trial before the Federal disciplinary court can be expected. While Hoffmann's former office is subordinate to the German defense ministry, Kehrig was subordinate to Prof. Kahlenberg, the head of the German Federal archive of the ministry of the interior, who according to the German left-wing radical magazine Konkret 2/97, p. 7, most dutifully distanced himself by accepting the allegation that the preface was simply a piece of scrap paper, which was published without the knowledge of Kehrig under naming of his official title, which is, of course a lie.[33]

Let us pause for a moment to consider the possible escalations and the chances, which could open up for one side or the other. The above objection that a violation of a secondary penal code like insult or defamation of the memory of the dead overrides a constitutionally guaranteed human right may possibly be countered with another human right as protected by German constitutional law: The right of human dignity (article 1), here the right of the victims of National Socialist persecution to have their fate recognized. This argument is weak, because this article applies also for non-NS victims: their dignity has to be protected against unwarranted or exaggerated accusations of guilt.[34] The fact that the war generation is dying out does not abolish the dilemma either, because in this respect the descendants of the victims have the same rights as the victims themselves.

Of course all this does not suffice when the privileged group (“victims”) cannot separate itself from others; offenses also have to be inherited, as is already practiced when one talks about the “people of perpetrators” (Tätervolk). Thus we arrived exactly at the same “archaic” conditions, which passed for typical of the NS-ideology: pure racism – because being the criminal or the victim is inherited biologically – and vengeful thinking based on morality, which is spreading nowadays as an unchallenged matter of course, because it is revenge, nothing but revenge, through which the massive expelling and deportation and mass murder of Germans from East Germany (Silesia, East and West Prussia, East Pomerania) and eastern Europe as well as the eradication of the German civilian population through bombing, even in the final phase of the war, was and still is justified.

The consequence, so far ignored, is the unavoidable abolishment of Christianity as an ethical factor and its predictable early end, since dogmatically seen, this religion hit the bottom already at the end of the 19^th century.[35]

Should there be no reaction to the Hoffmann book or only an ineffective one, it would frrm that time on be a quotable book, which even government officials could refer to because of its semi-official character.

Therefore, the system cannot tolerate this book under any circumstance, but if it tried to curtail it as described above, it would provoke the next book, which would doubtlessly contain an even more subversive content. The system then would have to react against such a book in a much more severe way than it reacted against Hoffmann, or (what is more important) it would be perceived that way; this way the game, increasing in severity, could continue for a while.

At the end of this, should the authorities prevail, there would no longer be the present German system, but a dictatorship, whose preliminary stages have already been thoroughly studied elsewhere.[36] How far the mental process toward a dictatorship has already advanced in Germany is indicated, for example, by Wolfgang Wippermann, professor at the Free University of Berlin. He asserted without reproach that dead US-historian Harry Elmer Barnes “should have been locked up, either in a jail or in a closed institution”(!)[37] because of his statements about contemporary history. And Wippermann is not only allowed to say this, the brochure containing his essay with the title “About the Genesis and Function of the Auschwitz Lie” is actually distributed by the German authorities free of charge to all students in all Berlin schools![38] At the end of this essay, Prof. Wippermann unwittingly discloses the weakness of the side that he presents, wherein he attacks the “insulting and infamous allegation” of the “equally dangerous” indirect Auschwitz lie, that “the Soviets, the Red Khmer […] etc were not any better (than the National Socialists).” But since the number of victims of communist systems just during peacetime times – for example: the artificially created starvation in the Ukraine at the beginning and the “Great Terror” at the end of the thirties – far outnumbers the traditional number of victims of all claimed National Socialist crimes – which essentially were committed only during the war – even according to established literature, all Wippermann can do is to make unfounded allegations.

III.

Obviously as a reaction to the reports by Leuchter[39] and especially Rudolf,[40] a trend could be observed to tacitly remove the subject of the “gas chambers” from the repertories, most obviously[41] in Spielberg's film “Schindler's List,” in which no gas chambers are shown,[42] although the subject practically provokes this. Instead, Spielberg simply turns the uniqueness of German crimes around: characteristic for him is not the, until then, alleged “normalcy” or even “humanity” of the criminal participants, which always became evident to the observers of NS war crime trials, but excessive and, in the end, quite banal brutality.

In the meantime the front appears to have hardened again, probably following a kind of domino theory, according to which the yielding of one point necessarily could lead to other allegations, which could no longer be upheld. The examples are numerous: the reduction of the number of deaths of Dresden was already mentioned as a supporting measure. Conversely, the numbers of Auschwitz victims were, after the low point announced in the German edition of Pressac's book about the crematoriums of Auschwitz (631,000-775,000, of which 470,000-550,000 were gassed [evidently only Jews]),[43] without any further substantiation restated as over one million. Also, gassings in the Altreich (Germany) are mentioned again, as are Dachau and Ravensbrück, and even Theresienstadt, where a group of 2,500 prisoners from Bergen-Belsen were transferred in order to be gassed in the chambers there.[44]

The main goal of the anthology “Ende des Dritten Reiches – Ende des Zweiten Weltkrieges,” edited by Hans-Erich Volkmann (Piper-Verlag, 1995), is evidently to reject revisionist results in less important areas. The treatment of the book Other Losses[45] by Canadian James Bacque may serve as an instance. In the first edition, Bacque assessed the death of almost a million German prisoners of war through planned starvation and privation in US American and French camps without shelter and by withholding of medical care. In the second edition, Bacque increased his victim count by almost a quarter million to a figure exceeding one million. This genocidal crime committed by US and French occupational forces in Germany is shrugged off in Volkmann's anthology with the remark that it may have actually been occasionally a little bad in the camp at Bad Kreuznach/Galgenberg/Bretzenheim, because it was a camp for especially evil Waffen-SS members, but according to the local administration(!) the number of dead was only 1,503 with a total occupation of 159,000 men on May 8, 1945[46] – as if the argumentation of Bacque is not based on the dead in hundreds of forced labor camps. The lesson of the 'Holocaust' was possibly a prototype here, which alleges the mass extermination in essentially only a handful places.

Apart from that, it attracts attention that Bacque's criticism of documents is not even touched upon, and therefore cannot be considered refuted. The mass media plays eagerly along with this type of argumentation, like the newspaper Berliner Morgenpost, which dedicated at least one article to the bombing raid on Potsdam, but the number of victims, which was originally stated as 7,000, was reduced to 1,593, after “checking the available(!) government documents” and counting the number of diseased listed in the city's cemeteries bearing the date April 14, 1945 (The day of the air raid).[47]

A parallel development to this can be found in recent books like Gestapo-Müller by Gregory Douglas,[48] and Einsatz für das Reich” by Wilhelm Höttl (S. Bublies 1997). These writings appear to be revisionist, but they actually are simply absurd, as was shown by Steffen Werner's review of the first volume of Gestapo Müller.[49] Similarly incredible is Höttl's book, a witness during the Nuremberg show trials: it simply confirms the reigning views in all important questions and concentrates on secondary events by repeating things, which, although not well known, were nevertheless already published long time ago, like on page 88ff. the document of the German navy attaché in Ankara of January 11, 1941, which reported about attempts by the radical Zionistic military organization Irgun (the Israeli president Jitzchak Schamir was a later prominent member, among others) to contact the NS leadership about a mutual fight against the British occupiers in Palestine, in which the Irgun people uttered the phrase that they were “closely related in their ideology and structure to the totalitarian [i.e. fascistic] movement of Europe.” In the whole book, Höttl refrained from somehow clarifying what caused him to join the secret service of the National Socialist party in Austria long before the Anschluß (unification of Austria with Germany in 1938), that is at a time, when the National Socialist party was still outlawed and suppressed in Austria by the so-called Austro-Fascist government.

The purpose of such books is to make the core statements of orthodox worldview acceptable to those who are inclined towards revisionism, because in the end the best defense is a good offense. It is possible that these various attempts at upholding the historiographic status quo are no longer necessary. Karl-Heinz Janßen and Fritz Tobias (the known researcher about the sole Reichstags arsonist van der Lubbe) jointly wrote the book Der Sturz der Generäle,[50] in which the Blomberg-Fritsch crisis of 1938 is investigated. According to the orthodox view, both Wehrmacht generals were removed from office because they allegedly contradicted Hitler on his alleged aggressive war plans during a meeting with him and the then German foreign minister von Neurath on November 5,1937. This also served as additional confirmation of the authenticity of the so-called “Hoßbach protocol,” which was allegedly prepared based on this meeting. Its authenticity had been shaken to the core especially by the investigations by Dankwart Kluge.[51]

Janßen and Tobias, on the other hand, come to the well founded conclusion that Blomberg fell victim to human weakness: the almost sixty year old field marshal and then German Minister if War fell in love with a young woman who was known to the police as a prostitute, and he married her, thus impinging on matrimonial standards for officers, which in any army of the world that has no less severe standards for its officers as it has for its subordinates had to result in automatic dismissal. The case of Fritsch developed as a consequence, because after his disappointment with Blomberg, Hitler ordered the 'reconstruction' of the file on Fritsch, which he had ordered to be destroyed years before in order not to promote denunciations. Fritsch had been accused of homosexuality, but it turned out later that he had been confused with a different person with the same last name, the actual homosexual Rittmeister von Fritsch, but by the time the situation could be clarified, Fritsch did not want his old job back. The authors also stress that both Blomberg and Fritsch were later dedicated followers of Hitler. Von Fritsch was killed at the beginning of the Polish campaign as a volunteer. Thus, any speculation that they wanted to oppose Hitler is unwarranted.

The reader of the book is eager to follow the meticulous investigations of Tobias and the compelling arguments derived from the subject – but any consequences reaching beyond the actual assessment of the “Sturz der Generäle” (The Downfall of the Generals) are completely missing, as indicated by the argument in the prologue. Thus, if the claimed content of the meeting on November 5, 1937 – planning of a war of aggression, as claimed by the Hoßbach protocol – cannot be support by its consequences – i.e. the downfall of those two alleged dissenters – massive concerns about the authenticity of the “Hoßbach protocol” (which is merely an unconfirmed write-up) should be acknowledged. But far from it, it is rather suggested to the reader that the situation must have been even worse, since Hitler did not even encounter any opposition by these two generals. And to top it all, this does not prevent the authors from making a negative remark about Kluge's book in their introductory reference to the “Hoßbach Protocol,” although Kluge sheds more than just doubts upon the contents of this 'protocol.'

The real situation is actually quite the opposite: The results of the research by Tobias support Kluge's opinion. There was no resistance against any plans for an aggressive war during this 1937 meeting, because the participants did not hear about any such plans, but rather a listing by Hitler of various fictitious war scenarios in order to induce the generals to stop departmental bickering about the allocations of raw material (which was acknowledged to be the subject of the meeting!) and to get them to focus on the armament itself (or better re-armament after Germany's total disarmament after World War One).[52] The clear contradiction between the main content of Tobias' book on one hand and its introduction and conclusion on the other is also obvious: the content originates from the older generation, i.e., from Tobias, whereas the two other parts were written by Janßen, a journalist of Germany's largest weekly newspaper, the leftist Die Zeit, who perhaps did not even notice the innate flaws of his argument.

Also of merit is Christian Striefler's dissertation written at the Freie Universität under the supervision of Prof. Dr. Ernst Nolte, which was published as a book in 1993 by Propyläen (Berlin). It addresses the violent fights in the final phase of the Weimar Republic between the SA (Storm Unit), Rotfront (Red Front), and the Reichsbanner (Imperial Flag). The author offers archival material – for the first time since 1945! – about the situations in Berlin and Prussia, according to which, for example, Prussian SA-men wounded 137 policemen between Jan. 1, 1928, and Oct. 31, 1932; during the same period of time, the Rotfront wounded 870 and murdered 8, and even the Reichsbanner harmed 37 police officers.[53] Preferential treatment by the police of the National Socialist Party during police action or by manipulation of the statistics cannot be assumed since, based on electoral voting, the police of Berlin showed clear sympathies for the SPD (socialist party) and even for the KPD (communist party).[54] Here as well, no conclusions are drawn. One such conclusion is, for example, to show how dangerous those individual parties must have occurred to the voting population, or an even more audacious conclusion is to stress that the number of people killed for political reasons only in the two months of June and July of 1932[55] exceeded those who were killed during the “Röhm Putsch,” the only obvious political assassinations during the peace-time National Socialist reign.

IV.

Examples of recently published literature could continue; whether logical conclusions are simply ignored or the editors cannot do any more than to put their research results into preformed molds, will be left open here – according to the author's opinion it is likely the latter. The establishment could be quite content; however, the fact that this is not so, but that it reacts rather hysterically, leads to the conclusion that the results achieved by free research must be so upsetting that one prefers not to rely on the present psychological barrier. Should this line of thought contain something correct, however, only one solution is left: to stiffen the laws and punishments against further activities of revisionists and to increase manipulation of the media to the point of brain washing, resulting in the erection of a dictatorship.

Whether it will come this far is uncertain. Time is an important factor: the faster qualified results of historical revisionist research can be published, the fiercer will be the attempt to support the status quo of the ruling class, and the more insecure will their representatives feel. At this time, books about the German-Soviet war, which seriously shake the orthodox opinion about the insidious attack on the peace loving Soviet Union, are published in short order, even though these authors (usually) avoid pronouncing the compelling conclusion of their findings. A writer of a letter to the editor to Germany's semi-conservative daily Die Welt, referring to the sequence of articles in this newspaper by Maser (September 1, 2 and 3, 1993, “Did Stalin plan to attack Hitler?”) made the point: If one follows Maser's argument, the question mark in the title is completely incomprehensible[56] – and the clear train of thought is especially missing in his book “Der Wortbruch” (Breaking the Word), which was published in 1994.[57]

The quantity of German literature about this subject, which deviates more or less from the established story, is striking: after Viktor Suworow's publication of Der Eisbrecher (also in English as The Ice Breaker) in 1989, he wrote two more volumes Der Tag M (The Day M) and Stalins verhinderter Erstschlag (Stalin's prevented initial strike). Der Tag M was printed by the same publisher, who nonetheless kept an almost embarrassing distance from his own author. “Suworow attempted the verification,” “according to Suwarow,” “as per Suwarow” – quotations from an ad for the older title as published in the second one. Ernst Topitsch's Stalins Krieg (also in English as Stalin's War) with a new edition in 1990, Fritz Becker's book “Im Kampf um Europa” (In the Fight for Europe) with the second edition in 1992, the books by Maser and Hoffmann mentioned above, another book by Fritz Becker, Stalins Blutspur durch Europa – Partner des Westens 1933-1945 (Stalin's Trace of Blood through Europe – Partner of the West 1933-1945)[58] published in the fall of 1995 by Arndt in Kiel. Unternehmen Barbarossa (Operation Barbarossa) by Walter Post was even presented by the respected publisher[59] F. S. Mittler & Sohn in the media and information center of the German federal government at the end of October 1995.

One almost gets the impression that the research energy, which is forcefully diverted from the Holocaust subject through paragraphs of the German criminal code and social sanctions, is pushed into the remaining (limited) free space and dedicates itself to the question of the origin of the German-Soviet war. However, the Holocaust subject is avoided only on first impression, because according to the above quoted Eschenburg thesis, one leg of the post-war order would disappear under the question of war guilt, reduced here to the deciding factor of the German-Soviet relationship, and how could this post-war order be maintained if it is only supported by a concept of the Holocaust enforced by governmental repression?

This is even more applicable since the eastern campaign during World War II and the Holocaust are connected from totally different points of view. Just compare the relevant theses of Arno Mayer in his book Why Did the Heavens Not Darken?,” the opinion of Andreas Hillgruber in Hitlers Strategie, (Hitler's Strategy), his standard work and celebrated dissertation, and recently those of the authors of Wahrheit und Ausschwitzlüge (Truth and Auschwitz Lie) pp. 169.

Something else is still obvious: the author Post (who like Hoffmann was at the Research Department for Military History of the German armed forces until the mid 1990s), because of his employment as a historian at the Geschwister-Scholl-Institut of Munich University, the presentation of his book in the media and information center of the German federal government is hardly imaginable against the desire of the host – and this was the then semi-conservative German government. Besides, the book was not only introduced by the owner of the publishing house Peter Tamm, but also the then Vice President of the German parliament 'Jonny' Klein was announced and even showed up, and in a surprisingly free speech dared to explain, “Stalin already arranged for a clear shooting range one and a half years before the signing of the [Hitler-Stalin] pact […] in the spring of 1936 by deportation of the majority of the German-Russians to Siberia.”[60]

It cannot be denied that an inner conflict amongst the ruling powers – as a first expressed sign of insecurity – became briefly obvious here, with a final result yet unseen. The Maser book of the Olzog-Verlag was published in a similar way, which should have given it a semi-official blessing, because this publisher also distributes its books through the official Landeszentrale für politische Bildung (State Center for Political Education), and furthermore a second introduction by a prominent Russian was originally planned.[61] It appears that in the case of this book the official backing broke down again rather quickly; at least it retreated without fanfare. Bookstores exhibited it only in exceptions – even directly after its publication.

* * *

After all this, the fate concerning whether revisionism will break free may be decided in another place: in a case of worsening economical or social situations the masses rapidly lose their beliefs in the present representatives of power; they also lose the trust in other areas – in such cases reality determines awareness; this process could accelerate even more during the resulting turbulence in view of the European currency union,[62] which was introduced by sheer force within the frame work of globalization.

The above mentioned principle that those in power control the interpretation of events is, in that case, invalid. Since the loss in confidence can only be partial for a short time, but all encompassing in general, it will also mean the loss of the ability to interpret.

After a revisionist reevaluation of history, already in its preparatory phase, a plan will be very important on how to enable the other European nations to lose their fear of being the losers, since then it would be them who had to deal with debts they owe to Germany. Here an important task will develop, in which Germany must prove its ability to function as a ruling nation:[63]

A European order would have to be established, wherein the nations have sufficient opportunities for development – also economically – so that compensations due to Germany would appear not decisive. Also, a discussion about third world nations belongs here, of which Germany served as protagonist during the First World War, since the Ottoman ally was a non-occidental power,[64] which through its alignment with the central powers hoped to escape the threat of colonization by members of the western powers.

The treatment of the so-called question of immigrants in the current German state possibly had, from these view points, the objective function of suppressing considerations about any neo-imperial or neo-colonial strategies right at the start.[65] Cui bono?

Epilogue by the Editor

The above article was originally written in 1995 and published in a slightly updated version in Germany in 1997. Almost ten years have passed since its original inception, enough time to re-assess the development that occurred in Germany in the meantime.

Let me start with a longer quote from a paper written by Robert Hepp, professor for sociology at Osnabrück university, who contemplated about the political impact Holocaust revisionism would have on the situation of Germany, which I think is a very good assessment of the current German political situation:[66]

That is, of course, a somewhat ethno-centric and cynical point of view. One can broaden the perspective somewhat if one realizes that World War Two (and also World War One) had a dimension to it, which is hardly ever seen, but which can, in the future, become the driving force behind historical revisionism: the anti-imperialist dimension. Germany's rise as a highly successful industrialized nation in heavy competition to nations that had colonized the world – Russia, France, England, and the rising USA – was the main reason for the political tensions that lead to World War One. The initially highly successful attempt of Germany to throw off the imperialistic yoke put upon her by the Versailles treaty – called National Socialism – resulted in World War Two, where the Germans failed to seize upon the opportunity to turn this war into a war of the oppressed nations against their oppressors, although offers of support were coming in from all over the world, starting with the British occupied Arab world and British occupied India, and continuing, of course, with the nations suppressed by Soviet Russia.

Today's world is again a world where (neo-)colonialism and (neo-)imperialism are going rampant. It is based upon the unchallenged leading role of the United States, which is plundering the planet's natural resources by keeping everybody else under tight control. If a Germany, which had regained its self-confidence and ability to lead by throwing off its guilt complex, could unify and lead Europe to take up the struggle of the oppressed against their oppressors, this could mean the end of unchallenged, abusive US hegemony. In this context, historical revisionism could turn into a highly effective intellectual weapon against imperialism, thus potentially attracting billions of supporters, not just in Palestine and the Arab world – the main targets and victims of US imperialism – but anywhere in this world, even in America, where an inner colonization of the broad, poor masses by the slim layer of the super rich is upheld with similar methods.[67]As a matter of fact, historical revisionism has always been in opposition to all dominating historical pictures in mankind history. And historiography itself has at all times been used by the powers that be to justify and stabilize their political and social system. Thus, at any time in history and in any part of the world, historical revisionism is the weapon against any dominating power enforcing its imperialism. And since US domination and imperialism is historically seen primarily based upon the role and success if the USA during World War Two, revisionism of this era – with the Holocaust at its core – is at the same time the intellectual weapon against this domination.

Put into context and as small as Germany is, it cannot play a major role politically, economically, or militarily in a confrontation of worldwide US domination. But Germany – as the main target of “moralizing” mainstream historiography undergirding US domination and in turn of any historical revisionism – plays a major intellectual role in this worldwide chess game, if only as an object of historical debate.

Abbamari's optimism about the future development in Germany was unfortunately not supported by the events that unfolded after 1997. Since 1998, Germany has had a socialist government, which has curtailed every attempt of a revisionist breakthrough by mercilessly enforcing tough German censorship laws and by increasing the brainwashing of the German population. I described the current situation elsewhere.[36] Abbamari's assumption that increased suppression will lead to increased opposition has yet to be confirmed. As it stands right now, Germany's intellectuals, who have to lead such an opposition, are still too scared of losing their social security, materialistic comfort, and societal reputation. On the other hand, it cannot be denied that frustration and anger are constantly growing under the surface, as several 'scandals' during the past five years have shown, where plain normal statements of prominent German figures led to artificially created media outrages and eventual witch-hunts against those persons because their statements were considered politically incorrect. It thus might take only one more such event to serve as a catalyst to trigger major revolutionary events in Germany. They can appear as sudden and unexpected as the downfall of Eastern Germany and the Berlin Wall appeared in 1989. All we can do from the other side of the big pond is to sit and wait – and perhaps to push a little.

Notes

During the Second World War even Japan, the nation of a 'colored race,' was one of Germany's main allies (where China's importance on the Allied side was in no way comparable). It is an indication of Hitler's weakness to not have been able to use this situation successfully because of philosophical views and political inflexibility. At least all the freedom movements of what was later called the 'Third World' had the tendency to be on the side of Germany during World War II: Subhas Chandra Bose in India, Suhrnos of Free Java, and the Great Mufti of Jerusalem.