The Liberation of the Camps: Facts vs. Lies

The Liberation of the Camps: Facts vs. Lies
By Theodore J. O’Keefe
Source: Institute for Historical Review

Nothing has been more effective in establishing the authenticity of the Holocaust story in the minds of Americans than the terrible scenes US troops discovered when they entered German concentration camps at the close of World War II.

At Dachau, Buchenwald, Dora, Mauthausen, and other work and detention camps, horrified US infantrymen encountered heaps of dead and dying inmates, emaciated and diseased. Survivors told them hair-raising stories of torture and slaughter, and backed up their claims by showing the GIs crematory ovens, alleged execution gas chambers, supposed implements of torture, and even shrunken heads and lampshades, gloves, and handbags purportedly made from skin flayed from dead inmates.

US government authorities, mindful that many Americans who remembered the atrocity stories fed them during World War I still doubted the Allied propaganda directed against the Hitler regime, resolved to “document” what the GIs had found in the camps. Prominent newsmen and politicians were flown in to see the harrowing evidence, while the US Army Signal Corps filmed and photographed the scenes for posterity. Famous journalist Edward R. Murrow reported, in tones of horror, but no longer of disbelief, what he had been told and shown, and Dachau and Buchenwald were branded on the hearts and minds of the American populace as names of infamy unmatched in the sad and bloody history of this planet.

For Americans, what was “discovered” at the camps — the dead and the diseased, the terrible stories of the inmates, all the props of torture and terror — became the basis not simply of a transitory propaganda campaign but of the conviction that, yes, it was true: the Germans did exterminate six million Jews, most of them in lethal gas chambers.

What the GIs found was used, by way of films that were mandatory viewing for the vanquished populace of Germany, to “re-educate” the German people by destroying their national pride and their will to a united, independent national state, imposing in their place overwhelming feelings of collective guilt and political impotence. And when the testimony, and the verdict, of the Nuremberg Tribunal incorporated most, if not all, of the horror stories Americans were told about Dachau, Buchenwald, and other places captured by the US Army, the Holocaust could pass for one of the most documented, one of the most authenticated, one of the most proven historical episodes in the human record.
A Different Reality

But it is known today that, very soon after the liberation of the camps, American authorities were aware that the real story of the camps was quite different from the one in which they were coaching military public information officers, government spokesmen, politicians, journalists, and other mouthpieces.

When American and British forces overran western and central Germany in the spring of 1945, they were followed by troops charged with discovering and securing any evidence of German war crimes.

Among them was Dr. Charles Larson, one of America’s leading forensic pathologists, who was assigned to the US Army’s Judge Advocate General’s Department. As part of a US War Crimes Investigation Team, Dr. Larson performed autopsies at Dachau and some twenty other German camps, examining on some days more than 100 corpses. After his grim work at Dachau, he was questioned for three days by US Army prosecutors. [1]

Dr. Larson’s findings? In an 1980 newspaper interview he said: “What we’ve heard is that six million Jews were exterminated. Part of that is a hoax.” [2] And what part was the hoax? Dr. Larson, who told his biographer that to his knowledge he “was the only forensic pathologist on duty in the entire European Theater” of Allied military operations, [3] confirmed that “never was a case of poison gas uncovered.” [4]
Typhus, Not Poison Gas

If not by gassing, how did the unfortunate victims at Dachau, Buchenwald and Bergen-Belsen perish? Were they tortured to death or deliberately starved? The answers to these questions are known as well.

As Dr. Larson and other Allied medical men discovered, the chief cause of death at Dachau, Belsen and the other camps was disease, above all typhus, an old and terrible scourge of mankind that until recently flourished in places where populations were crowded together in circumstances where public health measures were unknown or had broken down. Such was the case in the overcrowded internment camps in Germany at war’s end, where, despite such measures as systematic delousing, quarantine of the sick and cremation of the dead, the virtual collapse of Germany’s food, transport, and public health systems led to catastrophe.

Perhaps the most authoritative statement of the facts as to typhus and mortality in the camps has been made by Dr. John E. Gordon, M.D., Ph.D., a professor of preventive medicine and epidemiology at the Harvard University School of Public Health, who was with US forces in Germany in 1945. Dr. Gordon reported in 1948 that “The outbreaks in concentration camps and prisons made up the great bulk of typhus infection encountered in Germany.” Dr. Gordon summarized the causes for the outbreaks as follows: [5]

Germany in the spring months of April and May [1945] was an astounding sight, a mixture of humanity travelling this way and that, homeless, often hungry and carrying typhus with them …

Germany was in chaos. The destruction of whole cities and the path left by advancing armies produced a disruption of living conditions contributing to the spread of the disease. Sanitation was low grade, public utilities were seriously disrupted, food supply and food distribution was poor, housing was inadequate and order and discipline were everywhere lacking. Still more important, a shifting of populations was occurring such as few countries and few times have experienced.

Dr. Gordon’s findings are corroborated by Dr. Russell Barton, today a psychiatrist of international repute, who entered Bergen-Belsen with British forces as a young medical student in 1945. Barton, who volunteered to care for the diseased survivors, testified under sworn oath in a Toronto courtroom in 1985 that “Thousands of prisoners who died at the Bergen-Belsen concentration camp during World War II weren’t deliberately starved to death but died from a rash of diseases.” [6]

Dr. Barton further testified that on entering the camp he had credited stories of deliberate starvation but decided such stories were untrue after inspecting the well equipped kitchens and the meticulously maintained ledgers, dating back to 1942, of food cooked and dispensed each day.

Despite noisily publicized claims and widespread popular notions to the contrary, no researcher has been able to document a German policy of extermination through starvation in the German camps.
No ‘Human Skin’ Lampshades

What of the ghoulish stories of concentration camp inmates skinned for their tattoos, flayed to make lampshades and handbags, or other artifacts? What of the innumerable “torture racks,” “meathooks,” whipping posts, gallows, and other tools of torment and death that are reported to have abounded at every German camp? These allegations, and even more grotesque ones proffered by Soviet prosecutors, found their way into the record at Nuremberg.

The lampshade and tattooed-skin charges were made against Ilse Koch, dubbed by journalists the “Bitch of Buchenwald,” who was reported to have furnished her house with objects manufactured from the tanned hides of luckless inmates.

But General Lucius Clay, military governor of the US zone of occupied Germany, who reviewed her case in 1948, told his superiors in Washington: “There is no convincing evidence that she [Ilse Koch] selected inmates for extermination in order to secure tattooed skins or that she possessed any articles made of human skin.” [7] In an interview General Clay gave years later, he stated about the material for the infamous lampshades: “Well, it turned out actually that it was goat flesh. But at the trial it was still human flesh. It was almost impossible for her to have gotten a fair trial.” [8] Ilse Koch hanged herself in a German jail in 1967.

It would be tedious to itemize and refute the thousands of bizarre claims as to Nazi atrocities. That there were instances of German cruelty, however, is clear from the testimony of Dr. Konrad Morgen, a legal investigator attached to the Reich Criminal Police, whose statements on the witness stand at Nuremberg have never been challenged by proponents of the Jewish Holocaust story. Dr. Morgen informed the court that he had been given full authority by Heinrich Himmler, commander of Hitler’s SS and the dread Gestapo, to enter any German concentration camp and investigate instances of cruelty and corruption on the part of camp personnel.

As he explained in sworn testimony at Nuremberg, Dr. Morgen investigated 800 such cases, resulting in more than 200 convictions. [9] Punishments included the death penalty for the worst offenders, including Hermann Florstedt, commandant of Lublin (Majdanek), and Karl Koch (Ilse’s husband), commandant of Buchenwald.

While German camp commandants in certain cases did inflict physical punishment, such acts had to be approved by authorities in Berlin, and it was required that a camp physician first certify the good health of the prisoner to be disciplined, and then be on hand at the actual beating. [10] After all, throughout most of the war the camps were important centers of industrial activity. The good health and morale of the prisoners was critical to the German war effort, as is evidenced in a January 1943 order issued by SS General Richard Glücks, chief of the office that supervised the concentration camps. It held the camp commanders “personally responsible for exhausting every possibility to preserve the physical strength of the detainees.” [11]
Camp Survivors: Merely Victims?

US Army investigators, working at Buchenwald and other camps, quickly ascertained what was common knowledge among veteran inmates: that the worst offenders, the cruelest denizens of the camps, were not the guards but the prisoners themselves. Common criminals of the same stripe as those who populate US prisons today committed many villainies, particularly when they held positions of authority, and fanatical Communists, highly organized to combat their many political enemies among the inmates, eliminated their foes with Stalinist ruthlessness.

Two US Army investigators at Buchenwald, Egon W. Fleck and Edward A. Tenenbaum, carefully investigated circumstances in the camp before its liberation. In a detailed report submitted to their superiors, they revealed, in the words of Alfred Toombs, their commander, who wrote a preface to the report, “how the prisoners themselves organized a deadly terror within the Nazi terror.” [12]

Fleck and Tenenbaum described the power exercised by criminals and Communists as follows:

The trusties, who in time became almost exclusively Communist Germans, had the power of life and death over all other inmates. They could sentence a man or a group to almost certain death … The Communist trusties were directly responsible for a large part of the brutalities at Buchenwald.

Colonel Donald B. Robinson, chief historian of the American military government in Germany, summarized the Fleck-Tenenbaum report in an article published in an American magazine shortly after the war. Colonel Robinson wrote succinctly of the American investigators’ findings: “It appeared that the prisoners who agreed with the Communists ate; those who didn’t starved to death.” [13]

Additional corroboration of inmate brutality has been provided by Ellis E. Spackman, who, as Chief of Counter-Intelligence Arrests and Detentions for the US Seventh Army, was involved in the liberation of Dachau. Spackman, later a professor of history at San Bernardino Valley College in California, wrote in 1966 that at Dachau “the prisoners were the actual instruments that inflicted the barbarities on their fellow prisoners.” [14]
‘Gas Chambers’

In December 1944 US Army officers Colonel Paul Kirk and Lt. Colonel Edward J. Gully inspected the German concentration camp at Struthof-Natzweiler in Alsace. They submitted their findings to their superiors, who subsequently forwarded their report to the US War Crimes Division. While, significantly, the full text of their report has never been published, it has been revealed, by a historian supportive of Holocaust claims, that the two investigators were careful to characterize equipment exhibited to them by French informants as a “so-called lethal gas chamber,” and to claim it was “allegedly used as a lethal gas chamber.” [15] (Emphasis added)

Both the careful phraseology of the Natzweiler report, and its effective suppression, stand in stark contrast to the credulity, the confusion, and the blaring publicity that accompanied official reports of alleged gas chambers at Dachau. At first, a US Army photo depicting a GI gazing at a steel door marked with a skull and crossbones and the German words for: “Caution! Gas! Mortal danger! Don’t open!,” was identified as showing the murder weapon. [16]

Later, however, it was evidently decided that the apparatus in question was merely a standard delousing chamber for clothing, and another alleged gas chamber, this one cunningly disguised as a shower room, was exhibited to American congressmen and journalists as the site where thousands breathed their last. While there exist numerous reports in the press as to the operation of this second “gas chamber,” no official report by trained Army investigators has yet surfaced to reconcile such problems as the function of the shower heads: Were they “dummies,” or did lethal cyanide gas stream through them? (Each theory has appreciable support in journalistic and historiographical literature.)

As with Dachau, so with Buchenwald, Bergen-Belsen, and the other camps liberated by the Allies in western Germany. There was no end of propaganda about “gas chambers,” “gas ovens,” and the like, but so far not a single detailed description of the murder weapon and its function, not a single report of the kind that is mandatory for the successful prosecution of any assault or murder case in America at that time and today, has come to light.

Furthermore, a number of Holocaust authorities have now publicly decreed that there were no gassings, no extermination camps in Germany after all. (We are now told that “gassing” and “extermination” camps were located exclusively in what is now Poland, in areas captured by the Soviet Red Army and made off-limits to western investigators.)

Dr. Martin Broszat of the Munich-based Institute for Contemporary History, which is funded by the German government, stated categorically in a 1960 letter to the German weekly Die Zeit: “Neither in Dachau nor in Bergen-Belsen nor in Buchenwald were Jews or other prisoners gassed.” [17] Professional “Nazi hunter” Simon Wiesenthal stated in 1975 and again in 1993 that “there were no extermination camps on German soil.” [18]

Dachau “gas chamber” No. 2, which was once presented to a stunned and grieving world as a weapon that claimed hundreds of thousands of lives, is now described in the brochure issued to tourists at the modern Dachau “memorial site” in these words: “This gas chamber, camouflaged as a shower room, was not used.” [19]
The Propaganda Intensifies

More than 50 years after American troops entered Dachau, Buchenwald and other German camps, and trained American investigators established the facts as to what had gone on in them, the government in Washington, the entertainment media in Hollywood, and the print media in New York continue to churn out millions of words and images annually on the horrors of the camps and the infamy of the Holocaust. Despite the fact that, with the exception of the defeated Confederacy, no enemy of America has ever so suffered so complete and devastating defeat as did Germany in 1945, the mass media and the politicians and bureaucrats behave as if Hitler, his troops, and his concentration camps continue to exist in an eternal present, and our opinion makers continue to distort, through ignorance or malice, the facts about the camps.
Time for the Truth

It is time that the government and the professional historians reveal the facts about Dachau, Buchenwald and the other camps. It is time they let the American public know how the inmates died, and how they didn’t die. It is time that the claims of mass murder by gassing are clarified and investigated in the same manner as any other claims of murder. It is time that the free ride certain groups have enjoyed as the result of unchallenged Holocaust claims be terminated, just as it is time to end the scapegoating of other groups, including Germans, eastern Europeans, the Roman Catholic hierarchy, and the wartime leadership of America and Britain, either for their alleged role in the Holocaust or their supposed failure to stop it.

Above all, it is time that the citizens of this great Republic have the facts about the camps, facts they have a right to know, a right that is fundamental to the exercise of their authority and their will in the governance of their country. As citizens and as taxpayers, Americans of all ethnic backgrounds, of all faiths, have a basic right and an overriding interest in determining the facts of incidents that are deemed by those in positions of power to be significant in determining America’s foreign and educational policy, as well as its selection of past events to be memorialized in our civic life.

Today the alleged facts of the Holocaust are at issue all over the civilized world. The truth will be decided only by recourse to the facts, in the public forum: not by concealing the facts, denying the truth, stonewalling reality. The truth will out, and it is time the government of this country, and governments and international bodies throughout the world, make public the evidence of what actually transpired in the German concentration camps in the years 1933-1945, so that we may put paid to the lies, without fear or favor, and carry out the work of reconciliation and renewal that is and must be the granite foundation of mutual tolerance between peoples and of a peace based on justice.
Summary

The conclusions of the early US Army investigations as to the truth about the wartime German concentration camps have since been corroborated by all subsequent investigators and can be summarized:

1. The harrowing scenes of dead and dying inmates were not the result of a German policy of “extermination,” but rather the result of epidemics of typhus and other disease brought about largely by the effects of Allied aerial attacks.
2. Stories of Nazi supercriminals and sadists who turned Jews and others into handbags and lampshades for their private profit or amusement were sick lies or diseased fantasies; indeed, the German authorities punished corruption and cruelty on the part of camp commanders and guards.
3. On the other hand, portrayals of the newly liberated inmates as saints and martyrs of Hitlerism were quite often very far from the truth; indeed, most of the brutalities inflicted on camp detainees were the work of their fellow prisoners, in contravention of German policy and German orders.
4. The alleged homicidal showers and gas chambers were used either for bathing camp inmates or delousing their clothes; the claim that they were used to murder Jews or other human beings is a contemptible fabrication. Orthodox historians and professional “Nazi-hunters” have quietly dropped claims that inmates were gassed at Dachau, Buchenwald and other camps in Germany. They continue, however, to keep silent regarding the lies about Dachau and Buchenwald, as well as to evade an open discussion of the evidence for homicidal gassing at Auschwitz and the other camps captured by the Soviets.

Notes
1. John D. McCallum, Crime Doctor [a biography of Dr. Charles P. Larson] (Mercer, Wash.: The Writing Works, 1978), pp. 44-46, 59, 69; See also: J. Cobden, “The Dachau Gas Chamber Myth,” The Journal of Historical Review, March-April 1995, pp. 17-18.
2. Jane Floerchinger, “Concentration Camp Conditions Killed Most Inmates, Doctor Says,” The Wichita Eagle, April 1, 1980, p. 4C.
3. J. D. McCallum, Crime Doctor (1978), p. 46.
4. The Wichita Eagle, April 1, 1980, p. 4C.
5. John E. Gordon, “Louse-Borne Typhus Fever in the European Theater of Operations, U.S. Army, 1945,” in Forest Ray Moulton, editor, Rickettsial Diseases of Man (Washington, DC: American Academy for the Advancement of Science, 1948), pp. 16-27. Quoted in: Friedrich P. Berg, “Typhus and the Jews,” The Journal of Historical Review, Winter 1988-89, pp. 444-447, and in Arthur Butz, The Hoax of the Twentieth Century (IHR, 1993), pp. 46-47.
6. “Disease killed Nazis’ prisoners, MD says,” Toronto Star, Feb. 8, 1985, p. A2. On Barton’s similar testimony in a 1988 Toronto trial, see: Barbara Kulaszka, ed., Did Six Million Really Die? (Toronto: Samisdat, 1992), pp. 175-180, and, Robert Lenski, The Holocaust on Trial (1990), pp. 157-160, and, M. Weber, “Bergen-Belsen Camp: The Suppressed Story,” The Journal of Historical Review, May-June 1995, pp. 27, 30 (n. 30).
7. “Clay Explains Cut in Ilse Koch Term,” The New York Times, Sept. 24, 1948, p. 3.
8. Interview with Lucius Clay, 1976, Official Proceeding of the George C. Marshall Research Foundation. Quoted in M. Weber, “Buchenwald: Legend and Reality,” The Journal of Historical Review, Winter 1986-87 (Vol. 7, No. 4), pp. 406-407.
9. International Military Tribunal (IMT), Trial of the Major War Criminals Before the International Military Tribunal (Nuremberg: 1947-1949 [“blue series”]), Vol. 20, pp. 489, 438.
10. Eugen Kogon, The Theory and Practice of Hell (New York: Berkley Books [pb.], 1984), pp. 108-109. See also: “Punishment for Mistreating SS Camp Prisoners,” The Journal of Historical Review, Jan.-Feb. 1995, p. 33.
11. Nuremberg document NO-1523. Published in Trials of War Criminals Before the Nuernberg Military Tribunal (NMT “green series”), Vol. 4, pp. 372-373.
12. Egon W. Fleck and Edward A. Tenenbaum, Buchenwald: A Preliminary Report, US Army, 12th Army Group, April 24, 1945. National Archives, RG 331, SHAEF, G-5, 17.11, Jacket 10, Box 151. Quoted in: M. Weber, “Buchenwald: Legend and Reality,” The Journal of Historical Review, Winter 1986-87, pp. 408-409.
13. Donald B. Robinson, “Communist Atrocities at Buchenwald,” American Mercury, October 1946, pp. 397-404.
14. San Bernardino Sun-Telegram, March 13, 1966. Quoted in: James J. Martin, The Man Who Invented ‘Genocide’ (IHR, 1984), pp. 110-111.
15. “Concentration Camp at Natzwiller [sic],” RG 331, Records of Allied Operations and Occupation, SHAEF/G-5/2717, Modern Military, National Archives (Washington, DC). Quoted in: Robert H. Abzug, Inside the Vicious Heart (New York: Oxford University Press, 1985), pp. 9-10, 181 (n. 5).
16. John Cobden, Dachau: Reality and Myth (IHR, 1994), pp. 25-29. See also: The Journal of Historical Review, May-June 1993, pp. 9-11; The Journal of Historical Review, March- April 1995, p. 16.
17. “Keine Vergasung in Dachau,” Die Zeit (Hamburg), August 19, 1960. Facsimile reprint, and English-language translation, in The Journal of Historical Review, May-June 1993, p. 12.
18. Letters in Books & Bookmen (London), April 1975, p. 5, and in The Stars and Stripes (European edition), Jan. 24, 1993, p. 14. Wiesenthal’s 1993 Stars and Stripes letter is reprinted in facsimile in The Journal of Historical Review, May-June 1993, p. 10.
19. Memorial Site Concentration Camp Dachau. Leaflet published by the International Dachau-Committee (Dachau, Germany), no date.

Read Full Post »

Louis-Ferdinand Céline, Anarcho-Nationalist

Louis-Ferdinand Céline, Anarcho-Nationalist
Tom Sunic
March 24, 2010
Source: The Occidental Observer

In his imaginary self-portrayal, the French novelist Louis-Ferdinand Céline (1894–1961) would be the first one to reject the assigned label of anarcho-nationalism. For that matter he would reject any outsider’s label whatsoever regarding his prose and his personality. He was an anticommunist, but also an anti-liberal. He was an anti-Semite but also an anti-Christian. He despised the Left and the Right. He rejected all dogmas and all beliefs, and worse, he submitted all academic standards and value systems to brutal derision.

Briefly, Céline defies any scholarly or civic categorization. As a classy trademark of the French literary life, he is still considered the finest French author of modernity — despite the fact that his literary opus rejects any academic classification. Even though his novels are part and parcel of the obligatory literature in the French high school syllabus and even though he has been the subject of dozens of doctoral dissertations, let alone thousands of polemics denouncing him as the most virulent Jew-baiting pamphleteer of the 20th century, he continues to be an oddity eluding any analysis, yet commanding respect across the political and academic spectrum.

Can one offer a suggestion that those who will best grasp L.F. Céline must also be his lookalikes — the replicas of his nihilist character, his Gallic temperament and his unsurpassable command of the language?

Cadaverous Schools for Communist and Liberal Massacres

The trouble with L.F. Céline is that although he is widely acclaimed by literary critics as the most unique French author of the 20th century and despite the fact that a good dozen of his novels are readily available in any book store in France, his two anti-Semitic pamphlets are officially off limits there.

Firstly, the word pamphlet is false. His two books, Bagatelles pour un massacre (1937) and Ecole des cadavres (1938), although legally and academically rebuked as “fascist anti-Semitic pamphlets,” are more in line with the social satire of the 15th century French Rabelaisian tradition, full of fun and love making than modern political polemics about the Jewry. After so many years of hibernation, the satire Bagatelles finally appeared in an anonymous American translation under the title of Trifles for a massacre, and can be accessed online.

Louis-Ferdinand Céline

The anonymous translator must be commended for his awesome knowledge of French linguistic nuances and his skill in transposing French argot into American slang. Unlike the German or the English language, the French language is a highly contextual idiom, forbidding any compound nouns or neologisms. Only Céline had a license to craft new words in French. French is a language of high precision, but also of great ambiguities. Moreover, any rendering of the difficult Céline’s slangish satire into English requires from a translator not just the perfect knowledge of French, but also the perfect knowledge of Céline’s world.

Certainly, H.L. Mencken’s temperament and his sentence structure sometimes carry a whiff of Céline. Ezra Pound’s toying with English words in his radio broadcasts in fascist Italy also remind a bit of Céline’s style. The rhythm of Harold Covington’s narrative and the violence of his epithets may remind one a wee of Celine’s prose too.

But in no way can one draw a parallel between Céline and other authors — be it in style or in substance. Céline is both politically and artistically unique. His language and his meta-langue are unparalleled in modern literature.

To be sure Céline is very bad news for Puritan ears or for a do-good conservative who will be instantly repelled by Céline’s vocabulary teeming as it does with the overkill of metaphorical “Jewish dicks and pricks.”

Trifles is not just a satire. It is the most important social treatise for the understanding of the prewar Europe and the coming endtimes of postmodernity. It is not just a passion play of a man who gives free reign to his emotional outbursts against the myths of his time, but also a visionary premonition of coming social and cultural upheavals in the unfolding 21st century. It is an unavoidable literature for any White in search of his heritage.

These weren’t Hymie jewelers, these were vicious lowlifes, they ate rats together… They were as flat as flounders. They had just left their ghettos, from the depths of Estonia, Croatia, Wallachia, Rumelia, and the sties of Bessarabia… The Jews, they now frequent the guardhouse, they are no longer outside… When it comes to crookedness, it is they who take first place… All of this takes place under the hydrant! with hoses as thick as dicks! beside the yellow waters of the docks… enough to sink all the ships in the world…in a décor fit for phantoms…with a kiss that’ll cut your ass clean open…that’ll turn you inside out.

The satire opens up with imaginary dialogue with the fictional Jew Gutman regarding the role of artistry by the Jews in the French Third Republic, followed by brief chapters describing Céline’s voyage to the Soviet Union.

Between noon and midnight, I was accompanied everywhere by an interpreter (connected with the police). I paid for the whole deal… Her name was Natalie, and she was by the way very well mannered, and by my faith a very pretty blonde, a completely vibrant devotee of Communism, proselytizing you to death, should that be necessary… Completely serious moreover…try not to think of things! …and of being spied upon! nom de Dieu!…

…The misery that I saw in Russia is scarcely to be imagined, Asiatic, Dostoevskiian, a Gehenna of mildew, pickled herring, cucumbers, and informants… The Judaized Russian is a natural-born jailer, a Chinaman who has missed his calling, a torturer, the perfect master of lackeys. The rejects of Asia, the rejects of Africa… They were just made to marry one another… It’s the most excellent coupling to be sent out to us from the Hells.

When the satire was first published in 1937, rare were European intellectuals who had not already fallen under the spell of communist lullabies. Céline, as an endless heretic and a good observer refused to be taken for a ride by communist commissars. He is a master of discourse in depicting communist phenotypes, and in his capacity of a medical doctor he delves constantly into Jewish self-perception of their physique… and their genitalia.

The peculiar feature of Céline narrative is the flood of slang expressions and his extraordinary gift for cracking jokes full of obscene humors, which suddenly veer off in academic passages full of empirical data on Jews, liberals, communists, nationalists, Hitlerites and the whole panoply of famed European characters.

But here we accept this, the boogie-woogie of the doctors, of the worst hallucinogenic negrito Jews, as being worth good money!… Incredible! The very least diploma, the very least new magic charm, makes the negroid delirious, and makes all of the negroid Jews flush with pride! This is something that everybody knows… It has been the same way with our own Kikes ever since their Buddha Freud delivered unto them the keys to the soul!

Mortal Voyage to Endtimes

In the modern academic establishment Céline is still widely discussed and his first novels Journey to the End of the Night and Death on the Installment Plan are still used as Bildungsroman for the modern culture of youth rebellion. When these two novels were first published in the early 30’s of the twentieth century, the European leftist cultural establishment made a quick move to recuperate Céline as of one of its own. Céline balked. More than any other author his abhorrence of the European high bourgeoisie could not eclipse his profound hatred of leftist mimicry.

Neither does he spare leftists scribes, nor does he show mercy for the spirit of “Parisianism.” Unsurpassable in style and graphics are Céline’s savaging caricatures of aged Parisian bourgeois bimbos posturing with false teeth and fake tits in quest of a rich man’s ride. Had Céline pandered to the leftists, he would have become very rich; he would have been awarded a Nobel Prize long ago.

In the late 50’s the bourgeoning hippie movement on the American West Coast also tried to lump him together with its godfather Jack Kerouac, who was himself enthralled with Céline’s work. However, any modest reference to his Bagatelles or Ecole des Cadavres has always carefully been skipped over or never mentioned. Equally hushed up is Céline’s last year of WWII when, unlike hundreds of European nationalist scholars, artists and novelists, he miraculously escaped French communist firing squads or the Allied gallows.

His endless journey to the end of the night envisioned no beams of sunshine on the European horizon. In fact, his endless trip took a nasty turn in the late 1944 and early 1945, when Céline, along with thousands of European nationalist intellectuals, including the remnants of the French pro-German collaborationist government fled to southern Germany, a country still holding firm in face of the oncoming disaster. The whole of Europe had been already set ablaze by death-spitting American B17’s from above and raping Soviet soldiers emerging in the East. These judgment day scenes are depicted in his postwar novels D’un château l’autre (Castle to Castle) and Rigodoon.

Céline’s sentences are now more elliptic and the action in his novels becomes more dynamic and more revealing of the unfolding European drama. His novels offer us a surreal gallery of characters running and hiding in the ruins of Germany. One encounters former French high politicians and countless artists facing death — people who, just a year ago, dreamt that they would last forever. No single piece of European literature is as vivid in the portrayal of human fickleness on the edge of life and death as are these last of Céline’s novels.

But Céline’s inveterate pessimism is always couched in self-derision and always stung with black humor. Even when sentenced in absentia during his exile in Denmark, he never lapses into self pity or cheap sentimentalism. His code of honor and his political views have not changed a bit from his first novel.

Upon his return to France in 1951, the remaining years of Céline’s life were marred by legal harassment, literary ostracism, and poverty. Along with hundreds of thousands Frenchmen he was subjected to public rebuke that still continues to shape the intellectual scene in France. Today, however, this literary ostracism against free spirits is wrapped up in stringent “anti-hate” laws enforced by the thought police — 70 years after WWII! Stripped of all his belongings, Céline, until his death, continued to use his training as a physician to provide medical help to his equally disfranchised suburban countrymen. Always free of charge and always remaining a frugal and modest man.

Tom Sunic (http://www.tomsunic.info; http://doctorsunic.netfirms.com) is author, translator, former US professor in political science and a former diplomat. His new book, Postmortem Report: Cultural Examinations from Postmodernity, prefaced by Kevin MacDonald, has just been released. Email him.

Permanent link: http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/authors/Sunic-Celine.html

Read Full Post »

1,600 or 50,000? Can We Discuss the Facts, Please?

Where is your gag-reflex? No one in the Obama administration is “toughening [their] stance on Israel.” Let’s get real. Whatever “tough talk” goes on in the presence of the international press, what we see in D.C. is artificial outrage — that is, bad acting in order to “save face” (as if these crooks had a real face to begin with) before their gullible audience. Never mind the words, look to the actions, instead. Less than 48 hours after Biden’s embarrassing visit “home,” the White House Press Secretary was already laid prostrate before the podium to set the official record straight regarding the “unwavering commitment to the security of Israel and its people.” That is not the genuine response of an angered, insulted administration; it is something else entirely. There is no way in the world this settlement plan came as a surprise (and by the way, it is a plan for 50,000 new settlements, not 1,600), for there are few “surprises” when it comes to intelligence. And as Netanyahu has said himself, “building everywhere in Jerusalem will continue as it has over the past 42 years.” This isn’t a new trend. This isn’t something out of the ordinary. We must remain conscious of the FACT that the Israeli seizure of ever more Palestinian land could not continue without the unending billions in American economic and military aid. However deluded some Americans may be, the rest of the world knows this. And if this administration continues handing out the blank check year after year when it knows precisely how the aid is spent (and, it does, of course), then it is, at core, this administration who is bulldozing Palestinian homes and expanding these “settlements” — which is an ongoing breach of international law, by the way. It is really quite simple. This is why General Petraeus acknowledged the situation the latest “news” puts his troops in. Netanyahu’s “chutzpah” isn’t good for the stability of his occupational forces. But then again, the more American soldiers who happen to die in the “War on Terror,” the more justified our presence in the region must seem, right? Well, that is the spin they’ve employed since September 11th, anyhow, and I don’t see an encouraging shift in policy on the horizon. This all makes me sick beyond words. We are ruled by soulless, deceptive, cowardly profiteers. Zero honor. Zero conscience. How can so few Americans share my disgust? Such disgust, I believe, is a sign of patriotism. -W.

Israel planning 50,000 housing units in East Jerusalem
By Nir Hasson
Last update – 02:13 11/03/2010
Source: Haaretz News

Some 50,000 new housing units in Jerusalem neighborhoods beyond the Green Line are in various stages of planning and approval, planning officials told Haaretz. They said Jerusalem’s construction plans for the next few years, even decades, are expected to focus on East Jerusalem.

Most of the housing units will be built in predominantly Jewish neighborhoods beyond the Green Line, while a smaller number of them will be built in Arab neighborhoods. The plans for some 20,000 of the apartments are already in advanced stages of approval and implementation, while plans for the remainder have yet to be submitted to the planning committees.

The planned construction includes the 1,600 homes in the ultra-Orthodox East Jerusalem neighborhood of Ramat Shlomo that were approved Tuesday. Saying the decision undermines peace talks, U.S. Vice President Joe Biden has publicly condemned the move, which the Interior Ministry announced during his visit to Israel.

Ministry officials said the announcement was not intended to coincide with Biden’s visit.

If the East Jerusalem construction plans are implemented, they will make it impossible to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, said an activist of the left-wing Ir Amim non-governmental organization.

“The first, most explosive ‘circle of construction’ in East Jerusalem is in the Old City,” said Orly Noy of Ir Amim, which says it seeks to promote Israeli-Palestinian relations in Jerusalem. “The second circle is the ideological settlements being built in the heart of Palestinian neighborhoods in the historic basin, and the third is expanding the existing neighborhoods in the east of the city.”

Taken together, the East Jerusalem construction “will move Israel beyond the point of no return, as far as an agreed solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is concerned,” she said.

Municipal planning officials said the only direction in which Jerusalem can grow is eastward. The municipality ruled out westward development after the controversial Safdie Plan – a massive construction project planned for the hills west of the capital – was axed three years ago under pressure from environmental groups.

Massive construction within Jerusalem’s older neighborhoods was also scrapped, since it clashed with other considerations: keeping buildings low, preserving historic buildings and streets, and retaining quality of life.

Ir Amim data show that the construction plans in advanced stages of approval are for Gilo (3,000 housing units), Har Homa (1,500), Pisgat Ze’ev (1,500), Givat Hamatos (3,500), Ramot (1,200), Armon Hanetziv (600) and Neveh Yaakov (450).

Several construction plans are not being advanced at the moment, including a plan to build 1,300 housing units in a neighborhood in the south of the city. In addition, a plan to make Atarot an ultra-Orthodox neighborhood was put on hold after Mayor Nir Barkat decided to revitalize the industrial area there.

The state – in the form of the Israel Lands Administration and the Housing and Construction Ministry – is the main force behind these projects. Private businesses and political organizations – including settlers groups, which are building in the midst of Palestinian neighborhoods – are also advancing the projects.

The settlers groups are advancing plans to expand the Ma’aleh Zeitim settlement in Ras al Amud from 60 housing units to more than 200.

The housing shortage in Jerusalem has become more acute in recent years, especially in ultra-Orthodox areas, pushing thousands of ultra-Orthodox families a year to the Haredi cities Betar Ilit and Modi’in Ilit, in the West Bank. The West Bank construction freeze has increased the pressure to create more housing in Jerusalem.

Read Full Post »

Who Were the First Americans?

More concerning the Solutrean Hypothesis in this Discovery Channel program. The acting is (predictably) a little hokey, and the conclusion seems more than a little sentimental (I cannot conceive of such immediate trust being extended to foreign invaders on first contact), but this is all beside the point. The Solutrean Hypothesis will continue to cause waves, I suspect. But I look forward to following the data, wherever it may lead, and whatever truths it may unveil. In the end, I think a few more books will need re-writing… -W.

Read Full Post »

U.S./Israeli Relations Strained?

“This is the worst point in the history of the relationship between the U.S. and Israel.”

If only this were true, we might finally see the “CHANGE” this sad administration promised. Personally, I never bought the act. I didn’t buy it on the campaign trail, and I’m not about to buy it now. I think it’s necessary (from a public relations standpoint) for the suits in D.C. to feign outrage, of course, but at the end of the day, it is how we respond that tells the rest of the world where we really stand.

“Pessimist,” you say. “No, realist,” I retort.

We are Israel’s life-support. U.S. generosity is, and has long been, taken for granted. We dump billions in annual economic and military aid (most sources state 3BN per year, while Traficant states more like 15-20BN) and get nothing in return from this spoiled, nasty little dependent… Nothing but grief and liability in the region, and increasing disrespect around the world. We turn a blind eye to every crime Israel commits, and we lash out at anyone who defends themselves in the region as “terrorists.” We are the only reason the Zionist regime behaves as it does, and the rest of the world sees this quite clearly. We enable and back the aggressor, no matter what, and they know they can do as they please without facing any serious consequences.

So, if relations are genuinely strained between D.C. and Tel Aviv, I say “good.” It’s about god damned time. Now let’s take the next logical step and pull the plug on the life-support. If bellicose Israel cannot survive on its own, perhaps it will be forced to reconcile with its neighbors and conduct itself in a more civilized manner. Maybe they need to spend more time planning for peace than they do pimping on Capitol Hill and planning their next offensives.

But again, I have to remind myself of who we’re dealing with here…

I’ll believe in “CHANGE” when I see it. -W.

Read Full Post »

Æsír in Azov?

Read Full Post »

Kon-Tiki

Primitive man could indeed make limitless voyages across the ocean. -W.

Read Full Post »

Ice-Age Discovery of the Americas Points to the Solutreans

Dennis Stanford, Head of the Archaeology Division, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, lectures on the Solutrean Hypothesis at Gustavus Adolphus College.

Please review the lecture HERE. -W.

Read Full Post »

Skull May Prove Solutrean Hypothesis

Does skull prove that the first Americans came from Europe?
By Steve Connor Science Editor
Tuesday, 3 December 2002

Scientists in Britain have identified the oldest skeleton ever found on the American continent in a discovery that raises fresh questions about the accepted theory of how the first people arrived in the New World.

Scientists in Britain have identified the oldest skeleton ever found on the American continent in a discovery that raises fresh questions about the accepted theory of how the first people arrived in the New World.

The skeleton’s perfectly preserved skull belonged to a 26-year-old woman who died during the last ice age on the edge of a giant prehistoric lake which once formed around an area now occupied by the sprawling suburbs of Mexico City.

Scientists from Liverpool’s John Moores University and Oxford’s Research Laboratory of Archaeology have dated the skull to about 13,000 years old, making it 2,000 years older than the previous record for the continent’s oldest human remains.

However, the most intriguing aspect of the skull is that it is long and narrow and typically Caucasian in appearance, like the heads of white, western Europeans today.

Modern-day native Americans, however, have short, wide skulls that are typical of their Mongoloid ancestors who are known to have crossed into America from Asia on an ice-age land bridge that had formed across the Bering Strait.

The extreme age of Peñon woman suggests two scenarios. Either there was a much earlier migration of Caucasian-like people with long, narrow skulls across the Bering Strait and that these people were later replaced by a subsequent migration of Mongoloid people.

Alternatively, and more controversially, a group of Stone Age people from Europe made the perilous sea journey across the Atlantic Ocean many thousands of years before Columbus or the Vikings.

Silvia Gonzalez, a Mexican-born archaeologist working at John Moores University and the leader of the research team, accepted yesterday that her discovery lends weight to the highly contentious idea that the first Americans may have actually been Europeans.

“At the moment it points to that as being likely. They were definitely not Mongoloid in appearance. They were from somewhere else. As to whether they were European, at this point in time we cannot say ‘no’,” Dr Gonzalez said.

The skull and the almost-complete skeleton of Peñon woman was actually unearthed in 1959 and was thought to be no older than about 5,000 years. It formed part of a collection of 27 early humans in the National Museum of Anthropology in Mexico City that had not been accurately dated using the most modern techniques.

“The museum knew that the remains were of significant historical value but they hadn’t been scientifically dated,” Dr Gonzalez said.

“I decided to analyse small bone samples from five skeletons using the latest carbon dating techniques. I think everyone was amazed at how old they were,” she said.

Robert Hedges, the director of Oxford’s Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit, who also dated the age of the Turin shroud, carried out the radiocarbon analysis, which is accurate to within 50 years.

“We are absolutely, 100 per cent sure that this is the date,” Dr Gonzalez said. The study has been peer-reviewed and accepted for publication next year in the journal Human Evolution.

At 13,000 years old, Peñon woman would have lived at a time when there was a vast, shallow lake in the Basin of Mexico, a naturally enclosed high plain around today’s Mexico City, which would have been cooler and much wetter than it is today.

Huge mammals would have roamed the region’s grasslands, such as the world’s largest mammoths with 12-foot tusks, bear-sized giant sloths, armadillos as big as a car and fearsome carnivores such as the sabre-toothed tiger and great black bear.

The bones of Peñon woman, named after the “little heel” of land that would have jutted into the ancient lake, were well developed and healthy, showing no signs of malnutrition.

Dr Gonzalez found that the two oldest skulls analysed were both dolichocephalic, meaning that they were long and narrow-headed. The younger ones were short and broad – brachycephalic – which are typical of today’s native Americans and their Mongoloid ancestors from Asia.

The findings have a resonance with the skull and skeleton of Kennewick man, who was unearthed in 1996 in the Columbia River at the town of Kennewick in Washington state. The skull, estimated to be 8,400 years old, is also long and narrow and typically Caucasian.

James Chatters, one of the first anthropologists to study Kennewick man before it had been properly dated, even thought that the man may have been a European trapper who had met a sudden death sometime in the early 19th century.

Kennewick man became the most controversial figure in American anthropology when native tribes living in the region claimed that, as an ancestor, his remains should be returned to them under a 1990 law that gave special protection to the graves and remains of indigenous Americans.

The debate intensified after some anthropologists suggested that Kennewick man was Caucasian in origin and could not therefore be a direct ancestor of the native Americans living in the Kennewick area today.

Dr Gonzalez said that the identification of Peñon woman as the oldest known inhabitant of the American continent throws fresh light on the controversy over who actually owns the ancient remains of long-dead Americans.

“My research could have implications for the ancient burial rights of North American Indians because it’s quite possible that dolichocephalic man existed in North America well before the native Indians,” she said.

But even more controversial is the suggestion that Peñon woman could be a descendant of Stone Age Europeans who had crossed the ice-fringed Atlantic some 15,000 or 20,000 years ago.

This theory first surfaced when archaeologists found flint blades and spear points in America that bore a remarkable similarity to those fashioned by the Solutrean people of south-western France who lived about 20,000 years ago, when the ice age was at its most extreme. The Solutreans were the technologists of their day, inventing such things as the eyed needle and the heat treatment of flint to make it easier to flake into tools. They also built boats and fished.

Bruce Bradley, an American archaeologist and an expert in flint technology, believes that the Solutrean method of fashioning flints into two-sided blades matches perfectly the Stone Age flint blades found at some sites in American. One of these is the 11,500-year-old flint spear point found in 1933 at Clovis, New Mexico.

Dr Bradley said that the flint blades that came into America with the early Asian migrants were totally different in concept and mode of manufacture. Both the Clovis point and the Solutrean flints shared features that could only mean a shared origin, according to Dr Bradley.

Studies of the DNA of native Americans clearly indicated a link with modern-day Asians, supporting the idea of a mass migration across the Bering land bridge. But one DNA study also pointed to at least some shared features with Europeans that could only have derived from a relatively recent common ancestor who lived perhaps 15,000 ago – the time of the Solutreans.

Read Full Post »

Adolf Hitler’s Armed Forces: A Triumph for Diversity?

Adolf Hitler’s Armed Forces: A Triumph for Diversity?
Veronica Clark
September 3, 2009
Source: Archives, Inconvenient History

Triumph of diversity: This is precisely what characterized the German Armed Forces of World War II by the year 1945. While this may be difficult for many historians to accept, it is nevertheless an accurate summation of what happened in Europe in the 1930s and 1940s. Even though the Germans initiated their war with a racist doctrine in mind, one that sought to create a “New Order” for Europe, with Germany at the center and German elites at the top of the European political and racial hierarchy (a German version of the so-called “White man’s burden,” so to speak), the Germans nevertheless had to scrap this racial doctrine for one that promoted internationalism and tolerated multicultural and interethnic cooperation and intimate relations. Many Nazis were deeply affected by the non-Germans with whom they fought and worked. For example, Fritz Freitag ended up throwing Nazi doctrine to the wind, and instead focused on building a Ukrainian liberation army.

In a telephone interview with German World War II survivor “G” (his identity is being protected), I was informed for the first time that foreigners who were working under “forced labor” contracts in Germany were essentially as free as Germans themselves. The forced labor characterization, according to G, was misleading. Foreigners were paid for their work and allowed to bring their families to live in Germany with them. They enjoyed leisure activities while ethnic Germans were slaughtered by the tens-of-thousands on the Eastern Front. Theory and reality in the Third Reich differed in fundamental ways, and unless we speak directly with those who lived in Europe at the time, we will never come to know what really happened between Germans and non-Germans in their day-to-day lives. This study tries to answer this unknown as best as possible, because it has been ignored or overlooked for too long.

Let me quickly begin with a few words about terminology. When I use the Nazi terms Mischlinge, Volljude, and Halbjude, my intent is not racist. I use these terms only because they were used by the Nazis, so please do not mistake the Nazi terminology for my own. Secondly, I use the term mulatto in the historical sense. This term is not intended to be racist in this context, but is merely more convenient and historically accurate to use given the subject matter. I have tried very hard to be completely objective toward the Third Reich and its leadership, and have also given much thought to context as I have proceeded in my analysis of the history and historiography. I ask that those historians who have a subjective approach to Hitler and the Third Reich please refrain from judging my intent or bias until they have read my entire book, Black Nazis! A Study of Racial Ambivalence in Nazi Germany’s Military Establishment from which this article is excerpted. There is a reason why I have presented my case as such, so hopefully fellow historians will come away from this “war and society” study with a deeper understanding of:

* Racial dynamics in all Western societies before and since World War II;
* Axis history in general;
* Allied war criminality;
* Non-German Wehrmacht and SS service (especially volunteerism);
* Adolf Hitler’s racial views.
* Racial changes that occurred within the official Nazi ethos (Weltanschauung) as a result of the war;
* The unpredictable treatment of Jews, blacks, and mixed-race people in Nazi Germany.

When I use the term “racial ambivalence,” I use it in the literal sense: that many Nazis were literally “of two minds” about race and ethnicity. History relating to the National Socialist era is generally rife with emotion and bias and this subjectivity prevents all historians from seeing what really happened in the Third Reich and why. Few historians have asked why so many ethnic minorities and foreigners supported the NS (National Socialist) military apparatus. Likewise, few have asked how so many mulattoes, Africans, and Jews survived the war in spite of the atrocities that were committed against these ethnic groups. This study focuses on those who survived the Nazi regime and why, not on those who died for any number of reasons.

The Waffen SS was largely composed of non-Germanic volunteers. Most historians continue to neglect the motivations of these men and women who fought for Hitler as opposed to the Allies. I felt that this was historically unacceptable given that every side feels that it alone is justified. Historians have generally described this interracial phenomenon as “inexplicable” when there is more than sufficient evidence to the contrary. Not only was Hitler ambivalent about his racial and ethnic views, but so too were many prominent Nazis, such as Franz Wimmer-Lamquet and Alfred Rosenberg. I have always maintained that unless the penchant for tolerance and acceptance of the “other” is present, no tolerance or acceptance of the “other” will occur in a genuine way. Many Nazis became great friends with non-Germans. Hitler and Himmler both went out of their way to accommodate their Arab-Semitic volunteers. Hitler met with the Grand Mufti, but failed to meet with the “Aryan” leader of the United States, Franklin Roosevelt. From this example, we may conclude that Hitler was willing to contradict his own Weltanschauung in order to achieve what he needed to achieve politically and militarily. Interestingly, this general attitude of ambivalence was not limited to the military sphere. It extended into the realm of Third Reich society both before and during the war.

One excellent study on the SS, entitled Hitler’s Foreign Divisions (edited by Chris Bishop), offered the following explanation for the international character of the SS. Few people realize just how international were the German forces of World War II. It is estimated that nearly two million foreign nationals served under the Swastika. Although towards the end of the war many were transferred to the SS, large numbers served with the Army, particularly on the Eastern Front. The most committed of the foreign volunteers found a home in the SS, until parts of it were more like a German equivalent of the French Foreign Legion than the elite of the German race.

Although the SS did not welcome non-German volunteers until midway through the conflict in Russia, the idea of recruiting such men dated back to before the war. In his quest for a pan-Germanic Europe, Reichsführer-SS Heinrich Himmler had decreed in 1938 that non-Germans of suitable ‘Nordic’ origin could enlist in the Allgemeine SS [emphasis added].1

One finds it nearly impossible to disagree with this general assessment of the character of the Waffen SS. One of the more striking features of Bishop’s analysis is his conclusion as to the character of the future German elite as Himmler envisioned it. Bishop’s conclusion is nearly identical to my own in that we both agree that the future German elite was not to be strictly race-based, but rather, based on a combination of “physiognomy, mental and physical tests, character, and spirit.” Bishop rightly concluded that Himmler envisioned an “aristocratic” class that would combine “charismatic authority with bureaucratic discipline.” This, then, would typify “a new human type— warrior, administrator, scholar and leader, all in one—whose messianic mission was to repopulate Europe.”2 The absurd “Superman” notion was a result of Allied propaganda taking hold of and exploiting some of the more radical ideas put forth not by Hitler, but by Friedrich Nietzsche, of whom Hitler had expressed little admiration. In private, Hitler promoted a nearly identical vision to that of Himmler—with regard to a future German core leadership—to Otto Wagener, an early SA leader and one of Hitler’s first economic advisors. However, in contrast to Himmler, Hitler tended to emphasize character, honor, and merit over biology, at that time and later on in 1944.

Hitler was consistently a merit man, and this tended to crop up in many racial conversations he had with his various subordinates and officials. Hitler displayed a marked ambivalence, in the literal sense of being ‘of two minds,’ when it came to race and ethnic heritage—he was always willing to make racial exceptions to his own ideology. He had told Wagener at one point that “retainers” (non-Germans) were as common as “heroes” (racial Germans) in early German society. The context and tone of this particular conversation and others, as far as can be deduced from the English translation, suggests that Hitler remained open to the idea of some degree of tolerance for foreign blood within the German folk-body (Volkskörper). Even when he seemed adamantly against Jewish blood infusion, he continued to make exceptions. The military and organizational performance and dedication of various ethnic minorities, such as Erhard Milch and Bernhard Rogge (both Jewish), and foreigners, such as the Grand Mufti (Arab) and Ante Pavelic (Croatian), certainly affected Hitler’s thinking on the issue of race. He had even expressed admiration for many of his foreign allies, including the Grand Mufti and the Cossacks. By Lawrence Dennis’ own account, Hitler sat down and spoke with him one-on-one. Dennis was half-black.3 Hitler also spoke with African American Dr. S.J. Wright in 1932, which I discuss in more detail in my book.

As many of us know, Winifred Wagner and others, like Heinrich Hoffmann, convinced Hitler on more than one occasion to treat certain Jews with kindness. Thousands were granted his personal “German” clemency (Deutschblütigkeitserklärung). The fact that Jews could become “German blooded” was an unprecedented display of ethnic tolerance for the time period in question. The US did not even do this for blacks or Jews at that time. Blacks and Jews were not accepted as “WASPs” until the civil rights movement of the 1960s and 1970s, and even then their position remained precarious.

No historian has done a more thorough job examining this Nazi-Jewish phenomenon than Bryan Mark Rigg. However, Rigg, like so many others, has failed to adequately answer why Hitler granted Jewish people clemency in the first place. While he affirms, and correctly so, that Hitler made exceptions to his own ideology for the sake of military expediency, he does not sufficiently explain why Hitler granted Milch or other Jews clemency before the war. Nor does he adequately explain why clemency was granted in 1944 and 1945—a time by which Hitler knew he was losing the war. Furthermore, his argument does not go far enough in explaining why Hitler exempted Jews and Gypsies (Zigeuner) from service in 1944 and 1945, by which time Germany needed every able-bodied man it could summon. Hitler did not allow Russian collaborator Andrei Vlasov independence until 1945. If he was so desperate for manpower, then why did he hold Vlasov’s Russian volunteers back until it was too late?

These are questions that Antonio J. Muñoz, Vladimir Baumgarten, and Peter Huxley-Blythe have answered more adequately and in more depth. However, not even these historians have questioned whether the Russians were reliable enough o use in a demanding way on the Eastern Front. They all seem to agree that had Hitler and the Nazis been more racially accepting earlier on, they would have won the war. But this is purely speculative. For all we know these foreigners could have caused the Germans to lose the war sooner than they did for any number of reasons—i.e., poor morale, indiscipline, etc. The Dirlewanger and Kaminski brigades were predominantly foreign, and included many Gypsies and Slavs, but their performance was so poor and their war crimes so atrocious that the Germans had to disband them. Many of the “Asiatic” men in the Niedermayer Division did not perform well under pressure. All of this was reported to Hitler, so more than likely the poor performance of most Russians factored into his decision to use the Russians under Vlasov politically as opposed to militarily. The fact that Hitler did not aim to liberate Russians also played a part in his decision not to use Vlasov’s men earlier, but his attitude changed rather markedly by the end of the war. The stenographic record portrays a Hitler who understood that the most he could hope for was to stall the Russian advance, and nothing more than that. He hoped that the Americans, French, and British would “come to their senses,” helping him and his men halt and repel the Bolsheviks, which is ultimately what happened during the subsequent Cold War.

The important thing to realize is that had the Nazis been as racist as most historians have argued, then they could not possibly have garnered the immeasurable level of support that they did. Even after Stalingrad; Spaniards, Slavs, Franks, and tens of- thousands of other non-Germans continued to fight for the Nazis on a volunteer basis. Frenchmen and Arab volunteers gave their lives in the final fight for the capital of Berlin in 1945. Hitler continued to allow thousands of Jewish men to serve, and many did so with incredible tenacity and valor. One has to call into question whether all of these Jewish men and other non-Germans were really as opposed to the Nazi regime as they have claimed after the fact. Their tenacity and determination suggests otherwise in many cases. The Jewish soldiers Bernhard Rogge, Helmuth Wilberg, Erhard Milch, and Ernst Prager come to mind. Hans Hauck, a half-black man, wanted to join the Wehrmacht in order to prove that he was as “German” as a white German. He elected to remain in Soviet captivity even though he was given a chance to leave with his comrades. He did so to prove that he was German. Such behavior seems unimaginable given what we have been told about Nazi treatment of blacks and mixed-race individuals in Third Reich society. The truth is that relations were far more fluid, dynamic, and complicated than many historians have led us to believe. Hauck had even been promoted to private first class.

This was the main reason I wrote my master’s thesis on this particular subject. When I first saw the books about all of these foreigners and ethnic minorities in Nazi service I was dumbstruck. Historians should not be comfortable with the fact that even many formally educated people (I was an undergraduate at the time) had or have no idea that some two million foreigners and ethnic minorities fought for the Axis. I examined their motives and thoughts as well as the thoughts and motives of Hitler and other Nazis in order to explain this phenomenon. This was why I examined POWs, forced laborers, conscripts, and volunteers: in order to get a clearer picture as to what these men and women went through and what they thought about all of it. This is a largely ignored aspect of the Axis and World War II in general. I figured it was time to break new ground.

Upon seeing part of Hitler’s Platterhof speech of May 26, 1944 in John Lukacs’ excellent biographyThe Hitler of History, I decided to purchase the speech from the Institut für Zeitgeschichte and translate it into English myself (with assistance). Up to this point, no historian has translated this entire speech, which is rather remarkable in and of itself. It is a revealing speech, included in full in this second edition of Racial Ambivalence, and one in which Hitler admits rather openly as to having been wrong about race and Volk. While Hitler’s outlook remained “Völkisch-Nationalist,” he patently admitted that the strength of the German people as a whole was the result of its many different racial nuclei. He accepted that the German Volk was a “mixed-race” Volk, but resolved to nurture the Nordic race nucleus more than the others, since he believed this particular nucleus was the most qualified when it came to leadership and organizational capability. Thus, while Hitler’s thinking was still quite racially inclined, he seemed to have understood that individual Germans were more important in certain respects, due to their Nordic proclivities, than the German Volk as a whole (which he felt had to be led by the more capable Nordic types). In this speech Hitler emphasized merit and achievement above all else. This leads me to conclude that he associated Nordic race attributes with merit and achievement, and we can see here that this belief was a partial retraction from the official racial line of NS itself; because any individual with a Nordic bloodline could harbor the biological proclivity for leadership and organizational talent, regardless of whether he was “pure German.”

In this respect, Hitler was more accepting of non-German people than was, say, General Heinz Guderian. (On at least one occasion, Guderian requested “racially pure” divisions as per the stenographic record of Hitler’s military conferences). If a half-Jewish soldier exhibited leadership and organizational talent, then that Jewish individual received Hitler’s personal clemency. If we wished to speculate, as too many historians do, then we could say that, given this speech and Hitler’s change in outlook, had Hitler won the war he would have been more racially accepting, since some of his best leaders and most resolved soldiers were mixed-race or foreign-blooded (i.e., Admiral Bernhard Rogge, Field Marshal Erhard Milch, and Léon Degrelle of the SS Wallonie Division). The two Sabac el Cher sons, Herbert and Horst, both mulattoes, were also presumably exempted by Hitler and allowed to serve in the Wehrmacht (one even served in the Stahlhelm in 1935).

Hitler ridiculed Himmler’s and others’ “primitive biologism” rather early on. This indicates, as I have argued, that Hitler was more racially open-minded, and earlier on, than previously thought. The Otto Wagener memoirs are filled with Hitler’s ambivalent statements on race and ethnicity. Likewise, Hitler’s “table talks” are contradictory in many ways. Since Hitler seemed to have consistently said contradictory things, we may conclude that he was consistently ‘of two minds’ about certain touchy issues, including race. In my view, this is a more cogent explanation of his personal acceptance of so many Jewish and foreign soldiers within German ranks.

I might add at this juncture that Rigg also provided an irrational explanation as to Hitler’s “Aryanization” of Christ. If one examines what Hitler actually said about Christ early on, one sees that he really did believe that Christ was non-Jewish. This is obvious in the Wagener memoirs and Bormann records (Hitler’s Table-Talk, 1941-1944). Hitler was not alone in this belief either. Many German theologians who were not Nazis or Hitler supporters also believed that Jesus Christ was non-Jewish. No historian to my knowledge has done a better job of exploring and analyzing this German phenomenon than Richard Steigmann-Gall. His study has offered a rational explanation for the “Aryanization” of Christ by so many Germans and Nazis, and one would do well to read what he has written. Unfortunately, Rigg fell short in this respect, though his research on Jewish soldier motivations and thoughts remains unparalleled.

Getting back to the main point here, I offer the following assessment. While there was certainly racial discrimination in Nazi Germany, there was also racial discrimination in America, Britain, France, Poland, Russia, Japan, China, New Zealand, Australia, Canada, and Italy. In fact, Gerald Horne (author of Race War!) said that the British, in spite of their propaganda to the contrary, regularly and secretly discriminated against black soldiers. Blacks were not promoted simply because they were black. According to Horne, the British literally used conscripted Indian soldiers as cannon fodder on numerous occasions during the fighting in China. White British blood was apparently too precious to be spilled fighting against Chinese, who the British despised, abused, wantonly murdered, and degraded regularly. As I already mentioned, Sabac el Cher’s two sons, both of whom were ‘mulatto’, served in Hitler’s Wehrmacht, as did Mandenga Ngando (in 1940),4a Cameroonian-German. Article VII of the First Supplementary Decree made this possible. Numerous blacks served during the Battle for Moscow, and at least one fell there. According to Rigg’s latest book (2009), Lives of Hitler’s Jewish Soldiers, some 2,000 full Jews, 60,000 half-Jews and 90,000 quarter-Jews served in Hitler’s Wehrmacht and SS. This may even be an underestimate of the true figures. We just do not know.

At least two million non-German foreigners and ethnic minorities served in Hitler’s armed forces at one point or another. Without foreign and non-German help, the Germans never would have had their Western defenses prepared in time for the Allied invasion. Let us think about two things here. Hitler’s Wehrmacht-Waffen SS combination was the most culturally, ethnically, and religiously diverse military force in Western history. In spite of this fact, we are all supposed to believe he was a hyper-racist (my own term) like some other Nazis.

What do I mean by hyper-racist? Well, just as some individuals in capitalist societies gravitate to the top and become hyper-capitalists (i.e., billionaire CEOs), even though they may not believe in the capitalist system of government per se, the same may be said of many powerful and prosperous individuals in ethnostates and their societies. Numerous Nazis were not adamant “racists,” and those particular Nazis (including Hitler) tended to fall by the wayside as far as political power was concerned. The hyper-racists, like hyper-capitalists, tended to be extremely ambitious and power-hungry individuals. Some may not have even been all that racist, but played the role in order to advance politically and personally. Himmler may well have been one of these hyper-racists, since he was so excited about (and accommodating of) Arab-Semites, Slavic Eastern volunteers, and Gypsies so early on. His demonstrated racial tolerance causes one to ask whether he was really as racist as he made himself out to be. Antonio Muñoz’ findings as well as photographic evidence featured in Borsarello and Palinckx’s Wehrmacht and SS indicate that he was open to recruiting Senegalese and Afro-British POWs to serve Germany in some capacity as well (not necessarily in combat). Thus, just as Richard Steigmann-Gall exposed Bormann’s hyper-anti-Christianity in his book The Holy Reich: Nazi Conceptions of Christianity, 1919-1945, many historians have similarly exposed Himmler’s hyper-racism—perhaps inadvertently.

Hitler himself seems to have faded as far as power politics was concerned. Bormann and Himmler, along with the Gestapo and Sicherheitsdienst, usurped most of his actual power and he served as an ideological and moral inspiration for the German people and SS officers more than an actual power player within the Party or SS in those final two years of the war—though he maintained the final say in most military and political justice matters. Hitler retained the loyalty of the lower echelons of the Wehrmacht, SS, SA, and officer corps until the very end of his life, but he had lost a great deal of influence when it came to the higher ranks of the Wehrmacht and other elite cliques. As many already know, Himmler and Göring both betrayed Hitler in the end.

I ask those historians who still believe that Hitler and the Nazis were “white supremacists”: how do you account for the incredible degree of non-German and ethnic minority (i.e., 150,000 Jews and Jewish Mischlinge) collaboration during World War II? Again, some two million non-Germans helped the Nazis. If Munoz’ figures are to be believed, then nearly 1.5 million of these volunteers and conscripts were Russians. Let me compare this to a similar modern example by asking whether Zionist Jews, as members of a present-day ethnostate, can honestly boast of such high levels of foreign and ethnic minority collaboration and volunteerism? How about the less recent white South Africans of former Rhodesia? Hundreds-of-thousands of Nazi collaborators were volunteers. How many Palestinians, Persians, Jordanians, or Syrians have volunteered to fight for the IDF and the modern Israeli ethnostate? Some have, of course, but not nearly two million. Foreigners and non-Germans even volunteered for Schuma (security police), SS, and Gestapo service during the Third Reich. Can Israel’s Mossad boast the same? These are comparative questions we must ask ourselves and analyze, without emotion, in order to understand what really happened in Nazi Germany and why. We also have to admit that the Nazis were not nearly as racist as historians have claimed. This is an especially important admission when we consider the historical context.

Roosevelt opposed anti-lynching laws against African Americans for the sake of political expediency. In an incredible admission to Walter White, head of the NAACP, he said, “If I come out for the anti-lynching bill now, they will block every bill I ask Congress to pass to keep America from collapsing. I just can’t take that risk.” Furthermore, according to the New World Encyclopedia, “After 1942, when Roosevelt was made aware of the Nazi extermination of the Jews by Rabbi Stephen Wise, the Polish envoy Jan Karski and others, he refused to allow any systematic attempt to rescue European Jewish refugees and bring them to the US.”5 To this day the US public is mostly unaware of these incredible examples of Roosevelt’s racism and arrogance.

Some blacks were literally incinerated to death by hostile white mobs eager to unleash their aggression against an easy target.6 While many Africans and Afro-Germans were discriminated against in Nazi Germany, the Nazi government never advocated or endorsed lynching of blacks in the Nazi state, nor was racism against Africans institutionalized. In fact, World War II survivor Friedrich Berg unequivocally stated that German children greatly admired Jesse Owens and looked up to him in spite of his race.7 This was relayed to Mr. Berg by a man who lived in Nazi Germany at the time. Indeed, there is no reason to doubt the veracity of this man’s claim; Germans cheered Owens and repeatedly chanted his name – “Jess-ah O-vens, Jess-ah O-vens” – at the 1936 Olympic Games in Berlin. Owens himself told the press that he was not forced to sit at the back of German buses, nor was he disallowed to stay at the nicest hotels. Mr. Berg’s acquaintance also mentioned that Owens could have walked into any bar in Germany and been treated as well as a German patron. Contrast this with the fact that in Britain and the US, even prominent blacks were often forced to stand in buses and were never allowed to stay in classy areas designated for “whites only”. African American journalist and author Roi Ottley recounted many of the everyday horrors of British and US treatment of blacks in his book No Green Pastures. It should come as little surprise that Ottley reported that British boys lit Samuel Coleridge-Taylor’s “frizzly hair” on fire “to see if it would burn.”8 Such crass racism amongst the youth of Britain at the time is largely neglected by today’s historians, mainly because it does not fit today’s whitewashed image of the Allies. Perhaps this is one reason why few historians have mentioned that Cameroonian Louis Brody wrestled for the German Circus Crown throughout the Nazi years, and was the most famous Afro-German actor from the 1920s through 1940s.9

Even fewer historians realize that Martin Bormann issued a circular to all Gauleiters (regional leaders) in March 1936 calling for employment protection of Africans and Afro-Germans living and working in Germany. This order flew in the face of the 1935 Nuremberg Laws.10 We may presume that Hitler had something to do with this protective measure, as it remains doubtful that Bormann himself was that concerned with the welfare of blacks. Joachim von Lang has argued that Bormann did everything in his personal power to keep Jewish letters of appeal and clemency applications as well as disturbing war information from Hitler. One need not guess how this man’s actions may have adversely affected Afro-Germans and other blacks living and working in Germany, especially in light of Hitler’s severely declining health and political activeness in the latter half of the war.

To conclude, true racists do not suddenly discard their “master race” doctrine simply because of military setbacks. White South Africans and Israelis refused to discard their racial supremacist doctrines in spite of antagonistic world opinion and military setbacks. Israel has yet to allow Palestinians into its highest levels of government. Likewise, the US has yet to allocate top-level military and governmental command to non-whites. Whether or not any of these modern states qualify as truly racist is up to historians and politicians to decide. But they must do it without the hysteria normally associated with such controversial historical and comparative inquiries. If historians cannot get past the hysteria so typical of Third Reich historiography, then how are they going to explain phenomena like the Jüdische Ordnungsdienst (Jewish Order Police), which assisted the Germans with policing the main ghettos of Poland? An estimated 2,500 Jewish men served in Warsaw and half that number in the Lodz ghetto during the Nazi occupation.11

Having said all this, one fact remains: the Nazis were not true racists unless all other ethnostates at that time (and since) were also truly racist. Harry Truman, not Adolf Hitler, said the following: “I think one man is as good as another so long as he’s honest and decent and not a nigger or a Chinaman. Uncle Will…says that the Lord made a white man out of dust, a nigger from mud, then threw up what was left and it came down a Chinaman.” Had Hitler said this, historians certainly would have used it as evidence of his uncompromising racism. And yet, even though no such statements ever came out of Hitler’s mouth, not even with regard to Jews in private, historians have still consistently argued that he was an uncompromising racist, while conveniently ignoring the blatant and sometimes grossly inhuman racism of both Allied and non-German Axis leaders. The British conducted “bizarre tests of racial purity,” but only Berlin’s ‘racial purity’ tests were subjected to international scrutiny and attack.12 Gerald Horne relayed that “[e]ven as the Empire seemed on the verge of being overrun by predatory Japanese troops, London was unwilling to accept offers of aid by people not of ‘pure European descent’— particularly for posts beyond simple soldiering. He went on to say, “This applied to ‘Dartmouth Cadetships and direct entry cadetships’ where the ‘practice of the interview committee’ was to ‘reject boys who evidently have a colour stain’.”13 The British deliberately left racial references like this out of official memoranda just in case these memoranda ended up in anti-British hands. To cite another example: Croatians were hardly tolerant of Serbs during World War II, and yet we never read about this in most history books. Is it because Croats and Serbs do not deserve our historical inquiry? Are they somehow ‘less human’ or ‘less important’ than other ethnic groups of the era?

Hitler’s true racism, as I prefer to say, is an ahistorical construct. Historians decided who was racist and who was not on the basis of who won World War II. However, historians cannot have it both ways: Either all Western leaders are portrayed for the racists they were or none of them are portrayed as such—that is, in the historical sense. We do not get to pick and choose our racists. If we do so, then we need to research ever further back in history and condemn Emperor Hadrian as a genocidal anti-Semite, Napoleon as an anti-black racist and genocidal maniac (in light of his actions against Roma and blacks), and the Romans as racist against Greeks.

I will add at this point that the Germans never had a “master race” doctrine to begin with. Herrenvolk does not mean “master race.” That definition was the result of a combination of Allied misunderstanding of the German Führerprinzip and anti-German war propaganda. It meant ‘elite leadership corps’, and that was strictly in reference to continental Europe, not the world. Hitler did not have world aims, but European ones. Further, the German terms folk (Volk) and race (Rasse) were not synonymous. Herrenvolk (“Volk of leaders”) was not akin to Herrenrasse, and as a matter of fact, the Nazis never used the term Herrenrasse (“race of leaders”). Indeed, Hitler himself differentiated the two German terms at Platterhof. He said, “Volk und Rasse ist nicht dasselbe.” (“Folk and race are not the same.”) It appears that historians influenced by wartime Allied propaganda, and not the Nazis themselves, invented this term and its subsequent racist connotation. This explains why so many Western Allied leaders were shocked to see Russians fighting for Nazis on the Western Front, Indo-Chinese in the Ostlegionen (Eastern legions), and why historians have been loath to describe such Nazi racial dynamics even unto the present day.

Gerald Horne described Japanese racial ideology as “sufficiently flexible to allow for…special appeal […].”14 This description applies to Nazi racial ideology as well. Antonio J. Muñoz went so far as to call into question the rationality of the Spanish volunteers after Franco’s official withdrawal. In so doing, he has failed to explain that the Axis did not see itself as particularly racist, nor did it see itself as unjustified in its war, aims, or conduct. Countless Spaniards loathed Communism and proved quite willing to help Germany in her fight against that political philosophy. As such, they were “true believers” in continued European independence from Russia. The majority of Axis soldiers, including those who were conscripted by the Nazis, were anti-Communist or anti-Bolshevik. Still others, like the French, were anti-British. They were “racists” in their own right, many of them. The Croats were exterminating ethnic minorities long before the Germans occupied Croatia helping it to achieve independence. Vichy French loyalists continued to defy British and American efforts to “liberate” France into 1943:

The final phase of this war within a war was the invasion of North Africa, where Vichy forces numbered 100,000. Despite a twin assault by US, British and Free French forces on Morocco and Algeria, Vichy garrisons, but especially ships and submarines, proved more determined in their resistance than expected. A French squadron was sunk by the US off the coast of Morocco, with 500 French sailors killed and 1,000 wounded.15

Numerous Frenchmen resisted the Allies until the very end of the war, whereupon they fought and died in the streets of the German capital.

The point of addressing these little known facts is to encourage historians to stop looking at the Third Reich and Axis in such rigid formulae, and instead, to examine it with dynamism and transformation in mind. The war affected Nazis deeply. Many of them had caste off their racism as a result of the camaraderie they developed with their fellow non-German equals and subordinates. As White Russian exile Grigori von Lambsdorff confirmed, most non-Germans saw themselves as equals, not as racial inferiors. This calls into question just how the Nazis treated their non-German comrades in- arms in spite of official propaganda. If Lambsdorff and others saw themselves as equals, then Nazi racial degradation was either non-existent or far less pervasive than historians have claimed it was.

I will end by referencing a news article that examined the increasing number of neo-Nazis and white supremacists in the US Armed Forces (to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan).16 In spite of America’s official commitment to non-racism and ethnic and social equality, it is knowingly and willingly recruiting racists, and thus tolerating racism, within the military sphere. The exigencies of war have caused this US phenomenon just as exigencies of war caused the Nazis to renege on their official racial doctrine. What tends to happen as a result of developments like these is general and growing acceptance of those who are the newly tolerated (those who used to be shunned), and not vice versa. The normally shunned individuals who are newly tolerated tend to swing the balance of power into their favor, because the exigencies of war naturally favor those who are now “needed” in light of the declining general situation. In light of this assessment, we can honestly argue that the Nazis became less racist at a faster rate than did the Allies, because they were forced to speed up the process of interracial integration and cooperation due to the exigencies of war. War became, to use Tina Campt’s phrase, a positive “vehicle of change” in the Third Reich. The Nazis never racially segregated their troops. Blacks, Slavs, Asians, and Arabs fought shoulder-to-shoulder with Germans.

Now, if we examine the US today, we see that the racists in the armed forces will be the ones to gain the upper hand, since they are needed. The balance of power has swung in their favor due to the exigencies of war. This may well result in the racialization of the US Armed Forces, which remains under supreme white command in spite of America’s official doctrine of non-racism and equality for all, and we may well see that America becomes more racist and doctrinally supremacist than was Nazi Germany. America’s war is proving to be a negative “vehicle of change” in this respect. My point with this comparison is to demonstrate that we must not examine history or modern developments in a static way any longer, because just as the Nazis changed, so too shall we.

Notes:

1. Hitler’s Foreign Divisions: Foreign Volunteers in the Waffen-SS 1940-1945, ed. Chris Bishop (London, UK: Amber Books, 2005), 8-9.
2. Ibid., 10.
3. Gerald Horne, The Color of Fascism: Lawrence Dennis, Racial Passing, and the Rise of Right-Wing Extremism in the United States (New York, NY: New York University Press, 2006), xv.
4. Marianne Bechhaus-Gerst, Treu bis in den Tod: Von Deutsch-Afrika nach Sachsenhausen—Ein Lebengeschichte (Berlin, DE: Ch. Links Verlag, 2007), 154.
5. New World Encyclopedia, “Roosevelt, Franklin Delano,”http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Franklin_Delano_Roosevelt(accessed August 29, 2009).
6. Friedrich Berg, interview by author, August 27, 2009.
7. Ibid.
8. Roi Ottley, 27.
9. Bechhaus-Gerst, 76.
10. Ibid.
11. David Littlejohn, Foreign Legions of the Third Reich Vol. 4: Poland, the Ukraine, Bulgaria, Romania, Free India, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Finland and Russia (San Jose, CA: R. James Bender Publishing, 1987), 27.
12. Gerald Horne, Race War! White Supremacy and the Japanese Attack on the British Empire(New York, NY: New York University Press, 2004), 237.
13. Ibid., 236.
14. Ibid., 147.
15. Christopher Silvester, “England’s Last War Against France: Fighting Vichy, 1940-1942,” The Telegraph on the Web, September 1, 2009,http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/bookreviews/6121052/Englands-Last-War-Against-France- Fighting-Vichy-1940-1942.html (accessed September 3, 2009).
16. Matt Kennard, “Neo-Nazis are in the Army Now,” Salon on the Web, June 15, 2009,http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/06/15/neo_nazis_army/index.html (accessed July 1, 2009).

The above article in slightly different form is the preface to Veronica Clark’s book, Black Nazis! A Study of Racial Ambivalence in Nazi Germany’s Military Establishment

Veronica Clark, M.A.
July 1, 2009
Revised September 3, 2009

Black Nazis! Preface Copyright © 2009. Veronica Clark. All Rights Reserved.

Read Full Post »