Many a Revisionist has found delight and solace in the writings of Elmer Barnes. In the light of recent events in Kosovo, where many Germans, especially German rightists, opposed German participation in NATO's war, the following words by America's Father of Revisionism might give pause to ponder about the German Government's behavior since the end of World War II.
Below are excerpts from the late Professor Barnes's writings (private letters) on the background of West German anti-revisionism policy.
Does West Germany fear a Third Punic War?
A return to freedom and independence on the part of (West) Germany is the last thing that the West German 'Establishment' and the majority of German intellectuals desire. A recovery of freedom would expose the remaining fragments of Germany to a 'Third Punic War,' the final annihilation of both the country and the people.
This must be avoided at all cost. Realizing the intense hatred that has been built up against Germany by war propaganda and the subsequent torrent of malicious atrocity tales, the only protective coloration that offers any assurance of survival is INDEFINITE political, intellectual, and moral subservience.
So long as the assumption of the utter depravity and criminality of the German past, especially in the present century, appears to be accepted and cherished by the Germans there is no danger that they will be free again. Writers like Suendermann are regarded as dangerous Don Quixotes who do not see that Germany can no longer afford freedom and independence.
Personally I cannot blame them. The dominant feeling towards Germany in America today, and also in Great Britain and in the Soviet Union, is one of unconditional hatred. The atrocity literature has seen to that. As a free and independent country, West Germany would not have any reasonable chance of survival. No matter how intelligent their leadership, they would face total annihilation. The Carthaginians might have escaped some of the effects of 146 B.C. had they asked permission to join Rome as a province after the defeat of Hannibal.
Even this avenue of protection is no longer possible for a divided Germany, with the eastern portion already swallowed up in the Soviet system. The present West European Economic Community is controlled largely by France. Politically, West Germany is our ward, its constitution having been written by an American professor.
The West German welcome this servitude, for as long as it exists the last remnants of their people will not be annihilated. As Oswald Spengler once asked: 'Freedom for what?' The West Germans do not want to be slaughtered any more. They know that American Revisionists have absolutely no public influence here in United States, since nothing is more anathema to the American Establishment than Revisionism.
Revisionism cannot be of any practical value to West Germany until it is triumphant in American scholarship and public policy, of which there is no prospect in any foreseeable future.
The few American Revisionists are regarded by the West German Establishment as peculiar and erratic misanthropes. The Establishment and its supporters oppose freedom and independence as too great a risk to be borne. For the West Germans publicly to resent their treatment since the War would invite the destruction of the remnants of the German people. I must say that I can appreciate their way of looking at it in the light of their experience since 1945.
My own view, of course, remains unchanged. The truth must be served, first and foremost, regardless of cost. But I do think that it is important for us to understand, privately, that our opponents among the West German anti-Revisionists have at least an intelligible position, and are not simply behaving like incomprehensible lunatics, as one might properly infer (...)
I trust and hope that American Revisionists will never have to advocate an end of truth on behalf of mere survival. An understanding of the actual attitude and policy of West German anti-Revisionists should help and encourage us in our own work."
This was written many years ago - I am not sure just when, but it reads like something perhaps in the mid-to late sixties. Now I juxtapose it to something that was written recently by a young journalist of Argentine descent, Guillermo Coletti, and published in the latest (August 1999) issue of the Christian Defense League Report:
2. <start of excerpt, slightly condensed>:
(A)n American General speaks openly, on national television, on the real reasons for the existence of NATO...I will use this opportunity to explain some of my initial ideas on this matter.
Adolf Hitler, simultaneously with Mussolini and other European leaders, was involved in an extraordinary effort to eradicate the threat of Bolshevik tyranny from Europe. The stability of the governments they led was threatened via the USA as much (as), or perhaps more than, any danger that could have originated in Moscow. When Hitler's defense of Europe was forced into the military alternative, the United States made an alliance with Stalin.
That was, to me, an indication that America was becoming friendlier to Communism than to the traditional values of Western Europe. We know that American intervention resulted in a greater and stronger Russia. But when the Second World War was over, America "agitated" the anti-Communist cause and formed NATO!
Why NATO?
If America had truly stood against Bolshevism, it should have joined Hitler, Mussolini and Franco, instead of Josef Stalin. America, of course, has never admitted to have fought on the wrong side.
I can't help but ask myself: When was NATO a real problem for the solidity of Soviet Communism? Certainly not when Russian tanks and the Red Army occupied the streets of Prague or Budapest.
America's true concern was what Germany represented and what to this day survives in the German. Elie Wiesel expressed similar sentiment s when he advocated that every Jew must have some room in his heart for hatred against the Germans. The great difference between Wiesel and goys like Truman and "Ike" Eisenhower is that Wiesel has expressed his emotions with more sincerity.
On April 24, 1999, NBC aired John McLaughlin's "One on One". The show had the participation of two guests: Lieutenant General William Odom and Professor Harvey Sapolski.
General William Odom was introduced as a graduate from West Point who obtained his Ph.D. at Columbia. He served in President Carter's National Security Council and during President Reagan's administration in the Office of the Army Chief of Staff for intelligence and for the Director of Reagan's National Security Agency. He is currently director of International Securities studies at the Hudson Institute and Professor of Public Policy and Organization in the Department of Political Science at the prestigious Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he is also the Director of the Security Program.
What I have always suspected as the real purpose of NATO was disclosed, much to my surprise, right at the beginning of the show by General Odom:
"(NATO) was created, not as most people think, to defend against the Soviet military threat. The French didn't even mention the Soviet Union in the debate for it. They wanted NATO to deal with the German question. The British wanted NATO to keep the US in Europe."
General Odom added, still remarkably candid, that
". . . the expansion of NATO is for the same reason; the German question versus Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary is put to bed if there is a NATO roof over it."
The type of policy advocated by this American general is strikingly similar to the policies the Germans were accused of implementing during the Third Reich era in the Nuremberg Trials.
Here are two more passages of this conversation between McLaughlin and General Odom:
Mr. McLaughlin: "Are we supposed to run Europe?"
General Odom: "It pays. Yes."
Mr. McLaughlin: "Why does it pay?"
General Odom: "You are richer today because of it."
And then,
Mr. McLaughlin: "Can the United States defend its interests in Europe without NATO?"
General Odom: "No."
I hope that this brief article will bring some light to those who still don't understand why Dresden was destroyed and why millions of Germans were exterminated in American and Russian concentration camps at the end of the war. <end>
(M.r. Coletti receives his mail at PO Box 61221, Pasadena, CA 91105)
Thought for the Day:
"How about 20 million paper clips. Jennifer?" referring to the ". . . 20 million or more, mostly Christian, corpses generated by the terrorist Stalin during his red regime."
(Question asked of Jennifer Rosenberg by that rare breed, a Holocaust Revisionist born in Israel, in response to her call for 6 million paper clips to commemorate the fictitious "six million" Jews supposed to have been exterminated in German concentration camps.)