Last night I started reading a German book that made it clear to me once more that history is not a train that one can board and leave at will.
This book, titled "Geflohen und vertrieben: Augenzeugen berichten" is a spin-off of a three part documentary that ran in Germany in January of 1981 - despite enormous censorship attempts from quarters we all know.
It documented a small fraction of the horrid fate of 14 million Germans who were "displaced" - in other words, expelled! - from their own towns and villages after the end of World War II.
Part I of this documentary was seen in 19% of all German households. Part II logged a 25% viewership, and Part III tabulated 18%. Those are impressive numbers.
A poll conducted afterwards by the "Allensbacher Institut" showed that 60% of those polled felt that the documentary had touched them more than "other" similar documentaries - we may assume Holocaust documentaries. Those who had personally experienced horror as post-war refugees and expellees registered a not surprising 72.3%.
In answer to the question: "Do you believe this film showed 'how it really was' or do you feel that it exaggerated or trivialized (the German suffering)?" 61% checked "as it really was"; 4% felt that it was "exaggerated", and 19% felt that it trivialized the real suffering. (Among those who had been expellees, that question pulled 30%)
Prior to succeeding in showing this documentary, the producers and writers met all the standard snarling objections - the prime one being that Adolf Hitler had not been demonized enough and blamed enough for the disaster befalling his own people - after he lost the war. Tellingly but not surprisingly, most of the overt as well as covert censorship came from behind the Iron Curtain.
You would think the time would come when grown-up people would outgrow the fear of Bogeyman. Yet more than half a century after Germany was bombed into the stone age and quartered like some vicious animal instead of what it was - a valiant, principled country that fought to the last breath for its freedoms and its values purposely misrepresented to the world by those dark forces Hitler hoped to check and neutralize - we now have . . . what? Freedom and free association across borders the Allied propagandists promised and the UN affirmed? Free speech? Heck! No!
We have a world suffused and permeated by a barbarian, uncouth intellectual terror summarized as "Holocaust" - so aptly described by Mike Hoffman:
"THE Holocaust" embodies the pathology that, among the world's sufferers, 'Jews' alone have a unique claim on history as the only people who underwent a holocaust. It is this sick racism which is the all-corrupting force at the core of the modern 'zeitgeist'.
"With this cosmic dichotomy of good and evil comes the panic people feel in the face of crushing power. This is why Swiss bankers and German statesmen are laying down on their backs like timid poodles, baring their genitals to the snarling teeth of a ferocious junkyard dog, risking dismemberment in the hope that having submitted to such a degrading extent, they will be allowed to get up and return to the world of the living without having had to fight against so awesome a foe."
(For more of Mike Hoffman, see http://www.hoffman-info.com/)
Why acquiesce to such vulgar surrender?
As I am digging out from under my accumulated e-mail, I come across a letter by a South African professor, a Dr. Costas Zaverdinos, who expresses the delicate dictate palmed off on most people - courtesy of all the enemies of Truth:
"It is easy to attack someone like Ernst Zuendel, who's political agenda is plain for everyone to see - Exonerate Germany!
"The sentiment is perfectly understandable - an Englishman would get upset at the mere thought that their hero Winston might not be as pure as has been supposed, Catholics hate the idea that the Church 'turned a blind eye' to the plight of the Jews in WWII and so on.
"Such feelings have, however, nothing to do with the truth, which is not to say they should not be a powerful motivation to dig deeper for it.
"Precisely, however, because of this one should be on one's guard lest the wish be the father of 'facts'.
"I think that the central issues questioned by the Holocaust, Revisionists are on the verge of being debated, at least privately, amongst 'establishment' historians, if this is not the case already. (See the latest circular from Germar Rudolf). What puts many off, especially in Germany, is the association of revisionism with anti-Semitism. Thus people like Ingrid Rimland, who can find no word of criticism for National Socialism, shouldn't complain when they're labeled 'Nazi'.
"Real progress will be made when, because of incisive scholarship done by a handful of scholars in America and Europe, the revisionist point of view becomes the talking point of historians.
"For this to happen we need to shed the baggage of overt political agendas."
In other words: "For God's sake, don't let a 'Nazi' come near me! What will my neighbors think!"
Now I happen to know Dr. Zaverdinos. He is a nice enough man. The other day, I even had dinner with him. But he, like countless others, would like me to do a rain dance around the major weapon our enemy employs against those who dig for the truth - and not try to wrestle it out of his hands.
***That weapon is the fear of being called a "Nazi"!***
To that I say: See if I care! Try to imagine how little I care!
I know what I know, and I see what I see - and what I know and see is that this globe is terrorized and silenced by the specter of a man who was the ***only*** man on earth who threw a generation of his finest men into a bloody struggle against the Bolshevik cutthroats and their New World Order *** before that struggle even had a name!***
Thanks to the marvel of the Internet, a fellow Californian came to my rescue before I even saw the Zaverdinos post and wrote:
"I find the reply of (Dr.) .Zaverdinos particularly lacking. There is little doubt to me that academic, 'mainstream historians' will indeed be forced to re-examine the 'holocaust'. Actually it would be more correct to say 'examine' rather than 're-examine', since it appears they haven't looked at it in the first place. Revisionists can certainly take credit for forcing their hands.
"(Dr.) Zaverdinos, I feel, is missing some major points:
"1: It's my opinion that academics must first make a cold assessment of things like alleged gas chambers, cremation pits, diesel gassings, the amount of cremations possible via the facilities at the camps vs. the "eyewitness" accounts, etc. . . . we're talking forensics here. Alleged crime scenes and alleged weapons must be assessed using technical, not emotional methods. The Nazis did not possess different laws of science.
"2. There must be a discussion of this so called 'anti-semitism', which openly examines the responsibility of the Jews and their behavior. To assume that somehow National Socialism had no areas of legitimacy is inherently biased against the Germans - and by extension all of 'goyim'. It is this constant yielding and deference to Jewish interests that has enabled the 'holocaust' myth to become the fraud that it is.
"3. Of course, people of German descent want to exonerate their country. They have been accused of something that is not true. It (is as if) Germans somehow do not have a right to respect and equal treatment that other nations are given. This disdain for Germans is indicative of the effect that the constant, intentional media lies have had on public opinion. What about the political agendas of those who created and perpetuate this myth? They must be held accountable.
"4.There must be discussion of compensation for the illegal, immoral behavior of the Allies during this period - deliberate, genocidal bombings of non-military targets, wholesale rapes and murders, thefts of property & patents, forced labor camps, etc., etc.
"This 'real progress' that (Dr.) Zaverdinos yearns for will only occur when the domination by one side ceases."
Thought for the Day:
"People like Dr. Zaverdinos have come a long way but obviously have still a long way to go. Just because he is afraid to call a spade a spade or crooks, crooks does not mean that people like I, whose agenda is to exonerate Germans of crimes they did not commit, should adopt the same servile course.
"Truth ***is*** the goal - and in my agenda the ultimate weapon. Truth ***is*** my defense, no matter what Canadian courts will ultimately say."
(Ernst Zundel, when asked to comment on today's ZGram)
Back to Table of Contents of the March 1999 ZGrams