Holocaust Denial

Some General Comments

"Work Makes Free"
Gate from Auschwitz

The following series of comments are not an analysis of the arguments made for Holocaust Denial; but just some general comments about the phenomena and nature of Holocaust Denial.

The Myth of the Jewish Grandfather

Alois Hitler
One of the most tiresome, but off repeated, myths concerning Adolf Hitler is the story that his father Alois Hitler was half Jewish making Hitler one quarter Jewish. The fact is this story is frankly very unlikely.

The story does have a certain neatness and a rather grotesque irony, but that is not enough to make it true. This legend as two versions let us deal with the more outrageous version first.

The chief modern source of this hypothesis is Walter C. Langer’s Psychological profile of Adolf Hitler done in 1943 for the American OSS. It was subsequently published in 1972.

There are some people who seriously doubt that Johann Georg Hiedler was the father of Alois. Thyssen and Koehler, for example, claim that Chancellor Dollfuss had ordered the Austrian police to conduct a thorough investigation into the Hitler family. As a result of this investigation a secret document was prepared which proved that Maria Anna Schicklgruber was living in Vienna at the time she conceived. At that time she was employed as a servant in the home of Baron Rothschild. As soon as the family discovered her pregnancy she was sent back to her home in Spital where Alois was born. If it is true that one of the Rothschild’s is the real father of Alois Hitler, it would make Adolph a quarter Jew. According to these sources, Adolph Hitler knew of the existence of this document and the incriminating evidence it contained. In order to obtain it he precipitated events in Austria and initiated the assassination of Dollfuss. According to this story, he failed to obtain the document at that time, since Dollfuss had secreted it and, had told Schuschnigg of its whereabouts so that in the event of his death the independence of Austria would remain assured. Several stories of this general character are in circulation.

Those who lend credence to this story point out several factors which seem to favor its plausibility:

(a) That it is unlikely that the miller's assistant in a small village in this district would have very much to leave in the form of a legacy.

(b) That it is strange that Johann Hiedler should not claim the boy until thirty-five years after he had married the mother and the mother had died.

(c) That if the legacy were left by Hiedler on the condition that Alois take his name, it would not have been possible for him to change it to Hitler.

(d) That the intelligence and behavior of Alois, as well as that of his two sons, is completely out of keeping with that usually found in Austrian peasant families. They point out that their ambitiousness and extraordinary political intuition is much more in harmony with the Rothschild tradition.

(e) That Alois Schicklgruber left his home village at an early age to seek his fortune in Vienna where his mother had worked.

(f) That it would be peculiar for Alois Hitler, while working as a customs official in Braunau, should choose a Jew named Prinz, of Vienna, to act as Adolph's godfather unless he felt some kinship with the Jews himself.1

Certainly the idea that Adolf Hitler had some Rothschild ancestry is a rather ironic one considering the role the Rothschild’s have played and continue to play in anti-semitic mythology. However as the list of alleged “evidence” indicates the whole story is dubious in the extreme.

Since the war not one scrap of evidence has been found to validate the story or to make it even in the slightest bit more plausible. It seems to be nothing more than a piece of gossip, of no value. It can be dismissed as nonsense. For example there seems to be no evidence that Maria Schicklgruber ever lived and or worked in Vienna much less worked for the Rothschilds.2

As for the origins of the story Ian Kershaw says:

Finally there is a third hypothesis. According to this A.H. had a Jewish grandfather. Such rumors were rife in Munich's cafés already during the early 1920s, and they were later fueled by foreign tabloids during the 1930s. The newspapers claimed that the name Hüttler was Jewish, they 'revealed' that it went back to a Jewish family named Hitler in Bucharest, and they even wrote that Hitler's father was the child of Baron Rothschild, in whose house Hitler's grandmother allegedly spent some time as a maid.3

As I said the story is dubious in the extreme and can be dismissed out of hand. Even Langer who was attracted to the story for its value in “explaining” Hitler says:

This is certainly a very intriguing hypothesis and much of Adolph's later behavior could be explained in rather easy terms on this basis. However, it is not absolutely necessary to assume that he had Jewish blood in his veins in order to make a comprehensive picture of his character with its manifold traits and sentiments. From a purely scientific point of view, therefore, it is sounder not to base our reconstruction on such slim evidence but to seek firmer foundations. Nevertheless, we can leave it as a possibility which requires further verification.4

We can dismiss this story has so much gossip and nonsense.

The second version of the story is more substantial and has a more substantial basis. Hans Frank, who was executed after his trial at Nuremburg, in his memoirs gives the following story.5

According to Frank William Patrick Hitler a son of Hitler’s half brother Alois Jr. threatened in 1930 via a blackmail letter to reveal that Hitler had Jewish ancestors:

…a son of Hitler’s half-brother Alois who was gently hinting that in view of certain allegations in the press it might be better if certain family matters weren’t shouted from the roof tops. The press reports in question suggested that Hitler had Jewish blood in his veins and hence was hardly qualified to be an anti-semite. But they were phrased in such general terms that nothing could be done about it. In the heat of the political struggle the whole thing died down. All the same, this threat of blackmail by a relative was a somewhat tricky business. At Hitler’s request I made some confidential inquiries.6

Frank then goes on to say that he found out the following:

…intensive investigation elicited the following information: Hitler’s father was the illegitimate son of a women by the name of Schicklgruber from leonding near Linz who worked as a cook in a Graz household….But the most extraordinary part of the story is this: when the cook Schicklgruber (Adolf Hitler’s grandmother) gave birth to her child, she was in the service with a Jewish family called Frankenberger. And in behalf of his son, then about nineteen years old, Frankenberger paid a maintenance allowance to Schicklgruber from the time of the child’s birth until his fourteenth year. For a number of years, too. The Frankenbergers and Hitler’s grandmother wrote to each other, the general tenor of the correspondence betraying on both sides the tacit acknowledgement that Schicklgruber’s illegitimate child had been engendered under circumstances which made the Frankenbergers responsible for its maintenance …. Hence the possibility cannot b e dismissed that Hitler’s father was half Jewish as a result of the extramarital relationship between the Schicklgruber woman and the Jew from Graz. This would mean that Hitler was one-quarter Jewish.7

Nice neat story. However it is almost certainly false. For example at Nuremburg Frank said Maria Schicklgruber came from Strones near Dollersheim. There is no evidence that Maria ever lived in Graz much less worked for a Jewish family there. Further it appears that until 1856, well after Alois Hitler’s birth (1837), Jews had not lived in Graz since the late 15th century having been expelled and forbidden to return until then. Certainly researchers have found no traces of any Jewish family living in Graz at the time.8

Also although no Frankenberger family has been found; a family by a similar name, Frankenreiter as in fact been found. Leopold Frankenreiter was a butcher and his son was 10 years old at the time of Alois' birth.

William Patrick Hitler in an article published in the Paris Soir in 1939 gives the name of Hitler’s punitive Jewish grandfather; the name of Frankenreiter. William, however, only hints that maybe the family was Jewish. This is interesting but it doesn’t indicate much. By then William was thoroughly disgusted with his uncle and would eventually tour giving lectures about him in the United States, where he eventually served in the Military in World War II.9 It appears either William either invented the whole thing or had heard a story about his grandfather’s ancestry and repeats it.

Before I close about the Frakenreiters I should mention the family was thoroughly Catholic.10

Another problem with the story is, although William smeared his uncle in an article in 1939 after he had left Germany, that the idea of him trying to blackmail his uncle in 1930 and then surviving intact and in fact prospering throughout most of the 1930’s in Nazi Germany beggars belief. It is so hard to believe that Adolf Hitler well known for carrying a grudge would not have, when he attained power seriously punished such an attempt.11

Other problems like the alleged letters, which apparently Frank never saw, have not turned up. Further Frank is not the most reliable of sources. Despite his repentance at Nuremberg Frank retained certain Nazi attitudes and certain aspects of his testimony like where Maria Schickelgruber came from are demonstatably wrong. Niklas Frank one of Hans Frank’s sons has written a caustic and vicious memoir about his father in which he characterizes his father has an egomaniac right to the end filled with self importance and anxious to be a legend and “great” at something even if it is wallowing in self pitying repentance. In his book Niklas tears apart Hans Frank’s memoirs revealing them to be in the end self serving and mendacious.12

So it appears that Alois Hitler’s parents were Maria Anna Schicklgruber and Johann Georg Hiedler, who married Maria 5 years after Alois’ birth, or possibly Georg’s brother Johann Nepomuk Hiedler. Which one of the two is in fact Alois’ father is a tangle I might try at a different time.13

Just to wrap things up Klara, (nee Pölzl) Hitler, Hitler’s mother, her parents were Johann Pölzl and Johanna Hiedler, both Catholics.14.

Klara Hitler

In the end the Jewish grandfather story falls apart and leaves nothing but a few insubstantial wisps of nothing. Why so many people want to believe it is another story.

1. See copy of the report written by Langer, Walter C., at Nizkor Here. It is also published in Langer, Walter C., The Mind of Adolf Hitler, Basic Books, New York, 1972.

2. See Wikipedia Discussion at Alois Hitler, Here, Kershaw, Ian, Hitler 1889-1936: Hubris, W.W. Norton & Co, New York, 2000, p. 35, Hamann, Brigette, Thornton, Thomas, Hitler's Vienna, Oxford University Press, 2001, p. 77. See also Rosenbaum, Ron, Explaining Hitler, HarperPerennial, New York, 1998, pp. 16-36.

3. Kershaw, p. 35.

4. See Footnote 1, Langer.

5. Frank’s Memoirs, Im Angesicht des Galgens. Deutung Hitlers und seiner Zeit aufgrund eigener Erlebnisse und Erkenntnisse, have never been translated into English.

6. Quoted in Rosenbaum, p.20.

7. IBID. pp.21-22.

8. Footnote 2. Kershaw, pp. 35-40, Waite, Robert G., The Psychopathic God, Signet Books, 1977, pp. 150-157.

9. Waite, pp. 151-152.

10. IBID.

11. Kershaw, pp. 35-40.

12. Frank, Niklas, In the Shadow of the Reich, Knopf, New York, 1991.

13. See Wikipedia, Alois Hitler, Here

14. See Wikipedia, Klara Hitler, Here

Pierre Cloutier

J.F.C. Fuller, the Origins of the Second World War and Anti-Semitism.

J.F.C. Fuller

The brilliant military theorist and historian J. F. C. Fuller in his book A Military History of the Western World, v. 3, discusses the origins of the Second World War it is shall we say more than a bit of a mess.

Fuller is far too honest an historian to actually out right lie but he does have a curious habit of putting in interpretations that are belied / undermined by the facts he records. The origins of the Second World War are a case in point.1

Now its important to know in order to understand what Fuller writes to know that he was a member of Mosley’s British Union of Fascists (BU), for a time between the Wars and was still a member when war broke out.2 Fuller fails to mention this in his book or to mention that he was a guest of honour at Hitler’s 50th Birthday celebrations.3 From his book it appears he learned something about the bestiality of the Nazi regime but, alas, not enough. Before Fuller became involved in military affairs he was involved with the British mystic and all round weirdo Aleister Crowley. Which may explain some of Fuller’s later enthusiasms?

For example Fuller describes Hitler’s ideas has a struggle between ideas of “Heroic” man against ideas of “Economic” man, i.e., Capitalism and Marxism. I find this dichotomy fascinating although it is portended by Fuller’s discussion of the battle of Vittorio-Veneto has one of his decisive battles. It is also discussed in my opinion in a way to avoid the dreaded word “Fascist”, which is exactly what the so-called “Heroic” man idea really was.4

In retrospect Fuller describes Hitler as a “…Jekyll and Hyde, at one moment a normal human being and at another an inspired paranoic.”5 character. When Fuller knew Hitler in the 1930’s he seemed to have missed the “Hyde”, “paranoiac” bits.

Of Course Fuller quotes Churchill’s infamous statement, “If our country were defeated. I hope we should find a champion as indomitable to restore our courage and lead us back to our place among nations”.6 Its of interest that Fuller does not give a page number for this quote or give a full reference, i.e., publisher, place of publication etc. Since however I have read about this quote in other writings I believe it is genuine. Fuller forgets that Churchill did not hold this opinion very long.

Briefly Fuller gives Hitler’s aims as follows:

Hitler’s goal was Napoleonic: to establish a German Continental System under the aegis of Germany. Also his means were not far removed from those of the great emperor: to liberate Germany from the shackles of international loan-capitalism, to unite all Germanic peoples into the Third Reich, and to establish in eastern Europe what he called the German Lebensraum (living space) which he considered as essential to the economic security of Germany as Napoleon had considered the Confederation of the Rhine essential to the strategic security of France.7

Where to begin? First Hitler was perfectly willing to live with “international loan- capitalism” whatever that is. So long as he controlled it; or it did his bidding. But then “international loan-capitalism” was often in Nazi propaganda nothing but a code word for “Jew”. The only “international loan-capitalism” Hitler wanted to get rid of was the “Jewish” part. Given what Fuller says later I strongly suspect that after the war Fuller decided to use code words to convey his real meaning in this case “Jewish”. Thus does Fuller begin to use the propaganda of the Third Reich.8

The phrase about uniting all Germanic peoples manages to avoid dealing with the fact that this would involve war, after all the Netherlands, Belgium, (the Flemish part), Luxemburg and Alsace-Lorraine and the German part of Switzerland were all inhabited by "Germanic" peoples. Just how were those various countries to be acquired except by war. Especially since in none of those cases did the peoples want to be part of Germany. I could of course add Norway, Sweden Denmark and England as “Germanic” countries. By endeavoring to unite all Germans Hitler was posing a threat to his neighbours.

The comparison of Hitler’s Lebensraum with Napoleon’s Confederation of the Rhine is ludicrous. The intent of the expansion to the east was to displace the people there by mass murder, mass expulsion and turning the entire remaining population into a subject “inferior” population slated for eventual disappearance. Further such an aim could only mean war because just how else were the populations of the east to be destroyed? Further German domination of Eastern Europe would mean the complete obliteration of the balance of power in Europe. Napoleon’s Confederation of the Rhine by comparison was utterly benevolent. But it’s obvious by making the comparison Fuller is seeking to make Hitler appear no more inhuman than Napoleon. An insult to the Emperor I think.

British policy for centuries had been to oppose the rise to continental dominance of any continental power, so to preserve the balance of power. Hitler’s aims clearly would violate that policy and so would make war against Britain inevitable. This paragraph by Fuller is also of interest because Fuller subsequently “forgets” it.

Fuller than goes into a series of rather bizarre statements. For example concerning the “gold standard”. Fuller’s idea is that Hitler rejected the gold standard and based the value of German currency on production not on the fictitious value of gold.9 Fuller then makes a series of statements of Hitler’s plans regarding German finances. Hitler plan was to 1, Refuse interest bearing foreign loans, 2, obtain imports by direct goods exchange, 3, put a stop to freedom of the exchanges and limit the ability to transfer private fortunes, 4 create money when men and material where available.10.

Fuller concludes:

Because the life of international finance depended upon the issue of interest-bearing loans to nations in economic distress, Hitler’s economics spelt its ruination. If he was allowed to succeed, other nations would certainly follow his example, and should a time come when all non-gold-holding governments exchanged goods for goods, not only would borrowing cease and gold lose its power, but the money-lenders would have to close shop.11

"Money-lenders" - just what might that be code for? Fuller then says that because of this threat and the brutality of the Hitler regime towards German Jews:

… six months after Hitler became Chancellor, Samuel Untermyer, a wealthy New York attorney, threw down the challenge. He proclaimed a “holy war” against National Socialism and called for a economic boycott of German goods, shipping and services.12

Well where to start with this farrago of nonsense? Firstly Fuller “forgets” his comments about Hitler’s aims of uniting all the “Germanic” peoples and his quest for “living space”, either aim meant Hitler intended a to fight a war. Both together were quite ambitious and highly dangerous to other European powers. Secondly his comments ignore what we do now know about Hitler’s economic policies and aims.

Bluntly from his accession to power in 1933 Hitler was gearing the German economy for war. His barter system, and aukratic intentions were designed with that in mind. The militarization of German society and economy during the period 1933-1939 where amazing and vast. To quote.

The military budget expanded rapidly, taking 17 percent of GNP in 1938-39. In the last peacetime year 52 pefennigs out of every mark the German government spent went on defence. These were not remotely moderate proportions. In 1913, at the height of the re-1914 arms race, the German government spent an estimated 3 percent of GNP, and devoted 24 percent of a much smaller state budget to defence purposes.13

Further Hitler’s “barter” and other methods were designed to conserve German foreign currency and gold reserves and designed quite deliberately to exploit and use other countries economies for German benefit. Particularly interesting in this regard is the way early Nazi fiscal policy screwed American investors who had invested billions of dollars in the German economy in the 1920’s and in effect expropriated them. Considering that these people had a powerful vested interest in the German economy doing well antagonizing them seemed rather pointless.14 And of course during the Nazi years all sort of American businesses did business in and with Germany so that business antagonism in America against Nazi Germany was always pretty muted and countered by significant American business interest in doing business with Nazi Germany.

Of course it should not escape attention that the man Fuller has declare “holy war” on Germany has a Jewish name to say nothing of the obvious coded reference to Jews in the term “money-lenders”. It does appear Fuller buys into the whole Nazi propaganda fantasy of “International Jewry” plunging the nations into war.

The evidence indicates quite conclusively that Hitler wanted war and was planning for it right from the day he took power. That was and remains the main cause of World War Two.15

Then Fuller allows for a reality to intrude for he says.

Besides this cause of war, [attacks against Hitler’s “barter” system] between 1933 and 1939 others helped to inflame the international situation, and of these the most important was the violence with which Hitler set out to carry out his program of German regeneration.16

The implication is obviously that all these efforts were “secondary” the main one being a war between two economic systems. Which exists largely in Fuller’s own head. Still Fuller is honest enough to record the facts. What follows is an accurate review of the facts and events, but with a twist. There is a distinct bias in his recording of events.

Rather surprisingly Fuller ignores here the rather obvious economic contest between Capitalism and Communism, which fits vastly better his idea of a economic battle between two systems. The point of fact is that Hitler’s challenge to international Capitalism was rather minor if that. Certainly Capitalists found Nazi Germany vastly more congenial than Communist Russia and American etc., business people and financiers continued to do business with Nazi Germany through out the 30’s even though trade contracted.17

To get back to Fuller’s overview of events leading up to the Second World War. Fuller repeats the old chestnut that League of Nation sanctions supported by Britain and France over the Abyssinian crisis threw Mussolini in with Hitler. This is a gross over simplification. Aside from a common implied view that the concerns of the Ethiopians did not and should not have mattered. This ignores the fact that the sanctions were deliberately ineffectual, that France and Britain and France recognized the conquest of Ethiopia a few years later and most importantly Mussolini had ambitions in Africa and the Mediterranean which France and Britain blocked. Mussolini wanted most of North Africa and to become the great naval power in the Mediterranean. The chances were zero that France and Britain would ever acquiesce to that. So Mussolini would naturally have tended to ally himself with a Germany that would allow him to try to carry out such fanciful dreams. Finally to be utterly blunt Germany treated its new ally very badly almost from the very beginning but Mussolini kept with it to the bitter end. Both France and Britain in a bid to win him over treated Mussolini much better, but since they could not satisfy Mussolini’s ambitions in the Mediterranean or North Africa he stuck with Hitler.18

Fuller than goes into a look at the Spanish Civil War and the Sudeten Crisis with a rather obvious bias. Czechoslovakia as a “pistol pointed at Germany”.19 There is further stuff about Bombing Germany from bohemian airfields. Fuller neglects to mention that the agitation in the Sudetenland was deliberately manufactured by Hitler. Neither does he mention that Hitler wanted a war against Czechoslovakia and was positively cress fallen and upset when it became clear his Generals weren’t eager for a war so that he accepted Chamberlain’s offer of mediation. This mediation amounted to imposing a settlement on Czechoslovakia without its participation. Fuller seems to argue that avoiding war was a good idea at this time because of lack of preparedness on the part of the Allied powers. Well we now know how poorly prepared Germany was at the time for a two front war. It would probably have been best that if war came it came then than a year later.20

Throughout Fuller ignores that if people were out to get Hitler why did they not stop him earlier, why for example were these groups of international financiers utterly unable to get France to march into the Rhineland in 1936 when Hitler occupied it. At little cost “International Finance” could have destroyed Hitler then and there and put a end to the alleged threat of “barter”. But then it is clear that such a contest only exists in Fuller’s mind.

Fuller than mentions the “violent propaganda against Hitler”21. Of course the possibility that bad press about Nazi Germany may have been a understandable reaction to Nazi brutality and acts and that much or most of this “propaganda” entirely accurate is not a thought Fuller entertains for a moment. Of course Fuller does not mention the violent, hysterical propaganda of the Third Reich, against one enemy or another, Czechs, Poles and of course the hysterical manic, anti-semitic propaganda of the regime.22 Instead Fuller says the following:

Foreign affairs lost all objectivity and became wrapped in explosive animosity which so perturbed Dr. Goebbels, the German Minister of Propaganda, that he appealed to the American Ambassador in Berlin, who replied that the “most crucial thing that stood between any betterment of American press relationships was the Jewish question”.23

Poor Dr. Goebbels, who shortly afterwards was to organize with Hitler “Crystal Night” and to take an active part in the Holocaust. My heart bleeds for him. Of course it is of interest that Fuller does not give a citation for this quote so is it in fact an actual quote or made up or a bit of Nazi propaganda designed to show how powerful the Jews are and how they control the American Media? I frankly suspect the Fuller’s intention is to set up in the readers mind the idea of unfair Jewish controlled American media attacks against Germany. Of course Fuller never bothers to mention how if Jewish influence is so great how come restrictions on the numbers of Jewish refuges entering the United States were so severe.

Now comes Fuller’s piece de resistance the so called Potocki Report and it is clear that Fuller approves of this Report for he says:

The situation as it was at the end of the year is so illuminatingly described by the Polish Ambassador at Washington, Count Jerzy Potocki, in a report to the Polish foreign Office, dated January 12, 1939, that we will quote from it fully:24

What follows is a flood of anti-semitic propaganda and hysteria. Let me quote a few samples:

Above all, propaganda here is entirely in Jewish hands…

…their [Jewish] propaganda is so effective that people have no real knowledge of the true state of affairs in Europe…

…people are given the impression that Soviet Russia is part of the Democratic group of countries…

He had [Roosevelt] had a two fold purpose in mind: firstly, he wanted to divert American public opinion from difficult and complicated domestic problems ….

Secondly by creating a war panic …he [Roosevelt] wanted to induce Americans to endorse his huge program of armaments…

In this campaign of hatred individual Jewish intellectuals such as [follows a list] …have taken a prominent part in this campaign of hatred.

This particular group of people [Jewish of course] …are, in point of fact, linked with international Jewry by ties incapable of being torn asunder. For international Jewry –so intimately concerned with the interests of its own race- President Roosevelt’s “ideal” role as a champion of human rights was indeed a godsend. In this way Jewry was not only able to establish a dangerous centre in the New World for the dissemination of hatred and enmity, but it also succeeded in dividing the world into two warlike camps. The whole problem is being tackled in a most mysterious manner. Roosevelt has been given the power to enable him to enliven American foreign policy and at the same time to create huge reserves in armaments for a future war which the Jews are deliberately heading for.25

Just why should we take this “illuminating” document seriously? It contains all the usual riffs of anti-semitic propaganda. The vast “Jewish” conspiracy, media controlled by Jews, a campaign of hatred against poor Germany. In fact its similarity to Nazi Propaganda is so great that perhaps we should check the source. We check and we find the source is the German White Paper, of justification for their attack on Poland. Fuller buries it in a footnote in small script at the bottom of the page hoping, I guess, people won’t notice. In other words the source is piece of Nazi propaganda!26 The authenticity of the piece is dubious to put it mildly and apparently Count Potocki denied writing it. It supposedly was found in the ruins of a bombed out building in Warsaw by the Nazi in October 1939.27 It’s all rather dubious.

Even assuming it’s for real. It’s a collection of anti-semitic garbage.28 The campaign of hatred for example, do I have to mention the extreme hateful Nazi anti-Semitic campaigns. Projection anyone! Further does it have to be mentioned that Germany attacked Poland and that Germany declared war on America in 1941. So much for “International Jewry” arranging the war.

It’s rather obvious that by quoting this alleged document Fuller can give space to anti-semitic ravings while denying that these are his own ideas.

Fuller can’t deny Hitler’s aggressive moves regarding Poland or Hitler’s attack. Fuller could acknowledge the flood of vicious anti-polish propaganda that flooded the Nazi press before the outbreak of war. But Fuller says:

That by now had been decided on by others besides Hitler is clear:…29

Fuller then refers to an interview Karl von Weigand, an American journalist, had with an American official in Paris supposedly stating that the Americans were planning to enter the war after Britain and France.30 I will note that Fuller does not give a source for this quote. Fuller than quotes from The White House Papers of Harry Hopkins, the following:

…Winston Churchill told Bernard Baruch: “War is coming very soon. We will be in it and you (the United States) will be in it. You (Baruch) will be running the show over there, but I will be on the sidelines over here.”31

It is fascinating that despite the fact Fuller gives the source he neglects to give a page number. But the insinuation is clear that Jews run the United States.

Fuller than mentions the Nazi-Soviet pact, while of course neglecting to mention that if Jews controlled Russia how did that happen?

Then Fuller mentions Hitler’s attack on Poland and makes a reference to Hitler agreeing not to bomb unfortified cities. How nice of him. Fuller of course neglects to mention the savagery and brutality of the German invasion, i.e., lots of German atrocities has deliberate policy, or that this promise was widely breached.32

Fuller then at the end quotes Goring saying “If We lose this war, then God have mercy on us.”33 Quite designed to make the Nazi Leadership look more human, unfortunately it appears that this quote is a myth because Paul Schmidt’s entire account of these events is likely complete fiction.34

It is worth mentioning that in regards to the Potocki document that in the footnote35 giving the reference, (German White Paper a Nazi propaganda document) Fuller than states as follows after giving the reference:

Addressing the Reichstag on January 30, 1939, Hitler said: “ I want to-day once again to make a prophecy: If the international Jewish financers within and without Europe succeed once more in hurling the people into a world war, the result will be, not the Bolshevization of the World and the victory of Jewry, but the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe.” This was to be only too true, for according to Goebbels: “About 60 percent. Of them will have to be liquidated; only 40 per cent. Can be used for forced labour” (Diaries, p. 103)36

Read in with the Potocki document that Fuller quotes it appears that he is not too subtlety blaming “Jewish” financiers for the Holocaust by starting World War II and Hitler’s infamous act has retaliation for that. Of course it is nonsense. Hitler intended war from the get go and he was making threats to mass murder Jews for years.37 Hitler was projecting his aims and desires on others. Also does it really need mentioning that Hitler attacked Poland and that Hitler therefore deliberately started the war. I further note that Dr. Goebbels comments don’t go well with Fuller’s implication that of Goebbels the poor man having to deal with an unfair American media. But then Fuller does put the comment in a footnote where it is more likely a reader will overlook it. For all those Holocaust deniers who have used Fuller’s work it is of interest that he was no Holocaust denier.

In a later book The Conduct of War: 17 89 – 1961,38 Fuller goes over the Causes of World War II again. The differences are interesting Hitler is noticeably more prominent and so is the odiousness of the Nazi regime. Greater emphasis is given to Nazi policies and aims in causing the war. There is a few pages on the so-called conflict over different economic systems i.e., Loan Capitalism v. Barter but it is less prominent. The Potocki document is absent and so largely are Jews as being involved in causing the war.39. It is indeed a change. Perhaps Fuller learned something in the meantime?

Fuller also refers to the expulsion of 15 million Germans of which 6 million were unaccounted for.40 The similarity of the 6 million figure here with the 6 million figure usually given for the dead of the Holocaust is not likely coincidental. Further Fuller waxes quite eloquent about German suffering after the war and is very indignant.41 About the mass death of the Holocaust Fuller is silent.

In an abridgement of Fuller’s three volume A Military History of the Western World,42 John Terraine the editor criticizes Fuller at various points; for example Fuller’s views of the causes of World War I. Terraine disagrees with Fuller’s contention that the causes of the war were Economic.43 It’s a little strange that although the entire section in which Fuller gives his version of the causes of World War II are printed in full in this abridgement,44 there is no criticism by Terraine. Thus allowing Fuller’s anti-semitic insinuations to go unchallenged.

None of this means that Fuller’s books are useless in fact they are insightful and frequently brilliant. Its just that here Fuller allows a rather ugly bias to distort his work fortunately its more like an occasional undigested lump than something that permeates the whole work even in the sections on the Second World War. Unfortunately Fuller’s words especially his use of the Potocki document have been used by various Neo-Nazi groups.45 It’s all rather sad.

1. Fuller, J. F. C., A Military History of the Western World, v. 3, Da Capo Press, New York, 1956, pp. 364-376.

2. See Answers.com, Here and Wikipedia, Here

3. IBID. Wikipedia.

4. Footnote 1, pp. 300-330.

5. IBID. pp. 367-368.

6. IBID. p. 368 quoting Churchill’s book Step by Step.

7. IBID. p. 368.

8. See Herf, Jeffrey, The Jewish Enemy, Harvard University Press, Cambridge MASS, 2006, pp. 50-91. For the similarities between Fuller’s views of the causes of World War II and Nazi anti-semitic propaganda.

9. It is of interest that here Fuller quotes Hitler but the footnote to the comment refers to a statement by Churchill and nowhere does it provide a citation for Hitler’s comment. Fuller, 1956, p. 368 & Footnote 1 on that page.

10. IBID. pp. 368-369.

11. IBID. p. 369.

12. IBID. p. 369. Fuller gives no source for this comment.

13. Overy, Richard, Misjudging Hitler, The Origins of the Second World War Reconsidered, 2nd Edition, Gordon Martel, Routledge, New York, 1999, pp. 93-115, at. 109.

14. See Tooze, Adam, The Wages of Destruction, Penguin Books, London, 2006, pp. 67-134.

15. See Evans, Richard J., The Third Reich in Power, Penguin Books, London, 2005, pp. 612-664. Tooze, pp. 203-243.

16. Fuller, 1956, pp. 370.

17. See Tooze, pp. 87-88.

18. Fuller, 1956, p. 371. For an overview of the Abyssinian Crisis and its role in the road to war see. Sullivan, Brian R., More than meets the eye: The Ethiopian War and the Origins of the Second World War, The Origins of the Second World War Reconsidered, 2nd Edition, Ed. Martel, Gordon, Routledge, London, 1999, pp. 178-203.

19. Fuller, 1956, p. 372.

20. See Shirer, William L., The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, Simon and Shuster, New York, 1960, pp. 357-427, Watt, Donald Cameron, How War Came, Mandarin, London, 1990, pp. 26-31.

21 Fuller, 1956, p. 372.

22. Evans, pp. 208, 539, 549, 589, 668, 709. See Herf also.

23. Fuller, 1956, p 372.

24. Fuller, 1956, p. 372.

25. Fuller, 1956, pp. 372-374. quoting the Potocki document.

26. Fuller, 1956, p. 374 Footnote 1

27. See Randi Forum, Here

28. See Herf for a myriad of examples especially pp. 50-137.

29, Fuller 1956, p. 375.

30. Fuller, 1956, p. 375. Karl von Weigand was born in Germany and had known Hitler since 1921. He worked as a foreign correspondent for the vehemently isolationist anti-Roosevelt Hearst papers as a foreign correspondent. See also Lucas, John, American Heritage, Here See also Time Obituary Here

31. Fuller, 1956, p. 375. Bernard Baruch was subject to vicious Nazi propaganda attacks as part of the alleged “Jewish” cabal that controlled the United States. See Herf, pp. 128-130, 163-164.

32. Fuller, 1956, p. 375. For Poland see Megargee, Geoffrey, War of Annihilation, Rowman & Littlefield Pub. Inc., New York, 2006, pp. 10-18.

33. Fuller, 1956, p. 376.

34. See Weinburg, Gerhard L., Germany Hitler & World War II, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1995, p. 91.

35. Fuller, 1956, p. 374.

36. Fuller, 1956, p. 374.

37. Dawidowicz, Lucy S., War Against the Jews, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, 1975, pp. 156-166.

38. Fuller, J.F.C., The Conduct of War: 1789 – 1861, Da Capo Press, New Brunswick NJ, 1961.

39. IBID. pp. 225-247.

40. IBID. p. 307. This figure is almost certainly a wild exaggeration.

41. IBID. p. 303-309.

42. Fuller, J.F.C., The Decisive Battles of the Western World, v. 1 & v. 2, Editor John Terraine, Paladin Books, London, 1970.

43. see IBID. v. 2, Editor’s Note 4, pp. 287-288.

44. IBID., v. 2, pp. 431-443.

45. See Storm Front, Here

Pierre Cloutier

Notes on 1984

1984 is more of a cultural phenomena than a work of great literature, but since a generation has past since the actual 1984 perhaps it can be examined without political / mythological blinders.

I can remember that when 1984, the year, arrived we were treated to a deluge of books and articles, TV specials etc., about the book and the phenomena, and it had been steadily growing for years. I can remember when 1984 references were much more common than they are now. The year has come and gone and it lost its “cachet” so to speak. In fact I took the novel in High School, (Grade 12)!

Still from 1954 BBC Film of 1984

There are not very many critiques of 1984 from the point of view of Science Fiction, but there are a myriad of critiques from a political point of view.

To get this out of the way first. It is a wearying, but basically an omnipresent view that Orwell’s novel is an attack on Socialism. This view is of course has been and is very “Politically Correct”, and depends on a studied, deliberate and willful effort to ignore what Orwell said about his novel. The mental discipline required to hold this opinion is quite formidable and depends on a carefully cultivated ignorance into which contrary facts may not intrude. For example:

1984, like Animal Farm, was a deep embarrassment to
leftists. Orwell, a socialist disgusted and disillusioned by the excesses of Stalin's regime, wrote both works in protest. Despite many attempts to re-spin 1984 as being "really about the alienation in all modern societies," the references to socialism in 1984 are pervasive. Oceania (the Americas and British Empire) is ruled by a system called Ingsoc (English Socialism), and Eurasia (Russia and Europe) is ruled by Neo-Bolshevism. The lessons of 1984 might be applicable to any totalitarian system, but the novel is first, last, and foremost about socialism.1

No doubt what Orwell had to say is irrelevant since our quoted writer “knows” that the “the novel is first, last, and foremost about socialism”. No doubt hoping that by repeated emphatic, statements to convince himself and his readers. Our author forgets that Orwell died a convinced Socialist. Would it not be more accurate to say that “the novel is first, last, and foremost about Stalinism”? One of the reasons that the novel is a “deep embarrassment to leftists” is that certain intellectuals insisted and still insist that it is a deep embarrassment to the entire left of the political spectrum, but of course deny that Nazism and such novels as The Iron Heel are a “deep embarrassment” to the right of the political spectrum, or to capitalism. This is obviously pure polemics, and its use is to score debating points.

Orwell’s comments in the novel about systems of exploitation and ruling classes in the past are of course ignored, including the rather frightening idea that to Orwell the society of 1984 is the “perfect” class rule, in which the ruling class has apparently found a “perfect” way to stay in power forever. O’Brien seems to be almost frighteningly clear eyed about what this new society is actually trying to do. Just how is that “Socialist”?

I’m referring to all that stuff about staying in power, the endless crushing of people; boot in the face forever stuff. Sounds not very “Socialist”, but has certain affinities to Fascist ideas about endless struggle, and only struggle making life worth while.

In 1949 in a letter to the New York Times about his novel Orwell said:

"My recent novel [1984] is NOT intended as an attack on Socialism or on the British Labour Party (of which I am a supporter) but as a show-up of the perversions ... which have already been partly realized in Communism and Fascism. ...The scene of the book is laid in Britain in order to emphasize that the English-speaking races are not innately better than anyone else and that totalitarianism, if not fought against, could triumph anywhere.”2

But then Orwell’s novel, like his work Animal Farm, served an extremely useful purpose in the Cold War of being used not just to attack Stalinism but the “left” in general, (which could include anyone to the left of extreme conservatives). That Orwell was less than enamored with capitalism was of course forgotten down the memory hole. (How Orwellian!)3

A side issue is why Orwell named the novel 1984. One story is that Orwell originally was going to call it 1948 but was talked into calling it 1984 to give it an less immediate and more prophetic tone. Another story was that Orwell was debating whether to call the novel The Last Man in Europe or 1984 and was told to go with what was then considered a more marketable title. Its also possible that the title was a tribute to the Jack London novel The Iron Heel, which is about a Fascist like movement taking power, in 1984!, and delaying the onset of a Socialist world for centuries. Which casts an interesting light on the supposed anti-socialism of Orwell’s novel.4

Regarding the prophetic value of 1984. Well let’s just say 1984 is not very prophetic. The society described in 1984, with its run down buildings, shortages of everything, like razor blades, shoelaces, and its dreadful gin and tobacco is obviously modeled on a view of Stalinist Russia, although it also carries more than a small resemblance to ration ridden Britain of the war and post war period. So much for seeing what the real 1984 would be like.

As Isaac Asimov said in a review of 1984:

Orwell had no feel for the future, and the displacement of the story is so much more geographical than temporal. The London in which the story is placed is not so much moved 35 years forward in time, from 1949 to 1984, as it is moved a thousand miles east in space to Moscow.5

The story in the novel is a repeat of the Russian Revolution, with Big Brother having a moustache like Stalin, and Emmanuel Goldstein not just being a version of Leon Trotsky but looking like him complete with goatee. In fact Orwell has a real difficulty imagining a realistic future, in this case everything is always breaking down and everything including electricity is intermittent and rationed. And there is an omnipresent black market, shades of not just Stalinist Russia but wartime and post war Britain. In other words it is indeed 1948 and its Stalin’s Russia.

A classic example of that is this from 1984:

Winston fitted the nib into the penholder and sucked it to get the grease off. The pen was an archaic instrument, seldom used even for signatures, and he had procured one, furtively and with some difficulty, simply because of a feeling that the beautiful creamy paper deserved to be written on with a real nib instead of being scratched with an ink pencil.6

This is of course the exact reverse of the truth. Old style pens scratch and the “ink pencil”, probably a ball point pen, does not! This passage does of course indicate a sort of nostalgia for the “good old days”.

Certain criticisms by Asimov do not work for example Asimov’s statement that no can be observing everyone through the two way telescreen at all times is irrelevant. The point is that at any one time someone COULD be observing you doing whatever and you can not be sure when you are being viewed or not viewed. So you would not need to be viewed all the time. So the argument that you would need c. five people to view each person and hence the system would be unworkable doesn't wash. All you would need is each person thinking that they might be being watched at any time. This would require a small group of watchers watching people randomly so that no one could be sure they wern't being watched at any particular time. Orwell was perfectly aware of this. This could potentially be very effective has a means of oppression.

As for Asimov’s criticism that having a system of volunteer spies not working because everyone would eventually report everyone is beside the point. The fact is Stalinist Russia had such a system and so did Nazi Germany and also the Stasi of former East Germany had something similar; so it can work. Asimov is right though in all those cases the system had a tendency to create an overwhelming amount of paperwork and files that tended to bog down the work of the secret police.

As for prophecy Orwell seems to be unable to conceive of computers for record keeping and the writing machines he does conceive of are rather crude for the real 1984. Orwell’s people use razor blades for example: electric razors don’t seem to exist.

Orwell doesn't seem to have been aware that such systems that he described in 1984 are by their very nature self destructive. For example it appears that corruption is rampant and everything either doesn't work or breaks down. Yet amazingly the telescreens work perfectly and the Thought Police and various ministries work without corruption. We now know that corruption, nepotism was very common and got increasingly common over time in the Communist party of Russia; indeed it got common in all Communist one party states to say nothing of regimes like Nazi Germany.

Orwell’s idea about Newspeak, a language that constricts meaning to the point of making heretical thought impossible is of interest. It is also extremely unlikely. Just how do you prevent the meaning of words being modified or changed over time? How would you for example prevent the technical vocabulary of Newspeak from bleeding into everyday words? Just how would you enforce rigid definitions of words and prevent modification through everyday use? It won’t work.

Then there is of course O’Brien’s fulminations. We are supposed to be awed by O’Brien’s statements and be terrified by their “awesome” implications.

For example:

When finally you surrender to us, it must be of your own free will.7

This after O’Brien has began to torture him and of course Winston afterwards “freely” converts after extensive hideous physical and mental torture. O’Brien thus proves that the possession of virtually unlimited power over someone provides an ample scope to inflict these sorts of intellectual stupidities on helpless victims.

Or another example:

O’Brien silenced him by a movement of the hand. “We control matter because we control the mind. Reality is inside the skull. You will learn by degrees, Winston. here is nothing that we could not do. Invisibility, levitation – anything. I could float off this floor like soap bubble if I wished to. I do not wish to, because the Party does not wish it. You must get rid of those nineteenth-century ideas about laws of nature. We make the laws of nature."

...

“Nonsense. The earth is as old as we are, no older. How could it be older? Nothing exists except through human consciousness”8

O’Brien has a whole string of similar stupidities all dependent on the fact that Winston is his helpless victim. Of course O’Brien cannot really believe his idiocies otherwise he would be insane with monomania. It is to be wondered at, if O’Brien really believes this nonsense why is he torturing Winston? If reality is all in the head, why bother?

O’Brien’s philosophical justification for his stupidities is the notion of doublethink the idea of holding two contradictory notions in your head at the same time. Of course people do that sort of thing all the time. But in extreme cases such contradictory thinking would produce disordered thinking even insanity. In O’Brien’s case he uses the notion of doublethink to excuse extreme disordered thinking i.e., willful stupidity. The fact that he has to torture Winston to make Winston accept his insane pontifications is proof that O’Brien’s idea of reality being all in your head is wrong. O’Brien is able to inflict such nonsense on Winston only because he has extreme coercive power over him, if O’Brien was the victim would he magically be able to wish the torture away has being all in his head? I think not! Of course O’Brien never explains how doublethink enables you to not just have two contradictory notions in your head at the same time; but how do you avoid tension between them? How do you avoid situations about having to choose one idea over the other?

O’Brien’s verbal vomit is only terrifying because he has power over another human being and is able to terrorize that human if he refuses to accept his ravings. Otherwise it is intellectually empty.

At the end after torturing Winston most hideously O’Brien breaks him, which is hardly surprising. O’Brien makes some idiot comment about Winston no longer being human because of the way he, Winston, looks physically. This is of course shoddy nonsense. It is O’Brien who has done this to Winston which of course means that O’Brien is less than human. It is fascinating that O’Brien continually says that Winston is responsible for what is happening to himself and that he, O’Brien, is carrying out the "Party's" will. What a fascinating evasion of responsibility. Why such cowardice? After all this is from a man who claims reality is all in the head.

It is curious that Orwell in his novel seemed to be unable to conceive of people being able to resist the tortures of the Thought Police even though the techniques used are very similar to techniques attributed to the NKVD and Gestapo,9 which some people were able to resist. Orwell seems to have a pretty negative view of people.

The aim of the Thought Police torture to convert the unbeliever seems to be similar to the arguments and ideas of the Moscow Show trials of the 30’s where the accused confessed their guilt and admitted their crimes and at the same time said they believed that the Party / Stalin was always right. Once again Orwell does not predict the future but recapitulates the recent past.

Of course Orwell didn't anticipate that after Stalin died the whole system would thaw. It appears that O’Brien’s vision of a boot stamping into a human face forever could not be maintained without tearing everything apart and generating to much instability. The systems rulers decided to turn down the pressure by several notches in order to have some stability instead of risking an explosion.

Its of interest that in Orwell’s novel the “Proles” are looked upon with barely disguised contempt by everyone including the author, yet they are left relatively, (at least compared to party members), “free”. This is obviously going to be a source of future conflict because given the continual terror in the “Party”, the rampant shortages and corruption to say nothing of the overall general decay just how is the emergence of some sort of “middle layer” to be avoided that would eventually challenge the “Party”. Despite O’Brien’s philosophical idiocies nothing he says indicates that the “Party” is immune to decay or that it can avoid presiding over a decaying and failing regime.

Regarding the idea that the regime needs war to burn up surplus production? Well building pyramids would do the same thing, to say nothing of a simple steady increase in population or another of a myriad of substitutes that are more easily controlled.

The idea that a society would need to endlessly rewrite history and spend enormous effort to do so is a simple waste of resources. It is of course simply not necessary people simply don’t require that degree of manipulation to be convinced. This of course owes itself to the Stalinist Russian practice of writing people out of history. For example removing Trotsky from photographs. However the massive continual effort portrayed in 1984 to rewrite history is a simple waste of time.

The fact is has Asimov says:

He [Orwell] did not have the science fictional knack of foreseeing a plausible future and, in actual fact, in almost all cases; the world of 1984 bears no relation to the real world of the 1980’s.10

1. Two Literary Non-Mysteries, Steven Dutch, Here

2. 1984, Wikipedia, Here

3. See The Cruel Peace, Fred Inglis, HarperCollins Pub., New York, 1991, pp. 103-106, for a overview of the Cold War uses of 1984.

4. Ibid. Footnote 2.

5. Asimov on Science Fiction, Isaac Asimov, Avon Books, New York, 1981, p. 249.

6. 1984, George Orwell, The New American Library, New York, 1949, pp. 9-10.

7. Ibid., p. 210.

8. Ibid., p. 218.

9. The Russian and German Secret Police during the Stalinist and Nazi eras.

10. Asimov, p. 259.

Pierre Cloutier

"Authoritarian Future"

I read Starship Troopers first when I was 12 years old and I loved it! It was action packed exciting and well written. Later I read about and from Heinlein his Anti-Communist views and a few things began to go together in my mind.

Firstly I did not even at twelve much care for the Human society Heinlein created; it struck me as rather rigid and doctrinaire.

Frankly the story is written from the point of view of a rather callow young man who is quite effectively made into an instrument of his society. In other words he is brainwashed. The Philosophical arguments for this new "Scientific" morality are pretty silly. It reminds me that both Communism and Nazism claimed a "Scientific" basis for their undemocratic rule. The stupidity about disputes being settled by force neglects the obvious rejoinder that what force proves is only that you are stronger than your opponent not that you are right.

It is interesting that Heinlein who was an Anti-Communist, and who had nothing but contempt for liberals for being weak on Communism, should have so fully embraced a Communist-Fascist system even in fiction. Like many ideologues of the cold-war Heinlein’s solution amounted to the destruction of American ideals and the victory of Communist-Fascistic ideals and practice. The society in the book is anti-democratic to the core, despite the lip service to Democratic ideals, no-one has rights by virtue of being human they must be earned. Democracy does not exist. Society is ruled by a caste of soldiers, like ancient Sparta. All other humans are less than fully human. They are civilians, without honor and not worthy of respect.

It seemed to me obvious that this "Democracy" was modeled after Ancient Sparta where a military caste ruled over a large subject population which they regarded with basic contempt. In Heinlein's society the ruling Military elite "votes" like the Spartans, after being suitably "indoctrinated", and therefore very unlikely to upset the status-quo and they are quite programmed to obey orders. That and their sense of "Class" solidarity with each other is hardly democratic. (I'm aware that Heinlein provides avenues for all sorts to enter the elite, but like Spartans promoting Helots it doesn't change the nature of the System).

The old Communist parties that ruled the Soviet Union and other states proclaimed that their unique "selflessness", "sense of duty", etc., entitled them to rule. I take the official propaganda of the State in this book about as seriously. Our hero swallows the whole thing indicating he isn't very bright.

In the book we are supposed to celebrate Rico’s acceptance of his “duty” and his incorporation of the life denying, death-worshiping ideals of his society into his tiny mind. Some celebrate this as Rico no longer being a “callow” young man. I see Rico as being similar to the “idealists” of Nazi Germany and Stalin’s Russia, shallow, callow individuals who tortured, oppressed and slaughtered millions for reasons of “Scientific Morality” and cowardly notions of “Duty”.

The problem of how it is even possible to create a “Scientific Morality” is scarcely addressed by the book. Certainly the society in the book does not allow detailed, critical examinations of its “Scientific Morality”. In that respect it is like Nazi Germany and Stalin’s Russia. Why Heinlein did not see or know that this idea is a centre-piece of both Communism and Fascism is beyond me. Certainly the refusal of Heinlein fans to see this is incredible. If the society in Starship Troopers is indeed based on “Scientific Morality”, I would chose to be “Immoral” and dedicate all my efforts to destroying it. Such a society is evil by definition regardless of whether it is “Scientifically Moral”. If this century has taught us anything it is that when someone talks about “Scientific Morality”, gas-chambers, forced labour, mass executions, terror, and numerous other horrors are waiting to be made real.

Regarding the books celebration of war, which despite denials is what the book does. I can only quote the following "A military man is in the only profession where he hopes not to use his skills". I just found it fascinating how an Anti-Communist replicated a Communist society in so many ways as somehow "ideal". When I was 12 I got the idea, that I still hold that the "icky" bugs were the good guys.

The glorification of violence is a feature of both Nazism and Stalinism both the most extreme and murderous forms of Fascism and Communism. So is the vision of only one true “Scientific morality”. The give and take of contemporary Democratic politics, the distrust of violence as a problem solver, the tolerance of dissent, the “liberal” belief that human freedom is a positive value is treated with contempt. Humans have value if they serve the state. I am amazed that Heinlein fans do not, or cannot see, that Heinlein’s “ideal” society is an abomination to anyone who believes in Liberty and Democracy.

All in all a wonderful read, especially the battle scenes, getting through boot camp, and the wonderfully conceived battle suits that allow the soldiers to devastate and occupy large areas single handed. Mankind’s Alien enemy is an Insect like species with that have a similar level of technology. Both humans and aliens are engaged in a genocidal war against each other. After all since mankind is fighting bugs. Let’s squash them!

Allegedly the society provides for freedom of speech and elections although given the nature of this society I don't take those comments seriously in the novel. Such a society does not allow for real dissent or freedom and the people involved in voting have been, if the book is any guide, quite effectively indoctrinated. I rather doubt that much difference of opinion exist among the various media from the military or that the "electors" are anything less than largely unified in their opinions. And certainly the classroom lectures give a picture of a unified, cohesive and authoritarian society.

Heinlein wrote Starship Trooper as a cautionary fable about how weak the west was, and unable to combat the superior strength of the Communist-Fascist enemy, which Heinlein, at least in this book, so clearly admires. Like so many he feared the west would succumb unless it abandoned its most basic ideals. We now know that the Communist-Fascist enemy was much weaker then us and the very things in the west that were supposed to weaken it, in the eyes of people like Heinlein, were in fact its strength. Heinlein as turned into a false prophet and his prescription, if carried out, would have been a fatal poison.

So do read it just don't take the society described seriously.

Pierre Cloutier

"Honour"

Guderian, von Rundstedt, Manstein

One of the curses of the historiography of World War II, is the prevalence of the use of the German memoir literature. It is amazing how much our understanding of the period is dependent on this literature. To quote one author:

The single most difficult task all those working on World War II in Europe and North Africa face is the need to penetrate the fog of distortion and confusion generated by the vast German Memoir literature, especially that of generals like Heinz Guderian and Erich Von Manstein. Long the basic staple on which the secondary literature was based, closer examination of these works with reference to contemporary evidence has shown the memoirs to be almost invariably inaccurate, distorted, and in some instances, simply faked.1

Here I will merely go into two areas very little discussed in the literature - bribery and oaths.The image many German Generals after the war liked to provide of themselves was of "Honourable Men" who fought a clean war untainted by the crimes of the regime, honour bound to observe their oath of loyalty to the regime and Hitler sworn in 1934 to the bitter end.2 A little story not told in this copious literature about "honour" is one of simple bribery. It is not mentioned that Hitler bribed his Generals on a massive and systematic basis in return for their loyalty otherwise the cash would dry up. The payments were secret and not subject to tax. To quote:

Since bribery has been seen as a dirty practice since antiquity, and since Nazi Germany practiced the most horrific of human crimes. It is not surprising that those involved in bribery in Nazi Germany have offered no confessions, particularly because German military officers worked especially hard to recoup the image of honourable, apolitical professionals after the war.3

These tax exempt amounts were quite generous. Field Marshals and Grand Admirals received 4000 RM, (Reich Marks), per month. Generals and General Admirals received 2000 RM per month. Civilians also benefited from these very generous "gifts".4 Further it was made very clear that these "gifts" were in return for services too and loyalty too the regime.5

Other "gifts" came in the form of "bequests" which came sometime in the form of "bequests" for individual soldiers birthdays. Thus Grand Admiral Raeder got 250.000 RM, Field Marshall Milch the same amount and so did so many others although some got less.6

Hitler also gave to his officers extensive landed property. Heinz Guderian was allowed to make a selection of a estate in occupied Poland, (c. 4000 acres), the fact that someones else, (Poles), owned these estates was deemed irrelevant. In effect a estate was to be stolen for Guderian. Guderian made numerous visits to narrow down his choice. He eventually selected an estate that was not on the Nazi short list. Eventually Guderian was given a estate, although not the one he wanted, and the Polish officer owning it evicted.7 Guderian complained quite heatedly that what he got wasn't good enough.8 Afterwards many of Hitler's generals tried with state support to create or expand their landed properties.9

To quote:

Those who are interested in the cohesion of the German army into the last weeks of World War II will want to reexamine the impact of large-scale bribery. They will also want to consider the effect of the terror exercised by the so-called "military justice" system of the German armed forces which by latest estimates had well over 25,000 German soldiers, sailors, and airman shot! Huge bribes for many at the top and bullets for thousands at the bottom; not the picture of the German army projected by much of the literature.10

The next area is oaths. Since many of German military men swore that their oath of loyalty to Hitler "Honour" bound them to be loyal to the end it is important to see what they think of oaths in general.

During the Weimer republic These soldiers swore oaths to uphold, support the Weimer republic and its laws which included various treaties under taken by the state. Lets just say they broke these oaths right and left, repeatedly and often, and under the Nazis described such oath breaking in positive tones.11

When for example The government of Prussia was overthrown in 1932, by von Papen, General Rundstedt complied with the request, although it broke his oath. After the war von Rundstedt swore under oath that he had not seen a notorious order explaining the mass murder of Jews and calling for German soldiers to support it. The reality is that Rundstedt gave it his endorsement and signed directives to other commanders suggesting similar directives.12

Manstein in his own trial for war crimes similarly, and outrageously lied. Violating his oath to the court.13

To conclude:

Both Before and after his oath to Hitler, von Rundstedt, like so many others, did not take his oaths particularly seriously. Why just that one?14

The conclusion is obvious The Generals picked what oaths to obey.

No doubt the massive bribery engaged by Hitler "helped" the Generals in feeling bound by their oath to Hitler. Perhaps we would have all been better off if Weimer politicians had done something similar. So much for "Honour".

1. Germany, Hitler & World War II, Gerhard L. Weinberg, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1995, p. 307.

2, See The Other Side of the Hill, Basil Liddell Hart, Pan Books, London, 1999. (Originally published 1948) among many.

3. Black Marks: Hitler's Bribery of his Senior Officers during World War II, Norman J. W. Goda, Journal of Modern History, v. 72 No. 2, June 2000, University of Chicago, Chicago, pp. 413-452, p. 414.

4. Ibid. pp. 421-422.

5.Ibid. pp. 423-428.

6. Ibid. pp. 432-433.

7. Ibid. pp. 437-438.

8. Germany, Hitler & World War II, Weinberg, pp. 308-309.

9. Goda, pp. 439-440.

10. Germany, Hitler & World War II, Weinberg, p. 309.

11. Unexplored Questions about the German Military during World War II, Gerhard L. Weinberg, Journal of Military History, v. 62 Iss. 2, April 1998, pp. 371-380, p. 372.

12. Ibid. pp. 372-373.

13 For a brief overview of the Manstein trial see Blind Eye to Murder, Tom Bower, Warner Books, London, 1995, pp. 292-299.

14. Unexplored Questions about the German Military during World War II, Weinberg, p. 373.

Pierre Cloutier

A.J.P. Taylor and The Origins of the Second World War

A.J.P. Taylor

In 1990 The Historian, contrarian A.J.P. Taylor died. Taylor is best known for his controversial book The Origins of the Second World War, Penguin Books, London, 1961. In this book A.J.P. Taylor advanced the theory that the Second World War was basically a "accident". This is especially evident in Taylor's view of Hitler as a complete opportunist who planned nothing in advance but simply took advantage of opportunities offered.

At the time, 1961, Taylor's thesis was an added breath of fresh air from the previous consensus which advanced the view of a carefully planned Nazi plan to conquer Europe, that was carried out methodically. The problems with this view are in retrospect rather obvious. It assumed a level of calculation and detailed planning that was rather unlikely and it also did not fit with Hitler's rather opportunistic methods.

Unfortunately Taylor's idiosyncratic style and tendency to say things "pour epater le Bourgeoise", was rather infuriating further the fact that his theory was used to justify and excuse Neo-Nazi views of History didn't help. See this Website Here.

These people seem to be unaware of Taylor's The Course of German History, University Paperbacks, London, 1945. In this book Taylor rather critically views the history of Germany has a precursor to World War 1 and 2, with Germany has a dangerous influence in Europe imbuned with vicious Imperial dreams. I suspect that Taylor's distrust of German society before World War 2 lead to him downgrading the importance of men like Hitler.

At the time his thesis evoked a rather vociferous response which unfortunately was in some cases marred by Cold Warism of the worst kind.

The most amazing feature of Taylor's thesis is his ability to magically dismiss documents by reading Hitler's mind. Which is rather strange given Taylor's alleged dislike of this practice. For example Taylor states that what Hitler wanted from Poland in 1939 was Danzig and a corridor between East Prussia and the rest of Germany. Taylor holds to this thesis in the face of conspicuous evidence that Hitler wanted war and was not interested in a settlement that would deprive him of said war.

Further Taylor avoids taking into account Hitler's behavior in Poland after he conquered it. The massacres, forced deportations, destruction attempted genocide of the Poles do not fit the picture of a politician with limited aims. But then Taylor finds it impossible to take Mein Kampf, Hitler's book, seriously or so many of Hitler's paranoiac statements. Taylor seems to view this repellent brew has not worth taking seriously, so of course Hitler did not take it seriously. This is rather absurd. Hitler's behavior and decisions indicate quite conclusively that Hitler indeed took the nonsense he uttered seriously. After all the decision to murder the Jews of Europe while involved in a war with America, Britain and the Soviet Union is not the product of "rationality" but of what can only be called "irrationality", aside from being unmitigatibly evil.

Taylor's picture that Hitler was not planning for war is decisively undermined by the knowledge of truly spectacular German military expenses.

The military budget expanded rapidly, taking 17 percent of GNP in 1938-39. In the last peacetime year 52 pefennigs out of ever mark the German government spent went on defence. These were not remotely moderate proportions. In 1913, at the height of the pre-1914 arms race, the German government spent an estimated 3 percent of GNP, and devoted 24 percent of a much smaller state budget to defence purposes.

Misjudging Hitler, Richard Overy, The Origins of the Second World War Reconsidered, 2nd Edition, Gordon Martel, Routledge, New York, 1999, pp. 93-115, at. 109.

Taylor's book is now treated more and more as an example of historical literature and less and less has a serious piece of historical analysis. Its great flaw being its absurd portrayal of Hitler has a "conventional" politician. To close:

Origins remains a monument to Taylor’s passion for argument. Despite its clear signs of age, its insights still have the capacity to impress largely because of the verve and audacity of the author’s style. Yet it is often this very stylistic impudence, with its arrogant over-assertions, which grate to the extent of detracting from much of its acuity Sometimes it seems more one of Taylor’s televisual tour de force than it does a work of scholarship. His treatments of Polish policy and the transformation of appeasement after Prague still have something valuable to tell us. His insistence upon Danzig as itself the pivotal issue is against the evidence, while the immediate circumstances which produced war are simply perverse. Integral to this is his idiosyncratic picture of Hitler. It is this flaw that, like a kind of academic metal fatigue, brings the intricate structure falling to its destruction — though some parts have survived the impact. Origins has stimulated the work of a generation of historians. But its reign of influence is over. The debts to it have been fully acknowledged, and there is, frankly no reason to resort to it now other than as a piece of historiography To paraphrase the final sentence of the book: The Origins of the Second World War, has become a matter of historical curiosity.

The Phantom Crisis, Sean Greenwood, The Origins of the Second World War Reconsidered, Ed. Gordon Martel, Routledge, New York, 1999, pp. 225-247, at 244.

Bibliography and Further Reading.

Bell, P. M. H., The Origins of the Second World War in Europe, Longman, New York, 1986.

Martel, Gordon, Editor, The Origins of the Second world War Reconsidered, Routledge, New York, 1999.

Robertson, Esmonde M., Editor, The Origins of the Second World War, St. Martin's Press, London, 1971.

Taylor, A. J. P., The Origins of the Second World War, Penguin Books, London, 1961.

Weinberg, Gerhard, L., Germany, Hitler and World War II, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1995.

Pierre Cloutier