Lis­ten:
MP3 Side 1 | Side 2

Slowly, and over time, the fas­cists who launched and pros­e­cuted the war are being polit­i­cally exon­er­ated and/or rehabilitated.

In some cases, this has gone unrec­og­nized because ele­ments of the Axis alliance remain rel­a­tively obscure to most observers. Eth­nic groups nurs­ing griev­ances, many of them in ter­ri­to­ries cre­ated through the col­lapse of the Euro­pean impe­r­ial order, allied with the Axis and faced ret­ri­bu­tion when the Allies achieved a bat­tle­field victory.

As the sands of time pass through the waist of the polit­i­cal hour­glass, col­lab­o­ra­tionist ele­ments in the Baltic states, the for­mer Czecho­slo­va­kia, the for­mer Yugoslavia, Bel­gium and Poland are under­go­ing a polit­i­cal face lift.

In addi­tion to Estonia’s hon­or­ing of the Nazis, the broad­cast notes that Bel­gian Flem­ish col­lab­o­ra­tors and Croa­t­ian Ustachi are the focal point of polit­i­cal revi­sion­ism, the lat­ter with the assis­tance of Pope Benedict.

As its eco­nomic for­tunes have extended Germany’s shadow over the rest of Europe, the rewrit­ing of Germany’s launch­ing of the Euro­pean war is con­tin­u­ing apace. Ger­man eco­nomic hege­mony may well aid the accep­tance of that revi­sion­ism by cash-strapped Euro­pean economies.

In addi­tion to dis­miss­ing the Nazis’ crim­i­nal mis­treat­ment of Soviet POW’s,  the “new” Ger­many is mov­ing to endorse a “Sec­ond Nurem­burg”, sup­pos­edly to address the mis­treat­ment of the eth­nic Ger­mans expelled from East­ern Europe because of their Fifth Col­umn activ­i­ties on behalf of the Third Reich.

Much of the agi­ta­tion for the for­mal his­tor­i­cal and judi­cial revi­sion of World War II his­tory comes from the BdV–the Ger­man gov­ern­ment min­istry charged with the pros­e­cu­tion of the expellee agenda. The Ver­triebene groups over­seen by the BdVwere under the stew­ard­ship of SS elements.

Pro­gram High­lights Include: review of the Nazi blue­print for polit­i­cal revi­sion­ism as set forth in Serpent’s Walk; review of Bertelsmann’s house historian–who blames World War II on Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

1. The broad­cast begins with Eston­ian cel­e­bra­tion of the Nazi inva­sion of World War II as “liberation.”

The Jew­ish com­mu­nity of Vil­jandi in Esto­nia has expressed its dis­ap­proval of an event staged on Thurs­day in which res­i­dents of the city com­mem­o­rated its “lib­er­a­tion” by the Ger­man army from Soviet occu­pa­tion in June 1941.

Sev­eral dozen attended a com­mem­o­ra­tion ser­vice at the city’s Ger­man mil­i­tary ceme­tery for the 70th anniver­sary of the Nazi inva­sion. The event was orga­nized by the Eston­ian Sakala Sol­diers Association.

“The usual attempt to por­tray peo­ple who col­lab­o­rated with the Nazi occu­pa­tional regime as ‘war­riors against Bol­she­vism,’ and fur­ther­more on the day when the mass mur­der of the cit­i­zens of Vil­jandi and Esto­nia who belonged to the ‘wrong’ eth­nic­ity began...appears com­pletely idi­otic,” Ala Jacob­sen, chair­woman of the Eston­ian Jew­ish com­mu­nity, said in a state­ment on Thursday.

Jaanika Kressa, one of the event orga­niz­ers, told the Sakala news­pa­per of Vil­jandi that “the arrival of the Ger­mans is con­sid­ered the lib­er­a­tion of Esto­nia, because it was saved from the order intro­duced in June 1940, when about ten thou­sand peo­ple were deported to Siberia and the local peo­ple were impoverished.

The sit­u­a­tion of the Esto­ni­ans became nor­mal again.” . . . .

“Nazi-invasion Com­mem­o­ra­tion Ignites Row in Esto­nia” by Jeremy Sharon; Jerusalem Post; 7/11/201.

2. In Bel­gium, too, the past is being rewritten.

Some 400,000 Bel­gians were charged with col­lab­o­ra­tion with the Nazi occu­piers after the coun­try was lib­er­ated in 1944. Some, like Wyss, were exe­cuted. Oth­ers were jailed, fined or deprived of their civil rights.

Sev­enty years on, that legacy of col­lab­o­ra­tion has become the lat­est bat­tle­field between Belgium’s deeply divided French– and Dutch-speaking politicians.

Polit­i­cal wran­gling between the two lin­guis­tic groups has left Bel­gium with­out a fully func­tion­ing gov­ern­ment for a year, since elec­tions on June 13, 2010. Now rela­tions have been fur­ther strained by a bill pre­sented in par­lia­ment by a Flem­ish nation­al­ist party that seeks an amnesty for sur­viv­ing Nazi col­lab­o­ra­tors and com­pen­sa­tion for their descendants.

Pre­vi­ously such pro­pos­als have been rejected out of hand, but this year, with the coun­try dead­locked by the lin­guis­tic dis­pute, main­stream Flem­ish par­ties from the Dutch-speaking north have used their major­ity in the upper-house of par­lia­ment to ensure that the bill will be debated.

“At a cer­tain moment, we have to be adult and be ready to dis­cuss these things and per­haps also to for­get because it’s the past,” said Jus­tice Min­is­ter Ste­faan De Clerck, from the center-right Christian-Democratic and Flem­ish party. “We have to for­get cer­tain things, that’s nec­es­sary to re-establish society.”

Flem­ish sup­port for the amnesty debate, along with the minster’s com­ments, has pro­voked out­rage among French-speaking politi­cians and Jew­ish groups in Belgium. . . .

. . . Dur­ing World War II, thou­sands of Dutch-speaking Flem­ings and French-speaking Wal­loons risked their lives fight­ing with the resis­tance against the Nazi occu­pa­tion of Bel­gium. How­ever, oth­ers on both sides of the lin­guis­tic divide worked with the Nazis. His­to­rian Chan­tal Kesteloot says those found guilty of col­lab­o­ra­tion totalled less than 1 per­cent of population.

Flem­ish nation­al­ist extrem­ists wel­comed the Nazis, hop­ing they would end what they viewed as Flan­ders’ dom­i­na­tion by Belgium’s French-speaking minor­ity. Among Fran­coph­o­nes, the Rex­ist move­ment gave Adolf Hitler fanat­i­cal sup­port, recruit­ing 25,000 vol­un­teers for a Wal­loon Legion that fought for Ger­many on the Russ­ian front. Hitler once report­edly told Rex­ist leader Leon Degrelle: “If I had a son, I wish he’d be like you.”

After the country’s lib­er­a­tion, the restored Bel­gian author­i­ties cracked down hard on col­lab­o­ra­tors. Almost 250 faced the fir­ing squad and tens of thou­sands were impris­oned. Some 4 bil­lion Bel­gian francs ($91 mil­lion by the exchange rate of the time) were seized from con­victed collaborators.

While col­lab­o­ra­tion is still almost uni­ver­sally con­demned by Belgium’s French-speakers, atti­tudes in Flan­ders have changed. Many believe that a venge­ful Bel­gian state was unfairly severe on Flem­ish nation­al­ists who were not con­vinced Nazis but worked with the occu­py­ing forces in the hope of advanc­ing their goal of inde­pen­dence for Flanders. . . .

“Bel­gian Pol­i­tics Makes Room for Nazi Apol­o­gists” by Paul Ames; Global Post; 6/16/2011.

3. Pope Bene­dict has advanced the Vatican’s his­tor­i­cal revi­sion­ism of World War II, which has been pro­found and par­tic­u­larly egre­gious with regard to the Vatican’s own col­lab­o­ra­tion with fas­cism. In a recent visit to Zagreb (Croa­tia), he lauded Alois Stepinac, a Car­di­nal who was a mem­ber of the Ustache par­lia­ment dur­ing World War II. Bru­tal allies of the Nazis, the Ustachi were so mon­strous in their slaugh­ter of Jews, Gyp­sies and Serbs dur­ing the war, that even the SS were hor­ri­fied at their excesses.

The Amer­i­can Gath­er­ing of Jew­ish Holo­caust Sur­vivors on June 6 blasted Pope Bene­dict XVI over his state­ment about WW2 Croa­t­ian Car­di­nal Alo­jz­ije Stepinac.

The spir­i­tual leader of the Roman Catholics claimed dur­ing his visit to Zagreb that Stepinac — tried and found guilty of col­lab­o­ra­tion with the fas­cist Ustasha regime of the Inde­pen­dent State of Croa­tia (NDH) — was a defender of Jews, Ortho­dox Chris­tians and any­one under persecution.

That regime ran death camps, includ­ing the largest — Jasen­o­vac, where Serbs, but also Jews and Roma, were slaughtered.

Stepinac, beat­i­fied by Pope John Paul II in 1998, is an “adored per­son­age in Croa­tia”, accord­ing to a Beta report, cit­ing AFP.

Vis­it­ing Stepinac’s grave in Zagreb the pope said this car­di­nal “knew how to resist total­i­tar­i­an­ism in all its forms, as a defender of Jews, Ortho­dox Chris­tians and any per­se­cuted group under the Nazi and fas­cist dic­ta­tor­ship, and an advo­cate for believ­ers and per­se­cuted and mur­dered priests under communism”.

The Amer­i­can Gath­er­ing of Jew­ish Holo­caust Sur­vivors and Their Descen­dants denounced the pope for hon­or­ing Stepinac, recall­ing that the Zagreb car­di­nal was a pas­sion­ate sup­porter of the Ustashe, whose bru­tal­i­ties were so extreme that they even shocked some of their Nazi masters.

A press release from the orga­ni­za­tion also said that the pope was right to con­demn the Ustashe regime, but wrong to pay trib­ute to one of its most promi­nent backers. . . .

“Holo­caust Sur­vivors Denounce Pope’s Croa­tia State­ment”; Global Research; 6/9/2011.

4. The “new” Ger­many con­tin­ues to cover-up crimes of the Third Reich. The war crimes com­mit­ted at the Byeloruss­ian con­cen­tra­tion camp Ozarichi have been dis­missed by the Germans.

70 years after the Ger­man inva­sion of the Soviet Union, the Ger­man Fed­eral gov­ern­ment is still deny­ing the exis­tence of con­cen­tra­tion camps run by the Wehrma­cht. Over the past four years, alone, the Repub­lic of Belarus has “repeat­edly” asked Berlin to rec­og­nize the Ozarichi death camp that had been estab­lished by the Nazi army as a con­cen­tra­tion camp. The Ger­man side has reg­u­larly rejected this request by refer­ring to ambigu­ous “judi­cial obsta­cles.” The Wehrma­cht estab­lished the Ozarichi Con­cen­tra­tion Camp on marsh­lands in March 1944, where rel­a­tives of slave labor­ers, who had been deported to Ger­many, were held cap­tive in the open with­out shel­ter. The pris­on­ers, most of whom were elderly, sick or chil­dren, were con­sid­ered “unfit to work” and there­fore delib­er­ately exposed to death by star­va­tion and cold. Under these cir­cum­stances, more than 9,000 peo­ple died in just one week. The Ger­man army com­mand con­sid­ered this a suc­cess: “We don’t need to sup­ply food to use­less mouths,” declared the Wehrma­cht com­mand respon­si­ble for the death camp. Ger­man his­to­ri­ans have called this “one of the worst crimes the Wehrma­cht ever com­mit­ted against civil­ians.” How­ever, the sur­vivors of the Ozarichi con­cen­tra­tion camp have never received repa­ra­tions for their suf­fer­ing.
Recog­ni­tion Denied
Accord­ing to infor­ma­tion released by the Belaru­sian Jus­tice Min­istry, 70 years after the Ger­man inva­sion of the Soviet Union, Ger­many is still refus­ing to rec­og­nize the Ozarichi death camp, which had been erected by the Nazi mil­i­tary, as a con­cen­tra­tion camp. Since July 2006, the Belaru­sian Jus­tice Min­istry has “repeat­edly” addressed this request to the Ger­man side, and always received the answer “that it is impos­si­ble due to legal obsta­cles.” In March 2010, the Ger­man For­eign Min­istry unex­pect­edly explained, “con­cen­tra­tion camp lists had been com­piled in coop­er­a­tion with the Inter­na­tional Trac­ing Ser­vice” of the Red Cross. The Belaru­sian Repub­lic then applied to the Inter­na­tional Trac­ing Ser­vice, simul­ta­ne­ously send­ing a let­ter to François Bel­lon, head of the ICRC’s regional del­e­ga­tion for the Russ­ian Fed­er­a­tion, Belarus, Moldova and Ukraine, “request­ing assis­tance in a thor­ough and timely con­sid­er­a­tion of the pos­si­bil­ity of rec­og­niz­ing Ozarichi as a con­cen­tra­tion camp. For the sake of the vic­tims, the Jus­tice Min­istry will do “its utmost” in this mat­ter, declared the Belaru­sian Jus­tice Ministry.[1]
Nine Thou­sand Dead in a Sin­gle Week
The Ozarichi Con­cen­tra­tion Camp was erected under orders of the Supreme Com­man­der of the 9th Ger­man Army, Josef Harpe, in March 1944. Units of the 35th Infantry divi­sion under the com­mand of Johann-Georg Richert, rein­forced by the spe­cial com­mando of the 7-A SS Bat­tle Group B herded at least 40,000 civil­ians into sev­eral barbed wire enclosed and mined pens south of the Belaru­sian city of Bobruisk.[2] The pris­on­ers were mostly fam­ily mem­bers of slave labor­ers — chil­dren under thir­teen, sickly, moth­ers with infants and elderly — peo­ple for whom the Wehrma­cht had no usage. The guards had already shot at least 500 of them on their way to this impro­vised camp, because they were too weak to con­tinue walk­ing. The oth­ers, many of whom had caught typhus, had to sur­vive in the open in the marsh­lands — defense­less against the cold, lack­ing med­ical aid, san­i­ta­tion, drink­ing water and food. Within one week at least 9,000 more had died.[3] “There was a gate with barbed wire, small watch tow­ers with sol­diers and Ger­man shep­herds, but noth­ing else,” recalls the sur­vivor Lar­isa Stashke­vich, and explains fur­ther that any­one, who even attempted to light a camp­fire, was imme­di­ately gunned down. To at least be able to have a bit of warmth, she laid “behind the corpses” of mur­dered prisoners.[4]
A Nutri­tional Bur­den
With their deadly oper­a­tion, the Wehrma­cht com­mand was first pur­su­ing the objec­tive of elim­i­nat­ing all those behind the front lines, clas­si­fied “unfit for work” and con­sid­ered a bur­den for the fore­see­able retreat ahead of the Red Army. The March 8, 1944 entry in the war diary of the 9th Army explained: “For the zone close to the front­lines, it is planned (...) to bring all natives unfit for work to the area to be evac­u­ated and leave them behind, in the retreat from the front, par­tic­u­larly the numer­ous typhus infected, who, to avoid their pos­si­bly con­t­a­m­i­nat­ing the troops, had been sent to par­tic­u­lar vil­lages. The deci­sion to rid our­selves of this nutri­tional bur­den in this way has (...) been reached after due con­sid­er­a­tion and exam­i­na­tion of all pos­si­ble consequences.“[5]
Res­i­den­tial Areas Relieved
In their plan­ning, the Wehrma­cht com­man­ders appar­ently had two other aspects under con­sid­er­a­tion. On the one hand, the sick and starv­ing, to be left behind, were intended, if not to halt the advance of the Soviet army, then at least to slow it down, because the Soviet troops would, first, have to treat those mis­han­dled by the Ger­mans. More­over, on the other, because of the large num­ber left behind infected with typhus, there was a good chance that many Red Army sol­diers would also catch typhus. In any case, the high com­mand of the Ninth Army con­sid­ered their action a total suc­cess: “the con­sol­i­da­tion pro­vided an essen­tial relax­ation over the entire bat­tle area. Res­i­den­tial areas were relieved mak­ing space avail­able for troops. No more pro­vi­sions were made avail­able for use­less mouths. Remov­ing the ill sig­nif­i­cantly reduced the source of infection.“[6]
One of the Worst Crimes
Dieter Pohl, a his­to­rian at the Insti­tute of Con­tem­po­rary His­tory (IfZ) in Munich, char­ac­ter­ized the mass dying in the Ozarichi Con­cen­tra­tion Camp as “absolutely one of the worst crimes the Wehrma­cht ever com­mit­ted against civilians.“[7] Hans-Heinrich Nolte, a scholar for East Euro­pean Stud­ies, places the Ger­man military’s actions in the gen­eral con­text of the Ger­man war of pre­da­tion, exploita­tion and anni­hi­la­tion against the Soviet Union: “That crime cor­re­sponds to how the Wehrma­cht treated Soviet pris­on­ers of war in the win­ter 1941/1942, and had sim­i­lar­i­ties to the star­va­tion of Jews as well as those ‘unfit to work’ when (...) labor was forced into depor­ta­tion to the Reich. In many aspects, the crime cor­re­sponds to the gen­eral char­ac­ter of the Ger­man war against the USSR, pre­cisely in the wish of not feed­ing ‘use­less’ people.“[8] In spite of these assess­ments by renowned schol­ars, the Ger­man gov­ern­ment still refuses repa­ra­tions to the sur­vivors of the Ozarichi Con­cen­tra­tion Camp — point­ing to cur­rent legal standards.

“Use­less Mouths”; German-Foreign-Policy.com; 6/14/2011.

5. In a sim­i­lar vein, the Ger­man gov­ern­ment con­tin­ues to refuse repa­ra­tions to Soviet POW’s from WWII.

The Ger­man gov­ern­ment is still refus­ing repa­ra­tions to Soviet pris­on­ers of war, sev­enty years after the Ger­man inva­sion of the Soviet Union. This refusal is in spite of the fact that hun­dreds of thou­sands of Soviet sol­diers were held in camps sim­i­lar to con­cen­tra­tion camps and were forced to do slave labor for Ger­man agri­cul­tural and indus­trial enter­prises under deadly con­di­tions. Even though the Foun­da­tion “Remem­brance, Respon­si­bil­ity and Future,” founded by Berlin in 2000, envis­aged repa­ra­tions for sur­viv­ing slave labor­ers, Red Army pris­on­ers of war as well as “Ital­ian mil­i­tary detainees” were excluded from the defined scope of appli­ca­tion of this foun­da­tions act. Ger­man courts have always dis­missed law­suits of repa­ra­tion claims brought by sur­viv­ing Soviet POWs — with the argu­ment that “slave labor was per­mit­ted under inter­na­tional law.“
Con­di­tions Sim­i­lar to Con­cen­tra­tion Camps
The his­to­rian Ulrich Her­bert dis­cov­ered that dur­ing World War II, up to twelve mil­lion peo­ple had been deported from their Wehrma­cht occu­pied home­lands to Ger­many, where they had been detained in camps. By the end of the war, most of them found them­selves still on the ter­ri­tory of the for­mer Ger­man Reich and were clas­si­fied by the allies under the catch-all term “Dis­placed Per­sons” (DPs). They included around six mil­lion so-called alien work­ers, more than half of whom were from Poland and the Soviet Union. They, for the most part, had been deported to Ger­many as labor­ers. In addi­tion, approx. 750,000 con­cen­tra­tion camp inmates — more than 90 per­cent non-Germans – had been sent mainly to work in the arms indus­try under mur­der­ous con­di­tions. The DPs also included approx. two mil­lion pris­on­ers of war, who were also used as slave labor in indus­try and agri­cul­ture. The largest por­tion of these were sol­diers of the Red Army, the French and the Ital­ian military.[1] In 1944 alone, more than 600,000 Soviet POWs were forced into slave labor in the “Greater Ger­man Empire.” They had been impris­oned in con­di­tions sim­i­lar to those of the con­cen­tra­tion camps, under per­sis­tent death threats and deadly harass­ment by their Ger­man “employ­ers.” If they had been fed at all, then very insuf­fi­ciently. And yet, they have never received repa­ra­tions for their suf­fer­ing at the hands of the Ger­man side.[2]
Half a Turnip Daily
The for­mer Soviet sol­dier, Vladimir Ivanovich Margevski, from the region of Zhy­to­myr in the Ukraine, recounts his expe­ri­ences as a pris­oner of war of the Ger­mans. “Once a day, we ate dried turnips and greens. We were doing hard, dan­ger­ous work in the fer­til­izer fac­tory in the city of Beuthen, at the Bobrik train sta­tion, which also pro­duced car­bide. I will not men­tion here all the humil­i­a­tion, which is still painful. Nei­ther French, nor Serb, Ital­ian, Czech and Pol­ish POWs were treated as cru­elly as we Rus­sians. When the Ger­mans started their retreat, we were put out in the win­ter like dogs, with nearly noth­ing to wear and bare­foot. They gave us half a turnip daily to eat. En route we were locked into stalls like sheep. I will not say more. My heart bleeds, when I think back on those hor­rors. I, myself, am sur­prised that I sur­vived at all and am still alive.“[3] Renowned his­to­ri­ans esti­mate that the num­ber of Soviet sol­diers, who had been killed in Wehrma­cht cap­tiv­ity was nearly three mil­lion. In a recent study, the his­tor­i­cal scholar Wig­bert Benz writes that their “num­ber 1 cause of death” was starvation.[4]
Def­i­n­i­tion Exclu­sion
Repa­ra­tions for Soviet pris­on­ers of war, at least for those among them, who per­formed slave labor, have been strictly refused by the Ger­man side. Though the Foun­da­tion “Remem­brance, Respon­si­bil­ity, Future” (EVZ), cre­ated in 2000 by the Ger­man gov­ern­ment, fore­saw the pay­ment of repa­ra­tions to the sur­viv­ing slave labor­ers, Soviet pris­on­ers of war along with “Ital­ian mil­i­tary detainees” were excluded from the defined scope of appli­ca­tion of this foun­da­tions act. Their depor­ta­tion to Ger­many and the ensu­ing slave labor in indus­try and agri­cul­ture, it is argued, was legal under the laws of war (“ius in bello”) in force at the time, explained the inter­na­tional jurist, Chris­t­ian Tomuschat in an exper­tise for the Ger­man government.[5] The foun­da­tion act had been for­mu­lated accord­ingly. Arti­cle 11, Para­graph 3 of the act stip­u­lates, “pris­oner of war sta­tus is no grounds for repa­ra­tions claims.“[6]
Mur­dered through Work
Attempts by Soviet POW sur­vivors to have their claims of repa­ra­tions hon­ored through law­suits have always seen their cases dis­missed by Ger­man courts. As the lawyer, Ste­fan Taschjian explained in an inter­view with german-foreign-policy.com, some­times the courts argued with the EVZ-Foundation Act or, if they were pre­pared to pay repa­ra­tions at all, only to the sur­viv­ing Soviet sol­diers who had been held in Nazi con­cen­tra­tion camps. There­fore, accord­ing to Taschjian, “95 per­cent of the for­mer Soviet POWs are excluded from any form of repa­ra­tions,” since they were in the Wehrmacht’s “Sta­lags” or POW camps. It was this jus­ti­fi­ca­tion for refus­ing repa­ra­tions that was so “bewil­der­ing,” says Taschjian. “The con­di­tions of incar­cer­a­tion in the Sta­lags were often worst than those in con­cen­tra­tion camps. Fifty-five per­cent of the Soviet pris­on­ers were delib­er­ately mur­dered through work.” Besides, explains Taschjian, in Ger­man courts, slave labor still is con­sid­ered “per­mis­si­ble under inter­na­tional law.“[7]

“Per­mit­ted Under Inter­na­tional Law”; German-Foreign-Policy.com; 6/20/2011.

6. Through the “Deutsche Burschen­schaft”, Ger­man cab­i­net min­is­ters are tied to the NPD, Germany’s top neo-Nazi party.

7. Another Ger­man cab­i­net min­is­ter has laid the blame for start­ing World War II on Poland.

8. Asso­ciates of the ver­triebene groups have joined Erika Steinbach’s cho­rus in lay­ing the blame for World War II on the Allies.

9. Even the respected Der Spiegel has advanced his­tor­i­cal revi­sion­ism in the same vein as the Ver­triebene groups.

10. Dirk Baven­damm, the house his­to­rian for Ber­tels­mann (which dom­i­nates English-language news media) has laid the blame for World War II on the United States, Franklin D. Roo­sevelt and (of course) the Jews. Not sur­pris­ingly, Ber­tels­mann was the pub­lish­ing house for the SS in World War II.

His [Dirk Bavendamm’s] book Roosevelt’s Way to War (Roo­sevelts Weg zum Krieg) was pub­lished in 1983. Rewrit­ing his­tory, he stated that Roo­sevelt, not Hitler, had caused World War II. He also wrote that Amer­i­can Jews “con­trolled most of the media,” and he claimed they gave a false pic­ture of Hitler. . . .

. . . . In a sec­ond book, Roosevelt’s War (pub­lished in 1993, reis­sued in 1998), Baven­damm accuses the US Pres­i­dent of enact­ing a plan to start World War II. In the same book he sug­gests that Hitler’s threats in early 1939 against Euro­pean Jewry were a reac­tion to Roosevelt’s strat­egy against Germany. . . .

“Bertelsmann’s Revi­sion­ist” by John Fried­man and Her­sch Frischler; The Nation; 11/8/1999.

11. Jim Fet­zer, one of the prin­ci­pals in the con­fed­er­acy of dunces known as “The Truthers,” has become an advo­cate of “open debate” about the Holocaust–i.e. con­ced­ing that it may be fic­tion. (Fet­zer main­tains that he is “unde­cided.”) Like the unten­able the­sis that the Twin Tow­ers and WTC 7 were brought down by con­trolled demo­li­tions, this line of argu­ment is pure fas­cist revi­sion­ism, stand­ing in fun­da­men­tal con­trast to the facts.

12. Creep­ing revi­sion­ism of the type illus­trated in the items above epit­o­mizes the cog­ni­tive psy­cho­log­i­cal war­fare strat­egy delin­eated in the Nazi tract Serpent’s Walk.

It assumes that Hitler’s war­rior elite — the SS — didn’t give up their strug­gle for a White world when they lost the Sec­ond World War. Instead their sur­vivors went under­ground and adopted some of the tac­tics of their ene­mies: they began build­ing their eco­nomic mus­cle and buy­ing into the opinion-forming media. A cen­tury after the war they are ready to chal­lenge the democ­rats and Jews for the hearts and minds of White Amer­i­cans, who have begun to have their fill of government-enforced multi-culturalism and ‘equality.’

(From the back cover of Serpent’s Walk by “Ran­dolph D. Calver­hall;” Copy­right 1991 [SC]; National Van­guard Books; 0–937944-05-X.)

13. This process is described in more detail in a pas­sage of text, con­sist­ing of a dis­cus­sion between Wrench (a mem­ber of this Under­ground Reich) and a mer­ce­nary named Lessing.

. . . . The SS . . . what was left of it . . . had busi­ness objec­tives before and dur­ing World War II. When the war was lost they just kept on, but from other places: Bogota, Asun­cion, Buenos Aires, Rio de Janeiro, Mex­ico City, Colombo, Dam­as­cus, Dacca . . . you name it. They real­ized that the world is head­ing towards a ‘cor­po­racracy;’ five or ten inter­na­tional super-companies that will run every­thing worth run­ning by the year 2100. Those super-corporations exist now, and they’re already divid­ing up the pro­duc­tion and mar­ket­ing of food, trans­port, steel and heavy indus­try, oil, the media, and other com­modi­ties. They’re mostly con­glom­er­ates, with fin­gers in more than one pie . . . . We, the SS, have the say in four or five. We’ve been com­pet­ing for the past sixty years or so, and we’re slowly gain­ing . . . . About ten years ago, we swung a merger, a takeover, and got vot­ing con­trol of a super­corp that runs a small but sig­nif­i­cant chunk of the Amer­i­can media. Not openly, not with bands and trum­pets or swastikas fly­ing, but qui­etly: one huge cor­po­ra­tion cud­dling up to another one and gen­tly munch­ing it up, like a great, gub­bing amoeba. Since then we’ve been replac­ing exec­u­tives, push­ing some­body out here, bring­ing some­body else in there. We’ve swing pro­gram con­tent around, too. Not much, but a lit­tle, so it won’t show. We’ve cut down on ‘nasty-Nazi’ movies . . . good guys in white hats and bad guys in black SS hats . . . lov­able Jews ver­sus fiendish Ger­mans . . . and we have media psy­chol­o­gists, ad agen­cies, and behav­ior mod­i­fi­ca­tion spe­cial­ists work­ing on image changes. . . .

(Ibid.; pp. 42–43.)