ONCE again, The Independent excels itself with a pioneering article on a taboo subject.

The eventual rehabilitation of Adolf Hitler in history is proceeding apace, unhindered by the pigmy efforts of his detractors; while the true story of Mr Churchill and his wanton destruction of his country's own Empire and subservience to the interests of the United States, birth land of his mother and of the parents of several of his ministers, will eventually become a commonplace to students as well.

One need comment on this article only that not only does the swastika not appear on books, even about Hitler, it remains a criinal offence to show it on a book dustjacket as that estimable author Robert Harris found out, when Fatherland was pubished in its first German edition. Foolish publisher!

The German commentator's remark about that tedious work of literature, Mein Kampf, as "the bacillus" is incidentally almost a verbatim quote of Adolf Hitler, referring to the Jewish race; he regarded himself, he said, as a kind of Roebrt Koch, who had eradicated the bacillus. (From the diary of Walther Hewel, 1941, which I first found and used).

The author remarks at one point: "The mass murder of millions, planned with such unique thoroughness, is often passed over in barely a sentence." He might have alluded to the no les scurious fact that that same crime is not mentioned by Churchill, Dwight D Eisenhower, Charles de Gaulle or any of the other world leaders in their war memoirs; this manufactured event began to figure on the literary landscape, as "The" Holocaust, only in the 1970s.

THE 1977 debate on Hitler to which the article refers was ignited by the German publication at that time of the biographies of Hitler by myself (Hitler's War (http://www.fpp.co.uk/books/Hitler/index.html)), Joachim Fest (who admitted he never set foot in any archives), and Sebastian Hafner (a brief journalistic monograph).


http://www.fpp.co.uk/Hitler/popularity/new_films.html

One of the comments in that article makes a good point, about how British and Americans are more obsessed with "The Holocaust" than the Germans. I believe that this is because one of the large motivations for "Holocaust" promotion was to make the allies feel morally superior. By painting their enemies as "evil" as possible, the implication is that they are the morallly superior saviors by besting them in a war.

I think the Germans are getting tired of seeing wealth transferred to people who haven't suffered from people who aren't to blame.

Jews owe the world heavy compensation because they are so ugly.

No problem with Hitler being the subject of a german film.
can understand why German Goverment might have problems with the past , but no reason why he should be whispered about rather than be talked about.
As far as Mr. Irving's FPP notes on Hitler , I don't give D.I. much cred. he spends enough of his time putting others down and promoting himself as an all seeing expert .
As far as people who have not suffered , very soon the victims of the Holocaust will be gone , the present generation of Germany's population are not to blame.
The Holocaust was a quite unique chapter in history , presenting Hitler et al as evil was not hard , the scenes speak for themselves.
As far as saying the enemy was evil , many who fought against the German forces would not say so , this sterotyping every German soldier as a moron , evil beyond measure is quite untrue.
This is not the case and I have yet to see it in what I have in my bookcases , you must be reading different books Edana.
As far as being sure that Britain had time and America would help.
In 1940 this "time" was very uncertain and that America would help beyond material input was far from certain.
The time mentioned could have run out at anytime , it was an unknown quantity , and seem to be potentially more borrowed in nature.
I for one am happy that no peace was made in 1940 , peace would have meant what ?

Irving may describe the efforts of his detractors as " pigmy".
these efforts are more objective and warts and all than those "efforts" of Mr. Irving , his lack of objectivity and willingness to set aside that which does not serve his purpose has been well illustrated.

"Fatherland" by Robert Harris is a good book.

How is Hitler going to be redeemed? I don't see this happeninh.

Holocaust revisionism and whatnot are just on the rise because of the Internet.

>>>How is Hitler going to be redeemed? I don't see this happeninh.

The WW2 generation is gradually dying off. I see more accurate accounts of WW2 emerging the further and further we move away from it, as the passions begin to subside. The same eventually happened to Napoleon who was similarly tarred with Ango-Saxon moral propaganda.

>>>Holocaust revisionism and whatnot are just on the rise because of the Internet.

Not really. I don't see what is so objectionable about the 'revisionist' label either. Revisionism is precisely what historians are supposed to do. And contrary to Cerberus, the current account of Hitler's life within historiography is for the most part a series of polemics, or moralised histories. Its hardly 'objective' at all.

Historians are supposed to evaluate on an objective basis.
Many of those who class themselves as being "revisionist" fail to do this.
Mr. Irving in his celerbrated libel action fell victim to this.
Which "polemics" in particular do you make reference to ?
As far as getting a better picture of WW2 goes as the participants pass away , do you expect some evidence to come to light to say that Hitler was misunderstood or has been subject to a raw deal from historians ?

>>>Historians are supposed to evaluate on an objective basis.

Theoretically, historians are supposed to evaluate on an objective basis. In reality (especially in the case of 'The Holocaust'), they do not (for that is impossible), as their own socially and historically situated perspectives (not to mention their own passions) filter out what material they deem to be significant from what material they do not regard as being significant. Their own values also determine how they present and interpret the material. This is not to say that all historical accounts are equal, only that they can never been entirely objective. The more passionate a given historian is about some issue or another, the more distorted their account of it will be. This is entirely clear in the case of Deborah Lipstadt. I read her book the other day ago and challenge anyone who is a member of this site to do so. It is a moral polemic against a perspective she disagrees with. Its not objective at all. It does not even make the slightest pretense of being objective as it is a partial, narrow-minded, one-sided rant, simply put.

>>>Many of those who class themselves as being "revisionist" fail to do this.

I can't say that I agree with this. I have read much of the revisionist material and much of the more 'mainstream' accounts of 'The Holocaust'. Compare Irving to Lipstadt, for instance. The first thing that strikes me is that the so-called revisionists present their material in a more detached, dispassionate, analytical manner (which is why I find their account more reliable). On the other hand, the Holocaust Commissars take just the opposite approach. They do not present their material in a detached and dispassionate manner, as if they were talking about, say, the boots of Frederick II. Their object of study is not simply a historical event like any other, but a sacred cow. Their conclusions are moral lectures about good and evil. They present emotionally charged narratives of 'good guys' versus 'bad guys'. Hitler is not presented to the reader simply as the Führer of Germany who made such and such a decision. He is constructed as the devil. His followers are presented as demons. One does not arrive at such tropes objectively.

>>>Mr. Irving in his celerbrated libel action fell victim to this.

The libel trial of David Irving is for me the ultimate example of the bankruptcy of a liberal judicial system which presents itself to be neutral, objective, and impartial when in reality it is not.

>>>Which "polemics" in particular do you make reference to ?

We can start with Deborah Lipstadt's book. It is a moral polemic. There is quite a difference between objectivity and demonising perspectives that one may happen to disagree with.

>>>As far as getting a better picture of WW2 goes as the participants pass away , do you expect some evidence to come to light to say that Hitler was misunderstood or has been subject to a raw deal from historians ?

As we move further and further away from WW2, as the so-called Holocaust moves further and further into the background of history, I expect that the prevailing interpretation will disintegrate and more objective accounts will emerge that will more closely approximate the revisionist perspective. The issue is simply not discussed as objectively as other historical topics are these days because in this case we are dealing with a sacred cow. To question the prevailing interpretation is not only a taboo, but it can ruin one's professional career. One's life can even be put in danger. In some cases, one can be thrown in prison. Another good example of this would be the treatment of Napoleon by historians in the immediate aftermath of the Napoleonic Wars. Napoleon was also painted with the Antichrist trope by Anglo-Saxon moral propaganda during the Napoleonic Wars. It gradually withered away after enough time passed.

1.) I am instantly sceptical of any interpretation of history that is illegal to question.
2.) I am instantly sceptical of any perspective that claims to be objective while engaging in demonisation of other perspectives.
3.) Historical interpretations which are taboo to question are not objective.
4.) Something is not right when one is harrassed, beat up, persecuted, and threatened with death just for investigating history.

Did Napolean ever really have the universally demonic reputation of Hitler... I find this hard to believe since his life was spared twice( though he was likely poisoned later) and the British law often sent people to the gallows then for stealing hankerchiefs( the most lenient punishment I believe was "7 years and transportation").

Napolean was probably demonized for being( while actually being Corsican) French.

>>>Did Napolean ever really have the universally demonic reputation of Hitler...

Absolutely. Anglo-Saxons have an age-old tradition of morally demonising their enemies as monsters beyond the pale of humanity out to wreck civilisation. The Spanish were also victims of this at one point. The British had quite a few things to say about George Washington as well during the American Revolution.

>>>I find this hard to believe since his life was spared twice( though he was likely poisoned later) and the British law often sent people to the gallows then for stealing hankerchiefs( the most lenient punishment I believe was "7 years and transportation").

Go pick up some 19th century Anglo-Saxon history books, especially those written prior to 1850 and browse through them. We have several of these in our library here at my university. I was browsing through them in between classes one afternoon. Then go out and purchase a contemporary biography of Napoleon and make a comparison. I would recommend, Napoleon: A Political Life.

>>>Napolean was probably demonized for being( while actually being Corsican) French.

As I pointed out above, George Washington was also demonised during the American Revolution by the British. I posted excerpts about this very issue on the old board but have since lost them. Compare accounts of the American-Mexican War written in the immediate aftermath of that war to more contemporary histories available today.

But how widely was the war propaganda believed, Hitler's reputation for evil got far worse AFTER the war( most Americans at the time were skeptical of the propaganda given the completely false atrocity propaganda made up about the Germans in WWI until the 1st concentration camps were found and furthermore the Japanese were regarded by most Americans as the real enemy. Did the vast majority of Englishmen regard Napolean as the "Psychopathic God" the personification of evil that Hitler is regarded by the overwhelming majority of the American people today.

What books would you reccomend on Napolean... the only contemporary book ive read a part of on him was by an admire( it was a long time ago and I think the title "Napolean: The man and his genius").

>>>But how widely was the war propaganda believed, Hitler's reputation for evil got far worse AFTER the war( most Americans at the time were skeptical of the propaganda given the completely false atrocity propaganda made up about the Germans in WWI until the 1st concentration camps were found and furthermore the Japanese were regarded by most Americans as the real enemy.

This would make perfect sense as well for several reasons:

1.) Accounts of the war would be moving further away from direct experience and more towards reflection upon the war in its immediate aftermath
2.) Much of the atrocity propaganda was refined in the immediate aftermath of the war as the Allies began to justify their propaganda with material taken from occupied Germany (out of context, of course).
3.) Much of the documents relied upon by historians today, such as the memoirs of the major war leaders or the testimonies of POWs were written or accorded after the war.
4.) The defeated were of course powerless.

>>>Did the vast majority of Englishmen regard Napolean as the "Psychopathic God" the personification of evil that Hitler is regarded by the overwhelming majority of the American people today.

Absolutely, because Napoleon was painted during his time by British propaganda with the very same trope -- that of the Antichrist. The Antichrist trope is an image deeply imbedded within Anglo-Saxon cultures, in both religious and secularised forms, which is why it has been so skillfully manipulated over the centuries, time and time again. For Anglo-Saxon countries, the enemy simply can't be an enemy, he must be a wicked and immoral person (e.g., the Axis of Evil).

>>>What books would you reccomend on Napolean... the only contemporary book ive read a part of on him was by an admire( it was a long time ago and I think the title "Napolean: The man and his genius").

I picked up a recent biography of Napoleon a few months ago, which I recommended earlier, Napoleon: A Political Life (2004) by Steven Englund. You might also want to check out Napoleon Bonaparte (1997) by Alan Schom. I have both of these in my own personal library and they give a rather lucid account of Napoleon within contemporary historiography. I would recommend that you compare these two biographies to several of those written in the immediate aftermath of the Napoleonic Wars. I don't have any references immediately at hand, as they are rather old books within my university library, but I should be able to find several titles whenever I visit the library next time.

1.) Accounts of the war would be moving further away from direct experience and more towards reflection upon the war in its immediate aftermath
2.) Much of the atrocity propaganda was refined in the immediate aftermath of the war as the Allies began to justify their propaganda with material taken from occupied Germany (out of context, of course).
3.) Much of the documents relied upon by historians today, such as the memoirs of the major war leaders or the testimonies of POWs were written or accorded after the war.
4.) The defeated were of course powerless.

But this situation would be essentially true in WWI( I know that Germany didn't fight to the bitter end but it was still occupied, powerless, subject to revisions in propaganda etc. And yet quickly most of the propaganda was revealed as a sham... to the point where many in the Anglo Saxon world were so disgusted that a conspiracy theory the war was all an armaments industry scam became popular( there were congressional investigations based on this theory).

Hitler just got viewed as more and more evil as time passed. The antichrist propaganda( and ive seen the Why We Fight propaganda... Hitler is portrayed almost as a comic enemy like some Dr Evil who has a real army... that wasn't the view of him that came about after the war) stuck.

>>>But this situation would be essentially true in WWI

The Kaiser was also vilified by Anglo-Saxon propaganda. Thanks for reminding me of that. If anything, the outbreak of the Second World War took the emphasis off the first.

>>>( I know that Germany didn't fight to the bitter end but it was still occupied, powerless, subject to revisions in propaganda etc. And yet quickly most of the propaganda was revealed as a sham...

There is also quite a difference between academia prior to the Second World War and in its immediate aftermath. Compare the status of Jews, in socioeconomic terms, prior to the war and after the war, especially with regards to the number of Jewish historians. See my post 'Tearing The Mask Away' for more on this.

>>>to the point where many in the Anglo Saxon world were so disgusted that a conspiracy theory the war was all an armaments industry scam became popular( there were congressional investigations based on this theory).

Historically speaking, the Anglo-Saxon countries, in the long run, have corrected their erroneous wartime propaganda and its exaggerations. A good example of this is all the wartime propaganda against the Americans (especially George Washington) during and in the immediate aftermath of the American Revolution by the British. This is actually the way I see David Irving.

>>>Hitler just got viewed as more and more evil as time passed.

Yes, there is a difference, a very important one. There was a change both within academia and amongst the Anglo-Saxon elite in the aftermath of WW2. The history of postwar Jewry has largely been that of rapid socioeconomic advancement. And as a consequence, historiography today is much much more Jewish than it was just 50 or 60 years ago.

>>>The antichrist propaganda( and ive seen the Why We Fight propaganda... Hitler is portrayed almost as a comic enemy like some Dr Evil who has a real army... that wasn't the view of him that came about after the war) stuck.

And why do you suppose that is? Would you expect Jewish historians to adopt a neutral and objective attitude towards Hitler? Jews are still pissed off about what happened to them in the Middle Ages! The Christian Church is probably the greatest ally of the Jews in America yet Jews are at the forefront of stripping America of its Christian heritage precisely because they can never forgive Christianity for medieval anti-Semitism.

I agree its nearly impossible for jews to be objective in their evaluation of Hitler. But do you think its that simple? The view of him as the "Psychopathic God" took shape pretty shortly after the war... until the 70s the "Final Solution" was deemphasized in the depiction of nazi crimes in popular culture( I do not remember the name of a movie made shortly after the war which demonized the Germans, but there is one part they ennumerate all the ethnic groups which suffered under the Reich including those that didn't suffer much like the Danes EXCEPT the jews. Hogan's Heroes is about as benign a portrayal as the WWII Germans ever got in American popular culture( semi benign buffoons who obeyed the regime out of fear of execution or its virtual equivalent being sent to the Eastern Front, instead of evil ruthless killers... the only other fair portrayal ive seen was The Longest Day which is a movie targetted towards real military history buffs and stays out of the politics of the war) where I don't recall the persecution of the jews( Werner Klemperer and the producer were jewish) ever being even remotely alluded to.

>>>I agree its nearly impossible for jews to be objective in their evaluation of Hitler. But do you think its that simple?

A.) Its not a conspiracy.
B.) Its not just the Jews.

There is a sociological explanation for this. The composition of academia has dramatically changed over the last fifty years or so. It has become much more Jewish. Jewishness, for me, has no essence, biological or cultural. It is a set of values, mores, attitudes, prejudices, biases and so forth, a mode of understanding. The way in which Jewish historians present their work is filtered through this medium and its leaves traces of it behind in their texts. Since they are so predominant in their discipline, their attitudes and prejudices structure and influence how their gentile colleagues have begun to approach history as well.

>>>? The view of him as the "Psychopathic God" took shape pretty shortly after the war...

Hitler was presented as an irrational psychopath throughout the war, a lunatic, an madman, a clown, a fool, a madman, you name it. After the war was over, the Allies went about justifying their propaganda by sifting through the German archives, cherry-picking out certain things as opposed to others to support their already preconceived interpretation. A good example of this is the conspiracy theory to take over the world that was presented at Nuremberg.

>>>until the 70s the "Final Solution" was deemphasized in the depiction of nazi crimes in popular culture

In the 1960s, the word 'holocaust' was typically associated with the threat of nuclear war between NATO and the Warsaw Pact. As Irving points out, it was not until the 1970s that 'The Holocaust' as it is known today began to be reified in earnest. There is no mention of it in the memoirs of the major war leaders, Axis or Allied. It was simply manafactured years later. The 'Final Solution' story had circulated much earlier, but you are right, it has only been in recent decades that it has attained such significance.

>>>I do not remember the name of a movie made shortly after the war which demonized the Germans, but there is one part they ennumerate all the ethnic groups which suffered under the Reich including those that didn't suffer much like the Danes EXCEPT the jews.

The term 'genocide' at first did not have the same meaning it has today, that being, the physical destruction of a people. As I pointed out on the old board, the idea originally meant the destruction of nations and referred to the occupied European nations under German control. Jews were also mentioned as well, by Raphael Lemkin, but only within a larger European context. He cited all sorts of examples of this in his book, for instance, he considered the renaming of street signs in Belgium to be an act of genocide. Also, in Luxemburg, children were being instructed in the German language instead of the French language. This was also cited as genocide. So yeah, in the immediate aftermath of the war, I would expect to have seen films of this sort. But that is precisely my point, that what we call 'genocide' today is not what it used to be. Also, what is known as 'The Holocaust' is a narrative that was objectified in the 1970s and 1980s. As Jewish power increased within academia, throughout the 60s and 70s, its perfectly explicable that there would be a more Jewish focus in subsequent texts about the war. Walk into any major college library today. Sift through the titles available in the New Books section. One can clearly see a disproportionate interest in topics that are of somehow of relevalence ot Judaism. This is because many of these authors of themselves Jews and that background has structured what they are interested in.

>>>Hogan's Heroes is about as benign a portrayal as the WWII Germans ever got in American popular culture( semi benign buffoons who obeyed the regime out of fear of execution or its virtual equivalent being sent to the Eastern Front, instead of evil ruthless killers... the only other fair portrayal ive seen was The Longest Day which is a movie targetted towards real military history buffs and stays out of the politics of the war) where I don't recall the persecution of the jews( Werner Klemperer and the producer were jewish) ever being even remotely alluded to.

See my thread 'Tearing the Mask Away' for more about WW2 films. I actually took all the excerpts in that thread from Jewish sources. The Jewish bias in those films was not as obvious, first and foremost, because Jewish film directors at the time were still so fearful of anti-Semitism. It has only been really, in the aftermath of the 'liberation movements' of the 60s and 70s, that this paranoia has broken down somewhat, although not entirely. In other words, it has only been recently that Jewishness in major films has really begun to 'come out of the closet'. They were much more subtle about it all before.

Some time back Fade you stated that you tought irving was " a man of straw" and that his libel action and the result of the case had no bearing on the holocaust.
You seen to have review both irving as a man / his views and the case itself , which he lost hands down.
I would again direct you to " Telling lies about Hitler" by Professor Richard Evans.

>>>Some time back Fade you stated that you tought irving was " a man of straw" and that his libel action and the result of the case had no bearing on the holocaust.

Yes, I did argue that David Irving and his trial has no bearing whatsoever on the truth or falsehood of The Holocaust. I am still of that point of view. As I noted before, I have never spent much time reading David Irving. It has only been quite lately that I have begun to browse his website, now that I have the link to it.

>>>You seen to have review both irving as a man / his views and the case itself , which he lost hands down.

I believe I stated on the other board that I do not believe in 'objectivity'. That is, I am not convinced the judge in the David Irving trial reached his decision independently of his own personal values or the social context in which he is immersed.

>>>I would again direct you to " Telling lies about Hitler" by Professor Richard Evans.

I will check him out. First, I would like to get to know Richard Evans as a person. Why don't you tell us a little more about him?