Tag Archives: historical revisionism

Alabama Attorney Lowell A. (“Larry”) Becraft addresses the Lunatic Fringe of the Patriot Movement

MYTHOLOGY & LAW in MODERN AMERICA

I am a great advocate of historical revisionism, but only when the revised history will be more accurate than currently “generally accepted” history….  But sometimes historical revisions are proposed which go the other way—alternative history is not always BETTER….it’s just different…. but so is smoking crack…..

Earlier this month, I had the privilege of meeting Alabama Attorney Lowell A. Becraft in person for the very first time.  He and I had exchanged e-mails before on the general subject of patriot mythology in regards to legal process and substantive.  Such mythology has horrendous consequences, including jail time, fines, and sanctions, for many good people I have known.   I have a Ph.D. from Harvard (1990) and my coursework and dissertation research spanned the fields of archaeology, anthropology, ethnology, history, mythology, religion and sociology (though not necessarily in that alphabetical order).  

One of the most basic and enduring lessons I ever learned (especially applicable to the field of law, was encapsulated in the title of a book by one of American AnthroSome myths have at least a weak basis in historical fact, even if no overarching purpose.  I learned with great interest several years ago about how principles of Admiralty Law were imported from England starting in the 1940s-50s to make off-shore oil fields insurable in Louisiana, and how these usages persist in Louisiana law even today—I had a large claim for household damage that which I sued on and settled after Hurricane Katrina.  I spend many hours with top Louisiana insurance lawyers and really enjoyed what I learned, because I was already familiar with both the British Control and Admiralty Law Mythologies of Modern American Patriot Movement. 

Basically, it seems that starting in 1930, the best land-based oil-wells in Louisiana and East Texas were already showing signs of being finite, limited, and exhaustable if not already exhausted, but everybody knew that the geology indicated more oilfields could be tapped and drilled offshore.  But in the 1920s and 1930s, nobody could drill off-shore because nobody would finance off-shore drilling, which was way more expensive than land drilling.  

And nobody would finance offshore oil-drilling until such operations could be insured, and nobody in the U.S. was willing to insure such constructions.  But the British (e.g. Lloyds of London) were willing to do so, and they imported the principles regarding the insurability of anchored ships out of port to do so.  So in a sense, the widespread myth among Southern Patriots that the British were still in charge as late as the mid-twentieth century, and that the British insisted on using Admiralty law, but both of these facts of modern history have been twisted beyond recognition. pology’s greatest figures, Marshall Sahlins of the University of Chicago (where I also studied, receiving a J.D. in law there in 1992): Historical Metaphors and Mythic Realities.  Quite simply, historical events are either selected and framed in the telling, or else sometimes engineered and staged, to create mythic realities as desired.   

There is another problem though—sometimes people just get wild ideas, and these wild ideas may be based in whole or in part on some sort of confusing real events— and the real events relevant here are: the two oldest institutions, or certainly two OF the oldest institutions, in all of Europe are (1) the Vatican (dating back to the arrival of Saints Peter and Paul in Rome, sometime in the mid-first Century A.D.) and (2) the British Monarch—dating back at least to King Alfred of Wessex, as the first to be called the “King of the English,” but really back to Cerdic or Cedric in 534 (Cerdic or Cedric stands as the first King of Anglo-Saxon Wessex from 519 to 534, in the chronological history described by the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle as the founder of the Kingdom of Wessex and (at least symbolic and mythic ancestor of all its subsequent kings in the House of Wessex right up to Henry I (“Beauclerc”) after the Norman Conquest, who reigned 1100-1135.

In any event, I suppose to the modern American mind, weakly educated in history as it is, the persistence of any institution for very close to 2000 years in the case of the Vatican in Rome and 1200-1500 years in the case of the English/British Monarchy seems almost incredible as a historical fact—and it is to be admitted that these two institutions outshine almost all others in Europe in their longevity. It may seem almost mystical that the House of Wessex, which gve rise to the Kingdom of England, and ultimately Great Britain, had itslef replaced the Roman Empire in Britain. Less than 50 years having elapsed from the final collapse of the Western Roman Empire in 476 to the accession of Cerdic or Cedric in 519 or, his possible rise as a conqueror even earlier, at 490 A.D., as celebrated in the slightly racy 1951 novel Conscience of a King by Alfred L. Duggan among others.  

OR, it could be that the people who invent these historically fictitious mythologies are all generated and propagated by government agents planted to create chaos and dissent in the Conservative, Patriotic Movement—which they certainly do.

Concession of 15 May 1213             (by Lowell A. Becraft)

There is a baseless theory floating around that King John’s “Concession of 15 May 1213″ with the Pope means that, even today, the Vatican owns both England and the United States of America. Like many groundless ideas that get promoted, advocates of arguments like this one focus on a single fact and then draw wild conclusions.

The “Concession” required payments from the English King to the Pope, but history shows that King John did not make the required payment for the following year. See:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John,_King_of_England

Where the following is found:

“Under mounting political pressure, John finally negotiated terms for a reconciliation, and the papal terms for submission were accepted in the presence of the papal legate Pandulph in May 1213 at the Templar Church at Dover.[177] As part of the deal, John offered to surrender the Kingdom of England to the papacy for a feudal service of 1,000 marks (equivalent to £666 at the time) annually: 700 marks (£466) for England and 300 marks (£200) for Ireland, as well as recompensing the church for revenue lost during the crisis.[178] The agreement was formalised in the Bulla Aurea, or Golden Bull. This resolution produced mixed responses. Although some chroniclers felt that John had been humiliated by the sequence of events, there was little public reaction.[179] Innocent benefited from the resolution of his long-standing English problem, but John probably gained more, as Innocent became a firm supporter of John for the rest of his reign, backing him in both domestic and continental policy issues.[180] Innocent immediately turned against Philip, calling upon him to reject plans to invade England and to sue for peace.[180] John paid some of the compensation money he had promised the church, but he ceased making payments in late 1214, leaving two-thirds of the sum unpaid; Innocent appears to have conveniently forgotten this debt for the good of the wider relationship.[181]”

Some payments to the Pope were made pursuant to this agreement off and on for a little more than the next 100 years, eventually ending. “The last payment ever recorded was a token £1,000 from Edward III in 1333, in expectation of papal favours.” See: http://www.historyextra.com/qa/when-did-pope-rule-england

It is alleged that this concession was a treaty, but if it was, it is subject to another fact regarding treaties: they are often broken. King Henry VIII broke with the Vatican and established the Church of England, seizing Catholic properties. See:   

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/reformation.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_VIII_of_England

History reveals that both Henry VIII and Oliver Cromwell essentially ended the Papacy’s control over England. See:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Reformation

The following is stated at the above link:

“The Act in Restraint of Appeals,” drafted by Cromwell, apart from outlawing appeals to Rome on ecclesiastical matters, declared that

 “This realm of England is an Empire, and so hath been accepted in the world, governed by one Supreme Head and King having the dignity and royal estate of the Imperial Crown of the same, unto whom a body politic compact of all sorts and degrees of people divided in terms and by names of Spirituality and Temporality, be bounden and owe to bear next to God a natural and humble obedience.[20]

This declared England an independent country in every respect.

The above (along with lots of other authority) demonstrates that certainly by the time of Henry VIII and Oliver Cromwell, the Pope did not own or control England.  The above theory is thus a false, baseless contention.

But does the English Monarchy or England have any legal control over the United States of America? Please remember that there was indeed (contrary to contentions of the revisionists) an American Revolution. And both English and American courts long ago held that the Revolution severed all legal connections between our country and the English crown/England. 

I described these cases and other matters on my website as follows:

Simple facts regarding the “we are subjects of the British Crown” issue

   Several years ago, some folks developed an argument that “we are still subjects of the British crown” and started promoting it. You are free to believe that argument which will waste your time. Here is a simple refutation of that argument:

1. The Articles of Confederation provided as follows:

 “Article II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.”

2. On February 6,  1778, the United States entered into a Treaty of Alliance with France (8 Stat. 6).  On July 16, 1782,  we borrowed substantial sums from King Louis XVI of France, via anagreement signed by French Foreign Minister Charles Gravier de Vergennes. It must be noted that there are people who erroneously assert that this loan was really secured from the Brits instead of the French (you can be the judge of their honesty). 

3. Our country and the British Crown signed the Treaty of Peace on September 3, 1783 (8 Stat. 218), the first provision of which reads as follows:

“His Britannic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz, New-Hampshire, Massachusetts-Bay, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New-York, New-Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North-Carolina, South-Carolina, and Georgia, to  be free, sovereign and independent States; that he treats with them as such; and for himself, his heirs and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, proprietary and  territorial rights of the same, and every part thereof.”

See also Nov. 30, 1782 Provisional Treaty and Jan. 20, 1783 Treaty of Cessation of Hostilities.

    Does this 1783 Peace Treaty still exist? All one needs to do to confirm this is to check out a government  publication entitled “Treaties in Force” which can be found in any good library, especially a university library. Under the list of our treaties with Great Britain and the United Kingdom, you will find that this 1783 treaty is still in effect, at least a part of it: “Only article 1 is in force.” Art.1 was the section of this treaty acknowledging our independence. The War of 1812 resulted in modifications of this treaty and so did later treaties.

4. The courts have not been silent regarding the effect of the Declaration of Independence and the Treaty of Peace. For example, the consequences of independence were explained inHarcourt v. Gaillard, 25 U.S. (12 Wheat.) 523, 526-27 (1827), where the Supreme Court stated:

 “There was no territory within the United States that was claimed in any other right than that of some one of the confederated states; therefore, there could be no acquisition of territory made by the United States distinct from, or independent of some one of the states.

“Each declared itself sovereign and independent, according to the limits of its territory.

 “[T]he soil and sovereignty within their acknowledged limits were as much theirs at the declaration of independence as at this hour.”

In M’Ilvaine v. Coxe’s Lessee, 8 U.S. (4 Cranch) 209, 212 (1808), the Supreme Court  held:

“This opinion is predicated upon a principle which is believed to be undeniable, that the several states which composed this Union, so far at least as regarded their municipal regulations, became entitled, from the time when they declared themselves independent, to all the rights and powers of sovereign states, and that they did not derive them from concessions made by the British king. The treaty of peace contains a recognition of their independence, not a grant of it. From hence it results, that the laws of the several state governments were the laws of sovereign states, and as such were obligatory upon the people of such state, from the time they were enacted.”

In reference to the Treaty of Peace, this same court stated:

“It contains an acknowledgment of the independence and sovereignty of the United States, in their political capacities, and a relinquishment on the part of His Britannic Majesty, of all claim to the government, propriety and territorial rights of the same. These concessions amounted, no doubt, to a formal renunciation of all claim to the allegiance of the citizens of the United States.”

     Finally, in Inglis v. Trustees of the Sailor’s Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. (3 Peters) 99, 120-122 (1830), the question squarely arose as to whether Americans are “subjects of the crown,” a proposition flatly rejected by the Court:

“It is universally admitted both in English courts and in those of our own country, that all persons born within the colonies of North America, whilst subject to the crown of Great Britain, were natural born British subjects, and it must necessarily follow that that character was changed by the separation of the colonies from the parent State, and the acknowledgment of their independence.

 “The rule as to the point of time at which the American antenati ceased to be British subjects, differs in this country and in England, as established by the courts of justice in the respective countries. The English rule is to take the date of the Treaty of Peace in 1783. Our rule is to take the date of the Declaration of Independence.”

In support of the rule set forth in this case, the court cited an English case to demonstrate that the English courts had already decided that Americans were not subjects of the crown:

“The doctrine of perpetual allegiance is not applied by the British courts to the American antenati. This is fully shown by the late case of Doe v. Acklam, 2 Barn. & Cresw. 779. Chief Justice Abbott says: ‘James Ludlow, the father of Francis May, the lessor of the plaintiff, was undoubtedly born a subject of Great Britain. He was born in a part of America which was at the time of his birth a British colony, and parcel of the dominions of the crown of Great Britain; but upon the facts found, we are of opinion that he was not a subject of the crown of Great Britain at the time of the birth of his daughter. She was born after the independence of the colonies was recognized by the crown of Great Britain; after the colonies had become United States, and their inhabitants generally citizens of those States, and her father, by his continued residence in those States, manifestly became a citizen of them.’ He considered the Treaty of Peace as a release from their allegiance of all British subjects who remained there. A declaration, says he, that a State shall be free, sovereign and independent, is a declaration that the people composing the State shall no longer be considered as subjects of the sovereign by whom such a declaration is made.”

(Note: the linked copies of these cases highlight the important parts of these opinions for your convenience).    Notwithstanding the fact that English and American courts long ago rejected this argument, I still encounter e-mail from parties who contend that this argument is correct. For example, just recently I ran across this note which stated:

“In other words, the interstate system of banks is the private property of the King… This means that any profit or gain anyone experienced by a bank/thrift and loan/employee credit union ?? any regulated financial institution carries with it ?? as an operation of law ?? the identical same full force and effect as if the King himself created the gain. So as an operation of law, anyone who has a depository relationship, or a credit relationship, with a bank, such as checking, savings, CD’s, charge cards, car loans, real estate mortgages, etc., are experiencing profit and gain created by the King ?? so says the Supreme Court. At the present time, Mr. Condo, you have bank accounts (because you accept checks as payment for books and subscriptions), and you are very much in an EQUITY RELATIONSHIP with the King.

This note also alleged that George Mercier, who wrote an article apparently popular among those who believe the “contract theory” of government, was a retired judge, which is false. Just because you read it on the Net does not make it true.See:       http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/WeAintBrits.htm

 

STALIN’S GERMAN-NATIONALIST PARTY—an interesting Footnote to World War II History, K.R. Bolton in “Inconvenient History”

Spring 2014 issue | Inconvenient History (online revisionist magazine)

http://inconvenienthistory.com/archive/2014/volume_6/number_1/stalins_german_nationalist_party.php

At a meeting between Joseph Stalin and leaders of the Socialist Unity Party (Sozialistische Einheitspartei Deutschlands: SED) in the Soviet zone of occupied Germany, held on January 31, 1947, Stalin asked what percentage of Germans (in all the occupation zones) were “fascist elements,” and “what influence did they retain in the Western zones”? Otto Grotewohl replied that it was a difficult question to answer, but that he could give Stalin lists of former National Socialist party members “in leadership positions in the Western zones.” Stalin had not asked the question with the view to purging Germany of “fascists,” but with the possibility of re-forming former National Socialist party members into another party, which would promote nationalism and socialism within the context of a Soviet Germany. He was also interested in the possible voting patterns of “fascist elements” should there be a plebiscite on German unification. Grotewohl’s view was that they were “all reactionaries.” Stalin’s view was different. Would it be possible to organize the “fascists” in the Soviet zone under a different name? He pointed out to the SED leaders that their policy of “exterminating fascists” was no different from that of the USA, stating: “Maybe I should add this course [of organizing a nationalist party] so as not to push all of the former Nazis into the enemy camp?”1

While the Western zones sought to ban any political re-manifestation of National Socialism, Stalin was exploring the possibilities of integrating such elements into a new Soviet Germany. The reticence he received from the Socialist Unity leaders was based on a typically Marxist reaction. However, one uses Marxism to tear down a nation and a state, not to construct one. Stalin, as Trotsky correctly lamented, had “betrayed” the Bolshevik revolution2 by reversing possibly every Marxian program that had been erected by Lenin, Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamenev, Sverdlov, et al, who had for the most part been purged or liquidated by Stalin.3

Grotewohl objected that if the “fascists” were reorganized into their own party, such a move would be “incomprehensible to the working masses” in the Western zones. Presumably he was so naïve as to believe that the proletariat in the Western zones were so eager to forsake twelve years of almost miraculous social and economic achievements under National Socialism, and embrace doctrinaire Marxism, that they would feel betrayed unless all the leaders of the former regime were routed and lynched. Stalin had other thoughts. Stalin replied that showing the “Nazis” in the Western zones that their comrades under the Soviets were not being purged would provide a positive impression that “not all of them will be destroyed.” Pieck regarded the idea as “impossible,” while Stalin saw no reason why it should not be achieved. He wanted to recruit “patriotic elements” to a “fascist party” especially among “secondary figures of the former Nazi Party.” There would be nothing reactionary about establishing such a party, as many “Nazis” had “come from out of the people.”4

Ulbricht thought Stalin’s idea entirely plausible by focusing on the socialist aspect of National Socialism, especially among idealistic youth, who had regarded the NSDAP as Socialist. Stalin explained that he did not aim to integrate “fascist’ elements into the SED, but to encourage them to form their own party, in alliance with the SED.5 Former “Nazis” were voting for the bourgeois conservative parties in the Soviet-occupied zone, fearful that the establishment of a Soviet state would mean their liquidation. Stalin wanted to demonstrate that their situation under a Soviet Germany would be otherwise. He also did not share the preposterous view of the German Communist leaders present that the “fascist elements” were all bourgeois. He stated that “there should be relief for those who had not sold out” to the Western occupation; and that “we must not forget that the elements of Nazism are alive not only in the bourgeois layers, but also among the working class and the petty bourgeoisie.”6

Ulbricht’s particularly positive attitude among the SED leaders towards Stalin’s plans for a nationalist party as part of an SED-led “national front” had a personal precedent. While the Hitler-Stalin Pact of 1939 had caused a crisis of conscience among Communists throughout the world, Ulbricht had been particularly enthusiastic towards the alliance between two “socialist” states, writing in the Comintern newspaper, Die Welt, published in Stockholm:

Many workers, who desire socialism, welcome the pact particularly, because it reinforces the friendship with the great country of socialism. … Both the German people and those peoples who are admitted to the German multinational state7 must make the choice: not together with English high finance in favor of the extension of the war and a new Versailles, but together with the Soviet Union for peace, for the national independence and the friendship of all peoples. The working-class, the farmers and the working intellectuals of Germany, Austria, Czechoslovakia and Poland will be the strongest guarantee for the Soviet-German alliance and the defeat of the English plan.8

It should be noted that Ulbricht saw the Hitler-Stalin pact as an alliance against plutocracy headed by England. Ulbricht also played a prominent role in Stalin’s purge of the German Communist party leadership that had fled to the USSR after Hitler’s assumption of office. Some of these were extradited from the USSR back to Germany, such as Margarete Buber-Neumann, who was sent to Ravensbrück.9 While Hitler executed five members of the Politburo of the German Communist party, in the USSR seven were liquidated, and 41 out of 68 party leaders.10

Pieck, presumably assuming that the projected party would be called “National Socialist” or “Fascist,’ objected that that the Allies would not allow the reconstitution of such a party. Stalin laughed in response, and explained that the party would be called a name that was less obvious, such as “National Democrats.”11

Another major objection from the party leaders, again naïve, was that the “fascists” are an “aggressive party” and want “living space.” Stalin pointed out that Germany was defeated, its army was no more and that the “fascist elements” were not concerned with such matters.

Otto Grotewohl

Otto Grotewohl, Prime Minister of the German Democratic Republic, delivers keynote speech during the celebration of the 71st Birthday of Josef Stalin held in the Berlin State Opera on the evening of 21 December 1950. The inscription reads “Long live J.W. Stalin, the best friend of the German people!”
Bundesarchiv, Bild 183-09039-0001 / CC-BY-SA [CC-BY-SA-3.0-de (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/de/deed.en)], via Wikimedia Commons

Indeed, a significant faction of diehard post-war German National Socialists were committed to a neutralist position, if not being overtly pro-Soviet. They had just fought a war against the USSR, and many were not eager to do so again in the interests of American hegemony over Europe, which they regarded as culturally and spiritually lethal, and therefore a more pervasive threat than Russian military occupation. Furthermore, the plutocracies had fallen out with Stalin when he declined to become a junior partner in a post-war new world order based around the United Nations General Assembly, where the USA could readily buy votes and outmaneuver the Soviet bloc with ease; and the Baruch Plan for the “internationalization of atomic energy,” which the USSR considered to be a euphemism for American control.12 In fact, it was the USSR that pursued a national course, including a campaign against “rootless cosmopolitanism” in the arts, which the Stalinist leadership condemned as “internationalism,” while promoting a revived Russian folk culture; while the USA was committed to internationalism, and a cultural offensive in which abstract expressionism and jazz took leading roles in trying to subvert nations.13

Given this post-war realignment, it should not be too difficult to see why Stalin would regard ex-Nazis as potential allies, and vice versa.

The largest post-war National Socialist formation in the Western zone, the Socialist Reich Party, under the leadership of Major General Otto Remer, was quickly suppressed by the Allies when it made considerable electoral progress. Most worrying of all was the Socialist Reich Party’s “neutralist position,” at a time when the USA had reversed the Morgenthau Plan for the obliteration of German nationhood and nationality,14 and sought to rebuild Germany as an ally against the new foe, Stalin. Sir Oswald Mosley, commenting on the arrest of Dr. Werner Naumann, designated by Hitler as Goebbels’s successor, and a few others, for allegedly plotting to infiltrate the Free Democratic Party, remarked on the West’s post-war policies towards Germany that “Years after the Russians were offering German scientists every material prize that life can hold, the allies were making such men sweep rubble in the streets on account of their past political affiliations.”15

Nationaldemokratische Partei Deutschlands (NDPD)

In February 1948 the Soviet Military Administration (Sowjetische Militäradministration in Deutschland:SMAD) announced the end of denazification. In March 1948 the prosecution of Germans for alleged “war crimes” was formally ended. The same month the Nationaldemokratische Partei Deutschlands (NDPD) was formed. The German Democratic Republic (Deutsche Demokratische RepublikDDR) was announced in 1949, from elections in the Soviet occupied zone, after the failure of the USSR and the Western occupiers to agree on terms for elections on the reunification of Germany.

With the NDPD’s creation, Stalin stated that the party would “erase the line between non-Nazis and former Nazis.”16 On March 22, a newspaper was launched to pave the way, National-Zeitung, announcing: “while in other areas there remains the atmosphere of denazification of Germany, in the eastern part the people’s eyes light up again. Simple party comrades no longer have to be timid and fearfully look around as if they were pariahs.” The party was founded three days later, under the chairmanship of Lothar Bolz, who held the post until 1972. Bolz had been a member of the pre-war German Communist party and was one of the few German Communist leaders to have survived Stalin’s hazardous hospitality towards Communist refugees.17During much of the time Bolz served in the government of the DDR, including the position of Foreign Minister (1968-1978), the vice chairman of the NDPD was Heinrich Hohmann, who had joined the National Socialist party in 1933, and was a co-founder of the League of German Officers, which formed the initial nucleus of the NDPD.

The NDPD program was stridently nationalistic; as much as the Socialist Reich Party which was being outlawed in the Federal Republic:

America violated the Treaty of Potsdam and plunged us Germans with malice into the biggest national distress of our history. … But the American war may and shall not take place! Germany must live! That’s why we National Democrats demand: the Americans to America. Germany for the Germans! The Federal Republic of Germany is a child of national treason… That’s why we National Democrats demand: German unity over the head of the government of national treason in Bonn, as a basis for peace, independence and prosperity for our entire German fatherland.18

The party reached a peak of 230,000 members in 1953, and during the 1980s still had a significant membership of 110,000. In 1948 the party sent 52 members to the DDR parliament, the Volkskammer. One of its primary aims was German unification, and the party drew on ex-NSDAP members and army veterans to support its campaigns. One such appeal from the party issued in 1952 included 119 names of officers from the Wehrmacht, SS, Hitler Jugend, League of German Maidens (BDM) and German Labor Front.19

Hess’s Meeting with DDR Leaders

Interestingly, also in 1952, Lothar Bolz, then deputy minister-president of the DDR; the minister of trade and supplies, Karl Hamann, and Otto Grotewohl met with former deputy Führer Rudolf Hess, to discuss whether Hess would be willing to play a leading role in a reunified and neutral Germany. German historian Werner Maser states that Otto Grotewohl told him of the meeting on the understanding that it would not be mentioned until after Grotewohl’s death.20 Wolf Rüdiger Hess (Rudolf Hess’s son) states that in March 1952 “Stalin proposed a peace treaty and free elections for a neutral and unified Germany to prevent the Federal Republic of Germany from joining the West’s defense organization, which he considered a threat to Soviet security.”21 A neutral, reunited Germany was precisely the policy of the Socialist Reich Party.

Hess had been taken from Spandau to meet the DDR leaders when the USSR assumed its monthly jurisdiction over the prison fortress.22Professor Maser records that Stalin wished “to temper justice with mercy in the Germany matter and to grant Hess a prominent position within the framework of reconstruction and the efforts towards the reunification of Germany.”23 Maser stated that he had the impression from Grotewohl that the NDPD, the Liberal Democratic Party and the Democratic Farmers’ Party, all part of a “National Front” bloc in the DDR, had moved their party programs “suspiciously close to the 25-point program of the NSDAP of 1920.” It was proposed that Hess would serve as “a vehicle for the introduction of the New Policy,” according to Maser. In the longer term, Hess would play a part in the leadership of a reunited Germany. If Hess would state that the DDR policy was the same as the “socialism” to which he had always adhered, he would be immediately released from Spandau. Hess rejected the offer, although he “welcomed… the efforts of the DDRand the Soviet Union to preserve German patriotism, and had listened attentively to what his interlocutors had to say on the programs of the political parties referred to…” But he regarded the acceptance of such an offer as a betrayal of Hitler’s memory. Grotewohl found it hard to understand why Hess rejected the offer to help rebuild Germany as a free man.24

Wolf Rüdiger Hess remained skeptical as to the reality of the meeting and the offer. He has not explained why. The alleged meeting took place precisely when the USSR called for a plebiscite on the unification and neutrality of Germany, which reflected a policy that was likewise taken up by war veterans and former NSDAPmembers led by Major General Otto Remer in the Federal Republic.

The Socialist Reich Party (SRP) was founded in 1949, and promptly had two members in the Bundestag, who defected from other parties when the SRP was formed. Remer was not only deputy leader, but also the most energetic campaigner, receiving enthusiastic responses to his condemnation of the American democratic imposition and praise for the achievements of National Socialism.25 Remer was soon banned from Schleswig-Holstein and North Rhine-Westphalia, where the SRP was most popular. The US occupation authorities not only noted the “Nazi” style of the SRP but also its opposition to a Western alliance, and advocacy of united Europe as a third force, led by a reunified Germany. The SRP attracted 10,000 members, and organized auxiliaries for women, youth and trade unionists. Its paramilitary Reichsfront was formed mainly among the British-run German Service Organization barracked at British military bases, which were reportedly covered with SRP propaganda. In 1950 SRP members were banned from state service, the US State Department fearing that the party could democratically assume power.26 SRP meetings were violently broken up by police, and a pro-SRP newspaper, Reichszeitung, was banned. Remer increased his denunciation of the US occupation and the Western alliance, while refraining from condemning the USSR and the DDR. The US State Department noted this, with the comment: “The party is suspected of willingness to effect a large compromise with Russia in order to unify Germany.”27 When the USA decided on a policy of integrating Germany into the western defense system, Remer launched a campaign with the slogan “Ohne mich!” (“Count me out!”), which drew a ready response from war veterans resentful of their post-war predicament under the Western zone. Remer went further and stated that in the event of war, Germans should not cover an American retreat if the Russians drove them back. He stated that he would “show the Russians the way to the Rhine,” and that the SRP members would “post themselves as traffic policemen, spreading their arms so that the Russians can find their way through Germany as quickly as possible.”28

Leaders of the Socialist Reich Party

The leadership of the SRP (Socialist Reich Party); Chairman of the SRP Dr. Fritz Dorls, the former Major General Otto Ernst Remer, 2nd Chairman of the SRP and the former SS and Hitler Youth leader Count von Westarp. Photo: 14 August 1952.
Bundesarchiv, Bild 183-15845-0010 / CC-BY-SA [CC-BY-SA-3.0-de (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/de/deed.en)], via Wikimedia Commons

In 1952, the year of the meeting between the SED leaders and Hess, and Stalin’s call for free elections for a neutral and united Germany, Remer, who had the previous year been sentenced to four months’ jail for slandering Bonn officials, invoking the Treaty of Rapallo as a symbol of Russo-German co-operation, endorsed Stalin’s proposals. The US felt obliged to offer the Adenauer government the pretense of sovereignty over German affairs under the “Contractual Agreement” of May 1952. SS veterans were now permitted to join the army. The US remained suspicious of how reliable West Germany would be in a conflict with the Eastern bloc, but preferred the risk of rebuilding the Western zone to the possibility that Germans would respond to Stalin’s call for a united, neutral state. It was also tacitly accepted that the purpose of NATO was to contain Germany as much as the USSR.29 The pressure from the SRP and from Stalin’s call for a neutral, united Germany, had forced the end of denazification in the Federal Republic.

At this time, the American philosopher and activist Francis Parker Yockey, in calling for the liberation and unity of Europe was, like Remer et al, prepared to collaborate with the USSR to purge the “holy soil” of Europe of US occupation, which he regarded as the enforcer of Jewish “culture distortion.” Yockey, who until apprehended in the USA in 1960, had kept ahead of military intelligence, Interpol and the FBI, and travelled the world organizing a “fascist” revival, was an adviser to the SRP. Working with a few colleagues within Mosley’s Union Movement in 1947, Yockey, contrary to Mosley, took the position that a Russian occupation of Europe was the lesser evil. This was noted by the FBI, which in summarizing Yockey’s activities in a 1954 report stated that Yockey and his colleagues left Mosley and founded the European Liberation Front in 1949 having published his magnum opus, Imperium, the previous year. During a planning meeting for the ELF in London, Yockey stated that an aim would be to create a partisan organization which would collaborate with the USSR against the Western occupation powers in Germany. The FBI report states that Yockey went to Germany, where he spread anti-US material of a pro-Soviet nature, and contacted the SRP.30 Yockey wrote a sequel to ImperiumDer Feind Europas, as an instruction manual to for the SRP, although the document was suppressed by the occupation authorities.31 During 1955 to 1957, the “missing years,” Yockey is thought to have travelled through the Soviet bloc. In a letter to this writer, by Yockey’s primary US contact, Keith Thompson, registered US agent for the SRP, it was stated that Yockey served as a courier for the Czech secret service. His “fascism” was obviously regarded as no impediment to the Soviets, and it might be conjectured that he earned a living writing anti-Zionist propaganda in the Soviet bloc, having undertaken this for the Nasser regime in Egypt in 1953.

DDR Rebuffs Zionists

In 1952, the Bonn regime announced that it would begin paying reparations to Jews. Meanwhile, the trial began of Rudolf Slansky and other mostly Jewish leaders of the Czechoslovakia Communist party, who were charged with a wide-ranging “Zionist conspiracy” in collusion with the USA and Israel;32 an event that was seminal in the thinking of Yockey and other rightists vis-à-vis the Soviet bloc.33  The trial was noted by theSED Central Committee:

Sailing under the Jewish nationalistic flag, and disguised as a Zionist organization and as diplomats of the American-vassal government of Israel, these American agents practiced their trade. From the Morgenthau-Acheson Plan that was revealed during the trial in Prague it appears unmistakably that American imperialism organizes and supports its espionage and sabotage activities in the people’s republics via the State of Israel with the assistance of Zionist organizations.34

The “Morgenthau-Acheson Plan” referred to in the SED statement was an allegation that an agreement had been reached “according to which American support for Israel was promised in exchange for the use of Zionist organizations for espionage and subversion,” of the Soviet bloc states.35

Furthermore, in the same statement, the SED Central Committee condemned the German communist Paul Merker as a Zionist agent who had who acted “in the same way as the criminals in Czechoslovakia.” Merker, who had spent the war years in exile in Mexico, advocated reparations for German Jews. The SED leaders stated:

It can no longer be doubted that Merker is an agent of the US financial oligarchy, whose demand for compensation for Jewish properties is only designed to infiltrate US financial capital into Germany. That is the real reason for his Zionism. He demands the displacement of German national wealth with the words: “The compensation for the harm that has been done to Jewish citizens will be given both to those who return and to those who want to stay abroad.” Merker illicitly transformed the maximum profits squeezed out of German and foreign workers by monopoly capitalists into alleged property of the Jewish people. In reality “Aryanization” of this capital merely transferred the profits of “Jewish” monopoly capitalists to “Aryan” monopoly capitalists.36

As with the Soviet purging of Zionists and Jews in Czechoslovakia, Merker was condemned as being part of a world apparatus in which Zionists served as agents for subversion by foreign capital.

The DDR did not at any stage establish diplomatic relations with Israel. The DDR also adamantly refused to pay any reparations to Israel or “Holocaust survivors.”

On September 18, 1973, Yosef Tekoah, Israeli ambassador to the U.N. General Assembly, stated that:

“Israel notes with regret and repugnance that the other German state (DDR) has ignored and continues to ignore Germany’s historical responsibility for the Holocaust and the moral obligations arising from it. It has compounded the gravity of that attitude by giving support and practical assistance to the campaign of violence and murder waged against Israel and the Jewish people by Arab terror organizations.”

The East German regime never accepted the war guilt that was the foundation of the Bonn regime, and hence it was not morally hindered in pursuing an anti-Zionist policy. Interestingly, the first comments on Bonn’s intention to pay reparations to Jews and Israel were published three days after the publication of the indictments against Slansky, et al for “Zionist treason.” An article in Neues Deutschland described the reparations agreement as a deal brokered between “West German and Israeli capitalists.”37 With the death of Stalin in 1953, Israel hoped for a change in direction, including on the matter of reparations, but the DDRrefused.

In 1968 Simon Wiesenthal claimed that the DDR news service was far more anti-Zionist than that of any other Soviet-bloc state, and that this was because of the number of ex-“Nazis” employed there.38 The NDPD was the focus of Wiesenthal’s allegations. Dr. Richard Arnold, who had been an official in the Ministry for Science and Public Education (1939-1945), and had written of eliminating every trace of the “Jewish spirit” from the cultural life of Germany, was in 1968 general editor of Der Nationale Demokrat, the newspaper of the NDPD, and recipient of the Order of Merit for the Fatherland. Kurt Herwart Ball, who had been editor of the SS journalHammer, in the DDR was a journalist for the NDPD and an official in the propaganda bureau of the regime.

In a 1951 report the Anglo-Jewish Association urged the Bonn regime and the Allied occupiers to start a vigorous campaign against the revival of National Socialism and any admittance of war veterans into the political realm, alluding to the threat of an accord between “Nazis” and the Eastern bloc:

In Germany as elsewhere the political pendulum has swung far since 1945. The increasing sharpening of the cold war has, among other things, resulted in a certain tendency among parties, not always entirely disinterested, to label those who draw attention to the neo-Nazi revival as Communists and fellow-travellers. The facts revealed about new Nazi groups in this booklet, and the strong suspicion held in many German quarters that some of their leaders, at any rate, are not above coming to a working arrangement with the totalitarians of the Eastern Zone, should help to expose such views. Too frequently they are expressed by people whose professed dislike of Stalinist dictatorship is merely a cloak for their own totalitarian aims.

It should be clearly realized that the neo-Nazis are in no sense allies against Communism. Even before the leading neo-Nazi group —the Socialist Reich Party— was founded, Drew Middleton, senior correspondent of The New York Times in Germany, wrote:

“It is high time that the United States, Britain and France awoke to the danger, the very real danger, that the rise of the right-wing in Germany represents the best chance of a Soviet-German rapprochement… anti-Communism is not enough. (The Struggle for Germany, Allan Wingate, 1949)”

The new Nazis draw their inspiration direct from Hitler’s Germany, and those who learn from the lessons of history will keep firmly before them the memory of the Hitler-Stalin Pact of 1939. They will remember that it was this pact that signaled the unleashing of the German armies against Poland and later against the West. Similarly, it should not be forgotten that the history of the ill-fated Weimar Republic is dotted with examples of co-operation between the Nazis and Communists against the democratic parties. What happened before can well happen again.39

The DDR integration of “Nazis” and Rightists had its precedents, as mentioned by the Anglo-Jewish report. Karl Radek, the anti-Semite’s stereotype of a “Bolshevik Jew,” attempted to appeal to the nationalism of German workers to win them over to the Communist party and away from the NSDAP, by agitating for opposition to the French occupation of the Ruhr, in the name of the martyred Freikorps fighter Albert LeoSchlageter, who had been shot in 1923 by the French for his resistance activities. Radek’s speech urged the Communists to tap into, rather than oppose, the nationalist sentiments of the German workers. Radek stated in words that were thirty years later reflected in Stalin’s aim of reintegrating the NSDAP and military veterans into the DDR, that “those who have turned to fascism in their despair over the social ills and enslavement of their nation” should no longer be regarded with anathema by the Communist party. 40 Towards this end leaflets advertising Communist Party meetings honoring Schlageter were adorned with the red star and the swastika.41 A pamphlet on Schlageter included Radek’s speech, and articles by conservative-revolutionary Moeller van den Bruck, Count Ernst zu Reventlow of the NSDAP, and Fröhlich of the Communist Party.42

The “National Bolshevik” current within the German Right during the Weimar era regarded the USSR as a natural ally of Germany vis-à-vis the plutocracies. They advocated an eastward direction for German diplomacy, which had been reflected in the Treaty of Rapallo. The primary “National Bolsheviks” were Ernst Niekisch and Karl O. Paetel, around whom gravitated not only radical nationalists and revolutionary-conservatives such as Otto Strasser and Ernst Junger but also the Communists Bertolt Brecht and Ernst Toller.43 Even Oswald Spengler, the conservative-revolutionary philosopher-historian, who warned of the possibility of Russia’s leadership of a “colored world revolution” behind the banner of Bolshevism,44 had also seen the possibility of another Russo-German alliance.45

The USSR sought out Rightists via several organizations: The Association for the Study of the Planned Economy of Soviet Russia (Arplan), included Reventlow, Junger, and several National Bolsheviks.46The League of Professional Intellectuals (BGB) included Junger and Niekisch and, according to Soviet documents, was a means of attracting “into our orbit of influence a range of highly placed intellectuals of rightist orientation.”47

Hence, the line taken by both Remer and the DDR was by no means a historical aberration or paradox. On October 23, 1952, the SRP was banned48 after winning 16 seats in the state parliament of Lower Saxony and 8 seats in Bremen. The SRP was succeeded by the German Reich Party of Colonel Hans-Ulrich Rudel, and the National Democratic Party (NPD), not to be confused with its Soviet-sponsored namesake, the NDPD.

Remer, like Rudel, and the commando leader Major Otto Skorzeny, undertook their own versions of German diplomacy, Rudel and Skorzeny both advising Juan Peron in Argentina, while Remer was said to have maintained close links with the Nasser regime, and lived in Egypt and Syria. Martin Lee writes that a Russo-German accord remained the basis of Remer’s policy as the only means of liberating Europe from the USA. Remer believed that a united Europe should include Russia,49 which would welcome such a union as a bulwark against an encroaching Asia.50

In 1983, back in Bavaria, Remer launched the German Freedom Movement (Die deutschen FreiheitsbewegungDDF), dedicated to Russo-German accord, under the chairmanship of Georg Bosse. Their manifesto, The Bismarck-German Manifesto, is subheaded “German-Russian Alliance Rapallo 1983.” The movement published a periodical, Recht und Wahrheit (Justice and Truth). The DDF manifesto Der Bismarck-Deutsche continued the neutralist line from Remer’s SRP days three decades earlier. The manifesto, echoing Yockey’s ideas on the “culture-distorting regime” of Washington and New York, states “The American way of life is for us synonymous with the destruction of European culture,” and that Germany “would not be used as the tip of the NATO spear… We will not participate in a NATO war against Russia.” Remer explained to Martin Lee “We have to realize and act accordingly, like Bismarck did, that Russia is the superpower in this gigantic Eurasian continent, to which we belong geographically, geopolitically and economically, and even culturally… We are, like Bismarck, for a close collaboration with Russia in politics, economy, culture, science, technology, and research.”51

US Army intelligence, still monitoring Remer, feared that his neutralist, and even “pro-Soviet” line was making headway among the German Right, and noted a “trend towards neutralism” and “a rise in anti-Americanism.” In 1985 a West German secret service officer opined to a Reuters newsman that, “the Soviet Union is seen as a potential friend and, in some cases, even an ally.”52

It is an interesting aside that in 1962, during the “Cuban Missile Crisis,” Castro purchased 4,000 pistols through Remer and Ernst Wilhelm Springer.53 The latter had been a member of the SRP who, like Remer, settled in Egypt in 1953, supplying guns to Arab clients.54 It is perhaps indicative that Remer was serious when he had ventured that the SRP would assist the Russians in Germany in the event of a conflict with the USA.

Why pro-Russian, anti-NATO or neutralist positions should be regarded by US and German intelligence agencies as sudden new trends among the Right is difficult to explain. Even the comparatively conservativeNPD of the 1960s, during which time it reached its electoral high point under Adolf von Thadden, rejected NATO.

While Yockey’s plans were cut short with his death in a San Francisco jail in 1960 while awaiting trial for passport fraud, his militant stance was assumed by a new generation led by Michael Kuhnen, who founded the Action Front of National Socialists during the late 1970s and the 1980s. Under the name of the Werewolf Northern Cell,55 in association with Wiking Jugend, a raid on a NATO base in the Netherlands was organized along with others against NATO and US bases in West Germany.56

This is not to say that Remer and others had become Stalinists. As articles in Recht und Wahrheit show,57Remer and the DDF remained critical of Stalinism, the USSR and the DDR, and welcomed the fall of the Berlin Wall and the reunification of Germany. It is unclear to this writer what Remer et al, expected Europe to gain by the supplanting of Soviet control over Eastern and Central Europe and the obliteration of the Warsaw Pact, by a power that was “synonymous with the destruction of European culture,” as Remer had put it. His views at the time of the fall of the Berlin Wall seem at odds with the avidly anti-US, pro-Soviet statements during the early 1950s. Perhaps he had considered the USSR to have progressively decayed after Stalin, which it indeed had. The “colour revolutions” organized and funded by George Soros’s network and the National Endowment for Democracy, in association with the US State Department, have been rampant across Europe since the days of “Solidarity” in Poland and show no signs of abating. Nonetheless, when the USSR remained a factor in world power politics, Remer was still insisting in 1983 that “I want to make an agreement with the Russian people, we have to move out of NATO, and out of the European Community. We want to be a neutral country, then we can reunify. The Americans, not the Russians, are the aggressors!” Remer stated that the Russians were “very interested.”58

Origins of the NDPD in Wartime USSR

As is well known, some such as General Reinhard Gehlen, head of the Bonn regime’s espionage apparatus, became avid Cold Warriors on behalf of the USA. The relationship between the Nationaldemokratische Partei Deutschlands, the USSR and the leaders of the DDR and Socialist Unity Party reflected a willingness of other war veterans and ex-NSDAP members to embrace Soviet hegemony while remaining German patriots.

Those who formed the NDPD had been prisoners of war held by the USSR. While many Russian soldiers who had surrendered to the Germans sought to join an anti-Soviet army under German auspices, there were Germans in Russian captivity who were persuaded that they could play a role in postwar Germany.

NDPD co-founder and first chairman (1948-1972), Lothar Bolz was one of the few Communist party members who had survived liquidation by Stalin when party members had fled to the USSR. There he taught at an ideological school for captured Germans.

A primary co-founder of the NDPD was Colonel Wilhelm Adam, a veteran of both world wars, whose nationalist politics went back to membership in the Young German Order in 1920, and the NSDAP in 1923, and his participation in the Munich Putsch. He was a member of the conservative German People’s Party (DVP) during 1926-1929. In 1933 he joined the Stahlhelm and the SA. Captured in 1943 at Stalingrad, Adam joined the National Committee for a Free Germany. Returning to the Soviet Zone of Germany in 1948, he was an adviser to the state government of Saxony. In 1952 he became a colonel in the Kasernierte Volkspolizei(KVP), which became the DDR People’s Army. He was honored in 1968 with the Banner of Labor, and with the title of Major General in 1977.

Vincenz Müller, a veteran of both world wars, with the rank of lieutenant general, was captured at Minsk in 1944. He joined the National Committee for a Free Germany, in which he was particularly active. In 1948 he returned to Germany and joined the NDPD, serving as deputy chairman during 1949-1952, and as a member of the Volkskammer. In 1952 he was given responsibility for reorganizing the DDR armed forces, headed the Ministry of the Interior, organized the KVP, and was appointed first chief of staff of the National People’s Army. However, his loyalties were often suspect, perhaps because he maintained contacts in the West in regard to promoting relations between the Federal Republic and the DDR, He retired in 1958.

Heinz Neukirchen, a naval commander stationed in Norway, was held in the USSR during 1945-1949. In 1949 he joined the NDPD and served as a party political department manager until 1950, and then as deputy chairman of the party Board for the Berlin District. During 1954-1956 he served as chief of staff for the Sea Police, and was appointed rear admiral in 1952, and later as chief of staff of the People’s Navy.

Rudolf Bamler was a section head of the Abwehr, German military intelligence. Achieving the rank of lieutenant general, Bamler was captured on the eastern front in 1944. He served as an officer in the DDR’sStasi secret police during 1946-1962, and held the rank of Major General in the KVP.

Arno von Lenski served in both world wars. Promoted to lieutenant general in 1943, he was captured at Stalingrad, and joined the National Committee for a Free Germany in 1944. Returning to Germany in 1949, he became a council member of the NDPD in 1950. He worked with the Berlin municipal administration, joined the KVP, and became a major general of the National People’s Army. In 1952 he served as a member of the Volkskammer, for the NDPD.

Major General Kurt Haehling, returning from Russian captivity in 1951, served with the NDPD as district chairman for Dresden (1953-1960).

The final electoral performance of the NDPD, by then apparently keen to rid itself of “right-wing” tendencies and appear “liberal”, rebuffing efforts at entryism by the National Democratic Party (NPD),59 was in the local elections for Helbra, Mansfeld in 1990, where the party obtained 2%, then disappeared into the Free Democratic Party.

Conclusion

The NDPD seems to have mostly disappeared down the “memory hole.” Yet right up to the final days of theDDR the party was an important constituent of the governing National Front bloc. According to one of its last office holders, Dr. Ludwig, the party had accrued a considerable amount of assets.60 NDPD officials, and particularly high-ranking military officers from the Third Reich, many with the most distinguished military awards of that regime, were propelled to the top of the DDR in politics, police and military. While the NDPD is distinct from the NPD that was founded in West Germany, when Germany was reunited, the German radical Right, such as the NPD and others, received an influx of especially young recruits from the East. It might be asked whether this was because the youth in particular, having lived under a nominally “communist regime,” would naturally turn into the most avid anti-communists? However, an alternative explanation might be offered: these youth had lived under the Spartan discipline of the DDR, its militarism, duty, unencumbered by “war guilt,” schooled in anti-Zionism and anti-liberalism, even if with Marxian rhetoric, where the state youth organizations for boys and girls seem strikingly similar in form to the Hitler Jugend and the BDM. If these youth had rejected their past under the DDR their tendency would surely have been, once freed from the discipline of the old regime, to embrace the liberalism, commercialism, and American pop culture that was the basis of the Bonn regime and, now, reunited Germany. Instead, many have chosen another “authoritarian ideology” and have still eschewed democratic-liberalism. With the eclipse of a liberalized NDPD in 1990, theNPD, heir to the Socialist Reich Party, garners its highest votes from former DDR states: Saxony, Thuringia, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, and Brandenburg.

Notes:

1  Historical and Documentary Department, Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, The USSR and the German Question. 1941-1949. Documents from the Archives of the Foreign Policy of the Russian Federation, M. “International Relations,” 2003, pp. 244-253.

2 Lev Trotsky, The Revolution Betrayed (1936). See especially chapter 7, where Trotsky laments the restoration of family life as particularly un-Bolshevik.

3 K. R. Bolton, Stalin: The Enduring Legacy (London: Black House Publishing, 2012).

4 Historical and Documentary Department, op. cit.

5 Ibid.

6 Ibid.

7 That is, the states that had been incorporated into the Reich.

8 W. Ulbricht, Die Welt, February 9,1940.

9 Margarete Buber-Neumann, from what can be discerned from a brief biography, had some typical psychological traits of Communist leaders, growing up in a dysfunctional family, and displaying a more nebulous love for “humanity’ than for her own family. She became a leading agent for the Comintern. She and her husband Heinz Neumann fled to Moscow in 1933, and he “disappeared’ in 1937. Shortly after, she was sent to a labor camp in Siberia, and with the Hitler-Stalin Pact, she was deported back to Germany in 1940 where she resumed her work at “hard Labor.” See: “Margarete Buber-Neumann,” Fembio, http://www.fembio.org/english/biography.php/woman/biography/margarete-buber-neumann/

10 K. R. Bolton, Stalin: The Enduring Legacy, op. cit., p. 8.

11 Historical and Documentary Department, op. cit.

12 K. R. Bolton, Stalin: The Enduring Legacy, op. cit., pp. 125-136.

13 Ibid., pp. 28-54.

14 James Bacque, Crimes and Mercies (London: Little Brown & Co., 1997).

15 Oswald Mosley, “Dr. Naumann,” The European, March 1953; in Mosley: Policy and Debate (Euphorion, 1954), p. 126.

16 Historical and Documentary Department, op. cit.

17 The entirety of the Central Committee of the Polish Communist party in Soviet exile was liquidated. See K. R. Bolton, Stalin, op. cit., p. 8.

18 NDPD program, June 1951.

19 NDPD appeal for German unity, 4th Party Congress, 1952.

20 The event is described by Wolf Rüdiger Hess in My Father Rudolf Hess (London: W. H. Allen, 1986). Note 6 for the chapter “Special Treatment,” states that Maser left a typewritten note on his meeting with Grotewohl when Maser was working at the Institute for Research into Imperialism, East Berlin Humboldt University, which was directed by the pre-war “National Bolshevik” Ernst Niekisch, who was present at the meeting between Maser and Grotewohl.

21 Wolf Rüdiger Hess, ibid., p. 251.

22 Spandau was administered by the Four Powers (Britain, France, USA and USSR) on an alternating monthly basis.

23 Ibid.

24 Ibid., pp. 252-253.

25 Martin Lee, The Beast Reawakens (London: Little Brown and Company, 1997), p. 49.

26 Ibid., pp. 50-51.

27 Ibid., p.58.

28 US State Department report, June 22, 1951; cited by Lee, ibid., p. 65.

29 Ibid., pp. 80-81.

30 L. O. Bogstad, “Francis Parker Yockey,” FBI Summary Report, July 8, 1954, pp. 11-12. See K. R. Bolton, “Foreword” to F. P. Yockey, Imperium (Abergele, UK: The Palingenesis Project, 2013), p. xlviii.

31 Alex Kurtagic, “Yockey Chronology,” Imperium, ibid., p. lxxviii.

32 Paul Lendvai, Anti-Semitism in Eastern Europe (London: Macdonald, 1971), pp. 243-259. Others mentioned together with Slansky et al included French colonial minister Georges Mandel, “a Jewish nationalist;” “Jewish nationalist Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter,” and “Titoist Jewish ideologue” Mosha Pijade, as well as US President Truman, Secretary of State Dean Acheson, former Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau Jr., [who gave his name to the infamous plan to exterminate the German nation]; and Israelis Ben Gurion and Moshe Sharrett. Lendvai, ibid., p. 245.

33 Yockey wrote an analysis of the trial, “What Is behind the Hanging of Eleven Jews in Prague?” (1952), which was republished in Yockey: Four Essays (New Jersey: Nordland Press, 1971).

34 Lehren aus dem Prozeß gegen das Verschwörerzentrum Slansky, Beschluß des Zentralkomitees der Sozialistischen Einheitspartei Deutschlands, December 20, 1952, p. 13.

35 Czechoslovak indictment cited by Lendvai, op. cit., p. 245.

36 Lehren aus dem Prozeß, op. cit., p. 55-56.

37 “Reparations for Whom?, Neues Deutschland, November 25, 1952.

38 Simon Wiesenthal, The Same Language: First for Hitler – Now for Ulbricht, (Vienna: Eine Dokumentation der Deutschland-Berichte. Jüdisches Dokumentationszentrum, Simon Wiesenthal Centre, September 6, 1968).

39 Germany’s New Nazis, The Anglo-Jewish Association, London (Jewish Chronicle Publications, 1951), “Conclusion,” p. 72.

40 K. Radek, “Leo Schlageter: The Wanderer into the Void,” speech at a plenum of the Executive Committee of the Communist International, June 1923, online: http://www.marxists.org/archive/radek/1923/06/schlageter.htm

41 Michael David-Fox Doing Medicine Together: Germany and Russia between the Wars (University of Toronto Press, 2006), p. 136.

42 Bernice G. Rosenthal, New Myth, New World: From Nietzsche to Stalinism (Penn State University Press, 2004), p. 378.

43 Thomas R. Nevin, Ernst Junger and Germany: into the Abyss, 1914-1945 (Duke University Press, 1996), p. 106.

44 O. Spengler, The Hour of Decision (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1934, 1963), pp. 204-230.

45 O. Spengler, “Two Faces of Russia and Germany’s Eastern Problems,” speech to Rhenish-Westphalian Business Convention, Essen, February 14, 1919.

46 K. R. Bolton, “Junger and National Bolshevism,” in Troy Southgate, ed., Junger: Thoughts and PerspectivesVolume 11, (London: Black Front Press, 2012), p. 18.

47 See ibid.

48 Martin Lee, op. cit., p. 84.

49 Lee’s interview with Remer, April 16, 1992, cited by Lee, ibid., p. 193.

50 For the view that China will eventually conflict with Russia, regardless of historically inorganic alliances such as BRIC and the Shanghai co-operation agreement, see: K. R. Bolton, Geopolitics of the Indo-Pacific(London: Black House Publishing, 2013).

51 Martin Lee, op. cit., p. 194.

52 Ibid., pp. 194-195.

53 “Fidel Castro Recruited ex-Nazis to Train Troops during Cold War,” The Economic Times, October 16, 2012, online: http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2012-10-16/news/34499057_1_bundesnachrichtendienst-bnd-german-secret-service

54 Martin Lee, op. cit., p. 127.

55 An obvious allusion to the “Werewolf” guerrilla movement established during the closing days of the Third Reich, which harassed the Western occupation authorities and their German collaborators for several years thereafter. See SS Werwolf, Combat Instruction Manual, Translation Michael C. Fangan (Colorado: Paladin Press, 1982).

56 Martin Lee, op. cit., p. 198.

57 Recht und Wahrheit archives, online:http://www.vho.org/D/ruw/Archiv/index.html

58 Thierry Lalevee, “The Revival of the Nazi-Communist Pact: Soviets Foster Worldwide Terrorism,”Executive Intelligence Review, Vol. 11, No. 1, January 3, 1984.  This article, from a LaRouche source, contends that 1983 was the year for a Soviet-based international Nazi terrorist offensive that would allow the USSR to assume world control.

59 According to Dr. Christian Dirk Ludwig, who had been NDPD Berlin District Board member, September 4, 2007, Online: http://www.wahlrecht.de/forum/messages/42/804.html?1191478580

60 Ibid.

Source: Spring 2014 issue of Inconvenient History

_________________________________________________________________________

“The Holocaust became the new Western religion”—

I had come to this exact same conclusion by 1998-1999, during the David Irving Libel Suit against Deborah Lipstadt.  In particular, I concluded and formed the very strong and precise opinion “the Holocaust” had become the basis of the religion of the New World Order of the United Nations, just as the Trojan War was the religion of Ancient Greece, the Punic, Gallic, and Civil Wars the Religion of Pre-Christian Rome, the Crusades the Religion of Mediaeval Europe, Charles the Martyr became the chief subject of Episcopal Sermons during the years 1660-1789, and lastly, just as the “Civil” War of 1861-65 became the “Constitutional” Religion of the United States after 1865-1877.  I never at that time would have dared to articulate or publish this conclusion, especially since in 1998-1999 I was under direct assault for my own involvement in “revisionist civil rights” activism in Texas, asserting that the Civil Rights Laws of the United States applied equally to White people as to people of color, which campaign ultimately led to my disbarment.  I am now happy and grateful to see and share that Gilad Atzmon, a Jewish artist and Historian from Israel, living in Great Britain, has now finally published this precise statement!  It is quite gratifying to see that even a Jew who questions the Global state religion of the Holocaust is accused of Anti-Semitism!
 What will happen if Gilad visits Austria?  Will he be arrested and charged with the same crimes as David Irving?  Will he be put on trial and imprisoned?  Or will he be declared mentally unsound and threatened with psychiatric confinement and threatened with “attainder” of his civil rights for life, just as Jane Burgermeister is facing in Austria this month?  In certain sectors they call me stupid or insane?  Is there any reason why YOU are not eligible for similar treatment?  If you support animal rights?  If you oppose Obama-care?  If you either oppose OR support one hypothesis or another about climate change and global warming?  Only a country which guarantees freedom of thought and expression and debate is truly free…..God Bless Gilad Atzmon, Jane Burgermeister, David Irving, Janet Claire Phelan, Nancy Jo Grant, and everyone like them who dare to speak out against “established truth” in history or science!

Truth, History and Integrity by Gilad Atzmon

Saturday, March 13, 2010 at 2:02PM
Gilad Atzmon

Back in 2007 the notorious American Jewish right-wing organization, the ADL (Anti-Defamation League) announced that it recognised the events in which an estimated 1.5 million Armenians were massacred as “genocide.” The ADL’s national director, Abraham Foxman, insisted that he made the decision after discussing the matter with ‘historians’. For some reason he failed to mention who the historians were, nor did he refer to their credibility or field of scholarship. However, Foxman also consulted with one holocaust survivor who supported the decision.  It was Elie Wiesel, not known for being a leading world expert on the Armenian ordeal.

The idea of a Zionist organization being genuinely concerned, or even slightly moved, by other people’s suffering could truly be a monumental transforming moment in Jewish history. However, this week we learned that the ADL is once again engaged in the dilemma of Armenian suffering. It is not convinced anymore that the Armenians suffered that much. It is now lobbying the American congress not to recognize the killings of Armenians as ‘genocide. This week saw the ADL “speaking out against Congressional acknowledgment of the Armenian Genocide, and is, instead, advocating Turkey’s call for a historical commission to study the events.”

How is it that an event that took place a century ago is causing such a furor? One day it is generally classified as ‘genocide’, the next, it is demoted to an ordinary instance of one man killing another. Was it an ‘historical document’ that, out of nowhere, popped out on Abe Foxman’s desk? Are there some new factual revelations that led to such a dramatic historical shift? l don’t think so.

The ADL’s behaviour is a glimpse into the notion of Jewish history and the Jewish understanding of the past.  For the nationalist and political Jew, history is a pragmatic tale, it is an elastic account. It is foreign to any scientific or academic method.  Jewish history transcends itself beyond factuality,  truthfulness or  correspondence rules with any given vision of reality. It also repels integrity or ethics. It by far prefers total submission, instead of creative and critical thinking. Jewish history is a phantasmic tale that is there to make the Jews happy and the Goyim behave themselves. It is there to serve the interests of one tribe and that tribe only. In practice, from a Jewish perspective,  the decision whether there was an Armenian genocide or not is subject to Jewish interests: is it good for the Jews or is it good for Israel.

Interestingly enough, history is not a particularly ‘Jewish thing’. It is an established fact that not a single Jewish historical text has been written between the 1st century (Josephus Flavius) and early 19th century (Isaak Markus Jost). For almost 2 thousand years Jews were not interested in their own or anyone else’s past, at least not enough to chronicle it. As a matter of convenience, an adequate scrutiny of the past was never a primary concern within the Rabbinical tradition. One of the reasons is probably that there was no need for such a methodical effort. For the Jew who lived during ancient times and the Middle Ages, there was enough in the Bible to answer the most relevant questions to do with day-to-day life, Jewish meaning and fate. As Israeli historian Shlomo Sand puts it, “a secular chronological time was foreign to the ‘Diaspora time’ that was shaped by the anticipation for the coming of the Messiah.”

However, in the mid 19th century, in the light of secularisation, urbanisation, emancipation and due to the decreasing authority of the Rabbinical leaders, an emerging need of an alternative cause rose amongst the awakening European Jews. All of a sudden, the emancipated Jew had to decide who he was and where he came from. He also started to speculate what his role might be within the rapidly opening Western society.

This is where Jewish history in its modern form was invented. This is also where Judaism was transformed from a world religion into a ‘land registry’ with some clearly devastating racially orientated and expansionist implications. As we know, Shlomo Sand’s account of the ‘Jewish Nation’ as a fictional invention is yet to be challenged academically. However, the dismissal of factuality or commitment to truthfulness is actually symptomatic of any form of contemporary Jewish collective ideology and identity politics. The ADL’s treatment of the Armenian topic is just one example. The Zionist’s dismissal of a Palestinian past and heritage is just another example. But in fact any Jewish collective vision of the past is inherently Judeo-centric and  oblivious to any academic or scientific procedure.

When I was Young

When I was young and naïve I regarded history as a serious academic matter. As I understood it, history had something to do with truth seeking, documents, chronology and facts. I was convinced that history aimed to convey a sensible account of the past based on methodical research. I also believed that it was premised on the assumption that understanding the past may throw some light over our present and even help us to shape a prospect of a better future.  I grew up in the Jewish state and it took me quite a while to understand that the Jewish historical narrative is very different. In the Jewish intellectual ghetto, one decides what the future ought to be, then one constructs ‘a past’ accordingly. Interestingly enough, this exact method is also prevalent amongst Marxists. They shape the past so it fits nicely into their vision of the future. As the old Russian joke says, “when the facts do not conform with the Marxist ideology, the Communist social scientists amend the facts (rather than revise the theory)”.

When I was young, I didn’t think that history was a matter of political decisions or agreements between a rabid Zionist lobby and its favorite holocaust survivor. I regarded historians as scholars who engaged in adequate research following some strict procedures. When I was young I even considered becoming an historian.

When I was young and naive I was also somehow convinced that what they told us about our ‘collective’ Jewish past really happened. I believed it all, the Kingdom of David, Massada, and then the Holocaust: the soap, the lampshade*, the death march, the six million.

As it happened, it took me many years to understand that the Holocaust, the core belief of the contemporary Jewish faith, was not at all an historical narrative for historical narratives do not need the protection of the law and politicians. It took me years to grasp that my great-grandmother wasn’t made into a ‘soap’ or a ‘lampshade’*. She probably perished out of exhaustion, typhus or maybe even by mass shooting. This was indeed bad and tragic enough, however not that different from the fate of many millions of Ukrainians who learned what communism meant for real. “Some of the worst mass murderers in history were Jews” writes Zionist Sever Plocker on the Israeli Ynet disclosing the Holodomor and Jewish involvement in this colossal crime, probably the greatest crime of the 20th century. The fate of my great-grandmother was not any different from hundreds of thousands of German civilians who died in an orchestrated indiscriminate bombing, because they were Germans. Similarly, people in Hiroshima died just because they were Japanese. 1 million Vietnamese died just because they were Vietnamese and 1.3 million Iraqis died because they were Iraqis. In short the tragic circumstances of my great grandmother wasn’t that special after all.

It Doesn’t make sense

It took me years to accept that the Holocaust narrative, in its current form, doesn’t make any historical sense. Here is just one little anecdote to elaborate on:

If, for instance, the Nazis wanted the Jews out of their Reich (Judenrein – free of Jews), or even dead, as the Zionist narrative insists, how come they marched hundreds of thousands of them back into the Reich at the end of the war? I have been concerned with this simple question for more than a while. I eventually launched into an historical research of the topic and happened to learn from Israeli holocaust historian professor Israel Gutman that Jewish prisoners actually joined the march voluntarily. Here is a testimony taken from Gutman’s book

One of my friends and relatives in the camp came to me on the night of the evacuation and offered a common hiding place somewhere on the way from the camp to the factory. …The intention was to leave the camp with one of the convoys and to escape near the gate, using the darkness we thought to go a little far from the camp. The temptation was very strong. And yet, after I considered it all  I then decided to join (the march) with all the other inmates and to share their fate “ (Israel Gutman [editor], People and Ashes: Book Auschwitz – Birkenau, Merhavia 1957).

I am left puzzled here, if the Nazis ran a death factory in Auschwitz-Birkenau, why would the Jewish prisoners join them at the end of the war? Why didn’t the Jews wait for their Red liberators?

I think that 65 years after the liberation of Auschwitz, we must be entitled to start to ask the necessary questions. We should ask for some conclusive historical evidence and arguments rather than follow a religious narrative that is sustained by political pressure and laws. We should strip the holocaust of its Judeo-centric exceptional status and treat it as an historical chapter that belongs to a certain time and place

65 years after the liberation of Auschwitz we should reclaim our history and ask why? Why were the Jews hated? Why did European people  stand up against their next door neighbours? Why are the Jews hated in the Middle East, surely they had a chance to open a new page in their troubled history? If they genuinely planned to do so, as the early Zionists claimed, why did they fail? Why did America tighten its immigration laws amid the growing danger to European Jews? We should also ask for what purpose do the holocaust denial laws serve? What is the holocaust religion there to conceal? As long as we fail to ask questions, we will be subjected to Zionists and their Neocons agents’ plots. We will continue killing in the name of Jewish suffering. We will maintain our complicity in Western imperialist crimes against humanity.

As devastating as it may be, at a certain moment in time, a horrible chapter was given an exceptionally meta-historical status. Its ‘factuality’ was sealed by draconian laws and its reasoning was secured by social and political settings. The Holocaust  became the new Western religion.  Unfortunately, it is the most sinister religion known to man. It is a license to kill, to flatten, no nuke, to wipe, to rape, to loot and to ethnically cleanse. It made vengeance and revenge into a Western value. However, far more concerning is the fact that it robs humanity of its heritage, it is there to stop us from looking into our past with dignity. Holocaust religion robs humanity of its humanism. For the sake of peace and future generations, the holocaust must be stripped of its exceptional status immediately. It must be subjected to thorough historical scrutiny. Truth and truth seeking is an elementary human experience. It must prevail.

*During WWII and after it was widely believed that soaps and lampshades were being mass produced from the bodies of Jewish victims. In recent years the Israeli Holocaust museum admitted that there was no truth in any of those accusations.

Article originally appeared on Gilad Atzmon (http://www.gilad.co.uk/).

See website for complete article licensing information.