The Holocaust Problem

by Dr. William L. Pierce

A LOS ANGELES COUNTY Superior Court judge ruled last month that the so-called “Holocaust” — the alleged extermination of six million Jews by Germany’s National Socialist government during the Second World War — is a historical fact and “is not reasonably subject to dispute.” The ruling was the outcome of a lawsuit by a Jewish concentration camp “survivor,” Mel Mermelstein, now a successful Long Beach, Calif., businessman, against the publishers of a “revisionist” historical periodical, The Journal of Historical Review. (ILLUSTRATION: Buchenwald concentration camp, May 1945: Why were there so many “survivors,” if the German plan was to exterminate all Jews? Jews were put behind barbed wire in Germany during the Second World War for exactly the same reason Japanese were locked up in the United States: because they could not be trusted. Many American “liberators” of Germany’s concentration camp eventually reached the conclusion that the world would have been better off, however, if there had been no survivors, but few had the moral courage to say it. General George Patton was an exception. After becoming well acquainted with the nature of the people [officially called “Displaced Persons”] his troops freed from Germany’s concentration camps, he noted in his diary in September 1945: “Harrison [a U.S. State Department official] and his ilk believe that the Displaced Person is a human being, which he is not, and this applies particularly to the Jews, who are lower than animals.”)

The only real purpose of the periodical — the claims of its publishers notwithstanding — was to cast doubt on Jewish Holocaust claims, and that purpose has been reflected in the pages of each issue. As a promotional stunt The Journal of Historical Review rashly offered a $50,000 reward to anyone who could prove that a single Jew was killed in a gas chamber by the German government during the Second World War. Mermelstein accepted the challenge; sued when, he alleged, the publishers reneged on their $50,000 offer; and won his case.

The Task of the National Alliance

An Editorial by Dr. William Pierce

IN THREE EARLIER ISSUES (National Vanguard, nos. 64, 65, 66) we examined some of the social factors relevant to a racially oriented revolution in America and stated several general criteria for any organizational basis of such a revolution. In this issue we will look more specifically at the factors which govern the priorities of the National Alliance and determine the nature of its task. We will attempt to understand, on the basis of present conditions in America, what can be done now and what cannot be done, so that we can see better how to concentrate our energies on those organizational objectives we can realistically hope to achieve. (ILLUSTRATION: "A lion might be fair or just... but the possibility does not even exist for a sheep." -- WLP)

One fact of overriding importance should be kept in mind throughout what follows: the situation faced today by the National Alliance is historically unique. Very few of the “classical” conditions for revolution exist in America today, and therefore, the classical expositions of revolutionary theory are largely irrelevant to an understanding of our task.

General Patton's Warning

by Dr. William L. Pierce

At the end of World War II one of America’s top military leaders accurately assessed the shift in the balance of world power which that war had produced and foresaw the enormous danger of communist aggression against the West. Alone among U.S. leaders he warned that America should act immediately, while her supremacy was unchallengeable, to end that danger. Unfortunately, his warning went unheeded, and he was quickly silenced by a convenient “accident” which took his life. On the 69th anniversary of General Patton's death, we are proud to republish this essay from William Pierce's Attack! newspaper.

THIRTY-TWO YEARS AGO, in the terrible summer of 1945, the U.S. Army had just completed the destruction of Europe and had set up a government of military occupation amid the ruins to rule the starving Germans and deal out victors’ justice to the vanquished. General George S. Patton, commander of the U.S. Third Army, became military governor of the greater portion of the American occupation zone of Germany.

Patton was regarded as the “fightingest” general in all the Allied forces. He was considerably more audacious and aggressive than most commanders, and his martial ferocity may very well have been the deciding factor which led to the Allied victory. He personally commanded his forces in many of the toughest and most decisive battles of the war: in Tunisia, in Sicily, in the cracking of the Siegfried Line, in holding back the German advance during the Battle of the Bulge, in the exceptionally bloody fighting around Bastogne in December 1944 and January 1945.

America and the Third World

by Dr. William L. Pierce

A 1955 UNICEF Christmas card depicting the flags of the
countries in the United Nations organization.

ON WHAT considerations should a proper American foreign policy be based? That seems a sensible enough question, yet it is one which has been shunned by at least two generations of Federal “experts” and their media mouthpieces. 

The basic reason is a reluctance to bring into the open certain fundamental discrepancies between America’s national interests and the guiding philosophy behind the foreign policy pursued by neo-liberal planners in Washington.

The shambles which this policy has made of the world in the last 60 years, however, should be adequate proof of the unsuitability of its ideological basis and of the need for a new one.

 White World Community

The fundamental rule of a new and proper American foreign policy must be the rule which should also be fundamental to domestic policy: Race is everything. The destiny of America is inextricably linked by ties of blood

The Roots of Decadence

by Dr. William L. Pierce

DURING THE recent Apollo 17 lunar expedition, publicists and politicians repeatedly emphasized that it was the “last” manned expedition to the moon. There would be no more lunar exploration, because the expeditions were too expensive and the money was needed instead to “improve the quality of life” for Americans.

It was pointed out that huge expenditures for the space program could no longer be justified when millions of Americans were living in “poverty.” One columnist estimated that the money spent by NASA just for the equipment left on the moon by the various Apollo expeditions ($500 million) could have bought a large-screen color TV set for each of one million “underprivileged” (Black) families.