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.

Anne Frank Hoax Exposed

Clever Jew Made Millions from Dead Daughter

by Dr. William L. Pierce

TUCKED AWAY ON pages 119 and 122 of the October 6 issue of Der Spiegel, a weekly German news magazine comparable to Time or Newsweek, was a news item of considerable significance: A scientific analysis of the manuscript purported to be the original diary of Anne Frank, a Jewish girl who died in a German concentration camp during the Second World War, has revealed that the manuscript could not have been written before 1951, six years after the end of the war. (ILLUSTRATION: Anne Frank. She died of typhus in 1945 — but she didn’t write a diary.)

The significance of Der Spiegel’s revelation of this fraud is twofold. First, the printing of the story in a mass-circulation publication constitutes a major break with past treatments of similar news. The German news media, though not under the Jewish monopoly control which blights the media in this country, generally follow a pro-Jewish line, a heritage from the immediate postwar years when the Allied occupation forces gave publishing licenses only to those Germans who had proved their disloyalty to their country during the war. Consequently, most news tending to cast doubt on Jewish stories about gas chambers and the like from the World War II era has either been blacked out altogether or downplayed and given very unsympathetic treatment. The present article, though accompanied by copious apologies and held back for six months after it became news, would not have been printed at all a year or two ago.

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.

Book Proves Hitler Saved the West

Book Review
From National Vanguard magazine, Issue No. 115, November-December, 1995: 

Icebreaker

By Victor Suvorov (translated from the Russian by Thomas B. Beattie). Published by Hamish Hamilton (London, 1990).
_______________________________________

Western Europe, Fall 1941: The Red Army sweeps on from Germany and France toward Italy and Spain. Everywhere the NKVD imposes the bloody terror already suffered by the tortured nations of the East. Political opponents, former army officers, shopkeepers, landowners, small farmers, members of youth movements and cultural associations -- millions are rounded up. The fortunate ones are shot, many more die horribly in the blood-splattered basements of Communist interrogation centers. The rest join the endless columns shuffling to the Siberian Gulag. Only the prettiest girls are kept behind for now.

************************

[T]he Talmudic admonition that "the best of the goyim must be destroyed" is taken literally by their new masters

************************

The lower ranks of the new Red puppet administrations consist mainly of criminals and perverts, but everywhere the key posts are dominated by Jews. Too late the peoples of Europe learn that the Talmudic admonition that "the best of the goyim must be destroyed" is taken literally by their new masters.

How close this nightmare came to becoming reality is revealed in Russian military Viktor Suvorov's definitive account of the buildup to Operation Groza ("Thunderstorm"), The Red Army's massive assault on Germany and the rest of Europe scheduled to begin on July 6, 1941.

Icebreaker details the huge scale of the long preparations to attack "the imperialist powers." In 1939, for example, when Hitler had a total of 4,000 paratroopers ready to seize key points ahead of an advance, Stalin had more than one million. Soviet tank production dwarfed that of the rest of the world put together, but the majority of the tanks were capable of effective operation only on the good roads of western Europe and were worthless when forced onto the defensive in the backward wastes of Russia. Soviet pilots were totally untrained in aerial combat, since the German Luftwaffe was to be destroyed on the ground on Day 1.

In the event, as the Chief of the General Staff Academy of the Armed Forces of the USSR, General S.P. Inanov, admitted in 1974, "The Nazi command succeeded in forestalling our troops literally two weeks before the war began." This was why the advancing German Wehrmacht found millions of Russia's best troops crowded together with huge supplies of ammunition and fuel in defensible positions right on the frontier.

************************

[T]his book proves that Adolf Hitler saved the West.

************************

Suvorov shows clearly how Stalin came within fourteen days of taking this key step along the path to Bolshevizing the world. "But Hitler guessed Stalin's design. That is why WWII ended catastrophically for Stalin. He only got half of Europe, and some places here and there in Asia."

Regardless of the abuse heaped on him by the media and the court historians, this book proves that Adolf Hitler saved the West.

The Jew Wants It Both Ways

From "Times & Manners" in National Vanguard magazine Issue No. 104, March-April 1985:

The enormous media flap over President Reagan's plan to lay a wreath in Germany's Bitburg military cemetery was entirely a Jewish creation. Jews raised the issue in the first place, and then they refused to let go of it. They wept, they made speeches, they demonstrated, they monopolized the media with the issue for weeks. They used it to bludgeon the Reagaan administration into going along with a huge new givaway of American tax dollars to Israel.

They tried to use it at the same time to milk a little more sympathy from the American public for the poor, persecuted Jews. And they were indignant when at least a few Americans -- and a few Germans as well -- displayed exasperation instead of sympathy or guilt.

First there was the story in the weekly German newsmagazine, Quick, about the Jewish pressure on Reagan to cancel his Bitburg visit. The German headline was "Macht und Stimme der Juden" ("Power and Voice of the Jews"), and the story went on to attribute the power of the "six million U.S. Jews" to their control of the news and entertainment media in the United States.

This straightforward statement of the facts brought a scream of outrage from the U.S. Jewish leadership. Rabbi Marc Tannenbaum of the American Jewish Committee characterized the Quick article as "classic anti-Semitism and classic scapegoating of the Jews."

Then there was the uproar when a Jewish news reporter peeped at Reagan speech writer Patrick Buchanan's note pad during a White House news conference about the Bitburg fuss and saw the words "[The President is] succumbing to Jewish pressure." More hysterical charges of "anti-Semitism" ensued. Actually, explained Buchanan, what he meant by his notes was that it was important to prevent the public from getting the idea that the President was succumbing to Jewish pressure, otherwise there might be a backlash against the Jews.

Now, where would the public ever get such an idea!

************************

[T]he Bitburg affair was "leaving anti-Semites gloating and leaving Jews bruised and scared."

************************

Miraculously, a fair number of Americans apparently did draw exactly the right conclusions from the Bitburg issue. One Jewish columnist for the Washington Post, Richard Cohen, lamented this fact after eavesdropping on a group of professors who were discussing the issue in the faculty dining room at Harvard University. Cohen was shocked, he wrote, to hear the words and phrases: "Jew," "Zionist," "Jewish lobby," "professional Zionist." The professors concluded that the "professional Zionists" had cooked up the whole controversy as a way of bringing pressure on the White House in order to win more concessions for Israel.

Cohen's bitter conclusion was that the Bitburg affair was "leaving anti-Semites gloating and leaving Jews bruised and scared. Bitburg excited the anti-Semitic imagination, and you don't have to go to Harvard to know it."

Tsk, tsk!