Fredrick Töben reviews

Fredrick Töben reviews

Claus Nordbruch’s Bleeding Germany Dry:

The Aftermath of World War II from the German Perspective

and The Case for Restitution to Germany and Compensation for German People

Preliminary Comment by way of an introduction

A glance at the chapter headings creates the impression that it is indeed a miracle Germans still exist today and are living within a nation-state. Who would have thought after what the Germans went through before, during and after the war that their spirits would ever recover from such a devastation inflicted upon them? And the question arises why the Allies felt it necessary so resolutely to destroy Germany. And yet, after three generations, it is again the powerhouse of Europe.

It is such reflections that accompany me as I begin to focus on reading Claus Nordbruch’s book. Dare I hope that his narrative will provide some insights into what had upset the Allies so much that they felt obliged to attempt to exterminate the German mindset, to extinguish it from expressing itself in all fields of human endeavour?

After all, in Tristan and Isolde Richard Wagner had already universalised the Welt-Atem/World-Breath. Wagner had also found Friedrich Nietzsche’s rationalism/atheism, and his personal hedonistic inversion, to be too limiting in exemplifying the eternal problem of transcendence, which for Wagner is represented by the World Ash Tree from which he snaps off a branch and hence causes the tree’s ultimate death.

Wagner’s basic theme of love versus power-law-freedom-redemption is beautifully portrayed in Der Ring des Nibelungen wherein, and under Ludwig Feuerbach’s influence, regards love as a unity of the physical, mental and spiritual. Among most Germans this unity exists as folk wisdom but it was threatened by the rising atheistic-Talmudic-Marxist ideology, which itself has problems in coping with highly sophisticated cultural expressions of human endeavour. For example, this ideology aims to overcome our very human nature itself, and the natural process of achieving a balance between the male and female, is regarded as a natural state of affairs that has to be überwunden-overcome. This is because for Talmudic-Marxist ideologues any biological process, for example our sexuality, is regarded as a social construct and not as a biologically determined natural process.

This Talmudic/Marxist/Feminist attitude towards women is confronting for those who share the balanced perspective, and where such death-dialectic does not operate. We see the Talmudic rationale best expressed in the excesses of 18th century French Enlightenment, which in large measure today makes up the Human Rights ideology in most western “free and democratic” countries. I label such a mindset as beset with rational hubris – and I await, not gleefully however, when this mindset will exhaust itself so that its own internal logical inspirations will return to normalcy, back to natural processes.

Interestingly, on 1 September 2014 our national broadcaster, ABC-TV featured two members of the Russian band, Pussy Riot, who are attending the Sydney Festival of Dangerous Ideas. That Russian President Putin attempts to retain some modicum of public morality, and that he opposes the antics these girls engage in, is considered by the festival directors to be a human rights issue, an example of free expression suppression. Interestingly, our Human Rights Commissioner Tim Wilson does not regard the suppression of intellectual enquiry into matters Holocaust-Shoah, as is the case in most western democracies, as a violation of our human rights. The question is always: Cui Bono – and the answer indicates whose interests are here being legally protected.

I also saw this hypocritical mindset’s emergence within the philosophical world as the East-West political divide still held sway over Germany during the 1970s. For example, at a philosophy department meeting, prospective individuals seeking a professorship gave their intellectual best to convince the Faculty members of their suitability. One lady offered the new Feminist cultural perspective, to which a gentleman responded by pointing out and directly asking: What is the newness of your thesis that the Ancient Greeks did not raise?

The mainly Marxist lefties howled him down. There was to be no debate about such matters, and this trend exists to the present in all western democracies where predatory capitalism and consumerism, driven by the economic imperative of growth-growth-growth, can only answer the question of price but not the normative question of value!

During my 1970s student days in Germany the University of Heidelberg organized for its foreign students a week’s trip to West Berlin for just, I think it was DM50. Our West German academic tour guides attempted to entice us to celebrate the German Democratic Republic, especially when we boarded a bus that took us for a day trip into East Berlin. A couple of Palestinian students loved East Germany, but they saw themselves luckier than those Palestinians who were studying and living in East Germany.

I recall within the foreign students’ I was not popular with those who had politically left leanings and who praised the East German state for its socialistic purity. I pointed out that if East Germany is so good, then why not just open the borders and see what will be the people’s choice.

Upon reflection, I can see now how both German states were manipulated by the Allies and their lies, i.e. that the East-West divide is fundamental in retaining world peace. Once the economic bankruptcy of Marxism, physically and intellectually could no longer be hidden from view, the ideology was allowed to disappear!

And then a new divide was created, the 9/11 TERRORISM, which has become a global phenomenon driving especially the western democratic political aspirations.

Now to Claus Nordbruch’s book, which fills in the precursors to what we are currently experiencing on the world stage of politics – from the German perspective.

FORM

This English translation is based on Claus Nordbruch’s 2003 published book, second edition, which this year, 2014, appears in its third enlarged edition. Note in the German title the word Aderlaß uses the sharp ß instead of two ss; the use of the latter is hated by the re-educated Germans.

From the outset it can be assumed that the contents of this book will not please those who were involved in plundering and enslaving the Germans, physically and mentally, after they lost World War Two and who were then silly enough to enter into an unconditional surrender pact with the Allies. But more of that presently.

As an historian, Claus Nordbruch is aware of the severe social, professional and legal penalties that await him were he to venture deeply into the overarching narrative of German war guilt as exemplified by the Holocaust-Shoah, for example. In this respect, therefore, Nordbruch is one of the few German-born Revisionist historians who has succeeded in being a financially independent researcher not attached to a university where compliance to the Holocaust-Shoah dogma is obligatory. I thus assume that I will not find anything of a contentious Holocaust-Shoah nature within this 560-page book.

This hard cover book is printed in Germany and published by Contact Publishers, PO Box 7174, Pretoria 0001, South Africa – pretoriapublishers@gmail.com; ISBN 978-0-9584313-4-7. The translators are E M Parker, R M Neuville and J M Damon, and they have done a splendid job in this unenviable task of capturing Nordbruch’s subtle manoeuvrings through the legal minefield that confronts any German who is still guided by ethical standards to writer honestly about pre- and post-World War Two events.

Nordbruch writes that his book is Dedicated to the women and girls of Germany.

The table of Contents also has an unusual feature, which I have not seen before but which makes good sense; in lists the pagenumbers on the left side of the page rather on the usual right side.

There is A word of thanks, an Introduction, followed by 11 Chapters, two pages of Abbreviations, a 20-page Bibliography, a 19-page Index of Names, and 636 Footnotes.

CONTENT

Nordbruch claims that he had a poor response from all German newspapers in getting his appeal for information publicised and only the Magdeburger Volksstimme published it in the form of a letter to the editor. However, a number of government agencies and universities did open their archives to him. Despite the limited public response, however, what information he did receive indicates that there is indeed a great desire for Germans to have this historical knowledge published. That the German version of the book is in its third print-run attests to that.

And in his Introduction, Nordbruch dismisses the claim that his attempt to put the German side requires him also to put “the other side” because Germans have been fed and are still being constantly fed “the other side”. He goes further and calls it “brainwashing” of Germans socially, culturally, religiously and politically, and his task is to “unmasking their underlying bias and duplicity”. Quoting the principle generated by Norman Finkelstein’s book, The Holocaust Industry, Nordbruch points out that such reparation “industry” makes a mockery of legitimate claims that Germany and Austria has met, and hence his aim is to make out the claim that it is now time for Germany to make reparation claims for itself. He quotes William Niederland’s 1964 developed “Survivor Syndrome” that manifests itself in the psychological form of depression, inner survival guilt complex and anxiety, and such psychological disorders will then expresses themselves physiologically as stomach, colon, heart, vascular, etc. disorders.

Nordbruch concludes that if this survivor analysis is correct, then it must also apply universally, and hence also specifically to the “tormented souls”, the German people who suffered as slave labourers and all those who lost their HEIMAT, Königsberg, for example, which had been German for over 700 years. That was Ethnic cleansing on a massive scale, or as Gunnar Heinsohn put it:

The greatest crime of expulsion in history.

[As a personal aside, when in 2004 I visited Königsberg, now Kaliningrad, I met a German woman who had just re-visited her home, and which was now occupied by a Russian family. They asked her whether she would like to buy the home because after the Soviet Union’s demise on 26 December 1991 the Ruble crashed and the basic pension did not enable them to survive in Kaliningrad. She responded by asking the Russian family why she, as a German, should have to pay for having her own home returned to her. Another tragedy was seeing an elderly man, who I was advised, returned to a city hotel every year for four weeks, then had a different young girl for the night during that time. I asked him why he was doing this and he, in his month-long drunken-sober stupor, said he simply wanted to be at home where he grew up.]

The issue of forced “NS-forced labour”, as written about by Ulrich Herbert, Nordbruch claims, is full of distortions and suffers from the “obligatory self-accusation”:

The National Socialist use of foreign labour between 1939 and 1945 represents the biggest case in history of foreign workers being used as forced on a massive scale since the end of slavery in the nineteenth century. … 7.6 million foreign civilian workers and prisoners of war … brought to the Reich to work against their will.

Nordbruch concludes that this is just factually wrong and pure political propaganda. Likewise, the claim that scientific research languished under the National Socialists is refuted by the number of abductions of scientists made by the victors after the war. It is also untrue to say the intellectual elite abandoned the Third Reich, and this was confirmed to me by none other than Werner Heisenberg when I visited him in 1996.

Nordbruch, as an ex-soldier, knows well what Article 35 of the Hague Land Warfare Convention means to soldiers:

Capitulation agreed upon between the Contracting Parties must take into account the rules of military honour…

An education film designed for the US troops in 1945 states:

There must be no fraternization. Fraternization means forming friendships. The Germans are not our friends. They will not be allowed to return to the family of civilized nations by simply extending their hand and saying: “We are sorry.” – They are not sorry they started the war. They are only sorry to have lost the war.

He also quotes Hans Werner Woltersdorf on the biggest pillaging operation in history, the ‘Reparations’ for the Allies:

When even the Americans themselves admit that the biggest intellectual booty in the history of the world had saved them at least ten whole years of developing work, then one needs to add to this those factors, which are often more important than any of the technical realizations, namely; Every development or invention is preceded by the idea and the objective or the aim.

Nordbruch concludes his book by quoting Dr Gert Sudholt’s words of 1985:

Let us acknowledge and recognize the capitulation of the Wehrmacht also as the duty and obligation to finally overcome this divisive factor that separates us. Let us fight, with arms linked as one body, for German self-awareness [i.e. being mindful of our roots of Germandom], for German liberty and freedom, and for German sovereignty. To find the resolve and the will, at long last, to pluck up courage finally for the saving deed that can overcome the German need and the German distress, which cry to heaven to this day.

And quoting former Austrian Chancellor Bruno Kreisky, in a 1983 newspaper interview:

Without dreams and a little piece of Utopia, politics as such is meaningless and empty.

Conclusion

The book thus deals in detail how German normalcy needs to be restored, and that “This apathetic attitude of the people is often falsely presented by the media as ‘democratic maturity’, and misinterpreted by reactionary politician as the “will of the people’. Germany can be free, if Germany wants to be free! And with this will-to-be-free, the heart of Europe will keep on beating.

And that is a comment which directs our attention to those thinkers, such as Oswald Spengler, who have predicted the Untergang des Abendlandes-The Decline of the West/The Downfall of the Occident. Nordbruch certainly does not share such bleak predictions as Spengler made out in 1926. But Nordbruch predicts that the nation state will not whither in face of the internationalist/globalist corporate state. I hope he is right on that point.

 

 

 

 

————————————————————————————-

 

 

Let’s have another brief look at David Cole’s book critique

For some time now I have received emails wherein individuals have been celebrating the blogging insights of Paul Eisen who prides himself in calling himself a “Holocaust Denier”. ReportersNotebook@yahoogroups.com, for example, sent through Eisen’s latest missive:

From: Paul Eisen paul.eisen@hotmail.co.uk
Date: Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 3:21 PM

Review of David Cole’s ‘Republican Party Animal’ by Chip Smith

This is a review of David Cole’s book “Republican Party Animal” from the excellent revisionist website Inconvenient History. It’s by Chip Smith who runs the publishing house Nine-Banded Books

It was Chip who published Samuel Crowell’s “The Gas Chamber of Sherlock Holmes: And Other Writings on the Holocaust, Revisionism, and Historical Understanding” a text which more than any other changed me forever on the Holocaust. If you haven’t read it, you should and if you haven’t visited Nine-Banded Books, you should do that too.

David Cole’s book and David himself have caused a lot of controversy and both have received fulsome praise and scathing criticism all of which makes me all the more appreciative of this beautifully balanced review. 

http://pauleisen.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/review-of-david-coles-republican-party.html

——————————————————

After reading Smiths review I was about to respond to Paul Eisen’s laudatory comment about publisher Chip Smith’s beautifully balanced reviewof Cole’s book when, on 13 September 2014,Michael Hoffman’s letter appeared on Inconvenient History’s website, which I also read:

Hoffman on Republican Party Animal Review

By Michael Hoffman

David Cole – “a revisionist for the Millennial generation”

I managed to find the time to read the well-written and generally fair-minded review of David Cole’s autobiography. I realize you do not publish letters to the editor, but a few corrections are in order.

While it is true that many revisionists do not engage in on site forensic investigation, the pioneer in that field is Ditlieb Felderer, who visited Auschwitz-Birkenau some 27 times in the 1970s, expertly documenting the facility in approximately 30,000 color photographs. The fact that this achievement is unknown or forgotten is troubling (most of Felderer’s priceless collection was, I am told, destroyed in the arson which razed Ernst Zündel’s home in Toronto in 1995. My video of a sideshow presentation Ditlieb gave in Ithaca, NY in the mid 1980s – “Tour of Auschwitz Fakes” – offers several dozen for viewing).

Moreover, it is news to me that Mr Cole inherited ADL double-agent David McCalden’s “files.” If David Cole read “everything,” then, unless the files had been sanitized by a 3rd party before conveying them to Cole, Mr Cole should have come across evidence of McCalden’s double-dealing (for the record, Mr. McCalden was not an Irish nationalist, he was a Scotch-Irish, Ulster “Orangemen,” very much opposed to the IRA and other armed manifestations of Irish nationalism).

Cole demonstrates affection for Ernst Zündel as a likable nincompoop. Such an opinion overlooks or discounts this writer’s book-length account (The Great Holocaust Trial), of the highly organized and brilliantly orchestrated first Zündel trial in Toronto in 1985, where Canada’s national media, with whom I shared the press gallery, were shocked and disoriented by the defense which Ernst, Doug Christie and Robert Faurisson were able to mount; including having, for the first time in recorded history, the testimony of “infallible” Survivors and august “Holocaust” historian Raul Hilberg publicly shredded in a court of law. Mr. Zündel documented his trials via video recordings of news coverage and daily de-briefings by defense attorney Christie in the basement of Zündelhaus. Some of this this can be glimpsed in my film, also titled “The Great Holocaust Trial.”

Ernst’s second trial, the huge transcript of which has been preserved and published by Barbara Kulaszka, documents the breadth and depth of his defense, which left virtually no stone unturned in doing justice to the revisionist cause and the defense of the German people.

Mr. Cole is a revisionist for the Millennial generation. His book will likely serve to reach new people who would otherwise be oblivious to the “other (revisionist”) side” of the chronicle of the Second World War. Nonetheless, I am old-fashioned enough to be distressed by the casual and sloppy manner in which Mr. Cole demeans men like Ernst Zündel and Prof. Faurisson, the latter having been the first revisionist to have been recognized by a head of state for his enormous scholarly achievement and who, even as an octogenarian, continues to inspire the radical avant- grade in France to high profile defiance and satire of the sacred relics that are at the heart of the religion of Holocaustianity.

Mr Cole will be a more effective writer and educator when he learns to moderate his frenzies and refrain from dalliances with the fringes of false witness. A bit more humility might have prevented him from misrepresenting, indeed even smearing, revisionists who have never recanted in the face of beatings, bombings and imprisonments which far surpass anything the Republican Party Animal has endured.

Written by Widmann in: Uncategorized | Tags: Michael Hoffman 

http://revblog.codoh.com/2014/09/hoffman-on-republican-party-animal-review/

————————————————————

I liked Michael Hoffman’s frankness in celebrating his own book wherein he captures the significance of Zündel’s legal pioneering work. Few individuals realize how important the Revisionist legal battle is and that it is actually the legal framework that sanctions points-of-view, which in turn rest on scientific evidence. And if we recall Galileo’s contribution to astronomy, and we fail to note his conflict with the Catholic Church – and then even fail to mention the fate that befell Giordarno Bruno – then we are only telling half the story as to what a struggle it is to bring forth the truth of a contentious matter. After all, it is this realization that enables Revisionists to endure legal persecution because they know that they cannot recant because they have done only told the truth of a matter – and truth-telling is a moral virtue. But Cole, et al, wouldn’t understand that because their hedonistic-nihilistic sense gratification drives them senseless like headless chooks.

Hoffman effectively demolishes the hatchet job Cole attempted to do on Faurisson, Leuchter and Zündel, and I am all the more worried as to why Cole did it and still fall back on his 1993-94 meeting with the Rabbi. Writing some belittling comments about an eminent octogenerian Revisionist scholar, such as Faurisson, is a reflection of Cole’s ugly and uncivilized mindset.

I need not repeat my view on Cole’s attitude towards women, which left me astounded as to how degenerate anyone can become when it comes to the most intimate acts of a relationships – or must I accept the fact that this is what, in Hoffman’s words, “a revisionist for the Millennial generation” is all about?

Eisen, through his glowing endorsement, and Smith in actual fact, gloss over such fundamental matters and remain silent.

It is through omission that they are both committing an unpardonable lapse of judgment about David Cole’s inherent fraudulent/dishonest nature.

Perhaps my review of Cole’s book is of interest – at:

http://www.adelaideinstitute.org/newsletters/Newsletter%20786.pdf.

Why does the publisher’s review of Cole’s book not help to clarify this point? It is this fact alone, but there are many others, that discredit Paul Eisen stating Chip Smith ‘s article is a beautifully balanced review – and now I worry about Paul Eisen’s judgment on such matters.

No-one has as yet addressed the significance of Cole not presenting any evidence about his suffering an alleged physical assault, which led to his recanting, and to his playing the so-called both-sides-card of the Holocaust Revisionist argument!

Recently a prominent Holocaust Revisionist stated to me he did not regard Cole to be a Holocaust Revisionist, and when initially still claiming in his book friendship with Bradley Smith, then Cole turning on Bradley Smith, is enough of an indication for me to see Cole running true to form!

I would have thought most Revisionists are more serious and that it is not a mere game because the truth of the matter does matter!

In time I can see historians do what Cole attempted to do when writing about matters Holocaust – eliminate the non-Jewish researchers and focus on the Jewish Revisionists.

Where this leads to is perhaps indirectly alluded to in Harrell Rhome’s TBR article: Reopening the Case of Mary Phagan And Why This Child Still Matters Todayhttp://www.barnesreview.org/the-barnes-review-mayjune-2014-the-comet-that-killed-the-bronze-age-p-642.html?cPath=22_121