On David Irving, Nazi Germany, and World War II

…by Jonas E. Alexis and Veronika Clark

Weronika Kuzniar (also known as V. K. Clark) earned a bachelor’s degree with High Honors in Liberal Studies w/Global Political Science in 2005 and a master’s degree with Honors in Military History in 2009 at Norwich University, Vermont. She has written extensively on Nazi Germany.

JEA: Are you familiar with the work of David Irving? If so, what’s your assessment of him?

VC: Yes, I am very familiar with Mr. Irving’s work. I have read “Hitler’s War and the War Path“ and I am also familiar with his Goebbels and Göring biographies, both of which I have perused for my own research purposes.

In 2005, I took the opportunity to (meet with and) listen to Mr. Irving deliver a lecture on his “Hitler’s War and the War Path“ thesis, as laid out in his new, revised edition of “Hitler’s War and the War Path“.

I not only took notes but I was invited to assist with book sales at Mr. Irving’s speaking engagement. I felt honored, to say the least. Mr. Irving was a “celebrity” to me. In fact, after listening to him speak I decided then and there that I too wanted to be a World War II/Third Reich historian. I envied him—his knowledge and expertise.

My handwritten notes, which I still possess from the above-mentioned lecture, include such interesting tidbits as:

• Irving wrote his first book at the age of 21
• He learned German while residing in Germany
• By way of personal interviews with German civilians and British pilots, Mr. Irving concluded that 100,000 people were killed by the British at Dresden
• He spoke with many members of Adolf Hitler’s inner circle
• The German publishers of General Keitel’s memoirs left out “much information”
• Irving personally interviewed Guensche, the man responsible for burning Adolf Hitler’s corpse; he deemed Herr Guensche a trustworthy primary source
• Montgomery Hyde forged intelligence from the British to the Americans regarding Hitler’s purported invasion of South America and America
• Irving goes straight to the primary documents. He doesn’t use books written by others. It took him five years to go through all of this information, as he had 40,000 index cards detailing Hitler’s life “minute-by-minute”. It was essentially a “Hitler diary”, the actual of which Mr. Irving correctly identified as a fraud.[1]
• According to Mr. Irving, letters are better than diaries. (I believe he meant in regard to internal validity as well as reliability. Letters are more difficult to alter and/or forge.) For example, the “secret diary” of Major Gerhard Engel entitled At the Heart of the Reich, depicts the general as having been “against Hitler all along,” so as to “paint himself in a better light.” The diary purportedly written by Major Engel, as well as the quotes therein, was exposed as a fake by Mr. Irving in 1983. It is not an authentic document, which forensic tests have proven, yet many historians have used and continue to use it as a source. All of the dates in Engel’s diary are incorrect/fictitious (for example, receipts were found regarding Hermann Göring being in Paris on a certain date at a certain time contrary to Mr. Engel’s account), and everything contained in the diary disparages Hitler.
• Irving asserts that Hermann Rauschning, Felix Kersten, Fritz Thyssen, and even Eva Braun (i.e., her diary) are all unreliable primary sources.

And so forth. I have much more in my notes.

I met Mr. Irving shortly after graduating from college with a bachelor’s degree Magna Cum Laude in Liberal Arts and Sciences w/Global PoliSci emphasis. I was still just a fledgling as far as my research skills and my knowledge of the Third Reich and Hitler were concerned, so naturally, I trusted Mr. Irving’s opinion more than I do today.

For example, I disagree with Mr. Irving’s claims that Dr. Goebbels was responsible for the Crystal Night tumult. There is no evidence to support that claim, aside from eyewitness hearsay. I also disagree with Mr. Irving that Hitler’s Table Talk and Hitler’s Second Book are “100% reliable and genuine.” With the help of the outstanding research of Dr. Richard Carrier and Dr. Mikael Nilsson, I have contributed my own further proof that Table Talk is worthless as it stands, and that the Second Book (Zweites Buch) is highly questionable, if not completely fraudulent.[2]

Additionally, I disagree that Adolf Hitler did not know about Rudolf Hess’s flight to England (more and more evidence suggests that he did know[3]), and that National Socialism was a “good, true, upright, forward-looking creed” that was merely “corrupted by Hitler’s evil adjutants.” I now have my own theses and ideas about these various topics, many of which diverge from those of Mr. Irving and other traditional ‘Historical Revisionists’. I consider myself a ‘Neorevisionist’.

Even so, Mr. Irving’s numerous, primary-backed contributions to Third Reich history are priceless. His work should be read and valued by any and all students of World War II. I recommend them all.

JEA: How did you get involved in studying World War II in general and Nazi Germany in particular?

VC: In all honesty, this is the most difficult question to answer. I don’t know that I can offer a fully sufficient one here. What I can say is that I have always been a Tomboy who was more or less interested in pretend war, playing at GI Joe, watching episodes of He-Man and She-Ra on a daily basis, and I have always scored above-average intelligence in critical thinking and verbal on IQ tests. I have always excelled at writing, ever since grade school, and I wrote quite a few essays and reports on fictional wars and wars in history throughout all my years in school.

I have also always had an interest in politics and political characters, even as a child. I watched the news, including The McLaughlin Group, and I seldom missed an episode of DC Follies, a puppet show similar to Jim Hensen’s muppets, centered on 1980s political satire. I cared immensely about my grades and school performance generally, so it is this background combined with the naturally inquisitive personality that influenced me in the direction of Third Reich research later in life.

The very first biography I read about Adolf Hitler, which I spontaneously asked my mom to get me one day while at Barnes & Noble, was Robert Payne’s The Life and Death of Adolf Hitler. I was intrigued. How could such a crazy, unnatural person rise to such heights and carve out such a massive empire, only to throw it all away with a series of childlike military blunders, which he ultimately blamed on the Jews?

After I read that, I decided for quite a while not to read any more about this disgusting man. I was quite turned off by it all. Though, I did read William Shirer’s The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich to learn a bit more about Nazi Germany generally. Again, I wasn’t impressed and I let this book linger on my shelf for a few years before I picked it up again. Then, from 2003 to 2005, something changed.

While I cannot put my finger on it exactly, I experienced some really crazy and even depressing events and situations during college. The job market was a mess, wages were always a pittance no matter where I worked, and not a single job I was doing was truly rewarding. I was not depressed at the time, but rather just very cynical about what college had promised versus the reality of life and my situation.

Strangely, my mom spontaneously purchased a couple more books for me about Hitler, in particular, John Strawson’s Hitler as Military Commander and Ron Rosenbaum’s Explaining Hitler. The first book just made me feel more negatively towards Hitler because he was such an inept military leader, but the second book caused me to actually question what has been written and said about Hitler for the first time ever. Could it be that Hitler did not in fact engage in super deviant, sexual perversions with his niece Geli Raubal? Was it possible that Hitler was more normal than I had always been led to believe?

While I cannot recall events exactly as they unfolded, I definitely remember talking with a sibling of mine about Hitler. My sibling asked me something along the lines of, “Why would you want to read about such a creep? And why did he blame the Jews for everything? That was sure stupid.” It is a question that resonated deeply and in fact I decided not long after that conversation to find out the answer to that vexing question.

Why did Hitler persecute the Jews? The madman thesis just wasn’t convincing anymore.

In the course of my research to discover why, precisely, Hitler persecuted and ultimately mass murdered the Jews in the Holocaust, I happened across the IHR (Institute for Historical Review), along with the ‘shocking’ writings of Michael Hoffmann, Mark Weber and David Irving. Naturally, one thing led to another and it wasn’t too long after I commenced my research that I met Mr. Weber in person.

I had many, many questions, as I recall. I literally became a sponge to the information I was encountering in person as well as online. How could these researchers deny the Holocaust? What evidence or lack thereof could there be to disprove such a mammoth and well-documented event? I must have spent hours a day pouring over all this new information. I would describe it as what it must be like to discover an alternate reality. This whole experience lifted me out of my stupor, as it were, and gave me renewed impetus in life. I can only describe my encounter with “Holocaust Revisionism” as life-changing. It was, dare I admit, an epiphany moment.

While my thesis was incorrect[4], which I readily acknowledge today, the process of getting there was nothing short of wonderful and wondrous. It changed the course of my life. It is the reason why I chose to major in Military History at Norwich University in Vermont. I could not have picked a better history program and I have nothing but praise for that curriculum and my instructors. I thank them and the university despite having suffered the vicious hand of intellectual discrimination thanks to my former thesis adviser Dr. Mike Wadyko. As evidenced by his actions against me post-graduation, he does not support free speech, free thought or free association, the most important pillars of our modern American democracy.

He wrote me the following email on May 11, 2010, and cc’d it to professor John T. Broom at Norwich University to ‘punish’ me:

Veronica:

After conducting a web search to update my knowledge of your writings and publications, I regret to inform you that I cannot write you a recommendation at this time.

Sincerely yours,

Dr. Mike Wadyko

His loss.

What mattered most to me is that I earned my Master’s Degree in Military History (MMH) Cum Laude, making me the second among my immediate family to attain such a high degree. And here I sit today, a professional automotive technician (by trade) with over 30 books published, with many more to come, and a year of doctoral psychology courses under my belt. I could not be more satisfied.

JEA: Can you tell us some of the scholarly studies you have read which led you to some of your conclusions?

VC: I would have to submit a list of literally hundreds of books to name them all, but I can certainly give you a short list. The best studies I can recommend at this time include:

Bryan Mark Rigg’s Hitler’s Jewish Soldiers and Lives of Hitler’s Jewish Soldiers. Mr. Rigg explores and analyzes the lives and experiences of full and mixed-race Jews (Mischlinge) in Hitler’s military, SS, SA, Gestapo, and Navy. While imperfect, his research is nevertheless groundbreaking and well-sourced.

John Connelly’s scholarly essay “Nazis and Slavs,” is available via the JSTOR online database. In this essay, Mr. Connelly debunks many myths surrounding Nazi racism in practice. It was not as “black and white” in the east as we have been led to believe.

Tina Campt’s Other Germans. Ms. Campt offers exclusive insight into the minds and experiences of Afro-Germans, one in particular: Hans Hauck.

Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke’s The Occult Roots of Nazism, debunks the portrayal of Hitler and the NSDAP as occult mythicism. Most members of the NSDAP and SS were Protestant or Catholic Christians. (See, for example, Catholicism and the Roots of Nazism by Derek Hastings.)

The Russian Roots of Nazism: White Émigrés and the Making of National Socialism, 1917-1945 by Michael Kellog. This book introduces readers to the true basis of Hitler’s anti-Semitism, which was not in fact a worldview he developed on the streets of Vienna, but a worldview he developed only after spying on the DAP (before it became his very own NSDAP) and encountering the White Russian Weltanschauung.

Brigitte Hamann’s Hitler’s Vienna: A Dictator’s Apprenticeship. This book is essential to understanding where Hitler’s anti-Semitism actually comes from. He did not tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth in Mein Kampf. His memory was influenced by those he encountered after his dark days as a Viennese vagabond.

Hitler’s Black Victims: The Historical Experiences of European Blacks, Africans and African Americans During the Nazi Era, a very misleading title, by author Clarence Lusane. This book is really the basis of my own Black Nazis thesis (now in its third edition, the fourth edition is in the works). I could not have arrived where I have without Lusane’s foundational, revisionist (IMO) study.

Hans Massaquoi’s Destined to Witness. This book is magical. It is incredibly entertaining, informative, and superbly written. I consider it a masterpiece of enlightenment regarding what I call the “real Third Reich” (#Real3R), as opposed to the entire dark and evil Third Reich that we encounter so often in the literature.

The Hitler of History by John Lukacs, a Jewish historian, is yet another foundational book that changed my life. Without this book, I might never have known that Hitler’s 1944 Platterhof speech existed (also published in full in Hitler & Himmler UNCENSORED)! I owe him so much.

Richard Carrier’s essay “‘Hitler’s Table Talk’: Troubling Finds’,” effectively challenges the internal validity of Hitler’s “table talk” conversations from 1941 to 1944. (The 1945 talks are 100% fraudulent. See also “Hitler’s Table Talk: An Update”.)

Richard Steigmann-Gall’s The Holy Reich: Nazi Conceptions of Christianity, 1919-1945, an unsurpassed study that undercuts all theses asserting that the Nazis were anti-Christian. Not quite.

And last but certainly not least, Antonio J. Munoz’s The East Came West: Muslim, Hindu & Buddhist Volunteers in the German Armed Forces, 1941-1945. This book, more than any other single book, literally changed my life and my worldview. It has been the single most important foundational book for my own research into the “racial other” Reich/Greater Reich. I cannot recommend this man’s work enough. I own every single one of Mr. Munoz’s books. They are priceless to me. Truly.

I do believe this list will give anyone a great start in the way of alternative World War II and Third Reich history.

JEA: I have always believed in documentation, sources, and archival evidence. You argue that Nazi Germany was quite diverse. In fact, you are the author of Hitler’s Black Soldiers: Nazi Racial Laws and Men of Non-German Descent in Hitler’s Army & Reich. I am assuming that you have read Bryan Mark Rigg’s Hitler’s Jewish Soldiers: The Untold Story of Nazi Racial Laws and Men of Jewish Descent in the German Military. He makes the convincing case that there were at least 150,000 people of Jewish descent in Nazi Germany. Is there serious evidence that shows that there were other people in the military as well?

VC: There is abundant, credible evidence that the Nazis fielded the most diverse military force in modern history. Historian J. Lee Ready, who wrote two volumes on the “forgotten Axis” asserted that 3 million non-Germans and/or foreigners fought in behalf of the Axis powers. Worker soldiers, or Arbeitsoldaten, totaled just over 7.1 million, a number evidenced by historian Hans-Jürgen Witsch.

Contrary to most historians’ books about these foreigners, which portray them as chattel slaves, the archival evidence from the Nazi government itself tells a different story. Historians who pursue an accurate portrait of “slavery” in the Greater German Reich and military/paramilitary establishment will encounter much resistance and derision from the mainstream historical establishment. Changing narratives is not for the faint of heart. At any rate, the Allies were interested in destroying this evidence, a fact which Mr. Witsch thoroughly exposed.[5]

Nazi diversity, if you will permit me to label it as such, included a wide range of ethnic, racial, political, religious, and cultural diversity. What’s more, hundreds of thousands of these military and paramilitary men and women working or fighting on behalf of Nazi Germany were volunteers. It was multiculturalism, but of a different variety than that, we see in America and Europe today, which might best be labeled a “multicult”.

The best evidence I can point you to is photographic. Countless professional and amateur historians have compiled thousands upon thousands of photos from World War II proving that Africans, Arabs, Jews, Slavs, Asians, Caucasians, Turks, etc. served as Nazism’s “boots on the ground”. Without these men (and women) Nazism could not achieve what it set out to achieve via armed force. ‘Nazi diversity’ is in fact the epitome of Realpolitik.

These hundreds of thousands of participants on the Nazi side had great value in the Nazis’ eyes. The SS and army spent an incredible amount of time with their non-German troops; they also appropriated their own limited resources to their foreign troops. Perhaps surprisingly, foreigners were rarely deployed as “front-line fodder”. In fact, foreigners were overwhelmingly utilized in the rear areas, which were relatively safe compared to the front, or as political troops, as in the case of the “Free India” legion, the “Free Arabia” legion, and the Vlasov (Wlassow) movement (RONA/KONR).

And, of course, the Nazis had tens of thousands of political and cultural sympathizers and paramilitary forces throughout the world. For example, there were small pro-Nazi and/or pro-German movements in East Africa, Samoa, Mexico, Argentina, Brazil, Chile, China, Russia, South Africa, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Japan, Siam (Thailand), and all throughout the many nations in eastern Europe and the Balkans. The Hungarian Arrow Cross Movement, Croatia’s purportedly ruthless Ustasha, and the Inner Macedonian Revolution Organization (IMRO) are three groups among dozens who collaborated with the Nazis, namely against Communism’s spread.[6]

You are correct about Mr. Rigg’s research. He discovered that 11,000 to 16,000 “Mischlinge” were able to serve in Hitler’s Wehrmacht as a result of clemency granted to them by Hitler. Hans Lammers, head of the Reich Chancellery from 1933 to 1945, affirmed that exemptions of Mischlinge “ran into the thousands.”

Writes Mr. Rigg, “[N]o fewer than twenty-one generals, seven admirals, and one field marshal of Jewish descent served with Hitler’s consent. And thousands in the lower ranks of the Wehrmacht remained there because Hitler personally exempted them from the laws.”

Rigg believes that the reasons for these exemptions included good looks, good military records, commendable service to Germany, or distinguished family lineage. I would add patriotism to this list. Many of these Jewish men identified as German, and proudly so. Some even admired Hitler.

According to most definitions, a Jew is either born into the Jewish people, or becomes one through religious conversion. As defined by the Nuremberg Laws in 1935, a Jew was somebody who had at least three Jewish grandparents, regardless of religious affiliation or self-identification. The latter mattered for people with two Jewish grandparents: if they belonged to the Jewish religion or were married to Jews, they were classified as Jewish; if neither, they were considered First Degree Mischlinge. Second Degree Mischlinge were usually fully accepted as German/German-blooded.

 Realpolitik applied to Jews and black people as much as Nazi racial chauvinism. Historian Firpo Carr suggests that black people could not be Nazi collaborators owing to their skin color. This is untrue. Gerald Horne, Tina Campt, Christopher Hutton, Robbie Aitken, Eve Rosenhaft, Roi Ottley, Lawrence Dennis, Gorch Pieken, Cornelia Kruse, Raffael Scheck, Serge Bilé, Eric Lefevre, Jean Mabire, Marianne Bechhaus-Gerst, Larry Greene, Anke Ortlepp and Clarence Lusane have all affirmed that skin color was not a barrier to collaboration.

Black people served via Vichy France’s LVF (Legion of French Volunteers Against Bolshevism), and several of them successfully volunteered for the Waffen-SS, Gestapo, air force and/or army, or were drafted by the Wehrmacht. Hans Massaquoi and Herbert Sabac el Cher, both Afro-Germans, were called up for Volkssturm duty, though neither ended up serving.

Herbert was not healthy enough and Hans failed to report for duty. Horst Sabac el Cher, along with a dozen or so other black people served on the front lines or against partisans as special forces operatives (e.g., Special Commando Wimmer commanded by Franz Wimmer-Lamquet[7]). Black people who served as “fascist intriguers” were detained by the hundreds at Drancy, and others were caught and identified as Nazi spies. While it was more difficult for Afro-Germans in particular to serve among the Nazis than it was among the Allies, it was not impossible.

In fact, now is a good time to address the case of George Padmore, a black union activist in Nazi Germany. Padmore was not murdered or persecuted by the Nazi government. He was arrested, imprisoned for approximately two weeks, and then deported from the country. The Nazis had outlawed all labor unions and seized their funds to help pay for Hitler’s final election campaign, so Padmore’s deportation was based in part on his labor union militancy (Mr. Carr describes him as “a militant black leader”). The offices of the Negro Worker were raided by nationalists following the Nazi seizure of power and Padmore was deported to England by the German government. He passed away in 1959.

According to historian Robert Kestling:

“In 1939 the euthanasia law not only singled out the mentally and physically handicapped but also it was applied to ‘Negroes,’ Jews, gypsies, and others. In addition, applicants for membership in the NSDAP and enlistment into the armed forces were asked to certify that neither they had Jewish nor colored blood.”

What should we make of all the exceptions to this law and these other rules then? Kesling’s research fails to accommodate Bryan Rigg’s contradictory research on Hitler’s Jewish Soldiers as well as my own research into the exceptions to this official rule. There are hundreds of photos of African, Afro-German, and “other” soldiers in Wehrmacht, army, LVF and Waffen-SS uniforms. Many thousands of Jews, gypsies, and Afro-Germans evaded sterilization, and to my knowledge, they were never specifically targeted during Hitler’s Tiergarten-4[8] (T4) mercy death program.

Moreover, at least one Afro-German was permitted to attend an elite Nazi school (NAPOLA) for future political leaders. What should historians make of these exceptions to Nazi racial chauvinism when Hitler, the SS and the NSDAP purportedly answered only to themselves? Who were they trying to please or accommodate with these exceptions and why?

The Nazis sacrificed or amended their initial beliefs, or what we believe to be their initial beliefs, for the sake of victory. Political and military pressure at home and abroad forced changes in Nazism’s ideological disposition. Again, practicality trumped ideology most of the time. The Nazis cared about domestic and world public opinion. They also cared enough about a military victory against the USSR and about the German imperium to sacrifice their initial racist ideals. The more resistance and loss the Nazis suffered, the more ideological ground they were willing to cede for the sake of victory.

For much more detail and analysis in this regard, please consult my exclusive “Black Wolf, White Reich” tetralogy.

The four books are:

• An Afro-German Family in Nazi Germany: The Story of the Sabac el Chers
• Black Nazis (Warwolves of the Iron Cross)
•  Otherness in Nazi Germany (Warwolves of the Iron Cross) (Volume 8)
•  Nation & Race (Warwolves of the Iron Cross) (Volume 9)

 JEA: I read Hugh Trevor-Roper’s Hitler’s Table Talk during my first year in college. I knew virtually nothing about World War II and Nazi Germany then. I thought it was a serious scholarship. Now you are saying that it is a complete fabrication. You write that it is “a worthless primary source.” You also state that Trevor-Roper “knowingly and willingly engaged in academic fraud for profit and prestige.”^[9] That is an incendiary accusation. What is the evidence? Flesh out the arguments for our readers here.

VC: Sure thing. Hitler’s Table Talk is worthless as it stands. The various versions of this text, whether in French, English or German, are so problematic that only a dedicated, honest historian (or team of historians) can hope to trace each version back to its respective beginning.

Insofar as this is possible, said historian could then reconstitute an accurate version of what Hitler purportedly said. The central problem is that no historian, including Hugh Trevor-Roper, has substantiated that Hitler’s words are in fact his own. It is a shocking revelation, but historians Richard Carrier and Mikael Nilsson have proven that not a single version of Hitler’s “table talk” rests on a provable, first-hand foundation.

The three notetakers in Hitler’s presence during these “table talks”, Heinrich Heim, Henry Picker and Werner Koeppen, each produced his own version of Hitler’s purported verbatim words. It goes without saying that if all three of them wrote every one of Hitler’s exact words as he spoke, then all three of their “table talk” notes should be identical. They are not.

Hugh Trevor-Roper was duped by a notorious Nazi document peddler and forger named François Genoud. Mr. Trevor Roper, for the sake of making a name for himself as the world’s foremost Hitler expert, lied that he saw and was able to authenticate the original primary version of Hitler’s “table talk”. This original version of the “table talk” is known as the Bormann-Vermerke. Not only did Mr. Trevor-Roper swear by this document but so did David Irving, which I mentioned previously in our discussion. Both men have misled the public vis-à-vis the authenticity of Hitler’s “table talk.” Mr. Trevor-Roper did so deliberately while Mr. Irving appears to have done so unwittingly.

 In a nutshell, my argument is, firstly, that table talk is worthless unless and until historians authenticate its primary source foundation(s). An historian or team of historians will first have to authenticate Heim’s notes, Picker’s notes, and Koeppen’s notes, and then cross check all three against one another to achieve any sort of reliability.

I have done my own textual comparisons of the German, English and Koeppen versions only to find that there are numerous discrepancies between them. As such, we have no idea what Hitler himself actually said. Secondly, the original manuscripts and/or notes for all of these versions have disappeared (including the Bormann-Vermerke, which is in fact a rehash of Heim’s notes!), are demonstrably embellished and/or edited, or are incomplete (Heim’s, Picker’s and Koeppen’s notes, for example).

If you, Jonas, or your readership are interested in pursuing this topic further, I have a published e-essay[10] as well as a published book on this subject. You and your readers may also consult the e-essay of Dr. Carrier[11] as well as the published journal article by Dr. Nilsson.[12]

Both men have completely undermined this source.

First published in September 2018.

• [1] Mr. Irving flip-flopped on the Hitler Diaries, but this was partly owing to his trust in the expert opinion and validation of said diary by Lord Dacre, better known as historian Hugh Trevor-Roper. See, for quick reference, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler_Diaries. (accessed August 30, 2018)
• [2] This is especially the case with the various English language editions of Hitler’s Second Book, two of which I possess. There are countless translational discrepancies between the English versions, and to my knowledge the only two people to have attested to the authenticity of the Second Book are Telford Taylor, an American lawyer best known for his role in the Counsel for the Prosecution at the Nuremberg Trials (IMT), and historian Gerhard Weinberg, a so-called document expert. Mr. Weinberg, like Mr. Irving, was fooled by Hitler’s Table Talk. I am unaware of any forensic testing done on the purported original manuscript of the so-called Second Book.
• [3] See, for example, Matthew Day, “Rudolf Hess flight to Britain ‘approved by Hitler’,” The Telegraph on the Web, May 31, 2011, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/world-war-two/8547899/Rudolf-Hess-flight-to-Britain-approved-by-Hitler.html. (accessed August 30, 2018)
• [4] I asserted that Hitler’s Christian beliefs and Catholic upbringing was the reason for his persecution of Jewry. Today, I acknowledge that his persecution of Jews was much more complicated than this, and in fact had little to do with his Christian beliefs. Though, his Catholic upbringing did play a role in what he believed to be true about Jews.
• [5] See The Revisionist 1, no. 3 (2003): 312-321, http://vho.org/tr/2003/3/Witzsch312-321.html (accessed September 12, 2018).
• [6] Please consult Black Nazis II, Black Nazis III or Hitler’s Black Soldiers for details and exclusive photos (b&w).
• [7] Please consult my book Warwolves of the Iron Cross: Swastika & Scimitar for the English version of Franz’s memoirs.
• [8] For quick reference on T4, please see https://www.britannica.com/event/T4-Program (accessed September 13, 2018).
• [9]  Weronika Kuzniar, “Hitler’s” Table Talk?: A Study in Academic Fraud & Scandal (Create Space, 2017), 7.
• [10] See “Genoud, Heim & Picker’s “Table Talk”: A Study in Academic Fraud & Scandal,” Inconvenient History 9, no. 3 (2017): http://inconvenienthistory.com/9/3/4880 (accessed September 13, 2018).
• [11] “Hitler’s Table Talk: An Update,” https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/10978 (accessed September 13, 2018).
• [12] “Hugh Trevor-Roper and the English Editions of Hitler’s Table Talk and Testament,” Journal of Contemporary History 51, no. 4 (2016): 788-812, http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0022009415619689 (accessed September 13, 2018).

Jonas E. Alexis, Senior Editor

Jonas E. Alexis has degrees in mathematics and philosophy. He studied education at the graduate level. His main interests include U.S. foreign policy, the history of the Israel/Palestine conflict, and the history of ideas. He is the author of the book, Kevin MacDonald’s Metaphysical Failure: A Philosophical, Historical, and Moral Critique of Evolutionary Psychology, Sociobiology, and Identity Politics. He teaches mathematics in South Korea.

• Read the Latest Posts from Jonas >>>
• Read Jonas’ Archives (2004-2015) >>>