Persecution after the Reichstag Fire with Photos... I hope.

[chalutzim]

Thank you both. Regards. Wintceas.

[Max]

Scott wrote

It was the private army of the Nazi Party and they needed it to survive on the street. But perhaps it would have been better to deputize the Red Front to round-up the Communists.

Perhaps the Seattle world trade convention riots would have been better put down by the Hell's Angels.

Scott
this is my point exactly
The SA was an organization of hard men in hard times - the communist street gangs no less so.

I suppose the less hard in the SA were deployed in beating up defenceless shopkeepers [et al]

They were so feared it seems, that even the dreaded SS needed to murder them in their sleep.

Max

[Scott Smith]

I don't think it is fair to say that the SA were not disciplined by the Party. Their leaders were WWI and Freikorps veterans with a lot of leadership experience and represented the Nazi hardcore right to the end of the war. Hitler was incensed by the Kristalnacht rioting in 1938 but nobody knows exactly who organized that, though Goebbels was probably in on it, which blewup in his face.

Yes, the regular-army hated the SA because they threatened their status in Nazi Germany prior to 1934, if not their reason for existence. The SA wanted to carry the revolution forward, with or without Hitler, but it wasn't too hard to get a handle on with the ringleaders of the rebellion being killed.

As far as the Red Front, they were probably just looking for jobs too, although some only took orders from Moscow and therefore would never have been useful for Germany. But most could probably be persuaded to switch sides with just a little patronage--as Stalin once said, German Communism is like saddling a milk cow. Hitler wasn't too impressed by the bravery of the Red Front, at least not as told in Mein Kampf.

Before the Nazi takeover, the regular police were plenty brutal, both against the SA and the Red Front. Hitler did a good job of playing all the interests off against each other, but I am not in favor of a uniparty State, myself. No single party can have all the answers. I would not ban the Communists and I would not ban the Nazis, or anyone else. That "democratic" governments like Weimar or the Bundestablishment would even try shows they know nothing about the democratic ideals that they espouse.

[Max]

Scott
Thanks for your perspective .

I have never heard that Hitler was anything other than pleased with Kristallnacht although I have read that Goering expressed concern at the drain on foreign currency reserves for the replacement of all the destroyed plate glass.[It came from Belgium apparently]
Also in order that German insurance companies not be disadvantaged it was decided that a one billion reich mark fine should be levied on German Jews and that this fine would pay for the destruction .

Have you any sources to verify this.

Max

[Scott Smith]

I have never heard that Hitler was anything other than pleased with Kristallnacht [...] Have you any sources to verify this

Goebbels fell out of favor with Hitler as a result and never really got his stature back until 1944. This is clearly shown in Irving's biography on Goebbels (which is available as a free download). If memory serves, Irving's bio on Göring discusses Hitler's anger about Kristalnacht as well. Göring was the economic czar and he was totally suprised by the events. There is a book called Feuerzeichen by Revisionist Ingrid Weckert which argues cui bono that Goebbels was not responsible and that Zionist agents provocateur were the likely culprits. However, I think much of the evidence seems to point to Goebbels as the mastermind, but that it just got out of hand. Hitler was clearly furious, although I think Toland in his biography equivocates in that Hitler was angry only because of the damage to Germany's reputation in foreign relations.


Here is a paper by Weckert's on the subject: Crystal Night 1938: The Great Anti-German Spectacle.

[chalutzim]

I have never heard that Hitler was anything other than pleased with Kristallnacht [...] Have you any sources to verify this

Goebbels fell out of favor with Hitler as a result and never really got his stature back until 1944. This is clearly shown in Irving's biography on Goebbels (which is available as a free download). If memory serves, Irving's bio on Göring discusses Hitler's anger about Kristalnacht as well. Göring was the economic czar and he was totally suprised by the events. (...) However, I think much of the evidence seems to point to Goebbels as the mastermind, but that it just got out of hand. Hitler was clearly furious, although I think Toland in his biography equivocates in that Hitler was angry only because of the damage to Germany's reputation in foreign relations.


Here is a paper by Weckert's on the subject: Crystal Night 1938: The Great Anti-German Spectacle.

Smith, excuse my ignorance but I thought that David Irving was discredited as a historian after that trial. I'm really surprised to see you quoting him.
The theory of that "revisionist" (what is this?) maybe tells us much about his way to write about history, don't you think?

There is a book called Feuerzeichen by Revisionist Ingrid Weckert which argues cui bono that Goebbels was not responsible and that Zionist agents provocateur were the likely culprits.

I never heard such a nonsense! Perharps the author didn't know the meaning of the icelandic expression "cui bono"? I think this is the case...

Regards. Wintceas.

[Scott Smith]

I have never heard that Hitler was anything other than pleased with Kristallnacht [...] Have you any sources to verify this

Goebbels fell out of favor with Hitler as a result and never really got his stature back until 1944. This is clearly shown in Irving's biography on Goebbels (which is available as a free download). If memory serves, Irving's bio on Göring discusses Hitler's anger about Kristalnacht as well. Göring was the economic czar and he was totally suprised by the events. (...) However, I think much of the evidence seems to point to Goebbels as the mastermind, but that it just got out of hand. Hitler was clearly furious, although I think Toland in his biography equivocates in that Hitler was angry only because of the damage to Germany's reputation in foreign relations.


Here is a paper by Weckert's on the subject: Crystal Night 1938: The Great Anti-German Spectacle.

Smith, excuse my ignorance but I thought that David Irving was discredited as a historian after that trial. I'm really surprised to see you quoting him.

In your dreams. Lipstadt was surely discredited, even though Irving lost. I do nothing but defend him as a scholar; however, I am very critical of his penchant for Jew-baiting (just checkout his website), which damages his otherwise excellent work as a historian.

The theory of that "revisionist" (what is this?) maybe tells us much about his way to write about history, don't you think?

It is not a dirty word; revisionism is a part of the historical method. The "Revisionists" here (note the large R) are historians and amateurs who tend to take nontraditional views regarding WWII historiography, believing that the historical record has been grossly distorted by the victor's propaganda. I view myself as a Skeptic (not a Revisionist) on those subjects because I agree that there has been distortion but I don't accept all of the Revisionist conclusions. In any case, history is not monolithic by any means.

There is a book called Feuerzeichen by Revisionist Ingrid Weckert which argues cui bono that Goebbels was not responsible and that Zionist agents provocateur were the likely culprits.

I never heard such a nonsense! Perharps the author didn't know the meaning of the icelandic expression "cui bono"? I think this is the case...

Are you teasing me or something? It is a Latin expression, cui bono, for "who profits?" A cui bono argument in historiography is based on who circumstantially stands to profit by something. Weckert argues that this is any anti-Germans or anti-Nazis like the Communists, or the Zionists, who stand to profit by milking anti-Semitic sentiment in order to colonize Jews from Europe to the Holy Land (or America in support of modern Israel).

However, I personally agree with Irving (and most other historians) instead, that Goebbels is responsible for the "spontaneous riot" (following the vom Rath assassination in Paris) but that the incident just blewup in his face. It resulted in international outrage and Hitler was outraged. This was not the impression of Germany that he wanted to convey. It was atypical and even Streicher protested.

Those who argue that the Reichstag Fire was set by the Nazis use a cui bono argument because they were quick to exploit the incident for propaganda purposes and use it as an excuse to crackdown on the (probably nonexistent) Communist threat. I think the fire was either set by van der Lubbe without conspiracy or was just an accident.

[chalutzim]

Scott, you're a very didactic and informed person. I really like to read you, but sincerely I disagree with you almost 100%.

Really, how a intelligent man like you can believe in the things Irving wrote after all that happened on his trial? After Van Pelt, after Evans, after the prosecutor?

Did you read the transcripts of his trial? I don't think so:

(...) Lipstadt was surely discredited, even though Irving lost. (...)

This is absurd! In this very case, no "revisionist" or the like can even pretend that the trial was not fair, since the author was confronted with his own books, with things he himself wrote. Irving was even allowed to defended himself!

Sorry for the jokes, Scott. Never mind them.

I thought that Weckert quite illogical when pretending that the Zionists were involved in the arson in a cui bono basis. In fact, I think that the aftermath was lucrative only to the nazis, being quite damaging to the already desperate situation of the german jews. Only a oneiric calculism could foresse that this situation would help the zionist cause. I have never heard this hypothesis and I´m still laughing. Weckert has a really creative mind. The type of man that wakes and sleeps with complots in his mind. How you possibly expect that I would take such writer seriously? I myself prefer to read Lewis Carroll


Regards. Wintceas.

[Scott Smith]

Scott, you're a very didactic and informed person. I really like to read you, but sincerely I disagree with you almost 100%.

That's okay, the world would be a very boring place if everyone agreed. But if we can always agree-to-disagree it stays a safer place, I think.

Really, how a intelligent man like you can believe in the things Irving wrote after all that happened on his trial? After Van Pelt, after Evans, after the prosecutor?

Did you read the transcripts of his trial? I don't think so:

I think the establishment pulled out their stops and still failed to discredit Irving. He was stupid for challenging a free-speech issue (being blacklisted by his publisher over what shill Lipstadt pontificated about him) by suing someone over their own right to free-speech. Historian John Keegan, who I admire, says that Irving is far from washed-up as a historian and that Lipstadt will just fade away. I agree with Keegan.

(...) Lipstadt was surely discredited, even though Irving lost. (...)

This is absurd! In this very case, no "revisionist" or the like can even pretend that the trial was not fair, since the author was confronted with his own books, with things he himself wrote. Irving was even allowed to defended himself!

I think it was fair. Irving had a fool for a client. In his libel suit against Lipstadt, he was bound to lose because in the end it is still Professor Lipstadt's honest opinion about whether he is anti-Semitic or not. Furthermore, I think that Irving was only promoting himself but that it backfired badly. I'm not happy to see Lipstadt win, however. I read her book and strongly disagree with her canonical approach to History.

Sorry for the jokes, Scott. Never mind them.

No problem! I have a good sense of humor.

I thought that Weckert quite illogical when pretending that the Zionists were involved in the arson in a cui bono basis. In fact, I think that the aftermath was lucrative only to the nazis, being quite damaging to the already desperate situation of the german jews. Only a oneiric calculism could foresse that this situation would help the zionist cause. I have never heard this hypothesis and I´m still laughing. Weckert has a really creative mind. The type of man that wakes and sleeps with complots in his mind. How you possibly expect that I would take such writer seriously? I myself prefer to read Lewis Carroll

Another party that profited from anti-German propaganda was the British, as the notion of Jewish pogroms undermined the Nazi's "self determination of peoples" propaganda that was being used against the Versailles powers. Reichskristalnacht couldn't have happened at a worse time for Hitler in the international arena. Chamberlain's own party was already calling the Munich agreement "appeasement."

Goebbels, however, the Gauleiter of Berlin and the Propaganda Minister, wanted to light a fire underneath the Jews to get them to emigrate. But after Kristalnacht, Hitler even signed legislation protecting the Mischlinge, thereby softening the anti-Semitic policy somewhat.

It is not surprising that the Zionists saw anti-Semitism as a godsend; it was the crux of Herzl's message about why the Jews should have Israel as their own and that all Jews should go to the Holy Land; however, this does not mean that a giant conspiracy was afoot to organize pogroms and discredit Nazi Germany to promote war. In some sense the two were natural allies. Anyway, I think the idea of some Zionists that Jews are not safe in America to be ludicrous. Being minorities themselves, Jews have usually strongly supported America being a secular state, which I strongly support.

Here is some biographical information about Ingrid Weckert from a Revisionist site:

One of the best-known German historical researchers and writers, Weckert is best known for her book on the events leading up to Kristallnacht - a book called "Feuerzeichen" (Flashpoint). She has been subjected to police raids, during one of which Ernst Zündel was arrested in her apartment in Munich. A former tourist guide for travel agencies, she reads and speaks Hebrew. She knew Menachim Begin and other Jewish leaders personally and frequently visited Israel. In 1998, she was tried, convicted and fined DM 3,500 for writing a Revisionist article. She now lives at the edge of poverty from a small pension.

http://www.revisionists.com/revisionists/weckert.html

If interested, here is an Amazon link to the English version of Weckert's book, the purchase of which supports this very site only by clicking on my link below:

Flashpoint: Kristallnacht 1938: Instigators, Victims and Beneficiaries, by Ingrid Weckert.

Best Regards,
Scott

[walterkaschner]

Chalutzim wrote to Scott

Really, how a intelligent man like you can believe in the things Irving wrote after all that happened on his trial? After Van Pelt, after Evans, after the prosecutor?

That is a question I have asked myself time and again, without answer. Scott is an highly intelligent, exceedingly well and broadly educated person, with a great deal of wit and humor. How he can maintain his loyalty to Irving is beyond my ability to comprehend. Whatever one may think of Deborah Lipstadt as a historian, that has IMHO no bearing whatsoever on Irving's own credentials, which were shredded to tatters as a result of his trial. If the sole criterion were Irving's treatment of the death toll at Dresden that in itself would be enough to totally destroy his credibility, but that was only one of numerous examples demonstrating his penchance for twisting or ignoring evidence which tended to frustrate his search for the sensational. Irving complains mightily (and with some justice) about pressures to silence him, but it was Irving who tried to silence Lipstadt, not the other way aroud, and as a result shot himself - not in the foot- but in the groin. In my view he is thoroughly discredited as a historian, to a point where I have to question my high opinion of some of his earlier books. At best a tragic figure in the classic Greek sense, destroyed by his own hubris. At worst a pretentious scoundrel.

Regards, Kaschner

[chalutzim]

walterkaschner, you're right. Fortunately for Irving, the Thought Laws of the Establishment still permit his writings to be available, even they constituting evident thoughtcrimes (Orwell must roll in his coffin when he hear the fascists using his words to attack democracy) against the Canon .

Do you think the type of government he praises would permit the same to us? I don't think so. We don't need to dig very deep in the past history. And frankly, I know that what I'm about to say is controversial, but I don't think that fascists have the right to free speech. One deserves the right to do some things when he accepts the same right to be put in practice by others. That isn't the case of the panegyrists of past and prospectives murderers, racists and free speech enemies.

Cheers. Wintceas

ps.: don't mind my bad grammar, please.

[witness]

double post

[witness]

Orwell must roll in his coffin when he hear the fascists using his words to attack democracy

Difficult to say better.
They simply don't want to notice that Hitler is probaly one the brightest( Stalin is another one) examples of "Big Brother" in real history..

[David Thompson]

Goering's little joke? (from "Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression, vol. 6, p. 635.)

[chalutzim]

David, as always he did not have the decency to assume the responsibility for what he had said and done in his golden years:

A. This conversation did not take place and I request that I be confronted with Herr Halder. First of all I want to emphasise that what is written here is utter nonsense. It says, "The only one who really knows the Reichstag is I." The Reichstag was known to every representative in the Reichstag. The fire took place only in the general assembly room, and many hundreds or thousands of people knew this room as well as I did. A statement of this type is utter nonsense. How Herr Halder came to make that statement I do not know. Apparently that bad memory, which also let him down in military matters, is the only explanation.

http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/imt/tgmwc/tg ... 4-07.shtml

He was trying to save his neck anyway.

Regards.