[Editor's Note: I have appended below Mr. Krampe's article the one written by Michael Hoffman which prompted Krampe's critique.]
A Critique of Michael Hoffman’s WW II “Revisionismâ€Â
By Hans Krampe
June 26, 2011
Unbelievable as it may seem, claiming 30 years of indefatigable revisionism, Michael Hoffman has yet to learn that there are always two sides to a story, especially to the exceptional history of Adolf Hitler and Germany‘s National Socialism.
He obstinately refuses to accept the obvious, not just to revisionist historians but also to common sense, which is his problem. But then he has the gall to accuse Mrs. Zündel of damaging his reputation when he’s doing it, splendidly, all by himself. Doesn’t he know that someone who uncritically promotes wartime propaganda as if it was gospel — hyped up, embellished and added on to ceaselessly — is no revisionist at all, merely a mindless parrot?
Mrs. Zündel is correct. The support of historical lies by a “seasoned revisionist†is indeed shameful, when he should — and probably does — know better. It’s in the nature of malicious recalcitrance.
To simply allege that Adolf Hitler was a murderous tyrant and the gravedigger of Germany, indicates an appalling ignorance of the facts and without substantiation — which will be beyond him to supply — is merely a mean-spirited invective which may appeal to the ignorant herd, but is unappealing to, and unworthy of, a true revisionist.
Hoffman says he’s engaged in WW II revisionism. That’s a laugh. All I can see is his recital of the official calumny, embellished and amplified with his own vituperative creativeness. That’s not revisionism, that’s creative license. May be he seeks to improve the historical slander by providing it with a bit more malicious impact, following the Marquis de Sade’s example.
The “revisionist†opinions, which Michael Hoffman espouses, exhaust themselves in the repetition of what has been obtrusively force fed to the world, non-stop, for almost 100 years. It’s the version of the victors, not only easily accessible but practically unavoidable. It requires no effort and falls unwanted into one’s lap. For Hoffman’s “conscience†to “compel†him to contribute his five cents worth of regurgitation to the already over-amplified anti-German hate message may be politically correct, yet is nothing but conformism par excellence — not to mention self-interested cowardice — and nowhere near something remotely like revisionism, at least as far as Adolf Hitler and Germany’s history are concerned.
What does require not only genuine effort, but civic courage, great perseverance and actual sacrifices — as Hoffman ought to know, as a first hand observer of the Zündel case — is the exposure of the taboo version of history, the one which is being violently persecuted by the powers that be with legal penalties harsher than for murder, censored and systematically suppressed.
Does it never occur to Hoffman why that is so?
He defies his own powers of reason and is blinded by a sickening bias to the obvious, namely: Anything that has to be imposed and protected by taboos, coercion, threats and penalties can’t possibly be the truth, nor beneficial. That’s the victor’s version! Such odious measures clearly seek to conceal the truth, more often than not under the term “national securityâ€Â. But that’s what Hoffman expects us to accept.
Paul Rassinier, Ernst Zündel, Germar Rudolf, Gerd Honsik, Robert Faurisson, Vincent Reynouard, Friedrich Toeben, Arthur Butz, Dr. Alfred de Zayas, these are some of the great, outstanding and uncompromising personalities, representative of thousands of truth seekers, not Hoffman’s armchair version, in terms of Hitler and NS Germany.
The truth, as it has emerged, thanks to the above mentioned revisionists, didn’t thrive by being suppressed in favor of liars, swindlers and mass murderers. Instead it thrives on exposure, openly offered to scrutiny and discourse, to annihilate the lies; while hated by the shady and self-interested representatives of organized crime in high places, to whom Michael Hoffman unwittingly lends himself in a common cause.
Is Hoffman’s anti-truth “revisionism†in this matter thriving?
Not according to his own assessment of the reactions of practically all the other revisionists. Nobody seems to agree with him on this point, except the brainwashed herd, which I can’t see providing him with more than fleeting cheap thrills, at best.
In his delusions of grandeur Hoffman actually regards himself as a movement, thinking that the parrots of whom he fancies himself to be a member, are revisionists, who are also outraged by my insolent insistence on him not lying. Yet, here he laments that the faction of lost sheep among the revisionists — he believes to be equal or superior to — disagrees, while failing to recognize his faulty assumptions entirely.
As to the decency of the carriers of centuries of alleged German Christian culture, it’s not the way true history tells the tale. They weren’t decent because of Christianity, rather the opposite. Christianity acquired some decency by speciously incorporating German morals and traditions. Historically, Christianity was a political and colonizing imposition, a tool of continual menace, extortion, rape, torture and mass murder, with the Christian message being the promising, but never achieving, window dressing.
To compare Israel with NS Germany is practically an oxymoron, irreconcilably opposed. But what can one expect from someone who doesn’t know shit from shinola when it comes to the NS “interregnumâ€Â. To know something about it one has to remove one’s blinkers and do some real investigating, not reciting someone else’s rubbish.
Here is something that will probably upset Hoffman’s last reserves of rationality.
My feelings seem to reflect what most expatriate Germans feel, if they are honest, namely, that I‘m truly homesick for the country Germany would have developed into, under the leadership of Adolf Hitler, had the allies not forced a genocidal war on her. It would also, probably, have contributed to a much more peaceful, just and prosperous world.
I base this assumption on what I know — and Hoffman doesn’t — about Germany’s true intentions of the time and what had already been achieved then, though it still was only a beginning. But already then, Germany was a marvel of re-birth, decency and socio-economic justice, Christianity notwithstanding, precisely because of Hitler’s “interregnumâ€Â. What Germany was before Hitler came to power was sheer hell, as was what came after.
From 1933 on, Germany was so far above all other nations in every respect, that her system of governance was, in a small part, similar after the war, in the absence of anything better, which contributed to Germany’s second economic miracle, with Hitler’s outstanding social programs copied throughout the Fifties and Sixties.
Hoffman wouldn’t know anything about that, least of all how Germans remember and feel about it; and I’m talking here about those Germans who, like myself, were able to shake off their de-nazifying blinders. The others, the majority herd, inside Germany and without, would probably agree with Hoffman whole-heartedly. As the saying goes: “The dumb’s always righter than the smart, because there’s more of us!†De-nazification has rendered Germans of today mentally handicapped, which was the whole point of it.
Hoffman’s alleged admiration and respect for the decency of the German soldier I don’t buy for a second. The decency of the German soldiers is a documented fact, but Hoffman’s professed admiration is a specious ruse, designed by him to credit Christianity with something which, in fact, it sought to destroy.
To Hoffman’s mind NS-Germany may look like a nightmare, akin to the North-American nightmare of today. But that is a fiction! The reality is that today’s Germany is a nightmare that once, under Hitler’s leadership, could have become a paradise. Today, North-America is an irreparable hell that once was a paradise.
To me, as an ethnic German, Hoffman’s attitude is symptomatic of the prevailing international sentiments of Germany’s former allied enemies which haven’t lost any of their malicious and vicious nature. Hoffman’s revisionism plays right into the aims of those who have a vested interest in suppressing any chance of a decent government, like Hitler’s “interregnumâ€Â, to re-establish itself. We Germans know all too well who they are, what they aim for and what Hoffman claims to abhor.
——————
Hans Krampe can be reached at hjk@quesnelbc.com
____________________________________________
HOFFMAN IS A “SHAMEFUL” CHARACTER WHO “RICHLY DESERVES” DENUNCIATION
by Michael Hoffman
June 22, 2011
Last May I alerted readers to an attack on this writer by Mr. Hans Krampe (http://tinyurl.com/3bxqv2h).
The essay by Mr. Krampe was published in “Power” newsletter, June 1, 2011, Issue Nr. 387, pp. 2-6, by Mrs. Ingrid Zundel, who prefaced it with the following remarks:
“Michael Hoffman… will pass judgment on Hitler without so much as a blink of an eye…it always makes me ashamed to see him do that – because the criticism leveled at Mike below by Hans …is in my opinion richly deserved.”
A few weeks before Mrs. Zündel published Mr. Krampe’s attack on this writer, I sent her a copy of my reply to Krampe. She chose not to publish it.
There are some WWII revisionists who view the revisionist movement mainly as a means for rehabilitating the reputation of the murderous tyrant, Adolf Hitler. Ergo, revisionists who expose Hitler as the gravedigger of the German people are, as Mrs. Zündel writes, “shameful.” There appears to be general agreement with her assessment since, to my knowledge, not a single revisionist has publicly protested either Mr. Krampe’s rant or Mrs. Zundel’s endorsement of it.
I am the author of an account of the first trial of Ernst Zundel, “The Great Holocaust Trial” (http://tinyurl.com/6gpoxyp), which was reprinted this year, after being out of print since 1995. Mrs. Zündel will not sell or distribute the book and has barely mentioned it in the “Power” newsletter.
I am engaged in World War II revisionism because I cannot find it in my conscience to assent to stories of homicidal gas chambers in Auschwitz; not in order to fulfill the stereotypes put forth by our enemies who for years have insisted that revisionism is just a front for rehabilitating Nazism.
Furthermore, I have had the privilege to know several German army veterans. I regard the common German soldier of the World War II-era Wehrmacht to have been among the most ethical and decent of all soldiers in that terrible conflict. They weren’t decent men because of the twelve year interregnum of Hitler and Co. They were decent because they were
carriers of centuries of German Christian culture which was stamped on their hearts and souls.
I am disappointed by the low level of public relations which some high profile revisionists have undertaken. Ernst Zundel was gracious to everyone who extended a hand to the revisionist cause. He gratefully accepted assistance from all sincere fighters for freedom of speech, including this writer, even though he strongly disagreed with many of our views. Ernst never imposed a litmus test on his friends and allies. Now that he is gagged in Germany, revisionism is in serious decline.
Mr. Krampe’s attack by itself would not signify very much, since it is a fulmination rather than any kind of substantive rebuttal. But the endorsement of his jingoism by someone with the prestige of Mrs. Zundel is indeed damaging to my reputation and work. In spite of more than 30 years of service to the revisionist cause, I now find myself labeled in a major revisionist publication as a “shameful” character, because I can’t find it in my conscience to be silent about Hitler’s evil. Apparently the main prerequisite is loyalty to the Fuhrer. Is this what
revisionism has become?
Is it the mission of revisionism to lay the groundwork for putting another puppet of the Cryptocracy like Hitler into power in Germany? If so, I would advise that these revisionists save themselves the trouble and emigrate to the Nazi state that is already in existence, the state of “Israel.”
I am for the truth wherever it leads, and not for bending the truth to serve a hidden agenda. Revisionism is a school of historiography, not a brand of politics. Its forte is the pure pursuit of anomalous data that provides human beings with a “re-vision” of dogmatic belief. Revisionism is anathema to dogma! It will consume every true believer who seeks to manipulate it for the sake of an ideology. If dedication to authentic revisionist principles makes me a target within revisionism itself, then so be it.
MICHAEL HOFFMAN is the author of “Judaism Discovered,” “Judaism’s Strange Gods,” “They Were White and They Were Slaves,” and the aforementioned “Great Holocaust Trial.” He is co-author of “The Israeli Holocaust Against the Palestinians,” editor of “Revisionist History” newsletter and the revisionisthistory.org website. He began his revisionist career in 1978 while a student at Hobart College, when he challenged his history professor to debate the authenticity of “The Diary of Anne Frank.” In 1985 Zionists staged a riot in front of the offices of the local cable television station in Ithaca, New York, where Hoffman’s video interviews with revisionist historians and German veterans were being broadcast. The frenzied mob narrowly missed beating Hoffman’s wife after they chased her down Ithaca’s State Street. She saved herself by jumping into a parked car and locking the doors. Mr. Hoffman walked the JDL gauntlet in Toronto with Ernst Zundel, Douglas Christie and Keltie Zubko and their supporters, on the first day of the Great Holocaust Trial, Jan. 7, 1985. He is the former assistant director of the Institute for Historical Review and makes his home in the foothills of Idaho’s Bitterroot mountains.
***
The HOFFMAN WIRE is a public service of Independent History and Research, Box 849, Coeur d’Alene, Idaho 83816 USA
24 Hour Revisionist News Bureau:
http://www.revisionisthistory.org/page1/news.html
Subscribe: HoffmanWire-subscribe@topica.com
