[Editor’s Note: There’s little, if anything, that I could possibly add to Hans Krampe’s extraordinary and heartfelt assessment of Michael Hoffman’s exchange with Prof. Robert Fourisson and Horst Mahler.

Mr. Krampe has encapsulated not only his peoples’ soul and essence but the spirit of truthful perseverance in the face of apparently insurmountable odds. He has taken the expression, “Life is for learning” and maximized it to a degree hitherto unheard of and in the process overcome all odds while at the same time clarifying for all the non-Germanic people of the world what has been an ongoing nightmare of lies and an unprecedented distortion of historic reality.

It truly is an honour to publish this perceptive tribute to the German nation and to its unsung hero and leader, Adolf Hitler. Thank you Hans!]

Dear Michael

I have read with great interest your exchange with Prof. Robert Faurisson and Horst Mahler, “Human Rights not Reich. Some aspects in your responses, however, became very irritating to me and here is why.

I am a German Canadian, born during WW II, who for his first thirty years was raised and educated in both, East- and West Germany.

During my elementary schooling in East Germany, from grade one through grade three – my most formative years – I was INTENSIVELY indoctrinated with the glorification of communism and anti-Nazi hate propaganda in the form of grammar, textbooks, and STORIES palmed off as history.

The East German educators managed to weave the post WW I treacheries, subversions and crimes of the Moscow dominated communists into the degenerate and chaotic history of the Weimar republic, only to pass it off as having somehow been the product of Nazism. Of course, this re-enforced my positive attitude towards communism and my rejection of Nazism.

It formed a solid foundation for my continued anti-Nazi brainwashing (“education) in the West. As it turned out, East and West brainwashings occurred entirely to Zionistsh’ specifications and under their control. In it the holocaust loomed large; not only in ours, but in all histories of WW II.

Worldwide, the above versions have been a roaring success!

Grade four saw the continuance of my indoctrination in West Germany, again in the form of anti-Nazi “history, only now with anti-Communism added to it. The word “Nazi was always hissed with a disgusted sneer of political correctness to emphasize its nasty nature. The intended guilt and shame to be a German materialized somewhat, but only to a very faint extent.

Additionally, my anti-Nazi indoctrination was positively re-enforced throughout, and beyond, my education into a more or less solid conviction of its truth by the West German media and the book publishing industry.

My grandfather was – and remained to the end of his life – a dedicated communist, chairman of the communist chapter of Wanne Eickel during the 14 years of starvation, hell and hopeless misery of the Weimar republic (democracy performing according to views of Alexis dh’Toqueville). While this nurtured in me a sympathetic attitude towards communism, it also served as another positive anti-Nazi re-enforcement even in my family.

My grandfather spend most of WW II working underground as a coal miner; which turned out to be somewhat of a blessing for him. My father and my uncles, though, were soldiers of the Wehrmacht and, luckily, survived.

My parents were sympathizing with National Socialists and admired Adolf Hitler; which contrasted with my education at school and caused me to suspect them of a somewhat deranged and obstinate fanaticism. Needless to say, my relationship with my parents was often less than harmonious on that account.

Initially, the “product of my “education nestled firmly within my belief system until the Internet came about. Until then I was never aware that I had been brainwashed. I felt vaguely ashamed of Germany because of its Nazi past, but innocent of any personal guilt. I considered this onerous subject as having been dealt with, ad nauseam, and closed.

At age thirty I immigrated to Canada and many Canadians (and Americans) I got acquainted with revealed in polite conversation a warped, if any, perception of Germanyh’s history of WW II, often constructing bizarre, if not downright ridiculous, impromptu embellishments and excesses in their effort to appear “knowledgeable and getting somewhat testy when they were failing to obtain my unequivocal endorsement. It made me wonder what the hell they had been taught in school.

I couldnh’t help noticing a very subtle and deep-seated hostility towards Germans suspected of less than utter rejection of Nazi Germanyh’s past, which surfaced either as strident and patronizing condescension or ridicule. As a consequence, I began to develop a pronounced annoyance with the popular perception that the Nazis – and Germans by extrapolation – had been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be a malignant breed and would henceforth serve as THE ULTIMATE STANDARD OF EVIL, and therefore had also deserved every atrocious horror that had been inflicted on them as well and more.

Thus it became clear that in the minds of North America, with few exceptions, Nazis and Germans seemed to appear as synonymous, equivocating rhetoric to the contrary; with WW II Germans as actual humans only grudgingly trotted out to obscure the profoundly nasty hypocrisy, if not ignorance as it turned out, of North American versions of “historical knowledge.

Oddly to me, this was especially noticeable among academics and the intelligentsia who, with dismissive arrogance, give Germans like me to understand that my indoctrinated convictions WERE NEITHER SOLID NOR NASTY ENOUGH. They knew much better.

In other words, as a German I became suspect of nursing sentiments of Nazi sympathies and therefore incapable of assessing my countryh’s history correctly. I was advised to open my mind to the much more realistic perceptions of “North American experts, the only ones deemed to have the requisite detachment, by distance in time and space I suppose, to know and appreciate the full extent of the evil of Adolf Hitler and the Nazis; which they seemed to accept as a form of divine truth manifested as earthly fact, based on “exhaustive investigations and “incontrovertible data convincing examples of which I have yet to find anywhere.

Of course, they were (inadvertently) correct in pronouncing my inability to assess the Nazi history correctly, but completely unconvincing, in that they were far more debilitated and misguided brainwashees than I.

Although this increasingly grated on my nerves, I tried to accept it as an understandable attitude, considering my countryh’s past.

Beginning with the U.S. war in Viet Nam, and its aggressive interventions in Chile, its horrifying operations in Central America, all supported and approved of by lyinh’ Brian Mulroney who had become prime minister of Canada in the 80s not to mention the ever more subversive and sociopathic idiocies of successive administrations in the name of globalization, privatization and free trade – I became far more politically informed and aware than I had ever been before, realizing in the process my deplorable ignorance in terms of historical accuracy, which kept me dangling at the end of my rope in debates. Yet I kept learning by reading, and by debating in writing. I became a critical observer, wrote letters and was actively committed to demand and defend such elusive concepts as truth, human rights and justice.

I increasingly noticed, that whenever something evil needed to be emphasized in public discourses, the “Nazis and “Hitler and the “SS had to rush hither to lend a habitual hand when any other derogatory term wouldnh’t suffice to reach the desired level of malice.

This increasingly annoyed me to such a degree, that I eventually felt compelled to look for the flip side of the anti-Nazi coin to see for myself whath’s what.

In short, I had it up to here with the constant German bashing.

On the Internet I searched for, and found, all kinds of factual and documented accounts, illuminating in their detailed historical context, and therefore generating an ever more understanding and sympathetic perception of Adolf Hitler and the National Socialists. They also confirmed the anecdotal events that my parents, my grandfather and uncles had been talking about – which I had so far ignored – as more or less plausible. I now was forced to accept their first hand experiences of the twenties, the thirties, the war and the post war period as largely founded on real experience.

Thus began the gradual COLLAPSE OF MY ENTIRE ANTI-NAZI HOUSE OF MANIPULATIVE CARDS; making short shrift of my brainwashed convictions.

Though I sometimes found these accounts on white supremacist websites (often in downright racist contexts) to lend an air of respectability to themselves, they actually were based on REAL and EXHAUSTIVE investigations, conducted at great personal sacrifices and at great danger and expense to the investigating revisionists.

Well, you know all about it.

As I progressed with my Internet researches, I realized, that Canadians (and equally Americans) through their educational, info and entertainment systems have been subject to a just as intense and sustained anti-Nazi indoctrination than myself, if not more so FOR OVER SIXTY YEARS!

But, unlike me, they obstinately insist, with a nasty form of self-righteousness, on their perceived prerogative to pass judgment on something about which they only know hate propaganda; so much so, that any unbiased form of critical questioning has become anathema, if not offensive in their minds.

At this point let me clarify something important. I differentiate between Nazis and neo-Nazis. The only thing the latter have in common with Adolf Hitler and the Nazis are the accoutrements and symbols, which are ignorantly used as an expression of the nasty propaganda image with which they associate themselves. Nothing could be further from what the Nazis were all about.

When you state, willy-nilly, that you are “all for defending human rights, but refuse to support any attempt to defend or resurrect the “Third Reich, then it behooves you to explain why. Standing by itself, ith’s a dead give-away of a blinkered view, not to mention political correctness. And when you state that you never called Germans criminal except those directly associated with the Nazis of the time then you have stated a contradiction. You accuse ALL Germans of criminality, indeed, because all Germans were more or less Nazis, by your definition, as you will see below.

I therefore seriously question whether you have actually made, or even been capable of, an UNBIASED investigation of what the Third Reich ACTUALLY was, did and why. Judging by your tendency to view everything Nazi as evil, your “knowledge is based on literally billions of tons of entirely negative distortions, spin and lies that Western historical literature is teeming with on this subject. This makes your “knowledge irrational, fictitious and mendacious.

The insidious nature of a brainwashed mind, particularly as it pertains to National Socialism and Adolf Hitler, is such that it presents a solid barrier to even WANTING TO BEGIN searching for the truth, as opposed to the much more socially rewarding and easily obtainable confirmation of its alleged evil.

In your case, one canh’t fail to notice it clearly in your exchange with Prof. Robert Faurisson and your reaction to Horst Mahler (Rights not Reich). I suspect, that this stance accounts for the fact that you are still at large and never had your face rearranged like Prof. Faurisson..

My point is to show you on my own example that YOUR MIND IS AS BRAINWASHED AS MINE ONCE WAS, and how this came about, and that it corrupts your search for truth. After all, youh’re about the same age as me and you did receive your education from the same North American institutions that imposed their version of the Nazi era on the Germans, not to mention the rest of the world, since 1945.

You refuse to find out what National Socialism actually was; presumably having proceeded in your lackadaisical “research” under the faulty assumption that enough has been said about Adolf Hitler and the Nazis (all negative) and that any further scrutiny on your part would be superfluous. Ith’s a common attitude, especially among the intelligentsia. Any positive facts of Nazism can thus be dismissed as mere WHITEWASH.

This, I suggest, is THE most common modus operandi in the efforts of the proponentsh’ of anti-Nazi/German hate, to prove the uniqueness of the Nazi/Hitler “evil as a uniquely one-sided “truth. To this end everything needs to be revised in minute detail, EXEPT THE COMMON PERCEPTION OF NAZISM. The reverse of it seems to be in essence what you find annoying about Horst Mahler. Thus let me remind you: What’s good for the gander is good for the goose.

Concerning the history of German National Socialism, neither the period BEFORE WW I, nor that war itself, nor the EXTREMELY IMPORTANT interim period between 1918 and 1933, nor the period between 1933 and the outbreak of WW II can be avoided if one truly wants to know and understand, WITH AN UNBIASED MIND, what moved Adolf Hitler and the Germans/Nazis, as well as their choice of methods. All of it is inseparably interrelated.


As a result, Germany, under the leadership of Adolf Hitler, was quickly becoming a socially more equitable, more just and more humane alternative to the sociopathic and predatory capitalist establishments of war mongerers, scheming and conniving within the home bases of Germanyh’s enemies. The National Socialist alternative increasingly undermined the criminal nature of capitalismh’s global economic hegemony by positive example. It also inspired the basest and most sadistic instincts of capitalist bullies, who were planning the biggest genocidal holocaust in the history of the world AGAINST GERMANY, always prodded and needled by Jewish usurpers from behind the scenes. As a historian you have to be deaf, dumb and blind to overlook this glaring fact.

Needless to say, THAT THIS GENOCIDE TOOK PLACE AS PLANNED IS IRREFUTABLE. The evidence consists of reams of photographic and diplomatic documentation, if one only looks for it with open and unblinkered eyes.

Comparing the Weimar republich’s performance (and that of every other contemporary “democracy) with that of the National Socialists, under the conditions of the Versailles Treaty, in terms of the common indicators used to evaluate a regime — homogeneity, prosperity and health as a nation; standard of living; justice; freedom; integrity of government; the general disposition of the people; the maintenance of peace and order; and diplomatic efforts in relation to other nations — have to be ALL taken into account IN THEIR ENTIRETY to produce a fair and comprehensive record of either performances as a government.

The Nazis will emerge from such a comparison with flying colors. What the Bolsheviks promised to the German communists, but actively prevented by violent subversion, namely SOCIALISM, Adolf Hitler and the Nazis delivered, in spades and without violent bloodshed. National Socialism was, and remains, the most significant unbloody revolution to have taken place in history. To demonstrate its unbelievable effectiveness, consider the following:

While EVERY COUNTRY ON EARTH was suffering a deep depression during the Dirty Thirties, including Roosevelth’s raw “New Deal for the USA, NAZI GERMANY WAS ENJOYING UNHEARD OF HIGHTS IN ITS STANDARD OF LIVING, UNSURPASSED TO THIS DAY; with scarcely any resources of her own, yet without needing to rob distant colonies of their resources.

That seems to be something the detractors of National Socialism have a hard time digesting including you.

The picture that you ASSUME to be the truth is a chimera of the nastiest kind imaginable. Murderous Nazi Germany under the dominance of a vile dictator (i.e. 99% of all German speaking people; plus, millions of supportive sympathizers from other nations who were inspired by it, including Russia, Hungary, Ukraine, Belgium, France, even England, ALL NAZIS) has to remain evil incarnate in order for the “truth to be salacious enough for you.

By obstinately adhering to the officially promoted view of Nazi-Germany, you find exactly what youh’re looking for, easily obtainable CALUMNY, dressed up as fact.

Nastiness happens in every country, to a more or lesser degree, but nowhere was, and is, it as prevalent and monstrous as in your own back yard. Ignoring THIS fact endows you with the prerequisite lack of humility in becoming an overbearing judge who enjoys condemning a victimized nation.

Revisionism doesnh’t need to be revised; in your case IT NEEDS TO BE UNBLINKERED. What does need to be revised is the meaning of the term NAZI. Ith’s been grossly distorted, abused and misused for decades and has ossified into a malignant burr within your reason.

Whether you like it or not, in keeping with this hate mongering propaganda against Adolf Hitler, that demonstrably began in 1933 and never ceased, YOU ARE TELLING A GIANT UNQUALIFIED LIE.

I challenge you to produce evidence of a more popular, benign and efficient system of social organization, of any nation and its regime, anywhere on Earth, at any time in history, with a higher approval rating by its people and a greater popularity than Adolf Hitlerh’s.

Hitler must have been a funny “dictator, because he put every major decision to the people, in referenda, supervised by international committees, and got consistent approval ratings of just short of 100%; including the Anschluss of Austria presumably an “invasion in your mind…right up until the outbreak of WW II.

WW II was the beginning of the end in the development of a great and promising nation.

National Socialism was a nascent system, extra-ordinary, and developing in circumstances that couldnh’t have been more excruciatingly difficult in its beginning stages. Nevertheless, things were looking good for Germany in every way from 1933 on. Contrary to allied hate mongering Germany had no reason to go to war and Adolf Hitler demonstrably made every effort to avoid it. Ith’s amply documented.

The Zionist dominated allied-to-be governments unabashedly proclaimed their intent to DESTROY GERMANY AND THE GERMAN PEOPLE not Adolf Hitler or the Nazis, mind you – while clandestinely working out, IN ADVANCE, the details of the phony SHOAH story, featuring NAZI GERMANY as the villain, set up as justification for a Jewish state in Palestine, and Germanyh’s reduction to a future cash cow. Most of this homicidal conniving and scheming took mainly place in your country.

Had the war gone on somewhat longer, and had the allies had the wherewithal, it is absolutely no stretch to know that they would have dropped atomic bombs on all of Germany and its people without batting an eye enthusiastically applauded by intellectuals like yourself, no doubt.

The arming up, getting only underway just before 1938, and then necessarily with increased intensity, of Germanyh’s practically non-existent armed forces; and every military action since 1939 that Germany undertook, was an answer to the alliesh’ intentions the knowledge of which Adolf Hitler passed on to his people. Every German knew that Germany was going to be FORCED to fight for its very life, mortally threatened by a world bent on its merciless genocide. Historical evidence has more than amply confirmed this as well.

The homicidal demons, as I see it, were not the Nazis but THE ALLIES, including the Bolsheviks, but especially the Americans and the Britons who have a long history that has never stopped their murder, rape and pillage within and without their own borders. If you feel the need to get down to the nitty-gritty of evil you havenh’t far to look. Ith’s right where you sit.

As to your critique of Horst Mahlerh’s use of the words GERMAN REICH ith’s ridiculous nitpicking and word fencing about some non-existing PR-strategy.

The GERMAN REICH is what Germans used to call their country BEFORE THEY WERE TRAINED BY THEIR GENOCIDAL MURDERERS TO BE ASHAMED OF IT. Just for that reason alone ith’s more than appropriate to INSIST on re-invoking its name. At this point, as a German, I wouldnh’t care a farthing what you, or any foreigner, might think in this regard.

Your argument is similar to me telling you that, “the U.S. is hated right now, worldwide, so when you travel abroad just call yourself a Canadian, as a PR measure. Though it may be STRATEGICALLY EXPEDIENT ith’s also cowardly. All it does is undermine your self-respect as an American.


I agree with Robert Faurissonh’s stance of openness, simple language and confrontational style (in the Celinian sense) because at this stage you canh’t avoid confrontation. Ith’s obviously being forced upon any dissent anyway. Whath’s more than anything convincing is PERSEVERENCE a la Faurisson.

Yet, I agree with you that PR savvy is more than indicated at this stage. But Ih’m afraid ith’s lost on ordinary mortals whose understanding and support is needed for revisionism to be successful. One of Hitlerh’s secrets of success was his PR savvy, when he spoke about the peopleh’s concerns, loudly and clearly, in their language CONFRONTATIONALLY.

Horst Mahlerh’s style of rhetoric I find sometimes hard to follow, and generally he seems to dwell too much on the spiritual aspect of nationhood. But he has a brilliant mind and a strong backbone; and he has a more correct, comprehensive and sympathetic understanding of National Socialism and Adolf Hitler than you do. Therefore he has the courage to envision the possibilities of such a model in the future.

As to his statement about all Jews being at the forefront of the attacks against Germany HE IS ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. Name ONE Jew who does reject the holocaust as an historical fact. If you can, it will be a miraculous exception.

By the way, an atheist Judaist is an oxymoron. Noam Chomsky is an atheist with Zionist proclivities, not a Judaist.

You may argue in your defense that youh’ve done massive amounts of research and know what youh’re talking about, and that you donh’t deserve to be lectured by an amateur such as me.

To that I answer, yes, youh’ve obviously done a lot of research. But so have I. On the issue of Adolf Hitler and the Nazis you seem to have wasted some fleeting glances with an extremely biased attitude; looking for, and finding, the entirely corrupted “evidence.

In conclusion I suggest that you become MORE revisionist in your revisionism in order to achieve some semblance of truth, preferably nothing but…


Hans Krampe