21. World War II

I had decided that one section of the Pierce book would be presentations of topics or themes Pierce has been emphasizing in recent years. I would go through these areas one by one after I had established a context that would put them in perspective – after I had gone over Pierce’s personal history and basic view of things. I wrote down a list of topics that seemed to capture what Pierce has been focusing on in his radio broadcasts and writings: the Jewish control of the news and entertainment outlets, white racial identity and commitment, immigration and the “browning of America,” the globalization of the economy, the failures of white leadership and the limits of mass democracy, public school inadequacies, and how contemporary gender roles were off-base.

I decided the next step was to go through my list with Pierce to see if he saw the categories in the same way I did. When I had finished reading through what I had on the sheet of paper, Pierce quickly offered, “Don’t forget the historical theme. I have been very concerned about World War II and its impact on things since.”

Yes, of course. Not only should it have been on the list, it should have been first on the list. Pierce is engrossed in the World War II period. It is all grounded there for him. Undoubtedly that is due in large part to the connection he feels with Hitler and National Socialism. But the most powerful stimulus behind Pierce’s consuming interest in the World War II era, I believe, is his fervent conviction that this was a monumentally important turning point in the course of Western history. As he sees it, the direction cultural and political events of Europe and America have taken over the past half-century were set in motion by that war. Pierce thinks that if we – and by “we” he means white people – are to understand our time we are going to have to get beyond the official version of what World War II was about and take a hard look at what really happened back then, and he is encouraging people to do just that. He sees himself in a tough battle in getting them to do it, however, because he is convinced that there are powerful forces in our society that make any questioning of the prevailing interpretation of those years, and any suggestion of an alternative account a highly unwelcome and even condemned and punished, undertaking.

During the time I was in West Virginia, Pierce was savoring a book entitled The Wolf of the Kremlin by Stuart Kahan.1 I assume Bob DeMarais steered him to the book. Bob takes on the role of recommending titles to Pierce. Pierce had mentioned The Wolf of the Kremlin to me several times, and it was readily apparent to me that he was having a great time with the book. It was about a right-hand man of Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin by the name of Lazar Kaganovich. Kaganovich, Pierce told me, was the most powerful Jew in the Soviet Union from the late 1920s through the ’30s. In 1929 Stalin put him in charge of supervising the collectivization of Soviet agriculture. According to Pierce, Kaganovich came to be known as the “Butcher of the Ukraine.”

After I left the property, I read an article by Pierce, published in his Free Speech magazine, which deals with Kaganovich. Like everything in Free Speech, the Kaganovich piece was based on a transcript of one of Pierce’s radio programs. I also read three other of Pierce’s Free Speech articles that have to do with World War II. All of the articles, including the one on Kaganovich, begin with an account of an atrocity – the first three by the Soviets and the last by Moroccans who were fighting on the side of the Allies – and then go from there to an explication of Pierce’s conception of that period in history. After going through these writings, I have a better understanding of what Pierce was getting at in his references to Kaganovich during his conversations with me, as well as Pierce’s overall perspective on World War II. In these next pages, I will weave these four writings together to try to capture Pierce’s view of this time in history and its current significance.

Pierce’s Kaganovich article in Free Speech is called “The Genocide at Vinnitsa.”2 Vinnitsa is a city of one hundred thousand people in the Ukraine, which at that time, of course, was a part of the Soviet Union. According to Pierce’s account, Germany had invaded the Soviet Union with the aim of destroying communism. Note Pierce’s conception of the struggle – Germany was fighting communism. The German army had pushed far into the Soviet Union and had, in Pierce’s words, “liberated all of the Ukraine from the communists.” Pierce tells us that Ukrainian officials in Vinnitsa told the Germans when they arrived that five years earlier the NKVD (which Pierce describes as the Soviet secret police and a counterpart to our FBI) had executed a number of Ukrainian civilians – farmers and workers and a few civil servants and priests.

The Germans investigated these allegations and proceeded to dig up 9, 439 corpses in mass graves in a nearby park and orchard. The bodies of the men had their hands tied behind their back. All of the victims had been shot in the back of the neck with a .22-caliber pistol. Pierce tells us that this was a trademark method and weapon of the NKVD. While the men were clothed, many of the young women were unclothed. The Germans estimated that in addition to the over nine thousand bodies they were able to find, there were another three thousand buried in that vicinity that they didn’t find. The relatives of the dead said that the individuals who had been arrested in those years weren’t criminals in any conventional sense but rather were charged with being “enemies of the people” by the NKVD and imprisoned.

As I read Pierce’s account of the killings, I had questions about the method of killing. Would they shoot prisoners in the neck? Wouldn’t they shoot them in the skull? I asked Pierce about that. “The NKVD executioners,” he replied, “shot prisoners in the base of the skull, right at the top of the spine, so that the bullet would destroy the medulla oblongata, which is the most primitive part of the brain, controlling respiration and heartbeat. This caused certain and immediate death, whereas a shot higher into the head would damage the cerebrum, which controls higher functions, but might not kill the victim. Some writers describe the shot into the base of the skull as a ‘neck shot,’ but it was really a shot into the lower part of the skull, where the head is attached to the neck.”

Ukrainians, Pierce writes, possessed an independent and nationalistic spirit and wanted no part of the Soviet Union from the earliest days after the Bolsheviks came to power following the Russian revolution in 1917. The Ukraine was the stronghold of kulaks – independent farmers and small landowners. The kulaks didn’t take to collectivization of agriculture, and it was Kaganovich’s job to break their spirit or eliminate them. One tactic in this overall strategy was a state-induced famine. The NKVD and Red Army troops would go from farm to farm and confiscate crops and livestock. Pierce reports that the head of the NKVD during this period was a Jew by the name of Genrikh Yagoda. Pierce claims that there was a preponderance of Jews in the NKVD. Pierce puts the number of kulaks who died of starvation in 1934 and 1935 at seven million.

There was an NKVD prison in Vinnitsa, Pierce writes. Its normal capacity was two thousand inmates, but by 1937 and 1938 it was packed with eighteen thousand prisoners. Pierce describes a nightly activity at the prison:

Throughout much of 1938 a few dozen prisoners were taken from the prison each night and driven to a nearby motor pool area. There their hands were tied behind their backs and they were led, one at a time, a few hundred feet to a concrete slab in front of a garage. The slab was used for washing vehicles, and it had a drain at one side with an iron grating over it. Just as the prisoners reached the edge of the slab they were shot in the back of the neck, so that when they fell onto the concrete their blood would run into the drain. This was what the NKVD men jokingly call mokrii robota – “wet work” – and they had had plenty of experience at “wet work.” A truck parked next to the slab kept its engine racing so that the noise of the engine would cover the sound of the shots. While the next prisoner was being led up, a couple of NKVD men would throw the corpse of the previous prisoner into the truck. When the night’s quota of victims had been murdered the truck would drive off with its load of corpses to the fenced-in park or to the nearby orchard, where new graves already were waiting. And this “wet work” went on night after night, month after month.3

Pierce then goes into why he thinks what happened so long ago in the Ukraine generally and in Vinnitsa specifically matters to us in our time. For one thing, these Ukrainians who were murdered were our people, our kinfolk, part of our race. That is importance enough, but beyond that there is the fact that very few people know anything about these events, and the question becomes, why don’t they? We hear about what happened in Auschwitz all the time, Pierce notes, but we never hear about what happened in Vinnitsa. Our attention is drawn to the Holocaust constantly, but rarely if ever is it drawn to what happened in the Ukraine. Why is that?

Pierce answers his own question. It is because the people who control the flow of information in our society are Jews, and they disseminate what they care about and what serves their interests. To Jews, the Holocaust is important because Jews died there, and the genocide in the Ukraine is not important because Gentiles died there. It is to the Jews’ advantage to keep “rubbing our noses” in the Holocaust because it makes us feel guilty. They want us to feel that we owe them something for letting this terrible thing happen to them. They are innocent and everybody else is in the wrong in one way or another. That is the image they want to project. The Jews don’t want Vinnitsa to come up because they were the guilty ones there.

The Jews have been able to paint themselves as the only victims in the war, says Pierce. It isn’t going to help their cause to divide the attention and sympathy of the American public between Auschwitz and Vinnitsa or between those who died in the Holocaust and the millions who perished in the genocide in the Ukraine. It isn’t going to help them get billions of dollars every year for Israel from the United States, military strikes against Iraq, Israel’s number one antagonist in the Middle East, whenever they want them, or to expropriate money out of the Germans, the Swiss, and others for claimed wrongs done to Jews of past generations.

If the Ukrainians controlled the news and entertainment networks in America, says Pierce, you can bet that we would have all heard about what happened in Vinnitsa and what happened to the kulaks. But the Ukrainians aren’t in control of the media, that is the point. The Ukrainians don’t control television and they don’t dominate the publishing industry. They don’t own the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, Time, Newsweek, or US News and World Report. And the Ukrainians don’t control the motion picture industry. Steven Spielberg is not Ukrainian.

We have been getting a falsified version of this time in our history, insists Pierce. It is critically important, he says, that we come to realize this and that we learn the truth about what happened back then, because what occurred during the Second World War set the direction for what has happened since, including what is going on now in the Middle East. The fundamental reality is that our government allied with the Soviet government for the purpose of destroying Germany. The Soviet communists were presented to the American public as the good guys and the Germans as the bad guys. We never heard about things like what happened in the Ukraine, or in the Katyn Forest, another outrage committed by the Soviets, or any of the other atrocities against our people by the communists because that would have gotten in the way of the program of building up the Soviet communists as worthy allies and setting us up to support and participate in the destruction of Germany.

Pierce’s mention of the Katyn Forest in his list of atrocities is a reference of what has become known as the Katyn Forest Massacre. The Katyn Forest is in western Russia. Pierce’s version of what happened there sheds more light on his conception of the Second World War and its significance.4

In September of 1939 Poland was attacked from the west by Germany and from the east by the Soviet Union. Pierce’s view of it is that the Germans wanted the part of western Poland that had been taken away from them after the First World War, much of which had historically been German territory. As for the Soviets, it wasn’t clear from Pierce’s writing what he considered to be their motivation, so I emailed him asking him to clarify his thinking about that. He replied immediately:

Soviet communism was expansionist and imperialist. Furthermore, Russia had historic claims to eastern Poland going back for centuries. In fact, between the so-called Third Partition of Poland in 1795 and the First World War, Poland didn’t even exist as an independent state. Russian nationalists never really accepted the separation of Poland from Russia after World War I and were eager to “correct” this separation.5

Under strong Jewish pressure, says Pierce, Britain and France declared war against Germany, ostensibly because of Germany’s invasion of Poland. What Pierce wants noted is that Britain and France chose not to declare war on the Soviet Union, who had invaded Poland just as Germany had.

The Jews in those two countries, and in the United States, says Pierce, hated Germany and wanted to destroy her, and were highly enamored of the Soviet Union. Why? Because Hitler was freeing Germany from Jewish influence. The Jews had a virtual monopoly on certain professions in Germany and on the mass media and had been distorting German culture. Hitler’s government was weeding them out of the economic and academic life of the nation and out of the arts. By 1939, two-thirds of Germany’s Jews had emigrated. In the Soviet Union, in contrast, the Jews were “riding high” as commissars and party bosses. In the U.S. and western Europe at this time, the Jews held a “deathgrip” on the mass media and were very influential behind the scenes politically, and they did everything they could to promote a pro-Soviet and anti-German posture in these countries.

In Pierce’s version of the history of this time, Hitler very much wanted to avoid a war with Britain, France, and America, for whom he felt an affinity. However, he thought that his country had been treated unconscionably by the victors in World War I, and he was dedicated to doing something about it. Hitler also hated communism and looked upon the Soviet communists as a threat to all of Europe, and he recognized their hostility to everything he represented and was trying to achieve. In the spring of 1941, massive troop buildups in the Soviet Union, as well as other internal developments there, convinced him that the USSR was going to invade Germany from the east. This circumstance coupled with Hitler’s general hostility to the Bolshevik regime in the Soviet Union prompted him to make a pre-emptive strike. German troops smashed through Poland and continued on into the Ukraine and Russia. These events set the stage for the Katyn Forest episode.

According to Pierce’s version of what occurred, in 1943 when the Germans entered an area near Smolensk in western Russia they heard reports from Russian civilians that a large number of prisoners had been murdered in that vicinity by the Soviet NKVD three years before. The Germans were led to a series of mounds in a wooded area known as the Katyn Forest about ten miles west of the city. As they did in Vinnitsa, the Germans dug into the mounds and began discovering bodies. They then called in the International Red Cross and representatives of various neutral countries. Four thousand corpses were uncovered in mass graves, and based on the information they received, the Germans estimated that eleven thousand bodies were still missing. The dead turned out to be Polish. They tended to be influential Poles – military officers, cultural and business leaders, intellectuals, and artists. Fifteen thousand of them had been rounded up by the NKVD and shot in the back of the neck.

Was the Soviet Union condemned for that atrocity? Pierce asks rhetorically. No, they weren’t. They were the “good guys,” our ally against the “awful” Germans. Unlike Vinnitsa, the American media did treat the Katyn Forest story some, but the spin put on it was that the Germans themselves were the ones who had perpetrated the massacre. The media and our government certainly didn’t want the public to think that our friends the Soviets were butchering civilian populations. Better that our people thought that the Germans had perpetrated the terrible deed. That would support the official line that the war must go on to free the Poles from the wicked Germans, who must be made to pay for their actions. And the war did go on, at the cost of many millions of lives and the physical devastation of Europe, and indeed the Germans were punished, and the Poles and the entire rest of Eastern Europe were turned over to Soviet domination for almost half a century.

Pierce says that now historians accept that it was the Soviets who murdered fifteen thousand of Poland’s leaders, and that it took place between March and May of 1940, fourteen months before the German invasion of the Soviet Union. You can read about it in libraries. An example is the book Death in the Forest: The Story of the Katyn Forest Massacre by J.K. Zowodny.6 But don’t hold your breath waiting for any Hollywood movies about this atrocity, Pierce cautions.

And then there was what happened to German civilians at the hands of Soviet military units in East Prussia after the war. Pierce writes:

Often the men… were simply murdered on the spot. The women were, almost without exception, gang-raped. This was the fate of girls as young as eight years old and old women in their eighties, as well as women in the advanced stages of pregnancy. Women who resisted rape had their throats cut or were shot. Very often women were murdered after being gang-raped. Many women and girls were raped so often and so brutally that they died from this abuse alone.7

Pierce quotes a directive to Soviet troops from a Jewish Soviet commissar by the name of Ilya Ehrenburg:

Kill! Kill! In the German race there is nothing but evil; not one among the living, not one among the yet unborn but is evil! Stamp out the fascist beast once and for all in its lair! Use force and break the racial pride of these German women. Take them as your lawful booty. Kill! As you storm onward, kill, you gallant soldiers of the Red Army.8

By no means were all Soviet soldiers butchers and rapists, notes Pierce. For instance, there was a captain in the Red Army by the name of Alexander Solzhenitsyn, who was in Germany in 1945. Captain Solzhenitsyn wrote about a scene he witnessed in the town of Neidenberg:

Twenty-two Hoeringstrasse. It’s not been burned, just looted, rifled. A moaning by the walls, half muffled: the mother’s wounded, still alive. The little daughter’s on the mattress, dead. How many have been in on it? A platoon, a company perhaps? A girl’s been turned into a woman, a woman turned into a corpse…9

Pierce claims that the Jews don’t want us to know what happened to the Germans after World War II. Or, for that matter, during it – he gives as an example the fire-bombing by the Allies of the civilian German population in the city of Dresden.10 The Jews don’t want us to see that the Germans were victims too. The Jews suffered and the Germans didn’t – that is what they want us to think. Similarly, the Jews don’t want us to think about the millions of others of our people who died at the hands of the communists in the Ukraine and in the Siberian gulags.11 We are told that children in school have to learn about the Holocaust because it was the greatest crime against mankind in history. But the genocidal atrocities against our people matter too, Pierce writes. The truth of it is that many persons besides the Jews suffered enormously in that catastrophe known as World War II.

But for the lies we were told, says Pierce, we would have never allowed ourselves to become involved in the war in Europe, even with the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. If the information we received had not been so controlled and so slanted, so biased, perhaps Eastern Europe wouldn’t have wound up in the hands of the Soviets to be plundered for so long. If we had known something other than the story we had been fed, perhaps communism would have been crushed in Europe decades before it was. And perhaps Korea and Vietnam wouldn’t have happened, and the one hundred thousand of our best men who perished in those conflicts would never have died. And perhaps we wouldn’t be pouring billions of dollars every year into propping up Israel and doing its bidding in the Middle East and alienating the Arab nations in the process. But we didn’t hear the truth then, just as we aren’t hearing the truth now.

White people ought to be concerned when any part of our history is suppressed from us, says Pierce. We ought to find out why it happened and how it happened. If we understand things like Vinnitsa and Katyn, it might help us ensure that this kind of thing doesn’t happen in the future. Understanding these obscure events that took place so long ago might contribute to a realization among us that we can’t trust the mass media, or the government in Washington that dances to the tune of the Jews.

Pierce says he knows that his message is not a welcome one to many Americans, but nevertheless he believes Americans need to hear it:

There were a lot of decent Americans who fought in the war in Europe, anti-Communist Americans, and many of them don’t want to think about the fact that they fought on the wrong side… I believe that knowing the truth… is far more important than protecting our carefully nurtured belief that we were on the side of righteousness. I believe that understanding how we were deceived in the past is necessary if we are to avoid being deceived in the future.12

But while Americans need to hear this alternative perspective on the war, there are many, according to Pierce, who would keep them from hearing it. If he had written or said any of this in Canada or Britain it would have been labeled hate speech and he would have been shut up immediately. This could happen in this country, says Pierce, if those who don’t want what he says to be allowed expression have their way. Pierce acknowledges that those who want to make sure that people like him are silenced are articulate and highly persuasive in their arguments, and many well-intended people support them in their efforts. But see through what they are up to, implores Pierce, and don’t let them get away with it.

I mentioned to Bob DeMarais that World War II had come up in my conversations with Pierce. He reached over to a table next to his desk and picked up a book and handed it to me. “Have you read this?” he asked. “It is about some women who opposed America’s involvement in World War II. Why don’t you take it with you?”

I thanked Bob and went on my way.

The book Bob gave me was entitled Women of the Far Right by Glen Jeansonne.13 The book tells the story of an organized women’s movement in the 1930s and ‘40s that centered its efforts around opposing America’s involvement in World War II. Jeansonne provides sketches of the women who led this movement and the organizations they created. It quickly came home to me that this was no minor phenomenon I was reading about: at its peak, the confederation of woman’s groups that conducted this campaign against the Roosevelt administration and its supporters had a membership of six million members.14 I was staggered to read those numbers. I had always associated large-scale anti-war activity with Vietnam. My image of World War II, in contrast, was that of the Good War that everybody, or just about everybody, supported. What I was learning in the Jeansonne book cut some holes in that picture I was carrying around in my head.

Also, as I read along in the book I was increasingly taken by the fact that I had never heard of any of these women. After I left West Virginia I found out that I wasn’t alone. I mentioned some of these women’s names to several generally informed people, and they hadn’t heard of them either. It appears that even though these women were well known in their day they have been blotted out of mainstream history. They are not part of the story of this country that we have been told and that we share as a people. Reading the Jeansonne book raised the question for me of how that happened, and it got me thinking about what difference it makes now that for all practical purposes these women never existed.

Although the women depicted in the book saw themselves as champions of woman, they stood out in stark contrast to today’s feminists. One obvious difference is that their reactionary politics is on the opposite side of the political spectrum from the vast majority of modern feminists, who tend to be on the left in varying degrees. These earlier women were highly nationalistic and patriotic. They were ardently anti-Communist and pro-capitalist, and their political antipathies and allegiances were at the forefront of their personal and organizational agendas; that is to say, they were more than advocates for women. As they saw it, gender issues were embedded in larger socio-political concerns and needed to be confronted within this broader context. As well, their orientation was in the first instance maternal. They saw themselves as mothers, they approached things from that perspective. Only mothers, they believed, could save their sons from the slaughter in the war that was impending. Also, these women supported sexual abstinence before marriage, and they upheld the traditional nuclear family, which in their eyes included a strong and vital patriarchal presence. These women didn’t set themselves off against men. Men, their husbands and sons and other men, weren’t “them” to these women, they were part of “us.” These women didn’t paint men as oppressors or competitors or adversaries, or see them as needing to be held in check or re-conditioned. Another difference, in contrast to feminism’s coolness toward organized religion, these women tended to be avowed Christians. A last contrast: while Jewish women have been disproportionately represented in today’s women’s movement,15 these earlier women were markedly anti-Jewish in their attitudes.

The first mothers’ organization was formed in 1939 just after Germany invaded Poland and Britain entered the war. Three mothers of draft-age sons – Frances Sherrill, Mary Sheldon, and Mary Ireland – started a group called the National Legion of Mothers of America. The purpose of this new organization was to oppose the use of United States troops except for defending this country from attack. By the end the first week, ten thousand women had joined up. One of the new recruits was quoted as saying, “I have a 21-year-old son and I am going to fight for him. It was too much trouble to bring him into the world and bring him up all these years to have him fight the battles of foreign nations.”16 By 1941, the NLMA claimed four million members.17

The most prominent woman to emerge on the far right during these years was Elizabeth Dilling. Dilling described herself as a “super patriot,” and said that the real threat in Europe to us wasn’t fascism but communism. Dilling’s anti-communism took on racial overtones, as she claimed that the “interracial idea,” as she referred to it, was one of the strongest dogmas of socialism-communism. She said that the left promotes interracial sex, and that if they get their way the races will be molded into “one big mass.”18 Dilling contended that the left had duped everybody into seeing fascism as the big enemy when in fact it defended property, supported religion, promoted class harmony, battled communism, and presented no threat to us. As far as Dilling was concerned, getting into the European war on the side of the communists in the Soviet Union was joining forces with precisely the wrong side in the conflict, and that in any case sending our boys across the ocean to fight in a European war would result in young lives being lost, disruption to family life, and a strain to the social fabric of this country.

Dilling was very hostile to the woman’s movement on the left, which, she argued, had “tried to get women enthusiastically to prefer bricklaying to feminine pursuits.” She also became increasingly hostile to Jews. She claimed that that “no one with open eyes can observe a Red parade, a communist, anarchist, socialist, or radical meeting anywhere in the world without noting the prominence of Jewry.”19 Referring to Emma Goldman, the leftist Jewish atheist, Dilling asked, “Have women like me who believe in beautiful Christian ideals the right to sit in their rose-shaded living rooms while the Emma Goldmans fill the platforms with their dirt and anti-American ideas?”20

Dilling toiled from early morning to midnight every day of the week at the cause she had taken to heart. She wrote and toured the country tirelessly, and by 1939 audiences for her lectures and speeches had grown from hundreds to electrified thousands.21 In opposition to the Lend Lease Act (legislation which provided American arms to the British and, in her eyes, paved the way to sending our boys to die in Europe), Dilling led a parade down Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington. Women marched in twos and carried banners that said “Kill Bill 1776 [the Lend Lease Act] Not Our Boys.” A mass rally followed the march. Among Dilling’s other activities in opposition to the war that she was sure was coming, she organized a demonstration of twenty-five women outside of the office of a senator who was reputed to want the war. When the women sat down and refused to leave, Dilling and one other woman were arrested and the others ejected from the corridor. Dilling was later convicted of disorderly conduct for the incident.22

While World War II was in process, Dilling was given to say things like, “Any professed servant of Christ who could aid the church-burning, clergy-murdering, God-hating Soviet regime belongs either in the ranks of the blind leaders of the blind or in the ancient and dishonorable order of Judas.”23 This sort of thing got her arrested and brought to trial for violating the Sedition and Smith acts, namely undermining the morale of the armed forces in wartime. The case was eventually dismissed, but it did serve the purpose of putting a crimp in Dilling’s activities by tying up her time and draining her financial resources as she had to come up with legal fees and the other costs of a trial far from home.24 After the war, Dilling kept on going, crusading against communism, racial integration, the income tax, and the growing power of the federal government until her death in 1969.25

Catherine Curtis was another prominent woman on the extreme right during these years. Curtis was considered to be the most effective organizer among women of her ideological stripe, and she became the leader of the coalition that included the National Legion of Mothers of America.26 Curtis argued that getting into a war would involve mothers turning their sons over to the government and would negate their work of nurturing their boys from cradle to the grave.27 She shared with the others in this movement an antipathy toward Jews, whom she saw as dominating banking, politics, and the entertainment industry to the detriment of the rest of the country.28

In 1935 Curtis founded the Women Investors of America. This organization tied rightist ideology to the achievement of women’s rights and sponsored talks by Curtis and others on financial matters. Curtis looked upon the development of woman’s financial capabilities not as a way for women to achieve independence of men or family but rather as a means of guarding and augmenting the family pocketbook. She also thought that woman’s financial expertise could guard the nation’s pocketbook as well, and thus serve as a buffer against communism.

And there was Lyrl Clark Van Hyning. By the early 1940s, Van Hyning’s organization, We the Mothers of America, had one hundred and fifty thousand members nationwide. Its male auxiliary was called We the Fathers of America.29 Van Hyning reflected the anti-Semitism characteristic of this group of women, as she blamed Jewish international bankers for getting the United States into the war and circulated a recall petition against members of Congress she said were responsible for doing their bidding. Van Hyning strongly opposed the Normandy invasion in 1944, an event that has been brought back to the nation’s attention in recent years by Steven Spielberg’s film, Saving Private Ryan. A few weeks before the invasion Van Hyning said, “Those boys who will be forced to throw their young flesh against that impregnable wall of steel are the same babies mothers cherished and comforted and brought to manhood. Mother’s kiss healed all hurts of childhood. But on invasion day no kiss can heal the terrible hurts and mother won’t be there. Mothers have betrayed their sons to the butchers.”30 Reading this passage, a contrasting image to Van Hyning’s stridency and defiance came to my mind: the Iowa mother in the Spielberg film who lay crumpled on the floor at the feet of military personnel who had just informed her that three of her sons had been killed in the war.

Modern feminists have nothing good to say about women like Dilling, Curtis, and Van Hyning. To them, it is virtually inconceivable that women would presume to link right-wing ideology and political activity with the promotion of women’s rights. When they speak of these kinds of women at all, they paint them as dupes of males and betrayers of the true interests of women. Gerda Lerner has stated that these sorts of women have internalized the idea of their inferiority, and that this has led them to participate in their own subordination. Hester Eisenstein says that they have been brainwashed to believe they need men to protect them. A third contemporary feminist, Andrea Dworkin, calls them reprehensible.31

But there is still the overwhelming reality of the Holocaust. Apart from anything else, didn’t that horror make any view other than the war as a victory of good over evil beside the point? I needed to hear what Pierce would say about this. “Most people who hear your criticism of our involvement in World War II or your condemnation to the Jews will very quickly dismiss you with a reference to the Holocaust. Of course that is why we were in Europe, to put an end to the Holocaust. I just read Alan Dershowitz’ book Chutzpah32`and he labels a bigot anyone who denies the accepted version of six million Jews being killed and the use of gas chambers as means of extermination. What is your perception of the Holocaust?”

“Before I began reading a lot of history when I was on the faculty at Oregon State University,” Pierce answered me, “I had a generally sympathetic attitude toward Jews. I had accepted the Hollywood propaganda line that the Nazis were terrible creatures who took all these sensitive, violin-playing, philosophizing, poetizing, harmless people and brutalized and killed them – six million of them. But then I started reading some books that weren’t on the approved reading list. One of the books as I remember was put out by a Catholic social agency in Germany or Austria and it was about the atrocities committed against German civilians after the war – I think it was called The Tragedy of Silesia. [I later found the book, edited by Johannes Kaps and published in Munich in 1952.33] The book was written by priests and has firstperson, eyewitness accounts of what happened to Germans after the war, horrible stuff – whole families being raped and their throats cut, children tortured to death by drunken Red Army soldiers, that kind of thing, on a massive scale. It hit me that I hadn’t been exposed to that kind of information before, and it led me to read other things. I came away from this with a much broader perspective on atrocity and genocide during this period of the 1940s than I had had before.

“I remember a photograph in Life magazine of a fifteen-year-old girl who had just been gang-raped by a group of Poles on a train bearing German expellees from the eastern territories. I have that photograph in my files to this day because it so struck me when I saw it and read the caption under it. It turns out that hundreds of thousands of German girls were raped. Why, I wondered, when all these terrible things happened do we only hear about what happened to the Jews? I had never heard of what happened to the Germans until I dug material out of the back shelves of libraries. It certainly wasn’t on television. Schools weren’t talking about it in history classes. The answer I came to in response to my own question is that we don’t hear about what happened to the Germans because the Jews don’t want us to, and with the power they have over the media and the power they have politically they are able to publicize and capitalize on what happened to them and suppress information about what happened to anybody else. The result is they have a monopoly on victim status, and that is a good card to have in your hand.

“The next question I asked myself was, if the Jews have the power to control what people learn about who got raped or killed during that time, they don’t absolutely have to be telling the truth; who is going to challenge them? So I began looking into the details of the Holocaust. Of course, it is a lifetime job to try to get at the bottom of that situation and figure out exactly what happened, but I did find what I took to be credible evidence that some of the Holocaust stories were simple lies. I came to the conclusion that the Holocaust story isn’t wholly true. So then the big question is: what parts are true and what parts aren’t? And the only way to get at that is to deal with it piece by piece. You have to take a particular claim – ‘I saw them gas ten thousand Jews on March 19th,’ or whatever – and look at the evidence: could this have happened? did it happen? And if it didn’t happen as the story had it, what did happen? Each one of these is a full-fledged project for some historian or graduate student.

“I learned about enough things that had been falsified, exaggerated, or distorted that I became what Mr. Dershowitz would call a Holocaust denier. Actually, I think that is a deliberate misnomer. Because I don’t deny that Jews were killed. The Germans wanted to get rid of the Jews. They started by forcing them to emigrate as soon as Hitler became Chancellor by passing various exclusionary laws that cut Jews out of one sector of German life after another. Jews couldn’t publish newspapers except ones for their fellow Jews. They couldn’t teach in regular schools, only in Jewish schools. Jewish attorneys could only have practices serving their fellow Jews. The result was that before the war started two-thirds of German Jews had left the country. And that was really Hitler’s aim. He may have had a secret desire to cut a few Jewish throats, but his main goal was to get them out of Germany and off the Germans’ backs so that Germans could do things their own way.

“And then of course the war came along and a lot of Jews did end up in concentration camps. And some Jews were executed – particularly in the east – and many Jews died of typhus and malnutrition. I have personally talked to Germans who participated in shootings of Jews in the east. And these included mass shootings, often done in reprisal for something that had occurred. Germans would put Jews into ghettos in Polish, Russian, and Ukrainian areas. Jewish partisans would kill a German soldier or something, and a hundred Jews would be rounded up and shot. But never once did I talk to a German who knew anything about gas chambers as execution devices. And these were people that I am certain trusted me and talked frankly with me.

“So I am not a denier in the way I would define a Holocaust denier, but I do not believe the Holocaust in its official version. And it is clear to me that this official version is very important to the Jews, and it is not because of justice. It is because they can exploit the victim status it grants them because of the guilt it generates in the rest of us: ‘Oh, we let this happen to these poor people. How can we compensate them? It would be unfair to criticize them for anything they do because they have suffered so much. We have to give the Jews anything they want.’ This has been drilled into our people and Jews take advantage of it. I can understand why they get frantic if anybody dares to say, ‘Hey, did this really happen the way you describe?’ They shout, ‘He’s a denier. He must be punished! He must apologize!’”

“Is there anything that leads you to believe that there was a policy of extermination? There was a conference in 1942, I think it was, attended by Eichmann and others, where it is said it was decided.”

“I presume that most of what took place on the German side during the war except for perhaps the very last days was based on policy. The Germans had the best disciplined army, and they were not inclined to do things unless they had a policy – let’s say that in the event of German soldiers being killed by partisans you may or must or should take so many Jews from the ghetto and have them dig a trench outside of town and then shoot them. The British historian David Irving has said that there is no evidence that there was any policy for the general extermination of the Jews. That makes sense to me because, while we don’t hear about it, there were a lot of Jews who lived in Germany throughout the war, and everybody knew they were Jews and yet nobody bothered them. If there were a policy of general extermination, those would be the ones who would have been rounded up first, and they weren’t at all.

“I haven’t seen any credible evidence to support the Auschwitz picture Steven Spielberg has painted. The gas chambers we know about were de-lousing chambers; they were used for sanitation purposes. The crematoria of the sort that were at Auschwitz were also found at every other prison or work camp, and nobody is contending that gassings were going on in all these other places. People died in these places, and corpses were cremated. But certainly the crematoria that existed at Auschwitz could not have processed the incredible number of bodies the Jews claim were handled in this way. They have said that four-and-a-half million were killed in Auschwitz – simple arithmetic shows that it couldn’t have happened that way. Confronted with that, the Jews say, ‘Oh, well, OK, so they didn’t dispose of all the bodies in the crematoria. They threw the bodies into big pits they had dug and set fire to them.’ Perhaps, but I haven’t seen credible evidence of that. I have seen photographs of Germans shooting Jewish and non-Jewish partisans. Why are there no credible photographs of Jews being gassed? All we have is a collection of stories.

“The Germans had two types of camps: concentration camps like the ones we had in this country for the Japanese where elements of the population they considered hostile or dangerous were concentrated so they could be dealt with without posing a general threat to the rest, and work camps. Auschwitz was primarily a work camp where they produced synthetic rubber. To me, the concept of a death camp doesn’t make sense. If extermination were in fact the policy and I were in charge of implementing it, I don’t think I would go to all the effort to send people by rail from one part of Poland all the way to another part and put them in a camp to gas them. I wouldn’t bother to build barracks and other facilities. I would do what the communists did, shoot them in small batches near where they were arrested.

“My belief is that the Jews not only greatly exaggerated their losses but they embellished the details to make them more dramatic, memorable, and shocking. For example, the Jews have told about German soldiers grabbing Jewish babies by the legs and swinging their heads against brick walls. I don’t believe it. The German soldiers simply didn’t act that way to any extent at all – that is just not the kind of people they were – and certainly nothing like this happened as a matter of policy. I can imagine a rare instance where a drunken German soldier, separated from his unit and angry about the bombing of German cities, might commit an individual atrocity; but beyond that, it doesn’t fit. It is an invention to horrify Gentiles and make them think, ‘Oh, those poor Jews and those terrible Germans! How can we ever compensate for this awful thing that has happened!’

“There are these stories about Jews getting off the train at Auschwitz and a German officer walks up and down the line and says you, you, and you, go over there, to be gassed, and in some cases knocks them down on the platform and pours gasoline on them and sets them on fire. And then there are the stories of Germans throwing children off of roofs to the cobblestones below for sport, and shooting people like target practice. Doesn’t fit. An invention. But the way the Jews have it cooked up, if you question any of these stories, say, ‘Hey wait a minute, did you really see that occur? What was the date? What were the units of the German army involved?’ Try to pin it down at all, and the Jews will say ‘I can’t remember things like that,’ or ‘We weren’t allowed to look at their shoulder patches,’ or whatever. If you start to getting into the facts, the Jews get hysterical, weeping and wailing, or accusatory and try to shame you: ‘Isn’t six million enough? Are you trying to crucify us all over again?’ They want to keep it like a religion where you dare not question. It is like what went on during the Crusades. They come back in 1056 or whenever and say, ‘This is a piece from the true cross.’ Someone comes forward and says, ‘I’m not sure I believe it. Let me check it to see how old the wood is.’ He’d be stoned to death!”

“Didn’t some Germans testify after the war that they operated the gas chambers?”

“There were some notorious confessions after the war, but I think torture was involved. The commandant of Bergen-Belsen, named Hoess, signed whatever they told him to sign after they worked him over, and there were a few others. But if this really happened the way the Jews said it did, there would have been statements of all sorts – including ordinary German soldiers – and much more documentary evidence, and there isn’t.”

“You obviously don’t accept the number of six million Jewish deaths during the war.”

“They have shuffled the numbers around a lot. At Auschwitz, the first number was four-and-a-half million, and then it was two million, and then it was one million and not all of those were Jews. Then they said that the ones they thought were killed at Auschwitz were actually killed at Treblinka or somewhere else. But six million has become the official sacred number. That is the one you hear from the media. It is rather like the doctrine of the virgin birth – believe it or else. It is very important to know what the real number is because it is part of our history, children learn about it in school, and it has influenced so many things in this country, including our support for Israel. The Jews use the six million number to get the idea across, ‘You can’t deal with us like you would anybody else because we have suffered so much, and you let it happen. So give us what we want, and don’t ask any questions!’ They don’t say it that blatantly, but that is the tacit message. We really do need to check it out and get at the facts.”

“I thought I read somewhere that you estimated that three-quarters of a million Jews died during the war.”

“I can make estimates, but the estimates are not based on sound, hard evidence. I have discovered that a lot of lies have been told about this. So then I have to ask myself by how much did they inflate their losses. Was it by a factor of ten? five? two? It is very difficult at this point to say.

“My point is that we ought to look at the others besides the Jews who were killed in the war too. We all know about the six million Jews who were supposedly killed in the war, but how many of us know how many American soldiers were killed, and German soldiers and civilians? And why don’t we know those figures? Are the Jewish deaths the only ones that matter? At the end of the war, ethnic Germans were expelled from Poland and Czechoslovakia, and millions of them died in the process. Millions of German POWs died in the years right after the war. Who knows about any of that?

“There are some books on our list you ought to read. One is a book by a Canadian named James Bacque that describes what happened to the German POWs after the war. Another one is called Flight in the Winter by an author by the name of Thorwald. It describes how the communists would rape and torture and kill German refugees. The deaths during that war have to be put in perspective, that’s what I am saying. We have gotten the idea that the only ones who suffered during the war were the Jews. That just isn’t the case.”34

After talking to Pierce, it came to me that I really had no idea of the magnitude of the loss of life in Europe during the World War II period, so I looked into it. For Germany, there were 4.2 million military and civilian deaths during the war, plus another 3.6 million deaths in the immediate post-war period resulting from reprisals against German military personnel, civilians, and ethnic Germans as they were being forced to vacate areas, primarily in Poland and Czechoslovakia, where they had been living. Thus there were a total of 7.8 million German deaths due to the war. Another five million Germans were wounded or permanently disabled, bringing total German casualties to 12.8 million. As for the Soviet Union, the estimate is that eighteen million people died in the war. I was unable to find the total of Soviet wounded and disabled. The United States suffered approximately one million casualties, including around three hundred thousand deaths.35

I was able to locate and read the Bacque book about the abuse of German POWs that Pierce mentioned. Actually, Bacque, a Canadian novelist and amateur historian, has published two books on this general topic. The first, Other Losses, was published in Toronto back in 1989, and the second, Crimes and Mercies, was published in London in 1997.36 Bacque’s books recount the mistreatment of two groups of Germans after World War II: the ethnic Germans who were dispossessed from areas where they had been living outside of Germany, and the German POWs in Allied prison camps.

Bacque has been unable to find a U.S. publisher for either of his books. In 1990, he told an interviewer from the Toronto Star newspaper that Other Losses had been turned down by a total of thirty American publishers.37 Crimes and Mercies, the 1997 book, was published by Boston-based Little, Brown, but it chose to release the book through its London branch and not in this country. In the introduction of Crimes and Mercies, Bacque thanks his London editor who, in his words, “took the courageous decision to publish this book despite the harsh opposition it is bound to arouse.”38 Pierce says if Bacque’s book had been about the mistreatment of Jews rather than Germans he wonders how much trouble Bacque would have had getting his book published in the United States and how much harsh opposition he would have expected.

In Crimes and Mercies, Bacque tells of the fate of 16.6 million ethnic Germans who were expelled from Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Hungary after the war, many of whom, he points out, had lived in these areas for many generations. Bacque calls it the largest ethnic cleansing the world has ever known.39 He says the ethnic Germans were told to leave their homes in good order and to take only one large piece of luggage and one piece of hand luggage per person with them.40 After I left West Virginia I spoke to an elderly woman now living in Canada who with her family had been among those forced to leave an area of Poland called Silesia. She confirmed what Bacque reports and added that her family was also told to leave most of their money behind – although, she told me, they did manage to get money out by hiding it on their persons.

Bacque alleges that these Germans were brutalized as they made the trek back to what was left of Germany or to concentration camps in Poland and elsewhere. He reports that 2.1 million of the ethnic Germans perished before they reached their destination.41 Bacque offers up tales of horror:42

•     Of Czech guards shooting people at random.

•     Of Russians raping German mothers while their small children were present.

•     Of nuns being repeatedly raped.

•     Of German women having their achilles tendons cut and being raped by Czech men as they lay on the ground screaming.

•     Of dead children being put in coffins, five to seven children to each coffin, and buried together. The children had died with their eyes open. The certificates said the cause of death had been starvation.

As for the German POWs, Bacque reports that in American and French zones more than five million German soldiers were crowded into barbed-wire cages. One Allied POW camp was described as huts made out of chicken wire covered with tar paper. Water was supplied by a single tap inside each hut. The water was usually frozen in the winter. The prisoners slept on the muddy ground, one hundred eighty prisoners to a hut. In some camps, German prisoners were simply herded into fields and lived in the open, in holes they dug out themselves. These camps lacked even primitive sanitary facilities, and the prisoners were vastly underfed. The ground beneath them quickly became a quagmire of filth. They soon began dying of starvation and disease. “Sometimes at the roll calls in the morning,” Bacque quotes a prisoner as saying, “men fell over dead.”43 About one million of these German prisoners died in captivity, along with another half-million in Soviet camps.44

Bacque’s book contained pictures of these German POWs. Looking at them, I was struck by how different they looked from the image of them I had taken away from the Academy Award-nominated Steven Spielberg film, Saving Private Ryan. As I remember, the German soldiers in the film were older, in their thirties it seemed, and rather dark in appearance, and they had short burr haircuts. The soldiers in the Bacque pictures, however, were much younger, teenagers and in their early twenties, and they had fair complexions, and they had light hair and it was long; I didn’t notice any clippered-top hair styles. They looked like kids to me. I pondered how it might have changed the Spielberg film if the German soldiers had looked like the POWs I was gazing upon in the Bacque book.

One of the German prisoners, a man by the name of Charles von Luttichau, testified about the conditions of one of the American camps:

The latrines were just logs flung over ditches next to the barbed were fences. To sleep, all we could do was to dig out a hole with our hands, then cling together in the hole. We were crowded very close together. Because of illness, the men had to defecate on the ground. Soon, many of us were too weak to take off our trousers first. So our clothing was infected, and so was the mud where we had to walk and sit and lie down.

There was no water at all at first, except the rain, then after a couple of weeks we could get a little water from a standpipe. But most of us had nothing to carry it in, so we could get only a few mouthfuls after hours of lining up, sometimes even through the night. We had to walk between the holes on the soft earth thrown up by digging, so it was easy to fall into a hole but hard to climb out. The rain was almost constant along that part of the Rhine that spring. More than half the days we had rain. More than half the days we had no food at all. On the rest, we got a little K [food] ration. I could see from the package that they [the Americans] were giving us one tenth of the rations they issued to their own men. So in the end we got perhaps five percent of a normal US army ration. I complained to the American camp commander that he was breaking the Geneva Convention, but he said, “Forget the Convention. You haven’t any rights.” Within a few days, some of the men who had gone healthy into the camp were dead. I saw our men dragging many dead bodies to the gate of the camp, where they were thrown loose on top of each other onto trucks, which took them away.45

Among other illustrations Bacque offers of American abuse of German POWs are these:46

•     On General Eisenhower’s initiative, the American prisoner of war camps were kept far below the standards set by the Geneva Convention. A Japanese general was shot for maintaining camps in these conditions.

•     At a place called Andermach, German prisoners were trying to nourish themselves on grass. An American college professor reports he saw bodies being taken out of there “by the truckload.”

•     Prisoner Hanns Scharf testified that a German woman and her two children came to an American guard in one of the camps carrying a wine bottle. She asked the guard to give the bottle to her husband who was just inside the wire. The guard took the wine, upended the bottle in his own mouth, threw it to the ground, and killed the woman’s husband with five shots.

•     William Kreuznock, a Canadian, reported guards at night would shoot machine guns at random into the camp, apparently for sport. One guard at this camp wrote in his diary: “Wild shooting in the night, absolute fireworks. It must be the supposed peace. Next morning forty dead as ‘victims of the fireworks,’ in our cage alone, many wounded.”

•     In one of the American camps, there were eighteen thousand one hundred deaths in a ten-week period. That was a rate of forty-three percent of the prisoners a year. In March of 1946, in a French camp, deaths peaked at twenty-five percent in one month.

•     Prisoner Johannes Heising in a US camp reported that one night the Americans bulldozed living men into the earth. He is uncertain as to how many of the crowd of men were killed in the blackness of the night.

•     In 1996 a mass grave was discovered near an American POW camp. An expert concluded that the bodies were dead prisoners from the American camps, ages nineteen to twenty-three. A US Army ration book smuggled out by an ex-prisoner shows that these captives were given six hundred to eight hundred fifty calories per day. The prisoners had starved.

•     In Dobbs Ferry, New York, Martin Beech, a retired Unitarian minister, says, “I still experience flashbacks – starving prisoners eating grass, and thirsty men bursting through barbed wire and dashing amid gunfire toward a nearby river.”47

Bacque concludes: “The struggle has been presented to us as ‘their’ evil against ‘our’ good, but as Solzhenitsyn wrote: ‘The line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being.’”48

I was also able to find the other book Pierce had mentioned, Flight in the Winter49 It took some doing to get hold of it, since this book, as was also true of the Bacque books, was never published in this country and not readily available. As with the Bacque books, I had to go through an inter-library loan process to obtain Flight in the Winter, and that took some time and effort. Flight in the Winter was written by Juergen Thorwald and was published in London back in 1953. It tells of the events on the eastern front in Europe during the last days of World War II. I could see why Pierce referred me to the book. Some of the depictions of the suffering of civilians were graphic and jarring. For example, included in the book is an account of the effect of the British and American air raid on the German city of Dresden on February 13th, 1945:

The first wave of heavy British bombers approached between nine and ten o’clock at night from the direction of Holland. Between 10:09 and 10:35 p.m. they dropped approximately three thousand high-explosive bombs and four hundred thousand incendiaries on the totally unprepared city. The bombing was well planned. The countless incendiary bombs set large sectors of the city on fire, particularly the old quarters. A fierce reddish-yellow glow shone on the departing planes… At 1:22 a.m. the next wave of planes arrived over the city and dropped approximately five thousand incendiaries. This second wave, guided by the blaze of the burning areas, had only to drop its load into the dark spots to complete the destruction. Their bombs fell into the crowds that had escaped from the already flaming parts of the town. Collapsing buildings, particularly along the east-west axis that once ran though the entire city, barred the streets and cut off their escape. Tens of thousands burned to death or suffocated. A fire-storm arose with a suction so powerful that it dragged grown people irresistibly into the flames. A third raid about noon rounded out the results of the preceding attacks. It released two thousand high explosives and fifty thousand incendiaries on a city that was already in ruins…

Most of the corpses in the city were naked. The firestorm had ripped their clothes off. They were red, puffed up by the heat. The railway station was a scene of havoc. In its basement, two thousand dead could still be counted. They had suffocated, and now floated in the water that had burst from broken mains and flooded the station. In the cemeteries around the town, excavating machinery was put to work to dig graves into which eighteen thousand dead were laid. Six thousand others, some of them parts only, were cremated on a grate that had been constructed in a roped-off section of the centre of the town. Soon the count was kept only by the number of heads found. Sixty-five per cent of those who were found could not be identified. By April 1 another twenty-nine thousand victims had been removed. But ten to fifteen thousand more were estimated to be still buried under the rubble.50

Thorwald also tells of what happened to German soldiers and civilians in the streets of Prague one day at the end of the war at the hands of a crowd. He calls it “a day as evil as any known in history.” The Germans had been herded into a courtyard. The crowd

drenched them with petrol, strung them up with their feet uppermost, set them on fire, and watched their agony, prolonged by the fact that in their position the rising heat and smoke did not suffocate them. They tied German men and women together with barbed wire, shot into the bundles, and rolled them down into the Moldau river. They drowned German children in the water troughs in the streets, and threw women and children from windows. They beat every German until he lay still on the ground, forced naked women to remove the barricades, cut the tendons in their heels, and laughed at their writhing. Others they kicked to death.51

That evening, Thorwald writes, a pastor and some elderly peasants stood on the banks of the river downstream from where these events took place. The river brought bundles tied with barbed wire and corpses that had lost their tongues, their eyes, and their breasts. It also brought a wooden bed, floating like a raft, to which a family, parents and children, had been nailed with long spikes. Those on the shore were able to bring the bed to them and began pulling the spikes out of the children’s hands.52

1 Stuart Kahan, The Wolf of the Kremlin (London: Hale, 1989).

2 William Pierce, “The Genocide at Vinnitsa,” Free Speech, vol. 4, no. 7, July 1998. pp.12-15.

3 Ibid., p. 14.

4 William Pierce, “The Katyn Massacre,” Free Speech, vol. 4, no. 5, May 1998, pp. 6-9.

5 Personal correspondence, William Pierce to Robert Griffin, February 2, 1999.

6 Janusz Kazimierz Zawodny, Death in the Forest: The Story of the Katyn Forest Massacre (New York: Hippocrene Books, 1988).

7 William Pierce, “Sinking of the Wilhelm Gustloff.” Free Speech, vol. 4, no. 3, March 1998, p. 2.

8 Ibid.

9 Ibid.

10 William Pierce, “Democracy,” Free Speech, vol. 4, no. 7, July 1998, p. 1.

11 It is estimated that 2.7 million people perished in the Soviet penal system under Stalin. Source: Otto Pohl, The Stalinist Penal System: A Statistical History of Soviet Repression and Terror, 1930-1953 (Jefferson, NC: 1997), p. 131. See also: Robert Conquest’s books on the Soviet penal system.

12 Pierce, “Sinking of the Wilhelm Gustloff,” p. 4.

13 Glen Jeansonne, Women of the Far Right: The Mothers’ Movement and World War II (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996).

14 Ibid., p. 1.

15 F. Caroline Graglia, Domestic Tranquility: A Brief Against Feminism (Dallas: Spence Publishing Company, 1998), pp. 40-43.

16 Jeansonne, p. 5.

17 Ibid., p. 46.

18 Ibid., p. 27

19 Ibid., p. 26.

20 Ibid., p. 16.

21 Ibid.

22 Ibid., p. 78.

23 Ibid., p. 155.

24 Ibid.

25 Ibid., p. 166.

26 Ibid., p. 4.

27 Ibid., p. 63.

28 Ibid., p. 70.

29 Ibid., p. 87.

30 Ibid., p. 94.

31 Ibid., p. 184.

32 Alan Dershowitz, Chutzpah (Boston: Little, Brown, 1991).

33 Johannes Kaps, ed., The Tragedy of Silesia, 1945-46 (Munich: Christ Unterwegs, 1952).

34 A book on how the events of the Holocaust have been portrayed at various times over the years which I have found useful is Peter Novick, The Holocaust in American Life (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1999).

35 Source of those numbers: The New Encyclopedia Britannica, 15th edition, vol. 29 (Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 1998), p. 1022.

36 James Bacque, Other Losses: An Investigation into the Mass Deaths of German Prisoners at the Hands of the French and Americans After World War II (Toronto: Stottard, 1989). James Bacque, Crimes and Mercies: The Fate of German Civilians Under Allied Occupation 1944-1950 (London: Little, Brown, 1997).

37 Toronto Star, May 3, 1990, E1+.

38 Crimes and Mercies, p.xxv.

39 Ibid., p. xx.

40 Ibid., p. 99.

41 Ibid., p. 109.

42 Ibid., pp. 102, 103, and 106.

43 Ibid., p. 49.

44 Other Losses, p. xix; Crimes and Mercies, p. 88.

45 Other Losses, p, 38.

46 The following incidents were reported in Crimes and Mercies on pp. 28, 29, 44, 45, 47, 52, 53, 60, and 63.

47 Toronto Star.

48 Crimes and Mercies, p. xxiii.

49 Juergen Thorwald, Flight in the Winter (London: Hutchinson, 1953).

50 Ibid. pp. 50-53.

51 Ibid., pp. 240-241.

52 Ibid., p. 241

20. William Gayley Simpson22. Pierce and Jews
Book Contents
Blog Contents