Book review by Tom Goodrich

Orderly & Humane: The Expulsion of the Germans After the Second World War (New Haven and London: Yale University Press 2012). This review originally appeared at Counter-Currents.



orderlyandhumane
After reading a book or two and watching a few hours of TV documentaries on the couch, most smugly imagine that they know something of World War II. Most, of course, know nothing. What most think about WWII is what the winners want them to think about WWII; we call it the victor’s version of history. That version is a rather neat and tidy account, a clean and pleasing morality play of heroes and villains, of good versus evil, of catchy and easy to remember phrases like “Crusade in Europe,” the “Good War,” the “Greatest Generation,” “Nazi butchers,” “Hitler, the Evil Madman,” “Six Million,” etc. That black and white version paints the losers as all-evil, all-vicious, all-enslaving, all-everything bad and it paints the winners as all-good, all-suffering, all-liberating, all-noble, all-virtuous. But then, I’m wasting time on things most of you already know.

World War Two was man’s greatest cataclysm. Nothing else comes close. Tens of millions died, tens of millions were raped, tens of millions were enslaved, tens of millions were uprooted and cast to the wind, and the thing that Western man loves more than life itself—his freedom—was taken. With the fall of Germany and its allies in the spring of 1945, the forces of darkness stood gloating and triumphant. The last significant opposition to their grand designs on the West had been crushed, and now they went to work dividing the spoils and sucking the last drop of blood from the vanquished. One might imagine that from such an earth-shaking, epochal event every facet would have by now been studied down to the last detail by the world’s historians and academics, but one would imagine wrong. Precisely because the war was won by the forces of hate and evil, only one half of the story has ever been told and that, of course, is the side the winners chose to tell us.

Slowly, slowly, after nearly 70 years, the details from what it looked like down there in the grave where the losers lay are beginning to surface. And what is being revealed is a crime so monstrous, so enormous, and so hideous in its length and breadth that words have not yet been invented to describe it. So vicious and persistent was the anti-German propaganda, and so deep and pervasive was the consequent hatred for everything German both during and after the war, that this nearly successful attempt to extirpate the German people was committed with hardly a stir from the “civilized world.” So utterly demonized were the Germans by the largely Jewish press around the world that virtually anything could be said about Germany, virtually any crime could be committed against its helpless population, and none would raise a hand or offer a word against it. The evidence of crimes committed and the criminals who committed them have always been there. The horrifying accounts have remained in various archives and journals gathering nearly 70 years of dust but except for an intrepid few no historians have mustered the courage to reveal these dark secrets to the world.

In addition to deliberate attempts to kill every man, woman, and child in Germany by the Allied air forces with their terror bombing and “targets of opportunity” campaign (red crosses on hospital roofs were especial targets), a similar slaughter was taking place below as the invading hordes of the Soviet Union raped and/or murdered virtually every German that fell into their hands. On the Baltic Sea, a similar slaughter was taking place as Allied submarines and bombers sank every refugee ship they could find, killing tens of thousands of helpless women, children, the sick, and the elderly.

After the war, when the so-called peace was declared, millions of German POWs were herded into muddy outdoor fields where they remained without food, water, shelter, or medical treatment. Although there was plenty of food available, and although rivers often ran just beyond the barbed wire, Supreme Allied Commander, Dwight. D. Eisenhower, was determined to kill as many of the defeated as he could before world reaction stepped in to stop the slaughter.

“God, I hate the German,” hissed the future American president.

In other parts of defeated Germany, hell on earth was unleashed when Jewish émigrés and those released from concentration camps, with Allied bayonets to back them, rounded up German soldiers and civilians, men and women, then placed them in their own Jewish-run death camps. In addition to suffering some of the most sadistic and sickening tortures the mind can conjure, hundreds of thousands of these Germans were simply beaten to death, drowned, or buried alive.

One of the most heartless and deadly crimes committed against helpless Germans was the forced removal from their homes. Orderly and Humane—The Expulsion of the Germans After the Second World War by R. M. Douglas seeks to shed light on this little known aspect of World War II history. The story is a tragic one. First, some seven million Germans living in the eastern provinces of the Reich–Prussia, Pomerania, Silesia–were violently uprooted by land-hungry and vengeful Poles and ordered to leave, sometimes with only a few minutes’ notice. Then, several million more, many whose families had lived for centuries in Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and other central European nations were expelled by their envious and blood-thirsty neighbors. It is estimated that of the 12 to 14 million Germans cast to the wind, as many as two million perished. Many were slaughtered in hideous ways; others succumbed to the elements. In spite of Allied assurances to the world that the removal of these pathetic refugees was carried out in an “orderly and humane” manner, their lies were soon shown to be mere Orwellian double-speak.

I wanted to like this book. I wanted to welcome Professor Douglas into the world of truth-seekers. I wanted to praise both his bravery and honesty as well as his careful scholarship. But after only a short spin through the book, I discovered that I could not. From the outset, Douglas–a card-carrying court historian–wants to make it perfectly clear to his academic peers and the Jewish media watchdogs who stand in his career path with suspicious eyes and folded arms, that he has the “right stuff”; that this project is merely a scholarly study to understand post-war politics and European population dynamics and not an attempt to enlist sympathy for the Germans themselves; for the thousands of brained German babies, for the tens of thousands of murdered German men, for the hundreds of thousands of raped German women. “It is appropriate at the outset,” sniffs Douglas in his intro,

“to state explicitly that no legitimate comparison can be drawn between the postwar expulsions and the appalling record of German offenses against Jews and other innocent victims between 1939 and 1945. The extent of Nazi criminality and barbarity in central and eastern Europe is on a scale and of a degree that is almost impossible to overstate. In the entire span of human history, nothing can be found to surpass it, nor… to equal it. Germany’s neighbors suffered most grievously and unjustifiably at her hands, and were profoundly traumatized as a result. Whatever occurred after the war cannot possibly be equated to the atrocities perpetrated by Germans during it, and suggestions to the contrary—including those made by expellees themselves—are both deeply offensive and historically illiterate. Nothing I have written in the book should be taken to suggest otherwise.”

With that nifty bit of genuflecting, with his kosher credentials seemingly intact, Douglas no doubt imagines that he will hence be given a life-long pass to enter the happy halls of historians. As this groveling academic will find out soon enough, a Christian writing about “controversial” Christian subjects will never crawl fast enough or far enough to satisfy his commissars.

In fairness to Douglas, he does go where few have gone before. The expulsion of Germans from the ancestral homes, many families of whom had lived there hundreds of years, is a crime so enormous and cruel that had it been the only crime committed by the Allies it would have been more than enough to convict them for all times to come as war criminals and inhuman monsters. Unfortunately, this Douglas tome is dry and dead as dust.

The German victims themselves are almost never heard from. Perhaps it is because Douglas feels Germans are not to be trusted. Citing that high moral authority, Edvard Beneš, the bloody butcher who orchestrated the massacre of Sudeten Germans in Czechoslovakia, Douglas quotes: “All German stories should not, of course, be believed, for Germans always exaggerated and were the first to whine and to try to enlist outside sympathy.” As a consequence, Douglas thereupon announces that he has thus “made it a rule to exclude direct expellee testimony that is not supported by independent sources.”

One must wonder just who these “independent sources” are that could provide better testimony than the victims themselves, but then again, perhaps that is not too hard to figure out. One must also wonder if Douglas would demand “independent sources” to support the statements of Jewish “survivors” and their extravagant claims of bestial Nazi atrocities? Of human soap? Of human lamp shades? Of shower heads spewing clouds of gas? Would he say those statements were also deeply offensive and historically illiterate? Right! And that is what separates this hypocritical court historian from an honest, unbiased truth-seeker.

Although a capable, competent study, as modern histories go, so intent is Douglas to dwell in the details of politics, borders, statistics, and demographics, that the personal and human is totally lost. One hardly is aware that the subjects of his book were actually real people, people who lived, breathed, suffered, cried, and all too often, people who died.

Nowhere is heard the screams of disarmed German soldiers as they were doused in gas by mobs and hung upside down like living torches. Nowhere is found the pathos of a mother, without shelter or food, watching her tiny child die of starvation right before her eyes. Nowhere are heard the groans of women, “from 8 to 80,” forced to endure one rape after another as they slowly bled to death.

This trend in modern historical writing—“historiography,” as it is stuffily called—is one reason why the reading of history has fallen in disrepute and why such books similar to Douglas’ cannot even be given away to the public. It is also why promising students upon entering college major in anything but history. This is the type of lifeless, insipid writing that kills the heat in a history-loving heart. I suppose it is easier for a reader to dismiss several million dead Germans if they fall asleep reading the book rather than transforming them into very real people who were deliberately murdered in cold blood.

What happened to Germany during and after the war was actually a crime wrapped around a crime—the evil abomination that was committed against the German people was the initial crime and the crime that kept it dark and hidden for almost 70 years was the other. If for no other reason, Orderly and Humane is important simply because of its existence and the tacit admission, tedious as it is, that once upon a time during the “Good War” this terrible crime did indeed occur.


___________________________

Thomas Goodrich is a professional writer living in Florida. Tom’s most recent book, Hellstorm: The Death of Nazi Germany, has been excerpted here: the first comprehensive account of Allied war crimes committed against Germany and her allies.

Who We Are, 11

The following is my abridgement of chapter 11 of William Pierce’s history of the white race, Who We Are:

Indo-Europeans Conquered Middle East, Perished through Racemixing
Mighty Hittite Empire Was Built by Nordics, Destroyed by Nordics
Aryan Warriors Ruled Persian Empire, India
Only Total Separation Can Preserve Racial Quality

 

Before we deal with the next Indo-European peoples of the Classical Age—the Macedonians and the Romans—let us review briefly the history of our race to this point, and let us also look at the fate of some Indo-Europeans who, unlike those we have already studied, invaded Asia instead of Europe.

Around the middle of the fifth millennium B.C., a new racial type made its first impact on Old Europe. The people of this type were taller and more rugged than the White Mediterraneans, but not so tall or rugged as the Cro-Magnons. They were the Nordics, and 7,000 years ago they occupied a large area in Russia, mostly steppeland, north of the Black Sea and between the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea.

Their language was Proto-Indo-European, from which Greek and Latin and the great Germanic, Celtic, and Slavic language families of Europe evolved. They were an extraordinarily energetic people, who hunted, farmed, and raised livestock. In particular, they domesticated horses, riding them and using them to pull their swift, light, two-wheeled chariots over the grassy plains.

When these Nordic horsemen of the northern steppes (or battle-axe people, as they have been called) outgrew their grassy homeland, some of them migrated westward into Europe. We have followed the fortunes of these migrants in earlier installments in this series.

But some moved east and south, into Asia instead of Europe. We do not know when the first of these movements occurred or when the Nordics first made contact with the Mediterranean peoples of the Middle East.

Black-Haired Sumerians. The Sumerians, who built the first literate civilization in the Middle East, around 3,500 B.C., were Mediterraneans, not Nordics. Their language was unique, related neither to any Indo-European tongue nor to the Semitic languages of the indigenous population of the Middle East.

We do not know whether the Elamites, a non-Semitic Mediterranean people of southeastern Mesopotamia and western Iran, were ruled by Indo-Europeans. But we do know that several Mediterranean peoples of the Middle East were indeed conquered and ruled by a Nordic elite. Among these were the Hittites, the Kassites, and the Hurrians.

Conquest of Babylon. There are no written records of the first few centuries after the Nordic conquest of the Hatti; the Hittites entered history in the 17th century B.C., when King Labarnas ruled. They began being mentioned in the records of their Semitic neighbors, who were becoming increasingly alarmed as Hittite squadrons raided further and further afield.

Not only had the Hittites become skilled in blitzkrieg tactics with their war chariots, making lightning raids across the mountains and down into the plains of northern Mesopotamia and Syria, but they fought with weapons of a new kind, previously unknown to their Semitic foes: iron weapons. The Hittites ushered in the Iron Age.

Although the Semitic armies of the plains could not stand up against the Hittite warriors and their chariots on the battlefield, the plains cities were heavily fortified; if the Semites could reach the safety of their walls, the fast-moving Hittite squadrons could not harm them. So the Hittites taught themselves the tactics of siege warfare. The first major city to fall to them was Aleppo, capital of the Semitic kingdom of Yamkhad, in northern Syria.

A few years later, in 1595 B.C., the Hittites, under King Mursilis, captured mighty Babylon, which lay a full 500 miles southeast of Aleppo. The Semites were taken completely by surprise, and the fast-moving Hittite army burned and plundered the most powerful Semitic capital. The Hittites, unfortunately, were not numerous enough to adequately garrison their conquest, and so they had to withdraw to the north again with their booty, leaving Babylon to be occupied and ruled by the Kassites.

New Blood: Phrygians. In succeeding centuries the Hittites built a mighty empire in the Middle East which lasted until about 1,200 B.C. As was so often the case with other empires founded by Indo-Europeans, the proximate cause of the demise of the Hittite empire was the appearance on the scene of a new group of Indo-Europeans who had not yet polluted their blood through racemixing—in this case, the Phrygians.

Toward the end of the 13th century the Phrygians came around the western end of the Black Sea and crossed over into Asia Minor from Macedonia. Their Indo-European cousins, the Dorians, may well have been their traveling companions, until the paths of the two groups separated in Macedonia, with the Dorians continuing southward to conquer the Achaeans of the Peloponnesus, while the Phrygians turned eastward to conquer the Hittites.

At about the same time, a group of Indo-European invaders—part of a larger group given the name “Peoples of the Sea” by the Egyptians—landed on the coast of southern Canaan, conquered the local Semites, and established a kingdom. They were the Philistines, from whom came the modern name of the territory they occupied: Palestine.

The exact origin of the Peoples of the Sea is not known with certainty. About all that can be said is that they had previously lived in the Aegean area: on the Greek mainland, the coast of Asia Minor, or the Aegean islands. In any event, they were Indo-Europeans—Nordic White men who had come into the Aegean area from north of the Black Sea at some earlier time.

The Philistines eventually extended their hegemony over the Semitic Israelites, who were their neighbors, and exacted tribute from the Israelite cities. The Israelites in turn regarded the Philistines as arch-enemies and hated them as only Jews can. Thus arose the Old Testament slurs against the Philistines, leading to the use of the word “Philistine” in a derogatory sense even today by Indo-Europeans raised on an unhealthy diet of Jewish mythology.

Every White man, woman, and child should understand that, on the contrary, the Philistines were the “good guys” in that ancient conflict between Aryan and Semite—a conflict which has continued unabated to this day.

The modern Palestinians, of course, bear as little resemblance to the ancient Philistines as the modern inhabitants of north-eastern Syria do to the ancient Mitanni.

Because this elite generally chose to conquer and rule, rather than to exterminate, they invariably fell victim to racemixing and eventual absorption into the non-Indo-European masses. Today their only traces are to be found in an occasional gray-eyed or blue-eyed or green-eyed Turk or Syrian, a fair-haired Iraqi or Palestinian.

In the cases of those peoples who left extensive records, oral or written, which have come down to us, it is plain that the failure of the Indo-Europeans who invaded the Middle East and other parts of Asia to maintain their stock unmixed was not due to a lack of racial consciousness: there was always a strong awareness of the fundamental differences between themselves and the non-Indo-European peoples around them. Nor was it due to any milksop morality, any turn-the-other-cheek doctrine of pacifism or false humanitarianism which kept them from extirpating the alien gene pool in order to preserve the integrity of their own.
 

Economics over race

The ultimate downfall of the Nordic conquerors in Asia, just as in the Mediterranean world, can be traced to an economic consideration and to an error in human judgment.

The economic consideration was that a conquered population, just like the land itself or the gold and other booty seized by the conquerors, had real value. Whether the people were enslaved or merely taxed as subjects, they were an economic resource which could be exploited by the conquerors. To drive them off the land or wipe them out completely would, from a strictly economic viewpoint, be akin to dumping captured gold into the ocean.

Such an action could be justified to a conquering tribe of Indo-Europeans only if they were willing to subordinate all economic considerations to the goal of maintaining their racial integrity into the indefinite future—and if they also had a sufficiently deep understanding of history to foresee the inevitability of racial mixing wherever two races are in close proximity. Unfortunately, even where the will for racial survival was very strong, the foresight was insufficient. Measures which were quite adequate to prevent racemixing for a few generations, or even for a few centuries, broke down over the course of a thousand years or more.

Aryans. The foregoing remarks are especially well illustrated by the fate of a related group of Indo-European tribes whose members called themselves Aryans. Although the name “Aryan” is sometimes used to designate any person of Indo-European ancestry, it applies especially to the tribes which, beginning probably in the third millennium B.C., migrated eastward and southeastward from the ancient Nordic homeland, some going down through Turkistan and into Iran from the northeast—and some into the more easterly foothills of the Hindu Kush, in what is now Afghanistan.

The high Iranian plateau, much of it covered with grass, provided an ideal territory for the horsemen from the northern steppes. They multiplied and prospered, raiding their non-Indo-European neighbors in the Zagros Mountains or on the edge of the Sumerian plain from time to time, collecting slaves and booty. They maintained their racial purity scrupulously enough, however, so that, as late as the middle of the first millennium B.C., King Darius the Great could still proudly and truthfully boast: “I am an Aryan, the son of an Aryan.”

But Semites and other aliens became more numerous in Iran as the might and wealth of the Aryan Persians grew. In the reign of Darius’ son Xerxes, as we know from the Old Testament’s Book of Esther, Jews were already quite influential there. Today, 2,500 yeas later, the Iranians are no more Aryan than their Semitic neighbors, so thoroughly have the genes of the various races in that part of the world been mixed.

Conquest of India. To the east, in India, the details were different, but the outcome was the same. In the 16th century B.C. there was a thriving, non-White civilization in the Indus valley, with centers at Mohenjo-daro and Harappa. Trade was carried on with countries as far away as Egypt.

Then the Aryans came across the towering, ice-covered Hindu Kush in the north and fell upon the dwellers in the southern valleys with irresistible ferocity. First Harappa, and then Mohenjo-daro, was razed, and the Indo-Europeans were in possession of the rich Land of the Seven Rivers.

It was yet another land whose aboriginal inhabitants differed profoundly from the Indo-European conquerors, both physically and spiritually. And in this new land the Aryans made as determined an effort as anywhere to avoid racemixing.

The tribal society of the Nordic invaders was already organized hierarchically into three estates, or castes: the priests, the warriors (from whom came the rulers), and the workers (farmers, craftsmen, and merchants). After the conquest of the Indian aborigines (or dasyus, as the Aryans called them), a fourth estate was added: that of the servants, the hewers of wood and the fetchers of water.

The estates, which among the Aryans had been somewhat flexible, offering the possibility of social movement from one estate to another, became fixed in an absolutely rigid caste system. Not only intermarriage, but every form of social intercourse between the castes except that absolutely necessary for the functioning of society, was banned, and the ban had the authority of religion as well as of law.

The Sanskrit literature of the ancient Aryans is filled with references to the distaste the Nordic conquerors felt for the dark, flat-nosed natives. Poets referred to the dasyus as “the noseless ones” and “the blackskins.” One poet wrote, “Destroying the dasyus, Indra (the ancient Aryan god of the sky, cognate with the Hellenic Zeus and Roman Jupiter, head of the Aryan pantheon prior to the rise of Brahmanism) protected the Aryan color.” According to another poet, “Indra protected in battle the Aryan worshipper… he conquered the blackskin.” And still another: “He (Indra) beat the dasyus as is his wont… He conquered the land with his white friends.”

The Sanskrit literature, incidentally, has preserved for us the most extensive sample of an Indo-European language from the second millennium B.C. (assuming that the earliest Vedas, which were originally transmitted orally, were fixed in their present form sometime prior to 1,000 B.C.). Many common Sanskrit words are quite similar to common words of the same or similar meaning in the classical or modern European languages, thus illustrating the unity of the Indo-European peoples and their languages over the enormous area of the earth’s surface which they eventually covered.

Unfortunately, the Aryans of ancient India were far more successful in preserving their language than their racial integrity. The Brahmans and Kshatriyas of the India of today are lighter, on the average, than the Untouchables, and there are a number of individuals in northern India who are practically White in their coloring and features—but, nevertheless, the Aryans are gone forever. All their initial determination and all the rigidity of the caste system were insufficient to prevent a mixing of genes over the span of 35 centuries.

The insidiousness of the destruction of a race through racemixing lies in the gradualness with which it can proceed. In the beginning one has two quite distinct races—one tall and fair, the other short and dark. Keeping the two from mixing genetically seems a simple matter.

By the time the damage has become quite noticeable, racial decadence has become irreversible. The subtle but essential qualities of psyche and intellect in the Aryans which led to conquest and to the building of Aryan civilization are diluted to ineffectiveness in their almost-Aryan descendants fifteen or twenty centuries later, even though fair hair and blue eyes may still be abundant.

That is what happened to Aryan Persia and Aryan India. And it is also what is happening to Aryan America and Aryan Europe today.