Skip to main content

Holocaust Denying Asshats II

Image result for harry elmer barnes genesis of the world war

Both Sean Spicer and Marine Le Pen have in recent days uttered claims that might well fit under the capacious tent of "Holocaust revisionism." Spicer has walked it back, and one can generously attribute his comments to gross maladroitness in the performance of ... well ... his job.

Still: such events do give us the opportunity to observe that much of the crap that passes itself off these days as "Holocaust revisionism" traces itself back to Harry Elmer Barnes, a paid apologist and propagandist for Nazi Germany in real time.

Barnes may have been atoning for his own war guilt. During the "Great War," 1914-18, Barnes was an enthusiast for the crusade against the Huns.

When peace came, Barnes (like many at the time) wondered what it all had been about. He concluded not just that he had been overly enthusiastic, not just that he had been wrong in seeing the war as a matter of white hats versus black hats, but that in fact he had had the 'hats' the wrong way around -- that the Central Powers were forced into a war they didn't want, and then were forced into a draconian peace by the actual warmongers.

In his 1927 book, THE GENESIS OF THE WORLD WAR, he treated both Germany and Austria-Hungary as victims of an evil Franco-Russian plot. By this time he was in the pay of the German Foreign Ministry.

He seems to have been led into anti-semitic conspiracy theories by degrees. He spoke to the former Kaiser while working on his book, and the Kaiser told him that he was wrong to blame France and Russia for the calamity of  1914. He should rather blame the freemasons and international Jewry which had worked their will through those nations.

In the late 1930s Barnes was syndicating a weekly newspaper column arguing that the powers to Germany's east and west were once again ganging up on it.

In 1940 the New York World-Telegram dropped his column. Barnes of course knew who the culprits must be: the city's Jewish department store owners.

Barnes wisely kept silent on such matters during the period from Pearl Harbor until the defeat of the Axis powers. Once this war was over he got to work writing -- this time without foreign subsidization, for Adenauer would clearly have been uninterested -- that this time too the Germans had been the victims. Hitler, Barnes wrote in 1947, had been the only reasonable world leader around in 1939, and it was Britain that was responsible for the outbreak of war.

His pamphlets through the '50s and '60s laid the groundwork for the stupid holocaust-denialist arguments of our own time.

I am almost inspired to song. How about a few alternative lyrics to the tune of "Signs"?

Barnes Barnes, too much left of Barnes,
Breaking up the scenery, raising alarms.
Jew this, Jews did that
"Can't you see?" asks Baaaarnes....


Popular posts from this blog

Great Chain of Being

One of the points that Lovejoy makes in the book of that title I mentioned last week is the importance, in the Neo-Platonist conceptions and in the later development of the "chain of being" metaphor, of what he calls the principle of plenitude. This is the underlying notion that everything that can exist must exist, that creation would not be possible at all were it to leave gaps.

The value of this idea for a certain type of theodicy is clear enough.

This caused theological difficulties when these ideas were absorbed into Christianity.  I'll quote a bit of what Lovejoy has to say about those difficulties:

"For that conception, when taken over into Christianity, had to be accommodated to very different principles, drawn from other sources, which forbade its literal interpretation; to carry it through to what seemed to be its necessary implications was to be sure of falling into one theological pitfall or another."

The big pitfalls were: determinism on the on…

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.

We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a majestic wate…