Arthur R. Butz – The Hoax Of The Twentieth Century

Chapter 8: Remarks
does everything possible to keep the lie propped up and to prevent open discussion,
is a different matter, because the cause for its behavior is not innocent misunderstanding.
The basic fact is that the claim of the Bonn government to be a
German government is somewhat tenuous. The entire political structure of West
Germany was established by the U.S. government. This includes the control of the
newspapers and other media, the control of the schools, and the constitution of
thid Bundesrepublik. As a puppet creation, this “German” political establishment
necessarily had an interest in the lies of the conquerors and behaved accordingly.
That is very simple, and this situation is perfectly illustrated by the career of the
man who was Chancellor of West Germany during the greater part of the time
when this book was being written: Herr Willy Brandt (an alias – Brandt’s real
name is Herbert Ernst Karl Frahm – Frahm was his mother’s maiden name).
Marxist Brandt left Germany after the Hitler takeover and acquired Norwegian
citizenship. After the German invasion of Norway in 1940, he slipped into neutral
Sweden and eventually was given a position in the press corps there. It was none
other than Willy Brandt who, during the war, was transmitting the concocted
propaganda stories that had supposedly originated in Stockholm and ended up on
the pages of the New York Times. 426
After the defeat of Germany, Brandt naturally decided that the atmosphere
back home had improved, so he returned to Germany, resumed German citizenship,
and entered West Berlin politics as a Social Democrat. He eventually became
Mayor of West Berlin and acquired a press aide, Hans Hirschfeld, a German
Jew who, along with Kempner, Marcuse, et al., had been employed in the OSS
during the war. During the 1961 espionage trial in the U.S. of R. A. Soblen, which
resulted in Soblen being sentenced to life imprisonment, a government witness,
Mrs. J. K. Beker, who had been a courier in a Soviet espionage ring during the
war but had turned FBI informer later, testified that she had carried information
from Hirschfeld to Soblen for transmission to Moscow. Mrs. Beker was the principal
government witness, so the obvious answer of the defense should have been
to produce Hirschfeld. Indeed, Soblen’s defense counsel said that he had attempted
to convince Hirschfeld to come to the U.S. to testify, but Hirschfeld declined,
at first on the grounds that the publicity associated with his appearance as
a witness could hurt Brandt, who was engaged in an election campaign. Hirschfeld
was also concerned about the possibility that he might be charged with some
sort of offense if he journeyed to the U.S. Brandt, in New York during the controversy
involving Hirschfeld, naturally defended his former close associate, who
had by that time been living in retirement in Germany.
In order to give the defense every opportunity to make a case for Soblen, the
government offered Hirschfeld immunity against prosecution for “any past acts or
transactions” if he would come to the U.S. to testify, adding only that Hirschfeld
426
Grabert, Tübingen 1984; Deutschland in Geschichte und Gegenwart 36(3) (1988), p. 18; ibid.,
36(1) (1988), p. 7, ibid., 31(1) (1983), pp. 19f., ibid., 29(3) (1981), p. 38. Re. the recent escalation
of naked terror in Germany, see Germar Rudolf’s article “Discovering Absurdistan” in The
Revisionist, 1(2) (May 2002), pp. 203-219.
New York Times (Aug. 12, 1972), 23.
293