re flaming nazis in article qsami h access digex net dickeney access digex com dick eney writes the trouble with trying to find out the truth is that roehm and his buddies were accused of being flaming faggots one of the pretexts for the night of long knives in which roehm and most of the sa wing of the nsdap were purged stop hold it you have a few problems here official history says that the first accusations of homosexuality in the sa came from outside of the nazi party long before the nazis ever came to power so this objection is a red herring even if established history is wrong on this point moreover none of the histories i ve read ever made mention of hitler or anyone else ever using homosexuality as a pretext for purging roehm a point i saw reiterated was that hitler and the party covered up these accusations if you are going to accuse official history of being a fabrication you should at least get your facts right the pretext for purging roehm was that he was planning to use the sa in a coup against hitler nowhere is there mention of using allegations of homosexuality as a pretext for the purge nor as a justification afterwards it is possible that the histories i ve read have not mentioned this but i doubt it would it be in hitler s best interest to admit to the world that his former right hand man was a homosexual anyway as i said before it is always possible that i have missed references to the nazis making use of charges of homosexuality against the sa after the night of the long knives but this does not prove that they were false even the nazis could tell the truth when it was to their advantage in any case this does not deal with accusations of homosexuality in the sa during the s since the accusers thereafter controlled the records anything bearing on the subject true or not has to be considered tainted evidence ah yes i forgot this was being posted to alt conspiracy i can smell the paranoia from here since the nazis never officially charged roehm with homosexuality at least not according to what i ve read i d like to know what tainted evidence you are talking about since the accusations were made by persons outside of the nazi party long before it came to power and those accusations were common knowledge to journalists and others in germany in the s and s just how would it be possible for the nazis to go back in time and plant tainted evidence how exactly does one doctor newspapers which were circulated around the world without the discrepancies being obvious what actual incidences of nazi doctoring evidence on this matter do you know about and what about the testimony of people who were involved in these matters some of whom were not nazis and what is the point of making a false accusation of homosexuality if you do not publicize it since the point here seems to be to discredit established history then the burden of proof falls on the revisionist the revisionists had better do their homework before making accusations otherwise they simply look like conspiracy nuts the available data suggest that roehm and his crowd the sa sturmabteilung storm troopers left the world a better place when they departed this is just about the only thing we agree on i suspect that the notion that there might have been bad people roehm and his sa buddies who were homosexuals must disturb some people the feeling seems to be that if a nasty individual is accused of homosexuality that this must be an attempt to bash homosexuals this fear often justified is what lies behind this distrust of official history or so it seems to me but this is not a good justification for trashing accepted accounts of this subject if you really think that historians are so incompetent why don t you write them and ask where they got their sources on this subject if you can t tell from their footnotes i m a graduate student in history writing to professors and tracking down sources is old hat but my time is limited and this is not my specialty and neither you nor anyone else have said anything that would cast one shred of doubt on existing evidence i m not going to waste my time trying to debunk someone s paranoia do the research yourself but concrete particulars are still no more than more or less shrewd guesses diccon frankborn given that you already consider all evidence tainted what on earth would constitute concrete particulars and since when have concrete particulars been considered shrewd guesses i suggest that those who do not trust popular historians irving et al historians writing for a popular audience do not as a rule provide copious footnotes should try instead reading academic historians who usually provide footnotes to all their sources in immmense detail this is the place to start looking assuming that one really wants to know the truth i ll bet the folks on alt pagan are tired of this subject already my apologies we seem to have gone off on a bit of a tangent i forget which gods are responsible for keeping strings within appropriate newsgroup subject boundaries david matthew deane deane binah cc brandeis edu be in me as the eternal moods of the bleak wind let the gods speak softly of us in days hereafter ezra pound
