1

How are you so sure that he is fascist?? I don’t believe in the portrays that the Northamerican papers give. Anyone who is a right wing person is portrayed as nazi or fascist in our press. Northamerican papers are extremely byass. For many of you the papers are your "bible": you believe everything portrayed there even if they are just opinions… I don’t like fascism but I hate people who see fascist in any boy who is not a socialist.

2

Well, I just have to respond to the above post. I agree that it’s crass when the word "fascist", or worse "nazi", gets thrown around lightly. It belittles the danger of fascism. There’s nothing I hate more, for example, than a newslist discussion group that degenerates into somebody calling somebody else a "fascist". That Seinfeld "soupnazi" episode has a lot to answer for.

So, I agree with Marga on that point. However, Jörg Haider is, at the very least, an extreme right-wing nationalist with very fascist-like opinions. And if it sounds like a fascist and smells like a fascist…

By the way, my opinions on Jörg Haider (and Jessica’s also, I presume) are not based on anything in the American media. I have no idea how the American media is reporting this issue. My opinions are based on what Haider himself has said. He has referred to concentration camps as "punishment camps", he has praised Hitler’s empoyment policies and believes the SS to have been an honourable fighting force.

In a way, it’s quite an achievement of Haider’s to have earned being called a fascist by someone like me.

3

right on, brothers and sisters! hit the bastards on the nose on in the genitals if you see them around where ever you are.

4

i wondered if there is any information to be found about jörd haiders previous life before being a politian and so on? i would be pleased if anybody could help me out!

5

dear author,

i am from austria and was very surprised how you experienced our country. it might be true that there are people that have xenophobic tendencies, but the majority of the Austrians do not vote for Haider. your article gives readers the impression that we all are nazis and like Haider. that is absolutley not the truth. Most of us are ashamed of him. As you might have heard Haider left the blue party and founded a new one, I hope a weak one that will have no success and will finally fail…

maybe your researches should concentrate on your own american "charismatic" problem. George Bush is not really a popular person outside of the US as well…

6

I didn’t mean to imply that *everyone* in Austria likes Haider or voted for his party - but certainly at the time I wrote this article (which, to be fair, was over five years ago), a *lot* of people in Austria did, as witnessed by the fact that the FPÖ became part of the coalition government. And it still *is* part of it, though Haider isn’t in the party anymore, and the party has far fewer seats than it did.

I’m happy that a lot of Austrians are angry with Haider/the FPÖ and have demonstrated against them. Keep up the good work.

As for the American issue: this article was written in the run-up to the American presidential election in 2000, and one of the key points in the article (as I stated towards the end) was that people should vote on the basis of issues, not charisma. Of course, that doesn’t appear to have happened, either in 2000 or in 2004 - and if you look at more recent articles on this site, you’ll see that my esteem for George Bush is about as high as my esteem for Jörg Haider.

7

So many mis-informed people! Having studied the Third reich for over thirty years it always amazes me how some people react to anything that challenges the propaganda that has passed as history. First of all, in spite of anything else that happened, Hitler’s ecnomic turnaround of Germany was and remains unparalleled. Haider was correct in praising it.

Second, calling all veterans of the Waffen SS criminals not only shows a complete lack of historical knowledge but is also "guilt by association" which is a concept abhorred by any decent person. One example of how this notion is garbage is found in the battle of Arnhem. In spite of the fact that his troops were about to win the battle, Waffen SS General Wilhelm Bittrich granted a British request not only for a cease-fire to evacuate their wounded, but he also agreed to accept the seriously wounded men that the British could not properly care for into his own already overburdened hospitals. Hardly the actions of a criminal.

Those of us who study history in depth know that all combat forces have their heroes and their villans and that atrocious acts have been committed by EVERY military force in history, including our own American troops. In fact, the only known written order to "take no prisoners" (essentially to murder surrendering men)in WWII was written by the commander of the American 29th Infantry Division in France in 1944 and was written in reference to surrendering Waffen SS and Paratroop soldiers. There were recorded and verified mass murders of German troops by American, British, French, and especially Soviet forces. The Soviets not only murdered on a scale that dwarfs anything the Waffen SS ever did but they regularly raped (and usually disfigured and killed) any and all females of any age (including children and the elderly) that they found in any city they occupied. Funny that the Red Army is not remembered as a criminal organization. That is because the history books are only written by the winners.

8

The fact that you’ve praised Hitler and Haider in one sentence makes me immediately disregard everything else you have to say. And the fact that you call yourself a historian is a joke. "Historical revisionist" - or "Nazi apologist" - would fit better.

9

That fact that your complete lack of education and knowledge forces you to resort to name-calling forces me to face the fact that it is truly a waste of time to state proven, undeniable facts to you and assume that such a biased, hate-filled person would actually be capable of learning. I usually do not bother wasting my time this way but every now and then you do find someone with the intelligence to realize that maybe they do not know everything. That is obviously not the case with you.

10

And just for your information, ALL historians are "revisionist" because we all recognize that history is constantly revised as new information becomes available from new sources. Those of you who think history is set in stone know nothing of historical, or any other form of research.

11

Oh please - you come to *my* site and praise *Adolf Hitler*, and then claim that *I’m* the ignorant, "biased, hate-filled" one? Give me a break. Of course I don’t know everything - but I sure as hell know enough to realize that nothing - NOTHING - about Adolf Hitler is praiseworthy. Some things *are* sent it stone, buddy, and the fact that Hitler was a monstrous, anti-Semitic megalomaniac responsible for murdering millions upon millions of innocent people and ripping apart the fabric of Europe is one of them. Your talk of an "economic turnaround" is so incredibly beside the point that it would make me laugh if it didn’t make me so sick.

I am willing to engage in debate with people whose views differ from mine - but at the same time, I feel there are some absolutes in this world. And the evil, unforgiveable nature of Adolf Hitler and the SS is definitely one of them. So call it throwing the baby out with the bathwater - but anyone who contemplates rallying to the defense of the Third Reich is automatically discredited in my view. So you go back to your David Irving books, and I’ll go back to my Deborah Lipstadt, and let’s call it a day.

12

Again you show your ignorance and your poorly informed, judgemental attitude. Sure, there were horrible things attributed to Hitler but to say "nothing is praiseworthy" shows your ignorance. Were you aware that he was Time Magazine’s Man of the Year in 1938 because of his leadership and turnaround of Germany?

I do not read much of Irving’s work but I do know Lipstadt. She is the one who said in writing that "no Jew should stoop to marrying outside their religion" while simultaneously claiming that anyone who asks questions about the Holocaust is a racist. She is also the one who calls those same people "crazed conspiracy theorists" while in the same sentence acusing them of being part of a huge anti-Israel conspiracy. She is a radically biased imbicile. If she is the kind of person you respect I now understand why you are so un-informed. If she is so sure of her position why does she refuse debate? If you have then truth and proof on your side debate an awesome opportunity to dispense with your detractors once and for all. The only reason to fear debate is knowing that you will lose. I think that she and her ilk were terrified by the admission by the Jewish-run Auschwitz Memorial Museum (at the former camp location) that there is no way that 6 million jews perished in the camps because it is absolutely technically impossible that 4 million died in Auschwitz as the Soviets claimed. The museum has even taken down the plaque that had been there for decades which stated that 4 million had perished there and replaced it with one that says 1.4 million. And before you resort to calling me a Nazi as your kind always does, realize that I am not saying the six million number is wrong, the curator of the museum (a Jewish man) is saying it. The change was based on the best available documentation and evidence and since making the change he has been subjected to death threats against himself and his family. Just for being honest about the facts. Who are the violence-prone haters? You are right about one thing though, we should call it a day because un-educated, un-informed, biased people like you who do no research and believe what ever they want based on nothing will never open their minds.

13

Jessica, I just wanted to add that I am sorry that I start to sound mean but it is frustrating to have people call you names while ignoring your factual arguments. That is why I said I usually do not bother wasting my time. People have had so many falsehoods about WWII drilled into their minds for so long that it takes an incredible amount of effort to get them to realize that they need to stop just believing and start reading. As I said, I have studied WWII and the Third Reich in particular for over thiry years and the number of things that even I once believed that have been proven wrong since the fall of communism has flooded the field with new information is staggering. The most bothersome thing you learn over so many decades of study is that the "bad guys" were not as bad we were taught and the "good guys" were not so good.

14

Look, I can’t make this much clearer: your opinions are not only personally abhorrent but factually just plain wrong. And I’m not going to debate with you, not because I "fear debate" (nice try), but because there’s aboslutely nothing to debate - and anyway, debating the Holocaust with a Holocaust denier is like debating evolution with a fundamentalist Christian, i.e., absolutely futile. I have much better things to do with my time, thanks.

You’re entitled to believe what you want to believe and say what you want to say. However, you’re not entitled to do it on my site. Coming to my site and making excuses for Hitler or denying the Holocaust is like coming into my house and doing the same thing. I wouldn’t stand for that kind of talk in my house, and I won’t stand for it on my site either. There are plenty of other outlets online for you to disseminate your particular brand of belief, so please, stop posting here. This little exchange is going nowhere, so it’s ending now. I’ve asked civilly - I won’t ask again.

15

WOW. I made no excuse for Hitler, I only stated the FACT that his government turned Germany’s economy around. Nor did I deny the Holocaust, I only stated the FACT that the official Auschwitz Museum has adjusted the numbers involved. Pictures of the old and new plaques are posted in several places on the internet. Nothing I stated is "belief" only fact. Both of these facts are easily verifiable to anyone who cares to have actual knowledge instead of beliefs which you obviously do not. And as far as evolution goes, you are sadly ignorant there too. I am in NO way a fundamentalist but here are the facts:

There are two places to look for verification of the Theory of Evolution: the fossil record and breeding experiments with animals. If the Evolution theory is correct, the fossil record should show innumerable slight gradations between earlier species and later ones. Even Darwin was aware, however, that the fossil record of his day showed nothing of the sort, and not only mentioned this is his book, he devoted an entire chapter to it entitled "The imperfection of the fossil record".

The fossil record still shows exactly what it showed in Darwin’s day-that species appear suddenly in a fully developed state and change little or not at all before disappearing. Paleontologist Stephen Stanley writes that "the fossil record does not convincingly demonstrate a single transition from one species to another." The scientific evidence shows that Evolution has never occurred, not even once, ever.

Since we do not see species changing into other species in the fossils, the only other place to look is breeding experiments. But here the evidence also goes against Evolution. Breeders can change the color of a pigeon or the size of a cow to some degree, but they can only go so far. In fact, all breeders have the same experience: If they try to go too far in one direction, the animal or plant in question either becomes sterile or reverts back to the original type. If you have a thousand-point mutation in the genes of a fruit fly, a statistical impossibility, it is still a fruit fly. Modem genetics shows that DNA programs a species to remain stubbornly what it is. There are minor fluctuations around a norm, but nothing more. Dogs remain dogs; fruit flies remain fruit flies, chimps remain chimps, humans remain humans.

All the major body plans we see today in animals and insects appeared at once in the Cambrian era, a fact which does not fit Evolution’s model. Many species like the lungfish, various reptiles, and numerous insects have not changed at all in over 300 million years despite major shifts in their environment, which flatly contradicts the theory of Evolution.

A biologist who works at the American Museum of Natural History summed the situation of evolutionary theory today: "We know that species reproduce, that there are different species now than there were a hundred million years ago, and that there are species here now that were here a hundred million years ago. Everything else is propaganda."

It was recently discovered that the earliest modern man and the (currently accepted) most advanced ancestor that Evolutionists try to connect actually co-existed. This rules out evolution as impossible, period.

They say "ignorance is bliss". You must be one of the happiest people on Earth. Good Bye.