In article <1qsami$3h7@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  1920'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  1920's and 30'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...