
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.


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.


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.


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...