Books by Veronica Clark

[jarno]

Does anyone know how to find any books by Veronica Clark? It seems like many are out of print, but also perhaps banned. Because there seems to be so much push-back against her work I find it all the more interesting. Good scholarship in my opinion should challenge our presumptions and she's been very successful at doing just that.

Here a couple of her pages that I could find:
https://codoh.com/library/authors/clark-veronica/
https://shop.codoh.com/author/clark-veronica-k/

[Mongol]

I don't know, but she covered some of the material in her books in her interviews with Deanna Spingola: http://spingola.com/SpingolaSpecials.html.

In one of the videos on her BitChute channel, she said that she took her old website down after her books were banned from Amazon.

[Otium]

Her books are terrible. I own a few of them. Their quality and 'scholarship' is extremely poor.

[Lamprecht]

Have you tried Library Genesis

This link works for now: https://libgen.is/

[DissentingOpinions]

Her books are terrible. I own a few of them. Their quality and 'scholarship' is extremely poor.

This coming from Zombie Hitler, who constantly has criticisms of anything NS material.

The quality is extremely poor.

Sums up your reply quite well.

[Otium]

This coming from Zombie Hitler, who constantly has criticisms of anything NS material.

You broke rule 3:

No name calling, period.

Not even an insult which makes sense.

I'm unaware of my 'constant criticisms of anything NS material'. In the case of Veronica Clark, she is not NS, so this most certainly doesn't apply to her. If she is NS, then she's a disgrace.

If I have criticised any 'NS' material, it is with good reason, not because I somehow dislike Nationalsocialism. I was unaware that this was my reputation! I will say that I will not simply accept 'NS material' uncritically just because it might superficially agree with me. If it's defective, wrong, or of a poor standard I will simply not agree with it (I also don't consider revisionist material to be inherently 'NS'). It has nothing to do with ideology.

I don't even recall having any interaction with you, so this unwarranted hostility is a surprise.

Sums up your reply quite well.

If I baked an apple pie which was soggy, undercooked, or even burnt, that would be low quality. However, if I told the person who had made the aforementioned soggy/burnt apple pie that their pie was low quality and I had not made anything, that person could not say that my apple pie was 'low quality' because I did not make one in the first place. Similarly, calling my 'reply' 'low quality' when it was not seeking to be anything other than a comment, cannot be 'low quality' because it was not intended to be a substantive reply or counter-weight to Clark's hackneyed 'scholarship'. You're not comparing apple pies to apple pies.

[Hektor]

The issue with authors with exceptional opinions is that they have a hard time finding people that will review their materials. You need someone with critical thinking skills that is willing to read your material, check it and give it a fair critique. That means he must know how your opponents will think and try finding fault with it. But he still must be fair enough not to slip into nagging.

One needs to be careful not to appraise a book, just because one likes the conclusion it implies. Happens to virtually everyone.

[Merlin300]

Her books are terrible. I own a few of them. Their quality and 'scholarship' is extremely poor.

I found Black Nazis interesting on a topic generally avoided by detractors of the National Socialist government.
Yes, the books would have probably been better if she had gotten a $250,000 grant from the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews
but that ain't going to happen!

The Veronica's books are worth buying. Keep searching.

[Kretschmer]

While I haven't looked all that much into Clark's works, I recall cited passages from Black Nazis containing loads of inaccuracies or false assumptions. Even the cover of the book is misleading in a sense, as the Chinese man in the Heer uniform is Chiang Wei-kuo (son of Chiang Kai-shek), who was sent to Germany for officer training. In other words, he wasn't in the Wehrmacht because of how accepting the Germans supposedly were of "diversity" in their ranks.

The book's mere title is also misleading, as while there were very small numbers of black troops who fought in the German Army (with some being found in the Free Arabian Legion), they were not "Nazis," in the sense that they were not National Socialists / Nationalsocialists and they were certainly not members of the NSDAP or even the Waffen-SS, either in technicality or in practice.

Nonetheless, there are many misinformed answers on Quora which cite Clark's work on the subject to varying extents, and I remember one answer even making the laughable claim that entire divisions composed of Afro-Germans were used - for reference, there were only 20,000 - 25,000 Afro-Germans in the entire country during the NS period.

Otium wrote:

I'm unaware of my 'constant criticisms of anything NS material'. In the case of Veronica Clark, she is not NS, so this most certainly doesn't apply to her. If she is NS, then she's a disgrace.

As for Clark herself, she isn't anything that could possibly be considered "far-right." She's on the Axis History Forum under the username GermanResearcher, and she delisted her books from Amazon, quote, "in protest against white nationalists, neo-nazis, and neo-fascists promoting and using my work and research for their racist, hateful agendas." The post containing the quote is #5 on this topic (https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=178445) in particular.

[jarno]

After reading the comments posted here, what I've come to think is that scholarship needs to be evaluated on it's own. And while I haven't been able to read her work, I like that it challenges dogmatic presumptions. Personally, I like a thesis that is challenging, and against the grain, which is the core of Holocaust revisionism. I think this says something admirable about her as an author, regardless of her personal politics. Remember that it takes courage to challenge dogma and prevailing views, and to expose oneself to public criticism. Hopefully I'll come across one of her books somewhere at some point in time.

[Otium]

While I haven't looked all that much into Clark's works, I recall cited passages from Black Nazis containing loads of inaccuracies or false assumptions.

Absolutely. You're quite right, and the inaccuracies you point are are indeed the crux of the issue at least regarding her series on 'Black Nazis'. Her whole political agenda, plainly obvious in her books, is to co-opt the Third Reich as some welcoming multi-racial empire. Most of the people I have seen 'convinced' by her work are impressed merely by photographs of non-whites in Wehrmacht uniforms. To them this is irrefutable 'proof' of the idea that the 'Nazis weren't really racist bro'. Of course, it isn't my intention to contradict this by saying that they were 'racist', but to say that they were not multiculturalists, racial/cultural pluralists (in a national sense).

In her book 'Hitler and Himmler Uncensored' she reproduces Hitler's Platterhof speech of May 26, 1944 which she considers to be his 'most important speech' in which Hitler disavows 'racism' and even the concept of 'race' etc. this is not the case. She suffers the pitfalls many do, in which she has trouble differentiating Hitler's use of the word 'race' and believes he is talking about continental races. She derives much pleasure from Hitler's comment that the German people are 'mixed race', which simply doesn't mean what she seems to think it does. Hitler's use of the term 'race', particularly in reference to the German people was much more insular than even ethnic groups between European peoples. We do not even have a word for this in our language, and back then 'race' was sufficient to describe the kind of regional 'differences' one claimed to have found among the German people geographically. So when Hitler speaks of the equality of the German people, or between German 'races' he is not talking about embracing multiculturalism, or disavowing the concept of 'race' in a continental sense. Yet she equates this with Hitler's supposed 'ambivalence' to the concept of 'race' as a whole and thus acceptance of the modern concept of multi-racialism:

Hitler ’s ambivalence

Upon seeing part of Hitler’s Platterhof speech of May 26, 1944 in John Lukacs’ biography The Hitler of History, I decided to obtain the speech and translate it into English myself, with Wilfried Heink. No historian had translated this speech, which is remarkable when one sees its content. It is a revealing speech, part of which is included in this book: one in which Hitler admits to having been wrong about race and Volk. While Hitler’s outlook remained “Volkisch nationalist,” he confessed that the strength of the German people was its diverse racial nuclei (multiraciality). He said the German Volk was a “mixed-race” Volk, but resolved to nurture the Nordic race nucleus more than the others, because he felt this nucleus was the most qualified for leadership and state organization. He appears to have attributed more value to individual Germans with highly sought after traits—these traits being the result of their ‘Nordic-ness’ in his view—than the German race as a whole, which he felt should be led by the most talented German citizens. He equated the best traits and talent with Nordicness (i.e. the Nordic nucleus).

From Black Nazis II! Like all good works of scholarship, there are no page numbers in this pdf.

Clark's summary even here doesn't lend credence to her point, and is thus somewhat perplexing, for it doesn't seem to even support her own contention. Here at least, she seems to think that meritocracy is mutually exclusive with racial consciousness, or what she would call 'racism'. Hitler though, had never been an opponent of meritocracy among the German people, which is not to imply a sympathy for civic-nationalism among all the world's people.

She also claims that Hitler 'openly says that Jews are 'biologically superior' to Nordics', and refers to the following passage from the address:

German:

Wir sehen also ein Volk, das aus verschiedenen Rassekernen besteht. Diese Rassekeme besitzen im einzelnen ihre besonderen Fähigkeiten; denn die Fähigkeiten lie- [Bl. 27/28]gen an sich nicht primär im Volk, sondern sie liegen primär in der Rasse begründet. Daß das deutsche Volk nun sehr viele Rassekeme besitzt, zeigt sich letzten Endes an dem Reichtum seiner Befähigungen. Denn all diese Rassekerne tragen in sich bestimmte Veranlagungen: der nordische Rassekern ein mehr kühl veranlagter, mathematisch veranlagter, organisatorisch außerordentlich befähigter Faktor, der Faktor, der überhaupt bisher auf der Erde Staaten organisiert hat, im wesentlichen organisiert hat. Dazu kommen nun andere Rassekerne mit einer stark[en] musischen Veranlagung, mit einer Begabung für das rein Optische, das Schauen, das Bild; dann wieder Rassekerne mit einer sehr starken musikalischen Begabung und auch Rassekerne mit einer sehr stark[en] kommerziellen Begabung. Der stärkste dieser Rassekerne, der eine kommerzielle Begabung ohne schöpferische Tätigkeit besaß, wäre bei uns bei längerer Dauer das Judentum geworden, nur mit dem einen Unterschied, daß dieses Judentum nicht als Rassekern im deutschen Volk aufgegangen wäre, sondern daß er das deutsche Volk allmählich völlig zersetzt haben würde.

English:

We thus see a people consisting of different racial nuclei. These racial nuclei possess their own special abilities; for the abilities do not lie primarily in the people, but lie primarily in the race. That the German people now possesses a great many racial nuclei is ultimately shown by the wealth of its abilities. For all these racial nuclei carry within them certain predispositions: the Nordic racial nucleus a more coolly inclined, mathematically inclined, extraordinarily capable organisational factor, the factor which has hitherto organised states on earth, essentially organised them. In addition, there are other racial nuclei with a strong musical disposition, with a talent for the purely optical, the visual, the pictorial; then again racial nuclei with a very strong musical talent and also racial nuclei with a very strong commercial talent. The strongest of these racial nuclei, which possessed a commercial talent without creative activity, would have become Judaism in our country if it had lasted longer, with the only difference that this Judaism would not have merged as a racial nucleus into the German people, but that it would have gradually completely decomposed the German people.

Bundesarchiv, Berlin-Lichterfelde; BArch NS 19/1452, pp 27-28. (sheets 28-29) cf. Hans-Heinrich Wilhelm, "Hitlers Ansprache vor Generalen und Offizieren am 26. Mai 1944", Militaergeschichtliche Zeitschrift, Vol. 20 (1976), No. 2, p. 149.

The Jew, in this speech, is also identified by Hitler as a 'foreign body', thus it could not be referred to as part of the German racial nucleus. The Jew, rather, is identified in this address as a 'germ cell', he states: "By removing the Jew, I have eliminated the possibility of any revolutionary nucleation or germ cell formation in Germany" [Indem ich den Juden entfernte, habe ich in Deutschland die Möglichkeit irgendeiner revolutionären Kernbildung oder Keimzellenbildung beseitigt.] Clark seems to equate the notion of a 'strong' racial nucleus as being 'better', thus she says Hitler believed the Jew was 'biologically superior', which he does not say. Hitler does however, say that he pushed the Jews out of German institutions to 'preserve what is better', i.e. the German people: "I have forced Judaism out of its positions, ruthlessly forced it out. Here, too, I have acted exactly as nature does, not cruelly, but rationally, in order to preserve what is better. . ." [Ich habe das Judentum aus seinen Stellungen herausgedrängt, und zwar rücksichtslos herausgedrängt. Ich habe auch hier genauso gehandelt, wie es die Natur macht, nicht grausam, sondern vernunftgemäß, um das Bessere zu erhalten. . .] How one could interpret from this that Hitler viewed the Jews as 'biologically superior' to the German people is unclear to me. He is only saying, so it seems to me, that the Jews have a stronger 'commercial talent' but lack any real soul. The reason this 'commercial talent' is quite strong is precisely because it lacks creativity, and thus integrity or loyalty to a people. This kind of this manifests today in all the consumerism we see; the conveyer belt of never-ending sub-par products which are not desired by anyone but merely begrudgingly accepted by them.

Now it seems unlikely to me that when Hitler talks about this commercial talent becoming Judaism that he is referencing Jews as they currently resided in that country. The word 'becoming' implies that merely having a commercial talent 'without creative activity' would as Hitler says immediately after 'have become Judaism'. Which is to go back to a point Hitler made more than 20 years prior, that Judaism is something which can manifest even without 'Jews'. It is a kind of conception, or idea:

We see that here already in the race there are two great differences: Aryanism means a moral conception of work and thus what we so often talk about today: Socialism, public spirit, common good before self-interest - Judaism means egoistic conception of work and thereby mammonism and materialism, the opposite of socialism. And in this quality, beyond which he cannot go, which lies in his blood, he himself recognizes that, in this quality alone lies the necessity for the Jew to absolutely have to act in a state-destroying way. He cannot do otherwise, whether he wants to or not. He is thereby no longer capable of forming a state of his own, for that more or less always presupposes a great deal of social feeling. He is therefore only able to live as a parasite in other states, he lives as a race in other races, as a state in other states, and we see here quite clearly that the race in itself does not have a state-building effect if it does not possess quite certain qualities which must lie in the race, which must be innate in it on account of its blood, and that conversely a race which does not possess these qualities must have a race-destroying and state-destroying effect, no matter whether the individual is good or evil.

[...]

First of all, we were aware of three principles which are inseparable from each other: socialism as the ultimate conception of duty, the moral duty of work not for one's own sake but also for the sake of one's fellow men, above all according to the principle: common good before self-interest, struggle against all droning and above all against the laborless and unemployed income. And we were aware that in this struggle we could rely on no one but our own people. We were convinced that socialism in this sense can only be found among nations and races that are Aryan, and here first and foremost we hope for our own people and are convinced that socialism is therefore inseparable from nationalism. For us, to be national does not mean to belong to one party or another, but to examine every action to see whether it benefits my whole people, love for the whole people without exception. From this conception we will understand that it is necessary to keep the most precious thing that a nation possesses, the sum of all its actively creating forces of its workers, be it the fist or the forehead, healthy in body and soul. And this conception of the national forces us immediately to make front against the opposite, the Semitic conception of the term people and above all against the Semitic conception of the term work.

If we are socialists, then we must necessarily be anti-Semites, then the contrary is the materialism and mammonism which we want to fight. And if today also the Jew assures us step by step and still runs into our factories and declares: How can you as a socialist be anti-Semitic? Aren't you ashamed of yourself? - The time is coming when we will ask once: How can you as a socialist not be anti-Semitic! The time is coming when it will be self-evident that socialism can only be carried out in the company of nationalism and anti-Semitism.

Adolf Hitler, August 13th 1920; Eberhard Jäckel & Axel Kuhn (eds.), Hitler: Sämtliche Aufzeichnungen 1905-1924 (Stuttgart: Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt, 1980), Doc. 136, pp. 190, 200-201.

Odd too is that the foreword to her book reproducing Himmler and Hitler speeches is an excerpt from the linguist Wilhelm Schmidt's book Rasse und Volk: Ihre allgemeine Bedeutung, ihre Geltung im deutschen Raum (1935) who was an Austrian Catholic priest who 'fled from the Nazis' and was exiled in Switzerland. Yet Clark does not mention this, and to the unwitting reader would perhaps think that Schmidt was a Nationalsocialist - and that his book reflects 'Nazi ideology', which doesn't seem to be the case. Although this is not to say Schmidt's book is wrong, or that there aren't overlapping points of agreement. It is merely to point out that the way Clark uses Schmidt's book is suspect.

---

One of her other books I have Nation & Race is about 'Nazi racial theory'. The book however, seems to be a hodgepodge of another persons book. I cannot recall the name unfortunately, I own it but have packed it away. I found it odd because I had bought two of these poor looking books to see what they said, and I was surprised that they they seemed to share the exact same content, verbatim in some cases. Regardless. The scholarship was equally poor. A lack of citations, links to wikipedia and news articles. Stuff like that.

Of course there is nothing more authoritative than the source 'Youtube Screenshot':

From her Black Nazis II!

In the book above, there is a frightful lack of citations. The photographs are not cited properly. She often refers to the German federal archives, but doesn't provide sources to the actual 'Bildarchiv' which is the department that actually holds photographs; nor does she provide a photo number which is provided by the archive.

Her books would not pass any professional publishing standard. Her competency varies, but generally hovers at a level slightly above mediocrity in some cases and far below in overall presentation and scholarship/academic competency.