How Uri Got His Nobel Prize

Trigger Warning

Those who lost relatives in the Holocaust may find it upsetting.

Summary Of The Story

This is a fantasy which involves going back to the time when Hitler (who was responsible for the worst crime in history) was alive. I have used only Historical Facts to which Professor Marcus and the students react. Their reactions are therefore speculations about Historical Facts or technically "historian created second order facts".

In this story the quest is for Historical Facts about Hitler.

Historical Facts

I have used only factual incidents about the Berlin Airlift, a possible third World War, Hitler signing the order for T4 (a copy is in Wikipedia), the massacre of disabled people and its development, Churchill wanting America to use the remaining 2 nuclear bombs on Russia and Truman sending planes to Britain.

The incident involving Ernst Hanfstaengl's wife is attested to in "Hitler's Piano Player".

The story mentions Holocaust deniers. Let me state that the Holocaust is an undeniable Historical Fact. The same applies to Stalin's Holomodor (literally "death by starving") of the Ukrainian peasantry.

In my opinion, Holocaust and Holomodor denial ought to be a criminal offences.

The Background To The Time Travel

We post graduates were studying in Harvard under the world renowned Professor Marcus Whitehead. He made his name returning to the "Great Man" theory of history. Marcus poured scorn on the sociological study of history, which had ruled the roost for 3 decades. He took no prisoners in academic debates. On CBS he won over viewers with his colourful bon mots. He maintained "To understand WW2 and much of the modern day we need to know the psychology of the 4 big egos. The 4 egos being Hitler, Churchill, Stalin and Roosevelt.

Truman Is Not A Great Ego

The President who followed Roosevelt as an Allied war leader was not a great ego, according to Professor Marcus. The Professor said "The organ grinder backed the nuclear bomb. His monkey merely said to use it."

This view of Truman meant he was headline news, for many feel he was too dismissive of Truman's war winning, and war stopping, ways.

The Berlin Airlift

The Professor said "The 33rd President broke Europe and it still isn't fixed."

Trumanite supporters say that Truman stopped a Third World War and therefore saved Europe. This drew attention to "The Berlin Airlift". In 1948 Soviet forces blocked all major road, rail, and canal links to West Berlin, thus starving it of electricity, as well as a steady supply of essential food and coal. The Allies and Stalin had control of different parts of Berlin. Stalin wanted to take over the whole city. Stalin was able to blockade Berlin because he had written agreements with the Allies that enabled him to do it.

Stopping World War Three

One of the Generals wanted to break the blockade by driving to the blockaded city. He said "If the Soviets fire on us we will fire back." This could easily have meant a hot war instead of the Cold War that dominated post WW2 and still continues.

Trumanites pointed out that Truman had few options if hostilities broke out. The Red Army stationed in and around Berlin dwarfed the Allies by a substantial margin. Yet the Americans couldn't lose Berlin. It was a symbol of the American intent for a peaceful democratic Europe.

They draw attention to the fact that Truman told the General "It is I, as President, who decides foreign policy and not you."

How To Aid Blockaded Berlin?

This meant that Berlin must be provisioned. Luckily the Allied agreement with Stalin allowed air corridors. This allowed for an unarmed humanitarian mission. If the Soviets opposed the airlift with force, it would be an act of aggression and a violation of the written agreement. The onus of igniting a conflict between the former allies would be on the aggressor. Had a military convoy driven along Soviet controlled roads then America would be the aggressor, breaching a freely agreed treaty.

Trumanites point out that he also sent to the UK B-29 bombers, which were capable of carrying nuclear weapons. They say that Truman was prepared to go nuclear against Russia but wanted peace where possible. They also point out that the Allies counter-blockaded eastern Germany.

In September 1948, the German Communist Party marched on the Berlin City Council and forced it to adjourn. 300,000 West Berliners gathered at the Reichstag to show their opposition to a much feared Soviet domination. The turnout convinced the West to keep up the airlift.

At the height of the campaign, one plane landed every 45 seconds at Tempelhof Airport. By spring 1949, the Western Allies showed that they could sustain the operation indefinitely. On May 11, 1949, Moscow lifted the blockade of West Berlin.

It also transformed Berlin into a symbol of democracy and freedom in the fight against Communism. A theme taken up by President Reagan with his famous address at the Brandenburg Gate in 1987...

"As long as this scar of a wall is permitted to stand, it is not the German question alone that remains open, but the question of freedom for all mankind. General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalisation, come here to this gate.

Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate!

Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"

According to his supporters, Truman's Berlin Airlift is not only the greatest airlift in history but the greatest humanitarian effort in Europe. For Truman supporters, their hero saved many millions.

Why Not Go Nuclear?

Professor Marcus concedes that the humanitarian Airlift was a considerable logistical achievement. The quantity of food, and other necessities, that were delivered to beleaguered Berlin is staggering. It also showed the world that the Armed Forces can have a significant role in peacetime.

But the Professor sides with the General. He says that Churchill wanted to use the remaining 2 nuclear bombs against Russia. Stalin knew their power from the other 2 being used in Japan. Would Stalin have gambled on Moscow being flattened with St Petersburg next in line? Would ill provisioned Soviet troops around Berlin really fight so far from home if it meant St Petersburg being left in ruins? Would communist troops win when resupply was in the Western Allies favour?

In Professor Marcus's opinion the Western Allies could have got the free Poland that was the cause of WW2 by using Stalin's attack on a military relief convoy as a reason to declare war. In his view, the peace lovers consigned millions to subjugation. He further notes that Truman in a post Airlift audio Truman "considered many things including the destruction of many cities" but never explicitly considered ending Stalin's rule by force of arms. He knew all about Stalin and like a weak man he ducked the issue. Had Churchill been the President then there would have been no Cold War. There would have been no Moscow either and perhaps no St Petersburg.

Even the Professor had to concede that Truman's implementation of the Marshall Plan was well conceived and had helped Europe.

The Object Of Historical Research

As I wrote before, history was dominated by sociological research. Marcus's classic put down for the sociological historians was "Looking at the masses is to miss the main target for historical research, Without Hitler Germany would have been a minor player in Europe. Without Churchill Britain would have made a pact with Germany, Without Stalin Russia would have lost out to Germany and if Roosevelt hadn't helped Britain and Russia then Germany would have defeated both Britain and Russia. If Hitler controlled Europe then America would have had to sue for peace.

Did Versailles Cause WW2?

Professor Marcus told us assembled post graduates "WW2 was not caused by the treaties imposed on Germany."

He paused and indicated one of the post grads. He said "George here has done wonderful work on his contention that weak leaders made bad post WW1 treaties."

George smiled as Marcus was sparing in praise.

The Professor continued "While this is true it doesn't mean their attempts caused a follow up war.

WW2 wasn't caused by an economic cycle, though Hitler handled economic matters well. WW2 was solely due to Hitler's psychological make up. No Hitler, No WW2 and no Holocaust."

Professor Marcus lectured world wide. He took on most of the famous historians who he claimed were "too influenced by sloppy, socialist dogma. They watch Battleship Potemkin and think they know all about Russian history. They don't know shit."

As we listened intently he said "There are many spurious claims made about Hitler's psychology. Don't be taken in by the claims that Hitler was a pedo. That is just propaganda for book sales. They claim that Hitler was "that weird dude who is 35 yet hits on 17 year olds".

Not even the sociological pedants give this view any credence. But the book that made this claim has sold worldwide.

Remember that the age of consent was 14 in both Austria and Germany. And even if he was, you still have to prove his sexuality influenced his expansionist philosophy. He was also almost a teetotaller but that didn't influence his antisemitism."

You can make a case that Hitler's green credentials helped to start the war. And indeed that is what Uri is investigating for his doctoral theses."

Uri took a bow. Professor Marcus paused to take a sip of his gin and tonic. That was his signature drink. He let us into a secret "It was a very small gin and is mostly tonic. It is my tribute to Churchill who drank watered down whiskeys."

Andrea said "And whole bottles of the finest champagne. You can still buy his favoured brand, if you are a rich Professor at Harvard."

Professor Marcus retorted "I only drink the low alcohol champagne. My capacity for alcohol is substantially less than Churchill's. So too is my capacity for work much less than Churchill's. I also doubt I will get a Nobel Prize, but I live in hope."

The Professor was a great fan of the Great Man. He would hear no wrong said about Winston Spencer. He made mincemeat out of leftists who claim "Churchill was a racist" as if to say "Winston was as bad as Hitler".

Think Before You Open Your Mouth

I said "Stalin drank water but pretended that it was neat vodka so he could see what the others did when drunk."

I knew that I had made a fool of myself by making a non sequitur. The Professor had enough of our historical alcohol observations.

The Basis Of Modern International Law

The Professor was never one to stick to a single subject. He strayed off to a tangent on Churchill and Stalin. He said "And don't forget that Churchill stormed out of a formal dinner when Stalin suggested that the top 50,000 Nazis should be executed. Stalin realised that he had gone too far. He said it was a joke. Or rather, Stalin lied that it was a joke.

And in Churchill's rejection of Stalin's collective punishment we see the start of the Nuremberg trials. Because of Churchill people were tried not because of their membership of the Nazi party but on evidence of criminal behaviour. The most criminal people were executed, those of less criminality were given prison sentences and some were found Not Guilty.

The whole post WW2 de-Nazification process was because of Churchill's response to Stalin's joke."

The Professor asked rhetorically "And what response did the Americans take? They said to Stalin that the Allies should only execute 49,999 Nazis. Not their finest hour"

Back To Hitler

Changing tack he asked us "The allegation was that Hitler was a pedo with its applied assumption that this affected his judgement. As historians we need to examine the evidence. We need to see what evidence is advanced. We also need to challenge the assumption that his sexuality contributed to WW2.

Who was Hitler's first known lover? Before you shout out the wrong answer it wasn't Geli Raubal, his 17-year-old half niece. She was weak and he controlled her. He controlled Geli so much that she shot herself. It was the 16-year-old shopgirl Maria Reiter. Hitler wanted to marry her, she alleges. But there is no indication that this relationship, even if it existed as Maria claims it did. And historians must always question the evidence.

There is no evidence that Hitler had "a psychiatric disorder in which he had sexual fantasies yet alone engaged in sexual acts with a prepubescent child. If you find any evidence then prostitute your profession and write a world wide best seller."

Ifs, Buts and Maybes Of History

In a speculation the Professor said "We also know that Hitler wanted to marry his confidant Ernst Hanfstaengl's wife. Unwittingly Mrs Hanfstaengl helped bring about WW2. Hitler's attempt to take over Germany by military means had failed. Many of the other traitors were shot and Hitler fled to the Hanfstaengl house. He wanted to end his own life but she persuaded him not to.

Luckily Hitler never listened to Ernst's advice about the American ability. It is feasible that Hitler might not have declared war on America had he taken notice of Ernst's advice."

Time Travel And Killing Hitler

As an undergraduate you would accept what a Professor said, unless you knew something to be a wrongly cited fact. Even then you need to be brave to challenge him or her. The old joke supposes that when a Professor says "Good morning" an Undergrad writes that down.

But a post-grad is expected to stand his or her ground. I asked "What would constitute sufficient evidence that Hitler's sexual tastes influenced him starting WW2 and implementing racial aggression culminating in the Holocaust?"

The Professor said "Original documents written by reliable sources as it happened. Referring back to Maria Reiter, her evidence was only written in the 1950s. Had it been in the form of a diary then it would greatly improve its acceptability as historical evidence. What every historian creams his pants for is a document of unimpeachable nature.

First Discussion Of Time Travel

I said "Einstein thought that time travel was possible. America is at the forefront of investigating machinery capable of transporting objects back in time. They have managed to send a cardboard model back into the past. They are hopeful that they can send a mouse back"

"To Walt Disney." the Professor said.

The class laughed. But I was determined to stick to my guns.

I said "What evidence would you need if someone went back to Hitler's time?"

Uri interrupted and shouted out "Well, I wouldn't want to find evidence. I'd just kill the bastard."

Why Not Just Kill Hitler?

The Professor said "There are records of 42 attempts on his life. Who knows about the number of other plots. Most people think of the German communists as early anti-Nazis. But this is forgetting the fragmentary composition of the Right. Many on the right and centre supported Hitler because he pretended to want the Kaiser to return.

Arguably the best early plan to kill Hitler was by the right wing Dr. Helmut Mylius in 1935. He led the Radical Middle Class Party. He was the editor of a right-wing political and economics weekly publication. The Gestapo uncovered the plot and the conspirators were arrested.

You probably wouldn't get near enough to Hitler if you are alone. And you would need the tightest security so that the Gestapo doesn't catch you. Otherwise you would end up looking up at the blade of a guillotine.

And history may change by only saying "We know of 43 attempts on the life of Hitler". You might not even make the list of known attempts on his life.

And consider the consequences of killing Hitler when Stalin wanted to take over Germany. That would make a great thought piece if you want to write some alt history crap."

The Class Assignment

The Professor went back to the topic. He said "But we are historians, not speculators on what might have happened. We tie prior events to subsequent events."

He raised his voice to add emphasis as he said "We tie prior events to subsequent events ONLY where there is sufficient evidence that it is causal."

He went back to his normal volume level "You want an example. Hitler published his famous 25 points of unalterable Nazi objectives. Uri, our resident expert on Hitler, what was point 4?"

Uri replied "No Jew may be a member of the German nation."

The professor asked Uri "And how do you interpret that?"

Uri replied "That Hitler singled out the Jews on racial grounds since they weren't of German blood. That he would deny us the right of citizenship. That Hitler wanted we Jews to be expelled from Germany. That he had the first tool to attack us financially in the socialist demand for nationalisation and free appropriation."

The Professor knew that Uri was a rabid anti-socialist. He often cited Hitler's financial appropriation of Jewish property (prior to their mass physical elimination) to those who advocated "appropriation without compensation" of privately owned firms and land. Those who advocated "appropriation without compensation" or even "appropriation with minimal compensation". To him these people were "giving Hitler a posthumous victory". This was an argument that leftists found unanswerable.

The leftists therefore changed the topic of their debates with Uri to "Was Hitler truly a socialist." Uri was infamous for saying he was truly a socialist and that socialism was a part of the Holocaust. It meant that he was despised by the left. There are many YouTube videos supporting Uri and those refuting him. The latter videos were more numerous by about 3 to 1.

The Professor asked Uri "Do you see anything to prove a causal link between the 25 points and the Holocaust? Is there a causal link or not?"

Uri said "It is not a causal link even if it reflected Hitler's actual views. We can make that assumption that it was what Hitler wanted at that time. We can make that assumption since it accords with what he wrote in Mein Kampf. With that assumption the most we can say is that Hitler had an animus to Jews and cared little for their rights as human beings. He also had little time for what we now call the right to life. He demanded struggle without consideration against those who were injurious to the German citizen's interest. That is why I say that Hitler shows a preponderance for Hitler's regime taking action against the Jews which escalated to the Holocaust. It leaves open when Hitler actually implemented the Holocaust."

The Professor said "That is why Uri will make an exemplary History Professor. I would trust him to discern only in what is provable should we find any new Holocaust documents. If any documents were found I would nominate Uri to find them. I would nominate him and any others of you who helped him to receive a Nobel Prize.

The Class Assignment

Uri asked the Professor "Suppose I went back to Hitler's day and age merely to record important facts about him. What time would you choose for me to go to and what evidence would you want me to find?"

The Professor said "Good question. I am setting 2 Class assignments. Divide into 2 groups. We divided ourselves into Group A and Group B. I was in group A.

He wrote on the whiteboard "What would a modern historian do when living in Hitler's Germany? Select one period only. Time limit 2 hours" and "Stalin following a communist takeover of 1930s Germany. Time limit is 2 hours." He got Uri to call heads or tails. He correctly called heads and chose the former. I was therefore called on to consider the historian role.

The Professor left the room. The 10 of us began our debate. It was often heated and tempers were frayed. There were lots of internet searches. Uri wanted to be in a position to see and steal physical records of Hitler authorising and knowing about the Holocaust. He wanted modern historians to have this because Holocaust deniers say that there is no record of Hitler's involvement in it.