Der Stürmer

The official blog of the site "Der Stürmer" –

Month: April, 2014

Adolf Hitler’s first writing about Jewry

(September 16, 1919)

Dear Herr Gemlich,

If the threat with which Jewry faces our people has given rise to undeniable hostility on the part of a large section of our people, the cause of this hostility must be sought in the clear recognition that Jewry as such is deliberately or unwittingly having a pernicious effect on our nation, but mostly in personal intercourse, in the poor impression the Jew makes as an individual. As a result, anti-Semitism far too readily assumes a purely emotional character. But this is not the correct response. Anti-Semitism as a political movement may not and cannot be molded by emotional factors but only by recognition of the facts. Now the facts are these:

To begin with, the Jews are unquestionably a race, not a religious community. The Jew himself never describes himself as a Jewish German, a Jewish Pole or a Jewish American, but always as a German, Polish or American Jew. Jews have never adopted more than the language of the foreign nations in whose midst they live. A German who is forced to make use of the French language in France, Italian in Italy, Chinese in China does not thereby become a Frenchman, Italian, or Chinaman, nor can we call a Jew who happens to live amongst us and who is therefore forced to use the German language, a German. Neither does the Mosaic faith, however great its importance for the preservation of that race, be the sole criterion for deciding who is a Jew and who is not. There is hardly a race in the world whose members all belong to a single religion.

Through inbreeding for thousands of years, often in very small circles, the Jew has been able to preserve his race and his racial characteristics much more successfully than most of the numerous people among whom he has lived. As a result there lives amongst us a non-German, alien race, unwilling and indeed unable to shed its racial characteristics, its particular feelings, thoughts and ambitions and nevertheless enjoying the same political rights as we ourselves do. And since even the Jew’s feelings are limited to the purely material realm, his thoughts and ambitions are bound to be so even more strongly. Their dance around the golden calf becomes a ruthless struggle for all the possessions that we feel deep down are not the highest and not the only ones worth striving for on this earth.

The value of an individual is no longer determined by his character or by the significance of his achievements for the community, but solely by the size of his fortune, his wealth.

The greatness of a nation is no longer measured by the sun of its moral and spiritual resources, but only by the wealth of its material possessions.

All this results in that mental attitude and that quest for money and the power to protect it which allow the Jew to become so unscrupulous in his choice of means, so merciless in their use of his own ends. In autocratic states he cringes before the ‘majesty’ of the princes and misuses their favors to become a leech on their people.

In democracies he vies for the favor of the masses, cringes before ‘the majesty of the people’, but only recognizes the majesty of money.

He saps the prince’s character with Byzantine flattery; national pride and the strength of the nation with ridicule and shameless seduction to vice. His method of battle is that public opinion which is never expressed in the press but which is nonetheless manages and falsified by it. His power is the power of the money, which multiplies in his hands effortlessly and endlessly through interest, and with which he imposes a yoke upon the nation that is the more pernicious in that its glitter disguises its ultimately tragic consequences. Everything that makes the people strive for higher goals, be it religion, socialism, or democracy, is to the Jew merely a means to an end, the way to satisfy his greed and thirst for power.

The results of his works are racial tuberculosis of the nation.

And this has the following consequences: purely emotional anti-Semitism finds its final expression in the form of pogroms. Rational anti-Semitism, by contrast, must lead to a systematic and legal struggle against, and eradication of, the privileges the Jews enjoy over the other foreigners living among us (Alien Laws). Its final objective, however, must be the total removal of all Jews from our midst. Both objectives can only be achieved by a government of national strength and not one of national impotence.

The German Republic owes its birth not the united national will of our people, but to the underhand exploitation of a series of circumstances that, taken together, express themselves in a deep, universal dissatisfaction. These circumstances, however, arose independently of the political structure and are at work even today. Indeed, more so than ever before. Hence, a large part of our people recognizes that changing the structure of the state cannot in itself improve our position, but that this can only be achieved by the rebirth of the nation’s moral and spiritual forces.

And this rebirth cannot be prepared by the leadership of an irresponsibly majority influence by party dogmas or by the internationalist catch-phrases and slogans of an irresponsible press, but only by determined acts on the part of nationally minded leadership with an inner sense of responsibility.

This very fact serves to deprive the Republic of the inner support of the spiritual forces any nation needs very badly. Hence the present leaders of the nation are forced to seek support from those who alone have benefited and continue to benefit from changing the form of the German state and who for that very reason become the driving force of the Revolution — the Jews. Disregarding the Jewish threat, which is undoubtedly recognized even by today’s leaders (as various statement from prominent personalities reveal), these men are forced to accept Jewish favors to their private advantage and to repay these favors. And the repayment does not merely involve satisfying every possible Jewish demand, but above all preventing the struggle of the betrayed people against its defrauders, by sabotaging the anti-Semitic movement.

Yours truly,
Adolf Hitler


On-line archive of the famous site – Judicial Inc!


Caricatures from “Der Stürmer” – translated in English and colourized!

The Years 1928 – 1929


03.March-1929 12.Dec-1929 1929-01 1929-02 1929-03 1929-04 08.Aug-1929







The Poisonous Mushroom

 The Poisonous Mushroom


A mother and her young boy are gathering mushrooms in the German forest. The boy finds some poisonous ones. The mother explains that there are good mushrooms and poisonous ones, and, as they go home, says:

“Look, Franz, human beings in this world are like the mushrooms in the forest. There are good mushrooms and there are good people. There are poisonous, bad mushrooms and there are bad people. And we have to be on our guard against bad people just as we have to be on guard against poisonous mushrooms. Do you understand that?”

“Yes, mother,” Franz replies. “I understand that in dealing with bad people trouble may arise, just as when one eats a poisonous mushroom. One may even die!”

“And do you know, too, who these bad men are, these poisonous mushrooms of mankind?” the mother continued.

Franz slaps his chest in pride:

“Of course I know, mother! They are the Jews! Our teacher has often told us about them.”

The mother praises her boy for his intelligence, and goes on to explain the different kinds of “poisonous” Jews: the Jewish pedlar, the Jewish cattle-dealer, the Kosher butcher, the Jewish doctor, the baptised Jew, and so on.

“However they disguise themselves, or however friendly they try to be, affirming a thousand times their good intentions to us, one must not believe them. Jews they are and Jews they remain. For our Volk they are poison.”

“Like the poisonous mushroom!” says Franz.

“Yes, my child! Just as a single poisonous mushrooms can kill a whole family, so a solitary Jew can destroy a whole village, a whole city, even an entire Volk.”

Franz has understood.

“Tell me, mother, do all Gentiles know that the Jew is as dangerous as a poisonous mushroom?”

Mother shakes her head.

“Unfortunately not, my child. There are millions of Gentiles who do not yet know the Jews. So we have to enlighten people and warn them against the Jews. Our young people, too, must be warned. Our boys and girls must learn to know the Jew. They must learn that the Jew is the most dangerous poison-mushroom in existence. Just as poisonous mushrooms spring up everywhere, so the Jew is found in every country in the world. Just as poisonous mushrooms often lead to the most dreadful calamity, so the Jew is the cause of misery and distress, illness and death.”

The author then concludes this story by pointing the moral:

German youth must learn to recognise the Jewish poison-mushroom. They must learn what a danger the Jew is for the German Volk and for the whole world. They must learn that the Jewish problem involves the destiny of us all.

“The following tales tell the truth about the Jewish poison-mushroom. They show the many shapes the Jew assumes. They show the depravity and baseness of the Jewish race. They show the Jew for what he really is:

The Devil in human form.

The Political Testament of Adolf Hitler

Adolf Hitler our Saviour

(February – April 1945)



Pitt and Churchill – Pitt paves the way for Empire, Churchill digs its grave – Europe has lost her supremacy – Great Britain ought to have accepted a negotiated Peace – The Third Reich was forced into war – Misfortune and adversity, the parents of great resurrections.

 4th February 1945

Churchill seems to regard himself as a second Pitt. What a hope! In 1793, Pitt was thirty-four years old. Churchill unfortunately is an old man, capable, and only just capable at that, of carrying out the orders of that madman, Roosevelt.

In any case, the situations are in no way comparable. Take your mind back for a moment to the conditions in Pitt’s time. From England’s point of view, he was perfectly right in refusing to have any truck with Napoleon. By maintaining, as he did, a firm attitude under impossible conditions, he was safeguarding for his country such chance as it had of playing the role which subsequently fell to its lot in the nineteenth century. It was a policy designed to preserve the existence of his country. Churchill, by refusing to come to terms with me, has condemned his country to a policy of suicide. He has made the same mistakes as those generals make who wage a war according to the principles of the preceding war. There are now elements which it is impossible to fit into such a scheme of things. The crucial new factor is the existence of those two giants, the United States and Russia. Pitt’s England ensured the balance of world power by preventing the hegemony of Europe – by preventing Napoleon, that is, from attaining his goal. Churchill’s England, on the other hand, should have allowed the unification of Europe, if it wished to preserve that same balance of power.

At the beginning of this war I did my utmost to act as though I believed Churchill to be capable of grasping the truth of this great policy; and in his lucid moments he was indeed, capable of grasping it. But for a long time now he has been bound hand and foot to the Jewish-chariot. My object in trying to come to terms with England was to avoid creating an irreparable situation in the West. Later, when I attacked eastwards and lanced’ the communist abscess, I hoped thereby to rekindle a spark of common sense in the minds of the Western Powers. I gave them the chance, without lifting a finger, of making a contribution to an act of catharsis, in which they could have safely left the task of disinfecting the West in our hands alone. But the hatred felt by these hypocrites for a man of good faith is stronger than their sense of self preservation. I had underestimated the power of Jewish domination over Churchill’s England. They preferred, indeed, to perish by default, rather than to admit National Socialism to their midst. Under pressure, they might have tolerated a facade of anti-semitism on our part. But our absolute determination to eradicate Jewish power root and branch throughout the world was far too strong meat for their delicate stomachs to digest!

Pitt’s genius lay in the implementation of a realistic policy, in harmony with the conditions of the epoch, which allowed his country to make a truly extraordinary recovery and which ensured for it world supremacy in the nineteenth century. The servile imitation of this policy which Churchill is now pursuing – and with a complete disregard for the fact that conditions are not in the least the same – is a sheer absurdity. The fact is that the world has progressed since Pitt’s day! For a whole century, changes, it is true, came slowly; but the first war increased the pace, and this war has led us to a presentation of the bills and a final settlement!

At the beginning of the nineteenth century, from the point of power, Europe alone counted. The great Asiatic empires had fallen into a sleep that resembled the sleep of death. The New World was still nothing more than an excrescence on the end of the old, and no one could reasonably have foreseen the prodigious destiny which awaited the thirteen British colonies which had just gained their freedom. . . . Thirteen! I’m not superstitious, but that story tempts me to become so! That new State of four million inhabitants, which grew so immeasurably in the course of a hundred years that at the beginning of the twentieth century it had already become a world Power. . . . !

During the decisive period between 1930 and 1940, the situation was quite different from that which obtained at the time of Pitt and Napoleon. Europe, exhausted by a great war, had lost her pride of place, and her role as leader was no longer recognized. It was still one of the centres of attraction on earth, but one which was steadily losing its importance in the face of the growing might of the United States of America, of the Russo-Asiatic colossus and of the Empire of the Rising Sun.

If fate had granted to an ageing and enfeebled Britain a new Pitt instead of this Jew-ridden, half American drunkard, the new Pitt would at once have recognized that Britain’s traditional policy of balance of power would now have to be applied on a different scale, and this time on a worldwide scale. Instead of maintaining, creating and adding fuel to European rivalries Britain ought to do her utmost to encourage and bring about a unification of Europe. Allied to a united Europe, she would then still retain the chance of being able to play the part of arbiter in world affairs.

Everything that is happening makes. one think that Providence is now punishing Albion for her past crimes, the crimes which raised her to the power she was. The advent of Churchill, at a period that is decisive for both Britain and Europe, is the punishment chosen by Providence. For the degenerate élite of Britain, he’s just the very man they want; and it is in the hands of this senile clown to decide the fate of a vast empire and, at the same time, of all Europe. It is, I think, an open question whether the British people, in spite of the degeneration of the aristocracy, has preserved those qualities which have hitherto justified British world domination. For my own part, I doubt it; because there does not seem to have been any popular reaction to the errors committed by the nation’s leaders. And yet there have been many occasions when Britain could well have boldly set forth on a new and more fruitful course.

Had she so wished, Britain could have put an end to the war at the beginning of 1941. In the skies over London she had demonstrated to all the world her will to resist, and on her credit side she had the humiliating defeats which she had inflicted on the Italians in North Africa. The traditional Britain would have made peace. But the Jews would have none of it. And their lackeys, Churchill and Roosevelt, were there to prevent it.

Peace then, however, would have allowed us to prevent the Americans from meddling in European affairs. Under the guidance of the Reich, Europe would speedily have become unified. Once the Jewish poison had been eradicated, unification would have been an easy matter. France and Italy, each defeated in turn at an interval of a few months by the two Germanic Powers, would have been well out of it. Both would have had to renounce their inappropriate aspirations to greatness. At the same time they would have had to renounce their pretentions in North Africa and the Near East; and that would have allowed Europe to pursue a bold policy of friendship towards

Islam. As for Britain, relieved of all European cares, she could have devoted herself to the wellbeing of her Empire. And lastly, Germany, her rear secure, could have thrown herself heart and soul into her essential task, the ambition of my life and the raison d’être of National Socialism – the destruction of Bolshevism. This would have entailed the conquest of wide spaces in the East, and these in their turn would have ensured the future wellbeing of the German people.

The laws of nature follow a logic which does not necessarily always conform to our own ideas of logic. We ourselves were disposed to compromise. We were ready to throw our forces into the scales for the preservation of the British Empire; and all that, mark you, at a time when, to tell the truth, I feel much more sympathetically inclined to the lowliest Hindu than to any of these arrogant islanders. Later on, the Germans will be pleased that they did not make any contribution to the survival of an out-dated state of affairs for which the world of the future would have found it hard to forgive them. We can with safety make one prophecy: whatever the outcome of this war, the British Empire is at an end. It has been mortally wounded. The future of the British people is to die of hunger and tuberculosis in their cursed island.

British obstinancy and the desperate resistance being put up by the Reich have nothing in common. In the first place Britain had a freedom of choice, and nothing forced her to go to war. Yet, not only did she go to war, but she actually provoked war. I need hardly say that the Poles, had they not been urged on by the British and French war mongers (who were themselves spurred on by the Jews), would certainly not have felt themselves called upon to commit suicide. Even so, and even after having made this initial error, Britain could have pulled her chestnuts out of the fire, either after the liquidation of Poland or after the defeat of France. It would not, of course, have been very honourable on her part to do so; but in matters of this kind British sense of honour is not too particular. All she had to do was to place the blame for her defection squarely on the shoulders of her ex-allies- just as she and France did with Belgium in 1940, and, furthermore, we ourselves would have helped her to save face.

At the beginning of 1941, after her successes in North Africa had re-established her prestige, she had an even more favourable opportunity of withdrawing from the game and concluding a negotiated peace with us. Why, you may well ask, did she prefer to obey the orders of her Jewish and American allies, people, indeed, who were more voracious than even the worst of her enemies? I will tell you; Britain was not waging her own war, she was waging that which had been imposed on her by her implacable allies.

Germany, on the other hand, had no option. Once we had declared our desire of at last uniting all Germans in one great Reich and of ensuring for them a real independence – in other words, freedom to live their own lives – all our enemies at once rose against us. War became inevitable if for no other reason that in order to avoid it we should have been compelled to betray the fundamental interests of the German people. As far as our people were concerned we could not and would not be content with the mere semblance of independence. That sort of thing is all right for the Swedes and the Swiss, who are always prepared to subscribe to dubious and tortuous formulae, provided that they can at the same time line their pockets. Nor, for that matter could the Weimar Republic lay claim to any more worthy pretensions: That, however, is not an ambition worthy of the Third Reich.

We were, then, condemned to wage war – some time or other; and our sole preoccupation was to choose the least unfavourable moment. And once we were committed, of course, there could be no question of a withdrawal. It is not to the doctrines of National Socialism alone that our adversaries take exception. They hate National Socialism because through it the qualities of the German people have been exalted. They therefore seek the destruction of the German people – of that there can be no shadow of doubt. For once in a way, hatred has proved to be stronger than hypocrisy. We can only express our thanks to our enemies for having thus clearly exposed their minds to us.

To this all-embracing hatred we can retort only by means of total war. Fighting for our very survival, we are fighting desperately; and whatever happens, we shall fight to the death to save our lives. Germany will emerge from this war stronger than ever before, and Britain more enfeebled than ever.

History shows that for Germany misfortune and adversity often constitute an indispensable prelude to a great renaissance. The sufferings of the German people – and in this war they have suffered incomparably more than any other people – are the very things which, if Providence wills, will help us to rise superior to the heady influence of victory. And should Providence abandon us, in spite of our sacrifices and our resolute steadfastness, it only means that Fate is subjecting us to ever greater trials, in order to give us the chance to confirm our right to live.


The last quarter of an hour – The determination to exterminate Germany – Leonidas and his three hundred Spartans – The miraculous death of the Tsarina, Elizabeth Victory in the final sprint – This war started on 30th January 1933

6th February 1945

After fifty-four months of titanic struggle, waged on both sides with unexampled fury, the German people now finds itself alone, facing a coalition sworn to destroy it.

War is raging everywhere along our frontiers. It i, coming closer and ever closer. Our enemies are gathering all their forces for the final assault. Their object is no merely to defeat us in battle but to crush and annihilate us Their object is to destroy our Reich, to sweep our Weltan-schauung from the face of the earth, to enslave the German people – as a punishment for their loyalty to Nation Socialism. We have reached the final quarter of an hour

The situation is serious, very serious. It seems even to be desperate. We might very easily give way to fatigue, to exhaustion, we might allow ourselves to become discouraged to an extent that blinds us to the weaknesses of our enemies. But these weaknesses are there, for all that. We have facing us an incongruous coalition, drawn together by hatred and jealousy and cemented by the panic with which the national socialist doctrine fills this Jew-ridden motley. Face to face with this amorphous monster, our one chance is to depend on ourselves and ourselves alone; to oppose this heterogeneous rabble with a national, homogeneous entity, animated by a courage which no adversity will be able to shake. A people which resists as the German people is now resisting can never be consumed in a witches’ cauldron of this kind. On the contrary; it will emerge from the crucible with its soul more steadfast, more intrepid than ever. Whatever reverses we may suffer in the days that lie ahead of us, the German people will draw fresh strength from them; and whatever may happen today, it will live to know a glorious tomorrow.

The will to exterminate which goads these dogs in the pursuit of their quarry gives us no option; it indicates the path which we must follow – the only path that remains open to us. We must continue the struggle with the fury of desperation and without a glance over our shoulders; with our faces always to the enemy, we must defend step by step the soil of our fatherland. While we keep fighting, there is always hope, and that, surely, should be enough to forbid us to think that all is already lost. No game is lost until the final whistle. And if, in spite of everything, the Fates have decreed that we should once more in the course of our history be crushed by forces superior to our own, then let us go down with our heads high and secure in the knowledge that the honour of the German people remains without blemish. A desperate fight remains for all time a shining example. Let us remember Leonidas and his three hundred Spartans! In any case, we are not of the stuff that goes tamely to the slaughter like sheep. They may well exterminate us. But they will never lead us to the slaughter house!

No! There is no such thing as a desperate situation! Think how many examples of a turn of fortune the history of the German people affords! During the Seven Years’ War Frederick found himself reduced to desperate straits. During the winter of 1762 he had decided that if no change occurred by a certain date fixed by himself, he would end his life by taking poison. Then, a few days before the date he had chosen, behold, the Tsarina died unexpectedly, and the whole situation was miraculously reversed. Like the great Frederick, we, too, are combating a coalition, and a coalition, remember is not a stable entity. It exists only by the will of a handful of men. If Churchill were suddenly to disappear, everything could change in a flash! The British aristocracy might perhaps become conscious of the abyss opening before them – and might well experience a serious shock! These British, for whom, indirectly, we have been fighting and who would enjoy the fruits of our victory. . . .

We can still snatch victory in the final sprint! May we be granted the time to do so!

All we must do is to refuse to go down. For the German people, the simple fact of continued independent life would be a victory. And that alone would be sufficient justification for this war, which would not have been in vain. It was in any case unavoidable; the enemies of German National Socialism forced it upon me as long ago as January 1933.


Colonial enterprises exhaust a nation’s strength – The new worlds are only excrescences on the old – The white races suffer a set-back – Materialism, alcoholism, fanaticism and syphilis – Unnatural sons – Germany’s sole possible direction for expansion eastwards – Europe for the Europeans – The super-abundance of prolific Asia.

7th February 1945

Any people which desires to prosper should remain linked to its own soil. A man should never lose contact with the soil upon which he had the honour of being born. He should not go away except for a short while and always with the intention of returning. The British who became colonizers of necessity, and who, indeed, were great colonizers, have generally obeyed this rule.

As far as continental people are concerned, I am sure that it is important that they should expand only in those directions where it is certain that the soil of conquerors and conquered are contiguous.

This need to become properly enrooted applies to all continental peoples and particularly, in my opinion to the German people. And that most probably explains why we have never really felt the urge to become colonizers. A glance at history, both ancient and modern, will show that overseas enterprises have always in the long run impoverished those who undertook them. They have all, in the end, been exhausted by their efforts; and, in the inevitable nature of things, they have all succumbed to forces to which either they have themselves given birth or which they have themselves re-awakened. What better example of this than the Greeks?

What was true for the ancient Greeks remains equally true for all Europeans in modern times. To prosper, a people must concentrate its efforts on its own country. A scrutiny of any reasonably long period of history will reveal facts which confirm the truth of this contention.

Spain, France and Britain have all enfeebled, devitalized and drained themselves in these vain colonial enterprises. The continents to which Spain and Britain gave birth, which they created piece by piece, have today acquired a completely independent way of life and a completely egoistical outlook. Even so, they are but artificial worlds, with neither a soul, a culture or a civilization of their own; and judged from that point of view, they are nothing more than excrescences.

It is, of course, possible to make out a case for the success achieved in peopling continents which before had been empty. The United States and Australia afford good examples. Success, certainly – but only on the material side. They are artificial edifices, bodies without age, of which it is impossible to say whether they are still in a state of infancy or whether they have already been touched by senility. In those continents which were inhabited, failure has been even more marked. In them, the white races have imposed their will by force, and the influence they have had on the native inhabitants has been negligible; the Hindus have remained Hindus, the Chinese have remained Chinese, and the Moslems are still Moslems. There have been no profound transformations, and such changes as have occurred are less marked in the religious field, notwithstanding the tremendous efforts of the Christian missionaries, than in any other. There have been a few odd conversions the sincerity of which are open to considerable doubt-except, perhaps in the case of a few simpletons and mentally deficients. The white races did, of course, give some things to the natives, and they were the worst gifts that they could possibly have made, those plagues of our own modern world-materialism, fanaticism, alcoholism and syphilis. For the rest, since these peoples possessed qualities of their own which were superior to anything we could offer them, they have remained essentially unchanged. Where imposition by force was attempted, the results were even more disastrous, and common sense, realizing the futility of such measures, should preclude any recourse to their introduction. One solitary success must be conceded to the colonizers: everywhere they have succeeded in arousing hatred, a hatred that urges these peoples, awakened from their slumbers by us, to rise and drive us out. Indeed, it looks almost as though they had awakened solely and simply for that purpose! Can anyone assert that colonization has increased the number of Christians in the world? Where are those conversions en masse which mark the success of Islam? Here and there one finds isolated islets of Christians, Christians in name, that is, rather than by conviction; and that is the sum total of the successes of this magnificent Christian religion, the guardian of supreme Truth!

Taking everything into consideration, Europe’s policy of colonization has ended in a complete failure. I have not forgotten the one instance of apparent success, but a success that is purely material, and it is of that monster which calls itself the United States that I wish to talk. And monster is the only possible name for it! At a time when the whole of Europe – their own mother – is fighting desperately to ward off the bolshevist peril, the United States, guided by the Jew-ridden Roosevelt, can think of nothing better to do than to place their fabulous material resources at the disposal of these Asiatic barbarians, who are determined to strangle her. Looking back, I am deeply distressed at the thought of those millions of Germans, men of good faith, who emigrated to the United States and who are now the backbone of the country. For these men, mark you, are not merely good Germans, lost to their fatherland; rather, they have become enemies, more implacably hostile than any others. The German emigrant retains, it is true, his qualities of industry and hard work, but he very quickly loses his soul. There is nothing more unnatural than a German who has become an expatriate.

In the future we must guard against these haemorrhages of German blood. It is eastwards, only and always eastwards, that the veins of our race must expand. It is the direction which Nature herself has decreed for the expansion of the German peoples. The rigorous climate with which the East confronts them allows them to retain their qualities as hardy and virile men; and the vivid contrasts they find there helps to keep fresh their love and their longing for their own country. Transplant a German to Kiev, and he remains a perfect German. But transplant him to Miami, and you make a degenerate of him – in other words, an American.

Since colonization is not an activity which Germans feel called upon to pursue, Germany should never make common cause with the colonizing nations and should always abstain from supporting them in their colonial aspirations. What we want, is a Monroe doctrine in Europe. `Europe for the Europeans!’ a doctrine, the corollary of which should be that Europeans refrain from meddling in the affairs of other continents.

The descendants of the convicts in Australia should inspire in us nothing but a feeling of supreme indifference. If their vitality is not strong enough to enable them to increase at a rate proportionate to the size of the territories they occupy, that is their own look out, and it is no use their appealing to us for help. For my own part, I have no objection at all to seeing the surplus populations of prolific Asia being drawn, as to a magnet, to their empty spaces. Let them all work out their own salvation! And let me repeat – it is nothing to do with us.


Should Franco have been drawn into the war? – Our involuntary contribution to the victory of the Spanish clergy – Irrevocable decadence of the Latin races – We ought to have occupied Gibraltar

10th February 1945

I have sometimes asked myself whether we were not wrong, in I94o, not to have drawn Spain into the war. It would have been too easy for words to do so, for Spain was burning to follow Italy’s example and become a member of the Victors’ Club.

Franco, of course, had very exaggerated ideas on the value of Spanish intervention. Nevertheless I believe that, in spite of the systematic sabotage perpetrated by his Jesuit brother-in-law, he would have agreed to make common cause with us on quite reasonable conditions – the promise of a little bit of France as a sop to his pride and a substantial slice of Algeria as a real, material asset. But as Spain had really nothing tangible to contribute, I came to the conclusion that her direct intervention was not desirable. It is true that it would have allowed us to occupy Gibraltar. On the other hand, Spain’s entry into the war would certainly have added many kilometres to the Atlantic coast-line which we would have had to defend – from Saint Sebastian to Cadiz. Then there was the further possibility of a renewal of the civil war, fanned by the British. We might thus have found ourselves bound for better or for worse to a regime for which I have now, if possible, less sympathy than ever, a regime of capitalist profiteers, puppets of the clerical gang! I shall never forgive Franco for not having reconciled the Spaniards once the civil war was over, for having ostracized the Phalangists, whom Spain has to thank for such aid as we gave her, and for having treated like bandits former foes, who were very far from all being Reds. To put half a country beyond the pale of the law while a minority of pillagers enrich themselves, with the blessing of the priesthood, at the expense of the rest is no solution at all. I am quite sure that very few of the so-called Reds in Spain were really Communists. We were badly deceived, for, had I known the real state of affairs, I would never have allowed our aircraft to bombard and destroy a starving population and at the same time re-establish the Spanish clergy in all their horrible privileges.

To sum up, by ensuring that the Iberian peninsula remained neutral, Spain has already rendered us the one service in this conflict which she had in her power to render. Having Italy on our backs is a sufficient burden in all conscience; and whatever may be the qualities of the Spanish soldier, Spain herself, in her state of poverty and unpreparedness, would have been a heavy liability rather than an asset.

This war will, I think, have clearly demonstrated at least one thing – the irremediable decadence of the Latin countries. They have shown beyond dispute that they are no longer in the running and that they therefore no longer have the right to participate in the settlement of the world’s affairs.

The easiest thing would have been to occupy Gibraltar with our Commandos and with Franco’s connivance, but without any declaration of war on his part. I am convinced that Britain would not have seized this as a pretext for declaring war on Spain. She would have been only too pleased to see Spain continue to remain non-belligerent. And from our own point of view, this would have eliminated all danger of any British landing on the coasts of Portugal.


Facing the Jewish problem with realism – The stranger who cannot be assimilated – A typically Jewish war – Exit the furtive Jew and enter Judea gloriosa – While Jews exist there will always be anti-semitism – The futility of racial hatred – Cross-breeding a failure – Prussian pride justified – the Atticism of the Austrians – The modern German type – In reality there is no such thing as a Jewish race – Superiority of mind over body – My honesty in dealing with the Jews.

13th February 1945

It is one of the achievements of National Socialism that it was the first to face the Jewish problem in a realistic manner.

The Jews themselves have always aroused anti-semitism. Throughout the centuries, all the peoples of the world, from the ancient Egyptians to ourselves, have reacted in exactly the same way. The time comes when they become tired of being exploited by the disgusting Jew. They give a heave and shake themselves, like an animal trying to rid itself of its vermin. They react brutally and finally they revolt. It is an instinctive reaction, a reaction of repugnance against a stranger who refuses to adapt himself and become part of the whole, a parasite which clings to the host, imposes on it and exploits it to the utmost. By nature, the Jew is a parasite which cannot and will not be assimilated. A distinguishing feature of the Jew is that, unlike other foreigners, he everywhere claims all the rights of citizenship in the community that shelters him – and at the same time remains always a Jew. He regards it as his right to be allowed to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds; and he is the only man in the whole world to claim such an extravagant privilege.

National Socialism has tackled the Jewish problem by action and not by words. It has risen in opposition to the Jewish determination to dominate the world; it has attacked them everywhere and in every sphere of activity; it has flung them out of the positions they have usurped; it has pursued them in every direction, determined to purge the German world of the Jewish poison. For us, this has been an essential proces of disinfection, which we have prosecuted to its ultimate limit and without which we should ourselves have been asphyxiated and destroyed.

With the success of the operation in Germany, there was a good chance of extending it further afield. This was, in fact, inevitable, for good health normally triumphs over disease. Quick to realize the danger, the Jews decided to stake their all in the life and death struggle which they launched against us. National Socialism had to be destroyed, whatever the cost and even if the whole world were destroyed in the process. Never before has there been a war so typically and at the same time so exclusively Jewish.

I have at least compelled them to discard their masks. And even if our endeavours should end in failure, it will only be a temporary failure. For I have opened the eyes of the whole world to the Jewish peril.

One of the consequences of our attitude has been to cause the Jew “to become aggressive. As a matter of fact, he is less dangerous in that frame of mind than when he is sly and cunning. The Jew who openly avows his race is a hundred times preferable to the shameful type which claims to differ from you only in the matter of religion. If I win this war, I shall put an end to Jewish world power and I shall deal the Jews a mortal blow from which they will not recover. But if I lose the war, that does not by any means mean that their triumph is assured, for then they themselves will lose their heads. They will become so arrogant that they will evoke a violent reaction against them. They will, of course, continue to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds, to claim the privileges of citizenship in every country and, without sacrificing their pride, continue to remain, above all, members of the Chosen Race. The shifty, the shamefaced Jew will disappear and will be replaced by a Jew vainglorious and bombastic; and the latter will stink just as objectionably as the former – and perhaps even more so. There is, then, no danger in the circumstances that anti-semitism will disappear, for it is the Jews themselves who add fuel to its flames and see that it is kept well stoked. Before the opposition to it can disappear, the malady itself must disappear. And from that point of view, you can rely on the Jews: as long as they survive, anti-semitism will never fade.

In saying this, I promise you I am quite free of all racial hatred: It is, in any case, undesirable that one race should mix with other races. Except for a few gratuitous successes, which I am prepared to admit, systematic cross-breeding has never produced good results. Its desire to remain racially pure is a proof of the vitality and good health of a race. Pride in one’s own race – and that does not imply contempt for other races – is also a normal and healthy sentiment. I have never regarded the Chinese or the Japanese as being inferior to ourselves. They belong to ancient civilizations, and I admit freely that their past history is superior to our own. They have the right to be proud of their past, just as we have the right to be proud of the civilization to which we belong. Indeed, I believe the more steadfast the Chinese and the Japanese remain in their pride of race, the easier I shall find it to get on with them.

This pride of race is a quality which the German, fundamentally, does not possess. The reason for this is that for these last three centuries the country has been torn by internal dissension and religious wars and has been subjected to a variety of foreign influences, to the influence, for example, of Christianity – for Christianity is not a natural religion for the Germans, but a religion that has been imported and which strikes no responsive chord in their hearts and is foreign to the inherent genius of the race. When pride of race manifests itself in a German, as it sometimes does and in a most aggressive form, it is in reality nothing more than a compensatory reaction for that inferiority complex from which so many Germans suffer. This, I need hardly say, does not apply to the Prussians. From the time of Frederick the Great they have possessed that quiet and simple pride which is the hall-mark of people who are sure of themselves and who have no need of ostentation to bear witness to what they are. Thanks to those qualities which are inherently theirs, the Prussians were able, as they well showed, to create a united Germany. National Socialism has tried to give to all Germans that pride which hitherto has been possessed by the Prussians alone among us.

The Austrians, too, have in their blood a pride very akin to that of the Prussians, a pride born of the fact that for centuries they have never been dominated by any other race, but had, on the contrary, been for a very long time the ones who gave orders and were obeyed. They possess the accumulated experience of domination and power, and to that is attributable that panache of Atticism which no one can gainsay.

In its crucible National Socialism will melt and fuse all those qualities which are characteristic of the German soul; and from it will emerge the modern German-industrious, conscientious, sure of himself yet simple withal, proud not of himself or what he is, but of his membership of a great entity which will evoke the admiration of other peoples. This feeling of corporate superiority does not in any way imply the slightest desire to crush and overwhelm others. We have, I know, on occasions exaggerated our cult of this sentiment, but that was necessary at the outset and we were compelled to jostle the Germans pretty roughly in order to set their feet on the right road. In the nature of things, too violent a thrust in any direction invariably provokes an equally violent thrust in the opposite direction. All this, of course, cannot be accomplished in a day. It requires the slow-moving pressure of time. Frederick the Great is the real creator of the Prussian type. In actual fact, two or three generations elapsed, before the type crystallized and before the Prussian type became a characteristic common to every Prussian.

Our racial pride is not aggressive except in so far as the Jewish race is concerned. We use the term Jewish race as a matter of convenience, for in reality and from the genetic point of view there is no such thing as the Jewish race. There does, however, exist a community, to which, in fact, the term can be applied and the existence of which is admitted by the Jews themselves. It is the spiritually homogeneous group, to membership of which all Jews throughout the world deliberately adhere, regardless of their whereabouts and of their country of domicile; and it is this group of human beings to which we give the title Jewish race. It is not, mark you, a religious entity; although the Hebrew religion serves them as a pretext to present themselves as such; nor indeed is it even a collection of groups, united by the bonds of a common religion.

The Jewish race is first and foremost an abstract race of the mind. It has its origins, admittedly, in the Hebrew religion, and that religion, too, has had a certain influence in moulding its general characteristics; for all that, however, it is in no sense of the word a purely religious entity, for it accepts on equal terms both the most determined atheists and the most sincere, practising believers. To all this must be added the bond that has been forged by centuries of persecution – though the Jews conveniently forget that it is they themselves who provoked these persecutions. Nor does Jewry possess the anthropological characteristics which would stamp them as a homogeneous race. It cannot, however, be denied that every Jew in the world has some drops of purely Jewish blood in him. Were this not so, it would be impossible to explain the presence of certain physical characteristics which are permanently common to all Jews from the ghetto of Warsaw to the bazaars of Morocco – the offensive nose, the cruel vicious nostrils and so on. .

A race of the mind is something more solid, more durable than just a race, pure and simple. Transplant a German to the United States and you turn him into an American. But the Jew remains a Jew wherever he goes, a creature which no environment can assimilate. It is the characteristic mental make-up of his race which renders him impervious to the processes of assimilation. And there in a nutshell is the proof of the superiority of the mind over the flesh! . . .

The quite amazing ascendancy which they achieved during the course of the nineteenth century gave the Jews a sense of their own power and caused them to drop the mask; and it is just that that has given us the chance to oppose them as Jews, self proclaimed and proud of the fact. And when you remember how credulous the Germans are, you will realize that we must be most grateful for this sudden excess of frankness on the part of our most mortal enemies.

I have always been absolutely fair in my dealings with the Jews. On the eve of war, I gave them one final warning. I told them that, if they precipitated another war, they would not be spared and that I would exterminate the vermin throughout Europe, and this time once and for all. To this warning they retorted with a declaration of war and affirmed that wherever in the world there was a Jew, there, too, was an implacable enemy of National Socialist Germany.

Well, we have lanced the Jewish abscess; and the world of the future will be eternally grateful to us.


Too soon and too late – We lack time, because we lack space – A revolutionary State, pursuing a petit bourgeois policy -Collaboration with France was a mistake – We should have emancipated the French proletariat and liberated the French colonies – I was right in Mein Kampf

 14th February 1945

The disastrous thing about this war is the fact that for Germany it began both too soon and too late. From the purely military point of view, it would have suited us better if it had started sooner. I ought to have seized the initiative in 1938 instead of allowing myself to be forced into war in 1939; for war was, in any case, unavoidable. However, you can hardly blame me, if the British and the French accepted at Munich every demand I made of them!

As things stand at the moment, then, the war came a little too late. But from the point of view of our moral preparedness, it has come far too soon. My disciples have not yet had time to attain their full manhood. I should really have had another twenty years in which to bring this new élite to maturity, an élite of youth, immersed from infancy in the philosophy of National Socialism. The tragedy for us Germans is that we never have enough time. Circumstances always conspire to force us to hurry. And if at this point time is lacking, it is primarily because we lack space. The Russians with their vast expansion can afford the luxury of refusing to be hurried. Time works in their favour, but against us. Even if Providence had allotted to me a span of life sufficiently long to allow me to lead my people to the complete degree of development that National Socialism desires, you may be quite sure that our enemies would never have permitted me to take advantage of it. They would have done their utmost to destroy us before they found themselves face to face with a Germany, cemented by a single faith and national socialist in body and soul, which would have been invincible.

Since we lacked men moulded in the shape of our ideal, we had perforce to make what use we could of those whom we had. The result has been obvious. Thanks to this discrepancy between conception and realization, the war policy of a revolutionary state like the Third Reich has of necessity been the policy of petty bourgeois reactionaries. Our generals and diplomats, with a few, rare exceptions, are men of another age; and their methods of waging war and of conducting our foreign policy also belong to an age that is passed. This is just as true of those who serve us in all good faith as it is of the rest of them. The former serve us ill through lack either of aptitude or enthusiasm, and the latter do so deliberately and of malice aforethought.

Our greatest political blunder has been our treatment of the French. We should never have collaborated with them. It is a policy which has stood them in good stead and has served us ill. Abetz thought he was being very clever when he became the champion of this idea and persuaded us to pursue it. He thought he was two moves ahead of events, whereas in reality he was well behind them. He seemed to think that we were dealing with the France of Napoleon, with a nation, that is, which was capable of appreciating the importance and far-reaching effects of a noble gesture. He failed to see what is an obvious fact, namely, that during the last hundred years France has changed completely. She has become a prostitute, and she is now a raddled old strumpet, who has never ceased to swindle and to confound us, and has always left us to foot the bill.

Our obvious course should have been to liberate the working classes and to help the workers of France to implement their own revolution. We should have brushed aside, rudely and without pity, the fossilized bourgeoisie, as devoid of soul so it is denuded of patriotism. Just look at the sort of friends our geniuses of the Wilhelmstrasse have found for us in France – petty, calculating little profiteers, who hastened to make love to us as soon as they thought that we were occupying their country in order to safeguard their bank balances – but who were quite resolved to betray us at the first possible opportunity, provided always that no danger to themselves was involved!

We were equally stupid as regards the French colonies. That, too, was the work of our great minds in the Wilhelmstrasse! Diplomats of the old, classic mould, soldiers of a bygone regime, petty country squires – of such were those who were to help us to revolutionize all Europe! And they have led us into waging war as they would have waged it in the nineteenth century. Never, at any price, should we have put our money on France and against the peoples subjected to her yoke. On the contrary, we should have helped them to achieve their liberty and, if necessary, should have goaded them into doing so. There was nothing to stop us in I94o from making a gesture of this sort in the Near East and in North Africa. In actual fact our diplomats instead set about the task of consolidating French power, not only in Syria, but in Tunis, in Algeria and Morocco as well. Our `gentlemen’ obviously preferred to maintain cordial relations with distinguished Frenchmen, rather than with a lot of hirsute revolutionaries, with a chorus of musical comedy officers, whose one idea was to cheat us, rather than with the Arabs, who would have been loyal partners for us. Oh! you needn’t think I don’t see through the calculations of these Machiavellian professionals! They know,their job and they have their traditions! All they thought about was the dirty trick they were playing on the British, for they were still under the ban of the famous alleged antagonism and rivalry between Britain and France in the colonial field. What I’m saying is perfectly true – they are still living in the reign of Wilhelm II, in the world of Queen Victoria and that of those artful sharpers named Poincaré and Delcassé! In actual fact this rivalry has ceased to be of any significance. That it still seems to exist is due to the fact that there are still some diplomats of the old school in the ranks of our adversaries too. In reality, Britain and France are associates, each of whom is playing his own game with considerable asperity, neither of whom react to any appeal to friendship, but both of whom unite again against a common danger. The Frenchman’s deep-seated hatred of the German is something deeper and different. Therein lies a lesson on which we should do well to ponder in the future.

As regards France, there were two courses open to her. Either she could have abandoned her alliance with Britain, in which case she would have been of no interest to us as a potential ally, since we knew that she would also abandon us on the first opportunity; or she could have pretended to make this change of partners, in which case she would have been of even more dubious value to us. On our side, some of the wishful thinking about this country was quite ridiculous. In reality there was only one possible policy to adopt vis-à-vis France – a policy of rigorous and rigid distrust. I know I was right about France. With prophetic foresight I gave an accurate picture of France in Mein Kampf. And I know perfectly well why, in spite of all the representations that have been made to me, I have seen no reason at all to change the opinions I formed twenty years ago[1].


The gravest decision of the war – Peace with Britain not possible till the Red Army had been annihilated – Time works against us – Stalin’s blackmail – Settlement with Russia as soon as the weather became fine

 15th February 1945

No decision which I have had to make during the course of this war was graver than that to attack Russia. I had always maintained that we ought at all costs to avoid waging war on two fronts, and you may rest assured that I pondered long and anxiously over Napoleon and his experiences in Russia. Why, then, you may ask, this war against Russia, and why at the time that I selected?

We had already given up hope of ending the war by means of a successful invasion of Britain. Furthermore that country, under the guidance of its stupid chiefs, would have refused to recognize the hegemony we had set up in Europe as long as there remained on the Continent a Great Power which was fundamentally hostile to the Third Reich. The war, then, would have gone on and on, a war in which, behind the British, the Americans would have played an increasingly active role. The importance of the war potential of the United States, the progress made in armaments – both in our own camp and in that of our enemies, the proximity of the English coast – all these things combined to make it highly inadvisable for us to become bogged down in a war of long duration. For Time – and it’s always Time, you notice – would have been increasingly against us. In order to persuade Britain to pack up, to compel her to make peace, it was essential to rob her of her hope of being able still to confront us, on the Continent itself, with an adversary of a stature equal to our own. We had no choice, we had at all costs to strike the Russian element out of the European balance sheet. We had another reason, equally valid, for our action – the mortal threat that a Russia in being constituted to our existence. For it was absolutely certain that one day or other she would attack us.

Our one and only chance of vanquishing Russia was to take the initiative, for to fight a defensive war against her was not practical. We dared not allow the Red Army the advantage of the terrain, place our Autobahns at the disposal of its swiftly on-rushing armour, and our railways at the disposal of its troops and its supplies. But if we took the offensive, we could, indeed, defeat the Red Army on its own ground, in the swamps and in the vast and muddy expanses; but in a civilized country we could not have done so. We should simply have been providing it with a spring-board with which to leap upon the whole of Europe and destroy it.

Why 1941? Because, in view of the steadily increasing power of our western enemies, if we were to act at all, we had to do so with the least possible delay. Nor, mind you, was Stalin doing nothing. On two fronts, time was against us. The real question was not, therefore: `Why 22 June 1941 already’ but rather: `Why not earlier still?’ But for the difficulties created for us by the Italians and their idiotic campaign in Greece, I should have attacked Russia a few weeks earlier. For us, the main problem was to keep the Russians from moving for as long as possible, and my own personal nightmare was the fear that Stalin might take the initiative before me.

Another reason was that the raw materials which the Russians were withholding were essential to us. In spite of their obligations their rate of delivery decreased steadily, and there was a real danger that they might suddenly cease altogether. If they were not prepared to give us of their own free will the things we had to have, then we had no alternative but to go and take them, in situ and by force. I came to my decision immediately after Molotov’s visit to Berlin in November, for it then became clear to me that sooner or later Stalin would abandon us and go over to the enemy. Ought I to have played for time in order that our preparations could have become more complete? No – for by so doing I should have sacrificed the initiative; and again no, because the brief and precarious respite which we might have gained would have cost us very dear. We should have had to submit to the Soviet blackmail with regard to Finland, to Rumania, to Bulgaria and to Turkey. That, of course was out of the question. The Third Reich, defender and protector of Europe, could not have sacrificed these friendly countries on the altar of Communism. Such behaviour would have been dishonourable, and we should have been punished for it. From the moral as well as from the strategic point of view it would have been a miserable gambit. War with Russia had become inevitable, whatever we did; and to postpone it only meant that we should later have to fight under conditions far less favourable.

I therefore decided, as soon as Molotov departed, that I would settle accounts with Russia as soon as fair weather permitted.


A people which instinctively dislikes colonial adventures -Louisiana and Mexico.

15th February 1945

By not liberating the French proletariat at once in i94o we both failed in our duty and neglected our own interests. And that is equally true with regard to French subjects overseas.

The French people would certainly have borne us no grudge, had we relieved them of the burden of Empire. In this:. respect the people have shown much more common sense than the self styled elite, and they have an instinctive and much truer appreciation of the nation’s real interests. Under both Louis XV and under Jules Ferry the people revolted against the absurdity of colonial adventures. I have yet to be convinced that Napoleon became unpopular for having rid himself cheaply of Louisiana. But there was unprecedented indignation when his inefficient nephew tried to balance matters by waging war on Mexico!


Some Frenchmen were courageous Europeans – The price of clear thinking and good faith.

15th February 1945

I have never liked France or the French, and I have never stopped saying so. I admit, however, that there are some worthy men among them. There is no doubt that, during these latter years, quite a number of Frenchmen supported the European conception with both complete sincerity and great courage. And the savagery with which their own countrymen made them pay for their clear vision is of itself a proof of their good faith.


My attitude towards Italy a mistake – The Italian alliance a hindrance almost everywhere – We miss the political bus as regards Islam – Shameful defeats of the Italians – Italy will have contributed to our losing the war – Life does not forgive weakness.

17th February 1945

When I pass judgment, objectively and without emotion, on events, I must admit that my unshakeable friendship for Italy and the Duce may well be held to be an error on my part. It is in fact quite obvious that our Italian alliance has been of more service to our enemies than to ourselves. Italian intervention has conferred benefits which are modest in the extreme in comparison with the numerous difficulties to which it has given rise. If, in spite of all our efforts, we fail to win this war, the Italian alliance will have contributed to our defeat!

The greatest service which Italy could have rendered to us would have been to remain aloof from this conflict. To ensure her abstention, no sacrifices, no presents on our part would have been too great. Had she steadfastly maintained her neutral role, we would have overwhelmed her with our favours. In victory we would have shared with her all the fruits and all the glory. We would have collaborated with all our hearts in the creation of the historic myth of the supremacy of the Italian people, the legitimate sons of the ancient Romans. Indeed, anything would have been preferable to having them as comrades in arms on the field of battle!

Italy’s intervention in June 1940, with the sole purpose of aiming a donkey-kick at a French army that was already in process of disintegration, merely had the effect of tarnishing a victory which the vanquished were at the time prepared to accept in a sporting spirit. France recognized that she had been fairly defeated by the armies of the Reich, but she was unwilling to accept defeat at the hands of the Axis.

Our Italian ally has been a source of embarrassment to us everywhere. It was this alliance, for instance, which prevented us from pursuing a revolutionary policy in North Africa. In the nature of things, this territory was becoming an Italian preserve and it was as such that the Duce laid claim to it. Had we been on our own, we could have emancipated the Moslem countries dominated by France; and that would have had enormous repercussions in the Near East, dominated by Britain, and in Egypt. But with our fortunes linked to those of the Italians, the pursuit of such a policy was not possible. All Islam vibrated at the news of our victories. The Egyptians, the Irakis and the whole of the Near East were all ready to rise in revolt. Just think what we could have done to help them, even to incite them, as would have been both our duty and in our own interest! But the presence of the Italians at our side paralysed us; it created a feeling of malaise among our Islamic friends, who inevitably saw in us accomplices, willing or unwilling, of their oppressors. For the Italians in these parts of the world are more bitterly hated, of course, than either the British or the French. The memories of the barbarous, reprisals taken against the Senussi are still vivid. Then again the ridiculous pretensions of the Duce to be regarded as The Sword of Islam evokes the same sneering chuckle now as it did before the war. This title, which is fitting for Mahomed and a great conqueror like Omar, Mussolini caused to be conferred on himself by a few wretched brutes whom he had either bribed or terrorized into doing so. We had a great chance of pursuing a splendid policy with regard to Islam. But we missed the bus, as we missed it on several other occasions, thanks to our loyalty to the Italian alliance!

In this theatre of operations, then, the Italians prevented us from playing our best card, the emancipation of the French subjects and the raising of the standard of revolt in the countries oppressed by the British. Such a policy would have aroused the enthusiasm of the whole of Islam. It is a characteristic of the Moslem world, from the shores of the Atlantic to those of the Pacific, that what affects one, for good or for evil, affects all.

On the moral side, the effects of our policy were doubly disastrous. On the one hand we had wounded, with no advantage to ourselves, the self esteem of the French. On the other hand this, of itself, compelled us to maintain the domination exercised by the French over their empire, for fear that the contagion might spread to Italian North Africa and that the latter might then also claim its independence. And since all these territories are now occupied by the Anglo-Americans, I am more than justified in saying that this policy of ours was a disaster. Further, this futile policy has allowed these hypocrites, the British, to pose, if you please, as liberators in Syria, in Cyrenaica and in Tripolitania!

From the purely military point of view things have not been much better! Italy’s entry into the war at once gave our enemies their first victories, a fact which enabled Churchill to revive the courage of his countrymen and which gave hope to all the Anglophiles all the world over. Even while they proved themselves incapable of maintaining their positions in Abyssinia and Cyrenaica, the Italians had the nerve to throw themselves, without seeking our advice and without even giving us previous warning of their intentions, into a pointless campaign in Greece. The shameful defeats which they suffered caused certain of the Balkan States to regard us with scorn and contempt. Here, and nowhere else, are to be found the causes of Yugoslavia’s stiffening attitude and her volte face in the spring of Ig4I. This compelled us, contrary to all our plans, to intervene in the Balkans, and that in its turn led to a catastrophic delay in the launching of our attack on Russia. We were compelled to expend some of our best divisions there. And as a net result we were then forced to occupy vast territories in which, but for this stupid show, the presence of any of our troops would have been quite unnecessary. The Balkan States would have been only too pleased, had they been so allowed, to preserve an attitude of benevolent neutrality towards us. As for our paratroopers I would have preferred to launch them against Gibraltar than against Corinth or Crete!

Ah! if only the Italians had remained aloof from this war! If only they had continued in their state of non-belligerence! In view of the friendship and the common interests that bind us, of what inestimable value to us such an attitude would have been! The Allies themselves would have been delighted, for, although they never held any very high opinion of the martial qualities of Italy, even they never dreamed that she would turn out to be as feeble as she was. They would have considered themselves lucky to see remain neutral such power as they attributed to the Italians. Even so, they could not have afforded to take chances, and they would have been compelled to immobilize considerable forces to meet the danger of an intervention, which was always menacing and which was always possible, if not probable. From our point of view this means that there would have been a considerable number of British troops, immobile and acquiring neither the experience of battle nor the fillip derived from victory – in short, a sort of `phoney war’, and the longer it continued, the greater would be the advantage that we gained from it.

A war that is prolonged is of benefit to a belligerent in that it gives him the opportunities to learn to wage war. I had hoped to conduct this war without giving the enemy the chance of learning anything new in the art of battle. In Poland and Scandinavia, in Holland, Belgium and France I succeeded. Our victories were swift, were achieved with a minimum of casualties on both sides, but were yet sufficiently clear-cut and decisive to lead to the complete defeat of the enemy.

If the war had remained a war conducted by Germany, and not by the Axis, we should have been in a position to attack Russia by 15th May 1941. Doubly strengthened by the fact that our forces had known nothing but decisive and irrefutable victories, we should have been able to conclude the campaign before winter came. How differently everything has turned out!

Out of gratitude (for I shall never forget the attitude adopted by the Duce at the time of the Anschluss) I have always abstained from criticizing or passing judgment on Italy. I have on the contrary always been at great pains to treat her as an equal. Unfortunately, the laws of nature have shown that it is a mistake to treat as equals those who are not your equals. The Duce himself is my equal. He may perhaps even be my superior from the point of view of his ambitions for his people. But it is facts and not ambitions that count.

We Germans do well to remember that in circumstances such as these it is better for us to play a lone hand. We have everything to lose and nothing to gain by binding ourselves closely with more feeble elements and by choosing into the bargain partners who have given all too frequent proof of their fickleness. I have often said that wherever you find Italy, there you will find victory. What I should have said is – wherever you find victory, there, you may be sure, you will find Italy!

Neither my personal affection for the Duce nor my instinctive feelings of friendship for the Italian people have changed. But I do blame myself for not having listened to the voice of reason, which bade me to be ruthless in my friendship for Italy. And I could have done so, both to the personal advantage of the Duce himself and to the advantage of his people. I realize, of course, that such an attitude on my part would have offended him and that he would never have forgiven me. But as a result of my forbearance things have happened which should not have happened and which may well prove fatal. Life does not forgive weakness.


 A cast-iron excuse for Roosevelt – Nothing could have prevented the entry of the U.S.A. into the war – The Yellow Peril obsession – Solidarity with the Japanese.

18th February 1945

Japan’s entry into the war caused us no misgivings, even though it was obvious that the Japanese had made a present of a cast-iron pretext to Roosevelt for bringing in the United States against us. But Roosevelt, urged on by Jewry, was already quite resolved to go to war and annihilate National Socialism, and he had no need of any pretexts. Such pretexts as were required to overcome the resistance of the isolationists he was quite capable of fabricating for himself. One more little swindle meant nothing to him.

The magnitude of the Pearl Harbour disaster was, I am sure, balm to his soul. It was exactly what he wanted in order to be able to drag his countrymen into a total war and to annihilate the last remnants of opposition in his own country. He had done all in his power to provoke the Japanese. It was only a repetition, on a vaster scale, of the tactics employed with such success by Wilson at the time of the first war: the torpedoing of the Lusitania, provoked with diabolical skill, prepared the Americans psychologically for the entry of their country into the war against Germany. Since the intervention of the United States could not be prevented in 19I7, it is obvious that their intervention now, twenty-five years later, was both a logical premise and unavoidable.

It was only in 1915 that World Jewry decided to place the whole of its resources at the disposal of the Allies. But in our case, Jewry decided as early as 1933, at the very birth of the Third Reich, tacitly to declare war on us. Furthermore the influence wielded by the Jews in the United States has consistently and steadily increased during the last quarter of a century. And since the entry of the United States into the war was quite inevitable, it was a slice of great good fortune for us to have at our side an ally of such great worth as Japan. But it was also a slice of great good fortune for the Jews. It gave them the chance they had so long been seeking to implicate the United States directly in the conflict, and it was a master stroke on their part to have succeeded in dragging the Americans unanimously and enthusiastically into their war. The Americans, mindful of their disillusionment in I9I9, were by no means anxious once again to intervene in a European war. On the other hand they were more obsessed than ever with the idea of the Yellow Peril. Trying to teach the Jews a trick or two is like carrying coals to Newcastle, and you can be quite sure that all their plans are conceived with Machiavellian astuteness. I myself am quite convinced that in the case we are discussing they took a very long view which envisaged the overthrow by a white Power of the Empire of the Rising Sun, which had risen to the status of a world Power and which had always sternly resisted contamination by the race of Jewry.

For us, Japan will always remain an ally and a friend. This war will teach us to appreciate and respect her more than ever. It will encourage us to draw more tightly the bonds which unite our two countries. It is of course regrettable that the Japanese did not enter the war against Russia and at the same time as ourselves. Had they done so, Stalin’s armies would not now be besieging Breslau or squatting in Budapest. We should have liquidated Bolshevism by the time winter came, and Roosevelt would have hesitated to take on adversaries as powerful as our two selves. In the same way I am sorry that Japan did not capture Singapore as early as 1940, immediately after the defeat of France. The United States was then on the eve of a presidential election and would have found it impossible to intervene. That, then, was one of the turning points of the war.

In spite of everything, we and the Japanese will remain staunchly side by side. We will conquer or die together. Should we be the first to succumb, I can’t see the Russians continuing to maintain the myth of `Asiatic solidarity’ for the sake of Japan!


We should have occupied Gibraltar in 1940 – Congenital weakness of the Latin countries – The British duped by the French-Misunderstandings with the Duce – The disastrous campaign in Greece.

20th February 1945

Taking advantage of the enthusiasm we had aroused in Spain and the shock to which we had subjected Britain, we ought to have attacked Gibraltar in the summer of 1940, immediately after the defeat of France.

At that time, however, the awkward thing was that it would have been difficult to prevent Spain entering into the war on our side – and particularly so as we had failed, a few weeks previously, from preventing Italy from flying to the rescue of our victory.

These Latin countries bring us no luck. Their overweening conceit is in direct proportion to their weakness, and that always confuses the issue. We failed entirely to curb the Italians’ desire to shine on the field of battle, even though we had shown ourselves willing to confer upon them an honours degree for heroism, to bestow upon them all the fruits of military glory and all the advantages accruing from a war that has been won-provided always that they took no part in it at all.

The British, of course, were duped even more completely by their Latin ally than we were. Chamberlain, obviously, would never have declared war, had he realized the full extent of French demoralization and inadequacy. For the British undoubtedly expected France to bear the whole brunt of the land campaign on the Continent. For Chamberlain nothing would have been easier than to shed a few crocodile’s tears for Poland and then to have left us to carve the country up at our leisure.

To material weakness the Latin countries add a quite fantastic pretentiousness. Friendly Italy or hostile France – it makes no odds. The weakness of both of them will have been equally fatal to us.

The only disagreements that have ever occurred between the Duce and myself arose from the precautions which from time to time I had felt constrained to take. In spite of the complete confidence I had in him personally, I felt compelled to keep him in ignorance of my intentions in any case where indiscretion might have prejudiced our interests. Just as I had complete confidence in Mussolini, he had complete confidence in Ciano – and he, of course, had no secrets from the pretty ladies who fluttered like butterflies around him. That we know to our cost, and as the enemy were anxious for information regardless of costs, they learnt a goodly number of secrets through this channel. I had good reasons, therefore, for not telling the Duce everything. I am only sorry that he did not appreciate the fact, that he resented my attitude and paid me back in my own coin.

There’s no doubt about it – we have no luck with the Latin races! While I was occupied, first in Montoire, buttoning up a futile policy of collaboration with France, and then in Hendaye, where I had to submit to receiving fulsome honours at the hands of a false friend, a third Latin – and one, this time, who really was a friend – took advantage of my preoccupation to set in motion his disastrous campaign against Greece.


Third Reich’s need of peace to consolidate – Abstract man and the Utopian doctrines – National Socialism a realistic doctrine, applicable only to Germany – Had war occurred in 1938, it would have been a local war – What would have happened – a double coup for the West.

21st February 1945

We had need of peace in order to cary out our programme. I always desired to maintain peace. We have been jockeyed into war at the desire of our enemies. In practice, the threat of war has existed ever since January 1933, from the time that I came to power.

On the one hand, there are the Jews and all those who march in step with them. On the other, there are those who adopt a realistic attitude towards world affairs. And throughout history we have had these two families of wholly irreconcilable outlook in the world.

On the one hand, there are those who strive for the happiness of mankind in the abstract and who pursue the chimera of a formula applicable all the world over. On the other, there are the realists. National Socialism is interested only in the happiness of the German race and strives only to secure the wellbeing of the German man.

The universalists, the idealists, the Utopians all aim too high. They give promises of an unattainable paradise, and by doing so they deceive mankind. Whatever label they wear, whether they call themselves Christians, communists, humanitarians, whether they are merely sincere but stupid or wire-pullers and cynics, they are all makers of slaves. I myself have always kept my eye fixed on a paradise which, in the nature of things, lies well within our reach. I mean an improvement in the lot of the German people.

I have restricted myself to making promises that I knew I could keep and that I had every intention of keeping. Hence the universal hatred which I have aroused. By refusing to make impossible promises, as do our enemies, I was not playing the game. I was holding myself aloof from the syndicate of the world’s leaders, whose aim, un-avowed but tacitly accepted, is the exploitation of human credulity.

The National Socialist doctrine, as I have always proclaimed, is not for export. It was conceived for the German people. All the objectives at which it aims are, of necessity, limited – but attainable. It follows, then, that I can put as little credence in the idea of universal peace as in that of universal war.

It was on the eve of Munich that I realized beyond doubt that the enemies of the Third Reich were determined to have our hide at all costs and that there was no possibility of coming to terms with them. When that arch capitalist bourgeois, Chamberlain, with his deceptive umbrella in his hand, put himself to the trouble of going all the way to the Berghof to discuss matters with that upstart, Hitler, he knew very well that he really intended to wage ruthless war against us. He was quite prepared to tell me anything which he thought might serve to lull my suspicions. His one and only object in undertaking this trip was to gain time. What we ought then to have done was to have struck at once. We ought to have gone to war in 1938. It was the last chance we had of localizing the war.

But they gave way all along the line and, like the poltroons that they are, ceded to all our demands. Under such conditions it was very difficult to seize the initiative and commence hostilities. At Munich we lost a unique opportunity of easily and swiftly winning a war that was in any case inevitable.

Although we were ourselves not fully prepared, we were nevertheless better prepared than the enemy. September 1938 would have been the most favourable date. And what a chance we had to limit the conflict.

We ought then and there to have settled our disputes by force of arms and disregarded the inclination of our opponents to meet all our demands. When we solved the Sudeten question by force we liquidated Czechoslovakia at the same time-and left all the blame squarely on Benes’ shoulders. The Munich solution could not have been anything but provisional, for, obviously, we could not tolerate in the heart of Germany an abscess, small though it was, like an independent Czech State. We lanced the abscess in March 1939, but in circumstances that were psychologically less favourable than those which would have obtained, had we settled the issue by force in 1938. For in March 1939, for the first time, we put ourselves in the wrong in the eyes of world opinion. No longer were we restricting ourselves to reuniting Germans to the Reich, but were establishing a protectorate over a non-German population.

A war waged in 1938 would have been a swift war – for the emancipation of the Sudeten Germans, the Slovaks, the Hungarians and even of those Poles who were under Czech domination. Great Britain and France taken by surprise and discountenanced by the course of events would have remained passive – particularly in view of the fact that world opinion would have been on our side. Finally, Poland, the main prop of French policy in eastern Europe, would have been at our side. If Great Britain and France had made war on us in these circumstances they would have lost face. In actual fact, I’m quite sure they would not have gone to war; but they would have lost face all the same. Once our arms had spoken, we could have left till later the settlement of the remaining territorial problems in eastern Europe and the Balkans without fear of provoking the intervention of the two Powers, already discredited in the eyes of their protégés. As far as we ourselves were concerned, we should thus have gained the time required to enable us to consolidate our position, and we would have postponed the world war for several years to come. In fact, in these circumstances I doubt very much whether a second world war would, indeed, have been inevitable.

It is by no means unreasonable to presume that in the breasts of the well-founded nations degeneration and love of comfort could well have proved stronger than the congenital hatred they bore us – particularly when it is remembered that they must have realized that all our aspirations were, in reality, orientated eastwards. Our adversaries might even have deluded themselves with the hope that we might perhaps exhaust ourselves in the pursuit of these eastern aspirations of ours. In any event, it would, for them, have been a case of heads I win, tails you lose, since it would have ensured for them maintenance of peace in the west, and at the same time would have allowed them to take advantage of the resultant weakening of Russia, whose growing power had been a source of preoccupation for them, though to a lesser degree than had been our own resurgence.


The tragedy of war with America – Contribution by Germans to America’s greatness – The failure of the New Deal and the war -Possibility of peaceful co-existence between Germany and U.S.A – The Americans will become anti-Jew – Roosevelt, a false idol -No colonial ventures, but a grand Continental policy.

24th February 1945

This war against America is a tragedy. It is illogical and devoid of any foundation of reality.

It is one of those queer twists of history that just as I was assuming power in Germany, Roosevelt, the elect of the Jews, was taking command in the United States. Without the Jews and without this lackey of theirs, things could have been quite different. For from every point of view Germany and the United States should have been able, if not to understand each other and sympathize with each other, then at least to support each other without undue strain on either of them. Germany, remember, has made a massive contribution to the peopling of America. It is we Germans who have made by far the greatest contribution of nordic blood to the United States. And it is also a fact that Steuben played a part which decided the issue in the War of Independence.

The last great economic crisis struck Germany and the United States at more or less the same time and with the same force. Both countries rode the storm in much the same way. The operation, though extremely difficult, was crowned with success on our side. In America, where, after all, it presented no difficulty at all, the operation achieved only a very mediocre success under the guidance of Roosevelt and his Jewish advisers. The failure of the New Deal is responsible in no small measure for their war fever. The United States as a matter of fact could survive and prosper in a state of economic isolation; for us, that is a dream which we would love to see come true. They have at their disposal a vast territory, ample to absorb the energies of all their people. As far as Germany is concerned, my hope is one day to ensure for her complete economic independence inside a territory of a size compatible with her population. A great people has need of broad acres.

Germany expects nothing from the United States, and the latter have nothing to fear from Germany. Everything combines to ensure the possibility of peaceful co-existence, each in his own country and all in perfect harmony. Unfortunately, the whole business is ruined by the fact that world Jewry has chosen just that country in which to set up its most powerful bastion. That, and that alone, has altered the relations between us and has poisoned everything.

I am prepared to wager that well within twenty-five years the Americans themselves will have realized what a handicap has been imposed upon them by this parasitic Jewry, clamped fast to their flesh and nourishing itself on their life-blood. It is this Jewry that is dragging them into adventures which, when all is said and done, are no concern of theirs and in which the interests at stake are of no importance to them. What possible reason can the non-Jewish Americans have for sharing the hatreds of the Jews and following meekly in their footsteps? One thing is quite certain – within a quarter of a century the Americans will either have become violently anti-semitic or they will be devoured by Jewry.

If we should lose this war, it will mean that we have been defeated by the Jews. Their victory will then be complete. But let me hasten to add that it will only be very temporary. It will certainly not be Europe which takes up the struggle again against them, but it certainly will be the United States. The latter is a country still too young to have acquired the maturity conferred by age and exaggeratedly lacking in political sense. For the Americans, everything has so far been ridiculously easy. But experience and difficulties will perhaps cause them to mature. Just think for a moment what they were when their country was born – a group of individuals come from all corners of the earth hastening forward in pursuit of fortune and finding at their disposal a vast continent to appease their hunger and all theirs for the taking. National conscience is a thing which develops very gradually, especially in vast territories such as these. Nor must it be forgotten that these individuals had been drawn from a variety of races and had not yet been fused by the bonds of a national spirit. What an easy prey for the Jews!

The excesses in which the Jews indulged in our country are as nothing in comparison with the excesses in which they have indulged and in which they will continue to indulge in ever increasing measure on their new hunting grounds. It will `not be very long before the Americans realize that the Roosevelt whom they have adored is an idol with feet of clay and that this Jew-ridden man is in reality a malefactor – both from the point of view of the United States and of humanity as a whole. He has dragged them along a path on which they had no business to be, and in particular he has forced them to take an active part in a conflict that does not concern them at all. Had they possessed even a minimum of political instinct they would have remained in their splendid isolation, content in this conflict to play the role of arbiter. Had they been a little more mature and a little more experienced, they would doubtless have realized that their best course in their own major interests would have been to have entrenched themselves firmly with their faces towards a shattered Europe and in an attitude of vigilant neutrality. By intervening they have once again played into the hands of their Jewish exploiters; and the latter are worldly wise and know exactly what they are doing – but, of course, from their own particular Jewish point of view.

Had Fate so willed that the President of the United States during this critical period were someone other than Roosevelt, he might well have been a man capable of adapting the American economy to the needs of the twentieth century and of becoming the greatest President since Lincoln. The 1930 crisis was brought on by growing pains – but on a world-wide scale. Economic liberalism showed that it was nothing more than an out-dated catch-phrase. Once the signification and the potentialities of the crisis had been appreciated, all that was required was the discovery of appropriate remedies. That is the task on which a great President would have concentrated, and by so doing he would have placed his country in an unassailable place in the world. Naturally a wise President should have fostered among his countrymen an interest in international affairs and should have encouraged them to turn their eyes to the great world at large; but to have flung them into the middle of a dog fight, as this criminal, Roosevelt, has done, was sheer lunacy. He, of course, has quite cynically taken advantage of their ignorance, their naïveté and their credulity. He has made them see the world through the eye of Jewry, and he has set them on a path which will lead them to utter disaster, if they do not pull themselves together in time.

American affairs are no business of ours, and I should be completely indifferent to what happens to them, but for the fact that their attitude has direct repercussions on our destiny and on that of Europe.

The fact that neither we nor they have any colonial policy is yet another characteristic which should unite us. The Germans have never really felt the imperialist urge.

I regard the efforts made at the end of the nineteenth century as a fortuitous accident in our history. Our defeat in I9I8 had at least the fortunate consequences that it stopped us from pursuing the course into which the Germans had foolishly allowed themselves to be led, influenced by the example of the French and the British and jealous of ä success which they had not the wit to realize was purely transitory.

It is to the credit of the Third Reich that we did not look back with any nostalgia to a past that we have discarded. We have on the contrary turned our eyes resolutely and bravely towards the future, towards the creation of great homogeneous entities and a great Continental policy. It is, incidentally, a policy on all fours with the traditional American policy of not meddling in the affairs of other continents and forbidding others to meddle in the affairs of the New World.


The Germans always, inevitably, in a hurry – Time fights on Russia’s side – A people with a tragic past – Not the work of one man, or even of a generation – Germans have never ceased to fight for their existence.

25th February 1945

It is a fact that we always bungle everything through being forced to act in a hurry. With us, to act swiftly is always to act with precipitation. To acquire the gift of patience, we should have both time and space, and at the moment we have neither. The Russians are lucky in possessing both, quite apart from that inclination towards placidity which is a characteristic trait of the Slav temperament.

Furthermore, thanks to the Marxist religion, they have everything required to make them patient. They have been promised happiness on earth (a feature which distinguishes Marxism from the Christian religion) but in the future. The Jew, Mardochée Marx, like the good Jew that he was, was awaiting the coming of the Messiah. He has placed the Messiah conception in a setting of historic materialism by asserting that terrestial happiness is a factor in an almost endless process of evolution. ‘Happiness is within your reach,’ he says, ‘that I promise you. But you must let evolution take its course and not try to hurry matters.’ Mankind always falls for a specious trick of that sort. . . . Lenin did not have the time, but Stalin will carry on the good work, and so on and so on . . . Marxism is a very powerful force. But how shall we assess Christianity, that other child of Judaism, which will not commit itself further than to promise the faithful happiness in another world? Believe me, it is incomparably stronger!

I myself am fated to being compelled to try and accomplish everything in the short space of a human lifetime. To help me I have but a realistic idealism, based on tangible facts, from which flows promises that can certainly be fulfilled, but which forbids me to promise the moon. Where others have all eternity at their disposal, I have but a few short, miserable years. Those others know that they will be succeeded by yet others who will carry on where they left off, ploughing with precision exactly the same furrow with exactly the same plough. I have now reached the stage where I wonder whether among my immediate successors there will be found a man predestined to raise and carry on the torch, when it has slipped from my hand. It has also been my fate to be the servant of a people with so tragic a past, a people so unstable, so versatile as the German people, and a people who go, according to circumstances, from one extreme to the other. From my own point of view, the ideal thing would have been, firstly to ensure the future existence of the German people, then to form a youth imbued deeply with the national socialist doctrine – and then to have left it to the generations of the future to wage the inevitable war, unless, of course, our enemies recoiled when they found themselves faced with the newly acquired might of the German people. In this way, Germany would have been well equipped both materially and morally. She would have at her disposal an administration, a foreign policy and an army all moulded from infancy in the principles of National Socialism. The task I have undertaken of raising the German people to the place in the world that is their due is unfortunately not a task that can be accomplished by a single man or in a single generation. But I have at least opened their eyes to their inherent greatness and I have inspired them to exaltation at the thought of the union of Germans in one great indestructible Reich. I have sown the good seed. I have made the German people realize the significance of the struggle they are waging for their very existence.

One day the harvest will come, and nothing on earth will be able to prevent it from coming. The German people is a young and strong people, a people with its future before it.


Churchill’s lack of appreciation – The irreparable could have been avoided – Essentiality of forestalling Russian attack – Italy prevents the opening of the campaign in good time – Catastrophic consequences of the delay – My illusion of a possible entente with Stalin.

26th February 1945

In actual fact, my decision to settle the issue with Russia by force of arms was taken as soon as I became convinced that Britain was determined to remain stubborn. Churchill was quite unable to appreciate the sporting spirit of which I had given proof by refraining from creating an irreparable breach between the British and ourselves. We did, indeed, refrain from annihilating them at Dunkirk. We ought to have been able to make them realize that the acceptance by them of the German hegemony established in Europe, a state of affairs to the implementation o which they had always been opposed, but which I had implemented without any trouble, would bring them inestimable advantages.

Even by the end of July, one month, that is, after the defeat of France, I realized that peace was once again eluding our grasp. A few weeks later I knew that we should not succeed in invading Britain before the advent of the autumnal gales because we had not succeeded in acquiring complete command of the air. In other words, I realized that we should never succeed in invading Britain.

The attitude of the Russians during the summer of 1940, the fact that they had absorbed the Baltic States and Bessarabia while we ourselves were busy in the west left me with no illusions regarding their intentions. And even if I had retained any, Molotov’s visit in November would have been sufficient to dissipate them. The proposals which Stalin submitted to me after the return of his Minister did not deceive me. Stalin, that incomparable and imperturbable blackmailer, was trying to gain time in order to consolidate his advanced bases in Finland and the Balkans. He was trying to play cat and mouse with us.

The tragedy, from my point of view, was the fact that I could not attack before 15th May, and if I were to succeed in my first initial onslaught, it was essential that I should not attack later than that date. Stalin, however, could have launched his attack much earlier. Throughout the winter of 1940, and even more so in the spring of 1941, I was haunted by the obsession that the Russians might take the offensive. In the event, the Italian defeats in Albania and in Cyrenaica had roused a minor storm of revolt in the Balkans. Indirectly, they also struck a blow at the belief in our invincibility, that was held by friend and foe alike.

This alone was the cause of Yugoslavia’s volte face, an event that compelled us to drag the Balkans into the war; and that was something which at all costs I had desired to avoid. For once we had become involved in that direction we might well have been tempted to go still further ahead. I need hardly say that in the spring of I94I we could rapidly have liberated the Near East with only a small fraction of the forces which we were about to employ against Russia. But to have removed the necessary forces from their place in our order of battle at that juncture would have been to incur the indirect danger of giving Russia a signal to attack. They would have done so in the summer, or at the latest in the autumn, and under conditions so disastrous from our point of view, that we could never have hoped to win the day.

Where the Jew-ridden democracies are concerned, the Russians have the patience of an elephant. They know with absolute certainty that sooner or later and without recourse to war, they will succeed in establishing dominion over them, thanks to the internal dissensions that rend them, the succession of economic crises from which they seem unable to escape and the powerful lure of Marxism to which they are particularly vulnerable. But they also know that in the case of the Third Reich the situation is very different. They know that in every field of endeavour, and more so in peace than in war, we shall everywhere outclass them.

The explanation of this patience which the Russians exhibit is to be found in their philosophy, which allows them to avoid taking risks and to wait – a year, a generation, a century, if necessary – until the time is ripe for the implementation of their plans. Time means nothing to them. Marxism, certainly, has promised them a paradise on earth – but certainly not today, not even tomorrow, but some time in the dim, indefinite future.

Notwithstanding this patience which is the backbone of their power, the Russians could not stand idly aside and watch the destruction of Great Britain, for in that case, with the United States and Japan cancelling each other out, as it were, the Russians would find themselves face to face with us – and alone. And that would mean without any doubt that, at a time and a place of our choice, the long-outstanding issue between us would be settled in our favour.

If I felt compelled to decide to settle my accounts with Bolshevism by force of arms, and, indeed, arrived at my decision on the very anniversary of the signing of the Moscow pact; I have every right to believe that Stalin had come to the same decision before even he signed the pact.

For a whole year I adhered to the hope that an entente, at least honestly sincere if not unreservedly friendly, could be established between the Third Reich and Stalin’s Russia. I imagined that after fifteen years of power Stalin, the realist, would have rid himself of the nebulous Marxist ideology and that he was preserving it merely as a poison reserved exclusively for external use. The brutal manner in which he decapitated the Jewish intelligensia, who had rendered him such signal service in the destruction Tsarist Russia, encouraged me in that belief. I presumed that he did not wish to give these same Jew intellectuals the chance of bringing about the downfall of the totalitarian empire which he had built – that Stalinist empire which, in all its essentials, is only the spiritual succesor to the empire of Peter the Great.

In a spirit of implacable realism on both sides we cot have created a situation in which a durable entente would have been possible – by defining precisely the zones of influence to be attributed to each party, by rigorously restricting our collaboration to the field of economics and in such a manner that both parties would have derived benefits therefrom. An entente, in short, watched over 1 an eagle eye and with a finger on the trigger!


Europe’s last chance – Napoleon and winning the peace -Napoleon’s agony and mine – Britain always bars our way – Those who thrive on discord in Europe.

26th February 1945

I have been Europe’s last hope. She proved incapable of refashioning herself by means of voluntary reform. She showed herself impervious to charm and persuasion. To take her I had to use violence.

Europe can be built only on a foundation of ruins. Not material ruins, but on ruins of vested interests and economic coalitions, of mental rigidity and perverse prejudice, of outmoded idiosyncrasy and narrow mindedness. Europe must be fashioned in the common interest of all and without regard for individuals. Napoleon understood that perfectly.

I, perhaps better than anyone else, can well imagine the torments suffered by Napoleon, longing, as he was, for the triumph of peace and yet compelled to continue waging war, without ceasing and without seeing any prospect of ceasing – and still persisting in the hope eternal of at last achieving peace. Since the summer 1940 I have myself been suffering the same torments. At always it has been this Britain who barred Europe’s way to prosperity. But now she is aged and enfeebled, though not less vicious and wicked. Finally, she is being supported in this negative and unnatural attitude by the United States, themselves inspired and urged on by the who forces of international Jewry, which has flourished an hopes long to continue to flourish as the result of our dissentions.


A defeat which must inevitably be complete – The Reich hacked to pieces by the conquerors – A Germany in transition – The resurrection of eternal Germany – Lines of conduct for the faithful – The premier people on the Continent – Britain and Italy, if only. . . . A France degenerate and implacably hostile – Waiting for the rise of the African and Asiatic peoples – The U.S.A. and Russia face to face – A Russia rid of Marxism – The frailty of the American colossus – The rights of famished peoples – The chances of survival for a courageous people.

2nd April 1945

If we are destined to be beaten in this war, our defeat will be utter and complete. Our enemies have proclaimed their objectives in a manner which leaves us no illusions as to their intentions. Jews, Russian Bolshevists and the pack of jackals that follows, yelping at their heels – we know that none of them will lay aside their arms until they have destroyed and annihilated national socialist Germany and reduced it to a heap of rubble. In a ghastly conflict like this, in a war in which two so completely irreconcilable ideologies confront one another, the issue can inevitably only be settled by the total destruction of one side or the other. It is a fight which must be waged, by both sides until they are utterly exhausted; and for our part, w know that we shall fight on until victory is achieved o until our last drop of blood has been shed.

It is a cruel thought. It fills me with horror to think o our Reich hacked to pieces by the victors, our people; exposed to the savage excesses of the Bolsheviks and the American gangsters. Even this prospect, however, doe; not shake my invincible faith in the future of the German people. The more we suffer, the more glorious will be the resurrection of eternal Germany! That characteristic of the German mind, to plunge into lethargy when it seem; certain that the very existence of the nation is at stake will once more stand us in good stead. But as far as I personally am concerned I could not bear to live in Germany during the transition period that would follow the defeat of the Third Reich. The ignominies and the treachery we experienced in igI8 will be as nothing in comparison with what we may now expect. It is beyond comprehension that, after twelve years of National Socialism, such a thing could happen. My imagination boggles at the idea of a Germany, henceforth deprived of her elite which led her to the very pinnacles of heroism, wallowing for years and years in the mire.

What advice can we give, then, what rules of conduct can we recommend to those who survive, with their souls untarnished and their hearts unshaken? Battered, left alone to work out its own salvation, existing solely as a custodian during the grim darkness of the night, the German people must strive its very utmost spontaneously to respect those racial laws which we laid down for it. In a world which is becoming more and more perverted through the Jewish virus, a people which has remained immune to the virus must in the long run emerge supreme. From this point of view, National Socialism can justly claim the eternal gratitude of the people for having eliminated the Jew from Germany and Central Europe.

Post-war Germany’s second preoccupation should be to preserve indissoluble the union of all the German races. It is only when we are united that our qualities expand to their full stature; only when we cease to be Prussians, Bavarians, Austrians, Rhinelanders and become just Germans. The Prussians were the first to gather the Germans into one Reich under Bismarck, and by so doing gave the German people their opportunity to show that they were the premier people in Europe. I myself by uniting them all in the Third Reich, set them on the path to become the architects of a new Europe. Whatever the future holds, the German peoples must remember that it is essential that they should cast out all elements that make for discord among them and should indefatigably pursue every measure which contributes to the maintenance of their unity.

As far as foreign countries are concerned, it is not possible to lay down rigid rules, for the situation is in a constant state of change. Twenty years ago, I wrote that there were only two possible allies in Europe for Germany-Britain and Italy. The course of events during this period has not been such as to permit the implementation of a policy which would have been the logical sequence to my statement. The British, admittedly still wielded imperial power, but they no longer possessed the moral qualities requisite for the preservation of their empire. They seemed to dominate the world; in reality they were themselves dominated by the Jews. Italy had tried to emulate ancient Rome. She had all the Roman ambitions, but she lacked the two essential adjuncts of a determined spirit and material power. The only trump card she had was the leadership of a true Roman. What a tragedy for that man! And what a tragedy for that country! For a people, as for an individual, it is tragic to have ambitions and to lack both the means essential to their fulfilment and any hope of acquiring those means.

These remains France. Twenty years ago I wrote what I thought of France. She was and is the mortal enemy of the German people. Her steady degeneration and her frequent crises de nerfs have sometimes led us to minimize the importance of her actions. Should she continue to become more feeble, as seems probable; that will be no reason for us to become less distrustful of her. The military might of France is now nothing but a memory, and purely from that point of view you may be quite sure that she will never again cause us a moment’s anxiety. Whatever may be the issue of it, this war has at least put France in the category to which she belongs – that of a fifth-class Power. Even so, thanks to her unlimited powers of corruption and her inimitable skill in the art of blackmail, she can still be a source of danger to us. Our watchwords therefore must be: Mistrust and vigilance. Let the Germans take care never to allow themselves to be lulled by the voice of this syren!

While, therefore, it is not possible to adhere to rigid principles in dealing with foreign countries and one must always be prepared to adapt one’s policy to the changing conditions, it can nevertheless be asserted with confidence that Germany will always recruit her staunchest friends from among those peoples who are actively resistant to Jewish contagion. I am sure that the Japanese, the Chinese and the peoples of Islam will always be closer to us than, for example, France, in spite of the fact that we are related by blood. It is a tragedy that France has consistently degenerated in the course of centuries and that her upper classes have been perverted by the Jews. France is now condemned to the pursuit of a Jewish policy.

With the defeat of the Reich and pending the emergence of the Asiatic, the African and, perhaps, the South American nationalisms, there will remain in the world only two Great Powers capable of confronting each other – the United States and Soviet Russia. The laws of both history and geography will compel these two Powers to a trial of strength, either military or in the fields of economics and ideology. These same laws make it inevitable that both Powers should become enemies of Europe. And it is equally certain that both these Powers will sooner or later find it desirable to seek the support of the sole surviving great nation in Europe, the German people. I say with all the emphasis at my command that the German must at all costs avoid playing the role of pawn in either camp.

At this juncture it is difficult to say which, from the ideological point of view, would prove to be the more injurious to us – Jew-ridden Americanism or Bolshevism. It is possible that under the pressure of events, the Russians will rid themselves completely of Jewish Marxism, only to re-incarnate pan-slavism in its most fierce am ferocious form. As for the Americans, if they do no swiftly succeed in casting off the yoke of New York Jewry (which has the same intelligence as a monkey that saw through the branch on which it is perching), well – it won’t be long before they go under, before even having reached the age of maturity. The fact that they combine the possession of such vast material power with so vast lack of intelligence evokes the image of some child stricken with elephantiasis. It may well be asked whether this i not simply a case of a mushroom civilization, destined to vanish as quickly as it sprang up.

If North America does not succeed in evolving a doctrine less puerile than the one which at present serves as ; kind of moral vade mecum and which is based on lofty but chimerical principles and so-called Christian science it is questionable whether it will for long remain a pre dominantly white continent. It will soon become apparent that this giant with the feet of clay has, after its spectacular rise, just sufficient strength left to bring about its own downfall. And what a fine chance this sudden collapse will offer to the yellow races! From the point of view of both justice and history they will have exactly the same arguments (or lack of arguments) to support their invasion of the American continent as had the Europeans in the sixteenth century. Their vast and undernourished masses will confer on them the sole right that history recognizes – the right of starving people to assuage their hunger – provided always that their claim is well backed by force!

And so, in this cruel world into which two great wars have plunged us again, it is obvious that the only white peoples who have any chance of survival and prosperity are those who know how to suffer and who still retain the courage to fight, even when things are hopeless, to the death. And the only peoples who will have the right to claim these qualities will be those who have shown themselves capable of eradicating from their system the deadly poison of Jewry.

 [1] Hitler was frequently urged to suppress or to change the passage on France in the later editions of his book, Mein Kampf, but he consistently refused to do so – even after Munich. It is to this that he is alluding here.

The “Decent” Jew

The source: Hanns Oberlindober, Ein Vaterland, das allen gehört! Briefe an Zeitgenossen aus zwölf Kampfjahren (Munich: Zentralverlag der NSDAP, 1940), pp. 152-167.

Hanns Oberlindober

A Letter to an Englishman, 1937


Dear Mr. Smith !

Well, Baron R. came to you to ask for help, did he? He described himself as a “good German” and as a “decent Jew.” He fled from the “Nazi hell.” He is an émigré.

You ask me what you should do with this interesting baron. I reply: Please read the following letter to him, and he will stop asking you for help. And if you pass this letter on to the public, you will do your English people a valuable service. It is both an accusation and a rejection.

I am a “good German” and a “decent Jew”! Only a Jew has the insolence to make such a claim. I answer it only to reach the public and finally dispatch the absurd notion of the “decent Jew.” The fable of the “decent Jew” is not a German fable that has been handed down by our people and therefore something with educational value, but rather it is a shameless lie designed to lull the host people to sleep and appeal to hysterical weaklings.

This Jewish method has undoubtedly had some success in the past, and also works today in countries and peoples with democratic foundations that have given themselves over to Jewish control. However, outside of a tiny group of intellectual know-it-alls, no reasonable person in Germany would want to say “decent” and “Jew” in the same breath.

To the German mind, decency demands absolute selflessness.

A “good German” works hard and joyfully to serve his people. For him, “making something” has always been a more important result of his creative strength than “making money.” The good German values each creation, each discovery, as a service to the German people’s community that is more valuable to him than the possibility of making money. The best German is not he who makes the most money, but rather he who is of greatest service to his people. I doubt that one can translate this sentence into Hebrew, since it goes far beyond any Jewish understanding.

And you think you can be a “good German”! True, you do speak German, just as your racial comrades in other countries speak English, French, Spanish, and Polish, but you are no more a German than they are Englishmen, Frenchmen, Spaniards, or Poles, since Jews are a foreign body in every people.

Your own son — you’ll note than I am well informed — is a “good Swiss,” and your second son is a “good German,” and you think yourself a “good German.”

You Jews must think your host peoples are stupid! You have always done your duty as a citizen, you claim, punctually paying your not insubstantial taxes, probably because it could not be avoided even after you had taken advantages of all the deductions and loopholes. You have done much good, and carefully recorded every bit of it in order to demand repayment. You have made contributions to maintain historic castles and palaces, and can prove it by letters of thanks from the appropriate officials. And you also have medals from various minor nobles to prove your decency.

And so you are a “good German,” as if one did not know that you had taken the same steps to gain the esteem of the Legion of Honor, even “earning” papal medals and similar honors just to be safe. Even your noble title that you gained as a court Jew means as little to us as the baptismal water that you had to tolerate in order to join the nobility. Both prove only that there are money-hungry nobles and church proselytizers who ignore the laws of blood and race, just as you do, for their own benefit!

But now you are losing all your capital holdings in Germany, for the German people and its leadership today are unforgiving in this area. There were times when Jews like you could buy titles, citizenship, religion and stature, just as you could buy plastic surgery for your nose or devices for flat feet. That, however, does not mean that the new Germany of Adolf Hitler has to pay the bills for your investments that you claim to be your due as a “good German.”

Within your own circles, you perhaps are already saying that it would have been better to become a “good Englishman” or a “good Frenchman.”

Despite the sensitivity of the democrats to the world’s moaning and groaning, the warmongering incitement of the so-called world press and the agonized howls of those of your nature and religion, the National Socialist people’s and state leadership has only done its simple duty to the German people, namely to investigate and determine the results and consequences that the “good Germans” and “decent Jews” have left behind for the German people, and to ensure that there will never again be a time of unlimited or concealed Jewish domination.

I say Jewish domination intentionally, for there is no more dreadful tyranny than when world Jews enslave their host people through their willing, bribed, and obedient democratic lackeys.

Revenge for centuries in the ghetto dominates your thinking, guides your decisions, and dictates your actions.

Zionism only conceals your true intentions from those blinded circles who see in Jewry a different ideal than the will to totally control the world. The “poor Jews” hope that once they have torn apart the peoples of the world, putting them at the service of the Jews, they will be able, with the help of money, to assure the rule of a world bled dry. I willingly admit that, until recently, the prospect seemed likely. Until the National Socialist takeover in the German Reich, you Jews understood how to clothe yourself with the mantel of irresistibility. With the help of the press, film, advertising, historical misrepresentation and silence about the accomplishments of all other races, you were able to present yourselves as the best, most diligent, smartest, and most noble people in the world, suggesting to an unhappy people bleeding from the thousand wounds of the war that they had to accept the unavoidable joy of Jewish leadership.

For decades, you controlled so-called statesmen like puppets, keeping yourself in the background despite your native Jewish vanity. Between you and the peoples, there hung the mystic curtain of your lodges, your so-called religious mission, and your obvious cowardice.

But the German people have ripped apart this nimbus of Jewish irresistibility, and thus cleared the way for an open discussion among the peoples about the value or lack thereof of the Jews. The peoples can only win as a result, the Jews can only lose!

We German National Socialists see the public controversy with Jewry not only as the answer to a question that is the result of a new social order and the solution of the racial struggle between host peoples and parasitic manifestations, but also as a major contribution to the moral, physical, and economic health of the world. Direct or indirect Jewish domination has brought the world to the edge of ruin.

I draw my conclusions from the incontrovertible evidence that the Jewish people has given to us Germans.

I begin with the moral qualities of the Jews that they love to bring up. Never was the level of public morality lower than during the time in which your racial comrades had nearly complete control over film, the stage, and the arts. I remember with disgust the so-called educational films and similar such depravity for which there was sensational propaganda. Other Jews praised such things to the heavens, and still other Jews kept the police from stopping these general attacks on public morality. The damage done to our youth by Magnus Hirschfeld [a prominent Jewish sexual researcher] alone, and the fact that the rest of Jewry tolerated him, is by itself sufficient to justify the harshest measures against the Jews. But Magnus Hirschfeld was no unfortunate single case, but rather one of a legion of Jewish corrupters of the youth, sexual criminals, pseudo-scientists, playwrights and novelists, painters and sculptors, theater and cabaret director, publishers and distributors of pornographic literature. They competed with each other to produce their filth, surpassing each other in obscenity, making easier the work of their racial comrades seeking to dominate an unnerved and powerless people rendered susceptible by such “art.” The absence of moral rules was called freedom, and unrestrained drives were proclaimed to be the right of the young.

What do “decent Jews” say about such incontrovertible facts of the recent past? Were the poor parents of these boys and girls to haul such pigs from the muck and drive them through the streets in a pogrom, it would not be hard to understand, for the poisoning of young souls is worse than bestial murder.

More than that, your racial comrades intentionally and cold-heartedly preached and encouraged the murder of the unborn children of our people through abortion. The racial hatred Jews had for their Aryan host people extended to the growing life in a mother’s womb. Jewish scoundrels made this part of the programs of political parties. How many millions of unborn children and how many hundreds of thousands of mothers fell prey to the greed and racial hatred of Jewish doctors? The Jews kept the number secret by controlling and influencing the official statistics of the German Reich. To my knowledge, no “decent Jew” raised his voice against such organized murder.

The picture would be incomplete were I to be silent about the criminal side of a “decent Jew.” This has long been concealed by the cloak of Christian or Marxist brotherly love. There is no crime, from pickpocketing to bank robbery, from train robbery to brutal murder, from drugs to the defilement of corpses, from document forgery to perjury, from embezzlement to counterfeiting, in which the names of your brethren are not written large as perpetrators or accomplices in the history of criminality. These “poor widows’ sons” were then represented by Jewish attorneys before Jewish judges. Presented as the victim of circumstances, they received mild sentences, which were in turn covered up by the Jewish journalists of the Jewish press.

But he who called the Jew a Jew and described his drives as Jewish, on the other hand, was given draconian sentences by those same courts for religious incitement.

The new Germany has finally put a stop to Asiatic criminal drives. Above all, it placed the Jewish race under the laws governing foreigners, declaring racial mixing to be racial defilement, a deadly danger for the German people, and punishing it with the appropriate penalties.

We Germans are far prouder of the inheritance of our blood than certain Jewish tribes that trace their origins to the expulsion of the Children of Israel from Egypt. Our daughters, the mothers of the coming generation, are far too holy to us to allow them to be given to the lusts of the offspring of parasitic Hebrew nomads. We are hardly impressed by the mention of lovely sacks of money that are used to make tasteful racial poisoning. It will be forever impossible here for faded coats of arms to be regilded through marriage with baptized Jewesses. There will be no more Holofernes [an Assyrian general beheaded by Judith in the apocryphal book] lured to destruction by the arms of a Jewish courtesan. The racial struggle will no longer be carried into the bridal bed.

That is why your brethren, “you decent Jew and good German,” have long been reaching for other weapons, as Marcus Eli Ravage cynically admitted in the American magazine The Century (Nr. 3, 1938, p. 346):

“You have not begun to appreciate the real depth of our guilt. We are intruders. We are disturbers. We are subverters.

We have taken your natural world, your ideals, your destiny, and played havoc with them. We have been at the bottom not merely of the latest great war but of nearly all your wars, not only of the Russian but of every other major revolution in your history. We have brought discord and confusion and frustration into your personal and public life. We are still doing it. No one can tell how long, we shall go on doing it.

Look back a little and see what has happened. Nineteen hundred years ago you were an innocent, care-free, pagan race. You took unblushing pride in the glory of your naked bodies. Disporting yourselves on the hillsides and in the valleys of the great outdoors, you took to speculating on the wonder and mystery of life and laid the foundations of natural science and philosophy. Yours was a noble, sensual culture, unirked by the pricklings of a social conscience or by any sentimental questionings about human equality. Who knows what great and glorious destiny might have been yours if we had left you alone.

We made you the willing and unconscious bearers of our mission to the whole world, to the barbarous races of the earth, to the countless unborn generations. Without fully understanding what we were doing to you, you became the agents at large of our racial tradition, carrying our gospel to the unexplored ends of the earth.

Our tribal customs have become the core of your moral code. Our tribal laws have furnished the basic groundwork of all your august constitutions and legal systems. And the law which went forth from Zion became the official religion of Rome.

But what are the ‘Protocols of the Elders of Zion’ besides the unquestionable historical conspiracy which we have carried out, which we have never denied because you never had the courage to charge us with it, and of which the full record is extant for anybody to read?” [This satiric article, actually published in the January 1928 issue of The Century, has been taken seriously by several generations of anti-Semites.]

We German National Socialists, however, do raise this charge, and we prove our just charge with such Jewish witnesses. The state that Adolf Hitler has created judges the conspirators on German soil, and the community of working and fighting German people carries out a just verdict which even you, the “decent Jew and good German,” cannot escape.

Should we consider the arsonists of the world to be “the chosen people,” they who cynically confess in public to having started the Great War and the modern revolutions, thereby earning the guilt for the deaths of over ten million of the best of Aryan mankind, who are responsible for hunger and catastrophe, and who are proclaiming yet more revolutions to gain world dominance? Shall we continue to assist them, thereby bringing guilt on ourselves for the collapse of our own people and the destruction of the entire world?

No appeal to sentimental tolerance and no threat will be able to stop the German people from making the “undeniable historical conspiracy” impossible inside the German Reich. Just as a Jew can no longer be a citizen, neither is he able to have an influence on any part of our public and economic life. The German people has freed itself politically from the Jews, breaking their spiritual and material power. You Jews can no longer find lackeys in the German Reich to fight your battles for you. You must either fight for yourselves or lead other obedient peoples into war!

But these other peoples, too, show clear signs of your Jewish greed. Even if unwillingly, they still bear the load of Jewish interest slavery. Their living standards sink as Jewish financial power increases.

They are beginning to ask why members of a foreign race have more to say in their nation than those who bled and died for their nation.

They rightly ask who won the war, and who benefited from it. One day, they will know the answer. No one then will believe the fables of “decent Jews and good Frenchmen or Englishmen or Americans” any longer.

So far, I have intentionally avoided the corrupting and destructive effects of your racial comrades in economic life, of the attempt to destroy the National Socialist economy, of the central banking system and the brutal efforts of the Jewish world economy to monopolize raw materials. I have not wanted to speak of three hundred years of history that everyone knows, of the Rothschilds, the Warburgs, the Speyers, the Löbs, the Kuhns, and the Pereiras, nor of the court Jews and their noble friends, nor of Jewish swindlers and their lackeys. These are side effects that have for the moment been overcome. They show the spiritual and moral power of Jewry, which has been broken.

I am sure that you Jews have been heartily amused by the focus of anti-Semitism on the external characteristics of your race, the crooked nose, the beards and flat feet. You still laughed when it focused only on your businesses, whether they were honest or not. You could claim hard work, diligence and luck, and reject any attack as the result of envy. But today you Jews are laughing no longer, for your very nature, your spirit, is revealed, and you must fight without your masks.

A people has forced you to your knees, but other peoples have remained spiritually and morally at your mercy. At the moment, only two nations have been victorious against your destructive efforts: Germany and Italy. Both affirm their blood, and have thus become strong. They will resist any attack against their life, their nature, their culture or their economy, and are therefore unbeatable, because they have through their own values recognized the inner lack of values of the Jewish world enemy.

Today Germany and Italy proclaim their right to life to the world, and demand their share of the wealth of creation. To satisfy their wishes will not cost other nations anything. Only a small part of the wealth we demand is owned by other nations. The rest is almost exclusively in the greedy hands of Jews intent on world domination.

Despite these incontrovertible facts, you Jews are impudent enough to appeal to the tolerance of a people and simultaneously incite other peoples to wage war against it.

Adolf Hitler, the Führer of Germany, is determined to lead his people to a free, moral, and strong future, despite Jewish incitement and humanitarian complainers. He has torn apart the law of the nomads and revealed Jewry for what it is.

Today you must leave Germany, as you once left Egypt. Bearing the mark of Cain, you must wander until your fate is fulfilled.

Only then will the age of true peace between the peoples of this earth begin!

Jews operating on the cultural front of FEMINISM


Gloria Steinem (1934- ); founder, Ms. Magazine.

Bella Abzug (1920-1998); Civil rights and labor attorney elected toCongress (House of Rep.) from New York City; served 1971-1977.

Betty Friedan (1921- ); feminist leader and author of the book “TheFeminine Mystique” (1963).

Shulamith Firestone (1945- ); Canadian feminist. Wrote “TheDialectic of Sex” (1970).

Andrea Dworkin (1946- ); radical; apparent lesbian. Author of thebook “Intercourse” (1987).

Susan Brownmiller (1935- ); U.S. feminist. Wrote the book “AgainstOur Will” (1975).

Susan Faludi (1959- ); author of the book “Backlash” (1992).

Naomi Wolf (1962- ); advisor to Al Gore in the 2000 U.S.presidential election.

Emma Goldman (1869-1940); early U.S. feminist.

Ernestine Rose (1810-1892); b. in Poland; early feminist.

Phyllis Chesler (1941- ); U.S. feminist; author of the book “Woman’sInhumanity to Woman” (2002).

Judy Chicago (Cohen) (1939- ); U.S. feminist. Author of thebook “The Dinner Party” (1996).

Robin Morgan (1941- ); U.S. feminist. Former editor-in-chief, Ms.magazine.

Letty Cottin Pogrebin (1939- ); U.S. feminist; co-founded Ms.magazine.

Gerda Lerner (1920- ); b. in Austria.

Annie Nathan Meyer (1867-1951); U.S. feminist.

Maud Nathan (1862-1946); sister of Annie Nathan Meyer; U.S. feminist.

Geri Palast (1950- ); chair, Committee on Women in the GlobalEconomy; U.S. feminist.

Rose Schneiderman (1882-1972); b. in Poland.

Anita Pollitzer (1894-1975); U.S. feminist; pal of artist GeorgiaO’Keeffe.

Gene Boyer (no birthyear available); a founder of N.O.W.; presidentof Jewish Feminists; U.S. feminist.

Lucy Komisar (1942- ); author of the book “The New Feminism” (1971);U.S. feminist.

Karen Nussbaum (1950- ); (apparently Jewish); leader of 9to5-National Association of Working Women.

Eleanor Flexner (1908-1995); (apparently Jewish-relative is aZionist); U.S. feminist.

Riane Eisler (1931- ); b. Vienna; author/feminist; (apparently aJewish-fled Nazi). Author of the book “The Chalice and the Blade” (1987).

The Secret Behind Communism

by Dr David Duke

The Ethnic Origins of the Communist Revolution and The Greatest Holocaust in the History of Mankind.

Dr. David Duke shares in an illustrated video the Introduction for his new academic resource book on the ethnic motivations behind the Bolshevik Revolution and the mass genocides committed by the Soviets.

Dr. Duke in The Secret Behind Communism, uses the research of Raphael Lemkin to expose the Bolshevik purposeful genocide against the Ukrainian people that took place in what is today called the Holodomor. He also exposes the Bolshevik war against the Russian intelligentsia and nobility was also an attempt at destroying the natural leadership of the Russian people, so as to render them weaker against their new rulers an ethnic minority harboring deep racial animosity toward the Russian people for historic anti-Semitism.

He shows how almost all reputable historians are of the opinion that the communists killed far more human beings than alleged against Hitler, yet he points out that the genocides of the Red Terror are almost totally ignored by Hollywood and the mass media.

This book is a massive resource on the issue offers the reader a real understanding of Communism as ethnic weapon, that has murdered and tortured more human beings than any other regime in history.

One of the most striking parts of the video is the revelation from Ynet News, an Israeli publication, that Gengrik Yadoda killed at least 10 million people in the Bolshevik State. Dr. Duke points out that not one in one thousand people even know his name, yet he has killed twice the number of victims than the Jewish Death toll in the Holocaust — according leading Jewish Holocaust authority Raul Hilberg, of 5.1 million.

He also shows long, close relationship between communism and Zionism, and how both extremist entities have engaged in similar repressive strategies.

Fred Leuchter: Courageous Defender of Historical Truth

Based on the introduction of Leuchter at the Eleventh IHR Conference, October 1992

By Mark Weber


Until early 1988, Fred A. Leuchter, Jr. – like most Americans – basically accepted the Holocaust extermination story. In itself that is not at all remarkable, except that this man also just happened to be the foremost American expert on gassing and gas chamber technology.

As readers of this Journal know, Fred Leuchter was commissioned in early 1988 by German-Canadian publisher Ernst Zuendel to conduct a thorough forensic investigation of the alleged wartime gassing facilities in Poland for his defense case in the Toronto „Holocaust Trial.“

Zuendel was so sure that the Holocaust gassing story would not stand up to expert examination that he sent Leuchter to Europe at considerable expense, completely confident that an independent investigation would confirm the Revisionist view.

In early 1988, Leuchter and his team carefully investigated the so-called gas chambers at, first, the Auschwitz main camp, second, the Auschwitz-Birkenau camp, which is supposed to have been the most terrible Nazi extermination center, and, third, the Majdanek camp near Lublin, where the Allies claimed at Nuremberg that a million and a half people were killed. As an expert witness testifying under oath in April 1988 in the second Zuendel trial, and in his published report of his on-site investigation, Fred Leuchter explained in detail that the supposed gas chambers at Auschwitz, Birkenau and Majdanek could not possibly have been used to gas people as alleged.

Leuchter’s findings demolish the core of the Holocaust legend – the Auschwitz gassing story. British historian David Irving found Leuchter’s forensic investigation so compelling that, as he has publicly acknowledged, it was a major factor in persuading him finally to reject the Holocaust extermination story.

Many tens of thousands of copies of what has become known simply as the Leuchter Report are now in circulation around the world. It has been published in numerous countries and languages. Earlier this year, for example, it appeared for the first time in Russian in a collection of Revisionist writings published in Moscow. More recently, it was published in Hungarian in the August 25 issue of the Budapest intellectual journal Hunnia.

In April 1989, Leuchter returned to Europe to carry out an expert forensic investigation of other alleged extermination gas chambers, this time at Dachau in Bavaria, and at Mauthausen and Hartheim, near Linz in Austria. Accompanying him on this visit, as she had during their 1988 visit to Poland, was his wife Carolyn. The results of this investigation have been published as the Second Leuchter Report, which appeared in the Fall 1990 IHR Journal.

The Institute for Historical Review is proud of its cordial and productive association with Fred Leuchter, who spoke at the IHR Conferences in 1989, 1990 and 1992. In his presentations at the last two conferences, he reported on the relentless international campaign against him.

During the last two years, unfortunately, there has been no let up in the bigoted campaign to discredit Leuchter’s work and reputation, and to destroy his career – all because of his courageous refusal to lie about his professional findings. What his enemies want, apparently, is for Leuchter to violate his conscience, betray his profession, and to lie under oath in a court of law, all for the sake of upholding what has become, in essence, an article of religious belief. It is fair to say that no American has suffered more for his defiance of the Holocaust lobby than Fred Leuchter.

The most insidious (and effective) effort has been has been a behind-the-scenes campaign to destroy his livelihood by pressuring state governments to stop employing him as their execution hardware engineer. To allow Leuchter to continue working for the state, declared Illinois Representative Ellis Levin (D-Chicago), „would be an affront to the Jewish community.“ (Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, August 17, 1990.) Sadly, these underhanded efforts have been successful. The Chicago Sun-Times newspaper, for example, confirmed (in August 1990) that „the state [of Illinois] cut its ties with him over statements that Nazi gas chambers, including those at Auschwitz, could not have been used for executing Jews.“

In spite of the clearly unfair and bigoted nature of the campaign against him, the normally vociferous champions of civil liberty and freedom of speech in America have, so far, anyway, been noticeably silent about this case.

An important propaganda weapon in this campaign has been a book published jointly by the Klarsfeld Foundation and a group that calls itself „Holocaust Survivors and Friends in Pursuit of Justice.“ This book bears the pretentious title: Truth Prevails: Demolishing Holocaust Denial: The End of ‘The Leuchter Report’.

The most important charges made against Leuchter, which are also included in this widely distributed book, are:

First, that Leuchter’s motive in concluding that the alleged gas chambers were never used to kill anybody was the professional fee he received from Zuendel for his work.

Second, that Fred Leuchter has no qualifications as an execution equipment specialist, and

Third, that he lied under oath in the 1988 Zuendel trial.

What are the facts? Let’s take a close look at each of these charges.

First, Leuchter’s motives in conducting his forensic investigation of the alleged wartime gas chambers in Poland were entirely professional. While it is true that he was paid a standard fee by Zuendel for his work, it cannot be stressed enough that Leuchter was chosen to carry out this investigation not because of any pre-existing views on this subject, but solely because he was the acknowledged expert in this field. His political views or social attitudes were never a consideration. (Just imagine what Leuchter’s critics would be saying if he had conducted his forensic examination of the Polish camps on his own initiative, without charge.)

Before he flew to Poland to begin his investigation, Leuchter warned Zuendel that if he concluded that the alleged extermination gas chambers were, in fact, used to kill people, or could have been so used, he would so testify in court. Zuendel agreed to this condition. Regardless of his findings, Zuendel would still have been obliged to pay Leuchter his fee.

In fact, if money and comfort had been primary considerations, and if he is as dishonorable as those who now attack him insinuate, Leuchter would simply have pocketed his fee from Zuendel, and then told the court what the prosecution and the media wanted to hear.

Second, Leuchter’s qualifications as a technical expert and inventor are actually quite impressive. His adversaries never tire of repeating that his only academic credential is a bachelor’s degree in history, which he earned at Boston University in 1964. This has never been a secret. What is not so well known, though, is the full story of his expertise.

For one thing, Leuchter did post-graduate study in celestial navigation mechanics at the Harvard-Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Since 1965, he has worked as an engineer on projects having to do with electrical, optical, mechanical, navigational and surveying problems. He holds patents in the fields of optics, navigation, encoding, geodetic surveying and surveying instrumentation, including patents on sextants, surveying instruments and optical instrument encoders.

From 1965 through 1970 he was the technical director for a firm in Boston, where he specialized in airborne, opto-electronic, and photographic surveillance equipment. He designed the first low-level, color, stereo-mapping system for use in a helicopter, which has become an airborne standard.

In 1970, he formed an independent consulting firm. During his period with this firm, he designed and built the first electronic sextant and developed a unique, light-weight, compact and inexpensive optical drum sector encoder for use with surveying and measuring instruments. He also built the first electronic sextant for the US Navy. He has worked on and designed astro trackers utilized in the on-board guidance systems of ICBM missiles.

Because of his work in navigational devices he has had hands-on experience with surveying and geodetic measuring equipment and a thorough knowledge of map-reading and cartography. He is trained in reading and interpreting aerial photographs. He designed a computerized transit for surveying use, and several years ago he developed the first low-cost personal telephone monitor.

During the past 14 years, Leuchter has been a consultant to several state governments on equipment used to execute convicted criminals, including hardware for execution by lethal injection, electrocution, gassing and hanging. In the course of this work, he designed a new gas chamber for the state of Missouri, and he designed and constructed the first lethal injection machine for New Jersey. Leuchter has also been a consultant on execution procedures. He has held a research medical license from both state and federal governments, and has supplied the necessary drugs for use in execution support programs.

In 1987, he formed Fred A. Leuchter Associates, a consulting engineering firm specializing in general consulting and the design and construction of prototype hardware. He has been a forensic engineer consultant, and has testified as an expert in courts in the United States and Canada.

(On a more personal note, Fred Leuchter is an accomplished pianist and musician, as well as a certified small arms instructor and NRA expert marksman.)

More to the point, Leuchter’s expertise in precisely the field of execution hardware is a matter of public record, and has been authoritatively and publicly confirmed. Indeed, no one was better qualified to carry out his investigation. At that time, Leuchter was recognized as the foremost American expert on the design and fabrication of gas chambers and other hardware used to execute criminals in the United States. He has worked on and designed facilities used to kill condemned criminals with hydrogen cyanide gas, the same gas supposedly used to kill many hundreds of thousands of Jews at Auschwitz.

Leuchter’s expertise as the nation’s foremost specialist of execution hardware, including gas chambers, has been abundantly confirmed. William Armontrout, warden of the Missouri State Penitentiary, testified on this matter during the 1988 „Holocaust Trial“ of Ernst Zuendel. As warden, Armontrout supervised the state’s execution gas chamber. He testified under oath that he had consulted with Leuchter on the design, maintenance and operation of the Missouri gas chamber, and confirmed that, to the best of his knowledge, Leuchter is the only such consultant in the United States.

Leuchter’s expertise has also been recognized by prominent periodicals, including The Atlantic in a four-page article in its February 1990 issue. An article in the weekly national news magazine Insight of July 2, 1990, called Leuchter, „the nation’s leading expert in the mechanics of execution.“ Finally, Leuchter’s expertise was acknowledged on the ABC television news program „Prime Time Live,“ broadcast on May 10th, 1990, and by The New York Times in a prominently featured article in its issue of October 13, 1990, which was accompanied by a front-page photo of Leuchter.

No matter what the long-term outcome of the still unfolding Leuchter affair may be, the indisputable fact will remain, that on the basis of a careful on-site inspection, the man who is America’s acknowledged foremost expert on gas chamber technology has categorically declared under oath that the alleged mass extermination gas chambers were never used, and never could have been used, as execution devices.

With regard to the third charge – that Leuchter lied under oath in the 1988 Zuendel trial – it might first be pointed out that the laws of physics have not been suspended for the sake of the Holocaust story. To repeat: If Leuchter is wrong, it should not be difficult to prove it. And if he is right, his work and his findings will stand the test of time, and his courage will be vindicated.

At the 1989 IHR Conference, Leuchter dramatically called for a neutral, international commission of engineers, historians and scholars to go to Auschwitz and the other camps, and to either confirm or repudiate his findings. Not surprisingly, those who have been trying so hard to silence and discredit Leuchter have ignored his challenge. Indeed, the very nature of this insidious campaign, including the unwillingness of his adversaries to seriously come to grips with his work, implicitly confirms the soundness of Leuchter’s findings.

In this regard, it is highly significant that Leuchter’s findings have recently been authoritatively corroborated and confirmed:

First, the Institute of Forensic Research in Krakow, Poland, corroborated Leuchter’s findings in a confidential September 1990 forensic report. Although it was not meant to be made public, Revisionists were able to obtain a copy. An English-language translation of the complete text was published in the Summer 1991 issue of the IHR Journal.

Second, Austrian engineer Walter Lueftl explicitly endorsed Leuchter’s findings in a March 1992 report, which appears elsewhere in this issue of the Journal.

Third, German engineer Germar Rudolf, a highly qualified professional, has thoroughly supported Leuchter’s findings in an exhaustive report that will probably be published in 1993.

Another German engineer, Wolfgang Schuster (Dipl.Ing.), pointedly defended the validity of Leuchter’s findings against the criticisms of French pharmacist Jean-Claude Pressac in a five-page essay published in the German quarterly journal Deutschland in Geschichte und Gegenwart (Tuebingen, June 1991).

Finally, it is worth noting that Dr. William B. Lindsey, an American research chemist (now retired) who was employed for 33 years by the Dupont Corporation, anticipated Leuchter’s findings during testimony given in the first Zuendel trial in 1985. Based on his own careful on-site examination of the alleged extermination gas chambers at Auschwitz, Birkenau and Majdanek, and on his years of experience as a chemist, Lindsey declared under oath: „I have come to the conclusion that no one was willfully or purposefully killed with Zyklon B [hydrogen cyanide gas] in this manner. I consider it absolutely impossible.“ (The Globe and Mail, Toronto, Feb. 12, 1985, p. M3.)

In spite of the vicious campaign against him, Leuchter has remained defiant and confident of ultimate vindication. As he has put it:

I have been vilified by the caretakers of the Holocaust dogma whose desperate tactics prove the failure of their arguments. My livelihood has been destroyed, my character has been impugned and my life turned upside down. But I will not bend the knee: Not now, not tomorrow, not ever. Time and reason will vindicate the Leuchter Report.

One day, after the dogmatic passions of our era have given way to open-mindedness on this most emotion-charged of issues, Fred Leuchter will be admired as a most remarkable man of integrity and courage who defied powerful forces of bigotry and close-mindedness. He will be remembered as a man who, in striking a mighty blow for historical truth and understanding, has himself made history.

From The Journal of Historical Review, Winter 1992-93 (Vol. 12, No. 4), pages 421-428. This essay is based on the introduction of Fred Leuchter at the Eleventh IHR Conference, October 1992.

David Irving and the “Aktion Reinhardt Camps”

by Jürgen Graf


A young and brilliant historian

The Englishman David Irving has several admirable qualities:

1) He is a tireless researcher who has spent thousands of hours in the archives.

2) He is an excellent historian of the Second World War. Some of his books, such as Hitler’s War and Churchill’s War, will be read as long as there will be people who are interested in this dark and dramatic period of history.

3) He is a master of the English language, both as a writer and as an orator.

In the sixties and the early seventies, Irving’s brilliancy was widely recognized. While many establishment historians disliked the young maverick, few of them denied his talent. He was so good that the media grudgingly forgave him his barely concealed sympathies for Adolf Hitler and the Third Reich. Even in Germany, he was repeatedly invited to TV discussions where he impressed the public with his historical knowledge and his very fluent German.

As to the “Final Solution of the Jewish Question”, Irving accepted the official version as a matter of course; however he never wrote a book, or even an article about this subject, but tried to steer clear of it.

“Hitler’s War”

During his work on Hitler’s War, David Irving studied a huge amount of German war-time documents. With growing amazement he realized that none of these countless documents proved that Hitler had ordered the extermination of the Jews – or, indeed, known that the Jews were being exterminated.

At that time, Irving must have been aware that there were researchers who disputed the official version of Jews’ fate during World War Two. Arthur Butz’s The Hoax of the Twentieth Century had come out in 1976, a year before Hitler’s War, and I find it very hard to believe that Irving did not learn of the existence of this book, or that he did not have the intellectual curiosity to read it. At any rate, he failed to draw the only logical conclusion from the total lack of documentary evidence for the “Holocaust,” but concluded instead that the extermination of the Jews had been ordered and organized by the Reichsführer SS Heinrich Himmler without Hitler’s knowing. In Hitler’s War, Irving wrote:

“By 1942, the massacre machinery was gathering momentum – of such refinement and devilish ingenuity that from Himmler down to the ex-lawyers who ran the extermination camps perhaps only seventy men were aware of the truth.“[1]

To this wildly implausible thesis, Robert Faurisson raised the following, entirely logical objection:

“Borrowing a comparison from David Irving, I can certainly believe that Menachem Begin could have been unaware of the massacre of the Sabra and Shatila camps in Lebanon at the time it was taking place. Over a period of several hours, several hundred civilians were massacred. I do not know when Begin learned of the massacre, but I do know that, like everybody else in the world, he learned about it very quickly. If, however, instead of several hundred men, women and children being massacred in a few hours, we are considering the massacre of millions of men, women and children over a period of three or four years in the very heart of Europe, by which miracle could that heinous crime have been hidden from Hitler, Stalin, Churchill and Roosevelt, as well as Germany and all of Europe, except for perhaps only seventy men!”[2]

Today, in 2009, this argument is as sound as it was in 1983!

The Leuchter report

In April 1988, during the second Zundel trial in Toronto, David Irving learned that an American execution technologist, Fred Leuchter, who had been contacted by Ernst Zundel’s advisor Robert Faurisson, had flown to Poland with a small group of helpers in order to examine the alleged homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz I, Auschwitz-Birkenau and Majdanek. Upon his return, Leuchter had written a report in which he concluded that these rooms could not have been used as gas chambers for technical reasons. More importantly, Leuchter and his team had taken samples from the walls inside the alleged gas chambers of Auschwitz I and Birkenau where, according to official historiography, huge numbers of Jews had been killed with prussic acid. The samples were subsequently analysed in an American laboratory. The tests revealed either no detection of traces of cyanide or extremely low levels, while a control sample taken from Delousing Facility Nr. 1 at Birkenau contained an exceedingly high percentage of cyanide.[3]

The Leuchter report confirmed what David Irving must have suspected, or indeed known, before: The Auschwitz gas chamber story was but a monstruous hoax. Irving now believed that the “Holocaust” story would collapse in the near future, and he decided to jump on the bandwagon. He, David Irving, whose genius the narrow-minded court historians stubbornly refused to acknowledge, would put them all to shame; he would be the first prominent historian to pillory the Auschwitz fraud. Towards the end of the Zundel trial, Irving appeared at a witness for the defense. He endorsed the Leuchter report, which he called a “shattering document.” In 1988 and 1989, he made several speeches disputing the existence of homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz: one of these speeches, which he delivered on Austrian soil in 1989, would lead to his arrest and incarceration in Austria sixteen years later.

Irving’s hope that the Leuchter report would lead to the immediate collapse of the Auschwitz lie did not materialize: The Jews fought for their gas chambers like a lioness for her cubs, and David Irving was branded a “Holocaust denier.” In Jewish-dominated Western society this label is the mark of Cain. Irving was viciously smeared by the media, his books disappeared from the bookshops, and he sustained huge financial losses.

David Irving v. Deborah Lipstadt

After a particularly obnoxious representative of the Holocaust lobby, one Deborah Lipstadt, had reviled Irving in her book Denying the Holocaust[4], he sued her for libel. The trial took place in London in early 2000. Although Irving’s chances to win this case were next to zero from the beginning, he could easily have scored a tremendous moral victory by making mincemeat of the repulsive Lipstadt and her experts. It goes without saying that this would have required serious preparation, but in his arrogance, Irving, who was insufficiently acquainted with the “Holocaust” subject, did not deem it necessary to study the revisionist literature before the trial. I vividly remember my dismay when I read in the Swiss Jewish newspaper Jüdische Rundschau Maccabi that Irving had “admitted the existence of the gas vans”. It was quite true: Confronted with the so-called “Just document”[5] which Lipstadt’s team had presented as documentary proof for the mass murder of Jews in gas vans, Irving had declared it to be authentic, although it is a crude forgery teeming with linguistic and technical absurdities. This fake had been analysed in detail by two revisionist researchers, the German Ingrid Weckert[6] and the Frenchman Pierre Marais[7]. Since Irving can read both German and French with the greatest ease, he simply had no excuse for not knowing these exceedingly important studies.

His poor knowledge of the subject forced Irving to make several spectacular, but totally unnecessary concessions to his adversaries. In his verdict, the judge Charles Gray correctly stated:

“In the course of the trial Irving modified his position: He was prepared to concede that gassings of human beings had taken place at Auschwitz, but on a limited scale.”[8]

To Irving’s credit, it should be pointed out that he made very efficient use of Faurisson’s “No holes, no Holocaust” argument. According to the “eyewitness evidence” on which the official version of the events is based, Leichenkeller (morgue) 1 of Krematorium II at Auschwitz-Birkenau was used as a homicidal gas chamber where, according to Lipstadt’s expert Robert Jan van Pelt, about 500,000 Jews were murdered in 1943/1944. During the trial, Irving demonstrated that the openings in the roof of Leichenkeller 1, through which the SS allegedly dropped pellets of Zyklon B, did not exist, which means that the alleged crime could not possibly have been perpetrated. In this point, Irving scored a major triumph. Even the judge Charles Grey, who was quite hostile to Irving, honestly admitted in his verdict:

“I have to confess that, in common I suspect with most other people, I had supposed that the evidence of mass extermination of Jews in the gas chambers at Auschwitz was compelling. I have, however, set aside this preconception when assessing the evidence adduced by the parties in this proceeding.”[9]

In jail in Austria

In November 2005, David Irving imprudently visited the Zionist puppet state of Austria where he was promptly arrested for a “Holocaust-denying” speech he had made in 1989. At his trial, Irving said certain things for which we have no right to blame him: He wanted to be a free man again as soon as possible and to be reunited with his family. In his situation, most people would have done the same thing. It is quite true that numerous revisionists who were put on trial for their convictions have stood by them and paid a high price for their courage, but not everybody is a hero. For his cooperative attitude, the Austrian kangaroo court rewarded Irving with a relatively lenient sentence: He got only three years, and in December 2006, after serving one third of his prison term, he was released and allowed to return to England.

David Irving’s trip to Poland

In March 2007, I got an e-mail from David Irving who informed me that he was in Poland, where he was visiting the “Aktion Reinhardt camps.” According to German wartime documents the purpose of “Aktion Reinhardt” consisted in the confiscation of Jewish property. Without a shred of documentary or material evidence, the orthodox historians claim that the real purpose of this action was the physical liquidation of the Jews of Eastern Poland and that between 1, 5 and 2 million Jews were killed with carbon monoxide from diesel engines in three camps: Belzec, Sobibor and Treblinka. Traditional history has it that these camps were pure extermination centers where all Jews, regardless of age and health, were gassed upon arrival without registration: only a handful of strong young Jews were temporarily spared because they were needed to keep the camps running.

In his e-mail (which I unfortunately deleted) Irving must have asked me a question about Belzec because I distinctly remember that in my reply I asked him if he had read Carlo Mattogno’s book Belzec in Propaganda, Testimonies, Archeological Research, and History[10]. He answered that he would read it later.

In addition to Belzec, Sobibor and Treblinka, Irving also visited Auschwitz and Majdanek. Apparently he did not visit the sixth alleged “extermination camp,” Chelmno (Kulmhof). On his website[11], he published an account of his trip to Poland which struck me by its superficiality and its vagueness. It was impossible to deduce from this account whether Irving believed that homicidal gassings had taken place at Auschwitz and Majdanek. As far as the three “Aktion Reinhardt” camps were concerned, he seemed to endorse the “extermination camp” version; on the other hand, he spoke of the “alleged gas chambers” of these camps. In other words: He avoided making clear and unequivocal statements.

My questions to David Irving and his reply

In March 2009, I learned that David Irving had given all kind of advice to a fellow “Holocaust denier,” Bishop Richard Williamson, and I received a message from an irate French lady who castigated Irving’s statements about Treblinka. On 2 April, I sent Irving a mail, asking him the following four questions:

– Did he believe that a mass murder of Jews had taken place at   Treblinka, Sobibor and Belzec?

– If he believed that such a mass murder had indeed been committed, what was his evidence?

– In this case, how was the massacre carried out?

– Had he, David Irving, read Carlo Mattogno’s book about Belzec and the book Treblinka: Extermination camp or transit camp?[12], written by Carlo Mattogno and me?

On the very same day, I received the following reply from David Irving:

“1. Ich bin der Auffassung, dass in besagten drei Lagern Massenvernichtungen stattgefunden haben (“durch Gas” lässt sich nicht beweisen, ist ja sehr umstritten).

2. Beweismaterial:

– Bekannter Briefwechsel Wolff/Ganzenmüller betr. Malkinia/Treblinka.

–    Himmlers Anordnung, in Treblinka nichts auffindbar zurückzulassen, anschliessend einen Bauernhof darüber entstehen zu lassen […].

–     Persönliche Befragung zweier Zeugen… betr. Belzec, falls Echtheit nachweisbar.

– Höfle-Decode vom Januar 1943 und in Zusammenhang damit der Korherr-Bericht.

3. Für das Jahr 1942: Das Höfle-Dokument spricht von 1’274’166.

Für 1942 und 1943 haben wir aus Himmler-Akten die Beuteziffer Reinhardt – Schmuck, Uhren, Münzen. Daraus lässt sich ungefähr eine Ziffer für das Ergebnis für 1943 zusammenreimen bzw. hochrechnen, und zwar mehr als 1 Million – Himmler spricht dem Mufti gegenüber von „3 Millionen“.

[1. In my opinion, a mass extermination took place in the aforementioned three camps (it cannot be proved that it was carried out by means of gas; as you know, this is highly controversial).

2. Evidence:

– The well-known correspondence between Wolff and Ganzenmüller concerning Malkinia/Treblinka.

–   Himmler’s order not to leave any traces at Treblinka and later to build a farmhouse there.

–   Personal interrogation of two witnesses… about Belzec, if the authenticity [of their statements] can be proved.

–  The decoded Höfle radio message from January 1943 and in this connection the Korherr report.

2. For 1942: The Höfle document mentions a figure of 1’274’166. For 1942 and 1943, Himmler’s documents reveal the extent of the Reinhardt loot – jewels, watches, coins. Based on this information, it is possible to guess or to calculate an approximate figure for 1943, to wit more than one million. To the Mufti Himmler speaks of “three million”.]

The case of the missing answer to the forth question

While David Irving gave clear anwers to my first three questions, he did not care to answer the forth one: Had he read Treblinka – Extermination Camp or Transit Camp?, written by Carlo Mattogno and me, and Mattogno’s book about Belzec? At the time of Irving’s journey to Poland, both books had been online for more than three years, and the British historian, who is highly computer-literate, could easily have convinced himself of their value. The bibliography of Treblinka contains over 200 titles, about two dozens of them in Polish. As many of these Polish sources are of vital importance, one merit of our book is to make them accessible to researchers who, like Irving, do not understand the Polish tongue. Furthermore, Treblinka contains numerous references to documents from Russian archives which were never before published in any Western language.

While Belzec is much shorter than Treblinka, its bibliography still comprises 80 titles, 18 of them in the Polish language. The most important chapter is the third one, where Mattogno analyses the results of the forensic drillings and excavations which were performed on the territory of the former camp in the late 1990s.

If David Irving did not consider it necessary to read these two books, this shows he is not in the least interested in what really happened at Treblinka and Belzec. Of course, it is quite possible that he has indeed read them, but is reluctant to admit this, because otherwise he would be forced to respond to the revisionist arguments, especially the technical ones. As a matter of fact, as soon as one approaches the official version of the Reinhardt camps from the technical angle, the whole monstrous edifice of lies immediately collapses like a house of cards.

David Irving’s evidence for the mass murder of Jews at the three Reinhardt camps

In his answer to my questions, David Irving mentioned seven reasons for his belief that the three Reinhardt camps had been extermination centers. Five of these reasons are based on documents, the remaining two on hearsay. We will examine the documents first.

– “The well known correspondence between Wolff and Ganzenmüller concerning Malkinia/Treblinka.”

On July 28, 1942, Albert Ganzenmüller, Secretary of State in the Reichsverkehrsministerium (Imperial Ministry of Transport), stated in a letter to SS-Gruppenführer Karl Wolff: “Since July 22, a train with 5000 Jews makes a daily trip from Warsaw to Treblinka via Malkinia, in addition to a train with 5000 Jews traveling twice a week from Pryemysl to Belzec.”[13] On August 13, Wolff replied: “I have noted with especial pleasure that a train with 5000 members of the chosen people has already been running for 14 days to Treblinka every day, and we are thus in a position to carry out this movement of population in an accelerated tempo.”[14] Neither Ganzenmüller nor Wolff stated that the Jews were being killed at Treblinka; Wolff spoke of a “movement of population” which clearly shows that he regarded Treblinka as a transit camp.

– “Himmler’s order not to leave any traces at Treblinka and later to build a farmhouse there.”

As I do not know this order, I asked David Irving to send me a copy. On April 9, he answered that he would do so later. Since I have not got the document yet, I am unable to comment on it, however I am absolutely sure that it does not contain any reference to mass murder, for if this were the case, it would be quoted in every single work of Holocaust literature.

– “The decoded Höfle radio message from January 1943 and in this connection the Korherr report.”

In his well-known 1943 report[15], Richard Korherr wrote that by the end of 1942 1,274,166 Jews had been moved through the camps in the General Gouvernement. The Höfle radio message[16] confirms Korherr’s figure of 1,274,166 and specifies that 24,733 of the deportees had been sent to L. (Lublin/Majdanek), 434,508 to B. (Belzec), 101,370 to S. (Sobibor) and 713,355 to T. (Treblinka). Neither of the two documents states that the deportees were killed.

“For 1942 and 1943, Himmler’s documents which reveal the extent of the Reinhardt loot: Jewels, watches, coins.”

The fact that the Germans robbed the Jews of their jewels, watches and coins does not prove that they murdered them.

Thus none of the documents mentioned by Irving furnishes any proof that the Reinhardt camps were extermination centers.

The last two “proves” belong to the category of hearsay. What the Mufti of Jerusalem claimed to have heard from Himmler, or what somebody claimed the Mufti had claimed to have heard from Himmler, has no historical value. Even more preposterous is the reference to the “personal interrogation of two witnesses about Belzec”. Imagine the following dialogue:

Hiroshima denier: “I do not believe for a moment that the Americans really dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima in August 1945. That’s just silly Japanese atrocity propaganda.”

David Irving: “I think you are wrong. Two years ago, I went to Hiroshima where I personally interrogated two old Japanese who had witnessed the bombing as children. If their statements are true, they prove that the Americans indeed dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima.”

If hundreds of thousands of Jews had really been murdered at Belzec, we could do without “eyewitness evidence.” Irving’s argument reminds me of the pathetic “Belzec expert” Michael Treguenza who wrote about the pyres of Belzec:

“There is much disagreement on the subject of the number of pyres at Belzec. Witnesses from the village state that up to five pyres were in use, whereas SS personnel spoke of two pyres during the judicial proceedings in Munich in 1963/1964. Assuming that a minimum of 500,000 corpses were burned on two pyres, one has to assume, for five pyres, a much higher figure – possibly twice as high – than the 600,000 persons officially assumed so far.”[17]

So Treguenza “proves” the murder of up to 1,200,000 Jews at Belzec by means of gossip he has heard from some old people several decades after the war! This kind of “evidence” may be good enough for a clown like Treguenza. For a serious and self-respecting historian, it is in no way good enough.

David Irving’s death toll for the Reinhardt camps

In his standard work about the “Holocaust,” Raul Hilberg claims that 750,000 Jews were murdered at Treblinka, 550,000 at Belzec, and 200.000 at Sobibor[18], which means that according to Hilberg, the total death toll for the three Reinhardt camps was 1.5 million. This figure is lower by 900,000 than the one peddled by David Irving (1.274 million for 1942 plus more than a million for 1943 = about 2.4 million).

But the absurdities do not end here. Consider the following:

-Hilberg’s figure of 550,000 Belzec victims is impossible because according to the Höfle document (which was not yet known in 1985 when Hilberg published the second and “definitive” edition of his book) 434,508 Jews were deported to Belzec until December 31, 1942. Since everybody agrees Belzec was closed at the end of 1942, no deportations to this camp can have occurred in 1943.

– In view of this fact, the total death toll for this camp can not possibly have exceeded 434,508, even if every single Jew deported to Belzec was killed there (as both Hilberg and Irving assume).

– If Irving is right, and if 2.4 million Jews were indeed exterminated at the three Reinhardt camps, but “only” 434,508 of them at Belzec, the remaining 1,965,492 victims must have been murdered at Treblinka and Sobibor. This would mean that Hilberg’s combined figure for these two camps (750,000 + 200,000 = 950,000) is too low by more than one million!

Difficile est satiram non scribere – It is difficult not to write a satire!

The case of the missing murder weapon

In his reply to my questions, David Irving stated that it is not proven that the (alleged) extermination at the Reinhardt camps was carried out by means of gas. Since Irving did not mention any alternative killing method (e. g. shooting), this implies that the murder weapon is simply not known.

We exactly know how the victims died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki: They were killed by the explosion of the atomic bombs, or later succumbed to radioactivity. We exactly know how the victims died in Dresden: They were burned alive, or suffocated under the debris of their houses. We exactly know how the victims died at Katyn: They were shot by Stalin’s henchmen. We exactly know how the victims died at Eisenhower’s Rhine meadow camps: They were deliberately starved to death.

According to David Irving, 2.4 million people were murdered at the three Reinhardt camps – far more than in Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden, Katyn and the Rhine meadow camps combined. But we do not know how they were killed! Of course, this implies that is not a single reliable eyewitness for the Reinhardt holocaust, for if such a witness existed, we would know how the victims were exterminated, at least at his or her camp.

Let us sum up: David Irving is unable to produce the slightest documentary evidence for the alleged mass murder at Belzec, Sobibor and Treblinka. He implicitly admits that there is not a single trustworthy witness. But if there are no documents and no trustworthy witnesses, what evidence are his claims based upon?

Does he claim that there is forensic evidence, i. e. huge amounts of human remains found at the site of the three Reinhardt camps? No, he does not. He does not even mention the Kola report which, according to the orthodox historians, proves that Belzec was an extermination camp. (We will discuss this report later.)

The diesel gas chamber story

According the official “Holocaust” literature, the (alleged) mass murders at Treblinka, Sobibor and Belzec were carried out with

diesel exhaust. But as engineer Friedrich Berg has shown in his carefully researched article “Diesel Gas Chambers: Ideal for Torture, Absurd for Murder”[19], diesel engines are an extremely poor murder weapon because they put out very low quantities of CO, but contain a high percentage of oxygene. Any gasoline engine would be infinitely more suitable for mass murder than a diesel. Berg’s arguments were so iron-clad that the Holocaust lobby made no attempt to refute them. In Debating the Holocaust Thomas Dalton states:

“The [diesel engine] topic is almost completely avoided by every anti-revisionist writer. […] This is a strong implicit admission that traditionalism has no reply to Berg and the revisionists. […] Most recently the bloggers have attempted to address this issue. After admitting that ‘it is simply not feasible to use diesel engines for gassings… when one has acess to petrol engines’, Romanov[20] claims that the diesel issue is ‘irrelevant’ because, in his view, anyone who claimed that the gassing engine was a diesel was simply mistaken. He argues that the ‘most knowledgeable’ witnesses mentioned gasoline, but he can cite only two: Fuchs (for Sobibor only), and Reder, who said the exhaust gas was sent into the open air!”[21]

Let me add that the argument of the ridiculous blogger S. Romanov (“The diesel issue is irrelevant”) reveals the queer mindset of this individual: There is neither documentary nor material evidence for the “Aktion Reinhardt” holocaust, and there are no trustworthy witnesses either (for what credit can be given to witnesses who “were simply mistaken” as the murder weapon?), but nonetheless the Aktion Reinhardt holocaust is a proven and indisputable fact! In other words: The pillars on which the edifice once rested are gone, but the edifice is still standing, or rather hovering in the air! A major miracle!

Can David Irving possibly be unaware of the absurdity of the diesel gas chamber story? No, he can’t. At the 1983 revisionist conference, which Irving attended, Friedrich Berg presented a paper which already contained nearly all the arguments adduced in his 2003 article[22]. Irving, who delivered his speech on the same day as Berg, stated:

“I must say that I have been deeply impressed by Mr. Friedrich Berg’s lecture earlier this afternoon. I have found a great deal in his lecture which was greatly impressive.”[23]

So as early as in 1983, Irving knew that the diesel exhaust story is rubbish! That is why he is now compelled to state that it is unproven that the (alleged) mass murder was carried out by gas, and that this issue is “highly controversial.”

The evolution of the extermination legend

Almost immediately after the three Reinhardt camps had been put into operation, Jewish and Polish groups started spreading all kind of fantastic rumours about mass killings in these camps. The knowledge of these stories is of vital importance for an understanding of how the currently dominant historical version of these camps came about and what level of credibility can be ascribed to it.

Let us begin with Belzec. According to the self-styled “eyewitness” Jan Karski, Jews were exterminated at Belzec by means of quicklime in trains[24]. However, most “witnesses” mentioned killing by electricity. On July 10, 1942, the Polish government in exile in London received the following report:

“According to information from a German who is employed there, the place of execution is at Belzec, near the station. […] Once discharged, the men go into a barrack on the right, the women into one on the left, to undress, supposedly for taking a bath. Then the groups go together into a third barrack with an electric plate, where the execution occurs.”[25]

In a book published in Stockholm in 1944 and translated into English a year later, the Hungarian Jew Stefan Szende described how million of Jews had been killed at Belzec by electricity in “the underground premises of the execution building”:

“When trainloads of naked Jews arrived they were herded into a great hall capable of holding several thousand people. This hall had no windows and its flooring was of metal. Once the Jews were all inside, the floor of this hall sank like a lift into a great tank of water which lay below it until the Jews were up to their waists in water. Then a powerful electric current was sent into the metal flooring and within a few seconds all the Jews, thousands at a time, were dead.”[26]

In its official report on the German crimes in Poland, presented by the Soviets at the Nuremberg trial, the Polish government wrote the following about Belzec:

“In the early months of 1942, reports came in that in this camp, special installations for the mass execution of Jews were being built. Under the pretext that they were being taken to a bath, they were undressed completely and pushed into the building. A strong electric current passed through the floor of this building.”[27]

The horror stories about Sobibor were quite different. While the Jewish witness Zelda Metz claimed that at this camp the Jews were “asphyxiated with clorine”[28], the Soviet witness Alexander Pechersky depicted the alleged mass murder in the following way:

“As soon as they all have entered, the doors are closed with a heavy thump. A heavy black substance comes down in swirls from openings in the ceiling. One hears frantic screams, but not for very long because they change to gasping suffocating breaths and convulsions.”[29]

The case of Treblinka is even more instructive. While some of the earlier witnesses indeed mentioned gas chambers, none of them claimed that the murder weapon was a diesel engine. On August 17, 1942, the Polish underground newspaper Informacja biezaca spoke of a mobile gas chamber which moved along the mass graves[30]. Three weeks later, on September 8, the same paper described the alleged gassings as follows: The victims were exposed to a gas with retarded effect, whereupon they left the gas chambers, walked to the mass graves, fainted and fell into the graves[31]. However, the main killing method depicted by the witnesses was hot steam. On November 15, 1942, the Resistence Movement of the Warsaw Ghetto published a long report in which it stated that between late July and early November, two million Jews had been exterminated at Treblinka in steam chambers[32].

In August 1944, the Red Army conquered the area around Treblinka, and a Soviet commission questioned former inmates of the camp. What murder weapon would it opt for – gas or steam? As a matter of fact, it chose neither, but claimed in its report that three million people had been killed at Treblinka by pumping the air out of the execution chambers![33] In September 1944, a professional atrocity propaganda monger, the Jew Wassili Grossman, honoured Treblinka with his visit. In his pamphlet The Hell of Treblinka Grossman confirmed the figure of three million victims; as he obviously did not know which of the three killing methods (steam, gas and pumping the air out of the chambers) would finally prevail, he prudently mentioned all of them in his booklet[34].

At the Nuremberg trial, the accusers of Germany chose the steam version. On December 14, 1945, the Polish government issued a document which was presented by the Soviets in Nuremberg and according to which “several hundreds of thousands” of people had been exterminated at Treblinka by means of steam[35]. But in 1946, the official version changed. As it was simply not credible that the Germans should have used all kind of completely different killing methods in the three Reinhardt camps, the steam chambers, electric killing installations etc. were relegated to the dustbin of history and replaced by diesel engines. The reason for this choice was undoubtedly the Gerstein report. In early 1946, this report – which decades later was brilliantly analyzed by French revisionist Henri Roques[36] – had monopolized the attention of the historians, and Gerstein, who claimed to have witnessed a gassing of Jews at Belzec, had identified the murder weapon as a diesel engine. That’s how the diesel gas chamber myth was born.

It would be quite interesting how our intellectual titan, the blogger S. Romanov, would react if presented with the statements of all these eyewitnesses. Most probably he would argue that the witnesses had actually seen a gasoline engine, but unfortunately failed to identify it correctly. The first witness had identified it as a train wagon the floor of which was covered with quicklime, the second as an electrified plate in a barrack, the third as an electrified plate in a huge subterranean basin, the fourth as a ceiling with openings through which a black liquid was poured, the fifth as a mobile gas chamber moving along mass graves, the sixth as a steam-generating boiler, the seventh as a pump by means of which the air was pumped out of the chambers, and the eighth as a diesel engine! But these minor differences were entirely irrelevant, as the Aktion Reinhardt Holocaust was a proven historical fact!

Does David Irving know these eyewitness reports? If he has not read the revisionist literature, he cannot possible know them as they are never ever mentioned in the official literature. In his “standard work” about the Reinhard camps, Yitzhak Arad quotes an excerpt from the report of the resistance movement of the Warsaw Ghetto, but shamelessly distorts the text by replacing the embarrassing “steam chambers” by “gas chambers”![37] If Irving has read the revisionist literature, he does indeed know these ludicrous stories, but there is really not much he can say about them.

The results of the excavations at Treblinka (1945)

It is universally admitted that none of the three Reinhardt camps had crematoria. According to the “Holocaust” historians, the bodies of the gassed Jews were burned in the open air in 1943. This alone suffices to make the official version highly improbable from the beginning. All “normal” concentration camps, such as Dachau and Buchenwald, for which no mass killings are claimed, had crematoria, so why didn’t the German build crematoria at the “extermination camps” where they would have been a hundred times more necessary?

Based on several cremation experiments, Carlo Mattogno assumes that 160 kg of wood are necessary to cremate a human body with a weight of 45 kg[38]. He calculates that the burning of 870,000 corpses would have left 1,950 tons of human ashes, plus 11,100 tons of wood ashes. The total volume of ashes would have amounted to approximately 48,000 cubic meters. Since human teeth and bones cannot be completely destroyed through open air cremations, myriads of teeth and bone fragments would have been scattered at the site of the former camp.

Had the Soviet and the Poles found but 10% of these ashes, teeth and bone fragments, they would have had a very serious case against the Germans. They would have summoned an international commission – just as the Germans had done after discovering the mass graves at Katyn – and presented the results of the forensic investigations at the Nuremberg trial. They would not have been forced to resort to the “steam chamber” nonsense.

In November 1945, a Polish team headed by the judge Zdzislaw Lukaszkiewicz carried out an excavation on the area of the former camp Treblinka and subsequently wrote a report which was published thirty years later (!)[39]. On the first day of the excavations, the diggers found “a large amount of Polish, Soviet, German, Austrian and Czech coins, plus fragments of pots and pans”, but no human remains. On the second day they discovered “all kind of tableware, different household objects, shreds of garments, a large amount of more or less seriously damaged Polish documents, the badly damaged identity card of a German Jew and more coins”. On the third day, they found “a considerable amount of human ashes and human remains”. On the fourth days, they discovered “fragments of all kind of cutlery, a large number of rags, Greek, Slovak and French coins, plus the remainders of a Soviet passport”. On November 13, Lukaszkiewicz ordered the excavation to be stopped, because he considered the discovery of further graves “improbable”.

That the Poles found any human remains at all will come as a surprise to nobody. According to the Höfle document, 713,355 Jews were sent to Treblinka in 1942, and the deportations continued until August 1943, albeit at a much slower rate. Under these circumstances, one cannot but assume that several thousand deportees must have died at the camp.

The results of the archeological drillings at Belzec (1997-1999)

In 1997, the United States Holocaust Museum and a similar Polish organization decided to undertake archeological drillings and diggings within the area of the former camp at Belzec. The work was conducted by a team of archeologists led by Professor Andrzej Kola who published the results in 2000[40]. In his aforementioned book about Belzec, Carlo Mattogno performs a very detailed analysis of the Kola report, which I will presently summarize.

It goes without saying that the only rational method would have consisted in digging up the whole territory of the former camp, but this is precisely what Kola and his team did not do. They proceeded in the following way: Drilling was conducted in the designated area at 5 m intervals with a manual drill 8 m long and with a diameter of 65 mm. Altogether 2,277 drillings were sunk, and mass graves were identified by 236 of them. The earth samples taken in this way were then analyzed to determine their contents. The research resulted in the discovery of 33 graves in two separate areas of the camp. The 32 graves had a total surface of 5,919 square meters and a total volume of 21,310 cubic meters.

Although Kola and his team discovered not only human ashes and bone fragments, but also a certain number of unburned corpses, they inexplicably failed to excavate them. Their book contains a  photographic documentation of objects found in the area of the camp. The photographs show the most insignificant junk: horseshoes, keys and padlocks, pots and scissors, combs, coins and bottles, but not a single photograph shows a corpse or part of a corpse!

On the basis of experimental data, the maximum capacity of a mass grave can be set at 8 corpses, assuming that one third of them are children. Theoretically, the surface area of the Belzec graves would thus have been sufficient to inter 170,000 corpses. If this had been the case, the revisionists would be forced to admit that Belzec had indeed been an extermination camp, for 170,000 people could not possibly have died from “natural causes” in a camp which existed only for nine and a half months. On the other hand, Belzec could not have been a total extermination camp: According to the Höfle document, 434,000 people were deported there, and if 170,000 of them had been killed there, the other 264,000 would have left the camp alive.

As a matter of fact, the capacity figure of 170,000 corpses is based on two entirely unrealistic assumptions: A maximized surface/volume of the graves and a maximum density of corpses in them. As to the first point, Kola remarked:

“In the first zone, as we can suppose, the connecting of smaller neighbouring graves into bigger ones by the destruction of the

earthen walls separating them was observed. […] Additional disturbances in archeological structures were made by intensive dig-ups directly after the war while local people were searching for jewelry. This fact makes it difficult for the archeologists to define precisely the ranges of burial pits.”[41]

Already in 1946, the prosecutor of the town of Zamosc had stated that the camp site had been “completely dug up by the local population in their search for valuables”[42].

As to the second point, of the 236 samples taken in connection with the graves, 99 contained no human remains at all, while more than half of the remaining 137 show a very thin layer of human ashes. Carlo Mattogno concludes:

“Although it is impossible to establish the number of the deaths, it is nonetheless possible to infer, from what has been discussed above, an order of magnitude of several thousands, perhaps even some tens of thousands.”[43]

Personally, I consider the latter figure (“some tens of thousands”) extremely unlikely, although I cannot exclude it with absolute certainty. Probably several thousand Jews died at Belzec.

Sobibor or the scientific report that never was

About the third Reinhardt camp, Sobibor, a young and talented revisionist, Thomas Kues, furnishes the following information:

“In an article published in The Scotsman on November 26, 2001, we read that Polish archaeologist A. Kola and his team had discovered seven mass graves at the Sobibor site. […] Despite seven years having passed since the drills and diggings were reportedly made, not a single article, paper or scientific report has appeared on them, neither in English, Polish, nor in any other language.”[44]

Why was “not a single article, paper or scientific report” published about the result of the drillings and diggings, “neither in English, Polish, or any other language”? The answer to this question is all too obvious!

Two important documents Irving deliberately ignores

In the light of the above-mentioned facts, the Reinhardt camps cannot possibly have been extermination centers. They cannot have been labour camps either because they were much too small to accommodate the enormous number of people deported to them. This leaves but one possibility: Treblinka, Belzec and Sobibor were transit camps. This conclusion squares with the numerous German wartime documents which speak of the “evacuation” or “expulsion” of the Jews to the east. It also squares with two important documents about Belzec and Sobibor which David Irving deliberately ignores because they contradict his thesis.

On March 17, 1942, Fritz Reuter, an employee in the Department of Population and Welfare in the Office of the Governor General for the District of Lublin, made a note in which he referred to a talk on the previous day with the SS Hauptsturmführer H. Höfle, the delegate for Jewish resettlement in the Lublin district. Reuter wrote:

“It would be expedient to divide the transports of Jews arriving in the Lublin district at the station of origin into employable and unemployable Jews. […] All unemployable Jews are to come to Bezec [sic], the outermost border station in the Zamosz district. Hauptsturmführer Höfle is thinking of building a large camp in which the employable Jews can be registered in a file system according to their occupations and requisitioned from there. […] In conclusion he [Höfle] stated that he could accept 4-5 transports of 1.000 Jews to the terminal station Bezec daily. These Jews would cross the border and never return to the General Gouvernement.”[45]

There can be no doubt whatsoever about the meaning of this document: Jews unable to work would be expelled from the General Gouvernement and deported to the occupied eastern territories. The sentence that Belzec was “the outermost border station in the Zamosz district” makes sense only in connection with an expulsion beyond the border. Like Sobibor, Belzec was situated in the extreme east of the General Gouvernement, close to the Ukrainian frontier.

Of course, David Irving could claim that Reuter had used a code language and that “cross the border and never return to the General Gouvernement” was a code expression for “will be killed at Belzec”, but I would not advise him to do so, because that would be too ridiculous.

On 15 July, 1943, Heinrich Himmler ordered:

“The transit camp Sobibor is to be converted into a concentration camp.”[46]

So Sobibor was officially called a transit camp (Durchgangslager).

The three Reinhardt camps were transit camps

On July 31, 1942, the Reichskommissar of Bielorussia, Wilhelm Kube, sent a telegram to the Reichskommissar for the occupied Eastern territories, Henrich Lohse, in which he protested against the deportation of 1000 Warsaw Jews to Minsk[47]. As the deportation of Jews from the Warsaw ghetto had commenced eight days before, and as everybody agrees that at that time all Warsaw Jews were deported to Treblinka, the 1000 Jews mentioned by Kube must by necessity have been deported to Minsk via Treblinka. On August 17, 1942, the illegal Polish newspaper Informacja Biezaca reported that 2000 skilled Jewish workers had been deported from Warsaw to Smolensk on August 1[48]. On September 7, 1942, the same paper informed that two transports with 4000 persons had been sent for labour at installations important for the war effort in Brzesc and Malachowicze[49].

I am aware that these figures represent but a small part of the Jews transported to Treblinka and that the anti-revisionists will claim that these cases were “exceptions”. But every single Jew who left Treblinka, or one of the two other Reinhardt camps, alive deals a blow to the official version according to which they were “pure extermination centers” where all Jews, regardless of age and health, were gassed on arrival. If the antirevisionists call the aforementioned cases “exceptions”, we are entitled to ask them how many other such “exceptions” there may have been.

A certain number of Jews were sent from the Reinhardt camps to Majdanek and to Auschwitz. A Polish historian who can hardly be suspected of revisionist sympathies, Zofia Leszczynska, reports that in October of 1942, 1,700 Jews left Belzec for Majdanek[50]. This fact is amply sufficient to shatter the official version according to which less than ten Jews survived Belzec.

In an article about “Jews at Majdanek” the Jewish historians Adam Rutkowski and Tatiana Berenstein state:

“Some of the transports from Warsaw reached Lublin by way of Treblinka, where the selection of the deportees took place.”[51]

For the official historiography, this fact is simply lethal! On 30 April 1942, a transport with 305 Jews arrived at Majdanek from Treblinka. One of these Jews, Samuel Zylbersztain, later wrote a report about his plight[52]. After the “extermination camp” Treblinka and the “extermination camp” Majdanek, Zylbersztain had survived eight “normal concentration camps”. He is thus a living proof that the Germans did not exterminate their Jewish prisoners.

The author of the most detailed book about Sobibor[53], the Dutch Jew Julius Schelvis, was himself an inmate of this camp. He naturally presents Sobibor as a death factory, but his description is solely based on what he has heard from others or read in books, for he only spent a few hours at the camp. From Sobibor, he was deported to Lublin and later to Auschwitz whence he finally returned to the Netherlands. Schelvis was not an isolated case: At least 700 other Dutch Jews were moved from Sobibor to labour camps, and some of them returned home via Auschwitz – another “extermination camp” where the Germans apparently forgot to “gas” them[54].

The case of Minna Grossova, a Czech Jewess, is particularly significant: born in September 1874, she was deported to Treblinka on October 19, 1942. Although Treblinka was allegedly a “pure extermination camp” where even able-body Jews were gassed on arrival, Mrs. Grossova was not gassed, but transferred to Auschwitz – where, according to the “Holocaust” lore, all Jews who were unable to work were immediately sent to the “gas chambers” without previous registration. Again, Mrs. Grossova was not gassed, but duly registered. She died on December 30, 1943[55]. From the point of view of the orthodox “Holocaust” story, the fate of this woman is absolutely inexplicable.

The fact that relatively few transports of Jews from the Reinhardt camps to other destinations are documented can be explained quite easily. As early as in 1945, the victors of the Second World War decided to perpetuate the Jewish extermination legend, and we may safely assume that countless documents contradicting the official truth were either hidden or destroyed. Now some people might accuse me of resorting to the same trick as the orthodox historians who claim that there is no documentary evidence for homicidal gas chambers because “the Germans destroyed the documents”, but such an accusation would be groundless, since my position is much more solid. If there were but one document proving the gassing of Jews, I would readily admit that there might have been others, but although 64 years have elapsed since the end of the war, no such document has emerged. On the other hand, we have seen that there are documents proving that Jews were sent from the Reinhardt camps to other destinations – and for each such document there may have been a hundred others.

Once a “Holocaust denier”, always a “Holocaust denier”!

David Irving is an extremely intelligent man, but unfortunately he is totally amoral. For him, truth is negotiable. He is prepared to say anything if he thinks it might enhance his carreer.

Irving is longing for the good old times when he was invited to TV discussions, when his books were favourably reviewed and sold well. He wants these good old times to return. On the other hand, he knows that Western society is controlled by the Jews, and that he will be treated as an outcast as long as the Jews call him a “Holocaust denier”, so he wants to get rid of this label at any cost. Rather than waiting for the collapse of Jewish power (which may or may not occur in his lifetime), he tries to offer the Jews a bargain.

His only real problem is Auschwitz. He has never contested any of the other aspects of the “Holocaust” story. He has always maintained that the Germans shot a huge number of Jews on the Eastern front (in the eighth chapter of Treblinka – Extermination Camp or Transit camp?  he could find compelling

evidence that the reports of the Einsatzgruppen, which allegedly prove such a gargantuan slaughter and which Irving seems to accept unquestioningly, are highly suspect because they are contradicted by other German documents and not corroborated by forensic evidence). He has never disputed the alleged mass murders at the Reinhardt camps, or Majdanek. He has explicitly admitted the existence of the “gas vans” allegedly used at Chelmno and in the occupied Soviet territories. But he has so often and so vociferously defended the revisionist position on Auschwitz that his pride forbids him to back down in this one question; he is at best willing to concede the possibility that some gassings took place at Auschwitz on a limited scale.

According to Raul Hilberg, one million Jews perished at Auschwitz [56]. As the number of Jews who died at Auschwitz from so-called “natural causes” (disease, exhaustion etc.) cannot possibly have exceeded 100.000, this implies that about 900.000 Jews must have died in the “gas chambers” of that camp). So what does David Irving do? He claims that 2.4 million Jews, rather than Hilberg’s 1.5 million, were murdered at the three Reinhardt camps Belzec, Sobibor and Treblinka, thus offering the Jews full compensation for the roughly 900.000 “Auschwitz gas chamber victims” he has robbed them of.

But David Irving has reckoned without his host. Apparently he is still unable to understand the mindset of his tormentors. By questioning the Auschwitz story, he has, from the Jewish point of view, committed the worst of all sacrileges, because Auschwitz is the heart of the “Holocaust” story, although, according to Hilberg, it accounts for less than one fifth of the “Holocaust victims”. The Jews will never forgive David Irving this sacrilege. Even if he suddenly claimed that the Germans gassed one million Jews at Majdanek, plus two million at Chelmno, plus three million at Sobibor, plus five million at Belzec, plus ten million at Treblinka, and that they shot twenty million Jews on the Russian front, this would be of no avail: The Jews and their stooges would continue branding him as a “Holocaust denier”. This label he will never get rid of as long as the Western World is ruled by Jews.

A warning to David Irving

I do not know when David Irving’s long-announced book about Heinrich Himmler will be published, but I fear that I already know the gist of it: Yes, the Holocaust did indeed happen; millions of Jews were indeed exterminated, but only an insignificant part of them were gassed at Auschwitz. 2.4 million Jews were killed by some unknown means at Treblinka, Sobibor and Belzec; between one and two million were shot, or murdered in gas vans, on the killing fields of Russia. For this crime Adolf Hitler bears no responsibility whatsoever. It was ordered and organized by the Reichsführer SS Heinrich Himmler, who somehow managed to hide this gigantic massacre from his Führer.

As Heinrich Himmler has few admirers even among avowed National Socialists, Irving obviously regards him as the ideal scapegoat. I warn David Irving that the only effect of such statements will be to ruin what little credibility he still has. But the worst is that they will constitute a formidable slander. Heinrich Himmler may be guilty of many things, but nobody, not even David Irving, has the right to accuse him of ordering and organizing a monstruous slaughter he cannot possibly have ordered and organized for the simple reason that it did not take place.

An advice to David Irving

Like other brilliant men before him, David Irving has fallen deep, but who has fallen can rise again. I advise David Irving to remember the old adage: “Facts are tyrants, they tolerate no dissent.” Let us hope that David Irving will muster the necessary courage to face the facts and to draw the inevitable conclusions. There is simply no other way he can save his honour and restore his credibility.

April 2009

[1] David Irving, Hitler’s War, Wiking Press, New York 1977, p. 393.

[2] Robert Faurisson, “A Challenge to David Irving”, Journal of Historial Review, Volume 5, 1984.

[3] Fred Leuchter, An Engineering Report on the alleged “Gas Chambers” at Auschwitz, Birkenau and Majdanek, Poland, Samisdat Publishers, Toronto 1988.

[4] Deborah Lipstadt, Denying the Holocaust, Free Speech Press, New York 1994.

[5] Bundesarchiv Koblenz, R. 58/871.

[6] Ingrid Weckert, “’Massentötungen’ oder Desinformation?”, Historische Tatsachen, Nr. 24, Verlag für Volkstum und Zeitgeschichtsforschung, Vlotho 1985. Ingrid Weckert, „Die Gaswagen“, in: Ernst Gauss (editor), Grundlagen zur Zeitgeschichte, Grabert Verlag, Tübringen 1994.

[7] Pierre Marais, Les camions à gaz en question, Polémiques, Paris 1994.

[8] England and Wales High Court (Queen’s Bench Division), Decision David Irving v. Penguin Books Limited, Deborah E. Lipstadt, 7.11.

[9] Ibidem, 13.71.

[10] Theses and Dissertations Press, Chicago 2004.


[12] Carlo Mattogno, Jürgen Graf, Treblinka – Extermination camp or transit camp? Thesis and Dissertations Press, Chicago 2004.

[13] Raul Hilberg, Sonderzüge nach Auschwitz, Dumjahn, Munich 1981, p. 177.

[14] Ibidem, p. 181.

[15] NO-5194.

[16] Peter Witte, Stephen Tyas, “A New Document on the Deportation and Murder of the Jews during ‘Einsatz Reinhardt’ 1942”, in: Holocaust and Genocide Studies, no. 3, Winter 2001, pp. 469 f.

[17] Michael Treguenza,”Das vergessene Lager des Holocaust”, in: I. Wojak, P. Hayes (eds), „Arisierung“ im Nationalsozialismus, Volksgemeinschaft, Raub und Gedächtnis, Campus Verlag, Frankfurt/Main, New York 2000, p. 253.

[18] Raul Hilberg, Die Vernichtung der europäischen Juden, Fischer Taschenbuch Verlag, Frankfurt a. M. 1997, p. 946.

[19] In: Germar Rudolf (Ed.), Dissecting the Holocaust, Theses and Dissertations Press, Chicago 2003.

[20] S. Romanov, “Why the diesel issue is irrelevant”.

[21] Thomas Dalton, Debating the Holocaust, Theses and Dissertations Press, Chicago 2003, p. 110, 111.

[22] Friedrich Berg, “The Diesel Gas Chambers – Myth within the Myth”, Journal of Historical Review, Volume 5, 1984.

[23] David Irving, “On History and Historiography”, Journal of Historical Review, Volume 5, 1984.

[24] Jan Karski, Story of a Secret State, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston 1944.

[25] Carlo Mattogno, Belzec…, p. 12.

[26] Stefan Szende, The Promise Hitler Kept, V. Gollancz, London 1945, pp. 159 f.

[27] URSS-93, pp. 41 f.

[28] N. Blumental (ed.), Dokumenty i materialy, vol. I, Lodz 1946, p. 211.

[29] Yuri Suhl, Ed essi si ribellarono. Storia della resistenza ebraica contro il nazismo, Milan 1969, p. 31.

[30] K. Marczweska, W. Wazniewski, “Treblinka w swietle Akt Delegatury Rzadu RP na Kraji”, in: Biuletyn Glownej Komisji Badania Zbrodni Hitlerowskich w Polsce, volume XIX, Warsaw 1968, p. 136 f.

[31] Ibidem, p. 138 f.

[32] Ibidem, p. 139-145.

[33] State Archives of the Russian Federation, Moscow, 7021-115-9, p. 108.

[34] Wassili Grossman, „Die Hölle von Treblinka“, in: Die Vernichtungslager Maidanek und Treblinka, Stern-Verlag, Vienna 1945, p. 33.

[35] PS-3311.

[36] André Chelain (Ed.), Faut-il fusiller Henri Roques?, Polémiques, Paris 1986.

[37] Yitzhak Arad, Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka. The Aktion Reinhard Death Camps, Indiana University Press, Bloomington and Indianapolis 1987, pp. 334, 335.

[38] Carlo Mattogno, Jürgen Graf, Treblinka – Extermination Camp or Transit Camp?, chapter 4.

[39] Stanislaw Wojtczak, “Karny oboz pracy Treblinka I i osrodek zaglady Treblinka II”, in: Biuletyn Glowney Komisji Badania Zbrodni Hitlerowskich w Polsce, Warsaw 1975, volume XXVI, pp. 183-185.

[40] A. Kola, Belzec: The Nazi Camp for Jews in the light of archeological sources: Excavations 1997-1999, The Concil for the Protection of Memory and Martyrdom, United States Holocaust Museum, Warsaw and Washington 2000.

[41] Ibidem, p. 65 f.

[42] Zentrale Stelle der Landesjustizverwaltungen, Ludwigsburg252/59, vol. I, p. 1227.

[43] Carlo Mattogno, Belzec…, p. 91.


[45] Jozef Kermisz, Dokumenty i materialy do dziejow okupacji niemieckiej w Polsce, vol. II: “Akce” i “Wysiedlenia”, Warsaw-Lodz-Krakow 1946, p. 32 f.

[46] Reproduction of the document in: Tovi Blatt, Sobibor. The forgotten revolt, H. E. P., Issaquah 1998, documentation without pagination.

[47] State Archives of the Russian Federation, Moscow, 7445-2-145, p. 80.

[48] Hoover Institute Library and Archives, Stanford, “Report on conditions in Poland”, Annex No. 7, Box 29.

[49] K. Marczewska, W. Wazniewski, „Treblinka w swietle akt Delegatury…“, p. 137.

[50] Z. Leszczynska, „Transporty wiezniow do obozu na Majdanku“, Zeszyty Majdanka, IV, 1969, p. 189.

[51] Tatiana Berenstein, Adam Rutkowski, „Zydzi w obozie koncentracijnym Majdanek (1941-1944)“, Biuletyn Zydowskiego Instytutu Historycznego w Polsce, no. 58, 1966, p. 16.

[52] Samuel Zylbersztain, „Pamietnik wieznia dziesieciu obozow“, Biuletyn Zydowskiego Instytutu Historycznego w Polsce, no. 68, Warsaw 1968.

[53] Julius Schelvis, Vernichtungslager Sobibor, Metropol Verlag, Berlin 1998.

[54] Carlo Mattogno, Jürgen Graf, Treblinka…, pp. 259-288.

[55] Terezinska Pametni Kniha, Terezinska Iniciativa, Melantrich 1995, p. 393.

[56] Raul Hilberg, Die Vernichtung der europäischen Juden, Fischer Taschenbuch Verlag, Frankfurt a. M. 1997, p. 946.