Der Stürmer

The official blog of the site "Der Stürmer" – http://der-stuermer.org

Month: July, 2014

The Way to Slavery

by Julius Streicher

Source: http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/ds5.htm

Julius Streicher-2

The Jews never had a homeland or a fatherland. Their origin is as mysterious as that of the Gypsies. We do know this much: The Jews came from the Middle East to Europe through Constantinople and the Iberian Peninsula, where it nears Africa. They have lived among the nations of Europe for many centuries. Their outward appearance and spiritual characteristics quickly distinguished them from the blond, blue-eyed Nordic peoples. The instincts of Nordic blood and bad experiences soon led the European nations to protect themselves from the Jews through legislation. As a foreign people, Jews were prohibited from having a role in the personal lives of the host nations. Particular care was taken to exclude the Jews from any role in government.

The Jews came to Europe with the concealed aim of sooner or later destroying the peoples living there. From the beginning, they worked to eliminate those restrictive laws. They went about it by promoting false ideas. They went so far as to persuade the guest peoples to believe that a Jew could become a Gentile. People began to believe that Jews could become French in France, English in England, Spanish in Spain, Italians in Italy, etc. He who opposed the idea was said to be a barbarian or an enemy of humanity. The revolution the Jews brought about at the end of the 18th century in France and in other nations eliminated these laws or rendering them impotent. The revolutions incited by the Jews in the middle of the 19th century also brought the Jewish plan of emancipation (the elimination of anti-Jewish legislation) closer to reality. The end of the World War brought equality to the Jews in Russia, Germany, and other states. Over the corpses of the greatest and most significant war of the modern era, Pan-Jewry could gloat at winning a victory over the peoples of Europe that World Jewry had dreamed of for centuries.

After the World War, no nation in Europe would have dared to deny the Jews a role in leading peoples and nations. So sure were they of their power that they dared to put full-blooded Jews at the head of German provincial governments, and even placed Jews in the position of Reich minister. The Jew Walter Rathenau was the embodiment of the Jewish drive for world domination in those days when Germany was betrayed and enslaved.

National Socialism in Germany and Fascism in Italy have put an end to Jewish domination. In other nations, Jewry rules from behind the mask of democracy. What one calls democracy today is concealed Jewish domination. Jews determine what happens in the democratic states, and Jewish bank hyenas and government ministers are working for a new world war that will re-subject Germany and Italy to renewed and final Jewish domination. In England, the Jew Hore Belisha as war minister is preparing to send the English people to the battlefields of a European war. This is necessary if Jewry’s hopes are to be fulfilled. These hopes are: the defeat of the National Socialist and Fascist led peoples and their final enslavement under the yoke of the world criminal Pan-Jewry.

Things Jews Say

Source: Six Million 4 Truth

 Things Jews Say-1

 Things Jews Say-2

Things Jews Say-3

Things Jews Say-4

Things Jews Say-5

Things Jews Say-6

Jews and the Fashion Industry

Source: http://www.radioislam.org/thetruth/fashion.htm

As early as 1885,” notes Joel Kotkin, “… Jews, mostly from Germany, owned 97% of all the garment factories. By the early twentieth century Jewish domination of the ‘rag trade’ [in America] was virtually complete, with Jews accounting for between 50 and 80 per cent of all haymakers, furriers, seamstresses, and tailors in the country.” [KOTKIN, p. 48-49] By 1915 the “clothing trade” was America’s third largest industry, behind only steel and oil. [LEACH, p. 93] “Jews largely created the American clothing production industry, replacing homemade clothes and tailor-made clothing.” [SILBIGER, S., 2000, p. 46]

“Jews,” says Milton Plesur, “were the chief source of operatives for the ready-made clothing industry, but by the 1920s, they constituted less than half of the operatives and by mid-century less than 28 percent. In the meantime, Jews have risen to management and ownership, thus achieving almost exclusive control of the entire wearing apparel industry.” [PLESUR, M., 1982, p. 161] The modern bra, for instance, was a Jewish marketing invention, promoted by the Maiden Form Brassiere company owned by William and Ida Rosenthal with Enid Bissett, founded in 1923. Likewise, the suits of “Hattie Carnegie [born Herietta Kanengeiser] led a fashion empire that set the pace of American fashion for nearly three decades.” [HYMAN, p. 207]

In more recent history, Jews have congregated in, and dominated, the “fashion” aspects of the clothing industry — founding everything from Guess, Gitano, Jordache, Calvin Klein, and Levi-Strauss jeans to Ralph [Lifshitz] Lauren cosmetics. (The Jordache and Guess companies — both founded by recent Jewish immigrants to the United States — were involved in particularly nasty lawsuits and underhand unscrupulous maneuvers against each other. The companies’ manipulations are documented in a 1992 volume entitled: Glamour, Greed, and Dirty Tricks in the Fashion Industry: The Bizarre Story of Guess v. Jordache. In 1985, one of the brothers who owns Jordache, Joe Nakash, was elected in Israel to be the president of the Boys’ Town Jerusalem Society. “This is the message I want to convey to those who care about Israel’s future,” Nakash said, “That in addition to providing its students with a superb education, Boys’ Town builds and develops their character, their conviction and their commitment to their homeland.” [JEWISH WEEK, 5-3-85, p. 22]

At Levis-Strauss, in 1982 Robert Haas “became the fifth generation family member to run the company (his father, Walter A. Haas Jr. was CEO from 1958 to 1976.” [MUNK, p. 36] Warren Hirsch, president of Murjani International initiated the blue jean craze in recent years with the designer label “Gloria Vanderbilt.” Alfred Slaner headed Kayser-Roth into the 1980s, “the largest clothing manufacturing establishment in the world.” [GREENBERG, M., p. 73]

French-born Maurice Bidermann (born Maurice Zylberberg) “was the mastermind of one of the largest [clothes] manufacturing networks in the world, with thirteen thousand workers in thirty-four factories. Producer of Pierre Cardin and Yves Saint Laurent suits, his plants in France, the United States and Hong Kong churned out nearly $200 million in designer duds each year … He was the older brother of Regine, the jet-set nightclub owner of New Jimmy’s and Regine’s, in Paris and New York.” [GAINES/CHURCHER, p. 196] The president of Bidermann’s companies in the U.S.? Also Jewish. Michael Zelnick.

“Of all the monarchs in the garment industry,” note Steven Gaines and Sharon Churcher, “… Carl Rosen [of Puritan Fashions; Chief Financial Officer: Sam Rubenstein] was the biggest and richest … Rosen owned two Rolls-Royces, both painted gold, and the one he kept at his Palm Springs estate once belonged to the queen mother of England … Reportedly … Carl supplied hookers and dirty weekends to Las Vegas for the buyers.” [GAINES/CHURCHER, p. 216]

“The [Dan] Millstein name [of coats and suits] had become familiar to every American household … [Seymour] Fox was in a league of his own in the fashion business, a mogul even wealthier than Millstein. Fox was known not only for his exquisite, high-priced fashions but for his grand lifestyle, replete with stretch limousines and a beautiful mistress, the Women’s Wear Daily columnist Carol Bjorkman.” [GAINES/CHURCHER, p. 49, 56]

In the 1960s and 1970s, Hartmarx “became the largest manufacturer and retailer of men’s tailored clothing.” The company, originally called Hart, Schaffner and Marx, was founded in the late 1800s by Harry and Marcus Marx. Relative Joseph Schaffner joined as a co-partner later. [SONNENFELD, J., 1988, p. 167] In Canada, Steven Shein owns E&J Manufacturing Ltd., “one of Canada’s largest wool coat makers.” [KUITENBROWER, P., 4-1-2000, p. D1] Sigi Rabinowicz, an Orthodox Jew, is the CEO of Israel-based Tefron, “a major force in lingerie.” [MCLEAN, B., 9-18-2000, p. 60] “Israel Myers — son of a tailor — originated the London Fog raincost.” [KRISCHNER, S., 9-14-00, p. 11]

In 1995 another Jewish garment mogul, Calvin Klein, who had a serious problem with cocaine and Quaaludes over the years [GAINES/CHURCHER, p. 208], was condemned by a range of parent and social welfare groups for an advertising campaign featuring images by Jewish photographer Stephen Meisel. Adolescent models, notes Henry Giroux, were photographed “in various stages of undress, poised to offer both sexual pleasures and the fantasy of sexual availability … Angry critics … called the images suggestive and exploitive, and condemned Calvin Klein for using children as sexual commodities. Other critics likened the ads to child pornography.” [GIROUX, p. 16-17] This was an old theme for Klein. Earlier suggestive commercials with and adolescent Brooke Shields had garnered condemnation from a variety of groups, including a feminist group called Women Against Pornography. (Klein’s key partner in his initial years was fellow Jewish entrepreneur Barry Schwartz. Another Jewish friend, described as Klein’s “mentor,” was Nicholas de Gunzburg, the “fur and fabric editor” of Vogue magazine). [GAINES/CHURCHER, p. 97-98]

The Guess company (founded by the Jewish Marciano brothers, who share control of the firm with the Nakash family, who are also Jewish) has also followed the same advertising strategy to sell jeans. “Media Watch,” noted the Los Angeles Times in 1990, “a feminist group in Santa Cruz, has called for a boycott of Guess, charging that its ads demean women, integrating sex with violence.” [SCHACTER, J., 1990, p. D1]

Elsewhere, Estelle Sommers founded the Capezio dancewear brand, Ann Klein [originally Hannah Golofski] has become a widely recognized “designer” brand, as has Donna Karan and her DKNY label. Isaac Mizrahi and Tommy Hilfiger are other famous Jewish fashion brands, as is that of the Iranian-Jewish mogul of perfume and self-promotion, Bijan (Pakzad), also known as the “designer of what’s probably the world’s most expensive menswear.” [DORFMAN] Rudi Gernreich and John Weitz are other Jews who have been prominent fashion designers. Designer Arnold Scassi’s last name is Isaacs (his original surname) spelled backwards. Kenneth Cole (originally: Kenneth Cohen) developed popular lines of shoes, belts, and leather jackets. Judith Lieber manufacturers luxury handbags.

Liz Claiborne founded her company with her Jewish husband Arthur Ortenberg and Leonard Boxer. She retired in 1989 whereupon Jerome Chazen became chairman of the firm. Other prominent executives in the company are Harvey Falk and Jay Margolis. In 1988, Nicholas Coleridge listed the American “power buyers” (those who buy for stores) of the fashion world. Most of the people listed are Jewish, and a huge percentage of the stores are Jewish-owned:

“Daria Retain, fashion director of Neiman Marcus; Ellin Saltzman, director of fashion and product development at Saks Fifth Avenue; James Fowler and Mary Talbot, vice-president and design buyer of Jacobsons Stores, Michigan; Kaye von Bergen, designer buyer of Bendel’s; Lois Ziegler and Sue Bicksler, fashion directors of J.C. Penney; Bernie Ozer, vice-president of the Associated Merchandising Corporation; Barbara Weiser of Charivari; Barbara Warner, formerly of Barneys, who virtually single-handedly turned the store into an upbeat designer terminus; Lynne Manulis, president of Marthas; Joan Weinstein, president of Ultimo; James Sullivan, fashion director of Jordan Marsh; Missy Lomonaco, fashion director of Bonwit Teller; Betty Hahn, designer buyer of Garfinkels, Washington; Jean Navin, vice-president and fashion director of Lord & Taylor; Kal Ruttenstein, vice-president and fashion director of Bloomingdales; Terry Melville, fashion director of Macy’s; and Sal Ruggerio of Marshall Field, Chicago.” [COLERIDGE, p. 259]

In 2000, the National Post noted the heart of the garment district in Montreal, Canada — the Jewish center of Chabenel Street. The article addressed the bribery of store buyers by clothing makers and its long tradition in the Jewish community. (In Yiddish: “Az men shmert nit, fort men nit.” — If you don’t bribe, you don’t ride). Kickbacks, noted Doug Robinson, a Canadian fraud squad officer is “a dirty secret of the industry.” [KUITENBROWER, P., 4-1-2000, p. D1]

Elsewhere, Israeli-born Elia “Tahari is among the most respected names in department and specialty stores.” [HOOD, p. 1E] In California Severin Wunderman’s company, the Severin Group ($500 million a year in sales), remains “the sole manufacturer, marketer, and distributor of Gucci timepieces and Fila sports watches.” These products’ retail cost run between $225 and $14,000 apiece. “The word ‘demanding’ is repeatedly used to describe [Severin]. In addition to shouting and breaking things, he has tossed more than one cellular phone out the window of his chauffeur-driven Rolls Royce.” [HOWLETT, p. E1]

The head of the French luxury jewelry firm, Cartier, is also Jewish: Alain Dominique Perrin. In 1996, during a visit to Israel, he announced “plans to donate an unspecified percentage of the revenue from the sale of $10 million worth of jewelry to WIZO [the World International Zionist Organization].” [CASHMAN, 1996, p. 14] Kenneth Jay Lane, “the fake jewelry king,” [HORYN, C., 12-12-99, sec. 9, p. 1] is also Jewish. Nudie Cohen, head of Nudie’s, was the “costume designer who pasted Nashville in rhinestones in the 1940s and ’50s.” [LONGINO, M., 9-8-2000] He supplied the Hollywood/Las Vegas cowboy image to people like Roy Rogers and Gene Autry. Others fitting such stars were “Nathan Turk and his East coast counterpart Rodeo Ben (Bernard Lichtenstein), both Eastern European immigrants” whose “clothes brought western wear into its heyday.” [MOORE, B., 2001, p. E3] Adrian’s was the logo of Adrian Goldberg, a famous dress designer for Hollywood in the 1930s and ’40s. Sidney Toledano is today’s president and CEO of Christian Dior.

The Chanel company, which makes “the most expensive perfume in the world,” was founded by non-Jew Co Co Chanel, but built to power by the Jewish Wertheimer brothers. As the London Independent notes: “In 1924 [Chanel] sold 90 per cent of the rights to Chanel No. 5 to Pierre Wertheimer, who, with his brother Paul, owned Bourjois, the largest cosmetics company in France … They bought out Chanel — couture house, perfume and all — in 1954.” [JOBEY, L., 11-27-90, p. 12] Feeling that “she was being cheated” by the Wertheimers, Chanel had sued them in 1934. [MOUBRAY, J., 2-10-98, p. 18]

Elsewhere in France, in 1995 Jean-Pierre Meyer became Deputy Chairman of the L’Oreal cosmetics giant, suceeding Andre Bettencourt (whose father founded the firm). Meyer, who is Jewish, is married to Bettencourt’s daughter.

[ http://www.klarsfeld.org/press/95/us_urged/us_urged.htm ]

Diane von Furstenberg (original name: Diane Simone Michelle Halfin) founded a “fragrance and fashion empire.” Stanley Kohlenberg, head of Revlon’s domestic Group III, was “recognized as one of the premiere marketing men in the fragrance industry.” [GAINES/CHURCH, p. 182] Samuel Rubin founded the Faberge perfume company. Max Factor built a cosmetics empire, including waterproof mascara and long-lasting lipstick. Helena Rubenstein sold “beauty and royalty.” “The names [of Jewish entrepreneurs] Helena Rubenstein and Estee Lauder [born Josephine Esther Menzer] became virtual synonyms for cosmetics in the twentieth century.” [HYMAN, p. 27] Adrien Arpel opened 500 skin care salons across America. “A legend in the cosmetics industry…. although Arpel is not a formally observant woman, she is very conscious of her Jewish identity.” [HYMAN, p. 67-68] Vidal Sassoon built an business empire based on hair care. (Sassoon, funder of a research unit on anti-Semitism at an Israeli university, was the recipient of the first American Jewish Congress “Beauty Hall of Fame” award). Non-Jew Grace Mirabella, for 17 years the editor of Vogue magazine, notes that “all the models, actresses, and photographers of London” hung out a Sassoon’s hair studios. [MOIRABELLA, G., 1995, p. 127]

Jack Rosen is chairman of the Hazel Bishop cosmetics company (as well as being the CEO and chairman of Continental Health Affiliates and the CEO of Infu-Tech, two major health care corporations). [PR NEWSWIRE, 3-13-98] Shirley Polykoff at Clairol introduced to America her advertising catchphrases: “‘Does she or doesn’t she?,’ ‘If I have only one life to lead, let me live it as a blonde,’ and ‘Hate that gray, wash it away.'” [BAER, p. 158] The Gottleib family founded the Gottex swimmear line. Marvin Winkler (philanthropist of an Orthodox Chabad “Immigrant Camp” in Hollywood) and Jay Schottenstein bought the Gotcha surf wear company in 1996 (also including the MCD and GirlStar brands. Adam Tihany is one of America’s best known upscale “restaurant designers,” his work includes Manhattan’s Le Cirque 2000. Maurice Stein owns Burbank, “one of the world’s largest suppliers of cosmetics, skin, and hair products to the entertainment industry.” [WILGOREN, p. A1] Israeli-born Gil Gamlieli is co-owner of “Manhattan’s celebrated Gil Gamlieli Beauty Group.” [EPSTEIN, M., p. T6] Even a Satmar hasidic Jew, Victor Jacobs, is CEO and Chairman of Allou Health and Beauty Care.

Chicago’s Irving Harris became a millionaire with his ToniHome Permanent. Mr. Blackwell — creator of the world’s “worst” and “best” dressed lists, is a Jewish fashion designer who changed his name from Richard Selzer to Dick Ellis to, lastly, Blackwell. Britain’s Trevor Spero founded the Flame model agency and Scene magazine, which covers the fashion industry.

New York’s Fashion Institute of Technology “grew from the dream of a small group of successful Eastern European Jewish immigrant manufacturers … [who ultimately created] a thriving college of art and design, business and technology. [NEWSDAY, p. A39] FIT’s chairman of the board was still in Jewish hands in 1998, in the person of Edwin Goodman. “By the late 1930s,” notes Henry Feingold, “Jews could be also found in the creative departments of the full-service advertising agencies as the experts in marketing surveys, motivation research, and the psychology of consumption.” [FEINGOLD, p. 104]

Brett Goldberg sells Dead Sea mud as a skin lotion. His business (Ahava’s hand cream) took off when he met and married Eve Berenblum, head of Sak’s cosmetics department. The American-born Goldberg has dual American-Israeli citizenship and volunteered for the Israeli army. [BERMAN/SANDERS, 1-11-99] Sydell Miller and her husband Arnold started Matrix Essential, a hair care and skin products company.

Sidney Kimmel heads the Jones Apparel Group; its clothing lines include Jones New York, Evan-Picone, Saville, NineWest shoe stores, and movie production interests. The CEO of the Jo Ann Stores chain (1065 stores nationwide; also sometimes called Cloth World and Jo Ann Fabrics) is Alan Rosskamm. Co-founded by his father, the firm’s 1997 sales alone were $975 million.

Bob Sockolow is the president and CEO of San-Francisco based Rochester Big and Tall Clothing. The founders of the Banana Republic clothing retail chain were Bill Rosenszweig, and Mel and Patricia Ziegler. The Eddie Bauer outdoor clothing empire is headed of course by Eddie Bauer; he is also Jewish. Jeffrey Swartz is the president and CEO of the Timberland shoe and boot firm.

In 1997 The Limited Inc. (Leslie Wexner, CEO) was accused by the AFL-CIO of subcontracting garment work in the Dominican Republic that paid workers $21 for an 80-hour work week. The Limited’s 3,000 outlets and brands include Abercrombie and Fitch, Structure, Express, Lane Bryant, Henri Bendel, Bath & Body Works, and Victoria’s Secret, among others. [FORWARD, 5-30-97, p. 1] (Abercrombie and Fitch’s 2001 summer catalogue attracted a coalition of groups as diverse as the National Organization for Women and Concerned Christian Americans in protest. The catalogue was condemned as “soft porn.” An earlier A&F catalogue — Naughty or Nice — was “denounced” by the Michigan attorney general’s office.”) [CRARY, D., 6-22-01]

In 1986, Linda Wachner, also Jewish, president of Max Factor, U.S. Division, maneuvered a hostile takeover of the Warnaco Group, effectively seizing control of much of the women’s underwear market (including the brand names Warners, Olga, Valentino, Scaagi, Ungaro, Bob Mackie, and Fruit of the Loom). Wachner was henceforth the CEO of Wanaco, “one of the highest paid and most powerful businesswomen in America in the 1990s.” [HYMAN, p. 27]

Elsewhere, Howard Gross is the CEO of Miller’s Outpost’s chain of 220 stores; Robert Siegel became the CEO of the Stride Rite store chain in 1993. Donald Fisher is founder and CEO of the giant clothes retailer The Gap. He too is Jewish, [ALTMAN-OHR, A., 4-14-2000, p. 64A] as is Millard Drexler, another top executive at the company.

Zionist Terror in Gaza – Free Gaza and Free the World

 

In this most powerful expose yet on Zionist crimes in Palestine, Dr. David Duke exposes the horrific Zionist terror in Gaza and proves how Zionist influenced media around the world lies to us! Not only must we free Palestine, we must free the West and the whole world from Zionist Globalist tyranny!

My Role in Berlin on July 20, 1944

Source:http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v08/v08p-41_Remer.html

 Otto Ernst Remer

My assignment to the guard regiment “Grossdeutschland” in Berlin was actually a form of rest and recreation — my first leave from the front — after my many wounds and in recognition of my combat decorations, including the Knight’s Cross with Oak Leaves and the Close Combat Badge in Silver (48 days of close combat). Later I would be wounded again. In all I was to command the guard regiment for only four months, since I felt obligated to be back with my comrades at the front.

My mission as commander of the guard regiment “Grossdeutschland,” which I took over at the end of May 1944, was, aside from purely ceremonial duties, to safeguard the Reich government and the Reich capital. Since there were more than a million foreign workers in Berlin and its immediate vicinity, the possibility of internal unrest had to be taken into account. Around noon on July 20, 1944, First Lieutenant Dr. Hans Hagen, who had been severely wounded at the front, concluded his lecture on cultural history before the officers and NCOs of the regiment. He was attached to my regiment only administratively and in no way as a National Socialist political officer, as has often been reported. I was the regiment’s sole leader, politically as well as militarily.

I had invited Hagen to lunch afterward in my quarters at the Rathenow barracks, together with my adjutant, First Lieutenant Siebert. Siebert, who had lost an eye in combat, was a pastor of the Confessional Church [a branch of the German Protestant Church that opposed Hitler]. He attended services every Sunday at the Garrison Church, with my express permission, although I myself had left the church. Among us personal freedom was the rule. Nor did it bother me that, after having been an SA stormtrooper and a member of the party during the years of struggle before Hitler came to power, he had resigned from both organizations to protest defamatory remarks by his local party leader concerning the ancestry of Jesus Christ. Lt. Siebert suffered no adverse consequences due to his resignation.

In those days that sort of thing was entirely possible, with no repercussions. Indeed, before I chose Siebert, due to his character, as my adjutant, he confided to me that while still a storm trooper he had broken into a Gestapo office in order to obtain documents incriminating colleagues in the Confessional Church. For me Siebert’s frank admissions were just a further evidence of the personal élan that recommended him as a trustworthy adjutant That’s the way it was in the Third Reich, so widely demonized nowadays. Neither in my unit nor in the officer corps as a whole did there prevail the stubborn narrow-mindedness, not to mention the sort of terror against dissenting opinions, that is carried on against nationalists in Germany today by the “Office for Constitutional Protection.” Nor have I ever heard that Pastor Siebert considered himself to be a “resistance fighter” or that he later pretended to have been one.

During the early afternoon of July 20, 1944, my regiment, like all units of the Replacement Army, was alerted by the codeword “Valkyrie.” “Valkyrie” provided for the mobilization of the Replacement Army in case of internal unrest. While my regiment automatically implemented the prescribed measures, I was summoned from the swimming pool. In compliance with my orders I drove immediately to my designated post, the Berlin City Command Center, directly across from the “Eternal Watch” honor guard. While the other unit commanders waited in the anteroom, I alone was admitted to the city commander, Major General von Hase, and given the following briefing on the situation and my assignment:

The Führer has had a fatal accident! Civil disorder has broken out. The Army has assumed executive authority! The guard regiment is ordered to concentrate a strong force, reinforced for counterattack, to seal off the government quarter so that nobody, not even a general or a government minister, can enter or leave! To support you in sealing off the streets and subways, I’m seconding Lieutenant Colonel Wolters to your command!

As these orders were being issued, I was struck by the circumstance that a younger officer of the general staff, Major Hayessen, assisted, while the former and senior general staff officer, whom I knew personally, stood about, idle and noticeably nervous.

I was naturally very shocked by the general’s words, since I felt that with Hitler’s death the possibility of a favorable turn in the war had almost disappeared. Immediately I asked:

Is the Führer really dead? Was it an accident or has he been assassinated? Where have civil disturbances occurred? I saw nothing unusual while driving here through Berlin. Why is executive authority passing to the Army and not to the Wehrmacht [Armed Forces]? Who is the Führer’s successor? According to Hitler’s testament, Hermann Goering is automatically his successor. Has he issued any orders or proclamations?

Since I received neither detailed information nor clear answers to my questions, the situation became even murkier, and I felt a certain sense of mistrust even from the beginning. When I tried to get a brief glimpse of the papers which lay before me on the table, above all to see who had signed the orders, Major Hayessen ostentatiously gathered them up and put them in a folder. As I returned to my regiment I kept thinking: “Hitler’s dead. Now confusion reigns, and various people will probably try to seize power.” I contemplated the future struggles for succession.

I decided that, in any case, I would not allow myself to be misused in my capacity as commander of the only elite unit on active duty in Berlin. My regiment was made up entirely of picked, proven combat soldiers with high decorations for bravery. Every officer sported the Knights Cross. I was also mindful of the events of 1918, after which the Berlin guard units had been reproached for their hesitancy, which contributed to the success of the revolution. I had no desire to expose myself to a similar reproach before History.

When I returned to my troops, I gathered my officers and informed them of the situation and our orders. The alleged death of Adolf Hitler sent officers and men into shock. Never in my life, even at Germany’s final defeat, have I witnessed such despondency. Despite the numerous stories which flourish today, that is the absolute truth: I vouch for it.

I made no secret to my officers that there was a lot that was still unclear, indeed mysterious to me, and that I would in no way allow myself or my unit to be exploited. I expressly demanded unconditional confidence and absolute obedience, just as at the front, from every one of my officers. This somewhat unusual demand was due to a telephone call I received during the briefing from a general I didn’t recognize — it was probably Major General Friedrich Olbricht — at the High Command of the Replacement Army, requisitioning a company from my unit for a special assignment. This demand I explicitly rejected, pointing out that I had been entrusted with a clearly defined mission and that dispersing my forces didn’t seem advisable.

After the briefing I received two reports which further disturbed me. The first was from First Lieutenant Dr. Hagen, a member of my staff, who informed me that while on the way to the barracks he had seen Field Marshal Brauchitsch, in full uniform, driving his car on the streets of Berlin. This was strange, for Brauchitsch was retired. Given the circumstances, his appearance in uniform seemed remarkable. It later turned out that the officer seen by Dr. Hagen could not have been Brauchitsch. Probably it was one of the conspirators.

The second disconcerting report was from Lt. Colonel Wolters, who had been attached to my regiment as a liaison officer by the Command Center. He told me that I musn’t believe he was there to keep tabs on me as an informer. Such a remark was completely uncalled for. Not only was it incongruous and annoying, it awoke precisely the suspicion it was designed to allay: somebody had something up his sleeve. As it turned out, the briefing I gave my officers caused the colonel misgivings. In order to avoid responsibility, he simply went home — an unthinkable course of action for an officer on active duty.

I had my doubts that Major General von Hase’s description of the situation matched the facts. I also doubted another version of the story, according to which Hitler had been murdered by the SS. Those doubts convinced me that I had to determine the facts for myself. I decided to telephone every command post I could. That was just basic reconnaissance, a matter of course for every commander before committing his troops. Needless to say, this type of thinking and acting is quite at odds with the notorious corpse-like obedience that denigrators of the Third Reich’s army attribute to it.

Among other things I decided to send First Lt. Dr. Hagen, who had eagerly volunteered, to the Reich Defense Commissioner for Berlin, Dr. Joseph Goebbels. Dr. Hagen had earlier worked under Dr. Goebbels in the Propaganda Ministry, and I believed that by dispatching him to Dr. Goebbels I would be informed not only about the military but also the political situation. Dr. Goebbels was not only Reich Propaganda Minister. He was also Gauleiter and Defense Commissioner for Berlin. As a consequence of those two latter positions, he was patron of the “Grossssdeutschland” Division, which was made up of soldiers from all the provinces of the Reich.

About an hour and a half after the “Valkyrie” order was given, my regiment, by then combat-ready, moved into the areas to be sealed off in accordance with its orders. The normal guard units, such as those at the War Memorial and the Bendlerblock, the headquarters of the Commander of the Replacement Army and of the Defense Production Office, remained at their posts. At about 4:15 p.m. Lt. Arends, the duty officer in the Bendlerblock, reported to me that he had been ordered to seal off all entrances to the building. A Colonel Mertz von Quirnheim, whom Lt. Arends didn’t know, had given him this assignment. Lt. Arends had further been instructed by General Olbricht to open fire on any SS units that might approach.

After personally inspecting my troops in their new positions, at about 5:00 p.m. I returned once more to the City Commander, General von Hase, to inform him that I had carried out his orders. At that time I was asked to establish my command post there in the City Command Center, opposite the War Memorial. I had already set up a message center, commanded by Lt. Gees, in the Rathenow Barracks, with which I maintained telephone contact. Then von Hase gave me an additional assignment: to very tightly seal off a block of buildings north of the Anhalt Rail Station (he showed me where on the map).

As I began carrying out these orders, I ascertained that the designated block housed the Main Office of Reich Security. The unclearness, not to mention the deception, of this misleading order, only strengthened my suspicions. Why wasn’t I given explicit orders to place the Main Office of Reich Security under guard? It goes without saying that I would have carried out even that order.

Thus, on my third visit to General von Hase, I asked him directly “Herr General, why am I receiving orders formulated so obscurely? Why wasn’t I simply told to pay special attention to the Main Office of Reich Security?” Von Hase was quite nervous and excited. He didn’t even respond to my question. If one wonders today how a young officer like me could allow himself such liberties with a general, it should be borne in mind that we young commanders saw ourselves as battle-hardened, proven combat leaders, and we had scant regard for the chairborne warriors of the home front.

In this connection I should like to point out something based on my long experience at the front. Just as in the First World War, it was the veteran commanders of the shock companies who epitomized the front experience, so also in the Second World War it was the young commanders, come of age on the front, who had forged with their troops a sworn fellowship of combat. These men not only could fight, they wanted to fight, particularly since they believed in Germany’s victory.

While in General von Hase’s office I overheard from a conversation between the General and his First General Staff Officer that Goebbels was now to be arrested, and that this assignment was to be mine. Since I found this an unpleasant duty in light of my attempt to contact Goebbels, I jumped in and told General von Hase:

Herr General, I consider myself unsuited for this assignment As you know, I’ve been with the “Grossssdeutschland” Division, I’ve worn its stripe for years. This mission would be very unchivalrous for me, for as you are doubtless aware, Dr. Goebbels, in his capacity as Gauleiter of Berlin, is at the same time the patron of the “Grossdeutschland.” Only two weeks ago I paid Goebbels my first call as new commander of the guard regiment. On these grounds I consider it inappropriate that I, in particular, be ordered to arrest my patron.

Possibly von Hase sympathized with my arguments. For whatever reason, he now ordered the military police to take Reich Minister Dr. Goebbels into custody.

Around 5:30 p.m. Lt. Dr. Hagen finally met with Dr. Goebbels in his private residence, at 20 Hermann-Goering-Strasse beside the Brandenburg Gate, after having tried in vain to see him at the Propaganda Ministry. The Reich Minister had no idea of the danger he was in. It was only after Hagen, in order to emphasize how serious the situation was, pointed out vehicles from the guard regiment as they drove by, that Goebbels took fright. He cried, “This is impossible! What shall we do?” To that Hagen suggested, “The best thing would be for you to summon my commander here.” Goebbels asked curtly: “Can your commander be trusted?” “I’d lay down my life for him!” replied Hagen.

As I was going down the corridor just after leaving the City Commander’s office, I finally found my bearings as a result of Hagen’s contacting Goebbels.

Hagen had driven back to the barracks, gave Gees his instructions, and then drove to my new command post at the Command Center, which was heavily guarded. To avoid any hindrance, he did not enter the building, but informed my adjutant, Lt. Siebert, and my orderly, Lt. Buck, of the situation, asking them to inform me without delay. They reported as follows:

There’s a completely new situation! This is probably a military putsch! Nothing further is known! The Reich Defense Commissioner requests that you come to him as quickly as possible! If you’re not there within twenty minutes, he will assume that you are being forcibly restrained. In that case he will be compelled to alert the Waffen-SS. To avoid civil war, he has until then ordered the Leibstandarte [Hitler’s personal bodyguard, the 1st Division of the Waffen-SS] to stay where it is.

When I learned these things from my adjutant, I decided to see General von Hase one more time. That I still trusted the Major General, even then, is shown by my having Lt. Buck repeat to me once again, in the presence of von Hase, the message from Goebbels. I didn’t want to seem an intriguer; as a veteran combat officer it was my practice to lay all my cards on the table. Von Hase bluntly rejected my request to comply with the Reich Defense Commissioner’s summons so that I might clarify the situation in the interest of all concerned.

After leaving the Command Center without interference, I deliberated, together with my adjutant, Lt. Siebert — today a pastor in Nuremberg — about what I should do. My key role in this difficult and obscure situation, which I had not caused, was increasingly clear to me. By now I felt that my head was on the line too. After evaluating the situation as carefully as I could at that time, I decided that in spite of von Hase’s order to the contrary I would go to Goebbels. My reasons were as follows:

First, under no circumstances did I want to be deprived of my freedom of action, as often happened at the front. Often there was a very thin line between being awarded a high decoration, or being sentenced to death by a court martial.

Second, I felt myself still bound by my oath. The report of the Führer’s death was still at least doubtful. Thus, I had to act in keeping with the oath I swore on the flag.

Third, at the front I had many times made responsible decisions on my own, decisions the correctness of which were confirmed by my being awarded high decorations. Many a situation can only be mastered by decisive action. I felt as one with my comrades at the front, who wouldn’t understand if I were to stand idly by out of a lack of civic courage. I could not allow myself the responsibility of letting things come to a fatal head. I thought of 1918.

Fourth, I was under compulsion, since Goebbels had plans to alert the Waffen-SS, raising the possibility that a fraternal war between two forces, each proven in combat, might break out. As the commander of the only elite unit in Berlin on active duty I was responsible for the lives of the men entrusted to me. To employ them in a totally confused affair was not my duty.

Nevertheless, I didn’t entirely trust Goebbels either, for I still assumed that Hitler was dead, and believed that a struggle for succession was possible. I was far from wanting to let myself and my unit be thrust into a latterday Diadochian struggle. Inasmuch as Goebbels’ role remained unclear, I took along Lt. Buck and a platoon of soldiers. Their orders were to come and get me if I didn’t emerge from Goebbels’ residence in 15 minutes.

Then, after releasing the safety catch of my pistol, I entered the Reich Minister’s office, where I had been eagerly awaited, and asked Goebbels to orient me. With that Goebbels asked me to tell him everything I knew. I did so, although I didn’t reveal that von Hase intended to arrest him, since I was still unclear as to Goebbels’ role in all this. When he asked me what I intended to do, I told him that I would stick to my military orders and that I was determined to carry them out. Even if the Führer were no longer alive, I felt bound by my oath and could only act in accord with my conscience as an officer. At that Goebbels looked at me in amazement and cried: “What are you talking about? The Führer is alive! I’ve spoken with him by telephone. The assassination failed! You’ve been tricked.”

This information came as a complete surprise. When I heard that the Führer was still alive, I was greatly relieved. But I was still suspicious. Therefore I asked Goebbels to assure me, on his word of honor, that what he said was true and and that he stood unconditionally behind the Führer. Goebbels hesitated at first, because he didn’t understand the reason for my request. It was only after I repeated that as an officer I needed his word of honor in order to see my way clear that he obliged.

My wish to telephone the Führer’s headquarters coincided with his. Within seconds I was connected to the Wolf’s Lair at Rastenburg in East Prussia. To my great surprise Hitler himself came on the line. Geobbels quickly explained the situation to the Führer and then handed me the receiver.

Adolf Hitler said to me, approximately, the following: “Major Remer, can you hear me? Do you recognize my voice? Do you understand me?” I replied affirmatively, but I was nevertheless uncertain. It flashed through my mind that someone could possibly be imitating the Führer’s voice. To be sure I had become personally acquainted with the Führer’s voice during the previous year, when, after he had awarded me the Oak Leaf to the Knight’s Cross, I had been able to speak with him alone and completely frankly for an hour about the cares and miseries of the front. It was only as he continued speaking over the telephone that I became convinced that I was indeed speaking with Hitler. He went on:

As you can tell I’m alive. The assassination has failed. Providence didn’t intend it. A small clique of ambitious, disloyal, and traitorous officers wanted to kill me. Now we’ve got these saboteurs of the front. We’ll make short work of this treacherous plague, by brute force if necessary.

From this moment on, Major Remer, I am giving you complete authority in Berlin. You are responsible to me personally and exclusively for the immediate restoration of peace and security in the Reich capital. You will remain under my personal command for this purpose until Reichsführer Himmler arrives there and relieves you of responsibility.

The Führer’s words were very calm, determined, and convincing. I could breathe a sigh of relief, for the conversation had removed all my doubts. The soldier’s oath which I had sworn to the Führer was still binding, and was the guiding principle of my actions. Now my only concern was to eliminate misunderstandings and to avoid unnecessary bloodshed by acting quickly and decisively.

Goebbels asked me to inform him of the content of my conversation with Hitler, and asked me what I intended to do next. He placed the downstairs rooms of his house at my disposal, and I set up a new command post there. By this time it was 6:30 p.m. About 15 minutes later, the first report of the bomb attack in the Führer’s headquarters was broadcast over the Greater German Radio Network.

Due to my visit to the Berlin City Command Center I had a rough idea, for the most part, of the dispositions of the units advancing on Berlin. To let their commanders know the real situation, I dispatched staff officers in all directions to bring the word. Success was total. The question “The Führer — with him or against him?” worked miracles. I would like to state unequivocally that every one of these commanding officers, who like me were outraged at what had happened, subordinated themselves unconditionally to my command, although they all outranked me. Thus, they demonstrated that their soldier’s oaths were binding for them as well. Difficulties, temporary in nature, arose here and there, where personal briefings were not immediately possible.

Due to the prevailing uncertainty and because of misunderstanding — some thought that the guard regiments sealing off its designated area meant that it had mutinied — on two occasions my regiment came within a hair’s breadth of being fired on by other units. At the Fehrbelliner Platz an armored brigade had assembled at the order of the conspirators, but an order radioed by Lt. General Guderian removed it from the conspirators’ control. Thereafter this unit undertook reconnaissance and mistakenly concluded that the guard regiment “Grossdeutschland” was on the side of the conspirators and had apprehended Reich Minister Goebbels. Several of the brigade’s tanks advanced tentatively, and bloodshed would have been a near thing had I not intervened personally to clear up the confusion.

The same thing happened in front of the Bendlerblock, the headquarters of the Commander of the Replacement Army, when a panzergrenadier company tried to take over from my guard, which had been authorized by the Führer. The energetic intervention of officers from my regiment made possible a clarification at the last moment and prevented German soldiers from firing on each other. Here too the question “Hitler — with him or against him?” proved decisive. I had sent one of my company commanders, Captain Schlee, to the Bendlerblock in order to clear things up. At this point I had no idea that the leadership of the conspiracy had its Headquarters there. Schlee had orders to withdraw our guards, because I wanted, as much as possible, to avoid bloodshed. When he arrived he was ordered to see General Olbricht. He took the precaution of telling the guard to bring him out by force in the event he didn’t return promptly. In fact he was placed under arrest in the general’s waiting room by Colonel Mertz von Quirnheim, who told him to stay there. When Mertz went into Olbricht’s office, however, Schlee simply walked away.

When he returned to our guard, Lt. Arends informed him of a strange occurrence. He’d heard shouts coming from an upper story of the building and just then a typewriter and a telephone came flying through the window and into the courtyard. Schlee did an about-face and led a patrol back up to find out what was going on. He quickly identified the room from which the noise was coming; it was locked, but not under guard, and the key was still in the lock. Inside was General von Kortzfleisch, commanding general of the Berlin Military District. It was he who had thrown the objects out the window. The general had been summoned to the Bendlerblock to receive his orders. On his arrival, he steadfastly refused to cooperate with the conspirators. He was arrested and locked in, but left unguarded. Now that he was free, he gave us our first information regarding the leadership of the conspiracy.

At 7:30 p.m. our guards were relieved, in keeping with orders. Olbricht had to replace our guard detail with his own officers. The commander of the new guard was Lt. Colonel Fritz von der Lancken. As he was moving out Schlee learned from a captain in the communications center in the Benderblock that I had been ordered by the Führer to put down the putsch. They had been able to overhear my conversation with the Führer, and recognized that the telexes they were to send out were the conspirators’ orders. Thus the men in the communications center deliberately delayed sending the messages, or in some cases didn’t dispatch them at all.

Truly a masterfully prepared plan: the conspirators had no accomplices! Furthermore, telexes and telephone messages continued to come in from the Führer Headquarters, making the actual state of affairs quite clear.

Countless orders were given that late afternoon of July 20th. Among other measures I moved the replacement brigade of the “Grossdeutschland” from Cottbus to the outskirts of Berlin as a combat reserve. The brigade, too, had been given different orders earlier by the conspirators. Its tried and true commander, Colonel Schulte-Neuhaus, who had lost an arm in combat and whom I knew from the front, reported to my command post. I introduced him to Goebbels. Meanwhile I concentrated my own troops more tightly around the Reich Chancellory complex, and formed a strong combat reserve in the garden of Goebbels’ official residence. Goebbels asked me to address the troops assembled there, which I did. Their outrage at the traitorous goings-on was so great that they would have torn every single conspirator to pieces, had they been there.

Then I sealed off the City Command Center, for I’d gotten the impression that there was a number of questionable characters there. I also learned that after my refusal to arrest Goebbels, the military police had been ordered to do so. I waited in vain for them to appear. Later I heard that not a single unit was ready to arrest Dr. Goebbels, so that it was left to von Hase himself. At this point the City Commander was at the headquarters of the deputy commander, to which he had driven in order to work out further measures with the general who had been installed there by the conspirators. They had discussed things for two hours without coming to a decision, which was typical behavior for these combat-shy conspirators.

After General von Hase’s return to the City Command Center was reported to me, I asked him over the telephone to come by my command post at Goebbels’ residence in order to clarify the situation. At first he refused my invitation, and demanded that, since I was his subordinate, I should report to him at the Command Center. I informed him that I had been ordered personally by the Führer as his immediate subordinate, to restore peace and order, that von Hase was therefore under my orders, and that I would come and get him if he didn’t appear of his own free will. Only then did the general arrive. At this point I was still under the impression that von Hase, who had often been my guest at the officers’ club, who frequently expressed his solidarity with the soldiers at the front, and who never omitted a “Sieg Heil!” to his beloved Führer from any speech, had been deceived, just as I had been, and was unaware of the facts. Therefore I apologized for my unusual behavior. On his arrival von Hase was affability personified; he even praised me for my independence and decisiveness, and for seeking out Goebbels, by which I had averted a good deal of mischief.

Even with Goebbels von Hase played the innocent, and acted as if he had no inkling of any conspiracy. He was asked to stand by for further information, and a room was placed at his disposal. As von Hase left Goebbels’ office, there was an embarrassing incident, which made me, as a German officer, blush for shame. In these very tense circumstances, von Hase stated that he had been busy the whole day and hadn’t had a thing to eat. Goebbels immediately offered to have a sandwich prepared and asked him if he would like a glass of Mosel or Rhine wine as well. As soon as von Hase had left the office, Goebbels sneered:

“My name is Hare [Hase], I know nothing.” That’s the stuff our revolutionary putsch generals are made of. With the irons still in the fire they want to be wined and dined, and call their mommies on the telephone. In their place I’d see my tongue ripped out before I’d make such contemptible requests.

Two events illustrate how little thought and planning went into the putsch. My conversations and orders were routed through the same communications center in the Bendlerblock, headquarters of the conspiracy, from which the plotters’ orders were being disseminated in all directions. The communications officers could have delayed my orders or not transmitted them at all, or they could have interrupted my telephone calls, none of which they did. I even received a message from the Reich Broadcasting Service, asking what was going on. As a result, I was able to give the order that under no circumstances was any unscheduled transmission to be made. As a result, this important communications medium was also denied to the plotters. What transpired at the Broadcasting Center on the Masurenallee? Major Jacob had been ordered to occupy the Broadcasting Center. Astonishingly enough he had been ordered neither to broadcast any announcements nor to shut down the station. He attempted to telephone the conspirators to report his occupation of the radio station and to request additional orders. He had no luck, however. He wasn’t put through, as happened at many offices. For front-line soldiers the loss of telephone connections was a frequent occurrence. In such a case the normal procedure was to establish radio communications or to send a courier. Major Jacob had a teleprinter at his disposal as well, but he used none of those methods. Stauffenberg, the General Staff officer who planned the putsch, gave no thought to furnishing motorcycle couriers. Such trivial details were studiously overlooked.

Rudolf-Günther Wagner, the man who was to broadcast the conspirators’ proclamations, said later:

I had known for years that I was to broadcast the proclamation on the day of the putsch. I awaited with feverish excitement the arrival of the lieutenant who was to bring me the proclamation. Unfortunately I waited in vain, until I heard from Goebbels’ loudspeakers that the assassination had failed.

As is now well known, General Lindemann, who had the text of the proclamation, was nowhere to be found. General Beck was not willing to step in; he ordered Hans-Bernd Gisevius, a conspirator with the Abwehr, to bring the proclamation. First, however, Gisevius had to speedily draft a new statement, while the conspirators Stauffenberg, Hoepner, Yorck, Schwerin, and Schulenburg shouted suggestions at him. For this fiasco, too, Stauffenberg, the “manager” of the conspiracy, bears responsibility. To keep a broadcasting station in operation requires skilled and trustworthy personnel. A team had been ordered to the City Command Center, but it waited there idly until it was arrested during the counteraction. Hans Kasper, who was part of Operation Jacob, later commented:

It was around that time that the July 20 [attempted putsch] collapsed. From the perspective of a radio editor it was tragic. Tragic because the way in which details were handled made it obvious that this revolt had had very little chance of succeeding.

In the meantime Lt. Schlee had reported to me what was happening at the Bendlerblock. I knew nothing of the inside story, nor that Lt. General Fromm, Commander in Chief of the l Replacement Army, had withdrawn from the plot and been arrested by the conspirators. Schlee was further ordered, after our guards ad been relieved, to surround and seal off the Bendlerblock, without entering the buildings. At about 7:00 p.m. I felt I had the situation in Berlin in hand. The tension began to subside.


 

About the Author

Born in 1912, Otto Ernst Remer enlisted in the German army in 1930. During the Second World War he served as a front line officer in Poland, the Balkans, and in the campaign against the Soviet Union. He was wounded eight times, and his courage and ability earned him the German Cross in Gold, the Iron Cross, and other decorations. In May 1944 he was given command of the Guard Regiment “Grossdeutschland” in Berlin.

Remer played a key role in putting down the attempt by Claus von Stauffenberg and other conspirators to kill Hitler and seize control of the German government on July 20, 1944. On that day, one of the conspirators, Paul von Hase, ordered Remer and his troops to seal off the government buildings in central Berlin and arrest Reich minister Dr. Goebbels. However, Goebbels put Remer in direct telephone contact with Hitler, who ordered him to arrest the conspirators in the German capital and put down the attempted coup. Remer did this quickly and with no loss of life.

Promoted to Colonel, he took part in the Dec. 1944 Ardennes offensive. He was promoted to Generalmajor on Jan. 30, 1945. In the final weeks of the war he commanded a panzer division in Pomerania. After the war he helped found the Socialist Reich Party (SRP), which was later banned. After a court sentenced him to prison for “Holocaust denial,” he emigrated to Spain, where he died in exile in Oct. 1997.

This essay is from The Journal of Historical Review, Spring 1988 (Vol. 8, No. 1), pages 41-53. It is translated by Mark Weber from a chapter of Otto Ernst Remer’s memoir, Verschwörung und Verrat um Hitler (“Conspiracy and Treason Around Hitler”). A review of this book appears in the same Spring 1988 issue of the IHR Journal. This essay parallels Remer’s address at the Eighth IHR Conference (1987).

Confessions of SS Men who were at Auschwitz

by Robert Faurisson

Source: http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v02/v02p103_Faurisson.html

Some SS men have confessed that there were some „gas chambers“ at Auschwitz or at Auschwitz-Birkenau. The three most important confessions are those of Rudolf Höss, of Pery Broad and, finally, of Professor Doctor Johann Paul Kremer. For a long time the Exterminationists have especially counted on the first of these confessions: that of Rudolf Höss, which appeared under the title Commandant of Auschwitz. I think that I noticed, on the occasion of a recent historical debate in France, that the Exterminationists seem less sure of the value of this strange testimony. On the other hand, the testimony of Johann Paul Kremer has been very useful to them. Personally, I think that the argument furnished by Kremer is in fact, from their point of view, a more valuable weapon than the absurd confession of Rudolf Höss. I must say that first the British and then the Poles made Höss speak in such a way that it is easy to destroy his testimony by simply comparing Commandant of Auschwitz with his numerous previous statements, among which I particularly recommend that of 14 March 1946 (Documents NO-1210 and D-749).

I will limit myself therefore to studying what the Exterminationists themselves today seem to consider as the best of their weapons in respect to the existence and the use at Auschwitz of homicidal „gas chambers.“ If I add this adjective „homicidal,“ it is because there are, as you know, nonhomicidal gas chambers which it is impossible to use to kill men as it is said that the Germans did. All of the armies of the world have some buildings, hastily equipped, for training their recruits in the wearing of gas masks. In France, these buildings bear the name „chambre à gaz“ („gas chamber“); in Germany, they are called „Gaskammer“ or „Gasraum“ („Gas Chamber“ or „gas room“). There are also gas chambers for the disinfecting of clothes, for treating fruit, and the like.

I will therefore speak to you at some length of the testimony of Johann Paul Kremer. You will see how, at first sight, it is troubling, and then how, if you analyze it with a little care, it constitutes a terrible fiasco for the Exterminationists. I prize the Kremer case very much. It shows how fragile are the proofs that people offer to us, to what extent they allow themselves to be easily deceived by appearances, how much the official historians have misused the texts and how it is necessary to work if you wish, in the study of texts, to distinguish between the true and the false, between the real meaning and the misinterpretation. This is what is called text and document criticism. It happens that it is my professional specialty. I am therefore going to inflict upon you, to my great regret, a course in „text and document criticism.“ I ask you to pardon me for the strictness of the demonstration that I am going to try to carry out in front of you.

Before entering into the heart of the subject, I would like to share with you two remarks. The first comes to us from Dr. Butz. I remember that, in a letter of 18 November 1979 addressed to a British weekly (New Statesman) about a long article by Gitta Sereny (2 November 1979) he made the observation that it is quite strange to claim to base a historical thesis like that of the formidable massacres of millions of human beings on … confessions. That claim is still harder to defend when you know that those confessions came from persons who had been conquered and that the ones who obtained those confessions were the conquerors.

My second remark is to recall that, in the cases from Ravensbrück where people now know that there never was any „gassing,“ the British and French courts obtained confessions which were particularly detailed on the alleged 11 gassings.“ People speak to us about the three principal confessions of Auschwitz, but they no longer speak to us at all about the three principal confessions of Ravensbrück: that of the camp commandant, Suhren, that of his adjutant Schwarzhuber and that of the camp physician, Dr. Treite. Do you know what was the size of that „gas chamber“ that never existed? Answer: nine meters by four and one half meters. Do you know where it was located? Answer: five meters away from the two crematory ovens. Do you know how many persons were gassed there? Of what nationality? On what precise dates? Do you wish to know on whose orders all of that was done, from the top to the bottom of the German military and political hierarchy? Are you interested in learning how they used a „gas capsule“ (sic)? You will find the answers to these questions and to many others while reading, for example, the historian Germaine Tillion. That French woman had been interned at Ravensbrück. After returning to France, she became an official specialist in the history of the deportation. She worked at that same famous CNRS (National Center for Scientific Research) in Paris where Léon Poliakov also worked. Germaine Tillion enjoys in France, for reasons of which I am unaware, considerable moral credit. Her honesty is a sort of established fact. Nevertheless, several years after the war, she went before the courts to overwhelm the persons responsible for Ravensbrück with her stories about the „gas chambers.“ Even more than her book about the camp (Ravensbrück, Paris, Le Seuil, 1973 reprinting, 284 pages), one must read her „Reflections on the Study of the Deportation“ („Reflexions sur 1’étude de la d6portation,“ in the Revue d’Histoire de la Deuxième Guerre Mondiale, July to September 1954, pp. 3-38).

Germaine Tillion begins by making some remarks regarding false testimony about the deportation. She says that she has „known of numerous mentally damaged persons, halfcrooks, half-fools, exploiting an imaginary deportation.“ She adds that she had known of other persons who were „authentic deportees, whose sick minds had striven to go even beyond the monstrous things that they had seen or about which people had spoken to them and which had reached them.“ She wrote further: „There were even some publishers to print certain of these fabrications, and some more or less official compilations to use them, but these publishers and editors absolutely cannot be excused, since the most elementary inquiry would have been sufficient for them to expose the deception.“

While reading those lines which already date from 26 years ago, we realize that the publishers and the editors of that kind have only increased in number and that the Martin Grays and the Filip Miillers still have a good future before them. Two of the three persons who confessed at Ravensbrück were hanged, and Dr. Treite committed suicide. What is horrible is that without this he about the „gas chambers“ they would perhaps have saved their lives. In regard to Suhren, Germaine Tillion wrote, on page 16, that he began by displaying a „stubborn bad faith“ in the course of his two trials (one at Hamburg, by the British and one at Rastatt, by the French); she adds this terrible sentence: „But, without that gas chamber created by him, on his own initiative, two months before the collapse, he could perhaps have saved his life.“ In note 2 on page 17, she wrote in regard to Schwarhuber, who confessed immediately, these still more terrible lines, each word of which I ask you to ponder:

According to the English investigators, from the first moment he had coolly faced his position, he judged himself lost and either to have peace (and the small privileges to which the prisoners who do not deceive the examing magistrates have a right, or else due to lassitude, indifference or to quite another reason) he took his course and held to it, without regard for himself or for his accomplices. He was not a brute (like Binder or Pflaum.); he had an intelligent expression, the appearance and behavior of a psychologically normal man.

Let us leave Ravensbrück and the confession of Schwarzhuber for Auschwitz and the confession of Kremer, the other SS man who had „an intelligent expression“ as well as „the appearance and the behavior of a psychologically normal man.“ To begin with, let us look at some extracts from his private diary written during his short stay at Auschwitz, and then at the explanations that he gave to those extracts, after the war, to his Polish jailers, explanations that he held to later on in 1960 at his trial which took place at Münster (Westphalia) and at the trial of the Auschwitz guards, in 1964, at Frankfurt-on-Main. The name of Professor Doctor Kremer should not be confused with that of Josef Kramer. The latter had high positions successively at the camp of Struthof-Natzweiler (Alsace), then at Auschwitz-Birkenau, and finally at Bergen-Belsen. In his case also there were various confessions. All are interesting to study. On the alleged homicidal „gas chamber“ at Struthof, I would like to point out that the French did not wring out of him, as I until recently still believed, only a single confession but, as I have recently discovered, two totally absurd and wonderfully contradictory confessions. Of the one people sometimes speak, while the other was carefully kept hidden. I will some day speak about it, as well as about the two reports of the French Military Courts on that „gas chamber“ at Struthof: the one, really childish, which concludes on the existence of „gassings“; and another one, which has disappeared from the archives of the military courts, which reaches the opposite conclusion: this report, dated 1 December 1945, was done by the eminent toxicologist, Professor Rene Fabre.

1. EXTRACTS FROM THE DIARY OF DR. JOHANN PAUL KREMER (DOCTOR AT AUSCHWITZ DURING THE SUMMER OF 1942), SELECTED AND PRESENTED BY THE OFFICIAL HISTORIANS (LEON POLIAKOV, GEORGES WELLERS, SERGE KLARSFELD,…)

2 September 1942: This morning, at three o’clock, I was present for the first time at a Sonderaktion. Compared to that, Dante’s Inferno appears to be a comedy. It is not without reason that Auschwitz is called extermination camp. (the version of Georges Wellers, in Le Monde, 29 December 1978, p8; the author explains beforehand that a Sonderaktion is a „selection for the gas chambers.“)

At three o’clock in the morning, I was present for the first time at a „special action“ (thus did they refer to the selection and murder in the gas chambers). In comparison with the Inferno of Dante that seemed to me almost a comedy. It is not without reason that they call Auschwitz an extermination camp.

(the version of Serge Klarsfeld, in Le Mémorial de ]a Déportation des Juifs de France [Memorial to the Deportation of the Jews from France,] 1978, p. 245; the author has obviously reproduced page 48 of a book (not dated) published in Poland by the International Auschwitz Committee under the title KL Auschwitz; Arbeit Macht Frei (Concentration Camp Auschwitz / Work Makes You Free), 96 pages.)

This morning at three o’clock, I was present for the first time at a „special action.“ In comparison, Dante’s inferno appeared to me a comedy. It is not for nothing that Auschwitz is called an extermination camp.

(Léon Poliakov’s version, in Auschwitz, Collection Archives Gallimard/Julliard, 1973, p. 40).

For this first date of 2 September, I have cited three versions. For the following dates, I will content myself with citing a single version: the official version of the State Museum of O“wiecim (Auschwitz), such as it appeared in Auschwitz vu par les SS (Auschwitz Seen by the SS), French translation, 1974. I will confine myself intentionally only to what the official historians have the habit of citing in their works and only to what, in the eyes of the authorities of the State Museum of Auschwitz, would tend to prove that Dr. Kremer had participated in the „gassings“ of human beings.

5 September 1942: This noon was present at a special action in the women’s camp („Moslems“) — the most horrible of all horrors. Hscf. Thilo, military surgeon, is right when he said today to me we were located here in „anus mundi“ [anus of the world]. In the evening at about 8p.m. another special action with a draft from Holland. Men compete to take part in such actions as they get additional rations then-1/5 litre vodka, 5 cigarettes, 100 grammes of sausage and bread. Today and tomorrow (Sunday) on duty.

On the next day, Dr. Kremer said that he had had an excellent lunch. On numerous occasions, his diary contains in that way some remarks about food. Historians often cite these remarks to show the cynicism of the doctor; they say that the atrocities of the „gas chambers“ do not hurt his appetite. Dr. Kremer mentions a special action of Sunday, 6 September at 8 o’clock in the evening, then on the evening of 9 September, then on the morning of 10 September, then in the night of the 23rd and on that of the 30th. He writes then:

7 October 1942: Present at the 9th special action (new arrivals and women „Moslems“) [ … ]

12 October 1942: [ … ] was present at night at another special action with a draft from Holland (1600 persons).

Horrible scene in front of the last bunker! This was the loth special action.

18 October 1942: In wet and cold weather was on this Sunday morning present at the 11th special action (from Holland). Terrible scenes when 3 women begged to have their bare lives spared.

8 November 1942: This night took part in 2 special actions in rainy and murky weather (12th and 13th) [ … ] Another special action in the afternoon, the 14th so far, in which I had participated [ … ]

Dr. Kremer is wrong in his counting. He has forgotten that on 5 September there had been not one but two special actions, which made a total of 15 special actions for his stay at Auschwitz. This stay listed for 81 days, of which only 76 were on duty (because of a five day leave).

The notes in the Polish edition say that the dates of these special actions coincide with the dates of the arrival of the convoys of deportees.

2. EXTRACTS FROM THE SPONTANEOUS CONFESSIONS OF JOHANN PAUL KREMER IN THE POLISH COURT, IN 1947, SELECTED AND PRESENTED BY THE POLISH COURT

Here is what one can read in KL Auschwitz seen by the SS, p. 214, note 50:

In the official record of the interrogatory of 18 August 1947, Cracow, Kremer stated as follows: „On 2 September 1942, at 3 a.m. I was already assigned to take part in the action of gassing people. These mass murders took place in small cottages situated outside the Birkenau camp in a wood. These cottages were called ‘bunkers’ (Bunker) in the SS men’s slang. All SS surgeons, on duty in the camp, took turns to participate in the gassings, which were called ‘Sonderaktion’ (special action-Editor’s note). My part as surgeon at the gassing consisted in remaining in readiness near the bunker. I was brought there in a car. I sat in front with the driver and an SS hospital orderly (SDG) sat in the back of the car with an oxygen apparatus to revive SS men, employed in the gassing, in case any of them should succumb to the poisonous fumes. When the transport with people, who were destined for gassing, arrived at the railway ramp the SS officers selected from among the arrivals persons fit to work and the rest- old people, all children, women with children in arms and other persons not deemed fit to work-were loaded upon lorries and driven to the gas-chambers. I used to follow behind the transport till we reached the bunker [Faurisson note: the word is in the singular]. Here people. were first driven to barracks where the victims undressed and then went naked to the gas-chambers. Very often no incidents occurred, as the SS men kept people quiet, maintaining that they were to bathe and be deloused. After driving all of them into the gas-chamber the door was closed and an SS man in a gasmask threw the contents of a Cyklon tin through an opening in the side wall. Shouting and screaming of the victims could be heard through that opening and it was clear that they fought for their lives [Lebenskampf]. These shouts were heard for a very short time. I should say for some minutes but I am unable to give the exact span of time.“

On page 215 of KL Auschwitz seen by the SS, note 51 gives another extract from the same interrogation transcript. Here is how Dr. Kremer is supposed to have explained his entry on 5 September 1942 about the „Moslem“ women and the anus mundi:

Particularly unpleasant had been the action of gassing emaciated women from the women’s camp. Such individuals were generally called „Muselmänner“ („Moslems“). I remember taking part in the gassing of such women in daylight. I am unable to state how numerous that group had been. When I came to the bunker [Faurisson note: „bunker“ is in the singular] they sat clothed on the ground. As the clothes were in fact worn out camp clothes they were not let into the barracks but undressed in the open. I could deduce from the behavior of these women that they realized what was awaiting them. They begged the SS men to be allowed to live, they wept, but all of them were driven to the gas chamber and gassed. Being an anatomist I had seen many horrors, had to do with corpses, but what I then saw was not to be compared with anything seen ever before. It was under the influence of these impressions that I had noted in my diary, under the date of 5 September 1942: „The most horrible of all horrors. Hauptsturmführer Thilo — was right saying today to me that we were located here in ‘anus mundi’. I had used this expression because I could not imagine anything more sickening and more horrible.“

On the date of 12 October 1942, Dr. Kremer had mentioned a special action concerning 1600 persons who had come from the Netherlands: in the margin next to that mention he had written the name of Hössler, who at that time was one of the SS men responsible for the camp at Birkenau. Here is how Dr. Kremer is supposed to have explained that entry of 12 October (see page 224, note 77):

In connection with the gassing action, described by me in my diary under the date 12 October 1942. 1 have to explain that circa 1600 Dutchman were then gassed. This is an approximate number which I had put down after hearing it mentioned by others. This action was conducted by SS officer Hössler. I remember how he had tried to drive the whole group into one bunker. He was successful except for one man whom it was not by any means possible to squeeze inside the bunker. This man was killed by Hössler with a pistol shot. I therefore wrote in my diary about horrible scenes in front of the last bunker and I mentioned Hössler’s name in connection with this incident.

For his entry of 18 October 1942, Dr. Kremer is supposed to have furnished the following explanation (see 226, note 83):

During the special action, described by me in my diary under the date of 18 October 1942, three women from Holland refused to enter the gas-chamber and begged for their lives. They were young and healthy women, but their begging was of no avail. The SS men, taking part in the action, shot them on the spot.

3. IN 1960, AT HIS TRIAL IN MÜNSTER, DR. KREMER PERSISTED IN THESE CLAIMS

The University of Amsterdam in 1977 published its 17th volume of Justiz und NS-Verbrechen (justice and the Nazi Crimes). There we find the text of the decision rendered against Dr. Kremer on 29 November 1960. On pages 19 and 20, the court sought to describe the operation of „gassing“ as well as the part that the accused was supposed to have taken personally in that operation. The court speaks of a single „gas chamber.“ It is a question of a farm near the Birkenau camp made up of several separate parts. An SS medical orderly went up on the roof and dumped some Zyklon through some specially fitted shafts („durch Einwurfschächte“). He wore a gas mask. The doors of the „gas chamber“ were all air tight. From outside they heard the victims cry out. And the court continued:

When no more sign of life was shown, the defendant was taken back to his lodging by the Health Service car. The gas chambers were opened a short moment afterwards. (Faurisson note: I ask that you note well that the opening was made A SHORT MOMENT AFTER the death of the victims). The bodies were removed by some prisoners and were destroyed by cremation. During the events described above (Faurisson note: The court here alludes to his description of the arrival of the victims, their disrobing, etc.) the accused was seated in the Health Service car, which was stopped in the immediate vicinity of the gas chambers. Whether he had left his car and whether he had taken an active part in the murderous action could not be proved. The accused kept himself however in the car, in accordance with the mission that had been given to him, prepared for a case where something would happen to the SS man certified by the Health Service who was handling the Zyk1on B poison; he would bring him immediate help with the oxygen inhalator. He [the accused] had himself admitted that in all good faith. But that accident in reality never happened.

4. IN 1964, AT THE FRANKFURT TRIAL, DR. KREMER PERSISTS STILL IN HIS CLAIMS

On June 1964, Dr. Kremer, then 80 years old, appeared at the bar of the court in Frankfurt as a witness for the prosecution against the former Auschwitz guards. In order to know exactly what he said on that day, we are reduced to pages 72-73 of Hermann Langbein’s book Der AuschwitzProzess / Eine Dokumentation (The Auschwitz Trial / A Documentation), Vienna, Europäische Verlagsanstalt, 1965, 1027 pages). What is unfortunate is that Hermann Langbein is the Secretary of the International Concentration Camp Committee and that his works all show a biased and partisan spirit. The book by Bernd Naumann says almost nothing on the deposition of Dr. Kremer (Auschwitz, Frankfurt, Athenäum Verlag, 1965, 552 pages). Therefore, here is how, according to Hermann Langbein, the deposition of Dr. Kremer went on the question of the „gas chambers“; I am reproducing the text in its entirety:

Judge: Where did the gassings take place?

Kremer: Some old farms had been transformed into a bunker (Faurisson note: the German text indeed gives the singular: Alte Bauernhäuser waren als Bunker ausgebaut) and provided with a sliding door for secure closing. Upstairs was located a dormer window. The people were brought in undressed. They entered quietly; only some of them balked; they were taken aside and shot. The gas was released by an SS soldier. For that he went up on a ladder.

Judge: And there were some special rewards for those who participated in such an action?

Kremer: Yes, that was the custom; a little schnaps and some cigarettes. They all wanted them. They allotted the goods. I myself also received such goods — this was quite automatic.

Representative of Co-Plaintiff Ormond: You wrote in your diary that the SS soldiers strove with each other for service on the ramp [for the arrival of the convoys].

Kremer: That is humanly quite understandable. This was war was it not, and the cigarettes and schnaps were rare. When someone was eager for cigarettes … They collected the goods and then they took themselves to the canteen with their bottles.

The testimony of Dr. Kremer on the „gassings“ at Auschwitz is limited to these few questions and answers. Here, in conclusion, is the commentary of Langbein:

The man who described the process of gassing with these bland and indifferent words is the former university professor Dr. Johann Paul Kremer of Mfinster. He had already been condemned in Poland and in Germany for his participation in mass murders. At Frankfurt he left the. witness stand smiling softly.

5. EXTRACTS FROM THE DIARY: MY EXPLANATIONS AND MY COMMENTARIES

I note first that these extracts contain neither the word „gassing“ nor the expression „gas chamber.“

The diary of Dr. Kremer was a private diary. The doctor expressed himself freely there. He frankly expressed his horror of the camp. He does not mince words. He compares what he sees to a vision from Dante. One can therefore think that, if he had seen those virtual human slaughterhouses which the „gas chambers“ would have been, he would have mentioned that absolute horror. Wouldn’t Dr. Kremer, as a scientist, at least have noted some precise physical details about these slaughterhouses which, in the history of science, would have been an amazing invention?

But let us begin at the beginning. Did Dr. Kremer in fact write what they say that he wrote? The answer to that question is no, absolutely not. His text has been gravely distorted. This is even the work of a forger. As an example I am going to reproduce the text in the version given by Georges Wellers but I am going to insert in it, in capital letters in italic, what he has omitted and I am going to insert in place of Sonderaktion and of extermination, which are misinterpretations, the two words which fit; I will also put them in capital letters. Therefore, here is the text translated from the original German (see document NO-3408 in the National Archives):

2 September 1942: This morning, at 3 o’clock, I was present OUTSIDE for the first time at a SPECIAL ACTION. Compared to that, Dante’s Inferno appears TO ME ALMOST LIKE a comedy. It is not without reason that Auschwitz is called THE camp of THE ANNIHILATION!

Every text must be scrupulously respected, especially when the text is supposed to serve as the basis for a shocking demonstration and for a terrible accusation. The concealing of the word OUTSIDE is very serious. Why, after having given us the indication of the time, has the indication of the place been concealed? The German text says: DRAUSSEN. Dr. Kremer was not in a closed place as a gas chamber would have been. He was „outside,“ „on the outside.“ Without doubt that detail is not very clear, and perhaps it meant „out of the camp itself,“ but one must not conceal that possibility.

For Sonderaktion, Wellers has kept the German word; in appearance, this is evidence of scrupulousness and care; in reality, it is a clever trick. As a matter of fact, this word, at least for a French reader, has a sound that is disturbing, Germanic, barbaric, and can only conceal horrible things. But there is even more: just before citing that entry by Dr. Kremer, Wellers, in his article in Le Monde, wrote: „[Kremer] had participated in the selection for the gas chambers (Sonderaktion).“ In other words, Wellers imposes on his reader the following lie: in his diary, Dr. Kremer said in so many words: „this morning at 3 o’ clock I was present at a selection for the gas chambers.“

We see very well now that it was nothing of the kind. Dr. Kremer was contented to speak of a „special action.“ What is one to understand by that expression? To some people who, like me, doubt the existence of the homicidal „gas chambers“ it is absurd to answer, as does Wellers, by positing their existence at once as an accepted fact. Suppose that someone does not believe in the existence of flying saucers. To such a person one could not retort that those saucers exist since, in such and such a report by the police, it is written: „A witness declares that he saw something special in the sky“ — „Some witnesses noted in the sky some unusual phenomena.“ Therefore, for the time being, the only honest — if not very clear — translation of Sonderaktion could only be „special action.“ I will later come back to the probable meaning of this word about which, for the moment, we have no right to speculate.

Dr. Kremer did not write next: „Compared to that, Dante’s Inferno seemed to be a comedy“ but: „Compared to that, Dante’s Inferno seemed TO ME ALMOST LIKE a comedy.“ Here, the concealing of three words by Wellers is perhaps not very important, but it contributes in its modest way to doing violence to the meaning of the text, always with a view to producing the same effect. There is a shade of difference between „seemed like,“ in which one senses a softening, and „seemed to be,“ which is more affirmative. Dr. Kremer has not transformed an impression which was personal to him into an impression common to a whole human group. In some sense, he did not state: „Dante’s Inferno appeared here to everyone around me like a comedy“; if he had stated that, one could suppose that he was present at an unquestionably Dantesque scene. In reality, he contented himself with a confidence of a personal kind and in effect he wrote: „Dante’s Inferno here appeared TO ME, who had just arrived (that impression is personal to me, yet others can perhaps share it) ALMOST LIKE a comedy.“ In other words, the scene is certainly horrible for this doctor who has just arrived for the first time in his life in a concentration camp, but all the same not to the point of decreeing that Dante’s Inferno is obviously a comedy to everybody in comparison with this scene.

But there is something very much more serious that Georges Wellers has made the Kremer text undergo. Kremer did not say that Auschwitz was „called an extermination camp,“ which, in the original German, would have been: „genannt Vernichtungslager.“

In reality, we read in the original German:

„genannt DAS Lager DER Vernichtung“ („called THE camp of THE annihilation“).

If Wellers had respected the presence of the two articles and if he had given to „Vernichtung“ the meaning of „extermination“ which is indispensible to his exterminationist thesis, he would have gotten the following phrase: „It is not without reason that Auschwitz is called the camp of the extermination.“ Thus constructed, the phrase sounds bizarre both in German and in French. That has to be for us the sign that a word of the text undoubtedly has been badly translated. That word, as will be seen later on, is „Vernichtung.“ The context will reveal to us that that word is not to be translated as „extermination“ (a meaning that it can very well have in other contexts) but by „annihilation.“

There is here no extermination, murder, assassination, killing, nor massacre; there are not the results of an act, an action, or a will; there is nothing here about a „camp where they exterminate,“ there is here no „extermination camp“ (an expression invented by the victors, some years after 1942, to designate camps allegedly endowed with „gas chambers“). What there is here in reality is an annihilation; men and women are reduced to wasting away; they are annihilated, reduced to nothing by the epidemics and notably by that illness whose name „typhus“ (in Greek tupos) signifies precisely: torpor, stupor, a kind of lethargy, a rapid destruction of the faculties, sometimes up to the point of death. Auschwitz is not „an extermination camp“ (an anachronistic expression, and we know that anachronism is one of the most reliable signs of the presence of a falsehood) but the camp, yes, indeed, the camp par excellence of general annihilation. Without doubt, just as the moment of taking his post at Auschwitz, this newcomer, Dr. Kremer, had heard his colleagues say: „You know, this camp, they call it the camp of annihilation. Look out for typhus! You yourself also take the risk of contracting it and dying from it.“

And, at the end of his entry for 2 September 1942, Dr. Kremer puts an exclamation point. That point indicates the doctor’s emotion. If one conceals it, as does Wellers, the phrase takes on another tone: one would perhaps believe that the doctor is cruel and cynical. One would perhaps believe that Dr. Kremer coldly thought: „The Auschwitz camp is called an ‘extermination camp.’ So it is. It is indeed. Let us take things as they are.“ In reality, he is overwhelmed.

Due to lack of time, I cannot devote myself to the criticism of the texts given by Léon Poliakov, by Serge Klarsfeld, by the authorities of the State Museum of Oswiecim, by the official translation of document NO-3408, etc. I would only like to point out an especially serious fact. It concerns the German courts. The court at Münster which, in 1960 tried Dr. Kremer, quite simply skipped over the word Draussen when it reproduced the entry of 2 September 1942. It piled up other serious dishonesties. Here is an example of them: to overpower Dr. Kremer, the tribunal appealed to the „Calendar of Events at Auschwitz“ as it was drawn up by the Communist authorities in Poland. It is already strange that a court in the western world thus shows confidence in a document drawn up by Stalinists. But there is more. The courts have established that, for most of the convoys that arrived in the camp, the Polish in their „Calendar“ indicated with extraordinary precision the number of persons „gassed.“ Since we know that, according to the Exterminationist standard literature the people „gassed“ were not the object of any accounting, of any counting, an honest man could only be astonished to read in this „Calendar“ that, from the time when Dr. Kremer was at Auschwitz, they had, on such and such a day, „gassed“ 981 persons and, on another day, 1594 other persons. Also, the court at Münster cynically used a subterfuge. It reproduced in its text numerous citations of the „Calendar“ and while making it clear that it was a question of this „Calendar,“ but … each time that the „Calendar“ uses the word „vergast“ („gassed“), the court itself substituted for that clumsy word the word „umgebracht“ („killed“). Thus the reader of the judgment at Münster is deceived. Whoever might find it suspect that they can talk to him about „981 gassed“ or about „1594 gassed“, easily lets them talk to him about „981 dead“ or about „1594 dead.“

Finally, two remarks about the entries other than that of 2 September: (1) The expression anus mundi would not be appropriate, it seems to me, to scenes of „gassings“ but rather to a repugnant and nauseating scene of groups of people fallen prey to disgusting diseases, to dysentery, etc. (2) When Dr. Kremer says that he was present at a special action in rainy, cold weather or in grey and rainy autumn weather, it is probable that those actions took place outside in the open air, and not in a gas chamber.

6. THE TRUTH OF THE TEXTS: AUSCHWITZ AS PREY TO EPIDEMICS DURING THE SUMMER OF 1942.

It is sufficient to read the diary with a minimum of good faith in order to see the evidence. Here is the complementary information that this diary gives us. I will summarize it. Dr. Kremer came to Auschwitz to replace a sick doctor there. Typhus had ravaged not only the camp, but also the German-Polish city of Auschwitz. Not only the internees

struck, but also the German troops. There was typhus, malaria, dysentery, tropical heat, innumerable flies, and dust. The water was dangerous to drink. Diarrhea, vomiting, stomach aches made the atmosphere stink. The scene of people reduced to nothing by typhus was demoralizing. In that hell, Dr. Kremer himself contracted what he called „the sickness of Auschwitz.“ However, he underwent several vaccinations, at first against exanthematic typhus, then against abdominal typhus (a name which, in itself, would explain very well the term anus mundi). The principal bearer of typhus is the louse. On 1 September 1942, he wrote: „In the afternoon was present at the gassing of a block with Zyklon B against lice.“ Zyklon B is stabilized hydrocyanic acid. That product is still used today throughout the entire world. Many documents prove to us that that disinfection operation was delicate and could demand the presence of a doctor to bring help, should the occasion arise, to certified personnel charged with carrying out the gassing of a barrack and, 21 hours after the beginning of the airing out of such a barrack, testing for the disappearance of the hydrocyanic acid before permitting people to return to live in their barracks. On 10 October 1942, the situation was so serious that, for everyone, there was a quarantine of the camp. The wife of the Obersturmführer or Sturmbannführer Cäsar died of typhus. All of the city of Auschwitz was in bed, etc. It is sufficient to refer to the text of the diary. For more details of that epidemic of the year 1942, one can also consult the calendar of the Hefte von Auschwitz (year 1942). In the Anthology of the International Auschwitz Committee, Volume I, second part, page 196 (in the French edition), we read that the SS physician Dr. Popiersch, head doctor of the garrison and of the camp, had died of typhus on 24 April 1942 (four months before the arrival of Dr. Kremer). In Volume II, first part, published also in 1969, we read on page 129 and in note 14 on page 209 that the Polish physician Dr. Marian Ciepielowski of Warsaw also died of typhus while caring for the Soviet prisoners of war.

The work of Dr. Kremer at Auschwitz seems to have been principally to devote himself to laboratory research, to dissections, to anatomical studies. But it was also necessary for him to be present at some corporal punishments and some executions. He was not present at the very arrival of the convoys, but, once the division between those fit for work and those not fit for work had been made, he arrived, in a car with driver, from his hotel room in Auschwitz (room #26 at the Train Station Hotel). What took place then? Did he lead people into some „gas chambers“ or to disinfection? Let us see below what they claim that he said first in 1947 to the Polish communists; secondly, in 1960 to the court at Miinster; and thirdly, in 1964 to the court at Frankfurt.

7. THE TRUTH OF THE TEXTS: NO „GASSING.“

We recall that, in his diary, on the date of 12 October 1942, Dr. Kremer wrote:

[…] Was present at night at another special action with a draft from Holland (1600 persons). Horrible scene in front of the last bunker! This was the 10th special action.

In the same manner, on 18 October he wrote:

In wet and cold weather was on this Sunday morning present at the 11th special action (from Holland). Terrible scenes when 3 women begged to have their bare lives spared.

These two texts are easy to interpret. The „last bunker“ could only be the bunker of barracks #11; it was located at the end of the camp of Auschwitz (the original camp) and not at Birkenau or near Birkenau which is 3 km away. The executions took place in what they called the courtyard of block 11. It is there that is located the „black wall.“ It happened usually that persons condemned to death were transported into a concentration camp to be executed there. Such was probably the case with the three women who came from the Netherlands. I suppose that it would be easy to find their names and the motives for their condemnation either in the archives at Auschwitz or in those of the Historical Institute in Amsterdam. In either case, these three women were shot.

The Polish have been terribly embarrassed by this reference to the „last bunker.“ By a sleight of hand they have converted this bunker which is in the singular into … peasant farms allegedly transformed into „gas chambers“ and located near Birkenau. And there the absurdities pile up. What is the doctor supposed to have done? NOTHING. He remained seated in his car, at a distance. And what did he see of a „gassing“ of human beings? NOTHING. What can he tell us about what took place after the alleged „gassing“? NOTHING, since he left by car with his driver (and the medical orderly?). He is not able to talk either about the installation, nor about the processing of putting to death, nor about the personnel employed in this putting to death, nor of the precautions taken to enter into an incredibly dangerous place. It is not Dr. Kremer who will tell us how some men would be able to enter into this terrible place „A SHORT MOMENT“ after the alleged victims finished crying out. It is not he who will be able to let us know by what secret means they were able to pull out some thousands of bodies saturated with cyanide lying amidst vapors of hydrocynanic acid, and all that done with bare hands (although that acid poisons by contact with the skin), without gas masks (although this gas is overwhelming), while eating and smoking (although this gas is inflammable and explosive). It is Rudolf Höss, in his spontaneous confessions to the same Polish court, who recounted all of those astonishing things. Let’s be decent about this. Let us suppose that the members of the Sonderkommando (Special Detachment) nevertheless did possess some gas masks, provided with the particularly strong filter, the J filter, against hydrocyanic acid. I am afraid that we are no further ahead. I have in fact here, in front of me, a text from a technical manual of the American army, translated from the text of an American manual dating from 1943 (The Gas Mask, technical manual No. 3-205, War Department, Washington, 9 October 1941, a manual prepared under the direction of the Chief of the Chemical Warfare Service, U.S. Printing Office, 1941, 144 pages.) Here is what is written on page 55 (I write the most important words in CAPITALS):

It should also be remembered that a man may be overcome by the absorption of hydrocyanic gas through the skin; a concentration of 2 percent hydrocyanic acid gas being sufficient to thus overcome a man in about 10 minutes. Therefore, EVEN IF ONE WEARS A GAS MASK, exposure to concentrations of hydrocyanic gas of 1 percent by volume or greater should be made only in case of necessity and then FOR A PERIOD NO LONGER THAN 1 MINUTE AT A TIME. In general, places containing this gas should be well ventilated with fresh air before the wearer of the mask enters, thus reducing the concentration of hydrocyanic gas to low fractional percentages.

The spontaneous confessions of Dr. Kremer with those closures „provided with a sliding door for secure closing“ make us laugh. The total airtightness demanded by a homicidal gas chamber using hydrocyanic acid would be impossible to achieve with a sliding door. But how could Dr. Kremer, who had never left his car, describe that door as if he had seen it? And the SS man who released the gas — how did he do it? Did he release „the contents of a box of Zyklon through an opening in the wall“ (version of the confession of 1947)? Or „by some shafts (Einwurfschächte)“ (version of 1960)? Or indeed through a „dormer window“ that he reached „above“ while going up „by a ladder“ (version of 1964)? Everything in these confessions is empty and vague. One can simply deduce from them with certainty two things which are quite probable:

  1. Dr. Kremer convoyed some people who were led into some barracks in order to undress (and without doubt they next went to disinfection or to the showers);
  2. Dr. Kremer was present at some gassings of buildings or of barracks for their disinfection by Zyklon B.

It was while helping himself by the combining of these two real experiences that he constructed for his accusers or his accusers constructed for him the poor and absurd account of the „gas chambers.“ A very characteristic point of the false testimonies regarding the homicidal „gassings“ is the following: the accused says that he was at a certain distance from the place of the crime; the most that one can find is a defendant who said that he had been forced to release the Zyklon through a hole in the roof of the „gas chamber“ or even one who „had helped push“ the victims into the „gas chamber.“ That ought to remind us of the unfortunates who in the Middle Ages were accused of having met the devil on such and such a day, at such and such an hour, in such and such a place. They would have been able to deny it fiercely. They would have been able to go so far as to say: „You know very well that I could not have met with the devil for one excellent reason, which is that the devil does not exist.“ The unfortunates would have condemned themselves by such responses. They had only one way out: to play the game of their accusers, to admit that the devil was there without doubt, but … at the top of the hill, while they themselves, located below, heard the horrible noise (sobs, groans, cries, racket) made by the victims of the devil. It is shameful that in the middle of the 20th century there are found so many judges and also so many lawyers who will admit as evidence the bewildering confessions of so many accused persons without having ever had the least curiosity to ask them what they had really seen, seen with their own eyes, without posing to them some technical questions, without going on to some comparisons between the most obviously contradictory explanations. Unfortunately I must say in their defense that even some intelligent technicians and even some wellinformed chemists imagine that almost any small place can easily be transformed into a homicidal „gas chamber.“ None of those people has had the chance to visit an American gas chamber. They would understand the enormity of their error. The first Americans who thought about executing a condemned man by gas also imagined that it would be easy. It was when they tried to actually do it that they understood that they risked gassing not only the condemned man but also the governor and the employees of the penitentiary. They needed many years to perfect a nearly reliable gas chamber.

As to the „special actions“ of Dr. Kremer, they are easy to understand. It is simply a question of what, in the vocabulary of the French Army, is called by the pompous name of „missions extraordinaires.“ I believe that the American equivalent is „special assignment.“ A „special assignment“ does not imply necessarily that there is a moving of the person. It is a question of a sudden assignment which comes to break the habitual unfolding of his duties. Dr. Kremer, for example, worked especially in the laboratory but, from time to time, he was required for extra work: reception of a convoy to be led to disinfection, sorting out the contagious or the sick in the hospital, etc. It is thus that as a good military man and as an orderly man he noted in his diary each of those tasks which were, probably, each time worth a supplementary allowance to him, as to the SS volunteers who cleaned the railroad cars at the arrival of each convoy. In any case, if Auschwitz appeared to him like a hell, it was not at all because of frightful crimes like the executions of crowds of human beings in the enclosures allegedly turned into „gas chambers,“ but because of the typhus, malaria, dysentery, the infernal heat, the flies, the lice, the dust. One can determine that by a slightly attentive reading of the very text of his diary. That is what I, for my part, did first. And then, one day, I fell by chance upon the proof, the material proof, that such was indeed the correct interpretation.

8. TEXTUAL CONFIRMATION OF THE CORRECTNESS OF THE REVISIONIST INTREPRETATION OF THE DIARY OF DR. KREMER

On page 42 of Justiz und NS-Verbrechen we learn that in the trial at Münster, in 1960, Dr. Kremer had had someone appear as a witness for his defense. That witness was a woman whose name began with G1a. (German law authorizes that, in a public document, certain names may be revealed only in abridged form.) That name was very probably that of Miss Glaser, the daughter of Dr. Kremer’s housekeeper; one about whom he speaks on several occasions in his diary. The witness brought to the court some post cards and some letters that the doctor had sent to her at the time of his stay in Auschwitz. The witness said that the doctor „had not been in agreement with what took place at Auschwitz“ and that he had hurried to leave the camp. Miss Gla[ser] then put into evidence a letter of 21 October 1942 that Dr. Kremer had sent to her. The content of it is of extreme importance, which apparently eluded the tribunal. It proves that, when Dr. Kremer spoke of the Auschwitz camp as a hell, it was indeed as I have said, because of the typhus and the other epidemics. Here are the very words used by the doctor in his letter:

I don’t really know for certain, but I expect, however, that I’ll be able to be in Münster before 1 December, and thus finally turn my back on this hell of Auschwitz where, in addition to the typhoid, and so on, typhus has once again broken out strongly…

Here is therefore that „Dante’s Inferno“ from the entry of 2 September 1942! Professor of Medicine Johann Paul Kremer had seen the horrors of a formidable epidemic at Auschwitz wiping out internees and guards; he had not seen monstrous „gassing“ operations, exterminating crowds of human beings.

9. THE HUMAN CHARACTER OF DR. KREMER

In considering his fife and reading his diary, we perceive that Dr. Kremer was absolutely not a brute, or a fanatic or a cynical human being. He was human, too human; he was a free spirit but perhaps without great courage. He had quickly become a sort of „old boy“ attached above all to his profession. In the first pages of Volume XVII of Justiz und NS-Verbrechen his biography is sketched out. Johann Paul Kremer was born in 1883 near Cologne of a father who, after having been a miller, became a peasant. He did his advanced studies at the Universities of Heidelberg, Strasbourg and Berlin. He obtained a doctorate in philosophy and a doctorate in medicine. He worked in succession at the Charit6 Hospital in Berlin, at the hospital of Berlin-Neuköln, at the surgical clinic of the University of Bonn, at the anatomical institute of the same university; finally, he became a deputy lecturer at the University of Münster; he gave courses there up until 1945 (when he was 62 years old). Those courses dealt with the doctrine of heredity, sports medicine, X-rays, and especially anatomy. In 1932, at the age of 48, he joined the National-Socialist Party. In 1936, at the age of 52, he was made SS-Sturmmann (soldier of the first class). In 1941, at the age of 57, he was promoted to Untersturmführer (second lieutenant) in the Waffen-SS. He served his active duty. He was in the service only at the time of university vacations. In 1942 he spent two months at Dachau as a doctor attached to the SS hospital; he had not contact with the camp of the internees. In 1941, at the age of 57, he published a paper on heredity which seems to have brought him some worries in regard to the official authorities. In August of 1942, he was serving at the SS hospital in Prague when, suddenly, he received an assignment for Auschwitz to replace a doctor who had fallen ill there. He stayed at Auschwitz from 30 August to 18 November 1942, and then he resumed his activity at the anatomical institute of the city of Münster. He was 58 years old. He served as the president of the Discipline Commission of North Westphalia of the Union of National Socialist Doctors. In 1943, he was named Lieutenant in the reserves of the Waffen-SS. Here is how he was judged:

Calm personality, correct; sure of himself, energetic; above the average in general culture; excellent understanding of his specialty. Lengthy education as surgeon and anatomist; since 1936, deputy lecturer at the Univeristy of Münster.

On 12 August 1945, he was arrested at his home in Münster by the British occupying forces (the „automatic arrest“ of former SS men). They seized his diary at his home. He was interned at Neuengamme, then turned over to the Poles. He was imprisoned at Stettin, then in succession in fourteen Polish prisons, then finally in the prison at Cracow. The preliminary investigation of the case was carried out by the famous judge Jan Sehn, the same one to whom we owe the interrogations of Rudolf Höss and the confession, „spontaneous“ no doubt, of Rudolf Höss. In 1947, at the age of nearly 64 years, he was freed for good conduct, because of his advanced age and since he was ill. He returned to his home, at Münster. He was arrested on the order of the German court, then freed on bail. At the time he was receiving a pension of DM 70 per week. He had married in 1920, at the age of 37, but he was separated from his wife at the end of two months since she suffered from schizophrenia. He had not been able to obtain a divorce until twenty years later, in 1942. Dr. Kremer did not have any children. A housekeeper took care of him. Unless I am mistaken, he was never at the front nor did he ever fire a shot, except, without doubt, in training. He kept his diary beginning at the age of 151/2. 1 have not read the part of his diary prior to the Second World War. On 29 November 1960 Dr. Kremer, age 76, was condemned to ten years in prison but those ten years were considered as purged. In consideration of his advanced age, his civil rights were only cancelled for five years. He was condemned to pay the court costs, he was deprived of his responsibility as course attach6, deprived of his title of professor and deprived, I believe, of his two doctorates. On 4 June 1964 he came to the witness stand in the „Frankfurt Trial“ to testify against the „Auschwitz guards.“ I doubt that this old man of 80 years thus came spontaneously to make charges against his compatriots in the hysterical atmosphere of this famous witch trial. His „spontaneous confessions“ to the Polish communists were thus, to the end of his existence, to cling to his skin like the tunic of Nessus. It was thus that beginning in 1945 the existence of this professor had become a drama. Here therefore is a man who had devoted his life to relieving the sufferings of his fellow men: the drama of a war lost and then he was made officially a sort of monster who had, it seemed, suddenly devoted two and one-half months of his life to gigantic massacres of human beings according to a truly Satanical industrial method.

The diary of Dr. Kremer is dull in style (at least that part that I have read) but when one considers what was the destiny of that diary and of its author, one cannot prevent oneself from thinking of it as a work which, very much more than some highly valued historical or literary testimonies, is profoundly upsetting. I think often of that old man. I think sometimes also of his tormentors. I do not know what became of Dr. Kremer. If he were still alive today, he would be 97 years old. I hope that one day a student will write a biography of this man and that to do so he will visit the city of Münster (Westphalia) where there certainly still five some people who knew-permit me to return to him his titles -Professor Doctor Johann Paul Kremer.

Dr. Kremer certainly did not have National Socialist convictions. On 13 January 1943 he wrote in his diary: „There is no Aryan, Negroid, Mongoloid or Jewish science, only a true or a false one.“ On the same date, he furthermore wrote this:

[ … ] I had never even dreamed there existed anything like „a gagged science.“ By such manoeuvres, science has received a mortal blow and has been banished from the -country! The situation in Germany today is not any better than in the times when Galileo had been forced to recant and when science had been threatened by tortures and the stake. Where, for Heaven’s sake, is that situation going to lead us to in the twentieth century!!! I could almost feel ashamed to be a German. And so shall I have to end my days as the victim of science and the fanatic of truth.

In reality, he was to end his days as the victim of the political lie and as a poor man obliged to lie.

At the date of 1 March 1943, we read in his diary:

Went today to shoemaker Grevsmühl to be registered and saw there a leaflet sent him from Kattowitz by the Socialist Party of Germany. The leaflet informed that we had already liquidated 2 million Jews, by shooting or gassing.

The Exterminationist historians do not use the argument that this passage of the diary seems to furnish them. On reflection, that is understandable. Every one knows well that a thousand rumors of German atrocities circulated during the war. The socialist opposition made use of them, as did all of the opponents of Hitler. In this type of tract one says anything and everything. That is the rule for that type of work. Dr. Kremer made no commentary on that pamphlet. Perhaps he believed in what the author of the tract stated. It is even probable since he took the trouble to note it. That is precisely what is interesting about this incident. Dr. Kremer must certainly not have been a very good Nazi, or otherwise his shoemaker would not have run the risk of making him read a secret pamphlet, and especially a pamphlet „which had been addressed to him.“ This last detail indeed proves that Dr. Kremer did not fear to confide to his diary very delicate information.

On 26 July 1945, or about two and one half months after the German surrender, Dr. Kremer witnessed the distress of his fellow countrymen. That distress wrung from him nearly the same words as did the horrors of Auschwitz. I present in italic type those words in the quotation that follows:

The weather is still very hot and dry. The corn ripens before its time, gnats are pestering us more and more, the foreigners* are still greatly worrying the starving, needy and homeless inhabitants. People are crowded into goods trains like cattle pushed hither and thither, while at night they try to find shelter in the stench of dirty and verminous bunkers. Quite indescribable is the fate of these poor refugees, driven into uncertainty by death, hunger and despair.

*(The Polish authorities here have altered the original German text, which spoke not of „foreigners“ but of „Russians, Poles and Italians.“)

The fact that immediately after this passage Dr. Kremer spoke about the gathering of berries does not mean that he was insensitive to the suffering of his fellow countrymen. Anyone who keeps a diary passes in this way, without transition, from the serious to the trifling. After the death of a person dear to him, Goethe noted something to the effect: „Death of Christiane!! I slept well. I feel better.“ And this „better“ referred to health — his own health — which up until then had given him some concern. As to Kafka, I believe that I recall that on that day he had gone to the swimming pool. I am not sure of these quotations and I propose to verify them one day.

10. FORCED CONFESSIONS

We all know that forced confessions are common coinage, especially in time of war. The GIs in Korea, as in Vietnam, did not fail to confess „spontaneously“ to the worst absurdities. People often believe that „spontaneous confessions“ are a speciality of the Communist world. That ignores the fact that the French, British and Americans made great use of torture towards, for example, the conquered of the last war. As regards what the French did, I have carried out an investigation of an almost surgical precision on the summary executions in a whole small region of France at the time of the Liberation in 1944. It is absolutely impossible to have my manuscript published, given the scandal that it would cause and that would have repercussions, I can tell you, right up to the Presidency of the Republic, which is opposed (imagine it!) to the exhumation of people who were executed by units of the Maquis. Those people were sometimes tortured. But experience has also taught me that it is necessary to distrust some tales of physical torture. There are some perverted persons who take a real pleasure in inventing all sorts of stories of that kind. In The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, on pages 188-192, Dr. Butz presents a profound and suggestive analysis of forced confessions and torture. His brilliant intelligence, not to say his genius, dictates to him sometimes, as you well know, observations of such great pertinence that one is astonished and is ashamed not to have made them oneself. Here is an example of that, dealing with physical torture; it is not lacking in humor:

Finally we should observe that almost none of us, certainly not this author, has ever experienced torture at the hands of professionals bent on a specific goal, and thus we might suspect, to put it quite directly, that we simply do not know what we are talking about when we discuss the possibilities of torture. (page 192)

It is, I think, easy to obtain forced confessions from a man whom one holds at his mercy. Physical torture is not absolutely necessary. I mean to say that it is not absolutely necessary to strike the victim. It is sufficient sometimes to shout and to threaten. A seclusion and a prolonged isolation, as was the case with Aldo Moro, can create a feeling of panic and lead to a sort of madness. One will be prepared to sign any kind of declaration in order to get out of there. If an officer refuses a confession, he can be threatened with losing his men, and vice versa. They will threaten him with losing his wife and his children. I am sure that all physical or mental resistance can be wiped out by very simple means. For example, they will offer a prisoner conditions of lodging worthy of a decent hotel and will give him as much as he wishes to eat, but … they will give him nothing to drink. Or indeed he will have enough to eat and to drink, but they will light his cell day and night with such power (see the example of Nuremberg) that he will no longer be able to sleep. Very quickly he will become a human rag prepared to mutter any kind of confession.

One fearful effect of torture is to bring the victim closer to his torturer. The panting victim detaches himself in thought from those whom he ought to love in order to attach himself to the one whom he ought to fear and hate. He no longer wishes to have anything in common with those whose ideas he shares: he comes to hate those ideas and those people because those ideas, finally, have cost him too much suffering and those people-his friends-appear to him as a living reproach. To the contrary, there is everything to expect from the torturer. He is in possession of power, which always, in spite of everything, enjoys a certain prestige. The gods are on his side. It is he who possesses the solution to all your sufferings. The torturer is going to propose to you this solution when, if he wished, he could kill you on the spot or torture you without respite. That torturer, who proposes that you sign a simple sheet of paper on which some words are written, he is good. How can you resist him when you feel yourself to be so weak and so alone? That torturer becomes irresistible when, in place of demanding from you a confession that is precise and totally contrary to the truth, he proposes to you a sort of compromise: a vague confession based on a partial truth. In 19631965, at the Frankfurt trial, the judge of the tribunal had as his first concern not the truth, since he thought that the truth had already been completely found, but the measuring of THE DEGREE OF REPENTANCE of each of the accused! On page 512 of the book by Hermann Langbein, cited above, we see the judge show his preoccupation with discerning to what degree the accused Pery Broad had a feeling of Evil: he declared in all candor: „You see, an awarness of wrong doing plays a large part in this proceeding.“ How many times must the German defendants have heard that remark from the mouths of their jailers, their investigating magistrates, and especially from their lawyers! After that, how would an intelligent and sensible. man like Pery Broad refuse to tell the stupid story about an anonymous SS man whom he is supposed to have noticed one day, from a distance, in the process of releasing a mysterious liquid through the opening of the ceiling of … the „gas chamber“ of Auschwitz (the original camp)? Pery Broad probably knew that no one would come to ask him, among other questions:

But how could you know that that was the ceiling of a „gas chamber“ and not of a morgue? Did you enter into the place? If you did, can you tell us how it was arranged? Is it not mad on the part of the Germans to have placed a „gas chamber“ just under the windows of that SS hospital and under the windows of the administrative building where you found yourself on that day? The evacuation of vapor from the hydrocyanic gas would therefore have been directed toward the SS men of the hospital or the SS men of the administration? Isn’t that so?

Such are the questions that the tribunal did not ask Pery Broad.

It would be inhuman to reproach Pery Broad, Dr. Kremer, Rudolf Höss, and some SS men again for their absurd forced confessions. One must be astonished at the laughable number of those confessions when one thinks of the hundreds of SS men from the concentration camps who were imprisoned by the Allies. Among all those who were hanged or shot or who committed suicide, how many left confessions? A handful regarding the subject of the alleged „gas chambers.“ In regard to other subjects, perhaps there are more numerous confessions. I am led to believe that the Polish and the Soviets must have obtained a crowd of confessions; the SS men had to charge each other as all the men of the same lost-cause were more or less obliged to do. If there were very few confessions from the SS men concerning the „gas chambers,“ it was not thanks to the courage of the SS men-since, once again, it seems to me that no one can truly resist a torturer who is something of a psychologist -but quite simply because, on this subject, their torturers did not know very well what to make them state precisely. Not having any material reality on which to construct their lies about the „gas chambers“ -those slaughterhouses which in fact never existed-the torturers were reduced to inventing some poor things and some stereotypes that they attributed to people like Rudolf Höss, Pery Broad and Johann Paul Kremer.

11. A PRACTICAL CONCLUSION

In conclusion, if, in your presence, an Exterminationist should base his thesis about the reality of the „gas chambers“ of Auschwitz or of any other camp on the argument of some confessions, here, in my opinion, is the conduct to follow:

  1. Ask if he will first enumerate those confessions one by one;
  1. Ask him to point out the confession which, in his opinion, is the most convincing;
  2. Agree to read that one confession in the language (accessible for you) and in the form that, again, your questioner will freely choose;
  3. Compare the supposedly original text of that confession with the text that your questioner will have furnished to you;
  4. Decipher that text line by line and word by word, without making it say either more or less than it does say; note carefully what the author of the confession alleges that he personally saw, heard or did; a traditional trick of the German courts has consisted, as was the case for the judgment of Johann Paul Kremer at Münster in 1960, in slipping a weak confession that the accused made into a very long presentation about „gassing“ in such a way that the reader believes that the whole report comes from the accused; the reader imagines that the accused made a detailed report of the events; it is nothing of the kind; it is necessary to „scour“ from the text all of the contributions of the judge in order to make the judgment that the testimony is nearly as inconsistent as it is brief and vague.
  5. See if the confession stands up, if it is coherent, if it does not break any law of physics or of elementary chemistry; be very materialistic, as if you had to study a miracle from Lourdes; try to see the places where the action is said to have taken place; see what remains of it; some ruins can be very instructive; seek out the plans of the places or of the buildings;
  6. See, possibly, if the text of the confession is in the handwriting of the man who confessed; see if this text is in his mother tongue or in another language; the Allies usually made the Germans sign texts drawn up in French (Josef Kramer) or in English (Rudolf Höss) and they added in all peace of conscience that they guaranteed that this text had been translated to the accused in his own language, very faithfully (and that besides in the absence of any lawyer);
  7. Seek to know who obtained that confession, when and how; ask yourself the question: upon whom did the man who confessed depend for drinking, for eating and for sleeping?

I do not think that I need to add other recommendations (for example, as to the material or documentary authenticity of the text to be studied). You understood that I am setting out a method of investigation that is elementary and not at all original. It is a routine method that one would apply automatically if it were a question of ordinary criminal matters which are exceptional by their supposed nature, very far from redoubling prudence and making appeal to a proven method, they display an incredible lightness. The good method always consists when it is a question of an inquest, of an analysis or of whatever work, of „beginning with the beginning.“ In fact, experience has taught me that often nothing is more difficult and less spontaneous than „to begin with the beginning.“ It is only after some years of research on the „gas chambers“ and after having pronounced those words „gas chambers“ perhaps several thousands of times that one fine day I woke up with the following question: „But in fact, what indeed can those words signify? To what material reality can they indeed relate?“ To ask those questions was to very quickly find in them an answer. That answer you know: it is that the homicidal „gas chambers“ of the Germans were only born in sick minds. It is time that the entire world wakes up and realizes this. Germany, in particular, ought to wake up from this frightful nightmare. It is time that a truthful history of the Second World War be written.

NOTES

I reproduce here the text of the entry of 2 September 1942 (Diary of Johann Paul Kremer) after the photocopy of the original as it is found in the National Archives in Washington (Doc. #NO-3408). Some Exterminationist works reproduce the photograph of this entry among other entries from the diary. But the reader has little chance to go about deciphering each word of the German handwriting of Dr. Kremer. He will be inclined to have confidence in the printed reproduction that they will propose to him, for example, in the margin; that is the case with KL Auschwitz, Arbeit Macht Frei, edited by the International Auschwitz Committee, 96 pages (not dated). On page 48 there appears a photograph of a manuscript page of the diary on which are found three entries relating to five dates (1 through 5 September 1942). In the margin, you discover the alleged printed reproduction of the single entry of 2 September. That reproduction appears in French, English and German. In French and English the text is outrageously distorted. In German, it was very difficult to distort the text in a similar way since the photocopy of the manuscript is available to the reader. But we must have unlimited confidence that the Exterminationists will falsify texts that embarrass them. The International Auschwitz Committee has found a solution thanks to a typographical trick. After the word Sonderaktion the authors of the book have printed in the same typeface the following parenthesis, as if it were from Dr. Kremer: „So wurde die Selektion und das Vergasen genannt“ („Thus did they refer to selection and gassing“). Either the reader, as is highly probable, will not notice the difference between the manuscript text and the printed text and then will believe it to be a confidence imparted by Dr. Kremer, which will appear to him to be all the more normal since, according to an Exterminationist myth, the Nazis spent their time inventing a coded language in order to cover up their crimes; or else the reader will see the difference between the texts and then the authors will plead a simple and innocent typographical error. Serge Klarsfeld, as I said above, has used this fallacious page in his Memorial of the Deportation of the Jews from France. It is thus that historical tricks are spread and perpetuated. Here is the original manuscript text in its authentic form:

Zum 1. Male draussen um 3 Uhr früh bei einer Sonderaktion zugegen. Im Vergleich hierzu erscheint mir das Dante’ sche Inferno fast wie eine Komödie. Umsonst wird Auschwitz nicht das Lager der Vernichtung genannt!

Finally, here is the text of the passage from the letter of 21 October 1942 addressed to Miss Gla[serl:

[ … ]Definitiven Bescheid habe ich allerdings noch nicht erwarte jedoch, dass ich vor dem 1. Dezember wieder in Münster sein kann and so endgultig dieser Hölle Auschwitz den Rükken gekehrt habe, wo ausser Fleck usw. sich nunmehr auch der Typhus mächtig bemerkbar macht…

I reproduce the text with its errors in punctuation and spelling.

Andrew Anglin in London

Andrew Anglin speaks on traditionalism,race and society.

The End of the Jewish Century

The historian, Yuri Slezkine, of Russian-Jewish origin called the twentieth century the Jewish century. That’s right! It started with the „Protocols of the Elders of Zion”. It is completely immaterial that they were and still are described by Jews as a forgery. To prove that this is the case they would have to present an unaltered original or other author. To this day this has not been done. From out present vantage point, at the beginning of the twenty-first century, instead we can in retrospect verify the step by step achievement of the procedures shown in the protocols. It is about the enforcement of the NWO (New World Order), by the chosen people. It is also about the destruction of Germany.

As early as 1889 plans were being made for the downfall of the three European empires at the Congress, Paris which was also celebrating the centenary of the French Revolution. Records and reports of this Masonic congress reminiscing about the French Revolution are found in writing, and particularly explicit in the 1890 published Christmas edition of the British magazine „The Truth” entitled „The Kaiser’s dream”.

World War I began in 1914 with the murder of the heir to the throne of the aged Austrian Emperor. It ended with the murder of the Russian Tsar and his family, and the fall of the Austrian and Prussian-German Emperor. At the same time the Bolshevik revolution took place in Russia, which in Petersburg alone 1917/18 resulted in a loss of more than 1.3 million inhabitants – by shooting, starvation and whilst fleeing. A Bolshevik orgy of slaying swept through Russia in those days.

In the West, the Entente Powers, in particular President Wilson with his fourteen points, lured the Germans into the so-called peace trap, that is to lay down their arms. It was followed by the Versailles Diktat and the plundering of Germany accompanied by the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians through hunger and unemployment in the ensuing years of peace. However, the spiritual power and the will of the German people to survive were not finally defeated. In 1933 the Third Reich of the National Socialists arose, who identified the real enemy of the world, which in that same year led to a new declaration of war.

From then on the Germans – and not only the government – were spoken of as World Enemy Number One. The mutual destruction of the nation was therefore considered appropriate. This time it was the unsustainable conditions in Poland caused by Versailles which were the reason.

World War II in particular claimed millions of human lives; a war in which almost the whole world fought for 5. years against Germany and its few allies. Till today no peace treaty has been signed.

Most German cities were largely razed to the ground, more than a quarter of German territory was handed over to foreign powers, and the Germans who had lived there for centuries expelled. During this expulsion of about fifteen million Germans – equivalent to the entire population of Scandinavia – some 2.5 to 3 million civilians, mostly women and children and old people, were bestially murdered. Were they ever compensated by the countries that evicted them, or the murderers and bomber pilots held accountable?

Worse than this was the adopted re-education of the German people and being overrun by foreigners in their own country.

Despite all these measures after a relatively short time the Federal Republic of Germany – a product of the victorious powers – became a leading economic power in central Europe. The citizens built their ruined cathedrals and cities again. They integrated the millions of displaced persons and through unprecedented hard work the general prosperity grew once again to the dismay of the globalists.

In Russia at the twentieth Party Congress in 1956 Nikita Khrushchev introduced de-Stalinization. To this day in Russia the current Kremlin leader Vladimir Putin has been trying to clean up the aftermath of the Bolshevik Revolution that, in addition, poisoned men’s souls. His main opponents are the oligarchs of the present day. By comparison, in the Federal Republic of Germany the people with the greatest influence on the masses are the media moguls. They have degraded people to consumers and voting cattle for the elites. In the USSR and particularly after its collapse in the Ukraine, in their pathological greed the oligarchs plundered the rich provinces.

Since the late seventies the Holocaust has taken centre stage in providing moral justification for this ideology of Jewish world supremacy. Its symbol is the millions of Jews gassed in the extermination camp Auschwitz.

However, the symbol has already collapsed on itself as a result of a large number of would-be survivors of this place of horror that have been unmasked as phoney, as well as a number of scientific investigations. There are also the newly published “Commander’s and Headquarter’s Orders in the Concentration Camp Auschwitz 1940-1945” that an official body, the Institute for Contemporary History, has published in Munich. From all this it can be seen that Auschwitz was a labour camp for the production of armaments and not an extermination camp. However, from that it should not be concluded that appalling incidents had not taken place in concentration camps – and that the whole world over – nor that in Auschwitz there were not thousands of dead resulting from a variety of reasons as were happening at the time all over Germany.

But the question arises: „Where were the six million Jews gassed or murdered as is still claimed in the courts and in the media?” These victims are still commemorated on the 27th. January. The German people and the world at large has a right to know where this allegedly greatest crime of the Germans occurred. Neither the legal Paragraph 130 nor the expression „Offenkundig” (obvious) suffice to explain this. What we need is a public pro and contra discussion especially by experts and scientists if we want to claim to uphold the rule of law and to stand for truth and justice.

A peaceful future in which people live happier than in the Jewish Century, in which all our ecological problems can finally be collectively tackled, responsibly and sustainably, cannot be achieved on the basis of lies, nor under the continued rule of capitalism.

The US, in conjunction with Israel and NATO, are now actually provoking a Third World War. They cannot do this alone, however the globalists have many willing and well rewarded henchmen in their service. But they are and will remain a small minority. Perhaps with this war-mongering they want to divert attention from their big lies?

– We will not participate!

– We want truthful clarification!

– Since we live in the Christian West we stand for justice, and forgiveness and tolerance are not alien to us.

– We reject the principal of an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth unto the third and fourth generation.

Only then can we achieve an end to this appalling Jewish century. Will we become aware of our power, the power of the powerless in their great majority and resist by confronting the wiles of the devil and his temptations?

11.07.2014                                             Ursula Haverbeck

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

The Year 1932

02.Feb-1932-01

02.Feb-1932-02

03.March-1932

  07.July-1932

12.Dec-1932-01

12.Dec-1932-02

Accounting for the Rothschild Wealth and Influence

Source: http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_rothschild03.htm

Morton (1962) noted that the Rothschild wealth was estimated at over $6 billion US in 1850. Not a significant amount in today’s dollars; however, consider the potential future value compounded over 147 years!

Taking $6 billion (and assuming no erosion of the wealth base) and compounding that figure at various returns on investment (a conservative range of 4% to 8%) would suggest the following net worth of the Rothschild family enterprise:

$1.9 trillion US (@ 4%)

$7.8 trillion US (@ 5%)

$31.5 trillion US (@ 6%)

$125,189.1 trillion US (@ 7%)

$491,409.0 trillion US (@ 8%)

To give these figures some perspectives consider these benchmarks:

  • A little of $300 billion US buys every ounce of gold in every central bank in the world).
  • U.S. M3 money supply August 1997 was $5.2 trillion
  • U.S. debt is currently $5.4 trillion. (in 2014 it is $17,583 trillion)
  • U.S. GDP (1997; 2nd Q.) is $8.03 trillion.
  • George Soros’ empire is worth an estimated $20 billion.