Der Stürmer

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

Month: February, 2015

The Torture of Julius Streicher

A Documentary Expose

By Keith Stimely

Published: 1984-04-01

Source: http://codoh.com/library/document/2080/

 Julius Streicher-1946

“This is Purim Fest 1946!” was Julius Streicher’s apt comment before he was sucked down into death via a gallows trap-door in the Nuremberg Prison gymnasium on 16 October 1946. He was the seventh of ten International Military Tribunal defendants hanged that day in fulfillment of the sentences imposed. (Hermann Göring had cheated the hangman the night before with a cyanide capsule, a final gesture of contempt.) It was certainly a travesty that any of the 22 original defendants should have been put on “trial” before, let alone condemned by, such a collection of raving Western idiots and cynical Soviet criminals as constituted the IMT. But the case of Julius Streicher, former National Socialist Gauleiter of Franconia, editor and publisher of Der Stürmer, was especially ludicrous. He was unique among the convicted defendants in that he was tried not for anything he was alleged to have done, or ordered, or acquiesced in, but for what he had thought and written. In his case the Allied prosecutors made few bones about it – there was no attempt to dress up the indictment by accusing him of actual participation in or even knowledge of any “crimes against peace” or “war crimes.” (They knew that this would have been rather difficult, given that Streicher had held no official post since February 1940, and had been out of favor and devoid of official influence since long before that time.) He was charged under Counts One and Four of the Indictment: “common plan or conspiracy to wage aggressive war, ” and “crimes against humanity.” No real attempt was made to nail him on the first count, and he was acquitted. On the other count he was convicted and condemned to death. As Germany’s world-famed Jew-baiter numero uno, Streicher was to be made an example of on this Point – essentially on the point of being a vociferous anti-semite. The tribunal’s final judgement was that

…Streicher’s incitement of murder and extermination at the time when Jews in the East were being killed under the most horrible conditions clearly constitutes persecution on political and racial grounds in connection with war crimes as defined by the Charter, and constitutes a crime against humanity.

The attempts made during the proceedings to prove that Streicher has at least known about the alleged extermination program were not very successful, based as they were on the issue whether Streicher had read claims of extermination in foreign Jewish newspapers; Streicher did admit this – he was aware of foreign allegations. (It is instructive that the prosecution had to base its claim of Streicher’s “knowing” on such a thing, rather than on anything coming to him from the Reich government itself, or from anywhere within the Reich.) In the event, the final judgment against Streicher was not on the question of such “knowledge” of murder but purely on the question of alleged incitement to murder, via his pre-war speeches and his writings throughout the years in Der Stürmer. Not Göring, not Ribbentrop, not Rosenberg, nor Sauckel, Frank, Jodi, Keitel – not any of the other convicted defendants[*] were put on trial for merely their dissemination of views on a social-political issue. They were all in the dock because of things they had allegedly done or been directly involved in which the IMT determined to have been violations of its interpretation, as codified in its charter, of “International Law.” Streicher joined them in the dock and on the gallows because of what he thought, and because he said publicly what he thought. There was not even any real attempt to obscure this fact within legal mumbo-jumbo. Nor was the IMT concerned with the fact that Streicher’s “incitement” happened to violate no law – not in Germany nor, for that matter, in any of the Allied countries. This was some trial.

But Streicher’s case was unique in another way also. He was the only IMT defendant to have been systematically, physically tortured while under Allied custody awaiting trial. Some of the other defendants did have complaints about various aspects of their treatment since arrest (Hans Frank mentioned being beaten up once by American negroes), in particular the humiliating, pettily-harassing conditions of their cell-life – but none made a claim to having been treated as horrendously as Streicher described. These were after all the “Major War Criminals,” the “first string” Nazis upon whom the spotlight of world attention was to glare at Nuremberg; claims of torture would have been most embarrassing to the Allies, who were bragging about how just and fair and legally high-minded they were behaving toward their captives. When Streicher brought up during the IMT proceedings his claim of having been tortured, it was clear that the prosecution was surprised and at something of a loss. The claim was stricken from the official record; otherwise an investigation would have been required.

What Streicher had vainly tried to relate on the record were his experiences shortly after his arrest, before he had been brought to Mondorf in Luxembourg, the “holding center” for the IMT defendants before the trial began. His torture was not sanctioned by the IMT or, apparently, any high authorities. His reputation had preceded him: it was a simple case of low-level revenge and sadism.

Streicher and his wife were arrested on 22 May 1945 in the village of Weidring (Waidring), just southwest of Berchtesgaden. He was first taken to Berchiesgaden, then passed through Salzburg and Munich before winding up at Freising, northwest of Munich, where he stayed three days before being transferred to Wiesbaden. After one day there he was taken to Mondorf, where he remained until finally being taken to Nuremberg in late August.[**]

It was between Berchtesgaden and Wiesbaden, particularly in Freising, that Streicher was tortured in direct violation of the Geneva Convention. (At this time he was not even indicted or accused of a crime.) Historian Werner Maser devoted two pages to this in his 1977 book Nuremberg: Tribunal der Sieger (the 1979 American edition of which suffered a strange, toned-down metamorphosis in title: Nuremberg: A Nation on Trial). Maser’s source, which he quoted chillingly in full, was a manuscript account by Streicher describing the most unspeakable tortures and degradations inflicted upon him by U.S. Army negroes and Jews. The manuscript was written for Streicher’s lawyer, Dr. Hanns Marx, and is now in Maser’s possession. Maser accepted the truth of this account, commenting that

… For two decades Streicher had reviled, slandered and insulted world Jewry, had offered them up to racial fanatics as vermin; so. eighteen months before his execution by hanging, he found himself with a personal account to square; the “holy wrath” of his victims led them to apply the Old Testament law of “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.”

Streicher’s biographer William P. Varga, in his 1981 book The Number One Nazi Jew-Baiter (actually a fairly serious work, despite the comic-book title) mentions the allegation of torture at Freising:

[U.S. Army Intelligence Captain John) Dolibois later related that Streicher complained bitterly of his treatment at the hands of American soldiers before his transfer to Mondorf. Evidently his notoriety as a fanatic racial persecutor was known to the troops at Freising. Streicher claimed that he and his wife were forced by some black American soldiers to walk in public stripped of their clothes. These soldiers allegedly spat on them and extinguished cigarettes on their bare skin. At Mondorf, an unconfirmed report was circulated stating that some soldiers had taken photographs that showed Streicher dressed only in an open coat, with swollen testicles and a crown of thorns on his head with a sign draped over his neck with the words “Julius Streicher, King of the Jews.”

However, Varga goes on to describe “most of Streicher’s complaints” of such treatment as “extremely questionable”; they were “apparently fabricated.” The only basis he presents for this skepticism is a letter written by Streicher at Mondorf in June 1945 to former Stürmer colleagues, in which are mentioned “only” his uncomfortable handcuffs, and his having been forced to stamp out cigarettes with bare feet. For biographer Varga, this constitutes evidence that Streicher “fabricated” other stories. He does not seem to have considered that in writing this particular letter, Streicher may have suffered under constraints as mundane as time or as special as censorship. His argument against Streicher’s veracity here is rather obviously a grasp at the only straw – and a very thin one – available. Varga in 1981 was apparently unaware of the lengthy, detailed Streicher statement published by Maser in 1977. (Maser’s book is not listed in his bibliography.) That Streicher made a point in this statement of mentioning who had treated him well in addition to who had treated him badly, delineating clearly between these types and their actions with details as to time, place, and names where he knew them, would seem to auger the truth of what it contains.

The acceptance of the statement as a genuine, honest record by Werner Maser – a respected historian hardly partial to National Socialism, much less to the Julius Streicher variety – is unquestionably well-founded.

It is not the only piece of evidence extant. In the Fall of 1982 another document surfaced which sheds more light on the torture of Julius Streicher. It is a seven-page, handwritten statement given by Streicher at Mondorf to an American officer, who requested it after hearing Streicher’s verbal complaints. In that officer’s hands for 37 years, never published or cited, the document was sold at auction by the Charles Hamilton Autograph Gallery in New York City in October 1982, for the price of $1,200. The Journal of Historical Review was able to obtain a copy of this historically significant document. It is published on the following pages for the first time, in English translation and followed by photographs of the handwritten original. Also reproduced is a letter from the officer to the auctioneer describing the circumstances under which he obtained the document.

A comparison of this document with that presented by Maser in his book shows the consistency in events described. Its publication at last adds to our knowledge of a particularly shameful postwar episode.

– Keith Stimely

Translation

On 22 May [1945) I was arrested in Waidring (Tirol) and was brought into the jail at Salzburg. There my hands were put into handcuffs by a Jewish police-officer.

On 23 May, I was brought to Freising, via Toelz and Munich. During the 200 Kilometer trip in considerable cold, I was only dressed with shirt and pants, since my jacket was not given to me. My bands were handcuffed.

In Freising I was put in a cell, where there was no possibility of sitting or lying down. The window was removed and the cell was cold. During my three days stay in there (23 May afternoon to 26 May afternoon) I was subjected to the following treatment:

1) After being stripped of my clothes, two Negroes tore my shirt into two pieces. Dressed only with my underpants, and barefoot, I spent three days in the cold room. During the night and during a few hours in daytime, I was handed an old military coat. It was taken away immediately, whenever I tried to resist the tortures.

2) Two or three times daily I had to stand against a wall, with my handcuffed hands held above the head, whereupon a Negro or the police-officer kept hitting me on my genitalia, with a leather whip up to a minute long. Whenever I made a resisting move with my handcuffed hands, I received a hit with the foot in my testicles. My testicles and genitalia were badly swollen.

3) Two or three times daily I had to open my mouth, whereupon the white police-officer or the Negroes spat into it. If I kept my mouth closed, it was forcefully opened with a wooden stick.

4) When I refused to drink from the piss-bowl in the toilet, I was hit with the whip.

5) On each of his visits to my cell, the white police-officer pulled hair from my nipples and eyebrows.

6) During the three days I received no nourishment, and only once I was allowed to drink water in the toilet. When I refused to take and to eat partially decayed leftovers from a cardboard box, I was pushed to the ground, a heavy iron chain was put on my back and I was forced to kiss the feet of the Negroes.

7) At the end of each torture, I had to put out with my bare feet burning cigarette butts, thrown on the ground.

8) I was repeatedly photographed by people of the press, while wearing underpants and my genitalia were visible. The photographers were Jews.

9) On the last day, two hours before being transported to Wiesbaden, a Negro said: now comes “kill, kill” and made the corresponding gesture at the throat. He asked me what I wanted to eat or drink, I may wish. I asked for paper in order to write a letter to my wife.

10) Before being transported, a Negro called me into the toilet, then threw my civilian clothes in and ordered me to get dressed. This I had to do with handcuffed hands.

On 26 May, I was brought to Wiesbaden in handcuffs, where I arrived in the early hours of 27 May. Only in Wiesbaden, the handcuffs which I had on since 22 May (five days) day and night were removed from my greatly swollen hands and infected joints. Since then I am under medical care. The officer in charge of the jail in Wiesbaden (he said he was a Jew) acted correctly.

[signed]

Julius Streicher
16.6.45


Notes

[*] Hans Fritzsche, the National Socialist radio personality stuck into the Nuremberg proceedings as a poor man’s substitute for Joseph Goebbels, who was a corpse, was like Streicher basically accused of “incitement” to crimes. He was acquitted.

[**] It was at Mondorf that Streicher composed his autobiographical political testament, a manuscript of some 15,000 words. It was published as ‘Das Politische Testament,” edited and with a foreword by Jay. W. Baird, in Vierteljahrshefte fuer Zeitgeschichte (April 1978).


Advertisements

95 years NSDAP!!!

Today is the 95-th anniversary since the founding of the NSDAP (24.02.1920)! Greetings to all comrades!

 NS Alte Garde

My photo-collage in honour of the earliest members of the NSDAP!

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

The Year 1936 – Part 6

09.Sept-1936-05

09.Sept-1936-06

09.Sept-1936-07

09.Sept-1936-08

09.Sept-1936-09

09.Sept-1936-10

10.Oct-1936-01

10.Oct-1936-02

10.Oct-1936-03

10.Oct-1936-04

The First Gassing at Auschwitz: Genesis of a Myth

by Carlo Mattogno

Source: http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v09/v09p193_Mattogno.html

  • Paper Presented to the Ninth International Revisionist Conference.

Introduction

The story of the Auschwitz gas chambers begins, notoriously, with the experimental gassing of approximately 850 individuals, which supposedly took place in the underground cells of Block 11 within the main camp on September 3, 1941.

Danuta Czech in Kalendarium der Ereignisse im Konzentrationslager Auschwitz-Birkenau (Calendar of Events in the Concentration Camp Auschwitz-Birkenau), describes it in the following way:

“3.9. [September 3] For the first time, experiments in mass murder through the use of Cyclon B [sic] gas were conducted in the concentration camp of Auschwitz.

By order of the SS, the hospital attendants brought approximately 250 sick inmates from the prison hospital to the underground cells of Block 11. Approximately 600 Russian prisoners of war were also brought there (officers and political commissars were selected from the prisoner of war camps according to the operating order [Einsatzbefehl] n.8 of 17.7.41). After they were placed in the cells of the bunker, the underground vents were covered with earth, some SS poured the Cyclon B gas and the doors were closed.

4.9.[September 4] Rapportführer Palitzsch, equipped with a gas mask, opened the cell doors of the Bunker and noticed that a few prisoners were still alive. He therefore poured an additional amount of Cyclon B gas and closed the doors.

5.9. [September 5] During the evening 20 prisoners from the punishment company (Block 5a) and hospital attendants from the prisoners’ hospital were brought to the courtyard of Block 11. First they were told that they had been called for a special assignment, and that no one was to discuss what they would see under pain of death. Then they were promised that after the assignment they would receive a substantially larger food ration. In the courtyard of Block 11, there were the officers: Fritzsch, Mayer, Palitzsch, the Lagerarzt Entress [1] and others. Gas masks were given to the prisoners, and they were ordered to go to the underground cells and to bring the cadavers that had been gassed out to the courtyard. There, the uniforms were taken off the Russian prisoners of war and the cadavers were thrown onto motor carts. The cadavers of the gassed inmates wore prisoners clothing. The transportation of the cadavers to the crematorium lasted until late night. Among those that had been gassed were 10 prisoners who had been shut up in the Bunker because of the escape of prisoner Nowaczyk.”[2]

This account, in support of which Danuta Czech gives no documentary proof, is nonetheless accepted with an exemplary lack of criticism by all Exterminationist historians. This is even more surprising in that the alleged gassing in Block 11 of Auschwitz would constitute the very beginning of the process that would subsequently lead to the gas chambers of the crematoria of Birkenau. The intermediate steps of that process were the mortuary chambers of Crematorium I of the Main Camp and the so-called “Bunkers” 1 and 2 of Birkenau. The Block II “gassing,” then, by the canons of Exterminationism, initiated the greatest murder operation of all times.

In this necessarily brief presentation, we will examine the beginning of the myth of the gas chambers of Auschwitz-Birkenau by critically analyzing the few available sources about the history of the first gassing. At the same time, we will offer a significant example of the historiographic methodology used by the compiler of the Kalendarium of Auschwitz.

We will begin with the exposition of these sources.

  1. The Sources
  2. The Sources from the War Period (1941-1942)

The first reference to the initial gassing at Auschwitz is found in a note of October 24, 1941:

“At Oswiecim (Auschwitz), at the beginning of October, 850 Russian officers and non-commissioned officers (prisoners of war) who were brought there have been subjected to die by gas in order to experiment with a new type of war gas that is to be used on the Eastern Front [jako probe nowego typu gazu bojowego, ktory ma byc uzyty na froncie wschodnim].”[3]

Until the middle of 1942, in the sources, the account of the first gassing does not appear to fall under a systematic extermination plan, but constitutes a simple scientific experiment among many others.

In one account compiled by a Czech teacher fleeing the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia in May of 1942, one reads:

“The worst reputation is enjoyed by the concentration camp at Oswiecim near Cracow. Not only are the victims of German cruelty tortured and mishandled in the usual German fashion, but the efficacy of German poison gases is even tried on them and other experiments are made with them.”[4]

On July 1, the Polish Fortnightly Review published a more detailed account of the first gassing, with not insignificant discrepancies in detail when compared to the note of October 24, 1941, but always in accordance with the theme of experimentation with toxic gases on the prisoners:

“Among the other experiments being tried on the prisoners is the use of poison gas. It is generally known that during the night of September 5th to 6th last year about a thousand people were driven down to the underground shelter in Oswiecim, among them seven hundred Bolshevik prisoners of war and three hundred Poles. As the shelter was too small to hold this large number, the living bodies were simply forced in, regardless of broken bodies. When the shelter was full, gas was injected into it, and the prisoners died during the night. All night the rest of the camp was kept awake by the groans and howls coming from the shelter. Next day other prisoners had to carry out the bodies, a task which took all day. One hand-cart on which the bodies were being removed broke down under the weight.”[5]

  1. The Sources from the Postwar Period

Four witnesses, as far as we can determine, have confirmed the reality of the first gassing by giving specific descriptions: Josef Vacek, eye-witness; Rudolf Höss, indirect witness; Zenon Rozanski, eye-witness; Wojciech Barcz, eye-witness. To these is added the report of inquiry by the Polish Commission of Investigation on German crimes at Auschwitz.

  1. THE WITNESS JOSEF VACEK

On the 8th of May, 1945, the former Auschwitz inmate Josef Vacek (detention number 15514) declared at Buchenwald the following:

“At the beginning of September, Russian prisoners of war were brought to the camp. There were more than 500. In addition to them were 196 sick inmates selected by the SS Doctor Jungen, [6] who were gassed along with the Russian prisoners of war in the gas chambers [7] of Block 11. We hospital attendants who brought them there were told that they were going to be taken away by transport and that they were going to be brought there only momentarily until the train would leave. The following night, when everyone already was sleeping and no one was allowed to leave the Block area, I was called, along with 30 hospital attendants, and for 3 nights we transported the bodies to the crematoriums.”[8]

  1. THE WITNESS RUDOLF HÖSS

While he remained under British arrest, Rudolf Höss ignored the first gassing. In his sworn testimony of March 14, 1946, the most detailed of this period, although he mentions the gassing in the old crematorium as relating to the Soviet war prisoners, he says only:

“At the same time transports of Russian POWs arrived from the area of the Gestapo Leitstellen Breslau, Troppau and Kattowitz, who, by Himmler’s written order to the local Gestapo leaders, had to be exterminated.”[9]

Only after his extradition to Poland did he speak about the first gassing. In fact, in the “Autobiographical Notes” of Cracow, Rudolf Höss wrote in this regard:

“Even before the mass extermination of Jews began, the Russian politruks and political commissars were liquidated in almost all of the concentration camps, in the years 1941 and 1942. According to a secret order by the Führer, in all the prisoners of war camps, special Gestapo units selected the Russian politruks and political commissary who were sent to the nearest concentration camp to be liquidated. This measure was explained by saying that the Russians immediately killed every German soldier who belonged to the Party or was a member of a Party organization, particularly the SS, and that the political functionaries of the Red Army had the duty, in the event of being taken prisoners of war, to create disorders in the prisoner of war camps, and other places of work, in any possible way, and to sabotage even work itself.

At Auschwitz too, these Red Army political functionaries arrived destined for extermination. The first groups, if not too large, were killed by firing squads.

But during one of my absences, my deputy, Schutzhaftlagerfahrer Fritzsch, used a gas for this purpose, and to be precise, a mixture of prussic acid, Cyclon B. which was currendy being used in the camp for the disinfection of parasites and which was available there in large quantities. When I returned, Fritzsch related to me what he had done, and the gas was utilized also for the subsequent convoys of prisoners. The gassing took place within the detention cells of Block 11. I myself, protecting my face with a gas mask, observed the killing. Death would take place in the overloaded cells, immediately after the emission of the gas. A brief scream, soon suffocating, and everything was finished.”[10]

In his written account, “The final solution to the Jewish question in Auschwitz,” Rudolf Höss returned to the first gassing and gave a fuller description of its background and execution. Because his account has been elevated to the status of historical truth about Auschwitz, we will cite it at length:

“During the summer of 1941 — at the moment I cannot cite the exact date — I was suddenly called to Berlin by the Reichsführer, through his assistant. Contrary to the usual, Himmler received me without any assistants being present, and, in substance, told me the following: the Führer has ordered the final solution of the Jewish question, and we of the SS must follow these orders. The extermination centers currently in the East are absolutely not in any condition to deal with this grand projected task. I have therefore selected Auschwitz because its position is excellent from the point of view of communications, and because its area can be easily isolated and camouflaged. To this end, I had thought of appointing a high SS official; but in order to avoid difficulties due to incompetence from the very beginning, I have abandoned the idea. The task will, therefore, be assigned to you. It is a hard and difficult task requiring total personal commitment, whatever future difficulties there might be. You will receive further details from Sturmbannführer Eichmann of the RSHA, whom I will send to you shortly — all officers who in one way or another will participate in this task will be informed by me in due time. You have the duty to maintain the most absolute secrecy regarding this order, even from your superiors. After your meeting with Eichmann, send the plans for all required installations to me immediately.

“The Jews are the eternal enemies of the German people, and must be exterminated. All Jews on whom we can put our hands during this war must be killed, without exception. If we are not be able to destroy the biological basis for Jewry now, one day the Jews will destroy the German people. Immediately after receiving so ominous an order, I returned to Auschwitz, without even bothering to report to my superiors in Oranienburg. Soon Eichmann came to see me at Auschwitz He laid out for me the plans for the various countries. I cannot any longer remember the sequence exactly.

“In any case, Auschwitz was going to be responsible above all for Eastern Upper Silesia and for the other areas bordering and part of the Government General. At the same time, and then subsequently, depending on the possibilities, it would be the turn of the German Jews and those from Slovakia; finally the Jews from the West, from France, Belgium and Holland He also gave me the approximate number of transports that would arrive, but these too I am unable to recall.

“We therefore began discussing the procedures necessary to carry out the extermination plan. The method would have to be the use of gas, since it surely would be impossible to eliminate the masses that would be arriving by shooting them; and, besides that, it would be above all a very difficult and arduous task for the SS soldiers to follow through the assignment since even women and children would be present.

“Eichmann spoke to me about executing by means of vehicle exhaust, which was, until then, the method used in the East. But it was a method not suitable in Auschwitz, considering the large number of people anticipated. Killing through the use of carbon monoxide gas filtered through the showers in the bathrooms (i.e., the method to exterminate the mentally sick in certain institutions of the Reich) required an excessive number of buildings; besides, obtaining such quantities of gas, sufficient for such large numbers of people, was very problematic. On this issue, it was, therefore, not possible to arrive at a decision. Eichmann promised to inquire as to the existence of a gas which could be easily produced and did not require special installation of equipment, and that he would relate this information to me. We went to inspect the camp to identify the most suitable location and concluded that the most appropriate for this use would be the building located on the northwest corner of the future 3rd sector of buildings, Birkenau [the sector BIII of Birkenau camp-C.M.]. It was a location not easily accessible, protected from the curious by trees and hedges, and still not too far from the railroad. The cadavers could be buried in long and deep ditches on the adjacent meadow.

“At that particular moment we had not yet thought of cremation. We calculated that the large existing rooms, once modified for gassing purposes, could be used to kill up to 800 individuals at the same time, by using appropriate gas. These estimates were later confirmed by actual practice. Eichmann could not yet tell me when we could begin with this assignment in as much as everything was in the planning phase, and Himmler had not yet given the order to begin. Eichmann, therefore, returned to Berlin to refer the substance of our discussion to Himmler. A few days later, by means of a courier, I sent Himmler a detailed plan on the situation, as well as an accurate description of the installations to be used. Regarding this matter, I have never received an answer or a decision from him. Later, Eichmann told me once that he [Himmler] agreed to everything. At the end of November, a meeting of the entire Jewish affairs section was held in Eichmann’s office in Berlin, at which I had been invited to participate. There Eichmann’s representatives from individual countries discussed the current status of the various operations and the difficulties being encountered, such as housing for the prisoners, the allocation of transports and trains, the determination of dates, etc. When we were to begin operations was not communicated to me, nor had Eichmann yet found the appropriate gas.

“In the fall of 1941, through a secret order issued to all prisoner of war camps, the Gestapo separated all the Russian politruks, the commissars and certain other political functionaries, and sent them to the nearest concentration camp to be liquidated. Small transports of these people continually arrived at Auschwitz, then were shot in the gravel quarry near the Monopol building, or in the courtyard of Block 11.

“Due to an official absence of mine, my deputy Hauptsturmführer Fritzsch, on his own initiative, used the gas in order to kill these prisoners of war; he filled the underground cells full of Russians, and, protected with gas masks, ordered the Cyclon B gas to enter the cells, which caused the immediate death of the victims. The Cyclon B gas was currently being used in Auschwitz by the firm Tesch & Stabenow for disinfection, and therefore the administration kept enough on hand. At the beginning, this poisonous gas, a prussic acid compound, was used only by Tesch & Stabenow technicians, and with strict precautions, but later, certain personnel attached to the sanitary services were instructed in its use by the same firm, so it was they who used the gas for disinfection purposes.

“On the next visit of Eichmann, I mentioned to him the use of Cyclon B and we decided that it would be the gas that we would use in the imminent mass slaughter.

“The killing of the Russian prisoners of war with Cyclon B. which I have already mentioned, continued, but no longer in Block 11 because, after the gassing, the entire building required aeration for at least two full days. The mortuary chamber of the crematorium next to the hospital was used as a gas chamber soon as the doors were made gas-tight, and a number of openings were made on the roof to allow the gas in.” [11]

  1. THE WITNESS ZENON ROZANSKI

In a book published in 1948, the former prisoner of Auschwitz, Zenon Rozanski, described the first gassing in detail, as follows:

“On a September day, after we had finished work, they didn’t bring us back to our Block 11; instead they brought us to the unfinished pavement of Block 5. To excuse the incomprehensible change, the Blockalteste explained it in terms of the other Block being disinfested. Since the fifth Block was in the area where the common camp was located, this change was received with general enthusiasm. Here we were safe from the appearances of the Kapos during roll-call, and besides, the lack of dividing walls allowed our comrades of the common camp to give us a little food. After a very uneventful roll-call, the Kapos, the Stubenaltesten and the squad leaders formed a cordon that separated our Block from the rest of the camp; nonetheless many comrades received conspicuous amounts of ‘left-over food.’

“The day after, we received the news that an entire transport of Russian prisoners of war had been brought to block 11. This event was interpreted in various ways. Some said that the ‘Punishment Company’ would be disbanded, others knew from ‘knowledgeable sources’ that the Russians would be assigned to our Block, and still others put on a mysterious expression which conveyed the impression that they knew much but couldn’t say anything. However, one thing was sure: that day too, we would not return to the ’11.’

“The morning of the third day, Wacek, the Stubendienst, before leaving for work, with an expression of somebody who was putting on airs, ordered those prisoners who were well-built and still appeared healthy, to fall out of the ranks. I, too, found myself among the twenty that had been selected. The company went to work, but we remained in the Block. None of us knew what it was all about. After about half an hour, Wacek caught up with us.

“You’d better watch out. You have been left in the camp and will receive another “blow” [that is, another surprise-C.M.] at dinner. But you will immediately go to do a “special job.” This will give you the chance to arrange something, but you have to keep your mouth shut. Understand?”

“No one, without doubt, had understood him; however, we all answered in unison: Yes, certainly!”

“We waited in line for another fifteen minutes, until Gerlach came up. This one inspected us very carefully, nodded his head and addressed himself to us as obscurely as Wacek: ‘In a few minutes you will be attending to a confidential assignment. If any of you utter even one word of what you see,’ — at this point Gerlach made a very expressive movement with his hand around the neck — ‘Kaputt!… only a little pile of ashes at the crematorium! You will receive more food than you need … Understand?’

“We continued not to understand. Only one thing seemed clear: the assignment given us could cost our lives. This was understood by everyone. However, the promise that we would receive additional food kept reassuring us. That was important.

“After some minutes we crossed, in double file, the door to main Block 11. In the courtyard there were Deputy Camp Commander Fritzsch; SS-Obersturmführer Mayer; Camp Rapportführer; SS-Hauptscharführer Palitzsch; the Lagerarzt, SS-Obersturmführer Entress [l2]; SS-Oberscharführer Clair; SS-Unterscharführer Stark; the Kriminalassistent of the local political section, Woznica; and our two Blockführer Gerlach and Edelhardt.

“Wacek gave the prescribed order: ‘Off with your hats!’ and reported to Mayer: ‘Twenty prisoners assembled for work detail!’ He exchanged some words with the Rapportführer, and then said something to Wacek. The Stubenalteste yelled: Tes, sir,’ and turned to address us: ‘Each of you will receive a gas mask. Make sure to wear it properly and don’t make it necessary for others to be called to pull you out. Understand?’ — ‘Yes, sir.’

“Near the wall there was a large crate with gas masks. These were distributed very quickly. After three minutes, we were ready with gas masks on. The SS-Oberscharführer Clair again made sure that everyone was wearing his gas mask properly.

“Everything took place so quickly that we didn’t even have tirne to think. We only kept looking at each other, dumbfounded, totally ignorant of what was happening. Our men in uniform were also wearing gas masks. Wacek and Bunkerkapo Pennewitz were running very nervously back and forth several times to the Block, where they were talking with Palitzsch, who kept shaking his head irritatedly; the two would come back running and in this way they kept going back and forth.

“Finally, all of the SS drew their pistols out. The barrel of an automatic pistol glinted in Palitzsch’s hands. ‘They want to shoot us,’ was our first thought.

“We felt a knot in the throat, and our eyelids began burning. The air inside the gas mask began getting heavy, allowing you to breath only with much effort. Instinctively we all pushed toward each other. One began taking the mask off. For this, he is pistol whipped and falls on the ground. Time moves terribly slowly.

“They are not shooting us! Not yet … maybe they won’t shoot us at all? This thought reassures me; I look around. The SS are still holding their pistols ready to shoot, but they are not shooting. Palitzsch gives a hand sign to Wacek. Let’s go! Let’s do it!’ The Stubenälteste comes up to us on the run.

“‘Have no fear, follow me!’ He is going toward the Block. I find myself almost at the very rear of our group. The barrel of a ‘firing instrument’ belonging to the man behind me touches my back. I quickly step forward and walk just behind Wacek. He goes down to the stairs. For one moment we stop … everyone … Bunker! But the SS don’t allow us time to think. At the rear of the group someone is already down on the ground. ‘Hurry! Hurry!’

“Wacek stays in front of the door to the Bunker. He has an ax in his right hand: he grabs it with his left hand and with his right pulls a key from his pocket. He seems to be having difficulty finding the keyhole, because he is taking so long. From the rear of the group Palitzsch yells: ‘Faster!’ Finally he does it. The key is inserted.

“Wacek grabs the door handle. Instinctively I hold my breath. I wet my lips, which in the meantime have become totally dry. What will happen now? Wacek goes back. He again moves the ax to his right hand. What does all this mean? What is the purpose of the ax here? Why is he fearful? For the second time he grabs the door handle now with his left hand.

“He brings his right hand up while he is holding the ax as if he is about to give a stunning blow. I am cold and suddenly I am overtaken by fear. But this fear is something different than the one before. Now it’s not fear for myself, no, now it is an uncontrollable fear of being in front of the door. My heart beats faster and faster, under the elastic band of the gas mask I feel each heart beat distinctly. Wacek pushes on the door handle, goes back a couple of feet and forcefully opens the door. The door is open and this very moment I feel my hair standing straight up. About three feet away from me there are men on top of each other, I don’t know how, in a terrible state, with eyes sticking out of their sockets, scratched, stained with blood, motionless… Those leaning toward the door, bent in a singularly stiff manner, fall toward us and pile up very heavily, their faces on the cement floor, right in front of our feet. Bodies … bodies that stand up, completely stiff. They fill the entire hallway of the Bunker. They are stacked in such a manner that they cannot fall. For a moment I don’t feel well. But Wacek’s voice brings me back. ‘Done!’ he yells through the gas mask to Palitzsch, and lets the ax fall on the floor. Very well! Let’s take them out!'”

“Now I can think clearly once more, and understand everything. The bodies are wearing Red Army uniforms. Must be that load of prisoners that had been spoken about yesterday at work. They have all been pushed inside the Bunker and gassed. It is because of this that we have had to use gas masks. The mystery is now clear! Wacek grabs the first body under his arms and passes it to us.

“So! This is it!,’ it dawns on me now, ‘Our work is then the removal of those who have been gassed from the Bunker.’

“‘Fall in line!,’ yells Wacek again, ‘Form a chain!’ The ‘chain’ was normally a method by which one could quickly pass bricks being unloaded from a freight car from person to person. But while I had loaded bricks, it had never dawned on me that I could load bodies in the same fashion.

“We worked until late night. After emptying the Bunker, we were ordered to completely undress the bodies and place their clothing in designated piles. The next day the clothing ended up stored in the clothing storeroom and there the quantity of clothing increased significantly. We counted 1,473 Russian uniforms and more than 190 camp uniforms. These had belonged to the patients of the Camp Hospital that had been selected by Dr. Entress as being ‘unable to work’ and on that ‘occasion’ were gassed together with the Russian prisoners …

“After completing the Work,’ the twenty of us were brought a huge cauldron containing 50 liters of soup, and at the same time each of us received half a loaf of bread. The cauldron was returned to the Block almost full. “At Auschwitz this was the first time that gas was used to liquidate prisoners.” [13]

  1. THE WITNESS WOJCIECH BARCZ

The testimony that follows was given by Wojciech Barcz, internee at Auschwitz from June 16, 1940 (I.D. number 754), during a West German radio transmission on Auschwitz presumably broadcast during 1963:

“The first gassing took place during the fall of 1941, a few months after hostilities [began] against the Soviet Union.

One day we hospital attendants from the infirmary received orders to transport the very sick to the cells of the Bunker of Block 11. They were locked up in these cells. Around 10 p.m. we heard a large group being pushed by the SS toward the Bunker. We heard yelling in Russian, orders from the SS, and heavy blows.

Three days later, we hospital attendants received, in the middle of the night, the order to go to Block 11. There, we evacuated the bodies from the cells of the Bunker. Thus, we were able to see that, in these cells a large number of Russian war prisoners, along with the very sick whom we had transported, had been simply gassed. The spectacle offered to us when we opened the doors of the cells was similar to that experienced when one opens an overstuffed suitcase. The bodies fell all over us. I estimate that in a small cell there were at least 60 bodies, so crowded that, even though dead, they couldn’t fall and kept standing up. One could see that they had tried to reach the exhaust vent, through which, after all, the toxic gas had been poured. One could see all the signs of a horrendous agony.

We hospital attendants had to place the bodies on trucks, by which they were removed outside the camp, and then buried. Those of us involved in this work were absolutely convinced that we would be massacred right next to the ditches or would be killed later as witnesses to the secret, as was normally the case at Auschwitz. Instead, nothing happened. Later on I learned that among the SS there were continuous surprises and incongruities.”[14]

  1. THE REPORT OF THE POLISH INVESTIGATION COMMISSION

In a publication issued in 1946, the Central Commission for investigation of German Crimes in Poland presented the following account of the first gassing:

“All of these methods used in killing were not enough to absorb all superfluous prisoners, and, above all, they could not resolve the problem of freeing themselves of hundreds of thousands of Jews. This method was tried out in the summer of 1941 in the coal- cellars of Block XI on about 250 patients from the hospital blocks and about 600 prisoners of war. After the victims had been put there, the windows of the cellars were covered with earth, and afterwards an SS man in a gas-mask poured the contents of a can of cyclon on the floor and locked the door. Next afternoon Palitzsch, wearing a gas-mask, opened the door and found that some of the prisoners were still alive. More cyclon was accordingly poured out, and the doors locked again, to be reopened next evening, when all the prisoners were dead.”[15]

* * *

We now proceed to the critical analysis of all the sources so far mentioned, examining all that they claim concerning the date, the place, the time required, the number of victims, the evacuation of the bodies, and the technical procedures followed during the first gassing.

  1. Critical Analysis of the Sources
  2. The date of the first gassing.

According to the Kalendarium of Auschwitz, the first gassing was carried out-on September 3, 1941. This date is not only unsupported by a single document, it is categorically contradictory to all the available sources — which are additionally in total contradiction to each other — and in particular to the testimony of Rudolf Höss, considered fundamental by the Auschwitz Museum and by the entire Exterminationist historiography.

An annotation of July 2, 1942 traces back the first gassing as having occurred in June 1941:

“The first (pierwsze) utilization of gas chambers took place in June 1941 (w VI. 1941 r.). A transport of 1,700 ‘incurably sick’ was formed and sent (ostensibly) to the sanatorium of Dresda, but in reality to a building transformed into a gas chamber (do budyrdcu przebudowanego na komore gazowa).” [16]

Witness Michal Kula declared that the first gassing took place on August 15. [17] According to an article in the Polish Fortnightly Review, it took place during the night of September 5th to 6th”; according to witness Vacek, “beginning of September” (Anfang September); and witness Rozanski testifies that it was “on a day in September (an einem Septembertage).” The historian Filip Friedman inclines to September 15: “The first victims were gassed on September 15, 1941 in Block II [sic], in a former munition store building. A number of Russian prisoners, 600 to 700, and several hundred Polish prisoners were used for this first experiment.”[18]

According to the annotation of October 24, 1941, the first gassing occurred “on the beginning of October” (w poszatkach pazdziernika).

The Polish Investigation Commission generically suggests the summer, while the witness Barcz inclines toward autumn (im Herbst) 1941.

Lastly, the testimony of Rudolf Höss implies that the first gassing did not take place before the end of November of 1941. In effect, bat the end of November,” when the conference was held in Eichmann’s office in Berlin, he had not yet been successful in finding “suitable gas.” Only after this conference did the Lagerführer Fritzsch, on his own initiative, carry out the first gassing. It wasn’t until Eichmann’s later visit to Auschwitz that Höss reported to him on the experiment, and the two decided to use the Zyklon B for the projected mass slaughter.

Therefore, the date of the first gassing is absolutely indeterminate and fluctuates over a span of six months between July and December of 1941.

  1. The Location of the Gassing

The Kalendarium entry for July 1942 declares that the first gassing occurred “in a building (do budynku) transformed (przebudowanego) into a gas chamber,” therefore not in the basement of Block 11, which had not undergone any architectural modification (this is the significance of the verb “przebudowywad“) into a gas chamber, and which, besides, according to the Auschwitz Museum, was used as such one single time.[19]

The article in the Polish Fortnightly Review mentions the “underground shelter” of Auschwitz, while the Polish Investigation Commission speaks of the “coal cellars” of Block 11.

The witnesses Rozanski and Barcz both locate the first gassing in the Bunker of Block 11, but for the one, the victims were gassed in the corridors, for the other, in the cells. Therefore, the sources examined are in reciprocal contradiction concerning the location of the first gassing; moreover, those sources which agree on the basement of Block 11, are also in reciprocal contradiction as to exactly which part of it.

  1. The Duration of the Gassing

Rudolf Höss declared that, on the occasion of the first gassing accomplished by his deputy Fritzsch, the Zyklon B Provoked the immediate death” (den sofortigen Tod) of the victims. [20]

The article in the Polish Fortnightly Review reports instead that “all the prisoners died during the night. All night the rest of the camp was kept awake by the moans and screams originating from the shelter.”

Finally, the Polish Investigation Commission asserts that “next afternoon” some prisoners were still alive, “therefore further cyclon was poured out and the doors again tightly closed, to be reopened the next evening, when all the prisoners were dead.”

Therefore, all the victims died immediately, or during the night, or two days later.

  1. The Victims of the Gassing

The Kalendarium entry of October 24, 1941 asserts that the victims of the first gassing were “850 Russian officers and non- commissioned officers”. Rudolf Höss, too, mentions exclusively Russian prisoners of war, stating that Fritzsch “had the cells located in the cellar [of Block 11] filled with Russians.” The article in the Polish Fortnightly Review speaks of 700 Russian prisoners of war and 300 Poles.

Some sources agree about the fact that the victims were a mixture of Russian prisoners of war and sick inmates, but are in reciprocal contradiction as to their numbers and totals which are: for witness Vacek, approximately 500 Russian prisoners of war and 196 sick inmates, totaling 696 victims; for witness Rozanski, 1,473 Russian prisoners of war and 190 sick inmates, totaling 1,663 victims; for the Polish Investigation Commission, 600 Russian prisoners of war and 250 sick inmates, totaling 850 victims.

Finally, the Kalendarium entry for July 2, 1942 maintains that the victims were drawn exclusively from sick inmates, and precisely “1,700 ‘incurably sick.'”

Therefore, the sources examined are in contradiction as to the total numbers of victims (from 696 to 1,700) and regarding their categories (only Russian prisoners of war, only sick inmates, Russian prisoners of war and sick inmates together).

  1. The Selection of the Sick Inmates for Gassing

The sources which include the sick inmates among the victims are in contradiction also as to the SS doctor who ordered their selection from the hospital blocks for gassing. This doctor is Doctor Schwela, according to Danuta Czech; Doctor Jungen, according to witness Vacek; and Doctor Entress, according to witness Rozanski.

  1. The Evacuation of the Gassed Cadavers
    A. THE PERFORMERS OF THE EVACUATION

Witness Vacek swears to have carried out the removal of the gassed cadavers “together with 30 male hospital attendants” (mit 30 Krankenpflegern); witness Rozanski declares instead to have evacuated the cadavers with a group of “20 people” (zwanzig Mann) of the penal company.

  1. THE BEGINNING OF THE REMOVAL

The removal of the cadavers of the gassed started “the next day” according to the article in the Polish Fortnightly Review; “the next night” (nächste Nacht) according to witness Vacek; “on the morning of the third day” (am Morgen des dritten Tages), which is at most two days after the gassing, according to witness Rozanski; and finally “three days later … in the middle of the night” (drei Tage später Ömitten in der Nacht) from witness Barcz.

  1. THE DURATION OF THE REMOVAL

Removing the cadavers of the gassed took “all day” according to the Polish Fortnightly Review article; “Three nights” (drei Nächte lang) according to witness Vacek, and “until late in the night” (bis spät in der Nacht) according to witness Rozanski.

  1. THE FATE OF THE CADAVERS AFTER REMOVAL

While witness Vacek declared that the cadavers of the gassed were brought “to the crematory” (ins Krematorium) to be burned, witness Barcz asserts that they were brought “out of the camp” (aus dem Lager), where they were buried” (vergraben).

In conclusion, the examined sources.are in reciprocal contradiction as to the numbers and the category of the performers of the corpse removal (20 persons, 30 persons; hospital attendants, inmates of punishment company); as to the start of the removal (the day after, two days after, three days after the gassing); as to the duration of the removal (an entire day, three nights); as to the fate of the cadavers (burned in the crematory, buried outside the camp). Even more serious, these sources are based essentially on the eyewitness testimonies of three former inmates who pretend to describe the same incident, in which each claims to have participated personally!

  1. THE GASSING PROCEDURE

There exist neither eye-witness testimony nor documents on the actual gassing process. The description furnished by the Polish Investigation Commission is therefore false, for this reason alone. The Commission’s description is also contradicted on a point by witness Barcz, who affirms that the Zyklon B was thrown into the cells of the Bunker, not from the door, but from the small windows. Finally, the description is technically absurd.

In this context, we limit ourselves to pointing out that the survival of some victims after a whole day of gassing, as asserted by the Polish Commission, is an impossibility. In fact, a concentration of 0.3 mg of cyanide to a liter of air — which is 0.3 grams per cubic meter — is fatal in a few minutes for a human being. [21] Regarding this concentration, the lethal dose would be 8 mg, according to Haber’s formula. [22] This means that for a hypothetical gassing of 60 people — the number indicated by Wojciech Barcz — in one of the cells of the Bunker of Block 11 of Auschwitz, considering that the volume of air actually available was approximately 11 cubic meters, a little more than three grams of cyanide would have been sufficient to kill all the victims in a few minutes. In several minutes the heat from the bodies of the victims themselves would have enabled the liquid cyanide found in Zyklon B to vaporize to a gaseous state.

It is clear, however, that during a hypothetical experimental gassing, necessarily performed in an awkward manner, it would have been practically impossible to administer such a meager dosage of hydrocyanic acid. It is also clear that a larger amount, which would have been easier to handle, would have had lethal results even sooner.

The gas concentration normally used for disinfesting a room is 10 grams per cubic meter. This is the only actual benchmark available to the hypothetical perpetrators of the gassing. [23] It turns out that this concentration, corresponding to a total dosage of about 110 grams in a cell of the Bunker, would mean virtually instant death for a human being.

Therefore, the Polish Investigation Commission report is technically absurd. This is also admitted by the Auschwitz Museum itself, which maintains that victims’ deaths occurred only 15 to 20 minutes after the emission of the Zyklon B in the gas chambers — underground, like the cells of the Bunker — of the crematoriums II and III of Birkenau. [24]

In summation, the story of the first gassing is neither supported by documents nor by direct testimony; the sources are indirect, contradictory and absurd. The only eyewitness testimonies available refer exclusively to the evacuation of the corpses, and are in contradiction as well.

In conclusion, the story of the first gassing at Auschwitz is historically groundless. This is further corroborated by the sworn testimony of a primary eyewitness, of importance both because of the position he held at Auschwitz in the second half of 1941, and because of the authority he currently possesses as director of the Auschwitz Museum: Kazimierz Smolen.

Smolen was deported to Auschwitz on July 6, 1940 (am 6 Juli 1940) and in July 1941 was employed as “recorder” (Schreiber) at the “Political Section” (Politische Abteilung) which is near the Gestapo office of the camp. In this position he was one of the better informed prisoners as to what was happening at Auschwitz. This is what he affirmed in sworn testimony which he gave in Cracow on 15 December 1947, regarding the fate of the Russian prisoners of war:

“At the beginning of October 1941 (anfangs Oktober 1941) the first (die ersten) transports of Russians arrived at Auschwitz. Because I was already at that time employed at the Political Section as a recorder, I had to handle, together with my companions, the admission of the new arrivals. In the course of a week there arrived 10,000 Russian prisoners of war from ‘Stalag’ VIII/B/Lamsdorf, and a number which I don’t remember anymore from another ‘Stalag’, Neuhammer near Quais.

The prisoners of war arrived in camp in terrible physical condition, were half dead with hunger, full of lice, and had to undress naked outside of the camp. Although it was already very cold, the prisoners had to take a cold disinfecting bath and were then conducted into the camp wet and naked. In the camp of Auschwitz there were 9 Blocks separated from the rest of the camp by an electrified fence and at the entrance door was posted the sign ‘Labor Camp for Prisoners of War’. The camp for Russian prisoners of war consisted of the following Blocks: Block 1, Block 2, Block 3, Block 12, Block 13, Block 14, Block 22, Block 23, Block 24. The Blocks 3,23,24 had the first floor. These were designated 3a, 23.

SS-Oberscharführer Hans Stark directed the admission of prisoners of war, and I, as a recorder of prisoners, participated in that task with several inmates.”

After having minutely described the procedures of incorporation, Smolet continues:

“The admission of the 10,000 prisoners of war went on for about three weeks. In the meanwhile, about 1,500 had died, and we forwarded their green cards to Berlin together with their identification badges.

In November 1941 (im November 1941) a special committee of the Gestapo came. They were from the main office of the State Police of Kattowitz and were led by Doctor Mildner. This committee was composed of the chief of the main office of the State Police, Doctor Mildner, and of three men of the Secret Services who knew Russian perfectly. The directorate of the camps assigned several inmates to interpret for the three men from the Secret Servlce. Another inmate and I were assigned to the Gestapo special committee by the Political Section. Consequently I had the opportunity to observe all the activity of the Special Committee.”

So far Smolen.

The Gestapo special committee was in charge of interrogating, one by one, all the Russian prisoners of war and of classifying them into three groups:

  1. “politically intolerable,” a group including the subdivision “fanatical Communist”;
  2. “politically not suspicious”;
  3. “fit for reconstruction” (Wiederaupbau).

Smolen goes on:

“300 prisoners of war were selected as particularly important commissars and political functionaries and received the notation “fanatical communist.” These prisoners were taken immediately to the interrogation room of Block 24a, which had been converted to a Bunker. In the Bunker they were received by Oberscharführer Stark, who removed their old prisoners numbers, substituting new numbers for the old ones. These new numbers ranged from “Aul” to “Au300.” The prisoners with “Au” numbers got their numbers tattooed on the left side of the chest and were kept completely isolated from the other prisoners of the Russian camp.

The activity of the special committee finished after one month (nach einem Monat), and as far as I remember, the distribution of the prisoners among the above-mentioned groups was the following:

  • Group Au300 prisoners
  • Category A700 prisoners
  • Category B8,000 prisoners
  • Category C30 prisoners

By virtue of my activity at the Political Section, I know that the 300 prisoners labeled “Au” were executed (exekutiert wurden) in quite small groups (in kleineren Gruppen). The conditions of the Russian camp were so bad that on the average 250 prisoners died each day. About 8,000 had perished or had been executed (exekutiert) up to February 1942. The rest, 1,500 prisoners of war, were transferred to the camp of Auschwitz-Birkenau. Thus, an external camp rose at the camp of Auschwitz-Birkenau; this external camp was enlarged by small transports which, however, altogether did not add up to more than 2,000 prisoners. In the middle of 1942, all of the Russian prisoners of war, except 150, had died or had been executed.”

At the end of his sworn statement, Kazimierz Smolet summarizes the crimes perpetrated by the Nazis in Auschwitz against the Russian prisoners of war:

“Recapitulating, I declare: the conditions of life in the camp were, for the Russian prisoners of war at Auschwitz, substantially worse than the conditions in the concentration camps. The Russian prisoners of war received less and worse food, above all less bread, and they could neither write nor use the room with wash boards [sic]. It is therefore understandable that in less than two months the camp was deserted. In addition to this, there is the fact that often selections were carried out in which those unable to work were executed in groups of hundreds. Both the inmates classified as “Au” and the others who were to be put to death were either killed with a shot in the neck, or gassed (vergast) in Block 11 (im Block 11).” [25]

This is the only allusion by Kazimierz Smolet to the gassing in Block 11, which allusion, among other things extremely vague and laconic, clearly betrays its character: rumor reported by the witness only because of an obligation to report the latest gossip. In fact, two points in Smolen’s testimony demonstrate incontestably the historical groundlessness of the report of the first gassing set forth by Danuta Czech in the Kalendarium of Auschwitz.

First of all, if the gassing in question had really happened, Kazimierz Smolen could not have been in the dark about it, because of the duty in the political section of Auschwitz with which he had been charged at the time, and in particular owing to his assignment to the special committee presided over by Mildner. Smolen, on the contrary, could have talked about it with a wealth of details, in view of the fact that he devoted a whole page of his sworn statement to such an irrelevant subject as the formalities of matriculation of Russian prisoners of war.

This witness’s ignorance appears even more incredible considering that, according to the Polish examining magistrate Jan Sehn, the first gassing was performed only in accord with the decisions of the special committee:

“In November 1941, a special committee composed of three Gestapo officers arrived at Oswiecim [Auschwitz] from Kattowitz. This committee interrogated the prisoners and divided them into four groups in compliance with an order from the chief of the RSHA (Central Security Office of the Reich) dated July 17, li41. They were classified according to the secret files containing information about Soviet militants in administration and the [Communist] party. This committee itself decided as to the classification. We add that the fact of being recorded in the first two groups meant a death sentence.The first group — about 300 prisoners — were all shot either in the gravel pits or in the courtyard of Block 11. The order of execution was given by the second Lagerführer at the time, SS-Obersturmführer Seidler.

On the initiative of the first Lagerführer, SS- Hauptsturmführer Karl Fritzsch, the prisoners assigned to the second group (about 900) and those who were chosen from the subsequent convoys were killed with the gas Zyklon B. Fritzsch filled the underground of Block 11 with prisoners, and then, after having put on a gas mask, threw the poison inside. The Block then had to be aired for two days.”[26]

The fact that Kazimierz Smolen, even at the end of 1947 knew nothing about the gassing in the Bunker of Block 11 demonstrates, therefore, that this gassing never happened.

Questioned by this writer about this point, Kazimierz Smolen, through a spokesman, declared:

“As regards the testimony given by the former inmate of the KL Auschwitz Kazimierz Smolen at the Nuremberg trial, as you certainly know, he answered the concrete questions asked by the Tribunal (odpowiadal On na konkretne, przez Sad postawione pytania), so he could not report in detail and exhaustively all the events that he had observed.”[27]

This justification is definitely unsustainable. In fact, in the above-mentioned sworn statement, Smolen did not answer “concrete questions,” as is usual during an interrogation, but freely expatiated on the theme of the fate of the Russian prisoners of war in Auschwitz in the years 1941-1942, dwelling, in particular, upon the crimes committed against them. His claim not to have described the first gassing because he had not been asked that specific question is, therefore, clearly captious, as confirmed by his fleeting mention of the prisoners “gassed in Block 11.” With regard to this, either he did answer a concrete question, and thus did not know anything about the first gassing, or he did not answer a concrete question, and thus his answer is false.

In the second place, because the “first transports of Russians” arrived at Auschwitz at the beginning of October 1941 [emphasis added], it is false that 600 Russian prisoners of war could have been gassed there on September 3.

Moreover, the first gassing was an execution of men condemned to death selected by the committee presided by Mildner, which arrived at Auschwitz “in November 1941” and concluded its work “after one month.” Consequently, the first gassing could in no way have occurred before December.

Furthermore, since the number of prisoners of war selected by this committee and, until December 1941, assigned to the “Au” group of the condemned was 300, it is therefore a fortiori false that 600 were gassed on September 3.

Finally, the historical absurdity of the first gassing in Block 11 is indirectly confirmed by three researchers of the Auschwitz Museum, in their long study devoted to the register of the Bunker of Block 11, which appeared in Number one of the Hefte von Auschwitz (1959). This register, the Bunkerbuch, contains the names of all of the inmates imprisoned in the Bunker between January 9,1941 and February 1, 1944. It is clear that if the first gassing had actually happened, the register should have preserved some trace of it. Now, these three scholars limit themselves to a fleeting two-line allusion to the alleged gassing (p.10), and, while publishing fifty-one pages from the Bunkerbuch, on pages 46-68, they in fact refrain from reproducing the page regarding the records of the beginning of September. This fact demonstrates that that page — requested in vain from the Auschwitz Museum by this writer — either contains no trace of the first gassing, or even contains elements that contradict it, such as, for instance, records of admissions of inmates to the Bunker between September 3 and September 7, that is, between the beginning of the gassing and the end of the ventilation of the Bunker.

The historical absurdity of the first gassing has been — established; the various versions of that gassing have been shown to be not merely groundless, but mutually contradictory. The way remains to be examined, in which Danuta Czech elaborated those versions in her own version, which is supposedly definitive. In other words, it is the historiographic methodology of the compiler of the Kalendarium that remains to be examined in order to show, among other things, what methodological criteria have been employed for the compiling, and what scientific value is to be ascribed to this essential source of the Exterminationist historiography.

The account of the first gassing presented by Danuta Czech in the Kalendarium of Auschwitz is the result of the extrapolation and of the indiscriminate fusion of sources which are all in total reciprocal contradiction.

Danuta Czech derived the number and category of the victims, as well as the description of the gassing, from the report of the Polish Investigation Commission; on the other hand, she deduced the account of the evacuation of the bodies from the testimony of Zenon Rozanski, adding elements derived from other sources.

Besides, in the description of the gassing, she arbitrarily modified the text of the Polish report, changing the “coal cellars” to “underground cells” (Kellerzellen) and “an SS-man” into “SS-men” (SS-Männer).

In the description of the evacuation of the gassed corpses, Danuta Czech substituted “the evening” (am Abend) for “the morning” (am Morgen) of Rozanski’s version, extrapolating that information from the report of the Polish Investigation Commission which says “next evening.” The evacuators of the corpses, who according to Rozanski were only 20 inmates of the punishment company, became, in the report of Danuta Czech, 20 inmates of the punishment company “and hospital attendants” (Pfleger). This information was derived from the testimony of Josef Vacek, who however declared that the 30 evacuators were all hospital attendants.

Finally, Danuta Czech derived the presence of Doctor Entress at the evacuation of the bodies from the testimony of Zenon Rozanski, while in fact this officer was not yet in Auschwitz at the beginning of September. [28]

From the “Annotations” of Rudolf Höss Danuta Czech derived only the duration of the airing of the Bunker: two days. As a matter of fact, the Kalendarium reports that the punishment company returned to Block 11 on September the 8th after it had been cleaned and aired. In other words, the punishment company returned just after two days of airing, September 6 and 7. Thus, considering that Danuta Czech said that the gassing ended on September 5, the victims’ agony consequently lasted two days, while according to Rudolf Höss they died immediately.

It is not possible to specify the sources of the report of the Polish Investigation Committee upon which is founded the description of the gassing presented by Danuta Czech. The only certain thing is that the number of the victims — 850 people, of whom 600 were Russian prisoners of war and 250 sick inmates — originated from the note dated October 24, 1941, in which they are, however, only “Russian commissioned and non-commissioned officers,” without sick inmates.

The Polish Investigation Committee did not know the “Annotations” of Rudolf Höss, dated November 1946. This fact is understandable because that committee made the inquiry in 1945 and published the results the following year, presumably before Höss was extradited to Poland on May 25, 1946.

Indeed, Danuta Czech, who conducted her researches in the late fifties, did not mention the “Autobiographical Notes.” This also is comprehensible, because the testimony of Höss about the first gassing strikingly contradicts the report of the Polish Investigation Committee.

The source for the date of the gassing proposed by Danuta Czech – September 3, 1941 — does not appear in any of the documents examined. The closest date is that in the article of the Polish Fortnightly Review: the night of 5-6 September.

Besides being arbitrary, the date proposed by Danuta Czech is also contradictory. The following record appears in the Kalendarium of Auschwitz a few pages after the account of the gassing; the month is November and there is no indication of the day:

“A special committee of the Gestapo of Kattowitz arrived at Auschwitz. It was composed of three persons and presided by the chief of the Gestapo of Kattowitz, Doctor Rudolf Mildner. This committee, which was operating in compliance with Einsatzbefehl no.8 of 17 July 1941, carried out a selection of the Russian prisoners of war according to the following groups:

  1. Fanatic Communist about 300
  2. Group A: Politically intolerable 700
  3. Group B: Politically not suspicious about 8,000
  4. Group C: Fit for reconstruction about 30

The inmates belonging to the groups Fanatic Communist” or “A” were doomed to extermination. The activity of this committee went on for at least one month.”[29]

The registration just mentioned is entirely derived from the sworn statement of Kazimierz Smolen previously cited. It will be remembered that in that statement Smolen maintained that “the first transports” of Russian prisoners of war arrived at Auschwitz “at the beginning of October,” and that Mildner’s committee arrived “in November” 1941 and concluded its work “after one month,” thus in December. The victims of the first gassing can therefore be no one other than the Russian prisoners of war condemned to death by the above-mentioned committee – to be exact, according to Jan Sehn, those assigned to Group “B.” Consequently, that gassing could not be happening on September 3.

Here is one more example, therefore, of indiscriminate fusion of contradictory sources and previous elimination of the contradictions in order to create among such sources an agreement completely fictitious.

One last observation. In order to be able to affirm that the first gassing took place on September 3, Danuta Czech arbitrarily anticipated the arrival at Auschwitz of the first Russian prisoners of war. In fact, the first registration of the Kalendarium that concerns them dates back to July and mentions the arrival of “a few hundred Soviet prisoners,” who subsequently were all murdered with small-caliber guns, with shovels, and with picks. [30] Danuta Czech did not indicate either the day of arrival, or the source of the information.

The second registration is dated September 3, and is relative to the 600 Russian prisoners gassed. Danuta Czech did not indicate the source of the information in this case either Seven registrations follow between October 7 and November l5. [31] tThe one of November 15 is the last transport in 1941. The total of the Russian prisoners of war transferred to Auschwitz in that period is 9,983 people. This figure is practically Identical to that indicated by Kazimierz Smole^. Also the date of the first transport coincides with that indicated by this witness, i.e. the beginning of October. Therefore, Russian prisoners of war did not arrive at Auschwitz before that date.

This is also confirmed by the fact that Danuta Czech reported the source regarding the transports made since October 7. That source is the file (Kartochek) of the Russian prisoners of war which, as a matter of fact, was initiated on October 7. However, the compiler of the Kalendarium was not able to indicate any source for the two previous transports, and this fact is very meaningful. Besides, considering that the first page of the “book of deaths” (Totenbuch), that is the death register of the Russian prisoners of war, recorded the first deaths under the date October 7, it is necessary to conclude, until one has proof to the contrary, that the first two transports recorded by Danuta Czech before October 7 are invented.

This is a meaningful example of the historiographic methodology with which the Kalendarium of Auschwitz has been compiled.

By now, nothing remains but to draw the conclusions.

The story of the first gassing in the cells of the Bunker of Block 11 of Auschwitz is historically groundless. It is supported neither by documents nor by eyewitness testimonies. The few eyewitness testimonies available all refer exclusively to the evacuation of the corpses from the Bunker and are all in reciprocal contradiction concerning all the essential points.

The first gassing is therefore not history, but myth. This myth was shaped by the Polish war propaganda in October 1941.

The first version of the myth, which predominated until the middle of 1942, did not yet include the first gassing in the extermination process which would bring about the creation of the gas chambers of Birkenau. Instead, according to the first version, the first gassing is still a simple scientific experiment to verify the effectiveness of a gas for future wartime use.

The essential elements of this first version are contradictory.

The note of 24 October 1941 speaks of 850 Russian prisoners of war gassed in Auschwitz, without specifying where, “at the beginning of October.” The article of the Polish Fortnightly Review corrected the number of the victims and the date of the execution: approximately 1,000 persons, among whom 700 Bolshevik prisoners of war and 300 Poles” gassed ” the night of 5-6 September.” The location is still unspecified: the “underground shelter” of Auschwitz. The note of 2 July 1942 situated the history of the first gassing within a general extermination process by means of gas chambers, which involved the Jews deported to the camp. The first gassing was presented as a starting point of this process, but was described in an even more contradictory fashion: the date was moved back to June, the number of the victims was increased to 1,700; all sick inmates; without Russian prisoners of war; and finally the place of the execution became, anachronistically, an actual gas chamber. In this way, after having given life to the legend of the gas chamber, the myth disappeared.

The anonymous “Polish Major” is the author of one of the reports on Auschwitz published in November 1944 by the War Refugee Board. In his detailed report about the facts of 1941, while devoting a special paragraph to the Bunker of Block 11, he completely ignored the matter of the first gassing. [32] It was moreover ignored both by the witness Stanislaw Jankowski in his deposition of 13 April 1945 [33] and by the Soviet Commission of Investigation in its report of May 7. [34] As late as the end of 1947, one of the more informed witnesses, Kazimierz Smolen, did not say anything about it.

The myth reappeared suddenly on the 8th of May in the testimony of Josef Vacek. The myth was still in full literary evolution, but finally acquired a conclusive element: the location of the execution, which became Block 11. Now nothing remained but to determine the other elements, starting with the location of the gassing. At first the version prevailed that the gassing was performed in a single room which Josef Vacek anachronistically called the gas chamber of Block 11. Some months later, on July 13, Perry Broad introduced another definitive element: the cells of the Bunker. To be exact, he spoke of a single cell, in which forty Russians were gassed on an unspecified day; he did not even indicate the year. From his comment, it appears that he incontestably was talking about the first gassing: “it was the complete success of the first test for the most hateful crime planned by Hitler and his confidants, and partly carried out in a terrifying and irrevocable fashion. From that moment, the atrocious tragedy began, which victimized millions of human beings who until then had lived happily and innocently.” [35] In 1959 Hans Stark, direct superior of Smolen in Auschwitz, inspired by that version, declared he had heard from the SS of Auschwitz that the first gassing of prisoners had been experimented with for the first time “in the fall of 1941 in a cell (in einer Zelle) of Block 11.” [36].

The report of the Polish Investigation Commission which carried out its inquiry in 1945, is the first attempt at historiographical systematization of the myth, which was raised by that committee to the rank of historical antecedent and necessary presupposition of the extermination process by means of gas chambers. That Commission inserted two other definitive elements: the number of the victims – 850 — evidently inferred from the note of 24 October; and the description of the gassing, evidently invented because it is both technically absurd and not founded on any eyewitness testimony. The date instead remained still indeterminate: the summer of 1941.

In 1946, Rudolf Höss completely ignored the first gassing for as long as he was in the hands of the English. Only after his extradition to Poland did he speak about it, in the so-called “Annotations” of Cracow of November 1946 and February 1947. The version that appears in them is in total contradiction to the version proposed by the Polish Investigation Commission; however, the myth acquired one more of the missing elements: the cells of the Bunker.

In 1948, Zenon Rozanski furnished the final version of the myth with the description of the evacuation of the corpses, but this description is in total contradiction to the declaration of Vacek and Barcz.

In 1959, Jan Sehn, basing himself on the “Autobiographical Notes” of Rudolf Höss and on the sworn statement of Kazimierz Smolen, related the first gassing to the activity of the special commission presided over by Rudolf Mildner and, as a result, moved the first gassing to December 1941.

In the same year, the conclusive version of the myth appeared in the Kalendarium of Auschwitz; by cleverly manipulating the sources, Danuta Czech extrapolated from and indiscriminately blended testimonies in total reciprocal contradiction. Besides, Czech arbitrarily added the date September 3, careless of the contrary testimony of Kazimierz Smolet. which was otherwise utilized with abandon.

By then the myth had been concocted and was ready to be served to the Exterminationist historians, who are easily satisfied and favorably disposed to swallow, in an uncritical way, all that is offered them in the Kalendarium of Auschwitz, which is celebrated as the quintessence of factuality on that concentration camp!

Notes

  1. According to another publication of the Auschwitz Museum, Hauptsturmführer Friedrich Karl Hermann Entress filled the position of camp physician (Lagerarzt) at Gross-Rosen from January 3 to December 10, 1941. On December 11 he was transferred to Auschwitz with the same office, which he held until October 20, 1943. Therefore, on September 5, 1941, he was not yet at Auschwitz. Auschwitz vu par les SS. Edition du Musee d’Etat a Oswiecim, 1974, p. 318.
  2. Hefte von Auschwitz. Wydawnictwo Panstwowego Muzeum w Oswiecimiu, 2, 1959, p. 109.
  3. Zeszyty oswiecimskie. Numer specjalny (1). Wydawnictwo Panstwowego Muzeum w Oswiecimiu, 1968, p.11.
  4. Foreign Office papers, FO 371/30837 5365, “Conditions in Czechoslovakia,” pp. 157-158.
  5. Polish Fortnightly Review, London, n. 47, July 1, 1942, p. 2.
  6. According to Danuta Czech, the order to select the sick inmates was not given by Doctor Jungen, but by the SS-Hauptsturmführer Doctor Siegfried Schwela: “Schwela had probably been appointed Standortarzt after August 1941 because it is by exercising that office that I gave the orders on September 3, 1941, of selecting from the Blockhospitals n. 21 and 28 all the very sick inmates and of transferring them to the Bunkers of Block 11” (Contribution a l’histoire du KL Auschwitz, Edition du Musee d’Etat a Oswiecim, 1978, note 10, A- 9)
  7. The gas chamber of Block 11 never existed. The underground of this building was provided with 28 larger cells and 4 smaller ones, none of which has been declared by the Auschwitz Museum to be the gas chamber of the Block.
  8. Der Mord an den Juden im Zweiten Weltkrieg. Entschlussbildung und Verwirklichung. Edited by Eberhard Jäckel und Jurgen Rohwer. Stuttgart, 1985, p. 167.
  9. NA1210/D-749a, p. 2 of the English translation.
  10. Comandante ad Auschwitz. Memoriale autobiografico di Rudolf Höss. Einaudi, Torino, 1985, pp. 128-129.
  11. Idem, pp. 171-174. Regarding the testimony of Rudolf Höss, see: Robert Faurisson, “Comment les Britanniques ont obtenu les aveux de Rudolf Höss, commandant d’Auschwitz,” in Annales d’Histoire Revisionniste, no. 1, Spring 1987, pp. 137-152; Carlo Mattogno, Auschwitz: le “confessioni” di Höss, Edizioni La Sfinge, Parma 1987.
  12. See note 1.
  13. Zenon Rozanski, Mutzen ab — Eine Reportage aus der Strafkompanie des KZ. Auschwitz. Verlag “Das andere Deutschland,” Hannover 1948, pp. 40-44.
  14. Wojciech Barcz, “Die erste Vergasung,” in: Auschwitz: Zeugnisse und Berichte, H. G. Adler, Hermann Langbein, Ella Lingens-Reiner (Hrsg.). Europaische Verlagsanstalt, Koln-Frankfurt am Main, 1979, pp. 17-18.
  15. Central Commission for Investigation of German Crimes in Poland. German Crimes in Poland, Warsaw, 1946, vol. 1, p. 83.
  16. Zeszyty oswiecimskie, op.cit., p. 47.
  17. Nationalsozialistische Massentotungen durch Giftgas. Eine Dokumentation. Edited by Eugen Kogon, Hermann Langbein, Adalbert Ruckerl et al. S. Fischer Verlag, Frankfurt am Main, 1983, p. 205.
  18. Filip Friedman, This Was Oswiecim: The Story of a Murder Camp, London, 1946, p. 18.
  19. Auschwitz vu par les SS, op.cit., note 113 on p. 96.
  20. Kommandant in Auschwitz. Autobiographische Aufzeichnungen des Rudolf Höss. Edited by Martin Broszat. DTV, Munchen 1981, p. 159.
  21. Fumasoni — M. Rafanelli, Lavorazioni che espongono all’azione di acido cianidrico e composti del cianogeno, Edizioni I.N.A.I.L., p. 8.
  22. Dizionario di chimica GIUA. Utet, 1947, pp. 312-313.
  23. NI-9098, p. 31.
  24. Auschwitz: Guide of the Museum. Krajowa Agencja Wydawnicza, Katowice, 1979, p. 29.
  25. NO-5849.
  26. Hefte von Auschwitz, 2, p. 109.
  27. Letter from the Auschwitz Museum to this author, May 4, 1988.
  28. See note 1.
  29. Hefte von Auschwitz, 2, p. 113.
  30. Hefte von Auschwitz, 2, p. 106.
  31. Hefte von Auschwitz, 2, pp. 111-114.
  32. Executive Office of the President. War Refugee Board. Washington, D.C. German Extermination Camps-Auschwitz and Birkenau. Part 2, pp. 14-19.
  33. Declaration of Stanislaw Jankowski, in, Hefte von Auschwitz, Sonderheft 1, 1972.
  34. URSS-8.
  35. Auschwitz vu par les SS, op. cit., pp. 181-182.
  36. Interrogation of April 23, 1959. Zentrale Stelle Ludwigsburg, AR-ZZ 37/58 SB 6, p. 948.

From The Journal of Historical Review, Summer 1989 (Vol. 9, No. 2), pages 193-222.


About the Author

CARLO MATTOGNO was born in Orvieto, Italy in 1951. He has done advanced linguistic and exegetical studies in Latin, Greek, Hebrew, and Sanskrit Mr. Mattogno is a specialist in textual criticism, and has published a number of Revisionist studies in Italian, including Il rapporto Gerstein: anatomia di un falso and Auschwitz: due false testimonianze.

The Strange Life of Ilya Ehrenburg

by Mark Weber

Source: http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v08/v08p507_Weber.html

 Ilya_Ehrenburg

Ilya Ehrenburg, the leading Soviet propagandist of the Second World War, was a contradictory figure. A recent article in the weekly Canadian Jewish News sheds new light on the life of this „man of a thousand masks.“ [1]

Ehrenburg was born in 1891 in Kiev to a non-religious Jewish family. In 1908 he fled Tsarist Russia because of his revolutionary activities. Although he returned to visit after the Bolshevik revolution, he continued to live abroad, including many years in Paris, and did not settle in the Soviet Union until 1941. A prolific writer, Ehrenburg was the author of almost 30 books. The central figure of one novel, The Stormy Life of Lazik Roitschwantz, is a pathetic „luftmensch,“ a recurring character in Jewish literature who seems to live „from the air“ without visible means of support.

As a Jew and a dedicated Communist, Ehrenburg was a relentless enemy of German National Socialism. During the Second World War, he was a leading member of the Soviet-sponsored Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee. (At fund-raising rallies in the United States for the Soviet war effort, two leading members of the Committee displayed bars of soap allegedly manufactured by the Germans from the corpses of murdered Jews.)

Ehrenburg is perhaps most infamous for his viciously anti-German wartime propaganda. In the words of the Canadian Jewish News: „As the leading Soviet journalist during World War II, Ehrenburg’s writings against the German invaders were circulated among millions of Soviet soldiers.“ His articles appeared regularly in Pravda, Izvestia, the Soviet military daily Krasnaya Zvezda („Red Star“), and in numerous leaflets distributed to troops at the front.

In one leaflet headlined „Kill,“ Ehrenburg incited Soviet soldiers to treat Germans as sub-human. The final paragraph concludes: [2]

„The Germans are not human beings. From now on the word German means to use the most terrible oath. From now on the word German strikes us to the quick. We shall not speak any more. We shall not get excited. We shall kill. If you have not killed at least one German a day, you have wasted that day … If you cannot kill your German with a bullet, kill him with your bayonet. If there is calm on your part of the front, or if you are waiting for the fighting, kill a German in the meantime. If you leave a German alive, the German will hang a Russian and rape a Russian woman. If you kill one German, kill another — there is nothing more amusing for us than a heap of German corpses. Do not count days, do not count kilometers. Count only the number of Germans killed by you. Kill the German — that is your grandmother’s request. Kill the German — that is your child’s prayer. Kill the German — that is your motherland’s loud request. Do not miss. Do not let through. Kill.”

Ehrenburg’s incendiary writings certainly contributed in no small measure to the orgy of murder and rape by Soviet soldiers against German civilians.

Until his death in 1967, „his support for the Soviet state, and for Stalin, never wavered,“ the Canadian Jewish News notes. His loyalty and service were acknowledged in 1952 when he received the Stalin Prize. In keeping with official Soviet policy, he publicly criticized Israel and Zionism.

The Canadian Jewish News further writes:

„ … The recent disclosure that Ehrenburg arranged to transfer his private archives to Jerusalem’s Yad Vashem library and archive, while still alive, comes as a stunning revelation. The reason this information has come to light only now is that Ehrenburg agreed to transfer his archive on condition that the transfer, and his will, remain secret for 20 years after his death. On Dec. 11 [1987], with the 20-year period expired, Israel’s daily Maariv related Ehrenburg’s story…”

The collection includes material about the important wartime Jewish partisan movement. Among the documents in the collection is one concerning a pogrom in Malalchovka, a village near Moscow, which took place in 1959.

This new revelation about one of the most influential figures of the Stalinist regime shows that, whatever he may have said for public consumption, Ehrenburg never privately disavowed Zionism or forgot his ancestry.


Notes

  1. Rose Kleiner, „Archives to throw new light on Ehrenburg,“ Canadian Jewish News (Toronto), March 17, 1988, p. 9.
  2. Alfred de Zayas, Nemesis at Potsdam (London: Roudedge & Kegan Paul, 2nd edition, 1979), pp. 6546, 201; Erich Kern (ed.), Verheimlichte Dokumente (Munich: FZ- Verlag, 1988), pp. 260-61, 353-55.

From: The Journal of Historical Review, Winter 1988-89 (Vol. 8, No. 4), pp. 507-509.

Paying the Organizatsiya

by Dr. William Pierce

Free Speech – June 1998 – Volume IV, Number 6

Source: http://www.jewwatch.com/jew-crime-mob-2.html

Illegal immigration is a huge and growing problem for this country. So is legal immigration, to the extent that the immigrants are nearly all members of minority groups these days. Immigration is changing the complexion and the character of America. We are becoming less European and more Middle Eastern, Asian, African, and mestizo. I have discussed what this non-White immigration is doing to our schools, our cities, and our tax burden. Let’s look today at some of the other costs involved.

Before the Second World War we had immigration laws which insured that most immigrants to the United States were Europeans. It was extremely difficult for Asians or Africans or other non-Whites to enter the country. Then in the rush of feel-good egalitarianism and yankee-doodle democracy which were promoted by the media after the war, the members of the liberal elite let themselves be persuaded by the media bosses that our immigration policies were “racist.” What we needed in America was more “diversity,” they decided. A Jewish congressman from New York, Emanuel Celler, headed the drive in the Congress for a new immigration law which would favor the Third World instead of Europe, and in 1965 such a law was passed, with the co-sponsorship of Massachusetts Senator Edward Kennedy.

Of course, at the time the Jews and the liberals were campaigning for their new immigration law they didn’t advertise it as a law which would change America’s complexion. They didn’t talk of it as a diversity-enhancing law. Quite the opposite, in fact, because in 1965 the masters of the controlled media hadn’t had time yet to make diversity fashionable among ordinary Americans. Television was still relatively new and hadn’t worked its magic yet.

People who wanted to maintain America’s European racial character foresaw the effect the new law would have and argued against it on that basis, but its proponents deceitfully claimed that it wouldn’t change America’s racial character at all, knowing full well that it would. And so the law was passed, and since it went into effect in 1965 most of the legal immigrants to the United States have been non-European, non-White. So have nearly all of the illegal immigrants. And America’s racial complexion has changed drastically as a result. In the last census taken before Emanuel Celler’s new immigration law — the census of 1960 — the population of the United States was 89 per cent White. In the 1990 census, after 25 years with the new law, the White percentage of the population had fallen to 76 per cent. Actually, the situation was worse than that, because illegal immigrants, nearly all of whom are non-White, tend to avoid the census-takers. And the percentage of Whites in the United States has continued to plunge since 1990. Today the country is somewhere between 70 and 75 per cent White.

Occasionally Congress has made special modifications to the 1965 immigration law to admit favored groups of immigrants. The largest such group is from Europe but actually is not racially European. It consists of Jews from the former Soviet Union claiming “refugee” status. A Jewish legislator, New Jersey’s Senator Frank Lautenberg, succeeded in 1989 in having Soviet Jews officially designated as a “persecuted minority” in the Soviet Union and therefore eligible for admission to the United States without regard to regular immigration quotas. It has been reapproved every year since then.

As a matter of fact Jews in the Soviet Union, far from being persecuted, have been a favored race ever since the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 — a revolution which they in large part engineered. While communism ruled in Russia, Jews were far more often persecutors of Russians than the other way around. But in 1989, with Russia bled dry and communism on the brink of collapse, Soviet Jews decided to find a new host. And so for the past nine years, whereas it has been nearly impossible for a real Russian or Ukrainian to become a U.S. immigrant, Jews from the former Soviet Union have been pouring into the United States at a rate of about 50,000 a year. Furthermore, as “refugees from persecution,” Soviet Jews are given a cash handout from the U.S. Treasury and various other Federal subsidies as soon as they arrive.

Whenever anyone has dared to question why Soviet Jews continue to be exempt from the immigration laws which apply to everyone else, he was likely to be charged with “anti-Semitism.” And the claim will be made that these Soviet Jews are a very clever and skilful bunch of people who contribute greatly to America’s economy, and we’re fortunate to have them in the country.

Not really. They are clever, all right, but the only economy they contribute to is their own, and it’s at the expense of the rest of us. Soviet Jewish immigrants in the United States have been a far larger per capita burden on White Americans than any other immigrant group. A substantial part of this burden is due to the fact that a great many of these Soviet Jews are gangsters: members of a global organized crime network, which they call theOrganizatsiya: the “Organization.” Under communism, Jews controlled organized crime in the Soviet Union, and when communism collapsed at the beginning of this decade Soviet Jewish gangsters not only branched out into various new money-making enterprises in Russia and Ukraine, including the White slave trade, they also began building their criminal operations in the United States and in Western Europe. Today they virtually control organized crime in Germany, Poland, and several other European countries. And the Organizatsiya has replaced the Italian and Sicilian Mafia as the principal organized crime element in the United States. And these Jews from the former Soviet Union are far more predatory than the Mafia ever was. They suck far more blood from law-abiding Americans.

Three or four years ago they made the headlines with their gasoline-tax rackets in New Jersey and New York, where a handful of Jewish gangsters from Russia were stealing an estimated $1.5 billion a year from these two states alone. More recently they’ve come into the news in connection with automobile insurance fraud in California. They hire people, hundreds of people every week, to participate in staged automobile accidents, and then, using their own lawyers and their own clinics for treating the alleged injuries in the accidents, they collect from the insurance companies.

Now, anyone can do this sort of thing, and as a matter of fact Chinese, Vietnamese, and Mexican gangs had been engaging in automobile insurance fraud before the Organizatsiya became involved, just as the Mafia had been stealing gasoline taxes in New York and New Jersey before the Soviet Jews made a multi-billion-dollar racket out of it. When the Jews moved into insurance fraud recently, however, they did so on a massive scale, converting what had been a minor irritation to a huge drain on the pocketbook of nearly every American. Automobile insurance fraud is currently sucking nearly $20 billion a year from the American economy and is costing the average American household an estimated $300 per year in additional insurance payments — because, of course, every dollar paid to a Jewish gangster as a result of a fraudulent automobile accident comes from the pockets of all the people who are obliged to buy automobile insurance. This is an enormous racket, and it dwarfs anything that the Mafia used to do.

And gasoline-tax fraud and automobile insurance fraud are by no means the only rackets that Soviet Jewish immigrants have moved into. In New York, Los Angeles, and other port cities their presence has substantially increased the likelihood that your car will be stolen, for example. They control gangs of thieves who steal expensive cars off the street, and then the Jews arrange for the cars to be shipped in freight containers to other Jewish gangsters in the Middle East, where they can be sold for much higher prices than in the United States — and where they will never be recovered by the police. As with the other rackets, the Jews aren’t the only organized criminals who steal cars, but they do it on such a large scale that they run insurance rates up much higher than all of the non-Jewish auto thieves together.

There are perhaps 400,000 Soviet Jewish immigrants in the United States, most of them in the New York and Los Angeles areas, and only about 4,000 of these Jews belong to organized crime gangs, or about one per cent. But the infrastructure for these Jewish gangs is the entire Soviet Jewish community. They could not function without all of the other Jews who make up the community within which they live.

Don’t let yourself be misled by the argument that 99 per cent of Soviet Jewish immigrants to the United States are not gangsters. The bottom line is that these Soviet Jewish immigrants, gangsters or not, are draining about $50,000 per capita per year from the American economy as a result of Jewish organized crime activities in the United States. It may be only one per cent of them who are actively engaged in the rackets, but we wouldn’t have Jewish organized crime gangs in the United States sucking money from all of us if we didn’t have Soviet Jews in the United States. And we wouldn’t have Soviet Jews in the United States if we had a sane immigration policy.

The United States is still nearly three-quarters White, but most of the crime in the United States is committed by non-Whites. In some cases we may overlook this non-White crime because it doesn’t impact on us directly. For example I have a news story in front of me now about a Mexican gang which operates a sex-slave racket in the southeastern United States. The gang members force Mexican girls, some as young as 14, to work as prostitutes in a chain of brothels they own in Florida and South Carolina, which cater mostly to illegal Mexican aliens doing farm work. This may be dismissed as a case of non-Whites committing crimes against non-Whites which doesn’t cost us anything, but as long as it is happening on our turf we should be concerned about it. If we permit non-White moralities, non-White attitudes toward women, non-White concepts of propriety and proper behavior to flourish here, they eventually will take root here and will infect White Americans, just the way Black life-styles began influencing young Whites after our schools were racially integrated. We cannot have growing communities of Chinese, Vietnamese, Haitians, Mexicans, Soviet Jews, and a hundred other alien races springing up all across the United States, taking over our cities, spreading into our suburbs, and still have any realistic hope of maintaining White values and a White morality as the basis of our own community life. The poison eventually will infect us, sicken us, and destroy us.

This is in no case more true than with the Soviet Jewish gangs which have established themselves here during the past decade. When the Organizatsiya decides to move into an area of criminal activity, whether it be gasoline-tax fraud, insurance fraud, or exporting stolen cars, they do it efficiently and in an organized way which dwarfs the activity of other criminal gangs and typically brings them billions of dollars in loot and makes it possible for them to engage in bribery and political corruption on a massive scale. Bill Clinton accepts political donations from them, and you can be certain that police chiefs, mayors, and other politicians and public officials do too. No government, even one which initially is honest, can remain uncorrupted by the sort of money these organized Jewish criminals have at their disposal.

And the controlled media cover for them. When, occasionally, the newspapers are forced to report on some Organizatsiya racket, the criminals are never referred to as Jews. Instead they are called “Russians.” The media customarily refer to the Organizatsiya as the “Russian mafia.”

One other reason why the activities of the Organizatsiyaought to be of special concern to us is that we are their chosen victims. Mexican gangs often confine their activities to their own people, as in the case of the sex-slave gang I mentioned. Vietnamese and Chinese gangs also tend to focus on extortion and other rackets which victimize their own people. Of course, when these non-White immigrant gangs engage in the drug business, many White Americans end up as victims. But the Jewish gangs deliberately choose us as their victims from the beginning. Part of the reason is that they want money on a much larger scale than they can extract from their fellow immigrants. They’re not interested in a paltry few million dollars. They want — and they get — billions, and it’s from the American majority they get it, whether they’re fleecing the stock market a la Michael Milken and Ivan Boesky or running our auto insurance premiums up through organized fraud.

And part of the reason they choose White Americans as their victims is that they believe they have a God-given right to plunder us. Whenever they immigrate into a non-Jewish country, whether it is ancient Egypt 3500 years ago or America today, their imperative is the same: “Ye shall eat the fat of the land,” their Torah commands them: “Thou shalt suck the milk of the Gentiles.”

It is a difficult thing, a painful thing, for most Americans to face this problem of non-European immigration into America. Most Americans want to be nice, they want to be polite, they don’t want to give offense. And because of this inherent politeness we have, we let ourselves be buffaloed by those clamoring for more “diversity.” If there’s one thing America doesn’t need, one thing which is pure poison to America, it’s more “diversity.” But the Jews of Hollywood and Madison Avenue have done a very effective job of selling the notion to an impressionable and easily manipulated public that it’s “nicer” and more “tolerant,” “open-minded,” and “fairer” to be in favor of letting non-Europeans — including Soviet Jews — continue pouring into America. A great many of us understand that we don’t want any more non-Whites or any more Jews in America — in fact, we don’t want the ones that already are here — but we feel an enormous pressure to smile, to be nice, and not to object to what is happening to our country. We are afraid to stand up against the propaganda of Jewish television, Jewish magazine advertisements, and Jewish films: propaganda that tells us more “diversity” is good for us, even when we know that it isn’t.

Their propaganda, their pressure, is pervasive; it is everywhere. I just finished viewing a Jewish film about the history of the Hollywood film industry. The name of the film is Hollywoodism. It openly discusses what everyone knew but was afraid to speak of openly for fear of being denounced as an “anti-Semite”: namely, that Hollywood and the motion-picture industry are almost completely Jewish. The film talks about the Jews who came to America from Russia and other areas of eastern Europe early in this century and took over the fledgling motion-picture industry in Hollywood, elbowing most of the non-Jews out. The film claims that these immigrant Jews reinvented America for us. They cooked up an image of what they wanted America to be like — more diverse, more democratic and proletarian, more vulgar, with lots of Black music and other elements of Black culture mixed into our culture — and then they sold that image to the American people, first through cinemas and later through television. They persuaded White Americans that this Jewish image of America was a better image than our own. The Jews boastof this transformation of America they made through their control of the motion-picture and television industries.

If you haven’t seen this film, you still can read the book it is based on. The book is Neal Gabler’s An Empire of Their Own: How the Jews Invented Hollywood, and it is available from National Vanguard Books, the publisher of Free Speech.

It is very difficult for the average American to stand up against this flood of Jewish propaganda which clamors for ever more “diversity” and intimidates most of those who would like to stop the flow of Haitians, Chinese, Vietnamese, and Soviet Jews into America. As long as White Americans still have the option of moving to a Whiter neighborhood or sending their children to a Whiter school, they’ll choose that option rather than make a fuss and be considered rude by speaking out against the insane immigration policies of the government in Washington. It’s too bad we’re that way. It just means that our future will be much bloodier and more painful than necessary.

Meanwhile, it will be good for us to remember every time we pay our automobile insurance that one consequence of non-White immigration into America is the size of our premiums. It will be good to remember that a third of every premium pays just for insurance fraud, and that virtually all automobile insurance fraud is perpetrated by gangs of non-White immigrants, a growing number of whom belong to the Organizatsiya. If you are paying, say, $800 a year in automobile insurance, then between $250 and $300 of your hard-earned money is going directly into the pockets of grinning Soviet Jewish gangsters, courtesy of the U.S. Congress. Think about it, sucker!

Today is the 130-th birthday of our Gauleiter Julius Streicher!

Heil Hitler! Heil Streicher!

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

The Year 1936 – Part 5

 04.Arpil-1936-27

04.Arpil-1936-28

06. June-1936

07.July-1936-01

07.July-1936-02

08.Aug-1936

09.Sept-1936-01

09.Sept-1936-02

09.Sept-1936-03

09.Sept-1936-04

The Jewish-Soviet Nuremberg mastermind

Source: http://winstonsmithministryoftruth.blogspot.de/?zx=842d3d865b649586

The Jewish-Soviet Nuremberg mastermind1 

This is a cropped version (original) of a photograph originating from the personal album of Robert “Justice” Jackson, the chief U.S. prosecutor at the trial of the major war criminals in Nuremberg. The photograph shows the Russian delegation at the London Conference in the summer of 1945, at which the charter to be used at the forthcoming Nuremberg trial was written.

The gentleman on the left of the photograph is Ion Timofeevich Nikitchenko, a veteran of the Moscow show trials and the main Soviet judge at Nuremberg; the young man on the right is Oleg Tryanovsley, present as a translator but a future diplomat (his mother was the Jewish bolshevik Elena Rozmirovich), and the gentleman in the centre is Prof. Aron Naumowitsch Trainin, the Soviet legal genius of whom Holocaust Controversies’ Dr. Nicholas Terry wrote:

“the legal architecture for the trial was strongly influenced by the Soviets – many of the key ideas came from their chief international legal expert, Aron Trainin, whose prewar and wartime writings were translated into English and cited by the likes of Murray Bernays (also Jewish) in the planning stage. Maxwell Fyfe regarded Trainin’s briefs as a “godsend” because they helped clarify the issues the various lawyers faced in organising the trial.”

The 1995 Jewish Encyclopedia of Russia states that Trainin was Jewish. He was also a member of the Extraordinary State Commission, and was a signatory to USSR-63; a lengthy report on alleged German atrocities in south-west Soviet Union, including the gassing of 900 Red Army soldiers in the catacombs of the Adzhimushkay quarry in the Crimea.

A few days after Trainin would have arrived in London for the conference, a translation of an article he’d written for the Red Army newspaper Krasnaya Zvezda was published by the Soviet embassy in Washington D.C. within which he wrote:

“Before a world already aware of the horrors of the wholesale annihilation of people in Smolensk and Maidanek, new sinister pages have opened—Tremblyanka and Oswiecim, Buchenwal and Belsen: trains methodically and regularly supplying living human raw material for destruction; three million victims done to death in Tremblyanka; four million victims annihilated in Oswiecim.”

 The Jewish-Soviet Nuremberg mastermind2

“Justice Shall be Done” by Prof. A Trainin, June 1945 Special Supplement,
p.25, of  the Information Bulletin, published by the Embassy of the Union
of Soviet Socialist Republics, Washington D.C., June 30, 1945, 1944.

 

Ten Responses to Jewish Lackeys

by Kurt Hilmar Eitzen

Source: http://research.calvin.edu/german-propaganda-archive/responses.htm

Text source: Kurt Hilmar Eitzen, “Zehn Knüppel wider die Judenknechte,” Unser Wille und Weg (6) 1936, pp. 309-310.

There are still Jewish lackeys today who attempt to disrupt our storm attack on the Jewish world rulers, trying to stop us or even cause us to fall. The following hints show how one can reply to these arguments by our opponents, or even turn their arguments against them.

Argument 1: “You say that religion is a private matter. But you fight against the Jewish religion!” Counterargument: “Actually, the Jewish religion is nothing other than a doctrine to preserve the Jewish race.” (Adolf Hitler). “In resisting all government attempts to nationalize them, the Jews build a state within the state (Count Helmuth von Moltke). “To call this state a ‘religion’ was one of the cleverest tricks ever invented.” (Adolf Hitler). “From this first lie that Jewry is a religion, not a race, further lies inevitably follow.” (Adolf Hitler).

Argument 2: “There are decent Jews, after all!” — Counterargument: “This little phrase ‘after all’ proves that they are rare exceptions of no significance to our battle against Jewry as a whole. But Martin Luther saw four hundred years ago that this “decency,” proven by charitable deeds done in as public a manner as possible, is nothing but a hidden cost of business, to repaid a thousand times by uneducated Germans. “Know, dear Christian, and have no doubts about it, that next to the Devil you have no more bitter, poisonous and determined enemy than a genuine Jew. . . If they do something good for you, it is not because they love you, but because they need room to live with us, so they have to do something. But their heart remains as I have said!”

Argument 3: “The Jew has better prices than the German businessman.” — Counterargument: Any crook can sell junk. Jewish crooks have driven thousands of German businessmen to bankruptcy with the glittering trash in their department store palaces. When someone does get good products more cheaply from the Jews than from Germans, it is only because the united Jewish firms force down prices from the manufacturers, which means reducing workers’ wages. He who has bought good products cheaply from the Jew should never forget that the curse of a German worker and the tears of his hungry children come with them!

Argument 4: “There are also ‘white Jews’ [i.e., Gentiles who are as bad as Jews]. — Counterargument: “That speaks against the Jews, not for them! The fact that one calls the crooks among us ‘white Jews’ is proof that being a Jew implies something bad. Otherwise, one would call crooked Jews ‘yellow Christians.’ The fact that there are so many ‘white Jews’ among us proves that the destructive Jewish spirit has already infected wide circles of our population. It is a warning to us that we have to take up the battle against the Jewish world plague everywhere.” (Joseph Goebbels). That is why Point 24 of our party program states: “The party battles the Jewish-materialistic spirit within and outside of us.”

Argument 5: “Mr. Levi is not a Jew, since he has been baptized!” — Counterargument: As we have already shown, Jewry is not a religion. The Führer pointed that out in a sarcastic manner during the period of struggle [1919-1933] when he said that it was a peculiar sort of religion when one could smell its adherents from a great distance! No, a Jew always remains a Jew. Chaim Herz Bückeberg, better known as “Heinrich Heine,” joked: “Are these long noses a kind of uniform that allows the God King Jehovah to recognize his old body guard, even if they have deserted?” “I have no desire to convert the Jews,” Martin Luther wrote, “since that is impossible.” A Jew remains a Jew. “In case of need, a dose of baptismal water saves both business and Jewry at the same time!” (Adolf Hitler).

Argument 6: “It is true that Mr. Moses Freundenstein is a Jew, but his parents and grandparents lived here. He is one of our old established citizens.” — Counterargument: Just as a goat does not become a horse, even if his father and grandfather were in the same stall, a Jew can never become a German, even if his ancestor came to Germany as a peddler in Varus’ army [during the Roman era].

Argument 7: “The Jew is a human being too!” — Counterargument: “Of course the Jew is a human being too. None of us has ever doubted it. But a flea is also an animal. But not a very pleasant one. Since a flea is not a pleasant animal, we have no duty to protect and defend it, to take care of it so that it can bite and torment and torture us. Rather, we make it harmless. It is the same with the Jews.” {Joseph Goebbels).

Argument 8: “Everything with a human face is equal.” — Counterargument: Thirteen years ago, the “Stürmer” carried a cartoon. In it, a miserable pig looked up from his sty to a royal lion. “Everything with an animal face is equal!” But what did the lion growl in reply? “That’s what you swine would like to think!”

Argument 9: “Anti-Semitism is only something for idiots!” Counterargument: One no longer hears this lie in National Socialist Germany. But one still reads it in the Jewish emigre press abroad, and Jews whisper it here and perhaps some Jewish lackeys still think that. We smile in response, and note that the Jews have never produced a single creative man, but that all great men in every country have been implacable opponents of the Jews. Some “intellectuals” may be distressed when one doubts their understanding, but we will follow the battle cry against Judah that all of the great men of our past have made!

Argument 10: “Can you live with the uproar and accept responsibility for the misery that the laws of the Third Reich bring to thousands of Jewish families?” — Counterargument: “It is almost a miracle that absolutely nothing has happened to Jews in Germany, but rather that only gradually the rights they stole from the Germans in politics and culture have been restored.” (Alfred Rosenberg). But even if a few hundred Jewish families in Germany really did have to go hungry, what is that against the many millions of German families that the Jew murdered over the course of centuries through wars, revolutions, and civil strife, not to mention those ruined through usury and fraud. “In the battle between the races, there is no truce. If you are determined finally to defend yourself, German people, then be pitiless!” (Adolf Hitler).