Der Stürmer

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

Month: February, 2019

Philosophy – Part II

Part II


„I will explain a great mystery: if thou desirest to live, mortify, for the glory of God, not only thy body but thy soul, thy reason, and even thy conscience. Free thyself from all rules and all laws, all virtues of fasting, of abstinence, and of virginity. Free thyself from holiness. Descend into thyself as into a tomb. Then mysteriously dead thou shalt rise again, and in thee will dwell the Holy Spirit, and thou shalt never lose, it, no matter what thou mayest do. He believed he was flying without knowing where he was flying to, whether it was towards Heaven or towards the abyss, towards God or the Devil!“ (Dmitry Merejkovsky, Pierre le Grand; Light-Bearers of Darkness, Inquire Within, pp. 77-78).


„God (the Creative Principle) is bewitched in the world, and it is his own force that is needed to find Him. This force (sex-force) must be awakened within you. Such were the teachings which the Mystic received before initiation. And now began the great drama of the world, of which he made a living integral part. The aim of the drama was nothing less than the freeing of the hidden God; where is that God? God is not but Nature is. It is in Nature that he must be found. For he is enshrouded in her as in an enchanted tomb.“ (Dr. Rudolf Stiener, The Trail of the Serpent, Miss Stoddard, p. 208).


„Sow a thought and reap an action; sow an inaction and reap a habit; sow a habit and reap character; sow character and reap destiny.“ (Thackeray)


„…in later times Gnosis was the name given to what Porphyry calls Antique and Oriental Philosophy to distinguish it from the Grecian systems. But the term was first used (according to Matter) in its ultimate sense of supernal and celestial (cosmic) knowledge, by the Jewish philosophers of the celebrated Alexandrian School. A very characteristic production of this Jewish Gnosis has come down to our time in the Book of Enoch, of which the main subject is to make known the description of the heavenly bodies and their correct names are revealed to the Patriarch by the angel of Uriel. This profession betrays of itself the main source from which the inspiration was derived.“ (Secret Sects of Syria, Mason Springett)


„Among the early nations a wild enthusiasm and a sensual idolatry of nature soon superseded the simple worship of the Almighty God…The great powers and elements of nature and the vital principle of production and procreation through all generations; then the celestial spirits or heavenly host, the luminous armies of the stars, and the great Sun and mysterious, ever-changing Moon (all of which the whole ancient world regarded, not as mere globes of light or bodies of fire, but as animated living substances, potent over man’s fate and destinies); next the genii and tutelar spirits, and even the souls of the dead, received divine worship..the heavens, earth, and the operations of nature were personified; the good and bad principles personified became also objects of worship.“ (Morals and Dogmas, Albert Pike)


„Alexandrian Jewish Philosophers, were ardent propagandists, eager to make proselytes, and for this purpose endeavored to adapt Judaism to Hellenism, persuaded that without the law and without Israel to practice it, the world would cease to be, the world would be happy only when subject to this universal Law, that is, to the empire of the Jew.“ (Le Problème Juif, Georges Batault)


„Have we to fear the great part of the nation which knows not our projects, and would not be disposed to lend us their support?…If they disapprove of them, it will be only timidly, without clamor. For the rest, does the nation know what it wants? We will make it want and say what it has never thought of…The nation is a large herd which thinks only of browsing, and which, with good dogs, the shepherds lead at will…One will have to impose upon the bourgeoisie who sees nothing to lose, but all to gain by the change. To stir it up one has the most powerful motives: poverty, hunger, money, rumors of alarm and fear, the frenzy of terror and rage with which we will strike their minds…What will we do with all this people while muzzling their principles of honesty and justice? Good men are feeble and timid; it is the blackguards who are determined. It is advantageous to people during revolutions to have no morals…there is not a single one of our old virtues which can serve us…All that is necessary for revolution, all that is useful to it is just – that is the great principle.“ (Memories by Marmontel; The Trail of the Serpent, Inquire Within, Miss Stoddard, p. 73).


„From Ptolemy Philadelphus until the middle of the third century the Alexandria Jews, with the object of maintaining and strengthening their propaganda, devoted themselves to an extraordinary work of falsification of real texts as a support for their cause. The verses of Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides, of the pretended Oracles of Orpheus, preserved in Aristobulus and the Stromata of Clemens of Alexandria, thus celebrated the One God and the Sabbath. Historians were falsified, still more they attributed entire works to them, and it is thus that they placed a History of the Jews under the name of Hécatée d’Abdère. The most important of these inventions was that of the Sibylline Oracles, fabricated entirely by the Alexandrian Jews, which announced the future era, when the reign of One God would eventuate. The Jews even attempted to ascribe to themselves Greek literature and philosophy. In a commentary on the Pentateuch which Eusebius has preserved to us. Aristobulus endeavored to show how Plato and Aristotle had found their metaphysical and ethical ideas in an old Greek translation of the Pentateuch.“ (L’Antisémitisme, Benard Lazare)


„The exegesis which consists in distorting texts in order to bring out of them what they desired is the only ‘science’ which can be traced to the Jews. It became in the hands of the Judeo-Alexandrians, a formidable arm which, by the perfidious force of their veiled lies, enrolled Hellenism, in spite of itself, into the service of the exclusivism and the religious proselytism of the Israelites. The attempt to ‘Judaïse’ Hellenism, which today appears to us so perfectly absurd and disastrous, has had, nevertheless, the result of obscuring the intelligence of humanity for hundreds of years.“ (Le Problème Juif, Georges Batault)


„Kings, nobles, the aristocracy of money, employees of the police or of the administration, priests, and permanent armies are the enemies of mankind. Against them one has every right and every duty. All is permitted to annihilate them: violence, ruse, shot and shell, poison, and the dagger; the end sanctifies the means.“ (L’Alliance humanitaire universelle; The Trail of the Serpent, Miss Stoddard, p. 107).


„The Cabal is of two kinds, theoretical and practical, with the practical Cabala, which is engaged in the construction of talismans and amulets, we have nothing to do. The theoretical is divided into the lineal and dogmatic. The dogmatic is nothing more than the summary of the metaphysical doctrine taught by the Cabalist doctors. It is, in other words, the system of the Jewish philosophy.“ (Albert Mackay, Lexicon of Freemasonry).


„The turning point in history will be the moment man becomes aware that the only god of man is man himself.“ (Henri de Lubec, Atheistic Humanist, p. 10)


As I earlier explained. It is a lot about action and reaction….Example…When a pendulum is moved to one extreme it will have the tendency to go to the opposite extreme before eventually coming to REST.

David Duke with Brian Ruhe. The Values of Athens and Jerusalem. Jewish Prostitution Slavery

Caricatures from “Der Stürmer” – translated in English and colourized – The Year 1937 – Part 3!

The Year 1937 – Part 3

 05.May-1937-01

05.May-1937-02

05.May-1937-03

05.May-1937-04

05.May-1937-05

05.May-1937-06

05.May-1937-07

05.May-1937-08

05.May-1937-09

05.May-1937-10

Fighting Together for the Future: On Occupied Germany (1999)

WATCH ON BITCHUTE

Original title: Fighting Together for the Future
Free Speech – December 1999 – Volume V, No. 12

by Dr. William L. Pierce

This week I was in Germany. I was there to participate in a congress of the youth division of the National Democratic Party of Germany: the NPD. I had been invited to address the congress. Now, don’t let that word “democratic” in the name of the party fool you. These are really decent people: nothing democratic about them at all. Political life in Germany has been rather strange since the end of the Second World War. Germany, of course, was divided into two major occupation zones at the end of the war, East and West. In the East, the only political party permitted by our Soviet ally was the Communist Party. In the Western Occupation Zone, the democratic allies, chiefly the United States, ruled. And of course, the United States did things the correct way, the “democratic” way. We had, after all, brought “freedom” to Germany, we claimed.

Our way was to permit any political party to operate and to participate in elections – as long as it was “democratic” and had approved policies. It was the same way with newspapers, magazines, and so on. There was “freedom of the press.” Anyone who wanted could publish a newspaper – so long as he was given a license to do so by the U.S. Occupation authorities. And the only people who were given licenses to publish were those certified as “democrats.” The same policy applied in Germany whether the Democratic Party or the Republican Party was in power back in the United States.

Anyway, what this policy in Germany meant in practice was that publishing licenses were given only to people who could prove that they had been opponents of the prewar German government: which is to say, communists, social democrats, draft dodgers who had fled abroad to avoid military service, Jews, and the like. Jews automatically qualified for everything. And it is absolutely astounding how many of them who had miraculously managed to survive the so-called “Holocaust” suddenly appeared.

And what the policy meant for political parties was that if the Occupation authorities decided that they were not sufficiently “democratic” they were simply banned, and their leaders were thrown into prison. And the eventual withdrawal of most of the Occupation forces, the tearing down of the Berlin Wall, and so on didn’t change this policy. The present German government is a lineal descendant of the one installed by the U.S. Occupation army.

So today in Germany any genuinely patriotic political party is obliged to employ a good deal of camouflage in order to avoid being banned. Nobody is really fooled by the camouflage, though. Certainly, the enemies of the German people aren’t fooled: Communists, Jews, homosexuals, feminists, anarchists, and the rest generally protest outside NPD meetings and attempt to disrupt them. That happened at an NPD meeting I attended last year, but the one this week was peaceful – perhaps because it was held in a lovely, little Bavarian town, Falkenberg, where the supply of local Jews, feminists, etc. was very limited; also, because several dozen heavily armed riot police patrolled the area outside the meeting hall. If protestors had appeared, and the police hadn’t been there to protect them, there were at least 200 very sturdy, young NPD members with shaved heads and heavy boots among those attending the meeting, who would have loved nothing better than to send at least twice their number of protestors to the nearest hospital emergency room.

Perhaps the most bizarre aspect of political life in Germany today is the consequence of Occupation legislation prohibiting any Politically Incorrect speech: at least, any Politically Incorrect speech touching on such ultra-taboo topics as race, the Second World War, and – most of all – the Jews. There is a special branch of the German secret police called the Verfassungschutz – ironically, that means “Defense of the Constitution” – whose principal responsibility is to ferret out and arrest anyone suspected of having published or said anything in public that might be offensive to Jews. The Verfassungschutz also arrests people for displaying banned symbols or for making forbidden gestures. A German patriot must be careful never to raise his right arm in any way that might be considered “provocative” by the Verfassungschutz, even if he is only shielding his eyes from the sun or greeting a friend. A great many German patriots are in prison today for having gone afoul of the Verfassungschutz in one way or another.

What all this means is that speeches like the one I gave at the NPD meeting this week must employ what amounts to a code. One cannot say in public something like, “Jews in New York, Washington, and Tel Aviv are the principal moving force behind the immigration policy that is bringing millions of non-White immigrants into Germany.” One must say instead something like: “Those who are the enemies of every nation but their own are behind the immigration policy that is bringing millions of non-Whites into Germany.” Using this code is a bit of a nuisance, but at least everyone at an NPD meeting – and indeed, every politically aware German – understands exactly what is meant.

Unfortunately, however, millions of ordinary Germans don’t understand. Just as is the case with White Americans, most Germans are lemmings and couch potatoes. They are self-centered, addicted to comfort, materialistic, conformist, consumption-oriented, and very fashion-conscious; in fact, they are desperately eager to be fashionable, and every fashion comes to them through their television screens, just as in America. In the various German hotel rooms I was in this week, I scanned the television channels in order to sample the fare being fed to the Germans. On about half the channels were exactly the same programs seen by Americans: programs made in Hollywood or in New York by Jews, but with German speech dubbed in instead of English. On a couple of channels they didn’t even bother to dub in German.

Judaeo-American garbage culture has so thoroughly penetrated Germany that on some of the programs for the lowest-grade lemmings, programs with the dialogue consisting mostly of slang expressions and standard clichés, the average German viewer can follow the primitive English as well as the average American. MTV is an example of this. German teenagers receive their daily dose of poison from New York television Jew Sumner Redstone in precisely the same flavor as American teenagers do. And the television channels with original German programming are not really much better. No such thing as an independent idea ever appears on German television. If it did, the Verfassungschutz certainly would haul the offending programmer off to prison.

And the poison has its effect. German teenagers, at least in the cities, are looking more and more like American teenagers: slovenly and undisciplined and addicted to Negroid music, Negroid grooming, and Negroid life-styles. A disgustingly common sight is a blonde German girl walking along hand in hand with a Negro from Africa or the West Indies. All too often there is one or more flat-nosed, dusky-hued offspring toddling along after them. To the establishment politicians and the Christian clergy, there is nothing at all wrong with this. The Christian clergy, in fact, encourage it in every way they can.

Although I was never in Germany before the disaster of 1945, I have seen enough German films from the 1930s and the early 1940s to make comparisons. One of the mental comparisons I made during my trip this week was between the apathetic, brainwashed, “democratic” German youth of today and the clean, healthy, athletic, enthusiastic, and disciplined boys and girls in the German youth organizations instituted by Hitler. The boys of the Hitler Youth and the girls in the League of German Girls were proud of their nation and proud of their race and were eager to become proud citizens of a strong, healthy and progressive Germany and march forward together into a bright future. What a difference a few decades of Jewish television propaganda can make!

And television is not the only medium through which Judaeo-American “culture” has penetrated Europe. Indeed, one sees familiar American advertising slogans, in English, on about half the storefronts and billboards in the larger German cities, just as one sees graffiti in English scrawled on walls and in subway cars. This contamination of European culture – and not just German culture – has always seemed to me even worse than what the Jew has done to culture in America. Even before the Second World War the Jew had built a new nest for himself in America and moved his center of operations here from Europe. Hitler, of course, helped him make his move with a good, strong kick in the backside. Now the Jew is throwing his filth from his new nest back into the old one, fouling the source of our cultural spring. And of course, this is deliberate.

The really unfortunate thing about it is that, outside the NPD and a few other patriotic organizations, Germans do not really care about this cultural contamination, nor do they object to it. As with Americans, as long as there is plenty of beer in the refrigerator and entertainment on television, they don’t care what is happening to their country, their culture, or their race. They don’t see anything amiss in turning on their television receivers and seeing Oprah’s Black face grinning back at them.

I’ll get back to this subject of Judaeo-American cultural contamination in a minute. First, I want to mention that, despite my horror and disgust at what 54 years of contact with America has done to Germany, my whole purpose in being in Germany this week was to increase at least one facet of that contact: namely collaboration between my organization, the National Alliance, which operates mostly in America, and the NPD, which operates exclusively in Germany. In fact, as I told the NPD congress in my talk, it is essential – not just helpful, but necessary – for genuine nationalist groups everywhere to increase their degree of collaboration across national borders. The natural tendency for a nationalist group, of course, is to devote all its effort to building its strength in its own country and to educating the people of its own nation. The National Alliance is really unique in that it has no geographical restrictions on membership; we define nationality in terms of race, not geography.

Our enemy also does that. To the Jews it makes no difference whether another Jew was born in Russia or Canada or England or Brazil or the United States. All that matters is whether or not he was born a Jew. And the fact is that the Jew is the common enemy of every nation but his own and of every nationalism but his own. The same Jews who are attempting to plunder and weaken and destroy White America also are attempting to plunder and weaken and destroy Germany. And the Jews in Germany are in constant and total collaboration with the Jews in Russia, in England, in the United States, and in every other nation which is being used as a host by them. And they have had centuries of experience at such collaboration.

So if nationalists are to gain real strength anywhere – ultimately, if we are to survive anywhere – we must overcome the international Jew, and we can only do that through collaboration across national borders. If a genuine nationalist movement gained governmental power anywhere and began taking appropriate cleansing action in its own country to undo the damage done by decades of Jewish policies, then the Jews in every other country would not hesitate to combine forces and unleash all of their military strength against that one country. They wouldn’t stop even at unleashing a nuclear war if faced with the prospect of completely losing their grip on a major nation. We have seen that happen before, 60 years ago, and we must not let it happen again.

Perhaps a nationalist movement in the United States might be able to become successful without having to worry about being suppressed by outside forces, but really, we’re just about the only country for which that’s the case. Nationalists in every other country need to worry very much about Jew-instigated suppression from outside, as the Serbs certainly know. In fact, that’s what the New World Order is all about. Even in the United States, nationalists – the National Alliance, for example – can benefit from nationalist successes elsewhere.

What this means is that success for nationalists everywhere – even those in the United States – will be much more likely if all nationalists coordinate their activities: if they grow together. We must not become too successful anywhere before we have become at least moderately successful in a few other places.

Well, I talked to the NPD congress about specific ways in which we ought to be collaborating across international borders: ways beyond merely exchanging publications and inviting one another to our big meetings. I talked about nuts-and-bolts details that I won’t bore you with now.

I also talked about the spiritual side of nationalist collaboration across borders. In the long and difficult struggle that lies ahead of us, nothing is more important than a deep belief in the rightness and the necessity and the beauty of our cause. Belief should be able to exist alone, in a single individual, but in fact it thrives best in company. One person who believes very strongly in something may devote his entire life to serving his belief, but if he knows that tens of thousands of his kinsmen around the world also are serving the same belief, then he has a great advantage: the advantage of confidence, of optimism, of enthusiasm. Most of all, he will act more boldly, with more daring, in the knowledge that he is not alone. And really, there’s nothing more important for us, outnumbered and outgunned as we are, than courage, than boldness, than audacity.

Certainly, we must be wise; we must plan tactics and strategy with the greatest care; we must avoid serious errors; but above everything else we must act with confidence and boldness, and the greatest guarantor of boldness is the assurance that many others share our belief and are acting with us, that they will cheer our successes and aid us in our difficulties. And if our allies are spread throughout many nations, so much the better. That makes the rightness of our cause universal. It is not just I who believes that we ought to be free, that we ought to be the masters of our own fate: the Germans agree with me; the Russians agree; the Irish agree; the Poles agree; the Magyars agree; the Swedes agree; the Romanians agree. In every country in Europe voices are being raised now for the same cause. This certainly strengthens our mutual conviction that we are right and that we must prevail.

That, among other things, is what I told the delegates at the NPD congress in Germany, except, of course, that I had to phrase everything in the peculiar sort of double-talk required by the Verfassungschutz. And let me tell you, in plain language, nationalists everywhere need all of the moral support they can give each other, and that is nowhere more true than in Germany. The Jews really are doing a job on Germany. Munich, where I spent more time than anywhere else this week, already is one-third non-German. Turks and other Asians are everywhere. Blacks are increasingly numerous. The kindergartens and public elementary schools in Germany’s larger cities are as much as 80 percent non-German. And non-Germans continue to pour into Germany. One non-German group whose numbers in Germany have increased especially rapidly in the past two years is the Jews. They have been pouring into Germany from the former Soviet Union. The German government welcomes them with open arms and gives them a number of valuable subsidies to start them off on a more prosperous track than other immigrants. Jews from Russia and Ukraine already completely dominate organized crime, including the White slave trade, in Germany.

Whenever a German complains in public about what is being done to his country, if he phrases his complaint carefully enough so that the Verfassungschutz doesn’t lock him up for “hate speech,” the sold-out politicians, the Christian clergy, the Jews – and all too many of his brainwashed, guilt-ridden fellow Germans – are all over him, accusing him of “racism,” “anti-Semitism,” “fascism,” you name it. In Austria, which was torn away from the rest of Germany by the victorious democrats and communists at the end of the war, a conservative leader, Jorg Haider, won a surprisingly strong second-place in the elections last month. The Jews in Germany immediately went into their Chicken Little act, shrieking that the sky was falling. “Oi, veh! Vasn’t six million enough, already? Vhy do you vant to make us suffer even more, already?” Et cetera. They made the sort of viciously intemperate remarks about Jorg Haider that they make over here about Patrick Buchanan. And the really unfortunate thing about it is that Haider is not an anti-Semite. He has appointed Jews to high positions in his party. He merely opposes some Jewish policies, especially the one which is flooding Austria with non-German immigrants. But even that opposition, especially on the part of a German, is enough to send the Jews into a spitting, shrieking rage.

Fortunately, there are Germans, though Haider seems not to be among them, who want to send the Jews into something besides a rage. I was with a group of them this week in Bavaria. And their number is growing. There remains much, much more work to be done in Germany, however. The average German is still inclined to grovel and begin apologizing whenever the Jews begin complaining about how persecuted they are and how much the Germans owe them. The Germans as a whole, probably too polite and too civilized to begin with, have let themselves be beaten down by the anti-German propaganda of the postwar period until they are in a truly pitiful moral state today, with no pride and no backbone: nothing but guilt and self-hatred. With a birthrate well below the replacement level, the number of Germans is declining every year, while the number of non-Germans on German soil grows.

But the resistance also is beginning to grow, as I mentioned. The Jews and their collaborators in the government and the Christian churches are desperate to keep this resistance under control. My personal opinion is that they will fail. I want to do whatever I can do to assure that they fail, because, as I told the Germans at the NPD congress, our destinies are linked. If the Jews succeed in destroying the German nation, they will have an easier time destroying us. And if the Germans successfully resist their efforts, then our own success in overcoming the Jews and their collaborators will be much more likely.

Goebbels on the Jews – Part I

Source: https://codoh.com/library/document/1918/?lang=en

By Thomas Dalton

Joseph Goebbels was nothing if not disciplined. Since his 26th birthday in late 1923, he maintained a near-daily diary until his death more than 21 years later.[1] These entries are at once unique and invaluable in their ability to provide insight into the Nazi hierarchy, ideology, and operation. Nothing else like them exists. No other leading Nazi figure recorded such personal and intimate thoughts on an on-going basis throughout the war. Hitler’s Mein Kampf was written in 1923 and 1924, but he published nothing later. The comments recorded in Hitler’s Table Talk (1953) are the closest to Goebbels’ writings, but these cover in detail only the period July 1941 to September 1942, and they furthermore have not much to add to the topic at hand. We of course have the speeches by Hitler, Goebbels, Himmler and other leading figures, but such words were designed for an intended effect and did not necessarily give an honest and unvarnished representation of ideas or events. Goebbels’s diaries were held private for his entire life. He never intended to publish them, although he clearly expected them to survive the war as a permanent record of his thoughts, for posterity. They offer us an irreplaceable look at Nazi history and evolution, the lead-up and conduct of the war, and, especially, Nazi policy on the Jews.

Joseph Goebbels 1942. In his diary entry for July 26, 1940, he writes: “The big plan for the evacuation (Evakuierung) of the Jews from Berlin was approved. Additionally, all the Jews of Europe are supposed to be deported (deportiert) to Madagascar after the war.”

Having earned his PhD in history and philology at Heidelberg in 1921, Goebbels first encountered Hitler in Munich the next year. He joined the NSDAP in 1924, and began editing an early Nazi newspaper in 1925. Goebbels quickly earned the attention of Hitler, and was named Gauleiter (district leader) of Berlin in October 1926. He founded a major Nazi periodical, Der Angriff, in 1927, and by 1929 was named Reich Propaganda Minister. Goebbels was thus well-placed by the time Hitler and the NSDAP acceded to power in 1933. He was the most intelligent and well-educated of the Nazi leaders.[2] In a very short time Goebbels, along with Hitler and Göring, came to comprise the leadership ‘trinity’ of the early Nazi party. As the war progressed Göring fell from grace, leaving Goebbels as the de facto second-in-command of the Third Reich. He eclipsed even Himmler, who was in the end more an enforcer than leader. Into the 1940s, Goebbels “was the most important and influential man after Hitler…[B]y 1943, he was virtually running the country while Hitler was running the war.”[3] Thus Goebbels was uniquely situated to comment on, and help resolve, the Jewish Question (Judenfrage). To this end, his diaries are absolutely essential for understanding the Jewish holocaust.

The diaries themselves first surfaced a few years after the war. An unknown scavenger came upon the bundles of originals – some 7,000 pages in total – in the ruins of the official German archives. Pages were burned, soaked, and many were missing. They “passed through several hands,” eventually becoming acquired by an American diplomat.[4] In 1948 a (very) partial English translation by Louis Lochner appeared, on selected entries from 1942 and 1943. Unknown at the time, the Soviets had acquired a full set of glass plate prints of the entire diary series, amounting to roughly 75,000 individual sheets. By various obscure means, portions leaked out over the years. Then in 1992, David Irving (re)discovered the full set in the Soviet archives, and was able to fill in all the missing gaps. These were put to good use in his 1996 work Goebbels: Mastermind of the Third Reich – the only complete biography published to date.

Today, there are four English translations of different parts of the diary: (1) the original Lochner translation; (2) Oliver Watson’s “early entries,” from the years 1925-1926; (3) Fred Taylor’s translation of the period 1939-1941; and (4) Richard Barry’s “final entries” of 1945. These four books combined constitute not more than 10% of the total; a full 90% of the diaries have never appeared in English.

Fortunately, though, with Irving’s discovery in 1992, the German publisher Saur was able to produce a complete and authoritative set, in the German original: Die Tagebücher von Joseph Goebbels. The full set runs to 29 volumes of roughly 500 pages each, and is divided into 2 parts (or Teils): Part 1 from 1923-1941, and Part 2 from 1941-1945. The final volume was released only in 2006, and so the complete set is still relatively new to researchers. Very few have made good use of it.

Of particular interest here are Goebbels’s disclosures about Nazi policy toward a final solution (Endlösung) of the Jewish Question, which of course directly relate to our conception of the Holocaust. On the standard view, the entire Nazi leadership, Hitler above all, were rabid anti-Semites who would settle for nothing less than the mass murder of every Jew they could get their hands on. They allegedly pursued this objective even to the detriment of the war effort, and rounded up and gassed Jews until the final few months. Their alleged 6 million victims were burned, buried, or otherwise made to vanish, such that traces of a mere fraction of these bodies have ever been found.

There are, as we know, many problems with this account. First is the fact that no ‘extermination order’ from Hitler has ever been discovered – nor even any tangible reference to such.[5] Hilberg was reduced to nonsense in his “mind reading” statement of 1983,[6] and even as late as 2003 he was compelled to write:

The process of destruction…did not, however, proceed from a basic plan. … The destruction process was a step-by-step operation, and the administrator could seldom see more than one step ahead. … In the final analysis, the destruction of the Jews was not so much a product of laws and commands as it was a matter of spirit, of shared comprehension, of consonance and synchronization. (2003: 50-52)

Even preeminent British Hitler expert Ian Kershaw could not do much better. The Soviet archives were opened up in the early 1990s; “predictably, a written order by Hitler for the ‘Final Solution’ was not found. The presumption that a single explicit written order had ever been given had long been dismissed by most historians” (2008: 96). Rather, this most momentous destruction of human life occurred via “improvised bureaucratic initiatives whose dynamic prompted a process of ‘cumulative radicalization’ in the fragmented structures of decision-making in the Third Reich” (p. 94) – a statement hardly more coherent than Hilberg’s.

Nothing in Goebbels’s diaries changes this situation. As Irving (1996: 388)[7] observes, “Nowhere do the diary’s 75,000 pages refer to an explicit order by Hitler for the murder of the Jews.” On the contrary: we find repeated and consistent reference only to expulsion and deportation.

Second, and more importantly, once the alleged extermination process was underway, we have no direct evidence that either Hitler or Goebbels knew anything about it – which is inconceivable. Below I consider the account given by Kershaw (2000). He undertakes an amazing series of gyrations to argue that Hitler both planned the genocide of the Jews and knew about its progress, despite the lack of any evidence. His points overlap with the diary entries, which I will cover below. Suffice to say here that, on Kershaw’s reading, Hitler was incredibly aloof on the Jewish Question. “Even in his inner circle Hitler could never bring himself to speak with outright frankness about the killing of the Jews” (p. 487) – in other words, he never, ever spoke openly about this most-vital aspect of the entire Nazi program. Hitler’s comments were always “confined to generalities,” sprinkled in with the “occasional menacing allusion.” Thus, with a mere wink and a nod, the mass murder of 6 million Jews was effected.

Given the striking lack of evidence, and the inconceivability that mass murder of millions was underway without awareness at the top, only two alternatives are possible: (1) the Nazi hierarchy knew all about the mass murder but mutually agreed to never discuss it, or to refer to it only in euphemisms and code language – even in the most private of settings; or (2) no systematic mass murder occurred at all, and the reality was in fact just as they said: expulsion and deportation, along with a certain degree of incidental death. I would suggest that a detailed look at Goebbels’s diary entries, in conjunction with the alleged ‘extermination’ actions that were occurring at the same time, may shine some light on this dispute.

* * *

To the best of my knowledge only two English books cite the diary in any detail: Irving’s Goebbels (1996) and Kershaw’s Hitler 1936-1945: Nemesis (2000).[8] Irving, especially in the longer Internet version, captures many important passages on the Jewish Question, but this is clearly not his main concern. Kershaw has a large number of quotations, but most are only partial, out of context, and designed to cast a certain light on Hitler. To his credit, and unlike many other works, Kershaw does a good job of including the original German words for the key terms, especially those relating to expulsion, evacuation, ‘elimination,’ and the like.

There are at least three concerns for any foreign-language translation, and these loom particularly large here. First, inclusion of the original language on key words and phrases is essential; it allows the reader to be fully informed about the actual original text. Second, passages should be cited as fully as possible, in order to retain context. Third is the translation itself, which is always problematic. Again, particularly so in this case, as many traditionalist writers are anxious to portray Goebbels’s language – which ranges from benign to ambiguous – in as ominous a light as possible. On these three counts, Irving does a reasonably good job, lacking only the extended quotations that are preferable. Kershaw does well on the first point, but fails on the other two – as I will show. Of the published (partial) translations, Lochner comes in for notable censure.

In what follows I cite Goebbels’s reflections on the Jews and Jewish policy in full. This is quite easy because, in virtually every case, the entry consists only of a few sentences or a short paragraph or two. I also include the German original for every contentious word or phrase. To maintain context, all entries are in chronological order. Following the date for each entry is original citation information from the Tagebücher: Part # (Teil), Volume # (Band), and page number. Hence, (II.3.478) refers to Part 2, volume 3, page 478.

In total, I include below the entries for 123 different days, ranging from May 1937 to April 1945. Of these, 43 appear in one of the published translation books; the remaining 80 entries are previously unpublished, and appear here for the first time in English. (Of course many scattered portions of these entries do appear elsewhere, primarily in the Irving and Kershaw books. But none in full.) Where the entries are those found in existing translations, I have identified them with asterisks (*=Taylor, **=Lochner, ***=Barry). Furthermore, I have maintained their wording, except when essential corrections were necessary – cited in the subsequent commentary.

To be as thorough as possible, it was my original aim to include every significant entry on the Jews or the Jewish Question. But in a 29-volume set these proved too numerous for the present essay. Hence I will focus on the key time period, bounded by two significant events: Kristallnacht, and the deportation of the Hungarian Jews. Thus for the period from 1 September 1938 through 30 June 1944, I have included literally every noteworthy entry by Goebbels.[9] This exhaustive survey, covering nearly six years, gives the most complete picture possible of his perspective on the Jewish holocaust.

Before addressing the central period I want to mention a few early passages. The first passing reference to the “Jewish Question” (Judenfrage) appears very early in the diary: 15 March 1924 (Part 1, vol. 1) – coincident with the first reference to Hitler. It was clearly a concern from his earliest days in the Party. But serious action against the Jews did not begin until more than a decade later, in the late 1930s. For example:

May 5, 1937 (I.4.124)

The elimination of Jewish influence (Entjudung – lit. ‘de-Jewing’) in the Reich Chamber of Culture moves forward. I will not be at peace until it is completely free of Jews\.

Nov 30, 1937 (I.4.429)

Long discussion on the Jewish Question. My new law is almost finished. But that is not the goal. The Jews must leave Germany, and get completely out (aus…heraus) of Europe. It will still take some time, but it needs to happen. The Führer is determined to do so\.

Here we have, I believe, the first reference to the complete removal of the Jews – a full year prior to Kristallnacht. Then into 1938 we find the first mention of the ‘Madagascar plan’:

Apr 11, 1938 (I.5.256)

Long discussion at breakfast, on the Jewish Question. The Führer wants the Jews completely squeezed out (herausdrängen) of Germany. To Madagascar, or some such place. Right!

Apr 23, 1938 (I.5.269-270)

Speaking with Helldorf on the Jewish Question. … We will take from Berlin the character of a Jewish paradise. Jewish shops will be identified. In any case we will now proceed more radically. Negotiations with Poland and Romania. Madagascar would be the most suitable for [the Jews]\.

At least into early 1942 (see entry for March 7), it was seriously proposed to round up all the European Jews and ship them to Madagascar, which was to be forcibly acquired from France. This fact, of course, is of central importance to the holocaust: if the Nazis wanted to ship them out, then obviously there was no plan for mass murder. To further complicate the traditional account, we need only observe that Chelmno, Auschwitz, and Belzec were all allegedly underway in March 1942. And in fact it is worse than this, because talk of deportation continues right up until the end of the war.

I would further note Goebbels’s use of the word ‘radical,’ which evidently means the mass expulsion of several million Jews, with little regard for their long-term well being. Also, the focus on Berlin: as local Gauleiter, Goebbels placed top priority on cleansing the city of its Jews. We see this over and over in the entries to follow. In fact this often seems to take priority over a total cleansing of the Reich – which again does not fit well with the exterminationist thesis.

I now begin with the entries from 1 September 1938. The first notable item is an early observation on America:

Sep 17, 1938 (I.6.95)

Afternoon meeting with our diplomat in Washington, Dieckhoff. He expresses a similar situation as Gienandt. At the moment it is hopeless. Everything depends on our position with England. Roosevelt is our enemy. He is surrounded by Jews. In a European conflict, if England stands against us, then so too will America\.

In the run-up to Kristallnacht, we find evidence of Goebbels’s involvement with anti-Jewish actions the month before:

Oct 12, 1938 (I.6.142)

Helldorf gives me a report on the status of the Jewish action in Berlin. It proceeds systematically. And the Jews now gradually withdraw\.

Then we have the event itself, triggered in part by the murder of Ernst vom Rath, German diplomat in Paris. He was shot by a Jewish teenager, Herschel Grynszpan.

Nov 10, 1938 (I.6.180-181)

In Kassel and Dessau there were large demonstrations against the Jews, synagogues burned and shops demolished. In the afternoon the death of our [Paris] diplomat vom Rath was announced. I go to the Party reception in the old town hall. A huge operation. I present the Führer. He states: let the demonstrations continue. Police are to withdraw. The Jews should feel the public wrath. That is only right. I give appropriate instructions to the police and Party. Then I have a short discussion with Party leadership. Everyone rushes to the phones. Now the people will act\.

We must not let this cowardly murder [of vom Rath] go unanswered. Let things follow their course. The Hitler Patrol cleans house in Munich. A synagogue is smashed to pieces. I try to save it from the fire; but I fail\.

The Patrol has done some vicious work. A message runs out across the Reich: 50-75 synagogues burned. The Führer has ordered the immediate arrest of 25,000-30,000 Jews. That will have an effect. They will now see that our patience has run out\.

When I go into the hotel, all the windowpanes rattle. Bravo! Bravo! In all large cities the synagogues burn. German property is not threatened\.

The first reports come early in the morning. It has been a raging fury. Just as expected. The whole nation is in turmoil. This murder will be very expensive for the Jews. The dear Jews will think carefully in the future before shooting German diplomats\.

To this day it is unclear to what extent the riots were spontaneous outbreaks of anti-Semitism, or well-planned instigations by plain-clothed security men.

Nov 13, 1938 (I.6.185)

Heydrich reports on the actions: 190 synagogues burned and destroyed. Conference with Göring on the Jewish Question. Hot battles over the solution. I argue for a radical solution. Funk is somewhat soft and yielding. The result: a fine of one billion Marks is imposed on the Jews. In the shortest period of time, they will be completely excluded (ausgeschieden) from economic life. They can no longer run businesses. … A whole series of other measures is planned. In any case, a clean sheet has now been made. I work well with Göring. He also attacks this sharply. The radical view has prevailed. I draft a very sharp public communiqué\.

Again, more talk of the ‘radical’ solution as total exclusion from public life. Then two follow-up entries:

Nov 22, 1938 (I.6.195)

We are planning a series of new measures against the Jews. I have a long phone call with Göring, who is coordinating all the actions. He approaches it harshly. In Berlin we do more than anywhere else in the Reich. That’s also necessary, because we have so many Jews. But the actions have also destroyed much. Good that it’s over\.

Nov 26, 1938 (I.6.202)

Situation report: almost exclusively on the Jewish Question. Partly positive, partly negative. We must enlighten the public, and especially the intellectuals, on the Jewish Question\.

In late November, two more interesting observations on America:

Nov 27, 1938 (I.6.203)

Roosevelt speaks out ever harsher against us. He is totally in the hands of the Jews. A Jew-slave, perhaps even of Jewish ancestry\.

Dec 17, 1938 (I.6.223)

America is strongly against us. On the Jewish Question it makes impertinent remarks. It is surely also a Jew-state!

The year 1939 opened with this entry, as a follow-up to the 5 May 1937 comment:

Jan 26, 1939 (I.6.239) *

The elimination of Jewish influence (Entjudung) in the Reich Chamber of Culture continues. But now considerable financial difficulties are apparent. We shall overcome them\.

Four days later, on January 30, Hitler gave his famous Reichstag speech of 1939. This was remarkable on several counts. It was sprinkled with many references to international Jewry (internationale Judentum), the Jewish world-enemy (jüdischen Weltfeind), and the Jewish Question generally. It was a grand event, the equivalent of a presidential joint session of Congress. The cameras and microphones were running. Among some initial remarks on the Jewish Question, he states that the “foreign peoples” must be “pushed out” (abzuschieben) in order to allow the Germans to arise. The key section occurs in the middle of the speech: “Europe cannot find peace until the Jewish Question is resolved.” Jewry too often lives off the work of others; unless they begin to perform true, productive work, they will sooner or later “succumb to a crisis of unimaginable proportions.” He continues:

Many times in my life I have been a prophet, and was often laughed at. At the time of my struggle for power, it was primarily the Jewish people who accepted my prophecies with laughter. … I believe that this time the laughter of the Jews in Germany is stuck in their throats. Today I will again be a prophet: If the international Jewish financiers in and outside Germany should succeed in plunging the nations once again into a world war, then the result will be not the Bolshevization of the Earth and with it the victory of Jewry, but rather the destruction (Vernichtung) of the Jewish race in Europe\.

Here, for all the world to see, Hitler is predicting the ‘destruction,’ or perhaps ‘annihilation,’ of the Jews. At issue is the meaning of this word Vernichtung. Its root, nicht, means ‘none’ or ‘nothing’. Bilingual dictionaries translate it as either ‘destruction’ or ‘extermination.’

So what can the “Vernichtung of the Jewish race” mean? On the standard view, of course, this means mass murder: literal genocide, the killing of every Jew. But there are two problems here. First, Vernichtung, along with the English equivalents ‘destruction’ and ‘extermination’, are inherently ambiguous. To ‘destroy’ is literally to ‘de-structure’ or ‘deconstruct’ (Latin: de-struere). To destroy an individual person or animal is to kill it, but to destroy a collective – a city, a nation, a race – is to ruin its structural coherence, and cause it to cease to exist as a collective entity.[10] This of course would happen if every individual member were killed, but it in no way demands this. Likewise with ‘extermination’, which means, literally, to ‘push beyond the boundaries’ (Latin: ex-terminus). To exterminate is simply to ‘get rid of completely’, by whatever means. And in fact the leading traditionalists evidently agree with these benign interpretations. Kershaw, for example, goes to great pains to argue that there was neither plan nor intention of mass murder prior to September 1941. Browning (2004: 371) comes to a similar conclusion.

The second problem is this: How likely is it that Hitler would declare to the world his intention to murder an entire race? Kershaw (2000: 522) pointedly emphasizes Hitler’s “intense preoccupation with secrecy”; the mass murder scheme was “a secret to be carried to the grave.” But wait – he already announced it to the world in January 1939! Does it even make sense to then keep such a thing secret? Or perhaps there was no secret to keep.

For some unknown reason, Goebbels does not comment on the Reichstag speech – at least, in the days and months that followed. (Down the road he would see it as something of a milestone.) In fact for the next 10 months one finds no substantial reference to the Jewish Question at all. Perhaps pressing matters of war intervened. Czechoslovakia disintegrated in March and Germany was thereby compelled to occupy the territory. With much inducement from England, Poland undertook a series of belligerent actions, resulting in the German-Polish war that began on September 1. Two days later this regional war became a European one, when France and the UK declared war on Germany. Comments by Goebbels resumed in October:

Oct 7, 1939 (I.7.141)

The Jewish problem will probably be the hardest to solve. These Jews are no longer human beings. [They are] predators equipped with a cold intellect, which must be counteracted\.

Oct 17, 1939 (I.7.157)

This Jewry must be destroyed (vernichtet)\.

…taking a cue, perhaps, from Hitler. The remainder of the year includes comments again consistent with removal, and no evidence of contemplated murder. The mention of typhus (December 6) is significant; as we know, this was undoubtedly the cause of death for many in the ghettos and camps, both Jews and non-Jews.

Nov 3, 1939 (I.7.179-180)

With the Führer. I give him a report on my trip to Poland, which interests him greatly. Above all, my exposition on the Jewish problem earns his full support. Judaism is a waste product. More clinical than social issue\.

Dec 5, 1939 (I.7.220-221)

[The Führer] shares my view on the Jewish and Polish questions. The Jewish danger must be banished (gebannt) by us. But it will still return in a few generations. There is no real panacea\.

Dec 6, 1939 (I.7.222)

Du Prel reports on the situation in the General Government. Horrible! There is still much to do. Nothing has changed in Warsaw. A typhus epidemic and famine have broken out. In Lublin, they’re waiting for the expelled (abgeschobenen) Jews\.

Dec 19, 1939 (I.7.236-237) *

The Jews are attempting to infiltrate cultural life again. Particularly half-Jews. When they are serving with the armed forces, they have some reason on their side. Nevertheless, I reject all requests in this area\.

My thoughts on the Jewish Question in wartime meet with the Führer’s approval. He intends to clear (heraushaben) all half-Jews from the Wehrmacht. Otherwise there will be continual ‘incidents.’

Through the entire first half of 1940 we find, again, no entries on the Jews. Germany was racking up military successes, culminating in the invasion of the Low Countries on May 10 and the push to the Channel. France was quickly overwhelmed, and German troops marched into Paris on June 14. Things were going very well; the war appeared to be heading toward a rapid conclusion; and then the Jewish Question could be addressed in earnest.

Jun 6, 1940 (I.8.159)

We will quickly be finished with the Jews after the war\.

Jul 6, 1940 (I.8.207)

The American Jewish press is entirely on Churchill’s side. Now, suddenly, France is no longer the ideal democratic nation. Riff-raff that must be eradicated (ausgerottet)\.

Jul 20, 1940 (I.8.229)

One must neutralize the habitual criminal before the crime, not after. Our lawyers will never understand that. The Jews also belong in this category, and one must make short shrift (kurzen Prozess) of them\.

By July the question of Berlin had again arisen, as had the Madagascar plan:

Jul 26, 1940 (I.8.238)

The big plan for the evacuation (Evakuierung) of the Jews from Berlin was approved. Additionally, all the Jews of Europe are supposed to be deported (deportiert) to Madagascar after the war\.

Aug 17, 1940 (I.8.276) *

Later on, we want to ship (verfrachten) the Jews to Madagascar. There they can build their own state\.

Sep 2, 1940 (I.8.301)

I fly to Kattowitz [Katowice, Poland, near Auschwitz]. … Bracht reports to me on the various concerns of the Province. The Poles are resigned to their fate, and the Jews have been pushed out (abgeschoben)\.

Nov 2, 1940 (I.8.406)

With the Führer. Epp has colonial questions. Koch and Forster, questions about the East. All want to unload their trash onto the General Government: Jews, the sick, the lazy, etc. And [Hans] Frank resists. Not entirely without reason. He would like to make Poland a model nation. But that goes too far. He cannot, and should not. According to the Führer, Poland is a large labor pool for us – a place to hold failed people and use them for lowly work. We have to get them from somewhere. Frank does not like this, but he has to. And the Jews will later be moved out (abschieben) of this area\.

We see here a growing vocabulary of terms relating to the status of the Jews. The large majority refer to removing, deporting, or expelling: aus-heraus, herausdrängen, ausscheiden, abschieben, evakuieren, verfrachten, deportieren. Later we find other related terms: beseitigen, herausbringen, aufräumen, herausschaffen, and others – some 18 in total, by my count (not including conjugates). This group is the most numerous, and the most benign. Two of these, evakuieren (evacuate) and abschieben (expel or push out), are especially popular with Goebbels.

A second group of terms include those that I will call ‘ambiguous’, in the sense that they have somewhat more ominous implications: vernichten (verb form of Vernichtung), ausrotten, liquidieren, eliminieren, and auslöschen. I’ve discussed the first of these already, and in the July 6 entry Goebbels first uses a form of ausrotten. This word, literally meaning ‘to root out’, translates to the ambiguous ‘exterminate’ or to ‘eradicate’ (ex-radix, lit. ‘up-root’). Once again, none of these meanings entail death, killing, or murder. A plant that is ausrottet can be replanted and live; a family can be ‘up-rooted’ and reestablished elsewhere. The exterminationist suggestion that either vernichten or ausrotten necessarily imply murder is, quite literally, nonsense.[11]

I should note, by the way, that the German language does indeed have words for ‘killing’: morden, ermorden, töten, totschlagen, totschiessen. Goebbels had no shortage of alternatives if he wished to discuss literally killing the Jews. This is, after all, a personal and private diary. Consider his situation: Should the Germans win, he has nothing to fear. Should they lose, he must have known that his own death awaited, along with the ‘destruction’ of greater Germany – again, nothing to fear. Why hold back? So the reader might be wondering: Does Goebbels ever use such explicit terms? In fact he does: once. If I may temporarily leap ahead to one of his final entries, 14 March 1945, we read that certain soon-to-be-victorious Jews are calling for no mercy on the Germans – to which Goebbels replies, “Anyone in a position to do so should kill (totschlagen) these Jews like rats.” There we have it – an unambiguous call for murder. Except that it’s three years too late. One wonders, though, why, on the exterminationist thesis, Goebbels didn’t resort to such language much sooner. Perhaps it was only at the end, when the Jewish-backed Allies were slaughtering innocent Germans by the tens of thousands, that the Nazis began calling for their deaths. And perhaps by then it was justified.[12]

Into 1941 we start to move strongly toward – on the traditionalist view – systematic murder. But not until the second half of the year:

Mar 18, 1941 (I.9.193) *

Vienna will soon be entirely Jew-free. And now it is Berlin’s turn. I am already discussing the question with the Führer and Dr. Frank. He puts the Jews to work, and they are indeed obedient. Later they will have to get out of Europe altogether (aus…heraus)\.

Mar 19, 1941 (I.9.195)

Early flight to Posen. … Here, all sorts have been liquidated (liquidiert), above all the Jewish trash. This has to be. I explain the situation to Greiser\.

Mar 22, 1941 (I.9.199)

I am deeply troubled about the cultural impact of foreign laborers working in the Reich. There are several hundred thousand. The harsh line towards prisoners of war is also somewhat mitigated. The Jews themselves cannot be evacuated (evakuiert) from Berlin because 30,000 are working in the armaments industry. Who, earlier, would have thought this possible?

In the March 19 entry we find the first occurrence of another troublesome word, ‘liquidation’. It proves to be rather popular, appearing in eight different entries. The troublesome part is that, in many cases, it means something other than killing. Goebbels speaks of liquidating the “Jewish danger” (30 May 1942) and of liquidating Jewish marriages (6 December 1942). The word ‘liquidation’ means, primarily, ‘to make fluid.’ And this in fact is a fairly apt description of the deportation process: a large, entrenched Jewish community who had to be uprooted, made liquid, and then to flow out across the borders. Nothing in this entails killing. Nor at the time, in the 1940s, did the word necessarily mean murder. An article in the London Times had this to say: “The rest of the Jews in the General Government…would be liquidated, which means either transported eastward in cattle trucks to an unknown destination, or killed where they stood” (4 December 1942; p. 3). Holocaust survivor Thomas Buergenthal (2009: 49) writes of his experience in the Kielce ghetto: “The ghetto was being liquidated or, in the words bellowing out of the loudspeakers, Ausseidlung! Ausseidlung! (‘Evacuation! Evacuation!’).” And later he comments, “After the liquidation of the labor camp…” (p. 56). Clearly the word means, and meant, something other than killing.

Obviously, ‘liquidate’ can mean killing, as can a huge variety of words under contrived circumstances. In Mafia circles, a ‘kiss’ can mean death. Motion pictures use a variety of silly terms: whack, pop, bump, waste, take for a ride, off, do in, and so on. In the case of Goebbels, we must ask once again, why would he go to lengths to use euphemisms or silly code words in a personal diary? And one in which, when motivated, he was happy to call a spade a spade?

June 1941 was an important month: the Germans invaded Russia, and the Einsatzgruppen were activated to protect the troops from partisan attacks. Here I refer back to Kershaw’s account of events. Through mid-1941, Kershaw admits, there was no true genocidal plan – despite Hitler’s infamous prophecy of January 1939. As of June 1941, “shooting or gassing to death all the Jews of Europe…was at this stage not in mind” (p. 463). Even through the end of the year, the alleged physical extermination plan “was still emerging” (p. 492). Hence the plan in mid-1941 was just as Goebbels had recorded: one of confinement, deportation, and ethnic cleansing.

Anti-partisan actions of the Einsatzgruppen began in June and July 1941; Jews were prominent among the partisans, and hence they were prominent among the victims. Then “there was a sharp escalation from around August onward,” both in the death toll and in the ranks of the shooters. Allegedly, the 3,000 Einsatzgruppen men recruited large numbers of “native collaborators” to help with the slaughter; Kershaw cites Browning (1995: 106) as stating that the combined troop levels rose to more than 300,000 by January 1943![13]

Jun 20, 1941 (I.9.390)

Dr. Frank talks about the General Government. There one is already happily looking forward to expelling (abschieben) the Jews. Judaism in Poland gradually decays. A just punishment for inciting the people and instigating the war. The Führer has also prophesied that to the Jews\.

Jul 13, 1941 (II.1.58)

We are again getting reports from the eastern front on the terrible atrocities being committed by the Bolsheviks. The Moscow Jews continue to apply their infamous procedure, in order to push the outrages committed by them into our shoes. But the whole world agrees that there is not a word of truth in it\.

Kershaw then cites a mysterious meeting between Hitler and Himmler in mid-July, during which the former “effectively…placed the ‘Jewish Question’…directly in Himmler’s hands” (p. 469). After this, we are to believe that Hitler was content to speak only of deportations, removals, and evacuations, all of which allegedly reconfirmed the implicit genocide command. When Hitler is quoted as saying, “Where the Jews are sent to, whether to Siberia or Madagascar, is immaterial,” Kershaw offers an amazing response: “The frame of mind [here] was overtly genocidal. The reference to Madagascar was meaningless.” Evacuation to Siberia was “genocide of a kind” (p. 471). But never mind this; as of July 1941, “no decision for the ‘Final Solution’ – meaning the physical extermination of the Jews throughout Europe – had yet been taken. But genocide was in the air.”

Aug 7, 1941 (II.1.189)

In the Warsaw ghetto there was some increase in typhus; although provisions have been made to ensure that it will not leave the ghetto. The Jews have always been carriers of infectious diseases. They must either be cooped up in a ghetto and left to themselves, or liquidated (liquidieren); otherwise they will always infect the healthy population of the civilized nations\.

Aug 11, 1941 (II.1.213)

In the [occupied] Baltic countries the tendency is to form their own governments, and to shake off the Germans as quickly as possible, in order to become stronger. In the large cities a punishment is inflicted upon the Jews. They are beaten to death en masse in the streets by the self-defense organizations of the Baltic peoples. That which the Führer prophesied comes true: that if the Jews succeeded in provoking a war again, they would thereby cease to exist (seine Existenz verlieren würde)\.

A very important observation: the deaths of Jews in the Baltics were caused in large part by revenge-seeking natives, not roving German death squads. And in fact there was a good basis for this revenge, namely the murder and torture inflicted by the Jews of Stalin’s GPU intelligence unit.[14 ]

In his “Table Talk” discussions of this time, Hitler argued that Germany was justified in deporting the Jews, and that furthermore they were doing it relatively humanely:

If any people has the right to proceed to evacuations, it is we, for we’ve often had to evacuate our own population. Eight hundred thousand men had to emigrate from East Prussia alone. How humanely sensitive we are is shown by the fact that we consider it a maximum of brutality to have liberated our country from 600,000 Jews. And yet we accepted, without recrimination, and as something inevitable, the evacuation of our own compatriots! (1953/2000: 24)

There seems to be no independent verification of the 600,000 figure, so we cannot identify from where they would have been deported, unfortunately. Meanwhile Goebbels continued his actions in Berlin:

Aug 12, 1941 (II.1.218)

The Jewish Question has again become especially acute in the capital. We count 70,000 Jews in Berlin at the moment, of which 30,000 are not even working; the others live as parasites off the work of the host nation. This is an intolerable situation. The various departments of the upper-level Reich authorities still oppose a radical solution to this problem. But I won’t let it go, for I don’t want to experience the Jewish question solved again as it was in 1938 – by the mob. But this is prevented in the long run only if we take timely and sweeping measures\. … I also think it necessary that the Jews be given a badge. They are active in public life as defeatists and mood-spoilers. It is therefore imperative that they be recognized as Jews. They must not be allowed to speak on behalf of the German people. They have nothing to do with the German people, but rather must be excluded from (ausgeschieden) the German people\.

Goebbels clearly does not want a repeat of Kristallnacht. Also, this is the first mention of the “badge”, or yellow Star of David, that the Jews were ultimately forced to wear.

Aug 18, 1941 (II.1.254)

It’s different with the Jewish Question. All Germans are presently against the Jews. The Jews must be put back in the box. When one realizes that there are still 75,000 Jews in Berlin, of which only 23,000 are working, it seems a grotesque fact. One cannot even inform the German people, or else there would surely be pogroms. We Germans thus have the honor to conduct the war, and meanwhile the parasitical Jews, who are waiting for our defeat in order to exploit it for themselves, are sustained by our national strength. This condition is absolutely outrageous. I will ensure that it will soon be stopped\.

Aug 19, 1941 (II.1.265-266)

Regarding the Jewish Question, I completely prevail with the Führer. He agrees that we will introduce a large, visible Jew-badge for all the Jews in the Reich, and which must be worn in public; then we can remove (beseitigt) the danger that the Jews will act as defeatists and complainers without being recognized. Also, if in the future they do not work, they will be given smaller rations than the German people. That is only right and proper. He who does not work, should not eat. It’s all we need in Berlin, for example, that of 76,000 Jews only 26,000 work, and the rest not only don’t work, but they live on the rations of the Berlin population! Additionally, the Führer tells me that, as soon as the first transport opportunity becomes available, the Berlin Jews should be pushed off (abzuschieben) to the East. There they will have to make do under a harsh climate\.

We discuss the Jewish problem. The Führer is convinced that his prophecy in the Reichstag – that if Jewry succeeded in provoking yet another world war, it would end with their destruction (Vernichtung) – is confirmed. It is coming true in the following weeks and months with an almost uncanny certainty. In the East, the Jews must pay the price; in Germany they have paid in part already, and they will pay more in the future. Their last resort is North America, and there they will also have to pay before long\.

Jewry is a foreign element among civilized nations, and its activities in the past three decades has been so devastating that the people’s reaction is understandable – indeed, one might say, a compulsion of nature. In any case, in the world to come the Jews will not have anything to laugh about. In Europe today there is a united front against Jewry. This is already apparent in the entire European press – and not only on this question, but also on many other matters there exists a thoroughly unified opinion\.

So here we have a clear and unambiguous statement: that the Vernichtung of the Jewish race meant the complete exclusion from society and, ultimately, its physical removal.

Aug 20, 1941 (II.1.278)

On the Jewish Question, I am now beginning to take action. Because the Führer has allowed me to introduce a badge for the Jews, I believe I will be able to accomplish this marking very quickly, without carrying out the legal reforms that would normally be required in such a situation. … Public life in Berlin must quickly be cleaned (gereinigt) [of Jews]. If at the moment it is not possible to make Berlin a Jew-free city, at least they should not appear in public any longer. Additionally, the Führer told me that I may expel (abschieben) the Jews from Berlin immediately after the end of our campaign in the East. Berlin must become a Jew-free city. It is outrageous and scandalous that 76,000 Jews, most of whom are parasites, can roam the capital of the German Reich. They destroy not only the streetscape, but also the mood\.

Although it will be very different when they wear a badge, we can leave it at that until they are removed. We have to approach this problem without any sentimentality. One need only imagine what the Jews would do to us, if they had the power to do so – as we have the power to do. In any case, I remain alert regarding further action on the Jewish Question. If one must also overcome bureaucratic and partly sentimental resistance in the higher Reich offices, I will be neither surprised nor deterred. I took up the fight against Jewry in Berlin in 1926, and it is my ambition not to rest until the last Jew has left Berlin\.

Throughout the summer Hitler resisted mass evacuations. Then, according to Kershaw: “Suddenly, in mid-September, Hitler changed his mind. There was no overt indication of the reason” (p. 477). Here’s one overt indication: on September 12 Roosevelt ordered the U.S. navy to begin sinking German ships. This was only the latest in a string of aggressive and provocative actions by the Americans, which began with their shadowing of German freighter and supply ships in late 1939, and included the Lend-Lease Act of March 1941 that authorized military assistance for the Allied nations, explicitly ending U.S. neutrality.

A Himmler letter from this time cites Hitler’s authorization to begin with an initial shipment of 60,000 Jews to the Lodz ghetto. This action was key to the “gathering whirlwind of extermination,” says Kershaw. But even this was no Final Solution order. “It is doubtful whether a single, comprehensive decision of such a kind was ever made.” Instead, “numerous local and regional Nazi leaders…seized on the opportunity…to start killing Jews in their own areas” (p. 481). The killing was as yet haphazard; a “coordinated, comprehensive programme of total genocide…would still take some months to emerge.”

Sep 24, 1941 (II.1.480-481, 485)

Also with respect to the Jewish Question, I have some important things to say to Heydrich. For the Berlin Jews, we will drive away the desire to hide their badges; and anyway, I am of the opinion that the Jews must be evacuated (evakuieren) from Berlin as quickly as possible. This will be the case as soon as we have settled the military issues in the East. In the end, they will all be transported (transportieren) to the camps designed by the Bolsheviks. These camps were built by the Jews; it is only right that they are now populated by the Jews\.

The Führer is of the opinion that the Jews must, after all, be removed from (herausgebracht) all of Germany. The first cities to be made Jew-free are Berlin, Vienna, and Prague. Berlin is the first in line, and I am hopeful that in the course of this year we are able to transport out (abzutransportieren) a substantial part of Berlin’s Jews to the East\.

The first trains left Berlin on 18 October 1941.

Oct 21, 1941 (II.2.169)

We are also now gradually beginning with the expulsion (Ausweisung) of Jews from Berlin to the East. Several thousand have already been put in motion. At first they go to Lodz [Poland]. Thereupon commences a big excitement. The Jews send anonymous letters to the foreign press seeking help, and in fact some messages seep through to foreign countries. I forbid further information about that for the foreign correspondents. Nevertheless, it will not prevent this from expanding further in the coming days. Nothing will change. While it is, at the moment, unpleasant to see this issue discussed in front of the world stage, one must accept this disadvantage. The main thing is that the capital will become Jew-free. And I will not rest until this goal is fully achieved\.

Four days later Hitler made this well-known comment:

From the rostrum of the Reichstag, I prophesied to Jewry that, in the event of war’s proving inevitable, the Jew would disappear from Europe. That race of criminals has on its conscience 2 million dead of the First World War, and now already hundreds of thousands more. Let nobody tell me that, all the same, we can’t park them in the marshy parts of Russia! Who’s worrying about our troops? It’s not a bad idea, by the way, that public rumor attributes to us a plan to exterminate the Jews. Terror is a salutary thing. (1953/2000: 87)

So we see here (1) continued endorsement for literal deportation, (2) no talk of killing, murder, gas chambers, etc, (3) an equation between ‘extermination’ and deportation, and (4) a minimal concern for secrecy. The fact that Hitler finds some use in the rumor mill is interesting, a kind of unanticipated fringe benefit. But he perhaps did not anticipate how talk of extermination would play in the Anglo world. Two months before he made the above comment, the New York Times (August 25; p. 3) reported that, “unless the Nazis were defeated, wholesale extermination would be the lot of all Jews” (…“including those in the United States and Britain”!) – and here, ‘extermination’ means murder, no doubt.

Then an important Goebbels entry that continues the account from August 11:

Nov 2, 1941 (II.2.221-222)

We fly early in the morning to Vilnius [Lithuania]. … We were met by Lt Colonel Zehnpfennig, who drove us through the city. Vilnius has a quarter million inhabitants, and nearly one quarter are Jewish. However, the ranks of the Jews have been greatly thinned by the Lithuanians after the invasion of German troops. The Jews were active primarily as [Soviet] GPU spies and informers, and countless Lithuanian intellectuals and citizens owe their deaths to them. The revenge tribunal established by the Lithuanians and Poles, being the majority of the city, has been horrifying. Thousands [of Jews] have been shot, and even now hundreds more as well. They have now all been rounded up into their ghettos. That they have not all been killed is due only to the fact that the Jews control the entire Vilnian handcraft industry, and the Lithuanians are completely dependent on them\.

The city shows hardly any traces of war. But on a short drive through the ghetto, the view is horrifying. Here the Jews squat in rows, hideous forms, not to be looked at let alone touched. The Jews have created their own administration, which also has a police function. They stand at the entrance to the ghetto, which is separated from the rest of the city, on guard and at attention. Even 10 years ago I would not have dreamed that something like this would again be the case. Terrible figures lurk in the streets, which I would not like to meet at night. The Jews are the lice of civilized man. They must somehow be eradicated (ausrotten), otherwise they will again play their tormenting and troublesome role. Only if one advances with the necessary brutality can one be finished with them. When they are spared, one will later be their victim\.

Nov 17, 1941 (II.2.304)

In a published telegram, Churchill openly stands on the side of the Jews. He is a consummate servant of the Jews\.

Nov 18, 1941 (II.2.309)

Heydrich told me about his intentions regarding the expulsion (Abschiebung) of Jews from the Reich. The question is more difficult than we had first suspected. In any case, 15,000 Jews will have to stay in Berlin because they are employed in the war effort and other dangerous work. Also, a number of elderly Jews cannot be pushed off (abgeschoben) to the East. For them, a Jewish ghetto in a small town in the protectorate will be arranged. The third phase, which will begin early next year, will follow the procedure I have proposed to clear the area city by city, such that when the evacuation (Evakuierung) in a city begins, it will also be finished as soon as possible, and the effect on public opinion will be neither too long nor too harmful. Heydrich’s approach on this question is very consistent. He is something I had not previously realized: a shrewd political thinker\.

So no evacuation either for workers or the elderly. One wonders if genocide was still ‘in the air’.

Nov 22, 1941 (II.2.340-341)

Also, regarding the Jewish Question, the Führer fully agrees with my views. He wants an energetic policy against the Jews, but we do not want to cause any unnecessary difficulties. Evacuation (Evakuierung) of the Jews will be undertaken city by city. It is still uncertain when it will be Berlin’s turn; but when its turn comes, the evacuation will be carried out as quickly as possible to the very end\.

On the first of December, Hitler offered some philosophical thoughts on the social effect of Jewry:

[The] destructive role of the Jew has in a way a providential explanation. If nature wanted the Jew to be the ferment that causes people to decay, thus providing these peoples with an opportunity for a healthy reaction, in that case, people like St. Paul and Trotsky are, from our point of view, the most valuable. By the fact of their presence, they provoke the defensive reaction of the attacked organism. Dietrich Eckart once told me that in all his life he had known just one good Jew: Otto Weininger, who killed himself on the day when he realized that the Jew lives on the decay of peoples. (1953/2000: 141)

It is in this month, as we know, that the European war becomes a truly world war, as Germany – after some two years of provocation – declares war on the U.S. in the wake of Pearl Harbor. Also this month, on the orthodox view, a milestone occurs: Chelmno begins its extermination process, with gas vans powered by diesel engines. Evidently, then, genocide was more than in the air; it was on the ground running. And Goebbels, in truth, does seem to ramp up his rhetoric; he makes his first overt references to the deaths of Jews:

Dec 13, 1941 (II.2.498-499)

As concerns the Jewish Question, the Führer is determined to make a clean sweep (reinen Tisch – lit. ‘clean table’). He had prophesied to the Jews that if they once again brought about a World War they would experience their own destruction (Vernichtung). This was not just an empty phrase. The World War is here, and the destruction of Jewry must be the necessary consequence. This question must be seen without sentimentality. We are not here in order to have sympathy with the Jews, rather we sympathize with our own German people. If the German people have now once again sacrificed as many as 160,000 dead in the Eastern campaign, then the authors of this bloody conflict must pay with their lives (mit ihrem Leben bezahlen müssen)\.

Dec 14, 1941 (II.2.503)

The early curfew in Paris has been abolished, but a plethora of Jews remain to be pushed out (abgeschoben) of occupied France to the eastern region. In many cases this is equivalent to a death sentence. The remaining Jews will think hard before stirring up trouble or sabotage against the German troops. Meanwhile General von Stülpnagel can conduct the execution of 100 Jews and communists. That will provide a very plausible and psychologically-adept explanation for the Parisian population, and will not fail to have an effect\.

If deportation is sometimes the “equivalent of a death sentence,” and many will “pay with their lives,” we are left wondering how, exactly, and in what numbers, they will die. I trust that there is a clear difference between (a) many dying from disease, exposure, lack of medical care, periodic shootings, etc, and (b) all dying in a complex and systematic gassing operation. There is no doubt that concentrating and deporting thousands or millions of people in wartime would lead to many deaths. But this is not genocide. The next entry is telling:

Dec 18, 1941 (II.2.533-534)

I speak with the Führer regarding the Jewish Question. He is determined to take consistent action and not be deterred by bourgeois sentimentality. Above all, the Jews must leave the Reich (aus…heraus). We discuss the possibilities for especially clearing out (räumen) Berlin as quickly as possible. Objections are sure to be raised here – from the Four Year Plan, from the Economics Ministry – because about 13,000 Jews are employed in the armaments industry in Berlin; but, with some good will, they can be replaced by Bolshevik prisoners of war. In any case we will tackle this problem as soon as possible, especially when we have the transport capacity to move this body of people. Berlin cannot count as absolutely consolidated as long as Jews are living and working in the capital. Besides, the bourgeois Schlappmeier has ever-new excuses to save the Jews. Earlier it was Jewish money and influence; now it is the Jewish workers. German intellectuals and elite have no anti-Jewish instinct at all. Their vigilance is not sharp. It is therefore necessary that we solve this problem, since it is likely that, if it remains unsolved, it will lead to the most devastating consequences after we are gone. The Jews should all be pushed off (abgeschoben) to the East. We are not very interested in what becomes of them after that. They have wished this fate upon themselves, they have started the war, and they must now pay the price\.

“We are not very interested in what becomes of them after that.” Harsh and brutal, perhaps, but clearly far less than genocide. The same thought was echoed by Hans Frank, in a memo of December 16:

What is to happen to the Jews [after evacuation]? … We have in the General Government an estimated 2.5 million Jews – perhaps with those closely related to Jews and what goes with it, now 3.5 million Jews. We can’t shoot these 3.5 million Jews, we can’t poison them…[15]

Obviously he and Goebbels, at least, were unaware of any program of genocide.


Notes

[1] The first 6 or 7 years of entries were every 2nd or 3rd day. But by 1930 he was rigorously recording his thoughts daily. Until mid-1941 he wrote them himself; afterward he dictated the entries, and they became considerably longer.

[2] Alfred Rosenberg was also well-educated, having earned a PhD in engineering in 1917. But in spite of his role as chief ideologist for the NSDAP, he was not nearly as influential in the Nazi hierarchy as Goebbels was. For most of the war years Rosenberg served as Reichsminister for the occupied Eastern territories.

[3] L. Lochner, in Goebbels (1948: 25).

[4] Ibid., p. viii.

[5] I discount the Eichmann recollection of Heydrich: “The Führer has ordered the physical extermination of the Jews.” Virtually no one on either side of the Holocaust debate accepts Eichmann’s trial testimony as truth.

[6] “What began in 1941 was a process of destruction not planned in advance, not organized centrally by any agency. There was no blueprint and there was no budget for destructive measures. [These measures] were taken step by step, one step at a time. Thus came about not so much a plan being carried out, but an incredible meeting of minds, a consensus – mind reading by a far-flung bureaucracy.” New York Newsday, Feb 23, 1983; Part II, p. 3.

[7] Corresponds to page 694 of the (much-longer) Internet version of the book.

[8] One book notably lacking in much citation of the diary is Browning’s The Origins of the Final Solution (2004). This massive work, published four years after Kershaw’s comparable book, should have made equally good use of the diaries. But one struggles in vain to find more than a half-dozen quotations. This is revealing: Browning, publishing in the U.S., clearly did not want to draw attention to those many troublesome entries referring to deportations, evacuations, and the like. Kershaw was at least honest enough to cite them, even as he was papering them over.

[9] Obviously this is a judgment call. There are many minor or inconsequential references to Jews, Jewish media or propaganda, Bolshevik Jews, Jewish films, etc. By a rough count, one finds 25-30 entries per volume that mention Jews (about one reference every third day, on average). Thus of the 16 volumes that I cover exhaustively, there are some 450 potentially-relevant entries.

[10] Other definitions include “to ruin structure or condition”, “to neutralize”, “to defeat.”

[11] The diary entry of 6 February 1945 shows this very clearly. Goebbels is discussing the common goal of Germany’s enemies, namely, “to destroy (vernichten) Germany and to eradicate (auszurotten) the German people.” In neither case is he even faintly contemplating the literal mass murder of the entire German population.

[12] There are other threatening passages, including those referring to ‘liquidation’ and to the Jews ‘paying with their lives.’ I address these in due course.

[13] “Units of native collaborators had already played a significant role in the killing process. At the end of 1941, the strength of these units had reached 33,000. By June 1942, it was 165,000; by January 1943, 300,000. As Nebe rightly indicated, the task of killing Russian Jewry with the 3,000 men of the Einsatzgruppen was ‘impossible’.”

[14] A related event occurred in the Ukraine in the 1930s; this was known as the Holodomor, and was a state-created famine that killed some 5 million people.

[15] As cited in Kershaw (2000: 491).


Sources

  • Browning, C., Path to Genocide, Cambridge University Press, 1995.
  • Buergenthal, T., A Lucky Child, Profile Books, 2009.
  • Dalton, T., Debating the Holocaust: A New Look at Both Sides,Theses and Dissertations Press, 2009.
  • Goebbels, J., The Goebbels Diaries: 1942-1943, L. Lochner, trans. and ed.Doubleday and Company, 1948.
  • Goebbels, J., The Early Goebbels Diaries: 1925-1926, O. Watson, trans.H. Heiber, ed.Praeger, 1962.
  • Goebbels, J., Final Entries 1945: The Diaries of Joseph Goebbels, R. Barry, trans.H. Trevor-Roper, ed.Putnam, 1978.
  • Goebbels, J., Die Tagebücher von Joseph Goebbels, E. Fröhlich, ed.K. G. Saur Verlag, 1987-2006.
  • Hilberg, R., The Destruction of the European Jews, Yale University Press, 2003.
  • Hitler, A., Hitler’s Table Talk: 1941-1944, Enigma, 1953/2000.
  • Irving, D., Goebbels: Mastermind of the Third Reich, Focal Point Press, 1996.
  • Kershaw, I., Hitler 1936-1945: Nemesis, W. W. Norton, 2000.
  • Kershaw, I., Hitler, the Germans, and the Final Solution, Yale University Press, 2008.

New World Order – Communism by the Backdoor – Part 13

By Denis Wise

Part 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSYOyNvCFPQ

Part 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpfBiwub-LQ

Part 3: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYhcbDnemLY

Part 4: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_bqHGIDo9U

Part 5: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Ol4HRIX_kw

Part 6: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXCMjwO7Oko

Part 7: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MH8B-Cx3qFQ

Part 8: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-G2I2VQpeo4

Part 9: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQr6PY8cwfc

Part 10: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFTKPA4npgQ

Part 11: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4FgrJpfNTU

Part 12: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KR-5y_gNpOY

 

A Jewish International Takes Shape

Source: http://www.renegadetribune.com/a-jewish-international-takes-shape/

By Douglas Reed

From The Controversy of Zion (1952)

This autonomous Talmudic government was called the Kahal. In its own territory the Kahal was a fully-empowered government, under Polish suzerainty. It had independent authority of taxation in the ghettoes and communities, being responsible for payment of a global sum to the Polish government. It passed laws regulating every action and transaction between man and man and had power to try, judge, convict or acquit.

This power only nominally stopped short of capital punishment: Professor Salo Baron says,

In Poland, where the Jewish court had no right to inflict capital punishment, lynching, as an extra-legal preventive, was encouraged by rabbinical authorities such as Solomon Luria”.

(This quotation reveals the inner meaning of Dr. Kastein’s frequent, but cautious, allusions to “iron discipline”, “inexorable discipline”, “discipline rigid to the point of deadliness”, and the like).

In effect, a Jewish state, Talmud-ruled, was recreated on the soil of Poland.

As Dr. Kastein says,

Such was the constitution of the Jewish state, planted on foreign soil, hemmed in by a wall of foreign laws, with a structure partly self-chosen and partly forced upon it … It had its own Jewish law, its own priesthood, its own schools, and its own social institutions, and its own representatives in the Polish government … in fact, it possessed all the elements which go to form a state”.

The achievement of this status was due “in no small measure to the co-operation of the Polish Government”.

Then, in 1772, Poland was partitioned and this great community of “Eastern Jews”, organized as a state-within-the-state, was divided by national boundaries, most of it coming under Russian rule. At that point, for the first time in more than 2500 years and less than two hundred years before our own day, the “centre” of Jewish government disappears from sight. Up to 1772 there had always been one: in Poland, Spain, Babylonia, Galilee, Judea, Babylon and Judah.

Dr. Kastein says that “the centre ceased to exist”. The suggestion is that the centralized control of Jewry at that moment ended, but the length and strength of its earlier survival, and the significant events of the ensuing century, confute that. In a later passage Dr. Kastein himself reveals the truth, when he jubilantly records that in the Nineteenth Century “a Jewish international took shape”.

Clearly “the centre” continued, but from 1772 in secret. The reason for the withdrawal into concealment may be deduced from the shape of later events. The century which followed was that of the revolutionary conspiracy, Communist and Zionist, culminating in the open appearance of these two movements, which have dominated the present century.

The Talmudic “centre” was also the centre of this conspiracy. Had it remained in the open the source of conspiracy would have been visible, and the identification of the Talmudic, Eastern Jews with it obvious.

In the event this only became clear when the revolution of 1917 produced an almost all-Jewish government in Russia; and by that time power over governments in the West was so great that the nature of this new regime was little discussed, a virtual law of heresy having come into force there.

Had the visible institution continued, the masses of the West would in time have become aware that the Talmudic government of Jewry, though it led the clamour for “emancipation”, was also organizing a revolution to destroy all that the peoples might gain from this emancipation.

The Russians, among whom this largest single community of Jews at that time dwelt, knew what had happened. Dr. Kastein says,

The Russians wondered what could possibly be the reason why the Jews did not amalgamate with the rest of the population, and came to the conclusion that in their secret Kahals they possessed a strong reserve, and that a ‘World Kahal’ existed”.

Dr. Kastein later confirms what the Russians believed, by his own allusion to the “Jewish international” of the Nineteenth Century.

In other words, the “government” continued, but in concealment, and probably in the different form suggested by Dr. Kastein’s word “international”.

The strong presumption is that the “centre” today is not located in any one country and that, although its main seat of power is evidently in the United States, it now takes the form of a directorate distributed among the nations and working in unison, over the heads of governments and peoples.

The Russians, who at the time of the disappearance of “the centre” from public view were better informed than any others about this matter, have been proved right.

The manner in which this international directorate gains and wields its power over Gentile governments is no longer quite mysterious; enough authentic, published information has come out of these last fifty years to explain that, as this book will later show.

The mystery of its agelong hold over “Jews” is more difficult to penetrate. How has a sect been able to keep people, distributed around the globe, in the clutch of a primitive tribalism during twenty-five centuries?

Caricatures from “Der Stürmer” – translated in English and colourized – The Year 1937 – Part 2!

 The Year 1937 – Part 2

  03.March-1937-11

03.March-1937-12

03.March-1937-13

03.March-1937-14

03.March-1937-15

03.March-1937-16

03.March-1937-17

03.March-1937-18

03.March-1937-19

03.March-1937-20

Exposing Stalin’s Plan to Conquer Europe

Source: http://www.renegadetribune.com/exposing-stalins-plan-to-conquer-europe/

Poslednyaya Respublika (“The Last Republic”), by Viktor Suvorov (Vladimir Rezun). Moscow: TKO ACT, 1996. 470 pages. Hardcover. Photographs.

Reviewed by Daniel W. Michaels

For several years now, a former Soviet military intelligence officer named Vladimir Rezun has provoked heated discussion in Russia for his startling view that Hitler attacked Soviet Russia in June 1941 just as Stalin was preparing to overwhelm Germany and western Europe as part of a well-planned operation to “liberate” all of Europe by bringing it under Communist rule.

Writing under the pen name of Viktor Suvorov, Rezun has developed this thesis in three books. Icebreaker (which has been published in an English-language edition) and Dni M (“M Day”) were reviewed in the Nov.-Dec. 1997 Journal. The third book, reviewed here, is a 470-page work, “The Last Republic: Why the Soviet Union Lost the Second World War,” published in Russian in Moscow in 1996.

Suvorov presents a mass of evidence to show that when Hitler launched his “Operation Barbarossa” attack against Soviet Russia on June 22, 1941, German forces were able to inflict enormous losses against the Soviets precisely because the Red troops were much better prepared for war – but for an aggressive war that was scheduled for early July – not the defensive war forced on them by Hitler’s preemptive strike.

In Icebreaker, Suvorov details the deployment of Soviet forces in June 1941, describing just how Stalin amassed vast numbers of troops and stores of weapons along the European frontier, not to defend the Soviet homeland but in preparation for a westward attack and decisive battles on enemy territory.

Thus, when German forces struck, the bulk of Red ground and air forces were concentrated along the Soviet western borders facing contiguous European countries, especially the German Reich and Romania, in final readiness for an assault on Europe.

In his second book on the origins of the war, “M Day” (for “Mobilization Day”), Suvorov details how, between late 1939 and the summer of 1941, Stalin methodically and systematically built up the best armed, most powerful military force in the world – actually the world’s first superpower – for his planned conquest of Europe. Suvorov explains how Stalin’s drastic conversion of the country’s economy for war actually made war inevitable. [Image: By mid-June 1941, enormous Red Army forces were concentrated on the western Soviet border, poised for a devastating attack against Europe. This diagram appeared in the English-language edition of the German wartime illustrated magazine Signal.]

A Global Soviet Union

In “The Last Republic,” Suvorov adds to the evidence presented in his two earlier books to strengthen his argument that Stalin was preparing for an aggressive war, in particular emphasizing the ideological motivation for the Soviet leader’s actions. The title refers to the unlucky country that would be incorporated as the “final republic” into the globe-encompassing “Union of Soviet Socialist Republics,” thereby completing the world proletarian revolution.

As Suvorov explains, this plan was entirely consistent with Marxist-Leninist doctrine, as well as with Lenin’s policies in the earlier years of the Soviet regime. The Russian historian argues convincingly that it was not Leon Trotsky (Bronstein), but rather Stalin, his less flamboyant rival, who was really the faithful disciple of Lenin in promoting world Communist revolution. Trotsky insisted on his doctrine of “permanent revolution,” whereby the young Soviet state would help foment home-grown workers’ uprisings and revolution in the capitalist countries.

Stalin instead wanted the Soviet regime to take advantage of occasional “armistices” in the global struggle to consolidate Red military strength for the right moment when larger and better armed Soviet forces would strike into central and western Europe, adding new Soviet republics as this overwhelming force rolled across the continent. After the successful consolidation and Sovietization of all of Europe, the expanded USSR would be poised to impose Soviet power over the entire globe.

As Suvorov shows, Stalin realized quite well that, given a free choice, the people of the advanced Western countries would never voluntarily choose Communism. It would therefore have to be imposed by force. His bold plan, Stalin further decided, could be realized only through a world war.

A critical piece of evidence in this regard is his speech of August 19, 1939, recently uncovered in Soviet archives (quoted in part in the Nov.-Dec. 1997 Journal, pp. 32-33). In it, Lenin’s heir states:

The experience of the last 20 years has shown that in peacetime the Communist movement is never strong enough to seize power. The dictatorship of such a party will only become possible as the result of a major war …

Later on, all the countries who had accepted protection from resurgent Germany would also become our allies. We shall have a wide field to develop the world revolution.

Furthermore, and as Soviet theoreticians had always insisted, Communism could never peacefully coexist over the long run with other socio-political systems. Accordingly, Communist rule inevitably would have to be imposed throughout the world. So integral was this goal of “world revolution” to the nature and development of the “first workers’ state” that it was a cardinal feature of the Soviet agenda even before Hitler and his National Socialist movement came to power in Germany in 1933.

Stalin elected to strike at a time and place of his choosing. To this end, Soviet development of the most advanced offensive weapons systems, primarily tanks, aircraft, and airborne forces, had already begun in the early 1930s. To ensure the success of his bold undertaking, in late 1939 Stalin ordered the build up a powerful war machine that would be superior in quantity and quality to all possible opposing forces. His first secret order for the total military-industrial mobilization of the country was issued in August 1939. A second total mobilization order, this one for military mobilization, would be issued on the day the war was to begin.

Disappointment

The German “Barbarossa” attack shattered Stalin’s well-laid plan to “liberate” all of Europe. In this sense, Suvorov contends, Stalin “lost” the Second World War. The Soviet premier could regard “merely” defeating Germany and conquering eastern and central Europe only as a disappointment.

According to Suvorov, Stalin revealed his disappointment over the war’s outcome in several ways. First, he had Marshal Georgi Zhukov, not himself, the supreme commander, lead the victory parade in 1945. Second, no official May 9 victory parade was even authorized until after Stalin’s death. Third, Stalin never wore any of the medals he was awarded after the end of the Second World War. Fourth, once, in a depressed mood, he expressed to members of his close circle his desire to retire now that the war was over. Fifth, and perhaps most telling, Stalin abandoned work on the long-planned Palace of Soviets.

An Unfinished Monument

The enormous Palace of Soviets, approved by the Soviet government in the early 1930s, was to be 1,250 feet tall, surmounted with a statue of Lenin 300 feet in height – taller than New York’s Empire State Building. It was to be built on the site of the former Cathedral of Christ the Savior. On Stalin’s order, this magnificent symbol of old Russia was blown up in 1931 – an act whereby the nation’s Communist rulers symbolically erased the soul of old Russia to make room for the centerpiece of the world USSR.

All the world’s “socialist republics,” including the “last republic,” would ultimately be represented in the Palace. The main hall of this secular shrine was to be inscribed with the oath that Stalin had delivered in quasi-religious cadences at Lenin’s burial. It included the words: “When he left us, Comrade Lenin bequeathed to us the responsibility to strengthen and expand the Union of Socialist Republics. We vow to you, Comrade Lenin, that we shall honorably carry out this, your sacred commandment.”

However, only the bowl-shaped foundation for this grandiose monument was ever completed, and during the 1990s, after the collapse the USSR, the Christ the Savior Cathedral was painstakingly rebuilt on the site.

The Official View

For decades the official version of the 1941-1945 German-Soviet conflict, supported by establishment historians in both Russia and the West, has been something like this:

Hitler launched a surprise “Blitzkrieg” attack against the woefully unprepared Soviet Union, fooling its leader, the unsuspecting and trusting Stalin. The German Führer was driven by lust for “living space” and natural resources in the primitive East, and by his long-simmering determination to smash “Jewish Communism” once and for all. In this treacherous attack, which was an important part of Hitler’s mad drive for “world conquest,” the “Nazi” or “fascist” aggressors initially overwhelmed all resistance with their preponderance of modern tanks and aircraft.

This view, which was affirmed by the Allied judges at the postwar Nuremberg Tribunal, is still widely accepted in both Russia and the United States. In Russia today, most of the general public (and not merely those who are nostalgic for the old Soviet regime), accepts this “politically correct” line. For one thing, it “explains” the Soviet Union’s enormous World War II losses in men and materiel.

Doomed from the Start

Contrary to the official view that the Soviet Union was not prepared for war in June 1941, in fact, Suvorov stresses, it was the Germans who were not really prepared. Germany’s hastily drawn up “Operation Barbarossa” plan, which called for a “Blitzkrieg” victory in four or five months by numerically inferior forces advancing in three broad military thrusts, was doomed from the outset.

Moreover, Suvorov goes on to note, Germany lacked the raw materials (including petroleum) essential in sustaining a drawn out war of such dimensions.

Another reason for Germany’s lack of preparedness, Suvorov contends, was that her military leaders seriously under-estimated the performance of Soviet forces in the Winter War against Finland, 1939-40. They fought, it must be stressed, under extremely severe winter conditions – temperatures of minus 40 degrees Celsius and snow depths of several feet – against the well-designed reinforced concrete fortifications and underground facilities of Finland’s “Mannerheim Line.” In spite of that, it is often forgotten, the Red Army did, after all, force the Finns into a humiliating armistice.

It is always a mistake, Suvorov emphasizes, to underestimate your enemy. But Hitler made this critical miscalculation. In 1943, after the tide of war had shifted against Germany, he admitted his mistaken evaluation of Soviet forces two years earlier.

Tank Disparity Compared

To prove that it was Stalin, and not Hitler, who was really prepared for war, Suvorov compares German and Soviet weaponry in mid-1941, especially with respect to the all-important offensive weapons systems – tanks and airborne forces. It is a generally accepted axiom in military science that attacking forces should have a numerical superiority of three to one over the defenders. Yet, as Suvorov explains, when the Germans struck on the morning of June 22, 1941, they attacked with a total of 3,350 tanks, while the Soviet defenders had a total of 24,000 tanks – that is, Stalin had seven times more tanks than Hitler, or 21 times more tanks than would have been considered sufficient for an adequate defense. Moreover, Suvorov stresses, the Soviet tanks were superior in all technical respects, including firepower, range, and armor plating.

As it was, Soviet development of heavy tank production had already begun in the early 1930s. For example, as early as 1933 the Soviets were already turning out in series production, and distributing to their forces, the T-35 model, a 45-ton heavy tank with three cannons, six machine guns, and 30-mm armor plating. By contrast, the Germans began development and production of a comparable 45-ton tank only after the war had begun in mid-1941.

By 1939 the Soviets had already added three heavy tank models to their inventory. Moreover, the Soviets designed their tanks with wider tracks, and to operate with diesel engines (which were less flammable than those using conventional carburetor mix fuels). Furthermore, Soviet tanks were built with both the engine and the drive in the rear, thereby improving general efficiency and operator viewing. German tanks had a less efficient arrangement, with the engine in the rear and the drive in the forward area.

When the conflict began in June 1941, Suvorov shows, Germany had no heavy tanks at all, only 309 medium tanks, and just 2,668 light, inferior tanks. For their part, the Soviets at the outbreak of the war had at their disposal tanks that were not only heavier but of higher quality.

In this regard, Suvorov cites the recollection of German tank general Heinz Guderian, who wrote in his memoir Panzer Leader (1952/1996, p. 143):

In the spring of 1941, Hitler had specifically ordered that a Russian military commission be shown over our tank schools and factories; in this order he had insisted that nothing be concealed from them. The Russian officers in question firmly refused to believe that the Panzer IV was in fact our heaviest tank. They said repeatedly that we must be hiding our newest models from them, and complained that we were not carrying out Hitler’s order to show them everything. The military commission was so insistent on this point that eventually our manufacturers and Ordnance Office officials concluded: “It seems that the Russians must already possess better and heavier tanks than we do.” It was at the end of July 1941 that the T34 tank appeared on the front and the riddle of the new Russian model was solved.

Suvorov cites another revealing fact from Robert Goralski’s World War II Almanac (1982, p. 164). On June 24, 1941 – just two days after the outbreak of the German-Soviet war:

The Russians introduced their giant Klim Voroshilov tanks into action near Raseiniai [Lithuania]. Models weighing 43 and 52 tons surprised the Germans, who found the KVs nearly unstoppable. One of these Russian tanks took 70 direct hits, but none penetrated its armor.

In short, Germany took on the Soviet colossus with tanks that were too light, too few in number, and inferior in performance and fire power. And this disparity continued as the war progressed. In 1942 alone, Soviet factories produced 2,553 heavy tanks, while the Germans produced just 89. Even at the end of the war, the best-quality tank in combat was the Soviet IS (“Iosef Stalin”) model.

Suvorov sarcastically urges establishment military historians to study a book on Soviet tanks by Igor P. Shmelev, published in 1993 by, of all things, the Hobby Book Publishing Company in Moscow. The work of an honest amateur military analyst such as Shmelev, one who is sincerely interested in and loves his hobby and the truth, says Suvorov, is often superior to that of a paid government employee.

Airborne Forces Disparity

Even more lopsided was the Soviet superiority in airborne forces. Before the war, Soviet DB-3f and SB bombers as well as the TB-1 and TB-3 bombers (of which Stalin had about a thousand had been modified to carry airborne troops as well as bomb loads. By mid-1941 the Soviet military had trained hundreds of thousands of paratroopers (Suvorov says almost a million) for the planned attack against Germany and the West. These airborne troops were to be deployed and dropped behind enemy lines in several waves, each wave consisting of five airborne assault corps (VDKs), each corps consisting of 10,419 men, staff and service personnel, an artillery division, and a separate tank battalion (50 tanks). Suvorov lists the commanding officers and home bases of the first two waves or ten corps. The second and third wave corps included troops who spoke French and Spanish.

Because the German attack prevented these highly trained troops from being used as originally planned, Stalin converted them to “guards divisions,” which he used as reserves and “fire brigades” in emergency situations, much as Hitler often deployed Waffen SS forces.

Maps and Phrase Books

In support of his main thesis, Suvorov cites additional data that were not mentioned in his two earlier works on this subject. First, on the eve of the outbreak of the 1941 war Soviet forces had been provided topographical maps only of frontier and European areas; they were not issued maps to defend Soviet territory or cities, because the war was not to be fought in the homeland. The head of the Military Topographic Service at the time, and therefore responsible for military map distribution, Major General M. K. Kudryavtsev, was not punished or even dismissed for failing to provide maps of the homeland, but went on to enjoy a lengthy and successful military career. Likewise, the chief of the General Staff, General Zhukov, was never held responsible for the debacle of the first months of the war. None of the top military commanders could be held accountable, Suvorov points out, because they had all followed Stalin’s orders to the letter.

Second, in early June 1941 the Soviet armed forces began receiving thousands of copies of a Russian-German phrase book, with sections dedicated to such offensive military operations as seizing railroad stations, orienting parachutists, and so forth, and such useful expressions as “Stop transmitting or I’ll shoot.” This phrase book was produced in great numbers by the military printing houses in both Leningrad and Moscow. However, they never reached the troops on the front lines, and are said to have been destroyed in the opening phase of the war.

Aid from the ‘Neutral’ United States

As Suvorov notes, the United States had been supplying Soviet Russia with military hardware since the late 1930s. He cites Antony C. Sutton’s study, National Suicide (Arlington House, 1973), which reports that in 1938 President Roosevelt entered into a secret agreement with the USSR to exchange military information. For American public consumption, though, Roosevelt announced the imposition of a “moral embargo” on Soviet Russia.

In the months prior to America’s formal entry into war (December 1941), Atlantic naval vessels of the ostensibly neutral United States were already at war against German naval forces. (See Mr. Roosevelt’s Navy: The Private War of the U.S. Atlantic Fleet, 1939-1942 by Patrick Abbazia [Annapolis: Naval Institute Press, 1975]). And two days after the “Barbarossa” strike, Roosevelt announced US aid to Soviet Russia in its war for survival against the Axis. Thus, at the outbreak of the “Barbarossa” attack, Hitler wrote in a letter to Mussolini: “At this point it makes no difference whether America officially enters the war or not, it is already supporting our enemies in full measure with mass deliveries of war materials.”

Similarly, Winston Churchill was doing everything in his power during the months prior to June 1941 – when British forces were suffering one military defeat after another – to bring both the United States and the Soviet Union into the war on Britain’s side. In truth, the “Big Three” anti-Hitler coalition (Stalin, Roosevelt, Churchill) was effectively in place even before Germany attacked Russia, and was a major reason why Hitler felt compelled to strike against Soviet Russia, and to declare war on the United States five months later. (See Hitler’s speech of December 11, 1941, published in the Winter 1988-89 Journal, pp. 394-396, 402-412.)

The reasons for Franklin Roosevelt’s support for Stalin are difficult to pin down. President Roosevelt himself once explained to William Bullitt, his first ambassador to Soviet Russia: “I think that if I give him [Stalin] everything I possibly can, and ask nothing from him in return, noblesse oblige, he won’t try to annex anything, and will work with me for a world of peace and democracy.” (Cited in: Robert Nisbet, Roosevelt and Stalin: The Failed Courtship [1989], p. 6.) Perhaps the most accurate (and kindest) explanation for Roosevelt’s attitude is a profound ignorance, self-deception or naiveté. In the considered view of George Kennan, historian and former high-ranking US diplomat, in foreign policy Roosevelt was “a very superficial man, ignorant, dilettantish, with a severely limited intellectual horizon.”

A Desperate Gamble

Suvorov admits to being fascinated with Stalin, calling him “an animal, a wild, bloody monster, but a genius of all times and peoples.” He commanded the greatest military power in the Second World War, the force that more than any other defeated Germany. Especially in the final years of the conflict, he dominated the Allied military alliance. He must have regarded Roosevelt and Churchill contemptuously as useful idiots.

In early 1941 everyone assumed that because Germany was still militarily engaged against Britain in north Africa, in the Mediterranean, and in the Atlantic, Hitler would never permit entanglement in a second front in the East. (Mindful of the disastrous experience of the First World War, he had warned in Mein Kampf of the mortal danger of a two front war.) It was precisely because he was confident that Stalin assumed Hitler would not open a second front, contends Suvorov, that the German leader felt free to launch “Barbarossa.” This attack, insists Suvorov, was an enormous and desperate gamble. But threatened by superior Soviet forces poised to overwhelm Germany and Europe, Hitler had little choice but to launch this preventive strike.

But it was too little, too late. In spite of the advantage of striking first, it was the Soviets who finally prevailed. In the spring of 1945, Red army troops succeeded in raising the red banner over the Reichstag building in Berlin. It was due only to the immense sacrifices of German and other Axis forces that Soviet troops did not similarly succeed in raising the Red flag over Paris, Amsterdam, Copenhagen, Rome, Stockholm, and, perhaps, London.

Soviet troops hoist the red hammer-and-sickle flag over the Reichstag in Berlin, an act that symbolized the Soviet subjugation of eastern and central Europe. The Battle of Berlin climaxed the titanic struggle of German and Soviet forces that began on June 22, 1941. On the afternoon of April 30, 1945, as Soviet troops were storming the Reichstag building, Hitler committed suicide in his nearby bunker headquarters.

The Debate Sharpens

In spite of resistance from “establishment” historians (who in Russia are often former Communists), support for Suvorov’s “preventive strike” thesis has been growing both in Russia and in western Europe. Among those who sympathize with Suvorov’s views are younger Russian historians such as Yuri L. Dyakov, Tatyana S. Bushuyeva, and I. V. Pavlova. (See the Nov.-Dec. 1997 Journal, pp. 32-34.)

With regard to 20th-century history, American historians are generally more close-minded than their counterparts in Europe or Russia. But even in the United States there have been a few voices of support for the “preventive war” thesis – which is all the more noteworthy considering that Suvorov’s books on World War II, with the exception of Icebreaker, have not been available in English. (One such voice is that of historian Russell Stolfi, a professor of Modern European History at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California. See the review of his book Hitler’s Panzers East in the Nov.-Dec. 1995 Journal.) Not all the response to Suvorov’s work has been positive, though. It has also prompted criticism and renewed affirmations of the decades-old orthodox view. Among the most prominent new defenders of the orthodox “line” are historians Gabriel Gorodetsky of Tel Aviv University, and John Ericson of Edinburgh University.

Rejecting all arguments that might justify Germany’s attack, Gorodetsky in particular castigates and ridicules Suvorov’s works, most notably in a book titled, appropriately, “The Icebreaker Myth.” In effect, Gorodetsky (and Ericson) attribute Soviet war losses to the supposed unpreparedness of the Red Army for war. “It is absurd,” Gorodetsky writes, “to claim that Stalin would ever entertain any idea of attacking Germany, as some German historians now like to suggest, in order, by means of a surprise attack, to upset Germany’s planned preventive strike.”

Not surprisingly, Gorodetsky has been praised by Kremlin authorities and Russian military leaders. Germany’s “establishment” similarly embraces the Israeli historian. At German taxpayers expense, he has worked and taught at Germany’s semi-official Military History Research Office (MGFA), which in April 1991 published Gorodetsky’s Zwei Wege nach Moskau (“Two Paths to Moscow”).

In the “Last Republic,” Suvorov responds to Gorodetsky and other critics of his first two books on Second World War history. He is particularly scathing in his criticisms of Gorodetsky’s work, especially “The Icebreaker Myth.”

Some Criticisms

Suvorov writes caustically, sarcastically, and with great bitterness. But if he is essentially correct, as this reviewer believes, he – and we – have a perfect right to be bitter for having been misled and misinformed for decades.

Although Suvorov deserves our gratitude for his important dissection of historical legend, his work is not without defects. For one thing, his praise of the achievements of the Soviet military industrial complex, and the quality of Soviet weaponry and military equipment, is exaggerated, perhaps even panegyric. He fails to acknowledge the Western origins of much of Soviet weaponry and hardware. Soviet engineers developed a knack for successfully modifying, simplifying and, often, improving, Western models and designs. For example, the rugged diesel engine used in Soviet tanks was based on a German BMW aircraft diesel.

One criticism that cannot in fairness be made of Suvorov is a lack of patriotism. Mindful that the first victims of Communism were the Russians, he rightly draws a sharp distinction between the Russian people and the Communist regime that ruled them. He writes not only with the skill of an able historian, but with reverence for the millions of Russians whose lives were wasted in the insane plans of Lenin and Stalin for “world revolution.”

Journal of Historical Review 17, no. 4 (July-August 1998), 30-37. Daniel W. Michaels is a Columbia University graduate (Phi Beta Kappa, 1954), a Fulbright exchange student to Germany (1957), and recently retired from the US Department of Defense after 40 years of service. Also see (off-site) the National Vanguard’s review of Icebreaker and Hitler’s Reichstag speech of December 11, 1941.

The US Senate Just Quietly Advanced A Free Speech Busting Anti-BDS Bill

Source: http://www.renegadetribune.com/the-us-senate-just-quietly-advanced-a-free-speech-busting-anti-bds-bill/

By Whitney Webb

WASHINGTON – In an evening vote that garnered essentially no national media coverage, the U.S. Senate voted last night to advance the “Strengthening America’s Security in the Middle East Act of 2019” – sometimes called the “anti-BDS bill” for its component that would allow state and local governments to punish companies or individuals who support the non-violent Boycott, Divest, Sanctions movement aimed at promoting Palestinian rights and ending Israeli apartheid and military occupation of the West Bank. The bill was, notably, numbered S.1 – the Senate’s first legislative act of its 2019-20 session.

Numerous rights groups, politicians and civil rights advocates have accused this measure of violating freedom of speech and setting a dangerous precedent for the private political activism of American citizens, all on behalf of a foreign country.

The bill was adopted by the Senate in a vote of 74 in favor to 19 against, with seven abstentions. The bill had previously been blocked by Senate Democrats by a 56-44 vote as part of their objection to acting on legislation during the government shutdown. However, many of those Democratic senators who had previously blocked the bill ultimately voted in support of the measure. In order to become law, the measure would still need to pass the Democrat-run House of Representatives. However, given the amount of support for the measure among Democrats and the power of the Israel lobby, the bill stands a considerable chance of passing the House.

Some commentators have paid particular attention to how Democratic senators considered to be 2020 hopefuls voted on the bill. Several confirmed and likely contenders for the upcoming Democratic nomination voted “No” – including Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) and Bernie Sanders (I-VT). However, Cory Booker (D-NJ) and Kamala Harris (D-CA), whose private courting of the Israel lobby was the subject of a recent MintPress News report, abstained from voting. Another notable abstention was Republican Senator Rand Paul (R-KY), who had previously threatened to filibuster a key component of the bill last year, preventing its passage during the previous Congress.

Punishing organized dissent

The bill includes several measures that were promoted by the Israel lobby last year but did not make it through the previous Congress. These include the “Ileana Ros-Lehtinen United States-Israel Security Assistance Authorization Act of 2019” which would give a record-breaking $38 billion to Israel over the next 10 years, and which ultimately failed to pass after Sen. Paul threatened a filibuster against it. That bill also requires Congress to give at least $3.8 billion to Israel every subsequent year after the initial 10 years.

Other measures in the bill include the “Caesar Syria Civilian Protection Act of 2019” – which imposes more sanctions on Syria and has been described as a “rebuttal” to President Trump’s proposed Syria troop withdrawal, which Israel also opposes – and the “The United States-Jordan Defense Cooperation Extension Act,” which would also give money to Israel. Some analysts have long asserted that U.S. security assistance to Jordan and other regional countries such as Egypt is aimed at securing regional support for Israeli and American geopolitical objectives in the Middle East.

Yet, the most controversial part of the bill by far is the “Combating BDS Act of 2019,” which would authorize state and local governments to retaliate commercially against entities that support BDS, such as by halting business with or refusing to contract or hire companies or individual citizens who either actively participate in or support the movement. A previous version of the bill included possible jail time as punishment for supporting a boycott of Israel or Israeli settlements, their violation of international law notwithstanding.

Some have asserted that the current text of the bill would mean that these same retaliatory measures would apply to boycotts targeting any country considered an “ally” by the U.S. government – Saudi Arabia, for example – if that boycott was not explicitly sanctioned by Washington. Others, such as Senior Legislative Counsel to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) Kathleen Ruane, have asserted that the bill “sends a message to Americans that they will be penalized if they dare to disagree with their government.” The ACLU also argued via Twitter that “states don’t have the ‘right’ to punish individuals for participating in political boycotts the government doesn’t agree with, which this bill encourages them to do.”

Such concerns over similar laws enacted at the state level led two federal courts to rule that “anti-BDS” laws were unconstitutional for their restriction on the right to free speech. However, the bill the Senate just advanced both ignores and nullifies those court rulings by attempting to shield anti-BDS legislation at the state level from future legal challenges. However, as a recent MintPress report noted, the effort to protect anti-BDS state legislation through the passage of national legislation is unlikely to work.

A frighteningly slippery slope

The fact that the Senate just voted in favor of a bill to nullify the right of American citizens to engage in political speech that is opposed by the U.S. government should be headline news across the country. However, mention of the vote has been notably absent from American mainstream news outlets Tuesday morning. One would think that left-leaning news networks, ever eager to criticize the Republican Party, would be quick to cover how the Republican-controlled Senate just voted to restrict American political speech if it deviates from the government’s own position. Yet the fact that the bill itself has several co-sponsors from the Democratic Party, and is strongly supported by the powerful Israel lobby, has apparently helped to earn their silence.

While the bill’s relation to the BDS movement – and, by extension, the Israel/Palestine conflict – makes it a polarizing and largely partisan issue, all Americans, regardless of political affiliation or their views on Israel/Palestine, should be gravely concerned about not just the bill itself but the precedent it would set should it become law. By encouraging retaliation by the State against American citizens for making decisions about what to buy and what not to buy in their private lives, a dangerous and chilling precedent has been approved by 74 U.S. Senators in order to shield a foreign country from criticism and the consequences of grassroots activism. Under the guise of preventing “anti-Semitism,” this bill represents a fraught, Orwellian overreach by Congress into the private lives of all Americans and their right to make politically-motivated decisions.

If passed, it will not take much for the U.S. government to use this precedent to silence Americans’ political speech when it comes to domestic matters. Consider how the government would react if conservatives chose to boycott or push for divestment from U.S. companies that profit from abortion? What if anti-war activists chose to boycott or push for divestment from U.S. companies that profit from our wars abroad? This slope is as slippery as they come and the fact that a sizeable majority in the Senate has chosen to target a certain political movement should sound alarm bells for all Americans who care about free speech, regardless of their views on Israel/Palestine or their position on the political spectrum.


Whitney Webb is a staff writer for MintPress News and a contributor to Ben Swann’s Truth in Media. Her work has appeared on Global Research, the Ron Paul Institute and 21st Century Wire, among others. She has also made radio and TV appearances on RT and Sputnik. She currently lives with her family in southern Chile.