Der Stürmer

The official blog of the site "Der Stürmer" –

Month: April, 2020

Der Fuehrer Ewig Ist

Adolf Hitler About the State Idea

The fatherland alone!

Speech on September 18, 1922 in Munich

The state is not an economic organization, rather it is a folkish organism. Goal and purpose of the state is to provide a folk with the nourishment and the position of power it deserves.

Closing Speech on March 27, 1924 before the court on Munich

Politics is nothing else and can be nothing else than the perception of the life interests of a folk and the practical conduct of its life struggle with all means.

Lecture on March 27, 1932 in Dusseldorf

Three factors essentially determine the political life of a folk: First, the inner worth of a folk, which is passed on again and again as genetic pool through the generations. – There are, however, above all two other, inwardly related manifestations, which we again and again see in the periods of decline of nations; the one is the replacement of the value of personality by a leveling, numerical concept, by democracy, the other is the negation of the folk value, the rejection of the diversity of inclination, of achievement etc. of the individual folks, whereby both manifestations determine each other and at least influence their development. – But there is also a third thing, namely the opinion that life in this world, after one has already denied the value of personality and the unique folk value, must not be preserved through struggle.

Lecture on January 27, 1932 in Dusseldorf

I believe that no revolution in world history proceeded and was guided with more care and skill than ours.

Speech on March 20, 1934 in Munich

The National Socialist revolution has overpowered the state of treason and perjury and replaced it again with a Reich of honour, loyalty and decency.

Proclamation of September 1, 1933 in Nuremberg

Revolution is not a permanent condition; it must not develop into an ongoing condition. One must guide the released river of revolution into the sure bed of evolution.

Speech on July 6, 1933 in Berlin

Revolutions only eliminate power conditions. Evolution alone changes objective conditions!

Proclamation of September 5, 1934 in Nuremberg

To change the state form externally, is easy. To reshape a folk inwardly, can always only succeed, if a certain development process has more or less completed itself.

Speech on May 10, 1933 in Berlin

German worker, you must realize: What is now being decided is not about Germany as a state, not about the Kaiser Reich as a form of government, not about monarchy, not about capitalism, not about militarism, rather what is being decided is about the existence or non-existence of our folk, and we German workers make up 70% of this folk. We are what is being decided about!

Speech on May 10, 1933 in Berlin

Position and rights of the Reich President remain untouched. To produce the inner agreement with his goals will always be the supreme task of the government.

Speech on March 23, 1933 in Berlin

With all honor to the values of the monarchy, with all respect to the really great kaisers and kings of our German history, the question of the final formation of the state form of the German Reich is today beyond any discussion.

Speech on January 30, 1934 in Berlin

Whoever builds something new, must eliminate what is bad and what is ripe to be eliminated. That is what we have done and history will not be able to reproach us that we have raged blindly.

Speech on March 20, 1934 in Munich

National Socialism opposes the principles of aristocratic rule with the principle for the preservation and promotion of the German folk, those millions of peasants, workers and burghers, who are determined for a common fate in this world, who are blessed with the good fortune or cursed with the same misfortune.

Speech on January 30, 1934 in Berlin

The government, which is today active in Germany, works neither for monarchy nor for republic, rather solely for the German folk. Wherever we look, we see everywhere need and misery, unemployment, decay and destruction. To eliminate this, is the mission we have chosen.

Interview on October 18, 1933 in Berlin

Only if the folk continuously has an inner participation in the principles and methods, which bear and move its state organization, will a living organism grow instead of a dead, because only a form, mechanical organization.

Proclamation of September 1, 1933 in Nuremberg

The German nation does not live for a constitution, rather it gives itself a constitution, which is capable of life, and if one proves itself inviable, then the nation does not die, rather the constitution then changes!

Open letter of October 14, 1931 to Brüning

The state form results from the nature of a folk, from necessities, which are so elemental and mighty, that each individual will eventually comprehend them without quarrel, if once all of Germany is just unified and free!

Speech of April 12, 1922 in Munich

A far-reaching reform of the Reich will only be able to result from a living development. Its goal must be the construction of a constitution, which combines the will of the folk with the authority of a real leadership.

Speech on March 23, 1933 in Berlin

We wish to replace eternal wavering with the solidity of a government, which is supposed to again give our folk an unshakeable authority.

Speech on March 21, 1933 in Potsdam

If need, if catastrophes come, only then is it shown, if real men also stand at the top.

Speech of November 9, 1934 in Munich

A state leadership must emerge, which represents a real authority, and indeed an authority, which is not dependent on any one social stratum. A state leadership must emerge, of which every citizen can trust that is wants nothing else than the good fortune of the German folk, the well-being of the German folk, a state leadership, which can at the same time truthfully say of itself that it is independent on all sides!

Speech on May 10, 1933 in Berlin

I once declared that I only wish to fight with legal means. I have also kept to this declaration. The whole transformation of Germany has happened on a constitutionally allowed path. It is naturally possible and even probable that we will one day present to the German folk for a vote the sum result of the transformation in process as a new constitution. And I must stress that at this time there is no government, which can claim with more right than ours, that it is commissioned by its folk!

Interview on October 18, 1933 in Berlin

Two million fell in the World War…Nobody died for the present Germany, became a cripple, an orphan or a widow; we owe it to those two million that we build a new Germany!

Speech on April 13, 1923 in Munich

A real fatherland of the whole German folk and not an open ground for foreign swindlers.

Speech on July 28, 1922 in Munich

Fatherland! One starts to gradually comprehend again that this is more than just a work place, where one earns money.

Speech on September 5, 1923 in Munich

We National Socialists are, by God, perhaps the most loyal followers of our German fatherland… Many times against death and the devil, but always just for our German fatherland!

Speech on July 28, 1922 in Munich

For us the three words, spoken by many without thought, are more than slogans: the words love, faith and hope. We National Socialists want to love our fatherland and learn to love, learn to love it alone devoutly, and to tolerate no idols beside it. We recognize only one interest, and that is that of our folk… We hope and believe that Germany will, and must, again become great and mighty.

Speech of May 1, 1923 in Munich

A folk, which is politically without honor, will also be politically defenseless, and then become economically enslaved as well.

Speech of September 8, 1922 in Munich

Our folk is, after all, unfortunately, all to uncritical; otherwise it would have already long since not only seen through so much (after the Marxist revolution of 1918), rather also put it out of commission with the fist!

Speech of July 28, 1922 in Munich

The German folk was the folk of clear thinking and simplicity. Why did this folk (during the Marxist rule) lose these characteristics? Because somebody (at that time) was there, who falsified them. If somebody wants to make the folk free, it can only happen along one path, that he makes it free from the one, who preaches to him immoral anti-nationalism.

Speech on April 20, 1923 in Munich

There is hardly a folk on earth with more tense abilities than our German folk possesses.

Speech on February 7, 1934 in Berlin

Today I know that the German folk has inwardly found itself again, that it stands together in the common struggle of fate and that it takes and will take the path on which alone it can be saved.

Speech on November 2. 1933 in Essen

A miracle has taken place in Germany. What we hoped for in the long years of our struggle, in which we all passionately believed, for which we were ready to make any sacrifice – and, if necessary, our own life – has now become a reality!

Proclamation of September 1, 1933 in Nuremberg

Precisely we, who ourselves experienced the war for four and a half years, we who ourselves know how horrible and difficult the demands are, which it places on a folk, we are perhaps most called upon in German history to keep apart superficial hurrah patriotism and real, deep bond with one’s own folk – to live with a deep inner bond with its history, with its life.

Speech on October 22, 1933 in Kelheim

Hie world…will see that the time, when foreign countries could figure with fighting Germans with Germans, is past and that it will never return.

Speech of October 22, 1933 in Kelheim

We have also again slowly re-established in the German folk trust, trust, above all, in its own strength. Millions of people again look differently at the future than previously. A different spirit has come into this folk. The German folk again believes in a possible future.

Speech of October 24, 1933 in Berlin

We, however, wish for the German folk an earthly, infinite preservation and believe, through our struggle for it, just to fulfill the creator’s command, who put the drive for self- preservation inside all creatures. Long live our folk!

Proclamation of September 1, 1933 in Nuremberg

Whether we are or not, is not important. But it is necessary, that our folk is there!

Speech of June 18, 1934 in Gera

A German folk, a German Reich, a unanimous German nation, strong, free, respected, vivacious, because its life has again become possible for it!

Speech of February 26, 1934 in Munich

Germany of the German folk!

Speech of July 8, 1922 in Munich

Let us be inhumane! But if we save Germany, we have done the greatest deed in the world. Let us be unjust! But if we save Germany, we have again eliminated the greatest injustice in the world! Let us me immoral! But if our folk is saved, we have again paved the way for morality!

Speech on April 20, 1923 in Munich

Out of peasants, burghers and workers must a German folk again develop!

Speech on March 21, 1933 in Potsdam

For us the affirmation should be binding: It is our will that out of workers, out of burghers and proletarians, our of republicans and monarchists, out of Catholics and protestants, out of employees and officials, employees and employers, out of all that we become a German folk!

Speech on June 19, 1933 in Erfurt

We want to realize…: one folk and one German Reich!

Speech of October 22, 1933 in Kelheim

The German Reich is today no longer a geographic concept, rather a political union and reality.

Speech of July 13, 1934 in Berlin

The National Socialist state is a unified state in the determination and cohesion of a single sovereignty, whose bearer is the whole folk.

Interview on January 24, 1935 in Berlin

We do not fight for theories and dogmas; we fight for the existence of the German folk.

Speech on November 6, 1933 in Kiel

We recognize only one program, and this program is called: The struggle should not be waged for an idea, rather the idea is supposed to serve the German nation.

Speech on February 20, 1933 in Cologne

For the struggle for the unity of the German folk is what has called me and my comrades.

Speech on February 20, 1933 in Cologne

Unification of all Europe’s Germans, education for national consciousness and the willingness to put the whole national energy into the service of the nation.

Speech on April 10, 1923 in Munich

Especially close to our heart is the fate of the Germans living beyond the Reich borders, who are bound to us by language, culture and custom, and who tight so hard for these things. The national government is determined to stand up with all the means at its disposal for the international guaranteed rights of the German minorities.

Speech of March 23, 1933 in Berlin

We are all proud that, with God’s active help, we have again become genuine Germans.

Speech on March 4, 1933 in Konigsberg

Only when all of you become one in the will to save Germany, can German man, too, find his salvation in Germany.

Speech on May 1, 1933 in Berlin

May, however, above all…the insight be reinforced that the direction of the nation must never petrify into a purely administrative machinery, rather that a living leadership must remain. A leadership, which does not see in the folk the object of its activity, rather which lives in the folk, feels with the folk and lights for the folk. Forms and institutions come and may pass. But what remains and must remain is the living substance of flesh and blood, filed with its own nature, as we know and love our folk.

Proclamation of September 1, 1933 in Nuremberg

Our program has not been created in order to make pretty gestures, rather in order to preserve the life of the German folk.

Speech on March 20, 1934 in Munich

Ich have…never seen in purely external power any kind of substitute for the nation’s trust, rather honestly endeavoured to transform the authority lying within power into the strength of trust. I may thus affirm with pride that just as the National Socialist party has its roots exclusively in the folk, we as a government never thought differently than as in the folk, with the folk and for the folk!

Speech on January 30, 1934 in Berlin

The strength of a folk, however, is nothing other than the unanimity and the firm unity of the folk.

Speech on February 26, 1934 in Munich

Cannons we do not have, so a single folk must stand behind me!

Speech on October 28, 1933 in Stuttgart

One in the past formed new governments; for the last year we have been forging a new folk!

Speech on January 30, 1934 in Berlin

National Socialism has the starting point of its observations, positions and decisions neither in the individual nor in mankind. It consciously puts at the center of its whole thought: the folk.

Speech of October 2, 1933 in Hameln

We, too, are only the tool of a higher seen necessity.

Speech of March 20, 1934 in Munich

We want in the future as well to be nothing but the agent of the folk and to so shape our life in the future as well so that we can be seen by every German as decent and honorable.

Speech on February 26, 1934 in Munich

We have not seen the task in securing our power through the bayonet, rather to find it and anchor it in the heart of the folk.

Speech in July 13, 1934 in Berlin

We believe we are responsible for our action not just to posterity, rather also to the past.

Speech on May 4, 1923 in Munich

I believe and affirm that a folk has nothing higher to respect than the dignity and freedom of its existence.

Speech on September 18, 1922 in Munich

But we believe in this folk, we fight for this folk, for this folk we are ready, if necessary, like the thousands of comrades before us, to risk body and soul.

Appeal for election of July 31, 1932

We will never treat our folk dishonorably!

Speech of October 24, 1933 in Berlin

Folk, if you forget your honor, then you will soon lose your life. You cannot sacrifice the one without having to renounce the other.

Speech on March 4, 1933 in Konigsberg

To stand up for our honor, stand up hard, and not to waver from this honor!

Speech on October 24, 1933 in Berlin

Through the internationalization of the nation itself a folk finally ceases to be master of its own fate. It becomes the playball of foreign powers.

Speech of April 27, 1923 in Munich

We told ourselves that being „national” above all means: to act out of boundless, all encompassing love for the folk and, if necessary, to also die for it. And hence „social” means: to so construct the state and the folk community that each individual acts for the folk community and must accordingly also be convinced of the goodness and the honorable honesty of this folk community in order to be able to die for it.

Speech of April 12. 1922 in Munich

Every genuinely national thought is in the final analysis social, that means: whoever is ready to so completely stand up for his folk that he really knows no higher ideal than just the wellbeing of his folk…, he is a socialist!

Speech on July 28, 1922 in Munich

The struggle, which alone can make Germany free, will be fought with the forces, which flow from the broad mass. Without the German worker you will never again get a German Reich!…It is as always: Liberation does not come from the top down, rather it will spring up from below.

Speech of April 24, 1923 in Munich

German folk! You are strong, if you become one, if you rip from your heart the spirit of class struggle and your discord.

Speech of May 1, 1933 in Berlin

The world has never experienced a more beautiful example of blind feel such as my co-workers present…The men around me are square, upright men. Each of them is a powerful personality. Each has his will and is filled with ambition. If they were not ambitious, they would not stand where they are today.

Interview of April 3, 1934 in Berlin

Do you also know that I have also gathered around me a whole staff of experts of economic, social and political life, whose sole task is to criticize? Before we pass a law, I show a draft to these men and ask them: „Please, what is wrong with this?” I do not wish them to simply say „yes” to everything. They have no value to me, if they do not criticize and tell me what shortcomings our measures could have under circumstances.

Interview of April 3, 1934 in Berlin

What our folk needs are not parliamentarian leaders, rather such as are determined to put through what they have recognized as correct before God, the world and their conscience, if necessary, against majorities.

Speech on April 27, 1923 in Munich

If the liberal world-view in its deification of the individual (that means in it equal valuation of each individual) must lead to the annihilation of the folk, then National Socialism wants to preserve the folk as such, if necessary, even at the cost of the individual.

Speech of October 2, 1933 in Hameln

Not the number is decisive, rather the will. A strongly led minority will is always greater than a slimy majority.

Speech of September 5, 1923 in Munich

Strength lies not in the majority, rather in the purity of the will to make sacrifice.

Speech on September 5, 1923 in Munich

If each higher culture receives its stamp through achievements, which can always only be owed to the concentration of human work force, then a large number of individuals must sacrifice a portion of their individual freedom in order to subordinate themselves to the will of an individual.

Speech of September 2, 1933 in Nuremberg

World history has in the past always only been made by minorities.

Speech of April 12, 1922 in Munich

History is never made by numbers!

Speech of September 12, 1923 in Munich

But it is thus natural, that, if the capable minds of a nation always present in smaller number are always treated as equal in worth to all the others, then a gradual majorization of the spirit, a majorization of ability and of personal value must start in, a majorization, which one falsely calls rule of the folk.

Lecture of January 27, 1932 in Düsseldorf

The Jewish democracy of majority rule always and at every time only a means…for the annihilation of the actual, Aryan leadership!

Speech of April 12, 1922 in Munich

We must now eliminate the last remnants of democracy, especially also the methods of voting and majority decisions, such as they still today often occur in communes, in economic organizations and work committees, and make the responsibility of the individual personality valid everywhere.

Speech of July 6, 1933 in Berlin

Only when a firm leadership hierarchy builds itself up, will it be about to, as a firm pole amid the rush of events, in the long- run be able to manage the leadership of a nation superior and determined.

Speech of September 3, 1933 in Nuremberg

For the greatness of a folk does not result from the summation of all achievements, rather in the final analysis from the summation of the peak achievements.

Lecture of January 27, 1932 in Dusseldorf

We want to replace this party state with a German folk state again!

Speech of February 2, 1933 in Cologne

A party state has fallen, a folk state has arisen!

Speech of October 2, 1933 in Hameln

It would contradict the meaning of the national rising…, if the government wanted to from case to case negotiate and request the Reichstag’s authorization for its measures. The government is not hereby driven by the intention to give up the Reichstag as such. Quite the opposite, it retains for itself for the future as well the option to inform the Reichstag about its measures or to fetch its agreement.

Speech of March 23, 1933 in Berlin

We want…in the future as well to at least once each year give the folk the possibility to make its judgment about us.

Speech of February 26, 1934 in Munich

The folk…must not delude itself that, because the parliament can no longer hamper decisions, the nation as well no longer needs to participate in the shaping of our fate. Quite the opposite, we want the German folk to precisely now reflect on itself and lively cooperating stand behind the government. It must get to the point that when we after four years again appeal to the nation, we do not turn to people who have slept, rather find a folk that during these four years has finally awakened from its parliamentarian hypnosis and possesses the knowledge, which is necessary for the comprehension of the eternal life prerequisites.

Speech of April 5, 1933 in Berlin

For in the long-run a social order cannot maintain itself through force, rather only through an inner understanding for its basic conditions.

Speech of May 1, 1934 in Berlin

The German folk will get a new organization of the political formation of will, and this organization will be built on the idea of authority, of leadership from top to bottom. And this organization will guarantee the concentration of German strength!

Speech of November 6, 1933 in Elbing

It is the conviction in Germany that the will is there for all to work for one and for one to work for all.

Speech of April 17, 1934 in Berlin

We want to reestablish the unity of the spirit and of the will of the German nation!

Speech of March 21, 1933 in Potsdam

What Germany needs today and deeply yearns for, that is a symbol of energy and strength!

Speech of July 28, 1922 in Munich

If a folk believes it can also endure without courage and strength, then it should not complain, if need and misery overwhelm it.

Adolf Hitler’s Program“. Appeal for the election of July 31, 1932

We recognized that political freedom can eternally only be the result of power and power only an outflow of the will.

Speech of April 12, 1922 in Munich

We fight for the state at whose peak should stand the greatest cleanliness and honesty, the most proud strength, the greatest energy!

Speech of August 1, 1923 in Munich

We want to steadily fight so that the power, which the new idea, the new political faith in Germany has conquered, never vanishes, rather quite the opposite becomes ever more firm!

Speech of May 1. 1933 in Berlin

This state just stands in its early youth. In centuries it should reach its full maturity, and you can be convinced that a millennium will not yet have broken it!

Speech of June 18. 1934 in Gera

The goal…, for which our folk fought for millennia, many generations had to suffer and millions had to die: a free German folk in a strong German Reich!

Speech of May 1, 1934 in Berlin

David Duke & Mark Collett: The ZioDemic Apocalypse and Hysterical Zio Media

Dr. Duke and Mark Collett discussed the botched response of (authorities) to the COVID-19 virus. Dr. Duke explained why it would have been preferable to protect, support, and isolate the vulnerable while allowing the rest of the population to develop herd immunity. Moreover, while the virus is a serious public health issue, authorities smothered the coronavirus flame with the jobs and livelihoods of hundreds of millions of people around the world, which will no doubt lead to millions of lost and wrecked lives and undermine the healthcare system by depriving it of the foundation of a solid economy on which it depends.

Caricatures from “Der Stürmer” – translated in English and colourized – The Year 1939 – Part 9!

The Year 1939 – Part 9


10.Oct 1939-01

10.Oct 1939-03

10.Oct 1939-04

10.Oct 1939-05

10.Oct 1939-06

10.Oct 1939-07

10.Oct 1939-08

10.Oct 1939-09

10.Oct 1939-11

Hitler Democrat – by General Leon Degrelle


What some people think they “know” about Hitler and his era is nothing close to the truth. In Hitler Democrat the other side of the story is told, as only the great General Leon Degrelle of the Waffen-SS could tell it.

This tremendous work is unlike any other book about World War II – and Adolf Hitler – available anywhere on the face of the planet today. Longtime subscribers of The Barnes Review are familiar with General Degrelle’s remarkable story. When this vibrant Warrior for the West – a much-decorated survivor of the brutal Eastern Front – died in Spain in 1994, he was the last surviving major figure of World War II, a statesman and soldier (at one point the youngest political leader in Europe) acquainted with all of the big names of the European arena, including Churchill, Mussolini, Franco, Laval, Petain and many others, including, needless to say, Adolf Hitler himself.

In fact, Hitler once said that, if he were to have a son, he would want him to be like Leon Degrelle. So it’s more than fitting that in his final years, the retired Belgian general was working relentlessly on the manuscripts that today make up the pages of Hitler Democrat.

The original typescript of this book, written in the early 1990s, had been temporarily lost, but both Degrelle’s wife, Jeanne, and publisher Willis Carto still held earlier drafts of some of Degrelle’s writings. Through a laborious process of careful reconstruction, the staff of The Barnes Review were able to literally resurrect Degrelle’s lost work.

And today, that material appears here in Hitler Democrat for the first time. In the end, this volume is not only a monumental work of history, a genuine epic, but it is also, in its own fashion, a tribute to the man behind it: General Leon Degrelle.

The Enigma of Hitler

By Léon Degrelle

Hitler, you knew him, what was he like?

I have been asked that question a thousand times since 1945, and nothing is more difficult to answer.

Approximately two hundred thousand books have dealt with the Second World War and with its central figure, Adolf Hitler.

But has the real Hitler been discovered by any of them? “The enigma of Hitler is beyond all human comprehension” the left-wing German weekly ‘Die Zeit’ once put it.

Salvador Dali, art’s unique genius, sought to penetrate the mystery in one of his most intensely dramatic paintings. Towering mountain landscapes all but fill the canvas, leaving ony a few luminous meters of seashore dotted with delicately miniaturized human figures: the last witness to a dying peace. A huge telephone receiver dripping tears of blood hangs from the branch of a dead tree; and here and there hang umbrellas and bats whose portent is visibly the same. As Dali tells it, “Chamberlain’s umbrella appeared in this painting in a sinister light, made evident by the bat, and it struck me when I painted it as a thing of enormous anguish.”

He then confided: “I felt this painting to be deeply prophetic. But I confess that I haven’t yet figured out the Hitler enigma either. He attracted me only as an object of my mad imaginings and because I saw him as a man uniquely capable of turning things completely upside down.”

What a lesson in humility for the braying critics who have rushed into print since 1945 with their thousands of ‘definitive’ books, most of them scornful, about this man who so troubled the introspective Dali that forty years later he still felt anguished and uncertain in the presence of his own hallucinatory painting. Apart from Dali, who else has ever tried to present an objective portrayal of this extraordinary man who Dali labeled the most explosive figure in human history?


The mountains of Hitler books based on blink hatred and ignorance do little to describe or explain the most powerful man the world has ever seen. How, I ponder, do these thousands of disparate portraits of Hitler in any way resemble the man I knew?

The Hitler seated beside me, standing up, talking, listening. It has become impossible to explain to people fed fantastic tales for decades that what they have read or heard on television just does not correspond to the truth.

People have come to accept fiction, repeated a thousand times over, as reality. Yet they have never seen Hitler, never spoken to him, never heard a word from his mouth. The very name of Hitler immediately conjures up a grimacing devil, the fount of all of one’s negative emotions. Like Pavlov’s bell, the mention of Hitler is meant to dispense with substance and reality. In time, however, history will demand more than these summary judgements.


Hitler is always present before my eyes: as a man of peace in 1936, as a man of war in 1944. It is not possible to have been a personal witness to the life of such an extraordinary man without being marked by it forever. Not a day goes by but Hitler rises again in my memory, not as a man long dead, but as a real being who paces his office floor, seats himself in his chair, pokes the burning logs in the fireplace.

The first thing anyone noticed when he came into view was his small mustache. Countless times he had been advised to shave it off, but he always refused: people were used to him the way he was.

He was not tall — no more than was Napoleon or Alexander the Great.

Hitler had deep blue eyes that many found bewitching, although I did not find them so. Nor did I detect the electric current his hands were said to give off. I gripped them quite a few times and was never struck by his lightening.

His face showed emotion or indifference according to the passion or apathy of the moment. At times he was as though benumbed, saying not a word, while his jaws moved in the meanwhile as if they were grinding an obstacle to smithereens in the void. Then he would come suddenly alive and launch into a speech directed at you alone, as though he were addressing a crowd of hundreds of thousands at Berlin’s Tempelhof airfield. Then he became as if transfigured. Even his complexion, otherwise dull, lit up as he spoke. And at such times, to be sure, Hitler was strangely attractive and as if possessed of magic powers.


Anything that might have seemed too solemn in his remarks, he quickly tempered with a touch of humour. The picturesque world, the biting phrase were at his command. In a flash he would paint a word-picture that brought a smile, or come up with an unexpected and disarming comparison. He could be harsh and even implacable in his judgements and yet almost at the same time be surprisingly conciliatory, sensitive and warm.

After 1945 Hitler was accused of every cruelty, but it was not in his nature to be cruel. He loved children. It was an entirely natural thing for him to stop his car and share his food with young cyclists along the road. Once he gave his raincoat to a derelict plodding in the rain. At midnight he would interrupt his work and prepare the food for his dog Blondi.

He could not bear to eat meat, because it meant the death of a living creature. He refused to have so much as a rabbit or a trout sacrificed to provide his food. He would allow only eggs on his table, because egg-laying meant that the hen had been spared rather than killed.

Hitler’s eating habits were a constant source of amazement to me. How could someone on such a rigorous schedule, who had taken part in tens of thousands of exhausting mass meetings from which he emerged bathed with sweat, often losing two to four pounds in the process; who slept only three to four hours a night; and who, from 1940 to 1945, carried the whole world on his shoulders while ruling over 380 million Europeans: how, I wondered, could he physically survive on just a boiled egg, a few tomatoes, two or three pancakes, and a plate of noodles? But he actually gained weight!

He drank only water. He did not smoke and would not tolerate smoking in his presence. At one or two o’clock in the morning he would still be talking, untroubled, close to his fireplace, lively, often amusing. He never showed any sign of weariness. Dead tired his audience might be, but not Hitler.

He was depicted as a tired old man. Nothing was further from the truth. In September 1944, when he was reported to be fairly doddering, I spent a week with him. His mental and physical vigor were still exceptional. The attempt made on his life on July 20th had, if anything, recharged him. He took tea in his quarters as tranquilly as if we had been in his small private apartment at the chancellery before the war, or enjoying the view of snow and bright blue sky through his great bay window at Berchtesgaden.


At the very end of his life, to be sure, his back had become bent, but his mind remained as clear as a flash of lightening. The testament he dictated with extraordinary composure on the eve of his death, at three in the morning of April 29, 1945, provides us a lasting testimony. Napoleon at Fontainebleau was not without his moments of panic before his abdication. Hitler simply shook hands with his associates in silence, breakfasted as on any other day, then went to his death as if he were going on a stroll. When has history ever witnessed so enormous a tragedy brought to its end with such iron self control?

Hitler’s most notable characteristic was ever his simplicity. The most complex of problems resolved itself in his mind into a few basic principles. His actions were geared to ideas and decisions that could be understood by anyone. The laborer from Essen, the isolated farmer, the Ruhr industrialist, and the university professor could all easily follow his line of thought. The very clarity of his reasoning made everything obvious.

His behaviour and his life style never changed even when he became the ruler of Germany. He dressed and lived frugally. During his early days in Munich, he spent no more than a mark per day for food. At no stage in his life did he spend anything on himself. Throughout his 13 years in the chancellery he never carried a wallet or ever had money of his own.


Hitler was self-taught and made not attempt to hide the fact. The smug conceit of intellectuals, their shiny ideas packaged like so many flashlight batteries, irritated him at times. His own knowledge he had acquired through selective and unremitting study, and he knew far more than thousands of diploma-decorated academics.
I don’t think anyone ever read as much as he did. He normally read one book every day, always first reading the conclusion and the index in order to gauge the work’s interest for him. He had the power to extract the essence of each book and then store it in his computer-like mind. I have heard him talk about complicated scientific books with faultless precision, even at the height of the war.

His intellectual curiosity was limitless. He was readily familiar with the writings of the most diverse authors, and nothing was too complex for his comprehension. He had a deep knowledge and understanding of Buddha, Confucius and Jesus Christ, as well as Luther, Calvin, and Savonarola; of literary giants such as Dante, Schiller, Shakespeare and Goethe; and analytical writers such as Renan and Gobineau, Chamberlain and Sorel.

He had trained himself in philosophy by studying Aristotle and Plato. He could quote entire paragraphs of Schopenhauer from memory, and for a long time carried a pocked edition of Schopenhauer with him. Nietzsche taught him much about the willpower.

His thirst for knowledge was unquenchable. He spend hundreds of hours studying the works of Tacitus and Mommsen, military strategists such as Clausewitz, and empire builders such as Bismark. Nothing escaped him: world history or the history of civilizations, the study of the Bible and the Talmud, Thomistic philosophy and all the masterpieces of Homer, Sophocles, Horace, Ovid, Titus Livius and Cicero. He knew Julian the Apostate as if he had been his contemporary.

His knowledge also extended to mechanics. He knew how engines worked; he understood the ballistics of various weapons; and he astonished the best medical scientists with his knowledge of medicine and biology.

The universality of Hitler’s knowledge may surprise or displease those unaware of it, but it is nonetheless a historical fact: Hitler was one of the most cultivated men of this century. Many times more so than Churchill, an intellectual mediocrity; or than Pierre Lavaal, with him mere cursory knowledge of history; of than Roosevelt; or Eisenhower, who never got beyond detective novels.


Even during his earliest years, Hitler was different than other children. He had an inner strength and was guided by his spirit and his instincts.

He could draw skillfully when he was only eleven years old. His sketches made at that age show a remarkable firmness and liveliness. He first paintings and watercolors, created at age 15, are full of poetry and sensitivity. One of his most striking early works, ‘Fortress Utopia,’ also shows him to have been an artist of rare imagination. His artistic orientation took many forms. He wrote poetry from the time he was a lad. He dictated a complete play to his sister Paula who was amazed at his presumption. At the age of 16, in Vienna, he launched into the creation of an opera. He even designed the stage settings, as well as all the costumes; and, of course, the characters were Wagnerian heroes.

More than just an artist, Hitler was above all an architect. Hundreds of his works were notable as much for the architecture as for the painting. From memory alone he could reproduce in every detail the onion dome of a church or the intricate curves of wrought iron. Indeed, it was to fulfill his dream of becoming an architect that Hitler went to Vienna at the beginning of the century.

When one sees the hundreds of paintings, sketches and drawings he created at the time, which reveal his mastery of three dimensional figures, it is astounding that his examiners at the Fine Arts Academy failed him in two successive examinations. German historian Werner Maser, no friend of Hitler, castigated these examiners: “All of his works revealed extraordinary architectural gifts and knowledge. The builder of the Third Reich gives the former Fine Arts Academy of Vienna cause for shame.”

In his room, Hitler always displayed an old photograph of his mother. The memory of the mother he loved was with him until the day he died. Before leaving this earth, on April 30, 1945, he placed his mother’s photograph in front of him. She had blue eyes like his and a similar face. Her maternal intuition told her that her son was different from other children. She acted almost as if she knew her son’s destiny. When she died, she felt anguished by the immense mystery surrounding her son.


Throughout the years of his youth, Hitler lived the life of a virtual recluse. He greatest wish was to withdraw from the world. At heart a loner, he wandered about, ate meager meals, but devoured the books of three public libraries. He abstained from conversations and had few friends.

It is almost impossible to imagine another such destiny where a man started with so little and reached such heights. Alexander the great was the son of a king. Napoleon, from a well-to-do family, was a general at 24. Fifteen years after Vienna, Hitler would still be an unknown corporal. Thousands of others had a thousand times more opportunity to leave their mark on the world.

Hitler was not much concerned with his private life. In Vienna he had lived in shabby, cramped lodgings. But for all that he rented a piano that took up half his room, and concentrated on composing his opera. He lived on bread, milk, and vegetable soup. His poverty was real. He did not even own an over-coat. He shoveled streets on snowy days. He carried luggage at the railway station. He spent many weeks in shelters for the homeless. But he never stopped painting or reading.

Despite his dire poverty, Hitler somehow managed to maintain a clean appearance. Landlords and landladies in Vienna and Munich all remembered him for his civility and pleasant disposition. His behavior was impeccable. His room was always spotless, his meager belongings meticulously arranged, and his clothes neatly hung or folded. He washed and ironed his own clothes, something which in those days few men did. He needed almost nothing to survive, and money from the sale of a few paintings was sufficient to provide for all his needs.


Impressed by the beauty of the church in a Benedictine monastery where he was part of the choir and served as an altar boy, Hitler dreamt fleetingly of becoming a Benedictine monk. And it was at that time, too, interestingly enough, that whenever he attended mass, he always had to pass beneath the first swastika he had ever seen: it was graven in the stone escutcheon of the abbey portal.

Hitler’s father, a customs officer, hoped the boy would follow in his footsteps and become a civil servant. His tutor encouraged him to become a monk. Instead the young Hitler went, or rather fled, to Vienna. And there, thwarted in his artistic aspirations by the bureaucratic mediocrities of academia, he turned to isolation and meditation. Lost in the great capital of Austria-Hungary, he searched for his destiny.

During the first 30 years of Hitler’s life, the date April 20, 1889, meant nothing to anyone. He was born on that day in Braunau, a small town in the Inn valley. During his exile in Vienna, he often thought of his modest home, and particularly of his mother. When she fell ill, he returned home from Vienna to look after her. For weeks he nursed her, did all the household chores, and supported her as the most loving of sons. When she finally died, on Christmas eve, his pain was immense. Wracked with grief, he buried his mother in the little country cemetery. “I have never seen anyone so prostrate with grief,” said his mother’s doctor, who happened to be Jewish.


Hitler had not yet focused on politics, but without his rightly knowing, that was the career to which he was most strongly called.

Politics would ultimately blend with his passion for art. People, the masses, would be the clay the sculptor shapes into an immortal form. The human clay would become for him a beautiful work of art like one of Myron’s marble sculptures, a Hans Makart painting, or Wagner’s Ring Trilogy.

His love of music, art and architecture had not removed him from the political life and social concerns of Vienna. In order to survive, he worked as a common laborer sided by side with other workers.

He was a silent spectator, but nothing escaped him: not the vanity and egoism of the bourgeoisie, not the moral and material misery of the people, nor yet the hundreds of thousands of workers who surged down the wide avenues of Vienna with anger in their hearts.

He had also been taken aback by the growing presence in Vienna of bearded Jews wearing caftans, a sight unknown in Linz. “How can they be Germans?” he asked himself. He read the statistics: in 1860 there were 69 Jewish families in Vienna; 40 years later there were 200,000. They were everywhere. He observed their invasion of the universities and the legal and medical professions, and their takeover of the newspapers.

Hitler was exposed to the passionate reactions of the workers to this influx, but the workers were not alone in their unhappiness. There were many prominent persons in Austria and Hungary who did not hide their resentment at what they believed was an alien invasion of their country. The mayor of Vienna, a Christian-Democrat and a powerful orator, was eagerly listened to by Hitler.

Hitler was also concerned with the fate of the eight million Austrian Germans kept apart from Germany, and thus deprived of their rightful German nationhood. He saw Emperor Franz Josef as a bitter and petty old man unable to cope with the problems of the day and the aspirations of the future.

Quietly, the young Hitler was summing things up in his mind.

First: Austrians were part of Germany, the common fatherland.

Second: The Jews were aliens within the German community.

Third: Patriotism was only valid if it was shared by all classes. The common people with whom Hitler had shared grief and humiliation were just as much a part of the fatherland as the millionaires of high society.

Fourth: Class war would sooner or later condemn both workers and bosses to ruin in any country. No country could survive class war; only cooperation between workers and bosses can benefit the country. Workers must be respected and live with decency and honor. Creativity must never be stifled.

When Hitler later said that he had formed his social and political doctrine in Vienna, he told the truth. Ten years later his observations made in Vienna would become the order of the day.

Thus Hitler was to live for several years in the crowded city of Vienna as a virtual outcast, yet quietly observing everything around him. His strength came from within. He did not rely on anyone to do his thinking for him. Exceptional human beings always feel lonely amid the vast human throng. Hitler saw his solitude as a wonderful opportunity to meditate and not to be submerged in a mindless sea. In order not to be lost in the wastes of a sterile desert, a strong soul seeks refuge within himself. Hitler was such a soul.


The lightning in Hitler’s life would come from the word.

All his artistic talent would be channeled into his mastery of communication and eloquence. Hitler would never conceive of popular conquests without the power of the word. He would enchant and be enchanted by it. He would find total fulfillment when the magic of his words inspired the hearts and minds of the masses with whom he communed.

He would feel reborn each time he conveyed with mystical beauty the knowledge he had acquired in his lifetime.

Hitler’s incantory eloquence will remain, for a very long time, a vast field of study for the psychoanalyst. The power of Hitler’s word is the key. Without it, there would never have been a Hitler era.


Did Hitler believe in God? He believed deeply in God. He called God the Almighty, master of all that is known and unknown.

Propagandists portrayed Hitler as an atheist. He was not. He had contempt for hypocritical and materialistic clerics, but he was not alone in that. He believed in the necessity of standards and theological dogmas, without which, he repeatedly said, the great institution of the Christian church would collapse. These dogmas clashed with his intelligence, but he also recognized that it was hard for the human mind to encompass all the problems of creation, its limitless scope and breathtaking beauty. He acknowledged that every human being has spiritual needs.

The song of the nightingale, the pattern and color of a flower, continually brought him back to the great problems of creation. No one in the world has spoken to me so eloquently about the existence of God. He held this view not because he was brought up as a Christian, but because his analytical mind bound him to the concept of God.

Hitler’s faith transcended formulas and contingencies. God was for him the basis of everything, the ordainer of all things, of his Destiny and that of all others.

The Secret Masonic Victory of WW2 – Part 5 – The Spanish Revolution

Great Britain’s Uncivilized Warfare and Postwar Crimes


By John Wear

Published: 2020-04-08

World War II is often referred to as the “Good War,” a morally clear-cut conflict between good and evil.[1] The “Good War” is also claimed to have led to a good peace. Germany under control of the Allies soon became a prosperous democracy which took her place among the family of good nations. Historian Keith Lowe expresses this idea as follows: “The political rebirth that occurred in the west is … impressive, especially the rehabilitation of Germany, which transformed itself from a pariah nation to a responsible member of the European family in just a few short years.”[2]

This naive belief that Germany was a pariah among good European nations belies the uncivilized warfare conducted by the Allies during World War II, as well as the murderous and criminal treatment of Germans after the war. This article focuses on crimes committed by Great Britain both during and after the war.

Britain’s Uncivilized Warfare

In addition to ignoring the numerous and generous German peace initiatives, Winston Churchill and other leaders of Great Britain began to conduct a war of unprecedented violence. On July 3, 1940, a British fleet attacked and destroyed much of the French fleet at Oran in northwestern Algeria to prevent it from falling into German hands. The French navy went to the bottom of the sea, and with it 1,297 French sailors. Churchill and the British government did not seem to mind that 1,297 of their French ally’s sailors were killed in the attack. This attack on the French fleet illustrates Churchill’s determination to defeat Germany “no matter what the cost.”[3]

A shocking detail of the British attack on the French fleet is that low-flying British aircraft repeatedly machine-gunned masses of French sailors as they struggled in the water. It is an event still remembered with great bitterness in France. This British war crime was soon followed by the assassination of French Adm. Francois Darlan by British agents in Algiers.[4]

Great Britain also began the violation of the cardinal rule of civilized warfare that hostilities must be limited to the combatant forces. On May 11, 1940, British bombers began to attack the industrial areas of Germany. The British government adopted a new definition of military objectives so that this term included any building housing activities that in any way contributed, directly or indirectly, to the war effort of the enemy. On December 16, 1940, the RAF conducted a moonlight raid by 134 British planes on Mannheim designed “to concentrate the maximum amount of damage in the center of the town.” Great Britain abandoned all pretense of attacking military, industrial or any other particular kind of target with this raid.[5]

On March 28, 1942, the British air offensive against Germany initiated Frederick Lindemann’s bombing plan. The Lindemann Plan, which continued with undiminished ferocity until the end of the war, concentrated on bombing German working-class housing. The British bombings during this period were simple terror bombing designed to shatter the morale of the German civilian population and thereby generate a movement to surrender. The bombings focused on working-class housing built close together because a higher amount of bloodshed was expected compared to bombing higher-class houses surrounded by large yards and gardens.[6]

The climax of the British bombing offensive under the Lindemann Plan was reached on the night of February 13, 1945, when a massive bombing raid was directed against Dresden. The population of Dresden was swollen by a horde of terrified German women and children running from the advancing Soviet army. No one will ever know exactly how many people died in the bombings of Dresden, but estimates of 250,000 civilian deaths appear to be reasonable. The bombings of Dresden served little military purpose; they were designed primarily to terrify German civilians and break their will to continue the war.[7]

A horrifying aspect of the Dresden bombings occurred during the daylight hours of February 14, 1945. On this day low-flying American fighters machine-gunned helpless Germans as they rushed toward the Elbe River in a desperate attempt to escape the inferno. Since Dresden had no air defense, the German civilians were easy targets.[8]

Winston Churchill, the man directly responsible for the Dresden bombings, began to publicly distance himself from the terror bombings. Churchill said to Sir Charles Portal, the chief of the British Air Staff, on March 28, 1945:

It seems to me that the moment has come when the question of bombing of German cities simply for the sake of increasing the terror, though under other pretexts should be reviewed. The destruction of Dresden remains a serious query against the conduct of Allied bombing….I feel the need for more precise concentration upon military objectives, such as oil and communications behind the immediate battle-zone, rather than on mere acts of terror and wanton destruction, however impressive.[9]

In spite of Churchill’s protestations, the British terror bombings continued unabated until the end of the war. On May 3, 1945, the British Royal Air Force attacked the German Cap Arcona and Thielbek passenger ships. Both of these ships were flying many large white flags with huge Red Cross emblems painted on the sides of the ships. The British attacks, which were a violation of international law, resulted in the deaths of approximately 7,000 prisoners being shipped from the Neuengamme Concentration Camp to Stockholm. When large numbers of corpses dressed in concentration-camp garb washed ashore the German coastline a few days later, the British claimed the Germans had intentionally drowned the prisoners in the Baltic Sea. It took years for the truth of these illegal British attacks to be made public.[10]

The London Cage

The British routinely secretly recorded conversations among their German prisoners-of-war (POWs) during World War II. For example, at Trent Park, a luxurious manor a few dozen miles north of London, the British secretly eavesdropped on the conversations of 63 German generals imprisoned at the facility. Although recording conversations among prisoners without their consent violated the Geneva Conventions, the British brushed aside such concerns because they obtained vital military intelligence from these conversations.[11]

Even-more-serious violations of the Geneva Conventions were committed at the London Cage, which was a clandestine interrogation center where German POWs were subjected to “special intelligence treatment” designed to break their will to resist. Located in Kensington Palace Gardens, an exclusive gated street known as “Millionaires’ Row,” the London Cage was where German POWs who could not be broken under normal interrogation methods were brought. The London Cage should have appeared on the wartime lists of the Red Cross as a transit camp, but did not– because officially it did not exist.[12]

Over 3,000 German POWs were ultimately interned in the London Cage at one time or another. Britain’s Col. Alexander Scotland was in charge of the London Cage, and few deny that he went too far in breaking the German POWs’ will to resist through rough interrogation treatment.[13]

Helen Fry writes of German POW Alfred Conrad Wernard’s treatment in the London Cage:

A wireless operator of U-boat U-187, Wernard spent three weeks in Kensington Palace Gardens and spoke about threats of execution, sleep deprivation and daily interrogations at different times in the dead of the night, always after having been dragged out of bed from a deep sleep. He was taken blindfolded to a room for interrogation. Interrogators were particularly interested in information Wernard had concerning a forerunner of the German radar system. “British Intelligence was interested in it,” Wernard said. “They even knew that I went on a course about the new equipment and the instructor’s name…The interrogator knew more about our U-boat than we did.” When Wernard refused to give information, the interrogator began to slowly rotate a revolver on the desk between them. “When it points at you,” he said abruptly, “I pull the trigger.” “I had no way of telling if he would,” Wernard admitted. Out in the yard, he was shown a deep trench and was threatened with being shot. “It was all designed to make us talk…It looked like a prison and there were bars on the windows.” Back in his room, which Wernard shared with a U-boat companion, the prisoners discovered a bugging device in the light fitting. “We were careful what we said,” he commented.[14]

Many German POWs were placed in solitary confinement to break their will to resist. A basement mirroring a Soviet-style dungeon was reserved for POWs who failed to cooperate, and with its dark and isolated position, a POW knew that any screams for help would go unheard. The basement became a place of physical torture. MI19 files which mention this basement make three independent references to “secret control gear”—i.e., electric shock equipment and other torture apparatus.[15]

A German POW at the London Cage could also be threatened with Cell 14, which emanated an overpowering stench of dead rats, wet rags and rotting flesh. Cell 14 was another part of the psychological war waged by the interrogators to break German POWs. When a Red Cross official first visited the London Cage in March 1946, he was not allowed to inspect the premises. Col. Alexander Scotland explained to the British War Office why inspection of the basement and Cell 14 was not allowed: “The secret gear which we use to check the reliability of information obtained must be removed from the Cage before permission is given to inspect this building. This work will take a month to complete.”[16]

Britain’s Postwar Crimes

The Jewish Brigade, which was part of the British Eighth Army, also murdered many disarmed and defenseless German officers. The Jewish Brigade was established not to fight in the war, but to follow behind the British army and kill senior German officers who were typically not guilty of anything except having served in defense of their country. Morris Beckman states in his book The Jewish Brigade: “These were the first post-war executions of selected top Nazis. There were several dozen revenge squads operating; the highest estimate of executions was 1,500. The exact figure will never be known.”[17]

Maj. Bernard Caspar, the senior chaplain of the Jewish Brigade, recalled the intense Jewishness of the Brigade’s soldiers. A Jewish flag flew over the Brigade’s headquarters, and all signs were written only in Hebrew. Parade commands were given in Hebrew, and Hebrew was typically spoken in the mess.[18]

The Jewish Brigade’s hatred of German officers and their desire for vengeance was a constant factor. Zeer Keren, a Brigade avenger who later became a Mossad member, said:

We were quite happy to do to the Nazis what they did to the Jews. Our goal was to execute them. I strangled them myself once we got in the forest. It took three to four minutes. We weighted the bodies with heavy chains, and threw them into lakes, rivers, streams. They were remote places. We left no trace of our activities.[19]

The British troops who captured the Bergen-Belsen Concentration Camp on April 15, 1945 also lost no time in mistreating the SS camp personnel. Most of the German guards were beaten with rifle butts, kicked, stabbed with bayonets, shot or worked to death.[20] The British liberators in an act of spite expelled the residents of the nearby town of Bergen, and then permitted the camp inmates to loot the houses and buildings. Much of the town of Bergen was set on fire even though none of the residents in Bergen was responsible for any crimes committed at the Bergen-Belsen Camp.[21]

British journalist Alan Moorehead described the treatment of some of the camp personnel at Bergen-Belsen shortly after the British takeover of the camp:

As we approached the cells of the SS guards, the [British] sergeant’s language became ferocious…The sergeant unbolted the first door and…strode into the cell, jabbing a metal spike in front of him. “Get up,” he shouted. “Get up. Get up, you dirty bastards.” There were half a dozen men lying or half lying on the floor. One or two were able to pull themselves erect at once. The man nearest me, his shirt and face splattered with blood, made two attempts before he got on to his knees and then gradually on to his feet. He stood with his arms stretched out in front of him, trembling violently.

“Come on. Get up,” the sergeant shouted [in the next cell]. The man was lying in his blood on the floor, a massive figure with a heavy head and bedraggled beard… ”Why don’t you kill me?” he whispered. “Why don’t you kill me? I can’t stand it anymore.” The same phrases dribbled out of his lips over and over again. “He’s been saying that all morning, the dirty bastard,” the sergeant said.[22]

German women, many with children to feed, were also often forced to become slaves to Allied soldiers in order to survive. Journalist L.F. Filewood wrote in the October 5, 1945 issue of the Weekly Review in London: “Young girls, unattached, wander about and freely offer themselves, for food or bed…Very simply they have one thing left to sell, and they sell it…As a way of dying it may be worse than starvation, but it will put off dying for months—or even years.”[23]

A British soldier acknowledged: “I felt a bit sick at times about the power I had over the girl. If I gave her a three-penny bar of chocolate she nearly went crazy. She was just like my slave. She darned my socks and mended things for me. There was no question of marriage. She knew that was not possible.”[24]

Ethnic Cleansing of Germans

One of the great tragedies of the 20th Century was the forced expulsion of ethnic Germans from their homes after the end of World War II. The Allies carried out the largest forced population transfer—and perhaps the greatest single movement of people—in human history. A minimum of 12 million and possibly as many as 18.1 million Germans were driven from their homes because of their ethnic background. Probably 2.1 million or more of these German expellees, mostly women and children, died in what was supposed to be an “orderly and humane” expulsion.[25]

Winston Churchill was especially callous on the subject of the German expulsions. On October 9, 1944, Churchill remarked to Stalin that 7 million Germans would be killed in the war, thus leaving plenty of room for Germans driven out of Silesia and East Prussia to move into rump Germany. On February 23, 1945, Churchill dismissed the difficulties involved in transferring the German population to the west. Churchill insisted that the transfers would be easy since most of the Germans in the territories now occupied by the Russians had already left.[26]

The Potsdam Conference was held from July 17 to August 2, 1945 to decide how to administer Germany after her unconditional surrender to the Allies. The goals of the conference included the establishment of postwar order, peace-treaty issues and mediating the effects of the war.[27] At the conclusion of the Potsdam Conference, Great Britain, the United States and the Soviet Union all agreed to the transfer of the Eastern Germans into rump Germany. The parties agreed that the transfers should be made in an “orderly and humane” manner.[28]

The expulsions of the Eastern Germans into rump Germany were not “orderly and humane.” Many hundreds of thousands of the German expellees, most of whom were women and children, lost their lives in these expulsions. Millions more of the expellees were impoverished, without the assets stolen from them in the expelling countries necessarily enriching those who took possession of them. The economies of entire regions were disrupted, and the surviving expellees suffered tremendous hardships both during and after the expulsions. Tens of thousands of expelled German women were repeatedly raped and bore the physical and psychological scars for their entire life. The legacy of bitterness, recrimination and mutual distrust between Germany and her neighbors from the expulsions lingers to this day.[29]

Starvation of the Germans

Great Britain also participated in the systematic mass starvation of German civilians after the war. Capt. Albert R. Behnke, a U.S. Navy medical doctor, stated in regard to Germany: “From 1945 to the middle of 1948 one saw the probable collapse, disintegration and destruction of a whole nation…Germany was subject to physical and psychic trauma unparalleled in history.” Behnke concluded that the Germans under the Allies had fared much worse than the Dutch under the Germans, and for far longer.[30]

British intellectuals such as Victor Gollancz worked to publicize the suffering and mass starvation of the German people. Gollancz objected to the contrast he saw between the accommodations and food in the British officers’ mess and the miserable, half-starved hovels outside. In March 1946, the average calories per day in the British Zone had fluctuated between 1,050 and 1,591. British authorities in Germany were proposing to cut the rations back to 1,000 calories per day. Gollancz pointed out that the inmates at Bergen-Belsen toward the end of the war had only 800 calories per day, which was hardly less than the British proposal.[31]

Gollancz made a six-week tour of the British Zone in October and November 1946. In January 1947, Gollancz published the book In Darkest Germany to document what he saw on this trip. Assisted by a photographer, Gollancz included numerous pictures to allay skepticism of the veracity of his reports. The pictures show Gollancz standing behind naked boys suffering from malnutrition; or holding a fully worn and unusable child’s shoe; or comforting a crippled, half-starved adult in his hovel. The point was to show that Gollancz had seen these things with his own eyes and had not merely accepted other people’s reports. Gollancz wrote to a newspaper editor: “Youth [in Germany] is being poisoned and re-nazified: we have all but lost the peace.”[32]

Victor Gollancz concluded: “The plain fact is when spring is in the English air we are starving the German people…Others, including ourselves, are to keep or be given comforts while the Germans lack the bare necessities of existence. If it is a choice between discomfort for another and suffering for the German, the German must suffer; if between suffering for another and death for the German, the German must die.”[33]

Millions of resident German civilians starved to death after the end of World War II. James Bacque estimates 5.7-million Germans already residing in Germany died from the starvation policies implemented by the Allies after the war. Bacque details how this 5.7-million death total is calculated:

The population of all occupied Germany in October 1946 was 65,000,000, according to the census prepared under the ACC. The returning prisoners who were added to the population in the period October 1946-September 1950 numbered 2,600,000 (rounded), according to records in the archives of the four principal Allies. Births according to the official German statistical agency, Statistisches Bundesamt, added another 4,176,430 newcomers to Germany. The expellees arriving totaled 6,000,000. Thus the total population in 1950 before losses would have been 77,776,430, according to the Allies themselves. Deaths officially recorded in the period 1946-50 were 3,235,539, according to the UN Yearbook and the German government. Emigration was about 600,000, according to the German government. Thus the population found should have been 73,940,891. But the census of 1950 done by the German government under Allied supervision found only 68,230,796. There was a shortage of 5,710,095 people, according to the official Allied figures (rounded to 5,700,000).[34]

Bacque’s calculations have been confirmed by Dr. Anthony B. Miller, who is a world-famous epidemiologist and head of the Department of Preventive Medicine and Biostatistics at the University of Toronto. Miller read the whole work, including the documents, and checked the statistics, which he says “confirm the validity of [Bacque’s] calculations…” Miller states: “These deaths appear to have resulted, directly or indirectly, from the semi-starvation food rations that were all that were available to the majority of the German population during this time period.”[35]


Great Britain and its allies engaged in uncivilized warfare and the mass murder, rape and ethnic cleansing of German civilians after the end of World War II. The British and Allied postwar treatment of Germany is surely one of the most brutal, criminal and unreported tragedies in world history.


[1] Terkel, Studs, The Good War, New York: Pantheon, 1984, p. vi.

[2] Lowe, Keith, Savage Continent: Europe in the Aftermath of World War II, New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2012, p. xiv.

[3] Fischer, Klaus P., Hitler and America, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2011, pp. 122-123.

[4] Bird, Vivian, “An Examination of British War Crimes during World War II,” The Barnes Review, Vol. VI, No. 6, Nov. /Dec. 2000, p. 56.

[5] Veale, Frederick J. P., Advance to Barbarism, Newport Beach, Cal.: Institute for Historical Review, 1993, pp. 182-183.

[6] Ibid., pp. 184-185.

[7] Ibid., pp. 185-186, 192-193.

[8] Bird, Vivian, “An Examination of British War Crimes during World War II,” The Barnes Review, Vol. VI, No. 6, Nov. /Dec. 2000, p. 59. See also McKee, Alexander, Dresden 1945: The Devil’s Tinderbox, New York: E.P. Dutton, Inc., 1984, pp. 219-224.

[9] Veale, Frederick J. P., Advance to Barbarism, Newport Beach, Cal.: Institute for Historical Review, 1993, p. 194.

[10] Weber, Mark, “The 1945 Sinking of the Cap Arcona and the Thielbek,” The Journal of Historical Review, Vol. 19, No. 4, July/Aug. 2000, pp. 2-3; see also Schmidt, Hans, Hitler Boys in America: Re-Education Exposed, Pensacola, Fla.: Hans Schmidt Publications, 2003, pp. 231-232.

[11] Kean, Sam, The Bastard Brigade: The True Story of the Renegade Scientists and Spies Who Sabotaged the Nazi Atomic Bomb, New York: Little, Brown and Company, 2019, pp. 214-217.

[12] Fry, Helen, The London Cage: The Secret History of Britain’s World War II Interrogation Centre, New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2017, p. 1.

[13] Ibid., pp. 49, 221.

[14] Ibid., p. 203.

[15] Ibid., p. 81.

[16] Ibid., pp. 82, 198.

[17] Beckman, Morris, The Jewish Brigade: An Army with Two Masters, 1944-45, Rockville Centre, N.Y.: Sarpedon, 1998, p. xiii.

[18] Ibid., p. 58.

[19] Ibid., pp. 127, 132.

[20] Belgion, Montgomery, Victors’ Justice, Hinsdale, Ill.: Regnery Publishing, Inc., 1949, pp. 80-81.

[21] “Bergen-Belsen,” Der Spiegel, Hamburg, Nov. 30, 1985, p. 71f.

[22] Moorehead, Alan, “Belsen,” in Cyril Connolly (editor), The Golden Horizon, London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1953, p. 105f.

[23] Keeling, Ralph Franklin, Gruesome Harvest: The Allies’ Postwar War against the German People, Torrance, Cal.: Institute for Historical Review, 1992, p. 64.

[24] Botting, Douglas, From the Ruins of the Reich—Germany, 1945-1949, New York: Crown Publishers, 1985, p. 294.

[25] Dietrich, John, The Morgenthau Plan: Soviet Influence on American Postwar Policy, New York: Algora Publishing, 2002, p. 137.

[26] Naimark, Norman M., Fires of Hatred: Ethnic Cleansing in Twentieth-Century Europe, Cambridge, Mass. and London: Harvard University Press, 2001, pp. 109-110.

[27] Ibid., p. 110.

[28] De Zayas, Alfred-Maurice, A Terrible Revenge: The Ethnic Cleansing of the East European Germans, 2nd edition, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006, p. 87.

[29] Douglas, R. M., Orderly and Humane: The Expulsion of the Germans after the Second World War, New Haven & London: Yale University Press, 2012, pp. 302, 364.

[30] Behnke, Capt. Albert R., USN, MC, “Physiological and Psychological Factors in Individual and Group Survival,” June 1958 (Behnke Papers, Box 1, HIA). Quoted in Bacque, James, Crimes and Mercies: The Fate of German Civilians under Allied Occupation, 1944-1950, 2nd edition, Vancouver, British Columbia: Talonbooks, 2007, p. 89.

[31] MacDonogh, Giles, After the Reich: The Brutal History of the Allied Occupation, New York: Basic Books, 2007, pp. 253, 363.

[32] Ibid., pp. 364-365.

[33] Keeling, Ralph Franklin, Gruesome Harvest: The Allies’ Postwar War against the German People, Torrance, Cal.: Institute for Historical Review, 1992, pp. 76-77.

[34] Bacque, James, Crimes and Mercies: The Fate of German Civilians under Allied Occupation, 1944-1950, 2nd edition, Vancouver, British Columbia: Talonbooks, 2007, pp. 115-116.

[35] Ibid., pp. xvii-xviii.

Caricatures from “Der Stürmer” – translated in English and colourized – The Year 1939 – Part 8!

The Year 1939 – Part 8











Jews Furious About ‘Blood Libel’ After Italian Artist Depicts jewish Ritual Murder in a Painting


A new painting has been revealed and it has jews around the world kvetching, as it involves a subject that reveals an age-old practice of the chosen ones.

From Jerusalem Post:

Painter Giovanni Gasparo uploaded a picture of his canvas to his Facebook page on Tuesday. Titled Martirio di San Simonino da Trento (Simone Unverdorben), per omicidio rituale ebraico (The Martyrdom of St. Simon of Trento in accordance with Jewish ritual murder), the painting is very detailed, showing a group of hook-nosed Jews with peyot and yellow, uneven teeth strangling the child and draining his blood. Some of the Jews are also shown wearing kippot and shtreimels, with one in the center wearing a tallit over his head and shoulders. In addition, the child is shown with its arms outstretched, reminiscent of Jesus Christ on the cross as the Jews look on with apparent sadistic joy.

This is definitely not the first time the subject matter has been covered by artists.

Giuseppe Alberti, Martyrdom of Simonino da Trento, 1677, oil on canvas

It’s also not the first time jewish ritual murder has been covered here at the Tribune:

Jewish Ritual Murder Was Seen as Ancient Hebrew Sorcery

Jewish Woman Talks to Oprah About Ritual Murder

Jewish Ritual Murder Revisited: The Hidden Cult

Blood Libel – Jewish Ritualistic Murder

The Kapparot Ritual is a Substitute for Human Sacrifice

Jewish Ritual Murder