Der Stürmer

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

Category: Revisionism

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.
Advertisements

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 Untold Story of White Slavery in Europe

Source: http://www.renegadetribune.com/the-untold-story-of-white-slavery-in-europe/

Renegade Editor’s Note: This article does not even cover the White slavery in the New World!

The Ottoman penetration into Europe in the 1350s and their capture of Constantinople later in 1453 opened new floodgates for slave-trade from the European front. In their last attempt to overrun Europe in 1683, the Ottoman army, although defeated, returned from the Gates of Vienna with 80,000 captives.874 An immense number of slaves flowed from the Crimea, the Balkans and the steppes of West Asia to Islamic markets. BD Davis laments that the ‘‘Tartars and other Black Sea peoples had sold millions of Ukrainians, Georgians, Circassians, Greeks, Armenians, Bulgarians, Slavs and Turks,’’ which received little notice.875 Crimean Tatars enslaved and sold some 1,750,000 Ukrainians, Poles and Russian between 1468 and 1694. 876 According to another estimate, between 1450 and 1700, the Crimean Tatars exported some 10,000 slaves, including some Circassians, annually—that is, some 2,500,000 slaves in all, to the Ottoman Empire.877 The Tatar slave-raiding Khans returned with 18,000 slaves from Poland (1463), 100,000 from Lvov (1498), 60,000 from South Russia (1515), 50,000–100,000 from Galicia (1516), during the ‘harvesting of the steppe.’ Numbers from Moscow (1521), 800,000 were taken and from Valynia (1676), 400,000 were taken. 800,000 from Moscow (1521), 200,000 from South Russia (1555), 100,000 from Moscow (1571), 50,000 from Poland (1612), 60,000 from South Russia (1646), 100,000 from Poland (1648), 300,000 from Ukraine (1654), 400,000 from Valynia (1676) and thousands from Poland (1694). Besides these major catches, they made countless more Jihad raids during the same period, which yielded a few to tens of thousands of slaves.878 These figures of enslavement must be considered in the context that the population of the Tatar Khanate was only about 400,000 at the time. (1463-1694) while sources are incomplete, conservative tabulation of the slave raids against the Eastern European population indicate that at least 7 Million European people-men, women, children were enslaved by Muslims.

Sources suggest that in the few years between 1436-1442, some 500,000 people were seized in the Balkans. Many of the captives died in forced marches towards Anatolia (Turkey). Contemporary chronicles note that the Ottomans reduced masses of the inhabitants of Greece, Romania, and the Balkans to slavery eg from Moree (1460)-70,000 and Transylvania (1438) – 60,000-70,000 and 300,000-600,000 from Hungary and 10,000 from Mytilene/Mitilini on Lesbos island (1462) (Bulgaru p 567) and so it continued.

Barbary Slavery

Ohio State University history Professor Robert Davis describes the White Slave Trade as minimized by most modern historians in his book Christian Slaves, Muslim Masters: White Slavery in the Mediterranean, the Barbary Coast and Italy, 1500–1800 (Palgrave Macmillan). Davis estimates that 1 million to 1.25 million white Christian Europeans were enslaved in North Africa, from the beginning of the 16th century to the middle of the 18th, by slave traders from Tunis, Algiers, and Tripoli alone (these numbers do not include the European people which were enslaved by Morocco and by other raiders and traders of the Mediterranean Sea coast), 16th- and 17th-century customs statistics suggest that Istanbul’s additional slave import from the Black Sea may have totaled around 2.5 million from 1450 to 1700. The markets declined after the loss of the Barbary Wars and finally ended in the 1830s, when the region was conquered by France.

In 1544, the island of Ischia off Naples was ransacked, taking 4,000 inhabitants prisoners, while some 9,000 inhabitants of Lipari Island off the north coast of Sicily were enslaved.870 Turgut Reis, a Turkish pirate chief, ransacked the coastal settlements of Granada (Spain) in 1663 and carried away 4,000 people as slaves.

The barbaric slave-raiding activities of the Muslim pirates had a telling effect on Europe. France, England, and Spain lost thousands of ships, devastating to their sea-borne trade. Long stretches of the coast in Spain and Italy were almost completely abandoned by their inhabitants until the nineteenth century. The finishing industry was virtually devastated.

Paul Baepler’s White Slaves, African Masters: An Anthology of American Barbary Captivity Narratives lists a collection of essays by nine American captives held in North Africa. According to his book, there were more than 20,000 white Christian slaves by 1620 in Algiers alone; their number swelled to more than 30,000 men and 2,000 women by the 1630s. There were a minimum of 25,000 white slaves at any time in Sultan Moulay Ismail’s palace, records Ahmed ez-Zayyani; Algiers maintained a population of 25,000 white slaves between 1550 and 1730, and their numbers could double at certain times. During the same period, Tunis and Tripoli each maintained a white slave population of about 7,500. The Barbary pirates enslaved some 5,000 Europeans annually over a period of nearly three centuries.

Medical Experimentation at Dachau

They All Did It – Those Who Could, at Least

Source: https://codoh.com/library/document/6354/?lang=en

By John Wear
Published: 2018-12-31

The onset and escalation of World War II provided the rationale for most of Germany’s illegal human medical experimentation. Animal experimentation was known to be a poor substitute for experiments on humans. Since only analogous inferences could be drawn from animal experiments, the use of human experimentation during the war was deemed necessary to help in the German war effort. Applications for medical experimentation on humans were usually approved on the grounds that animal tests had taken the research only so far. Better results could be obtained by using humans in the medical experiments.[1]

Inmates at the Dachau Concentration Camp were subjected to medical experimentation involving malaria, high altitudes, freezing and other experiments. Such has been documented in the so-called Doctors’ Trial at Nuremberg, which opened on December 9, 1946, and ended on July 19, 1947. Also, Dr. Charles P. Larson, an American forensic pathologist, was at Dachau and conducted autopsies, interviews, and a review of the remaining medical records to determine the extent of the medical experimentation at the camp.

Malaria Experiments

The malaria experimentation at Dachau was performed by Dr. Klaus Karl Schilling, who was an internationally famous parasitologist. Dr. Schilling was ordered by Heinrich Himmler in 1936 to conduct medical research at Dachau for the purpose of immunizing individuals specifically against malaria. Dr. Schilling admitted to Dr. Larson that between 1936 and 1945 he inoculated some 2,000 prisoners with malaria. The medical supervisor at Dachau would select the people to be inoculated and then send this list of people to Berlin to be approved by a higher authority. Those who were chosen were then turned over to Dr. Schilling to conduct the medical experimentation.[2]

Dr. Schilling at Trial

At the Doctors’ Trial it was determined that Dr. Schilling’s experiments were directly responsible for the deaths of 10 prisoners.[3] Dr. Charles Larson stated in his report concerning Dr. Schilling:

It was very difficult to know where to draw the line as to whether or not Dr. Schilling was a war criminal. Certainly he fell into that category inasmuch as he had subjected people involuntarily to experimental malaria inoculations, which, even though they did not produce many deaths, could very well have produced serious illness in many of the patients. He defended himself by saying he did all this work by order from higher authority; in fact, Himmler himself.

In my report, I wrote: “In view of all he has told me, this man, in my opinion, should be considered a war criminal, but that he should be permitted to write up the results of his experiments and turn them over to Allied medical personnel for what they are worth. Dr. Schilling is an eminent scientist of world-wide renown who has conducted a most important group of experiments; their value cannot properly be ascertained until he has put them into writing for medical authorities to study. The criminal acts have already been committed, and since they have been committed, if it were possible to derive some new knowledge concerning immunity to malaria from these acts, it would yet be another crime not to permit this man to finish documenting the results of his years of research.”

But my attempt to save Dr. Schilling’s life failed. Our High Command felt it had to make a public example of him – most of the other high-ranking Nazis connected with Dachau had already been executed – and made his wife watch the hanging. I did everything I could to stop it. I implored our military government not to pass sentence on him until he’d had a fair hearing, because I was just beginning to win his confidence, and get through to him. Looking back, I am sure that the execution of Dr. Schilling deprived the world of some very valuable scientific information – no matter how distasteful his research and experimentation may have been.[4]

Dr. Larson concluded in regard to Dr. Schilling: “…Dr. Schilling, who was 72 [actually 74], should have lived. He never tried to run. He stayed in Dachau and made a full statement of his work to me; he cooperated in every way, and was the only one who told the truth…”[5]

The defense in the Doctors’ Trial at Nuremberg submitted evidence of doctors in the United States performing medical experiments on prison inmates and conscientious objectors during the war. The evidence showed that large-scale malaria experiments were performed on 800 American prisoners, many of them black, from federal penitentiaries in Atlanta and state penitentiaries in Illinois and New Jersey. U.S. doctors conducted human experiments with malaria tropica, one of the most dangerous of the malaria strains, to aid the U.S. war effort in Southeast Asia.[6]

Although Dr. Schilling’s malaria experiments were no more dangerous or illegal than the malaria experiments performed by U.S. doctors, Dr. Schilling had to atone for his malaria experiments by being hanged to death while his wife watched. The U.S. doctors who performed malaria experiments on humans were never charged with a crime.

High-Altitude and Hypothermia Experiments

Germany also conducted high-altitude experiments at Dachau. Dr. Sigmund Rascher performed these experiments beginning February 22, 1942 and ending around the beginning of July 1942.[7] The experiments were performed in order to know what happened to air crews after failure of, or ejection from, their pressurized cabins at very high altitudes. In this instance, airmen would be subjected within a few seconds to a drop in pressure and lack of oxygen. The experiments were performed to investigate various possible life-saving methods. To this end a low-pressure chamber was set up at Dachau to observe the reactions of a human being thrown out at extreme altitudes, and to investigate ways of rescuing him.[8] The victims were locked in the chamber, and the pressure in the chamber was then lowered to a level corresponding to very high altitudes. The pressure could be very quickly altered, allowing Dr. Rascher to simulate the conditions which would be experienced by a pilot freefalling from altitude without oxygen.

Dr. Rascher received authority to conduct these high-altitude experiments when he wrote to Heinrich Himmler and was told that prisoners would be placed at his disposal. Dr. Rascher stated in his letter that he knew the experiments could have fatal results. According to Walter Neff, the prisoner who gave testimony at the Doctors’ Trial, approximately 180 to 200 prisoners were used in the high-altitude experiments. Approximately 10 of these prisoners were volunteers, and about 40 of the prisoners were men not condemned to death. According to Neff’s testimony, approximately 70 to 80 prisoners died during these experiments.[9] A film showing the complete sequence of an experiment, including the autopsy, was discovered in Dr. Rascher’s house at Dachau after the war.[10]

Dr. Rascher also conducted freezing experiments at Dachau after the high-altitude experiments were concluded. These freezing experiments were conducted from August 1942 to approximately May 1943.[11] The purpose of these experiments was to determine the best way of warming German pilots who had been forced down in the North Sea and suffered hypothermia.

Dr. Rascher’s subjects were forced to remain outdoors naked in freezing weather for up to 14 hours, or the victims were kept in a tank of ice water for three hours. Their pulse and internal temperature were measured through a series of electrodes. Warming of the victims was then attempted by different methods, most usually and successfully by immersion in very hot water. It is estimated that these experiments caused the deaths of 80 to 90 prisoners.[12]

Dr. Charles Larson strongly condemned these freezing experiments. Dr. Larson wrote:

A Dr. Raschau [sic] was in charge of this work and…we found the records of his experiments. They were most inept compared to Dr. Schilling’s, much less scientific. What they would do would be to tie up a prisoner and immerse him in cold water until his body temperature reduced to 28 degrees centigrade (82.4 degrees Fahrenheit), when the poor soul would, of course, die. These experiments were started in August, 1942, but Raschau’s [sic] technique improved. By February, 1943 he was able to report that 30 persons were chilled to 27 and 29 degrees centigrade, their hands and feet frozen white, and their bodies “rewarmed” by a hot bath….

They also dressed the subjects in different types of insulated clothing before putting them in freezing water, to see how long it took them to die.[13]

Dr. Rascher and his hypothermia experiments at Dachau were not well regarded by German medical doctors. In a paper titled “Nazi Science – The Dachau Hypothermia Experiments,” Dr. Robert L. Berger wrote:

Rascher was not well regarded in professional circles…and his superiors repeatedly expressed reservations about his performance. In one encounter, Professor Karl Gebhardt, a general in the SS and Himmler’s personal physician, told Rascher in connection with his experiments on hypothermia through exposure to cold air that “the report was unscientific; if a student of the second term dared submit a treatise of the kind [Gebhardt] would throw him out.” Despite Himmler’s strong support, Rascher was rejected for faculty positions at several universities. A book by German scientists on the accomplishments of German aviation medicine during the war devoted an entire chapter to hypothermia but failed to mention Rascher’s name or his work.[14]

Blood-Clotting Experiments

Dr. Rascher also experimented with the effects of Polygal, a substance made from beet and apple pectin, which aided blood clotting. He predicted that the preventive use of Polygal tablets would reduce bleeding from surgery and from gunshot wounds sustained during combat. Subjects were given a Polygal tablet and were either shot through the neck or chest, or their limbs were amputated without anesthesia. Dr. Rascher published an article on his use of Polygal without detailing the nature of the human trials. Dr. Rascher also set up a company staffed by prisoners to manufacture the substance.[15] Dr. Rascher’s nephew, a Hamburg doctor, testified under oath that he knew of four prisoners who died from Dr. Rascher’s testing Polygal at Dachau.[16]

Obviously, Dr. Rascher’s medical experiments constitute major war crimes. Dr. Rascher was arrested and executed in Dachau by German authorities shortly before the end of the war.[17]

Infectious Diseases, Biopsies and Salt-Water Tests

Phlegmons were also induced in inmates at Dachau by intravenous and intramuscular injection of pus during 1942 and 1943. Various natural, allopathic and biochemical remedies were then tried to cure the resulting infections. The phlegmon experiments were apparently an attempt by National Socialist Germany to find an antibiotic similar to penicillin for infection.[18]

All of the doctors who took part in these phlegmon experiments were dead or had disappeared at the time of the Doctors’ Trial. The only information about the number of prisoners used and the number of victims was provided by an inmate nurse, Heinrich Stöhr, who was a political prisoner at Dachau. Stöhr stated that seven out of a group of 10 German subjects died in one experiment, and that in another experiment 12 out of a group of 40 clergy died.[19]

Official documents and personal testimonies indicate that physicians at Dachau performed many liver biopsies when they were not needed. Dr. Rudolf Brachtl performed liver biopsies on healthy people and on people who had diseases of the stomach and gall bladder. While biopsy of the liver is an accepted and frequently used diagnostic procedure, it should only be performed when definite indications exist and other methods fail. Some physicians at Dachau performed liver biopsies simply to gain experience with its techniques. These Dachau biopsies violated professional standards since they were often conducted in the absence of genuine medical indication.[20]

The Luftwaffe had also been concerned since 1941 with the problem of shot-down airmen who had been reduced to drinking salt water. Sea water experiments were performed at Dachau to develop a method of making sea water drinkable through desalinization. Between July and September 1944, 44 inmates at Dachau were used to test the desirability of using two different processes to make sea water drinkable. The subjects were divided into several groups and given different diets using the two different processes.[21] During the experiments one of the groups received no food whatsoever for five to nine days. Many of the subjects became ill from these experiments, suffering from diarrhea, convulsions, foaming at the mouth, and sometimes madness or death.[22]

Most Deaths from Natural Causes

Dr. Charles Larson’s forensic work at Dachau indicated that only a small percentage of the deaths at Dachau were due to medical experimentation on humans. His autopsies showed that most of the victims died from natural causes; that is, of disease brought on by malnutrition and filth caused by wartime conditions. In his depositions to Army lawyers, Dr. Larson made it clear that one could not indict the whole German people for the National Socialist medical crimes. Dr. Larson sincerely believed that although Dachau was only a short ride from Munich, most of the people in Munich had no idea what was going on inside Dachau.[23]

Dr. Larson’s conclusions are reinforced by the book Dachau, 1933-1945: The Official History by Paul Berben. This book states that the total number of people who passed through Dachau during its existence is well in excess of 200,000.[24] The author concludes that while no one will ever know the exact number of deaths at Dachau, the number of deaths is probably several thousand more than the quoted number of 31,951.[25] This book documents that approximately 66% of all deaths at Dachau occurred during the final seven months of the war.

The increase in deaths at Dachau was caused primarily by a devastating typhus epidemic which, in spite of the efforts made by the medical staff, continued to spread throughout Dachau during the final seven months of the war. The number of deaths at Dachau also includes 2,226 people who died in May 1945 after the Allies had liberated the camp, as well as the deaths of 223 prisoners in March 1944 from Allied aerial attacks on work parties.[26] Thus, while illegal medical experiments were conducted on prisoners at Dachau, Berben’s book clearly shows that the overwhelming majority of deaths of prisoners at Dachau were from natural causes.

Allied Medical Experimentation

Dr. Karl Brandt and the other defendants were infuriated during the Doctors’ Trial at the moral high ground taken by the U.S. prosecution. Evidence showed that the Allies had been engaged in illegal medical experimentation, including poison experiments on condemned prisoners in other countries, and cholera and plague experiments on children.[27]

Dr. Bettina Blome, the wife of the defendant Dr. Kurt Blome, meticulously researched experiments that were conducted by the U.S. Office of Scientific Research and Development (OSRD) during the war. In addition to malaria experiments on Terre Haute Federal Prison inmates, she also uncovered Dr. Walter Reed’s 19th-century yellow fever research for the U.S. Army, in which volunteer human test subjects had died. Blome’s research was entered into evidence at the Doctors’ Trial.[28]

Defense attorney Dr. Robert Servatius expanded on the theme of U.S. Army human experimentation. American journalist Annie Jacobsen writes:

Servatius had located a Life magazine article, published in June of 1945, that described how OSRD conducted experiments on 800 U.S. prisoners during the war. Servatius read the entire article, word for word, in the courtroom. None of the American judges was familiar with the article, nor were most members of the prosecution, and its presentation in court clearly caught the Americans off guard. Because the article specifically discussed U.S. Army wartime experiments on prisoners, it was incredibly damaging for the prosecution. “Prison life is ideal for controlled laboratory work with humans,” Servatius read, quoting American doctors who had been interviewed by Life reporters. The idea that extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures, and that both nations had used human test subjects during war, was unsettling. It pushed the core Nazi concept of the Untermenschen to the side. The Nuremberg prosecutors were left looking like hypocrites.[29]

The U.S. prosecution flew in Dr. Andrew Ivy to explain the differences in medical ethics between German and U.S. medical experiments. Interestingly, Dr. Ivy himself had been involved in malaria experiments on inmates at the Illinois State Penitentiary. When Dr. Ivy mentioned that the United States had specific research standards for medical experimentation on humans, it turned out that these principles were first published on December 28, 1946. Dr. Ivy had to admit that the U.S. principles on medical ethics in human experimentation had been made in anticipation of Dr. Ivy’s testimony at the Doctors’ Trial.[30]


ENDNOTES

1] Kater, Michael H., Doctors under Hitler, Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1989, p. 226.

[2] McCallum, John Dennis, Crime Doctor, Mercer Island, Wash.: The Writing Works, Inc., 1978, pp. 64-65.

[3] Berben, Paul, Dachau, 1933-1945, The Official History, London: The Norfolk Press, 1975, p. 125.

[4] McCallum, John Dennis, Crime Doctor, Mercer Island, Wash.: The Writing Works, Inc., 1978, pp. 66-67.

[5] Ibid., p. 68.

[6] Schmidt, Ulf, Karl Brandt: The Nazi Doctor, New York: Continuum Books, 2007, p. 376.

[7] Spitz, Vivien, Doctors from Hell: The Horrific Account of Nazi Experiments on Humans, Boulder, Colo.: Sentient Publications, 2005, p. 74.

[8] Berben, Paul, Dachau, 1933-1945, The Official History, London: The Norfolk Press, 1975, p. 126.

[9] Ibid., pp. 127-128.

[10] Ibid., p. 130.

[11] Spitz, Vivien, Doctors from Hell: The Horrific Account of Nazi Experiments on Humans, Boulder, Colo.: Sentient Publications, 2005, p. 85.

[12] Berben, Paul, Dachau, 1933-1945, The Official History, London: The Norfolk Press, 1975, p. 133.

[13] McCallum, John Dennis, Crime Doctor, Mercer Island, Wash.: The Writing Works, Inc., 1978, pp. 67-68.

[14] Michalczyk, John J., Medicine, Ethics, and the Third Reich: Historical and Contemporary Issues, Kansas City, Mo.: Sheed & Ward, 1994, p. 96.

[15] Ibid.

[16] Berben, Paul, Dachau, 1933-1945, The Official History, London: The Norfolk Press, 1975, pp. 133-134.

[17] Ibid., p. 134. See also Michalczyk, John J., Medicine, Ethics, and the Third Reich: Historical and Contemporary Issues, Kansas City, Mo.: Sheed & Ward, 1994, p. 97.

[18] Pasternak, Alfred, Inhuman Research: Medical Experiments in German Concentration Camps, Budapest, Hungary: Akadémiai Kiadó, 2006, p. 149.

[19] Ibid., pp. 134-135.

[20] Ibid., p. 227.

[21] Berben, Paul, Dachau, 1933-1945, The Official History, London: The Norfolk Press, 1975, pp. 136-137.

[22] Spitz, Vivien, Doctors from Hell: The Horrific Account of Nazi Experiments on Humans, Boulder, Colo.: Sentient Publications, 2005, p. 173.

[23] McCallum, John Dennis, Crime Doctor, Mercer Island, Wash.: The Writing Works, Inc., 1978, p. 69.

[24] Berben, Paul, Dachau, 1933-1945, The Official History, London: The Norfolk Press, 1975, p. 19.

[25] Ibid., p. 202.

[26] Ibid., pp. 95, 281.

[27] Schmidt, Ulf, Karl Brandt: The Nazi Doctor, New York: Continuum Books, 2007, p. 376.

[28] Jacobsen, Annie, Operation Paperclip: The Secret Intelligence Program that Brought Nazi Scientists to America, New York: Little, Brown and Company, 2014, pp. 273-274.

[29] Ibid., p. 274.

[30] Schmidt, Ulf, Karl Brandt: The Nazi Doctor, New York: Continuum Books, 2007, pp. 376-377.

The Significance of the Holocaust

Source: Free Speech magazine, September 2000, Volume 6 Number 9

by Dr. William L. Pierce

I was very pleased by the response to last week’s broadcast. I’ve always thought that most people are more interested in specific, anecdotal, and personal commentary than in more general and impersonal commentary, and that’s why I so often talk about very specific instances of Black crime, or liberal hypocrisy and nuttiness, or political corruption and treason, with names, dates, and places. But I am pleased to note that we do have many listeners who really care about the general principles underlying all of the specifics.

Today I’ll begin in a general way, but then we’ll move on to specific evidence to support the general theses. We’ll start with the general role of the Jews in European or White or Aryan or Gentile society, whichever term you prefer. My thesis has been that the Jews — as a whole — always are destructive: morally destructive, socially destructive, even intellectually destructive, but above all racially destructive. Any society, any nation, any people that gives the Jews a free hand to do what they want will be destroyed by them. This is so because it is in the nature of the Jews to destroy everything that is non-Jewish, and because the Jews have a unique faculty for destroying other peoples’ societies.

I’ll come back to this thesis in a moment with some evidence, but first we should note the problems it presents to us in our educational program. One problem is the inability of many of our people to generalize at all. They see everything only in individual and personal terms. You tell them that the Jews as a whole are destructive to our society, and they’ll say, “Oh, no, that isn’t true, because I know some Jews who aren’t doing anything destructive at all. They’re just minding their own business and trying to earn a living like everyone else.” They can’t quite grasp the concept of Jews as a whole; all they can see are Abe and Dave and Izzy and Sara as individuals.

A second problem is the other side of the coin: many of our people cannot think about the role of the Jews objectively because they have been convinced that the Jews as a whole aren’t like everyone else; they’re special and deserve special consideration; they’re not subject to criticism like other people. And I’m not referring primarily to the fundamentalist Christians, whose preachers have taught them that the Jews are “God’s chosen people” and can do no wrong. I’m thinking of the somewhat more sophisticated people, who have been taught by the mass media and the schools that the Jews are exempt from criticism because of their unique victim status. They suffered so much in the Holocaust that they deserve special consideration, and to accuse them of bad motives or wrongdoing is like kicking someone who is down.

Certainly, if we exclude the most primitive and superstitious Christians from consideration, it is the massive Holocaust propaganda that makes it difficult for most people to think objectively about the Jews. And let me tell you, it was planned that way. We’ll talk a lot more about that, but first let me finish my general thesis.

I said that the Jews as a whole are socially, morally, intellectually, and racially destructive, and that they have a unique faculty for being destructive. The reason for this is their unique mode of existence as a parasitic minority in a non-Jewish host population. Sometimes this dispersion — or diaspora — as a minority among Gentile hosts has been supplemented by a geographical concentration of Jews in Palestine or Babylon or another Jewish center, and sometimes not. In either case, parasitic is the applicable adjective.

There are other parasitic minorities, of course, but none are anything like the Jews. Gypsies, for example, exist as a parasitic minority in most White countries. Gypsies generally are considered a nuisance because of their proclivity for stealing, and when they become too much of an irritation they are chased away by the local people. But Gypsies never have an ambition to take over a White nation and suck it dry. They never try to subvert the host population. They never try to take over the schools or the newspapers and propagandize their hosts. They generally want to live among themselves, maintain their own identity, and exploit their hosts just enough to get by without causing a strong reaction.

The Jews, on the other hand, always try to take over. They don’t want the crumbs from Gentile society; they want everything. Gentile society, of course, resists, which is why the Jews have been expelled en masse from every nation in Europe, time after time, during the past thousand years. The Jewish method of overcoming the resistance is to corrupt the nation they are attempting to get their hands on. One aspect of the corruption is simple bribery. If you have enough money you may be able to buy privileges from the leaders of the nation. That worked when European nations were ruled by kings, and it works even better when a society is run by elected politicians. But if you really want to suck a nation dry, you need to go beyond bribery. You need to destroy a nation’s solidarity. A nation is, after all, like a large extended family, with everyone related by birth, even if very distantly.

You’re either in the family, a member of the nation, or you’re an alien, not in the family. That’s the essential distinction. So if you want to take over a nation, you need to make the members of the family, the citizens of the nation, forget their identity and their traditions. You need to corrupt the nation spiritually and morally as well as politically. You need to erase the distinction between insider and outsider; then you are no longer an outsider, and the resistance against you crumbles. Understand? That is and always has been the Jewish method: take over a nation by destroying it, by making a rootless, cosmopolitan, multicultural cesspool of it.

In other words, you need to gain control of the flow of information and ideas in the nation. You need to gain control of the mass media of news and entertainment. Then you can corrupt the nation’s soul. You can determine which opinions will be fashionable, and which will not. You can reshape the defining myths of the nation to suit your own ends. You can poison the minds of the children and turn them against their own people. You can steal the people’s knowledge of their own past from them and thereby be in a better position to steal their future too. You can plunder the nation at will. And that is exactly what the Jews have done to every Gentile society, every White nation, since the Second World War.

Of course, corrupting a nation’s soul may turn out to be a fairly large and complex undertaking, and lots of tricks may be required to get the job done. When it comes to tricks, however, the Jews are in their own element. The slickest and most effective trick the Jews have pulled since the war is their famous Holocaust trick. I’ve spoken with you before about the Holocaust. I’ve pointed out that the way to see through the trick is to examine it piece by piece, claim by claim, detail by detail. That’s the way to separate the lies from the half-truths that they have skillfully woven together. That’s why anyone who refuses to swallow the thing whole, anyone who refuses to bow and genuflect in the presence of the Holocaust, anyone who irreverently says, “Well, let’s examine this thing and see what it’s made of,” is denounced hysterically as a “Holocaust denier.”

Today we’ll look at what a Jew has to say about the Holocaust trick. The Jew is Norman Finkelstein. He is a professor at the City University of New York, and he’s a leftist. Like some other leftist Jews, he’s at odds with what he sees as a fascist government in Israel. More than that, I believe, is his concern that the greedier and more ambitious Jews will overreach themselves and bring disaster down on the heads of all the Jews. He’s especially concerned that the Holocaust myth will come unraveled and result in an enormous Gentile backlash against the Jews. He would like to defuse the thing before it blows up. And so Finkelstein has just had a book published for that purpose. It is titled The Holocaust Industry, and his fellow Jews are not happy about it. In fact, they are screaming for his blood. It is a dynamite book. It was published last month, and you can get a copy from my company, National Vanguard Books, or from Amazon.com, even though you probably won’t find it in your friendly neighborhood bookstore.

Finkelstein spends the first few pages of his book documenting the fact that the Holocaust is a Jewish myth constructed more than 20 years after the end of the Second World War. The term did not come into general use until after 1967. Everyone understood, of course, that Jews had died during the war. No one questioned the fact that there were concentration camps where many Jews, Gypsies, communists, homosexuals, and other undesirables were segregated from German society. No one questioned the fact that toward the end of the war, when conditions in Poland and Germany became chaotic, conditions became even worse in the concentration camps, and many concentration camp prisoners, weakened by malnutrition, died from typhus and other diseases. No one questioned the fact that on the eastern front there were mass shootings of Jewish hostages or that Jewish political commissars were separated from Soviet POWs and shot. Many civilians on both the German side and the Jewish side died during the war.

But it wasn’t until more than 20 years after the war that Jewish leaders calculated that there was much to be gained by portraying Jews as the principal victims of the war, and so the Holocaust myth was constructed for this purpose. Mixing some facts — usually exaggerated or distorted facts — with lots of invention, the skilled mythmakers of Hollywood and New York brought forth the Holocaust, in which innocent Jews became the principal victims of the war, pushed into “gas ovens” by the millions by sadistic Nazis.

Finkelstein notes that the two defining dogmas of the Holocaust were, first, the claim that it was unique, the claim that no other persecution in all of history was even close to the Holocaust in magnitude or severity, the claim that the Holocaust gives to Jews the status of the premier victims of the world. Nobody else has suffered as much as the Jews have — and so nobody else is entitled to as much sympathy and compensation as the Jews. To suggest otherwise is tantamount to sacrilege.

The second defining dogma of the Holocaust was that it was a completely irrational act on the part of the Germans and was in no way based on anything the Jews themselves had done. The Jews, in other words were wholly blameless victims. To suggest that perhaps it was some behavior on the part of the Jews which provoked the Germans was to “blame the victim,” a very Politically Incorrect sin. It was a transgression against this second dogma — the dogma of irrationality — which caused one of Germany’s most distinguished historians, Ernst Nolte, to be cast into the outer darkness by the Jews and their Gentile allies. Nolte has pointed out in his writing that one of the reasons Hitler was determined to break the grip of the Jews on German society was their support for communism, and this also was one of a number of reasons the German people shared Hitler’s dislike of the Jews. The overwhelming role of the Jews in Soviet communism — and also in the communist movement in Germany before Hitler became chancellor in 1933 — was well known in Germany and elsewhere. And the atrocities committed by the Jews against the Gentile populations of those countries under communist rule — the artificial famine in Ukraine in which millions died and the mass shootings of Ukrainian peasants, for example — were well known also. So when Nolte received an award last month for his work as a historian, the Jews went into their Chicken Little act, a lot like the act they staged when Austrian Jörg Haider’s party entered the Austrian government a few months ago. Nolte was being rewarded for “blaming the victims” the Jews and their apologists screeched.

Finkelstein quotes some of the leading Holocaust propagandists in this regard. They see any form of anti-Semitism as a “Gentile mental pathology” with no rational basis. According to Holocaust high priest Elie Wiesel the anti-Semite is driven by:

. . .irrational arguments and simply resents the fact that the Jew exists.

Wiesel writes:

For two thousand years . . . we were always threatened. . . . For what? For no reason.

Daniel Goldhagen, the author of Hitler’s Willing Executioners, one of the most outrageously self-serving Holocaust propaganda books, writes that anti-Semitism is:

divorced from actual Jews . . . fundamentally not a response to any objective evaluation of Jewish action . . . independent of Jews’ nature and actions.

The Jewish novelist Cynthia Ozick explains it by saying:

The world wants to wipe out the Jews . . . the world has always wanted to wipe out the Jews.

Finkelstein’s book is especially valuable because it is so well documented. He cites dozens of other books and gives specific references to a number of especially revealing statements by other Jews. He also spares no scorn in talking about charlatans such as Wiesel and Goldhagen. He shows up Wiesel as a pious fraud whose standard speaker’s fee for lying about what happened during the Second World War is $25,000. Wiesel’s popularity is based on his ability to look solemn and spout utter nonsense without cracking a smile. He doesn’t talk about reality but about the sacred, ineffable mystery which is the Holocaust, a mystery beyond all understanding or explanation, which must never be examined or questioned. And his Gentile audiences just eat it up. I must admit that I thought a Jew couldn’t be embarrassed by this sort of fraud, but apparently Finkelstein really is embarrassed by Wiesel.

Finkelstein’s explanation as to why the Holocaust was invented is essentially the same as mine: the Holocaust gives the Jews immunity from criticism for whatever they do to non-Jews, no matter how atrocious, and it gives them a rationale for demanding a handout from the rest of the world. Finkelstein does a very creditable job of establishing this explanation by detailing the way in which the Jews have squeezed the Swiss and others for billions of dollars in Holocaust reparations. He writes:

In recent years the Holocaust industry has become an outright extortion racket.

Certainly, Finkelstein’s book should be read by anyone interested in what the Jews are doing. It is filled with very valuable information. It does have one extremely serious shortcoming, however. It blames the Holocaust fraud on a few greedy and unscrupulous Jews. Finkelstein writes about the activities of some of these Jews: Edgar Bronfman, president of the World Jewish Congress; Rabbi Israel Singer, the secretary-general of the World Jewish Congress; Rabbi Marvin Hier of the Simon Wiesenthal Center; Abe Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League, and so on. And the greed and pushiness of these Jews is indeed breathtaking. Finkelstein reveals, for example, that Simon Wiesenthal, the famous Nazi-hunter, rents out his name to the Simon Wiesenthat Center in Los Angeles for $90,000 a year. Actually, that’s a good deal for Rabbi Hier and the Simon Wiesenthal Center. Hier rakes in millions of dollars every year from guilt-stricken Gentiles by reminding them that they didn’t save enough Jews from Hitler during the Second World War.

But the fact is that if there were only a few greedy conspirators involved, the Holocaust industry never would have made a profit. The average couch potato never would have heard of it. The average soccer mom wouldn’t feel a twinge of guilt whenever Elie Wiesel invokes the sacred Holocaust mystery. So-called “Holocaust studies” would not be a part of the curriculum for high school students in 17 states. Israel wouldn’t be able to build a huge arsenal of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons without a peep of protest from anyone and then demand successfully that Iraq be bombed back into the Stone Age for trying to do the same thing.

The fact is that the Holocaust industry was built first and foremost by the mass media, and literally hundreds of thousands of Jews labor in that particular vineyard. A few ambitious Zionists and greedy Jewish hucksters may have come up with the original idea, but Steven Spielberg has done infinitely more to build the Holocaust myth than all of the greedy Zionist officials together. Furthermore, the Holocaust has been endorsed and supported by nearly the entire Jewish community. Nearly every Jew wants his share of Holocaust profits. Those like Finkelstein who have done anything at all to expose the fraud or even to disassociate themselves from it are a very tiny minority. Finkelstein certainly understands that, but he doesn’t admit in his book that he understands it. He doesn’t want to indict the Jewish community as a whole for the fraud, but in fact, it is the Jewish community as a whole that is guilty.

I said earlier that the Jews as a whole are destructive, and I used the example of the Holocaust to support this statement. The Holocaust is supported by and benefits Jews as a whole, not just a few of them, and the Holocaust is destructive to us, to our nation, in a thousand ways. The Holocaust shields Jewish organized crime in America, for example. Janet Reno’s Justice Department is afraid to tackle the big Jewish gangsters the way it tackled the Italian Mafia. The White sex-slave trade is able to flourish in Israel, and no politician in the United States will do anything to oppose it because it is a Jewish business. No politician in our government will threaten to cut off aid to Israel. Hillary Clinton can participate in an international conference on protecting women and deliberately and knowingly sabotage any measures that might put a crimp in the Jewish trade in sex slaves, and no one has the courage to criticize her for it. There’s really a lot more than crime and money and political corruption involved in this Holocaust racket. We let it control us, we let it rob us of our courage, and it destroys our souls.

Well, I’ve spoken in earlier broadcasts about many of the issues involved in the Holocaust racket. I’ll speak about other Holocaust issues in future broadcasts. It’s a big subject, with many facets. What you can do now is read Professor Finkelstein’s book, The Holocaust Industry. And then think about what you’ve read in the book while you watch the Bush campaign dance all around Al Gore’s vice-presidential choice Joseph Lieberman, afraid to lay a glove on him. You’ll understand why they’re afraid to say anything critical of Lieberman.

* * *

The Adolf Eichmann Trial

Source: https://codoh.com/library/document/6316/?lang=en

By John Wear
Published: 2018-12-12

The Adolf Eichmann trial created hugely increased public awareness of the so-called Holocaust in Israel and worldwide.[1] Deborah Lipstadt writes: “This trial, whose main objective was bringing a Nazi who helped organize and carry out genocide to justice, transformed Jewish life and society as much as it passed judgment on a murderer.”[2]

Law professor Lawrence Douglas writes: “The Eichmann trial…remains the Great Holocaust Trial—the legal proceeding in which the tasks of doing justice to unprecedented crimes, clarifying a tortured history, and defining the terms of collective memory conjoined and collided in the most provocative fashion. Indeed, the Eichmann trial served to create the Holocaust…”[3]

This article will show that the Eichmann trial was instead an unjust proceeding that augmented an already-false history of the so-called Holocaust.

Historical Background

Adolf Eichmann was abducted by Israeli agents in Argentina in May 1960. Given a choice between instant death or a trial, Eichmann chose to be the defendant in a criminal trial in Jerusalem that began on April 11, 1961.[4]

The defense strategy in Eichmann’s trial is summarized on the Yad Vashem website:

The defense team [was] comprised of Dr. Robert Servatius and his assistant, Dieter Wechtenbruch. The defense did not contest the facts included in the indictment, opting instead to play down the responsibility of the accused for the crimes of the Nazi regime against the Jews. The defense depicted the accused as “a small cog in the state apparatus,” lacking influence upon the planning and operation of the murder machine. This line of defense stressed Eichmann’s hierarchical inability to defy the instructions of his superiors, and the fact that it was the heads of the Nazi regime, rather than Eichmann, who adopted the decisive criminal decisions.[5]

As in the Nuremberg trials, almost all of the available documents were controlled by the prosecutors. With only two men on his defense team, Eichmann worked very hard throughout his trial and became the chief assistant to his defense counsel.[6]

The Israeli Mossad also spied on Dr. Servatius, and all of his consultations with Eichmann were closely monitored. This made it virtually impossible for the defense to spring any surprises during the trial.[7]

Eichmann underwent months of interrogation before securing defense counsel. Eichmann seemed to think at first that he would be kept alive in Israeli captivity only so long as he talked to his interrogator, Avner Less. The result of Eichmann’s interrogations was 275 hours of tape and a transcript running to 3,564 pages.[8]

Consequently, the prosecution team had a huge advantage in Eichmann’s trial. Former Israeli Supreme Court Judge Gabriel Bach states: “We were three prosecutors. We gathered millions of pages of documentation and read a great deal of background sources. I don’t think I slept more than three hours every night throughout the trial…The German government was very cooperative and sent us a great deal of material.”[9]

Servatius stated at the opening of Eichmann’s trial that a fair trial was not possible in Israel. Servatius contested the legal basis of the trial and asked that the case against Eichmann be dismissed. Israeli Attorney General and chief prosecutor Gideon Hausner spent two and a half days rebutting Servatius’s numerous challenges to Israel’s legal right to conduct the trial. The three Israeli judges predictably ruled against Servatius and ordered the trial to continue.[10]

Eyewitness Testimony

The prosecution called 112 witnesses in Eichmann’s trial. Testimony from Jewish eyewitnesses constituted the central element of the prosecution’s case, with only one non-Jewish eyewitness called to testify.[11]

Gideon Hausner called numerous witnesses who had no connection with Adolf Eichmann. While much of this testimony was based on hearsay, the Jewish eyewitnesses transformed the trial from an important war-crimes trial to one that would have enduring significance.[12]

Dr. Servatius knew under the trial conditions in Israel he could not contest the official Holocaust story. Servatius, who was supposed to be defending Eichmann, was also fully aware that he could not garner sympathy for his client by aggressively challenging the Jewish eyewitnesses. Servatius thus decided to conduct almost no cross-examinations of the prosecution witnesses.[13]

Hannah Arendt confirmed that that the prosecution witnesses were seldom cross-examined. Arendt wrote:

…the defense hardly ever rose to challenge any testimony, no matter how irrelevant and immaterial it might be” and “…the witnesses for the prosecution were hardly ever cross-examined by either the defense or the judges…[14]

When Dr. Servatius did contest a witness’s testimony, his goal was to show that it had no relevance to Eichmann’s activities. For example, when parts of Hans Frank’s diary were read into evidence, Servatius did not object to the diary’s admission or the readings from it. On cross-examination of the witness through whom the diary was put into evidence, Servatius asked only one question: Was the name of Adolf Eichmann mentioned in any of these 29 volumes? Since the answer was no, Servatius was satisfied.[15]

Servatius also did not call any defense witnesses in Eichmann’s trial. Most of the potential defense witnesses had been members of the Nazi Party, SD or SS. This meant that if they set foot in Israel they could be arrested under the same law under which Eichmann was being tried, and any testimony they gave in court was likely to be self-incriminating.[16]

The prosecution did allow affidavits from pertinent defense witnesses despite the fact that the prosecution would be unable to cross-examine these witnesses in court.[17] Several defense depositions were taken in German courts with Dieter Wechtenbruch appearing as Eichmann’s defense counsel. However, these defense witnesses, who could be subject to prosecution in Germany for any incriminating statements made in their depositions, were of no help to Eichmann’s defense.[18]

Nuremberg Testimony

The prosecution also used testimony and affidavits from the International Military Tribunal (IMT) at Nuremberg to convict Adolf Eichmann. For example, the prosecution entered into evidence Rudolf Höss’s affidavit from the IMT that implicated Eichmann in the workings of Auschwitz-Birkenau. Rudolf Höss’s memoirs, which stated that Eichmann had visited him in the summer of 1941 to discuss the use of poison gas, were also introduced into evidence.[19]

Rudolf Höss’s testimony and affidavit should not have been allowed into evidence in Eichmann’s trial because Höss underwent particularly brutal torture upon his arrest. Höss stated in his memoirs: “At my first interrogation, evidence was obtained by beating me. I do not know what is in the record, although I signed it.”[20]

Additional proof that the torture of Rudolf Höss was exceptionally brutal is contained in the book Legions of Death. This book states that Sgt. Bernard Clarke and other British officers tortured Rudolf Höss into making his confession.[21] Obviously, such testimony obtained through torture should never have been admissible as evidence in Eichmann’s trial.

The testimony of Dieter Wisliceny at the IMT was also used against Eichmann. Wisliceny claimed at the IMT that Eichmann showed him a written order signed by Heinrich Himmler for the physical extermination of the Jews.[22] The prosecution at the Eichmann trial used Wisliceny’s testimony even though no written order from Himmler or anyone else to exterminate European Jewry has ever been found.

Film Evidence Presented at Trial

An excerpted and sliced version of Nazi Concentration Camps, the U.S. Army Signal Corps documentary shown to dramatic effect at the IMT, was shown in the 70th session of the Eichmann trial. This documentary was shown without soundtrack, and provided visual proof of the crimes of the so-called Holocaust. Gideon Hausner described the emaciated prisoners of war as “figures of Musselmänner”—that is, the death-camp inmates destined for the gas chamber because of their broken physical and psychological state.”[23]

The prosecution at the Eichmann trial failed to mention that most of the inmates in these camps died of natural causes. When American and British forces took control of the German concentration camps, they were followed by military personnel charged with documenting evidence of German war crimes.

One of these was Dr. Charles P. Larson, an American forensic pathologist, who performed autopsies at Dachau and some of its sub-camps. Dr. Larson performed about 25 autopsies a day for 10 days at Dachau and superficially examined another 300 to 1,000 bodies. He autopsied only those bodies that appeared to be ambiguous. Dr. Larson stated in regard to these autopsies:

Many of them died from typhus. Dachau’s crematoriums couldn’t keep up with the burning of the bodies. They did not have enough oil to keep the incinerators going. I found that a number of the victims had also died from tuberculosis. All of them were malnourished. The medical facilities were most inadequate. There was no sanitation…

A rumor going around Dachau after we got there was that many of the prisoners were poisoned. I did a lot of toxicological analysis to determine the facts and removed organs from a cross-section of about 30 to 40 bodies and sent them into Paris to the Army’s First Medical laboratory for analysis, since I lacked the proper facilities in the field. The reports came back negative. I could not find where any of these people had been poisoned. The majority died of natural diseases of one kind or another.…[24]

Dr. Larson did report that a number of inmates had been shot at some of the German camps, and that the living conditions in the camps were atrocious.[25]

Dr. John E. Gordon, M.D., Ph.D., a professor of preventive medicine and epidemiology at the Harvard University School of Public Health, was also with U.S. forces at the end of World War II. Dr. Gordon determined that disease, and especially typhus, was the Number One cause of death in the German camps.[26]

This and other medical evidence proving that most of the inmates in the Signal Corps documentary died of natural causes was not presented at Eichmann’s trial. Obviously, such evidence would have undermined the prosecution’s contention that inmates in the German camps died from a German policy of genocide.

Eichmann’s Testimony

Eichmann sent a note to Servatius before his trial stating that he had few hopes of getting out alive. However, Eichmann wanted to tell the truth for the sake of his descendants. Eichmann stated: “They will know that their father, great-grandfather, and so on was no murderer. That alone matters for me, not just to survive.”[27]

Eichmann emphasized in his testimony that he was obliged to follow orders and never acted on his own initiative. Eichmann could not testify that Germany did not have a program of genocide, since the Israeli judges would never have allowed such testimony. Instead, Eichmann portrayed himself as a cog in a machine who had always sought peaceful solutions rather than a murder program. Many news sources reported that Eichmann did a good job in answering Servatius’s questions.[28]

Gideon Hausner’s cross-examination of Eichmann lasted two weeks and turned ugly from the outset. A New York Times article stated that Hausner’s “shrillness and posturing” made Eichmann look like a “clever and wily opponent.”[29] A Dutch reporter observed: “…Eichmann has won on points. He turned out to be of greater stature as a defendant than Hausner as a prosecutor.”[30] Despite his best efforts, Hausner was never able to get Eichmann to admit his guilt.

The three Israeli judges took turns asking Eichmann questions after Hausner’s cross-examination. Eichmann told the Israeli judges that he was not an anti-Semite, and in a few cases had attempted to help Jews. Eichmann stated that he had to follow the “orders by a supreme head of state,” and that he did the best he could under these circumstances. Eichmann’s testimony would seem not to have convinced the judges of his innocence.[31]

Conclusion

On December 11, 1961, the presiding judge in Eichmann’s trial handed down the death sentence. Adolf Eichmann was hanged six months later. Eichmann’s execution was the first in Israel’s history.[32]

Hannah Arendt wrote in regard to the Eichmann trial:

In Israel, as in most other countries, a person appearing in court is deemed innocent until proved guilty. But in the case of the Eichmann trial this was an obvious fiction. If he had not been found guilty before he appeared in Jerusalem, guilty beyond any reasonable doubt, the Israelis would never have dared, or wanted, to kidnap him; Prime Minister Ben-Gurion, explaining to the president of Argentina, in a letter dated June 3, 1960, why Israel had committed a “formal violation of Argentine law,” wrote that “it was Eichmann who organized the mass murder [of six million of our people], on a gigantic and unprecedented scale, throughout Europe.” In contrast to normal arrests in ordinary criminal cases, where suspicion of guilt must be proved to be substantial and reasonable but not beyond reasonable doubt–that is the task of the ensuing trial—Eichmann’s illegal arrest could be justified, and was justified in the eyes of the world, only by the fact that the outcome of the trial could be safely anticipated.[33]

The three Israeli judges in Eichmann’s trial were also biased. This is implicitly acknowledged in the book Eichmann Interrogated, “It was a fair trial as far as the feelings of the judges permitted.”[34] Law professor Frank Tuerkheimer writes concerning Eichmann’s judges: “Aside from what they knew as educated persons, each of the three judges had left Germany for Palestine in the 1930s and it would be unusual if none of their extended families had emerged unscathed from the Holocaust.”[35]

In Israel, where emotions ran high concerning the so-called Holocaust, it was of course impossible for Eichmann to get a fair trial. The prohibition of the defense to question the reality of the Holocaust story, to cross-examine prosecution witnesses, to consult with Eichmann in confidence, to have the case heard by impartial judges, to contest testimony and evidence from the IMT, and the routine admission of hearsay evidence all ensured Adolf Eichmann’s conviction. The result was an unjust verdict that augmented a false history of the so-called Holocaust.


ENDNOTES

[1] http://www.aish.com/ho/i/The_Eichmann_Trial_50_Years_Later.html.

[2] Lipstadt, Deborah E., The Eichmann Trial, New York: Schocken Books, 2011, p. xi.

[3] Douglas, Lawrence, The Memory of Judgment: Making Law and History in the Trials of the Holocaust, New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2001, p. 6.

[4] http://www.aish.com/ho/i/The_Eichmann_Trial_50_Years_Later.html.

[5] http://www.yadvashem.org/yv/en/exhibitions/eichmann/proof_of_guilt.asp.

[6] Arendt, Hannah, Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil: New York: Penguin Books, 2006, p. 244.

[7] Cesarani, David, Becoming Eichmann: Rethinking the Life, Crimes, and Trial of a “Desk Murderer”, Cambridge, Mass.: Da Capo Press, 2006, pp. 247-248.

[8] Ibid., pp. 242-247.

[9] http://www.aish.com/ho/i/The_Eichmann_Trial_50_Years_Later.html.

[10] Cesarani, David, Becoming Eichmann: Rethinking the Life, Crimes, and Trial of a “Desk Murderer”, Cambridge, Mass.: Da Capo Press, 2006, pp. 258-259.

[11] Ibid., pp. 262, 268.

[12] Lipstadt, Deborah E., The Eichmann Trial, New York: Schocken Books, 2011, pp. xx, 55.

[13] Ibid., p. 87.

[14] Arendt, Hannah, Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil: New York: Penguin Books, 2006, pp. 9, 207.

[15] Ibid., p. 9; see also http://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1684&context=ilr, pp. 403-404.

[16] Cesarani, David, Becoming Eichmann: Rethinking the Life, Crimes, and Trial of a “Desk Murderer”, Cambridge, Mass.: Da Capo Press, 2006, p. 247.

[17] See https://www.ushmm.org/online/film/display/detail.php?file_num=1732.

[18] http://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1684&context=ilr, pp. 413-415.

[19] Cesarani, David, Becoming Eichmann: Rethinking the Life, Crimes, and Trial of a “Desk Murderer”, Cambridge, Mass: Da Capo Press, 2006, pp. 205, 244.

[20] Faurisson, Robert, “How the British Obtained the Confessions of Rudolf Höss”, The Journal of Historical Review, Vol. 7, No. 4/Winter 1986-87, p. 393.

[21] Ibid., 392-399.

[22] Cesarani, David, Becoming Eichmann: Rethinking the Life, Crimes, and Trial of a “Desk Murderer”, Cambridge, Mass: Da Capo Press, 2006, p. 157.

[23] Douglas, Lawrence, The Memory of Judgment: Making Law and History in the Trials of the Holocaust, New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press, 2001, pp. 97-101.

[24] McCallum, John Dennis, Crime Doctor, Mercer Island, Wash.: The Writing Works, Inc., 1978, pp. 60-61.

[25] Ibid.

[26] Gordon, John E., “Louse-Borne Typhus Fever in the European Theater of Operations, U.S. Army, 1945,” in Moulton, Forest Ray, (ed.), Rickettsial Diseases of Man, Washington, D.C.: American Academy for the Advancement of Science, 1948, pp. 16-27. Quoted in Butz, Robert, The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, Newport Beach, Cal.: Institute for Historical Review, 1993, pp. 46-47.

[27] Cesarani, David, Becoming Eichmann: Rethinking the Life, Crimes, and Trial of a “Desk Murderer”, Cambridge, Mass: Da Capo Press, 2006, p. 247.

[28] Lipstadt, Deborah E., The Eichmann Trial, New York: Schocken Books, 2011, pp. 107-115.

[29] Ibid., p. 130; New York Times, July 16, 1961.

[30] Mulisch, Harry, Criminal Case 40/61, the Trial of Adolf Eichmann: An Eyewitness Account, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2005, p. 141.

[31] Ibid., pp. 131-138.

[32] Yablonka, Hanna, The State of Israel v. Adolf Eichmann, New York: Schocken Books, 2004, p. 140.

[33] Arendt, Hannah, Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil: New York: Penguin Books, 2006, pp. 209-210.

[34] Eichmann Interrogated: Transcripts from the Archives of the Israeli Police, New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, Inc., 1983, p. 293.

[35] http://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1684&context=ilr, p. 403.

The Shocking Jewish Role in Slavery Part II – The Media Coverup

Dr. David Duke exposes the Jewish role in the African and global slave trade.

Thoughts on the “Holocaust”

The dishonest label “Holocaust denier” is used to prevent questioning.

Source: American Dissident Voices broadcast, February 8, 1997; reprinted in Free Speech magazine, March 1997, Volume III, No. 3

by Dr. William L. Pierce

There has been a lot of commotion in the controlled media recently about Swiss bankers who supposedly are hiding the assets of various Jews who perished more than 50 years ago, during the Second World War, in the so-called “Holocaust.” The idea is that during the war Jews in Germany, France, and other European countries squirreled their money away in secret Swiss bank accounts so the Germans couldn’t get it. Then the Jews were hauled off to concentration camps or otherwise came to an end, and their money still remains in the secret Swiss accounts. The news stories have hinted that the Swiss bankers have been remiss in simply keeping the money in the accounts, rather than searching for heirs or turning it over to Jewish organizations. It has been suggested that billions of dollars of Jewish money is being kept from the Jews to whom it rightfully belongs. Jewish groups are demanding that the Swiss set up a fund immediately to reimburse “Holocaust” survivors.

The Swiss, who are proud of the integrity of their banking system, are naturally indignant about these Jewish allegations that they have behaved improperly. The outgoing president of Switzerland, Jean-Pascal Delamuraz, called the Jewish media campaign “extortion” and “blackmail.” The Jews and the media have responded by clamoring even more insistently that the Swiss should pay billions of dollars to the Jews. In fact they now have begun making demands against Sweden as well. The Jews claim that the Germans bought raw materials from Sweden during the war using gold that had been confiscated from Jews, and that now Sweden owes that gold to Jewish “Holocaust” survivors.

It’s really an amazing campaign. The Swiss bankers have said repeatedly that they have checked their inactive accounts in the past, and that they are holding at most a few million dollars which may belong to the relatives of Jews who died during the war, that it could not possibly amount to the billions of dollars the Jews are claiming, and that they have treated the accounts of their Jewish depositors just like they treat all of their accounts. Yet the media virtually ignore what the Swiss say and continue to raise a huge hullabaloo about the poor, persecuted Jews and how they are being done wrong by the Swiss and the Swedes. And, of course, the U.S. politicians are jumping into the act, demanding that the Swiss and the Swedes satisfy the Jews. It’s really amazing.

You know, I haven’t talked much in the past about the so-called “Holocaust,” because I’ve felt that really is a job for the historians, and I’m not a professional historian. Unfortunately, however, the “Holocaust” is one of those politically sensitive subjects which makes professional historians very nervous. Jews – and apologists for the Jews – have written literally thousands of “Holocaust” books during the past 50 years, and many of the claims made in these books are patently false. The professional historians know that, but they hesitate to say anything, lest they be branded as “Holocaust deniers” by the powerful Jewish organizations and by the controlled news media.

Because of this timidity on the part of the professionals, perhaps we amateurs really have an obligation to speak out more. This whole “Holocaust” business is a fascinating subject, and there’s much to be learned from looking into it, even if one isn’t a professional historian. Take, for example, the label of “Holocaust denier,” which is pasted on anyone who dares to ask questions about the “Holocaust.” If I comment publicly that the official figure for the number of Jews who died in the big concentration and labor camp at Auschwitz, in Poland, has been revised downward recently by the Polish government from an earlier figure of four million to about one million, and I suggest that perhaps that means that the famous figure of “six million” Jews killed by the Germans also needs to be revised downward – if I make such a suggestion, then I’m immediately denounced as a “Holocaust denier.” That’s the standard phrasing that’s been agreed on by all of the big Jewish outfits, the news media, the bought politicians, and so on: “Holocaust denier.” That’s what you’re called if you question anything about the official myth. It’s a crooked tactic. It deliberately makes it look like you’re denying that there ever was any such thing as a “Holocaust.” It’s a label that’s designed to make any questioner look like some sort of extremist who denies that anything at all happened to the Jews during the Second World War. That’s crooked, isn’t it?

I know that Jews were killed during the war. I’ve talked with German soldiers who shot Jews. In the war against the Soviet Union and Communism, the Germans found that virtually all of the Jews they encountered on the Eastern Front were Communist partisans, that Jews were heavily involved in Communist guerrilla activities, in sabotage, and in other hostile actions against the Germans. Often the only way to pacify an area was to round up all of the Jews and ship them off to a concentration camp or to shoot them. Most of the other folks on the Eastern Front – the Poles, the Ukrainians, often even the Russians – were happy enough to have the German Army get the Communists off their backs, but the Jews were fanatically pro-Communist. The Soviet Political Commissars who were attached to all Red Army units to spy on ordinary Russian soldiers and look for any signs of Political Incorrectness nearly always were Jews, and the German Army in many cases separated these Jewish Political Commissars from their Russian prisoners of war and shot the commissars.

I also know that Germans didn’t like Jews, and Hitler especially didn’t like them, and as a consequence the German government tried very hard to encourage Jews to leave Germany, even before the war. Laws were passed limiting Jewish participation in some professions – such as the law and publishing – where they were heavily overrepresented.

So I know that something did happen to the Jews in Europe both before and during the Second World War, and if they want to call that something a “Holocaust,” that’s all right with me. I don’t deny that something did happen. I don’t deny that there was a “Holocaust.” I’m just interested in checking the details, in checking the facts. But as soon as I or anyone else does that, we’re called “Holocaust deniers.”

That’s interesting, because the obvious intent of the people who use that label is to discourage us from asking questions. They don’t want the details checked. They don’t want anyone looking for any facts other than the official facts they present to us. And after being called a “Holocaust denier” a hundred times or so, I’ve come to believe that the reason they don’t want their facts checked is that they know that in many cases their facts are false. That’s really crooked – but I believe that to be an accurate assessment of the situation.

I first became interested in the “Holocaust” enough to want to check it out when I encountered some especially fanciful accounts by so-called “survivors.” I read accounts by Jews who claimed that they saw German soldiers grabbing Jewish babies by their legs and swinging their heads against brick walls to smash out their brains. One Jewess told of witnessing German soldiers carrying Jewish children one at a time up the stairs to the top of a building, throwing them off, and laughing when they hit the pavement below and were killed. Other Jews made the claim that they saw German guards separate Jews out from prisoners arriving at concentration camps, pour gasoline on them, and set them afire, right on the train platform. And there were other stories about Jewish prisoners with colorful tattoos being selected from the camps and then skinned so that their tattooed skin could be made into lampshades. Now, these stories just didn’t jibe with what I knew about the German Army and the German government during that period. I knew that the Germans didn’t like Jews, but I also knew that the German Army was the best-disciplined army in the world. I knew that they had a better record of behavior in the countries they occupied than any other army in the Second World War – including the U.S. Army. I had until that point believed the stories that the Germans had methodically herded the Jews into gas chambers. But I really doubted that any disciplined army would tolerate its soldiers just killing prisoners for sport.

If you saw the anti-German propaganda film which came out a couple of years ago, Schindler’s List, you will remember that it portrayed the German commandant of a labor camp shooting Jewish inmates with a hunting rifle from his balcony. That was the sort of thing I had questioned when I first encountered these stories. And yet, very few other people were questioning these accounts. Newspapers and magazines and books were reporting them as if they were unquestionably true.

I began looking into the matter in detail, and I discovered many interesting things. I discovered that some Jews had been killed, and I discovered the circumstances under which they were killed. I discovered that many more Jews simply died under the conditions that existed toward the end of the war, when malnutrition and disease were rampant in the prison camps. I discovered that the total number of Jews who were killed and who died of disease was substantially less than the six million claimed by the Jewish propagandists. Most important, I discovered that a great many lies had been told about what had happened during the “Holocaust.” I discovered that most of the tales about gas chambers – that is, the ones that could be checked out – were not true. I discovered that not a single one of the stories about bashing out babies’ brains or throwing children off buildings or shooting prisoners with hunting rifles for sport, à la Schindler’s List, could be substantiated, and that they were all almost certainly false.

All of this is interesting in itself; at least, it is interesting to me. It is a part of our history. I could talk all day about the details, about the facts that I discovered when I began looking into the “Holocaust,” but I don’t want to bore you. If you really want to know the details, write to the Institute for Historical Review. They’re experts, and they’re honest. Their address is:

Institute for Historical Review
P.O. Box 2739
Newport Beach, CA 92659

To me what’s even more interesting about the “Holocaust” story than all of the holes in it is the motivation behind it, the way the story is being used today, and the response of various elements of our society to it. Let’s go back for a moment to that deliberately misleading label of “Holocaust denier” that I mentioned earlier. If you’ve spent any time exploring the Internet – especially some of the political discussion groups on the Internet – you’ll have heard that term “Holocaust denier” often enough. It’s not that the “Holocaust” is a hot topic of discussion on the Internet. It isn’t. But it is discussed occasionally, along with just about every other topic under the sun, and it’s discussed openly, without fear. The Internet is just about the only place left where one can discuss politically sensitive topics openly. And that just drives the big Jewish censorship organizations crazy. They don’t want any open discussion of the “Holocaust.” They’re terrified of it. The Simon Wiesenthal Center has been especially loud in its complaints about the lack of censorship on the Internet. Without censorship, they complain, the “Holocaust deniers” can say anything they want. If we don’t censor the Internet, the “Holocaust deniers” can come right into your home and contaminate your child’s mind while he’s using his computer to do his homework.

They’ve tried to intimidate people into silence. They’ll have one of their own people claim to be a World War II veteran, and his standard line will be, “Hey, don’t try to tell me there wasn’t a Holocaust. I was there. I saw the bodies. So don’t try to tell me there wasn’t a Holocaust.”

Now, that sort of tactic may work on television, where they control the whole medium and no one can contradict them. But on the Internet people have been contradicting them. People have been saying, “Hey, we’re not trying to tell you there were no bodies. We just want to know how many bodies. We want to know how they died.” But they will not engage in a rational discussion with you. If one trick won’t silence you, they’ll try another. They’ll say, “What difference does it matter how many? If only one Jew were killed just for being a Jew, that’s a terrible crime. That’s a Holocaust.” That’s supposed to embarrass you into shutting up. But on the Internet you can come back and say, “Well, what about the Germans who were killed just because they were Germans. What about the Russians and the Ukrainians and the Hungarians who were killed by some Jewish Commissar just because they were anti-Communists? Don’t they count? Wasn’t that a crime for which someone should be held accountable?”

They don’t like to hear that. They really don’t. Try it sometime, if you have a thick skin and don’t mind having them shriek insults at you.

Their final line of defense is governmental force, governmental repression. If they can’t embarrass you into silence, they turn to the politicians and demand laws to make you shut up. That’s what they’ve already done in Europe and in Canada, where you can be jailed for being a “Holocaust denier” – which means, for questioning anything at all about what really happened. There are many people in German prisons now who made the mistake of saying, “Hey, I was a guard at such and such a prison camp during the war, and there was no gas chamber there.” In Britain, they already have laws against criticizing Jews, but they want the laws toughened, and so they’ve turned to the politicians. And, I’m sorry to say, the politicians in Britain are just about as crooked a lot as we have here. The chairman of the British Labor Party, Tony Blair, is a real piece of filth, of about the same quality as Bill Clinton. He hopes to be the new prime minister after the parliamentary elections coming up in May. He has announced, with a little prodding from the Labor Party’s Jewish backers, that when he is prime minister he will propose a new law making “Holocaust denial” a specific crime, so that anyone who questions whether or not there was a gas chamber in such and such a place can be locked up, just as in Germany.

And that’s what they want in America too. The Jewish lawyers and journalists and professors – and their Gentile collaborators – already are working hard to persuade people that the First Amendment to our Constitution needs to be scrapped, or at least rewritten. The Founding Fathers never intended to protect all types of speech, they say. They never intended to protect indecent or hurtful speech. And to deny the “Holocaust” is indecent and hurtful. They’re working hard on it. The trendier Gentiles already are falling into line. Believe me, they’ll be making a strong push to abolish free speech in America soon. They’ll tell us that it’s for our own good.

But it’s for their own good, not ours. That’s the most interesting insight I gained from checking out the “Holocaust.” I learned why they push it so hard, why they’ve made so many Hollywood propaganda films like Schindler’s List, why they’ve told so many whoppers about bashing out babies’ brains and making lampshades out of skinned Jews, why they talked the politicians into letting them have a Holocaust Museum in Washington, why they’ve gotten politicians at the state level to pass laws requiring that the public schools carry “Holocaust” indoctrination courses, and why they’re so desperate to stop people from asking questions.

It’s not just because they’re afraid of being exposed as liars if they stop defending their old lies with new lies. It’s not just because they hate the Germans and like to beat them over the head with the “Holocaust.” And it’s not just because they find the “Holocaust” a convenient excuse for the crimes they have committed and still are committing against the Palestinian people. There’s a much bigger reason than all of these things – and a much more dangerous reason for us, for our people. But you are an intelligent person with at least a little bit of open-mindedness, a little bit of mental independence, or you wouldn’t be reading this magazine. Why don’t you discover for yourselves why the Jews are so defensive about the “Holocaust,” why they are so afraid for anyone to ask questions about it? It’s an easy thing to do, and I believe it’ll be much more convincing if you find out for yourselves, instead of having me tell you. There are thousands of books out there that they’ve written. Go into any large bookstore or library and you’ll find books about the “Holocaust” by the top “Holocaust” promoters, Jews like Elie Wiesel and Simon Wiesenthal. Read these books with an open mind, with a questioning mind. Think about the claims they make. Then get a copy of our book catalog and read a couple of the books we sell – or read some books from the Institute for Historical Review – and think about what you read in these books too. Make up your own mind. I believe you’ll find it an illuminating and rewarding experience.

* * *

Shoa Business

The Wannsee Conference Protocol

Anatomy of a Fabrication

By Johannes Peter Ney
Published:1993-01-01

Source: http://codoh.com/library/document/934#ftn13

This paper is part of the series Dissecting the Holocaust. The Growing Critique of „Truth“ and „Memory“. Click below for the previous or next item of the series. Click on „up“ to return to the series’ Table of Contents

„WANNSEE CONFERENCE: conference of chief representatives of the highest Reich and Party bodies, held on January 20, 1942 in Berlin at ‘Am Großen Wannsee 56/58’ under the chairmanship of R. Heydrich. On the order of A. Hitler, the participants decided on measures for the annihilation of the Jews in those parts of Europe under German control (‘Final Solution of the Jewish Question’): the establishment of extermination camps (concentration camps) in Eastern Europe, where Jews were to be killed.“ [1]


1. On Document Criticism

Documents are objects containing encoded information about a process or condition. For example, one differentiates between photographic and written documents as well as, recently, between all kinds of data storage (sound carriers, electronic data carriers, and many more). The present discussion will focus on the criticism of written documents, which represent the main of the documents relating to the Holocaust.

If a document is to prove anything, it is first necessary to establish that the document is genuine and the information it contains is factually correct. The authenticity of a document requires, for one thing, that the materials and techniques of information encoding and storage involved already existed at the alleged time of document creation. Today, technical, chemical and physical methods frequently permit the verification of whether the paper, the ink, the writing tools etc. that make up the document or went into its production even existed at the alleged time of creation. If this is not the case, the document has been proven to be fake. For example, a document allegedly dating from the 1800s but typed on a typewriter from our own century would definitely be a fake. Unfortunately this kind of analysis is not generally possible where the items to be analyzed are Holocaust documents, since in those few cases where original documents are known to exist, these originals are jealously guarded in archives and any attempt at scientific and technical analysis is nipped in the bud.

Another element in the verification of authenticity is the determination of whether the form of the document at issue corresponds with that of similar documents of the same presumptive origin. For handwritten documents this means a similarity of handwriting and style of expression to other documents by the same author, while for official documents it requires the congruence of official markings identifying the issuing body, such as letterheads, rubber stamps, signatures and initials, reference numbers, titles and official names, notices of receipt, distributors, correctness of the administrative channels and authority etc., as well as, again, similarity to the regional and bureaucratic style of expression. The greater the discrepancies, the more likely it is that the document is a fabrication.

And finally, it must also be determined whether the contents of the document are factually correct. One aspect of this is that the conditions and events described in the document must agree with the information we already have from other reliable sources. But the fundamental question is whether what is described in the document is physically possible, and consistent with what was technically feasible at the time and whether the contents are internally logical and consistent. If this is not the case, the document may still be genuine, but its contents are of no probative value, except perhaps where the incompetence of its author is concerned.

Concerning document criticism in the context of the Holocaust, we encounter the remarkable phenomenon that any such practice is dispensed with almost entirely by the mainstream historians around the world. Even a call for impartial document criticism is considered reprehensible, since this would admit the possibility that such a document might be false, in other words, that certain events which are backed up by such documents may not have taken place at all, or not in the manner described to date. But nothing is considered more reprehensible today than to question the solidly established historical view of the Holocaust. However, where doubts about scientific results are deemed censurable, where the questioning of one’s own view of history or perhaps even of the world is forbidden, where the results of an investigation must be predetermined from the start, i.e. where research may produce only the ‘desired’ results – where such conditions prevail, the allowed or allowable lines of inquiry have long since forsaken any foundation in science and have instead embraced religious dogma. Doubt and criticism are two of the most important pillars of science.

The present volume contains many instances of criticism of a wide range of documents, frequently proving them to be fabrications. No one will deny that particularly after the end of World War Two a great many forgeries were produced in order to incriminate Germany.[2] That opportunities for such forgeries were practically limitless is a fact also undisputed in view of all the captured archives, typewriters, rubber stamps, stationery, state printing presses etc. etc. And considering these circumstances, no one can rule out beforehand that the subject of the Holocaust may also have been the object of falsifications. Unconditionally honest document criticism is thus vitally important here. In the following, the Wannsee Conference Protocol – the central piece of incriminating evidence pertaining to the Holocaust – is subjected to an in – depth critical analysis such as all historians worldwide ought to have done for decades but failed to do. At the same time, this analysis may serve as challenge to all conscientious historians to finally subject all Holocaust documents – be they incriminating or exonerating – to professionally correct and unbiased document criticism.

2. The Material About the Wannsee Conference

2.1. Primary Sources – the Material to be Analyzed

In any analysis of the Wannsee Conference Protocol, the other documents directly related to this Protocol must of course be considered as well. These documents are:

  1. Göring’s letter of July ?, 1941 to Heydrich, instructing Heydrich to draw up an outline for a total solution of the Jewish question in German – occupied Europe.
  2. Heydrich’s first letter of invitation to the Wannsee Conference, dated November 29, 1941.
  3. Heydrich’s second invitation to the Wannsee Conference, dated January 8, 1942.
  4. The Wannsee Conference Protocol itself, undated.
  5. The letter accompanying the Wannsee Conference Protocol, dated January 26, 1942.

2.1.1. Proof of Origin

According to his own statements,[3] Robert M. W. Kempner, the prosecutor in the Wilhelmstraßen Trial of Ernst Weizsäcker, had been expecting a shipment of documents from Berlin in early March 1947. Among these papers, he and his colleagues discovered a transcript of the Wannsee Conference. The author of the protocol, it was claimed, was Eichmann. In 1983 the WDR (West German Radio) broadcast Kempner’s original taped statement, according to which he had discovered the protocol in autumn of 1947.[4] Beyond Kempner’s verbal statements quoted here, no other documentation verifying the place and circumstances of the discovery were found. Kempner: „Of course no one doubted the authenticity [of the protocol].“ The Court, he said, introduced the protocol as Number 2568. In the court records it appears as G – 2568.

2.1.2. Different Versions

The Wannsee Conference Protocol which Kempner submitted to the Court always writes ‘SS’ in this way, i.e. in Latin letters, not as the runic which was customary in the Third Reich. It would appear to be the oldest copy in circulation.[5]

Hans Wahls has mentioned numerous other versions which are also in circulation. The Political Archives at the Foreign Office in Bonn maintains that the version held there is the definitive one. This version uses the runic . When and how this version came to be in the archives of today’s Foreign Office remains unknown. Since the other versions can also not be traced back to their origins, we will dispense with any further details here. The present compilation is thus based only on the copy held by the Foreign Office.[6]

Where the letter accompanying the protocol is concerned, two versions have surfaced to date, one using ‘SS’, the other with the runic as well as other differences.

2.2. Secondary Sources – Literature About the Wannsee Conference Protocol

The literature pertaining to the Wannsee Conference Protocol fills many volumes. The following summarizes the most important analyses and critiques, all of which prove conclusively that all the various versions of the protocol as well as all the versions of the letters accompanying the protocol are fabrications. As yet, no proof of the authenticity of the protocol, nor any attempt at refuting the aforementioned analyses and critiques, has been advanced by any source.

This discussion draws on:

  • Hans Wahls, Zur Authentizität des ‘Wannsee – Protokolls’;[7]
  • Udo Walendy, „Die Wannsee – Konferenz vom 20.1.1942“;[8]
  • Ingrid Weckert, „Anmerkungen zum Wannseeprotokoll“;[9]
  • Johannes Peter Ney, „Das Wannsee – Protokoll“;[10]
  • Herbert Tiedemann, „Offener Brief an Rita Süßmuth“.[11]
  • Other important studies shall just be mentioned briefly.[12]

3. Document Criticism

3.1. Analysis of the Prefatory Correspondence

3.1.1. Göring’s Letter [13]

Form: We only have a copy of this document, as no original has ever been found. This copy is missing the letterhead, the typed – in sender’s address is incorrect, and the date is incomplete, missing the day.[14] The letter has no reference number, no distributor is given, and there is no line with an identifying ‘re.:’ (cf. Ney[10]).

Linguistic content: The repetition in „all necessary preparations as regards organizational, factual, and material matters“ and „general plan showing the organizational, factual, and material measures“ is not Göring’s style, and is beneath his linguistic niveau.[15] The same goes for the expression „möglichst günstigsten Lösung“ [grammatically incorrect, intended to mean „best possible way“].[16]

3.1.2. The First Invitation[17]

Form: The classification notice „top secret“ is missing (cf. Ney[10] and Tiedemann[11]). It is also strange that the letter took 24 days, from November 29, 1941 to December 23, 1941, for a postal route within Berlin (Ney[10]).

Linguistic content: „Fotokopie“ was spelled with a ‘ph’ in those days; the spelling that is used is strictly modern German. „Auffassung an den […] Arbeiten“ (≈“opinion on the […] tasks“) is not proper German; it ought to read „Auffassung über die […] Arbeiten“. „Persönlich“ [„personal“] was scorned as classification; the entire style of the letter is un – German (Ney, ibid.).

3.1.3. The Second Invitation[18]

Form: This document exists only in copy form, no original has ever been found. The letter bears the issuing office’s running number „3076/41“, while the letter accompanying the protocol, dated later, bears an earlier number, „1456/41“ (Tiedemann[11]). The letterhead is different from that of the first invitation (Tiedemann, ibid.). The letter is marked only as „secret“ (Ney[10]).

Linguistic content: On one occasion the letter „ß“ is used correctly („anschließenden“), but then „ss“ is used incorrectly („Grossen“). (Ney, ibid.)

Stylistic howlers: „Questions pertaining to the Jewish question“; „Because the questions admit no delay, I therefore invite you….“ (Ney, ibid.)

3.2. Analysis of the Wannsee Conference Protocol

3.2.1. Form

While it is claimed that the copy of the Wannsee minutes held by the Foreign Office is the original, this cannot in fact be the case, since it is identified as the 16th copy of a total of 30. Regardless whether it is genuine or fake, however, its errors and shortcomings as to form render it invalid under German law, and thus devoid of documentary value:

The paper lacks a letterhead; the issuing office is not specified, and the date, distributor, reference number, place of issue, signature, and identification initials are missing (Wahls[7] and Walendy[8]). The stamp with the date of receipt by the Foreign Office, which is (today!) named as the receiver, is missing (Tiedemann[11]). The paper lacks all the necessary properties of a protocol, i.e. the minutes of a meeting: the opening and closing times of the conference, identification of the persons invited but not attending (Tiedemann, ibid.), the names of each of the respective speakers, and the countersignature of the chairman of the meeting (Tiedemann, ibid., and Ney[10]). The paper does, however, bear the reference number of the receiving(!) office, namely the Foreign Office – typed on the same typewriter as the body of the text (Tiedemann[11]). The most important participant, Reinhard Heydrich, is missing from the list of participants (Wahls[7] and Walendy[8]).

3.2.2. Linguistic Content

The Wannsee Conference Protocol is a treasure – trove of stylistic howlers which indicate that the authors of this paper were strongly influenced by the Anglo – Saxon i.e. British English language. In the following we will identify only the most glaring of these blunders; many of them have been pointed out by all the authors consulted, so that a specific reference frequently does not apply.

The expressions „im Hinblick“ („considering“,* 8 times), „im Zuge“ („in the course of“, 5 times), „Lösung“ („solution“, 23 times), „Fragen“ („questions“, 17 times), „Problem“ (6 times), „Bereinigen“ („to clarify“, 4 times), frequently even more than once in the same sentence, bear witness to such a poor German vocabulary that one may assume the author to have been a foreigner.

Further, the expressions „Lösung der Frage“ („solution of the problem“), „der Lösung zugeführt“ („brought near to a solution“), „Lösungsarbeiten“ („tasks involved“ [in a solution; – trans.]), „Regelung der Frage“ („to settle the question“), „Regelung des Problems“ („to settle the problem“), „restlose Bereinigung des Problems“ („absolutely final clarification of the question“ [i.e. the „problem“; – trans.]), „Mischlingsproblem endgültig bereinigen“ („securing a final solution of the problem presented by the persons of mixed blood“), „praktische Durchführung“ („practical execution“; is there such a thing as a theoretical execution?), and especially the frequent repetition of these expressions, are not at all the German style (Walendy[8]).

The phrase:[T0]

„der allfällig endlich verbliebene Restbestand […]“ („the possible final remnant“)

may perhaps appear in a prose text, but certainly not in the minutes of a conference. The text is interspersed with empty phrases such as;

„Im Hinblick auf die Parallelisierung der Linienführung“ („in order to bring general activities into line“) (Tiedemann[11])

and nonsensical claims such as;

„Die evakuierten Juden werden Zug um Zug in […] Durchgangsghettos gebracht […]“ („The evacuated Jews will first be sent, group by group, into […] transit – ghettos […]“).

Since the evacuation of the Jews was not then ongoing, but rather was planned for the future, this would have to have read:

„Die zu evakuierenden Juden […]“ („The Jews to be evacuated […]“).

Further:

„Bezüglich der Behandlung der Endlösung“ („Regarding the handling of the final solution“)

How does one handle a solution? (Walendy[8])

„Wurden die jüdischen Finanzinstitutionen des Auslands […] verhalten […]“

Does the author mean „angehalten“?[T1]

„Italien einschließlich Sardinien“ („Italy incl. Sardinia“)

Why the need to specify? In Europe people knew very well what all was part of Italy.

„Die berufsständische Aufgliederung der […] Juden: […] städtische Arbeiter 14,8%“ („The breakdown of Jews […] according to trades […]: […] communal workers 14.8%“ [i.e. „municipal“ workers; – trans.]

Were all of these people common laborers? (Ney[10]) „Salaried employees“ is probably what the author meant here. „[…] als Staatsarbeiter angestellt“ (the Nuremberg Translation renders this as „employed by the state“, which glosses over the difference between „Arbeiter“, i.e. blue – collar workers, and „angestellt“, i.e. the condition of employment enjoyed by salaried and public employees; – trans.): so what were they, laborers or government employees? Did the author mean civil servants? (Ney, ibid.)

„In den privaten Berufen – Heilkunde, Presse, Theater, usw.“ („in private occupations such as medical profession, newspapers, theater, etc.“).

In German these are called „freie Berufe“, not „private Berufe“. Such persons are known as doctors, journalists, and artists. „usw.“ is never preceded by a comma in German, whereas the English „etc.“ almost always is.

„Die sich im Altreich befindlichen […]“

Well, German is a difficult language. (Ney, ibid.)

3.2.3. Contradictory Content

„[…] werden die […] Juden straßenbauend in diese Gebiete geführt“: literally, „the Jews will be taken to these districts, constructing roads as they go“.

Migratory road crews?! Not a single road was constructed in this fashion! (Wahls[7] and Walendy[8])[T2]

„Im Zuge dieser Endlösung […] kommen rund 11 Millionen Juden in Betracht.“ („Approx. 11,000,000 Jews will be involved in this final solution […].“

Even the orthodox prevailing opinion holds that there were never more than 7 million Jews in Hitler’s sphere of influence. In actual fact there were only about 2.5 million. (Wahls[7] and Walendy[8])[19]

„[…] teilte [Heydrich] eingangs seine Bestellung zum Beauftragten für die Vorbereitung der Endlösung […] durch den Reichsmarschall mit“ („Heydrich gave information that the Reich Marshal had appointed him delegate for the preparations for the final solution […])

Göring did have the authority to appoint Heydrich to the position of his choice, but he would have done so via the proper channels. Heydrich’s superior was Himmler, and it would have taken Himmler’s orders to appoint („ernennen“, not „bestellen“, which means „to summon“) Heydrich to anything. (Ney[10])

„Mit der Endlösung im Generalgouvernement zu beginnen, weil hier das Transportproblem keine übergeordnete Rolle spielt […] Juden müßten so schnell wie möglich aus dem Gebiet des Generalgouvernements entfernt werden“ („[…] the implementation of the final solution […] could start in the Government General, because the transportation problem there was of no predominant importance. […] The Jews had to be removed as quickly as possible from the territory of the Government General […]“

„To be removed as quickly as possible“ and „constructing roads as they go“ is quite a contradiction. But none of those attending the conference spoke up. Clearly Germany could muster only mental defectives as her Under Secretaries of State! (Walendy[8])

„Von den in Frage kommenden 2

„[…] Dr. Bühler stellte weiterhin fest, daß die Lösung der Judenfrage im Generalgouvernement federführend beim Chef der Sicherheitspolizei und des SD liegt […]“ („[…] Bühler further stated that the solution of the Jewish question in the Government General as far as issuing of orders was concerned was dependent upon the chief of the Security Police and the SD […]“.

On the date of the conference at Wannsee Bühler could not have known this, for according to the ‘Protocol’ Heydrich had only just „announced his appointment as delegate“ and his overall authority for the preparations involved. Dr. Bühler certainly did not have the authority to simply declare his superior, Dr. Hans Frank, the Governor General of Poland, removed from office! (Walendy, ibid.)

„Der Beginn der einzelnen Evakuierungsaktionen wird weitgehend von der militärischen Entwicklung abhängig sein“ („The carrying out of each single evacuation project of a larger extent will start at a time to be determined chiefly by the military development“).

This statement is false, for the eastward evacuation transports of Jews from the Reich territory, including the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, had already been ongoing since October 1941 – as Heydrich’s first invitation to the Wannsee conference had explicitly stated, by the way. (Walendy, ibid.)

„Die berufsständische Aufgliederung der im europäischen Gebiet der UdSSR ansässigen Juden war etwa folgende […]“ („The breakdown of Jews residing in the European part of the USSR, according to trades, was approximately as follows […]“

This clearly gives away the forger, at work years after the conference; at the time of the Wannsee Conference one would not have written „was“, but „is“. (Tiedemann[11])

3.2.4. Internal Consistency

Why were only the „seconds – in – command“ invited to this conference if it was really so crucial, and why did not even these seconds – in – command bother to attend? Why, for example, would Dr. Hans Frank send, as his stand – in, Dr. Bühler, who lacked the authority to make any decisions since he was obliged to report anything of significance to his superior? (Tiedemann, ibid.)

Is it conceivable that subordinates decided on the genocide? (Tiedemann, ibid.)

Why was no one invited from offices whose cooperation would have been indispensable to the implementation of such an enormous murder scheme, such as the top management of the German Railway? (Tiedemann, ibid.)

3.3. The Accompanying Letter

3.3.1. Form

Like the Wannsee Conference Protocol, the accompanying letter reveals at first glance that it cannot be genuine: the letter is dated January 26, 1942, but the letterhead shows reference number 1456/41. Thus the letter was registered at the office of the Chief of the Security Police and the SD in 1941, before the protocol that it was to accompany (Weckert,[9] Ney,[10] Tiedemann[11]). There are 35 days between the date of the letter and the date of its arrival at the Foreign Office, given a delivery route within Berlin and a subject matter Heydrich has called urgent! (Weckert,[9] Ney,[10] Tiedemann[11]) Luther, however, added a handwritten comment (to be examined later) to this letter even before it was received by the correspondence department of the Foreign Office; this handwritten comment is dated with the month „II“, i.e. February (the day is illegible). (Weckert,[9] Ney[10]) Like the conference protocol itself, the letter bears a rubber stamp recording its receipt at the Foreign Office, with the reference number D.III29g.Rs, which, however the Foreign Office had already assigned to a different document it had received, namely to a report dated January 6, 1942, sent by the German envoy in Copenhagen. (Ney, ibid.)

The letter is missing the sender’s address, which is normally printed on the stationery. The new meeting place in the Kurfürstenstraße is incorrectly spelled with an „ss“ rather than an „ß“. The typed – in sender’s reference number, „IV B 4“, indicates Eichmann’s office, but Eichmann used stationery which had this identifier already printed on it. The letterhead is different from that of the two letters of invitation. The letter lacks a „re.:“ – line and a distributor. This „accompanying letter“ makes no mention of 30 copies of the protocol whose 16th copy it allegedly accompanies. The space to indicate enclosures – though provided for in the stamp of receipt – is empty, even though this letter was supposed to accompany an enclosure of momentous importance. (Ney, ibid.) Ripske has criticized that there were no „Undersecretaries of State“ („Unterstaatssekretär“) at the German Foreign Office; this rank had been done away with during the Weimar Republic, and was never reintroduced.[20]

3.3.2. Linguistic Content

The accompanying letter as well shows a pathetically un – German style: „practical execution of the final solution“ – is there any such thing as a theoretical execution? (Tiedemann(11)) And again we encounter this redundant sentence with its long – winded description of the tasks involved: „[…] the organizational, factual, and material prerequisites for the practical commencement of the tasks involved.“ What this calls for, then, is: the detailed discussion of the preparation of the submission of the prerequisites for the practical commencement of the tasks involved. (Ney[10]) No comment necessary.

3.3.3. Contradictory Content

The protocol is titled „Minutes of Discussion“, and if it were genuine, that would be precisely the right description. Today even the officially sanctioned historians concede that nothing at all was decided at the conference, in other words, that it was not as highly significant as is sometimes claimed.[21] The accompanying letter, however, now suddenly refers to „arrangements made“. It further claims that „the essentials have been decided on.“ But nothing could be decided there. (Tiedemann,[11] Walendy[8])

3.3.4. Internal Consistency

Even though Göring is said to have called for haste in July 1941 („soon“), his orders are carried out in rather lackadaisical fashion. But suddenly speed is of the essence: the next discussion is set for March 6. (Ney,(10) Tiedemann[11])

3.3.5. The Slip – up

Two versions of the accompanying letter are in circulation. The first was submitted by Kempner,[5] while the second is held at the Foreign Office in Bonn. In terms of content they are identical, but there is incontrovertible proof that both versions are fabrications:

Each of the two versions was typed on a different typewriter. The typists tried to make their keystrokes, line breaks and text format identical, and it is unknown who copied from whom in the process. But even this did not quite work: the „Heil Hitler“ is shifted by one space, the „Ihr“ preceding the signature by another. The signature itself – whether genuine (not likely) or done with a facsimile stamp – has slipped badly.

On closer examination one finds even more differences: the spacing between the two major paragraphs; the underlines, which are supposed to be identical but don’t quite manage to be so; the slightly different „6“ in the meeting date. The discrepancy between ‘SS’ in the one version and the runic ‘ ‘ in the other is already familiar to us from the protocol itself. Typing mistakes galore populate the second half of this line:

„ich am 6. März 1942, 10.30 Uhr , in Berlin,Kurfürsten – “.

The other version reads:

„ich am 6. März 1942, 10.30 Uhr. in Berlin, Kurfürsten – “.

Clearly: it was supposed to be identical, but the attempt failed somewhat.[T3]

To expose this fraud conclusively, one needs a ruler. This reveals: the rubber stamp on each version is perfectly identical, but in the ‘SS’ version it is stamped precisely parallel to the typed lines while in the version it droops down and to the left at about a 3 degree angle.

And the most conclusive proof: no one can write a multi – line text by hand twice in such a way that both versions are precisely and absolutely identical! But the handwritten comments added by Luther, running diagonally across the page in both versions, are identical. However, these handwritten comments are not in the exact same position on both versions, and are of different size. This proves irrefutably that both versions are fake. The forger had separate access to the three text elements – text, stamp, and handwriting. He compiled both versions, but unfortunately he could not make them exactly alike. It’s not difficult to guess why he might try this in the first place, though: the older version, submitted to the IMT by Kempner, has the Latin – font ‘SS’, while the version that surfaced at the Foreign Office later has the runic , which seems more genuine; the forger no doubt wished to correct his earlier carelessness, and in the process went a little overboard!

4. Connections

4.1. The Legal Situation

  1. The creation of fabricated documents is an indictable offense. For details see Section 7.
  2. Submission of an unsigned paper whose sender is not specified, which bears no date, etc., is of no substance. It is not a public document.
  3. Public discussion about the authenticity of a document is not an indictable offense. Under current German law, however, the qualification or trivialization of the murders of Jews by authorities of the Third Reich is a criminal offense. For this reason the possible or actual direct consequences of the Wannsee Conference will not be discussed here.
  4. In the Third Reich, just as in all other nations, all documents not intended for the public eye due to the War had to be kept secret. In the Third Reich the handling and processing of such documents, which were generally known as ‘classified documents’, were controlled by the ‘Classified Information Regulation’. Excerpts:[22]

„36. Classified documents are to be gathered by the departments or sections in complete files.

  1. At least once a year the collection of classified documents is to be examined by a third – party officer or official.
  2. Every document whose content renders it classified must be fully accounted for from its creation to its destruction.
  3. The number of copies supplied to the various departments or sections is to be kept to a minimum.“

4.2. Witness Testimony

In his analysis, Udo Walendy[8] cites many examples of witness statements made by participants in the Wannsee Conference, of which only a few examples shall be mentioned here. Dr. G. Klopfer, for example, testified with respect to this conference:

„Therefore no decisions could be reached at this session […]. After the session on March 3, 1942, I learned from a letter from the Chief of the Reich Chancellery that subsequent to a report by Dr. Lammers Hitler had deferred the ‘final solution of the Jewish question’ until after the War.“[23]

According to his testimony, Secretary of State Ernst von Weizsäcker of the Foreign Office never saw the conference protocol during his time in office, even though his office allegedly received one of the 30 copies (specifically, that 16th copy). He also made no mention of any such conference to the traitor Canaris, to whom he leaked, or claims he leaked, everything else of importance.[24]

Dr. H. – H. Lammers, Chief of the Reich Chancellery, testified:

„I announced the report [to Hitler] and got it after some time. I managed to learn [his] view of the matter. This time once again, the Führer would not enter into any discussion of the matter with me and cut short my intended, lengthy report with words to the effect of ‘I don’t want to hear any more reports about Jewish matters during the War. I have more important things on my hands right now, and others should, too.’ And then he said quite bluntly that he wished to finally see the end of all these Jewish issues. He added that he would decide after the War where to put the Jews.“[25]

Dr. Bühler, testifying before the IMT, said:

„I gained the definite conviction from this message [of Heydrich’s] that the resettlement of the Jews would proceed in a humane manner – if not for the sake of the Jews themselves, then for the sake of the reputation and the status of the German people.“[26]

4.3. The Fate of Participants in the Conference

Oddly enough, the Wannsee Conference was considered of no importance at all immediately after the War and at the ‘War Crimes Trials’. Even though charges of genocide would have been the logical consequence of the accepted reading of the protocol, none of the alleged or actual participants in the conference were convicted (not even on minor issues). See Walendy.[8]

Like all other persons in leading positions, G. Klopfer was under arrest from 1945 to 1949 and was charged with war crimes in Nuremberg. However, the Allies dropped their charges for lack of evidence (in 1949, in other words after Kempner’s discovery of the Wannsee Conference Protocol). After Klopfer’s release from custody, the Attorney General tried again to obtain an indictment in 1960; preliminary proceedings were abandoned on January 29, 1962 on the grounds that despite Klopfer’s participation in the conference there was no evidence on which to convict him of any indictable offense.[27] Klopfer was later able to resume his work as attorney.

  1. Leibbrand was also released from Allied custody in 1949 and passed away later without ever being bothered again.

In 1949, in the Wilhelmstraßen Trial, W. Stuckart was convicted for other alleged misdemeanors, and sentenced to 3 years and 10 months in prison. He died in a car accident in 1953, a free man.

Ernst von Weizsäcker was sentenced to 7 years in prison at the Wilhelmstraßen Trial, also for other reasons: not because of his participation in the Wannsee Conference, which was never proven anyhow, but for his role in the ‘deportations’. He was granted an early discharge and died shortly afterwards.

  1. Hoffmann’s participation in the conference was examined by the Court in the „Volkstum“ Trial of Military Court I, Case 8, but not mentioned in the verdict.

Neumann was classed as ‘less incriminated person’ by a German Denazification Court following his discharge from automatic arrest.

Even in the Jerusalem Trial of Adolf Eichmann, his participation in the conference was of not even the slightest importance. He was interrogated only for his alleged function as secretary i.e. author of the protocol, but his conviction was for other crimes.

None of the other alleged participants, whom we shall not mention individually here, were ever charged with or convicted for war crimes.

4.4. Public Impact

For a long time the Wannsee Conference was also of no significance where the public condemnation of the Wehrmacht, the Waffen – SS, the ‘Nazis’ and, ultimately, the entire German people was concerned. The ‘proof’ of German atrocities in the ‘50s were so – called lampshades from human skin, shrunken heads, gas chambers in Dachau, soap from dead Jews, the ‘Bitch of Buchenwald’ Ilse Koch, and Katyn. The Wannsee Conference Protocol lived on in Holocaust literature, not in public awareness. This only changed gradually, and eventually culminated in the endeavors of parties with vested interests to publicize the villa on the Große Wannsee and the conference that had been held there by means of the creation of a memorial site.

Meanwhile, judicial notice has all but been attained in German courts with respect to the Wannsee Conference Protocol. While it is not an indictable offense to ‘qualify’, to ‘trivialize’, to question or to dispute the authenticity of the conference or the protocol, it has by now become useless in court to cite the axiom that, to quote Emil Lachout, „for historians fabricated documents are proof that the opposite [in this case, no ‘Final Solution of the Jewish Question’ in the sense of deliberate mass extermination] of the forger’s claim is true“,[12] even if this theorem could be substantiated with reference to document science, whose principles are binding for historians.[28]

The constant repetition of the allegation that the Wannsee Conference represents the act of planning the genocide of the Jews, as the media have injected it into the conscious and (what is worse) the subconscious minds of mankind for many years now, has resulted in this allegation being considered to be gospel truth today.

In recent times, however, more and more persons who previously regarded the Wannsee Conference Protocol as one of, if not the most significant proof for the ‘Führer order for the destruction of the European Jews’ have been changing their minds. In early 1992, for example, the renowned Israeli Holocaust researcher Yehuda Bauer dismissed the significance of the Wannsee Conference, which hardly deserved the title ‘conference’. He said that the claim that the destruction of the Jews had been decided there was nothing more than a ‘silly story’, since ‘Wannsee’ was „but a stage in the unfolding of the process of mass murder“ (op. cit., Note [21]). Bauer’s remark corresponds with the interpretations advanced by several German historians who have since also dared to disassociate themselves from the established position regarding the Wannsee Conference. K. Pätzold reports (cf. Bauer, ibid.):

„The unbiased study of the conference protocol convinces one that those assembled there decided nothing that could be considered to be a theoretical or directive starting point for the crime. – Nevertheless, there now appears to be a growing realization that the decision to kill the European Jews […] was already made prior to the Wannsee Conference, and that the gruesome deed was already in progress before the SS Generals and the Secretaries – of – State gathered for their conference on January 20, 1942.“

In short, what both authors are saying is: the Wannsee Conference Protocol doesn’t prove anything, but that which it was supposed to prove is true anyway:

„Whether presented authentically or inauthentically [in other words: whether it is genuine or fabricated…], the Holocaust has become a ruling symbol of our [whose?] culture.“ (Bauer, ibid.)

And if there is no evidence for it, then it’s just simply true without evidence. Case closed.

5. Summary and Evaluation

5.1. Documentary Evidence for the Planned Genocide?

To substantiate the claim that millions of Jews were deliberately murdered in concentration camps during World War Two, on the orders of German authorities, two and only two contemporaneous papers have been presented: the ‘Franke – Gricksch Report’ and the ‘Wannsee Conference Protocol’. The Franke – Gricksch Report was recently exposed as fabrication by Canadian researcher B. A. Renk.[29] It is a particularly clumsy fabrication and is thus hardly ever cited any more today.

5.2. The Wannsee Conference

That a conference between high officials and Party leaders took place in January 1942 in the villa ‘Am Großen Wannsee’ is probably true, although the precise date is unknown. No other documentation of this conference exists other than the ‘protocol’ and its accompanying letter(s). There is no entry in a guest book, an appointment calendar, or any other kind of incidental evidence.

The invitations specify thirteen invitees. According to the ‘protocol’, however, eighteen persons showed up. Whether the discussion pertained to the Jewish question is not certain, but it is likely. What actually was discussed there is unknown.

5.3. The Protocol

No legally valid transcript or protocol of the discussion exists. The ‘Minutes of Discussion’ of unknown origin, first submitted in 1947 by Kempner, deposited in the Foreign Office and copied repeatedly, is a fabrication in the sense that the text of this paper was concocted years after the alleged discussion, by a person not involved in the conference, and this assessment is supported not only by the as yet unrefuted analysis by the five authors quoted herein, but also by the opinion of many earlier and more recent researchers.

– In English: Fabrication;

– German: Fälschung;

– French: Falsification;

– Spanish: Falsificacion.

5.4. Allegations

The crucial points which the media, leading politicians of all political parties in Bonn, and Holocaust experts allege time and again as being at the heart of the discussion in the Wannsee villa are not even present in this fabricated protocol. Specifically, the commonly – held opinions about the protocol, and the most common allegations, are:

  1. Hitler had participated in the discussion, according to Simon Wiesenthal.[30] There is no evidence to indicate this.
  2. Ernst von Weizsäcker had counter – signed the protocol. This is Reitlinger’s claim.[31] No such version has ever turned up.
  3. Eichmann had taken the minutes, i.e. had written or at least dictated them. This is according to Kempner.[32] There is no evidence for this.
  4. In thousands of newspaper articles, books, textbooks, radio broadcasts, memorial speeches and television shows, the claim has been advanced that the mass murder of the Jews was decided on at the Wannsee Conference, or at the least, that the plan to carry out Adolf Hitler’s order in this respect had been worked out there. As well, it is claimed, the means of killing had been discussed and the establishment of extermination camps was decided on. This is not in the protocol, and leading Holocaust historians are now repudiating it (cf. Jäckel (21)), even if Eichmann did give testimony to this effect in the course of his show trial in Jerusalem.[33]
  5. On the occasion of the 1987 anniversary, Federal Chancellor Helmut Kohl said that this conference had been „an extermination of the Jews in the German sphere of influence, launched with bureaucratic perfection.“ A glance at the text of the ‘protocol’ would have shown Kohl that what we have here is not bureaucratic perfection, it is amateurish blabber at best.

For the actual text of the ‘protocol’, the reader is referred to the Appendix.

6. The Wannsee Memorial Site

On the fiftieth anniversary of the „Wannsee Conference“, on January 20, 1992, the Memorial Site „Haus der Wannsee – Konferenz“ [„House of the Wannsee Conference“] was inaugurated in Berlin/Großer Wannsee 56/58, as „the place of the perpetrators“. On this occasion Federal Chancellor Kohl called for the remembrance of the „countless victims of National – Socialist race mania“. Rita Süßmuth, President of the Bundestag, gave the commemorative speech. Among those present were the Mayor of Berlin, Eberhard Diepgen, and the Chairman of the Central Council of Jews in Germany, H. Galinski. In 1990, „Erinnern für die Zukunft“ [„Remembering for the Future“] was founded as society sponsoring the Memorial Site; the society’s staff are paid out of tax funds.[34] The founding members of this society are: the Association, the Land [province] of Berlin, the Central Council of Jews in Germany, the Jewish Community of Berlin, the Diocese of Berlin, the Protestant Church of Berlin – Brandenburg, the German Historical Museum, and the Association of Persons Persecuted by the Nazi Regime.

In August 1992 the Society „Remembering for the Future“, the Diocese of Berlin, and the Protestant Church of Berlin – Brandenburg requested and were sent the report published in the Huttenbrief. (cf. Ney[10])

First, the Chair of the German Episcopal Conference responded on behalf of the Diocese of Berlin:

„The events of the Wannsee Conference have been exhaustively investigated. We do not intend to devote further study to your theory of the fabrication of the documents in question.“[35]

Second, the Berlin Diocese itself replied:

„In my opinion there is not the slightest doubt about the authenticity of the original protocol of the Wannsee Conference that is held by the Foreign Office in Bonn […]. I am not in the position to adequately assess matters of detail, […] as I do not have access to the documents you refer to. [signed] Knauft, Counsel, Bishop’s Palace.“[36]

The Protestant Church of Berlin – Brandenburg did not respond.

Dr. Klausa, who is also the Head of the Department „Memorial Sites for Victims of National – Socialism“ of the Senate of Berlin, responded via telephone:

„Our experts do not consider this report interesting enough to examine it. Objections to the authenticity of this protocol have been refuted. This sort of thing keeps being brought up by the lunatic fringe of the radical right.“

It is strange enough that one would presume to pass judgement on the quality of an expert report before ever having bothered to look at it. Further, it is an untruth, plain and simple, to claim that such objects have already been refuted. A free discussion between the advocates of the standard view of the Holocaust (most of them civil servants) and the subject experts summarized in this chapter has not taken place to this day: U. Walendy received no factual reply; J. P. Ney is still waiting for a relevant response; H. Tiedemann was not favored with any reply; neither was I. Weckert; and H. Wahls is also still waiting for a statement.

In the villa Am Großen Wannsee 56/58, however, it is business as usual. Entire school classes are being led through the rooms, which have been remodeled into a museum, and are told the tales of Hitler’s order, of the plan for mass murder in extermination camps, and of the refreshments served after the conference to the participants. Foreign groups are also routinely shown through the Museum. At the commemorations held at all the various sites of German collective guilt, untrue allegations continue to be happily spouted to all the world, yet could not be supported with details from the protocol even if it were genuine. This is how freedom of thought is valued today in the land of Schiller and Friedrich the Great!

7. Falsification of Documents and Misdocumentation

According to the Brockhaus Encyclopedia,[1] the falsification of documents includes the creation of a fabricated document (eg. a document indicating an incorrect issuer), the falsification of an authentic document, as well as the use of a forged or falsified document when doing so is intended to facilitate deception under the law (§267 StGB [German Criminal Code]).

Anyone who causes legally significant statements, agreements or facts to be documented in public books or registers as having been given or as having taken place, without these actually having been given, or having taken place at all or in the manner or by the person specified, commits the crime of indirect misdocumentation (§271 StGB). The falsification of documents carries a penalty of up to five years’ imprisonment, or monetary fine; indirect misdocumentation is subject to up to one year’s imprisonment, or monetary fine, and up to five years’ imprisonment where the offense was committed for personal gain or with the intent to cause injury to others (§272 StGB).

Misdocumentation by holders of public office carries a penalty of up to five years’ imprisonment, or monetary fine (§348 StGB). Further, the Criminal Code provides for terms of imprisonment and for monetary fines for the use of false documentation i.e. misdocumentation of the kind described under §271 StGB (§273 StGB), and for the destruction or suppression of official documents (§274 StGB)…


[1] Der Große Brockhaus, Wiesbaden: F. A. Brockhaus, 1979.

[2] To name just a few examples: the Hitler diaries (Die Hitler – Tagebücher and Rauschnings Gespräche mit Hitler – both: K. Corino, ed.; Gefälscht!, Reinbek: Rowohlt, 1992; cf. also E. Jäckel, A. Kuhn, H. Weiß, Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte 32 [1984]: 163 – 169), Katyn (F. Kadell, Die Katyn – Lüge, Munich: Herbig, 1991), SS identification card for Demjanjuk (D. Lehner, Du sollst nicht falsch Zeugnis geben, Berg: Vowinckel, n.d.).

[3] According to Sozialdemokratischer Pressedienst of Jan. 21, 1992, p. 6.

[4] R. Derfrank, Ihr Name steht im Protokoll, WDR broadcast manuscript, January 1992.

[5] R. M. W. Kempner, Eichmann und Komplizen, Zurich: Europa – Verlag, 1961.

[6] Akten zur deutschen Auswärtigen Politik 1918 – 1945, Serie E: 1941 – 1945, v. I, Dec. 12, 1941 to Feb. 28, 1942 (1969): 267 – 275.

[7] Hans Wahls, Zur Authentizität des ‘Wannsee – Protokolls’, Ingolstadt: Zeitgeschichtliche Forschungsstelle, 1987.

[8] Udo Walendy, „Die Wannsee – Konferenz vom 20.1.1942“, in Historische Tatsachen no. 35, Vlotho: Verlag für Volkstum und Zeitgeschichtsforschung, 1988.

[9] Ingrid Weckert, „Anmerkungen zum Wannseeprotokoll“, in Deutschland in Geschichte und Gegenwart 40(1) (1992): 32 – 34.

[10] Johannes Peter Ney, „Das Wannsee – Protokoll“, in Huttenbrief, special issue, June 1992.

[11] H. Tiedemann, „Offener Brief an Rita Süßmuth“, Moosburg, March 1, 1992; pub. in Deutschland in Geschichte und Gegenwart 40(2) (1992): 11 – 18.

[12] E. Lachout, Gutachten – Begleitschreiben vom 26.(1.)(2.)1942 zum Wannseeprotokoll vom 20.1.1942, Vienna, Aug. 6, 1991; W. Stäglich, Der Auschwitz – Mythos, Tübingen: Grabert, 1979; Bund der Verfolgten des Naziregimes (BVN), Das Wannsee – Protokoll zur Endlösung der Judenfrage und einige Fragen an die, die es angeht, Bundesvorstand des BVN, 1952; R. Aschenauer (ed.), Ich, Adolf Eichmann, Leoni: Druffel, 1980, pp. 478ff.; H. Arendt, Eichmann in Jerusalem, Leipzig: Reclam, 1990; J. G. Burg, Zionnazi Zensur in der BRD, Munich: Ederer, 1980; G. Fleming, Hitler und die Endlösung, Wiesbaden: Limes, 1982; W. Grabert (ed.), Geschichtsbetrachtung als Wagnis, Tübingen: Grabert, 1984; L. Poliakov, J. Wulf, Das Dritte Reich und die Juden, Berlin: Arani, 1955; P. Rassinier, Debunking the Genocide Myth, Torrance: Institute for Historical Review, 1978; G. Reitlinger, Die Endlösung, Berlin: Colloquium Verlag, 1989; R. Bohlinger, J. P. Ney, Zur Frage der Echtheit des Wannsee – Protokolls, Viöl: Verlag für ganzheitliche Forschung und Kultur, 1992, 1994; W. Scheffler, „Zur Entstehungsgeschichte der ‘Endlösung’“, in Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte 3(43) (1982): 3 – 10.

[13] Politisches Archiv des Auswärtigen Amtes, Inland IIg, v. 117, copy; cf. P. Longerich, Die Ermordung der europäischen Juden, Munich: Piper, 1990, p. 78.

[14] During the International Military Tribunal proceedings the date was arbitrarily set as July 31, cf. Der Prozeß gegen die Hauptkriegsverbrecher vor dem Internationalen Militärgerichtshof Nürnberg 14. November 1945 – 1. Oktober 1946 (IMT), Nuremberg, 1947, photomechanical reprint: Munich: Delphin, 1984; v. IX pp. 518ff., v. XXVI pp. 266f.

[15] cf. Göring’s letter to Heydrich, Jan. 24, 1939, in: U. Walendy, op. cit. (Note 8), p. 21.

[16] J. P. Ney, op. cit. (Note 10), based on the white – on – black copy in the Wannsee Museum. P. Longerich, op. cit. (Note 13), and W. Stäglich, op. cit. (Note 12), mistakenly write „möglichst günstigen Lösung“.

[17] Politisches Archiv des Auswärtigen Amtes, K 2104 – 19, – 20.

[18] ibid., K 2104 – 15.

[T0] Except where otherwise specified, the translations of phrases from the Protocol are taken from the official Nuremberg translation of this document. – trans.

[T1] The Nuremberg Translation contains a reasonably corrected version: „The Jewish financial establishments in foreign countries were […] made responsible […]“; „were urged“ might have been more accurate. In any case, „verhalten“ makes no sense. – trans.

[T2] Note that, strictly speaking, the Nuremberg Translation is incorrect at this point, giving a „corrected“ version instead of an accurate translation of the absurd original; – trans.

[19] cf. G. Rudolf’s chapter, this volume. The Basler Nachrichten of June 13, 1946 mentioned approximately 3 million Jews in Hitler’s sphere of influence.

[20] pers. comm., W. Ripske, former Reich official holding various Reich government offices.

[21] Y. Bauer, The Canadian Jewish News, Jan. 30, 1992, p. 8; K. Pätzold, „Die vorbereitenden Arbeiten sind eingeleitet“, in Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte 42(1 – 2) (1992); cf. E. Jäckel, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, June 22, 1992, p. 34.

[T3] The first line of the body of the text is also shifted by one letter. – trans.

[22] Wehrmacht – Dienstvorschriften, Verschlußsachenvorschriften HDv 99, MDv 9, LDv 99, revision of Aug. 1, 1943.

[23] Affidavit of Dr. G. Klopfer, IMT Doc. 656, Doc. – v. VI, Case 8; quoted from U. Walendy, op. cit. (Note 8), p. 27.

[24] Weizsäcker Exh. 273; Doc. v. 5, summation, H. Becker, Case 11. Re. Canaris, cf. his wife’s sworn statement, quoted from U. Walendy, op. cit. (Note 8), pp. 28f.

[25] Case 11 of the war crimes trials, protocol, H. Lammers, pp. 21470 – 73; quoted from U. Walendy, op. cit. (Note 8), pp. 29f.

[26] Testimony of Dr. Bühler, April 23, 1946, IMT v. XII p. 69, quoted from U. Walendy, op. cit. (Note 8), p. 21.

[27] Prosecuting Attorney, District Court Nuremberg, Ref. 4 Js 15929/60.

[28] re. document science cf. K. Fuchs, H. Raab, Wörterbuch zur Geschichte, v. 2, Munich: dtv, 1993.

[29] B. A. Renk, „The Franke – Gricksch ‘Resettlement – Action Report’. Anatomy of a Falsification“, in Journal of Historical Review 11(3) (1991): 261 – 279.

[30] S. Wiesenthal, Doch die Mörder leben noch, Munich: Droemer Knaur, 1967, p. 40.

[31] G. Reitlinger, Die Endlösung, Berlin: Colloquium Verlag, 1953, p. 106.

[32] cf. W. Derfrank, op. cit. (Note 4), p. 1, as well as R. M. W. Kempner, op. cit. (Note 5).

[33] cf. P. Longerich, Die Ermordung der europäischen Juden, Munich: Piper, 1990, pp. 92ff.

[34] Director: Dr. Klausa; Managers of the Memorial Site: Dr. Schönberner and Dr. Tuchel.

[35] Letter of the Secretary of the German Episcopal Conference to the author, Bonn, June 2, 1992, Ref. IL/le, sgd. Dr. Ilgner.

[36] Letter of the Berlin Diocese, Bishop’s Palace, Broadcast Section, to the author, Oct. 14, 1992, Ref. Kn/De, sgd. Wolfgang Knauft, Counsel, Bishop’s Palace.