Der Stürmer

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

Category: Revisionism

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.

Advertisements

We Are National Socialists, not ‘Nazis’

Source: https://neworderorg.wordpress.com/2017/09/08/we-are-national-socialists-not-nazis/

There’s a big difference

THIS IS NATIONAL SOCIALISM — On a 1936 inter-Aryan friendship visit to England, Scotland and Wales, clean-cut, squared-away members of the Hitler Youth demonstrate the spirit of a regenerate new age to their British Scout counterparts during a brisk morning march

In the ideological discourse of our time, no term is more emotionally charged than the epithet “Nazi.” Is it an accurate descriptive label for the National Socialist philosophy and those who embrace it, or does it carry connotations that suggest something else—something quite different, in fact? In the following editorial, which appeared in the November 1980 issue of White Power, NEW ORDER Commander Matt Koehl discusses this question, as he sets the record straight

IS A “NAZI” the same as a National Socialist?

The news media, our opponents and an uninformed public would all say so. But are they correct?

This is more than a mere academic question. On the proper answer hinge certain significant implications for us as National Socialists.

It is true, of course, that in its early phase our Movement was referred to as the “American Nazi Party.” This designation was consciously and deliberately exploited for its publicity value.

Some have questioned the feasibility of this approach, arguing that it would have been better if the term National Socialist had been employed exclusively and consistently from the very beginning. Whether or not this argument is correct is rather moot at this point. Whatever utility the name “Nazi” may or may not have had in the past, the important point is that for our present and future work as National Socialists it is useless.

A device coined by the enemy

It is a fact that the label “Nazi” was originally used by a hostile press during the Weimar period [in Germany] as a term of contempt and derision against Adolf Hitler and his Movement. Nowhere did the Leader himself use this designation, either in his speeches or in Mein Kampf.

Not only is the expression a distortion of our true name, but it connotes a certain lack of substance and seriousness, which in turn makes it difficult for anyone to take our message seriously. Indeed, if the public is to gain a credible perception of us, then we must present ourselves honestly and forthrightly as exactly what we are—National Socialists—and not as some sort of political caricature. Otherwise we can expect to have as much credibility as dedicated Marxist-Leninist revolutionaries would if they were to go around referring to themselves as “Commies.”

There is perhaps a more important reason, however, why we National Socialists must reject the term “Nazi.” If this label was originally used to belittle the National Socialist cause, subsequent wartime propaganda introduced sinister new connotations. Conjured up was the monstrous image of hate and evil, an image which every decent person must find repulsive.

Good people repulsed

But if the “Nazi” image has repelled good people, too often it has had another unfortunate effect: it has attracted the very ones who fit the “Nazi” stereotype—the unstable, the unsavory, the mentally sick and spiritually defective—marginal typeswho may make good Hollywood props, but who have absolutely no place in a true National Socialist movement.

Therefore, we can only conclude that at best, continued use of the term “Nazi” is self-defeating. At worst, it is nothing but an opportunistic gimmick by misfits and mini-fuehrers craving lots of personal attention—little boys who don’t have the slightest idea what real National Socialism is all about.

We, of course, have no control over what our enemies may decide to call us. But what we choose to call ourselves is quite another matter.

The truth is that we don’t need any nicknames. We are National Socialists, not “Nazis.” There’s a BIG difference!

THIS IS A “NAZI” — This lovely specimen of the “master race” is, in fact, a disgrace to the race. In an act of ultimate desecration, this particular character chose Hitler’s birthday on April 20 to get married—to someone who is half-Hawaiian and half-Mestizo! In NS Germany defective types such as this would have been taken out of society before they even got so much as a single tattoo!

The Myth of Culpability

The 2nd World War?

The Sequence of Aggression

By Michael Walsh

Source: http://germancross.com/Germany/The Myth of Culpability.html

One of the great mysteries of life is that despite the evidence to the contrary millions of otherwise intelligent people still believe that Germany was the all powerful aggressor during the 2nd World War. Nothing better than these myths illustrate the mind-bending power of propaganda. The provable facts suggest that Germany was the victim and not the perpetrator of naked neighboring aggression. The subsequent allied military triumph was followed by the triumph of the propagandists whose pressing need was to depict the victor nations as being the victim.

THE BRITISH EMPIRE:

“Germany is too strong. We must destroy her.” – Winston Churchill, Nov. 1936.

“In no country has the historical blackout been more intense and effective than in Great Britain. Here it has been ingeniously christened The Iron Curtain of Discreet Silence. Virtually nothing has been written to reveal the truth about British responsibility for the Second World War and its disastrous results.” – Harry Elmer Barnes. – American Historian.

“The war was not just a matter of the elimination of Fascism in Germany, but rather of obtaining German sales markets.” – Winston Churchill. March, 1946.
“Britain was taking advantage of the situation to go to war against Germany because the Reich had become too strong and had upset the European balance.” – Ralph F. Keeling, Institute of American Economics.

“I emphasized that the defeat of Germany and Japan and their elimination from world trade would give Britain a tremendous opportunity to swell her foreign commerce in both volume and profit.” – Samuel Untermeyer, The Public Years, p.347.

On September 2nd 1939 a delegate of the Labour Party met with the British Foreign Minister Halifax in the lobby of Parliament. ‘Do you still have hope?’ he asked. ‘If you mean hope for war,’ answered Halifax, ‘then your hope will be fulfilled tomorrow. ‘God be thanked!’ replied the representative of the British Labour Party. – Professor Michael Freund.

“In Britain, Lord Halifax was reported as being ‘redeemed’. He ordered beer. We laughed and joked.” – H. Roth. Are We Being Lied To?

“In April, 1939, (four months before the outbreak of war) Ambassador William C. Bullitt, whom I had known for twenty years, called me to the American Embassy in Paris. The American Ambassador told me that war had been decided upon. He did not say, nor did I ask, by whom. He let me infer it. … When I said that in the end Germany would be driven into the arms of Soviet Russia and Bolshevism, the Ambassador replied: “‘what of it? There will not be enough Germans left when the war is over to be worth bolshevising.” – – Karl von Wiegand, April, 23rd, 1944, Chicago Herald American.

“I felt sorry for the German people. We were planning – and we had the force to carry out our plans – to obliterate a once mighty nation.” – Admiral Daniel Leahy; U.S Ambassador.

MYTH 1. THE GERMAN NATION IS AN AGGRESSIVE NATION

The facts prove otherwise. A Study of War by Prof. Quincy Wright, shows that in the period from 1480 to 1940 there were 278 wars involving European countries whose percentage participation was as follows:


ENGLAND
28%
FRANCE 26%
SPAIN 23%
RUSSIA 22%
AUSTRIA 19%
TURKEY 15%
POLAND 11%
SWEDEN 9%
ITALY 9%
NETHERLANDS 8%
GERMANY (INCLUDING PRUSSIA) 8%
DENMARK 7%

Likewise, Pitirim Sorokin, Vol.111, Part.11, Social and Cultural Dynamics, shows that from the 12th Century to 1925 the percentage of years in which leading European powers have been at war is as follows. (p.352).

COUNTRY PERCENTAGE OF YEARS AT WAR

SPAIN 67%
POLAND 58%
ENGLAND 56%
FRANCE 50%
RUSSIA 46%
HOLLAND 44%
ITALY 36%
GERMANY 28%

Sorokin concludes therefore, “that Germany has had the smallest and Spain the largest percent of years at war.” Of leading modern European states, England, France and Russia show clearly twice the aggressive tendencies of Germany.
From the years 1815 to 1907 the record stands as follows:

BRITAIN 10 wars
RUSSIA 7 wars
FRANCE 5 wars
AUSTRIA 3 wars
PRUSSIA-GERMANY 3 wars

GERMANY DID NOT WANT WAR

“I believe now that Hitler and the German people did not want war. But we declared war on Germany, intent on destroying it, in accordance with our principle of balance of power, and we were encouraged by the ‘Americans’ around Roosevelt. We ignored Hitler’s pleadings not to enter into war. Now we are forced to realize that Hitler was right.” – Attorney General, Sir. Hartley Shawcross, March,16th, 1984.

“The last thing Hitler wanted was to produce another great war.” – Sir. Basil Liddell Hart.

“I see no reason why this war must go on. I am grieved to think of the sacrifices which it will claim. I would like to avert them.” – Adolf Hitler, July, 1940.
Winston Churchill agrees: “We entered the war of our own free will, without ourselves being directly assaulted.” – Guild Hall Speech, July 1943.

MYTH.2 THE GERMAN ARMED FORCES

OUTNUMBERED THEIR NEIGHBOURS

POLAND
30 Active Divisions
10 Reserve Divisions
12 Large Cavalry Brigades
Poland had nearly 2,500,000 trained men available for mobilisations.

FRANCE
110 Divisions
65 were active divisions

Including 5 cavalry divisions, two mechanised divisions, one armoured division, the rest being infantry. On the German borders stood the French command stood 85 Divisions and could mobilise 5,000,000-armed troops. These were supported backed by five British divisions.

BRITAIN

Britain’s relatively small but high quality Regular Army was supported by the Territorial Army consisting of 26 Divisions with plans well in hand to boost this to 55 divisions. This of course was in turn supported by the then world’s largest conscription army holding an empire ‘upon which the sun never set.’
The British Empire consisted also of the former German ‘empire’ of New Guinea, Nauru, Western Samoa, South West Africa, Quattar, Palestine, Transjordan, Tanganyika, Iraq, Togoland and the Cameroons. These territories stolen from Germany added another 1,061,755 square miles to the British Empire, the equivalent of 35 Scotlands

GERMANY

Against these formidable forces Germany was able to mobilise just ninety-eight divisions of which only fifty-two were active (including Austrian divisions). Of the remaining 46 divisions only 10 were fit for action on mobilisation and even in these the bulk of them were raw recruits who had been serving for less than one month.
The other 36 divisions consisted mainly of Great War veterans over the age of forty who were unfamiliar with modern weapons and up to date military techniques.

THE BALANCE SHEET

On the balance sheets it can be seen that the Poles and French alone, not counting Britain and its Empire, had the equivalent of 130 divisions against a total of 98 German divisions of with 1/3rd were virtually untrained men.
In terms of trained soldiers the Germans were at an even bigger disadvantage. (Note at the outbreak of war over 50% of the German armed forces was horse drawn).

WAR IN THE AIR

“The superiority of the Luftwaffe has been greatly exaggerated to create the impression that Britain was the underdog; a David fighting Goliath. In the run up to the Battle of Britain (August 10th 194) the Luftwaffe had 929 fighters available; mostly single-engine Messerschmitt 109s. Of these 227 were twin-engine long-range Me110s which had a top speed of 350mph. Although it had a faster rate of climb it was inferior when turning or manoeuvring.

The ME109’s range restricted its field of operation. Their real fields of operation – out and back – was a little over 100 miles, a flight time of barely 95 minutes and a tactical flight time of just 75 minutes. This was a sever handicap when it is considered that whereas the Luftwaffe pilots were operating scores of miles from their base, British pilots were often within sight of their own. This handicap was made more critical by the fact that downed RAF pilots could be rescued whilst Luftwaffe pilots were of course – if they were lucky – imprisoned.
The twin-engine ME110 was a slow flyer able to cruise at a little less than 300mph and was easily outpaced by the RAF’s Spitfires. It was also ‘sluggish in acceleration and difficult to manoeuvre.’

The greatest handicap for the Germans however was there primitive radio equipment. Unlike the British versions it was poor in air-to-air operation and could not be controlled by the ground.

On the British side a total surpassing 650 fighter aircraft had been amassed by mid-July, mostly Hurricanes and Spitfires although including nearly 100 of the older types. During that whole year Britain produced 4,238 fighters compared with a derisory 3,000 manufactured by Germany.

In terms of armaments the noted British military historian, B.H Liddell Hart noted: “What is quite clear, and became evident at the start, was that the German bombers were too poorly armed to be able to beat off the British fighters without a fighter escort of their own.” – History of the Second World War.

GERMANY AND OTHER FREE COUNTRIES ATTACKED

Poland carried out the first acts of aggression. In March 1939 Poland, already occupying German territory ‘acquired’ in 1919 invaded Czechoslovakia. During the months running up to the outbreak of war Polish armed forces repeatedly violated German borders. On August 31st 1939 Polish irregular armed forces launched a full scale attack on the German border town of Gleiwitz.

Within hours Germany retaliated resulting in Britain and France’s declarations of war on the German nation on 3rd Sept 1939. In Britain’s case this declaration of war was constitutionally illegal. It was not as it should have been ratified by parliament.

Despite her borders being constantly attacked by the numerically superior armies of France and England, and economically strangled by world finance, Germany refused to be drawn, negotiated for peace and turned the other cheek for ten months.

Only when it accurately learned that England intended to broaden the western front by occupying the Low Countries and Norway, thus surrounding and threatening Germany’s entire borders, did Germany carry out a pre-emptive strike.
Germany’s defensive counter attack was launched on 10th May 1940. This resulted in the rout of 330,000 British and French troops by a significantly smaller army. It was one of the worst debacles in military history. (The British press called it ‘a miracle).
Russia invaded Finland on Nov 30th 1939. Britain (not for the first time) and France invaded Norway’s neutrality on 8th April 1940. To avoid attack via the Baltic Sea Germany counter-attacked. In the small battles that followed (Trondheim) 2,000 German troops routed 13,000 British troops. They were evacuated on 1st May. To save face Churchill disembarked 20,000 British troops at Narvik. They were driven out by 2,000 Austrian Alpine troops.

Canada declared war on Germany on 10th Sept. 1939. In June 1940, Soviet Russia invaded Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania and Rumania. In May 1940, Britain occupied defenseless Iceland. All of these acts of aggression in gross violation of international law and previously signed treaties.

On May 10th 1940, in brazen defiance of international law Britain occupied Iceland. Icelanders regarded the British armed forces as an occupying force. On 27th March 1941 a British backed coup overthrew the Yugoslav government. On 7th March 1941 British troops enter Greece. On 6th April 1941 Germany retaliated and Britain retreated again. In June 1940 Britain prepares to invade neutral Portugal. The United States, supposedly neutral, consistently attacks German shipping and arrests or otherwise kidnaps German citizens, even those living in South American countries. In August 1941. Germany retaliated.

In 1940 alone Britain, supposedly standing alone and at bay, added 1.6 MILLION SQUARE MILES TO ITS WORLD EMPIRE occupying Italian and French colonies; Syria, Iraq and Persia. Britain’s foremost military historian, A.J.P. Taylor conceded: “There can be no doubt that he (Hitler) broadened the war in 1941 only on preventive grounds.”

Footnote on casualties: In terms of military casualties the United Kingdom came in at number seven. Russia came first at 14,6 million, Germany 5,53, China 4,7, Japan 2,12, Romania 450,000, United States 427,000, UK 383,000, Italy 311,000, Hungary 300,000, France 217,000, Poland 240,000, Finland 82,000, India 48,700, Canada 42,700, Australia 37,600, Greece 35,100, Bulgaria 22,000, Netherlands 17,000, Belgium 12,100, New Zealand 12,150 (another country threatened by Germany no doubt!), South Africa 11,900, Czechoslovakia 7,961, Norway 3,000, Denmark 1,800, Brazil 943.

A FINAL EPITAPH FROM ONE OF ENGLAND’S FINEST POETS:

A curse for England, false and base,
Where nothing can prosper but disgrace,
Where crushed is each flower’s tender form,
And decay and corruption feed the worm ….

… Sounds familiar?

The Strange Life of Ilya Ehrenburg

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

by Mark Weber

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Canadian Jewish News further writes:

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

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

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


Notes

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

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

Poland Mass Graves in Malbork

By Darius Cierpialkowski
Published: 2018-08-08

Source: https://codoh.com/library/document/5927/?lang=en

64 years after the end of World War Two, construction workers have unearthed a mass grave with the bones of 2,000 people near Marienburg Castle in Malbork,Poland, the former Marienburg. The evidence suggests the bodies are mostly of German civilians — men, women and children — killed in early 1945 towards the end of the war.

When Truth Fears Investigation: On August 5th We Honor the Life of Ernst Zündel

Source: http://www.renegadetribune.com/when-truth-fears-investigation-on-august-5th-we-honor-the-life-of-ernst-zundel/

By John Wear

August 5, 2018 marks the one-year anniversary of Ernst Zündel’s passing. He was essentially kidnapped from the U.S. and forced to remain in Germany. His wife, Ingrid Rimland, was unable to leave the U.S. to be with him. She risked jail time in Germany despite having no previous criminal convictions.

His crime? Ernst Zündel was deemed a “security threat.” Not because he was ever violent or ever incited violence, but because he created a legal precedent in which:

For the first time ever, “Holocaust” survivors and “Holocaust” historians were closely and critically questioned under oath about their claims and views.

Few Canadians realize that Zündel did them “a favor by wiping off the books [the] disgraceful False News laws” strangling free-speech.

What They Do Not Tell You About the Life and Work of Ernst Zündel

An adapted extract from Revisionists. com.

Ernst Zündel (1939-2017) was a German-born publisher, author and civil rights activist, who emigrated to Canada at the age of 19. He became a successful graphic artist, with his work appearing, for example, on the front cover of Canada’s national news magazine, Maclean’s. Setting aside his thriving career, he dedicated himself to the great task, as he saw it, of redeeming the sullied reputation of his fellow Germans.

For seven years he was held behind bars, first in Canada and then in Germany, solely for the peaceful expression of non-conformist views. For some time he was the most prominent political prisoner in the western world.

Zündel was an outgoing, good-humored man who was blessed with a rare combination of unflagging optimism and practical ability. He was perhaps best known as the defiant defendant in the much-publicized “Holocaust Trials” of 1985 and 1988. He was brought to court in Toronto on a charge of “publishing false news,” and specifically for publishing a reprint edition of a booklet entitled Did Six Million Really Die?

Zündel’s two lengthy trials were something close to full scale debates on the Holocaust issue.

For the first time ever, “Holocaust” survivors and “Holocaust” historians were closely and critically questioned under oath about their claims and views.

To wage the legal battle that was forced upon him, he brought together an impressive international team of researchers, legal specialists, scholars, and many others. From numerous libraries and archives in North America and Europe, this group assembled at the “Zündelhaus” in Toronto one of the most extensive collections of evidence anywhere on this chapter of history.

Among those who testified on Zündel’s behalf in the trials were Robert Faurisson, David Irving, Mark Weber, William Lindsey, Udo Walendy, and Bradley Smith. As a result of the two trials, an enormous quantity of evidence and testimony challenging the prevailing Holocaust narrative was presented to the court and thereby was made part of the permanent public record. Perhaps the most important evidence was the historic testimony of American gas chamber expert Fred Leuchter concerning his on-site forensic examination of the alleged extermination gas chambers in Poland.

Zündel was found guilty in the 1985 trial, but the verdict was set aside by the provincial appeals court. It ruled that the judge in that trial had, among other things, given improper instructions to the jury, and had improperly excluded defense evidence. At the conclusion of the second Zündel trial in May 1988, a jury declared him guilty. A few days later, he was sentenced to nine months imprisonment.

French scholar Robert Faurisson wrote at the time:

Zündel may once again go to prison for his research and beliefs or be threatened with deportation. All this is possible. Anything may happen when there is an intellectual crisis and a realignment of historical concepts of such a dimension. Revisionism is the great intellectual adventure of the end of this century. Whatever happens, Ernst Zündel is already the victor.”

On appeal, Canada’s Supreme Court threw out the 1988 conviction, declaring on August 27, 1992, that the archaic “false news” law under which Zündel had been tried and convicted was a violation of the country’s Charter of Rights. This was more than a personal vindication by Canada’s highest court; Ernst Zündel secured an important victory for the rights of all Canadians.

His next great legal battle was fought before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal [which operates outside of normal legal standards] in Toronto. The charges, instigated by Jewish groups, accused Zündel of promoting “hatred or contempt” against Jews through the “Zündelsite” website operated by Ingrid Rimland from the United States. In this legal action, as the Tribunal’s presiding Commissioner declared, the truth or validity of the supposedly “hateful” items was not a consideration. (Ultimately the Tribunal declared the “Zündelsite” to be unlawful, but because it is based in the U.S., the ruling has been unenforceable).

During the 42 years he lived in Canada (1958-2000), Ernst Zündel was never convicted of a crime. He was, however, repeatedly a victim of violence and hate. He survived three assassination attempts, including by arson and pipe bomb. Even Irv Rubin, the American Jewish Defence League leader, was caught breaking into Zündel’s home with a member of the “Jewish Armed Resistance Movement” who had previously claimed responsibility for one of the arson attacks. He also endured years of legal harassment and repeated imprisonment.

After more than four decades in Canada, including a failed effort to acquire Canadian citizenship, Zündel moved to the United States. On February 5, 2003, Ernst Zündel was arrested at home in the mountain region of eastern Tennessee. U.S. authorities seized him on the pretext that he had violated immigration regulations, or had missed an interview date with U.S. immigration authorities, even though he had entered the U.S. legally, was married to Ingrid Rimland, an American citizen, had no criminal record, and was acting diligently, and in full accord with the law, to secure status as a permanent legal resident.

After being held for two weeks, he was deported to Canada. For two years — from mid-February 2003 to March 1, 2005 — he was held in solitary confinement in the Toronto West Detention Centre as a supposed threat to national security.

His arrest and detention generated widespread media attention. A few Canadian newspapers and several independent analysts acknowledged the injustice of his incarceration. The country’s most prestigious daily, the Toronto Globe and Mail, affirmed in an editorial (Zündel doesn’t warrant a security certificate, March 6, 2004) that he posed no risk to people or property, and that he was being held unjustly on a bogus “guilt by association” pretext.

He has never been charged with a violent crime and does not urge others to commit violence,” the editorial noted. “The real danger to Canadians,” it concluded, comes not from individuals like Zündel, “but from a government that casually discards their most precious rights.”

In another editorial (“The Zündel Case,” Oct. 23, 2004) the influential paper called Canada’s treatment of Zündel an “abuse of the secret-trial legislation.”

Bill Dunphy, a veteran investigative journalist and editor for the daily Hamilton Spectator, also protested the injustice. He spent six years probing Canada’s “white supremacist” movement, and got to know Zündel well. Although he has no sympathy for Zündel’s views, in a hard-hitting column (Hamilton Spectator, May 14, 2003) he told readers:

Our government has seized and branded Ernst Zündel, stripped him of his human rights, tried him in secret and found him wanting, and will now hand him over to a foreign government anxious to throw him in jail …

… Zündel – who did this country a favor by wiping off the books our disgraceful False News laws – has never once been convicted of a criminal offense in this country, never once found to have violated the hate crime laws that rest snugly around the throat of free expression in this country.

Calculating correctly that there was no political cost, no ‘down side’ to slipping on the jackboots to kick a reviled old man out of our country, our government cobbled together their best insults and innuendo, and Lord knows what secret ‘evidence,’ and branded Ernst Zündel a threat to national security.

I know this man, his local and international contacts and I know this movement. And after reading the 58-page ‘unclassified’ summary of the government’s case, I can assure you there is no justice here. Their ‘evidence’ is riddled with errors and misinformation, hearsay and inflammatory innuendo. Dead men walk again, and the shattered bits of shoddy secret networks long since collapsed under the weight of their own ineptitude are made whole and menacing once again. It is a shameful piece of dishonest, unreliable tripe.”

Zündel was held in Canada not because his views are unpopular, or because he was a “security risk.” He was in prison because Jewish groups wanted him there, and because he promoted views that the Jewish-Zionist lobby considers harmful to its interests.

This lobby was the decisive, critical factor in the decades-old campaign to silence him. The only sustained and institutionalized effort in Canada to imprison Zündel came from this lobby, which includes the Simon Wiesenthal Center, the Canadian Jewish Congress, the Canadian Holocaust Remembrance Association, and the League for Human Rights of B’nai B’rith (Canada’s counterpart to the U.S.-based “Anti-Defamation League”).

On March 1, 2005, Zündel was deported to Germany, just as Jewish groups had been demanding. Upon his arrival at Frankfurt airport, he was immediately arrested and taken to Mannheim prison to await trial for the “thought crime” of “denying the Holocaust.”

A few months later the public prosecutor in Mannheim formally charged Zündel with inciting “hatred” by having written or distributed texts that “approve, deny or play down” genocidal actions carried out by Germany’s wartime regime, and which “denigrate the memory of the [Jewish] dead.” …. The 14 specific violations cited by the court included postings on the U.S.-based “Zündelsite” website. The court thus upheld efforts by German authorities to punish individuals for writings that are legal in the country where they are published. Jewish groups quickly, and predictably, expressed approval of the verdict.

Zündel was released from prison on March 1, 2010 — five years after his deportation to Germany, and three years after his conviction by a court in Mannheim. Banned from returning to either Canada or the U.S., he went to his family home in Germany’s Black Forest region, where he resided until his death. Unable to leave the U.S. and be with him, his wife Ingrid Rimland died two months later.

Robert Faurisson Documentary (with English Subtitles)

Source: https://codoh.com/library/document/5822/

Published: 2018-07-13

After years of private research and study, Dr. Faurisson first made public his skeptical views about the Holocaust extermination story in two items published in December 1978 and January 1979 in the influential Paris daily Le Monde. This documentary is a recounting of events since that terrible and wonderful December 1978.

Irving on Churchill

By Theodore J. O’Keefe
Published: 1986-12-01

Source: http://codoh.com/library/document/2176/

World-class historian David Irving is no stranger to readers of the JHR. His address to the 1983 International Revisionist Conference, which appeared in the Winter 1984 Journal of Historical Review (“On Contemporary History and Historiography”), was something of a primer on Irving’s Revisionist historiographical method. It was spiced as well with tantalizing hints of new directions in Irving’s research and new book possibilities arising from them.

Not the least among Irving’s revelations were those that touched on Winston Churchill, descendant of one of England’s greatest families and leader of his nation and its empire (as he still thought it) at what many of his countrymen and many abroad still regard as Britain’s “finest hour.” Readers will recall that Irving exposed several instances of Churchill’s venality, cowardice, and hypocrisy, including Churchill’s poltroonish posturing at the time of the German air raid against Coventry and the facts of Churchill and his cronies’ secret subvention by the Czech government.

It will also be recalled that in his lecture Irving spoke of his projected book on Winston Churchill, which at the time was to be published in the U.S. by Doubleday and in Great Britain by MacMillan, two great firms entirely worthy of an author who has been churning out meticulously researched historical bestsellers for a quarter of a century. As has been pointed out in recent issues of the IHR Newsletter, Irving’s challenges to the reigning orthodoxy have become so unbearable to the Establishment that both the major houses refused to print the books as written. The task has now been undertaken by a Revisionist operation in Australia. Nearing completion, the new Irving book, Churchill’s War, is slated to be available from the IHR by the end of this year.

Last year David Irving made a world-wide speaking tour, visiting North America (the U.S. and Canada), Australia, South Africa, and Europe. He lectured on a wide range of topics pertaining to the troubled history of our century, with his customary flair for the pointed phrase and the telling anecdote. During one of his lectures, delivered at Vancouver, British Columbia on March 31, 1986, Irving offered a series of mordant new facts and insights on the life and career of Winston Churchill.

At the outset of his lecture, Irving remarked that the late Harold MacMillan (Lord Stockton), recently targeted by Nikolai Tolstoy (The Minister and the Massacres) for his role in the forcible deportation of tens of thousands of anti-Communist Cossacks, Byelorussians, Ukrainians, and others to the U.S.S.R. after World War II, had stated that Irving’s Churchill book would “not be published by his company, over his dead body.” Clearly Lord Stockton’s recent demise didn’t alter things at MacMillan, however.

Then Irving let out an electrifying piece of information:

The details which I will tell you today, you will not find published in the Churchill biography. For example, you won’t even find them published in Churchill’s own biography because there were powers above him who were so powerful that they were able to prevent him publishing details that even he wanted to publish that he found dirty and unscrupulous about the origins of the Second World War.

For example, when I was writing my Churchill biography, I came across a lot of private papers in the files of the Time/Life organization in New York. In Columbia University, there are all the private papers of the chief editor of Time/Life, a man called Daniel Longwell. And in there, in those papers we find all the papers relating to the original publication of the Churchill memoirs in 1947, 1949, the great six-volume set of Churchill memoirs of the Second World War. And I found there a letter from the pre-war German chancellor, the man who preceded Hitler, Dr. Heinrich Brüning, a letter he wrote to Churchill in August, 1937. The sequence of events was this: Dr. Brüning became the chancellor and then Hitler succeeded him after a small indistinguishable move by another man. In other words, Brüning was the man whom Hitler replaced. And Bruning had the opportunity to see who was backing Hitler. Very interesting, who was financing Hitler during all his years in the wilderness, and Brüning knew.

Brüning wrote a letter to Churchill after he had been forced to resign and go into exile in England in August 1937, setting out the names and identities of the people who backed Hitler. And after the war, Churchill requested Brüning for permission to publish this letter in his great world history, the six-volume world history. And Brüning said no. In his letter, Brüning wrote, “I didn’t, and do not even today for understandable reasons, wish to reveal from October, 1928, the two largest regular contributors to the Nazi Party were the general managers of two of the largest Berlin banks, both of Jewish faith and one of them the leader of Zionism in Germany.”

Now there is a letter from Dr. Heinrich Brüning to Churchill in 1949, explaining why he wouldn’t give permission to Churchill to publish the August, 1937 letter. It was an extraordinary story, out of Churchill’s memoirs, even Churchill wanted to reveal that fact, you begin to sense the difficulties that we have in printing the truth today.

Churchill, of course, knew all about lies. He was an expert in lying himself. He put a gloss on it. He would say to his friends, “The truth is such a fragile flower, the truth is so precious, it must be given a bodyguard of lies.” This is the way Churchill put it.

Irving went on to describe several sources of secret financial support enjoyed by Churchill. In addition to money supplied by the Czech government, Churchill was financed during the “wilderness years” between 1930 and 1939 by a slush fund emanating from a secret pressure group known as the Focus.

Irving on the Focus:

The Focus was financed by a slush fund set up by some of London’s wealthiest businessmen. Principally, businessmen organized by the Board of Jewish Deputies in England, whose chairman was a man called Sir Bernard Waley Cohen. Sir Bernard Waley Cohen held a private dinner party at his apartment on July 29, 1936. This is in Waley Cohen’s memoirs… The 29th of July, 1936, Waley Cohen set up a slush fund of 50,000 pounds for The Focus, the Churchill pressure group. Now, 50,000 pounds in 1936, multiply that by ten, at least, to get today’s figures. By another three or four to multiply that into Canadian dollars. So, 40 times 50,000 pounds… about $2 million in Canadian terms was given by Bernard Waley Cohen to this secret pressure group of Churchill in July, 1936. The purpose was, the tune that Churchill had to play was, fight Germany. Start warning the world about Germany, about Nazi Germany. Churchill, of course, one of our most brilliant orators, a magnificent writer, did precisely that.

For two years, The Focus continued to militate, in fact, right through until 1939. And I managed to find the secret files of The Focus, I know the names of all the members. I know all their secrets. I know how much money they were getting, not just from The Focus, but from other governments. I use the word “other governments” advisedly because one of my sources of information for my Churchill biography is, in fact, the Chaim Weizmann Papers in the State of Israel. Israel has made available to me, all Churchill’s secret correspondence with Chaim Weizmann, all his secret conferences. It is an astonishing thing, but I, despite my reputation, in a kind of negative sense with these people, am given access to files like that, just the same as the Russian Government has, given me complete access to all of the Soviet records of Churchill s dealings with Ivan Maisky, Joseph Stalin, Molotov and the rest of them. I am the only historian who has been given access to these Russian records. It is a kind of horse trading method that I use when I want access to these files, because it is in these foreign archives we find the truth about Winston Churchill.

When you want the evidence about his tax dodging in 1949 and thereabouts, you are not going to look in his own tax files, you’re going to look in the files of those who employed him, like the Time/Life Corporation of America. That s where you look. And when you’re looking for evidence about who was putting money up for Churchill when he was in the wideness and who was funding this secret group of his, The Focus, you’re not going to look in his files, again you’re going to look in the secret files, for example, of the Czech government in Prague, because that is where much of the money was coming from.

Irving then revealed further details of Churchill’s financing by the Czechs, as well as the facts of Churchill’s financial rescuer by a wealthy banker of Austro-Jewish origins, Sir Henry Strakosch, who, in Irving’s words, emerged “out of the woodwork of the City of London, that great pure international financial institution.” When Churchill was bankrupted overnight in the American stock market crash of l938, it was Strakosch, who was instrumental in setting the central banks of South Africa and India, who bought up all

Churchill’s debts. When Strakosch died in 1943, the details of his will, published in the London Times included a bequest of £20,000 to the then Prime Minister, eliminating the entire debt.

Irving dealt with Churchill’s performance as a wartime leader, first as Britain’s First Lord of the Admiralty and then as Prime Minister. The British historian adverted to Churchill’s “great military defeat in Norway, which he himself engineered and pioneered,” and mentioned the suspicion of Captain Ralph Edwards, who was on Churchill’s staff at the time, that Churchill had deliberately caused the fiasco to bring down Neville Chamberlain and replace him as prime minister, which subsequently happened.

Irving spoke of Dunkirk:

In May, 1940, Dunkirk, the biggest Churchill defeat of the lot. It wasn’t a victory, it wasn’t a triumph, nothing for the British to be proud of. Dunkirk? If you look at the Dunkirk files in the British archives now, you will find, too, you’re given only photocopies of the premier files on Dunkirk with mysterious blank pages inserted.

And you think, at first, how nice of them to put these blank pages in to keep the documents apart. Not so. The blank pages are the ones that you really want to be seeing. In some cases, of course, the blank pages are genuinely censored with intelligence matters. But the other blank pages are letters between Churchill and the French Prime Minister, Paul Reynaud, which revealed the ugly truth that Churchill, himself, gave the secret order to Lord Gort, the British General in command of the British expeditionary force at Dunkirk, “Withdraw, fall back,” or as Churchill put it, “Advance to the coast.” That was Churchill’s wording. “And you are forbidden to tell any of your neighboring allies that you are pulling out.” The French and the Belgians were left in the dark that we were pulling out.

I think it’s the most despicable action that any British commander could have been ordered to carry out, to pull out and not tell either his allies on his left and right flanks that he was pulling out at Dunkirk. The reason I knew this is because, although the blanks are in the British files, I got permission from the French Prime Minister Paul Reynaud’s widow. His widow is still alive. A dear old lady about 95, living in Paris. And guiding her trembling hand, I managed to get her to sign a document releasing to me all the Prime Minister’s files in the French National Archives in Paris. And there are documents, the originals of the documents which we’re not allowed to see in London and there we know the ugly truth about that other great Churchill triumph, the retreat to Dunkirk. If peace had broken out in June of 1940, Churchill would have been finished. No brass statue in Parliament Square for Mr. Winston Churchill. He would have been consigned to the dustbin of oblivion, forgotten for all time and good riddance I say, because the British Empire would have been preserved. We would, by now, have been the most powerful race, can we dare use the word, the British race, the most powerful race on Earth.

Irving pointed out that Churchill rejected Hitler’s peace offers in 1939,1940, and 1941 (Irving supports the thesis that Rudolf Hess’s flight to Scotland was ordered by the Führer). Irving pinpointed one critical moment, and supplied the background:

The crucial moment when he managed to kill this peace offensive in England was July, 1940. If we look at the one date, July the 20th, this I think was something of a watershed between the old era of peace, the greatness of the British Empire and the new era, the new era of nuclear deterrent and the holocaust, the nuclear holocaust, July 20, 1940. Mr. Churchill is lying in bed that Sunday out in Checkers when he gets a strange message. It’s an intercept of a German ambassador’s telegram in Washington to Berlin. It’s only just been revealed, of course, that we were reading all of the German codes, not only the German Army, Air Force and Navy Codes, but also the German embassy codes. And if you’re silly enough to believe everything that’s written in the official history of British Intelligence, you will understand that the only reason that they released half of the stories is to prevent us from trying to find out the other half. And what matters is that we are reading the German diplomatic codes as well. On July 20th, the German ambassador in Washington sent an message to Berlin saying that the British ambassador in Washington had asked him very quietly, very confidentially, just what the German peace terms were. This, of course, was the one thing that Churchill could never allow to happen, that the British find out what Hitler’s peace terms are. He sends an immediate message to the foreign office, to Lord Halifax, saying, “Your ambassador in Washington is strictly forbidden to have any further contacts with the German ambassador, even indirectly. ” They were communicating through a Quaker intermediary.

Now, on the same day, Churchill sent a telegram to Washington ordering Lord Lothian, the British ambassador in Washington, to have nothing to do with the German ambassador. And the same day, he takes a third move to insure that the peace moves in Britain are finally strangled at birth. He orders Sir Charles Portal to visit him at Checkers, the country residence of British prime ministers. Sir Charles Portal was Commander in Chief of Bomber Command. Now what is the significance? Well, the significance is this. Up to July, 1940, not one single German bomb has fallen on British towns. Hitler had given orders that no British towns are to be bombed and, above all, the bombing of London is completely forbidden and embargoed. Churchill knows this, because he’s reading the German codes, he’s reading the German Air Force signals, which I can now read in the German files. Churchill is reading the signals and he knows that Hitler is not doing him the favor.

Hitler is still hoping that this madman in England will see reason or that he will be outvoted by his cabinet colleagues. So he’s not doing Churchill the favor of bombing any English towns. Churchill is frantic because he thinks he’s being outsmarted by Hitler. On July the 20th he sends for Sir Charles Portal, the Chief of Bomber Command, and he says to Sir Charles Portal, as we know from records from Command to the Air Ministry, “When is the earliest that you could launch a vicious air attack on Berlin?” Sir Charles Portal replies to

Winston, “I’m afraid we can’t do it now, not until September because the nights aren’t long enough to f1y from England to Berlin and back in the hours of darkness. September, perhaps, and in September we will have the first hundred of the new Sterling bombers…” But he also says, “I warn you, if you do that, the Germans will retaliate. At present they’re not bombing English targets, they’re not bombing civilian targets at all and you know why. And if you bomb Berlin, then Hitler will retaliate against English civilian targets.” And Churchill just twinkles when he gets this reply because he knows what he wants.

We know what he wants because he’s told Joe Kennedy, the American Ambassador, Joseph P. Kennedy, father of the late President, “I want the Germans to start bombing London as early as possible because this will bring the Americans into the war when they see the Nazis’ frightfulness and above all it will put an end to this awkward and inconvenient peace movement that’s afoot in my own Cabinet and among the British population.” I’ve opened Kennedy’s diary, I’ve also read Kennedy’s telegrams back to the State Department in Washington. They’re buried among the files. You can’t find them easily, but they are worth reading and you see in detail what Churchill was telling him. What cynicism. Churchill deliberately provoking the bombing of his own capital in order to kill the peace movement. He‘s been warned this would be the consequence, but he needs it. And still Hitler doesn’t do him the favor.

Irving then gave a detailed account of the cynical maneuvering of Churchill to escalate the aerial campaign against Germany’s civilian population to the point at which Hitler was driven to strike back against Britain’s cities, supplying the spurious justification for the R.A.F.’s (and later the U.S. Army Air Force’s) monstrous terror attacks against centuries-old citadels of culture and their helpless inhabitants.

The British historian further expanded on a theme he had touched on in his address to the IHR’s 1983 conference: Churchill the drunkard. Irving substantiated his accusation with numerous citations from diaries and journals, the originals of which often differ from heavily laundered published editions. He concluded his address with an anecdote of a ludicrous incident which found Churchill pleading with William Lyon Mackenzie King, wartime prime minister of Canada, to shift production in his countries’ distilleries from raw materials for the war effort to whiskey and gin, twenty-five thousand cases of it. According to Mackenzie King’s private diary, the Canadian prime minister tore up Churchill’s memorandum on the subject at precisely twenty-five minutes to eight on August 25, 1943, and Sir Winston had to soldier on through the war with liquid sustenance from other lands and climes. As Irving emphasized, Churchill’s drunken rantings, often during cabinet meetings, disgusted many of his generals, as when, at a meeting on July 6,1944, the prime minister told his commanders to prepare to drop two million lethal anthrax bombs on German cities. Of this meeting Britain’s First Sea Lord, Admiral Cummingham wrote, according to Irving: “There’s no doubt that P.M. is in no state to discuss anything, too tired, and too much alcohol.”

Irving’s demolition of the Churchill myth, based on a wealth of documentary evidence, most of which has been studiously avoided by the keepers of the Churchill flame, may constitute his most important service to Revisionism. The legendary V-for-victory-waggling, cigar-puffing “Winnie” is for many of a centrist or conservative bent the symbol and guarantee that Britain and America fought and “won” the Second World War for traditional Western values rather than to bleed Europe white and secure an enormous geopolitical base for Communism.

Irving’s Churchill biography promises to make trash of authorized studies as that of Martin Gilbert (which has already been described in private by one Establishment historian as “footnotes to Churchill’s war memoirs”). The publication of the first volume of Churchill’ s War later this year should be an historiographical event of the first importance.

Stalin’s War Against His Own Troops

The Tragic Fate of Soviet Prisoners of War in German Captivity

Source: https://codoh.com/library/document/2526/

By Yuri Teplyakov
Published: 1994-07-01


Yuri Teplyakov, born in 1937, studied journalism at Moscow State University. He worked as a journalist for the Moscow daily newspapers Izvestia and Komsomolskaya Pravda, and for the APN information agency. From 1980 to 1993 he worked for the weekly Moscow News. In writing this article, he expresses thanks to Mikhail Semiryaga, D.Sc. (History), „who provided me with considerable material, which he found in German archives. As for the documents of Soviet filtering camps, I shall go on with my searches.“ This article originally appeared in Moscow News, No. 19, 1990, and is reprinted here by special arrangement.


At dawn on June 22, 1941, began the mightiest military offensive in history: the German-led Axis attack against the Soviet Union. During the first 18 months of the campaign, about three million Soviet soldiers were taken prisoner. By the end of the conflict four years later, more than five million Soviet troops are estimated to have fallen into German hands. Most of these unfortunate men died in German captivity.

A major reason for this was the unusual nature of the war on the eastern front, particularly during the first year – June 1941-June 1942 – when vastly greater numbers of prisoners fell into German hands than could possibly be accommodated adequately. However, and as Russian journalist Teplyakov explains in the following article, much of the blame for the terrible fate of the Soviet soldiers in German captivity was due to the inflexibly cruel policy of Soviet dictator Stalin.

During the war, the Germans made repeated attempts through neutral countries and the International Committee of the Red Cross to reach mutual agreement on the treatment of prisoners by Germany and the USSR. As British historian Robert Conquest explains in his book Stalin: Breaker of Nations, the Soviets adamantly refused to cooperate:

When the Germans approached the Soviets, through Sweden, to negotiate observance of the provisions of the Geneva Convention on prisoners of war, Stalin refused. The Soviet soldiers in German hands were thus unprotected even in theory. Millions of them died in captivity, through malnutrition or maltreatment. If Stalin had adhered to the convention (to which the USSR had not been a party) would the Germans have behaved better? To judge by their treatment of other “Slav submen” POWs (like the Poles, even surrendering after the [1944) Warsaw Rising), the answer seems to be yes. (Stalin’s own behavior to [Polish] prisoners captured by the Red Army had already been demonstrated at Katyn and elsewhere [where they were shot}.

Another historian, Nikolai Tolstoy, affirms in The Secret Betrayal:

Hitler himself urged Red Cross inspection of [German} camps [holding Soviet prisoners of war}. But an appeal to Stalin for prisoners’ postal services received a reply that clinched the matter: “There are no Soviet prisoners of war. The Soviet soldier fights on till death. If he chooses to become a prisoner, he is automatically excluded from the Russian community. We are not interested in a postal service only for Germans.”

Given this situation, the German leaders resolved to treat Soviet prisoners no better than the Soviet leaders were treating the German soldiers they held. As can be imagined, Soviet treatment of German prisoners was harsh. Of an estimated three million German soldiers who fell into Soviet hands, more than two million perished in captivity. Of the 91,000 German troops captured in the Battle of Stalingrad, fewer than 6,000 ever returned to Germany.

As Teplyakov also explains here, Red Army “liberation” of the surviving Soviet prisoners in German camps brought no end to the suffering of these hapless men. It wasn’t until recently, when long-suppressed Soviet wartime records began to come to light and long-silenced voices could at last speak out, that the full story of Stalin’s treatment of Soviet prisoners became known. It wasn’t until 1989, for example, that Stalin’s grim Order No. 270 of August 16,1941 – cited below – was first published.

What is the most horrible thing about war?“

Marshal Ivan Bagramyan, three-time Hero of the Soviet Union Alexander Pokryshkin, and Private Nikolai Romanov, who has no battle orders or titles, all replied with just one word: „Captivity.“

„Is it more horrible than death?“ I was asking soldier Nikolai Romanov a quarter of a century ago when, on the sacred day of May 9 [anniversary of the end of the war against Germany in 1945], we were drinking bitter vodka together to commemorate the souls of the Russian muzhiks who would never return to that orphaned village on the bank of the Volga.

„It’s more horrible,“ he replied. „Death is your own lot. But if it’s captivity, it spells trouble for many …“

At that time, in 1965, I could not even vaguely imagine the extent of the tragedy which had befallen millions upon millions, nor did I know that that tragedy had been triggered by just a few lines from the Interior Service Regulations of the Workers’ and Peasants’ Red Army: a Soviet soldier must not be taken prisoner against his will. And if he has been, he is a traitor to the Motherland.

Captured during the great military victories in the first months of Hitler’s „Barbarossa“ offensive against the Soviet Union, seemingly endless columns of Red Army prisoners such as these are marched to captivity in German camps.

How many of them were there – those „traitors“?

„During the war years,“ I was told by Colonel Ivan Yaroshenko, Deputy Chief of the Central Archives of the USSR Ministry of Defense, in Podolsk near Moscow, „as many as 32 million people were soldiers, and 5,734,528 of them were taken prisoner by the enemy.“

Later I learned where this happened and when. Thus, the Red Army suffered the most tragic losses in terms of prisoners of war in the following battles: Belostok-Minsk, August 1941, 323,000; Uman, August 1941, 103,000; Smolensk-Roslavl, August 1941, 348,000; Gomel, August 1941, 30,000; Demyansk, September 1941, 35,000; Kiev, September 1941, 665,000; Luga-Leningrad, September 1941, 20,000; Melitopol, October 1941, 100,000; Vyazma, October 1941, 662,000; Kerch, November 1941, 100,000; Izyum-Kharkov, May 1942, 207,000. People were taken prisoner even in February 1945 (Hungary), 100,000.

The same archives in Podolsk hold another 2.5 million cards „missing in action“ – two and a half million who never returned home. Experts believe: two million of them are still lying in Russia’s forests and marshes. And about 200,000 must be added to the list of POWs. Proof? From time to time the Podolsk archives receive a letter from somewhere in Australia or the United States: „I was taken prisoner. Request confirmation that I took part in battles against fascism.“

This person was lucky – he survived. The majority, however, had a different lot. German statistics put it on record: 280,000 person died at deportation camps and 1,030,157 were executed when trying to escape or died at factories or mines in Germany.

Many of our officers and men were killed by famine before they reached the camps. Nearly 400,000 men died in November-December 1941 alone. During the entire war there were 235,473 British and American prisoners of war in Germany – 8,348 of them died. Were our men weaker? Hardly. The reasons were different. In the West it is believed that the millions of our POWs who died in captivity fell victim not only to fascism but also to the Stalinist system itself. At least half of those who died from hunger could have been saved had Stalin not called them traitors and refused to send food parcels to them via the International Red Cross.

It can be argued how many would have survived, but it’s a fact that we left our POWs to the mercy of fate. The Soviet Union did not sign the Geneva Convention concerning the legal status of prisoners of war. Refusing to sign it was consistent with the Jesuitical nature of the „leader of the peoples.“

From Stalin’s point of view, several provisions of the Convention were incompatible with the moral and economic institutions which were inherent in the world’s „freest country.“ The Convention, it turns out, did not guarantee the right to POWs as working people: low wages, no days off, no fixed working hours. Exception was also taken to the privileges fixed for some groups of POWs. In other words it should be more humane. But greater hypocrisy can hardly be imagined. What privileges were enjoyed at that very same time by millions in [Soviet] GULAG prison camps? What guarantees existed there and how many days off did they have?

In August 1941 Hitler permitted a Red Cross delegation to visit the camp for Soviet POWs in Hammerstadt. It is these contacts that resulted in an appeal to the Soviet government, requesting that it should send food parcels for our officers and men. We are prepared to fulfill and comply with the norms of the Geneva convention, Moscow said in its reply, but sending food in the given situation and under fascist control is the same as making presents to the enemy.

The reply came as a surprise. The Red Cross representatives had not read Stalin’s Order of the Day – Order No. 270, signed on August 16, 1941. Otherwise they would have understood how naive their requests and offers were, and how great was Stalin’s hatred for those who had found themselves behind enemy lines.

It made no difference: who, where, how and why? Even the dead were considered to be criminals. Lt.-Gen. Vladimir Kachalov, we read in the order, „being in encirclement together with the headquarters of a body of troops, displayed cowardice and surrendered to the German fascists. The headquarters of Kachalov’s groups broke out of the encirclement, the units of Kachalov’s group battled their way out of the encirclement, but Lt.-Gen. Kachalov preferred to desert to the enemy.“

General Vladimir Kachalov had been lying for 12 days in a burned out tank at the Starinka village near Smolensk, and never managed to break out to reach friendly forces. Yet this was of no concern for anyone. They were busy with something else looking for scapegoats whom they could dump all of their anger on, looking for enemies of the people whose treachery and cowardice had again subverted the will of the great military leader.

We had to be „convinced“ again and again: the top echelons of authority, the leaders, have no relation whatsoever to any tragedy, to any failure – be it the collapse of the first Five-Year Plan or the death of hundreds of thousands of soldiers on the Dnieper. Moreover, these misfortunes cannot have objective reasons either, being due solely to the intrigues of saboteurs and the enemies of the progressive system. For decades, ever since the 1930s, we have been permanently looking for scapegoats in the wrong place, but finding them nevertheless. At that time, in the first summer of the war, plenty of them were found. And the more the better. On June 4, 1940, the rank of general was re-established in the Red Army. They were awarded to 966 persons.

More than 50 were taken prisoner in the very first year of the war. Very many of them would envy their colleagues – those 150 generals who would later die on the battlefields. The torments of captivity proved to be darker than the grave. At any rate the destinies of Generals Pavel Ponedelin and Nikolai Kirillov, mentioned in the same Order No. 270, prove that this is so. They staunchly withstood their years in the German camps. In April 1945 the [western] Allies set them free and turned them over to the Soviet side. It seemed that everything had been left behind, but they were not forgiven for August 1941. They were arrested after a „state check-up“: five years in the Lefortovo jail for political prisoners and execution by a firing squad on August 25, 1950.

„Stalin’s last tragic acts in his purging of the military were the accusations of betrayal and treachery he advanced in the summer of 1941 against the Western Front commanders, Pavlov and Klimovskikh, and several other generals among whom, as it became clear later, there were also people who behaved in an uncompromising way to the end when in captivity.“ This assessment is by the famous chronicler of the war, Konstantin Simonov. It appeared in the 1960s, but during the wartime ordeals there was indomitable faith: the prisoners of war (both generals and soldiers) were guilty. No other yardstick existed.

International law states that military captivity is not a crime, „a prisoner of war must be as inviolable as the sovereignty of a people, and as sacred as a misfortune.“ This is for others, whereas for us there was a different law – Stalin’s Order No. 270.

If… „instead of organizing resistance to the enemy, some Red Army men prefer to surrender, they shall be destroyed by all possible means, both ground-based and from the air, whereas the families of the Red Army men who have been taken prisoner shall be deprived of the state allowance [that is, rations) and relief.“

The commanders and political officers… „who surrender to the enemy shall be considered malicious deserters, whose families are liable to be arrested [just] as the families of deserters who have violated the oath and betrayed their Motherland.“

Just a few lines, but they stand for the hundreds of thousands of children and old folks who died from hunger only because their father or son happened to be taken prisoner.

Just a few lines, but they amount to a verdict on those who never even thought of a crime, who were only waiting for a letter from the front.

Having read these lines, I came to understand the amount of grief they carried for absolutely innocent people, just as I understood the secret sorrow of the words Private Nikolai Romanov told me a quarter of a century ago: „Your own captivity spells trouble for many.“

I understood why the most horrible thing for our soldiers was not to be killed, but to be reported „missing in action,“ and why before each battle, especially before the assault crossing of rivers, they asked one another: „Buddy, if I get drowned, say that you saw me die.“

Setting their feet on a shaky pontoon and admitting, as it were, that they could be taken prisoner solely through their own fault, they mentally glanced back not out of fear for their own lives they were tormented and worried over the lives of those who had stayed back at home.

Soviet prisoners of war in a German POW camp. This photograph was found by Red Army troops among the belongings of dead German soldiers.

But what was the fault of the hundreds of thousands of soldiers encircled near Vyazma when Hitler launched Operation Taifun – his advance on Moscow? „The most important thing is not to surrender your positions,“ the General Headquarters of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief ordered them. And the army was feverishly digging trenches facing the west, when panzer wedges were already enveloping them from the east.

General Franz Halder, Chief of Staff of the Wehrmacht’s ground forces, made the following entry in his diary on this occasion: „October 4 – 105 days of the war. The enemy has continued everywhere holding the unattacked sectors of the front, with the result that deep envelopment of these enemy groups looms in the long term.“

Who was supposed to see these wedges? A soldier from his tiny foxhole or Stalin from the GHQ? And what was the result? Who was taken prisoner? Who betrayed the Motherland? The soldier did.

In May 1942, as many as 207,047 officers and men (the latest figure) found themselves encircled at Kharkov. When Khrushchev held power, it was Stalin who was considered to be guilty of this. When Brezhnev took over, the blame was again put on Khrushchev who, incidentally, had been merely warned by Stalin for that defeat which opened the road for the Germans to the Volga. But who then betrayed the Motherland, who was taken prisoner?

The soldier.

May 19, 1942, is the date ofour army’s catastrophe in the Crimea. „The Kerch Operation may be considered finished: 150,000 POWs and a large quantity of captured equipment.“ This is a document from the German side. And here is a document from the Soviet side cited by Konstantin Simonov: „I happened to be on the Kerch Peninsula in 1942. The reason for the humiliating defeat is clear to me. Complete mistrust of the army and front commanders, Mekhlis’ stupid willfulness and arbitrary actions. He ordered that no trenches be dug, so as not to sap the soldiers’ offensive spirit.“

Stalin’s closest aide and then Chief of the Main Political Administration (GPU), Lev Mekhlis, the first Commissar of the Army and Navy, returned to Moscow after that defeat. And what did the soldier do? The soldier stayed in captivity.

There is no denying that no war can do without treachery and traitors. They could also be found among POWs. But if compared with the millions of their brothers in captivity, they amounted to no more than a drop in the ocean. Yet this drop existed. There is no escaping this. Some were convinced by leaflets like this one:

The Murderous Balance of Bolshevism:

Killed during the years of the Revolution and Civil War – 2,200,000 persons.

Died from famine and epidemics in 1918-1921 and in 1932-1933 – 14,500,000 persons.

Perished in forced labor camps – 10,000,000 persons.

Some even put it this way: I am not going into action against my people, I am going into action against Stalin. But the majority joined fascist armed formations with only one hope: as soon as the first fighting starts, I’ll cross the line to join friendly troops. Not everyone managed to do this, although the following fact is also well-known. On September 14, 1943, when the results of the Kursk Battle were summed up, Hitler explained the defeat by the „treachery of auxiliary units“: indeed, at that time 1,300 men – practically a whole regiment deserted to the Red Army’s side on the southern sector. „But now I am fed up with this,“ Hitler said. „I order these units to be disarmed immediately and this whole gang to be sent to the mines in France.“

It has to be admitted that it was Hitler who rejected longer than all others the proposals to form military units from among Soviet POWs, although as early as September 1941 Colonel von Tresckow had drawn up a plan for building up a 200,000-strong Russian anti-Soviet army. It was only on the eve of the Stalingrad Battle, when prisoners of war already numbered millions, that the Führer gave his consent at last.

All in all, it became possible to form more than 180 units. Among them the number of Russian formations was 75; those formed from among Kuban, Don and Terek Cossacks – 216; Turkistan and Tatar (from Tataria and the Crimean Tatars) – 42; Georgian – 11; peoples of the Northern Caucasus – 12; Azerbaijani – 13; Armenian – 8.

The numerical strength of these battalions by their national affiliation (data as of January 24, 1945) was the following: Latvians – 104,000; Tatars (Tataria) – 12,500, Crimean Tatars 10,000; Estonians – 10,000; Armenians – 7,000; Kalmyks – 5,000. And the Russians? According to the official figures of Admiral Karl Dönitz’s „government,“ as of May 20, 1945, there were the 599th Russian Brigade – 13,000, the 600th – 12,000, and the 650th – 18,000 men.

If all of this is put together (as we are doing now), it would seem that there were many who served on the other side. But if we remember that only 20 percent of these forces took part in hostilities, that they were recruited from among millions of POWs, that thousands upon thousands crossed the front line to return to friendly troops, the brilliance of the figures will clearly fade.

One detail – the Reich’s special services displayed special concern over forming non-Russian battalions as if they knew that they would be required, especially after the war when whole peoples, from babies to senile old men, came to be accused of treachery. And it made no difference whether you were kept in a prison camp or served in the army – all the same you were an enemy.

But the POWs themselves were not yet aware of this – everything still lay ahead. The hangover after liberation would set in a little later. Both for those who themselves escaped from the camps (500,000 in 1944, according to the estimate of Germany’s Armaments Minister Speer) and for those who after liberation by Red Army units (more than a million officers and men) again fought in its ranks.

For too long a time we used to judge the spring of 1945 solely by the humane instructions issued by our formidable marshals – allot milk for Berlin’s children, feed women and old men. It was strange reading those documents, and at the same time chewing steamed rye instead of bread, and eating soup made of dog meat (only shortly before her death did my grandmother confess she had slaughtered dogs to save us from hunger). Reading those orders, I was prepared to cry from tender emotions: how noble it was to think that way and to show such concern for the German people.

And who of us knew that at the same time the marshals received different orders from the Kremlin with respect to their own people?

[To the] Commanders of the troops of the First and Second Byelorussian Fronts [Army Groups], and the First, Second, Third and Fourth Ukrainian Fronts…

The Military Councils of the Fronts shall form camps in [rear-zone] service areas for the accommodation and maintenance of former prisoners of war and repatriated Soviet citizens – each camp for 10,000 persons. All in all, there shall be formed: at the Second Byelorussian Front – 15 [camps]; at the First Byelorussian Front – 30; at the First Ukrainian Front – 30; at the Fourth Ukrainian Front – 5; at the Sec ond Ukrainian Front – 10; at the Third Ukrainian Front – 10 camps …

The check-up [of the former prisoners of war and repatriated citizens] shall be entrusted as follows: former Red Army servicemen – to the bodies of SMERSH counter-intelligence; civilians – to the commissions of the NKVD, NKGB, SMERSH …

Stalin

I phoned Col.-Gen. Dmitri Volkogonov, Chief of the Institute of Military History under the USSR Ministry of Defense [and author of Stalin: Triumph and Tragedy]: „Where did you find that order? Both at the State Security Committee and at the USSR Ministry of Internal Affairs they told me that they had nothing of the kind.“

„This one is from Stalin’s personal archives. The camps existed, which means that there are also papers from which it is possible to learn everything: who, where, what they were fed, what they thought about. Most likely, the documents are in the system of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. The convoy troops were subordinate to this government department. It included the Administration for the Affairs of Former Prisoners of War. Make a search.“

And search I did. Maj.-Gen. Pyotr Mishchenkov, First Deputy Chief of the present-day Main Administration for Corrective Affairs (GUID) at the USSR Ministry of Internal Affairs, was sincerely surprised: „This is the first I heard about this. I would be glad to help, but there is nothing I can do about it. I know that there was a colony in the Chunsky district of the Irkutsk Region. People got there after being checked up at the filtering camps mentioned in Stalin’s order. They were all convicted under Article 58 – high treason.“

One colony… Where are the others, what happened to their inmates? After all, as many as 100 camps were at work. The only thing I managed to find out – by October 1, 1945, they had „filtered“ 5,200,000 Soviet citizens; 2,034,000 were turned over by the Allies – 98 percent of those who stayed in Germany’s western occupation zones, mostly POWs. How many of them returned home? And how many went, in accordance with Order No. 270, into Soviet concentration camps? I don’t yet have any authentic documents in my possession. Again only Western estimates and some eyewitness accounts.

Many of the Soviet soldiers taken prisoner by the Germans during the 1941-1945 war volunteered to serve with the Germans in an ill-fated effort to liberate their homeland from Soviet tyranny. Altogether about a million Soviets volunteered to aid the Germans in overthrowing the regime that ruled their country – an act of disloyalty by a people toward its rulers without precedent in history.

In this photograph, Lt.-General Andrei A. Vlasov reviews troops of the German-sponsored „Russian Liberation Army.“ By the end of the war about 300,000 RLA soldiers were under Vlasov’s command. Hundreds of thousands of other former Soviet soldiers of non-Russian nationality served in other German-sponsored anti-Communist military units. Vlasov was also chairman of the German-backed „Committee for the Liberation of the Peoples of Russia,“ which was proclaimed at a conference in Prague in 1944.

Before his capture by the Germans in July 1942, Vlasov was regarded as one of the most brilliant Red Army commanders. At the end of the war he surrendered to the Americans, who turned him over the Soviets. He was put to death in Moscow in 1946.

I spoke to one such eyewitness on the Kolyma. A former „traitor to the Motherland,“ but then the accountant general of the Srednekan gold field, Viktor Masol, told me how in June 1942 in the Don steppes after the Kharkov catastrophe they – unarmed, hungry, ragged Red Army men – were herded like sheep by German tanks into crowds of many thousands. Freight cars took them to Germany, where he mixed concrete for the Reich, and three years later they were sent in freight cars from Germany across the whole Soviet Union – as far as the Pacific Ocean. In the port of Vanino they were loaded into the holds of the Felix Dzerzhinsky steamship [named after the founder of the Soviet secret police], which had previously borne the name of Nikolai Yezhov, [a former] People’s Commissar of Internal Affairs [that is, the NKVD or secret police], bound for Magadan. During the week they were on their way, they were given food only once – barrels with gray flour, covered with boiling water, were lowered through the hatch. And they, burning their hands and crushing one another, snatched this mess and stuffed it, choking, into their mouths: most often people go crazy with hunger. Those who died on the way were thrown overboard in the Nagayev Bay, the survivors marched into the taiga, again behind the barbed wire of – now – their native prison camps.

Just a few survived and returned. But even they were like lepers. Outcasts. How many times they heard: „Better a bullet through your head…“

Many former POWs thought about a bullet in the 1940s-1950s. Both when they were reminded from the militia office – „you are two days overdue“ (all the POWs were kept on a special register with mandatory reports on strictly definite days), and when people told them: „Keep silent. You whiled away your time in captivity on fascist grub…“

And they did keep silent.

In 1956, after Khrushchev’s report, it became possible to speak about Stalin. Former POWs were no longer automatically enemies of the people, but not quite yet defenders of the Motherland. Something in between. On paper it was one way, but in life everything was different.

Two years ago, on the eve of V-Day, I interviewed Col.-Gen. Alexei Zheltov, Chairman of the Soviet War Veterans’ Committee. As befits the occasion, he was telling me with tears in his eyes about the holiday, about a Soviet soldier, an accordion in his hands, in the streets of spring-time Vienna. And I don’t know what made me ask him, well, and former prisoners of war, are they war veterans?

„No, they are not veterans. Don’t you have anything else to write about? Look how many real soldiers we have…“

If Alexei Zheltov, the tried and tested veteran commissar, were the only one to think that way, that wouldn’t be so bad. The trouble is that this philosophy is preached by the majority of the top brass. Both those who have long retired on pensions and who still hold command positions. For nearly 40 years we have been „orphaned,“ have lived without „the father of the peoples,“ but we sacredly revere his behests, sometimes not even noticing this ourselves.

Human blood is not water. But is has also proved to be a perfect conserving agent for Stalin’s morality. It has become even thicker. It has not disappeared even after several generations. It lives on. And not infrequently it triumphs. Try and raise the problem of prisoners of war (even before me this theme was taken up on more than one occasion, so I’m no discoverer here) – the reaction is always the same: better talk about something else. And if you fail to heed a „piece of good advice,“ they may even start to threaten: „Don’t you dare!“

To whom should one address his requests? To the government or the Supreme Soviet? What beautiful walls of the Kremlin should one knock on to demand that soldierly dignity be returned to former POW s, that their good name be restored?

Suppose your knocking has been heard. They will ask: what are you complaining about? What resolution do you take exception to? Oh, not a resolution. You are only worried over the past? How strange…

But it’s even more strange that we still have real soldiers, real heros and real people, meaning that there are also those who are not real. To this day our life is still like a battle front: by force of habit, we continue putting people in slots – these on this side, others over there. There seems to be neither law nor Order No. 270 any longer, like there is no one and nothing to fight against, but all the same whatever was once called black may at best become only gray. But by no means white.

… May 9: the whole country cries and rejoices. Veterans don their medals and pour out wine, remembering their buddies. But even in this circle a former POW is the last to hold out his glass and the last to take the floor.

What then is to be done? What should we do to squeeze the Stalinoid slave out of ourselves?

The Forgotten Anti-War Effort in Britain Before WWII

Source: http://www.renegadetribune.com/the-forgotten-anti-war-effort-in-britain-before-ww2/

Rare archive footage from anti-war demonstrations in the late 30’s. It’s interesting how history like this is hidden from the masses, as it could raise some questions.