Der Stürmer

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

Category: Revisionism

Deputy Führer Rudolf Hess – A Courageous Hero for Peace

Source: http://rudolfhess.net/

by Mark R. Elsis
August 17, 2012

My coming to England in this way is, as I realize, so unusual that nobody will easily understand it. I was confronted by a very hard decision. I do not think I could have arrived at my final choice unless I had continually kept before my eyes the vision of an endless line of children’s coffins with weeping mothers behind them, both English and German, and another line of coffins of mothers with mourning children.”

~ Rudolf Hess (June 10, 1941)

I do not propose to argue about charges that are concerned with the internal affairs of Germany, with which foreigners have no right to interfere. I make no complaints about statements, the aim of which is to discredit and dishonor myself and the entire German people. I regard such statements coming from enemies as confirmations of our honor. It has been my privilege to serve for many years under the greatest son to whom my people have given birth in its thousand years of history. Even if it were possible for me to do so, I would never wish to wipe this period of service out of my life. It fills me with happiness to know that I did my duty toward my people. I regret nothing. Whatever men may do to me, the day will come when I will stand before the judgment seat of the Eternal: to Him I will give an account of my actions, and I know that He will pronounce me innocent.”

~ Last statement by Rudolf Hess to the International Military Tribunal in Nüremberg (August 31, 1946)

Rudolf Walter Richard Hess, the eldest of four children, was born in Alexandria, Egypt on April 26, 1894. His father Fritz H. Hess, was from Wunsiedel in the Fichtelgebirge region of Germany and his mother Clara Hess, was of Greek origin. His father ran Hess & Co., a successful wholesaler and exporter. The Hess family lived quite well, in a big house with a beautiful garden on the Mediterranean coast. They also owned another home in Reicholdsgrün, in Bavaria, where they regularly spent their summer holidays. Rudolf Hess had an excellent education throughout these years in Egypt. In 1900, he was sent to the German school in Alexandria. This was enhanced with a couple of years of private tutoring. His Mother Clara taught him much about the ways of life and gave young Rudolf a love and wonderment for the constellations.

In 1908, the Hess family moved back to Germany. Rudolf now fourteen years old, is enrolled as a boarder at the Protestant School in Bad Godesberg. In 1911 under pressure from his father to carry on the family enterprise, Rudolf went to study business for a year at the Ecole Supérieure de Commerce, in Neuchâtel, Switzerland.

On July 28, 1914, World War I broke out in Europe. Soon after Rudolf enlisted in the 1st Bavarian Field Artillery Regiment. He become an infantryman, was wounded twice and was awarded the Iron Cross, second class. The severity of his second wound, a chest and lung wound, was enough to prevent his return to the front lines. So, Rudolf transferred and learned to fly at the Imperial Air Corps. He was a fighter pilot in 35th Jagdstaffel on the western front for the last couple months of the war. Rudolf Hess reached the rank of lieutenant.

In the summer of 1919 Hess first meets Professor Karl Ernst Haushofer and is impressed by him. That fall he enrolled in the University of Munich where he studied geopolitics, political science and history under Professor Haushofer. The Professor becomes both a mentor and good friend. The two families become close, with Rudolf and Haushofer’s son Albrecht developing a strong friendship.

In May of 1920, at a Munich rally, Rudolf Hess first hears Adolf Hitler give a speech. Hess is captivated right away with an admiration for Adolf Hitler that never leaves him. On July 1, 1920, Rudolf Hess became the sixteenth member that joined the National Socialist German Workers’ Party (NSDAP).

Rudolf Hess spent much of his time and effort for the next several years organizing for the NSDAP locally in Bavaria. He introduced Hitler at many NSDAP rallies and functions. In the spring of 1921, he brought together Hitler and Professor Haushofer. Adolf Hitler found the geopolitical theories of Professor Haushofer intriguing and worthy. Hitler began interweaving more and more of his material into speeches. National Socialism started to grow quickly in Bavaria, and soon over all of Germany. On July 29, 1921, Adolf Hitler becomes leader of the NSDAP.

The Treaty of Versailles required Germany to accept responsibility for causing World War I. The total cost of the war reparations was assessed at 132 billion German Marks. In April 1921, England and France billed Germany for World War I. They demanded reparations of 33 Billion Dollars. Before the bill, 4 German Marks equaled 1 US Dollar.

In 1922, it was up to 400 Marks for 1 US Dollar. The German government pleaded for a deal. They asked for a reduction and postponement from the payments. It was refused. Germany decided to default on their payments. In 1923, it was 18,000 Marks for 1 US Dollar. In July 1923, it was 160,000, by August, 1,000,000. In September of 1923, the German government made the decision to resume making payments. It didn’t seem to matter, by November of 1923, it took 4,000,000,000 Marks for 1 US Dollar.

Most Germans lost all of their life savings. Their salaries were paid in a currency that soon became worthless. Prices were changing every day, soon it became every hour, and finally every minute. The daily grocery bill now cost billions of Marks. There was widespread hunger and riots broke out. In November of 1923, hyperinflation peaked. The time was surely ripe for a coup d’etat.

On September 26, 1923, Bavarian Prime Minister Eugen von Knilling declared a state of emergency. He appointed Gustav von Kahr the new state commissioner, with dictatorial governing powers. Together with Bavarian State Police head Colonel Hans Ritter von Seisser, and Reichswehr General Otto von Lossow, Kahr formed a triumvirate. Hitler announced that starting on September 27, 1923, he would be holding 14 mass meetings. One of Kahr’s first actions was to ban these meetings.

Adolf Hitler now knew that von Kahr sought to control him and was not ready to act against the government in Berlin. He found out that von Kahr was making a speech in front of about 3,000 people at Bürgerbräukeller, one of the largest beer halls in Munich. Hitler decided to take matters into his own hands. He felt the time was right for the NSDAP to make its move and take over Germany. He enlisted the help of World War I hero, General Erich Friedrich Wilhelm Ludendorf.

On November 8, 1923, the night of the Munich Putsch (also referred to as the Beer Hall Putsch), there were 55,000 members of the NSDAP. At 8:30 that evening, Rudolf Hess was with Hitler when they went into Bürgerbräukeller, which was already surrounded by a force of 600 Sturmabteilung (SA) under Hermann Göring. Hitler took the podium, interrupted the speech of von Kahr, and announced “The National Revolution has begun” “… The government of the November criminals and the Reich President are declared to be removed. A new national government will be named this very day in Munich. A new German National Army will be formed immediately. …The task of the provisional German National Government is to organize the march on that sinful Babel, Berlin, and save the German people! Tomorrow will find either a National Government in Germany or us dead”

I am going to fulfill the vow I made to myself five years ago when I was a blind cripple in the military hospital – to know neither rest nor peace until the November criminals had been overthrown, until on the ruins of the wretched Germany of today there should have arisen once more a Germany of power and greatness, of freedom and splendor.”

The crowd in the beer hall roared their approval and sang “Deutschland über Alles.” Hitler was excited. Was this turning into a night of conquest for him? Tomorrow he might actually be head of Germany. Hitler planned to use Munich as a base for a big march against Germany’s Weimar Republic government. But it was not to be.

In the early morning hours of November 9, 1923, Kahr and General Lossow broke their promise to Hitler and General Ludendorff. General Lossow ordered the Army into Munich to put down the uprising. Troops were rushed in and by dawn the War Ministry building containing Ernst Röhm and his SA troops were surrounded.

Hitler was up all night trying to decide what to do. General Ludendorff then gave him an idea. They would march into the middle of Munich and take it over. Because of his World War I fame, Ludendorff reasoned, no one would dare fire on him. He even assured Hitler the police and the Army would likely join them. Hitler went for the idea.

At 11am, a group of three thousand NSDAP, led by Hitler, Göring, Hess and Ludendorff marched toward the center of Munich. Carrying one of the flags was a young party member named Heinrich Himmler. They headed toward the War Ministry building but encountered a blockade of police. As they stood face to face with a hundred armed policemen, Hitler yelled out to them to surrender. They didn’t. Shots rang out. Both sides fired. It lasted about a minute. Sixteen NSDAP and three police were killed. Göring was hit in the groin. Hitler suffered a dislocated shoulder when the man he had locked arms with was shot and dragged Hitler down to the ground.

Adolf Hitler’s bodyguard from 1920 to 1923, Ulrich Graf, shielded Hitler with his body. He received several bullet wounds (he recovered), and possibly saved Hitler’s life. Hitler then got away into a waiting car. The rest of the NSDAP scattered or were arrested. General Ludendorff, true to his heroic form, walked right through the line of fire to the police, and was then arrested.

Hitler wound up at the home of his friends, the Hanfstaengls. He spent two nights in the attic. On the third night, police arrived and arrested him. He was taken to the prison at Landsberg where his spirits lifted somewhat after he was told he was going to get a public trial. With the monumental failure of the Munich Putsch, it now seemed certain that the political career of Adolf Hitler had come to an end.

Adolf Hitler was sentenced to five years, but yet somehow served only nine months. Rudolf Hess was sentenced to eighteen months, and served almost eight months. While they were together for seven months in Landsberg prison, Hess acted as Hitler’s private secretary. Most importantly, he transcribed and helped to edit Mein Kampf. Hess and Hitler were visited in prison at least eight times by Professor Haushofer, who always stayed with his pupil Rudolf the whole morning and afternoon. It was during this time Hitler told Hess it would take between seven and twelve years for the NSDAP to try again to form a new government for Germany. Adolf Hitler was correct; it would take just over eight years.

On January 2, 1925, Hess was released from prison (two weeks after Hitler). He then served for several years as the personal secretary for Hitler, without any official rank in the NSDAP. Rudolf Hess always kept flying after he became a pilot in World War I. He competed in many aerial races and helped the NSDAP when he flew banners and buzzed other rallies. After Charles Lindbergh completed the first solo nonstop flight across the Atlantic on May 20-21, 1927 (west to east), Hess wanted to be the first to solo across the Atlantic going from east to west. On December 20, 1927, Rudolf Hess married Ilse Pröhl, a 27-year-old from Hannover. They had one son, Wolf Rüdiger Hess (November 18, 1937 – October 24, 2001).

As a result of the failed Munich Putsch, the NSDAP and its affiliated organizations were banned in Bavaria. On January 4, 1925, in a meeting with Prime Minister of Bavaria, Heinrich Held, Hitler agreed to respect the authority of the state; he would only seek political power through the democratic process. The meeting paved the way for the ban on the NSDAP to be lifted. However, Hitler was barred from public speaking for two more years. Finally, in January of 1927, Saxony lifted this ban, and on March 5, 1927, the authorities in Bavaria conceded, and allowed Hitler to speak.

The continued success of Hilter’s book, Mein Kampf, helped the NSDAP once again grow and became a political force within Germany. Between September 1930 and March 1933 the NSDAP voting percentage went from 18.3% to 43.9%; total votes went from 6,409,600 to 17,277,180. Their Reichstag seats increased from 107 to 288.

In January 1932, as a reward for his now dozen years of loyal and dedicated service, Hitler appointed Hess: Chairman of the Central Political Commission of the NSDAP; and SS General. Rudolf Hess was given the prominence he most rightly deserved.

On January 30, 1933, after a 13-year struggle, Adolf Hitler was finally appointed as Chancellor of Germany. He soon transformed the Weimar Republic into the Third Reich. The world was in the middle of the Great Depression, including Germany, with an unemployment rate of almost 30%. On March 17, 1933, Hjalmar Schacht became president of the central bank, and in August 1934, became finance minister. Schacht kept interest rates at zero and government budget deficits high, with massive public works projects. Once unburdened of usury, the German economy started to take off (and not on the misconception of a war economy, that didn’t occur till the late 1930’s). Within three years the unemployment rate in German had fallen to under 5%, and the by the next year, 1937, there was a labor shortage. The German economic turnaround was soon the envy of the world. This kind of financial model could not be allowed.

… The elimination of unemployment in Germany during the Great Depression without inflation — and with initial reliance on essential civilian activities — was a signal accomplishment. It has rarely been praised and not much remarked. The notion that Hitler could do no good extends to his economics as it does, more plausibly, to all else.”

~ John Kenneth Galbrait

The International bankers, better than anyone, knew just how successful a system without usury would be. So, preemptively on March 24, 1933, they started World War II; with Judea Declares War on Germany – Jews of the World Unite in Action. Their aim was the total destruction of Germany. This barbaric strategy of annihilation was done as a lesson to any future government thinking of freeing its citizens of the evil usury.

The nation does not live for the sake of the economic system, and the economic system does not exist for the sake of capital. On the contrary, capital is the servant of the economic system and the economic system is the servant of the people.”

~ Adolf Hitler

The following is a short history of why every religion, but Judaism, was against usury. Central bank usury control caused the US Constitution (when we already had a much superior Articles of Confederation) to get their First Bank Of The United States in 1791. They were given a 20-year charter. When their 20-year charter was up in 1811, the Jeffersonian Democrats prevented its charter from being renewed. So the Rothschild bankers summoned their mercenaries (the British army and navy) to teach us a lesson, the War of 1812. We learned the lesson the hard way, and in 1816, they got their Second Bank Of The United States, again with a 20-year charter. When Andrew Jackson was elected in 1828, saying he would kill the bank, the bankers tried everything to stop him; they created the 1833 recession; had him censured in 1834; and a failed (both guns misfired) assassination attempt on January 30, 1835. It didn’t work, Jackson killed the bank in 1836, when their 20-year charter was not renewed. During the American Civil War, Abraham Lincoln created Greenbacks instead of the 24% to 36% usury the Wall Street bankers wanted to charge, and he was assassinated on Good Friday 1865. On December 23, 1913 the Rothschild bankers finally got their third central bank, the Federal Reserve Bank. The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 originally had a 20-year charter. But on February 25, 1927, the McFadden Pepper Act was signed into law. It made the Federal Reserve’s power over our monetary policy perpetual. Today, only an act of the US congress can dissolve the Federal Reserve Banks. On June 4, 1963, President John F. Kennedy created United States Treasury Notes, known as Silver Certificates, with Executive Order 11110, and he was assassinated on November 22, 1963. This assassination was 53 years to the day (November 22, 1910) of the meeting on Jekyll Island that created the Federal Reserve Bank. Jesus began his three and a half year ministry in Jerusalem by driving the corrupt moneychangers from the Temple. He also ended His ministry by attacking the same thieves. It was the only time that Jesus used force. Within a short while, Jesus Christ was nailed to a cross. So, when Adolf Hitler takes their banks, and created his own German currency, of course they declared war on him. They also created a worldwide boycott of all German goods. The goal was really quite simple; Germany had to be completely destroyed.

After visiting these two places (Berchtesgaden and the Eagle’s lair on Obersalzberg), you can easily understand how that within a few years Hitler will emerge from the hatred that surrounds him now as one of the most significant figures who ever lived. He had boundless ambitions for his country which rendered him a menace to the peace of the world, but he had a mystery about him in the way that he lived and in the manner of his death that will live and grow after him. He had in him the stuff of which legends are made.”

~ John F. Kennedy

On April 21, 1933, Adolf Hitler awards Deputy to the Führer to Rudolf Hess. This was a prestigious award; he was now officially one of a handful of leaders under Hitler. Rudolf was quite busy for the next eight years with his job as the Chairman of the Central Political Commission of the NSDAP. He was an intelligent and honorable ambassador who projected a wonderful image for both the Party and for Germany. With Germany having both the 1936 Winter Olympic Games in Garmisch-Partenkirchen and the 1936 Summer Olympic Games in Berlin (this is the last time the same country was host to both Olympics the same year), Hess became acquainted with many political leaders and royalty throughout Europe and the world. Those who worked for him (even those who were arrested after his flight for peace) thought he was thoroughly honest and represented Germany with courage, dignity and honor.

Rudolf Hess passionately introduces Hitler in, Triumph of the Will (Triumph des Willens); a film made by Leni Riefenstahl, released in 1935, and introduced many new cinematic achievements. It chronicles the September 5 to 10, 1934, NSDAP Congress in Nuremberg, which was attended by more than 700,000 supporters. The film contains parts of speeches by leaders, including Hitler, edited together with massed party members. Hitler commissioned the film and served as an executive producer; his name appears in the opening titles. The theme of the film is the return of Germany as a great power.

On June 18, 1935, The Anglo-German Naval Agreement (AGNA) allowed German tonnage to increase to 35% of that of the British navy. Hitler called the signing of the AGNA “the happiest day of his life”, as he believed the agreement marked the beginning of the Anglo-German alliance he had predicted in Mein Kampf. Peace with Britain.

On October 18, 1936, Hermann Göring was put in charge of the Four Year Plan. Göring had complete control over the economy, including the private sector. Hitler told Göring to have Germany prepared to defend herself within four years against the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). Hitler, who rarely ever wrote anything down, wrote the “Four-Year Plan Memorandum” personally. Doing this indicates that he had something exceptionally important to say. Hitler wrote: “Since the outbreak of the French Revolution, the world has been moving with ever increasing speed toward a new conflict, the most extreme solution of which is called Bolshevism, whose essence and aim, however, are solely the elimination of those strata of mankind which have hitherto provided the leadership and their replacement by worldwide Jewry. No state will be able to withdraw or even remain at a distance from this historical conflict. It is not the aim of this memorandum to prophesy the time when the untenable situation in Europe will become an open crisis. I only want, in these lines, to set down my conviction that this crisis cannot and will not fail to arrive and that it is Germany’s duty to secure her own existence by every means in face of this catastrophe, and to protect herself against it, and that from this compulsion there arises a series of conclusions relating to the most important tasks that our people have ever been set. For a victory of Bolshevism over Germany would not lead to a Versailles treaty, but to the final destruction, indeed the annihilation of the German people.” Adolf Hitler was prophetically correct with this analysis; it would later be called the Morgenthau plan.

On March 12, 1938, Hitler declared the unification (Anschluss) of Austria with Germany. Hundreds of thousands of Austrians turned out to welcome the Germans. Austria was still in the Depression, with very high unemployment. With help from Germany this problem was turned around, within two years there was full employment.

The Munich Agreement was signed in the early hours of September 30, 1938, (yet dated September 29). It allowed Germany to annex the Sudetenland. Ethnic Germans mainly inhabited this area of Czechoslovakia. The agreement was negotiated at a conference in Munich, Germany, and signed by Germany, Britain, France and Italy.

Rudolf Hess stated that German intelligence had learned airfields were being built inside Czechoslovakia. These airfields were to be used by the USSR for their fighters and bombers against Germany. To end this, on March 15, 1939, German troops entered into Czechoslovakia. Later that same day, Hitler was in Prague with his troops.

Under the Treaty of Versailles, Germany was forced to give up a few land areas to surrounding countries. One of these was Danzig, a port city on the Baltic Sea with a population of 408,000. The people of Danzig were overwhelmingly German, about 97%.

In 1937 Hitler asked Poland to give Germany a one-mile access to their province in East Prussia. Both parties agreed, then Poland suddenly broke off all negotiations. On October 6, 1938, the Hitler peace plan, based on a German victory in Poland, is rejected by Britain and France. On October 24, 1938, Germany started 10 months of peaceful negotiations with Poland, for the return of Danzig and a corridor for an Autobahn route and railroad, to go through western Poland to connect East Prussia with Germany.

“Poland wants war with Germany and Germany will not be able to avoid it even if she wants to.” (Polish Marshal Rydz-Smigly as reported in the Daily Mail, August 6th, 1939)

Ten months of negotiations in good faith went nowhere. This is because pressure from Sir Winston Leonard Spencer-Churchill and his warmongers was applied to Poland. They were not to give in to any German negotiations for Danzig. On March 31, 1939, Britain initiated the Anglo-Polish military alliance (joined by France), which guaranteed Poland’s defense. They created their pretext to start World War II. Now all they had to do was make sure Hitler would react.

In the months leading up to September 1, 1939, in dozens of incidents, thousands of German Nationals in the Danzig corridor were brutally murdered. Some claim the Polish Bolsheviks killed 58,000 German Nationals in the Danzig corridor. Whatever the true numbers are, one thing is for certain, Germany was deliberately being provoked to enter Danzig. What country would let these atrocities happen to their own people?

On September 1, 1939, Adolf Hitler announces his successors, Hermann Göring and Rudolf Hess. Hess is now officially the number three person in the Third Reich. For Hess this must have been the most esteemed honor that could ever be bestowed upon him. That Adolf Hitler thought he was responsible and capable of leading Germany.

On September 1, 1939, Germany invades Poland to liberate Dazing.

On September 2, 1939, Germany annexed the Free City of Danzig. Adolf Hitler advised Britain and France that he would withdraw, if allowed to keep Danzig and the corridor.

On September 3, 1939, Hitler received his answer back. Britain and France declared war on Germany for invading Poland (Danzig and the corridor). I do find it quite noteworthy to state, that World War II was started on the pretext to protect and keep Poland free. Yet on September 17, 1939, the USSR entered Poland from the east and war is not declared on them by Britain, nor by France. And at the end of the war, a thoroughly ravaged Poland was given to the USSR. This contradiction plainly shows to the world just how disingenuous and hollow the pretext was to start World War II.

This war thrusts us years back in our constructive work. It is deplorable. I have not indeed become the Chancellor of the Greater German Reich in order to conduct war!”

~ Adolf Hitler (1940)

On May 10, 1940, Sir Winston Churchill became Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. On May 11, 1940, Britain (Churchill) made a fateful decision in its approach to fighting World War II. That night, eighteen Whitley bombers attacked railway installations in the western German province of Westphalia, far from the war front. That forgotten bombing raid, which in itself was inconsequential, has been called “the first deliberate breach of the fundamental rule of civilized warfare that hostilities must only be waged against the enemy combatant forces” J. M. Spaight, who had been principal secretary of Britain’s Air Ministry, wrote later, in his book Bombing Vindicated (1944), that “it was we who started the strategic [i.e., civilian] bombing offensive” with the “splendid decision” of May 11, 1940. Churchill broke this fundamental rule that hostilities must only be waged against the enemy combatant forces within 24 hours of becoming Prime Minister. He kept doing these illegal, immoral, savage, terrorist air strikes on German civilians. Part of the British barbaric bombing strategy was apparently to provoke German attacks on Britain in order to stimulate support for war against Germany. Hitler didn’t retaliate. He did try to tell the world of this new terrorism on civilians.

The Battle of Dunkirk (also known thanks to Churchill’s spin, as the Miracle of Dunkirk) occurred from May 26 to June 4, 1940. On May 24th Hitler ordered the army to stop for three days. These three days gave the Allies time to organize an evacuation and helped them to build a defensive line. Some 338,000 Allied troops that were surrounded by German forces escaped. This was indeed an enormous gesture from Hitler that Germany wanted peace with Britain. On February 26, 1945, Hitler lamented that Churchill was “quite unable to appreciate the sporting spirit” in which he had refrained from annihilating the BEF [British Expeditionary Force] at Dunkirk.

On August 1, 1940, Adolf Hitler issued No. 17 Directive: On the conduct of air war against Britain, Hitler, specifically prohibited the Luftwaffe from conducting terror raids on its own initiative. The war against Britain is to be restricted to destructive attacks against industry and air force targets that have weak defensive forces. The most thorough study of the target concerned, that is vital points of the target, is a pre-requisite for success. It is also stressed that every effort should be made to avoid unnecessary loss of life amongst the civilian population. Hitler is still taking the high road by doing this, while Churchill is still terrorizing German civilians with air strikes.

Both Hitler and Hess wanted peace between Germany and Britain. They talked about this subject on many occasions over their twenty years together. In 1940 Hess initiated a Hitler endorsed peace plan between Germany and Britain through royalty and diplomatic channels in neutral Switzerland. These peace efforts with Britain failed.

Rudolf Hess soon thought of another way to try and bring a peace between Germany and Britain. He asked his friend, Wilhelm Emil “Willy” Messerschmitt for a plane to fly. Messerschmitt gave him a new Me 110. Rudolf trained with this plane out of Augsburg, till he knew it well. On May 4, 1941, Hess and Hitler talked for 30 minutes and Hess asked Hitler if he still wanted peace with Britain, Hitler said he did (this is the last time they were ever together). Hess was finally ready to fly for peace. He asked Messerschmitt for extra fuel tanks and a few other improvements to be installed on his Me 110. He ordered daily weather reports for his flight. He waited to coincide with a large air strike to piggyback on their signal for guidance. He ordered an expensive German aviator suit. He even made one false flight, flying for two hours till the weather suddenly worsened and he had to return. Hess spent a long time writing two letters to Adolf Hitler, one short and one fourteen pages, about his flight for peace.

On May 10, 1941, Rudolf Hess knew this was going to be the day of his flight, so he lovingly played with his son (Wolf Rüdiger Hess) for hours. He got dressed and ready and took a car to Ausburg airfield. Everything was a go for the flight. His Me 110 was unarmed. Ever since Hess received his plane, he never had it armed. Hess was on a mission of peace. He lifted off at 5:40pm on route to Scotland. His courageous flight for peace was under way.

This is a part of the letter Hess left behind for his wife and son: “My dear ones, I firmly believe that I shall return from the flight I am about to make and that the flight will be crowned with success. Should I not return, however, the goal I set myself was worth the supreme effort. I am sure you all know me: you know I could not have acted any other way. Your Rudolf”

At 10:08pm Hess’s Me 110 was picked up on Edinburgh (Scotland) radar. He was trying to find a place to land. He was looking for the estate of the Duke of Hamilton, when the radar lost him at 11:07pm just south of Glasglow. Hess’s flight was approximately 900 miles, he went north till he reached the North Sea, then went west towards Scotland. He navigated to within miles of the Duke’s residence. Hess parachuted out at about 6,000 feet, and his plane crashed. He injured his ankle on landing and was soon discovered. When found Hess said: “I have an important message for the Duke of Hamilton.” Hess and the Duke had met during the 1936 Olympics Games in Berlin. The police inventory indicated that Rudolf Hess was carrying a letter to HM King George VI.

Was Hitler concerned about these peace negotiations? He didn’t want a war on two fronts, and he wanted to order Operation Barbarossa (the invasion of the USSR) as early as possible, hopefully in mid May 1941. Operation Barbarossa did not commence until June 22, 1941. This five-week delay was a primary factor, along with the vastly underestimated USSR forces, which ultimately proved to be fatal. This was a tragic blunder for German Intelligence. On June 4, 1942, Hitler talks about this horrendous miscalculation, in the Hitler – Mannerheim conversation. The conversation was secretly recorded for 11 minutes. It is the only existing recording of Hitler in a normal voice.

On May 10, 1941, London received its heaviest German air attack (Blitzkrieg) ever. With 1,436 people killed and 12,000 made homeless. The Houses of Parliament was struck, The Commons debating chamber, the symbol of British democracy, was destroyed.

May 10, 1941, was also the day of the last major Blitzkrieg on Britain. The Hess flight for peace and the last major Blitzkrieg on Britain to occur on the same day is not a coincidence. Germany wanted peace with Britain.

The Hess flight for peace actually did bring peace. It brought peace from German air strikes on Britain, and soon thereafter Churchill inexplicably instructed Sir Charles Portal, Chief of the Air Staff, to greatly reduce the bombing attacks on Germany.

But when it came to Rudolf Hess, Winston Churchill had no qualms about illegally (he came to Britain in good will as an ambassador for peace, and / or for medical reasons) keeping him a prisoner of war in Britain for the next 53 months. “… I approved the War Office proposal to bring Hess to the Tower [of London] by tonight pending his place of confinement being prepared at Aldershot. His treatment will become less indulgent as time goes on. There need be no hurry about interviewing him, and I wish to be informed before any visitors are allowed. He is to be kept in the strictest seclusion, and those in charge of him should refrain from conversation. The public will not stand any pampering except for intelligence purposes with this notorious war criminal.” Prime Minister’s [Churchill] Personal Minute, May 16, 1941, Serial No. M550/1

On May 22, 1941, Churchill told the House of Commons that he was not yet in a position to make a statement regarding Rudolf Hess and was not even sure when he would be able to make a statement. This is Churchill being audacious, cunning and evading; and thoroughly getting away with it. Were all the British politicians cowards?

My coming to England in this way is, as I realize, so unusual that nobody will easily understand it. I was confronted by a very hard decision. I do not think I could have arrived at my final choice unless I had continually kept before my eyes the vision of an endless line of children’s coffins with weeping mothers behind them, both English and German, and another line of coffins of mothers with mourning children.”

~ Rudolf Hess (June 10, 1941)

I recommend a wonderful and free book on Hess during the war years of 1941 to 1945: Hess: The Missing Years by David Irving – Thank you David for making this book free.

In August of 1944, Treasury Secretary Henry R. Morgenthau Jr. (Jewish), submitted his malevolent plan, the Morgenthau plan, for post-war treatment of German leaders to President Franklin D. Roosevelt. He proposes shooting many leaders upon capture, using German POWs to rebuild Europe, and tearing down industry and remaking Germany as an agricultural society. During the Second Quebec Conference held from September 12 to 16, 1944, Roosevelt and Morgenthau persuaded an unenthusiastic Churchill to agree to the Morgenthau plan. Churchill held out until he got what he came for, another $6 billion from the Lend Lease agreement.

On November 6, 1944, Winston Churchill made a visit to Moscow, the capital of the USSR. Whilst at a State dinner at the Kremlin, Joseph Stalin raised his glass and proposed a toast to the ingenious British Intelligence Services, which he said had “inveigled Hess into coming to England.” Churchill immediately protested that he and the intelligence services knew nothing about the proposed visit. Stalin smiled and said “maybe the intelligence services failed to tell you about the operation.”

History is not ended. It will sooner or later take up the threads apparently broken off forever and knit them together in a new pattern.”

~ Rudolf Hess (June 18, 1945)

When World War II ended, Germany was in total ruin. But it was to get even worse. Within a few years 15,000,000+ Germans and ethnic German civilians were cleansed, with 9,000,000+ murdered by starvation and disease. This was deliberate allied policy. It was the evil Morgenthau plan of merciless retribution in action for all to see. This behavior is exactly what Adolf Hitler warned about in the autumn of 1936 when he wrote the Four-Year Plan Memorandum “… but to the final destruction, indeed the annihilation of the German people …” Three painfully insightful books on this are: Gruesome Harvest, Crimes and Mercies and Hellstorm: The Death Of Nazi Germany, 1944-1947. The unfortunate German soldiers, who had been captured, were killed by starvation, lack of medicine and the elements in concentration camps. Up to 1,700,000 German prisoners of war died while under United States supervision. These killings were supervised by the Supreme Allied Commander, General Dwight D. Eisenhower. General Eisenhower prohibited German people from sharing their rations with detained German soldiers. [How did Eisenhower who was General Douglas MacArthur’s secretary, became the Supreme Allied Commander? Especially when General MacArthur felt Eisenhower was incompetent. How within 45 months did he bypass hundreds of officers with higher rank? Here are his unbelievable military promotions, with help from the warmonger Bernard Baruch (Jewish): March 11, 1941 – Colonel, October 3, 1941 – Brigadier General (1 Star), March 28, 1942 – Major General (2 Stars), July 9, 1942 – Lieutenant General (3 Stars), February 11, 1943 – General (4 Stars) and December 20, 1944 – General of the Army (5 Stars). Eisenhower was a 1915 West Point graduate, while there he was known as, The Terrible Swedish Jew. Ike sure did live up to his first nickname].

On October 8, 1945, Rudolf Hess left Britain for the last time. He was flown to the International Military Tribunal in Nüremberg. It was there that Hess, along with other 23 other top German leaders, would be tried. On October 18, 1945, the chief prosecutors of the International Military Tribunal read the indictments against 24 leading German officials. The initial trial was held from November 20, 1945 to October 1, 1946. His judges were from the USSR, Britain, France and the United States. It is worthy to note, that the majority of the lawyers and support staff at this Stalin like show trial, I mean International Military Tribunal, were Jewish. The main judge on this tribunal from the USSR, Major-General Iona Nikitchenko, also presided over many of the most notorious of Joseph Stalin’s show trials during the Great Purges of 1936 to 1938.

United States Senator Robert Taft condemned the postwar Nuremberg Trials as “victor’s justice” in which the people who won the war were the prosecutors, the judges and the alleged victims, all at the same time. Taft condemned the trials as a violation of the most basic principles of American justice and internationally accepted standards of justice. United States Senator John F. Kennedy in his best-selling book, Profiles in Courage, applauded Taft’s principled stand. Kennedy did this in the face of immense criticism.

The defense counsel for Hess requested that a psychiatrist from neutral Switzerland should examine him. The request was denied. Psychiatrists from all four victorious allied countries examined Hess. There were eight doctors; three from USSR, three from Britain, one French and one from the United States. Seven of the eight who examined Hess agreed he was fit to stand trial. The eighth, was none other than the personal doctor of Winston Churchill, Lord Moran, who claimed Hess was too ill to stand trial, and should be handed back to Britain. Why would Churchill order such a blatantly preposterous decision? Did he want Hess back in Britain so bad he did not care what it looked like? Why would you want to draw more attention to these trials that were already looked upon with much contempt throughout the world?

Jackson [Robert Jackson, the chief United States prosecutor at Nuremberg] is away conducting his high-grade lynching party in Nuremberg,” he wrote. ” … I hate to see the pretense that he is running a court and proceeding according to common law. This is a little too sanctimonious a fraud to meet my old-fashioned ideas.”

~ US Supreme Court Chief Justice Harlan Fiske Stone (Harlan Stone was the first Chief Justice not to have served in elected office before becoming Chief Justice.)

The following quote is the last statement by Rudolf Hess to the International Military Tribunal in Nüremberg on August 31, 1946:

I do not propose to argue about charges that are concerned with the internal affairs of Germany, with which foreigners have no right to interfere. I make no complaints about statements, the aim of which is to discredit and dishonor myself and the entire German people. I regard such statements coming from enemies as confirmations of our honor. It has been my privilege to serve for many years under the greatest son to whom my people have given birth in its thousand years of history. Even if it were possible for me to do so, I would never wish to wipe this period of service out of my life. It fills me with happiness to know that I did my duty toward my people. I regret nothing. Whatever men may do to me, the day will come when I will stand before the judgment seat of the Eternal: to Him I will give an account of my actions, and I know that He will pronounce me innocent.”

On September 30 and October 1, 1946, the sentences were pronounced. Hess was found guilty of crimes against peace and of conspiracy. He was found innocent of war crimes and crimes against humanity. The International Military Tribunal in Nüremberg compromised when they sentenced Hess to solitary confinement for life. The USSR judge and his alternate wanted him executed (hung). The American and British judges and the American and French alternates wanted a sentence of life, the French judge wanted a sentence of twenty years. The British alternate shamelessly abstained.

The appeals of the condemned for pardons, were rejected. The death sentences, by hanging, were carried out in the early hours of October 16, 1946. Hermann Göring committed suicide before his scheduled execution.

I thought at the time and still think that the Nuremberg trials were unprincipled. Law was created ex post facto to suit the passion and clamor of the time.”

~ Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas

On July 18, 1947, Rudolf Hess and his six fellow prisoners, all former top German officials, were flown from Nuremberg to West Berlin, West Germany, and Spandau prison, under heavy security. For the next 40 years at Spandau, Hess was known and spoken to only as prisoner #7. In 1966 the last two prisoners, Baldur von Schirach and Albert Speer, were released after serving their 20-year sentences. Hess was alone. He spent the last 21 years all by himself, in Spandau, a prison built for 600 prisoners.

Keeping Hess in Spandau by himself cost the West German government approximately 850,000 Marks a year. All four of the allied powers had to provide an officer and 37 soldiers during their shifts, as well as a director and team of wardens throughout the entire year. The permanent maintenance staff of 22 included cooks, waitresses and cleaners. It took almost 200 people to keep in prison one man, a brave man who wanted peace. Over the decades it became more and more overtly obscene. This was torture; they were trying to dehumanize Hess with solitary confinement.

When his wife or son visited Rudolf, they were not allowed to touch each other. In 1950, a French chaplain, Pastor Casalis, complained, to the prison Directorate: “It can safely be said that Spandau has become a place of mental torture to an extent that does not permit the Christian conscience to remain silent …”

I am convinced that God will sometime really come to us, conquer Lucifer and bring peace to tortured humanity.”

~ Rudolf Hess (July 1947)

In this next quote, Churchill sure is reflecting, reflecting blame from himself “I am glad not to be responsible for the way in which Hess has been and is being treated” while demeaning the Hess peace plan “frantic deed of lunatic benevolence”. Churchill was the person responsible for keeping Hess, “quality of an envoy”, a prisoner in Britain for 53 months. If Hess was “a medical and not a criminal case” The International Red Cross should have demanded that Britain in accordance with the Geneva and Hague Conventions (which Britain should have done on their own) let Hess go back to Germany under medical conditions. Churchill told Stalin that Hess was mentally ill but this was to be kept secret otherwise under the terms of the Geneva Convention, he would have to be repatriated. Churchill has 3 lies, 1 demean, all in 1 quote.

Reflecting upon the whole of the story, I am glad not to be responsible for the way in which Hess has been and is being treated. Whatever may be the moral guilt of a German who stood near to Hitler, Hess had, in my view, atoned for this by his completely devoted and frantic deed of lunatic benevolence. He came to us of his own free will, and, though without authority, had something of the quality of an envoy. He was a medical and not a criminal case, and should be so regarded.”

~ Winston Churchill (1950)

[Churchill helped bring the United States into World War I with the false flag sinking of HMS Lusitania and was the head cheerleader in Britain / Europe to create World War II]

Lieutenant Colonel Eugene K. Bird was the US Commandant of the Spandau Allied Prison from 1964 to 1972. Hess met Bird and over the years, and after many hundreds of hours of discussion between the two men, they developed a friendship, and a book about the flight for peace began to develop. In March 1971, Bird’s superiors at the U.S. Mission in Berlin became aware of the manuscript and proposed book. Bird was interrogated, placed under house arrest, and eventually made to resign his position as Commandant of Spandau Prison. This episode also ended his long military career. Bird and his family relocated to Germany in order to complete his book about Hess. The Loneliest Man in the World, was published in 1974.

Rudolf Hess was the only one of the defendants from the International Military Tribunal in Nüremberg found guilty, to serve the full life term. Of the four powers that had won the war against Germany, three, the USSR, France and the United States, proposed that due to his age, Hess should be released on humanitarian grounds. The British government under Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, said no. This callus and malicious decision to a man in his nineties, a man who spent 46 years, half his life in prison, leaves one bewildered. What was true motive that made Britain act like this?

On August 17, 1987, Rudolf Hess, 93 years of age, was murdered at Spandau Prison, West Berlin, West Germany. His son, Wolf Rüdiger Hess, investigated his Father’s murder for many years. The following are two of his quotes and one of Lieutenant Colonel Eugene K. Bird, Commandant of the Spandau Allied Prison from 1964 to 1972.

Rudolf Hess did not commit suicide on August 17, 1987, as the British government claims. The weight of evidence shows instead that British officials, acting on high-level orders, murdered my father.”

~ Wolf Rüdiger Hess

The same government, which tried to make him a scapegoat for its crimes, and which for almost half a century resolutely sought to suppress the truth of the Hess affair, finally did not shrink from murder to silence him. My father’s murder was not only a crime against a frail and elderly man, but a crime against historical truth. It was a logical final act of an official British conspiracy that began in 1941, at the outset of the Hess affair. But I can assure them, and you, that this conspiracy will not succeed. The murder of my father will not, as they hope, forever close the book on the Hess file. I am convinced that history and justice will absolve my father. His courage in risking his life for peace, the long injustice he endured, and his martyrdom, will not be forgotten. He will be vindicated, and his final words at the Nuremberg trial, “I regret nothing!,” will stand forever”

~ Wolf Rüdiger Hess

I was suspicious for several reasons… after all, Hess who had been held in Spandau for almost 40 years was by then 93-years-old and fragile. I doubted he had the strength to kill himself with a cord which was not attached at both ends to anything.”

~ Lieutenant Colonel Eugene K. Bird, on the death of Rudolf Hess

On July 20, 2011, the remains of Rudolf Hess were exhumed, cremated and strewn at sea, along with his wife and parents. His gravesite, which became a shrine for peace, is forever gone. His gravestone, which bore the epitaph “Ich hab’s gewagt” “I Dared”, was destroyed. So, this is what it has come down to, the warmongers realizing that Hess is the poster boy for peace, have made a concerted effort to make him disappear. Being done on July 20th, is on purpose and meant to send a clear message. On July 20, 1944, an attempt was made to assassinate Hitler, at Wolf’s Lair field headquarters.

The enemy of peace has laid its soul to bare by what it did to Rudolf Hess for the last 46 years of his life. Then, 24 years after his murder, they cunningly try to erase him from history, by having his remains exhumed, cremated and scattered at sea. This vengeful overreaching has lifted the veil and shown us the evil we are dealing with. Thank you Deputy Führer Rudolf Hess for having lived your life with honesty and dignity. By doing this, you made the parasitical warmongers show their demonic hand to us all. You are, and will remain throughout history, a courageous hero for peace.

Ernst Zündel: Unbowed

Source: http://www.renegadetribune.com/ernst-zundel-unbowed/

A personal Telling Films tribute by Lady Michèle Renouf to German-Canadian artist, publisher and dedicated campaigner for historical truth Ernst Zündel, born 23rd April 1939, died 5th August 2017 at his ancestral home in southern Germany. Uniquely interviewed as he was released from Mannheim Prison in 2010 and during his journey back to his childhood home in the Black Forest, and updated in this unexpurgated version after Ernst Zündel’s death, this film documents his decades of legal struggle for source-critical justice in Canada and Germany, literally illustrated by Ernst’s own art works created during his years of imprisonment, and includes an interview with his lawyer Dr. Herbert Schaller.

Anarchy in Action: the Spanish Civil War

Source: http://www.renegadetribune.com/anarchy-action-spanish-civil-war/

By Eric Thomson (2000)

Some ideas are so bad that they reveal themselves as bad jokes, as soon as people attempt to apply them to reality. “Lenin” allegedly attempted to apply the Marxist principle of “From each, according to his ability, to each, according to his need” for an entire week when he moved into Russia after the departure of his fellow tribesman, “Kerensky”. After seeing Marxist ideology cripple some major factories, “Lenin” announced that “Those who do not work shall not eat!” This is, of course, the exact opposite of Marxism, but “Lenin”, with typical impudence, called his doctrine “Marxism-Leninism”. This is as oxymoronic as Christians who claim that the god of the Old Testament is the same as that of the New Testament. “Cold fusion” was another such absurdity, which shows that many people cannot see the obvious, or, as P.T. Barnum was alleged to have said: “There’s a sucker born every minute!” Anarchy is another dumb, bad idea. The sad truth is, that bad ideas never die. There are always new generations of suckers who fall for them.

It is certainly true that no system, ideology, leadership or organization can make up for poor quality in its adherents, whereas people of good quality can usually overcome organizational oversights, thanks to their ability and good will. The ‘best’ system in the world can not be expected to function if it is composed of miscreants, malcontents, morons and quarrelsome sectarians, but there is one ‘system’ known to defy the effectiveness of the best people who attempt to practice it, and that is anarchy. The goal of anarchy is to eliminate all forms of organization beyond the individual: to eliminate all social institutions. The logical goal of anarchy is the elimination of society itself. This is the goal of Marxism, in which communism is described as the result of “the withering away of the state” and the ‘return’ to the ‘ideal state of anarchy’, as proclaimed by the madman, Jean Jacques Rousseau. Some modern day Libertarians hover close to anarchism, like moths to a flame. “Aw, shucks,” some may disagree, “anarchy never was given a real chance.” Well, after rereading “The Spanish Civil War” by Hugh Thomas, I recommend that everyone who claims to sympathize with the philosophy of anarchy stop to consider what a good chance it had in Spain to strut its stuff.

Spain is a geographical entity. Despite government propaganda, it is not a nation, but an area in which various nations reside. These nations correspond in general to the provinces, which have variously been independent, like Portugal and Catalonia, and/or ruled by the central government in Madrid. Previous to that, some provinces were under Moorish rule. In Spain, unity is accepted with reluctance by the majority of Spaniards, so that the Madrid regime rules the country like a colonial power, with its Guardia Civil, the paramilitary police force and army garrisons in every province. At times, the uneasy truce between local interests and the central government is broken by guerrilla warfare. Spain is the original home of the “guerrilla” or “little war”, which received that name during the popular uprisings against the French occupation, during the Napoleonic Wars.

Anarchy is the extreme form of local, regional, provincial forces of political and economic disintegration. Ironically, anarchy in Spain achieved its greatest success because of uniformity, rather than the diversity of its adherents. Anarchists were primarily working-class and they were mainly Catalans, although the other provinces of Spain had their own anarchists. The anarchists far outnumbered the socialists, whose trade union members actually negotiated with government and employers. The anarchist unions did no such thing. They merely went out on strike and were fond of burning buildings, especially churches, for they viewed the Catholic Church as a weapon of mass-oppression. Hey, even anarchists can’t be all bad! Ironically, the Church supported many of the pre-capitalist communal ideas of the anarchists and the socialists, just as it champions the tenets of Marxism today.

Anarchy had broken out several times in 20th century Spain before the 1936-1939 Civil War. Anarchist miners in Asturias devastated towns with their favorite means of expression: dynamite. Even the U.S. Supreme Court might deem that rather extreme as a form of “free speech”, but it is said that an anarchist without a bomb is like a day without sunshine.

The divisions within Spanish society and the weak Republican regime gave the anarchists the opportunity they wanted, for they refused to participate in any form of government, with the exception of Catalonia, in which anarchists participated as de facto members, but not de jure members. Anarchists deem any recognition and/or participation in government, political parties or other organizations to be immoral. However, the anarchists did have their trade union and an organization, FAI (Anarchist Federation of Iberia), who were principally involved with the blasting of buildings and the assassination of opponents, similar to The Molly Maguires in the Pennsylvania mining areas. Spanish anarchists derived their primary inspiration from Bakunin, an exotic creed for domestic disaster.

Thus it was, that on the eve of Civil War, the Spanish anarchists had the numbers and the fervor in support of their ideology, which was absurdly, an ideology of disunity and disorganization.

As Spain split into two warring factions, the rebels became known as “Nationalists”, and the Republicans as “Reds”, which became a fact with the arrival of Communist Party functionaries, including Jews of the infamous NKVD, successor to the Cheka and predecessor of the KGB, now FSB. Prior to the Civil War, the influence and membership of the Communist Party in Spain was a virtual unreality, nonexistent, according to historian Hugh Thomas. There were even more members of POUM, a Trotskyite ‘workers’ movement’. But as the war progressed, the Republic found the USSR, under “Stalin”, to be its foremost supplier of military weapons, ammunition, oil and even food. Henceforth, the Communist minority gained predominant influence within the Republic, not only because of their material support, but equally so for the dedication, skill and organization of their representatives. The Communists dealt with the anarchists as a snowplow deals with snow.

Before the advent of Communist Party influence, the anarchists took over most of the Spanish Navy’s fleet by killing the officers. The Army became alarmed, assuming they would be next, so the rebellion intensified. The anarchists retaliated by killing Army officers and garrisons wherever they could, and the Civil War was on, without quarter being given by either side. Let’s consider anarchy in action, the most desperate action known to man: war.

The bulk of the Republican fighting forces were the anarchist militias, including socialists. They disdained all forms of military training, including marksmanship and weapons maintenance. Although they were ostensibly ‘led’ by regular Spanish Army officers, they usually disobeyed orders outright, or they might vote whether or not they would obey, and to what degree. Officers had to exercise extreme caution to avoid being shot by ‘their’ own men, so they became no better than the ‘soldiers’ whom they were charged with leading. Although the Republican forces outnumbered the Nationalist forces on most occasions, the militias proved disastrous on the offensive and not much better on the defensive. They refused to dig trenches, because they considered them a sign of ‘cowardice’. After several massacres, the militias finally deigned to dig trenches, and when they did so, they sometimes refused to leave them, and so were outflanked and encircled: more massacres at the hands of the Nationalist forces. A few aerial bombs in their vicinity would cause them to panic, even if the bombs were duds! Venereal diseases were rife, since anarchist units insisted on bringing along diseased whores for companionship. Men became so ill, primarily from gonorrhea, that they were shot when they refused orders to leave the front for medical treatment. Some units got drunk and then attacked the enemy, who believed in Santa Claus from that point onward. Anarchist units would refuse to prepare adequate defences, then they would panic when the Nationalists attacked. They would abandon their positions, and their weapons and run like rabbits, except that rabbits have the intelligence to run to cover. Not the anarchists, who ran down the roads, where they were easy targets for aviators with machineguns. An anarchist retreat was really a combination of rout and massacre.

The anarchist navy had taken over the most powerful units of the Spanish Fleet, but the sailors lacked that which they had disdained: officers. The Republican fleet participated in one disastrous attempt to seize the island of Majorca, after which it spent most of the time in port.

In summary, anarchy in action, or ‘leaderless resistance‘, attempted to oppose training, discipline, organization and leadership with chaotic masses whose bravery and ignorance were no match for their opponents’ bravery and skill. An anarchist can never be a leader, only an agitator, for each individual anarchist is his ‘equal’, and everyone’s ignorance is deemed as ‘good’ as anyone’s knowledge. Anarchists cannot distinguish folly from wisdom. That is why they are anarchists!

Wars are team efforts, similar to team sports. Teamwork wins, and individual ‘all-stars’ lose. Teamwork requires leadership, skill, organization and discipline, all of which are excluded from anarchy, by definition. ‘Organized anarchy’ is just another oxymoron like ‘leaderless resistance.’ While leadership can be bad, sometimes, no leadership is bad all the time. As the Spanish Civil War demonstrated, a mass of anarchist, leaderless resisters can be conquered by a small number of those who have organization and discipline as part of their ideology. Just as often, the most heroic efforts of anarchists can help the enemy! Anarchists are the last ones to benefit from their actions, which aim at seizing political power to destroy it. If they succeed, they merely create a vacuum into which step the organized conquerors. This lesson has been repeated, but never so forcefully as in the Spanish Civil War. Leaderless resisters take note: We can march separately, but we must strike together if we hope to win.

New “Genius” Show Sells Einstein as The Smartest Man Ever but It’s a LIE

National Geographic aired a new show, “Genius” focusing on the life of Einstein, claiming he solved the mysteries of the universe despite being hated by Germans for being Jewish. In reality, Einstein was a plagiarist, communist, Zionist and a fraud. He is a constructed myth.

The Führer’s Proclamation to the German People and the Note of the German Foreign Office to the Soviet Government, together with appendices

DOWNLOAD THE COMPLETE TEXT IN PDF FORMAT

PDF – VERSION 2

The following 88-page booklet published by the government of the Third Reich contains Adolf Hitler’s speech to the German people concerning his decision to declare war against the Soviet Union, and the official diplomatic message sent to the Soviets, outlining in great detail their crimes and plots against Germany, which violated the terms of the mutual Non-Aggression Pact. These violations are documented and a number of secret intelligence reports provided to Hitler which formed the basis of his decision to declare war on Stalin are also included in this must-read booklet.

This document shows clearly the true, legal basis concerning the war against the USSR in 1941, which support and justify the actions of Adolf Hitler, who had obviously been deceived and betrayed by the treacherous, double-dealing war monger Stalin. Hitler adopted the only attitude and course of action which a responsible German leader and representative of European culture and civilization could take.

Hitler’s intentions, from the time he first came to power in 1933 had always been peaceful and his actions honorable. He had always worked towards these objectives in good faith and with great patience. It was the WWI western allies and their international financial masters who wanted war all along and who would settle for nothing less, and who preferred to back a well-known murderous beast, namely Joseph Stalin, and to have the bloody horrors of Bolshevism be poured out upon European soil, than to have peaceful coexistence with a strong, free, independent and prosperous Germany.

Hitler and his Axis nation partners realized in 1941 that they had to now face this very real threat to Western Europe head on, as Stalin had been planning to attack all along, when Germany had her hands full on the western front. Hitler’s declaration of war was legally and morally justified by any reasonable standard of international warfare and justice, and only a multi-national effort could hope to prevent the Bolshevik takeover of all of Europe.

If Hitler Had Won World War II We’d Have a Better, More Just World Today

Source: http://nationalvanguard.org/2017/01/if-hitler-won-world-war-ii-wed-have-a-better-more-just-world-today/

Legendary U.S. General George S. Patton realized late in the war that the United States fought the wrong country. Patton felt the U.S. should have sided with Germany to destroy Jewish Bolshevik/Communist USSR. This information comes from Patton’s diary entries, letters he wrote to his wife, and comments he made to military officers and staff.

World War II was incredibly complex. However, in the final analysis, WWII was essentially a war between two competing ideologies: Nationalism vs. Jewish internationalism/globalism. Adolf Hitler and his allies fought to preserve the concept of nationalism, not just for Germans but for all peoples the world over. Nationalism really just means the sovereignty of an ethnic people and the right of such ethnic people/nationalists — within their own bordered country — to self-determination. What is meant by self-determination? Self-determination just means an ethnic people preserving their unique culture and heritage and pursuing their collective goals as a unique people. This applies to any ethnic peoples: Nigerians, Germans, Swedes, Vietnamese, Mexicans, Tibetans, etc.

On the other side of WWII was Jewish (Bolshevik) internationalism (today we simply call this ‘globalism’). In the 1920’s, 1930’s, and of course during WWII, powerful Jewish internationalists were fervently advancing the Jewish worldview of eventually eliminating all nations… except for a Jewish homeland… (what was later to be — after WWII — the nation of Israel in 1948). Today we see that nothing has changed; Jewish internationalism/globalism still works toward gradually “merging” all peoples of the world (particularly in the Western World) into one globalist system with a global government, global laws, consistent global culture, global bank, global currency, etc. In short, Jewish globalism (i.e., the weakening and eventual elimination of all nations) is the exact opposite of nationalism (i.e., a world composed of nations … specifically, ethnically homogenous and bordered nations). The Allied powers of WWII (led by Roosevelt, Churchill, Stalin, et al) were tools of International Jewry and thus de facto fighting for the Jewish globalist worldview. After the (Jewish-run) Allies won WWII in 1945, international Jewish forces were then free to exercise a Jewish ‘Sphere of Influence’ over the greater Western World (and as we see today, increasingly over the rest of the world).

Alternatively, if Hitler had won World War II and then exercised a Nationalist ‘Sphere of Influence’ over the greater Western World, we’d have a more just, fair, and moral Western World today. The rest of the world would have similarly benefited had the Germans been victorious since German influence would have surely spread elsewhere (ideas such as non-usurious banking and strong family oriented culture would likely have spread globally).

Had Hitler won World War II, what would be different in the post-war world? Here are a few examples:

1 – No USSR (the Soviet government murdered millions of its own people during its 70 year reign — to study this topic read the writings of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn; Hitler would have liberated the USSR, though taking large parts of its Western region for lebensraum, “living space”)

2 – No cold war (because there would be no USSR)

3 – No Communist Eastern Europe/Iron Curtain (when WWII ended, Eastern Europe fell to Communism — this was part of Stalin’s spoils of war)

4 – No Red China and Mao’s subsequent killing of 40 – 60 million Chinese (the USSR created favorable conditions for Mao’s Communists which ultimately led to Mao’s victory over Chiang Kai-shek’s nationalists in 1949, thus if no USSR, no Mao victory)

5 – No Communist North Vietnam (both the Soviet Union and Red China aided Ho Chi Minh)

6 – No Communist Cambodia and Pol Pot’s slaughter of 2 million Cambodians (Red China aided Pol Pot)

7 – No dividing Korea into North Korea and South Korea (the Allies split Korea after WWII ended, with North Korea becoming Communist… another of Stalin’s spoils of war)

8 – No Communist Cuba (given the previous, what support would Castro have had in the 1950’s?)

9 – No Communism anywhere (Hitler was the world’s most fervent anti-Communist)

10 – Liberalism and multiculturalism wouldn’t dominate Western ethos (both are Jewish creations and both have always been heavily promoted/advanced by Jews; thus if no Jewish influence, then no liberalism and no multiculturalism… at least certainly nowhere near the degree we see today)

11 – No Cultural Marxism and no political correctness (these are social engineering “tools” which came out of the Jewish think tank known as the Frankfurt School)

12 – No third world immigration into Western nations (Jews wouldn’t be in power positions to craft and force through liberal immigration laws; Jews are responsible for each and every Western nation’s liberal immigration policy/laws, as all were orchestrated by a consortium consisting of the World Jewish Congress, the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, and B’nai B’rith)

13 – No depraved filth on TV, in movies, etc. (because Jews wouldn’t run Hollywood)

14 – No widespread pornography (Jewish lawyers and Jewish activists were the main challengers of anti-obscenity laws, under the guise of “Freedom of Speech”)

15 – There would still be prayer in public schools (Jewish lawyers were instrumental in banning prayer in public schools under the guise of so-called “separation of church and state,” something that appears nowhere in the U.S. Constitution)

16 – No man-hating radical feminist movement (Jews such as Betty Friedan, Sonia Pressman, and Gloria Steinem, among others, were the key drivers of radical feminism)

17 – No Israel and all the problems it has brought the USA and the immeasurable misery it has wrought on the Palestinians

18 – Jews would be living in Madagascar (perhaps) and would be carefully monitored (Madagascar was one place Hitler considered as a Jewish homeland)

Many reading this will ask, “But what about the Holocaust?” The Holocaust has been grossly exaggerated by organized Jewry in order to create sympathy for Jews worldwide and thus help advance the Jewish agenda (i.e., people seen as victims tend to get their way). It is also used as a political weapon to justify Israeli militarism against the Palestinians. Hitler’s Final Solution (rebranded in the early 1970’s as the “Holocaust”) was a plan to remove Jews from Europe, not to kill them. During WWII, just as the U.S. couldn’t trust Japanese Americans, thus causing FDR to round many of them up and place them in concentration camps, Hitler couldn’t trust Jews since many were partisans sympathetic to the USSR and hence they aided the USSR in various subversive, anti-German activities. Therefore, the National Socialists rounded up Jews and placed them in concentration camps.

Somewhere around one million Jews died during WWII (not six million) mostly due to disease and starvation in the final months of the war. Heavy Allied bombing of Germany and parts of German occupied Europe destroyed many roads, rail lines, and bridges making it impossible for Germany to adequately supply the camps with food and medicine. The result is that many Jews died of starvation and disease; and of course many non-Jews also died of starvation and disease (again, due to a massive Allied bombing campaign and its destruction of German transportation infrastructure). Lastly, there were no “gas chambers.” Much has been written about this. To study the “gas chamber” subject, read the research papers published by Germar Rudolf and Carlo Mattogno (there are many others as well). To get a broad overview of the Holocaust, read my article, What Was The Holocaust… What Actually Happened?

It should also be noted that Hitler never wanted to “conquer the world.” He simply wanted to safeguard Europe and the greater Western World from all manner of nefarious Jewish influence and, more broadly, safeguard the world-at-large specifically from, 1) usurious Jewish banking and, 2) Jewish-driven cultural degradation.

As previously stated, the Allied heads-of-State (Roosevelt, Churchill, et al) were puppets of International Jewry; each sold his soul for power and prestige. Again, as earlier stated, World War II was a war between two competing ideologies: Nationalism -vs- Jewish Bolshevik internationalism/globalism — unfortunately International Jewry won.

Was World War II “the good war” as is often claimed? No, it was exactly the opposite. The Allied victory marked the beginning of the end of Western Civilization.

Joseph Kennedy: Hardcore Anti-Semite, Hitler Lover

Joseph P. Kennedy Jr., Joseph P. Kennedy Sr., John F. Kennedy. Arrival at Southampton, England 02 July 1938. Photograph in the John Fitzgerald Kennedy Library, Boston.

Source: https://freespeechtwentyfirstcentury.com/2016/05/30/joseph-kennedy-hardcore-antisemite-hitler-lover/

Arriving at London in early 1938, newly-appointed U.S. Ambassador Joseph P. Kennedy took up quickly with another transplanted American.

Viscountess Nancy Witcher Langhorne Astor assured Kennedy early in their friendship that he should not be put off by her pronounced and proud anti-Catholicism. “I’m glad you are smart enough not to take my [views] personally,” she wrote.

Astor pointed out that she had a number of Roman Catholic friends – G.K. Chesterton among them – with whom she shared, if nothing else, a profound hatred for the Jewish race.

Joe Kennedy, in turn, had always detested Jews generally, although he claimed several as friends individually. Indeed, Kennedy seems to have tolerated the occasional Jew in the same way Astor tolerated the occasional Catholic.

As fiercely anti-Communist as they were anti-Semitic, Kennedy and Astor looked upon Adolf Hitler as a welcome solution to both of these “world problems” (Nancy’s phrase). No member of the so-called “Cliveden Set” (the informal cabal of appeasers who met frequently at Nancy Astor’s palatial home) seemed much concerned with the dilemma faced by Jews under the Reich. Astor wrote Kennedy that Hitler would have to do more than just “give a rough time” to “the killers of Christ” before she’d be in favor of launching ”Armageddon to save them. The wheel of history swings round as the Lord would have it. Who are we to stand in the way of the future?” Kennedy replied that he expected the “Jew media” in the United States to become a problem, that “Jewish pundits in New York and Los Angeles” were already making noises contrived to “set a match to the fuse of the world.”

During May of 1938, Kennedy engaged in extensive discussions with the new German Ambassador to the Court of St. James’s, Herbert von Dirksen. In the midst of these conversations (held without approval from the U.S. State Department), Kennedy advised von Dirksen that President Roosevelt was the victim of “Jewish influence” and was poorly informed as to the philosophy, ambitions and ideals of Hitler’s regime. (The Nazi ambassador subsequently told his bosses that Kennedy was “Germany’s best friend” in London.)

Columnists back in the states condemned Kennedy’s fraternizing. Kennedy later claimed that 75% of the attacks made on him during his Ambassadorship emanated from “a number of Jewish publishers and writers. … Some of them in their zeal did not hesitate to resort to slander and falsehood to achieve their aims.” He told his eldest son, Joe Jr., that he disliked having to put up with “Jewish columnists” who criticized him with no good reason.

Like his father, Joe Jr. admired Adolf Hitler. Young Joe had come away impressed by Nazi rhetoric after traveling in Germany as a student in 1934. Writing at the time, Joe applauded Hitler’s insight in realizing the German people’s “need of a common enemy, someone of whom to make the goat. Someone, by whose riddance the Germans would feel they had cast out the cause of their predicament. It was excellent psychology, and it was too bad that it had to be done to the Jews. The dislike of the Jews, however, was well-founded. They were at the heads of all big business, in law etc. It is all to their credit for them to get so far, but their methods had been quite unscrupulous … the lawyers and prominent judges were Jews, and if you had a case against a Jew, you were nearly always sure to lose it. … As far as the brutality is concerned, it must have been necessary to use some ….”

Brutality was in the eye of the beholder. Writing to Charles Lindbergh shortly after Kristallnacht in November of 1938, Joe Kennedy Sr. seemed more concerned about the political ramifications stemming from high-profile, riotous anti-Semitism than he was about the actual violence done to the Jews. ”… Isn’t there some way,” he asked, “to persuade [the Nazis] it is on a situation like this that the whole program of saving western civilization might hinge? It is more and more difficult for those seeking peaceful solutions to advocate any plan when the papers are filled with such horror.” Clearly, Kennedy’s chief concern about Kristallnacht was that it might serve to harden anti-fascist sentiment at home in the United States.

Like his friend, Charles Coughlin (an anti-Semitic broadcaster and Roman Catholic priest), Kennedy always remained convinced of what he believed to be the Jews’ corrupt, malignant, and profound influence in American culture and politics. “The Democratic [party] policy of the United States is a Jewish production,” Kennedy told a British reporter near the end of 1939, adding confidently that Roosevelt would “fall” in 1940.

But it wasn’t Roosevelt who fell. Kennedy resigned his ambassadorship just weeks after FDR’s overwhelming triumph at the polls. He then retreated to his home in Florida: a bitter, resentful man nurturing religious and racial bigotries that put him out-of-step with his country, and out-of-touch with history.

The Magnitude of Martyrs

Source: http://www.renegadetribune.com/the-magnitude-of-martyrs/

Honest historians who focus on the fabled six million sing to the swindlers hymn sheets. By adding to the debate they keep the fraudsters holohoax on the front pages. Simultaneously, they fail to use their skills to bring to public attention multiple and verifiable holocausts committed by Communism and Capitalism.

The six million supposedly gassed Jews pales into insignificance when set against the 170 million butchered by the Communist and Capitalists. The fabled six million would be of no more interest than the verifiable genocide of the Armenians, the Tatars or the Cossacks. It would become a ‘mere detail of history’.

The question is how to respond to those who re-write or censor history.

Firstly, it must be recognised that the public mind-set is manipulated by media. Newspaper columnist, Joseph Alsop, was primarily responsible for getting the US into the Vietnam War. Rival columnist Walter Lippmann, a confidant of Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev, brought the conflict to an end. This is the power of the Press at work. Mainstream media that starts and stops wars can make or break presidents and premiers.

Media is the swamp that decides what pond-life thrives and what dies in their cesspool. German Minister of Information, Dr Joseph Goebbels:

Think of the Press as a great keyboard on which the government can play.”

U.S infantrymen pose with Red Army troops.

According to independent research the US has been directly or indirectly responsible for the deaths of an estimated 30 million people since WWII. Yet, the only mantra in the public mind is the centuries old recycled six million cliché that is as fanciful as is the concept of Santa Claus.

R. J. Rummel is a respected independent analyst based at the Journal of Peace Research in Hawaii. According to his Power Kills: Genocide and Mass Murder, 170,000,000 people have been ‘murdered by government’ during the last 100 years. Yet, thanks to the manipulative mainstream media the public are wholly unaware of this ‘Magnitude of the Martyrs’.

The power of media can never be underestimated. There is still universal belief that the 1917 American-backed coup that delivered Imperial Russia to US corporate and banking interests was a Russian revolution. Because media has censored, collaborated in or laundered Bolshevism the public are unaware that 70 to 100 million Christian martyrs were slaughtered during Josef Stalin’s tenure of terror.

The media has convinced a gullible public that Hitler’s Germany was a despotic regime whilst Joseph Stalin’s Bolshevik Occupied Russia was benign, a great ally and even a workers paradise. Because of media’s lying and censorship, most people hold Hitler responsible for World War II. They remain blissfully ignorant of International Jewry’s responsibility for a brother’s war that led to the deaths of 55 million martyrs and the enslavement of 23 great European nations.

Media never challenges the West’s multiple wars or NATO’s highly inflammatory provocations against Russia, China and North Korea. Media never publicly challenges the aims of government. Media ring-fences NATO and US conflicts in the Middle East. Media describes the Satanic cult ruling Israel-occupied Palestine as the only democracy in the Middle East; a transparent lie.

Without a shred of evidence acceptable to a magistrate’s court, media has convinced the incredulous public that half the world’s verifiable Jews population were killed in just three years in a country smaller than the state of Texas. Yes, sadly, the people are that simple-minded.

Media achieves this by constantly recycling what Adolf Hitler identified as the Big Lie strategy practiced by Jews and their Shabbos goy mercenaries. The success of the Big Lie is proved true by it being used to keep in the public mind the holocaust hoax.

Revisionist historians ~ I include myself ~ sing to the media’s hymn sheet by keeping their focus on the huckster’s holocaust hoax. This distraction plays the media’s game of convincing the public that the only holocaust worthy of debate and criticism was the Nazi one.

For my part I intend to turn the spotlight on the multiple proven holocausts committed by what Hitler described as Capitalism and Communism being two sides of the same coin.

Partisan War and Reprisal Killings

Source: http://codoh.com/library/document/1493/

An attempt to organize German reprisals during the military campaign against the USSR

By Germar Rudolf , Sibylle Schröder

Published: 2003-08-01


Since the publication of Daniel Goldhagen’s book Hitler’s Willing Executioners and the general attention, which the Anti-Wehrmacht propaganda exhibition received in Germany,[1] the center of gravity of the discussion about the ‘Holocaust’ has changed. At least today the attention is directed less intensively to the alleged high-tech mass murder in “homicidal gas chambers,” which are in every regard still totally inconceivable even today, but considerably more to the actual or only claimed mass murder behind the eastern front, allegedly committed above all, but not exclusively, by the so called Einsatzgruppen and committed especially, but not only, against Jews residing in the then Soviet Union. Opinions about this subject vary widely within historical revisionism from positions, which are not very different from the established opinion, to those who deny such mass murders completely. The following article tries to summarize the current knowledge from one revisionist viewpoint, which revised exaggerated claims of mass murder and brings the issue into the context of wartime reprisals-and reprisal excesses-against illegal partisans. We hope that this may trigger a vivid discussion and a start into further, more detailed research into this field.


Allied Reprisals against Germans

German newspapers rarely carry articles about reprisals threatened or implemented by the western Allies at or after the end of the war. However, the Stuttgarter Zeitung, for example, reported that the French had threatened reprisal executions at a ratio of 1:25 even in the event that shots would be taken at their soldiers at all, regardless of the actual outcome.[2] On April 4, 1992, the Paderborner Zeitung reported an incident where the Americans had taken harsh revenge for the death of their General Maurice Rose, who had been shot in regular combat: 110 German men not involved in the event were killed.[3] Probably there are a great many more such examples, where harsh reprisals or unlawful acts of revenge were inflicted on the German population. We know very little today about conditions prevailing from 1945 to 1947, especially in West Germany, since these actions on the part of the victors were never prosecuted. The Germans were forbidden to prosecute because of a law that is still in effect today, and the victors, naturally enough, had no particular interest in such prosecution.[4] The fact that East and Central Germany saw some dreadful excesses is somewhat more fully documented, on the other hand, since this was in the interests of the anti-Communist western powers.

The Partisan War in the East 1941-1944

Dr. jur. Karl Siegert, Professor at the University of Göttingen, drew up a legal expert report shortly after the end of World War Two, in which he showed that reprisal killings were, to a certain degree, common practice and not against international law.[5] Hence, reprisals and shootings of hostages can be considered as tactically questionable and possibly as morally reprehensible, but strictly speaking this was not against the law at that time. This should always be kept in mind when the topic at issue is the reactions of German troops in Russia and Serbia, i.e., in vast regions where a weak occupation power had to battle brutal partisans in order to facilitate the oft-disrupted flow of supplies to the eastern front. Partisan attacks began immediately following the start of the eastern war; certain partisan units deliberately let themselves be overrun, in order then to engage in sabotage behind the advancing German troops and to commit horrific atrocities against soldiers and civilians they caught unaware. Later on, partisan units as large as entire divisions were flown into the hinterland of the German troops, or smuggled in through the lines.[6]

Naturally, the data to be found in the subject literature about the numbers of partisans and the damage they caused vary widely, since there are few reliable documents about this kind of unlawful warfare and since the Soviet Union also always had a strong propagandistic interest in the historiography of partisan warfare. The most reliable data seems to be that provided by Bernd Bonwetsch,[7] who gives the numbers of partisans as follows: late 1941: 90,000; early 1942: 80,000; mid-1942: 150,000; spring 1943: 280,000; by 1944, skyrocketing to approximately half a million. These figures are based both on Soviet and on contemporaneous Reich-German sources. The damage done by the partisans, especially in the area of Byelorussia, is considerably more difficult to quantify. Wilenchik tells of impressive quantities of weapons and ammunition that were allegedly at the partisans’ disposal, as well as of extensive crippling of the German supply lines through paralysis of railway lines, especially in 1944.[8] In general terms, this is confirmed by Werner.[9]

Regarding the numbers of German soldiers and civilians killed by partisans, Bonwetsch contrasts the claims from Soviet sources-up to 1.5 million-with those from the German side: 35,000 to 45,000,[10] which he considers to be more reliable, since allegedly the German sources would have had no reason to minimize the figures. However, he overlooks the fact that it is generally customary in war to downplay one’s own losses. Seidler[11] recently published a balanced up-to-date study about the Wehrmacht’s struggle in the partisan warfare, showing not only the disastrous and probably decisive effects of the partisan’s attacks against German units and especially their supplies, but he proves also that most of the German reactions were totally covered by international law-although not always most far-sighted. Furthermore, he shows that those orders from higher up which broke international laws (e.g., the infamous “Kommissar order,” which might be considered morally appropriate, but politically stupid and judicially untenable) were in most cases sabotaged by the front units, and that these orders, after long-lasting and massive protest, were eventually revoked.

In a book critically discussed by the renowned German historians Andreas Hillgruber and Hans-Adolf Jacobsen, Boris Semionovich Telpuchowsky writes:

Professor Franz W. Seidler from the University of Munich is one of the few historians who try to keep a balanced view on the events of World War Two and opposes in a very scholarly way. His book on the Wehrmacht in its war against partisans is an excellent example of a thorough refutation of many myths. Castle Hill Publishers will try to publish several of Prof. Seidler’s books in English editions over the next years. Translators working for fair prices as well as financial support for these projects are more than welcome. Please get in touch with us.

In a book critically discussed by the renowned German historians Andreas Hillgruber and Hans-Adolf Jacobsen, Boris Semionovich Telpuchowsky writes:

“Within three years of the war, the Byelorussian partisans eliminated approximately 500,000 German soldiers and officers, 47 Generals, blew up 17,000 enemy military transports and 32 armored trains, destroyed 300,000 railway tracks, 16,804 vehicles and a great number of other material supplies of all kinds.”[12]

The data also diverge greatly regarding the personnel (and concomitant costs) involved in the Germans’ efforts to maintain security behind the frontlines: 300,000 to 600,000 persons were needed according to Soviet sources, vs. roughly 190,000 according to German sources.[10]

To what degree these data were inflated in order to glorify the partisans is not known, but there is no doubt that the policy of scorched earth[13] practiced by the Red Army in their retreat in 1941-42, together with the acts of sabotage and murder by the partisans, were the major contributing factors in the defeat of the German army in the East. The brutality with which the Red Army and especially the partisans fought, right from the start of the war and on orders from the highest echelons, was described vividly by J. Hoffmann,[14] for example, and again recently by A.E. Epifanow[15] and Franz W. Seidler[16]; A.M. de Zayas, in his study of the Wehrmacht War Crimes Bureau, also confirmed and corroborated much of the material which the Reich government had already collected even in those days to document the atrocities committed by not only the Red Army.[17] De Zayas also reports that the German wartime leaders did not resort to reprisals as a standard matter of course, but rather for the most part after carefully weighing the pros and cons. Especially in Russia, however, this could not prevent the fact that lower-ranking units, acting on the basis of their own experiences with the Soviet manner of warfare, engaged in reprisals (and revenge) not ordered or approved by higher ranks.[18] Finally, it must be noted that since July 1943 both the German army and the SS agreed to treat partisans like regular combatants, which meant for example that they would not be executed if captured, which was permitted by international law and common practice, but that they would be treated as normal POWs.[19] This is a measure whose generosity and humanity is, to my knowledge, unheard of anywhere in world history.

As we know today, the German Wehrmacht deployed in the East fought not only for the survival of the Third Reich, but after they abandoned all illusions of imperialism, they also fought for the freedom of all of Europe from Stalinism,[20] and therefore, in light of Prof. Siegert ‘s findings, we must observe that there was nothing unlawful and very little immoral about the merciless battle of the German security forces against unlawful Soviet partisans, even if that battle did involve draconic reprisals. If the official Soviet information about the numbers of German soldiers and/or their allies killed by partisans should be accurate, then it must be noted that reprisal killings of several millions of people (ratio 1:10) would have been theoretically justified. But even the numbers given by German authorities (some 40,000 victims) could have resulted theoretically in reprisal killings of about 400,000 civilians. It goes without saying that such numbers are horrific, and we can just be thankful that reprisal killings are forbidden nowadays and hope that the law will be observed. We must, however, ask whether such killings actually took place in those days.

Einsatzgruppen for the Fight against Partisans.

The so-called Einsatzgruppen of the Security Police and the SD (Security Service) were among others the units in charge of combating the partisans.[21] They started with not more than 4,000 men in summer 1941, but at the end of 1942 up to 15,000 Germans and 240,000 natives were involved,[22] an increase of manpower which indicates very well the parallel increase of partisan warfare at that time. Considering their relatively unsuccessful efforts at curbing partisan activity, we must note that these initially numerically weak troops were obviously entirely overwhelmed by their task of policing the enormous region (many hundred thousands of square kilometers), which they were in charge of and whose more remote areas were increasingly under the control of partisans.[23] Thus it appears a bit ridiculous when H. Höhne states:[24]

“Heydrich’s Death envoys started their cruel adventure: 3,000 men were hunting Russia’s five million Jews.”

Höhne omits to say that at the same time these troops were fighting against some 100,000 partisans. The allegations made against these troops today-namely, that, aside from their hopeless battle against the partisans, they also cooperated with many Wehrmacht soldiers to kill several million Jews as part of the Final Solution-beg the comment that, as Gerald Reitlinger says, this is absolutely unbelievable.[25]

Partisans prepare to blow up a railway track leading from the West to Moscow: The delay and destruction of supplies results in the death of ten thousands of German Soldiers.

As documentary evidence for the number of Jews shot by the Einsatzgruppen behind the Russian front, the so-called event reports (Ereignisberichte) are frequently quoted. These reports are said to have been prepared by the Einsatzgruppen, who also supposedly sent them to Berlin, where these documents were found after the war. One of the most well-known experts on the subject of Einsatzgruppen, however, Hans-Heinrich Wilhelm,[26] stated as early as in 1988 that he is not certain whether or not the event reports are correct. Because he could show that the statistics in these reports about the number of murdered Jews are unreliable, he warned his colleagues as follows:[27]

“When the reliability [of these reports] in non-statistically areas is not greater, which can only be verified by comparing them with other sources from the same region, historical research would be well advised to be much more suspicious in future than it was so far when using any SS-sources.”

This remark was only consequential, since he did express similar doubts about the reliability of these documents already in his first book, when he speculated:[28]

“that here as well at least several ten thousand exterminated Jews were added to the report in order to ‘improve’ it, which was otherwise thought to be hardly justifiable, because the number of killed partisans was far too low.”

Elsewhere he noted that one of the event reports of the Einsatzgruppen was evidently manipulated by adding a zero to 1,134, thus turning the total to 11,034.[29] The forgers-this is what we deal with here-evidently had an interest in suggesting victim counts as high as possible. In case the Einsatzgruppen were the forgers, then one would assume that they believed that somebody in Berlin desired to see as many Jews murdered as possible. But what if someone else was the forger?

The Problem of the Event Reports in the Case of “Babi Yar”

Babi Yar is the name of an erosion ditch system in the vicinity of the Ukrainian city of Kyiv. After German troops had conquered Kyiv in September 1941, 33,771 Jews (men, women, and children) were allegedly shot in Babi Yar on September 29 and 30.

Sources for this are the Ereignismeldungen and Tätigkeits- und Lageberichte (action- and situation reports) of the Einsatzgruppen, as well as witness testimonies. Especially important is the Event Report No. 6, report time Sept. 1 to 31, 1941.[30] It states:

“The bitterness of the Ukrainian population against the Jews is exceedingly high, because they are blamed for the dynamiting of Kyiv. They are also considered the informer and agents of the NKVD, who are responsible for the terror against the Ukrainian people. All Jews were arrested as reprisal for the arson in Kyiv and a total of 33,771 Jews were executed on September 29 and 30. Money, valuables, and clothing were secured and made available to the NSV[31] for the provision of local German civilians and also partly to the temporary city administration to help needy residents.”

1. Dynamitings in Kyiv

At this point, a few explanations from established sources are necessary about the dynamiting mentioned in the above Tätigkeits- und Lagebericht. Wilhelm writes about this event:

“When in the week after the occupation [of Kyiv] several explosions caused considerable personal and material damages, this was immediately used as a welcome pretext for ‘corresponding retaliatory measures’ […]”[32]

Burning German supply train in the Soviet Union.

Gerald Reitlinger explains:

“On the 24th [September 1941], an enormous explosion destroyed the Hotel Continental, in which the military command of the Sixth Army was stationed. The fire spread quickly, and Blobel, who had arrived on the 21st, had to vacate his offices. 25,000 people lost their homes, and hundreds of German soldiers were killed, mostly while attempting to extinguish the flames.”[33]

German General Alfred Jodl commented about this in Nuremberg before the IMT (June 4, 1946):[34]

“Shortly before that, Kyiv had been abandoned by the Russian armies, and we had barely occupied the town when one detonation after the other occurred. The larger part of the inner city burned down. 50,000 people lost their homes. We had considerable losses, because during this fire further huge explosives blew up. The local commandant of Kyiv first thought of sabotage by local residents until we captured a detonation chart. This chart listed about 50 or 60 objects of Kyiv, which had been prepared for a long time to be blown up. This was also verified right away by the results of investigations by our pioneers. There were at least 40 such objects ready to be blasted, and most of the detonations were to be ignited remotely through radio signals.”

2. Retaliatory Action

It is therefore established that not only the inner city of Kyiv burn down as a result of these detonations-with corresponding losses of the local population-but also that the German troops lost hundreds of soldiers and almost their entire military leadership staff. Both the city’s military commandant as well as the Ukrainian population first thought of sabotage. Reprisal shootings for such partisan attacks would have been the normal-and justified-reaction during wartime. Hence, these attacks did not serve “as a pretext,” as Krausnick put it.

According to the event report 97 of September 28, 1941, a “public execution of 20 Jews” was planned.[35] In the following reports no. 98 (Sept. 29), 99 (Sept. 30) and 100 (Oct. 1)-exactly on those days when the executions were to have occurred-no references to such executions can be found.

Only the event reports no. 101 of October 2 and no. 106 of October 7 report of the alleged execution of 33,771 Jews. The description by Krausnick/Wilhelm is not quite clear.[36] They do not quote these event reports-something which should be at least expected for the proof of about 34,000 murders-but a quotation from an essay by Alfred Streim of the year 1972.[37] Why did they not use the original text of these event reports-if they exist at all? The conspicuous unclear note “ibid.” in Krausnick,[38] which may refer to event report no. 101 as well as event report no. 106, cannot be considered sufficient in this case as proof for 33,771 murders.

The question whether or not the report about 33,771 shootings can be found in event report no. 101 or in event report no. 106 is not answered uniformly in the literature, which is an indication that none of the authors really checked out the sources, but that one copies always from the other. Hilberg is for event report no. 101,[39] also Klee/Dreßen/Rieß,[40] Reitlinger decided for event report no. 106,[41] as does Streim, to whom Krausnick referred.[42] By the way, Streim distanced himself completely from quoting an event report in a later work, but mentions as the only source the Tätigkeits- und Lagebericht Nr. 6 (Activity- and Situation Report no. 6).[43] Krausnick refers also to this Tätigkeits- und Lagebericht Nr. 6 for the month of October 1941.

That an event report, which among others lists individual arrests and shootings, does not report the execution of 33,771 Jews, is hard to believe, but that seems to be exactly the case.

3. Source Value and Truth of the Event Reports

The work by Krausnick/Wilhelm is the first and only thorough study about the activity of the Einsatzgruppen. The authors used as the main source for their work the Ereignismeldungen UdSSR (Event Reports USSR).[44] These event reports are only one part of a group of documents, which is labeled as follows:

  1. “Ereignismeldungen UdSSR des Chefs der Sicherheitspolizei und des SD” (Event Reports USSR of the Chief of the Security Police and the SD) for the period from June 23, 1941, to April 24, 1942. 194 documents survived from a total of 195.
  2. “Meldungen aus den besetzten Ostgebieten vom Chef der Sicherheitspolizei und des SD-Kommandostab” (Reports from the occupied eastern territories by the Chief of the Security Police and the SD command staff) for the time period of May 1, 1942, to May 21, 1943-there are 55 reports.
  3. “Tätigkeits- und Lageberichte der Einsatzgruppen der Sicherheitspolizei und des SD in der UdSSR” (Activity- and Situation Reports of the Security Police and the SD in the USSR.)[45]

Hans-Heinrich Wilhelm declared the following about the “event reports USSR as a historic source:”[46]

An Eye for an Eye! Top: Killed German Soldiers behind the front line, murdered by partisans; below: execution of Soviet partisans.

“These reports were received always several days later, and not three times daily or at least daily, as with military communications. Trained personnel for the preparation of these reports was not everywhere available. For the transmission via radio and telex, mostly third parties, like military units, had to be used, which caused bothersome problems due to the frequent change in location. Furthermore, the ‘reporting discipline’ was simply bad, and this did not change, no matter how much Heydrich fulminated. The simplest rules were not followed. For example, exact information like when and where a reported event occurred were quite frequently missing, which was unthinkable for a military report. Or the editor of the ‘event reports,’ who could always check back with the original notifications when in doubt, forgot to include the data from the message header into the text body, when the data received via telex was dictated to a typist, and those typed reports were left unchecked for misunderstandings and typos. Because the Einsatzgruppen and Kommandos worked at different speeds, messages frequently crossed each other or were frequently left unattended for extended periods of time because of their excessive length and low priority, some events were not only once or twice, but several times transmitted, and occasionally a backup message was sent days or weeks afterwards, it is not surprising that the editor at the RSHA[47] mixed up the chronology of events. It seems that they themselves could hardly keep an overview. Very soon, these reports were not complete anymore either. This impression quickly results when comparing, for example, the interim balances about the killing of Jews of some Einsatzkommandos, which came in on a fortnightly basis, with the corresponding individual reports about completed actions.”

The last sentence could be an attempt of an explanation, why, for example, there is evidently no event report about the alleged shooting of 33,771 Jews in Kyiv (Babi Yar)-in case that there really is no such an event report-but only a mention of the execution in the “Tätigkeits- und Lagebericht Nr. 6.”

The opinion that there does not exist an event report about these shootings is backed by the explanations of Alfred Streim, which he made during the Stuttgart Congress from May 3 to 5, 1984, about the subject “The Murder of the European Jews during the Second World War.” While talking about the murders in the Babi Yar ravine, he did not refer to an event report, but to the “summary of the executions,” i.e., to the “Tätigkeits- und Lagebericht.”[37]

The event reports were transmitted from the front via radio or telex to a department of the RSHA in Berlin. The official in charge there, who was responsible for the final written form of the reports-as they exist today-was Dr. Günther Knobloch (born 1910). During a hearing by the Central Office Ludwigsburg in 1959 Knobloch gave the following description about the preparation of the event reports and the Activity- and Situation Reports:[48]

“From the incoming flood of messages I always marked the interesting parts red and our secretaries knew exactly, in what form to bring these messages. […] It was important at that time that the messages were quite voluminous. […] Because of this I saved material from days, when we received many messages, for days with only a few messages. The messages from the individual Kommandos and Groups were always filed under these Kommandos and Groups, and an error can of course not necessarily be ruled out. […] Practically no changes in content occurred. […] I would like to add, however, that SS-Gruppenführer Müller […] frequently made handwritten changes also to the actual content. […] I also had often the impression that the information contained exaggerated events and numbers.[…]

At some time in the year 1942, we had to summarize the daily event reports in fortnightly reports, and later these were even changed to monthly reports. But it is also possible that the sequence was reverse. These summaries were prepared by me as well. […] These reports were based exclusively on the daily event reports.”

The “time in the year 1942” mentioned by Knobloch is either a printing error in the book or Knobloch remembered it wrong, since these Tätigkeits- und Lageberichte exist since June 1941, that is since the very beginning of the Russian campaign. The meaning of these summaries, however, is not clear. Why these repetitions in the Tätigkeits- und Lageberichte, which actually, as Wilhelm noticed while comparing them with the event reports, were often no repetitions but new reports?

From both Wilhelm’s and Knobloch’s descriptions the following can be deducted: reports from the front, prepared by non-qualified persons-some of them in double or even multiple versions-were received by the RSHA in Berlin by radio or telex, often with considerable delays. There they were reviewed by Knobloch, important parts highlighted, rewritten by secretaries and sent out unchecked and uncorrected as the final event reports. Later on, after weeks, summaries were prepared from these event reports, to which, however, new data were added while others were deleted on an unknown basis. These summaries were issued as Tätigkeits- und Lageberichte (Activity and Situation Reports).

Krausnick and Wilhelm call these reports with their dubious history “authentic” documents. According to the opinion of the same authors, this authenticity is further supported by the following:[49]

Partisan warfare during the Russian campaign. Similar pictures became well-known in America only after the U.S. Army applied similar tactics during the Vietnam war.

  1. they were captured by the U.S. units;
  2. they were cited in Nuremberg in all relevant trials;
  3. no defense lawyer ever seriously attempted to question their authenticity;
  4. the editors who were responsible within the RSHA for their preparation as well as numerous recipients of the report at that time did identify them.

Regarding #4, the responsible report editor Knobloch testified the following, when photo copies of these reports were submitted to him in Ludwigsburg:[50]

“The photocopies of the reports submitted to me can be considered as the event reports issued at that time in regards to their form.”

“In regards to their form”-Knobloch said either nothing about their content or we are not told about it!

Although the above mentioned points made by Krausnick and Wilhelm do in no way prove the authenticity of the submitted documents, they still could be authentic. However the problem in this case is that the events reported in these presumably authentic documents are evidently incongruent with reality, as is clear from the descriptions of Wilhelm and Knobloch.

4. Were 33 771 Jews Murdered?

The question of how many Jews were murdered in those two days in Babi Yar is controversial in the literature. Hilberg writes that “the success of the Kyiv action is difficult to evaluate.”[51] According to event report no. 97 of Sept. 9, 1941, 50,000 Jews were intended for the shooting, but then 33,771 were reported. However, Paul Blobel, the leader of the Sonderkommando 4a, which was responsible for executions, maintained later in Nuremberg that no more than 16,000 were shot.[52] As a matter of fact, event report no. 97 announced also that the city commandant recommended the public execution of 20 Jews.[35] The Soviet document USSR-9, which was submitted during the main trial in Nuremberg, even states that more than 100,000 men, women, children, and elderly people were shot in Babi Yar.[53] This number, however, was not mentioned anywhere else.

The number generally agreed upon seems to be 33,771. Krausnick maintains that this number was “reported several times,”[54] namely in an event report, which he does not specify, and in the Tätigkeits- und Lagebericht no. 6. This would, of course, mean that this number was not reported several times, but maybe only once, and that it was then repeated in a transcript!

Reitlinger also quotes event reports and action reports, but he confuses their names. When talking about “Activity Reports,” he actually refers to event reports and vice versa. He also claims that the number of 33,771 is verified, because the “activity report no. 106 and the event report No. 6 both contain the same number 33,771.”[55] Here a transcript of a report is also supposed to confirm the report itself. It is doubtful whether Reitlinger has even seen “event report no. 106,” which he mentions only in his text, because if he had, he probably would have quoted the document correctly.

For Wolfgang Benz the “number of the murdered” (33,771) “is also corroborated by testimonies of perpetrators, spectators, and several survivors of the massacre.”[56] Herbert Tiedemann reported extensively about the completely chaotic, arbitrary picture, which those alleged ‘witnesses’ and other reporters drew about Babi Yar, and he has shown that these testimonies can in no way be accepted as proof for anything.[57]

But how could such a number erroneously slip into the reports? Could multiple reports about the same event and typos have led to it? The exact process of this possible number explosion can probably not be reconstructed.

There is, however, at least one example for a similar miracle of numbers in the reports of the Einsatzgruppen, which Wilhelm discovered. In a report of the outpost Dünaburg of the Commander of Security Police in Latvia dated Nov. 11, 1941, a number of 1,134 murdered Jews is mentioned. In a summary report of February 1942, the same number was-by typo?-inflated to 11,034.[58] A zero changed one thousand to ten thousand. However, Wilhelm thinks that the latter number is the correct one, because this number is also mentioned in an undated report of Einsatzgruppe A.[59]

In conclusion it can be said that a critical investigation of the documents referred to here has still to be done, not least in order to determine what their exact content is.[60] But based upon known information about the history and origin of these documents, it can concluded that the Ereignismeldungen (event reports) and the Tätigkeits- und Lageberichte (activity and situation reports), even if they are authentic, do-according to scientific standards-not conclusively prove the reality of the event described in them. For this, other and qualitatively better evidence has to be presented.

5. Certainty Derives from Material Evidence and Unsuspicious Documents only

As a result of the discovery of air photos, we are in the fortunate position to prove beyond reasonable doubt that this alleged mass murder did at least not occur at that claimed location.[61] These pictures of Babi Yar, taken by German reconnaissance planes between 1939 and 1943, prove that this ravine never underwent any noticeable topographic changes, and by a lucky coincidence, a German reconnaissance air plane even made pictures of this area exactly at a time when-according to eye witnesses-the corpses of all the murdered Jews were allegedly exhumed from their mass graves and supposedly cremated on gigantic pyres. Nothing of this is shown on these pictures.

Another example of a sensational discovery which was not reported by the mainstream media has a similarly devastating effect upon the thesis of Goldhagen & Co: In the summer of 1996, the city of Marijampol in Latvia decided to erect a memorial in memory of the tens of thousands of Jews who were allegedly murdered by the Einsatzgruppen. In order to erect it at the proper place, an attempt was made to locate the exact position of the mass graves. Excavations were therefore carried out at those locations which were identified by witnesses, but-oh wonder-Not a single trace of any mass graves could be found.[63] Further excavations in the vicinity of the alleged locations of mass murder did not result in anything else but untouched virgin soil either.[64] Did ‘the Germans’ commit the perfect crime by succeeding to completely hide all traces of their mass murder and even restore the soil to its original layering? Could they commit evil wonders after all? Or were the witnesses wrong?[65]

The following is a translation of one page of a German wartime report on their fight against partisans. the original of the document is depicted above.

The Reichsführer-SS Field-Command Post
December 29, 1942
Subject: Reports to the Führer about
Combat against Bandits.
R e p o r t No. 61
Russia-South, Ukrain, Bialystok.
Success of Combat against Bandits from Sept. 1 to Dec. 12, 1942
1.) Bandits:
a) Confirmed Deaths after Combats (x)
August: September: October: November: Total:
227 381 427 302 1337
b) Prisoner immediately executed
125 282 87 243 737
c) Prisoners executed after thorough interrogation
2100 1400 1596 2731 7828
2.) Bandit associates and bandit suspects
a) Arrested
1343 3078 8337 3795 16553
b) Executed
1198 3020 6333 3706 14257
c) Jews executed
31246 165282 95735 70948 363211
3.) Renegades because of German Propaganda
21 14 42 63 140
(x) Since the Russians carry off or immediately bury their killed soldiers, the losses are much higher, even according to statements of prisoners.

Causes of the East-European Anti-Semitism

Does this mean, that no Jew was ever shot by the SS in the east, the German Wehrmacht, or the Einsatzgruppen? Of course not. It is undeniable that German military units shot numerous civilians behind the front in connection with the “Bandenkämpfe” (combats against partisans), especially in the form of reprisal killings.[66] During the war in the east, which was fought with extreme brutality, it is furthermore likely that reprisal-excesses occurred occasionally, that is, where not only partisans and their supporters as well as criminal elements (and possibly also POW’s) were killed as reprisals in accordance with international law, but that it also came to killings of innocent civilians with no connection to reprisals. If this would not have happened on the German side, the German army would be the first in the history of mankind who would consist only of angels, which can be ruled out.

Obviously, in selecting the victims of such reprisals, one would not choose Ukrainians, Byelorussians or members of the Balkan, Baltic or Caucasian peoples, of whom considerable numbers fought in German units. The fact that the Jews were predominantly unpopular amongst these peoples was mainly due to fairly recent causes. In the previous decades many people had had terrible experiences with Communist commissars, disproportionately many of whom were of Jewish descent, especially in the first few decades of Soviet Bolshevism. The Russian Jewess Sonja Margolina has made some interesting points regarding the involvement of the Russian Jews in the Bolshevist reign of terror:[67]

“Nevertheless: the horrors of revolution and civil war, just like those of the repressions later, are closely tied to the image of the Jewish commissar.” (p. 47)

“The Jewish presence in the instruments of power was so impressive that even such an unbiased contemporaneous researcher as Boris Paramonov, a Russian cultural historian living in New York, asked whether the promotion of the Jews into leadership positions may perhaps have been a ‘gigantic provocation’.” (p. 48)

Margolina has written a particularly detailed analysis of a book which appeared in 1924 under the title Rußland und die Juden. This book examines the causes of the Russian Jews’ conspicuously above-average participation in the excesses of the October Revolution and the dictatorship that followed it, and analyzed the consequences of this involvement. In their appeal “To the Jews in all nations!” the authors of this book discussed by Margolina wrote:

“‘The Jewish Bolsheviki’s overeager participation in the subjugation and destruction of Russia is a sin that already bears within itself the seeds of its retribution. For what greater misfortune could happen to a people than to have its own sons engage in excesses. Not only will this be counted against us as an element of our guilt, it will also be held up to us as reproach for an expression of our power, for a striving for Jewish hegemony. Soviet power is equated with Jewish power, and the grim hatred of the Bolsheviki will transform into a hatred of the Jews […] All nations and peoples will be swamped by waves of Judeophobia. Never before have such thunderclouds gathered above the heads of the Jewish people. This is the bottom line of the Russian upheaval for us, for the Jewish people.'” (p. 58)

Margolina quotes further from this anthology:

“‘The Russians have never before seen a Jew in power, neither as governor nor as policeman, nor as postal official. There were both good and bad times in those days too, but the Russian people lived and worked and the fruits of their labors were their own. The Russian name was mighty and threatening. Today the Jews are at every corner and in all levels of power. The Russians see them at the head of the Czarist city, Moscow, and at the head of the metropolis on the River Neva and at the head of the Red Army, the ultimate mechanism of self-destruction. […] The Russians are now faced with a Jew as judge as well as executioner; they encounter Jews at every step, not Communists who are just as poor as they themselves but who nevertheless give orders and take care of the interests of the Soviet power […] It is not surprising that the Russians, in comparing the past to the present, conclude that the present power is Jewish, and so bestial precisely because of that.'” (p. 60)

In the early 1990s, Professor Dr. Ernst Nolte also pointed out the Jews’ intimate entanglement in Communism, though naturally he rejects equating the Jews with Bolshevism. Nolte writes:[68]

“For readily apparent social reasons, was not the per-centage of persons of Jewish extraction particularly great among the participants in the Russian Revolution, different from the percentages of other minorities such as the Latvians? Even at the start of this century Jewish philosophers were still pointing with great pride to this extensive participation of the Jews in Socialist movements. After 1917, when the anti-Bolshevist movement-or propaganda-stressed the topic of the Jewish People’s commissars above all others, this pride was no longer expressed, […] But it took Auschwitz to turn this topic into a taboo for several decades.

It is all the more remarkable that in 1988 the publication Commentary, the voice of right-wing Jews in America, published an article by Jerry Z. Muller who recalls these indisputable facts-though of course they are open to interpretation:

‘If Jews were highly visible in the revolution in Russia and Germany, in Hungary they seemed omnipresent. […] Of the government’s 49 commissars, 31 were of Jewish origin […] Rakosi later joked that Garbai (a gentile) was chosen for his post ‘so that there would be someone who could sign the death sentences on Saturdays’. […] But the conspicuous role of Jews in the revolution of 1917-19 gave anti-Semitism (which ‘seemed on the wane by 1914’) a whole new impetus. […] Historians who have focused on the utopian ideals espoused by revolutionary Jews have diverted attention from the fact that these Communists of Jewish origin, no less than their non-Jewish counterparts, were led by their ideals to take part in heinous crimes-against Jews and non-Jews alike.'”

Referring to the causal nexus Nolte had postulated between GULag and Auschwitz, Muller concludes:

“The Trotskies make the revolutions [i.e., the GULag] and the Bronsteins pay the bills [in the Holocaust].”[69]

Thus it seems understandable that National Socialism, and the eastern peoples fighting alongside for their freedom, equated the Jews in general with the Bolshevist terror and the activities of the commissars-though such an identification, being sweeping and collective, was unjust. Nevertheless, it is therefore more than plausible that it was Jews, first and foremost, who were made to pay for the partisan warfare and other war crimes of the Soviets. Anyone who (rightly) criticizes this, however, should also not omit to consider where the blame for this kind of escalation of the war in the East was to be found. And clearly it was to be found with Stalin who, as an aside, had treated the Jews in his sphere of influence at least as mercilessly ever since the war had begun, as Hitler had.[70]


Notes

First published as “Partisanenkrieg und Repressaltötungen” in Vierteljahreshefte für freie Geschichtsforschung 3(2) (1999), pp. 145-153. Translated by Fabian Eschen. All but one picture reproduced in this article were taken from the book Die Wehrmacht im Partisanenkrieg by Franz W. Seidler (Pour le Merite, Selent 1998).

[1] Just recently, this exhibition has come to the U.S. as well, in a slightly revised version; cf. Johannes Heer, Klaus Naumann (ed.), Verbrechen der Wehrmacht 1941-1944, Hamburger Edition, Hamburg 1995; Klaus Sojka (ed.), Die Wahrheit über die Wehrmacht. Reemtsmas Fälschungen widerlegt, FZ-Verlag, Munich 1998; Franz W. Seidler, Verbrechen an der Wehrmacht, Pour le Mérite, Selent 1998; Bogdan Musial, “Bilder einer Ausstellung. Kritische Anmerkungen zur Wanderausstellung ‘Vernichtungskrieg. Verbrechen der Wehrmacht 1941-1944,'” Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte, 47(4) (1999), pp. 563-591; Krisztián Ungváry, “Echte Bilder – problematische Aussagen,” Geschichte in Wissenschaft und Unterricht, 50(10), (1999), pp. 584-595; Klaus Hildebrandt, Hans-Peter Schwarz, Lothar Gall, cf. “Kritiker fordern engültige Schließung,” Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Nov. 6, 1999, p. 4; Ralf Georg Reuth, “Endgültiges Aus für Reemtsma-Schau?,” Welt am Sonntag, Nov. 7, 1999, p. 14; Walter Post, Die verleumdete Armee, Pour le Mérite, Selent 1999.
[2] hoh, “Die Franzosenzeit hat begonnen,” Stuttgarter Zeitung, 25.4.1995
[3] Cf. Heinrich Wendig, Richtigstellungen zur Zeitgeschichte, issue 8, Grabert, Tübingen 1995, p. 46. In fact, this has not been a reprisal, but merely a mass murder; cf. also ibid., issue 2 (1991), pp. 47ff.; issue 3 (1992), pp. 39ff.; issue 10 (1997), pp. 44f.
[4] One exception is a recently publicized case of the unwarranted murder of 48 German soldiers who had already surrendered: Michael Sylverster Kozial, “US-Kripo ermittelt nach 51 Jahren,” Heilbronner Stimme, September 24, 1996; “Später Fahndung nach Mördern in US-Uniform,” Stuttgarter Zeitung, September 27, 1996, p. 7.
[5] Prof. Dr. jur. Karl Siegert, Repressalie, Requisition und höherer Befehl, Göttinger Verlagsanstalt, Göttingen 1953, 52 pp; English translation: Ernst Siegert, “Reprisals and Orders from Higher up,” in: G. Rudolf (ed.), Dissecting the Holocaust, 2nd ed., Theses & Dissertations Press, Chicago, IL, 2003, pp. 530-550.
[6] Relevant orders were issued by Stalin and were broadcast via all Soviet Russian stations; cf. Keesing’s Archiv der Gegenwart, 1941, July 3rd + 21st 1941; cf. Sowjetski Partisani, Moscow 1961, p. 326.
[7] Bernd Bonwetsch, “Sowjetische Partisanen 1941-1944,” in Gerhard Schulz (ed.), Partisanen und Volkskrieg, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen 1985, pp. 99, 101.
[8] Witalij Wilenchik, “Die Partisanenbewegung in Weißrußland,” in Hans Joachim Torke (ed.), Forschungen zur osteuropäischen Geschichte, v. 34, Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden 1984, pp. 280f., 285, 288f. This chapter has a certain anti-Fascist undertone.
[9] S. Werner, Die 2. babylonische Gefangenschaft, originally self-published by author, Pfullingen 1990; 2nd ed. Grabert, Tübingen 1991, pp. 88-93 (online: vho.org/D/d2bg/I_II.html); English online only (vho.org/GB/Books/tsbc).
[10] B. Bonwetsch, op.cit. (note [7]), pp. 111f.
[11] Franz. W. Seidler, Die Wehrmacht im Partisanenkrieg, Pour le Mérite, Selent 1998; cf. Hans Poeppel (ed.), Die Soldaten der Wehrmacht, 3rd ed., Herbig, Munich 1999.
[12] B.S. Telpuchowski, Die Geschichte des Grossen Vaterländischen Krieges 1941-1945, Bernard & Graefe Verlag für Wehrwesen, Frankfurt/Main 1961, p. 284; comparable Seidler, op. cit. (note [11]), p. 36f.; similar data may also be found in Heinz Kühnreich, Der Partisanenkrieg in Europa 1939-1945, Dietz, Berlin (East) 1965; for further interesting information, see I.I. Minz, I.M. Rasgon, A.L. Sidorow, Der Große Vaterländische Krieg der Sowjetunion, SWA Verlag, Berlin 1947; it is said that the Washington National Archive’s document copies regarding partisan warfare in the former Soviet Union have recently been made unavailable to the public. This information and the preceding references are courtesy of Fritz Becker; cf. also Becker, “Stalins völkerrechtswidriger Partisanenkrieg,” Huttenbriefe 15(4) (1997), pp. 3-6 (online: vho.org/D/Hutten/Becker15_4.html).
[13] Cf. Walter N. Sanning, “Soviet Scorched-Earth Warfare,” in The Journal of Historical Review, vol. 6/No. 1, Spring 1985, pp. 92-116 (online (German): vho.org/D/DGG/Niederreiter29_1.html).
[14] J. Hoffmann, Stalin’s War of Extermination 1941 – 1945, Theses & Dissertations Press, Capshaw, AL, 2001, pp. 305-327.
[15] A.E. Epifanow, H. Mayer, Die Tragödie der deutschen Kriegsgefangenen in Stalingrad von 1942 bis 1956 nach russischen Archivunterlagen, Biblio, Osnabrück 1996.
[16] Franz W. Seidler, Verbrechen an der Wehrmacht, Pour le Mérite, Selent 1998, pp. 5f. (online: vho.org/D/ vadw/vadw.html); English in preparation.
[17] A. de Zayas, Die Wehrmachtsuntersuchungsstelle, 4th ed., Ullstein, Berlin 1984, passim., esp. pp. 273-307.
[18] Ibid., pp. 198-23.
[19] Franz W. Seidler, op. cit. (note 6), p. 127
[20] Cf. J. Hoffmann, “Die Sowjetunion bis zum Vorabend des deutschen Angriffs,” in Horst Boog et al., Das Deutsche Reich und der Zweite Weltkrieg, vol. 4: Der Angriff auf die Sowjetunion, 2nd ed., Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt, Stuttgart 1987; Hoffmann, “Die Angriffsvorbereitungen der Sowjetunion,” in B. Wegner (ed.), Zwei Wege nach Moskau, Piper, Munich 1991; V. Suvorov, Icebreaker: Who Started the Second World War?, Hamish Hamilton, London 1990; Suvorov, Der Tag M, Klett-Cotta, Stuttgart 1995; E. Topitsch, Stalin ‘s War: A Radical New Theory of the Origins of the Second World War, Fourth Estate, London 1987; cf. W. Post, Unternehmen Barbarossa, Mittler, Hamburg 1995; F. Becker, Stalins Blutspur durch Europa, Arndt Verlag, Kiel 1996; Becker, Im Kampf um Europa, 2nd ed., Leopold Stocker Verlag, Graz/Stuttgart 1993; W. Maser, Der Wortbruch. Hitler, Stalin und der Zweite Weltkrieg, Olzog Verlag, Munich 1994.
[21] For more detaisl about this combat cf. F. W. Seidler, op. cit. (note [11]), pp. 69-132.
[22] Cf. H. Höhne, Der Orden unter dem Totenkopf, Bertelsmann, Munich 1976, pp. 328, 339; cf. H. Krausnick, H.-H. Wilhelm, Die Truppe des Weltanschauungskrieges. Die Einsatzgruppen der Sicherheitspolizei und des SD 1938-1942, Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt, Stuttgart 1981, p. 147, cf. p. 287; Richard Pemsel, Hitler – Revolutionär, Staatsmann, Verbrecher?, Grabert, Tübingen 1986, pp. 403-407.
[23] For more information about the partisan warfare cf., e.g., Erich Hesse, Der sowjetrussische Partisanenkrieg 1941-1944 im Spiegel deutscher Kampfanweisungen und Befehle, 2nd ed., Muster-Schmidt, Göttingen 1992; John A. Armstrong (ed.), Soviet Partisans in World War II, Univ. of Wisc. Press, Madison, Wisc., 1964; Tomas Nigel, Partisan Warfare 1941-1945, Osprey, London 1983.
[24] H. Höhne, op. cit. (note [22]), p. 330.
[25] G. Reitlinger, Die SS, Tragödie einer deutschen Epoche, Desch, Munich 1957, p. 186; similar Efraim Zuroff, Beruf: Nazijäger. Die Suche mit dem langen Atem: Die Jagd nach den Tätern des Völkermordes, Ahriman, Freiburg 1996, p. 44, were he says that 3,000 men, “mobil killing units, whose task was to kill all Jews and communist officials in the area occupied by the Wehrmacht.” This included the huge area “from the suburbs of Leningrad in the north to the Asov sea in the south.[…] Their weapons were conventional firearms. Nevertheless they succeeded in killing 900,000 Jews in 15 months.” Zuroff wonders, but he has no doubts. This has been possible, according to Zuroff, because of the “fanatic support by the native population.” (p. 47) That there has been a massive partisan warfare in the back of the fighting German army is either unknown to Zuroff or he is not interested in it.
[26] Together with Helmut Krausnick co-author of the famous book Die Truppe des Weltanschauungskrieges, (The Troop of the War of Ideology) op. cit. (note 17).
[27] H.-H. Wilhelm, lecture during an international history conference at the university Riga, September 20-22, 1988, p. 11. Based on this recital Wilhelm wrote the article “Offene Fragen der Holocaust-Forschung” (Open Question about the Holocaust Research) in U. Backes, E. Jesse, R. Zitelmann (ed.), Die Schatten der Vergangenheit, Propyläen, Berlin 1992 S. 403, which however does not contain this section. I obtained this information from Costas Zaverdinos, who had the manuscript of Wilhelms Riga lecture and who reported about this during the opening speech of the history conference on April 4, 1995 at the university of Natal, Pietermaritzburg.
[28] H.-H. Wilhelm, op. cit. (note 17), p. 515.
[29] Ibid., p. 535.
[30] Document R-102 in Der Prozeß gegen die Hauptkriegsverbrecher vor dem Internationalen Militärgerichtshof, (IMT), vol. 1 – XXXXII, Nürnberg 1947-1949, here vol. XXXVIII, 279-303, here p. 292f.
[31] Nationalsozialistischen Volkswohlfahrt, National Socialist People’s Welfare
[32] H. Krausnick, H.-H. Wilhelm, op. cit. (note 17), p. 189.
[33] Gerald Reitlinger, Die Endlösung. Hitlers Versuch der Ausrottung der Juden Europas 1939-1945, Colloquium Verlag, Berlin 41961, p. 262.
[34] IMT, XV, p: 362; vol. XV, p. 363: “Es waren ganze Stäbe in Kiew […] in die Luft geflogen.”
[35] H. Krausnick, H.-H. Wilhelm, op. cit. (note 17), p. 189, Fn 161.
[36] Ibid., p. 190.
[37] Alfred Streim, “Zum Beispiel: Die Verbrechen der Einsatzgruppen in der Sowjetunion,” in: Adalbert Rückerl (Hrsg.), NS-Prozesse. Nach 25 Jahren Strafverfolgung. Möglichkeiten – Grenzen – Ergebnisse, C.F. Müller, Karlsruhe 1972.
[38] H. Krausnick, H.-H. Wilhelm, op. cit. (note 17), p. 190, note. 164, all sources are otherwise exactly quoted.
[39] Raul Hilberg, Die Vernichtung der europäischen Juden. Die Gesamtgeschichte des Holocaust, Olle & Wolter, Berlin 1982, p. 213, FN 59.
[40] Ernst Klee, Willi Dreßen, Volker Rieß (Hg.), “Schöne Zeiten.” Judenmord aus der Sicht der Täter und Gaffer, S. Fischer, Frankfurt/M. 1988, S. 69.
[41] Op. cit. (note 27), p. 263.
[42] Op. cit. (note 31), p. 86f.
[43] Alfred Streim, “Zur Eröffnung des allgemeinen Judenvernichtungsbefehls gegenüber den Einsatzgruppen,” in: Eberhard Jäckel, Jürgen Rohwer (Hg.), Der Mord an den Juden im Zweiten Weltkrieg. Entschlußbildung und Verwirklichung, Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt, Stuttgart 1985, S. 114.
[44] H. Krausnick, H.-H. Wilhelm, op. cit. (note 17), p. 336.
[45] Ibid., p. 649.
[46] Ibid., p. 335f.
[47] Reichssicherheitshauptamt, Reich Security Main Office.
[48] H. Krausnick, H.-H. Wilhelm, op. cit. (note 17), p. 337f.
[49] Ibid., p. 335.
[50] Ibid., p. 338.
[51] Op. cit. (note 33), p. 227, note145
[52] Affidavit of 6.6.1947, NO-3824.
[53] See IMT, VII, S. 612.
[54] Op. cit. (note 17), p. 190.
[55] Op. cit. (note 27), p. 263.
[56] Wolfgang Benz (Hrsg.), Legenden, Lügen, Vorurteile, dtv, München 1990, p. 40.
[57] “Babi Jar: Kritische Fragen und Anmerkungen,” in: Ernst Gauss (Ed.), Grundlagen zur Zeitgeschichte, Grabert, Tübingen 1994, p. 375-399.
[58] Op. cit. (note 17), p. 535.
[59] IMT, vol. XXX, S. 74.
[60] U. Walendy pointed out that these reports could not possibly be designated as documents: no letter head, no signature, no file number or letter-diary number. It is simply a piece of paper written on it: U. Walendy, “Babi Jar – Die Schlucht ‘mit 33.771 ermordeten Juden’?,” Historische Tatsachen Nr. 51, Verlag für Volkstum und Zeitgeschichtsforschung, Vlotho 1992, p. 21, as usual written with a ‘hot’ pen, but still a good starting point; see also: Historische Tatsache Nr. 16 & 17, “Einsatzgruppen im Verband des Heeres,” parts 1 & 2, ibid., 1983.
[61] See J.C. Ball, Air Photo Evidence, Ball Recource Services Ltd., Delta B.C., 1992; ders., in: E. Gauss (Hg.), Grundlagen zur Zeitgeschichte, Grabert, Tübingen, S. 235-248.; vgl. H. Tiedemann, ibid., p. 375-399.
[62] From: G. Fleming, Hitler and the Final Solution, University of California Press, Berkeley 1984, ill. 6, pp. 92f. (source: The Nizkor Project: http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/orgs/german/einsatzgruppen/images/
[63] Lietuvos Rytas (Latvian news paper), August 21,1996.
[64] Personal message from Dr. M. Dragan.
[65] I will not elaborate here on the equally problematic gas wagons allegedly also utilized by the Einsatzgruppen; see Ingrid Weckert in E. Gauss (Ed.), op. cit. (note 50), p. 193-218.
[66] For the time between Jan. 1, 1943, and Oct. 31, 1944 (22 months), the German authorities have claimed 145,364 persons killed in the partisan warfare, 88,493 imprisoned, and 90,993 civilians “registered,” i.e., either sent into camps or otherwise punished; cf. F. W. Seidler, op. cit. (note [12]).
[67] S. Margolina, Das Ende der Lügen, Siedler, Berlin 1992.
[68] E. Nolte, “Abschließende Reflexionen über den sogenannten Historikerstreit,” in U. Backes, E. Jesse, R. Zitelmann (eds.), Die Schatten der Vergangenheit, Propyläen, Berlin 1992, pp. 83-109, here pp. 92f.
[69] J.Z. Muller, “Communism, Anti-Semitism and the Jews,” in Commentary, issue 8, 1988, pp. 28-39; for a more ideological approach to National Socialist anti-Semitism cf. Erich Bischoff, Das Buch vom Schulchan aruch, Hammer Verlag, Leipzig 1929; on this expert opinion one of the best known National Socialist anti-Semites, Theodor Fritsch, relied heavily: T. Fritsch, Handbuch zur Judenfrage, 31st ed., Hammer-Verlag, Leipzig 1932; a comparison to modern Jewish critics of Judaism is extremely revealing, cf. Israel Shahak, Jewish History, Jewish Religion, Pluto Press, London 1994 (online: codoh.com/zionweb/zishahak/zishahakan01.html).
[70] Regarding the question of the involvement of Jews in the soviet partisan warfare against German troops cf. E. Jäckel, P. Longerich, J. H. Schoeps (eds.), Enzyklopädie des Holocaust, Argon, Berlin 1993, p. 1348; cf. Nechama Tec, Defiance, the Bielski Partisans, Oxford University Press, New York 1993.

King Edward VIII Wanted to Ally with Hitler and Blamed “Jews and Reds” for WWII

Source: http://whiteresister.com/index.php/8-archives/13-king-edward-viii-wanted-to-ally-with-hitler-and-blamed-jews-and-reds-for-wwii

king-edward-viiiEdward VIII wanted ally with the Third Reich and blamed “Jews and Reds” for World War II, according to a prominent academic.

The research, carried out by UK-based German historian Karina Urbach, delved into the historical archives of 30 nations, including Germany, Spain and Russia, revealing the fascist sympathies of many European aristocrats.

Writing for The Conversation website ahead of the release of her new book, Go-Betweens for Hitler, Urbach said Edward VIII, who abdicated the throne in 1936 and became the Duke of Windsor, “has always been known for his pro-Nazi sympathies.”

She added: “However, the extent of his betrayal could never be fully verified due to the secrecy of the Royal Archives.”

“The Royal Archives have always ensured that letters from German relatives of the royal family in the run up to World War II remain closed.

“Naturally, such censorship has led to endless conspiracy theories.”

However, over nearly a decade of painstaking research in European archives, Urbach turned up vital evidence into the secret political lives of pro-fascist aristocrats.

“I have accumulated damning evidence by sifting through 30 archives all over the world that are open,” Urbach wrote.

“Intelligence reports and German, Spanish and Russian documents show members of the British royal family were indeed far closer to Nazi Germany than has previously been recognized.”

A key portion of the research deals with the relationship between the Duke of Windsor and a trusted German relative, Charles Edward Duke of Coburg – a bitterly anti-Semitic minor German aristocrat who acted as a messenger, it is claimed, between privileged fascists around Europe.

Meetings between Coburg and British royals are even listed in the Court Circular, a record of the British monarchy’s meetings and appointments.

Further evidence was found in the Spanish archives.

“In June 1940 Don Javier Bermejillo, a Spanish diplomat and old friend of Windsor – he had known him since the 1920s – reported a conversation he had had with the Duke to his superiors,” Urbach said.

The diplomat says he had heard the embittered duke blame “the Jews, the Reds and the Foreign Office” for the approaching war, long before it began.

Windsor wanted to put politicians, including Anthony Eden, “up against a wall,” Urbach claims.

Perhaps most troublingly, the records hint at a possible correlation between the Duke’s fascist leanings and the start of the German bombing campaign against Britain.

“In another conversation on June 25, 1940,” Urbach writes, “Bermejillo reported that Windsor stressed if one bombed England effectively this could bring peace.

“Bermejillo concluded that the Duke of Windsor seemed very much to hope that this would occur: ‘He wants peace at any price.’”

The report found its way into the hands of Spain’s own fascist dictator, General Franco, according to Urbach. It was “then passed on to the Germans.”

“The bombing of Britain started on 10 July,” she added.