Der Stürmer

The official blog of the site "Der Stürmer" –

Category: Revisionism

Legendary Revisionist Dr. Fredrick Töben Has Passed Away


I only just found out that Dr. Fredrick Töben died on June 29, 2020 at the age of 76. He was a German-born Australian who learned the real history about Germany and the “holocaust” and then dedicated his life to exposing the truth, founding the Adelaide Institute to further these efforts. Dr. Töben suffered greatly for his “revisionism” and ended up imprisoned three times and fined into oblivion.

I interviewed Fredrick back in 2017. I encourage you all to check out that show to learn more about the legendary revisionist and his eventful life.

Here is his interview with Ernst Zundel, who is also no longer with us anymore.

Bitchute link

You should also watch his film Judea Declares War on Germany.

Bitchute link

We need more people from younger generations to carry the torch for those are no longer with us. We must see this struggle through.

The jewish Post-War Ethnic Cleansing of German Silesia and Breslau


The Post-War Ethnic Cleansing of German Silesia

Stolen Heritage: German Silesia

In the parts of Germany taken for Poland in 1945, the entire ethnic German population was either murdered, expelled or faced severe reprisals at war’s end. As cited elsewhere, in East Prussia and Pomerania, from Danzig to Stettin to Elbing and to all of the old Baltic German cities, catastrophic jewish Allied bombing was followed by jewish Red Terror. The few surviving Germans in these areas were placed before violent judeo Communist led “verification” committees who decided their fate. Their language and civil rights were immediately suspended. Thousands died trying to flee. Slave labor camps in Poland included, among those run by the infamously sadistic Salomon Morel and Czesław Gęborski, the Central Labour Camp Jaworzno, Central Labour Camp Potulice, Łambinowice, Zgoda labour camp and others. Aside from being thrown into one of these 1,255 “labor” camps under Polish administration in early 1945, it was estimated that about 165,000 Germans were deported to slave labor in the Soviet Union from the German territories annexed de-facto by Poland.

With German defeat in 1945, all of Silesia was suddenly occupied by the jewish Soviet Red Army who, following their violent pattern, embarked upon another horrendous spree of rape. In one instance, 182 Catholic nuns were raped in Neisse and in the diocese of Kattowitz, they left behind 66 pregnant nuns. Even small children were not spared the horrors of violent sexual assault, and little girls were being attacked as often as their mothers. Boys who tried to protect their mothers and sisters were shot, as were many of the victims afterward.

Churchill proposed the genocidal plan adopted at the 1945 Potsdam Conference for putting Poland “on wheels” and “rolling it westward” into German lands. As a result of his final solution to the “German problem,” millions of Poles were displaced from territories granted to the USSR and even more millions of Germans were expelled from lands they had inhabited since the 13th century.

Silesian Germans, some of whom had roots in Silesia going back centuries, and who before World War II amounted to about 4 million, were collectively labelled “German partisans” and either fled or were murdered, put in camps, sent to the jewish Gulags or expelled. Often, the men would be rounded up from the villages and camps and marched a short distance away, shot and buried in mass graves. Under the terms of the agreements at the Yalta Conference of 1944 and the Potsdam Agreement of 1945, German Silesia east of the rivers Oder and Lusatian Neisse was transferred to Poland. Poles from lands stolen by Stalin were trucked in and resettled there before the blood had even dried. The Germans were sometimes ordered to not only leave all of their possessions behind, they were ordered to leave the beds made with clean linen. It was efficient, well-planned and organized.

An order of expulsion was placed upon the expellees by Communist Section Commander Major Zinkowski:

On July 14, 1945 from 6 to 9 oclock resettlement of the German population will take place.

    1. The German population will be resettled to an area west of the river Neisse.
    2. Each German is allowed to take 20kg of luggage with him at the most.
    3. No means of transportation (wagons, oxen, horses, cows etc) is permitted.
    4. The total of the living and dead inventory in an undamaged state remains the property of Poland.
    5. The last resettlement deadline will terminate on the 14th of July at 10 o’clock.
    6. Noncompliance with this order will be punished severely, including the use of weapons.
    7. Sabotage and looting will also be prevented by the use of weapons.
    8. Assembly point on the street station Bad Salzbrunn Edelsbacher Weg in a four person marching column. The head of the column is to be 20 meters before the village of Adelsbach.
    9. Those Germans who have a certified non-evacuation order, are not permitted to leave their dwelling with their family members from 5 o’clock to 14:00.
    10. All dwellings in the city must remain open; all apartment and house keys must be left outside.


Thousands of Breslau civilians had waited to evacuate the city when they heard news of the jewish Soviet advance on January 14, 1945.They could not evacuate until 6 days later because of rail damage and battles. In panic and desperation, 50,000 to 60,000 left on foot, mostly women and children, in bitter winter weather. In the process, some 18,000 frozen bodies were recovered along their trails and 70 children were crushed to death under wagon wheels. 90,000 Breslauers are thought to have died in the trek. Partly because they realized the hopelessness of evacuating, another 200,000 or so civilians remained in the inner city, and by February 15, the Soviet noose tightened around them. Breslau was the last major city in eastern Germany to fall on May 7, 1945.

Although the city was only bombed once, massive destruction took place in the aftermath. Breslau was largely destroyed. The medieval parts of the city and almost all historical landmarks were gutted. The buildings that escaped bomb damage were burned and looted by the jewish Soviets. It was said there was a murdered, disfigured or disemboweled German hung on every lamp post in the city.

The entire youth of Germany, boys of 14 to 17 years, and the Volkstrum, consisting of old men, were all the defense that was left during these last days of war. These pitiful troops were all that stood between Germany and Armageddon. Over a thousand of these boys arrived to defend Breslau where they awaited the Russian onslaught. Many of the youngest boys killed themselves out of sheer terror while others fought on desperately for days until the city finally fell on May 6, 1945.

The 40,000 survivors of the German garrison who surrendered were executed, thrown into mass graves or taken to the Gulag, from which few returned. Over 30,000 more civilians would die, most from homicide, but there were also about 3,000 suicides. The jewish led Red Army went house to house and block to block embarking on vicious rape and slaughter. For 77 days, the carnage and mayhem lasted, the Soviets murdering and burning people alive. Thousands of Breslauers lay dead in the ruins, and the city was almost 70% destroyed. Like most of Silesia, Breslau was placed under Polish administration. Most surviving German inhabitants were expelled and all German property was taken. By the 1950s, Breslau had been cleansed of most of its dried blood as well as remaining Germans and the real history of the city. Renamed “Wrocław,” it was resettled with Poles.

It was not just adults who were expelled from their homes. Children became adults overnight when suddenly orphaned or when separated from their parents, and they had to face the hard and dangerous treks alone, at the mercy of the elements and vicious predators. The violence used to obliterate the ethnic memory of Germans was degrading and often fatal.

Reduced to slaves by their new masters, Germans were forced to make public apologies for their “collective guilt” at social and governmental gatherings. Others were sent to camps with unbearable conditions. Of 8,064 Germans in Camp Lamsdorf in Upper Silesia, 6,488, including hundreds of children, died from starvation, disease, hard labor, and physical maltreatment including torture. This repeated itself by the thousands. Illness brought on by bad water, starvation, exposure and even poisoning was rampant and suicides epidemic. Five times as many Germans died in the first year after the War’s end as died during five of the War itself.

It is interesting to note that not all Germans were expelled: in the Opole/Oppeln region in Upper Silesia. Some German miners and their families were “allowed” to stay, but their culture was repressed and they were virtual slaves. German language remained forbidden for the next forty years. Forced out at gunpoint, old and young, rich and poor had to leave their family homes behind furnished and unlocked for the new inhabitants. The Oder-Neisse as the border of a new post-war Germany was deceptively described as “tentative” until a final peace settlement with Germany. The issue was not laid to rest by Germany until it was forced to sign it as the high price for German reunification: some or nothing at all.

The “Extermination Camps” of “Aktion Reinhardt”


An Analysis and Refutation of Factitious “Evidence,” Deceptions and Flawed Argumentation of the “Holocaust Controversies” Bloggers


by Carlo Mattogno, Thomas Kues and Jürgen Graf

Published: 2013-10-23

Ever since the authors of the present study started publishing, together or separately, thorough studies about the most prominent German camps of the WWII era which are generally referred to as extermination camps, orthodox historians have made it a point to intentionally ignore these studies which they seem unable to refute. This eerie silence ended only in late 2011 when several members of the exterminationist Holocaust Controversies blog published a 570 page-long online study titled Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka: Holocaust Denial and Operation Reinhard. With it they claim to refute three of our authors’ monographs on the camps Belzec, Sobibor and Treblinka (see vols. 9, 19 and 8 of the Holocaust Handbooks series).

This lengthy orthodox critique forced our three authors to go back to the sources. After a year of archival and library research, the rebuttal of their detractors’ critique was finally complete, and a few months later Mattogno’s major contributions to it were translated into English. The opus seemed ready for publication. What followed next, though, was an arduous, 6-months-lasting process of thorough fact-checking and archival verification by peer reviewers as well as massive lingual improvements by numerous editors. The results are out in the open now: a work comprising more than 1,500 pages.

This work has occupied the most knowledgeable revisionists for a year and more. It has led to the postponement of numerous other projects (as can easily be gleaned from this website as well). Today’s leading revisionists consider this their ultimate response and final word on the subject. From now on they have promised to focus on more productive research and publications.

As to the contents of this book, the casual reader may be warned: This work cannot be read like a novel. It is a point-by-point response to the above-mentioned Holocaust Controversies bloggers’ PDF file (accessible on their website) and can be understood only in that context. It also requires that the reader be familiar with the authors’ three monographs on the Belzec, Sobibor and Treblinka camps, all of which can be accessed and downloaded on this website.

It goes without saying that it is neither easy nor profitable to publish such a huge two-volume opus which will find only a very small audience. In order to make the text a little more readable and to reduce the volume of the printed version slightly, it does include only the English translations of any foreign language sources quoted. The full foreign language text can be found in the extended PDF version. Since this PDF file is accessible to everyone and can thus be searched, we have refrained from creating a cost-prohibitive index.

In summarizing the book’s conclusions, Jürgen Graf writes in his Epilogue:

Holocaust Controversies had all the time they needed to write their “refutation.” They were assisted by a host of Holocaust historians they diligently enumerate in their introduction. It did not help them a bit. […] Since the exterminationist position with regards to these two topics [gas chambers and eyewitnesses] is hopeless from the beginning, Myers had myriads of opportunities to make a fool of himself, and he missed not a single one of them. […]

However, the most preposterous chapters of the pamphlet are undoubtedly the two last ones, written by […] Roberto Muehlenkamp, who unsuccessfully tried to prove that during World War II the eternal laws of nature had to pause so that the evil Nazis could carry out their massacre in chemical slaughterhouses and get rid of the bodies without significant use of fuel. [Muehlenkamp] knew exactly that Mattogno, who has an encyclopedic knowledge of all problems related to cremation, would react to his challenge and make mincemeat of his chapters, to use Romanov’s poetic formulation for the last time. Is Muehlenkamp perhaps a masochist? Does he relish the role of the circus clown who is pelted with eggs to the roaring laughter of the audience? Now he has egg all over his face. I do not feel a bit sorry for him because he asked for it.”


This book exists in two versions: a “short” printed version which does not include most of the foreign language quotes, and an extended PDF version which includes all foreign language quotes. The print version’s PDF files can be downloaded with the usual links below. The extended PDF version of 1554 pp. is available here (37.7 MB).

2nd, slightly corrected edition, Set of 2 tomes with a total of 1396 pages.
Tome 1: 712 pp. ISBN13: 9781591480877 (ISBN10: 1591480876)
Tome 2: 684 pp. ISBN13: 9781591480884 (ISBN10: 1591480884)
Format: pb, 6″×9″, bibliography.
Published by Castle Hill Publishers (Uckfield, UK) in Apr. 2015.
For prices please see retail outlets.

Purchase Options

Note: Books published by Castle Hill Publishers should be available anywhere books are sold – except for those companies boycotting us, like Amazon and Barnes & Noble. Search other online stores using the book-price search-engine links provided below, or when searching other stores use the ISBN number provided above. Also ask your local book store to order it for you. They should be able to get it for you.

Holocaust Beliefs Since 1945


By Jürgen Graf

Published 1997

For a half century, all of humanity knew, or thought it knew, that something uniquely cruel took place during WWII, when Germany was fighting nearly every other major country in the world.

Of course, it is true that atrocities were in fact committed during the war – atrocities which were unprecedented in their degree of unique cruelty. These atrocities were as follows:

– The merciless, systematic terror bombing by the Western Allies [jews] of German and Japanese cities. For the first time in the history of the civilized world, a belligerent sought openly and without pretense to kill or maim the greatest possible number of human beings, including the elderly, women and children, without any military justification, and to destroy as many cultural monuments as possible. At Dresden, in February 1945, when the war was all but over, 250,000(++) human beings were burned alive or buried under the ruins of their houses in a single night. In August of the same year, the US dropped the atomic bombs on a Japan which was already prepared to capitulate;

The mass murder of prisoners of war. In this unique atrocity, the Allies deliberately allowed enormous numbers of prisoners of war to starve to death or to die of exhaustion. It is recognized that 1.5 million German prisoners in the USSR died this way. That the Western democracies cold-bloodedly permitted at least 800,000, possibly more than a million, prisoners of war to die of hunger, was hushed up in shame for decades, and first came to light through the research of the courageous historian James Bacque;

The greatest mass expulsion in human history, far exceeding anything occurring in past centuries. Between 1944 and 1949, approximately 15 million Germans were driven from the homes in which their ancestors had lived peacefully for many generations, and were thrown onto the roads under conditions so inhumane that Europe had not seen the like since the Thirty Years War. These mass expulsions – unique in their cruelty – caused two million deaths from cold, exhaustion, starvation, and deliberate massacres.

And yet – all these horrors are hardly even noticed when there is talk of WWII atrocities. When people talk of THE unique crime of the century – a crime which staggers the imagination – we immediately sense that we are about to hear – once again – of the German genocide of the jews.

There is only group with victim status: the Six Million

There is only one scene of any crime: Auschwitz

There is only one group of unique criminals: the “Nazis”

There is only one new, horrifying weapon: the “gas chambers”.

These concepts are deeply anchored in the sub-consciousness of all of humanity; they are drummed into our brains, on television, radio, and the press almost daily; they appear in all the history books, at least in the Western world.

These four concepts – Six Million, Auschwitz, “Nazis,” and Gas Chambers – are the concrete symbol of Absolute Evil in the minds of all humanity. And since every decent person must naturally abhor Evil, innumerable numbers of decent people therefore believe themselves morally compelled to hate, or at least to mistrust, the nationality of people who were responsible for this unique crime – the German people, who were, at that time, almost 100% in favour of Hitler and the National Socialist government, a fact which is beyond dispute.

It appears no less logical that the victims of this absolute evil, the jews, should, by the same logic, be treated with the greatest possible sympathy and respect. Of course, this includes the decency of refraining from asking for any proof of their unspeakable suffering – these people who are so deserving of our sympathy, who have suffered so unspeakably. Every decent human being must listen with the greatest solemnity, the profoundest grief, and without the slightest questioning, to all the details of the monstrous tale of the assembly-line extermination of an entire people, then cry out in righteous indignation: Never Again!

This assembly-line style extermination of human beings is commonly known as the “Holocaust”, from the Greek word for “sacrifice by fire” (holos = entirely; kaein = to burn). Another term, which is less commonly used, but which is preferred by jews, is “Shoa” (Hebrew for “catastrophe”).

The terms “Holocaust” and “Shoa” are an indictment of the German people and its ruling government from 1933 to 1945, an indictment which, in terms of severity, has never been made against any other people or government at any time in history.

This indictment runs as follows:

In the midst of the 20th century, in the heart of Europe, the Germans, over a period of three years (from the autumn of 1941 until the autumn of 1944), murdered five to six million jewish men, women, and children, almost unnoticed by the world. This genocide is said to have been carried out based on a diabolical plan, carefully hatched by the NS government. The majority of the victims – from slightly less than three million to more than five million, depending on which historian you believe – were killed with a previously unknown weapon, i.e., gas chambers (with gas vans playing second fiddle). These mass murders are supposed to have taken place in six extermination camps located on Polish territory, namely Auschwitz, Majdanek, Sobibor, Treblinka, and Chelmno. The last mentioned camp used gas vans; the five others used stationary gas chambers. Some of the bodies were burned in crematoria, and some in the open, leaving not a rack behind.

The Germans also liquidated between one and two million jews in Russia, some of them in gas vans, some by mass shooting. These massacres were committed mostly by a special murder squad, the “Einsatzgruppen”.

After that come another half million or more jews who are said to have died in ghettos and work camps from mistreatment, malnutrition, and exhaustion. These are, of course, included among the number of jewish victims, almost Six Million – (three to five million or more gassed in the six death camps, plus one to two million shot in Russia or murdered in gas vans; plus at least half a million more, from more or less “natural causes”) – but who were not the result of a deliberate policy of extermination; non-jewish prisoners also died in great numbers for the same reasons. Although these jews cannot really be included as “Holocaust victims”, they are included among them for the sake of simplicity.

Morally, according to half a century of deafening media propaganda, the Holocaust cannot be equated with any other atrocity in history. Stalin may have killed tens of millions more than Hitler, but he never ordered an entire race wiped out without a trace, without any examination of individual cases. The Germans didn’t commit the Holocaust because they considered the jews a real or potential threat, but solely and merely because the victims were jews. The Germans, according to their accusers, exterminated an entire people out of pure RACIAL HATRED. This racial hatred was the reason why they killed not just the men, the fighting-fit, but the elderly, women and children, including the newborn – everyone who could be called a “jew”.

Compared to the “Holocaust”, all other “’Nazi’ crimes” pale into insignificance!

a) “The three million non-jewish Poles”

In addition to the genocide of the jews, the Third Reich is accused of other gigantic crimes.

For example, the claim is sometimes made in the media that the National Socialists killed three million non-jewish Poles. The unprejudiced observer will perhaps wonder as to the circumstances under which so many Poles are said to have been killed. Between the end of the short German-Polish war of September 1939 and the uprising in the Warsaw Ghetto of 1944, which cost 180,000 victims, there were, of course, attacks by the Resistance resulting in German reprisals, but there was no large-scale conflict. There is no allegation of any mass-extermination of non-jewish Poles in the camps. How are the three million Poles supposed to have been killed? No Western historian has ever made a serious attempt to establish the figure. 25

b) “The 500,000 gypsies”

Claims of the alleged 500,000 gypsies exterminated by the Germans are heard with incomparably greater frequency than the claims of the three million non-jewish Poles. With regards to the extermination of the gypsies, Sebastien Haffner, in a book praised to the skies by the media, states as follows:

“After 1941, the gypsies in the occupied territories were exterminated just as systematically as the jews who lived there. This mass murder has… hardly ever been researched in detail since that time. People didn’t talk about it when it was going on; even today, people don’t know much about it, except that it took place. Documents are rare. Estimates of the number of victims range up to 500,000.”

According to the above, the genocide of the gypsies has hardly been ever researched and the documents are “rare” (i.e., there aren’t any), but we still know that the extermination took place!

That this slaughter is the purest fantasy, has been proven by Udo Walendy in great detail. The edition of Walendy’s periodical Historische Tatsachen which discussed this topic was prohibited, although the authorities could not point to a single sentence in it which was not true.

The alleged genocide of the gypsies has not penetrated the public consciousness as deeply as the jewish Holocaust. In monuments to the “Nazi” victims, the “Sinti und Roma” – the politically correct expression for the gypsies – appear as “also rans” at best. The gypsies themselves, of course, make energetic attempts to obtain compensation from Bonn, but the sums obtained thus far have been monetarily insignificant; this is doubtlessly due to the general lack of political and economic clout possessed by gypsies.

In early 1997, the historical researchers threw in the towel. The Frankfurter Rundschau of 13 February 1997 (p. 7), in particular, reports, with reference to the historian Michael Zimmerman:

“Only after a thorough study of the documents was it discovered that the number of murdered Sinti und Roma was significantly lower than the figure current in the media: 50,000 instead of 500,000.”

Please don’t get the idea that the figure of 500,000 exterminated gypsies was invented and peddled by lie-historians, lie-politicians, and the lie-media for fifty years, without the slightest proof; instead, it arose spontaneously, a product of spontaneous generation, after which it merely became “current in the media”! Regardless of this admission from the historians themselves, the mythical 500,000 murdered gypsies will no doubt continue to stalk the pages of the tabloids of the future as they did in the past – like ghosts. (That the new figure of 50,000 murdered Sinti and Roma announced by “historical researchers” lacks even the slightest trace of proof, goes without saying.)

c) Medical experiments on human beings

That there were medical experiments in the NS concentration camps, is undisputed, and it is not our intention to justify them. But the Eastern and Western conquerors of Germany have not the slightest right to become indignant about the matter, because they who live in glass houses should not throw stones.

As shown in detail in the French newspaper Nouvelle Vision, the Soviets as well as the Americans also carried out medical experiments on human beings, to an incomparably greater degree than the National Socialists. The following are only three examples:

In Kazakhstan in the USSR , the Soviets set off 446 atomic bombs. A total of 800 villages were affected by the radioactive fallout. In many cases, the villagers were forbidden to enter their houses at the time of the blast, allegedly due to the danger of collapsing buildings; in reality, this order was given to test the effects of radioactivity on the victims. According to the Ministry of Health of Kazakhstan, the life expectancy in the affected areas is now 15 years lower than the national average;

Radioactive experiments were carried out on human beings in the USA as well. In December 1993, the US authorities admitted that, in Tennessee in the 1940s, 700 pregnant women were prescribed radioactive pills, exposing the fetus to radioactive radiation. Many children born to mothers involved in these experiments died prematurely of cancer. Other radioactive experiments on human beings were performed in Oregon in 1963;

In 1954, the first oral contraceptive developed in the USA was not tested on American women, but on Puerto Ricans instead. Since animal experimentation had already proven the pill’s carcinogenic effects, researchers were well aware of the dangers to the women involved, and therefore chose foreigners as test subjects.

Many more examples could be cited.

d) Euthanasia

Between 50,000 and 100,000 severely ill patients were killed in Germany after the autumn of 1939 in the context of the euthanasia programme permitting the killing of physically and psychically incurably ill. The euthanasia programme was stopped as the result of protests from the Catholic Bishop Galen and the Evangelical Bishop Wurm.

Opinion differs as to the justification for euthanasia. Strict Christians – particularly, Fundamentalists – reject it on the grounds that human life is to be considered holy and sacrosanct. Other well-meaning people advocate euthanasia on the grounds that incurably ill patients can only suffer, constituting a burden to themselves and their loved ones, and that such a life is unworthy of human beings, a life no longer worth living. We do not wish to take a position on the matter, but we wish to point out the following:

Hundreds of thousands of healthy children are aborted on “social grounds” in the “democracies” every year, i.e., they are killed in their mother’s womb, either chopped to bits or killed with corrosive solutions or acids. Is this any more humane than the painless killing of much smaller numbers of the incurably ill in the Third Reich?

Both passive euthanasia (failing to take measures to prolong life) and active euthanasia (killing the sick) are gaining increasingly greater numbers of adherents every day. The world’s best known advocate of euthanasia is the “Australian” jew, Singer. Particularly to the forefront in the legalization of euthanasia is the most “antifascist” country in the world: Holland.

To sum up: the criticisms made above are insufficient to justify any criminalization of the National Socialist system, not to mention the German people as a whole. Nor do the murder of the “three million non-jewish Poles” and the “500,000 gypsies” suffice either, because these huge massacres are pure products of the imagination. “Medical experiments on human beings” are insufficient, since the Soviets and Americans carried out similar practices on a much larger scale. Euthanasia is insufficient, because it is officially tolerated in several European countries today – not to mention the fact that it is surely much less heinous than aborting millions of healthy children, even if we consider euthanasia a crime.

The Holocaust as a religion

Claude Lanzmann, producer of the nine-and-one-half hour film Shoa, has made the following incredibly revealing statement :

“If Auschwitz is something other than a horror of history, if it goes beyond the ‘banality of evil’, then Christianity totters on its foundations. Christ is the Son of God, who went to the end of the humanly endurable, where he endured the cruelest suffering… If Auschwitz is true, then there is a human suffering which simply cannot be compared with that of Christ… In this case, Christ is false, and salvation will not come from Him… If the pain of Auschwitz is much more extreme than that of the Apocalypse, much more horrifying than that described by John in the Apocalypse (since the Apocalypse can be described as, and even resembles, a huge, Hollywood-style spectacular, while Auschwitz is inexpressible and indescribable), then the Book of the Apocalypse is false, and the Gospels are false, too. Auschwitz is the refutation of Christ.”

One could hardly provide a more drastic demonstration that, for increasingly greater numbers of jews, the Holocaust has become a genuine religion. Perhaps two jews out of three jews believe in God, but 99.9% of them believe in the gas chambers. If this murky religion were restricted to jews, that would be their own affair; basically, it would be their problem, not ours; yet ominously, increasingly shameless attempts have been made in recent years to force this jewish Holocaust religion upon non-jews by criminal law.

If “Auschwitz” is true, salvation will not come from Christ, says Lanzmann – so where is it going to come from, then? Quite obviously from the jews, who have now been transubstantiated into a sort of collective Messiah because of Auschwitz! The 28 arch-enemy of the new collective Messiah is therefore the “National Socialist regime of the gas chambers and the Holocaust” – the incorporation of Absolute Evil.

The ever-growing numbers of Holocaust memorials are quite obviously part of this religious – or rather pseudo-religious – framework. “Doubting the Holocaust” (the official version of the Holocaust, that is) has, in the meantime, been made punishable by criminal prosecution in several countries, so that the picture is now complete: as a religious dogma, the Holocaust must remain exempt from all scientific research and be taken on faith (or else).

The Swiss writer Arthur Vogt has described the “Holocaust religion” very perceptively:

“First principle of faith: the Germans, as a race of criminals, have been cursed with eternal shame… Even their descendants bear the mark of Cain, merely because they are German… Second principle: There is only one salvation from this terrible guilt, and that is: constant acknowledgement and remorse for the crime. That is the reason for all the memorials and anniversaries… The Holocaust religion recognizes good works: this is why the German government must support the construction of Israel with billions of marks in so-called ‘reparations’. Personal atonement is performed by young Germans – for example, through the activities of the ‘Symbol of Reconciliation’ – through taking care of the elderly in Israel or rebuilding crumbling walls at Auschwitz.

“So much money and effort have been invested in the Holocaust religion, and continue to be invested in it, that if the factual basis for it were found to be erroneous, it would be an incredible shock. Yet it is the basis of the founding myth of Israel (and the BRD); it is the most important founding element in the identity of the jews today, both believers and non-believers. To point out the existence of contradictions and errors in the so-called “evidence” is heresy… The Holocaust religion also has its heretics, whom it persecutes mercilessly. These are the revisionists, who dare to question the established version of history. They are slandered and persecuted all over the world, under the influence of powerful Zionist groups.”

Why nearly everybody believes in the Holocaust

No doubt the overwhelming majority of human beings, at least in the Western states, believe in the official version of the Holocaust for reasons which at first glance appear entirely plausible:

First, it seems entirely inconceivable that the media as a whole would be able to spread a story like that for over 50 years unless there was some truth in the story, at least very generally. The average citizen, of course, can still imagine that the numbers of victims may have been exaggerated; but the notion that the gas chamber story, taken as a whole, could be purely a product of fantasy, is far too monstrous to consider. In addition, the correctness of the official version of the Holocaust appears confirmed by three factors:

the general disappearance of the jews from several former German-ruled countries, particularly Poland, where three million jews are acknowledged to have lived in the early 1930s, but where only a few tens of thousands live today, according to official statistics. So if they weren’t exterminated, is the question, where did they go?

We will only examine the demographic aspect of the question at the end of our study; for the moment, we will consider only one single argument in reply: at the end of WWII, there were approximately 12 million Germans in the areas east of the Oder and Neisse. There are only between one and two million there today. Does that really mean that 10 to 11 million Germans in the Eastern territories were exterminated? Of course, the answer is no; some of them died during the violence of the expulsion, of course, but most of them escaped to the West and survived the war. According to this logic, then, the general disappearance of “Polish” jewry is no proof that most of the jews in these territories were exterminated. They could have escaped or emigrated.

The alleged “innumerable eyewitness testimonies”. “It may well be”, people cry in profound indignation, “that a few witnesses may have lied or exaggerated the horrors of the Holocaust, but all of them? It’s unthinkable!” This argument is based upon a misunderstanding. There are far fewer witnesses to the extermination of the jews in the gas chambers than is commonly assumed. Anyone who consults the standard literature will soon note that, basically, only a handful of witnesses are quoted: Gerstein, Höss, Broad, Vrba, Mueller, Bendel, Lengyel, Tauber, Nyiszli, and a few more. Since there are no forensic or documentary proofs for the mass killings in the gas chambers – as we shall soon show in detail – the entire Holocaust allegation basically stands or falls with the testimony of perhaps two dozen standard eyewitnesses. The great majority of the alleged “innumerable witnesses” only heard of the gas chambers second or third hand;

The photos and films. It is quite true that there are authentic photographs of piles of corpses and living skeletons from German concentration camps; these photographs were taken after their liberation by Allied troops. But they are no proof of any systematic “extermination of the jews”, since even the official version of the story does not dispute the fact that these dead and dying men were the victims of starvation and epidemic disease during the chaotic last few months of the war.

In addition to these authentic photos, there are a number of grossly falsified photos, which have been distributed widely for decades. Udo Walendy has helped prove their inauthenticity.

These manipulations in themselves, of course, are insufficient to prove that “there wasn’t any Holocaust”; but they should awaken our suspicion. Why must one have recourse to such primitive trickery if great quantities of unimpeachable evidence are available?

The argument “But I saw it myself in the movies and on television” can only be the product of a very feeble mind. All the films of the genocide of the jews, from Holocaust to Shoa to Schindler’s List, were produced long after the war; that they lack any probative value is a matter of course. It’s no accident that a miserable botch job like Schindler’s List was cooked up in black-and-white. This was done to create a false impression of authenticity for historically naive cinema-goers.

Talking Frankly – David Irving

Here is a newly uploaded interview (given in 2009) by British „Real History“ Historian, David Irving. The interview itself is an unedited, uncut „privately filmed interview” lasting over 2 hours, and entitled, „Talking Frankly”. This interview was only, until now, available on DVD. It was filmed in April 2009.

NOTE: About 4 seconds are cut off right at the end of the interview. The end of his sentence, and the talk, is „… to try and find the answers. Thank you for listening.”

The blurb on the DVD jacket states:

In April 2009 David Irving sat for a privately filmed interview lasting many hours, designed to become the basis of a major documentary on his life and his often controversial opinions on history. Eventually the film will be released with full documentation, newsreel inserts, and all the other paraphernalia and embellishments of film history. What we have here however is film in the raw, uncut and unedited, ready for the producer’s knife and the editor’s brush and palette.

In the first part of this film, the writer talks about the England he comes from, the way in which he formed his beliefs, and how he became one for the world’s bestselling historians – through perseverance with sources, and fair play towards defeated enemies. The story takes a sinister turn, as he relates how the traditional enemies of free speech mounted a global vendetta to silence him around the world – but failed.

In the second part, the writer talks about the controversy surrounding what has, since the 1970s, become known as the Holocaust, and what historians should make of it. he will enrage both friend and foe in this two-hour unvarnished talk; but they may find it hard to fault his arguments.

And on Irving’s website, Jaenelle writes:

As the description says, this DVD is completely unedited. Mr Irving really is „talking frankly“. The first part of the DVD is about his life and career and the second part addresses a lot of FAQ about the holocaust. Fans of David Irving, particularly those who don’t have an opportunity to attend his talks in person, will enjoy this DVD about their favourite author and historian.

It is actually a very interesting and entertaining interview. Most notable I thought was he comments, as someone else as stated, that the ‘death toll in the Rheinhardt camps to around 2 million’, that he claims, ‘that limited gassings took place at Auschwitz in „the red room“ and „the white room“ (the „red” and „blue” houses, or „bunker 1” and „bunker 2.”) out back when jews that were too old or couldn’t work arrived’, and that ‘this comes from the personal papers of Auschwitz Deputy Kommadant Hans Aumeier which he found back in 1992.’

Breaking the Chains of Versailles


By John Wear
Published: 2020-05-07

The Treaty of Versailles is sometimes said to have been the beginning of World War II. The Versailles Treaty crushed Germany beneath a burden of shame and reparations, stole vital German territories, and rendered Germany defenseless against enemies from within and without. Britain’s David Lloyd George warned the treaty makers at Versailles: “If peace is made under these conditions, it will be the source of a new war.”[1]

Unfairness of the Versailles Treaty

In an address to Congress on January 8, 1918, U.S. President Woodrow Wilson set forth his Fourteen Points as a blueprint to peacefully end World War I. The main principles of Wilson’s Fourteen Points were a non-vindictive peace, national self-determination, government by the consent of the governed, an end to secret treaties, and an association of nations strong enough to check aggression and keep the peace in the future. Germany decided to end World War I by signing an armistice agreement on November 11, 1918, which bound the Allies to make the final peace treaty conform to Wilson’s Fourteen Points.[2]

The Treaty of Versailles presented to German officials, however, was a deliberate violation of the armistice agreement. The Allied representatives at Versailles decided that Germany should lose all of her colonies. All private property of German citizens in German colonies was also forfeited.[3] Even worse, the Treaty of Versailles forced Germany to cede 73,485 square kilometers of her territory in Europe, inhabited by 7,325,000 people, to neighboring states. Germany lost 75% of her production of zinc ore, 74.8% of iron ore, 7.7% of lead ore, 28.7% of coal, and 4% of potash. Of her annual agricultural production, Germany lost 19.7% in potatoes, 18.2% in rye, 17.2% in barley, 12.6% in wheat, and 9.6% in oats. The Saar and other regions to the west of the Rhine were occupied by foreign troops and were to remain occupied for 15 years until a plebiscite was held. Germany had to pay the total costs of 3.64 billion gold marks to fund the Allied occupation of the Saar.[4]

Article 231 of the Treaty of Versailles placed upon Germany the sole responsibility “for causing all the loss and damage to which the Allied and Associated Governments and their nationals have been subjected as a consequence of the war imposed upon them by the aggression of Germany and her allies.” This so-called “war-guilt clause” was fundamentally unfair and aroused deep resentment among virtually all Germans. It linked Germany’s obligations to pay reparations with a blanket self-condemnation to which almost no German could subscribe.[5]

The Allies under the Versailles Treaty could set reparations at any amount they wanted. In 1920, the Allies set the final bill for reparations at the impossible sum of 269 billion gold marks. The Allied Reparations Committee in 1921 lowered the amount of reparations to 132 billion gold marks, or approximately $33 billion – still an unrealistic demand.[6]

The Versailles Treaty also forced Germany to disarm almost completely. The treaty abolished the general draft, prohibited all artillery and tanks, allowed a volunteer army of only 100,000 troops and officers, and abolished the air force. The navy was reduced to six capital ships, six light cruisers, 12 destroyers, 12 torpedo boats, 15,000 men and 500 officers. After the delivery of its remaining navy to the Allies, Germany also had to hand over its merchant ships to the victors with only a few exceptions. All German rivers had to be internationalized and overseas cables ceded to the victors. An international committee oversaw the process of Germany’s disarmament until 1927.[7]

Germany eventually signed the Treaty of Versailles on June 28, 1919, because she faced death by starvation and invasion if she refused to sign the treaty. Germany could not feed her people because U.S. warships supported an Allied naval blockade against Germany, and Germany’s merchant ships and even Baltic fishing boats were sequestered. Germany’s request to buy 2.5 million tons of food was also denied by the Allies. With German families starving, Bolshevik uprisings occurring in several German cities, Trotsky’s Red Army driving into Europe, Czechs and Poles ready to strike from the east, and Allied forces prepared to march on Berlin, Germany was forced to sign the treaty.[8]

Despite the unfairness of the Treaty of Versailles, its provisions remained in effect and were formally confirmed by the Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact of 1928. Germans regarded the provisions of the Versailles Treaty as chains of slavery that had to be broken. One German commented in regard to the Versailles Treaty, “The will to break the chains of slavery will be implanted from childhood on.”[9] Adolf Hitler referred to the Versailles Treaty in Mein Kampf as “…a scandal and a disgrace…the dictate signified an act of highway robbery against our people.”[10] Hitler was committed to breaking the chains of Versailles when he came to power in Germany in 1933.

Initial Steps to Break the Chains of Versailles

Hitler’s first success in breaking the chains of Versailles was a legal victory in the Saar plebiscite on January 13, 1935. This highly industrialized region had been detached from Germany and placed under the administration of the League of Nations by the Treaty of Versailles. The terms of the Versailles Treaty called for a plebiscite after 15 years with three choices: return to Germany, annexation by France, or continuation of League of Nations rule.[11] In an unquestionably free election, the vote was 477,119 in favor of union with Germany and only 46,613 in favor of the continuance of the existing regime.[12] Despite offering the Saar citizens a number of tax and customs advantages if they decided to become part of France, only 0.40% of voters voted to join France; 8.85% voted for independence of the Saar, and 90.75% voted for union with Germany.[13]

The Saar inhabitants, who voted overwhelmingly to return to Germany were mostly industrial workers – Social Democrats or Roman Catholics. They knew what awaited them in Germany: a dictatorship, the destruction of trade unions, and restrictions on freedom of expression.[14] They knew of the establishment of the Dachau Prison Camp and the execution of scores of SA members in the Röhm purge on June 30, 1934. The German economy in January 1935 was also not substantially better than that of France or other countries in Europe. The Saar election was evidence that the appeal of German nationalism was powerful.

Hitler began an assault on the Versailles provisions with the creation of a German air force on March 9, 1935. On March 16, 1935, Hitler announced the restoration of compulsory military service. Germany regarded the army of the Soviet Union at 960,000 men as excessively large, and France had recently increased the terms of service in her armies. Hitler wanted to increase German military strength to 550,000 troops because of this Franco-Russian threat.[15]

Germany continued to modify the Versailles provisions by signing the Anglo-German Naval Agreement on June 18, 1935. This treaty fixed the size of the German fleet at 35% of the total tonnage of the British Commonwealth of Nations. Germany could also build a submarine force equal to that of Great Britain. Hitler was elated with this agreement. Hitler had dreamed of an Anglo-German alliance ever since he had fought Britain in World War I. Britain’s naval treaty with Germany also effectively undermined the Stresa Front that Britain had established with France and Italy earlier in 1935.[16]

Germany was forbidden under the Treaty of Versailles to build fortifications or maintain troops in a wide demilitarized zone along its western frontier. This arrangement made the vital Ruhr and Rhineland industrial areas vulnerable to a swift attack from France. The Treaty of Locarno, of which Britain and Italy were co-guarantors, also endorsed the demilitarization of the Rhineland. Hitler challenged this limitation when he sent troops into the Rhineland on March 7, 1936. Although this was a major gamble by Hitler, France was unwilling to challenge Hitler without British support. Britain was unwilling to authorize anything resembling war because there was a general feeling in Britain that Germany was only asserting a right of sovereignty within her own borders.[17]

Germany was now able to protect her western borders by constructing the Siegfried Line. Lloyd George, the former prime minister of Great Britain, commended Hitler in the House of Commons for having reoccupied the Rhineland to protect his country:

France had built the most gigantic fortifications ever seen in any land, where, almost a hundred feet underground you can keep an army of over 100,000 and where you have guns that can fire straight into Germany. Yet the Germans are supposed to remain without even a garrison, without a trench…If Herr Hitler had allowed that to go on without protecting his country, he would have been a traitor to the Fatherland.[18]

On later meeting Hitler, Lloyd George was “spellbound by Hitler’s astonishing personality and manner” and referred to Hitler as “indeed a great man. Führer is the proper name for him, for he is a born leader – yes, a statesman.”[19]

Other British statesmen were also impressed with Hitler. In a book published in 1937, Winston Churchill expressed his “admiration for the courage, the perseverance, and the vital force which enabled [Hitler] to challenge, defy, conciliate, or overcome, all the authorities or resistances which barred his path.”[20] Hitler and his Nazis had shown “their patriotic ardor and love of country.”[21]

Churchill also wrote: “Those who have met Herr Hitler face to face have found a highly competent, cool, well-informed functionary with an agreeable manner, a disarming smile, and few have been unaffected by a subtle personal magnetism. Nor is this impression merely the dazzle of power. He exerted it on his companions at every stage in his struggle, even when his fortunes were in the lowest depths.”[22]

By March 1936 Germany had taken important steps in overcoming the provisions of the Versailles Treaty. Hitler made no more moves in Europe for the next two years. Until 1938, Hitler’s foreign policy moves had been bold but not reckless. From the point of view of the Western Powers, his methods constituted unconventional diplomacy whose aims were recognizably in accord with traditional German nationalist clamor.[23]

The Anschluss

The victors at the Paris Peace Conference had wanted to divide rather than unify Austria and Germany. Austria had asked Allied permission at the Paris Peace Conference to enter into a free-trade zone with Germany. Austria’s request was denied. As far back as April and May of 1921, plebiscites on a union with Germany were held in Austria at the Tyrol and at Salzburg. The votes in the Tyrol were over 140,000 for the Anschluss and only 1,794 against. In Salzburg, more than 100,000 voted for union with Germany and only 800 against.[24] Despite the overwhelming desire of Austrians to join with Germany, the Treaty of St. Germain signed by Austria after World War I prevented the union.

Under the treaties of Versailles and St. Germain, Germany and Austria could not even enter into a customs union without permission from the League of Nations. In 1931, hard-hit by the Great Depression, Germany asked again for permission to form an Austro-German customs union. The League of Nations denied Germany’s request. Germany later requested an end to its obligation to pay war reparations under Versailles because of Germany’s economic crisis caused by the Great Depression. Germany’s request was again refused. Many historians believe the resulting economic distress contributed to the rapid rise of National Socialists to power in Germany.[25] The Allied refusals also frustrated the desire of German and Austrian nationalists to exercise their right of self-determination.

Edward Frederick Lindley Wood (Lord Halifax) gave Hitler encouragement to peacefully incorporate Austria into Germany at Berchtesgaden on November 19, 1937. Lord Halifax brought up the important questions of Danzig, Austria and Czechoslovakia on his own initiative without any prompting from Hitler. Halifax told Hitler that Great Britain realized that the Paris Treaties of 1919 contained mistakes that had to be rectified.[26] Halifax stated that Britain would not go to war to prevent an Anschluss with Austria, a transfer of the Sudetenland to Germany, or a return of Danzig to the Reich. Britain might even be willing to serve as an honest broker in effecting the return of what rightfully belonged to Germany, if this was all done in a gentlemanly fashion.[27]

British historian A. J. P. Taylor wrote:

This was exactly what Hitler wanted… Halifax’s remarks, if they had any practical sense, were an invitation to Hitler to promote German nationalist agitation in Danzig, Czechoslovakia, and Austria; an assurance also that his agitation would not be opposed from without. Nor did these promptings come from Halifax alone. In London, Eden told Ribbentrop: “People in Europe recognized that a closer connection between Germany and Austria would have to come about sometime.” The same news came from France. Papen, on a visit to Paris, “was amazed to note” that Chautemps, the premier, and Bonnet, then finance minister, “considered a reorientation of French policy in Central Europe as entirely open to discussion…” They had “no objection to a marked extension of German influence in Austria obtained through evolutionary means”; nor in Czechoslovakia “on the basis of a reorganization into a nation of nationalities.”[28]

Lord Halifax’s message to Hitler underscores a crucial point in the history of this era: Hitler’s agenda was no surprise to European diplomats. Any German nationalist would demand adjustments to the frontiers laid down at Versailles. With Great Britain’s approval of the peaceful annexation of Austria into Germany, the problem was how to get the Austrians to peacefully agree to unification with Germany. Austrian Chancellor Kurt von Schuschnigg would soon force the issue.[29]

Since the summer of 1934, Austria had been governed by a conservative dictatorship headed by Dr. Kurt von Schuschnigg. Schuschnigg persecuted Austrians who favored unification with Germany. Political dissidents landed in concentration camps, and the regime denied persons of “deficient civic reliability” the right to practice their occupation.[30]

In January 1938, Austrian police discovered plans of some Austrian National Socialists to overthrow Schuschnigg in violation of a “Gentlemen’s Agreement” entered into with Germany on July 11, 1936. Schuschnigg met with Hitler at Berchtesgaden on February 12, 1938, complaining of the attempted overthrow of his government by Austrian National Socialists. Hitler and Schuschnigg reached an agreement that day, but Schuschnigg claimed that Hitler had been violent in manner during the first two hours of conversation.[31] Some accounts of their meeting say that Schuschnigg was bullied by Hitler and subjected to a long list of indignities.[32]

Schuschnigg began to consider means of repudiating the agreement made with Hitler in their meeting of February 12, 1938. Schuschnigg’s solution was to hold a rigged plebiscite. On March 9, 1938, Schuschnigg announced that a plebiscite would be held four days later on March 13, 1938, to decide, finally and forever, whether Austria was to remain an independent nation.

The planned plebiscite was completely unfair. There was only one question, which asked the voter, “Are you for a free and German, independent and social, Christian and united Austria, for peace and work, for the equality of all those who affirm themselves for the people and the Fatherland?” There were no voting lists; only yes ballots were to be provided by the government; anyone wishing to vote no had to provide their own ballot, the same size as the yes ballots, with nothing on it but the word no.[33] During preparations for the election, the government press in Austria announced that anyone voting “no” would be guilty of treason.[34]

The Austrian government took additional steps to ensure that the vote would swing in their direction. The qualification age to vote was raised to 24, making it impossible for young National Socialists to register their views. Schuschnigg and his men also distributed a huge number of flyers, scattering some by aircraft in Austria’s most-remote and -snowbound corners. Trucks drove around the country transmitting the message of Austrian independence by loudspeaker. Everywhere the “German” theme was driven home: Being Austrian was being a good German; being “German” was to be free [of National-Socialist Germany]. Austrians were better “Germans” than the National Socialists.[35]

Hitler was alarmed by Schuschnigg’s proposed plebiscite. Hitler had hoped for an evolutionary strategy in Austria that would gradually merge Austria into the Reich. However, Hitler felt humiliated and betrayed by Schuschnigg, and he could not let the phony plebiscite proceed. After receiving word on March 11, 1938 that Mussolini accepted the Anschluss, Hitler decided to march into Austria with his troops on March 12, 1938. Hitler was greeted with a joyously enthusiastic reception from the masses of the Austrian people.[36] Not a shot was fired by Hitler’s army.

Hitler was aware of the bad publicity abroad such an apparent act of force would generate. He had hoped to assimilate Austria in an obviously legal manner. However, Schuschnigg and his entire cabinet had resigned from office after Britain, France and Italy all denounced the phony plebiscite. Hitler feared that Austrian Marxists might take advantage of Austria’s momentary political vacuum and stage an uprising. Göring also warned of the possibility that Austria’s neighbors might exploit its temporary weakness by occupying Austrian territory. Hitler decided to militarily occupy Austria to prevent either of these possibilities from occurring.[37]

On April 10, 1938, joint plebiscites were held in Germany and Austria to approve the Anschluss. All Germans and Austrians over the age of 20 were eligible to vote, with the exception of Jews and criminals. The result of the plebiscites was 99.08% of the people in Germany were in favor of the Anschluss, while 99.73% of Austrians were for the Anschluss.[38] The plebiscites might have been manipulated to some extent as shown by the near-unanimous assent from the Dachau Prison Camp. Also, the ballot was not anonymous since the voter’s name and address were printed on the back of each ballot. However, there is no question that the vast majority of people in Germany and Austria approved the Anschluss. Hitler’s aims had struck a chord with national German aspirations, and the plebiscite reflected Hitler’s popularity with the German people.[39]

The invasion of Austria had hurt Germany’s public image. British historian A.J.P. Taylor wrote:

Hitler had won. He had achieved the first object of his ambition. Yet not in the way that he had intended. He had planned to absorb Austria imperceptibly, so that no one could tell when it had ceased to be independent; he would use democratic methods to destroy Austrian independence as he had done to destroy German democracy. Instead he had been driven to call in the German army. For the first time, he lost the asset of aggrieved morality and appeared as a conqueror, relying on force. The belief soon became established that Hitler’s seizure of Austria was a deliberate plot, devised long in advance, and the first step towards the domination of Europe. This belief was a myth. The crisis of March 1938 was provoked by Schuschnigg, not by Hitler. There had been no German preparations, military or diplomatic. Everything was improvised in a couple of days – policy, promises, armed force…But the effects could not be undone…The uneasy balance tilted, though only slightly, away from peace and towards war. Hitler’s aims might still appear justifiable; his methods were condemned. By the Anschluss – or rather by the way in which it was accomplished – Hitler took the first step in the policy which was to brand him as the greatest of war criminals. Yet he took this step unintentionally. Indeed, he did not know that he had taken it.[40]

Winston Churchill made the following statement in the House of Commons shortly after the Anschluss:

The public mind has been concentrated upon the moral and sentimental aspects of the Nazi conquest of Austria – a small country brutally struck down, its Government scattered to the winds, the oppression of the Nazi party doctrine imposed upon a Catholic population and upon the working-classes of Austria and Vienna, the hard ill-usage of persecution which indeed will ensue – which is probably in progress at the moment – of those who, this time last week, were exercising their undoubted political rights, discharging their duties to their own country.…[41]

Churchill’s statement is a lie. The overwhelming majority of Austrians had desired a union with Germany. The Anschluss was hugely popular in Austria. Churchill in his speech had begun the warmongering that led to World War II.

The Czechoslovakia Crisis

At the Paris Peace Conference in 1919, 3.25 million German inhabitants of Bohemia and Moravia were transferred to the new Czechoslovakia in a flagrant disregard of Woodrow Wilson’s ideal of self-determination. The new Czechoslovakia was a multiethnic, multilingual, Catholic-Protestant conglomerate that had never existed before as a sovereign nation. From 1920 to 1938, repeated petitions had been sent to the League of Nations by the repressed minorities of Czechoslovakia. By 1938, the Sudeten Germans were eager to be rid of Czech rule and become part of Germany. In a fair plebiscite, a minimum of 80% of Sudeten Germans would have voted for the territories they lived in to become part of the new Reich.[42]

It was clear to Czech leaders that the excitement among the Sudeten Germans after the Anschluss would soon force the resolution of the Sudeten question. The Czech cabinet and military leaders decided on May 20, 1938 to order a partial mobilization of the Czech armed forces. This partial mobilization was based on the false accusation that German troops were concentrating on the Czech frontiers. Czech leaders hoped that the resulting confusion would commit the British and French to support the Czech position before a policy favoring concessions to the Sudeten Germans could be implemented. Although the plot failed, Czech leaders granted interviews in which they claimed that Czechoslovakia had scored a great victory over Germany. An international press campaign representing that Czechoslovakia had forced Hitler to back down from his planned aggression reverberated around the world.[43]

British Ambassador to Germany Nevile Henderson believed that the Czech mobilization of its army, and the ridicule heaped upon Hitler by the world press, led directly to the Munich Agreement:

The defiant gesture of the Czechs in mobilizing some 170,000 troops and then proclaiming to the world that it was their action which had turned Hitler away from his purpose was… regrettable. But what Hitler could not stomach was the exultation of the press…Every newspaper in America and Europe joined in the chorus. “No” had been said and Hitler had been forced to yield. The democratic powers had brought the totalitarian states to heel, etc.

It was, above all, this jubilation which gave Hitler the excuse for his…worst brain storm of the year, and pushed him definitely over the border line from peaceful negotiation to the use of force. From May 23rd to May 28th his fit of sulks and fury lasted, and on the later date he gave orders for a gradual mobilization of the Army, which should be prepared for all eventualities in the autumn.[44]

By the 1930s, the majority of the British people believed that Germany had been wronged at Versailles. The British people now broadly supported the appeasement of Germany in regaining her lost territories. If appeasement meant granting self-determination to the Sudetenland Germans, the British people approved.[45]

Lord Halifax informed French leaders on July 20, 1938 that a special fact-finding mission under Lord Runciman would be sent to Czechoslovakia. President Beneš of Czechoslovakia was disturbed by this news. It was a definite indication that the British might adopt a compromising policy toward Germany in the crisis. The British mission completed its study in September 1938, and it reported that the main difficulty in the Sudeten area had been the disinclination of the Czechs to grant reforms. This British report was accompanied by the final rupture of negotiations between the Sudeten Germans and the Czech leaders. The Czech crisis was coming to a climax.[46]

British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain flew to Hitler’s mountain retreat at Berchtesgaden to discuss the Czech problem directly with Hitler. At their meeting Hitler consented to refrain from military action while Chamberlain would discuss with his cabinet the means of applying the principle of self-determination to the Sudeten Germans. The result was a decision to transfer to Germany areas in which the Sudeten Germans constituted more than 50% of the population. President Beneš of Czechoslovakia reluctantly accepted this proposal.[47]

A problem developed in the negotiations when Chamberlain met with Hitler a second time. Hitler insisted on an immediate German military occupation of regions where the Sudeten Germans were more than half of the population. Hitler also insisted that the claims of the Polish and Hungarian minorities be satisfied before participating in the proposed international guarantee of the new Czechoslovakian frontier. Several days of extreme tension followed. Chamberlain announced on September 28, 1938 to the House of Commons that Hitler had invited him, together with Daladier and Mussolini, to a conference in Munich the following afternoon. The House erupted in an outburst of tremendous enthusiasm.[48]

The parties signed the Munich Agreement in the early hours of September 30, 1938. Hitler got substantially everything he wanted. The territories populated by the Sudeten Germans had become a part of Germany. Chamberlain and Hitler signed a joint declaration that the Munich Agreement and the Anglo-German naval accord symbolized “the desire of our two peoples never to go to war with each other again.” Chamberlain told the cheering crowd in London that welcomed him home, “I believe it is peace in our time.”[49] War had been averted in Europe. The chains of Versailles had been completely broken.

British Warmongering

The British war enthusiasts lost no time in launching their effort to spoil the celebration of the Munich Agreement. On October 1, 1938, First Lord of the Admiralty Alfred Duff Cooper announced that he was resigning from the British cabinet. In a speech delivered on October 3, 1938, Duff Cooper criticized the British government for not assuming a definite commitment during the Czech crisis. He asserted that Great Britain would not have been fighting for the Czechs, but rather for the balance of power, which was precious to many British hearts. Duff Cooper believed that it was his mission and that of his country to prevent Germany from achieving a dominant position on the continent.[50]

Clement Attlee, the new Labor Party leader, spoke of the Munich Agreement as a huge victory for Hitler and an “annihilating defeat for democracy.” Attlee in his speech included the Soviet Union as a democracy. Anthony Eden gave a speech in which he criticized Chamberlain on detailed points, and expressed doubt that Britain would fulfill her promised guarantee to the Czech state. Eden advised the House to regard the current situation as a mere pause before the next crisis. He claimed that the British armament campaign was proceeding too slowly.[51]

In his speech on October 5, 1938, Winston Churchill stated that Hitler had extracted British concessions at pistol point, and he loved to use the image of Hitler as a gangster. Churchill used flowery rhetoric and elegant phrases to describe the allegedly mournful Czechs slipping away into darkness. Churchill wanted to convince his countrymen that National-Socialist Germany was seized of an insatiable desire for world conquest. The simple and stark purpose of Churchill’s speech was to convince the British people to eventually accept a war of annihilation against Germany. Churchill was a useful instrument in building up British prejudice against Germany.[52]

The debate on the Munich Agreement surpassed all other parliamentary debates on British foreign policy since World War I. Other Conservatives who refused to accept the Munich Agreement included Harold Macmillan, Duncan Sandys, Leopold Amery, Harold Nicolson, Roger Keyes, Sidney Herbert, and Gen. Edward Spears. These men were joined by a score of lesser figures in the House of Commons, and they were supported by such prominent people as Lord Cranborne and Lord Wolmer in the House of Lords. Chamberlain won the vote of confidence, but he did not possess the confidence of the British Conservative Party.[53]

The warmongering that led to World War II was increasing in Great Britain. Hitler was dismayed at the steady stream of hate propaganda directed at Germany. In a speech given in Saarbrücken on October 9, 1938, Hitler said: “…All it would take would be for Mr. Duff Cooper or Mr. Eden or Mr. Churchill to come to power in England instead of Chamberlain, and we know very well that it would be the goal of these men to immediately start a new world war. They do not even try to disguise their intents; they state them openly.”[54]


[1] Degrelle, Leon, Hitler: Born at Versailles, Torrance, Cal.: Institute for Historical Review, 1992, Author’s Preface, p. x.

[2] Chamberlain, William Henry, America’s Second Crusade, Chicago: Regnery, 1950, pp. 13-15, 20-22.

[3] Tansill, Charles C., “The United States and the Road to War in Europe,” in Barnes, Harry Elmer (ed.), Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace, Newport Beach, Cal.: Institute for Historical Review, 1993, pp. 86-87.

[4] Franz-Willing, Georg, “The Origins of the Second World War,” The Journal of Historical Review, Torrance, Cal.: Vol. 7, No. 1, Spring 1986, p. 103.

[5] Tansill, Charles C., “The United States and the Road to War in Europe,” in Barnes, Harry Elmer (ed.), Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace, Newport Beach, Cal.: Institute for Historical Review, 1993, pp. 81, 84.

[6] Franz-Willing, Georg, “The Origins of the Second World War,” The Journal of Historical Review, Torrance, Cal.: Vol. 7, No. 1, Spring 1986, p. 103.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Buchanan, Patrick J., Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War, New York: E. P. Dutton, 1980, pp. 215-216.

[9] Luckau, Alma, The German Delegation at the Paris Peace Conference, New York: Columbia University Press, 1941, pp. 98-100.

[10] Hitler, Adolf, Mein Kampf, translated by James Murphy, London: Hurst and Blackett Ltd., 1942, p. 260.

[11] Chamberlain, William Henry, America’s Second Crusade, Chicago: Regnery, 1950, p. 45.

[12] Tansill, Charles C., “The United States and the Road to War in Europe,” in Barnes, Harry Elmer (ed.), Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace, Newport Beach, Cal.: Institute for Historical Review, 1993, p. 118.

[13] Bochaca, Joaquin, “Reversing Versailles,” The Barnes Review, Nov. /Dec. 2012, Vol. XVIII, No. 6, p. 61.

[14] Taylor, A.J.P., The Origins of the Second World War, New York: Simon & Schuster, 1961, p. 86.

[15] Tansill, Charles C., “The United States and the Road to War in Europe,” in Barnes, Harry Elmer (ed.), Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace, Newport Beach, Cal.: Institute for Historical Review, 1993, p. 119.

[16] Buchanan, Patrick J., Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War, New York: Crown Publishers, 2008, pp. 145-147.

[17] Chamberlain, William Henry, America’s Second Crusade, Chicago: Regnery, 1950, p. 46.

[18] Rowland, Peter, David Lloyd George: A Biography, New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc., 1975, p. 728.

[19] Ibid., p. 733.

[20] Churchill, Winston, Great Contemporaries, New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1937, p. 228.

[21] Ibid.

[22] Ibid., p. 232.

[23] Kershaw, Ian, Hitler 1936-1945: Nemesis, New York: W. W. Norton, 2000, p. 91.

[24] Neilson, Francis, The Makers of War, New Orleans, La.: Flanders Hall Publishers, 1950, p. 171.

[25] Buchanan, Patrick J., Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War, New York: Crown Publishers, 2008, pp. 183-184.

[26] Hoggan, David L., The Forced War: When Peaceful Revision Failed, Costa Mesa, Cal.: Institute for Historical Review, 1989, p. 76.

[27] Buchanan, Patrick J., Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War, New York: Crown Publishers, 2008, pp. 183-187.

[28] Taylor, A.J.P., The Origins of the Second World War, New York: Simon & Schuster, 1961, pp. 137-138.

[29] Buchanan, Patrick J., Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War, New York: Crown Publishers, 2008, pp. 188-189.

[30] Tedor, Richard, Hitler’s Revolution, Chicago: 2013, p. 98.

[31] Hoggan, David L., The Forced War: When Peaceful Revision Failed, Costa Mesa, Cal.: Institute for Historical Review, 1989, p. 91.

[32] Tansill, Charles C., “The United States and the Road to War in Europe,” in Barnes, Harry Elmer (ed.), Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace, Newport Beach, Cal.: Institute for Historical Review, 1993, p. 141.

[33] Quigley, Carroll, Tragedy and Hope, New York: The Macmillan Company, 1966, p. 624.

[34] Tedor, Richard, Hitler’s Revolution, Chicago: 2013, p. 102.

[35] MacDonogh, Giles, Hitler’s Gamble, New York: Basic Books, 2009, p. 35.

[36] Hoggan, David L., The Forced War: When Peaceful Revision Failed, Costa Mesa, Cal.: Institute for Historical Review, 1989, p. 93.

[37] Tedor, Richard, Hitler’s Revolution, Chicago: 2013, p. 104.

[38] Schultze-Rhonhof, Gerd, 1939 – The War That Had Many Fathers, 6th edition, Munich, Germany: Olzog Verlag GmbH, 2011, p. 150.

[39] MacDonogh, Giles, Hitler’s Gamble, New York: Basic Books, 2009, pp. 104-106.

[40] Taylor, A.J.P., The Origins of the Second World War, New York: Simon & Schuster, 1961, pp. 149-150.

[41] Neilson, Francis, The Makers of War, New Orleans, La.: Flanders Hall Publishers, 1950, pp. 176-177.

[42] Buchanan, Patrick J., Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War, New York: Crown Publishers, 2008, pp. 213-215.

[43] Hoggan, David L., The Forced War: When Peaceful Revision Failed, Costa Mesa, Cal.: Institute for Historical Review, 1989, pp. 106-107.

[44] Henderson, Sir Nevile, Failure of a Mission, New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1940, pp. 142-143.

[45] Buchanan, Patrick J., Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War, New York: Crown Publishers, 2008, pp. 213-227.

[46] Hoggan, David L., The Forced War: When Peaceful Revision Failed, Costa Mesa, Cal.: Institute for Historical Review, 1989, p. 108.

[47] Chamberlain, William Henry, America’s Second Crusade, Chicago: Regnery, 1950, pp. 53-54.

[48] Ibid., p. 54.

[49] Ibid., p. 55.

[50] Hoggan, David L., The Forced War: When Peaceful Revision Failed, Costa Mesa, Cal.: Institute for Historical Review, 1989, pp. 180-181.

[51] Ibid., p. 188.

[52] Ibid., p. 190.

[53] Ibid., p. 191.

[54] Bradberry, Benton L., The Myth of German Villainy, Bloomington, Ind.: Author House, 2012, p. 324.

Hitler Democrat – by General Leon Degrelle


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

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

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

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

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

The Enigma of Hitler

By Léon Degrelle

Hitler, you knew him, what was he like?

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Second: The Jews were aliens within the German community.

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Great Britain’s Uncivilized Warfare and Postwar Crimes


By John Wear

Published: 2020-04-08

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

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

Britain’s Uncivilized Warfare

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The London Cage

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Britain’s Postwar Crimes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ethnic Cleansing of Germans

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

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

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

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

Starvation of the Germans

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[14] Ibid., p. 203.

[15] Ibid., p. 81.

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

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

[18] Ibid., p. 58.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[27] Ibid., p. 110.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who declared war on who