Der Stürmer

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

Category: Revisionism

The Strange Life of Ilya Ehrenburg

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

by Mark Weber

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Canadian Jewish News further writes:

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

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

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


Notes

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

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

Advertisements

Poland Mass Graves in Malbork

By Darius Cierpialkowski
Published: 2018-08-08

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

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

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

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

By John Wear

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

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

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

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

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

An adapted extract from Revisionists. com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

French scholar Robert Faurisson wrote at the time:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Robert Faurisson Documentary (with English Subtitles)

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

Published: 2018-07-13

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

Irving on Churchill

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Then Irving let out an electrifying piece of information:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Irving on the Focus:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Irving spoke of Dunkirk:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stalin’s War Against His Own Troops

The Tragic Fate of Soviet Prisoners of War in German Captivity

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

By Yuri Teplyakov
Published: 1994-07-01


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is the most horrible thing about war?“

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The soldier.

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

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

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

The Murderous Balance of Bolshevism:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stalin

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And they did keep silent.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Forgotten Anti-War Effort in Britain Before WWII

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

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

A Holocaust Inquiry

by David Duke

The Bad War – The REAL History of World War II That You Were Never Told

BUY THE BOOK!

By: Mike King

245 pages / 500 + illustrations

CONTENTS

 INTRODUCTION

SECTION 1: Seeds of the World Wars / 1848-1913 .

SECTION 2:.World War I & Fall of Russia / 1914-1918

SECTION 3: Nationalism vs Globalism / 1919-1933

SECTION 4: The Plot to Destroy Germany / 1933-1939

SECTION 5: World War II (Part 1)

SECTION 6: World War II (Part 2)

SECTION 7: The Aftermath of World War II / 1945-1950

CLOSING STATEMENT

DOWNLOAD THE BOOK IN PDF!

The Persecution of Hervé Ryssen

Source: http://www.renegadetribune.com/persecution-herve-ryssen/

By Willem Felderhof

As you know the persecution of people who dare to address the Jewish question is ever escalating worldwide. France is one of the worst places. Like Monika Schaefer, Ursula Haverbeck, Sylvia Stolz in Germany and Alison Chabloz in UK and many more, Hervé Ryssen is persecuted for the serving the Truth in France. He is an example and inspiration for those who really want to serve the Truth and humanity. Hervé Ryssen has witten several books about Judaism the and the Jewish question in general. “Understanding the Jews, Understanding Anti-Semitism” is a summary of six books written by Hervé Ryssen, published between 2005 and 2010, constituting the most important study on the Jewish mind ever published. (https://katana17.wordpress.com/2014/10/21/understanding-the-jews-understanding-anti-semitism-part-1/)

In the short video of which you’ll find the link below, Hervé Ryssen gives an update on his judicial situation. Although still free, chances are that he will be re-imprisoned pretty soon.

His update is upsetting for those who still think that speaking Truth is some sort of game. At the same time it is sobering and very inspiring.

Despite the fact that Hervé mostly quotes Jews themselves he is being persecuted relentlessly. He has been imprisoned several months for tweets like:

The Jews are primarily responsible for the massacre of thirty million Christians in the USSR between 1917 and 1947”

and:

Uncomplicated: as long as you do not accuse the Jews of their innumerable crimes, they will accuse you of their own.”

In total he has already been convicted for 11 months only for tweets and Facebook posts. He was sentenced for 6 months alone for just sharing a photo compilation about WW2 on Twitter. And more is coming.

To raise awareness for his situation and to give people a reality check of what is happening and coming, please share his latest update: