Der Stürmer

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

Category: Revisionism

Hitler’s Social & Cultural Policies, Goals and Achievements

Deanna Spingola’s radio-interview with Matt Koehl

Deanna Spingola’s guest Matt Koehl, the author of The Good Society, talked about the economic advances of the Third Reich and National Socialism which eschewed both Communism and Capitalism, two disastrous, speculative systems. (Thursday, November 1, 2012)

The masters of deceit would have us believe that Hitler’s Germany was a nightmare world, a brutal dictatorship characterized by terror, hatred, slave labor and genocide. Workers’ rights were trampled on, the youth conscripted and dragged off to fight in endless wars and women reduced to mere brood cows. People went hungry because the evil Nazi economy placed “guns before butter,” and science and technology were held in thrall to the capitalist-military war machine.

The truth about Hitler’s Germany is exactly the opposite of this horror-filled fantasy. Rather, the National-Socialist order was modern and progressive. The economy was efficient and productive, with full employment that generated a high standard of living for the working class. Mothers and children were honored, respected and cherished. There was free health care and free higher education for all. It was, indeed, a good society!

Advertisements

David Irving – The Faking of Adolf Hitler for History

The British Historian David Irving, speaking on “The Faking of Adolf Hitler for History” identifies some of the many FRAUDULENT historical documents that have been quoted AND referred to over the many years by “conformist historians” of the Third Reich era.

Even many of Mr. Irving’s opponents DO admit.., that Mr. Irving’s knowledge of Hitler and wartime Germany in unrivalled !! Mr. Irving is the author of numerous books on this era of history.., many of them having been “best sellers”.., including his monumental work (3 volumes in one book!).., titled “Hitler’s War”…

As always.., after watching.., do your best to “pass it on”…..

Holocaust Liars

Source: http://www.renegadetribune.com/holocaust-liars/

By Eric Thomson
25 December 1999

On page 222 of the GESTAPO CHIEF, v.2,, the Zionists’ liar-for-hire, Dr. Christopher Browning, is unmasked in regard to his ex post facto interpretation of the minutes of a meeting attended by Third Reich officials. Browning made much of the “gas van” legend at his trial testimony in Toronto. Since revisionist testimony, which included the Leuchter findings, raised considerable doubts about the “gas chambers”, the Holohoaxers hopped onto the “gas van” myth, which allowed more latitude for statistic stretching. Walter Rauff supposedly had these vehicles built, which allegedly gassed unknown numbers of jews with an unknown number of “gas vans”, which sounds like the story about the infinite number of monkeys using an infinite number of typewriters to re-write all the great works of English literature, in an infinite amount of time. Browning offered as evidence some blurry photos of a truck which was reproduced from a Yad Vashem exhibit. What we do know from reliable evidence is (1) Gas chambers existed in ALL German camps, for the de-lousing of clothing with Zyklon B; (2) “Gaswagen” existed throughout wartime Europe. These vehicles used wood vapors brewed up by heating a large container of wood cubes with other wood cubes as the external heat source. The flammable vapors were run through the normal gasoline engines of trucks, cars & tanks. Blueprints exist for mobile disinfection trucks, again, for clothing, but I’ve seen no depictions of any “van” designed for gassing people. Once again, we are treated to a costly, inefficient, impractical, Rube Goldberg style means of killing allegedly large numbers of people. If one wanted to kill people much quicker & cheaper with a truck, one could crowd so many people into an airtight compartment that they would soon die of suffocation. Or, one could pack them in, open a trapdoor on top & drown everyone by using a railroad water spout.

I am disappointed that Gregory Douglas would carry on with the “gas van” nonsense at such length.

When Walter Rauff died, in Chile, I believe, the two major Canadian newspapers (Globe & Mail and The Toronto Star) ran pictures of Rauff’s funeral the same day. One newspaper reported that Rauff was responsible for killing around 200,000 people. The other printed that he’d killed over 300,000! Obviously, numbers aren’t important when it comes to Holohoaxers: just add some more zeros, & change the first number, as desired.

On page 193, the author claims that “over 350,000” jews were deported from Hungary, supposedly including the jewish population of Budapest. The Red Cross report of 1947, as I recall, claims that no such deportations from Budapest took place. When one considers the lack of rail transport for the job, I would believe the Red Cross which had representatives in Budapest.

I don’t know where Gregory Douglas got his numbers, for the total number of German concentration camp deaths totals barely 400,000, up from the Red Cross figure of 300,000 reported by the Canstatter Zeitung in 1952 (I’m not certain of the date, but I saw the article). Since the current official figure for deaths in the Auschwitz-Birkenau camp complex is 74,000, down from 4 million (!), it is hard to credit these jewish figures. Most camp inmates & internees were not jews, so it is impossible for the alleged jew dead to exceed the total number of alleged concentration camp deaths in any case. Obviously, the Holo-hoaxers need to invent more “gas vans”, “death camps” & additional Einzatzgruppen to maintain their “11 million” claim (6 million jew-dead + 5 million Goy-dead). They will also need to multiply the alleged number of jews who were supposedly within German jurisdiction, but this will be no problem, since the jews claim in their holy talmud that the Romans slew 400,000 or “some say” 4 billion jews at the Bar Kokhba siege!

The 6 million claim originally surfaced in October 31, 1919 in The American Hebrew. Since 6 million is a magical figure in cabalistic number-magic, it is possible to subtract 3,926,000 from 6 million & still obtain “6 million”! This is called jewish math.

Mr. Douglas covers many salient points of history which are still controversial. One alternative to the Hindenburg bomb theory is that someone fired one or more incendiary bullets at the airship as it was about to moor in Lakehurst, NJ. Müller raises an intriguing motive for the time-bomb: to collect someone’s life insurance after the airship exploded over the Atlantic on the return flight.

On page 47, the author states that Rudolf Hess’ death was a suicide. I have seen his son’s book which proves that it was impossible for an 80 year old to strangle himself by wrapping an electrical cord around his neck & pulling it tight with his own hands: Rudolf Hess could barely raise his arms to chest level, let alone above his shoulders & he could not have held the two ends of the cord in place long enough to strangle. His killers did not even bother to make a noose. Rudolf Hess was apparently beaten & then garrotted by his killers, judging from the forensic photos which appear in the book. British commandos are most suspect in this killing, for Gorbachev, supposedly intended to release Hess from Spandau as a goodwill gesture. He informed the West German government, which warned the British of Soviet intentions. That was Hess’ death warrant!

Müller may have been stating his personal opinion of Rudolf Hess’ heroic flight to Britain, but Otto Skorzeny may have put into perspective Hess’ failed attempt to convince the British of Germany’s peaceful intentions when he states that Hitler told him (Skorzeny) that if his attempt to rescue Mussolini were to fail, Hitler would declare Skorzeny to be “crazy”, like Hess.

The following appeared on David Irving’s website. It was in German and so I, Eric Thomson, took the time to translate it for the readers. Please note that in Germany “Holocaust Deniers” are called “Holocaust Liars”.

Taz: Berlin, December 17, 1999.

Zündel was a Precedent In the latest report, “Hate Online”, of the Anti-Defamation League: Two civil rights (consultants) discuss how dangerous are rightwing extremists on the Web, and the legal problems (involved). Alan Schwartz leads the research department of the international civil rights organization of the “Anti-Defamation League”. Jordan Kessler is responsible for Internet matters.

Taz: As early as 1985, in your organization’s report, “Computerized Networks of Hate”, it is written that rightwing extremists readily use the computer networks. Your latest publication is entitled “Poisoning the Web: Hatred Online”. This article is available on your website http://www.adl.org. The Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles has publicized a CD-ROM which mentions (the existence) of 1,400 rightwing extremist Internet sites. Do you believe this number to be realistic?

Alan Schwartz: We don’t know the exact numbers. There are certainly 300 to 500 sites. The ADL has developed a so-called “Hate-Filter” with which parents can block such sites from their children. This filter blocks some hundred Homepages.

Jordan Kessler: For various reasons, I believe the figure of 1,400 hate pages to be unrealistic. On one hand, it is hardly possible to count such addresses, above all because of the constant changes: New ones come; others are thrown out by the providers and vanish. Aside from this: what do we understand to be a hate page – what is a Site, and what is Hate? Is a site with jokes about colored people a hate page or is Don Black’s neo-Nazi “Stormfront” site? Or: is “Stormfront” one or 15 websites, since it lists various other groups? A look at mere numbers hides the basic problem. If there were only 5 hatesites, they would be available to anyone who used the Internet. This problem remains, whether there are 5 or 5000. There is no doubt that such homepages have increased enormously and that all significant rightwing extremist groups in the U.S.A. are on the Net – always sufficient reason for concern. The German Constitutional Police count over 300 rightwing extremist websites today, in the German language. This includes those of Ernst Zündel, who went on the Web in 1995. This German-born (man) lives in Canada and stands once again before the courts, in Toronto. He must this time answer for his “Voice of Freedom” web-site. Until now, he has won all his trials.

Taz: Could it be different this time?

Kessler: For years, the Canadian justice system has tried to achieve Zündel’s deportation. But all attempts over the past 15 years have failed.

Schwartz: Zündel will not admit to being solely responsible for the site. The American, Ingrid Rimland, functions as webmaster. Zündel alleges that Rimland produces the website in San Diego and that he has no direct influence. Rimland does not like being solely responsible as author. Nevertheless, she is a key figure, obviously.

Kessler: Rimland is entirely in accord with Zündel. Their biographies run parallel, above all, their being strongly influenced by their experiences of the lost world war. Rimland is a Ukrainian-born German, who left with her family in 1943, along with the retreating German Army. Here in the U.S.A. she studied education, graduated, and until now worked as a teacher and psychologist, principally with children. In this regard, she has often given lectures at various American universities. She has also made a name for herself as a novelist. Some of her books have even been outstanding.

Schwartz: She is, to that extent, typical of the domestic Holocaust-Liars who do not correspond to the traditional picture of the neo-Nazis. She wants to be seen as a legitimate thinker. Consequently, she does not expressly identify herself with militant extremists.

Taz: And the provider?

Kessler: Certainly, the content is known by the servers, but there is no legal ground for getting rid of Zündel. Bigger providers may have a PR problem. The conclusion cannot be drawn that such firms support rightwing extremist homepages. One server with dozens of hatesites would be, for example, “Idlink” in Idaho, in the neighborhood of the Neo-Nazi Aryan Nations. Nevertheless, one cannot say for sure whether this provider is extremist-oriented or if it is simply the provider around the corner for rightwing extremists. There is no question that Don Black’s West Palm Beach, Florida, sites such as “White Pride Worldwide”, “Jew-watch” or Ku Klux Klan sites are some of the biggest rightwing extremist computer features these days.

Taz: How great is Zündel’s influence, actually?

Schwartz: He plays an important role as a Holocaust-Liar. He is thus of peripheral significance in regard to groups which openly propagate violence or purely neo-Nazi doctrine.

Kessler: Many neo-Nazis dislike the Holocaust-Liars, above all, because they deem their activities to be a waste of time. They say: Forget the past. We must go forward. Zündel certainly gained in importance as the Internet became a more important medium over the years. In due course, Zündel became a precedent in Canada and Germany for intense discussions about freedom of expression on the Internet. Of greater worldwide importance, in the meantime, is English publicist David Irving. His “International Campaign for Real History” and his “Focal Point Publications”, including a small portion in German, are featured on an Internet homepage. Irving has won some awards before he became a Holocaust Liar, and he has unbelievably strong and deep connections with traditional neo-Nazism.

Schwartz: The decisive thing about Irving is that he clearly has more connections with reputable publishers and more influence as an opinion-shaper than Zündel. On the other hand, he clearly has contacts with rightwing extremists, and he is not shy about showing them. He recently spoke at a meeting of the Holocaust-Lying “Institute for Historical Review” in Newport Beach, California. No one who wishes to hide his sympathies would do this.

Kessler: But the mainstream (media) often see this differently. The New York Times has published an article about Irving’s lawsuit against the scientist, Deborah Lipstadt, in which Irving is made to appear as a hero. He is presented as the author of numerous successful books on the Second World War, who is being libeled by Lipstadt. It has come out in the trial that Irving has been called a Holocaust-Liar by Lipstadt, as well as by the ADL. Irving wants the book to be marketable after its publication, and because of strict English libel laws, he has some hope for success. This trial could have major effects: a victory for Irving would mean that the known facts about the Holocaust could be legitimately brought into question.

*** Interview: Thomas Pfeiffer Thomas. Pfeiffer-2@ruhr-uni-bochum.de

Taz No. 6018 of December 16, 1999, page 17 Internet 237 Line, Interview Thomas Pfeiffer, c Contrapress media GmbH

December 17, 1999.

Goebbels on the Jews – Part I

Source: https://codoh.com/library/document/1918/?lang=en

By Thomas Dalton

Joseph Goebbels was nothing if not disciplined. Since his 26th birthday in late 1923, he maintained a near-daily diary until his death more than 21 years later.[1] These entries are at once unique and invaluable in their ability to provide insight into the Nazi hierarchy, ideology, and operation. Nothing else like them exists. No other leading Nazi figure recorded such personal and intimate thoughts on an on-going basis throughout the war. Hitler’s Mein Kampf was written in 1923 and 1924, but he published nothing later. The comments recorded in Hitler’s Table Talk (1953) are the closest to Goebbels’ writings, but these cover in detail only the period July 1941 to September 1942, and they furthermore have not much to add to the topic at hand. We of course have the speeches by Hitler, Goebbels, Himmler and other leading figures, but such words were designed for an intended effect and did not necessarily give an honest and unvarnished representation of ideas or events. Goebbels’s diaries were held private for his entire life. He never intended to publish them, although he clearly expected them to survive the war as a permanent record of his thoughts, for posterity. They offer us an irreplaceable look at Nazi history and evolution, the lead-up and conduct of the war, and, especially, Nazi policy on the Jews.

Joseph Goebbels 1942. In his diary entry for July 26, 1940, he writes: “The big plan for the evacuation (Evakuierung) of the Jews from Berlin was approved. Additionally, all the Jews of Europe are supposed to be deported (deportiert) to Madagascar after the war.”

Having earned his PhD in history and philology at Heidelberg in 1921, Goebbels first encountered Hitler in Munich the next year. He joined the NSDAP in 1924, and began editing an early Nazi newspaper in 1925. Goebbels quickly earned the attention of Hitler, and was named Gauleiter (district leader) of Berlin in October 1926. He founded a major Nazi periodical, Der Angriff, in 1927, and by 1929 was named Reich Propaganda Minister. Goebbels was thus well-placed by the time Hitler and the NSDAP acceded to power in 1933. He was the most intelligent and well-educated of the Nazi leaders.[2] In a very short time Goebbels, along with Hitler and Göring, came to comprise the leadership ‘trinity’ of the early Nazi party. As the war progressed Göring fell from grace, leaving Goebbels as the de facto second-in-command of the Third Reich. He eclipsed even Himmler, who was in the end more an enforcer than leader. Into the 1940s, Goebbels “was the most important and influential man after Hitler…[B]y 1943, he was virtually running the country while Hitler was running the war.”[3] Thus Goebbels was uniquely situated to comment on, and help resolve, the Jewish Question (Judenfrage). To this end, his diaries are absolutely essential for understanding the Jewish holocaust.

The diaries themselves first surfaced a few years after the war. An unknown scavenger came upon the bundles of originals – some 7,000 pages in total – in the ruins of the official German archives. Pages were burned, soaked, and many were missing. They “passed through several hands,” eventually becoming acquired by an American diplomat.[4] In 1948 a (very) partial English translation by Louis Lochner appeared, on selected entries from 1942 and 1943. Unknown at the time, the Soviets had acquired a full set of glass plate prints of the entire diary series, amounting to roughly 75,000 individual sheets. By various obscure means, portions leaked out over the years. Then in 1992, David Irving (re)discovered the full set in the Soviet archives, and was able to fill in all the missing gaps. These were put to good use in his 1996 work Goebbels: Mastermind of the Third Reich – the only complete biography published to date.

Today, there are four English translations of different parts of the diary: (1) the original Lochner translation; (2) Oliver Watson’s “early entries,” from the years 1925-1926; (3) Fred Taylor’s translation of the period 1939-1941; and (4) Richard Barry’s “final entries” of 1945. These four books combined constitute not more than 10% of the total; a full 90% of the diaries have never appeared in English.

Fortunately, though, with Irving’s discovery in 1992, the German publisher Saur was able to produce a complete and authoritative set, in the German original: Die Tagebücher von Joseph Goebbels. The full set runs to 29 volumes of roughly 500 pages each, and is divided into 2 parts (or Teils): Part 1 from 1923-1941, and Part 2 from 1941-1945. The final volume was released only in 2006, and so the complete set is still relatively new to researchers. Very few have made good use of it.

Of particular interest here are Goebbels’s disclosures about Nazi policy toward a final solution (Endlösung) of the Jewish Question, which of course directly relate to our conception of the Holocaust. On the standard view, the entire Nazi leadership, Hitler above all, were rabid anti-Semites who would settle for nothing less than the mass murder of every Jew they could get their hands on. They allegedly pursued this objective even to the detriment of the war effort, and rounded up and gassed Jews until the final few months. Their alleged 6 million victims were burned, buried, or otherwise made to vanish, such that traces of a mere fraction of these bodies have ever been found.

There are, as we know, many problems with this account. First is the fact that no ‘extermination order’ from Hitler has ever been discovered – nor even any tangible reference to such.[5] Hilberg was reduced to nonsense in his “mind reading” statement of 1983,[6] and even as late as 2003 he was compelled to write:

The process of destruction…did not, however, proceed from a basic plan. … The destruction process was a step-by-step operation, and the administrator could seldom see more than one step ahead. … In the final analysis, the destruction of the Jews was not so much a product of laws and commands as it was a matter of spirit, of shared comprehension, of consonance and synchronization. (2003: 50-52)

Even preeminent British Hitler expert Ian Kershaw could not do much better. The Soviet archives were opened up in the early 1990s; “predictably, a written order by Hitler for the ‘Final Solution’ was not found. The presumption that a single explicit written order had ever been given had long been dismissed by most historians” (2008: 96). Rather, this most momentous destruction of human life occurred via “improvised bureaucratic initiatives whose dynamic prompted a process of ‘cumulative radicalization’ in the fragmented structures of decision-making in the Third Reich” (p. 94) – a statement hardly more coherent than Hilberg’s.

Nothing in Goebbels’s diaries changes this situation. As Irving (1996: 388)[7] observes, “Nowhere do the diary’s 75,000 pages refer to an explicit order by Hitler for the murder of the Jews.” On the contrary: we find repeated and consistent reference only to expulsion and deportation.

Second, and more importantly, once the alleged extermination process was underway, we have no direct evidence that either Hitler or Goebbels knew anything about it – which is inconceivable. Below I consider the account given by Kershaw (2000). He undertakes an amazing series of gyrations to argue that Hitler both planned the genocide of the Jews and knew about its progress, despite the lack of any evidence. His points overlap with the diary entries, which I will cover below. Suffice to say here that, on Kershaw’s reading, Hitler was incredibly aloof on the Jewish Question. “Even in his inner circle Hitler could never bring himself to speak with outright frankness about the killing of the Jews” (p. 487) – in other words, he never, ever spoke openly about this most-vital aspect of the entire Nazi program. Hitler’s comments were always “confined to generalities,” sprinkled in with the “occasional menacing allusion.” Thus, with a mere wink and a nod, the mass murder of 6 million Jews was effected.

Given the striking lack of evidence, and the inconceivability that mass murder of millions was underway without awareness at the top, only two alternatives are possible: (1) the Nazi hierarchy knew all about the mass murder but mutually agreed to never discuss it, or to refer to it only in euphemisms and code language – even in the most private of settings; or (2) no systematic mass murder occurred at all, and the reality was in fact just as they said: expulsion and deportation, along with a certain degree of incidental death. I would suggest that a detailed look at Goebbels’s diary entries, in conjunction with the alleged ‘extermination’ actions that were occurring at the same time, may shine some light on this dispute.

* * *

To the best of my knowledge only two English books cite the diary in any detail: Irving’s Goebbels (1996) and Kershaw’s Hitler 1936-1945: Nemesis (2000).[8] Irving, especially in the longer Internet version, captures many important passages on the Jewish Question, but this is clearly not his main concern. Kershaw has a large number of quotations, but most are only partial, out of context, and designed to cast a certain light on Hitler. To his credit, and unlike many other works, Kershaw does a good job of including the original German words for the key terms, especially those relating to expulsion, evacuation, ‘elimination,’ and the like.

There are at least three concerns for any foreign-language translation, and these loom particularly large here. First, inclusion of the original language on key words and phrases is essential; it allows the reader to be fully informed about the actual original text. Second, passages should be cited as fully as possible, in order to retain context. Third is the translation itself, which is always problematic. Again, particularly so in this case, as many traditionalist writers are anxious to portray Goebbels’s language – which ranges from benign to ambiguous – in as ominous a light as possible. On these three counts, Irving does a reasonably good job, lacking only the extended quotations that are preferable. Kershaw does well on the first point, but fails on the other two – as I will show. Of the published (partial) translations, Lochner comes in for notable censure.

In what follows I cite Goebbels’s reflections on the Jews and Jewish policy in full. This is quite easy because, in virtually every case, the entry consists only of a few sentences or a short paragraph or two. I also include the German original for every contentious word or phrase. To maintain context, all entries are in chronological order. Following the date for each entry is original citation information from the Tagebücher: Part # (Teil), Volume # (Band), and page number. Hence, (II.3.478) refers to Part 2, volume 3, page 478.

In total, I include below the entries for 123 different days, ranging from May 1937 to April 1945. Of these, 43 appear in one of the published translation books; the remaining 80 entries are previously unpublished, and appear here for the first time in English. (Of course many scattered portions of these entries do appear elsewhere, primarily in the Irving and Kershaw books. But none in full.) Where the entries are those found in existing translations, I have identified them with asterisks (*=Taylor, **=Lochner, ***=Barry). Furthermore, I have maintained their wording, except when essential corrections were necessary – cited in the subsequent commentary.

To be as thorough as possible, it was my original aim to include every significant entry on the Jews or the Jewish Question. But in a 29-volume set these proved too numerous for the present essay. Hence I will focus on the key time period, bounded by two significant events: Kristallnacht, and the deportation of the Hungarian Jews. Thus for the period from 1 September 1938 through 30 June 1944, I have included literally every noteworthy entry by Goebbels.[9] This exhaustive survey, covering nearly six years, gives the most complete picture possible of his perspective on the Jewish holocaust.

Before addressing the central period I want to mention a few early passages. The first passing reference to the “Jewish Question” (Judenfrage) appears very early in the diary: 15 March 1924 (Part 1, vol. 1) – coincident with the first reference to Hitler. It was clearly a concern from his earliest days in the Party. But serious action against the Jews did not begin until more than a decade later, in the late 1930s. For example:

May 5, 1937 (I.4.124)

The elimination of Jewish influence (Entjudung – lit. ‘de-Jewing’) in the Reich Chamber of Culture moves forward. I will not be at peace until it is completely free of Jews\.

Nov 30, 1937 (I.4.429)

Long discussion on the Jewish Question. My new law is almost finished. But that is not the goal. The Jews must leave Germany, and get completely out (aus…heraus) of Europe. It will still take some time, but it needs to happen. The Führer is determined to do so\.

Here we have, I believe, the first reference to the complete removal of the Jews – a full year prior to Kristallnacht. Then into 1938 we find the first mention of the ‘Madagascar plan’:

Apr 11, 1938 (I.5.256)

Long discussion at breakfast, on the Jewish Question. The Führer wants the Jews completely squeezed out (herausdrängen) of Germany. To Madagascar, or some such place. Right!

Apr 23, 1938 (I.5.269-270)

Speaking with Helldorf on the Jewish Question. … We will take from Berlin the character of a Jewish paradise. Jewish shops will be identified. In any case we will now proceed more radically. Negotiations with Poland and Romania. Madagascar would be the most suitable for [the Jews]\.

At least into early 1942 (see entry for March 7), it was seriously proposed to round up all the European Jews and ship them to Madagascar, which was to be forcibly acquired from France. This fact, of course, is of central importance to the holocaust: if the Nazis wanted to ship them out, then obviously there was no plan for mass murder. To further complicate the traditional account, we need only observe that Chelmno, Auschwitz, and Belzec were all allegedly underway in March 1942. And in fact it is worse than this, because talk of deportation continues right up until the end of the war.

I would further note Goebbels’s use of the word ‘radical,’ which evidently means the mass expulsion of several million Jews, with little regard for their long-term well being. Also, the focus on Berlin: as local Gauleiter, Goebbels placed top priority on cleansing the city of its Jews. We see this over and over in the entries to follow. In fact this often seems to take priority over a total cleansing of the Reich – which again does not fit well with the exterminationist thesis.

I now begin with the entries from 1 September 1938. The first notable item is an early observation on America:

Sep 17, 1938 (I.6.95)

Afternoon meeting with our diplomat in Washington, Dieckhoff. He expresses a similar situation as Gienandt. At the moment it is hopeless. Everything depends on our position with England. Roosevelt is our enemy. He is surrounded by Jews. In a European conflict, if England stands against us, then so too will America\.

In the run-up to Kristallnacht, we find evidence of Goebbels’s involvement with anti-Jewish actions the month before:

Oct 12, 1938 (I.6.142)

Helldorf gives me a report on the status of the Jewish action in Berlin. It proceeds systematically. And the Jews now gradually withdraw\.

Then we have the event itself, triggered in part by the murder of Ernst vom Rath, German diplomat in Paris. He was shot by a Jewish teenager, Herschel Grynszpan.

Nov 10, 1938 (I.6.180-181)

In Kassel and Dessau there were large demonstrations against the Jews, synagogues burned and shops demolished. In the afternoon the death of our [Paris] diplomat vom Rath was announced. I go to the Party reception in the old town hall. A huge operation. I present the Führer. He states: let the demonstrations continue. Police are to withdraw. The Jews should feel the public wrath. That is only right. I give appropriate instructions to the police and Party. Then I have a short discussion with Party leadership. Everyone rushes to the phones. Now the people will act\.

We must not let this cowardly murder [of vom Rath] go unanswered. Let things follow their course. The Hitler Patrol cleans house in Munich. A synagogue is smashed to pieces. I try to save it from the fire; but I fail\.

The Patrol has done some vicious work. A message runs out across the Reich: 50-75 synagogues burned. The Führer has ordered the immediate arrest of 25,000-30,000 Jews. That will have an effect. They will now see that our patience has run out\.

When I go into the hotel, all the windowpanes rattle. Bravo! Bravo! In all large cities the synagogues burn. German property is not threatened\.

The first reports come early in the morning. It has been a raging fury. Just as expected. The whole nation is in turmoil. This murder will be very expensive for the Jews. The dear Jews will think carefully in the future before shooting German diplomats\.

To this day it is unclear to what extent the riots were spontaneous outbreaks of anti-Semitism, or well-planned instigations by plain-clothed security men.

Nov 13, 1938 (I.6.185)

Heydrich reports on the actions: 190 synagogues burned and destroyed. Conference with Göring on the Jewish Question. Hot battles over the solution. I argue for a radical solution. Funk is somewhat soft and yielding. The result: a fine of one billion Marks is imposed on the Jews. In the shortest period of time, they will be completely excluded (ausgeschieden) from economic life. They can no longer run businesses. … A whole series of other measures is planned. In any case, a clean sheet has now been made. I work well with Göring. He also attacks this sharply. The radical view has prevailed. I draft a very sharp public communiqué\.

Again, more talk of the ‘radical’ solution as total exclusion from public life. Then two follow-up entries:

Nov 22, 1938 (I.6.195)

We are planning a series of new measures against the Jews. I have a long phone call with Göring, who is coordinating all the actions. He approaches it harshly. In Berlin we do more than anywhere else in the Reich. That’s also necessary, because we have so many Jews. But the actions have also destroyed much. Good that it’s over\.

Nov 26, 1938 (I.6.202)

Situation report: almost exclusively on the Jewish Question. Partly positive, partly negative. We must enlighten the public, and especially the intellectuals, on the Jewish Question\.

In late November, two more interesting observations on America:

Nov 27, 1938 (I.6.203)

Roosevelt speaks out ever harsher against us. He is totally in the hands of the Jews. A Jew-slave, perhaps even of Jewish ancestry\.

Dec 17, 1938 (I.6.223)

America is strongly against us. On the Jewish Question it makes impertinent remarks. It is surely also a Jew-state!

The year 1939 opened with this entry, as a follow-up to the 5 May 1937 comment:

Jan 26, 1939 (I.6.239) *

The elimination of Jewish influence (Entjudung) in the Reich Chamber of Culture continues. But now considerable financial difficulties are apparent. We shall overcome them\.

Four days later, on January 30, Hitler gave his famous Reichstag speech of 1939. This was remarkable on several counts. It was sprinkled with many references to international Jewry (internationale Judentum), the Jewish world-enemy (jüdischen Weltfeind), and the Jewish Question generally. It was a grand event, the equivalent of a presidential joint session of Congress. The cameras and microphones were running. Among some initial remarks on the Jewish Question, he states that the “foreign peoples” must be “pushed out” (abzuschieben) in order to allow the Germans to arise. The key section occurs in the middle of the speech: “Europe cannot find peace until the Jewish Question is resolved.” Jewry too often lives off the work of others; unless they begin to perform true, productive work, they will sooner or later “succumb to a crisis of unimaginable proportions.” He continues:

Many times in my life I have been a prophet, and was often laughed at. At the time of my struggle for power, it was primarily the Jewish people who accepted my prophecies with laughter. … I believe that this time the laughter of the Jews in Germany is stuck in their throats. Today I will again be a prophet: If the international Jewish financiers in and outside Germany should succeed in plunging the nations once again into a world war, then the result will be not the Bolshevization of the Earth and with it the victory of Jewry, but rather the destruction (Vernichtung) of the Jewish race in Europe\.

Here, for all the world to see, Hitler is predicting the ‘destruction,’ or perhaps ‘annihilation,’ of the Jews. At issue is the meaning of this word Vernichtung. Its root, nicht, means ‘none’ or ‘nothing’. Bilingual dictionaries translate it as either ‘destruction’ or ‘extermination.’

So what can the “Vernichtung of the Jewish race” mean? On the standard view, of course, this means mass murder: literal genocide, the killing of every Jew. But there are two problems here. First, Vernichtung, along with the English equivalents ‘destruction’ and ‘extermination’, are inherently ambiguous. To ‘destroy’ is literally to ‘de-structure’ or ‘deconstruct’ (Latin: de-struere). To destroy an individual person or animal is to kill it, but to destroy a collective – a city, a nation, a race – is to ruin its structural coherence, and cause it to cease to exist as a collective entity.[10] This of course would happen if every individual member were killed, but it in no way demands this. Likewise with ‘extermination’, which means, literally, to ‘push beyond the boundaries’ (Latin: ex-terminus). To exterminate is simply to ‘get rid of completely’, by whatever means. And in fact the leading traditionalists evidently agree with these benign interpretations. Kershaw, for example, goes to great pains to argue that there was neither plan nor intention of mass murder prior to September 1941. Browning (2004: 371) comes to a similar conclusion.

The second problem is this: How likely is it that Hitler would declare to the world his intention to murder an entire race? Kershaw (2000: 522) pointedly emphasizes Hitler’s “intense preoccupation with secrecy”; the mass murder scheme was “a secret to be carried to the grave.” But wait – he already announced it to the world in January 1939! Does it even make sense to then keep such a thing secret? Or perhaps there was no secret to keep.

For some unknown reason, Goebbels does not comment on the Reichstag speech – at least, in the days and months that followed. (Down the road he would see it as something of a milestone.) In fact for the next 10 months one finds no substantial reference to the Jewish Question at all. Perhaps pressing matters of war intervened. Czechoslovakia disintegrated in March and Germany was thereby compelled to occupy the territory. With much inducement from England, Poland undertook a series of belligerent actions, resulting in the German-Polish war that began on September 1. Two days later this regional war became a European one, when France and the UK declared war on Germany. Comments by Goebbels resumed in October:

Oct 7, 1939 (I.7.141)

The Jewish problem will probably be the hardest to solve. These Jews are no longer human beings. [They are] predators equipped with a cold intellect, which must be counteracted\.

Oct 17, 1939 (I.7.157)

This Jewry must be destroyed (vernichtet)\.

…taking a cue, perhaps, from Hitler. The remainder of the year includes comments again consistent with removal, and no evidence of contemplated murder. The mention of typhus (December 6) is significant; as we know, this was undoubtedly the cause of death for many in the ghettos and camps, both Jews and non-Jews.

Nov 3, 1939 (I.7.179-180)

With the Führer. I give him a report on my trip to Poland, which interests him greatly. Above all, my exposition on the Jewish problem earns his full support. Judaism is a waste product. More clinical than social issue\.

Dec 5, 1939 (I.7.220-221)

[The Führer] shares my view on the Jewish and Polish questions. The Jewish danger must be banished (gebannt) by us. But it will still return in a few generations. There is no real panacea\.

Dec 6, 1939 (I.7.222)

Du Prel reports on the situation in the General Government. Horrible! There is still much to do. Nothing has changed in Warsaw. A typhus epidemic and famine have broken out. In Lublin, they’re waiting for the expelled (abgeschobenen) Jews\.

Dec 19, 1939 (I.7.236-237) *

The Jews are attempting to infiltrate cultural life again. Particularly half-Jews. When they are serving with the armed forces, they have some reason on their side. Nevertheless, I reject all requests in this area\.

My thoughts on the Jewish Question in wartime meet with the Führer’s approval. He intends to clear (heraushaben) all half-Jews from the Wehrmacht. Otherwise there will be continual ‘incidents.’

Through the entire first half of 1940 we find, again, no entries on the Jews. Germany was racking up military successes, culminating in the invasion of the Low Countries on May 10 and the push to the Channel. France was quickly overwhelmed, and German troops marched into Paris on June 14. Things were going very well; the war appeared to be heading toward a rapid conclusion; and then the Jewish Question could be addressed in earnest.

Jun 6, 1940 (I.8.159)

We will quickly be finished with the Jews after the war\.

Jul 6, 1940 (I.8.207)

The American Jewish press is entirely on Churchill’s side. Now, suddenly, France is no longer the ideal democratic nation. Riff-raff that must be eradicated (ausgerottet)\.

Jul 20, 1940 (I.8.229)

One must neutralize the habitual criminal before the crime, not after. Our lawyers will never understand that. The Jews also belong in this category, and one must make short shrift (kurzen Prozess) of them\.

By July the question of Berlin had again arisen, as had the Madagascar plan:

Jul 26, 1940 (I.8.238)

The big plan for the evacuation (Evakuierung) of the Jews from Berlin was approved. Additionally, all the Jews of Europe are supposed to be deported (deportiert) to Madagascar after the war\.

Aug 17, 1940 (I.8.276) *

Later on, we want to ship (verfrachten) the Jews to Madagascar. There they can build their own state\.

Sep 2, 1940 (I.8.301)

I fly to Kattowitz [Katowice, Poland, near Auschwitz]. … Bracht reports to me on the various concerns of the Province. The Poles are resigned to their fate, and the Jews have been pushed out (abgeschoben)\.

Nov 2, 1940 (I.8.406)

With the Führer. Epp has colonial questions. Koch and Forster, questions about the East. All want to unload their trash onto the General Government: Jews, the sick, the lazy, etc. And [Hans] Frank resists. Not entirely without reason. He would like to make Poland a model nation. But that goes too far. He cannot, and should not. According to the Führer, Poland is a large labor pool for us – a place to hold failed people and use them for lowly work. We have to get them from somewhere. Frank does not like this, but he has to. And the Jews will later be moved out (abschieben) of this area\.

We see here a growing vocabulary of terms relating to the status of the Jews. The large majority refer to removing, deporting, or expelling: aus-heraus, herausdrängen, ausscheiden, abschieben, evakuieren, verfrachten, deportieren. Later we find other related terms: beseitigen, herausbringen, aufräumen, herausschaffen, and others – some 18 in total, by my count (not including conjugates). This group is the most numerous, and the most benign. Two of these, evakuieren (evacuate) and abschieben (expel or push out), are especially popular with Goebbels.

A second group of terms include those that I will call ‘ambiguous’, in the sense that they have somewhat more ominous implications: vernichten (verb form of Vernichtung), ausrotten, liquidieren, eliminieren, and auslöschen. I’ve discussed the first of these already, and in the July 6 entry Goebbels first uses a form of ausrotten. This word, literally meaning ‘to root out’, translates to the ambiguous ‘exterminate’ or to ‘eradicate’ (ex-radix, lit. ‘up-root’). Once again, none of these meanings entail death, killing, or murder. A plant that is ausrottet can be replanted and live; a family can be ‘up-rooted’ and reestablished elsewhere. The exterminationist suggestion that either vernichten or ausrotten necessarily imply murder is, quite literally, nonsense.[11]

I should note, by the way, that the German language does indeed have words for ‘killing’: morden, ermorden, töten, totschlagen, totschiessen. Goebbels had no shortage of alternatives if he wished to discuss literally killing the Jews. This is, after all, a personal and private diary. Consider his situation: Should the Germans win, he has nothing to fear. Should they lose, he must have known that his own death awaited, along with the ‘destruction’ of greater Germany – again, nothing to fear. Why hold back? So the reader might be wondering: Does Goebbels ever use such explicit terms? In fact he does: once. If I may temporarily leap ahead to one of his final entries, 14 March 1945, we read that certain soon-to-be-victorious Jews are calling for no mercy on the Germans – to which Goebbels replies, “Anyone in a position to do so should kill (totschlagen) these Jews like rats.” There we have it – an unambiguous call for murder. Except that it’s three years too late. One wonders, though, why, on the exterminationist thesis, Goebbels didn’t resort to such language much sooner. Perhaps it was only at the end, when the Jewish-backed Allies were slaughtering innocent Germans by the tens of thousands, that the Nazis began calling for their deaths. And perhaps by then it was justified.[12]

Into 1941 we start to move strongly toward – on the traditionalist view – systematic murder. But not until the second half of the year:

Mar 18, 1941 (I.9.193) *

Vienna will soon be entirely Jew-free. And now it is Berlin’s turn. I am already discussing the question with the Führer and Dr. Frank. He puts the Jews to work, and they are indeed obedient. Later they will have to get out of Europe altogether (aus…heraus)\.

Mar 19, 1941 (I.9.195)

Early flight to Posen. … Here, all sorts have been liquidated (liquidiert), above all the Jewish trash. This has to be. I explain the situation to Greiser\.

Mar 22, 1941 (I.9.199)

I am deeply troubled about the cultural impact of foreign laborers working in the Reich. There are several hundred thousand. The harsh line towards prisoners of war is also somewhat mitigated. The Jews themselves cannot be evacuated (evakuiert) from Berlin because 30,000 are working in the armaments industry. Who, earlier, would have thought this possible?

In the March 19 entry we find the first occurrence of another troublesome word, ‘liquidation’. It proves to be rather popular, appearing in eight different entries. The troublesome part is that, in many cases, it means something other than killing. Goebbels speaks of liquidating the “Jewish danger” (30 May 1942) and of liquidating Jewish marriages (6 December 1942). The word ‘liquidation’ means, primarily, ‘to make fluid.’ And this in fact is a fairly apt description of the deportation process: a large, entrenched Jewish community who had to be uprooted, made liquid, and then to flow out across the borders. Nothing in this entails killing. Nor at the time, in the 1940s, did the word necessarily mean murder. An article in the London Times had this to say: “The rest of the Jews in the General Government…would be liquidated, which means either transported eastward in cattle trucks to an unknown destination, or killed where they stood” (4 December 1942; p. 3). Holocaust survivor Thomas Buergenthal (2009: 49) writes of his experience in the Kielce ghetto: “The ghetto was being liquidated or, in the words bellowing out of the loudspeakers, Ausseidlung! Ausseidlung! (‘Evacuation! Evacuation!’).” And later he comments, “After the liquidation of the labor camp…” (p. 56). Clearly the word means, and meant, something other than killing.

Obviously, ‘liquidate’ can mean killing, as can a huge variety of words under contrived circumstances. In Mafia circles, a ‘kiss’ can mean death. Motion pictures use a variety of silly terms: whack, pop, bump, waste, take for a ride, off, do in, and so on. In the case of Goebbels, we must ask once again, why would he go to lengths to use euphemisms or silly code words in a personal diary? And one in which, when motivated, he was happy to call a spade a spade?

June 1941 was an important month: the Germans invaded Russia, and the Einsatzgruppen were activated to protect the troops from partisan attacks. Here I refer back to Kershaw’s account of events. Through mid-1941, Kershaw admits, there was no true genocidal plan – despite Hitler’s infamous prophecy of January 1939. As of June 1941, “shooting or gassing to death all the Jews of Europe…was at this stage not in mind” (p. 463). Even through the end of the year, the alleged physical extermination plan “was still emerging” (p. 492). Hence the plan in mid-1941 was just as Goebbels had recorded: one of confinement, deportation, and ethnic cleansing.

Anti-partisan actions of the Einsatzgruppen began in June and July 1941; Jews were prominent among the partisans, and hence they were prominent among the victims. Then “there was a sharp escalation from around August onward,” both in the death toll and in the ranks of the shooters. Allegedly, the 3,000 Einsatzgruppen men recruited large numbers of “native collaborators” to help with the slaughter; Kershaw cites Browning (1995: 106) as stating that the combined troop levels rose to more than 300,000 by January 1943![13]

Jun 20, 1941 (I.9.390)

Dr. Frank talks about the General Government. There one is already happily looking forward to expelling (abschieben) the Jews. Judaism in Poland gradually decays. A just punishment for inciting the people and instigating the war. The Führer has also prophesied that to the Jews\.

Jul 13, 1941 (II.1.58)

We are again getting reports from the eastern front on the terrible atrocities being committed by the Bolsheviks. The Moscow Jews continue to apply their infamous procedure, in order to push the outrages committed by them into our shoes. But the whole world agrees that there is not a word of truth in it\.

Kershaw then cites a mysterious meeting between Hitler and Himmler in mid-July, during which the former “effectively…placed the ‘Jewish Question’…directly in Himmler’s hands” (p. 469). After this, we are to believe that Hitler was content to speak only of deportations, removals, and evacuations, all of which allegedly reconfirmed the implicit genocide command. When Hitler is quoted as saying, “Where the Jews are sent to, whether to Siberia or Madagascar, is immaterial,” Kershaw offers an amazing response: “The frame of mind [here] was overtly genocidal. The reference to Madagascar was meaningless.” Evacuation to Siberia was “genocide of a kind” (p. 471). But never mind this; as of July 1941, “no decision for the ‘Final Solution’ – meaning the physical extermination of the Jews throughout Europe – had yet been taken. But genocide was in the air.”

Aug 7, 1941 (II.1.189)

In the Warsaw ghetto there was some increase in typhus; although provisions have been made to ensure that it will not leave the ghetto. The Jews have always been carriers of infectious diseases. They must either be cooped up in a ghetto and left to themselves, or liquidated (liquidieren); otherwise they will always infect the healthy population of the civilized nations\.

Aug 11, 1941 (II.1.213)

In the [occupied] Baltic countries the tendency is to form their own governments, and to shake off the Germans as quickly as possible, in order to become stronger. In the large cities a punishment is inflicted upon the Jews. They are beaten to death en masse in the streets by the self-defense organizations of the Baltic peoples. That which the Führer prophesied comes true: that if the Jews succeeded in provoking a war again, they would thereby cease to exist (seine Existenz verlieren würde)\.

A very important observation: the deaths of Jews in the Baltics were caused in large part by revenge-seeking natives, not roving German death squads. And in fact there was a good basis for this revenge, namely the murder and torture inflicted by the Jews of Stalin’s GPU intelligence unit.[14 ]

In his “Table Talk” discussions of this time, Hitler argued that Germany was justified in deporting the Jews, and that furthermore they were doing it relatively humanely:

If any people has the right to proceed to evacuations, it is we, for we’ve often had to evacuate our own population. Eight hundred thousand men had to emigrate from East Prussia alone. How humanely sensitive we are is shown by the fact that we consider it a maximum of brutality to have liberated our country from 600,000 Jews. And yet we accepted, without recrimination, and as something inevitable, the evacuation of our own compatriots! (1953/2000: 24)

There seems to be no independent verification of the 600,000 figure, so we cannot identify from where they would have been deported, unfortunately. Meanwhile Goebbels continued his actions in Berlin:

Aug 12, 1941 (II.1.218)

The Jewish Question has again become especially acute in the capital. We count 70,000 Jews in Berlin at the moment, of which 30,000 are not even working; the others live as parasites off the work of the host nation. This is an intolerable situation. The various departments of the upper-level Reich authorities still oppose a radical solution to this problem. But I won’t let it go, for I don’t want to experience the Jewish question solved again as it was in 1938 – by the mob. But this is prevented in the long run only if we take timely and sweeping measures\. … I also think it necessary that the Jews be given a badge. They are active in public life as defeatists and mood-spoilers. It is therefore imperative that they be recognized as Jews. They must not be allowed to speak on behalf of the German people. They have nothing to do with the German people, but rather must be excluded from (ausgeschieden) the German people\.

Goebbels clearly does not want a repeat of Kristallnacht. Also, this is the first mention of the “badge”, or yellow Star of David, that the Jews were ultimately forced to wear.

Aug 18, 1941 (II.1.254)

It’s different with the Jewish Question. All Germans are presently against the Jews. The Jews must be put back in the box. When one realizes that there are still 75,000 Jews in Berlin, of which only 23,000 are working, it seems a grotesque fact. One cannot even inform the German people, or else there would surely be pogroms. We Germans thus have the honor to conduct the war, and meanwhile the parasitical Jews, who are waiting for our defeat in order to exploit it for themselves, are sustained by our national strength. This condition is absolutely outrageous. I will ensure that it will soon be stopped\.

Aug 19, 1941 (II.1.265-266)

Regarding the Jewish Question, I completely prevail with the Führer. He agrees that we will introduce a large, visible Jew-badge for all the Jews in the Reich, and which must be worn in public; then we can remove (beseitigt) the danger that the Jews will act as defeatists and complainers without being recognized. Also, if in the future they do not work, they will be given smaller rations than the German people. That is only right and proper. He who does not work, should not eat. It’s all we need in Berlin, for example, that of 76,000 Jews only 26,000 work, and the rest not only don’t work, but they live on the rations of the Berlin population! Additionally, the Führer tells me that, as soon as the first transport opportunity becomes available, the Berlin Jews should be pushed off (abzuschieben) to the East. There they will have to make do under a harsh climate\.

We discuss the Jewish problem. The Führer is convinced that his prophecy in the Reichstag – that if Jewry succeeded in provoking yet another world war, it would end with their destruction (Vernichtung) – is confirmed. It is coming true in the following weeks and months with an almost uncanny certainty. In the East, the Jews must pay the price; in Germany they have paid in part already, and they will pay more in the future. Their last resort is North America, and there they will also have to pay before long\.

Jewry is a foreign element among civilized nations, and its activities in the past three decades has been so devastating that the people’s reaction is understandable – indeed, one might say, a compulsion of nature. In any case, in the world to come the Jews will not have anything to laugh about. In Europe today there is a united front against Jewry. This is already apparent in the entire European press – and not only on this question, but also on many other matters there exists a thoroughly unified opinion\.

So here we have a clear and unambiguous statement: that the Vernichtung of the Jewish race meant the complete exclusion from society and, ultimately, its physical removal.

Aug 20, 1941 (II.1.278)

On the Jewish Question, I am now beginning to take action. Because the Führer has allowed me to introduce a badge for the Jews, I believe I will be able to accomplish this marking very quickly, without carrying out the legal reforms that would normally be required in such a situation. … Public life in Berlin must quickly be cleaned (gereinigt) [of Jews]. If at the moment it is not possible to make Berlin a Jew-free city, at least they should not appear in public any longer. Additionally, the Führer told me that I may expel (abschieben) the Jews from Berlin immediately after the end of our campaign in the East. Berlin must become a Jew-free city. It is outrageous and scandalous that 76,000 Jews, most of whom are parasites, can roam the capital of the German Reich. They destroy not only the streetscape, but also the mood\.

Although it will be very different when they wear a badge, we can leave it at that until they are removed. We have to approach this problem without any sentimentality. One need only imagine what the Jews would do to us, if they had the power to do so – as we have the power to do. In any case, I remain alert regarding further action on the Jewish Question. If one must also overcome bureaucratic and partly sentimental resistance in the higher Reich offices, I will be neither surprised nor deterred. I took up the fight against Jewry in Berlin in 1926, and it is my ambition not to rest until the last Jew has left Berlin\.

Throughout the summer Hitler resisted mass evacuations. Then, according to Kershaw: “Suddenly, in mid-September, Hitler changed his mind. There was no overt indication of the reason” (p. 477). Here’s one overt indication: on September 12 Roosevelt ordered the U.S. navy to begin sinking German ships. This was only the latest in a string of aggressive and provocative actions by the Americans, which began with their shadowing of German freighter and supply ships in late 1939, and included the Lend-Lease Act of March 1941 that authorized military assistance for the Allied nations, explicitly ending U.S. neutrality.

A Himmler letter from this time cites Hitler’s authorization to begin with an initial shipment of 60,000 Jews to the Lodz ghetto. This action was key to the “gathering whirlwind of extermination,” says Kershaw. But even this was no Final Solution order. “It is doubtful whether a single, comprehensive decision of such a kind was ever made.” Instead, “numerous local and regional Nazi leaders…seized on the opportunity…to start killing Jews in their own areas” (p. 481). The killing was as yet haphazard; a “coordinated, comprehensive programme of total genocide…would still take some months to emerge.”

Sep 24, 1941 (II.1.480-481, 485)

Also with respect to the Jewish Question, I have some important things to say to Heydrich. For the Berlin Jews, we will drive away the desire to hide their badges; and anyway, I am of the opinion that the Jews must be evacuated (evakuieren) from Berlin as quickly as possible. This will be the case as soon as we have settled the military issues in the East. In the end, they will all be transported (transportieren) to the camps designed by the Bolsheviks. These camps were built by the Jews; it is only right that they are now populated by the Jews\.

The Führer is of the opinion that the Jews must, after all, be removed from (herausgebracht) all of Germany. The first cities to be made Jew-free are Berlin, Vienna, and Prague. Berlin is the first in line, and I am hopeful that in the course of this year we are able to transport out (abzutransportieren) a substantial part of Berlin’s Jews to the East\.

The first trains left Berlin on 18 October 1941.

Oct 21, 1941 (II.2.169)

We are also now gradually beginning with the expulsion (Ausweisung) of Jews from Berlin to the East. Several thousand have already been put in motion. At first they go to Lodz [Poland]. Thereupon commences a big excitement. The Jews send anonymous letters to the foreign press seeking help, and in fact some messages seep through to foreign countries. I forbid further information about that for the foreign correspondents. Nevertheless, it will not prevent this from expanding further in the coming days. Nothing will change. While it is, at the moment, unpleasant to see this issue discussed in front of the world stage, one must accept this disadvantage. The main thing is that the capital will become Jew-free. And I will not rest until this goal is fully achieved\.

Four days later Hitler made this well-known comment:

From the rostrum of the Reichstag, I prophesied to Jewry that, in the event of war’s proving inevitable, the Jew would disappear from Europe. That race of criminals has on its conscience 2 million dead of the First World War, and now already hundreds of thousands more. Let nobody tell me that, all the same, we can’t park them in the marshy parts of Russia! Who’s worrying about our troops? It’s not a bad idea, by the way, that public rumor attributes to us a plan to exterminate the Jews. Terror is a salutary thing. (1953/2000: 87)

So we see here (1) continued endorsement for literal deportation, (2) no talk of killing, murder, gas chambers, etc, (3) an equation between ‘extermination’ and deportation, and (4) a minimal concern for secrecy. The fact that Hitler finds some use in the rumor mill is interesting, a kind of unanticipated fringe benefit. But he perhaps did not anticipate how talk of extermination would play in the Anglo world. Two months before he made the above comment, the New York Times (August 25; p. 3) reported that, “unless the Nazis were defeated, wholesale extermination would be the lot of all Jews” (…“including those in the United States and Britain”!) – and here, ‘extermination’ means murder, no doubt.

Then an important Goebbels entry that continues the account from August 11:

Nov 2, 1941 (II.2.221-222)

We fly early in the morning to Vilnius [Lithuania]. … We were met by Lt Colonel Zehnpfennig, who drove us through the city. Vilnius has a quarter million inhabitants, and nearly one quarter are Jewish. However, the ranks of the Jews have been greatly thinned by the Lithuanians after the invasion of German troops. The Jews were active primarily as [Soviet] GPU spies and informers, and countless Lithuanian intellectuals and citizens owe their deaths to them. The revenge tribunal established by the Lithuanians and Poles, being the majority of the city, has been horrifying. Thousands [of Jews] have been shot, and even now hundreds more as well. They have now all been rounded up into their ghettos. That they have not all been killed is due only to the fact that the Jews control the entire Vilnian handcraft industry, and the Lithuanians are completely dependent on them\.

The city shows hardly any traces of war. But on a short drive through the ghetto, the view is horrifying. Here the Jews squat in rows, hideous forms, not to be looked at let alone touched. The Jews have created their own administration, which also has a police function. They stand at the entrance to the ghetto, which is separated from the rest of the city, on guard and at attention. Even 10 years ago I would not have dreamed that something like this would again be the case. Terrible figures lurk in the streets, which I would not like to meet at night. The Jews are the lice of civilized man. They must somehow be eradicated (ausrotten), otherwise they will again play their tormenting and troublesome role. Only if one advances with the necessary brutality can one be finished with them. When they are spared, one will later be their victim\.

Nov 17, 1941 (II.2.304)

In a published telegram, Churchill openly stands on the side of the Jews. He is a consummate servant of the Jews\.

Nov 18, 1941 (II.2.309)

Heydrich told me about his intentions regarding the expulsion (Abschiebung) of Jews from the Reich. The question is more difficult than we had first suspected. In any case, 15,000 Jews will have to stay in Berlin because they are employed in the war effort and other dangerous work. Also, a number of elderly Jews cannot be pushed off (abgeschoben) to the East. For them, a Jewish ghetto in a small town in the protectorate will be arranged. The third phase, which will begin early next year, will follow the procedure I have proposed to clear the area city by city, such that when the evacuation (Evakuierung) in a city begins, it will also be finished as soon as possible, and the effect on public opinion will be neither too long nor too harmful. Heydrich’s approach on this question is very consistent. He is something I had not previously realized: a shrewd political thinker\.

So no evacuation either for workers or the elderly. One wonders if genocide was still ‘in the air’.

Nov 22, 1941 (II.2.340-341)

Also, regarding the Jewish Question, the Führer fully agrees with my views. He wants an energetic policy against the Jews, but we do not want to cause any unnecessary difficulties. Evacuation (Evakuierung) of the Jews will be undertaken city by city. It is still uncertain when it will be Berlin’s turn; but when its turn comes, the evacuation will be carried out as quickly as possible to the very end\.

On the first of December, Hitler offered some philosophical thoughts on the social effect of Jewry:

[The] destructive role of the Jew has in a way a providential explanation. If nature wanted the Jew to be the ferment that causes people to decay, thus providing these peoples with an opportunity for a healthy reaction, in that case, people like St. Paul and Trotsky are, from our point of view, the most valuable. By the fact of their presence, they provoke the defensive reaction of the attacked organism. Dietrich Eckart once told me that in all his life he had known just one good Jew: Otto Weininger, who killed himself on the day when he realized that the Jew lives on the decay of peoples. (1953/2000: 141)

It is in this month, as we know, that the European war becomes a truly world war, as Germany – after some two years of provocation – declares war on the U.S. in the wake of Pearl Harbor. Also this month, on the orthodox view, a milestone occurs: Chelmno begins its extermination process, with gas vans powered by diesel engines. Evidently, then, genocide was more than in the air; it was on the ground running. And Goebbels, in truth, does seem to ramp up his rhetoric; he makes his first overt references to the deaths of Jews:

Dec 13, 1941 (II.2.498-499)

As concerns the Jewish Question, the Führer is determined to make a clean sweep (reinen Tisch – lit. ‘clean table’). He had prophesied to the Jews that if they once again brought about a World War they would experience their own destruction (Vernichtung). This was not just an empty phrase. The World War is here, and the destruction of Jewry must be the necessary consequence. This question must be seen without sentimentality. We are not here in order to have sympathy with the Jews, rather we sympathize with our own German people. If the German people have now once again sacrificed as many as 160,000 dead in the Eastern campaign, then the authors of this bloody conflict must pay with their lives (mit ihrem Leben bezahlen müssen)\.

Dec 14, 1941 (II.2.503)

The early curfew in Paris has been abolished, but a plethora of Jews remain to be pushed out (abgeschoben) of occupied France to the eastern region. In many cases this is equivalent to a death sentence. The remaining Jews will think hard before stirring up trouble or sabotage against the German troops. Meanwhile General von Stülpnagel can conduct the execution of 100 Jews and communists. That will provide a very plausible and psychologically-adept explanation for the Parisian population, and will not fail to have an effect\.

If deportation is sometimes the “equivalent of a death sentence,” and many will “pay with their lives,” we are left wondering how, exactly, and in what numbers, they will die. I trust that there is a clear difference between (a) many dying from disease, exposure, lack of medical care, periodic shootings, etc, and (b) all dying in a complex and systematic gassing operation. There is no doubt that concentrating and deporting thousands or millions of people in wartime would lead to many deaths. But this is not genocide. The next entry is telling:

Dec 18, 1941 (II.2.533-534)

I speak with the Führer regarding the Jewish Question. He is determined to take consistent action and not be deterred by bourgeois sentimentality. Above all, the Jews must leave the Reich (aus…heraus). We discuss the possibilities for especially clearing out (räumen) Berlin as quickly as possible. Objections are sure to be raised here – from the Four Year Plan, from the Economics Ministry – because about 13,000 Jews are employed in the armaments industry in Berlin; but, with some good will, they can be replaced by Bolshevik prisoners of war. In any case we will tackle this problem as soon as possible, especially when we have the transport capacity to move this body of people. Berlin cannot count as absolutely consolidated as long as Jews are living and working in the capital. Besides, the bourgeois Schlappmeier has ever-new excuses to save the Jews. Earlier it was Jewish money and influence; now it is the Jewish workers. German intellectuals and elite have no anti-Jewish instinct at all. Their vigilance is not sharp. It is therefore necessary that we solve this problem, since it is likely that, if it remains unsolved, it will lead to the most devastating consequences after we are gone. The Jews should all be pushed off (abgeschoben) to the East. We are not very interested in what becomes of them after that. They have wished this fate upon themselves, they have started the war, and they must now pay the price\.

“We are not very interested in what becomes of them after that.” Harsh and brutal, perhaps, but clearly far less than genocide. The same thought was echoed by Hans Frank, in a memo of December 16:

What is to happen to the Jews [after evacuation]? … We have in the General Government an estimated 2.5 million Jews – perhaps with those closely related to Jews and what goes with it, now 3.5 million Jews. We can’t shoot these 3.5 million Jews, we can’t poison them…[15]

Obviously he and Goebbels, at least, were unaware of any program of genocide.


Notes

[1] The first 6 or 7 years of entries were every 2nd or 3rd day. But by 1930 he was rigorously recording his thoughts daily. Until mid-1941 he wrote them himself; afterward he dictated the entries, and they became considerably longer.

[2] Alfred Rosenberg was also well-educated, having earned a PhD in engineering in 1917. But in spite of his role as chief ideologist for the NSDAP, he was not nearly as influential in the Nazi hierarchy as Goebbels was. For most of the war years Rosenberg served as Reichsminister for the occupied Eastern territories.

[3] L. Lochner, in Goebbels (1948: 25).

[4] Ibid., p. viii.

[5] I discount the Eichmann recollection of Heydrich: “The Führer has ordered the physical extermination of the Jews.” Virtually no one on either side of the Holocaust debate accepts Eichmann’s trial testimony as truth.

[6] “What began in 1941 was a process of destruction not planned in advance, not organized centrally by any agency. There was no blueprint and there was no budget for destructive measures. [These measures] were taken step by step, one step at a time. Thus came about not so much a plan being carried out, but an incredible meeting of minds, a consensus – mind reading by a far-flung bureaucracy.” New York Newsday, Feb 23, 1983; Part II, p. 3.

[7] Corresponds to page 694 of the (much-longer) Internet version of the book.

[8] One book notably lacking in much citation of the diary is Browning’s The Origins of the Final Solution (2004). This massive work, published four years after Kershaw’s comparable book, should have made equally good use of the diaries. But one struggles in vain to find more than a half-dozen quotations. This is revealing: Browning, publishing in the U.S., clearly did not want to draw attention to those many troublesome entries referring to deportations, evacuations, and the like. Kershaw was at least honest enough to cite them, even as he was papering them over.

[9] Obviously this is a judgment call. There are many minor or inconsequential references to Jews, Jewish media or propaganda, Bolshevik Jews, Jewish films, etc. By a rough count, one finds 25-30 entries per volume that mention Jews (about one reference every third day, on average). Thus of the 16 volumes that I cover exhaustively, there are some 450 potentially-relevant entries.

[10] Other definitions include “to ruin structure or condition”, “to neutralize”, “to defeat.”

[11] The diary entry of 6 February 1945 shows this very clearly. Goebbels is discussing the common goal of Germany’s enemies, namely, “to destroy (vernichten) Germany and to eradicate (auszurotten) the German people.” In neither case is he even faintly contemplating the literal mass murder of the entire German population.

[12] There are other threatening passages, including those referring to ‘liquidation’ and to the Jews ‘paying with their lives.’ I address these in due course.

[13] “Units of native collaborators had already played a significant role in the killing process. At the end of 1941, the strength of these units had reached 33,000. By June 1942, it was 165,000; by January 1943, 300,000. As Nebe rightly indicated, the task of killing Russian Jewry with the 3,000 men of the Einsatzgruppen was ‘impossible’.”

[14] A related event occurred in the Ukraine in the 1930s; this was known as the Holodomor, and was a state-created famine that killed some 5 million people.

[15] As cited in Kershaw (2000: 491).


Sources

  • Browning, C., Path to Genocide, Cambridge University Press, 1995.
  • Buergenthal, T., A Lucky Child, Profile Books, 2009.
  • Dalton, T., Debating the Holocaust: A New Look at Both Sides,Theses and Dissertations Press, 2009.
  • Goebbels, J., The Goebbels Diaries: 1942-1943, L. Lochner, trans. and ed.Doubleday and Company, 1948.
  • Goebbels, J., The Early Goebbels Diaries: 1925-1926, O. Watson, trans.H. Heiber, ed.Praeger, 1962.
  • Goebbels, J., Final Entries 1945: The Diaries of Joseph Goebbels, R. Barry, trans.H. Trevor-Roper, ed.Putnam, 1978.
  • Goebbels, J., Die Tagebücher von Joseph Goebbels, E. Fröhlich, ed.K. G. Saur Verlag, 1987-2006.
  • Hilberg, R., The Destruction of the European Jews, Yale University Press, 2003.
  • Hitler, A., Hitler’s Table Talk: 1941-1944, Enigma, 1953/2000.
  • Irving, D., Goebbels: Mastermind of the Third Reich, Focal Point Press, 1996.
  • Kershaw, I., Hitler 1936-1945: Nemesis, W. W. Norton, 2000.
  • Kershaw, I., Hitler, the Germans, and the Final Solution, Yale University Press, 2008.

Exposing Stalin’s Plan to Conquer Europe

Source: http://www.renegadetribune.com/exposing-stalins-plan-to-conquer-europe/

Poslednyaya Respublika (“The Last Republic”), by Viktor Suvorov (Vladimir Rezun). Moscow: TKO ACT, 1996. 470 pages. Hardcover. Photographs.

Reviewed by Daniel W. Michaels

For several years now, a former Soviet military intelligence officer named Vladimir Rezun has provoked heated discussion in Russia for his startling view that Hitler attacked Soviet Russia in June 1941 just as Stalin was preparing to overwhelm Germany and western Europe as part of a well-planned operation to “liberate” all of Europe by bringing it under Communist rule.

Writing under the pen name of Viktor Suvorov, Rezun has developed this thesis in three books. Icebreaker (which has been published in an English-language edition) and Dni M (“M Day”) were reviewed in the Nov.-Dec. 1997 Journal. The third book, reviewed here, is a 470-page work, “The Last Republic: Why the Soviet Union Lost the Second World War,” published in Russian in Moscow in 1996.

Suvorov presents a mass of evidence to show that when Hitler launched his “Operation Barbarossa” attack against Soviet Russia on June 22, 1941, German forces were able to inflict enormous losses against the Soviets precisely because the Red troops were much better prepared for war – but for an aggressive war that was scheduled for early July – not the defensive war forced on them by Hitler’s preemptive strike.

In Icebreaker, Suvorov details the deployment of Soviet forces in June 1941, describing just how Stalin amassed vast numbers of troops and stores of weapons along the European frontier, not to defend the Soviet homeland but in preparation for a westward attack and decisive battles on enemy territory.

Thus, when German forces struck, the bulk of Red ground and air forces were concentrated along the Soviet western borders facing contiguous European countries, especially the German Reich and Romania, in final readiness for an assault on Europe.

In his second book on the origins of the war, “M Day” (for “Mobilization Day”), Suvorov details how, between late 1939 and the summer of 1941, Stalin methodically and systematically built up the best armed, most powerful military force in the world – actually the world’s first superpower – for his planned conquest of Europe. Suvorov explains how Stalin’s drastic conversion of the country’s economy for war actually made war inevitable. [Image: By mid-June 1941, enormous Red Army forces were concentrated on the western Soviet border, poised for a devastating attack against Europe. This diagram appeared in the English-language edition of the German wartime illustrated magazine Signal.]

A Global Soviet Union

In “The Last Republic,” Suvorov adds to the evidence presented in his two earlier books to strengthen his argument that Stalin was preparing for an aggressive war, in particular emphasizing the ideological motivation for the Soviet leader’s actions. The title refers to the unlucky country that would be incorporated as the “final republic” into the globe-encompassing “Union of Soviet Socialist Republics,” thereby completing the world proletarian revolution.

As Suvorov explains, this plan was entirely consistent with Marxist-Leninist doctrine, as well as with Lenin’s policies in the earlier years of the Soviet regime. The Russian historian argues convincingly that it was not Leon Trotsky (Bronstein), but rather Stalin, his less flamboyant rival, who was really the faithful disciple of Lenin in promoting world Communist revolution. Trotsky insisted on his doctrine of “permanent revolution,” whereby the young Soviet state would help foment home-grown workers’ uprisings and revolution in the capitalist countries.

Stalin instead wanted the Soviet regime to take advantage of occasional “armistices” in the global struggle to consolidate Red military strength for the right moment when larger and better armed Soviet forces would strike into central and western Europe, adding new Soviet republics as this overwhelming force rolled across the continent. After the successful consolidation and Sovietization of all of Europe, the expanded USSR would be poised to impose Soviet power over the entire globe.

As Suvorov shows, Stalin realized quite well that, given a free choice, the people of the advanced Western countries would never voluntarily choose Communism. It would therefore have to be imposed by force. His bold plan, Stalin further decided, could be realized only through a world war.

A critical piece of evidence in this regard is his speech of August 19, 1939, recently uncovered in Soviet archives (quoted in part in the Nov.-Dec. 1997 Journal, pp. 32-33). In it, Lenin’s heir states:

The experience of the last 20 years has shown that in peacetime the Communist movement is never strong enough to seize power. The dictatorship of such a party will only become possible as the result of a major war …

Later on, all the countries who had accepted protection from resurgent Germany would also become our allies. We shall have a wide field to develop the world revolution.

Furthermore, and as Soviet theoreticians had always insisted, Communism could never peacefully coexist over the long run with other socio-political systems. Accordingly, Communist rule inevitably would have to be imposed throughout the world. So integral was this goal of “world revolution” to the nature and development of the “first workers’ state” that it was a cardinal feature of the Soviet agenda even before Hitler and his National Socialist movement came to power in Germany in 1933.

Stalin elected to strike at a time and place of his choosing. To this end, Soviet development of the most advanced offensive weapons systems, primarily tanks, aircraft, and airborne forces, had already begun in the early 1930s. To ensure the success of his bold undertaking, in late 1939 Stalin ordered the build up a powerful war machine that would be superior in quantity and quality to all possible opposing forces. His first secret order for the total military-industrial mobilization of the country was issued in August 1939. A second total mobilization order, this one for military mobilization, would be issued on the day the war was to begin.

Disappointment

The German “Barbarossa” attack shattered Stalin’s well-laid plan to “liberate” all of Europe. In this sense, Suvorov contends, Stalin “lost” the Second World War. The Soviet premier could regard “merely” defeating Germany and conquering eastern and central Europe only as a disappointment.

According to Suvorov, Stalin revealed his disappointment over the war’s outcome in several ways. First, he had Marshal Georgi Zhukov, not himself, the supreme commander, lead the victory parade in 1945. Second, no official May 9 victory parade was even authorized until after Stalin’s death. Third, Stalin never wore any of the medals he was awarded after the end of the Second World War. Fourth, once, in a depressed mood, he expressed to members of his close circle his desire to retire now that the war was over. Fifth, and perhaps most telling, Stalin abandoned work on the long-planned Palace of Soviets.

An Unfinished Monument

The enormous Palace of Soviets, approved by the Soviet government in the early 1930s, was to be 1,250 feet tall, surmounted with a statue of Lenin 300 feet in height – taller than New York’s Empire State Building. It was to be built on the site of the former Cathedral of Christ the Savior. On Stalin’s order, this magnificent symbol of old Russia was blown up in 1931 – an act whereby the nation’s Communist rulers symbolically erased the soul of old Russia to make room for the centerpiece of the world USSR.

All the world’s “socialist republics,” including the “last republic,” would ultimately be represented in the Palace. The main hall of this secular shrine was to be inscribed with the oath that Stalin had delivered in quasi-religious cadences at Lenin’s burial. It included the words: “When he left us, Comrade Lenin bequeathed to us the responsibility to strengthen and expand the Union of Socialist Republics. We vow to you, Comrade Lenin, that we shall honorably carry out this, your sacred commandment.”

However, only the bowl-shaped foundation for this grandiose monument was ever completed, and during the 1990s, after the collapse the USSR, the Christ the Savior Cathedral was painstakingly rebuilt on the site.

The Official View

For decades the official version of the 1941-1945 German-Soviet conflict, supported by establishment historians in both Russia and the West, has been something like this:

Hitler launched a surprise “Blitzkrieg” attack against the woefully unprepared Soviet Union, fooling its leader, the unsuspecting and trusting Stalin. The German Führer was driven by lust for “living space” and natural resources in the primitive East, and by his long-simmering determination to smash “Jewish Communism” once and for all. In this treacherous attack, which was an important part of Hitler’s mad drive for “world conquest,” the “Nazi” or “fascist” aggressors initially overwhelmed all resistance with their preponderance of modern tanks and aircraft.

This view, which was affirmed by the Allied judges at the postwar Nuremberg Tribunal, is still widely accepted in both Russia and the United States. In Russia today, most of the general public (and not merely those who are nostalgic for the old Soviet regime), accepts this “politically correct” line. For one thing, it “explains” the Soviet Union’s enormous World War II losses in men and materiel.

Doomed from the Start

Contrary to the official view that the Soviet Union was not prepared for war in June 1941, in fact, Suvorov stresses, it was the Germans who were not really prepared. Germany’s hastily drawn up “Operation Barbarossa” plan, which called for a “Blitzkrieg” victory in four or five months by numerically inferior forces advancing in three broad military thrusts, was doomed from the outset.

Moreover, Suvorov goes on to note, Germany lacked the raw materials (including petroleum) essential in sustaining a drawn out war of such dimensions.

Another reason for Germany’s lack of preparedness, Suvorov contends, was that her military leaders seriously under-estimated the performance of Soviet forces in the Winter War against Finland, 1939-40. They fought, it must be stressed, under extremely severe winter conditions – temperatures of minus 40 degrees Celsius and snow depths of several feet – against the well-designed reinforced concrete fortifications and underground facilities of Finland’s “Mannerheim Line.” In spite of that, it is often forgotten, the Red Army did, after all, force the Finns into a humiliating armistice.

It is always a mistake, Suvorov emphasizes, to underestimate your enemy. But Hitler made this critical miscalculation. In 1943, after the tide of war had shifted against Germany, he admitted his mistaken evaluation of Soviet forces two years earlier.

Tank Disparity Compared

To prove that it was Stalin, and not Hitler, who was really prepared for war, Suvorov compares German and Soviet weaponry in mid-1941, especially with respect to the all-important offensive weapons systems – tanks and airborne forces. It is a generally accepted axiom in military science that attacking forces should have a numerical superiority of three to one over the defenders. Yet, as Suvorov explains, when the Germans struck on the morning of June 22, 1941, they attacked with a total of 3,350 tanks, while the Soviet defenders had a total of 24,000 tanks – that is, Stalin had seven times more tanks than Hitler, or 21 times more tanks than would have been considered sufficient for an adequate defense. Moreover, Suvorov stresses, the Soviet tanks were superior in all technical respects, including firepower, range, and armor plating.

As it was, Soviet development of heavy tank production had already begun in the early 1930s. For example, as early as 1933 the Soviets were already turning out in series production, and distributing to their forces, the T-35 model, a 45-ton heavy tank with three cannons, six machine guns, and 30-mm armor plating. By contrast, the Germans began development and production of a comparable 45-ton tank only after the war had begun in mid-1941.

By 1939 the Soviets had already added three heavy tank models to their inventory. Moreover, the Soviets designed their tanks with wider tracks, and to operate with diesel engines (which were less flammable than those using conventional carburetor mix fuels). Furthermore, Soviet tanks were built with both the engine and the drive in the rear, thereby improving general efficiency and operator viewing. German tanks had a less efficient arrangement, with the engine in the rear and the drive in the forward area.

When the conflict began in June 1941, Suvorov shows, Germany had no heavy tanks at all, only 309 medium tanks, and just 2,668 light, inferior tanks. For their part, the Soviets at the outbreak of the war had at their disposal tanks that were not only heavier but of higher quality.

In this regard, Suvorov cites the recollection of German tank general Heinz Guderian, who wrote in his memoir Panzer Leader (1952/1996, p. 143):

In the spring of 1941, Hitler had specifically ordered that a Russian military commission be shown over our tank schools and factories; in this order he had insisted that nothing be concealed from them. The Russian officers in question firmly refused to believe that the Panzer IV was in fact our heaviest tank. They said repeatedly that we must be hiding our newest models from them, and complained that we were not carrying out Hitler’s order to show them everything. The military commission was so insistent on this point that eventually our manufacturers and Ordnance Office officials concluded: “It seems that the Russians must already possess better and heavier tanks than we do.” It was at the end of July 1941 that the T34 tank appeared on the front and the riddle of the new Russian model was solved.

Suvorov cites another revealing fact from Robert Goralski’s World War II Almanac (1982, p. 164). On June 24, 1941 – just two days after the outbreak of the German-Soviet war:

The Russians introduced their giant Klim Voroshilov tanks into action near Raseiniai [Lithuania]. Models weighing 43 and 52 tons surprised the Germans, who found the KVs nearly unstoppable. One of these Russian tanks took 70 direct hits, but none penetrated its armor.

In short, Germany took on the Soviet colossus with tanks that were too light, too few in number, and inferior in performance and fire power. And this disparity continued as the war progressed. In 1942 alone, Soviet factories produced 2,553 heavy tanks, while the Germans produced just 89. Even at the end of the war, the best-quality tank in combat was the Soviet IS (“Iosef Stalin”) model.

Suvorov sarcastically urges establishment military historians to study a book on Soviet tanks by Igor P. Shmelev, published in 1993 by, of all things, the Hobby Book Publishing Company in Moscow. The work of an honest amateur military analyst such as Shmelev, one who is sincerely interested in and loves his hobby and the truth, says Suvorov, is often superior to that of a paid government employee.

Airborne Forces Disparity

Even more lopsided was the Soviet superiority in airborne forces. Before the war, Soviet DB-3f and SB bombers as well as the TB-1 and TB-3 bombers (of which Stalin had about a thousand had been modified to carry airborne troops as well as bomb loads. By mid-1941 the Soviet military had trained hundreds of thousands of paratroopers (Suvorov says almost a million) for the planned attack against Germany and the West. These airborne troops were to be deployed and dropped behind enemy lines in several waves, each wave consisting of five airborne assault corps (VDKs), each corps consisting of 10,419 men, staff and service personnel, an artillery division, and a separate tank battalion (50 tanks). Suvorov lists the commanding officers and home bases of the first two waves or ten corps. The second and third wave corps included troops who spoke French and Spanish.

Because the German attack prevented these highly trained troops from being used as originally planned, Stalin converted them to “guards divisions,” which he used as reserves and “fire brigades” in emergency situations, much as Hitler often deployed Waffen SS forces.

Maps and Phrase Books

In support of his main thesis, Suvorov cites additional data that were not mentioned in his two earlier works on this subject. First, on the eve of the outbreak of the 1941 war Soviet forces had been provided topographical maps only of frontier and European areas; they were not issued maps to defend Soviet territory or cities, because the war was not to be fought in the homeland. The head of the Military Topographic Service at the time, and therefore responsible for military map distribution, Major General M. K. Kudryavtsev, was not punished or even dismissed for failing to provide maps of the homeland, but went on to enjoy a lengthy and successful military career. Likewise, the chief of the General Staff, General Zhukov, was never held responsible for the debacle of the first months of the war. None of the top military commanders could be held accountable, Suvorov points out, because they had all followed Stalin’s orders to the letter.

Second, in early June 1941 the Soviet armed forces began receiving thousands of copies of a Russian-German phrase book, with sections dedicated to such offensive military operations as seizing railroad stations, orienting parachutists, and so forth, and such useful expressions as “Stop transmitting or I’ll shoot.” This phrase book was produced in great numbers by the military printing houses in both Leningrad and Moscow. However, they never reached the troops on the front lines, and are said to have been destroyed in the opening phase of the war.

Aid from the ‘Neutral’ United States

As Suvorov notes, the United States had been supplying Soviet Russia with military hardware since the late 1930s. He cites Antony C. Sutton’s study, National Suicide (Arlington House, 1973), which reports that in 1938 President Roosevelt entered into a secret agreement with the USSR to exchange military information. For American public consumption, though, Roosevelt announced the imposition of a “moral embargo” on Soviet Russia.

In the months prior to America’s formal entry into war (December 1941), Atlantic naval vessels of the ostensibly neutral United States were already at war against German naval forces. (See Mr. Roosevelt’s Navy: The Private War of the U.S. Atlantic Fleet, 1939-1942 by Patrick Abbazia [Annapolis: Naval Institute Press, 1975]). And two days after the “Barbarossa” strike, Roosevelt announced US aid to Soviet Russia in its war for survival against the Axis. Thus, at the outbreak of the “Barbarossa” attack, Hitler wrote in a letter to Mussolini: “At this point it makes no difference whether America officially enters the war or not, it is already supporting our enemies in full measure with mass deliveries of war materials.”

Similarly, Winston Churchill was doing everything in his power during the months prior to June 1941 – when British forces were suffering one military defeat after another – to bring both the United States and the Soviet Union into the war on Britain’s side. In truth, the “Big Three” anti-Hitler coalition (Stalin, Roosevelt, Churchill) was effectively in place even before Germany attacked Russia, and was a major reason why Hitler felt compelled to strike against Soviet Russia, and to declare war on the United States five months later. (See Hitler’s speech of December 11, 1941, published in the Winter 1988-89 Journal, pp. 394-396, 402-412.)

The reasons for Franklin Roosevelt’s support for Stalin are difficult to pin down. President Roosevelt himself once explained to William Bullitt, his first ambassador to Soviet Russia: “I think that if I give him [Stalin] everything I possibly can, and ask nothing from him in return, noblesse oblige, he won’t try to annex anything, and will work with me for a world of peace and democracy.” (Cited in: Robert Nisbet, Roosevelt and Stalin: The Failed Courtship [1989], p. 6.) Perhaps the most accurate (and kindest) explanation for Roosevelt’s attitude is a profound ignorance, self-deception or naiveté. In the considered view of George Kennan, historian and former high-ranking US diplomat, in foreign policy Roosevelt was “a very superficial man, ignorant, dilettantish, with a severely limited intellectual horizon.”

A Desperate Gamble

Suvorov admits to being fascinated with Stalin, calling him “an animal, a wild, bloody monster, but a genius of all times and peoples.” He commanded the greatest military power in the Second World War, the force that more than any other defeated Germany. Especially in the final years of the conflict, he dominated the Allied military alliance. He must have regarded Roosevelt and Churchill contemptuously as useful idiots.

In early 1941 everyone assumed that because Germany was still militarily engaged against Britain in north Africa, in the Mediterranean, and in the Atlantic, Hitler would never permit entanglement in a second front in the East. (Mindful of the disastrous experience of the First World War, he had warned in Mein Kampf of the mortal danger of a two front war.) It was precisely because he was confident that Stalin assumed Hitler would not open a second front, contends Suvorov, that the German leader felt free to launch “Barbarossa.” This attack, insists Suvorov, was an enormous and desperate gamble. But threatened by superior Soviet forces poised to overwhelm Germany and Europe, Hitler had little choice but to launch this preventive strike.

But it was too little, too late. In spite of the advantage of striking first, it was the Soviets who finally prevailed. In the spring of 1945, Red army troops succeeded in raising the red banner over the Reichstag building in Berlin. It was due only to the immense sacrifices of German and other Axis forces that Soviet troops did not similarly succeed in raising the Red flag over Paris, Amsterdam, Copenhagen, Rome, Stockholm, and, perhaps, London.

Soviet troops hoist the red hammer-and-sickle flag over the Reichstag in Berlin, an act that symbolized the Soviet subjugation of eastern and central Europe. The Battle of Berlin climaxed the titanic struggle of German and Soviet forces that began on June 22, 1941. On the afternoon of April 30, 1945, as Soviet troops were storming the Reichstag building, Hitler committed suicide in his nearby bunker headquarters.

The Debate Sharpens

In spite of resistance from “establishment” historians (who in Russia are often former Communists), support for Suvorov’s “preventive strike” thesis has been growing both in Russia and in western Europe. Among those who sympathize with Suvorov’s views are younger Russian historians such as Yuri L. Dyakov, Tatyana S. Bushuyeva, and I. V. Pavlova. (See the Nov.-Dec. 1997 Journal, pp. 32-34.)

With regard to 20th-century history, American historians are generally more close-minded than their counterparts in Europe or Russia. But even in the United States there have been a few voices of support for the “preventive war” thesis – which is all the more noteworthy considering that Suvorov’s books on World War II, with the exception of Icebreaker, have not been available in English. (One such voice is that of historian Russell Stolfi, a professor of Modern European History at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California. See the review of his book Hitler’s Panzers East in the Nov.-Dec. 1995 Journal.) Not all the response to Suvorov’s work has been positive, though. It has also prompted criticism and renewed affirmations of the decades-old orthodox view. Among the most prominent new defenders of the orthodox “line” are historians Gabriel Gorodetsky of Tel Aviv University, and John Ericson of Edinburgh University.

Rejecting all arguments that might justify Germany’s attack, Gorodetsky in particular castigates and ridicules Suvorov’s works, most notably in a book titled, appropriately, “The Icebreaker Myth.” In effect, Gorodetsky (and Ericson) attribute Soviet war losses to the supposed unpreparedness of the Red Army for war. “It is absurd,” Gorodetsky writes, “to claim that Stalin would ever entertain any idea of attacking Germany, as some German historians now like to suggest, in order, by means of a surprise attack, to upset Germany’s planned preventive strike.”

Not surprisingly, Gorodetsky has been praised by Kremlin authorities and Russian military leaders. Germany’s “establishment” similarly embraces the Israeli historian. At German taxpayers expense, he has worked and taught at Germany’s semi-official Military History Research Office (MGFA), which in April 1991 published Gorodetsky’s Zwei Wege nach Moskau (“Two Paths to Moscow”).

In the “Last Republic,” Suvorov responds to Gorodetsky and other critics of his first two books on Second World War history. He is particularly scathing in his criticisms of Gorodetsky’s work, especially “The Icebreaker Myth.”

Some Criticisms

Suvorov writes caustically, sarcastically, and with great bitterness. But if he is essentially correct, as this reviewer believes, he – and we – have a perfect right to be bitter for having been misled and misinformed for decades.

Although Suvorov deserves our gratitude for his important dissection of historical legend, his work is not without defects. For one thing, his praise of the achievements of the Soviet military industrial complex, and the quality of Soviet weaponry and military equipment, is exaggerated, perhaps even panegyric. He fails to acknowledge the Western origins of much of Soviet weaponry and hardware. Soviet engineers developed a knack for successfully modifying, simplifying and, often, improving, Western models and designs. For example, the rugged diesel engine used in Soviet tanks was based on a German BMW aircraft diesel.

One criticism that cannot in fairness be made of Suvorov is a lack of patriotism. Mindful that the first victims of Communism were the Russians, he rightly draws a sharp distinction between the Russian people and the Communist regime that ruled them. He writes not only with the skill of an able historian, but with reverence for the millions of Russians whose lives were wasted in the insane plans of Lenin and Stalin for “world revolution.”

Journal of Historical Review 17, no. 4 (July-August 1998), 30-37. Daniel W. Michaels is a Columbia University graduate (Phi Beta Kappa, 1954), a Fulbright exchange student to Germany (1957), and recently retired from the US Department of Defense after 40 years of service. Also see (off-site) the National Vanguard’s review of Icebreaker and Hitler’s Reichstag speech of December 11, 1941.

The Untold Story of White Slavery in Europe

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

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

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

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

Barbary Slavery

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

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

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

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

Medical Experimentation at Dachau

They All Did It – Those Who Could, at Least

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

By John Wear
Published: 2018-12-31

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

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

Malaria Experiments

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

Dr. Schilling at Trial

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

High-Altitude and Hypothermia Experiments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blood-Clotting Experiments

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

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

Infectious Diseases, Biopsies and Salt-Water Tests

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

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

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

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

Most Deaths from Natural Causes

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

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

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

Allied Medical Experimentation

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

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

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

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

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


ENDNOTES

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

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

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

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

[5] Ibid., p. 68.

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

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

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

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

[10] Ibid., p. 130.

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

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

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

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

[15] Ibid.

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

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

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

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

[20] Ibid., p. 227.

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

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

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

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

[25] Ibid., p. 202.

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

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

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

[29] Ibid., p. 274.

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

The Significance of the Holocaust

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

by Dr. William L. Pierce

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wiesel writes:

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

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

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

The Jewish novelist Cynthia Ozick explains it by saying:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* * *

The Adolf Eichmann Trial

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

By John Wear
Published: 2018-12-12

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

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

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

Historical Background

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Eyewitness Testimony

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nuremberg Testimony

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

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

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

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

Film Evidence Presented at Trial

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Eichmann’s Testimony

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

Hannah Arendt wrote in regard to the Eichmann trial:

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

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

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


ENDNOTES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[13] Ibid., p. 87.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[21] Ibid., 392-399.

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

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

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

[25] Ibid.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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