Welcome to the online Journal of Third Reich History. We hope you are having a splendid winter season!
Latest Third Reich history and news...

GASSING OF “UNDESIRABLES” AN AMERICAN IDEA?

No Gravatar

Washington’s Blog | February 21, 2010

Believe it or not, the Nazis’ murder of Jews, communists and gypsies using gas chambers was actually an American idea.

"H.G. Wells spoke against 'ill-trained swarms of inferior citizens'."

As the San Francisco Chronicle wrote in 2003:

the concept of a white, blond-haired, blue-eyed master Nordic race didn’t originate with Hitler. The idea was created in the United States, and cultivated in California, decades before Hitler came to power. California eugenicists played an important, although little-known, role in the American eugenics movement’s campaign for ethnic cleansing.

Eugenics was the pseudoscience aimed at “improving” the human race. In its extreme, racist form, this meant wiping away all human beings deemed “unfit,” preserving only those who conformed to a Nordic stereotype. Elements of the philosophy were enshrined as national policy by forced sterilization and segregation laws, as well as marriage restrictions, enacted in 27 states. In 1909, California became the third state to adopt such laws. Ultimately, eugenics practitioners coercively sterilized some 60,000 Americans, barred the marriage of thousands, forcibly segregated thousands in “colonies,” and persecuted untold numbers in ways we are just learning. Before World War II, nearly half of coercive sterilizations were done in California, and even after the war, the state accounted for a third of all such surgeries.

California was considered an epicenter of the American eugenics movement. During the 20th century’s first decades, California’s eugenicists included potent but little-known race scientists, such as Army venereal disease specialist Dr. Paul Popenoe, citrus magnate Paul Gosney, Sacramento banker Charles Goethe, as well as members of the California state Board of Charities and Corrections and the University of California Board of Regents.

Eugenics would have been so much bizarre parlor talk had it not been for extensive financing by corporate philanthropies, specifically the Carnegie Institution, the Rockefeller Foundation and the Harriman railroad fortune. They were all in league with some of America’s most respected scientists from such prestigious universities as Stanford, Yale, Harvard and Princeton. These academicians espoused race theory and race science, and then faked and twisted data to serve eugenics’ racist aims.

Stanford President David Starr Jordan originated the notion of “race and blood” in his 1902 racial epistle “Blood of a Nation,” in which the university scholar declared that human qualities and conditions such as talent and poverty were passed through the blood.

In 1904, the Carnegie Institution established a laboratory complex at Cold Spring Harbor on Long Island that stockpiled millions of index cards on ordinary Americans, as researchers carefully plotted the removal of families, bloodlines and whole peoples. From Cold Spring Harbor, eugenics advocates agitated in the legislatures of America, as well as the nation’s social service agencies and associations.

The Harriman railroad fortune paid local charities, such as the New York Bureau of Industries and Immigration, to seek out Jewish, Italian and other immigrants in New York and other crowded cities and subject them to deportation, confinement or forced sterilization.

The Rockefeller Foundation helped found the German eugenics program and even funded the program that Josef Mengele worked in before he went to Auschwitz.

Much of the spiritual guidance and political agitation for the American eugenics movement came from California’s quasi-autonomous eugenic societies, such as Pasadena’s Human Betterment Foundation and the California branch of the American Eugenics Society, which coordinated much of their activity with the Eugenics Research Society in Long Island. These organizations — which functioned as part of a closely-knit network — published racist eugenic newsletters and pseudoscientific journals, such as Eugenical News and Eugenics, and propagandized for the Nazis.

***

The most commonly suggested method of eugenicide in the United States was a “lethal chamber” or public, locally operated gas chambers. In 1918, Popenoe, the Army venereal disease specialist during World War I, co-wrote the widely used textbook, “Applied Eugenics,” which argued, “From an historical point of view, the first method which presents itself is execution . . . Its value in keeping up the standard of the race should not be underestimated.” “Applied Eugenics” also devoted a chapter to “Lethal Selection,” which operated “through the destruction of the individual by some adverse feature of the environment, such as excessive cold, or bacteria, or by bodily deficiency.”

Eugenic breeders believed American society was not ready to implement an organized lethal solution. But many mental institutions and doctors practiced improvised medical lethality and passive euthanasia on their own. One institution in Lincoln, Ill., fed its incoming patients milk from tubercular cows believing a eugenically strong individual would be immune. Thirty to 40 percent annual death rates resulted at Lincoln. Some doctors practiced passive eugenicide one newborn infant at a time. Others doctors at mental institutions engaged in lethal neglect.

***

Even the U.S. Supreme Court endorsed aspects of eugenics. In its infamous 1927 decision, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote, “It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind . . . Three generations of imbeciles are enough.” This decision opened the floodgates for thousands to be coercively sterilized or otherwise persecuted as subhuman. Years later, the Nazis at the Nuremberg trials quoted Holmes’ words in their own defense.

Only after eugenics became entrenched in the United States was the campaign transplanted into Germany, in no small measure through the efforts of California eugenicists, who published booklets idealizing sterilization and circulated them to German officials and scientists.

Hitler studied American eugenics laws. He tried to legitimize his anti- Semitism by medicalizing it, and wrapping it in the more palatable pseudoscientific facade of eugenics. Hitler was able to recruit more followers among reasonable Germans by claiming that science was on his side. Hitler’s race hatred sprung from his own mind, but the intellectual outlines of the eugenics Hitler adopted in 1924 were made in America.

During the ’20s, Carnegie Institution eugenic scientists cultivated deep personal and professional relationships with Germany’s fascist eugenicists. In “Mein Kampf,” published in 1924, Hitler quoted American eugenic ideology and openly displayed a thorough knowledge of American eugenics. “There is today one state,” wrote Hitler, “in which at least weak beginnings toward a better conception (of immigration) are noticeable. Of course, it is not our model German Republic, but the United States.”

***

During the Reich’s early years, eugenicists across America welcomed Hitler’s plans as the logical fulfillment of their own decades of research and effort. California eugenicists republished Nazi propaganda for American consumption. They also arranged for Nazi scientific exhibits, such as an August 1934 display at the L.A. County Museum, for the annual meeting of the American Public Health Association.

In 1934, as Germany’s sterilizations were accelerating beyond 5,000 per month, the California eugenics leader C. M. Goethe, upon returning from Germany, ebulliently bragged to a colleague, “You will be interested to know that your work has played a powerful part in shaping the opinions of the group of intellectuals who are behind Hitler in this epoch-making program. Everywhere I sensed that their opinions have been tremendously stimulated by American thought . . . I want you, my dear friend, to carry this thought with you for the rest of your life, that you have really jolted into action a great government of 60 million people.”

***

More than just providing the scientific roadmap, America funded Germany’s eugenic institutions.

By 1926, Rockefeller had donated some $410,000 — almost $4 million in today’s money — to hundreds of German researchers. In May 1926, Rockefeller awarded $250,000 toward creation of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Psychiatry. Among the leading psychiatrists at the German Psychiatric Institute was Ernst Rüdin, who became director and eventually an architect of Hitler’s systematic medical repression.

Another in the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute’s complex of eugenics institutions was the Institute for Brain Research. Since 1915, it had operated out of a single room. Everything changed when Rockefeller money arrived in 1929. A grant of $317,000 allowed the institute to construct a major building and take center stage in German race biology. The institute received additional grants from the Rockefeller Foundation during the next several years. Leading the institute, once again, was Hitler’s medical henchman Ernst Rüdin. Rüdin’s organization became a prime director and recipient of the murderous experimentation and research conducted on Jews, Gypsies and others.

Beginning in 1940, thousands of Germans taken from old age homes, mental institutions and other custodial facilities were systematically gassed. Between 50,000 and 100,000 were eventually killed.

Leon Whitney, executive secretary of the American Eugenics Society, declared of Nazism, “While we were pussy-footing around … the Germans were calling a spade a spade.”

A special recipient of Rockefeller funding was the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Anthropology, Human Heredity and Eugenics in Berlin. For decades,

American eugenicists had craved twins to advance their research into heredity.

The Institute was now prepared to undertake such research on an unprecedented level. On May 13, 1932, the Rockefeller Foundation in New York dispatched a radiogram to its Paris office: JUNE MEETING EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE NINE THOUSAND DOLLARS OVER THREE YEAR PERIOD TO KWG INSTITUTE ANTHROPOLOGY FOR RESEARCH ON TWINS AND EFFECTS ON LATER GENERATIONS OF SUBSTANCES TOXIC FOR GERM PLASM.

At the time of Rockefeller’s endowment, Otmar Freiherr von Verschuer, a hero in American eugenics circles, functioned as a head of the Institute for Anthropology, Human Heredity and Eugenics. Rockefeller funding of that institute continued both directly and through other research conduits during Verschuer’s early tenure. In 1935, Verschuer left the institute to form a rival eugenics facility in Frankfurt that was much heralded in the American eugenics press. Research on twins in the Third Reich exploded, backed by government decrees. Verschuer wrote in Der Erbarzt, a eugenics doctor’s journal he edited, that Germany’s war would yield a “total solution to the Jewish problem.”

Verschuer had a longtime assistant. His name was Josef Mengele.

***

Rockefeller executives never knew of Mengele. With few exceptions, the foundation had ceased all eugenics studies in Nazi-occupied Europe before the war erupted in 1939. But by that time the die had been cast. The talented men Rockefeller and Carnegie financed, the great institutions they helped found, and the science they helped create took on a scientific momentum of their own.

As Michel Crichton wrote in 2004:

Its supporters included Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Winston Churchill. It was approved by Supreme Court justices Oliver Wendell Holmes and Louis Brandeis, who ruled in its favor. The famous names who supported it included Alexander Graham Bell, inventor of the telephone; activist Margaret Sanger; botanist Luther Burbank; Leland Stanford, founder of Stanford University; the novelist H. G. Wells; the playwright George Bernard Shaw; and hundreds of others. Nobel Prize winners gave support. Research was backed by the Carnegie and Rockefeller Foundations. The Cold Springs Harbor Institute was built to carry out this research, but important work was also done at Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford and Johns Hopkins. Legislation to address the crisis was passed in states from New York to California.

These efforts had the support of the National Academy of Sciences, the American Medical Association, and the National Research Council. It was said that if Jesus were alive, he would have supported this effort.

All in all, the research, legislation and molding of public opinion surrounding the theory went on for almost half a century. Those who opposed the theory were shouted down and called reactionary, blind to reality, or just plain ignorant. But in hindsight, what is surprising is that so few people objected.

***

The plan was to identify individuals who were feeble-minded — Jews were agreed to be largely feeble-minded, but so were many foreigners, as well as blacks — and stop them from breeding by isolation in institutions or by sterilization.

***

Such views were widely shared. H.G. Wells spoke against “ill-trained swarms of inferior citizens.” Theodore Roosevelt said that “Society has no business to permit degenerates to reproduce their kind.” Luther Burbank” “Stop permitting criminals and weaklings to reproduce.” George Bernard Shaw said that only eugenics could save mankind.

***

Eugenics research was funded by the Carnegie Foundation, and later by the Rockefeller Foundation. The latter was so enthusiastic that even after the center of the eugenics effort moved to Germany, and involved the gassing of individuals from mental institutions, the Rockefeller Foundation continued to finance German researchers at a very high level. (The foundation was quiet about it, but they were still funding research in 1939, only months before the onset of World War II.)

Since the 1920s, American eugenicists had been jealous because the Germans had taken leadership of the movement away from them. The Germans were admirably progressive. They set up ordinary-looking houses where “mental defectives” were brought and interviewed one at a time, before being led into a back room, which was, in fact, a gas chamber. There, they were gassed with carbon monoxide, and their bodies disposed of in a crematorium located on the property.

Eventually, this program was expanded into a vast network of concentration camps located near railroad lines, enabling the efficient transport and of killing ten million undesirables.

After World War II, nobody was a eugenicist, and nobody had ever been a eugenicist. Biographers of the celebrated and the powerful did not dwell on the attractions of this philosophy to their subjects, and sometimes did not mention it at all. Eugenics ceased to be a subject for college classrooms, although some argue that its ideas continue to have currency in disguised form.

***

The scientific establishment in both the United States and Germany did not mount any sustained protest. Quite the contrary. In Germany scientists quickly fell into line with the program. Modern German researchers have gone back to review Nazi documents from the 1930s. They expected to find directives telling scientists what research should be done. But none were necessary. In the words of Ute Deichman, “Scientists, including those who were not members of the [Nazi] party, helped to get funding for their work through their modified behavior and direct cooperation with the state.” Deichman speaks of the “active role of scientists themselves in regard to Nazi race policy … where [research] was aimed at confirming the racial doctrine … no external pressure can be documented.” German scientists adjusted their research interests to the new policies. And those few who did not adjust disappeared.

Source: http://www.infowars.com/the-nazis-murder-of-jews-communists-and-gypsies-in-gas-chambers-was-an-american-idea/

HOLOCAUST VIA ALCOHOL?

No Gravatar

The little-told story of how the U.S. government poisoned alcohol during Prohibition with deadly consequences.

by Deborah Blum | February 19, 2010

It was Christmas Eve 1926, the streets aglitter with snow and lights, when the man afraid of Santa Claus stumbled into the emergency room at New York City’s Bellevue Hospital. He was flushed, gasping with fear: Santa Claus, he kept telling the nurses, was just behind him, wielding a baseball bat.

The US government apparently poisoned Americans to get them to stop drinking.

Before hospital staff realized how sick he was—the alcohol-induced hallucination was just a symptom—the man died. So did another holiday partygoer. And another. As dusk fell on Christmas, the hospital staff tallied up more than 60 people made desperately ill by alcohol and eight dead from it. Within the next two days, yet another 23 people died in the city from celebrating the season.

Doctors were accustomed to alcohol poisoning by then, the routine of life in the Prohibition era. The bootlegged whiskies and so-called gins often made people sick. The liquor produced in hidden stills frequently came tainted with metals and other impurities. But this outbreak was bizarrely different. The deaths, as investigators would shortly realize, came courtesy of the U.S. government.

Frustrated that people continued to consume so much alcohol even after it was banned, federal officials had decided to try a different kind of enforcement. They ordered the poisoning of industrial alcohols manufactured in the United States, products regularly stolen by bootleggers and resold as drinkable spirits. The idea was to scare people into giving up illicit drinking. Instead, by the time Prohibition ended in 1933, the federal poisoning program, by some estimates, had killed at least 10,000 people.

Although mostly forgotten today, the “chemist’s war of Prohibition” remains one of the strangest and most deadly decisions in American law-enforcement history. As one of its most outspoken opponents, Charles Norris, the chief medical examiner of New York City during the 1920s, liked to say, it was “our national experiment in extermination.” Poisonous alcohol still kills—16 people died just this month after drinking lethal booze in Indonesia, where bootleggers make their own brews to avoid steep taxes—but that’s due to unscrupulous businessmen rather than government order.

I learned of the federal poisoning program while researching my new book, The Poisoner’s Handbook, which is set in jazz-age New York. My first reaction was that I must have gotten it wrong. “I never heard that the government poisoned people during Prohibition, did you?” I kept saying to friends, family members, colleagues.

I did, however, remember the U.S. government’s controversial decision in the 1970s to spray Mexican marijuana fields with Paraquat, an herbicide. Its use was primarily intended to destroy crops, but government officials also insisted that awareness of the toxin would deter marijuana smokers. They echoed the official position of the 1920s—if some citizens ended up poisoned, well, they’d brought it upon themselves. Although Paraquat wasn’t really all that toxic, the outcry forced the government to drop the plan. Still, the incident created an unsurprising lack of trust in government motives, which reveals itself in the occasional rumors circulating today that federal agencies, such as the CIA, mix poison into the illegal drug supply.

During Prohibition, however, an official sense of higher purpose kept the poisoning program in place. As the Chicago Tribune editorialized in 1927: “Normally, no American government would engage in such business. … It is only in the curious fanaticism of Prohibition that any means, however barbarous, are considered justified.” Others, however, accused lawmakers opposed to the poisoning plan of being in cahoots with criminals and argued that bootleggers and their law-breaking alcoholic customers deserved no sympathy. “Must Uncle Sam guarantee safety first for souses?” asked Nebraska’s Omaha Bee.

The saga began with ratification of the 18th Amendment, which banned the manufacture, sale, or transportation of alcoholic beverages in the United States.* High-minded crusaders and anti-alcohol organizations had helped push the amendment through in 1919, playing on fears of moral decay in a country just emerging from war. The Volstead Act, spelling out the rules for enforcement, passed shortly later, and Prohibition itself went into effect on Jan. 1, 1920.

But people continued to drink—and in large quantities. Alcoholism rates soared during the 1920s; insurance companies charted the increase at more than 300 more percent. Speakeasies promptly opened for business. By the decade’s end, some 30,000 existed in New York City alone. Street gangs grew into bootlegging empires built on smuggling, stealing, and manufacturing illegal alcohol. The country’s defiant response to the new laws shocked those who sincerely (and naively) believed that the amendment would usher in a new era of upright behavior.

Rigorous enforcement had managed to slow the smuggling of alcohol from Canada and other countries. But crime syndicates responded by stealing massive quantities of industrial alcohol—used in paints and solvents, fuels and medical supplies—and redistilling it to make it potable.

Well, sort of. Industrial alcohol is basically grain alcohol with some unpleasant chemicals mixed in to render it undrinkable. The U.S. government started requiring this “denaturing” process in 1906 for manufacturers who wanted to avoid the taxes levied on potable spirits. The U.S. Treasury Department, charged with overseeing alcohol enforcement, estimated that by the mid-1920s, some 60 million gallons of industrial alcohol were stolen annually to supply the country’s drinkers. In response, in 1926, President Calvin Coolidge’s government decided to turn to chemistry as an enforcement tool. Some 70 denaturing formulas existed by the 1920s. Most simply added poisonous methyl alcohol into the mix. Others used bitter-tasting compounds that were less lethal, designed to make the alcohol taste so awful that it became undrinkable.

To sell the stolen industrial alcohol, the liquor syndicates employed chemists to “renature” the products, returning them to a drinkable state. The bootleggers paid their chemists a lot more than the government did, and they excelled at their job. Stolen and redistilled alcohol became the primary source of liquor in the country. So federal officials ordered manufacturers to make their products far more deadly.

By mid-1927, the new denaturing formulas included some notable poisons—kerosene and brucine (a plant alkaloid closely related to strychnine), gasoline, benzene, cadmium, iodine, zinc, mercury salts, nicotine, ether, formaldehyde, chloroform, camphor, carbolic acid, quinine, and acetone. The Treasury Department also demanded more methyl alcohol be added—up to 10 percent of total product. It was the last that proved most deadly.

The results were immediate, starting with that horrific holiday body count in the closing days of 1926. Public health officials responded with shock. “The government knows it is not stopping drinking by putting poison in alcohol,” New York City medical examiner Charles Norris said at a hastily organized press conference. “[Y]et it continues its poisoning processes, heedless of the fact that people determined to drink are daily absorbing that poison. Knowing this to be true, the United States government must be charged with the moral responsibility for the deaths that poisoned liquor causes, although it cannot be held legally responsible.”

His department issued warnings to citizens, detailing the dangers in whiskey circulating in the city: “[P]ractically all the liquor that is sold in New York today is toxic,” read one 1928 alert. He publicized every death by alcohol poisoning. He assigned his toxicologist, Alexander Gettler, to analyze confiscated whiskey for poisons—that long list of toxic materials I cited came in part from studies done by the New York City medical examiner’s office.

Norris also condemned the federal program for its disproportionate effect on the country’s poorest residents. Wealthy people, he pointed out, could afford the best whiskey available. Most of those sickened and dying were those “who cannot afford expensive protection and deal in low grade stuff.”

And the numbers were not trivial. In 1926, in New York City, 1,200 were sickened by poisonous alcohol; 400 died. The following year, deaths climbed to 700. These numbers were repeated in cities around the country as public-health officials nationwide joined in the angry clamor. Furious anti-Prohibition legislators pushed for a halt in the use of lethal chemistry. “Only one possessing the instincts of a wild beast would desire to kill or make blind the man who takes a drink of liquor, even if he purchased it from one violating the Prohibition statutes,” proclaimed Sen. James Reed of Missouri.

Officially, the special denaturing program ended only once the 18th Amendment was repealed in December 1933. But the chemist’s war itself faded away before then. Slowly, government officials quit talking about it. And when Prohibition ended and good grain whiskey reappeared, it was almost as if the craziness of Prohibition—and the poisonous measures taken to enforce it—had never quite happened.

Correction, Feb. 22, 2010: The article originally and incorrectly said that the 18th Amendment banned the sale and consumption of alcohol. It banned the manufacture, sale, or transportation of alcohol, not consumption.

Source: http://www.slate.com/id/2245188/pagenum/all/

HUNGARY CRIMINALIZES DENIAL OF JEWISH HOLOCAUST

No Gravatar

AP | February 23, 2010

Hungary’s parliament approved a bill making Holocaust denial punishable by up to three years in prison, but the measure may be unconstitutional.

Politicians passed the bill submitted by Attila Mesterhazy, the prime ministerial candidate of the governing Socialist Party, by 197-1, with 142 abstentions.

Earlier attempts to ban Holocaust denial were rejected by the courts for infringing on freedom of speech. Efforts to modify the Constitution to ensure the bill’s legality also failed.

Mr Mesterhazy’s proposal was backed by the Socialists and most of the Alliance of Free Democrats, a former coalition partner. Most members of Fidesz, the main centre-right opposition party, and their allies, the Christian Democrats, abstained after Fidesz’s wish to also include the denial of Nazi and Communist crimes in the bill was rejected.

Free Democrat Gabor Horn, who voted in favour of the bill, questioned the timing of the Socialists’ proposal and wondered why a similar effort by his own party a few months ago was not accepted.

“The difference is that six months ago there was no campaign,” Mr Horn said.

Parliamentary election will be held in April and polls show Fidesz leading the Socialists by a substantial margin. Jobbik, a relatively new far-right group accused by critics of racist views, is expected to easily clear the five % threshold needed to enter parliamentary.

Hate speech and incitement to violence against minorities is already a crime in Hungary, but the new bill adds “denying, questioning or making light of the Holocaust” to the penal code.

Source: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/hungary-criminalises-holocaust-denial-1907713.html

PROFESSOR EXPLORED JEWISH HOLOCAUST’S EFFECT ON CHILDREN OF SURVIVORS

No Gravatar

by Anthony Millican | July 23, 1991

Psychiatry professor Aaron Hass was astounded when he overheard part of a conversation between two undergraduate students during a break in a lecture at UCLA eight years ago.

“My parents went through the Holocaust in Europe,” said one student.

“Yeah, my parents probably had it just as tough. They went through the Depression in the United States,” said the other.

Hass, whose Jewish parents survived the Nazi occupation of Poland, was shocked by the comparison. “It was the level of ignorance, really,” he said.

The students’ conversation convinced him of the need to teach about the Holocaust. In 1984, after a year of honing his lifelong interest in the subject, Hass taught his first course.

Today, Hass teaches the class, which examines the psychological factors of Holocaust perpetrators and victims, at Cal State Dominguez Hills, where he is a psychology professor. He has also lectured internationally on the topic. Last year, a book he wrote about children of survivors, “In the Shadow of the Holocaust: The Second Generation,” was a nominee for a Pulitzer Prize in nonfiction.

Florabel Kinsler, a licensed clinical social worker and specialist in treating Holocaust survivors for Jewish Family Services of Los Angeles, said Hass is forging a reputation in an area of psychology that has had little exploration.

“I felt he was picking up in an area that hadn’t been looked at since (author) Helen Epstein” in the 1970s, Kinsler said.

Peter Salovey, an associate professor of psychology at Yale University, praised the personal approach Hass used in his book. Hass quoted extensively from the often poignant interviews and written responses to questionnaires gathered from 48 children of survivors in the United States and Canada.

“I thought he did a very nice analysis without using the language, the baggage that a lot of psychologists use,” said Salovey, adding that “there is not a lot of psychological literature about children of survivors.”

Hass’ book, as well as his class discussions, reflect a personal, intimate knowledge of the Holocaust legacy. His father fought with the Polish resistance during World War II. His mother and her young daughter survived by posing as Catholics.

Yet, as with many children of survivors, Hass, who was born in 1948, learned of his parents’ experiences only in snippets.

“My parents were rather typical. They never sat me down, which again, survivors don’t normally sit their children down and tell them their stories,” Hass said.

Source: http://articles.latimes.com/1991-07-23/local/me-283_1_aaron-hass

DID JOSEF MENGELE PREDICT THAT 90% OF HUMANITY WOULD DIE FROM STARVATION?

No Gravatar

by Ofer Aderet, Haaretz Correspondent

Josef Mengele

A diary and a revealing letter written by notorious Auschwitz death camp Dr. Josef Mengele were put on auction in the United States last month. Mengele was the SS officer who supervised the selection of prisoner transports arriving at Auschwitz and performed bizarre medical experiments on camp inmates.

Alexander Autographs, one of the largest auction houses for rare historical documents and manuscripts, offered the rare diary and letter for a starting price of $60,000 on January 20 and 21. So far, nobody has shown an interest in the chilling documents, which are still on sale.

The Stamford, Connecticut based auctioneer is offering the rare, unpublished diary of the man known as “the angel of death.” Mengele, who sent thousands to their death at Auschwitz, wrote the diary in the 1960s in South America, where he fled after WWII.

The auction house says it received the documents from a person who bought them from Mengele’s son.

Asked if he had any qualms about selling such documents, Bill Panagopulos, Alexander Autographs’ president, said: “Make no mistake about it – I have no sympathy for these monsters. My father’s home town was wiped out by the Nazis in a reprisal action. But it is of vital importance that such documents remain available as tangible evidence of the evil deeds of the past, as well as to provide further pieces of history’s puzzle.”

The 180-page journal was written in German in a children’s notebook titled Illustrated Zoology, decorated with animal drawings. Mengele penned his impressions and thoughts on subjects such as art, culture, religion, history and biology, as well as ideas based on the Nazi natural selection doctrine.

The diary begins in June 1960, in Argentina, 19 years before the world’s most hunted Nazi war criminal drowned – or possibly suffered a stroke – while swimming off the shore of Bertioga, Brazil.

“I see how right my plans have been all along and I understand now that following people’s advice mostly results in irreparable nonsense. But I refuse to pass guilt onto others: I was solely responsible for my decisions,” writes Mengele, who was 49 when he started the journal.

Unless the world adopted breeding programs like those he pursued in Auschwitz, “mankind is doomed, even without war,” he writes.

Referring to morality, aesthetics and genetics, Mengele writes: “The real problem is to define when human life is worth living and when it has to be eradicated.”

“There’s only one truth and one true beauty … There’s no ‘good’ or ‘bad’ in nature. There’s only ‘appropriate’ or ‘inappropriate’ … Both sides receive equal chances. Nevertheless, nature provides a strainer. Things that are ‘inappropriate’ fall through since they lose in the struggle for survival.”

Discussing the Indian caste system, Mengele notes, “Brahmans are built nicely; some of them even have blue eyes. They have small, straight noses and they’re in general high quality human beings. And this is because the Brahmans used the highest caste to preserve their noble blood. They are the descendants of Nordic peoples who once conquered and ruled India.”

Mengele discusses how to create an upper class: “It can only be done by selecting the best.”

“Everything will end in catastrophe if natural selection is altered to the point that gifted people are overwhelmed by billions of morons,” he warns, predicting that 90 percent of humans will starve due to stupidity and the remaining 10 percent will survive “like reptiles survived. The rest will die, just like the dinosaurs did … we have to prevent the rise of the idiot masses,” he writes.

“The feeble-minded person (‘village idiot’) was separated from farmers because of his social status and low income,” he writes.

“This separation is no longer the case in the age of technology. He is now on the same level with the farmer’s son who went to the city.

“We know that selection rules all nature by choosing and exterminating … Those who were unfit had to accept the rule of more accomplished human beings, or they were pushed out or exterminated. Weaker humans were excluded from reproducing. This is the only way for human beings to exist and to maintain themselves.”

He says “inferior morons” should be exterminated, adding, “We have to make sure that nature’s suspended eradication will continue through human arrangements … birth control can be done by sterilizing those with deficient genes.”

Mengele goes on to advise Germany to abandon feminist ideology and control childbirth. “Biology doesn’t support equal rights. Women shouldn’t be working in higher positions. Women’s work must depend on filling a biological quota. Birth control can be done by sterilizing those with deficient genes. Those with good genes will be sterilized after the fifth child.”

Also included in the sale is a letter Mengele wrote to his wife during his Auschwitz tenure, expressing his love and plans for “our imaginary reunion.” He writes that he hopes to be transferred to a “combat unit.”

Source: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1146910.html

ADOLF HITLER SPEECH: WINTER RELIEF 1937

No Gravatar

Thanks for watching!

DOUBTS RAISED ON BOOK’S TALE OF ATOM BOMB

No Gravatar

by William J. Broad

A new book about the atomic destruction of Hiroshima has won critical acclaim with its heartbreaking portrayals of the bomb’s survivors and is set to be made into a movie by James Cameron.

“The Last Train from Hiroshima,” published in January by Henry Holt, also claims to reveal a secret accident with the atom bomb that killed one American and irradiated others and greatly reduced the weapon’s destructive power.

There is just one problem. That section of the book and other technical details of the mission are based on the recollections of Joseph Fuoco, who is described as a last-minute substitute on one of the two observation planes that escorted the Enola Gay.

But Mr. Fuoco, who died in 2008 at age 84 and lived in Westbury, N.Y., never flew on the bombing run, and he never substituted for James R. Corliss, the plane’s regular flight engineer, Mr. Corliss’s family says. They, along with angry ranks of scientists, historians and veterans, are denouncing the book and calling Mr. Fuoco an impostor.

Facing a national outcry and the Corliss family’s evidence, the author, Charles Pellegrino, now concedes that he was probably duped. In an interview on Friday, he said he would rewrite sections of the book for paperback and foreign editions.

“I’m stunned,” Mr. Pellegrino said. “I liked and admired the guy. He had loads and loads of papers, and photographs of everything.”

The public record has to be repaired, he added. “You can’t have wrong history going out,” he said. “It’s got to be corrected.”

Mr. Corliss died in 1999, but his family preserved the documentary evidence of his participation in the historic flight, including an air medal from President Harry S. Truman. “We’re so distraught,” Ethel D. Corliss, Mr. Corliss’s widow, said in an interview. “Thank God he’s not alive. He was so proud.”

The unnamed B-29 bomber at the center of the uproar flew escort on the bombing run on Aug. 6, 1945, and photographed the mushroom cloud. According to the book, Mr. Fuoco became the bomber’s flight engineer at the last minute when Mr. Corliss fell ill, and he made detailed observations of Hiroshima’s destruction from his seat as the plane’s flight engineer.

Not so, say the two surviving members of the flight crew.

Russell Gackenbach, the flight’s navigator, called Mr. Corliss a good friend. “From my seat in the airplane, we could shake hands,” he said in an interview. “There’s no way on earth Corliss was not on that mission.”

The book rose to No. 24 on the New York Times list of hardcover nonfiction and was praised by Publishers Weekly in a starred review as wise, informed and heart-stopping. The New York Times called it “sober and authoritative.”

The book focuses mainly on survivor tales, with the bomb problems an added drama. It credits Mr. Fuoco with solving a top-secret puzzle involving what he claimed was an accident with the Hiroshima weapon, known as Little Boy, as it was being readied at an air base on Tinian, an island in the Western Pacific.

A burst of radiation killed a young scientist, the book says, and damage to the nuclear fuel assembly cut the bomb’s destructive power by more than half. The book repeatedly calls the weapon “a dud.”

“Joe Fuoco brought all the puzzle pieces together,” Mr. Pellegrino said in a comment on Amazon.com.

Mr. Fuoco’s assertions, however, have upset the Los Alamos weapons laboratory in New Mexico, the birthplace of the bomb. It says the device suffered no accident and no technical failures. Its initial blast killed an estimated 70,000 people.

The book’s claims, said Alan Carr, the official historian at Los Alamos, read “more like a technically dubious piece of fiction than a historical rendering of actual events.”

“This book is a Toyota,” said Robert S. Norris, the author of “Racing for the Bomb” and an atomic historian. “The publisher should recall it, issue an apology and fix the parts that endanger the historical record.”

Late last month, the newsletter of the 509th Composite Group — which flew three B-29 bombers over Hiroshima on the atomic run, one to drop the bomb and the others to document the effects — denounced the book and offered to help Mr. Cameron make a “historically accurate film about these important events.”

The newsletter called Mr. Fuoco an impostor, adding that his name appeared nowhere in the unit’s records. “Any claims by him,” it said, “are completely fraudulent.”

Mr. Pellegrino is the author or co-author of more than a dozen books. They include science fiction, “Unearthing Atlantis,” “The Jesus Family Tomb” and two books on the Titanic. Mr. Cameron used those books as sources for his Titanic movie and received help from Mr. Pellegrino on “Avatar,” according to the publisher. It says Mr. Pellegrino has a Ph.D. in zoology and lives in New York City.

In the interview, Mr. Pellegrino expressed shock and remorse, quickly conceding that the weight of evidence suggested that Mr. Fuoco had never flown over Hiroshima on the bombing run. He said it appeared, however, that Mr. Fuoco did fly reconnaissance missions over Hiroshima before and after the bombing.

The family of Mr. Corliss provided The New York Times with a copy of the air medal order that lists him and the other crew members. It is dated Sept. 14, 1945 — days after the formal Japanese surrender. “By direction of the president,” it begins, going on to cite the men for “meritorious achievement,” saying each “was well aware of the great danger involved.”

The family also provided several pages of Mr. Corliss’s handwritten descriptions of what he did and saw as the flight engineer. “When the bomb went off it was so bright that I had to squint,” Mr. Corliss wrote. His plane, he added, kept circling the mushroom cloud. “All the time it was churning all around, sometimes inside out, with red, yellow, purple and brown colors” as the firestorm sucked up cars and buildings, bodies and dirt.

The family also supplied a military sheet that gave the bomber’s weight and balance on the day of the bombing run. It was signed by Mr. Corliss.

Mr. Corliss’s family says he also served in Korea and Vietnam and retired from the Air Force in 1967 as a master sergeant. He then worked in heating and air-conditioning.

An Air Force spokesman, Capt. Ian Phillips, said Friday that its history office had several documents that listed Mr. Corliss as the flight engineer on the photographic escort plane for the Hiroshima mission. “There is no mention,” he added, “of Joseph Fuoco being assigned to the 509th.”

In an interview, Mr. Fuoco’s widow, Claire, defended her husband as honest and true.

“That’s a lot of baloney,” she said of the impostor charge. “He couldn’t make up such a thing. I always called him a Boy Scout.” She said she had no documentary evidence of his participation in the Hiroshima flight.

Mr. Gackenbach, the flight’s navigator, said the misrepresentations of Mr. Fuoco were unusual only in that they showed up in a book. He said many former servicemen had falsely claimed to have flown over Hiroshima on the famous bombing run.

If all of them had actually been there, Mr. Gackenbach added, the aircraft “could never have taken off.”

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/21/books/21hiroshima.html?pagewanted=print

GERMAN RED CROSS COMPLICIT IN JEWISH HOLOCAUST: HAS PRO-NAZI PAST

No Gravatar

Joining a series of leading German institutions that have uncovered their wartime collaboration with the Nazis, the German Red Cross admitted Tuesday its failure to help concentration camp inmates. Launching a book about the Red Cross from 1933 to 1945, Rudolf Seiters, president of the German Red Cross and a former cabinet minister, said, “It’s sad to realize how far the Red Cross departed from its humanitarian principles.”

The history describes how Red Cross volunteers helped wounded German soldiers in the field, Germans held abroad as prisoners or war and German civilians as they were bombed, but ignored obvious Nazi horrors such as the camps and the confinement of Jews in ghettoes.

The study says the German Red Cross, which is affiliated with the Geneva-based International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), expelled Jewish members when the Nazis took over and was interlocked with the Nazis, though it had no systematic role in their crimes.

Among the low points of its collaboration was escorting ICRC inspectors through Theresienstadt concentration camp as late as 1944, according to Birgitt Morgenbrod and Stephanie Merkenich, the book’s authors.

Theresienstadt was a show camp, where inmates were better treated as a front to impress the outside world and cover up the appalling abuses in the concentration-camps system, where many other inmates died of disease, starvation, overwork or by execution.

Germany’s Catholic and Lutheran churches and several leading business corporations have made similar revelations in recent years about their collaboration with the regime of…Adolf Hitler.

Source: http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/214582,german-red-cross-uncovers-its-pro-nazi-past.html

ALBERT GOERING SAVED JEWISH PEOPLE IN SPITE OF HIS BROTHER?

No Gravatar

Albert Göring, Hermann’s anti-Nazi brotherHermann Göring was an infamous Nazi, his brother Albert a sercret saviour of Jews and dissidents. William Hastings Burke tells the remarkable story of two very different brothers

William Hastings Burke | February 20, 2010

On the outskirts of Munich, among gnarled oak trees and sculpted ­angels, stands the grave of Albert Göring. I have made a pilgrimage to bid farewell to this man I never met, yet have grown to know so well. For three years I have retraced his footsteps, visiting his old haunts, trying to put a face to the Göring that history has forgotten. The surname is familiar, thanks to Reichsmarschall Hermann Göring, the notorious Nazi leader and war criminal. Albert, his younger, little-known brother, was his antithesis – a Holocaust hero who devoted himself to saving hundreds of Jews and political dissidents, persecuted by the very regime his brother had helped to forge.

"Albert Göring in Vienna, circa 1936 – he loathed the Nazis and helped many to escape." (Ref: The Guardian)

My journey to uncover the extra­ordinary story of the Göring brothers began in 2005. I was standing in the main quad in the University of ­Sydney at my graduation ceremony. My ­parents were trying to operate the camera. My thesis supervisor shook my hand, strangers wished me luck and they all asked: where to now? Would I be ­going on to study for a PhD, or perhaps a career in finance? No. I told them I wanted to find out more about the story that had haunted me since I chanced upon a documentary alleging that Hermann Göring – Nazism ­personified – had an anti-Nazi brother. So, a month after graduation, armed with a round-the-world ticket, I left Sydney. On the face of it, it looked like the proverbial Australian backpacker’s adventure. But for me it was a fact-finding mission to cut through the rumour and conjecture that has shrouded the truth of Albert’s story and the relationship that developed with his brother. First stop: the US and the ­National Archives in Washington, DC. There I stumbled across Albert’s list of the 34 most prominent people he saved during the second world war. These five dog-eared pages would ­become the compass of my journey. With the voices of those rescued by ­Albert whispering the coordinates of my expedition, I headed to Germany.

Hermann and Albert survived an ­aristocratic mess of a childhood, with three siblings. Their father, Heinrich, enjoyed a distinguished diplomatic career as consul to German South-West Africa (Namibia today) and subsequently Haiti. He was often apart from his family and later became a melancholic recluse. His wife, Fanny, became infatuated with a wealthy society physician, ­Dr Hermann von Epenstein. He was at Fanny’s side when his namesake, Hermann, was born and upon the birth of her youngest child, Albert Günther, he announced that he would become the Göring children’s godfather and house the family in his southern castles.

The family spent most of the year at Burg Veldenstein − an imposing, medieval bastion in Franconia − and summers at Burg Mauterndorf, a fairytale castle in the Tauern mountains of Austria. Meals were announced by a hunting horn, staff were adorned in medieval regalia and an army of minstrels was at their disposal. When Von Epenstein visited the Görings at Burg Veldenstein, he always requested the choicest of the castle’s 24 rooms, a short late-night scamper from Fanny’s room, fuelling rumours that he and Fanny were having an affair.

“We never had any doubt about it,” says Professor Hans Thirring, who enjoyed summers with the Görings. “Everyone who stayed at Mauterndorf accepted the situation, and it did not seem to trouble Hermann or the other Göring children.”

It was also thought that Albert was the love child of the affair. “Pate [godfather] had made Hermann his favourite godchild, but after Albert’s birth he was always fussing over him,” the boys’ sister, Olga Rigele, recalls. The rumours intensified as Albert grew up and people began to notice a physical likeness to his half-Jewish godfather. Albert had Epenstein’s dark brown eyes and central European ­physiognomy; whereas his brother Hermann was the inheritor of his mother’s piercing blue eyes and Aryan features.

Hermann was a rebellious boy. Ill at ease in the confines of the classroom, he bounced from one boarding school to another. At his final one, he cut the strings of every violin and cello in the school band, before absconding. This act had him sent off to military school, where his warrior spirit could flourish. He later distinguished himself as an ace fighter pilot in the first world war.

Albert was said to be a sad boy, preferring a book and the security of the indoors. In school he sat at the back of the class. There seemed to be little other than name to link the two boys. “He was always the antithesis of myself,” Hermann told the American psychiatrist Leon Goldensohn, who interviewed him at the Nuremberg war crime trials in 1946. “He was not politically or militarily interested; I was. He was quiet, reclusive; I like crowds and company. He was melancholic and pessimistic, and I am an optimist. But he’s not a bad fellow, Albert.”

As the brothers began to forge their separate paths in life, their adolescent idiosyncrasies morphed into an ideological chasm. After serving as a communication engineer in the first world war, Albert enrolled in 1919 at the Technical University of Munich to study mechanical engineering. Here he rubbed shoulders with the future leaders of the Third Reich, including Heinrich Himmler, then an agronomy student active in the fraternities, a breeding ground for the budding ­student nationalist movement. Albert appeared to remain politically passive, yet he studied his future foe intently.

Meanwhile, Hermann, the disenfranchised war hero, began to circulate in the Munich beer hall scene, all ears to its rhetoric against the Weimar government and the postwar reparations imposed on Germany by the Treaty of Versailles. In 1922, he was particularly impressed by an orator named Adolf Hitler. An infamous love affair blossomed and, as in classic love stories, a test of devotion was required. It came with the 1923 Beer Hall Putsch − Hitler’s first attempt to prise power from the government. Bullet wounds to the groin and hip proved Hermann true, but the coup was quickly quashed and Hermann went on the run.

Four dark years of exile ­followed. Hermann became addicted to ­morphine, lost his grip on sanity and was institutionalised in Sweden. This period also marked the beginning of 12 years of silence between the brothers. Albert shunned Hermann and his political ­ideals. He felt betrayed as a brother and representative of the Göring family. “Oh, I have a brother in Germany who is getting involved with that bastard Hitler,” Albert would tell his close friend Albert Benbassat. “And he is going to come to a bad end if he continues that way.” Hermann later rationalised: “We never spoke to each other because of ­Albert’s attitude toward the party. ­Neither of us was angry at the other. It was a separation due to the situation.”

The 1938 Anschluss − when the ­Germans annexed Austria − and looming war would bring an end to the brothers’ feud. The two met at Albert’s lodge in the peaceful town of Grinzing, north-west of Vienna. Albert was an exhausted mess. Ever since the first swastika appeared in Vienna, he had tirelessly arranged exit visas and funds for his Jewish friends. He came head to head with Nazi thugs in ­Vienna, ­defending elderly Jewish ladies who were mocked and forced to scrub the cobblestone streets on their knees.

In contrast, Hermann brimmed with excitement. He had just arrived in Austria to much fanfare and delivered a chilling speech inciting wholesale ­antisemitism. Buoyed by his political conquest, he granted each of his family a wish. But his mood soured when Albert and his sister Olga pleaded for Hermann to intervene on behalf of Archduke Josef Ferdinand of Austria, the last Habsburg Prince of Tuscany, then detained at Dachau concentration camp. “Hermann was very embarrassed. But the next day the imprisoned Habsburger was free,” Albert recollected to his old friend Ernst Neubach.

This element of their relationship puzzled me. The brothers could somehow detach themselves from their public roles when they came together in this private Göring family sanctuary. It was as though their fraternal bond conjured amnesia in Albert, and he could temporarily put aside the ire and grief caused by his brother’s regime.

Albert used this arrangement to his benefit and that of others. “He could certainly help people in need himself financially and with his personal influence,” says Edda Göring, Hermann’s only child. “But, as soon as it was necessary to involve higher ­authority or ­officials, then he had to have the ­support of my father, which he did get.”

Albert regularly went to his brother’s Berlin office to curry favour on behalf of a Jewish friend or political prisoner, man­ipulating Hermann’s ego and playing on his sense of familial duty. In this sense, Hermann was a safety net for Albert. As Albert became ever more ­audacious in his subversiveness, a mountain of Gestapo reports piled up against him. Four arrest warrants were issued in his name during the war and yet he was never convicted. Big brother always came to his aid, however ­politically damaging it might have been.

In 1944, a death warrant hung over ­Albert, demanding his execution on sight. He was on the run, hiding in Prague. Hermann dropped everything to save him. “My brother told me then that it was the last time that he could help me, that his position [had] also been shaken, and that he had to ask Himmler personally to smooth over the entire matter,” Albert testified in Nuremberg.

The brothers met for the last time in May 1945, in a transit jail in Augsburg. Hermann was the Allies’ prize catch, while Albert was detained for simply being his brother. In the courtyard of the jail, they embraced and Hermann said: “I am very sorry, ­Albert, that it is you who has to suffer so much for me. You will be free soon. Then take my wife and child under your care. Farewell!” Two years later, Hermann was convicted for war crimes and crimes against humanity. He cheated the hangman’s noose with a smuggled cyanide capsule.

Albert spent two years in prison, ­unable to convince his interrogators of his innocence. One report reads: “The results of the interrog­ation of Albert Göring, brother of the Reichsmarschall Herman [sic], constitutes as clever a piece of rationalisation and ‘white wash’ as SAIC [Seventh Army ­Interrogation Center] has ever seen. ­Albert Göring’s lack of subtlety is matched only by the bulk of his obese brother.” The surname that once enabled Albert to save hundreds of victims of Nazism became the ultimate burden.

Even when Albert was freed in 1947, he could not shake his brother’s shadow. No employer would take him on. He refused to take the easy route and ­relinquish the Göring name. He fell into depression, alcoholism and then infidelity. His Czech wife, Mila, requested a divorce and took his only child, Elizabeth, to a live in Peru. He never saw or spoke to his daughter again, nor answered any of her letters.

Now in her late sixties, a successful businesswoman with two talented sons, Elizabeth seems to be resigned to her fatherless childhood. “I was not angry: I was nothing,” Elizabeth says. “My mother forced me to write until I was about 10 … But he never answered, you see, he never, never answered! So why should I keep writing to someone who doesn’t want me? That was very clear to me – he didn’t want me.” Yet Albert’s wife and daughter still seemed to maintain respect and, ­perhaps, love for him. “One thing I have to say,” Elizabeth adds. “I don’t know what happened between them and how long it took my mother to decide the ­divorce or whatever, but [my mother and grandmother] never said a word against him.” Albert, she says, was the only German her Czech grandmother respected.

Albert died on 20 December 20, 1966, as a penniless pariah, his chest bare of medals and formal accolades. His body was laid to rest in the Göring family plot in Munich. Hermann was given no such honour. As a war criminal, his ashes were tossed into a muddy creek in Munich. Yet, in death, Hermann has continued to hijack the Göring family name; it will forever be smeared with the blood of his ruthless ideology and murderous actions.

As I stand at Albert’s grave, it dawns on me that this is as close as I will come to my companion for the past three years. Albert took me into smoky cabaret dens and bohemian cafes. He threw me into the centre of an angry Viennese mob. I was there in Hermann’s office as he pleaded the case of a colleague, the Gestapo hot on his heels. Etched on the grave’s copper base is the Göring family motto: “Wir sind nicht von denen die da weichen sondern von denen die da glauben” – “We are not among those who yield, but among those who believe.” I take one last look and realise it was only Albert who held true to that promise.

Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2010/feb/20/albert-goering-hermann-goering-brothers

‘HISTORIETTE’* OF THE SCHUTZSTAFFEL

No Gravatar

*A short, incomplete, condensed history of something.

“Eicke viewed the SS-Totenkopfverbände (Death’s Head unit) as an elite within the elite structure of the SS. This concept grew from the fact that the most dangerous political enemies of the state were incarcerated in the concentration camps and Hitler had given sole responsibility for guarding and running the camps to the SS- Totenkopfverbände. Eicke repeatedly pressed home his principles in orders, circulars and memoranda. The whole of the SS-Totenkopfverbände training was based on elitism, toughness and comradeship, together with a regime of ruthless discipline.” Christopher Ailsby, from his book, Hell on the Eastern Front, the Waffen-SS War in Russia 1941 – 1945

The SS-Übungslager at Dachau was a training center where members of the SS-Totenkopfverbände were taught to be concentration camp administrators. Voluntary SS fighting units, called the Waffen-SS, were also quartered in the garrison at Dachau, along with the SS camp guards. The Waffen-SS and the SS camp guards were two distinct organizations which grew out of the original private army which was recruited to protect Hitler and other members of the Nazi party from the Social Democrats and the Communist Red Army during political campaigns.

The Ustashe and Chetniks in Croatia collaborated with the Nazis. Many Serbs collaborated as well.

In the 1920s when Nazi party members, such as Hitler and Rudolf Hess, tried to give speeches in the beer halls of Munich, they would frequently be physically attacked by the Communists. This was the motive for forming a private army to protect Hitler and the Nazis. The Communists already had their own private army, called the Red Army.

In the fall of 1920, Hitler created a private army composed of former soldiers and some of his followers, called the Ordnertruppen; their purpose was to protect the members of the Nazi party when they gathered in beer halls, such as the Hofbräuhaus in Munich. In November 1921, this army became the Sturmabteilung (SA) under the command of Ernst Röhm. The SA was also known as the “brown shirts” and to Americans as the “Storm Troopers.”

On November 9, 1923, when Hitler staged his Beer Hall Putsch, an attempt to take over the government from the Social Democrats by force, his private body guards, called the Stosstruppe Adolf Hitler, were involved in the disastrous fight. The Putsch ended with Hitler being sent to prison at Landsberg am Lech for treason, the Nazi party being banned and the Stosstruppe being forced to disband. By April 1925, Hitler was out of prison and back in business. Realizing that he needed protection now more than ever, Hitler instructed his personal body guard, Julius Schreck, to organize a new unit of 8 uniformed body guards which would be called the Schutzstaffel (Protection Squad). The Schutzstaffel, or SS, became a new unit of the larger Sturmabteilung (SA), the private army of the Nazi party which was commanded by Ernst Röhm.

World War I had ended on November 11, 1918 after the Social Democrats, a political party in Germany, took over the government on November 9, 1918 through a “bloodless revolution,” forcing the Kaiser to abdicate his throne. On November 7, 1918, two days before the Social Democrats declared that Germany was now a Republic, the Communists had overthrown the government of Bavaria by force. Then the Communists attempted another revolution in January 1919 to take over the government of Germany from the Social Democrats.

To fight the Communists in 1919, the Social Democrats called out a militia group named the Freikorps (Free Corps) which consisted of former World War I soldiers. When the Nazi party was formed, many of the top members came from the ranks of the Freikorps. It was the Freikorps that first used the swastika symbol on white arm bands to distinguish themselves from the Communists with their red arm bands.

In January 1929, Heinrich Himmler was appointed by the Nazi party to be the Reichsführer (National Leader) of the SS. His army rank was SS-Oberführer and he was in command of 1,000 men. Himmler was obsessed with the idea that the Nordic ethnic group was superior to all others, although he and Hitler were both dark-haired Germans of the Bavarian tribe, with round heads, and were not themselves of the superior blond Nordic stock with elongated skulls. He wanted his SS troops to be a higher class of people than the SA. Already the regular German army was objecting to the strong-arm methods of the SA, which they regarded as a troublesome rival army that was ruining Germany’s reputation.

The Wehrmacht officers were traditionally from the aristocratic class in Germany and they looked down on the rough men of the SA, which Röhm called “the people’s army.” With his superior organizational skills, Himmler’s plan was to build up the SS until it surpassed the SA in numbers. He wanted only men of Nordic blood, the “splendid blond beasts” who were members of the “Master Race.” (Nietzsche’s words.)

By June 1932, the SS had grown to 30,000 men, which was 10% of the SA. In the 1932 elections, Hitler was a candidate for President of Germany on the National Socialists (Nazi) party ticket. Both the Social Democrats and the Communists had their own militias and there was fighting in the streets between the members of the political parties.

The Nazis secretly recruited more men for the SS during the election campaign and by the time that Hitler, who came in second in the presidential election, was appointed Chancellor of Germany on January 30, 1933, the SS had grown to a private army of 82,000 men. During the war, the SS grew to over a million soldiers and included volunteer divisions from many countries which fought on the side of Germany against Communism. Towards the end, as the Germans fought desperately to save the Fatherland from Communism, even some of the German criminals in the concentration camps were offered the opportunity to join the Waffen-SS.

On June 30 1934, Ernst Röhm, the head of the SA, was arrested during the “Night of the Long Knives,” the infamous purging of all the top officers of the SA. Röhm was taken to Stadelheim prison near Munich, where he was shot at high noon the next day by Theodor Eicke, an SS-Obergruppenführer und General der Waffen-SS, who was then the Commandant of the Dachau concentration camp. As his reward, Eicke was promoted to Inspector of all the concentration camps and head of the SS Totenkopfverbände (Death’s Head unit). It was the Death’s Head unit which eventually made up the guards of all the concentration camps. On their caps, they wore a silver emblem of a skull, the same emblem that was worn by the Waffen-SS. The death’s head was supposed to signify that they were loyal to the death, not that they were murderers. The motto of the SS was “Loyalty is my honor.”

The Waffen-SS was the combat part of the SS or Schutzstaffel. The term Waffen-SS literally means “Weapons SS.” The Waffen-SS was founded in Germany in 1939 after the SS was split into two units. The title of Waffen-SS became official on 2 March, 1940. Although nominally under the leadership of Reichsführer-SS Heinrich Himmler, the Waffen-SS saw action during World War II under the de facto operational control of the Wehrmacht. By the end of the war, the Waffen-SS had grown to 39 Divisions, which served as elite combat troops alongside the regular army.

The SS had many Divisions from other countries, including 20,000 Frenchmen in the Charlemagne Division from France, and a Flemish Division from Flanders. In 1944, there were 910,000 soldiers fighting for Germany in the Waffen-SS, but less than half had been born in Germany; there were 310,000 ethnic Germans from other countries such as Rumania, Yugoslavia and Hungary who were fighting with the Waffen-SS.

Altogether, there were 200,000 volunteers from other countries including Great Britain, and even Poland. British and French SS soldiers fought in the Battle of Berlin. There were 40,000 Spanish volunteers in the Waffen-SS, and another 40,000 volunteers from Belgium. The Dutch volunteers numbered 50,000.

The Waffen-SS included three Divisions from Finland, and volunteers from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Denmark. There were also Waffen-SS units from the Ukraine, Belarus, Georgia and Armenia.

At the Nuremberg International Military Tribunal, the SS was convicted of being a criminal organization due to its involvement in alleged war crimes and the Holocaust.

According to noted historian John Toland, in his book entitled “Adolf Hitler,” Himmler wanted his SS soldiers “to be hard but not hardened.” Toland wrote, regarding Himmler’s reason for establishing training centers, such as the one at Dachau, for his SS men:

He imbued the SS, therefore, not only with a sense of racial superiority but with the hard virtues of loyalty, comradeship, duty, truth, diligence, honesty and knighthood. His SS, as the elite of the party, was the elite of the German Volk, and therefore the elite of the entire world. By establishing castles of the order to indoctrinate SS members in his ideals, he hoped to breed a New Man, “far finer and more valuable than the world had yet seen.”

The “castle of the order” referred to in the paragraph above was located at Wewelsburg, Germany.

The SS soldiers were held to higher standards and were subjected to the strictest discipline. Sentences handed down by SS courts were more severe than sentences passed by other courts for the same offense. A separate wing on the east side of the bunker (camp prison) at Dachau was reserved for SS soldiers who had committed a criminal act. This section was torn down after the war and can no longer be seen at the Dachau Memorial Site. When Dachau was liberated on April 29, 1945, there were 128 SS men incarcerated in the Dachau bunker. They were released and given the job of guarding the prisoners until the American liberators arrived.

Polish SS soldiers. (Ref: Original article)

At the Nuremberg International Military Tribunal, SS General Ernst Kaltenbrunner testified that there were 13 Stammlager (central concentration camps). One of these camps was Matzgau, located near Danzig; it was a camp where SS guards were imprisoned for offenses such as physical mistreatment of concentration camp prisoners, embezzlement, or theft.

A young Waffen-SS officer named Georg Konrad Morgen, who was also an attorney, was authorized by Himmler to conduct investigations into corruption and brutality in the concentration camps. Eight hundred investigations of the SS were conducted, which resulted in 200 indictments. Among those who were indicted by Morgen was Amon Goeth, the Commandant who was featured in the film, Schindler’s List. Goeth was arrested and was awaiting trial when the war ended; he was sent to Bad Tölz because he was suffering from diabetes and was not fit to stand trial.

Even before Morgen started his investigations, two of the Commandants of Dachau, Hilmar Wäckerle and Alex Piorkowski, had been dismissed from their jobs by Himmler, after accusations of murder in the camp were brought to his attention.

Not even a close personal friendship could save an SS officer from punishment. Dr. Sigmund Rascher, the Waffen-SS officer who conducted experiments for the German air force at Dachau, whose wife was an intimate friend of Himmler, was arrested for illegally adopting children and claiming them as his own. Just before the Dachau camp was liberated, Dr. Rascher was allegedly executed inside his cell in the Dachau bunker; his wife, who was imprisoned at Ravensbrück concentration camp for women, was also executed.

The most famous graduate of the Dachau Training Camp was Rudolf Hoess who became the Commandant at the infamous Auschwitz death factory, where Jews were murdered in the gas chambers. Adolf Eichmann was another infamous alumni of the Dachau SS Training camp, as was Josef Kramer, the Commandant of Bergen-Belsen, who was responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent prisoners.

Most Americans had never heard of the SS, an abbreviation for Schutzstaffel, an elite unit of German soldiers, until May 1985 when President Ronald Reagan outraged the Jewish Community and created a huge controversy when he decided to bypass an invitation to tour the concentration camp at Dachau on a state visit to Germany and opted instead to visit a military cemetery in Bitberg, where Waffen-SS soldiers were buried.

In defense of his visit, Reagan said, “There’s nothing wrong with visiting that cemetery where those young men are victims of Nazis also…They were victims, just as surely as the victims of the concentration camps.” Reagan had gotten his start in politics when he worked with the Screen Actor’s Guild to expose Communists in the movie industry in the McCarthy era. The Schutzstaffel (Protection Squad) was started in April 1925 as a unit of personal body guards for Adolf Hitler who needed protection from the Communist protesters who tried to disrupt his political speeches for his Fascist party, the National Socialist German Workers Party, better known to Americans as the Nazis.

Himmler, head of the SS, visits a Stalag that contains the escape artist, Horace Greasley. (The Telegraph)

The occasion for Reagan’s visit was the 40ieth anniversary of the end of World War II and he wanted to forget the Holocaust and show that Germany was now our Ally and a member of NATO. His purpose in visiting the graves of these German SS soldiers was to “demonstrate reconciliation and friendship” with the country that had murdered 6 million Jews. However, the soldiers that he was honoring at Bitberg were not the guards at the concentration camps, the infamous Death’s Head unit, which was only one part of the SS; Reagan was paying tribute to the soldiers of the Waffen-SS (Weapons SS), an elite fighting unit which included volunteers from many countries who fought the Communists in Hitler’s war against the Soviet Union, something that Reagan could certainly relate to.

After the war, General Patton got into serious trouble when he said something to the effect that the Nazis were a political party, no different from the Democrats and the Republicans in America. It is true that the Nazis started out as a political party in the democratic Weimar Republic, just like the Communists and Social Democrats, but the big difference was that the Nazis, the Communists and the Social Democrats in Germany each had a private army and they fought their political battles with hand-to-hand combat in the streets and the beer halls.

This page was last updated on June 26, 2009

Source: http://www.scrapbookpages.com/DachauScrapbook/SScamp/SSHistory.html

STALIN’S PLAN TO ATTACK GERMANY REVEALED

No Gravatar

Examining Stalin’s 1941 Plan to Attack Germany

Unternehmen Barbarossa und der russische Historikerstreit (“Operation Barbarossa and the Russian Historians’ Dispute”), by Wolfgang Strauss. Munich: Herbig, 1998. Hardcover. 199 pages. Illustrations. Source references. Bibliography. Index.

Reviewed by Daniel W. Michaels

No two peoples suffered more during the Second World War than the Russians and the Germans. In the carnage of that great global conflict, nothing matched the massive destruction of life and property wrought on the Eastern front by Russian and German forces fanatically driven by irreconcilable ideologies.

Now, more than 50 years after the end of the “clash of the titans,” free Russian and German historians are collaborating to ascertain the historical decisions and actions that led to that bloodiest of all conflicts. Wolfgang Strauss, a respected German Slavicist and political analyst, explains this clarifying historical process in “Operation Barbarossa and the Russian Historians’ Dispute,” his most recent work.[note 1] He examines here the research of revisionist scholars in Russia and Germany on Stalin’s role in igniting the German-Russian conflict and his efforts to expand the Soviet empire across Europe. Perhaps most importantly, he also shows how a shared understanding of the war is contributing to reconciliation between these two great European peoples.

Strauss affirms the view of German historian Ernst Nolte that Hitler’s militant anti-Communism was an understandable reaction to the looming Soviet threat to Europe and humanity. Put another way, the militancy of the “fascist” movements that arose in Germany, Spain, Italy and other European countries in the 1920s and 1930s was, in essence, a response to the undisguised Bolshevik goal of dominating Europe.[note 2] This view, Strauss contends, has now largely been embraced by Russian revisionists and the French historian François Furet.[note 3] It is basically irrelevant whether one regards the war that broke out in June 1941 between Germany and Soviet Russia as a war of aggression, a preventive war or a counterattack. For each side, Nolte and others contend, this was a life or death struggle to decide which world view and way of life would prevail in Europe — atheistic, internationalist Communism or the bourgeois Christian civilization of the West.

The Black Book

In no way does Strauss dismiss or whitewash Hitler’s brutal excesses. He also holds that Hitler’s racist concept of the inferiority of the Slavic peoples and his attempt to colonize their lands was not only wrong but doomed his military campaign, and ultimately the Third Reich, to failure. At the same time, Strauss stresses the monumental brutality of Soviet and international Communism. In this regard he cites The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror and Repression, a recent 860-page work by French scholar Stéphane Courtois and others.[note 4]

As Courtois stresses, many American and European scholars have upheld a morally peculiar view of history that fervently condemns National Socialist Germany while maintaining a meretriciously non-judgmental “objectivity” toward Soviet Russia. But there is no hierarchy of death and suffering. As Courtois writes: “The death of a Ukrainian peasant child, deliberately exposed to starvation by the Stalinist regime, is just as important as the starvation of a child in the Warsaw Ghetto.”

As Strauss relates, Courtois finds that 1) some 100 million human beings lost their lives as a result of Communist policies in the Soviet Union, Red China and other Communist states 2) The Communists made mass criminality an integral part of their governmental system; 3) Terror was part of the Soviet regime from the outset, beginning with Lenin; 4) Class and ethnic genocide, begun by Lenin and systematized by Stalin, preceded Hitler’s dictatorship by years; 5) Stalin was unquestionably a greater criminal than Hitler; and 6) Stalin’s joint, if not primary, responsibility for the outbreak of Russo-German War is undeniable.[note 5]

It is often forgotten that the Russian people were the first victims of Communism. Citing evidence from British, Russian and other sources, Strauss shows that those who imposed Communist despotism on the Russians were primarily non-Russian and non-Christian aliens — above all, Jews.[note 6] Their goal was nothing short of eradicating Christianity and European civilization, at whatever the human cost. Many Russians place the primary responsibility for the crimes of Communism, particularly in the first ten years of Soviet rule, on the Bolshevik party’s non-Russian elements. For example, Strauss notes, the Russian press has referred to the execution of Tsar Nicholas II and his entire family as a “Jewish ritualistic murder.”[note 7] In a similar context, Strauss cites from Solzhenitsyn the names of the ruthless Soviet secret police (NKVD) chiefs — all of them Jews — who put tens of thousands of slave laborers to death under appallingly inhumane conditions in building the White Sea Canal.[note 8]

One should not, however, get the impression that Slavs were the exclusive victims of Stalin’s terror, or that the murderers were all non-Russians.[note 9] During the Great Purge of 1937-39, Strauss points out, Stalin executed many Jews who had played a prominent role in the early Soviet regime. In 1940 Stalin succeeded in killing his greatest rival, Lev Trotsky (Bronstein), who had once been the second most powerful figure in the Soviet state. And when Stalin installed the Russian Nikolai Yezhov as head of the NKVD, replacing the Jewish Genrikh Yagoda, thousands of Yagoda’s followers and their families, mostly Jews, were murdered or committed suicide.

Pioneering Russian Revisionists

One of the earliest Russian revisionists of World War II history was Pyotr Grigorenko, a Soviet Army Major General and highly decorated war veteran who taught at the Frunze Military Academy. Already in the early 1960s, during the Khrushchev era, he was a “dissident,” publicly supporting civil rights for oppressed ethnic minorities. (Authorities committed him to a mental asylum.) In 1967, Strauss relates, he was the first leading Soviet figure to advance the revisionist arguments, which became well known during the 1980s and 1990s, on Stalin’s preparations for aggressive war against Germany. In an article submitted to a major Soviet journal (but rejected, and later published abroad), Grigorenko pointed out that Soviet military forces vastly outnumbered German forces in 1941. Just prior to the German attack on June 22, 1941, more than half of the Soviet forces were in the area near and west of Bialystok, that is, in an area deep in Polish occupied territory. “This deployment could only be justified” wrote Grigorenko, “if these troops were deploying for a surprise offensive. In the event of an enemy attack these troops would soon be encircled.”[note 10]

The best known Russian historian to advance revisionist arguments on Stalin’s preparations for a first-strike against Germany has been Viktor Suvorov (pen name of Vladimir Rezun). Strauss recapitulates his main arguments (which have been treated in detail in the pages of this Journal).[note 11]

Strauss examines three significant speeches by Stalin (which have also been dealt with by Suvorov, as well as in the pages of this Journal):[note 12] 1. In his address of August 19, 1939, shortly before the outbreak of war, Stalin explained why a temporary alliance with Germany was more beneficial to Soviet interests than an alliance with Britain and France. 2. In his speech of May 5, 1941, Stalin explained to graduate officers of military academies that the impending war would be fought offensively by Soviet forces, and that it would nonetheless be a just war because it would advance world socialism. 3. In the speech of November 6, 1941, some four months after the outbreak of the “Barbarossa” campaign, Stalin stressed the importance of killing Germans. (This speech helped to “inspire” the Soviet Jewish writer Ilya Ehrenburg to make his notorious contribution to the war effort in the form of murderously anti-German propaganda.)

Recent Russian Revisionist Historiography

A radical revision of World War II history, Strauss contends, became possible only after the collapse of the multinational Soviet Union (1991), when some 14 million previously classified documents dealing with all aspects of Soviet rule were finally open to free examination. This book’s greatest contribution may well be to highlight for non-Russians the research of Russian revisionists. Strauss is very familiar with this important work, which has been all but entirely ignored in the United States. The most important publications cited by Strauss in this regard are two Russian anthologies, both issued in 1995: “Did Stalin Make Preparations for an Offensive War Against Hitler?,” and “September 1, 1939-May 9, 1945: 50th Anniversary of the Defeat of Fascist Germany.”[note 13] The first of these contains articles by revisionist scholars as well as by critics of revisionism. (The “Russian historians’ dispute” referred to in the subtitle of Strauss’ book echoes the “German historians’ dispute” of the 1980s, in which Ernst Nolte played a major role.)

As Strauss notes, the most prominent critic of the revisionist view of Suvorov and others has been Israeli historian Gabriel Gorodetsky, who teaches at Tel Aviv University. (Strauss suggests that he is an long-time apologist for Stalin.) Gorodetsky is the author of a 1995 Russian-language anti-Suvorov work, “The ‘Icebreaker’ Myth,” and a detailed 1999 study, Grand Illusion: Stalin and the German Invasion of Russia.

In his discussion of “Did Stalin Make Preparations for an Offensive War Against Hitler,” Strauss writes (pages 42-44):

Even though revisionists as well as the critics of revisionism have their say in this book, the end result is the same. The anti-Fascist attempts to justify and legitimize Stalin’s war policy from 1939 do not hold up. The view that the Second World War was “a crime attributable solely to National Socialist Germany” can no longer be sustained. The historical truth as seen by Russian revisionists is documented in this collection of articles published by Bordyugov and Nevezhin as well as by the renowned war historian Mikhail Melitiukhov, academic associate of the All-Russian Research Institute for Documentation and Archives.

This most recent compendium of Russian revisionist writings deepens our understanding of Stalin’s preparations for a military first-strike against Germany in the summer of 1941. The strategic deployment plan, approved by Stalin at a conference on May 15, 1941, with General Staff chief Georgi Zhukov and Defense Commissar Semen Timoshenko, called for a Blitzkrieg:

Tank divisions and mechanized corps were to launch their attack from the Brest and Lviv [Lemberg] tier accompanied by destructive air strikes. The objective was to conquer East Prussia, Poland, Silesia and the [Czech] Protectorate, and thereby cut Germany off from the Balkans and the Romanian oil fields. Lublin, Warsaw, Kattowice, Cracow, Breslau [Wroclaw] and Prague were targets to be attacked.

A second attack thrust was to be directed at Romania, with the capture of Bucharest. The successful accomplishment of the immediate aims, namely, to destroy the mass of the German Army east of the Vistula, Narev and Oder rivers, was the necessary prerequisite for the fulfillment of the main objective, which was to defeat Germany in a quick campaign. The main contingents of the German armed forces were to be encircled and destroyed by tank armies in bold rapid advances.

Three recurrent terms in the mobilization plan of May 15 confirm the aggressive character of Stalin’s plan. “A sudden strike” (vnyyzapni udar), “forward deployment” (razvertyvaniye), and “offensive war” (nastupatel’naya voyna). Of the 303 [Soviet] divisions assembled on the western front, 172 were assigned to the first wave of attack. One month was allotted for the total deployment — the period from June 15 to July 15. Mikhail Melitiukhov: “On this basis it appears that the war against Germany would have to have begun in July.”

This anthology also devotes much attention to analyzing Stalin’s speech of May 5, 1941, delivered to graduates of Soviet military academies. In this speech Stalin justified his change of foreign policy in connection with the now decided-upon attack against Germany. From the Communist point of view even a Soviet war of aggression is a “just war” because it serves to expand the “territory of the socialist world” and “to destroy the capitalist world.” Most important in this May 5 speech was Stalin’s efforts to dispel the “myth of the invincible Wehrmacht.” The Red Army was strong enough to smash any enemy, even the “seemingly invincible Wehrmacht.”

Strauss lists (pages 102-105) the major findings and conclusions of Russian revisionists, derived mostly from the two major works cited above:

  • Stalin wanted a general European war of exhaustion in which the USSR would intervene at the politically and militarily most expedient moment. Stalin’s main intention is seen in his speech to the Politburo of August 19, 1939.
  • To ignite this, Stalin used the [August 1939] Soviet-German Non-Aggression Pact, which: a) provoked Hitler’s attack against Poland, and b) evoked the declarations of war [against Germany] by Britain and France.
  • In the event Germany was defeated quickly [by Britain and France], Stalin planned to “Sovietize” Germany and establish a “Communist government” there, but with the danger that the victorious capitalist powers would never permit a Communist Germany.
  • In the event France was defeated quickly [by Germany], Stalin planned the “Sovietization” of France. “A Communist revolution would seem inevitable, and we could take advantage of this for our own purposes by rushing to aid France and making her our ally. As a result of this, all the nations under the ‘protection’ of a victorious Germany would become our allies.”
  • From the outset Stalin reckoned on a war with Germany, and the [Soviet] conquest of Germany. To this end, Stalin concentrated on the western border of the USSR operational offensive forces, which were five- to six-times stronger than the Wehrmacht with respect to tanks, aircraft and artillery.
  • With respect to a war of aggression, on May 15, 1941, the Red Army’s Main Political Directorate instructed troop commanders that every war the USSR engaged in, whether defensive or offensive, would have the character of a “just war.”
  • Troop contingents were to be brought up to full strength in all the western military districts; airfields and supply bases to support a forward-strategy were to be built directly behind the border; an attack force of 60 divisions was to be set up in the Ukraine and mountain divisions and a parachute corps were to be established for attack operations.
  • The 16th, 19th, 21st, 22nd and 25th Soviet Armies were transferred from the interior to the western border, and deployed at take-off points for the planned offensive.
  • In his speech of May 5, 1941, to graduate officers of the academies, Stalin said that war with Germany was inevitable, and characterized it as a war not only of a defensive nature but rather of an offensive nature.
  • Stalin intended to attack in July 1941, although Russian historians disagree about the precise date. Suvorov cites July 6, [Valeri] Danilov [a retired Soviet Colonel] gives July 2, while Melitiukhov writes: “The Red Army could not have carried out an attack before July 15.”

Hitler’s Proclamation

In an appendix of documents, Strauss includes portions of Hitler’s “Operation Barbarossa” directive of December 18, 1940. Also here, in facsimile, is a German press announcement of June 22, 1941, that gives Hitler’s reasons for Germany’s attack against the Soviet Union:

This morning the Führer, through Reich Minister Dr. Goebbels, issued a proclamation to the German people in which he explains that after months-long silence he can finally speak openly to the German people about the dangerous machinations of the Jewish-Bolshevik rulers in Soviet Russia. After the German-Russian Friendship Treaty in the Autumn of 1939, he hoped for an easing of tensions with Russia. This hope, however, was crushed by Soviet Russia’s extortionist demands against both Finland and the Baltic states as well as against Romania.

After the victory in Poland the Western powers rejected the Führer’s proposal for an understanding because they were hoping that Soviet Russia would attack Germany. Since the Spring of 1940 Soviet troops have been deploying in ever increasing numbers along the German border, so that since August 1940 strong German forces have been tied down in the East, making any major German effort in the West impossible.

During his [November 1940] visit to Berlin, [Soviet foreign minister] Molotov posed questions regarding Romania, Finland, Bulgaria and the Dardanelles that clearly revealed that Soviet Russia intended to create trouble in eastern Europe. To be sure, the Bolshevik coup attempt against the [Romanian] government of Antonescu failed, but, with the help of the Anglo-Saxon powers [Britain and the United States], their putsch in Yugoslavia succeeded. Serbian air force officers flew to Russia and were immediately incorporated in the Army there.

With these machinations Moscow has not just broken the so-called German-Russian Friendship Treaty, it has betrayed it. In his proclamation the Führer stressed that further silence on his part would be a crime not only against Germany, but against Europe as well. On the border now stand 160 Russian divisions,[note 14] which have repeatedly violated that frontier. On June 17-18 Soviet patrols were forced back across the border only after a lengthy exchange of fire. Meanwhile, to protect Europe and defend against further Russian provocations, the greatest build-up of forces ever has been assembled against Soviet Russia. German troops stand from the Arctic Ocean to the Black Sea, allied in the north with Finnish troops and along the Bessarabian border with Romanian forces.

The Führer concluded his proclamation with the following sentences: “I have therefore decided to once again lay the fate and the future of the German Reich and of our people in the hands of our soldiers. May the Lord God help us especially in this struggle!”

Coming to Terms With the Past

Even though more and more independent Russian, German and other European historians support the revisionist arguments of Suvorov (and others), it still seems impossible, especially in Germany, to reapportion historical responsibility from Hitler to Stalin. In this regard, Strauss recalls (pages 45-46) a discussion in May 1993 at the Military History Research Office in Freiburg involving German historian Dr. Joachim Hoffmann, decades-long associate of the Research Office, and Russian historian Viktor Suvorov. Hoffman told of conversations on the “preventive war” issue he has had with prominent Germans, including President Richard von Weizsäcker, the influential journalist Marion Gräfin Dönhoff, and political figures Egon Bahr and Heinrich Graf von Einsiedel. In every case he was told that even if Suvorov is correct, and Hitler’s attack indeed preceded Stalin’s by weeks, this must not be acknowledged publicly because it would exonerate Hitler. This is typical, says Hoffmann, of the immoral attitude that prevails in Germany. In their egotism, he adds, these Germans do not realize that they are, in effect, demanding that Russians accept the propaganda lies of the Stalin era.

Strauss contrasts the very different attitudes of Germans and Russians toward 20th century history, and the role of historical revisionism. Whereas Germans are imbued with a national masochistic guilt complex about their collectively “evil” past, which was instilled during the postwar occupation as part of Allied “reeducation” campaign, and reinforced ever since in their media and by “their” political leaders, Russians are much more free and open about their Communist past, largely because they have not been occupied by foreign conquerers, and their media and educational system has not come under the control of outsiders.[note 15] Although die-hard Communists try to uphold the historiography of the Soviet era, most Russians want to know the truth about their past. After all, Strauss points out, one out of every two Russian families suffered under the Stalinist tyranny. For the time being, anyway, nothing is taboo in Russia, including the role of Jews in the Communist movement. (By contrast, Germans are forbidden by law to say anything derogatory about the political activities of Jews in the first half of the 20th century.)

The term “genocide” is used to refer particularly to the World War II treatment of Europe’s Jews. Without in any way minimizing the sufferings of innocent Jews caught up in that maelstrom, one should not forget that Stalin’s Soviet regime inflicted a much more ruthless and widespread genocide against the Russian and Ukrainian peoples. It is estimated that in the Soviet Union about 20 million people, the vast majority of them Slavs, lost their lives as a result of Soviet policies, either executed or otherwise perished in the Gulag prison network or as victims of imposed famine, and so forth. Millions of Germans were also victims of genocide. It is estimated that some four million Germans were killed or otherwise perished during the 1944-1948 period, victims of Allied-imposed “ethnic cleansing,” starvation, slave labor in the USSR, and in inhumane POW camps administered by the victorious Allies.[note 16]

In promoting greater understanding of the calamitous German-Russian clash of 1941-1945, German and Russian revisionist scholars foster reconciliation between these two peoples. Strauss cites recent developments that attest to this process. In Volgograd, victors and vanquished have joined to erect a monument dedicated to all the victims of the Battle of Stalingrad. Its inscription, written in Russian and German, reads: “This monument commemorates the suffering of the soldiers and civilians who fell here. We ask that those who died here and in captivity will rest in eternal peace in Russian soil.” On the outskirts of St. Petersburg a German soldiers’ cemetery and memorial was recently dedicated. Across Russia today, it is not unusual for Russian women to tend the graves of German soldiers. (Because the Soviet government did very little to help identify and provide decent burials for their war dead, few Russian women have had any idea where their own sons, brothers, and husbands fell.)

In the book’s epilogue, Strauss describes the fervent indignation and rage of Russians over the criminal capitalism that has taken hold in their country. The inequities between the nouveau riches and the mass of Russian working class people are now greater than under Soviet rule. Many Russian revisionists see an intrinsic resemblance and affinity between capitalism and Communism. Given that many former Soviet officials still hold office or otherwise wield power in the “new Russia,” everyone readily sees how easy it has been for members of the old Soviet elite — the Nomenklatura — to reemerge in Russia’s predatory capitalism as racketeers, gangsters, money speculators, bank frauders, extortionists and mafiosi. On the ruins of the Soviet system, writes Strauss, has emerged a new dictatorship of pitilessness, corruption, criminality, social division, poverty and despair. Resentment against the “reformist” policies advocated by the United States is widespread.

In this regard Strauss cites the views of Spanish writer Juan Goytisolo, who asserts that if this social pathology endures in Russia, then Karl Marx’s analysis will be proven correct, at least in part. While Marx was wrong about the promised virtues of Communism, writes Goytisolo, events seem to confirm his critique of capitalism, especially of unrestrained monetarism that knows only one value, namely, maximum profits regardless of human cost.[note 17]

‘Strong and Free’

Whether they call themselves “Reformers” (Westernizers), Communists or nationalists (“Eurasians”), Russians today, writes Strauss, overwhelmingly reject all forms of internationalism, whether Communist or capitalist. They want a Russia that is strong and free.

Toward this goal, many look to geopolitics, an outlook built on the Eurasian “heartland” theory expounded by 20th-century British geographer Halford Mackinder and promoted in Third Reich Germany by Karl Haushofer. (According to this theory, Russia has the potential for great power and prosperity because it is the core of the vast, resource-rich Eurasian heartland.) The leading exponent in Russia today of this view is Alexander Dugin, whose book, “The Basics of Geopolitics: Russia’s Geopolitical Future,” has been influential with both old Communists and new nationalists in a grouping sometimes referred to as the “national Bolshevik alliance,” and whose adherents are known as “Eurasianists.” Dugin is a close associate of Gennady Zyuganov, head of the country’s largest political party, the Russian Communist Party (which, in spite of its name, is much more nationalist than Marxist). Zyuganov himself is the author of a recent book, “The Geography of Victory: The Bases of Russian Geopolitics.”

Russia’s parliament, the Duma, has established a Committee of Geopolitical Affairs, chaired by Alexey Mitrofanov, a member of Vladimir Zhirinovksy’s Liberal Democratic Party. (Zhirinovsky proposes the formation of a Berlin-Moscow-Tokyo axis, and has been quoted as saying: “Today, the United States of America is the major enemy of our country. All our actions and dealings with America from now on should be undertaken with this in mind.”)

Notes

  1. Strauss, born in 1931, was arrested for anti-Communist activities as an Oberschuler (secondary school student) in East Germany (DDR) and imprisoned, 1950-1956. He is the author of several other notable books on Russia, including Russland wird leben: vom roten Stern zur Zarenfahne (1992), Drei Tage, die die Welt erschutterten (1992), Burgerrechtler in der UdSSR (1979), and Von der Wiedergeburt slawophiler Ideen in Russland (1977). He is also a frequent contributor to scholarly journals. He currently lives in Bavaria, where he works as a Slavic affairs specialist.
  2. See: Ernst Nolte, Der Europäische Bürgerkrieg 1917-1945: Nationalsozialismus und Bolschewismus (Munich: 1997 [5th ed.]). Nolte has strongly suggested that Hitler’s wartime treatment of the Jews might legitimately be regarded as a defensive response by Hitler to the threat of Bolshevik mass murder of the Germans. In a 1980 lecture he said: “It is hard to deny that Hitler had good reason to be convinced of his enemies’ determination to annihilate long before the first information about the events in Auschwitz became public.” See also the interview with Nolte in the Jan.-Feb. 1994 Journal (Vol. 14, No. 1), pp. 15-22, and “Changing Perspectives on History in Germany: A Prestigious Award for Nolte: Portent of Greater Historical Objectivity?,” July-August 2000 Journal, pp. 29-32.
  3. François Furet and Ernst Nolte, Feindliche Nähe: Kommunismus und Faschismus im 20. Jahrhundert: Ein Briefwechsel (Munich: 1998).
  4. The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression, by Stéphane Courtois and others (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1999). Original edition: Le livre noir du communisme: Crimes, terreur, répression (Paris: 1997). Earlier works by Courtois include Histoire du parti communiste français (1995), L’etat du monde en 1945 (1994), Rigueur et passion (1994), 50 ans d’une passion français (1991), and Qui savait quoi? (1987).
  5. Courtois has also written: “I am fighting for a reevaluation of Stalin. He was to be sure the greatest criminal of the century. But at the same time he was the greatest politician — the most competent, the most professional. He was the one who understood most perfectly how to put his resources at the service of his goals.”
  6. Russian nationalists are fully aware, just as were the anti-Bolshevik “White Russians,” that the leaders of Russia’s Marxist movement — Mensheviks and Bolsheviks alike — were predominantly not Russian at all. As evidence of the alien character of the Bolshevik revolution and of the early Soviet regime, Russian nationalists (along with many others) often cite The Last Days of the Romanovs, a work by British writer Robert Wilton (and now translated into Russian). In an appendix to the 1993 IHR edition of this work (pp. 184-190), Wilton also notes: “According to data furnished by the Soviet press, out of important functionaries of the Bolshevik state… in 1918-1919 there were: 17 Russians, two Ukrainians, eleven Armenians, 35 Letts [Latvians], 15 Germans, one Hungarian, ten Georgians, three Poles, three Finns, one Czech, one Karaim, and 457 Jews.” See also: M. Weber, “The Jewish Role in the Bolshevik Revolution and the Early Soviet Regime,” Jan.-Feb. 1994 Journal, pp. 4-14.
  7. A special 1996 edition of the Moscow newspaper Russkiy Vestnik lists the names of the executioners: Yankel Yurovsky, Anselm Fischer, Istvan Kolman, A. Chorwat, Isidor Edelstein, Imre Magy [?], Victor Grinfeld, Andreas Wergasi and S. Farkash. The article concludes: “All of this attests to the non-Russian origin of the murderers.”
  8. According to Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, the six directors were Semyon Firin, Matvei Berman, Naftali Frenkel, Lazar Kogan, Yakov Rappoport, Sergei Zhuk. The Head of the Military Guards was Brodsky, the Canal Curator of the Central Executive Committee was Solts, the GPU and NKVD heads were Yagoda, Pauker, Spiegelglas, Kaznelson, Sakovskiy, Sorensen, Messing and Arshakuni. As the names indicate, all were non-Russians. Stalin awarded most of these murderers the honorary title “Hero of Labor.” See: Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago, III-IV, Book Two (New York: Harper & Row, 1975), pp. 79, 81, 82, 84, 94, etc.
  9. This generalization is mostly valid for the first 20 years of Soviet rule. However, following the Great Purge (1937-1939), and except for several years after World War II in East Europe where Stalin used Jewish Communists to instal puppet regimes, the dictator until his death actively opposed elements he referred to as cosmopolitans, parasites, and so forth.
  10. Grigorenko originally submitted his article to the Soviet journal Voprosy istorii KPSS, which (of course) rejected it. It was published in 1969 by Possev, a Russian emigré publishing house in Frankfurt am Main.
  11. Suvorov’s first three books on World War II have been reviewed in The Journal of Historical Review. The first two, Icebreaker and “M Day,” were reviewed in Nov.-Dec. 1997 Journal (Vol. 16, No. 6), pp. 22-34. His third book, “The Last Republic,” was reviewed in the July-August 1998 Journal (Vol. 17, No. 4), pp. 30-37.
  12. See the review of Stalins Falle (“Stalin’s Trap”), by Adolf von Thadden, in the May-June 1999 Journal, pp. 40-45.
  13. Gotovil li Stalin nastupatel’nuyu voynu protiv Gitlera (“Did Stalin Make Preparations for an Offensive War Against Hitler?,” by Grigoriy Bordyugov and Vladimir Nevezhin (Moscow: AIRO XX, 1995), and, 1 sentyabrya 1939-9 maya 1945: Pyatidesyatiletiye razgroma fashistkoy Germanii v Kontekste Nachala Vtoroy Mirovoy Voyny (“September 1, 1939-May 9, 1945: the 50th Anniversary of the Defeat of Fascist Germany in the Context of the Beginning of the War”), edited by I.V. Pavlova and V. L. Doroshenko (Novosibirsk Memorial, 1995). The latter work was briefly cited in the Nov.-Dec. 1997 Journal, pp. 32-34.
  14. The German High Command greatly underestimated the number of Soviet divisions, as well as the quality and quantity of Soviet tanks. Hitler and the Wehrmacht were to find not 160 divisions on their doorstep, but more than 300. See: David Irving, Hitler’s War (New York: Viking, 1977), pp. 205-206, 297. On the correlation of forces in June 1941, see also Joachim Hoffmann, Stalins Vernichtungskrieg 1941-1945 (Munich, 1995), Chapter 1, and esp. pp. 31, 66.
  15. Ominously, however, the “oligarchs,” most of them Jewish, exercise considerable control over the Russian media. See: Daniel W. Michaels, “Capitalism in the New Russia,” May-June 1997 Journal, pp. 21-27, and, “A Jewish Appeal to Russia’s Elite,” Nov.-Dec. 1998 Journal, pp. 13-18.
  16. See: Alfred-Maurice de Zayas, The German Expellees: Victims in War and Peace (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1993), Alfred-M. de Zayas, Nemesis at Potsdam: The Expulsion of the Germans From the East (Lincoln: Univ. of Nebraska, 1989 [3rd rev. ed.]), James Bacque, Other Losses (Prima, 1991), J. Bacque, Crimes and Mercies (Little, Brown, 1997), Ralph Keeling, Gruesome Harvest: The Allies’ Postwar War Against the German People (IHR, 1992).
  17. Juan Goytisolo, La Saga de los Marx (Barcelona: Mondadori, 1993). Although Goytisolo was undoubtedly one of Spain’s foremost 20th century novelists, both his political views and private life were highly controversial. Expelled from Spain by Franco, he lived most of his life in France.

About the author

Daniel W. Michaels is a Columbia University graduate (Phi Beta Kappa, 1954), and a former Fulbright exchange student to Germany (1957). He is retired from the US Department of Defense after 40 years of service.

Source: http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v19/v19n6p40_Michaels.html

FRANCO & HITLER: SPAIN, GERMANY, AND WORLD WAR II

No Gravatar

Reviewed by Max Hastings

If Benito Mussolini had sustained Italy’s neutrality in the second world war, instead of jumping aboard Hitler’s bandwagon in June 1940 in anticipation of sharing the pillage of Europe, he could have profited mightily. It is unlikely that the Nazis would have invaded his country. The victorious allies would have heaped rewards on Italy, fascist or no, for staying out. “Musso” might have continued to tyrannise his own country to a ripe old age.

Hitler greets Mussolini. (Ref: Bundesarchiv)

This was indeed the experience of his fellow dictator General Francisco Franco, a monster with more blood on his hands than Mussolini. The Spaniard persisted with the wholesale murder of his defeated civil-war enemies all through the second world war, and indeed afterwards. He sustained his tyranny until dying in his bed in 1975.

To this day, imbecile right-wing pundits – some of them British – pay homage to Franco’s statesmanship and the “sound” governance of his country. In truth, as Stanley Payne’s book emphasises, Spain’s abstention from the second world war was the product of clumsy diplomacy rather than of wisdom.

Franco fully intended to join the axis struggle against the democracies. It often goes unnoticed that Spain’s wartime status was not that of a true neutral nation such as Switzerland or Sweden, but of nonbelligerence, which Payne suggests could more aptly have been described as prebelligerence.

On October 23, 1940, Spain’s leader had his one and only personal meeting with Hitler, at Hendaye on the border with France. The Caudillo arrived late not, as his admirers claimed, in a clever piece of one-upmanship, but because of the inadequacies of the Spanish rail system.

Hitler imagined that the encounter was a formality, at which Franco would merely announce the date of his entry into the war. Instead, to the Germans’ dismay, the Spanish leader produced a long shopping list of conditions for participation, new colonies in Africa prominent among them.

Hitler wished to send German troops into Spain to seize Gibraltar. Franco perceived such a proposal as an insult to his own army. He was anyway uneasy about inviting panzer grenadiers to camp on his doorstep. He told the disbelieving Germans that his own troops could take care of Gibraltar, once they had been reequipped with the German weapons and planes he needed. Hitler was exasperated not only by Franco’s presumption, but by the garrulous Spaniard’s long monologues and personal reminiscences, which the Führer perceived as his own prerogative.

By a bizarre twist, the most significant deal-breaker was Spain’s claim to a chunk of Vichy France’s African empire. The Hendaye meeting came weeks after Vichy French forces at Dakar had repulsed a British and Gaullist attempt to seize the port. Hitler cherished hopes that this action presaged active Vichy military support for his armies. Dakar, which was at the time perceived in London as an unalloyed fiasco, thus yielded an uncomprehended blessing: Hitler refused to offer Franco French colonial possessions in return for joining the war.

Thus passed what subsequently proved a turning point. Though Franco continued to dicker with belligerence, and maintained his faith in axis victory until at least the end of 1942, the moments at which the Spanish were willing to fight never coincided with those at which the Germans thought their price for doing so worth paying.

The story of Spanish dealings with the Nazis represents a fascinating marginal entry in the history of the second world war. The duplicity, cynicism and sheer nastiness of Madrid’s rulers invites awe. The British paid millions in bribes to Spanish generals to stay out of the war, but there is no evidence that these influenced their behaviour one way or the other.

Payne mentions the famous 1943 deception operation Mincemeat, when the British planted on the Spanish coast a corpse, supposedly that of an officer carrying secret papers foretelling a landing in Sardinia. The British correctly anticipated that the Spanish authorities would immediately pass the forged documents to the Nazis.

It is highly debatable, however, whether Payne is correct in supposing that the ruse caused German forces to be diverted from Sicily. Like so many splendid buccaneering operations of the second world war, “The Man Who Never Was” provided much pleasure for his creators and postwar movie audiences. But there is no evidence that it changed history.

It was a rich jest of Churchill’s that he dispatched two of the most prominent prewar appeasers to contrasting diplomatic roles abroad. Lord Halifax was sent to Washington to help persuade the Americans to fight, and Sir Samuel Hoare to Madrid to try to induce the Spanish not to. Hoare appears to have been an effective ambassador, a good deal more sensible in handling Franco than his US counterparts.

Hitler and Franco. (Ref: file photo)

The Americans adopted a harsh, principled line towards Madrid, rooted in their deep distaste for the fascist regime. Ironically, once Hitler was beaten and the cold war began, Washington turned this policy on its head and embraced Spain as a key ally in the struggle against communism. Thus Franco profited once more from a tide of history sweeping past Spanish coasts.

Only one hero, or at least real statesman, emerged from wartime Spain. In September 1942 the crass, passionately pro-axis foreign minister Ramon Serrano Suner was replaced by a diminutive little general named Francisco Jordana. Jordana both genuinely liked the British, and perceived – as Franco still did not – that the allies were likely to win the war.

From his accession to office until his sudden death in August 1944, Jordana laboured unceasingly to restore Spain to evenhanded neutrality. He battled with his pro-German colleagues and indeed with the Caudillo himself, repeatedly threatening resignation. By the time of Jordana’s death, even the most devoted Spanish supporters of Hitler could see that the Nazi game was up. With much regret, they addressed themselves to coexistence with Europe’s postwar democracies.

Payne, a professor at the University of Wisconsin, obviously knows a great deal about Spain. It is a pity that he writes as if English was not his first language. Any man capable of composing such a sentence as “the second interview with Ribbentrop . . . went more badly yet” should be disqualified from a duty of care to students. But the story that he tells deserves to be more widely known, not least by “useful idiots” of the right who continue to think well of Franco.

A helping hand

Spain’s supposed neutrality in the second world war did not stop it from giving secret aid to Hitler and Mussolini. The Spanish helped build observation posts round Gibraltar for German spies, and allowed German U-boats to be resupplied at their ports and Italian bombers to refuel at their airfields. Spanish agents were also actively involved in Axis operations against the rock. Worse still was the intelligence information collected for Berlin by members of the Spanish embassy in London. When one diplomat refused to do so, he was summarily dismissed and prosecuted for insubordination.

Franco and Hitler: Spain, Germany and World War II by Stanley G Payne Yale UP £19.99 pp328

Source: http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/non-fiction/article3486194.ece

FILM EXPLORED FATE OF GERMANY’S “TITANIC”

No Gravatar

by D. Graham

BERLIN, March 2 (Reuters) – A new television film about the sinking of a Nazi ship carrying thousands of German refugees at the end of World War Two has lifted the lid on one of Germany’s most painful memories.

The Allies struck this ship knowing that all aboard were either injured or non-combatants. Apparently this Holocaust doesn't matter because those aboard were "Nazis". (Photo ref: Bundesarchiv)

The film, to be broadcast on Sunday and Monday, tells the story of the former Nazi cruise ship “Wilhelm Gustloff”, torpedoed by a Soviet submarine in the Baltic Sea on Jan. 30, 1945. As many as 9,300 people died — believed to be biggest loss of life on a single ship.

Yet the tale of the Gustloff, which has frequently been referred to as Germany’s Titanic, remains relatively unknown outside the country due to the reluctance of postwar generations to examine publicly Germans’ suffering during the war.

“It’s been very hard to talk about this because it raises the difficult question of German victimhood in a war the Nazis began,” said British historian Roger Moorhouse. “This enforced silence for years will have been painful to many people.”

“But it’s really a testament to how the treatment of German history is returning to normal that the story is now being told as a big budget film on prime-time German television.”

The multi-million euro production “Die Gustloff” was to be aired on ZDF state television.

The imposing 209 metre-long (685 feet) Gustloff, named after the assassinated head of the Swiss Nazi party, was launched in 1937 and conceived as a cruise liner for the Nazis’ leisure organisation Kraft durch Freude, or “strength through joy”.

Once war broke out, it was used by the German military.

Hundreds of soldiers were on the ship when it set off on its final voyage from Gotenhafen (now Gdynia in Poland) for Kiel. However, the vast majority of its passengers were refugees, many of them women and children fleeing from the advancing Red Army.

TERRIBLE SCREAMS

The ship was designed to carry about 1,500 passengers, but historians now estimate over 10,000 people were on board when it sank on the 12th anniversary of Adolf Hitler’s seizure of power.

Directed by Joseph Vilsmaier, who made the anti-war film “Stalingrad”, the three-hour movie is the first to dramatise the Gustloff’s fate since German reunification in 1990. In 1959, a black-and-white West German film about the sinking was shot.

Until Germany’s Nobel laureate Guenter Grass addressed it in his 2002 novel “Im Krebsgang” (Crabwalk) the history of the Gustloff — whose death toll compares with around 1,500 for the Titanic — was relatively obscure even inside Germany.

The film, which Chancellor Angela Merkel and the head of Germany’s Central Council of Jews saw in advance, purports to detail incidents from the sinking like a woman who gave birth on a rescue boat as death surrounded her in the icy waters.

“The screams were terrible,” Ursula Kossmann, a 77-year-old who managed to clamber on board a rescue boat with her mother, told daily Die Welt. “Some officers shot their families.”

Survivor Guenther von Maydell, who was 13 at the time, told the same paper he wasn’t afraid when the ship began to go down.

“I was just focused on escaping,” he said. “I only realised later how lucky I’d been. I must have had a guardian angel.”

 (Reporting by Dave Graham, editing by Myra MacDonald)

Source: http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L02383610.htm

For more on this virtually unknown World War II Holocaust, please visit: http://wilhelmgustloff.com/.

STALIN TO BE CELEBRATED AS A WAR HERO IN RUSSIA

No Gravatar

Stalin is to make a comeback on the streets of Moscow for the first time in decades in a celebration of the Soviet victory over Hitler in the Second World War.

"Posters and information booths devoted to the Soviet dictator are to go up across the capital under a proposal by Moscow City Council to mark the 65th anniversary of the defeat of Nazi Germany on May 9. The decision outraged rights groups and opposition parties yesterday, who condemned it as another step towards rehabilitating a tyrant." (The Times)

It also split the political establishment amid signs of Kremlin unease that Stalin’s legacy of repression could overshadow plans to honour veterans of what Russians call the Great Patriotic War. Millions of people perished in the Gulag slave labour camps during Stalin’s rule.

“We can say that it was not Stalin who won the war but the people,” said Boris Gryzlov, the leader in parliament of Vladimir Putin’s ruling United Russia party. “The ambiguous role that Stalin played in the life of our country will not be corrected by posters.”

The death of Stalin, like the death of Lenin, marks an epoch in Russian history. Rarely have two successive leaders of a great country responded so absolutely to its changing needs

Lyudmila Alekseyeva, the head of the Moscow Helsinki Group, told Interfax news agency: “We are going to protest against this. Those who want to put up portraits of Stalin in Moscow would like to see a return to the state terror of the Stalinist period.”

Sergei Mitrokhin, the leader of the opposition Yabloko party, said that the plan was “an insult to the memory of our fathers, grandfathers, and great- grandfathers, who won the war against fascism with their labour and blood”.

Mikhail Gorbachev, the former Soviet President, also objected. He told the newspaper Izvestia: “You cannot remove Stalin from the history of the war. But it should be remembered that the country entered the war badly prepared with its own military commanders repressed.”

Gennadi Zyuganov, the Communist Party leader, said that recognition of Stalin as commander-in-chief of the Red Army was “not only indisputably correct but also courageous”. He said: “For the first time in 20 years we have ended the hypocrisy of the authorities forgetting under whose leadership the war was won.”

Vladimir Makarov, head of the city council’s advertising and information committee, said that the campaign was being undertaken after a request from veterans’ groups. He said: “For years we have had information stands about the war commanders. But the supreme commander was missing. We need to remember the man who led our country in the war.”

It will undoubtedly be welcomed by many veterans who continue to revere Stalin as a war leader. Nadezhda Popova, a wartime pilot decorated as a Hero of the Soviet Union, told The Times: “Of course there were repressions but we have the right to remember him because we fought under his leadership. We believed in him. He was like a god for us.”

Official endorsement of Stalin at a key moment of national celebration would be a dramatic development in the gradual restoration of Soviet-era symbols in Russia under Mr Putin. He brought back the Soviet national anthem in 2000 and revived military parades in Red Square in 2008.

Mr Putin also endorsed a textbook for teachers that described Stalin as an “efficient manager” rather than a mass murderer, and as someone who behaved rationally in making the Soviet Union into a superpower.

Rise and fall

• After Stalin died on March 5, 1953, his body was embalmed and placed in Red Square

• Three years later his successor Nikita Khrushchev condemned him for carrying out “mass repressions”

• In 1961 Stalin’s body was interred in the Kremlin

• On the 20th anniversary of VE Day in 1965 Leonid Brezhnev, the Soviet leader, proclaimed Stalin a “war hero”

• During the glasnost era and after the Soviet Union’s collapse, the Russian leaders Mikhail Gorbachev and Boris Yeltsin condemned him as a dictator

Source: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article7032807.ece

HOLOCAUST IN BRITAIN: SWANSEA’S DARKEST HOUR

No Gravatar

The history of the wartime bombing blitz endured by Swansea 69 years ago is told in a new DVD, produced with the help of a project which supports people with mental health problems. Neil Prior reports.

"SWANSEA'S THREE-NIGHT BLITZ: The city had air raids from June 1940 after France fell and was targeted due to its docks and heavy industry. But from 19-21 Feb 1941, bombers dropped 1,273 high explosive and more than 56,000 incendiary devices over some 40 acres of the town centre, a higher concentration than on any British city outside London. The high explosives hit water and gas mains, making later firebombs harder to extinguish. An estimated 230-270 died, more than 400 were injured and 8,000 made homeless. The old town centre was obliterated by a fireball which took weeks to put out. Landmarks to disappear were St Mary's Church, the grammar school, and Ben Evans department store. Despite the devastation, the Three Nights Blitz was seen as a failure. Heavy industry was largely untouched and the docks quickly reopened. Instead of striking fear into the population, support for the war increased as a result of the city's suffering." (BBC)

The three most devastating nights in Swansea’s history have been retold in a DVD, which tells the story of the World War II blitz in the city – 69 years ago.

Up to 270 residents lost their lives between 19-21 February 1941, with hundreds more being injured or made homeless.

A collaboration between Swansea Museum and Create Solutions, a local project which works to turn around the career prospects of people dealing with mental health issues, has produced a documentary.

Andrew Steele, who is overcoming feelings of anxiety and depression, was the lead producer of Three Nights Blitz of February 1941 and says it’s played a major part in his ongoing recovery.

He said: “I’ve always been interested in local history, and even more so in photography and film-making, but I’d never thought for a moment that it was something I could make a career out of.

“Part of my condition is that I often doubt myself and my work, I didn’t think I had the staying power to see a project through, and I didn’t think I had the skill or imagination to produce a documentary.

“But now when I’m having a bad day, I’ve got something solid and objective to prove what I can achieve, and remind me that all the negativity is a state of mind which will pass.

“More importantly, I’ve got something to show to potential bosses in the future, that I am good, and that they should take a chance on me regardless of my condition.”

The documentary charts Swansea’s struggle under the three-night Luftwaffe blitz of February 1941.

It’s proving a hit on the shelves of the museum’s shop, with most of the first batch of 250 copies sold in the first few weeks of release.

Last year the team produced a documentary marking the 200th anniversary of the Mumbles Railway but the blitz DVD has proved to be the museum’s fastest-selling title.

Education officer Barry Hughes said: “I think the appeal is that it’s a monumental event which happened here on our doorsteps, recently enough to have touched the lives of almost everyone in the city.

“There are a lot of people alive today who experienced it first hand, and almost everyone has a parent, grandparent or friend who lived through the blitz.

“Even if you haven’t, the evidence is all around you in the mix of new buildings and old and, if you look closely enough, in the odd pock-marked house or conspicuous gap in a terrace.”

Much of the archive material in the DVD has been in the museum’s care for years, but according to Barry Hughes, issues of cost and display space have meant nobody was able to access it, until the partnership with Create Solutions.

“It’s the type of project that we’d have never have been able to take on by ourselves. We’ve got the expertise and the archive, but the time and money would have been beyond us.”

He said the joint working with Create Solutions had been “of enormous mutual benefit”.

“We’ve been able to tap into the impressive media and technical skills of the service users, and in return they’ve got a high-profile production on their CVs, when maybe previously nobody’s been prepared to give them a chance.”

‘Kept strong’

Create Solutions and Swansea Museum are already busy on their next collaboration, volume two of Three Nights Blitz, concentrating more closely on personal experiences.

Mr Hughes said: “The thing I’m always trying to get across to school kids is that the town in which they live suffered bombing every night for three nights, and still kept functioning, kept strong, and kept its sense of humour.”

Source: http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/mpapps/pagetools/print/news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/8522821.stm?ad=1

NEW FILM: JAPANESE CONCENTRATION CAMPS IN AMERICA

No Gravatar

by Carlos Alcalá | Feb. 18, 2010

“Voices Long Silent,” a short film about the Japanese American internment during World War II, has largely been silent for the past three decades, but soon it will speak to a national audience.

A Japanese concentration camp on American soil during World War II. (Ref: file photo)

Sacramento native Bob Matsumoto made the short film to coincide with 1981 congressional hearings on internment that culminated in reparations.

The film soon will have a 10-month run at the Smithsonian Institution – showing continuously to give visitors a historical background to an art exhibit made by Japanese Americans in the camps.

Then-President Jimmy Carter established a committee in 1980 to look into the experiences of Japanese Americans interned during World War II.

The inquiry moved Matsumoto to act.

He knew many of those who experienced internment – people like his parents, George and Yoshimi Matsumoto – were prone to internalize rather than complain.

The younger Matsumoto worked in advertising, but he considered himself a storyteller.

“I wanted to create something to encourage people to go up and speak,” he said by phone from his Burbank home.

“It’s something I really felt compelled to do.”

When a congressional organization came to Los Angeles to hear testimony in 1981, Matsumoto, who spent time in camps as a child, had a film ready.

His “Voices Long Silent” helped move an older generation to speak out at hearings

It led, 10 years later, to the first reparations payments to those who had been sent to camps.

The movie continues to speak on its own.

The film is just 14 minutes long and made up only of still photos and voice-overs by actors.

But in short order it explains the events that followed the Dec. 7, 1941, attack on Pearl Harbor, and which eventually led to President Franklin D. Roosevelt to sign Executive Order 9066 on Feb. 19, 1942, providing for the relocation of people of Japanese ancestry.

Friday, the anniversary of that order, is a Day of Remembrance.

The Smithsonian exhibit, in the Renwick Gallery beginning March 5, is titled “The Art of Gaman: Arts and Crafts From the Japanese American Internment Camps, 1942-1946.”

It is based on a book by Delphine Hirasuna, which shows how some of the internees were able to make creative use of the limited materials they had in camps, most of which were in desolate locations.

Matsumoto’s film is not directly about the art, but it shows some of the austere conditions that the internees faced when they arrived in hastily erected camps.

It will provide context to help visitors to “The Art of Gaman” understand the exhibit.

The word “gaman” reflects the patient and dignified endurance of those in the camps.

Even though his film shows that endurance, it was intended to get those who had shown quiet forbearance to finally speak.

Did it work?

“I saw it,” Matsumoto said, of his experience showing the film before hearings. “People went up, and they said things.”

They spoke for those who had died in the intervening decades between the camps and the hearings. They spoke for those who could no longer speak.

© Copyright The Sacramento Bee. All rights reserved.

Source: http://www.sacbee.com/livinghere/story/2544249.html

BRITISH EMPLOYED TORTURE, STARVATION TO GET INFORMATION OUT OF GERMAN POWs

No Gravatar

Ian Cobain | 17 December 2005

Despite the six years of bitter fighting which lay behind him, James Morgan-Jones, a major in the Royal Artillery, could not have been more specific about the spectacle in front of him. “It was,” he reported, “one of the most disgusting sights of my life.”

Curled up on a bed in a hospital in Rotenburg, near Bremen, was a cadaverous shadow of a human being. “The man literally had no flesh on him, his state of emaciation was incredible,” wrote Morgan-Jones. This man had weighed a little over six stones (38kg) on admission five weeks earlier, and “was still a figure which may well have been one of the Belsen inmates”. At the base of his spine “was a huge festering sore”, and he was clearly terrified of returning to the prison where he had been brought so close to death. “If ever a man showed fear – he did,” Morgan-Jones declared.

Adolf Galla, 36, a dental technician, was not alone. A few beds away lay Robert Buttlar, 27, a journalist, who had been admitted after swallowing a spoon handle in a suicide attempt at the same prison. He too was emaciated and four of his toes had been lost to frostbite.

The previous month, January 1947, two other inmates, Walter Bergmann, 20, and Franz Osterreicher, 38, had died of malnutrition within hours of arriving at the hospital. Over the previous 13 months, Major Morgan-Jones learned, 45 inmates of this prison, including several women, had been dumped at Rotenburg. Each was severely starved, frostbitten, and caked in dirt. Some had been beaten or whipped.

The same week that Major Morgan-Jones was submitting his report, a British doctor called Jordan was raising similar concerns at an internment camp 130 miles away. Dr Jordan complained to his superiors that eight men who had been transferred from the same prison “were all suffering gross malnutrition … one in my opinion dying”.

They included Gerhard Menzel, 23, a 6ft German former soldier who weighed seven stones, and was described as a living skeleton. Another, admitted as Morice Marcellini, a 27-year-old Frenchman, later transpired to be Alexander Kalkowski, a captain in the Soviet secret police, the NKVD. He weighed a little over eight stones, and complained that he had been severely beaten and forced to spend eight hours a day in a cold bath.

Prisoners complained thumbscrews and “shin screws” were employed at the prison and Dr Jordan’s report highlighted the small, round scars that he had seen on the legs of two men, “which were said to be the result of the use of some instrument to facilitate questioning”. One of these men was Hans Habermann, a 43-year-old disabled German Jew who had survived three years in Buchenwald concentration camp.

All of these men had been held at Bad Nenndorf, a small, once-elegant spa resort near Hanover. Here, an organisation called the Combined Services Detailed Interrogation Centre (CSDIC) ran a secret prison following the British occupation of north-west Germany in 1945.

CSDIC, a division of the War Office, operated interrogation centres around the world, including one known as the London Cage, located in one of London’s most exclusive neighbourhoods. Official documents discovered last month at the National Archives at Kew, south-west London, show that the London Cage was a secret torture centre where German prisoners who had been concealed from the Red Cross were beaten, deprived of sleep, and threatened with execution or with unnecessary surgery.

As horrific as conditions were at the London Cage, Bad Nenndorf was far worse. Last week, Foreign Office files which have remained closed for almost 60 years were opened after a request by the Guardian under the Freedom of Information Act. These papers, and others declassified earlier, lay bare the appalling suffering of many of the 372 men and 44 women who passed through the centre during the 22 months it operated before its closure in July 1947.

They detail the investigation carried out by a Scotland Yard detective, Inspector Tom Hayward, following the complaints of Major Morgan-Jones and Dr Jordan. Despite the precise and formal prose of the detective’s report to the military government, anger and revulsion leap from every page as he turns his spotlight on a place where prisoners were systematically beaten and exposed to extreme cold, where some were starved to death and, allegedly, tortured with instruments that his fellow countrymen had recovered from a Gestapo prison in Hamburg. Even today, the Foreign Office is refusing to release photographs taken of some of the “living skeletons” on their release.

Initially, most of the detainees were Nazi party members or former members of the SS, rounded up in an attempt to thwart any Nazi insurgency. A significant number, however, were industrialists, tobacco importers, oil company bosses or forestry owners who had flourished under Hitler.

By late 1946, the papers show, an increasing number were suspected Soviet agents. Some were NKVD officers – Russians, Czechs and Hungarians – but many were simply German leftists. Others were Germans living in the Russian zone who had crossed the line, offered to spy on the Russians, and were tortured to establish whether they were genuine defectors.

One of the men who was starved to death, Walter Bergmann, had offered to spy for the British, and fell under suspicion because he spoke Russian. Hayward reported: “There seems little doubt that Bergmann, against whom no charge of any crime has ever been made, but on the contrary, who appears to be a man who has given every assistance, and that of considerable value, has lost his life through malnutrition and lack of medical care”.

The other man who starved to death, Franz Osterreicher, had been arrested with forged papers while attempting to enter the British zone in search of his gay lover. Hayward said that “in his struggle for existence or to get extra scraps of food he stood a very poor chance” at Bad Nenndorf.

Many of Bad Nenndorf’s inmates were there for no reason at all. One, a former diplomat, remained locked up because he had “learned too much about our interrogation methods”. Another arrived after a clerical error, and was incarcerated for eight months. As Inspector Hayward reported: “There are a number against whom no offence has been alleged, and the only authority for their detention would appear to be that they are citizens of a country still nominally at war with us.”

Today, the older people of Bad Nenndorf talk about August 1 1945, the day the British arrived, with undisguised bitterness. A convoy of trucks pulled into the village, and the Tommies took over from an easygoing US infantry division. Within hours, the British had ordered everybody in the centre of the village to pack their belongings and leave. Bad Nenndorf was heaving with refugees from the bomb-ravaged ruins of Hanover, 18 miles to the east: hundreds of people were given 90 minutes to pack some food and valuables, and get out.

“We thought everyone would be allowed back in a few days,” recalls Walter Münstermann, now a retired newspaperman, but then a 14-year-old. “Then the soldiers started putting barbed wire fences around the centre of the village, and slowly we began to realise that this was going to be no ordinary camp.”

Walter and his neighbours realised that the centre of their village was being transformed into a prison camp when they heard that the British were converting a large, 40-year-old bath-house, ripping out the baths and installing heavy steel doors to turn each cubicle into a cell. They saw the first batch of prisoners arrive in the back of a truck. Later groups arrived at the village railway station in cattle trucks.

Ingrid Groth, then a seven-year-old, said locals claimed that if you crept up to the barbed wire at night, you could hear the prisoners’ screams. Mr Münstermann, who passed the main gate on his way to school each day, insists that the opposite was true: that it was a sinister place precisely because “you never, ever saw anyone, and you never heard a sound”. Among the people of Lower Saxony, Bad Nenndorf became known as das verbotene dorf – the forbidden village.

The commanding officer was Robin “Tin Eye” Stephens, 45, a monocled colonel of the Peshawar Division of the Indian Army who had been seconded to MI5 in 1939, and who had commanded Camp 020, a detention centre in Surrey where German spies had been interrogated during the war.

An authoritarian and a xenophobe with a legendary temper, Stephens boasted that interrogators who could “break” a man were born, and not made. Of the 20 interrogators ordered to break the inmates of Bad Nenndorf, 12 were British, a combination of officers from the three services and civilian linguists. The remaining eight included a Pole and a Dutchman, but were mostly German Jewish refugees who had enlisted on the outbreak of war, and who, Inspector Hayward suggested, “might not be expected to be wholly impartial”.

Most of the warders were soldiers barely out of their teens. Some had endured more than a year of combat, at the end of which they had liberated Belsen. Some represented the more unruly elements of the British Army of the Rhine, sent to Bad Nenndorf after receiving suspended sentences for assault or desertion. Often, Hayward said, they were the sort of individuals “likely to resort to violence on helpless men”.

The inmates were starved, woken during the night, and forced to walk up and down their cells from early morning until late at night. When moving about the prison they were expected to run, while soldiers kicked them. One warder, a soldier of the Welsh Regiment, told Hayward: “If a British soldier feels inclined to treat a prisoner decently he has every opportunity to do so; and he also has the opportunity to ill-treat a prisoner if he so desires”.

The Foreign Office briefed Clement Attlee, the prime minister, that “the guards had apparently been instructed to carry out physical assaults on certain prisoners with the object of reducing them to a state of physical collapse and of making them more amenable to interrogation”.

Former prisoners told Hayward that they had been whipped as well as beaten. This, the detective said, seemed unbelievable, until “our inquiries of warders and guards produced most unexpected corroboration”. Threats to execute prisoners, or to arrest, torture and murder their wives and children were considered “perfectly proper”, on the grounds that such threats were never carried out.

Moreover, any prisoner thought to be uncooperative during interrogation was taken to a punishment cell where they would be stripped and repeatedly doused in water. This punishment could continue for weeks, even in sub-zero temperatures.

Naked prisoners were handcuffed back-to-back and forced to stand before open windows in midwinter. Frostbite became common. One victim of the cold cell punishment was Buttlar, who swallowed the spoon handle to escape. An anti-Nazi, he had spent two years as a prisoner of the Gestapo. “I never in all those two years had undergone such treatments,” he said.

Kalkowski, the NKVD officer, claimed that toenails were ripped out and that he had been hung from his wrists during interrogation, with weights tied to his legs. British NCOs, he alleged, would beat him with rubber truncheons “while the interrogating officers went for lunch”. Hayward concluded, however, that “there was not a shred of evidence to support these allegations”.

Whatever was happening during the interrogations must have been widely known among many of the camp’s officers and men. In common with every CSDIC prison, each cell was bugged, so that the prisoners’ private utterances could be matched against their “confessions”.

Inspector Hayward’s investigation led to the courts martial of Stephens, Captain John Smith, Bad Nenndorf’s medical officer, and an interrogator, Lieutenant Richard Langham. The hearings were largely held behind closed doors. A number of sergeants – men who had carried out the beatings – were told they would be pardoned if they gave evidence against their officers.

Langham, who had been born in Munich and fled to England with his parents in 1934, at the age of 13, denied that he had mistreated prisoners and was acquitted. Charges of manslaughter against Smith were dropped but, after a court martial held entirely in secret, he was found guilty of the neglect of inmates and sentenced, at the age of 49, to be dismissed the service.

It is unclear whether any of Stephens’s superiors knew, or condoned, what had happened at Bad Nenndorf, although his lawyers said they were prepared to spread the blame among senior army officers and Foreign Office officials. Before his court martial began there was nervous debate among ministers and government officials about how to avoid the repercussions which would follow, should the truth become known.

Ministers were anxious that nobody should learn that CSDIC was running a number of similar prisons in Germany. There was also what the chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Frank Pakenham, later to become Lord Longford, described as “the fact that we are alleged to have treated internees in a manner reminiscent of the German concentration camps”. The army, meanwhile, said it was determined the Soviets should not discover “how we apprehended and treated their agents”, not least because some would-be defectors might have second thoughts.

Finally, there was the inevitable fall-out for Attlee’s Labour government. As Hector McNeill, foreign minister, pointed out in a memo to Ernest Bevin, the foreign secretary: “I doubt if I can put too strongly the parliamentary consequences of publicity. Whenever we have any allegations to make about the political police methods in Eastern European states it will be enough to call out in the House ‘Bad Nenndorf’, and no reply is left to us.”

Stephens was eventually court martialled behind closed doors. Amid complaints of a half-hearted prosecution, he was acquitted of two charges, two others were withdrawn, and he was free to apply to rejoin MI5.

In Bad Nenndorf, the remaining prisoners were shipped out, the wire ripped down, and the prison shut down. The baths were reinstalled in the cubicles and, gradually, the spa returned to its traditional business of catering for the health needs of elderly German tourists.

The closure of Bad Nenndorf was not the end of the story, however. The archives reveal that three months later a custom-built interrogation centre, with cells for 30 men and 10 women, was opened near to the British military base at Gütersloh. The inmates were to be suspected Soviet spies, and would be medically examined before interrogation.

When Frank Pakenham complained that most of the interrogators had been at Bad Nenndorf, and demanded that “drastic methods” should not be employed, Major-General Sir Brian Robertson, the military governor, put his foot down.

Why, he exclaimed, if the military authorities were required to justify the arrest of each inmate, and then handle them according to the standards “enforced by the prison commissioners in our own enlightened country”, there was little point in having an interrogation centre at all.

Death subterfuge

One of the most bizarre episodes at Bad Nenndorf followed the death of a former SS officer called Abeling. He had been so severely beaten during his arrest in January 1947 that he was unconscious on arrival at the prison, and died shortly afterwards.

The camp’s officers instructed a local gravedigger to prepare a grave for a British officer who had died of an infectious disease. Abeling’s corpse was sewn into a blanket, lowered in, and covered with quicklime. A firing party was on hand to ensure that the dead man was buried with full British military honours, and a white wooden cross with a false name was erected over the grave.

The reasons for such subterfuge are made clear in declassified Foreign Office papers at the National Archives. Abeling, formerly a member of an “annihilation squad” in Warsaw, had been working as an agent for the Americans at the time of his death, spying on his old Nazi comrades under the codename Slim.

The report notes that the Americans “insisted that ‘Slim’s’ death must be kept a very closely guarded secret, because of the fact that the US authorities had been employing him in the full knowledge that he was wanted by the Polish government as a major war criminal”.

Today the wooden cross over Abeling’s grave has been replaced with a gravestone. It still bears the name of the man that local people believe to be buried there: John X White, born 1.8.1911, died 17.1.1947.

Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/dec/17/secondworldwar.topstories3

THE DRESDEN DEBATE WON’T DIE

No Gravatar

Today’s idea: Sixty-five years after the bombing of Dresden and other German cities during World War II, debate festers over whether the intention was to kill as many civilians as possible.

Dresden, 1945

The destruction of Dresden.

A year ago, this blog pointed to an interview with a British historian who contended that the destruction of Dresden, 65 years ago this past weekend, had a clear military rationale, since it was a communications and transit hub. “I remain unconvinced that maximizing civilian casualties, rather than winning the war by whatever means necessary,” was the chief objective, said Frederick Taylor.

But recently in The New Statesman, Leo McKinstry sifted through archives that he says contradict the British government’s longstanding denials that killing civilians en masse was a primary aim of wartime air raids on German cities:

Typical was a paper, now in the archives of Cambridge University, written in August 1941 by the bombing operations directorate of the air ministry. This argued that the focus of future British attacks must be “the people in their homes and in factories, also the services such as electricity, gas and water upon which the industrial and domestic life of the area depends.” Warming to this theme, the directorate then found support for such theories in the Luftwaffe’s [1940] bombing of Coventry [toll: nearly 600 dead]. To most Britons, this attack had been an outrage. To the Air Staff, it was an inspiration. The assault on Coventry, argued the paper, was “one of the most successful raids carried out by the German Air Force on this country,” with a ton of high explosive and incendiaries for every 800 citizens. “If Bomber Command could carry out a raid on the Coventry scale every month, the result would be a complete state of panic in the industrialized west of Germany,” as well as “considerable loss of life and limb, widespread destruction and damage to the houses of workers.”

Mr. McKinstry adds that Sir Arthur “Bomber” Harris, who ran the Royal Air Force’s devastating bombing campaign with gusto, saw “the euphemisms and evasions that his superiors used to cover up the reality” as an insult to the heroic men in his command. The officer wrote in 1943: “The aim of Bomber Command should be unambiguously and publicly stated. That aim is the destruction of German cities, the killing of German workers and the disruption of civilized life throughout Germany.” [The New Statesman]

Source: http://ideas.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/15/the-dresden-debate-wont-die/?hp

UKRAINE GRAVE FOUND TO HOLD STALIN VICTIMS, NOT NAZI VICTIMS

No Gravatar

Published: March 25, 1989

LEAD: A Government commission has concluded that thousands of people buried in a mass grave outside Kiev were killed during Stalin’s repressions, not by Nazi soldiers, the official press agency Tass reported today.

A Government commission has concluded that thousands of people buried in a mass grave outside Kiev were killed during Stalin’s repressions, not by Nazi soldiers, the official press agency Tass reported today.

The commission’s conclusion supports the testimony of elderly witnesses in the nearby village of Bykovnia, who said they saw trucks dripping blood en route to the site in the 1930’s, before the Nazis occupied the area.

Unofficial estimates put the number of bodies in the grave at 200,000 to 300,000.

Villagers in Bykovnia broke five decades of silence to accuse Stalin’s secret police after the Ukrainian government erected a monument in May 1988 blaming Nazi occupiers for the crime. The villagers in December forced Ukrainian authorities to establish the commission, saying three previous investigations had covered up the truth by blaming Nazi troops.

Today’s report by the press agency did not mention the earlier investigations.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/1989/03/25/world/ukraine-grave-found-to-hold-stalin-victims.html

THE “GOOD WAR” AND THE TERRIBLE PEACE

No Gravatar

by Patrick J. Buchanan

In attacking my book Churchill, Hitler and ‘The Unnecessary War’: How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World, Victor Davis Hanson, the court historian of the neoconservatives, charges me with “rewriting … facts” and showing “ingratitude” to American and British soldiers who fought World Wars I and II.

Both charges are false, and transparently so.

Hanson cites not a single fact I got wrong and ignores the fact that the book is dedicated to my mother’s four brothers who fought in World War II. Moreover, the book begins by celebrating the greatness of the British nation and heroism of its soldier-sons.

Did Hanson even read it?

The focus of “The Unnecessary War” is on the colossal blunders by British statesmen that reduced Britain from the greatest empire since Rome into an island dependency of the United States in three decades. It is a cautionary tale, written for America, which is treading the same path Britain trod in the early 20th century.

Hanson agrees the Versailles Treaty of 1919 was “flawed,” but says Germany had it coming, for the harsh peace the Germans imposed on France in 1871 and Russia in 1918.

Certainly, the amputation of Alsace-Lorraine by Bismarck’s Germany was a blunder that engendered French hatred and a passion for revenge. But does Teutonic stupidity in 1871 justify British stupidity in 1919?

Is that what history teaches, Hanson?

In 1918, Germany accepted an armistice on Wilson’s 14 Points, laid down her arms and surrendered her High Seas Fleet.

Yet, once disarmed, Germany was subjected to a starvation blockade, denied the right to fish in the Baltic Sea, and saw all her colonies and private property therein confiscated by British, French and Japanese imperialists, in naked violation of Wilson’s 14 Points.

Germans, Austrians and Hungarians by the millions were then consigned to Belgium, France, Italy, Serbia, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Poland and Lithuania, in violation of the principle of self-determination.

Germany was sliced in half, dismembered, disarmed, saddled with unpayable debt and forced, under threat of further starvation and invasion, to confess she alone was morally responsible for the war and all its devastation – which was a lie, and the Allies knew it.

Where was Hitler born?

“At Versailles,” replied Lady Astor.

As for the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk Germany imposed on Russia in 1918, is Hanson aware that the prison house of nations for which he wails, which was forced to disgorge Finland, the Baltic republics, Poland, Ukraine and the Caucasus, was ruled by Bolsheviks?

Was it a war crime for the Kaiser to break up Lenin’s evil empire?

Two years after Brest-Litovsk, Churchill himself was urging Britain to revise Versailles, bring Germany into the Allied fold and intervene in Russia’s civil war – against Lenin and Trotsky.

As for my thesis that the British war guarantee to Poland of March 31, 1939, was the “Fatal Blunder” that guaranteed World War II and brought down the British Empire, Hanson is mocking:

“Buchanan argues that, had the imperialist Winston Churchill not pushed poor Hitler into a corner, he would have never invaded Poland in 1939, which triggered an unnecessary Allied response.”

First, Hanson should get his prime ministers straight. It was Neville Chamberlain who issued the war guarantee to Poland after the collapse of his Munich accord. Churchill was not even in the Cabinet.

Second, Hansen implies that I portray Hitler as a misunderstood victim. This is mendacious. Hitler’s foul crimes are fully related.

Third, was it moral, Hanson, for Britain to promise the Poles military aid they could not and did not deliver, thus steeling Polish resolve to resist Hitler and guaranteeing Poland’s annihilation?

Was it wise, Hanson, for Britain to declare a world war on the strongest nation in Europe over a town, Danzig, where the British prime minister thought Germany had the stronger claim?

What were the consequences for Poland of trusting in Britain?

Crucifixion on a Nazi-Soviet cross, the Katyn massacre of the Polish officer corps, Treblinka and Auschwitz, annihilation of the Home Army, millions of brave Polish dead, half a century of Bolshevik terror.

And how did Churchill honor Britain’s commitment to Poland?

During trips to Moscow, Churchill bullied the Polish prime minister into ceding to Stalin that half of his country Stalin had gotten from his devil’s pact with Hitler, and yielded to Stalin’s demand for annexation of the Baltic republics and Bolshevik rule of a dozen nations of Eastern and Central Europe.

Was it worth 50 million dead, Hanson, so Stalin, whose victims, as of Sept. 1, 1939, were 1,000 times Hitler’s, could occupy not only Poland, for which Britain went to war, but all of Christian Europe to the Elbe?

Churchill was right when he told FDR in December 1941 it was “The Unnecessary War” and right again in 1948, when he wrote that, in Stalin, the world now faced “even worse perils” than those of Hitler.

So, what had it all been for?

Historian Hanson should go back to tutoring undergrads about the Peloponnesian War and the Syracuse Expedition.

Source: http://www.lewrockwell.com/buchanan/buchanan85.html

GERMAN HOLOCAUST: EISENHOWER’S SECRET MASS MURDER OF 1.7 MILLION GERMAN POWs

No Gravatar

“God, I hate the Germans…” (Dwight David Eisenhower in a letter to his wife in September, 1944)

Many historians and researchers have accused Eisenhower of being an anti-German racist and negligent mass murderer.

First, I want you to picture something in your mind. You are a German soldier who survived through the battles of World II. You were not really politically involved, and your parents were also indifferent to politics, but suddenly your education was interrupted and you were drafted into the German army and told where to fight. Now, in the Spring of 1945, you see that your country has been demolished by the Allies, your cities lie in ruins, and half of your family has been killed or is missing. Now, your unit is being surrounded, and it is finally time to surrender. The fact is, there is no other choice.

It has been a long, cold winter. The German army rations have not been all that good, but you managed to survive. Spring came late that year, with weeks of cold rainy weather in demolished Europe. Your boots are tattered, your uniform is falling apart, and the stress of surrender and the confusion that lies ahead for you has your guts being torn out. Now, it is over, you must surrender or be shot. This is war and the real world.

You are taken as a German Prisoner of War into American hands. The Americans had 200 such Prisoner of War camps scattered across Germany. You are marched to a compound surrounded with barbed wire fences as far as the eye can see. Thousands upon thousands of your fellow German soldiers are already in this make-shift corral. You see no evidence of a latrine and after three hours of marching through the mud of the spring rain, the comfort of a latrine is upper-most in your mind. You are driven through the heavily guarded gate and find yourself free to move about, and you begin the futile search for the latrine. Finally, you ask for directions, and are informed that no such luxury exists.

No more time. You find a place and squat. First you were exhausted, then hungry, then fearful, and now; dirty. Hundreds more German prisoners are behind you, pushing you on, jamming you together and every one of them searching for the latrine as soon as they could do so. Now, late in the day, there is no space to even squat, much less sit down to rest your weary legs. None of the prisoners, you quickly learn, have had any food that day, in fact there was no food while in the American hands that any surviving prisoner can testify to. No one has eaten any food for weeks, and they are slowly starving and dying. But, they can’t do this to us! There are the Geneva Convention rules for the treatment of Prisoners of War. There must be some mistake! Hope continues through the night, with no shelter from the cold, biting rain.

Your uniform is sopping wet, and formerly brave soldiers are weeping all around you, as buddy after buddy dies from the lack of food, water, sleep and shelter from the weather. After weeks of this, your own hope bleeds off into despair, and finally you actually begin to envy those who, having surrendered first manhood and then dignity, now also surrender life itself. More hopeless weeks go by. Finally, the last thing you remember is falling, unable to get up, and lying face down in the mud mixed with the excrement of those who have gone before.

Your body will be picked up long after it is cold, and taken to a special tent where your clothing is stripped off. So that you will be quickly forgotten, and never again identified, your dog-tag is snipped in half and your body along with those of your fellow soldiers are covered with chemicals for rapid decomposition and buried. You were not one of the exceptions, for more than one million seven hundred thousand German Prisoners of War died from a deliberate policy of extermination by starvation, exposure, and disease, under direct orders of the General Dwight David Eisenhower.

One month before the end of World War 11, General Eisenhower issued special orders concerning the treatment of German Prisoners and specific in the language of those orders was this statement,

“Prison enclosures are to provide no shelter or other comforts.”

Eisenhower biographer Stephen Ambrose, who was given access to the Eisenhower personal letters, states that he proposed to exterminate the entire German General Staff, thousands of people, after the war.

Eisenhower, in his personal letters, did not merely hate the Nazi Regime, and the few who imposed its will down from the top, but that HE HATED THE GERMAN PEOPLE AS A RACE. It was his personal intent to destroy as many of them as he could, and one way was to wipe out as many prisoners of war as possible.

Of course, that was illegal under International law, so he issued an order on March 10, 1945 and verified by his initials on a cable of that date, that German Prisoners of War be predesignated as “Disarmed Enemy Forces” called in these reports as DEF. He ordered that these Germans did not fall under the Geneva Rules, and were not to be fed or given any water or medical attention. The Swiss Red Cross was not to inspect the camps, for under the DEF classification, they had no such authority or jurisdiction.

Months after the war was officially over, Eisenhower’s special German DEF camps were still in operation forcing the men into confinement, but denying that they were prisoners. As soon as the war was over, General George Patton simply turned his prisoners loose to fend for themselves and find their way home as best they could. Eisenhower was furious, and issued a specific order to Patton, to turn these men over to the DEF camps. Knowing Patton as we do from history, we know that these orders were largely ignored, and it may well be that Patton’s untimely and curious death may have been a result of what he knew about these wretched Eisenhower DEF camps.

The book, OTHER LOSSES, found its way into the hands of a Canadian news reporter, Peter Worthington, of the OTTAWA SUN. He did his own research through contacts he had in Canada, and reported in his column on September 12,1989 the following, in part:

“…it is hard to escape the conclusion that Dwight Eisenhower was a war criminal of epic proportions. His (DEF) policy killed more Germans in peace than were killed in the European Theater.”

“For years we have blamed the 1.7 million missing German POW’s on the Russians. Until now, no one dug too deeply … Witnesses and survivors have been interviewed by the author; one Allied officer compared the American camps to Buchenwald.”

It is known, that the Allies had sufficient stockpiles of food and medicine to care for these German soldiers. This was deliberately and intentionally denied them. Many men died of gangrene from frostbite due to deliberate exposure. Local German people who offered these men food, were denied. General Patton’s Third Army was the only command in the European Theater to release significant numbers of Germans.

Others, such as Omar Bradley and General J.C.H. Lee, Commander of Com Z, tried, and ordered the release of prisoners within a week of the war’s end. However, a SHAEF Order, signed by Eisenhower, countermanded them on May 15th.

Does that make you angry? What will it take to get the average apathetic American involved in saving his country from such traitors at the top? Thirty years ago, amid the high popularity of Eisenhower, a book was written setting out the political and moral philosophy; of Dwight David Eisenhower called, THE POLITICIAN, by Robert Welch. This year is the 107th Anniversary of Eisenhower’s birth in Denison, Texas on October 14, 1890, the son of Jacob David Eisenhower and his wife Ida. Everyone is all excited about the celebration of this landmark in the history of “this American patriot.” Senator Robert Dole, in honor of the Commander of the American Death Camps, proposed that Washington’s Dulles Airport be renamed the Eisenhower Airport!

The UNITED STATES MINT in Philadelphia, PA is actually issuing a special Eisenhower Centennial Silver Dollar for only $25 each. They will only mint 4 million of these collector’s items, and veteran’s magazines are promoting these coins under the slogan, “Remember the Man…Remember the Times…” Pardon me if I regurgitate!

There will be some veterans who will not be buying these coins. Two will be Col. James Mason and Col. Charles Beasley who were in the U.S. Army Medical Corps who published a paper on the Eisenhower Death Camps in 1950. They stated in part:

“Huddled close together for warmth, behind the barbed wire was a most awesome sight; nearly 100,000 haggard, apathetic, dirty, gaunt, blank-staring men clad in dirty gray uniforms, and standing ankle deep in mud … water was a major problem, yet only 200 yards away the River Rhine was running bank-full.”

Another Veteran, who will not be buying any of the Eisenhower Silver Dollars is Martin Brech of Mahopac, New York, a semi-retired professor of philosophy at Mercy College in Dobbs Ferry, NY. In 1945, Brech was an 18 year old Private First Class in Company C of the 14th Infantry, assigned as a guard and interpreter at the Eisenhower Death Camp at Andernach, along the Rhine River. He stated for SPOTLIGHT, February 12, 1990:

“My protests (regarding treatment of the German DEF’S) were met with hostility or indifference, and when I threw our ample rations to them over the barbed wire. I was threatened, making it clear that it was our deliberate policy not to adequately feed them.”

“When they caught me throwing C- Rations over the fence, they threatened me with imprisonment. One Captain told me that he would shoot me if he saw me again tossing food to the Germans … Some of the men were really only boys 13 years of age…Some of the prisoners were old men drafted by Hitler in his last ditch stand … I understand that average weight of the prisoners at Andernach was 90 pounds…I have received threats … Nevertheless, this…has liberated me, for I may now be heard when I relate the horrible atrocity I witnessed as a prison guard for one of ‘Ike’s death camps’ along the Rhine.” (Betty Lou Smith Hanson)

Note: During Cadet Eisenhower’s time at West Point Academy, Eisenhower was summoned to the office of the headmaster and was asked some pointed questions. At the time, it was routine procedure to test a cadet’s blood to insure White racial integrity.

Apparently, there was a question of Eisenhower’s racial lineage and this was brought to Eisenhower’s attention by the headmaster. When asked if he was part Oriental, Eisenhower replied in the negative. After some discussion, Eisenhower admitted having Jewish background. The headmaster then reportedly said, “That’s where you get your Oriental blood?” Although he was allowed to remain at the academy, word got around since this was a time in history when non-Whites were not allowed into the academy. Note – The issue of Eisenhower’s little-known Jewish background in academically essential in understanding his psychopathic hatred of German men, women and children.

Later, in Eisenhower’s West Point Military Academy graduating class yearbook, published in 1915, Eisenhower is identified as a “terrible Swedish Jew.”

Wherever Eisenhower went during his military career, Eisenhower’s Jewish background and secondary manifesting behavior was a concern to his fellow officers. During World War II when Col. Eisenhower was working for Gen. Douglas MacArthur in the South Pacific, MacArthur protested to his superiors in Washington (DC) that Eisenhower was incompetent and that he did not want Eisenhower on his staff.

In 1943, Washington not only transferred Col. Eisenhower to Europe but promoted him over more than 30 more experienced senior officers to five star general and placed him in charge of all the US forces in Europe.

Thus it comes as no surprise that General George Patton, a real Aryan warrior, hated Eisenhower.

 [Ed: Patton was keen to fight the Soviets, and reportedly kept some German units ready to move against the Soviets...unsurprisingly he was killed; after the war, in a 'car crash,' just like Lawrence of Arabia was conveniently bumped off, in a similar manner, for his 'pro-fascist' views].

German POW’s Diary Reveals More Of Ike’s Holocaust

12-29-3

Note – The following diary extract has been provided by the nephew of the author under the conditions we honor his request for anonymity. -ed

A transcript of my Uncle’s words…from my Mother’s diary:

“Suddenly an American Jeep moved towards us and several American Soldiers surrounded us. There was no officer in charge, and the first thing the ‘Amis’ did – they liberated us, I mean, from our few valuables, mainly rings and watches…….. We were now prisoners of war- no doubt about it!

The first night we were herded into a barn, where we met about 100 men who shared the same fate. To make my story short, we were finally transported to Fuerstenfeldbruck near Munich. Here we, who were gathered around Hermann, interrupted him and gasped in dismay.

Fuerstenfeldbruck had become known to us as one of the most cruel POW camps in the American zone.

Then my brother continued:

Again we were searched and had to surrender everything, even our field utensils, except a spoon. Here, in freezing temperature, 20,000 of us were squeezed together on the naked ground, without blanket or cover, exposed day and night to the winter weather.

For six days we received neither food nor water! We used our spoons to catch drops of rain.

We were surrounded by heavy tanks. During the night bright searchlights blinded us, so that sleep was impossible. We napped from time to time, standing up and leaning against each other. It was keeping us warmer that sitting on the frozen ground.

Many of us were near collapse. One of our comrades went mad, he jumped around wildly, wailing and whimpering. he was shot at once. His body was lying on the ground, and we were not allowed to come near him. He was not he only one. Each suspicious movement caused the guards to shoot into the crowd, and a few were always hit.

German civilians, mainly women of the surrounding villages, tried to approach the camp to bring food and water for us prisoners. they were chased away.

Our German officers could finally succeed to submit an official protest, particularly because of the deprivation of water. As a response, a fire hose was thrown into the midst of the densely crowded prisoners and then turned on. Because of the high water pressure the hose moved violently to and fro. Prisoners tumbled, fell, got up and ran again to catch a bit of water. In that confusion the water went to waste and the ground under us turned into slippery mud. All the while the ‘Amis’ watched that spectacle, finding it very funny and most entertaining. They laughed at our predicament as hard as they could. Then suddenly, they turned the water off again.

We had not expected that the Americans would behave in such a manner. We could hardly believe it. War brutalizes human beings.

One day later we were organized into groups of 400 men….We were to receive two cans of food for each man. This is how it was to be done: The prisoners had to run through the slippery mud, and each one had to grab his two cans quickly, at the moment he passed the guards. One of my comrades slipped and could not run fast enough, He was shot at once ….

On May 10th , several truckloads of us were transported the the garrison of Ulm by the Danube….. As each man jumped into the truck, a guard kicked him in the backbone with his rifle butt.

We arrived in the city of Heilbronn by the Neckar, in the end we counted 240,000 men, who lived on the naked ground and without cover.

Spring and summer were mild this year, but we were starving. At 6;00 am we received coffee, at noon about a pint of soup and 100 grams of bread a day……..

The ‘Amis’ gave us newspapers in German language, describing the terrors of the concentration camps. We did not believe any of it. We figured the Americans only wanted to demoralize us further.

The fields on which we lived belonged to the farmers of the area…soon nothing of the clover and other sprouting greens were left, and the trees were barren. We had eaten each blade of grass…..

In some camps there were Hungarian POW’s. 15,000 of them. Mutiny against their officers broke out twice amongst them. After the second mutiny the Americans decided to use German prisoners to govern the Hungarians. Since the Hungarians were used as workers they were well fed. There was more food than they could eat. But when the Germans asked the Americans for permission to bring the Hungarians’ leftovers into the camps of the starving Germans, it was denied. The Americans rather destroyed surplus food, than giving it to the Germans.

Sometimes it happened that groups of our own men were gathered and transported away. We presumed they were discharged to go home, and naturally, we wished to be among them. Much later we heard they were sent to labor camps! My mother’s cousin, feared that he would be drafted into the Hitler Youth SS, he volunteered to the marines, in 1945 his unit was in Denmark. On April 20th they were captured by the Americans. his experience in the POW camp was identical that of my brother’s. They lived in open fields, did not receive and food and water the first six days, and starved nearly to death. German wives and mothers who wanted to throw loaves of bread over the fence, were chased off. The prisoners, just to have something to chew, scraped the bark from young trees. My cousin’s job was to report each morning how many had died during the night. “And these were not just a few!” he adds to his report he wrote me.

It became known, that the conditions in the POW camps in the American Zone were identical everywhere. We could therefore safely conclude that it was by intent and by orders from higher ups to starve the German POW’s and we blamed General Eisenhower for it. He, who was of German descent, could not discern the evildoers during the Nazi time from our decent people. We held that neglect of knowledge and understanding severely against him.

I wish to quote the inscription on the grave stones of those of my German compatriots who have already passed away:

We had to pass through fire and through water. But now you have loosened our bonds.

Source: http://rense.com/general46/germ.htm

WAS THE JEWISH HOLOCAUST INEVITABLE?

No Gravatar

by Patrick J. Buchanan

Patrick J. Buchanan: American political analyst and historian.

“What Would Winston Do?”

So asks Newsweek’s cover, which features a full-length photo of the prime minister his people voted the greatest Briton of them all.

Quite a tribute, when one realizes Churchill’s career coincides with the collapse of the British empire and the fall of his nation from world pre-eminence to third-rate power.

That the Newsweek cover was sparked by my book “Churchill, Hitler and The Unnecessary War” seems apparent, as one of the three essays, by Christopher Hitchens, was a scathing review. Though in places complimentary, Hitchens charmingly concludes: This book “stinks.”

Understandable. No Brit can easily concede my central thesis: The Brits kicked away their empire. Through colossal blunders, Britain twice declared war on a Germany that had not attacked her and did not want war with her, fought for 10 bloody years and lost it all.

Unable to face the truth, Hitchens seeks solace in old myths.

We had to stop Prussian militarism in 1914, says Hitchens. “The Kaiser’s policy shows that Germany was looking for a chance for war all over the globe.”

Nonsense. If the Kaiser were looking for a war he would have found it. But in 1914, he had been in power for 25 years, was deep into middle age but had never fought a war nor seen a battle.

From Waterloo to World War I, Prussia fought three wars, all in one seven-year period, 1864 to 1871. Out of these wars, she acquired two duchies, Schleswig and Holstein, and two provinces, Alsace and Lorraine. By 1914, Germany had not fought a war in two generations.

Does that sound like a nation out to conquer the world?

As for the Kaiser’s bellicose support for the Boers, his igniting the Agadir crisis in 1905, his building of a great fleet, his seeking of colonies in Africa, he was only aping the British, whose approbation and friendship he desperately sought all his life and was ever denied.

In every crisis the Kaiser blundered into, including his foolish “blank cheque” to Austria after Serb assassins murdered the heir to the Austrian throne, the Kaiser backed down or was trying to back away when war erupted.

Even Churchill, who before 1914 was charging the Kaiser with seeking “the dominion of the world,” conceded, “History should … acquit William II of having plotted and planned the World War.”

What of World War II? Surely, it was necessary to declare war to stop Adolf Hitler from conquering the world and conducting the Holocaust.

Yet consider. Before Britain declared war on him, Hitler never demanded return of any lands lost at Versailles to the West. Northern Schleswig had gone to Denmark in 1919, Eupen and Malmedy had gone to Belgium, Alsace and Lorraine to France.

Why did Hitler not demand these lands back? Because he sought an alliance, or at least friendship, with Great Britain and knew any move on France would mean war with Britain — a war he never wanted.

If Hitler were out to conquer the world, why did he not build a great fleet? Why did he not demand the French fleet when France surrendered? Germany had to give up its High Seas Fleet in 1918.

Why did he build his own Maginot Line, the Western Wall, in the Rhineland, if he meant all along to invade France?

If he wanted war with the West, why did he offer peace after Poland and offer to end the war, again, after Dunkirk?

That Hitler was a rabid anti-Semite is undeniable. “Mein Kampf” is saturated in anti-Semitism. The Nuremberg Laws confirm it. But for the six years before Britain declared war, there was no Holocaust, and for two years after the war began, there was no Holocaust.

Not until midwinter 1942 was the Wannsee Conference held, where the Final Solution was on the table.

That conference was not convened until Hitler had been halted in Russia, was at war with America and sensed doom was inevitable. Then the trains began to roll.

And why did Hitler invade Russia? This writer quotes Hitler 10 times as saying that only by knocking out Russia could he convince Britain it could not win and must end the war.

Hitchens mocks this view, invoking the Hitler-madman theory.

 “Could we have a better definition of derangement and megalomania than the case of a dictator who overrules his own generals and invades Russia in wintertime … ?”

Christopher, Hitler invaded Russia on June 22.

The Holocaust was not a cause of the war, but a consequence of the war. No war, no Holocaust.

Britain went to war with Germany to save Poland. She did not save Poland. She did lose the empire. And Josef Stalin, whose victims outnumbered those of Hitler 1,000 to one as of September 1939, and who joined Hitler in the rape of Poland, wound up with all of Poland, and all the Christian nations from the Urals to the Elbe.

The British Empire fought, bled and died, and made Eastern and Central Europe safe for Stalinism. No wonder Winston Churchill was so melancholy in old age. No wonder Christopher rails against the book. As T.S. Eliot observed, “Mankind cannot bear much reality.”

Source: http://buchanan.org/blog/2008/06/pjb-was-the-holocaust-inevitable/

TUSKEGEE WAR HERO AND AFRICAN AIRMAN WALTER MCCREARY REMEMBERS

No Gravatar

by Jamie van Wagtendonk

A few of America's African war heroes.

When his Nazi captors interrogated American air-force pilot Walter McCreary, shortly after he was shot down over Budapest, Hungary in [1944], he was questioned as to why he would risk his life for a country that treated African-Americans so poorly. He answered, simply, “It is our home and we want to be part of it.”

Mr McCreary was a member of the Tuskegee Airmen, an Army fighter-pilot corps based in Tuskegee, Alabama, made up exclusively of African-Americans. At the time of its inception, most institutions in the southern United States were segregated based on race and this remained true of the American armed services for all of World War Two. Mr McCreary remembers the Tuskegee airfield, set apart from white military facilities.

“The war department built Tuskegee Army Airfield. It was all African-American. Apart from a few white instructors everything was black. Even the birds were black that flew over.”

The young men who signed up for the thousand-strong Tuskegee force had to contend with a great deal of racism and scepticism. The corps was originally termed ‘an experiment’ by the United States government and some felt that this unit was destined for failure. Mr McCreary:

“There were members of Congress that said that African-American youth did not have the intelligence, did not have the coordination, could not follow orders and did not have the potential to become leaders.”

Segregation

Despite the racism and restrictions that the young African-American soldiers faced, the Tuskegee Airmen chose to fight for the United States and when they were sent to Europe, performed valiantly. Their mission was to escort bombers as they attacked Nazi targets in Europe. Historians often note that the Tuskegee Airmen was the only American fighter group never to lose a bomber to enemy planes. They quickly established a reputation as one of the best air-force corps in the European theatre. White bomber pilots began asking to be escorted by the ‘red-tails’, a nickname for the Tuskegee Airmen after they painted a red stripe on their planes’ rudder.

63 years after the war ended and one month before the 60th anniversary of President Harry S. Truman’s declaration ending segregation of the American military, the heroics of the Tuskegee Airmen are still celebrated. By choosing to fight for a country where they were not treated equally, the airmen changed many people’s mind about segregation. Mr McCreary is proud of this accomplishment.

“We proved that segregation was not necessary and that we could be integrated based on our merits and our accomplishments. This was in contrast to what the congressmen had said and it proved that in combat, we were equal. As a result of the military becoming integrated, then the country became integrated.”

Source: http://www.radionetherlands.nl/thestatewerein/otherstates/tswi-080613-tuskegee-airman

WAS GENERAL GEORGE S. PATTON ASSASSINATED?

No Gravatar

General George S. Patton

General George S. Patton, Jr., died in a Heidelberg, Germany hospital December 21, 1945 due to complications of a broken neck that he sustained eleven days earlier in a minor automobile accident on Highway 38 near Mannheim, Germany. Immediately after his death rumors of foul play and conspiracy surrounded the circumstances of his accident. The common rumor in Germany at the time was that Patton was assassinated due to his wish to join forces with Germany and attack Russia. Patton had openly admitted that the Allies had defeated “the wrong enemy” and repeatedly praised German industry and the discipline of its people.

A post WWII Nazi revival was also rumored. Some Nazi fanatics envisioned a revival of their socialist party from the reclusive Austrian Alps, complete with SS defenders and Gestapo. However, Eisenhower, upon hearing these rumors, directed Patton to regroup his Third Army and secure the Alpine peaks. Still a few Nazis dreamed that their party’s resurgence could be flamed by the sympathetic General Patton. After all, some Nazis must have rationalized, it was Patton who had flatly stated that the Allies had destroyed the “wrong enemy” and that communism was a horrible threat to the world, so it was Patton who could revive the Nazis and storm into Moscow. Though Patton during wartime had promised the men of the Third Army that he was going to Berlin and personally “shoot that paper-hanging son-of-a-bitch just like I would a snake,” in 1945 Hitler was gone and the fanatics still hoped that the party could be revived.

Patton may have been surrounded in 1945 by Nazi spies. These spies may have been sympathetic to forces that wished to persuade Patton into helping them revitalize the Nazi party. One of these men was Baron von Wangenheim, a former Nazi colonel and Olympian equestrian, who became a daily companion of Patton and kept a small stable of horses for the general. Another man named Brehm became a part of Patton’s post-war inner circle; he was later identified as an executive agent of the Sicherheitsdienst, the underground Nazi secret service.

From the day of his death to the present many have asked how a man of Patton’s stature could die so commonly and uncharacteristically in an auto accident where both vehicles weren’t moving faster than twenty miles per hour. Suspicion was cast on all those who Patton had offended, and there were many – Generals Montgomery, Eisenhower, Bedell Smith, even Presidents Truman and Roosevelt. Ever since the wartime rumor that Nazi General Jodl was planning to assassinate Patton, conspiracy theories ran rampant. These theories were fueled because no official report was ever made of the auto accident and that there was no autopsy. Patton’s neurosurgeon, Colonel Spurling, made a post mortem report that is still classified. The senior MP officer on the scene of the accident, Lt. Peter Babalas, found that the accident was trivial but Patton’s injury was not. He filed a personal report on the accident that has never been located though Babalas made several attempts to locate it. Books like Blood and Guts is Going Nuts and The Algonquin Project have since speculated that elaborate plots were at hand during the war to end Patton’s flamboyant career, and a Hollywood movie, Brass Target, also spun a wild tale of conspiracy.

One of the most intriguing theories that Patton was the target of a plot comes from an ex-U.S. intelligence agent who claimed he was paid to kill Patton. Douglas Bazata started his espionage career in 1926 and continued it for over 50 years in the Marine Corps and OSS. Bazata told 450 guests at the Hilton Hotel in Washington D.C. on September 25, 1979, that he was solicited by OSS head Bill Donovan to kill Patton for money.[i]

Bazata told the Hilton Hotel audience, “For diverse political reasons, many extremely high-ranking persons hated Patton. I know who killed him. Because I am the one who was hired to do it. Ten thousand dollars. General William Donovan himself, director of the O.S.S, entrusted me with the mission. I set up the accident. Since he didn’t die in the accident, he was kept in isolation in the hospital, where he was killed with an injection.”[ii]

The story was reported in the Washington Star and The Spotlight magazine.[iii] Bazata claimed he was commissioned to kill Patton in a series of eight meetings with Donovan. The Washington Star reported that Bazata’s interview was analyzed by a Psychological Stress Evaluator (PSE), a polygraph machine that measures stress in the voice, and reported that Bazata is telling the truth. Bazata said he was paid a total of $10,800 on two occasions by Donovan. He accepted the money and told Donovan that he would kill Patton, but in reality had no intention of trying. He said he worked with Donovan on the surface only because he feared for his life if he didn’t. Soon after he was paid, Bazata was confronted by a confident and told that he too had been contracted to kill Patton. Who had hired the other man, Bazata never knew. Why Donovan wanted Patton dead was unclear to Bazata. Donovan could have been the only instigator, or been the mouthpiece for another individual or group.

Bazata claims he knew Patton personally and warned him of the plot. In 1944, Bazata said he was involved in a plot to stop Patton’s uncontrollable assault toward Germany. The military command couldn’t control him so Bazata claims he surreptitiously stopped the assault between Bisancon and Belfort, France. Though he didn’t elaborate how he could perform such a daunting feat saying only that he used a “trick,” it is known that Patton was plagued with mysterious supply problems throughout his campaign. Bazata was paid $800 by Donovan for this mission.

On the day of the accident, December 9, 1945, Patton was in command of the Fifteenth U.S. Army, a force that had been assigned to write the official history of the American campaign in Europe from June 6, 1944 to May 8, 1945. About 7 a.m. the morning of the accident, Private First Class Horace Woodring, Patton’s driver, was ordered to prepare the General’s 1938 Cadillac Model 75 limousine for a hunting trip. The hunting party consisted of Patton, Woodring, and General Hap Gay in the limo and Sgt. Meeks and a hunting dog that followed in a truck. They left Bad Nauheim, Germany between seven and eight in the morning. Patton decided to inspect some ancient ruins on the way and after he did he moved from the back seat to the front to dry his feet. This was one of several times Patton changed seats in the limo. Biographer Ladislas Farago believes that these series of coincidences made Patton’s movements and intentions impossible to monitor, thus ruling out any kind of plot.

At 11:45 a.m., after stopping at a checkpoint and then moving to the back of the limo again, the limo stopped at a railroad crossing on Route 38 to let a long freight train pass. Woodring moved past the track and hadn’t reached twenty miles an hour when a GMC truck, traveling the same speed, turned quickly into the limo and smashed the right front fender. Patton was thrown forward and upward; his head hit either the railing above the driver’s seat or the glass partition between the front and back of the car. He immediately felt numbness in his arms and was quickly evacuated to the Heidelburg hospital.

Later Bazata’s confident detailed how he had made the assassination look like an accident. Bazata freely admits that agents in his line of work are prone to exaggeration. His confident claimed that when Patton was inspecting the ruins on the 9th of December he fixed a window in the car so that it would not completely close. The truck that collided with the limo was supposedly completely innocent of the plot. The truck was forced into the path of the limo by another truck that was waiting for the opportunity. The second truck was part of the plot. The accident was of a minor nature and Bazata believes could not have inflicted the kind of whiplash that Patton received. Bazata’s confident claims that a special weapon made in Czechoslovakia was used to strike Patton in the head. The weapon was designed to propel seemingly innocuous objects like metal or rocks at terrific force. This weapon, fired at about 10 yards away, allegedly caused the severe head wound and broke Patton’s neck. Patton was unsure what had caused the severe whiplash believing that he hit his head on the limo’s clock.

Patton’s health gradually improved and he was scheduled to travel back to the U.S. on the 22nd when he died unexpectedly on the 21st. Bazata again claims conspiracy. Bazata’s confident told him that Patton was given a refined form of cyanide that can cause or appear to cause embolisms and heart failure. This kind of cyanide can take up to 48 hours to work. When the plotters saw that Patton would likely live they were forced to use the poison.

It seems unlikely that the plotters would go to such lengths when Patton was obviously incapacitated for the rest of his life and no real threat militarily or politically to anyone. The entire plot that Bazata’s confident told him seems too fantastic at face value, but that doesn’t eliminate the fact that Patton had made many enemies during his career, both Triple Axis and Allies that wished him out of the field of play. Donovan allegedly asked Bazata to kill Patton while he was under Roosevelt (1943) and Truman (1945). Donovan worked closely with the presidents but there is nothing to lead us to believe that Roosevelt or Truman ordered Donovan to hatch such a plot. Bazata believes that his confident was not working for Donovan. When Patton died Donovan supposedly congratulated Bazata on his job, apparently thinking Bazata had done it. Bazata’s confident never told him who had hired him.

It is no wonder that Patton was quoted in July 1945 as saying, “The more I see of people the more I regret that I survived the war.”

Sources:

Farago, Ladislas. Patton: Ordeal and Triumph, Westholme Publishing, New York, 2005.

Leopold, Chris. Blood and Guts is Going Nuts, Doubleday, Garden City, New York, 1977.

Frederick, Nolan. The Algonquin Project, Morrow, New York, 1974.

[i] The Troubleshooters.com http://www.thetroubleshooters.com/br/br060.html

[ii] http://www.rense.com/general63/patton.htm

[iii] Ibid.

Source: http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/681841/was_general_george_s_patton_a_victim.html?cat=37

RARE SOVIET WORLD WAR II PHOTOS

No Gravatar

http://www.dirjournal.com/info/world-war-photos-you-have-never-seen/

Thanks for viewing!

courtesy of JOTRH.