Saturday, October 27, 2018

The "Russian" Revolution - Part I

Part I

"The Red Terror became so wide-spread that it is impossible to give here all the details of the principal means employed by the [Jewish] Cheka(s) to master resistance; one of the most important is that of hostages, taken among all social classes. These are held responsible for any anti-Bolshevist movements (revolts, the White Army, strikes, refusal of a village to give its harvest etc.) and are immediately executed. Thus, for the assassination of the Jew Ouritzky, member of the Extraordinary Commission of Petrograd, several thousands of them were put to death, and many of these unfortunate men and women suffered before death various tortures inflicted by cold-blooded cruelty in the prisons of the Cheka.
I have in front of me photographs taken at Kharkoff, in the presence of the Allied Missions, immediately after the Reds had abandoned the town; they consist of a series of ghastly reproductions such as: Bodies of three workmen taken as hostages from a factory which went on strike. One had his eyes burnt, his lips and nose cut off; the other two had their hands cut off.
The bodies of hostages, S. Afaniasouk and P. Prokpovitch, small landed proprietors, who were scalped by their executioners; S. Afaniasouk shows numerous burns caused by a white hot sword blade. The body of M. Bobroff, a former officer, who had his tongue and one hand cut off and the skin torn off from his left leg.
Human skin torn from the hands of several victims by means of a metallic comb. This sinister find was the result of a careful inspection of the cellar of the Extraordinary Commission of Kharkoff. The retired general Pontiafa, a hostage who had the skin of his right hand torn off and the genital parts mutilated.
Mutilated bodies of women hostages: S. Ivanovna, owner of a drapery business, Mme. A.L. Carolshaja, wife of a colonel, Mmo. Khlopova, a property owner. They had their breasts slit and emptied and the genital parts burnt and having trace of coal.
Bodies of four peasant hostages, Bondarenko, Pookhikle, Sevenetry, and Sidorfehouk, with atrociously mutilated faces, the genital parts having been operated upon by Chinese torturers in a manner unknown to European doctors in whose opinion the agony caused to the victims must have been dreadful.
It is impossible to enumerate all the forms of savagery which the Red Terror took. A volume would not contain them. The Cheka of Kharkoff, for example, in which Saenko operated, had the specialty of scalping victims and taking off the skin of their hands as one takes off a glove...At Voronege the victims were shut up naked in a barrel studded with nails which was then rolled about. Their foreheads were branded with a red hot iron FIVE POINTED STAR. At Tsaritsin and at Kamishin their bones were sawed...At Keif the victim was shut up in a chest containing decomposing corpses; after firing shots above his head his torturers told him that he would be buried alive. The chest was buried and opened again half an hour later when the interrogation of the victim was proceeded with. The scene was repeated several times over. It is not surprising that many victims went mad." (S.P. Melgounov, p. 164-166; The Secret Powers Behind Revolution, by Vicomte Leon De Poncins, p. 151-153).

"The overthrowing of imperialistic governments by armed uprisings and the organization of an International Soviet Republic is the way of the international dictatorship of the working class. The most forceful way to maintain the international revolution is by the organization of the armed forces of revolution...The workmen of all Europe will do, and in fact are already doing, the same...Sooner or later we will have the International Republic of Soviets." (Memorandum on Certain Aspects of the Bolshevist Movement in Russia, p. 46, Issued by the Department of State, Washington, D.C., 1919).

"Being ill, Raskolinkoff dreamt that the whole world was doomed to a peculiar but dreadful, unknown plague, sweeping from the depths of Asis towards Europe. Everybody had to perish with the exception of several, very few chosen. There appeared some kind of new germs, microscopic creatures which penetrated into human bodies...
Men who were affected by them immediately became possessed with a devil, falling into madness. But never, indeed never, did men feel themselves more clever and more firm in their beliefs than those affected by the disease. Never did men consider their judgments, their scientific conclusions, their moral convictions and faith more steady and firm.
Entire communities and cities, whole peoples, became affected by this disease and acted as insane. Everybody was alarmed and nobody understood, each being convinced the the truth was in him alone, and everybody suffered, looking at others, beating their chests and wringing their hands in despair. It was not known who would be persecuted, nor how, nor what should be considered as being evil or good. Neither was it known who should be accused, who should be defended. People slew each other in a state of irrational fury. Armies were raised against each other; but while on their march they suddenly began to tear themselves to pieces, their ranks became destroyed, and soldiers attacked each other, killing, biting and devouring one another. In the cities alarm bells were rung all day long. People were calling together but nobody knew who was making the appeal nor for what purpose and everybody was alarmed.
The usual trade was discontinued because everybody insisted upon his own thoughts, presenting his own amendments, and no agreement could possibly be reached. Agriculture was suspended. In some places men gathered in groups, agreed upon something and took oath not to part, but immediately after that they began to do something quite different from what they themselves had anticipated and then they began to accuse and to slay each other. Fires broke out and famine started." (Crime and Punishment, Epilogue, Translation from the Russian, Raskolinkoff Dostojevsky; The World At The Cross Roads, Boris Brasol, pp. 37-38).

"By sending Lenin to Russia our (German) Government had, moreover, assumed a great responsibility. From a military point of view his journey was justified, for Russia had to be laid low. But our Government should have seen to it that we also were not involved in her fall. The events in Russia gave me no cause for complete satisfaction. They considerably eased the military situation, but elements of the greatest danger still remained." (Luden dorff's Own Story, Vol. II, pp. 126-127, Harper & Brothers, New York, 1919; The World At The Cross Roads, Boris Brasol, p. 67).

"There was not a political organization in the vase Empire which was not influenced by the Jews or directed by them; the Social-Democrats, the Revolutionary Socialist Parties, the Polish Socialist Party, all counted Jews among their directors; Plehve was perhaps right when he said that the combat for political emancipation in Russia and the Jewish question were practically identical." (The Pioneers of the Russian Revolution, Dr. Angelo Rapport).

"Among them" narrates Princess Radziwill, "was a man named Kameneff, whose name was found later on among the signatures at the bottom of the treaty of Brest-Litovsk and who introduced himself as a confidential friend of both Lenin and Trotzky. This Kameneff was another repulsive Jew, but undoubtedly an intelligent creature whose only principle was to enrich himself at any price and in the shortest of time. He was eager for action, because he realized that it was only through some upheaval or other that he would be enabled to lay his greedy hands on the Russian public exchequer. Captain Russtenberg heard afterwards that when it came to the partition of the millions which Germany paid for the betrayal of Russia to the Bolsheviks (Jews), Kameneff was the man who got the lion's share." (Princess Catherine Radziwill, The Firebrand of Bolshevism, pp. 203-204, Small, Maynard & Company, Boston, Mass., 1919. Kameneff, whose real name was Rosenfeld, was one of the most notorious Soviet officials. He replaced Krassin as Chairman of the Bolshevist delegation to Great Britain, which was dispatched to conduct negotiations for the resumption of trade relations between England and Soviet Russia. Rosenfeld-Kameneff is said to be a brother-in-law of Trotzky (Bronstein); (The World At The Cross Roads, Boris Brasol, p. 68).

"During the summer of 1916 a secret report was received by the Russian General Headquarters from one of its agents in New York. This report, dated February 15, 1916, reads in part as follows: 'The Russian Revolutionary Party of America has evidently resumed its activities. As a consequence of it, momentous developments are expected to follow. The first confidential meeting which marked the beginning of a new era of violence took place on Monday evening, February 14, 1916, in the East Side of New York City. It was attended by sixty-two delegates, fifty of whom were 'veterans' of the revolution of 1905; the rest being newly admitted members. Among the delegates were a large percentage of Jews, most of them belonging to the intellectual class, as doctors, publicists, etc., but also some professional revolutionists...The proceedings of this first meeting were almost entirely devoted to the discussion of finding ways and means to start a great revolution in Russia as the 'most favourable moment for it is close at hand.' It was revealed that secret reports had just reached the party from Russia, describing the situation as very favourable, when all arrangements for an immediate outbreak were completed. The only serious problem was the financial question but whenever this was raised the assembly was immediately assured by some for the members that this question did not need to cause any embarrassment as ample funds, if necessary, would be furnished by persons in sympathy with the movement of liberating the people of Russia. In this connection the name of Jacob Schiff was repeatedly mentioned.' It was further added in the report that: 'The soul of this new revolutionary movement is the German Ambassador in Washington, Count Bernstorff. Dr. Albert, the financial agent attached to the German Embassy in Washington, is manager of this revolution which took place in Mexico. He is aided in his task by the first Secretary of the German Embassy.'" (The World At The Cross Roads, Boris Brasol, pp. 69-70).

"Indeed, this was more than a German plot; it was a world-conspiracy, first against Russia and next against Christian civilization at large. The following two documents throw a peculiar sidelight upon the nature of this sinister enterprise.
1. Copenhagen, June 18, 1917. Mr. Ruffner, Helsingfors. Dear Sir: please be advised that from the Disconto-Gesellschaft account 315,000 marks have been transferred to Mr. Lenin's account in Kronstadt, as per order of the Syndicate. Kindly acknowledge receipt: Nilandeway 98, Copenhagen, W. Hansen & Co. - Svensen.
2. Stockholm, September 21, 1917. Mr. Raphael Scholan Haparanda. Dear Comrade: The office of the banking house M. Warburg has opened in accordance with telegram from president of Rheinish-Westphalian Syndicate an account for the undertaking of Comrade Trotzky. The attorney (agent) purchased arms and has organized their transportation and delivery up to Luleo and Varde. Name to the office of Essen & Son in Luleo, receivers, and a person authorized to receive the money demanded by Comrade Trotzky. - J. Furstenberg. (The German-Bolshevik Conspiracy, issued by The Committee on Public Information, Washington, D.C., p. 27, October, 1918. The documents as above quoted were never repudiated by the Disconto-Gesellschaft or the Rheinish-Westphalian Syndicate).

"It will be recalled that Furstenberg, who also assumed the name of Ganetzky, together with his Jewish friend Rdek, alias Sobelsohn, became later prominent members of the Soviet Government. In March, 1917, Furstenberg took an active part in the 'defeatist' propaganda in Russia, and it was through his medium that part of the money contributed by the German-Jewish bankers to the leaders of the destruction of civilization was forwarded to Russia. The documents above quoted reveal the active participation of international banking organizations in the 'undertaking of Comrade Trotzky.' The Disconto-Gesellschaft, the Rheinish-Westphalian Syndicate, the international banking firm of Warburgs, the various subsidiary banking institutions in Scandinavia, such as the Nya Banken, all of them were working in harmonious accord with the red generals of the world-revolution. This was the 'one big union' the aim of which was the complete destruction, if possible the annihilation , of 'holy Russia'' the corner-stone of European Christianity." (The World At The Cross Roads, Boris Brasol, pp. 71-73).

"Only now, after the terrible has become possible to appreciate fully the accuracy of the information presented in the secret report of Count Lamsdorf, former Russian Foreign Minister, to Emperor Nicholas II, dated January 3, 1906, on the international aspect of the first revolutionary outbreak in Russia in 1905. Some of the passages in this report are so striking that we feel it necessary to quote them in extends: 'The events which took place in Russia during 1905, and which assumed especially acute forms at the beginning of October last, when after a series of strikes, they brought about an armed revolt in Moscow, and many other towns and localities of the Empire, plainly indicate that the Russian revolutionary movement; apart from its deeper, internal, social-economic and political causes, has also quite a definite international character...The most decisive indications which warrant this conclusion are given by the circumstances that the Russian revolutionaries are in possession of great quantities of arms which are imported from abroad, and of very considerable financial means, because there can be no doubt that the leaders of the revolution have already spent on our anti-government movement, the organization of all sorts of strikes included, large amounts of money. Since, however, it must be acknowledged that such support given to the revolutionary movement by sending arms and money from abroad can hardly be ascribed to foreign governments (with very special exceptions, as, for instance, that of Sweden supporting the revolutionary movement in Finland, and of Austria which helped the Poles) one is bound to come to the conclusion that there are foreign capitalists' organizations which are interested in supporting our revolutionary movement. With this conclusion the fact must be confronted that the Russian revolutionary movement has the outspoken character of a movement of the heterogeneous nationalities of Russia which one after another, Armenians and Georgians, Letts and Esths, Finns, Poles and others, arose against the Imperial Government...If we add to the above, that, as has been proved beyond any doubt, a very considerable part among these heterogeneous nationalities is played by Jews, who, individually, as ringleaders in the other organizations, as well as through their own (the Jewish Bund in the Western Provinces), have always come forward as the most bellicose element of the revolution, we may feel entitled to assume that the above-mentioned foreign support of the Russian revolutionary movement comes from Jewish capitalist circles. In this respect one must not ignore the following concurrences of facts which lead to further conclusions, namely, that the revolutionary movement is not only supported but also to a certain degree directed from abroad. On one hand, the strike broke out with special violence and spread all over Russia not before and not after October, that is, just at the time when our government tried to realize a considerable foreign loan without the participation of the Rothschilds and just in time for preventing the carrying out of this financial operation; the panic provoked among the buyers and holders of Russian loans could not fail to give additional advantages to the Jewish banks and capitalists who openly and knowingly speculated upon the fall of the Russian rates...Moreover, certain very significant facts, which were also mentioned in the press, quite confirm the obvious connection of the Russian revolutionary movement with the foreign Jewish organizations. Thus, for instance, the above-mentioned importation of arms, which according to our agents' information was carried on from the European Continent through England can be duly appreciated if we take into consideration that already in June, 1905, a special Antlo-Jewish committee of capitalists was openly established in England for the purpose of collecting money for arming fighting groups of Russian Jews, and that the well-known anti-Russian publicist, Lucien Wolf, was the leading member of this committee. On the other hand, in view of the fact that the sad consequences of the revolutionary propaganda affected the Jews themselves, another committee of Jewish capitalists was formed in England, under the leadership of Lord Rothschild, which collected considerable amounts of contributions in England, France and Germany for the officially alleged purpose of helping Russian Jews who suffered from pogroms. And lastly, the Jews in America, without thinking it necessary formally to distinguish between the two purposes, collect money for helping the pogrom sufferers and for arming the Jewish youth.'" (The World At The Cross Roads, Boris Brasol, pp. 73-76).

On the fifteenth day of March, 1917, Emperor Nicholas II abdicated from the Russian throne for himself and for his son. Six days later the following Army Order No. 371 was issued by General Alexeev, Chief of Staff of General Headquarters: 'Emperor Nicholas II, who abdicated the throne, before his departure from the region occupied by the army in the field, addressed the troops with the following farewell words: 'For the last time I apply to you, much beloved armies. After abdicating for myself and my son from the Russian throne, the power was transferred to the Provisional Government which was established on the initiative of the Imperial Duma. Let the Lord help it to lead Russia in the path of glory and prosperity. Let the Lord help you, gallant troops, to protect our fatherland against a wicked foe. For two and one-half years continuously you rendered hard battle service. Much blood was shed. Many efforts have been made and the hour is close when Russia, tied to her gallant Allies, by means of one combined effort towards victory, shall break the last resistance of the enemy. This unprecedented war must be pursued to a final victory. He who at present thinks about peace, he who strives for it, is a betrayer of his country; a traitor. I am confident that every honest soldier is of this belief. Therefore, perform your duty, bravely protect our great country, obey the Provisional Government, obey your superiors, and remember that every weakening in military discipline is to the advantage of the enemy. I am firmly convinced that you boundless love for our great country is not extinguished. May the Lord bless you, and may St. George, the martyr and the victor, lead you to final victory. Nicholas.'" (The World At The Cross Roads, Boris Brasol, pp. 88-89).

"The Revolution is on. We received today the only cheering news within the last three years of the bloody World War. The hearts of every working man and woman burst with joy and gladness at this news. Nicholas is overthrown. The Duman has taken the Government in its hands and the liberal government rules. Hurrah!" (The Forward, a Jewish daily paper published in Hew York City).

"He considered the Rvolution a victory for the Jews, which opinion, he said, prevailed on the East Side where rejoicing knew no bounds. We felt, added Mr. Cahan, that this is a great triumph for the Jews' cause. The anti-Jewish element in Russia has always been identified with the anti-revolutionary party. Jews having always sat high in the Councils of the revolutionists, all of our race became inseparably linked with the opponents of the government in the official mind." (New York Call, March 17, 1917, Upheaval in Russia Is Fight for Liberty, Abraham Cahan).

"...It was in England, the home of the Jews, says Mr. Pitt-Rivers, that the Tsar's Government was always systematically vilified, for years made out as the blackest home of tyranny and oppression in the world. although there were English writers like Mr. Stephen Graham who, years ago, went out to Russia to live there because he considered it the freest country in Europe. It was, of course, the least commercialized, while England, one of the most commercialized countries; and the greatest lovers and entertainers of Jews, in the world, in consequence, sees no merit in a simple agricultural existence. Neither is it surprising in view of her cult of unlimited industrialism, and its consequences; an ever expanding industrial and urban population, free commercial exploitation by all and sundry middlemen, usurers, Jews; and the translations of all values into money-values, by which alone can be realized that ideal of personal equality, dad-levelness and compulsory mediocrity in which she glories under the name of Liberalism and Democracy. Can England with her tradition of three hundred years of Jeww-loving free-mammonism, democratic-shopkeeping, Puritanism, and obsessional urban-industrial expansion, in any case understand the healthier ideal of rural simplicity and paternal government, which, in spite of the obvious shortcomings of his successor, was the ideal of Alexander III." (George Pitt-Rivers, The World Significance of the Russian Revolution, with preface by Dr. Oscar Levy, pp. 20-21, Basil Blackwell, Oxford, 1920).

"Wrangel pretended to combat the Bolsheviks, Bolshevism is Jewry. In order to retain the favour of the Jews holding the real power in England, France and the United States, Wrangel showed to the Jews signs of his submission to them. Thereafter the Russian masses abandoned Wrangel as a traitor or as a comedian. It is impossible simultaneously to be an auxiliary of the Jew and an enemy of the Bolsheviki who are Jews. Be it incoherence or treason, Wrangel deserved the same fate as Denikin and he got it." (La Vieille-Fraonce, No. 200, December 2, 1920, article entitled The Enigma of Wrangel Explained; The World At The Cross Roads, Boris Brasol, p. 342).

"The goal of Russia is in the first instance a World-Revolution. The nucleus of opposition to such plans is to be found in the capitalist powers, England and France in the first instance, with America close behind them. There follows a certain community of interests (of Russia) with Germany, which is being threatened by the demands of these powers. The most profound animosity of Russia is directed against Poland, the ally of the world Powers and Russia's immediate neighbour. Herein lies the point of Russia's closet rapprochement with Germany...The fact that the Western Powers, by helping Russia, expose themselves to a great danger is too obvious to require further proofs...As far as we are concerned, this danger exists considerably nearer, but nevertheless our position between France and Poland compels us to try to remain in constant touch and in close understanding with Russia in order not to fall into complete dependence upon the Western countries. This position will remain compulsory for us no matter whether the present regime in Russia continues or not." (General von Seckt, Speech delivered on January 24th, 1931, before the Economic Society of Munster, in Westphalia. by C.F. Melville, The Russian Face of Germany, pp. 158-159; The Rulers of Russia, Denis Fahey, pp. 20-21)

"Bolshevism (Judaism), this symbol of chaos and of the spirit of destruction, is above all an Anti-Christian and Anti-Social Conception. This present destructive tendency is clearly advantageous for only one national and religious entity: Judaism. The fact that Jews are the most active element in present day revolutions as well as in revolutionary socialism, that they draw to themselves the power forced form the peoples of other nations by revolution, is a fact in itself, independent of the question of knowing if that comes from organized world-wide Judaism, from Jewish Free Masonry or by an elementary evolution brought about by Jewish national solidarity and the accumulation of the capital in the hands of Jewish bankers.
The contest is becoming more definite. The domination of revolutionary Judaism in Russia and the open support given to this Jewish Bolshevism by Judaism the world over finally clear up the situation, show the cards and put the question of the battle of Christianity against Judaism, of the National State against the International, that is to say, in reality, against Jewish world power." (Weltkampf, July 1924, p. 21; The Secret Powers Behind Revolution, by Vicomte Leon De Poncins, p. 140).

"...the new Bolshevist orthodoxy of Stalin is probably more dangerous to Europe in the long run than the more spectacular methods of Trotsky and the more vocal methods of Zinoviev in the heyday of the Third International. I say more dangerous...and more formidable, because a more practical conception than the old Trotskyist idea...It is just the growth of this Stalinist conception which has made possible the continuance, on an ever-increasing scale, of the secret relationship between 'Red' Russia and 'White' Germany." (The Russian Face of Germany, C.F. Melville, pp. 169-170; The Rulers of Russia, Denis Fahey, pp. 20-21)

"The Soviet movement was a Jewish, and not a Russian conception. It was forced on Russia from without, when, in 1917, German and German-American-Jew interests sent Lenin and his associates into Russia, furnished with the wherewithal to bring about the defection of the Russian armies...The Movement has never been controlled by Russians.
(a) Of the 224 revolutionaries who, in 1917, were despatched to Russia with Lenin to foment the Bolshevik Revolution, 170 were Jews.
(b) According to the Times of 29th March, 1919, 'of the 20 or 30 commissaries or leaders who provide the central machinery of the Bolshevist movement, not less than 75 percent, are Jews...among minor officials the number is legion.'
According to official information from Russia, in 1920, out of 545 members of the Bolshevist Administration, 447 were Jews. The number of official appointments bestowed upon Jews is entirely out of proportion to their percentage in the State: 'The population of Soviet Russia is officially given as 158,400,000 the Jewish section, according to the Jewish Encyclopaedia, being about 7,800,000. Yet, according to the Jewish Chronicle of January 6, 1933: Over one-third of the Jews in Russia have become officials." (The Catholic Herald, October 21st and 28th and November 4, 1933; The Rulers of Russia, Denis Fehay, p. 31-32)

"The Communist soul is the soul of Judaism. Hence it follows that, just as in the Russian revolution the triumph of Communism was the triumph of Judaism, so also in the triumph of fascism will triumph Judaism." (A Program for the Jews and Humanity, Rabbi Harry Waton, p. 143-144).

"The sombre destiny of the Russian Empire was profoundly terrified souls and brought trouble into the world. The Bolshevik ideology by its nature and the will of its creatures, is in the first place international; so that it may have a chance to triumph, it is not enough to subjugate Russia, it must also disorganize and subjugate the rest of the world. For this end the Treasury of Russia, fallen into the hands of the Moscow tyrants, is placed at the service of an intense outside propaganda, and the funds are sent into all countries by clever propaganda agents; if three-quarters of the Bolshevik staff are Jews, its agents abroad with rare exceptions are all Jews...It appears, therefore, that Bolshevism is one of the most power and actual causes of the universal anti-Semite movement." (Le Probläme Judic, (1921), Georges Batault).

"Almost all the Russian sects, as they existed in the time of the rule of the Tsars, and still exist in the midst of the Bolshevik world of orthodox materialism, show in their spiritual principles a predominantly religious-rationalist character. It is true that there are also a number of brotherhood of orgiastic, mystical tendencies; but in their rites, religious worship and articles of faith, a trained psychologist will also recognize, without difficulty, many of the roots and first stages of present day Bolshevism...If we pass in review all these Russian sects we can...establish a remarkable advance in the form in which they express the idea of communism, which is fundamental in them all, the Molokay and the Dukhobors and all the other rationalist sects confined themselves to proclaiming a community of earthly possessions (to these, we are told, Tostoi owed his system of social ethics); but among the Khlysty we see an advance; love, marriage and the family have ceased to be a private matter, and with them we find promiscuous sexual intercourse...
Finally, if we consider that we can hardly be in error in estimating the number of the members of these sects, before the Revolution, at about one-third of the total population of this enormous country, we are bound to admit that we are here confronted by a phenomenon of truly elemental power, which must be of the greatest significance, not only from the religious, but also from the socio-political point of view. For these rationalistic- chiliastic (millennium) notions of the Russian sects...soon forced their way into the higher strata of the Russian intelligentsia, and even into the world of ideas of the politicians...Linking up these half-mystical notions with the modern principles of Marxist materialism, for it was only by the amalgamation that the whole was prepared for the Bolshevik revolution." (René Fulop-Miller, The Mind and Face of Bolshevism (1927)).

"Then Karolyi came and prepared the way for Bolshevism in the education of Hungary's younger generation. The mass appointment of Jewish Masonic professors and teachers; the Bolshevik reform of school books; the destruction of the souls of the children; the degradation of parental authority; the systematic destruction of moral and patriotic principles; the revelation of sexual matters; all these were the work of Karolyi's Government." (An Outlaw's Diary, Cecile de Tormay).

Saturday, October 20, 2018

The Jews and the Senators

by Dr. William L. Pierce

Sometimes the most important things occur virtually unnoticed, while people’s attention is focused on things of no consequence. Last week, while everyone was glued to his television screen, oohing and ahing over Hurricane Floyd and watching the huge traffic jams of lemmings fleeing the southeastern coastal areas lest they be obliged to do a little wading, much more dangerous and sinister doings than wind, rain, and high tides were afoot, but hardly anyone noticed. The Senate Judiciary Committee in Washington was holding a public hearing and listening to suggestions from various pressure groups on ways to eliminate free speech on the Internet.

That’s not what they called it, of course; they said they were trying to devise ways of keeping „hate“ off the Internet. They want to protect children from being exposed to „hate,“ they say. They want to reduce the amount of violence in the country, they say; many people learn from the Internet to hate, and then having learned to hate, they run out and commit acts of violence. Keep „hate“ off the Internet, and then there will be less violence. That’s what they claim to believe.

Well, whether their theory about the Internet provoking people to violence is correct or not, it sounds as if the Senate Judiciary Committee really means well, doesn’t it? I mean, who could be against reducing the amount of „hate“ in America? That’s really a Mom and apple pie issue, isn’t it?

Of course, if you’re a skeptical sort of person, as I am, you might want to know exactly what this „hate“ consists of that the senators and the witnesses testifying for them are so eager to keep off the Internet. „Hate,“ it seems to me, could be a tricky thing to define. Would you call any expression of dislike or contempt „hate“? Maybe only a strong expression of dislike? How strong? Maybe whether an expression of dislike or contempt is „hate“ depends on who is making the expression and who is the target of the dislike. I mean, really, how do you decide what is „hate“ and what isn’t?

Well, listen, you will be pleased and relieved to learn that we don’t have to bother our little heads about that at all. We don’t have to decide what is „hate“ and what isn’t. We have some very public-spirited people who have volunteered to do that for us. Lucky us! These are the very same public-spirited people who persuaded the senators to hold the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in the first place and then appeared as witnesses before the committee. They are Howard
P. Berkowitz, national chairman of the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith; Rabbi Abraham Cooper of the Simon Wiesenthal Center; and several other like-minded citizens of the Jewish persuasion. Morris Dees’s Southern Poverty Law Center sent a witness to testify, for example.

These public-spirited citizens are referred to uniformly by the controlled media as „civil rights experts“ or „human rights advocates.“ Isn’t that reassuring to know that these people who want to protect us from „hate“ on the Internet also are concerned about our civil rights?

Reading the testimony of these Jewish witnesses and the comments of the eager-to-please politicians on the committee is a surreal experience. Their language is Orwellian. Nothing really

means what it sounds like it means. Rabbi Abraham Cooper referred to the Internet as a „terrorism tutor“ and implied that a substantial part of the violence in American life is the consequence of permitting „hate“ on the Internet. The truth, of course, is that most of the violent criminals in America never have had their hands on a computer keyboard. There is no evidence that even one act of real terrorism in the United States had anything at all to do with the Internet.

If, in fact, terrorists learn their trade from the media or are provoked to commit violent acts by the media, I would suspect Hollywood long before I would suspect the Internet. But I guess that Rabbi Cooper and Mr. Berkowitz and Mr. Dees would want to change the subject in a hurry if you began talking to them about violence inspired by television or by Hollywood films, however. After all, it’s their tribe which is in control of the television and film business.

The witnesses at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing spoke of Internet sites where one can learn to make a bomb. Perhaps there are such sites, although I’ve never seen one. But I cannot think of a single terrorist bombing in the United States in which the bomber could have learned from the Internet how to build his bomb. Neither Timothy McVeigh nor the people accused of bombing the World Trade Center in New York were ever on the Internet, so far as I am aware. Certainly, no evidence was presented by the government at their trials to indicate they were.

Really, the whole notion that people commit violent crimes or terrorist acts as a consequence of „hate“ on the Internet is simply ridiculous. Do you know what these anti-hate crusaders presented as evidence of terrorism inspired or facilitated by the Internet? I’ll quote directly from the transcript of the hearing. The committee chairman, Utah’s Republican Senator Orrin Hatch, said that he was pleased to have as a witness the assistant U.S. attorney from Los Angeles, Michael Gennaco, who had gained „the first conviction against a hate-crime assailant for acts taken on the Internet.“ Assistant U.S. Attorney Gennaco then related his achievement to the committee:

„On the morning of March 5, 1998, 42 Latino faculty members turned on their computers at Cal State Los Angeles to read their e-mails. They read a mean-spirited derogatory statement against Latinos. Using the most demeaning racial slurs, the sender told the faculty members that he hated their race, that he wanted them to die, that the only reason the professors were hired was because of Affirmative Action, that their race was stupid, greedy, and ugly, and that the sender was going to personally come down and kill each of them.“

The student who sent this message to the Latino faculty members was tracked down, arrested, tried, and convicted. Of course, the name of the offending student wasn’t mentioned in the hearing - just for your information, his name is Kwon - and it also wasn’t mentioned in the hearing that Kwon is Chinese, because that inconvenient fact doesn’t fit the general theme the committee wanted to develop. Before we get into that theme, however, let us remember that what this Chinese student did - essentially sending a death threat by wire - certainly was nothing new, and it required no new laws for its prosecution.

The fact that this was the best example the committee could come up with of a genuine Internet- related „hate crime“ ought to tell us that this whole pretense of being concerned about the connection between „hate“ on the Internet and violence is phony. These Jewish „human rights

advocates“ like Berkowitz and Cooper understand that there simply are no convincing cases of violence or terrorism stemming from the Internet, so after giving us the pitiful example of Kwon and his derogatory e-mail to the Mexican faculty members - and giving it to us in such a way that many of us would assume that Kwon was a heterosexual White male, their stereotypical „hater“ - after this they try to bolster their case with all sorts of innuendo and misdirection.

For example, much was made in the hearing of the facts that Benjamin Smith, the University of Indiana student who shot a Korean and a Black this summer, belonged to the World Church of the Creator, and the World Church of the Creator has an Internet web site. The not so subtle implication was that if the World Church of the Creator had been kept off the Internet in some way, then the Black and the Korean shot by Benjamin Smith still would be alive. But that’s really a false implication. Benjamin Smith wasn’t incited by the Internet to shoot anyone. He knew personally the man who heads the World Church of the Creator; he was his close associate and helper. That man is an attorney; he has a law degree and wants to practice law in Illinois. And when that man was denied a law license by the Politically Correct Illinois bar committee because they didn’t like his religious beliefs, Smith went on a rampage. There is absolutely no evidence to indicate that the Internet had anything to do with it.

And there was a lot of other deliberate misdirection too by the politicians and the Jewish witnesses. The shootings at Columbine High School in Colorado were invoked by several witnesses. Rabbi Cooper claimed „In 1999 the Internet can serve as a terrorism tutor; it did for Eric Harris at Columbine.“ Rabbi Cooper seems to have forgotten that Eric Harris had a Jewish accomplice, Dylan Klebold.

The Southern Poverty Law Center’s Joseph Roy, who was also a witness, testified:

„In Littleton, Colorado, the two youths who opened fire on their classmates at Columbine High School may well have been inspired, in some part, by neo-Nazi propaganda they encountered on the Net. It seems clear that they found plans for building pipe bombs and other weapons there.“

Now, that is really deceptive, and I’m sure that Mr. Roy intended it to be. He knows that Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold were not „neo-Nazis“; he knows that one was a Jew and that both were anti-racist. He knows that Eric Harris had an Internet web site in which he said that he wanted to torture and kill White racists. If Harris and Klebold were inspired by anything they encountered on the Net, it certainly wasn’t „neo-Nazi propaganda“; on the contrary, the evidence suggests that they were inspired by the sort of multicultural „love“ and diversity-mongering with which the Southern Poverty Law Center, the Simon Wiesenthal Center, and the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith poison the Net. As to whether or not Harris and Klebold found plans on the Net for making pipe bombs, that’s really beside the point, since they did all of their killing and wounding with shotguns and pistols. They neither killed nor injured anyone with a pipe bomb.

So without the least bit of evidence that Politically Incorrect web sites on the Internet have any connection to terrorism, why did the Jews and the politicians bother to have this hearing? Why try to persuade anyone that the Internet is a „terrorism tutor“ when it plainly isn’t? What’s the point?

The point is that the Jews aren’t concerned about the Internet as a so-called „terrorism tutor“; that is just a smoke-screen. What they are concerned about is keeping inconvenient facts and ideas off the Internet. They don’t want to stop terrorism; they want to stop the spread of truth. Until the Internet came along the Jews had a virtual monopoly on the dissemination of ideas and information to the general public. If they wanted to persuade the public that in most interracial crime White males are the aggressors, there was no one to contradict them with the facts. They could report - over and over and over again, with non-stop coverage - any interracial crime in which Whites actually were the aggressors and ignore all Black-on-White crimes, which is essentially what they’re still doing - but with the Internet people like me are embarrassing them with the facts.

Five or six years ago they could talk about „Russian“ organized crime on television or in the New York Times, and there was no one to tell the public that it wasn’t „Russian“ organized crime at  all: that it was 100 per cent Jewish organized crime. They could whine about how they were „persecuted“ by the Swiss and the Germans and the Swedes and the Poles and the Ukrainians and the Russians and the Lithuanians and the Latvians and everyone else during the Second World War, and how everyone owed them hundreds of billions of dollars in „reparations“ now, and there was no one to tell the world about the persecution of other peoples and nations by the Jews. There was no one to point out to the world that for every dollar taken from the Jews during the war, the Jews stole 100 dollars from those countries which fell victim to their communist racket. They could moan to the world about how the cold and cruel Gentiles just stood by and let six million Jews be led into the gas chambers, and so now the very least the world could do for the Jews was to give them a free ride. Anyone who questioned their story was immediately shrieked down as a „Holocaust denier,“ and the questioner had no way of presenting the historical facts to the public. People like me could print a few pamphlets and distribute them on street corners, but for all practical purposes we had no effective way of exposing the lies of the Jews.

The Jews liked it that way. They liked having a monopoly on the dissemination of ideas and information to the public. The Internet robs them of that monopoly, and they don’t like that a bit. They don’t like having me and others exposing their lies and telling the public things they prefer to keep quiet.

Of course, even with the Internet available to us, we can’t challenge the hold the Jews have on America’s political system - at least, not yet. The great mass of the voters, the couch potatoes, the ball game fans, don’t use the Internet and never will - except perhaps to access porno sites and check their horoscopes. But the perceptive and intelligent minority of White men and women capable of independent thought now have a new information medium, a new medium for the exchange of ideas, and the Jews aren’t able to control it. That’s what they don’t like. That’s what they’re afraid of, certainly not terrorism.

They’re afraid of the fact that as the sickness of American society becomes more and more evident to the perceptive few, that as the craziness and destructiveness going on in Washington and Hollywood take a greater and greater toll, more and more of the people who really count, the intelligent and productive White men and women in the universities and in the professions and in industry who somehow keep this civilization staggering along under its growing burden - these people are looking for answers, and Rabbi Cooper and his fellow tribesmen are afraid they may

find the answers. They are desperately afraid of that. And that’s why they told the politicians to hold the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing last week. They are desperate to control the Internet the same way they control television and the New York Times; they are desperate to censor the Internet, to choke off the free flow of information. But of course, they won’t tell us that. What they tell us is that they want to protect us from violence and terrorism caused by „hate“ on the Internet.

So what do you think? Are the American people too smart to fall for that sort of deception? Are we so fond of our freedom that we won’t give it up just because the Jews have cleverly labeled it as „hate“? Can we relax because Senator Hatch and the other senators on the committee all swore to uphold and defend the Constitution and therefore won’t let these Jews get away with their scheme?

Listen, you know as well as I do that Senator Hatch and every other politician in the Congress would fall all over themselves to abolish the whole Bill of Rights in order to please Rabbi  Cooper and Mr. Berkowitz and the rest - if they thought the American people would let them get away with it. They know that the couch potatoes won’t object, but they’re still concerned about that minority of perceptive and responsible White Americans who aren’t quite ready yet to give up their freedom without a fight.

So the hearing last week was well larded with assurances that new laws can be devised to keep „hate“ off the Internet without infringing on anyone’s freedom of speech. If that leaves you a little uncertain as to exactly what these Jews have in mind, let me tell you about something which happened this month in the Fort Lauderdale, Florida, suburb of Oakland Park. Lloyd Shank is a 73-year-old retired carpenter who lives in Oakland Park, which is in Broward County. Mr. Shank doesn’t much like the Clinton government, and he also doesn’t like Jews. On August 23 he hand-delivered copies of a one-page letter he had written to members of the Broward County Commission. All but one of the members of the county commission are Jews, and the one who is not is a woman married to a Jew. After the Second World War New York Jews migrated in large numbers to Florida and virtually took over the southeastern part of the state.

In his letter Mr. Shank said some unkind things about the Clinton government, including the charge that the government is responsible for the deaths of more than 80 members of a church in Waco, Texas, that the FBI and other secret police agencies laid siege to and then burned to the ground on April 19, 1993, with most of the church members, including women and children, inside. Mr. Shank also said some unkind things about Jews in his letter, calling them „perverts“ and accusing them of liking to be hated. He wound up his letter with the statement:

„When your holocaust reprisals come, hide in the New York subways for security from nuclear bombs. Don’t forget your money.“

No threats, just an expression of dislike.

Now, I don’t know about you, but I don’t see the point in sending letters to Jews telling them that they’re bad people and that you don’t like them. To me that seems like foolishness and a waste of time. But we have a right to be foolish and waste our time if we want to. We have a right to send

letters to people and call them perverts and tell them that we don’t like them, whether they are Jews or not. The Jews should not be exempted from criticism, and no one should be punished for criticizing them. We do still have a Constitution and freedom of speech - except in Broward County, Florida, apparently.

The Jews ran immediately to the police with Shank’s letter and demanded that he be arrested. Broward County Sheriff Ken Jenne jumped to obey. With an eagerness to please that put Senator Orrin Hatch in the shade, Jenne arrested Shank and began making statements to the press: „We will not allow extremists to terrorize any member of our community.“ That sounds suspiciously like the sheriff of Broward County and his Jewish constituents believe that extremists - which is to say, people who criticize Jews - should have fewer rights than the rest of the citizenry.

A news story in the September 10 issue of the Miami Herald about Mr. Shank’s arrest stated:

„In the wake of a shooting spree at a Jewish community center in Los Angeles last month, authorities are taking anti-Semitic rhetoric like Shank’s seriously.“

Yes, but apparently they no longer take the Constitution of the United States seriously in Broward County. And believe me, that’s exactly what Rabbi Abraham Cooper and Mr. Howard Berkowitz and Mr. Morris Dees and their pals have in mind for the rest of the country, despite all of their deceptive claims that they’re not out to abolish the First Amendment.

Wednesday, October 17, 2018

The Wannsee Conference Protocol

Anatomy of a Fabrication

By Johannes Peter Ney
Published:1993 - 01 - 01

This paper is part of the series Dissecting the Holocaust. The Growing Critique of „Truth“ and „Memory“. Click below for the previous or next item of the series. Click on „up“ to return to the series’ Table of Contents

„WANNSEE CONFERENCE: conference of chief representatives of the highest Reich and Party bodies, held on January 20, 1942 in Berlin at ‘Am Großen Wannsee 56/58’ under the chairmanship of R. Heydrich. On the order of A. Hitler, the participants decided on measures for the annihilation of the Jews in those parts of Europe under German control (‘Final Solution of the Jewish Question’): the establishment of extermination camps (concentration camps) in Eastern Europe, where Jews were to be killed.“ [1]

1. On Document Criticism

Documents are objects containing encoded information about a process or condition. For example, one differentiates between photographic and written documents as well as, recently, between all kinds of data storage (sound carriers, electronic data carriers, and many more). The present discussion will focus on the criticism of written documents, which represent the main of the documents relating to the Holocaust.

If a document is to prove anything, it is first necessary to establish that the document is genuine and the information it contains is factually correct. The authenticity of a document requires, for one thing, that the materials and techniques of information encoding and storage involved already existed at the alleged time of document creation. Today, technical, chemical and physical methods frequently permit the verification of whether the paper, the ink, the writing tools etc. that make up the document or went into its production even existed at the alleged time of creation. If this is not the case, the document has been proven to be fake. For example, a document allegedly dating from the 1800s but typed on a typewriter from our own century would definitely be a fake. Unfortunately this kind of analysis is not generally possible where the items to be analyzed are Holocaust documents, since in those few cases where original documents are known to exist, these originals are jealously guarded in archives and any attempt at scientific and technical analysis is nipped in the bud.

Another element in the verification of authenticity is the determination of whether the form of the document at issue corresponds with that of similar documents of the same presumptive origin. For handwritten documents this means a similarity of handwriting and style of expression to other documents by the same author, while for official documents it requires the congruence of official markings identifying the issuing body, such as letterheads, rubber stamps, signatures and initials, reference numbers, titles and official names, notices of receipt, distributors, correctness of the administrative channels and authority etc., as well as, again, similarity to the regional and bureaucratic style of expression. The greater the discrepancies, the more likely it is that the document is a fabrication.

And finally, it must also be determined whether the contents of the document are factually correct. One aspect of this is that the conditions and events described in the document must agree with the information we already have from other reliable sources. But the fundamental question is whether what is described in the document is physically possible, and consistent with what was technically feasible at the time and whether the contents are internally logical and consistent. If this is not the case, the document may still be genuine, but its contents are of no probative value, except perhaps where the incompetence of its author is concerned.

Concerning document criticism in the context of the Holocaust, we encounter the remarkable phenomenon that any such practice is dispensed with almost entirely by the mainstream historians around the world. Even a call for impartial document criticism is considered reprehensible, since this would admit the possibility that such a document might be false, in other words, that certain events which are backed up by such documents may not have taken place at all, or not in the manner described to date. But nothing is considered more reprehensible today than to question the solidly established historical view of the Holocaust. However, where doubts about scientific results are deemed censurable, where the questioning of one’s own view of history or perhaps even of the world is forbidden, where the results of an investigation must be predetermined from the start, i.e. where research may produce only the ‘desired’ results - where such conditions prevail, the allowed or allowable lines of inquiry have long since forsaken any foundation in science and have instead embraced religious dogma. Doubt and criticism are two of the most important pillars of science.

The present volume contains many instances of criticism of a wide range of documents, frequently proving them to be fabrications. No one will deny that particularly after the end of World War Two a great many forgeries were produced in order to incriminate Germany.[2] That opportunities for such forgeries were practically limitless is a fact also undisputed in view of all the captured archives, typewriters, rubber stamps, stationery, state printing presses etc. etc. And considering these circumstances, no one can rule out beforehand that the subject of the Holocaust may also have been the object of falsifications. Unconditionally honest document criticism is thus vitally important here. In the following, the Wannsee Conference Protocol - the central piece of incriminating evidence pertaining to the Holocaust - is subjected to an in - depth critical analysis such as all historians worldwide ought to have done for decades but failed to do. At the same time, this analysis may serve as challenge to all conscientious historians to finally subject all Holocaust documents - be they incriminating or exonerating - to professionally correct and unbiased document criticism.

2. The Material About the Wannsee Conference

2.1. Primary Sources – the Material to be Analyzed

In any analysis of the Wannsee Conference Protocol, the other documents directly related to this Protocol must of course be considered as well. These documents are:

1.                      Göring’s letter of July ?, 1941 to Heydrich, instructing Heydrich to draw up an outline for a total solution of the Jewish question in German - occupied Europe.
2.                      Heydrich’s first letter of invitation to the Wannsee Conference, dated November 29, 1941.
3.                      Heydrich’s second invitation to the Wannsee Conference, dated January 8, 1942.
4.                      The Wannsee Conference Protocol itself, undated.
5.                      The letter accompanying the Wannsee Conference Protocol, dated January 26, 1942.

2.1.1. Proof of Origin

According to his own statements,[3] Robert M. W. Kempner, the prosecutor in the Wilhelmstraßen Trial of Ernst Weizsäcker, had been expecting a shipment of documents from Berlin in early March 1947. Among these papers, he and his colleagues discovered a transcript of the Wannsee Conference. The author of the protocol, it was claimed, was Eichmann. In 1983 the WDR (West German Radio) broadcast Kempner’s original taped statement, according to which he had discovered the protocol in autumn of 1947.[4] Beyond Kempner’s verbal statements quoted here, no other documentation verifying the place and circumstances of the discovery were found. Kempner: „Of course no one doubted the authenticity [of the protocol].“ The Court, he said, introduced the protocol as Number 2568. In the court records it appears as G - 2568.

2.1.2. Different Versions

The Wannsee Conference Protocol which Kempner submitted to the Court always writes ‘SS’ in this way, i.e. in Latin letters, not as the runic which was customary in the Third Reich. It would appear to be the oldest copy in circulation.[5]

Hans Wahls has mentioned numerous other versions which are also in circulation. The Political Archives at the Foreign Office in Bonn maintains that the version held there is the definitive one. This version uses the runic . When and how this version came to be in the archives of today’s Foreign Office remains unknown. Since the other versions can also not be traced back to their origins, we will dispense with any further details here. The present compilation is thus based only on the copy held by the Foreign Office.[6]

Where the letter accompanying the protocol is concerned, two versions have surfaced to date, one using ‘SS’, the other with the runic as well as other differences.

2.2. Secondary Sources – Literature About the Wannsee Conference Protocol

The literature pertaining to the Wannsee Conference Protocol fills many volumes. The following summarizes the most important analyses and critiques, all of which prove conclusively that all the various versions of the protocol as well as all the versions of the letters accompanying the protocol are fabrications. As yet, no proof of the authenticity of the protocol, nor any attempt at refuting the aforementioned analyses and critiques, has been advanced by any source.

This discussion draws on:

·  Hans Wahls, Zur Authentizität des ‘Wannsee - Protokolls’;[7]
·  Udo Walendy, „Die Wannsee - Konferenz vom 20.1.1942“;[8]
·  Ingrid Weckert, „Anmerkungen zum Wannseeprotokoll“;[9]
·  Johannes Peter Ney, „Das Wannsee - Protokoll“;[10]
·  Herbert Tiedemann, „Offener Brief an Rita Süßmuth“.[11]
·  Other important studies shall just be mentioned briefly.[12]

3. Document Criticism

3.1. Analysis of the Prefatory Correspondence

3.1.1. Göring’s Letter [13]

Form: We only have a copy of this document, as no original has ever been found. This copy is missing the letterhead, the typed - in sender’s address is incorrect, and the date is incomplete, missing the day.[14] The letter has no reference number, no distributor is given, and there is no line with an identifying ‘re.:’ (cf. Ney[10]).

Linguistic content: The repetition in „all necessary preparations as regards organizational, factual, and material matters“ and „general plan showing the organizational, factual, and material measures“ is not Göring’s style, and is beneath his linguistic niveau.[15] The same goes for the expression „möglichst günstigsten Lösung“ [grammatically incorrect, intended to mean „best possible way“].[16]

3.1.2. The First Invitation[17]

Form: The classification notice „top secret“ is missing (cf. Ney[10] and Tiedemann[11]). It is also strange that the letter took 24 days, from November 29, 1941 to December 23, 1941, for a postal route within Berlin (Ney[10]).

Linguistic content: „Fotokopie“ was spelled with a ‘ph’ in those days; the spelling that is used is strictly modern German. „Auffassung an den [...] Arbeiten“ (≈“opinion on the [...] tasks“) is not proper German; it ought to read „Auffassung über die [...] Arbeiten“. „Persönlich“ [„personal“] was scorned as classification; the entire style of the letter is un - German (Ney, ibid.).

3.1.3. The Second Invitation[18]

Form: This document exists only in copy form, no original has ever been found. The letter bears the issuing office’s running number „3076/41“, while the letter accompanying the protocol, dated later, bears an earlier number, „1456/41“ (Tiedemann[11]). The letterhead is different from that of the first invitation (Tiedemann, ibid.). The letter is marked only as „secret“ (Ney[10]).

Linguistic content: On one occasion the letter „ß“ is used correctly („anschließenden“), but then „ss“ is used incorrectly („Grossen“). (Ney, ibid.)

Stylistic howlers: „Questions pertaining to the Jewish question“; „Because the questions admit no delay, I therefore invite you....“ (Ney, ibid.)

3.2. Analysis of the Wannsee Conference Protocol

3.2.1. Form

While it is claimed that the copy of the Wannsee minutes held by the Foreign Office is the original, this cannot in fact be the case, since it is identified as the 16th copy of a total of 30. Regardless whether it is genuine or fake, however, its errors and shortcomings as to form render it invalid under German law, and thus devoid of documentary value:

The paper lacks a letterhead; the issuing office is not specified, and the date, distributor, reference number, place of issue, signature, and identification initials are missing (Wahls[7] and Walendy[8]). The stamp with the date of receipt by the Foreign Office, which is (today!) named as the receiver, is missing (Tiedemann[11]). The paper lacks all the necessary properties of a protocol, i.e. the minutes of a meeting: the opening and closing times of the conference, identification of the persons invited but not attending (Tiedemann, ibid.), the names of each of the respective speakers, and the countersignature of the chairman of the meeting (Tiedemann, ibid., and Ney[10]). The paper does, however, bear the reference number of the receiving(!) office, namely the Foreign Office – typed on the same typewriter as the body of the text (Tiedemann[11]). The most important participant, Reinhard Heydrich, is missing from the list of participants (Wahls[7] and Walendy[8]).

3.2.2. Linguistic Content

The Wannsee Conference Protocol is a treasure - trove of stylistic howlers which indicate that the authors of this paper were strongly influenced by the Anglo - Saxon i.e. British English language. In the following we will identify only the most glaring of these blunders; many of them have been pointed out by all the authors consulted, so that a specific reference frequently does not apply.

The expressions „im Hinblick“ („considering“,* 8 times), „im Zuge“ („in the course of“, 5 times), „Lösung“ („solution“, 23 times), „Fragen“ („questions“, 17 times), „Problem“ (6 times), „Bereinigen“ („to clarify“, 4 times), frequently even more than once in the same sentence, bear witness to such a poor German vocabulary that one may assume the author to have been a foreigner.

Further, the expressions „Lösung der Frage“ („solution of the problem“), „der Lösung zugeführt“ („brought near to a solution“), „Lösungsarbeiten“ („tasks involved“ [in a solution; - trans.]), „Regelung der Frage“ („to settle the question“), „Regelung des Problems“ („to settle the problem“), „restlose Bereinigung des Problems“ („absolutely final clarification of the question“ [i.e. the „problem“; – trans.]), „Mischlingsproblem endgültig bereinigen“ („securing a final solution of the problem presented by the persons of mixed blood“), „praktische Durchführung“ („practical execution“; is there such a thing as a theoretical execution?), and especially the frequent repetition of these expressions, are not at all the German style (Walendy[8]).

The phrase:[T0]

„der allfällig endlich verbliebene Restbestand [...]“ („the possible final remnant“)

may perhaps appear in a prose text, but certainly not in the minutes of a conference. The text is interspersed with empty phrases such as;

„Im Hinblick auf die Parallelisierung der Linienführung“ („in order to bring general activities into line“) (Tiedemann[11])

and nonsensical claims such as;

„Die evakuierten Juden werden Zug um Zug in [...] Durchgangsghettos gebracht [...]“ („The evacuated Jews will first be sent, group by group, into [...] transit - ghettos [...]“).

Since the evacuation of the Jews was not then ongoing, but rather was planned for the future, this would have to have read:

„Die zu evakuierenden Juden [...]“ („The Jews to be evacuated [...]“).


„Bezüglich der Behandlung der Endlösung“ („Regarding the handling of the final solution“)

How does one handle a solution? (Walendy[8])

„Wurden die jüdischen Finanzinstitutionen des Auslands [...] verhalten [...]“

Does the author mean „angehalten“?[T1]

„Italien einschließlich Sardinien“ („Italy incl. Sardinia“)

Why the need to specify? In Europe people knew very well what all was part of Italy.

„Die berufsständische Aufgliederung der [...] Juden: [...] städtische Arbeiter 14,8%“ („The breakdown of Jews [...] according to trades [...]: [...] communal workers 14.8%“ [i.e. „municipal“ workers; - trans.]

Were all of these people common laborers? (Ney[10]) „Salaried employees“ is probably what the author meant here. „[...] als Staatsarbeiter angestellt“ (the Nuremberg Translation renders this as „employed by the state“, which glosses over the difference between „Arbeiter“, i.e. blue - collar workers, and „angestellt“, i.e. the condition of employment enjoyed by salaried and public employees; - trans.): so what were they, laborers or government employees? Did the author mean civil servants? (Ney, ibid.)

„In den privaten Berufen – Heilkunde, Presse, Theater, usw.“ („in private occupations such as medical profession, newspapers, theater, etc.“).

In German these are called „freie Berufe“, not „private Berufe“. Such persons are known as doctors, journalists, and artists. „usw.“ is never preceded by a comma in German, whereas the English „etc.“ almost always is.

„Die sich im Altreich befindlichen [...]“

Well, German is a difficult language. (Ney, ibid.)

3.2.3. Contradictory Content

„[...] werden die [...] Juden straßenbauend in diese Gebiete geführt“: literally, „the Jews will be taken to these districts, constructing roads as they go“.

Migratory road crews?! Not a single road was constructed in this fashion! (Wahls[7] and Walendy[8])[T2]

„Im Zuge dieser Endlösung [...] kommen rund 11 Millionen Juden in Betracht.“ („Approx. 11,000,000 Jews will be involved in this final solution [...].“

Even the orthodox prevailing opinion holds that there were never more than 7 million Jews in Hitler’s sphere of influence. In actual fact there were only about 2.5 million. (Wahls[7] and Walendy[8])[19]

„[...] teilte [Heydrich] eingangs seine Bestellung zum Beauftragten für die Vorbereitung der Endlösung [...] durch den Reichsmarschall mit“ („Heydrich gave information that the Reich Marshal had appointed him delegate for the preparations for the final solution [...])

Göring did have the authority to appoint Heydrich to the position of his choice, but he would have done so via the proper channels. Heydrich’s superior was Himmler, and it would have taken Himmler’s orders to appoint („ernennen“, not „bestellen“, which means „to summon“) Heydrich to anything. (Ney[10])

„Mit der Endlösung im Generalgouvernement zu beginnen, weil hier das Transportproblem keine übergeordnete Rolle spielt [...] Juden müßten so schnell wie möglich aus dem Gebiet des Generalgouvernements entfernt werden“ („[...] the implementation of the final solution [...] could start in the Government General, because the transportation problem there was of no predominant importance. [...] The Jews had to be removed as quickly as possible from the territory of the Government General [...]“

„To be removed as quickly as possible“ and „constructing roads as they go“ is quite a contradiction. But none of those attending the conference spoke up. Clearly Germany could muster only mental defectives as her Under Secretaries of State! (Walendy[8])

„Von den in Frage kommenden 2

„[...] Dr. Bühler stellte weiterhin fest, daß die Lösung der Judenfrage im Generalgouvernement federführend beim Chef der Sicherheitspolizei und des SD liegt [...]“ („[...] Bühler further stated that the solution of the Jewish question in the Government General as far as issuing of orders was concerned was dependent upon the chief of the Security Police and the SD [...]“.

On the date of the conference at Wannsee Bühler could not have known this, for according to the ‘Protocol’ Heydrich had only just „announced his appointment as delegate“ and his overall authority for the preparations involved. Dr. Bühler certainly did not have the authority to simply declare his superior, Dr. Hans Frank, the Governor General of Poland, removed from office! (Walendy, ibid.)

„Der Beginn der einzelnen Evakuierungsaktionen wird weitgehend von der militärischen Entwicklung abhängig sein“ („The carrying out of each single evacuation project of a larger extent will start at a time to be determined chiefly by the military development“).

This statement is false, for the eastward evacuation transports of Jews from the Reich territory, including the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, had already been ongoing since October 1941 - as Heydrich’s first invitation to the Wannsee conference had explicitly stated, by the way. (Walendy, ibid.)

„Die berufsständische Aufgliederung der im europäischen Gebiet der UdSSR ansässigen Juden war etwa folgende [...]“ („The breakdown of Jews residing in the European part of the USSR, according to trades, was approximately as follows [...]“

This clearly gives away the forger, at work years after the conference; at the time of the Wannsee Conference one would not have written „was“, but „is“. (Tiedemann[11])

3.2.4. Internal Consistency

Why were only the „seconds - in - command“ invited to this conference if it was really so crucial, and why did not even these seconds - in - command bother to attend? Why, for example, would Dr. Hans Frank send, as his stand - in, Dr. Bühler, who lacked the authority to make any decisions since he was obliged to report anything of significance to his superior? (Tiedemann, ibid.)

Is it conceivable that subordinates decided on the genocide? (Tiedemann, ibid.)

Why was no one invited from offices whose cooperation would have been indispensable to the implementation of such an enormous murder scheme, such as the top management of the German Railway? (Tiedemann, ibid.)

3.3. The Accompanying Letter

3.3.1. Form

Like the Wannsee Conference Protocol, the accompanying letter reveals at first glance that it cannot be genuine: the letter is dated January 26, 1942, but the letterhead shows reference number 1456/41. Thus the letter was registered at the office of the Chief of the Security Police and the SD in 1941, before the protocol that it was to accompany (Weckert,[9] Ney,[10] Tiedemann[11]). There are 35 days between the date of the letter and the date of its arrival at the Foreign Office, given a delivery route within Berlin and a subject matter Heydrich has called urgent! (Weckert,[9] Ney,[10] Tiedemann[11]) Luther, however, added a handwritten comment (to be examined later) to this letter even before it was received by the correspondence department of the Foreign Office; this handwritten comment is dated with the month „II“, i.e. February (the day is illegible). (Weckert,[9] Ney[10]) Like the conference protocol itself, the letter bears a rubber stamp recording its receipt at the Foreign Office, with the reference number D.III29g.Rs, which, however the Foreign Office had already assigned to a different document it had received, namely to a report dated January 6, 1942, sent by the German envoy in Copenhagen. (Ney, ibid.)

The letter is missing the sender’s address, which is normally printed on the stationery. The new meeting place in the Kurfürstenstraße is incorrectly spelled with an „ss“ rather than an „ß“. The typed - in sender’s reference number, „IV B 4“, indicates Eichmann’s office, but Eichmann used stationery which had this identifier already printed on it. The letterhead is different from that of the two letters of invitation. The letter lacks a „re.:“ - line and a distributor. This „accompanying letter“ makes no mention of 30 copies of the protocol whose 16th copy it allegedly accompanies. The space to indicate enclosures – though provided for in the stamp of receipt - is empty, even though this letter was supposed to accompany an enclosure of momentous importance. (Ney, ibid.) Ripske has criticized that there were no „Undersecretaries of State“ („Unterstaatssekretär“) at the German Foreign Office; this rank had been done away with during the Weimar Republic, and was never reintroduced.[20]

3.3.2. Linguistic Content

The accompanying letter as well shows a pathetically un - German style: „practical execution of the final solution“ – is there any such thing as a theoretical execution? (Tiedemann(11)) And again we encounter this redundant sentence with its long - winded description of the tasks involved: „[...] the organizational, factual, and material prerequisites for the practical commencement of the tasks involved.“ What this calls for, then, is: the detailed discussion of the preparation of the submission of the prerequisites for the practical commencement of the tasks involved. (Ney[10]) No comment necessary.

3.3.3. Contradictory Content

The protocol is titled „Minutes of Discussion“, and if it were genuine, that would be precisely the right description. Today even the officially sanctioned historians concede that nothing at all was decided at the conference, in other words, that it was not as highly significant as is sometimes claimed.[21] The accompanying letter, however, now suddenly refers to „arrangements made“. It further claims that „the essentials have been decided on.“ But nothing could be decided there. (Tiedemann,[11] Walendy[8])

3.3.4. Internal Consistency

Even though Göring is said to have called for haste in July 1941 („soon“), his orders are carried out in rather lackadaisical fashion. But suddenly speed is of the essence: the next discussion is set for March 6. (Ney,(10) Tiedemann[11])

3.3.5. The Slip - up

Two versions of the accompanying letter are in circulation. The first was submitted by Kempner,[5] while the second is held at the Foreign Office in Bonn. In terms of content they are identical, but there is incontrovertible proof that both versions are fabrications:

Each of the two versions was typed on a different typewriter. The typists tried to make their keystrokes, line breaks and text format identical, and it is unknown who copied from whom in the process. But even this did not quite work: the „Heil Hitler“ is shifted by one space, the „Ihr“ preceding the signature by another. The signature itself – whether genuine (not likely) or done with a facsimile stamp - has slipped badly.

On closer examination one finds even more differences: the spacing between the two major paragraphs; the underlines, which are supposed to be identical but don’t quite manage to be so; the slightly different „6“ in the meeting date. The discrepancy between ‘SS’ in the one version and the runic ‘ ‘ in the other is already familiar to us from the protocol itself. Typing mistakes galore populate the second half of this line:

„ich am 6. März 1942, 10.30 Uhr , in Berlin,Kurfürsten - “.

The other version reads:

„ich am 6. März 1942, 10.30 Uhr. in Berlin, Kurfürsten - “.

Clearly: it was supposed to be identical, but the attempt failed somewhat.[T3]

To expose this fraud conclusively, one needs a ruler. This reveals: the rubber stamp on each version is perfectly identical, but in the ‘SS’ version it is stamped precisely parallel to the typed lines while in the version it droops down and to the left at about a 3 degree angle.

And the most conclusive proof: no one can write a multi - line text by hand twice in such a way that both versions are precisely and absolutely identical! But the handwritten comments added by Luther, running diagonally across the page in both versions, are identical. However, these handwritten comments are not in the exact same position on both versions, and are of different size. This proves irrefutably that both versions are fake. The forger had separate access to the three text elements – text, stamp, and handwriting. He compiled both versions, but unfortunately he could not make them exactly alike. It’s not difficult to guess why he might try this in the first place, though: the older version, submitted to the IMT by Kempner, has the Latin - font ‘SS’, while the version that surfaced at the Foreign Office later has the runic , which seems more genuine; the forger no doubt wished to correct his earlier carelessness, and in the process went a little overboard!

4. Connections

4.1. The Legal Situation

1.                      The creation of fabricated documents is an indictable offense. For details see Section 7.

2.                      Submission of an unsigned paper whose sender is not specified, which bears no date, etc., is of no substance. It is not a public document.

3.                      Public discussion about the authenticity of a document is not an indictable offense. Under current German law, however, the qualification or trivialization of the murders of Jews by authorities of the Third Reich is a criminal offense. For this reason the possible or actual direct consequences of the Wannsee Conference will not be discussed here.

4.                      In the Third Reich, just as in all other nations, all documents not intended for the public eye due to the War had to be kept secret. In the Third Reich the handling and processing of such documents, which were generally known as ‘classified documents’, were controlled by the ‘Classified Information Regulation’. Excerpts:[22]

„36. Classified documents are to be gathered by the departments or sections in complete files.

50. At least once a year the collection of classified documents is to be examined by a third - party officer or official.

77. Every document whose content renders it classified must be fully accounted for from its creation to its destruction.

83. The number of copies supplied to the various departments or sections is to be kept to a minimum.“

4.2. Witness Testimony

In his analysis, Udo Walendy[8] cites many examples of witness statements made by participants in the Wannsee Conference, of which only a few examples shall be mentioned here. Dr. G. Klopfer, for example, testified with respect to this conference:

„Therefore no decisions could be reached at this session [...]. After the session on March 3, 1942, I learned from a letter from the Chief of the Reich Chancellery that subsequent to a report by Dr. Lammers Hitler had deferred the ‘final solution of the Jewish question’ until after the War.“[23]

According to his testimony, Secretary of State Ernst von Weizsäcker of the Foreign Office never saw the conference protocol during his time in office, even though his office allegedly received one of the 30 copies (specifically, that 16th copy). He also made no mention of any such conference to the traitor Canaris, to whom he leaked, or claims he leaked, everything else of importance.[24]

Dr. H. - H. Lammers, Chief of the Reich Chancellery, testified:

„I announced the report [to Hitler] and got it after some time. I managed to learn [his] view of the matter. This time once again, the Führer would not enter into any discussion of the matter with me and cut short my intended, lengthy report with words to the effect of ‘I don’t want to hear any more reports about Jewish matters during the War. I have more important things on my hands right now, and others should, too.’ And then he said quite bluntly that he wished to finally see the end of all these Jewish issues. He added that he would decide after the War where to put the Jews.“[25]

Dr. Bühler, testifying before the IMT, said:

„I gained the definite conviction from this message [of Heydrich’s] that the resettlement of the Jews would proceed in a humane manner – if not for the sake of the Jews themselves, then for the sake of the reputation and the status of the German people.“[26]

4.3. The Fate of Participants in the Conference

Oddly enough, the Wannsee Conference was considered of no importance at all immediately after the War and at the ‘War Crimes Trials’. Even though charges of genocide would have been the logical consequence of the accepted reading of the protocol, none of the alleged or actual participants in the conference were convicted (not even on minor issues). See Walendy.[8]

Like all other persons in leading positions, G. Klopfer was under arrest from 1945 to 1949 and was charged with war crimes in Nuremberg. However, the Allies dropped their charges for lack of evidence (in 1949, in other words after Kempner’s discovery of the Wannsee Conference Protocol). After Klopfer’s release from custody, the Attorney General tried again to obtain an indictment in 1960; preliminary proceedings were abandoned on January 29, 1962 on the grounds that despite Klopfer’s participation in the conference there was no evidence on which to convict him of any indictable offense.[27] Klopfer was later able to resume his work as attorney.

G. Leibbrand was also released from Allied custody in 1949 and passed away later without ever being bothered again.

In 1949, in the Wilhelmstraßen Trial, W. Stuckart was convicted for other alleged misdemeanors, and sentenced to 3 years and 10 months in prison. He died in a car accident in 1953, a free man.

Ernst von Weizsäcker was sentenced to 7 years in prison at the Wilhelmstraßen Trial, also for other reasons: not because of his participation in the Wannsee Conference, which was never proven anyhow, but for his role in the ‘deportations’. He was granted an early discharge and died shortly afterwards.

O. Hoffmann’s participation in the conference was examined by the Court in the „Volkstum“ Trial of Military Court I, Case 8, but not mentioned in the verdict.

Neumann was classed as ‘less incriminated person’ by a German Denazification Court following his discharge from automatic arrest.

Even in the Jerusalem Trial of Adolf Eichmann, his participation in the conference was of not even the slightest importance. He was interrogated only for his alleged function as secretary i.e. author of the protocol, but his conviction was for other crimes.

None of the other alleged participants, whom we shall not mention individually here, were ever charged with or convicted for war crimes.

4.4. Public Impact

For a long time the Wannsee Conference was also of no significance where the public condemnation of the Wehrmacht, the Waffen - SS, the ‘Nazis’ and, ultimately, the entire German people was concerned. The ‘proof’ of German atrocities in the ‘50s were so - called lampshades from human skin, shrunken heads, gas chambers in Dachau, soap from dead Jews, the ‘Bitch of Buchenwald’ Ilse Koch, and Katyn. The Wannsee Conference Protocol lived on in Holocaust literature, not in public awareness. This only changed gradually, and eventually culminated in the endeavors of parties with vested interests to publicize the villa on the Große Wannsee and the conference that had been held there by means of the creation of a memorial site.

Meanwhile, judicial notice has all but been attained in German courts with respect to the Wannsee Conference Protocol. While it is not an indictable offense to ‘qualify’, to ‘trivialize’, to question or to dispute the authenticity of the conference or the protocol, it has by now become useless in court to cite the axiom that, to quote Emil Lachout, „for historians fabricated documents are proof that the opposite [in this case, no ‘Final Solution of the Jewish Question’ in the sense of deliberate mass extermination] of the forger’s claim is true“,[12] even if this theorem could be substantiated with reference to document science, whose principles are binding for historians.[28]

The constant repetition of the allegation that the Wannsee Conference represents the act of planning the genocide of the Jews, as the media have injected it into the conscious and (what is worse) the subconscious minds of mankind for many years now, has resulted in this allegation being considered to be gospel truth today.

In recent times, however, more and more persons who previously regarded the Wannsee Conference Protocol as one of, if not the most significant proof for the ‘Führer order for the destruction of the European Jews’ have been changing their minds. In early 1992, for example, the renowned Israeli Holocaust researcher Yehuda Bauer dismissed the significance of the Wannsee Conference, which hardly deserved the title ‘conference’. He said that the claim that the destruction of the Jews had been decided there was nothing more than a ‘silly story’, since ‘Wannsee’ was „but a stage in the unfolding of the process of mass murder“ (op. cit., Note [21]). Bauer’s remark corresponds with the interpretations advanced by several German historians who have since also dared to disassociate themselves from the established position regarding the Wannsee Conference. K. Pätzold reports (cf. Bauer, ibid.):

„The unbiased study of the conference protocol convinces one that those assembled there decided nothing that could be considered to be a theoretical or directive starting point for the crime. – Nevertheless, there now appears to be a growing realization that the decision to kill the European Jews [...] was already made prior to the Wannsee Conference, and that the gruesome deed was already in progress before the SS Generals and the Secretaries - of - State gathered for their conference on January 20, 1942.“

In short, what both authors are saying is: the Wannsee Conference Protocol doesn’t prove anything, but that which it was supposed to prove is true anyway:

„Whether presented authentically or inauthentically [in other words: whether it is genuine or fabricated...], the Holocaust has become a ruling symbol of our [whose?] culture.“ (Bauer, ibid.)

And if there is no evidence for it, then it’s just simply true without evidence. Case closed.

5. Summary and Evaluation

5.1. Documentary Evidence for the Planned Genocide?

To substantiate the claim that millions of Jews were deliberately murdered in concentration camps during World War Two, on the orders of German authorities, two and only two contemporaneous papers have been presented: the ‘Franke - Gricksch Report’ and the ‘Wannsee Conference Protocol’. The Franke - Gricksch Report was recently exposed as fabrication by Canadian researcher B. A. Renk.[29] It is a particularly clumsy fabrication and is thus hardly ever cited any more today.

5.2. The Wannsee Conference

That a conference between high officials and Party leaders took place in January 1942 in the villa ‘Am Großen Wannsee’ is probably true, although the precise date is unknown. No other documentation of this conference exists other than the ‘protocol’ and its accompanying letter(s). There is no entry in a guest book, an appointment calendar, or any other kind of incidental evidence.

The invitations specify thirteen invitees. According to the ‘protocol’, however, eighteen persons showed up. Whether the discussion pertained to the Jewish question is not certain, but it is likely. What actually was discussed there is unknown.

5.3. The Protocol

No legally valid transcript or protocol of the discussion exists. The ‘Minutes of Discussion’ of unknown origin, first submitted in 1947 by Kempner, deposited in the Foreign Office and copied repeatedly, is a fabrication in the sense that the text of this paper was concocted years after the alleged discussion, by a person not involved in the conference, and this assessment is supported not only by the as yet unrefuted analysis by the five authors quoted herein, but also by the opinion of many earlier and more recent researchers.

– In English: Fabrication;

– German: Fälschung;

– French: Falsification;

– Spanish: Falsificacion.

5.4. Allegations

The crucial points which the media, leading politicians of all political parties in Bonn, and Holocaust experts allege time and again as being at the heart of the discussion in the Wannsee villa are not even present in this fabricated protocol. Specifically, the commonly - held opinions about the protocol, and the most common allegations, are:

1.                      Hitler had participated in the discussion, according to Simon Wiesenthal.[30] There is no evidence to indicate this.

2.                      Ernst von Weizsäcker had counter - signed the protocol. This is Reitlinger’s claim.[31] No such version has ever turned up.

3.                      Eichmann had taken the minutes, i.e. had written or at least dictated them. This is according to Kempner.[32] There is no evidence for this.

4.                      In thousands of newspaper articles, books, textbooks, radio broadcasts, memorial speeches and television shows, the claim has been advanced that the mass murder of the Jews was decided on at the Wannsee Conference, or at the least, that the plan to carry out Adolf Hitler’s order in this respect had been worked out there. As well, it is claimed, the means of killing had been discussed and the establishment of extermination camps was decided on. This is not in the protocol, and leading Holocaust historians are now repudiating it (cf. Jäckel (21)), even if Eichmann did give testimony to this effect in the course of his show trial in Jerusalem.[33]

5.                      On the occasion of the 1987 anniversary, Federal Chancellor Helmut Kohl said that this conference had been „an extermination of the Jews in the German sphere of influence, launched with bureaucratic perfection.“ A glance at the text of the ‘protocol’ would have shown Kohl that what we have here is not bureaucratic perfection, it is amateurish blabber at best.

For the actual text of the ‘protocol’, the reader is referred to the Appendix.

6. The Wannsee Memorial Site

On the fiftieth anniversary of the „Wannsee Conference“, on January 20, 1992, the Memorial Site „Haus der Wannsee - Konferenz“ [„House of the Wannsee Conference“] was inaugurated in Berlin/Großer Wannsee 56/58, as „the place of the perpetrators“. On this occasion Federal Chancellor Kohl called for the remembrance of the „countless victims of National - Socialist race mania“. Rita Süßmuth, President of the Bundestag, gave the commemorative speech. Among those present were the Mayor of Berlin, Eberhard Diepgen, and the Chairman of the Central Council of Jews in Germany, H. Galinski. In 1990, „Erinnern für die Zukunft“ [„Remembering for the Future“] was founded as society sponsoring the Memorial Site; the society’s staff are paid out of tax funds.[34] The founding members of this society are: the Association, the Land [province] of Berlin, the Central Council of Jews in Germany, the Jewish Community of Berlin, the Diocese of Berlin, the Protestant Church of Berlin - Brandenburg, the German Historical Museum, and the Association of Persons Persecuted by the Nazi Regime.

In August 1992 the Society „Remembering for the Future“, the Diocese of Berlin, and the Protestant Church of Berlin - Brandenburg requested and were sent the report published in the Huttenbrief. (cf. Ney[10])

First, the Chair of the German Episcopal Conference responded on behalf of the Diocese of Berlin:

„The events of the Wannsee Conference have been exhaustively investigated. We do not intend to devote further study to your theory of the fabrication of the documents in question.“[35]

Second, the Berlin Diocese itself replied:

„In my opinion there is not the slightest doubt about the authenticity of the original protocol of the Wannsee Conference that is held by the Foreign Office in Bonn [...]. I am not in the position to adequately assess matters of detail, [...] as I do not have access to the documents you refer to. [signed] Knauft, Counsel, Bishop’s Palace.“[36]

The Protestant Church of Berlin - Brandenburg did not respond.

Dr. Klausa, who is also the Head of the Department „Memorial Sites for Victims of National - Socialism“ of the Senate of Berlin, responded via telephone:

„Our experts do not consider this report interesting enough to examine it. Objections to the authenticity of this protocol have been refuted. This sort of thing keeps being brought up by the lunatic fringe of the radical right.“

It is strange enough that one would presume to pass judgement on the quality of an expert report before ever having bothered to look at it. Further, it is an untruth, plain and simple, to claim that such objects have already been refuted. A free discussion between the advocates of the standard view of the Holocaust (most of them civil servants) and the subject experts summarized in this chapter has not taken place to this day: U. Walendy received no factual reply; J. P. Ney is still waiting for a relevant response; H. Tiedemann was not favored with any reply; neither was I. Weckert; and H. Wahls is also still waiting for a statement.

In the villa Am Großen Wannsee 56/58, however, it is business as usual. Entire school classes are being led through the rooms, which have been remodeled into a museum, and are told the tales of Hitler’s order, of the plan for mass murder in extermination camps, and of the refreshments served after the conference to the participants. Foreign groups are also routinely shown through the Museum. At the commemorations held at all the various sites of German collective guilt, untrue allegations continue to be happily spouted to all the world, yet could not be supported with details from the protocol even if it were genuine. This is how freedom of thought is valued today in the land of Schiller and Friedrich the Great!

7. Falsification of Documents and Misdocumentation

According to the Brockhaus Encyclopedia,[1] the falsification of documents includes the creation of a fabricated document (eg. a document indicating an incorrect issuer), the falsification of an authentic document, as well as the use of a forged or falsified document when doing so is intended to facilitate deception under the law (§267 StGB [German Criminal Code]).

Anyone who causes legally significant statements, agreements or facts to be documented in public books or registers as having been given or as having taken place, without these actually having been given, or having taken place at all or in the manner or by the person specified, commits the crime of indirect misdocumentation (§271 StGB). The falsification of documents carries a penalty of up to five years’ imprisonment, or monetary fine; indirect misdocumentation is subject to up to one year’s imprisonment, or monetary fine, and up to five years’ imprisonment where the offense was committed for personal gain or with the intent to cause injury to others (§272 StGB).

Misdocumentation by holders of public office carries a penalty of up to five years’ imprisonment, or monetary fine (§348 StGB). Further, the Criminal Code provides for terms of imprisonment and for monetary fines for the use of false documentation i.e. misdocumentation of the kind described under §271 StGB (§273 StGB), and for the destruction or suppression of official documents (§274 StGB)...

[1]       Der Große Brockhaus, Wiesbaden: F. A. Brockhaus, 1979.

[2]       To name just a few examples: the Hitler diaries (Die Hitler - Tagebücher and Rauschnings Gespräche mit Hitler – both: K. Corino, ed.; Gefälscht!, Reinbek: Rowohlt, 1992; cf. also E. Jäckel, A. Kuhn, H. Weiß, Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte 32 [1984]: 163 - 169), Katyn (F. Kadell, Die Katyn - Lüge, Munich: Herbig, 1991), SS identification card for Demjanjuk (D. Lehner, Du sollst nicht falsch Zeugnis geben, Berg: Vowinckel, n.d.).

[3]       According to Sozialdemokratischer Pressedienst of Jan. 21, 1992, p. 6.

[4]       R. Derfrank, Ihr Name steht im Protokoll, WDR broadcast manuscript, January 1992.

[5]       R. M. W. Kempner, Eichmann und Komplizen, Zurich: Europa - Verlag, 1961.

[6]       Akten zur deutschen Auswärtigen Politik 1918 - 1945, Serie E: 1941 - 1945, v. I, Dec. 12, 1941 to Feb. 28, 1942 (1969): 267 - 275.

[7]       Hans Wahls, Zur Authentizität des ‘Wannsee - Protokolls’, Ingolstadt: Zeitgeschichtliche Forschungsstelle, 1987.

[8]       Udo Walendy, „Die Wannsee - Konferenz vom 20.1.1942“, in Historische Tatsachen no. 35, Vlotho: Verlag für Volkstum und Zeitgeschichtsforschung, 1988.

[9]       Ingrid Weckert, „Anmerkungen zum Wannseeprotokoll“, in Deutschland in Geschichte und Gegenwart 40(1) (1992): 32 - 34.

[10]     Johannes Peter Ney, „Das Wannsee - Protokoll“, in Huttenbrief, special issue, June 1992.

[11]     H. Tiedemann, „Offener Brief an Rita Süßmuth“, Moosburg, March 1, 1992; pub. in Deutschland in Geschichte und Gegenwart 40(2) (1992): 11 - 18.

[12]     E. Lachout, Gutachten – Begleitschreiben vom 26.(1.)(2.)1942 zum Wannseeprotokoll vom 20.1.1942, Vienna, Aug. 6, 1991; W. Stäglich, Der Auschwitz - Mythos, Tübingen: Grabert, 1979; Bund der Verfolgten des Naziregimes (BVN), Das Wannsee - Protokoll zur Endlösung der Judenfrage und einige Fragen an die, die es angeht, Bundesvorstand des BVN, 1952; R. Aschenauer (ed.), Ich, Adolf Eichmann, Leoni: Druffel, 1980, pp. 478ff.; H. Arendt, Eichmann in Jerusalem, Leipzig: Reclam, 1990; J. G. Burg, Zionnazi Zensur in der BRD, Munich: Ederer, 1980; G. Fleming, Hitler und die Endlösung, Wiesbaden: Limes, 1982; W. Grabert (ed.), Geschichtsbetrachtung als Wagnis, Tübingen: Grabert, 1984; L. Poliakov, J. Wulf, Das Dritte Reich und die Juden, Berlin: Arani, 1955; P. Rassinier, Debunking the Genocide Myth, Torrance: Institute for Historical Review, 1978; G. Reitlinger, Die Endlösung, Berlin: Colloquium Verlag, 1989; R. Bohlinger, J. P. Ney, Zur Frage der Echtheit des Wannsee - Protokolls, Viöl: Verlag für ganzheitliche Forschung und Kultur, 1992, 1994; W. Scheffler, „Zur Entstehungsgeschichte der ‘Endlösung’“, in Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte 3(43) (1982): 3 - 10.

[13]     Politisches Archiv des Auswärtigen Amtes, Inland IIg, v. 117, copy; cf. P. Longerich, Die Ermordung der europäischen Juden, Munich: Piper, 1990, p. 78.

[14]     During the International Military Tribunal proceedings the date was arbitrarily set as July 31, cf. Der Prozeß gegen die Hauptkriegsverbrecher vor dem Internationalen Militärgerichtshof Nürnberg 14. November 1945 – 1. Oktober 1946 (IMT), Nuremberg, 1947, photomechanical reprint: Munich: Delphin, 1984; v. IX pp. 518ff., v. XXVI pp. 266f.

[15]     cf. Göring’s letter to Heydrich, Jan. 24, 1939, in: U. Walendy, op. cit. (Note 8), p. 21.

[16]     J. P. Ney, op. cit. (Note 10), based on the white - on - black copy in the Wannsee Museum. P. Longerich, op. cit. (Note 13), and W. Stäglich, op. cit. (Note 12), mistakenly write „möglichst günstigen Lösung“.

[17]     Politisches Archiv des Auswärtigen Amtes, K 2104 - 19, - 20.

[18]     ibid., K 2104 - 15.

[T0]     Except where otherwise specified, the translations of phrases from the Protocol are taken from the official Nuremberg translation of this document. - trans.

[T1]     The Nuremberg Translation contains a reasonably corrected version: „The Jewish financial establishments in foreign countries were [...] made responsible [...]“; „were urged“ might have been more accurate. In any case, „verhalten“ makes no sense. - trans.

[T2]     Note that, strictly speaking, the Nuremberg Translation is incorrect at this point, giving a „corrected“ version instead of an accurate translation of the absurd original; - trans.

[19]     cf. G. Rudolf’s chapter, this volume. The Basler Nachrichten of June 13, 1946 mentioned approximately 3 million Jews in Hitler’s sphere of influence.

[20]     pers. comm., W. Ripske, former Reich official holding various Reich government offices.

[21]     Y. Bauer, The Canadian Jewish News, Jan. 30, 1992, p. 8; K. Pätzold, „Die vorbereitenden Arbeiten sind eingeleitet“, in Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte 42(1 - 2) (1992); cf. E. Jäckel, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, June 22, 1992, p. 34.

[T3]     The first line of the body of the text is also shifted by one letter. - trans.

[22]     Wehrmacht - Dienstvorschriften, Verschlußsachenvorschriften HDv 99, MDv 9, LDv 99, revision of Aug. 1, 1943.

[23]     Affidavit of Dr. G. Klopfer, IMT Doc. 656, Doc. - v. VI, Case 8; quoted from U. Walendy, op. cit. (Note 8), p. 27.

[24]     Weizsäcker Exh. 273; Doc. v. 5, summation, H. Becker, Case 11. Re. Canaris, cf. his wife’s sworn statement, quoted from U. Walendy, op. cit. (Note 8), pp. 28f.

[25]     Case 11 of the war crimes trials, protocol, H. Lammers, pp. 21470 - 73; quoted from U. Walendy, op. cit. (Note 8), pp. 29f.

[26]     Testimony of Dr. Bühler, April 23, 1946, IMT v. XII p. 69, quoted from U. Walendy, op. cit. (Note 8), p. 21.

[27]     Prosecuting Attorney, District Court Nuremberg, Ref. 4 Js 15929/60.

[28]     re. document science cf. K. Fuchs, H. Raab, Wörterbuch zur Geschichte, v. 2, Munich: dtv, 1993.

[29]     B. A. Renk, „The Franke - Gricksch ‘Resettlement - Action Report’. Anatomy of a Falsification“, in Journal of Historical Review 11(3) (1991): 261 - 279.

[30]     S. Wiesenthal, Doch die Mörder leben noch, Munich: Droemer Knaur, 1967, p. 40.

[31]     G. Reitlinger, Die Endlösung, Berlin: Colloquium Verlag, 1953, p. 106.

[32]     cf. W. Derfrank, op. cit. (Note 4), p. 1, as well as R. M. W. Kempner, op. cit. (Note 5).

[33]     cf. P. Longerich, Die Ermordung der europäischen Juden, Munich: Piper, 1990, pp. 92ff.

[34]     Director: Dr. Klausa; Managers of the Memorial Site: Dr. Schönberner and Dr. Tuchel.

[35]     Letter of the Secretary of the German Episcopal Conference to the author, Bonn, June 2, 1992, Ref. IL/le, sgd. Dr. Ilgner.

[36]     Letter of the Berlin Diocese, Bishop’s Palace, Broadcast Section, to the author, Oct. 14, 1992, Ref. Kn/De, sgd. Wolfgang Knauft, Counsel, Bishop’s Palace.