Monday, February 27, 2023

Jews and the Media – Part I

Part I

„Ardent propagandists lashed the British public into a fury at the work of German Zeppelin and aeroplane raiders raining death and destruction on defenseless women and children ...The carnage caused by allied airmen in German towns has been kept very quiet, but two instances will be enough to show its quality. In June, 1916, British and French pilots bombed Karlsruhe during the Corpus Christi procession, killing and wounding 26 women and 124 children. In a second raid in September they caused 103 casualties in the same city...Already the pitch has been reached in Great Britain where it is considered bigoted or reactionary to do other than praise the Jews for their industry and ability. Few papers will risk any attack on the Jews, however, well-founded, for fear of appearing even distantly anti-Semitic. This is more than true in America where it is dangerous to mention any truth derogatory to the Jews, and in New York it has been made a crime)...It has been estimated that of the world Jewish population of approximately fifteen millions, no fewer than five millions are in the United States. Twenty-five percent of the inhabitants of New York are Jews. During the Great War we bought off this huge American Jewish public by the promise of a Jewish National Home in Palestine, held by Ludendorff to be the master stroke of Allied propaganda as it enabled us not only to appeal to Jews in America but to Jews in Germany as well...All over the world, and especially in the U.S.A. Jews will be active against Germany, and the Jew is a natural and energetic propagandist, though perhaps not a very far-seeing one. There are, however, cross- currents in the tide of World Jewry, the identification of Russian Jews with Communism, for example, and Palestine, another of our war propaganda hens which may come to roost! Which should warn us not to rely too much on having it entirely in our favor...I have said already that the Jew is a more energetic than a skillful propagandist, but he is undoubtedly energetic. At present we are with traditional readiness giving shelter to large numbers of persecuted Jews from Germany and Austria. It would be against nature if these immigrants, whether permanent or in passage, did not harbor resentment against the countries which had expelled them, and it should not be grounds for a charge of anti-Semitism to point out that a great many of them are making an active propaganda to incite feeling against Germany...The U.S.A. will simply supply the world (with moving pictures, practically all owned by the Jews) Not only is she far and away the greatest producer, but, much more important still, she largely control the machinery of the world film distribution...they (the Americans) can perhaps be expected, in the security of their own detached hemisphere, to see European affairs realistically. For one thing, the American is the great champion of the oppressed, and frequently of the oppressed which may explain why he is so frequently taken in by the ‘hard-luck’ story of London confidence tricksters! Secondly, the American peoples are still under the influence of much of the Great War propaganda. They are more susceptible than most people, to mass suggestion, they have been brought up on it, and since 1918 they have shut themselves off from reality. Thirdly, they are at this moment the battle-ground of an active propaganda of Labels.“ (Propaganda in the Next War, by Sidney Rogerson, pp. 86-148; War! War! War!, by Cincinnatus, pp. 191-193).


„The people who own and manage national impact media are Jewish and, with other influential Jews, helped create a disastrous U.S. Mideast policy. All you have to do is check the real policy makers and owners and you find a much higher concentration of Jewish people than you’re going to find in the population. By national impact media I am referring to the major news wire services, pollsters, Time and Newsweek Magazines, the New York Times, Washington Post, and the International Herald Tribune. For example, CBS’ Mr. (William) Paley’s Jewish. Mr. Julian Goodman, who runs NBC, and there’s a Leonard Goldenson at ABC. Mrs. Katherine Graham owns the Washington Post and Mr. Sulzberger the New York Times. They are all Jews!

You go down the line in that fashion...not just with ownership but go down to the managing posts and discretionary posts... and you’ll find that through their aggressiveness and their inventiveness, they now dominate the news media. Not only in the media, but in academic communities, the financial communities, in the foundations, in all sorts of highly visible and influential services that involve the public, they now have a tremendous voice.

Our policy in the Middle East in my judgement is disastrous, because it’s not even handed. I see no reason why nearly half the foreign aid this nation has to give goes to Israel, except for the influence of this Zionist lobby. I think the power of the news media is in the hands of a few people...it’s not subject to control of the voters, it’s subject only to the whim of the board of directors.“ (Former Vice President Spiro Agnew)


„‘The Jewish Establishment“: ‘In the early 1930s, Wlater Duranty of the New York Times was in Moscow, covering Joe Stalin the way Joe Stalin wanted to be covered. To maintain favor and access, he expressly denied that there was famine in Ukraine even while millions of Ukrainian Christians were being starved into submission. For his work Duranty won the Pulitzer Prize for journalism. To this day, the Times remains the most magisterial and respectable of American newspapers.

How imagine that a major newspaper had had a correspondent in Berlin during roughly the same period who hobnobbed with Hitler, portrayed him in a flattering light, and denied that Jews were being mistreated, thereby not only concealing, but materially assisting the regime’s persecution. Would that paper’s respectability have been unimpaired several decades later?

There you have an epitome of what is lamely called ‘media bias.’ The Western supporters of Stalin haven’t just been excused; they have received the halo of victim hood for the campaign, in what liberals call ‘the McCarthy era,’ to get them out of the government, the education system, and respectable society itself.

Not only persecution of Jews but any critical mention of Jewish power in the media and politics is roundly condemned as ‘anti-Semitism.’ But there isn’t even a term of opprobrium for participation in the mass murders of Christians. Liberals still don’t censure the Communist attempt to extirpate Christianity from Soviet Russia and its empire, and for good reason, liberals themselves, particularly Jewish liberals, are still trying to uproot Christianity from America.

It’s permissible to discuss the power of every other group, from the Black Muslims to the Christian Right, but the much greater power of the Jewish establishment is off-limits. That, in fact, is the chief measure of its power: its ability to impose its own taboos while tearing down the taboos of others, you might almost say its prerogative of offending. You can read articles in Jewish-controlled publications from the Times to Commentary blaming Christianity for the Holocaust or accusing Pope Pius XII of indifference to it, but don’t look for articles in any major publication that wants to stay in business examining the Jewish role in Communism and liberalism, however temperately.“ (The Jewish Establishment, Joseph Sobran, September 1995 issue).


„What of the big newspapers of all countries, controlled directly or influenced indirectly by the great Jewish capitalists, through intermediaries, editors, information agencies, or publicity! Try to advertise in the big Press, or even in so-called national journals of Paris, London, New York, Vienna or Rome, a publication which clearly shows the action of Israel and its imperialism, and you will see what kind of welcome it will receive.“ (Les Victoires d’IsraÇl, Roger Lambelin).


„In my opinion, according to the law of defamation prevalent in this country (U.S.A.), you cannot in any way participate in the publication of the ‘Forces Secrètes de la Révolution’ by de Poncins, without incurring grave legal responsibility with risk of damages...The personalities and associations criticized are so powerful in this country that very costly lawsuits would certainly result from the publication of the book.“ (Forces Secrètes de la Révolution’, Léon de Poncins).


„Will posterity believe that, while the Press has swarmed with inflammatory productions that tend to prove the blessing of theoretical confusion and speculative licentiousness, not one writer of talent has been employed to refute and confound the fashionable doctrines, nor the least care taken to disseminate works of another complexion.“ (June 29, 1789, Arthur Young, Travels in France and Italy).


„We are interested in stifling the sale of this book. We believe that this can be best accomplished by refusing to be stampeded into giving it publicity...The less discussion there is concerning it the more sales resistance will be created. We therefore appeal to you to refrain from comment on this book...It is our conviction that a general compliance with this request will sound the warning to other publishing houses against engaging in this type of venture. (Signed) Richard E. Gutstadt, Director.“ (Anti-Defamation League, Chicago, December 13, 1933, wrote to publishers of Anglo-Jewish periodicals, concerning a book antagonistic to Jewish interests; The Conquest of a Continent, Madison Grant).


„The most effective component of Jewish connection is probably that of media control. It is well known that American public opinion molders have long been largely influenced by a handful of powerful newspapers, including the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, owned respectively by the Sulzbergers, Meyers, and the Pulitzers, (all Jewish families).“ (Alfred Lilienthal, The Zionist Connection II, (1978), pp. 218-219).


„Our task is not to tell the truth; we are opinion molders.“ (Walter Cronkite).


The Jewish owned Social Democratic Herald, on September 14, 1901, characterized Negroes as „inferior...depraved elements’ who went around ‘raping women and children.”


„We are disturbed about the effect of the Jewish influence on our press, radio, and motion pictures. It may become very serious. (Fulton) Lewis told us of one instance where the Jewish advertising firms threatened to remove all their advertising from the Mutual System if a certain feature was permitted to go on the air. The threat was powerful enough to have the feature removed.“ (Charles A. Lindberg, Wartime Journals, May 1, 1941).


„Arrangements have been completed with the National Council of Churches whereby the American Jewish Congress and the Anti-Defamation League will jointly...aid in the preparation of lesson materials, study guides and visual aides... sponsored by Protestant organizations.“ (American Jewish Yearbook, 1952)

Friday, February 24, 2023

The Einsatzgruppen Trial

Source: https://codoh.com/library/document/the-einsatzgruppen-trial/en/

 

by John Wear

Published: 2018-04-28

 

Historical Background

 

The Einsatzgruppen trial was the ninth of 12 American-run trials held after the International Military Tribunal (IMT) at the Palace of Justice in Nuremberg, Germany. The trial was officially titled “The United States of America v. Otto Ohlendorf et al.” and lasted from September 29, 1947 to April 10, 1948. The court indicted 24 Einsatzgruppen leaders on three counts of criminality: crimes against humanity, war crimes, and membership in organizations declared criminal by the IMT. Only 22 defendants were tried because one committed suicide and another had to be excluded for health reasons.[1]

 

Benjamin Ferencz, a 27-year-old Harvard-educated attorney, was appointed by Telford Taylor as chief prosecutor in the case. The prosecution’s case was based primarily on the Einsatzgruppen reports his team had discovered in Berlin. Ferencz later said about the Einsatzgruppen reports:[2]

 

“So we had the names of each town and village, the date, the number of people killed, the name of the unit, the officer in charge, and other officers. I sat down in my office with a little adding machine, and I began to count the people that were murdered in cold blood. When I reached a million, I said that’s enough for me. I flew from Berlin to Nuremberg, to see Telford Taylor, who by then was a general. And I said, we’ve got to put on another trial.”

 

Ferencz said the Einsatzgruppen trial would not have taken place if his team had not had the extraordinary luck of finding these reports.[3]

 

The presentation of the prosecution’s evidence lasted less than two days and consisted mainly of excerpts from the Einsatzgruppen reports. Ferencz and the four attorneys assisting him called no prosecution witnesses and presented no films during the trial. Thus, the Nuremberg prosecutors set out to prove by documentation alone that the defendants had participated in some of the worst crimes of the National Socialist regime.[4] Since the Einsatzgruppen reports were crucial to the prosecution’s case, we will examine the validity of these reports.

 

The Einsatzgruppen Reports

 

The Einsatzgruppen sent reports of their activities back to Berlin by radio. These reports were transcribed and edited by civil servants and distributed in summary format to non-SS offices such as the German Foreign Office. None of these reports exist today in the original – all of them are copies.[5]

 

That the Germans let copies of the Einsatzgruppen reports fall into the hands of the Allies is strikingly odd. They could have easily burned these few stacks of incriminating papers before the Allies conquered Germany.[6] The authenticity of the Einsatzgruppen reports has also been questioned because, like so much other “evidence” of Nazi atrocities, the documents emerged from the Soviet occupation zone.[7]

 

The copies of the Einsatzgruppen reports which have been produced show clear signs of postwar additions. A typical example is Einsatzgruppen Report No. 111. Peter Winter writes that this report contains not only completely garbled wording, but also a clear addition to the end of a paragraph (highlighted in italics below)[8]:

 

These were the motives for the executions carried out by the Kommandos: Political officials, looters and saboteurs, active Communists and political representatives, Jews who gained their release from prison camps by false statements, agents and informers of the NKVD, persons who, by false depositions and influencing witnesses, were instrumental in the deportation of ethnic Germans, Jewish sadism and revengefulness, undesirable elements, partisans, Politruks, dangers of plague and epidemics, members of Russian bands, armed insurgents – provisioning of Russian bands, rebels and agitators, drifting juveniles, Jews in general.

 

Dr. Arthur Robert Butz also questions the authenticity of the Einsatzgruppen reports. Butz writes [9]:

 

They [the documents] are mimeographed and signatures are most rare and, when they occur, appear on non-incriminating pages. Document NO-3159, for example, has a signature, R. R. Strauch, but only on a covering page giving the locations of various units of the Einsatzgruppen. There is also NO-1128, allegedly from Himmler to Hitler reporting, among other things, the execution of 363,211 Russian Jews in August-November 1942. This claim occurs on page four of NO-1128, while initials said to be Himmler’s occur on the irrelevant page one. Moreover, Himmler’s initials were easy to forge: three vertical lines with a horizontal line drawn through them.

 

Carlo Mattogno has shown that the figures quoted in the Einsatzgruppen reports are inaccurate. Mattogno writes [10]:

 

For example, in the summary of the activity of Einsatzgruppe A (October 16, 1941, to January 31, 1942) the number of Jews present in Latvia at the arrival of the German troops is 70,000, but the number of Jews shot is reported as being 71,184! Furthermore, another 3,750 Jews were alive in work camps. In Lithuania, there were 153,743 Jews, of which 136,421 were allegedly shot, whereas 34,500 were taken to the ghettos at Kaunas, Wilna, and Schaulen, but the total of those two figures is 170,921 Jews!

 

The British trial of German Field Marshall Erich von Manstein in Hamburg, Germany also proved the inaccuracy of the Einsatzgruppen reports. The prosecution’s case was based on the reports showing that Einsatzgruppe D under the command of Otto Ohlendorf had executed some 85,000 Jews in four and one-half months. Manstein’s defense attorney, Reginald T. Paget, wrote that these claims seemed quite impossible[11]:

 

 In one instance we were able to check their figures. The S.D. claimed that they had killed 10,000 in Simferopol during November and in December they reported Simferopol clear of Jews. By a series of cross checks we were able to establish that the execution of the Jews in Simferopol had taken place on a single day, 16th November. Only one company of S.D. was in Simferopol. The place of execution was 15 kilometers from the town. The numbers involved could not have been more than about 300. These 300 were probably not exclusively Jews but a miscellaneous collection of people who were being held on suspicion of resistance activity…

 

It was indeed clear that the Jewish community had continued to function quite openly in Simferopol and although several of our witnesses had heard rumors about an S.D. excess committed against Jews in Simferopol, it certainly appeared that this Jewish community was unaware of any special danger…

 

By the time we had finished with the figures and pointed out the repeated self-contradiction in the S.D. reports, it became probable that at least one “0” would have to be knocked off the total claimed by the S.D. and we also established that only about one-third of Ohlendorf’s activities had taken place in von Manstein’s area. It is impossible to know even the approximate number of murdered Jews, for not only was Ohlendorf lying to his superiors but as we were able to show, his company commanders were lying to him.

 

Von Manstein testified that he had no knowledge that Einsatzgruppe D or the German army had a policy of murdering Jews. The court believed Manstein and found him innocent of murdering Jews.[12]

 

Benjamin Ferencz’s Credibility

 

Benjamin Ferencz has made statements that call into question his independence and integrity. For example, the defense counsel at the Mauthausen trial in Dachau insisted that signed confessions of the accused, used by the prosecution to great effect, had been extracted from the defendants through physical abuse, coercion and deceit.[13] Benjamin Ferencz admits in an interview that these defense counsel’s claims were correct[14]:

 

You know how I got witness statements? I’d go into a village where, say, an American pilot had parachuted and been beaten to death and line everyone up against the wall. Then I’d say, “Anyone who lies will be shot on the spot.” It never occurred to me that statements taken under duress would be invalid.

 

In the same interview, Ferencz admits that he observed the torturing and execution of a captured Nazi at a concentration camp[15]:

 

I once saw DPs [Displaced Persons] beat an SS man and then strap him to the steel gurney of a crematorium. They slid him in the oven, turned on the heat and took him back out. Beat him again, and put him back in until he was burnt alive. I did nothing to stop it. I suppose I could have brandished my weapon or shot in the air, but I was not inclined to do so. Does that make me an accomplice to murder?

 

Ferencz, who enjoys an international reputation as a world-peace advocate, further relates a story concerning the interrogation of an SS colonel. Ferencz explains that he took out his pistol in order to intimidate him[16]:

 

What do you do when he thinks he’s still in charge? I’ve got to show him that I’m in charge. All I’ve got to do is squeeze the trigger and mark it as auf der Flucht erschossen [shot while trying to escape]…I said “you are in a filthy uniform sir, take it off!” I stripped him naked and threw his clothes out the window. He stood there naked for half an hour, covering his balls with his hands, not looking nearly like the SS officer he was reported to be. Then I said “now listen, you and I are gonna have an understanding right now. I am a Jew – I would love to kill you and mark you down as auf der Flucht erschossen, but I’m gonna do what you would never do. You are gonna sit down and write out exactly what happened – when you entered the camp, who was there, how many died, why they died, everything else about it. Or, you don’t have to do that – you are under no obligation – you can write a note of five lines to your wife, and I will try to deliver it…” [Ferencz gets the desired statement and continues:] I then went to someone outside and said “Major, I got this affidavit, but I’m not gonna use it – it is a coerced confession. I want you to go in, be nice to him, and have him re-write it.” The second one seemed to be okay – I told him to keep the second one and destroy the first one. That was it.

 

Peter Winter asks the question: “Is this the sort of ‘objective’ legal person who can be relied upon to produce evidence at a major trial?”[17] The fact that Ferencz threatened and humiliated his witness and reported as much to his superior officer indicates that he operated in a culture where such illegal methods were acceptable.[18] Any lawyer knows that such evidence is not admissible in a legitimate court of law.

 

Defendants’ Testimony

 

Otto Ohlendorf testified at the IMT that Einsatzgruppe D, the mobile security unit he commanded in the Crimea between June 1941 and 1942, was responsible for the murder of approximately 90,000 people. Ohlendorf’s testimony horrified the court and had a depressing effect on the defendants. Dr. Gustav M. Gilbert, the American prison psychologist, wrote that Ohlendorf’s testimony established “the inescapable reality and shame of mass murder…by the unquestionable reliability of a German official.”[19]

 

British attorney Reginald Paget, however, questioned the validity of Ohlendorf’s testimony at the IMT. Paget wrote: “Ohlendorf had reported that not only Simferopol but the whole Crimea was cleared of Jews. He was clearly a man who was prepared to say anything that would please his employers. The Americans, also, had found him the perfect witness.”[20]

 

Otto Ohlendorf at the Einsatzgruppen trial retracted his earlier testimony at the IMT that there had been a specific policy to exterminate Jews on racial or religious grounds. Under cross examination, Ohlendorf testified that any Jews or Gypsies killed by his Group D were killed as part of anti-partisan activities. Ohlendorf also testified that only 40,000 people had been executed by his Group D instead of the 90,000 that he had testified to at the IMT.[21]

 

Another defendant at the Einsatzgruppen trial, Walter Haensch, testified that he knew nothing of the murder of the Jews and denied any criminal wrongdoing by his Kommando while he was its leader. Haensch claimed he first learned of the murder of Jews in July 1947 when his interrogator at Nuremberg told him of the Final Solution. Haensch testified that the Einsatzgruppen reports that contradicted his testimony were inaccurate. After the trial, Haensch became so obsessed with proving his innocence that he refused to apply for parole, hoping that American officials would see their error and grant him the clemency he deserved.[22]

 

Benjamin Ferencz claims the Einsatzgruppen reports were definitive proof that the Einsatzgruppen had mass murdered Jews. Ferencz states: “There were times when I felt outraged. For example, the day one defendant, a colonel, said: ‘What, Jews were shot? I hear that in this courtroom for the first time.’ We had the records of every day that man was out murdering, and he had the gall to say that. I was ready to jump over the bar and poke my fingers into his eyes.”[23]

 

Michael Musmanno, the presiding judge, provided the defendants with wide latitude in their presentation of evidence in the Einsatzgruppen trial. However, Ferencz writes that Musmanno was convinced early on of the defendants’ guilt[24]:

 

The judge handed down worse sentences than I would have imposed. So he had made up his mind, early on, that he wasn’t going to be deceived. For him the question was how to sentence them. He was a devout Catholic, and he went into a monastery for a week before sentencing. He convicted all 22 people, and of these he sentenced 13 to death by hanging. During the trial, he had let everyone say whatever they wanted to say. He gave so much leeway; he was leaning over backwards to show the world that it was a fair trial. 

 

Conclusion

 

Four Einsatzgruppen units altogether numbering 3,000 men – including non-combat troops such as drivers, interpreters, and radiomen – became operational soon after the German invasion of the Soviet Union. One of their missions indisputably consisted of fighting against partisans, and in pursuit of this mission they performed numerous mass shootings.[25]

 

The official Holocaust historiography, however, claims that the Einsatzgruppen had the additional task of committing genocide against Soviet Jews. The Einsatzgruppen reports, which fall into the period from June 1941 to May 1942, are the primary proof of this alleged genocide. The Einsatzgruppen reports that have been produced are copies which show clear signs of postwar additions, inaccurate and inflated figures, and obscure signatures appearing on non-incriminating pages. Such reports would not constitute valid proof for legitimate historiography or a legitimate court of law.[26]

 

The defendants at the Einsatzgruppen trial did not receive a fair hearing. The shootings carried out by the Einsatzgruppen were not nearly as extensive as claimed at the trial, for the numbers mentioned in the Einsatzgruppen reports cannot be objectively confirmed and in many cases are demonstrably exaggerated. These reports provide no basis in justice or fact to convict the Einsatzgruppen defendants of genocide against Soviet Jewry.[27]


Endnotes

 

[1] Earl, Hilary, The Nuremberg SS-Einsatzgruppen Trial, 1945-1958, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009, pp. 1, 9-11.

 

[2] Stuart, Heikelina Verrijn and Simons, Marlise, The Prosecutor and the Judge, Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2009, pp. 14-15.

 

[3] Ibid., p. 14.

 

[4] Earl, Hilary, The Nuremberg SS-Einsatzgruppen Trial, 1945-1958, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009, pp. 179-180.

 

[5] Winter, Peter, The Six Million: Fact or Fiction?, The Revisionist Press, 2015, p. 24.

 

[6] Mattogno, Carlo and Graf, Jürgen, Treblinka: Transit Camp or Extermination Camp?, Washington, D.C.: The Barnes Review, 2010, p. 204.

 

[7] Winter, Peter, The Six Million: Fact or Fiction?, The Revisionist Press, 2015, p. 25

 

[8] Ibid., pp. 24-25.

 

[9] Butz, Arthur R., The Hoax of the Twentieth Century: The Case against the Presumed Extermination of European Jewry, ninth edition, Newport Beach, Cal.: Institute for Historical Review, 1993, p. 198.

 

[10] Rudolf, Germar and Mattogno, Carlo, Auschwitz Lies: Legends, Lies & Prejudices on the Holocaust, Washington, D.C.: The Barnes Review, 2011, p. 243.

 

[11] Paget, Reginald T., Manstein: His Campaigns and His Trial, London: Collins, 1951, pp. 169-172.

 

[12] Ibid., p. 174.

 

[13] Jardim, Tomaz, The Mauthausen Trial, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2012, p. 6.

 

[14] Brzezinski, Matthew, “Giving Hitler Hell”, The Washington Post Magazine, July 24, 2005, p. 26.

 

[15] Ibid.

 

[16] Jardim, Tomaz, The Mauthausen Trial, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2012, pp. 82-83.

 

[17] Winter, Peter, The Six Million: Fact or Fiction?, The Revisionist Press, 2015, p. 24.

 

[18] Jardim, Tomaz, The Mauthausen Trial, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2012, p. 83.

 

[19] Earl, Hilary, The Nuremberg SS-Einsatzgruppen Trial, 1945-1958, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009, p. 72.

 

[20] Paget, Reginald T., Manstein: His Campaigns and His Trial, London: Collins, 1951, p. 171.

 

[21] Butz, Arthur R., The Hoax of the Twentieth Century: The Case against the Presumed Extermination of European Jewry, ninth edition, Newport Beach, Cal.: Institute for Historical Review, 1993, p. 202.

 

[22] Earl, Hilary, The Nuremberg SS-Einsatzgruppen Trial, 1945-1958, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009, pp. 162-163.

 

[23] Stuart, Heikelina Verrijn and Simons, Marlise, The Prosecutor and the Judge, Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2009, p. 19.

 

[24] Ibid., pp. 19-20.

 

[25] Mattogno, Carlo and Graf, Jürgen, Treblinka: Transit Camp or Extermination Camp?, Washington, D.C.: The Barnes Review, 2010, pp. 203, 205.

 

[26] Ibid., pp. 203-211.

 

[27] Ibid., pp. 208-211.

Friday, February 17, 2023

Auschwitz: The First Gassing – Rumor and Reality

4th expanded edition

  

 

Source: https://holocausthandbooks.com/index.php?page_id=20

 

by Carlo Mattogno

 

DOWNLOAD THE BOOK IN PDF AND EPUB FORMAT.

 

 

Mainstream historians claim that the very first gassing of 850 human beings at Auschwitz occurred on Sept. 3, 1941, in the basement of building no. 11 of the Auschwitz main camp. It is supposed to have lasted 15 hours, followed by another two days of ventilation and removal of the corpses.

 

But when analyzing all available testimonies, which are the archetypes for all later gassing accounts, Mattogno comes to a quite different image in this study:

According to this, it happened either

· in spring 1941

· or on August 14, 1941

· or on August 15, 1941

· or on September 3-5, 1941

· or on September 5-6, 1941

· or on September 5-8, 1941

· or on October 9, 1941

· or in November 1941

· or in December of 1942.

 

The location was either

· the old crematorium

· or one room...

· or all rooms...

· or even all rooms plus the hallway of the basement of building 11

· or somewhere at Birkenau.

 

The victims were either

· Russian POWs

· or partisans

· or political commissars

· or Poles

· or Russian POWs and sick Polish detainees.

 

There were either

· 200, or 300, or 500, or 696, or 800, or 850, or 980, or 1,000, or 1,400, or 1,663 victims.

 

The poison gas was administered either by

· SS-man Palitzsch

· or by Tom Mix

· or by “the strangler”

· or by Breitwieser

either into the corridor or into the cells, a total of three cans or perhaps two cans into each cell either

· through the door

· or through a ventilation flap

· or through openings above the doors to the cells.

 

The victims died immediately or perhaps stayed alive for 15 hours. The corpses were removed either

· the following day

· or the following night

· or one to two days later

· or three days later

· or on the 4th day

· or the 6th day.

 

The work took either

· a whole day

· or a whole night

· or two nights

· or three nights.

 

The bodies of the victims were either

· cremated

· or buried in mass graves

· or partly cremated and partly buried.

 

In short, it is evident that those giving the accounts of the first gassing at Auschwitz were either not there, lying or mistaken – and Mattogno exposes their obvious fabrications. This total chaos of claims regarding the very first gassing at Auschwitz is typical for all other accounts of homicidal gassings during the Third Reich. It makes it impossible to extract a consistent story. Using original wartime documents, Auschwitz: The First Gassing by Carlo Mattogno inflicts a final blow to the tale of the first homicidal gassing.

Tuesday, February 14, 2023

New World Order - Communism by the Backdoor - Part 8


By Denis Wise

 

If this video is not available in your country use TOR Browser to watch it – fight the jewish censorship!

 

Hollywood: the modern-day Babylon. The Hollywood motion picture industry is the most important vehicle of propaganda in the English-speaking world today. In the long run Hollywood exerts a greater influence over the English-speaking peoples than all other propaganda mediums combined. It has therefore become a prime target for communist infiltration. And since the film industry is overwhelmingly Jewish, it was a minimum of difficulty in setting up shop.

Sunday, February 12, 2023

The Unfortunate Allied Demand of Germany’s Unconditional Surrender

Source: https://codoh.com/library/document/the-unfortunate-allied-demand-of-germanys-uncondit/en/

 

by David Merlin

Published: 2022-01-22

 

The European wars prior to World War II had traditionally ended in negotiations between the victor and vanquished. For example, all of the 15 wars which Great Britain had participated in between the end of the 16th century and 1943 ended in negotiated settlements. The announcement in January 1943 at the Casablanca Conference that the United States and Great Britain would accept nothing less than the unconditional surrender of the Axis Powers ended this tradition.[1]

 

This article documents that the Allied demand of unconditional surrender was an unfortunate policy that prolonged the war, cost millions of lives, and allowed the Soviet Union to take control of Eastern Europe. 

  

Historical Background

 

The Casablanca Conference was a military meeting that convened on January 14, 1943. Although the war had turned perceptibly in favor of the Allies, the end of World War II was not in sight. The American and British military leaders met at Casablanca to determine how victory could best be achieved. These military leaders were concerned primarily with the strategic means of obtaining military victory, and not with political ends.[2] 

 

The major work of the meetings at Casablanca involved ironing out disagreements between the British and Americans. Some of these disagreements included: 1) the relative importance of the war in the Pacific as opposed to the war in Europe; 2) the control and ending of Germany’s U-boat menace; 3) the dispute between the rival Free French generals, Charles de Gaulle and Henri Giraud; 4) the conduct of future operations in the Mediterranean; 5) the method and scope of the bombing offensive against Germany; and 6) the decision of where and when to launch a second front invasion against Germany. The Americans and British were divided on their answers to almost all of these questions.[3]

 

Considering the importance of these issues, the question of whether or not to demand the unconditional surrender of the Axis Powers seemed a minor issue. At the end of the Casablanca Conference, U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt announced that peace could come only by the elimination of German and Japanese war potential. Roosevelt said that the unconditional surrender of Germany, Italy, and Japan would bring about a reasonable assurance of world peace. In this informal way, the policy of unconditional surrender was endorsed by both British Prime Minister Winston Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt.[4]

 

Roosevelt and Churchill later maintained that the press conference announcement by Roosevelt demanding unconditional surrender had been a spontaneous remark. However, the unconditional surrender phrase was discussed at a meeting of the American Joint Chiefs of Staff in Washington as early as January 7, 1943. Roosevelt and his immediate circle had apparently proposed the idea of unconditional surrender to the American Joint Chiefs of Staff and later to Churchill.[5]

 

Robert Sherwood wrote that the notes which President Roosevelt carried to the press conference contained a paragraph demanding the unconditional surrender of Germany, Italy, and Japan. Sherwood concluded that the demand for unconditional surrender was “very deeply deliberated” and “a true statement of Roosevelt’s considered policy.” Roosevelt to the day of his death refused all suggestions that he retract or soften his unconditional surrender statement.[6]

 

Churchill also fully supported the policy of unconditional surrender. He told the House of Commons on May 24, 1944: “The principle of unconditional surrender will be adhered to so far as Nazi Germany and Japan are concerned, and that principle itself wipes away the danger of anything like Mr. Wilson’s Fourteen Points being brought up by the Germans after their defeat, claiming that they surrendered in consideration of them.” Churchill in this statement failed to acknowledge that criticism of Wilson’s Fourteen Points was caused by the failure of the Allies to incorporate these promised Fourteen Points in the Versailles Treaty with Germany.[7]     

 

Prolonging the War

 

A peaceful settlement of the war was impossible after the announcement of the Allied policy of unconditional surrender at the press conference in Casablanca on January 24, 1943. The Allied policy of unconditional surrender ensured that the war would be fought to its bitter end. Maurice Hankey, an experienced British statesman, summed up the effects of the unconditional surrender policy as follows:

 

It embittered the war, rendered inevitable a fight to the finish, banged the door to the possibility of either side offering terms or opening up negotiations, gave the Germans and the Japanese the courage of despair, strengthened Hitler’s position as Germany’s “only hope,” aided Goebbels’s propaganda, and made inevitable the Normandy landing and the subsequent terribly exhausting and destructive advance through North France, Belgium, Luxemburg, Holland, and Germany. The lengthening of the war enabled Stalin to occupy the whole of Eastern Europe, to ring down the iron curtain and so to realize at one swoop a large installment of his avowed aims against so-called capitalism, in which he includes social democracy…Not only the enemy countries, but nearly all countries were bled white by this policy, which has left us all, except the United States of America, impoverished and in dire straits. Unfortunately, also, these policies, so contrary to the spirit of the Sermon on the Mount, did nothing to strengthen the moral position of the Allies.[8] 

 

Even many people who strongly supported America’s entry into World War II were critical of the Allied policy of unconditional surrender. For example, journalist Dorothy Thompson said her “profound alienation” with Allied policy began in January 1943, when Roosevelt and Churchill announced their policy of unconditional surrender by the Axis Powers. She regarded this demand as “a barbarity,” “an absurdity,” and “an insanity.” Thompson was convinced to the end of her life that this Allied policy prolonged the war by at least a year, since it deprived “the forces in Germany that were anxious for peace” of any possible means of achieving it.[9]

 

Josef Stalin also did not originally approve of the unconditional surrender policy adopted by Roosevelt and Churchill. A memorandum written on Stalin’s views about unconditional surrender at the Teheran Conference in November 1943 stated:

 

As a war time measure Marshal Stalin questioned the advisability of the unconditional surrender principle with no definition of the exact terms which would be imposed upon Germany. He felt that to leave the principle of unconditional surrender unclarified merely served to unite the German people, whereas to draw up specific terms, no matter how harsh, and tell the German people that this was what they would have to accept, would, in his opinion, hasten the day of German capitulation.[10]

 

British historian Liddell Hart interviewed many of the leading German military figures and found them in agreement that the Allied policy of unconditional surrender prolonged the war. The German generals said that without the unconditional surrender policy they and their troops—the factor that was more important—would have been ready to surrender sooner, separately or collectively.[11]

 

German Field Marshall Erich von Manstein said that the Allied demand “naturally lengthened the war. This was the surest means to weld the Germans to the Hitler regime.” German Adm. Karl Doenitz also stated unequivocally that the Allied demand for unconditional surrender precluded the possibility of any peace by negotiation. Doenitz regarded the Allied demand for unconditional surrender as an impregnable barrier to peace at a date earlier than May of 1945.[12]

 

German Gen. Heinz Guderian was even more outspoken: “The demand for ‘unconditional surrender’ certainly contributed to the destruction of every hope in Germany for a reasonable peace. This was true not only for the Wehrmacht and for the generals, but also for the whole people.”[13] Guderian further wrote about the Allied demand for unconditional surrender:

 

The effect of this brutal formula on the German nation and, above all, on the army was great. The soldiers, at least, were convinced from now on that our enemies had decided on the utter destruction of Germany, that they were no longer fighting—as Allied propaganda at the time alleged—against Hitler and so-called Nazism, but against their efficient, and therefore dangerous, rivals for the trade of the world.[14]

 

Effect on Resistance

 

The demand of unconditional surrender by the Allies was a serious deterrent to the growth and morale of the resistance movement in Germany. The German underground resistance made numerous attempts to secure a reasonable agreement concerning peace terms before launching their efforts to usurp the National-Socialist regime. The Allies consistently refused to offer any sort of peace terms to the German resistance movement.[15]

 

For example, Adm. Wilhelm Canaris, the head of the German intelligence service the Abwehr, continued to search for an early peaceful settlement to the war after the Casablanca Conference. Recognizing that what governments say and what they do are often quite different, Canaris opened up negotiations with the Americans on a number of fronts. Canaris continued his secret contact with Sir Stewart Menzies, the head of the British Secret Intelligence Service. The Abwehr also pursued whatever possibilities were presented in countries as diverse as Istanbul, the Vatican, the Scandinavian countries and Switzerland.[16] However, all of Canaris’s and the Abwehr’s efforts to obtain peace terms from the Allies failed.

 

British Maj. Gen. J. F. C. Fuller in his book The Second World War wrote that the war had reached its climacteric following the battle of Stalingrad and the collapse of the Africa Korps. In the spring of 1943, the initiative of war had passed to the Allies. Fuller wrote that the Western Allies should have determined the sort of peace they wanted to conclude and seized the psychological advantage by announcing a compromise settlement which would appeal to the German people. Had such terms been announced, the attempted assassination of Hitler might have occurred a full year earlier and probably would have been successful. Fuller wrote: “Had this happened, then National Socialism would have been destroyed by the will of the German people, and replaced by the ideals of the Atlantic Charter.”[17] 

 

The leaders of the German resistance movement discovered that the Allied policy of unconditional surrender would not change even with Hitler dead. On July 18, 1944, conspirator Otto John returned from fruitless negotiations with Allied representatives in Madrid and informed his fellow plotters that unconditional surrender would be in place even if they succeeded in killing Hitler. German staff officer Henning von Tresckow, who described Hitler as “a mad dog that has to be put down,” also learned that Hitler’s death would have no influence on the Allies’ war effort.[18]

 

Dr. Eugen Gerstenmaier, a former conspirator and president of the West German Parliament after the war, stated in a 1975 interview: “What we in the German resistance during the war did not want to see, we learned in full measure afterward; that this war was ultimately not waged against Hitler, but against Germany.”[19]

 

The Soviet Union also used every opportunity to exploit the German resistance movement in order to destroy Germany and bring about Communism in Central Europe. After the failed assassination attempt of Hitler on July 20, 1944, Moscow radio broadcast a tribute to the conspirators by German Gen. Walter von Seydlitz. Seydlitz said: “Courageous men rose against Hitler. They have thus given the signal for the salvation of Germany…Generals, officers, soldiers! Cease fire at once and turn your arms against Hitler. Do not fail these courageous men.”[20]

 

German Maj. Gen. Otto Ernst Remer, who helped prevent the coup attempt, wrote more objectively about the failed assassination attempt on Hitler:

 

No one needs to ask what would have happened if the July 20, 1944, undertaking had succeeded. The German eastern front, which at that time was involved in extremely serious defensive battles, would undoubtedly have collapsed as a result of the civil war that inevitably would have broken out, and the attendant interruption of supplies…A collapse of the eastern front, however, would not only have meant the deportation of further millions of German soldiers into the death camps of Russian captivity, but would also have prevented the evacuation of countless women and children who lived in the eastern territories of the Reich, or who had been evacuated to those areas as a result of the terror attacks from the air by the Western Allies.[21] 

 

Soviet Control of Eastern Europe

 

The Allied policy of unconditional surrender prolonged the war and allowed the Soviet Union to take over Eastern Europe. Within a remarkably short period of time, the Soviet Union ruthlessly subjected Eastern Europe to its totalitarian control. The Red Army brought Moscow-trained secret policemen into every Soviet occupied country, put local communists in control of the national media, and dismantled youth groups and other civic organizations. The Soviets also brutally arrested, murdered and deported people whom they believed to be anti-Soviet, and enforced a policy of ethnic cleansing.[22]

 

On March 5, 1946, less than 10 months after the defeat of Germany, Winston Churchill made his dramatic Iron Curtain speech in Fulton, Missouri. Churchill stated in this speech: “A shadow has fallen upon the scenes so lately lighted by the Allied victory…The Communist parties, which were very small in all these Eastern states of Europe, have been raised to pre-eminence and power far beyond their numbers and are seeking everywhere to obtain totalitarian control.”[23] Churchill thus acknowledged that the Soviet Union had obtained control of Eastern Europe. A war allegedly fought for democracy and freedom had turned into a nightmare for the people of the Eastern European nations.

 

The Allied policy of unconditional surrender was not the only factor which allowed the Soviet Union to take over Eastern Europe. American Gen. George Patton was held back by Gen. Dwight Eisenhower and the Joint Chiefs of Staff from conquering all of Germany. On May 8, 1945, the day the war in Europe officially ended, Patton spoke his mind in an “off the record” press briefing. With tears in his eyes, Patton recalled those “who gave their lives in what they believed was the final fight in the cause of freedom.” Patton continued:

 

I wonder how [they] will speak today when they know that for the first time in centuries, we have opened Central and Western Europe to the forces of Genghis Khan. I wonder how they feel now that they know there will be no peace in our times and that Americans, some not yet born, will have to fight the Russians tomorrow, or 10, 15 or 20 years from tomorrow. We have spent the last months since the Battle of the Bulge and the crossing of the Rhine stalling; waiting for Montgomery to get ready to attack in the North; occupying useless real estate and killing a few lousy Huns when we should have been in Berlin and Prague. And this Third Army could have been. Today we should be telling the Russians to go to hell instead of hearing them tell us to pull back. We should be telling them if they didn’t like it to go to hell and invite them to fight. We’ve defeated one aggressor against mankind and established a second far worse, more evil and more dedicated than the first.[24]

 

The Allied policy of unconditional surrender also led to one of the great tragedies of the 20th century--the forced expulsion of ethnic eastern Germans from their homes after World War II. This Allied policy of ethnic cleansing probably constituted the largest forced population transfer in human history. A minimum of 12 million and possibly as many as 18.1 million Germans were driven from their homes because of their ethnic background. Probably 2.1 million or more of these German expellees, mostly women and children, died in what was supposed to be an “orderly and humane” expulsion.[25]

 

Gen. Heinz Guderian commented on this ethnic cleansing of Germans: “Was it not atrocious so to treat the population of Eastern Germany? Was it not unjust?”[26] This is why Guderian and other German military leaders concluded that the war had to be fought to its bitter end.  

 

Conclusion

 

The Allied demand of unconditional surrender was a brutal policy that prolonged World War II, resulted in the deaths of millions of additional people, and allowed the Soviet Union to take control of Eastern Europe. British Maj. Gen. J. F. C. Fuller wrote about unconditional surrender:

 

What did these two words imply? First, that because no great power could with dignity or honor to itself, its history, its people and their posterity comply with them, the war must be fought to the point of annihilation. Therefore, it would take upon itself a religious character and bring to life again all the horrors of the wars of religion. For Germany it was to become a question of salvation or damnation. Secondly, once victory had been won, the balance of power within Europe and between European nations would be irrevocably smashed. Russia would be left the greatest military power in Europe, and, therefore, would dominate Europe. Consequently, the peace these words predicted was the replacement of Nazi tyranny by an even more barbaric despotism.[27]   

 

A version of this article was originally published in the July/August 2022 issue of The Barnes Review.


Endnotes

 

[1] Armstrong, Anne, Unconditional Surrender: The Impact of the Casablanca Policy upon World War II, New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1961, pp. 14-15.

[2] Ibid., pp. 7-8.

[3] Ibid., pp. 8-9.

[4] Ibid., pp. 10-11.

[5] Ibid., pp. 11-12.

[6] Sherwood, Robert E., Roosevelt and Hopkins: An Intimate History, New York: 2nd ed., Harper & Brothers, 1950, pp. 696-697.

[7] Chamberlain, William Henry, America’s Second Crusade, Indianapolis, Ind.: Liberty Fund, Inc., p. 299.

[8] Hankey, Maurice Pascal Alers, Politics, Trials and Errors, Chicago: Regnery, 1950, pp. 125-126.

[9] Kurth, Peter, American Cassandra: The Life of Dorothy Thompson, Toronto: Little, Brown and Company, 1990, p. 364.

[10] Sherwood, Robert E., Roosevelt and Hopkins: An Intimate History, New York: 2nd ed., Harper & Brothers, 1950, pp. 782-783.

[11] Armstrong, Anne, Unconditional Surrender: The Impact of the Casablanca Policy upon World War II, New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1961, pp. 137-138.

[12] Ibid., pp. 139, 147.

[13] Ibid., p. 141.

[14] Guderian, Heinz, Panzer Leader, London: Michael Joseph Ltd., 1952, p. 284.

[15] Armstrong, Anne, Unconditional Surrender: The Impact of the Casablanca Policy upon World War II, New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1961, p. 219.

[16] Bassett, Richard, Hitler’s Spy Chief, New York: Pegasus Books, 2012, pp. 262-264, 274.

[17] Fuller, J. F. C., The Second World War 1939-45: A Strategic and Tactical History, New York: Meredith Press, 1968, pp. 257-258.

[18] Tedor, Richard, Hitler’s Revolution, Chicago: 2013, p. 257.

[19] Ibid.

[20] Armstrong, Anne, Unconditional Surrender: The Impact of the Casablanca Policy upon World War II, New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1961, p. 209.

[21] Remer, Otto Ernst, “Remer Speaks,” The Journal of Historical Review, Jan./Feb. 1998, Vol. 17, No. 1, p. 9.

[22] Applebaum, Anne, Iron Curtain: The Crushing of Eastern Europe, New York: Doubleday, 2012, pp. 192-193.

[23] Ibid.

[24] Wilcox, Robert K., Target: Patton, Washington, D.C.: Regnery Publishing, Inc., 2008, pp. 331-332.

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

[26] Guderian, Heinz, Panzer Leader, London: Michael Joseph Ltd., 1952, p. 285.

[27] Fuller, J. F. C., The Second World War 1939-45: A Strategic and Tactical History, New York: Meredith Press, 1968, p. 259.