Tag Archives: Neorevisionism

Thomas Dalton: Finally, a Correct Interpretation of Hitler’s Racial Views!

My highest compliments to Mr. Dalton. A superb analysis here!

Mr. Dalton’s new dual language translation of Mein Kampf is available on Amazon: https://amazon.com/dp/0692684158

Racial Theory

Mein Kampf contains numerous references to ‘blood’ (Blut) and ‘race’ (Rasse). This is always portrayed in the worst possible terms, as some kind of demonic, hate-filled, blind racism. But we must first realize that such talk was commonplace in the early 20th Century; Hitler’s terminology, though shocking today, was actually quite conventional at the time. Not being a scientist, and few having much understanding of genetics at the time, it is understandable that he would use such terms.

From “Hitler’s Letters and Notes” by Werner Maser.

Therefore, a literal interpretation of such words is misleading. In modern terminology, Hitler’s ‘race’ is better viewed as ‘ethnicity.’ He was more an ethnicist than a racist. His call for justice for the “German race” is really on behalf of ethnic Germans—the Volk. Thus understood, his view is much less threatening than commonly portrayed. Yes, he viewed ethnic Germans as superior. Yes, he wanted the best for his people. Yes, he was not much interested in the welfare of minorities or other nationalities. This is hardly a sin. Many people around the world today fight for precisely such things, for their own ethnicities. And they are right to do so.

Even today, it is reasonable and appropriate to discuss issues of race. It is a relevant term in biological taxonomy, indicating the highest-level sub-grouping within the species Homo sapiens. By some accounts, there are three races: White/Caucasian, Black/Negroid, and Mongoloid/Asian. Within each race, we have the various ethnicities—of which there are some 5,000 worldwide.

By this measure, Hitler cared little about race. He made a few dismissive comments about Blacks, but nothing that wasn’t standard at the time. He actually admired certain people of the Asian race, especially the Japanese. But his primary concern was among the various White ethnicities. He sought a position of strength and influence for ethnic Germans; he sought alliances with ethnic Britons; and he sought to oppose ethnic Jews.

Then there is Hitler’s infamous talk of ‘Aryan.’ Apart from passing mention elsewhere in the book, it is discussed in detail only in Chapter 11 of Volume 1. While there is no talk of any ‘superman’—no reference to Nietzsche’s Übermensch, for example—it is clear that Hitler views the Aryan as the highest human type, the greatest ethnicity, mover and creator of civilization. Notably, he never defines Aryan. Rather, we learn only what the Aryan is not: he is not Black, not Oriental, and certainly not Jewish. The Jew is the anti-Aryan, his dark and corrupting opposite. The Aryan builds, the Jew destroys. The Aryan produces, the Jew consumes. The Aryan is idealistic, the Jew materialistic.

In the end, the Aryan is distinguished not by his superior intelligence, nor his great creativity, but mainly by his altruism: the Aryan is a self-sacrificing person, more willing than any others to work on behalf of society. Thus he builds civilization and culture, and spreads it to the world. Non-Aryans, to the extent that they have a culture, get it from the Aryans, even as they customize it to their own needs. But the original source and sustainer is the self-sacrificing Aryan.

The word ‘Aryan’ has an interesting origin, and it has nothing to do with the Germans. It comes from the Sanskrit arya, meaning ‘noble.’ It originally referred to the people and language that moved into India from the north around 1500 BC. In the Indian caste system, the Aryans became the Brahmans—the highest and noblest caste. It was they who cultivated the Sanskrit language, and ultimately developed Indian culture. And a final point of interest: Those immigrants from the north came from the region that is known today as the Iranian plateau. In fact, the word ‘Iran’ derives directly from ‘Aryan’; the Iranians were the original Aryans.

Not being a scholar of ancient history, and having no Internet at hand, Hitler knew little of all this. He simply picked up on prior German and European usage. In fact, talk of Aryans as a superior race predated Hitler by several decades. It was a main theme of Frenchman Arthur de Gobineau’s book Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races, of 1855. And it was prominent in Briton-turned-German author Houston Stewart Chamberlain’s book Foundations of the Nineteenth Century, published in 1899. By the time Hitler picked up on the term, it was old hat.”

This is almost identical (oxymoron, I know) to what I have written re: Hitler’s race views in my many books addressing this topic, either directly or in passing.

Hitler’s race views by 1944.

Thank you, Mr. Dalton! (Hats off.)

Veronica Clark books on Amazon: http://amazon.com/Veronica-Clark/e/B00310I4S6

V. K. Clark books on Amazon: http://amazon.com/V.-K.-Clark/e/B00K0NY5YY/

Weronika Kuzniar books on Amazon: http://amazon.com/Weronika-Kuzniar/e/B014GA75MA/

J. A. Sexton books on Amazon: http://amazon.com/J.-A.-Sexton/e/B00Q5VKG48

LIKE A BOSS.

Reinhard Heydrich compared to Turkic Wehrmacht volunteer (note the eyes).

Managing Our Perception of the Third Reich – Now on Audio Book!

NOW ON AMAZON: https://amazon.com/dp/B076ZWFH49/

Or, get it on Audible: https://www.audible.com/pd/History/Managing-Our-Perception-of-the-Third-Reich-Audiobook/B076ZR7KGC/

University professors, white nationalists, Liberals, MGTOW, Brits, Anglo-Americans and Zionists alike all have a stake in managing the world’s perception of Nazi Germany and World War II.

Why?

What are they trying to hide and why do they go to such extremes, including serial harassment and cyberbullying, to control and micromanage the narrative for the rest of us?

This concentrated analysis of the World War II and postwar narrative by author Weronika Kuzniar answers these questions and many more in a relaxed, reader-friendly style.

On Amazon (2nd ed. softcover): https://amazon.com/dp/1545442347/

Please consider leaving a positive review on Amazon if you enjoyed this book. We NEED and APPRECIATE your support. Thank you!

Netanyahu’s revisionism consistent with Zionism’s collaboration with Hitler

Food for thought…

by Daniel Margrain | October 25, 2015

Angela Merkel’s spokesman Steffen Seibert last week confirmed what everybody except neo-Nazi Holocaust deniers and neoZionists like Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu have long understood when he said that the “responsibility for the Holocaust lay with the Germans.” Netanyahu’s offensive and slanderous contrarian view made during an address to the 37th Zionist Congress, came after a day of violence that saw five Palestinians, including alleged attackers, killed in the occupied territories and an Israeli killed in a traffic incident in the West Bank.

In his speech, Netanyahu focused on incitement, saying Palestinian incitement could be traced back to before the creation of the Israeli state, and claimed that a Palestinian religious leader had encouraged Adolf Hitler to carry out the Holocaust. The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, “flew to Berlin,” Netanyahu said. “Hitler didn’t want to exterminate the Jews at the time, he wanted to expel the Jews.” “And Haj Amin al-Husseini went to Hitler and said, ‘If you expel them, they’ll all come here.’ ‘So what should I do with them?’ he asked. He said, ‘Burn them.”

However, contrary to Netanyahu’s account, there is not a single reference in the entire text of the official record of the conversation between Adolf Hitler and Haj Amin al-Husseini to “Jew burning”. The fact that most Holocaust scholars insist the first death camps were formed before the 1941 meeting between Husseini and Hitler would seem to suggest that Hitler’s plan was already in place by the time they met.

But just as significant, Netanyahu’s lies underscore the secret history that ideologically links Zionism to Hitler fascism. This includes outright collaborations with the Nazis predicated on the notion that the formation of a Zionist state would be part of the system of colonial domination of the rest of the world.

In setting out the Zionist programme, the father of Zionism, Theodor Herzl in a 1896 pamphlet called The State of the Jews, called for a Jewish state to be set up in an under developed country outside Europe with the backing of one of the major imperialist powers in order to support the former’s colonizing of it. To achieve this aim the Zionists aligned themselves with notorious anti-Semites that included Count Von Plehve, the sponsor of the worst anti-Jewish pogroms in Russia.

In 1933, The Zionist Federation of Germany sent a memorandum of support to the Nazis and later that year the World Zionist Organization congress defeated a resolution for action against Hitler by a vote of 240 to 43. The author Ralph Schoenman notes in the Hidden History of Zionism:

“Throughout the late thirties and forties, Jewish spokespersons in Europe cried out for help, for public campaigns, for organized resistance, for demonstrations to force the hand of the allied governments – only to be met not merely by Zionist silence but by active Zionist sabotage of the meager efforts which were proposed or prepared in Great Britain and the United States.”

The dirty secret of Zionist history is that Zionism was threatened by the Jews themselves. Defending the Jewish people from persecution meant organizing resistance to the regimes that menaced them. But these regimes embodied the imperial order which comprised the only social force willing or able to impose a settler colony on the Palestinian people. Hence, the Zionists needed the persecution of the Jews to persuade Jews to become colonizers afar, and they needed the persecutors to sponsor the enterprise.

Ben-Gurion, Israel’s first leader, wasn’t satisfied with the arrangement that followed the 1947 partition of the country into separate Jewish and Palestinian states by the leading imperial powers. This was despite the fact that the Jews comprised just 31 per cent of the population but had been given 54 per cent of the fertile land. The end goal for Ben-Gurion and the Zionists was the aspiration towards the establishment of Eretz Yisrael (Greater Israel) – a fascistic concept no different in principle to the aims of the Nazis.

The Zionist project could only be completed if the Palestinians were expelled from their historical homeland. In 1948 this policy was put into effect. Just as Ben-Gurion needed the persecution of the Jews in order to justify his colonization of a foreign land, Netanyahu needs to persuade modern day Israeli Jews of the racist revisionist myth that rejects Hitler’s main responsibility for the Holocaust.

Neo-nazi Andrew Anglin on Israeli television (2017).

Netanyahu’s outrageous speech effectively lets Hitler off the hook with the aim of putting the blame for the suffering of the Jews and Hitler’s Final Solution on the shoulders of the Palestinian people so as to self-justify his continued obliteration of them.

When in 2005 Iran’s former president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, allegedly denied the Holocaust, there was legitimate uproar and worldwide condemnation and media saturation coverage of his comments. This is in sharp contrast to the lack of mainstream media coverage following Netanyahu’s remarks that were no less offensive and outrageous.

Given that Netanyahu underplayed the role Hitler played in the Holocaust, neither he, nor his fellow Jewish extremist fundamentalists, have any wriggle room with which to critique, with any credibility, Holocaust deniers ever again.

Source: https://bsnews.info/netanyahus-holocaust-revisionism-is-consistent-with-zionisms-collaboration-with-hitler/

Review of Bryan Rigg’s “Hitler’s Jewish Soldiers”

by Kevin Walsh

hitler-jewish-soldiers-hitler-zionistWhile browsing through the library, I encountered a book with a most amusing title.  It was Hitler’s Jewish Soldiers: The Untold Story of Nazi Racial Laws and Men of Jewish Descent in the German Military by Bryan Mark Rigg.  From the biography of the author, Dr. Rigg is evidently quite a bad fellow.  Though an American, he volunteered for the “Israeli” Army.  The biography also boasts he was an officer in the United States Marine Corps.  In most sane countries serving in two different countries’ armed forces is considered incompatible and grounds for loss of citizenship in one of the countries, but the USA is so subservient to the Zionist entity, that this is considered grounds for boasting. Hitler’s Jewish Soldiers was published by the University Press of Kansas in 2002. At the time of publication, Dr. Rigg was a professor of history at American Military University.

As is typical of conformist scholars on Second World War history, Rigg is sloppy about verifying his contentions.  Footnotes of alleged quotes of Hitler seldom quote an original document, rather an existing work by some other historian.  Of course, as is to be expected, Rigg shows no critical examination at all of any aspect of the Holocaust story, assuming that the reader believes the conventional “six million were deliberately massacred by hydrogen cyanide in gas chambers” line. This is not to say that the entire book is a pack of lies. Rigg did go through a rigorous interview process during the 1990s of German war veterans who were of partial Jewish ancestry.

klaus-von-schmeling-diringshofen-was-jewish1tThe background of this study is based on the 1935 Nuremberg laws which classified persons in Germany as Aryans, Jews, and “Mischlinge.” Mischlinge were either quarter-Jews or half-Jews (having one or two Jewish grandparents). Those with three or four Jewish grandparents were considered full Jews. First-degree Mischlinge, or half-Jews, could only marry other half-Jews or full Jews. Second-degree Mischlinge, or quarter-Jews, could only marry Aryans. The purpose of these laws was to promote good racial hygiene.  Of course there was no such thing as DNA testing in the 1930s and 1940s, and, as Rigg pointed out, this was often an imprecise classification. Sometimes all the authorities had to go on to determine someone’s ancestry were church baptismal records, and since some Jews had converted to Christianity in the 19th Century for political convenience, these were not always reliable. Sometimes physical examinations were used in doubtful cases. This also was doubtful, as quarter-Jews and half-Jews often looked quite Aryan. An example of this from the book are two pictures on the page immediately preceding the start of Chapter Nine (picture pages are not numbered in this book).  On the top is a picture of Professor Alexander Czempin, looking quite Jewish with his classic hooked-nose. Immediately below is a picture of his half-Jewish grandson, Corporal Robert Czempin, with a very Aryan-looking face.

part-jewish-bernhard-roggeRigg pointed out some cases in which people honestly hadn’t known about having partial Jewish ancestry.  There were several cases of Mischlinge being expelled from the Nazi party because their ancestry had been discovered.  Apart from Nazi party membership, one privilege open only to pure Aryans, was ownership of farm land.  It wasn’t that the Nazis feared that Jews and Mischlinge might become farmers, it was that Jews had a long history of land speculation and usury against German farmers.

The aspect of the Nuremberg laws that mainly concerns Rigg, however, is how to deal with Jews and Mischlinge in the military.  It was decided that full Jews were to be completely banned from military service, and this policy was followed fairly consistently throughout the Third Reich, so Rigg doesn’t deal with full Jews in the military, as those who served managed to conceal their identity. The main focus of the book is of half-Jews and quarter-Jews in the German military. Rigg contends their numbers were not small.  He estimates that as many as 150,000 German soldiers were half-Jews or quarter-Jews.

Quarter-Jews would be allowed to serve but would not be promoted higher than the rank of corporal without special permission.  Hitler often granted special permission, and there were a few instances of officers as high as admirals and generals being partly Jewish.

General Erich von Manstein was Jewish. His real surname was Lewinski-Levi.
Pity, Mr Sullivan, you must not know that General Erich von Manstein was Jewish. His real surname was Lewinski-Levi.

For half-Jews the policy was less consistent. Prior to 1940, they could be drafted but were usually forbidden from volunteering. In 1940, Hitler ordered all half-Jews discharged from the military.  A few exceptions were made for those half-Jews who had distinguished themselves and been decorated.  Ironically, these half-Jews were often envied, because this policy allowed them to escape the heaviest fighting of the war, particularly Operation Barbarossa.  While the Aryans and quarter-Jews were on the Russian front, these half-Jews were studying at university or working at civilian jobs in Germany.  In 1944, their relatively pleasant lives ended, as Hitler ordered half-Jews sent to labour camps in Operation Todt.  Rigg admits that these were not “death camps” and that conditions there were reasonably humane by wartime standards.

Rigg observed that one of the great ironies of the war was the attitude of the Mischlinge soldiers.  Some of them, who had been ignorant of their Jewish ancestry before 1933, were genuinely supportive of National Socialism.  Many others expressed in their journals and in letters home a kind of pro-German chauvinism, celebrating their military triumphs over Poland and France.  Some were even driven to excel on the battlefield and be decorated for bravery so that they could prove that they were true Germans and not worthy of being second-class citizens.  Generally they were accepted as comrades-in-arms by Aryan soldiers, and unpleasant incidents were the exception rather than the rule.

The one source of anxiety, according to Rigg, was that they would sometimes go home on leave to find their Jewish relatives had been deported.  There was one incident of a decorated Wehrmacht soldier visiting Buchenwald in uniform to speak to his Jewish grandmother who was detained there.  His grandmother expressed pride in her grandson’s military achievements.

Hitler's Jewish Soldiers (vídeo)

Rigg devotes Chapter Nine, a fairly brief chapter, to what the Mischlinge soldiers knew about the Holocaust.  Most he surveyed, he admits, claimed not to have known about it.  He observes that this is what most of the Nuremberg trial defendants also contended.  Of course Rigg doesn’t go to the logical conclusion that the best explanation for this is that there wasn’t anything for them to have known–that the internment camps were not, in fact, extermination camps.  Rigg mentions that there were some cases documented by the Nuremberg tribunals, of Jews or Mischlinge who engaged in wartime atrocities against Jews, including a half-Jewish doctor who supposedly performed diabolical medical experiments on Jews and a Jewess who supposedly helped the Gestapo find other Jews.

While I think Rigg’s book contains enough genuine history to be of historical interest, it is best read with a grain of salt.

Related Wilk Mocy titles…

Black Nazis III: Ethnic Minorities and Foreigners in Hitler’s Reich: A New History

ETHNOSTATE: Third Reich Race Theory & Relations

Managing Our Perception of the Third Reich: An Historiographical Challenge

An Afro-German Family in Nazi Germany: The Story of the Sabac el Chers

The Other Nazis

The Controversy of Black Nazis II

German chauvinist blames Britain & Poland for WW2

All original grammatical and spelling errors have been left intact. This is the Hitler Worship Cult’s idea of “good research”:

I think there was one big mistake. I have read Stefan Scheil’s book about Ribbentrop. He says that Ribbentrop believed in peace when he flew back from The Soviet Union, but he did not assure Hitler that the Brits won’t fight. I think everybody knew after the treaty between Pland and Britain that the wari will be inevitable. Scheil says that all the statements about Ribbentrop wanting the war and believing that Britain would not fight are the lies from the Brits and the traitors in the Auswärtiges Amt (Germany’s Foreign Ministery) who were Weizsäcker, the brothers of Kordt and others.

From Hesse’s mission they finally knew that next day the declaration of war would be coming. Hitler did not cry to Ribbentrop. He just asked, what now should be done.

Ribbentrop did not want the war. He did not encourage Hitler to the War. He did not say the Brits would not fight. All these are just lies.The traitors themselevs did encourage Hitler to the war and wanted much more from Poland. They would not have made a deal with Poland in 1934 or later. Unlike the nationalsocialists did. The “nazis” wanted friendship with Poland.

Hitler said he would be an idiot, if he would have let himself to the World War because of Poland, if he would have another possibility. He had no choices because he knew that Britain wanted the war. In the Autumn he would have lost the war because of the weather. The Poles said they would attack Danzig and they would have. And without this the Brits would have started bombings or some provocations or falseflags. They knew it.

Ribbentrop had for years warned that England was planning the war and it would attack in any case. There were much talk for years in the floors and the cabinets of power. Churchill and the FOCUS were preaching for the war publicly from 1936. The propaganda machine had rolled and the people brainwashed.

At the same time there was the appeasement. Ribbentrop said that the appeasement was a fraud. The leaders of England needed an alibi for the war. It was Chamberlain who started the process of the annexation of the Sudetenland into the Reich. He promised it to the Germans. Scheil says that Chamberlain maybe did not want the war but he could not avoid it. Hitler and Ribbentrop believed he was just a pawn of the leading plutocrats so he could not do otherwies. I think too he eventually had to do what the USA and the plutocrats wanted. He has said himself that the World Jewry and the USA forced England to the war and he felt he had written a doom for the whole civilization with the declaration of the war.

So the revisions of the Versailles were good for the coming war and the Brits provided them, although they afterwards said they were humiliations and they must be stopped and cancelled.

When England and Poland refused to negotiate, Hitler knew the War was unavoidable. And Ribbentrop too. They had not another choice. The legends about Ribbentrop are dangerous because they create a picture of many choices. So if the book is about the guilty of Britain, it accuses Hitler too, if the author really believes these lies about Ribbentrop and Hitler.

The Elephant in White Nationalism’s Room: Adolf Hitler, Zionist

White nationalists, Alt-Righters and Tradcons, we’re all eagerly awaiting your explanation/justification for this:

Adolf Hitler supported and funded Zionism as well as the primordial Jewish state. Together, the Gestapo, NSDAP and SD trained, funded, aided and abetted the Jewish-Zionist Haganah, Hanotea, and Mossad le Aliyah Bet (modern Mossad’s forerunner).

nazi-zionist-medallion

This information, and much more, will be featured in two of Mr. Sexton’s upcoming publications. Stay tuned…

On C-SPAN: https://www.c-span.org/video/?289751-1/transfer-agreement

Stalin Was Not Surprised by Preemptive German Strike in 1941

Interview of Sergio Beria

Sergo Beria is the son of Lavrenty Beria, chief of the notorious NKVD, the Soviet secret police. Growing up he was privy to many high-level conversations his father had with Stalin, Molotov, and countless other important Soviet figures. As a young man he worked as a spy for Stalin at the Tehran and Yalta conferences. The “Cold War” production team spoke with Beria in October 1996. The following are translated excerpts from his interview.

On why Stalin signed a neutrality pact with Nazi Germany at the start of World War II:

[Stalin] often visited us at home, and he said, “We have to win time, if only two years. Only with this amount of time would the Soviet Union be ready … to defend itself against Germany.” I heard conversations like this many times with Molotov and my father. …

That the Western countries might let us down in some measure — this was Molotov’s opinion. [He believed] there might be a kind of Western alliance with Germany, whereby Germany could invade us and the Western countries wouldn’t help directly, but would find all kinds of ways to urge Germany on.

On Germany’s invasion of the Soviet Union:

It wasn’t unexpected, because in the year before the war began, we got the documents from Germany about the Barbarossa plan, the main directions of the invasion, what the troops would look like, how many divisions would take part in this war. …

[But] to say honestly, our army wasn’t ready to meet the German troops, because our army didn’t understand fully what this war would be like. Later on, a lot of military people wrote that this war was unexpected for them, but those are only fairy tales, because this war wasn’t unexpected. [Soviet Generals] Zhukov and Timoshenko were in the Kremlin from 4 p.m. on that day. They tried to give good orders; [but] later on they lied when they said this war was unexpected.

On the Tehran Conference:

When they chose the place where the Tehran Conference would be held, first of all they wanted to hold this conference in Casablanca. Our specialists went there, but it was known that in comparison with Iran, the Soviet side had no spies there, no network of spies in Africa. Whereas in Tehran we had a lot of agents and a wide network of spies.

[At the conference] Stalin’s assistant came and took us to him, one at a time. Stalin told me that the task he was putting to our group, and particularly to me, was ethically very unattractive but the position of the U.S.S.R. was so serious that he had to know what [the other Allies] were thinking. … My personal obligation was to listen to and record everything connected with Roosevelt and those close to him, to decode the recordings, and to report all this information direct to Stalin personally.

After that, every day in the morning at about 8 a.m., I had to come to Stalin with all the information written in English and in Russian too, and he asked me very detailed questions about Roosevelt’s conversations, sometimes for as long as an hour or two. Sometimes he was interested in how Roosevelt said something — even what his intonation was, what the concealed meaning was, things like that.

When I finished reporting, I saw a great amount of paperwork on his desk which was connected to the questions he was dealing with. That is, he prepared for each conversation like a lecturer prepares for a lecture: with archive documents, intelligence reports, army reports, etc., and with a complete list of the conversations held around the conference. Of course, he was far better prepared … than the Allies, because he knew in advance, for instance, all the things that Churchill wanted to do to spite the Americans — a whole lot of interesting things.

On how Soviet intelligence eavesdropped on the Allies at Tehran:

Although the Americans and the English had equipment for finding microphones and bugging devices, they didn’t once manage to find our bugging equipment. They assumed they were being listened to, but they didn’t have any real proof. They didn’t find any equipment at the Tehran Conference.

Often people close to Roosevelt warned him to bear in mind that these things existed: that in all probability he was being listened to. … But from what I heard, and from later conversations I had after the conference, I got the impression that sometimes Roosevelt quite simply said things he couldn’t say to Stalin officially. That he conveyed a whole lot of information to him which it was impossible to convey at a state level.

He said once that he was for the destruction of the British Empire. In Yalta, later on, he said this once again. But the first time he mentioned the colonial empires was in Tehran. Officially, this theme wasn’t discussed; but sometimes in the talks with his generals, with the people who surrounded him, with some of his coordinators, he talked much about the British Empire, about its colonies. But he said these things only in order to be heard, to be listened to, to give this information to the Soviet side.

On Soviet eavesdropping at Yalta:

I used to see Roosevelt and Churchill during their walks. … When the weather was bad Roosevelt was wheeled in his chair and Churchill walked next to him, usually, and they always talked very intensively. And as we already had a system for directing the microphones to a distance of 50 to 100 meters to listen, as there was no background noise, everything was quiet, all these conversations recorded very well, and later on were translated and processed.

And then we wrote up all this information and reported [it]. Only later on did I come to know that some people in the American delegation were working for the Soviet Government. For example, [one of our spies] was not only accompanying Roosevelt, he was a member of the delegation; that was very important, and he gave his information to us, too. And we got some people among the English delegation also. But here, during the Yalta Conference, Roosevelt spoke against the English state directly, openly.

On FDR’s view of the Soviet Union:

There were a lot of people around Roosevelt who did not agree with his attitude toward the Soviet Union. Roosevelt told them very strictly, very angrily, that they had to help the Soviet Union economically, and they must make the Soviet Union a friend of America. He thought that the main direction of the American economy must be directed to the destruction of the British Empire, and he wanted to have the British colonies for America. Later on, I read a lot of things about the financial minister, Morgenthau, and I read that even in Yalta he wanted to organize very big loans [for the Soviet Union], for about $10 million to $15 million.

On the Potsdam conference:

Before this conference, I heard from my father that the Americans at that time were trying to change their policy, their attitude toward the Soviet Union. … My father often told me that Stalin didn’t worry about that, because he decided to change the policy of the Soviet Union in Europe. … Stalin thought at that time that the Soviet Union was strong enough, and its army was strong enough, and that’s why he wasn’t afraid of this [new U.S.] policy. He didn’t understand why the Western countries didn’t understand that.

Stalin knew that the Americans worked hard to do research on the atomic bomb. A lot of scientists in the Soviet Union were trying to do scientific research, but of course at that time we were behind America because of our technical possibilities. But they felt that very soon the Soviet Union would get the atomic bomb too. We understood at that time that Truman tried to gain time: he tried to delay this conference because he wanted to come to the conference with the atomic bomb already tested, to be able to say that we were at the beginning of a new political phase. That’s what they came to Potsdam with.

And what impressed me most of all there? Truman was waiting for the report that the bomb had been tested. And at the same time, my father and Truman received the telegrams about these tests of the atomic bomb. This information was given to Stalin, but Stalin said, “We must wait.” He was waiting [to hear] how Truman would explain this, and how he would act. The reaction of Truman came very soon.

First this theatrical moment was staged: [it was] as if [only] incidentally Stalin was told about a kind of “super bomb.” Afterwards he laughed, and said that he had pretended that he hadn’t understood what it was about at all, and that he had congratulated them on the new bomb. In Churchill’s memoirs, which I’ve read, he writes that they were quite astonished that [Stalin] hadn’t grasped this business. And that hence they had had a great deal of amusement at our expense.

On Stalin’s increasingly aggressive policies:

The war in Korea broke out on Stalin’s initiative. … He was of the opinion that on the basis of the communist development, we must organize small local wars in different places of the world.

It was begun in Greece, then in China, then in Vietnam, and finally in Korea. That is one of the examples of these local wars. In two weeks, the Soviet troops managed to fight; they were very good. And at that time, Stalin wanted the Soviet troops to fight with rockets. … Stalin wanted the Soviet fleet to destroy three or four American military ships; and they told Stalin that after that, the American side would fight with the atomic bomb. Stalin wasn’t afraid of this atomic bomb; he said, “Then we’ll give our atomic bomb, too.”

During all the sittings of his government, he said that the Third World War would take place, and that this war had to take place during his life. That’s why the military industry in the Soviet Union was very much developed at that time. We got a lot of tanks and rockets and ships, and I think that if Stalin had lived five years longer, we would have had this Third World War.

Stalin had … plans [to use the nuclear bomb in Korea] and my father was very much afraid of these plans. … My father was even against the preparation of this bomb, and he understood that if the Soviet Union got this bomb, nothing would be able to stop Stalin in his wish to conquer the whole world.

Of course, a lot of people understood that Stalin had such dangerous plans and that they must do their best in order to stop him and his plans. But Stalin was very clever, and he understood everything. He felt all these spirits of people who surrounded him. When he felt that somebody was dangerous for him, he immediately killed them. He protected himself from the enemies, and it was very simple for him to do this. And if he hadn’t died in 1953, it seems to me that he would have killed all the members of the Politburo. Bulganin, Malenkov, Khrushchev and my father would have been killed — I am sure of this fact.

On his impressions of Stalin:

When I was a child, I had the same impression as my father: I thought he was a god. But when I was older and I could have my own opinion … I can’t say I criticized him, because he was a very big person, he was an unusual person, and for an ordinary person it was not allowed to speak about him, to criticize him. Because I say once more that he was not an ordinary man. He did much more than Churchill or Roosevelt. You can’t compare him even with these people — he was much higher, and he had a very big force; and sometimes I thought maybe that is the force of the devil.

[He] had very great charm and could be very sympathetic to the people. … When he wanted to win [over] people, he could do it very easily. I was a friend of his daughter, Svetlana. He used to come to us, and I used to go to their house. … And when I came to Stalin’s house, Stalin asked us what we were reading at that time, for example, and he offered us some books and asked us about our impressions, what we thought about these books. He told my mother that I hadn’t read “Germinal,” by Zola, for example. So I can say he was attentive to us, to his daughter and to me, and we were very much impressed that such a big person, such a big politician could find some minutes for us.

He had a very big sense of humor; he knew a lot of very humorous stories, and he often told them. But of course, there was another side to his character. He had no heart. If somebody stood in his way or had a different opinion than his own, he destroyed them, even if they were his relatives or his close friends. He destroyed everybody. When Svetlana, his daughter, was 16 years old, their relations got worse, and Stalin said he didn’t trust his daughter. That’s why he spoiled his relationship with his daughter.

At the end of 1939, or in 1940, thousands of Poles were killed, and I know who was the initiator of this deed. My father refused to take part in this action, and [Soviet foreign affairs committee president] Zhdanov wanted to throw my father out of the government. Zhdanov wanted to be the minister of interior affairs. But Stalin wanted first to kill Trotsky, to throw out Trotsky, and only then my father. Stalin agreed to allow my father not to take part in this action. Later on, my father tried to explain his position: he said that it was not because he loved people very much and he was altruistic, but he said that this was on the eve of the war, and that’s why we must save all these people and make them fight against the Germans. And when I saw that in one minute it can be decided that thousands of people would be killed, I got a shock, and I thought that Stalin had no heart.

Source: CNN Interactive

“Aktion Reinhard(t)”

by Wilfried Heink

By the term “Action Reinhard(t),” official historiography refers to the (alleged) mass murder of Jews in three German camps: Belzec, Sobibor and Treblinka. Some, ahem, historians include Chelmno, but I am using an article by Dieter Pohl, “Massentötung durch Giftgas im Rahmen der ‘Aktion Reinhardt’. Aufgaben der Forschung” (Mass murder by poisonous gas during “Action Reihardt.” Assignment for researchers) as a guideline, and he mentions only three camps. His article appeared on pp. 185-195 in “Neue Studien zu Nationalsozialistischen Massentötungen durch Giftgas”, published by Günter Morsch and Bertrand Perz, Metropol Verlag Berlin, 2011—the most recent ‘industry publication’. This book is the result of a conference of May 2008 in Berlin, which was attended by 200 scientists from many countries. The intent was to present new material to help combat revisionists, who, to this day, deny the mass murder by poisonous gasses of millions of Jews in gas chambers. The book is a declaration of “Holocaust” bankruptcy.

But, as my title suggests, the spelling of the name of the action differs: In some publications we read “Reinhard,” in others “Reinhardt.” Why is that? Pohl claims in his article that 1.35 million people (he writes Menschen) were killed during this action: according to him, about one quarter of all Jews killed (here he writes Jews), about half by poisonous gasses. “Action Reinhard(t)” thus refers to an enormous crime, and one would expect exactitude in research, beginning with the spelling of the name.

It might be possible to dismiss the “Reinhardt” vs. “Reinhard” issue as a simple spelling error – albeit an unlikely scenario, for surely “historians” are not that sloppy – if it were not for the reference to Fritz Reinhardt of the finance ministry by Messrs Morsch and Perz in “Neue Studien…”, p. XVII, footnote 11. They write:

“…Die von der unterschiedlichen Schreibweise des Namens „Reinhard“ und „Reinhardt“ in den Quellen ausgelöste Kontroverse über die Frage, ob sich die Bezeichnung „Aktion Reinhard(t)“ auf Reinhard Heydrich oder möglicherweise auf Staatssekretär Fritz Reinhardt im Reichsfinanzministerium bezog, ist mittlerweile entschieden. Die Bezeichnung geht tatsächlich auf Heydrichs Vornamen zurück, der allerdings in den Zeitgenössischen Quellen selbst teilweise fälschlich mit Reinhart geschrieben wurde…“

(Roughly: The controversy concerning writing “Reinhard” or “Reinhardt”, referring to either Heydrich’s first name or that of Fritz Reinhardt of the finance ministry, has been settled. The description goes indeed back to Heydrich’s first name, spelled erroneously at times as Reinhardt.)

Messrs. Morsch and Perz are unclear as to who settled the issue, although they cite sources. But if this was just a spelling matter, and if “Aktion Reinhard(t)” was conceived by Reinhard Heydrich as a ‘Jew killing action’, why even mention Fritz Reinhardt? I am sure Morsch et al. know more about this, but what they know will just not fit into the narrative. Economics did play a role, and after looking at the issue closely, it is apparent that this action was initiated by the finance ministry, by Fritz Reinhardt, and that Reinhard Heydrich had nothing to do with it. His role was appended to the story later on by shysters, who refer to themselves as “historians”.

But before addressing this issue, a little about what Herr Pohl wrote. By stating up front that 1.35 million people were killed during this action, he follows what Julius Wellhausen dismisses as shysterism, to put it bluntly, when he writes:

“Für die Deutung werden die Thatsachen vorsausgesetzt und aus der Deutung werden sie bewiesen“(Die Pharisäer und Sadducäer, 1. Auflage Verlag Bamberg, Greifswald 1874. My copy Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen 1967, p.66). What he writes is – and Wellhausen is referring to biblical scholars here – that for the interpretation of an event, in this case “The Holocaust”, the event is established as fact up front, and substantiated through the interpretation. In other words, that which should be investigated, “The Holocaust”, is established as fact and substantiated by the interpretations of what is accepted as ‘evidence’. That research into this “action” is lacking, to put it mildly, Pohl confirms:

“Die Hintergründe dieses Massenmordes sind bis heute nicht völlig durchleuchtet.“ (p. 185)

(Trans: The background as to why this mass murder took place has not clearly been established to this day.)

Pohl wrote this after he softened his readers up with tales of gruesome mass murder, including the murder of children, but then admits later that we still don’t know why it happened. Clear indications of the Wellhausen syndrome: one must believe in mass murder, dismissing essentials. As an aside, on December 19 of this year (2011), an article appeared in Die Welt, a German daily, titled: “Hitler gab nicht “den” Befehl zum Holocaust” (Hitler did not issue the Holocaust order). The author, Felix Kellerhoff, writes that between 5.26 and 6.1 million Jews were killed and then continues:

“Obwohl diese Tatsachen unverrückbar feststehen, gibt es eines nicht: den einen schriftlichen Befehl Adolf Hitlers, mit dem das Jahrhundertverbrechen angeordnet worden ist. In keiner Akte ist dieses Dokument aufgetaucht, es gibt kein Zitat daraus und nicht einmal halbwegs verlässliche Zeugenaussagen, wann diese Weisung ergangen sein soll.”

(Even though [mass murder] is a fact, one thing we don’t have: a written order by Hitler to commit the crime of the century. In no file has this document been found: we have no citation of it and no reliable witness testimony as to when this instruction was issued.)

Quite an admission! He tries to explain why nothing resembling an order or plan has ever been found, while still asserting that “The Holocaust” happened:

“…dass der Holocaust nicht auf eine zentrale Weisung Hitlers zurückging, sondern sich zwischen Sommer 1941 und Frühjahr 1942 schrittweise entwickelte”.

(…the Holocaust was not based on a centralized instruction by Hitler, but instead developed step by step between the summer of 1941 and the spring of 1942.)

(http://www.welt.de/kultur/history/article13759672/Hitler-gab-nicht-den-Befehl-zum-Holocaust.html)

To claim that this “crime of the century,” the alleged plan to murder between 5.26 and 6.1 million Jews, developed on its own is nonsense, pure desperation. But this article is a topic on its own; thus, back to Pohl. He continues on about the deportation of Jews, the establishment of ghettos, that many died/were killed, and that mass murder was already happening on Soviet territory after the war against the S.U. commenced. Then the National Socialist leadership decided, perhaps in September 1941, to conduct mass murder outside Soviet territory as well. On p. 186 we read:

“Aller Wahrscheinlichkeit nach am 13. Oktober 1941 beauftragte SS-Chef Heinrich Himmler deshalb den SS- und Polizeiführer im Distrikt Lublin, Odilo Globocnik, eine solche Mordaktion im GG zu organisieren. Vermutlich wurde dieser regionale SS-Führer beauftragt, weil er besonders gute Kontakte zu Himmler pflegte, selbst mit Siedlungsplanungen auftrat und weil er als besonders rücksichtslos galt und schon zahlreiche Verbrechen begangen hatte”.

 (It is most likely that on October 13, 1941, SS-Chief Heinrich Himmler instructed the head of the Lublin district SS and police, Odilo Globocnik, to organize a murder action in the general government. This SS leader was most likely picked because of his good [close] contacts to Himmler, involvement in settlement planning—known for his ruthlessness.)

One needs to read this slowly: It is possible that Globocnik was picked on October 13, 1941, allegedly because of his “good” contacts to Himmler. We don’t know exactly when Globocnik was chosen, but he was possibly picked because Himmler liked him: renowned German efficiency in its finest form.

We then learn that between the end of the 1970s and the mid-1990s advances were made in research into the so-called (sogenannten) Action Reinhardt (he continues to write it with “dt”) extermination camps, referring to “Nationalsozialistische Massentötungen…”, a 1983 publication by Kogon/Langbein/Rückerl and a book he authored with Musial. The Kogon et al. book does nothing to establish mass murder allegations as fact, as no investigation reports by experts in the field of crime investigations are mentioned, i.e. none exist: everything is based on innuendo and circumstance. Pohl admits it when he writes (p. 187):

“Die Forschungen stoßen vor allem durch den Mangel an aussagekräftigen Quellen an Grenzen. Im Gegensatz zu den Konzentrationslagern sind für die Lager der „Aktion Reinhardt” fast keine zeitgenössischen Akten überliefert. Letztere wurden schon im Herbst 1943 fast vollständig vernichtet, die Lagerinstallationen komplett abgebaut [6]…Deshalb stützt sich die Geschichtswissenschaft fast durchweg auf Befragungen der Täter, der wenigen Überlebenden und polnischer Augenzeugen…“

(Research is limited by the almost total absence of meaningful sources. In contrast to the concentration camps hardly any documents have been found about the “Action Reinhardt” camps. Those were almost completely destroyed in the fall of 1943, when the camps were dismantled [6]…This is why historiography is based for the most part on perpetrator statements and remaining Polish eyewitnesses.)

Under [6] we read that Globocnik wrote about the destruction of documents in a letter of January 5, 1944 to Himmler. As a source, Pohl refers to the Nuremberg trials (Der Prozeß gegen die Hauptkriegsverbrecher vor dem Internationalen Militärgerichtshof, Nürnberg 1949, Bd. 34, S. 71). I have not been able to confirm this since I have no access to German documents and there is nothing in Avalon I could find. But even if documents were destroyed, we have no idea what was lost or what anything refers to. To assume that it had to do with mass murder is like saying: “The information we need is contained in the documents we don’t have.” The whole case for mass murder as the intent for “Action Reinhard(t)” rests on hearsay. But, some Globocnik documents survived; more on that later.

Pohl then goes into some detail on Soviet trials, but concedes:

“Was ist diesen sowjetischen Akten nun zu entnehmen? Zunächst muss berücksichtigt werden, dass es sich nicht um rechtsstaatliche Verfahren handelte. In den Vernehmungen wurden die Beschuldigten oft bedroht, gelegentlich, besonders bei den Prozessen Ende der 1940er-, Anfang der 1950er-Jahre wohl auch misshandelt. Deshalb sind individuelle Beschuldigungen und Selbstbezichtigungen eher mit Vorsicht zu betrachten. Die Aussagen zur allgemeinen Lagergeschichte lassen sich jedoch teilweise verifizieren und erscheinen meist glaubwürdig. Deshalb ist es wichtig, die Materialien mit westlichen Untersuchungsergebnissen zu konfrontieren und daraus auf die Glaubwürdigkeit zu schließen.“

(What can be learned from the Soviet documents? First, we must take into account that these were not legal trials (rechtsstaatlich translates into constitutional). During the interrogations the accused were often threatened and sometimes, especially during trials toward the end of the 1940s, abused. As such, accusations and self incriminations must be treated with care. Statements about conditions in the camps can be partially verified and appear to be believable. It is therefore imperative that the material is compared to western investigation results.)

A mouthful, to be sure. Pohl admits that what was beaten out of the accused by the Soviets is for the most part useless; still, he wastes pages on it. As for reports on conditions in the camps, they “seem” to be believable. The last sentence is, however, what takes the cake. He writes that western investigation reports need to be consulted. What investigations? No investigation by a competent body of experts has ever been undertaken. He later mentions Andrzej Kola, who took some soil samples at Belzec. The problem with that is that whatever he claims to have found cannot be verified, since the camp has since been sanitized and the ground covered over. What was offered is bunk. Carlo Mattogno demonstrated this (http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/b/). Pohl later admits that what is claimed cannot be substantiated. He writes:

“Das größte Desiderat bleibt jedoch weiterhin die Rekonstruktion des Schicksals der Opfer. Mit der Entdeckung des Höfle-Telegramms und dessen Veröffentlichung im Jahr 2001 erscheint es möglich, wenigstens die Zahl der Opfer in den drei Lagern zu bestimmen.“

(The biggest ‘desideratum‘ remaining is to ascertain what happened to the victims. With the assistance of the Höfle telegram and its publication in 2001, it appears to be possible to at least determine the number of victims in the three camps.)

Heaven help! First he uses the term Desiderat, a word not commonly used in German. Webster’s defines this as “of desiderare; to desire; to entertain or express a wish to have or attain.” Golly gosh, why use this word when he could have used wünschenswert (“desirable”), or some such? Was it done to befuddle the issue? No doubt in my mind; what he writes is astonishing, to say the least. He admits that we don’t know what happened to the Jews, yet he turns them into “victims.” Then he follows this up by writing that finally in 2001 we became aware of some numbers, thus it is now apparently possible to know the number of “victims.” What was used before, and how is a telegram with some numbers on it evidence of mass murder?

But he is not done with his declaration of bankruptcy, he tells us:

“Lange Zeit spielten die Zeugenaussagen der sogenannten Bystander, also zumeist der Anwohner der Vernichtungslager, keine herausragende Rolle bei der Rekonstruktion der Vorgänge. Zwar haben polnische Justizbehörden vor allem unmittelbar nach dem Krieg und dann in den 1960er-Jahren auch Personen aus diesem Kreis befragt, darüber hinaus ist dies jedoch nicht systematisch betrieben worden. Das ist insofern bedauerlich, als gerade die Anwohner oft einen genauen Einblick in das Lagerleben hatten, manche polnischen Handwerker gingen gar in Vernichtungslagern ein und aus; einige der Trawniki-Männer hatten Beziehungen zu Einwohnern aus dem Dorf. Auch das Eisenbahnpersonal in den Dörfern bestand in der Mehrheit aus Einheimischen. Inzwischen kommt die Zeit für solche Befragungen an ihr Ende.“

(For a long time witness testimonies of the so-called bystanders, neighbors of the camps, were not considered when trying to reconstruct what happened. Although Polish judicial authorities did interrogate some of them after the war, and in the 1960s, but it was not done systematically. This is distressing, for those neighbors were able to observe life in the camps: some Polish tradesmen came and went; some of the foreign guards had relationships with people in the villages. The train personnel also consisted mostly of locals. But by now the time to consult them is coming to an end.)

Unbelievable, but exactly what we have been saying all along. These camps, Treblinka especially, were not hidden: the alleged killing site of Treblinka was on higher ground. And yes, locals came to sell their goods, workers entered and left the camps. At Treblinka, we are told that 880,000 Jews were killed and buried at first in huge mass graves, said graves to measure 50m x 25m by 10m deep (roughly 150′ x 75′ by 30′ deep). Digging those holes could not have been concealed, yet we have no reports, no pictures, nothing; to top it off, those huge pits have never been located. Then it was decided to exhume the bodies and burn them on pyres, with fires raging night and day. And again, not one report by the locals—no pictures, nothing. So yes, Pohl is right; there is no evidence of mass murder.

As for the alleged “murder weapon,” he writes that the exhaust of internal combustion engines was the killer. Again, no details, and here he is careful: diesel engines are mentioned, which are internal combustion engines, but they are unsuitable for mass murder.

What Pohl writes confirms the case made by revisionists. There is no evidence of mass murder in the “Aktion Reinhard(t)” camps. In fact, it was impossible to murder hundreds of thousands without anyone noticing, taking pictures, writing reports, etc. Thus we need to look for an alternative intent to understand what was meant by “Aktion Reinhard(t)”. The “t” spelling gives us our clue. Morsch et al. mention Fritz Reinhardt from the finance ministry, dismissing him of course—but why refer to him at all? When “The Holocaust” story emerged, the real Reinhardt did not fit in and was therefore dropped into a deep, black hole.

But we do have some indications that this “Aktion Reinhardt”, and I am convinced that this is the correct spelling, was an economic undertaking, originating with the finance ministry. Early publications are extremely helpful in determining how the story developed: what was written then and how it compares to what we are told now. One of those early publications provides details, the title Die Todesfabrik (The Death Factory) by the Czech Holocaust survivors Ota Kraus and Erich Kulka (Kongress-Verlag Berlin, 1958). The two arrived in Auschwitz on November 4, 1942 and were transferred to Birkenau two days later (p. 10). They were successful in organizing resistance groups, were well informed as to happenings inside the camp, and so informed the world. Again, the subject of another discussion, but in a sub-chapter of their book, titled “Aktion Reinhard” (pp. 123-126) they provide details of this action. There’s too much to discuss here, so I just copied (from pp. 124-25) portions of the testimony by Rudolf Höß during his 1947 Cracow trial:

“Welche Dimensionen diese Aktion hatte und was für ungeheure Vorteile nicht nur das Reich, sondern auch die nazistische Herrschaftsclique daraus zog, bewies am besten die Aussage des Kommandanten der Auschwitzer Lager, Rudolf Höß, während seines Prozesses:

„Unvorstellbare und nicht abzuschätzende Werte von Hunderten von Millionen sind erfaßt worden. Ungeheure Werte sind gestohlen worden von SS-Angehörigen und Polizisten, von Häftlingen, Zivilangestellten und Arbeitern, vom Bahnpersonal.Beim Entladen der angekommenen Judentransporte blieb das gesamte Gepäck auf der Rampe liegen, bis alle Juden nach den Vernichtungsstellen beziehungsweise ins Lager gebracht waren. Danach wurde durch ein besonderes Transportkommando das gesamte Gepäck in der ersten Zeit nach der Sortierstelle – Kanada I – gebracht, um dort sortiert beziehungsweise desinfiziert zu werden. Auch die Kleidung der in den Bunkern I und II bzw. Krematorien I bis IV Vergasten wurde nach der Vergasung nach der Sortierstelle gebracht. Schon 1942 war Kanada I nicht mehr in der Lage, die Sortierung laufend zu erledigen. Trotz immer wieder neu aufgestellter zusätzlicher Schuppen und Baracken, Tag- und Nachtarbeit der sortierenden Häftlinge und andauernder Verstärkung dieser Kommandos, türmte sich das noch unsortierte Gepäck, obwohl täglich mehrere Waggons, oft bis zu zwanzig, mit sortiertem Material verladen wurden. Berge von unsortiertem Gepäck türmten sich zwischen den Baracken. Die Arbeitskommandos konnten noch so verstärkt werden, während des Ablaufens der einzelnen Aktionen – die immer zirka vier bis sechs Wochen dauerten – war an ein Nachkommen nicht zu denken. Erst in längeren Pausen wurde annähernd aufgeräumt.Nach der Sortierung nach Abschluß größerer Aktionen wurden die Wertsachen und das Geld in Koffer gepackt und mit Lastwagen nach Berlin zum Wirtschaftsverwaltungshauptamt gebracht, von da zur Reichsbank. Eine besondere Abteilung der Reichsbank befaßte sich nur mit diesen Sachen aus den Judenaktionen …Das Zahngold wurde im SS-Revier von den Zahnärzten zu Barren eingeschmolzen und monatlich dem Sanitätshauptamt zugeführt…”So sah die „Aktion Reinhard” aus, (beschrieben von einer besonders maßgebenden Person, dem Kommandanten der Auschwitzer Lager.”

Just roughly: “What dimensions this action had – and the tremendous benefits arrived from it – is best described by Commandant Rudolf Höß during his trial:

“Values in the hundreds of millions were obtained, enormous amounts have been stolen. During the unloading of the trains, the luggage was left lying on the ramp, all Jews were taken to be executed or admitted to the camp. Thereafter, the entire luggage was sorted out and disinfected in Kanada I. The clothing of those gassed in Bunker I and II, as well as in crematoria I to IV was also taken there. By 1942 Kanada was no longer able to do the sorting. Despite the addition of new sheds and barracks, the still unsorted luggage was piled high, although several rail cars each day – often up to twenty – were loaded and left with sorted material. Mountains of unsorted luggage piled up between the huts. The work details could be enlarged, however during the individual actions – which lasted approximately four to six weeks – this was impossible. After sorting, following the completion of a major action, the valuables and money were packed into suitcases and brought to Berlin to the Economic and Administrative Main Office, and from there to the Reichsbank. A special department of the Reichsbank now looked after these things from the Jewish actions … The dental gold was melted down in the SS infirmary and transported monthly to the main medical office … ”

Such was the “Operation Reinhard”, as described by a particularly influential person, the commander of the Auschwitz camp…”.

The authors (K/K) then go into details, as to how many pair of shoes, dresses, etc., etc., but not one word about the “extermination” camps Belzec, Sobibor and Treblinka, the supposed “Aktion Reinhardt” camps. As for clothing etc., K/K tell us that as soon as the arrivals disappeared into the “bath,” quotation marks in the original, all their belongings were taken to be sorted. Nothing sinister here: inmates were issued prisoner’s clothing; though, whatever valuables were found were confiscated, including clothing. It also appears that some inmates carried large amounts of luggage along. We read this in A Year in Treblinka, by Yankel Wiernick:

“Jews from foreign countries brought considerable luggage with them.”

(http://www.zchor.org/treblink/wiernik.htm#chapter5)

This is confirmed in the verdict of the Treblinka trial of September 3, 1965 (this used to be available at the IDGR [Informations-Dienst Gegen Rechtsextremismus] site, unfortunately it disappeared, all I have is the copy:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informationsdienst_gegen_Rechtsextremismus]):

“Da alle diese Personen auch noch über zum Teil recht umfangreiches Gepäck verfügten, blieb der Raum für die einzelne Person auf wenige Quadratzentimeter beschränkt.“(Since all of those persons carried considerable amounts of luggage, room for each person [in the rail cars] was at a premium). Based on this, a case for theft can perhaps be made, but not for mass murder.)

Now to what was uncovered at the IMT. The following is from “One Hundred and Ninety-Sixth Day Tuesday; 6 August 1946, Morning Session”:

“REINECKE: It is obvious from the document that Globocznik was acting in his capacity as SS and Police Leader, charged with a secret special task, the so-called “Aktion Reinhard.” He is acting solely as police executive. Any connection between this activity and the organization of the General SS or any of its members does not exist in any way…

HERR PELCKMANN: Would you look to the top of Page 3? I think that indicates quite clearly who was dealing with those matters, and on whose authority Globocznik was acting.

REINECKE: Page 3 of this document shows that the Aktion Reinhard was divided into four parts: (a) resettlement, (b) use of labor, (c) use of materials, (d) seizure of hidden values and real estate. It also shows that Globocznik was communicating with Oswald Pohl personally, as well as with Himmler, on this matter. Pohl was chief of the SS Economic and Administrative Main Office,…

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/08-06-46.asp

Okay, we read “Reinhard” with no “t”, but this could be a translation issue. But here we have what “Aktion Reinhardt” was all about: economic issues. First resettlement of those unable to work; then use of labor and material; last the seizure of valuables. Why would the Germans kill valuable laborers, desperately needed for the war effort? And no, not just women, children and old people were allegedly killed in the three camps. Yankel Wiernik writes in A Year in Treblinka: “The day I first saw men, women and children being led into the house of death I went nearly insane.”

(http://www.zchor.org/treblink/wiernik.htm#chapter5)

Now to Globocnik, mentioned by Pohl above. This again is from the verdict of the German Treblinka trial referred to before. Under II. Die Endlösung im Generalgouvernement (The final solution in the general government), regarding actions in the three Reinhardt camps we read:

“Sie wurde in diesem Bereich – wahrscheinlich in Anlehnung an den Vornamen des damaligen Chefs des Reichssicherheitshauptamtes Reinhard Heydrich – unter der Tarnbezeichnung “Aktion Reinhard” oder auch “Einsatz Reinhard” durchgeführt.“

(The covert actions undertaken under the term “Action Reinhard” or “Effort Reinhard” were possibly named after the chief of the security office of that time, Reinhard Heydrich.)

Possibly? And then again not. True, the spelling used by the ‘judges’ was that of Reinhard, but as Messrs. Morsch and Perz point out, we have two different spellings. And as can be shown, economics were the issue: the ministry of finance initiated this action, hence “Reinhardt”.

Back to the verdict: first a letter from Viktor Brack from the chancellery (and we are to believe that Hitler was not involved) to Himmler, of June 23, 1942. In this letter, and I have the wording but too long to copy here, Brack informs Himmler that he has made some of his men available to Globocnik for the implementation of this special task (für die Durchführung seiner Sonderaufgabe). He then tells Himmler that he has now added personnel so as to not get stuck should transportation issues arise. Thus, transportation was a concern, understandably so since trains were needed for the war effort. And secrecy had to be maintained, for those deportations were not popular in Germany; quite the contrary.

We then have a second letter, dated October 19, 1943 – and we need to remember that Pohl claims all documents have been destroyed – in which Globocnik informs Himmler that all camps have been dismantled. In another letter of January 1, 1944 Globocnik informs Himmler:

“Die gesamte Aktion Reinhard zerfällt in 4 Gebiete:

A) die Aussiedlung selbst

B) die Verwertung der Arbeitskraft

C) die Sachverwertung

D) die Einbringung verborgener Werte und Immobilien“

(The whole of Action Reinhard consists of four subsections: A) resettlement, B) use of labor, C) use of materials, D) seizure of hidden values and real estate.)

All of these are economic issues, but of course we must read “mass murder” into this. From the Treblinka verdict again:

“Die bei der Aktion Reinhard angefallenen und in den drei Vernichtungslagern Belzec, Sobibor und Treblinka sichergestellten Sachwerte, die dem SS-Wirtschafts- und Verwaltungshauptamt in Berlin zur Verfügung gestellt wurden, machen nach einem von Globocnik unterzeichneten, für dieses Amt in Berlin bestimmten Bericht über die verwaltungsmässige Abwicklung der Aktion Reinhard den Betrag von RM 178.745.960,59 aus, der sich wie folgt aufgliedert:…“

(The valuables recovered in the three Action Reinhard extermination [sic] camps Belzec, Sobibor and Treblinka, and made available to the administration in Berlin, are summarized in a letter signed by Globocnik and amount to RM 178.745.960,59.)

178 million plus, not bad. But we must remember that the National Socialists considered them to be ill gotten gains, illegally amassed during the existence of the Weimar Republic. No doubt innocents were affected, but, following the renewed declaration of war by World Jewry, this time from Moscow and published in November 1941 by the “Anglo-Russian Parliamentary Committee”, Hitler had no choice but to consider all of them a potential threat to national security. (H. Härtle, Freispruch für Deutschland, Verlag K.W. Schütz, Göttingen, 1956, pp. 249-255)

Conclusion

Where are they then if not murdered? This is asked repeatedly; the answer: make a solid case for mass murder and the question becomes redundant. There have been some half-hearted “investigations” conducted in Belzec and Sobibor, but what has been determined is far from convincing and impossible to confirm; the Belzec grounds have been covered. As for Treblinka, where 880,000 Jews were “murdered” according to Yad Vashem, no investigation worth the term has ever been undertaken. The Soviets during their ‘investigation’ determined that the murder weapon was a motor used to pump the air out of the building, thus the Jews mass suffocated (Mattogno, Graf, Treblinka, Extermination Camp or Transit Camp? http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/t/4.html). According to Aradt, at first 700,000 Jews were murdered and buried in huge mass graves (http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/t/5.html, chapter 10) measuring 50m x 25m by 10m deep (roughly 150′ x 75′ by 30′ deep; http://www.zchor.org/treblink/wiernik.htm#chapter3) before being exhumed and burned. Those huge mass graves have yet to be located. An English archaeologist, Carolyn Sturdy Colls, offered to investigate. She writes:

“Forensic archeology is the collection of evidence for use in a legal case. This can be anything from investigating a single murder to genocide or war crimes.

It’s hard to believe that there has been no systematic search for the six million victims who perished in the Holocaust.

800,000 people were murdered here at Treblinka and their bodies were never found. It’s time we started looking.

I’m a scientist and while I obviously feel the same emotions as everyone else when I read about the atrocities committed during the Holocaust, I need to be able to do my job objectively. So I need to shut out these emotions sometimes, and let the evidence speak for itself.

There are some very vocal Holocaust deniers who use spurious archeology to claim that the Holocaust never happened. That’s why it’s so important that we use the most up-to-date scientific techniques. This can be done, and it should be done.”

(http://www.revblog.codoh.com/2010/11/uk-forensic-archeologist-sets-out-to-refute-treblinka-deniers/)

It now appears that Sturdy Colls is taking a closer look

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2087735/British-archaeologist-discovers-fresh-evidence-mass-graves-World-War-Two-death-camp-Treblinka.html#ixzz1jrlcIibB

But, and this is from the article linked to above:

“As Jewish religious law forbids disturbing burial sites, she and her team from the University of Birmingham have used ‘ground-penetrating radar’…”

So, again no investigation which would include experts in crime investigation and diggings, but just a sort of probing to then cover it all up again. And Jewish laws only selectively forbid digging, that is, it is allowed when they are reasonably sure to find something:

http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/news/germany-to-excavate-suspected-holocaust-era-jewish-mass-grave-1.274439

Nothing was found here either, but that is not the issue, digging is. Why then no proper investigation, what are the promoters of the story afraid of? Why not invite experts to come and investigate if all is “obvious”? We also mustn’t forget that this is almost 70 years later, why no investigation earlier? And from what I have seen so far of what is happening at Treblinka now can not be called an investigation, more an effort to satisfy the gullible and also to keep “The Holocaust” front and center.

Therefore, unless and until a proper investigation is undertaken, by experts in the field of criminal investigations – forensic experts – using all the tools at their disposal, including digging, “Aktion Reinhardt” must be considered to have been an economic undertaking.

Revisionist Forum Moderator Literally Blows Away the Field

The following is a post by moderator Scott in response to the baseless, Hitler-bashing clownery currently seeping into trad-revisionism. Now, if only everyone here had his capacity for real independent and critical thought, revisionism would be soaring.

post by Scott » Fri Oct 16, 2015 10:42 pm

Wilf wrote:

Scott, are you suggesting that all that is written about Hitler’s foreign financing by various authors is wrong? And that the massive amount of money needed to do what was done had been made available by the sale of Führer Margarine and the likes? The Juri Lina book, linked to by Werd, is an excellent read. As well, he links to a review of a book by Wolfgang Zdral “Der finanzierte Aufstieg des Adolf H.”

http://sauber.50webs.com/kapital/index.html

Zdral refers to another book by the Pool’s: “James u. Suzanne Pool: Hitlers Wegbereiter zur Macht”, and it is this book most members of the “Adolf Hitler Admiration Society” take issue with, or so I understand, I need to read it.

Me: Wilf admits that he never even read the book! Not reading while still judging an author’s work seems to be a trad-revisionist trend. They think that information will just magically enter their heads if only they concentrate hard enough, like in The Matrix.

Well, some say that the Jean-Claude Pressac book documents the Nazi “technique and operation of the gaschambers” at Auschwitz, but I say it does just the opposite and debunks the case for Nazi gassings.

Despite the hype surrounding the 1978 Pool book–some of it from the marketing of the book itself–it shows that Germans actually financed the Nazi Party (gasp) themselves for the most part (shocked, truly shocked).

This is just as would be expected with a populist mass-movement. By 1932 Hitler had gained a plurality in the Reichstag with Göring its Speaker, and the money was pouring in, even if the establishment kept Hitler from the Chancellorship for another year.

Remember that in those days all the members paid dues and donated time and accommodations such as meeting halls at cut-rate prices. Hans Baur did all the flying, for example, and we are not talking Air Force One here. All engagements charged admission fees too except for “war invalids free — Jews not admitted.” Party publications were actually sold in the streets or to members via subscriptions. They sold uniforms, flags, and knick-knacks. Why do we find this so bizarre?

Nowadays you would have to raise millions of dollars just to cover for the press catering on a single whistle stop. Plus, rich people and multi-national corporations donate to each others’ causes not only for influence but for status signalling in addition to the nice tax dodges, which raises the bar a few orders of magnitude over anything in Germany during the Depression. The 2010 Citizen’s United vs. Federal Election Commission decision of the Supreme Court now holds cold hard cash as equivalent to free-speech, completely opening the floodgates to Democracy bought and paid for by the highest bidders. That the Germans did not buy their way into power is hard to fathom for our times because we cannot and do not do it any other way.

Here is a review of the 1978 James & Suzanne Pool book, from a not particularly friendly reviewer in the New York Review of Books, that is contemporaneous to the time that the book was first published. The reviewer is reviewing six new books on the Nazis, including this one, the relevant part of which is copied below (all emphases are mine).

I would say definitely read the Pool book and judge for yourself.

BOOK REVIEWS

Who Financed Hitler: The Secret Funding of Hitler’s Rise to Power, 1919-1933
by James Pool and Suzanne Pool
Dial Press, 535 pp., $10.95

“The Nazi Boom,”
by Geoffrey Barraclough.

The New York Review of Books
Volume: 26:8 ; p. 18
Date: 05/17/1979
ISSN: 0028-7504
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/1979/may/17/the-nazi-boom/

[…]

If Hitler was in command at the end, he was also in command at the beginning. Thirty or forty years ago it was common to take the opposite view and depict him, in his early years before 1933, as a puppet or figurehead, manipulated and financed by big business in its own interest. The legend was nurtured, pretty deliberately, by sensationalists, scandal mongers, and apologists of one sort or another, among them the Ruhr steel magnate Fritz Thyssen, whose book I Paid Hitler created quite a sensation when it appeared in 1941. But the legend has long been discredited, and it is to be hoped that the new book by James and Suzanne Pool will not give it new currency.

The truth about Who Financed Hitler is that it might more appropriately have been called Who Did Not Finance Hitler, except that the latter title would scarcely have had the makings of a best seller. There is, in fact, no great mystery about who financed Hitler, and the Pools, who have at least done their homework, know the answer perfectly well. The essential fact, pointed out by Peter Drucker as early as 1939, is that at least three quarters (probably more) of the funds that kept the Party going came from the weekly contributions, measured in pfennigs rather than in marks, of the rank-and-file. Or, as the Pools themselves put it, “Hitler’s hard core of fanatical followers kept the movement going by contributing generously from what little they had.”

What, in that case, is the value of the scandal and rumors the Pools have so assiduously collected? The answer, for all practical purposes, is none. They paraphrase, for example, at great length Hitler’s famous speech to the Industry Club in Düsseldorf on January 27, 1932. But what was the result? “There was,” they write, “no flow of money from industry.” This is perfectly true, but it scarcely helps to buttress a story of extensive “secret funding.”

One of their most important discoveries, the Pools claim, “is the importance of foreign financing in bringing Hitler to power.” Need it be said that there is to all intents and purposes no hard evidence for this assertion? Henry Ford gets a whole chapter to himself, replete with tittle-tattle and innuendo but remarkably short on fact. Even Queen Marie of Rumania and Grand Duke Cyril of Russia are dragged in—the Pools are great name-droppers—though there is “no definite proof” (which in the Pool vocabulary means not a shred of evidence) that the former ever handed over a single penny, while the latter notoriously spent most of his time begging and borrowing to keep up his “regal charade,” to say nothing of his numerous expensive mistresses.

I may, of course, as an Englishman be prejudiced, but it seems to me that the most obnoxious example of the Pools’ method is their treatment of Hitler’s alleged British financial backers. Name after name is reeled off—from Lord Sydenham and the Duke of Northumberland to King Edward VIII himself—without the least proof that any (except perhaps Sir Henri Deterding, the Dutch-born oil magnate who was at best an honorary Englishman, and who lived in Germany after 1936) ever contributed to Hitler’s secret funds. Their attempt to involve them by implication might, I suppose, be called slander or defamation in a court of law, and elsewhere muckraking or mud-slinging. It is explicable, but not excusable, only on the basis of a determination to achieve, at any cost, a succès de scandale. I hope I may be excused if I say that it seems to me contemptible.

Me: It turns out that Mr. Deterding gave a tremendous amount. But he had good reason. He was a capitalist tycoon and extremely anti-communist in turn. Hitler also seized the funds of the labor unions, but for some bizarre reason trad-revisionists refuse to acknowledge this tremendous sum of money. They also ignore that the NSDAP was deeply in debt until Hitler got into power.

The case of the German industrialists is obviously different—but not, perhaps, so very different. Fearful of revolution and labor unrest, they had financed right-wing parties and other reactionary organizations ever since 1919, and there is no doubt that, in the confusion of 1923, some of their money—though probably only a small proportion of it—brushed off on to the Nazis. Thereafter they were a good deal more circumspect. If one of the Pools’ witnesses is to be believed, even in “the crucial year of 1932” out of RM. 1,500,000 donated to political parties (except the Communists), the Nazis received RM. 50,000 (or approximately $12,000), which was less than went to the Social Democrats. It certainly wasn’t enough to make much difference to a party which by now was 90 million marks in debt and “in desperate shape financially.”

What all this suggests is that we had better forget the story that Hitler owed his success to the financial support of German industry. It is almost the opposite of the truth. Of course he had occasional backers, like Thyssen. But Thyssen was the exception, not the rule. Far more typical was Krupp, who only climbed on the Nazi bandwagon at the very last moment. The truth is that it was Hitler himself who kept the Party going through thick and thin, and it was only when he had proved his success and made himself indispensable, at the elections in July 1932, that the industrialists, who had shunned him, took him up.

Then, indeed, they came to his help, at the famous meeting at the house of the banker Schröder on January 4, 1933, when a syndicate was formed to underwrite the Party’s debts. Much has been made of this meeting, which allegedly kept the bankrupt Party from imminent dissolution. But even this is dubious. By January 1933 the die was cast, and at that stage it would have taken more than bankruptcy to keep Hitler under.

About all this, it is only fair to add, the Pools are cogent and reasonable enough. They point out, quite correctly, that there was no intention, even after the meeting with Schröder, “to give full support to Hitler,” and that “heavy industry…played no direct role in the fateful political events at the end of January 1933.” Something can, in short, be learned from the Pools’ book—though nothing, so far as I can see, which is not available elsewhere—but only by those who are able to discount its sensationalism and straining for effect. Unfortunately the sensationalism predominates. It falsifies the story of the rise of Hitler, just as James P. O’Donnell’s sensationalism falsifies his end, and in so doing it robs it of any real significance.

[…]

On another note, while it may be tempting for many to blame Hitler for all of Germany’s problems, without him the choice for Germany would have been 1) a Soviet-dominated continent which the Anglo-Saxon powers would have merely “contained,” not being an existential threat to their own global naval supremacy, or 2) a balkanized Germany on a balkanized continent. We basically have no. 2 except that Germany and not France is the “hostess with the mostest.”

Any way you look at it, the financial system was going to end up global–as has happened–regardless. And Albion and France were going to (at best) end up as shoe shiners for the American global colossus. Not that this is such a good deal for America, for what that is worth, as she is merely the global plutocracy incarnate–Burdens of Empire and such.

People like to laugh that Hitler had been a lance corporal (or private first class in U.S. Army parlance) in World War I. It was rare in those days for any non-aristocrat to enter the officer corps let alone rise to any position of command in Germany and Europe, and many of them were resentful of that fact long after the war. If rarely do “philosopher-kings” make great generals, neither did Wilhelm II nor Nicholas II, though they were of the requisite noble stock rapidly losing its currency by 1918

The real question is that of Hitler, Stalin, Roosevelt, and Churchill, who of these actually did have some crucial wartime military experience? Churchill escaping the Boers, perhaps? It makes a good story. Better yet, Winston planning campaigns like 1915 Gallipoli or the botched 1940 invasion of Norway–those turned out mighty swell, didn’t they? Maybe Winnie should have stuck with selling his gallant stories and let the Dukes and the “Marlboroughs” exercise their privileges of command.

Now, I am not part of a Saint Hitler school-of-thought, but I do think that credit should be given where credit is due. This may be off-topic a little but I strongly disagree with those who do not find Hitler’s generalship to be generally sound. For Germany to have won WWII would have taken something like winning the Powerball lottery. No question about that. Hitler was a prodigiously-gifted general but it just wasn’t going to happen.

Me: Well said!

Review of Friedrich P. Berg’s “Nazi Gassings” by J. A. Sexton

Reviewed by J. A. Sexton | September 11, 2015

Friedrich P. Berg, a retired mechanical engineer, has outdone himself in this outstanding, one-of-kind, layman friendly book.

Layer by layer, piece by piece, Mr. Berg literally tears to shreds the single greatest and most pervasive hoax in Western history. The unapologetic yet conversational tone of the book is offensively captivating.

I repeatedly found myself looking around, somewhat paranoid, or sitting back in my chair in shock over what I just read on a page. “Can someone actually publish something so blasphemous, so offensive, so defiant?!?!” But then I remember that I live in America, not in Europe, and I sigh in relief.

The most fact-filled and reader-friendly release on the hoax since “Did Six Million Really Die,” Berg has written a masterpiece that will one day be regarded by free speech advocates everywhere as a cult classic and testament to anti-censorship laws.

Unlike tradrevisionist books on the holocaust, which are unreadable and so chock full of footnotes that I think I’m reading a whole nother book in the page footers, Berg gets right to the point in every chapter and uses quick, in-text citations. While some parts of the book and thesis are repetitive, this is necessary to drive the most important points home. What Mr. Berg writes sticks with you. For example, “America is a luxury lunatic asylum for the criminally insane.” It’s not only true but it’s damn fun to say. At any rate, people have got to be able to remember what they read. They need catch phrases and repetition.

As to Mr. Berg’s sources, those who wish to see the sources in full need only download the free Kindle edition, included with any softcover purchase, and click the links with the touch of a finger or mouse button. It’s that simple. Unfortunately, tradrevisionism is going the way of the dinosaurs. Still clinging to old, outmoded forms of publishing and writing, tradrev is being left in the dust. Books like Berg’s — audacious, at times hilarious, and simply written for average people — are the wave of the future and I am honored to be a small part of the growing tidal wave of neorevisionism.

Get this book. Especially while it’s still available on Amazon UK and Amazon EU. You can’t afford not to!

— J.A. Sexton