Part II

By Wilfried Heink

After his dismissal from the Navy, in April 1931, Heydrich was unemployed, at a time when unemployment was widespread. He did receive offers, but as his widow later told, the dismissal from the Navy hit him hard, the career as a navy officer was his lifelong ambition. He was eventually introduced to Baron Karl von Eberstein, the Baron having joined the National Socialist party (NSdAP) early on and was now an SA officer. Eberstein also knew Heinrich Himmler, a virtual unknown at that time. Heydrich did not intend to join the SA: his (at the time still) fiancée Lina, an enthusiastic NSdAP member agreeing, saying that the SA at times looked like a bunch of rabble-rousers (Lumpenpack). The small SS units on the other hand were the elite, in her opinion. She eventually encouraged Heydrich to accept the von Eberstein offer, but to insist on a position in the SS. On June 1, 1931, he joined the NSdAP, “just to be inside”, receiving membership number 544,916. He then sent an application for a ‘leading position’ to the party leadership in Munich, which was eventually forwarded to Reichsführer SS Heinrich Himmler. When Himmler was appointed to this post as Reichsführer SS (Head of the SS) in January 1929 by Hitler, he commanded a troop of 280 men. But in 1931 the ‘black elite’ had grown into a considerable force, consisting of workers, academicians, intellectuals and aristocrats, staunch National Socialists all, very well disciplined.

Himmler, who had received Heydrich’s application including a picture, was impressed by his Nordic appearance. He noticed that Heydrich had served as a Nachrichten officer in the navy (The term Nachrichtenoffizier can mean short wave or intelligence, the BRD equivalent to the CIA called BND – Bundes Nachrichten Dienst). Hitler had just asked Himmler to establish an internal intelligence service because of the many leaks, and Himmler was on the lookout for a suitable person to head the service when he received Heydrich’s application. Himmler was apparently not aware of the different meanings of the term Nachrichtenoffizier, and decided to invite Heydrich for an interview. A further applicant was considered, and Heydrich was told to wait, but he forced the issue and visited Himmler. Only now did Heydrich become aware of the mix-up in terminology re. communications and intelligence, but relied on what he had been taught in the Navy on intelligence matters and was accepted. His co-applicant, police captain Horninger, retired, lost out, a stroke of luck for Himmler, as Horninger had been encouraged by the Munich police to apply, to serve as an informer.

Heydrich’s first office was located in the “Braunen Haus”, the party headquarters in Munich, but he had to share his room with another SS official, Richard Hildebrandt who was on the staff of Sepp Dietrich (later SS general). Heydrich’s office furniture consisted of an old kitchen table and a chair, the typewriter belonged to Hildebrandt but he was able to use it at set times. Himmler placed a stack of folders on the table and Heydrich started to organize the files, using scissors, glue and the borrowed typewriter. Those weeks of late summer 1931 is when the SD (security service) was born. For what had been information collected by Himmler at random was transformed by Heydrich into an orderly assembly of files. Doing so gave him a total picture of the puzzle, and he soon discovered that it was not just the obvious adversaries, the communists mainly, that needed observing but that there also existed another, more potent enemy: the international conspirators.

Heydrich categorized the opponents: first those who openly opposed National Socialism, i.e., the KPD (communist party) and the SPD (Socialist party), as well as the other parties to some extend. However, he considered the powers working in the background – trying to prevent the National Socialists from reaching their goals – to be much more dangerous: the political Church, Freemasonry, Jewry and Marxism. Then there was the infighting, the SA having also established an intelligence service, with local party chiefs involved as well: “Everyone considered the other a spy”. With Himmler’s and Heydrich’s organization, if one can call it that, the smallest and least recognized, that being somewhat of an advantage because of the little that was known it. But that was about to change. At the beginning of September 1931 an order was issued to expand the SS intelligence service. The pile of folders on Heydrich’s table grew and he was able to influence proceedings by uncovering a mole in the Braunen Haus, an undercover police officer, and succeeding in ‘turning him’. From November on the Bavarian police was blind on the ‘SS eye’, but Heydrich was well informed about police procedures. Himmler was pleased because it had been his intelligence service that had exposed the mole.

At year’s end 1931, Heydrich moved to a new ‘office’, the party had rented two rooms in the flat of a widow, a party member referred to as “Mother Edrich”. He now also had a staff, three unemployed men who were paid whenever any money was available; mother Edrich helped by providing meals. The office equipment was however still basically the same, and still no typewriter – whenever one was needed, Hildebrandt’s was picked up, using the tram. Heydrich was also poorly paid but Himmler tried to encourage him, promoting him to Hauptsurmführer (captain) and as a wedding present on December 25, 1931 to Sturmbannführer (major). The newlyweds found a flat, “a dump with cracks in the floor a finger wide” as his widow remembered, but “Reinhard had painted the walls” (We must remember that this was before Hitler was appointed chancellor). The information collected was filed in cigar boxes, the categories: Communists, Socialists, political Catholics, Conservatives, representatives of nobility opposed to NS, Freemasons and Jews. Jews were only of interest if active politically. “Jews were of no interest to him as people or a race, only as political problems”, according to his widow.

When the SA and SS were outlawed in April of 1932, the service was renamed to be the “Press and information service” (PID), with Heydrich and his staff laying low. The SA intelligence service did not survive the ban, which ended in the fall of 1932, Heydrich’s service did and became even stronger, and Heydrich needed help. With the intent to personally pick his staff, he embarked on a tour of Germany. The English Secret Service was his model, telling his wife that German governments had operated in the dark since the time of Bismarck and that this had to end. The English elite consider it normal to join the intelligence service, some on a voluntary basis. And Heydrich was able to get academicians to join, doctors and lawyers, etc. A core group was assembled in Munich, operating at times under cover. In July, Heydrich was appointed chief of the SD, the now official name of the service, and promoted to Standartenführer (colonel). The Heydrich’s found a house to rent; it was used as an office almost exclusively since the financial situation of the SS was still precarious. Heydrich finally send a letter to Röhm, chief of the SA, asking for financial assistance. And Röhm, who knew next to nothing about this organization agreed to take a look, he decided on a visit accompanied by and Heß.

A little anecdote to show what Heydrich’s ‘service’ was like, a mixture in fact of family life and officialdom. Heydrich prepared for the visit, wanting to make a good impression, but things did not go as well as planned. His widow tells the story: The masonry heater (Kachelofen) was situated in the hallway and Lina, functioning as the factotum, had to light it every morning. She then placed the matches on the mantel – for them to regularly disappear. That morning she had placed a box on the mantle resembling matches but the tip was a firecracker. Heydrich came running down the stairs telling her that Röhm and Heß were on the way, and also Himmler who had decided to join them. One of the assistants was quickly sent to purchase two cigars, one for Röhm and one for Himmler, as well as half a bottle of port. The guests arrived, Heydrich was promised the sum of 1.000 RM (only half eventually arrived) and to celebrate the occasion cigars and wine were offered. One of the staff pulled matches out of his pocket (Lina now knew who the match thief was), intending to light Röhm’s cigar. An explosion was the result with people looking for cover, after all, it was still fighting times and communists known for being killers. But things settled down, Röhm took it as a joke and when the Heydrich’s first son was born he became his godfather.

When Hitler was appointed Chancellor on January 30, 1933, his closest followers were rewarded with various posts (still practiced today. Wilf), but not Heydrich. Already on January 27 he had resigned his post on the advice of Himmler, to become “officer for special tasks”, ending up in various positions but never at the helm, a big disappointment for him. Himmler sent Heydrich to Berlin, but it turned out that nobody was really interested in any suggestions by Himmler or Heydrich, the latter not even received at some quarters. This demonstrated the uncertainty in regard the positions of Himmler and Heydrich in the first weeks of the Third Reich. Heydrich was then sent to the Geneva disarmament conference in February 1933, along with another SS man, as ‘experts on police and security issues’. Heydrich the conqueror, even though fluent in the official conference languages French and English, was out of place among the diplomats, in this atmosphere of “sorry compromises” (faule Kompromisse). He asked why a competent speaker did not represent Germany, for “these bumblers will never be able to get Germany’s point across”. He shunned the representatives of Germany’s foreign office (AA), but did tell Erich Kordt (traitor extraordinaire. Wilf) that he knows AA officials are hoping for the NS regime to disappear, but that he should not hold his breath. Heydrich also took issue with the fact that the Swastika flag was not displayed as the official flag of the new Germany. He took matters in his own hands, obtained a huge flag from a Swiss National Socialist and draped it from the roof of the hotel during the night. Emissary Nadolny, Germany’s Chef de Mission, sent Heydrich packing.

Hitler’s hold on power was not secure after his appointment. On February 6, (1933) Prussia came on line, but when Thuringia as well as others also formed NS governments alarm bells started to ring in Bavaria. Bavarian minister president Heinrich Held oriented his 1933 election campaign against the danger from Prussia, no Berlin official was to be allowed to cross the line into Bavaria. Even Hindenburg had assured Helm that no one would try, and Helm then stated that anyone trying would be arrested. At the March 5 election, the NSdAP received 43.9% of the vote’s country wide, 43% in Bavaria – not enough for a majority. But based on a decree of February 28 Berlin was empowered to intervene in state affairs and thus the Bavarian Gauleiter (Governor) Wagner, along with Himmler and Röhm told Helm to appoint Franz Ritter von Epp as Generalstaatskommissar (roughly: state commissioner). SA and SS formations marched to the government building but the parliament refused to give in, asking the police and Reichswehr, the armed forces of the Weimar republic, for assistance. They refused and at the same time the letter of Epp’s appointment was prepared in Berlin and the Bavarian representative informed. A telegram would be send, informing Helm of the decision and upon receipt of it he would have been obliged to follow the instructions, or be guilty of contempt. All now depended on the delivery of this telegram and that it not somehow disappeared. One SS officer was especially distrustful and with a group of men marched to the telegraph office in Munich. With pistol pointing at the postal official, he demanded that the telegram be handed over and he delivered it. The name of the SS officer: Reinhard Heydrich.

Epp then formed the government and from there things changed rapidly. On April 1, Himmler was appointed commander of Bavaria’s political police and he instructed Heydrich to assemble the force. Heydrich gathered well-trained people from different departments, police officers, clerks who worked for the police, as well as a few old SS comrades, overall about 150 men. A few weeks later the number had doubled. Heydrich now cleaned house, starting with politically unsound and incompetents, all of them were dismissed. The cases of two individuals are of note, the police inspectors Heinrich Müller (later to be called Gestapo-Müller) and Franz Josef Huber. Both had hunted National Socialists, along with communists. After a short interview, Heydrich left them in their posts, needing them to destroy the communist cadres. Heydrich demonstrating that expertise was more important then the past – as long as they proved their loyalties through their deeds. Party official were not pleased with having both of them spared, even though they had to acknowledge that Müller was a successful communist hunter. Heydrich had no use for this small-minded party mentality, in private he suggested that the party be dissolved as well as the SA, as it was no longer needed. In his opinion the consolidation of power was now the issue, discussions no longer necessary. He also worried about the SS becoming like the SA, outliving their usefulness. He never did understand Hitler who, because of loyalty, supported party members even though they were essentially useless and had proven it.

Heydrich also had no use for those who now made an exhibition of their positions, Gauleiter Wagner, also minister of the interior, one of them, who regularly held court in the Hofbräuhaus, a well-known Munich pub. Heydrich voiced his disdain, to be called “the German Reich beer counter” by Wagner. Thus, relations between the police and the Braunen Haus, the party headquarters, soured, but Heydrich at least for now needed them. Piece by piece Heydrich destroyed the power of the opposition in Bavaria, jails soon too small and concentration camps had to be established to hold the prisoners. The legend that Heydrich was responsible for the creation of Dachau is just that, a legend, Dachau was established on orders from Wagner, who suggested to now using the same methods as were used against the NS when they were locked into a building and forgotten. Heydrich proceeded methodically here as well, first the communists, when they were removed Socialist functionaries were next, followed by the leaders of the Marxist unions. Then came “political Catholicism”, the officials of the BVP, the Bavarian Peoples Party – a Catholic stronghold. They were taken into protective custody, 2097 in July 1933 with 1820 released again, in December more people were released than incarcerated. 16,409 persons were incarcerated in 1933 in Bavaria, 12,554 of them released after a short time. Jews were taken to Dachau not because they were Jews, but because of their political activities.

However, Heydrich also moved against profiteers and exploiters of the workers, but was of the opinion that this new state needed a unified police force to combat all of the enemies of the Reich. He approached Himmler with the idea to have the SS elevated to Germany’s police force, and Himmler finally agreed. But, there was opposition to this, Göring, minister president of Prussia had already established a Prussian police force under Diels, the Gestapa (Geheime Staatspolizeiamt), and with Berlin part of Prussia, Göring made it known that “Himmler and Heydrich will never make it to Berlin”. Heydrich was also not enchanted with Göring and his lifestyle, complaining that “we had accused the Weimar fat cats of profiting from the poor, and now we have Göring”.

At the end of 1933 help came from Frick, the minister of the interior, who had decided to amalgamate the police forces, 16 of them, one in every state. But Göring’s imperium was in the way and Frick decided to ask Himmler, with Heydrich in tow, for help. Both had already shown how effective their methods had been in Bavaria and with the assistance of the ministry of the interior one state after the other was conquered and a short while later Himmler was chief of the political police in Germany, with the exception of Prussia. Now Göring realized that hanging on to his imperium would be impossible – gave in and Prussia was incorporated. On April 22, 1934, Heydrich was appointed chief of the secret police in Germany, the whole of Germany’s police force at his disposal. Police officials noted with astonishment how quick this amateur Heydrich took charge, he was immediately part of it. He had the gift to separate the necessary from the unnecessary, officers called to report had to prepare meticulously and still, just minutes into the report Heydrich interrupted telling them that he understood and asked for suggestions.

For Heydrich, an enemy of the state was anyone working against the people and the government, anyone opposing the Führer and by it the strong Germany. These were Communists, Marxists, Jewry, political ecclesiae, Freemasonry, the politically unsatisfied (complainers), saboteurs, habitual criminals as well as abortionists and homosexuals, and people engaging in treason.

The “black duty” attracted renowned intellectuals, Heydrich’s SD the “pool of the most intelligent people in National Socialism”. Heydrich had them study and investigate potential enemies like those aforementioned. A new definition in regards to police duties emerged, the discussion not initiated by Heydrich but because of his attitude of identifying enemies of the state as part of police duties, it had become a necessity. The police was no longer to be just a protection force, the nation’s night watchman of old, when police only acted after the crime had been committed. Attorney Dr. Werner Best, perhaps the most gifted of Heydrich’s staff, argued that this new social system/order differed substantially from that of the bourgeois state, but was also not a police state. The prominent jurist Dr. Walter Hamel added that the police now have an additional duty, “to incorporate the individual into society”. Whereas, and this was Heydrich’s opinion, the liberal “night watchman state” had the police establish order to ensure the liberties of the individual, the police of the new state would not only be responsible for safety, but to also help build the new society according to the guidelines provided by the political leadership.

Heydrich’s top jurist Hamel formulated it this way: The police was to gauge the political health of the German population, to identify any virus – be it self inflicted or brought in from the outside – and to eliminate it using appropriate measures. Thus, Heydrich considered himself to be like a doctor, not only intend on healing but also to prevent illnesses from occurring. Professional police officers welcomed this approach – tired of arresting the same criminals repeatedly. However, the more liberal courts did not assist at the beginning, but eventually also came on board. Habitual criminals were identified as those who had been arrested three times and sentenced to prison terms, they were then send to concentration camps (KZ). Beggars and vagrant’s, prostitutes and their pimps, homosexuals, black marketers’, psychopaths and those having turned down work without sufficient reason were considered as antisocial and also ended up in the KZ. There they met communists, politically engaged clerics, Marxist unionists and journalists who had been agitating against the regime (no mention of Jews here. Wilf). But, even though Heydrich was legally empowered to send these persons to the camps, this is were his competency ended, Himmler would not allow him to have control over the fate of the interned. That was a concern for Heydrich and he had his people collect material on Eicke, one of the KZ inspectors and as a result, Heydrich’s people started to criticize the treatment of the prisoners (Deschner quotes Höhne here, the latter claiming that this was not done for humanitarian reasons, but in an effort to gain total control, a politically correct assumption by him [Höhne, Der Orden unter dem Totenkopf, p.190]). Nevertheless, Heydrich issued instructions in 1935 to have his officials inform the prosecutor general if the death of a prisoner was not satisfactorily explained. Eicke complained to Himmler about the attitude of the Gestapo (secret state police) who charged that conditions in the KZ’ were horrible (eine Schweinerei herrsche).

Comment: How does this concern for the fate of the prisoners fit in with “Heydrich the mass murderer; Hitler’s Hangman”? It does not, and Deschner passes over it without any comment.

Heydrich’s favorite enemy was Rom, i.e., the Vatican, that even though he was raised as a Catholic. “Are these clever attempts of undermining the political will of the German population not infinitely more dangerous as treason – or the actions by a communist, because they are subtle?” (R. Heydrich über den politischen Katholizismus). Heydrich was however not the first to pick a fight with the Vatican, Bismarck had done so before him, his reasoning:

“He (Bismarck. Wilf) had recognised the coming of this struggle twenty years before, in the Frankfort days, declaring a fight “against the lust of conquest in the Catholic camp” to be inevitable. Since Austria’s concordat, he had held that some of Prussia’s enemies were always to be found in that camp. After he had risen to power, he had (as he knew) actually been characterized in the Vatican as “the incarnation of the devil.” …

But the crisis did not come until the Vatican Council met in Rome, concentrating there anew all the powers of Catholic Europe. In the middle of July 1870, when the war was beginning, the dogma of papal infallibility was proclaimed, affecting Bismarck’s sentiments as much as his calculations. It was intolerable to him that any one should call himself infallible. Why, he did not even believe that Otto von Bismarck was infallible! It was monstrous that all the Germans of one confession should be dependent upon a foreign power. When he was setting out for France, he warned the German bishops against assenting, and warned the pope against using compulsion. At the same time he brought all possible opposing influences to bear, in the hope of protecting his State against Roman powers. If this new dogma were accepted, “the bishops would, vis-a-vis the government, be the officials of a foreign sovereign.” (Emil Ludwig, Bismarck, Little, Brown, and Company Boston, 1927, pp.414/15)

Bismarck was unsuccessful, Prof. E. Adamov describes the efforts by Pope Leo XIII to help encircle Germany before WWI in “Die Diplomatie des Vatikans zur Zeit des Imperialismus” (The diplomacy of the Vatican during imperialism, Verlag von Reimar Hobbing in Berlin, 1932). This book was published by the Soviets to expose the hypocrisy of the Vatican and the machinations of the Entente powers, and it is reasonable to assume that Heydrich was aware of this book. Thus, his own “Kulturkampf” was justified – never trust the Vatican. It must however be stressed that he was not against Christianity – he only opposed the political efforts by religious organizations. And even though Jews and Freemasonry hated anything to do with National Socialism, first on the list of Heydrich’s enemies was the political clergy,  according to his widow. No mention of opposition to the Christian faith in his writings, always only about the political power of the churches and their agitations. In his opinion it was up to every German individual how he worship his/her God.

The Catholic Church stoked the fire. In 1933-1935 publications they presented St. Francis as the Führer of the youth. Heydrich considered the church to be a rival because it, as well as National Socialism, asked, or better demanded, complete devotion. Then there were the contacts to foreign countries by church officials, and Heydrich ordered the surveillance of all Church emissaries travelling abroad to collect information so as to have it available at the day of reckoning, when he planned to expose the churches as enemies of the Reich. Only his death prevented him from doing so, his “Kulturkampf” also ending in failure.

To be continued…

Part III

by Wilfried Heink

In 1940, Heydrich – aside from servings as chief of the Reich Main Security Office (RSHA, which included the Gestapo, and Kripo), and also an active pilot in the air force –  in August of that year was appointed and served as President of the International Criminal Police Commission (later Interpol, the international law enforcement agency). Representatives of thirty-three member states, among them Great Britain, France and the USA, in 1938 met at Bucharest to decide if the HQ of that organization should be moved from Vienna, since Germany had annexed Austria. Heydrich protested, his protest not seriously challenged by anyone, and when the then President, Vienna’s police chief Otto Steinhäusel, died, Heydrich took over as President on August 28, 1940. Only England, France as well as a few small countries had by then quit the organization. At the same time when Heydrich’s Einsatzgruppen (EG – rapid response force) were pacifying Poland, he became president of the international police force without the slightest concern raised by the representatives of the remaining 30 member states, most of them cheering him on.

Comment: This has me wondering. “Historians” tell us that as soon as the fighting was over, and Poland defeated, the EG committed atrocities upon atrocities with the whole world informed about it. And here we have the representatives of 30 states cheering when Heydrich, the commander of those alleged killing squads, took over as chief of the international police. Is it possible that the “historians” have it wrong, that the EG were units employed to establish order behind the lines and not indiscriminate killers? No doubt in my mind. But to be acknowledged as an expert on the history of the Third Reich, one first must believe that all “Nazis” were criminals and proceed from there. Quacks!

Following Heydrich’s appointment, as new HQ of Interpol a villa on the Wannsee in Berlin was picked. Two Wannsee’s (lakes at the outskirts of Berlin) exist, the big- and the small Wannsee. Deschner writes that the Interpol office was located at the big Wannsee, but has it wrong; the address was “Small Wannsee Nr.16”. Deschner then claims that on January 20, 1942 the infamous Wannsee-Konfernz took place at the HQ of Interpol, wrong again but more on that later.

As mentioned, Heydrich was an active air force pilot, flying reconnaissance missions over England and Scotland but always returning to Berlin between actions to his job as security chief, Hitler and Himmler viewing those activities with mixed feelings. He was also active in sports, fencing his favorite, and made it possible for Paul Sommer, Jew and former German fencing champion, to escape to America. He was always the perfectionist, and what he did, he did meticulously, according to his widow. He did not like to loose, that also true for arguments. But if his counterpart had solid counter-arguments or proposals that differed from his, and if that person stood his ground unwaveringly, Heydrich gave in.

More and more communists, socialists and other enemies of the regime fled to foreign countries, some of them then continuing their subversive work against the Reich from their new domicile. That was a concern for Heydrich, but his jurisdiction ended at Germany’s borders, the intelligence service responsible for foreign countries. Heydrich did not have a good working relationship with the head of that service, especially with Conrad Patzig, predecessor of Canaris. Eventually, Patzig was removed – reconnaissance flights over the then friendly Poland the issue – and in December 1934 replaced by Admiral Wilhelm Canaris, picked not lastly because of his good relationship with Heydrich. Canaris promised to work with the SD “in friendship and openness”. The two met at the end of January and renewed their friendship, the families visiting regularly. Erika Canaris also played the violin and the evenings were filled with music. However, competencies of the two services was the issue and negotiations to resolve the differences were started, with Canaris representing the intelligence service and Heydrich, with Dr. Best, the SD. A ten-point program was eventually worked out, the “Ten Commandments”, but it was not perfect, because the borders of political intelligence and military intelligence overlapped, naturally. Canaris deemed it necessary to spy on enemies inside of Germany, with Heydrich doing the same in foreign countries, a necessity if one hopes to be successful. Thus, a new agreement had been worked out, with Canaris having his competencies curtailed. That agreement was to be signed at Prague in May of 1942, just days before Heydrich was assassinated.

Heydrich considered suspicion to be a virtue, his SD officers called “Oberverdachtsschöpfer”, extremely suspicious, and he took this to be a compliment. We need to remember the times here, communists had moved undercover and traitors were present in all spheres of the Reich. As it turned out, he was not suspicious enough, the traitors telling England and Moscow all they needed to know, Deschner makes no mention of that. Heydrich considered multi-national corporations at that time already to be a threat (those of us who pay attention know this to be true), and placed them under surveillance. He had a Berlin brothel, frequented by the affluent, taken over by the SD, but that did not pan out, Heydrich saying that “pillow-talk” is just a legend.

In the fall of 1936, Heydrich received a phone call at home from the attorney Bielschowsky, a Jew, but left alone because he was one of Heydrich’s friends from his home town of Halle (Deschner has to write this. Wilf). Bielschowsky asked Heydrich if he knew a party big wig by the name of Martin Bormann, Heydrich answered something like “unfortunately yes”. This started a five-year investigation and at the end, Heydrich was convinced that Bormann was working for the Soviets. Reinhard Gehlen, an army intelligence officer and later head of the BDR intelligence agency (BND), wrote in his memoirs that Bormann had worked for the Soviets from the start of the war. Others, like Ohlendorf, Schellenberg and Berger also attested to that at the IMT, the latter at the Wilhelmstraße trial. Gehlen, as well as Canaris, investigated and established that Bormann operated the only unobserved short wave transmitter, but neither did anything, claiming that they had been afraid, Bormann then in a powerful position (I have a problem with the ‘investigation’ story, Canaris was a traitor and Gehlen probably also, the Americans insisting on him becoming BRD intelligence chief, payment for services rendered? Wilf.).

After the publication of the Gehlen memoirs, an article appeared in the British, Swedish and BRD press by the Czech journalist Rudolf Ströbinger about a conversation between him and the Czech general Josef Bartik, intelligence officer and Benes (Czech president) confidant (DW von 13. & 14. 9. 1971, “So wurde Martin Bormann ein Agent der Sowjetunion”). Bartik told that Bormann in 1920 was a member of the Freikorps (German paramilitary units formed after WWI); he was taken prisoner by the Bolsheviks but had saved his life by promising to work for them. When Bormann had risen to his position as private secretary to Hitler, the Soviets approached him to remind him of his promise, a signed document, and from then on the Soviets were informed about every detail. Bartik had planned to publish this but when the Soviets entered Prague the material disappeared.

Back to Heydrich, and he naturally asked Bielschowsky (B) why he wanted to know anything about Bormann, who at that time was Heß’ chief of staff. B told him that the wife of a former client, suspected of being a communist – exonerated in 1931 with B as his attorney but now again in protective custody – had asked him to act for her husband again. The wife had brought along material from the previous case, including some pictures of her husband as a Freikorps soldier. She told B that she planned on contacting a former comrade of her husband, the noncom Bormann. Heydrich recognized Bormann on the picture and the woman’s husband was interviewed, with Heydrich attending but not dressed in uniform. During the interview Bormann was mentioned, in passing, and the prisoner remembered him vividly. He told B that Bormann was taken prisoner by the Bolsheviks in the summer of 1919 and to the surprise of everyone had returned unharmed. This after the missing persons report about him had already been typed, ready to be send, for the Bolsheviks did not take prisoners. B had no doubt that the prisoner (unfortunately no name is provided. Wilf) had told the truth, and when Heydrich in his investigation found out that Bormann had not mentioned his imprisonment by the Bolsheviks in his personal files, the “Case Bormann” file started to grow. Heydrich collected material on Bormann, probably personally mostly to not arouse any suspicion, and in spring 1942 he was ready to move against Bormann. But before he could do that, he was assassinated. The assassins were not found for weeks, giving rise to speculations that Bormann might have had his hand in it.

Comment: It appears that Bormann might also have been interested in Heydrich’s elimination, aside from Canaris and the Brits, who were hiding behind the Czech resistance. To this day we don’t know who “Deep Throat” was, fact is, the Soviets were very well informed and that information could only have come from someone close to Hitler. For instance, precise details about the last big German offensive, the Kursk battle, were leaked to the Soviets. The Russian hammered German position with artillery fire in the morning before the battle was to begin, knowing exactly where what was located. That and the treachery by the German staff, von Treschkow in particular, sealed the fate of the German eastern front. Hundreds of thousands of German soldiers died because of treason, the traitors celebrated as hero’s in the BRD. Was it Bormann that supplied the Soviets with information? We don’t know, but he is a strong possibility.

Jewish policies were a hodge-podge of different approaches in the Third Reich, with the foreign office (AA) and NSdAP party officials engaged, as well as other departments, with the SS the last organization to join in. Heydrich had “International Jewry” investigated ‘scientifically’ (Deschner uses quotation marks) and thus felt that he was qualified to get involved. He wrote in 1936 that the driving forces behind the enemies of the Reich were always the same: World Jewry, Freemasonry and the political clergy.  “Jews are deadly enemies of all Nordic- healthy societies”, he continued, “their goal always the same – the conquest of the world”, and Heydrich was convinced that Jews and Germans had to be separated. A new department, Referat II, 112, inside the SD was created (no date provided by Deschner, but in 1934 it existed already), responsible for Jewish matters, and some historians claim that this is when the idea of the “Endlösung”, the extermination of Jews, started to take shape in the heads of Himmler and Heydrich. Not so, Heinz Höhne told his readers in a Der Spiegel series in 1966 “…that there is no evidence that the thought of the murder of Jews was present in the hearts and minds of the SS before the order was given” (I would like to know what order he refers to, up to now nothing resembling one has been found. Wilf). “Up to early summer of 1941 we have no document of any SS-Organization re. the planned physical elimination of Jewry” (Der Orden unter dem Totenkopf, p.299) (no idea what documents he refers to from 1941 that have allegedly surfaced. Wilf).

We then learn about the boycott of Jewish businesses on April 1, 1933 (a Sabbath), Deschner of course conveniently forgetting the call for a boycott of German goods by World Jewry of March 24 of that year. In 1934 the terror (Deschner’s words) against Jews subsided, Hans Frank even talked about an end to discrimination. Jews, who had been expelled, also believed that the worst was over, and in May 1935 the Völkische Beobachter, a daily from 1923 on, reported that 10,000 of them had returned. This did not go over well and repressions followed, but calm returned again in 1936, “Jewish businesses flourishing up to November 1938”, according to Aronson (Reinhard Heydrich und die Frühgeschichte von Gestapo und SD, p.205).

The program, suggested by Heydrich, was called Lösung durch Auswanderung (Emigration as the solution) and in 1936 it took shape. Leopold Itz Edler von Mildenstein was appointer as the first head of Referat II, 112, and his successor, Herbert Hagen formulated the SD policy: 1. The elimination of Jewish influence in all spheres, including the economy. 2. Promotion of Jewish emigration. (Göring, in charge of the five-year-plan, voiced reservations re. removing Jews from the economy, saying that this will take time)

Heydrich was convinced that the Jewish problem can only be solved through emigration to Palestine. And instead of those who favored assimilation, he sited with the Zionists, praising their racial policies and the attempt to establish a Jewish state in Palestine. “As a National Socialist I am a Zionist”, he told friends. In 1938 his policy was accepted, on February 1, 1938 Hitler approving the emigration of Jews to Palestine. Hagen, and his nondescript (unscheinbar, Deschner’s word) assistant Eichmann had already made the necessary preparations. In February 1937 Eichmann had met commander Feifel Polkes of the Zionist secret (terror in fact. Wilf) organization “Haganah” in Berlin and in the fall the visit was returned, Hagen and Eichmann traveled to Palestine. Hagen’s report was received favorably, the SD plan now more and more accepted and Heydrich, because of the research done by his people, acknowledged as an authority. The ministry of the interior issued instructions to ignore prior convictions of Jews who were willing to emigrate, thus making it easier for them.

Eichmann established the Jewish department in Vienna following the Anschluß (union between Germany and Austria) in May 1938, and in the fall of that year Eichmann reported that 45,000 Jews had left Austria. But, not all went smooth. The Swiss complained about the influx of Jews and on October 5^th the order was issued that all Jewish passports must show the letter “J” (Jude). The Poles, who had their own Jewish problems, used this as an excuse and followed suit, trying to get rid of Polish Jews living in Germany because it would have been impossible for those Jews to have their passports altered, in Poland, in the short time allotted by Polish authorities. Heydrich, who had no intention of being burdened by an additional 15,000 Polish Jews living in Germany, had them arrested and taken to the border. The Poles refused to accept them but they were pushed across the border at nighttime. Among those forcefully expelled was a tailor named Grynszpan (Grünspan), and when his son Herschel, living in Paris, found out about that he shot the German diplomat Ernst von Rath on November 7, 1938 as revenge (accounts differ, but not the issue. Wilf).

On November 9^th 1938  the annual meeting of the “Old Fighters”, the NS elite, took place in Munich. During the gathering it was announced that von Rath had died, Hitler was devastated and refused to speak, Goebbels filled in for him (This is Deschner’s version, and there are others here as well. Wilf). Goebbels, in his speech, talked of acts of revenge, and the party leaders present interpreted as having received an order and issued the appropriate instructions (Deschner is fantasizing here, Goebbels had no authority outside of Berlin, he could not order anyone to do anything. Wilf). A pogrom erupted suddenly, Jewish businesses destroyed; Synagogues burned, etc., the event recorded in history books as Kristallnacht (Crystal Night). Heydrich, who stayed at the hotel “Vier Jahreszeiten” in Munich was naturally surprised by this, astonished in fact, since his emigration policy worked well. He contacted Himmler who mumbled something about a Führer order (just speculations by Deschner. Wilf) but Heydrich ordered his people to safeguard non-Jewish businesses and also historically valuable material in the synagogues. He ordered the arrest of wealthy Jews, stressing ‘that those arrested are not to be harmed” (They were taken into protective custody and released a short while later). Heydrich called the actions during the night “bone headed” a “disgrace” and “the worst setback in regards to Jewish policy since 1934” (not sure what happened in 1934. Wilf).

Comment: Why did this occur at a time when Jews were encouraged to leave in an orderly fashion? True, other countries did not want Jews, but the efforts continued. The fact about the refusal by others to admit Jews is conveniently ‘forgotten’ by Deschner, but Rudolf Vogel provides details in his book, I wrote an essay based on it

(http://www.revblog.codoh.com/2012/06/from-state-induced-emigration-of-jews-to-evacuation-to-the-alleged-mass-murder/ )

Cui bono? Jewish businesses were insured and Göring had a fit, the details in my essay. The German government did not benefit, Jews were not persecuted at that time, although strongly encouraged to leave. Who benefited from disturbing this relative calm? Ingrid Weckert has some suggestions in her essay “Crystal Night”

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v06/v06p183_Weckert.html

In fact, we have a similar occurrence later in the Czech Protectorate, with fatal consequences for Heydrich, more later.

Following crystal night efforts to help Jews to get out of Germany were increased, with Göring now also firmly on board. Heydrich made use of his “Haganah” connections, and contacted the Jewish secret organization “Mossad”, who had made it their calling to smuggle Jews into Palestine. Two Mossad agents, Pino Ginzburg and Moshe Auerbach, took up residence in Berlin, and Heydrich ‘encouraged’ them to smuggle 400 Jews into Palestine per week. A Jewish reservation at Nisko on the river San was proposed after Poland had capitulated. Jews were deported there but because of poor preparations and general unwillingness of Jews to settle there, dropped again. After crystal night, the island of Madagascar was considered as a Jewish homeland. French foreign secretary Bonnet had mentioned to von Ribbentrop that France would like to get rid of some 10,000 Jews, and are considering Madagascar as the destination. Heydrich now urged them on, writing Ribbentrop on June 24, 1940, that Göring had ordered him to find a “territorial solution” to the Jewish problem and that from January 1, 1938 on he had been able to get 200,000 Jews out of Germany through emigration, in spite of all the setbacks because of the war, etc. But 3.25 million Jews remain and need to be settled somewhere, with Madagascar the ideal territory.

Heydrich did not wait for Ribbentrop’s answer but told his staff about the plan and to make preparations for it. His staff enthusiastically went to work, an expert on tropics, Theodor Dannecker, was instructed to investigate the feasibility of Madagascar. However, the war again intervened and Madagascar was officially dropped on February 24, 1942.

Comments: Deschner writes that Heydrich strongly (nachhaltig…eingesetzt) supported the Madagascar plan, but repeatedly refers to the EG actions, with the Wannsee conference thrown in. The official story is, and Deschner apparently signs on to it, that the Einsatzgruppen (EG – rapid response force) were murder squads, roaming the vast expanses of Russia, searching for Jews to kill, thereby all but neglecting what they had been ordered to do: Fight partisans and establish order behind the lines. Deschner is unable to explain this obvious contradiction between Heydrich the savior of Jews and Heydrich the mass murderer of Jews. Deschner refers to Auschwitz as the epitome of the “Final Solution”, i.e., the mass murder of Jews. He also mentions the alleged ‘extermination camps’ of Treblinka and Sobibor, forgetting Belzec, and also not one word about those camps now called “Action Reinhard Camps”, as in Reinhard Heydrich. One has to wonder when this story was concocted, the Deschner book published in 1977. Then of course there is the spelling, at times it is spelled “Reinhardt”, as in Fritz Reinhardt of the economics ministry but the spelling “Reinhard” is preferred to implicate Heydrich (I wrote a short essay on this also outlining a few issues http://www.revblog.codoh.com/2012/01/aktion-reinhardt/ )

Deschner fills pages, trying to make Heydrich into a mass murderer, but he is not successful. This is why this IfZ scribbler von Schmoller I mentioned in Part I has a problem with the book; Deschner comes too close to the truth, contradicting the mass murder stories, lies.

To be continued…

Part IV

By Wilfried Heink

When the state of Czechoslovakia was created following WWI – from parts of the broken up Austro-Hungarian Empire, part of the plan to render powerless German dominated middle Europe – the large minorities were to be given autonomy. Here is what von Neurath, German foreign minister up to 1938, stated at the IMT:

“The Germans living in the Sudetenland as a compact group had been given the assurance, at the peace negotiations in 1919 when they were attached to the Czechoslovak State, that they would be given autonomy on the model of the Swiss Confederation, as expressly stated by Mr. Lloyd George in the House of Commons in 1940. The Sudeten-German delegation at that time, as well as Austria, had demanded an Anschluss with the Reich.

The promise of autonomy was not kept by the Czech Government. Instead of autonomy, there was a vehement policy of “Czechification.” The Germans were forbidden to use their own German language in the courts, as well as in their dealings with administrative authorities, et cetera, under threat of punishment.”

(http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/06-24-46.asp, p.637)

If the Entente powers would have told Czech authorities to adhere to the agreement, there would not have been a Czech crisis. They didn’t, and things deteriorated – finally leading to the 1938 Munich Conference  when it was agreed that the Sudetenland would become part of Germany. In a speech of September 26, 1938, following that conference, Hitler stated that he had promised Chamberlain that if the Czechs are able to come to terms with their minorities, peacefully, he would no longer be interested in that state. He ended the speech by saying: “We don’t want any Czechs” (H. Härtle, Die Kriegsschuld der Sieger, Verlag K.W. Schütz, Göttingen 1966, p.275; A. von Ribbentrop, Die Kriegsschuld des Widerstandes, Druffel Verlag 1974, p.174). Hitler needed a secure southern border, and was aware of the efforts by the French and  Soviets to have Czechoslovakia serve as “Russian aircraft carrier” on that border, be “a dagger in Germanys soft underbelly” (Härtle, p.182). Hitler is accused of breaking his word, he did not, the Czechs were unable to settle their differences with the remaining minorities, the Slovaks as well as Hungarians, etc., and as a result Czechoslovakia disintegrated, with Hitler not the instigator of the breakup (V. Ribbentrop, p.243; BTW, the same happened after the breakup of the Soviet Union, Slovakia again separated). Czech president Benes fled to England and Hacha, the new president, asked Hitler for assistance. Eventually the remainder of the Czech state was turned into a German Protectorate, not annexed, and Czechs were given autonomy for the most part.

Now back to the Deschner book: Konstantin von Neurath, a career diplomat, served as first Reichsprotektor, governor, of the new protectorate. The Czech people were naturally not happy, and who can blame them, their independent state short lived. Heydrich’s security service filed report after report about strikes and acts of sabotage, instigated by the Benes government in exile in London, and after the start of the Russian campaign – Hitler’s preventive strike – by communists who had up to now been largely inactive because of the Molotov/Ribbentrop pact. Thus the situation deteriorated even further. But Bohemia and Moravia, as it was now referred to, was of vital interest to Germany: One third of the tanks were produced there, one quarter of the trucks and about 40% of the light weaponry used by the German military. The western allies, along with their new ally Russia, were aware of that and jointly organized resistance groups. A conference of the All-Slav Congress was organized, some details:

“Immediately after Hitler attacked Russia on the fateful June 22, 1941, Stalin ceased to look upon the war as a contest of rival imperialist powers. It became a war of “national liberation” in which Russia was fighting the battle of her Slavic brothers against the “Nazi Fascist beasts.”

Although there is no visible record of any Communist-inspired national liberation movement among Slavic nationals of German- occupied territory prior to June 21, 1941, a far-reaching network of organizations was established subsequently for such agitation. On August 10-11, 1941, an all-Slav conference was held in Moscow, where no such gathering could be held without official government sanction. It was formally greeted by the Red army through its official organ, Red Star… The conference called upon the oppressed millions of Poles, Czechs, Slovaks, Carpathian Ukrainians, Bulgars, Serbs, Macedonians, Vlakhs, Croats, and Slovenes to “unite against the common enemy of all Slav peoples… Sabotage war production! . . . Do all in your power to slow down the production of lathes and presses! Exert your utmost to spoil the arms that you are compelled to manufacture for your merciless enslavers! Make every effort to have the tanks, airplanes, and armoured cars produced by you soon go out of commission! See to it that the mines and shells do not explode! Disorganize the railroads! Dislocate the transportation systems . . . Disorganize traffic, blow up the bridges . . . Sabotage the production of guns, tanks, ammunition; call strikes! Blow up . . . ammunition dumps and storehouses!

Disorganize their military shipments! “

(http://archive.org/stream/reportonamerican00unit/reportonamerican00unit_djvu.txt )

The BBC broadcast hourly: “Pomalu pracuj” (work slow). Neurath did too little to curb the activities, on of September 21. the German intelligence officer and traitor, Paul Thümmel, wired London that the Gestapo had threatened to take draconian measures but von Neurath would not allow it. Production of war material dropped by 18% on an average, 35% in some factories. Hitler therefore decided to replace von Neurath and Heydrich was chosen as the new Reichsprotektor.

On the early morning of September 27, 1941 Heydrich arrived in Prague, he was totally neutral re. the Czechs according to his widow, who was not in favor of the move. “You need to understand”, Heydrich told her, “that this finally is something positive, I am tired of being the garbage bin of the Reich”. The Czechs had expected the hated Karl Hermann Frank to replace von Neurath, and were cautiously optimistic re. the appointment of Heydrich. A few hours after the arrival of Heydrich in Prague, General Alois Eliáš, second only to president Hacha, was arrested. The Gestapo had collected material about his close collaboration with the resistance, with additional information having been discovered in Paris following the defeat of France. Hacha, as a reaction to the arrest, decided to resign but changed his mind when Heydrich paid him an official visit one day after his arrival. Hacha asked Heydrich to spare the general’s life, and his wish was later granted. Numerous members of resistance groups were caught, about 90 short wave radio stations silenced and the leaders of the groups executed. All of the verdicts were published. Heydrich not only moved against the resistance but also against all kinds of corruption. Black marketer’s, butcher who sold meat illegally, merchants – no one was save. The Czech population accepted this for the most part, Heydrich had promised them that things will improve, more food and other merchandise will become available when corruption is wiped out. On October 2^nd Heydrich ordered an inventory of livestock and grain supply to be taken, and whoever corrected the numbers provided in the June inventory, by September 4^th , was promised immunity from prosecution. When on October 19^th the new numbers became know, it surprised even Heydrich, some farmers had understated their inventories by half.

All of the black market food stuff confiscated was made available to the cafeterias in the big factories. Heydrich expedited the establishment of canteen’s in all big factories, a move welcomed by the workers, because the meals were dispersed free, no ration card required. On October 24^th he invited 40 union member to visit him at the Hradčany castle, the seat of the government. This was the first time in Czech history that a workers delegation was welcomed in the Royal hall of the castle. After they had voiced their concerns, Heydrich spoke to them – greeted them as “Comrade workers” – and promised that the food situation will improve further. From the moneys confiscated from black marketers 200,000 pair of work boots were bought and distributed free of charge. Heydrich also improved social conditions, raising pensions and established unemployment insurance. The luxury hotels in the spa town of Luhačovice were turned into workers recreation facilities, three thousand workers were send there free of charge on May 1, 1942, seven thousand in the whole of that year. Heydrich visited the workers in the factories, shook hands with them, to the dismay of his security staff.

Slowly but surely the situation changed, production increased and Heydrich accepted as a friend of the workers, the little people. His wife joined him, they moved into an estate only 20km (12 miles) from Prague. He travelled in an open car, even when it was rainy or cold, telling his driver: “This helps us to keep a clear head, Klein”. Himmler insisted on a guard for his house, Heydrich complained, convinced that “his” Czechs would not harm him, but Himmler insisted. He worked long hours, some days 20, but tried to make it home whenever possible. His wife later saying that this was the happiest time for her.

Heydrich’s next task was the building of a new government, a government that would be accepted by the Czech people but of course also loyal to Germany. He made concessions whenever necessary and on January 19, 1942 the government was formed, Hacha had naturally also been involved in picking the members of this new government. To give this government a good start, Heydrich lifted all remaining restrictions on that day, and also released a number of prisoners. At 5pm on the next day, January 20^th, Hacha welcomed the members of the cabinet at the Hradčany and swore them in to be loyal “to the Führer, the patron of Protectorate”. He pointed out that now a new course will be taken, and that the attempts by local and foreign bodies to subvert will be combated. Heydrich then spoke, thanking all for their cooperation (Amtsblatt des Protektorats Böhmen und Mähren, Januar 1942, pp.557-561[official journal of the protectorate Bohemia and Moravia for January 1942, pp.557-561]). And this then takes us nicely to another event, referred to by Deschner throughout the book, a meeting  allegedly also taken place on the same date, January 20^th, in Berlin, 360km (224 miles) driving distance away (283km, 176 miles as the crow flies), the infamous Wannsee Konferenz.

We are told that at this conference, allegedly chaired by Heydrich, the Endlösung, the physical extermination of the Jews in Europe, 11 million of them, was finalized. Roland Bohlinger and Peter Ney published an analysis of the documents relevant to the meeting, the analysis so far only available in German

http://reichsarchiv.com/Buecher/02_Nach_1945/B/Bohlinger-Roland-Gutachten.php

But even though this conference is now used as evidence for “The Holocaust” – the building it was allegedly held in turned into a memorial – nothing was known about it during the main Nürnberg trial. Robert Kempner, a German lawyer – expelled from Germany because he was a Jew and subsequently ending up in the US – returned for the Nürnberg trial and is credited with finding the documents concerning that meeting during the preparation of the Foreign Office Trial (AA), one of the subsequent trials (Dec.20,1947-April 14,1949). Kempner tells us in his book “Ankläger einer Epoche“ (Prosecutor of a Epoch), how it was found (Bohlinger/Ney, p.33): During the investigation, Kempner, who had suspected all along that something is missing (up to then not even an indication as to how “The Holocaust” came about. Wilf), received a phone-call from one of his assistance who told him that he has found something, the minutes of a meeting at the Wannsee on January 20, 1942. And at the back of the folder the remark: “Endlösung der Judenfrage (Final solution to the Jewish question). And this is how the minutes were discovered, we are told, along with the supporting documents (The file name on the back? Wilf).

To list all the ‘oddities’ re. the discovery of the documentation, and those contained in the documents, would take too long, Bohlinger/Ney did an excellent job and I understand a translation of their analysis is in the offing. But since the timeline is the issue here the invitations to the meeting, allegedly issued by Heydrich, are the documents of interest. The first invitation is dated November 29, 1941, the meeting set for December 9^th but the letter only received by the AA on December 23^rd. Two differing ‘originals’ exist of that letter, and, no mention of an Endlösung (Final Solution) of the Jewish question, the issue referred to as Gesamtlösung (Comprehensive Solution). That meeting had to be cancelled, we are told because of Pearl Harbor but that is just speculation, and a second invitation was send, dated January 8, 1942, and in this letter the term Endlösung is used. The same guests were invited to meet on January 20, 1942 at 12 noon with breakfast to follow, the location, On the Big Wannsees Nr. 56-58. On the first invitation the address of Interpol, On the Little Wannsee Nr.16, is typed in, then crossed out and replaced with the Big Wannsee address, in handwriting, but “Office of Interpol” is left in. The handwriting additions differ in the two ‘originals’, but not the issue here. The mix-up however is, for surely Heydrich as president of Interpol would have known where the headquarter is located and not pick this office to discuss the mass murder of Jews. The second address is that of Villa Minoux, purchased by the SS to serve as a conference center. Also, some of the guests invited in the first letter were replaced, and that even though the second invitation states explicitly: “Der in meinem letzten Einladungsschreiben angeführte Kreis der geladenen Herren bleibt unverändert”(The list of names of the Gentlemen invited in my first letter remains unchanged). One more issue: Heydrich the stickler would never have embarrassed himself by sending a letter to high ranking officials with words crossed out and then scribbled over. Assuming that he did change his mind re. the location he without a doubt would have had his secretary type a new letter.

According to the letters, Heydrich invited said high ranking officials to a conference, starting at 12:00 noon, with breakfast to follow. It is highly unlikely that anyone would have set the start of a meeting for 12 o’clock noon, unless it is an emergency (it would have made sense to invite them for 8am, since he had to be in Prague later). At that time in Germany the main meal was taken at 12 noon, the term ‘working lunch’ not know and indeed not suggested. But lets assume it was done, Kempner tells us that “this was a big deal, one had to drive to the Wannsee in winter, it was snowing, the streets were slippery” (Kempner, p.313). It is doubtful that everyone arrived on time, given the road conditions and considering tires and cars then available. Gerwarth, and I received the book in the meantime as a PDF file, writes in regards to the start of the meeting:

“On 20 January 1942, a snowy Tuesday morning, Heydrich gathered fourteen senior Nazi civil servants, party officials and high-ranking SS officers in a former industrialist’s villa on the shores of Berlin’s Lake Wannsee” (Hitlers Hangman, p.209).

A “snowy Tuesday morning”? Noon is not morning, and according to my calculations it was a Wednesday. Here is what we find at the official website of the “House of the Wannsee Conference, Memorial and Educational Site”:

“At noon of 20 January 1942, a meeting of approximately 90 minutes took place in the dining room of the SD guesthouse.” http://www.ghwk.de/engl/wannsee_conference.htm

Lets again assume that the meeting started at 12:00 o’clock, and Eichmann claims to have written the minutes. In those minutes, Reinhard is not mentioned as the chair, highly unusual, also, no time recorded for the start or the conclusion of the conference. Eichmann told at his Jerusalem trial – the whole of it linked to below is well worth reading, his testimony all over the place – with Eichmann all but confirming that there was no meeting:

“The conference itself took only a very short period of time. I can’t recall exactly how long it lasted, but it seems to me that I would not be mistaken in saying that it didn’t take longer than an hour or an hour and a half”.

He further testified:

“These minutes to which I was referring were rendering the salient points quite clearly. But so far as the particulars were concerned, I have to point out that this was not a verbatim report because certain colloquialisms were then couched by me in official language and certain official terms had to be introduced. Later on it had been revised three or four times by Heydrich. It came back through official channels to us through the channel of Mueller and then again we had to elaborate on it until it assumed its final form.” http://www.ghwk.de/engl/texts/eichmanns-testimony.pdf

And in his memoirs, written while in jail in Jerusalem, he wrote:

“Das Protokoll dieser Konferenz war lang, obgleich ich das Unwesentliche nicht einmal hatte stenographieren lassen.

Heydrich arbeitete mit seinem Blaustift und ließ zum Schluß nur noch einen Extrakt gelten; den hatte ich zu bearbeiten und er wurde dann nach weiteren mancherlei Änderungen durch Heydrich, an die nichtsicherheitspolizeilichen Teilnehmer der Konferenz, als „Geheime Reichssache“ zur Absendung gebracht.“

(Roughly: And even though I left out the unnecessary, the minutes still were a lengthy document. Heydrich then went to work correcting it and only an extract was left, to be send to the participants)

http://books.google.ca/books/about/G%C3%B6tzen.html?id=-h3MLwEACAAJ&redir_esc=y , pp.221-222

It appears that what we have as the Wannsee Protocol is a short form of what was allegedly discussed on that date, and Gerwarth writes that quite a few discussions took place. To then say that it only lasted 90min. is unbelievable, Bohlinger/Ney have it a three hours. And, Eichmann is not sure, it “…seems to me that I would not be mistaken in saying that it didn’t take longer than an hour or an hour and a half”, not really anything to bank on. So, lets assume the conference was over at about 2pm, and that would be at the earliest, considering that the short form of the protocol still contains 15 pages. Did Heydrich then hurry to get to Prague, we know that he was there later that afternoon at the inauguration of the new Czech government, his creation so to speak? Oh no, here is what Eichmann tells us:

“Of course, the gentlemen who participated in it would later on be standing in small groups to discuss the ins and outs of the agenda and also of certain work to be undertaken afterwards. After the conference had been a[d]journed, Heydrich and Mueller still remained and I was also permitted to remain and then in this restricted get-together, Heydrich gave expression to his great satisfaction I already referred to before….” http://www.ghwk.de/engl/texts/eichmanns-testimony.pdf

Gerwarth confirms this:

“According to Eichmann, Heydrich was visibly satisfied with the results of the meeting, and invited him and Müller to stay behind for ‘a glass or two or three of cognac”. (p.216)

But Gerwarth has an answer ready, nothing that resembles the truth but he did realize that Heydrich could not be at two places, that far apart, at the same time. He tells us:

“On 19 January 1942, after months of intensive planning, a new Protectorate government was put in place… In his address to the newly established Protectorate government on 19 January 1942, one day before flying to Berlin to chair the Wannsee Conference,…” (pp.239/40)

It is true that Heydrich was in Prague on January 19^th  also, and that on that day the new government was assembled. But, and Gerwarth omits this, the swearing in, the inauguration/reception, took place on January 20^th. Deschner provides one official source, but aside from that we have another confirmation. Wolf Dieter Rothe writes:

“Ein bedeutsames innerpolitisches Ereignis war die Tatsache, daß Staatspräsident Dr. Hacha mit Zustimmung des stellvertretenen Reichsprotektors in Prag, SS-Obergruppenführer Heydrich, am 20. Januar eine neue Regierung berufen hat…Auf einem Empfang der neuen Regierung in der Burg betonte…SS-Obergruppenführer General der Polizei Heydrich…“ (Die Endlösung der Judenfrage, Band 1, E. Bierbaum Verlag Frankfurt 1974, p.185; „Deutschland im Kampf“, herausgegeben von A.J. Berndt und Oberst v. Wedel, Januar 1942)

(A important political event was the appointment of a new government by Dr. Hacha on January 20, with the consent of Heydrich …At the reception in the castle Heydrich pointed out…)

No time given here, but it can be taken for granted that Heydrich was in Prague in late afternoon/evening of January 20, 1942. Rothe provides evidence that Heydrich was in Prague on the 19^th as well. We also have a notice in the Völkische Beobachter of January 21,1942 confirming this, as well as in Großdeutschland im Weltgeschehen – Tagesbericht 1942, Ernst Breackow publisher, Verlag Johann Kasper & Co, Berlin 1942 (Die Wannsee-Konferenz. Eine kritische Prüfung bekannter positionen nach neuen Dokumentfunden, Wulf von Xanten). The question has to be: Would Heydrich, who was in total control of his itinerary, schedule two important meetings for the same day, in the middle of winter, the locations hundreds of miles apart? The Wannsee conference, including the socializing following it, ended at 3pm at the earliest, the airport more than 20km (14 miles) away, city driving on slippery roads would have take at least ½ hour. At that time, with the sky overcast, it would have been pitch dark at 4pm. Would it have been even possible to fly, given the conditions? With driving to Prague out of the question, why would Heydrich place himself in that predicament, why not pick a date after the inauguration of the new Czech government? Thus, the answer to the above has to be: No.

Considering all the ‘oddities’ contained in the Wannsee Protocol and the documents meant to support it, and the fact that Heydrich was in Prague on January 20^th, it is reasonable to say that Kempner concocted this story about the “Endlösung Wannsee-Konferenz”.

But a conference  re. the Jewish issue did take place. From the testimony of secretary of state Dr. Bühler at the IMT:

“DR. SEIDL: The Prosecution submitted an extract from Frank’s diary in evidence under Number USA-281 (Document Number 2233(d)-PS.) This is a discussion of Jewish problems. In this connection Frank said, among other things:

“My attitude towards the Jews is based on the expectation that they will disappear; they must go away. I have started negotiations for deporting them to the East. This question will be discussed at a large meeting in Berlin in January, to which I shall send State Secretary Dr. Buehler. This conference is to take place at the Reich Security Main Office in the office of SS Obergruppenfuehrer Heydrich. In any case Jewish emigration on a large scale will begin.”

I ask you now, did the Governor General send you to Berlin for that conference; and if so, what was the subject of the conference?

BUEHLER: Yes, I was sent to the conference and the subject of the conference was the Jewish problem. I might say in advance that from the beginning Jewish questions in the Government General were considered as coming under the jurisdiction of the Higher SS and Police Leader and handled accordingly. The handling of Jewish matters by the state administration was supervised and merely tolerated by the Police.

During the years 1940 and 1941 incredible numbers of people, mostly Jews, were brought into the Government General in spite of the objections and protests of the Governor General and his administration. This completely unexpected, unprepared for, and undesired bringing in of the Jewish population from other territories put the administration of the Government General in an extremely difficult position.

Accommodating these masses, feeding them, and caring for their health-combating epidemics for instance-almost, or rather, definitely overtaxed the capacity of the territory. Particularly threatening was the spread of typhus, not only in the ghettos but also among the Polish population and the Germans in the Government General. It appeared as if that epidemic would spread even to the Reich and to the Eastern Front.

At that moment Heydrich’s invitation to the Governor General was received. The conference was originally supposed to take place in November 1941, but it was frequently postponed and it may have taken place in February 1942.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/04-23-46.asp , pp.68/69

Bühler is one of those listed on the Wannsee-Protocol, no doubt Kempner’s men found references to that meeting among the 485 tons of foreign office documents secured by the western allies. All that needed to be done is make the necessary alterations, the wording suggests that parts were added by someone not in command of the German language (Bohlinger/Ney), then add some documents and presto, The Wannsee-Konferenz is born. It is entirely possible that the first invitation send by Heydrich, that of November 29,1941 is genuine, although the issue of “Starting at 12:00 noon with breakfast to follow” remains. And since only a “comprehensive solution” to the Jewish question was to be discussed, not the “Final solution”, i.e., mass murder, the meeting could well have taken place at the offices of Interpol, as it reads in that invitation. It may have been that that meeting had indeed to be postponed and scheduled for February 1942 as suggested by Bühler.

The reference to a “Final Solution” in the second invitation gives it away as a forgery, that word not used. Göring and the shyster Jackson discussed this at the IMT:

“MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Very well, I will accept that.

“. . . which dealt with arriving at a thorough furtherance of emigration and evacuation, a solution of the Jewish problem, as advantageously as possible, I hereby charge you with making all necessary preparations in regard to organizational and financial matters for bringing about a complete solution of the Jewish question in the German sphere of influence in Europe.”

Am I correct so far?

Goering: No, that is in no way correctly translated.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Give us your translation of it?

Goering: May I read it as it is written here?

“Complementing the task which was conferred upon you already on 24 January 1939, to solve the Jewish problem by means of emigration and evacuation in the best possible way according to present conditions, I charge you herewith to make all necessary preparations as regards organizational, factual, and material matters ……”

Now comes the decisive word which has been mistranslated: “for a total solution,” not “for a final solution.”

“… for a total solution of the Jewish question within the area of German influence in Europe. Should these come within the competence of other governmental departments, then such departments are to co-operate. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/03-20-46.asp#Goering7 , p.519

We know Heydrich was in Prague in the late afternoon of January 20, would he have been sipping cognac in the Berlin outskirts hours earlier, knowing that he had to be in Prague? Heydrich was a stickler for detail, he would therefore never have scheduled two meetings of that importance for the same day. The Wannsee story is just another lie.

To be continued…

Conclusion

By Wilfried Heink

As mentioned, Heydrich was send to the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia as a replacement of Baron von Neurath, the first governor (Reichsprotektor), because of the latters failure to curb the unrest:

“The Reichsprotector of Bohemia and Moravia, Baron von Neurath, had resigned from his post ostensibly because of illness. It was a convenient excuse. He was a failure. Czechoslovakia, far from being the model dependency Hitler expected of a founder member of his empire, was sullen and uncooperative. Production had fallen; students had the impudence to demonstrate in the streets; it appeared that the puppet government could do nothing with these irascible Czechs.

Upon the 27th September, 1941, S.S. General Reinhard Heydrich arrived in Prague in the post of Acting Reichsprotector of Bohemia and Moravia to remedy this state of affairs…

Within a matter of days, intelligently appraising the situation, Heydrich had also wooed the workers. Of what use were these Generals and intellectuals to the Czechs, he asked? He appealed on an effective materialistic level. For just a little extra work, extra fat coupons, meat coupons and bread coupons could be won. It was a belly bribery almost impossible to resist. And if a worker really cared to exert himself, there were holidays at the best Spa hotels—once the preserve of the aristocratic and the wealthy—for him and his family, higher wages, and food. Always the promise of more food, Within a month, production, especially war production, was rising…

There was no curfew in Prague in those days (month later. Wilf). It was a very secure corner of Hitlers empire and the Czechs were a people that Heydrich was quite certain he had tamed.” (Alan Burgess, Seven Men At Daybreak, The Companion Book Club, London 1960, pp.39/40; 89)

This was of course a concern to the Brits and their allies (see part IV), as well as to the Benes Czech government in exile in London and plans were made to assassinate Heydrich. It was hoped that the Germans would react harshly and that the countermeasures taken would incite the Czech public. The operation was codenamed “Anthropoid”.

When the remainder of the Czech state was turned into a German protectorate, a large number of Czech soldiers fled, via Poland and the port of Gdynia, Hungary, the Balkans, as well as other countries, to eventually make it to England. There they were incorporated into the Czech legion, the army of Benes (Stanislav P. Berton, Das Attentat auf Heydrich vom 27. Mai 1942. Ein Bericht des Kriminalrats Heinz Pannwitz [The Heydrich assassination. Report by inspector Heinz Pannwitz], VfZ 1985, vol.4, p.675). Jan Kubis, one of the Heydrich assassins, belonged to a Czech resistance group, he was arrested by the Gestapo but was able to flee to Poland. In the refugee camp he met his co-assassin Josef Gabchik. The French had set up a recruitment office for the French foreign legion in that camp and both joined. Deployed in the western campaign, they were part of the forces who were evacuated at Dunkirk and thus also made it to England. There they joined the Czech legion.

When  the British special Operations Executive (SOE), murder squads of the British Secret Service, were looking for people to operate behind German lines, Jan and Josef, along with 160 others, volunteered for actions in the Protectorate. In a six week seminar at Camusdarach/Scotland they were trained by the British to perform acts of sabotage, in hand to hand combat and also taught how to kill. In Manchester they had received a two week training course in the operation in wireless transmission and at the conclusion of the training they were send back to their units to wait for further instructions (VfZ, pp.675/76; Deschner, p.268, source: Charles Wighton, Heydrich – Hitlers most evil Henchman, London 1962, p.268).

Who was responsible for the assassination, the British or the Benes government? Burgess writes in his Authors note:

“I am grateful to the Czech Ministry of Information for allowing my visit and putting no obstacles in the way of my research. On the other hand I formed the definite opinion that because Jan Kubis and Josef Gabchik and the others were trained in Britain, and the operation as a whole was conceived in Britain, the present Communist regime tends—if not to suppress—then at least to play down the story. I am therefore doubly grateful to all of those people in Czechoslovakia, whose names I shall not enumerate, who helped me and gave me information”. (pp.13/14)

The truth is buried in those sentences. Following the war, the Burgess book published in 1960, a lot of subjects were treated as taboos. The “cold war” was in full swing and neither side admitted to any collaboration in the attempts to destroy Germany, the German traitors were ignored, it was in fact forbidden to mention them (H. Rothfels, The German opposition to Hitler, Henry Regnery Company, Hillsdale Illinois 1948, pp.20/21). The communists did not want people to know that it was terrorists who were trained, outfitted and transported by the RAF to Bohemia, that killed Heydrich, so it was ignored. Benes was not in the position to act independently, he had to rely on the Brits. We know that the Brits trained the assassins, but the “fair” British would of course not admit that they would order an assassination, therefore efforts are made to credit Benes with the planning of the assassination. Treachery is perfidious Albion’s game.

On December 29, 1941, Jan and Josef were dropped from a “Halifax” of the Royal Air Force near Plzen, three others near Kolin. Their assignment: The assassination of Heydrich and the blowing up of the Skoda factory in Plzen (VfZ, p.676). Jan and Josef eventually made it to Prague and started to plan the assassination.

As mentioned, the Heydrich’s had moved into a mansion in the village of Panenske Brezany, 20km from Prague. And, Heydrich was a creature of habit, travelling to Berlin often, either by plane or train, but always following the same routine. His driver would take him in the open Mercedes, the same route was taken and when he went to work he travelled at the same time. All of those strictly against all regulations, some of them devised by Heydrich. He had ordered that the backrests of the car seats used by officials be reinforced with steel plates, his Mercedes did not have them. Heydrich had done his job in the Protectorate, Hitler was impressed and since Belgium and Northern-France had become somewhat of a problem, London organized acts of sabotage in the countries, Heydrich counted on being appointed as top official to those places to work his magic. He was instructed to come to Berlin on May 27, 1942 to receive his new orders (Deschner, p.266).

London and Moscow were also aware of those developments, not surprising when considering the mass of traitors in all spheres of the Reich (Deschner mentions a resistance informant, p.270. Wilf). In March 1942, during a routine inspection security  police in the Warsaw train station had arrested a musician on his way to Prague. His papers were in order but his brand-new suitcase aroused suspicion. In a secret department the security police found a disassembled, special gun. After lengthy interrogations the suspect admitted to being a Russian and ordered to assassinate Heydrich on his route to Prague or home. His story was taken with caution but before it could be confirmed, the suspect committed suicide in his cell (Ibid, pp.266/67).

The London plans were advancing satisfactorily, Jan and Josef surveyed the Heydrich property, in plain daylight and any observer should have detected them, nobody did. What happened to the guards deployed by Himmler? Plans to kill Heydrich en route were dropped, the car was traveling too fast and there was no place to hide in the open country. Thus, they were changed to have the assassination take place in Prague. Heydrich’s driver, on the way into the city, had to negotiate a hairpin curve, forcing him to slow down. Valcik, a Czech SOE agent had been placed up the street from the curve, to signal, with a mirror, the arrival of Heydrich’s car (Deschner, p.271). Josef was stationed just ahead of the curve, with an English machine gun under his coat, with Jan standing right at the curve, armed with a hand grenade.

The morning of May 27^th was a bright and sunny. The plane that he was to pilot to Berlin himself stood at the ready at the airport, but Heydrich took his time getting started on that day. He counted on a longer stay in Berlin and the good-byes stretched out, he played with his kids, but finally, at 10:00am, he left. The assassins in the meantime were getting nervous, Heydrich should have arrived already, had the Gestapo gotten wind of their plan? Not so, at 10:30 Valcik’s mirror flashed and Josef walked over to the other side of the street. The car approached, Klein at the wheel with Heydrich sitting beside him, and getting close to the hair-pin Klein slowed the car and shifted down. When they were right beside Josef, Josef brought the gun out from under his coat, pointed it and pressed the trigger, but nothing happened (Here stories differ but it is believed that he had not completely disengaged the safety. Wilf). If the gun would have fired, Heydrich would have been riddled with bullets. Heydrich of course noticed the would be assassin and ordered Klein to stop. A fatal mistake and against his own instructions, which stated that if an event as this occurs, the driver should try and get away as fast as possible. As the car slowed down, Jan threw his grenade, it exploded just ahead of the right rear wheel, the grenade shrapnel piercing the backrest of Heydrich’s seat and wounding him.

When the car had come to a stop both jumped out to pursue the assassins. Jan tried to flee but bystanders blocked his way, he fired his colt pistol and they dispersed. Heydrich had pulled a pistol out of the door side pocket, aimed at Jan but the gun did not fire, Heydrich had forgotten to work the slide. Klein in the meantime had set out after Josef, but his pistol also did not fire, he had inadvertently pushed the knob to release the magazine. Josef fired at him, wounding him in the knee and Klein went down. Heydrich had in the meantime given up pursuit and returned to the car. There he stood, bend over in pain, completely helpless and alone. Did the people around him take advantage of the situation, did they settle their scores with “The butcher of Prague”? No, a woman approached him to help, a van was flagged down, Heydrich loaded into it and sitting in the loading area was transported to the hospital.

One of the shrapnel had entered Heydrich’s spleen, carrying along some of the horse-hair filling of the seats backrest. In the morning of June 4^th Reinhard Tristan Eugen Heydrich died of blood poisoning, in spite of the best care possible. Penicillin might have saved him but non was available in Germany. On the evening of the 5^th, a battalion of SS troops, as well as all of SD and security police officers held wake in the yard of the hospital. He was then transported to the Hradčany on a gun carriage, the streets through which the possession passed cleared of civilians, thousands of SS men lining the streets. On this night the SS were among themselves. On June 7^th, the corpse lay in state in the yard of the Hradčany castle, a huge wooden iron cross in the background, the coffin flanked by bowls containing a flaming substance. High ranking SS and army officers provided the honor guard, the black and white SS banners at half staff. Starting in early morning, tens of thousands passed by the coffin, Germans, Czechs, policemen, workers, Czech farmers in traditional dress, the woman bringing flowers. In late afternoon a special train, carrying the casket of Reinhard Heydrich, left for Berlin.  On June 9^th, at 15:00hrs. sharp, the state funeral began, the most impressive celebration since the death of Hindenburg. All the dignitaries spoke, Himmler called Heydrich ‘irreplaceable’ and Hitler pinned the Highest German Order onto a black pillow (Ordenskissen), held by an officer. Only Fritz Todt had received it before, and it was not bestowed to anyone else. The gun carriage with the coffin, decked in a huge Swastika flag, was drawn by six black stallions, the saber and helmet of the man on top of the coffin. Himmler following right behind, then all of the other dignitaries, among them those glad to be rid of the man who knew too much: Bormann, Lammers, Frick, Goebbels, Rosenberg…(Deschner, p.302)

An investigation was ordered following the assassination, a reward of one million Mark offered. A curfew was put in place, Kurt Daluge, head of the Order Police, arrived in Prague but Nebe and Müller only send deputies. The investigations were unsuccessful, in spite of a huge effort. Reprisals were ordered, in Lidice, a town that had housed some of the “parachutists”, as the British trained Czech terrorist were called, was leveled, the men shot. Finally, on June 16^th, the Czech Karel Curda appeared at the Prague state police office and asked to be taken to a leading officer. He gave the police the name of Josef Grabcik and Jan Kubis was then soon identified. They were holed up in a church, along with five other terrorists. On the morning of June 18^th, the church was surrounded and all of terrorists shot, some died of the gunshot wounds later (Deschner, pp.311/12)

Comments: Some of the details vary, different authors give different accounts. What is of interest however is the time it took to finally find the murderers. Heydrich’s men had almost wiped out Czech resistance and were also successful in intercepting parachutists. Was the delay the work of people behind the scenes? Canaris had very good connections to abroad and it is possible that he had known about the SOE plans. Deschner writes that Heydrich was about to expose Canaris, the assassination prevented that. Then we have the police inspector Heinz Pannwitz, in 1940 appointed head of department II g (assassinations, illegal possession of weapons, sabotage) of the Gestapo in Prague. Following Heydrich’s assassination he was put in charge of the investigations, and compiled the final report (I have the report but this is a separate issue. Wilf). In the introduction to the report by Stanislav F. Berton, who found it, we read re. Pannwitz: “Das Ende seiner Karriere…kam mit seiner Verhaftung durch die französische Militärpolizei Anfang Mai 1945 in Österreich. Auf eigenen Wunsch wurde er den Sowjets übergeben“ (His arrest by the French military police in May 1945 in Austria ended his career. At his request he was handed over to the Soviets)(VfZ, 1985, vol.4, p.671). A traitor leading the investigation? The Brits, and Benes, had hoped that the reaction by the Germans would incite the Czechs, that they would rise up and make it very difficult for the Germans. That did not happen, but perhaps it was hoped that by dragging out the investigation, and by the continued repression, the revolt would start, even if delayed? Too many loose ends here, but I find it hard to believe that it had to take an informant to finally locate the murderers.

Did Heydrich tempt fate? Highly unlikely, he was convinced that “his” Czechs would not harm him. And they didn’t, Czech onlookers tried to get in the way of the British trained assassins and only when threatened with a gun by him did they give way. Heydrich was helped by Czech civilians to get to the hospital, would they have done so if the story of “Heydrich, the butcher of Prague” is true? Of course not, they knew that Heydrich had acted fairly and had improved conditions for the working people. No revolt broke out, even after the reprisals by the Germans.

The last chapter in Deschner’s book is titled Die Summe eines Lebens (Summary of a Life). He tells us that Eugen Kogon, a communist who had spend time in a concentration camp (KZ), has Heydrich as the inventor of the KZ’s, a fable. Jacob Burckhard, League of Nations commissioner of Danzig and who had only briefly met Heydrich, told that he had Raphaelian hands, made for slow strangulation. Post war allied propaganda has him as Heydrich the Butcher, but when considering the divergences a different picture emerges. Joachim Fest was aware of the contradictions and tried to build a small bridge for himself, claiming that Heydrich was a broken person, fighting his daemons. But that bridge can only carry weight if the Jewish ancestry supports are left in place, a legend.

Heydrich was the impersonation of National Socialism (NS) as a new ideal/model (without the Holocaust lie. Wilf). If NS would have looked into the mirror the picture of Heydrich would have looked back. Prof. Ernst Nolte, an expert on NS, stated that most NS personalities had an unidentifiable identity. Not so Heydrich, he was homogenous, he had an identifiable identity. He had been able to assemble the most intelligent NS people around him. He was not burdened by party politics but realized that for a revolution to be successful in an highly advanced industrialized nation as Germany –  that it would be necessary to have people of intelligence and conviction in all important positions. Traitors and enemies of this new ideal had to be removed. “Two Vatican’s are issuing encyclicals today”, he told his officers, “one is located in Rom and the other in Moscow, and we are the heretics of both religions”. He was also not really committed to NS ideology, but instead to his conviction that a new order must be created. Hatred of Slavs or Czechs was foreign to him, he told German officials at the beginning of his tenure in Prague that pacifying the Czechs was his mission and that he would work with anyone committed to that. He did not spare Germans who were negligent.

Deschner claims that the transit camps in which Jews were sanitized and relieved of most of their earthly belonging were called “Aktion Reinhard” camps in his hono. A strange statement by Deschner, he does not refer to the Reinhardt camps as extermination sites, mentions only the confiscation of property. He also has the name wrong, his source: R. Kempner in Vorwärts of June 8, 1972, p.9. One has to wonder when the extermination camp story was concocted. But what about his Einsatzgruppen (EG), the alleged Nazi murder squads? No mass graves have ever been found by independent investigators. The Russians claim to have investigated, but not one of those graves alleged to have been found by them is on display, all we have are papers of dubious origin (F. Seidler, Das Recht in Siegerhand, pp.271ff). Prof. Maser wrote that huge areas in Eastern Europe, the alleged killing sites, are still today terra incognita, historians are reluctant to investigate out of fear not to find what is allegedly there (Fälschung, Dichtung und Wahrheit…, p.332). And only investigations by experts in the field of crime investigations should be accepted, not the efforts by some amateurs. We also have the testimony by perpetrators, that by attorney and economist Otto Ohlendorf for instance, who told his interrogators that his EG had shot 90,000 Jews, but this has never been substantiated, no grave ever found.

Heydrich does not come across as someone with a split personality, quite the contrary. This is why Deschner’s biography is ignored and a new one had to be produced by the Netsbeschmutzer and story-teller Gerwarth, something more compatible with the Zeitgeist. Heydrich was not a mass murderer, his personality did not lend itself to it. Neither were the intellectuals he had gathered around him, and since the murder story rests on testimonies and has never been substantiated, we can safely dismiss it as a lie. Heydrich of course ordered the hanging or shooting of enemies of the Reich, his EG did the same and yes, Jews were among those killed. He told his wife Lina: „Ich fühle mich frei von jeder Schuld“ (I am free of any guilt feelings). And he should be, his job was not an easy one and he had to make life and death decisions, difficult for him and Deschner makes that clear. But he never was “Heydrich the Butcher”.

May he RIP

By Wilfried Heink-

There are several issues re. The Third Reich – “The Holocaust” in particular – historians, and I am being kind, continually struggle with. One is the phenomena, at least we are to believe that it was that, of why the majority of ordinary Germans continued to support Hitler right to the bitter end. Ian Kershaw tried to explain it in his latest work The End: Hitler’s Germany, 1944-45. I found two reviews, the first by Roger Moorhouse, here’s an excerpt:

“Kershaw adopts a largely narrative approach, which – with various digressions – spans the period between the failed attempt on Hitler’s life of 20 July 1944 and the German capitulation 10 months later. In this period, horrors at the front – such as the first Red Army incursion into German territory at Nemmersdorf in East Prussia – would increasingly be matched by horrors at home, as the murderous SS condemned to death all those who dared to resist or showed insufficient martial spirit.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/reviews/the-end-hitlers-germany-194445-by-ian-kershaw-2341116.html

Then this, by Ben Shephard:

“The real difficulty with The End is that its premise is false. It simply isn’t true that no one has dealt adequately with the question of why Germany kept fighting. On the contrary, historians have discussed this issue ad nauseam; Kershaw himself gave an excellent account in his monumental biography of Hitler. What is needed now is not yet another staging of Götterdämmerung, but a new production altogether. In 2009, in his Germany 1945, the historian Richard Bessel showed the way. While conveying the scale of destruction in the last year of the war, Bessel used those events to underpin a wider argument: that the typhoon that swept through Germany in 1945 changed the course of its history, blasting away for ever the strains of nationalism, philosophical idealism and geopolitical ambition that had produced the two world wars. If only Kershaw’s book had some of that originality.”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/aug/21/the-end-ian-kershaw-review

Both of the above, as well as Kershaw, miss the mark. They can not admit – because of the continued demonizing of Hitler – that Germans, the workers and middle class, appreciated what Hitler had done for Germany and therefore backed him. Unless of course one is stupid enough to adopt Goldhagen’s thesis of Hitler’s willing helpers. Shepard babbles about “..nationalism, philosophical idealism and geopolitical ambition that had produced the two world wars”. Dummkopf. But the so called intelligentsia, as well as much of the officer core, did not support Hitler and plotted his overthrow in the background, they were however afraid of the backlash by ordinary Germans. Hans Rothfels writes:

“…Could one risk having the stab-in-the-back legend turn like a boomerang against the officer core? As long as the road to victory still seemed open, how could one convince the people and the army that Hitler was leading them to disaster?”( The German Opposition to Hitler, Henry Regnery Company Hinsdale, Illinois 1948, p.74)

Gee, why not tell the people and the army about “The Holocaust”? And that brings us to the next issue,  the question: How much was know about the alleged mass murder in the camps and when? Here too the story flips back and forth. Rothfels in the above writes, p.18:

“Of course, all this changed (he writes about stories told about the camps but not believed) in the spring of 1945. The unbelievable horror which were then discovered in the liberated camps as well as the unearthing of evidence of the crimes committed in Poland and Russia, shook the western world”.

In the Industries newest effort, we also read:

“Even when – following the war – it became know what had occurred in the concentration- and extermination camps, many did not accept it, others denied it happened” (Neue Studien Zu Nationalsozialistischen Massentötungen Durch Giftgas, Metropol Verlag Belin, 2001, p.XI)

And following the war, we had “Death Camps” everywhere in Germany, Dachau, Buchenwald, Bergen-Belsen. Then, after the lies told about those camps were exposed, the ‘extermination camps’ were moved east, into Poland. But the Soviets refused to allow access to the sites, or so we are told, allowing no ‘investigations’ by westerners. Still, if mass murder would have been committed by the Germans on Polish soil details about it would have been known from day one. Some of the camps, Treblinka for instance, the site where 880,000 Jews had been murdered, according to Yad Vashem, were in the open, ‘shielded’ by a barbed wire fence.

We do have reports of rumors circulating, the Jesuit church historian Pierre Blet S.J. (Society of Jesus) mentions some of them (Pius XII and the Second World War. According to the Archives of the Vatican, Paulist Press new York, N.Y, Mahwah, N.J., 1997). But nothing of substance is offered. There are of course efforts made by “historians” to try and convince us that details were known about it before the war ended, a feeble effort – because nothing of substance is provided.

But, if what is alleged did happen, the ‘industrialized killings’, “The Holocaust” a reality, reports about it would have been leaked and details about the killings broadcast worldwide. Germany was riddled with spies and traitors, right up in to the highest ranks. Former Minister Dr. Ohnesorge told his friend Dr. Goldmann after the war that no plenary session of the parliament had taken place since 1936, because anything discussed was broadcast by the BBC in the evening news (H. Härtle, Deutsche und Juden, Druffel-Verlag Leoni am Starnberger See, 1977, p.294). We also know that the Abwehr, the intelligence service, was lead by traitors. Erwin von Lahousen, for instance, testified at the IMT:

“We were currently informed of all happenings by our officials at the front or in the camps. Offices of the Abwehr Division III were active in these camps, and in this way, that is, through the normal service channels, we were informed by reports and oral presentation of all these measures and of their effects.” (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/11-30-45.asp, p. 458.

There are a few more details provided here http://www.revblog.codoh.com/2011/12/german-guilt/ ). Why did these people not provide details about “The Holocaust” to their contacts abroad? The answer is rather simple: There was no Holocaust.

We do however have some official information about the concentration camps. The Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Force, Evolution and Dissemination Section, G-2 (Counter Intelligence Sub-Division) in May 1944 published the Basic Handbook KL’s (Konzentrationslager) Axis Concentration Camps and detention centres reported as such in Europe, Compiled by MIRS (London Branch), from material at Washington and London. The handbook available here http://www.milspecmanuals.com/ap_allied_europe_expeditionary_force_headquarters_supreme.html

As stated, this was compiled by the counter intelligence service. Allan Dulles, intelligence operative and later head of the CIA, had set up shop in Switzerland and the Abwehr (intelligence) officer Bernd Gisevius, for one, met with him (Allan Welsh Dulles, Germany’s Underground. The Anti-Nazi resistance, Da Capo Press, 2000, pp.25; 126, etc.). So, with the German intelligence service “informed of all happenings…in the camps” (Lahousen above), one would expect details about the alleged mass killings to be provided in the ‘handbook’.

Starting with p.1, under the heading: The German Concentration Camps, we read:

“1. General

This publication represents an attempt to compile the names, locations and pertinent data of confirmed, reported, or alleged detention centres in Axis Europe which come within the elastic definition of the term “Concentration Camps”. “Elastic” because of the many types of detention

camps used by the Germans in addition to the official Konzentrationslager (Concentration Camps), .Among these are:

Arbeitslager (Work Camps)

Zwangslager (Forcible Detention Camps);

Zwangsarbeitslager (Penal Servitute Camps)

Zvilgefangenenlager (Detention Camps for Civilians)

Straflager (Punitive Camps) .

Recent political and military developments in Europe are said to have established new trends in German concentration camp policy, but these reports have not been adequately confirmed.

Greater leniency towards inmates of concentration camps has been reported. A former inmate of ORANIENBURG said that the beating of inmates there has been forbidden and in

SACHSENHAUSEN the guards are said to have been informed that the inmates should be treated as “property of the Führer”.

Hitler is stated to have intervened on behalf of the inmates at DACHAU. As a result, a brothel (?) is said to have been opened for the inmates, and permission was granted for the clearing of a soccer field.

Other factors which might cause a change in policy include the deterioration of the guard system and the transfer of inmates to war time activities…”

Strangely, nothing about ‘extermination camps’, but the above confirms that the allies were well informed about the concentration camps. We learn that inmates were transferred “to war time activities”. Meaning, that some were moved to the front, their fate unknown. The report continues by talking about preparations made by camp officials “in case of an Allied invasion of Germany proper”, with guards hiding civilian clothes under their beds, as well as more detailed information. To p.2:

“2. Definition of Concentration Camps

According to German law, a Konzentrationslager (officially abbreviated to KL, but popularly referred to as KZ) provides Schutzhaft (Protective Custody) for persons who have not been legally sentenced to prison by a court of law, and/or for those who, having served a legal sentence, have been ordered further detention by the Gestapo (Secret State Police),

Sicherheitsdienst (SD or Security Service) or the Geheime Feldpolizei (Secret Field Police) .

Because of the scarcity of documentary material, which is only slowly becoming available, the indefinite nature of details obtained from former inmates and the similarity in administration and treatment of charges at these various detention centres, many camps have been incorrectly reported as Konzentrationslager although they are actually different types of establishment.“

In spite of the “scarcity of documentary material”, they are close to being bang on as definition goes, but still nothing about Jews, which are now front and center. We read that:

“Movements of inmates from one camp to another, especially from camps in occupied territory to those in the Reich have been reported rather frequently during the last two years.”

That because of the severe labor shortage, but we are to believe that this was ignored in regards to Jews, they allegedly were killed by the millions. Now to p.3:

“3. Number of Camps and Inmates

[T]he number of KL’s in greater Germany has been estimated at various times during 1941,1942, and 1943 to total from about thirty to seventy-five, although a total of more than a hundred camp sites has been reported. The capacity of KL’s in Germany is probably about 500,000.

A report, dated October, 1943, concerning the camps in Poland spoke of the existence of 109 camps in that country, divided into the following types:

Nine Transit Camps

Twenty- four KL’s

Three large forced labour camps

Sixty smaller forced labour camps

Three camps for priests

Nine camps for Jews

One camp “for the improvement of the Nordic race”.

Very detailed and finally we have “Nine Camps for Jews”, in Poland. We also have this referral to transit camps, nine of them. The report then states that “…the number of Germans who have been inmates at various periods during the years 1933 to 1944 to be between 750,000 and 1,300,000”, and that:

“The most conservative estimate of the number of persons in “protective custody” in Germany proper in July, 1944 was from 170,000 to 370,000.

The number of KL inmates in Germany proper at present is generally estimated to total between 300,000 and 500,000. Of this number a high percentage is believed to consist of “pure” Germans, as defined by Nazi law.”

Very detailed again, showing that the allies were well informed. Also of note is the fact that a high percentage of inmates were “pure” Germans, something forgotten with Jews now in the foreground. The paragraph ends with:

“The number of inmates of these detention centres in Europe has probably been reduced as a result of Germany’s man power shortage and many former inmates may already have been absorbed by the Organisation TODT and other labour and auxiliary organisations. Even the Wehrmacht has accounted for some – the 999th Division for example.”

This would suggest that Jews were also used as slave labour, many in harms way. Much more information is provided about “Commitment and Release”, “Administration”, “Camp Organisation”, the guard system, etc., etc., 13 categories in all taking up 16 pages. It has to be stressed that this is detailed information, right down to names and numbers. We then get to p.17, it starts out with:

“A N N E X E  A

(List of Identified Concentration. Camps)

Key:

1. Annexe A gives all locations reported by various sources as sites of KL’s at one time or another; such a list cannot of course be regarded as either complete or entirely reliable.

Of the 708 entries, 93 are cross-references.

 708 camps are listed”

The camps are then listed, first by country, then in alphabetical order. And as mentioned, the list is not considered to be complete. Still, in the alphabetical list details are provided for each camp, more evidence that the allies had good information. A given, with Germany riddled with spies and traitors, as well as millions of foreign workers, no secret could be kept. To list all the camps of interest would make this too long, so, just the main camps in Poland, considered by the Industry to be, horror, ‘extermination camps”, even though not one shred of substantial evidence to back this claim has ever been submitted. Here we go then, starting with Auschwitz:

“AUSCHWITZ (OSWIECIM)

(Oberschlesien, formerly Poland) 3O Km. SSE Kattowitz.

Type

Definitely KL: mentioned frequently since 1939. One report claims MAJDANEC to be part of Doppellager AUSCHWITZ.

BIRKENAU camp is definitely connected, as AUSCHWITZ makes use of  BIRKENAU’s gas

chambers, though it is said to have 10 crematoria and 4 lethal gas chambers itself.

Capacity

In 1940: 40,000

A recent report claims 62,000 Jews and foreign workers to be employed in the synthetic rubber plant and other enterprises around this town.

Inmates

One report gives the following figures as an outline of the camp’s history:

1939/40 – Over 5,000 inmates

July 1941 – 8,000 inmates , all Poles

Mortality rate 20% for each 6 month period.

Late 1941 – 600 Russians and 200 Poles gassed.

September 1942 – More then 120,000 persons had passed through the camp.

Mortality has risen as over 80,000 are said to have died or been shot.

May 1943 – “At least 2 trains of 20 car loads each arrived daily” .

1944 – Another report states that 150,000 names were listed as having passed through

this camp…

Remarks.

Many typhus epidemics are said to have raged here throughout its existence.

In the neighborhood, reported to be at DWORY, is an I.G. Farben plant for synthetic rubber and “benzene” whose workers also live in nearby camps; slackers (those who take more than 2 days

off per month) are confined to an Arbeits-erziehungslager (Workers ‘ educational camp) connected with the KL.

BUMA-WERKE (Synthetic Rubber Plant ) draws labour from the KL.

SS Units in the Vicinity

Hauptwirtschaftslager der Waffen SS.”

The rest is about staff stationed at Auschwitz. What is of interest here is that Jews are not mentioned as being gassed en masse, also no details are provided re. the, horror, gas chambers. We read that “AUSCHWITZ makes use of  BIRKENAU’s gas chambers, though it is said to have 10 crematoria and 4 lethal gas chambers itself”. So according to this, Auschwitz I, as it is now referred to – but no mention of this description then – had 10 crematoria and 4 lethal gas chambers. Solid evidence that nothing was known about the alleged industrialized mass murder of Jews in gas chambers, all that was peddled were rumors. This is confirmed by the phrase “though it is said”, meaning it is rumored.

This is strange, for we have Bruno Baum telling us about the well organized resistance inside Auschwitz, that resistance sending reports of the (alleged) killings to the outside by courier, at one time even by short wave (Widerstand in Auschwitz, Kongress Verlag Berlin, 1961, pp.84ff). That is confirmed in the “Report by Captain Witold Pilecki”, who also provides details about the resistance.

Then we have: “Late 1941 – 600 Russians and 200 Poles gassed”. This rumor, shown to be a lie by Signor Mattogno (http://vho.org/aaargh/fran/livres9/atfg.pdf ), made it into the report, but very little else. We have 120,000 “persons” passing through in September 1942 and another 150,000 in 1944, the latter Hungarian Jews? There is mention of the “typhus epidemics” and the high mortality rate because of them, something ignored by “historians”. Then the referral to “slackers”, workers taking off more than two days a month and send to an educational camp. Why not just gas them? The resistance was aware of the (alleged) gassings of Jews, Baum writes about it, why no details in this handbook?

Now to Birkenau:

“BIRKENAU (BRZEZINKI) (SW Poland)

Type:

Special KL and annihilation camp for women reported here.

Inmates:

Reported to be mostly Hungarian Jews.

Remarks:

Most likely controlled by AUSCHWITZ , where Jews are sent to keep the 4 crematoria, busy.”

And that’s it. Up to the demise of the Soviet Union we were told that 4 million people, most of them Jews, were killed at Auschwitz/Birkenau, with Birkenau the main killing site. And all we have here is “Special KL and annihilation camp for women reported here”. ‘Reported here’ meaning that rumors were spread. Also, just for woman? And that with resistance groups operating in the camp, sending information out by various means. Workers from towns nearby entered the camp, prisoners escaped, partisans picked up information(Baum, p.73), etc., etc.

For Majdanek, the Auschwitz “Doppellager”, we have this:

“MAJDANEK (Poland) Near LUBLIN,

Reported in 1942 and 1943.

Mentioned variously as KL “Dulag”, part of Doppellager AUSCHWITZ, and also as extermination camp

One report mentions three camps located there.

MAJDANEK, special concentration camp with enclosures for women.

MAJDANEK I, transit camp.

MAJDANEK II, KL and annihilation camp. (These are the camps referred to in the newspapers as “the LUBLIN extermination camps”).

Inmates: Unconfirmed estimates of number of inmates range from 25,000 to 50,000.”

‘Mentioned’ as Dulag (Durchgangslager, transit camp) and extermination camp? How about some details? It is also of note that German terms are used throughout, evidence that the information was provided by either German traitors or German Jews, but all they had was rumors. A given, since no mass murder took place in any of the alleged ‘extermination camps”.

Now to the Reinhardt camps, erroneously spelled Reinhard:

“BELZEC (Poland) Location: 80 Km. NW of LEMBERG,

Type:

KL. Extermination camp for Jews.

Capacity:

10,000 Jewish inmates reported there.

SOBIBOR (E. Poland) 65 Km. ENE of LUBLIN

Reported in September 1942 as KL and extermination camp for Jews.

TREBLINKA (Poland) Location 80 Km. NE of WARSCHAU

Type:

September 1941 : reported as consisting of 3 camps:

I punitive camp for forced labour.

II KL

III Extermination camp for Jews”

A few lines about three sites where some 1.5 million Jews had allegedly been killed. Astonishing! In Treblinka alone, 880,000(Yad Vashem) Jews perished, allegedly, 700,000 of them buried first in huge mass graves, then exhumed and burned on open pyres, along with the rest. And all of it at a site clearly visible from most sites, with a village, Wolka Okraglik, near by. People also visited the camp, to do business:

“The Polish peasants “came with the aim of doing business;”(4) they brought the prisoners all kinds of food, which they exchanged for gold:(5)

“And so it came to pass that baskets filled with rolls, roasted chickens, cheese, butter, cream, and so forth began to arrive each day at Treblinka.”

4 Eyewitness statement by Samuel Willenberg, in Alexander Donat (ed.), The Death Camp

Treblinka, Holocaust Library, New York 1979, p. 192.

5 Eyewitness statement by Abraham Krzepicki, in A. Donat, ibid., p. 125. (Carlo Mattogno, Jürgen Graf, Treblinka. Extermination Camp or Transit Camp?, Theses & Dissertations Press

PO Box 257768, Chicago, Illinois 60625, January 2004, p.11)

And in spite of all the activity allegedly going on, the digging of graves, the mass killings, the burning of hundreds of thousands of corpses, with people around the camp witnessing this alleged commotion, all we have in the handbook is the laconic remark “Extermination camp for Jews”, in Treblinka III, a camp that didn’t even exist.

This report, issued in May 1944, when the alleged killings neared completion, confirms that nothing was known about “The Holocaust”. Sure, extermination is mentioned, as ‘reported’, i.e., rumored, but without detailed descriptions – and they would have been available if mass killings would have taken place – they are just that, rumors.

There never was a “Holocaust”.

By Wilfried Heink-

Recently I came across an article by Dr. Caroline Sturdy Colls, titled: Holocaust Archaeology: Archaeological Approaches to Landscapes of Nazi Genocide and Persecution (Journal of Conflict Archaeology Vol. 7, No. 2, 2012, 70-104)

http://tinyurl.com/l8sv5lm

Dr. Sturdy Colls latest archaeological undertaking was centered on Treblinka, the “Nazi” camp in Poland where some 800,000 Jews had allegedly been murdered by the Germans. As the title suggests, this is not about Treblinka per se, although she refers to the transit camp on the 20th page of her article (it starts on p.70 in the journal, Treblinka is on p.90), but promises that details will follow when she writes:

“It is not the intention to discuss at length the individual features recorded, as these will be presented elsewhere (Sturdy Colls, in prep; 2011), but to provide an overview of the results gained in order to demonstrate their implications for studies of this period.”(Ibid)

So we wait with baited breath for that presentation, in the meantime, a few observation on her article. Dr. Sturdy Colls starts out with:

“Debate concerning the events of the Holocaust is well embedded in the historical discourse and, thus, clearly defined narratives of this period exist. However, in most European countries the Holocaust has only recently begun to be considered in terms of its surviving archaeological remains and landscapes, and the majority of known sites are still ill-defined and only partially understood from both spatial structural points of view.”

Not a good start, for whatever ‘debate’ is taking place is among those who believe in “The Holocaust”, people with differing views are jailed or persecuted. Dr. Sturdy Colls also believes, she makes that clear throughout the article. Concerning Treblinka she tells us:

“Treblinka, located 100 km from Warsaw (Figure 2), would be designated such a site (“mass extermination center”) and, comprising of a complex of gas chambers, barracks, mass graves, and, later, cremation pyres, it would become the massacre site of over 800,000 European Jews, Poles, and gypsies during the Holocaust (Wiernik, 1944; Arad, 1987).” (p.90)

This shows that she approached her investigation convinced that 800,000 plus had been murdered at Treblinka, trying to prove that this was the case – instead of allowing the evidence to speak for itself. Not a scientific method to be sure. Julius Wellhausen, when criticizing the Pharisees, has this to say about that sort of methodology:

“Für die Deutung werden die Thatsachen vorausgesetzt, und aus der Deutung werden sie bewiesen“.(Die Pharisäer und Sadducäer, p.66)

My rough translation: That what is to be examined is interpreted as being fact and supported by using that interpretation.

In the above, Dr. Sturdy Colls refers to books by Wiernick and Arad, further evidence of her being influenced by storytellers, because what these authors write is not based on solid evidence – arrived at by investigations by experts – but on alleged personal experience (Wiernick) and accounts by self styled witnesses and the like. Staying with Treblinka for the moment, she tells us:

“However, despite Treblinka’s significance in the implementation of the Final Solution and the history of the Holocaust as a whole, knowledge of the site’s former function has faded from general public consciousness and, excepting a ten-day survey in 1945 (Łukaszkiewicz, 1946) and a GPR survey undertaken by a Holocaust revisionist (Irving, 2000), there have been no attempts consider the potential archaeological remains pertaining to it.” (Ibid)

Ignoring the Irving slip, the GPR survey was actually undertaken by Richard Krege, here is what Łukaszkiewicz had to say in his final report:

“Decision:

The Examining Judge of Siedlce, on November 13, 1945, rules in consideration of the fact that with great probability no mass graves are any longer to be found on the grounds of the former camp today, as is to be concluded from the witness testimonies examined so far and from the results of the works carried out at the site, and in consideration of the oncoming autumn, the present rainfall and the necessity of a rapid conclusion of the judicial preliminary investigations, in view of all these facts to stop the work on the territory of the former death camp Treblinka.

The Examining Judge

Łukaszkiewicz.” (Mattogno/Graf, Treblinka, Extermination Camp or Transit Camp?, p.86)

How mass graves, i.e. the holes themselves can disappear is not explained. On November 11, during the investigation, Łukaszkiewicz reported:

“The largest of the craters produced by explosions (numerous fragments attest to the fact that these explosions were set off by bombs), which is at maximum 6 meters deep and has a diameter of about 25 meters – its walls give recognizable evidence of the presence of a large quantity of ashes as well as human remains – was further excavated in order to discover the depth of the pit in this part of the camp. Numerous human remains were found by these excavations, partially still in a state of decomposition” (Ibid)

This is interpreted by those who believe in “The Holocaust” as evidence that a grave was found. But Łukaszkiewicz calls it a “crater”, not a grave, he had to admit in his final report that no graves were found. Also, we have no indication where this crater was located, and results of any investigation must be verifiable. The former camp site was a mess of holes and hills. Rachel Auerbach, on her visit to the site in 1946, had this to say:

“But since then, during the past year, the human jackals and hyenas have been coming to the burial ground and here is the picture that we saw:

Here and there, like patches of grass near the seashore, half-covered by the shifting sands, there were still little clumps of withered lupine. Not one level place in the whole area. Everything had been torn up and dug up, little hills and holes… The bombs had revealed the contents of the desecrated soil.” (Ibid, pp.83/84).

It is claimed that treasure hunters are to blame for the sad shape the place was in, hard to believe, because the size of the crater – 6 meters (19 feet) deep and a diameter of 25 meters (80 feet) – as described by Łukaszkiewicz – would suggest that large explosive devises had been used. Łukaszkiewicz was accompanied by a surveyor, K. Trautsolt, who produced an official map of the camp. But, that seems to be forgotten, Dr. Sturdy Colls again:

“Corroboration of the survey results with historical information demonstrated that the current memorial incorrectly demarcates the boundary of the camp and that it was much bigger than is shown on the ground.” (p.92)

“Historical information”? As mentioned, we’ll just have to wait ‘till the final report is released.

Now back to the beginning of the article by Dr. Sturdy Colls, she continues, on p.70:

“Additionally, thousands of sites across Europe remain unmarked, whilst the locations of others have been forgotten altogether. Such a situation has arisen as a result of a number of political, social, ethical, and religious factors which, coupled with the scale of the crimes, has often inhibited systematic search. This paper details the subsequent development and application of a non-invasive archaeological methodology aimed at rectifying this situation and presents a case for the establishment of Holocaust archaeology as a sub-discipline of conflict studies. In particular, the importance of moving away from the notion that the presence of historical sources precludes the need for the collection of physical evidence is stressed, and the humanitarian, scientific, academic, and commemorative value of exploring this period is considered.”

Prof. Maser also bemoans the fact that whole areas of Ukraine remain to be ‘terra incognita’, but he comes to the conclusion that this is because historians are reluctant to investigate out of fear not to find what is allegedly there (Fälschung, Dichtung und Wahrheit über Hitler und Stalin, p.332). Dr. Sturdy Colls has no such reservations, she is convinced that the graves exists, and blames political-, as well as other factors, to have “inhibited systematic research”. Then she gets to the core, suggesting to bypass religious and other concerns by applying a “non-invasive archaeological methodology”, to establish “Holocaust archaeology as a sub-discipline of conflict studies”.

A tailor made approach, and why not. We already have “Guidelines for Teaching about the Holocaust” (http://www.ushmm.org/education/foreducators/guideline/ ), so, why not “Holocaust Archaeology”? She is forgetting however that these are alleged crime scenes, and should be investigated by experts in the field of crime investigations, without any restraints, and the reports made available for verification. But she does make one valid point

“In particular, the importance of moving away from the notion that the presence of historical sources precludes the need for the collection of physical evidence is stressed…”,

thereby admitting that no physical evidence, worthy of the term, has been presented so far. She then talks of the investigations done concerning other genocides, referring to “…the First World War, the Spanish Civil War, and other massacres of the early twentieth century” (p.71), to ask:

“…why have the sites of the Holocaust not been examined to the same extent or using up-to-date methods now commonplace in other areas of the discipline? Why has this period been perceived differently, with almost a ‘do not disturb’ attitude towards some aspects of its archaeological heritage (Moshenska, 2008: 168)? When examinations are undertaken in the future, is a unique approach, therefore, required to its investigation?” (Ibid).

Why indeed? The answer is simple, but Dr. Sturdy Colls is either unwilling or unable to go there. She then continues to talk of: Legal investigations, historical databases, and site recognition:

“Early investigations of Holocaust sites were undertaken immediately after the war by specially assembled war crimes commissions, which usually comprised of medicolegal professionals tasked with the collection of evidence for the conviction of the perpetrators (IMTN, 1947; Central Commission for the Investigation of German War Crimes in Poland, 1982; Profatilov, 1945). Emphasis was placed upon verifying thathe camps and graves existed rather than detailed investigation (Arad et al., 1999; IMTN, 1947).” (p.72)

This is puzzling to say the least. She writes that investigations were undertaken “immediately after the war”, thereby ignoring the ‘investigations’ undertaken by the Soviets, one done in Treblinka. In November 1942, the Soviets created the “Extraordinary State  Commission for Ascertaining and Investigating Crimes Perpetrated by the German-Fascist Invaders and their Accomplices”, ESC for short. From: The Role of the Soviet Union in the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg and Impact on its Legacy, by Michael Bazyler:

“The Soviets “claimed credit for convincing their partners not to build the  proceedings around documentary evidence alone”, for the offering of live evidence  would produce “a dramatic effect on the atmosphere in the court-room” (George Ginsburgs, Moscow’s Road to Nuremberg, [New York: Kluwer Law International, 1996], p112).

This suggests that at first only documentary evidence, no doubt carefully selected and screened by the victors, was to be used, but the Soviets insisted on introducing what they had amassed. Again from Bazyler;

“Among the detailed and massive work performed by the Commission was inspection of graves and corpses, gathering of witness accounts, forensic examinations, and interrogations of captured Germans.[24] The records contained “the most complete description possible of the crimes committed, the full name and place of residence of the individuals furnishing the evidence”, and “all the relevant documents” such as minutes of the interrogations, medical expert conclusions, German documents, and films.[25] The Commission’s extraordinary efforts resulted in an impressive list of “hundreds of Germans, from generals to humble privates”, and a “specific and detailed enumeration of the crimes of which they stood accused”.[26] These records proved indispensable at the IMT.”

24 Haim Goury, Facing the Glass Booth: The Jerusalem Trial of Adolf Eichmann

(Michael Swirsky, transl.) (Detroit: Wayne State U. Press, 2004), 6-7.19 Ginsburgs, supra, p.36

25 Ibid

26 Ibid, p.40

And Dr. Sturdy Colls ignores this? Hard to believe, but then, there is also no mention of the ESC reports in the latest publishing aimed at discrediting Revisionists, the book titled “Neue Studien zu Nationalsozialistischen Massentötungen durch Giftgas” (New studies on National Socialist mass murder by poisonous gas, 2011, Berlin). No mention because the ESC was just a bunch of political hacks – beholden to Stalin – who endorsed anything put in front of them? No other explanation possible. As to the machinations by the ESC, Prof. Marina A. Sorokina, a Russian historian, published an article in Kritika (Slavica Publishers) in 2005, titled: “People and Procedures: Toward a History of the Investigation of Nazi Crimes in the USSR”. Prof. Sorokina completely demolishes the ESC, I wrote a series of articles on it:

http://revblog.codoh.com/2011/06/a-closer-look-at-the-soviet-%E2%80%9Cextraordinary-state-commission%E2%80%9D-esc-which-claimed-to-have-investigated-%E2%80%9Cfascist-crimes%E2%80%9D/

Someone perused what had been assembled by the ESC and found it wanting, it has therefore been dropped, But, that leaves the promoters of “The Holocaust” with nothing, save for tall tales by ‘witnesses’ and some carefully assembled documents, many of dubious origin. Is this then why this push is made to ‘investigate’ by carefully chosen people? But without experts in crime investigations present, and unhindered access to the sites, these investigations can safely be dismissed as shams.

Dr. Sturdy Colls then talks about the Jewish burial Law, the Halacha:

“As Moshenska (Moshenska, G. 2008. Ethics and Ethical Critique in the Archaeology of Modern Conflict. Norweigan Archaeological Review, 161) has stated, ‘issues such as respect for the dead are arguably of greater ethical significance in the communication of research findings than the research itself’.” (p.87)

Why even bother then? Undertake a proper investigation by experts in the field of crime investigations or just continue on as before, advance baseless claims. A little more Halacha:

“However, Halacha Law also stipulates that the disturbance of human remains (for whatever purpose) is forbidden, thus restricting the actions of archaeologists in terms of the ability to excavate Holocaust sites where inhumations are suspected (Rosensaft, 1979). As Rabbi Moses Feinstein (in Rosensaft, 1979: 164) argued, ‘the dead rest in their place of burial. Not only is it forbidden to exhume the bodies but even to open the graves is strictly prohibited’. The comments of the Chief Rabbi of the Jewsbury excavations in York highlight the position of the Jewry with regards to the scientific investigation of human remains:

‘…whatever the scientific and historical loss, I hope that you and the general public will appreciate our paramount concern for the reverence due to the mortal remains which once bore the incomparable hallmark of the Divine image and which, we believe, have an inalienable right to rest undisturbed. We are convinced that the dignity shown to humans even centuries after their death can contribute more than any scientific enquiry to the advancement of human civilisation and the enhancement of the respect in which humans hold each other’. (Rahtz, 1995: 197)” (p.88)

“Hallmark of the Divine image”? Be that as it may, exceptions to this law have been- and are made. For instance, in 2009 excavations were done at a site in Jamlitz, Germany. From a news release:

“JAMLITZ, Germany — A birch-lined back yard believed to hold the remains of more than 750 former Jewish prisoners slain by the Nazis in the final days of World War II will be excavated by German authorities starting Wednesday…

Excavators are to use heavy equipment to remove the top layers of soil, then proceed with their bare hands, said Joachim Wacker of the state society for the protection and care of memorials. Authorities have initially planned three weeks for the work.

Wacker said that if remains are found and identified as belonging to the victims, a rabbi will be called in and the site treated as a grave. Later, authorities hope to erect a memorial in collaboration with survivor groups, Jewish community leaders and others…”.

http://web.utsandiego.com/news/2009/Apr/21/eu-germany-mass-grave-042109/

Nothing was found, but that is not the issue here, the suspected grave site was dug up. We then have a site dug up by Father Dubois at Busk, alleged to be a mass grave of Jews killed by the Germans. All I have is a link to a video, in Spanish with English commentary:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sV-Xs-SY9co

We can clearly see that some bodies were disturbed, all be it only the first layer, as claimed. To  prove of German guilt, German bullets are shown, in other words, no evidence that Germans were the perpetrators because the Soviets used German bullets at Katyn, the site where they killed Polish officials. Then we have the Sobibor ‘investigation’, overseen by the Israeli archaeologist Yoram Haimi. From a Ha’aretz article of June 7, 2013:

“Further excavations are planned at the site with the approval of the Polish chief rabbi, Rabbi Shudrich, including in two places where Jews are thought to be buried.”

 http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/jewish-world-news/archeologists-find-escape-tunnel-at-sobibor-death-camp.premium-1.528438

Chief Rabbi Shudrich is the same Rabbi Dr. Sturdy Colls had to ask permission of to do her so-called investigation at Treblinka. Why did the Rabbi not allow her to dig, as he did at Sobibor?

This article by Dr. Sturdy Colls is nothing but an attempt to explain why a thorough investigation, by experts in the field, will not be done. The reasons given are however not convincing, far from it. Germans are accused of having murdered between 5 and 6 million Jews, yet no investigation by experts in the field of crime investigations has ever been undertaken. Enough stalling already, and no more attempts at devising special methods to make it appear an investigation is done. If everything is as obvious as claimed, call in the experts and allow them to do their work.

If Revisionists are to go away, substantial evidence has to be produced, and that article makes it clear that this will not be the case. Why not? The burial law? That law is applied selectively, if it is suspected that bodies will be found exceptions are made. This leaves only one possibility: The promoters of “The Holocaust” know that no graves will be found at Treblinka, for instance, graves large enough to have held the hundreds of thousand allegedly killed there and buried at first. Efforts are therefore made to hide behind laws, and sadly, a scientist like Dr. Caroline Sturdy Colls is supportive of those efforts.

By  Wilfried Heink-

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

CIA Map of Syria

Looking at the events as they unfolded regarding Syria, one wonders what this is really all about.

The “No” vote by the British Parliament is viewed as a return to law and order, “The people have spoken.” Obama then backtracked with Putin finally offering him a way out. All of this looks good, some are celebrating, claiming that the forces of evil are in retreat. Unlikely, the “New World Order Project” is still alive and well, this may have been planned or was just a glitch along the way. The concept of a One World Government is centuries old, Freemasonry tried to make wars impossible by supporting the idea of a world without nation states, i.e., a One World.

I am at the moment half-way through Hidden History. The Secret Origins of the First World War, by Gerry Docherty and Jim Macgregor (Mainstream Publishing, Edinburgh and London, 2013). Chapter 1 starts out with:

“The Secret Society
One wintry afternoon in February 1891, three men were engaged in earnest conversation in London. From that conversation were to flow consequences of the greatest importance to the British Empire and to the world as a whole.

The opening passage of Professor Carroll Quigley’s book “The Anglo-American Establishment” may read like a John le Carre thriller, but this is no spy fiction. The three staunch British imperialists who met that day, Cecil Rhodes, William Stead and Lord Esher, drew up a plan for the organization of a secret society that would take over the control of foreign policy both in Britain and, later by extension, the United States of America: a secret society that aimed to renew the Anglo-Saxon bond between Great Britain and the United States,(Niall Ferguson, Empire, p.313) spread all that they considered good in the English ruling-class traditions, and expand the British Empire’s influence in a world they believed they were destined to control.

It was the heyday of both Jack the Ripper and Queen Victoria. The latter, having confronted her anti-Semitic prejudices, began a personal friendship with a member of the Rothschild banking dynasty, which played such an important role in what was to follow;(Hew Strachan, The First World War, p.43) the former allegedly murdered Mary Kelly, his fifth and possibly final victim, in London’s fog-bound Whitechapel slums.(Norman Stone, World War One: A short history, p9) These two unrelated events captured the extremities of life in that era of privilege and poverty: sumptuous excess for the few, and penniless vulnerability for the many. Despite appalling social conditions, Victorian England sat confidently at the pinnacle of international power, steeped as it was in the ‘magnificence’ of the British Empire, but could it stay there for ever? This was the driving question exercising much serious debate in the cigar-smoke-filled parlours of influence, and the plan agreed between these three men was essentially an affirmation that steps had to be taken to ensure that Britain maintained its dominant position in world affairs.

The conspirators were well-known public figures, but it should be noted from the outset that each was linked to infinitely greater wealth and influence. The plan laid on the table was relatively simple. A secret society would be formed and run by a small, close-knit clique. The leader was to be Cecil Rhodes. He and his accomplices constructed the secret organization around concentric circles, with an inner core of trusted associates — ‘The Society of the Elect’ — who unquestionably knew that they were members of an exclusive cabal devoted to taking and holding power on a worldwide scale.(Davis Stevenson, 1914-1918: The History of the First World War, p.16)…”

The players changed, even the intended outcome is now under a different name, but there is no doubt that a hidden clique is still calling the shots. Accepting this as fact, one needs to realize that nothing comes by chance, all is carefully planned and mishaps are calculated in.

A few days ago I came across an article written by Richard K. Moore, titled, “Obama’s Backdown and the New World Order Project.”

http://www.globalresearch.ca/obamas-backdown-and-the-new-world-order-project/5349296

A well written article, with the author considering the big picture. He writes:

“In appearance, we see Great Power leaders restoring the rule of law and the primacy of legislative bodies. The natural next step in this sea-change scenario would be for the same thing to be orchestrated on a global scale, for the Great Powers to recognize the primacy of the UN, giving us the ‘rule of law’ globally. An apparent close-escape with Great Power confrontation has created a PR climate conducive to bringing in the long-planned NWO global government.

It is not clear how the rest of this scenario will unfold, but we can be sure more surprises will be forthcoming. As regards the actions the US, UK, and EU, we can assume a script has been written, as these players are responding to powerful economic interests.  Russia and China remain as independent players, but clearly their self-interest would lead them to support initiatives that move in the direction of peaceful cooperation among the Great Powers. I expect ‘big news’ to come out of any forthcoming summit meetings.”

If this unfolds as depicted by Moore, with some variances, Russia and China will have no choice but to play along, no line in the sand needs to be drawn by Putin, survival will be the only issue. Moore continues:

“There is one very convenient crisis-solution opportunity sitting there, ripe, waiting to be plucked. The crises in Syria and Egypt were manufactured and they can be resolved. Arms can be cut off to the mercenary terrorists in Syria, and the US-linked Egyptian Army can be reined in. These events can be brought about under the flag of some kind of UN mission, and the UN would get the credit for being the hero of the day.

The details are speculative, but this is the kind of thing we can expect to be seeing in the near future. Another crisis-solution opportunity is all that sovereign debt. Forgiving that could be bundled with a new UN-issued currency. When you’re the one who creates all the problems, it’s not that difficult to uncreate them, in a way that serves your interests.

Basically, the world is being offered a birthday present, peace in our time, the rule of law, an era of international cooperation, an opportunity to deal with the big problems facing humanity. As this unfolds over the next weeks and months, one can only imagine the wave of optimism that can be generated by the global media in a crisis-weary population. The people are to be grateful for the NWO, and my goal here has been to suggest some of the means that are available for creating that result.”

The “Peace in our time” slogan has also been used before. And now, this  almost useless organization, the United Nations, should be hailed as the savior? UN resolutions have been ignored as a norm, but the organization itself left intact. Why? Could Moore be right? Br. Freemason Woodrow Wilson insisted on the establishment of The League of Nations following WWI, but Germany was at that time still a sovereign state, and that issue had to be resolved first, and was, the League of Nations a casualty in the process.

Now we have the UN, and it is possible that it will be used to bring about this NWO, under its umbrella, if you will. Cui bono?  Freemasonry is based on Jewish rituals and the Rothschild clan was involved right from the start in the Rhodes scheme. Yahweh promised his chosen flock that they will eventually rule the world (Isaiah 60), and when the dust settles, it will be Yahweh’s disciples who will emerge victorious, no doubt about that in my mind. That is if we allow them to do what they are working towards, and it appears that we are not only allowing them to reach their goal, we assist them in their quest.

I need to add this, because I am certain that the last part of the above will considered to be “anti-Semitic,” it is not. The Yahweh promise regarding Jews ruling the world is real, and I can not blame Jews for working towards that goal, actively. But, I do not need to be in favor of it.

By Richard A. Widmann-

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

Revisionism should start with Bismarck’s reunification of Germany in 1871

Widmann: For readers who may not know you, could you explain how you first became involved in historical revisionism?

Heink: I was born in 1937, in Germany, a long story and not the issue here. In 1959 my wife and I, along with our 1-year-old son, moved to Canada. At first, World War II was still being fought when talking to Canadians, with “The Holocaust” creeping in only later. I was young and busy trying to make a living, and really had no reason to doubt the official version – what is presented as history. But this constant “Germany responsible for all the ills” started to grate on me, and having opted to get out of the rat race, I moved to a small village where I decided to take a closer look. That was in 1982. By then, the letters to the editor of a German newspaper published in Canada made me think doubts as to the veracity of the official version had crept in, The communist empire collapsed; it had failed to bring about the “One World Government” and had therefore become useless. Shortly thereafter I read in that German paper that the Auschwitz death toll, mostly Jews we were told, had been reduced from 4 million to 1.5 million, at first; it now stands at 1.1 million. I still remember when I read this and where I was, for I was sure that now investigations will be undertaken, for if 2.5 million people, mostly Jews, can be misplaced, where else have mistakes been made?

Nothing of that sort happened, for obvious reasons, “The Holocaust” is now perhaps the foundation of our new society, but I decided to see if I could find out what really happened. I decided early on to focus on early European history, whatever little I could find. I did this in order to find out why Germany is blamed for everything bad that happened at least from 1914 on, why there is a “German problem” as George F. Kennan puts it in his Russia and the West. And, even with the few resources at hand, no big library close by, I soon discovered that what we are told is not based on fact; it is indeed the victor’s version of history.

Widmann: What books or authors would you credit as the most significant influence on your awakening from the “victor’s version of history”?

Heink: All of it happened many moons ago, and the subject being what it is, huge and multi-faceted, it is hard to say. As for the Bismarck era, the book by Emil Ludwig, Bismarck: The Story of a Fighter (Little, Brown and Company, Boston, 1927) was immensely helpful. I consider Bismarck’s re-unification of Germany in 1871 as the beginning of Germany’s downfall (the “Holy Roman Empire, German Nation” was the forerunner) ; Ludwig provided valuable insight and inspired me to look further.

For the lead-up to World War I, some time later, Mitteleuropa, by Renate Riemeck (Engel & Co., Stuttgart, 1997). Riemeck shows that others worked behind the scenes to bring about World War I, with the Kaiser if not innocent still not solely responsible. I was able to obtain some of the books she refers to as sources, to round out the picture.

The Kings Depart. The Tragedy of Germany: Versailles and the German Revolution, by Richard M. Watt (Simon and Schuster, New York, 1968) provided me with some insight in regard to World War I and Versailles, a start. The next early book I found was The Nuremberg Trials, by August von Knieriem (Henry Regnery Company, Chicago, Illinois, 1959). Dr. von Knieriem, a lawyer and member of the board of IG Farben, was a co- defendant at the trials. He does not try to make excuses, but looks at the trials from a legal point of view and finds them wanting, big time. Then the books by Heinrich Härtle, published in the 60s and dealing with the Third Reich also helped; they encouraged me to look further.

Was it a single book or author? No. I consider all of them to be a starting point. As you can see, they are all early publications when it was still possible, in Germany, to voice objections. Later editions are almost useless, but some have now appeared questioning the ‘lone guilt’ of Germany regarding World War I. Perhaps there is hope?

Widmann: What do you consider your greatest contribution to historical revisionism and specifically the effort to bring Germany’s history into accord with the facts?

 Heink: Oh, nothing of note, Richard. I’ve translated some books for a lady, as best I could, posted a few articles on our [Inconvenient History] Blog, discussed issues on various Forums. I’ve also been on the Radio a few times. Did anyone read what I wrote, or listen? I have no idea, but I do hope that I made a small bit of difference.

My ambition is to put something together, starting with Bismarck and ending with the Nuremberg trials. But, this old age thing is getting in the way; I am going nowhere fast.

 Widmann: It was back in 1958 that Harry Elmer Barnes wrote that, “in the minds of anti-Revisionists, the term [Revisionism] savors of malice, vindictiveness, and an unholy desire to smear the saviors of mankind.”  Today it is common to have the charges of racism, anti-Semitism, and fascism used to counter revisionists.  How would you respond to such attacks?

Heink: I am appalled and find it hard to believe that we, as an ‘enlightened’ society, still practice witch-hunting. Historiography should be void of emotions, based on facts, on material available and must always be open to revision should new data become available.

Ernst Nolte, a German historian, who initiated the Historikerstreit (historians dispute) of the late 80s, devotes a whole chapter “On Revisionism”(Chapter 6) in his debate with Francois Furet, a French historian, published as Fascism & Communism. It is available at Amazon.

Nolte wrote:

 “But doesn’t it follow that a historian whose research is focused on anti-Semitism is no more anti-Semitic than a historian who focuses on the American, English or French Revolutions is a revolutionary? One, like the other, is under the same obligation – to approach his subject with detachment, motivated by a desire for objectivity, in no instance content to express hostile remarks, however clear his own conclusions might be.”

Every historian researching German history should have this book on his desk. Looking at German history as presented, detachment or objectivity do not come to mind; it appears to be a collection of consensuses and personal interpretations, emotional nonsense, rather than facts. A little more from Nolte:

 “What is at stake here is neither more nor less than the fundamental quality of the historian. He knows that “revisions” are the daily bread of scientific work and that in the history of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, “revisionisms” haven’t stopped springing up even in the victor’s camp, when their ideas enjoyed an apparently unassailable privilege during or following major events.”

Revisionism must be ‘the daily bread’ of historians, under all circumstances and concerning any event. Heavens, new information is still found in regard to the Egyptians, the Gilgamesh saga, etc.; why is contemporary German history, especially that of the Third Reich, a taboo subject? Nolte is not finished, however:

 “However, even if these two claims were definitively refuted [Nolte talks about the gas chambers], it would not suffice to dispense with the question of whether a revisionism that distances itself from provocative agitation and that proceeds by argumentation is not, in fact, an extreme example of revisions that are legitimate in principle and should be accepted as phenomena internal to scientific development. If this were the case, obviously strong criticism of the revisionism in question would be pursued, not excluded. I’m inclined to answer this question in the affirmative because what would science be if it were not always constantly required to carry out its critique of grave scientific errors through extensive work and to discover other cores of truth in the errors themselves!”

And:

 “If I could make a wish, it would be that one of the well-known experts and archive analysts of the “established school” write a book in which he records without anger or obvious Indignation the arguments of the revisionists and analyzes them in detail so that we would finally arrive at a result comparable to earlier examinations of revisionist arguments, and in this form: “It must be acknowledged that. . . but in no way does this call the essence of the matter into doubt.”

But I consider the claim fundamentally false that if the essential is irrefutable, no particular claim need be further examined, and that all the doubts can only come from bad intentions. I think that the core of the matter is threatened when the shell of the discussion is removed; certainly not the factual character of the core, but the rank and importance accorded it.

If the matter had to follow another course, if we insist on the conviction that the smallest fragment torn from the edifice makes the collapse of the whole inevitable and that we must therefore defend all testimony, however debatable, by an appeal to the courts and the police, I am convinced that we would be taking a fatal path.”

No need to add anything. And of course the Third Reich is not the only issue; this year is the 100th anniversary of the start of World War I – as such the German “war guilt,” as set down in the Versailles Treaty has come under some discussion. But here also there is a reluctance to have a real debate; sadly, historians seem to be comfortable with what they have agreed on.

Widmann: While revisionists have made major arguments based on the documentary and forensic records, it is rather the battle for freedom of speech that seems to be their greatest struggle.  We see nation after nation in Europe outlawing Holocaust revisionism and even the expression of doubt on the verdicts of the Nuremberg Trials.  One can only surmise how the historical record would be corrected if the threat of persecution and imprisonment were removed.  Historians may not only “be comfortable with what they have agreed on,” they may also wish to avoid going to jail.  How should those interested in setting history into accord with the facts deal with the current limits on intellectual freedom?

Heink: Just briefly to the issues Revisionists have addressed. In May 2008 some 200 historians and scientists met in Berlin to address “Holocaust Denial,” i.e., Revisionism. From an article in taz.de of May 15, 2008, titled (my translation): “The Paradox of the Neo-Nazis”:

“Glorify the Holocaust, but deny it so it can be repeated: This international conference takes issue with this absurd logic of the right wing extremists… The courts have been able to curb the activity of Holocaust deniers, but they are still here”, states H. Funke, an expert on right wing extremism and anti-Semitism who will talk about the tactics of Revisionists at the conference. “Some deny the Holocaust absolutely, other just deny the mass murder with gas.” They ask for instance: “Is it possible to prove that traces of cyanide exist in Auschwitz? With this pedantic detailed research Revisionists try to sidestep the important issues.”

Research has to be “pedantic,” detailed, if it is to be accurate. And, why not invite Revisionists to those gatherings, have them present their material and prove to them that they are wrong, publicly? This would be the only convincing method to combat “Holocaust denial,” as it is termed. If solid counter-arguments are presented, Holocaust Revisionists would have to fold their tents, and they would.

Freedom of speech is the issue, and no doubt some historians are intimidated by the prospect of losing their livelihood should their treatments not confirm the official version. That is the sad part, but it also strengthens the Revisionists’ case, for it shows that open research must be prevented from happening at all costs, the official version being unable to pass muster.

What can be done? A tough question and I don’t have the answer. I believe it was Ernst Zündel, imprisoned for seven years for doubting the official version, who said that we do not need more people in jail. I agree. We need to play by whatever rules are enforced upon us. There are, however, issues that can be addressed, so far without fear of persecution. One of them is World War I, i.e., who was responsible for it and what was the reason for starting it. This then would lead to World War II, because we cannot understand one without taking the other into account. If it can be demonstrated that we have been led down the primrose path right from the beginning, that is from the lead-up to World War I, we should be able to place doubt into the minds of those interested as to the veracity of the rest of the official version.

Aside from the restrictions on research, we also have this ‘those interested’ issue. Is anyone, other than a handful of us, really interested in setting the record straight, as it were? I doubt it; the people I talk to are comfortable with the victor’s version; not only that, they believe it is fact-based. Every year we have the Veterans Day parade on November 11, at first called Armistice Day. Banners are carried, reading: “If you like your Freedoms, thank a veteran.” I asked one of them what exactly this refers to, knowing full well what the answer would be. And sure enough, he told me that he and his buddies saved the world, the Germans tried twice to conquer it all. They fought “The good war”, or so they were/are told, and nobody will convince them otherwise, and that goes for their families as well. Will we, a small handful, be able to make a difference, win them over, prove to them that they were lied to and used? I doubt it, but I for one will trudge on.

Widmann: For the younger generation who has taken an interest in revisionism, what do you recommend?  Are there any areas that need particular attention?

Heink: I am not really qualified to give advice. Looking back, however, it appears that I approached the subject – “The German Problem” as it is seen – incorrectly when I focused on the Third Reich. Hitler was only a means to an end, it did not matter who was in charge, but a strong man was needed by those who plotted the destruction of Germany. The two wars, World War I and World War II were fought against the German people, Lord Vansittart, Permanent Under-Secretary at the Foreign Office, made that quite clear:

“The battle still rages round the question: are we fighting the Germans or the Nazis? One day historians will rub their eyes, and wonder how such silly questions could be discussed at the end of 1941. No one was fool enough to pretend that we were fighting anything but the Germans in 1914. Indeed, all these fallacies about “Hitlerite Germany” calmly overlook the last war altogether. The story of German aggression is a perfectly simple and consecutive one. If the world chooses to close its eyes again both to story and warning, Germany will succeed in reducing the world to slavery at her third attempt.”(Lord Vansittart, Black Record: Germans Past and Present, Hamish Hamilton, London, 1941, p. ix)

And in a letter of September 6, 1940 to Lord Hamilton, Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Vansittart wrote:

“I hope that you will instruct Mr. Mallet that he is on no account to meet Dr. Weissauer. The future of civilisation is at stake. It is a question of we or they now, and either the German Reich or this country has got to go under, and not only under, but right under. I believe it will be the German Reich. This is a very different thing from saying that Germany has got to go under; but the German Reich and the Reich idea have been the curse of the world for 75 years, and if we do not stop it this time, we never shall, and they will stop us. The enemy is the German Reich and not merely Nazism, and those who have not yet learned this lesson have learned nothing whatever, and would let us in for a sixth war even if we survive the fifth.”

This in regard to a peace offer by Hitler submitted to the British Ambassador in Stockholm by Ludwig Weissauer. Vansittart makes it clear that the work of Bismarck, the re-unified Germany, the “Reich”, has to be destroyed, and it was, Germany now a mere shadow of its former self and still without a valid peace Treaty. It is my firm belief that World War I was instigated by the British to destroy Germany as a European power, as the authors of Hidden History: The Secret Origins of the First World War make that quite clear. Other books have been published on this subject, for instance Die Diplomatie des Vatikan(The Diplomacy of the Vatican), by Prof. E. Adamov, which deals with the efforts by the Vatican to help encircle Germany, with the help of influential Russians. This book was published in 1932 to embarrass the Vatican, Pope Leo XIII engaging in rather worldly conspiracies. Then we have Mitteleuropa, by Renate Riemeck, who confirms much of what is written by others.

And this is where it has to start; we must show that both wars, World War I and World War II were instigated by others and that they have to be considered as one, the second Thirty-Year War against Germany. We also have the atrocity stories told during World War I, exposed as lies and defamation of Germans after the war. Following the unconditional surrender of the German forces in 1945, [Karl] Dönitz, who had been acknowledged by the Allies as German head of state, formed a provisional government with the intent to reinstate the Weimar constitution. On May 7th Admiral von Friedeburg, a member of this cabinet, presented a copy of Stars and Stripes, showing pictures of Buchenwald. Dönitz, who no doubt remembered the horror lies told during World War I, sent a request to Eisenhower, asking for permission to start an investigation. Admiral Dönitz considered this to be a German matter, but since the Germans were dependent on the Allies’ good will for everything, whatever investigation would be undertaken would of course be under Allied supervision. No reply was received from Eisenhower; the Dönitz government instead was arrested on May 23rd. There would be no investigation—this time the stories told would become fact.

There are too many pitfalls regarding the Hitler subject; what we need to do is show that lies have been told about Bismarck’s reunited Germany ambitions from Day One, and maybe, just maybe, people will start to reconsider, ask questions about the official version of history.

By Wilfried Heink-

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

Was the German Kaiser really responsible for launching WWI?

Preamble

The Holy Roman Empire German Nation, in fact a German Empire – German chiefs had accepted the Pope as ceremonial head of state – for various reasons disintegrated over time into Kingdoms, Principalities, Duchies, etc., etc.. And although the Hapsburg’s, the last line of German Emperors who had moved to Vienna from Aachen, were still accepted as Emperors, their influence was limited. When Bismarck appeared on the political scene at around the middle of the 1800s, he started out as ‘Bismarck the Prussian’ to later become ‘Bismarck the German’ with the aim to re-unite Germany, sans Austria, under the Hohenzollern, a Swabian Dynasty, the rulers of Prussia.

Bismarck was aware that very few rulers, least of all the Hapsburgs, were in favor of his plan, he nevertheless continued, making the re-unification his Raison d’être. He was a shrewd politician and considered parliament to be a debating club, not capable of making the decisions needed to be made. He stunned Germany, even the King and the world when, on September 30, 1862, following the failed Revolution of 1848, in his speech to the Reichstag (German Parliament) he stated:

“It is true that we can hardly escape complications in Germany, though we do not seek them. Germany does not look to Prussia’s liberalism, but to her power. The South German States would like to indulge in liberalism, and therefore no one will assign Prussia’s role to them! Prussia must collect her forces and hold them in reserve for a favourable moment, which has already come and gone several times. Since the treaties of Vienna, our frontiers have been ill-designed for a healthy body politic. The great questions of the time will be decided, not by speeches and resolutions of majorities (that was the mistake of 1848 and 1849), but by iron and blood.”(Emil Ludwig, Bismarck, (Little, Brown and Company, Boston 1927), pp. 206/07.)

Bismarck’s phrase was turned around by the press to read “blood and iron,” and whether real or feigned, alarms were raised. Bismarck never repudiated his words – all he did is state a fact – although he later deplored having used them. Another of his speeches is also misrepresented. In 1888, four weeks before the death of William I, in his last speech to the Reichstag Bismarck talked about the situation in Europe:

“In these days we must husband our strength,” says Bismarck, “and it is in our power to be stronger than any other nation of equal numbers…We are placed in the center of Europe, are liable to attack on at least three fronts,…and are, moreover, exposed to the risk of coalitions to a greater extent than any other nation…The pike in the European fishpond make it impossible for us to play the part of harmless carp, for they would fain fix their teeth in both our sides…They constrain us to a unity which is repugnant to our German nature, and were it not for this pressure from without we should all fly apart…We Germans fear God, and are not afraid of anything else in the world, and it is because we fear God that we seek peace and ensue it.” (Ibid, pp. 551/52)

It is the last part of his speech that is misquoted to this day, the last sentence left out. Now back to the issues at hand.

The Prussians eventually defeated the Austrians at Königgrätz, and Prussian generals, who at first were reluctant to fight a war against Austria, now wanted to pursue the defeated Austrian army. But at Bismarck’s insistence – he envisioned a Germany/Austria-Hungary co-existence – the Austrian-Hungarian Empire was left intact. And although its influence had been further diminished, most of German nobility still considered the Hapsburg’s to be legitimate heads of state. Then France became the concern, Napoleon III claiming that the German block forming to the east was a threat to France’ existence, that even though not one menacing gesture was made toward France. In this mistrust the “hereditary enemy” issue played a part, this dating back to the middle ages. A little more background is necessary.

At the Treaty of Verdun, in 843, the Empire was split among three brothers, the sons of Emperor Louis I. Louis the German (Ludwig der Deutsche), received the eastern portion (later Germany), Charles the II (the Bald, Karl der Kahle) became King of the western portion (later France) and Lothair I (Lothar I) received the central portion (Low Countries, Lorraine, Alsace, Burgundy, Provence and most of northern Italy. Following the death of Lothair I, in the Treaty of Mersen, most of the territory given to him at Verdun was divided between Louis the German and Charles II. In 962 a new Roman Empire came into being, commonly known as the “Holy Roman Empire, German Nation,” ruled by an Emperor. It was in fact a German Empire with the Pope as ceremonial head of state, thus the “Holy Roman” in the name, but German armies had to insure that the Pope remained in his position and to assert German authority. The Empire stretched from the Baltic Sea in the north, to the northern part of Italy in the south and included Ostarrichi (Austria) in the East. By the 11th Century, the western border of this Empire run in almost a straight line from roughly Antwerp in the north to Marseilles in the south, encompassing the Duchy of Lorraine, as well as Alsace (VEB Hermann Haack, Atlas zur Geschichte Gotha/Leipzig, 1973, p.30).

The Brothers shared the territory of Western Europe, thus the “hereditary enemy” angle. Also, all of the border disputes between France and Germany originate from that time, most of Alsace-Lorraine originally part of the German Empire, not France. In early 1870 Leopold of Hohenzollern was offered the Spanish crown, the French immediately hollered “encirclement,” Leopold declined, but the French asked the King of Prussia for assurances that this will never happen again and when the king refused, (The so-called Ems Dispatch played a role. The King had sent Bismarck a telegram, the text to be published and claims are made that Bismarck altered it. Not so, he changed some words but did not alter the meaning), France declared war on Prussia. Bismarck did not interfere, he knew that war with France was inevitable – the French trying to prevent German unification – just as war with Austria before had been. Bismarck then asked the German Rulers how they would react, leave Prussia to battle the French on her own and be defeated as in 1806 – and have the French rule parts of Germany, or the whole of it again – or would they come to Prussia’s assistance. The Rulers came to the assistance of Prussia, reluctantly, and when the war was over France was defeated. Germany was united territorially but not in spirit, that took years and one could argue that it never happened to this day. At the peace treaty Alsace,- as well as large parts of Lorraine, was/were ceded to Germany, against Bismarck’s wishes but this time he had to give in, the generals citing security concerns – Alsace “protruding” into Germany, making it suitable for an act of aggression by France, and with the King claiming that it was German territory in any case. But as Bismarck had envisioned, the French later thirsted for revenge, claiming Alsace-Lorraine was stolen from them. German re-unification changed the map of the continent and brought Britain onto the scene.

Prelude to World War I

On February 9. 1871, the war had just ended, Disraeli (later Lord Beaconsfield), then leader of the opposition, gave a speech to parliament in which he stated/declared:

“Let me impress upon the attention of the House the character of this war between France and Germany. It is no common war, like the war between Prussia and Austria, or like the Italian war in which France was engaged some years ago; nor is it like the Crimean War.
This war represents the German revolution, a greater political event than the French revolution of last century. I don’t say a greater, or as great a social event. What its social consequences may be are in the future. Not a single principle in the management of our foreign affairs, accepted by all statesmen for guidance up to six months ago, any longer exists. There is not a diplomatic tradition which has not been swept away. You have a new world, new influences at work, new and unknown objects and dangers with which to cope,….We used to have discussions in this House about the balance of power. Lord Palmerston, eminently a practical man, trimmed the ship of State and shaped its policy with a view to preserve an equilibrium in Europe. [...] But what has really come to pass? The balance of power has been entirely destroyed, and the country which suffers most, and feels the effects of this great change most, is England” (GHDI document http://germanhistorydocs.ghidc.org/sub_document.cfm?document_id=1849 )

Just paranoia? Hardly, and that even though never a threatening gesture had been made toward England, English Royalty of German origin, the German House of Saxe-Coburg also the royal house of the British, the name changed to The House of Windsor only in 1917. The reason for this English “concern” was that she had – for centuries – tried to maintain what it called the balance of power, which in fact was an successful effort to ensure that no rival power would emerge threatening her hegemony. When for instance France became too strong under Napoleon I England sited with Prussia to defeat Napoleon at Waterloo. And now, following the re-unification of Germany, plans were made in a circle around the Price of Whales, later to become King Edward VII, to render powerless “Middle Europe”, i.e., Germany and Austria-Hungary. The circle included Lord Randolph Churchill (father of Winston), the Duke of Norfolk, Lord Salisbury and the head of the house of Rothschild (Renate Riemeck, Mitteleuropa, Bilanz eine Jahrhunderts, Verlag Engel & Co., 1965, p.12).

With the 100-year anniversary approaching, some articles and book have been published in regards to World War I and who started it, what really happened? One of the more often mentioned books is that by Christopher Clark, Sleepwalkers. As the title suggest, Clark tries to make a case for the European heads of state ‘sleepwalking’ into the war, they just didn’t pay attention and that therefore not one state is to blame (At Versailles, the Germans were forced to sign the war guilt clause, Germany solely responsible). He is right to not blame Germany, but this was no sleepwalk, the war was well planned by a few, working behind the scenes.

Riemeck, in the above-mentioned book, writes that to start with, an alliance between Russia and France had to be formed, with England ready to come to the assistance, thus encircling Germany and Austria-Hungary (Ibid, pp.12ff). Bismarck was aware that the re-united Germany would cause anxieties, and was instrumental in forming the Three Emperors League between Germany, Russia and Austria-Hungary. Bismarck also made every effort to maintain good relations with the Czar, bending backwards to avoid friction, it would thus seem almost impossible for the Brits to get Russia on board, but that they did succeed is history. Prof. E. Adamov in his Die Diplomatie des Vatikans (The diplomacy of the Vatican, Verlag von Reimar Hobbing in Berlin SW61, 1932), provides details. The book, containing many documents, was published by the Bolsheviks to expose some of the secret dealings (Riemeck, p.12). Riemeck shows, as does Adamov, that the Vatican only played a minor role – was a tool – the real powers behind the encirclement of Germany sat in England.

And that brings us to another recent publication, Hidden History. The secret Origins of the First World War, by Gerry Docherty and Jim Macgregor, Mainstream Publishing, Edinburgh and London, 2013. The authors begin their text as follows:

“The history of the First World War is a deliberately concocted lie. Not the sacrifice, the heroism, the horrendous waste of life or the misery that followed. No, these were very real, but the truth of how it all began and how it was unnecessarily and deliberately prolonged beyond 1915 has been successfully covered up for a Century. A carefully falsified history was created to conceal the fact that Britain, not Germany, was responsible for the war. Had the truth become widely known after 1918, the consequences for the British Establishment would have been cataclysmic (p.11)… To this day, researchers are denied access to certain First World War documents because the Secret Elite had much to fear from the truth, as do those who have succeeded them (p.15).”

They base much of what they wrote on two books by Prof. Carroll Quigley, The Anglo-American Establishment and Tragedy and Hope. They outline in detail how during a meeting of Cecil Rhodes, William Stead and Lord Esher in February 1891 plan were laid to form a ‘Secret Elite’:

“…a secret society that aimed to renew the Anglo-Saxon bond between Great Britain and the United States [1], spread all that they considered good in the English ruling-class traditions, and expand the British Empire’s influence in a world they believed they were destined to control (p.17).
[1] W.T. Stead, The Last Will and Testament of Cecil John Rhodes, p.62.”

The Secret Elite, the original three eventually replaced/joined by others, set out to realize their plan for Britain, along with the US, to rule the world, and Middle Europe, i.e., Germany and Austria-Hungary, were in the way. For Britain to declare war on them would have been disastrous, and also, Britain could then not have claimed the moral high ground. Therefore efforts were made to forge alliances, to encircle Germany and Austria. First, Russia and France had to come to terms, and the Secret Elite worked diligently in the background to make it happen. Then, Russia and England had to become friends, but before this could happen the ‘Russian bear’ had to be tamed. To achieve that goal, England: “…decided to break 500 years of insular tradition by wooing Japan”(p.87). English shipyards build the most advanced naval vessels for the Japanese, helping them to defeat the Russian navy in 1905. Also: “A massive and consistent propaganda drive was needed to create a German ‘menace’ and whip the British people into a froth of hatred towards Germany and Kaiser Wilhelm”(p.63) (The Saturday Review of August 1995 started a series of articles, calling for the destruction of Germany: Germania esse delendam). The violation of Belgium neutrality by Germany at the start of WWI became an issue, it should not have: “King Leopold sold Belgian neutrality for African rubber and minerals…”(pp.108/09). Impossible to go into all of the detail here, fact is, the encirclement was completed and Germany had to fire the first shot.

Kaiser Wilhelm inadvertently helped. Bismarck, as mentioned, took great care to have Germany allied with other powers. The Three Emperors Agreement had been allowed to expire, but good relations were maintained with Austria-Hungary, a natural ally, and a ‘Reassurance Treaty’ had been signed with Russia. Germany and Russia agreed to stay neutral should the other be attacked, this not to apply if Germany were to attack France of Russia Austria. A secret addendum stated that Germany would remain neutral should Russia make the Bosporus an issue. Just as Wilhelm dismissed Bismarck, the term of this treaty was up and needed to be renewed. At first Wilhelm agreed to the extension, but negated because of bad guidance by some of his advisors (Otto Becker, Das französich-russische Bündnis (The French-Russian Alliance], Karl Heymanns, Berlin 1925, pp.43ff). Wilhelm later realized his mistake and in 1905 he and Czar Nikolaus signed a treaty at Björkö, but by then the war party in Russia was firmly in control and the Czar forced to negate. Wilhelm finally realized what was happening, in his assessment of the situation of July 19, 1914 he stated, in part:

“…For I no longer have any doubt that England, Russia and France have agreed among themselves — knowing that our treaty obligations compel us to support Austria — to use the Austro-Serb conflict as a pretext for waging a war of annihilation against us… Our dilemma over keeping faith with the old and honorable Emperor has been exploited to create a situation which gives England the excuse she has been seeking to annihilate us with a spurious appearance of justice on the pretext that she is helping France and maintaining the well-known Balance of Power in Europe, i.e. playing off all European States for her own benefit against us.” (Die Zerstörung der deutschen Politik. Dokumente 1871-1833, Fischer Bücherei 1959, p.199).

When Russia mobilized on July 24th 1914, Germany was forced to implement the Schlieffen Plan to avoid being overrun from east and west. “The plan was discussed in French circles at least as early as 1904” (The World Since 1914, Walter Consuelo Langham, The MacMillan Company, 1948, p.18, footnote 1 [the plan was finalized in 1905]). And if the French knew, so did the British. No significant changes were made to the plan but surely the Germans were aware that this plan could not have been kept in secret for all of those years. If Germany set out to conquer the world, as is alleged, they surely would have worked out something more applicable to that time. In fact, the German leadership were on vacation in the summer of 1914 and munitions would last to October, no stockpiles of it (Die Welt, Jan 18,2014, “Die deutsche Munition reichte nur bis Oktober 1914″).

Germany, having entered the industrial revolution late, was busy manufacturing items for sale and did so quite well. They had no interest in starting a war. But because they had been forced to “fire the first shot,” and those who study history more closely know that this shot is not what starts a conflict, the Germans were forced to sign the “War Guilt” clause at Versailles. One must take this into consideration when discussing the origins of World War Two.

By Wilfried Heink-

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

There is no solid evidence showing if and when Hitler decided on the “final solution.”

To this day we have no solid evidence showing if and when Hitler decided on this so-called “Endlösung”, i.e., “The Holocaust”. Many theories have been advanced, one by Gerlach for instance who claims Hitler made his wish known to kill all Jews during a meeting of December 12,1941. Just speculations, of course. Then the ‘meeting of minds’ by Hilberg, all desperate attempts to substantiate something unsustainable.

Just recently I came across an article by Martin Broszat: “Soziale Motivation und Führer-Bindung des Nationalsozialismus (Social motivation and Führer bond/commitment of the NS), published in VfZ, 1970, pp.394-409. Broszat, as is well known, was a ‘functionalist’, thus leaning towards Hilberg.

Born in 1937, it is impossible for me to understand the ‘National Socialism’ phenomenon – for obvious reasons. In fact people who were born earlier, like Broszat (1926-1989), who experienced it all more consciously, are still, in 1970 when this article was published, trying to make sense of it, without jeopardizing their career.

He starts out by stating that research so far was focused on specific segments under NS – the economy, civil service, etc., – but that he will make an effort to shed light on the ‘internal condition and functionality’ of the NS regime, the development of it, its social motivations and how the absolute leadership principle could coincide with NS ideology. In view of the mass support base NS was able to build up, consisting mostly of the middle class, the question arises as to the ideological commitment of the masses to NS vs. the manipulatory effect of NS propaganda. In spite of all efforts, it was impossible for the party to create this mass movement out of thin air. The economic crisis of the time alone was also not the decisive factor, or Marxism would have been successful. NS succeeded because it fulfilled the yearning of the populace for continuity and change at the same time. The inconsistency and outright lies by the NSdAP concerning social issues can not invalidate the significance of the social dynamic, the massive success of the party. The failure to fulfill the promises made re. social programs in 1933 can not negate the societal effect the NSdAP had – and left behind.

It was not only the ‘ragged proletarians’(Lumpenproletariat) that formed the mass basis of the movement, it was the lower middle class, farmers and students. They did not wish for the status quo to continue but if NS ‘mystique’ succeeded during this time of peril it was because of the failure of Marxism to appreciate ‘political reality’. The middle class understood Marxism to mean the “Dictatorship of the Proletariat”, proletarian equalization, and National Socialists profited from this.

I need to interject here. Broszat underestimates the intelligence of the workers and the middle class, by portraying what they saw in Marxism, Bolshevism more precisely, as a misconception. It was not. Germans were well informed as to what this “Dictatorship of the Proletariat” stood for, i.e., mass murder. Prof. Ernst Nolte quotes from a diary entry by Thomas Mann of May 2,1919, in which Mann asks if European culture can be saved or if this Kyrgyz method of ‘culling and extermination (butchering) will be successful (Der Europäische Bürgerkrieg 1917-1945, Ullstein 1987, p.90).

Back to Herr Broszat. Voting for the NSdAP in 1930-1932 did not necessarily mean support for NS ideology but a rejection of existing conditions, and seeing NS as the only non-Marxist ideology with a chance for success (Prof. Nolte goes into detail on this subject in the above mentioned book). Then there was the desire by famers, nouveau middle class and youth for political representation – the existing system had neglected them. The vagueness of the NS program did not deter them, quite the opposite, they considered it to be flexibility and vitality, and as a chance to have an influence on the finished product. This irrational attitude of faith can surely be dismissed as ‘hysterical confusion’, as irresponsible self-betrayal but this will not negate the social dynamic of the movement. It instead displays the penned-up pressure of social tensions and the Hitler movement addressed the issues by promising to dismantle the old feudal and bureaucratic structures. It was characteristic for NS that it did not portray itself as social-reactionary, not intending to renew the old order but to promise a reinstatement of lost prestige through ‘revolutionary renewal.’

This duality of revolutionary tendencies and at the same time restorative efforts is what made NS attractive. Romantic images and values of the past were restyled to appeal to a young, avant-garde, movement. The fallback to the natural familiar community was transformed into the social ideal of a disciplined and equivalent production society. Instead of subservience the demand was for ‘national fellowship’. The exclusive elite of aristocratic leadership was replaced by the approachable ‘folkish blood-nobility’ of the German Master race. The charismatic Führer with whom one could identify represented the effacement of the distance to nobility. This new configuration reflected the dynamic of this new middle-class. The peculiarity of entrenched class-conscious bourgeois mentality and social morality on the one hand and status-inferiority, social dependence and economic impotence combined to form the ‘extremism of the middle’, with NS as the standard bearer.

The social thrust from which the NSdAP profited was already prevalent in the time of strife (Kampfzeit), resulting in an enormous frenzy of activities, the ability to improvise and the overall energy of the followers. And this explains the extraordinary accomplishments and engagement of broad segments of the population during the Hitler regime. World War I had shown that during a national crisis, resulting in truce between opposites, society can reach the pinnacle of accomplishments. And the Hitler regime was able to make this, what had been exceptional, the norm. The regulating of all social segments resulted in a psychological equalization and shortened the distance between the upper and lower class. And because of the many-facetted activities of the party, the numerous organizations, a new society was created. New possibilities for advancement, regardless of social standing, opened up. Not the revolutionary overthrow of the old social order, but the diminishing influence of the old power brokers weakened the conservative order of old, in the family as well as in school, in administration and the economy, in the fighting forces and universities. Equality and better chances for advancement, as well as the emancipation of up to now apolitical segments of society, was the obvious result of the efforts by the Hitler regime, having many of them believe, in spite of ideological and political oppression, that they were living in an open and free society.

But the regime was not able to lay the foundation for a lasting, rational new order/beginning. Incapable of fulfilling the social promises made to mobilize the masses it was thus forced to direct the focus on distant objectives, on destructive goals, overextending its potentials.

Before continuing to Chapter 2, a few comments: Broszat has to admit that the NS party had massive support, and by tortured reasoning tries to explain it away, make it seem like deception when in fact the support by the classes identified by him was real. To this day people are unable to explain why Germans stuck to Hitler to the bitter end. Broszat points to the power struggles within the party, etc., no doubt true. For instance, Wilfred von Oven, Goebbels’s personal adjutant, quotes the latter complaining that: If the world would only know what our “Führer state” is like in reality. Goebbels then goes on to point to some of the rivalries and the outright incompetence of some (Finale Furioso, Grabert, 1974, p.255). Broszat claims that the party program had been vague, intentionally so, and he might be right. But, taking all of this into consideration, Broszat is unable to explain why National Socialism was very popular.

And now to how the “Endlösung” is supposed to fit into this, according to Broszat. The next, and last, segment is about Hitler’s leadership and NS ideology. Most historians agree that the history of the NSdAP and the Third Reich centers around Hitler. It has been pointed out that National Socialism, in contrast to other ideologies, was not primarily an ideological and program-oriented movement, but a charismatic movement personified by Hitler. The Führer was therefore not the propagator of an idea, the utopian NS Weltanschauung (ideology) became reality through the personality of Hitler. One can therefore restrict any analysis of Third Reich politics to Hitler’s ideology, with fanatical anti-Semitism and anti-Bolshevism as well as the acquisition of new Lebensraum in the East the only constant issues.

These constants were however not decisive in winning the masses – they played a secondary role. The fight against Marxism and the party state were the points stressed by NS propaganda; anti-Semitism et al could considered to be the arcanum (Broszat’s word) of the Führer-reign not meant to be made public (therefore the secret mass execution of Jews [Broszat]), but not the reason for the success of National Socialism. There are those who stress that the history of the Third Reich was written by Hitler, dictated by his personal ideology. But these analyses are not convincing. Attempting to interpret ‘Hitler’ presents a problem, and those trying to find a solution must consider the question if Hitler was not just the agent of certain interests, but perhaps the representative of antagonistic powers and tendencies – personified by him – doomed to a cataclysmic conclusion.

Portraying that image of resoluteness, Hitler articulated what his listeners wanted to hear, if only subconsciously. He verbalized what they secretly thought and wanted, he reinforced their as yet uncertain longings and prejudices, instilling in them the feeling of being part of a new truth and thus ensured their willingness for selfless participation. Hitler’s rise to power from mediocrity shows that his leadership qualities could only develop in a certain crisis atmosphere and collective psychology. With this exaltation as the background he was able to experience his own neurosis as truth and to make the collective neurosis in the image of his own obsession.

It therefore becomes clear that the individuality of Hitler can not be factored out of National Socialism, but also: that Hitler’s historical possibilities to act were dependent on definite predetermined conditions, much more so than other heads of state. We therefore need to ask why these elements were lodged in the mind of the Hitler and were the only ones consequently realized. He was the one who held the ideology together, meaning that he stood above it and was not bound by specific issues. And that was only possible by identifying irreconcilable enemies that had to be fanatically combatted. Anti-Semitism and Anti-Bolshevism were the negatives that met these conditions, with the acquisition of living space in the east the positive. Anti-Semitism and Anti-Bolshevism mobilized the masses against these alleged conspirators and exploiters, with the living space utopia as the therapeutic image of an autarkic great power. But those objectives (or better action-directions), had little to do with reality and were therefore immune to correction. That is why Hitler was forced to repeatedly refer to them to keep the movement going, especially since more and more of the envisioned concepts proved to be illusive.

The NS movement was, in most cases, only able to cast doubt on the conditions of the existing order, but when trying to address these issues resistance was encountered by the parties who the NS depended on for support. And because of being unable to turn NS ideology into reality, more emphasis was put on the implementation of the negative programs, to demonstrate that at least some of NS ideological concepts were realized. Therefore, to not alienate the conservative partners and other state authorities, measures were taken to combat certain, powerless, minorities: the hereditarily defective, the mentally challenged, antisocial elements and Jews, by passing condemnatory laws. This stereotypical negation was the only issue the “Extremism of the Middle” could agree on from the beginning, by the dismissal of anything ‘strange/different’ and ‘immoral’, and of all ‘unwanted elements’. And because the supporting middle class had no corresponding social interests of their own, they allowed the Führer to act on their behalf. This ‘selection of negative ideologies’ resulted, over time, in the radicalization and perfection of inhumanities. But if the ideology of a new beginning, propagated following the NS coming to power, could not be realized, and the negative aspects were instead concentrated on, then the continued discrimination against the Jews, mentally challenged, antisocial elements, etc., was inevitable. But this could not be an open-ended process; therefore it had to end in the “Endlösung”. And that was the consequence of National Socialism as represented by Hitler.

No evidence exists that the mass murder of Jews, started in 1941/42, had secretly been planned as a distant goal. The up to 1939 forced emigration of Jews, the Madagascar-Plan, were not intended as the physical extermination of the Jews, only the removal of Jews from the German sphere of influence. Concerning Jewish programs one must assume that a radicalization over time took place; this is not to say that the possibility of the liquidation of Jews had not earlier been considered by Hitler and/or some of his followers. But this could only have been a possibility, realized later because of changing conditions. And as Hitler was forced to again and again refer to fall back upon the negative aspects, to placate the movement, the phraseology finally caught up and what had been propagated as ideology, as mobilization of the masses, had to be realized. With this the NS regime arrived at the last absurdity, resulting finally in the destruction of the movement, for with the secret extermination of the Jews, anti-Semitism as a propaganda tool was also buried.

So much for Herr Broszat and again I have to label this as ‘tortured reasoning’. He tries to make a case for the Endlösung, i.e., “The Holocaust” as being a logical consequence of the inability of the NSdAP to bring about real change and Hitler having therefore to rely on the negative, Anti-Semitism, finally resulting in the mass extermination of Jews. In the newest publication another theory is advanced. “Neue Studien zu nationalsozialistischen Massentötungen durch Giftgas”(2011) focusses on the NS euthanasia program, the argument: being that if one happened the other must have.

Twice Broszat refers to the ‘secret’ mass killing of Jews (pp.400, 408); he no doubt had to, because of the scores of Germans still alive who lived through that time and asking, himself perhaps included: Why did I not know anything about this? And since he did not find anything resembling a plan for this alleged mass murder, he had to engage in these mental gymnastics about the “Endlösung” being a logical extension of NS policies. One could almost feel sorry for him, unable to explain, convincingly, how ‘it’ happened but asserting nonetheless that it did. For me there is not a more convincing case against “The Holocaust” than the ‘explanations’ offered by Broszat et al. If real evidence to substantiate what is claimed would exist, it would be submitted instead of these theories. And finally, it is impossible to murder millions of Jews in secret.