It is one of the few books that are available in English that address the murder of millions of non-combatant German civilians and German prisoners of war from 1944 to 1950 as a matter of deliberate allied policy not inefficient logistics as it is most often presented in school text books.
It is important because this book was written as it was still happening and includes comments from eye witnesses in the same time period. The book is not politically correct and shocked me because it speaks in a such a predudicial fashion about persons of the black race.
That however in this point makes it useful to sociologist and historians because it correctly reflects widely held opinion at the time within U.S. society.
As to the correct observation that allied policy was to reduce the German population through, murder in multiple forms, slave labor, and starvation, and destroy the fabric of the society through mass rape of the female population, other authors are critized for saying the same thing but only decades later.
Fact is there is a great effort to keep this information from the public because it shows that the victors of WWII incorporated not only military strategy and tactics but also the NAZI ideology of racial hatred and a policy of extermination and discrimination for one people.
Four million persons perished because of the ethnic cleansing carried out by, Russians, Poles, Czechs, and Serbs according to the former German Prime Minister Konrad Adenauer,
Five million Germans starved to death in occupied Germany according to estimates by the Canadian James Bacque, and 2 million German Soldiers died in allied captivity often while performing slave labor in Auschwitz like – and worse – conditions.
General Eisenhower prohibited the German Public from sharing their own meager rations with detained German soldiers on pain of death. Hence from 1944 until 1948 a U.S. and Russian Holocaust for the Germans was on going.
For more information on this topic see books by the following authors:
A similarly important historical document is the book titled (Alliierte Kriegsverbrechen) which translates to “Allied War Crimes”.
It is a collection of historical information of eyewitness experiences of hundreds of Allied war crimes. This information was written down in 1946 by German Soldiers held prisoner in Camp 91 in Darmstadt by U.S. forces.
Lawyers for the defense hoped to bring some of this information as evidence and perhaps for mitigation to the Nüremberg Tribunal but the it was not permitted. In fact the Commander of Camp 91 attempted to collect and destroy all copies of this book.
That is why it is important that as many people read the aforementioned books as possible. They need to be translated into English and widely read so that the fairy tale of WWII as the last “Good War” can finally be put to rest.
Eisenhower’s Rhine-Meadows Death Camps – Documentary
Unpacking The Lies Justifying the Murder of 9 Million Germans After WWII
9 million is a conservative estimate… a minimum of 1.5 million German POWs, 2.1 million German expellees, and 5.7 million German residents needlessly died after the war. This is far more Germans than died during the Second World War. Millions of these Germans slowly starved to death while the Allies withheld available food. The majority of these postwar dead Germans were women, children and very old men.
The Lie: The Morgenthau Plan was never adopted by the Allies after World War II.
The Truth: The adoption of the Morgenthau Plan was announced at the Quebec Conference in September 1944 between U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill. Named after U.S. Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau, the objective of the Morgenthau Plan was to de-industrialize Germany and diminish its people to a pastoral existence once the war was won. The Morgenthau Plan was designed to reduce the military-industrial strength of Germans forever, so that never again could Germany threaten the peace. As many proponents of the Morgenthau Plan knew, adoption of this plan would result in the starvation of many millions of the German population.
The danger of hunger and starvation was slow to abate throughout Germany. The famine that began in Germany in 1945 spread over all of occupied Germany and continued into 1948. This famine was camouflaged as much as possible by the Allied armies and governments.
Some Germans were prepared to see the Allies as liberating angels at first, but they soon realized that the Allies were adopting policies designed to hurt Germany’s recovery. The drastic reduction of fertilizer production under the Morgenthau Plan, for example, hurt Germany’s capacity to grow her own food. The use of German prisoners as slave labor in Allied countries subtracted from the labor force needed to bring in the reduced harvest. German prisoners who worked as slave laborers in the United Kingdom and France were horrified upon arriving home to find their families starving.
Some informed political leaders spoke out against the Allied policy of mass starvation of the German people. Sen. William Langer of North Dakota stated in the U.S. Senate:
History already records that a savage minority of bloody bitter-enders within this government forced the acceptance of the brutal Morgenthau Plan upon the present administration. I ask, Mr. President, why in God’s name did the administration accept it?…Recent developments have merely confirmed scores of earlier charges that this addlepated and vicious Morgenthau Plan had torn Europe in two and left half of Germany incorporated in the ever-expanding sphere of influence of an oriental totalitarian conspiracy. By continuing a policy which keeps Germany divided against itself, we are dividing the world against itself and turning loose across the face of Europe a power and an enslaving and degrading cruelty surpassing that of Hitler’s.
The expulsion of ethnic Germans after the war can also be viewed as both a repudiation of the Atlantic Charter and the adoption of the Morgenthau Plan. Section Two of the Morgenthau Plan, which dealt with the “New Boundaries of Germany,” stated:
Poland should get that part of East Prussia which doesn’t go to the USSR and the southern portion of Silesia.” However, the drastic territorial changes finalized at the Potsdam Conference on August 2, 1945, went beyond what even Morgenthau had envisioned. It was agreed at the Potsdam Conference that all German land east of the Oder-Neisse Rivers that was not under Soviet administration “shall be under the administration of the Polish state.”
The starvation of approximately 1 million German POWs after World War II can also be viewed as an adoption of the Morgenthau Plan. Maj. Gen. Richard Steinbach (then a colonel), who was ordered to take over administration of several U.S. Army prison camps near Heilbronn, wrote in his memoirs concerning the starvation conditions in American POW camps:
This was caused by the Morgenthau Plan…Morgenthau was venting his pent-up feelings on Germany by starving these men…[His] objective was vengeance rather than promoting U.S. national objectives. Of course, Franklin D. Roosevelt, the president who approved this plan, was also responsible. Worse even than the starvation was the idleness enforced on these people. I was amazed and disgusted at the same time. Was this the American way to treat people, even though some might be criminals? …Obviously it was not. I directed the U.S. camp commander to send to the railhead and draw supplementary rations.
Steinbach said that the food and tents were delivered immediately from supplies nearby.
James Bacque estimates that a minimum of 1.5 million German POWs, 2.1 million German expellees, and 5.7 million German residents needlessly died after the war. This is far more Germans than died during the Second World War. Millions of these Germans slowly starved to death while the Allies withheld available food. The majority of these postwar dead Germans were women, children and very old men. Their deaths have never been honestly reported by the Allies, the German government and most historians. These German deaths were caused by the Allies’ adoption of the Morgenthau Plan.
The German dead do not tell the entire story of the tragedy that was inflicted on Germany after World War II. German women who had been repeatedly raped had to bear the physical and psychological scars for the rest of their lives. Millions of German expellees who lost all of their real estate and most of their personal property were never compensated by the Allies. Instead, the German expellees had to live in abject poverty in Germany after the expulsion from their homes. Millions of additional Germans had their property stolen or destroyed by Allied soldiers. The Allied postwar treatment of Germany is surely one of the most brutal, criminal and unreported tragedies in world history.
 Morgenthau, Henry C., Germany is Our Problem, New York and London: Harper & Brothers, 1945.
 Bacque, James, Crimes and Mercies: The Fate of German Civilians under Allied Occupation, 1944-1950, 2nd edition, Vancouver, British Columbia: Talonbooks, 2007, p. 93.
 Langer, William, Congressional Record of the Senate, March 29, 1946. Quoted in Bacque, James, Crimes and Mercies: The Fate of German Civilians under Allied Occupation, 1944-1950, 2nd edition, Vancouver, British Columbia: Talonbooks, 2007, p. 30.
 Dietrich, John, The Morgenthau Plan: Soviet Influence on American Postwar Policy, New York: Algora Publishing, 2002, p. 137.
 Bacque, James, Other Losses: An Investigation into the Mass Deaths of German Prisoners at the Hands of the French and Americans after World War II, 3rd edition, Vancouver: Talonbooks, 2011, pp. xix-xx.
 Bacque, James, Crimes and Mercies: The Fate of German Civilians under Allied Occupation, 1944-1950, 2nd edition, Vancouver, British Columbia: Talonbooks, 2007, p. 124.
Estonia’s plans to bring back a monument to a soldier dressed in Waffen SS uniform is a provocation and affront to the memory of those who died fighting the Nazis, the Russian Embassy has said.
The stela with a bronze bas-relief depicts an armed trooper in Nazi gear, and a tablet reading: “To Estonian men who fought in 1940-1945 against Bolshevism and for the restoration of Estonian independence.” It caused a lot of controversy after being erected at the cemetery in the town of Lihula in August 2004.
The government ordered its removal less than two weeks later, saying that the memorial created unnecessary links between Estonian independence fighters and the German invaders. Nazi sympathizers staged rallies on the spot where the stela once stood. Last year, one such demonstration attracted around 200 people.
On Tuesday, his idea was backed by the speaker of the Estonian Parliament in the capital Tallinn. “It’s a very good undertaking because it’s a memorial to Estonian men,” Henn Polluaas, who is also an EKRE member, explained.
The Russian Embassy vigorously condemned the plan, saying that “attempts to glorify the former Waffen SS fighters in Estonia look especially blasphemous in the year when the 75th anniversary of the country’s liberation from the Nazis is celebrated.”
Jews moved to the ghetto during WWII to avoid non-Jews, including “nasty Poles,” an ex-senator and father of the current Polish PM said. The claim comes amid the ongoing spat between Israel and Poland over Warsaw’s Holocaust bill.
“Do you know who chased the Jews away to the Warsaw Ghetto?” Kornel Morawiecki asked while speaking to Polish Kultura Liberalna magazine on Tuesday.
“The Germans, you think? No. The Jews themselves went because they were told that there would be an enclave, that they would not have to deal with those nasty Poles.”
The eyebrow-raising statement was made by the father of current Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki, who assumed office in December 2017.
The ex-politician went further, touching upon another hot topic – the alleged complicity of Jews in the Nazi-led genocide against the Jewish population.
Polish authorities tried to distance themselves from the controversial remark by the prime minister’s father. According to Deputy Foreign Minister Bartosz Cichocki, Morawiecki’s comment “does not reflect the position of the government.”
Relations between Poland and Israel started to sour after Warsaw passed controversial legislation in February outlawing use of the phrase “Polish death camp.” It also blamed Poles for complicity in Holocaust crimes during the World War II. The bill attracted harsh criticism from Israeli authorities and Jewish groups worldwide.
The spat reached new levels after Morawiecki Jr referred to “Jewish perpetrators” during the Nazi era. “There were Polish perpetrators, as there were Jewish perpetrators, as there were Russian perpetrators, as there were Ukrainian and German perpetrators,” the newly-appointed PM said, responding to an Israeli journalist.
The remark immediately drew fire from his Israeli counterpart, Benjamin Netanyahu, who criticized Morawiecki’s “inability to understand history and a lack of sensitivity to the tragedy” of Israeli people. Jewish groups immediately responded that the Polish prime minister definitely ‘crossed line of common sense.’
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
By Eric Thomson with research by Paul Norris (2000)
Poland and its hapless people had largely served their purpose by becoming the excuse for Britain and its reluctant French ally to declare war on Germany in 1939. As historian David Irving points out, Britain’s touted war aim was initially the “defense of Polish sovereignty.” Of course, it had been agreed upon before 1939 that Britain and France would not intervene if the Soviet Union were to violate Polish sovereignty, as happened a few weeks after the German preemptive strike against Poland. But, unlike the Moor of Shakespeare, the Poles did not go away. Even after the kosher slaughter of some 15,000 members of the Polish officer corps, the Poles and their national interests remained. In fact, it was this Soviet massacre of the Poles at Katyn which served to emphasize to the Poles their likely fate under Soviet/Khazar rule. Therein lay the seeds of a Polish-German alliance. In 1943, the government of Britain was indeed worried by indications that the Poles might wish to put Polish interests ahead of world banksterdom.
On August 10,1943, W.D. Allen of the Central Department of the British Foreign Office writes plaintively to the Political Intelligence Department chief in the Foreign Office:
Consequent upon our conversation this morning, I attach a paper which was primarily intended as an aide-memoir within our section and which, therefore, may contain some rather obvious statements. Nevertheless, it is a very accurate picture of the grounds for suspicion which I mentioned to you this morning… May I urge most strongly the necessity for not hinting to any Polish contacts your suspicions on this matter… because if they felt that there was any leakage of information through us as to their own fears and suspicions, it would close the door to any future negotiations between us and them.”
The accompanying memorandum is marked “Most Secret” and is entitled “POLISH GERMAN COLLABORATION.” It begins thusly:
The purpose of this paper is to draw attention to the situation which now exists in Poland and to the danger that the Germans may succeed in setting up a collaborationist regime in the General Government. At no time since the occupation has such an eventuality been considered possible until now, but recent deterioration in the situation makes it seem that this possibility should be taken into serious consideration… Background: (1) Resentment against Soviet Russia has for long been intense and practically universal among the Poles in Poland. As the German military power seems to be waning, the possibility of collaboration is likely to be greater and no less if the fear of Russian (sic)occupation increases. (2) German anti-Soviet propaganda has been and is in accordance with the sentiments of the great majority of the Polish people to whom it is directed. (3) It is believed, both by the general population and by the responsible leaders that Soviet and communist subversive propaganda and activity in Poland is intended to disrupt the country so that it will be unable, after the defeat of Germany, to offer effective resistance to Soviet domination…”
Evidence of the Present Critical Situation: (1) Since the affair (sic) of Katyn the Germans have for the first time obtained the collaboration of responsible Polish journalists in their press campaign against Soviet Russia. Delegations from several responsible Polish bodies visited Katyn under German auspices. (2) The clandestine press of Poland is concentrating more and more upon bitter attacks against Soviet Russia and against the subversive activities within Poland which are being encouraged by Soviet Russia. (3) The tone of our responsible contacts in the Polish Ministry of the Interior has changed noticeably in the past few weeks… They are obviously nervous at the inevitable effects of the recent German anti-Soviet campaign upon a population ‘without proper political orientations’ (sic). It seems clear that while they are confident in the attitude of the resistance organizations, they are now becoming alarmed at the possibility that these organizations may lose something of their support from the people and that individuals may be found whose fear and hatred of Russia is sufficiently strong to induce them to collaborate formally with the Germans, at any rate to the extent of opposing Russia (sic). (4) Since the affair of Katyn, Russian (sic) accusations of collaboration among Poles in the General Government, although malicious, have been specific and give the impression that there is some degree of fact behind the exaggeration. (5) Frank [the German Governor General of Occupied Poland] has recently declared that he hopes to make the General Government a model satellite state. This reads like propaganda intended to anticipate the probable course of events. (6) The Krakauer Zeitung of 24th July reports a meeting between Governor General Frank and the President and Director of the Polish General Welfare Council ‘to discuss the general situation of the Polish population, with special reference to the events in the Lublin district.’ (7) A P.W.I. report from Stockholm ingenuously states that the ‘Germans are starting to set up a Polish Quisling government. This plan results from a successful propaganda on the Katyn mass graves.’ In view of the above, it does seem that there is a strong possibility of some kind of Quisling Government being set up in Poland supported by (a) Warsaw degenerates; (b) genuinely patriotic Poles who passionately fear the Russian (sic) menace more than anything else in the world.”
The trick was to keep Poland strong enough and determined enough to fight the Germans, but not to fight the Soviets. So far, the Polish Secret Army had served British-Soviet interests well via guerrilla warfare, sabotage and espionage against the German war effort in Poland. It is even mentioned in one Polish Secret Army report that agents were helping to spread the deadly typhus disease. Polish military units serving with the British and so-called Free French forces had to be placated as well so that their fear and loathing for the Soviets could be put ‘safely’ in the background.
In addition to these pressing priorities, Special Operations Executive, Britain’s espionage, sabotage and terrorist organization, was complaining in correspondence with Britain’s Psychological Warfare Executive or propaganda ministry that their cells of agents were being destroyed and neutralized by German roundups of civilians for labor as well as security reasons. Naturally, such roundups were also having the same effect upon the Polish Secret Army and the British had received such complaints from the Polish Government-in-Exile. On August 11,1943, in a letter to W.D. Allen of the British Foreign Office, Lieut. Colonel Perkins of S.O.E. writes:
…The deportations [i.e. roundups] are serious and are affecting our work in that the cells of the underground Resistance Movement in the affected areas are to a great extent liquidated, and also such materials as we have been able to deliver are liable to be discovered. If any form of deterrent could be devised we would welcome it… a possible form of deterrent would be a statement by the United Nations that (German) settlers would be regarded, after the war, as a form of war criminal, having taken possession of property which they knew to be illegally acquired.”
It was clear from the outset that the government of Britain had no intention of assisting the Poles with military or material support. Words were going to be the only thing the Poles would get, just as in 1939. It only remained to be decided what words were going to be selected.
In a Most Secret Cypher Telegram dated August 22, 1943 from the British Foreign Secretary to the War Cabinet Offices in Washington he states:
I mentioned to Mr. Hull [the U.S. Secretary of State] on August 20th the request of the Polish Government for some joint Anglo-American declaration regarding German crimes in occupied Poland. Mr. Hull admitted that he had received a similar request and that he would consider it, though he felt that any such declaration was not likely to give much help to the Polish population.”
British propagandists were the authors of the Allied declaration. It was one among many lies of the Allies and it was among the more cynical, for it was initially designed to eclipse the Soviet atrocity of Katyn by accusing Germans of even greater, but entirely fictitious atrocities against the Polish people. The Poles were not likely to be fooled for long, but it was only sufficient that they remain fooled until the Soviet steamroller had run over them. The complicity of the Polish Government-in-Exile with this treason against the Polish people reveals how little it had in common with the people it claimed to represent. On August 12, 1943, Lt. Col. Perkins of S.O.E. received a letter from the British Foreign Office:
The Polish Foreign Minister called upon me this evening and asked me to draw the Secretary of State’s special attention to the suggestion made by the Polish Government for the issue of a declaration condemning the German deportation of the populations of Central Poland. Annexed is a minute by Mr. Allen on this point together with the draft of a possible declaration which it is suggested might be telegraphed to the Prime Minister with a view to persuading the President to join in a joint statement…”
W.D. Allen’s attached minute begins:
The Polish government have suggested that His Majesty’s Government should issue a declaration condemning the German deportations of the population of Central Poland, which, according to recent reports received from Poland, are on the increase. The Polish Government would hope that any such declaration should be given the maximum publicity in our broadcasts to Poland and Germany, and that it should also be used in leaflets to be dropped over Germany (especially, if practicable, Eastern Germany) and, if possible, Poland as well. A similar request is being addressed to the United States Government… S.O.E. would accordingly welcome any form of deterrent that could be devised.”
P.W.E. [Psychological Warfare Executive] see no objection to publicity being given to any declaration and would be prepared to do everything possible to give effect to the Polish proposals, subject to technical and operational limitations. Such declarations as H.M.G. [His Majesty’s Government] have made in the past on the subject of German atrocities in Poland have been made in Parliament. They have not gone beyond promises of retribution against those responsible. The deterrent effect of such statements appears to have been negligible, and if any further declaration is to be made, it would be useful if it could contain some indication that the actions being carried out by the German authorities in Poland will in some measure be held against Germany as a whole… The Poles were at first inclined to revert to the idea of reprisals. It has been made clear to them that these are out of the question. A further Polish suggestion for a warning to the Polish population against premature action on the lines of that recently broadcast to Greece and Yugoslavia is being examined separately. It raised difficulties from the Soviet point of view.”
The attached declaration by W.D. Allen, as amended by others in his department, dated August 12, 1943, is as follows:
Reliable information has reached H.M. Government regarding the crimes committed by the German invaders against the population of Poland. Since the autumn of 1942 a belt of territory extending from the province of Bialystock southward along the line of the River Bug has been systematically emptied of its inhabitants (hundreds of thousands of whom have been deported from their homes).”
The draft declaration continues:
In July 1943 these measures were extended to practically the whole of the province of Lublin and also to the neighboring provinces of Radom and Cracow.” [Editor’s note: this typewritten sentence was considerably altered by the poison-pen-wielder who changed it to read as follows:]
In July 1943 these measures were extended to practically the whole of the province of Lublin, where hundreds of thousands of persons have been deported from their homes or exterminated.” [Editor’s note: The “hundreds of thousands” reappear from the propagandists’ bag of tricks, along with the word, “exterminated”, which was entirely absent before. The wording is also purposefully misleading. Were the mythical “hundreds of thousands” “deported” or were they “exterminated”? Could the spies of S.O.E. have failed to detect an extermination program involving hundreds of thousands of people? Impossible. No exterminations were mentioned in S.O.E. correspondence because there weren’t any. The Germans were moving the Poles, not murdering them.]
W.D. Allen’s draft continues:
These measures are being carried out with the utmost brutality. Many of the victims are killed on the spot. The rest are segregated. Men from 14 to 50 are taken away to work for Germany. (Some) children (are killed on the spot, others) are separated from their parents and either sent to Germany to be brought up as Germans or sold to German settlers or despatched with the women and old men to concentration camps, were they are now being systematically put to death in gas chambers. [Editor’s note: words in parentheses were added to the original.] H.M. Government re-affirm their resolve to punish the instigators and actual perpetrators of these crimes. They further declare that, so long as such atrocities continue to be committed by the representatives and in the name of Germany, they must be taken into account against the time of the final settlement with Germany. Meanwhile the war against Germany will be prosecuted with the utmost vigour until the barbarous Hitlerite tyranny has been finally overthrown.”
So here we find the amazing “gas chambers,” emanating like the proverbial deus ex machina from a typewriter in the British Foreign Office. But watch closely, for you are about to see another sleight of hand take place.
It is noted that the arbitrary inclusion of “hundreds of thousands” of Poles in the categories of “deported” OR “exterminated” might serve to eclipse the ‘mere’ 15,000 or so Poles murdered by the Soviet Khazars at Katyn. On August 26, 1943, the British Foreign Office telegraphed Moscow with the request that they make a similar statement condemning the “extension of German campaign of mass murder and deportation against population of Poland” on behalf of the Polish Government. But the Soviets, apparently, cared little what the Poles or the world thought in regard to alleged German atrocities. The Soviets, after all, had already blamed the Katyn mass murders on the Germans and lamely continued to do so after 1945, even ‘trying’ and executing the alleged ‘German perpetrators,’ without convincing anyone of Soviet innocence. In any case, the Soviets had no fear of justice, because they knew for whom the Allies toiled.
It was thus not until August 31, 1943 that the following telegram arrived from Moscow: “Molotov has replied that the Soviet Government were precluded by lack of time from examining draft declaration and proposal for simultaneous publication by them of similar communication. The Soviet Government’s attitude towards responsibility of Hitlerites for the crimes committed in occupied territory had already been defined in a number of notes and in special statement of October 14th last (see my telegram No. 250) made in connection with declaration by them in regard to nine occupied countries including Poland.” The Soviets preferred their own lies.
Meanwhile, back at the “gas chambers” or actually the typewriters of the British Foreign Office, all were satisfied with their creative writing exercise. The Polish Government-in-Exile was in full agreement with the text of the declaration, as W. D. Allen advised Sir Owen O’Malley, the British Ambassador to Poland, in a memo dated 20 August 1943. By August 27th, the declaration had gone out over the wires to Canada, New Zealand, Australia, South Africa, the U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R. All was in readiness to spew forth at the appointed day and hour, when the lies would be proclaimed to the world.
But one man, Mr. Cavendish-Bentinck, a senior official of British Intelligence, was “a little unhappy about the statement [Editor’s note to American readers: this meant that he was extremely unhappy], to be issued on the authority of His Majesty’s Government, that Poles ‘are now being systematically put to death in gas chambers’.” You can imagine the consternation amongst the hackwriters of the Foreign Office and their chiefs when they received this ‘rocket’ in the form of a memo dated August 27th, 1943. The telegraphed “gas chambers” declaration had gone out to all Allied authorities on August 27th! How they all must have hated this ‘horrible man’ who threatened to wreck their game with his maddening coolness. Cavendish-Bentinck’s memo continues:
The only two references which I have been able to find… which deal with this form of execution are as follows: (1) Telegram of l7th July, 1943 from Poland. “Commander-in-Chief armed forces Lublin district informed me that he had evidence that some of these people are being murdered in gas cells there” (Majdanek Camp). (2) Telegram of 17th July, 1943, from Poland “It has been ascertained that on July 2nd and 5th two transports made of women, children and old men, consisting of 30 wagons each, have been liquidated in gas cells.” It will be observed that the first of the reports gives no indication of the date of the occurrence, or the number of people concerned; the second is silent as to the place and the source. It is true that there have been references to the use of gas chambers in other reports; but these references have usually, if not always, been equally vague, and since they have concerned the extermination of Jews, have usually emanated from Jewish sources. Personally, I have never really understood the advantage of the gas chamber over the simpler machine-gun, or the equally simple starvation method…”
Cavendish-Bentinck was no doubt aware that the Soviet-Khazar rulers of the erstwhile Russian Empire had used mass-starvation as a weapon against the Ukrainians in the 1930’s and that gunfire was used to slay the Polish officers at Katyn. Starvation would be used again by the Soviets and also by the Americans to murder millions of Germans after Germany’s surrender in 1945. Gas chamber technology for executions, as opposed to delousing, was well-known in the United States and had been in use since the 1920’s. If mass-gassing were cheaper and more efficient than shooting or starvation, one suspects that this method would have been used by the Soviets and the Americans instead of the previously mentioned methods.
We now know that British Intelligence was intercepting and decoding all German radio transmissions in regard to labor and concentration camps such as Auschwitz-Birkenau-Monowitz, Majdanek et al. and gas chambers were not the means used for the execution of prisoners. The British also knew the number of inmates at each camp, as well as the number transferred into and out of the camps. Cavendish-Bentinck was undoubtedly privy to this information and did not want the British to be embarrassed by German rebuttals. The “gas chambers” must be saved for later, when the Germans could not defend themselves…
Cavendish-Bentinck’s memo continues:
In my opinion it is incorrect to describe Polish information regarding German atrocities as ‘trustworthy’. The Poles, and to a far greater extent the Jews, tend to exaggerate German atrocities in order to stoke us up. They seem to have succeeded. Mr. Allen and myself have both followed German atrocities quite closely. I do not believe that there is any evidence which would be accepted in a Law Court that Polish children have been killed on the spot by Germans when their parents were being deported to work in Germany, nor that Polish children have been sold to German settlers. As regards putting Poles to death in gas chambers, I do not believe that there is any evidence that this has been done. There have been many stories to this effect, and we have played them up in P.W.E. [Psychological Warfare Executive] rumors without believing that they had any foundation. At any rate, there is far less evidence than exists for the mass murder of Polish officers by the Russians (sic) at Katyn… I think that we weaken our case against the Germans by publicly giving credence to atrocity stories for which we have no evidence. These mass executions in gas chambers remind me of the story of employment of human corpses during the last war for the manufacture of fat, which was a grotesque lie and led to the true stories of German enormities being brushed aside as being mere propaganda. I am very sad to see that we must needs ape the Russians (sic) and talk about ‘Hitlerite’ – instead of ‘German’.”
The panic buttons were pressed and emergency cords pulled throughout the British ministries that day. At the bottom of Cavendish-Bentinck’s memo is W.D. Allen’s scribbled message: “I have discussed this with Mr. Roberts. It seems too late to make substantial changes. But we could telegraph to Washington and Moscow on the lines of the amended draft.” At the very bottom of the memo are notations in two other hands: “Tels sent & M. Kulski informed.” And, “The Polish P.M. readily accepted the change.” So the “gas chambers,” which existed only on paper in the first place, disappeared with the stroke of a pen.
On August 28,1943, the governments of Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa were sent secret telegrams with the following text: “Following for Prime Minister. Begins. My telegram D No. 596 of 27th August. Declaration regarding German atrocities in Poland. On further reflection we are not convinced that evidence regarding use of gas chambers is substantial enough to justify inclusion in a public declaration of concluding phrase of paragraph 2 of draft contained in my telegram D. No. 597 of 27th August and we are therefore suggesting to United States Government that sentence in question should end at ‘concentration camps.’ Ends.”
On August 30,1943. The Times of London published the declaration in its final ‘approved’ form:
“GERMAN CRIMES IN POLAND
A British Warning
The following statement was issued yesterday by the Foreign Office:
Trustworthy information has reached His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom regarding crimes committed by the German invaders against the population of Poland. Since the autumn of 1942 a belt of territory extending from the province of Bialystok southwards along the line of the River Bug has been systematically emptied of its inhabitants. In July, 1943 these measures were extended to practically the whole of the province of Lublin, where hundreds of thousands of persons have been deported from their homes or exterminated.
These measures are being carried out with the utmost brutality. Many of the victims are killed on the spot. The rest are segregated. Men form 14 to 50 are taken away to work for Germany. Some children are killed on the spot, others are separated from their parents and either sent to Germany or sold to German settlers – or dispatched with the women and old men to concentration camps.
His Majesty’s Government reaffirm their resolve to punish the instigators and actual perpetrators of these crimes. They further declare that, so long as such atrocities continue to be committed by the representatives and in the name of Germany, they must be taken into account against the time of the final settlement with Germany. Meanwhile the war against Germany will be prosecuted with the utmost vigor until the barbarous Hitlerite tyranny has been finally overthrown.
From our own Correspondent, New York Aug. 29
The American State Department today issued a statement in similar terms to the British Government’s statement regarding German crimes in Poland.”
The reader has just witnessed, by looking over the shoulders of a few bureaucrats, as it were, how the “Nazi gas chambers” were produced by an inter-office memo emanating from the British Foreign Office on August 12, 1943 and how they were made to ‘vanish’ by means of same on August 28, 1943. Of course, the “gas chamber rumors” which were being spread by Britain’s Psychological Warfare Executive et al. were making their mischievous rounds, as they are today.
Once Germany was militarily defeated, the “gas chambers” were resurrected at Nuremberg, along with World War I-type propaganda hoaxes such as “human soap” or “soup,” “lampshades of human skin,” etc. Nuremberg Document 3311-PS, which was submitted to the Allied kangaroo court by Dr. Tadeusz Cyprian, the Polish Deputy Representative on the United Nations War Crimes Commission in London, accused the German authorities of operating “extermination camps” at Treblinka, Belzec and Sobibor. The accusation makes no mention of Poles being exterminated, for Poles were no longer running Poland by that time. Jews and Jews alone were the alleged victims: “In these camps the Jews were put to death in their thousands [Editor’s note: not millions?] by hitherto unknown, new methods, gas and steam chambers as well as electric current employed on a large scale.” No mention is made of those supposedly ubiquitous “gas vans” which were later alleged to have done most of the “gassings.” Instead of “gas vans,” we have “steam chambers” and even “electric chambers.” Since these were on par with the “gas chambers” we have heard so much about, why do we hear nothing about them today? In this document, Treblinka is specifically mentioned as using “steam chambers intended for mass killing of Jews by suffocating them.” It even describes the “steam chambers” and the boiler installations, so there was no confusion here between “steam” and “gas” chambers. The “steam chambers” have gone into the Orwellian “memory hole” with the “gas chambers of Dachau.” As we have seen, anything can be written on paper, for “paper is patient.”
In the closing stages of WWII, as Allied forces were driving Hitler’s now demoralised forces from France, three senior German officers defected.
The information they gave British intelligence was considered so sensitive that in 1945 it was locked away, not due to be released until the year 2021.
Now the BBC’s Document programme has been given special access to this secret file. It reveals how thousands of Indian soldiers who had joined Britain in the fight against fascism swapped their oaths to the British king for others to Adolf Hitler – an astonishing tale of loyalty, despair and betrayal that threatened to rock British rule in India, known as the Raj.
The story the German officers told their interrogators began in Berlin on 3 April 1941. This was the date that the left-wing Indian revolutionary leader, Subhas Chandra Bose, arrived in the German capital.
Bose, who had been arrested 11 times by the British in India, had fled the Raj with one mission in mind. That was to seek Hitler’s help in pushing the British out of India.
Six months later, with the help of the German foreign ministry, he had set up what he called “The Free India Centre”, from where he published leaflets, wrote speeches and organised broadcasts in support of his cause.
By the end of 1941, Hitler’s regime officially recognised his provisional “Free India Government” in exile, and even agreed to help Chandra Bose raise an army to fight for his cause. It was to be called “The Free India Legion”.
Bose hoped to raise a force of about 100,000 men which, when armed and kitted out by the Germans, could be used to invade British India.
He decided to raise them by going on recruiting visits to Prisoner-of-War camps in Germany which, at that time, were home to tens of thousands of Indian soldiers captured by Rommel in North Africa.
Finally, by August 1942, Bose’s recruitment drive got fully into swing. Mass ceremonies were held in which dozens of Indian POWs joined in mass oaths of allegiance to Adolf Hitler.
These are the words that were used by men that had formally sworn an oath to the British king: “I swear by God this holy oath that I will obey the leader of the German race and state, Adolf Hitler, as the commander of the German armed forces in the fight for India, whose leader is Subhas Chandra Bose.”
I managed to track down one of Bose’s former recruits, Lieutenant Barwant Singh, who can still remember the Indian revolutionary arriving at his prisoner of war camp.
“He was introduced to us as a leader from our country who wanted to talk to us,” he said.
“He wanted 500 volunteers who would be trained in Germany and then parachuted into India. Everyone raised their hands. Thousands of us volunteered.”
In all 3,000 Indian prisoners of war signed up for the Free India Legion.
But instead of being delighted, Bose was worried. A left-wing admirer of Russia, he was devastated when Hitler’s tanks rolled across the Soviet border.
Matters were made even worse by the fact that after Stalingrad it became clear that the now-retreating German army would be in no position to offer Bose help in driving the British from faraway India.
When the Indian revolutionary met Hitler in May 1942 his suspicions were confirmed, and he came to believe that the Nazi leader was more interested in using his men to win propaganda victories than military ones.
So, in February 1943, Bose turned his back on his legionnaires and slipped secretly away aboard a submarine bound for Japan.
There, with Japanese help, he was to raise a force of 60,000 men to march on India.
Back in Germany the men he had recruited were left leaderless and demoralised. After much dissent and even a mutiny, the German High Command despatched them first to Holland and then south-west France, where they were told to help fortify the coast for an expected allied landing.
After D-Day, the Free India Legion, which had now been drafted into Himmler’s Waffen SS, were in headlong retreat through France, along with regular German units.
It was during this time that they gained a wild and loathsome reputation amongst the civilian population.
The former French Resistance fighter, Henri Gendreaux, remembers the Legion passing through his home town of Ruffec: “I do remember several cases of rape. A lady and her two daughters were raped and in another case they even shot dead a little two-year-old girl.”
Finally, instead of driving the British from India, the Free India Legion were themselves driven from France and then Germany.
Their German military translator at the time was Private Rudolf Hartog, who is now 80.
“The last day we were together an armoured tank appeared. I thought, my goodness, what can I do? I’m finished,” he said.
“But he only wanted to collect the Indians. We embraced each other and cried. You see that was the end.”
A year later the Indian legionnaires were sent back to India, where all were released after short jail sentences.
But when the British put three of their senior officers on trial near Delhi there were mutinies in the army and protests on the streets.
With the British now aware that the Indian army could no longer be relied upon by the Raj to do its bidding, independence followed soon after.
Not that Subhas Chandra Bose was to see the day he had fought so hard for. He died in 1945.
Since then little has been heard of Lieutenant Barwant Singh and his fellow legionnaires.
At the end of the war the BBC was forbidden from broadcasting their story and this remarkable saga was locked away in the archives, until now. Not that Lieutenant Singh has ever forgotten those dramatic days.
“In front of my eyes I can see how we all looked, how we would all sing and how we all talked about what eventually would happen to us all,” he said.
Why the British should apologise to India (by Shashi Tharoor)
Screenshot from film Gandhi (1982); Director Richard Attenborough; International Film Investors; National Film Development Corporation of India (NFDC); Goldcrest Films International; Indo-British; Carolina Bank
Follow RT on
The centenary of the Jallianwala Bagh massacre is the right occasion for Britain to apologise for the evils of colonialism.
Two years ago, on the UK publication of my book Inglorious Empire: What The British Did to India, I took the unusual step of demanding an apology from Britain to India. I even suggested the time and place – the centenary, on April 13, 2019, of the Jallianwala Bagh Massacre in Amritsar. This single event was in many ways emblematic of the worst of the “Raj”, the British Empire in India.
The background to the massacre lay in the British betrayal of promises to reward India for its services in the First World War. After making enormous sacrifices, and an immense contribution in men and materiel, blood and treasure, to the British war effort, Indian leaders expected to be rewarded with some measure of self-government. Those hopes were belied.
When protests broke out, the British responded with force. They arrested nationalist leaders in the city of Amritsar and opened fire on protestors, killing ten. In the riot that ensued, five Englishmen were killed and an Englishwoman assaulted (though she was rescued, and carried to safety, by Indians). Brigadier General Reginald Dyer was sent to Amritsar to restore order; he forbade demonstrations or processions, or even gathering in groups of more than three.
The thousands of people who had gathered in the walled garden of Jallianwala Bagh to celebrate the major religious festival of Baisakhi were unaware of this order. Dyer did not seek to find out what they were doing. He took a detachment of soldiers in armoured cars, equipped with machine-guns, and without ordering the crowd to disperse or issuing so much as a warning, ordered his troops to open fire from close quarters. They used 1,650 rounds, killed at least 379 people (the number the British were prepared to admit to; the Indian figures are considerably higher) and wounded 1,137. Barely a bullet, Dyer noted with satisfaction, was wasted.
Dyer did not order his men to fire in the air, or at the feet of their targets. They fired, on his orders, into the chests, the faces, and the wombs of the unarmed, screaming, defenceless crowd. After it was over, he refused permission for families to tend to the dead and the dying, leaving them to rot for hours in the hot sun, and inflicted numerous other humiliations on Indians, from forcing them to crawl on their bellies on a street, where an Englishwoman had been assaulted (and beating them with rifle butts if they lifted their heads), to pettier indignities like confiscating electric fans from their homes.
Dyer never showed the slightest remorse or self-doubt.
This was a “rebel meeting,” he claimed, an act of defiance of his authority that had to be punished. “It was no longer a question of merely dispersing the crowd” but one of producing a ‘moral effect’ that would ensure the Indians’ submission. He noted that he had personally directed the firing towards the five narrow exits because that was where the crowd was most dense:“the targets,” he declared, “were good.”
Screenshot from film Gandhi (1982); Director Richard Attenborough; International Film Investors; National Film Development Corporation of India (NFDC); Goldcrest Films International; Indo-British; Carolina Bank
News of Dyer’s barbarism was suppressed by the British for six months, and when outrage at reports of his excesses mounted, an attempt was made to whitewash his sins by an official commission of enquiry, which only found him guilty of ‘grave error’. Finally, as details emerged of the horror, Dyer was relieved of his command and censured by the House of Commons, but promptly exonerated by the House of Lords and allowed to retire. Rudyard Kipling, the flatulent poetic voice of British imperialism, hailed him as ‘The Man Who Saved India’.
Even this did not strike his fellow Britons as adequate recompense for his glorious act of mass murder. They ran a public campaign for funds to honour his cruelty and collected the quite stupendous sum of £26,317, 1s 10d, worth over a quarter of a million pounds today. It was presented to him together with a jewelled sword of honour.
The Jallianwala Bagh massacre was no act of insane frenzy but a conscious, deliberate imposition of colonial will. Dyer was an efficient killer rather than a crazed maniac; his was merely the evil of the unimaginative, the brutality of the military bureaucrat. But his action that Baisakhi day came to symbolize the evil of the system on whose behalf, and in whose defence, he was acting.
Everything about the incident – the betrayal of promises made to India, the cruelty of the killings, the brutality and racism that followed, the self-justification, exoneration and reward – collectively symbolized everything that was wrong about the Raj.
It represented the worst that colonialism could become, and by letting it occur, the British crossed that point of no return that exists only in the minds of men – that point which, in any unequal relationship, both ruler and subject must instinctively respect if their relationship is to survive.
The massacre made Indians out of millions of people who had not thought consciously of their political identity before that grim Sunday. It turned loyalists into nationalists and constitutionalists into agitators, led the Nobel Prize-winning poet Rabindranath Tagore to return his knighthood and a host of Indian appointees to British offices to turn in their commissions.
And above all it entrenched in Mahatma Gandhi a firm and unshakable faith in the moral righteousness of the cause of Indian independence from an empire he saw as irremediably evil, even satanic.
It is getting late for atonement, but not too late. Neither the Queen nor Theresa May were alive when the atrocity was committed, and certainly no British government of 2019 bears a shred of responsibility for that tragedy, but the nation that once allowed it to happen should atone for its past sins.
That is what German Chancellor Willy Brandt did by going onto his knees in the Warsaw Ghetto in 1970, even though as a Social Democrat he was himself a victim of Nazi persecution and innocent of any complicity in it. It is why Prime Minister Justin Trudeau apologised in 2016 on behalf of Canada for the actions of his country’s authorities a century earlier in denying permission for the Indian immigrants on the Komagata Maru to land in Vancouver, thereby sending many of them to their deaths.
Brandt’s and Trudeau’s gracious apologies need to find their British echo. Former Prime Minister David Cameron’s rather mealy-mouthed description of the massacre in 2013 as a “deeply shameful event” is hardly an apology. Nor is the ceremonial visit to the site in 1997 by Queen Elizabeth and the Duke of Edinburgh, who merely left their signatures in the visitors’ book, without even a redeeming comment.
My call is for a British minister or a member of the Royal Family to find the heart, and the spirit, to get on his or her knees at Jallianwala Bagh in 2019 and apologise to the Indian people for the unforgivable massacre that was perpetrated at that site a century earlier. Along with such an apology, the British could start teaching unromanticized colonial history in their schools and decolonise their museums, which are full of looted artefacts from other countries.
The British public is woefully ignorant of the realities of the British empire, and what it meant to its subject peoples. These Brexit days have rekindled in the UK a yearning for the Raj, in gauzy romanticised television soap operas and overblown fantasies about reviving the Empire as an alternative to Europe. If British schoolchildren can learn how those dreams of the English turned out to be nightmares for their subject peoples, true atonement – of the purely moral kind, involving a serious consideration of historical responsibility rather than mere admission of guilt – might be achieved. An apology for, and at, Jallianwala Bagh would be the best place to start, and its centenary the best time to do so.
Dr. Shashi Tharoor
Dr. Shashi Tharoor is an Indian politician, author, and former international civil servant
Like this story? Share it with a friend!
Mahatma Gandhi and the Wounds of History: Palestine, India and the British Empire in the 20th century
Committee Room 14, in the House of Commons, London, 18th April 2017
The British Parliament does not often hear an Asian perspective on the Middle East. The very term ‘Middle East’ is Europe-centred; in India the region is known as West Asia. This perspective was offered by Rajmohan Gandhi, a historian and a grandson of Mahatma Gandhi, at a talk to 170 people in the House of Commons. The event was sponsored by the Rt Hon Tom Brake MP, the Duke of Montrose, Ian Murray MP, Dr Philippa Whitford MP and the Balfour Project.
Professor Gandhi compared India’s struggle for independence with the struggle in Palestine at the same time. He quoted his grandfather who in 1920 had predicted that Sherif Hussein and his son would be puppets in the hands of Europeans. [The British Government, which had promised Hussein support for an Arab State including Palestine in 1915, reneged on that promise and then exiled him to Cyprus in 1926 – Ed].
In India a major stumbling block was the inability to find a political structure which would meet the concerns of both the Hindu and Muslim communities, a challenge as intractable as meeting the concerns of the Arab and Jewish communities in Palestine. In India the British authorities made ambiguous statements and pushed through their plan for partition, actively lobbying against Gandhi’s ideas of a united India. Churchill, who was constantly hostile to Gandhi, supported partition. But partition resulted in one million killed and 14 million displaced. In each case Britain failed, tragically.
As Professor Gandhi said, ‘Doublespeak does not work, and imposed solutions do not work. When confronted by the profound divisions that marked both the subcontinent and Palestine, what was of greater importance for the Empire’s leaders: the strategic implications, or the future of millions of divided neighbours?’
Yes, there was ‘imperial divide-and-rule’, he said, but that was not the only problem. ‘Hindu, Muslim and Sikh voices deliberately stoked ill-will among Indians. ‘The twin components of Gandhi’s nonviolence, ‘fear not’ and ‘hate not’, were both difficult to practice, but the first found wider acceptance than the second.’ He quoted a statement by his grandfather in 1947: ‘Outwardly we followed truth and non-violence. But inwardly there was violence in us. We practised hypocrisy and as a result we have to suffer the pain of mutual strife. Even today we are nurturing attitudes that will result in war.’
In Professor Gandhi’s view, his grandfather made mistakes. In 1938, when Jews were enduring Nazi atrocities, he had advised them to adopt a non-violent approach. ‘He should not have offered his utopian advice,’ said Professor Gandhi. ‘Yet he may have been right in expressing a sense of injustice at the forcible conversion of Arab-majority Palestine into a Jewish homeland, and in saying that the entry of European or other Jews into Palestine should take place with Arab agreement. And surely he was right in suggesting that in the end the Arabs and Jews of Palestine, and the Jews from outside who wished to reside there, had to find a negotiated agreement.’
Gandhi failed to inspire Indians to the extent he hoped. But he left behind ‘a nation for all where – at least in theory and often in practice – Muslims and other minorities receive the state’s protection. Now, however, 70 years later, there is a concerted attempt to make India a Hindu state where Muslims, Christians and other non-Hindus must accept a subservient status.’
From his survey of this history, Professor Gandhi drew the lesson that for peace to prevail, the past must be squarely acknowledged. He gave examples of actions which have ‘melted resentment’, including the visit of the Queen to Ireland in May 2011. ‘Her acknowledgment that things had been done in Ireland which “we wish had been done differently or not at all” seemed to impact a broad spectrum of that land.’
Much of the question time focused on Britain’s responsibility for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The Duke of Montrose thanked Professor Gandhi for ‘opening a window onto our incredible pride and unwarranted self confidence… giving us perspective on what we created in the Middle East where our self interest was a major driving force.’
‘We contributed to this chaos,’ said Philippa Whitford, who has worked as a surgeon in Gaza. ‘We absolutely have a responsibility, and we should recognise Palestine. A degree of partition is needed until the power of each population is equalised. Then there can be a more enlightened conversation and the people there can be involved in what they see as the solutions.’
Professor Gandhi responded by saying that this is an issue for the people of Britain as much as for the politicians. ‘You have an incredible history of free speech, daring speech, from Magna Carta down to today. In my historical research in India, I have come across many British people who came to India, learnt our languages and did amazing things, such as reviving our literature. You need to recapture the boldness which marked your history. Now the world is here in Britain, becoming part of this history. Don’t worry about your image. The world needs people who will come together, speak unitedly, and do what needs to be done. Who else will do this for the world?’
Nicholas Frayling, former Dean of Chichester, closed the event by quoting Maya Angelou: ‘History, despite its wrenching pain, cannot be unlived, but if faced with courage, need not be lived again.’ The centenary of the Balfour Declaration this year, he said, ‘needs to be a time of heart-searching reflection. Arthur Balfour was instrumental in creating a homeland for the Jewish people. But the second half of the Declaration has never been implemented. The commemoration of the centenary cannot be a celebration when so many people have been hurt.’
Tom Brake concurred. ‘We must ensure that the Balfour Declaration is delivered in its entirety not just for the Israelis but also for the Palestinians.’
Israeli Historians Welcome Revision Of Auschwitz Death Toll
KARIN LAUBJuly 18, 1990
JERUSALEM (AP) _ An Israeli historian today welcomed Poland’s decision to lower the official death toll at the Auschwitz-Birkenau death camp from 4 million to under 2 million and acknowledge that most of the victims were Jews.
″It’s a positive change that the Poles decided not to play politics with the victims anymore,″ said Shmuel Krakowski, head of the archives at the Yad Vashem Holocaust Memorial in Jerusalem.
Krakowski said that until recently Poland had clung to the higher figure of 4 million victims, including more than 1 million non-Jews, to back claims that Poles and other gentiles suffered as much as Jews at the hands of the Nazis.
Revised findings by the Auschwitz State Museum said the number of victims in the Nazi death camp in southern Poland actually was 1.1 million to 1.5 million, the Polish newspaper Gazeta Wyborcza reported Tuesday.
Of that number, at least 960,000 were Jews.
The report cited by Gazeta Wyborcza is to be published next year by the state museum and Yad Vashem memorial. The paper said plaques carrying the inflated death toll have been removed from a memorial at the camp, the largest built by the Nazis.
Krakowski said the revised figures were in line with Yad Vashem estimates that fewer than 2 million people were killed in Auschwitz-Birkenau, among them up to 90 percent Jews.
″We always knew and published the right number,″ he said. ″The Poles didn’t want to correct theirs until now because of political considerations.″
Krakowski said because Yad Vashem had always stuck to the lower figure, the new death toll out of Poland did not affect the total of 6 million Jews who perished in the Nazi Holocaust.
Of the 6 million, just under 4 million were gassed to death in Nazi death camps, the largest of which were located in Nazi-occupied Poland, including Auschwitz-Birkenau, Treblinka and Majdanek.
Krakowski said the figure of 4 million victims at Auschwitz-Birkenau alone was first mentioned by Rudolf Hoess, the death camp commander, during his trial in Poland after World War II.
The figure was also cited by a Soviet commission that came to the camp in February 1945, one week after its liberation. It later submitted its findings to the Nuremberg war crimes trials.
Based on the numbering of inmates, letters linked to transports, and statistical lists made in Jewish ghettos, the number of victims that can be documented is 1.1 million, about 90 percent of whom were Jewish, Franciszek Piper, head of the Auschwitz State Museum’s history department, said in an interview with Gazeta Wyborcza.
Poland has pressed the Soviets since the 1970s to grant historians access to World War II camp records, which were packed up and taken to the Soviet Union soon after the liberation, Piper said.
The Ministry of Culture of Poland’s new Solidarity-led government has appointed a committee to review the state of the Auschwitz-Birkenau memorial and museum.
The review wants not only to repair the physical deterioration of the camps, but to correct exhibits dating from the 1950s that the ministry says distort history by concealing the main reason the camps existed was to exterminate Jews
1992 Now here comes the tricky part : from 4 to 1,5 million
International Red Cross Report Confirms the Holocaust of Six Million Jews is a Hoax
RED CROSS EXPOSES “JEWISH” HOLOCAUST HOAX: INTERNATIONAL RED CROSS (IRC) DOCUMENT CONFIRMS 271 THOUSAND NOT 6 MILLION DIED IN CONCENTRATION CAMPS
OFFICIAL INTERNATIONAL RED CROSS RECORDS RELEASED
Sealed and guarded since the end of WWII at Arolsen, Germany, the Official IRC records reveal the actual Concentration Camp total death toll was 271,301
For years, people around the world – “the West” in particular – have been told that “six million Jews were systematically murdered by Germans in ‘Concentration Camps’ during World War 2.”
Thousands of honest people disputing this claim have been viciously smeared as a hateful anti-Semite. Several countries around the world have jailed and heavily fined people for disputing the claim that “6 Million” Jews were killed.
Provided here is a scanned image of an Official International Red Cross document, proving the so-called “Holocaust” [the long-and-often-claimed-6-million Jews] is just plain wrong. Jews around the world have intentionally exaggerated and perpetually lied for the purpose of gaining political, emotional and business advantages for themselves.
They committed willful, criminal FRAUD upon millions of trusting people around the world!
Please NOTE that the truth has been known since long before 1979! The above compiler, replying to a letter, had to rely on information that was already in existence!
Tax-payers of Germany, Switzerland, Austria, Latvia, Poland and other nations have had multiple millions of dollars taken from their wages to be paid out to “holocaust survivors” and their descendants for something that DID NOT HAPPEN.
The tax-payers of these United States of America spend Billion$ each year in direct, indirect and military support of the State of Israel (which is not Biblical Israel).
This is intentional, criminal fraud on a scale so massive as to be almost incomprehensible.
Red Cross and East German government figures put the total deaths at every camp as 272.000, and 282,000 respectively which includes homosexuals, communists, gypsies, murderers, paedophiles etc. The 6 Million figure is a Kabbalist number, a magickal figure which featured in newspapers in the early 1900’s.
Where do the innocent Germans, Americans and others go to get a refund?
I call for criminal prosecution of individuals and groups who filed false lawsuits to obtain holocaust reparations and financial damage awards and perpetrating deliberate fraud upon Courts.
I call for the removal of Holocaust references in History books and educational materials.
I call for the removal of Holocaust Memorials worldwide.
It is long overdue that this intentional fraud be halted and those who perpetrated it be brought to justice for over 60 years of National Blood Libel against Germany and other nations through vicious lies and financial fraud.
Two of the most important surveys of the Jewish question in Europe during World War II are David Irving’s examination of the Russian archives after the wall came down. Irving published his findings in his book, “Hitler’s War” and said not one word about gas chambers.
When questioned about this omission he said that there was no reference to gas chambers in the archives and therefore he did not discuss the question of gas chambers. Irving was arrested in several countries for hate speech for his scholarly omission.
The International Red Cross published their analysis in a three volume “Report of the International Committee of the Red Cross on its Activities during the Second World War” published in Geneva in 1948. This analysis expanded findings of two previous publications: “Sur L’activite’ du CICR en faveur des civils detencus dans les camps de concentration en Allemagne 1939-1945 (Geneva, 1946) and “Inter Arma Caritas: The Work of the ICRF during the Second World War” (Geneva, 1947).
In 1949 the International Red Cross interviewed prisoners in the German camps. They were not allowed to interview prisoners in the Russian camps which were far more harsh.
The German camps held both political prisoners (Schutzhaflinge) and those convicted of crimes. The Germans allowed the Red Cross to distribute food, medicine and clothing to the prisoners.
Grateful prisoners sent letters of thanks from Dachau, Buchenwalk, Sangerhausen, Sachsenhausen, Oranienburg, Flossenburg, Landsberg-am-Lech, Fibha, Ravensbruck, Hamburg-Neuengamme, Mauthausen, Theresienstadt, Auschwitz, Bergen-Belsen and others.
“The principal recipients were Belgians, Dutch, French, Greeks, Italians, Norwegians, Poles and stateless Jews” (Vol. III, p. 83).
Regarding Theresienstadt, the Red Cross said, “where there were about 40,000 Jews deported from various countries, was a relatively privileged ghetto” (Vol. III, p. 75).
“The Committee’s delegates were able to visit the camp at Theresienstadt (Terezin) which was used exclusively for Jews and was governed by special conditions … From information gathered by the Commitee, this camp had been started as an experiment by certain leaders of the Reich … These men wished to give the Jews the means of setting up a communal life in a town under their own administration and possessing almost complete autonomy … two delegates were able to visit the camp on April 6, 1945. They confirmed the favourable impression gained on the first visit” (Vol. I, p. 642).
The ICRC also had praise for the regime of Ion Antonescu of Fascist Rumania where the Committee was able to extend special relief to 183,000 Rumanian Jews until the time of the Soviet occupation.
The aid then ceased and the ICRC complained bitterly that it never succeeded “in sending anything whatsoever to Russia” (Vol. II, p. 62). The same situation applied to many of the German camps after their “liberation” by the Russians.
The ICRC received a voluminous flow of mail from Auschwitz until the period of the Soviet occupation, when many of the internees were evacuated westward. But the efforts of the Red Cross to send relief to internees remaining at Auschwitz under Soviet control were futile.
However, food parcels continued to be sent to former Auschwitz inmates transferred west to such camps as Buchenwald and Oranienburg.
NO MENTION OF GAS CHAMBERS
One of the most important aspects of the Report of the ICRC is that it clarifies the true cause of those deaths that undoubtedly occurred in the camps towards the end of the war.
Says the Report: “in the chaotic condition of Germany after the invasion during the final months of the war, the camps received no food supplies at all and starvation claimed an increasing number of victims.
Itself alarmed by this situation, the German Government at last informed the ICRC on February 1, 1945 … In March 1945, discussions between the President of the ICRC and General of the S.S. Kaltenbrunner gave even more decisive results.
Relief could henceforth be distributed by the ICRC and one delegate was authorised to stay in each camp .I.” (Vol. III, p.83).
Clearly, the German authorities were at pains to relieve the dire situation as far as they were able.
The Red Cross are quite explicit in stating that food supplies ceased at this time due to the Allied bombing of German transportation, and in the interests of interned Jews they had protested on March 15, 1944 against “the barbarous aerial warfare of the Allies” (Inter Armet Caritns, p. 78). B
By October 2, 1944, the ICRC had warned the German Foreign Office of the impending collapse of the German transportation system, declaring that starvation conditions for people throughout Germany were becoming inevitable.
In dealing with this comprehensive, three-volume Report, it is important to stress that the delegates of the International Red Cross found no evidence whatsoever of ‘gas chambers’.
The original 1946 edition did not even talk of ‘extermination’ or ‘death camps’ but after the emotional impact of the Nuremberg trials the Red Cross felt compelled to introduce into the expanded 1948 Report several, very cursory references to ‘death camps’ (Vol. 1 p. 641) and ‘extermination camps’ (Vol. I p. 645). However, no means of’extermination’ is indicated.
In all its 1,600 pages the three-volume Report does not even mention such a thing as a ‘gas chamber’. It acknowledges that Jews, like many other wartime nationalities, suffered rigours and privations, but’ its complete silence on the subject of ’gassings’ is ample refutation of the ‘Holocaust’ legend.
NOT ALL WERE INTERNED
Volume III of the Report of the ICRC, Chapter 3 (I. Jewish Civilian Population) deals with the “aid given to the Jewish section of the free population” and this chapter makes it quite plain that by no means all of the European Jews were placed in internment camps but remained, subject to certain restrictions, as part of the free civilian population.
This conflicts directly with the “thoroughness” of the supposed “extermination programme”, and with the claim in the forged Hoess memoirs that Eichmann was obsessed with seizing every single Jew he could lay his hands on,” In Slovakia, for example, where Eichmann’s assistant Dieter Wisliceny was in charge, the Report states that “A large proportian of the Jewish minority had permission to stay in the country, and at certain periods Slovakia was looked upon as a comparative haven of refuge for Jews, especially for those coming from Poland.
Those who remained in Slovakia seem to have been in comparative safety until the end of August 1944, when a rising against the German forces took place. While it is true that the law of May 15, 1942 had brought about the internment of several thousand Jews, these people were held in camps where the conditions of food and lodging were tolerable, and where the internees were allowed to do paid work on terms almost equal to those of the free labour market” (Vol. I, p. 646).
Not only did large numbers of the three million or so European Jews avoid internment altogether, but the emigration of Jews continued throughout the war, generally by way of Hungary, Rumania and Turkey. Ironically, post-war Jewish emigration from German-occupied territories was also facilitated by the Reich, as in the case of the Polish Jews who had escaped to France before its occupation.
“The Jews from Poland who, whilst in France, had obtained entrance permits to the United States were held to be American citizens by the German occupying authorities, who further agreed to recognise the validity of about three thousand passports issued to Jews by the consulates of South American countries” (Vol. 1, p. 645).
As future U.S. citizens, these Jews were held at the Vittel camp in southern France for American aliens. The emigration of European Jews from Hungary in particular proceeded during the war unhindered by the German authorities. “Until March 1944,” says the Red Cross Report, “Jews who had the privilege of visas for Palestine were free to leave Hungary” (Vol. 1, p. 648). Even after the replacement of the Horthy Government in 1944 (following its attempted armistice with the Soviet Union) with a government more dependent on German authority, the emigration of Jews continued.
The Committee secured the pledges of both Britain and the United States “to give support by every means to the emigration of Jews from Hungary, ” and from the U.S. Government the ICRC received a message stating that “The Government of the United States… now specifically repeats its assurance that arrangements will be made by it for the care of all Jews who in the present circumstances are allowed to leave” (Vol. 1, p. 649).
Official International Red Cross Records Released
Sealed And Guarded Since The End Of WWII At Arolsen, Germany, The Official IRC Records Reveal The Actual Concentration Camp Total Death Toll Was 271,301
The Source of the six million figure is a Talmudic (Jewish Talmud) reference to a future holocaust in which six million Jews die.
The reason why they are claiming six million deaths in Nazi camps, even though that number vastly exceeds the number of Jews in Europe at the time, is because this reference in their scripture is something they fear deeply and wish to prevent at all costs.
The Ashkenazi Jews, which I have experience with honestly believe that prophecy is real, but can be manipulated.
They believe that prophets see into the future, and see what was believed and said, and then write that down as much as they reveal the word of GOD.
SO there is a group of Ashkenazi Jews who wish to make the six million figure HISTORY to prevent it from ever happening in the FUTURE by repeating this number over and over and over into the social concience, in the hope that prophets of old will also latch onto this, and report it as a factual event in the future, which would now be history.
In other words, they believe they can lie themselves a new future. I don’t think so – I think their hardest days are ahead and one thing is certain, the genie is out of the bottle and through the word, the real truth of Fukushima may be like silly putty slowly sinking into the carpet, eventually it will be TOTALLY sunk in the carpet and nothing will get it out.
THIS could cause the six million Jewish deaths the prophecy speaks of, and No, I do not believe they can lie their way out of it.
TG: “This appeared in Ireland in the Kilkenny Journal and was sent to me by a friend. Here is the link to the original article which I have pasted in full here below:”
Many important stories are vying for my attention. I have a backlog of numerous links. However, many long-time readers will be interested to hear claims from Poland that the Red Cross counted the total number of deaths in concentration camps. Considering the volatility of the topic, this might get the blog taken down altogether, so be sure to save a backup copy of anything that interests you.
Official sources from the International Red Cross prove that the Holocaust was a Jewish fraud.
Recently released documents, closed for years, show that the total number of deaths in “concentration camps” is only 271,301.
There were 6 million Jews dead: this claim is an ordinary fabrication *.
For many years, the Jews told the whole world that 6 million of them were systematically murdered in German “concentration camps” during World War II. Anyone questioning this claim is viciously denigrated as a hateful anti-Semite. Countries from all over the world sentenced people who questioned the claim about the murdered 6 million to prison.
Now the whole world can see a scanned image of the official document of the International Red Cross as proof that the so-called “Holocaust” never took place. Jews around the world deliberately lied in order to gain emotional and financial benefits for themselves. They committed a committed premeditated fraud on millions of people in the world!
“Holocaust” is the greatest lie ever said. Millions of dollars were paid to “survivors of the Holocaust” and their descendants for something that did not happen. This is a deliberate, criminal fraud on a scale so massive that it is almost inexplicable.
I appeal for the prosecution of individuals and groups who have established false lawsuits in order to obtain compensation for the Holocaust and financial rewards for damages for deliberate fraud in the courts. I call for the removal of mentions about the Holocaust in history textbooks and educational materials. I am calling for the removal of Holocaust Memorials around the world.
This deliberate fraud should have been detained for a long time, and those who brought it to justice for 60 years of virulent lies and financial fraud.
The actual assessment of the “Holocaust” by the Red Cross – There is no evidence of genocide
There is one study on the Jewish question in Europe during World War II, and the conditions in German concentration camps, almost unique in terms of integrity and objectivity, 3-volume Report of the International Committee of the Red Cross [ICRC] on its activities during World War II, Geneva 1948.
This comprehensive material from a completely neutral source, took into account and expanded the results of two previous works: Documents sur l’activité du CICR en faveur des civils détenus dans les camps de concentration en Allemagne 1939-1945 [Documents on the activities of the International Committee of the Red Cross for civilians in concentration camps in Germany 1939-1945] (Geneva, 1946), and Inter Arma Caritas: the Work of the ICRC during the Second World War (Geneve of the ICRC during World War II) (Geneva, 1947).
The team of authors from Frédéric Siordet at the head explained on the initial pages of the report that their object, in the tradition of the Red Cross, maintained strict political neutrality, and this is its great value.
The ICRC successfully applied the Geneva Military Convention of 1929 in order to gain access to civilian internees detained in central and western Europe by the German authorities. But the ICRC could not get any access to the Soviet Union that did not ratify the Convention. Millions of military and civilian internees detained in the USSR, whose conditions have been known to date as much inferior, were completely cut off from all international contact or surveillance.
The Red Cross Report is of great value as it first explains the justified circumstances in which Jews were held in concentration camps, i.e. as hostile foreigners. In the description of two categories of civilian interned persons, the Report distinguishes the second kind of “civilians deported to administrative plots (German:” Schutzhäftlinge “) who were arrested for political or racial reasons, because their presence was considered a threat to the state or occupying forces” ( vol. 111, p. 73). These persons, he says, “were placed on the same basis as persons arrested or imprisoned under ordinary law, for security reasons.” (P. 74).
The report admits that Germany was initially reluctant to control the Red Cross in terms of people detained for reasons related to security, but in the second half of 1942, the ICRC obtained important concessions from Germany. He was allowed to distribute food parcels to main concentration camps in Germany from August 1942, and “from February 1943 this concession was extended to all other camps and prisons” (t.111, p. 78). The ICRC quickly contacted the camp commandants and began a food aid program that lasted until the last months of 1945, for which letters of thanks from Jewish internees were received.
The Jews donated to the Red Cross
Bonus story related to Poland:
Yesterday evening I wrote about a new version of the falsification of Polish history , especially during the Second World War.
(at the urging @ Kralizek I put more people to see, this time with an extended description)
Well, on an English-language version (unknown, or in other languages, eg German) wikipedia, in the slogans about Jews who collaborated with the German occupant on Polish territory, information about the fact that they were Jews, and which remain and / or are changed into Polish nationality.
According to some Wikipedia administrators, there were no Jewish executioners and collaborators during the Second World War
And so yesterday, for example, there was a fierce struggle to edit on the English wiki a password about Chaim Rumkowski (owner: Chaim Mordechaj Rumkowski – typically Polish names ;-)) – a Jew born in the Soviet Union who was attributed to Polish nationality and roots. With the slogan about this creature removed “jewish” left “polish”. Rumkowski, a Jew who during the IIWŚ collaborated with the Germans, was the head of the Judenrat – a Jewish organization founded by the Germans, closely collaborating with the Germans. An exceptional kite, Lord of Life and Death, although there will be titles such as Gazeta ̶Ż̶y̶d̶o̶w̶s̶k̶a̶ Wyborcza, which will write articles wondering whether Rumkowski “Kat or savior?”. It is estimated that a Jew, Chaim Rumkowski, sent to death … 20,000 people . Mainly older people and children. There will also be people like the Jewish Monika Polit, who wrote that Rumkowski was a victim of the Germans, not their collaborator # . Poor King of the Ghetto.
Info from yesterday’s entry:
On the wiki, Chaim Rumkowski is no longer a Jew, he is not a Zionist activist, he is Polish.
Because he cooperated with the Germans, pardon: Nazis.
So he could not be a Jew.
The Jews did not collaborate.
The behavior of the wikipedia administrator was so rude that not only did he remove the record that Rumkowski was a Jew, he additionally blocked the editing of this part of the entry.
The announcement was made of the “new history of the Second World War” and it can also be seen on the English Wikipedia
Chaim Rumkowski after 14 years of password on the Wiki, from a Polish Jew, 1 May 2019, he became a Pole [!]
And he made the exchange, and the password is guarded, one of the first Wiki admins (in the post since 2004)
An attempt to restore the record that Rumkowski was a Jew ended up blocking the entry due to vandalism.
Jayg – Jewish censor from Wikipedia
The Jewish censor on Wikipedia turns out to be Jayg – admin, who has been working on the wiki for more than 15 years, and who in many English-language slogans about Jews from Poland deletes the information that they were Jews.
As another user twitter @ OperatorpUga # pointed out, in one day he deprived Jewish roots of many other Jews collaborating with the Germans during the Second World War.
In turn, @ Chimney Eu wrote:
The reading of Jayjg’s “distinguished editor” is really fascinating
Censors from Mysia could learn from him.
Another curiosity is, for example, the English-language slogan on the History of Jews in Poland. According to Wikipedia, the history of Jews in Poland is dated to over 1000 years.
I encourage you to discuss here, as well as the user under the tweet:
Zapowiedziano pisano “nowej historii II wojny” i widać to też na angielskiej Wikipedii
Chaim Rumkowski po 14 latach hasła na Wiki, z polskiego Żyda, 1 maja 2019, stał się Polakiem[!]
A zamiany dokonał, i hasła pilnuje, jeden z pierwszych adminów Wiki (na stanowisku już od 2004)
It turns out that the worldwide campaign of denigrating Poland and attributing to us wines for the II WW and for the deception of history is entering a higher level. Our role in this is to watch over passwords, mainly foreign-language ones. The next installment of washing wines from Jews collaborating and exposing their brothers and sisters to Germans, who prepared hell not only for the Polish people, will write the slogans anew, in which the main perpetrators and perhaps even the only culprits will be Poles. It is comforting that the deception of Polish slogans will not pass so quickly.
PS At present, the slogan Chaim Rumkowski in the English version contains information that he was a Jew.
More atrocious than the atrocity itself is the atrocity-mongering
WORLD WAR I atrocity tales of Huns tossing Belgian babies on their bayonets and of Hunnish chemists transmuting Belgian corpses into soap had a rather short life. Even before the end of the war hardly anyone believed them. Other atrocity stories have persisted much longer. Remember the Lusitania? Most of the world believed that a bloodthirsty U-boat captain deliberately torpedoed an unarmed passenger liner whose hold contained not one ounce of war munitions. The tale was only laid to rest a few years ago. (ILLUSTRATION: The “German soldiers bayonet babies” myth was created during World War I in order to encourage the killing of Germans.)
Every war, every violent confrontation between human groups produces more than its share of horrors on both sides. In the welter of violence triggered by man’s aggressive instincts, there is always some gory event from which so much pathos can be wrung that the adrenaline level of the victims is raised to the point where they themselves become more aggressive than their enemies. The size and scope of the “atrocity,” the number of victims, its real historical significance are only of secondary importance. All these items can easily be doctored. What is important is the clout, in modern times the media clout, of those who stand to profit from any given atrocity.
No one, for example, may ever hear of Atrocity A that transpired in Country B. If it ever should come to light, it may be in the form of a footnote in some encyclopedic tome published decades later. On the other hand, the whole world may hear of Atrocity C in Country D a few hours after the event, even though Atrocity A included the annihilation of a whole city under the most barbaric circumstances, whereas Atrocity C involved only a few people perishing in a more or less standard shootout or kidnapping. Elaborations of Atrocity C — elaborations being defined as reinforcing fabrications — may continue for weeks, months, even years. The atrocity may actually furnish a perfect pretext for a major shift in Country D’s foreign policy. It may even excuse and justify a war that makes hundreds of thousands of people homeless and lays waste an entire countryside — a war in which the death toll is thousands of times greater than the number of victims who succumbed in the original atrocity.
The point is that the atrocity, or rather the atrocity myth, tale, or story, to be truly understood, must be viewed as a weapon, perhaps the deadliest of all, in the bulging 20th century arsenal of war. It is a weapon with the greatest power of devastation currently known to man, much more lethal than all the atom bombs, hydrogen bombs and neutron bombs rolled into one. It is, in fact, a neuron bomb. It destroys minds, not bodies, and it destroys minds by destroying human reason, by drowning objectivity in a murky sea of subjectivity. No mind can function properly when all it has to work on are half-truths, quarter-truths and untruths.
The basic purpose of the atrocity hucksters, as distinguished from the atrocity perpetrators, is to provoke or intensify a confrontation or conflict. With millions aroused to a fever pitch against those who committed the atrocity, it becomes much easier for the victims of the atrocity to commit the ultimate atrocity, a full-scale war. Conversely, if those responsible for the atrocity can contain it, if their hold on public opinion is such that no word about the atrocity gets out, then the atrocity dies aborning.
The rule here is that governments, armies, freedom fighters and other terrorists who have little media influence should do everything to reduce their atrocities to a minimum. On the other hand, those fortunate enough to have a “good press” need not worry. In fact, atrocities may be to their advantage. The Israelis’ slaughter of 250 Arab villagers, half of them women and children, at Deir Yassin, Palestine, in 1948 was a deliberate act of terror that caused tens of thousands of neighboring Arabs to flee their lands and homes, which the Zionists promptly confiscated. In this case the perpetrators of the atrocity gained by it, since Jewish influence in the world press kept Deir Yassin out of the news. Here we have an atrocity that never became an atrocity because it was committed in a news vacuum. Even today, when Deir Yassin has become known to most serious historians, the media seldom mention it — and never mention it in the headlines. Instead, the headlines continue to salute and flatter Menahem Begin, the man who bore most of the responsibility for Deir Yassin.
War feeds on hate and atrocities feed hate. The kingdom of hate has no room for reason and little room for common sense. You don’t argue about atrocities — that is, the atrocities you are permitted to hear about. You either accept or reject them. If, as usually happens, the man in the street hears about them from those who want him to hear about them, he is likely to swallow whatever he is told. By accepting this one-sided account of the atrocity he cannot avoid hating the alleged perpetrators, as he is supposed to do. As he hears more, as the atrocity is dinned relentlessly in his ears, the hatred grows apace until he eventually finds himself in the anomalous position of supporting the commission of atrocities by those who were the “victims” of the original atrocity. Hatred has caused him to undergo a complete mental transformation. It took the sinking of the Maine to get the American public, which at the time was by and large noninterventionist, in the proper mood to support a war against Spain.
Atrocities are deliberately mediaized to build up (1) a war psychosis so that Country X will aid or join Country Y in beating down Country Z or (2) a pacifist psychosis in Country X so that no aid will be forthcoming to Country Y and Country Z will have a better chance of winning. Sometimes the tactic fails. The alleged German destruction of Guernica was intended by the Western liberal-minority coalition and the Communist hierarchy in the Kremlin to bring Britain and France into the Spanish Civil War on the side of the Spanish Popular Front government. This did not happen. But the atrocity did succeed in stirring up more sympathy for the anti-Franco cause and in securing more military and financial aid for the anti-Fascists. The Sinking of the Lusitania almost made it possible for America to declare war against Germany in 1915. Almost, but not quite. The Lusitania did, however, stimulate a lot of warmongering, thereby making it much easier for President Wilson to bring America into the conflict two years later.
The way atrocity tales are handled reveals as much about the war aims and goals of the government that publicizes them, as does its deployment of tanks and warplanes. This is why the history of the founding and development of Israel, together with its military and foreign policy and the general behavior of world Zionism and world Jewry, cannot really be understood without a prior, in-depth study of the history of the Holocaust, the greatest atrocity tale of them all.
Even accepting at face value all the exaggerated claims made on behalf of the Holocaust, it by no means deserves its preeminent rank in the chronicles of human horror. Solzhenitsyn has written three books which describe scores of atrocities that in sheer cruelty and depravity equal if not outweigh the worst in the Holocaust, atrocities which in terms of numbers reduce the Holocaust to minor tragedy. Solzhenitsyn cites one Russian estimate that 66 million Soviet citizens were killed as a result of the Bolshevik terror. In China, Mao is supposed to have brought about the death of some 30 million Chinese. At this writing the Cambodian bloodletting has allegedly produced at least a million corpses. We need not mention the ongoing rape of Palestine (the racial persecution of Arabs, the torture of Arab political prisoners, the eviction of more than a million Palestinians from their homes, the brutal military occupation of the West Bank). Nor will we note the displacement of 11 million Eastern Germans from their homes at the end of World War II, probably the greatest forced migration in history, one accompanied by the mass ravishing of German women and the looting of practically every factory, public institution and private home through which the Russian army passed.
Nevertheless, the Holocaust stands head and shoulders above these atrocity tales, even though the war to which it is linked is actually somewhat quiescent at the moment. Since the birth of Israel in 1948, however, there have been uncounted minor and major eruptions in the Arab-Israeli War and who would dare to predict there won’t be many more to come. Indeed, the recent TV revival of the Holocaust, as if expressly timed to soften the blow, followed immediately after the Zionist invasion of Lebanon, which in turn was unleashed by the seizure of a bus by some marauding Palestinians. This incident brought about the death of some 30 Israelis, although, as Time reluctantly admitted, at least half of the fatalities were caused by Israeli policemen shooting indiscriminately at the vehicle until it burst into flames.
The Holocaust, in view of the monumental rewards it has gained for Israel, has been both the founding father and bulwark of the Jewish state. It has induced the Western world to support, arm and finance what would normally be construed as an immoral and inexcusable invasion of a peaceful country, resulting in the dispossession and expulsion of a population whose ancestors lived in Palestine for thousands of years, possibly since the beginning of recorded history. The cause of the dispossessed Palestinians is a righteous cause according to every tenet of Western ethics, Western religion, Western democracy, Western conservatism and Western liberalism, even Western Marxism. Yet the West, led by America, has treated the Palestinians as outcasts, has turned its back on them, has refused even to deal or speak to their leading organization, and has cheered wholeheartedly and outrageously for the Israeli aggressor.
It was the Holocaust that turned Zionism from a racial dream into a raging reality. It was the Holocaust that forced West Germany to give the incredible sum of $28.5 billion to Israel and to individual Jews throughout the world. It was the Holocaust that was responsible for $30 billion in U.S. public and private contributions to Israel and the Israelis, much of it tax deductible, with the present annual subsidy amounting to about $3 billion a year and including some of America’s most advanced military technology. It was the Holocaust that effectively smothered and covered up an Israeli atrocity against America — the sinking of the U.S.S. Liberty in 1967 with the loss of 34 American dead and 75 wounded. It was the Holocaust that allowed various U.S. presidents and high government officials throughout the West to wink at such international crimes as Israel’s hijacking of uranium on the high seas, the clandestine diversion of U.S strategic nuclear materials to Israeli reactors and the attempted destruction of U.S. buildings in Egypt by Israeli secret agents hoping to poison American-Arab relations (the 1954 Lavon affair). And no doubt it will be the Holocaust that, when the time is ripe to bring America into a nuclear confrontation with Russia, will place the U.S. finally, irrevocably and suicidally on the side of Israel.
The key to the Holocaust’s effectiveness is repetition. The men behind the Holocaust have taken not a leaf but a whole chapter out of Mein Kampf. Normally atrocity tales die from age and neglect. Without repetition they succumb to the emotion-cooling effects of time. Without the endless hammering home of the basic message, debate takes the place of polemics and rationality eventually assumes command as texts are examined in the background of context. The pulse-raising atrocity tale lives and thrives almost exclusively on unreason.
Books, magazine articles, speeches, TV extravaganzas must all be put to continuous service. If part of the Holocaust story does not pertain to the main propaganda theme, such as the claim that five million non-Jews, mostly Slavs and Gypsies, were also exterminated, then it must be ruthlessly excised, ignored or underplayed. Divided hatred and divided sympathy mean a dilution of pathos.
The atrocity tale receives its first setback when it loses its immunity to criticism. This is why such immunity must be maintained at all costs, even at the cost of subverting traditional Western guarantees of liberty of expression. From the very first moment the Holocaust was foisted on the Western consciousness, quite a few Europeans, mostly Germans, have gone to jail for even questioning it. One Frenchman, François Duprat, an historian and rightwing organizer, was recently murdered by a “remembrance Auschwitz squad,” for being the author of pamphlets denying the Six Million myth. Books which challenge the Holocaust have been banned from all major bookstores and are never reviewed in the mass media. Public debates on the subject are totally forbidden. All this, even though the magic rubric of the Holocaust, the six million figure, was simply pulled out of a hat. World population statistics both before and after World War II demolish it, together with the fact that more than four million separate reparations demands from surviving Jews have been received and processed by the Bonn government. Prominent Jewish historians have admitted the six million figure is much too high. More than four million Jews still live in Europe. Hundreds of thousands of European Jews, perhaps even as many as a million, escaped to Israel, the U.S., Canada and other parts of the world. Yet editors of the Western press continue to subtitle the Holocaust “the extermination of European Jewry.”
As time and human reason catch up to the Holocaust, the effort to keep it alive must be stepped up in the same way the dying sufferer from emphysema needs greater and greater infusions of oxygen. Can the average mind tolerate such massive amounts of mind-eroding hatred? Apparently, yes. The Holocaust is believed by more people today than when it was first broadcast to the world in 1945. It has now attained the status of a required course in some public school systems. But as the tale strays ever further from reality, as the statistics and gruesome details are thrown about ever more loosely and irresponsibly, the high decibel level is finally producing a negative feedback. A few independent minds are inevitably growing suspicious. Every last Westerner is not a sucker. Every last American is not a puppet on a TV director’s string. When there is too much smoke, there is no fire at all. And when noise becomes too great the ear can no longer hear anything.
To keep the lid on, the Holocausters will have to rely more heavily on outright repression and intellectual terror, particularly in the English-speaking world where free expression still exists in theory if not in fact. Before the legend explodes from a surfeit of hot air, it is not improbable that all American children will be forced to undergo a 40-hour Holocaust indoctrination course, that all TV stations will be ordered by the FCC to run and rerun Holocaust epics at least twice a month, that it will be a jail offense not to watch such showings, and that capital punishment will be revived for one specific crime — the public or private denunciation of the Holocaust as a gross fabrication.
As the snowball rolls downhill, it grows so quickly and gains so much momentum, it seems for a time to be irresistible and unstoppable. But in the end it crashes into a tree or rock and splits into small fragments or at last comes to a halt in the valley floor. There it sits helplessly as it melts into nothingness.
Who knows when the Holocaust will run its course and begin to melt? Perhaps not until it has driven the world to the edge, or over the edge, of nuclear war. Who can ever measure how much hate it has poured into the collective human soul — hate for an entire people, the German people, a hate warmly espoused by the U.S.S.R., which depends on the Holocaust to keep Germany divided, although Russians have turned it into more of an anti-Slavic than an anti-Jewish atrocity. The flood of hatred has overflowed on all non-Jews, because implicit in every mention of the Holocaust is the charge that the entire white race must shoulder at least some of the blame for it.
The Holocaust has even taken possession of Western religion. While being informed that we are the inheritors of the Judaeo-Christian ethic, we are also taught that we should never forget the Holocaust and never forgive its perpetrators. In other words, the Holocaust is emphasizing the Judaeo portion of the ethic at the expense of the Christian portion. This lesson is sinking home. Christian ministers, who are supposed to teach forgiveness, are now outdoing the rabbis in preaching hatred and revenge. Christianity itself has now become “Holocausted.”
Nevertheless, man and history will never become the eternal hostages of the Holocaust. In the end the Jews themselves will be the losers. We have only to consider the immense risks they are taking, the immense harm they have inflicted on the innocent and the immense psychological damage they are doing to themselves by staking their very future, indeed the very essence of their peoplehood, on a round-the-clock orgy of press agentry. Multiplying the hatred loose in the world can only end in greater and greater atrocities, eventually perhaps transforming a strategic hoax into a self-fulfilling prophecy.
* * *
Source: based on an article in Instauration magazine, July 1978
Covert Agent Edward Mandell House: The Enemy Within Wilson’s White House
In yesterday’s “Enemy Within” article, we covered the suppressed history of a clique of warmongers and Soviet spies surrounding President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s administration. In a similar vein, the presidency of Woodrow Wilson was hijacked by one Edward Mandell House (né Huis) (1858-1938), who also went by the self-styled pseudonym “Colonel House.”
House had no military or diplomatic experience. He never had a profession but used his family wealth as a political kingmaker. In 1911, he became an adviser, close friend and supporter of New Jersey Gov. Woodrow Wilson and helped him win the Democratic presidential nomination in 1912.
In “The Strangest Friendship in History, Woodrow Wilson and Col. House,” by George Sylvester Viereck, the author writes:
What,” I asked House, “cemented your friendship?” House answered, “I handed him $35,000.”
It is also generally acknowledged that the Crime Syndicate Cabal had the goods on Wilson because of an affair. Col. House was a front man for the Cabal at a time when it was led by the (((Schiffs))), (((Kuhns))), (((Warburgs))), Rockefellers and Morgans. One of the first orders of business when Wilson came into office was the enactment of the Federal Reserve Bank.
House was a Warburg agent. “The Intimate Papers of Col. House” details his regular meetings throughout 1913 with Warburg and his associates. In an entry dated March 27, 1913, he writes of coaching sponsors: “McAdoo came about 10 minutes afterward. Morgan had a currency plan already printed. I suggested he have it typewritten, so it would not seem too prearranged, and send it to Wilson and myself today.”
During the Panic of 1907, Wilson had declared, “All this trouble could be averted if we appointed a committee of six or seven public-spirited men like J.P. Morgan to handle the affairs of our country.” During the legislative battle to enact, Sen. LaFollette, who was opposed, publicly charged that a money trust of 50 men controlled the U.S. George F. Baker, partner of J.P. Morgan, on being queried by reporters as to the truth of the charge, replied that it was absolutely in error. He said that he knew from personal knowledge that not more than eight men ran the country.
With his first major task completed House, went on to his next job: drawing the U.S. into WWI. For that task, House assumed the role of “executive adviser” and went to Europe to carry out Wilson’s pledge of “peace through diplomacy.” Wilson actively pushed for status quo ante bellum and post-war disarmament as the terms to end WWI.
Rather than proceeding as an honest broker, which was Wilson’s supposed goal, House quickly fell into bed with the pedophile British War Party. He became a lackey for foreign secretary Edward Grey. Grey’s task was to drag the U.S. into WWI. House enjoyed manipulating people and events, and even Wilson eventually realized (too late) that he acted with malice.
Grey cleverly manipulated the Americans into agreeing to the secret House-Grey Memorandum of Feb. 22, 1916, that indicated that if the Allies all attended a peace conference and the Germans refused, the U.S. “would probably enter the war against Germany.” Wilson endorsed the scheme.
Ironically, Wilson was an opponent of secret diplomacy, viewing it as a threat to peace. He made the abolition of secret diplomacy the first point of his Fourteen Points. After the war, Grey was the first to tattle and claim bragging rights about this manipulation. Wilson was re-elected in 1916 under the slogan “He Kept us Out of War.”
Around the time of this secret memorandum, there was a serious German peace overture. This overture is not something mentioned in textbooks, but it has been mentioned by the man who received it: James W. Gerard, the American ambassador to Germany (1913-1917), who wrote about it in his autobiography, “My First Eighty Three Years in America.”
The response from Washington was most astonishing. Instead of commenting on Germany’s proposal for peace, the White House directed the ambassador to communicate with Col. House instead of the U.S. president:
In addition to the cable which I had already received informing me that Colonel House was “fully commissioned to act” he himself reminded me of my duty in his February 16 postscript. In his own handwriting these were the words from House. “The President has just repeated to me your cablegram to him and says he has asked you to communicate directly with me in future . . .” All authority, therefore had been vested in Colonel House direct, the President ceased to be even a conduit of communications. … He, who had never been appointed to any position, and who had never been passed by the Senate, was “fully instructed and commissioned” to act in the most grave situation. I have never ceased to wonder how he had managed to attain such power and influence.
Realizing that Col. House was in control of Wilson, the Germans made another overture of peace on Dec. 12, 1916. This has been revealed by historian Leon Degrelle. He mentions that on on that day, German officials expressed a desire for peace and talks with their adversaries. He also writes that the Germans expressed the hope that Col. House would persuade the Allies. Col. House ruled out peace and thus helped sabotage the second peace initiative within the same year.
The U.S. entered WWI in April 1917.
In October 1918, when Germany petitioned for peace based on the Fourteen Points, Wilson tasked House with working out details of an armistice with the Allies. Instead, House, as the chief American negotiator and Wilson’s chief adviser at the Paris peace conference in 1919, adopted much of the France’s hardline anti-German position.
Against Wilson’s stance, he had tentatively approved French demands for the separation of the Rhineland from Germany and the separation of the League of Nations from the peace treaty with Germany. He sent misleading, misquoted, false and mistaken reports to Wilson that jeopardized Wilson’s credibility with foreign leaders and undermined the president’s initiatives.
Wilson was increasingly ill, but at last awoke to House’s endless scheming and cut him loose. Wilson told a friend, “House has given away everything I had won. … I will have to start all over again.”
Edith, Wilson’s new young wife who became defacto facade president after Wilson’s stroke, also made the right call on the rascal Col. House. She said, “I can’t help feeling that he is not a very strong character.” Her passive stewardship of the office of President as a non-criminal actor seemed to mark the end of the more blatant Wilson-House Crime Syndicate TPTB shit-storming. But before leaving the stage,House co-founded the highly influential Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).
Wilson’s strokes on Sept. 25 and Oct. 2, 1919, removed him from the treaty process, which was never ratified by the U.S., nor was the League of Nations. In 1922, and out-of-office Wilson all but admitted that the treaty was a flop and predicted trouble ahead.
By that time, however, the damaging Versailles Treaty was cast in stone, enacted and set the stage for an eventual large-scale German reaction and laid the conditions for WWII.
Contrary to the standard narrative, Hitler did not act as a lone wolf in dismantling the despised treaty. He had a strong popular mandate behind him urging him onward.
This article originally appeared on The New Nationalist and was republished here with permission.
The horrors of the twentieth century could hardly have been predicted in the nineteenth century, which saw the eighteenth century end with the American Revolution bringing about the creation of the first classical liberal government in history. The twentieth century was the bloodiest in all history. More than 170 million people were killed by government with 10 million having been killed in World War I and 50 million killed in World War II. Of the 50 million killed in World War II, nearly 70 percent were innocent civilians.
Steven Spielberg Calls for Mandatory Holocaust Indoctrination in US Schools
Renegade Editor’s Note: People thought Parkland’s “Holocaust Class” was a joke, but if Spielberg gets his way, our children won’t be able to graduate high school without being endlessly indoctrinated with this thoroughly debunked story of 6 million jews getting gassed in showers.
Oy Vey! At a panel discussion over the weekend marking 25 years since the release of Schindler’s List (mind you, a film that is fictional!), Hollywood film director Steven Spielberg said that every public high school in the United States should be required to teach the Holocaust.
“It’s not a prerequisite to graduate high school, as it should be,” Spielberg said during the panel discussion held after a special screening of his 1993 film at the Tribeca Film Festival. “It should be part of the social science, social studies curriculum in every public high school in this country.”
[Editor’s note: There is no doubt in my mind that the Allied bombing campaign against Germany in WW2 was one of the worst war crimes ever committed. While certain despicable self-proclaimed intelligence experts laud the deaths of German civilians as a result of the bombing as a ‘glorious slaughter’ and lament that ‘we didn’t kill enough of them’ I feel only disgust and revulsion at what was done to the German people by my forebears.
The British people were conned into believing that the bombing of German cities was helping to win the war, that it was justified because those horrid Nazis were slaughtering innocent Jews and others they deemed ‘untermensch’; the simple truth is it did nothing to shorten the war, rather it prolonged it by giving the German fighting men a fierce determination to resist and gain some degree of vengeance for the slaughter of their loved one and the destruction of their homes.
The German bombing of Britain was a mere drop n the ocean compared to the immense scale of the slaughter and destruction the Allies wreaked on Germany, in no way, shape or form can the two bombing campaigns be compared, so disproportionate are they when compared. Another great lie, still believed by many in Britain was that the goal of the war and the bombing campaign was to defeat the Nazis, in truth, as the butcher and arch criminal Churchill admitted postwar, the real intent was to destroy Germany and it’s people.
The bombing was not aimed at the German war industries, the excuse given that attempts at targeting those industries failed due to a lack of precision is paper thin and the tactic of area bombing, where entire cities were levelled can in no way be justified in terms of the damage it did to German war industries. Churchill also admitted that much of German industry had not even been targeted, for the callous and cynical reason that when the war was won, we would inherit a desert of our own making and in fact, the Allied rulers wanted to preserve as much of Germany’s industry as possible, so that there would be something left worth stealing once the war ended.
The BBC article is wrong, Hamburg, as deadly and horrific as it was, was not the deadliest nor most destructive raid of the war, that dubious distinction goes to Dresden where, just scant weeks before the end of the war, hundreds of thousands of German civilians met their end in a true holocaust, consumed by the firestorm created by over a thousand Allied aircraft. The official record still denies the death toll was more than 30-odd thousands and as horrific and tragic as that number is, the true figure is a factor of 10 or more greater.
We must never forget the Allied bombing of Germany and we must never allow ourselves to be deceived into believing it was in any way justified, rather, we must educate ourselves and future generations to the truth of the aerial slaughter inflicted on the German people. The words of General Patton are most appropriate – ‘we have destroyed the last decent people in Europe’. Ian]
Gomorrah was rooted in failure. Bomber Command’s early efforts were blackly laughable, with only a tiny percentage of bombs falling anywhere near their targets.
In 1941 it was calculated it took five tonnes of bombs to kill one German. The numbers of enemy dead were almost the same as Allied aircrews lost.
This prompted a change in tactics. Specific industrial targets were mostly abandoned.
Mr Lowe said: “Hamburg was the result of a deliberate policy. In a way it would be understandable – if you can’t hit, say, an aircraft factory alone, you can try and hit anything around it.
“But this went further – it stopped trying to hit the aircraft factory, it specifically targeted the workers and their families.”
In 1942 a decision was taken by the War Cabinet and the Air Staff to destroy all of Germany’s cities with populations over 100,000, targeting “the morale of the enemy civil population – in particular the industrial workers”.
By the following year Bomber Command had enough aircraft, a single-minded leader in Arthur Harris and the technical knowledge to carry this plan out.
Mr Lowe says: “Experience and extensive testing had shown a mix of high explosives and incendiaries was the most destructive combination.
“The big bombs blocked roads, shattered water mains and, crucially, blew out windows and roofs.
“Then thousands of incendiaries could start fires to cause intensive destruction.”
Gomorrah – with eight days of bombing by the RAF and USAF from 24 July – would prove these theories.
In the event, a number of circumstances magnified Hamburg’s suffering.
It had been a hot summer and the city was tinder dry. Emergency teams were busy dealing with fires from earlier raids in the western districts.
And the RAF had a secret weapon – codenamed Window.
Tens of thousands of strips of aluminium paper were launched from planes, creating a snowstorm of reflected radar signals and effectively blinding the fearsome German defences.
Almost unhindered, at 00:55am the first of more than 720 heavily laden bombers arrived over the tightly packed workers’ apartments in the east of the city.
In the next few hours, a new word was added to the dictionary of war – firestorm (feuersturm).
The phenomenon matched the apocalyptic name of the operation. Something akin to the wrath of God was visited on the city.
Concentrated, unchecked fires linked up to turn parts of Hamburg into a furnace. Hot air soared into the sky, sucking more from street level.
Winds reached speeds of up to 150mph (240km/h) and temperatures reached at least 800C. Wood, fabric and flesh blazed. Glass exploded, metal twisted, stonework glowed dull red.
Packed apartment blocks became shells within minutes.
Streets became tunnels of screaming hurricane-force winds – one survivor recalled a noise “like an old church organ when someone is playing all the notes at once”.
Operation Gomorrah timeline
24-25 July: Night raid by about 790 RAF bombers. First use of Window
25 July: Day raid by about 120 USAF bombers
26 July: Day raid by about 50 USAF bombers
27-28 July: Night raid by about 780 RAF bombers. Firestorm
28 July: Evacuation of Hamburg ordered
29-30 July: Night raid by about 770 RAF bombers. Second Firestorm
2-3 August: Night raid by about 740 RAF Bombers, which were scattered by bad weather
Already stretched fire crews were overwhelmed.
They faced a “sea of fire”, with clothes and vehicles bursting into flames. One described rescue efforts as like “throwing a drop of water on a hot stone”.
The tornado, filled with fire, embers and debris, sucked people – especially the old and young – towards the fire.
Henni Klank fled her apartment with her husband and baby only when the curtains were on fire and the ceiling began to crack.
“At this moment something snapped in a neighbour and, caught up in a panic, he took his bed cover and wanted out.
“None of us could stop him. We saw him still, but only as a living torch carried by the firestorm, ‘flying through the air’.”
Cowering in a shelter, her family faced the same terrible choice as thousands of others that night: stay put and risk being buried, suffocated or even cooked, or chance the hellish conditions outside.
With oxygen becoming so thin candles were fading, they broke down a cellar wall to escape.
They faced a scene from the end of days.
She said: “We came out… into a thundering, blazing hell. The streets were burning, the trees were burning and the tops of them were bent [by the wind] right down to the street.
“Burning horses out of the Hertz hauling business ran past us. The air was burning; simply everything was burning.”
An area of about 4 sq miles (10 sq km) – roughly equivalent to the area of London from Kings Cross to the Thames, Hyde Park Corner to the Tower of London – was incinerated.
And that was just the firestorm.
Devastation was spread over roughly 12 sq miles (31 sq km). At the height of the raid 16,000 apartment buildings, with frontages of 133 miles (214km), home to nearly 450,000 people, were ablaze.
Kate Hoffmeister, who had seen the people stuck on the melted road, found herself, her mother and her Aunt Emma trapped by burning trees.
A grassy bank offered some shelter: “I suggested we roll down this bank… I went and I think I rolled over some people who were still alive. I lost my aunt at that point.
“By then my face and arms and legs had been burnt so badly I could only act by touch.”
Thousands of feet above, RAF aircrews were elated by the success of Window and awed by the power of the raid.
Air gunner Douglas Fry recalled it as: “Brilliant, better than [earlier raids]. The fires were incredibly fierce; you couldn’t see a black spot amongst this huge sheet of flame which covered acres and acres.
“We didn’t know about the firestorm – we just knew the target was well alight, which meant a good raid.”
Flying Officer Trevor Timperley said: “The blaze was unimaginable. I remember saying to the navigator, who was engrossed with his charts: ‘For Christ’s sake, Smithy, come and see this. You’ll never see the like of it again!’
“But Hamburg raised for me for the first time the ethics of bombing.
“I took the view so-called civilians were part of the German war machine… the only ones you are left with were the children… they were not involved, so you were left with a terrible feeling about them.”
Other aircrews reported being able to feel the heat, getting soot over their aircraft and even the smell of roasting flesh.
Operation Gomorrah ran until 3 August 1943 and involved six major raids. Estimates of the dead vary between 34,000 and 43,000.
Records show the destruction of 580 industrial plants 2,632 businesses, 379 office buildings, 24 hospitals, 277 schools and 257 government or Nazi party buildings.
Somewhere upwards of half of all homes in the city were destroyed. A million of the 1.7m population fled.
Kate Hoffmeister lost her aunt, father and two uncles, but later found she was in the same hospital as her mother.
Henni Klank and her family escaped in a boat packed with traumatised women and children, and had a last glimpse of the city covered in smoke “as if to hide the horror”.
But for all the cost, what was the effect on Nazi Germany’s war effort?
Dr Malte Thiessen, professor of contemporary European history, says: “News of the attacks ran like wildfire. Rumours of uprisings were making the rounds, fear and panic filled other cities that saw themselves next on the ‘hit list’.
“Such fears were felt up to the top, with Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels writing in his diary about the ‘Sword of Damocles hovering over Germany’.”
Dr Thiessen says Hamburg was “paralysed” for months after the attacks.
“Although many arms factories and refineries were operational again in early 1944, demoralisation and destruction remained a long-term problem that also weakened war production.
“And demands to protect the home front had a practical impact, in diverting arms from the battlefields, and a psychological impact, by raising questions on the fronts about was happening to loved ones at home,” he says.
Harris was triumphant. Newsreels and papers claimed “Hamburg smashed!” and trumpeted the 40,000 death toll.
Mr Lowe says: “To Harris, this showed that bombing alone could end the war and he pursued this idea.
“He carried on the policy of trying to wipe out cities, through Berlin and Dresden and dozens of others, to the end of the war, despite mounting evidence that hitting specific targets was both possible and more effective.”
But Hamburg proved hard to repeat. Improved defences and greater distances made the bombing campaign a costly slog. Even devastating raids like Dresden, in the last days of the war, saw fewer people killed.
Much of Hamburg was not rebuilt for decades and, although partially preserved, St Nicholas’ Church was left as a shell.
It is in the cellar of this gutted building – which was briefly the tallest tower in the world – that a museum about the firestorm has been set up, and where the anniversary of the operation is being marked with an exhibition.
Victor Baeyens, one of the hundreds of concentration camp inmates forced to help clear the bodies and bombs from the ruins of Hamburg, wrote later the scale of destruction stunned even the prisoners.
“When listening to those horror stories we no longer broke into cheers as we did during the air raid itself.
“We were soberly thinking of the drama of mothers looking for their children and vice versa. What a curse war is.”
Following my article Sunday on the August 1945 bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I received some challenges from readers of The New Nationalist (TNN) and Renegade Tribune, which re-ran the article, concerning the notion that the attack was in actuality another in a series of highly destructive firebombings that had been underway in Japan (and Germany) throughout 1945.
As I stated in the comments section, the focus of the article was only about the unnecessary prolonging the Pacific war. However, I agree. The firebombing theory does need to be addressed. It’s not implausible, especially given that by the time of Hiroshima the U.S. Strategic bombing command had terror bombing and cooking civilians down to a exact science.
It is an established fact that napalm chemical firebombing of wooden Japanese cities was extremely destructive. In May 1945, Tokyo was hit with incendiary payloads from 334 B-29 Superfortresses, burning 16 square miles and destroying more than half of the city. The Hiroshima operation involved 4 sq. miles. Using the Tokyo ratio, it could have been achieved with 83 planes.
Hiroshima was a wooden shantytown constructed in a concentrated area. It was a sitting duck for a carefully crafted firebombing terror attack with an atomic-bomb psyop added on for full effect. In the previous article, regular TNN commenter “Brabantian” mentions evidence from Swedish engineer and nuclear expert Anders Björkman. The smoking gun: The day and hour Hiroshima was bombed, U.S. air command logged a fleet of 66 bombers for an operation in nearby Imabari Japan. But this city no longer existed. It had been wiped out in two previous raids. This was the fleet that firebombed Hiroshima.
Liddell Hart’s “History of the Second World War” claims that Japanese on the ground didn’t know they had been A-bombed until long after the end of the war. Allied occupation authorities also clamped down on eyewitness testimonies. Testimonies that did come out often had a scripted, deceptive quality to them. The accounts themselves could have been describing a napalm bombing, but then suggestive phrases are inserted into the narratives, such as “strange yellow ray” and “sun ray.” There are also accounts of a single B-29 flying over; but flying at 32,000 feet, the bomber would not be visible from the ground, nor would a small fleet.
However, one eyewitness, Father John A. Siemes (source: Yale’s website- the Avalon Project) provided more details as to how this may have gone down.
It was rumored that the enemy fliers had spread an explosive and incendiary material over the city and then had created the explosion and ignition. A few maintained that they saw the planes drop a parachute which had carried something that exploded at a height of 1,000 meters. No one knew anything for certain concerning the nature of the bomb.
The bombing planners drawing from their science of mass killing, first spread incendiary material to prep the target. This soaked kindling could have then been lit like a match from a small high-flying fleet of B-29s. This makes it possible to destruct the target with even less than 66 aircraft, and would make it a highly contained and controlled operation.
In pursuing this issue, we note the absence of “mushroom cloud” photos from the ground in Japan. Among the very few photos of the Hiroshima bombing that do exist, the following three suggests a raging firestorm, not a nuclear explosion. The photos appear consistent with the others shot at different distances and angles. These firestorms were described at Hamburg in 1943, Dresden in 1945 and the various other Japanese incinerations of 1945.
The Daily Telegraph on Jan. 9, 2013, published this new photo (below) taken of the bombing. It, too, resembles a firebombing and developing firestorm.
In the book “Osada’s Children of the A-Bomb,” a survivor describes a scene that is altogether different from an A-bomb, stating, “I looked up to the sky, a streamer of smoke, perhaps 50 yards high, rising from the centre of Hiroshima, about 2 miles distant. At the top of the column of smoke was a ball of fire which seemed to me to be about the size of a large oil tank.”
U.S. Major Alexander P. de Seversky, who in 1945 inspected the bombed-towns of Japan, testified:
In Hiroshima I was prepared for radically different sights. But, to my surprise, Hiroshima looked exactly like all the other burned-out cities in Japan. There was a familiar pink blot, about two miles in diameter. It was dotted with charred trees and telephone poles. Only one of the cities twenty bridges was down. Hiroshima’s clusters of modern buildings in the downtown section stood upright.
It was obvious that the blast could not have been so powerful as we had been led to believe. It was extensive blast rather than intensive.
I had heard of buildings instantly consumed by unprecedented heat. Yet here I saw the buildings structurally intact, and what is more, topped by undamaged flag poles, lightning rods, painted railings, air raid precaution signs and other comparatively fragile objects.
At the T-bridge, the aiming point for the atomic bomb, I looked for the “bald spot” where everything presumably had been vaporized in the twinkling of an eye. It wasn’t there or anywhere else. I could find no traces of unusual phenomena.
What I did see was in substance a replica of Yokohama or Osaka, or the Tokyo suburbs – the familiar residue of an area of wood and brick houses razed by uncontrollable fire. Everywhere I saw the trunks of charred and leafless trees, burned and unburned chunks of wood. The fire had been intense enough to bend and twist steel girders and to melt glass until it ran like lava – just as in other Japanese cities.
The concrete buildings nearest to the centre of explosion, some only a few blocks from the heart of the atom blast, showed no structural damage. Even cornices, canopies and delicate exterior decorations were intact. Window glass was shattered, of course, but single-panel frames held firm; only window frames of two or more panels were bent and buckled. The blast impact therefore could not have been unusual.
The researcher, John Boice of the National Cancer Institute, said, ”Ionizing radiation is known to cause heritable mutations in many species of plants and animals, but intense study of 70,000 offspring of atomic bomb survivors has failed to identify an increase in congenital abnormalities, cancer, chromosome aberrations or mutational blood protein changes.”
This article originally appeared on The New Nationalist and was republished here with permission.
Today we bring together in one place all the material you need to debunk the myths surrounding D-Day and American participation in the Great Slaughter of White People. Here are four complete articles in one: “Fading Illusions” by Mark Weber and Kevin Strom; “The ‘Good War’ Myth of World War 2” by Mark Weber (with an extensive bibliography); the exposé “US Normandy Invasion was Tsunami of Lust” by Mathieu von Rohr; and “Battling the People of the Lie” (part one, with a link to the full series) by Kevin Strom. Please share them with your friends and family members and deprogram, deprogram, deprogram!
by Kevin Alfred Strom and Mark Weber
THIS WEEK MARKS two milestones in American history: the anniversary of D-Day and the death of Ronald Reagan. With us to discuss these issues today is one of the most incisive historical minds our nation has produced, the courageous researcher, scholar, and publisher, the Director of the Institute for Historical Review, Mr. Mark Weber. Welcome, Mark.
Mark Weber: Thank you very much, Kevin. That’s very generous. It’s a pleasure being on the show again.
KAS: Mark, not far from where I sit, in Bedford, Virginia, is the National D-Day Memorial, where wreath-laying ceremonies took place a few days ago commemorating the 60th anniversary of D-Day. Americans of the World War II generation, and their children, remember that day, I think, as a milestone in the fight to preserve American freedom. And some of my younger listeners may only have a vague idea of what it was all about. What was D-Day, Mark — and was it a milestone in history as it’s presented?
MW: D-Day, of course, was the American-British landing in Normandy, France, on June 6th, 1944. As a purely historical event it was important because it was the largest naval operation in history. But it’s presented in our media — and quite a lot in just the last few days — as a kind of central turning point of World War II. There’s a natural tendency among everyone and every society to project the present back onto the past, and that’s nowhere more evident than in how we look at D-Day, because it was the very important great military operation by the United States in the Second World War in Europe. But the way that landing is presented is very misleading.
For one thing, the D-Day invasion did not decisively change the outcome of the Second World War. Now I know that sounds incredible, given all that we’ve heard about that, but the D-Day landing took place less than a year before the end of the war in Europe. The war ended in Europe in May, 1945; the D-Day landing was in June, 1944. The decisive battles of the Second World War had already been fought, on the Eastern Front. And in the emphasis on D-Day is a kind of playing down of the much more important military role that the Soviet forces played in World War II. Very few people realize that 80% — four fifths — of the German forces in World War II were defeated not on the Western Front, but on the Eastern Front by the Soviet forces. Germany’s decisive battles had already been fought — and lost — on the Eastern Front, such as in Stalingrad, which ended in early 1943. And then the final major German offensive of the Second World War was the Battle of Kursk, the largest tank battle in history, about which we hear very little in America; and that was in the summer of 1943. So when the American, British, and Canadian forces landed on Normandy in June 1944, German forces were already largely destroyed. And Germany was fighting a very, very desperate defensive war. That’s why, when the American forces landed on D-Day, I think there were only two German airplanes that could take to the air to fight off the landing armada. The German Air Force was very, very hard-pressed, what was left of it, to even defend the German homeland, which was under intense Allied bombardment from the air at that time, and of course on the Eastern Front.
So the battle of D-Day is important in our media, in large measure, because it comports with a kind of American-centric view of the Second World War. But in fact the role of the Soviet Union is one that many Americans, and especially American leaders, would like to forget.
And that brings us to Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan is remembered, in terms of foreign policy achievements, largely as a man who opposed Communism. But during the Second World War, the most important American ally in that conflict was in fact the Soviet Union. To put it another way, no country did more to defend the Soviet Union, to help the Soviet Union, than did the United States during World War II. And Ronald Reagan spent World War II as a propagandist for the American military. That is, in his actual deeds as a man working in Hollywood, he helped the American war effort which was at that time in alliance and concert with the Soviet Union.
But that’s forgotten a lot today because we want to uphold, and American leaders want to uphold, this kind of myth that on the one side of the Second World War were the ‘bad guys,’ the tyrants — that is, the Germans and the Japanese; and that on the other side, the Allied side, were the ‘good guys.’ But that in fact is not only simplistic, it’s just simply wrong. During the Second World War, the most tyrannical regime in the world at that time — the Soviet Union — was on the Allied side. And the most imperialistic regime in the world at that time — that is, the British Empire — was also on the Allied side in that conflict. While looking at history in simplistic terms of ‘good guys’ and ‘bad guys’ may make people feel good, and it comports with how we like to have our motion pictures end and our books and so forth, it doesn’t correspond with reality in real historical terms.
KAS: The legacy of D-Day, in broad terms, is the legacy of the Second World War. That’s how we see it from our media-saturated, from our — as you say — American-centric view. Maybe D-Day wasn’t a watershed in the conduct of the war, but that war was a watershed in diminishing traditional Americans’ power over our own country, in increasing globalism, and in increasing Jewish power. And it was a watershed in breaking down the old order in Europe, destroying not only German power, but French and British power as well. And it brought about the complete collapse of Eastern Europe, which was swallowed up by Communism for almost half a century.
MW: Right. There are several points to be made in that regard, I think. And it again, I think, relates to Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan is remembered as the great American conservative president. But his idea of conservatism was really just to present the best view of American history during the Second World War.
The greatest and most decisive conflict of the twentieth century was the Second World War, in which the United States fought openly for a ‘New World Order’ in which the United States and the Soviet Union, above all, would rule the entire world. When Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin met at Teheran, Iran in 1943, and then at Yalta in 1945, the three men did what they accused the Axis leaders of wanting to do: That is, they decided the fate of the entire planet. And, in that, the United States regarded the Soviet Union as not only a worthy ally, but a trustworthy ally, an ally with which Roosevelt and the United States were willing and even eager to cooperate in ruling the entire world.
You know, the wrongness of the simplistic view of how the Second World War was fought is pointed up in the tragedy of Poland. In 1939, Britain and France declared war on Germany because Germany had attacked Poland. And, supposedly, British and French concern for the sovereignty of Poland was the reason for the declarations of war against Germany. (By the way, this was a war that Germany and Hitler wanted at all costs to avoid. They didn’t want war with Britain and France.) At the end of that terrible conflict, six years later, in 1945, Poland was no more free than it was in 1939. It was swallowed up and brutally occupied by the Soviet Union. So the principles that Britain and France proclaimed when they declared war on Germany in 1939 — and which America proclaimed in fighting the Second World War — were betrayed by the Allied leaders in how they actually conducted the war. They not only permitted but they actively cooperated with the Soviet Union in expanding its tyranny over half of Europe — including Poland, which was the first victim of the Second World War.
KAS: How does Jewish power fit into all of that?
MW: Ronald Reagan, throughout his presidency, was very pro-Israel and very pro-Jewish. He’s not alone, of course. Every American president since Harry Truman has been committed to supporting the state of Israel and its policies. Now fortunately for Reagan, there was no great war in the Middle East as there was in 1967 or 1973. And, also fortunately for Reagan’s legacy, there was no conflict like the current situation in Iraq. Nevertheless, Ronald Reagan was entirely subordinate to and supportive of Israel and its policies, even though this meant supporting Israel in actions which were violations not only of the principles that we as Americans try to uphold, but even of American law.
Specifically, in 1982, when Reagan was President, Israel invaded Lebanon. It invaded Lebanon on the deceitful basis of a pretext that the Israeli ambassador in London had been shot by a member of the PLO. In fact, the person who shot the Israeli ambassador in London was not even with the PLO. But on the basis of that pretext, Israel invaded Lebanon, costing thousands of lives and creating hundreds of thousands of refugees. Enormous destruction was the result. And Ronald Reagan supported Israel in this.
One of the speakers several years ago at an IHR conference was US Congressman Pete McCloskey. And he spoke out at the time on the floor of the House about Israel’s violation even of American law in that conflict. But Ronald Reagan put America’s ‘special relationship’ with Israel above even his oath as President to uphold American law. This was pointed up in the case of that conflict, in which America helped and cooperated with Israel in this completely illegal, horrible, destructive invasion of Lebanon.
And this is a parallel with the present. In the aftermath of the Lebanese fiasco, the United States sent military troops to Lebanon. And Reagan made a big issue at the time about ‘staying the course’ and how we were ‘going to have troops there until Lebanon was a free and democratic country,’ and how this was part of a big campaign to bring ‘democracy’ and ‘stability’ to that part of the world — pre-echoes of exactly the same kind of rhetoric we’ve heard from the White House during the past year with regard to the war in Iraq.
But in 1983, when a Marine barracks was blown up, and 240 some American Marines were killed, Reagan cut his losses, abandoned all his rhetoric, and just simply pulled the American troops out. For all his rhetoric, Reagan was a very pragmatic man. He was not one to let principles stand in the way of political expediency. And he was willing to cut his losses when things went wrong or things went bad. And if he was President, and had engaged in a fiasco like the one we’re dealing with now in Iraq, he would have long ago cut his losses and pulled out, and saved face in the best possible way — whereas George W. Bush seems incapable emotionally of admitting a mistake.
To go back to the legacy of D-Day: Especially for Americans, it is simply the legacy of World War II. And it wasn’t simply a defeat for Germany in World War II; it was, in a sense, the defeat of Europe — because the great victorious powers of the Second World War were the Soviet Union and the United States, which together imposed a hegemony and occupation over Europe. And the European homeland, the European heart, ceased to have any independent political power or even cultural vitality of its own, and was subordinate to the United States in the West and the Soviet Union in the East.
Now the legacy of that whole period is receding into the past, because the Soviet Union has disappeared as a power and a force — but the cultural and intellectual legacy persists, because Europeans have been browbeaten by decades of propaganda.
The Second World War was the triumph in 1945 of the principles of egalitarianism and universalism — and those principles are fundamentally at odds with any kind of patriotic or conservative principles.
And that’s part of the paradox or contradiction of the Reagan legacy. He’s remembered as a conservative — but what did he actually conserve?
KAS: Good question.
MW: What did he actually conserve? This morning on the radio, in a tribute to Ronald Reagan, one commentator said “He was a president who made us feel good about ourselves.” Well, that’s true. But that’s about all he did. He made us feel good.
But in terms of conserving or preserving anything of real substance, Ronald Reagan presided over America’s forward advance — or, should I say, backward advance — in the same direction she had been going since the 1940s and has been going ever since. When Ronald Reagan was elected, many conservatives thought that Reagan was going to make good on his rhetoric and dismantle, for example, the unconstitutional portions of the federal government such as the Department of Education, which had no constitutional validity. There’s nothing in the Constitution to permit the federal government to be involved in education.
KAS: Yes, I can remember all of that. In 1980, Mark, it was almost a sense of euphoria — he was going to reclaim America, he was going to remake America back into the Old America that people felt had been betrayed and abandoned.
MW: Exactly. But, to the amazement of many of his conservative followers, he did none of that. He didn’t dismantle the federal government; he expanded it. The irony is that his actual policies were in contradiction to his supposed principles as a conservative and to his rhetoric. But most Americans didn’t really care. The hard core of his supporters, those patriotic Americans, were satisfied with the mere trappings and symbols and mythology of America rather than the reality.
KAS: We’ve seen that in the celebrations of his life that we’ve witnessed since he died. For many people, I think he still embodies the Old America — the America he helped destroy while he was paying lip service to it. Do you think that, now that he’s gone, Americans are going to wake up from their illusion that we’ve really had a continuity of government?
MW: Whatever the harmful effects of his policies, it’s hard to dislike Reagan, because he was such an affable guy. Apparently, in his private life, he was kind, courteous to people, and wasn’t deceitful; that is, really, he believed the things that he said.
What Americans are mourning, I think, this week with the death of Ronald Reagan is not merely a man, but an America that’s past and which he personified. The America that Ronald Reagan believed in, that he came out of, is an America that’s gone. It’s an America of Norman Rockwell paintings. It’s an America of Leave it to Beaver television. It’s an America of It’s a Wonderful Life. It’s an America that really existed to some degree before the Second World War, up until the 1940s or 50s. But it’s an America that just doesn’t exist any more. The Los Angeles that Ronald Reagan lived in in the 1940s or 50s — that Los Angeles is gone forever. California itself is changing dramatically. And what many Americans are mourning with his passing, I think, is that America that’s gone.
Now will Americans wake up? I think a number of commentators have made this point: the President that we now have, who also calls himself a conservative, isn’t able to pull it off the way that Ronald Reagan could, not merely because he’s not as smooth as Ronald Reagan, but because the reality is now harder and harder to avoid — the reality that the America that so many Americans nostalgically look back upon is really gone.
Having said that, though, I think that the majority of George Bush’s hardcore supporters are still impressed by — and loyal to — the mythology or the trappings of America, which are very different from the reality.
KAS: I remember Ronald Reagan signing the ‘Martin Luther King’ holiday bill. I remember his unkept promises to roll back the intrusive judicial and other federal power over us. I remember his giving an award to Elie Wiesel; his continuation — and expansion — of the anti-European-American policies of all the previous administrations going back to the Roosevelt administration. It’s hard not to see Reagan, from my point of view, as man who — perhaps — did believe in the Old America, but who just wasn’t quite bright enough to understand that his employers, those who ‘handled’ him, who organized his campaigns, who were behind him all the time, were destroying that Old America.
MW: Ronald Reagan personifies that contradiction, that paradox — the belief that, somehow, the Old America that he believed in and was part of could be kept in place and preserved while at the same time supporting and promoting policies that inevitably must destroy that very America. That’s the tragedy of it all –presuming he was sincere.
I saw Ronald Reagan speak in person only once, and that was at a large gathering of ‘Holocaust survivors,’ of all places, in Washington, DC. And, as he usually was, he was very eloquent on that occasion. But what he did was give a tremendous boost during his administration to Jewish power, a power that was working and has been working feverishly to tear down and corrode the very America that Ronald Reagan loved and represented. As you say: Was he stupid? — or just ignorant, or whatever?
I think it’s part of the mythology of America that people of whatever background can come to this country and through some kind of magic can be made into part of the America of motion pictures and Norman Rockwell paintings.
KAS: Well, some ethnicities melt better than others…
MW: Well, of course (laughter). No group — no ethnic group, no religious group — in America is so determined to preserve and hold onto its identity and further the interests of its own group as are Jews. No group is as self-aware, as focused, as determined as are Jews in America. And that’s not surprising, because Jews have been focused, determined, and have had a very high sense of purpose and identity for centuries. In fact, if Jews didn’t have such a very very strong sense of self — of peoplehood — they would have long ago disappeared as a people, under the pressures of assimilation and so forth. In America, as in every other country where Jews have settled in large numbers, they persist in — and insist on — furthering their own interests, even as those interests clash and compete with the interests of the people among whom they live, here in this country and elsewhere.
KAS: Well, if Ronald Reagan understood that about his employers, then he was a much more subtle person than I took him to be. I tend to think that he was a man with a magnetic personality but a nearly empty mind. That made him a perfect ‘leader’-type for those who surrounded him. After all, did he not take Jewish direction in Hollywood, and in his radio network jobs; and all through his career as a politician, was he not surrounded by powerful Jews?
MW: Margaret Thatcher, who of course is going to be here in the United States for the Reagan funeral, and who was an ally of Ronald Reagan when she was Prime Minister of Britain, said privately on one occasion that he was a great guy, but there was very little between his ears. I don’t think Reagan did understand these larger things. But what drove him, what kept him going, was a kind of mythology about America. And it’s a kind of attractive mythology. In life, I think that most people — certainly most people in any kind of electorate or collective — prefer a pleasant lie to an unpleasant truth. And Ronald Reagan was a master at telling people the pleasant untruth that they wanted to hear.
KAS: You at the Institute are trying in some sense to give people enough perspective to see some of those dangers ahead. Can you tell us what lesson you’d like to leave my listeners with on these subjects?
MW: The best guide to the future is an understanding of the past. And that means not just American history, but world history. This is very difficult here in the United States, in many ways, because this is a country in which there’s a kind of national mythology that America is an exception from history. The idea that we can be an exception from history is childish. And it’s only through an understanding of history, of the past, that we can have a real understanding of our present plight and think wisely and intelligently about the future.
The power of historical consciousness is an immensely important one. It’s one of the reasons Jews are as successful as they are. In fact, their entire religion underscores and emphasizes their sense of history — of Jewish peoplehood. It’s a distorted, kind of mythologized history — but nonetheless, it’s a sense of history.
Americans, as a people, have a great deal of difficulty with that, because we are encouraged in this country to think of ourselves as individuals. And people who think of themselves as individuals are not going to think much about history, because as individuals, we simply die. A historical consciousness also carries with it an awareness of the continuity of history — that we are part of something larger than ourselves. That’s one of the reasons history is so important, and why the work of the IHR [http://www.ihr.org ] is so important. Fostering historical awareness and historical consciousness is a task of very very high importance.
KAS: Mark, I want to thank you for the work you’re doing for Ernst Zündel [ http://www.zundelsite.org ], of course; I also want to thank you for what is always a bracing intellectual adventure being on the show and talking with me; and I want to thank you for the work you’re doing to bring the truth to light through the Institute for Historical Review.
MW: Thank you very much, Kevin, and it’s always a pleasure to be on your show and I admire your work as well.
WORLD WAR II was not only the greatest military conflict in history, it was also America’s most important twentieth-century war. It brought profound and permanent social, governmental and cultural changes in the United States, and has had a great impact on how Americans regard themselves and their country’s place in the world.
This global clash — with the United States and the other “Allies” on one side, and Nazi Germany, imperial Japan and the other “Axis” countries on the other — is routinely portrayed in the US as the “good war,” a morally clear-cut conflict between Good and Evil. / 1
In the view of British author and historian Paul Addison, “the war served a generation of Britons and Americans as a myth which enshrined their essential purity, a parable of good and evil.” / 2 Dwight Eisenhower, Supreme wartime Commander of American forces in Europe, and later US president for eight years, called the fight against Nazi Germany “the Great Crusade.” / 3 And President Bill Clinton said that in World War II the United States “saved the world from tyranny.” / 4 Americans are also told that this was an unavoidable and necessary war, one that the US had to wage to keep from being enslaved by cruel and ruthless dictators.
Whatever doubts or misgivings Americans may have had about their country’s role in Iraq, Vietnam, or other overseas conflicts, most accept that the sacrifices made by the US in World War II, especially in defeating Hitler’s Germany, were entirely justified and worthwhile.
For more than 60 years, this view has been reinforced in countless motion pictures, on television, by teachers, in textbooks, and by political leaders. The reverential way that the US role in the war has been portrayed moved Bruce Russett, professor of political science at Yale University, to write: / 5
“Participation in the war against Hitler remains almost wholly sacrosanct, nearly in the realm of theology … Whatever criticisms of twentieth-century American policy are put forth, United States participation in World War II remains almost entirely immune. According to our national mythology, that was a ‘good war,’ one of the few for which the benefits clearly outweighed the costs. Except for a few books published shortly after the war and quickly forgotten, this orthodoxy has been essentially unchallenged.”
How accurate is this hallowed portrayal of America’s role in World War II? As we shall see, it does not hold up under close examination.
First, a look at the outbreak of war in Europe.
When the leaders of Britain and France declared war against Germany on September 3, 1939, they announced that they were doing so because German military forces had attacked Poland, thereby threatening Polish independence. In going to war against Germany, the British and French leaders transformed what was then a geographically limited, two-day-old clash between Germany and Poland into a continental, European-wide conflict.
It soon became obvious that the British-French justification for going to war was not sincere. When Soviet Russian forces attacked Poland from the East two weeks later, ultimately taking even more Polish territory than did Germany, the leaders of Britain and France did not declare war against the Soviet Union. And although Britain and France went to war supposedly to protect Polish independence, at the end of the fighting in 1945 — after five and a half years of horrific struggle, death and suffering — Poland was still not free, but instead was entirely under the brutal rule of Soviet Russia.
Sir Basil Liddell Hart, an outstanding twentieth-century British military historian, put it this way: / 6
“The Western Allies entered the war with a two-fold object. The immediate purpose was to fulfill their promise to preserve the independence of Poland. The ultimate purpose was to remove a potential menace to themselves, and thus ensure their own security. In the outcome, they failed in both purposes. Not only did they fail to prevent Poland from being overcome in the first place, and partitioned between Germany and Russia, but after six years of war which ended in apparent victory they were forced to acquiesce in Russia’s domination of Poland — abandoning their pledges to the Poles who had fought on their side.”
In 1940, shortly after he was named prime minister, Winston Churchill spelled out, in two often quoted speeches, his reasons for continuing Britain’s war against Germany. In his famous “Blood, Sweat and Tears” speech, the great British wartime leader said that unless Germany was defeated, there would be “no survival for the British empire, no survival for all that the British empire has stood for…” A few weeks later, in his “Finest Hour” address, Churchill said: “Upon this battle depends the survival of Christian civilization. Upon it depends our own British life and the long continuity of our institutions and our Empire.” / 7
How strange those words sound today. Even though Britain supposedly “won,” or at least was on the winning side in the war, the once-mighty British empire has vanished into history. No British leader today would dare defend the often brutal record of British imperialism, including killing and bombing in order to maintain exploitative colonial rule over millions in Asia and Africa. Nor would any British leader today dare to justify killing people in order to uphold “Christian civilization,” not least for fear of offending Britain’s large and rapidly growing non-Christian population.
Americans like to believe that “good guys” win, and “bad guys” lose, and, in international affairs, that “good” countries win wars, and “bad” countries lose them. In keeping with this view, Americans are encouraged to believe that the US role in defeating Germany and Japan demonstrated the righteousness of the “American Way,” and the superiority of our country’s form of government and society.
But if there is any validity to this view, it would be more accurate to say that the war’s outcome showed the righteousness of the “Soviet Way,” and the superiority of the Soviet Communist form of society and government. Indeed, for decades that was a proud claim of Moscow’s leaders. As one official Soviet history book, published in the 1970s, put it:
“The war demonstrated the superiority of the Soviet socialist social and state system … The war further demonstrated the social and political unity of the Soviet people … Once again it underscored the significance of the guiding and organizing role of the Communist Party in socialist society. The Communist Party consolidated millions of people in their fight against the fascist aggressors … The selfless dedication demonstrated by the Communist Party during the war years further solidified the trust, respect and love it enjoys among the Soviet people.” / 8
In fact, Hitler’s Germany was defeated, first and foremost, by the Soviet Union. Some 70-80 percent of German combat forces were destroyed by the Soviet military on the Eastern front. The D-Day landing in France by American and British forces, which is often portrayed in the United States as a critically important military blow against Nazi Germany, was launched in June 1944 — that is, less than a year before the end of the war in Europe, and months after the great Soviet military victories at Stalingrad and Kursk, which were decisive in Germany’s defeat. / 9
What were the American goals in World War II, and how successful was the US in achieving them?
In 1941 President Franklin Roosevelt, together with British prime minister Winston Churchill, issued a formal declaration of Allied war aims, the much-publicized “Atlantic Charter.” In it, the United States and Britain declared that they sought “no territorial changes that do not accord with the freely expressed wishes of the peoples concerned,” that they would “respect the right of all peoples to choose the form of governments under which they will live,” and that they would strive “to see sovereign rights and self-government restored to those who have been forcibly deprived of them.”
It soon became apparent, though, that this solemn pledge of freedom and self-government for “all peoples” was little more than empty propaganda. / 10 This is hardly surprising, given that America’s two most important military allies in the war were Great Britain and the Soviet Union — that is, the world’s foremost imperialist power, and the world’s cruelest tyranny.
At the outbreak of war in 1939, Britain ruled over the largest colonial empire in history, holding more millions of people against their will than any regime before or since. This vast empire included what is now India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Nigeria, Ghana, Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, and South Africa.
America’s other great wartime ally, the Soviet Union, was, by any objective measure, the most tyrannical or oppressive regime of its time, and a vastly more cruel despotism than Hitler’s Germany. As historians acknowledge, the victims of Soviet dictator Stalin greatly outnumber those who perished as a result of Hitler’s policies. Robert Conquest, a prominent scholar of twentieth century Russian history, estimates the number of those who lost their lives as a consequence of Stalin’s policies as “no fewer than 20 million.” / 11
During the war the United States helped substantially to maintain Stalin’s tyranny, and to aid the Soviet Union in oppressing additional millions of Europeans, while also helping Britain to maintain or re-establish its imperial rule over many millions in Asia and Africa. / 12
Paul Fussell, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania who served in World War II as a US Army lieutenant, wrote in his acclaimed book Wartime that “the Allied war has been sanitized and romanticized almost beyond recognition by the sentimental, the loony patriotic, the ignorant and the bloodthirsty.” / 13
An important feature of this “sanitized” view is the belief that whereas the Nazi German regime was responsible for many terrible war crimes and atrocities, the Allies, and especially the United States, waged war humanely. In fact, the record of Allied misdeeds is a long one, and includes the British-American bombing of German cities, a terroristic campaign that took the lives of more than half a million civilians, the genocidal “ethnic cleansing” of millions of civilians in eastern and central Europe, and the large-scale postwar mistreatment of German prisoners. / 14
After “forty months of war duty and five major battles” in which Edgar L. Jones served as “an ambulance driver, a merchant seaman, an Army historian, and a war correspondent,” he wrote an article dispelling some myths about the Americans’ role in the war. “What kind of war do civilians suppose we fought, anyway?,” he told readers of The Atlantic monthly. “We shot prisoners in cold blood, wiped out hospitals, strafed lifeboats, killed or mistreated enemy civilians, finished off the enemy wounded, tossed the dying into a hole with the dead, and in the Pacific boiled the flesh off enemy skulls to make table ornaments for sweethearts, or carved their bones into letter-openers.” / 15
Shortly after the end of the war, the victorious powers put Germany’s wartime leaders on trial for war crimes and crimes against humanity. In doing so, the US and its allies held German leaders to a standard that they did not respect themselves.
US Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson was not the only high-ranking American official to acknowledge, at least in private, that the claim of unique Allied righteousness was mere pretense. In a letter to the President, written while he was serving as the chief US prosecutor at the great Nuremberg trial of 1945-1946, Jackson acknowledged that the Allies “have done or are doing some of the very things we are prosecuting the Germans for. The French are so violating the Geneva Convention in the treatment of [German] prisoners of war that our command is taking back prisoners sent to them [for forced labor in France]. We are prosecuting plunder and our Allies are practicing it. We say aggressive war is a crime and one of our allies asserts sovereignty over the Baltic States based on no title except conquest.” / 16
At the conclusion of the Nuremberg trial of 1945-1946, the respected British weekly The Economist cited Soviet crimes, and then added, “Nor should the Western world console itself that the Russians alone stand condemned at the bar of the Allies’ own justice.” The Economist editorial went on:
“… Among crimes against humanity stands the offence of the indiscriminate bombing of civilian populations. Can the Americans who dropped the atom bomb and the British who destroyed the cities of western Germany plead ‘not guilty’ on this count? Crimes against humanity also include the mass expulsion of populations. Can the Anglo-Saxon leaders who at Potsdam condoned the expulsion of millions of Germans from their homes hold themselves completely innocent?… The nations sitting in judgment [at Nuremberg] have so clearly proclaimed themselves exempt from the law which they have administered.” / 17
Another popular American assumption is that this country’s enemies in World War II were all non-democratic dictatorships. In fact, on each side there were regimes that were repressive or dictatorial, as well as governments that had broad public support. Many of the countries allied with the US were headed by governments that were oppressive, dictatorial, or otherwise non-democratic. / 18 Finland, a democratic republic, was an important wartime partner of Hitler’s Germany.
In crass violation of their own solemnly proclaimed principles, the US, British and Soviet statesmen disposed of tens of millions of people with no regard for their wishes. The deceit and cynicism of the Allied leaders was perhaps most blatant in the infamous British-Soviet “percentages agreement” to divide up South Eastern Europe. At a meeting with Stalin in 1944, Churchill proposed that in Romania the Soviets should have 90 percent influence or authority, and 75 percent in Bulgaria, and that Britain should have 90 percent influence or control in Greece. In Hungary and Yugoslavia, the British leader suggested, each should have 50 percent. Churchill wrote all this out on a piece of paper, which he pushed across to Stalin, who made a check mark on it and passed it back. Churchill then said, “Might it not be thought rather cynical if it seemed we had disposed of these issues, so fateful to millions of people, in such an off-hand manner? Let us burn the paper.” “No, you keep it,” replied Stalin. / 19
To solidify the Allied wartime coalition — which was formally known as the “United Nations” — President Roosevelt, British Prime Minister Churchill, and Soviet premier Stalin met together on two occasions: in November 1943 at Tehran, in occupied Iran, and in February 1945 in Yalta, in Soviet Crimea. The three Allied leaders accomplished what they accused the Axis leaders of Germany, Italy and Japan of conspiring to achieve: world domination.
During a 1942 meeting in Washington, President Roosevelt candidly told the Soviet foreign minister that “the United States, England and Russia, and perhaps China, should police the world and enforce disarmament [of all others] by inspection.” / 20
To secure the global rule of the victorious powers after the war, the “Big Three” Allied leaders established the United Nations organization to serve as a permanent world police force. Once Germany and Japan were defeated, though, the US and the Soviet Union squared off against each other, which made it impossible for the UN to function as President Roosevelt had intended. While the US and Soviet Union each sought for decades to secure hegemony in its own sphere of influence, the two “super powers” were also rivals in a decades-long struggle for global supremacy.
In his book, APeople’s History of the United States, historian Howard Zinn wrote: / 21
“The victors were the Soviet Union and the United States (also England, France and Nationalist China, but they were weak). Both these countries now went to work — without swastikas, goose-stepping, or officially declared racism, but under the cover of ‘socialism’ on the one side, and ‘democracy’ on the other, to carve out their own empires of influence. They proceeded to share and contest with one another the domination of the world, to build military machines far greater than the Fascist countries had built, to control the destinies of more countries than Hitler, Mussolini, and Japan had been able to. They also acted to control their own populations, each country with its own techniques — crude in the Soviet Union, sophisticated in the United States — to make their rule secure.”
The United States officially entered World War II after the Japanese attack on the US naval base at Pearl Harbor in Hawaii on December 7, 1941. Until then, the US was officially a neutral country, and most Americans wanted to keep out of the war that was then raging in Europe and Asia. In spite of the country’s neutral status, President Roosevelt and his administration, together with much of the US media, prodded the American people into supporting war against Germany. A large-scale propaganda campaign was mounted to persuade Americans that Hitler and his Nazi “henchmen” or “hordes” were doing everything in their power to take over and “enslave” the entire world, and that war with Hitler’s Germany was inevitable.
As part of this effort, the President and other high-ranking American officials broadcast fantastic lies about supposed plans by Hitler and his government to attack the United States and impose a global dictatorship. / 22
President Roosevelt’s record of lies is acknowledged even by his admirers. Among those who have sought to justify his policy is the eminent American historian Thomas A. Bailey, who wrote: / 23
“Franklin Roosevelt repeatedly deceived the American people during the period before Pearl Harbor … He was like the physician who must tell the patient lies for the patient’s own good … The country was overwhelmingly noninterventionist to the very day of Pearl Harbor, and an overt attempt to lead the people into war would have resulted in certain failure and an almost certain ousting of Roosevelt in 1940, with a complete defeat of his ultimate aims.”
Professor Bailey went on to offer a cynical view of American democracy:
“A president who cannot entrust the people with the truth betrays a certain lack of faith in the basic tenets of democracy. But because the masses are notoriously shortsighted and generally cannot see danger until it is at their throats, our statesmen are forced to deceive them into an awareness of their own long-run interests. This is clearly what Roosevelt had to do, and who shall say that posterity will not thank him for it?”
As part of the US government’s campaign to incite war, President Roosevelt in 1941 ordered the US Navy to help British forces in attacking German vessels in the Atlantic. This was reinforced by a presidential “shoot on sight” order to the US Navy against German and Italian ships. Roosevelt’s goal was to provoke an “incident” that would provide a pretext for open war. Hitler, for his part, was anxious to avoid conflict with the United States. The German leader responded to the US government’s blatantly illegal provocations by ordering his navy commanders to avoid clashes with US ships. / 24
Also in crass violation of international law, the officially neutral US government provided massive “Lend Lease” aid to Germany’s enemies, especially Britain and its empire, as well as to Soviet Russia.
Two prominent American historians, Allan Nevins and Henry Steele Commager, noted that:
“This [1941 “Lend Lease”] measure was clearly unneutral, but the United States, committed now to the defeat of Germany, was not to be stayed by the niceties of international law. Other equally unneutral acts followed — the seizure of Axis shipping, the freezing of Axis funds, the transfer of tankers to Britain, the occupation of Greenland and, later, of Iceland, the extension of lend-lease to the new ally, Russia, and … the presidential order to ‘shoot on sight’ any enemy submarines.” / 25
In the view of British historian J.F.C. Fuller, President Roosevelt “left no stone unturned to provoke Hitler to declare war on the very people to whom he so ardently promised peace. He provided Great Britain with American destroyers, he landed American troops in Iceland, and he set out to patrol the Atlantic seaways in order to safeguard British convoys; all of which were acts of war … In spite of his manifold enunciations to keep the United States out of the war, he was bent on provoking some incident which would bring them into it.” / 26
So belligerent and unlawful were the Roosevelt administration’s policies that Admiral Harold R. Stark, chief of US naval operations, acknowledged in a confidential September 1941 memorandum for the President: “He [Hitler] has every excuse in the world to declare war on us now, if he were of a mind to.” / 27
Across Europe and Asia, the Second World War brought mass destruction, death to tens of millions of men, women and children, and great suffering to many more. Americans, though, were spared the horrors of large-scale bombing, combat fighting on their home soil, or occupation by foreign armies.
At the end of the war the United States was the only major nation not shattered in the global conflict. It emerged as the world’s preeminent economic, military, and financial power. For the US, the half-century from 1945 to the mid-1990s was an era of spectacular economic growth and unmatched global stature.
Lewis H. Lapham, author and for years editor of Harper’s magazine, put it this way:
“In 1945, the United States inherited the earth … At the end of World War II, what was left of Western civilization passed into the American account. The war had also prompted the country to invent a miraculous economic machine that seemed to grant as many wishes as were asked of it. The continental United States had escaped the plague of war, and so it was easy enough for the heirs to believe that they had been anointed by God.” / 28
But were Americans really better off than if they had stayed out of World War II? Among those who has not thought so is Prof. Bruce Russett, who wrote: / 29
“American participation in World War II had very little effect on the essential structure of international politics thereafter, and probably did little either to advance the material welfare of most Americans or to make the nation secure from foreign military threats … In fact, most Americans probably would have been no worse off, and possibly a little better, if the United States had never become a belligerent…
“I personally find it hard to develop a very emphatic preference for Stalinist Russia over Hitlerite Germany … In cold-blooded realist terms, Nazism as an ideology was almost certainly less dangerous to the United States than is Communism.”
Although Third Reich Germany and imperial Japan were destroyed, the United States and Britain failed to achieve the political goals proclaimed by their leaders. In August 1945, the prestigious British weekly, The Economist, noted: “At the end of a mighty war fought to defeat Hitlerism, the Allies are making a Hitlerian peace. This is the real measure of their failure.” / 30
Among those who were not happy about the war’s outcome was British historian Basil Liddell Hart, who wrote:
“… All the effort that was put into the destruction of Hitlerite Germany resulted in a Europe so devastated and weakened in the process that its power of resistance was much reduced in the face of a fresh and greater menace — and Britain, in common with her European neighbours, had become a poor dependent of the United States. These are the hard facts underlying the victory that was so hopefully pursued and so painfully achieved — after the colossal weight of both Russia and America had been drawn into the scales against Germany. The outcome dispelled the persistent popular illusion that ‘victory’ spelt peace. It confirmed the warning of past experience that victory is a ‘mirage in the desert’ — the desert that a long war creates, when waged with modern weapons and unlimited methods.” / 31
Even Winston Churchill had misgivings about the war’s outcome. Three years after the end of the fighting, he wrote:
“The human tragedy [of the war] reaches its climax in the fact that after all the exertions and sacrifices of hundreds of millions of people and of the victories of the Righteous Cause, we have still not found Peace or Security, and that we lie in the grip of even worse perils than those we have surmounted.” / 32
At the end of the war, Europe for the first time in its history was no longer master of its own destiny, but was instead under the domination of two great outer European powers, the United States and the Soviet Union, which for political and ideological reasons had no special interest in, or concern for, European culture or Western civilization. / 33
In the view of Charles A. Lindbergh, the world-famous author and aviator, the war was a great setback for the West. Twenty-five years after the end of the conflict, he wrote: / 34
“We won the war in a military sense; but in a broader sense it seems to me we lost it, for our Western civilization is less respected and secure than it was before. In order to defeat Germany and Japan we supported the still greater menaces of Russia and China — which now confront us in a nuclear-weapon era. Poland was not saved … Much of our Western culture was destroyed. We lost the genetic heredity formed through aeons in many million lives … It is alarmingly possible that World War II marks the beginning of our Western civilization’s breakdown, as it already marks the breakdown of the greatest empire ever built by man.”
The outcome of the US and British role in the war moved British historian J.F.C. Fuller to write: / 35
“What persuaded them [Roosevelt and Churchill] to adopt so fatal a policy? We hazard to reply — blind hatred! Their hearts ran away with their heads and their emotions befogged their reason. For them the war was not a political conflict in the normal meaning of the words, it was a Manichean contest between Good and Evil, and to carry their people along with them they unleashed a vitriolic propaganda against the devil they had invoked.”
Even after the passage of so many years, this hatred has endured. American schools, the US mass media, government agencies and political leaders have for decades carried on a campaign of emotion-laden, one-sided propaganda to uphold the national mythology of World War II.
How a nation views the past is not a trivial or merely academic exercise. Our perspective on history profoundly shapes our actions in the present, often with grave consequences for the future. Drawing conclusions from our understanding of the past, we make or support policies that greatly impact many lives.
The familiar American portrayal of World War II, and the “good war” mythology of the US role in it, is not merely bad history. It has helped greatly to support and justify a series of arrogant US foreign policy adventures, with harmful consequences for both America and the world.
“World War II has warped our view of how we look at things today,” said US Navy rear admiral Gene R. LaRoque, who served in 13 major battles during the war. “We see things in terms of that war, which in a sense was a good war. But the twisted memory of it encourages the men of my generation to be willing, almost eager, to use military force anywhere in the world.” / 36
Since 1945, American presidents have repeatedly sought to justify US military actions in foreign countries by recalling the “good war” and, in particular, the US role in defeating Germany. During the 1960s, President Lyndon Johnson sought to win support for his Vietnam war policy with historically false portrayals of World War II and Hitler’s Germany. / 37
This moved historian Murray Rothbard to write in 1968: / 38
” …World War II is the last war myth left, the myth that the Old Left clings to in pure desperation: the myth that here, at least, was a good war, here was a war in which America was in the right. World War II is the war thrown into our faces by the war-making establishment, as it tries, in each war that we face, to wrap itself in the mantle of good and righteous World War II.”
In recent years, American political leaders have tried to gain support for war against Iraq and Iran by drawing historical parallels between Hitler and the leaders of those two Middle East countries.
Many Americans are understandably outraged by the deceit and falsehoods of President George W. Bush and his administration in seeking public support for the US invasion of Iraq in 2003. But as we have seen, presidential deception to justify war did not start with him. Americans who express admiration for the US role in World War II, and for Franklin Roosevelt’s presidential leadership, have little moral right to complain when presidents follow his example and lead the country into war by breaking the law, subverting the Constitution, and lying to the people.
If the history of war and conflict teaches us anything, it is the danger of arrogance and hubris — that is, the danger of going to war because a nation’s leaders are convinced of their own righteousness, or have persuaded themselves and the public that a foreign country should be attacked because its government or society is not merely alien, hostile or threatening, but “evil.”
This is perhaps the most harmful legacy of America ‘s national mythology about World War II — the notion that worthwhile or justifiable wars are fought against countries headed by supposedly “evil” regimes. And it is this very outlook that moved President George W. Bush to refer to his “war on terrorism” as a “crusade,” and, in a major speech, to proclaim a US foreign policy dedicated to “ending tyranny in the world.” / 39
A nation should go to war only after prudent consideration, after carefully weighing the possible consequences, and only for the most compelling of reasons, after all other alternatives have been exhausted, and as a last resort. This is especially true given the awesome destructive power of modern weaponry, and because — as World War II , the “Good War,” so tragically attests — wars rarely turn out the way anyone expects.
About the Author
Mark Weber is director of the Institute for Historical Review. He studied history at the University of Illinois (Chicago), the University of Munich, Portland State University and Indiana University (M.A., 1977).
This article was presented as a lecture at an IHR meeting in Costa Mesa, California, on May 24, 2008.
1. Studs Terkel, “The Good War” (New York: Pantheon, 1984), p. vi.
2. P. Fussell, Wartime (1989), pp. 164-165.Also quoted there by Fussell is Eric Severeid, an influential American journalist and commentator, who wrote that the war “absolutely” was a “contest between good and evil.”
3. Eisenhower declaration of June 6, 1944, issued in connection with the D-Day invasion.
4. Clinton’s second inaugural address, Jan. 20, 1997. See: M. Weber, “The Danger of Historical Lies: President Clinton’s Distortion of History,” The Journal of Historical Review, May-June 1997.http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-2_Weber.html )
5. B. M. Russett, No Clear and Present Danger (1972), pp. 12, 17.
6. Basil H. Liddell Hart, History of the Second World War (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1971), p. 3.
7. Churchill speeches of May 13, 1940, and June 18, 1940.
8. K. Gusev, V. Naumov, The USSR: A Short History (Moscow: Progress, 1976), p. 239.
9. N. Davies, No Simple Victory (2007), pp. 24, 25, 276, 484-485; John Erickson, The Road to Berlin (Yale Univ. Press, 1999), p. ix (preface); Soviet losses in the three-week Berlin offensive of April 16 to May 8, 1945, it’s been estimated, were greater than the total of American dead in the Second World War, and greater than the losses of the Western allies in the whole of 1945. H. P. Willmott, The Great Crusade: A New Complete History of the Second World War (New York: 1990), p. 452; In the view of historian John Lukacs: “Their [the Soviet Russians’] resistance and victory over the Germans was their greatest – no, their only great – achievement during the seventy-four years of Soviet Communism.” J. Lukacs, The End of the Twentieth Century and the End of the Modern Age (New York: 1993), p. 55.
10. British historian J. F. C. Fuller called the Atlantic Charter “first class propaganda, and probably the biggest hoax in history.” J. F. C. Fuller, A Military History of the Western World , Vol. 3 (New York: DaCapo, 1987), p. 453.
11. R. Conquest, The Great Terror: A Reassessment (Oxford Univ. Press, 1990), p. 48. See also: N. Davies,No Simple Victory (2007), pp. 64-67
12. A few years after the end of the war, former US President Herbert Hoover recalled his critical view of Roosevelt’s policy of aiding the Soviet Union: “In June 1941, when Britain was safe from German invasion due to Hitler’s diversion to attack Stalin, I urged that the gargantuan jest of all history would be our giving aid to the Soviet government. I urged that we should allow those two dictators to exhaust each other. I stated that the result of our assistance would be to spread Communism over the whole world. … The consequences have proved that I was right.” Cited by: Scott Horton, “Saving England Wasn’t Worth It,” June 2007. (http://www.antiwar.com/horton/?articleid=11213 )
13. P. Fussell, Wartime (New York: 1989), p. ix (preface)
14. See, for example: Max Hastings, Bomber Command (New York: 1979); Giles MacDonogh, After the Reich(2007); N. Davies, No Simple Victory (2007), pp. 67-72; Alfred M. de Zayas, The German Expellees: Victims in War and Peace (New York: 1993); Frederick J. P. Veale, Advance to Barbarism (IHR, 1993); Jörg Friedrich, The Fire: The Bombing of Germany, 1940-1945 (Columbia University Press, 2006); Ralph F. Keeling, Gruesome Harvest (Chicago: 1947)
16. Jackson letter to Truman, Oct. 12, 1945. Quoted in: Robert E. Conot, Justice at Nuremberg (New York: 1983), p. 68. See also: James McMillan, Five Men at Nuremberg (London: 1985), pp. 67, 173-174, 244-245, 380, 414-415.
17. “The Nuremberg Judgment,” editorial, The Economist (London), Oct. 5, 1946. Quoted in: M. Weber, “The Nuremberg Trials and the Holocaust,” The Journal of Historical Review, Summer 1992, p. 176. (http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v12/v12p167_Webera.html)
18. In addition to the Soviet Union and the puppet states under British colonial rule, those countries included China, Brazil, Cuba, and Egypt.
19. Martin Gilbert, Road to Victory, Winston Churchill 1941-45, Vol. VII (Houghton Mifflin, 1986), pp. 992-994. Source cited: W. Churchill, The Second World War. Vol. 6, Triumph and Tragedy (London, 1954), p. 198.
20. Warren F. Kimball, The Juggler: Franklin Roosevelt as Wartime Statesman(Princeton Univ. Press, 1991), p. 85 and p. 235 (n. 6). Source cited: Foreign Relations of the United States, 1942, vol. III, pp. 573 f.
21. H. Zinn, A People’s History of the United States (New York: HarperCollins/ Perennial, 2001), pp. 424-425.
22. In his nationally broadcast address of Dec. 29, 1940, President Roosevelt told Americans that “the Nazi masters of Germany” were seeking “to enslave the whole of Europe, and then to use the resources of Europe to dominate the rest of the world.” In his address of May 27, 1941, Roosevelt said that “the Nazis” sought “world domination.” On Oct. 25, 1941, US Assistant Secretary of State Adolph Berle told Americans that Hitler and the Nazis “planned to conquer the entire world.” Two days later, the President issued perhaps his most extravagant claim of supposed Nazi plans to take over the world. See: M. Weber, “Roosevelt’s ‘Secret Map’ Speech,” The Journal of Historical Review, Spring 1985. See also: Thomas A. Bailey and P. Ryan, Hitler vs. Roosevelt (1979), esp. pp. 199-203; Ted Morgan, FDR: A Biography (New York: 1985), pp. 602-603;
“From the captured German archives, there is no evidence to support the President’s claims that Hitler contemplated any offensive against the western hemisphere, and until America entered the war there is abundant evidence that this was the one thing he wished to avert.” J. F. C. Fuller, A Military History of the Western World, Vol. 3 (New York: DaCapo, 1987), p. 629.
23. T. A. Bailey, The Man in the Street (1948), pp. 11-13. Quoted in: W. H. Chamberlin, America’s Second Crusade, p. 123. See also: Joseph P. Lash, Roosevelt and Churchill, 1939-1941 (New York: 1976), pp. 9, 10, 420, 421.
24. C. Tansill, Back Door to War (1952), pp. 606-615; Joseph P. Lash, Roosevelt and Churchill, 1939-1941(New York: 1976), pp. 298, 323, 340, 344, 392, 418, 419, 421; T. A. Bailey and P. B. Ryan, Hitler vs. Roosevelt (1979), pp. 166, 265, 268; Ted Morgan, FDR: A Biography (1985), pp. 589, 601; Frederic R. Sanborn, “Roosevelt is Frustrated in Europe,” in H. E. Barnes, ed., Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace(1993), pp. 219-221; James McMillan, Five Men at Nuremberg (London: 1985), pp. 173-174; W. H. Chamberlin, America’s Second Crusade(1950), pp. 124-147.
25. Allan Nevins, Henry Steele Commager, A Pocket History of the United States (New York: Washington Square Press, 1986), p. 433.
26. J. F. C. Fuller, A Military History of the Western World , Vol. 3 (New York: DaCapo, 1987), p. 416
27. Robert E. Sherwood, Roosevelt and Hopkins: An Intimate History (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1948), p. 380.
28. Lewis H. Lapham, “America’s Foreign Policy: A Rake’s Progress,” Harper’s, March 1979. Quoted in: Studs Terkel, “The Good War” (New York: 1984), p. 8.
29. B. M. Russett, No Clear and Present Danger (1972), pp. 19, 20, 42.
30. The Economist (London), August 11, 1945. Quoted in: J.F.C. Fuller, A Military History of the Western World , Vol. 3 (New York: DaCapo, 1987), p. 631.
31. Basil H. Liddell Hart, History of the Second World War (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1971), p. 3.
32. W. Churchill, The Gathering Storm (Boston: 1948), pp. iv-v (preface).
33. H. P. Willmott, The Great Crusade: A New Complete History of the Second World War (New York: The Free Press, 1990), pp. 102-103, 474 , 476; See also: F. P. Yockey, Imperium (Noontide Press, 2000).
34. Charles A. Lindbergh, The Wartime Journals of Charles A. Lindbergh (New York: 1970), pp. xiv-xv;
Donald Day, for years a correspondent in central Europe for the Chicago Tribune, was even more emphatic in viewing an Allied victory as catastrophic for Europe and the West. “Speaking as an American and as a newspaperman of 15 years experience who knows something about both the United States and Europe,” he wrote in early 1943, “I think an American control and administration of Europe would be just as destructive and ruinous as Soviet control. Both would be really Jewish control.” Donald Day, Onward Christian Soldiers(Noontide Press, 2002), p. 168.
35. J. F. C. Fuller, A Military History of the Western World, Vol. 3 (New York: DaCapo, 1987), p. 631.
36. Studs Terkel, “The Good War” (1984), p. 193.
37. President Johnson repeatedly compared the North Vietnamese leadership to Hitler to justify the use of American military power in Southeast Asia. At a news conference on July 28, 1965, for example, he said that “the lessons of history” showed that “surrender” in Vietnam would not bring peace. “We learned from Hitler at Munich,” he said, “that success only feeds the appetite of aggression. The battle will be renewed in one country and then another country…”
39. George W. Bush, Inaugural address, Jan. 20, 2005. “So it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in the world.”
For Further Reading
Michael C. C. Adams, The Best War Ever: America and World War II (Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 1994).
Thomas A. Bailey, Paul B. Ryan, Hitler vs. Roosevelt: The Undeclared Naval War (New York: The Free Press, 1979).
Nicholson Baker, Human Smoke: The Beginnings of World War II, the End of Civilization (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2008)
Harry Elmer Barnes, ed., Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace (Institute for Historical Review, 1993)
Patrick J. Buchanan, Churchill, Hitler and ‘The Unnecessary War’: How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World (New York: Crown, 2008).
William H. Chamberlain, America’s Second Crusade (Chicago: 1950)
Benjamin Colby, ‘Twas a Famous Victory (Arlington House, 1975)
George N. Crocker, Roosevelt’s Road to Russia (Regnery, 1961)
Norman Davies, No Simple Victory: World War II in Europe, 1939-1945 (New York: Viking, 2007)
Paul Fussell, Wartime: Understanding and Behavior in the Second World War(New York: 1989).
1944: US Normandy Invasion was “Tsunami of Lust”
by Mathieu von Rohr
Upon the occupation of France by American soldiers, French women had much to fear as large numbers of rapes and other terrible crimes were committed across the country.
AN IMPORTANT BOOK shows us that the “liberators” made a lot of noise and drank too much. They raced around in their jeeps, fought in the streets, and stole. But the worst thing was their obsession with French women. They wanted sex — some for free, some for money and some by force…. (ILLUSTRATION: American soldiers marching in Paris with the Arc de Triomphe in the background)
By the late summer of 1944, large numbers of women in Normandy were complaining about rapes by US soldiers. Fear spread among the population, as did a bitter joke: “Our men had to disguise themselves under the Germans. But when the Americans came, we had to hide the women.”
With the landing on Omaha Beach, “a veritable tsunami of male lust” washed over France, writes Mary Louise Roberts, a history professor at the University of Wisconsin, in her book What Soldiers Do: Sex and the American GI in World War II France. In it, Roberts scrapes away at the idealized picture of war heroes. Although soldiers have had a reputation for committing rape in many wars, American GIs have been largely excluded from this stereotype. Historical research has paid very little attention to this dark side of the liberation of Europe, which was long treated as a taboo subject in both the United States and France.
American propaganda did not sell the war to soldiers as a struggle for freedom, writes Roberts, but as a “sexual adventure.” France was “a tremendous brothel,” the magazine Life fantasized at the time, “inhabited by 40,000,000 hedonists who spend all their time eating, drinking (and) making love.” The Stars and Stripes, the official newspaper of the US armed forces, taught soldiers German phrases like: “Waffen niederlegen!” (“Throw down your arms!”). But the French phrases it recommended to soldiers were different: “You have charming eyes,” “I am not married” and “Are your parents at home?”
[EDITOR’S NOTE: This crude vision of French womanhood and the sexual rewards “due” to conquering Americans, Black and White, is not dead even today. Writing in the Daily Mail (link http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2726185/50-years-ago-Paris-finally-overthrew-Nazis.html ), Antony Beevor says as much no fewer than three times in one short article: “Paris celebrated with open arms, open beds and plenty of cognac”; “Paris welcomed officers with open arms and open beds after their triumph”; and “Paris celebrated with open arms and open beds.”]
After their victory, the soldiers felt it was time for a reward. And when they enjoyed themselves with French women, they were not only validating their own masculinity, but also, in a metaphorical sense, the new status of the United States as a superpower, writes Roberts. The liberation of France was sold to the American public as a love affair between US soldiers and grateful French women.
On the other hand, following their defeat by the Germans, many French perceived the Americans’ uninhibited activities in their own country as yet another humiliation. Although the French were officially among the victorious powers, the Americans were now in charge.
‘Scenes Contrary to Decency’
The subject of sex played a central role in the relationship between the French and their liberators. Prostitution was the source of constant strife between US military officials and local authorities.
Some of the most dramatic reports came from the port city of Le Havre, which was overrun by soldiers headed home in the summer of 1945. In a letter to a Colonel Weed, the US regional commander, then Mayor Pierre Voisin complained that his citizens couldn’t even go for a walk in the park or visit the cemetery without encountering GIs having sex in public with prostitutes.
“Scenes contrary to decency” were unfolding in his city day and night, Voisin wrote. It was “not only scandalous but intolerable” that “youthful eyes are exposed to such public spectacles.” The
mayor suggested that the Americans set up a brothel outside the city so that the sexual activity would be discreet and the spread of sexually transmitted diseases could be combated by medical personnel.
But the Americans could not operate brothels because they feared that stories about the soldiers’ promiscuity would then make their way back to their wives at home. Besides, writes Roberts, many American military officials did not take the complaints seriously owing to their belief that it was normal for the French to have sex in public.
But the citizens of Le Havre wrote letters of protest to their mayor, and not just regarding prostitution. We are “attacked, robbed, run over both on the street and in our houses,” wrote one citizen in October 1945. “This is a regime of terror, imposed by bandits in uniform.”
‘The Swagger of Conquerors’
There were similar accounts from all over the country, with police reports listing holdups, theft and rapes. In Brittany, drunk soldiers destroyed bars when they ran out of cognac. Sexual assaults were commonplace in Marseilles. In Rouen, a soldier forced his way into a house, held up his weapon and demanded sex.
The military authorities generally took the complaints about rape seriously. However, the soldiers who were convicted were almost exclusively African-American, some of them apparently on the basis of false accusations, because racism was also deeply entrenched in French society.
[The Speigel author is somewhat disingenuous here. It is well-known that Black American soldiers were brought in to both France and Italy as part of the “conquering Army” and their rapes of White women in both countries were a source of outrage and complaints. Even today, Blacks commit interracial rape at thousands of times the White rate. In US-occupied France, out of what must have been a huge number of rapes, only 29 were punished — and 25 of these were committed by Blacks. There is some small satisfaction in knowing that they were punished by hanging. — Ed.]
A café owner from Le Havre expressed the deep French disillusionment over the Americans’ behavior when he said: “We expected friends who would not make us ashamed of our defeat. Instead, there came incomprehension, arrogance, incredibly bad manners and the swagger of conquerors.”
* * *
APPENDIX: Roosevelt’s Normandy “Prayer”
On the eve of the Normandy invasion, the American President addressed the nation with a prayer. It is ironic that this prayer states his men are not fighting for conquest but for “tolerance and good will”, whereas the later actions of his soldiers speak otherwise.
“My fellow Americans: Last night, when I spoke with you about the
fall of Rome, I knew at that moment that troops of the United States
and our allies were crossing the Channel in another and greater
operation. It has come to pass with success thus far.
“And so, in this poignant hour, I ask you to join with me in prayer:
“Almighty God: Our sons, pride of our Nation, this day have set upon
a mighty endeavor, a struggle to preserve our Republic, our
religion, and our civilization, and to set free a suffering humanity.
“For these men are lately drawn from the ways of peace. They fight
not for the lust of conquest. They fight to end conquest. They fight
to liberate. They fight to let justice arise, and tolerance and good
will among all Thy people….
“With Thy blessing, we shall prevail over the unholy forces of our
enemy. Help us to conquer the apostles of greed and racial
arrogancies. Lead us to the saving of our country, and with our
sister Nations into a world unity that will spell a sure peace a
peace invulnerable to the schemings of unworthy men. And a peace
that will let all of men live in freedom, reaping the just rewards
of their honest toil.
“Thy will be done, Almighty God. Amen.” — President Franklin D.
Roosevelt, June 6th 1944
Translated from the German by Christopher Sultan and edited by Chris Rossetti and Vanessa Neubauer
NOT EVERY World War 2 veteran is still around to tell us how he feels about the world his sacrifices brought into being. But there are a few veterans, and sons and daughters of veterans, who are no longer keeping their heads down and pretending that everything is just fine. Some of them are angry — very angry — at what has been done to their world — the world they thought they were fighting to preserve. Listen to this:
I stormed Omaha Beach on D-Day so my kids could be manipulated by media Jews to hate me — and to hate themselves.
I stormed Omaha Beach so my kids could be the sex playthings of any invader or racial alien who took a fancy to them — and so my kids could be taught to like it.
I stormed Omaha Beach so my kids could could say “F America” and scream that Black gangbangers and Mexican cartel gangs are equal to us –and hate me if I think otherwise.
I stormed Omaha Beach so when my kids had kids, one of my grandsons could put other men’s genitals in his mouth and have other “men” put their forearms in his rectum and call it “diversity” and “love.”
I stormed Omaha Beach so that my other grandson could castrate himself and take hormones to grow female breasts.
I stormed Omaha Beach — and saw my buddies die — so that my granddaughter could cover herself with gang sign tattoos and give herself to Black gangbangers in a crack house. I stormed Omaha Beach so that she could become a junkie and then get a “job” doing sex movies for a Jewish porn studio which requires that she have group sex with Blacks in gang rape movies.
I stormed Omaha Beach — and saw my buddies die — and killed members of my own race who had never harmed me or my country — so that my other granddaughter could be beat bloody and abandoned by her Mexican invader “boyfriend” and bear his mixed-race offspring.
That is what I fought for when I fought in World War 2. God Bless America and please protect the poor, persecuted Jews who brought us all this freedom!
That’s what one man had to say recently after viewing the Murdoch Murdoch video we showcased here last week called “The Greatest Generation.” Actually, I had to clean up some of the very raw language he used before I could make it a part of this family-friendly radio show. He’s that angry. And well he should be. He has been — we all have been — betrayed and stabbed in the back.
World War 2 and National Socialist Germany are among the biggest taboos set up by our enemies to keep us intimidated, silent, and confused. Even as populism and nationalism rise, anti-invasion activists and populists and weak-kneed nationalists still try to “fit in” with those taboos and avoid being attacked by the enemy’s media outlets by continuing to use the Germans of the World War 2 period — the “Nazis” — as a metaphor for tyranny and evil. They pay obeisance to the myth of the “Good War” and the “greatest tragedy in human history,” the alleged “Holocaust.” But you can’t win a war if you let your enemy define good and evil for you. You can’t win if you let your enemy decide what kind of society you’re allowed to build.
Understanding World War 2 rightly is absolutely necessary for our victory — even our survival. That is precisely why the truth about that conflict has been made into one of the greatest taboos of all time. Let’s listen to what the founder of the National Alliance, Dr. William Pierce, said in answer to the questions:Why do you keep bringing up World War 2? Don’t we already have enough problems with people calling us “Nazis”? Can’t we just avoid the subject and stick to immigration and Black crime? What the Hell does World War 2 have to do with our problems today, anyway? Listen:
The Second World War really has everything to do with it. It was, after all, an ideological war, one could almost say a religious war, a war between two fundamentally different world views. On one side were the believers in quality over quantity, the elitists, the believers that White people, Europeans, are more progressive, are better able to maintain and advance civilization, and should hold onto their position of world mastery.
On the other side were the believers in quantity over quality, the egalitarians, the believers in racial and cultural equality, the people who thought it was wicked for the United States to remain a White country, wicked for White Britain to have a world empire, wicked for White Germany to be allowed to smash communism, wicked to permit nationalism to triumph over internationalism. And the fact is that the egalitarians won the war. After the Second World War White Americans could no more justify keeping hordes of hungry, non-White immigrants out of their country than Englishmen could justify hanging onto the British Empire. They had cut the moral ground right out from under themselves.
But the point is that, the reasons given to the American people for getting into the war against Germany were all spurious. It was not a war to keep America free. Americans weren’t in the slightest danger of losing their freedom to the Germans. It was, as I said, an ideological war. It was a war about what kind of ideas would govern the world. It was a war about whether we would be proud and White and strong, or whether we would feel guilty about the fact that Mexican peons aren’t as well off as we are.
And we lost the war. That was a real turning point in the fortunes of our race and our nation. The loss of the Second World War is the real reason for the decline of the U.S. economy–and of our social life, our cultural life, and our spiritual life. Before the war we had a White country, a country determined to stay White. After the war we no longer had that determination. Instead we had the vague feeling that it was wrong of us to want to stay White.
After the war when the controlled media began pushing for so-called “civil rights” laws and for opening our borders to the Third World, it was just a continuation of their push to get us into the war on the side of the people who had made Poland a more “equal” country by slaughtering her leaders at the killing pits in the Katyn woods. We don’t really have time today to trace the whole process of the breakdown of America after the war, but we can look at a few examples which more or less tell the story.
We’ve been talking about the economy, but it’s really our whole society which has been corrupted by the war, by the ideology for which the war was fought. Think, for example, about what life is becoming for the millions of White Americans who still live in our cities, especially those cities with a large minority contingent. We are no longer the masters in our own land, and we are paying the price for that decline in status. Crime has soared enormously in our cities and made life a daily nightmare for millions who cannot move away. Even for those who live in the suburbs and only must work in the cities during the day, crime has become an ever-present constraint, a burden, a limit to their lives.
City streets which once were safe for White women and men, by night as well as by day, are now like minefields where we must proceed with caution and be always on guard. We know who makes our streets unsafe. We know against whom we are obliged to bar our windows. We know whom we must fear if our cars run out of gas or break down at night. And these are the same people whose welfare support imposes such an intolerable burden on our strained economy. And it is interesting that the government cannot solve our crime problem for exactly the same reason that it cannot solve our economic problem: it cannot address the causes; it cannot even admit the existence of the causes, because those causes are Politically Incorrect.
Just as the government economists talk about interest rates and budget adjustments but dare not speak of the effects of globalism on our economy, the sociologists talk about “poverty” as the cause of urban crime, but dare not mention that crime in America today is above all else a racial problem. Or look at what our schools have become, or look at popular entertainment. You know what the purpose of a school should be? It should be not just to pound facts into the heads of children so they can earn a living; it should be to mold them into good citizens. It should be to teach them about their roots, about their ancestors, about their race. It should be to give them a sense of identity, a feeling of solidarity with their people, a feeling of appreciation for the civilization which their people created. It should be to teach them the values and customs which are peculiar to their people.
But most of the schools in America’s cities cannot do these things. They are not even permitted to try to do these things, because these things are all profoundly “racist,” the controlled media tell us. The only kind of school which can teach meaningfully about roots and identity is a school which is racially homogeneous, but such schools were outlawed by our government after the Second World War, because they are contrary to the principles for which that war was fought.
When our kids turn to drugs today, when they learn anti-White rap lyrics from the television, when they think Magic Johnson is a hero and say upon meeting a friend, “hey, man! gimme five,” we’re paying the price of the war. I said a few minutes ago that the worst aspect of the breakdown of America was not what’s happened to our economy, but what’s happened to our spiritual life, to our morale, to our idealism, to our character. White Americans haven’t become more stupid in the last 50 years. Most of the people listening to this program understand exactly what I’m saying. They didn’t really need me to point it out to them. They can see it for themselves. It doesn’t take a genius to understand why our schools aren’t working or why the New World Order will hurt Americans at the price of making Mexicans and Chinese more prosperous. But it does take just a tiny bit of courage to stand up and say these things when we’ve had it drummed into our heads that we always must be Politically Correct.
The people listening to this program have for years been watching America being torn down. They have seen the effects of egalitarianism, of liberalism on our society. They have seen one liberal program after another make things worse and worse, and they have listened to the controlled media and the controlled politicians tell them that what’s needed to fix things is more of the same. And they’ve thought to themselves, this is crazy. But they’ve been afraid to say that out loud. They’ve been afraid to say, “Hey, look, Joe, the emperor doesn’t have any clothes on.” And it’s my considered opinion that this timidity, this willingness to go along with every new insanity imposed on us by the media and the politicians, even when we know it’s unnatural and immoral and destructive of everything worthwhile–this is a spiritual failure. This spiritual failure, this willingness to tolerate evil, is a more serious matter, in my eyes, than our economic decline. When we are able to heal ourselves spiritually, we’ll be able to heal ourselves economically and socially, but not before.
I think we all know who wields more control over the news and entertainment media than any other group. It’s the Jews. And, yes, they deserve a great deal of blame. But not all the blame. Perhaps not even most of it. After all, they’re only acting in accord with their nature. They’re doing what they always do when they come into a country. We shouldn’t have let them do it. We should have stopped them when they were taking over Hollywood 75 years ago. We should have stopped them when they began buying up newspapers back before the Second World War. After the war we shouldn’t have let them get anywhere near a television studio. But we didn’t stop them, and the blame for that really lies with those who have set themselves up as our political leaders. They sold us out. They sold out America. They sold out their race. When our kids are exposed to the god-awful, anti-White rap musicals from MTV, should we blame the Jewish owner of MTV, Mr Redstone, or should we blame the politicians in Washington who let him get away with it? Personally, I’d go after the politicians first.
More people are angry today about what their government is doing to America than at any time since the Second World War. As time passes their numbers and their anger will grow. That is inevitable, because the policies of the controlled media and the government are making America an unlivable place. The condition of the economy helps too. I would really be worried if I thought that the politicians could patch up the economy enough to lull people back to sleep. But I know that they can’t. I know that conditions can only become worse and worse under the policies which come from Washington, regardless of who’s in the White House. And this is what gives me hope for the future. When the pain becomes great enough, anger and frustration will overcome the fear of being Politically Incorrect, even for the most timid White American.
You’ve been listening to William Pierce speaking on the necessity of understanding the real nature of World War 2 in order to effectively lead our people to security and freedom. Since he spoke those words in 1992, we’ve made progress. The largely fictional Jewish “Holocaust” is a tottering house of cards in the minds of millions and the wisdom of fighting on the Jewish and Communist side in World War 2 is more and more openly questioned. This has made the Jewish power structure become ever more censorious, ever more suppressive, ever more likely to demand the heads of anyone who strays from their increasingly strident party line. They’ve just forced YouTube to de-monetize and isolate Politically Incorrect videos, many of which question the Kosher version of World War 2 history. They’ve pressured Amazon.com to outright ban books that cast doubt on Jewish persecution stories. Within the halls of power, our enemies still have great sway. But in the hearts and minds of our people, especially our young people, these taboos and totems have less and less effect every day.
Be with us next week as we continue to expand your mind and explore the real nature of World War 2 in “Battling the People of the Lie, part 2,” right here on American Dissident Voices.
AMERICANS WERE GIVEN two crucial lessons at about the time of the Summer Solstice in 1988. The few who are still willing to think about the real world must ponder them now and understand what has happened to them. Tomorrow will be too late.
By the time this appears in print, the Jews may have become tired of torturing the Aryan named John Demjanjuk and may have put him out of his misery by joyously murdering him and preparing to have fun with the next victim.
That Demjanjuk would be murdered was a foregone conclusion at the time that the Zionist government of the United States sent him to the future capital of the world for a show trial to bolster the gigantic hoax called a “Holocaust.” The only reasonable doubt turned upon the possibility that it would be thought good propaganda to acquit and release him and thus prevent the American booboisie from feeling even the faintest shadow of uneasiness when other victims of this form of ritual murder are sacrificed on the altars to God’s worshipful race.
Even the reports in the press in this country gave some indication of the flimsiness of the evidence produced at the “trial,” which was, of course, prolonged to increase the hardships of the victim’s family and friends, who spent — and wasted — large sums of money on the supposition that it was possible to save him by participating in a staged simulation of a trial in a court in which evidence does not matter.
There is a fine analysis of the evidence presented at the big show in Jerusalem in the June issue of Instauration. The analysis shows that the evidence against Demjanjuk was so flimsy that the case would have been incontinently thrown out of court in a trial in the United States when it was still an independent country. All this is totally irrelevant.
The producers of the show did bring on the stage witnesses who failed to identify Demjanjuk as a probably mythical character called Ivan (with a name taken from early Russian history), but that was to lend verisemblance to the play. What is significant is that scenario did not include in the cast a score or a hundred or a thousand witnesses who would have sworn they stood just behind Demjanjuk while he shoveled 850,000 Sweet Sheenies into an incinerator or flayed them to make lederhosen for Alpine yodelers. That would have obscured the play’s social message.
The weakness of the evidence was intended to show that evidence does not really matter. The function of the show trial was:
1. To parade the Jews’ American serfs in their shackles before the world. When the Jews kidnapped Eichmann in Argentina for the first ritual murder in Jerusalem, their thugs had to sneak into Argentina to seize their victim and immediately smuggle him while helpless out of the country. Thus the criminals and their victim escaped from Argentine territory before the crime was discovered, and Argentina could only protest the gross violation of international law; and since the leading powers of the Western world, Great Britain and the United States, had repudiated the very concept of international law when they reverted to barbarism, Argentina was powerless. (1) In contrast, the Americans openly did the Jews’ dirty work for them. They violated their own laws and suppressed evidence to help in murdering the victim. (2) That made it clear to the world that American citizenship is meaningless and that the cringing Aryan curs in the new Promised Land will do whatever their masters order them to do, and will eventually hand over their own parents or children for sacrifice in Jerusalem, if the lowly creatures are suspected of thinking thoughts that are not kosher.
(1. On the murder of Eichmann, see the excellent work by the late Paul Rassinier (Paris, 1962), of which an English translation, published under the title, The Real Eichmann Trial, or The Incorrigible Victors, by Earl W. Thomas, Jr., in Maryland in 1979, and reprinted in England by the Historical Review Press, is now available from Liberty Bell Publications, $5.00 + postage.)
(2. The details really do not matter, but you will find them summarized in an article by a Jew in the Phoenix [Arizona] Gazette, 21 June 1988, which was reprinted in the Ukrainian Weekly, 17 July, from which it was reproduced in the Christian News, 25 July. The Jewish writer, who rushes in where Aryans fear to tread, tries to shift the responsibility from his race to Soviet Russia. Ponder that fact.)
2. It has perverted the term “War Crimes.” Now as everyone capable of reason knows without being told, there can be no war crimes against an enemy — that is sheer nonsense, for if it were not, every soldier in every army who does not desert is a “war criminal.” (3) A soldier, it is true, may commit what are called “atrocities” against the enemy’s troops or civilians, i.e., treat them in a way that his own nation disapproves. If he does so, he is then guilty of either (a) disobeying orders, in which case he is subject to the usual military penalties, or (b) has been imprudent or shown poor judgement, which will blemish his record and make him ineligible for promotion or result in his being cashiered or even, in gross misconduct, punished for having disgraced his nation. The only way in which a soldier can be thought of as criminal in action against the enemy is by treachery that goes beyond the deception that is a legitimate ruse de guerre, and this again is covered by either (a) or (b) above.
(3. What the Jews are trying to teach the lower races is that worship of God’s Holy Race must supersede every loyalty and every sense of honor and justice the despised goyim may have retained in their brutish minds. The only real crime is failure to betray one’s nation or to murder one’s father, if doing so would please Yahweh’s Master Race.)
War Crimes can be committed only against one’s own nation, i.e., by treason, either as a hireling of the enemy or for personal aggrandizement. The great War Criminals of our time are, of course, Franklin Roosevelt and his stooge, Winston Churchill.
What is now meant by the term is, as the circus in Jerusalem made clear, “genocide,” (4) i.e., the crime of displeasing Yahweh’s Master Race, the legitimate owners of the planet and all the livestock in it.
(4. On this snide word and the Sheeny who invented it as a weapon against our race, see Professor James Martin’s The Man Who Invented ‘Genocide’: the Public Career and Consequences of Raphael Lemkin (Torrance, California; Institute for Historical Review, 1984). After the Jews burned down the offices in Torrance, the Institute moved to Costa Mesa, California. Professor Martin’s exemplary book is a model of minutely accurate research, and represents an enormous expenditure of arduous intellectual labor on behalf of our race — labor that would be unnecessary, if our race were not now so drugged with hallucinatory superstitions.)
Demjanjuk is, of course, only the first in a long train of sacrificial victims, and the Jews who danced joyously in the street when it was announced he would be murdered were, of course, exhilarated by the expectation of a perpetual carnival henceforth. Their terrorist gang in the United States, financed by American tax-paying boobs, has a set of 250 victims ready, and will produce as many more as are needed to keep the rebuilt Temple supplied with animals for sacrifice. The Jews in Britain are advertising for stool pigeons to denounce victims who can be accused of having been loyal to their nation and race in Germany.
Most significant of all, the Revolutionary Tribunal (still called “Supreme Court”) in Washington has just “revoked the citizenship” of Professor Vladimer Sokolov of Yale University, by affirming a decision that found him guilty of blasphemy against God’s Own. According to the press, Professor Sokolov was convicted of having written for a newspaper published in Russian in 1943 an article which disparaged Jews, and that, of course, was blasphemy against the Holy Ones, whom all lower animals must humbly revere.
Whether the Jews will decide to murder the professor in Jerusalem is not clear at the moment, but you cannot miss the terrible significance of the verdict. The Tribunal has not yet authorized the deportation of Americans who are citizens by birth when they are convicted of having blasphemed against God’s Children, but perhaps Reagan’s successor, who it seems, will be a half-Jew directed by a Jewess, can inspire the Tribunal to a fuller understanding of the Justice ordained by Yahweh.
* * * The second lesson was taught in Toronto, where the Jews’ shabbatgoyim staged a pseudo-legal travesty that resulted in the conviction of Ernst Zündel for having published books that told historical truth and thus annoyed God’s Race.The details of the trial are not clear. A verdict of “guilty” was returned by a jury of eleven. (The twelfth juror had been expelled by the shabbatgoy who was acting as the judge when the juror was seen to have approved something that was said by Zündel’s attorney.) So far as I have learned, the jurors appeared to be White and there is no evidence that any of them were Jews masquerading under Aryan names. It is quite possible, of course, that the official persecutors used the resources of the Canadian Government, including the once honored Royal Mounted Police, to send covert agents to interview the entire panel of persons likely to serve on the jury, and ascertain which could be trusted to convict the accused man, regardless of the evidence; but no indication that this was done has thus far transpired.
The eleven jurors, therefore, were either nitwits or pusillanimous little witlings afraid to displease the Jews and their hatchet man, who was presiding over the courtroom.
The conviction has been appealed, and it remains to be seen whether the majority of members of the higher court are Aryan men.
The evidence presented at the trial clearly and indubitably proved that the Jews’ Holohoax is not only a gigantic lie, but a preposterous lie, presupposing what is physically and chemically impossible. One item of evidence was especially important. The impudent pretense that God’s Precious Darlings were killed in gas chambers at Auschwitz, Birkenau, and Majdanek was conclusively proved to be just a typical Jewish lie; an impartial scientific examination, conducted by an engineering team sent to those camps, proved by chemical analysis that the supposed “gas chambers” could never have been used for such a purpose. (5)
(5. See the summary of the scientific investigation, The Leuchter Report, with a foreword by the heroic Dr. Robert Faurisson. I have read the complete 196-page report, copies of which may at some future date be made available. Presently, only a condensed version is available at $10. plus $2. for postage, of which copies are available from Mr. David Clark, Postoffice Box 726, Decatur AL 35602. Donations to cover the enormous expenses of this report and the trial and appeal in general are most welcome and may be sent, via Certified Mail in a well-sealed envelope, to 206 Carlton Street, Toronto, Ontario M5A 2L1 Canada.)
It is generally said that, despite the actions of the scoff-law judge and corrupt jury, the trial in Toronto was a victory for our race and the rational mentality possessed by some members of it. And so it was, in the sense that there was put on record evidence that conclusively and irrefragably proved that the “Holocaust” is just the Holohoax, perhaps the most audacious swindle ever attempted. If the Court of Appeal acts honorably, the predatory race will be vexed, but I doubt that they will even then be greatly worried, much less dismayed.
The point of the jury’s verdict is that facts do not matter. The Aryan swine must be taught to believe whatever their divinely-ordained masters tell them — or else. (6)
(6. A real, but probably temporary, victory, was achieved in Alberta where the Superior Court held unconstitutional the tyrannical law under which James Keegstra was convicted. On the pseudo-legal persecution of Mr. Keegstra for disbelieving Jewish lies, see the article by the distinguished head of the British National Party, John Tyndall, in Liberty Bell, July 1984.)
The point of the original persecution of Mr. Zündel, by reviving and distorting an obsolete law that, by a nice irony, was originally enacted to punish typically Jewish swindles, (7) was that law no longer matters.
(7. The law against the dissemination of news known to be false was enacted in view of such great Jewish coups as the false reports circulated in England that Napoleon had been victorious at Waterloo, which caused a precipitate fall in the price of stocks and other securities, which the Rothschilds then purchased for a fraction of their real value. It is admitted that the Rothschilds’ agents in Belgium had informed them by carrier pigeon of the British victory, and that they used this secret knowledge to make an enormous ‘killing’ on the market, at the expense of the goyim, whose property, as God says in the Holy Talmud, rightfully belonged to them anyway. There appears to be no documentary proof that the Rothschilds also had agents who brought to England and spread the false tidings, but objective historians will apply the rule, cuibono?)
Few victims of similarly illegal persecutions will be able to meet the enormous expense of Mr. Zündel’s defense. For example, as I write, the press reports that Giovanni Pinto, a veteran and tenured teacher in the high school of Montville, New Jersey, was suspended without pay and faces “very serious charges” that may result in his dismissal, because spies discovered that he had told some of his pupils that he did not believe the Holohoax. The State Board of Education and the local school board were shocked that a humble American dog should presume to doubt what he was told by God’s People. He could, with impunity, have doubted that the earth is a spheroid, he could have denied that it revolves about the sun, he could have refused to believe that 2 x 2 = 4, but if he doubts the Holohoax he is probably so hardened a criminal that if a Jew told him he was a dog, he would not drop to his knees and start barking. Justice obviously requires that he be hounded from what is probably his only means of livelihood.
The real point is that Mr. Pinto does not have in his savings account a half million dollars to challenge his tyrannical oppressors in the courts — and if he had, the chances are that he would appeal to the Judaized courts in vain.
* * * The development of the Holohoax in recent decades is phenomenal and literally awful. In November 1964, when, in an article on “Brainwashing” in AmericanOpinion, the official publication of the Birch Society, I casually mentioned the Jews’ “Holocaust” as just an example of the preposterous lies that are concocted and told to pep up cannon fodder in “democratic” holy wars, it did not occur to me, and evidently did not occur to the timorous publisher, that the Jews would not be content with their gigantic swindle of the German people and their atrocious murders of some of the finest members of our race. I certainly, and the publisher presumably, did not foresee that the international race was even then planning to ram their impudent fiction into the minds of their destined victims with ever increasing intensity until they attain the undisputed ownership of the whole planet, which Yahweh promised them.Their phenomenal success since 1964 is just another proof that the Aryan race has become mentally incapable of surviving in the real world.
* * * When the Jews captured the Russian Empire in 1917-18, one of the first lawsthey enacted provided the death penalty for criticism of their race. Communists were told not to believe in God, but to believe in the sacredness of God’s Children. The law, so far as is known, was never repealed, although recently Americans heard of Russians who did not venerate God’s Own. One such critic was imprisoned in a sanatorium, where expert psychiatrists doubtless did succeed in making him insane. There have been a few publications critical of Jews (as distinct from Zionists, who are officially opposed by the Communists because they tempt Jews to leave Soviet territory), but it has never been clear whether these were actually distributed in Russia in violation of law, or merely printed to make thinking Americans more receptive to the Soviet régime. (8)
What you need to understand now is that when the organization of society that is called Communism in Russia and ‘Democracy’ in the United States is fully operative, it, by its very nature, requires Thought Police, vigilant to detect and suppress symptoms of rationality among the herds of livestock in the Jews’ One World. And if you wish to speculate, estimate how long it will be before failure to kowtow before the Sheenies will automatically entail death by torture in the United States.