II - The Myths of the 20th Century
by Roger Garaudy
NOTE: In the course of translation and at least two
digital transmissions, some portions of the text of this section were slightly
damaged. All text contained in square brackets [...] indicates an editorial
substitution or omission of garbled text passages.--7/20/96
1 - The myth of Zionist anti-Fascism
In 1941, Yitzhak Shamir committed "an unforgivable crime from the
moral point of view: he preached an alliance with Hitler, with Nazi Germany,
against Great Britain."
Source : Bar Zohar. "Le prophète armé-- : Ben Gourion."
(Fayard. Paris 1966, p.99.)
When the war against Hitler began, almost all the Jewish organizations joined
forces with the Allies and some of the most eminent leaders, such as Weizmann,
declared themselves on the allied side; but the German Zionist group, though
it was a small minority at the time, took the opposite side : from 1933
to 1941, it was committed to a policy of compromise and even of collaboration
with Hitler. The Nazi authorities, even while they persecuted the Jews,
for example by dismissing them from the Civil Service, kept contact with
the Zionist leaders, granting them special treatment and distinguishing
them from the "integrationist" Jews they were hunting down.
The accusation of collusion with the Hitlerian authorities does not therefore
apply to the immense majority of Jews; these had not even waited until the
war to fight Fascism with weapons, as they did in Spain from 1936 to 1939
as members of the International brigades, all the way to the Warsaw ghetto
where the fighters of the "Jewish Committee" showed that they
knew how to die in battle.
But the highly organized minority of Zionist leaders collaborated with the
Nazis for eight years. Their one goal was to create a powerful Jewish State,
while their racist vision of the world made them more anti-British than
anti-Nazi.
* * *
On September 5th 1939, two days after the Anglo-French declaration of war
on Germany, Chaim Weizmann, president of the Jewish Agency, wrote to the
British Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain. In his letter, he declared
: "We Jews are on the side of Great Britain, and shall fight for
democracy." He added that "the Jewish representatives are
ready to sign an immediate agreement to allow the use of all their resources
in men, techniques, material aid and all their capacities." This
letter was printed in "The Jewish Chronicle" of September
8th, 1939 ; it was a genuine declaration of war on Germany by the Jewish
people and raised the problem of internment of all Jews in Germany within
concentration camps as "citizens of a nation at war with Germany."
* * *
In the days of Hitler and Mussolini, the Zionist leaders behaved in an ambivalent
way with regards to Fascism, at times sabotaging the anti-Fascist struggle
and even attempting to collaborate at others. The fundamental aim of the
Zionists was not to save Jewish lives but to create a Jewish state in Palestine.
Ben Gurion, Israel's first head of State, declared outright to the "Labor"
Zionists on December 7th 1938 :
"If I knew it was possible to save all the children
in Germany by taking them to England, and only half of the children by taking
them to Eretz Israel, I would choose the second solution. For we must take
into account not only the lives of these children but also the history of
the people of Israel."
Source : Yvon Gelbner, "Zionist policy and the fate of European
Jewry", in Yad Vashem studies (Jerusalem, vol. XII, p. 199).
"The saving of the Jews in Europe did not figure at the head of
the list of priorities of the ruling class. It was the foundation of the
State which was primordial in their eyes."
Source : Tom Segev. "Le septième million" Ed.
Liana Levi, Paris, 1993, p.539"
(...) Must we help all those who need it without taking into account
the characteristics of each one? Must we not give this action a national
Zionist character and attempt to give priority to the saving of those who
can be useful to the Land of Israel and to Judaism? I know it may seem cruel
to pose the question in this way, but unfortunately we must establish clearly
that if we are able to save 10,000 people out of the 50,000 people who can
contribute to the construction of the land and to the national rebirth,
or else a million Jews who will become a burden for us or at best a dead
weight, we must restrict ourselves to the saving of the 10,000 who can be
saved - despite the accusations and the appeals of the million left behind."
Source : Memorandum of the "Salvation Committee" of
the Jewish Agency. 1943. Quoted by Tom Segev. Op. cit. p.124.
It was this fanaticism which inspired, for instance, the attitude of the
Zionist delegation at the Evian conference of July 1938, where 31 nations
had gathered to discuss the absorption of refugees from Nazi Germany : the
Zionist delegation demanded, as the only possible solution, the admission
of 200,000 Jews to Palestine.
The Jewish state was more important than the lives of Jews.
As far as the Zionist leaders were concerned, the worst enemy was "assimilation".
In this they resembled the Hitlerians as do all racists, for whom the fundamental
preoccupation is purity of blood. This is why the Hitlerians regarded the
Zionists as valid interlocutors who served their designs, insofar as Hitler's
ultimate goal was to rid Germany, and later Europe, of all Jews. We have
proof of this collusion between Nazis and Zionists.
In a memorandum of June 21st 1933 to the Nazi party, the "Zionist
Federation of Germany" expressed itself as follows :
"In the foundation of the new State, which has proclaimed
the race principle, we wish to adapt our community to these new structures...
Our recognition of the Jewish nationality allows us to establish clear and
sincere relations with the German people and its national and racial realities.
Precisely because we do not want to underestimate these fundamental principles,
because we too are against mixed marriages and for the maintaining of the
purity of the Jewish group...The Jews who are conscious of their identity
and in whose name we speak, can find a place within the structure of the
German State, for they are free of the resentment that the assimilated Jews
must feel;...we believe in the possibility of loyal relations between those
Jews conscious of their community and the German State.
To attain its practical objectives, Zionism hopes it will be able to collaborate
with a government that is fundamentally hostile to the Jews....The realization
of Zionism is impeded only by the resentment of Jews from without against
the present German orientation The propaganda in favor of Zionism currently
aimed against Germany is essentially non-Zionist... "
Source : Lucy Dawidovitch, "A Holocaust reader", p. 155.
The memorandum added that "should the Germans accept the cooperation
of the Zionists, these would try to dissuade Jews abroad from supporting
the anti-German boycott."
Source : Lucy Dawidovitch : "The war against Jews (1933-1945)"
Penguin books. 1977. p.231-232
The Hitlerian leaders were well-disposed towards the Zionists, whose exclusive
aim was to create a state in Palestine, thus favoring their own designs
to get rid of the Jews. Alfred Rosenberg, the chief Nazi theoretician, wrote
:
"Zionism must be vigorously backed so that a yearly
contingent of German Jews shall be transported to Palestine."
Source : A. Rosenberg : "Die Spur des juden im Wandel der Zeiten".
Munich 1937. p.153.
Reinhardt Heydrich, who was later to become "Protector" of Czechoslovakia,
wrote in Das Schwarze Korps, the official organ of the S.S. in 1935,
when he was head of the S.S. security. In an article entitled "The
invisible enemy", he made a distinction between two kinds of Jews :
"We must separate the Jews into two categories, the Zionists and
the partisans of assimilation. The Zionists profess a strictly racial concept
and, through emigration to Palestine, they help to build their own Jewish
State...our good wishes and our official goodwill go with them."
Source : Hohne. "Order of the Death's Head", p.333.
"The German Betar received a new name: Herzlia. The activities of
the movement in Germany had to obtain, of course, the approval of the Gestapo;
in fact, Herzlia acted under the protection of the Gestapo. One day, a group
of SS attacked a Betar summer camp. The head of the movement then complained
to the Gestapo and, a few days later, the secret police declared that the
SS in question had been punished. The Gestapo asked the Betar what compensation
would seem most adequate. The movement asked that the recent prohibition
that had struck them, forbidding them to wear brown shirts, be lifted; their
request was granted."
Source : Ben-Yeruham, "Le livre de Betar" T.II, p. 350.
A circular issued by the Wilhelmstrasse indicated :
"The goals that this category of Jews have set themselves
(those Jews who oppose assimilation and favor a regrouping of their co-religionaries
within a nation), with the Zionists in the front rank,are those least distant
from the goals pursued in reality by Germany's policy towards the Jews."
Source : Circular letter by Bulow-Schwante to all the Reich diplomatic
missions. #83. February 28,1934.
"There is no reason," wrote Bulow-Schwante to the Ministry
of the Interior,"to impede by administrative measures the Zionist
activity in Germany ; for Zionism is not in conflict with the National-Socialist
program, whose object is to make the Jews leave Germany progressively."
Source : Letter number ZU 83-21. 28/8, April 13, 1935.
These directives confirmed previous measures and were applied scrupulously.
By virtue of the privileged status of Zionism in Germany, the Bavarian Gestapo
addressed the following circular to the police on January 28,1935: "By
reason of their activity orientated towards emigration to Palestine, the
members of the Zionist organization must not be treated with the harshness
needed in dealing with the members of German Jewish (assimilationist) organizations."
Source : Kurt Grossmann : "Sionistes et non sionistes sous la loi
nazie dans les années 30" Yearbook.Vol.VI, p.310.
"The Zionist organization of German Jews had a legal existence until
1938, five years after the advent of Hitler....
The "Judaiche Rundschau" (the German Zionist newspaper)
came out until 1938."
Source : Leibowitz : "Israel et Judaisme". Ed. Desclée
de Brouwer, 1993. p.116.
In exchange for their official recognition as sole representatives of the
Jewish community, the Zionist leaders offered to break the boycott which
the world anti-Fascists were trying to organize.
Economic collaboration began in 1933 : two companies were created : the
"Haavara Company" at Tel Aviv and the "Paltreu", in
Berlin.
The mechanism of the operation was the following : a Jew wanting to emigrate
would deposit a minimum of 1,000 pounds sterling at the Wasserman Bank in
Berlin or in the Warburg bank in Hamburg. With this sum, Jewish exporters
could buy German goods for Palestine, and pay the corresponding amount in
Palestinian pounds into the Haavara account at the Anglo-Palestine Bank
at Tel Aviv. When the immigrant arrived in Palestine, he received the equivalent
of the sum he had deposited in Germany.
Several future Israeli prime ministers took part in the "haavara"
undertaking, including Ben Gurion, Moshe Sharret (who was then called Moshe
Shertok), Golda Meir (who supported it from New York), and Levi Eshkol,
who was its representative in Berlin.
Source: "Ben Gourion et Shertok, dans Black": L'accord de la
"havaara", p.294. Quoted by Tom Segev in "Le septieme million",
(Ed. Liana Levi. French translation. 1993, p. 30 and 595).
The operation was advantageous for both parties : the Nazis thus succeeded
in breaking the blockade (the Zionists managed to sell German merchandise
even in Britain); whereas the Zionists were able to operate the "selective"
immigration they desired : only millionaires were able to emigrate, their
capital providing the funds needed to develop Zionist colonization in Palestine.
In accordance with the goals of Zionism, it was more important to save Jewish
capital from Nazi Germany that would permit the development of their undertaking,
than to save the lives of poor Jews, unable to work or fight, who would
have been a burden.
This policy of collaboration lasted until 1941, in other words eight years
after Hitler's rise to power. Eichmann liaisoned with Kastner. The Eichmann
trial revealed to some extent the mechanism of this connivance, of these
"exchanges" between Zionist Jews "useful" to the creation
of a Jewish State (wealthy personalities, technicians and youngsters who
could serve to reinforce an army, etc.). with a mass of Jews who, being
less favored, were left in Hitler's clutches.
The president of the committee, Ytzhak Gruenbaum, declared on January 18,
1943 :
"Zionism comes before everything else.. "
"They're going to say I'm an anti-Semite," Gruenbaum answered,
"that I don't want to save the Exile, that I don't have a Warm Yiddish
heart (...) Let them say what they want. I won't demand the sum of 300,000
or 100,000 pounds sterling to help European Judaism. And I think that whoever
demands such things accomplishes an anti-Zionist action."
Source : Gruenbaum: "Jours de destruction", p. 68.
This was also Ben Gourion's point of view:
"The Zionist's task is not to save the "rest"
of Israel which finds itself in Europe, but to save the land of Israel for
the Jewish people."
(Quoted by Tom Segev. op.cit.p.158.)
"The leaders of the Jewish Agency agreed on the fact that the minority
which could be saved had to be chosen according to the needs of the Zionist
project in Palestine."
Source: Idem p.125.
The conclusion of Isaiah Trunk's book : "Judenrat" (MacMillan,
New York 1972) was that:
"According to Freudiger's calculations, fifty percent
of the Jews could have escaped if they had not followed the instructions
of the Jewish councils." (p.141)
Significantly, at the time of the 50 th anniversary of the uprising of the
Warsaw ghetto, Yitzhak Rabin asked Lech Walesa not to let one of the co-leaders
of the insurrection, Marek Edelman, make a speech.
In 1993, Marek Edelman had been interviewed by Edward Alter for the Israeli
newspaper "Haaretz". In this interview, he recalled those who
had been the true instigators and heroes of the Warsaw ghetto's "Jewish
fighters' committee" :
"Socialists of the Bund, anti-Zionists, Communists,
Trotskyites, Mihal Rosenfeld, Mala Zimetbaum, Edelman and a minority of
Left-wing Zionists from the Poalei Zion and the Hashomer Hatzair."
"It was they who fought against the Nazis with weapons, as did the
Jewish volunteers in the international brigades of Spain. Over 30% of the
Americans in the Abraham Lincoln Brigade were Jews, who were attacked at
the time by the Zionist press because they fought in Spain instead of going
to Palestine."
Source : "Jewish Life", April 1938, p. 11.
2,250 of the fighters in the Polish Dombrovski brigade, out of a total of
5,000 Poles, were Jews.
These heroic Jews fought on all fronts side by side with the antiFascist
forces of the world. And yet, the Zionist leaders declared in an article
by their London representatives entitled : "Must Jews take part in
the anti-Fascist movements?" "NO !...", setting a single
goal : "the construction of the land of Israel".
In his autobiography, the President of the World Zionist Organization,
Nahum Goldman, described his dramatic meeting with the Czech Prime Minister,
Edward Benes, in 1935. Benes accused the Zionists of having broken the boycott
of Hitler with the "Ha'avara" (the transfer agreements) and blamed
the refusal of the world Zionist Organization to organize resistance against
the Nazis.
"I have had to take part in many painful meetings in
my life, but I have never felt as miserable and ashamed as during those
two hours. I felt with every fibre of my being that Benes was right."
Source : Nahum Goldman."Autobiographie", op.cit. pp. 157- 158.
Ibid, p.260.
The Zionists, counting on Mussolini's hostility to England, established
contact with him as early as 1922. He had received them after his march
on Rome in October, on December 20th 1922.
Source : Ruth Bondy, "The Emissary: a life of Enzo Sereni"
(p.45).
Mussolini received Weizman on January 3rd 1923, and another time on September
17th 1926; Nahum Goldman, president of the World Zionist Organization, had
a meeting with Mussolini on October 26th,1927, where the Italian leader
told him : "I will help you to create this Jewish state."
(Nahum Goldman : "Autobiographie", op.cit.p.170)
This collaboration was already a form of sabotage against the international
anti-Fascist struggle. It subordinated the entire Zionist policy to the
sole design of building a Jewish state in Palestine. Its design remained
unaltered during the war, even when Hitler's persecution of European Jews
was at its worst.
When the Jews were deported from Hungary, Rudolf Kastner, the vice-president
of the Zionist organization, negotiated with Eichmann on the following basis
: if Eichmann allowed the departure to Palestine of 1,684 "useful"
Jews who would help in the construction of the future state of Israel (capitalists,
technicians, soldiers, etc...) Kastner would allow Eichmann to make 460,000
Hungarian believe that they were not being deported to Auchwitz but simply
being transferred.
At the time of the Eichmann trial, Judge Halevi recalled that Kastner had
intervened on behalf of one of his Nazi interlocutors : one of Himmler's
henchmen, Standarten feurher Kurt Becher, escaped punishment thanks to Kastner's
testimony at the Nuremberg Trial.
The Judge was formal :
"There was no truth or good faith in Kastner's testimony...Kastner
deliberately committed perjury in his testimony before this court when he
denied that he had intervened on behalf of Becher. Furthermore, he concealed
this vital fact : his action on behalf of Becher was made in the name of
the Jewish Agency and the World Jewish Congress...It is clear that Kastner's
recommendation was not made on a personal basis but also in the name of
the Jewish Agency and the World Jewish Congress...and this is why Becher
was released by the Allies."
After the verdict, Israeli opinion was shaken. In the newspaper "Haaretz",
Dr. Moshe Keren wrote on July 14th 1955 :"Kastner must be tried
for collaboration with the Nazis..." But the evening paper "Yediot
Aharonot" (23rd June,1955) clearly explained why this was impossible.
"If Kastner is tried, the entire government might collapse before
the nation, following what this trial will uncover."
What would be discovered was that Kastner had not acted alone but with the
agreement of the other Zionist leaders who were members of the government
at the time of the trial. The only way to prevent Kastner from talking and
causing a scandal was for him to disappear. And indeed, he died at just
the right moment, after which the Israeli Government introduced an appeal
to rehabilitate him. The Supreme Court granted the appeal.
This policy of collaboration reached its apogee in 1941, when the most extremist
Zionist group, the "LEHI" ("Fighters for the Liberation of
Israel"), led by Abraham Stern and, after his death, by a triumvirate
of which Itzak Shamir was a member, committed " an unforgivable crime
from the moral point of view : advocating an alliance with Hitler, with
Nazi Germany, against Great Britain. "
Source : Bar Zohar. "Ben Gourion, le Prophète armé"
(Fayard. Paris 1966. p.99)
Eliezer Halevi, a well-known Labor unionist, member of the Gueva Kibbutz,
revealed in the weekly "Tel-Aviv Hotam" (August l9th, 1983) the
existence of a document signed by Itzak Shamir (who was then called Yezernitsky)
and by Abraham Stern; this document was handed over to the German embassy
in Ankara at a time of all-out war in Europe, and when Marshal Rommel's
troops were already on Egyptian soil. The document said, among other things,
"In the matter of concept, we identify with you. So why not collaborate
with one another ?" In its issue of January 31st,1983, "Haaretz"
quotes a letter marked "secret", sent in January 1941 by Hitler's
ambassador to Ankara, Franz Von Papen, to his superiors. In it, he described
his contacts with the members of the Stern Gang, joining a memorandum by
the Nazi secret service agent in Damas, Werner Otto Von Hentig, regarding
the negotiations with the envoys of Stern and Shamir. The memo said, notably
: "cooperation between the Israel liberation movement and the new
order in Europe conform with one of the speeches of the Chancellor of the
Third Reich, in which Hitler stressed the need to use every combination
of coalition to isolate and defeat England." It also said that
the Stern Gang had "close links with the totalitarian movements
in Europe, their ideology and structures." These documents are
to be found at the Holocaust Memorial (Yad Vachem) in Jerusalem, classified
under the number E234151-8.
One of the historical leaders of the Stern Gang, Israel Eldad, published
an article in the Tel Aviv daily,"Yediot Aharonot" (February 4th,
1983) in which he confirmed the authenticity of these negotiations between
his movement and the official representatives of Nazi Germany. He asserted
straight out that his colleagues had explained to the Nazis how there was
a probable identity of interest between the new order in Europe based on
the German concept, and the aspirations of the Jewish people in Palestine,
as represented by the Stern freedom fighters for Israel.
This text was entitled :
"Basic principles of the military organization(NMO) in Palestine
(Irgun Zevai Leumi) concerning the solution of the Jewish question in Europe
and the active participation of the NMO in the war on the side of Germany."
The following are extracts :
It emerges from the speeches of the leaders of the German
National Socialist State that a radical solution to the Jewish question
implies an evacuation of the Jewish masses from Europe. (Judenreines Europa).
This evacuation of the Jewish masses from Europe is the primary condition
of the solution of the Jewish problem, but it is only made possible by the
installation of these masses in Palestine, in a Jewish state with its historical
frontiers.
To resolve the Jewish problem definitively and to liberate the Jewish people
is the goal of the political activity and the long years of struggle of
the "Movement for the Freedom of Israel" (Lehi) and its national
military organization in Palestine (Irgun Zevai Leumi).
The NMO, knowing the benevolent position of the Reich government towards
the Zionist activity within Germany, and the Zionist emigration projects,
considers that:
1) There could exist common interests between the foundation of a new order
in Europe, according to the German concept, and the genuine aspirations
of the Jewish people as they are incarnated by the Lehi.
2) Cooperation would be possible between the new Germany and a renewed Hebrew
nation (Volkish Nationalen Hebraertum).
3) The establishment of the historical Jewish State on a national and totalitarian
base, linked by a treaty to a German Reich, could contribute to the reinforcement
in the future of Germany's position in the Middle East.
On condition that the German government recognizes the national aspirations
of the 'Movement for the Freedom of Israel' (Lehi), the National Military
Organization (NMO) proposes to participate in the war on the side of Germany.
The cooperation of the Israel liberation movement would go in the direction
of the recent speeches of the Reich chancellor, in which Mr. Hitler stressed
that all negotiations and any alliance should serve to isolate England and
to defeat it.
Because of its structure and concept of the world, the NMO is narrowly linked
to the European totalitarian movements.
Source : The original text, in German, is to be found as appendix number
11 of the book by David Yisraeli : "Le probleme palestinien dans la
politique allemande, de 1889 " 1945", Bar Ilan University Ramat
Gan. Israel, 1974,p. 315-317.
According to the Israeli press, which has published a dozen articles on
the subject, the Nazis never took the proposals of Stern, Shamir and their
friends seriously.
The negotiations stopped abruptly when the Allied troops arrested the emissary
of Stern and Shamir in June 1941. The emissary, Naftali Loubentchik, was
actually arrested in the Nazi secret service office at Damascus. Other members
of the group continued to have contacts with the Nazis until the arrest
by the British authorities of Izhak Shamir in December 1941 for "terrorism
and collaboration with the Nazi enemy."
Such a past did not prevent Izhak Shamir from becoming Prime Minister, and
from still being today the leader of a powerful "opposition",
the most fiercely determined to continue the occupation of Cisjordania.
This is because, in fact, the Zionist leaders all pursue the same racist
goal, notwithstanding their internal rivalries : to chase all the native
Arabs out of Palestine through terror, expropriation or expulsion, in order
to remain the sole conquerors and masters.
Ben Gurion once declared :
"Begin undeniably belongs to the Hitlerian type. He
is a racist, ready to destroy all the Arabs in his dream of unification
of Israel, prepared to resort to any means to realize this sacred goal."
Source : E.Haber. "Menahem Begin, the man and the legend."
Delle Book. New York 1979, p. 385.
The same Ben Gurion never believed in the possibility of coexistence with
the Arabs. The fewer Arabs there were within the borders of of the future
state of Israel, the better it would be. He did not say so explicitly, but
the overall impression one gets from his speeches and his comments is clear:
a major offensive against the Arabs would not only defeat their attacks
but would also reduce as far as possible the percentage of the Arab population
within the State.
"(...) He can be accused of racism, but then one will
have to put on trial the entire Zionist movement, which is founded on the
principle of a purely Jewish entity in Palestine."
Source : Bar Zohar (op.cit) p.146.
At the Eichmann trial in Jerusalem, the Attorney General, Haim Cohen, reminded
the judges:
"If it does not coincide with your philosophy, you can
criticize Kastner...But what does that have to do with collaboration?...It
has always been in our Zionist tradition to select an elite to organize
immigration to Palestine... Kastner did nothing else."
Source : Court record 124/53. Jerusalem district court.
This prominent magistrate was indeed evoking a constant doctrine of the
Zionist movement : its goal was not to save Jews but to build a strong Jewish
state.
Rabbi Klaussner, who was in charge of "Displaced persons," presented
a report before the Jewish American Conference on May 2nd, 1948 :
"I am convinced people must be forced to go to Palestine....For
them, an American dollar appears as the highest of goals. By the word "force",
I am suggesting a programme. It served for the evacuation of the Jews in
Poland, and in the history of the 'Exodus'... To apply this programme we
must, instead of providing 'displaced persons' with comfort, create the
greatest possible discomfort for them...At a second stage, a procedure calling
upon the Haganah to harass the Jews."
Source : Alfred H.Lilienthal in "What price Israel", Chicago
1953.p.194-195.
There were several variations on this method of inducement and even of coercion.
In 1940, to arouse indignation against the English, who had decided to save
the Jews threatened by Hitler by taking them to Mauritius, the Zionist leaders
of the "Hagannah" (led by Ben Gurion) did not hesitate to blow
up the ship when it called at Haifa on December 25th 1940, causing the death
of 252 Jews and English crew-members.
Source : Dr.Herzl Rosenblum, director of "Yediot Aahronot",
revelation made in 1958 and justified in "Jewish Newsletter",
N.Y.,November 1958.
Another example was that of Irak :
Its Jewish community (110,000 people in 1948) was well-implanted in the
country. The chief Rabbi of Irak, Khedouri Sassoon had declared :
"The Jews and Arabs have enjoyed the same rights
and privileges for a thousand years and do not consider themselves as separate
elements in this nation."
Then began the Israeli terrorist acts in Baghdad in 1950. Confronted by
the reticence of the Iraki Jews to register on the immigration lists for
Israel, the Israeli secret services did not hesitate to throw bombs at them
to convince them they were in danger...The attack on the Shem-Tov synagogue
killed three people and injured dozens more. It was the start of the exodus
baptized "Operation Ali Baba".
Source : Ha'olam hazeh. April 20th and June 1st 1966, and "Yediot
Aahronot", November 8th 1977.
This has been a consistent doctrine ever since Theodore Herzl replaced the
definition of Jew no longer as a religion but as a race.
Article 4b of the fundamental law of the State of Israel (which has no constitution),which
defines the "Law of the return" (5710 of 1950), stipulates that
:
...will be considered as Jewish a person born of a Jewish
mother, or converted. (racial or confessional criteria)
Source : Klein : "L'Etat juif", ed. Dunod.Paris.p.156.
This was in keeping with the founding doctrine of Theodore Herzl, who constantly
harped on the theme in his "Diaries". As early as 1895, he declared
to a German interlocutor (Speidel) :
"I understand anti-Semitism. We Jews have remained,
even if it is not our fault, foreign bodies in the different nations."
Source : ("Diaries",p.9)
A few pages further, he is even more explicit :
"Anti-Semites will become our surest friends, anti-Semitic
countries our allies."
Source : ("Diaries", p.19)
They did indeed have a common goal : to assemble Jews in a world ghetto.
The facts have borne out Theodore Herzl's arguments.
Pious Jews, like many Christians, repeated each day : "Next year,
Jerusalem, " making of Jerusalem not a specific territory but
the symbol of the Alliance between God and Men, and the personal effort
to deserve it, so that the "Return" occurred only under the impulse
of anti-Semitic threats in foreign countries.
On August 31st 1949, Ben Gurion declared to a group of American visitors
to Israel :
"Although we have realized our dream of creating
a Jewish State, we are only at the beginning. There are still only 900,000
Jews in Israel, whereas the majority of the Jewish people still remains
abroad. Our future task is to bring all the Jews to Israel."
Ben Gurion's goal was to bring four million Jews to Israel between 1951
and 1961. 800,000 came. In 1960, there were only 30,000 immigrants for the
year. In 1975-76, emigration out of Israel outstripped immigration.
Only the great persecutions, such as that in Romania, had given a certain
impulse to the Return. Even the Hitlerian atrocities did not succeed in
fulfilling Ben Gurion's dream.
Out of the two and a half million Jewish victims of the Nazis which sought
refuge abroad between 1935 and 1943, hardly 8,5% went to settle in Palestine.
The United States limited their number to 182,000 allowed to enter US soil
(less than 7%); England limited the number to 67,000 (less than 2%). The
vast majority (1,930,000),in other words 75% found shelter in the Soviet
Union.
Source : Institute for Jewish Affairs of New York, quoted by Christopher
Sykes in "Crossroads to Israel", London 1965, and by Nathan Weinstock,
"Le sionisme contre Israel," p.146.
2 - The Myth of the Justice of Nuremberg
"This tribunal represents a continuation of the war efforts of
the Allied nations."
Source : Robert H. Jackson, U.S. Attorney-General (26th July 1946 session)
On August 8th 1945, the American, English, French and Russian met in London
to organize "the pursuit and the punishment of the great war criminals
of the European Axis Powers," by creating a "military international
tribunal" (article I,a).
The crimes were defined under Title II, article 6.
1 - Crimes against peace by those who were responsible
for starting the war."
2 - Crimes of war for the violation of laws and customs of war."
3 - Crimes against humanity, in other words crimes essentially committed
against civilians.
The constitution of this jurisdiction already calls for a few remarks :
1 - It was not an international tribunal since it consisted only of the
victors and, consequently, only the crimes committed by the vanquished were
taken into consideration. As the American Attorney General, Robert H. Jackson,
who presided the audience on July 26th 1946, justly acknowledged :
"The Allies are still, technically-speaking, at war
with Germany... As a military tribunal, this tribunal represents a continuation
of the war efforts of the Allied nations."
2 - It was therefore an exceptional tribunal constituting the last act of
war, and excluding by its very principle any responsibility on the part
of the victors - first of all in the unleashing of the war. Any reminder
of its primary source was excluded in advance : at Nuremberg, no-one raised
the question of the Treaty of Versailles and if it was not to be blamed
for the resulting consequences - the bankruptcies and the unemployment especially
which allowed the rise of someone like Hitler, with the consent of a majority
of the German people. The law of the strongest prevailed when Germany was
defeated in 1918, asserting itself as the "right" which made might,
when the Germans had to pay 132 billion gold-marks (the equivalent of 165
billion gold francs) as reparation, at a time when their country's national
fortune was estimated at 260 billion gold-marks.
The German economy was ruined by such measures, and the German people driven
to despair by bankruptcy, by the collapse of the currency and above all
by unemployment ; it was all this which made Hitler's rise to power possible,
giving him his best arguments to sustain his principal slogan : the cancellation
of the Treaty of Versailles, with its sum total of misery and humiliation.
It is easy to compare the unemployment figures and the successes of the
"National-Socialist Party" at the different elections :
I - from 1924 to 1930
Dates Votes % Seats Unemployed
05/04/1924 1,918,000 6.6 32 320,711
12/07/1924 908,000 3.0 14 282,645
05/20/l928 810,000 2.6 12 269,443
II - from 1930 to 1933
09/14/1932 6,407,000 18.3 107 1,061,570
07/31/1932 13,779,000 37.3 230 5,392,248
11/06/1932 11,737,000 33.1 196 5,355,428
03/05/1933 17,265,800 43.7 288 5,598,855
When Hitler and his political allies won the absolute majority in the Reichstag,
they obtained aid for rearmament in dollars, pounds and francs. The German
bank, Shreider, financed Hitler's department of propaganda, but it was mostly
the great American, English and French trusts which financed the rearmament.
This was true in the case of the American chemical consortium, Dupont de
Nemours and of the English trust;
Imperial Chemicals Industry, which subsidized I.G. Farbein with whom
they had shared the world powder market, and;
Dillon Bank, in New York which subsidized the
Vereinigte Stahlwerke, the German steel trust.
Others were subsidized by Morgan, Rockefeller, et al..
Thus did the pound and the dollar take part in the plot which brought Hitler
to power.
In France, a request by Senator Paul Laffont to the Ministry of the national
Economy concerning the quantities of iron ore exported towards Germany from
1934 on,received the following answer :
The quantities of iron ore (N 204 of the customs tariff)
exported towards Germany in the years 1934,1935,1936 and 1937, are consigned
to the following chart :
Year Quantities (in quintals)
1934 17,060,916
1935 58,616,111
1936 77,931,756
1937 71,329,234
Source : Journal officiel de la Republique francaise,March 26th 1938.
Yet the directors of Dupont de Nemours, Dillon, Morgan, Rockefeller or François
de Wendel were not asked to answer for their actions at Nuremberg, in the
chapter entitled "plotting against the peace".
The imprecations of Hitler and the principal Nazi leaders against Communists
and Jews are often invoked. This is especially true of Chapter XV of the
second volume of "Mein Kampf", in which Hitler evokes the past:
that of the war of the gasses initiated by the English during the First
World War. The chapter is entitled :
"The right to legitimate defence :
"If, at the beginning or during the war,twelve or fifteen thousand
of those Hebrew corruptors of the people had been subjected only once to
the toxic gasses that hundreds of thousands of our best German workers from
every walk of life had to endure on the front the sacrifice of millions
of men would not have been in vain. On the contrary, if we had got rid in
time of these twelve thousand or so scoundrels, we could perhaps have saved
the existence of a million good brave Germans full of future."
In a speech before the Reichstag on January 30th 1939, he also said :
"If the international world of Jewish finance both
within and outside Europe were to succeed in plunging nations once again
in a world war, the result would not be the Bolshevization of the Earth
alongside with the victory of Judaism, but the annihilation (Vernichtung)
of the Jewish race in Europe...For the age in which the non-Jewish peoples
were delivered up defenceless to propaganda is over. National-Socialist
Germany and Fascist Italy henceforth possess institutions which make it
possible each time it is necessary to enlighten the world regarding the
full details and issues of a question which many nations feel instinctively
without being able to explain it scientifically to themselves."
"Jews can continue to pursue their campaign of harassment in certain
States, protected as they are by the monopoly they exert over the press,
the cinema, radio propaganda, theatres, literature and still other means.
Yet if that people should suceed once again in precipitating millions of
people in a completely absurd conflict for them, though it may be profitable
for Jewish interests, then we would see manifesting itself the efficiency
of a labour of explanation which has made it possible within a few years
in Germany alone to get rid of Judaism completely (restlos erlegen)."
Source: I/M.T. Vol.XXXI, p. 65.
On January 30th 1941, Hitler addressed himself to all the Jews of Europe,
telling them they "would have finished playing their role in
case of generalized warfare." Then, in a speech made on January
30th 1942, he declared that the war would see "the annihilation
of Judaism in Europe."
Hitler's political testament, published by the Nuremberg International Military
Court is full of statements to the same effect. For example, we read :
"But I have allowed no doubt to subsist on that score
if those international conspirators of the world of money and finance start
treating the peoples of Europe like packets of shares, that people which
is the true culprit in this murderous conflict will have to render accounts:
the Jews ! (Das Judentum !)"
"I have left no-one uncertain as to the fate which awaits he through
who millions of children of the Aryan peoples of Europe had to die of hunger,
millions of adult men had to die and hundreds of thousands of women and
children would be burnt alive in the bombardments of their city. Even if
it must be done with more humane means, the culprit will have to expiate
his fault. "
Hitler spoke of destroying an "influence"; Himmler spoke more
directly of destroying people.
This, for example, is what Himmler said in a speech addressed to naval commanders
at Weimar on December 16th 1943 :
"When, wherever I was, I was forced to give the order
to march against partisans and Jewish commissars in a village, then I systematically
gave the order to also kill the wives and children of these partisans and
commissars."
Later, speaking before some generals at Sonthofen on May 5th 1944, he added
:
"In this conflict with Asia, we must get into the
habit of forgetting the rules of the game and the customs in use during
European wars of the past, although we have grown attached to them and they
suit our mentality better."
This savagery was not, unfortunately, confined to one side.
On September 4th 1940, Hitler declared at the "Sportpalast":
"If the British Air Force throws three or four thousand
kilos of bombs on us, we shall throw one hundred, one hundred and fifty,
two hundred, three hundred, four hundred thousand kilos and more in a single
night."
This is a wild exaggeration of the Lutwaffe's possibilities in terms of
strategic bombardments, but it shows the degree of hatred both camps had
reached.
In reply, Clifton Fadiman, editor of the "New Yorker" and figurehead
of the "Writers' War Board", a semi-official government literary
agency, asked writers in 1942 :
"...to arouse an ardent hatred against all the Germans
and not only against the Nazi leaders."
These words proving controversial, Fadiman insisted :
"...the only way to make Germans understand is to
kill them. And even then, I don't think they'll understand."
In April 1942, praising a book by De Sales, "The making of tomorrow",
Fadiman developed his racist concept and wrote:
"Today's Nazi aggression is not the work of a group
of gangsters, but rather the final expression of the deepest instincts of
the German people. Hitler is the incarnation of greater forces than himself.
The heresy he preaches is 2,000 years old. What is this heresy? Neither
more nor less than the rebellion against Western civilization which began
with Arminius...the dimensions of this war thus appear distinctly..."
He approved of Hemingway's suggestion :
"...the only ultimate settlement would be to sterilize
the Nazis in the surgical meaning of the word. "
He ridiculed Dorothy Thomson, who made a distinction between the Nazis and
other Germans.
His was not an isolated opinion. After Hitler's speech at the "Sportpalast",
the "Daily Herald" in London published an article by the Reverend
C.W. Wipp, declaring:
"The keynote must be : "to sweep them"
and, to do that, to concentrate our science on the discovery of new and
more terrifying explosives...A minister of the Gospel must perhaps not yield
to such feelings, but I say frankly that if I could I would strike Germany
off the map. It is a diabolical race which has been the curse of Europe
for centuries."
Fortunately, there were protests against such aberrations in England where
the people, not any more than the German people and its high degree of culture,
could be confused with bloodthirsty leaders and individuals full of hatred
and baying for blood.
As early as the month of January 1934, the Zionist leader, Wladimir Jabotinsky,
declared to the Jewish newspaper "Natscha Retsch" :
"Our Jewish interests demand the definitive annihilation
of Germany; the whole German people poses a threat for us."
As for Churchill, he wrote to Paul Reynaud on May 16th 1940 :
"We shall starve Germany. We shall destroy its cities.
We shall burn its crops and its forests."
Source: Paul Baudouin, "Neuf mois au gouvernement". La Table
Ronde, 1948, p.57.
In 1942, the British minister, Lord Vansittart, a true apostle of hatred,
declared to justify the terror of British bombardments:
"The only good Germans are dead Germans; so let the
bombs rain down ! "
In July 1944, Churchill sent his chief of staff, General Hastings Imay,
a four-page memorandum in which he proposed the following project :
"I want you to think over this question of asphyxiating
gases very seriously...
"It is absurd to take morality into account in this affair when everyone
has already made use of them (asphyxiating gases) during the last war, without
there being any protest on the part of moralists or of the church. On the
other hand, the bombing of open cities was regarded as taboo at the time;
today, everyone does it as a matter of fact. It is only a question of fashion,
comparable to the evolution in the length of women's hemlines...
"I want the question of how much it would pay to use asphyxiating gases
to be examined coolly...We must not allow our hands to be bound
by foolish principles... We could flood the cities of the Ruhr and many
other cities in Germany in such a way that the majority of the population
would be in constant need of medical help...We may have to wait a few weeks
or even a few months before I ask you to flood Germany with asphyxiating
gases and,if we do it,let's do it thoroughly. Meanwhile, I would like this
question to be examined coolly by sensible people and not by a team of killjoy
psalm-singers in uniform of the sort one crosses now and again."
Source : "American heritage", August-September 1985.
Note : The United States produced almost 135,000 tons of toxic chemical
agents during the war, Germany 70,000 tons, the United Kingdom 40,000 tons
and Japan 7,500 tons.
Neither Churchill, nor Stalin, nor Truman had to face trial for war crimes
at Nuremberg.
The Nuremberg court did not try some of the most ignoble calls to crime
of which we can mention two of the wildest : one was a call to "genocide"
(this time in the true meaning of the term) by an American Jew called Theodore
Kaufman, who wrote a book entitled : "Germany must perish".
In it, he put forward the following case:
"The Germans (whoever they are : anti-Nazis, Communists
and even philo-Semites) do not deserve to live. Consequently, 20,000 doctors
must be mobilized after the war to sterilize 25 Germans a day each. In this
way,not one German able to breed will remain within three months, and the
German race will be totally eliminated within 60 years."
This book, which came out in 1942, was a godsend for anti-Semites. Hitler
had extracts from it read on all the radio-stations. Another work of the
kind was the "Call to the Red Army" by the Soviet writer,
Ilya Ehrenburg, published in October 1944 :
"Kill, kill ! There are no innocents among the Germans,
either among the living or among those yet to be born! Carry out the instructions
of Comrade Stalin by always crushing the Fascist beast in its lair. Break
the pride of German women by violence; take them as legitimate booty. Kill,
kill, valiant soldiers of the Red Army, in your irresistible assault."
(quoted by Admiral Doenitz,"Dix ans et 20 jours", (pp.343-44).
Neither of the above-mentioned was tried at Nuremberg, any more than the
heads of State which covered them.
Nor were tried the Anglo-American leaders who were responsible for the bombing
of Dresden, which killed 200,000 civilians and which served no military
purpose since the Soviet Army had already reached the Oder.
Nor was Truman tried, though he was responsible for the atomic apocalypse
of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, in which 300,000 civilians perished, again uselessly
since Japan's surrender had already been decided by the emperor.
Nor were Beria and Stalin tried for the massacre of thousands of Polish
officers at Katyn, which was blamed on the Germans.
* * *
The methods of the procedure were based on the same principles (or rather
absence of principles) as the choice of the accused among the vanquished
only.
The status of the tribunal was defined as follows :
* Article 19 : The Court will not be bound by technical rules relating
to the administration of proofs. It will adopt and apply as far as possible
an expeditive and not a formalist procedure, will admit any means it considers
to have conclusive value.
* Article 21 : The Court will not require proof of facts that are
of public notoriety, but will take them as established. It also regards
as authentic proofs the official documents and reports of the Allied governments.
This was the juridical monstrosity whose decisions were to be canonized
and regarded as criteria of an untouchable historical truth, according to
the Gayssot-Fabius law of May 2nd 1990.
This text inserts an article 24b in the 1981 law concerning the freedom
of the press which says:
"Article 24b - whosoever contests the existence of crimes
against humanity sanctioned by French or international jurisdiction will
be punished by imprisonment of from one month to a year and of a fine of
between 2,000 and 300,000 francs, or to one of these penalties only."
* * *
Such a procedure by the Nuremberg Court raised objections even amongst the
top-level American jurists: those of the Supreme Court.
One of these was Judge Jackson. The English historian, David Irving, who
admitted he had misjudged him earlier, was to say the following :
"Renowned jurists throughout the world were ashamed
of the Nuremberg proceedings. Certainly, Judge Robert H. Jackson, the American
president of the accusers, was ashamed of these proceedings ; this was obvious
from his "personal diary", which I have read."
"I have had the privilege of having access to the "Memoirs"
(of Judge Jackson) at the Library of Congress...Shortly after Robert H.
Jackson was entrusted by President Truman with the task of leading the American
judges at the Nuremberg Trial, he found out about American plans to use
atomic bombs; he was uneasy about the task entrusted to him : to pursue
in the name of a nation, acts which it had itself committed, for he was
aware that the United States was going to commit an even greater crime."
(33.9392 and 9394)
Referring to the book by Alpheus Thomas Mason on Harlan Fiske Stone: "Pillar
of the Law" (Harlan Fiske Stone was Chief Justice of the Supreme
Court of the United States) the lawyer Christie quoted page 715 of this
book, in which Stone wrote to the editor of "Fortune" magazine
that not only did he disown such a procedure, but that he regarded the whole
thing as "a high-grade lynching party in Nuremberg." (5.995-996)
p.716.
Judge Wennerstrum, of the Supreme Court of the United States, President
of one of the courts (23.5915-5916) was so disgusted by the procedure that
he refused his nomination and went back to the United States, where he voiced
his objections in the "Chicago Tribune" : 60% of the members of
the board of the trial were Jewish ; so were the interpreters.
"As for the principal accused : Hoess, Streicher, Pohl,
they have been tortured." (23.5919).
By virtue of the Nuremberg statutes accepting as proofs all declarations
by the Allies, the Soviet report on Katyn accusing the Germans of the massacre
of 11,000 Polish officers was accepted as an "authentic proof",
irrefutable, on August 8th 1945 by the victors.
Source : USSR Document 54, in vol. 39 of the TMI(p.290.32.)
The Soviet Prosecuting Attorney, General Rudenko, could have said according
to article 21 of the Nuremberg Trial Statute, "...there could be
no object of contestation." (XV,p.300)
On April 13 th 1990, the international press announced that the massacre
had been ordered by Beria and the Soviet authorities. When Professor Naville,
of Geneva University, had examined the bodies, he found 1940 documents in
their pockets which proved that the executions had taken place at that date.
In 1940, the Smolensk district was occupied by the Soviets.
* * *
To stick to our theme : "The founding myths of the State of Israel",
we will examine one of the untruths which continue to wreak the most havoc
after over half a century in today's world, and not only in Israel : "the
myth of the 6 million Jews exterminated" that has become a dogma justifying,
sacralizing (as the very term "Holocaust" implies) all the extortions
of the State of Israel in Palestine, in the entire Middle-East, in the United
States and, through the United States,in world politics, placing it above
all international law.
The Nuremberg Court made this figure official; it has never ceased since
then to be used to manipulate public opinion in the written and spoken press,
in literature and the cinema, and even in schoolbooks.
In fact, this figure rests only on two accounts: that of Hoettl and that
of Wisliceny.
This was what the former declared :
"In April 1944, as told to the Nuremberg judges, Dr.Wilhem
Hoettl, Obersturmbannfrrher, of section IV of the Central security bureau
of the Reich : the S.S. Obersturmbannfeurher Adolf Eichmann, whom I had
known since 1938, had a talk with me in my apartment in Budapest... He knew
he was considered as a war criminal by the Allied nations since he had thousands
of Jewish lives on his conscience. I asked him how many there were, and
he answered : although the number was a great secret, he would tell me because
of his information he had reached the following conclusion : in the various
extermination camps, some four million Jews had been killed and two million
had died in other ways."
Source : Nuremberg Trial,vol.IV,p.657.
And the second :
"He (Eichmann) said that he would leap into his grave
laughing, for the knowledge of having the lives of five million people on
his conscience would be a source of extraordinary satisfaction for him."
(op.cit.)
Of these two accounts, M. Poliakov himself said :
"It would be possible that a figure so imperfectly backed
up, must be considered suspect."
Source : Revue d'histoire de la seconde guerre mondiale. October 1956.
Let us add that the principal testimony, the most complete and the and most
precise, is by Hoett, an Intelligence Service officer.
Source : "Weekend" magazine,January 25th 1961, with on its
cover a portrait of Hoett, with the caption :"History of a spy. Stranger
than fiction : this friend of Nazi leaders, had a British Secret Service
chief as a boss."
Confirming the objections of top jurists of the Supreme Court of the United
States, and of many others, on the juridical anomalies of the "Nuremberg
Court", we shall give the following examples of the violations of the
rules that apply to the procedure of every genuine trial.
1 - The establishment and the verification of the authenticity
of the texts produced.
2 - The analysis of the value of the testimony and the conditions
in which they were obtained.
3 - The scientific examination of the weapon used to commit the crime
in order to establish the way it functions and its effects.
* * *
a) The texts
The fundamental texts, which are decisive for establishing what the "final
solution" must have been, are first of all the extermination orders
attributed to the most highly-placed leaders : Hitler, Goering, Heydrich,
Himmler, and the directives given for their execution.
First of all, Hitler's directive on the "extermination".
Despite the efforts of the theoreticians of the "genocide"
and the "Holocaust", no trace was ever found of it. As
Olga Wurmser-Migot wrote in 1968:
"Just as there exists no clear order of extermination
by gas at Auschwitz, there exists no order to stop in November 1944. "
She specifies : " neither at the Nuremberg trial, nor during the course
of marginal trials, nor at the Hoess trial in Cracow, or of Eichmann in
Israel, nor at the trial of the camp commanders, nor at the Frankfurt November
45-August 46 trial of secondary Auschwitz figures, was the famous order
signed by Himmler on November 22nd 1944 on the end of the extermination
of Jews by gas ever found, the order putting an end to the 'Final solution.'"
Source : Olga Wurmser-Migot. "Le systrme concentrationnaire nazi."
P.U.F 1968, 544 and p.13.
Doctor Kubovy, from the Tel Aviv "Documentation Center", admitted
in 1960 :
"There is no document signed by Hitler, Himmler or Heydrich
which speaks of exterminating the Jews...the word "extermination"
does not appear in the letter from Goering to Heydrich concerning the final
solution to the Jewish question."
Source: Lucy Dawidowicz, "The War against the Jews (1975) p.121.
After a conference held at the Sorbonne in Paris in February 1979 to fight
against the critical works of the "revisionists", Raymond Aron
and Jacques Furet had to declare during a press conference which had followed
the meeting that :
"Despite the most erudite research, we have never been
able to find an order by Hitler to exterminate the Jews."
In 1981, Laqueur admitted :
"Until now, we have never found Hitler's order to destroy
the European Jewish community, and in all probability the order was never
given."
Source : Walter Laqueur : "The terrible secret", Frankfort
on the Main.Berlin. Vienna. 1981.p.190.
In spite of all this, there have been other historians who, at the instigation
of Vidal Naquet and Leon Poliakov, signed the following declaration :
" (...) We must not ask ourselves how such a mass
murder was technically possible. It was technically possible since it took
place. This is the obligatory point of departure of any historical
enquiry on this subject. It was our duty to simply remind people of this
truth: there is not and there cannot be a debate on the existence
of the gas chambers... "
We must not ask ourselves..
the obligatory point of departure....
there cannot be a debate....
Three prohibitions, three taboos, three definitive limitations to research.
Such a text does indeed make history in the history of history: the "fact"
which must be established is posed before any research as an absolute and
untouchable truth forbidden by three prohibitory imperatives, any research
and critique of what was once and for all judged by the victors just after
the victory.
Yet history must, if it means to respect a scientific status, be a perpetual
search, questioning even what one considered as definitively established
as the postulate of Euclid or the laws of Newton. The following is a notorious
example:
"The Auschwitz International Committee intended in November
1990 to replace the commemorative plaque at Auschwitz which indicated 4
million dead by another bearing the words : "Over one million deaths".
Doctor Maurice Goldstein, president of this committee, was opposed to this
decision."
Source : "Le Soir", Brussels, 19-20th October l991, p.16.
In fact, Doctor Goldstein in no way challenged the need to change the old
plaques, but he did not want the new plaque to carry a figure, knowing that
it would probably be necessary to again reduce the figure now considered
within a short while.
The plaque at the entrance of Birkenau therefore bore the following inscription
until 1994:
"Here, from 1940 to 1945, four million men,women and
children were tortured and assassinated by Hitlerian murderers."
Thanks to the activity of the State Museum of Auschwitz, whose president
is the historian Wladislaw Bartoszewski and whose twenty six members are
of all nationalities,the text has been modified in a manner more in keeping
with the truth:
"May this place where the Nazis murdered one and a half
million men,women and children, mostly Jews from different European countries,
be forever for humanity a cry of despair and a warning."
Source: article by Luc Rosenzveig, in "Le Monde", January 27th
1995
This example shows that history, when it escapes intellectual terrorism
by the predicators of hatred, demands a perpetual "revision".
It is "revisionist" or else it is a disguised form of propaganda.
Let us go back therefore to history as such, of a critical, "revisionist"
sort, in other words one based on the analysis of texts, the checking of
accounts and the expertise regarding the crime weapon.
First of all, this is what concerns the Jews in the National Socialist Party
program.
The problem of the Jews is considered in Point 4 of the National Socialist
Party (NSDAP) Program:
"Only those who are fully citizens can possess German
nationality. And those who are fully citizens are those who have German
blood, regardless of religion. Therefore no Jew can fully be a citizen."
Staatsburger designated the citizen whereas Volkgenosse defined full citizenship
as a member of a homogeneous community.
Further on, we come to point 5 :
"He who does not possess German nationality can only
live in Germany as a guest (Gast) and will be submitted to the existing
legislation regarding the sojourn of foreigners."
Then, point 7 raises the question of the prohibition of stay in the Reich,
under certain conditions, of those who do not have German nationality; point
8 demands the stopping of all new immigration of non-Germans, as well as
the immediate expulsion of non-Germans who have entered the Reich since
August 2nd 1914. This last point is obviously directed against the Jews
from the East, who had come to the Reich in large numbers during and after
the First World War.
Point 23 also deals with this problem: it stipulates that Jews will not
have the right to work in the press, while Point 24 asserts that the Party
is struggling against the "Jewish materialistic spirit."
a - The orders of Hitler for the extermination of the Jews
In his book on "The Destruction of the European Jews",
Raoul Hilberg wrote in the first (1961) edition that there were two extermination
orders given by Hitler : one in the Spring of 1941 (invasion of Russia),
the other a few months later.
But in 1985, "in the second revised edition, every reference to
the orders or decisions of Hitler regarding the "final solution"
was systematically suppressed."
Source : "The Revised Hilberg". Simon Wiesenthal, Annal
3.1986.p.294)
The 1961 edition indicated on page 171:
"How did the phase decreeing death appear? Essentially
through two decisions by Hitler. An order was given in the Spring of 1941."
In what terms were these orders given?
Hilberg: "According to General Jodl, who wrote the document I quote,
the terms were the following : Hitler said he wanted the Jewish Bolshevik
commissars to be liquidated. This is the first point...Such was the content
of the order described by General Jodl." (4-82)
Hilberg: "The order was oral."
Thus: Hilberg said that General Jodl had said that Hitler had said....!
In his first anti-Semitic diatribes and in "Mein Kampf", Hitler
proclaimed his determination to expel the Jews from Germany. We shall henceforth
retain only those German texts which employ the expression "final solution"
in order to obtain a precise definition of it.
On June 24th 1940, after Germany's victory over France, Heydrich spoke in
a letter to Ribbentrop, the Minister of Finance, of a "final
territorial solution" ("Eine territoriale Endlosung").
Source : Gerald Flemming."Hitler and die Endlosung." Wiesbaden-Munich,
1982, p.56.
To create a Jewish "reservation" outside Europe, and it was then
that Ribbentrop suggested the "Madagascar project". In July 1940,
Franz Rademacher who was in charge of Jewish affairs, thus summed up this
directive:
"All Jews out of Europe !"
Source : Joseph Billig. "La solution finale de la question juive."
Paris 1977.p.58.
This "final territorial solution" was in keeping with the new
situation of Germany, which now dominated Europe : it was no longer enough
to expulse the Jews from Germany.
Rademacher, who was in charge of the "final solution" project
to deport all the Jews from Europe to Madagascar, pointed out that it would
take four years to carry it out and in the chapter entitled "Financing",
he indicated that "The realization of the final solution (Endlosung)
suggested will require considerable means."
Source : N.G. 2586.
b - Goering's letter to Heydrich of July 31st 1941
Heydrich asked Goering:
"In 1939, you gave me the order to take measures regarding
the Jewish question. Must I now extend the task with which you entrusted
me to the new territories we have seized in Russia ?"
There again, there is no reference to the assassination of Jews. Only their
geographic transfer is mentioned, simply taking into account the new
conditions (33.93739374).[1]
Only "final solution" thus consisted of emptying Europe of its
Jews by sending them away ever further until the war (supposing the Germans
won it) made it possible to place them all in a ghetto outside Europe (as
the Madagascar project had been the first suggestion.)
It is impossible to sustain the hypothesis of a secret coded language since
clear documents exist for other crimes : euthanasia, the order to kill British
commandos, to lynch American airmen and to exterminate the male population
of Stalingrad if it were occupied. " For all these crimes, the documents
are there. Whereas in this case alone there is nothing, no originals, nor
copies, " nor we can add, directives or the orders needed for the execution
of such vast directives. (33.9375-9376)
"In January 1942, Reinhard Heydrich, head of the Gestapo,
had informed the Berlin leaders that the Feurher had decided the evacuation
of all the Jews towards the territories of the East, replacing the deportation
beyond the sea previously projected." (34-9544)
In a memo which circulated in March 1942 in Heydrich's office, the ministers
were informed that the Jews of Europe were to be concentrated in the East,
"while awaiting to be sent to a distant territory like Madagascar after
the war, which will become their homeland... " (34-9545-9546)
.
Poliakov noted:
Until it was given up, the "Madagascar Plan" was
sometimes referred to as the "final solution" to the "Jewish
question".
Source : Poliakov. "Le Proces de Jerusalem" Paris,1963, p.152.
To maintain at all costs the thesis of physical extermination, a subterfuge
therefore had to be found:
"Final solution to the Jewish problem was one of those
conventional phrases used to designate the Hitlerian plan to exterminate
the European Jews."
Source : Gerald Reitlinger. "La solution finale" p.19.
No justification of this hypothesis of a coded language has been given,
though the concept of a coded language can be used to give any document
any meaning. Here are two examples.
Goering's letter of july 31st 1941 (a month after the letter by Heydrich
quoted previously, the meaning of the words would have suddenly changed!).
In this letter, Goering completed his directives to Heydrich:
"As a complement of the task which was assigned to you
by the decree of 24/1/1939, in other words to obtain the most advantageous
solution possible to the Jewish question by way of emigration and evacuation
given the circumstances, I charge you by the present letter to proceed with
all the necessary preparations...to reach an overall solution (Gesamtlesung)
of the Jewish question in the zone of German influence in Europe...I charge
you with the rapid submission of an overall project (Gesamtentwurf) bearing
on the measures of organization and the material and concrete dispositions
to realize the final solution of the Jewish question to which we aspire.(Endlosung
der Judenfrage.)"
Source : Hilberg (op.cit.) 2nd edition. p.401 (N.G.2586-E.P.S.710.)
It is significant that, quoting this document (on page 108 of his book),
Reitlinger cuts out the beginning which refers to emigration and evacuation,
while this letter prescribes a new extension of the evacuation measures
taken "given the circumstances" at a time when Hitler dominated
only Poland in January 1939, and not yet even France, whereas by July 1941,
Germany dominated all of Europe.
And yet the meaning of Goering's text is perfectly clear from the first
paragraph : the policy of emigration or evacuation of the Jews, practiced
until then in Germany, had to spread henceforth, due to the new conquests,
to all the zones in Europe under German domination. The "overall solution"
took the new situation into consideration. It could only be a "final
solution" after the end of the war or, in case of a total victory in
Europe, Russia included, a final evacuation to Africa or elsewhere, that
would make it possible, in keeping with Hitler's constant goal, " to
empty Europe of its Jews."
To sum it up, Goering's directive to Heydrich, unless one wants to interpret
it arbitrarily according to a preconceived schema, only applied to Europe
what could, until then, only be applied to Germany. It was an inhuman and
criminal objective, no doubt, but at no time did it comprise the idea of
"extermination" which it was given by the Attorney-General at
Nuremberg, Robert M.W. Kempner, who declared:
"With these lines, Heydrich and his collaborators were
officially given the task of legal murder (of Jews)."
Goering protested against the English translation of the German word "Gesamtlosung",
meaning general solution, as "final solution", which is "Endlosung";
this led Attorney Jackson to acknowledge the falsification and to reestablish
the true meaning.
Source: I.M.T., IX, 575
As early as June 24th 1940, Heydrich had informed Ribbentrop of his wish
to realize the "final solution" as soon as possible. He wrote:
"The global problem posed by the presence today of some
3 million and 1/4 Jews on the territories presently under German domination
can no longer be solved by emigration: a final territorial solution henceforth
becomes necessary."
Source: Evidence number464 at Eichmann's trial at Jerusalem.
Towards the same time, Himmler had sent Hitler a memoir whose conclusion
was:
"I hope to see the Jewish question definitively settled
thanks to the emigration of all the Jews towards Africa or in a colony."
Source: Vierteljaheshefte, 1957, 197.
Hitler rallied to this suggestion since, on February 10th 1942, Rademacher,
who was in charge of the "Deutschland III" at the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs, wrote in an official letter:
"Meanwhile, the war against the Soviet Union has allowed
us to dispose of new territories for the final solution. Consequently, the
Führer has decided to displace the Jews not towards Madagascar but
towards the East. Thus, there is no longer any need to consider Madagascar
for the final solution."
Source: Document N.G. 3933 of the Wilhelmstrasse trial, quoted by Reitlinger.
"The final solution" p.79, in which he "interprets"
again in the sense of "fiction" or "camouflage" without
giving the least justification for it.
The original expression was in fact "die Gesamtlosung der Judenfrage"
or the complete "overall" solution there would be no going back
on. But Goering used it for the first time in the first paragraph of a letter
dated 31/7/1941, in which he gave Heydrich the order to prepare it (P.S.710
T.XXVI,p.266)using in the last paragraph the expression "die Gesamtlosung
der Judenfrage" and, in time, it prevailed, but with the same meaning
and not in the sense of liquidating the problem by liquidating those who
were the cause of the problem. Taken in flagrante delicto of tendentious
translation by Goering himself on March 20th 1946, Judge Jackson had no
option but to admit it (T.IX,p.552). But the press did not breathe a word
of this incident which demolished a whole theory.
* * *
The second example of this arbitrary change of the meaning of words to justify
a thesis is that of the "Grand Wannsee" conference held in Berlin
on January 20th 1942.
At the start of the conference, Heydrich reminded his audience that he had
just been appointed "to the post of head of the preparation of the
final solution of the Jewish question in Europe" (Endlosung der
europaischen Judenfrague) and he will henceforth be responsible for the
overall measures needed for the final solution of the Jewish question, "without
consideration of geographical limitations" (underlined by R.G.)
Heydrich went on to sum up the anti-Jewish policy carried out thus far:
a - The driving out of Jews from those spheres vital to the
German people.-
b - The driving out of Jews from the space vital to the German people.
Because of the lightning-quick advance of the German army on the Eastern
front (the Soviet Union), Heydrich thus pursued, taking into account the
new situation :
"With the preliminary authorization of the Fuhrer, emigration
has left room for another possibility of solution: the evacuation of
the Jews towards the East." (underlined by R.G.)
"One cannot however consider these actions as palliatives, but practical
experiences already obtained in this field are of significant importance
for the future final solution to the Jewish question."
Source : N.G.2586 G.
Indeed, this definitive solution could not be carried out until after the
war, and this solution was always sought in the same direction : the expulsion
of all Jews out of Europe. It was what Hitler told Abetz, the ambassador
to Paris specifically : that it was his intention to evacuate all Jews
out of Europe after the war.
Source : "Documents on German Foreign Policy" 1918-1945.Series
D. Vol.X.p.484.
The Wannsee text (January 20th 1942)
"In the course of the final solution, Jews will be conveyed
under appropriate guidance, towards the East to make use of their labor.
They will be separated according to sex. Jews capable of working will be
taken in large columns to areas of major works, to build roads, and consequently
large numbers will doubtless perish through natural selection.
"Those who will finally remain, who without any doubt will make
up the most robust element, must be treated consequently, for they represent
a natural selection whose liberation must be considered the germ-cell of
a new Jewish development as the experience of history has shown..)"
(13-3133)
David Irving:
"I have read the minutes of the Wilhem Strasse trial,
the second after that of Nuremberg. There were twelve others afterwards.
Not one of them brought testimony according to which the liquidation of
the Jews had been discussed at Wannsee." (33-9372-9373)
The Wannsee Protocol consists of the minutes of a conference which took
place on January 20th 1942, attended by the Secretaries of State administratively
concerned by the solution to the Jewish question, and those heads of departments
in charge of its execution. In this text, no mention is made of gas chambers
or extermination, but only of the transfer of Jews to Eastern Europe.
These minutes have all the characteristics of an apocryphal document if
we are to credit the photocopy of them published in Robert N.W. Kempner's
"Eichmann und Komplizen", pp. 132 and following (Europa Verlag
1961) : no seal, no date, no signature, ordinary machine type on small format
paper, etc....
In any case they make no mention of gas chambers.
In the French versions of it, "die Zuruckdrangung der Juden aus
dem Lebensraum des deutschen Volkes" has been translated by "the
elimination of the Jews from the vital space of the German people",
as it was in English and in Russian.
The Germans, however, preferred to use other expressions to speak of their
decision to drive the Jews out of what they called their "vital space",
expressions like "Auschaltung" (exclusion, eviction, elimination)
and especially "Ausrottung" (extirpation,uprooting). It
was this last word which was translated as extermination, which is "Vernichtung"
in German.
For example : in his speech at Posen before the Obergruppenfuhrer (the Divisional
commanders of the Waffen SS) on October 4th 1943, Himmler said :
"Ich meine jetzt die Judenevakuirung, die Ausrottung
des judischen Volkes...Das judische Volk wird ausgerotten, etc... "
In the following sentence, he uses the word "Auschaltung..."
(P.S.1919 T.XXIX p.145) to clarify his meaning. In other words :
"I am now thinking of the evacuation of the Jews, of
the extirpation of the Jewish people, etc... "
But in the "Eichmann File", M.Billig translated it as:
"I mean by that the evacuation of the Jews, the extermination
of the Jewish people." (p.55) and "evacuation of the Jews,
IN OTHER WORDS extermination" (p.47).
Another example : in a note dated 16th December 1941 on one of his talks
with Hitler (P.S 1517 T.XXVII p.270) Rosenberg uses the expression "Ausrottung
das Judentums".
At the April 17th 1946 session, the American Attorney General Dodd translated
it as "Extermination of Jews" (Tome XI,p.562). Rosenberg protested
in vain.
"But in the speeches of the Nazis, the expression
"Ausrottung des Christentums", which was often used, is always
translated as " the extirpation of Christianity from German culture"
Cf. Revue d'Histoire de la seconde guerre mondiale, October 1st 1958,
p.62.
It is when it refers to Judaism (Judentum) or the Jewish people (das judische
Volk) that the word "Ausrottung" means extermination and
applies to individuals, whereas it refers to entities.
The Wannsee conference of January 20th 1942, where, it was claimed for over
a third of a century, the decision to "exterminate" European Jews,
disappeared from 1984 on from the writings of even the most ferocious enemies
of the "revisionists". On this point, they too had to "revise"
their history : it was at the Stuttgart Congress of May 1984,where that
"interpretation" was dropped.
Source : Eberhard Jackerl and Jurgen Rohwer."Der Mord an der Juden
im Zweiten Weltkrieg"('The murder of Jews during the Second World War")
Source : DVA. 1985 p. 67
In 1992, Yehuda Bauer wrote in "The Canadian Jewish News" of January
30th that this interpretation of Wannsee was "silly".
Finally, the most recent spokesman for the orthodox antirevisionist historians,
the chemist Claude Pressac, confirmed this new revision of orthodoxy. He
wrote on page 35 of his book :"Les crematoires d'Auschwitz" (CNRS
editions, 1993):
"The Wannsee conference was held in Berlin on January
20th. If an action of "driving back" the Jews towards the East
was planned, with the evocation of a "natural" elimination through
work, nobody then spoke of liquidation on an industrial scale. During the
days and the weeks that followed, the Auschwitz Bauleitung received neither
a call, a telegram or a letter demanding the study of an installation adapted
to that end."
And even, in his "recapitulative chronology", he indicates on
January 20th 1942 :
"Wannsee Conference on the driving back of the Jews
towards the East" (p.114).
The "extermination" was revised : it was a question of "driving
back".
It is equally remarkable that, in all this book setting itself the goal
of "proving" the thesis of extermination, there was no question
either of the document which, after that of Wannsee, was supposedly the
most decisive: Goering's letter to Heydrich of July 31st 1941, in which
it was asserted that the "final solution" meant "extermination",
and not the transfer out of Europe.
At the time of the Toronto trial in 1988, there was also a controversy concerning
the role of the "Eizenzattsgruppen", a kind of free corps designated
by the Hitlerian High Command to annihilate the groups of partisans which
formed as soon as the Germans swooped down on Moscow in 1941 ; these groups
would surge behind the German army, trying to destroy its reserves of fuel,
its supplies and its communication networks, cutting the Germans off from
their rear bases.
This form of resistance proved so effective that Hitler gave the harshest
of orders to the "Eizenzattsgruppen", to kill off the leaders
and the political commissars.
There were many Jews among these political commissars, who played a leading
role in which they confronted death bravely.
At the Toronto trial, the problem of the participation of these heroic Jews
to the resistance against Hitlerism was evoked at great length.
Christie, Zundel's lawyer, insisted on asking the historian Hilberg, to
clarify the meaning of the Nazi orders on this subject.
Christie : The order given to the Einzattsgruppen
says : Annihilate the Jewish Bolshevik commissars, and you interpret this
as meaning : "Annihilate the Jewish people and the Jewish commissars.
Is that correct?
Hilberg : Correct.
Christie : It was therefore said, according to you, that it was
not a question of killing the Jews, but the Jewish-Bolshevik political commissars.
Hilberg : The order was given to Himmler to "solve
the problem".(4839)
Christie : It concerned the problem of the Jewish-Bolshevik political
commissars. Which does not mean : the Jewish problem...Was there not a war
on between Communism and Nazism ?
Hilberg : Yes, and the political commissars, at the core of
the system, had to be shot.
Christie : This did not mean killing the Jews who were there.
Did Hitler think that Bolshevism was of Jewish origin and that all the commissars
were Jews?
Hilberg : That was propaganda. But it was the intention from
the beginning, since June 22nd 1941.
Christie : Is this an article of faith with you?
Hilberg : No. It's not an article of faith, it's a certainty.
Christie : Can you show me Hitler's second order?
Hilberg : I say that there's a decisive directive from Hitler
exposed by Goering to Heydrich on July 31st 1941...It was the text which
prepared the Wannsee conference.
Christie : Was it an order or a letter from Hitler?
Hilberg : No.
Christie : You wrote in your book : "Hitler gave this second
order. Is that correct?
Hilberg : That is correct.
Christie reverts to the meaning of the word "resettlement"
in the East. "Does this mean an order to kill all the Jews?"
(4-855)
Hilberg : Resettlement" was a synonym for "deporting
the Jews to death camps.
Christie : Wasn't there a plan to deport the Jews to Madagascar
?
* * *
The English historian, David Irving, brought the following information,
drawn from original sources, to the Toronto trial.
" ...The final solution to the Jewish problem consisted
of deporting them to different territories. One of the hypotheses was Madagascar,
especially after the fall of France, but the might of the British and later
American fleets made this project impossible to carry out.
The only document I possess is a telephone conversation between Prime minister
Lammers and the Feurher in the Spring of 1942, and the Feurher answered
him that the final solution would be decided upon only after the end of
the war.
Heinrich Himmler wrote to the gauleiters that the Feurher, Adolf Hitler,
had given him the order to rid Europe of its Jews from West to East, by
stages. It was obviously an order of deportation." (33-935 and
9352).
But this involved no order to exterminate the Jews.
No order of this kind was ever given, nor in the archives of the world,
including the Jewish archives which cooperated with me. I must also emphasize
that, in the British archives where we had deciphered the German codes of
the S.S. units operating on the Eastern front, even with those English machines
for deciphering codes, we did not decipher any code in which Hitler gave
the order to kill the Jews. Only historians claiming to read between the
lines and giving vent to their indignation have been able to decipher such
a meaning. (33-93.76) "
* * *
The lawyer, Christie, quotes page 651 of Hilberg's book in which is written
:
"In November 1944, Himmler decided that for all sorts
of practical reasons, the Jewish question was solved. On the 25th of the
same month, he ordered the dismantling of all the death installations."
Source : Testimony of Kurt Becher. 8th March 1946. P.S. 3762.
Hilberg recognizes that it was not an order by Himmler (4-861 to 864):
"Becher probably presented it from memory in his testimony.
He therefore did not need to use the exact language employed by Himmler."
One more time, Hilberg said that Becher had said that Himmler had said...(4.867)
After lengthy historical research by scholars of every background under
the pressure of revisionist critics, the director of the "Institute
of history of the present time" at the National Center of Scientific
Research, Mr. Francois Bedarida sums up these works on the "evaluation
of the Auschwitz victims" :
"The collective memory has seized hold of the figure
of four million, the very one which, on the faith of a Soviet report, figured
until now at Auschwitz on the monument erected to the memory of the victims
of Nazism - while in Jerusalem the Yad Vashem museum indicated a total very
much above the truth.
And yet, as soon as the war ended, scholarly memory got down to work.
The result of these patient and minute investigations was that the figure
of four million rested on no serious base and could not be retained.
The court, all the same, relied on an assertion by Eichmann claiming that
the extermination policy had caused the death of six million Jews, four
million of them in the camps. If now we refer to the most recent works and
to the most reliable statistics - as is the case with Raoul Hilberg's work,
"Destruction des juifs d'Europe" (Fayard,1988), we come
up with a million dead at Auschwitz. A total corroborated by the specialists
as a whole since, today, these agree on a number of victims oscillating
between 950,000 minimum and 1.2 million maximum."
Source : "Le Monde", 23rd July 1990.
Nevertheless, people continue after the reduction of the number of victims
at Auschwitz-Birkneau from 4 to 1 million, to repeat the global figure :
6 million Jews exterminated, according to the bizarre arithmetic : 6 - 3
= 6.
That the "final solution" to the Jewish problem was to be resolved
only after the war is also testified to by the "Braun Mappe" (Brown
File) of the Summer of 1941. The paragraph entitled : "Directives for
the solution of the Jewish question" specified :
"All the measures concerning the Jewish question in
the lands occupied in the East having to be taken after the war, the Jewish
question will find a general solution in Europe."
Source : P.S. 702. Henri Monneray. "La persecution des juifs dans
les pays de l'Est presentre " Nuremberg" CDJC 1949.
This restatement of the question does involve any attenuation of Hitler's
crimes, but simply recalls a piece of evidence which even the most determined
partisans of the theory of "extermination" have not overlooked:
during the last two years of the war, after Stalingrad, Hitler was fighting
a losing battle : the Allies were destroying his war production centres
with their bombs and disorganizing his transport network.
He was forced to mobilize new soldiers, emptying his factories as a result.
How could he have been fatally obsessed with the will to exterminate his
prisoners and Jews, instead of using them, even in inhuman conditions, for
working on his sites? Poliakov himself, in his "Breviaire de la
haine" (p.3) emphasized this absurd contradiction :
"It would have been so much more economical to have
made them carry out the hardest work, parking them in a reservation for
instance."
Hannah Arendt also pointed out what was insane about such an operation :
"The Nazis turned straightforwardly useless into the
harmful when, right in the middle of the war, despite the penury of building
materials and of rolling stock, they erected huge and costly extermination
factories and organized the transport of millions of people...the manifest
contradiction between this behavior and military imperatives gives the entire
undertaking a mad, chimerical air."
Source : Hannah Arendt. "Le systrme totalitaire" Paris 1972.
p.182.
What is even odder is that minds as subtle as Poliakov and Hannah Arendt
were so completely clouded by their a prioris that they did not question
their Surrealistic assumptions and turn to the documents and the facts.
At Auschwitz-Birkenau, there were powerful implantations of the Farben-industry
(chemical), of Siemens (transports) of Portland (construction). At Monovitz
(one of the camp annexes to Auschwitz) there were 10,000 prisoners at work,
100,000 civilian workers and 1,000 English prisoners of war.
Source : "German crimes in Poland", Warsaw 1946. Vol. I. p.37.
From 1942 to 1944, out of 39 camps that were satellites of Auschwitz, 31
used prisoners as laborers and 19 of them used a majority of Jews.
On January 25th 1942, Himmler addressed the following directive to the inspector-general
of the concentration camps :
"Get ready to take in 100,000 Jews...Over the coming
weeks, important economic tasks will be entrusted to the concentration camps."
Source : N.0. ; 020
a - In May 1944, Hitler ordered the use of 200,000 Jews as workers in the
construction program of Jager and the Todt organization.
An S S W V H A order dated November 18th 1943 awarded a bonus to prisoners-
even Jews - who had distinguished themselves at work.
Source : Auschwitz Museum Center 6 - 1962 p.78.
There is therefore nothing "insane or chimerical", but on the
contrary an implacable realism, and an extra refutation of the "exterminationist"
themes.
b - Eyewitness accounts
The Auschwitz trial was held in Frankfurt from December 20th 1963 to August
20th 1965, in a vast theater which was well-suited to a showy political
operation; the vast legal machine could not avoid being forced to acknowledge
in the account of the reasons for its verdict that the elements at its disposal
for reaching its verdict were absurdly flimsy.
"The court lacked almost all the means of information
which an ordinary criminal trial disposes of to compose a faithful portrayal
of events such as they really occurred. The bodies of the victims lacking,
the autopsy reports, the conclusions of the experts as to the cause of death;
traces left by the culprits were lacking, crime weapons, etc...It was possible
to check the accounts only in a very few cases."
Source : Page 109 of the account of the reasons for the verdict
According to the accusers, the crime-weapon was the "gas chambers."
Yet the judges found no "traces" of them!
It was enough for those gas-chambers to be "notorious" to exist,
as in the days of the witch-trials, where no-one would have dared to question
the witches' "carnal knowledge" of the devil for fear of being
burnt at the stake too.
One of the jurists sent by the United States to Dachau, which had become
an American camp and a center of "war-crime trials", Stephen S.
Pinter, wrote :
"I lived at Dachau for 17 months after the war as US
military judge, and can testify that there was no gas chamber at Dachau.
What they show visitors is presented in an erroneous manner as a gas chamber,
being a crematorium oven. Nor were there any gas chambers in the concentration
camps in Germany. We were told that there was a gas chamber at Auschwitz,
but as Auchwitz was in the Russian zone, we did not have permission from
the Russians to visit...they thus made use of the old propaganda myth according
to which millions of Jews were killed. I can attest, after 6 years spent
in Germany and Austria after the war, that many Jews were killed, but that
the figure of 1 million was certainly never reached, and I believe myself
to be better-qualified than anyone else on this subject."
Source: Letter by Pinter to the Catholic weekly, "Our Sunday Visitor",
June 14th 1959, p.15.
Lacking written proofs and irrecusable documents, the Nuremberg court was
forced to base itself on "eyewitness accounts", like the fictionalized
works and the films that came later.
The survivors who were called upon to bear witness and who authenticated
the existence of "gas chambers" did it not from what they had
seen but what they had "heard said".
A typical and famous example is that of Doctor Benedict Kautzsky, successor
to his father at the head of the Austrian Social Democratic party.
After declaring that the maximum period of survival at Auschwitz was three
months (though he himself spent three years there), he wrote his book :
"Teufel und Verdammt" (published in Switzerland in 1946),
in which he declared about the "gas chambers" :
"I did not see them personally, but so many faithworthy
people confirmed their existence."
"Il will hier noch eine kurze Shilderung der Gaskannmern einflechten,
die ich zwar selbst nicht gesehen habe, die mir iber von so vielen glaubwurdig
dargestellt worden sind... "
A few eyewitness accounts were regarded as fundamental, notably those of
Rudolf Hoess, Saukel and Nyszli ("Doctor at Auschwitz").
The key witness, who turned out to be the perfect witness to "prove"
the thesis of the victors disguised as judges was Rudolf Hoess, ex commander
of the Auschwitz camp.
The description he gave when he was arrested became the synopsis of his
declarations at Nuremberg; it was everything the Court expected of him.
Here is his declaration, written under oath and signed by Rudolf Hoess on
April 5th 1946 :
"I was commander of Auschwitz until December 1st 1943,
and I estimate that at least 2,500,000 victims were executed there and exterminated
by gassing and cremation, and that at least half a million others died there
of hunger and disease, which makes a up a total of about 3,000,000 dead.
The "final solution" of the Jewish question signified the extermination
of all the Jews in Europe. I received the order to prepare the extermination
at Auschwitz in June 1941. At that time, there already existed three other
extermination camps in the general government : Belzec, Treblinka, Wolzek."
One cannot imagine a more perfect confirmation of the theses which were
going to be spread by the media for half a century.
And yet this text itself already contains three statements in obvious contradiction
with the truth :
1 - The number of 3 million dead at Auschwitz, needed to justify
the total number of Jewish victims (6 million), official figure proclaimed
from the start at Nuremberg and which has never ceased to be the leitmotif
of official history and of the media since that time, has to be reduced
by at least two thirds, as the new commemorative plaque at Auschwitz-Birkenau
proves, on which the figure of four million has been replaced by: a little
over a million.
2 - The camps of Belzec and Treblinka did not exist in 1941. They were not
opened until 1942.
3 - As for the Wolzek camp, it never existed on any map.
How could this "capital testimony" have been recorded without
prior verification ?
Höss himself explains it: the first declarations were made under the
control of the Polish authorities which had arrested him.
The autobiography of Rudolf Höss indicates on page 174 of the French
edition :
"At the time of my first cross-examination, the first
confessions were obtained by beating me. I do not know what there is in
that report although I signed it." (5.956).
(Hoess signed an 8-page typescript at 2.30 in the morning of March 14th
1946 which does not essentially differ from what he later wrote and said
at Nuremberg or Cracow.)
Hoess himself describes in hand-written notes made at Cracow the circumstances
of the first interrogatory to which he was subjected by the British military
police.
"I was arrested on March 11th 1946 at llPM...The Field
Security Police subjected me to painful treatment. I was dragged until Heide,
precisely to the barracks where, eight months earlier, I had been released
by the English. It was there I was interrogated for the first time, during
which harsh means were used. I do not know the contents of the report even
though I signed it. So much liquor and whip-lashes got the better even of
me...A few days later, I was taken to Meiden-on-the-Weser, the main interrogation
center of the British zone. There, I fared even worse at the hands of a
public attorney, a commander."
Source: Document NO-1210
It was only in 1983 that there was confirmation of the tortures inflicted
upon Rudolf Hoess to obtain the "proof" of the "two and a
half million" Jews exterminated by him at Auschwitz.
This book was written by Rupert Butler and was called : "Legions of
Death" (Hamlyn Paperbacks). It publishes the testimony of Bernard Clarke,
who arrested Rudolf Höss after finding out his whereabouts from his
wife after threat of death to herself and her children. Hoess was arrested
at the farm where he was hiding on March 11th 1946. Butler describes how
it took three days of torture to obtain a "coherent declaration",
eg. the one we have just quoted, signed March 14 th 1946 at 2 in the morning.
As soon as he was arrested, Hoess was beaten so hard that "in the
end,the health officer intervened with insistence to the captain : tell
him to stop or you'll bring back a corpse."
It must be noted that Butler and his interlocutor Clarke both seem highly
satisfied with these acts of torture.
The American enquiry committee made up of judges Van Roden and Simpson,
sent to Germany in 1948 to investigate irregularities committed by the American
military court at Dachau (which had tried 1,500 German prisoners and sentenced
420 of them to death), established that the accused had been subjected to
physical and psychological torture of every sort to force them to make the
desired "confessions". Thus 137 out of 139 German prisoners examined
had been kicked in testicles, receiving permanent injuries.
Source : Interview with Judge Edward L. Van Roden, in "The Progressive",
February 1949.
|