Search and discover for yourself:
nazism = national-zionism
Adolf Hitler = grand-son of a Rothschild
———————– Page 1———————–
The Myth of the Six Million
by David Hoggan
AAARGH edition on line
———————– Page 2———————–
1. The Attitude of Adolf Hitler and the National Socialists toward the Jews
Adolf Hitler was appointed Chancellor of defeated, truncated, and starving Germany on January
30, 1933, by President Paul von Hindenburg. Jews throughout the world professed to be horrified
by news of this event. It was also evident that a campaign against the still unpopular Germans on
the Jewish question might possibly be exploited to advance the position of World Jewry. Twenty
years later, this turned out to be the case to an extent that few Jews could have foreseen at the
time. Dr. Max Nussbaum, the former chief rabbi of the Jewish community in Berlin, declared on
April 11, 1953: “The position the Jewish people occupy today in the world is-despite the
enormous losses ten times stronger than what it was twenty years ago.”
The leaders of the modern German Reich from its foundation in 1871 until Hitler’s appointment in
1933 had usually been friendly toward the Jews. Hitler, however, was outspokenly hostile
toward every manifestation of Jewish influence in Germany. The “unchangeable” program of his
National Socialist Party, which was first proclaimed at Munich on February 24, 1920, advocated
the revocation of concessions granted to the German Jews in the various German states during the
period from 1812 to 1848. These concessions bad made German Jews in every respect fully equal to
Germans. Hitler was determined to set the clock back on Germany’s treatment of the Jews. His
position toward the Jews closely resembled that of Martin Luther, Von den Juden und ihrer Luegen
(About the Jews and their Lies, Wittenberg, 1543), and Heinrich von Treitschke, Ein Wort ueber
unser Judenthum (A Word About our Jewry, Berlin, 1880). Hitler’s appointment as Chancellor in a
government coalition with the conservative German National People’s Party brought him a
gigantic step closer to a position where his will might become law in all questions affecting the
Hitler’s overt struggle against the Jews had begun the moment be joined the diminutive anti-
Jewish National Socialist Party in 1919. He had been a leading contender in the German political
arena since his Party acquired 107 Reichstag seats in the September, 1930, German national
election. In 1933, this struggle entered a decisive phase. There were approximately 500,000 Jews
in Germany when Hitler became Chancellor in January, 1933.
2. Disabilities Imposed on the Jews by National Socialism
The first major directive against the Jews, after the one-day boycott of April 1, 1933, was the law
of April 7, 1933, which required the dismissal of Jews from government service and from positions
in the universities. This law was not fully implemented in practice until 1939 :although. many
functionaries and teachers were retired on pensions before the end of 1933. Jews were still
employed in German journalism and publishing as late as 1939, but they had been required by 1936
to sell all of their share of financial control over German newspapers, publishing houses, and the
film industry on the basis of an emergency press enactment by President Hindenburg under Article
48 of the Weimar constitution on March 1, 1933.
Undoubtedly the most fundamental National Socialist legislation against the Jews was enacted
by the Reichstag at its meeting in Nuremberg on September 15, 1935. These famous Nuremberg
Laws included the citizenship law and the law for the protection of German blood and honor.
Jews were carefully defined as persons with four or three Jewish grandparents, or persons with
two Jewish grandparents who practiced the Jewish religion or were married to Jewish partners.
This legislation deprived the Jews of German citizenship and of the right to fly the German
colors, it prohibited Jews from marrying German citizens, and it provided that sexual intercourse
between Jews and German citizens was a criminal offense. Jews were not allowed to employ female
German servants of less than forty-five years of age. A supplementary law of July 6, 1938
permitted divorce solely on racial grounds.
— 2 —
———————– Page 3———————–
It should be noted that as late as 1938 the segregation of Jews was still limited to prohibition of
sexual relations, and to the exclusion of Jews from university employment, government work, Or
from the ownership of the mass media of communication. The Jews were allowed to operate and to
own businesses, to share public facilities of recreation, culture, and transportation, to engage in
professions such as medicine and law, to accept ordinary employment, and to travel abroad.
Indeed, many thousands of Jews were still living quietly and working in the German community
when the country was occupied by Allied troops in 1945.
Although it was the National Socialist policy to encourage the Jews to leave Germany, rather
liberal arrangements were made to permit those Jews who migrated to take with them a sizeable
portion of their assets. It was easier to transfer or take with them the sums received from the
properties sold than liquid assets. Billions of marks were transferred to Palestine; under the
Havarah agreement there were no restrictions whatever.
3. Bruno Amann’s Exposition of the Basis of the Anti-Jewish Policy of National Socialism
The official National Socialist attitude toward the German Jews from 1933 to the outbreak of
World War 11 was best summarized in Bruno Amann, Das Weltbild des Judentunis: Grundlagen
des voelkischen Antisemitismus (A Picture of World Jewry: the Foundations of Popular Anti-
Semitism, Vienna, 1939). Amann depicted the National Socialist revolution of 1933 as the
beginning of a new age for Germany based on the democratic principle of the community of the
entire people as opposed to the class barriers 4 the past. He denounced most of Jewry as an
intensely disloyal, avaricious, and decadent element in German culture after World War I.
Amann emphatically rejected Nietzsche’s thesis that Christianity marks a culmination of
Jewish tradition. He argued with great force that Christianity is, instead, a final departure from
the “chosen people” concept of the Jews. He noted the contention of numerous propagandists
hostile to Germany that Hitler was seeking to make a “chosen people” of the Germans. Amann
rejected this, and he insisted on the common unity of European culture. He suggested that the true
Christian tradition called upon all Europeans to maintain both a guarded hostility and a
necessary protective front against the Jews.
Amann believed that forces at work in other European countries would ultimately produce in
them a similar attitude toward the Jewish question. In the meantime, Germany had broken the
hold of the “alien and aggressive Jewish avarice over her spiritual and material heritage.”
Amann was emphatic in insisting that the measures taken against the German Jews by 1939 would
be adequate for all time in protecting German interests.
Jewry had been no less shaken than Germany by new doctrines and concepts. Amann regarded the
Jewish people as split between the advocates of assimilation and the more modern Zionists, but
he did not believe that it was difficult to predict the ultimate total triumph of Zionism. There
was a natural meeting of interests in the rejection of Jewish assimilation by both National
Socialism and Zionism. It was for this reason that the German authorities were, perfectly
willing to cooperate with the Zionists in arranging concentrations of Jewish population in certain
areas. Zionism was born of the modern Eastern European nationalist movements within the
context of a special Jewish tradition; National Socialism was born of the political, economic, and
military collapse of Germany in World War I.
Amann traced the beginning of Jewish emancipation in Europe from the first emancipation
enactments of revolutionary France in 1791. He regarded these enactments as the beginning of a
grave threat to European civilization. His special attention was reserved for a detailed study of
the advocates of emancipation in Germany, beginning with Lessing, and of the full realization of
emancipation itself by 1848. Amann claimed that the Jews had secured a dominant position in
Germany prior to World War I, but be added that this powerful position would probably not have
been challenged seriously had it not been for the German defeat in 1918. The different
circumstances governing the position of Jews in various countries was viewed by Amann as a major
subject for study within the Research Department on the Jewish Question connected to the Reich
Institute of History.
Amann conceded in 1939 the existence of a vast and world-wide sympathy for the suppressed Jews
of Germany. This was because of the clear solidarity of interest between the liberal Jews and
— 3 —
———————– Page 4———————–
their sympathizers in the West, and the Bolshevik Jewry of the East. In both East and West the
Soviet Union was regarded with special affection for having destroyed the anti-Jewish Tsarist
colossus of 1917 and for having replaced it with a regime where Jewish influence was greater than
in any other state of the world. Amann saw a permanent danger to peace in the revolutionary
alliance of these East-West forces against Germany. A more enlightened attitude toward the
Jewish danger in the West would be the only means within the foreseeable future of overcoming
this threat. Amann little suspected that traditional British balance of power calculations would
exploit the existing sentiment to produce in the immediate future the very war which he
Amann’s book does not contain any vulgar propaganda against the Jews. Indeed, it in no way
proves the need for an anti-Jewish policy, but rather it accepts this need as a truism based on the
old, established traditions. These traditions are understandably assigned a special importance in
an age of spreading Communism. Amann’s book is far more typical of the official German
attitude, toward the Jews under Hitler than the erratic utterances of that Self-Styled
individualist of Nuremberg, Gauleiter Julius Streicher of Franconia, in his sensational
newspaper, Der Stürmer. This was the only newspaper of its kind throughout Germany, and it
was suppressed by the German Government in 1939. Der Stürmer contained much coarse humor,
graphic cartoons, and appeals to old prejudices. Nevertheless, there was not the slightest excuse
for the United States, Great Britain, and France to collaborate with the Soviet Union at
Nuremberg in 1946 in securing Streicher’s execution. The Soviet Union was the only nation in the
world at that time where the utterance of anti-Jewish ideas was a capital offense.
4. The Three Phases of National Socialist Treatment of the Jews before World War II
The National Socialist treatment of the German Jews prior to World War II must be considered in
three main phases of which the second one was easily the most important. These would include:
(1) the sometimes turbulent days of the period from Hitler’s appointment until the National
Socialist Party purge of June 30, 1934; (2) the following period, until the additional measures
enacted after the assassination of Ernst von Rath in November, 1938; and (3) the period from
November, 1938, until the outbreak of war in 1939. The second period was dominated by the
Nuremberg laws of September, 1935, which deprived persons defined as Jews of their citizen
status and proscribed sexual and marital relations between them and the German people.
During the first period there were occasional incidents of public violence involving Jews,
although no Jews were actually killed, and a very considerable number of Jews were arrested and
placed in concentration camps for short terms because of their Marxist affiliations. During the
second period, from 1934 to 1938, the concentration camp population, as conceded by Gerald
Reitlinger, The SS: Alibi of a Nation (London, 1956, pp. 253ff.), seldom exceeded 20,000
throughout all Germany, and the number of Jews in the camps was never more than 3,000. During
the third period, in which several new measures were enacted against the Jews, the concentration
camp population remained virtually stationary. There was an extensive exodus of Jews from
Germany during the first, and especially during the third period; during the second period the
Jewish population remained remarkably stationary, while a much larger number of Jews
departed from Poland.
Lion Feuchtwanger, et al, Der Gelbe Fleck: die Ausrottung van 500,000 deutschen Juden (The
Yellow Spot: the Extermination of 500,000 German Jews, Paris, 1936) presented a typical effort
during the second phase to mobilize the forces of Jewish propaganda against Germany. The
yellow spot on a black field was a medieval designation for Jewish establishments; the book
derives part of its title from this source. The other part, concerning the alleged annihilation
campaign, is asserted from the earliest pages. It is important to note that from the very start the
Jewish opponents of National Socialism declared mere measures of discrimination against the
Jews to be the equivalent of annihilation or liquidation. The term genocide was not introduced by
Professor Rafael Lemkin until after the battle of Stalingrad in 1943.
This alleged annihilation in The Yellow Spot is conceived of in several different ways. On the
one hand, simple emigration is regarded as the extermination of German Jewry as such in one
special sense at least. On the other hand, sinister rumors are cited to the effect that there would
— 4 —
———————– Page 5———————–
be a gigantic Old Testament-styled Purim in reverse in the event of a foreign invasion of Germany,
and that Jewish corpses would be prominently displayed in such a case. The existing concentration
camps are also interpreted as a potential instrument of extermination, and the latter part of the
book contains a list of prisoners who had allegedly died in the camps. Special note was made of
the claim that there was still 100 Jews at Dachau in 1936 and that 60 of them had been there
The authors explained the National Socialist campaign against the Jews as a Machiavellian
maneuver to create jobs for loyal brown-shirted followers. They stated as a dogmatic fact that
Hitler intended to start an “imperialist war” (note the Marxist- terminology) as soon as possible,
and especially when he could accomplish something in his domestic program-ostensibly at the
expense of the Jews-for which the people would sacrifice. The mass of the German people were
described as friendly toward the Jews despite Hitler, and the otherwise loyal German Jews were
considered -to have been forced into opposition by the measures directed against them.
Much was made of the Saturday, April 1, 1933, National Socialist boycott against the Jews,
which was actually in response to the Jewish boycotts directed against Germany from New York
and London during the previous months. The boycott was depicted as the prelude to a permanent
policy of strangulation. The alleged increase in marriages between Germans and German Jews in
1934 was regarded as a major reason for the promulgation of the Nuremberg laws as early as 1935.
The Nuremberg laws were presented as a state bulwark in support of an unpopular policy.
This story of Jewish grievances against Germany prior to World War 11 was fully supplemented
in order to cover the whole period by F. R. Brenenfeld, The Germans and the Jews (N.Y., 1939).
His emphasis was an economic and social discrimination against the Jews and on the alleged
mistreatment of concentration camp inmates, of which the Jews were always decidedly in the
A later Jewish historian, T. L. Jarman, The Rise and Fall of Nazi Germany (N.Y., 1956) noted
that at the beginning of World War 11 the Germans had only six concentration camps: Dachau,
Sachsenhausen, Buchenwald, Mauthausen, Flossenbürg, and Ravensbrück. There were 21,300
inmates in the camps, of whom less than 3,000 were Jews. Jarman pointed out that under National
Socialism, terrorism unlike in Russia, was kept in the background. Jarman added that “Germany
in the years 1933-9 was an open country in a sense in which Soviet Russia has never been” (P. 187).
Jarman believed that the Germans were “stupid” in allowing themselves to be “drawn into war”
in 1939, as in 1914, when they had everything to lose and nothing to gain. It is interesting to note
that this interpretation was rendered possible because of the fact that the terroristic Soviet
regime was far more popular in the West than the much milder German system.
As time went on it became more and more doubtful whether President Roosevelt’s early assurance
to the German leaders about the Jewish question would be kept. President Roosevelt bad told
Germany’s Reichsbank president, Hjalmar Schacht, on May 6, 1933, that he personally had no
particular sympathy for the Jews, but a problem troubling German-American relations existed
because of “the old Anglo-Saxon sense of chivalry toward the weak.” Nevertheless, Roosevelt
assured Schacht that “this hurdle would be cleared” without any lasting breach in German-
American relations. Schacht met with New York Jews on May 12, 1933, and warned them that
continued pressure from the outside could make matters worse for the German Jews. These matters
are revealed in Documents on German Foreign Policy, Series C. vol. 1, nos. 214, 233.
Jewish propaganda against Germany made increasing headway during the months which
followed, and on December 20, 1933, a conference at the German Foreign Office concluded with
regret that the American press as a whole seemed to be “the strongest Jewish propaganda
machine in the world” (Ibid., vol. 2, no. 139). Richard Sallet reported from the German Embassy
in Washington, D. C. on August 3, 1934, that the sustained Jewish economic boycott of Germany
continued to add fuel to the fire, and he noted, that Jewish propaganda was more strident than
ever. The United States was seen to be positively flooded with anti-Gennan literature, and
Sallet concluded that the ultimate objective of Jewry was a war of destruction against Germany
(Ibid., vol. 3, no. 569). There was considerable relief in Germany in 1936 when President Roosevelt
refused to accede to Jewish pressure to boycott the Olympic Games at Berlin. Hjalmar Schacht, 76
Jahre meines Lebens (76 Years of My Life, Bad Wörighofen, 1953, p. 416), was confident then that
— 5 —
———————– Page 6———————–
the Jewish question, despite the ever increasing spate of Jewish propaganda, would do no lasting
harm to Germany’s relations abroad.
5. The Tension and Crisis of 1938
The situation became much worse again in 1938. Considerable German attention had been given to
the encouragement under equitable terms of Jewish emigration as a means of permanently solving
the Jewish question in Germany, but many more Jews had departed from Poland than from
Germany during the period 1933-1938. A veritable competition had developed between Germany
and Poland in encouraging emigration from their respective countries. The Polish Seim had
passed a number of stringent anti-Jewish laws in March 1938.
Early in 1938 the American press was flooded with rumors about similar actions by the National
Socialists, first in Germany, and then in Austria, and it was necessary for American diplomats on
the spot to deal with these matters. A few examples will suffice to illustrate this situation. On
January 17, 1938, the American Embassy in Berlin denied the rumor that Jewish doctors and
dentists had been deprived of their participation in the compulsory insurance program
(Ortskrankenkassen). On January 26, 1938, the Embassy denied the American press rumor that
there had been any order restricting Jewish passports or travel opportunities from Germany. On
March 25, 1938, John C. Wiley, from the American consulate in Vienna, denied the extravagant
rumors of general pogroms following the Anschluss, and he added that “so far as I know there
have been no Jewish deaths by violence” (Foreign Relations of the United States, 1938, vol. 2, pp.
Nevertheless, on June 18, 1938, there, was organized picketing of Jewish shops in Berlin for the
first time since 1933, and Hugh Wilson, who reported from the American Embassy that 3,000
additional Jews had come to Berlin from the provinces in recent months, warned that
dissatisfaction was being expressed in the German press with the slow rate of Jewish emigration
from Germany. A long-expected blow against the Jewish position in Germany was struck by a law
of October 14, 1938 according to which Jewish lawyers in Germany were to retire from general
practice by November 30, 1938 and in Austria by December 31, 1938. Wilson reported that in early
1938 no less than 10 per cent of the practicing lawyers in Hitler’s anti-Jewish Third Reich were
Jews. This was true despite the fact that the Jews constituted less than .5 per cent of the German
population (Ibid., vol. 2, pp. 380-391). In his book, Germany and World Peace (London, 1937), the
eminent Swedish scientist and explorer, Sven Hedin, who had been a close student of German
affairs, stated that under the Weimar Republic the Jews provided 23 per cent of the practicing
lawyers in Germany although the Jews made up only .8 per cent of the total German population.
It was in this tense situation that the Polish Government decided on October 15, 1938, to
implement a law passed the previous March according to which individuals who had remained
outside Poland for a period of years could be declared stateless by the competent Polish consular
authorities. This meant that an estimated 55,000 Polish Jews living in Germany by choice could
be stranded there permanently — through the unilateral action — of the Warsaw Government.
Similar restrictions in 1885 by the Tsarist Government had prompted Bismarck, who was by no
means unfriendly toward the Jews, to deport foreign Jews to the Russian Empire.
The German Foreign Office made several vain attempts to persuade the Poles to cancel their
decree. Because October 29, 1938, was the deadline on the renewal of the Polish passports, the
Germans began on October 27th to organize deportation transports of Polish Jews. Special care was
taken to see that the travelers would have ample facilities on the transport trains, including
plenty of space and good food. Some trains managed to cross the border, but the Poles soon began to
resist, even before the passport deadline, and the entire action had to be abandoned before less
than one-third of the 55,000 Polish Jews of Germany had been returned to Poland.
This strange and tragic situation produced important repercussions. Wolfgang Diewerge, Der Fall
Gustloff (The Gustloff Case, Munich, 1936, pp. 108ff.), has recorded the threat of Propaganda
Minister Joseph Goebbels in 1936 that further assassinations of German officials by Jews, as in the
caste of Gustloff’s assassination by David Frankfurter, would lead to reprisals against German
Jewry. Now a test situation for this threat had arrived.
— 6 —
———————– Page 7———————–
The parents and sisters of Herschel Grynszpan, a syphilitic degenerate living in Paris, had been
on one of the German transports to Poland. Grynszpan received a postcard from one, of his sisters
on November 3, 1938, which described the situation but did not contain any special complaint.
Grynszpan decided to murder German Ambassador Welezeck in Paris, but instead he fired his
revolver casually at Embassy Counsellor Ernst von Rath after he failed to encounter Welczeek.
This was on the morning of November 7, 1938, and von Rath died forty-eight hours later.
This situation was exploited by Goebbels to increase the severity of German policy toward the
German Jews. Many Jewish synagogues were set on fire by organized S.A. groups on November 10,
1938, and much Jewish business property was ransacked or damaged by the same demonstrators.
Hitler ordered Himmler’s SS to intervene and put an end to the violence. These demonstrations
against the Jews were not pogroms like those in Tsarist Russia because no Jews lost their lives. The
mass of Germans were horrified by the destruction of Jewish property, which was contrary to
their sense of decency and feeling for law and order. Goebbels, however, welcomed the incident as
a turning-point which would lead to the elimination of Jewish influence in Germany. Hugh
Wilson, who was about to be recalled from Germany as part of an American protest, reported on
November 16th that the British diplomats in Berlin were more complacent about the Jewish
question. They noted that German public opinion was not behind the recent anti-Jewish measures,
and they wisely concluded that this type of action would not be repeated. This was the last
report which Wilson sent to Secretary of State Hull before leaving the country (FRUS, 1938, 2,
Hitler was persuaded by Goebbels after the demonstrations to levy a one billion Mark (250
million dollar) fine on the wealthy and moderately wealthy Jews of Germany. Goebbels argued
that otherwise the Jews would be able to pocket vast amounts of money from the German insurance
companies, because the assets damaged or destroyed on November 10, 1938 had been heavily
insured. The poorer Jews, who had less than 5,000 Marks in immediate assets, were exempted.
The German insurance companies were ordered to pay the Jews promptly for all damages suffered
to property on November 10th, and it was permissable for the Jews to use part of this money in
paying the fine over four installments between December 15, 1938 and August 15, 1939. A further
German law was announced on November 9-6, 1938, to eliminate Jewish retail stores by January 1,
1939. At the same time, it was promised that welfare care, pensions, and other state relief
measures on behalf of the Jews would be continued. There were no new developments of
consequence in German policy toward the Jews prior to the outbreak of World War II. At the same
time, it should not be surprising that the events of November, 1938 greatly accelerated the
emigration of Jews from Germany, and, in this sense, the aims of Goebbels were realized (Vide H.
Heiber, “Der Fall Gruenspan”, in Vierteliahrshefte fuer Zeitgeschichte, April, 1957).
It can be stated in summary that German policy toward the Jews prior to World War II consisted
mainly of legislative pressure, and of a few public occasions of violence in which, however, no
Jews were actually killed. No doubt some Jewish lives were lost in German concentration camps
prior to World War II, but certainly there was no deliberate policy of killing Jews as such, and
the proportion of Jews affected was far smaller than that of Germans subjected to similar
The purpose of the German campaign against the Jews was to eliminate the powerful Jewish
economic, political, cultural influence within Germany, and latterly, with increasing emphasis,
to promote the total emigration of the Jewish population from Germany. The purpose of the
organized Jewish counter-measures was to promote a military crusade of neighboring states
against Germany in the hope of securing the total destruction of the German National Socialist
state by means of war. It goes without saying that there were many enlightened Jews who did not
share this objective just as there were moderate forces constantly at work within the German
leadership to secure a more generous policy toward the Jews than Hitler had hitherto employed.
It may be useful at this point to give a few population statistics bearing on the period before the
war and that of wartime. It is estimated that the number of Jews in Germany when Hitler became
Chancellor in January 1933, was approximately 500,000. There were large additions toward the
end of the pre-war period due to the annexation of Austria and the Sudetenland and the
establishment of a protectorate over Bohemia and Moravia. The anti-Jewish attitude, policies
— 7 —
———————– Page 8———————–
and measures had encouraged extensive migration of Jews from these areas controlled by National
Socialist Germany. It is estimated that about 320,000 left Germany between January, 1933, and
September, 1939. Some 480,000 emigrated from Austria, the Sudetenland and Bohemia-Moravia
before the war broke out. There were about 360,000 Jews in areas under German control when war
came in September, 1939, and of these some 65,000 left during the war.
6. The Legend of the Depravity of Hitler and National Socialism
The National Socialist campaign against the Jews ended in total defeat and in death for Hitler
on April 30, 1945. This result was produced by Germany’s involvement in World War II. A
tremendous campaign has been sustained since that date to depict Hitler as the most evil and
wicked man who has ever lived, and to brand forever with shame the German nation which
submitted to his leadership. The exploitation of the circumstances concerning Hitler’s wartime
treatment of -the Jews was and remains the decisive factor in this campaign.
The essence of the charge of unprecedented monstrosity against Hitler is that under his orders
some six million Jews were exterminated in seried gas ovens that had been erected for this purpose
in all the numerous concentration camps that existed before the war in Germany and in those
which were opened later on in territories conquered by the advancing German armies. There has
never been any valid evidence brought forward to support this charge in general, and the six
million figure was purely conjectural from the beginning, having been set forth in the midst of the
war, when any such extent of extermination would have been impossible, if the six million figure
is to be accepted as the total number of Jews exterminated during the whole war period. If six
million Jews had been exterminated by 1943, then by May, 1945, at least ten millions should have
been done away with, provided Hitler and his cohorts could have got their hands on that many
Jews which, of course, they could not have done.
So far as can be discovered to date, the first time this charge of mass extermination of Jews
throughout Europe was advanced against Hitler and his government took place in a book by a
Polish-Jewish jurist, Rafael Lemkin, Axis Rule in Occupied Europe, which appeared in 1943. He
contended that the Nazis had gassed millions of Jews, perhaps as many as six millions. This
precise figure was first confirmed by the New Jewish Frontier early in 1945. Tortured witnesses for
the Nuremberg Trials confirmed this figure when they did not exceed it, although the prosecution
at Nuremberg was willing to settle for around four millions as the number that had been
exterminated. Although totally ignorant of the facts, President Truman stated that six millions
was the correct number and often repeated this figure, thus giving it official status. He cynically
stated that his desire to please the Jews was due to the fact that there were many more Jewish
than Arab voters in the United States.
The six million figure has stuck, mainly due to the fact that the Jews have recognized that it is
difficult enough to sustain any such figure and that to go beyond it would only add the ridiculous
to the unsubstantiated, although the figure has often been casually lifted to seven or eight
millions in the press. The linking of the reparations paid by West Germany to Israel and to
German Jews to the six million figure has provided a strong vested financial interest in
perpetuating this estimate.
Before examining the literature of the. legend of the extermination of six million Jews, it may be
desirable to outline the general situation. There can be no decisive solution of the problem on a
statistical basis for the figures are not available in any finality or decisive fashion. It is not
known precisely bow many Jews were under German control at any time during the war, to say
nothing of what the Germans did with them after they were able to get their hands on them. No
one knows with any certainty how many Jews were in the territory ultimately occupied by the
Germans before the attack on Russia on June 22, 1941, or what happened to them after the attack.
It is uncertain how many fled back into Russia before the German advance. Nor does anybody
know how many Jews were slaughtered by various Slavic peoples before the Germans arrived.
There is plenty of evidence that Slavic peoples other than the Russians were more prone to kill
Jews after war broke out than were the Germans, save for Jews operating among the Russian
partisans. There are no accurate statistics as to how many Jews fled to Russia, to Palestine, to
other European countries, and to the United States during the war. Nor are there any reliable
— 8 —
———————– Page 9———————–
figures as to how many Jews in areas occupied by the Germans survived the war. During the war,
as well as before, the Germans were far more eager to expel Jews than to intern them, if and when
it was possible to arrange emigration. This was not so easy to do in wartime.
Jewish statisticians have done their best to magnify the number of Jews in the future occupied
areas be-fore September, 1939, and June, 1941, and to reduce almost fantastically the number that
remained alive in June, 1945. There is no probability that the needed statistics can ever be
recovered in any satisfactory manner. Both the Jews and the Russians may be counted upon to
suppress such statistics as they possess because of the likelihood that they would, expose the
extent of the fraud involved. Unless the Russians should some time establish unity and rapport
with the Germans they are never likely to release any figures which would lessen the indictment
of the Germans relative to the extermination legend. The best that can be done is to produce the
figures and related considerations which do now prove that it would have been entirely
impossible for the Germans to have exterminated six million Jews, even if they bad decided from
the first to do so, and of any such policy there is no proof whatsoever.
We know that there were about 360,000 Jews under German control in September, 1939, in
Germany, Austria, the Sudetenland and Bohemia-Moravia. There were about 1,100,000 Jews in
that part of Poland occupied by the Germans in 1939-1940. There were approximately 1,150,000
Jews in eastern Poland which was taken over by the Russians in the autumn of 1939. How many of
these escaped into Russia ahead of the German drive after June, 1941, is unknown. There is no
doubt that the Germans took over large numbers of Jews during -their invasion -of Russia, but it is
very likely that at no time during the war did the Germans have control over more than 3,500,000
to 4,000,000 Jews, and many of these could not be withdrawn before the Russians occupied these
areas again. One thing is relatively certain, and that is that the Germans never got their hands
on as many as six million Jews during the war. To have exterminated six millions would have
made it necessary for them to have executed every last Jew that they seized. Not even the
upholders of the extermination legend allege that this was the case, since they portray great
numbers of Jews used in labor operations at all the German concentration camps.
While it was the usual German policy during the war to intern Jews to prevent subversion and.
espionage, to suppress partisan activities, and to secure Jews for the labor force, the German
practice of interning Jews was no such sweeping process as took place with the treatment of the
Japanese by the United States and Canada. After the war, Philip Auerbach, the Jewish
attorney-general of the Bavarian State Office for Restitution, claimed that the Germans
interned no less than eleven million Jews, but in the light of all the even partially reliable
figures it is doubtful if they interned as many as two million, and not all of these were put in
concentration camps. Some were placed in Jewish community centers like that at Theresienstadt,
where they were governed by Jews. Not only such population figures as we possess but also
considerations of logistics make it impossible to credit any such figure as eleven millions, or even
six millions. To have transported, interned, administered, fed and clothed six million Jews would
have paralyzed German military operations on the vast eastern front. It would have been a
terrific task to have gathered, interned and cared for three million Jews.
In the early days of the launching of the extermination legend it was maintained that there were
gas chambers in all of the German concentration camps and that great numbers of Jews were
exterminated in all of them. But after the occupation of West Germany by the Americans, British
and French -there were many honest observers in the occupation forces who visited these camps
and found and reported that no gas chambers existed there. It was then contended that most of the
gas ovens were concentrated at Auschwitz in southern. Poland, which was then under Russian
control. The Russians refused to allow any visitors there for about ten years after the war, by
which time the Russians were able to revamp Auschwitz in such a manner as to give some
plausibility to the claim that large numbers of Jews had been gassed there. It is significant,
however, that no living, authentic eye-witness of the gassing of Jews at Auschwitz has ever been
produced and validated.
It has continued to, be maintained that about half of the entire six million Jews said to have been
gassed by the Germans were gassed at Auschwitz, but even the Jewish statistician, Gerald
Reitlinger, admits that only 363,000 inmates were registered at Auschwitz from January, 1940, to
— 9 —
———————– Page 10———————–
February, 1945, and not all -of these were Jews. The supporters 4 the genocide legend con-tend that
many at Auschwitz were not registered but they have brought no proof of this. Even if one admits
that there were as many who were unregistered as were registered, that would make less than
750,000 altogether. lit would have been very difficult to have gassed about three millions with
only 750,000 to work ,,on, although it has been frequently asserted by dogmatic but uninformed
writers that from four to five million Jews were gassed at Auschwitz. Moreover, many who were
sent to Auschwitz were -shifted elsewhere, especially toward the end of the war when the
Russians were advancing.
Here, again, logistics supplement registration and population data in undermining the
extermination myth. To have brought three million Jews, and a considerable number of Gentiles to
Auschwitz would have placed an insuperable burden upon German transportation facilities
which were strained to the limit in supporting the far-flung eastern military front, especially
after the war began to turn against the Germans. There is no probability that the Germans would
have risked their military fortunes to the extent required to convey three million persons to
Auschwitz and care for them there. Hence, both population figures and logistics combine to
discredit the legend of six million Jews being gassed in all camps under German control, as well as
of about three millions being gassed at Auschwitz.
Joined with all this are the facts which will be developed later on showing that there is no
evidence that the Germans adopted any program of mass extermination of Jews during the war or
that any German National Socialist leader ever gave any order to do so. It has been alleged by
numerous Jewish critics of Hitler, especially Gerald Reitlinger, that early in the war the Nazi
leaders decided on a “final solution” of the Jewish problem and that this solution was the
extermination of all the Jews they could seize. There is no foundation whatever for this charge.
Hitler, Himmler and Goebbels did determine upon a “final solution” of the Jewish problem, so far
as they could control it, but this solution was to encourage or force the Jews to leave all lands that
the National Socialists controlled and to settle elsewhere. Emigration rather than extermination
was the solution proposed by all of these Nazi leaders. Not even the Nuremberg inquisition could
link Göring in any serious manner with the Jewish issue, but there is no doubt that he shared the
program of encouraging -the Jews to leave all territory that Germany controlled or might control.
7. The Nature of some Jewish Memoirs and Reminiscences of Concentration Camp Experiences
during World War II
One may well consider today the feelings of any alert and patriotic German on reading Eugene
Heimler’s Night of the Mist (N.Y., 1960). This highly praised and widely celebrated book
consists of alleged memoirs from the years 1944 and 1945. The hero is a sensitive young Jewish
poet of Hungary who awakens on March 19, 1944, to discover that the Nazis are occupying the
country because of Regent Horthy’s attempt to conclude a military armistice with the Soviet
The arrival of the Nazis is considered by every Jew to be a death warrant. The hero is persuaded
to hide as a patient in a mental hospital. After some time he sneaks out to marry his sweetheart,
Eva. They are rounded up along with other Jews, and on July 4, 1944, they are packed off to
Auschwitz concentration camp in a cattle truck. A German officer promises them excellent
treatment, but one of the captives is allegedly killed by an SS guard during the journey. The hero
testifies that he was twice severely beaten after his arrival. He has not been long at the camp
when he learns that his wife has died of dysentery. He has a passionate love affair with a
gypsy girl, Cara, for several weeks, but one day she is no longer at their hideaway in the camp to
embrace him, and he assumes that she has been killed.
The hero finds himself at Buchenwald by August, 1944, his stay at Auschwitz apparently having
lasted a very brief time. He works in a factory, and later in one of the camp kitchens, where the
SS place him in charge of a group of non-Jewish people, working there. An elderly German Social
Democrat inmate screams that he will not work along with a Jew, but the hero pacifies him by
threatening to beat him. The sound of artillery later reveals the approach of the American
forces, but the SS compel a group of inmates to march with them to Bohemia. There they are
overtaken by the end of the war, and the hero returns to Hungary. He has managed to survive, but
— 10 —
———————– Page 11———————–
he is sickened by the alleged effort of Hitler to annihilate every Jew in German occupied Europe,
although he has never actually seen anyone gassed.
Primo Levi, If This is a Man (N.Y., 1959), recounted his alleged experiences as a frail young
Italian Jew caught in the Nazi vice. Mussolini had established his Italian Social Republic, and
the hero, who has been roaming about the countryside in search of plunder, is captured by Fascist
militia on December 13, 1943. This terminates his career as a volunteer with the Communist
Italian partisans seeking to overthrow Mussolini. He is taken in January, 1944, to the Italian
detention camp at Fossoli near Modena.
German officials arrive at Fossoli on a visit, and they complain that conditions and facilities for
the prisoners are not sufficiently healthy. There is an announcement on February 22, 1944, that a
small group of 650 Jews will be sent to Germany. The hero reaches Auschwitz, where he is
assigned to work in the Buna synthetic rubber factory. Conditions are wretched, and the humdrum
Sunday concerts and football matches are no consolation for him. He receives a camp tattoo nunber
on his arm signifying that he has become merely another cipher. There are constantly rumors
that most of the Jews will end their lives in gas chambers.
Hungarian becomes the second language in his camp area next to Yiddish after the spring of 1944,
because the Nazis have been able to lay hands on so many Hungarian Jews. There are excellent
camp news facilities for the inmates. They learn at once of the Allied landings in Normandy and
of the attempt on Hitler’s life in 1944. Auschwitz is bombarded from the air by Allied planes;
both the attitudes of the guards and the conditions in the camp become progressively worse. At
last the Russians approach Auschwitz. The camp is evacuated on January 18, 1945, but many of
the sick prisoners are left behind. The hero is one of them, and he is freed by the Russians on
January 27, 1945. This is a joyous occasion for him which be celebrates with great enthusiasm.
Levi and Heimler agree that the main purpose of the Nazis has been to liquidate as many Jews as
possible. Another former Auschwitz inmate, Miklos Nyiszli, Auschwitz: a Doctor’s Eye-Witness
Account (N.Y., 1960), has contended that adequate facilities existed there to liquidate the Jews
of all Europe. These men consider themselves extremely fortunate to have avoided contact with
gas chambers and crematoria about which so many dreadful stories have been circulated.
The German reader might wonder what Regent Horthy of Hungary and Premier Mussolini of
Italy thought about the high-handed manner in which Hitler is said to have prompted his loyal
SS to dispose of the fate of Hungarian and Italian subjects. Nicholas Horthy complained in his
Memoirs (N.Y., 1957, pp. 174ff.) that the Jewish minority in Hungary prior to World War II
received no less than 25 per cent of the national income, and that the Jewish problem was a
serious one for Hungarians. He also maintained that, in 1939, Hitler favored a peaceful
accomodation with Poland and that the war was forced upon Germany. Nevertheless, Horthy
did everything possible to protect Hungarian Jews from German interference as long as he was in
control of his country. The same was true of Mussolini, who became more dependent on Hitler after
Otto Skorzeny rescued the Italian leader from prison following his initial overthrow in July,
Luigi Villari, Italian Foreign Policy under Mussolini (N.Y., 1956, pp. 197ff.), has explained that
the Duce also did everything he could until 1945 to prevent German interference with Italian Jews
and to intercede on their behalf when they were transported to Germany. This was true despite
the fact that Mussolini was sincerely, opposed to Jewish influence in Italy. A German observer
would not fail to note the contrast between the mildly critical attitudes and policies of Horthy
and Mussolini toward the Jews and the openly anti-Jewish policy of Hitler.
The sensibilities of Mussolini in the Jewish question were well-known to Heinrich Himmler, the
top German SS leader. He told Mussolini on October 11, 1942, during a visit to Rome, that German
policy toward the Jews had gradually taken on a new aspect during wartime solely for reasons of
military security. Himmler complained that thousands of Jews in the German-occupied
territories were partisans or had conducted sabotage and espionage. Chaim Weizmann, the
Zionist leader of the Jewish agency in London, had declared war on Germany on behalf of all Jews
throughout the world as early as September 5, 1939. It was because of the critical stage of the war
that Himmler now defended the new German policy of transporting Jews in occupied territories to
restricted regions and internment camps.
— 11 —
———————– Page 12———————–
Himmler complained that there had been cases of Jewish women and children working with the
partisans in the USSR, and he admitted that many Jews actually apprehended in partisan
activities in that area had been summarily shot by German military units. Himmler also referred
to captured Soviet Jews engaged in military construction work under conditions in which be
admitted that the death-rate was probably higher than normal. Mussolini firmly reminded
Himmler that the Catholic Church was strongly opposed to any extreme measures against the
Jews, and he intimated that a policy of German excesses might change the attitude of Pope Pius
XII, who favored an Axis victory over the USSR in World War II (Vierteliahrshefte für
Himmler’s references to the resistance of Soviet Jews was intended to justify the tougher German
policy toward the Jews which began with the outbreak of the Russo-German war on June 22, 1941.
A Canadian Jewish journalist, Raymond Arthur Davies, Odyssey through Hell (N.Y., 1946),
stated that the Soviet Red Army should receive the principal credit for saving Jewish lives in
Europe during World War II. Davies extolled the military achievements of Soviet Jews both as
partisans and regulars on both sides of the front. Schachno Epstein, the chief of the Anti-Fascist
Committee of Soviet Jews, told Davies that the Soviet Union, by evacuating Jews and by other
measures, had saved the lives of at least 3,500,000 European Jews. Incidentally, this would have
made it rather difficult for the Nazis to get hold of 6,000,000 to exterminate.
Davies spent most of the war in the Soviet Union, and be was convinced that in no other
belligerent country bad the Jewish role attained comparable significance. He emphasized that
thousands of Soviet war plants were managed by Jews, and that a remarkably large number of
Jews held top positions in the Soviet armed forces and administration. He noted that 250,000
Polish Jews from the German sphere of occupation fled to the USSR in 1939, and they were to be
encountered in every Soviet province. He had received official Soviet information that no less
than 35,000 European Jews were fighting for Tito in the illegal partisan war against Germany. He
surmised that most of Rumania’s Jews bad emerged from the war unscathed because of the impact
on Rumanian policy of Germany’s defeat at Stalingrad. Davies enjoyed contacts with many
American Jews who had emigrated to the USSR in the 1930’s and were playing a prominent part
in the Communist war effort. He also encountered many Jewish Red Army officers who boasted of
killing their regular German army prisoners in gigantic mass executions. Davies entered Berlin
with the Red Army, and he pronounced the wanton destruction and rape of that city equitable
and just. Davies immediately established close contacts with the leaders of the Berlin Jewish
community after the Reich capital fell. One of the prominent members of the Berlin Jewish
community was Hildegard Benjamin, who later, as Communist, Minister of justice in Soviety
Central Germany, compelled the Germans to accept the Soviet, legal system instead of keeping
one of their own.
Davies rejoiced that these thousands of Berlin Jews had also been liberated by the Soviets and
not by the West. He was convinced that Zionism had become superfluous for Jews in the Soviet
environment despite the fact that anti-Jewish feeling persisted at the grass-roots level in many
parts of the USSR.
Ralph Nunberg, The Fighting Jew (N.Y., 1945), offered an equally graphic account of the role of
the Soviet Jews in World War II. Nunberg noted with pride that no less than 313 Soviet front line
generals were Jews. He saw the USSR victorious under the aegis of Karl Marx, another “fighting
Jew” (Ibid., p. 198).
Nunberg admitted -that many Jews from Central Europe, as well as from other parts of the world,
had been victims of the gigantic Soviet purges between 1936 and 1939, but this slaughter was
incidental and ideological and was not part of an openly anti-Jewish policy on the part of Stalin.
The USSR and some of her later satellites were the only countries in the world where anti-Jewish
utterances were a capital offense. But Soviet initiative did lead to the deportation. of
“undesirable” Jews to Germany during the period of the 1939-1941 Russo-German non-aggression
Margarete Buber, Under Two Dictators, (London, 1950), presented the memoirs of a German-
Jewish woman who was sent to the German concentration camp at Ravensbrück in August, 1940,
after spending several years in the brutal and primitive conditions of a Russian concentration
— 12 —
———————– Page 13———————–
camp. She was considered to be too dangerous to be given her freedom in Germany, and she noted
that she was the only Jewish person in her contingent of deportees from Russia who was not
released forthwith by the Gestapo. She found that conditions in Ravensbrück presented a striking
contrast to the filth, disorder, and starvation of her Russian camp.
German concentration camps in August, 1940, were few and far between, and the number of
prisoners was small in contrast to the vast camps of the Soviets. The number of inmates in all
German camps at the outbreak of war in September 1939 has been previously cited at 21,300. Most
of these inmates were the usual types of criminals, and there was only a small percentage of
Jewish people. After one year of war, the total concentration camp population was still less than
40,000 in contrast to the many millions detained in the USSR camps.
The camp the heroine entered at Ravensbrück was immaculately clean with spacious lawns and
flower beds. Regular baths, and a change of linen every week seemed sheer luxury after her
earlier experiences. At a first meal consisting of white bread, sausage, margarine and sweet
porridge with dried fruit, the heroine could not resist asking her neighbor at table if August 3,
1940, was some sort of holiday or special occasion. Her neighbor was quite blank, and the heroine
proceeded to ask if the food was always so good. The neighbor replied in the affirmative, but she
wondered why anyone should be so pleased with it. The heroine did not attempt an explanation.
She also considered her barracks at Ravensbrück a palace compared to her crowded mud hut in
the Soviet camp. Her first Sunday meal of goulash, red cabbage, and potatoes was a veritable
feast. The heroine spent many years at Ravensbrück. The camp was crowded by 1943. Some of the
old cleanliness was lost, and many flowers were trampled down. This was a consequence of the
never-ending war. Prisoners from Auschwitz and other camps poured in toward the end of the
war. The heroine noted that the Auschwitz inmates arrived “half-starved and exhausted” early
in 1945. It should be recalled that tens of thousands of eastern German refugees literally died of
starvation during this same period.
All postal communication between the Ravensbrück inmates and the outside world ceased in
January, 1945, and confusion reigned. At last the end came, the German guards fled, and the
heroine was released. She had witnessed the progressive deterioration of conditions at the camp
over a long period. Corporal punishment for major offenses had been introduced after her arrival,
and since the winter of 1941-1942, she had heard the usual malicious rumors that gas executions
were being practiced in some cases.
Another Ravensbrück Communist political prisoner, Charlotte Bormann, has insisted in Die
Gestapo läßt bitten (The Gestapo Invites You), that the rumors of gas executions were tendentious
inventions deliberately circulated among the prisoners by the Communists. Margarete Buber was
not accepted by this group because of her imprisonment in the USSR. Charlotte Bormann’s
memoirs never found a publisher, and she was not permitted by the prosecution to testify at the
Rastadt trial of the Ravensbrück camp leaders in the French occupation zone. This has been the
usual and typical fate of authors seeking to present the story from the side of those who denied
the extermination legend.
8. The Weissberg Tale
An example of one of the Jewish Communist deportees from the Soviet Union who managed to
escape German confinement throughout the war was Alexander WeissbergCybulski, Hexensabbat
(Frankfurt a.M., 1951; Am. ed., The Accused, N.Y., 1951). He was born in Cracow and retained
Austrian citizenship after 1938. He was a prominent scientific engineer in the second Soviet Five
Year Plan until his arrest during the 1937 purge. Albert Einstein vainly interceded with Stalin on
his behalf in 1938. Weissberg has written the most informative book to date on the gigantic
Soviet purges. After he was deported by the Russians at the end of 1939, Weissberg went quietly
to Cracow where he remained until he was forced to flee from Russian occupation forces in that
city at the end of the war. Weissberg had expected the Germans to send him at once to a
concentration camp, and he had made an eloquent appeal to the Soviet authorities to permit him
to depart directly to Sweden from the USSR. His appeal was rejected.
Weissberg later produced a particularly amazing book, Die Geschichte von Joel Brand (Köln,
1956; Am. ed., Desperate Mission, N.Y., 1958). There had been international interest in the Joel
— 13 —
———————– Page 14———————–
Brand story ever since the London Times carried the news on July 20, 1934, that Brand had come
from Budapest to Istanbul with an offer from the Gestapo to permit the emigration of one million
Jews from Central Europe in the midst of the war. The Gestapo, admitted that this huge
emigration would greatly inconvenience the German war effort because of the demand on
transport facilities involved, but they were willing to undertake the plan in exchange for ten
thousand trucks to, be used exclusively on the eastern front. It goes without saying that the
acceptance of the, plan would have produced a major breach between the Soviet Union and the
Western Allies. Nevertheless, one of the Budapest Jewish leaders, Joel Brand, was in favor of
acceptance. This prompted the British to conclude that Brand was a dangerous Nazi agent. He
was whisked off to Cairo and forthwith imprisoned.
One of the, contentions of Weissberg’s book is that the German Nazis were always pursuing a zig-
zag policy throughout the war between the emigration of the Jews from Europe and their
physical extermination. Weissberg confessed at the start a complete, lack of documentary sources
to prove that Hitler ever intended the physical destruction of all Jews as such, but he
nevertheless uncritically accepted the widely-propagated myth of the liquidation of six million
Jews. He also denied Horthy of, Hungary the role of protector of the, Jews, and he claimed that
Hungary had been under a “terroristic anti-Jewish regime” ever since 1919 (Ibid., p. 9).
The Nazi personalities receiving chief emphasis in the book are Dieter Wisliceny, the, Gestapo
chief in Slovakia, and Adolf Eichmann, after 1934 the chief SS official expert on the Jewish
question in Europe, Wisliceny, after 1945, made a vain effort to save his own life by supporting
the efforts of the prosecution at Nuremberg. Eichmann was far from being as important in the
Nazi hierarchy as his position might suggest. For instance, throughout his whole career
Eichmann never once had a personal interview with Hitler.
The main thesis of the Weissberg book is that Hungarian Jews took the initiative in making
deals with the Germans, that many of their deals were successful, and that, by implication, it
would have been possible to negotiate with the Germans for the evacuation of the entire
European Jewish population during World War II, thus showing that the Hitler regime still
favored emigration as the real solution of the Jewish question. One unfortunate consequence of the
book was to point the finger of suspicion at Rudolph Kastner, the chief leader of the Hungarian
Jews. Weissberg sometimes made him appear to be almost pro-Hitler. Kastner was subsequently
murdered in Israel by a young Jewish terrorist in the midst of the frantic furor accompanying the
1955 Israeli national elections. Excerpts from Weissberg’s findings had appeared in Israeli
periodicals early in 1955.
The turbulent Hungarian situation in 1944-1945, when the valiant Magyar nation was going down
to final defeat before Communism, produced many bizarre situations, but none is more striking
than that of Raoul Wallenberg. This Swedish Jew, who had no, special diplomatic status, was
permitted by Swedish Foreign Minister Guenther to operate from the Swedish legation in
Budapest in a gigantic business venture of selling Swedish passports. It was later alleged without
any foundation that Wallenberg was murdered by the “fascist” followers of Hungarian Premier
Ferenc Szalassi. Wallenberg as a result was virtually canonized for ten years as a selfless hero
who had given his life to protect Hungarian Jews from the German Gestapo and their Hungarian
cohorts. In reality, Wallenberg had made a fortune selling passports to these same “fascists”, and
for this reason he had been arrested and deported by the Soviet occupation authorities. The
Swedish Government was fully informed of this by Alexandra Kollontay in Stockholm, but the
truth did not reach the public until publication of the article by the Jewish writer, Rudolph
Philipp, in the January 14, 1955, copy of the sensational Swedish newspaper, VI.
9. The Case of Adolf Eichmann
The fate of Adolf Eichmann reached truly monumental and sensational proportions with his so-
called capture in Argentina by Israeli agents on May 12, 1960. The Israeli authorities decided to
hold the world in suspense for an entire year before placing the former German official before a
court under conditions in which any reference to a fair trial would be merely ludicrous.
The alleged memoirs of Eichmann were uncritically published in Life, November 28, December 5,
1960, without any attention having been paid to the fact that more than one scandal had been
— 14 —
———————– Page 15———————–
caused by spurious memoirs during recent years. One need only imagine how Gerhard Ritter, the
president of the German Historical Society, felt in 1953 when it was proved that Hitlers
Tischgespraeche (Hitler’s Secret Conversations, N.Y., 1953), which he had edited for
publication in 1952, was utterly fraudulent. Nevertheless, in 1960, a record allegedly derived
from Eichmann’s comments in 1955 to a highly dubious associate were to be accepted as definitive
memoirs. They were designed to prove, of course, that “the unregenerate Nazi” Eichmann was
every inch the fiend that be has been depicted. A disarming attempt to make them seem
authentic was furnished by the touch that Eichmann did not say what his cohort, Hoettl,
claimed at Nuremberg that he had said about the alleged killing of millions of Jews (Time, June
6, 1960, reported Eichmann had said five million Jews; Newsweek, June 6, 1960, claimed he had
said six million).
The number of unlikely touches in the Life account make the performance look about as clumsy as
the typical Communist-forged memoirs. For instance, Weissberg noted that Eichmann had made
his proposal on Jewish emigration to Brand, with the specific authorization of Himmler, on
April 25, 1944, at the Hotel Majestic in Budapest. The Life account has Himmler authorizing the
exchange of Jewish emigrants for war material in 1944 “when Reichsführer Himmler took over as
commander of the reserve army.” But Himmler did not receive his active military command over
the Volkssturm until August 1944, after the July 20, 1944 assassination attempt against Hitler.
The articles in Life actually appear to be little more than a condensation of three sensational and
mutually contradictory books: Minister of Death, the Eichmann Story (N.Y., 1960, by Ephraim
Katz, Zwy Aldouby, and Quentin Reynolds); The Case Against Adolf Eichmann (N.Y., 1960, by
Henry A. Zeiger); Eichmann: the Man and His Crimes (N.Y., 1960, by Comer Clarke). It has never
been alleged that Eichmann participated in the execution of Jews, but it has been claimed that be
knowingly arranged for their deportation to places of execution.
In spite of all the international commotion and the vast barrage of irresponsible print which has
flooded the world on Eichmann since May, 1960, there is not the slightest substantial evidence
that Eichmann ever deliberately ordered even one Jew gassed in a German concentration camp, to
say nothing of having ordered and supervised the extermination of six million Jews. This would
be true even though he gave testimony at his trial that he bad been responsible for the
extermination of more than six million or wrote a book of alleged “true confessions” giving the
same or a larger figure. Any such account by Eichmann would be (1) proof of the extent and effect
of the torture and brainwashing to which be had been subjected by his Jewish captors; (2) the
result of his decision, since he knew he would be executed in any event, to provide a sensational
yarn of his elimination of Jews whom he disliked, even if he had not actually wished to destroy
them, thus caressing his ego; or (3) a product of the fact that his experience bad actually rendered
him mentally unbalanced. Perhaps all three explanations would be intermingled and blended.
The essence of the matter is that, if all the important evidence indicates that there was no
systematic and extensive extermination of Jews by Germany during the war, then no boast of such
massive achievements in extermination can be accepted as having any factual validity. They
would belong in the realm of morbid fantasy rather than sober factual reality.
10. Unconditional Surrender, the Prolongation of the War, and the Effects on Jews Under German
Eichmann was allegedly responsible for the deportation of men like Heimler and Levi. Unlike
the case of Margarete Buber, the alleged concentration camp experiences of Heimler and Levi
began long after the public announcement of unconditional surrender by President Franklin D.
Roosevelt at Casablanca on January 13, 1943. The effect of this pronouncement on the prolongation
of the war and on the promotion of. Communist aims in Europe has been considered by many
experts. The desire in Germany for a compromise peace by the summer of 1942 was by no means
confined to the German opposition to Hitler. Walter Schellenberg, The Schellenberg Memoirs
(London, 1956), reveals that, as early as August, 1942, Heinrich Himmler was willing to envisage
a compromise peace approximately on the basis of Germany’s territorial position on September 1,
1939. Specific peace efforts of Himmler as early as 1942 were later confirmed from official
Swedish sources. Schellenberg was the dominant personality in the SD (SS Security Service)
— 15 —
———————– Page 16———————–
after the assassination of Reinhard Heydrich by British agents in Bohemia in 1942, and he
consistently exerted a moderating influence on Himmler.
The effect of unconditional surrender was certain to mean the prolongation of the war to the bitter
end to the benefit of Soviet Russia. General J.F.C. Fuller, The Second World War (London, 1948,
pp. 258-9), has explained that “Russia would be left the greatest military power in Europe, and,
therefore, would dominate Europe.” Colonel F. C. Miksche, Unconditional Surrender (London,
1952, p. 255), stated that “the unconditional surrender policy, proclaimed by President Roosevelt
in Casablanca and bolstered up by a frivolous propaganda, was heedlessly put into execution.”
George N. Crocker, Roosevelt’s Road to Russia (Chicago, 1959, p. 182), noted that the Germans
fought on with the couragre of despair, and that “Roosevelt’s words hung like a putrefying
albatross around the necks of America and Britain.”
The unconditional surrender pronouncement was no sudden inspiration of President Roosevelt at
Casablanca. Compton Mackenzie, Mr. Roosevelt (N.Y., 1944, p. 251), dated the genesis of the
unconditional surrender plan from the period of President Roosevelt’s ‘fireside chat’ of December
29, 1940, nearly one year before the formal entry of the United States into, World War II.
Alfred Vagts, “Unconditional Surrender — vor und nach 1943” (i.e. before and after 1943)
(Vierteliahrshefte fuer Zeitgeschichte, 1959/3) has explained in considerable detail how World
War II actually became a “crusade” along the lines of unconditional surrender from the moment
the United States formally entered the war. There was virtually no criticism of this policy
before and after Casablanca from those close to the President (William C. Bullitt was a notable
exception). Elliott Roosevelt, As He Saw It (N.Y., 1946, p. 117), declared that unconditional
surrender was as good as if “Uncle Joe” Stalin himself had invented it.
As a matter of fact, however, the idea of unconditional surrender for Germany was not actually of
American origin, despite Roosevelt’s enunciation of the slogan at Casablanca in January, 1943.
The British launched the policy; indeed, it had been basic in the war plans of Lord Halifax long
before September, 1939. It was confirmed when Halifax and the British refused to accept the
Italian plan to stop the German-Polish war early in September, 1939, a plan to which Hitler
assented. The British continued it when they refused Hitler’s offers of peace at the close of the
German-Polish war, and again when they rejected his generous peace offers after Dunkirk. The
British under both Halifax and Chamberlain, and under Churchill were determined that
Germany must be utterly destroyed.
Roosevelt, after some thought, seems to have recognized at least momentarily the folly of this
policy, and on May 23, 1944, sent a note to Churchill and Stalin suggesting that a return be made
to the policy of Woodrow Wilson and an appeal be made to the German people over the heads of
Hitler and his government, offering peace if the National Socialist government would be
overthrown. Churchill rejected it instantly, and on May 24th made a speech in the House of
Commons declaring that Britain would accept nothing short of unconditional surrender. Stalin
also vetoed Roosevelt’s suggestion on May 26th. After that, Roosevelt made no further effort to
alter the crusade for unconditional surrender (Gerhard Ritter, The German Resistance, N.Y., 1958,
p. 274; John L. Snell, Wartime Origins of the East-West Dilemma over Germany, New Orleans,
1959, p. 128).
Many books have been written about the efforts of the German opposition to Hitler in 1942 to
arrive at a satisfactory understanding with the Western Powers in order to win sufficient support
within Germany to establish, by revolutionary action, a new government, and, needless to say, not
an anti-Jewish one. Hans B. Gisevius, To the Bitter End (N.Y., 1948, p.p. 448ff.), and Fabian von
Schlabrendorff, Revolt against Hitler (N.Y., 1948, pp. 117ff.), have emphasized the importance
of a satisfactory German agreement on peace terms with the Western Powers. Allen Dulles,
Germany’s Underground (N.Y., 1947, p.p. 167ff), indicated that the author, as OSS chief
directing American espionage from Switzerland, favored a positive agreement with the German
opposition in 1942, and he was forcefully presenting his views to the American authorities at
home. Gerhard Ritter, Carl Goerdeler und die deutsche Widerstandsbewegung (Stuttgart, 1954;
Am. ed., The German Resistance, N.Y., 1958), revealed that Goerdeler, as the designated head of
the future opposition government, was in despair when he heard of the unconditional surrender
— 16 —
———————– Page 17———————–
There is overwhelming evidence that American authorities had ample reason to believe that the
war might be brought to a sudden close after the North African landings and the Stalingrad
impasse had positive terms for peace been presented to Germany through German opposition
spokesmen in Switzerland. Robert Sherwood, Roosevelt and Hopkins (N.Y., 1948, pp. 650ff.) has
revealed that the primary reason for Roosevelt’s unconditional surrender announcement, when
made in 1943, was to head off a German revolt and an irresistable bid for peace even without
specific terms of encouragement from the Western Powers. At that time, Roosevelt did not appear
to want Germany to escape from final and total defeat in the field, as she had done by means of
the conditional surrender negotiations with President Wilson in 1918.
It is an incredible fact that since the war most writers critical of unconditional surrender have
concentrated almost exclusively on the unfortunate effect of the policy in prolonging the slaughter
by military action and in promoting ultimate Communist control in Europe. This is astonishing,
because, in the total scope of writing on World War II, the subject of the impact of the war on the
European Jews has received more emphasis than any other. Surely one could have expected very
early a detailed study on the implications and effects of unconditional surrender on the fate of
European Jews. It is now alleged on many sides that American Jewish leaders by the summer of
1942 were receiving reports from Europe which persuaded them that Hitler literally meant to
undertake the physical liquidation of all European Jewry. It would be logical, if these stories are
at all true, to expect that the American Jewish leaders would have been seeking to save the
European Jews from such a horrible fate through conclusion of the war as quickly as possible. This
would be the only possible effect means of succor under the alleged circumstances, namely, ending
the war. One would expect American Jewry to have been far more horrified by Roosevelt’s
unconditional surrender pronouncement in January, 1943, than even by Hitler’s appointment as
German Chancellor in January, 1933.
Henry Morgenthau, Jr., “The Refugee Run-Around” in Colliers, Nov. 1, 1947, alleged that the
United States Government knew from August, 1942, that Jews were being killed wholesale. Yet
Morgenthau and his Communist assistant, Harry Dexter White, were ardent supporters of
unconditional surrender both before and after Casablanca, and they were the American supporters
of the Russian-born plan to convert Germany into a goat pasture. This plan was adopted by
Roosevelt and Churchill at the Quebec conference in 1944, and it was soon learned by Hitler and
the remaining German opposition leaders alike.
There were plenty of prominent American Jewish leaders who might have prompted President
Roosevelt to follow the advice of Allen Dulles and to end the war, but they failed to do so.
Margaret L. Coit, Mr. Baruch (Boston, 1957, pp. 468ff.) has proved that Bernard Baruch had more
influence on President Roosevelt than did William C. Bullitt, who opposed unconditional
surrender, although Bullitt had worked hard for President Roosevelt in promoting the outbreak
of war in Europe in 1939. Baruch, like Morgenthan and other Jewish advisers of the President,
was a fervid supporter of unconditional surrender in 1942, although this policy was calculated in
any event to produce the greatest possible loss of Jewish lives.
One can only hope that an honest and well-informed Jewish writer will soon undertake a
detailed explanation of this phenomenon, which would be utterly monstrous and
incomprehensible if the reports of liquidations of the Jews in 1942 had been true. Furthermore, the
internment policy persued by the German Government after March, 1942, spelled enormous
suffering for many Jews in the context of Roosevelt’s unconditional surrender policy, quite apart
from any alleged German policy of deliberately exterminating all Jews.
The enthusiastic description by Isaac Zaar, Rescue and Liberation: America’s Part in the Birth of
Israel (N.Y., 1954, pp. 39ff.) of the big New York City Jewish rally on March 9, 1943, is sadly
ironical under these circumstances. Ben Hecht presented his tragic Jewish pageant, We Will
Never Die with a Kurt Weill musical score, Billy Rose producing, and Moss Hart directing. Only
a few weeks earlier, the public declaration of unconditional surrender by the American President
had guaranteed prolonged and unnecessary suffering to millions of European Jews as well as to
several hundred million other Europeans.
Cyrus Adler and Aaron Margalith, With Firmness in the Right: American Diplomatic Action
Affecting Jews, 1840-1945 (N.Y., 1946, pp. 418ff.), have claimed that President Roosevelt took an
— 17 —
———————– Page 18———————–
allegedly proper step on August 21, 1942, when he warned that retribution would follow any and
all deliberate excesses against Jews. The accent here was clearly on revenge rather than
immediate succor for the European Jews. An unlimited American jurisdiction in Germany after the
war tantamount to “unconditional surrender” was clearly implied in the assumption that the
United States would be in a position to secure retribution in any and every case where excesses
had taken place. One can well doubt the value of this threat, repeated on December 17, 1942, in
the context of the official unconditional surrender policy adopted the following year.
The “Emergency Conference to Save the Jews of Europe” was organized in April, 1943. The only
person connected with it who opposed unconditional surrender was Herbert Hoover, and he was
merely an honorary chairman. The solution envisaged was along the lines later taken by Joel
Brand for the emigration of the Jews from Europe while war operations continued. This was, to
put it mildly, an utopian and unsatisfactory policy compared to encouraging a speedy end of the
war. This is especially true when one considers the disinclination of this group actually to
negotiate with the Germans. The comprehensive German offer presented by Adolf Eicibmann at
Lisbon in 1940 and again from Berlin in 1941 for the emigration of the European Jews had produced
no result, and any widespread emigration of European Jews virtually ceased after the outbreak of
war between Germany and the USSR in June 1941.
The British prohibited the landing of the S.S. Struma in Palestine in March 1942, with its 769
passengers from Europe, and shortly afterward the ship sank with only one life saved. Even
worse was the earlier case of the French liner, Patria, which was burned and sunk by British
warships before Haifa on November 25, 1940, with a loss of 2,875 Jewish lives. Anthony Eden
summarized British objections to the evacuation of European Jews during wartime at a conference
in Washington, D.C. on March 27, 1943 (Adler and Margalith, Ibid., p. 396; Sherwood, Ibid., p.
The Emergency Conference suggested in addition to emigration a policy of bombing the
concentration camps. The motive was not to be the one usually followed of seeking to reduce the
industrial production connected with the camps, but rather that of demolishing the camps in
their entirety. This was based on the naive assumption that the inmates would not be killed but
would be enabled to escape. It is truly inconceivable that any large numbers of inmates would
have escaped permanently. Increased loss of lives through the bombings and the destruction of
facilities to provide for the prisoners would be unavoidable. The bombing campaign actually
conducted in 1945, with its attendant slaughter and privations, undoubtedly produced the worst
conditions experienced in German concentration camps (Zaar, Ibid., p. 60).
Further efforts, within the hopeless context of unconditional surrender, except for the effective
distribution of supplies to the inmates in the camps through the International Committee of the
Red Cross, were equally feeble. President Roosevelt joined Secretary Morgenthau in sponsoring a
special War Refugee Board on January 22, 1.944. A tiny band of some 984 European Jews had been
transported under its auspices to a special refugee camp at Oswego, N.Y. by July, 1944. The
occupation of Hungary by Germany in March 1944, which probably would not have taken place
bad it not been for unconditional surrender, led to the formation of the New York Conference of
Hungarian Jews on April 2, 1944. The group urged Stalin to accelerate his military operations
against the Hungarians as the decisive means of aiding the Hungarian Jews. This was the best
help they could offer Hungarian Jewry (Zaar, Ibid., pp. 78-1141).
11. Leon Poliakov and the Wisliceny Story
The genocide legend was propagated with increased zeal after the brutal unconditional surrender
pronouncement. Numerous statements were extracted from a few of the German defendants in
Allied custody after World War 11 to document the charge that there was a gradual drift into a
policy of exterminating the Jews of Europe after the outbreak of war between Germany and the
USSR in June. 1941. ‘Many of these so-called key statements appear in Léon Poliakov and Josef
Wulf, Das Dritte Reich und die Juden: Dokumente und Aufsätze (The Third Reich and the Reich:
Documents and Articles, Berlin, 1955). Poliakov is the director of the Centre de Documentation
Juive Contemporaine in Paris, which was launched by Isaac Schneersobn in 1943 during the
German occupation. The Centre was presented with the files of the German Embassy in Paris by
— 18 —
———————– Page 19———————–
Provisional French President Charles de Gaulle in 1944. Its collection of materials on German
policy toward the Jews, 1933-1945, is more extensive than any other, including the Haifa
Document Office for Nazi Crimes and Dr. Albert Wiener’s similar Library in London.
The most celebrated of all key “documents” is the statement of Dieter Wisliceny obtained at the
Communist-controlled Bratislava prison on November 18, 1946. Wisliceny, who had been a
journalist before engaging in police work, was an assistant of Adolf Eichmann in the Jewish
Division of the Chief Reich Security Office prior to receiving his assignment in Slovakia.
Wisliceny was a nervous wreck and addicted to uncontrollable fits of sobbing for hours on end
during the period of his arrest prior to his execution.
The Wisliceny statement begins convincingly enough. It indicates that Reich SS Leader Heinrich
Himmler was an enthusiastic advocate of Jewish emigration. More than 100,000 Jews had been
persuaded to leave Austria between March, 1938, and January, 1939. This figure eventually
reached 220,000 of the total 280,000 Austrian Jews. A special Institute for Jewish emigration in
Prague had produced remarkable results in the period after March, 1939, and secured an eventual
emigration of 260,000.
The above points are indisputable, but the comment follows, allegedly from Wisliceny, that more
than three million Jews were added to the German sphere by the war in Poland in 1939. This
would be a major factual error for any expert on European Jewry. There were more than 1,130,000
Jews in the section of Poland occupied by Russia, whereas the figure of more than three million
Jews could scarcely apply even to the total territory of Poland before the war. An estimated
500,000 Jews had emigrated from Poland prior to the war. The 1931 Polish census had established
the number of Jews in Poland at 2,732,600 (Reitlinger, Die Endlösung, Berlin, 1956, p. 36). An
additional minimum of 250,000 Jews had fled from Western Poland to the Soviet occupation
sphere in 1939. If one subtracts 1,880,000 from 2,732,600 and allows for the normal Jewish
population increase, the Polish Jews under German rule at the end of 1939 could scarcely have
exceeded 1,100,000 (Gutachten des Instituts für Zeitgeschichte, Munich, 1958, p. 80).
The Wisliceny statement emphasizes that the emigration of Jews from German occupied
territories continued after the outbreak of war. The emigration of Danzig Jews by way of Rumania
and Turkey in September, 1940, is cited as a typical instance. Himmler and Eichmann had taken
over the idea of a Madagascar haven for the Jews from the Poles. The latter had sent the Michal
Lepecki expedition — accompanied by Jewish spokesmen — to Madagascar in 1937, and Theodor
Herzl, the founder of Zionism, had also considered Madagascar as a good possible basis for the
future Jewish state. Madagascar meant the “final solution” of the Jewish question to Himmler
and Eichmann. The Madagascar plan was still under discussion many months after the outbreak
of war with the USSR.
The statement of Wisliceny goes on to state that until June 1941, the conditions of Jewish life in
Germany, including Austria, and in the Bohemia-Moravia protectorate, were no worse than
before the war. The Jews in Poland had returned to their customary and traditional ghetto life,
but war plants were being located in the ghettos to provide adequate employment.
12. The Outbreak of the War with Russia June 22, 1941, and the Einsatzgruppen
Two important developments allegedly followed the outbreak of war with Russia. In July, 1941,
Hitler gave the order to execute the political commissars captured with Soviet units (there had
been 34,000 of these political agents with special powers assigned to the Red Army as early as
1939). According to the so-called Wisliceny statement, the special action units (Einsatzgruppen)
assigned both to this task and to crushing partisans were soon receiving orders to extend their
activities in a “general massacre” of Soviet Jews. In March, 1942, came the decision to concentrate
all European Jews in the Polish Government-General or in concentration camps, and this was to be
the prelude to the liquidation of European Jewry (Poliakov and Wulf, Ibid., pp. 87ff.)
The action of the Einsatzgruppen played a large role in the case presented by Soviet Prosecutor
Rudenko at Nuremberg in the major trial and also at the three later trials of SS leaders. The 1947
indictment of the four Einsatzgruppen, which were organized in May, 1941, on the eve of the
German preventive war against the USSR, was prepared with Soviet assistance by the American
prosecutor, Telford Taylor. He charged that these four groups of security troops assigned to fight
— 19 —
———————– Page 20———————–
partisans and commissars had killed not less than a million Jewish civilians in Western Russia
and the Ukraine merely because they were Jews. There were no reliable statistics to support this
claim, but Otto Ohlendorf, the chief of Einsatzgruppen D in the South, had been “persuaded” on
November 5, 1945 to sign a statement to the effect that 90,000 Jews had been killed under his
Ohlendorf did not come on trial until 1948, long after the main Nuremberg trial, and by that time
he was insisting that his earlier statement had been extorted from him by torture. In his
principal speech before the 1948 tribunal, Ohlendorf denounced Philip Auerbach, the Jewish
attorney-general of the Bavarian State Office for Restitution, who had recently stated that he
was seeking compensation for his “eleven million Jews” who had suffered in concentration camps.
Ohlendorf scornfully stated that “not the minutest part” of the people for whom Auerbach was
seeking compensation had even seen a concentration camp. Ohlendorf lived to see Auerbach
convicted of embezzlement and fraud before his own execution finally took place in 1951.
Ohlendorf explained to the tribunal that his formations often had to take energetic action to
prevent massacres of Jews organized by local people in Russia behind the German front. He denied
that all the Einsatzgruppen ever employed in the war on the eastern front inflicted one quarter of
the casualties claimed by the prosecution, and he insisted that the illegal partisan warfare in
the USSR had taken a much higher toll of lives — the Soviets boasted of 500,000 — from the
regular German army. Ohlendorf wrote a bitter appeal shortly before his execution in 1951, and
he charged that the Western Allies were hypocritical in holding Germany to account by
conventional laws of warfare while engaged with a savage Soviet opponent which did not
respect those laws.
The later careful account by the brilliant English jurist, R. T. Paget, Manstein, his Campaigns and
his Trial (London, 1951) Ohlendorf was under Manstein’s command — concluded that the
prosecution, in accepting Soviet figures, exaggerated the number of casualties inflicted by the
Einsatzgruppen by more than 1000 per cent and that they distorted much further the situations in
which these casualties were generally inflicted. It has nevertheless become the popular legend
that the physical liquidation of the Jews in Europe began with the action of the Einsatzgruppen
against their Soviet enemies in 1941.
Poliakov and Wulf also cited a statement by a former collaborator of Eichmann, Dr. Wilhelm
Hoettl, to the effect that Eichmann said in December, 1944, that no less than two million Jews
had been killed by the Einsatzgruppen in the period 1941-1942. This statement was not given
weight even by the American tribunal which tried and condemned Ohlendorf. It should be noted
that Soviet East Galicia was supposed to be included in the area affected, but some 434,329 East
Galician Jews were transported westward by the Germans in the period shortly before July 1, 1943
(Gutachten des Instituts fuer Zeitgeschichte, 1958, p. 231). This gives some idea of the
“thoroughness” of this alleged total massacre of Soviet Jews in 1941-1942. Hoettl had been
employed as an American spy during the latter phase of the war, and he could be expected to say
whatever his interrogators asked of him without the usual third degree tortures and cruel
pressures. The figures of Hoettl even went beyond the wildest estimates of Soviet Prosecutor
There has been no recent claim by any serious writer that a policy to exterminate European Jews
was in effect prior to war with Russia on June 22, 1941. (Earlier books, such as Gerald Abrahams,
Retribution, N.Y., 1941; and J. Ben-Jacob, The fewish Struggle, N.Y., 1942, did make such claims.)
Leon Poliakov, Harvest of Hate: the Nazi Program for the Destruction of the Jews of Europe
(N.Y., 1954, pp. 108ff.) admits that no document confirming an extermination policy before that
date has been discovered. He puts it this way: “The three or four people chiefly involved in the
actual drawing up of the plan for total extermination are dead and no documents have survived;
perhaps none ever existed.” The implications of this statement are clear. The vague reference of
“three or four people” indicates that the alleged plan is actually a nebulous assumption on the
part of the writer.
In the absence of evidence Poliakov assumed that a plan to exterminate the Jews must have
originated between June, 1940, and June, 1941. He added, quite Unnecessarily, that extermination
was never part of the original National Socialist plans for dealing with the Jews. He claimed
— 20 —
———————– Page 21———————–
that the decision of extermination was made when it became evident that Germany was involved
in a long war of doubtful outcome. His assumption is that Hitler was determined to avenge the
slaughter of Germans with a massacre of Jews. The same writer claimed, however, that Hitler
abandoned the extermination program in October 1944, for fear of retribution in case Germany lost
Poliakov noted that Eichmann was busy with the Madagascar project for Jewish settlement
abroad throughout 1941, but the German Foreign Office was informed in February 1942,that this
plan had been abandoned at least temporarily. Poliakov argued that the Germans were
necessarily thinking of extermination when they shelved their overseas emigration plan. He
recognized as a corollary that he also must show that they were not pursuing a plan for the
settlement of the Jews in Eastern Europe instead of overseas.
According to Poliakov, there were three clear stages of a general extermination policy. Phase one,
beginning in June, 1941, and directed exclusively against Soviet Jews, has been dealt with. Phase
two, beginning in March, 1942, constituted the first actions to bring together many of the Jews of
German-occupied Europe and place them either in Poland or in concentration camps. Phase three,
beginning in October 1942, was the action to concentrate most Jews, including those of Poland, in
camps. The final phase of general internment is supposed to imply the permanent denial of a
Jewish haven either in Eastern Europe or overseas.
Poliakov represented the liquidation of Jews in concentration camps as proceeding throughout
phase two as well as three. He accepted the previously cited statement of Dieter Wisliceny from
the documentary collection to the effect that the plan to exterminate European Jewry was
abandoned by Himmler in October 1944. Poliakov claimed that Göring was involved in the
extermination program, although Charles Bewley, Hermann Göring (Göttingen, 1956) has
pointed out that no evidence was found at Nuremberg to substantiate this charge.
13. The Mythical Conference of Jan. 20, 1942
While Soviet Jews were allegedly being shot at random wherever they could be found-a charge
which has been exposed as untrue-an important conference is supposed to have taken place in
Berlin, Am Grossen Wanssee Nr. 5658, on January 20, 1942. Reinhard Heydrich allegedly
presided -at this conference and is alleged to have said that he was commissioned by Göring to
discuss plans for eliminating the Jews of Europe (Das Dritten Reich und die Juden, pp. 120ff.).
Hans Frank is given credit for having provided information about this conference for the
prosecution, but he makes no mention of this in his memoirs, Im Angesicht des Galgens (In the
Shadow of the Gallows, Munich, 1953). Furthermore, it is a painful fact that Frank was never
given the opportunity to explain or confirm each and every excerpt allegedly taken from his
forty-two volume personal file as Governor-General in Poland. No-one has ever been found to
substantiate the alleged information about this conference, although Interior State-Secretary
Wilhelm Stuckart, who has wrongly been given credit as “the principal author of the 1935
Nuremberg laws (Adenauer’s aide Hans Globke was the actual author), and Under-State-
Secretary Hans Luther of the German Foreign Office were listed as present.
Heydrich supposedly said that emigration of Jews from Europe was futile because not more than
537,000 had departed since 1933. This ridiculously low figure, is Contradicted at every turn by
official German statistics. The figure of 537,000 would scarcely exceed the emigration of Jews from
Poland alone, during the period. Heydrich is also supposed to have, said that there were eleven
million Jews in Europe, and that 95 per cent of those were in the German area of occupation.
Actually, more than one-half of the European Jews are indicated in the same statement as being
in the 1941 territory of the USSR and more than one million are listed for Vichy France and
England. The absurdity of those figures is obvious. Yet the alleged protocol indicates that they
were accepted without contradiction by the learned and well-informed gentlemen at the
The next step in Heydrich’s supposed plan for the elimination of the Jews would be to concentrate
them in key areas, and hence this alleged conference of January 1942, is regarded as a signal for
the second phase in the liquidation of the Jews. Shortly afterward, the Germans proceeded to
move some of the Warsaw Jews into the Lublin area, and 310,322 of them had been sent out by the
— 21 —
———————– Page 22———————–
end of the summer of 1942. The first deportations of any Jews from Germany are specified by
Poliakov for October, 1941, and these proceeded the more general action in the occupied countries.
Sven Hedin, Ohne Auftrag in Berlin (In Berlin without Assignment, Buenos Aires, 1949, pp.
141ff.) discussed the sending of 1200 Jews from Stettin with Heinrich Himmler as early as March,
1940. Hedin was in Germany from Sweden in connection with a private effort to secure German
mediation in the Russo-Finnish war of 1939-1940. He was in possession of a Swedish journalist’s
report asserting that brutal conditions had prevailed among the Jews from Stettin, but Himmler
denied this and he declared that only one old woman had died on the trip. This would mark an
obvious exception to Poliakov’s assumption that no Jews from Germany were being transported
before October 1941.
14. The Role of Rudolf Höss in the Administration of Wartime Concentration Camps, and the
Nature of the Höss Memoirs
The concept of the death camp as a means of liquidating Jews returns us to Auschwitz. Poliakov’s
Harvest of Hate placed great stress on Polish lanquage memoirs, Wspomnienia, by Rudolf Höss,
which were later published in English as Commandant of Auschwitz (Cleveland, 1960). Höss was
the commander of what is supposed to have been the greatest death camp in world history.
The fact that these memoirs were published under Communist auspices makes it utterly
impossible to, accept their authenticity without decisive reservations. Furthermore, the
statements made by Höss both to British security officers at Flensburg under third-degree
conditions and under torture at Nuremberg makes it very difficult to believe that anything
attributed to Höss after his capture in 1946 bears much relation to actual facts. Even Gerald
Reitlinger, who grasps at every straw to document the extermination program, rejects the
Nuremberg trial testimony of Höss as hopelessly untrustworthy.
The purpose in examining the Höss material here is to decide to what extent, if any, a plausible
narrative has been presented under Communist auspices. The atrocity photographs in the
English-language edition are “supposed” to have been taken, by an “unknown SS man” who
received “special permission.” They were allegedly found by a Jewish woman in the Sudetenland
and sold to the Jewish museum in Prague. There is nothing whatever about these photographs to
render plausible their authenticity. They are undoubtedly akin to the pictures of the piles of
corpses alleged to have been civilians slain by the Germans during their eastern campaigns during
the First World War but were later proved to be Jews and others killed in pogroms carried out by
the Russians under the Tsar, years before 1914.
The introduction to the American edition of Höss’s memoirs was written by the Germanophobe
Lord (Edward F.) Russell of Liverpool. He is the author of The Scourge of the Swastika (N.Y.,
1954) which contains a brief survey of the atrocity evidence presented at Nuremberg. The survey
ends with obsolete claims about Dachau as a death camp. These claims about Dachau had been
repudiated and disproved years before, by Cardinal Faulliaber of Munich.
Russell, after mentioning the fact, in introducing Höss, that there were very few camps and
prisoners in Germany at the outbreak of World War II, claimed that not less than five million
Jews died in German concentration camps during the war. He discussed other estimates, and, after
satisfying himself that he was between those who claim six million and those who claim four
million, concluded: “The real number, however, will never be known”. One can only add that he
had no right to claim “not less than five million”. One might have expected that there would be
more interest than there apparently has been in persuading, even at this late date, such countries
as the United States, Great Britain, the USSR, and the Communist satellites to count and report
their Jewish populations.
The site at Auschwitz was allegedly selected for a concentration camp in 1940, in addition to the
availability of good transportation facilities, because it was a fearfully
unhealthy place. This is totally untrue. The Neue Brockhaus for 1938 indicated a population of
12,000 in the town of Auschwitz including 3,000 Jews. Although the place was not a popular
health resort, it did enjoy a reputation for a healthy and bracing Upper Silesian climate.
Höss began the story of his life in convincing fashion with his account of a happy boyhood in the
German Rhineland. His first disturbing experience was a violation of confessional by a Catholic
— 22 —
———————– Page 23———————–
priest who informed on him to his father for a minor dereliction. Höss succeeded in joining the
German army at an early age in 1916. He was sent to Turkey and served at the fronts in Iraq and
1?alestine. At the age of seventeen he was an NCO with extensive combat experience and the iron
cross. He had his first love affair with a German nurse at the Wilhelma hospital in Palestine.
The end of the war found him in Damascus. Three months of independent traveling at the head of
a group of comrades brought him home and thus enabled him to escape the fate of internment.
Höss was unable to adjust to the post-war life at home with his relatives, and he joined the
Rossbach Freikorps for service in the East. Höss was arrested on June 28, 1923, for participating in
the murder of a Communist spy. He was sentenced to ten year’s in prison on March 15, 1924, and
was amnestied on July 14, 1928. Although he had a brief period of mental breakdown while in
solitary confinement, Höss emerged with the record of a model prisoner.
Höss spent ten exciting days in Berlin with friends after his release before turning to farming. He
believed that National Socialism would best serve the interests of Germany, and he had become
Party Member no. 3240 at Munich as early as November, 1922. He joined the Artamanen farming
fraternity, to which Himmler also belonged, in 1928. He married in 1929 and was persuaded by
Himmler to join the SS. In 1934 he agreed to serve at the Dachau concentration camp.
At first, Höss was bewildered by the philosophy of hostile reserve toward the prisoners at
Dachau, which was indoctrinated into the SS guards by a local commandant, later replaced. Höss
himself had been a prisoner, and be tended to see all questions from the inmate’s viewpoint.
Nevertheless, he believed that the concentration camps were a necessary transitional phase in
the consolidation of National Socialism, and he was greatly attracted to the black SS uniform as
a symbol of quality and prestige. After a few years he was transferred to Sachsenhausen, where
the atmosphere, was more favorable.
The outbreak of war in 1939 brought a new phase of experience to the SS men on concentration
camp service. The enemies of Germany had sworn to annihilate the National Socialist Reich. It
was a question of existence, and not merely of the fate of a few provinces. The SS were supposed to
hold the ramparts of order until the return of peace and the formulation of a new code of laws. A
high-ranking SS officer, whose laxity had made possible the escape of an important Communist
prisoner, was executed by his comrades on direct orders from Himmler. This brought home the
seriousness of the situation to all of the SS men at Sachsenhausen. Some of the prisoners were
amnestied in 1939 when they agreed to serve in the German armed forces.
An untoward incident occurred in 1939 when some Cracow University professors were brought to
Sachsenhausen, but they were released a few weeks later through intervention by Göring. Höss
had extensive contacts at Sachsenhausen with Pastor Martin Niemoeller, a much-respected
opponent of National Socialism.
Höss went to Auschwitz with high hopes early in 1940. There was no camp there as yet, but he
hoped to organize a useful one which would make an important contribution to the German
industrial war effort. He had always been idealistic and sensitive about prison conditions, and
he hoped to establish housing and supply conditions for the prospective inmates which would be
as normal as possible for wartime. Höss ran into all the irritating obstacles of red tape and
shortage of supplies in his early work of organizing the camp, and he bitterly criticized the
inadequate qualifications of many of his colleagues.
Polish prisoners constituted the largest single group in the camp during the first two years,
although many inmates were also brought to Auschwitz from Germany. Russian contingents began
to arrive late in 1941 in poor condition after long marches. From mid-1942 the Jews constituted the
main element in the camp. Höss recalled that the small groups of Jews at Dachau had done very
well with their canteen privileges in the early days of the system. There had been virtually no
Jews at Sachsenhausen.
It is at this very point that the hitherto highly plausible Höss narrative becomes highly
questionable. The manner in which the alleged deliberate extermination of the Jews is described
is most astonishing. A special large detachment of Jewish prisoners was allegedly formed. These
men and women were to take charge of the contingents, either newly arrived or from within the
camp area, who had been selected for destruction. The role of the SS was to be limited to the most
— 23 —
———————– Page 24———————–
general supervision and to the release of the Zyklon-B gas pellets through the shower fixtures of
the supposed extermination sheds.
The actual taking of the clothes and the leading of the Jews into the pre-extermination sheds was
to be done by this special group of Jews. Later they were to dispose of the bodies. If the “doomed”
Jews resisted, they were beaten or forced to comply in other ways by the “privileged” Jews.
Allegedly, the latter did their work so thoroughly that it was never necessary for the SS guards
to intervene. Hence most of the SS personnel at the camp could be left in complete ignorance of the
extermination action. Of course, no Jew would ever be found to claim to be a member of this
infamous “special detachment.” Höss was released from his post at Auschwitz at the end of 1943,
and he became a chief inspector of the entire concentration camp system. He supposedly concealed
his earlier activities from his SS colleagues.
It should be pointed out that no Auschwitz inmate has ever personally claimed to have witnessed
the actual operation of these so-called “gas chambers.” The explanation has been that those who
were victims did not survive, and those who were accomplices had good motives not to admit
The Communist editors of the Höss memoirs obviously did everything in their power to make the
account plausible. Much effort was made to show that the individual in the SS counted for
nothing, orders for everything. The evident timidity of Höss in voicing his criticism of the
hostile rather than friendly attitude of the SS leadership toward the Dachau prisoners in the
early years was exploited to lend credence to the supposition that be would have been willing to
accept any excesses, including the massacre of huge numbers, even millions, of captive Jews. The
same account depicts Höss as a highly sensitive and gifted man living a normal family life with
his wife and children throughout his period at Auschwitz.
Höss is supposed to have said that the Jehovah’s Witnesses at Auschwitz favored death for all
Jews because Jews were the enemies of Christ. This was a staggering slip on the part of the
Communist editors. It must be remembered that a bitter struggle against the Jehovah’s Witnesses
is waged today by the Communists throughout all Satellite countries, and especially in the
Soviet zone of Germany. One cannot escape the conclusion that this special defamation of the
Jehovah’s Witnesses was introduced by the Communist editors.
It is, hence, impossible to avoid the conclusion that these so-called memoirs of Höss have been
subjected to an editorial supervision by Communists and others sufficiently extensive to destroy
their validity as an historical document. They have no more validity than the alleged Memoirs
of Eichmann. The claim that there is a hand-written original of these supervised memoirs can
scarcely be regarded as relevant. The Communists are notoriously successful in obtaining
“confessions,” and they possessed an amplitude of techniques which could be used to persuade
Höss to copy whatever was placed before him. The evidence of hand-writing in this case is no
more convincing than the famous after-the-event gas chamber film of Joseph Zigman, “The Mill
of Dealth,” used at the Nuremberg Trial. The so-called Höss memoirs end with the irrelevant
statement that the Nuremberg documents had convinced the defendant that Germany was
exclusively to blame for World War II.
It is important to note that Hermann Göring, who was exposed to the full brunt of the Nuremberg
atrocity propaganda, failed to be convinced by it. Hans Fritzsche, The Sword in the Scales
(London, 1953, p. 145) related that Göring, even after hearing the early Ohlendorf testimony on
the Einsatzgruppen and the Höss testimony on Auschwitz, remained firmly convinced that the
mass extermination of Jews by firing squad and gas chamber was entirely propaganda fiction.
Fritzsche pondered this question, and he concluded that there had certainly been no thorough
investigation of these monstrous charges. Fritzsche, who was acquitted at the trial, was a skilled
propagandist. He recognized that the alleged massacre of the Jews was the main point in the
indictment against all defendants. Ernst Kaltenbrunner, the SID (SS Security Service) chief, was
on trial as main defendant for the SS because of the suicide of Himmler, just as Fritzsche was
representing Goebbels for the same reason. Kaltenbrunner was no more convinced of the genocide
charges than was Göring, and he confided to Fritzsche that the prosecution was scoring apparent
successes because of their effective technique in coercing the witnesses and suppressing evidence. It
— 24 —
———————– Page 25———————–
was easier to seize a German and force him to make an incriminating confession by unmentionable
tortures than to investigate the circumstances of an actual case.
15. The Actual Character of the SS and their Role in the Genocide Mirage
The Communist-edited Höss memoirs raise the basic question of the nature of the SS and its
personnel. This is of decisive importance because of the dominant role of the SS in the
administration of the concentration camps. Books denouncing the SS since 1945 are legion, but
undoubtedly the two most comprehensive attacks are the narrative account by Gerald Reitlinger,
The SS: Alibi of a Nation (London, 1956), and the documentary collection by Reimund Schnabel,
Macht ohne Moral: eine Dokumentation über die SS (Power without Morality: a Documentation of
the SS, Frankfurt a.M., 1957). Both Schnabel and Reitlinger trace the growth of the SS
organization from its early birth within the National Socialist Party. Even in 1929, when
Himmler was placed in command, there were, only 280 members.
The SS was designed to be the most loyal and single-minded security organization protecting the
Hitler movement. Schnabel cited Himmler as saying at Goslar in 1935 that not many in Germany
would like the SS and that some would become actually sick when they saw the SS uniform.
Reitlinger placed special emphasis on major dramatic events such as the uprising of the Warsaw
ghetto in April, 1943, and its suppression the following month by the SS and Polish auxiliary
units. Both men seek to present the SS leadership as made up of dull, pedantic men without
scruples, and the mass of the SS men as over-trained robots with an infinite capacity to
rationalize deeds of horror.
There is, of course, another side to the SS story which it is necessary to consider in order to obtain
the full picture. The SS troops resented the charge that they had been transformed and
dehumanized. They were particularly indignant at the charge directed against them after the
war that they had been criminal members of a criminal organization. Thousands of affidavits by
former SS men testifying to the morality and worth of their organization have been preserved in
the unpublished records of the Nuremberg trials.
The SS men were quick to point out that their social status and educational background were
above average. They recalled that no criminal elements or men with criminal records were
allowed in the organization. They considered themselves primarily loyal servants of the state
and of peace and order rather than fanatical ideologues.
More than 5/6th of the SS membership had not been connected with the National Socialist Party
prior to 1933. Only 20 per cent of the SS who served in all capacities during the war had
volunteered for service prior to the outbreak of war. A decided majority of SS members
participated actively in either the Catholic or Evangelical churches.
The SS men argued that their indoctrination on the Jewish question was customarily
sophisticated and at a high level and it was most certainly not calculated either to instill
hatred or a desire to exterminate the Jews. Indeed, the SS men considered it part of their office to
protect Jews and their property as they had done in putting an end to the anti-Jewish
demonstrations in German cities in November 1938. Some 99 per cent of the SS men declared that
they had first heard rumors of the alleged atrocities against the Jews after the war was over,
and they had no idea of so-called planned war crimes.
It was part of their teaching that brutality was considered unworthy of an SS man. All of them
knew of atrocities against the Germans in Russia and Yugoslavia during the war, and of serious
American mistreatment of the SS captives at the gigantic Fürstenfeldbruck camp after May, 1945.
It was the understanding of the SS that foreign workers in the Reich during the war were on an
equal status with German workers, and that undue pressure was not to be exerted to increase the
production of the work detachments formed by concentration camp inmates. It was widely known
in this branch of the service that two SS men had been dishonorably discharged for entering a
Jewish domicile in Hannover in 1936 without permission. It was also known that two SS men were
expelled at Düsseldorf in 1937 for mistreating a Jew.
The former SS men objected to the charge that all those connected with concentration camp
administration were sadists. Men from such camps as Dachau, Buchenwald, Sachsenhausen, and
Auschwitz insisted that the prisoners at the camps did not have abnormal work and appeared
— 25 —
———————– Page 26———————–
well-fed. The camps during most of the war were generally clean and well-organized; it was only
in the last fearful months that the lack of food and the worst over-crowding took place. The
actual camp guards were conscripted for their work. It was easy to obtain affidavits after 1945
from thousands of former concentration camp inmates who had received good treatment.
SS Judge Dr. Konrad Morgen, as chief investigator of the Reich Criminal Police Office, visited
numerous camps in 1943 and 1944, including Auschwitz. He discussed confidentially with
hundreds of inmates the prevailing situations. The working inmates received a daily ration even
throughout 1943 and 1944 of not less than 2750 calories, which was more than double the average
civilian ration throughout occupied Germany during the years immediately after 1945.
The regular diet thus described was frequently supplemented both on outside work and in the
camps. Morgen saw only a few undernourished inmates in hospitals and here disease was a factor.
The pace and achievement in work by inmates was far lower than among the German civilian
workers. Premiums were used to increase production, and as a result the inmates often had more
tobacco than the outside population or even the guards. Recreational facilities for the prisoners
in the camps included radio, library, newspapers, movies and all sorts of sports.
SS court actions were conducted in the camps during the war to prevent excesses, and more than 800
major cases were investigated prior to 1945. Morgen made a statement at Nuremberg on July 13,
1946, which was based on reports he had heard since the war, to the effect that a secret
extermination campaign might have been in progress without his knowledge, but later he
retracted this statement.
The administration of the German concentration camps was the focal point in the trial of Oswald
Pohl at Nuremberg in 1948. Pohl was the chief disbursing officer of the German navy until 1934,
when he transferred to service in the SS at the insistence of Himmler. During eleven years he was
the principal administrative chief of the entire SS and it was his responsibility after 1941 to see
that the concentration camps became major industrial producers. Yet all the testimony permitted
Pohl at his trial is confined to seven pages in Trials of War Criminals before the Nuremberg
Military Tribunals, 1946-1949, vol. 5, pp. 555ff.
A peak point of irony was reached at the trial when the prosecution said to Pohl that “had
Germany rested content with the exclusion of Jews from her own territory, with denying them
German citizenship, with excluding them from public office, or any like domestic regulation, no
other nation could have been heard to complain.” The fact is that Germany was bombarded with
protests and economic reprisals, and especially from the United States, for the treatment of the
Jews precisely along these lines in the years prior to 1941. The prosecution tried very hard to
prove that Pohl had seen some gas chambers at Auschwitz in the summer of 1944, but Pohl
repudiated this charge, at every opportunity. It is a fact that Pohl had earlier signed some
incriminating statements after being subjected to severe torture. Konrad Morgen presented a
special affidavit denying that he had ever intended to implicate Pohl in any possible attempt to
exterminate Jews. But it was to no avail, and Pohl was sentenced and hanged. This dejected and
broken man was falsely depicted at his trial as having been a veritable fiend in human form
during his days of power.
The impression which Pohl made on other people during the days of his influence was decidedly
different. In December, 1942, Pohl explained to Heinrich Hoepker some of those medieval, anti-
personal property concepts of the SS which had been derived from the traditions of the German
Order of Knights. Marc Augier, Goetterdaemmerung (Twilight of the Gods, Freising, 1957) has
made clear that the SS did not have the slightest desire to extend these principles to private
Hoepker was an anti-Nazi friend of Pohl’s new wife. Pohl, previously a widower, had remarried
in 1942. Hoepker was a leading mason of the Grand Lodge of Royal York, and, until 1934, he had
been the vice-president of the Prussian Statistical State Office. He came into contact with Pohl
repeatedly during the period 1942-1945. Pohl’s conversation with Hoepker in December, 1942,
marked Pohl’s first attempt to give a full exposition of the SS and its functions to a prominent
anti-Nazi figure. Hoepker noted that Pohl’s attitude on this occasion was characterized by
serenity and imperturbable optimism.
— 26 —
———————– Page 27———————–
Hoepker noted on all subsequent occasions that a cornradely and pleasant atmosphere prevailed
among Pohl and his SS colleagues. Hoepker, during a visit to Pohl in the spring of 1944, was
brought into contact with concentration camp inmates who were working on a special local project
outside their camp area. Hoepker noted that the prisoners worked in a leisurely manner and in a
relaxed atmosphere without any pressure from their guards.
Hoepker knew that Pohl did not entertain a highly emotional attitude on the Jewish question,
and he knew that the Inspector did not object in the slightest when the Jewess Annemarie Jaques
who was a close friend of Pohl’s wife, visited at the Pohl home. Hoepker was fully convinced by
the beginning of 1945, after several years of intimate and frequent contact with Pohl, that the
chief administrator of the German concentration camp system was a humane, conscientious, and
dedicated servant of his task. Hoepker was thoroughly astonished when he learned later in 1945
of the Allied accusations against Pohl and his colleagues. Hoepker concluded that the Inspector
was either completely psychotic (schizophenic), or else knew nothing of the excesses with which
he was charged.
Mrs. Pohl noted that her husband retained his imperturbable serenity in the face of adversity
until his March, 1945, visit to the concentration camp, at Bergen-Belsen. He encountered this
camp, which had been a model of order and cleanliness, in a state of chaos during a sudden typhus
epidemic which was raging there. The situation was frightful, and Pohl was able to do very
little under the desperate circumstances which the war had reached by that time. The visit of
Pohl took place at about the time that Anne Frank was reported to have died there. Pohl
eventually returned to his wife as a broken man, and he never recovered his former state of
Dr. Alfred Seidl, who played a prominent role throughout the Nuremberg trials and whose gifts
as defense attorney were highly respected by Allied prosecutors, defended Pohl at his trial.
Seidl went to work on behalf of Pohl with the passion of a Zola seeking to exonerate Dreyfus.
This was understandable, because Seidl had been a personal acquaintance of Pohl for many years,
and he was thoroughly convinced of his innocence with respect to the charge of planned
participation in any action of genocide directed against the Jewish people. The Allied judgment
which condemned Pohl did not prompt Seidl to change his opinion in the slightest. He realized
that the Allied prosecutors had failed to produce a solitary piece of valid evidence against Pohl.
The role of Cardinal Faulhaber of Munich in exonerating the Dachau concentration camp,
leadership from the charge of practicing genocide against the Jewish people is well known. The
Communist-edited Höss memoirs correctly suggest that conditions of discipline were more severe
at Dachau in 1933 and 1934 than at Sachsenhausen or Flossenbürg. This was largely due to
personnel factors at Dachau which were later modified. Hundreds of affidavits testify to the
fact that conditions at Dachau in wartime were orderly and generally humane. For instance, the
Polish underground leader, Jan Piechowiak, was at Dachau from May 22, 1940 to April 29, 1945,
nearly the whole war period. He testified on March 21, 1946 that the prisoners at Dachau during
his stay received good treatment, and he added that the SS personnel at the camp were “well
Berta Schirotschin, who worked in the food service at Dachau throughout the war, testified that
the Dachau work details, until the beginning of 1945, and despite the increasing privations in
Germany, received their customary second breakfast at 10:00 -a.m. every morning. It would take
an impossible stretch of the imagination to contemplate any such consideration for German
prisoners of war in Allied detention camps both during and after the war.
The German camp personnel in the various camp locations remained surprisingly complacent and
lenient in the face of the notoriously poor work performance of concentration camp inmates. A
typical exposition of this situation was made on August 13, 1947, by Richard Goebel, an official of
the Portland Cement Corporation. Goebel was in contact with Auschwitz inmates and their work
details throughout 1943 and 1944. He cited one instance of a project in a quarry with 300 free
German workers and 900 Auschwitz inmates. All of the more difficult jobs were done by the free
Germans, and at no time were the inmates required to work more than a normal eight-hour shift.
Goebel had previously conducted the same project with 350 free workers, and he noted that he
was unable to obtain a higher rate of production with his new combined labor force of 1200. In
— 27 —
———————– Page 28———————–
other words, the work of 900 inmates was equivalent to that of 50 free German workers. Goebel
never once encountered mistreatment of Auschwitz prisoners, and be noted that the inmates who
worked well received ample premium certificates for supplementary food supplies and tobacco.
The laxity of the work performance of inmates, attested to by hundreds of affidavits from
Auschwitz and the other concentration camps, did not, as might have been expected,
automatically provoke harsh treatment or reprisals. This laxity was taken for granted as a
permanent factor by the administration camp personnel. The slow down tactics on work details
were especially notorious at Dachau, but the veteran Communist leader, Ernst Ruff, testified in
an affidavit of April 18, 1947, that the treatment of prisoners in the camp and on the work
details remained humane.
The pathetic astonishment of SS personnel at the accusations leveled against their organization
is reflected in the affidavit of SS Major-General Heinz Fanslau, who had visited most of the
German concentration camps during the last years of the war. Fanslau had taken an intense
interest in concentration camp conditions, quite apart from his military duties at the front, and he
was selected by the Allies as a prime target in the allegation of a conspiracy to annihilate the
Jewish people. It was argued that Fanslau, with his many contacts, must have been fully
informed. When it was first rumored that Fanslau would be tried and convicted, there were
hundreds of affidavits produced on his behalf from Jews and Jehovah’s Witnesses who had been
inmates at the camps which he had visited. When he read the full scope of the indictment
against the concentration camp personnel in supplementary Nuremberg trial no 4, Fanslau
exclaimed in despair on May 6, 1947: “This cannot be possible, because I, too, would have had to
know something about it.”
Hermann Pister, the ex-Buchenwald commander, was tortured into signing a statement at
Nuremberg that concentration camp prisoners who, refused to work were shot. But the Allied
prosecution failed to reckon with the tough perseverance and stamina of Gerhard Maurer, who
had been in charge of all camp labor at Buchenwald. Maurer never cracked, and, in a
comprehensive affidavit from Nuremberg on July 11, 1947, he analyzed horoughly the situation
which existed. He proved that the fictitious order to shoot prisoners refusing to work was
contrary to the practice which prevailed, and that such an order was never actually issued.
SS Lieutenant-Colonel Kurt Schmidt-Klevenow, who was a legal officer with the economy and
administration office of the concentration camp system, was especially eloquent on August 8, 1947,
in arguing that Pohl had always been a conscientious and responsible official. It is small wonder
that neither his testimony nor the sample affidavits cited above have ever been printed, because
they present a picture quite different from that which the Nuremberg prosecution wished to, give
to the world. Indeed, it is to be hoped that some day Nuremberg documents will be published
which have been carefully and fairly selected by objective editors. All of the, existing published
series of Nuremberg documents are positively farcial in their one-sidedness.
Schmidt-Klevenow pointed out that Pohl, beginning with the successfully conducted Saubersweig
case in 1940, had given judge Konrad Morgen full support in his judicial investigations of
irregularities at various camps. Indeed, Pohl actually took a far more energetic role in the
difficult Lakebusch case that did Morgen himself. In the notorious Morgen trial prosecution of
Commander Koch of Buchenwald, to which the German public was invited, both Pohl and
Schmidt were for the conviction and execution of Koch, whereas Morgen was content with the
indefinite adjournment of the trial and the retirement of Koch.
Schmidt explained in 1947 that Pohl was instrumental in arranging for local district police chiefs
to share with the SS in important jurisdictional functions of the concentration camp system. Pohl
on numerous occasions took personal initiative in insisting on strict discipline over camp personnel,
and it was due to his efforts in the Ramdohr case that a Gestapo man who had beaten a woman at
Ravensbrueek was prosecuted and convicted.
A typical prosecution affidavit contested by the defense in the concentration camp trial was that
of Alois Hoellriegel, who had been instrumental in securing the conviction and execution of SS
leader Ernst Kaltenbrunner in 1946. Hoellriegel had claimed that mass gassing operation had
taken place at the Mauthausen camp in Austria, and that he, as member of the camp personnel,
had witnessed Kaltenbrunner taking part in these operations.
— 28 —
———————– Page 29———————–
It was impossible to sustain this statement signed by the tortured Hoellriegel at the time of the
Pohl trial in 1947. The defense proved that all deaths at Mauthausen were systematically
checked by the regular local police authorities. In addition, hundreds of affidavits from former
Jewish inmates at Mauthausen were collected which testified to humane and orderly conditions
at the camp and to good treatment for the prisoners.
The effective work of the defense attorneys, which received no recognition in the official
Nuremberg documents, was, nevertheless, confirmed by many prominent American officials who
investigated the problem. A typical example of this is reflected in the comments of Stephen F.
Pinter, who served as a lawyer for the War Department of the United States in the occupation
forces in Germany and Austria for six years after the war. He made the following statement in
the most widely read American Catholic magazine, Our Sunday Visitor, for June 14, 1959:
I was in Dachau for 17 months after the war, as a U.S. War Department Attorney, and can state
that there was no gas chamber at Dachau. What was shown to visitors and sightseers there and
erroneously described as a gas chamber was a crematory. Nor was there a gas chamber in any of
the other concentration camps in Germany. We were told that there was a gas chamber at
Auschwitz, but since that was in the Russian zone of occupation, we were not permitted to
investigate since the Russians would not permit it. From what I was able to determine during six
postwar years in Germany and Austria, there were a number of Jews killed, but the figure of a
million was certainly never reached. I interviewed thousands of Jews, former inmates of
concentration camps in Germany and Austria, and consider myself as well qualified as any man on
It is small wonder under such considerations that the Holy See has steadfastly and consistently
refused to join those who charge that Germany practiced a deliberate policy of seeking to
exterminate the Jewish population of Europe. It was possible after Pinter departed from Germany
for Americans to visit Auschwitz, but in the meantime many years had elapsed and there had
been ample opportunity for the Communist authorities in Poland to set the stage for such visits.
16. Polish Jewry and the Extermination Legend
Frank Gibney, in his The Frozen Revolution: Poland, a Study in Communist Decay (N.Y., 1959),
offered a graphic description of the new Communist shrine at Auschwitz. He described “the pond
at Oswiecim (Auschwitz)” some fifteen miles south-east of the former German industrial city of
Kattowitz. Gibney rightly noted that the pond contains tons of bones and ashes, but he was
uncritical when assuming, as he did, that these were dumped there in the period “1940-1945.” He
dealt with Polish and Jewish situations since the 1930’s in his book, and he devoted much space
to the anti-Jewish race riot at Brest-Litovsk in 1938, in which, unlike the anti-Jewish measures in
Germany in November, 1938, some Jews were actually killed. But his book does not contain a
single word about the Russians as the actual perpetrators of the mass massacre of the Polish
intelligentsia and officers at the Katyn Forest in 1940. Some of the bones in the Auschwitz basin
might have been those of the 10,000 other Poles massacred by the Russians who have never yet
been accounted for.
Gibney claimed, on the basis of doubtful evidence, that Khrushchev in October, 1956, deplored
the prominent role of the Jews in post-war Communist Poland. Khrushchev is alleged to have
said that there were “too many Abramovitches in your Polish Party” (Ibid., p. 194). Gibney in
this instance was clearly partaking of the fantastic scheme promoted in America in recent years
to make the USSR appear anti-Jewish. The assured position of the Jews in the USSR, and the
absence of any and all anti-Jewish measures there cannot fail to render such efforts ludicrous.
John K. Galbraith, in his Journey to Poland and Yugoslavia (Harvard University Press, 1958), is
similar to Gibney in his general approach, although he is also somewhat more enthusiastic about
the Gemulka regime in Poland. Galbraith discusses the impact of the German concentration camp
system on Poland (Ibid., pp. 62ff.), but he avoids sweeping statements about the fate of Polish
Jewry. Much more detailed information on the prominent role of Jews in present-day Poland is
contained in Clifford R. Barnett, Poland: its People, its Society, its Culture (New Haven, 1958).
Barnett was carefully vague about the alleged number of Jews in contemporary Poland because of
the suppression by the Communists of all statistics on Jews. He did emphasize the conspicuous and
— 29 —
———————– Page 30———————–
omnipresent role of Jewish culture in Poland through the Jewish state theatres, Jewish books and
radio programs, and the exceedingly numerous Jewish cultural associations.
Thad Paul Alton, Polish Postwar Economy (N.Y., 1955, p. 106) was less cautious about Polish
Jewry, and he accepted a figure from Eugene Kulischer, “Population Changes behind the Iron
Curtain” in Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Sept. 1950, who
made the preposterous statement that there were only 80,000 Jews in Poland by 1949. The pure
guess-work which has characterized the glib generalizations of Kulischer on European
populations has been recognized to be a highly untrustworthy source for serious scholars.
The playing with figures under the cloak of Communist censorship has been notorious in the case
of Polish Jewry. The Jewish joint Distribution Committee, which was permitted by the Germans
to maintain offices in Poland until
Pearl Harbor, claimed in figures prepared for the Nuremberg Military Tribunal late in 1945 that
the total remaining Jewish population in Poland had been reduced to 80,000. Yet, even Communist
masters of Poland were unable to prevent a major pogrom against the Jews at Kielce on July 4, 1946,
and within a short time more than 120,000 Polish Jews had fled from the central sector of Poland
into Western Germany. Subsequently, the estimate of the number of Jews who had been in Poland
at the end of 1945 underwent considerable revision until it was placed even by the American
Jewish Year Book, 1948-1949, at 390,000 instead of the earlier figure of 80,000.
The complete absence of reliable statistics has not hindered such writers as Jacob Lestschinsky,
The Position of the Jewish People Today (N.Y., 1952, pp. 4ff.) and Jacques Vernant, The Refugee
in the Post-War World (London, 1953, pp. 448ff.) from playing fast and loose with the facts in
estimating the numbers of Jews in such countries as Poland, Rumania, and the USSR. H.B.M.
Murphy, et al., Flight and Resettlement (UNESCO, Lucerne, 1955, pp. 159ff.) show considerable
surprise that Jews in D.P. camps have revealed far less mental derangement and emotional
instability than other refugee groups. The authors find this astonishing because the Jews are
proverbially considered to be the chief victims of World War II. Nevertheless, reflection should
indicate that many Jewish D.P.’s had far less devastating wartime experiences than other
refugee groups, and, unlike the other refugee groups, who were hopelessly ruined, they emerged
from the war as a dominant and triumphant minority.
The central position of Polish Jewry in the great wartime drama was underlined in April, 1943, by
the sensational uprising of the Warsaw ghetto against the German authorities, who were
planning to evacuate all Jews of that district and send them to the Lublin area. As a matter of
fact, most of the Jews had been moved there against considerable opposition before the last-ditch
stand began. Jews had fled to Warsaw from many towns in Poland in 1939, and at one time the
ghetto contained no less than 400,000 persons. Warsaw was the scene of huge black market
operations and a lively trade in currency and contraband goods, including hundreds of German
army uniforms which were sold to the Polish underground. The evacuation of the Jews to-the East
began on July 22, 1942, and by January, 1943, no less than 316,822 had been transported.
A graphic account of the ghetto battle from April 20, 1943 to its finish on May 16, 1943 is
contained in the Stroop, memorandum (Trial of the Major War Criminals, 1945-1946, vol. 26, pp.
628ff.). The Germans accepted a fight to the finish in their effort, with their Polish cohorts, to
complete the evacuation of the ghetto by force. The stubborn defense cost the loss of many lives in
burning buildings. The German and Polish attackers lost 101 men killed and wounded, whereas
the estimated total Jewish casualties were no less than 16,000. About 55,000 Jews were captured
and sent to the Lublin area. The details of these events up to the transportation to Lublin were
presented in fiction form by John Hersey, The Wall (N.Y., 1951).
More recently, in 1958, Notes from the Warsaw Ghetto: the Journal of Emanuel Ringelblum, was
published by McGraw-Hill in New York. Ringelblum had been an active leader in organizing
sabotage against the Germans in Poland, including the 1943 Warsaw uprising, prior to his arrest
and execution in 1944. The editors of the American edition of the Ringelblum journal admit that
they were denied access to the uncensored original journal at Warsaw or to the copy made of it
and sent to Israel. Instead, they have faithfully followed the expurgated volume published
under Communist auspices at Warsaw in 1952. This is exactly the same situation that prevailed
with the American edition of the so-called Höss memoirs.
— 30 —
———————– Page 31———————–
The Ringelblum account is, nevertheless, far more bitter than that of Hersey in denouncing the
Jewish Council leaders at Warsaw and the Jewish police who did most of the
work in arranging for the transportation of the Warsaw ghetto population to the Lublin area.
Indeed, the principal emphasis of the book is directed toward the need of Jewish unity in contrast
to the disunity which prevailed among the Polish Jews. This has remained the dominant theme
of Zionist leaders and it was clearly exemplified by the controversial speech of Israeli Premier
David Ben-Gurion on December 28, 1960, which attacked the alleged laxity and absence of true
Zionist zeal in wide circles of American Jewry. Israeli Zionism continues to demand the absolute
subordination to Israel of all Jews in the non-Communist world.
The Ringelblum journal, like the Hersey novel, refers in general terms, and by rumor only, to the
alleged plan of exterminating the Jews of Poland. It has been widely asserted that Polish Jewry
was destroyed in World War 11. Yet, quite apart from escape into Russia and emigration to Israel
and the West, both Polish exchange professors visiting the United States today and American
Poles returning from visits to Poland, agree with Barnett on the major Jewish role in contemporary
Poland. The unofficial estimates which they encountered among the Poles themselves were that
there are at least half a million Jews in Poland today and probably more than that figure. This
figure should be considered in connection with the action exodus of Jews from Poland after 1945
and our earlier estimate that the Jewish population of the German zone of occupation in 1939,
which closely approximated in the East the present eastern Polish boundary, could scarcely have
exceeded 1,100,000. Certainly enough is known to enable any impartial observer to regard the
alleged extermination of Polish Jewry as in part a myth built around the dramatic circumstances
of the uprising in the Warsaw ghetto during April and May of 1943.
17. The Exaggerations of Kurt Gerstein Discredit the Extermination Myth
One of the most curious incidents of testimony concerning the alleged deliberate extermination of
the Jews was provided by the memoranda of Kurt Gerstein. He was employed as a disinfection
expert by the SS from 1942 until his capture in April 1945. Gerstein joined the National Socialist
Party in 1933. He was expelled in 1936 for eccentric conduct which included distributing through
the mails 8,500 pamphlets criticizing National Socialism. During his later 1941 SS training in
Holland, he worked with the Dutch underground movement. He claimed to have provided gas for
execution purposes, and to have been a witness of mass gas executions on a grandiose scale on
In his personal conversations and answers, Gerstein contended that be knew that no less than forty
million concentration camp prisoners has been gassed. In his first signed memorandum on the
subject of April 26, 1945, he reduced the number to twenty-five million. He added that only four or
five other persons had seen what he had witnessed, and they were Nazis. Even this was rather
too extreme for his interrogators and he was induced to draw up a second memorandum at Rottweil
on May 4, 1945 which was in closer conformity to the legend of the alleged extermination of six
million Jewish victims.
It is interesting to note that Hans Rothfels, “Augenzeugenbericht zu den Massenvergasungen (Eye-
Witness Report of Mass Gassings)” in Vierteliahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte, April, 1953, made a
special point of stating that Evangelical Bishop Wilhelm Dibelius of Berlin denounced the
Gerstein memoranda as “Untrustworthy.” Two years later, however, in 1955, the Bonn Federal
Center for Local Services issued an edition of the second Gerstein memorandum for distribution in
all German schools (Dokumentation zur Massen-Vergasung, Bonn, 1955). The editors in their
introduction stated that the Gerstein memoranda were valid “beyond any doubt,” and they add
that Dibelius has expressed his special confidence in Gerstein.
The second Gerstein memorandum is very emphatic in describing a visit by Hitler to a
concentration camp in Poland on June 6, 1942, which in point of fact never took place.
Unfortunately, the West German Government of Konrad Adenauer has actually discouraged the
exposure of this defamation of wartime Germany. It finds a vested interest of its own in
perpetuating wartime falsehoods. In this sense it is truly a puppet government and no genuine
German Government at all. The government of the Weimar Republic bad taken a leading part in
exposing the exaggerations and falsifications in the chargesof German atrocities in the first
— 31 —
———————– Page 32———————–
World War, such as those embodied in the famous Bryce Report and the writings of Arnold
Gerstein was sent to Cherche Midi prison in Paris after his two “confessions.” He is reported to
have died on July 25, 1945. The manner of his death and the place of his grave are unknown. His
death is no less mysterious than the alleged suicide of Heinrich Himmler in British military
captivity. The work of the prosecution at Nuremberg would have been far more difficult had
Himmler been allowed to testify. It is quite likely that Gerstein, who was in good health when
sent to Paris, was considered to have outlived his usefulness before the Nuremberg trials
18. Myths and Realities Concerning Auschwitz and other Death Camps
Höss “confessed” on various occasions that 2,500,000 to 3,000,000 people had been gassed at the
single camp of Auschwitz. It has always been claimed that most of these alleged victims were
Jews, and therefore this would account for nearly half of the supposed six million Jewish victims
in the period from 1941 to 1945. It is important to note that the alleged end of this supposed death
program in October, 1944, does not terminate the chronicle of Jewish victims who met death from
hunger, bombing, -and disease at the camps or in the camp evacuations during the last hectic
months of the war. Therefore, one is expected to believe that nearly two-thirds of the deaths in
the total alleged deliberate extermination program took place at one camp.
The destruction or hiding of German statistics about the details of Auschwitz by the supporters of
the extermination legend, and the refusal of the Russians to give out any accurate statistics in
regard to the Jews in Russia just before 1941 or after 1945 makes it impossible to state with
exactness just bow many Jews were ever interned at Auschwitz, but it is certain that the number of
Jews who got there during ,the war was only a smallest fraction of those alleged to have been
exterminated there. The Jewish statistician, Reitlinger, who is rather more careful with his
figures than most Jews who have reported on the subject, states in his The SS: the Alibi of a
Nation, pp. 268ff., that the total of all internees registered at Auschwitz from February, 1940, to
January, 1945, was only 363,000 and by no means all of these were Jews. Moreover, during the war
many of those originally sent to Auschwitz were released or transferred elsewhere, and at least
80,000 were evacuated westward in January, 1945. The wild, erratic and irresponsible nature of
the statements about the number of Jews exterminated at Auschwitz can be gleaned from the fact
that the figures which have been offered by the supporters of the extermination legend have run
from around 200,000 to, over six millions.
Benedikt Kautsky, Teufel und Verdammte (Devil and Damned, Zürich, 1946, p. 275) claimed that
“at least 3,500,000 persons were gassed at Auschwitz.” This was a remarkable statement from a
man, who by his own admission, never saw any gas chambers there (Ibid., pp. 272-3).
Kautsky explained that he was sent as a Jewish political prisoner from Buchenwald in October,
1942, to work at Auschwitz-Buna. The victims of liquidation were supposedly gassed more than a
mile distant at Auschwitz-Birkenau. Kautsky heard rumors to this effect.
Kautsky did witness several executions at Auschwitz. He cited a case in which two Polish
inmates were executed for killing two Jewish inmates. He dedicated his book to his mother who
died at eighty years of age on December 8, 1944. Like all Jews of whatever age who died during
this period in German-occupied territory, she is considered to be a victim of the Nazis. Kautsky
returned to Buchenwald in January, 1945, when Auschwitz was abandoned by Germany. He
described how the final months of Germany’s collapse in 1945 produced the worst conditions of
hunger and disease that Buchenwald, which is rarely claimed any longer as an extermination
camp, had ever seen. Kautsky stressed the fact that the use of inmates in war industry was a
major feature of German concentration camp policy to the very end. He failed to reconcile this
with the alleged attempt to massacre all Jews.
Paul Rassinier, Le Mensonge d’Ulysso (The Lies of Odysseus, Paris, 1955, pp. 209ff.) demonstrated
conclusively that there were no gas chambers at Buchenwald. Rassinier is a French professor who
spent most of the war as an inmate at Buchenwald. He made short work of the extravagant
claims about Buchenwald gas chambers in David Rousset, The Other Kingdom (N.Y., 1947;
French ed., L’Univers Concentrationnaire, Paris, 1946). He also investigated Denise Dufournier,
— 32 —
———————– Page 33———————–
Ravensbrueck: the Women’s Camp of Death (London, 1948), and he found that the heroine had no
other evidence for gas chambers than the vague rumors described by Margarete Buber. Similar
investigations were made of such books as Filip Friedman, This Was Oswiecim (Auschwitz): the
Story of a Murder Camp (N.Y., 1946), and Eugen Kogon, The Theory and Practice of Hell (N.Y.,
1950). Rassinier did mention Kogon’s claim that a deceased former inmate, Janda Weiss, had said
to Kogon alone that she had been a witness of the gas chambers in operation at Auschwitz.
Rassinier noted that there were of course rumors about gas chambers at Dachau too, but
fortunately they were merely rumors. Indeed, one could trace them as far back as the sensational
book by the German Communist, Hans Beimler, Four Weeks in the Hands of Hitler’s Hell-
Hounds: the Nazi Murder Camp of Dachau (N.Y., 1933).
Rassinier entitled his book The Lies of Odysseus in commemoration of the immemorial fact that
travelers return bearing tall tales. Rassinier asked Abbé Jean-Paul Renard, who had also been at
Buchenwald, how he could possibly have testified that gas chambers had been in operation
there. Renard replied that others had told him of their existence, and hence he had been willing
to pose as a witness of things that he had never seen (Ibid., pp. 209ff.).
Rassinier has toured Europe for years, like Diogenes seeking an honest man, more specifically
somebody who was an actual eyewitness, of any person, Jew or Gentile, who had ever been
deliberately exterminated in a gas oven by Germans during the course of World War II, but be has
never found even one such person. He found that not one of the authors of the many books charging
that the Germans had exterminated millions of Jews during the war had ever seen a gas oven
built for such purposes, much less seen one in operation, nor had one of these authors ever been able
to produce a live, authentic eyewitness who had done so. In an extensive lecture tour in the main
cities of West Germany in the spring of 1960, Professor Rassinier vigorously emphasized to his
German audiences that it was high time for a new spirit of inquiry and a rebirth of truth. He
suggested that it would be very fitting for the Germans to start work along this line with respect
to the extermination legend, which remains a main but wholly unjustified and unnecessary blot on
Germany in the eyes of the world.
Ernst Kaltenbrunner no doubt had the problem of truth in mind when be complained about the
success of the Nuremberg prosecution in coercing German witnesses to make extravagant
statements in support of the myth of the six million. Many of the key witnesses who did not have
since been executed, but not all of them. Willi Frischauer, Himmler: the Evil Genius of the Third
Reich (London, 1953, pp. 148ff.) makes much of the incriminating testimony of SS General Erich
von den Bach-Zelewski against Himmler at the main Nuremberg trial. Himmler was supposed to
have spoken to Bach-Zelewski in grandiose terms about the liquidation of people in Eastern
Europe, but Göring, in the Nuremberg courtroom, condemned Bach-Zelewski to his face for this
Bach-Zelewski in April, 1959, publicly repudiated his Nuremberg testimony before a West
German court, and be admitted with great courage that his earlier statements, which had no
foundation in fact, had been made for reasons of expediency and survival. This was one of two
types of false German testimony at Nuremberg. The other was that of testimony by those Germans
opposed to the National Socialist regime who played fast and loose with the facts. Charles
Bewley, Herman Göring (Göttingen, 1956, pp. 296ff.) has done an admirable piece of work in
illustrating this in the case of the Gestapo official and member of the German underground, Hans
Bernd Gisevius. The testimony of Kurt Gerstein would also fall into this category.
19. The National Socialist Leaders and the Policy of Exterminating Jews
A vigorous and protracted controversy has arisen over which key figures in the German
leadership were supposed to have favored the mass extermination of European Jewry in the first
instance. First and foremost it is necessary to consider the case of Hitler and to analyze the
contention that Hitler was an active participant in a campaign to exterminate European Jewry.
Joachin von Ribbentrop, Zwischen London und Moskau (Between London and Moscow, Leoni, 1953,
pp. 274ff.) noted that Hitler was convinced World War II would not have occurred had it not been
for Jewish influence. Hitler regarded Germany’s struggle with Great Britain and the United
States as a disaster for western civilization and a triumph for Communism. He knew that
— 33 —
———————– Page 34———————–
President Roosevelt had worked with every available means to promote war in Europe prior to
the English declaration of war against Germany on September 3, 1939. He did not believe that
Chamberlain would have accepted war had it not been for the pressure from President Roosevelt.
Further, Hitler did not believe that President Roosevelt would have worked for war had be not
been encouraged and supported in his efforts by the powerful American-Jewish community.
Ribbentrop’s view of the situation was more penetrating, realistic, and accurate. He did not
believe that President Roosevelt would have been able to persuade Great Britain to move toward
war against Germany had it not been for the pursuance by Lord Halifax of the traditional British
imperialistic policy based on the balance of power. Ribbentrop reminded Hitler that Jewish
influence in England was still very slight during the long struggle against Napoleon, who had
adopted the traditional anti-Jewish position of Voltaire. The friendly position of Kaiser
Wilhelm II toward the Jews had no influence whatever in preventing the British onslaught
against Germany in 1914.
Ribbentrop engaged in repeated discussions with Hitler about the Jewish question during the war
and even during their last meeting on April 22, 1945. He was convinced that Hitler never
remotely contemplated the extermination of European Jewry.
The most comprehensive attempt to document the thesis that Hitler himself directed an effort to
exterminate European Jewry was made by the English Jew, Gerald Reitlinger. An expanded
German-language version of his major work appeared under the title Die Endlösung: Hitlers
Versuch der Austrottung der Juden Europas, 1939-1945 (The Final Solution: Hitler’s Attempt to
Exterminate the Jews of Europe, 1939-1945, Berlin, 1956). This title was offered on the assumption
that Reitlinger had succeeded in his effort. The full title of the earlier 1953 English edition of
this work did not mention Hitler.
Reitlinger conceded that the term “final solution” of the Jewish question, as employed by German
leaders in the period from the outbreak of war with Poland until war with the USSR, had
nothing to do with a liquidation of the Jews. He then considered Hitler’s order of July, 1941, for
the liquidation of the captured political commissars, and he concluded that this was
accompanied by a verbal order from Hitler for special Einsatzgruppen, to liquidate all Soviet
Jews (Ibid., p. 91.) This assumption was based on sheer deduction and has been disproved above.
Reitlinger himself cited the statement of the SS leader Karl Wolff, the chief of Himmler’s
personal staff, that Hitler knew nothing of any program to liquidate the Jews (Ibid., p. 126).
Reitlinger mentioned the indirect “proof” in Hitler’s warning in his Reichstag speech of January
30, 1939, that a new European war would mean the end of the Jewish race in Europe. He failed to
cite this statement within Hitler’s context that the catastrophe of a new war would persuade
other European countries to follow the anti-Jewish programs already adopted by Germany and
Italy. In this sense, the end of the Jewish race in Europe meant something far different from the
physical liquidation of the Jews. It meant only the elimination of their disproportionate
influence as compared to their relative population. Reitlinger was guilty of another
misinterpretation of this kind when he claimed that the SS newspaper, Schwarzes Korps,
November 24, 1938, preached the liquidation of the Jews instead of the elimination of their
influence (Ibid., p. 9).
Finally, Reitlinger claimed to have found conclusive proof of a Hitlerian liquidation policy in
the protocol of a conversation between Hitler and Hungarian Regent Horthy on April 17, 1943.
Hitler complained about the black market and subversive activities of Hungarian Jews and then
made the following comment: “They have thoroughly put an end to these conditions in Poland. If
the Jews don’t wish to work there, they will be shot. If they cannot work, at least they won’t
thrive” (Ibid., p. 472).
There never has been the slightest proof that these comments of a vexed Hitler were followed by
an actual order to shoot Jews who would not work. Reitlinger conceded that Hitler was then
seeking to persuade Horthy to release 100,000 Hungarian Jews for work in the “pursuit-plane
program” of the German air force at a time when the aerial bombardment of Germany was
rapidly increasing in intensity (Ibid., p. 478). This indicated, at most, that the idea of
compulsory labor for the Jews had taken precedence in Hitler’s thinking over the emigration
— 34 —
———————– Page 35———————–
plan. Hitler’s purpose in arguing with Horthy was obviously to increase his labor force rather
than to liquidate Jews.
The prestige and impact of Reitlinger’s work has been very great in Jewish circles. The Jewish
Year Book (London 1956, pp. 304ff.) notes that it is commonly stated that six million Jews were
“done to death by Hitler”, but that Reitlinger has suggested a possible lower estimate of
4,194,200 “missing Jews” of whom an estimate one third died of natural causes. This would reduce
the number of Jews deliberately exterminated to 2,796,000.
Some 2,500,000 of the alleged victims in Reitlinger’s lower estimate are supposed to have come
from Poland and Rumania, and yet he has stated that all figures from these countries are largely
conjectured. Moreover, the German defeat at Stalingrad prevented them from interfering
extensively with Rumanian Jews. In point of fact one could also add that all the statistics
employed by Reitlinger, even though they are more reasonable and reliable than those of any
other Jewish statistician dealing with the extermination problem on a large scale, are “largely
conjectural”, and that he failed dismally in his attempt to prove that Hitler was personally the
director of an attempt to exterminate European Jewry.
The impression of Heinrich Hoffmann, Hitler was my Friend (London, 1955, pp. 191ff.) was that
Hitler was almost exclusively preoccupied with military affairs during World War II, and that
his interest in the Jewish question was very distinctly subordinated to the German war effort.
This situation seemed to change only in April, 1945, when Hitler confronted the nightmare of
future Soviet domination of Europe. In those last days be turned his full attention again to the
activities of the Jews (Ibid., p. 227).
Hoffmann was a close personal friend who enjoyed Hitler’s extraordinary confidence. Hitler said
in August, 1939, that both he and England were bluffing about war. The war came, and Hoffmann
revealed how Hitler did everything possible to evade pressure for an invasion of Great Britain in
1940. Hoffmann was understandably plunged into gloom by the outbreak of war with the USSR on
June 22, 1941, but Hitler patiently explained to him at length why he considered the preventive
war in the East indispensable for German security. The key reason, of course, was the failure of
Hitler to achieve a compromise peace in the West (Ibid., pp. 115ff.).
Sven Hedin, Ohne Auftrag in Berlin (In Berlin without Assignment, Buenos Aires, 1949) had
frequent contacts with Hitler during the period 1933-1942. Hitler knew that the great Swedish
scientist-explorer, who was partly Jewish himself, was opposed to persecution of the Jews in any
form. Hedin’s Germany and World Peace (London, 1937) had been banned in Germany, although
the author, on the strength of Hitler’s and Göring’s friendship, had hoped to make his principal
future income for scientific purposes out of the German edition of the book. Hedin admitted that
the Germans before 1933 had understandable grievances against their small Jewish minority. The
Jews, although only .8 per cent of the population, supplied 23.07 per cent of the lawyers of
Germany and enjoyed a major share of income from German trade and industry. Nevertheless, he
believed that Germany would have “overlooked” the Jewish question had it not been for her
defeat in 1918 and her subsequent misfortunes. It is easy to see why Hedin’s adoption of the
“scapegoat” theory to explain the National Socialist anti-Jewish policy did not please the
In Berlin without Assignment, Hedin gave expression to the fear that people and events of the
Hitler era would be depicted solely in the perspective and interests of a later period for years
and years to come. The facts have borne out this prediction. The attitude of the West has
remained identical with that of the USSR so far as National Socialism is concerned. Despite the
Cold War and sharp disagreements on other subjects, there is complete unanimity about what
happened in Germany down through 1945 and in hostility to National Socialism.
According to Hedin, Hitler did not wish to go to war with the West. The war forced upon Hitler
by the West ended in a grandiose victory for Communism and in a crushing political and moral
defeat for everyone else. Hence, an immense propaganda was maintained in the West after 1945
to keep people convinced that German National Socialism was infinitely worse than Russian
Communism, even after Russian gains in the war.
It was rightly feared that Western policy prior to 1945 would appear as nonsense without such a
thesis. Hence, an effort was launched to organize Western resistance to Communism as “the much
— 35 —
———————– Page 36———————–
lesser evil”. But the role of the USSR was crucial in the defeat of National Socialism, and people
in the West wondered how this later intense and alarmed resistance to “the much lesser evil of
Communism” could be either legitimate or justifiable. The West could have presented a far more
formidable and convincing moral resistance to Communism by admitting past mistakes in regard
to the war and the preceding diplomacy.
Hedin’s book shares the impression of Hitler’s closest Austrian friend, August Kubizek, The
Young Hitler I Knew (Boston, 1955, pp. 291ff.) that Hitler was sick of the war by 1940, and he
wished either to retire or to concentrate on the completion of some internal reconstruction projects.
He certainly did not impress either of them as a human fiend who believed that he was about to
launch his truly major program of liquidating world Jewry. Hedin described Hitler as “a powerful
and harmonious personality.”
Hedin noted Hitler’s wishful thinking in 1940 about Stalin, and his vain hope that the Soviet
dictator would abandon ambitious plans for an ultimate world revolution in favor of a nationalist
program for Russia. Later, in a letter to Hedin on October 30, 1942, Hitler attempted to
rationalize a desperate situation by finding a new purpose in destroying Communism. He
reminded Hedin that he had hoped for a compromise settlement with Poland in 1939. In
accepting Hedin’s thesis in Amerika in Kampf der Kontinente (America in the Struggle of the
Continents, Leipzig, 1942) that Roosevelt was the major factor in producing war in 1939, he added
that, perhaps, the American President had done the world a favor, after all, by forcing Germany
to deal with the Communist threat before it was too late (Auftrag, pp. 281ff.).
Walter Schellenberg, The Schellenberg Memoirs (London, 1956, pp. 394ff.) revealed that Hitler
learned almost immediately that Roosevelt and Churchill had agreed at Teheran in 1943 to
permit most of Eastern Germany to be assigned to a Communist-controlled Poland in the event of
Allied victory. The spy, Moyzisch, had obtained the complete record of the Teheran conference
from British diplomatic sources in Turkey. Hitler became more convinced than ever that
Communism would eventually win its struggle for the world if Germany went down. Schellenberg
has testified that the future of the German people was the closest thing to Hitler’s heart until
the end, but Hitler’s final despair became very great.
Achim Besgen, Der Stille Befehl (The Unspoken Command, Munich, 1960, pp. 229ff.) claimed
without the slightest proof that Hitler in his despair in April, 1945, ordered a last-minute
extermination of the Jews to accompany the Draconian measures which he was seeking to enforce
on his own German people. This is the latest date offered by any author for a deliberate German
effort to liquidate the Jews.
Besgen and Schellenberg agreed in their favorable opinion of genial Felix Kersten, the Baltic
German physician who attended Himmler. Schellenberg recognized and approved Kersten as a
moderating influence on Himmler. Besgen has celebrated Kersten as the great humanitarian who
per suaded Himmler not to insist on the transportation of Finnish Jews for compulsory labor in
Germany. Indeed, Himmler also desisted from his earlier efforts to persuade Bulgaria to send
Jewish laborers to Germany. A few Danish Jews were forced to come to Germany, but most of them
went to Sweden to evade German measures.
This pressure on countries allied or associated with Germany always had the same basis: the
German Reich claimed, after the war became exceedingly critical, that the Jewish population
throughout German-occupied Europe was a hostile force. The United States and Canada had
begun to intern both Japanese aliens and citizens of Japanese ex’traction in internment camps
before this became a German policy toward many German and other European Jews. There was no
tangible evidence of disloyalty, not to mention sabotage or espionage, among these people of
The Germans at least had a somewhat more plausible basis to press for the internment of Jews.
Reference has been made to Chaim Weizmann’s early declaration of war against Germany on
behalf of World Jewry (Weizmann was the principal Zionist leader). The following version of
his statement, which was first announced in the London Times on September 5, 1939, appeared in
the London Jewish Chronicle, September 8, 1939:
I wish to confirm in the most explicit manner, the declaration which I and my colleagues made
during the last months, and especially in the last week: that the Jews “stand by Great Britain
— 36 —
———————– Page 37———————–
and will fight on the side of the democracies.” Our urgent desire is to give effect to these
declarations. We wish to do so in a way entirely consonant with the general scheme of British
action, and therefore would place ourselves, in matters big and small, under the co-ordinating
direction of His Majesty’s Government. The Jewish Agency is ready to enter into immediate
arrangements for utilizing Jewish manpower, technical ability, resources, etc.
Weizmann had effectively declared all Jews within the German sphere to be subjects of an enemy
power, and to be willing agents in the prosecution of the war against Germany. He had obviously
permitted his zeal for destroying Hitler and the German Reich to triumph over his solicitude for
the Jews in Hitler’s domain.
Felix Kersten, Memoirs, 1940-1945 (London, 1956, pp. 119ff.) joined those who charged, on the
basis of the German internment policy, that there was a deliberate German program to
exterminate the Jews. But he did not attempt to implicate Hitler, and he was also emphatic in
stating that Heinrich Himmler did not advocate the liquidation of the Jews but favored their
emigration overseas. Yet there had to be an author of the alleged extermination policy. Kersten’s
fantastic attempt to provide an answer to this problem shattered the credibility of his narrative.
Kersten was born in Estonia in 1898, and he fought for the Finns against the Bolsheviks in 1918.
He was a typically cosmopolitan Baltic German, and in 1920 be became a Finnish citizen. Later
he studied medicine in Berlin and lived in various parts of Europe. His services as a physician
were chiefly valued because of his skill as a chiropractor. He was being employed by the Dutch
royal household in March, 1939, when a private German businessman suggested that he examine
Himmler, who was plagued by stomach and muscular ailments. Kersten was reluctant to devote
himself exclusively to Himmler because of his Dutch practice, but he agreed to do so after the
German occupation of the Netherlands in May, 1940. He was convinced before the end of 1942 that
Germany was heading for defeat in World War II. He informed Himmler that he was
establishing permanent residence in Sweden, and that his presence in Germany would be limited
to periodic visits.
It is not surprising, in view of the flow of world opinion, that Kersten, a notorious opportunist,
implied after 1945 that there had been this campaign to exterminate the Jews. Any “proof” he
might offer would be limited to his own private recording of alleged conversations with
Himmler. Kersten gave the impression that he could say whatever he wished to Himmler about
German policy. Himmler on many occasions reputedly said that he recognized Kersten as an
enemy of National Socialism who desired the defeat of Germany in the war. Apparently, this
did not trouble their professional relationship.
The German-Jewish historian, George Hallgarten, published his recollections of young Himmler
in Germania Judaica (Cologne, April 1960). Hallgarten and Himmler were close acquaintances
while both were students at Munich. Hallgarten found Himmler to be a tolerant and broad-
minded person “comparatively free from anti-Semitism.” This might explain why it was
actually possible for Kersten to say what be pleased to Himmler about the Jews, Germany, and
the war. Himmler was, apparently, willing to tolerate Kersten because he believed, and rightly
so, that the Baltic German physician was not sufficiently heroic to use his position to aid the
enemies of the German Reich in the prosecution of the war.
Some of the information supplied by Kersten is of passing interest. For instance, be confirmed the
fact that the Belsen concentration camp achieved the unfortunate reputation of being a “death
camp” solely because of the devastating typhus epidemic which erupted there in March, 1945,
toward the end of an unnecessarily prolonged war. It was this same epidemic and its results
which had greatly depressed Oswald Pohl.
The crucial point in Kersten’s entire book is the claim that Himmler told him on November 10,
1942, that Joseph Goebbels was the driving force behind an alleged campaign of Jewish
extermination. But Roger Manvell and Heinrich Fraenkel, Dr. Goebbels, His Life and Death
(N.Y., 1960, pp. 187ff.) have successfully defended the thesis that Goebbels had little to do with
any specific phase of German policy after the outbreak of World War II. It was not difficult for
them to sustain their point. Goebbels was the enthusiastic advocate of a “Free-Russia” movement
as early as the summer of 1941, but his recommendations were summarily rejected. The German
— 37 —
———————– Page 38———————–
Government favored a wait-and-see policy pending a military decision, and the plans of Alfred
Rosenberg for self-determination to the Soviet subject nationalities were also rejected.
Goebbels had done what he could to maintain normalcy in the cultural sphere of German life until
the outbreak of the Russian war. Manvell and Fraenkel note that in 1940-1941 there were 355
state theatres, 175 independent theatres, and 142 open-air theatres in operation in Germany, “an
incredibly large number even for the country which supported the largest number of theatres in
Europe” (Ibid., p. 182). Goebbels was opposed to World War II from the start, and he deplored the
continuation of the war. Nevertheless, when war with Russia commenced, he made
recommendations for greater military preparations, but his advice in a specific sphere of public
policy was, as usual, rejected. Goebbels hoped to retire after the war to write a monumental
multi-volume biography of Hitler and a history of Germany since 1900.
The authors cite a memorandum written by Goebbels as late as March 7, 1942, in favor of the
Madagascar plan as the “final solution” of the Jewish question (Ibid., p. 195). In the meantime,
he approved having the Jews “concentrated in the, East” as a measure to guarantee German war-
time security. He concluded that “there can be no peace in Europe until every Jew has been
eliminated from the continent.” Later Goebbels memoranda comment on the transportation of the
Jews to the East and emphasize the importance of compulsory labor in that area. The authors, in
considering these memoranda, flatly refuse to imply, even remotely, that Goebbels was a force in
initiating wartime measures against the Jews. His earlier initiative in peacetime measures, such
as the November, 1938, demonstrations calculated to accelerate emigration of the Jews, belonged
to a by-gone era.
It must be conceded that this allegedly definitive work on Goebbels contains more than its share
of colossal errors. The authors claim there “can be no doubt at all” that Göring and Goebbels were
behind the 1933 Reichstag fire, although Fritz Tobias, “Stehen Sie auf, Van der Lubbe!” (Stand
Up, Van der Lvbbe, Der Spiegel, Oct. 23, 1959 ff.) has proved conclusively that none of the
National Socialists had any connection with the Reichstag fire. Equally wrong is the contention
that Herschel Grynszpan, the Jewish assassin of Ernst von Rath, was executed during World War
II at the behest of Goebbels. Grynszpan is at present living in Paris (Ibid., pp. 115, 149).
In short, there is no proof that Hitler knew anything of a plan to exterminate the Jews. Himmler
favored Jewish emigration rather than a program of extermination. Goebbels, who also favored
emigration, was in any case unable to exert a determining influence on the pursuit of public
policies during wartime. Martin Bormann, who succeeded Rudolf Höss as Hitler’s personal deputy
and chief of the NSDAP chancellery, was notoriously dependent on Hitler for all initiative in
larger questions. Important private confirmation on this point from Martin Bormann himself is
contained in The Bormann Letters: Private Correspondence between Martin Bormann and his Wife
from January 1943 to April 1945 (London, 1954, pp. 26ff.).
Alan Bullock, Hitler, a Study in Tyranny (N.Y., 1952, pp. 558ff.) failed to uncover any important
information on Hitler’s wartime policy toward the Jews, and, indeed, he was unable to transcend
the moral and mental attitudes of the prosecution at the Nuremberg trials. Hugh Trevor-Roper,
“Hitlers Kriegsziele” (Hitler’s War Arms, in Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte, 1960/2) has
pointed out that Bullock’s work has been crippled by an underestimation of Hitler’s intelligence
and a lack of understanding for his ideas.
20. Hans Grimm’s Fundamental Analysis of Hitler, National Socialism, and the Jewish Problem
Hans Grimm, the proudly independent and distinguished German writer who died in 1959, has
written far and away the best book on Hitler’s ideas and program to date: Warum — Woher —
Aber Wohin? (Why — From-What — To What Purpose?, Lippoldsberg, 1954). It would seem both
fair and fitting in this lengthy treatment of dreadful charges brought against Germany to present
the essence of his thought on the subject of Hitler, Germany, and the Jews. Grimm delayed his
work for many years after Hitler’s death until he was convinced, through sustained
contemplation and greater perspective, that he had arrived at a detached judgment of the
deceased German leader. Above all, he came to recognize in Hitler the man who had created the
miracle of the truly German national community. The vestigial class conflicts of the feudal
period, and the more modern ones exploited by Karl Marx, were largely overcome.
— 38 —
———————– Page 39———————–
Grimm met Hitler for the first time in 1928. He recognized that Hitler had an abiding faith in
the crucial importance of a lasting Anglo-German agreement. Hitler in those days was still
looking for the man to lead Germany from the platform in the movement of which be himself was
Grimm maintained an independent attitude toward Hitler and his work at all times. He voted
“No” in the 1934 election to combine the German presidential and chancellor offices on the
grounds that Hitler did not deserve to have so much power concentrated in his own hands. Hitler
by that time had decided that he would have to lead Germany in her hour of supreme crisis,
because the more able and highly-qualified personality for whom he had waited had failed to
appear. Grimm’s distrust of Hitler remained undiminished until the end of World War II. He
was, nevertheless, disgusted by the vile details of Sftauffenberg’s July 20, 1944, assassination
attempt against Hitler in which the would-be assassin, a German officer, merely placed a bomb
certain to kill other people as part of an effort to save his own life.
Grimm was opposed to Hitler’s anti-Jewish policy, but he admitted that throughout the world
he himself had encountered the proverbial disloyalty toward Germany of the so-called German
Jews (Ibid., pp. 53-54). Hitler had told Grimm in 1929 that the permanent disintegration of
Germany would be a disaster for western civilization, and that he was convinced that the
salvation of Europe and America depended upon the salvation of Germany. Hitler’s basic pro-
American attitude was also confirmed by Ernst Hanfstaengl, Unheard Witness (Philadelphia,
1957, pp. 183ff.). Hanfstaengl noted that Hitler had little difficulty on the on the basis of the
facts in making his charges stick about the ruthless exploitation of Weimar Germany by the Jews.
Indeed, the Jewish economic position in Germany was far more impressive and extensive than in
either Great Britain or the United States (Ibid., pp. 35ff.).
Grimm noted that Hitler and Goebbels, whom he also saw frequently after 1931, favored a
separate state for the Jews. This indicated that their thinking on the Jewish question was not
limited to the merely negative factor of ridding Germany of her Jews, but that it followed a
positive approach along the lines of modern Zionism.
Hitler saw in Jewry a conscious obstacle to the creation of a German national community. Grimm
noted that Hitler was striving for a truly democratic German community without the
conventional parliamentary basis which had served Germany so poorly in the past. The
tremendous enthusiasm which Hitler aroused among the German people in 1933 lasted well into
the war period, until it was recognized that Germany’s foes, after all, would be able to deny and
cancel the hopes and dreams of the entire German people. Grimm himself did not fully recognize
the tragedy of this situation until after Hitler’s death. Grimm noted that in 1945 he encountered
many healthy former inmates of those German concentration camps which had been pictured by
an unbridled atrocity propaganda as unexceptionable dens of hell and death.
Grimm denounced the demonstrations against the Jews which were organized by Goebbels on
November 10, 1938, but be rightly noted that they were no worse than the treatment of Germans
abroad during World War I, including the United States. That this observation about the
American treatment of Germans during World War I was really an understatement has been
amply proved by H. C. Peterson and G. C. Fite in their Opponents of War, 1917-1918 (Madison,
Wisconsin, 1957) which deals in detail with what happened in the United States. In this
context, and in view of the American record of mistreating Germans in 1917-1918, it was extremely
ironical when President Roosevelt told an American press conference on November 14, 1938, that
he could scarcely believe such things as the November, 1938, demonstrations in Germany could
happen in a civilized country. The American Zionist leader, Samuel Untermeyer, had been
conducting his boycott and holy war against the Germans for more than five years by that time.
Hitler was personally shocked by the November, 1938, measures launched by Goebbels and even
declared that these events could have ruined National Socialist Germany permanently. The
British diplomat, Ogilvie-Forbes, reported his conviction to London from Berlin that nothing of
the sort would ever be attempted again.
Grimm himself concluded after World War II that the old Jewish nation, which had been
landless for 2,000 years, was exploiting the confusion and uncertainty of the younger modern
nations in an attempt to dominate the world. The creation of a Zionist Jewish state would be of no
— 39 —
———————– Page 40———————–
adequate service in averting this danger unless it was carried through on a comprehensive scale
which would enable it to embrace most of the Jews of the world.
Osward Pirow, the South African Defense Minister, approached Hitler in November, 1938, with
a plan for the creation of a fund to solve the problem of Jewish emigration from Europe. The entire
scheme was to be carried through on an international basis with 2.5 billion dollars provided from
German-Jewish and other Jewish sources. The proposals were greeted with approval by Hitler
but were blocked in London. The same was true of Pirow’s proposal for an agreement between
Germany and the West which would give Germany a free hand in Eastern Europe.
In May, 1939, an elaborate, conspiracy to assassinate Hitler was organized and financed by the
English Jew, George Russel Strauss, at a time when England and Germany were at peace. The
various would-be assassins who tried to win the reward money from Strauss were unsuccessful, but
their efforts continued long after England and Germany were at war. Grimm emphasized that
these efforts had no influence on Hitler’s policy toward the Jews, although Hitler knew that
conspiracies of this kind had been organized against him from abroad.
Grimm correctly called, attention to the fact that the prosecution at the Nuremberg trials was
absolutely determined to prevent any introduction of factual material which would expose the
gigantic fraud to the effect that six million Jews had been exterminated by the National
Socialist government during the war. The defense attorneys were not allowed to question the
allegation by means of cross-examination, although, despite this arbitrary limitation, they did
make several impressive attempts to do so through flank attacks. None of the numerous Jewish
acquaintances of Grimm in Germany had been liquidated; on the contrary, all had survived the
war. But economic and political pressures were exerted by occupation authorities in Germany
after 1945 to prevent a free investigation of these atrocity charges by reputable scholars and they
have been continued by the Adenauer government at Bonn.
Hitler hoped to create an effective German dam against the inroads from the East in line with
the traditions of European history. He hoped to create a comradely international league of
nationalisms among the nations of Europe. Jewish spokesmen, such as Untermeyer and Weizmann,
took the same adamant position as the Soviet Marxists in seeking to undermine all such ideas.
The September 30, 1938, Anglo-German friendship agreement seemed to offer great hope that
Europe was facing a better future, but, within a few days, the pressure from the “anti-Munichers”
within the Tory Party took the initiative for friendship with Germany out of Chamberlain’s
hands. Grimm believed that Hitler had fully and properly recognized the dangers of this
situation in his speech criticizing the anti-Munich English group at Saarbrücken on October 9,
1938. The English succeeded in stirring up the Poles in 1939, and the Germans of Poland had
suffered day and night for many months before September, 1939, what the Jews of Germany had
experienced on the single date of November 10, 1938. There was little sympathy in the
international press for these Gennans of Poland. They were not Jews.
Grimm recognized Hitler’s interest in adequate economic access to the raw materials of Eastern
Europe, and he was convinced that Hitler would have been content under normal conditions to
satisfy Germany’s need within the context of the German-Russian non-aggression pact of August
23, 1939. When Hitler said at the Nuremberg Party Congress, in 1936, that Germany would swim
in plenty if she had the resources of the Urals, the German leader was not saying that Germany
should have the Urals or intended to take them. All he meant was that the Germans could do a
better job of exploiting natural resources than was true of the Soviet masters of Russia at that
time. Grimm believed that the months from November, 1938, until September, 1939, were the
most difficult personal period for Hitler prior to 1944. His desire for a rational reorganization of
Europe was threatened by the machinations of British fanatics on the balance of power tradition.
World War II came, and with it the spread of Communism and suffering for all Europe. Grimm,
after 1945, discussed the fate of Jewry during World War II with experts on statistics and
population throughout Germany, and also with numerous Germans who had personal experiences
with the German concentration camp system. Grimm noted the general consensus, based on Red
Cross estimates, that the number of Jewish and all other minority victims of German policies
throughout World War II could not have exceeded 350,000, and many of these died from allied
— 40 —
———————– Page 41———————–
bombings and natural causes (Ibid., p. 290). This would leave scant room for the alleged mass
operation of the gas chambers.
Grimm was quick to deplore the mistreatment of any Jews wherever they occurred, but he did not
believe for one moment that Jewish misfortune surpassed German suffering during a war which
ended in unprecedented disaster for Germany and unparalleled triumph for the Jews.
Nevertheless, Grimm concluded that there would continue to be a Jewish question as well as a
German question until a homeland could be created for most of the Jews (Ibid., p. 561). Grimm’s
book constituted a courageous and conscientious attempt to defend his country from undeserved
slander and defamation.
21. The Factual Appraisal of the Conditions in the German Wartime Concentration Camps by the
International Committee of the Red Cross
A key role in relation to the Jewish question in Europe during World War H was played by the
International Committee of the Red Cross, which consisted largely of relatively detached Swiss
nationals, although, as might be expected, sentiment became more critical of Germany when the
German military defeats continued to mount following Stalingrad. At the 17th International Red
Cross Conference at Stockholm in 1947 final arrangements were made for a definitive report to
appear the next year: Report of the International Committee of the Red Cross on its Activities
during the Second World War (3 vols., Geneva, 1948). This comprehensive survey both
supplemented and incorporated the findings from two previous key works: Documents sur
L’activité du CICR en faveur des civils detenus dans les camps de concentration en Allemagne,
1939-1945 (Geneva, 1946), and Inter Arma Caritas: the Work of the ICRC during the Second
World War (Geneva, 1947). The team of authors, headed by Frédéric Siordet, explained in the
opening pages of the first of the 1948 volumes that their motto had been strict political
neutrality, and service to all. The ICRC was contrasted with the national societies of the Red
Cross with their primary aims of aiding their own peoples. The neutrality of the ICRC was seen
to he typified by its two principal wartime leaders, Max Huber and Carl J. Burckhardt. This
neutral source has been selected here to conclude the testimony on the genocide question.
The ICRC considered that its greatest single wartime triumph consisted in the successful
application of the 1929 Geneva military convention to obtain access to civilian internees in the
various parts of Central and Western Europe. The ICRC, however, was unable to obtain any access
to the Soviet Union, which had failed to ratify the 1929 convention. The millions of civilian and
military internees in the USSR were cut off from any international contact or supervision
whatever. This was especially deplorable, since enough was known to assert that by far the
worst conditions for internees of both types existed in the USSR.
ICRC contacts with German internment camps in wartime began on September 23, 1939, with a
visit to Germany’s major PW camp for captured Polish soldiers. The ICRC, after March, 1942, and
the first reports on German mass-internment policies directed toward the Jews, became concerned
that previously satisfactory conditions in German civilian internment camps might be affected.
The German Red Cross was requested to take action, but they candidly reported to the ICRC on
April 29, 1942, that the German Government was not being sufficiently cooperative in providing
necessary information. The German Government took the position that its internment policy
“related to the security of the detaining state” (Report, vol. 1, p. 613). The ICRC did not accept
this position as a basis for excluding supervisory authority, and finally, by the latter part of
1942, it was able to secure important concessions from Germany.
The German Government agreed to permit the ICRC to supervise the shipment of food parcels to
the camps for all cases which did not involve German nationals. The ICRC soon established
contact with the commandants and personnel of the camps and launched their food relief
program, which functioned until the last chaotic days of the war in 1945. Letters of thanks for
packages were soon pouring in from Jewish internees, and it was also possible to make unlimited
anonymous food shipments to the camps.
As early as October 2, 1944, the ICRC warned the German Foreign Office of the impending
collapse of the German transportation system due to the Allied bombing campaign. The ICRC
considered that starvation conditions for people throughout Germany were becoming inevitable.
— 41 —
———————– Page 42———————–
At last, on February 1, 1945, the German Government agreed to permit Canadian PW’s to drive
white supply trucks to the various concentration camps. The ICRC set up one special distribution
center at the Berlin Jewish Hospital and another at Basel. However, this improvised food
system did not work well, and many of the white food trucks were destroyed by Allied aerial
attacks. The ICRC role became so important in the last phase of the war that it was actually the
ICRC representatives who hoisted the white flags of surrender at Dachau and Mauthausen
during the final days of the war.
The ICRC had special praise for the liberal conditions which prevailed at Theresienstadt
(Terezin) up to the time of their last visits there in April, 1945. This large Jewish community,
which had been concentrated under German auspices, enjoyed complete autonomy in communal life
under a Jewish administration. The Jewish Council of Elders repeatedly informed the ICRC
representatives that they were enjoying surprisingly favorable conditions when one considered
that Germany was going down to defeat during a war in which World Jewry had been the first to
call for her destruction.
The ICRC also had special praise for the Vittel camp in German-occupied France. This camp
contained thousands of Polish Jews whose only claim to special consideration was that they had
received visas from American consular authorities. They were treated by the German authorities
in every respect as full-fledged American citizens.
The ICRC had some guarded comments to make about the situation of Hungarian Jews, many of
whom were deported. to Poland by the Germans in 1944 after the German occupation of Hungary.
The ICRC believed, for instance, that the “ardent” demonstrations of Hungarian Jews against the
German occupation were unwise.
The ICRC had special praise for the mild regime of Ion Antonescu of Rumania toward the Jews,
and they were able to give special relief help to 183,000 Rumanian Jews until the moment of the
Soviet occupation. This enabled the Rumanian Jews to enjoy far better conditions than average
Rumanians during the late months of the war. This aid ceased with the Soviet occupation, and
the ICRC complained bitterly that it never succeeded “in sending anything whatsoever to
Russia” (Report, vol. 2, p. 62).
It should be noted that the ICRC received voluminous flow of mail from Auschwitz until the
period of the Soviet occupation. By that time many of the internees had been evacuated
westward by the Germans. The efforts of the ICRC to extend aid to the internees left at
Auschwitz under the Soviet occupation were futile. It was possible, however, at least to a limited
extent, for ICRC representatives to supervise the evacuation of Auschwitz by way of Moravia and
Bohemia. It was also possible to continue sending food parcels for former Auschwitz inmates to
such places as Buchenwald and Oranienburg.
The ICRC complained bitterly that their vast relief operations for civilian Jewish internees in
camps were hampered by the tight Allied blockade of Fortress Europe. Most of their purchases of
relief food were made in Rumania, Hungary, and Slovakia. It was also in the interest of the
interned Jews that the ICRC on March 15, 1944, protested against “the barbarous aerial warfare
of the Allies” (Inter Arma Caritas, p. 78). The period of the 1899 and 1907 Hague conventions
could only be considered a golden age by comparison.
It is important to note in finishing with these detailed and comprehensive ICRC reports that
none of the International Red Cross representatives at the camps or else where in Axis-occupied
Europe found any evidence what ever that a deliberate policy of extermination was being
conducted by Germany against the Jews. The ICRC did emphasize that there was general chaos in
Germany during the final months of the war at a time when most of the Jewish doctors from the
camps were being used to combat typhus on the eastern front. These doctors were far from the camp
areas when the dreaded typhus epidemics of 1945 struck (Report, vol. 1, pp. 204ff.).
The ICRC worked in close cooperation throughout the war with Vatican representatives, and,
like the Vatican, found itself unable, after the event, to engage in the irresponsible charges of
genocide which had become the order of the day.
Nothing is more striking or important relative to the work of the International Red Cross in
relation to the concentration camps than the statistics it presented on the loss of life in the civil
population during the Second World War:
— 42 —
———————– Page 43———————–
These figures present the appalling estimate of 17,850,000 who lost their lives for reasons other
than persecution, while only 300,000 of all persecuted groups, many of whom were not Jews, died
from all causes during the war. This figure of 300,000 stands out in marked contrast with the
5,012,000 Jews estimated by the Jewish joint Distribution Committee to have lost their lives
during the war, mainly through extermination by National Socialists.
One of the most bewildered Germans after the war was Legation Counsellor Eberhard von
Thadden, who had been delegated the double responsibility by the German Foreign Office of
working on the Jewish question with the ICRC and with Adolf Eichmann. In April, 1943, he
discussed with Eichmann the rumors circulating abroad that Jews were being wantonly
exterminated by the German authorities. Eichmann insisted that the very idea of extermination
was absurd. Germany needed all possible labor in a struggle for her very existence.
Thadden questioned the wisdom of the internment policy. Eichmann admitted that available
transportation facilities were needed to furnish both the fronts and the homeland, but he argued
that it had become necessary to concentrate Jew from the occupied territories in the East and in
German camps to secure Jewish labor effectively and to avert unrest and subversion in the occupied
countries. Any of the occupied countries might become a front-line area within a relatively short
period of time.
Eichmann insisted that the family camps for the Jews in the East, along the lines of
Theresienstadt, were far more acceptable to the Jews than the separations which the splitting up
of families would entail. Eichmann admitted a case to Thaden in 1944 in which a Jew was killed
in Slovakia while on transport from Hungary to Poland, but he insisted that such an event was
extremely exceptional. He reminded Thadden again that the Jews were solely in camps so that
their working power could be utilized and espionage could be prevented. He noted that Germany
had not employed these extreme measures in the early years of the war, but only when it became
evident that her very existence was at stake. Eichmann also reminded Thadden that foreign Jews
who were being allowed to leave Europe directly from the camps were not charging Germany
with the atrocities which were irresponsibly rumored from abroad. In short, Thadden, who had
personally made numerous visits to the various concentration camps, was thoroughly convinced
that Eichmann was right and that the foreign rumors of genocide in circulation were incorrect.
Eberhard von Thadden’s only comment from his prison cell on June 11, 1946, after having heard
the full scope of the Nuremberg Trial propaganda, was that, if Eichmann had lied, he would
have to have been a “very skillful” liar indeed. The world has not yet sufficiently pondered the
question about who has lied and why. Yet it is a statistical fact that, for every fraudulent
affidavit or statement claiming a death camp or a gas chamber, there are at least twenty which
deny the very existence of such camps and gas chambers. It is only the published evidence which
has presented a lop-sided picture in support of the genocide myth.
The unavoidable conclusion about the wartime German treatment of European Jewry is that we
have encountered a deliberate defamation and falsification conspiracy on an unprecedented scale.
The internment of European Jews, like that of the Japanese in the United States and Canada, was
carried out for security reasons. It was pointed out earlier that there was no such thorough
internment of the Jews by Germans as took place in the case of the Japanese in America. Not over
2,000,000 Jews were ever interned by the Germans in concentration camps and it is unlikely that
the figure was greater than 1,500,000. There is not the slightest intention here to argue that such
internment was either necessary or desirable in any of these cases. Our treatment here has been
solely concerned with the utterly monstrous and unfounded charge that internment was used by
the Germans as a veil behind which they successfully slaughtered no less than six million
European Jews. There has never been even the slightest conclusive proof for such a campaign of
promiscuous slaughter on the part of Germany, and, in the meantime, all reliable evidence
continues to suggest with increasing volume and impact that this genocide legend is a deliberate
and brazen falsification.
— 43 —
———————– Page 44———————–
The Myth of the Six Million was published anonymously in 1969, by THE NOONTIDE PRESS,
P.O. Box 2719, Newport Beach, California 92659, USA. The book is for the moment out of print. It
has been digitalized and displayed on the website of the Institute for Historical Review,
<http://www.ihr.org> and reproduced on AAARGH in May 2001. It is now a common knowledge
that the author of this pioneering little book (105 p.) was David Hoggan, a scholar in his own
AAARGH edition on line
— 44 —