Scrapbookpages Blog

October 31, 2015

An interesting and important subject for discussion

Filed under: Germany, Holocaust, World War II — Tags: , , , , , — furtherglory @ 8:43 am
German boy looks at the bomb damage in Nuremberg, Jan. 1945

German boy looks at the bomb damage in Nuremberg, Jan. 1945

Nurenberg Germany January 1945 (Click to enlarge)

Nurenberg Germany January 1945 (Click to enlarge)

Wolf Murmelstein, one of the regular readers of my blog, has offered a subject for discussion.  I am astounded at the knowledge of history, shown by the readers of my blog in the comments section, so I am looking forward to the comments on the following essay, written by Wolf Murmelstein:

To furtherglory, Hermie and other readers of this blog:

In various comments here, the question about the post World War II and Holocaust trials has been brought up, so I am answering all of them here.

From personal experience and from historical research, I admit that some of those trials were driven by political rivalries for positions or interest to prevent some really informed person from giving evidence concerning many wrong doings and enunciations by careless talk, appropriations of Jewish owned assets, etc. which occurred during World II and the Holocaust.

Another chapter refers to the interest of the Communist parties to weaken the middle class in the countries where they rose into power, so said by Clement Gottwald on April 10, 1945 in a speech to party activists at Kosice.

At Theresienstadt that day, we were still in danger of being killed in a mass shooting.

So, in the East, as well as in the West, the Communist parties enlisted former Nazis and Fascists, and many of them were able to avoid trial for their wrongdoing, as long as they obeyed party orders.

When there had not been any political interest, many accusations leading to Judiciary investigations had been found baseless and due to hysteria and the persecution complex of traumatized persons. Stating this, the judge could avoid starting procedures for slander.

In many trials, the statements of the defendants would have been precious historical documents.

I am quoting from memory, but I could find many other examples:

1. Herr Groening had been employed in sorting the money and jewels of the victims. In this way, he avoided being sent to the battlefront in the East.
2 . Herr Demjanjuk stated in a Munich court that he had had a choice: Enlisting in the SS auxiliaries  or starving.

3. In the Auschwitz trial, it had been stated by a defendant that selection started only after the train with the police escort had left the station; this was clearly done for better secrecy.

At Nuremberg, Papen was acquitted by a German court for his high responsibilities for the Nazi rise to power.

This subject deserves better analysis and research, so I hope that this essay will generate some discussion.


  1. To all friends discussing here! 1. Nazism is a deepply rooted hatred based racist murder doctrine aiming German rule in Europe with enslavering of all other peoples and estirpation of the Jews. 2. The SS was a n armed party militia set up following the model of the Teiutonic Knights order; until last years of WWI the enlisting had been a personal choice to follow the nazi murder doctrine and the training had been accordingly. 3. Differing from that hatred doctrine we want only tre justince; so certain aged survivors of those perpetrators can avoid prison allthough ought to be asked to tell their experiences and the reasons of their enlisting in that murder organization. 4. Instead of continous fault searching questions about details in accounts of survivors we ought to listen in order to learn how to avoid that similar tragedies occur again. Years ago an Italian Neo-Fascist told me: “Your fellow Jews ought to know how easily certain things can occure again”; a lesson I share with all of You.

    Comment by Wolf MURNELSTEIN — November 4, 2015 @ 1:17 am

  2. They certainly have a crazy justice system in Germany today. Apparently, you can be convicted of being an accomplice to mass murder, without anyone having to prove that any murders took place; the name of anyone who was murdered; or any forensic examination of the human remains! No eye-witness to the actual murders needs to give sworn testimony, and no scientific proof – or technical evidence – is required to describe the murder weapon used. Truly amazing!

    Poor 94 year-old Oskar Groening worked in the Auschwitz administration office, but he didn’t herd anyone into the alleged gas chambers, and neither did he pour any “poison gas pellets” into chambers full of human beings. But elderly people, who were described as “survivors”, were allowed to give sworn evidence against Mr Groening even though they had never met him before in their lives, or indeed seen him in and around the Auschwitz complex. And how can one possibly rely on these elderly people’s testimony anyway. Most people in their 80’s and 90’s would find it difficult to remember what they did yesterday, let alone what happened over 70 years ago. I don’t believe these witnesses were even cross-examined by the defence council. But alas, its like all these holocaust survivor testimonies dating from the time of the Nuremburg Tribunals onwards – none of them have ever been closely cross-examined and investigated to ascertain if they are telling the truth.

    How could a properly constituted court of law and justice system accept this shabby state of affairs.

    Comment by Talbot — November 3, 2015 @ 1:50 pm

  3. To all friends discussing here! The past must be studied in order to prevent some tragedies occuring again. I ask all of You to remember that WWI and WWII had been in part due to careless talks of immmoral foolish intellectuals whose speeches and writings made any reasonable settlement impossible. They enjoyed free speech but at the moment of rising to power sent oppositors to Death Concentration Camp.

    Comment by Wolf MURNELSTEIN — November 2, 2015 @ 11:36 pm

    • That’s the risk in having the freedom of speech, Wolf. You risk allowing those that care nothing for the freedom of speech (or religion, or civil rights, etc.) to seize power and take those freedoms away.
      Certainly Hitler benefitted from it.

      Comment by HCW — November 3, 2015 @ 9:31 am

  4. this was clearly done for better secrecy

    How would the train personnel know the reason for the selections? Didn’t all the Jews who weren’t selected (for gassing) witness the selections? And later realize those selected — including close family — were not seen again? And therefore they were more likely to surmise the reason behind the selections than train personnel? Weren’t thousands of these witnesses to selection (‘surmisers’) later either transported or (death-) marched to other camps, or allowed to be captured by the Russians?

    Comment by eah — October 31, 2015 @ 11:37 pm

    • eah! The Nazis knew very well how to keep secrecy. Besides, they were very suspicious. So, they waited those twenty.thirtie minutes before train departed being so sure at hundred per cent that train personel would not even suspect some what allarming. Clea?

      Comment by Wolf MURNELSTEIN — November 1, 2015 @ 7:34 am

      • Photo evidence from the ‘Auschwitz Album’, taken in 1944, shows two trains still waiting on the ramp long after the passengers has dismounted and dispersed into the Birkenau camp. The image shows some guards walking along the ramp, and baggage left unattended. This would mean that the locomotive drivers – plus any other railway personnel present – would at least be aware of the selections that had just taken place and the direction the people all went.

        I find it difficult to believe, however, that if there were mass exterminations taking place on a 24/7 basis at Birkenau, then the railway personnel would be totally unaware of this. And why would the SS record what was going on in the camp for a photographic album anyway, if the horrific series of mass killings were to be kept secret from the world!. In addition, why on earth did the Germans not destroy the Album before they evacuated the camp, but allowed it to fall into Soviet hands – that just doesn’t make any sense.

        But what is very interesting about the Auschwitz Album, is that not one of the photos shows any brutality or cruelty by the SS personnel towards the inmates. There are no ferocious barking dogs, or guards brandishing whips or guns. The inmates all look well, and not at all frightened or apprehensive. Yes, many of them look forlorn and downcast, which is not surprising – although some do put up a brave smile for the camera. But what comes across to me looking at all the photos, is the absence of any threatening atmosphere inside Birkenau. There is no sense at all that any horrific actions or industrialised mass killings are taking place there.

        I would suggest that the Auschwitz Album shows that Birkenau was not an “extermination camp” at all, but is a true and faithful record of daily life in a vast wartime labour and transit camp.

        Comment by Talbot — November 4, 2015 @ 9:54 am

        • There is nothing incriminating in the album because the SS wanted it that way. No one in their right mind would think that the SS would actually take pictures of the gas chambers in operation.
          The Hungarian Jews deported in 1944 had no idea about their fate…..but the Polish Jews did. By 1944 there were very few free Polish Jews left alive outside of labor or concentration camps. By the end of 1942/beginning of 1943 the Polish Jews were aware of their fate in the Death Camps. The SS no longer bothered to attempt deception when Jews arrived, they simply forced them as quickly as possible to undress and get them into the gas chambers.

          Comment by HCW — November 4, 2015 @ 10:08 am

          • OK, that’s a reasonable supposition – the SS did not want to show anything incriminating in their Album, but then how do we know for certain that gas-chambers existed inside Birkenau. There are photos of the cremation process underway, but nothing to indicate that homicidal gas chambers were in operation.

            Could you, therefore, supply us with the method – from start to finish – of how these “gas chambers” actually operated, or point us to a scientific or technical report produced either by the Germans, Soviets or Poles, in which they explain in detail the entire process for all four of the so-called “Kremas”.

            Comment by Talbot — November 4, 2015 @ 1:21 pm

            • This is a report by Robert Van Pelt for the Libel trial against Lipstadt by Irving.
              He describes how the gas chambers worked. It is quite lengthy.

              Click to access vanPeltReport.pdf

              Comment by HCW — November 4, 2015 @ 2:22 pm

            • Here is another study:


              Comment by HCW — November 4, 2015 @ 3:30 pm

              • I obviously haven’t had the time to read fully either the Robert Van Pelt Report, or the “Auschwitz Holes” Report, but I did note the credentials of the authors. The first report was compiled by Professor Robert Van Pelt who describes himself as an expert in architecture, an architectural historian, and a writer. The second report was composed by Daniel Keren, Jamie McCarthy and Harry W. Mazal. They provide us with no details of their educational or professional qualifications – but would appear to be reasonably competent experts in the field of engineering, computer analysis and photographic work.

                Yes, that’s fair enough, but the Revisionists are able to put forward credible experts themselves. Fred Leuchter, for instance, who was the world’s leading expert on gas chamber technology; Germar Rudolf – a qualified Chemist with the Max Planke Institute; and Doctor Nicholas Kollerstrom – a science historian who formerly worked at University College London. Their own research suggests that these facilities in Birkenau could never have been used as homicidal gas chambers. Fred Leucter even publicly called the proposition “ludicrous”.

                On page 22 of the Van Pelt Report, Professor Van Pelt writes;- “…the transformation of “the little red house” into a gas chamber only took a matter of days, but the design and construction of crematoria 2 and 3 took more than 18 months…”.

                But this is just weird; I find it difficult to accept that the Nazis would utilise a derelict farm cottage, which lay outside the secure perimeter of Birkenau, as a human extermination facility. But if it could be converted into a fully-functioning gas chamber in just two or three days, with the bodies burnt effectively in adjacent pits, then why was it necessary to spend 18 months designing and building the much more complex structures of Kremas 2 and 3. Why not just stick to this proven, and seemingly efficient, method of extermination and disposal.

                Then on page 29, Professor Van Pelt makes a very telling admission, when he admits;- “But we understand very little about many issues central to the machinery of death”. Oh Dear! – so after 70 years, it would seem that the official holocausters are way, way short of providing us with any scientific or technical analysis of the extermination process.

                In the “Auschwitz Holes” report it says;- “Zyklon B in crematoriums 2 and 3 was not simply poured on to the floor, but lowered in a removable container into a sturdy wire-mesh column. But this statement contradicts all of Professor Van Pelt’s eye witnesses who claim that the SS did in fact pour the pellets directly through the vents into the wire-cage columns. So the burning question is – whose right?

                Comment by Talbot — November 4, 2015 @ 7:47 pm

                • I don’t know that much about Rudolph or Kollerstram but Leuchter simply has no credibility with me. He is called an expert but as far as I can tell he never actually built a gas chamber. He used the incorrect test to determine cyanide amounts, he never consulted the Auschwitz curator regarding historical documents and didn’t even know that it takes less cyanide to kill humans than insects.
                  Auschwitz predates the Holocaust, the SS created Auschwitz as a normal concentration camp operated like the older concentration camps in Germany. Unlike the Operation Reinhard Camps its killing facilities were improvised. The need for expansion and more effective ways of killing plus the added issue of body disposal provided the impetus to build bigger, better killing and disposal apparatus.

                  Comment by HCW — November 4, 2015 @ 9:25 pm

                • The Nazis destroyed many documents pertaining to the Holocaust, wiped the OR camps off the face of the earth and blew up the Krema in Birkenau so it is understandable that no one has
                  all the answers, Talbot. That’s the way history works, our understanding on things grow as time goes by. I would be suspicious of anyone who says they have all the answers. Even now historians find new documentation on historical events. We are still discovering new things regarding biology, physics, etc.
                  As far as eyewitness accounts, yes, they do miss or forget details. But then fact is the eyewitnesses you cite both agree there werewire mesh

                  Comment by HCW — November 4, 2015 @ 9:39 pm

                • After 70 years, I still fail to see why the official holocausters can’t supply us with a reasonably coherent scientific and technical report as to how these so-called “gas chambers” actually functioned. Would it not have been better, if instead of beating Commandant Hoess to a pulp, and plying him with alcohol, that the Allied investigators back in the late-1940’s sat down calmly and questioned him closely to extract as much genuine information as possible. Would it not also have been a sensible thing to have seriously cross-examined all the inmate and SS guard witnesses – as would be normal in a proper criminal investigation.

                  But this negligence, and crass stupidity, back then has left us all today floundering around, wondering if these gas chambers actually existed, and how they functioned.

                  Comment by Talbot — November 5, 2015 @ 5:29 am

                • HCW writes that – “unlike the Operation Reinhard Camps its killing facilities were improvised”. Well, I don’t believe anyone could operate an improvised system of mass killing without jeopardising the lives of all the personnel in the immediate vicinity. Such a system – whereby you require a continuous production line of death – is liable to break down at any moment, and thus you would be presented with an ongoing series of delays and bottlenecks in the system.

                  What we are officially told about the so-called “gassings” in the Operation Reinhard Camps can also be described as an improvised system. In fact, what is suggested that took place in those 3 camps is simply absurd – but I won’t go into that today.

                  Comment by Talbot — November 5, 2015 @ 6:00 am

                • Fred Leuchter did say something in his report that convinced me that no gas chambers were ever built inside the same building as the crematorium furnaces. I had never given the subject much thought before, but of course, no one – let alone the technologically efficient Germans – would mess around with a highly dangerous chemical compound in the same facility as 15 open furnaces. That’s simply asking for trouble. Hydrogen cyanide is apparently flammable in sufficient quantities, and at high temperatures, which would mean that your entire extermination facility would be like a powder-keg wanting to blow everyone to kingdom come.

                  No, if exterminations were taking place (which they weren’t) then the Nazis would have built their gas chambers at a safe distance away from the crematoria ovens, and the bodies transferred between them by means of a conveyer belt or miniature railway line,

                  Comment by Talbot — November 5, 2015 @ 6:36 am

                • First, it is regrettable that the British tortured Hoess (I prefer this spelling). However, except for adjusting the amount of dead Hoess never recanted. The allies did not try and execute Hoess, the Poles did. If you are on trial for your life and you are not guilty, why did Hoess not say this during his triIal? There is no evidence that the Poles tortured him. In fact, why didn’t Eichman at his trial? His excuse was that he was just obeying orders, not that the murder of the Jews never happened. There is no evidence the Isrealis tortured Eichman, they even paid for a GERMAN lawyer to represent him.
                  Actually, since Nuremberg eyewitnesses and former SS have been questioned about what happened and for the most part the stories generally match. “Revisionists” exclude this testimony because it does not square with what they believe.
                  Of course the Holocaust was improvised, no one had ever done this before. The Germans progressed from mass shooting to mobile gas vans to fixed installations. They experimented, figured out what worked and what didn’t and proceeded from there.
                  When you say that any improvised method would have killed all of the personnel, are you saying that camp personnel did not know how to handle Zyclon B? ZB was a commonly used pesticide available since the mid-20’s. Camp personnel was well versed on how to safely utilize it, after all, Auschwitz had several delousing buildings to fumigate clothing. Camp personnel successfully used it in this fashion with no problem, why would it be different using it at the improvised gas chambers?

                  Comment by HCW — November 5, 2015 @ 6:44 am

                • Here is another report actually detailing how a gassing would take place:
                  ZB is explosive but at a very high level, much higher than it would need to be fatal.

                  Comment by HCW — November 5, 2015 @ 8:21 am

                • @ Wolf Murnelstein

                  Please – I don’t want anyone to get the idea that the Jews in German-occupied Europe were not racially discriminated against, or that large numbers of them weren’t crowded into cramped ghettos before being transported on to various concentration and labour camps in Eastern Europe. I just question the official narrative of 6 million being systematically killed, and 4 million of them exterminated in so-called “death camps”.

                  You accuse us Revisionists of “puritan fault-searching” over petty details, but you are quite relaxed when the official holocaust authorities just casually reduced the numbers allegedly killed from 4 million to 1.5 million in Auschwitz; from 1.5 million to 78,000 in Majdanek; and from 340,000 to 152,000 in Chelmno.

                  This means that 3 million people have gone missing from the official total – does this not cause you some concern?

                  I, myself, am not prepared to just accept this huge discrepancy in the numbers without a proper explanation from the holocaust authorities. The world deserves better than this – we need an investigation into how these numbers were arrived at in the first place, and also whether these revised figures are true or false, or whether they too have just been plucked out of thin air.

                  Personally, I cannot accept the concept of mobile gas vans, or stationery gas chambers, without a thorough scientific and technical analysis being undertaken which can prove conclusively that such methods of mass killing is even possible. And after that, I would require a truly independent re-investigation of what really happened in these German camps.

                  Comment by Talbot — November 5, 2015 @ 10:37 am

                • The original plaque at Auschwitz said “people,” not Jews.
                  You’ll note that I got this from a “Revisionist” website. The plaque also gives the years 1940-1945. There were no large numbers of Jews in the camp until 1942, the camps primary purpose until then was to incarcerate Poles. The Soviets got this number by assuming that the camp received prisoners and killed them on a 24/7 basis, this was not the case. The Soviets and Poles actually downplayed the fact that Jews were murdered there, preferring to focus on numbers and not ethnicity.

                  Comment by HCW — November 5, 2015 @ 12:50 pm

                • I can’t find a copy of the original plaque at Majdanek. I assume it also says “people” and not “Jews” for the reasons stated.
                  No serious historian or researcher ever took those numbers of 4 million or 1.5 million seriously.

                  Comment by HCW — November 5, 2015 @ 1:00 pm

                • HCW is probably right that “no serious historian or researcher ever took those numbers of 4 million and 1,5 million seriously”, because my own encyclopedia of WW2, dating from 1970, just gives 2 million for Auschwitz, and 1.35 for Majdanek. It would seem that anyone and everyone can make up their own figures for the holocaust totals as they pass along life’s merry way.

                  Let’s hope the official holocaust experts are happy with the existing figures – and won’t feel an overwhelming need to change them again somewhere along the line!

                  I’m still intrigued, though, as to where over 2.6 million of the alleged 6 million perished, because the latest tally for the 6 alleged death camps are;-

                  Auschwitz-Birkenau 1.5 million
                  Majdanek 78,000 ( 60,000 of them Jews )
                  Chelmno 152,000
                  Treblinka 850,000
                  Sobibor 250,000
                  Belzec 500,000

                  Even the Einzatsgruppen operations in the occupied Soviet Union, and the so-called “death marches” in 1945, can’t come anywhere close to meeting this figure.

                  Comment by Talbot — November 5, 2015 @ 2:00 pm

                • In total about 2.7 million Jews died in the six designated death camps.
                  About 1.3 million Jews were shot by the Einsatzgrupen.
                  This equals 4 million.
                  The rest died in the ghettos due to disease, maltreatment, etc. They also died in other concentration camps that were not designated as death camps and on the death marches at the end of the war.
                  This is the total amount of dead broken down by country:
                  There are other totals you can find on line.

                  Comment by HCW — November 5, 2015 @ 5:24 pm

                • The number of deaths at each “death camp” has changed over the years.
                  The number of survivors who are out on the lecture circuit is amazing. I wrote about this on these blog posts:


                  Comment by furtherglory — November 6, 2015 @ 7:43 am

                • TALBOT! 1.Mass murder in hermeticallu closed rooms where lethal gas is introduced developped from the Nazi Euthanasia Programm where disabled and sick persons had been closed in a room where motor exhaust had been introduced; it took time and had been possible only for small groups of victims. The Gas Vans had been invented by SS Collonel Walther Rauff for the murder of minor Jewish comunities. Closing about 80/90 persons in the van of a truck where then introduce the motor exhaust during the running; it took too much time. Furthermore, Germany had shortage of oil. So building or adapting existent facilities installing make believe showers carryng instead of water Zyklon B, a very lethal chemical desinfection product produced in Germany. As Zyklon B is not based on oil it had been possible to build nearby the Crematoria. So the Nazis had only to set up their organization to herd the victims into the Gas Chambers where in the “showers” instead of water Zylon B had been introduced and then the dead victims had been taken to the nearby Crematoria and the ashes had been trown in a river or so. As You and all other fault finder can see more a logistic problem than a thechinical one. 2. Consider that in most of the Central and East European states the religious affiliations had been registred by state and town offices. In URSS Stalin in 1927 or so ordered to register all the persons belonging to the “Jewish Nationality” with homeland in Biro Bidjan. Furhtermore the Jewish Comunities listed only those sharing the Faith while the Nazis considered every person with Jewish ancestry as belonging to the “Jewish Race”. So the figure of 6 milion victims is a cautious estimate. I would say. At least 6.000.000 Holocaust victims. 3. As to the compensations, I myself and allmost all other survivors got the small sums and allowances the states could grant to victims of Nazi persecutions and which of course in no way repay our losses in health, education and career opportunities. In USA You have a quite poor knowledge of European history, geography, demography and ideologies This partially explains Your puritan fault looking questioning. You and other fault finders will have a nicer weekend than myne. .

                  Comment by Wolf MURNELSTEIN — November 6, 2015 @ 2:11 am

                • You wrote: “In USA You have a quite poor knowledge of European history, geography, demography and ideologies” This is so true. However, the people who comment on my blog are extremely well informed on European history, ect. I have learned a lot from the comments here.

                  Comment by furtherglory — November 6, 2015 @ 7:25 am

                • Talbot, the Soviets actually used gas vans first during the Great Purge.
                  I don’t know if the Germans knew about this and adapted them for their use or if they came up with this on their own.

                  Comment by HCW — November 6, 2015 @ 5:03 am

                • @ HCW

                  I’m afraid that I don’t accept the concept of “death camps”. This is a name that’s been conjoured up by people after the end of WW2. To me, these were either transit camps or large-scale labour camps designed primarily to hold the vast numbers of workers needed for the German war effort. They had a secondary role as well, in holding Jews and other people deemed to be a potential threat to wartime Germany (just as the entire Japanese population were interred in camps in the western states of the USA).

                  The suggestion that 2.7 million Jews died in these “death camps” is pure speculation and assertion – and nothing more! There is no credible evidence that this figure is anything like the truth. Likewise, the total of 1.3 million shot by the Einzatsgruppen in the occupied Soviet Union. The sheer logistics of such an undertaking by the limited resources of 3 or 4 SS battalions is way, way beyond their capacity in the vast, spread-out territory of Russia, the Baltic States and the Ukraine. No, what’s happened here, is that the real total is more like 130,000, and some Soviet NKVD officer has sat down at a captured German typewriter and simply added another nought to end of the number!

                  I will accept that people died in ghettos of disease, maltreatment and even starvation – Yes, that is a reasonable charge to make against the Nazis, but I will not accept that all those people held as wartime prisoners and forced workers in the other concentration camps are “holocaust victims”. They are purely the tragic victims of WW2 – just like millions of others who died fighting on the front-line or who were killed in the savage air raids.

                  The title “death marches” is way over the top as well!. The correct name for these are “evacuation columns”. Millions of people – civilians, concentration camp inmates, foreign workers, and POW’s (including my own father) were marching back into Germany, ahead of the advancing Soviet Red Army, through the terribly cold winter of early 1945.Yes, lot’s of people did die during this evacuation, and people who couldn’t keep up with the columns, or simply succumbed to exhaustion, were left on the roadside to die, or were put out of their misery by a bullet from the German guards. But these deaths have got nothing to do with any “holocaust”, they are purely tragic wartime fatalities.

                  Comment by Talbot — November 6, 2015 @ 6:31 am

                • You wrote “added another nought to end of number” I think that you mean ought or aught.

                  Back in the old days, it was common for people in America to say aught instead of zero.

                  Comment by furtherglory — November 6, 2015 @ 7:08 am

                • You wrote that some of the “death camps” were transit camps. I also believe that some of the death camps were really transit camps. I wrote about this in these two blog posts:



                  You can read about Auschwitz being a railroad hub on this page of my website:

                  Comment by furtherglory — November 6, 2015 @ 7:19 am

                • Himmler increased the size of the Einsatsgruppen during the summer of 1941 when he figured out the original groups were too small. Himmler added SS cavalry units, Order Police and other auxiliary units originally intended for security behind the lines. Also there was a great deal of local collaboration, some of these local militia units joined in on the killings. While the most active period for the Eisatzgruppen was the summer of 1941 through the summer of 1942 there was still mass shootings after that.
                  You called the Death Camps transit camps. Transit camps to where? Also, the camp at Chelmno was not near a train line. The Jews were brought in by lorries or walked. Why would you build a “transit camp” away from a rail line?
                  It’s funny that you would use the phrase “put out of their misery” when that misery was completely due to their captors.
                  When you make very little provision for food, water, shelter or adequate winter clothing and force march people through the snow and cold this is a death march. Some of these journeys took place in open cattle cars.

                  Comment by HCW — November 6, 2015 @ 7:01 am

                • I am glad your father survived. I don’t know what country you are from but the Germans generally treated Western POWs much better than than Soviet POWs

                  Comment by HCW — November 6, 2015 @ 7:05 am

                • @Wolf Murnelstein

                  Replying to your 3 points.

                  1) I dispute that lethal gas chambers were ever used in the Nazi Euthanasia Programme. My contention is, that they were using a much simpler and a more humane method of injection and tablets to put these poor unfortunates to sleep ( not that that I approve of what the Nazis were doing – mercy killing is a very controversial subject).

                  Neither can I accept that the Nazis would even consider turning ordinary road vehicles into “gas vans”, where the exhaust system is somehow transferred into the interior in order to execute up to 80 or 90 people at a time. This proposition is absolutely asinine! The German SS had a wide range of highly technical, scientific, and professional personnel to device suitable methods of execution if they needed to mass murder people (which they didn’t). This mad-cap scheme of “gas vans” is something that only low-life gypos and pikies might dream up on a run-down trailer encampment.

                  You mention “make-believe showers that had been turned into gas chambers”. Are you referring to the fake ones that the Americans installed at Dachau, or those fabricated by the Soviets at Majdanek?

                  You say that the human ashes were thrown into rivers. How convenient for the holocausters that there is no evidence of the bodies of the alleged victims. No one knows, therefore, who – and how many – were killed. All we have to rely on is the very dubious eye-witnesses – who were never cross-examined closely, or the tortured and beaten SS guards. Marvellous, isn’t it!

                  2) You provide us with a good summary of the registration of Jews in Germany and the Soviet Union, but there is no concrete proof of 6 million “holocaust” victims. Through 1945, 46, and 47 there were so many refugees and displaced people wandering around Europe, that the idea of calculating numbers lost, killed, or migrated elsewhere simply cannot be calculated with any certainty at all.

                  3) We are now 70 years beyond the end of WW2, and thus NO ONE should be getting any compensation for what they allegedly endured during WW2. It is a complete outrage. Any moneys that have been claimed since 1995 ( i.e;- 50 years after 1945 ) should be handed back to the German tax-payer.

                  Comment by Talbot — November 6, 2015 @ 8:22 am

                • Talbot:
                  First, it’s nice to see that you don’t deny the Euthanasia Program. However, why would the people that ran that program waste medication on people they were going to kill? People tell me how efficient the Germans are and were. Gassing is more efficient and less expensive.
                  Second, I’ve stated that gas vans were not a German invention but a Soviet one. The reason why the Germans moved to fixed
                  installations is
                  that the vans

                  Comment by HCW — November 6, 2015 @ 8:48 am

                • I find saying that the SS had better more efficient ways of killing a little ridiculous. Why dwell on what they could do versus what they did so? Both carbon monoxide gas and cyanide are well known toxins. Why go out of the way to reinvent the wheel?

                  Comment by HCW — November 6, 2015 @ 9:27 am

                • @HCW

                  Thanks for your kind remarks regarding my father. I’ll just say that he was a Commonwealth Serviceman who was serving as an army driver, and was captured by the Italians in North Africa. He was then handed over into German custody after Italy quit the war following Mussolini’s overthrow in the summer of 1943. He was then transferred to the huge POW Camp at Lamsdorf – now in Poland, and I think is called Lambinowice, which lies about 150 kilometres up the road from Auschwitz, close to the City of Opole.

                  You are quite correct in saying that Western POW’s were treated better than the captured Soviet soldiers. These men were indeed treated shabbily, partly due of course to Hiltler’s racial policies, but also because they weren’t protected by the Geneva Convention or the Red Cross. My father said that food rations were gradually reduced for everyone in the camp through 1944, and it was only the occasional distribution of Red Cross Parcels which prevented real starvation from breaking out among the Western prisoners.

                  The camp at Lamsdorf was evacuated around the third week of January 1945, and the prisoners were marched in the icy conditions towards the German heartland. He said that the march was hell, and they had to sleep in tumble-down barns – even pig-stys at night time. Yes, prisoners who couldn’t keep up with the column were “given a bullet”, and food rations were constantly in short supply. Only at Red Cross Posts could extra food be obtained for Western POW’s, while the Russian prisoners were left to scavenge in the nearby fields for root-crops such as turnips, swedes and sugar-beet.

                  Eventually, in February 1945, his column arrived in the Dresden area just after the terrible fire-storm raid that month. He remembers the horror and despair in the civilian faces – of those who had survived but had lost their families.

                  Afterwards, the POW column broke up as the Germans could no longer keep control of vast amounts of prisoners, and so for the next two months he found himself alone wandering around the war ravaged countryside, and the bomb-damaged towns. The Soviet Red Army then swept in from the east, but more-or-less ignored him, whereupon he made his own way to the American lines where he was finally picked up.

                  Sorry to bore you with all that!

                  You mentioned Chelmno did not have access to a railway line, but I think you will find that there was a narrow gauge railway back then that passed by Chelmno. It started at the nearby town (now called Kolo), where the Jews transferred from main-line trains on to this smaller line. There are, in fact, photos of this transfer taking place at Kolo, and also a photo image of them disembarking near Chelmno itself. I’ll try over the next few days (but can’t promise) to find the appropriate website which displays the photos.

                  Comment by Talbot — November 6, 2015 @ 10:19 am

                • I wrote about the “narrow gauge railway” on my website page about Chelmno:

                  This quote is from my website:

                  Chelmno was a Nazi extermination camp located in the small Polish village of Chelmno nad Neren (Chelmno on the river Ner), 60 kilometers northwest of Lodz, a major city in what is now western Poland. The camp, which was opened by the Germans some time in October or November 1941, was in the Warthegau, a district in the part of Poland that had been annexed into the Greater German Reich after the joint conquest of Poland by Germany and the Soviet Union in 1939.

                  Chelmno was called Kulmhof by the Germans and Lodz was known by the German name Litzmannstadt. The Warthegau had been a part of the German state of Prussia between 1795 and 1871. After the German states united in 1871, the Warthegau was in Germany until after World War I when it was given back to the Poles.

                  The Jews were brought on trains to the village of Kolo, 14 kilometers from Chelmno. Kolo was the closest stop on the main railroad line from Lodz to Poznan. At Kolo, the victims were transferred to another train which took them on a narrow gauge railroad line 6 kilometers to the village of Powiercie. From Powiercie, the victims had to walk 1.5 kilometers through a forest to the village of Zawadka where they spent their last night locked inside a mill. They were then transported by trucks the next day to Chelmno.

                  Comment by furtherglory — November 7, 2015 @ 6:52 am

                • @ furtherglory

                  Thanks for those links – I’ll have a good read of them over the next few days.

                  Comment by Talbot — November 6, 2015 @ 10:33 am

                • @HCW

                  Well, I don’t know if the Soviets did carry out any mass executions in “gas vans” – that’s just what you tell us.

                  I’m not sure that I agree with you that gassing is more efficient and less expensive than other methods of mass killing. I can only go by Fred Leuchter’s words, when he describes the complicated procedures involved in gassing a single individual.

                  But I don’t know quite why I’m even arguing the matter, because I don’t believe for one moment there was any homicidal gassings taking place in Nazi Germany during WW2. It is all a fantasy – there were no extermination facilities anywhere. The Nazis didn’t want to kill the Jews at all. They wanted to expel them from German occupied Europe – which could only take place after the war was over ( which Hitler, of course, thought he would win! ). In the meantime the Jews (but not all of them) were to be consigned into ghettos or camps in preparation for their removal. But as the war developed, the Nazis realised they needed a whole army of workers to keep their armies supplied, and that’s when the Jews started to be transferred to the giant labour camp system in the east.

                  Comment by Talbot — November 6, 2015 @ 11:59 am

                • The research on Soviet gas vans is a little murky:

                  Comment by HCW — November 6, 2015 @ 1:42 pm

                • Here is more information:

                  Comment by HCW — November 6, 2015 @ 1:45 pm

                • The idea that Soviet POWs were not entitled to their the protection of the Geneva Convention is incorrect. The Geneva Convention required that Germany treat all prisoners of war under the Treaty of 1929, even if those POWs were from a country that did not sign the treaty.

                  Comment by HCW — November 6, 2015 @ 1:57 pm

                • Close — but no cigar!

                  I explained the Geneva Convention on this blog post:

                  This quote is from the blog post, cited above:
                  Begin quote:
                  Under the rules of the Geneva Convention of 1929, POWs, who had been captured while fighting on the battlefield, were protected from reprisals. However, it was not until the Geneva Convention of 1949 that civilians were also protected against reprisals. The Geneva Convention of 1949 states that the principle of the prohibition of reprisals against persons has now become part of international law in respect to all persons, whether they are members of the armed forces or civilians.

                  According to international law during World War II, under the Geneva Convention of 1929, it was legal to violate the laws of war by responding with a reprisal against civilians in order to stop partisan actions that were against international law.

                  The fact that “underage boys” as well as Jews and a Catholic priest were killed in the reprisal where Priebke “ticked off the names,” indicates that this was a legal action taken against civilians as revenge against the civilians for killing German soldiers.
                  End quote

                  Comment by furtherglory — November 7, 2015 @ 6:33 am

                • A photo of the narrow gauge railway at Chelmno with its Jewish passengers in open trucks can be seen by typing in “Chelmno Concentration Camp Jewish Virtual Library”
                  A photo showing them transferring trains at Kolo appears on ;- https:/

                  There are also photos of a van – which the captions claim is one of the 3 gas vans that were used to murder the victims. But I think we can safely forget about that piece of fantasy. The van itself has a boiler attached to the rear which generates wood gas, or producer gas, to fuel the vehicle – this is due to wartime shortages of petrol and diesel.

                  Some poor soul took one look at this boiler; couldn’t understand what it was for; and decided that it was for feeding poison gas into the interior of the vehicle. And that – ladies and gentlemen – is why we are stuck with a false story of exterminations at Chelmno today.

                  Comment by Talbot — November 6, 2015 @ 2:57 pm

                • Since you are new to the zoo, you might be interested in what I wrote about Chelmno in a previous blog post:

                  I personally believe that Chelmno was a transit camp.

                  Comment by furtherglory — November 7, 2015 @ 6:26 am

                • To FG:
                  I’d take that cigar if I smoked.
                  Please look at article 82. Even though the Soviet Union never signed the Treaty of 1929 its soldiers were entitled to all of its protections.

                  Comment by HCW — November 7, 2015 @ 7:33 am

                • Talbot, I never said the Soviets used gas vans for mass executions. It looks like they were used on a limited, experimental basis.

                  Comment by HCW — November 7, 2015 @ 12:05 pm

            • It isn’t entirely correct that there are no photographs of victims and the burning of corpses:

              Comment by HCW — November 4, 2015 @ 3:40 pm

              • I did have a look at these photos HCW. The first one I would accept as a genuine snapshot of people undressing amongst the trees at Birkenau (although it could be somewhere else). But there is no proof that they are stripping off completely naked, nor that they are about to enter a “gas chamber”. They could well be taking their outer clothes off for them to be fumigated, while the people themselves are preparing to pass through a de-infestation process before taking a shower. It could be as innocent as that.

                The second photo looks fake, or at least heavily “doctored”. None of the workers are dressed in regulation pyjama outfits, and the group of men on the right look to me like normal workers wearing cloth caps – of the type that one could see anywhere back during those years. They look suspiciously relaxed, detached. and not very active (But we’ve been told that everything had to be done “at the double” in Auschwitz). The figure in the centre is all wrong. He’s dressed like an office worker on a summer’s day whose removed his jacket to reveal a short-sleeved shirt. His pose is odd to say the least. I don’t know that its even physically possible. But what’s even more suspicious about him, is that he is not the same size as the men on the right. He is 10 or 15% smaller than them – when the camera is more-or-less the same distance away. The guy on the left is so “wishy-washy” that its obvious that this figure has been added to the photograph.

                And as for the bodies lying on the ground – well they could be genuine. But are they Nazi victims, or have they been executed in Stalin’s cruel purges back during the 1930’s. The Soviets were brazen enough to build a fake chimney at the so-called crematoria in Auschwitz 1, so I don’t think they would have any qualms of using images of their own victims as a propaganda stunt against the Germans.

                Comment by Talbot — November 5, 2015 @ 7:50 am

                • I thought you might feel that way about the photographs. Sondercommando were allowed to wear civilian clothing, they did not have wear the stripped uniforms of concentration camp inmates.
                  As for the rest, all I can do is show you photographs. What you think after that is your affair.

                  Comment by HCW — November 5, 2015 @ 8:28 am

                • Talbot! The main fact is that from about 10.000.000 Jews affiliated to comunities living in Europe in 1939 more than 6.000.000 disappeared. Furthermore there had been persons not affiliated any more but racially Jews according the Nazi rules. Nor can one tell about mass emigration as after outbreak of WWII only few thousands managed to go safe among increasing difficulties. So the masses concentraded in owercrowdeg Ghettoes faced deseases and starving. Then there had been the mass executions, the Gas Vans and, at least, the Gas Chambers. As a Shoah survivor I am fed up with all the puritan fault searching questionings about details. I could not care less about Leuchter who makes money dealing with execution instruments for the murderous USA justince where many death sentences turn out years later to had been pronounced on inconsistent proofs and forced evidences by juries driven by racial prejudices in courts presided by his dishonour xy. Under Nazi terror regime no one dared to care or discuss about certain things. Photoes or films certainly could not show details of mass murder actions. To add that between 1943 and 1944 there had been two separate FAMILIENLAGER – Jews deported there from Theresienstadt – each group hold for six months before being liquidated. Those FAMILIENLAGER had been set up in order to foll the Red Cross Delegate sent to investigate rumors about extermination Camps. And now many fault searchers, like You and others on this site, are asking to be fooled too.

                  Comment by Wolf MURNELSTEIN — November 5, 2015 @ 9:20 am

            • You did say there are photographs of the cremation process, I may have posted the pictures that you referred to.

              Comment by HCW — November 4, 2015 @ 3:43 pm

            • FURTHERGLORY! In my essay submitted and not yet offered for discussion on this site I list the European conflicts which led to WWI, WWII and the Holocaust. The main one had that between Pangermanism (all ethnic Germans united in one state and East European agricultural regions settled by German farmers)- and Panslavism (Slavonic peoples united but mainly Russian need of direct access to Meditranean See) . In all the conflicts listed the Jews stood between hammer and ambiss. Nazism hold that the German people is the chosen one while Russia presented itsel as heir of Roman Empire. A side not considered by Timothy Snider in his BLACK EART, and reviewers..

              Comment by Wolf MURNELSTEIN — November 6, 2015 @ 10:13 am

              • Have you read Black Earth yet? I haven’t. I liked his Bloodlands, Europe between Hitler and Stalin.
                It’s on my list to get.

                Comment by HCW — November 6, 2015 @ 10:22 am

                • HCW. I read two reviews which discuss his opinions.

                  Comment by Wolf MURNELSTEIN — November 7, 2015 @ 10:06 am

              • TALBOT! When I wore the Jellow Star and had been deported to Theresienstadt and saw friends leave and not return many Holocaust deniers puritan fault searchers had not even been born. You and all the puritan fault lookers have no idea what it meant to stay in face on an SS. Nor do You and other fault finders know – and do not care about — that Nazism is a deeply rooted racist hatred murder doctrine aiming to enslave non German European peoples and the destruction of the Jewish people. Instead of denying the tragedy occured seat down on ass and study how a foolish USA foreign policy shares guilt for Hitler rise on power or so. The mass murder by gassing occured, also in order to save drugs and fuel.

                Comment by Wolf MURNELSTEIN — November 6, 2015 @ 10:26 am

                • @ Wolf Murnelstein

                  You use the word “puritan” a lot in your posts. If you mean by puritan that some of us want to examine the historical facts and thereby try to arrive at the truth – then I plead guilty to that.

                  I do care about Nazism and the rise to power of a very nationalistic and racist regime in Germany during the 1930’s. It is very disturbing that such a government could arise from almost of nowhere to gain total power over a major nation-state. But we are not going to get anywhere to prevent this sort of thing happening again if we hide the facts and obscure the truth. I keep emphasising that we are now 70 year beyond the second world war. It is way past time for all of us to move on now from the tired, clapped-out old war propaganda pumped out by the victorious Allies during and immediately after the war.

                  Comment by Talbot — November 6, 2015 @ 11:34 am

                • You wrote: “You and all the puritan fault lookers have no idea what it meant to stay in face on an SS.”

                  You think of the German SS men as being criminals who murdered Jews. At that time, the German people looked upon Jews as people who killed non-Jewish babies and engaged in lying, stealing and cheating. The German people were not trying to get rid of the Jews because the Jews were not bothering them, nor causing them any harm. The Germans wanted the Jews out of Germany because the Jews were lying, cheating and stealing.

                  Oprah did a show about Jews killing babies in 1989:


                  Comment by furtherglory — November 7, 2015 @ 7:34 am

                • Furtherglory! Now we are at the blood libel accusation which for centuries caused slaughters of Jews. At any rate among German Jews there had been scholars,. scientists, engineers, qualified managers, etc. Then Nazism ordered Euthanasia of disabledyand sick persons anad later mass murders so of Jews as of Gypsies and also of political oppositors. As the daughter of Hoess explained when one had been in the SS could not obyject to take part in such murder actions. By th e way, she worked for many years in a Jewish owned beaty salon and owners knew her identity

                  Comment by Wolf MURNELSTEIN — November 7, 2015 @ 10:29 am

                • wolf: “When I wore the Jellow Star”

                  You can thank the Zionists for that. That was their idea. They proclaimed “Let us wear our yellow badge with pride” as early as in April 1933, at a time when no Nazi had yet suggested or even thought to resinstate that old European tradition in Germany or anywhere else. The Zionists were anti-assimilation fanatics who wanted to see you marked as a Jew and segregated from the Gentile population, and they worked very hard for that.

                  Comment by hermie — November 7, 2015 @ 8:38 pm

  5. The Allies were war criminals themselves – they were guilty of everything they accused the Axis of doing. Mass murder, ethnic cleansing, bombing of civilians, sinking ships, executing pows, torture. World War 2 ended 70 years ago the claim that the Allies were the “good guys” is bogus. Churchill deliberately starved millions of Indians to death during the Bengal famine and refused to send them relief. Where are the war crimes trials for the Allied atrocities?

    Comment by Les — October 31, 2015 @ 8:15 pm

    • I enjoy the whole “moral equivalency” argument that deniers throw up, Les.
      You make it sound like the allies were crappy dinner guests that refused to leave and trashed the house.
      The reason why there were allied bombers over Germany, allied soldiers in Germany, German soldiers in POW camps and German Women being raped is that in 1939 Hitler invaded Poland, a country that Britain and France had a treaty with. Hitler did this in spite of being warned repeatedly that such an action would result in a declaration of war. The reason why Red Army soldiers were in Germany raping German women is that in June of 1941 Hitler broke his non-aggression treaty with the Soviet Union and invaded the USSR. The reason why there were U.S. bombers over Germany is that in a supreme act of lunacy Hitler declared war on the U.S. in December of 1941.
      See, Les, cause and effect.
      Don’t get me wrong. The allies committed crimes and no one was ever brought to justice. What happened to the Germans during and after the war is a tragedy.
      Let’s not forget that the USSR lost 27 million people in the course of the war through direct or indirect action.
      Let’s not forget that 5-6 million Jews died during the war.
      Let’s not forget that 3 million Poles lost their lives during the war.
      I could go on but you get the picture.

      Comment by HCW — November 1, 2015 @ 8:30 am

      • HCW: “Let’s not forget that the USSR lost 27 million people in the course of the war through direct or indirect action. Let’s not forget that 3 million Poles lost their lives during the war.”

        And let’s not forget either that the source of that ‘information’ is the gang of well-known truthtellers called the Communists… 😉

        Comment by hermie — November 1, 2015 @ 8:54 am

      • You seem to have made two significant mistakes . Firstly it wasn’t 5- 6 million Jews it was 6 million . Secondly this figure should be mentioned above the alleged 27 million Soviet victims as you are trivialising the Holocaust ; The trivialising of the Holocaust is a crime in most European states.

        Comment by peter — November 1, 2015 @ 9:54 am

      • Such a simplistic notion of how wars really start. There are continual disputes between different powers, wars are avoided not started if their differences can be resolved and both sides really want peace. The American, British and French wanted war with Germany and they found a way to justify it to their electorate, no different than how George Bush managed to justify the war against Iraq. When the power elite wants a war they keep plugging away with one clandestine provocation after another and one propaganda claim after another until they finally find one that enables them to openly send troops. Witness how the US has done this with Syria by harping on about how Assad is killing his own people conveniently omitting the fact that these people killing were armed insurgents killing government troops with weapons supplied by the gulf states and the clandestine support of Nato. For a while we were inundated with claims that Assad was gassing his own people. When this didn’t fly they came up with what they called Barrel bombs as if this was worse than the phosphorous or blockbuster bombs they have been dropping since and including WWII. According to a quote in the forward to the second edition of the book by Sidney Rogerson, ‘Propaganda in the next war’ Churchill said to Lord Robert Boothby “Germany’s unforgivable crime before the second world war was her attempt to extricate her economic power from the world trading system and to create her own exchange mechanism which would deny world finance it’s opportunity to profit” Another quote from Churchill to US General Robert E Wood, in Nov. 1936, in the book by Peter H. Nicoll “England’s Krieg geten Deuchland’, p83 “Germany is becoming too strong, we must crush her”. England induced the Polish government to cripple the negotiations on the mistreatment of ethnic Germans in Poland and control of Danzig with its German population, which should have been settled by the ‘Treaty of Versailles’ but was thwarted by Poland. The British and French with the US behind the scene used this as a pretext to declare war, not the other way around. The conclusive proof that they were the ones who wanted war against Germany is the simple fact that they did not declare war against the Soviet Union which also invaded Poland.

        Comment by John Mortl — November 1, 2015 @ 12:38 pm

        • It might be helpful in the future if you don’t mix two different points together in your paragraph, this makes it easier to figure out what you are talking about.

          You did not mention that Churchill was out of political favor in the 30’s. The electorate in Britain considered him to be a bombastic dinosaur.

          If the British and French really wanted war with Germany legitimate reasons already existed when Germany systematically began to violate the terms of the Versailles Treaty, starting with the German military refortification of the Rhineland. Instead the British and French fell over themselves in giving the Germans what they wanted.

          German-Polish relations were very good after Hitler came to power in 1933, better than with Weimar Germany. The first treaty Germany signed was with Poland in 1934. I guess Hitler didn’t feel that Polish mistreatment of its German minority was that big of a deal until 1939 when Poland refused to buckle under to his demands regarding the corridor and Danzig.

          The Polish-British-French Treaty only covered an invasion by Germany, not the Soviet Union. This provided the legal loophole that avoided war with the USSR.

          Comment by HCW — November 1, 2015 @ 2:20 pm


            Above is a video on one of the tools the establishment uses to manipulate those with a dualist mentality or those with a foot ball mentality as I refer to them.

            Your selective reply (as with the guardians of the propaganda of the period) conveniently avoids the the inconvenient fact that undermines the big lie swallowed by the gullible. If the war wasn’t to destroy Germany because of their attempt to extricate themselves from the international financial system, as Churchill told lord Boothby but was to save Poland’s independence why wasn’t war declared on the USSR as well as Germany? Secondly, why did they agree with Stalin at Yalta to the complete subjugation of Poland under the Soviet boot?

            Comment by John Mortl — November 2, 2015 @ 6:25 pm

            • I already answered why war was not declared on the USSR. Also the USSR did not invade Poland until the middle of September when the ground war was already decided. This was not a simultaneous invasion by the USSR and Germany.
              As for Yalta, the Western Allies were dealing with a simple reality. The USSR already controlled Poland because they “liberated” Poland. The only thing the West could do was try and get concessions regarding the makeup of the Polish government and to extract promises regarding free elections.

              Comment by HCW — November 2, 2015 @ 8:57 pm

            • I’m not sure what you mean by “selective.” I believe I provided you a fairly comprehensive answer. Please elaborate.

              Comment by HCW — November 2, 2015 @ 9:13 pm

              • ‘Selective’ because you really didn’t answer how by not declaring war on the USSR proves that the ‘Allies’ went to war to defend Poland’s independence. You have parroted the weak rationalization we are given. They went to war for the reason that Churchill gave to Lord Boothby. Not only were the international bankers loosing out but with the ability to create their own interest free credit along with the their policy of autarky and barter trade, replacing international finance, Germany was eating our lunch in international trading.
                In 1933 Germany was in a far deeper economic depression than we were. By freeing themselves from the controlled international trading system, they were out of the depression by 1937, with a shortage of labor. We by a contrast only emerged in the middle of WWII largely because of war production. Not only did our ruling class, who were and still are the main beneficiaries of the international financial system have to destroy this new upstart for its breakaway, they had to stop its spread to other nations who were not only benefitting from the barter trade but were impressed with the success of the new system in Germany.
                At the risk of complicating and undermining the induced world view, wars are rarely if ever fought for the freedom and independence of the mass of people. That’s just the propaganda line justifying and conning the cannon fodder to sacrifice themselves. Wars may be fought to free a population in order to bring them under the control of the victor as happened with Germany and Japan. As US secretary of state Harry S. Truman is reputed to have said about the brutal Nicaraguan dictator Somoza, “He’s a bastard but he’s our bastard. Look around the world and see how many authoritarian systems there are and how the establishment only opposes those that aren’t co-operative and in line with the controlled international trading system.

                Comment by John Mortl — November 3, 2015 @ 4:44 am

                • Excellent! Very well written.

                  Comment by furtherglory — November 3, 2015 @ 6:27 am

                • Poland’s independence was a dead issue by the time the Soviets invaded. Neither Britain nor France made any real attempt to invade Germany while Germany was busy fighting in Poland. The British and French lacked the will to invade Germany, except a half-hearted attempt by the French.
                  If the west really wanted to crush Germany there would have been an attack while Germany was tied up in Poland.
                  If the British and French really wanted war a better country to fight over was Czechoslovakia. At the time of the Munich Agreement the Czechs had an advanced weapons program, a modern army and very good border fortifications. It’s likely a military invasion by the Germans would have stalled out in the mountains, making any counterattack by the west much easier. Instead the west caved, giving Hitler whatever he wanted.
                  Guaranteeing Poland was foolish. The Poles were in a horrible strategic position, surrounded by the Germans and the Soviets. Poland is also very good tank country.
                  BTW, I noticed you’ve never mentioned the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. How does this fit into your conspiracy?

                  Comment by HCW — November 3, 2015 @ 7:34 am

                • Harry S. Truman was a senator and a president of the US, he was not Secretary of State.

                  Comment by HCW — November 3, 2015 @ 11:53 am

                • Truman was the Vice President under FDR.

                  Comment by HCW — November 3, 2015 @ 11:57 am

                • HCW: “BTW, I noticed you’ve never mentioned the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. How does this fit into your conspiracy?”

                  Probably in the same way as with the British selective military agreement with Poland, i.e. by a will to avoid any military confrontation with the Soviet juggernaut in the war that everybody could see come in those days. The Zionists, holding their biennial world congress in Switzerland in August 1939, even shortened their meeting in order to enable the Polish delegates to go back home before the beginning of the war.

                  Comment by hermie — November 3, 2015 @ 8:29 pm

                • Hermie, both sides doubted Soviet military capabilities in light of Stalin’s systematic purge of the Soviet officer Corp. To an extent this proved justified with the Soviet struggles in the Soviet-Finnish War and the destruction wrought by the German Army in the first couple of months of Germany’s invasion of the Soviet Union. The Poles wanted nothing to do with the Soviets.
                  An interesting side note to all of this:
                  The French attempted to persuade the British to join the French in a bombing campaign on the Soviet oil fields after the Soviets invaded Poland. The French wanted to deny the Germans access to this oil and also as an attempt to intimidate the Soviets so they would limit their aid to Germany. The British refused to join in because they rightly concluded that this would draw Germany and the Soviets closer together, not to mention that the Soviets would that eat this as a declaration of war.

                  Comment by HCW — November 3, 2015 @ 8:59 pm

                • The Soviets would treat this as an act of war, not eat this. Wow, auto-fill sometimes comes up the weirdest stuff.

                  Comment by HCW — November 3, 2015 @ 9:02 pm

                • My example was a quite poor choice, as Churchill and Stalin had negotiated in April 1939 the starting of co-operation in a war of many fronts against Germany (Finnish Marshal Mannerheim’s file S-32). Any Anglo-Soviet war was out of question, at least in those days, i.e. before Britain and Germany had exhausted each other and Stalin was able to roll over Europe easily and ‘liberate’ European proletariat from the grip of the Western ‘imperialist ogres’.

                  HCW: ” The Poles wanted nothing to do with the Soviets.”

                  That’s why the Churchill-Stalin 1939 deal was kept secret until Poland had fallen in the trap laid by Britain. Perfidious Albion needed Poland as a trigger for her war on Germany and the Soviet Union as a hammer to crush the German armies. Such maneuvers provided Britain with the means to get and win another one of her secular “balance of power” wars.

                  Comment by hermie — November 4, 2015 @ 5:46 am

                • Actually I asked you about the MR pact and how it fit into your scenario. Are you saying the Soviets have no place in all of this? Oddly, the Germans, French and British felt the USSR very important because they all courted the Soviets during the summer of 1939.
                  The MR pact insured the dissolution of Poland. Officially it was a Non-Aggression Treaty, unofficially it partitioned Poland between the USSR and Germany.
                  Both Britain and France had no reason to trust Hitler’s peace offers having been burned by Hitler previously when Hitler violated the Munich Pact.
                  You say the British and French wanted the destruction of Germany. Their actions do not bear this out. While Germany quickly annihilated Poland the French and British watched apathetically from the sideline. This was not the first time. The British and French passively stood by while Germany rearmed (a violation of the Versailles Treaty), re-fortified the Rhineland (a violation of the Versailles Treaty), annexed Austria (a violation of the Versailles Treaty) and invaded Czechoslovakia (a violation of the Munich Pact). It was only after public opinion in Britain and France turned against their governments did they act.
                  How do you explain this if the British and French wanted to destroy Germany?

                  Comment by HCW — November 4, 2015 @ 6:59 pm

                • John Morti.. When had Harry Truman been Secretary of State? In history we learn that wars are alway faught for consistent interests but unfortunately peace treaties are often worked out by foolish idealists who ignore the basic interests involved and so they put the bases of other wars.

                  Comment by Wolf MURNELSTEIN — November 8, 2015 @ 8:57 am

                • Harry Truman, who was from Missouri, was vice president when Franklin Roosevelt died, so he became the new president.

                  Comment by furtherglory — November 8, 2015 @ 9:05 am

              • HCW: “Actually I asked you about the MR pact and how it fit into your scenario.”

                On the German side, the purpose of the MR pact was damage control if peace couldn’t be maintained with Poland. On the Soviet side, the MR pact was an invitation for the Germans to invade Poland in order to get a common border with Germany and a general war in Europe for a future invasion.

                HCW: ” Are you saying the Soviets have no place in all of this?”

                No, I’m not. Like for the United States, the Soviet plan was to not start the war but to end it and to emerge as the new super power of the world.

                HCW: “Both Britain and France had no reason to trust Hitler’s peace offers”

                They had no reason to seize Hitler’s peace offers as they didn’t want peace. Especially true for England.

                HCW: “How do you explain this if the British and French wanted to destroy Germany?”

                They were not yet ready for war earlier, and the influence of the pro-war groups had increased. And meanwhile, FDR had pressured Chamberlain in order to harden England’s attitude toward Germany and finally get his war.


                Comment by hermie — November 5, 2015 @ 8:07 am

                • For some reason you think there was some huge, overall plan, designed to bring about some sort of final solution.
                  You are projecting events that turned out years later, as if the players had some sort of idea that the events would take place exactly the way they wanted.
                  For Germany the MR pact guaranteed Soviet neutrality in a war with Poland, France and Britain. The price for this neutrality was 1/2 of Poland and Soviet influence over the Baltics. For the Soviets the Pact guarranteed that they would not have to fight Germany and they would gain territory at practically no expense to them. It guaranteed them space and time to ready themselves against a future conflict.
                  I agree that both the Germans and Soviets considered this to be temporary. I also agree that Stalin saw any potential conflict as an opportunity to extend territory and influence at the expense of Germany and the Western powers.
                  If the plan was to destroy Germany, then why were the Westen powers so woefully unprepared? I assume this conspiracy was years in the making, it was not a very efficient conspiracy if the men and materials were not in place when they were supposed to be.
                  How do you explain the desperate attempts made by both Britain and France up until the day of the invasion to find any solution to avoid war, including pressuring the Poles to call off their mobilization on August 30th?
                  How do you explain the delay on both the British and French declaration of war?

                  Comment by HCW — November 5, 2015 @ 10:07 am

                • HCW: “If the plan was to destroy Germany, then why were the Westen powers so woefully unprepared?”

                  Unprepared? On paper, Germany had no chance to face and resist the combined might of the French, British and Polish armies for a very long time. The gross incompetence of the British, Polish and (especially) French leaders enabled Germany to prevail for a while nevertheless. The old French generals, who were fighting like warriors of the 19th century (what they were in fact), were unable to oppose Germany’s modern warfare strategies effectively, and one of the strongest armies of the world was crushed in just a few weeks. And Poland’s army was not the small defenseless army, ill-prepared and poorly equiped, charging on horseback against tanks, described by propaganda. The Anglo-Franco-Polish Allies just messed up. They were not the defenseless peace-loving hippies overwhelmed by a super-powerful Hitler out for world domination as we’re told on and on. That’s a hoax.


                  HCW: “How do you explain the delay on both the British and French declaration of war?”

                  The need to look as peace-loving leaders dragged into a war they didn’t want. The French citizens, and also the British citizens to a lesser extent, were fed up with fighting wars for their rulers’ interests.

                  Comment by hermie — November 7, 2015 @ 7:34 am

                • If what you are saying is true and the British, French and Polish armies were so powerful, then why did the Western allies hesitate in attacking? If the plan was to use Poland as the anvil with the allies the hammer, then why didn’t the hammer strike?
                  It’s kinda hard to crush Germany between the hammer and an anvil if the hammer is too small and the anvil gets taken behind the woodshed.
                  Neither you nor Mr. Mortl is making any sense.

                  Comment by HCW — November 7, 2015 @ 3:34 pm

                • HCW: “If what you are saying is true and the British, French and Polish armies were so powerful, then why did the Western allies hesitate in attacking?”

                  They first needed to prepare their people’s mind for another major war, what wasn’t an easy task after the WW1 butchery. And the pro-war side also had to prevail in those countries.

                  Why did England crush Mussolini’s attempts for a peace conference in early September 1939? Hitler had agreed on an armistice, but England responded that it was not enough, requested a German withdrawal from the Polish territory (because Perfidious Albion knew very well that it was an unacceptable request), and promptly send her ultimatum to Germany. And why did Roosevelt – who was aware of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact’s secret protocol (which implied that Poland was about to face the combined might of the German and Soviet armies) prior to September 1, 1939 – just ‘omit’ to inform Poland about it? Such an information would certainly have provided Poland’s leaders with a serious food for thought and very probably led to a resumption of the German-Polish negotiations for a peaceful settlement of their differences.

                  HCW: ” If the plan was to use Poland as the anvil with the allies the hammer, then why didn’t the hammer strike?
                  It’s kinda hard to crush Germany between the hammer and an anvil if the hammer is too small and the anvil gets taken behind the woodshed.”

                  I wouldn’t call Poland an anvil. I’d rather call it a trigger. And the Anglo-French hammer (or even the Anglo-French-American-Soviet hammer, as the whole thing was planned in advance) was by no means too small. It was surely used quite clumsily at the beginning, but it was far from being too small. You must be joking…

                  Comment by hermie — November 7, 2015 @ 8:18 pm

                • Hitler agreed to an armistice……
                  With whom? Poland?
                  With German armies grinding up Polish armies like sausage?
                  Why would he do that?
                  Hermie, the flaw in your argument is that Hitler was always the AGGRESSOR in the actions throughout the 30’s. Always. The one thing I always give credit to Hitler is he had the remarkable ability to size up his opponents and figure out their strengths and weaknesses. He figured out pretty early on that the British and French were desperate to avoid war so he capitalized on it. Hitler made moves, gauged reactions and proceeded. He started small, reintroducing conscription, announcing the existence of the Luftwaffe, fortifying the Rhineland, announcing German rearmament. He gauged reaction and when the French and British did nothing but protest he proceeded. The allies sat back and watched while Hitler annexed Austria and then fell over themselves giving Hitler what he wanted in regards to Czechoslovakia, even to their own strategic detriment. It was only after Hitler violated the Munich Pact did the British and French grow a pair (admittedly a small pair).
                  Even after all of this both the British and the French protested Polish mobilization on August 30th to avoid provoking the Germans.
                  I think Hitler was shocked that the West declared war. After all, they were so accommodating over everything else.

                  Are you saying that this was all part of some master plan, that the West allowed all of this to happen to goad Hitler into going to war?

                  Comment by HCW — November 7, 2015 @ 9:27 pm

                • HCW: “Hitler agreed to an armistice….Huh? With whom? Poland?”

                  Yes, with Poland. In the hope of finding at last a peaceful settlement of the German-Polish disputes at a conference with Poland, France and Britain, as offered by Mussolini.

                  HCW: “With German armies grinding up Polish armies like sausage?”

                  What part of the word “armistice” do you fail to understand?

                  HCW: “Why would he do that?”

                  Because he didn’t want war. He only wanted a fair and balanced settlement of the most intolerable German-Polish disputes inherited from the Paris/Versailles conference.

                  HCW: “Hermie, the flaw in your argument is that Hitler was always the AGGRESSOR in the actions throughout the 30’s.”

                  You’re free to call “aggression” the action of erasing the most blatant injustices of the Versailles Treaty without shedding a single drop of blood if you want to, but that’s a biased view of geopolitics and history, to say the least. Even rabid anti-German British leaders such as Churchill and Lloyd George sometimes admitted that some of the Versailles diktats were unfair, unbearable and needed to be erased soon or late, in one way or another. Hitler wouldn’t have been compelled to put others before a fait accompli on several occasions if an international conference or the League of Nations had revised the infamous Versailles Treaty a few years after the end of WW1, when minds were calmed down. Your view amounts to saying that the Negroes of America should have waited patiently for a spontaneous revision of their social status by the WASPs of the United States. Would you say they were wrong to force a settlement of their social issues, sometimes in a violent way?

                  HCW: “Are you saying that this was all part of some master plan, that the West allowed all of this to happen to goad Hitler into going to war?”

                  No, I’m not. I’m just saying that the pro-war side finally prevailed in Britain during the spring of 1939, ‘helped’ a lot in that by pressures from FDR and his Jewish warmongering clique.

                  Comment by hermie — November 8, 2015 @ 5:34 am

            • John Mortl: “Secondly, why did they agree with Stalin at Yalta to the complete subjugation of Poland under the Soviet boot?”

              Especially true when one remembers that a single country in the world had nuclear bombs in the end of WW2. Had the Anglo-American Allies really cared about the independence of Poland, they could easily have forced it upon Stalin without shooting a single bullet. They could even have compelled Stalin to become a monk and to end his days in a monastery, if they had really wanted such a thing. Britain’s Polish excuse for WW2 is fishy, to say the least, as much as Britain’s Belgian excuse in the previous world war in fact.

              Comment by hermie — November 4, 2015 @ 6:01 am

              • The US wanted Soviet participation in the Pacific War, another reason why the allies did not push too hard over Poland.
                Also, while the bomb would prove decisive there were doubts about its effectiveness. There were even doubts about whether or not the bomb would even work. The first test did not occur until July of 1945.
                Keep in mind, while the US was the only nuclear power at the end of WW II, after dropping the two bombs it did have on Japan the US only had one left. Truman successfully bluffed the Japanese and the Soviets that the US had more bombs to deploy.

                Comment by HCW — November 4, 2015 @ 7:29 am

                • HCW: “Poland’s independence was a dead issue by the time the Soviets invaded”

                  If your contention is true, and not a desperate attempt to evade the obvious, and they no longer cared about Poland’s independence, why did they then proceed with their intention to destroy Germany? If it was a dead issue with regards to war with the Soviet Union why wasn’t it a dead issue for war with Germany? Why did they not accept one of the many peace offers made by Hitler in which he expressed his admiration for the British and the British Empire, which he believed was a stabilizing force? He even offered German troops to safeguard the Empire’s security if need be.

                  As for the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, I’m not sure what your point is. Is it just an attempted diversion from your inability to somehow reconcile the contradiction in the propaganda claim and why they really wanted war with Germany, or is it because you believe this pact somehow buttresses the propaganda assertion of saving Poland’s independence? If the latter you will have to explain how it proves your postulation.

                  As for my mistake over Truman’s title, I thought it was John Foster Dulles who said it but after looking it up I corrected the name but not the title, My apology.

                  Comment by John Mortl — November 4, 2015 @ 4:23 pm

                • HCW: “Truman successfully bluffed the Japanese and the Soviets that the US had more bombs to deploy.”

                  So why didn’t he force Stalin to leave Poland if the independence of Poland was the real goal of WW2 as claimed by the orthodox narrative? Why did he let the Polish excuse be exposed as what it was in reality, i.e. a mere excuse for war?

                  Comment by hermie — November 5, 2015 @ 8:13 am

                • “Truman successfully bluffed the Japanese and the Soviets that the US had more bombs to deploy”

                  C’mon, it’s well established that Stalin was well informed about the Manhattan Project because of the extensive and well placed Soviet spy networks in the US.

                  Comment by fnn — November 7, 2015 @ 1:39 pm

              • Herr Hermie! At the time of YALTA CONFERENCE – March 1945 – the Red Army had already conquerred East Europe and had been about to enter East Germany, Austria, Bohemia-Moravia. Fact taken in account.

                Comment by Wolf MURNELSTEIN — November 8, 2015 @ 9:02 am

                • HCW: “Herr Hermie! At the time of YALTA CONFERENCE – March 1945 – the Red Army had already conquerred East Europe”

                  I know that, but nothing prevented Truman from forcing Stalin to retreat and get out of Poland after the U.S. bombings on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945, under the threat of the nuclear bombs he was alone to have at his disposal. Had the independence of Poland really mattered, that would have been a breeze.

                  Comment by hermie — November 8, 2015 @ 9:52 am

      • deniers

        What does his comment have to do with ‘Holocaust denial’?

        Comment by eah — November 2, 2015 @ 5:47 am

        • Hey eah, I wanted to thank you for correcting my misuse of the word “whose.” After all, what would I do without douchebags like you to point out those errors?
          I noticed that you don’t usually bother to do this for your fellow deniers but, hey, you live in the same deluded world they live in. You know, the world where Fred Leuchter is an “expert.” It’s surprising that your “expert” didn’t know that it takes less cyanide to kill human beings than insects. You would think an “expert” would know these things. But, hey, what do I know….except I did know that it takes less cyanide to kill human beings. Wow, I guess that makes me an “expert.”
          Piss off, prom queen.

          Comment by HCW — November 2, 2015 @ 6:26 am

          • Answer the question:

            >What does his comment have to do with ‘Holocaust denial’?

            Comment by eah — November 2, 2015 @ 7:17 am

            • I don’t answer to whiny, douchebag prom queens.

              Comment by HCW — November 2, 2015 @ 7:30 am

          • misuse of the word “whose.”

            And BTW, you didn’t misuse the word whose, you misused the word who’s — you wrote who’s — you did not write whose.

            If I was the kind, I would write LOL here — but I’m not. All I can say is…man, you are even dumber than I thought — and that’s saying something.

            Comment by eah — November 2, 2015 @ 7:21 am

            • Oh, sorry prom queen, again, I appreciate you for being the douchebag you are.
              I give you credit for not using profanity, that’s a step in the right direction.
              You ought to write that in your diary, right below the line that starts,
              “Dear diary, today HCW called me a whiny douchebag bitch…..”
              You have a good day, prom queen.

              Comment by HCW — November 2, 2015 @ 7:28 am

              • Answer the question:

                >What does his comment have to do with ‘Holocaust denial’?

                Comment by eah — November 2, 2015 @ 7:29 am

                • I’ll go ahead and answer the question, prom queen.
                  Holocaust denial often uses the “Moral Equivalency” argument in order to justify Nazi Germany’s treatment towards Jews.
                  Happy now, you self-righteous, overly pretentious, whiny little bitch?

                  Comment by HCW — November 2, 2015 @ 7:34 am

                • I asked what his comment has to do with ‘Holocaust denial’. Here, I’ll repeat the question — for the 3rd time — so perhaps even an idiot like you can finally comprehend:

                  >What does his comment have to do with ‘Holocaust denial’?

                  Note the key phrase, which I highlighted for your convenience: “his comment”.

                  Comment by eah — November 2, 2015 @ 7:40 am

                • Got a question, prom queen. Did the kids at school pick on you because you are such a whiny douchebag?
                  I really didn’t read your reply below, I could really care less. I am having fun calling you a douchebag. Have a good day, prom queen.

                  Comment by HCW — November 2, 2015 @ 8:01 am

                • I could really care less

                  Actually, the expression you want — the correct expression here, given your usage — is ‘I could not really care less’ — again for your convenience I highlight, in this case the part you got wrong (the missing word not) — think about it…to the extent you are able to think.

                  Comment by eah — November 2, 2015 @ 8:06 am

                • Hey, again I appreciate you proving over and over again what a douchebag you are, eah. You keep it up, prom queen. We all enjoy your commitment to being a whiny bitch.

                  Comment by HCW — November 2, 2015 @ 8:23 am

                • in order to justify Nazi Germany’s treatment towards Jews

                  Actually, this is not the case — I would add ‘at all’, but of course I cannot be sure about that — I cannot speak for everyone who has ever made what you call a ‘Moral Equivalency’ argument.

                  What you call the ‘Moral Equivalency argument’ is much more often used to show the victor’s justice aspect of some of the various post-war court proceedings — the hypocrisy of the Allies trying Germans for doing, in some cases, things similar to what the Allies did — or the Allies getting a free pass for (what some would call) the atrocities they committed because they won the war — it looks like this is what Les meant with his comment (only he can say for sure).

                  And I think most of those who make this argument are probably a lot smarter than you (which is not saying much, I know) — they would never claim that the fact the Allies did terrible things ‘justifies Nazi Germany’s treatment toward Jews’ — how does that make sense? — it might have a chance to make sense if the Germans had mistreated Jews in response to actions of the Allies — but this is absurd.

                  Like I said: you are profoundly stupid.

                  Comment by eah — November 2, 2015 @ 8:46 am

                • Wow, you keep going and going and going…………
                  Nothing like not knowing when to stop being a pretentious, know it all douchebag.

                  Comment by HCW — November 2, 2015 @ 9:06 am

                • going and going and going

                  The reason is that your stupidity keeps “going and going and going” — it seems pretty much limitless — in nearly every comment you say something stupid. I avoided responding to the utter nonsense you regularly post for quite a while — until the temptation became too much. But after you repeated your childish denigration of Leuchter — along with the idiotic idea Zündel should have asked Butz instead — I decided I’d seen enough.

                  Comment by eah — November 2, 2015 @ 9:39 am

                • Wow, not only are you the official douchebag prom queen for this blog you’ve decided when/if it’s appropriate to respond to me. Wow.
                  I could continue in this vein all day except for the following reasons:
                  1) You are boring me.
                  2) I’m no longer amused by insulting you.
                  3) You have officially used up the quota of time that I reserve for whiny prom queens.
                  So, I’ll end in this fashion:
                  Piss off, prom queen.

                  Comment by HCW — November 2, 2015 @ 11:11 am

    • BTW, Les, I deeply apologize if I have incorrectly labeled you as a Holocaust denier. You linked back to CODOH and you used a common denier tactic with the moral equivalency argument, however, I realize now that I stereotyped you.

      Comment by HCW — November 2, 2015 @ 6:49 am

      • POS.

        Comment by eah — November 2, 2015 @ 8:20 am

        • THAT’s the eah I enjoy, prom queen.

          You shouldn’t keep things inside, it’s bad for your blood pressure.

          Make sure to put that in your diary.

          Comment by HCW — November 2, 2015 @ 8:28 am

  6. Interesting in that one European leader has been able to draw some interesting conclusions from the ongoing African and Asian invasion of Europe. Viktor Orban the prime minister of Hungary has pointed out that the ” money mover ” George Soros, who is a Hungarian ” Holocaust survivor ” like Irene Zisblatt seems to be using part of his wealth of 20 billion dollars to support the ongoing invasion of Germany and Europe .

    Comment by peter — October 31, 2015 @ 3:58 pm

  7. I believe this is the difficulty in attempting to prosecute guards, radio operators, clerks, etc. of the various concentration/death camps, Wolf. This is especially true of the “Trawnikis,” the Ukrainian, Belorussians, ethnic Germans, etc. recruited for guard duty. These men were desperate to leave the death traps that were the Soviet POW camps. I guess if these guards were brutal or sadistic there is some cause for prosecution but even then there is the difficulty of proving wrongdoing.
    Demjanjuk was released by the Isreali Supreme Court as a case of mistaken identity.
    Collaborators and collaboration exist in a very large shade of grey.

    Comment by HCW — October 31, 2015 @ 11:05 am

    • You forgot to mention he was actually sentenced to death in Israel for being an alleged notorious guard. When the evidence presented at this farcical show trial could not be defended he was released back to his home and family . Organised Jewry in its various manifestations couldn’t tolerate this and he was extradited for another show trial in Germany under the charge of being in another camp..

      Comment by peter — October 31, 2015 @ 4:04 pm

      • Sorry, my oversight.
        Technically he died judicially innocent as his case was under appeal.

        Comment by HCW — October 31, 2015 @ 4:31 pm

      • The point is that the Isreali Supreme Court did the correct thing and released him. It turns out that Demjanjuk was a guard at Sobibor. This is what he was convicted of in Germany.
        I forgot about that part, thanks for reminding me.

        Comment by HCW — October 31, 2015 @ 4:35 pm

        • Organised Jewry were humiliated by the original show trial in Israel and used all their pressure and resources to force a second show trial in the occupation construct known as the ” Bundesrepublik Deutschland “

          Comment by peter — October 31, 2015 @ 4:44 pm

          • I’m sure they did.

            Comment by HCW — October 31, 2015 @ 7:05 pm

            • Thanks for agreeing with me on this point.
              You might like to make a financial donation yourself to the team pursuing the 92 year old telephone operator in Auschwitz so that she is brought to justice ?

              Comment by peter — November 1, 2015 @ 2:16 am

              • I don’t think so, Peter. I’m opposed to putting elderly people on trial.
                I’d suggest you do it but I think you ought to take your money and find a hobby to take your mind off your Jew delusion. This sort of thing is unhealthy.
                Perhaps you ought to consider knitting or scrapbooking.

                I’m kidding, of course. But, when you start in on the whole “Jews rule the world” thing it makes my eyes glaze over.

                Comment by HCW — November 1, 2015 @ 8:05 am

                • HCW: These aged persons are still precious sources for information and ought to be listened.

                  Comment by Wolf MURNELSTEIN — November 1, 2015 @ 9:42 am

                • Ad hominems and straw man arguments are poor debating techniques. You must try better.

                  Comment by peter — November 1, 2015 @ 9:57 am

              • You are mistaken in your belief that I am debating with you.

                Comment by HCW — November 1, 2015 @ 10:29 am

                • I didn’t state you are debating with me I stated that straw man arguments and ad hominems are poor debating techniques. Try and keep up.

                  Comment by peter — November 1, 2015 @ 10:40 am

              • Wolf:
                I agree with you. It is pointless to put elderly clerks and guards on trial. Their experiences should be recorded for historical reasons.

                Comment by HCW — November 1, 2015 @ 10:32 am

              • Then what were you referring to?

                Comment by HCW — November 1, 2015 @ 11:03 am

              • The information you’ve provided regarding the e-mail address is actually useful.
                I will do so.

                Comment by HCW — November 1, 2015 @ 11:05 am

                • You might find they are interested only in vengeance and keeping the show on the road , but hey surprise me and let me know what they say.

                  Comment by peter — November 1, 2015 @ 12:01 pm

  8. OT

    German boy looks at the bomb damage in Nuremberg, Jan. 1945

    Seeing those fotos and the captions…

    Last year I was in Köln, and climbed the stairs to the top of the Kölner Dom, where you get a good view of the city and surroundings, including the Rhein. Like many heavily bombed German cities, unfortunately many parts of Köln were rebuilt cheaply and rather shabbily (Berlin is like this too) — a lot was lost in all of that destruction.

    Comment by eah — October 31, 2015 @ 10:57 am

  9. Off the top of my first comment is that Groening actually did apply for a transfer to combat duty but this was rejected, see Rees, Auschwitz: A New History.
    The choice between starving and collaboration is not really a choice. Most people would not have the moral courage to turn down the opportunity to leave the Soviet POW camps where millions were starving for what appeared to be innocent guard duty.

    Comment by HCW — October 31, 2015 @ 9:03 am

    • HCW! I in my essays and comments am doing my best to write as historian about facts occured in those times of darkness. There had been martyrs, perpetrators and bystanders and no one could be a saint. The hellish process developed for about a century until Hitler could establish his terror regime and lead Europe in WWII, the final time European suicide. Will try to work out a translation of my essay written and pubblished in Italian hoping it will be accepted for our discussions. Best.

      Comment by o — October 31, 2015 @ 10:11 am

      • Prosecuting the heads of the Nazi government seems easy but how do you handle prosecuting the much smaller fish? And how do you handle collaboration. In KL, A History of the German Concentration Camps, the author describes trials of the Kapos or camp trustees. The Kapos did commit cruel acts, however, if they did not they could be replaced, punished or killed. Can you prosecute those who act out coercion? The prisoners themselves often understood this distinction and came forward in defense of those Kapos they felt like were only doing what they needed to survive. The same thing for the Judenrat. Chain Rumkowski is certainly the most controversial, he was known to be petty, tyrannical and even is reputed to have molested some of the girls in the ghetto. On the other hand other members and residents swore by him and said he did the best he could to alleviate the problems in the ghetto.

        Comment by HCW — November 1, 2015 @ 1:45 am

        • HCW! Runkowaski, like allmost all Judenrat, had been murdered by the Nazis and did leave any relative able to defend his memory. On the webside of this site You will find an essay where I defend the memory of Salonika Rabbi and Judenaeltester Koret; Maybe I will have the health force to do the same for the Lodz Ghetto.

          Comment by Wolf MURNELSTEIN — November 1, 2015 @ 7:46 am

          • I think most of the heads of the Judenrat were honorable men faced by terrible choices. Some of them even committed suicide rather than make selections to send their people to the Death Camps.
            Some of them did take advantage of their positions. They were human, after all. Sometimes that kind of pressure brings out the worst in people.

            Comment by HCW — November 1, 2015 @ 8:13 am

            • HCW: Some Judenrat stood with their comunities losing opportunities to get safe themselves. and so died as martyrs without leaving some one to defend their memory. Tthe Shoah Business can so defeaming them.

              Comment by Wolf MURNELSTEIN — November 1, 2015 @ 9:48 am

              • I remember reading Eichman in Jerusalem by Deborah Lipstadt. One of the things that stuck out to me was the hostility of the Isreali Jews towards European Jewish survivors in general and towards the Judenrat in particular. My feeling is that the Isrealis looked down upon the Europeans for not resisting hard enough and the Judenrat regarding collaboration. My own opinion is that it is easy to judge from far away without knowing the reality.

                Comment by HCW — November 1, 2015 @ 11:19 am

                • HCW! That attitude of certain establishment, so in Israel as in USA and UK, had been the real ruin of my family.

                  Comment by Wolf MURNELSTEIN — November 1, 2015 @ 1:10 pm

              • I’m sorry for that, Wolf. Denigrating those that suffered is tragic.

                Comment by HCW — November 1, 2015 @ 1:56 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

%d bloggers like this: