textfiles-politics/pythonCode/personTestingOutput/shoah002.xml

<xml><p> 5) THE <ent type='ORG'>NUREMBERG</ent> TRIALS</p>

<p> The story of <ent type='EVENT'>the Six Million</ent> was given judicial authority at
<ent type='EVENT'>the Nuremberg Trials</ent> of <ent type='NORP'>German</ent> leaders between 1945 and 1949,
proceedings which proved to be the most disgraceful legal farce
in history. For a far more detailed study of the iniquities of
these trials, which as <ent type='ORG'>Field Marshall Montgomery</ent> said, made it a
crime to lose a war, the reader is referred to the works cited
below, and particularly to the outstanding book <ent type='ORG'>Advance</ent> to
Barbarism (<ent type='PERSON'>Nelson</ent>, 1953), by the distinguished English jurist
F.J.P. <ent type='PERSON'>Veale</ent>.
From the outset, <ent type='EVENT'>the Nuremberg Trials</ent> proceeded on the basis
of gross statistical errors. In his speech of indictment on
November 20th, 1945, Mr. <ent type='PERSON'>Sidney Alderman</ent> declared that there has
been 9600000 <ent type='NORP'>Jews</ent> living in <ent type='NORP'>German</ent> occupied Europe. Our
earlier study has shown this figure to be wildly inaccurate. It
is arrived at (a) by completely ignoring all <ent type='NORP'>Jewish</ent> immigration
between 1933 and 1945, and (b) by adding all the <ent type='NORP'>Jews</ent> of <ent type='GPE'>Russia</ent>,
including the two million or more who were never in <ent type='NORP'>German</ent>-occupied territory. The same inflated figure, slightly enlarged
to 9800000, was produced again at the <ent type='PERSON'>Eichmann</ent> Trial in <ent type='GPE'>Israel</ent>
by Prof. Shalom Baron.
The alleged Six Million victims first appeared as the
foundation for the prosecution at <ent type='GPE'>Nuremberg</ent>, and after some
dalliance with ten million or more by the <ent type='ORG'>Press</ent> at the time, it
eventually gained international popularity and acceptance. It is
very significant, however, that, although this outlandish figure
was able to win credence in the reckless atmosphere of
recrimination in 1945, it had become no longer tenable by 1961,
at the <ent type='PERSON'>Eichmann</ent> Trial. The <ent type='GPE'>Jerusalem</ent> court studiously avoided
mentioning the figure of Six Million, and the charge drawn up by
Mr. <ent type='PERSON'>Gideon Haussner</ent> simply said "some" millions.</p>

<p> LEGAL PRINCIPLES IGNORED</p>

<p> Should anyone be misled into believing that the extermination
of the <ent type='NORP'>Jews</ent> was "proved" at <ent type='GPE'>Nuremberg</ent> by "evidence", he should
consider the nature of the Trials themselves, based as they were
on a total disregard of sound legal principles of any kind. The
accusers acted as prosecutors, judges and executioners: "guilt"
was assumed from the onset. (Among the Judges, of course, were
the <ent type='GPE'>Russia</ent>ns, whose numberless crimes included the massacre of
15000 <ent type='NORP'>Polish</ent> officers, a proportion of whose bodies were
discovered by the <ent type='NORP'>German</ent>s at Katyn Forest, near <ent type='GPE'>Smolensk</ent>. The
<ent type='NORP'>Soviet</ent> Prosecutor attempted to blame this slaughter on the
<ent type='NORP'>German</ent> defendants). At <ent type='GPE'>Nuremberg</ent>, ex post facto legislation was
created, whereby men were tried for "crimes" which were only
declared crimes AFTER they had been allegedly committed.
Hitherto it had been the most basic legal principle that a
person could only be convicted for infringing a law that was in
force at the time of the infringement. "<ent type='ORG'>Nulla Poena</ent> Sine Lege."
The Rules of Evidence, developed by the <ent type='NORP'>British</ent> jurisprudence
over the centuries in order to arrive at the truth of a charge
with as much certainty as possible, were entirely disregarded at
<ent type='GPE'>Nuremberg</ent>. It was decreed that "the <ent type='ORG'>Tribunal</ent> should not be
bound by technical rules of evidence" but could admit "any
evidence which it deemed to have probative value," that is,
would support a conviction. In practice, this meant the
admittance of hearsay evidence and documents, which in a normal
judicial trial are always rejected as untrustworthy. That such
evidence was allowed is of profound significance, because it was
one of the principal methods by which the extermination legend
was fabricated through fraudulent "written affidavits". Although
only 240 witnesses were called in the course of the Trials, no
less than 300000 of these "written affidavits" were accepted by
the <ent type='ORG'>Court</ent> as supporting the charges, without this evidence being
heard under oath. Under these circumstances, any <ent type='NORP'>Jewish</ent> deportee
or camp inmate could make any revengeful allegation that he
pleased. Most incredible of all, perhaps, was the fact that
defense lawyers at <ent type='GPE'>Nuremberg</ent> were not permitted to cross-examine
prosecution witnesses. A somewhat similar situation prevailed at
the trial of <ent type='PERSON'>Adolf Eichmann</ent>, when it was announced that
Eichmann's defense lawyer could be canceled at any time "if an
intolerable situation should arise," which presumably meant if
his lawyer started to prove his innocence.
The real background of <ent type='EVENT'>the Nuremberg Trials</ent> was exposed by
the <ent type='NORP'>American</ent> judge, Justice <ent type='PERSON'>Wenersturm</ent>. President of one of
<ent type='ORG'>Tribunal</ent>s. He was so disgusted by the proceedings that he
resigned his appointment and flew home to <ent type='GPE'>America</ent>, leaving
behind a statement to <ent type='ORG'>the Chicago Tribune</ent> which enumerated point
by point his objections to the Trials (cf. <ent type='PERSON'>Mark Lautern</ent>, Das
Latzte Wortunber <ent type='GPE'>Nurnberg</ent>, p. 56). Points 3-8 are as follows:</p>

<p> 3) The members of <ent type='ORG'>the department</ent> of <ent type='ORG'>the Public</ent> Prosecutor,
instead of trying to formulate and reach a new guiding
legal principle, were moved only by personal ambition and
revenge.
4) The prosecution did its utmost in every way possible to
prevent the defense preparing its case and to make it
impossible for it to furnish evidence.
5) The Prosecution, led by General <ent type='PERSON'>Taylor</ent>, did everything in
it power to prevent the unanimous decision of the Military
<ent type='ORG'>Court</ent> being carried out i.e. to ask <ent type='GPE'>Washington</ent> to furnish
and make available to the court further documentary
evidence in the possession of the <ent type='NORP'>American</ent> Government.
6) Ninety per cent of the <ent type='GPE'>Nuremberg</ent> <ent type='ORG'>Court</ent> consisted of biased
persons who, either on political or racial grounds,
furthered the prosecution's case.
7) The prosecution obviously knew how to fill all the
administrative posts of the Military <ent type='ORG'>Court</ent> with
"<ent type='NORP'>American</ent>s" whose naturalization certificates were very
new indeed, and who, whether in the administrative
service, or by their translations etc., created an
atmosphere hostile to the accused persons.
8) The real aim of <ent type='EVENT'>the Nuremberg Trials</ent> was to show the
<ent type='NORP'>German</ent>s the crimes of their <ent type='PERSON'>Fuhrer</ent>, and this aim was at
the same time the pretext on which the trials were
ordered...Had I known seven months earlier what was
happening at <ent type='GPE'>Nuremberg</ent>, I would have never gone there.</p>

<p> Concerning Point 6, that ninety per cent of the <ent type='GPE'>Nuremberg</ent>
<ent type='ORG'>Court</ent> consisted of people biased on racial or political grounds,
this was a fact confirmed by others present. According to Earl
Carrol, an <ent type='NORP'>American</ent> lawyer, sixty per cent of the staff of the
Public Prosecutors Office were <ent type='NORP'>German</ent> <ent type='NORP'>Jews</ent> who had left <ent type='NORP'>German</ent>y
after the Promulgation of Hitler's Race Laws. He observed that
not even ten per cent of the <ent type='NORP'>American</ent>s employed at the <ent type='GPE'>Nuremberg</ent>
courts were actually <ent type='NORP'>American</ent> by birth. The chief of <ent type='ORG'>the Public</ent>
Prosecutor's Office, who worked behind General <ent type='PERSON'>Taylor</ent>, was
Robert M. <ent type='ORG'>Kempner</ent>, a <ent type='NORP'>German</ent>-<ent type='NORP'>Jewish</ent> emigrant. <ent type='PERSON'>Mark Lautern</ent>, who
observed the Trials, writes in his book: "They have arrived: the
<ent type='PERSON'>Solomons</ent>, the Schlossbergers and the <ent type='PERSON'>Rabinovitches</ent>, members of
<ent type='ORG'>the Public</ent> Prosecutors staff..." (ibid, p. 68). It is obvious
from these facts that the fundamental legal principle: that no
man can sit in judgement on his own case, was abandoned
altogether. Moreover, the majority of witnesses were also <ent type='NORP'>Jews</ent>.
According to Prof. <ent type='PERSON'>Maurice Bardeche</ent>, who also was an observer at
the Trials, the only concern of these witnesses was not to show
their hatred too openly, and to try and give an impression of
objectivity (<ent type='GPE'>Nuremberg</ent> ou la Terre Promise, <ent type='GPE'>Paris</ent>, 1948, p.
149).</p>

<p> "<ent type='ORG'>CONFESSIONS</ent>" UNDER TORTURE</p>

<p> Altogether more disturbing, however, were the methods
employed to extract statements and "confessions" at <ent type='GPE'>Nuremberg</ent>,
particularly those from S.S. officers which were used to support
the extermination charge. The <ent type='NORP'>American</ent> Senator. Joseph <ent type='PERSON'>McCarthy</ent>,
in a statement given to the <ent type='NORP'>American</ent> <ent type='ORG'>Press</ent> on May 20th, 1949,
drew attention to the following cases of torture to secure such
confessions. In the prison of the Swabisch Hall, he stated,
officers of the S.S. <ent type='ORG'>Leibstandarte</ent> <ent type='PERSON'>Adolf Hitler</ent> were flogged
until they were soaked in blood, after which their sexual organs
were trampled on as they lay prostrate on the ground. As in the
notorious Malmedy Trials of private soldiers, the prisoners were
hoisted in the air and beaten until they signed the confessions
demanded of them. On the basis of such "confessions" extorted
from S.S. Generals <ent type='PERSON'>Sepp Dietrich</ent> and <ent type='PERSON'>Joachim Paiper</ent>, the
<ent type='ORG'>Leibstandarte</ent> was convicted as a "guilty organization". S.S.
General <ent type='PERSON'>Oswald Pohl</ent>, the economic administrator of the
concentration camp system, had his face smeared with feces and
was subsequently beaten, until he supplied his confession. in
dealing with these cases, Senator <ent type='PERSON'>McCarthy</ent> told the <ent type='ORG'>Press</ent>:
"I have heard evidence and read documentary proofs to the
effect that the accused persons were beaten up, maltreated and
physically tortured by methods which could only be conceived in
sick brains. They were subjected to mock trials and pretended
executions, they were told their families would be deprived
of their ration cards. All these things were carried out with
the approval of <ent type='ORG'>the Public</ent> Prosecutor in order to secure the
psychological atmosphere necessary for the extortion of the
required confessions. If <ent type='GPE'>the United</ent> States lets such acts
committed by a few people go unpunished, then the whole world
can rightly criticize us severely and forever doubt the
correctness of our motives and our moral integrity."
The methods of intimidation were repeated during trials at
<ent type='GPE'>Frankfurt</ent>-am-<ent type='PERSON'>Mein</ent> and at <ent type='LOC'>Dachau</ent>, and large numbers of <ent type='NORP'>German</ent>s
were convicted for atrocities on the basis of their admissions.
The <ent type='NORP'>American</ent> Judge <ent type='PERSON'>Edward</ent> L. <ent type='PERSON'>van Roden</ent>, one of the three members
of <ent type='ORG'>the Simpson Army Commission</ent> which was subsequently appointed
to investigate the methods of justice at the <ent type='LOC'>Dachau</ent> trials,
revealed the methods of by which these admissions were secured
in the <ent type='GPE'>Washington</ent> Daily News, January 9th, 1949. His account
also appeared in the <ent type='NORP'>British</ent> newspaper, the <ent type='LOC'>Sunday</ent> Pictorial,
January 23rd, 1949. The methods he described were:
"<ent type='GPE'>Posturing</ent> as priests to hear confessions and give
absolution; torture with burning matches driven under the
prisoners fingernails; knocking out teeth and breaking jaws;
solitary confinement and near starvation rations." <ent type='PERSON'>Van Roden</ent>
explained: "The statements which were admitted as evidence were
obtained from men who had first been kept in solitary
confinement for three, four and five months...The investigators
would put a black hood over the accused's head and then punch
him in the face with brass knuckles, kick him and beat him with
rubber hoses...All but two of the <ent type='NORP'>German</ent>s, in the 139 cases we
investigated, had been kicked in the testicles beyond repair.
This was standard operating procedure with our <ent type='NORP'>American</ent>
investigators."
The "<ent type='NORP'>American</ent>" investigators responsible (and who later
functioned as the prosecution in the trials) were: Lt.Col.
Burton F. Ellis (chief of <ent type='ORG'>the War Crimes Committee</ent>) and his
assistants, Capt. <ent type='PERSON'>Raphael Shumacker</ent>, Lt. Robert E. Byrne, Lt.
<ent type='PERSON'>William</ent> R. Perl, Mr. <ent type='PERSON'>Morris Ellowitz</ent>, Mr. <ent type='PERSON'>Harry Thon</ent>, and Mr.
<ent type='PERSON'>Kirschbaum</ent>. The legal adviser of the court was Col. A.H.
<ent type='PERSON'>Rosenfeld</ent>. The reader will immediately appreciate from their
names that the majority of these people were "biased on racial
grounds" in the words of Justice <ent type='PERSON'>Wenersturm</ent> -- that is, were
<ent type='NORP'>Jewish</ent>, and therefore should never have been involved in any
such investigation.
Despite the fact that "confessions" pertaining to the
extermination of the <ent type='NORP'>Jews</ent> were extracted under these conditions,
<ent type='GPE'>Nuremberg</ent> statements are still regarded as conclusive evidence
for <ent type='EVENT'>the Six Million</ent> by writers like Reitlinger and others, and
the illusion is maintained that the Trials were both impartial
and impeccably fair. When General <ent type='PERSON'>Taylor</ent>, the Chief Public
Prosecutor, was asked where he had obtained the figure of the
Six Million, he replied that it was based on the confession of
S.S. General <ent type='PERSON'>Otto Ohlendorf</ent>. He, too, was tortured and his case
is examined below. But as far as such "confessions" in general
are concerned, we can do no better than quote the <ent type='NORP'>British</ent> <ent type='LOC'>Sunday</ent>
Pictorial when reviewing the report of Judge <ent type='PERSON'>van Roden</ent>: "Strong
men were reduced to broken wrecks ready to mumble any admission
demanded by their prosecutors."</p>

<p> THE <ent type='ORG'>WISLICENY</ent> STATEMENT</p>

<p> At this point, let us turn to some of the <ent type='GPE'>Nuremberg</ent> documents
themselves. The document quoted most frequently in support of
the legend of <ent type='EVENT'>the Six Million</ent>, and which figures largely in
<ent type='PERSON'>Poliakov</ent> and Wulf's Das <ent type='PERSON'>Dritte Reich</ent> und die Juden: Documente
und Aufsatze, is the statement of S.S. Captain <ent type='PERSON'>Dieter Wisliceny</ent>,
as assistant in <ent type='PERSON'>Adolf Eichmann</ent>'s office and later the <ent type='ORG'>Gestapo</ent>
chief in <ent type='GPE'>Slovakia</ent>. It was obtained under conditions even more
extreme than those described above. for <ent type='ORG'>Wisliceny</ent> fell into the
hands of <ent type='NORP'>Czech</ent> <ent type='NORP'>Communists</ent> and was "interrogated" at the <ent type='NORP'>Soviet</ent>-controlled Bratislava Prison in November 1946. Subjected to
torture, <ent type='ORG'>Wisliceny</ent> was reduced to a nervous wreck and became
addicted to uncontrollable fits of sobbing for hours on end
prior to his execution. Although the conditions under which his
statement was obtained empty it entirely of plausibility,
<ent type='PERSON'>Poliakov</ent> prefers to ignore this and merely writes: "In prison he
wrote several memoirs that contain information of great
interest" (<ent type='ORG'>Harvest</ent> of Hate, p. 3). These memoirs include some
genuine statements of fact to prove authenticity, such as that
<ent type='PERSON'>Himmler</ent> was an enthusiastic advocate of <ent type='NORP'>Jewish</ent> emigration and
that the emigration of <ent type='NORP'>Jews</ent> from Europe continued throughout the
war, but in general they are typical of the <ent type='NORP'>Communist</ent>-style
"confession" produced at <ent type='NORP'>Soviet</ent> show-trials. Frequent reference
is made to exterminating <ent type='NORP'>Jews</ent> and a flagrant attempt is made to
implicate as many S.S. leaders as possible. Factual errors are
also common, notably the statement that the war with <ent type='GPE'>Poland</ent>
added more than 3 million <ent type='NORP'>Jews</ent> to the <ent type='NORP'>German</ent>-occupied territory,
which we have disproved above.</p>

<p> THE CASE OF THE EINSATZGRUPPEN</p>

<p> The <ent type='ORG'>Wisliceny</ent> statement deals at length with the activities
of the <ent type='PERSON'>Einsatzgruppen</ent> or <ent type='ORG'>Action Groups</ent> used in the <ent type='GPE'>Russia</ent>n
campaign. These must merit a detailed consideration in a survey
of <ent type='GPE'>Nuremberg</ent> because the picture presented of them at the trials
represents a kind of "Six Million" in miniature, i.e. has been
proved since to be the most enormous exaggeration and
falsification. The <ent type='PERSON'>Einsatzgruppen</ent> were four special units drawn
from the <ent type='ORG'>Gestapo</ent> and the S.D. (S.S. Security Police) whose task
was to wipe out partisans and <ent type='NORP'>Communist</ent> commissars in the wake
of the advancing <ent type='NORP'>German</ent> armies in <ent type='GPE'>Russia</ent>. As early as 1939,
there had been 34000 of these political commissars attached to
<ent type='ORG'>the Red Army</ent>. The activities of the <ent type='PERSON'>Einsatzgruppen</ent> were the
particular concern of the <ent type='NORP'>Soviet</ent> Prosecutor <ent type='PERSON'>Rudenko</ent> at the
<ent type='GPE'>Nuremberg</ent> Trials. The 1947 indictment of the four groups alleged
that in the course of their operations they had killed not
less than one million <ent type='NORP'>Jews</ent> in <ent type='GPE'>Russia</ent> merely because they were
<ent type='NORP'>Jews</ent>.
These allegations have since been elaborated; it is now
claimed that the murder of <ent type='NORP'>Soviet</ent> <ent type='NORP'>Jews</ent> by the <ent type='PERSON'>Einsatzgruppen</ent>
constituted Phase One in the plan to exterminate the <ent type='NORP'>Jews</ent>, Phase
Two being the transportation of European <ent type='NORP'>Jews</ent> to <ent type='GPE'>Poland</ent>.
Reitlinger admits that the original term "final solution"
referred to emigration and had nothing to do with the
liquidation of <ent type='NORP'>Jews</ent>, but he then claims than an extermination
policy began at the time of the invasion of <ent type='GPE'>Russia</ent> in 1941. He
considers Hitler's order of July 1941 for the liquidation of the
<ent type='NORP'>Communist</ent> commissars, and he concludes that this was accompanied
by a verbal order from <ent type='PERSON'>Hitler</ent> for the <ent type='PERSON'>Einsatzgruppen</ent> to
liquidate all <ent type='NORP'>Soviet</ent> <ent type='NORP'>Jews</ent> (Die Endlosung, p. 91). If this
assumption is based on anything at all, it is probably the
worthless <ent type='ORG'>Wisliceny</ent> statement, which alleges that the
<ent type='PERSON'>Einsatzgruppen</ent> were soon receiving orders to extend their task
of crushing <ent type='NORP'>Communists</ent> and partisans to a "general massacre" of
<ent type='GPE'>Russia</ent>n <ent type='NORP'>Jews</ent>.
It is very significant that, once again, it is a "verbal
order" for exterminating <ent type='NORP'>Jews</ent> that is supposed to have
accompanied Hitler's genuine, written order -- yet another
nebulous and unprovable assumption on the part of Reitlinger. An
earlier order from <ent type='PERSON'>Hitler</ent>, dated March 1941 and signed by Field
Marshall Keitel, makes it quite clear what the real tasks of the
future <ent type='PERSON'>Einsatzgruppen</ent> would be. It states that in the <ent type='GPE'>Russia</ent>n
campaign, <ent type='ORG'>the Reichsfuhrer</ent> S.S. (<ent type='PERSON'>Himmler</ent>) is to be entrusted
with "tasks for the preparation of the political administration,
tasks which result from the struggle which has to be carried out
between two opposing political systems" (<ent type='PERSON'>Manvell</ent> and <ent type='PERSON'>Frankl</ent>,
ibid, p. 115). This plainly refers to eliminating Communism.
especially the political commissars whose specific task was
<ent type='NORP'>Communist</ent> indoctrination.</p>

<p> THE OHLENDORF TRIAL</p>

<p> The most revealing trial in the "<ent type='PERSON'>Einsatzgruppen</ent> Case" at
<ent type='GPE'>Nuremberg</ent> was that of S.S. General <ent type='PERSON'>Otto Ohlendorf</ent>, the chief of
the S.D. who commanded <ent type='PERSON'>Einsatzgruppen</ent> D in the <ent type='GPE'>Ukraine</ent>, attached
to <ent type='ORG'><ent type='ORG'>Field Marshall</ent> von <ent type='PERSON'>Manstein</ent></ent>'s <ent type='ORG'>Eleventh Army</ent>. During the last
phase of the war he was employed as a foreign trade expert in
<ent type='ORG'>the Ministry</ent> of Economics. <ent type='PERSON'>Ohlendorf</ent> was one of those subjected
to the torture described earlier, and in his affidavit of
November 5th, 1945, he was "persuaded" to confess that 90000
<ent type='NORP'>Jews</ent> had been killed under his command alone. <ent type='PERSON'>Ohlendorf</ent> did not
come to trial until 1948, long after the main <ent type='GPE'>Nuremberg</ent> Trial,
and by that time he was insisting that his earlier statement had
been extracted from him under torture. In his main speech before
the <ent type='ORG'>Tribunal</ent>, <ent type='PERSON'>Ohlendorf</ent> took the opportunity to denounce Philip
<ent type='PERSON'>Auerbach</ent>, the <ent type='NORP'>Jewish</ent> attorney-general of <ent type='ORG'>the Barvarian</ent> State
Office for Restitution, who at the time was claiming
compensation for "eleven million <ent type='NORP'>Jews</ent>" who had suffered
in <ent type='NORP'>German</ent> concentration camps. <ent type='PERSON'>Ohlendorf</ent> dismissed this
ridiculous claim, stating that "not the minutest part" of the
people for whom <ent type='PERSON'>Auerbach</ent> was demanding compensation had ever
seen a concentration camp. <ent type='PERSON'>Ohlendorf</ent> lived long enough to see
<ent type='PERSON'>Auerbach</ent> convicted for embezzlement and fraud (forging documents
purporting to show huge payments of compensation to non-existent
people) before his own execution finally took place in 1951.
<ent type='PERSON'>Ohlendorf</ent> explained to the <ent type='ORG'>Tribunal</ent> that his units often had
to prevent massacres of <ent type='NORP'>Jews</ent> by anti-Semitic Ukrainians behind
the <ent type='NORP'>German</ent> front, and he denied that the <ent type='PERSON'>Einsatzgruppen</ent> as a
whole had inflicted even one quarter of the casualties claimed
by the prosecution. He insisted that the illegal partisan
warfare in <ent type='GPE'>Russia</ent>, which he had to combat, had taken a far
higher toll of lives from the regular <ent type='NORP'>German</ent> army -- an
assertion confirmed by the <ent type='NORP'>Soviet</ent> Government, which boasted of
500000 <ent type='NORP'>German</ent> troops killed by partisans. In fact, Franz
Stahlecker, commander of <ent type='PERSON'>Einsatzgruppen</ent> A in the <ent type='NORP'>Baltic</ent> region
and White <ent type='GPE'>Russia</ent>, was himself killed by partisans in 1942. The
English jurist F.J.P. <ent type='PERSON'>Veale</ent>, in dealing with the <ent type='ORG'>Action Groups</ent>,
explains that in the fighting on the <ent type='GPE'>Russia</ent>n front no
distinction could be properly drawn between partisans and the
civilian population, because any <ent type='GPE'>Russia</ent>n civilian who maintained
his civilian status instead of acting as a terrorist was liable
to be executed by his countrymen as a traitor. <ent type='PERSON'>Veale</ent> says of the
<ent type='ORG'>Action Groups</ent>: "There is no question that their orders were to
combat terror by terror", and he finds it strange that
atrocities committed by the partisans in the struggle were
regarded as blameless simply because they turned out to be on
the winning side (ibid, p. 223). <ent type='PERSON'>Ohlendorf</ent> took the same view,
and in a bitter appeal written before his execution, he accused
the Allies of hypocrisy in holding the <ent type='NORP'>German</ent>s to account by
conventional laws of warfare while fighting a savage <ent type='NORP'>Soviet</ent>
enemy who did not respect those laws.</p>

<p> ACTION GROUP EXECUTIONS DISTORTED</p>

<p> The <ent type='NORP'>Soviet</ent> charge that the <ent type='ORG'>Action Groups</ent> had wantonly
exterminated a million <ent type='NORP'>Jews</ent> during their operations has been
shown subsequently to be a massive falsification. In fact,
there had never been the slightest statistical basis for the
figure. In this connection, <ent type='PERSON'>Poliakov</ent> and <ent type='ORG'>Wulf</ent> cite the statement
of <ent type='PERSON'>Wilhelm Hoettl</ent>, the dubious <ent type='NORP'>American</ent> spy, double agent and
former assistant to <ent type='PERSON'>Eichmann</ent>. Hoettl, it will be remembered,
claimed that <ent type='PERSON'>Eichmann</ent> "told him" that six million <ent type='NORP'>Jews</ent> had been
exterminated -- and he added that two million <ent type='NORP'>Jews</ent> had been
killed by the <ent type='PERSON'>Einsatzgruppen</ent>. This absurd figure went beyond
even the wildest estimates of <ent type='NORP'>Soviet</ent> Prosecutor <ent type='PERSON'>Rudenko</ent>, and it
was not given any credence by the <ent type='NORP'>American</ent> <ent type='ORG'>Tribunal</ent> which tried
and condemned <ent type='PERSON'>Ohlendorf</ent>.
The real number of casualties for which the Action groups
were responsible has since been revealed in the scholarly work
<ent type='PERSON'>Manstein</ent>, his campaigns and His Trial (London, 1951), by the
able English lawyer R.T. Paget. <ent type='PERSON'>Ohlendorf</ent> had been under
Manstein's nominal command. Paget's conclusion is that the
<ent type='GPE'>Nuremberg</ent> <ent type='ORG'>Court</ent>, in accepting the figures of the <ent type='NORP'>Soviet</ent>
prosecution, exaggerated the number of casualties by more than
1000 per cent and that they distorted even more the situations
in which these casualties were inflicted. (These horrific
distortions are the subject of six pages of <ent type='PERSON'>William</ent> Shirer's The
Rise and Fall of the Third <ent type='PERSON'>Reich</ent>, pp. 1140-46). Here, then is
the legendary 6 million in miniature; not one million deaths,
but one hundred thousand. Of course, only a small proportion of
these could have been <ent type='NORP'>Jewish</ent> partisans and <ent type='NORP'>communist</ent>
functionaries. It is worth repeating that these casualties were
inflicted during savage partisan warfare on the <ent type='ORG'>Eastern Front</ent>,
and that <ent type='NORP'>Soviet</ent> terrorists claim to have killed five times that
number of <ent type='NORP'>German</ent> troops. It has nevertheless remained a popular
myth that the extermination of the <ent type='NORP'>Jews</ent> began with the actions
of the <ent type='PERSON'>Einsatzgruppen</ent> in <ent type='GPE'>Russia</ent>.
In conclusion, we may briefly survey the <ent type='PERSON'>Manstein</ent> trial
itself, typical in so many ways of <ent type='GPE'>Nuremberg</ent> proceedings.
<ent type='ORG'>Principally because Action Group</ent> D was attached to Manstein's
command (though it was responsible solely to <ent type='PERSON'>Himmler</ent>), the
sixty-two year old, invalid <ent type='ORG'>Field Marshall</ent>, considered by most
authorities to be the most brilliant <ent type='NORP'>German</ent> general of the war,
was subjected to the shameful indignity of a "war-crimes" trial.
Of the 17 charges, 15 were brought by the <ent type='NORP'>Communist</ent> <ent type='GPE'>Russia</ent>n
Government and two by the <ent type='NORP'>Communist</ent> <ent type='NORP'>Polish</ent> government. Only one
witness was called to give evidence at this trial, and he proved
so unsatisfactory that the prosecution withdrew his evidence.
reliance was placed instead on 800 hearsay documents which were
accepted by the court without any proof of their authenticity or
authorship. The prosecution introduced written affidavits by
<ent type='PERSON'>Ohlendorf</ent> and other S.S. Leaders, but since these men were still
alive, Manstein's defense lawyer Reginald Paget K.C. demanded
their appearance in the witness-box. This was refused by the
<ent type='NORP'>American</ent> authorities, and Paget declared that this refusal was
due to fear lest the condemned men reveal what methods had been
used to induce them to sign their affidavits. <ent type='PERSON'>Manstein</ent> was
eventually acquitted on eight of the charges, including the two
<ent type='NORP'>Polish</ent> ones which, as Paget said, "were so flagrantly bogus that
one was left wondering why they had been presented at all."</p>

<p> THE OSWALD POHL TRIAL</p>

<p> The case of the <ent type='ORG'>Action Groups</ent> is a revealing insight into the
methods of the <ent type='GPE'>Nuremberg</ent> trials and the fabrication of the Myth
of <ent type='EVENT'>the Six Million</ent>. Another is the trial of <ent type='PERSON'>Oswald Pohl</ent> in 1948,
which is of great importance as it bears directly on the
administration of the concentration camp system. <ent type='PERSON'>Pohl</ent> had been
the chief disbursing officer of the <ent type='NORP'>German</ent> Navy until 1934, when
<ent type='PERSON'>Himmler</ent> requested his transfer to the S.S. For eleven years he
was the principal administrative chief of the entire S.S. in his
position as head of the S.S. Economy and Administration Office,
which after 1941 was concerned with the industrial productivity
of the concentration camp system. A peak point of hypocrisy was
reached at the trial when the prosecution said to <ent type='PERSON'>Pohl</ent> that "had
<ent type='NORP'>German</ent>y rested content with the exclusion of <ent type='NORP'>Jews</ent> from her own
territory, with denying them <ent type='NORP'>German</ent> citizenship, with excluding
them from public office, or any like domestic regulation, no
other nation could have been heard to complain." The truth is
that <ent type='NORP'>German</ent>y was bombarded with insults and economic sanctions
for doing precisely these things, and her internal measures
against the <ent type='NORP'>Jews</ent> were certainly a major cause of the declaration
of war against <ent type='NORP'>German</ent>y by the democracies.
<ent type='PERSON'>Oswald Pohl</ent> was an extremely sensitive and intellectual
individual who was reduced to a broken man in the course of his
trial. As Senator <ent type='PERSON'>McCarthy</ent> pointed out, <ent type='PERSON'>Pohl</ent> had signed some
incriminating documents after being subjected to severe torture,
including a bogus admission that he had seen a gas chamber at
Auschwitz in the summer of 1944. The prosecution strenuously
pressed this charge, but <ent type='PERSON'>Pohl</ent> successfully repudiated it. The
aim of the prosecution was to depict this dejected man as a
veritable fiend in human shape, an impression hopelessly at
variance with the testimony of those who knew him.
Such testimony was given by <ent type='PERSON'>Heinrich Hoepker</ent>, an anti-<ent type='NORP'>Nazi</ent>
friend of Pohl's wife who came into frequent contact with him
during the period 1942-45. <ent type='PERSON'>Hoepker</ent> noted that <ent type='PERSON'>Pohl</ent> was
essentially a serene and mild-mannered person. During a visit to
<ent type='PERSON'>Pohl</ent> in the spring of 1944, <ent type='PERSON'>Hoepker</ent> was brought into contact
with concentration camp inmates who were working on a local
project outside the camp area. He noted that the prisoners
worked in a leisurely manner and relaxed atmosphere without any
pressure from their guards. <ent type='PERSON'>Hoepker</ent> declared that <ent type='PERSON'>Pohl</ent> did not
hold an emotional attitude to the <ent type='NORP'>Jews</ent> and did not object to his
wife entertaining her <ent type='NORP'>Jewish</ent> friend <ent type='PERSON'>Annemarie Jacques</ent> at their
home. By the beginning of 1945, <ent type='PERSON'>Hoepker</ent> was fully convinced that
the administrator of the concentration camps was a humane,
conscientious and dedicated servant of his task, and he was
astonished when he heard later in 1945 of the accusations being
made against <ent type='PERSON'>Pohl</ent> and his colleges. Frau <ent type='PERSON'>Pohl</ent> noted that her
husband retained his serenity in the face of adversity until
March 1945, when he visited the camp at Bergen-Belsen at the
time of the typhus epidemic there. Hitherto the camp had been a
model of cleanliness and order, but the chaotic conditions at
the close of the war had reduced it to a state of extreme
hardship. <ent type='PERSON'>Pohl</ent>, who was unable to alleviate conditions there
because of the desperate pass which the war had reached by that
time, was deeply affected by the experience and, according to
his wife, never regained his former state of composure.
Dr. <ent type='PERSON'>Alfred Seidl</ent>, the highly respected lawyer who acted as
principal defense council at <ent type='EVENT'>the Nuremberg Trials</ent>, went to work
passionately to secure the acquittal of <ent type='PERSON'>Pohl</ent>. <ent type='PERSON'>Seidl</ent> had been
convinced of his innocence with respect to the fraudulent charge
of planned genocide against the <ent type='NORP'>Jews</ent>. The <ent type='ORG'>Allied</ent> judgement which
condemned <ent type='PERSON'>Pohl</ent> did not prompt <ent type='PERSON'>Seidl</ent> to change his opinion in the
slightest. He declared that the prosecution had failed to
produce a single piece of valid evidence against him.
One of the most eloquent defenses of <ent type='PERSON'>Oswald Pohl</ent> was made by
S.S. Lieutenant Colonel <ent type='PERSON'>Kurt Schmidt</ent>-<ent type='PERSON'>Klevenow</ent>, a legal officer
in the S.S. Economy and Administration Office, in his affidavit
of August 8th, 1947. This affidavit has been deliberately
omitted from the published documents known as Trials of the War
Criminals before the <ent type='GPE'>Nuremberg</ent> <ent type='ORG'>Tribunal</ent>s 1946-1949. Schmidt-<ent type='PERSON'>Klevenow</ent> pointed out that <ent type='PERSON'>Pohl</ent> had given his fullest support to
Judge <ent type='PERSON'>Konrad Morgen</ent> of <ent type='ORG'>the Reich Criminal Police Office</ent>, whose
job was to investigate irregularities at the concentration
camps. Later on we shall refer to a case in which <ent type='PERSON'>Pohl</ent> was in
favor of the death penalty for camp commandant <ent type='PERSON'>Koch</ent>, who was
accused by an S.S. court of misconduct. Schmidt-<ent type='PERSON'>Klevenow</ent>
explained that <ent type='PERSON'>Pohl</ent> was instrumental in arranging for local
police chiefs to share in the jurisdiction of concentration
camps, and took personal initiative in securing strict
discipline on the part of camp personnel. In short, the evidence
given at the <ent type='PERSON'>Pohl</ent> trial shows that the proceedings involved
nothing less than deliberate defamation of a man's character in
order to support the propaganda legend of genocide against the
<ent type='NORP'>Jews</ent> in the concentration camps he administered.</p>

<p> FALSIFIED EVIDENCE AND FRAUDULENT AFFIDAVITS</p>

<p> Spurious testimony at <ent type='GPE'>Nuremberg</ent> which included extravagant
statements in support of the myth of <ent type='EVENT'>the Six Million</ent> was
invariably given by former <ent type='NORP'>German</ent> officers because of pressure,
either severe torture as in the cases cited previously, or the
assurance of leniency for themselves if they supplied the
required statements. An example of the latter was the testimony
of S.S. General Erich von dem Bach-Zelewski. He was threatened
with execution himself because of his suppression of the revolt
by <ent type='NORP'>Polish</ent> partisans at <ent type='GPE'>Warsaw</ent> in August 1944, which he carried
out with his S.S. brigade of White <ent type='GPE'>Russia</ent>ns. He was therefore
prepared to be "co-operative". The evidence of Bach-Zelewski
constituted the basis of the testimony against <ent type='ORG'>the Reichsfuhrer</ent>
of the S.S. Heinrich <ent type='PERSON'>Himmler</ent> at the main <ent type='GPE'>Nuremberg</ent> trial (Trial
of <ent type='EVENT'>the Major War Criminals</ent>, Vol. IV, pp 29, 36). In March 1941,
on the eve of the invasion of <ent type='GPE'>Russia</ent>, <ent type='PERSON'>Himmler</ent> invited the Higher
S.S. leaders to his Castle at <ent type='GPE'>Wewelsburg</ent> for a conference,
including Bach-Zelewski who was an expert on partisan warfare.
In his <ent type='GPE'>Nuremberg</ent> evidence, he depicted <ent type='PERSON'>Himmler</ent> speaking in
grandiose terms at this conference about the liquidation of
peoples in <ent type='LOC'>Eastern</ent> Europe, but <ent type='PERSON'>Goering</ent>, in the courtroom,
denounced Bach-Zelewski to his face for the falsity of this
testimony. An especially outrageous allegation concerned a
supposed declaration by <ent type='PERSON'>Himmler</ent> that one of the aims of the
<ent type='GPE'>Russia</ent>n campaign was to "decimate the <ent type='NORP'>Slav</ent> population by thirty
millions." What <ent type='PERSON'>Himmler</ent> really said is given by his Chief of
Staff, <ent type='PERSON'>Wolff</ent> -- that war in <ent type='GPE'>Russia</ent> was certain to result in
millions of dead (<ent type='PERSON'>Manvell</ent> and <ent type='PERSON'>Frankl</ent>, ibid, p. 117). Another
brazen falsehood was Bach-Zelewski's accusation that on August
31st, 1942 <ent type='PERSON'>Himmler</ent> personally witnessed the execution of one
hundred <ent type='NORP'>Jews</ent> by an <ent type='GPE'>Einsatz</ent> detachment at <ent type='GPE'>Minsk</ent>, causing him to
nearly faint. It is known, however, that on this date <ent type='PERSON'>Himmler</ent>
was in conference at his field headquarters at <ent type='PERSON'>Zhitomir</ent> in the
<ent type='GPE'>Ukraine</ent> (cf, K. Vowinckel, Die Wehrmacht in <ent type='GPE'>Kampf</ent>, vol. 4, p.
275).
Much is made of Bach-Zelewski's evidence in all of the books
on <ent type='PERSON'>Himmler</ent>, especially <ent type='PERSON'>Willi Frischauers</ent>'s <ent type='PERSON'>Himmler</ent>: Evil Genius
of the Third <ent type='PERSON'>Reich</ent> (London, 1953, p. 148 ff). However, in April
1959, Bach-Zelewski publicly repudiated his <ent type='GPE'>Nuremberg</ent> testimony
before a West <ent type='NORP'>German</ent> court. he admitted that his earlier
statements had not the slightest foundation in fact, and that he
had made them for the sake of expediency and his own survival.
The <ent type='NORP'>German</ent> court, after careful deliberation accepted his
retraction. Needless to say. what <ent type='PERSON'>Veale</ent> calls the "Iron Curtain
of Discreet Silence" descended immediately over these events.
They have had no influence whatever on the books which propagate
the myth of <ent type='EVENT'>the Six Million</ent>, and Bach-Zelewski's testimony on
<ent type='PERSON'>Himmler</ent> is still taken at its face value.
The truth concerning <ent type='PERSON'>Himmler</ent> is provided ironically by an
anti-<ent type='NORP'>Nazi</ent> -- <ent type='PERSON'>Felix Kersten</ent>, his physician and masseur. Because
<ent type='PERSON'>Kersten</ent> was opposed to the regime, he tends to support the
legend that the internment of <ent type='NORP'>Jews</ent> meant their extermination.
But from his close personal knowledge of <ent type='PERSON'>Himmler</ent> he cannot help
but tell the truth concerning him, and in his memoirs 1940-1945
(London, 1956, p. 119 ff.) he is emphatic in stating that
Heinrich <ent type='PERSON'>Himmler</ent> did not advocate liquidating the <ent type='NORP'>Jews</ent> but
favored their emigration overseas. Neither does <ent type='PERSON'>Kersten</ent>
implicate <ent type='PERSON'>Hitler</ent>. However, the credibility of his anti-<ent type='NORP'>Nazi</ent>
narrative is completely shattered when, in search of an
alternative villain, he declares that Dr. <ent type='PERSON'>Goebbels</ent> was the real
advocate of "extermination". This nonsensical allegation is
amply disproved by the fact that <ent type='PERSON'>Goebbels</ent> was still concerned
with the <ent type='GPE'>Madagascar</ent> project even after it had been temporally
shelved by the <ent type='NORP'>German</ent> Foreign Office, as we showed earlier.
So much for false evidence at <ent type='GPE'>Nuremberg</ent>. reference has also
been made to the thousands of fraudulent "written affidavits"
which were accepted by the <ent type='GPE'>Nuremberg</ent> <ent type='ORG'>Court</ent> without any attempt
to ascertain the authenticity of their contents or even their
authorship. These hearsay documents, often of the most bizarre
kind, were introduced as "evidence" so long as they bore the
required signature. A typical prosecution affidavit contested by
the defense in the Concentration Camp Trial of 1947 was that of
<ent type='PERSON'>Alois Hoellriegel</ent>, a member of the camp personnel at <ent type='PERSON'>Mauthausen</ent>
in <ent type='GPE'>Austria</ent>. This affidavit, which the defense proved was
fabricated during Hoellriegel's torture, had already been used
to secure the conviction of S.S. General <ent type='PERSON'>Ernst Kaltenbrunner</ent> in
1946. It claimed that a mass gassing operation had taken place
at <ent type='PERSON'>Mauthausen</ent> and that <ent type='PERSON'>Hoellriegel</ent> had witnessed <ent type='PERSON'>Kaltenbrunner</ent>
(the highest S.S. Leader in the <ent type='PERSON'>Reich</ent> excepting <ent type='PERSON'>Himmler</ent>)
actually taking part in it.
By the time of the Concentration Camp Trial (Pohl's trial) a
year later, it had become impossible to sustain this piece of
nonsense when it was produced in court again. The defense not
only demonstrated that the affidavit was falsified, but showed
that all deaths at <ent type='PERSON'>Mauthausen</ent> were systematically checked by the
local police authorities. They were also entered on a camp
register, and particular embarrassment was caused to the
prosecution when the <ent type='PERSON'>Mauthausen</ent> register, one of the few that
survived, was produced in evidence. The defense also obtained
numerous affidavits from former inmates of <ent type='PERSON'>Mauthausen</ent> (a prison
camp chiefly for criminals) testifying to humane and orderly
conditions there.</p>

<p> ALLIED ACCUSATIONS DISBELIEVED</p>

<p> There is no more eloquent to the tragedy and tyranny of
<ent type='GPE'>Nuremberg</ent> than the pathetic astonishment or outraged disbelief
of the accused persons themselves at the grotesque charges made
against them. Such is reflected in the affidavit of S.S. Major-General <ent type='PERSON'>Heinz Fanslau</ent>, who visited most of the <ent type='NORP'>German</ent>
concentration camps during the last years of the war. Although a
front line soldier in the Waffen S.S., <ent type='PERSON'>Fanslau</ent> had taken a great
interest in concentration camp conditions, and he was selected
as a prime target by the allies for the charge of conspiracy to
annihilate the <ent type='NORP'>Jews</ent>. It was argued, on the basis of his many
contacts, that he must have been fully involved. When it was
first rumored that he would be tried and convicted, hundreds of
affidavits were produced on his behalf by camp inmates he had
visited. When he read the full scope of the indictment against
the concentration camp personnel in supplementary <ent type='GPE'>Nuremberg</ent>
Trial No. 4 on May 6th, 1947, <ent type='PERSON'>Fanslau</ent> declared in disbelief:
"This cannot be possible, because I, too, would have had to know
something about it."
It should be emphasized that throughout the <ent type='GPE'>Nuremberg</ent>
proceedings, the <ent type='NORP'>German</ent> leaders on trial never believed for a
moment the allegations of the <ent type='ORG'>Allied</ent> prosecution. Hermann
<ent type='PERSON'>Goering</ent>, who was exposed to the full brunt of the <ent type='GPE'>Nuremberg</ent>
atrocity propaganda, failed to be convinced by it. Hans
<ent type='PERSON'>Fritzsche</ent>, on trial as the highest functionary of Goebbel's
Ministry, relates that <ent type='PERSON'>Goering</ent>, even after hearing the <ent type='PERSON'>Ohlendorf</ent>
affidavit on the <ent type='PERSON'>Einsatzgruppen</ent> and the <ent type='ORG'>Hoess</ent> testimony on
Auschwitz, remained convinced that the extermination of <ent type='NORP'>Jews</ent> was
entirely propaganda fiction (The Sword in the Scales, London,
1953, p. 1945). At one point during the trial, <ent type='PERSON'>Goering</ent> declared
rather cogently that the first time he had heard of it "was
right here in <ent type='GPE'>Nuremberg</ent>" (<ent type='PERSON'>Shirer</ent>, ibtd, p. 1147). The <ent type='NORP'>Jewish</ent>
writers <ent type='PERSON'>Poliakov</ent>, Reitlinger and <ent type='PERSON'>Manvell</ent> and <ent type='PERSON'>Frankl</ent> all attempt
to implicate <ent type='PERSON'>Goering</ent> in this supposed extermination, but Charles
Bewley in his work Hermann <ent type='PERSON'>Goering</ent> (Goettingen, 1956) shows that
not the slightest evidence was found at <ent type='GPE'>Nuremberg</ent> to
substantiate this charge.
<ent type='PERSON'>Hans Fritzsche</ent> pondered on the whole question during the
trials, and he concluded that there had certainly been no
thorough investigation of these monstrous charges. <ent type='PERSON'>Fritzsche</ent>,
who was acquitted, was an associate of <ent type='PERSON'>Goebbels</ent> and a skilled
propagandist. He recognized that the alleged massacre of the
<ent type='NORP'>Jews</ent> was the main point of the indictment against all
defendants. <ent type='PERSON'>Kaltenbrunner</ent>, who succeeded <ent type='PERSON'>Heydrich</ent> as chief of
the <ent type='PERSON'>Reich</ent> Security head Office and was the main defendant for
the S.S., due to the death of <ent type='PERSON'>Himmler</ent>, was no more convinced of
the genocide charges than was <ent type='PERSON'>Goering</ent>. He confided to <ent type='PERSON'>Fritzsche</ent>
that the prosecution was scoring apparent successes because of
their technique of coercing witnesses and suppressing evidence,
which was precisely the accusation of Judges Wenerstrum and van
Roden.</p>

<p> 6. <ent type='ORG'>AUSCHWITZ</ent> AND POLISH JEWRY</p>

<p> The concentration camp at Auschwitz near <ent type='GPE'>Cracow</ent> in <ent type='GPE'>Poland</ent> has
remained at the center of the alleged extermination of millions
of <ent type='NORP'>Jews</ent>. Later we shall see how, when it was discovered by
honest observers in the <ent type='NORP'>British</ent> and <ent type='NORP'>American</ent> zones after the war
that no "gas chambers" existed in the <ent type='NORP'>German</ent> camps such as
<ent type='LOC'>Dachau</ent> and Bergen-Belsen, attention was shifted to the eastern
camps, particularly Auschwitz. Ovens definitely existed here, it
was claimed. Unfortunately, the eastern camps were in the
<ent type='GPE'>Russia</ent>n zone of occupation, so that no one could verify whether
these allegations were true or not. The <ent type='GPE'>Russia</ent>ns refused to
allow anyone to see Auschwitz until about ten years after the
war, by which time they were able to alter its appearance and
give some plausibility to the claim that millions of people had
been exterminated there. if anyone doubts that the <ent type='GPE'>Russia</ent>ns are
capable of such deception, they should remember the monuments
erected at sites where thousands of people were murdered in
<ent type='GPE'>Russia</ent> by Stalin's secret police -- but where the monuments
proclaim them to be victims of <ent type='NORP'>German</ent> troops in <ent type='EVENT'>World War</ent> II.
The truth about Auschwitz is that it was the largest and most
important industrial concentration camp, producing all kinds of
material for the war industry. The camp consisted of synthetic
coal and rubber plants built by I. G. <ent type='ORG'>Farben</ent> Industry, for whom
the prisoners supplied labor. Auschwitz also comprised an
agricultural research station, with laboratories, plant
nurseries and facilities for stock breeding, as well as <ent type='ORG'>Krupps</ent>
armament works. We have already remarked that this kind of
activity was the prime function of the camps; all major firms
had subsidiaries in them and the S.S. even opened their own
factories. Accounts of visits by <ent type='PERSON'>Himmler</ent> to the camps show his
main purpose was to inspect and assess their industrial
efficiency. When he had visited Auschwitz in March 1941
accompanied by high executives of I. G. <ent type='ORG'>Farben</ent>, he showed no
interest in the problems of the camp as a facility for
prisoners, but merely ordered that the camp be enlarged to take
100000 detainees to supply labor for I. G. <ent type='ORG'>Farben</ent>. This hardly
accords with a policy of exterminating prisoners by the million.</p>

<p> MORE AND MORE MILLIONS</p>

<p> It was nevertheless at this single camp that about half of
the six million were supposed to have been exterminated, indeed,
some written claim 4 or even 5 million. Four million was the
sensational figure announced by the <ent type='NORP'>Soviet</ent> Government after the
<ent type='NORP'>Communist</ent> had "investigated" the camp, at the same time as they
were attempting to blame the <ent type='PERSON'>Kaytn</ent> massacre on the <ent type='NORP'>German</ent>s.
Reitlinger admits that information regarding Auschwitz and other
eastern camps comes from the post-war <ent type='NORP'>Communist</ent> regimes of
<ent type='LOC'>Eastern</ent> Europe: "The evidence concerning the <ent type='NORP'>Polish</ent> death camps
was mainly taken after the war by <ent type='NORP'>Polish</ent> State commissions or by
the Central <ent type='NORP'>Jewish</ent> Historical Commission of <ent type='GPE'>Poland</ent>" (The Final
Solution, p. 631).
However, no living, authentic eye-witness of these "gassings"
has ever been produced and validated. Benedikt <ent type='PERSON'>Kautsky</ent>, who
spent seven years in concentration camps, including three in
Auschwitz, alleged in his book <ent type='PERSON'>Tuefel</ent> and <ent type='GPE'>Verdammte</ent> (Devil and
Damned, Zurich, 1946) that no less than 3500000 <ent type='NORP'>Jews</ent>" had been
killed there. This was certainly a remarkable statement, because
by his own admission he had never seen a gas chamber. He
confessed: "I was in the big <ent type='NORP'>German</ent> concentration camps.
However, I must establish the truth that in no camp at any time
did I come across such an installation as a gas chamber" (p.
272-3). The only execution he actually witnessed was when two
<ent type='NORP'>Polish</ent> inmates were executed for killing two <ent type='NORP'>Jewish</ent> inmates.
<ent type='PERSON'>Kautsky</ent>, who was sent from <ent type='GPE'>Buchenwald</ent> in October 1942 to work at
Auschwitz-Buna, stresses in his book that the use of prisoners
in war industry was a major feature of concentration camp policy
until the end of the war. He failed to reconcile this with an
alleged policy of massacring <ent type='NORP'>Jews</ent>.
The exterminations at Auschwitz are alleged to have occurred
between March 1942 and October 1944; the figure of half of six
million, therefore, would mean the extermination and disposal of
about 94000 people per month for thirty two months --
approximately 3350 people every day, day and night, for over
two and a half years. This kind of thing is so ludicrous that it
scarcely needs refuting. And yet Reitlinger claims quite
seriously that Auschwitz could dispose of no less that 6000
people a day.
Although Reitlinger's 6000 a day would mean a total by
October of over 5 million, all such estimates pale before the
wild fantasies of <ent type='PERSON'>Olga Lengyel</ent> in her book Five Chimneys
(London, 1959). Claiming to be a former inmate of Auschwitz, she
asserts that the camp cremated no less that "720 per hour, or
17280 corpses per twenty-four hour shift." She also alleges
that, in addition, 8000 people were burned every day in the
"death-pits", and that therefore "In round numbers, about 24000
corpses were handled every day" (p. 80-1). This, of course,
would mean a yearly rate of over eight and one half million.
Thus between March 1942 and October 1944 Auschwitz would have
finally have disposed of over 21 million people, six million
more than the entire world <ent type='NORP'>Jewish</ent> population. Comment is
superfluous.
Although several millions were supposed to have died at
Auschwitz alone, Reitlinger has to admit that only 363000
inmates were registered at the camp for the whole of the period
between January 1940 and February 1945 (The S.S. <ent type='ORG'>Alibi</ent> of a
Nation, p. 268 ff), and by no means all of them were <ent type='NORP'>Jews</ent>. It is
frequently claimed that many prisoners were never registered,
but no one has offered any proof of this. Even if there were as
many unregistered as there were registered, it would mean only a
total of 750000 prisoners -- hardly enough for the estimation
of 3 or 4 million. Moreover, large numbers of the camp
population were released or transported elsewhere during the
war, and at the end 80000 were evacuated westward in January
1945 before the <ent type='GPE'>Russia</ent>n advance.
One example will suffice of the statistical frauds relating
to casualties at Auschwitz. <ent type='PERSON'>Shirer</ent> claims that in the summer of
1944, no less than 300000 Hungarian <ent type='NORP'>Jews</ent> were done to death in
a mere fourty-six days (ibid. p. 1156). This would have been
almost the entire Hungarian <ent type='NORP'>Jewish</ent> population, which numbered
some 380000. But according to <ent type='ORG'>the Central Statistical Committee</ent>
figure of 220000), so that only 120000 were classed as no
longer resident. Of these, 35000 were emigrants from the new
<ent type='NORP'>Communist</ent> regime, and a further 25000 were still being held in
<ent type='GPE'>Russia</ent> after having worked in <ent type='NORP'>German</ent> labor battalions there.
This leaves only 60000 Hungarian <ent type='NORP'>Jews</ent> returned to Hungary from
deportation in <ent type='NORP'>German</ent>y, though Reitlinger says this figure is
too high (<ent type='ORG'>The Final Solution</ent>, p. 497). Possibly it is, but
bearing in mind the substantial emigration of Hungarian <ent type='NORP'>Jews</ent>
during the war (cf. Report of thee <ent type='ORG'>ICRC</ent>, Vol. 1, p. 649), the
number of Hungarian <ent type='NORP'>Jewish</ent> casualties must have been very low
indeed.</p>

<p> <ent type='ORG'>AUSCHWITZ</ent>: AN EYE-WITNESS ACCOUNT

Some new facts about Auschwitz are at last beginning to make
a tentative appearance. They are contained in a recent work
called Die Auschwitz-Luge: Ein Erlebnisbericht von Theis
<ent type='PERSON'>Christopherson</ent> (The Auschwitz Legends: An Account of his
Experiences by <ent type='PERSON'>Theis Christopherson</ent>, Kritik Verlag/Mohrkirch,
1973). Published by the <ent type='NORP'>German</ent> lawyer Dr. <ent type='PERSON'>Manfred Roeder</ent> in the
periodical Deutsche Burger-Iniative, it is an eye-witness
account of Auschwitz by <ent type='PERSON'>Theis Christopherson</ent>, who was sent to
the <ent type='ORG'>Bunawerk</ent> plant laboratories at Auschwitz to research into
the production of synthetic rubber for the Kaiser Wilhelm
Institute. In May 1973, not long after the appearance of this
account, the veteran <ent type='NORP'>Jewish</ent> "<ent type='NORP'>nazi</ent>-hunter" <ent type='PERSON'>Simon Weisenthal</ent> wrote
to the <ent type='GPE'>Frankfurt</ent> <ent type='ORG'>Chamber</ent> of Lawyers, demanding that the
publisher and author of the Forward, Dr. Roeder, a member of the
<ent type='ORG'>Chamber</ent> should be brought before its disciplinary commission.
Sure enough, proceedings began in July, but not without harsh
criticism even from the <ent type='ORG'>Press</ent>, who asked "Is <ent type='PERSON'>Simon Weisenthal</ent>
the new <ent type='NORP'>Gauleiter</ent> of <ent type='NORP'>German</ent>y?" (Deutsche Wochenzeiung, July
27th, 1973).
Christopherson's account is certainly one of the most
important documents for a re-appraisal of Auschwitz. He spent
the whole of 1944 there, during which time he visited all of the
separate camps comprising the large Auschwitz complex, including
Auschwitz-<ent type='GPE'>Birkenau</ent> where it is alleged that wholesale massacres
of <ent type='NORP'>Jews</ent> took place. <ent type='PERSON'>Christopherson</ent>, however, is in no doubt that
this is totally untrue. He writes: "I was in Auschwitz from
January 1944 until December 1944. After the war I heard about
the mass murders which were supposedly perpetrated by the S.S.
against the <ent type='NORP'>Jewish</ent> prisoners, and I was perfectly astonished.
Despite all the evidence of witnesses, all the newspaper reports
and radio broadcasts I still do not believe today in these
horrible deeds. I have said many times and in many places, but
to no purpose. One is never believed." (p. 16)
Space forbids a detailed summary here of the author's
experiences at Auschwitz, which include facts about camp routine
and the daily life of prisoners totally at variance with the
allegations of propaganda (pp. 22-7). More important are his
revelations about the supposed existence of an extermination
camp. "During the whole of my time at Auschwitz, I never
observed the slightest evidence of mass gassings. Moreover, the
odor of burning flesh that is often said to have hung over the
camp is a downright falsehood. In the vicinity of the main camp
(Auschwitz I) was a large farrier's works, from which the smell
of molten iron was naturally not pleasant" (p.33-4). Reitlinger
confirms that there were five blast furnaces and five collieries
at Auschwitz, which together with the <ent type='ORG'>Bunawerk</ent> factories
comprised Auschwitz III (ibid. p. 452). The author agrees that a
crematorium would certainly existed at Auschwitz, "since 200000
people lived there, and in every city with 200000 inhabitants
there would be a crematorium. Naturally people died there -- but
not only prisoners. In fact the wife of <ent type='PERSON'>Oberstrumbannfuhrer</ent> A.
(Christopherson's superior) also died there" (p. 33) The author
explains: "There was no secrets at Auschwitz. In September 1944
a commission of <ent type='ORG'>the International Red Cross</ent> came to the camp for
in inspection. They were particularly interested in the camp at
<ent type='GPE'>Birkenau</ent>, though we also had many inspections at Raisko"
(<ent type='ORG'>Bunawerk</ent> section, p. 35).
<ent type='PERSON'>Christopherson</ent> points out that the constant visits to
Auschwitz by outsiders cannot be reconciled with allegations of
mass extermination. When describing the visit of his wife to the
camp in May, he observes: "The fact that it was possible to
receive visits from our relatives at any time demonstrates the
openness of the camp administration. Had Auschwitz been a great
extermination camp, we would certainly not have been able to
receive such visits" (p. 27).
After the war, <ent type='PERSON'>Christopherson</ent> came to hear of the alleged
existence of a building with gigantic chimneys in the vicinity
of the main camp. "This was supposed to be the crematorium.
However, I must record the fact that when I left the camp at
Auschwitz in December 1944, I had not seen this building there"
(p. 37). Does this mysterious building exist today? Apparently
not: Reitlinger claims it was demolished and "completely burnt
out in full view of the camp" in October, though <ent type='PERSON'>Christopherson</ent>
never saw this public demolition. Although it is said to have
taken place "in full view of the camp", it was allegedly seen by </p></xml>