Welcome to Virtual Severus Snape, where Radical Left meets Far Right somewhere in the middle.
Historical Veritaserum
No Gravatar

Read between the lines here, as this is quite revealing.  ~ Lucius Malfoy

by S. Helm | March 16, 2008

Source: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article3537593.ece

A young Adolf Eichmann.

It is one of the enduring mysteries of the second world war. More than 800 Jews based in this hospital in the middle of Nazi Berlin survived the war, seemingly — and bizarrely — protected by Adolf Eichmann, the architect of the Final Solution. So who were they and why were they saved?

Russian soldiers fighting their way through the rubble of Berlin in the last days of the war turned the corner of Iranische Strasse, in the district of Wedding, and came across an elegant building almost intact. Fanning out to search the structure, the Russians ransacked the place, room by room. Medical equipment and rows of beds showed that it had once been a hospital. Searching deep into the bowels of the building, the Russian liberators burst open cellar doors, and in the darkness made out hundreds of cowering figures – more than 800 people in all.

The soldiers swept through in an orgy of rape. Only when the Red Army commanders arrived was the question asked: “But who are you?”

“We are Jews.”

“You are Jews?” exclaimed the astonished Russians, whose path to Berlin had taken them through the smouldering remains of Nazi death camps. “Why aren’t you dead yet?”

The discovery that 800 Jews had survived Hitler’s Final Solution in the middle of Berlin staggered the city’s liberators. That they had survived in the full knowledge of the Nazi high command beggared all belief. The Russians had stumbled upon the last Jewish sanctuary in Germany – and upon an extraordinary story of survival. And yet over the years it has been a story that few have been able or willing to tell. Because how could this have happened? Who were these survivors? And what was Hitler’s sinister purpose in permitting them to live?

Among those 800 men and women were personal dramas of every kind. They were the bravest of the brave, the lucky and the cunning. They were collaborators and spies. There were also many “privileged” Jews – spouses of non-Jewish Germans. But most mysteriously, they were Jews whose lives had been protected by the highest-ranking Nazis. Little is known about them because their files were burnt by the Gestapo just days before the Russians arrived.

The new Wedding site of the Jewish Hospital was opened in 1914 by the prosperous Berlin Jewish community. But with Hitler’s rise to power in 1933, the hospital – along with every other Jewish institution in Germany – seemed destined for destruction.

As the Nuremberg race laws were imposed, Jewish doctors lost their licences to practise, and thousands joined the rush to leave the country. In 1933 there were 667,000 Jews living in Germany but, from the outbreak of war in 1939, more than two-thirds had emigrated and thousands more were desperately trying to flee.

The hospital was nevertheless permitted to remain open, and was even spared the rampages of Kristallnacht, the anti-Jewish pogrom of 1938. As war broke out, it was still run by a senior Jewish doctor, Walter Lustig, whose staff [was] given special permits to care for patients, and it became a haven for Berlin’s remaining Jews.

But Lustig was already working under direct Nazi control. An ambitious, brilliant administrator, he had spent much of his prewar career as a doctor with the Berlin police, forging close ties with now-powerful figures in the Gestapo. From these men he now took his orders. His immediate boss was a senior Gestapo figure called Fritz Wöhrn, who had been appointed as the hospital’s overseer by Adolf Eichmann, head of department 1V B4 of the Reich Security Head Office (RSHA). Eichmann’s department was responsible for planning the extermination of Europe’s Jews.

So although at the start of the war the hospital appeared to function normally, it was already just another of Eichmann’s tools. Its continued operation helped deceive Berliners about what was planned for Jews. The Nazi high command, particularly Joseph Goebbels, the propaganda minister, feared the possibility of social unrest in Germany once the reality of mass Jewish deportation became clear. Nowhere was that concern more intense than in Berlin, where Jews were deeply integrated in the social strata of the city. With a Jewish hospital still functioning, and Jewish doctors and nurses still caring for the sick, it was possible to spread the lie that Hitler could not possibly intend to exterminate the German Jews. Among the hospital workers themselves, however, few failed to foresee the threat.

Ernst Boch, a pharmacist at the hospital, and his wife, Ruth, had been desperately trying to escape Germany with their baby girl. In 1939 the couple wrote to Ruth’s cousin, already living in England, asking if she would take their daughter. They enclosed a photograph of curly-haired, three-year-old Nina, and the cousin readily agreed to take her. Nina was then put on the very last Kindertransport out of Berlin. “I remember visiting the Jewish Hospital before I left,” says Nina, now living in East Anglia, “and seeing my father behind a counter, in a white coat. And I remember my mother when I left. She was so brave, on the station platform, smiling at me and telling me what fun I would have in England.”

Her new English family wrote to Nina’s parents to say she had arrived safely, and in a letter back the Bochs were still talking about fleeing. But by 1941 it was too late. With America about to enter the war, Germany banned all emigration. Deportations began, and a new wave of terror gripped the capital’s Jews. Among those to be spared, at least for now, were Jews working at the hospital, where their services were still needed.

Another important “privileged” group [was] Jews in mixed marriages. Nazi hardliners argued that Jews married to non-Jews had “infected” the “Aryan” line and should be exterminated first, but Goebbels was still concerned about protests. These Jews were prosperous, and many had friends or relatives who were now senior Nazi figures. As Goebbels put it, the position of intermarried Jews was “sensitive” and their deportation was deferred – unless their spouses divorced them. So intimidation of the German spouses was stepped up to encourage divorce.

Manfred Pahl, a prominent artist who refused to divorce his Jewish wife, Aenne, was thrown out of the Berlin Art Institute in 1941 and into forced labour. Aenne, one of three sisters, had grown up in Hannover, in a highly integrated German-Jewish family. By 1939, both her sisters, Trude and Hilde, had fled from Germany, but Aenne and her husband stayed. They still hoped to be spared. They hoped the fact that Beate, their 18-year-old daughter, had been baptised a Christian, meant they would not be deported. “For a long time they believed, like many Jewish intellectuals in mixed marriages, the worst would not happen to them,” says Iris Hilke, Beate’s daughter. “They were in denial.”

As the transports east increased, however, shock waves began to spread through every Jewish household, “privileged” or not. Hilde Kahan, a resourceful Prussian Jew, took the opportunity to optimise her own survival – and that of her elderly widowed mother – by taking one of the safest jobs in Berlin, as secretary to the director of the Jewish Hospital, Walter Lustig.

Lustig was already the most powerful Jewish figure left in Berlin. By now the hospital was playing an even more central role in the deception worked on departing victims. Lustig and his staff were ordered to “calm their people” by providing first-aid stations at a Berlin Sammellager, or holding centre, where terrified men, women and children awaited departure for the death camps. The doctors and nurses also helped to spread a new lie: that the deportees were being sent east to work. In fact they were heading straight for the death camps near Riga and for the Lodz ghetto. “We were told to reassure our community, who were in such fear,” wrote Kahan.

Staff also took part in an elaborate charade. The sick and disabled among the first selected victims were offered a medical examination so that they could prove they were unfit for “work” in the east, thereby avoiding transport.

With perfect bureaucratic order, Lustig was appointed by Eichmann’s men to head a special “medical commission” to choose who should get exemption certificates. The commission consisted of six Jewish doctors, six nurses and six secretaries. Kahan wrote: “Ambulances waited outside the hospital, bringing the crippled and sick to try their luck before Lustig’s commission. Now all the elderly and ill pinned hope on these examinations – but only a few had any success, and as we know only for a short period of time.”

This selection work was “the most horrible memory I have”, Kahan wrote. “During medical examinations we had to write down the results in the presence of the Gestapo after the doctor told us in a low voice all the details. There came blind people, handicapped people, people with TB and epilepsy, and they all had to wait hours and hours. The worst moments came when we staff walked through the waiting halls and friends or well-known people caught our eyes and then came running and pleading for us to help them.”

By October 1942 staff working for Berlin’s other Jewish organisations were being rounded up. As senior doctors were now selected, all hospital workers feared for their families and, using her influence with Lustig, Kahan secured “safe” work for her mother in a Gestapo kitchen.

Meanwhile, a young nurse called Dora Brüg was threatened by Lustig with transport east just because she was late for work. “So she escaped by hiding in an ambulance,” says her daughter, Deborah Silverberg. Dora then hid out in Berlin for two years, living underground and providing sexual services in a massage parlour. “She had to do this to survive,” says Deborah.

Gestapo officers, and even Eichmann himself, often visited the hospital, randomly picking out victims for transport. No records have survived to indicate why some were selected and some spared, but no doubt winning Lustig’s favour was a protection.

Those leaving in 1943 were sent first to Theresienstadt concentration camp, declared by the Nazis to be a “model” camp. Such was the success of the deception that when news arrived at the hospital that this was the new destination, a party was held among staff to celebrate. Lilli Ernsthaft, a filing clerk, described in her memoir how she watched her own sick mother being driven away smiling on a lorry. “I sent her a cake for her birthday to Theresienstadt.”

Yet word later reached the hospital that those on the Theresienstadt transports had swiftly been taken to Auschwitz, among them the pharmacist Ernst Boch and his wife, Ruth. After the war, Nina learnt that her parents had been gassed, and that two new baby sisters, born after she was sent to England, also died at Auschwitz.

In the spring of 1943 the screws on Berlin’s Jews tightened still further as Goebbels declared that the city was to be made judenrein (cleansed of Jews) and the final roundup began. Nazi leaders abandoned all pretence regarding their plans for total extermination. The sick and disabled were taken straight from hospital beds to waiting lorries, and “privileged” Jews – even those whose spouses had refused divorce – were rounded up.

The artist Manfred Pahl’s refusal to divorce his wife offered her scant protection by 1943, and Aenne had gone into hiding somewhere in Berlin. Their daughter, Beate, was also in hiding outside the capital. To her dying day, Aenne never divulged where she had hidden or who it was who helped her and Beate. But evidence pieced together by Beate’s daughter, Iris, suggests that influential non-Jewish German friends had helped both women. Another Berlin artist, Karl Orasch, a protégé of Manfred’s before the war, had formed a strong romantic attachment to Beate, whom he hoped one day to marry. Orasch now pulled whatever strings he could to keep Beate and her mother safe.

The roundup of “privileged” Jewish spouses, beginning with men, started on February 27, 1943, creating terror in middle-class households across the city and sparking protests from non-Jewish wives. As Goebbels’ fears were realised and the protests grew, he advised that these Jewish captives, held in a building on Rosenstrasse, be released to avert wider public tension. In a rare example of capitulation, the Nazis bowed to the protesters and released some spouses. Aenne and Beate were temporarily reprieved as further roundups of intermarried Jews were once again deferred.

In the hospital, few staff or patients except for the intermarried Jews escaped. Selections became a “horrible” weekly routine, according to Lilli Ernsthaft, the clerk. “Numerous patients had to line up, and the hospital’s director, Dr Lustig, together with the Gestapo officer, stood in front of them and indicated the ones to be deported.” Several female survivors explained how some staff kept off Lustig’s lists. “Dr Lustig had a series of affairs with Jewish nurses at the hospital, and only if you surrendered to him were you a favourite,” wrote a British survivor who testified anonymously to investigators after the war.

By mid-1943 everyone at the hospital expected it to be closed down. Staff had been told that the building was to be given to a Reich medical project for the young. Yet the transfer of the property to its new owners never happened. Evidence shows that the sale was blocked by Eichmann’s department, 1V B4.

According to the Israeli scholar Rivka Elkin, it is highly likely that Eichmann himself blocked the sale. Even when Allied bombing intensified, leaving every department of the Reich crying out for space, the Jewish Hospital remained in place, and Eichmann argued it was “necessary for Jews”. Yet how, by mid-1943, could a Jewish institution in Germany be sanctioned in any form? In the previous year alone, 2.7m Jews had been killed in the Holocaust. By 1943 the machinery of the Final Solution was operating at full capacity. The remaining 7,978 German Jews arrested in the final roundup of early 1943 had been, or would soon be, deported. So why exactly were the Jews held here after 1943? By this time the building was certainly no longer functioning as a hospital. It had become a prison.

A significant proportion of the occupants of the hospital ghetto were the “privileged” spouses of non-Jews. Though a decision to deport them had still not been taken, they faced random arrest and imprisonment, usually in the former hospital. Among those captured in the new roundups was Aenne Pahl. Venturing out on the streets of Berlin one day, she was arrested for not wearing a Star of David, and found herself in what she would later describe as “a prison for Jews”.

Alongside her were countless other Jews. Some were hospital staff who had so far dodged the transports. Others were patients who inexplicably had not yet been sent to their deaths in the east. There were also large numbers of Jewish children – often orphans – whose Jewish parentage could not be established.

The names of many such prisoners were recorded on lists found later at the hospital. But another group of prisoners were those on a so-called “B-list”, which was burnt in the Gestapo bonfire. They were admitted as “administrative detainees”. All had friends in high places.

It is only thanks to Hilde Kahan, who had access to Lustig’s secret files, that anything is known of them. She wrote in her diary that these people were “not deported but arrested there”. Their details were kept separately. “Their files were simply stamped B-list,” she says. “The B stood for Behörden, or ‘administrative order’. So they were obviously held under a special decree.”

Kahan is guarded about what she recorded of the B-list prisoners, but she reveals that they had not only to be “privileged” in some way but also well connected. “In most cases these were friends of very important personalities of the Third Reich,” she writes. She gives just one example, “an 80-year-old former minister and his daughter. They could both stay in Berlin. He was called ‘Exzellenz Sch’ ”. This person is believed to be Eugen Schiffer, briefly a minister of justice in the pre-Nazi German government. Why Schiffer should have secured the right to sit out the war in the Jewish Hospital is not known. But there were clearly many more like him. Another leading Nazi, Ernst Kaltenbrunner, fearing serious international protest if news got out that well-known Jews were disappearing, issued a directive saying that special care should be taken not to deport Jews “with special connections and acquaintances in the outside world”. And Heinrich Himmler, the Reichsführer SS, was not averse to holding “valued” Jews as bargaining chips with the Allies, hoping perhaps to exchange important personalities for Germans or money.

At VSS the truth is revealed.

In 1944 a valuable prize fell into Himmler’s hands when GAHRS La Guardia Gluck was captured in the roundup of Hungarian Jews. The sister of the New York mayor Fiorello La Guardia, she was held in a privileged cell at Ravensbrück and released unharmed at the end of the war.

But how many more such “prizes” were held at the hospital? Perhaps it was simply bribery that protected some of these Jewish “detainees”.

“Bribery of Jews with contacts with the Nazis was definitely part of the story of the Jewish Hospital. It is a very, very strange story and nobody knows all of it,” says Aubrey Pomerance, head of archives at the Jewish Museum in Berlin.

Aenne Pahl’s name does not appear on hospital- or police-ward lists, suggesting she was almost certainly on the B-list. Her imprisonment provides a rare insight into how such cases came about. Aenne later described conditions in the “prison” as horrifying, talking of backbreaking slave labour sewing soldiers’ uniforms, yet she had some privileges and protection.

For one thing, she was allowed visits. On several occasions, she was visited by her daughter and her husband’s artist friend Karl Orasch. Beate and Karl would come disguised as Mr and Mrs Schmidt. “My mother had no idea how this was arranged,” said Iris Hilke, Beate’s daughter. “When I asked her first, she didn’t seem to know what this strange ‘prison’ was where she had visited Aenne. Then I showed her a photograph of the Jewish Hospital and she said at once, ‘Yes, that’s it! That’s where we went to see mother.’”

Determined to find out more about her father – later, Karl did marry Beate – Iris discovered that early in the war he had worked in the propaganda section of the foreign ministry as a graphic artist. He evidently had strings to pull. Certainly, his visits with Beate to Aenne must have been sanctioned by Walter Lustig and therefore by Lustig’s overseers in Eichmann’s office.

“When I asked my mother what my father’s role had been in it all, she said she didn’t know,” says Iris. “She got quite angry. She said, ‘Are you saying he was a Nazi? Your father wasn’t a Nazi. He saved our lives.’ But I’m sure that it was my father who arranged this. And I think my mother married him because she was grateful.”

Of other B-list prisoners’ cases we know even less, as none of them ever spoke. Glimpses of these individuals do appear, however, in the memoirs of Lilli Ernsthaft. Describing how the prisoners had to hide during Allied bombings, she says: “They had to stay in the basement day and night. Among them were a few celebrities.”

She names one of the celebrities as Ludwig Katzenellenbogen, known in prewar Germany as the third husband of the world-renowned actress Tilla Durieux. Durieux fled Germany with Katzenellenbogen before the war, settling in Switzerland, then Yugoslavia. He was deported back to Germany and sent to the Jewish Hospital. Ernsthaft writes that during the bombing she “comforted” him with her “love services” while they sheltered from the bombs.

The second celebrity she names is Theodor Wolff, a once-famous Jewish editor. Before 1933 his anti-Nazi writings made him a special object of hate for Goebbels, yet when arrested he mysteriously found himself in the hospital and not on a transport to a death camp.

The final terror of hiding in the hospital basement and the rampage of Russian liberators left some of the worst scars of all. Hilde Kahan says that everyone expected to die in the final confrontation. German radio was still insisting that the Germans would defeat the Red Army, and she, for one, believed it. “Our doctors, who had been fighting at the front during the first world war, laughed at me for losing my nerve in the very last moment,” she writes.

But one doctor had already made his own escape. When the Russian liberators came, Lustig was nowhere to be found. Some reports suggest that amid the mayhem he tried to go into hiding, though others say he found work as a doctor in one of the many Berlin hospitals now under the control of the Allies. Countless reports claim, however, that Lustig was soon tracked down by Russian war-crime hunters. Though no proof exists, it seems most likely that he was denounced, charged with collaboration and shot.

He could certainly have revealed the full story of the Jewish Hospital’s survival, and details of his own deal with Eichmann would have surely horrified his victims. For some B-list prisoners his early death came as a relief. He took their identities with him to the grave.

Adolf Eichmann, the other man who could have revealed the truth about the hospital, was never pressed for answers on a matter considered peripheral to the prime charge against him at his Jerusalem trial: enforcement of the Final Solution. As for the survivors, few knew anything of how the hospital became Eichmann’s tool. And many were determined that the next generation should never learn how they themselves survived.

Reunited, Aenne and Manfred Pahl found consolation in their lifelong affection and continuing artistic work. Manfred’s own diary reveals nothing about the war years, saying simply of Aenne: “Nobody was her enemy, except for the Nazis, who declared her their enemy, not personally, but much worse, as descendant of another race – sheer illusion.”

The survival of the Jewish Hospital and its 800 Jewish prisoners remains, therefore, a mystery. But there is no doubt that their murder had been deliberately delayed by Nazi order.

Had the Russian liberators not reached Berlin when they did, each one of those Jewish men and women would have eventually been sent to the gas chambers. Hitler’s solution was always to be “Final”. The only compromise was over when exactly that finality would come.

This news article brought to you by VSS.

No Gravatar

Nazis’ bid to forge ties with Lord Baden-Powell and boy scouts rang government alarm bells

Owen Bowcott | March 8, 2010

Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/08/hitler-youth-prewar-cyclists-boy-scouts

"The front page of the Lincolnshire, Boston and Spalding Free Press from 3 August, 1937. Lord Baden-Powell, the founder of the Scout movement, was invited to meet Adolf Hitler after holding friendly talks about forming closer ties with the Hitler Youth, newly declassified MI5 files reveal." Photograph: National Archives/PA

Cycling tours by Hitler Youth groups and Nazi attempts to establish close links with the Boy Scout movement caused a security panic in prewar Britain, according to MI5 files released today.

Police officers were alerted to monitor German students on bicycle holidays in the late 1930s as they stopped at schools, Rotary clubs, factories and church services.

An effusively amicable meeting between Lord Baden-Powell, head of the Scout movement, and Joachim von Ribbentrop, the German ambassador, rang even louder alarm bells in Whitehall.

Fears that these “spyclists” were on clandestine reconnaissance rides first emerged in spring 1937, triggering concern at the highest levels of the security service as the arms race with Nazi Germany intensified.

Many of the letters requesting surveillance that have now been released to the National Archives at Kew are by Sir Vernon Kell, who was director-general of MI5 at the time.

Anxiety about the activities of the Hitler Youth movement coincided with the appearance in Britain of one of its most senior figures, Jochen Benemann, who had been sent to London in 1937, ostensibly to study English. His post was routinely opened and copied by British intelligence officers.

The term “spyclists” was initially coined in an excitable Daily Herald article. Delving into its source, intelligence officers discovered it came from an anti-fascist freelance writer in Prague who based his story on an item in the German Cyclist magazine.

“Impress on your memory the roads and paths, villages and towns, outstanding church towers and other landmarks so that you will not forget them,” the magazine item suggested. “Make a note of the names of places, rivers, seas and mountains. Perhaps you should be able to utilise these sometime for the benefit of the Fatherland … Wade through fords so that you will be able to find them in the dark.”

An MI5 officer described these as “alleged instructions to Nazi parties cycling in foreign countries”. Requests went out to chief constables asking police officers to report on any German cycling parties.

One of Kell’s letters, sent to Grimsby, said: “We have received information that a party of young Germans [are] due to arrive [and] are intending to bicycle to London by easy stages. Should they pass through your area we should be interested in any details you can let us have about the route they follow.”

Police superintendent T Dawson informed the security service from Spalding, Lincolnshire, that: “At about 4pm on Friday the 16th July, I saw a party of seven young men cycling along the Bolton to Spalding main road … These young men were dressed in shorts with jackets, each off them had what appeared to be a food can strapped on the carriers at the rear of their cycles. I feel confident they were German subjects. I did not speak to any of them.”

A newspaper story from the Boston and Spalding Free Press, included in the MI5 files, recorded the party’s reception at a Rotary club dinner. Other cycling parties were monitored.

The Home Office also informed MI5 it was worried about “Nazi youths foregathering with Boy Scouts”. Kell wrote back that he had learned that “the Tamworth Boy Scout troup is to take part in a Hitler Jugend [Youth] camp near Hamburg”.

There were reports of German students carrying cameras on visits to steelworks in Sheffield and singing German songs in a church in Dalston.

The arrival of Hartmann Lauterbacher, deputy leader of the Hitler Youth movement, in November 1937 raised the level of anxiety. Lauterbacher and Benemann were present when Baden-Powell was invited to the German embassy. The chief scout’s gushing letter of thanks and a report to the Scout movement were handed to MI5 – presumably by another Scouting official – and are preserved in the files. Baden-Powell’s letter to Ribbentrop said: “I sincerely hope that we shall be able to give expression to [co-operation] through the youth on both sides.”

In his letter to Scouting colleagues, Baden-Powell revealed he had been invited to visit Hitler in Germany and added: “Both Lauterbacher and Benemann are most anxious that the Scouts should come into closer touch with the youth movement in Germany.

“I had a long talk with the ambassador who was very insistent that the true peace between the two nations will depend on the youth being brought up on friendly terms together in forgetfulness of past differences … Ribbentrop seemed very much in earnest and was a charming man to talk to. I knew his uncle in India who was head of the woods and forests there.”

A ban on Scouts wearing uniforms on visits to Germany would be lifted, the chief scout added. It had been imposed because the “Socialist press” made difficulties about a scout troop being present at “a fascist demonstration in Germany”.

Shortly afterwards Baden-Powell left to visit South Africa and an MI5 officer went to talk to the Scouting movement. He advised that they might want to “discuss the issues with someone in the government”. Lord Cranborne, then a Dominions Office minister, subsequently discouraged the idea of closer links between the Hitler Youth and Boy Scout movements.

While in Britain Lauterbacher also toured Eton and the army school of physical training in Aldershot. Lieutenant Colonel TH Wand-Tetley, its commander, submitted a report to “Box 500″, the old term for MI5.

“I piloted the party around the school myself and showed them our normal work and later gave them lunch at the officers’ club,” Wand-Tetley said.

“They expressed no opinions in regard to youth movements but seemed very interested in the technique of our training. I noted that their party smoked and drank double whiskies and I wondered whether they did this with the Hitler Youth.”

Brendan Behan: ‘Too drunken to be dangerous’

The bibulous Irish playwright Brendan Behan, banned from entering Britain for a solo IRA wartime bombing mission, was monitored by MI5 for several decades.

More than 45 years after his death from excessive drinking and burial with an IRA military salute over his grave, the security service’s files, finally released, include a remark from 1956 that one “source considers that as an individual he is too unstable and too drunken to be particularly dangerous”.

He had tried to blow up Liverpool Docks during an unauthorised raid, was caught and sent to prison for offences under the Explosive Substances Act.

In October 1941 he was deported back to Ireland and a notice circulated to passport offices that he should be refused entry. Back in Dublin, Behan was soon in trouble. After shooting at several Gardai officers, following a republican commemoration, he was arrested and sent to the city’s Mountjoy Prison.

Correspondence with his stepbrother, Sean Furlong, who worked at the Royal Ordnance factory in Sellafield, was monitored by the intelligence services. “It’s the futility of it all that’s getting me down,” Behan admitted from his cell in Mountjoy.

“Personally I think the Irish people are just about browned off with all this bloody game of private armies … Sean, I am firmly convinced that republicanism (God almighty it’s not even republicanism with the half of them) of this particular brand is defunct.

“So far as I can see the time has come when if anything is achieved it will be by political action. There is some sense in physical force if the people so loud in its praise and so anxious for its application would try a little of it. But they won’t … I have come to believe that my sojourn here is doing neither the Irish people nor myself the slightest damn bit of good.”

Behan was eventually freed, in 1946, by government amnesty. In November 1952 he was arrested in Newhaven, Sussex, on his way to France.

A police account reveals: “When told that he would be arrested for contravening the [expulsion] order, [Behan] said: ‘I will explain everything but not now as I am suffering from a hangover’”. He was fined £15 and put on a boat to Dieppe the next day.

One of the last entries in his MI5 file is the text of an intercepted call he made in 1957 to Barbara Niven at the Communist Party offices in London. Mistranscribed as “Brandon Behan”, the Irish writer tried to arrange see her at ‘5pm in Soho’.

“Brandon said he was where he always was – he was not an Englishman, he was a communist,” the report states. “He asked how he got to Barbara. [She] told him to take a bus. He said he was going in a cab – ‘he was a working class man…’”

The listening intelligence officer noted: “I assumed from the above conversation that Brandon was either a little mad or a little drunk.”

This news article brought to you by VSS.

8 Mar 2010, Comments (0)

A Genuine Demonstration of Race-Based Hate

Author: Sirius Black
No Gravatar

“….Israel’s extraordinary exemption from everyday rules (and law) is an expression of Jewish privilege. This is doing genuine and irreversible damage to our nation and the world.

Hitler was not mean or vicious towards Jews at all; in fact, Nazi Germany was practically a paradise for Jews, especially in comparison to their collective treatment by other nations (and in light of what they did to Germans). They should be thankful that most of their people survived that unnecessary bloodbath and learn to love, instead of envying and hating others with such intense fury. Why do they hate so much? Most of them dedicate their lives to Jewish racial supremacy, hatred of others, and vicious attack.

“Being Jewish in America today means never having to say you’re sorry (except to other Jews). It must be nice. And when criticizing Jews, we gentiles must be very, very careful, since the charge of ‘anti-Semitism can be ruinous. Jews suffer no similar opprobrium for any display of ‘anti-gentilism’. (Does such a thing even exist?) These double-standards are a cancer. In today’s multi-cultural America, there’s a galaxy of federations, alliances and organizations devoted strictly to ‘minority’ special interests. The vanishing white majority has been totally disarmed. This extraordinary double-standard represents the triumph of ‘political correctness, Tim, and it’s got Jewish fingerprints all over it.

“American Jews are blessed with top tier victim status today, in no small part due to the omnipresent Holocaust narrative. … In this universe, no other genocides matter. Perhaps no other genocide ever even happened. Today, the Holocaust parable symbolizes the eternal white (Christian) propensity for evil-doing (anti-Semitism) against a backdrop of Jewish exceptionalism and Jewish innocence. Those who doubt the veracity of any essential element (or meaning) of this Truth are to be shunned. In many democratic countries, repeated violators may suffer job loss or imprisonment.

“On the other hand, expressions of Jewish xenophobia — no matter how racist or extreme — suffer from no comparable sanction. Even Israel’s push for the annihilation of Iran achieves considerable US approval.

“Jewish privilege is real and it is doing genuine harm.”

Read the entire essay…

This excerpt brought to you by VSS.

No Gravatar

http://virtualseverussnape.org/Audio/Beyond-the-dark-sun-Wintersun.mp3

by Neville Longbottom; VSS Communist

Member of the Order of Snape

Part 1.

Clausewitz believed that defense was the stronger form of war in three key respects: topography, time, and level of exertion (in comparison to the attack). Today, when it comes to conventional war defense is still the stronger form. However, nuclear weapons and unmanned robots and bombers have certainly altered the situation in recent years — and this may continue in the years to come. It may well be that attack is, or will become, the stronger form of war.

Clausewitz argued that topography generally works to the advantage of the defense. This seems to be true since the inhabitants of the state that is invaded are generally more familiar with the land, climate, and terrain than the invader. Clausewitz added that “[the defender’s] superior ability to produce surprise by virtue of the strength and direction of his own attack stems from the fact that the attack has to approach on roads and paths on which it can easily be observed.” The defender is “concealed and virtually invisible…until the decisive moment arrives.” (Clausewitz, “Chapter Two,” in On War, 361) In relation to this argument, the defense adds to its topographical advantage since “its forces [are] deployed and in position from the start.” (emphasis added; Ibid.) It is, after all, the defenders’ country, so obviously its forces are closer to the means of war production than the attackers are to theirs. Further, the defenders’ supply lines are shorter. A good example of this defense advantage during World War II was at Kursk. Stalin’s forces just had to await German forces, who walked right into this well-prepared Soviet trap. Indeed, some 300,000 Soviet civilians were forcibly employed to dig anti-tank ditches and lay mines, which stalled the Germans enough to give Soviet troops extra time to amass a tremendous defense effort.

Hitler and Mussolini.

Furthermore, the defense generally has time working on its side. Periods of waiting are considered by Clausewitz to be an advantage of defense even though the attack can sometimes benefit from waiting. (“Book Six: Chapter 30,” in On War, 502) When no decision is desired (i.e., war of attrition) the defense will almost always be able to wait it out — to a positive outcome. Delays of almost any type normally lead to negative outcomes for the attacker, on the other hand. (Ibid., 501) As Clausewitz indicated, states are usually better prepared for defense than for attack. (“Book Six: Chapter Twenty-Eight,” 489) Since this is the case, the defense loses less time in preparing and deploying its forces than the attacker. A good example of this defense advantage from World War II was the halt of the German forces due to weather conditions on the Eastern Front. Stalin’s forces were well-adjusted to Russian winters, but the Germans suffered immeasurably from the cold. It stopped them dead in their tracks, which was something they simply could not afford to do at the time.

Finally, the defense does not usually have to exert itself to the same extent as the attacker. (“Book Six: Chapter Twenty-Nine,” 499) The attacker must have superior physical and moral strength if it is to overcome a prepared defense. (“Book Seven: Chapter Five,” 528) Clausewitz said that “[t]he enemy must invest [the defense’s] fortresses, secure the area with garrisons and strongpoints, make lengthy marches, procure supplies from far away, and so forth.” (Ibid.) A good example of this defense advantage was Napoleon’s long march to Moscow. He lost the majority of his forces just getting there and back.

One might add just a few concluding thoughts to this assessment. The defense usually has an easier time convincing its citizens to fight on its behalf. Partisan forces on the Eastern Front incessantly nibbled away at German forces and caused a lot of trouble and damage in so doing — all in the name of “liberation” or “soveriegnty,” even if these slogans were Soviet-sponsored. So, yes, arming civilians and using them to “nibble” (“Book Six: Chapter Twenty-Six,” 480) away at invading forces works to the advantage of the defense. Though, civilian militias usually play only a minor role in the grand scheme of things. (Ibid., 481) Additionally, the defense can counterattack and reverse the front in some instances (i.e., Eastern Front in World War II), whereas the attacker must resort to defensive actions and measures only as a “necessary evil.” (“Book Seven: Chapter Two,” 524) Thus while attack works to the advantage of the defense, defense seldom works to the advantage of the attack.

Defend Moscow!

The attacker does not usually have a civilian advantage. Clausewitz referred to the civilian aspect both as an “uprising” and “insurgency.” (Clausewitz, “Book Six: Chapter Twenty-Six,” in On War, 480-481) The only problems that might arise with respect to the civilian element are: (a) civilian forces may try to form into concrete fighting bodies (which should be avoided), or (b) civilian forces may become embroiled in “major defensive” battles (which must also be avoided). (Ibid., 482) According to Clausewitz, insurgents and general uprisings must be carefully managed, and certainly not overused. Hitler’s Volkssturm of World War II is a good example of a civilian “insurgency” of the Clausewitzian type. The Chetniks and Ustasha in Croatia are also good World War II insurgent examples — or even Josip Tito.

Even though Clausewitz argued a strong case in favor of an inherently superior defense, one cannot help but wonder whether nuclear weapons, and other unmanned weapons of various types, might have altered this apparent fact. If an attacker can bombard a victim nation without sacrificing any human life initially (if at all), it remains questionable whether the defense will prove inherently superior in such instances. All one can say is that this remains to be seen.

Part 2.

What is a C.O.G. and why is it important? Clausewitz’s concept of “the center of gravity” (C.O.G.) is defined as the strongest aspect (or aspects) of any given side in a state of war. In other words, it is the one thing (or those things) that the enemy cannot afford to lose in wartime.

Clausewitz explained that “the center of gravity” may be a capital, the armed forces, or even a region of the defending or attacking state. However, Clausewitz made it quite clear that the center of gravity of the armed forces of a state “is always found where the mass is concentrated most densely.” (“Book Six: Chapter Twenty-Seven,” in On War, 485) With respect to this part of Clausewitz’s theory the extent of the center of gravity is relevant, since the “scale of victory…depends on the size of the defeated force.” (Ibid.) Obviously, a village or a single fortress is not going to suffice as important enough a target of victory to bring about a decisive defeat of either side. The object or area designated for destruction must be significant; whether it is political, military, or strategic in nature. Clausewitz argued that the armed forces were usually the best target.

Clausewitz also argued that assessing the centers of gravity accurately — whether primary or secondary COGs — is vital to success. (Ibid., 486) Each center of gravity (as there may be more than just one) has what is called its “sphere of effectiveness.” (Ibid.) The utter defeat of one or the other side’s armed forces generally counts as having the greatest sphere of effectiveness, since the armed forces are responsible for the security and defense of the entire state. However, a war-imperative industrial center or a heavily populated capital might also qualify as significant spheres of effectiveness and may thus be worth knocking out of the picture.

The Waffen SS defended Germany.

Let us look at a historical example to better understand Clausewitz’s concept of “the center of gravity.”

During the Second World War, each main player had to assess the situation as a whole and choose the appropriate centers of gravity designated for attack and destruction. The British chose to target Germany’s military-industrial production sites along with its workers. While the Germans did bomb London and other population centers and minor military outlets in Britain, they never committed themselves to a serious effort against any of Britain’s centers of gravity. Hitler continued to view the British as the ethnic brethren of the German people and, as a result, failed to commit his armed forces to any serious or deliberate destruction of British centers of gravity. Instead, the Germans focused on what they saw as the USSR’s centers of gravity: their oil fields (natural resources) and the cities of Leningrad, Stalingrad, and Moscow (important political capitals).

The Americans decided that the German armed forces in the field represented Germany’s main center of gravity, so they committed themselves to engaging and destroying the German military machine on the battlefield. However, the Americans quickly bought into the British belief that German industry had to be relentlessly targeted and destroyed as well. Given British and American gross incompetence in actual field battle against Germans, this was not only a safer strategy, but a relatively effective strategy (in a cumulative sense).

The German air force had to be eliminated as a threat to the British and American bombers. As a result the German airfields were destroyed — the center of gravity of Germany’s air defense.

So, as we can see in just this one example from WWII, there will always be multiple centers of gravity and each has its own sphere of effectiveness. It is the duty of each side to decide what those centers are and to take care of them depending on how far-reaching or decisive their particular influence on the war is (or appears to be) at any given time. As Clausewitz himself noted, the center of gravity can certainly change so this is also important to bear in mind. The primary center of gravity at the beginning of a war may not be the same by the middle or end of a war. Part of the Prussian spirit of Auftragstaktik is to constantly reassess, at every level, what the current mission is and how each and every individual can work towards that particualr mission at any given moment. The key is constant reassessment and clarification of aims.

At VSS the truth be told.

Addendum 1.

I want to address an interesting and important example of what constitutes a “center of gravity,” and that is an alliance itself. “…Clausewitz [argued that]…a decisive blow against a principal ally [counts] as a center of gravity as well.” This is in fact what makes alliances potentially detrimental to those nation-states that choose to participate. One cannot help but wonder, for instance, what sort of repercussions might be in the works for the U.S. if, say, Iran were to strike Israel. However, I do not want to get into the present any more than that, nor do I want to speculate. Instead, I want you to think about how detrimental such a strike would be given the close-knit alliance (the parasitic alliance!) between the US and Israel. Who really benefits from this alliance? Did Germany or Italy benefit more from the Axis alliance? Who bailed out who? Who fought who’s war?

The Allied powers knew that if they could strike the Germans a decisive deathblow the war would be over rather quickly. Notice they did not invest as much effort into the campaigns against Italy or Japan? That was because Germany was the glue that held it all together. After the Allies took out the German centrum most of the other Axis states ceased to carry on with their respective wars; though, Japan held its own. Neither Italy nor any of the other ‘lesser’ Axis powers did so, however.

Just as an afterthought, it seems as though OKW suffered from bipolar disorder; General Heinz Guderian diverted his forces toward Moscow without permission to do so. It was called “Operation Typhoon” and it was a major booboo, so far as I can tell.

Hitler’s original aim was always the seizure of the oil fields, but once Guderian went for Moscow, priorities suddenly changed. Hitler became convinced that Moscow was worth taking after all. This failure to decide upon a single center of gravity got the Germans into a terrible situation. Hitler was not solely to blame for the debacle that ensued. The Germans should have seized and secured those oil fields first. This would have provided much needed oil for the Germans and drastically cut the supply to the Soviet forces. It came to bite the Germans in the end.

I thought it was interesting that Clausewitz defended splitting one’s forces in certain circumstances. (Clausewitz, “Book Six: Chapter Twenty-Seven,” in On War, 486) Hitler’s having divided his front was not the main problem. The problem for the Germans was mainly lack of supplies coupled with indecision (and treachery at nearly every level) regarding what was or was not the most significant center of gravity.

VSS

In my own view, the oil fields had the greater sphere of effectiveness, since the side that had the oil was the side that ultimately prevailed. “No hoof, no horse” as the old saying goes.

The fact that the aggressor force has to place itself in harm’s way, while actively seeking out its enemy, means that the attacker is at an automatic disadvantage from the beginning. This is another really important distinction between attack and defense and it relates to Clausewitz’s time principle. If the attack makes a critical error in its initial drive the initiative generally switches to the side of the defense. Such was the case on the Eastern Front during WWII. The Germans failed to drive Operation Barbarossa to its decisive conclusion straight-away; hence, they suffered a setback from which they never completely recovered. Additionally, the aggressor undoubtedly runs the risk of misjudging the defense at a far greater rate than the opposite. The attacker has to be much more certain of his own capabilities as well as those of the enemy defense, since he is the initiator of hostilities. Time and world public opinion is most certainly not on his side, so there is little room for miscalculation. The Germans grossly miscalculated Soviet capabilities prior to Operation Barbarossa. One may certainly argue that the Germans were doomed from the outset, but this is naturally open to debate.

The attacker must do a great deal more planning than the defense (Ibid., “Book Eight: Chapter Nine,” 619), which obviously entails greater risk: most states are always prepared to defend themselves. On the contrary, few states are genuinely prepared to wage a successful attack.

Finally, Clausewitz was right to say that holding ground was easier than taking it. Knowing this though, it still astounds me that anyone would be willing to risk an attack. Since so many states have been (and are) willing to take such a risk, one is under the impression that the reason for taking such a risk must be awfully compelling to those willing to risk it. Otherwise, it can only be seen as either suicidal or irresponsible to initiate an attack. Indeed, one can see Clausewitz’s point about the inherent superiority of defense more clearly from all this. First of all, while the impetus for attack can only diminish with time, the impetus for defense generally increases over time. (Clausewitz, “Book Seven: Chapter Two,” in On War, 525) Clausewitz said it better: “…[T]here is no growth of intensity in an attack comparable to that of the various types of defense.” (Ibid.) We are witnessing this in Iraq and Afghanistan right now.

Hitler at the House of German Art (1937).

With respect to all this, even though an attacker may have a Washington, Caesar, or Hitler to rally the forces to renewed vigor, the overall strength of the attack is diminished. This explains why so many campaigns usually end shortly after encountering stiff resistance or defeat, even if an attacker regains ground or impetus. This appears to have been the case with Roman forces in Germany. The Romans could have defeated the Germans, but once the Varian disaster at Teutoberg occurred, Roman morale took a serious hit. The original drive to either conquer or destroy the Germans was lost and was never recovered even under the incredible command of General Germanicus Caesar.

Addendum 2.

I agree with Clausewitz’s theory that “war is policy.” (Clausewitz, “Chapter One” in On War, 88) His “pure war” concept (“Chapter Two” in On War, 90) is an impossible form of war since war always has a political motive instigating it and propelling it on its way toward victory. No nation or people has ever gone to war in order to simply disarm or defeat its enemy or enemies. There has always been (and will always be) a political motive driving war; legitimizing the violence (i.e., pure war) necessary to disarm one’s enemy or enemies and impose one’s will. This can even be said of massacres and operations that appear to be nothing more than the defeat of the enemy by force. Since these events and all others during wartime occur under the umbrella of the politically-motivated war itself, they must ultimately remain subject to the original political motive; no matter how disconnected or isolated from the original political motive they may seem.

Clausewitz described war as a “true chameleon.” (Ibid., 91) War (or rather, the nature of war) adapts to the particular war being waged at any given time and place making no two wars alike even though they may appear to be alike through the eyes of historians. Contrary to the famous saying, history does not repeat itself.

When Clausewitz described war as a “total phenomenon,” I do not necessarily think that this was tantamount to total war. Every war entails Clausewitz’s “trinity” (“Chapter One” in On War, 89) to a greater or lesser degree. No war can be waged without the “violence, enmity, or hatred” of the people. Even the wars waged between monarchs throughout the Middle Ages utilized the people: financially and literally (they served as soldiers). No war can be waged without the interference and acknowledgement of chance upon the way it is conducted. Lastly, no war, no matter how minor, fails to be subject to policy or reason.

I agree with the tenets of the “trinity.” I don’t agree that it is a case of “good servant, bad master” as much as it’s an accurate assessment of reality. Historical case after historical case — if we are to accept most historians’ views of wars — proves that governments are in control of their people and thus reserve the right to declare and wage war. Even when it comes to democracies, few citizens actually have a say in whether or not they will go to war, since elites and elected officials speak on their behalf — and always have (democratic Greece inclusive). The nationalism of the French Revolution and beyond certainly indicates that the irrational factor lies with the people. The people are much more apt to go to war when they have had their emotions aroused — whether it is hatred, fear, enmity, compassion, or what have you. Populist governments (nationalistic) tend to be the most formidable opponents in war. This is the impression that I get after studying Germany, Russia, and Rome. All three of these ‘states’ consistently waged decisive wars while they were governed by emperors or “dictators.” Perhaps this is because the civilians themselves were militarized.

With regard to the emotional and military state of the people, an enemy can upset the emotional state with effective counterpropaganda campaigns; this, in turn, will ultimately diminish the military state of the people. The enemy may also crush the peoples’ fervor by implementing scorched earth operations. The people lose morale quickly when they have no food and shelter. The enemy might also dupe one’s forces into meeting for battle in a marshy region, or in a place that receives heavy rainfall. Lastly, the enemy could assassinate the political leaders that play the most significant role in the policy driving the war.

Hitler speaking to the Condor Legion.

Clausewitz basically tells his reader that nothing is ever certain in times of war. One might have bad intelligence or outdated topographical maps. This leads to uncertainty as to the geographical and military reality of the enemy force. Chance plays a role in war since at any given time a rainstorm might occur or a road may wash out. These sorts of chance events that have not been planned for cause delays in operations, cancellations in supply deliveries, or any number of unforeseen things. This, in turn, can change the course of battles and even wars. These sorts of things definitely call for changes in tactics and strategy so one should always be ready for chance.

Chance and uncertainty cause friction. Soldiers themselves can cause friction as well, since they have their bad days and are certainly capable of losing morale, foresight, and motivation. Indeed, war causes its own friction. It is unavoidable because it is an inherent condition of war itself. Otherwise, one might actually be able to argue that theroetical “absolute war” is possible. Clausewitz said, “Friction, as we choose to call it, is the force that makes the apparently easy so difficult.” In his view, a great deal of friction could be overcome by employing “intellectual and emotional energy” coupled with determination. (Peter Paret, “Clausewitz,” in Makers of Modern Strategy, 203), but it can never be entirely removed from the equation of war. Sometimes friction can be an asset. For instance, if army A is bogged down in mud, and was not at all prepared for such a quandary, then army B could attain a significant gain or even a decisive victory if this situation is effectively exploited by B. This is essentially what had happened to General Varus and his three legions while traveling along the Teutoberg Pass (or Teutoberg Forest). The Germans led the Romans down a treacherous path and were thus able to take advantage of the friction that resulted.

Further, an alliance itself can a cause of friction. (Ibid., 636) Most of us think of alliances as a positive feature in wartime, but Clausewitz pointed out that this was (and is) not always the case. He had a good deal to share on the issue of alliances – enough to reiterate here.

He said:

…To avoid that error we need only bear in mind how wide a range of political interests can lead to war, or think for a moment of the gulf that separates a war of annihilation, a struggle for political existence, from a war reluctantly declared in consequence of political pressure or of an alliance that no longer seems to reflect the state’s true interests. (emphasis added; Clausewitz, “Book One: Chapter Two,” 94)

This right here is probably one of the most important points made in Clausewitz’s entire work. If an alliance fails to serve the interests of every member of that alliance, then it must be either terminated or revised. Italy hurt Germany much more than it helped her. Israel hurts America much more than it helps her; much, much more.

Clausewitz made it clear to his readers that both sides must be engaged in order to have a war. He said, “War…is…the collision of two living forces.” (Clausewitz, “Book One: Chapter One,” 77) Since Iraq failed to resist or even defend itself during the American invasion, the Iraq War cannot truly be called a “war.” It never was one and if Mossad agents really are posing as insurgents then we really must ask whether this is a war with Israel or the elusive CIA-spin off called “Al-Qaida.” I have heard that Hamas is Mossad’s creation much like Al-Qaida is the CIA’s creation. It really wouldn’t surprise me.

Lastly, Clausewitz argued that forces operate according to the laws of their own nation. (Ibid., 78) Thinking about this more deeply, I have to wonder what Clausewitz’s view of “war crimes” was. Upon reading On War, I am inclined to think that were he alive today he would undoubtedly question the Allied injustice at the Nuremberg Trials. The problem with “war crimes” is that they are subjective in nature; we all feel that our own way of war is “just” and “right.” Let me then ask you this: how can the biased viewpoint of the victor nation or nations ever be rightly or justly applied to the loser or losers? Think about it.

Copyright©2010. Snape Society. All Rights Reserved.

No Gravatar

http://virtualseverussnape.org/Audio/Una-Terra-Lesiem.wma

Prince Bernhard, the father of Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands, was a member of the Nazi party, a new book has claimed, contracting the German-born Dutch war hero’s life-long denials.

by Bruno Waterfield in Brussels | March 5, 2010

Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/netherlands/7377402/Dutch-Prince-Bernhard-was-member-of-Nazi-party.html

" Prince Bernhard and his daughter Queen Beatrix." Photo: REX FEATURES

“Bernhard, a secret history” has revealed that the prince was a member of the German Nazi party until 1934, three years before he married Princess Juliana, the future queen of the Netherlands.

Annejet van der Zijl, a Dutch historian, has found membership documents in Berlin’s Humboldt University that prove Prince Bernhard, who studied there, had joined Deutsche Studentenschaft, a National Socialist student fraternity, as well as the Nazi NSDAP and its paramilitary wing, the Sturmabteilung.

SS: Good man. The Death Eaters would like us all to hate this man for being a Nazi Party member. VSS commends him, for standing up to REAL tyranny: that of the Death Eaters themselves!

He left all the groups on leaving university in December 1934, when he went to work for the German chemical giant, IG Farben.

The prince always denied having been a member of the Nazi party, although he admitted that he briefly had sympathised with Adolf Hitler’s regime. In one of the last interviews he gave before his death in 2004, he said: “I can swear this with my hand on the Bible: I was never a Nazi.”

As the Nazis invaded Holland in 1940, the young prince consort, then aged 28, organised a group of palace guards that engaged in combat with German forces.

Denied the chance to stay and organise resistance by the then Queen Wilhelmina, he became head of the Dutch Royal Military Mission based in London.

As “Wing Commander Gibbs” – an honorary rank he held in the RAF – the prince later flew Allied bombing raids over occupied Europe before returning in 1944 as a Dutch war hero.

This news article brought to you by VSS.

No Gravatar

by Elaine Kurtenbach

Source: http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jjEQ3A6-A_BZZmrMocvCG2zfELZQD914GRR82

SHANGHAI, China (AP) — Shanghai’s Jewish community celebrated the launch Friday of a database that will document the stories of the thousands of refugees who found a safe haven in China’s commercial capital during World War II.

SS: I thought that no one would accept emigrating Jews during WWII?

The so-called "Shanghai ghetto" in 1943. (Source: Wikipedia)

So far the database lists the names of about 600 of the 30,000 Jews who fled to Shanghai in the 1930s and 1940s to escape Nazi death camps and other horrors of the Holocaust.

SS: So here are another 30,000 Jews accounted for who did not perish in a systematic, total, utter, complete, genocide.

The database, supported by the Israeli and Chinese governments, is housed in a museum in the city’s former Ohel Moshe Synagogue.

“The independent state of Israel emerged out of the ashes of the Holocaust and we have the obligation to document and to keep the stories of the past alive for future generations,” Israeli Consul General Uri Gutman told local and foreign dignitaries at the event.

Donations from Israeli companies helped finance the creation of the database, which is just beginning to take shape. Those developing it have names and some other information on some 10,000 refugees.

“We hope this database will be further supplemented by all sources from around the world,” said Shen Xiaoning, a Shanghai vice mayor.

Shanghai was a major trading center long before the war and had a well-established Jewish community, making it a natural destination for many of those fleeing persecution in Europe. And while in many cases Jews were denied entrance to other countries, China was relatively open to refugees.

As the Japanese invaded and occupied many regions of China during the war, growing numbers of Jews migrated to Shanghai.

Despite the city’s willingness to take in Jews, the thriving refugee community in Shanghai was forced into a teeming riverside ghetto in the city’s Hongkou district during the Japanese occupation.

It gradually dwindled after the 1949 communist revolution, though many refugees remained for years before leaving for the West or for the then-British colony of Hong Kong.

Among the mostly European Jews who found refuge in Shanghai was Jakob Rosenfeld, an Austrian-trained doctor who was deported to Dachau concentration camp and then to Buchenwald, both in Germany. In 1939, he was released and fled to China. [He was released? From a genocidal death camp?]

The Chinese honor Rosenfeld, who died in 1952 while visiting Israel, for his later role as a field doctor for the Chinese Red Army.

Oh the suffering...

Margaret Friga — a niece of Rosenfeld’s from Miami and a former history teacher — said the database would be an important historical accomplishment.

“Helping keep the story alive for my children and my grandchildren, that’s what’s important,” Friga said at Friday’s celebration.

As Shanghai has regained its status as an international commercial center, the growing Jewish expatriate community has won support from local officials for restoring some synagogues and preserving the Hongkou ghetto as a historic district.

After a painstaking refurbishment, Ohel Moshe opened its doors last month for its first wedding in about 60 years.

The database is part of a three-phase project that included renovating a neighborhood senior center and donating equipment to a social welfare facility.

This news article brought to you by VSS.

6 Mar 2010, Comments (0)

Nazis Welcomed in Austria

Author: Severus
No Gravatar

http://virtualseverussnape.org/Audio/Blind-Rage-Funker-Vogt.wma

Source: http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,541081,00.html

There have been thousands of photos published of Adolf Hitler being received by cheering crowds in Austria in March, 1938. But now, a new volume collects dozens of never-before-seen images that have long been hidden in attics and cellars.

Hitler said, ""My German comrades, ladies and gentlemen! What you feel, I myself have experienced deeply in these five days. A great historic change has confronted our German Volk. But what you experience at this moment, the other whole German Volk also experiences with you: not the two million people in this city, but 65 million of our Volk in an empire! I am seized and moved by this historic change. And all of you live for this oath: whatever may come, no one will shatter and tear asunder the German Empire as it stands today!"

Everyone knows the images: Adolf Hitler speaking to crowds of Austrians on March 12, 1938, the day the Germans marched into the country. Tanks, planes and soldiers from the powerful Wehrmacht parading through Vienna. Thousands of Austrians celebrating the arrival of the Führer and shrieking their approval as he moves slowly through the packed streets of Linz. The thousands of right arms outstretched, reaching out in the Nazi greeting.

They are pictures that made front pages around the world. And they are pictures that were reprinted over and over again to feed the gigantic Nazi propaganda machine.

But they weren’t the only pictures taken that day. Hundreds of Austrians took to the streets 70 years ago today, some out of curiosity, many out of unadulterated National Socialist zeal. And a number of them were carrying either still or video cameras. Many of the photos taken on that day disappeared into archives, basements, boxes and attics and lay there forgotten.

Everyone knows the photos of Adolf Hitler and his Nazis marching triumphantly into Austria in March, 1938. Hundreds of thousands turned out to shower their new Führer with cheers and adoration. Many of them had cameras. A new book by Hans Petschar, called “Anschluss: Eine Bildchronologie” (Annexation: A Photo- Chronology), has just been published containing dozens of photos and movie stills that for years were lost in attics and cellars across Austria.

“Anschluss: Eine Bildchronologie,” by Hans Petschar, is published by Christian Brandstätter Verlag in Vienna. Now, a new book by Hans Petschar collects a number of those once-lost photos and video frames and presents them to the public for the first time. The parades are there as are the celebrating masses. But so too is an image of excited Viennese boys exploring a German army tank. There is an image of a family in driving snow gathered around their car, which has a small swastika flag dangling from its hood. There is a photo of Hitler giving flowers to braided young girls in Linz. And there is a group picture of all those who work at the “Aryan Cinema” in Vienna.

The pictures presented in the book — called “Anschluss: ‘Ich hole Euch heim’ (Annexation: I’ll Bring You Home) — were collected by the Austrian National Library, with many of them only recently having found their way into the library’s archive. Petschar, who is director of the library’s image archive, painstakingly sifted through the thousands of photos and home movies to come up with the best.

And together, the black-and-white images present a startling image of 1938 Austria. The German soldiers themselves had expected some resistance when they marched into the country 70 years ago. The photos in Petschar’s book make it clear why there was none: Hundreds of thousands of Austrians were overjoyed at the Nazi invasion and celebrated Adolf Hitler as their new Führer. Indeed, even though the vote was certainly not free of coercion, over 99 percent of Austrians chose for their country to be “reunited” with Germany in April 1938. Numerous pictures in the new photo volume show Austrians lining up to vote — even including one old woman being helped out of a polling station by two SA men.

A handful of other images show what came next: The oppression of Austria’s Jewish citizens. Young boys are shown helping out in March 1938 as Jewish-owned stores are marked. A crowd of Jews is shown as they wait to get their new identity cards. Many other images show Jews being harassed by SA and SS soldiers.

Mostly, though, the book shows “images that didn’t fit into the propaganda of the Nazis.” And that is exactly why they are so powerful today.

SS: Oh really? The author of this “incredible” book is probably a Death Eater himself.

This news article brought to you by VSS.

No Gravatar

Read between the lines here. Practice your occlumency.

by M. Kraske

Source: http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,541044,00.html

When the Nazis marched into Austrian on March 12, 1938, hundreds of thousands of Austrians turned out to welcome them. But after the war, the country preferred to see itself as just another of Hitler’s victims.

Boy, there sure was a lot of resistance against this move...

Suddenly, events began moving in fast-forward: It was 10 minutes to eight in the evening, March 11, 1938, when Austrian chancellor Kurt Schuschnigg took to the radio to address his people. He bade them farewell with portentous words: “God protect Austria.”

The next day at 5:00 a.m., SS leader Heinrich Himmler landed with his staff at the Aspern Airport in Vienna. Shortly thereafter, the German army crossed the border into Austria. “Operation Otto,” as the military element of the Austrian takeover was known, and the “reunification of Austria with the German Reich,” as Hitler formulated it for a law decreed earlier that same day, was in full swing. A referendum on the topic of independence, planned by Schuschnigg for March 13, had prompted Hitler to take matters into his hands and push ahead quickly with the solution to the “Austria question.”

Hitler headed first to Linz, where he had spent part of his childhood, and then to Vienna, where excited crowds were forming on the streets. Tens of thousands had gathered to give him a raucous welcome. On March 15, he declared the “entry of my homeland into the German Reich” from the balcony of the Hofburg Imperial Palace. On Heldenplatz, 250,000 people gathered to celebrate the occasion. Afterwards, a parade marched around the Ringstrasse, which circles the heart of Vienna. Not just the German Eighth Army took part in the parade, but also SA and SS units. Tanks and fighter planes rolled past as well — a precisely staged performance for the cheering masses. One year later in Czechoslovakia, the scene would be different: The Germans marched into Prague’s Wenceslas Square and were met by completely empty streets.

In Austria, it was the position of the clergy which proved decisive: In a statement on March 18, Austrian bishops spoke out decidedly in favor of unification. The religious elite calculated that, by supporting the new regime, they would be able to preserve their far-reaching privileges. Leading politicians also agreed to the “Anschluss” (Annexation) without hesitation. Former Social Democratic Chancellor Karl Renner, for example, underscored his clear “yes” in a newspaper interview.

‘One People, One Empire, One Leader’

The Nazis moved ahead quickly with their decisive grab for power. An emphasis was placed on propaganda, with banners hung everywhere. In Vienna alone, 200,000 pictures of Hitler went up, augmented by slogans such as “Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer” — “One people, one empire, one leader.” In the subsequent referendum, 99.73 percent of the population voted for “reunification” with the German Reich. There was, of course, the immense pressure exerted by the military, but the result was also reflective of a country willing to join the Nazi movement.

The reason for the “mass elation, even hysteria,” in the words of Viennese historian Wolfgang Neugebauer, were many: The Austro-Hungarian Empire had collapsed in 1918 and the Republic of German Austria emerged in its place on November 12, 1918. It was a traumatic turn of events. From its very birth, the new state lacked a sense of identity, and a large portion of the population was in favor of annexation to Germany. Making things even worse was the economic crisis and resulting, large-scale unemployment. In February 1933, 600,000 Austrians were without jobs.

The reconnection with the German Reich.

“Anschluss: Eine Bildchronologie,” by Hans Petschar, is published by Christian Brandstätter Verlag in Vienna. As in Germany in the early 1930s, anti-democratic leanings were widespread and many yearned for strong leadership, and a strong leader. And the Nazi party, founded across the border in Bavaria, gained influence. In 1932 state elections, the Nazis were able to substantially increase their share of the vote in Vienna, Salzburg and Lower Austria. Many hoped that the “party of the small people” would finally bring them a better life. “Austria,” says Brigitte Bailer, scientific director of the Documentation Centre of Austrian Resistance (DÖW), “fell into Nazi Germany’s lap like a ripe fruit.”

The 1938 takeover ended up running without a hitch as well. As early as 1933, after Hitler rose to power in Germany, National Socialists in Austria began to mobilize. Political opponents were terrorized and in the first half of 1934 alone, 300 assassinations were carried out — often with logistical support from Germany. The violence culminated in an attempted coup on July 25, 1934, in which then-Chancellor Engelbert Dollfuss was killed.

Chancellor Dollfuss, himself, was hardly the poster child of democracy. In 1933, he dissolved parliament in order to create a Christian state with a fascist face. But his regime did little to relieve the rampant economic misery or the lack of a national identity. Those on the political left were systematically persecuted and the workers’ movement brutally suppressed. In foreign affairs, Dollfuss allied himself with Italy’s fascist dictator Benito Mussolini, who served as a temporary insurance policy against an annexation to Germany — although Mussolini himself later turned to Hitler.

Dollfuss’ successor, Kurt Schuschnigg, also proved unsuccessful in his attempts to prevent a Nazi dictatorship. The treaty Schuschnigg signed with Germany in July 1936 defined Austria as a “second German state.” Intended as a maneuver to reduce pressure from Hitler’s Germany, it instead led to a de facto erosion of Austrian sovereignty. This, in turn, led to the agreement signed at Berchtesgaden on Feb. 12, 1938. There, on the lofty heights of the Obersalzberg mountainside, Schuschnigg met Hitler and, under massive pressure, sealed his country’s fate: Austria became completely annexed to Nazi Germany. The graphic illustration of Austria’s new status came a month later with the invasion of German troops.

For Hitler, who was born in Austria and only became a German citizen at the age of 43, the unification of both “German” countries was a priority for two reasons. First of all, in 1938 Austria possessed valuable reserves of gold and raw materials — much the opposite of the German economy, which was becoming increasingly depleted by preparations for war. After the Annexation, around 2.7 billion shillings in gold and foreign currency fell under the control of the German Reichsbank. Secondly, in geopolitical terms, Austria was an important jumping-off point for the Nazis’ war plans. The country was seen as a bridgehead for the capture of Eastern and Southern Europe.

After Annexation came the terror, systematic intimidation, persecution, expulsion. The victims were Jews, Socialists, and also the representatives of the state. “By 1936, the judicial system and police had been infiltrated by Nazis,” says historian Bailer. “Thus, the Gestapo had immediate access to complete lists naming so-called ‘enemies of the people.’” Throughout the country, thousands joined the Nazis in their campaign of terror. Many stood to profit from the new regime: Suddenly there were apartments standing empty and jobs available.

Numerous Viennese train stations provided the starting point for transports heading to concentration camps…Around 2,700 [terrorists] — there are no exact figures — were sentenced to death.

Austria’s Victim Doctrine

This was love, not hate.

Having lost its autonomy in 1938, the country adamantly adhered to a “comprehensive victim’s doctrine,” according to historian Oliver Rathkolb in his book “Die paradoxe Republik” (The Paradoxical Republic). Sole responsibility for the Holocaust was shunted off to the German Reich — although up to 600,000 Austrians had been registered as Nazi Party members.

The foundation for this slanted view of history was provided by, among other factors, the 1943 Moscow Declaration, which named Austria as the first victim of Hitler’s aggression. The Austrian Independence Treaty of 1955 also included this victim thesis — and still does.

SS: Of course Moscow felt that way.

The one-sided view of the past first began to change in the 1980s, when historians started to question Austrian victim-hood. The revelation that Austrian President Kurt Waldheim had concealed his past as a member of the SA — and the scandal that followed — served to open up public discourse.

Today, Austria still has a hard time with its own Nazi legacy. The debate surrounding Nazi perpetrators like Heinrich Gross — who led a child euthanasia program in Vienna, in which more than 800 girls and boys were killed, and enjoyed a career in justice after the war — still touches open wounds. Attempts to bring Gross to justice continued well into the earlier part of this decade. Still, says historian Bailer, “there is no legitimate research on the perpetrators.”

And if there is no willingness to go after the perpetrators — because one’s own father, uncle or grandfather might be connected to Nazi atrocities — then the victims are necessarily neglected. The planned Simon Wiesenthal Center in Vienna, for example, is still fighting for funding. So far, the Republic of Austria and the City of Vienna have been unable to reach a compromise.

Of the 61 Jewish cemeteries in Austria, around a third are run-down — in contrast, the country’s military cemeteries are in excellent condition. One has the impression, says political scientist Anton Pelinka, “that the large political parties are still of a mind that it could have a negative effect to be seen as too Jew-friendly.” That is the “paradox of the victim thesis,” he says, “The actual victim is treated worse than the perpetrator.”

This news article brought to you by VSS.

6 Mar 2010, Comments (0)

Waffen SS Foreign Units

Author: Sirius Black
No Gravatar

Order members, read it for free only at VSS. Courtesy of Sirius Black.

http://virtualseverussnape.org/PDFs/Waffen%20SS%20Foreign%20Units.pdf

At VSS the truth be told.

This ebook brought to you by VSS.

No Gravatar

http://virtualseverussnape.org/Audio/Navigator-Lesiem.wma

by Dr. Rigolf Hennig, MD; Translated by J M Damon

The original is posted on several websites including <www.deutsche-stimme.de/ds/?p=1309>

If a German had said in 1945 that within 60 years large numbers of his countrymen would be celebrating the Wehrmacht’s unconditional surrender as “liberation,” his mental condition would have been highly suspect.

It's time to stop the collective insanity.

He would have been considered psychotic, schizophrenic, insane.

Today, however, our national mental health has deteriorated to the point that such insanity is endemic.

Today it is unusual to find a German with intact rational facilities.

What has happened to us during the past six decades?

To find the answer to this question, we have to begin at the beginning.

In what sense were we “liberated” following World War II?

Were we “liberated” by the 14 to 15 million dead in a war that was forced on us?

Were we “liberated” by the three million women, children and elderly who died while attempting to flee rampaging Russians, Poles and Czechs?

“Liberated” by the additional millions of noncombatants killed by British and American terrorist bombings of the densely populated residential areas of our cities?

“Liberated” by the deliberate American and French mass murder of a million German prisoners of war through starvation and exposure, after our armed forces had capitulated?

“Liberated” by the loss of a third of our ancestral territory, our Eastern provinces?

“Liberated” by the burden of millions of cripples and orphans in the aftermath of the war?

Were we “liberated” by the theft of our private and public property, art treasures, historical monuments, cultural institutions, international patents, etc., etc.?

Were we “liberated” from our sanity?

Germans living outside the Gulag matrix there in Germany proper are generally immune to the collective insanity imposed upon the German Volk by the Death Eaters. Living within the system of the Death Eaters, and having been subject to their tricks and methods, immunized most of us against these tricks.

Following unconditional capitulation, Germany was immediately partitioned into four isolated occupation zones, which further intensified our incapacitation and prepared the way for so-called “re-education.”

This was in fact designed to complete the permanent crippling of our Reich, which was, after all, the point of both world wars.

The desperate material scarcity that our enemies artificially created in Germany following the First World War did not prove adequate for our complete subjugation, and so our enemies were taking no chances that we might recover a second time.

To be precise, mental crippling is what has been inflicted on the Germans in the last six decades.

The unscrupulous Allies, assisted by collaborators from our own ranks, have robbed us of our history, laws, culture and, above all, of the capacity to investigate and understand what happened to us.

They have succeeded in inducing guilt complexes that produced the classic symptoms of national psychosis that we see today.

Re-education and Psychological Tricks

The basic techniques of what is now called “brainwashing” have been familiar to us since ancient times, while Emil Kraepelin (1856 – 1926), the “Nestor of modern psychiatry,” introduced the concept of “Induced Insanity” over 100 years ago.

What is new is the extent to which an entire nation with a highly evolved culture can be driven into an abnormal mental state, to the point of collective incapacitation.

We are still dealing with the ancient method, familiar to all psychologists and psychiatrists, of inducing abnormal behavior or perception through mental and intellectual manipulation.

The fields of psychology and psychiatry have long been familiar with three forms of insanity: innate, acquired and induced.

The layman needs no further explanation of innate (hereditary) insanity, or of insanity that is acquired by such things as disease, injury or poisoning.

Since prehistoric times we have been familiar with insanity induced by overwhelming psychological influence such as ceremonial rituals, especially during the vulnerable juvenile stages of intellectual development.

Today, those of us who specialize in studying this form of mental incapacitation understand it much better.

Induced insanity has little to do with intelligence but a great deal to do with suspension of logical thought brought about by targeted indoctrination.

The younger and less mature the psyche, the more devastating are the effects of indoctrination.

Through early targeting and indoctrination all logical thinking, including the vital inherent reflexes of self-preservation and preservation of species, can be neutralized.

When this happens, the subject can be conditioned to act against his own vital interests.

During youth, physical and psychic conditioning take hold for one’s entire life, leaving the subject irreversibly “programmed.”

To illustrate with a simple example: Japanese, Chinese and other East Asians are unable to learn to pronounce the letter “R” after the 4th year of life.

This is because development of the part of the brain involved with speech acquisition ends at that age.

After age 4, changes in this mental function are no longer possible.

In Europe, Asian children learn to pronounce “R” as easily as European children do and conversely, European children who grow up speaking Asiatic languages cannot learn to pronounce “R” after the age of 4.

Similarly, the creative ability to deal with complex thought processes essentially ends at age 10.

This too was well understood in antiquity.

For example, the Romans usually killed all males above the age of 10 in their wars of conquest, for the simple reason that older children were bearers of their culture.

A subjugated people could be successfully Romanized only if their culture was completely destroyed.

During the middle ages, Christian rulers successfully applied the same principle, with a bit more refinement.

They would abduct the sons of their pagan opponents during early childhood, as for example the children of Borod the leader of the Carinthians in the 9th Century.

The Christian raised these royal children in what we would call “re-education camps,” in this case the monastery at Frauenchiemsee, and then used them against their own people and their own culture.

Perhaps the best-known example of induced insanity is that of the Turkish Janissaries of the 14th – 19th centuries, who were used to spearhead Turkish conquests during the Counter Crusades.

The “Waffen SS of the Sublime Porte,” as well as bodyguards of the Sultan, they were the abducted children of Christians.

Provided that they were young enough when abducted for a thorough re-education, they could be used for any purpose, including murder of their own parents and siblings.

In our time, the fanatical child-soldiers of Cambodia followed the same pattern.

They fought against their own parents on behalf of Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, often torturing their own parents to death.

The brutal Communist methods of brainwashing as used on adults employed a coarse technique that most often left weak individuals mentally crippled.

If the targeted individuals possessed strong characters, however, they had the capacity to survive and recover.

It was reserved for the modern techniques of Western re-education with their sophisticated and gradual brainwashing to turn an entire major nation against its own vital interests, however.

It has accomplished this through the combined use of all communication, entertainment and education media.

As in ancient and medieval re-education, modern re-education begins in early childhood and is backed by the combined resources of the legislative, executive and the judicial branches government.

The most tragic example of this is present-day Germany in all its anti-national manifestations.

After Germany lost the Second World War, along with its intellectual elite and leading culture carriers, its enemies introduced a sharply focused and skillfully applied program of re-education. 

This program radically rejected everything that constituted the national German character and transformed it into its opposite.

In this way it destroyed the characteristic German behavior patterns that maintain national identity as well as cultural and intellectual heritage.

These inherited behavior patterns and strategies had emerged over generations of selection as a survival strategy in the struggle for existence.

Robbed of these patterns and strategies, Germany is doomed to destruction.

The German nation has already fallen a great distance backwards, assaulted by its envious competitors far beyond the limits of law and morality, on account of its spirituality and vitality.

SB: One has to understand that the Anglo race is collectively insane and culturally and intellectually inferior. The Anglos are pathologically racist and jealous. Once one understands this, one understands why the Anglos, more than any other race, willfully serve DEATH EATER interests above all else. Both heads of the beast must be severed this time.

Germany ’s fall is evidenced by its continual self-castigation, which is saturated with “Crime and Punishment” style national masochism following over 60 years of relentless re-education.

Why did the treacherous representatives of the “Bundesrepublik” welcome their own defeat on the occasion of enemy victory celebrations in Normandy ?

This was, after all, an assault on Europe by non-European powers!

What reasons could Chancellor Schroeder possibly have for apologizing to the Poles in Warsaw?

Was it perhaps because the Wehrmacht granted insurgent partisan combatants the status of legal combatants and granted female partisans free passage, which it was not obliged to do under the Hague Convention on Land Warfare?

The Death Eater Propaganda Matrix ignores Russo-German friendship and cooperation entirely.

Consider that partisans or “insurgents” have no status as combatants!

They are assassins against their own people as well as the opposing fighting force – thieves, spies, cowards, terrorists and traitors – thus they must be neutralized by whatever means necessary.

Schröder might have been called “Chancellor,” but he was obviously not a rational leader of a sovereign nation.

What drives the media of our so-called “republic” to equate the destruction of Dresden with the raid on Coventry?

How can they blame the deliberate mass murder of hundreds of thousands of women and children on their own countrymen?

Coventry, Britain’s major industrial center, was so heavily defended that it was impossible to accurately target; and this imprecise German bombing resulted in the loss of around 400 civilian lives!

Dresden by contrast was an open nonindustrial city and cultural center that, as Allied leaders well knew, was desperately overcrowded with refugee women and children fleeing the Red Army.

It was planned mass murder carried out by British and American bombers that killed a thousand times as many civilians as did the raid on the industrial center of Coventry!

These treacherous “re-educated” collaborators are misusing the commemorations of our disastrous defeat to confuse cause and effect.

Their object is to imprison all Germans in a paranoid ghetto of “Crime and Punishment,” incessantly repeating the fiction of Germany’s sole responsibility for the war.

It's time to break free from the Death Eater matrix.

Our enemies and “re-educated” collaborators constantly ignore the fact that not we but England and France declared war in 1939 as well as the fact that the United States had already initiated hostilities without declaring war.

Germany attacked Poland only after Poland , incited by British-French guarantees, had murdered thousands of Germans in the provinces stolen from us at Versailles, while driving additional tens of thousands from their homes and interning them in concentration camps.

The United States attacked Yugoslavia in 1991 for much weaker reasons!

Of all our enemies, the ones who have done the most harm are not our allied “liberators” but rather their German helpers, mentally crippled and “re-educated” flunkies who are determined to be “more Catholic than the Pope.”

The victors of World War II benefited greatly from a tragic German character trait that our “liberators” clearly factored into their postwar calculations.

Bismarck described this proclivity very well: “The compulsion to serve foreign interests, even when this is possible only through abandonment of our own national interests, is a disease whose geographic distribution is limited to Germany.”

{Napoleon had made a similar observation forty years before, when he wrote:

“There is no nation that is more congenial than the Germans, but no nation that is more credulous.

It was never necessary for me to sow discord among them, all I had to do was spread my nets and they would run into them like skittish animals, grabbing each other by the throat in the belief they were doing their ‘duty.’

No nation on Earth is more foolish.

No lie is so crude that the Germans will not believe it!

On account of some fanciful slogan they would attack their fellow countrymen with greater fury than they attacked their real enemies.”}

One could go on and on with examples of Germans’ soiling their own nest.

The list is as long as one wants to make it, as new self-destructive absurdities occur every day.

In the words of former Chancellor Helmut Schmidt, “We have falsified our own history into a criminal record!”

Why do we do this?

On whose behalf do we falsify our own history? 

Some of these intellectual cripples who call themselves Germans have actually begun advocating collective suicide by screaming “Deutschland verrecke!” (Death to Germany!)

Furthermore this induced insanity is no longer restricted to limited groups.

We are on the verge of collective insanity as this sociological malaise spreads to the entire nation.

Amazing numbers of our contemporaries are now behaving like Pavlovian dogs.

Pavlov, the famous St. Petersburg behaviorist, conditioned his laboratory animals so that they would begin salivating and releasing gastric juices at the sound of a bell.

He did this by feeding them only when the bell rang, and so succeeded in “re-educating” them by resetting their nervous and digestive systems to a false stimulus [SB: i.e., a conditioned stimulus].

The same thing has happened to our re-educated Germans.

They have been conditioned to the extent that when they hear words such as “Heimat” (Homeland),  “Vaterland,” “Nation,” and “Volk,” their nervous systems release adrenalin with the result that they react aggressively, even hysterically.

To recognize and confront a superior enemy operating from cover is without doubt one of the most difficult tasks imaginable – and yet this is precisely what we Germans must do to survive.

The good news: to recognize and seen through our enemy’s methods is to win half the victory.

Complete victory will be achieved when Germany regains its sovereign capacity to act in its legitimate state, which is the German Reich.

This essay brought to you by VSS.

No Gravatar

by Tony Paterson | 07/12/2003

Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/12/07/wstal07.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/12/07/ixworld.html

Hankering in the former East Germany for a return to the supposed simplicity of life under communist rule has been challenged by a 73-year-old woman’s account of eight years of rape and torture she suffered when she was a political prisoner.

"Prisoner Dimitri Panin: I was placed in the corner cell, Number 196, on the fourth floor (at Lefortovo Prison); directly beneath was death row. A woman down there was wailing without end like a wounded animal. We were forbidden to sleep during the day; anyone who disobeyed could wind up in the isolation cell. Interrogations were conducted only at night. Even when a man was spared this ordeal, he still slept badly, his senses always on the alert. Each prisoner thought they were coming for him; he listened with strained attention for footsteps, rustlings, the clanging of doors being opened. Screams frequently resounded through the prison. In the early hours of the morning it was not unusual to hear the howling of a man being taken out to be shot. Once in a great while there was a prisoner who, out of weariness and desperation, kicked up a row, vowing that he would not go to another interrogation." (Source: gulaghistory.org)

Erika Riemann was 14 when she was imprisoned by by the communist regime in. She had defaced a portrait of Stalin hanging in her school by painting a red bow over his moustache with her mother’s lipstick.

In three East German prisons, including a former Nazi concentration camp, she was repeatedly raped, starved and beaten. Finally she was forced to endure a mock mass extermination in a gas chamber.

By the age of 22, when she was released, Erika was a physical and mental wreck. Her mother had tried desperately to get information about her only daughter but had to wait seven years to discover her fate.

After her release, Erika felt so shamed by her experience that for years she told no one about her imprisonment. “I was so deeply ashamed of my experiences that I never discussed them, not even with my children,” Mrs Riemann told the Telegraph last week. “I only summoned up the courage to write about them after my husband died last year. It has proved to be a spiritual release.”

The book, The Bow on Stalin’s Moustache, reached fourth place on Germany’s bestseller list last week, its publication countering the trend for cosy portraits of East Germany as a happy society.

Nostalgia for the former East, known as Ostalgie, has been highlighted in popular films such as Goodbye Lenin and celebrated in a welter of largely uncritical television shows. Mrs Riemann appeared on one such programme, The East Germany Show, fronted by Katarina Witt, the former East German ice-skating champion at the Olympics.

Her unexpected account of dreadful suffering left the chat-show hosts severely embarrassed, conflicting as it did with the sentimental retrospective envisaged by the programme’s makers. After her appearance, viewers who bought her book helped push it on to the bestseller lists.

In the book, Mrs Riemann describes how, as a teenager in the East German town of Muhlhausen, she was bemused to see a portrait of Stalin hanging in her school, in exactly the same place that Hitler’s portrait had hung only a few months earlier.

She recalls uttering the words, “You look a bit sad” to the portrait and innocently drawing the bow on Stalin’s moustache. Someone, it is not known who, informed on her.

Within weeks, two security agents arrested and charged her with membership of the Nazi Werewolf resistance movement. She was beaten repeatedly and interrogated by a Soviet army major who extinguished his pipe on her forehead. Finally she signed a concocted confession.

When the 14-year-old asked for a bath she was taken to a courtyard by soldiers armed with machine guns, stripped naked and knocked over by a torrent of icy water from a high-pressure fire hose. The soldiers looked on, laughing.

Later she was ordered to a Soviet military hospital on the pretext of being treated for constipation. There she was strapped to a medical examination table and gang-raped by drunken soldiers. She was later taken to Torgau prison, where she was locked in a suffocating “standing-room only cell” without food, water or access to a lavatory for two days for refusing to have sex with a soldier.

Mrs Riemann’s ordeal continued over the next seven years first at Bautzen prison, near Dresden, where inmates were locked in cages inside the cells and forced to share a single narrow bed with another prisoner, and then at Sachsenhausen, a former Nazi concentration camp north of Berlin. New arrivals were told: “You will now suffer the same fate your people inflicted on the Jews.”

LM: Nothing like spiteful revenge, eh? What hatefilled monsters these Death Eaters are. No ability to forgive and move on.

Female prisoners were stripped and herded into a former gas chamber and told that they were to be exterminated. “We were pushed into a windowless room, which was tiled all over,” Mrs Riemann writes.

LM: It was just a communal shower room, but that’s not the point. This is an interesting statement: the SOVIETS told prisoners they were going to be exterminated. Might the Soviet Death Eaters have projected their own sick and twisted ideas onto the Nazis in an effort to cleanse their incredible guilt for the crimes THEY had actually committed? Quite possible. This is called psychological projection and Sigmund Freud understood it quite well. Look up defense mechanisms to learn more about this phenomenon.

I recently came across a fascinating historian who essentially argued that the Death Eaters projected their own racism and supremacism, which has been entrenched for centuries (i.e., “Chosen people” doctrine), onto the German concept of Herrenvolk. This historian pointed out quite correctly that Herrenvolk does not mean “master race.” It means “folk of leaders” or “people’s leadership corps.” This historian compared the Nazis’ Herrenvolk concept to the Anglo concept of “white man’s burden.” Even though these cultural concepts are not identical they are similar enough to make a legitimate comparison. Needless to say the Nazis were not the ones with the racist complex, the Death Eaters were (and still are). They are the only people who have always wished to live apart in a supremacist fashion. They really do believe they are God’s “Chosen” above all other races, and that their suffering is more important than that of any other race of human beings. This is just pure insanity.

“Everyone was crying and the panic drained away all the air inside. The women were praying and calling for their mothers or their children.” It turned out to be a hoax. Warm water, not gas, shot from the ducts in the ceiling.

Erika Riemann was released in January 1954 as part of a general amnesty for political prisoners. She fled to West Germany to join her mother. Erika married twice and has three children.

“It has taken me nearly 50 years to come to terms with my past,” Mrs Riemann said. “I think it is important for young Germans to know what life in the East meant. Today’s adolescents were only toddlers when the Berlin Wall fell. They have little or no idea.”

This news article brought to you by VSS.

No Gravatar

The Associated Press | March 7, 2008

Source: http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/03/06/news/Germany-Soviet-Camp.php

Researchers at the former Nazi Sachsenhausen concentration camp have finished compiling a list of nearly 12,000 Germans who died there during its use as an internment camp by the Soviets after World War II.

At VSS the truth be told.

On Thursday, memorial officials released the 260-page document, saying they aimed in part to provide a measure of closure to the families of those who died.

“The book of names will serve as a monument to the dead,” said Horst Seferens, a spokesman for the Sachsenhausen museum.

Soviet secret police used the camp just north of Berlin to imprison many Nazis as well as critics of the Soviet occupation of eastern Germany after the defeat of Adolf Hitler’s regime. In all, an estimated 60,000 people were sent to “Special Camp No. 1″ in 1945-50.

Over the past two years, researchers at Sachsenhausen have pored over reams of files provided by the Russian government. By cross-referencing names with death certificates, camp books and other administrative records, they put together a list of 11,890 people who died — a number in line with previous estimates.

Workers in a Soviet Gulag.

They said they determined the major cause of death was tuberculosis and other illnesses, with hunger contributing to the deaths.

“Famine was a factor in deaths all over Soviet territory,” memorial director Guenter Morsch said. “This supports the hypothesis that the deaths were a result of famine. There was no order from Moscow to kill these prisoners.”

One former inmate had mixed feelings about the release of the list, which will be publicly accessible at the memorial in the coming months and is expected to be published in book form at the end of the year.

“I am glad that this list now exists,” said Horst Jaenichen, who said he was interned at age 15 in 1946 and was kept there until 1948. “But it has come much too late for many relatives of the people who died here.”

This news article brought to you by VSS.

No Gravatar

http://www.nazi.org.uk/military%20pdfs5/Osprey%20-%20Men%20at%20Arms%20420%20-%20Waffen%20SS%204%20-%2024-38%20Divisions%20Volunteer%20Legions.pdf

This link brought to you by VSS.

4 Mar 2010, Comments (0)

Hitler’s Bavarian War Record

Author: Severus
No Gravatar

Thank JR Books for this remarkable scan. You may left click the image to view it larger and save it to your PC or laptop.

Hitler's war record. A highly decorated and respectable soldier.

This information brought to you by VSS.

No Gravatar

by James Petras | 02.21.2010; Edited by the Half-Blood Prince

Source: http://www.petras.lahaine.org/todos.php?cat=1

On January 19 Israel’s international secret police, the Mossad, sent an eighteen member death squad to Dubai using European passports, supposedly ‘stolen’ from Israeli dual citizens and altered with fake photos and signatures, in order to assassinate the Palestinian leader, Mahmoud al Mabhouh.

The evidence is overwhelming: The Dubai police presentation of detailed security videos of the assassins was corroborated by the testimony of Israeli security experts and applauded by Israel’s leading newspapers and columnists. The Mossad openly stated that Mabhouh was a high priority target who had survived three previous assassination attempts. Israel did not even bother to deny the murder. Furthermore, the sophisticated communication system used by the killers, the logistics and planning surrounding their entry and exit from Dubai and the scope and scale of the operation have all the characteristics of a high-level state operation.

The logo of the Jewish special forces in Israel...a bit odd, no? Bat wings?

Furthermore, only Mossad would have access to the European passports of its dual citizens! Only Mossad would have the capacity, motivation, stated intent and willingness to provoke a diplomatic row with its European allies, knowing full well that Western European governments’ anger would blow over because of their deep links to Israel. After meticulous investigation and the interrogation of 2 captured Palestinian Mossad collaborators, the Dubai police chief has stated he is sure the Mossad was behind the killing.

The Larger Political Issues

Israel’s policy of overseas assassination raises profound issues that threaten the basis of the modern state: sovereignty, rule of law and national and personal security.

Israel has a publicly-stated policy of violating the sovereignty of any and all countries in order to kill or abduct its opponents. In both proclamation and actual practice, Israeli law, decrees and actions abroad supersede the laws and law enforcement agencies of any other nation. If Israel’s policy becomes the common practice world-wide, we would enter a savage Hobbesian jungle in which individuals would be subject to the murderous intent of foreign assassination squads unrestrained by any law or accountable national authority. Each and every state could impose its own laws and cross national borders in order to murder other nation’s citizens or residents with impunity. Israel’s extra-territorial assassinations make a mockery of the very notion of national sovereignty. Extra-territorial secret police elimination of opponents was a common practice of…Stalin’s GPU and Pinochet’s DINA and has now become the sanctioned practice of the US “Special Forces” and the CIA clandestine division. Such policies are the hallmark of totalitarian, dictatorial and imperialist states, which systematically trample on the sovereign rights of peoples.

Israel’s practice of extra-judicial, extra-territorial assassinations, exemplified by the recent murder of Mahmoud al Mabhouh in a Dubai hotel room, violates all the fundamental precepts of the rule of law. Extra-judicial killings ordered by a state, mean its own secret police are judge, jury, prosecutor and executioner, unrestrained by sovereignty, law and the duty of nations to protect their citizens and visitors. Evidence, legal procedures, defense and cross examinations are obliterated in the process. State-sponsored, extra-judicial murder completely undermines due process. Liquidation of opponents abroad is the logical next step after Israel’s domestic show trials, based on the application of its racial laws and administrative detention decrees, which have dispossessed the Palestinian people and violated international laws.

Mossad death squads operate directly under the Israeli Prime Minister (who personally approved the recent murder).The vast majority of Israelis proudly support these assassinations, especially when the killers escape detection and capture. The unfettered operation of foreign state-sponsored death squads, carrying out extra-judicial assassinations with impunity, is a serious threat to every critic, writer, political leader and civic activist who dares to criticize Israel.

Mossad Murders – Zionist Fire

The precedent of Israel killing its adversaries abroad, establishes the outer boundaries of repression by its overseas supporters in the leading Zionist organizations, most of whom have now and in the past supported Israel’s violation of national sovereignty via extra-judicial killings. If Israel physically eliminates its opponents and critics, the 51 major American Jewish organizations economically repress Israel’s critics in the US. They actively pressure employers, university presidents and public officials to fire employees, academics and professionals who dare to speak or write against Israeli torture, killing and systematic dispossession of Palestinians.

So far, most critical comments, in Israel and elsewhere, of Mossad’s recent murder in Dubai focus on the agents’ “incompetence”, including allowing their faces to be captured on numerous security videos as they clumsily changed their wigs and costumes under the camera gaze. Other critics complain that the bungling Mossad is “tarnishing Israel’s image” as a democratic state and providing ammunition for the anti-Semites. None of these superficial criticisms have been repeated by the US Congress, White House or the Presidents of the Major Jewish American organizations, where the mafia rule of Omerga, or silence, reigns supreme and criminal complicity is the rule

Conclusion

When did YOU start supporting the Death Eaters?

While the critics bemoan the clumsy Mossad job, making it harder for Western powers to provide Israel with diplomatic cover for its operations abroad, the fundamental issue is never addressed: The Mossad’s acquisition and alteration of official British, French, German and Irish passports of dual Israeli citizen’s underscores the cynical and sinister nature of Israel’s exploitation of its dual citizens in the pursuit of its own bloody foreign policy goals. Mossad’s use of genuine passports issued by four sovereign European nations to its citizens in order to murder a Palestinian in a Dubai hotel room raises the question of to whom ‘dual’ Israeli citizens really owe their allegiance and just how far they are willing to go in defending or promoting Israel’s overseas assassinations.

Thanks to Israel’s use of British passports to enter Dubai and murder an adversary, every British businessperson or tourist traveling in the Middle East will be suspected of links to Israeli death squads. With elections this year and the Labor and Conservative parties counting heavenly on Zionist millionaires for campaign funding, it remains to be seen whether Prime Minister Gordon Brown will do more than whimper and cringe!

This news commentary brought to you by VSS.

with a focus on Adolf Hitler.