16 November 2009
08 November 2009
Martin Luther's Memorandum of 21 August 1942 about diplomatic progress toward the Total Solution of Europe's Jewish Problem
Germany's Undersecretary of State Martin Luther was in charge of Section
D III, which dealt with foreign states in regard to the Jewish question and racial policy, and provided information about events in Germany to representatives of foreign governments.
D III, which dealt with foreign states in regard to the Jewish question and racial policy, and provided information about events in Germany to representatives of foreign governments.
In a memorandum that later became Nuremberg document NG-2586-J, Luther gives a report on what had been accomplished diplomatically as of August 1942 in terms of the "total solution" of the Jewish problem. It was Luther's job to persuade governments to cooperate in this project. At the time, the project was encountering less than complete cooperation from Hungary and Italy, some resistance due to the influence of Jewish money, and some interference from Catholic clergy in Slovakia. In Italy's case, perhaps despairing at the lack of cooperation, Luther suggests the compromise of asking Italy keep its Jewish citizens within its own borders. The memorandum concludes with a request for permission to continue negotiations.
The "total solution" of the Jewish Problem in this document means getting the Jews out of the heart of Europe, and eventually out of Europe altogether. This is consistent with statements attributed to Hitler in the Tischgespräche.
Luther narrates how the policy changed in response to circumstances, but at its core remained essentially the same. At first, it was a matter of encouraging Jews to leave Germany:
The principle of the German Jewish policy after the seizure of power consisted in promoting with all means the Jewish emigration. For this purpose in 1939 Marshal General Goering in his capacity as Commissioner for the Four Year Plan established a Reich Control Office for the Jewish emigration and the direction was given to Gruppenfuehrer Heydrich in his capacity as Chief of the Security Police.
In June 1940 when Germany suddenly achieved continental hegemony, the continent as a whole became Germany's concern. Instead of Jewish emigration from Germany, Jewish emigration from Europe was now sought:
It was always a matter of "evacuation." The only thing that changed was the destination. In 1940, Madagascar seemed an opportune location for a Jewish homeland, because it was among the prospective sites mentioned by the founder of Zionism, Theodor Herzl, and it just happened to belong to France. Since France was under Germany's thumb at this point, it was a fait accompli, if only Britain, which controlled the sea between Europe and Madagascar, could be persuaded to make peace.
The fact that the Fuehrer intends to evacuate all Jews from Europe was communicated to us as early as August 1940 by Ambassador Abetz after an interview with the Fuehrer.... Hence the basic instruction of the Reich Foreign Minister to promote the evacuation of the Jews in closest cooperation with the agencies of the Reichsfuehrer-SS, is still in force and will therefore be observed by D III.
In a letter of 24 June 1941, two days after the commencement of Operation Barbarossa, Heydrich informs the Reich Foreign Ministry that a "territorial final solution" has superseded the Madagascar Plan. If Barbarossa had succeeded, as seemed unquestionable in the first weeks, it would have placed large expanses of sparsely populated land at Germany's disposal. On 31 July 1941 (a time when Germany's forces were advancing rapidly into Russia) Goering tells Heydrich to make preparations for the deportation of the Jews in that direction. Thereafter Heydrich arranges the Wannsee Conference (20 January 1942) for the coordination of all agencies involved in the project.
In the conference Gruppenfuehrer Heydrich explained that Reichsmarschall Goering's assignment to him had been made on the Fuehrer's instructions and that the Fuehrer instead of emigration has now authorized the evacuation of the Jews to the East as the solution....
The Wannsee Conference was called because there was now the imminent expectation of a simpler alternative to the Madagascar Plan for separating Jews from European society. Luther gives more detail about the new plan in the penultimate paragraph:
The deportation to the Government General****** is a provisionary measure. The Jews will be moved on further to the occupied Eastern territories as soon as the technical conditions for it are given.
Although Luther eight months earlier had attended the Wannsee Conference, where, it has been alleged, the destruction of all European Jews was planned, killing is neither mentioned nor implied anywhere in this document.
The so-called Wannsee Protocol, a very questionable document for reasons detailed by Professor Robert Faurisson*, also does not mention any active measures to be taken to kill Jews, but it contains some sinister passages. This document, the Luther Memorandum, has the very great merit that there is no obvious reason to doubt its authenticity.
The only important source of confusion that I find in this document -- one that certainly could be exploited by Holocaustians -- is the fact that "emigration" (Auswanderung) is used with several different meanings. Initially it means emigration from Germany to any other country; then, after the fall of France, it means emigration from Europe to Madagascar. At this point "emigration" becomes shorthand for emigration to Madagascar. (It seems likely that the connotation of Auswanderung was influenced by the history of German emigration in the preceding century, which generally involved boarding a ship and crossing an ocean.) Deportation of the Jews to the East therefore is not called emigration. In a sense it really is not emigration if the Jews are relocated within Europe or within the German sphere of influence, which the General Government (the provisional holding area for Jewish deportees, pending resettlement farther east) certainly was. How far east the Jews would be sent after that (i.e. whether they would leave Europe instead of being confined to the fringe of Europe under the "territorial solution") is not specified in this 1942 memorandum, perhaps because it was unknown at the time what the options would be.
Introductory essay by Hadding Scott, 2009.
* * * * *
TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT No. NG-2586-(J)
OFFICE OF CHIEF OD COUNSEL FOR WAR CRIMES
OFFICE OF CHIEF OD COUNSEL FOR WAR CRIMES
Berlin . . . . . . . . . . M E M O R A N D U M . . . . 21 August 1942
Fastest
Reference: #954 of 19 August
1.) The principle of the German Jewish policy after the seizure of power consisted in promoting with all means the Jewish emigration. For this purpose in 1939 Marshal General Goering in his capacity as Commissioner for the Four Year Plan established a Reich Control Office for the Jewish emigration and the direction was given to Gruppenfuehrer Heydrich in his capacity as Chief of the Security Police. The Foreign Office is represented in the committee of the Reich Central Office, the draft of a letter to this effect to the Chief of the Security Police was approved by the Reich Foreign Minister as 83/24B in February, 1939.
2.) The present war gives Germany the opportunity and also the duty of solving the Jewish problem in Europe. In consideration of the favorable course of the war against France, D III proposed in July, 1940, as a solution: the removal of all Jews from Europe and the demanding of the Island of Madagascar from France as a territory for the reception of the Jews. The Reich Foreign Minister has basically agreed to the beginning of the preliminary work for the deportation of the Jews from Europe. This should be done in close cooperation with the offices of the Reichsfuehrer-SS (Compare D III 200/40).
The Madagascar Plan was enthusiastically accepted by the Reichssicherheitshauptamt (Reichs Security Office) which in the opinion of the Foreign Office is the agency which alone is in the position technically and by experience to carry on a Jewish evacuation on a large scale and to guarantee the supervision of the people evacuated. The competent agency of the Reichsicherheitshauptamtes (Reich Security Office) thereupon worked out a plan going into detail for the evacuation of the Jews to Madagascar and for their resettlement there. This plan was approved by the Reichsfuehrer-SS. Gruppenfuehrer Heydrich submitted this plan directly to the Reich Foreign Minister in August 1940 (compare D III 2171). The Madagascar Plan in fact has been outdated as the result of the political development. [This comment is a non sequitur. It does not fit the flow of the composition and it was clearly added later, although when and by whom is not apparent.]
The fact that the Fuehrer intends to evacuate all Jews from Europe was communicated to us as early as August 1940 by Ambassador Abetz after an interview with the Fuehrer (compare D III 2298)
Hence the basic instruction of the Reich Foreign Minister to promote the evacuation of the Jews in closest cooperation with the agencies of the Reichsfuehrer-SS, is still in force and will therefore be observed by D III.
3.) The administration of the occupied territories brought with it the problem of the treatment of Jews living in these territories. First, the military commander in France saw that he ought to issue on 27 September 1940 a decree on the treatment of the Jews in occupied France. The decree was issued with the agreement of the German Embassy in Paris. The pertinent instruction was issued directly by the Reich Foreign Minister to Ambassador Abetz on the occasion of a verbal report. After the pattern of the Paris decree like decrees have been issued in the Netherlands and Belgium. As these decrees, in the same way as German laws concerning citizenship, formally embraced all Jews independent of their citizenship, objections were made by foreign powers, among others protest notes by the Embassy of the United States of America, although the military commander in France through internal regulation had ordered that the Jewish measures should not be applied to the citizens of neutral countries.
The Reich Foreign Minister has decided in the case of the American protests that he does not consider it right to have military regulations issued for making exception of the American Jews. It would be a mistake to reject objections of friendly states (Spain, Bulgary), on the other hand to show weakness towards the Americans. The Reich Foreign Minister considers it necessary to make those instructions to the field commandants retroactive (compare D III 5449).
In accordance with this direction the Jewish measures have been given general application.
4.) In his letter of 24 June 1940** -- Pol. XII 138 -- Gruppenfuehrer Heydrich informed the Reich Foreign Minister that the whole problem of the approximately 3¼ million Jews in the areas under German control*** can no longer be solved by emigration; a territorial final solution would be necessary. [The word translated as "emigration" here is crucial. Evidently, "emigration" means emigration from Europe, whereas "territorial final solution" means creation of a Jewish homeland in Europe.]
In recognition of this Reichsmarschall Goering on 31 July 1941 commissioned Gruppenfuehrer Heydrich to make, in conjunction with the proper German agencies, all necessary preparations for a total solution of the Jewish problem in the German sphere of influence in Europe. (Compare D III 709 Secret). On the basis of this instruction Gruppenfuehrer Heydrich arranged a session of all the interested German agencies for 20 January 1942 [the Wannsee Conference], at which the State Secretaries were present from the other ministries and I myself from the Foreign Office. In the conference Gruppenfuehrer Heydrich explained that Reichsmarschall Goering's assignment to him had been made on the Fuehrer's instructions and that the Fuehrer instead of emigration has now authorized the evacuation of the Jews to the East as the solution (compare page 5 of the attachment to D III 29/42 Secret). State Secretary Weizsaecker has been informed on the conference; for the time being the Reich Foreign Minister had not been informed on the conference, whereas Gruppenfuehrer Heydrich approved holding a new conference in the near future in which many details of the total solution should be discussed. This conference has never taken place due to Gruppenfuehrer Heydrich's appointment as acting Reich Protector of Bohemia and Moravia and due to his death.
In the conference on 20 January 1942 I demanded that all questions concerned with countries outside Germany must first have the agreement of the Foreign Office, a demand to which Gruppenfuehrer Heydrich agreed and also has faithfully complied with, for the office of the Reichssicherheitshauptamt (Reich Main Security Office) handling Jewish matters has from the beginning carried out all measures in a frictionless cooperation with the Foreign Office. The Reichssicherheitshauptamt has in this matter proceeded indeed almost over-cautiously.
5.) On the basis of the Fuehrer instruction mentioned under 4.), the evacuation of the Jews from Germany was begun. It was urged that at the same time these Jews should also be taken who were nationals of the countries which had also undertaken Jewish measures. The Reichssicherheitshauptamt accordingly made an inquiry of the Foreign Office. For reasons of courtesy inquiry was made by way of the German legations in Pressburg****, Zagreb, and Bucharest to the governments there as to whether they wanted to recall their Jews from Germany in due time or to agree to their deportation to the ghettos in the East. To the issuance of this instruction agreement was given before dispatch by the State Secretary, the Under State Secretary in charge of the Political Division, the Director of the Division for Economic Policy and the Director of the Legal Division (Compare D III 336 Secret).
The German Legation in Bucharest reports with reference to D III 602 Secret, that the Rumanian government would leave it to the Reich government to deport their Jews along with the German Jews to the ghettos in the East. They are not interested in having the Rumanian Jews return to Rumania.
The Legation in Zagreb has informed us that the Croat government expresses gratitude for the gesture of the German government; but it would appreciate the deportation of its Jews to the East (Compare D III 624 Secret).
The Legation in Pressburg reported with reference to D III 561 Secret that the Slovak government is fundamentally in agreement with the deportation to the Eastern ghettos. But the Slovak claims to the property of these Jews should not be endangered.
The wire reports have also been submitted, as customary, to the Reich Foreign Minister's Bureau.
On the basis of the reports of the Ministers I have informed the Reichssicherheitshauptamt (Reich Main Security Office) with reference to D III 661 Secret that the Jews of Rumanian, Croat and Slovak nationality could also be deported; their fortune should be blocked. The Director of the Political Division, Section IV of the Political Division, Section IX of the Legal Division and Section IV of the Division for the Economic Policy have co-signed the dispatcher. Accordingly, the deportations of the Jews from the occupied territories was undertaken.
6.) The number of the Jews deported in this way to the East did not suffice to cover the labor needs there.***** The Reichssicherheitshauptamt therefore, acting on the instruction of the Reichsfuehrer-SS, approached the Foreign Office to ask the Slovak Government to make 20,000 young, strong Slovak Jews from Slovakia available for deportation to the East. The German Legation in Pressburg was provided by D III 874, with proper instruction. The instruction was signed by the State Secretary, the Under State Secretary in charge of the Political Division, and Section IV of the Political Division.
The Legation in Pressburg reported ad D III 1002 that the Slovak Government has taken up the suggestion eagerly; the preparatory work could be begun. Following up this pleased concurrence of the Slovak Government, the Reichsfuehrer-SS proposed that the rest of the Slovak Jews also be deported to the East and Slovakia thereby be made free of Jews. The Legation was, ad [D III 1559 Ang. II], provided with proper instruction. The draft of the instruction was signed by the State Secretary; after its dispatch it was submitted for their information to the bureau of the Reich Foreign Minister and the Under State Secretary in charge of the Political Division.
As the Slovak Episcopacy meanwhile raised objections to the deportation of the Jews before the Slovak Government, the instruction carries the express statement that in no case must there develop internal political difficulties on account of the evacuation of the Jews in Slovakia. By the telegraphic report, ad D III 2006, the Legation reported that the Slovak Government, without any German pressure, has declared itself agreeable to the deportation of all Jews and that the State President agreed personally to the deportation. The telegraphic report was submitted to the Bureau of the Reich Foreign Minister. The Slovak Government has furthermore agreed that it will pay as a contribution to the costs entailed RM 500.-- for every evacuated Jew.
In the meantime 52,000 Jews have been removed from Slovakia. Due to church influences and the corruption of individual officials, 35,000 Jews have received a special legitimation. However, Minister President Tuka wants to Jewish removal continued and therefore has asked for support through diplomatic pressure by the Reich (Compare D III 3865). The Ambassador is authorized to give this diplomatic help in that he may state to State President Dr. Tiso that the exclusion of the 35,000 Jews is a surprise in Germany, the more so since the cooperation of Slovakia up to now in the Jewish problem has been highly appreciated here. This instruction has been co-signed by the Under-State Secretary in charge of the Political Division, and the State Secretary.
7.) The Croat Government is likewise fundamentally agreeable to the removal of the Jews from Croatia. It especially considers the deportation of the 4 to 5,000 Jews from the Italian-occupied Second Zone (centered around Dubrovnik and Mostar) to be important, as they represent a political burden and their elimination would serve the general pacification. The removal can of course take place only with German aid, as difficulties are to be expected from the Italian side. There have been practical examples of resistance against the Croat measures by Italian officials on behalf of well-to-do Jews. Furthermore, the Italian Chief of Staff in Mostar has stated that he cannot approve the removal since all the people living in Mostar have been assured of the same treatment. Since meanwhile according to a telephone communication from Zagreb, the Croat Government has given its written approval of the proposed measure, Minister Kasche thinks it right to begin with the removal, and in fact to begin for the whole country. One could therefore take the risk of having difficulties develop in the course of the action, so far as concerns the zone occupied by Italians.
A report for the Reich Foreign Minister to this effect (D III 562 Secret) has been held up by State Secretary von Weizsaecker since he considered an inquiry should first be made at the embassy in Rome. The answer has not been received.
The problem of Italian Jews has come up in the same way in connection with the evacuation of the Jews in France.
Ambassador Abetz points out in connection with the deportation in preparation from the occupied French territory that there was an urgent political interest to take the foreign Jews first in the evacuation measures. Since these Jews were regarded as foreign bodies they were already especially hated and passing them over and giving them thereby a quasi privileging would cause bad feeling, the more so since among them were to be found responsible instigators of terror and sabotage acts. It was regrettable that exactly the Axis appeared in this point to pursue no uniform policy.
If the evacuation of the foreign Jews were not immediately possible, the Italian Government should be for the time being asked to repatriate their Jews from France.
On the Italian side economic interests appear to play a decisive role. The safe-guarding of these interests however is entirely possible, so that on this point there needs to be no obstacle to the planned solution.
On this question of the Italian Jews in France a conference record of 24 July, ad D III 562 Secret, has been submitted to the Reich Foreign Minister.
8. On the occasion of a reception by the Reich Foreign Minister on 23 November 1941 the Bulgarian Foreign Minister Popoff touched on the problem of according like treatment to the Jews of European nationalities and pointed out the difficulties that the Bulgarians had in the application of their Jewish laws to Jews of foreign nationality.
The Reich Foreign Minister answered that he thought this question brought up by Herr Popoff not uninteresting. Even now he could say one thing to him, that at the end of this war all Jews would have to leave Europe. This was an unalterable decision of the Fuehrer and also the only way to master this problem, as only a global and comprehensive solution could be applied and individual measures would not help very much. Furthermore, one should not attribute too much worth to the protests on behalf of the Jews of foreign nationality. At any rate, we would not let ourselves be taken in any further by such protests from the American side. He -- the Reich Foreign Minister -- would have the problem described by Herr Popoff investigated by the Foreign Office.
The Reich Foreign Minister commissioned me to undertake the investigation promised (Compare D III [660g] Secret).
I should like to make reference to my basic conference memorandum of 4 December 1941, ad D III 680 Secret, which I am dispatching, together with the proper files. This conference memorandum was held up by the State Secretary, because he considered a further examination by the Legal Division first necessary. In their opinion the German-Bulgarian trade and shipping pact was not in agreement with the German-Bulgarian arrangements proposed by me. I therefore notified the German Legation in Sofia, ad D III 497 Secret, under date of 19 June, in reference to the suggestion of the Bulgarian Foreign Minister Popoff at his reception to contact the Bulgarian Government and find out whether it was prepared to come to an agreement in the Jewish problem that there should be no rights from the trade and shipping not given effect in favor of the Jews in the promise of reciprocality.
If the question is put from the Bulgarian side as to whether Germany is ready to deport Jews from Bulgaria to the East, the question should be answered in the affirmative, but in respect to the time of the deporting should be answered evasively. This decree was co-signed by the State Secretary, the Under-State Secretary, the Director of the Political Division, the Director of the Division for Economic Policy, Section IV of the Political Division, Section IV of the Division for Economic Policy, and also by R. (Tr. Note: Ribbentrop). The Legation exchanged notes with the Bulgarian Government and reported that the Bulgarian Government is fundamentally prepared tin the problem of the evacuation to sign an agreement with us. Thereby the basis is given to include the Bulgarian Jews in the Jewish measures. (D III 559 Secret and 569 Secret).
9.) The Hungarian Government has not yet been approached on account of the Jewish removal, because the status of the Hungarian legislation up to the present does not promise a sufficient success.
10.) In accordance with the agreement of the Rumanian Government mentioned under 8.) the evacuation of the Rumanian Jews from Germany and the occupied territories was begun, whereupon various Rumanian consulates and the Rumanian Minister in Berlin, who had no instructions from their Government, intervened. Ambassador von Billinger was therefore asked for clarification. The Legation seems to have made use of the Jewish adviser assigned to it, Richter, for this purpose. He is a person to whom the Rumanian Government confirmed its earlier agreement to the inclusion of the Rumanian Jews in the German measures and to whom the Deputy Ministry President Mihai Antonescu informed of the request of the Marshal that the German agencies should also carry out the removal from Rumania itself and should be then immediately with the transport of the Jews from the areas Arad, Timisoara and Turda.
For details may I refer to my conference memorandum of 17 August ad D III 649.
11.) At the request of the governments concerned, the legations in Bratislava, Zagreb and Bucharest have been assigned advisors for Jewish affairs. They have been made available at the request of the Foreign Office by the Reichssicherheitshauptamt (Reich Main Security Office). Their assignment is for a limited time. It ends as soon as the Jewish problem in the country concerned can be retarded as solved in the German sense. Originally it was regarded as solved as soon as the country concerned has issued Jewish laws similar to the German ones.
Accordingly Richter was recalled from Rumania last year by the Reichssicherheitshauptamt (Reich Main Security Office).
At the urgent request of the legation in Bucharest, Richter was again assigned to the legation despite the objection of the RSHA. This was done with the express intention of having him remain there until the actual final solution in Rumania (D II 1703 Secret and 1893 Secret).
Since all negotiations with the Rumanian Government went through the Foreign Office, the report of Obersturmfuehrer Richter submitted by the Reichsfuehrer-SS should be considered only as an internal work report to the RSHA (Reich Main Security Office). The unusual procedure of having the confirmation of a final conference in the [handwriting] of the Deputy Minister President was sharply [objected to] immediately through the directive of the 17th of this month; the official handling of the affair must be carried out immediately. The files have been submitted there already under D III 659 Secret.
The projected deportations are a further stop forward on the way of the total solution and are in respect to other countries (Hungary) very important. The deportation to the Government General****** is a provisionary measure. The Jews will be moved on further to the occupied Eastern territories as soon as the technical conditions for it are given.
I therefore request approval for the continuation of the negotiations and measures under those terms and according to the arrangement made.
* "I observe that, for some time, it has been realised that these strange minutes (for the word "Protocol" is a misnomer) are full of oddities and that they lack any guarantee of genuineness. They were typed on ordinary paper, with no indication of place or date of issue, no indication of point of origin, no official letterhead, no reference, no signature." From Faurisson's letter to Le Monde dated 26 February 1979.
** According to Professor Arthur Butz, The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, "In section 4 the date of June 24, 1940, for document Pol XII 136 appears, from the context, to be in error; it should be 1941." In the context of Luther's memorandum "emigration" (to Madagascar) and "territorial solution" are presented as antitheses. In section 2 of Luther's memorandum we read that Heydrich submitted the Madagascar Plan "directly to the Reich Foreign Minister in August 1940...." If the date "June 24, 1940" is accepted, it produces the unlikely result that Heydrich submitted the Madagascar Plan after he had proposed that a "territorial solution" would be better. To have Heydrich propose the "territorial solution" immediately after the commencement of Barbarossa, when the prospective of an alternative to Madagascar had just become apparent, makes much more sense.
*** The total number of Jews that ever came within Germany's sphere of influence is a hotly debated point. Heydrich's estimate of 3¼ million Jews within German control came just two days after the beginning of Operation Barbarossa. The claim that the number of Jews under German control ever exceeded 6 million (and the number of Jews under German control would have to be greatly in excess of 6 million to account for the very large number of "Holocaust survivors") depends on the big, fat assumption that Jews in eastern Poland and the USSR remained stationary as German forces advanced. Walter Sanning, in The Dissolution of Eastern European Jewry, provides evidence that many of them did not.
**** Pressburg is the German name for Bratislava, the capital of Slovakia.
***** There was a great shortage of manpower in the Third Reich.
****** The Government General was an area in the south of Poland that was conquered by Germany but never annexed. It was inhabited mainly by Poles and Jews. Regions like southern Poland, and Bohemia and Moravia, that were of strategic importance for Germany's territorial defense but contained no large German population, were made into "protectorates" instead of being annexed to Großdeutschland. The term is a little ironic, since Germany was really protecting herself by occupying those regions.
The Madagascar Plan was enthusiastically accepted by the Reichssicherheitshauptamt (Reichs Security Office) which in the opinion of the Foreign Office is the agency which alone is in the position technically and by experience to carry on a Jewish evacuation on a large scale and to guarantee the supervision of the people evacuated. The competent agency of the Reichsicherheitshauptamtes (Reich Security Office) thereupon worked out a plan going into detail for the evacuation of the Jews to Madagascar and for their resettlement there. This plan was approved by the Reichsfuehrer-SS. Gruppenfuehrer Heydrich submitted this plan directly to the Reich Foreign Minister in August 1940 (compare D III 2171). The Madagascar Plan in fact has been outdated as the result of the political development. [This comment is a non sequitur. It does not fit the flow of the composition and it was clearly added later, although when and by whom is not apparent.]
The fact that the Fuehrer intends to evacuate all Jews from Europe was communicated to us as early as August 1940 by Ambassador Abetz after an interview with the Fuehrer (compare D III 2298)
Hence the basic instruction of the Reich Foreign Minister to promote the evacuation of the Jews in closest cooperation with the agencies of the Reichsfuehrer-SS, is still in force and will therefore be observed by D III.
3.) The administration of the occupied territories brought with it the problem of the treatment of Jews living in these territories. First, the military commander in France saw that he ought to issue on 27 September 1940 a decree on the treatment of the Jews in occupied France. The decree was issued with the agreement of the German Embassy in Paris. The pertinent instruction was issued directly by the Reich Foreign Minister to Ambassador Abetz on the occasion of a verbal report. After the pattern of the Paris decree like decrees have been issued in the Netherlands and Belgium. As these decrees, in the same way as German laws concerning citizenship, formally embraced all Jews independent of their citizenship, objections were made by foreign powers, among others protest notes by the Embassy of the United States of America, although the military commander in France through internal regulation had ordered that the Jewish measures should not be applied to the citizens of neutral countries.
The Reich Foreign Minister has decided in the case of the American protests that he does not consider it right to have military regulations issued for making exception of the American Jews. It would be a mistake to reject objections of friendly states (Spain, Bulgary), on the other hand to show weakness towards the Americans. The Reich Foreign Minister considers it necessary to make those instructions to the field commandants retroactive (compare D III 5449).
In accordance with this direction the Jewish measures have been given general application.
4.) In his letter of 24 June 1940** -- Pol. XII 138 -- Gruppenfuehrer Heydrich informed the Reich Foreign Minister that the whole problem of the approximately 3¼ million Jews in the areas under German control*** can no longer be solved by emigration; a territorial final solution would be necessary. [The word translated as "emigration" here is crucial. Evidently, "emigration" means emigration from Europe, whereas "territorial final solution" means creation of a Jewish homeland in Europe.]
In recognition of this Reichsmarschall Goering on 31 July 1941 commissioned Gruppenfuehrer Heydrich to make, in conjunction with the proper German agencies, all necessary preparations for a total solution of the Jewish problem in the German sphere of influence in Europe. (Compare D III 709 Secret). On the basis of this instruction Gruppenfuehrer Heydrich arranged a session of all the interested German agencies for 20 January 1942 [the Wannsee Conference], at which the State Secretaries were present from the other ministries and I myself from the Foreign Office. In the conference Gruppenfuehrer Heydrich explained that Reichsmarschall Goering's assignment to him had been made on the Fuehrer's instructions and that the Fuehrer instead of emigration has now authorized the evacuation of the Jews to the East as the solution (compare page 5 of the attachment to D III 29/42 Secret). State Secretary Weizsaecker has been informed on the conference; for the time being the Reich Foreign Minister had not been informed on the conference, whereas Gruppenfuehrer Heydrich approved holding a new conference in the near future in which many details of the total solution should be discussed. This conference has never taken place due to Gruppenfuehrer Heydrich's appointment as acting Reich Protector of Bohemia and Moravia and due to his death.
In the conference on 20 January 1942 I demanded that all questions concerned with countries outside Germany must first have the agreement of the Foreign Office, a demand to which Gruppenfuehrer Heydrich agreed and also has faithfully complied with, for the office of the Reichssicherheitshauptamt (Reich Main Security Office) handling Jewish matters has from the beginning carried out all measures in a frictionless cooperation with the Foreign Office. The Reichssicherheitshauptamt has in this matter proceeded indeed almost over-cautiously.
5.) On the basis of the Fuehrer instruction mentioned under 4.), the evacuation of the Jews from Germany was begun. It was urged that at the same time these Jews should also be taken who were nationals of the countries which had also undertaken Jewish measures. The Reichssicherheitshauptamt accordingly made an inquiry of the Foreign Office. For reasons of courtesy inquiry was made by way of the German legations in Pressburg****, Zagreb, and Bucharest to the governments there as to whether they wanted to recall their Jews from Germany in due time or to agree to their deportation to the ghettos in the East. To the issuance of this instruction agreement was given before dispatch by the State Secretary, the Under State Secretary in charge of the Political Division, the Director of the Division for Economic Policy and the Director of the Legal Division (Compare D III 336 Secret).
The German Legation in Bucharest reports with reference to D III 602 Secret, that the Rumanian government would leave it to the Reich government to deport their Jews along with the German Jews to the ghettos in the East. They are not interested in having the Rumanian Jews return to Rumania.
The Legation in Zagreb has informed us that the Croat government expresses gratitude for the gesture of the German government; but it would appreciate the deportation of its Jews to the East (Compare D III 624 Secret).
The Legation in Pressburg reported with reference to D III 561 Secret that the Slovak government is fundamentally in agreement with the deportation to the Eastern ghettos. But the Slovak claims to the property of these Jews should not be endangered.
The wire reports have also been submitted, as customary, to the Reich Foreign Minister's Bureau.
On the basis of the reports of the Ministers I have informed the Reichssicherheitshauptamt (Reich Main Security Office) with reference to D III 661 Secret that the Jews of Rumanian, Croat and Slovak nationality could also be deported; their fortune should be blocked. The Director of the Political Division, Section IV of the Political Division, Section IX of the Legal Division and Section IV of the Division for the Economic Policy have co-signed the dispatcher. Accordingly, the deportations of the Jews from the occupied territories was undertaken.
6.) The number of the Jews deported in this way to the East did not suffice to cover the labor needs there.***** The Reichssicherheitshauptamt therefore, acting on the instruction of the Reichsfuehrer-SS, approached the Foreign Office to ask the Slovak Government to make 20,000 young, strong Slovak Jews from Slovakia available for deportation to the East. The German Legation in Pressburg was provided by D III 874, with proper instruction. The instruction was signed by the State Secretary, the Under State Secretary in charge of the Political Division, and Section IV of the Political Division.
The Legation in Pressburg reported ad D III 1002 that the Slovak Government has taken up the suggestion eagerly; the preparatory work could be begun. Following up this pleased concurrence of the Slovak Government, the Reichsfuehrer-SS proposed that the rest of the Slovak Jews also be deported to the East and Slovakia thereby be made free of Jews. The Legation was, ad [D III 1559 Ang. II], provided with proper instruction. The draft of the instruction was signed by the State Secretary; after its dispatch it was submitted for their information to the bureau of the Reich Foreign Minister and the Under State Secretary in charge of the Political Division.
As the Slovak Episcopacy meanwhile raised objections to the deportation of the Jews before the Slovak Government, the instruction carries the express statement that in no case must there develop internal political difficulties on account of the evacuation of the Jews in Slovakia. By the telegraphic report, ad D III 2006, the Legation reported that the Slovak Government, without any German pressure, has declared itself agreeable to the deportation of all Jews and that the State President agreed personally to the deportation. The telegraphic report was submitted to the Bureau of the Reich Foreign Minister. The Slovak Government has furthermore agreed that it will pay as a contribution to the costs entailed RM 500.-- for every evacuated Jew.
In the meantime 52,000 Jews have been removed from Slovakia. Due to church influences and the corruption of individual officials, 35,000 Jews have received a special legitimation. However, Minister President Tuka wants to Jewish removal continued and therefore has asked for support through diplomatic pressure by the Reich (Compare D III 3865). The Ambassador is authorized to give this diplomatic help in that he may state to State President Dr. Tiso that the exclusion of the 35,000 Jews is a surprise in Germany, the more so since the cooperation of Slovakia up to now in the Jewish problem has been highly appreciated here. This instruction has been co-signed by the Under-State Secretary in charge of the Political Division, and the State Secretary.
7.) The Croat Government is likewise fundamentally agreeable to the removal of the Jews from Croatia. It especially considers the deportation of the 4 to 5,000 Jews from the Italian-occupied Second Zone (centered around Dubrovnik and Mostar) to be important, as they represent a political burden and their elimination would serve the general pacification. The removal can of course take place only with German aid, as difficulties are to be expected from the Italian side. There have been practical examples of resistance against the Croat measures by Italian officials on behalf of well-to-do Jews. Furthermore, the Italian Chief of Staff in Mostar has stated that he cannot approve the removal since all the people living in Mostar have been assured of the same treatment. Since meanwhile according to a telephone communication from Zagreb, the Croat Government has given its written approval of the proposed measure, Minister Kasche thinks it right to begin with the removal, and in fact to begin for the whole country. One could therefore take the risk of having difficulties develop in the course of the action, so far as concerns the zone occupied by Italians.
A report for the Reich Foreign Minister to this effect (D III 562 Secret) has been held up by State Secretary von Weizsaecker since he considered an inquiry should first be made at the embassy in Rome. The answer has not been received.
The problem of Italian Jews has come up in the same way in connection with the evacuation of the Jews in France.
Ambassador Abetz points out in connection with the deportation in preparation from the occupied French territory that there was an urgent political interest to take the foreign Jews first in the evacuation measures. Since these Jews were regarded as foreign bodies they were already especially hated and passing them over and giving them thereby a quasi privileging would cause bad feeling, the more so since among them were to be found responsible instigators of terror and sabotage acts. It was regrettable that exactly the Axis appeared in this point to pursue no uniform policy.
If the evacuation of the foreign Jews were not immediately possible, the Italian Government should be for the time being asked to repatriate their Jews from France.
On the Italian side economic interests appear to play a decisive role. The safe-guarding of these interests however is entirely possible, so that on this point there needs to be no obstacle to the planned solution.
On this question of the Italian Jews in France a conference record of 24 July, ad D III 562 Secret, has been submitted to the Reich Foreign Minister.
8. On the occasion of a reception by the Reich Foreign Minister on 23 November 1941 the Bulgarian Foreign Minister Popoff touched on the problem of according like treatment to the Jews of European nationalities and pointed out the difficulties that the Bulgarians had in the application of their Jewish laws to Jews of foreign nationality.
The Reich Foreign Minister answered that he thought this question brought up by Herr Popoff not uninteresting. Even now he could say one thing to him, that at the end of this war all Jews would have to leave Europe. This was an unalterable decision of the Fuehrer and also the only way to master this problem, as only a global and comprehensive solution could be applied and individual measures would not help very much. Furthermore, one should not attribute too much worth to the protests on behalf of the Jews of foreign nationality. At any rate, we would not let ourselves be taken in any further by such protests from the American side. He -- the Reich Foreign Minister -- would have the problem described by Herr Popoff investigated by the Foreign Office.
The Reich Foreign Minister commissioned me to undertake the investigation promised (Compare D III [660g] Secret).
I should like to make reference to my basic conference memorandum of 4 December 1941, ad D III 680 Secret, which I am dispatching, together with the proper files. This conference memorandum was held up by the State Secretary, because he considered a further examination by the Legal Division first necessary. In their opinion the German-Bulgarian trade and shipping pact was not in agreement with the German-Bulgarian arrangements proposed by me. I therefore notified the German Legation in Sofia, ad D III 497 Secret, under date of 19 June, in reference to the suggestion of the Bulgarian Foreign Minister Popoff at his reception to contact the Bulgarian Government and find out whether it was prepared to come to an agreement in the Jewish problem that there should be no rights from the trade and shipping not given effect in favor of the Jews in the promise of reciprocality.
If the question is put from the Bulgarian side as to whether Germany is ready to deport Jews from Bulgaria to the East, the question should be answered in the affirmative, but in respect to the time of the deporting should be answered evasively. This decree was co-signed by the State Secretary, the Under-State Secretary, the Director of the Political Division, the Director of the Division for Economic Policy, Section IV of the Political Division, Section IV of the Division for Economic Policy, and also by R. (Tr. Note: Ribbentrop). The Legation exchanged notes with the Bulgarian Government and reported that the Bulgarian Government is fundamentally prepared tin the problem of the evacuation to sign an agreement with us. Thereby the basis is given to include the Bulgarian Jews in the Jewish measures. (D III 559 Secret and 569 Secret).
9.) The Hungarian Government has not yet been approached on account of the Jewish removal, because the status of the Hungarian legislation up to the present does not promise a sufficient success.
10.) In accordance with the agreement of the Rumanian Government mentioned under 8.) the evacuation of the Rumanian Jews from Germany and the occupied territories was begun, whereupon various Rumanian consulates and the Rumanian Minister in Berlin, who had no instructions from their Government, intervened. Ambassador von Billinger was therefore asked for clarification. The Legation seems to have made use of the Jewish adviser assigned to it, Richter, for this purpose. He is a person to whom the Rumanian Government confirmed its earlier agreement to the inclusion of the Rumanian Jews in the German measures and to whom the Deputy Ministry President Mihai Antonescu informed of the request of the Marshal that the German agencies should also carry out the removal from Rumania itself and should be then immediately with the transport of the Jews from the areas Arad, Timisoara and Turda.
For details may I refer to my conference memorandum of 17 August ad D III 649.
11.) At the request of the governments concerned, the legations in Bratislava, Zagreb and Bucharest have been assigned advisors for Jewish affairs. They have been made available at the request of the Foreign Office by the Reichssicherheitshauptamt (Reich Main Security Office). Their assignment is for a limited time. It ends as soon as the Jewish problem in the country concerned can be retarded as solved in the German sense. Originally it was regarded as solved as soon as the country concerned has issued Jewish laws similar to the German ones.
Accordingly Richter was recalled from Rumania last year by the Reichssicherheitshauptamt (Reich Main Security Office).
At the urgent request of the legation in Bucharest, Richter was again assigned to the legation despite the objection of the RSHA. This was done with the express intention of having him remain there until the actual final solution in Rumania (D II 1703 Secret and 1893 Secret).
Since all negotiations with the Rumanian Government went through the Foreign Office, the report of Obersturmfuehrer Richter submitted by the Reichsfuehrer-SS should be considered only as an internal work report to the RSHA (Reich Main Security Office). The unusual procedure of having the confirmation of a final conference in the [handwriting] of the Deputy Minister President was sharply [objected to] immediately through the directive of the 17th of this month; the official handling of the affair must be carried out immediately. The files have been submitted there already under D III 659 Secret.
The projected deportations are a further stop forward on the way of the total solution and are in respect to other countries (Hungary) very important. The deportation to the Government General****** is a provisionary measure. The Jews will be moved on further to the occupied Eastern territories as soon as the technical conditions for it are given.
I therefore request approval for the continuation of the negotiations and measures under those terms and according to the arrangement made.
Signed: Luther
________________* "I observe that, for some time, it has been realised that these strange minutes (for the word "Protocol" is a misnomer) are full of oddities and that they lack any guarantee of genuineness. They were typed on ordinary paper, with no indication of place or date of issue, no indication of point of origin, no official letterhead, no reference, no signature." From Faurisson's letter to Le Monde dated 26 February 1979.
** According to Professor Arthur Butz, The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, "In section 4 the date of June 24, 1940, for document Pol XII 136 appears, from the context, to be in error; it should be 1941." In the context of Luther's memorandum "emigration" (to Madagascar) and "territorial solution" are presented as antitheses. In section 2 of Luther's memorandum we read that Heydrich submitted the Madagascar Plan "directly to the Reich Foreign Minister in August 1940...." If the date "June 24, 1940" is accepted, it produces the unlikely result that Heydrich submitted the Madagascar Plan after he had proposed that a "territorial solution" would be better. To have Heydrich propose the "territorial solution" immediately after the commencement of Barbarossa, when the prospective of an alternative to Madagascar had just become apparent, makes much more sense.
*** The total number of Jews that ever came within Germany's sphere of influence is a hotly debated point. Heydrich's estimate of 3¼ million Jews within German control came just two days after the beginning of Operation Barbarossa. The claim that the number of Jews under German control ever exceeded 6 million (and the number of Jews under German control would have to be greatly in excess of 6 million to account for the very large number of "Holocaust survivors") depends on the big, fat assumption that Jews in eastern Poland and the USSR remained stationary as German forces advanced. Walter Sanning, in The Dissolution of Eastern European Jewry, provides evidence that many of them did not.
**** Pressburg is the German name for Bratislava, the capital of Slovakia.
***** There was a great shortage of manpower in the Third Reich.
****** The Government General was an area in the south of Poland that was conquered by Germany but never annexed. It was inhabited mainly by Poles and Jews. Regions like southern Poland, and Bohemia and Moravia, that were of strategic importance for Germany's territorial defense but contained no large German population, were made into "protectorates" instead of being annexed to Großdeutschland. The term is a little ironic, since Germany was really protecting herself by occupying those regions.
17 September 2009
What is an Aryan?
From Volume I of The American Encyclopaedic Dictionary by W.B. Conkey Company, Chicago 1896. Click on the images to view them clearly.
Some important points to observe here are:
First, that the concept of Aryan race was not invented by "Nazis," nor was it even peculiar to Germans; this is from a dictionary published in the United States when Hitler was about six years old. Why then should the word Aryan have fallen into such disfavor that it had to be replaced with the cumbersome term Indo-European, which means exactly the same thing?
Second, although the word Aryan can denote the conquerors of India, it was already being used in the 19th century to mean also their cousins who conquered Europe, as well as the original population from which both, the conquerors of India and the conquerors of Europe, were born. Sometimes some sophomoric anti-racist will claim that the Aryans are some brown-skinned people in India, when in fact those people are a mix of the Aryans with the people whom the Aryans conquered.
In Europe, the modern population also represents a mix of the Aryans with the people that they conquered, but those conquered people were not as vastly different from the Aryans and certainly not as manifestly inferior as were the dark people of India.
There is some reason to dispute whether the Aryans really had their origin as this dictionary entry suggests -- as is still the scholarly consensus -- in Central Asia. As Mallory (In Search of the Indo-Europeans) details, there is a range of suggested Aryan homelands, from the Caspian Sea to Scandinavia. The identification of the Indo-Europeans with blondism works strongly in favor of modern Finland and Sweden as the cradle of the Aryan. This was the view of Madison Grant, and it is consistent with the fact that other peoples of Northern Europe, i.e. the stoneage inhabitants of Germany, were racially similar to the Aryans even before the Aryan invasion sometime after 3000 BC. It is also consistent with the fact that the modern language most closely resembling the theoretical proto-Indo=European language is Lithuanian, which is spoken a very short distance from the world's greatest concentration of blonds, with only the Baltic Sea in between.
Some important points to observe here are:
First, that the concept of Aryan race was not invented by "Nazis," nor was it even peculiar to Germans; this is from a dictionary published in the United States when Hitler was about six years old. Why then should the word Aryan have fallen into such disfavor that it had to be replaced with the cumbersome term Indo-European, which means exactly the same thing?
Second, although the word Aryan can denote the conquerors of India, it was already being used in the 19th century to mean also their cousins who conquered Europe, as well as the original population from which both, the conquerors of India and the conquerors of Europe, were born. Sometimes some sophomoric anti-racist will claim that the Aryans are some brown-skinned people in India, when in fact those people are a mix of the Aryans with the people whom the Aryans conquered.
In Europe, the modern population also represents a mix of the Aryans with the people that they conquered, but those conquered people were not as vastly different from the Aryans and certainly not as manifestly inferior as were the dark people of India.
There is some reason to dispute whether the Aryans really had their origin as this dictionary entry suggests -- as is still the scholarly consensus -- in Central Asia. As Mallory (In Search of the Indo-Europeans) details, there is a range of suggested Aryan homelands, from the Caspian Sea to Scandinavia. The identification of the Indo-Europeans with blondism works strongly in favor of modern Finland and Sweden as the cradle of the Aryan. This was the view of Madison Grant, and it is consistent with the fact that other peoples of Northern Europe, i.e. the stoneage inhabitants of Germany, were racially similar to the Aryans even before the Aryan invasion sometime after 3000 BC. It is also consistent with the fact that the modern language most closely resembling the theoretical proto-Indo=European language is Lithuanian, which is spoken a very short distance from the world's greatest concentration of blonds, with only the Baltic Sea in between.
02 August 2009
A Noteworthy Subversive American Historian
I was researching anti-White revision of American history, specifically Francis Jennings (whose ethnic identity is not yet known to me) when I ran across a New York Times book review that contained this statement:
"One revisionist, Theodore Draper, whom Jennings generously singles out several times for credit, has written exactly the successful revisionist narrative history for which Jennings has so long been clearing the ground -- A Struggle for Power: The American Revolution."
It was very easy to find out the relevant facts about Theodore Draper. For one thing, he had been a supporter of the Soviet Union. Like many other Jews, he moved away from Stalinism as he noticed that it clashed sometimes with Jewish interests. He became a "liberal" but in the 1950s, he was among those insisting that Fidel Castro was not a Communist. He was born in New Jersey with the surname Dubinsky but his mother chose to conceal the family's ethnic identity, for purposes of an academic career according to the New York Times, with a name-change to Draper, an Anglo-Saxon name dating back to the colonial period in North America.
The Jewish surname with which he'd been born would have earmarked his historical writing as attack-propaganda from an alien group rather than a new pinnacle of objective self-criticism from the Anglo-Saxon mainstream.
His obituary, below, makes it clear that "Theodore Draper" was not a man who should have been trusted to tell the American People their own history.
From Famous New Jerseyans
(cribbed from the NY Times)
February 22, 2006
Theodore Draper, Freelance Historian, Is Dead at 93
By CHRISTOPHER LEHMANN-HAUPT
Theodore Draper, a combative historian and social critic and one of the last of a generation of freelance intellectuals who wrote and lectured largely without academic affiliations or formal credentials, died yesterday at his home in Princeton, N.J. He was 93. His death was announced by his wife, Priscilla.
Mr. Draper went from Communist Party fellow traveler in the 1930's to liberal anticommunist in the 1950's and 60's before breaking with the Cold War hawks and attacking the United States' role in Vietnam. For a time he was also the leading historian of American Communism, writing two authoritative books about it.
Mr. Draper was dogged in pursuit of whatever issue caught his attention, whether it was France's collapse on the eve of World War II, Fidel Castro's Cuban revolution, the American war in Vietnam, Henry Kissinger's conduct of Middle East policy or the Reagan administration's Iran-contra affair. On each of these subjects he made himself a respected expert and wrote a book exhaustive in its research. His prose was blunt and factual, its logic severe and pitiless. His pithy judgment of the Bay of Pigs invasion in 1961 as "a perfect failure" became the earmark of that misadventure. As he said in his preface to "A Present of Things Past," a collection of his essays published in 1990: "I have rarely stayed with a single subject for more than five years. I get interested in a subject; I devote myself to it; I do what I can with it; I know — or think I know — as much as I want to know; I turn to something else."
Among the most productive of those five-year periods was the first half of the 1950's, when he completed his volumes on American Communism, part of a project under the auspices of the Ford Foundation. Anti-Communists in particular embraced Mr. Draper's conclusion that "each generation had to discover for itself in its own way that, even at the price of virtually committing political suicide, American Communism would continue above all to serve the interests of Soviet Russia."
Mr. Draper's insistence that American Communism had always been a tail wagged by the Soviet Union made him a lightning rod for a new generation of historians in the 1970's and 80's. These new historians, as they called themselves, were rooted in the New Left of the 1960's. In seeking to define what was native and distinct about American Communism, they attacked Mr. Draper, saying that rather than offering a social and cultural history of the party, he had taken an institutional approach obsessed with the heavy hand of the Soviet Comintern.
Mr. Draper responded to the attacks in 1985 in The New York Review of Books, accusing the new historians of waging "a curious academic campaign for the rehabilitation of American Communism."
His investigations would usually result in books, some 14 in his lifetime. But he would often vent the results of his research in long book-review essays, prompting Paul Berman to describe Mr. Draper as "an investigative book reviewer."
In a review of Norman Podhoretz's book "Why We Were in Vietnam" in The New Republic in 1982, Mr. Draper sharply criticized the author's defense of the war, saying it "represents a trend of selective moralistic zealotry which, if permitted to spread, will give both anti-Communism and neoconservatism a bad name." He called Podhoretz a "potted historian." The review reflected a sharp turn in Mr. Draper's political thinking and left Mr. Podhoretz bewildered over what he called the cruelty of the attack, especially since Mr. Draper had been a friend.
If Mr. Draper was obsessive about politics, he was equally so about his privacy. When approached by a reporter for an interview about his life, he declined and offered instead to write a statement to be sent in a sealed envelope and not opened until his death. In it, he said of his review of "Why We Were in Vietnam": "I broke with Podhoretz when he changed the political line of Commentary," a reference to what he saw as the magazine's shift to the right in the mid-1970's.
Theodore Draper was born on Sept. 11, 1912, the first of four children born to Samuel and Annie Kornblatt Dubinsky, who lived in Brooklyn. His mother changed the family name to Draper in 1932 because she thought it sounded "American" and would avert any anti-Semitism that might threaten her children's prospective academic careers. His father, a manager of shirt factories, died in 1924, leaving his widow to make ends meet running a candy store. His parents, he said in his posthumous statement, "were not members of the Communist Party."
Mr. Draper attended Boys High School in Brooklyn and then the Brooklyn branch of the City College of New York. In college he fell in with a group of older students who formed the National Student League, an ostensibly independent organization that he later found out was controlled by the Young Communist League. Although he never joined the Young Communists, he said, he continued to work in the Student League and became editor of the Young Communists' monthly publication.
After graduating from Brooklyn College, he went on to Columbia University, where he planned to take an advanced degree in history. In his second year he met the foreign editor of the Communist newspaper The Daily Worker, who hired him. Mr. Draper left The Daily Worker in 1937 to take a job as foreign editor for the Communist magazine New Masses, a position that allowed him to take his first trips to Europe. One assignment, to write about the fall of France, led to his break with the Communist Party. His prescient conclusion that the Soviet Union would be Hitler's next target contradicted the party line, and his article was rejected, prompting him to leave New Masses for the Soviet news agency Tass. But growing restive with the party line, he left Tass after only six months to take a job with a new French weekly in New York.
Out of this period came his first book, "The Six Weeks' War: France, May 10 - June 25, 1940," an intellectual history published in 1944.
In 1935 he married Dorothy Sapan, a grade-school teacher who was active in the United Federation of Teachers. They divorced in 1953. In 1960 he married Evelyn Manacher, a singer, and divorced her after he met his third wife, Priscilla Heath Barnum, a medieval scholar. She survives him, as do a son by his first wife, Roger, of New York; a brother, Robert, also of New York; a sister, Dorothy Rabkin of Ashland, Ore., and four stepchildren, Diana, Terry, Parker and Benjamin Barnum.
After serving in the Army during World War II as historian of the 84th Infantry Division, Mr. Draper returned to civilian life in 1945 and set about writing books and articles, mainly for Commentary and The Reporter, a public affairs magazine. He became The Reporter's expert on Cuba before falling out with its publisher, Max Ascoli, over Ascoli's insistence that Fidel Castro was a Communist, a point that Mr. Draper much later conceded he had been wrong about. But his knowledge of Cuba led him to accept a fellowship at the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace, at Stanford University, where he stayed until 1968. Uncomfortable with the Hoover Institution's growing conservatism, however, he left in 1968 and joined the Institute for Advanced Study, at Princeton, where he turned his attention to race relations in America and wrote "The Rediscovery of Black Nationalism" (1970). After Mr. Draper had stopped writing for Commentary, he became a regular contributor to The New York Review of Books. It was during these years that he produced "A Very Thin Line," his thorough study on the Iran-contra affair. In a review in The New Republic, Mr. Berman saw in the book all the hallmarks of Mr. Draper's life's work.
"Draper's methodical approach conjures a spirit, an ideal, that is very powerful," Mr. Berman wrote. "Rigor, thoroughness, factualness and intellectual discipline," he said, "were not exactly in fashion during the Age of Reagan, nor did they pop up very prominently in the House and Senate hearings. They are evident, however, in Draper's massive deed of citizen responsibility, and the effect is strangely moving."
For what it's worth, here is a review of Theodore Draper/Dubinsky's book about the American Revolution which suggests that it is grossly overrated and even sophomoric, contra the Jewish-owned New York Times.
A Struggle for Power: The American Revolution. - book reviews
National Review, April 22, 1996 by Forrest McDonald
[...] Draper repeats himself endlessly, capping his performance by reproducing,substantially verbatim, seven paragraphs on pages 167 - 170 that he hadpreviously used on pages 3 - 5. He introduces characters he has already introduced at length. He garbles his footnotes, for example by citing"ibid." when his text could not possibly be taken from the source cited immediately above. The charitable way to account for such slipshod work is to suppose that it was composed on a word processor.
[...] Draper has set out to formulate a major reinterpretation of what was at issue in the coming of the American Revolution. The view that has prevailed for about three decades now (one that itself replaced an earlier, simplistic economic interpretation) is that of the ideological school: the Revolution was the product of the Old Whig or country-party mentality that Americans imbibed from late-seventeenth- and early-eighteenth-century English writers and blended with a revived enthusiasm for classical republicanism. That is nonsense, Draper asserts; the slogans and declarations of principles and constitutional arguments on both sideswere rhetorical smokescreens, employed to obscure reality, which Draper sees as the naked struggle for power.
How, he asks, were Americans to be taken seriously when they professed loyalty to the crown but no allegiance to Parliament (constitutionally an impossible position to take in England since 1689), or when they groaned that paying a three-penny tax on a pound of tea would lead them into slavery or, indeed, amount to slavery? Surely, Draper suggests, Washington was disingenuous when he wrote that the British ministry was following a studied design to reduce Americans under slavery, and was merely playing with words when he referred to the enemy as the "ministerial force," not "His Majesty's forces," to affirm loyalty to George III and opposition to his ministers.
Draper can reach his cynical, power-struggle conclusion, I suspect, because he has somehow been desensitized to the nuances of language. Whether or not the computer is the culprit, his brain seems to have been robbed of the capacity to wander --appreciatively, comprehendingly, and joyfully -- in the world of ideas, and especially among the convoluted delicacies of eighteenth-century political thought.
Americans of the Revolutionary generation were remarkably literate and knew how to use language persuasively, but they used it differently from the way we do. All educated men were trained in rhetoric, which means that they persuaded through the enthymeme, the major premise of which is not absolutely and axiomatically true, as in a syllogism, but based upon the reputable beliefs of the audience. Such beliefs are conventional and are normally formulated in code words. We use code words in discussing politics today and understand one another. Eighteenth-century Americans employed very different codes, and they are not easy for moderns to crack: it takes years of immersing oneself in the sources.
[...] Americans' understanding of English history was that it had been an ongoing struggle between wicked and designing men, who were perpetually seeking to reduce the people under absolute tyranny, and the people themselves, whose vigilance must be eternal. They thought of events in such terms and were accustomed to hearing them described in such terms. Hence when Patriots equated the tea tax with slavery, they could have said instead, "If we let Parliament impose even a trifling tax, it will by degrees be increased until inevitably it becomes burdensome," and that would have expressed their meaning. But nobody would have heard; one does not whisper at a fireworks display.
Had Theodore Draper let the cacophony of eighteenth-century voices into his brain rather than trying to reduce it to simplistic megabytes, he might have noticed an enormous variety of power relationships, each containing naked struggles for power: not merely between the Americans and the British, contesting for power within the Empire, as he supposes, but also among Americans who competed to rule at home; among rival ideologies which offered disparate answers; among competing experiences in colonial government; among competing experiences in self-government; among myriad economic interest groups; and among religions, philosophies, family connections, ethnicities, and singularly cussed individuals who just "knew" what part they had been chosen to play in the unfolding drama. He noticed none of this, and as a result his striving for originality and hard-boiled realism produced old-hat naivete.
When we encounter cynical renditions of our own history with all idealism stripped away, we are inclined to think, Aha! At last the truth! This makes us feel righteous and we see ourselves as objective. (The same effect occurs when Freudian psychology reduces all our motives to the gutter: since it is unflattering it must be true.) But what we get from these Jewish writers is ersatz, Jew-acceptable revisionism, just as Marxism is ersatz economic populism. The fact that so many of the Founding Fathers were adherents of Jewish-controlled Freemasonry suggests that there is an underlying story to be ferreted out, but we are not likely to get it from a Jew. We can also take it for granted that there is no proper credit given to the role of Jews in Draper/Dubinsky's "two authoritative books" about Communism -- especially since he was even disguising his own Jewishness.
22 July 2009
Television under the Swastika
As always, we can take it for granted that there is a strong negative bias in any presentation about the Third Reich.
At one point we see footage of SS-men marching and the narrator implies that there is something ominous about it. Why? Is there something ominous about similar footage of U.S. servicemen from the same era?
Some of the programming was devoted to informing citizens about government services, and it may seem strange to us, but really exactly the same kind of dramatized advertisement is used in the United States today, except that instead of revealing where to ask for advice or assistance we are generally encouraged to buy some product. We also have "public service announcements," which sometimes are presented in the form of a short drama.
Some of the clips included in this documentary seem to suffer from the smugness of unanimity. For example, some of the Germans who appear in these clips express an intense admiration for Adolf Hitler, wherein they presume -- more or less correctly, in the original time and place -- general agreement among the viewers: surely this did not seem so absurd in the original cultural setting. I get a similar impression from some recent broadcasting in the United States, which, like this programming from the Third Reich, is directed to an audience that is presumed to agree. As examples I could name Fox News, Christian broadcasting, and sometimes PBS when the focus is on racial issues. There is some smugness in some of this material from the Third Reich, but there is also smugness in the assumption that our presentday broadcasters have no such blindspot. Those bad old Nazis were all about propaganda, but there aren't any biases in our news or embedded messages in our entertainment, are there?
There is certainly a more credible explanation for the cessation of television broadcasts in the fall of 1944 than the supposedly poor quality of the programs, which the narrator insinuates as the cause.
It would be interesting to see some samples from the vast footage of Third Reich television that were not selected under mass-media's post-war imperative to present an unflattering portrait.
At one point we see footage of SS-men marching and the narrator implies that there is something ominous about it. Why? Is there something ominous about similar footage of U.S. servicemen from the same era?
Some of the programming was devoted to informing citizens about government services, and it may seem strange to us, but really exactly the same kind of dramatized advertisement is used in the United States today, except that instead of revealing where to ask for advice or assistance we are generally encouraged to buy some product. We also have "public service announcements," which sometimes are presented in the form of a short drama.
Some of the clips included in this documentary seem to suffer from the smugness of unanimity. For example, some of the Germans who appear in these clips express an intense admiration for Adolf Hitler, wherein they presume -- more or less correctly, in the original time and place -- general agreement among the viewers: surely this did not seem so absurd in the original cultural setting. I get a similar impression from some recent broadcasting in the United States, which, like this programming from the Third Reich, is directed to an audience that is presumed to agree. As examples I could name Fox News, Christian broadcasting, and sometimes PBS when the focus is on racial issues. There is some smugness in some of this material from the Third Reich, but there is also smugness in the assumption that our presentday broadcasters have no such blindspot. Those bad old Nazis were all about propaganda, but there aren't any biases in our news or embedded messages in our entertainment, are there?
There is certainly a more credible explanation for the cessation of television broadcasts in the fall of 1944 than the supposedly poor quality of the programs, which the narrator insinuates as the cause.
It would be interesting to see some samples from the vast footage of Third Reich television that were not selected under mass-media's post-war imperative to present an unflattering portrait.
13 July 2009
How I became Jew-Conscious
I first narrated this tale in 1993 when I made the acquaintance of Dr. William Pierce during a summer visit to the National Alliance property. He invited me to have supper at his home, which was spaghetti cooked by his Hungarian wife Susan followed by a slice of a Sara Lee cake. While there he asked me how I came to be racially conscious.
Being from the South, the Negro Problem was something with which I was well familiar. It was a problem that everybody recognized and acknowledged. I thought that everybody understood that Blacks were not really equal to Whites, and that no White person who has had experience with Blacks, apart from perhaps a few defective individuals lacking common sense and powers of observation, would say that Blacks were equal without being under some pressure, pressure that must have come directly or indirectly from Blacks. Growing up as a Southerner, I knew very well about the criminality and low intelligence of Blacks, but I hardly knew about Jews and their special characteristics.
Over the course of time I gradually got some inkling of the role of the Jews in preventing the reign of common sense in racial matters.
In the late 70s and early 80s, I was a regular listener to Larry King's late-night radio program on the Mutual Broadcasting System. Compared to every person that I had met, Larry King was a lunatic. He insisted on the equality of Negroes, and even more shockingly, he had a large contingent of callers that agreed with him on that point. If you called in and explained that he was wrong, it made no impression. He would act as if he could not understand what you had said. This was rampant insanity. How could this be explained? I did not appreciate the importance of it at the time, but Larry King made no secret of being a Jew. Not only was he a Jew, but he had a list of repeat guests on the show, his buddies that he promoted, who were also Jews. It made an impression on me that this lunatic who insisted on racial equality was also very proudly Jewish. This was really puzzling because I also saw Israel as a racist state that at the time was one of the few nations that would deal with the Republic of South Africa.
A few years later I got to know a Jew very well, the kind of Jew that some other, more assimilated Jews might call a Kike. This Jew would brag about being amoral. He thought it was a virtue. I witnessed him do something blatantly illegal once, and after getting caught in the act by police, he created enough ambiguity by lying to the judge that he escaped consequences. He also did some gratuitously cruel things that he told me, including killing a small dog with a stun gun, apparently out of boredom. His racial attitudes were interesting. He would say terrible things about Blacks behind their backs that even I wouldn't say (for example, saying that he would like to have a Black person as his slave), and then flatter them to their faces, and even play the strident anti-racist. He was as two-faced as any human being can possibly be, and he was proud of it.
This opened my eyes to the fact that there are people in the world whose spirits are totally unlike mine, about whom the assumptions that I make about what I might do in some situation are simply not applicable. We are not "all the same inside." People of a perverse and alien nature exist.
Not long after that I happened to see John Metzger interviewed on CNN's Larry King Live. Most of what Metzger said I already knew, about the criminality and low intelligence of Blacks, etc. These were obvious facts that the interviewer, King, had always denied. Metzger however connected the denial of these obvious facts with Jews. That made a certain sense to me, and I found it intriguing. I knew that certain attitudes inhered in Protestantism; certain attitudes inhered in Catholicism: why should there not be certain social attitudes that inhere in Judaism? I'd already had the personal experience of a totally two-faced Jew who pretended to be anti-racist, and it was tempting to see Jews in general as reading from the same script. It was the only explanation that made sense, when these seemingly intelligent people could not be set straight by presenting facts. Jews claim to believe in racial equality because it is a lie that their leadership and their peers expect them to promote, while privately they are as capable as anyone of seeing that it is false.
This explanation of Jewish mendacity that I reached circa 1988 was more social than biological. Since then I have come to appreciate more and more the role of heredity in determining character and behavior, and I have become aware of the Jews as a distinct biological as well as social entity.
That is how I became Jew-conscious. Becoming Jew-conscious is a major step toward becoming a national-socialist since the most obvious distinction between national-socialists and traditional American racists is the recognition of Jews as a source of trouble. *
_______________________
*The Ku Klux Klan at times has even accepted Jewish members, and even today some Klan groups will accept a Jew if he converts to Christianity.
Being from the South, the Negro Problem was something with which I was well familiar. It was a problem that everybody recognized and acknowledged. I thought that everybody understood that Blacks were not really equal to Whites, and that no White person who has had experience with Blacks, apart from perhaps a few defective individuals lacking common sense and powers of observation, would say that Blacks were equal without being under some pressure, pressure that must have come directly or indirectly from Blacks. Growing up as a Southerner, I knew very well about the criminality and low intelligence of Blacks, but I hardly knew about Jews and their special characteristics.
Over the course of time I gradually got some inkling of the role of the Jews in preventing the reign of common sense in racial matters.
In the late 70s and early 80s, I was a regular listener to Larry King's late-night radio program on the Mutual Broadcasting System. Compared to every person that I had met, Larry King was a lunatic. He insisted on the equality of Negroes, and even more shockingly, he had a large contingent of callers that agreed with him on that point. If you called in and explained that he was wrong, it made no impression. He would act as if he could not understand what you had said. This was rampant insanity. How could this be explained? I did not appreciate the importance of it at the time, but Larry King made no secret of being a Jew. Not only was he a Jew, but he had a list of repeat guests on the show, his buddies that he promoted, who were also Jews. It made an impression on me that this lunatic who insisted on racial equality was also very proudly Jewish. This was really puzzling because I also saw Israel as a racist state that at the time was one of the few nations that would deal with the Republic of South Africa.
A few years later I got to know a Jew very well, the kind of Jew that some other, more assimilated Jews might call a Kike. This Jew would brag about being amoral. He thought it was a virtue. I witnessed him do something blatantly illegal once, and after getting caught in the act by police, he created enough ambiguity by lying to the judge that he escaped consequences. He also did some gratuitously cruel things that he told me, including killing a small dog with a stun gun, apparently out of boredom. His racial attitudes were interesting. He would say terrible things about Blacks behind their backs that even I wouldn't say (for example, saying that he would like to have a Black person as his slave), and then flatter them to their faces, and even play the strident anti-racist. He was as two-faced as any human being can possibly be, and he was proud of it.
This opened my eyes to the fact that there are people in the world whose spirits are totally unlike mine, about whom the assumptions that I make about what I might do in some situation are simply not applicable. We are not "all the same inside." People of a perverse and alien nature exist.
Not long after that I happened to see John Metzger interviewed on CNN's Larry King Live. Most of what Metzger said I already knew, about the criminality and low intelligence of Blacks, etc. These were obvious facts that the interviewer, King, had always denied. Metzger however connected the denial of these obvious facts with Jews. That made a certain sense to me, and I found it intriguing. I knew that certain attitudes inhered in Protestantism; certain attitudes inhered in Catholicism: why should there not be certain social attitudes that inhere in Judaism? I'd already had the personal experience of a totally two-faced Jew who pretended to be anti-racist, and it was tempting to see Jews in general as reading from the same script. It was the only explanation that made sense, when these seemingly intelligent people could not be set straight by presenting facts. Jews claim to believe in racial equality because it is a lie that their leadership and their peers expect them to promote, while privately they are as capable as anyone of seeing that it is false.
This explanation of Jewish mendacity that I reached circa 1988 was more social than biological. Since then I have come to appreciate more and more the role of heredity in determining character and behavior, and I have become aware of the Jews as a distinct biological as well as social entity.
That is how I became Jew-conscious. Becoming Jew-conscious is a major step toward becoming a national-socialist since the most obvious distinction between national-socialists and traditional American racists is the recognition of Jews as a source of trouble. *
_______________________
*The Ku Klux Klan at times has even accepted Jewish members, and even today some Klan groups will accept a Jew if he converts to Christianity.
03 July 2009
Zionist Jews are Thugs
This is from the "Spy Talk" section of CQ Politics. The attitude that the "Chosen" are above the (Gentile)law has been a recognized tendency among Jews since ancient times. It's in the Talmud.
AIPAC Spy Figure Larry Franklin Describes Mafia-Style Murder Threat
By Jeff Stein
Somebody wanted Larry Franklin out of the way.
In court documents filed last week, a sketchy tale surfaced suggesting that someone wanted Franklin, the former Pentagon analyst who had agreed to testify against two pro-Israel activists on charges of espionage, dead.
In a Tuesday, June 30 interview, Franklin and his attorney Plato Cacheris, the famed criminal defense lawyer, elaborated on the shadowy incident.
"Somebody approached Larry and suggested it would be good if Larry could disappear and fake a suicide," Cacheris said, "and this person would assist him in doing that."
Franklin didn't take it that way: It was more like a page out of The Sopranos, which would end with him disappearing -- forever.
"Larry listened to him and called me," Cacheris continued: "And I said, 'You've got to report this to the Bureau.'"
He did.
It would seem a simple crime, something that could be made public, with an arrest warrant issued.
But now it's entangled in national security. Franklin and Cacheris are prohibited from identifying the person who made the "offer."
"It's under seal," said Cacheris, who is representing Franklin free of charge.
"There's some sort of investigation going on" by the FBI, Cacheris said. "There's something going on that they're doing that we don't know about."
Franklin, whose 13-year sentence was eventually suspended because of his cooperation with the government in the celebrated spy case involving the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, spoke publicly about the incident for the first time in an interview with SpyTalk earlier this week.
A man approached him at work, he said. It was sometime after 2005, when he was charged with providing classified information to AIPAC employees Steven J. Rosen and Keith Weissman, and their trial on espionage charges, which was repeatedly delayed by legal jousting over the past few years.
The charges against Rosen and Weissman were finally dropped in May, with the government saying the federal judge presiding over the case had set an impossibly high bar to prove the two intended to harm the national security of the United States.
But for four years, Franklin was slated to be the government's key witness against them.
In an interview on Tuesday, June 20, Franklin described the incident for the first time.
He was prohibited from naming the man who approached him.
"It was in West Virginia. I was parking cars at the time. He came to see me at the Charles Town Race Track. He said, 'Let's go to lunch and talk about raising money for my defense.'
"And we talked about all these rich people," Franklin continued. "But first I had to agree to a scheme...
"I was going to go somewhere, and it was going to be arranged that I could occasionally meet my wife. It was supposed to be on a bridge."
In Israel?
"No," he said. "Florida."
Who was the man who approached him?
"Well, the guy was definitely a Zionist," Franklin said. "And he was a true believer. And like a lot of true believers, he's beyond good and evil. They're not subject to the laws the rest of us are."
Like laws against murder.
"I felt this isn't real. This is a set-up," Franklin said.
"As I was saying to someone recently, I grew up on the streets of New York, and when you fake a suicide -- Well, if you're dead to everyone else, it's a lot easier to get rid of you."
"He wouldn't be a witness," Cacheris said.
"Did I let him know I took it that way?" Franklin added. "No. Did I take it that way? Internally, yes."
"He wouldn't be a witness," Cacheris said.
The FBI won't say anything about the Franklin case.
"There are some pending issues" with the Justice Department and federal court, a bureau spokesman said. "We won't be able to comment."
But to Franklin, it's open and shut: murder.
"Did I let him know I took it that way?" Franklin added. "No. Did I take it that way? Internally, yes."
AIPAC Spy Figure Larry Franklin Describes Mafia-Style Murder Threat
By Jeff Stein
Somebody wanted Larry Franklin out of the way.
In court documents filed last week, a sketchy tale surfaced suggesting that someone wanted Franklin, the former Pentagon analyst who had agreed to testify against two pro-Israel activists on charges of espionage, dead.
In a Tuesday, June 30 interview, Franklin and his attorney Plato Cacheris, the famed criminal defense lawyer, elaborated on the shadowy incident.
"Somebody approached Larry and suggested it would be good if Larry could disappear and fake a suicide," Cacheris said, "and this person would assist him in doing that."
Franklin didn't take it that way: It was more like a page out of The Sopranos, which would end with him disappearing -- forever.
"Larry listened to him and called me," Cacheris continued: "And I said, 'You've got to report this to the Bureau.'"
He did.
It would seem a simple crime, something that could be made public, with an arrest warrant issued.
But now it's entangled in national security. Franklin and Cacheris are prohibited from identifying the person who made the "offer."
"It's under seal," said Cacheris, who is representing Franklin free of charge.
"There's some sort of investigation going on" by the FBI, Cacheris said. "There's something going on that they're doing that we don't know about."
Franklin, whose 13-year sentence was eventually suspended because of his cooperation with the government in the celebrated spy case involving the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, spoke publicly about the incident for the first time in an interview with SpyTalk earlier this week.
A man approached him at work, he said. It was sometime after 2005, when he was charged with providing classified information to AIPAC employees Steven J. Rosen and Keith Weissman, and their trial on espionage charges, which was repeatedly delayed by legal jousting over the past few years.
The charges against Rosen and Weissman were finally dropped in May, with the government saying the federal judge presiding over the case had set an impossibly high bar to prove the two intended to harm the national security of the United States.
But for four years, Franklin was slated to be the government's key witness against them.
In an interview on Tuesday, June 20, Franklin described the incident for the first time.
He was prohibited from naming the man who approached him.
"It was in West Virginia. I was parking cars at the time. He came to see me at the Charles Town Race Track. He said, 'Let's go to lunch and talk about raising money for my defense.'
"And we talked about all these rich people," Franklin continued. "But first I had to agree to a scheme...
"I was going to go somewhere, and it was going to be arranged that I could occasionally meet my wife. It was supposed to be on a bridge."
In Israel?
"No," he said. "Florida."
Who was the man who approached him?
"Well, the guy was definitely a Zionist," Franklin said. "And he was a true believer. And like a lot of true believers, he's beyond good and evil. They're not subject to the laws the rest of us are."
Like laws against murder.
"I felt this isn't real. This is a set-up," Franklin said.
"As I was saying to someone recently, I grew up on the streets of New York, and when you fake a suicide -- Well, if you're dead to everyone else, it's a lot easier to get rid of you."
"He wouldn't be a witness," Cacheris said.
"Did I let him know I took it that way?" Franklin added. "No. Did I take it that way? Internally, yes."
"He wouldn't be a witness," Cacheris said.
The FBI won't say anything about the Franklin case.
"There are some pending issues" with the Justice Department and federal court, a bureau spokesman said. "We won't be able to comment."
But to Franklin, it's open and shut: murder.
"Did I let him know I took it that way?" Franklin added. "No. Did I take it that way? Internally, yes."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
