"I have been reading your amazing blog and listening to some of your podcasts with Carolyn. Not sure how I haven't run across your work before. Amazing stuff." (reader's comment, 10 May 2016)
Come chat with us! Download and install an IRC-client -- Hexchat is recommended -- and go to the channel #National-Socialism on the Undernet server.

31 October 2008

The Prevalence of Insanity among Jews

It has long been known that schizophrenia, hysteria, and some other mental illnesses were particularly common among Jews. This fact goes a long way toward explaining the role of Jews in destructive political and social agitation, as well as the fixation on paranoid fantasies like the Holocaust. To explain why Jews are this way was the purpose of E.R. Jaensch's Der Gegentypus ("The Antitype"), published during the Third Reich, which explained the prevalence of mental illness and destructive tendencies among Jews as the expression of a disorganized character resulting from racial mixture, the Jews being an amalgam of several dissimilar races. Here we have a Jewish psychiatrist, Dr. Adlerman, telling us that the problem that Jaensch was addressing is real (and therefore the prejudice against Jews as a people prone toward insanity is justified) whether or not Jaensch's explanation of it is correct.

Adlerman gives some indication that he may be underestimating the size of the problem. He mentions Tobler, who argued that "nearly all Jewish women in Palestine are suffering from more or less hysteria," and Raymond, who finds that every Jew in Warsaw is "either a neurasthenic or hysterical." Adlerman excuses some of this as "the purely emotional sides of the nature of the Jew," and as temporary emotional states due to "certain peculiar environments."

I found the article on an internet website; although I was not able to find a pdf of the original article I was able to confirm that the author and the periodical were real. The article's source is listed as: National Eclectic Medical Association Quarterly, Vol. 7, 1915-16

Will insanity consume the Jewish race?


The study of nervous and mental diseases as it applies to the evolution, progress or decadence of any nationality, or race, or people, presents so many distinct and peculiar phases and manifestations that it is almost impossible to do justice to the subject in the rather short time and space allotted to me in this paper.

It is a well-known fact that many nationalities are more liable to certain diseases and more prone to suffer from the results of these diseases than others. This rule seems to be particularly strong when taken in connection with neurology and psychology. This is nowhere so strikingly appalling as in the Jewish race. The predominance of nervous diseases among them has led me to take up the study of this particular subject, and the present paper is a result of the same. I am ready now to make the positive assertion that no race suffers so much from nervous and mental diseases as do the Jews. Statements and claims have been made by some of the most prominent neurologists, that nearly all, if not all, of the Hebrews are either neurasthenics or that they are hysterical.

While prolonged investigation into this statement has led me to take it cum grano salis, still I can not help but admit that these two diseases appear in such vast numbers that I am not surprised that men like Tobler produced proof and statistics which seem to show that nearly all Jewish women in Palestine are suffering from more or less hysteria. Neither am I surprised when Raymond goes even a little further and shows us that in Warsaw, Poland, there is not a Jew to be found who is not either a neurasthenic or hysterical. It seems to me, however, that both of these investigators are mixing up the purely emotional sides of the nature of the Jew with hysteria and that many of their cases were temporarily emotional from certain peculiar environments.

The great Kraft-Ebbing called our attention to the exceptional severity with which the Jewish population of Germany and Austria has been attacked by all kinds of nervous diseases. This claim can not be doubted and has since been fully substantiated by Oppenheim, Ferrie, Charcot, and others. In my own practice, the percentage presented by patients of the Jewish race and extraction is very large. The proportion of insane among the Jews is also very appalling, and statistics clearly prove that they are far more liable to insanity than any other nation, and the different statistics in this respect are rather remarkable.

In Italy, according to Lombroso, we have one insane Jew in every 391; thus it appears that the Jews are affected four times as much as the Catholic population. To quote another authority, we find that in 1870 there was one insane among every 1,775 Catholics in Italy, while among the Jews in Italy, at the same time, we find one insane in every 384. The same alarming and rather peculiar condition was found in other countries of Europe. For example, in Prussia in 1880, in every 10,000 population we find Catholic insane, 12.37; Protestants, 24.2; Jews, 38.9. In Hanover, Catholic insane per 10,000, 30.8; Protestants, 29.2; Jews, 62.9. In Silesia, per 10,000 population, Catholic insane, 19.3; Protestants, 22.1; Jews, 32.1. In Bavaria, in 1885, per 10,000 population, insane 16.4; Jews, 27.19. A very much similar condition was found in Russia, and here I am quoting from the proceedings of the "Twelfth International Medical Congress," which gives Russian insane, 0.91 per cent.; Poles, 0.92 per cent.; Jews, 2.19. In the Vienna Psychiatric Clinic, out of 1,219 insane patients treated there, 10.99 per cent. were Hebrews, out of which 64.9 per cent. were men and 35.1 per cent. were women.

In New York City, according to Hyde, who collected the statistics of the admissions of Jewish insane to different asylums from December, 1871 to 1900, out of 17,135 male insane, 1,722 (or 10.05 per cent.) were Hebrews, while from 1895 to the year 1900, out of 3,710 insane patients who were admitted to the different insane asylums of the city, 573 (or 15.44 per cent.) were Jews.

In England, for example, from statistics furnished by Beadle, it can be readily seen that the Jewish men suffer very much from dementia paralytica (21 per cent. of all male insane suffered from this particular insanity), and, taking in consideration the difference in numbers of the Jews as compared with the non-Jewish English, Beadle comes to the startling conclusion that dementia paralytica is 60 per cent. more frequent in Jews than among Gentiles.

Somewhat similar deductions are drawn from statistics which are furnished by Hirschi, who shows clearly that among his 200 cases of paralytic dementia, 40 were Jews, or 20 per cent. of his cases.

In the city of Vienna, statistics show that 18.75 of all paretics are Jews. From statistics furnished by Minor, of Moscow, Russia, we see that general paralysis of the insane was about six times more frequent among the Gentiles than among the Jews. While this is quite possible, it can not be taken as a rule, inasmuch as most of the nervous cases furnished a previous history of syphilis, a disease which is very rare among the Jewish population of Russia, which explains in a way the low percentage of Jewish paretics there.

In contradiction to Minor, we find Korsakoff furnishing us with a record of eighty-nine Jewish patients, sixty-nine of which had paralytic dementia. The acute psychoses are also very predominant among the Jews. Insanity following childbirth, puerperal mania, is more common among Jewish women than among women of other races. Melancholia is also a very strong factor and seems to predominate in many cases.

In conjunction with this, I must say a few words here in regard to paralysis agitans. This disease is certainly very frequent among the Jews. Kraft-Ebbing reports thirty-two cases out of one hundred to be Jews. If you will take in consideration that the Jewish population of Austria Hungary is only about 4 per cent. of the total population of that country, the thirty-two cases of Kraft-Ebbing becomes appalling as it becomes eight times greater than the proper proportion. The same fact in regard to paralysis agitans has been demonstrated in Russia among the Jews of that country, where it was found that paralysis agitans was three times more frequent among the Jews than among the Christians. With the above facts in front of us, two questions naturally come to our mind: First, what are the causes to which we can ascribe these particular ravages among the Jewish race?

This we can answer that we must remember that the Jews are dwellers of cities, that they partake abundantly of meats, and exercise their reproducing functions rather freely; second, that their occupations are mostly of such a nature as to require exhaustive brain work and brain strain; third, the peculiar conditions and environments to which they have been subjected for centuries, the persecution and abuses, which have produced a marked neurotic influence and taint, which in the natural course of things has been followed by functional derangements of the entire nervous system, and which, in course of time, became hereditary and have been transmitted from one generation to another, producing ultimately nervous degeneration, which accounts for the cases of tabes, paralytic dementia, paralysis agitans, etc.

I do not agree with Bushan and some other writers who claim that insanity is a racial characteristic of the Jewish race. It is true that some evidence of this is found in the Bible, that the ancient Hebrews suffered from mental troubles; but this can not be considered as scientific evidence. The fact must not be overlooked that a neuropathic tendency of one generation may manifest itself as hysteria, while in another generation it will come up in the form of some organic or functional nervous disorder, and then in the form of some insanity.

The second question which arises now is this: Will the Jewish race be consumed by insanity if this ravage makes the same strides as it has made till now? This question I can not answer just at present. It will require further study and more investigation before we can come to a positive conclusion. The figures quoted above, however, are appalling and staggering and should awake us to the means of combatting this scourge, as they also apply to a great many other nationalities.

The danger from insanity is more horrible, more apparent, more close to us than any of the other diseases which we, as doctors, are fighting daily.

910 St. Johns Place, Brooklyn, N. Y.

DR. A. J. ATKINS: I have had in my personal experience a great many Jewish patients, and I have noticed this one particular condition—the mental or nervous condition that exists among them. They are usually very nervous and anticipate everything. In my opinion, I think that is largely due to the fact that the Jewish race have intermarried so closely for thousands of years; but, as the doctor points out in his paper, we are not discussing the Jewish race—we are stating cold-blooded facts. One of the important factors in my mind that leads up to this extreme nervousness and perhaps insanity, is the close intermarriage of that race. The Jewish race has very largely isolated itself from contact with the laws of nature. They have been persecuted and have had to develop their commercial instincts to a high degree, and under these conditions they have become financiers and have not observed nature's laws and they are reaping their reward in insanity to-day.

DR. W. E. DANIELS: I would like to ask if the doctor finds that the moral condition has very much to do with the mental condition. Does the immorality in the Jewish nation have a tendency to produce insanity any more than any other people?

DR. F. M. ANDRUS: I wonder if some of the peculiar rites of the Jews might have something to do with it. Perhaps orificial surgery might benefit them.

DR. ADLERMAN (closing): I am not prepared to talk much about intermarriage. Perhaps it may have something to do with it. Those who know the history of Africa and know the history of the negro race know that intermarriage exists there to-day, and yet they have no insanity among them. The history of Australia shows intermarriage among the bushmen there and they have no insanity. Whether this will answer Dr. Atkins I do not know. Intermarriage may have something to do with producing a certain nervous taint, but whether that will produce insanity is a question in my mind. I am willing to admit that if a nervous father marries a nervous mother the issue probably will be nervous. But when you take an ordinary individual, whether Jew or Gentile, you can not say that intermarriage will produce insanity directly. It may produce a nervous taint, a certain neurosis, but I doubt whether it will produce insanity.

Dr. Daniels' question in regard to morality is a big question, too big to answer. In the first place, what is morality? I do not know what Dr. Daniels means by morality. I do not know what morality is. What may be morality in one section is immoral in another. I would consider it immoral if my wife would dress in a certain way, but we go into the Metropolitan Opera House and we do not consider it immoral to see women dress as they do there.

The Jews are no more immoral than any other race. They do exercise their productive functions very freely, but even then a man may exercise these functions freely, and if he will not abuse alcohol or a meat diet it is a question whether that will produce insanity. The term morality, as we understand it to-day, I do not think has much to do with insanity.

The question of Dr. Andrus, in regard to orificial surgery: Some years ago the statement was made by Dr. Dawson that he could cure any case of insanity by orificial surgery. I said if he could do that he was wasting his time in Kansas City; New York needs him. The reflex irritation may have an effect in developing insanity, but do not think you can cure it by orificial surgery. You can remove the reflexes, you can perform certain orificial surgery, but still we have our 2,700 women in our asylum and as many men in the same institution after a great many men have tried their hand on these cases. If you find a reflex condition that requires surgical treatment, of course remove it, but orificial surgery will not cure a case of insanity. If you think this you will be disappointed.

DR. E. B. STEVENSON: Has not the Jewish race a very low percentage of criminals?

DR. ADLERMAN: No, I think it is about the same as among other races, especially since the great immigration from Europe. When the number was limited the percentage was very small, but to-day we have statistics that will show that the average is about the same as other nations.

23 October 2008

How long have scholars known that "Negro spirituals" were a hoax?

The answer is, at least since 1893.

Following Yale Professor Willie Ruff's revelation in 2003 that the Negro spiritual really was derived from a Scottish musical tradition, I began to wonder when the myth of the originality of Negro music had begun, and whether any expert had taken the trouble to attack the claim when it was still new and still would have struck people as outrageous. I found such an expert in Austrian musicologist Richard Wallaschek (1860-1917), known for his work in comparative musicology and psychology of music.

According to Wallaschek "the first to try to make negro songs known" were J.M. McKim with an article published in August 1862 and H.G. Spaulding with a publication in August 1863. These were both published during the War between the States, contemporary with the Emancipation Proclamation, (issued in two parts, in September 1862 and January 1863). Also, be it known that McKim and Spaulding made their song collections during the Union's military occupation of the Sea Islands, which had begun in November 1861; ipso facto the collection was made without input from local Whites, from whom the Blacks might have learned the songs. What we have seen in the exaggeration of Negro creativity is propaganda -- originally war propaganda -- with scholarly pretensions. The promulgation of the myth of "Negro spirituals" was to argue the humanity of the Negroes as a people capable of creating culture and thus undeserving of servitude -- indeed, deserving social equality with Whites.

Significantly, the most famous speech of the post-slavery agitation for racial equality, M.L. King's "I have a Dream" speech, ends with a quote (albeit distorted and misrepresented*) from a so-called Negro spiritual.

This propaganda has taken a new turn with the popularity of rock music since the 1950s. Young White people were taught that their own preferred music somehow had roots in Africa, and that therefore they were hypocrites if they did not have a high opinion of Blacks. It is of course the Jewish-dominated mass-media, marketing rock music, that has conveyed this message.

Scholars knew that the cultural contribution of Blacks was being exaggerated, but amid the equality-propaganda of the mass-media their influence was nil. According to Dena J. Epstein ("A White Origin for the Black Spiritual? An Invalid Theory and How it Grew," American Music, Summer 1983), Wallaschek's position was "widely accepted among the academic community while it was virtually unknown to the public at large." In other words, mass-media continued to make the public believe in the reality of Negro spirituals even though scholars knew that it was a hoax. "When interest in black studies exploded in the 1960s, the theory became something of an embarrassment, and some reference books avoided the controversy by omitting articles on the subject altogether." In other words, even scholars began to be overwhelmed by the mass-media's propaganda. Scholarship was pressured to conform to vulgar beliefs that the mass-media had created. "The theory continued to live in other reference books and older volumes still on library shelves, however."

I have reproduced the relevant section from the most important of the "older volumes" below, followed by a mainstream news report from 2003 about Professor Ruff's finding, for those who missed it.

A respected 19th-century Scholar assesses the musicality of Negroes

(From Richard Wallaschek, Primitive Music: an Inquiry into the Origin and Development of Music, Songs, Instruments, Dances, and Pantomimes of Savage Races, Longmans, Green, and co., New York 1893: pp. 60-62)

There still remains to be mentioned one race which is spread over all America and whose musical powers have attracted the attention of many Europeans — the negro race. It may seem inappropriate to treat of the negroes in this place, but it is of their capabilities under the influence of culture that I wish to make a few remarks. I think I may say that, speaking generally, these negro-songs are very much overrated, and that as a rule they are mere imitations of European compositions which the negroes have picked up and served up again with slight variations. Moreover, it is a remarkable fact that one author has frequently copied his praise of negro-songs from another, and determined from it the great capabilities of the blacks, when a closer examination would have revealed the fact that they were not musical songs at all, but merely simple poems. This is undoubtedly the case with the oft-quoted negro-songs of Day [Charles William Day, Five Years' Residence in the West Indies, vol. II, Colburn & Co., London 1852, p. 121] and Busch [Moritz Busch, Wanderungen zwischen Hudson und Mississippi 1851-1852, Stuttgart 1854: 61, 73]. The latter declares that the lucrative business which negroes made by singing their songs in the streets of American towns determined the whites to imitate them, and with blackened faces to perform their own "compositions" as negro-songs. We must be on our guard against the selections of so-called negro-songs which are often offered to us as negro compositions.

Miss M'Kim [J.M. McKim, "Negro Songs," Dwight's Journal of Music, Boston, 9 August 1862] and Mr. Spaulding [H.G. Spaulding, "Under the Palmetto," Continental Monthly, August 1863] were the first to try to make negro-songs known, the former of whom, in conjunction with Allen & Ware, published a large collection [William Francis Allen, Charles Pickard Ware, Lucy McKim Garrison, Slave Songs of the United States, A. Simpson, New York, 1867] which for the most part had been got together by the negroes of Coffin's point and in the neighbouring plantations at St. Helena [South Carolina]. I cannot think that these and the rest of the songs deserve the praise given by the editors, for they are unmistakably "arranged" — not to say ignorantly borrowed — from the national songs of all nations, from military signals, well-known marches, German student-songs, etc., unless it is pure accident which has caused me to light upon traces of so many of them. Miss M'Kim herself says it is difficult to reproduce in notes their peculiar guttural sounds and rhythmical effects, almost as difficult, in fact, as with the songs of birds or the tones of an aeolian harp. "Still the greater part of negro-music is civilised in its character," sometimes influenced by the whites, sometimes directly imitated. After this, we may forego the necessity for a thorough examination, although it must be mentioned here, because the songs are so often given without more ado as examples of primitive music. It is, as matter of fact, no longer primitive, even in its wealth of borrowed melody. Feeling for harmony seems fairly developed. Soyaux heard melodies sung by negro girls in Sierra Leone — their African home — which were accompanied with perfectly correct harmonies. Barbadoes negro melodies must be excepted from the half-civilised negro music of North America— as Mrs. [Evelyn] Martinengo-Cesaresco ["Negro Songs from Barbados," The Folk-Lore Journal, 1887] observes — although she agrees that they lose their original character very quickly under the influence of the whites. To these belong to a certain extent some songs of the Bahama negroes (east from Cuba) which were sung before the hut of a dying friend and which had reference to his death : —

If every day was Judgment day, somebody's dying here to-day.

This verse must have made a strange impression on the sick person. Mention, too, must be made of the "song of the porters" at Rio de Janeiro, which is nothing but a "call" to render the work easier and more regular.

Gospel truth: Hebrides invented church spirituals
By Paul Kelbie, Scotland Correspondent
Saturday, 20 September 2003

A study into the roots of gospel music by an American professor has lead the accomplished musician, who has played with Duke Ellington and Dizzy Gillespie, to conclude that the "good news" music sung in black American churches originated from Scotland, not Africa.

Professor Willie Ruff, of Yale University, said the roots of the music derived from evangelical spirituals and blues and jazz, had more to do with the crofters of the Outer Hebrides than slaves on US plantations.

For years the accepted wisdom has been that gospel music was born during the period of slavery in the Deep South. But Professor Ruff conceded that his findings have startled a number of elders in black churches.

"They have always assumed that this form of worship came from Africa," Professor Ruff, an Afro-American professor of music, said. "Black Americans have lived under a misconception. Our cultural roots are more Afro-Gaelic than Afro-American. Just look at the Harlem telephone book, it's more like Edinburgh or the book for the North Uists.

"There is a notion that when African slaves arrived in America they came down the gangplanks of slave ships singing gospel music - that's just not true. What I'm talking about here pre-dates all other congregational singing by blacks in America."

Traditional psalm singing, or "precenting the line" as it is correctly known, in which the psalms are called out and the congregation sings a response, was the earliest form of congregational singing adopted by Africans in America. Even today, psalm singing and gospel music are the backbone of black churchgoers in the US, with CD sales alone worth half a billion dollars last year.

But Professor Ruff, 71, a Baptist from Alabama, said: "I, like everyone else, assumed it was unique to black congregations in the United States, having grown out of slavery, but I began to wonder if it was performed by white congregations in the same way," he said.

He began researching at the Sterling library at Yale, one of the world's greatest collections of books and papers, where he found records of how Highlanders settled in North Carolina in the 1700s.

"Scottish emigrants from the Highlands, and the Gaelic speaking Hebrides especially, arrived in parts of North Carolina in huge numbers and for many years during the slavery period black Africans, owned by Scottish emigrants, spoke only the Gaelic language. I found, in a North Carolina newspaper dated about 1740, an advertisement offering a generous reward for the capture and return of a runaway African slave who is described as being easy to identify because he only speaks Gaelic. There is no doubt the great influx of Scots Presbyterians into the Carolinas introduced the African slaves to Christianity and their way of worship," he said.

But it wasn't until Professor Ruff travelled to Scotland that he became convinced of the similarities after hearing psalm singing in Gaelic. "I was struck by the similarity, the pathos, the emotion, the cries of suffering and the deep, deep belief in a brighter, promising hereafter.

"It makes sense that as we got our names from the slave masters, we carried the slave owners blood, their religion and their customs, that we should have adopted and adapted their music. There are more descendants of Highland Scots living in America than there are in the Highlands - and a great many of them are black.

"I have been to Africa many times in search of my cultural identity, but it was in the Highlands that I found the cultural roots of black America."

Jamie Reid-Baxter, a history research fellow at Glasgow University and a psalm expert, said: "The Scottish slave-owners would definitely have brought that style of singing with them and the slaves would have heard it. Both these forms of music are a way of expressing religious ecstasy."

* "Free at last, Free at last, I thank God I'm free at last," is from American Negro Songs by John W. Work, published (significantly, amid the Civil Rights offensive) in 1960. Both the words and the meaning of this "old Negro spiritual," as King called it, were substantially altered by King in his speech. King said, "Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!" by which he meant the achievement of social equality for the Negro. The original song, correctly understood, does not in any way support this agenda; it is about the freedom from physical pains and limitations that comes with death, an idea very old in the European tradition, espoused by Socrates in Plato's Phaedo. The song has the call-and-response form that Professor Ruff found to be typical of songs from Hebrides.

10 October 2008

Does Grandpa know that he fought for Gay Rights?

World War Two and Gay Rights

As I watched the interviews of old soldiers attending the dedication of the new World War II memorial on the Mall in Washington D.C., then listened to the speeches of actor Tom Hanks, ex-Senator Bob Dole, and President George W. Bush--followed by a Black woman (what else would it be?) singing The Star-Sangled Banner and God Bless America, and a Negro preacher saying a prayer--I wondered how many of those old soldiers agreed with the interpretation of the meaning of their generation's sacrifice that was made clear throughout the ceremony: that the Second World War was fought to end intolerance.

How many Americans really fought in the Second World War intending to serve any agenda beyond defense of their country, which they believed had been attacked without provocation? The American people were firmly against involvement in the European war, with as many as 85% indicating opposition despite years of propaganda about atrocities in Europe; clearly there would have been inadequate popular support for U.S. military intervention without the Pearl Harbor attack.

What would have been the reaction of this group recently flattered as "the Greatest Generation" if they had been told in 1942, not only that the attack on Pearl Harbor had been deliberately provoked, but that the purpose of their sacrifice, including the deaths of many young friends, was that their children and grandchildren should mix with Blacks and other races? How many would have served in the U.S. armed forces if they had been told that the war was being waged so that homosexuals could come out of the closet? Very few, I would wager; in fact I believe that emphasizing this fact in 1942 would have thoroughly crippled the U.S. war effort. Nonetheless, the ending of "discrimination" and "prejudice" is now being openly declared as the main purpose of the Second World War, and the Gay Rights movement is one aspect of that.

Here is an informative excerpt from the Wikipedia entry on Gay Rights:

"The gay rights movement arose in response to what many activists called discrimination and prejudice against homosexuals.

"One of the first gay rights activism movements was centered around Magnus Hirschfeld in pre-World War II Berlin, Germany. The gay rights movement in Germany was almost completely obliterated by Adolf Hitler and the Nazi movement (See Homosexuals in Nazi Germany and Night of the Long Knives.)

"In the United States, there were some initial steps toward a gay rights movement with the formation of the Mattachine Society and the publications of Phil Andros in the years immediately following World War II. Also during this time frame Sexual Behavior in the Human Male was published by Alfred Kinsey, a work which was one of the first to look scientifically at the subject of sexuality. Kinsey's incredible assertion, backed by a great deal of research, that approximately 10% of the population was homosexual, was in direct opposition to the prevailing beliefs of the time. Before its publication, homosexuality was not a topic of discussion, generally, but afterwards it began to appear even in mainstream publications such as Time Magazine, Life Magazine, and others.

"Despite the entry of the subject into mainstream consciousness very little actual change in the laws or mores of society was seen until the 1960s, the time of the "Sexual Revolution". This was a time of major social upheaval in many social areas, including views of sexuality.

"These works, along with other changes in society such as huge migrations to the cities following the War, began to build gay communities in urban centers, and gay people began to have a sense of themselves as a minority group rather than just a few isolated "inverts". While gay bars existed even in the early 20th century, they were very few.

"With the rise of the gay community, gay bars became more and more common, and the sense of gay identity strengthened during the 1950s and 1960s. Gay people became less and less accepting of their status as social outcasts and criminals. However, they had little or no political and social power until the late 1960s.

"However, the Stonewall riots of 1969 are considered to be the starting point for the modern gay rights movement, when all of these relatively underground changes reached a breaking point, and gay people began to organize on a large scale and demand legal and social recognition and equality."

The Gay Rights movement, just like the the Negro Rights movement, derives great impetus from the alleged moral precedents of the Second World War, and it is no coincidence that both have developed in the post-war period. The Gay Rights aspect of the World War Two legacy has been slower to develop because it had the disadvantage of being unable to cloak itself in Christianity, and has in fact depended to a large extent on the decay of traditional morality. Both Gay Rights and Negro Rights however erupted, not coincidentally, as the generation that grew up in the immediate postwar period and was schooled in the so-called lessons of World War II reached adulthood, in the 60s, a period when the word "fascist" was greatly in vogue as an insult on the lips of feminists, Communists, racemixers, and degenerates of every kind.

Norman Lear's sitcom All in the Family, a singularly destructive piece of anti-White and anti-normal propaganda that aired beginning in 1969 on the CBS television network, accurately reflects the conflict between the generation that fought in World War Two--represented unflatteringly by the character of Archie Bunker, who often spoke proudly of having fought in "WWII, the Big One"--and the tendencies that had developed in the aftermath of that war as a consequence of it. In the late 60s and early 70s this conflict of generations was often discussed, and many of the episodes of All in the Family likewise make abundantly clear that members of what is now called "the Greatest Generation" actually dreaded the kind of tolerant, anything-goes society with which we are currently saddled and for which they are now given stomach-turning credit. In fact they represented the kind of "intolerance" which they are now praised for fighting. Did they really understand in 1942 what cause they were serving?

Maybe that's a reason why so many of these old White men, after hearing the tolerance-pushing speeches of Hanks, Dole, and Bush, followed by the obligatory Black singer and a Negro preacher, say that they have a hard time accepting praise for what they did.

Original essay posted by Hadding on national-socialism.us May 31, 2004 05:30 PM

Were Jews the real enemy in the USSR?

"Germany's adversaries are not the peoples of the Soviet Union, but exclusively the Jewish-Bolshevik Soviet Government with its functionaries, and the Communist Party, which works toward world revolution." - a directive from Wehrmacht Senior General Alfred Jodl

Stalin and the Jews
from Freispruch für Deutschland by Heinrich Härtle, 1965;
translated by Hadding Scott, 2008.

The fusion of Russian Communism and Jewry however began much earlier. The word pogrom is of Russian origin. Because Jewry under the rule of the Czars and the Orthodox Church had been oppressed and limited by special laws, the first Jewish revolutionaries and anarchists came out of the Jewish ghettos.*

As a religion and as a nation, Jewish Orthodoxy opposed all attempts at conversion and assimilation. Through centuries Czarist Orthodoxy and Jewish Orthodoxy stood irreconcilably in opposition.

Naturally the Jewish revolutionaries had to use revolutionary socialist and communist ideas and organizations against the hated Czardom. Often Jewish Communism was first an anti-Czarism. In this historical transformation arose the close linkage of Communism and revolutionary Jewry, which a generalizing propaganda then simplified into the unity of Bolshevism and Jewry.

The Catholic professor for philosophy and church-history, Denis Fahr, proved in his writing The Rulers of Russia that in the years 1918-1919 among 556 leading functionaries of the Bolshevik State there were 457 Jews. The Central Committee of the Communist Party consisted of twelve members, of which nine were Jews. In the Council of the People's Commissars** were found seventeen Jews and five non-Jews. According to official information, in 1920, out of 545 members of the Bolshevik Administration 447 were Jews, and that with a Jewish population of 7.8 million within a total population of 160 million.

The Jewish Chronicle of 6 January 1933 reveals that in Soviet Russia a third of the civil servants are Jews. That is a six-fold overrepresentation compared to non-Jewish civil servants. According to a statistic that was presented to the American Military Tribunal in the Einsatzgruppen Trial, the Supreme Soviet in the Crimea consisted of 50% Jews, and the People's Commissariat consisted of 40% Jews.

Jewish participation in the People's Commissariats:
school system.............80%............16-fold over-representation
health system..............80%............16-fold

(For this calculation the Jewish portion of the total population was assumed to be at least 5%. Other estimates calculate with 6%.)

Especially strong was the Jewish participation as secret police and as political commissars attached to military units. The High Commissar of the Federation of Peoples of Danzig and later President of the International Red Cross, Professor Burckhardt, reports that the Polish Minister-President Slavoy-Skladkovsy stated in a conversation that 90% of all Communists in Poland were Jews and 60% of all Polish Jews were Communists.

This strong judaization of the Polish Communist Party made the identification of Jewry and Bolshevism seem immediately credible in Poland; perhaps this judaization was also largely a reaction of the Jewish population to the anti-Semitic measures of the clerical-authoritarian Polish leadership class, which at the same time had a radical anti-Communist orientation. Here Jewish and Communist interests seemed largely to overlap.

Such facts had to be propagandistically distorted and exaggerated in order to be able then, in the struggle over life and death, to deal with the Red Army -- especially with the partisans -- Jews and commissars, Jews and partisans, as a unity.

In a number of orders of the OKW and OKH, and of the Heeresgruppen and Armees of the Ostheer that were cited at Nuremberg, Jewry and Bolshevism are therefore designated and attacked as the most dangerous enemies. One can justly assess these representations only if one considers that in the east the same circumstances did not govern as on other fronts; rather it was a permanent war-emergency, in which all civilized laws of war, other than strength, had been set aside long ago.

In an order of the Army High Command (OKW) from 18 June 1941 the representation of the unity of Jewry and Communism appears especially drastic:

"Germany's opponents are not the peoples of the Soviet Union, but exclusively the Jewish-Bolshevik Soviet Government with its functionaries, and the Communist Party, which works toward world revolution."

Nevertheless the Wehrmacht did not immediately take part in the Jew-hostile anti-terror, but on the contrary, repeatedly stemmed and often even prevented pogroms of the population liberated from Bolshevist oppression. Certainly they could not avoid being aware that these pogroms were not just inhuman madness, but the spontaneous outbreak of retaliation in a population that, amid the retreat of the Red Army and the NKVD troops, grasped the first opportunity to avenge itself on its tormentors, and in the frenzy of retribution wanted to make Jewry pay for all sufferings that they had endured under Soviet terror. Collective terror brought collective retaliation.

The Warsaw Uprising*** led to Jewry's most serious losses. It could be suppressed only by military means. Here warfare was waged on both sides, in which not only Jewish men, but even Jewish women and children remorselessly committed themselves, and were combatted just as brutally. In vain had the Jewish side hoped for Polish and Soviet help. The frightful consequences are known, since over 500,000 Jews had lived in the Warsaw Ghetto.****

Open warfare however remained the exception, partisan warfare the rule. Terror and counter-terror supported the assumption of the far-reaching identity of Jews, partisans, saboteurs, spies, and snipers.

As effective as the equation Bolshevism = Jewry may have been in war-propaganda, in its military results it recoiled on its authors. Necessarily the nationalist and slavic-imperialist forces of the Soviet Power were thereby dangerously underestimated.***** Whatever pretexts and causes one can adduce for the struggle of the Einsatzgruppen, it remains the shocking fact that in the defense against partisans one adapted to the level of the enemies as one punished the strong participation of Jewish elements in the Bolshevik terror with collective liquidation of defenseless Jewish civilian population, and thereby committed war-crimes which are as unjustifiable as the mass-slaughter of defenseless Germans in the east, and the terror-bombing in the west.

Since 1945, however, wherever the West had to fight against the same enemy, against the same degenerate methods of warfare, it has come to such brutal retaliatory operations. In Nuremberg one knows only the retaliation, not the provocation.

* This kind of explanation for why so many Jews have been leftist revolutionaries amounts to an apology for the Jews. The identification of Jews with leftist revolution antedates the 1917 Bolshevik takeover in Russia by well over a century, and it was by no means limited to Russia. Jews had an interest in the overthrow of all true monarchies because of the penchant of absolute monarchs for expelling all Jews periodically. The French author Édouard Drumont argued that Jews had been heavily involved in the French Revolution. Circumstantially, it seems likely, since the importance of Freemasonry in various revolutions is generally admitted and the doctrine of the higher degrees of Freemasonry, above the third degree, is largely Jewish Cabalism. Freemasonry is also heavily populated with Jews. A famous Jewish Freemason was Moses Hess, mentor of Karl Marx. A well known revolutionary conspirator of the 18th century was Adam "Spartacus" Weishaupt, head of the quasi-Masonic "Bavarian Illuminati," whose doctrine included key points that later appeared in Marxism.

** The Council of the People's Commissars is what the government of the Soviet Union was called immediately following the Bolshevik takeover. The name was invented by Leon Trotsky (born Bronstein).

*** Härtle means the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising of 18 January to 16 May 1943, not to be confused with the Warsaw Uprising staged by the Polish Home Army 1 August to 2 October 1944. The Warsaw Ghetto Uprising was caused by the false rumor that Jews deported from Warsaw to Treblinka were being exterminated there instead of simply being made to work.

**** Härtle seems to imply that all 500,000 residents of the Warsaw Ghetto were killed. This could only be the case if one assumes that the Jews deported from the Ghetto were killed. By the time of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising most of the Jews had been deported. The Jewish death toll in the uprising was only 13,000. Another 50,000 surrendered at the end, and they were not all killed, as is proven by the existence of Marek Edelman, who wrote a book about his experience in the uprising.

***** The Germans probably could have done more to secure Slavic support, but the primary methods used by the Soviet Government to motivate opposition to the German invasion seemed to have little to do with nationalism or pan-Slavic sentiment. Most notable is the deployment of military commissars with submachineguns with instructions to shoot anyone who tried to retreat. Solzhenitsyn wrote that the Russian peasants at first welcomed the Germans as liberators but then became disenchanted when they were not allowed to leave the collective farms.

09 October 2008

How the Head Zionist hurt and the Kriegsmarine helped Jews

Weizmann prevents Salvation

from Freispruch für Deutschland by Heinrich Härtle, 1965; translated by Hadding Scott, 2008.
While leading circles of German Jewry wanted to use this opportunity, the President of the World Jewish Congress, Chaim Weizmann, sitting in London, strongly opposed any Jewish emigration from Germany that did not have Palestine as its destination. The Jewish writer J.G. Burg reports in his book Schuld und Schicksal (Guilt and Destiny), uncontradicted and unrefuted since its publication (in 1962) three years ago, the following: the longtime advisor of the English General Allenby, Colonel Meinertzhagen1, an expert on Palestine, was in Berlin in 1934 with Hitler trying to obtain facilitations for Jewish emigration. Hitler declared his agreement that Jews should be able to emigrate with 1000 English pounds or goods worth 20,000 reichsmarks. When however Meinertzhagen informed Chaim Weizmann of this opportunity, Weizmann made impossible counterdemands: they should be able to take along all Jewish wealth. The Englishman traveled again to Berlin for a further discussion with Hitler, Ribbentrop, and Hess. Ribbentrop assured him that the Reich Government was ready to agree with every reasonable proposal for Jewish emigration, but could not negotiate with Weizmann or other Jews. He suggested that some government should function as a trustee for the Jews.
When Meinertzhagen reported this to Weizmann, the Zionist leader flew into a rage and responded:

"It would bother me little if cholera or Bolshevism2 came over Germany. As far as I am concerned both plagues can come over the Germans.... I would sooner see the demise of the German Jews than the demise of the State of Israel for the Jews."

Burg deduces from this that Weizmann only wanted to realize his Zionist concept, without regard for the fate of the German Jews.

How strong the will of the Reich Government was even at the end of 1938, after the disastrous Kristallnacht, to actualize not the extermination but the emigration of the Jews, is proven by the dispatch of an international authority such as the Reichsbank president Dr. Schacht to London. Schacht had presented to Hitler the proposal to start an international board of trustees for control of the seized Jewish assets, into which Jews should be accepted. As security for this capital an international loan in U.S. currency should be issued, equivalent to 1.5 billion marks. From this pool every Jewish emigrant would receive an amount which would make it possible to build a new life outside of Germany.

Hitler approved the plan and authorized Dr. Schacht to begin negotiations in London. Reichsbank President Dr. Schacht informed the Governor of the Bank of England, [Montagu] Norman, and the American, [George] Rublee, from the Evian Committee3. Both agreed with the plan. The Reichsbank President however ran into the decisive rejection of his proposal by Chaim Weizmann. Burg comments:

"With that, one of the greatest chances for the salvation of German Jewry was squandered, mainly because Chaim Weizmann did not approve."

The German Government did not allow itself to become discouraged through these failures and the negative reports from Evian. On 31 January 1939 Goering wrote to Ribbentrop that Jewish emigration from Germany should be encouraged with all means, and a Reich Center for Jewish Emigration should be created. The Foreign Office inquired in all diplomatic agencies abroad about what possibilities for immigration existed in each country. The wealth should be transferred through German government bonds.

Madam Professor Arendt confirms that even in the first years of the war "the Hitler Government was still willing to let Jews go." Only two years later, she says, in Fall 1941, was emigration forbidden.

If it was not possible to have the majority of the remaining Jews emigrate before the broadening of the European War into the Second World War, the primary blame goes, after Chaim Weizmann, to the English Government. In March 1939 that government had decided that only another 75,000 more Jews total would be allowed to immigrate to Palestine for the next five years.

Even [David] Ben-Gurion himself could not ignore this fateful decision. In an interview with the Israeli newspaper Yediot Achronot in April 1961, while the Eichmann Trial was still going on, he confirms that a heavy share of the guilt lies on the West4, since France, Great Britain, and the USA neglected to save Jews from annihilation. This applies especially to Britain, he said, since the governments of Chamberlain, Eden, and Churchill had been able to save Jews who were trying to escape to Palestine. (Palestine was at that time under the British Mandate administration, which however blocked immigration for Jewish refugees.)

Why were these harsh but humanly justifiable attempts to solve the Jewish Question through emigration suppressed at Nuremberg? And why, at least in the sentencing, were they calmly ignored? The harshness of those measures could not justify it: for these accusing and judging Powers at the same time not only tolerated but even demanded the expulsion, forced with the greatest brutality, of millions of Ostdeutscher.5

The efforts toward Jewish emigration, conducted without regard to the disadvantages for the national economy and monetary policy by a financial expert of the rank of Dr. Schacht, prove that in the pre-war period and in the first years of the war nobody seriously thought about the physical annihilation of German Jewry, or indeed of European Jewry. For the living witnesses of this evolving situation, the emigrations, which everybody could observe, were the incontrovertible confirmation that no murderous solution of the Jewish Question had been intended.

This is proven even more strongly however by the fact that the Reich Government with these emigration projects had taken upon itself an extremely dangerous political and public relations burden. For, every Jew who emigrated involuntarily, especially the strong of character among them, must become, from this moment on, an irreconcilable enemy of the Germans. With every Jew who emigrated, an enemy of the Reich entered those countries which prepared themselves more and more obviously for a clash of arms against the German superpower. If ever there was a fifth column6 against Germany, every Jewish emigrant surely strengthened it.

If one took such a risk upon oneself, it was proven that one wished to have Germany Jew-free at any price, but in no way was it proven that one had run wild with some crazy plan of extermination.

In a recently (1965) published historical inquiry by Juergen Rohwer over the sinking of the Jewish refugee-ships Struma and Mefkure in the Black Sea, it is proven that both Jew-ships had not been sunk by the German Navy as has been claimed until now.7

"After as before, Jews were able to leave the country from the Black Sea ports. Even more: the Supreme Commander of the Kriegsmarine, Grand Admiral Doenitz, even gave orders not to hinder the Jew-transports Bella Citta, Maritza, and Milka departing from Costanza (Romania) in March and April 1944, but to treat them as normal ships."8

The German Naval leadership instructed German U-boats to tow those three ships past the mine barrages. It was Soviet warships, on the other hand, that sunk the Struma and the Mefkure.

1. Colonel Richard Meinertzhagen, General Allenby's "expert on Palestine," was himself at least partly of Jewish extraction.

2. European Jews at the time were viewed as carriers of disease as well as Bolshevism, which is probably why Weiszmann mentions cholera. He is referring to two of the Germans' reasons for wanting the Jews out.

3. The Evian Conference was an international conference convened 6-13 July 1938 in Evian, France to consider the question of how to deal with involuntary emigrants. The Evian Committee was set up at this conference. George Rublee, an important U.S. banker, was a member of the committee.

4. The author Härtle does not directly challenge the assumption that Jews were exterminated; rather he argues that it resulted because other efforts to solve the Jewish Problem were blocked. Therefore he argues for spreading the blame, and he conveniently finds Israeli Prime Minister Ben-Gurion making that same argument quite logically, although from a different motive. It has been in the Jewish interest to spread Holocaust-guilt because this guilt becomes a source of power for Jews, which they use to the detriment of the rest of the world. The Allies' endorsement of the Jewish attribution of guilt to the Germans has had adverse effects on many countries other than Germany, not least among them, the UK and the USA, which have tended to support the State of Israel and its causes rather mindlessly. Some of the other guilt-driven follies, like anti-racism, have been even more destructive. It is German guilt as a premise that has to be rejected. Härtle goes as far in that direction as the evidence available in 1965 allowed; he points out the extreme bias of the IMT version of history in many respects, and alludes toward the end of this section that there might be something wrong with the claim of Jewish extermination per se.

5. Ostdeutscher here means Germans who had lived in the parts of Germany that were given to Poland and Czechoslovakia in 1945. Germans from communities that had existed for centuries all over eastern Europe were forced to flee into what was left of Germany. What was called East Germany in the postwar period used to be the center of Germany.

6. This is a strange use of the term fifth column. Fifth column usually means a sympathetic faction among one's enemies, but here it means a corrupting faction among people who should be friends. What both uses of the term denote is a minority faction with an interest in a conflict that runs counter to the interest of the society in which they live.

7. The Struma had actually reached Turkey, towed into port with a failed engine. But after nine weeks of negotiations with Britain about where the passengers should go and how they would get there, the Turks towed the ship and its passengers back out to sea and left them. Although registered in neutral Panama, the Struma was sunk by the Soviet submarine SC 213 on 24 February 1942, killing 768 people, with only one survivor. The Turkish ship Mefkure was sunk by the Soviet submarine SC 215 on 5 August 1944, killing 345 people.

8. At this point, using the argument that Härtle has applied repeatedly hitherto, which is the logical incompatibility of Jewish emigration and a plan of extermination, we now get a hint that very late in the war, as late as April 1944, there still was no plan of extermination. Otherwise the German Government would not still have been facilitating the departure of Jews from Europe at that time.

Germans versus Jews, 1938

"In the struggle for life and death there is no legality." - Winston Churchill

from Freispruch für Deutschland by Heinrich Härtle, 1965; translation by Hadding Scott, 2008.

Forewarnings of the Catastrophe

In the second half of the year 1938 international tensions sharpened, and the Czech mobilization evoked a danger of war which, in combination with the overt war-agitation in an influential part of the western press, also seriously burdened German-Jewish relations. When, after a series of murderous assaults against representatives of the German Reich abroad, the young Polish Jew Gruenspan murdered the embassy advisor [Ernst] vom Rath in Paris, it came on 9 November 1938 to the so-called "Kristallnacht," the first pogrom in German history in centuries.

It could be proven before the International Military Tribunal that this was not, as in earlier pogroms, especially in Slavic states, about a spontaneous outburst of popular rage, rather this operation was forced on the chain of command, without the knowledge of the party leadership and most ministers, by Goebbels and radical elements in the SA leadership, supported by the police. Demonstrably, almost all members of the Cabinet, the national leaders of the NSDAP, and Hitler himself repudiated these mad actions. After the mischief had been done, it was believed on the grounds of statecraft and political prestige that it was necessary to cover the action and to present the Jews as the scapegoat. Instead of calling to account those guilty for the damage which they had caused for Germany domestically and abroad, laws and measures were enacted which made the situation of Jewry in Germany unbearable. *

Deprivation of Rights

Nevertheless, no serious consequences were derived from this exacerbation, even abroad. This may partly be explained as follows: the anti-German propaganda had already portrayed the situation of the Jews as so bad, that these measures could no longer cause surprise. Many also compared the anti-Semitic violence with the harshness that had been applied a few years earlier against the Roehm Revolt. One compared the 35 deaths of the "Kristallnacht" with the remorselessness with which the government of that time had proceeded against Hitler's veteran and valiant fellow strugglers, especially in the SA. They had received much more brutal treatment than the "Jewish Global Enemy." The so-called "St. Bartholomew's Day massacre"** of 1934 claimed ten times as many victims from the Germans as the "Kristallnacht" of 1938 from the Jews.

No doubt, with that, the soil of legality was left behind, and measures were taken which were no longer commensurate even with the Program of the NSDAP. The deterioration of Germany's international relations to the point of a danger of war then diverted the German public from anti-Semitic excesses to its own struggle for survival.

As critically as one must judge the first Jew-hostile actions of the pre-war period, however, one will nevertheless be able to establish that originally no destruction of the Jews was planned, neither in Germany nor in Europe or indeed in the World.

In this regard the Soviet Chief Prosecutor Rudenko exaggerates to the point of absurdity, as he asserts on 8 February 1946:

"The fascist conspirators had planned the extermination of the Jews of the World to the last man, and carried out this annihilation during the whole time of their conspiracy since 1933."

That the extermination of the Jewry of the World presupposes a German world-government, no normal man will doubt. It is also because of this that it was necessary to attribute to the German People, as the most mendacious claim of war-propaganda, that they were striving for world domination. No less absurd is his assertion that the extermination of all Jews in the whole world was already being conducted from 1933 to 1939. The representative of the most anti-human system of government in modern times needed to attribute such insane brutality to the German leadership.

Nevertheless it was also not permitted to him, according to the laws of logic, to regard the members of the Reich Government as so idiotic that they promoted Jewish emigration with all available means, so as to be able at the same time to exterminate the same Jews.

One need only object to this crazed zealot that the radical anti-Semitic organ of the pre-war period, der Stuermer, had been banned for the Hitler Youth by [Baldur von] Schirach. Jewish civil servants who had to be let go after the new laws were able to draw their pensions until shortly before the outbreak of the war.

The Reichskommissar for the Netherlands, Dr. Seyss-Inquart, was able to prove to the court that Jewish civil servants who had to be let go received their pensions until March 1941.

The more events developed toward war, the more radical the anti-Semitic measures became, and approached to that state which both Churchill and Goering identified with the observation: "In the struggle of a people over life and death there is no legality."***

Above all, however, the soldiers and officers of the Wehrmacht in this period of rising bellicosity had to consider even the anti-Jewish actions in the context of war.

Speaking freely in Nuremberg, the leader of German broadcast media in the war, Ministerialdirektor Hans Fritzsche, declares under oath as a witness on the Jewish Question:

"I wished a limitation of the overwhelming influence of Jewry on German politics, economy, and culture after the First World War, a limitation that corresponded to the numerical portion of the Jews in Germany's population."

Fritzsche thereby declares what was the conviction of the overwhelming majority of the German people and its Wehrmacht.

When, in place of the immigration restrictions demanded here, the general segregation of Jews and Germans was elevated into law, emigration increased, which the Government (as far as the extreme difficulty of exchanging currency permitted****) sought to promote.

Emigration and Extermination are incompatible. The annihilation would indeed have been realizable only if the Jews had remained in the German and European sphere of control. Had a plan of annihilation actually existed at that time, force would have been used to prevent the Jews from emigrating.

* Härtle here was accepting the standard account of who was responsible for Kristallnacht. There are reasons to doubt this account, detailed in Ingrid Weckert's book Flashpoint. A brief discussion by Weckert may be read on the IHR website.

** The real St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre was a massacre of several thousand Huguenots by French Catholics that began on St. Bartholomew's Day (24 August) 1572 and lasted several months. There is really no comparison between this and the Night of the Long Knives, which lasted only a few days (30 June - 2 July 1934) and included 85 known summary executions. Härtle uses the word sogenannte (so-called) in front of "St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre" for a reason. The metaphor is an example of gross hyperbole. As is often the case with events from the Third Reich, however, speculation about additional, undocumented killings has run rampant, multiplying the documented number. The known death toll of Kristallnacht (35 dead) has also been augmented with speculation, as one might expect.

*** Churchill said, "In the struggle for life and death there is no legality." Goering's version, translated above, is, "Im Kampf eines Volkes auf Leben und Tod gibt es keine Legalität."

**** Germany had great difficulty obtaining foreign currency because of the worldwide Jewish boycott of German goods. The London Daily Express of March 24, 1933 bore this headline: "Judea Declares War on Germany - Jews of All the World Unite - Boycott of German Goods - Mass Deportations."

Madagascar or Auschwitz?

from Freispruch für Deutschland by Heinrich Härtle, 1965;
translation by Hadding Scott, 2008.
Lido lhe no português
Until 1942 German officials intended to make Madagascar into a Jewish homeland.

Until the first years of the war, a plan was being contemplated, and already prepared, which again proves strikingly that a Zionist solution, rather than extermination, was being attempted: the Madagascar Project. It pops up in Nuremberg during the interrogation of the reporter for the Reich Propaganda Ministry, [Moritz] von Schirrmeister.

"Dr. Fritz: Mr. Witness! To where were the Jews being evacuated according to the statement of Dr. Goebbels?

Von Schirrmeister: Up until and perhaps including the first year of the Russian Campaign Dr. Goebbels mentioned the Madagascar Plan repeatedly in the conferences that he conducted. Later he changed that and said that a new Jewish state should be created in the east, into which the Jews would then come."

The interrogation of Ribbentrop moreover confirms the existence of the Madagascar Plan in 1942:

"Von Ribbentrop: The Fuehrer back then had the plan either to evacuate the Jews from Europe to North Africa-- There was also talk of Madagascar. He gave me an order to approach various governments and if possible to bring about the emigration of the Jews."

Madam Professor Arendt reports that in September 1939 there was a desire, similar to that in the Soviet Union*, to found an autonomous Jewish state in Poland. In September 1939, Eichmann and Dr. Stahlecker had contemplated the plan of separating a territory as large as possible in Poland, and to proclaim it an autonomous Jewish state, a protectorate. They went to Heydrich, who agreed with the plan and asked them to proceed.

The Madagascar Plan was, then, the further attempt to find a solution not essentially hostile to Zionism. Eichmann wanted "to get solid ground and soil under the feet of the Jews." The plan to evacuate 4 million Jews from Europe to the French island off the southeast coast of Africa originated in the Foreign Office and then was passed on to the RSHA.** Eichmann always maintained that his plan already had been dreamed before by the Jewish pioneer of the Jewish state idea, Theodor Herzl.

This dream was certainly dreamed not only by Herzl, but also by the Polish Government, which in the year 1937 established a commission to examine whether it might not be possible to freight the 3 million Polish Jews off to Madagascar.

Even Georges Bonnet, the French Foreign Minister, contemplated the project of shoving off France's roughly 200,000 foreign Jews into the French colonies; he conferred about this project with his German colleague Ribbentrop in 1938.

Hannah Arendt summarizes:

"In any case, in summer 1940, as his emigration project had come to a complete standstill, Eichmann was advised to work out a detailed plan for the evacuation of four million Jews to Madagascar, and until the beginning of the campaign against Russia this project seems to have claimed the majority of his time."

Madam Professor Arendt, who in various passages is unable to resist tendentious applications of collective guilt to the German People, naturally detects that the Madagascar Project destroys the laboriously construed "Plan of Annihilation." Later therefore she wished to portray it as a "camouflage for extermination." For what purpose such a camouflage should have been necessary and important, she is not able convincingly to explain. Ultimately her witness Eichmann refutes her delusion, since he, who always frankly admitted his transgression, affirms to the end that that the Madagascar Plan was readied by the competent agencies and had to be abandoned only with the broadening of the war.

An interesting argument of this otherwise so clever authoress, is that the transport of millions of Jews back then would have been infeasible because England's fleet ruled the Atlantic. Does she mean thereby to say that the English Government by military might had prevented the salvation of millions of Jews?

With that she merely proves in her manner that war and the Jewish Problem were inseparably chained to each other. If the German peace offers -- to England and France after the Polish War, and to England after the victory over France -- had been accepted, all political and military prerequisites in regard to France, to whose empire Madagascar belonged, would have been secured for solving the Jewish problem through this project without loss of human life.

After the entry of America and the Soviet Union into the war it was too late. On the 5th of May 1942 the English occupied Madagascar, in a surprise attack without respect for France.
The Jewish author [Joseph G.] Burg confirms that not only the emigration agencies but also the German Foreign Ministry worked for the realization of the Madagascar Project:

"Diplomatic advisor [Franz] Rademacher, who took over the Office of Jewish Emigration in 1939, personally reported to Hitler that support for the Zionists was endangering the traditional German-Arab relations. Already on 15 August 1940 the Madagascar Plan was set in writing. A month earlier, on 12 July 1940, a detailed plan for Jewish emigration had been recorded in a protocol by the Government of the Reich."

Furthermore the Madagascar Plan pops up in Hitlers' Tabletalk.

It is certainly not proven that the compiler, Dr. Henry Picker, reproduces the exact wording of the conversations. Probably various expressions are tendentiously exaggerated. With his mentality, however, certainly Picker had no motive to alter the factual content in this case.
There, on 24 July 1942, Hitler took a position on the Jewish Question as follows:

"In this Second World War, as a struggle over life and death, let it never be forgotten that World Jewry, following the declaration of war by the World Zionist Congress and its leader Chaim Weizmann (in his message to England's Prime Minister Chamberlain), is the most inexorable opponent of National-Socialism, enemy number one. Jewry woos Europe economically, but Europe must refuse out of holy egoism, since Jewry is racially tougher. After the conclusion of the war let Europe take a rigorous stand on the position that city after city will be smashed if the trash-Jews don't come out and migrate to Madagascar or some other Jewish nation-state." ***

As shocking as the rabid language of Hitler appears, this passage offers no proof whatsoever for a plan of extermination, neither for wartime nor for the postwar period.

On 17 June 1941 Hitler discussed Madagascar in a conversation with Mussolini. It was even one of the preconditions for the peace treaty with France, that France must cede the colony Madagascar as territory for a Jewish state.**** Yet again on 21 August 1942 the Madagascar Plan pops up in a note from Undersecretary of State Luther in the Foreign Office.*****

In a comparison between Madagascar and Palestine, the founding of a Jewish nation-state on this island appears incomparably more auspicious. Rendered fanatical by religio-political messianism, the Zionist leadership wanted to found a Jewish state precisely where it could only be imposed by war and must permanently be threatened by the danger of war on all sides. In contrast, the realization of the Madagascar Plan would have been by far less dangerous, economically more reasonable, richer in prospects, and politically less risky.

If this had been accomplished, it would never have come to an Auschwitz!

William S. Schlamm writes correctly that Israel can become secure against the Arab opposition only with a population of 5-6 million.

If however this state of 2 million was only able to be founded and hitherto maintained because foreign powers prevented the Arabs from driving back the Jewish invaders, how could those people be ready to wait patiently until the Jews had tripled their number?

Some figures prove the dangerousness of this experiment! The Arab neighbors of Israel number about 70 million in a space of 7,800,000 square kilometers. Israel on the other hand has only 2 million inhabitants on about 20,000 square kilometers. And behind the Arab enemies of Israel stand another 400 million likeminded Moslems.

Compare with that Madagascar, the fourth largest island in the world, with about 600,000 square kilometers, three times as large as Britain, 20 times larger than Belgium! Southern Madagascar, which, with 240,000 square kilometers is twelve times as large as Palestine, conceals virgin land, rich soil, and favorable prospects for agriculture and cattle ranching.

Incomparably more advantageous in any case than the current Zionist territory!

Certainly there will hardly ever again be offered such favorable opportunities for a Jewish nation-state on Madagascar as in 1940-41.

* The Jewish Republic of Birobidzhan existed 1934-1940 as part of the USSR.

**The RSHA was the Reich Security Head Office, which presided over all police and security organizations in Germany and was headed by Reinhard Heydrich. The Jews were considered a security problem.

*** This passage was omitted from English-language editions of Hitler's Table Talk. Clearly it poses a problem for proponents of the Holocaust Story. Heinz Peter Longerich, a supporter of Deborah Lipstadt, offers the following unlikely exegesis: "Hitler's statements after this point, i.e. from the Summer of 1942 on - about possible 'resettlement projects' - are unquestionably diversions meant to deceive his listeners; for example, his remarks at his dinner table on 24 July 1942, when he tried to make his listeners (consisting of personal aids and private guests) believe that the "Führer" had nothing to do with the rumoured murder of the Jews." http://www.hdot.org/trial/defense/pl1/18

**** Franz Rademacher's memo of 3 July 1940, "The Jewish Question in the Peace Treaty," is easily found online. Rademacher says: "In the Peace Treaty France must make the island of Madagascar available for the solution of the Jewish question, and to resettle and compensate the approximately 25,000 French citizens living there. The island will be transferred to Germany under a mandate." Although an armistice had been signed on 25 June 1940, no peace treaty between France and Germany was actually ratified during World War II. Nonetheless, according to anecdotal information that I have, some Jews did emigrate from German-controlled Europe to the anticipated Jewish homeland of Madagascar in the period 1940-1942.

***** Apparently Härtle was referring to this document without having it in front of him. While it is true that Luther discusses the Madagascar Plan in his narrative of the history of the Third Reich's grappling with the Jewish Problem, the official translation in the Truman Library (Nuremberg document NG-2586-J) contains this sentence: "The Madagascar Plan in fact has been outdated as the result of the political development." It confirms that there had been an intention to have Europe's Jews emigrate to Madagascar, but the intention was no longer active by 21 August 1942, the date of the memorandum. Instead Jews were being deported provisionally to the General Government and thence to "conquered Eastern territories." Since Luther's memorandum does not support the implication that Madagascar was still under consideration as a Jewish homeland later than Hitler's mention of it in July 1942, it should not have been cited in that context.