MYTH OF GUN CONTROL IN GERMANY, 1928-1945

Vorbeimarsch des  Volkssturms an Goebbels, Berlin

by Dr. William L. Pierce

A common belief among defenders of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is that the National Socialist government of Germany under Adolf Hitler did not permit the private ownership of firearms. Totalitarian governments, they have been taught in their high school civics classes, do not trust their citizens and do not dare permit them to keep firearms. Thus, one often hears the statement, “You know, the first thing the Nazis did when they came to power was outlaw firearms,” or, “The first thing Hitler did in Germany was round up all the guns.”

One can understand why many American gun owners want to believe this. They see in the current effort of their own government to take away their right to keep and bear arms a limitation of an essential element of their freedom and a move toward tyranny, and they want to characterize the gun-grabbers in the most negative way they can. Adolf Hitler has been vilified continuously for the past 60 years or so by the mass media in America, and certainly no politician or officeholder wants to be compared with him. If the gun-confiscation effort can be portrayed convincingly as something of which Hitler would have approved, it will have been effectively tarred.

This identification of the inclination to deny citizens the right to keep and bear arms with National Socialism and Adolf Hitler has been strengthened recently by clever magazine advertisements which show Hitler with his arm outstretched in a Roman salute under a heading: “All in favor of gun control raise your right hand.” A Jewish group, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO), quite noisy for its size, has been especially zealous in promoting the idea that the current gun-control effort in America has its roots in Germany during the Hitler period. This group has gone so far as to claim in several articles published in popular magazines read by firearms enthusiasts that the current restrictive legislation being proposed by the U.S. government is modeled on a gun-control statute enacted by Germany’s National Socialist government: the German Weapons Law (Waffengesetz) of March 18, 1938.

Again, one can understand the motivation of the JPFO. Many non-Jewish firearms owners are well aware that the movement to restrict their rights is led and promoted primarily by Jews, and anti-Jewish feeling has been growing among them. They know that the controlled news media, which are almost unanimously in favor of abridging or abolishing the Second Amendment, are very much under the influence of Jews, and they know that the most vocal anti-gun legislators in the Congress also are Jews. It is natural for a group such as the JPFO to mount a damage- control effort and attempt to prevent anti-Jewish feeling from becoming even stronger among gun owners. Their strategy is to deflect the blame from their kinsmen in the media and the government and direct it onto their most hated enemies, the National Socialists — or at least to create enough smoke to obscure the facts and keep the gun-owning public confused.

Unfortunately for those who would like to link Hitler and the National Socialists with gun control, the entire premise for such an effort is false. German firearms legislation under Hitler, far from banning private ownership, actually facilitated the keeping and bearing of arms by German citizens by eliminating or ameliorating restrictive laws which had been enacted by the government preceding his: a left-center government which had contained a number of Jews.

grip

It is not just that the National Socialist firearms legislation was the opposite of what it has been claimed to have been by persons who want to tar modern gun-grabbers with the “Nazi” brush: the whole spirit of Hitler’s government was starkly different from its portrayal by America’s mass media. The facts, in brief, are these:

  • The National Socialist government of Germany, unlike the government in Washington today, did not fear its citizens. Adolf Hitler was the most popular leader Germany has ever had. Unlike American presidents, he did not have to wear body armor and have shields of bulletproof glass in front of him whenever he spoke in public. At public celebrations he rode standing in an open car as it moved slowly through cheering crowds. Communists made several attempts to assassinate him, and his government stamped down hard on communism, virtually wiping it out in Germany. Between upright, law-abiding German citizens and Adolf Hitler, however, there was a real love affair, with mutual trust and respect.
  • The spirit of National Socialism was one of manliness, and individual self-defense and self- reliance were central to the National Socialist view of the way a citizen should behave. The notion of banning firearms ownership was utterly alien to National Socialism. In the German universities, where National Socialism gained its earliest footholds and which later became its strongest bastions, dueling was an accepted practice. Although the liberal-Jewish governments in Germany after the First World War attempted to ban dueling, it persisted illegally until it was again legalized by the National Socialists. Fencing, target shooting, and other martial arts were immensely popular in Germany, and the National Socialists encouraged young Germans to become proficient in these activities, believing that they were important for the development of a man’s character.
  • Gun registration and licensing (for long guns as well as for handguns) were legislated by an anti-National Socialist government in Germany in 1928, five years before the National Socialists gained power. Hitler became Chancellor on January 30, 1933. Five years later his government got around to rewriting the gun law enacted a decade earlier by his predecessors, substantially amel ior a ting it in the process (for example, long guns were exempted from the requirement for a purchase permit; the legal age for gun ownership was lowered from 20 to 18 years; the period of validity of a permit to carry weapons was extended from one to three years; and provisions restricting the amount of ammunition or the number of firearms an individual could own were dropped). Hitler’s government may be criticized for leaving certain restrictions and licensing requirements in the law, but the National Socialists had no intention of preventing law-abiding Germans from keeping or bearing arms. Again, the firearms law enacted by Hitler’s government enhanced the rights of Germans to keep and bear arms; no new restrictions were added, and many pre-existing restrictions were relaxed or eliminated.
  • At the end of the Second World War, American GIs in the occupying force were astounded to discover how many German civilians owned private firearms. Tens of thousands of pistols looted from German homes by GIs were brought back to the United States after the war. In 1945 General Eisenhower ordered all privately owned firearms in the American occupation zone of Germany confiscated, and Germans were required to hand in their shotguns and rifles as well as any handguns which had not already been stolen. In the Soviet occupation zone German civilians were summarily shot if they were found in possession of even a single cartridge.

Jews, it should be noted, were not Germans, even if they had been born in Germany. The National Socialists defined citizenship in ethnic terms, and under Hitler Jews were not accorded full rights of citizenship. National Socialist legislation progressively excluded Jews from key professions: teaching, the media, the practice of law, etc. The aim was not only to free German life from an oppressive and degenerative Jewish influence, but to persuade Jews to emigrate. The German Weapons Law of March 18, 1938, specifically excluded Jews from manufacturing or dealing in firearms or munitions, but it did not exclude them from owning or bearing personal firearms. The exclusion of Jews from the firearms business rankled them as much as any other exclusion, and in their typically ethnocentric fashion they have misrepresented the law involved as an anti-gun law in an effort to cast their enemies in a bad light.
It should be noted in passing that the restrictions placed on Jews by the National Socialists had the intended effect: between 1933 and 1939 two-thirds of the Jews residing in Germany emigrated, reducing the Jewish population of the country from 600,000 when Hitler became Chancellor in 1933 to 200,000 at the outbreak of the Second World War in 1939. Jews in the United States, looking at this period from their own narrowly focused viewpoint, have described these peacetime years of the National Socialist government as a time of darkness, terror, and regression, whereas for the German people it was a time of hope, joy, and spiritual and material renewal.

Much the same type of distortion is seen in the portrayal of the United States in the early 1950s: the so-called “McCarthy Era.” Senator Joseph McCarthy (Republican, Wisconsin) used his position as chairman of the Senate’s Government Operations Committee to expose the widespread communist infiltration of the U.S. government and other U.S. institutions which had taken place during the Second World War. A substantial majority of the communists who were dragged reluctantly out into the light of day by his efforts were Jews. As a result, the controlled media always have portrayed the period as one of terror and repression, when everyone was frightened of Senator McCarthy’s “witch-hunt.” Of course, it was nothing of the sort to non-Jewish Americans, who were not intimidated in the least. History viewed through a Jewish lens — i.e., through media controlled by Jews — always is distorted in a way corresponding to Jewish interests and concerns.

WEHRMACHT-GERMAN-SOLDIERS-WW2-SECOND-WORLD-WAR-RARE-UNSEEN-PICTURES-IMAGES-009

Both the German Weapons Law of March 18, 1938, enacted by the National Socialists, and the Law on Firearms and Ammunition of April 12, 1928, which was enacted by an anti-National Socialist government, are given below in full, first in facsimile and then in English translation. A little background information first, however, may help the reader to understand their significance. After Germany’s defeat in the First World War (a defeat in which Germany’s Jews played no small part, demoralizing the home front with demonstrations and other subversive activity much as they did in America during the Vietnam war), the Kaiser abdicated, and liberals and leftists seized control of the government in 1918. Hitler, recovering in a military hospital from a British poison-gas attack which had blinded him temporarily, made the decision to go into politics and fight against the traitors he felt were responsible for Germany’s distress.

The tendency of Germany’s new rulers after the First World War was much the same as it is for the liberals in America today: they promoted cosmopolitanism, internationalism, and egalitarianism. By 1923 economic conditions in Germany had become catastrophic, and there was much public unrest. The communists had made major inroads into the labor movement and were a growing threat to the country.

Hitler had indeed gone into politics, and his National Socialists battled the communists in the streets of Germany’s cities and gradually came to be seen by many patriotic Germans in the working class and the middle class as the only force which could save Germany from a communist takeover and total ruin. Hitler’s National Socialists continued to win recruits and gain strength during the 1920s. The communists, with aid from the Soviet Union, also continued to grow. The political situation became increasingly unstable as the government lost popular support.

The government’s response was to substantially tighten up restrictions on the rights of German citizens to keep and bear arms. The Law on Firearms and Ammunition of April 12, 1928, was the most substantial effort in this regard. This law was enacted by a left-center government hostile to the National Socialists (the government was headed by Chancellor Wilhelm Marx and consisted of a coalition of Socialists, including many Jews, and Catholic Centrists).

Five years later, in 1933, the National Socialists were in power, Hitler headed the government, and the communist threat was crushed decisively. The National Socialists began undoing the social and economic damage done by their predecessors. Germany was restored to full employment, degeneracy and corruption were rooted out, Jews and their collaborators were removed from one facet of national life after another, and the German people entered a new era of national freedom, health, and prosperity.

post-3399-1243084625

Finally, in 1938, the National Socialist government got around to enacting a new firearms law to replace the one enacted by their opponents ten years earlier. The highlights of the 1938 law, especially as it applied to ordinary citizens rather than manufacturers or dealers, follow:

 

  • Handguns may be purchased only on submission of a Weapons Acquisition Permit (Waffenerwerbschein), which must be used within one year from the date of issue. Muzzle- loading handguns are exempted from the permit requirement. [The 1928 law had required a permit for the purchase of long guns as well, but the National Socialists dropped this requirement.]
  • Holders of a permit to carry weapons (Waffenschein) or of a hunting license do not need a Weapons Acquisition Permit in order to acquire a handgun.
  • A hunting license authorizes its bearer to carry hunting weapons and handguns.
  • Firearms and ammunition, as well as swords and knives, may not be sold to minors under the age of 18 years. [The age limit had been 20 years in the 1928 law.]
  • Whoever carries a firearm outside of his dwelling, his place of employment, his place of business, or his fenced property must have on his person a Weapons Permit (Waffenschein). A permit is not required, however, for carrying a firearm for use at a police-approved shooting range.
  • A permit to acquire a handgun or to carry firearms may only be issued to persons whose trustworthiness is not in question and who can show a need for a permit. In particular, a permit may not be issued to:

 

  1. persons under the age of 18 years;
  2. legally incompetent or mentally retarded persons;
  3. Gypsies or vagabonds;
  4. persons under mandatory police supervision [i.e., on parole] or otherwise temporarily without civil rights;
  5. persons convicted of treason or high treason or known to be engaged in activities hostile to the state;
  6. persons who for assault, trespass, a breach of the peace, resistance to authority, a criminal offense or misdemeanor, or a hunting or fishing violation were legally sentenced to a term of imprisonment of more than two weeks, if three years have not passed since the term of imprisonment.

 

  • The manufacture, sale, carrying, possession, and import of the following are prohibited:

 

  1. “trick” firearms, designed so as to conceal their function (e.g., cane guns and belt-buckle pistols);
  2. any firearm equipped with a silencer and any rifle equipped with a spotlight;
  3. cartridges with .22 caliber, hollow-point bullets.

That is the essence. Numerous other provisions of the law relate to firearms manufacturers, importers, and dealers; to acquisition and carrying of firearms by police, military, and other official personnel; to the maximum fees which can be charged for permits (3 Reichsmark); to tourists bringing firearms into Germany; and to the fines and other penalties to be levied for violations.

The requirements of “trustworthiness” and of proof of need when obtaining a permit are troubling, but it should be noted that they were simply carried over from the 1928 law: they were not formulated by the National Socialists. Under the National Socialists these requirements were interpreted liberally: a person who did not fall into one of the prohibited categories listed above was considered trustworthy, and a statement such as, “I often carry sums of money,” was accepted as proof of need.

The prohibitions of spotlight-equipped rifles and hollow-point .22 caliber ammunition were based on considerations that the former were unsporting when used for hunting, and the latter were inhumane.

Now read the German firearms laws for yourself, either in the original German exactly as they were published by the German government in the Reichsgesetzblatt or in the complete English translations which are provided here. If you want to skip over most of the legal gobbledygook and go directly to the most pertinent part of the National Socialist Firearms Law — the part pertaining to the purchase, ownership, and carrying of firearms by private citizens — turn to page 35 (Part IV of the Law). Note, as already mentioned above, that two separate and distinct types of permits are referred to: a Weapons Acquisition Permit (Waffenerwerbschein), required only for purchasing a handgun; and a Weapons Permit (Waffenschein), required for carrying any firearm in public. Interestingly enough, as also mentioned above, a hunting license could take the place of both these permits.

When you have read the two laws mentioned here, you will understand that it was Hitler’s enemies, not Hitler, who should be compared with the gun-control advocates in America today. Then as now it was the Jews, not the National Socialists, who wanted the people’s right of self- defense restricted. You will understand that those who continue to make the claim that Hitler was a gun-grabber are either ignorant or dishonest. And you will understand that it was not until 1945, when the communist and democratic victors of the Second World War had installed occupation governments to rule over the conquered Germans that German citizens were finally and completely denied the right to armed self-defense.

 

Published in: on August 24, 2019 at 6:59 pm  Leave a Comment  

Martyr Rudolf Hess

tumblr_oi2xg4cUVo1sm9y4po1_500

Yesterday marked the 32 anniversary of the day day Rudolf Hess was murdered after 40 year of solitary captivity at  Spandau Prison in Berlin. I share with you an excerpt of his son Wolf’s address, presented by video recording at the Eleventh IHR Conference, October 1992, in Irvine,  about his father’s fate.

Flight for Peace

What really happened between June 1940 and May 10, 1941, the day my father took off in a Messerschmitt 110 to Scotland, is known only in outline because the relevant British documents still remain classified. The Hess papers that were released in Britain with great fanfare in June 1992 proved to be disappointing. Among these approximately two thousand pages was absolutely nothing of real substance about the secret contacts that existed between Britain and Germany, about the British peace group (which included members of the royal family) and its peace feelers to Germany, or about the role played by the British secret service prior to the flight. In short, these papers contained nothing that would show why my father seriously hoped that his mission might well turn out successfully.

In any case, it can be said with certainty that the still-classified British documents contain nothing that will reflect badly on Rudolf Hess or the policies of the German government of that time. Moreover, it can be stated with certainty that the documents that the British government continues to keep secret will reflect badly on the wartime British government of Winston Churchill. I will go further to say that these suppressed documents confirm that Churchill sought to prolong the war, with all the suffering, destruction and death that implies.

Some may dismiss this statement as unjustified and self-serving. In this regard, I would therefore like to cite the words of a British historian who has carried out extensive research on precisely this aspect of that dreadful conflict. In Ten Days To Destiny: The Secret Story of the Hess Peace Initiative and British Efforts to Strike a Deal with Hitler (New York: W. Morrow, 1991), John Costello concludes that it would have been quite possible to bring the European war to an before it turned into a world war, if only the British government had made even the slightest move to do so.

In Ten Days To Destiny [on pages 17 to 19], Costello writes the following revealing sentences:

Until the British government reverses current policy and releases the relevant section of its historic intelligence service archives, it may be impossible to determine whether the clandestine contacts with Germany that evidently played a part in bringing Hess to Scotland on the night of May 10 were a secret service triumph or part of a sinister peace plot that ran out of control. What is now indisputable is that the Hess mission was very far from being the “brainstorm” of Hitler’s deluded deputy that it is still being portrayed as by distinguished British historians. The documentary evidence that has now come to light [which, I might add parenthetically, is only the tip of the iceberg] shows that it was the outcome of an interlocking sequence of secret British and German peace manoeuvres that can be tracked right back to the summer of 1940. The pieces of this jigsaw puzzle are now falling into place to show that: […]

  • Hitler’s order halting the Panzer advance on Dunkirk was a carefully timed stratagem to persuade the British and French governments to seek a compromise peace.
  • A majority of the [Churchill] War Cabinet had decided to trade off Gibraltar and Malta in return for keeping control of the Empire.
  • An alarmed President Roosevelt secretly sought Canadian help to stop the British accepting a “soft peace” deal with Hitler.
  • French leaders believed on May 24, 1940, that Britain would not fight on but accept a joint peace deal brokered by Mussolini at the of May 1940.
  • Churchill — and Britain — survived only because the Prime Minister resorted to ruthless Machiavellian intrigue and a high-stakes bluff to stop a wobbly Foreign Secretary talking the War Cabinet into a peace deal engineered by R.A. Butler. When France fell, Lord Halifax’s Under Secretary actually passed a message to Berlin that “common sense and not bravado” dictated that Britain should negotiate, not fight Hitler. […]
  • Two days after Churchill had promised “we shall never surrer,” Lord Halifax and R.A. Butler signalled to Berlin via Sweden that a British peace proposal would be made after the French armistice on June 18, 1940.
  • Ambassador Kennedy had been in clandestine contact with Hitler’s emissaries trying to stop the war while the British government suspected him of illegally profiting from Treasury information to make a killing in international stock and securities dealings. […]
  • The Duke of Windsor and other members of the Royal Family encouraged German expectations that peace would eventually be negotiable.
  • Hess’ plan to fly to Scotland took shape in the final days of the battle for France and was encouraged in September 1940 by his discovery that Britain continued putting out peace feelers via Switzerland and Spain.
  • MI5 [the British secret service] intercepted Hess’ first peace initiative and then turned it into a “double-cross” operation to snare Hess into a trap baited by the Duke of Hamilton and the British Ambassadors in Switzerland and Madrid.
  • Hess’ dramatic arrival left Churchill with no choice but to bury the affair in distortion and official silence in order to protect not only the Duke of Hamilton but senior Tory colleagues who even in 1941 remained convinced that an honorable peace could be struck with Hitler.

For more than fifty years the cloak of British secrecy has clouded and distorted the record. The official histories carefully masked the roles played by the key players in the year-long effort to strike a deal with Hitler behind Churchill’s back. Just how close this peace plotting came to succeeding has been concealed to protect the reputations of the British politicians and diplomats who had believed that Hitler was less of a menace to the Empire than Stalin …

Churchill also had his own reasons for burying his wartime quarrels with other leading members of the Conservative Party. He did not want any scandal to sully the glory of his leadership during the Battle of Britain and the “white glow, overpowering and sublime, which ran through our Island from end to end.”

Britain’s “Finest Hour” and Churchill’s own role in forging it were enshrined as one of the most illustrious chapters in British history. His visionary courage had created, by words rather than military substance, the British people’s belief that, against the overwhelming odds, they could defy Hitler in 1940.

No one knows for sure whether my father undertook his flight with the knowledge and blessing of Adolf Hitler. Both men are now dead. All the available evidence, though, suggests that Hitler knew in advance of the flight:

First: Just a few days before his flight, my father had a private meeting with Hitler that lasted four hours. It is known that the two men raised their voices during portions of their talk, and that when they were finished, Hitler accompanied his Deputy to the ante-room, put his arm soothingly around his shoulder, and said: “Hess, you really are stubborn.”

Second: The relationship between Hitler and Hess was so close and intimate that one can logically assume that Hess would not have undertaken such an important step in the middle of a war without first informing Hitler.

Third: Although Hess’ adjutants and secretaries were imprisoned after the flight, Hitler intervened to protect Hess’ family. He saw to it that a pension was paid to Hess’ wife, and he sent a personal telegram of condolence to Hess’ mother when her husband died in October 1941.

Fourth: Among the papers released in June 1992 by the British authorities are two farewell letters my father wrote on June 14, 1941, the day before he tried to commit suicide in Mytchett Place, in England. The letters were written after he realized that his peace mission had definitely failed. One was addressed to Hitler and the other to his family. Both clearly confirm that his close relationship with Hitler still existed. If he had undertaken his now-obviously failed mission without Hitler’s prior knowledge, his relationship with Hitler clearly would no longer still have been one of trust.

And, fifth: Gauleiter Ernst Bohle, the Hess confident and high-ranking official who had helped my father to translate some papers into English, remained convinced until his death that all this was done with Hitler’s knowledge and approval.

Suppressing Historical Evidence

A general comment on the information available about my father’s peace proposals is in order: During the entire forty-year period of his imprisonment in Spandau, he was prohibited from speaking openly about his mission. This “gag order” was obviously imposed because he knew things that, if publicly known, would be highly embarrassing to the British government, and possibly to the US and Soviet governments as well.

As a result, contemporary historical research remains entirely depent on the British documents. British authorities have announced that many important documents from the Hess files will remain under lock and key until the year 2017. The entire matter was handled so secretly that no more than a handful of individuals around Churchill were really in the know. The proposals, plans or offers brought by Hess have remained secret in the archives right up to the present. As long as these documents remain secret, the world will not know the precise nature of the peace proposals that my father brought with him to present to the British government in May 1941. All this must, of course, be taken into consideration in any serious assessment of my father’s historic flight.

One indication that Hess said more than is now known is contained in a note prepared on June 3, 1941, by Ralph Murray of the “Political Warfare Executive” — a top secret British government agency — for Sir Reginald Leeper, head of the secret service section of the Foreign Office. This document suggests that Secretary of State Cadogan also had a conversation with Rudolf Hess.

The purpose and context of this conversation still cannot be determined: The available information is still not complete. Nevertheless, it appears that during the course of this conversation the Deputy Führer was even more specific and detailed about his proposals than he was in some later conversations.

These were Hess’ proposals:

One: Germany and Britain would reach a compromise on world-wide policy based on the status quo. That is, Germany would not attack Russia to secure German Lebensraum [“living space”].

Two: Germany would drop its claims to its former colonies, and would acknowledge British hegemony at sea. In return, Britain would acknowledge continental Europe as a German sphere of interest.

Three: The then-current relationship of military strength between Germany and Britain in the air and on the sea would be maintained. That is, Britain would not receive any reinforcements from the United States. Although there was no mention of land forces, it can be assumed that this balance of forces would be maintained in this regard as well.

Four: Germany would withdraw from “Metropolitan France” [European France] after the total disarmament of the French army and navy. German commissioners would remain in French North Africa, and German troops would remain in Libya for five years after the conclusion of peace.

Five: Within two years after the conclusion of peace, Germany would establish satellite states in Poland, Denmark, the Netherlands, Belgium and Serbia. However, Germany would withdraw from Norway, Romania, Bulgaria and Greece (except for Crete, which German parachutists had taken at the of May, 1941). After some rounding-off in the East, North, West and South (Austria and Bohemia-Moravia were apparently to remain within the Reich), Germany would thus concede Britain’s position in the eastern Mediterranean and the Middle East.

Six: Germany would recognize Ethiopia and the Red Sea as a British sphere of influence.

Seven: The person to whom the Deputy Führer was speaking was somewhat confused about whether Italy had approved Hess’ peace proposals. Hess himself said nothing about this, although points four and six would have considerably affected Italian interests.

Eight: Rudolf Hess admitted that Hitler had agreed in advance to the official “cover story” put out in Germany that he was of “unsound mind.”

This peace proposal would indeed have brought peace to the world in 1941. If Britain had negotiated with Germany on this basis, the German attack against Russia — which began less than three weeks later, on June 22, 1941 — would not have taken place, because Hitler would have obtained what he needed for survival: control of the continent. The war would have withered away on all fronts.

Instead, as we know, the war continued — bringing destruction, suffering and death on an almost unimaginable scale — because the outstretched hand of peace was rejected by Churchill and Roosevelt. The peace they sought was a Carthaginian one. Their sole war aim was the destruction of Germany.

After initial interviews with Rudolf Hess conducted by the Duke of Hamilton and Sir Ivone Kirkpatrick in Glasgow, my father was interviewed on June 9, 1941, by Lord Simon, the Lord Chancellor, and on September 9, 1941, by Lord Beaverbrook, Minister for Aircraft Production. A few days later, Beaverbrook flew to Moscow to arrange for military aid to the Soviet Union. These two interviews were motivated not by any desire for peace, but were instead merely to pry out any possible military secrets from Hess.

Nuremberg

After September 1941 my father was completely isolated. On June 25, 1942, he was transferred to Abergavenny in south Wales, where he was kept prisoner until he was flown to Nuremberg on October 8, 1945, to stand trial as a “major war criminal” and as the second-ranking defendant in the so-called “International Military Tribunal.”

I will not go into detail here about this shameful “victors’ trial of the vanquished,” except to note that even the Tribunal’s Allied judges had to exonerate my father of the charges of “war crimes” and “crimes against humanity,” but ruled that he — the one man who had risked his life to secure peace — was guilty of “crimes against peace,” and, on that basis, sentenced him to life imprisonment! The court’s treatment of Hess is alone more than enough to dismiss the Nuremberg Tribunal as a vengeful victors’ kangaroo court that merely pretendedd to be a genuine forum of justice.

Spandau Prison

Along with six Nuremberg co-defendants, my father was transferred on July 18, 1947, to the grim fortress in the Spandau district of Berlin that was designated the Allied Military Prison.

The regulations under which the seven prisoners were held were so severe that even the French prison chaplain, Casalis, protested (in 1948) against their outrageous treatment. He went on to describe Spandau as a place of mental torture. In October 1952, after two years of protracted discussion between the custodial powers, the Soviets agreed to following so-called “special privileges”: One visit of thirty minutes a month. One letter a week of no more than 1,300 words. Medical attention in the prison. And, in the event of death, interment of the ashes in the prison instead of scattering in the wind.

After the release of Albert Speer and Baldur von Schirach on October 1, 1966, Rudolf Hess was the only remaining inmate. For more than twenty years, my father was the sole prisoner in a prison designed for about six hundred.

After a further revision of regulations in the early 1970s, one member of the family was permitted to visit the prisoner for one hour once a month. The prisoner was now also permitted to receive four books each month. As before, visits, letters and books were strictly censored. No reference to the events of the 1933 to 1945 period was permitted. No mention of the Tribunal’s sentence, or matters related to it, was permitted. Family visits were monitored by authorities of each of the four powers, as well as by at least two guards. No physical contact — not even a handshake — was permitted. The visits took place in a special “Visitor’s Room,” which had a partition with an open “window.’

My father was allowed to receive four daily newspapers, and after the mid-1970s, he was allowed to watch television. However, newspapers and television were censored along the lines mentioned above. My father was not permitted to watch any television news reports.

For many years my father refused visits from members of his family on the grounds that because of the conditions under which such visits were permitted, they were an offense to his honor and dignity, and were more aggravating than pleasurable. He changed his mind in November 1969, when he became severely ill and had to struggle to stay alive. Under these circumstances, and because of new conditions for visits, he agreed to a visit by my mother, Ilse Hess, and myself in the British Military Hospital in Berlin. Thus, on December 24, 1969, my mother and I visited him for the first time since my childhood. This was the only occasion when two persons were permitted to visit him at the same time.

After being returned to the Allied Military Prison in Spandau, he agreed to further visits. In the years that followed, members of the family visited Rudolf Hess 232 times altogether. Only the closest members of his family were allowed to meet with him: that is, his wife, his sister, his niece, his nephew, my wife and myself. It was forbidden to shake hands or embrace. Presents were also forbidden, even on birthdays or at Christmas.

My father’s attorney, retired Bavarian state minister Dr. Alfred Seidl, was permitted to meet with his client only six times in all during the forty year period from July 1947 to August 1987. Dr. Seidl was also subjected to the strict censorship regulations: That is, he was warned before each visit that he was not allowed to discuss with his client the trial, the reasons for his imprisonment or the efforts that were being made to secure his release. The custodial Allied Governments had always refused to bear the costs for the prison. After October 1, 1966, when my father became the prison’s sole prisoner, the German federal government spent around 40 million marks to run the prison. This included salaries for a staff of more than a hundred persons employed to guard and run this prison for a single elderly man.

Rudolf Hess in his Spandau prison cell. On the wall hang maps of the moon, reflecting his keen interest in astronomy.

Soviet Inklings

In 1986, Soviet policy toward the West showed obvious signs of rapprochement and détente. In spite of so many earlier failures, I decided to act on a hint received in December 1986 from the East to directly approach the Soviets to discuss with them my father’s release.

In January 1987, I wrote a letter to the Soviet embassy in Bonn. For the first time in 20 years, I received a reply. Officials there suggested that I visit the Soviet embassy in East Berlin for a detailed discussion with Soviet representatives about my father’s situation. We finally agreed to a meeting at the Soviet consulate in West Berlin on March 31, 1987, at 2:00 p.m. As the embassy officials were certainly aware, this would be on the same day as my next visit with my father.

That morning, I visited my father in Spandau prison for the very last time. I found him to be mentally alert, quite up to par, but physically very weak. He could walk only when supporting himself with a cane on one side, and with help from a guard on the other. Sitting down with his feet propped on a chair had become a tedious procedure which he could not manage without help. Even though I found the temperature in the visitor’s room to be quite normal, he felt cold and asked for his coat and an additional blanket.

My father opened our conversation with an interesting piece of news, the details of which he asked me to set down in writing: He had sent a new application to the heads of state of the four occupation powers, requesting release from his 46 years imprisonment. I was particularly struck by one point. He told me that he had appealed especially to the Soviet head of state to support his request with the other three custodial powers. “Did I get that right?,” I asked. My father nodded. So he knew — obviously from the Russians themselves — that they were considering approving his release.

After our meeting, I drove from Spandau prison directly to the Soviet consulate. Embassy Counselor Grinin, the official I spoke with there, began by explaining that it was not the Soviet embassy in Bonn, but rather the embassy in East Berlin that was responsible for all Soviet rights and responsibilities in West Berlin. One of these responsibilities, he said — and his words deserve to be repeated verbatim — was “the unpleasant legacy of Spandau.” Anyone who had inherited a legacy like the “Allied Military Prison” on German soil, as the Soviet Union had at the of the war, Grinin said, should certainly want to get rid of it.

I had not expected any sensational outcome from this meeting. It had been a mutual sounding-out, and I believe that it came off positively for each side. It also became clear to me during the course of this meeting that there were conflicting views in Moscow about how to deal with the “Hess case.” Those who were sympathetic to us, led by Secretary General Gorbachev, were clearly gaining the upper hand.

This evaluation was confirmed a short time later in a report published in the German news magazine Der Spiegel (April 13, 1987). The article, which appeared under the headline “Will Gorbachev release Hess?,” reported on a fundamental change in the attitude of the Soviet party leader toward the “Hess case.” Gorbachev, it went on, took the view that the release of Spandau’s last prisoner would be an action “that would be accepted worldwide as a gesture of humanity,” and which “could also be justified to the Soviet people.” In this regard, the news weekly also mentioned the forthcoming visit to Moscow by federal German President Weizsäcker, which was planned to take place in mid-May.

Also on April 13, 1987, a private German citizen wrote a letter about the Hess case to the German-language service of Radio Moscow. The letter of reply, dated June 21, 1987, declared: “As can be hoped from the most recent statements of our head of government, M. Gorbachev, your long years of efforts for the release of the war criminal R. Hess will soon be crowned with success.” It can be assumed with certainty that such a letter from Radio Moscow was not written without approval from above.

These three events — my reception in the Soviet consulate in West Berlin on March 31, 1987, the Spiegel magazine report of April 13, 1987, and the reply from Radio Moscow of June 21, 1987 — show unequivocally that the Soviet Union, under the leadership of Secretary General Gorbachev, intended to release Rudolf Hess. This release would not only be entirely consistent with Gorbachev’s policy of reconciliation, it would also be essential feature of a settlement of the remaining unresolved consequences of the Second World War, without which the reunification of Germany and Berlin would not be possible.

Death by Suicide?

If the western custodial powers had not already been aware of Gorbachev’s intention, they certainly were after the publication of the Spiegel article in April. This undoubtedly set off alarm bells in Britain and the United States, since this new Soviet move would remove the last remaining legal obstacle to my father’s release. For many years the British, American and French governments had said that they were ready to agree to Hess’ release, but that it was only the Soviet veto that prevented it. Gorbachev’s new initiative threatened to call the British and American bluff.

The authorities in London and Washington would have to find some new and more permanent way to deny Hess his freedom and keep him from speaking freely.

On Monday, August 17, 1987, a journalist informed me in my office that my father was dying. Later, at home, I received a telephone call at 6:35 p.m. from Mr. Darold W. Keane, the American director of the Spandau Prison, who informed me officially that my father had died. The official notification, which was in English, read as follows: “I am authorized to inform you that your father expired today at 4:10 p.m. I am not authorized to give you any further details.”

The next morning I was on a plane to Berlin, accompanied by Dr. Seidl. When I arrived at the prison, a fairly large crowd had gathered in front. Berlin police were blocking the entrance, and we were obliged to show identification papers before we were allowed to approach the green-painted iron gate. After ringing the bell, I asked to speak with the American prison director, Mr. Keane. After quite a while, Mr. Keane finally appeared, looking extraordinarily nervous and unsure of himself. He told us that we would not be allowed inside the prison complex, and that I would not be permitted to see my dead father. He also told us that he was not able to provide any further information about details of the death. A new report with details of my father’s death was allegedly being prepared, and would be made available at about 4:00 p.m. Then, after we gave him the address and telephone number of a Berlin hotel where we would be waiting for further news, he left us standing in front of the gate.

The long-expected telephone call to the hotel finally came at about 5:30 p.m. Keane said:

I will now read to you the report that we will release immediately afterwards to the press. It reads:

“Initial examination indicated that Rudolf Hess attempted to take his own life. In the afternoon of August 17, 1987, under the customary supervision of a prison guard, Hess went to a summerhouse in the prison garden, where he always used to sit. When the guard looked into the summerhouse a few minutes later, he discovered Hess with an electric cord around his neck. Attempts were made at resuscitation and Hess was taken to the British Military Hospital. After further attempts to revive Hess, he was declared dead at 4:10 p.m. The question of whether this suicide attempt was the cause of his death is the object of an investigation, including a thorough autopsy, which is still in progress.”

Hess was a frail 93-year-old man with no strength left in his hands, who could just barely drag himself from his cell into the garden. How was he supposed to have killed himself in this way? Did he hang himself with the cord from a hook or a window latch? Or did he throttle himself? Those responsible would not immediately provide a detailed explanation about this point. We had to wait a full month for the final official statement about the circumstances of the death. It was published by the Allies on September 17, 1987, and reads as follows:

1. The Four Powers are now in a position to make the final statement on the death of Rudolf Hess.

2. Investigations have confirmed that on August 17 Rudolf Hess hanged himself from a window latch in a small summerhouse in the prison garden, using an electric extension cord which had for some time been kept in the summerhouse for use in connection with a reading lamp. Attempts were made to revive him and he was then rushed to the British Military Hospital where, after further unsuccessful attempts to revive him, he was pronounced dead at 4:10 p.m.

3. A note addressed to Hess’ family was found in his pocket. This note was written on the reverse side of a letter from his daughter-in-law dated July 20, 1987. It began with the words “Please would the governors send this home. Written a few minutes before my death.” The senior document examiner from the laboratory of the British government chemist, Mr. Beard, has examined this note, and concluded that he can see no reason to doubt that it was written by Rudolf Hess.

4. A full autopsy was performed on Hess’ body on August 19 in the British Military Hospital by Dr. Malcolm Cameron. The autopsy was conducted in the presence of medical representatives of the four powers. The report noted a linear mark on the left side of the neck consistent with a ligature. Dr. Cameron stated that in his opinion death resulted from asphyxia, caused by compression of the neck due to suspension.

5. The investigations confirmed that the routine followed by staff on the day of Hess’ suicide was consistent with normal practice. Hess had tried to cut his wrists with a table knife in 1977. Immediately after this incident, warders were placed in his room and he was watched 24 hours a day. This was discontinued after several months as impracticable, unnecessary and an inappropriate invasion of Hess’ privacy.

The report of the autopsy carried out by the British pathologist Dr. Cameron on August 19 was later made available to the family. Concluding that my father’s death was not due to natural causes, it was consistent with point five of the Allied final official statement.

Autopsy and Burial

On the basis of an 1982 agreement between the family and the Allies, the body of Rudolf Hess would not be burned, but instead would be turned over to the family for burial “in Bavaria quietly in the presence of his immediate family.”

The Allies kept this agreement — something they have most probably since regretted emphatically. Accordingly, my father’s body was turned over to the family on the morning of August 20, 1987, at the American military training grounds of Grafenwöhr, where it had arrived earlier that same morning from Berlin in a British military airplane.

The coffin was accompanied by the three Western governors and two Russians, whom I didn’t know, as well as a certain Major Gallagher, chief of the so-called “Special Investigation Branch, Royal Military Police.” The turnover was brief and to the point. We then immediately brought the body to the Institute for Forensic Medicine in Munich, where Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Spann was waiting at our family’s request to conduct a second autopsy. Throughout the entire journey from the military training grounds in Grafenwöhr to the Institute for Forensic Medicine in Munich, the transport was guarded by a contingent of Bavarian police.

In the conclusion of his report of December 21, 1988, on the second autopsy, the renowned Munich pathologist Professor Spann pointed out the difficulties he encountered because he did not have any information about details of the alleged hanging. In particular, he had no information about details of the condition of my father after the supposed discovery of his body. In spite of these limitations, Dr. Spann nevertheless was able to arrive at the following remarkable conclusions:

Dr. Cameron’s further conclusion that this compression was caused by suspension is not necessarily compatible with our findings …

In forensic medicine, the course which the ligature mark takes on the neck is considered a classic indicator for differentiating between forms of hanging and throttling … If Prof. Cameron, in his assessment of the cause of death, comes to the conclusion that the cause of death was asphyxiation caused by compression of the neck due to hanging, he neglects to consider the other method of strangulation, that is, throttling … Making this distinction would have required an examination of the course of the ligature mark. The precise course of the mark is not given in Prof. Cameron’s autopsy report …

Here, neither the course of the strangulation mark on the neck, as we have described it, nor its course on the throat, nor its position relative to the prominence of the larynx has been described and assessed … Since on the uninjured skin of the neck, where the possibility of distortion through the suture of the dissection incision is ruled out, an almost horizontal course of the strangulation mark could be identified, this finding, as well as the fact that the mark on the throat obviously was not located above the larynx, is more indicative of a case of throttling than of hanging. Under no circumstances can the findings be readily explained by a so-called typical hanging. The burst blood vessels which were observed in the face, caused by blood congestion, are also not compatible with typical hanging.

A Tunisian medical orderly, Abdallah Melaouhi, was a civilian employee of the Spandau prison administration at the time of my father’s death. He is not a citizen of one of the four Allied occupation powers, nor, even more to the point, a member of their armed forces. As a result, he could not be silenced or transferred to some remote corner of the world like the others who were present at the scene of the crime.

After the death of my father, Melaouhi got in touch with our family. From a note that my father wrote to him, it is clear that there was a relationship of personal trust between the two men. The core of Melaouhi’s account, which he set down in an affidavit, is as follows:

“When I arrived at the garden summerhouse, I found the scene looking as though a wrestling match had taken place. The ground was churned up and the chair on which Hess had usually sat lay on the ground a considerable distance from its usual location. Hess himself lay lifeless on the ground: He reacted to nothing, his respiration, pulse and heartbeat were no longer measurable. Jordan [an American guard] stood near Hess’ feet and was obviously quite beside himself.”

Melaouhi noticed to his surprise that besides Anthony Jordan, the Black American guard, two strangers in US military uniform were present. This was unusual, since no soldier was normally permitted access to this part of the prison, and above all, because any contact with Rudolf Hess was most strictly forbidden. In Melaouhi’s opinion, the two strangers seemed reserved and calm, in sharp contrast to Jordan.

Affidavit from South Africa

In addition to the Tunisian orderly’s account, there is a further affidavit regarding the events in Spandau on August 17, 1987. My wife brought it back from South Africa, where she had met with a South African lawyer with contacts to Western secret services. I was able to persuade this man to phrase his testimony in the form of an affidavit prepared for a judge. Dated February 22, 1988, this affidavit reads as follows:

I have been questioned about the details of the death of the former German Reich Minister Rudolf Hess.

Reich Minister Rudolf Hess was killed on the orders of the British Home Office. The murder was committed by two members of the British SAS (22nd SAS Regiment, SAS Depot Bradbury Lines, Hereford, England). The military unit of the SAS [Special Air Service] is subordinated to the British Home Office — not to the Ministry of Defense. The planning of the murder as well as its direction was carried out by MI-5. The secret service action whose aim was the murder of Reich Minister Rudolf Hess was so hastily planned that it was not even given a code name, which is absolutely not customary.

Other secret services which had been privy to the plan were the American, the French and the Israeli. Neither the [Soviet] KGB nor the GRU, nor the German secret services had been informed.

The murder of Reich Minister Rudolf Hess had become necessary because the government of the USSR intended to release the prisoner in July 1987 [in connection with German President von Weizsäcker’s forthcoming visit to Moscow], but President von Weizsäcker was able to negotiate an extension with the head of the Soviet government, Gorbachev, until November 1987, the next Soviet period in the guard cycle.

The two SAS men had been in Spandau prison since the night of Saturday-Sunday (August 15-16, 1987). The American CIA gave its consent to the murder on Monday (August 17, 1987).

During Reich Minister Rudolf Hess’ afternoon walk, the two SAS men lay in waiting for the prisoner in the prison garden summerhouse and tried to strangle him with a 4 1/2-foot long cable. Afterwards, a “suicide by hanging” was to be faked. But as Reich Minister Rudolf Hess put up a fight and cried for help, which alerted at least one American guard soldier to the attack, the attempt on the prisoner’s life was broken off, and an ambulance of the British Military Hospital was summoned. The unconscious Reich Minister Rudolf Hess was taken to the British Hospital in the ambulance.

I was given the above information personally and verbally by an officer of the Israeli service on Tuesday, August 18, 1987, at around 8.00 a.m., South African time. I have known this member of the Israeli service both officially and personally for four years. I am completely satisfied that he was sincere and honest and I have no doubt whatsoever as to the truth of his information. The absolutely confidential nature of his conversation with me is also beyond doubt.

Next to Cameron’s misleading autopsy report, the British themselves provided the most decisive clue in solving the mysterious death in the garden summerhouse of Spandau prison.

Suicide Note?

As already mentioned, I was told on August 17, 1987, only that my father had died. It wasn’t until the next day that I learned that he had supposedly committed suicide. In response to doubts I quickly expressed publicly about this supposed suicide, the Allies were prompted to discover, on August 19, 1987, a supposedly incontrovertible “proof” of suicide. This is the so-called “suicide note.” It is an undated hand-written letter on the back of the family’s next-to-the-last letter to Rudolf Hess, dated July 20, 1987. The text of this supposed “suicide note” is as follows:

Please would the Governors send this home. Written a few minutes before my death.

I thank you all, my beloved, for all the dear things you have done for me. Tell Freiburg I am extremely sorry that since the Nuremberg trial I had to act as though I didn’t know her. I had no choice, because otherwise all attempts to gain freedom would have been in vain. I had so looked forward to seeing her again. I did get pictures of her, as of you all. Your Eldest.

This letter was handed to the family more than a month after the death. We were told that it first had to be examined in a British laboratory.

While it did seem to be my father’s handwriting (although considerably distorted, as it was whenever he was suffering as a result of emotional upheaval, health problems or even medication), this “note” did not reflect the thinking of Rudolf Hess in 1987. Rather, it reflected thoughts of his some twenty years earlier. The content mainly concerns “Freiburg,” his one-time private secretary, about whom he had been concerned in 1969 when he had a perforated ulcer in the duodenum and was near death. Moreover, it was signed with an expression, “Your Eldest,” that he not used for about 20 years.

There is another clue in the letter’s text that indicates its date. The phrase, “I did get pictures of her, as of you all,” would have made sense only during the period before Christmas 1969, because until that Christmas he received nothing but photographs of “Freiburg” and us. As of Christmas 1969, he was visited by members of his family, and received more pictures from “Freiburg,” who was not allowed to visit him. Considering the precise way my father expressed himself, this sentence can only have been written before December 24, 1969. Written in August 1987, this sentence makes no sense at all.

Finally, the brief letter’s opening words, “Written a few minutes before my death,” cannot be reconciled with his precise manner of expressing himself. If he had really written this letter before a planned suicide, he would most certainly have chosen a phrase specifying suicide, such as “shortly before my voluntary withdrawal from life” or something similar, but not the ambiguous word “death,” which leaves open any possible method of death.

We, the members of his family who knew not only my father’s handwriting but the writer himself, and who were intimately familiar with his concerns during his final years, know that this supposed “suicide note” is a hoax as crude as it is malicious.

It can now be concluded that a “farewell letter” written by my father almost twenty years earlier in expectation of his death, and which was not handed over to the family at that time, was used to produce this 1987 forgery. For this purpose, the text was transformed by some modern means onto the back of a letter my father had received recently from us. The censorship stamp “Allied Prison Spandau,” which normally appeared, without exception, on every piece of incoming paper he received for more than 40 years, was conspicuously absent from our letter to him of July 20, 1987. Finally, the supposed suicide note bore no date, which was contrary to my father’s routine practice of always prefacing whatever he wrote with the date. The original date had obviously been omitted.

Murder, Not Suicide

On the basis of Prof. Spann’s autopsy report, the affidavits of the Tunisian medical orderly and the South African attorney, as well as the supposed “suicide letter,” I can only conclude that the death of Rudolf Hess on the afternoon of August 17, 1987, was not suicide. It was murder.

Although US authorities were officially in charge of the Allied Military Prison in Berlin-Spandau in August 1987, it is noteworthy that British citizens played such a major role in the final act of the Hess drama. The American director, Mr. Keane, was permitted by the British merely to call me and inform me of my father’s death. After that his only duty was to keep his mouth shut.

To sum up here:

  • The two men the Tunisian orderly Melaouhi saw in American uniform, who were most probably Rudolf Hess’ murderers, were from a British SAS regiment.
  • The death was established in the British Military Hospital, to where my father was brought in a British ambulance.
  • The death certificate is signed only by British military personnel.
  • The autopsy was carried out by a British Pathologist.
  • The British prison director, Mr. Antony Le Tissier, supervised the prompt destruction of all tell-tale evidence, such as the electric cable, the garden house, and so forth.
  • The officials of the Special Investigation Branch (SIB) that investigated the death were all British citizens, and were headed by a British major.
  • The alleged “suicide note” was supposedly found two days later in the pocket of Hess’ jacket by a British officer, and was examined by a British laboratory.
  • Mr. Allan Green, the British Director of Public Prosecution, halted an investigation into my father’s death begun by Scotland Yard, which had recommed a “full scale murder investigation” after officials there had found many inconsistencies.

Rudolf Hess did not commit suicide on August 17, 1987, as the British government claims. The weight of evidence shows instead that British officials, acting on high-level orders, murdered my father.

A Crime Against Truth

The same government, which tried to make him a scapegoat for its crimes, and which for almost half a century resolutely sought to suppress the truth of the Hess affair, finally did not shrink from murder to silence him. My father’s murder was not only a crime against a frail and elderly man, but a crime against historical truth. It was a logical final act of an official British conspiracy that began in 1941, at the outset of the Hess affair.

But I can assure them, and you, that this conspiracy will not succeed. The murder of my father will not, as they hope, forever close the book on the Hess file.

I am convinced that history and justice will absolve my father. His courage in risking his life for peace, the long injustice he endured, and his martyrdom, will not be forgotten. He will be vindicated, and his final words at the Nuremberg trial, “I regret nothing!,” will stand forever.

10373784_10206796783938522_3431943209576508488_n

Published in: on August 19, 2019 at 3:42 am  Leave a Comment  

Internal and External Freedom

maxresdefault-6-800x445

By  Reichsleiter Alfred Rosenberg

Whenever talk comes around to freedom, some of the most vehement disputes in world history arise for our mind’s eye. Not only were all revolutions tied to the idea of freedom but severe tyranny was often allied with the idea of freedom in the course of history. It was freedom that the ancient tyrannical murderers called for; it was freedom the slaves in ancient Rome yearned for when they rendered the fatal blow against an honorable system; it was for freedom of conscience that caused religious reformers to fight against traditional dogmas; it was freedom of science that had been defended in thousands of scientific laboratories against the medieval church. Finally, the question of whether human freedom and a free will exist at all has been investigated by many great philosophers. It is clear to see that whenever there was a major movement in religious, scientific or political life, it was almost always bound to the idea of freedom. The fact that millions and millions of people followed this idea and fought for it in all fields, will forever dignify freedom for us regardless of the dross that is attached to this idea.

Nobody dares to make a dogmatic decision on whether man is free or not. The representatives of both sides argue vehemently for their point of view and in an equally compelling manner. Especially since the rise of the exact sciences the attempt to completely integrate man into nature has increasingly been accompanied by the argument that the idea of a free will is an illusion and that therefore all consequences derived from this idea must be declared null and void. Only thinkers who honestly acknowledged both sides of the questions and the consequences of both sides were able to provide an idea of where to surmise a solution. It was especially Kant who anticipated findings of the exact natural sciences and integrated man into the laws of nature, just like any other natural or living phenomena. In the manner of a natural scientist drawing physical conclusions, he investigated just as thoroughly, the inner nature of man. He finally arrived at the seemingly paradoxical conclusion that man is perfectly unfree but nevertheless free.

Similar to Goethe, Kant saw that man is a member of two worlds that mutually influence one another. The origins of these worlds are different and cannot be traced down to their very roots. It seems that, without voicing any dogmatic opinion, we may well stand on Kant’s foundation. With equal truth we can face the fact that human life is dependent on many influences of its world and environment. In the game of life that we will never completely comprehend, man is but a bridged period of power, just like any other living being. We have to acknowledge a certain inner force that enables man to consciously live and die for an idea, which proves the existence of a force of some sort. That contravenes the other principles of existence and thus leaves us to assume a force that is not beyond the ideas of space, time and causality. Certainly there is no perfect freedom, even if we want to acknowledge free will as such. Freedom is contingent on external possibilities and internal „Gestalt’, but in my eyes this very fact is the only possible presentation of freedom. In the life of a nation, therefore, freedom does not mean the opportunity to achieve everything and, individual freedom cannot mean that one can create, invent or form everything. On the contrary, freedom has to be thought or as a „Gestalt”. This means that freedom, in the sense of creative power, opposes the tyranny of performed patterns, and it also opposes the arbitrariness of chaos and the absence of „Gestalt”.

If we take a look at intellectual and political disputes from this point of view, we find nowhere that freedom equals freedom and the claim to be free. This means the claim for opportunities to create is not given to everybody and must not be given to everybody. True freedom, as a demand and opportunity must always be accompanied by biological power, character and a creative soul. There are individual personalities and there are national personalities. For the latter, an over-extension of freedom opportunities cannot be allowed and a limitation is necessary for the benefit of everybody. It can be seen from the life and lot of many fanatic philosophers and demagogic people’s courts that it may result in a fatal destabilization of powers caused by driving ambition and extravagant will that arise because certain external forces are missing. The examples of the Grachas of Rienzi, Mirabeau and many figures in today’s political life show all too clearly that freedom and law have to form a unit. This fact is expressed in Goethe’s very belief that: „only laws will bring us freedom”.

Duly external ties shape internal creation. This is where the old German understanding of freedom that today is represented in National Socialism reappears. This concept is entirely different from the liberte of the French Revolution and different from the raving madness of Marxist-Bolshevist destruction. The other nations never quite understood this German concept of freedom as they generally never grasped the inner side of the concept of personality. The French historian Guizot once coined a phrase that Goethe especially loved: „it was the Germans who first introduced the concept of personality to the European nations“. It was a concept of Gestalt, in sharp distinction to all egalitarian phrases and confused political constructions. However, it was the concept of a personality that consciously defends its individuality and winds circles of creative performances around a deep and firm inner core, thus expanding and being bound to a center at the same time. It was this German idea of freedom that Martin Luther presented when he argued for a spiritual and religious freedom he was ready to risk his life for. But at the same time he demanded a rigid political regime that could protect this inner freedom against the choice of neighbors and also provide defense against individual choice. The very same opinion was expressed by Goethe when he talked about the existence of respect, especially self-respect. He did not argue for a superficial, arrogant overestimation of one’s capacities, but acknowledged the indestructible metaphysical center, without which it would be impossible to understand magnificent creations in the fields of art, sciences and political development.

It is essentially the same concept of freedom (although it might not be present philosophically) that shows itself with increasing clearness in the relation between what we call personality and community. We strive for a community of millions of Germans, firmly shaped and guided, while at the same time we demand that there is room for outstanding, creative personalities. We do not feel that these two demands oppose one another, although other nations do because they only know the choice between tyranny and chaos. The National Socialist Movement followed its inner instinct and arrived on a political basis at the same conclusions that had earlier been drawn by the important religious leaders of the German people as well as by our thinkers and glorious poets. We could achieve this goal because the National Socialist Movement was led by Germans and had come to life in a fight for freedom.

If we look at the German nation as a whole, it is hindered and bothered by other stipulations that affect world history. Neither for Germany nor for any other nation can national sovereignty be absolute. According to our conviction it would only be harmful and dangerous for the creative power of a nation if there were no borders in this world. Demarcation, competition and the constant check of possibilities is not only part of an individual’s life but part of any nation’s existence. This educational and philosophical thought alone makes it clear that Germany does not strive for world dominion. This National Socialist Weltanschauung that has been attacked so often, wants only that the earth finally be given a Gestalt. A transformation that would end the time of chaotic liberalism which on the one hand strived after a world-trust and world-republic that should be built on democratic internationality and Marxism, while on the other hand it called for a world-revolution to be carried out by so-called proletarians. Earth is not populated with an abstract mankind, but with certain races and nations. These nations and races have their own past and their history can more and more be comprehended by examining the outside of their nature as displayed in combat. In this way they reveal their achievements and make claims for further possibilities of performance. In the middle of the process of political formation we find a natural law. It does not make any sense to protest against this law as rejection of a natural fact doesn’t alter its existence. The fact is that in the evolutionary process we find large nations and small nations. It is clear that a giant plant will reach up further into the heavens and will grow its roots deeper into the ground than small bushes or flowers can. This doesn’t tell us anything about the beauty of life forms, and nothing derogatory is said about the creative possibilities of so-called small nations.

The Greeks were once a small nation but they became the magnificent founders of ancient Indo- Germanic culture. For millennia their educational power produced an effect on related Germanic tribes and young as ever, it still reaches into our time that is marked by a Nordic awakening. On the other hand there were giant nations that threatened to break all boundaries. In their destructive power they probably prepared the ground for a change of things but compared to the example of ancient Greece, they left behind little more than memories of a dark age.

Therefore, the political education of the German nation is governed by both the law of limitation and the right to demand a European unity. In the course of centuries other nations did not take advantage of their chance to accomplish this mission. It is not disgraceful for the German nation to acknowledge its spheres of interest and rights among other great nations on this planet. Germany is even prepared to support their creative powers. On the other hand it is an honorable duty for the German nation to carefully treat the people of those small nations that are protected by the Greater German Reich or those who seek to be protected by us. If they have realized their general destiny we let them generously take part in everything that comes with the inner formation of our old and well respected continent. This is an attitude that once prevailed for a short period of time in ancient Rome; at the time when the powerful and strong Roman nation founded its own state, fighting off all oriental influences. In a synthesis of strict Roman laws and the pride of a Roman citizen they gave an admirable example of the ancient Indo-Germanic attitude.

On a small scale many towns in medieval Germany had organized their life in a way that combined outward strength with an inner creative joy. Prussia, although it was harassed by many enemies, was in many fields an example of the Nordic-German attempt to combine law and freedom. The rigid Friederician order was closely related to the ideas proclaimed by Kant and other great Germans. This is why in the German nation the idea of freedom has always been connected with duties rather than with rights. A German philosopher once made the excellent point that freedom had never been a question of „being free from”, but always a matter of being „free to“. This is an important concept that reveals a whole attitude. The German fight, is not a fight for freedom in the sense of being free from duties. It is the fight for a mission in which we try to live up to the great duty we were given. This is why the German nation is the most revolutionary nation in Europe and at the same time it is the nation where the all-enlightening ideas of inner freedom originated. We are convinced that the conscious inner values of the Germans -honor, faithfulness, loyalty and pride- represent the best elements of all European races. Our political power therefore, is justified as it protects these values.

Ever since the medieval Weltanschauung disappeared we saw various confessions, theories of art and philosophical doctrines, but no great Weltanschauung. Such a Weltanschauung (a view that creates an inner unity in all fields of life) has finally been born in National Socialism.

ALFRED ROSENBERG, „Revolution and Fulfillment”

Published in: on August 18, 2019 at 3:45 am  Leave a Comment  

Horst Wessel Sails To Portsmoth N.H.

EAGLE_under_full_sail_in_2013-768x551

The Piscataqua Maritime Commission proudly hosts Sail Portsmouth each summer, and will again on August 1-4  2019 bring the USCGC Eagle/ SSS Horst Wessel  to the New Hampshire Seacoast. Activities include the Parade of Sail, Deck Tours, Captain’s Reception, Day Sails, Exhibits, Food, Music, and Souvenirs.

horst_wessel

Though there are a few U-Boats one can visit at museums, this is the only actively commissioned “Ghost Ship” of the Third Reich.

Rudolf  Hess gave the speech at her launch in the presence of Adolf Hitler, and Horst Wessel’s mother christened the new ship with a bottle of champagne. The name was given in tribute to the SA leader  who had been accorded martyr status by the NSDAP.

If you live in the North East of the United States, I can not think of a better way to Honor this living legacy of our gone but not forgotten heroes.

Horst Wessel

Read the full article on the history of this fine sailing vessel here

 

 

 

 

Published in: on July 27, 2019 at 1:46 am  Leave a Comment  

75th Anniversary Of Failed Assassination Attempt On Adolf Hitler

hitler-july20

By Carolyn Yeager

TRADITIONALLY, GERMANY’S CURRENT LEADERS LAY FLORAL ARRANGEMENTS IN the national colors of red and gold in the courtyard of the Bendlerblock, the large army headquarters in Berlin from where the plot leaders staged their attempted takeover of the German government and military known as Operation Valkyrie in 1944. It’s still not known whether this year’s 75th commemoration will be a more elaborate affair.

President of Germany bows his head in remembrance of the failed conspirators during a past July 20th commemoration ceremony at the Bendlerblock Army headquarters in Berlin.


But the yearly remembrance always gives the distorters of German history another opportunity to make their case for what a horrible, hateful dictatorship Germans suffered under with Adolf Hitler, and what heroes were those men who hatched and carried out a plan to kill their Leader—and as many others, their fellow officers and even some allies, along with him as ‘collateral damage’ demanded. It turned out to be four killed, 13 injured, without getting Hitler.

To make the violent murder attempt appear more heroic, various establishment hacks make things up which are accepted without question by readers. For example, a quote on the main Wikipedia page reads: Little could be done against Hitler as he was heavily guarded, and none of the plotters could get near enough to him.” [attributed to H. Kurtz (1945-6)].This is patently false. Hitler was NOT heavily guarded at all and the top military brass had access to him without being disarmed. They all carried loaded sidearms, giving them the opportunity to shoot him on many occasions but none ever did. The Fuehrer reflected to Hermann Giesler afterward that they were cowards who could not face him with their dastardly act man to man, but dreamed up elaborate bomb plots which they themselves would survive and even escape detection.

In regard to this, Giesler tells a revealing story* of a day in October 1940 when he met Hitler for lunch in a small Munich restaurant he enjoyed, while en route from Spain and France to Italy. After finishing their meal, the two men sat talking alone at the table among the other restaurant-goers. Giesler recalls Hitler pausing in the telling of his frustrations with Franco to gaze around abstractedly and, noticing a few patrons looking his way, acknowledging them with a smile and gesture of greeting. I can imagine they would be surprised to say the least, but no one approached or disrespected the Leader’s privacy. Quite a picture! Shortly, Hitler hand-signaled his security detail, stood up, and they left the restaurant (leaving a generous tip, no doubt—Hitler was no chump in that department). There was nothing like the amount of fuss that today would accompany an American president stopping to have lunch somewhere! [*The Artist Within the Warlord, Yeager & Kriessmann, 2017, page 74-5]

What motivated the plot leaders?

Interestingly, the common dissatisfaction noted in the most determined and central of the plotters was on religious and moral grounds. These men took their faith more seriously than the average and saw the actions against Poland and the Jews in particular as unacceptable to them personally and to Germany as a Christian nation. They were not particularly representative of Germans as a whole.

Their secondary objection was the harm caused to Germany’s reputation in the rest of the world, and especially they wanted to work with the Allies, not against them—somehow imagining that it was possible even after all the statements by Churchill and Roosevelt that, Nazis or no Nazis, Germany had to go. It was the Germans themselves those leaders objected to! But these men could not see that—their opinion of themselves was so high and they were so convinced that only Hitler was the problem. Here is a rundown on just six of the most committed resistance leaders.

Claus von Stauffenberg was of aristocratic birth, both a “Graf” (Count) and a “Schenk” (cupbearer/butler of noble rank), the third of four sons of one of the oldest Catholic families in Swabia. He took up a military career and was an early supporter of the racialist and nationalist policies of the NSDAP; supported the Polish campaign and the Battle of France. His brothers became involved with the Kreisau Circle, a small, secretintellectual dissident group that discussed how they would reorganize the German government when the Third Reich fell, which they expected. Over time, the anti-Nazi rhetoric from the outside world and the rumoured treatment of the Jews wore down Stauffenberg’s enthusiasm for Hitler’s policies.

After suffering a serious injury while fighting in Tunisia in April 1943, in which he lost his left eye, his right hand and two fingers from his left, he was propositioned by the conspirators, especially by Henning von Tresckow. Stationed at army headquarters in Berlin, Stauffenberg’s superior was General Friedrich Olbricht, who, being in control of an independent communications system for the reserve army, was designing Operation Valkyrie as a plan to sweep Hitler’s regime from power in the event of his death. When Von Tresckow was deployed to the Eastern Front, Stauffenberg gained control of the resistance in Berlin. He was now ready to go all in.

Hans von Oster, the son of an Alsatian pastor of the French Protestant Church, was the earliest opponent of Hitler among the conspirators. He joined the Abwehr in 1933, where he met Hans Bernd Gisevius and Arthur Nebe of the Gestapo, who also became conspirators, and became a confidant of Abwehr head Admiral Wilhelm Canaris. He soured on the Hitler regime in 1935, and came up with a plan to overthrow the Fuehrer because of fears he would plunge Germany into war with the West over Czechoslovakia. When those fears were not realized, the plot dissipated, but Oster remained a committed foe and participant in every plot to bring down Hitler from that time onward. In 1941, his Abwehr group established connections with Henning von Tresckow’s in Army Group Centre, and in 1942 he recruited Friedrich Olbricht, head of the General Army office at the Bendlerblock. In 1943, Oster supplied British-made bombs for Tresckow’s group to place on Hitler’s plane, which however failed to go off. Later that year he was placed under house arrest for using his Abwehr connections to help Jews avoid arrest and leave the country. When Canaris’ revealing diaries were discovered in April 1945, Oster was hanged along with him in the wake of the July 20 plot.

Helmut Stieff, born in West Prussia, was commissioned as a lieutenant of infantry in 1922. He joined the Wehrmacht General Staff in 1938 and, in recognition of his excellent organizational skills, was appointed Chief of Organisation at OKH in 1942. But from 1939 onwards, as he related to his wife in letters, his Christian disapproval of Adolf Hitler’s conduct of the war in Poland was intense. General von Tresckow invited Stieff to join the resistance in summer 1943. Due to his position at OKH, Stieff was able to store and provide explosives for the various assassination attempts. On 7 July 1944, he personally saw to placing timed bombs in the uniforms to be shown to Hitler in Salzburg, but Hitler left early without looking at the uniforms. That’s when Stauffenberg decided to undertake the July 20 plan himself. Stieff was arrested the evening of the 20th. After receiving the death sentence at his trial in the People’s Court, Stieff wrote to his wife : “(It) cannot be anything else. It is just. I erred and did wrong. It was not right to arrogantly interfere as a little human being with God’s doing.”

Henning von Tresckow, another Prussian from a very old, distinguished family, was a key player in the resistance group that formed within the headquarters in Army Group Centre. He was another one who became ever more disenchanted with Hitler every time something happened that went against his high moral and honor code. Already in September 1941, still in the beginning of the Russian campaign, he was sending representatives from Army Group Centre to opposition groups in the homeland (for example those headed by retired general Ludwig Beck, politician Carl Friedrich Goerdeler and deputy Abwehr head Hans Oster) as noted inUlrich von Hassell‘s diary.

It was Tresckow who hatched the plot to place a (British-made) bomb in the form of a bottle of Cointreau on Hitler’s plane when he visited troops in Smolensk in March 1943. Tresckow asked the Fuehrer’s travelling companion Col. Heinz Brandt to take the bottle to Col. Helmuth Stieff as payment for a lost bet, which Brandt readily agreed to. But the bomb did not detonate, perhaps because of too low temperatures in the luggage compartment. Upon landing, someone at that end was alerted and retrieved the package.

When the July 20 attempt failed, Tresckow, knowing his part would be discovered, committed suicide at the front on July 21, doing his best to disguise it as a partisan act. He may have thought he was acting out of personally honorable and Christian motives, but the treasonous behavior within Army Group Centre, and its collapse, was responsible, as much as any other single cause, for the failure of the Russian campaign and the downfall of the Third Reich.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Hans von Dohnanyi. Bonhoeffer was a young theologian and pastor from a large, well-educated family who came to believe in following the example of Christ as closely as possible. He opposed Hitler from the very first day of his chancellorship, with his biggest complaint having to do with the Jews … a statement of faith issued from his church in August 1933 affirmed God’s faithfulness to Jews as His chosen people. He founded the ‘Confessing Church,’ which declared that Christ was the head of the Church, not the Fuehrer. By 1938, Bonhoeffer had made contact with members of the German Resistance through his brother-in-lawHans von Dohnanyi, a Hungarian-born Jew who was brought into the Abwehr, the German military intelligence service, by Hans von Oster. Bonhoeffer was also given a position in the Abwehr on the pretext that his wide ecumenical contacts would be of use to Germany. Under this cover, Bonhoeffer served as a courier to reveal the existence and intentions of the German resistance to the Western Allies, in hopes of gaining their support.

Dohnanyi worked in the Abwehr to help Jews flee the country with sufficient money. During February 1943, he helped the Tresckow assassination attempt with the bomb that failed to go off in Hitler’s plane. Then, in April he was arrested by the Gestapo, along with Bonhoeffer, on unrelated charges of foreign currency violations regarding funds he had transferred to a Swiss bank on behalf of Jews. His trial was delayed and he was sent to the Sachsenhausen concentration camp in 1944 (not a bad place); after the July 20 plot failed, his involvement came to light and he was hanged.

Bonhoeffer was sent to Tegel military prison where he awaited trial for a year and a half. Upon the failure of the assassination plot, Abwehr documents revealed his close association with the conspirators. In April 1945, the discovered diaries of Wilhelm Canaris sealed the fate of the entire Abwehr network and they were hanged just days before the arrival of their US liberators.

Each of these men could be called extremists of a sort. Their extremism made them heroes to some and villains to others. It seems the more intense their Christian beliefs, the more upset they were over the National Socialist treatment of the Jews. They saw it as the responsibility of the Christian to protect the Jew from harm. As I see it, what they were mostly concerned with was losing friends and allies around the world. Though they thought of themselves as loyal German patriots, they could not put loyalty to state and nation (fellow Germans) in distress ahead of loyalty to God, the Church and the approval of the outside world. Allies were more important to them than German freedom, independence and honor – just as with the current German leadership who inherited it from them.

Published in: on July 19, 2019 at 8:14 am  Comments (1)  

From The Desk Of David Irving

D-Irving-in-KW-jun30

Hello. I am just writing to inform you among other things, as a good friend and customer, of progress on my last three works, including the biographies of Heinrich Himmler and Winston Churchill, vol.3, all of which are complete or written in draft. Over the years I have carved out my own niche among historians; you might like to take in briefly what Peter Mayer, the late CEO and publisher of Penguin Books, said explaining his decision to continue publishing me, despite hostile attacks from those whom we all suspect of interfering in the background.

My work on Heinrich Himmler is reaching a conclusion; I am already editing page 620 of the final manuscript. I have plumbed his life, and drilled deep down into personal letters and archives which other authors did not reach. Sometimes we historians reach conclusions with no evidence at all or worse, against the evidence governments want us to believe.

As simple as, How did he die? There were surely enough witnesses. And yet I have concluded differently, which will lead to more hatred of, or annoyance, at least irritation at me…. I am incorrigible: can’t be bought, and can’t be bought off. Exegi monumentum aere perennius, the ancient poet Horace wrote (Ode 3, 30). I have written around thirty books. Governments and lawyers can no longer hurt me: they already took everything. The principal actors are long deceased too.

So this: some of you have wondered why my personal website fell silent for a few days earlier this month. I had come back to this house in northern Florida planning to revise the final Himmler chapters, and was struck down by a mysterious bug which took me, an Englishman, to the local hospital’s Emergency wing. Here fine American doctors carried out a whole raft of tests and X-rays and have finally come up with a [prognosis] of kidney issues, curing which will make me feel better and more comfortable – until the hospital bills come. As a UK citizen, I carried no insurance, but I intend to meet my obligations.

My work on Heinrich Himmler continues, and will come out this year, a beautiful production like all the others we produce. Please consider assisting me to meet the hospital’s bills, by sending a donation, anonymous if you wish. By way of thanks I will sign and send you a rare 30-minute archive DVD of the failed attempt to destroy me made in 1977 by the late Mr. David Frost on the BBC, in which endeavour the British press at least decided he had failed.

Yours very sincerely,

David Irving

Link for Donation page below

http://www.fpp.co.uk/don

Published in: on July 17, 2019 at 7:59 am  Comments (1)  

Death of Martyr Joachim Peiper

whodisB

In the late evening of July 13 1976 Joachim Peiper was murdered and this solemn event starts the “Month of Martyrs” which concludes on August 17 with the death of Rudolf Hess.

After working for a short time for both Porsche and Volkswagen in the late 50s after his release from prison Jochim decided to move his family to France due to increased threats from leftist and Jewish groups in Germany.

jp3

jp5

 

Thanks to his French nationalist friend Gauthier, he managed to buy a property near a watermill in Traves. But the building was in bad condition and Peiper did not have the necessary means to restore it. SS-Obersturmbannführer Erwin Ketelhut finally took over the mill and Peiper had a house built for his family in  1960. The house was like a military fort – surrounded by bushes and was not seen from the street. For 16 years he lived in relative peace but was threatened from time to time and received anonymous phone calls, but he still lived peacefully and was determined as was common to a soldier.

In Haute-Saône, Traves, France, Peiper earned a living as a translator.

On June 11, 1976 Peiper was in a shop in Vesoul buying wire to build a fence for his dog. The salesman, Elsassian Paul Cacheux, a member of a communist party, recognized by his accent that he was German and asked him if he had been in France during the war. Peiper paid with a check that had his name and address. Cacheux checked the “brown lists” that contained all names of wanted Germans for Peiper’s name. He forwarded the information on Peiper to the French left-wingers. On June 22, 1976 a French communist newspaper “L’Humanite” published an articled entitled: “What is this Nazi doing in France?”. People demanded the government to make Peiper leave France. Leaflets were distributed in Traves where Peiper was called a war criminal and a Nazi. On the walls in Versoul people wrote: “Peiper, we’re gonna do July 14 for you!” (July 14 is a national holiday in France).

In the morning of July 13 Peiper sent his wife who had cancer to Germany. He did not want to leave the house himself because he was afraid that it would be burnt down. His neighbour Erwin Ketelhut proposed that Peiper could spend a night in the watermill but Peiper refused. He also didn’t want Ketelhut to stay with him because Ketelhut might shot the attackers. “No,” said Peiper, “There has been enough killing already.” Jochen Peiper waited on his roof terrace from where he could see the whole area. Ketelhut had lent his gun to Peiper. At 11.30 PM he heard some kind of rustle in the bushes and saw a dozen men climbing up the steep shore. He shot in the air to scare the drunk men away. They yelled at him to come out. He opened the door to talk to them.

What happened next, only those  who were there know. Obersturmbannführer Jochen Peiper’s corps was burned and only a meter long, it had no arms or legs. He had died approximately 1 AM. The house was burnt down, the roof had fallen in. What had happened between 11 PM and 1 AM? Was the Obersturmbannführer still alive when he was crippled? A mixture of gasoline and oil was poured on the floor and then lit. Peiper was in his bedroom, on the leftside, with his back towards the wall, one arm across the chest. Nothing had fallen on him. He had died because of the heat. His body was not cremated, but it had shrunk.

jp4

Erwin Ketelhut and some French men who knew and respected him, thought that this kind of chivalric man, who had to face so many dangers in his life, should not have died like this. The murderers had driven their car over the meadow to the river, where they had two boats waiting. They crossed the river with their boats and then climbed up the shore. After the murder, they ran away over the meadow.  The French police investigated this case for six months. The communists and resistance members of Vesoul were interrogated. No one knew anything! The area of Traves is sparsely inhabited, there are approximately 10 inhabitants on one square kilometer. Everyone knows their neighbors and their secrets.

The inhabitants of Traves knew who the murders were, but they kept quiet.

jp6

On the night between the 13th and the 14th July we commemorated the Obersturmbannführer and the Cavalier of the Knight’s Cross Jochen Peiper.

Sayings by Peiper:

  • “I admit that after the battles of Normandy my unit was made up mostly of young fanatic soldiers. Most of them had lost their parents and siblings during the bombings. They had seen thousands of corpses in Köln after the terrorist attacks. Their rage was so strong that they could not control it.”
  • “Imagine being approved and an admirable national hero for millions, but six months later you’re sentenced to death by hanging.”
  • “My men are the product of a war, who grew up without education, on the shattered cities’ streets. The only thing they knew was how to use a weapon on behalf of the Reich. They were young people who had heard a lot and desired to won or die for their homeland, doesn’t matter if it was wrong or right. Seeing these accused men today, I cannot see the Peiper attack unit anymore. All my old friends and comrades are lost forever. The real reward is waiting for me in Valhalla.”
  • “History is always written by the winners, the history of the losers belongs to the decreasing circle of the participants.”
  • “I was a Nazi and will always be one. The Germany of today does not have one great nation, it has become a province for Europe.” – a response to a French writer in 1967. A quotation from Michael Reyolds’ book “The Devil’s Adjutant.JP1Photographed in 1976 weeks before murdered.

 

Published in: on July 14, 2019 at 11:42 pm  Comments (1)  

Sommersonnenwende

022058af4d5f99f80be0c387da8a2c4c--hitler-youth-summer-solstice

In June 1923, seven months after the founding of the NSDAP Ortsgruppe Wolfenbüttel and a few days after the formation of the SA troop, the NSDAP were on a pilgrimage to Kneitlingen am Elm, where they were allowed to go public for the first time on a larger scale. As an occasion they used the celebration of the solstice, which committed the rural population for centuries according to the burning of large fires. This peasant tradition, which survived despite church prohibitions, marked the beginning of the harvest. The first cut of the grain and the introduction of the last sheaf were used by the “blood and soil”  National Socialists . The solstice celebrations and the following Thanksgiving festivals were especially well-kept celebrations during the year. The pompously organized until 1937 on the Bückeberg near Hameln, in which also farmers from the Wolfenbüttel region participated, served above all to honor the peasantry and to integrate it ideologically and politically in the movement.

tumblr_n7n0t2AhdI1rs1xsxo1_500

A National Socialist chronicle reminiscent of this first solstice celebration, from which after 1933 a particularly well-groomed  holiday arose: “… we held together with the Wolfenbüttel party cooperative with the support of the then mayor Quidde In the special car on the last Saturday in June to Kneitlingen where the party member Klie had already lodged with the young SA men and made the necessary preparations: the men slept on straw in the barn, the women were quartered in the dance hall, and the Wolfenbüttel party members, who had already arrived, brought the Brunswicks together with the advance command in the great train from the station Kneitlingen, and in the dark it was the solstice fire.A large pile of wood with swastika was lit.The fire speech was delivered by our first Ortsgruppenführer Arthur Becker.The next day, Sunday, the march back over the Teztelstein themselves.”

tumblr_n7je66staz1svb6rio6_1280 (1)

Ten years later, the old fighters remembered this formative event, in which the old ruffians had laid the “foundation stone of the movement for Lower Saxony.” In addition to Gauleiter Pg. Rust, the tireless drummer of the movement, the unforgettable Pg. Dinklage ten years ago in Kneitlingen, to create a foundation on which later could be built.This foundation, which has proven in the development history of the NSDAP, in the inner city of Lower Saxony and beyond reliable and indestructible, was made of trust “Tough endurance in battle and unconditional submission to the leader.”

midsummer-01.jpg

In order to give the later added party members an impressive memory, the NSDAP cell Kneitlingen, which belonged organizationally to the Ortsgruppe Evessen, decided in agreement with the Kreisleitung Wolfenbüttel in 1933 to organize a jubilee Solstice celebration on a larger scale. The program envisaged the involvement of  leaders of the Free State and other party leaders: Prime Minister Klagges, Minister of State Alpers, the State Councilors Schmidt-Bodenstedt and Bertram, the SA-Oberführer Sauke and the SS section leader Mark. The organization of the spectacle got the magistrates of the circles Braunschweig and Wolfenbüttel under participation of the SA standard 46. For the supply and removal of the member sets drive special trains; and so that every simple party member “could once experience the joys and sorrows of accommodation such as the SA man had so often,” simple mass quarters had been established.

Kneitlinger farmers provided their meadows, on which three large dance tents were built. A specially made badge, which could be purchased in the party offices, was used to finance the mass event. The Schöppenstedter Elm-Zeitung reported on “thousands of National Socialists” who had come to the festively decorated Kneitlingen: “Fir and birch trees adorned the houses, the village streets were adorned with the flags of Adolf Hitler.” The celebrations began with the tribute of the fallen and the dead of the war memorial. Pastor Teichmann preached before the flag delegations, the SA Ehrensturm and the local council: “Today we stand for the first time at this war memorial and need not be ashamed, because by Adolf Hitler we have brought it so far that we again before our dead, the fallen in our sense, may come. “

tumblr_mvw2398ajv1rk8gi9o1_500 (1).jpg

“We are all free, but we see in service
More freedom than in your own commands.
We sit at the desk and on machines,
Are hundreds of thousands – and only one soul.
We are the heretics and the deep pious,
Today, yesterday and the big coming. “

said a men’s and young people’s choir a pledge –

“I swear, O Fatherland,
With a bare sword in a firm hand,
At the altar holy shrine,
To be faithful to death.

I swear to you, O freedom too,
To serve until the last breath
With heart and soul, courage and blood;
You are the man’s highest ember.

You’re in the sky above,
directing the sun and holding hearts,
O God, o help me,
Since I hold it true and true. “

g30-b063-schwc3b6ren-am-flammenaltar-deutsche-zu-sein-sonnenwende-der-hitlerjugend

Now ten front soldiers in steel helmets and cloaks faced the spectators. Under green spotlight, they recited Part 6, “The Seed Goes On”:

“And from the graves the seeds
catch up on acts:
Fruit is you and I am.
Hills become altars,
and like the flowering spike
I serve too
Germany!”

A male choir slowly stepped on the stage and spoke the death suit:

“Now they have buried
My blond boy
So far, so far from here.
I could not embrace him,
He died
No greetings from me.
But if he came back
And then as you would then
So proud the sword at hand:
In painful comprehension
I would leave him again
For the holy Fatherland. “

From the right, torches carrying youth groups marched in singing:

“We are sent to foment fire,
To stir drum in the German country!
Because never again rotten, what is hot packed us:
Young Hearts hammering in sacred beat. “

When the male choir sang:

“All bondage has disappeared,
German blood has found
Disgrace and shame separated “

sun-worship-1.jpg

The stage area of the NSDAP Thingstätte on Heidelberg’s Holy Mountain, opened on the summer solstice in 1935. The stage was designed to allow huge numbers of actors to appear on it, and for torches and flags to be displayed.

maxresdefault (2).jpg

After the command “Fire up!” The Hitler Youth fired the pile of wood in front of the Lessingtheater and ignited the flames. Six girls of the BDM each presented a wreath “in honor of the fallen of the world war and the movement.” Under a slight drum roll, a Nazi leader spoke these warnings:
“For German unity: whoever disturbs them is our enemy!
For the German honor: Who stains them, meet our revenge.
For German loyalty to leaders people and empire. Who breaks them, let them fall through our hands. “
In order to get the youth accustomed to murder and manslaughter early enough, Hitler Youth and young people spoke:

“We boys, we love Germany,
We have written a word on the flag.
Struggle!
Burning is supposed to do everything
What cowardly and bad
From blood and soil
It’s our right.
The common should blaze
In bright flames,
Beat everything bad
And brash together. “

 

Published in: on June 21, 2019 at 8:35 am  Leave a Comment  

Volkswagen Fighting “Anti-Semitism”

nazi-vw-bug-800x445

By Kyle Hunt

Volkswagen started out with an absolutely revolutionary vision of providing the average German worker with an affordable, reliable, and attractive car. Hitler personally invested a lot of his time and energy into making this vision a reality during the Third Reich, but never really got to see the full fruits of this labor of love, as the war impeded all of the Strength Through Joy (KdF) programs. It was only after the war that the Volkswagen was able to really explode onto the world scene as an amazing automobile.

Just as Ford (and especially the Ford Foundation) has become an agent of world jewry, though once upon a time a new Ford would come with The International Jew in the glove box, so too has Volkswagen sought to distance itself from its “anti-semitic” roots. The company recently teamed up with the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith to fun a Berlin-based venture to analyze and combat “anti-semitism” in Europe.

From Israel National News:

The initiative will focus on assessing the root causes of anti-Semitism, extremism, and bigotry in society and develop programs to counter it through advocacy and education,” ADL said in a release Tuesday.

“Anti-semitism” is a natural reaction to jewish criminality and subversion. That’s the root cause. Can I get some VW money for my intelligent analysis?

A Volkswagen spokesman told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency that the venture would open an ADL office in Berlin, the first ADL presence in Europe in more than a decade. The funding, over the three years, would be in the low seven figures, the official said, with an option to expand and continue the initiative thereafter.

jews print money out of thin air, but they still love getting some free handouts from “good goyim.”

Herbert Diess, CEO of Volkswagen Group, the largest car manufacturer in the world, announced the bid Monday at the ADL’s annual Washington conference. In an interview with JTA, he said he was concerned about the recent spike in anti-Semitism in Europe, and that Volkswagen had a special obligation to combat racism because of its origins in Nazi Germany.

I wonder if they are going to hit up Fanta for some reparations money next. Maybe Hugo Boss needs to hand over some of their profits to the ADL for the uniforms they created for the Third Reich.

We have more obligation than others,” he said. “The whole company was built up by the Nazi regime.”

The “Nazis” also gave us helicopters, rockets, TV, night vision, jet planes, and more. Shouldn’t we be thanking them?

The initiative will have four components: Education in schools, education in workplaces, lobbying in European capitals, and research through surveys.

VW will be funding the indoctrination of young Europeans to get them to hate themselves and love the jews. Now that they are in bed with the Anti-Defamation League they really are the Anti-Volkswagen. The volk needs to respond by boycotting VWs. #BDSVW!

The company is complicit in the White genocide agenda being orchestrated by the jewish supremacist cabal.

Published in: on June 13, 2019 at 9:10 am  Comments (1)  

.

Published in: on June 7, 2019 at 7:46 am  Leave a Comment