The first chapter in the book Neue Studien zu nationalsozialistischen Massentötungen durch Giftgas is captioned: “Massentötungen durch Giftgas: Zwischen wissenschaftlicher Einordnung und individueller Erinnerung” (Mass murder by poisonous gas: Amid scientific cataloguing and the recollection by individuals).
The chapter contains two essays, the first one by the British historian Richard J. Evans, titled: “Wie einzigartig war die Ermordung der Juden durch die Nationalsozialisten?”(How unique was the killing of the Jews by the National Socialists?).
Mr. Evans begins by informing us that a few weeks after the conquest of Poland in September 1939, the victorious power started systematically suppressing Polish culture and language. Polish libraries and other cultural centres were closed, memorials were destroyed and street signs removed. Half a million Poles were incarcerated, many physically abused and killed. About 20 000 officers, among them insurgents, were shot, up to 1.5 million members of the Polish intelligentsia and their families were arrested and later transported out of the country in unheated cattle cars. About one third did not survive, among them 100 000 Jews. Those were the catastrophic results of the conquering of eastern Poland by the Soviets.
Comments: This came as a surprise, why would Evans start out by listing Soviet crimes when this is supposed to be about the uniqueness of the mass killing of Jews with poisonous gas by the National Socialists?
Evans continues by writing that only after the Germans marched into the Soviet Union (Einmarsch der Wehrmacht) in June 1941 did Soviet repression of Polish nationalism ease, the Poles then seen as potential allies. But at the same time, Stalin started a campaign against ethnic minorities who he believed could help the Germans. From September 1941 on, according Evans, 1.2 million German nationals (Volksdeutsche) from Ukraine, the Volga region and various Soviet cities were deported to Siberia by the Soviet Secret Police — about 175 000 of them died. Members of various other ethnic groups followed the Germans to Siberia, the secret police killed anybody believed to be in the way: more than 100 000 prisoners were murdered in Ukraine alone. Those actions closely resembled the policies of National Socialist Germany, so Evans, but there were differences.
The Soviets’ true intent, we learn, was to initiate a social revolution: Poland was incorporated into the SU, private property nationalized, Ukrainians and Byelorussian’s encouraged to rise up against the Polish ruling class. Thus, according to Evans, Soviet policy was not racist but part of the class struggle and in reality, the Soviet occupation brought about a system of equal rights. For many Jews this in fact meant liberation, whereas in the western, German occupied part, racism was the deciding factor from the start – Polish and Jewish property expropriated but a general nationalization never took place, the capitalist system continued.
Comments: Hard to say what all of this has to do with the subject matter, also, the National Socialists never tried to hide their racial policies. Evans intends – even though he admits that crimes were committed by the Soviets – to give their policies a sort of human face, whereas what the Nazis did was in his view purely criminal. He admits that those effected by either policy would probably not have been able to differentiate, but clings to the class struggle theme even when mentioning the years of the Great Terror in the SU.
Actual National Socialist policies regarding the new European order, as worked out by Heinrich Himmler, were revealed when German forces occupied Poland in June 1941, so Evans. Half a million German nationals (Volksdeutsche) from Eastern Poland, Rumania, the Soviet Union (SU) and other east European countries were to displace the dispossessed Poles. This so called (Evans’s words) Generalplan Ost (Master Plan East) stipulated that 64% of the Ukrainian -, as well as 75% of the Byelorussian population was earmarked for expropriation -, death via hunger/disease or be deported further east. 30 to 45 million were to die and the whole territory populated by millions of German farmers, effectively moving Germanys border 1000 km east. If this plan have been realized, Evans summarizes, it would have resulted in the biggest mass murder of all times. This Generalplan Ost was supposedly based on Hitler’s long held ambition to create “Lebensraum”(living space) for Germans.
The extermination of the Jews must be seen in the context of this far reaching master plan – and with this Evans has finally made a connection to the actual topic. But, he cautions, the extermination of Jews should not be viewed as just a side show of this Master Plan to re-arrange Eastern Europe along ethnic lines. No, this plan envisioned the starvation/killing of millions of Slavic peoples for economic reasons — their territories intended for future German settlement The Jews on the other hand were mostly poor and therefore of no economic benefit to the Germans. Jews were used as slave labor whenever necessary and allowed to live for a while (even though representatives of the Wehrmacht (German forces) stressed that Jews were “useless eaters”).
Comments: Evans claims that this Generalplan Ost was a long held ambition (auf die lang gehegte Ambition) by Hitler to create “Lebensraum” for Germans. We must backtrack some to see if what Evans charges is accurate. Evans no doubt referred to what Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf. While Hitler did desire more living space, he had a legitimate basis for doing so. The British blockade during WWI was still fresh in his mind, hundreds of thousands of Germans had died because of this blockade, a blockade left in place long after hostilities ceased. As for Mein Kampf, Hitler told the French reporter Bertrand de Jouvenel of the “Paris Midi” that when he wrote his book, the Ruhr region was occupied by France, etc., and yes, France and Germany were enemies. When asked by de Jouvenel if he would rewrite what he wrote Hitler answered that he is not an author, corrections will be made in the book of history. And he did just that, never laying claim to Alsace-Lorraine. Hitler also mentioned that when he wrote his book he could not even dream of becoming chancellor of Germany. But, when Hitler did become chancellor, he wanted the Allies to honor what they had promised at Versailles – and did so from the start – to disarm as agreed to and as stipulated under Article 8 of the Versailles Treaty, which reads:
“The Members of the League recognise that the maintenance of peace requires the reduction of national armaments to the lowest point consistent with national safety and the enforcement by common action of international obligations. The Council, taking account of the geographical situation and circumstances of each State, shall formulate plans for such reduction for the consideration and action of the several Governments. Such plans shall be subject to reconsideration and revision at least every ten years. After these plans shall have been adopted by the several Governments, the limits of armaments therein fixed shall not be exceeded without the concurrence of the Council. The Members of the League agree that the manufacture by private enterprise of munitions and implements of war is open to grave objections. The Council shall advise how the evil effects attendant upon such manufacture can be prevented, due regard being had to the necessities of those Members of the League which are not able to manufacture the munitions and implements of war necessary for their safety. The Members of the League undertake to interchange full and frank information as to the scale of their armaments, their military, naval, and air programmes and the condition of such of their industries as are adaptable to war-like purposes”.
The Versailles Treaty (German defense lawyer were never allowed to mention that Treaty at the Nürnberg trial) allowed Germany an army of 100 000 lightly armed troops, and Hitler, in a speech of 17 May 1933 promised to send even those home if the Allies did likewise. In this same speech, Hitler told his audience that he had agreed to the MacDonald Plan, a plan allowing Germany 200 000 troops, about one-fifth of the number of troops allowed other countries surrounding Germany – the Russian army of about 1 million not even included. Also, Germany was not allowed any planes, while Poland was allowed 22, Belgium 150, the Baltic’s 150, the little entente 550, France 500: England and Russia are not mentioned. Again, Hitler agreed to this plan, even though France demanded that Germany be placed under a 4 year prohibition period. The Allies kept stalling – efforts were made to extend the prohibition period by another eight years – and negotiations were finally to resume in 1935, the Allies arming all the while. Those stalling tactics forced Hitler to break off negotiations and on 16 March 1935 he gave the order to re-arm Germany, as any responsible statesman would have done. On 2 May 1935, France and Russia signed a mutual assistance agreement (Beistandspakt), which officially added the Red Army to the list of foes. That was followed on 16 May by the signing of a similar agreement between Moscow and Prague, and Hitler was supposed to wait 12 years before re-arming Germany???
Germany was also concerned with the newly created state of Czechoslovakia. Ribbentrop stated at the IMT:
“I remember that in this connection he (Hitler) quoted especially the former French Minister of Aviation, Pierre Cot, who had called Bohemia and Moravia, that is Czechoslovakia, the “airplane carrier” against Germany. I believe it was Reich Marshal Goering who already mentioned that at that time we received intelligence reports of Russian pilots or Russian missions being on Czech airdromes[…]”
Still, Hitler took no action until the maltreatment of minorities by Czech authorities aroused even the displeasure of the British. To save face they send Lord Runciman to investigate. Thus the Sudetenland was finally allowed to reunite with Germany, and Czechoslovakia was eventually dropped by the British .
On 26 January 1934, Germany and Poland signed a non-aggression Treaty, and on 24 October 1938, Ribbentrop had a lengthy talk with the Polish envoy Lipski, to see if outstanding issues could not be settled. His suggestion: Danzig was to be returned to Germany and a rail/road link build connecting East Prussia to Germany. Poland, in return, would get to keep all the German territories given to it at Versailles, with Germany to guarantee the border for 25 years. Lipski promised to relay those proposal to the Polish foreign minister Jozef Beck. Those very reasonable proposals were eventually turned down by the Poles. Negations continued but when the British gave the Poles that unconditional guarantee, against Germany, the Poles – emboldened by the British guarantee – refused to negotiate any further. But even after Britain had given the Poles that guarantee, Hitler, along with other ministers, had worked out a 16 point program in order to try and settle issues peacefully. He had informed the British about this program and waited, right up to 31 August 1939, for a Polish emissary, no one showed up. The 16 points were broadcast on the radio at 21:00 hrs (9:00 o’clock) on 31 August, the Poles ridiculed them and called their people to arms, on 1 September 1939, the German army marched into Poland.
Germanys peace offerings, following the outbreak of war with Poland, are well known, but they fell on deaf ears. Hitler demonstrated again and again that he did not want war, and when the French campaign ended he ordered demobilisation, sending whole divisions home: production of war material changed to production of consumer goods. Thus, if the Generalplan Ost was really a long held ambition of Hitler’s, he sure had a strange way of going about it.
Just briefly to the war with the Soviet Union: At the meeting with Molotov in Berlin in November 1940, Hitler told him that because of the war with England, Germany had been forced to advance into territories in which it had no interest in. Hitler than stated that Germanys’ Lebensraum had been greatly expanded, and even though both, Germany and the Soviet Union, might not have achieved what they set out to do, they could be satisfied nevertheless. But Molotov demanded more concessions from Germany and following this meeting Hitler realized that war with the Soviet Union was inevitable. Barbarossa, the strike against the Soviet Union, was a preventive strike, though establishment historians are still loath to admit this in spite of the growing evidence.
Given this evidence one cannot possibly see any preconceived notion on Hitlers’ part re. the Generalplan Ost, as claimed by Evans. This plan, if it ever actually existed as stated, was created for administration purposes — after the war against the SU had started and huge territorial and population gains made at first. On 15 July 1941, Konrad Meyer-Hetlich presented this administrative plan to Himmler, who had requested it. Hitler supposedly discussed his plan in a meeting of 16 July 1941: what is known from this discussion was presented at the IMT as L-221. The original document that might prove the malicious intent of Generalplan Ost does not exist or has never been found — only bits and pieces of related documents were presented at the Nürnberg trials. As such, there is no proof at all that this plan was a long held ambition of Hitler’s, and to try and use it to prove “The Holocaust” is folly.
Hitler openly talked about settling the east and the problems that would have to be overcome. But, he stated, England was controlling 400 million in India with just 250 000 English soldiers and administrators, so it should likewise be possible for Germans to do the same. Hitler outlined how it should be done, by building German cities/villages but explicitly stated that, for the rest of Russia: “…in der wir die Russen leben lassen wie sie wollen, nur daß wir sie beherrschen“ (we will allow the Russians to live as they chose, we will just govern them). Nowhere does he mention killing tens of millions of Slavs, in fact L-221 – according to Hillgruber the Generalplan Ost per se – never alludes to mass killings. There is, however, something odd about L-221. We read, right at the beginning: “…seems to have been prepared by Bormann, because his initials appear at the top of page one”? Seems to be?
Evans goes on to talk about the Ideology of National Socialist Propaganda concerning Jews. The National Socialists viewed Slavic people, i.e., Poles, Russians, Czechs, etc., as “Untermenschen” (lesser humans), who represented a danger to Germans only when lead by clever and ruthless Jews — as was allegedly the case with Bolshevism. But on their own they were considered primitive, backwards and passive. Thus they were expandable, but never a threat to the existence of Germans. Even in the closing years of the war, when National Socialist propaganda started to warn about Bolshevism as a danger to European culture, Slavs were always depicted as the helpers of international Jewry. The Slavs were a nuisance, but the Jews were a threat: the “Weltfeind” (enemy of the world).
Comments: First, in his speech of 28 April 1939, Hitler spoke highly of the Czech people. As for the Untermenschen, here is what Hans Fritzsche stated at the IMT:
“German propaganda, and under that I understand official German propaganda, did not even preach racial hatred. It only spoke about racial distinctions, and that is something quite different; but I will admit that there was a certain type of German propaganda which went beyond that and which did preach the clear-cut and primitive racial hatred[…]”
While the term Untermenschen was used, it was never officially sanctioned – Alfred Rosenberg confirmed this. As for the anti Jewish propaganda, Evans relied on a book by Jeffrey Herf, “The Jewish Enemy”, who tried to make a case for “The Holocaust” via NS propaganda” and failed miserably. One wonders what all of this has to do with mass murder of Jews by poisonous gas! This ‘context’ is designed to lead the reader (via the power of suggestion and bias) to false conclusions. Assumptions are presented as though they are facts.
According to Evans, Hitlers’ anti-Semitism was based on his perceived (vermeindlichen) experiences of WWI, i.e., from the paranoid interpretation of Germany’s defeat, the ”Dolchstoßlegende“ (stab in the back) — as was other National Socialist propagandists’ anti-Semitism. Jews were to blame for the unrest near the end of that war, since they used food shortages to foment revolution which, in turn, led to Germanys’ defeat.
Comments: Mr. Evans would do well to read some books which address that issue, for starters “The Kings Depart. The Tragedy of Germany, Versailles and the German Revolution”, by Richard M. Watt. Mr. Watt details the Bolshevist involvement in that revolution, the forming of “Soviets” and the like. Also, Jewish contribution to communism/bolshevism is well documented.
Hitler was exposed to Jewish machinations in the Weimar Republik, thus his antisemitism had a “rational core’, as Prof. Nolte calls it (see footnote 34). Jews represented 0.7% of the total German population in the Weimar Republik, but 16.25% of all lawyers and judges were Jews and 10.88% of all medical doctors. They all but controlled the entertainment industry, as well as the press . This is why Hitler spoke of a Jewish Überfremdung, overrepresentation by a foreign people. In Berlin 2,614 out of 6,203 medical doctors were Jews, which is 42%; out of 3,890 lawyers, 1,879 were Jewish…48%. Dr. Willy Glasebock wrote in the NZ (Nürnberger Zeitung) Nr.5 of 2 April 1966, that all restrictions for Jews – i.e., those that existed before – were dropped in the Weimar Republik. Jews pushed their way to the forefront not only in economics, but also in government, literature and media (the press); they were able to fill important positions in entertainment. In politics they associated mostly with the left. The communist Jew Kurt Eisner became minister president of Bavaria, but was received with indignation by the rest of Germany. Glasebock lists many more examples, including some of the dubious financial dealings by Eastern-European Jewish shysters and concludes that it was no wonder anti-Semitism increased in the Weimar Republik and that no Hitler was needed for this. Prof. Ernst Nolte writes extensively about the involvement of Jews in communism in Germany — their attempt to establish a “Soviet Germany”. And, Germans themselves were well aware of the Jewish-Bolsheviks butchering that had happened/was happening in Russia, and therefore not interested in the establishment of a Soviet-Germany.
Now Evans informs us that even though officials, as well as members of the Einsatzgruppen (task forces) mistreated/shot Poles and Slavs, their attitude towards Jews was totally different. Jews beards were cut off , girls were forced to clean latrines with their shirts, synagogues were burned down, Jewish men were assembled in public places and forced to do gymnastics till they collapsed, etc. Evans forgets to mention in all of this the following, from the presentation by Smirnov at the IMT:
“Radomsky and Rieder used all kinds of devices for the extermination of Soviet citizens. For instance, they invented the following method of murder: Several Soviet prisoners would be forced to climb a tree and others had to saw it down. The prisoners would fall together with the tree and be killed.”
And although Smirnov refers to “Soviet citizens”, we now know that this was only Tarnsprache for Jews. We then learn a little about the treatment of Jews by Rumanian and Croatian officials, again with the difference that the latter just wanted to get rid of Jews, whereas Germans considered Jews to be the Weltfeind — public enemy #1. The elimination of Jews was of central importance to the Germans, closely tied in with their boundless war aims, their plan to first conquer Europe and then the world.
Comments: So, a nation of some 85 million, that number of course including woman, children and the old, set out to conquer the world? Absolute rubbish. In his speech of December 31, 1941 Hitler reminded the world of his repeated offers to disarm, starting in 1933, and of his many peace offers since. He also told his listeners that England and France declared war on Germany because Germany wanted to conquer the world. Was Danzig the world, Hitler asked? Germany was not allowed an additional 500 000 square kilometers, whereas it was acceptable for 45 million Englishmen to rule over 40 million square kilometers of territory. As mentioned, following the French campaign whole divisions were discharged and production of war material curtailed. Germany likewise never build any long range bombers like the Allies Lancaster (the Flying Fortress). In 1940, less than 15% of Germanys’ GNP was spend on armaments, in 1941 it was still just 19%…reaching 50% in 1944, when “total war” was declared. In contrast, Stalin spend 32.6% of his nations GNP on armaments in 1940, and 43.4% in 1941. This confirms that the threat originated in the Soviet Union: communism intended to conquer the whole world from the start — their emblem was a Hammer and Sichel superimposed over the globe.
Reductionist attempts to explain the National Socialist Jewish policy as rational, or economically related, are erroneous, claims Evans. Jews from all over Europe were arrested and send to extermination camps — the Wannsee Protocol makes this clear. With this the German racial wars differs from all other genocidal wars in history. Other wars were wars of conquest: genocides happened as a consequence, like the killing of the Herero by Germans in South West Africa, or the civil wars in Bosnia et al. Hitler, in his ‘Table Talks’, drew parallels to what was planned in the east (Generalplan Ost) and the killing of natives in North America or Australia, but mass murder of Jews by the National Socialists does not fit into this frame.
Comments: The National Socialists accused the Jews of subversive activities, and for being the carriers of the Bolshevik/Communist virus. Thus, they wanted all Jews living within their sphere of influence ousted; the case for mass murder has yet to be made. The Evian Committee stated: “Not one of the participating countries denies the unassailable right of the German government, to take measures in regards to certain citizens, when those measures are within its rights as a sovereign nation” Problem was, nobody wanted the Jews so when war broke out, forced deportation east, or forced labor, became the norm. For the killing of the Herero, what actually happened differs from the official version, but this isn’t a relevant issue, Evans is just stacking the jury. As for the ‘Table Talks’, I searched the talks recorded by Heims and found nothing – the Generalplan Ost discussed above. The Wannsee Conference? It talks of killing Jews being worked to death while building roads, and not even the most ardent defender of “The Holocaust” claims that this is how it happened.
And now we have finally arrived at something that can actually be construed as an attempt, by Evans, to prove Hitlers’ genocidal intend. WWII was always seen as a racial war by Hitler (even though Hitler did everything in his power to avoid war), of which an integrate part was the eugenic upgrading (eugenische “Aufwertung”) of the German populace and the removal of Jews. When Hitler signed the T4 decree (Evans writes order) in October 1939, he backdated this order to 1 September, the beginning of the war. But even more significant is that during the war Hitler recalled his prophesy when he stated on 30 January 1942: “If the international Jewish financiers, inside and outside Europe, succeed in plunging the nations once more into a world war, then the result will not be the Bolshevisation of the earth, and thus the victory of Jewry, but the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe!”
Hitler, in this speech, told his audience that he made this prophesy in his speech of September 1,1939, when in fact it was made on January 30,1939. For Hitler the genocidal re-arrangement of Europe started with the beginning of the war.
Comments: Much ado about the dating of this T4 decree. At the Nürnberg doctor’s Trial, Dr. Georg Fröschmann, defense attorney for Viktor Brack, stated that Brack viewed the oral instructions that he received on 1 September 1939 from Hitler as the legal basis for this decree. This shows that the decree was issued on 1 September, but since the war had just started, Hitler had other things to do than to put it on paper – he did so later and dated it to the day it was issued, nothing sinister here. The Erlaß (decree) was typed on ordinary stationary showing the German Eagle in Gold and “Adolf Hitler” in print, dated 1 September 1939 with the wording:
„Reichsleiter Bouhler und Dr. med. Brandt sind unter Verantwortung beauftragt, die Befugnisse namentlich zu bestimmender Ärzte so zu erweitern, daß nach menschlichem Ermessen unheilbar Kranken bei kritischster Beurteilung ihres Krankheitszustandes der Gnadentod gewährt werden kann. gez. Adolf Hitler.”
(Reich Leader Bouhler and Dr. Brandt are charged with the responsibility for expanding the authority of physicians, to be designated by name, to the end that patients considered incurable according to the best available human judgment [menschlichem Ermessen] of their state of health, can be granted a mercy death [Gnadentod]. Signed Adolf Hitler)
The legal wrangling is outlined in the VfZ article I quoted from above, the essay titled “Euthenasie und Justiz im Dritten Reich”(Euthanasia and justice in the Third Reich), demonstrating that the TR (Third Reich) was far from being a lawless society. Hitler signed this with the thought of mass starvation of Germans during WWI still in mind, and decided that the life of the incurable must be sacrificed to save the others. Indeed, when the protests became too loud, the action was stopped. Also, before anyone raises the moral forefinger, what about the killings of the unborn sanctioned in our societies? This is done without any basis other than a “woman’s right” to murder her unborn child.
Now for Hitlers’ prophesy: Evans lifted this from “Hitler, 1936-1945”, by Ian Kershaw, in which the caption to chapter 10 “Fulfilling ‘The Prophesy’” reads:
“‘I already stated on 1 September 1939 in the German Reichstag — and I refrain from over-hasty prophecies — that this war will not come to an end as the Jews imagine, with the extermination of the European—Aryan peoples, but that the result of this war will be the annihilation of Jewry. For the first time the old Jewish law will now be applied: an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.’
Hitler, speaking in the Sportpalast, Berlin, 30 January 1942
Kershaw seems to ignore the date issue, he remarks on p.464:
“Goebbels registered his satisfaction, when he received a detailed report in mid-August, at the information that ‘vengeance was being wreaked on the Jews in the big towns’ of the Baltic, and that they were ‘being slain in their masses on the streets by the self-protection organizations’. He connected the killing directly with Hitler’s ‘prophecy’ of January 1939. ‘What the Fuhrer prophesied is now taking place,’ he wrote, ‘that if Jewry succeeded in provoking another war, it would lose its existence[…]”
While Evans is correct that Hitler made that prophesy on 30 January 1939, not on 1 September 1939, he neglected to provide the part about “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth”. Hitler added this element in his speech of 30 January 1942, which was not part of his 30 January 1939 speech. Also, why would Hitler refer to a prophesy he had made on 1 September 1939, when that which he had prophesized, on 30 January 1939, has already happened, the war had started? It seems that Hitler mixed his dates/speeches up, horror upon horror. But then, in lieu of real evidence, anything will have to do for Mr. Evans.
Evans then tells us that the upgrading (Ertüchtigung) of the “so called Arian race” (his words), and the elimination of the unfit was an important part of waging this war. The efforts to eliminate unwanted included “extermination by work” (Vernichtung durch Arbeit) — the Sinti and Roma were effected by this also as many were shipped to Auschwitz and killed in gas chambers.
He again refers to the elusive Generalplan Ost, Hitlers’ table talks and anti-Jewish propaganda (referring to Herf), all of which supposedly created a genocidal climate – and he finally arrives at the Einsatzgruppen (task forces). We learn from Evans that in September 1941, the RSHA (Reich Main Security Office) had already come to the conclusion that mass shootings were not sufficient and that the experiences gained by the T4 program will have to be utilized. By the end of December 1941, we are told that all four Einsatzgruppen(EG) utilized one gas wagon in which Jewish men, woman and children were murdered via re-routing the exhaust through the box in the back. In March-, and later May and June 1942, the mass murder of Jews had begun in the three Action Reinhardt extermination camps, by routing exhaust gas into air tight chambers. At the same time Jews were killed en masse in Auschwitz by the use of Zyklon B, which was then followed by killings in Majdanek: gas chambers also existed in other camps but were not used for mass killings. For evidence, Evans refers us to the articles in this book.
Comments: Here again we see an attempt to connect T4 to the alleged mass killings of Jews, with no evidence offered, just assumptions. As for the EG, no independent body of experts has ever undertaken an investigation to find out whether what was reported and claimed can actually be confirmed. Prof. Maser writes that large areas of the east are still ‘terra incognita’, as historians appear unwilling to investigate for fear of not finding what is allegedly there. Prof Seidler wrote of “documents of dubious origin” when referring to reports allegedly issued by the EG, the whole of Allied allegations based on those reports. As for the rest of it, we will have to wait and see what the other authors have to offer.
Evans continues by writing that poisonous gas was used in three international conflicts: in the first World War, against subversives in Morocco, and by the Italians in Ethiopia; but never to murder millions of helpless, defenceless civilians. Just the same, one can not reduce the singularity of the National Socialist mass murder of Jews to the technical aspect of gassings alone. One can certainly differentiate between work- and extermination camps, but regarding the singularity of the crime it is not a matter of ‘how’ but ‘why’. Up to the end of the war, 5.5 to 6 million Jews were killed by the National Socialists. 3.5 million of them died in gas chambers; 1.3 million were shot by units of the SS, the police and the armed forces; 700 000 died in gas wagons; and up to 1 million starved or died of sicknesses or as a result of maltreatment in the camps erected by the National Socialists in Poland and elsewhere in eastern Europe (Evans refers here to the book by Saul Friedländer, ‘Jahre der Vernichtung’).
Thus, poisonous gas was only one method used for mass murder by the National Socialists. Posterity concentrates on that method because poisonous gas has never been used before. Never before has mass murder been committed in facilities erected for this purpose alone, but it would be erroneous to assume that this mechanized killing was something impersonal. In Belzec, for instance, the gas chambers did often not work, until improvements were made. In Auschwitz, Crematorium IV broke down during the Hungarian action in the spring of 1944, but those problems were solved also. The arrests and mistreatments in the ghettos continued, and all attempts by the SS to calm the Jews failed. The brutal treatment they had to endure left no doubt about their fate.
It is therefore time to again confront the many misunderstandings and legends circulating around the mass murder of Jews by poisonous gas. For the first time international historiography addresses the issues in this book, and as an aside, counters the attempts by self-styled revisionists to deny the existence of the gas chambers.
Final comments: Evans accuses the National Socialists (by now I wish they would call them “Nazis”) of inciting the masses via propaganda, using Herf as a reference, to condition them to accept the mass murder of Jews allegedly undertaken — but of which nobody knew (see part I). Evans just conditions the reader to accept that the National Socialists were nothing but a bunch of mass murderers who cultivated their killers via propaganda. Hitler is supposed to have planned the destruction of tens of millions of Slaves well in advance of the start of WWII, but evidence shows otherwise. Jews were to be killed, something that was planned all along, but evidence shows otherwise. Nowhere does he mention the declaration of war by “Jews of the world” on 24 March 1933 — mere weeks after Hitler came to power — proving that a “World Jewry” actually exists. In this declaration of war, Jews around the world were told to boycott German goods, this boycott having a severe affect. Here is what Rolf Vogel, a decided anti-Nazi, had to say:
“Ein weltweiter Boykott deutscher Exporte setzte ein, unterstützt von ausländischen Juden wie Nichtjuden. Dieser Boykott war so stark, daß Vizekanzler von Papen am 27. März 1933 einen flehentlichen Brief an die deutsch-amerikanische Handelskammer schrieb[…] “.
(A worldwide boycott of German exports started, supported by foreign Jews as well as non Jews. This boycott was so strong that vice chancellor von Papen was forced to write a letter to the German-American trade commission)
Nor does Evans mention anything about the efforts made to get Jews to emigrate, right up to the spring of 1942, when the Madagascar plan was finally dropped. And there’s no mention of the renewed declaration of war by Jewry of August 1941, this time from Moscow. Following this latest declaration, Hitler had to consider Jews to be a fifth column, and since there was no way to differentiate between who was a good Jew (prima Jude) and who was not, evacuation to the east was ordered. As for ‘specially erected’ facilities, van Pelt tells us re. Auschwitz :
“The two crematoria under development (2 and 3), were retro-actively fitted with homicidal gas chambers.”
And that in the spring of 1942, rather late I would suggest if Hitler really intended to kill Jews all along, as Evans tries to convince us. For Treblinka we have conflicting stories about killing methods : it will be interesting to see if the authors of the essays addressing Treblinka acknowledge this and explain how this was possible, since those were also eyewitness testimonies.
Mr. Evans offers no evidence, just rhetoric.
To be continued…
- Wilhelm Ziegler, Versailles, die geschichte eines mißglückten Friedens, Hanseatische Verlagsanstalt, Hamburg, 1933, pp.91ff
- Heinrich Härtle, Die Kriegsschuld der Sieger, Verlag K.W. Schütz, Göttingen 1966, pp.107/108 (the interview published on February 21, 1936, Ibid, p.107)
- Ibid, p.64
- Ibid, pp.63-66
- Ibid, pp.62ff
- Ibid, p.73
- http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/03-29-46.asp#ribbentrop2 , p.259; H. Härtle, Die Kriegsschuld…, p.182
- Laurence Thompson, The Greatest Treason, The Untold Story of Munich, William Morrow & Company, Inc. New York 1968, pp.98/99 and 116ff; H. Härtle, Die Kriegsschuld…, pp.205ff
- Annelies von Ribbentrop, Die Kriegsschuld des Widerstandes, Aus Britischen Geheimdokumenten 1938/39, Duffel-Verlag, Leoni am Starnberger See 1974, pp.242ff
- Walter Post, Unternehmen Barbarossa, Verlag E.S. Mittler & Sohn GmbH, Hamburg-Berlin-Bonn 2001, p.104
- Ribbentrop, Die Kriegsschuld…, pp.335-357; 360-368; 369-381
- Werner Maser, Der Wortbruch, Hitler, Stalin und der Zweite Weltkrieg, Wilhelm Heyne Verlag, München 2001, p.230
- Ernst Topitsch, Stalins Krieg, Moskaus Griff nach der Weltherrschaft, Strategie und Scheiterm, Verlag Busse + Seewald GmbH, Herford 1993, p.141
- Maser, Der Wortbruch…, pp.236/237
- Ibid, pp.233-246; Topitsch, Stalins Krieg…, pp.139-152
- Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte (VfZ), 1972, Heft 2: Andreas Hillgruber, Die “Endlösung” und das deutsche Ostimperium als Kernstück des rassenideologischen Programms des Nationalsozialismus, p.141, also footnote 24
- http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/chap_13.asp 
- Adolf Hitler, Monologe im Führerhauptquartier 1941-1944, Die Aufzeichnungen Heinrich Heims, Herausgegeben von Werner Jochmann, Wilhelm Heyne Verlag, München1982, p.48
- Ibid, p.55
- http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/06-28-46.asp , p.196
- http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/04-15-46.asp , p.450
- Alexander Solschenizyn, “Zweihundert Jahre zusammen”. Die Juden in der Sowjetunion, F.A. Herbig Verlagsbuchhandlung GmbH, München 2003
- Rolf Vogel, Ein Stempel hat gefehlt. Dokumente zur Emigration deutscher Juden, Droemersche Verlagsanstalt Th. Knaur, München/Zürich 1977, p.36
- Dr. jur., Dr. phil., Dr. pol., Franz J. Scheidl, Deutschland und die Juden in Vergangenheit und Gegenwart, II Teil, p.9
- Ibid, p.12
- Ernst Nolte, Der europäische Bürgerkrieg 1917-1945, Nationalsozialismus und Bolschewismus, Propyläen Verlag, 1987 Verlag Ullstein GmbH, Frankfurt/Main, Berlin, p. 139. Also pp.69-143
- Ibid, p.141
- Evans no doubt referring to the well known picture, reproduced in Faschismus, Ghetto Massenmord, p.41. The picture looks suspect, the face of the soldier on the right, for instance, just a blur, as well as that of the soldier next to him.
- http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/02-19-46.asp , p.582
- http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/holocaust_and_genocide_studies/v017/17.1prusin.html 
- http://der-fuehrer.org/reden/deutsch/Der%20Grossdeutsche%20Freiheitskampf%20-%20Reden%20Adolf%20Hitlers%20-%20Band%203.pdf , p.87
- Maser, Der Wortbruch…, p.132, also footnote **
- Ibid, p.230, also footnote **
- Ernst Nolte, Feindliche Nähe, Herbig München 1998, p.12; p.28; pp.41ff
- Vogel, Ein Stempel…, p.193
- Morsch et al, Neue Studien…, p.7
- Franz W. Seidler, Das Recht in Siegerhand. Die 13 Nürnberger Prozesse 1945-1949, Pour le Mérite-Verlag für Militärgeschichte, Postfach 52, D-24236 Selent, p.219
- VfZ, 1972, Heft 3, p.241
- Werner Maser, Fälschung Dichtung und Wahrheit über Hitler und Stalin, Olzog Verlag GmbH, München 2004, p.232
- Seidler, Das Recht…, p.272/73
- Vogel, Ein Stempel…, p.43
- Ibid, pp.334-336
- Solschenizyn, zweihundert Jahre…, p.368; Heinrich Härtle, Freispruch für Deutschland, Verlag K.W. Schütz, Göttingen 1965, pp.249-255; This declaration was published in November 1941 by the „Anglo-Russian Parliamentary Committee, Buckingham House 6-7, Buckingham Street, Adelphi, London, W.C.2 (Härtle, p.255)
- http://www.hdot.org/en/trial/defense/van/1 , the last part of 8
- Carlo Mattogno, Jürgen Graf, Treblinka. Vernichtungslager oder Durchgangslager?, Castle Hill Publishers, Hastings Great Britain 2002, pp.87ff