New Age History and Economics

The Day We See The Truth And Cease To Speak it, Is The Day We Begin To Die. MLK Jr.

Monday, June 18, 2018

Those trying to divide Hindu- Sikhs, make no mistakes,the roots of the gurus are much stronger than your myopic idiotic vision! we belong to the same lineage of family, all 10 gurus born within, Sanatan Dharma, aka Hindu parents🙏 do not forget Banda Bahadur was a Rajpoot, who avenged the death of our sahibjadeh=Guru Ji’s children🙏
Humbly, please study the history of all 10 gurus, do some soul searching🙏
We are rightfully the Hindu Sikhs; origin India   



Parmeet K Randwaha




Saturday, June 16, 2018

Mein Kampf Excerpts Vol II Ch vib Orator and writer

Lies being taught;
Mein Kampf is unintelligible ravings of a maniac.
Now the Truth; Read and know. Vol II Chapter VIb- Orator and Writer:

An orator receives continuous guidance from the people before whom he speaks. This helps him to correct the direction of his speech; for he can always gauge, by the faces of his hearers, how far they follow and understand him, and whether his words are producing the desired effect. But the writer does not know his reader at all. Therefore, from the outset he does not address himself to a definite human group of persons which he has before his eyes but must write in a general way. Hence, up to a certain extent he must fail in psychological finesse and flexibility.

A very striking proof of this is found in the fact that, though we had a bourgeois Press which in many cases was well written and produced and had a circulation of millions among the people, it could not prevent the broad masses from becoming the implacable enemies of the bourgeois class. The deluge of papers and books published by the intellectual circles year after year passed over the millions of the lower social strata like water over glazed leather. This proves that one of two things must be true: either that the matter offered in the bourgeois Press was worthless or that it is impossible to reach the hearts of the broad masses by means of the written word alone. Of course, the latter would be specially true where the written material shows such little psychological insight as has hitherto been the case.

It is useless to object here, as certain big Berlin papers of German-National tendencies have attempted to do, that this statement is refuted by the fact that the Marxists have exercised their greatest influence through their writings, and especially through their principal book, published by Karl Marx. Seldom has a more superficial argument been based on a false assumption. What gave Marxism its amazing influence over the broad masses was not that formal printed work which sets forth the Jewish system of ideas, but the tremendous oral propaganda carried on for years among the masses. Out of one hundred thousand German workers scarcely one hundred know of Marx's book. It has been studied much more in intellectual circles and especially by the Jews than by the genuine followers of the movement who come from the lower classes. That work was not written for the masses, but exclusively for the intellectual leaders of the Jewish machine for conquering the world. The engine was heated with quite different stuff: namely, the journalistic Press. What differentiates the bourgeois Press from the Marxist Press is that the latter is written by agitators, whereas the bourgeois Press would like to carry on agitation by means of professional writers. The Social-Democrat sub-editor, who almost always came directly from the meeting to the editorial offices of his paper, felt his job on his finger-tips. But the bourgeois writer who left his desk to appear before the masses already felt ill when he smelled the very odour of the crowd and found that what he had written was useless to him.

What won over millions of workpeople to the Marxist cause was not the EX CATHEDRA style of the Marxist writers but the formidable propagandist work done by tens of thousands of indefatigable agitators, commencing with the leading fiery agitator down to the smallest official in the syndicate, the trusted delegate and the platform orator. Furthermore, there were the hundreds of thousands of meetings where these orators, standing on tables in smoky taverns, hammered their ideas into the heads of the masses, thus acquiring an admirable psychological knowledge of the human material they had to deal with. And in this way they were enabled to select the best weapons for their assault on the citadel of public opinion. In addition to all this there were the gigantic mass-demonstrations with processions in which a hundred thousand men took part. All this was calculated to impress on the petty-hearted individual the proud conviction that, though a small worm, he was at the same time a cell of the great dragon before whose devastating breath the hated bourgeois world would one day be consumed in fire and flame, and the dictatorship of the proletariat would celebrate its conclusive victory.

It is difficult to remove emotional prejudices, psychological bias, feelings, etc., and to put others in their place. Success depends here on imponderable conditions and influences. Only the orator who is gifted with the most sensitive insight can estimate all this. Even the time of day at which the speech is delivered has a decisive influence on its results. The same speech, made by the same orator and on the same theme, will have very different results according as it is delivered at ten o'clock in the forenoon, at three in the afternoon, or in the evening. When I first engaged in public speaking I arranged for meetings to take place in the forenoon and I remember particularly a demonstration that we held in the Munich Kindl Keller 'Against the Oppression of German Districts.' That was the biggest hall then in Munich and the audacity of our undertaking was great. In order to make the hour of the meeting attractive for all the members of our movement and the other people who might come, I fixed it for ten o'clock on a Sunday morning. The result was depressing. But it was very instructive. The hall was filled. The impression was profound, but the general feeling was cold as ice. Nobody got warmed up, and I myself, as the speaker of the occasion, felt profoundly unhappy at the thought that I could not establish the slightest contact with my audience. I do not think I spoke worse than before, but the effect seemed absolutely negative. I left the hall very discontented, but also feeling that I had gained a new experience. Later on I tried the same kind of experiment, but always with the same results.

That was nothing to be wondered at. If one goes to a theatre to see a matinée performance and then attends an evening performance of the same play one is astounded at the difference in the impressions created. A sensitive person recognizes for himself the fact that these two states of mind caused by the matinee and the evening performance respectively are quite different in themselves. The same is true of cinema productions. This latter point is important; for one may say of the theatre that perhaps in the afternoon the actor does not make the same effort as in the evening. But surely it cannot be said that the cinema is different in the afternoon from what it is at nine o'clock in the evening. No, here the time exercises a distinct influence, just as a room exercises a distinct influence on a person. There are rooms which leave one cold, for reasons which are difficult to explain. There are rooms which refuse steadfastly to allow any favourable atmosphere to be created in them. Moreover, certain memories and traditions which are present as pictures in the human mind may have a determining influence on the impression produced. Thus, a representation of Parsifal at Bayreuth will have an effect quite different from that which the same opera produces in any other part of the world. The mysterious charm of the House on the 'Festival Heights' in the old city of The Margrave cannot be equalled or substituted anywhere else.

In all these cases one deals with the problem of influencing the freedom of the human will. And that is true especially of meetings where there are men whose wills are opposed to the speaker and who must be brought around to a new way of thinking. In the morning and during the day it seems that the power of the human will rebels with its strongest energy against any attempt to impose upon it the will or opinion of another. On the other hand, in the evening it easily succumbs to the domination of a stronger will. Because really in such assemblies there is a contest between two opposite forces. The superior oratorical art of a man who has the compelling character of an apostle will succeed better in bringing around to a new way of thinking those who have naturally been subjected to a weakening of their forces of resistance rather than in converting those who are in full possession of their volitional and intellectual energies.

The mysterious artificial dimness of the Catholic churches also serves this purpose, the burning candles, the incense, the thurible, etc.

In this struggle between the orator and the opponent whom he must convert to his cause this marvellous sensibility towards the psychological influences of propaganda can hardly ever be availed of by an author. Generally speaking, the effect of the writer's work helps rather to conserve, reinforce and deepen the foundations of a mentality already existing. All really great historical revolutions were not produced by the written word. At most, they were accompanied by it.

It is out of the question to think that the French Revolution could have been carried into effect by philosophizing theories if they had not found an army of agitators led by demagogues of the grand style. These demagogues inflamed popular passion that had been already aroused, until that volcanic eruption finally broke out and convulsed the whole of Europe. And the same happened in the case of the gigantic Bolshevik revolution which recently took place in Russia. It was not due to the writers on Lenin's side but to the oratorical activities of those who preached the doctrine of hatred and that of the innumerable small and great orators who took part in the agitation.

The masses of illiterate Russians were not fired to Communist revolutionary enthusiasm by reading the theories of Karl Marx but by the promises of paradise made to the people by thousands of agitators in the service of an idea.

It was always so, and it will always be so.

It is just typical of our pig-headed intellectuals, who live apart from the practical world, to think that a writer must of necessity be superior to an orator in intelligence. This point of view was once exquisitely illustrated by a critique, published in a certain National paper which I have already mentioned, where it was stated that one is often disillusioned by reading the speech of an acknowledged great orator in print. That reminded me of another article which came into my hands during the War. It dealt with the speeches of Lloyd George, who was then Minister of Munitions, and examined them in a painstaking way under the microscope of criticism. The writer made the brilliant statement that these speeches showed inferior intelligence and learning and that, moreover, they were banal and commonplace productions. I myself procured some of these speeches, published in pamphlet form, and had to laugh at the fact that a normal German quill-driver did not in the least understand these psychological masterpieces in the art of influencing the masses. This man criticized these speeches exclusively according to the impression they made on his own blasé mind, whereas the great British Demagogue had produced an immense effect on his audience through them, and in the widest sense on the whole of the British populace. Looked at from this point of view, that Englishman's speeches were most wonderful achievements, precisely because they showed an astounding knowledge of the soul of the broad masses of the people. For that reason their effect was really penetrating. Compare with them the futile stammerings of a Bethmann-Hollweg. On the surface his speeches were undoubtedly more intellectual, but they just proved this man's inability to speak to the people, which he really could not do. Nevertheless, to the average stupid brain of the German writer, who is, of course, endowed with a lot of scientific learning, it came quite natural to judge the speeches of the English Minister--which were made for the purpose of influencing the masses--by the impression which they made on his own mind, fossilized in its abstract learning. And it was more natural for him to compare them in the light of that impression with the brilliant but futile talk of the German statesman, which of course appealed to the writer's mind much more favourably. That the genius of Lloyd George was not only equal but a thousandfold superior to that of a Bethmann-Hollweg is proved by the fact that he found for his speeches that form and expression which opened the hearts of his people to him and made these people carry out his will absolutely. The primitive quality itself of those speeches, the originality of his expressions, his choice of clear and simple illustration, are examples which prove the superior political capacity of this Englishman. For one must never judge the speech of a statesman to his people by the impression which it leaves on the mind of a university professor but by the effect it produces on the people. And this is the sole criterion of the orator's genius.

The astonishing development of our movement, which was created from
nothing a few years ago and is to-day singled out for persecution by all
the internal and external enemies of our nation, must be attributed to
the constant recognition and practical application of those principles.

Written matter also played an important part in our movement; but at the stage of which I am writing it served to give an equal and uniform education to the directors of the movement, in the upper as well as in the lower grades, rather than to convert the masses of our adversaries. It was only in very rare cases that a convinced and devoted Social Democrat or Communist was induced to acquire an understanding of our WELTANSCHAUUNG or to study a criticism of his own by procuring and reading one of our pamphlets or even one of our books. Even a newspaper is rarely read if it does not bear the stamp of a party affiliation. Moreover, the reading of newspapers helps little; because the general picture given by a single number of a newspaper is so confused and produces such a fragmentary impression that it really does not influence the occasional reader. And where a man has to count his pennies it cannot be assumed that, exclusively for the purpose of being objectively informed, he will become a regular reader or subscriber to a paper which opposes his views. Only one who has already joined a movement will regularly read the party organ of that movement, and especially for the purpose of keeping himself informed of what is happening in the movement.

It is quite different with the 'spoken' leaflet. Especially if it be distributed gratis it will be taken up by one person or another, all the more willingly if its display title refers to a question about which everybody is talking at the moment. Perhaps the reader, after having read through such a leaflet more or less thoughtfully, will have new viewpoints and mental attitudes and may give his attention to a new movement. But with these, even in the best of cases, only a small impulse will be given, but no definite conviction will be created; because the leaflet can do nothing more than draw attention to something and can become effective only by bringing the reader subsequently into a situation where he is more fundamentally informed and instructed. Such instruction must always be given at the mass assembly.

Mass assemblies are also necessary for the reason that, in attending them, the individual who felt himself formerly only on the point of joining the new movement, now begins to feel isolated and in fear of being left alone as he acquires for the first time the picture of a great community which has a strengthening and encouraging effect on most people. Brigaded in a company or battalion, surrounded by his companions, he will march with a lighter heart to the attack than if he had to march alone. In the crowd he feels himself in some way thus sheltered, though in reality there are a thousand arguments against such a feeling.

Mass demonstrations on the grand scale not only reinforce the will of the individual but they draw him still closer to the movement and help to create an ESPRIT DE CORPS. The man who appears first as the representative of a new doctrine in his place of business or in his factory is bound to feel himself embarrassed and has need of that reinforcement which comes from the consciousness that he is a member of a great community. And only a mass demonstration can impress upon him the greatness of this community. If, on leaving the shop or mammoth factory, in which he feels very small indeed, he should enter a vast assembly for the first time and see around him thousands and thousands of men who hold the same opinions; if, while still seeking his way, he is gripped by the force of mass-suggestion which comes from the excitement and enthusiasm of three or four thousand other men in whose midst he finds himself; if the manifest success and the consensus of thousands confirm the truth and justice of the new teaching and for the first time raise doubt in his mind as to the truth of the opinions held by himself up to now--then he submits himself to the fascination of what we call mass-suggestion. The will, the yearning and indeed the strength of thousands of people are in each individual. A man who enters such a meeting in doubt and hesitation leaves it inwardly fortified; he has become a member of a community.

The National Socialist Movement should never forget this, and it should never allow itself to be influenced by these bourgeois duffers who think they know everything but who have foolishly gambled away a great State, together with their own existence and the supremacy of their own class. They are overflowing with ability; they can do everything, and they know everything. But there is one thing they have not known how to do, and that is how to save the German people from falling into the arms of Marxism. In that they have shown themselves most pitiably and miserably impotent. So that the present opinion they have of themselves is only equal to their conceit. Their pride and stupidity are fruits of the same tree.

If these people try to disparage the importance of the spoken word to-day, they do it only because they realize--God be praised and thanked--how futile all their own speechifying has been.

Adolf Hitler

Friday, June 1, 2018

Dachau a work Camp

"There is nothing more frightening than active ignorance." -- Goethe
"The search for truth is never wrong.  The only sin is to lack the courage to follow where truth leads." -- Duke
Lies Being Taught;
Dachau was a concentration camp where thousands of Jewish prisoners were racially persecuted and killed.

Truth;
DACHAU

Heinrich Himmler held a press conference to announce the opening of Dachau two days before the first inmates were scheduled to arrive.  In response to the bombing of the Reichstag, Dachau is opened on March 22, 1922 about 12 mines from Munich inside a former gunpowder factory.  Called a re-education center because the intent was to rehabilitate people and send them back into society.  The SS soon began calling the camps "concentration camps" because people were "concentrated"  in one area for re-education and rehabilitation.  It opened with the arrival of 200 communists but was built to hold 5,000 and was mainly established to act as a deterrent to further communist activity.

Himmler stated that it was his promise not to wait until crimes were committed before arresting criminals, and pledged that, in order to protect the populace, professional criminals who had been sentenced many times would be pursued more ruthlessly than before and isolated away from the German people by being incarcerated in concentration camps. Himmler also added that his camps were to be models of cleanliness, order and instruction. It was through this instruction that Himmler hoped to re-educate minor criminals as well as communists. Himmler had ordered strong disciplinary measures to be employed, but the treatment inmates received was just, and they learned trades through their work and training. In the concentration camps, the motto was: “There is one way to freedom. Its milestones are: obedience, zeal, honesty, order, cleanliness, temperance, truth, sense of sacrifice and love for the Fatherland.” (Becker, Hitler's Machtergreifung, pp. 149-50. Frs. 2494-5.)

Dachau was designed to reform the communists and make them into citizens that the Germans could be proud of—citizens who could return to German society at large and live out their lives as peaceful and proper German men and women. Instead of being an institution aimed at punishment, the German system of concentration camps was designed to reform and to re-educate enemies of the new German state.

A correspondent for The New York Times was allowed to visit Dachau shortly after it was opened and came away with the impression that the commandant of the camp, Theodor Eicke, and the men under his command took their job of re-education seriously. 

They honestly and sincerely believed that their task was pedagogic rather than punitive. . . . They felt sincerely sorry for the misguided non-Nazis who had not yet found the true faith.” 

(Nazi Prison Camps to be Permanent, The New York Times, July 27, 1933, p.7)
Not only had the inmates not yet found faith in the leadership of Adolf Hitler, but they also took part in or supported subversive activities aimed at overthrowing the state.

An internal document written in 1934 and circulated at Gestapo headquarters stated that National Socialist Germany would not be complete until its opponents learned to support it and identify with the goals of the German community at large. The writer of the document reiterated the educational value and ideological indoctrination that the camps were to instill in the inmates, and suggested imbuing the inmates with the knowledge that upon their release they would be able to become full members of German society.9 Just a short time later, another Gestapo document warned all state authorities not to harass released inmates so as not to make their complete re-integration into German society difficult. (BAKO R 58/264 fol. 1309 u. 198a.)

The Germans themselves often referred to these camps as “education camps.” In the summer of 1942, three years after World War II began, Himmler was still emphasizing the re-educational aspects of the camps when he wrote a letter to Oswald Pohl. The language that he used in this letter was also given as part of official instructions to guards at the camps. Himmler instructed each guard to make his behavior a personal example to the prisoners, in order to imbue them with respect for the National Socialist state and to teach them how to behave properly. This re-education at the camps was to stress traditional Aryan virtues, such as hard work, strict discipline, a belief in law and order, support for the complete family and respect for traditional German society, as well as encouraging them to respect the National Socialist state and the Nazi movement in general.

Over the years, tens of thousands of inmates were released from the camps once they had shown that they had chosen to reform themselves. On many occasions the commandants of the camps had determined that inmates had abandoned their old ways and had chosen to become loyal members of German society. As late as October 1944, inmates were being released and many of these were communists who had abandoned their previous beliefs.

Of the persons sent to the concentration camps, many were sent there by court order for fixed terms. Other persons were arrested because of the danger they presented to German society. Some prisoners, who had been convicted during the Weimar era, were sent to the concentration camps after their release from prison. Since some of these prisoners were murderers, rapists and pedophiles, the National Socialist state refused to allow them to return to German society until the authorities were sure that they had abandoned their old ways. Contrary to modern political myth, German newspapers frequently carried stories on the concentration camps and often reported on the internment of dangerous persons.

Many of the camps were open to inspection by foreign diplomats and even by German civilians. Often the curious persons would travel to the camps only to be met by friendly guards and escorted through the camps on a personal tour. Of the tens of thousands of prisoners who were released, most probably told their relatives, friends and neighbors of the conditions present in the camps. Over the years, judges, lawyers, members of the clergy, social workers and repairmen were allowed into the camps for official business. Merchants often visited the camps to bring new stocks of supplies, and local civilians were often employed in the camps. If conditions in the camps had been deplorable, German society would have learned of it and would have been outraged. The Germans were and still are a decent people whose only crime in establishing the camps was showing leniency to persons who wanted to do them harm.

In a book written on the camp established at Oranienburg, Werner Schafer claimed that some citizens in the local communities asked permission to send some of their rebelling children to the camps to learn self-discipline. Schafer also said that there were some prisoners who were offered release who refused since they could not remember doing work since the beginning of the Great Depression.  (Schafer, Konzentrationslager Oranienburg, p.247.)  Schafer listed the types of food eaten by the prisoners and computed how much weight they had gained during their internment in the camp. Citizens of National Socialist Germany therefore had good reason to support the officials who administered the camps.

The nature of imprisonment in concentration camps can best be guessed by a document signed by Himmler, in which the principles of internment in a concentration camp were clarified. The document was not meant for public distribution and was classified “secret” before being sent to senior officers of the Gestapo on 27 May 1942. It reads:

"Recently, various officials in the party and the government have begun threatening to lodge complaints with the police against citizens, or to have them imprisoned in concentration camps, in order to give greater force to various orders and decrees. In this manner, for instance, one officer threatened a citizen that he would be sent to a camp for “police interrogation” if he did not produce within five days a certain form, as he had been told to do by one of the officials. I request in all seriousness that the parties involved be instructed to cease this practice immediately, and if this is not done I will take upon myself to declare publicly that citizens are not liable in such instances to either police investigation or imprisonment in a concentration campThe most severe punishments lose their deterrent ability when they are threatened at every opportunity, or when the impression is given that every official, in every office, is authorized to make use of it."

Imprisonment in a concentration camp, involving as it does separation from one’s family, isolation from the outside world, and the hard labor assigned to the prisoner, is the most severe of punishments. Its use is reserved exclusively for the secret police, in accordance with precise regulations which specify the form of imprisonment and its term. In this matter I have retained for myself a large measure of authority and exclusive discretion. All in all the German people are uniquely fair-minded. Most Germans obey the instructions of the authorities of their own free will and desire. Instructions accompanied by threats will, however, be received with disrespect and will be obeyed only unwillingly, not to mention that the multiplication of threats of this type will give a completely false impression, both here and abroad.  (BAKO R 58 1027 fol. 1-291)

Not only does this document illuminate the fact that the concentration camp system was not vindictive or there to terrorize the civilian population, but it also shows that the leaders of the state had concern for the prisoners. Himmler recognized that imprisonment involved isolation and separation from loved one’s and was determined to allow the German people to know that the only persons imprisoned in the camps were extreme cases. But more importantly, as the value of hindsight allows us to, the document also allows us to understand where some of the All-Lied propaganda came from; minor officials were eager to add threats to their orders in an attempt to give the impression that they were more powerful than they actually were. Because of the actions of these minor officials, the Allies had the propaganda to claim that the concentration camps were there to terrorize the civilian population and to force them to become subservient to a state that only cared about itself.
This was exactly what Himmler was afraid would happen, that the concentration camps would be seen to be a punitive punishment and not the center of re-education that they really were.

To meet the needs of re-education, the camp command in each camp was divided into several departments, which dealt with matters of administration, personnel, transport, communications, mail, equipment, kitchen work, supplies, health and sanitation and so forth. The camp commandants were assisted by a deputy, an adjutant, a master sergeant, a medical officer and education officer, a legal officer, a fire officer and others. The commandants were helped personally responsible for the re-education of those prisoners who were not considered to be “lost cases.” Because the camps were often open for public inspections, the commandants were also required to have some amount of political sensitivity. Starting in 1942, the commandants were also responsible for the work of the camp doctor and the medical staff.

The camp commandants had full responsibility for almost everything that happened in the camps, except for the work of the political departments. The political department operated in the camp as an extension of the Gestapo, and a plain clothes officer of the secret police headed it. This department dealt with the reception and registration of inmates, and was also in charge of their release. This department:

• Kept files on each inmate that included personal details about the inmate, the inmate’s picture and fingerprints;
• Was responsible for filing death notices and was responsible for passing this information on to government authorities;
• Corresponded with the relatives of the inmates in cases where there was a need for guardianship of underage children, insurance claims and so forth;
• Had the authority to decree special conditions of imprisonment;
• Was responsible for all interrogation that went on in the camps; and,
• Supervised prisoner informers, censorship, field security, and the prevention of rebellion.

Not all members of the command had direct and daily contact with the inmates. The inmates were kept in a special compound within the camps, overseen by their own commanding officer and his staff. Some staff officers were responsible for head counts, others for work arrangements; others actually accompanied prisoners when they went out to work, while other officers were responsible for each of the living quarters, which were themselves referred to as a block. The personal deputy of the camp commandant usually oversaw the prisoner division of the camp.

The camp commandants were also required to prevent cruelty to inmates. A training manual for camp guards asked the following question: “What is completely prohibited a camp guard? Answer: Under all circumstances he is forbidden to strike prisoners at his own initiative, outside the framework of the disciplinary regulations.”

In 1935 Reinhard Heydrich wrote to the camp guards stating that “it is not becoming an interrogator to insult a prisoner, demean him, or behave with rudeness and brutalize or torture him when there is no need to do so.” Heydrich went on and warned the camp men that if they beat prisoners they would be court-martialed.   (BAKO R 58 264 fol. 309 u. 198a RSHA, January 8, 1935) Eicke himself wrote in 1937 that “the guards should be instructed to abstain from mistreating prisoners. . . . Even if a guard had done no more than slap a prisoner’s face, the slap will be considered an act of brutality and the guard will be punished.”(TV Befehlblatter 1937, no. 5, p. 12, TV file, Berlin Document Center)

The SS actually punished a number of its own men for their conduct while serving in the concentration camps. Two concentration camp commandants, Adam Gruenwald and Karl Chmielewshi, were placed on trial and found guilty of the deaths of prisoners as a result of brutality in their camps. The SS tried over 700 staff members throughout the course of the Third Reich for their conduct toward inmates. This was because the SS and the National Socialist state always considered concentration camps to be re-education camps first and foremost.

It is true that persons who were considered to be hopeless cases such as habitual offenders were sent to the camps, but most prisoners always could earn their release by conforming to traditional Aryan-German standards of conduct. Unfortunately, many guards could not tell the difference between the habitual criminals and those who were there to be re-educated. This problem plagued the camp administration throughout the history of the Third Reich.

Oswald Pohl complained that “As a result of my personal attention to the matter, and the repeated irregularities recently noted, I have learned that many of the guards at the camps are aware only in the faintest way of the obligations imposed upon them.”(BAKO NS 3 442, November 7, 1944.)

But historians must take into consideration the fact that tens of thousands of individuals served in the camps. If 700 committed crimes and were punished for it, it only highlights the fact that the other tens of thousands of Germans serving in the camps took their responsibilities seriously.
In April 1939, Adolf Hitler celebrated his 50th birthday. To celebrate this occasion, plans were drawn up for a pardon for several thousand prisoners in the camps. The instructions that determined who was to be freed and who would remain as an inmate reveal the different kinds of prisoners in the camps as well as revealing Hitler’s generosity and good will. The intention of the pardon was to free inmates who were brought to the camps in 1933, six years before.

It was determined to at least consider releasing repeat offenders who were arrested in the years 1933 to 1934 for short sentences and who had at least served a year in the camps; political and white-collar offenders who had been convicted on minor offenses and who had served at least six months; prisoners of 60 or more years of age, including Jehovah”s Witnesses whose faith would not allow them to swear loyalty to the German state; first-time homosexuals who had not been convicted of sexual relations with minors; as well as prisoners who had in the past been members of the Nazi Party.  (BAKO R 58/1027 fold. 1-291.)

Then in 1941 the camps were classified into four groups, in accordance with the severity of the discipline and conditions of imprisonment imposed upon the inmates. Those prisoners who had been imprisoned for minor offenses and whom the SS considered to be possible to re-educate had the conditions of their imprisonment eased.

The workdays in the camps were formalized in 1938. On weekdays, the in mates worked from 0730 to 1200 and from 1230 to 1700, for a total of nine hours a day. On Saturdays work was from 0730-1200, for a total of four and one-half hours. Not only were Saturday afternoons free, but Christian inmates had all of Sunday to attend their own services within the campand to contemplate the reasons for their imprisonment. (Natzweiler Routine Orders, February 25, 1943, American Historical Association, Captured German Documents Microfiled at the Berlin Document Center, 7. 75 R. 216 2/755081.)

Inside the camp, the barracks were segregated by sex, but in many cases prisoners were allowed to marry, even to other prisoners. Registration in such cases was carried out by SS officers. The heirs of any prisoner who died while being held at one of the camps were eligible to collect their life insurance. Since the life insurance policies would expire if the premiums were not paid, and the inmates were incarcerated and without any substantial income, the SS came up with a solution that Establishment historians will not give them credit forThe SS set up its own fund to pay the insurance premiums of prisoners until the day they died. (Weiterversicherung von Haftlingen, BAKO NS 3 405.)  In this way, the loved ones of incarcerated in mates would not be overly burdened if their relative died while in custody.
In 1936, the question was raised for the first time as to who would take care of the children when both parents were prisoners in concentration camps. Instead of taking the children away from their loving parents as is now done in such countries such as the U.S. and Great Britain, the National Socialist authorities in Germany decided it would be better for the children if the parents were released on a rotating monthly basis so at least one parent would always be there to care for their needs. This rotating release continued until one of the parents was released for good. ( BAKO R 58 246 fol. 1 309 u. 198a. (RSHA), April 21, 1936.)

Needless to say, this program did pose a slight security risk to Germany, but Hitler apparently was more concerned about the welfare of young German children than he was with anything else.

Even though Allied war-time propaganda concerning the German concentration camps paints a bleak picture with ritual murder, rape, assault and other crimes, the facts of the period do not support this view. 
The efforts of the National Socialist authorities to rehabilitate and re-educate incarcerated criminals and communists show a dedication and a firm belief in their convictions that in comparison, the United States and Great Britain are sorely lacking in their own prison administrations. Those Germans, tens of thousands of patriotic citizens, who served in the camps as doctors, nurses, cooks, clerks, bookkeepers, and guards, were much maligned and viciously attacked by Allied authorities in post-war Germany.


Jewish Version
The number of Jewish prisoners at Dachau rose with the increased persecution of Jews at the end of 1938 in the aftermath of Kristallnacht.  The camp was divided into two sections, the camp section and the crematoria.  The camp consisted of 32 barracks, including one reserved for medical experiments.  The courtyard between the prison and the central kitchen was used for the summary execution of prisoners.

The crematorium was constructed next to the main camp in 1942.  It included a gas chamber but there is "no credible evidence that the gas chamber in Barrack X was used to murder human beings.  Instead prisoners underwent 'selection'; those who were judged too sick or weak to continue working were sent to the Hartheim 'euthanasia' killing center near Linz, Austria.  Several thousand Dachau prisoners were murdered at Hartheim."  The SS used the firing range and gallows in the crematoria area as killing sites for prisoners.

German physicians performed medical experiments on prisoners at Dachau.  Hundreds of prisoners died or were permanently disabled as a result of these experiments.

The number of prisoners incarcerated in Dachau between 1933 and 1945 exceeded 188,000.  At least 28,000 died.  It is unknown how many unregistered prisoners died and it is unlikely that the total number of victims who died in Dachau will ever be known.

Truth

DACHAU
Notice that Dachau isn't even on the main Jewish list.  We had to get our info from a different Jewish source.  That's because they had to admit that Dachau wasn't an "extermination" camp and figure out an alternate way that the Germans exterminated the Jews from that camp.  (They also had to admit that no camp in Germany was an "extermination" camp.  That only left them camps under Russian control.  But once Russia started breaking apart, the truth has finally started to be known.)  In Dachau, the Americans found approximately 32,000 prisoners, crammed 1,600 to each of 20 barracks, which had been designed to house 250 people each.  Overcrowding contributed to an immense typhus epidemic which killed the prisoners in huge numbers.

Dachau was originally built to house 3000.  As a direct consequence of Allied bombings, people were horribly crowded together as Germany shrunk more and more.  The consequence?  Deadly diseases and epidemics began to spread unchecked. As Germany was attempting to evade the allies, more and more prisoners were transferred into Dachau.  By the end of the war, Dachau housed 50,000 inmates.
Consider this: More bombs fell on Berlin in a single day than on England during all of the war!

Toward the end of the war, there simply was no way for Germany to organize and guarantee supplies and medication to the German concentration camps. The Allied areal terrorists bombed everything that moved on German rails, rivers or roads - there simply was no way!

That is why many inmates died, largely of epidemics.  Not one of them by gassing! 

This story is told without words in the graph below:

Dachau chart:
David Cole is a Jew who knows the truth.  He had worked tirelessly to expose the Jewish lie of the "holohoax."  You can find more information here;-

Something you should know about David Cole.  He was hounded by the Jews.  He was declared to have a "sickness."  He was declared to have "a mental disease."  The Jewish propaganda machine went after him with a vengeance.  He was one of their own, and he proved them to be liars.  David Cole was frightened.  He went into hiding.  Then the Jewish Defense League threatened him with death.  They even posted a reward for information on his location.  David Cole wasn't well.  His mother was also very sick.  This brave young man finally broke and recanted his revisionist views.  Can you imagine, under torture, how the Germans couldn't withstand their interrogations?  

After the war, it was claimed at the Dachau camp that people were gassed.  In fact, the US army produced several propaganda films supporting that  notion.
 
US Army Film Narrator: "Hanging in orderly rows were the clothes of prisoners who had been suffocated in a lethal gas chamber. They had been persuaded to remove their clothing under the pretext of taking a shower for which towels and soap were provided."
 
Yet now it is no longer claimed that anyone ever died in a Dachau gas chamber. This is a clear case of wartime All-Lied propaganda.
According Dachau Museum Director Barbara Distel, there was only dis-infectant chambers at Dachau, The Dachau Memorial Site also says that the four smaller chambers were disinfection chambers used to kill lice in the camp clothing.
 
This picture was taken shortly after liberation by the Americans and shows the purpose of real German gas chambers - to delouse clothing and nothing more sinister than that. The four Zyklon-B delousing chambers are directly behind the covered walkway behind the clothing. The USHM caption admits as much: "Two American soldiers examine disinfected prisoner uniforms in Dachau."

Disinfecting prisoner uniforms
Munitions factory at Dachau - they look well fed
After the Dachau concentration camp was liberated on April 29, 1945, the former inmates had to be kept inside the prison enclosure for a few more weeks until all danger of spreading the typhus epidemic in the camp had passed. Just before the Americans arrived, up to 400 prisoners had been dying each day in the typhus epidemic which was out of control, according to the testimony of the Chief Doctor of the camp at the American Military Tribunal held at Dachau in November 1945.

Typhus patients receiving prayers from well patient -
Notice the difference in weight?
That's the truth of Dachau.  Yet because anti-German hysteria had been beat into the brains of Americans, including the American soldier, when the Americans first entered the camp and saw the conditions of the prisoners they were outraged.  Thinking of the German guards just like the Jewish propaganda had taught them to think, as non-humans, the Americans took the Germans out.
And executed them.

Execution of SS Troops by American Soldiers - Notice the dead on the ground while the others wait their "turn"
Very Sick
We turned our own soldiers into monsters and executed prison guards without trial
They were fed Jewish propaganda and not truth

General Dwight D. Eisenhowerwho hated Germans (more on this under http://lovkap.blogspot.in/2017/01/eisenhowers-death-camps.html
issued a communiqué over the capture of Dachau concentration camp:  "Our forces liberated and mopped up the infamous concentration camp at Dachau. Approximately 32,000 prisoners were liberated; 300 SS camp guards were quickly neutralized."
"Neutralized"
He forgot to say 
Murdered.
Source;