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.

Tuesday, October 16, 2018

Mein Kampf Vol II Ch 8 strong is strongst when alone

Lies being taught;
Mein Kampf is unintelligible ravings of a maniac.

“In the preceding chapter I mentioned the existence of a co-operative union between the German patriotic associations. Here I shall deal briefly with this question.

In speaking of a co-operative union we generally mean a group of associations which, for the purpose of facilitating their work, establish mutual relations for collaborating with one another along certain lines, appointing a common directorate with varying powers and thenceforth carrying out a common line of action. The average citizen is pleased and reassured when he hears that these associations, by establishing a co-operative union among one another, have at long last discovered a common platform on which they can stand united and have eliminated all grounds of mutual difference. Therewith a general conviction arises, to the effect that such a union is an immense gain in strength and that small groups which were weak as long as they stood alone have now suddenly become strong. Yet this conviction is for the most part a mistaken one.

It will be interesting and, in my opinion, important for the better understanding of this question if we try to get a clear notion of how it comes about that these associations, unions, etc., are established, when all of them declare that they have the same ends in view. In itself it would be logical to expect that one aim should be fought for by a single association and it would be more reasonable if there were not a number of associations fighting for the same aim. In the beginning there was undoubtedly only one association which had this one fixed aim in view. One man proclaimed a truth somewhere and, calling for the solution of a definite question, fixed his aim and founded a movement for the purpose of carrying his views into effect.

That is how an association or a party is founded, the scope of whose programme is either the abolition of existing evils or the positive establishment of a certain order of things in the future.

Once such a movement has come into existence it may lay practical claim to certain priority rights. The natural course of things would now be that all those who wish to fight for the same objective as this movement is striving for should identify themselves with it and thus increase its strength, so that the common purpose in view may be all the better served. Especially men of superior intelligence must feel, one and all, that by joining the movement they are establishing precisely those conditions which are necessary for practical success in the common struggle. Accordingly it is reasonable and, in a certain sense, honest--which honesty, as I shall show later, is an element of very great importance--that only one movement should be founded for the purpose of attaining the one aim.

The fact that this does not happen must be attributed to two causes. The first may almost be described as tragic. The second is a matter for pity, because it has its foundation in the weaknesses of human nature. But, on going to the bottom of things, I see in both causes only facts which give still another ground for strengthening our will, our energy and intensity of purpose; so that finally, through the higher development of the human faculties, the solution of the problem in question may be rendered possible.

The tragic reason why it so often happens that the pursuit of one definite task is not left to one association alone is as follows:
Generally speaking, every action carried out on the grand style in this world is the expression of a desire that has already existed for a long time in millions of human hearts, a longing which may have been nourished in silence. Yes, it may happen that throughout centuries men may have been yearning for the solution of a definite problem, because they have been suffering under an unendurable order of affairs, without seeing on the far horizon the coming fulfilment of the universal longing. Nations which are no longer capable of finding an heroic deliverance from such a sorrowful fate may be looked upon as effete. But, on the other hand, nothing gives better proof of the vital forces of a people and the consequent guarantee of its right to exist than that one day, through a happy decree of Destiny, a man arises who is capable of liberating his people from some great oppression, or of wiping out some bitter distress, or of calming the national soul which had been tormented through its sense of insecurity, and thus fulfilling what had long been the universal yearning of the people.

An essential characteristic of what are called the great questions of the time is that thousands undertake the task of solving them and that many feel themselves called to this task: even that, Destiny itself has proposed many for the choice, so that through the free play of forces the stronger and bolder shall finally be victorious and to him shall be entrusted the task of solving the problem.

Thus it may happen that for centuries many are discontented with the form in which their religious life expresses itself and yearn for a renovation of it; and so it may happen that through this impulse of the soul some dozens of men may arise who believe that, by virtue of their understanding and their knowledge, they are called to solve the religious difficulties of the time and accordingly present themselves as the prophets of a new teaching or at least as declared adversaries of the standing beliefs.

Here also it is certain that the natural law will take its course, inasmuch as the strongest will be destined to fulfill the great mission. But usually the others are slow to acknowledge that only one man is called. On the contrary, they all believe that they have an equal right to engage in the solution of the difficulties in question and that they are equally called to that task. Their contemporary world is generally quite unable to decide which of all these possesses the highest gifts and accordingly merits the support of all.

So in the course of centuries, or indeed often within the same epoch, different men establish different movements to struggle towards the same end. At least the end is declared by the founders of the movements to be the same, or may be looked upon as such by the masses of the people. The populace nourishes vague desires and has only general opinions, without having any precise notion of their own ideals and desires or of the question whether and how it is impossible for these ideals and desires to be fulfilled.

The tragedy lies in the fact that many men struggle to reach the same objective by different roads, each one genuinely believing in his own mission and holding himself in duty bound to follow his own road without any regard for the others.

These movements, parties, religious groups, etc., originate entirely independently of one another out of the general urge of the time, and all with a view to working towards the same goal. It may seem a tragic thing, at least at first sight, that this should be so, because people are too often inclined to think that forces which are dispersed in different directions would attain their ends far more quickly and more surely if they were united in one common effort. But that is not so. For Nature herself decides according to the rules of her inexorable logic. She leaves these diverse groups to compete with one another and dispute the palm of victory and thus she chooses the clearest, shortest and surest way along which she leads the movement to its final goal.

How could one decide from outside which is the best way, if the forces at hand were not allowed free play, if the final decision were to rest with the doctrinaire judgment of men who are so infatuated with their own superior knowledge that their minds are not open to accept the indisputable proof presented by manifest success, which in the last analysis always gives the final confirmation of the justice of a course of action.

Hence, though diverse groups march along different routes towards the same objective, as soon as they come to know that analogous efforts are being made around them, they will have to study all the more carefully whether they have chosen the best way and whether a shorter way may not be found and how their efforts can best be employed to reach the objective more quickly.

Through this rivalry each individual protagonist develops his faculties to a still higher pitch of perfection and the human race has frequently owed its progress to the lessons learned from the misfortunes of former attempts which have come to grief. Therefore we may conclude that we come to know the better ways of reaching final results through a state of things which at first sight appeared tragic; namely, the initial dispersion of individual efforts, wherein each group was unconsciously responsible for such dispersion.

In studying the lessons of history with a view to finding a way for the solution of the German problem, the prevailing opinion at one time was that there were two possible paths along which that problem might be solved and that these two paths should have united from the very beginning. The chief representatives and champions of these two paths were Austria and Prussia respectively, Habsburg and Hohenzollern. All the rest, according to this prevalent opinion, ought to have entrusted their united forces to the one or the other party. But at that time the path of the most prominent representative, the Habsburg, would have been taken, though the Austrian policy would never have led to the foundation of a united German REICH.

Finally, a strong and united German REICH arose out of that which many millions of Germans deplored in their hearts as the last and most terrible manifestation of our fratricidal strife. The truth is that the German Imperial Crown was retrieved on the battle field of Königgrätz and not in the fights that were waged before Paris, as was commonly asserted afterwards.

Thus the foundation of the German REICH was not the consequence of any common will working along common lines, but it was much more the outcome of a deliberate struggle for hegemony, though the protagonists were often hardly conscious of this. And from this struggle Prussia finally came out victorious. Anybody who is not so blinded by partisan politics as to deny this truth will have to agree that the so-called wisdom of men would never have come to the same wise decision as the wisdom of Life itself, that is to say, the free play of forces, finally brought to realization. For in the German lands of two hundred years before who would seriously have believed that Hohenzollern Prussia, and not Habsburg, would become the germ cell, the founder and the tutor of the new REICH? And, on the other hand, who would deny to-day that Destiny thus acted wiser than human wisdom. Who could now imagine a German REICH based on the foundations of an effete and degenerate dynasty?

No. The general evolution of things, even though it took a century of struggle, placed the best in the position that it had merited.

And that will always be so. Therefore it is not to be regretted if different men set out to attain the same objective. In this way the strongest and swiftest becomes recognized and turns out to be the victor.

Now there is a second cause for the fact that often in the lives of nations several movements which show the same characteristics strive along different ways to reach what appears to be the same goal. This second cause is not at all tragic, but just something that rightly calls forth pity. It arises from a sad mixture of envy, jealousy, ambition, and the itch for taking what belongs to others. Unfortunately these failings are often found united in single specimens of the human species.

The moment a man arises who profoundly understands the distress of his people and, having diagnosed the evil with perfect accuracy, takes measures to cure it; the moment he fixes his aim and chooses the means to reach it--then paltry and pettifogging people become all attention and eagerly follow the doings of this man who has thus come before the public gaze. Just like sparrows who are apparently indifferent, but in reality are firmly intent on the movements of the fortunate companion with the morsel of bread so that they may snatch it from him if he should momentarily relax his hold on it, so it is also with the human species. All that is needed is that one man should strike out on a new road and then a crowd of poltroons will prick up their ears and begin to sniff for whatever little booty may possibly lie at the end of that road. The moment they think they have discovered where the booty is to be gathered they hurry to find another way which may prove to be quiker
in reaching that goal.

As soon as a new movement is founded and has formulated a definite programme, people of that kind come forward and proclaim that they are fighting for the same cause. This does not imply that they are ready honestly to join the ranks of such a movement and thus recognize its right of priority. It implies rather that they intend to steal the programme and found a new party on it. In doing this they are shameless enough to assure the unthinking public that for a long time they had intended to take the same line of action as the other has now taken, and frequently they succeed in thus placing themselves in a favourable light, instead of arousing the general disapprobation which they justly deserve. For it is a piece of gross impudence to take what has already been inscribed on another's flag and display it on one's own, to steal the programme of another, and then to form a separate group as if all had been created by the new founder of this group. The impudence of such conduct is particularly demonstrated when the individuals who first caused dispersion and disruption by their new foundation are those who--as experience has shown--are most emphatic in proclaiming the necessity of union and unity the moment they find they cannot catch up with their adversary's advance.

It is to that kind of conduct that the so-called 'patriotic disintegration' is to be attributed.

Certainly in the years 1918--1919 the founding of a multitude of new groups, parties, etc., calling themselves 'Patriotic,' was a natural phenomenon of the time, for which the founders were not at all responsible. By 1920 the National Socialist German Labour Party had slowly crystallized from all these parties and had become supreme. There could be no better proof of the sterling honesty of certain individual founders than the fact that many of them decided, in a really admirable manner, to sacrifice their manifestly less successful movements to the stronger movement, by joining it unconditionally and dissolving their own.

This is specially true in regard to Julius Streicher, who was at that time the protagonist of the German Socialist party in Nürnberg. The National Socialist German Labour Party had been founded with similar aims in view, but quite independently of the other. I have already said that Streicher, then a teacher in Nürnberg, was the chief protagonist of the German Socialist Party. He had a sacred conviction of the mission and future of his own movement. As soon, however, as the superior strength and stronger growth of the National Socialist Party became clear and unquestionable to his mind, he gave up his work in the German Socialist Party and called upon his followers to fall into line with the National Socialist German Labour Party, which had come out victorious from the mutual contest, and carry on the fight within its ranks for the common cause. The decision was personally a difficult one for him, but it showed a profound sense of honesty.

When that first period of the movement was over there remained no further dispersion of forces: for their honest intentions had led the men of that time to the same honourable, straightforward and just conclusion. What we now call the 'patriotic disintegration' owes its existence exclusively to the second of the two causes which I have mentioned. Ambitious men who at first had no ideas of their own, and still less any concept of aims to be pursued, felt themselves 'called' exactly at that moment in which the success of the National Socialist German Labour Party became unquestionable.

Suddenly programmes appeared which were mere transcripts of ours. Ideas were proclaimed which had been taken from us. Aims were set up on behalf of which we had been fighting for several years, and ways were mapped out which the National Socialists had for a long time trodden. All kinds of means were resorted to for the purpose of trying to convince the public that, although the National Socialist German Labour Party had now been for a long time in existence, it was found necessary to establish these new parties. But all these phrases were just as insincere as the motives behind them were ignoble.

In reality all this was grounded only on one dominant motive. That motive was the personal ambition of the founders, who wished to play a part in which their own pigmy talents could contribute nothing original except the gross effrontery which they displayed in appropriating the ideas of others, a mode of conduct which in ordinary life is looked upon as thieving.

At that time there was not an idea or concept launched by other people which these political kleptomaniacs did not seize upon at once for the purpose of applying to their own base uses. Those who did all this were the same people who subsequently, with tears in their eyes, profoundly deplored the 'patriotic disintegration' and spoke unceasingly about the 'necessity of unity'. In doing this they nurtured the secret hope that they might be able to cry down the others, who would tire of hearing these loud-mouthed accusations and would end up by abandoning all claim to the ideas that had been stolen from them and would abandon to the thieves not only the task of carrying these ideas into effect but also the task of carrying on the movements of which they themselves were the original founders.

When that did not succeed, and the new enterprises, thanks to the paltry mentality of their promoters, did not show the favourable results which had been promised beforehand, then they became more modest in their pretences and were happy if they could land themselves in one of the so-called 'co-operative unions'.

At that period everything which could not stand on its own feet joined one of those co-operative unions, believing that eight lame people hanging on to one another could force a gladiator to surrender to them.

But if among all these cripples there was one who was sound of limb he had to use all his strength to sustain the others and thus he himself was practically paralysed.

We ought to look upon the question of joining these working coalitions as a tactical problem, but, in coming to a decision, we must never forget the following fundamental principle:

Through the formation of a working coalition associations which are weak in themselves can never be made strong, whereas it can and does happen not infrequently that a strong association loses its strength by joining in a coalition with weaker ones. It is a mistake to believe that a factor of strength will result from the coalition of weak groups; because experience shows that under all forms and all conditions the majority represents the duffers and poltroons. Hence a multiplicity of associations, under a directorate of many heads, elected by these same associations, is abandoned to the control of poltroons and weaklings. Through such a coalition the free play of forces is paralysed, the struggle for the selection of the best is abolished and therewith the necessary and final victory of the healthier and stronger is impeded. Coalitions of that kind are inimical to the process of natural development, because for the most part they hinder rather than advance the solution of the problem which is being fought for.

It may happen that, from considerations of a purely tactical kind, the supreme command of a movement whose goal is set in the future will enter into a coalition with such associations for the treatment of special questions and may also stand on a common platform with them, but this can be only for a short and limited period. Such a coalition must not be permanent, if the movement does not wish to renounce its liberating mission. Because if it should become indissolubly tied up in such a combination it would lose the capacity and the right to allow its own forces to work freely in following out a natural development, so as to overcome rivals and attain its own objective triumphantly.

It must never be forgotten that nothing really great in this world has ever been achieved through coalitions, but that such achievements have always been due to the triumph of the individual. Successes achieved through coalitions, owing to the very nature of their source, carry the germs of future disintegration in them from the very start; so much so that they have already forfeited what has been achieved. The great revolutions which have taken place in human thought and have veritably transformed the aspect of the world would have been inconceivable and impossible to carry out except through titanic struggles waged between individual natures, but never as the enterprises of coalitions.

And, above all things, the People's State will never be created by the desire for compromise inherent in a patriotic coalition, but only by the iron will of a single movement which has successfully come through in the struggle with all the others.”

Adolf Hitler

Monday, October 1, 2018

Truth about Chelmo, Belzec, Sobibor camps

"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;
Chelmo, Belzec, Sobibor were death Camps.

Now the Truth;

There is no credible evidence that this camp existed
Kulmhof/Chelmno was a small town at the river Ner, a tributary of the Warthe close to the direct railroad line Warsaw - Posen - Berlin. According to the declarations of various authors, it was 40, 55 or 60 km northwest of Lodz. Other publications, however, claim that the "camp" was in Cholm = Chelm, a larger town about 350 km east from it, south of Sobibor and east of Lublin.  Some have tried to prove mass murder in Chelmno by pointing to its railroad connection to Cholm.
The center of the supposed "camp" was allegedly the former manor of the Polish domain Kulmhof/Chelmno, which was also designated as "Palace". According to sketches of the town this building was in the center of the town at the crossing of two streets. Church, pub, school, and administration buildings were all in immediate vicinity.
Chelmno was most likely a transition point for prisoners being transferred to other camps.
Belzec was a transit/labor camp used mainly to send Jews further east.  It started in April 1940 and was situated in the Lublin district forty-seven miles north of the major city of Lvov, Poland.  Gypsies and Jews were housed there to build fortifications on the Soviet-German line of demarcation.  The German guards and the administration were housed in two cottages outside the camp across the road. 
Sobibor was also mainly a transit camp set up in early 1940 in the Lublin region of occupied Poland as one of the 16 transit/labor camps in that area.  Most of these camps used abandoned schools, factories or farms for their structures.  Jewish prisoners in Sobibor came primarily from the ghettos of the northern and eastern regions of Lublin. Jews from German-occupied Soviet territory, Germany itself, Austria, Slovakia, Bohemia and Moravia, the Netherlands, and France may have also been in the camp.  It's unknown if Gypsies were in the camp.

On October 14, 1943, members of the Sobibor underground, led by Polish-Jewish prisoner Leon Feldhendler and Soviet POW Alexander "Sasha" Pechersky, succeeded in covertly killing eleven German SS officers and a number of camp guards. Although their plan was to kill all the SS and walk out of the main gate of the camp, the killings were discovered and the inmates made a mass attempt to escape under fire. About 300 out of the 600 prisoners in the camp escaped into the forests.

Some died on the mine fields surrounding the site, and some were recaptured in a dragnet and executed by the Germans in the next few days.
The revolt was dramatized in the 1987 British TV movie, Escape from Sobibor, directed by Jack Gold, a Jew.

Within days after the uprising, Heinrich Himmler ordered the camp closed, dismantled and planted with trees.

Jewish Version
Chelmno was a Nazi extermination camp in Poland on the river Ner, 37 M (60 KM) from Lodz. The Germans called it Kulmhof.

Jews transported to Chelmno were forced, or enticed, into vans, the doors were closed and latched and the motors were started. A hose carried the carbon monoxide fumes into the van. It usually required 10 or 15 minutes to murder all who were in the van. The driver then drove the bodies to the pre-dug graves in the forest where Jewish workers unloaded the bodies into the graves. The van then returned to the camp and the operation was repeated.

Estimates of the number of people killed at Chelmno vary from 170,000 to 360,000 men, women and children, virtually all Jews. Most authorities agree on the higher estimate. As the Soviet troops advanced, SS guards liquidated the remaining prisoners.

During 1962-63, twelve former SS officers who had served as guards in Chelmno were brought to trial in Bonn, Germany. All were convicted and sentenced to prison terms ranging form 1 to 20 years.


Jews began arriving at Belzek from Lublin and the towns and villages in the area in late May, 1940. By the mid-August the camp housed 11,000. Conditions were deplorable and inmates died by the thousands died from overwork, starvation, disease and execution.

By mid-March, 1942, the decision was made to convert the camp into a killing center under the command of Odilo Globocnic, the police commander of Lublin. Globocnic also established the killing centers at Majdanek and Sobibor.. The Nazis began deporting Jews from Poland and later from the German Reich, Czechoslovakia, and Romania. For the first few months, extermination was accomplished by using diesel fumes; by August 1942 Zyklon-B (hydrocyanic acid fumes) gas was used experimentally. The gas proved to be so effective that it was also used at other death camps. It is estimated that more than six hundred thousand persons died at Belzec, including two thousand non-Jews.


Sobibor extermination camp was built in March, 1942.  The camp operated from May 1942 until October 1943. Its five gas chambers killed an approximate total of two hundred and fifty thousand Jews.

Though it was the smallest of the Aktion Rhinehard camps, Sobibor gained popular national attention with the release of the 1987 made-for-television movie "Escape From Sobibor." The facts of the event are fairly depicted. On October 14, 1943 about 300 Jewish inmates assigned to Sondercommando duties carried out a well-planned revolt. Several SS and Ukrainian guards were killed along with several of the inmates. Those who escaped fled to the surrounding area.  The number of inmates who managed to escape is not certain but all who stayed behind were shot the next day. Following the revolt, the installations for mass extermination were destroyed and the area planted with trees. Only about fifty prisoners of Sobibor survived to tell their story to the world.


The gas vans
The so-called gas vans are supposed to have been used for the extermination of Jews in Serbia and Russia, in addition to their use at Chelmno. Kogon/Langbein/Rueckerl, in their book Nationalsozialistische Massentoetungen durch Giftgas, discuss these vans at considerable length, for a total of 64 pages.

In reading the above books, the observant reader will note the following inconsistencies:

no physical evidence at all is produced for the existence of these vehicles. There have never been any reports of the capture of such a vehicle, nor its presentation in evidence in any trial. Perhaps this is the reason why no illustration of any gas van ever appears in the literature.

there are only two (alleged) documentary proofs of the existence of the gas vans;

all the other "evidence" consists of "eyewitness testimony".

Two leading German revisionists, Ingrid Weckert and Udo Walendy, have made a particular study of the two particular documents which are supposed to prove the existence of the gas vans. A detailed study by the French automobile builder Pierre Marais appeared in 1994.

Let we consider the first of these two documents. It was introduced at Nuremberg under number PS-501. This is allegedly a letter supposedly written by a Lt. Dr. Becker to Walter Rauff, Leader of Section II D, Technical Matters, of the Reichs Security Main Office (RSHA). The document discusses technical deficiencies in the murder vans. We will quote a couple of sentences from the original text, paying careful attention to the original style of the German.
"I furthermore order that all men be kept as far away from the van as possible when people are being gassed, so as to avoid endangering their health by possibly outstreaming gas. Upon this occasion, I would like to draw your attention to the following: several Kommandos have had the vans unloaded by their own men after the gassing. I have drawn the attention of the commander of the Sonderkommando to the terrible damage to their emotions and health which this work may have later, if not immediately, on the men... Despite this, I will not deviate from this order, since it is feared that prisoners withdrawn for the work may take a suitable opportunity to flee. In order to protect them men from this danger, I request that corresponding orders be issued."
[Translator's note: the style of this is impossible to imitate in English.

What German would write like that?

The letter is not signed. Instead of a signature, the name Becker is written by typewriter. To the left of the typewritten signature stands the abbreviation (Sgd), which means "signed" in English! Did SS men use English abbreviations when writing letters to each other?

The various hand-written umlauts over the letters (ä) and (ö) leave no doubt about it: the letter is a primitive forgery, probably from an American lie factories.

Hardly less pitiful is the second "documentary proof" for the gas vans, an alleged letter from correspondence between the RSHA and the automobile firm Gaubschat. The letter begins as follows:
"Berlin, 5 July 1942
Einzigste Ausfertigung
"Only copy"
Regarding: technical changes in the special cars used in operation and found in manufacturing themselves .
Since December 1941 for example 97,000 were processed without the appearance of defects in the vehicles."
First, in correct German, it ought to read "einzige Ausfertigung" instead of "einzigste Ausfertigung"; and secondly, it ought to say "an den in Herstellung befindlichen" instead of "an den sich in der Herstellung Spezialwagen"; third, no normal person begins a letter with "for example", and fourth: what the devil were they "processing"?

So much for the "documentary proofs": What the exterminationists offer us as "proof" in terms of "eyewitness reports", is even more idiotic. Adalbert Rueckerl outdoes himself in appealing to eyewitness reports in German trials on the "extermination" camp of Chelmno:
"These gas vans were large, grey-painted lorries of foreign manufacturer, with closed chassis construction, separated from the driver's compartment, and approximately 2 m wide, 2 m high, and 4 m long... The Sonderkommando had three of these available, two of which were in constant use, and the third used temporarily."
According to which historian you read, between 150,000 and 1.35 million Jews were gassed in two -- or, temporarily, three -- gas vans, with a useful surface area, according to the above, of 16 m2. Rueckerl furthermore permits a witness named Johann I. to report as follows::
"The gas vans came five or ten times a day, carrying bodies. In the smaller gas vans, there were always an estimated 50 bodies and in the larger, approximately 70 bodies."
How could the "witness" have spoken of "smaller" and "larger" vans, when there were only two, or, temporarily, three of them, all the same size?

The manner in which the legend arose has been revealed by Ingrid Weckert. In revenge for the German revelation of the Soviet massacre of Polish officers in the Katyn forest, the Soviets accused German prisoners of war in 1943 of murdering Soviet citizens in gas vans. At the Kharkov and Krasnodar trials, several of the accused were identified by eyewitnesses, and executed. A fatal error was that, according to the witnesses, Diesel exhaust gas was relayed to the interior of the vans.

This is why Hans Fritzsche, Assistant to Josef Goebbels in the Propaganda Ministry, testified as follows at Nuremberg:
"That was the moment when the Russians, after they had captured Kharkov, started legal proceedings, in the course of which killing by gas was mentioned for the first time. I ran to Dr. Goebbels with these reports and asked him just what was going on here. He stated he would have the matter investigated and would discuss it with both Himmler and Hitler. ...Dr. Goebbels explicitly informed me that the gas vans mentioned in the Russian legal proceedings were a pure figment of the imagination and that there was no actual proof to support it."
With the death vans, Chelmno disappears from history, because the mass murders are supposed to have been carried out exclusively in these vehicles.

Chelmno as a place of death didn't even exist -- it's a complete fabrication
Was it a place of transit for Jews going to other camps?
Who knows.  But there was no "camp" in Chelmno.

"Deported Jews at their arrival in the death camp Chelmno where many were killed in gas vans."  Jewish Historical Institute, Warsaw, Poland
This is the only allegedly authentic photo document of Chelmno known to us.

A minimum of 152,000 deaths are blamed on Chelmno -- where are the bodies?  Where's the proof?

Belzec was a transit camp which consisted of five buildings, and a small rail spur. In mid 1942 the Germans used Belzec as a transfer point, where people being shipped to occupied Russia, changed trains.  It was a transit camp that was operated for less than a year.  Nothing more.  Did Jews die there?  Of course!  Like in all German camps, disease, starvation and even unscrupulous guards killed some inmates.  But no proof of gassing has ever surfaced.

Gypsies at Belzec

July 30, 1998
  1. At least 33 mass graves have been located at the site.
  2. ...the largest of these graves measure 70m x 20m and 36m x 18m...the largest graves contained unburned remains.
  3. ...the boring methodology involved core samples to a depth of 6 meters at sampling distances of 15 meters.
  4. ...the implied cover to these graves is between 2 to 3 to 4 meters, which means that the actual depth of the graves averages about 2 meters.
  5. seems likely that the two largest graves are in fact a series of strip graves.
  6. ...estimates...for the total number of dead discovered in these 33 mass graves are in the "thousands" -- this suggests periodic burials of comparatively small numbers, which would be consistent with either epidemics, shootings, or small "gassings", but not consistent with the numbers, or the procedures, usually claimed.
There is nothing in the recent revelations to contradict this interpretation. Although the number of graves seems sizable, the current estimates given by the survey participants range in the thousands, and, estimating from the size and depth of the graves, one concludes that at most tens of thousands, but not hundreds of thousands, of people are buried here. This is consistent with John Ball's aerial analyses of some years ago.

No evidence of systematic mass shootings has so far been presented, although there is evidence of some shootings. No evidence of gassing has been presented, indeed, the "gassing barracks" could not be located. There is evidence of some attempts at burning at least partially some of the bodies. Since this practice appears to have been local, rather than general, and involved incomplete combustion, it suggests an attempt to control hygiene rather than an attempt to "hide the traces" of Nazi crimes. This in turn suggests that contagious diseases were the cause of many deaths.

We await further details on this most interesting excavations.

Best Regards,

Samuel Crowell

A minimum of 434,408 deaths are blamed on Belzec from

 March of 1942 to June of 1943

That's over 27,000 a month!

How did the Germans dispose of so many bodies in such a 

short period of time?

Can't burn, bury or dispose of such an overwhelming number

 of bodies that quickly

What a hoax


Karl Frenzel, commandant of Sobibor's Lager I, was convicted of war crimes in 1966 and sentenced to life, but ultimately released on health grounds.

Franz Stangl, chief commandant of Sobibor and later of Treblinka fled to Syria.  Following problems with his employer taking too much interest in his adolescent daughter, Stangl went to Brazil in the 1950s. He worked in a car factory and was registered with the Austrian consulate under his own name. He was eventually caught, arrested and sentenced to life imprisonment.  In 1971 he died in prison in Dusseldorf.

Gustav Wagner, the deputy Sobibor commander, was on leave on the day of uprising (survivors such as Tom Blatt say that the revolt would not have succeeded had he been present). Wagner was arrested in 1978 in Brazil. He was identified by Sobibor escapee Stanisław Szmajzner, who greeted him with the words "Hallo Gustl"; Wagner replied that he remembered Szmajzner and that he had saved him and his three brothers. The court of first instance agreed to his extradition to Germany but on appeal this extradition was overturned. In 1980, Wagner committed suicide, though there were suspicions that he may have been killed.

It is claimed that the Nazis managed to murder 200,000 in a fifteen month period.  This is over 13,000 a month.  WOW!  Talk about German efficiency!  One just has to ask, where are the bodies?  How did they dispose of so many corpses?  It's impossible!
Rails leading into Sobibor