Showing posts with label Soviet Union. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Soviet Union. Show all posts

Friday, 30 January 2015

"It's Just One of the Gaps in History"

Nature Abhors a Vacuum

1. Sept. 1939

"Reich Leader Bouhler and Dr. med. Brandt are charged with the responsibility of enlarging the competence of certain physicians, designated by name, so that patients who, on the basis of human judgment [menschlichem Ermessen], are considered incurable, can be granted mercy death [Gnadentod] after a discerning diagnosis. 

— Adolf Hitler 

The Hitler Order.

"It's just one of the Gaps in History."
Raul Hilberg

"As the Nazi regime developed over the years, the whole structure of decision-making was changed. 
At first there were laws. 
Then there were decrees implementing laws. 
Then a law was made saying, "There shall be no laws." 
Then there were orders and directives that were written down, but still published in ministerial gazettes. 
Then there was government by announcement; orders appeared in newspapers. 
Then there were the quiet orders, the orders that were not published, that were within the bureaucracy, that were oral. 

Finally, there were no orders at all. 

Everybody knew what he had to do.”

Raul Hilberg
Author of "The Destruction of the European Jews"

In earlier editions of Destruction, in fact, Hilberg discussed an "order" given by Hitler to have Jews killed, while more recent editions do not refer to a direct command. Hilberg later commented that he 

"made this change in the interest of precision about the evidence[...]." 

Notwithstanding Hilberg's focus on bureaucratic momentum as an indispensable force behind the Holocaust, he maintained that extermination of Jews was one of Hitler's aims: 

"The primary notion in Germany is that Hitler did it. As it happens, this is also my notion, but I'm not wedded to it" 

(qtd. in Guttenplan, p. 303).

The Spot.

Lincoln's "Spot Resolutions," made in response to President Polk's claim that Mexico had invaded US territory and shed American blood. 

The proposed resolutions, demanding that the exact location where the blood had been shed be revealed, were not debated in the House, nor did they receive any response from the President.

"Spot Resolutions" on Mexican War.
Offered in the United States House of Representatives. December 22, 1847.
Whereas, The President of the United States, in his message of May 11, 1846, has declared that "the Mexican Government not only refused to receive him [the envoy of the United States], or to listen to his propositions, but, after a long-continued series of menaces, has at last invaded our territory and shed the blood of our fellow-citizens on our own soil."
And again, in his message of December 8, 1846, that "we had ample cause of war against Mexico long before the breaking out of hostilities; but even then we forbore to take redress into our own hands until Mexico herself became the aggressor, by invading our soil in hostile array, and shedding the blood of our citizens."
And yet again, in his message of December 7,  1847, that "the Mexican Government refused even to hear the terms of adjustment which he [our minister of peace] was authorized to propose, and finally, under wholly unjustifiable pretexts, involved the two countries in war, by invading the territory of the State of Texas, striking the first blow, and shedding the blood of our citizens on our own soil."
And whereas, This House is desirous to obtain a full knowledge of all the facts which go to establish whether the particular spot on which the blood of our citizens was so shed was or was not at that time our own soil; therefore,
Resolved, By the House of Representatives, that the President of the United States be respectfully requested to inform this House—
First. Whether the spot on which the blood of our citizens was shed, as in his message declared, was or was not within the territory of Spain, at least after the treaty of 1819 until the Mexican revolution.
Second. Whether that spot is or is not within the territory which was wrested from Spain by the revolutionary Government of Mexico.
Third. Whether that spot is or is not within a settlement of people, which settlement has existed ever since long before the Texas revolution, and until its inhabitants fled before the approach of the United States army.
Fourth. Whether that settlement is or is not isolated from any and all other settlements by the Gulf and the Rio Grande on the south and west, and by wide uninhabited regions on the north and east.
Fifth. Whether the people of that settlement, or a majority of them, or any of them, have ever  submitted themselves to the government or laws of Texas or of the United States, by consent or by compulsion, either by accepting office, or voting at elections, or paying tax, or serving on juries, or having process served upon them, or in any other way.
Sixth. Whether the people of that settlement did or did not flee from the approach of the United States army, leaving unprotected their homes and their growing crops, before the blood was shed, as in the message stated; and whether the first blood, so shed, was or was not shed within the inclosure of one of the people who had thus fled from it.
Seventh. Whether our citizens, whose blood was shed, as in his message declared, were or were not, at that time, armed officers and soldiers, sent into that settlement by the military order of the President, through the Secretary of War.
Eighth. Whether the military force of the United States was or was not so sent into that settlement after General Taylor had more than once intimated to the War Department that, in his opinion, no such movement was necessary to the defense or protection of Texas.

Flights AA-11 and AA-77
September 11 2001

Source: U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS).

Return Radar Track for American Airlines Flight 77
Cleveland, OH - Arlington, VA.
September 11 2001

World Trade Centre Gold 
(1993 and 2001)
"Two Brinks trucks were at ground zero on Wednesday to start hauling away the $200 million in gold and silverthat the Bank of Nova Scotia had stored in a vault under the trade center.

A team of 30 firefighters and police officers are helping to move the metals, a task that can be measured practically down to the flake but that has been rounded off at 379,036 ounces of gold and 29,942,619 ounces of silver ."

Unknown to most people at the time, $650 million in gold and silver was being kept in a special vault four floors beneath Four World Trade Center. 

An article in the TimesOnline gives the following rundown of precious metals that were being stored in the WTC vault belonging to Comex. 

Comex metals trading - 3,800 gold bars weighing 12 tonnes and worth more than $100 million

Comex clients - 800,000 ounces of gold with a value of about $220 million

Comex clients - 102 million ounces of silver, worth $430 million

Bank of Nova Scotia - $200 million of gold

Physical Proof of the Existance of Rainbows

"It's not there."
Phil Jupitus

World Trade Centre Dead

World Trade Centre Office Contents

Owner of Additional Leg, 
Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building,
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
April 19th 1995

August 8, 1995

Unidentified Leg Found in Bomb Rubble

OKLAHOMA CITY, Aug. 7— A new mystery surfaced in the Oklahoma City bombing today, just days before formal charges were to be lodged, when the State Medical Examiner disclosed that a severed leg and foot clad in a combat boot had been found deep in the rubble. 
The brief announcement, more than two months after the authorities said all victims were accounted for, came after the lawyer for Timothy J. McVeigh, the prime suspect in the bombing which killed 167 people, said he would ask prosecutors to explore information that a severed leg had been found that could not be matched to a body. 
The lawyer, Stephen Jones, speculated that the leg and foot may have belonged to "the real bomber" who could have been blown apart in the April 19 explosion. 
The finding, which raises the possibility of there being another participant, came as the deadline neared for Federal prosecutors to bring indictments for the Federal Building blast against Mr. McVeigh and another Army veteran, Terry L. Nichols. A third member of the same Army unit from Fort Riley, Kan., Michael Fortier, is also likely to be indicted, although he has been negotiating for leniency in exchange for his testimony and may face lesser charges. 
Mr. Fortier's wife, Lori, was brought to the Federal Courthouse here today for a 15-minute meeting with a judge in which she was granted immunity in exchange for her testimony before the grand jury, expected on Tuesday. The grant of immunity for Mrs. Fortier was a chief element in the deal that Mr. Fortier was attempting to strike with the Federal prosecutors. 
But the existence of an unknown body could cast the case in a new light. One possibility is that the leg belonged to the second man some witnesses reported seeing with Mr. McVeigh in the period just before the bombing but whom investigators have never been able to identify. Thus far, despite a huge search for a "John Doe No. 2," Federal investigators have not identified any other participants. 
The Medical Examiner's office, in a statement issued today, said it was continuing to analyze unidentified human tissue recovered from the Federal Building, among which was "a traumatically amputated left thigh and lower leg recovered on May 30, 1995." 
"This leg was clothed in a black military type boot, two socks, and an olive drab blousing strap," the statement continued. "Anthropological analysis of this specimen reveals the individual to be light skinned, dark haired, probably less than 30 years of age, male (75 percent probability), and having an estimated height of 66 plus or minus three inches." 
The Medical Examiner's office said that the leg had not been matched to any other known victims or survivors. 
The operations director of the Medical Examiner's office, Ray Blackeney, said the severed leg was found after the last three identified bodies were removed from the building, an operation that was delayed until after the building was demolished because of fears that the structure would collapse. 
At the time of the recovery of the three bodies, Mr. Blackeney had dismissed the possibility that a bomber was killed in the blast, saying: "As far as I'm concerned, he's not there. We have found the people where we thought we would find them. We didn't find anybody we didn't think was there." 
Because the leg was found after the building was demolished by controlled explosions on May 23, it may be difficult to determine its original location. But because the area above the three bodies was thoroughly searched, and the wreckage sealed off and guarded, it would appear that the leg had been further down in the rubble, near the center of the blast. That location would be consistent with someone in or near the exploding truck. Further, Mr. Blackeney said the leg was the largest identifiable body part, suggesting that the rest of the individual had disintegrated from the force of a nearby explosion. 
The "olive drab blousing strap" mentioned in the Medical Examiner's report is a thin elastic band commonly used in the military to "blouse" trousers by tucking the bottoms around the strap and pulling them down over the tops of high combat boots for a neat appearance. 
The military personnel -- mostly recruiting officers -- inside the Federal Building were all accounted for. However, a veteran or someone who, like Mr. McVeigh, favored military garb might be likely to use blousing straps. 
Asked in a telephone conversation why the Medical Examiner's office had not made the existence of the severed leg public before, Mr. Blackeney replied; "Why should we?" 
"I knew about it," he said. "We all knew about it here at the Medical Examiner's." 
He said that the Medical Examiner's technicians had been working with the Federal Bureau of Investigation using DNA and other tests on the severed leg and other pieces of tissue in hopes of establishing identifications. 
"This has come out a little bit premature," Mr. Blackeney said. "This is the last piece of the puzzle and I hope at some point to offer an explanation."

Sgt. Timothy McVeigh,
U.S. Army Special Forces

"Sgt. McVeigh was an outstanding soldier. He did what he was told, anticipated what had to be done (and) took pride in his work," 

- Capt. Jesus Angel Rodriguez, 
McVeigh's commanding officer during the Gulf War, 
testifying at his sentencing hearing

“The shallow breathing continued... or what appeared to be shallow breathing... even after they pronounced him dead.” 

- Susan Carlson reporting on McVeigh’s execution for WLS Chicago, 
broadcast minutes after the sentence was carried out.

Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction 

Evidence of Criminal or Moral Guilt on the Part of President Richard Nixon Relative to the Watergate Break-in

Bob Woodward, The Guardian (3rd June, 2005)

"Somewhat to my astonishment, Felt was an admirer of Hoover. He appreciated his orderliness and the way he ran the bureau with rigid procedures and an iron fist. Felt said he appreciated that Hoover arrived at the office at 6.30 each morning and everyone knew what was expected. 

The Nixon White House was another matter, Felt said. The political pressures were immense without being specific. I believe he called it "corrupt" and sinister. Hoover, Felt and the old guard were the wall that protected the FBI, he said."

When the Pentagon Papers were leaked in 1971, Richard Nixon initially wasn’t all that concerned

But that was before Secretary of State Henry Kissenger complained to the president that the leaks were compromising secret negotiations with the North Vietnamese.

And that could’ve jeopardized Nixon’s re-election.

Dean says this is when Nixon began ordering break-ins. Dean learned about one such plan from an underling who had just come to him from former White House Counsel Chuck Colson’s office.

“And he said, ‘Chuck had asked me to firebomb the Brookings Institute.’"

"I said, ‘What?'"

“He said, ‘He thinks I should firebomb the Brookings Institute. When the fire department is responding it’ll be a diversion. And I’m to send a safecracker in to break into the safe at the Brookings and get out the Pentagon Papers.’”

Dean thought the plan was absurd. And he also knew there was no point arguing with Colson. So he went straight to his superior and top Nixon aide John Ehrlichman.

“He was in San Clemente, I jumped on the next plane, flew out there, told him of this," Dean said. "And he simply picked up the phone, called Chuck Colson, and said, ‘Young Counsel Dean is out here, doesn’t think the Brookings plan is a very good one, Chuck. Cancel it.’ Turned to me and said, ‘Anything else, Counselor?’ I said, ‘No, that’ll handle it.’”

As it turned out, Colson wasn’t the originator of the idea.

“It isn’t until years later when the tapes come out," Dean says, "That I learn the order for the break-in really came from Richard Nixon, who is at one point literally pounding on the desk, saying, ‘I want a break-in! I want it yesterday, nobody’s exercising, nobody’s following through.’”

Dean’s adamant that Nixon didn’t directly order the Watergate break-in. But he also says that outbursts like that made it clear to the staff what was expected.

Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, The Final Days (1976)

John Dean, the President's former counsel had been fired on April 30 and was now busily leaking stories all over Washington about the Watergate scandal. Some of them hinted that the President was involved in the cover-up. Dean seemed to have some record of White House misdeeds; he told Judge John Sirica that he had removed certain documents from the White House to protect them from "illegitimate destruction". Dean had put them in a safe-deposit box and given the keys to the judge. The New York Times, also citing anonymous informers, said that one of its sources "suggested that Mr. Dean may have tape-recorded some of his White House conversations".

William Sullivan, The Bureau: My Thirty Years in Hoover's FBI (1979)

"I suppose the Kennedys did that kind of thing with Hoover," Dean said. I told him truthfully that the Kennedys had been so wary of Hoover that they never used the FBI at all if they could help it. Dean didn't look as if he believed me. "What about Johnson?" he asked quickly.

Once again I answered truthfully. "Compared to Lyndon Johnson," I told him, "the current administration is spartan in its use of the FBI." Dean's tongue was practically hanging out of his mouth as I talked. I couldn't tell him about every one of Johnson's illegal uses of the FBI-DeLoach was the one who could - but I could tell him enough. I told him about the FBI surveillance I'd helped to set up on Madame Chennault. I told him how Johnson had praised Hoover and the FBI for keeping tabs on Bobby Kennedy at the Democratic convention in Atlantic City by tapping Martin Luther King's phone. I told him about the behind-the-scenes wheeling and dealing done by LBJ, Abe Fortas, and Deke DeLoach after Walter Jenkins was arrested in Washington, and I told Dean that Johnson had asked the FBI to dig up derogatory information on Senator Fulbright and other Democratic senators who had attacked Johnson's policies. Of course, the FBI wasn't chartered to do that kind of work, but Hoover loved to help his friends - and those he wished were his friends.

Dean asked if I would write a confidential memo for "White House use only" detailing some examples of previous illegal political use of the FBI. He didn't tell me, and I certainly never guessed, that Dean would give the "confidential information I'd supplied to the Watergate prosecutors. I did realize, though, that I could be heading into stormy waters, so I told Dean I'd send the memo, but that I'd only write about events that I would be willing to testify to publicly. Dean readily agreed.

Then he sat back in his chair and said, "I'd like you to write a second memo after you've done that one. I'd like to pick your brains. You've been around Washington for years, and I'd like your opinion on how we should cope with the situation we have with the Plumbers."

Tabula Rasa : The Public Myth of Adolph Hitler

"Hitler was gassed in World War One and they took him to the hospital and, according to a U.S. Navy Intelligence report, they brought in a Dr. Forster, a hypnotist, and they groomed him. 

They told him that he would have troops that would someday invade Russia and kick the Communists out. 

They hypnotized him so that he would always believe that he'd be a great leader, like Joan of Arc."
The Mind of Mae Brussell
by Paul Krassner
(from OUI magazine, May 1978)
The Golem of Prague

LYNDON LAROUCHE: "The problem of Hitler, Bob, is that Hitler was not real, he was a golem. The evil of Hitler lay in the rabbi’s wife, who turned this golem loose on society. The rabbi’s wife in this case was Averell Harriman. We always knew Harriman was a bit queer but that’s the way things are. What is to be loved in this case is the principle of humanity, individual humanity. 

Now what would we do with Hitler? What would I do with Hitler if I had him captured? Would I kill him? No! I wouldn’t kill him. I might put in a cage. As I’ve said of Kissinger : I wouldn’t want Kissinger dead. I’d want him in a pit to come out once a day to be pissed on by the widows and orphans of the world."

"For the average UK/USA citizen schooled and brought up on a diet of a plucky little Island Nation battling against the odds and joined by its US ally just in time to defeat the Evil Empire, it makes very uncomfortable reading indeed. Most will close their minds to its meticulously researched, documented and footnoted contents. The establishment will indulge the vicious calumnies that are its only defence against having its 'just war' narrative exposed as a self-serving oversimplification. As is clear from Preparata's afterword (see below), written 4 years after publication of the book, this is already being attempted - thankfully with little success so far."

Tuesday, 27 January 2015

Beyond Perfidy - The Real Holocaust Denial That Ridicules History and Regards Suffering as Legal Tender

Red Army Liberation of Auschwitz I, January 27th 1945.

In reality, the liberation of Auschwitz, Auschwitz-Birkinau and Auschwitz-Monowitz was largely symbolic, since the SS had evacuated much of the camp populace in a series of Death Marches anticipation of the Soviet advance, meaning that the camps themselves were largely abandoned, with only a few dozens or perhaps hundred of inmates remaining there, unguarded and unsupervised when the Red Army arrived to "liberate" them.

But the point is, the camp was liberated by the Red Army - and most of them were Russians.

“We all remember well the Soviet invasion of Ukraine and Germany."

- "Prime Minister" Arseniy Yatsenyuk, 
NATO Proconsul of Nulandistan 

"Russia, like most invited nations, is sending a lower-ranked official and will be represented by the Kremlin's chief of staff, Sergei Ivanov.

This unusual diplomacy deteriorated into a public spat when a Polish radio station asked the country's foreign minister, Grzegorz Schetyna whether it was petty not to invite Mr Putin.

He decided to answer by crediting the Ukrainians for liberating Auschwitz, rather than the Soviet Union's Red Army.

'Anti-Russia hysteria'

Moscow was incensed, saying it was time to stop "ridiculing history" and engaging in "anti-Russia hysteria". Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Mr Schetyna's comments were "blasphemous and cynical". 

He pointed out Auschwitz was liberated by a Red Army consisting of Russians, Ukrainians, Chechens, Georgians and Tatars.

Auschwitz was liberated by the Red Army's First Ukrainian Front, which certainly included both Ukrainians and Russians. Maj Anatoly Shapiro, a Ukrainian Jew, led the battalion that fought its way into the camp. 

On Friday Mr Schetyna insisted he was right because, as he said, it was "obvious" that a multi-ethnic Red Army liberated Auschwitz, but it had in fact been a Ukrainian officer, Igor Pobirchenko, whose tank was the first to break through the camp's gates.

Civic Leaders of Kiev welcome the German Occupiers, August 1941

"All Yids[a] of the city of Kiev and its vicinity must appear on Monday, September 29, by 8 o'clock in the morning at the corner of Mel'nikova and Doktorivska streets (near the cemetery). 
Bring documents, money and valuables, and also warm clothing, linen, etc. 
Any Yids[a] who do not follow this order and are found elsewhere will be shot. 
Any civilians who enter the dwellings left by Yids[a] and appropriate the things in them will be shot."
—Order posted in Kiev in Russian by the Bandera Nazis, 
on or around September 26, 1941.

Through their virtual disinvitation, EU countries are preventing the Russian president from participating at the commemoration of the 70th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz. The highest representative of the country, whose army had halted the mass murder in the German extermination camp January 27, 1945, is thereby excluded from the commemoration ceremonies. However, Germany’s president, will participate. Joachim Gauck had already used his speech on the 75th anniversary of Germany’s invasion of Poland, to massively stir up sentiments against Moscow and to transform the commemoration of Nazi crimes into an appeal for closing ranks against Russia. In his memoirs, Gauck described Red Army soldiers, who had liberated Germany, as beings “with Asian facial features,” “reeking of Vodka,” who “requisitioned and stole.” A few years ago, he complained, “the occurrence of the German Judeocide has been inflated to a uniqueness,” because “certain milieus of post religious societies” were seeking “a certain shudder in face of the unspeakable.” In 2010, he was quoted saying, he “wonders how much longer we Germans want to nurture our culture of chagrin.”
“Just Like Nazi Troops”
The commemoration of the 70th anniversary of the liberation of the German Auschwitz extermination camp had been the focus of political intrigues already last year. At the commemoration of the 60th anniversary of its liberation, Russian President Vladimir Putin’s participation was still taken for granted. After having suffered severe losses, the Soviet Army reached Auschwitz January 27, 1945, putting an end to the ghastly murders Germans were committing. 
First attempts to exclude Putin from the commemoration of the 70th Anniversary were made in Poland in the summer 2014. A parliamentarian was quoted saying that the Red Army “had been an aggressor” in WW II, “just like Nazi troops,” which is why the Russian President should only be allowed to make a “penitential pilgrimage” to Poland.[1] At the time, Bronisław Komorowski could see nothing wrong with Putin’s participation at the Auschwitz commemoration. However, anti-Russian forces have prevailed and the Russian President’s invitation was cancelled through diplomatic channels. According to reports, Poland’s Prime Minister Ewa Kopacz has also campaigned to prevent Putin from participating at a parallel commemoration ceremony in Prague. This would exclude the president of the country, whose army had lost more than a million soldiers just to liberate the German Reich and the Polish territories under German occupation.
Turned against Russia
The anti-Russian instrumentalization of the memory of German crimes against humanity is making headway with Putin’s virtual disinvitation. Already on September 1, 2014, German President Joachim Gauck used his memorial address in Gdansk — commemorating the 75th Anniversary of the German invasion of Poland — to stir up anti-Russian sentiments. Referring to the Ukraine conflict, Gauck accused Russia of giving a higher priority to “a quest for power,” rather than to “maintaining stability and peace.” Completely blotting out western support for the Ukrainian putsch and the civil war, while ignoring all the wars waged by the West from Yugoslavia to Iraq on up to Libya, Gauck alleged that Russia had “violated international law” and “annexed foreign territory.“[2] Alluding to Great Britain and France’s approbation for Germany’s occupation of parts of Czechoslovakia in October 1938, targeting Russia, Gauck declared, “history teaches us that territorial concessions often whet the appetite of the aggressors.” The commemoration of Nazi crimes was thereby transformed into an appeal to close ranks against Russia, which Germany had invaded.
A “Culture of Chagrin”
On various occasions before becoming president, Gauck, who, unlike Russia’s President Putin, will be present at Auschwitz January 27, had made public statements showing how he views Germany’s 1945 liberation and the Shoah. In his memoires, he wrote on the subject of Germany’s liberation, that it arrived as “horrible news,” he depicted the Red Army soldiers as beings “with Asian facial features,” reeking “of vodka,” who “requisitioned and stole” and systematically raped women.[3] 2006, Gauck remorsefully claimed that there is “a tendency toward sanctifying the Holocaust,” wherein “the occurrence of German Judeocide is inflated to a uniqueness that ultimately escapes comprehension and analysis.” “Certain milieus of post-religious societies” were persistently searching “for the dimension of the absolute, a certain shudder in face of the unspeakable.” This could also be achieved by “the absolute evil” and is “paradoxically of psychological advantage.“[4] Gauck has stated several times that “the Germans” would be well advised to change their approach to history. In the fall of 2010, he mused, “I ask myself, how much longer do we Germans want to nurture our culture of chagrin.“[5] This was after he had positively responded to the question whether “the majority of the Germans” are mature enough for a “reorientation toward their own victims, the reorientation toward the patriotic.” “That’s how I see it.“[6]
Broad Brush
Until he was inaugurated president, Gauck’s historical views were criticized in German public opinion, For example, he has a knack for using the “broad brush,” in reference to his remarks on the “Black Book of Communism.“[7] Gauck had written that “the communists had also made themselves unpopular, when they ... approved Poland’s westward acquisition of territory and thereby Germany’s loss of its eastern territories.” “To both the natives and the expellees, this loss of the homeland was considered a great injustice, which the communists sealed in 1950, by recognizing the Oder-Neisse as the new German-Polish border,“[8] alleges Gauck. In the conflict over the “Centre against Expulsions,” he took the side of the president at the time, Erika Steinbach, who was sharply criticized for her historical revisionist statements, particularly in Poland. Gauck is quoted on the German League of Expellees’ (BdV) website saying, Berlin is most certainly the best location for a “Centre against Expulsions.” It blends in, because Berlin is where “there are various ‘topographies of terror,’ the location of the Wannsee Conference and the Stasi Headquarters, the former seat of government of brown and red despots.“[9]
Yatsenyuk’s “Soviet Invasion”
Gauck’s Auschwitz speech and Putin’s disinvitation coincide with Berlin’s open cooperation with the fascist successors of Nazi collaborators to stage a pro-western coup in Kiev. ( reported.[10]) The Kiev government has adopted their anti-Russian standpoints, which are also increasingly having an influence on the German debate where they dovetail with old anti-Russian sentiments. Arseniy Yatsenyuk recently caused a stir with his interview on German television. He literally alleged, “We all remember well the Soviet invasion of Ukraine and Germany.“[11] This statement has remained unchallenged.
[1] Streit in Polen über Einladung Putins zu Auschwitz-Gedenken 2015. 09.05.2014.
[2] Gedenkfeier zum deutschen Überfall auf Polen 1939. 01.09.2014.
[3] Joachim Gauck: Winter im Sommer, Frühling im Herbst. München 2009. See Hans-Rüdiger Minow: Der Zug der Erinnerung, die Deutsche Bahn und der Kampf gegen das Vergessen.
[4] Joachim Gauck: Welche Erinnerungen braucht Europa? See The Consensus President.
[5] “Mutige Politiker ziehe ich vor”. 30.09.2010.
[6] Gauck: Erinnerung an Vertreibung leugnet nicht den Nazi-Terror. 31.08.2006.
[7] Daniela Dahn: Gespalten statt versöhnt. 10.06.2010.
[8] Stéphane Courtois et al.: Das Schwarzbuch des Kommunismus. Unterdrückung, Verbrechen und Terror. München 1998.
[10] See Vom Stigma befreit

Saturday, 29 November 2014

Hitler : The Post-modern Putsch - The Making of a Bavarian Candidate

Gefreiter Hilter, circa 1917

"Hitler was gassed in World War One and they took him to the hospital and, according to a U.S. Navy Intelligence report, they brought in a Dr. Forster, a hypnotist, and they groomed him. 

They told him that he would have troops that would someday invade Russia and kick the Communists out. 

They hypnotized him so that he would always believe that he'd be a great leader, like Joan of Arc."

The Mind of Mae Brussell
by Paul Krassner

(from OUI magazine, May 1978)
from Spike EP on Vimeo.

A little-known United States Naval Intelligence document (declassified in 1973) for the first time identified Dr. Edmund Forster as the psychiatrist who treated Adolf Hitler during his recovery in Pasewalk Military Hospital.

The fact that Adolf Hitler served as a corporal in World War I is known. However, little has been known as to the psychiatric treatment of Hitler during the autumn of 1918 after he fell victim to a mustard gas attack while serving in the front lines with The 16th Bavarian Reserve Infantry Regiment.

Historians (Rudolph Binion and John Toland) have acknowledged Hitler's days in the Pasewalk Hospital, but Hitler's psychiatric treatment was not the focus of their attention.

The author of the present paper (a psychiatrist) sets out to better understand what is known about Forster's encounter with Adolf Hitler; and discusses the possibility that suggestions given to Hitler under hypnosis may have influenced the course of history.

Author Information:
Post, DE
Clinical assistant professor of psychiatry, LSU Medical Center, Department of Psychiatry/ELSH, Jackson, LA

"Many people believe that this feeling of Destiny and mission have come to Hitler through his successes. This is probably false. Later in our study (Part V) we will try to show that Hitler has had this feeling for a great many years although it may not have become a conscious conviction until much later. In any case it was forcing its way into consciousness during the war and has played a dominant role in his actions ever since. Mend (one of his comrades), for example, reports:
"An eine eigenartige Propheseiung errinere ich mich noch in diesem Zusammenhag: Kurs vor Weihnachten (1915) auesserte er sich, dass wir noch vieles von ihm hoeren werden. Wir sollen nur abwarten, bis seine Zeit gekommen ist." (208)
Please find your translated text below:
  • "In a strange Propheseiung errinere I me still in this together Hag: course before Christmas (1915) commented it is, that we will hear much from him." We should just wait until (English)
Then, too, Hitler has reported several incidents during the war which proved to him that he was under Divine protection. The most startling of these is the following:
"I was eating my dinner in a trench with several comrades. Suddenly a voice seemed to be saying to me, 'Get up and go over there.' It was so clear and insistent that I obeyed automatically, as if it had been a military order. I rose at once to my feet and walked twenty yards along the trench carrying my dinner in its tin can with me. Then I sat down to go on eating, my mind being once more at rest. Hardly had I done so when a flash and deafening report came from the part of the trench I had just left. A stray shell had burst over the group in which I had been sitting, and every member of it was killed." (Price, 241)
Then, also, there was the vision he had while in hospital at Pasewalk suffering from blindness allegedly caused by gas:
"Als ich im Bett lag kam mir der Gedanke, dass ich Deutschland befreien wuerde, dass ich es gross machen wuerde, und ich habe sofort gewusst, dass das verwirklicht werden wuerde." (429)
Please find your translated text below:
  • "As I lay in bed I had the idea that I would free Germany that I would make it great, and I knew immediately that this would be achieved." (English)

A group of German soldiers. A young Adolf Hitler is on the left (with the "X" above his head).

The Führer, Soldier aged 25 years Immediately after the mobilization, on 3 August 1914, Adolf Hitler’s request to King Ludwig III of Bavaria for entering the Bavarian Army was approved. 

On 16 August Adolf Hitler was accepted as a war volunteer and assigned to the Bavarian Reserve Infantry Regiment No. 16 (commander: List), to which Adolf Hitler belonged up to the end of war. 

The Führer with his war comrades of the Bavarian Reserve Infantry Regiment 16. 

From left to right: standing: Sperl (Munich), lithographer (?), Max Mund (Munich), gilder, sitting: Georg Wimmer (Munich), tram worker, Josef Inkofer (Munich), Lausamer (killed in action), the Führer, lying: Balthasar Brandmayer (Bad Aibling), bricklayer.

The effects of Germany's defeat.

Everything went smoothly as long as he felt sure that all would turn out well in the end. He never complained about the hardships that were imposed on him and he never grumbled with the other men. He was happy in what he was doing and met the trials and tribulations of army life with his chin up until he discovered that things were going badly and that his symbolic mother was about to be degraded as he had imagined his real mother had been degraded in his childhood. To him it was as if his mother was again the victim of a sexual assault. This time it was the November Criminals and the Jews who were guilty of the foul deed and he promptly transferred his repressed hate to these new perpetrators.

When he became fully aware of Germany's defeat he reacted in a typically hysterical manner. He refused to accept or adjust to the situation on a reality level. Instead, he reacted to this event as he probably reacted to the discovery of his parents in intercourse. He writes:

"I stumbIed and tottered rearwards with burning eyes...Already a few hours later the eyes had turned into burning coals; it had become dark around me."
In another place he writes:
"While everything began to go black again before my eyes, stumbling, I groped my way back to the dormitory, threw myself on my cot and buried my burning head in the covers and pillows."
At the time this happened he had been exposed to a slight attack of mustard gas. He immediately believed that he was blinded and speechless. Although he spent several weeks in hospital, neither his symptoms nor the development of the illness corresponded to those found in genuine gas cases. It has been definitely established that both the blindness and the mutism were of an hysterical nature. The physician who treated him at that time found his case so typical of hysterical symptoms in general that for years after the war he used it as an illustration in his courses given at a prominent German medical school. We know from a great many other cases that during the onset of such attacks the patient behaves in exactly the same manner as he did earlier in his life when confronted by a situation with the same emotional content. It is as though the individual were actually reliving the earlier experience over again. In Hitler's case this earlier experience was almost certainly the discovery of his parents in intercourse and that he interpreted this as a brutal assault in which he was powerless. He refused to believe what his eyes told him and the experience left him speechless.
That this interpretation is correct is evidenced by his imagery in dealing with the event later on. Over and over again we find figures of speech such as these:
" what wiles the soul of the German has been raped."
"...our German pacifists will pass over in silence the most bloody rape of the nation."
which illustrate his sentiments very clearly.
The origins of his belief in his mission and his longing for immortality.
It was while he was in the hospital suffering from hysterical blindness and mutism that he had the vision that he would liberate the Germans from their bondage and make Germany great. It was this vision that set him on his present political career and which has had such a determining influence on the course of world events. More than anything else it was this vision that convinced him that he was chosen by Providence and that he had a great mission to perform. This is probably the most outstanding characteristic of Hitler's mature personality and it is this which guides him with the "precision of a sleepwalker."
From an analysis of many other cases we know that such convictions never result from an adult experience alone. In order to carry conviction they must reawaken earlier beliefs which have their roots far back in childhood. It is, of course, nothing unusual for a child to believe that he is some special creation and destined to do great things before he dies. One can almost say that every child passes through such a period on his way to growing up. In many people remnants of such early beliefs are observable inasmuch as they feel or believe that Fate or Luck or Providence or some extra-natural power has chosen them for special favors. In most of these cases, however, the adult individual only half believes that this is really so even when a whole series of favorable events may make the hypothesis plausible. Only rarely do we find a firm conviction of this kind in adulthood and then only when there were extenuating circumstances in childhood which made such a belief necessary and convincing.
In Hitler's case the extenuating circumstances are relatively clear. Mention has already been made of the fact that his mother had given birth to at least two and possibly three children, all of whom had died prior to his own birth. He, himself, was a frail and rather sickly infant. Under these circumstances, his mother undoubtedly exerted herself to the utmost to keep him alive. He was unquestionably spoiled during this period and his survival was probably the great concern of the family as well as of the neighbors. From his earliest days there was, no doubt, considerable talk in the household about the death of the other children and constant comparisons between their progress and his own.

No photo of ‘mystery man’ Adolf exists during the so-called "missing years" in Vienna. HItler said that during that period he was practically penurious:

“In the years 1909 and 1910, my own situation had changed somewhat in so far as I no longer had to earn my daily bread as a common laborer. By this time I was working independently as a small draftsman and painter of watercolors. Hard as it was with regard to earnings—it was barely enough to live on—it was good for my chosen profession. Now I was no longer dead tired in the evening when I came home from work, unable to look at a book without soon dozing off. My present work ran parallel to my future profession. Moreover, I was master of my own time and could apportion it better than had previously been possible.” (Hitler, Mein Kampf, p. 34).

"Hitler said he first became an anti-Semite in Vienna, which had a large Jewish community, including Orthodox Jews who had fled the pogroms in Russia. According to childhood friend August Kubizek, however, Hitler was a “confirmed anti-Semite” before he left Linz. Vienna at that time was a hotbed of traditional religious prejudice and 19th century racism. Hitler may have been influenced by the writings of the ideologist and anti-Semite Lanz von Liebenfels and polemics from politicians such as Karl Lueger, founder of the Christian Social Party and Mayor of Vienna, the composer Richard Wagner, and Georg Ritter von Schönerer, leader of the pan-Germanic Away from Rome! movement. Hitler claims in Mein Kampf that his transition from opposing anti-Semitism on religious grounds to supporting it on racial grounds came from having seen an Orthodox Jew.
There were very few Jews in Linz. In the course of centuries the Jews who lived there had become Europeanized in external appearance and were so much like other human beings that I even looked upon them as Germans. The reason why I did not then perceive the absurdity of such an illusion was that the only external mark which I recognized as distinguishing them from us was the practice of their strange religion. 
As I thought that they were persecuted on account of their faith my aversion to hearing remarks against them grew almost into a feeling of abhorrence. 
I did not in the least suspect that there could be such a thing as a systematic anti-Semitism. 
Once, when passing through the inner City, I suddenly encountered a phenomenon in a long caftan and wearing black side-locks. 
My first thought was: Is this a Jew? 
They certainly did not have this appearance in Linz. 
I carefully watched the man stealthily and cautiously but the longer I gazed at the strange countenance and examined it feature by feature, the more the question shaped itself in my brain: Is this a German?
If this account is true, Hitler apparently did not act on his new belief. He often was a guest for dinner in a noble Jewish house, and he interacted well with Jewish merchants who tried to sell his paintings."

In 1909 Adolf and his step brother arrived in Ireland. His step-brother Alois obtained a job as a "waiter" in the Shelbourne hotel, Dublin.

Bridget was swept off her feet by the charm of the debonair Austrian:
It was at the annual Dublin Horse Show. Everyone had come to see and buy the fine Irish horses - English and Irish sportsmen, the nobility, tourists from all over the world.
I always enjoyed going anywhere with my father, and I must confess that I was not unaware of the honour of being escorted by 'the best-looking fellow in the countryside', as he was generally described. Many eyes turned towards us: the tall Irishman and the girl in a white muslin dress with flounces and a blue sash. My white hat was ornamental with ostrich plumes, and I carried a parasol. This was the year 1909.

Father was discussing the horses with Mr Tynan, a neighbour, and presently they were talking with a handsome stranger dressed in a brown suit, a homburg hat and immaculate spats. To my interested eyes he represented the height of elegance according to the vogue at the start of the century.

A white ivory walking stick with a gold handle was hooked over his arm with inimitable dash. In his tie was a pearl pin, and two rings on his left little finger, one a diamond and one a ruby, added just the right note of lavishness. Across his cream coloured waistcoat a heavy gold chain stretched from one pocket to the other and his moustache were waxed and curled up right 'á la Kaiser.' He introduced himself as Alois Hitler from Austria.
I cannot deny that this stranger with his fine foreign manners and his debonair Viennese ways made a great impression on me. His conversation was quite different from that of the commonplace, hardworking farmers and their wives which made up the society I was accustomed to. Everything he said was so new to me and interesting that even his broken English seemed charming. (Bridget Hitler, Memoirs, pp. 17-18).
On March 12, 1911, Bridget Dowling eloped to London with Alois Hitler. Nine months later they had a son but they could not agree on a name. Bridget wanted to name him Patrick but Alois wanted to name him William.

"On April 1st, 1924, Hitler was taken to the old fortress at Landsberg and given a spacious private cell with a fine view. He got gifts, was allowed to receive visitors whenever he liked and had his own private secretary, Rudolf Hess.

The Nazi Party after the Putsch became fragmented and disorganized, but Hitler had gained national influence by taking advantage of the press to make his ideas known. Now, although behind bars, Hitler was not about to stop communicating.

Pacing back and forth in his cell, he continued expressing his ideas, while Hess took down every word. The result would be the first volume of a book, Mein Kampf, outlining Hitler's political and racial ideas in brutally intricate detail, serving both as a blueprint for future actions and as a warning to the world.

Hess wrote Mein Kampf.


Although it is thought of as having been 'written' by Hitler, Mein Kampf is not a book in the usual sense. Hitler never actually sat down and pecked at a typewriter or wrote longhand, but instead dictated it to Rudolf Hess while pacing around his prison cell in 1923-24 and later at an inn at Berchtesgaden.

Reading Mein Kampf is like listening to Hitler speak at length about his youth, early days in the Nazi Party, future plans for Germany, and ideas on politics and race.

The original title Hitler chose was "Four and a Half Years of Struggle against Lies, Stupidity and Cowardice." His Nazi publisher knew better and shortened it to "Mein Kampf," simply My Struggle, or My Battle. "

"Landsberg prison, which is in the town's western outskirts, was completed in 1910. The facility was designed with an Art Nouveau frontage by Hugo Höfl. Within its wall, the four brick-built cell blocks were constructed in a cross-shape orientation. This allowed guards to watch all wings simultaneously from a central location (based on the Panopticon style).

Landsberg, which was used for holding convicted criminals and those awaiting sentencing, was also designated a Festungshaft (meaning fortress confinement) prison. Festungshaft facilities were similar to a modern protective custody unit. Prisoners were excluded from forced labor and had reasonably comfortable cells. They were also allowed to receive visitors. Anton Graf von Arco-Valley who shot Bavarian prime minister Kurt Eisner was given a Festungshaft sentence in February 1919.

In 1924 Adolf Hitler spent 264 days incarcerated in Landsberg after being convicted of treason following the Beer Hall Putsch in Munich the previous year. During his imprisonment, Hitler dictated and then wrote his book Mein Kampf with assistance from his deputy, Rudolf Hess."

Former German Chancellor Brüning
"I did not and do not even today, for understandable reasons, wish to reveal that from October 1928 the two largest regular contributors to the Nazi Party were the general managers of two of the largest Berlin banks, both of Jewish faith, and one of them the leader of Zionism in Germany."
Regarding a letter Brüning had previously written to Winston Churchill (then in the wilderness) August 28, 1937.

At Brüning's request, the quotation of this letter was kept out of Churchill's Six Volume history of World War II (published by the Time-Life Corporation of Henry Luce, in-house press to Skull & Bones at Yale 

May 6, 1990

Hitler Never Really Was Schicklgruber

To the Editor:
The colorful canard that Adolf Hitler's last name was ''originally'' Schicklgruber continues to live on. I'm referring to your April 14 ''About New York'' column on the third reunion of the Mobile Radio Broadcasting Companies of World War II - the psychological warfare experts who were responsible for boosting our morale while demoralizing the enemy by using lies or the truth - whichever was more effective.
In the case of Hitler's presumed last name, it seems a lie was more effective, perhaps because ''Schicklgruber'' sounds more ridiculous than ''Hitler,'' even today. Therefore, the lie lives on, being more preferable than the truth. This may be the most enduring success of our psychological warfare experts.
As you report it, Hans Habe, leader of the Broadcasting Companies and post-World War II novelist, was responsible for having ''broken the story that Hitler's original name was Schicklgruber.''
Almost 40 years ago, however, in ''Hitler, A Study in Tyranny,'' which remains a standard biography of Hitler, Alan Bullock exploded this myth. Bullock noted that Hitler's father, Alois, had been born out of wedlock to Maria Anna Schicklgruber.
Eventually, the acknowledged father, Johann Georg Heidler, married Maria, but he never bothered to legitimize his son.
In 1876, however, the brother of Johann Georg Heidler, then dead, took the necessary steps to legitimize Alois and legally change his name. Thus, records Bullock, ''From the beginning of 1877, 12 years before Adolf was born, his father called himself Hitler, and his son was never known by any other name until his opponents dug up this long-forgotten village scandal and tried, without justification, to label him with his grandmother's name of Schicklgruber.''
So, the mundane truth is, Hitler was always Hitler, having been born so. But Hans Habe's triumph lives on, for a good lie, it seems, dies hard, even in your pages.
Pittsburgh, April 20, 1990
An excerpt from the book The Mind of Adolf Hitler The Secret Wartime Report by Walter C. Langer
Basic Books Inc. - 1972, hard cover

from pages 111 - 113
The Hitler Family
There is a great deal of confusion in studying Hitler's family tree. Much of this is due to the fact that the name has been spelled in various ways: Hitler, Hidler, Hiedler, and Huettler. It seems reasonable to suppose, however, that it is fundamentally the same name spelled in various ways by different members of what was basically an illiterate peasant family. Adolf Hitler himself signed his name Hittler on the first Party membership blanks, and his sister usually spells her name as Hiedler. Another element of confusion is introduced by the fact that Adolf's mother's mother was also named Hitler, which later became the family name of his father. Some of this confusion is dissipated, however, when we realize that Adolf's parents had a common ancestor (father's grandfather and mother's great-grandfather), an inhabitant of the culturally backward Waldviertel district of Austria.

    Adolf's father, Alois Hitler, was the illegitimate son of Maria Anna Schicklgruber. It is generally supposed that the father of Alois Hitler was a Johann Georg Hiedler, a miller's assistant. Alois, however, was not legitimized, and he bore his mother's name until he was forty years of age when he changed it to Hitler. Just why this was done is not clear, but it is generally said among the villagers that it was necessary in order to obtain a legacy. Where the legacy came from is unknown. One could suppose that Johann Georg Hiedler relented on his deathbed and left an inheritance to his illegitimate son together with his name. It seems strange, however, that he did not legitimize the son when he married Anna Schicklgruber thirty-five years earlier. Why the son chose to take the name Hitler instead of Hiedler, if this is the case, is also a mystery that has remained unsolved. Unfortunately, the date of the death of Hiedler has not been established, and consequently we are unable to relate these two events in time. A peculiar series of events, prior to Hitler's birth, furnishes plenty of food for speculation.

    There are some people who seriously doubt that Johann Georg Hiedler was the father of Alois.

 Thyssen and Koehler, for example, claim that Chancellor Dollfuss had ordered the Austrian police to conduct a thorough investigation into the Hitler family. As a result of this investigation a secret document was prepared that proved that Maria Anna Schicklgruber was living in Vienna at the time she conceived. At that time she was employed as a servant in the home of Baron Rothschild. As soon as the family discovered her pregnancy she was sent back to her home in Spital where Alois was born. If it is true that one of the Rothschilds is the real father of Alois Hitler, it would make Adolf a quarter Jew. 

According to these sources, Adolf Hitler knew of the existence of this document and the incriminating evidence it contained. In order to obtain it he precipitated events in Austria and initiated the assassination of Dollfuss. According to this story, he failed to obtain the document at that time since Dollfuss had secreted it and had told Schuschnigg of its whereabouts so that in the event of his death the independence of Austria would remain assured. Several stories of this general character are in circulation.

 Those who lend credence to this story point out several factors that seem to favor its plausibility.

    1. That it is unlikely that the miller's assistant in a small village in this district would have very much to leave in the form of a legacy.

    2. That it is strange that Johann Hiedler should not claim the boy until thirty-five years after he had married the mother and the mother had died.

    3. That if the legacy were left by Hiedler on the condition that Alois take his name, it would not have been possible for him to change it to Hitler.

    4. That the intelligence and behavior of Alois, as well as that of his two sons, is completely out of keeping with that usually found in Austrian peasant families. They point out that their ambitiousness and extraordinary political intuition are much more in harmony with the Rothschild tradition.

     5. That Alois Schicklgruber left his home village at an early age to seek his fortune in Vienna where his mother had worked.

     6. That it would be peculiar for Alois Hitler, while working as a customs official in Braunau, to choose a Jew named Print, of Vienna, to act as Adolf's godfather unless he felt some kinship with the Jews himself.

    This is certainly a very intriguing hypothesis, and much of Adolf's later behavior could be explained in rather easy terms on this basis. However, it is not absolutely necessary to assume that he has Jewish blood in his veins in order to make a comprehensive picture of his character with its manifold traits and sentiments. From a purely scientifc point of view, therefore, it is sounder not to base our reconstruction on such slim evidence but to seek firmer foundations. Nevertheless, we can leave it as a possibility that requires further verification.

     In any event Maria Anna Schicklgruber died when Alois was five years of age. When he was thirteen he left the Waldviertel and went to Vienna where he learned to be a cobbler. The next twenty-three years of his life are largely unaccounted for. It seems probable that during this time he joined the army and had perhaps been advanced to the rank of noncommissioned officer. His service in the army may have helped him to enter the Civil Service as Zollamtsoffizial later on."

Pope John Paul II visit to Mendoza, Argentina. 

Tape #794, 2/23/87, Adolf Hitler buried "in Mendoza, January, 1987." CNN News 2/20/87. Arrests of dangerous fascists, Rev. P. Gale, Juan Lopez Rega, Franklin Camper, Francesco Pazienza, Stefano Delle Chaiae. Ollie North's safe, "G & C" and Elie Weisel. Accuracy in Media, Reed Irvine, Part II. Cancer as a weapon. AIM, Rockefeller links. Senator E. Zorinsky, untimely death, Nugan Hand bank, Iran-Contra connections. 

#799 Broadcast 3/30/87

Hilter In Pasewalk

Hitler in Pasewalk, by Bernhard Horstmann
Published in Germany a few months after David Lewis’ The Man who Invented Hitler, Horstmann’s book treats the same topic, namely the astonishing personality change that immediately after the end of World War I came over the twenty-nine year old, previously unnoticed Corporal Adolph Hitler. For four years the morose loner had served with unhesitating dedication to soldierly duty on the western front without giving the slightest indication of leadership capabilities or of a thirst for power. He was, therefore, a man of a cast wholly different from that of the one bearing the same name whom we meet in histories of World War II. Pointing to essentially the same documents, both Lewis and Horstmann explain the metamorphosis in terms of the hypnosis used in the neurological center of Pasewalk by Professor Edmund Forster to treat the hysterical blindness that had befallen Corporal Hitler roughly three weeks before the end of the war. Lewis’ work, among other things a veritable eye-opener on developments in psychotherapeutic technique in the 19th and early 20th centuries, covers much more material than Horstmann’s and is more thoroughly researched, a circumstance that explains, for example, the wide differences between the two accounts of Edmund Forster’s visit to Paris in 1933: Lewis clearly had access to the better sources.
On three separate grounds Horstmann’s book has a value of its own. The first is the light it sheds on a question pertaining to Hitler’s rise to power that had remained more or less moot. It had been well known that General von Schleicher, Hitler’s predecessor as Chancellor, and von Schleicher’s close associate General von Bredow, both of whom were murdered in 1934 during the alleged Röhm-putsch, had had nothing whatever to do with Röhm or the SA; yet no convincing theory as to the real reason for their murder was ever able to gain currency. 
Horstmann shows that in the summer of 1932 at von Schleicher’s instigation Colonel von Bredow had seized medical records pertaining to the events of Pasewalk and containing Edmund Forster’s diagnosis of Corporal Hitler as a “psychopath with hysterical symptoms.” Word of this diagnosis must have gotten abroad, for later in the same year, a few months before Hitler was made Chancellor, General von Schleicher was urgently warned by a high-ranking friend that if Adolph Hitler came to power, and if he, von Schleicher, did not get rid of those documents, his life and the life of General von Bredow were lost. In point of fact, while General von Schleicher was an idealistic and politically minded man whom Hitler had good grounds to fear, von Bredow had no political ambitions at all. His murder was typical of the chilling brutality that characterized the Nazi movement right from the start and ultimately united the better part of the world against it. In both cases the murder was followed by teams of men ransacking their victim’s living quarters in search of papers.
The second ground is connected with what may seem the weakest point in the argument of both Lewis and Horstmann: the circumstance that the document most central to their common thesis is a chapter taken from a rather second-class novel. When Hitler came to power in 1933, he had the SS launch a vigorous campaign to destroy everything and everyone in any way connected with his treatment by Edmund Forster in November of 1918, first of all the documents. 
Anticipating their move, Forster, who understood perfectly the historical importance of his personal records of the case, made copies of them and drove to Paris, where he made contact with such exile authors as Joseph Roth, Alfred Döblin and Ernst Weiss. What happened to the other copies is not known, but it is known that one copy was left with Ernst Weiss. When Forster returned home several days later and was then gradually made to realize that the SS had him in their cross-hairs, he came to think that flight would be useless, and cheated them of his life. 
In the following years Ernst Weiss, destitute in Paris, made a last ditch survival effort by competing for a prize offered in the US for the best novel written by Germans in exile. 
His attempt, The Eyewitness, tells in the first person the life story of a psychologist. The heart of the book is a gripping chapter that recounts a therapeutic session in which the protagonist, who uses the technique of hypnosis in a place called P., cures a patient named A. H. of hysterical blindness. 
As the rest of the novel has serious literary deficiencies, Ernst Weiss was not awarded the prize he coveted. Unaware that an immigration visa and passage by ocean liner awaited him at the American Embassy, he took his life as German troops entered Paris in June of 1940. All the papers found in his apartment were destroyed, but the typescript of The Eyewitness had been sent to the US in 1939. After the war it found its way to Germany, where it was published in 1963. Of those who read it, none seems to have recognized the initials P. and A. H. or the story of the hysterical blindness. 
Ten years later, in 1973, US Naval Intelligence declassified a report on “Adolph Hitler’s Blindness” based on information supplied by a Dr. Karl Kroner, who had been a colleague of Edmund Forster at Pasewalk. Kroner stated that he had been present when the blind Corporal Adolph Hitler was admitted and placed in the care of Professor Forster. At that point, it could be documented that the protagonist of Ernst Weiss’ novel was, in fact, a historical person, namely Edmund Forster, that P. was Pasewalk and that his patient A. H. was another historical person. 
At this point, therefore, the incredible importance of The Eyewitness was waiting to be discovered. The one who put two and two together seems to have been Prof. Rudolph Binion, who, having once realized the facts of the matter, went behind the Iron Curtain to do research on Edmund Forster in Greifswald before writing a foreword to the English translation of Ernst Weiss’ novel, which appeared in 1977, presumably at his instigation. 
Chapter VIII of Horstmann’s book consists of the very dramatic chapter that makes up the heart of that novel. Horstmann then sets himself the task of taking that chapter as Michelangelo once took the breached slab of marble, and arriving by a series of removals at a text as close as possible to the case record Edmund Forster had turned over to the chapter’s author, much as the great Florentine once arrived at his statue of David. 
Hence, chapter IX of Horstmann’s book consists of highly plausible reflections by which the author himself crystallizes a certain number of principles that were to guide his undertaking, for example that unlike the chapter in the novel, the case record on which it was based may be presumed not to have contained literary or dramaturgical flourishes. In line with the same goal, chapter X consists of an expertise written by Frau Heidi Baitinger, a psychotherapist who specializes in the technique of hypnosis. In the sentences written by Ernst Weiss, who by training was a surgeon, Frau Baitinger perceives the unmistakable ruminations of a masterful colleague.
To her trained eye the strategy applied by Edmund Forster was instantly transparent, and she explains it with great clarity. In the course of the war Forster had seen many cases of hysterically induced blindness. Men who could no longer take being on the front would go blind. Their blindness did not follow from an act of will, but rather from a partial loss of will. 
Professor Forster knew how to be overbearing, and his usual technique in such cases was simply to roar indignantly at his patient for abandoning his comrades in their hour of need. His success rate was astonishing. The usual pattern was that the patient, who suddenly could see again, would be overcome with gratitude. He had not enjoyed his blindness, nor had he had the slightest inkling that he himself was the cause of it. 
In the case of Corporal Hitler, who genuinely longed to be back at the front with his comrades, Forster understood immediately that his usual strategy could only be counter-productive and took a different tack. The session took place at night, in the dark, and consisted in genuine hypnosis. He hypnotized his patient telling him that his corneas had been burnt by the mustard gas, that as hypnosis goes by way of the eyes, he could not be hypnotized, that he would never see again, unless he had the kind of will that comes only once in a thousand years, unless he were like Jesus or Mohammed, who had wills stronger than nature. 
Then he lit a candle and held it before his patient’s eyes—which had not been burnt at all—and asked him what he saw. Dissatisfied with the vague reply, he charged him to do better. The patient saw then first the light, then his hands, and finally the rest. Hitler came away from that session knowing himself to be possessed of unconquerable will, to have been chosen by Providence to be the man of the millennium who by his will could triumph over the laws of nature.
In April of 1939, an article appeared in Cosmopolitan reporting a statement made by Hitler about his days in Pasewalk: “And as I lay there, the realization came to me that I would liberate the German people and make Germany great.” The monster was born in Pasewalk. The tragedy of it all stems from the fact that Edmund Forster, unexpectedly released from military service one or two days later, suddenly found himself in a chaotic and threatening situation and never got a chance to free Corporal Hitler from his post-hypnotic suggestion.
Frau Baitinger’s expertise is undoubtedly one of the most valuable parts of Horstmann’s book. “Gladly do I confess,” he writes, “that Frau Baitinger’s comprehensive and wholly objective analysis is what gave me the courage to bring the complex topic “Hitler in Pasewalk” before the public.” (p. 139) The shortened version of the dramatic chapter of Ernst Weiss’ novel, Horstmann’s historiographic David, appears in his book as Appendix I.
The third ground reflects the fact that Herr Horstmann’s doctorate is in law. He raises the question of the influence of hypnosis on responsibility. To answer it he is content to quote a passage from an author named Roxin, a recognized authority on the theory of jurisprudence. Roxin’s unambiguous statement is that hypnosis or post-hypnotic suggestion has exactly no bearing whatever on the question of responsibility, that it is impossible for a person to commit a crime under hypnosis from which he would otherwise shrink. In her expertise Frau Baitinger raises the same question and gives convincing reasons for taking the same view. Hypnosis is a technique enabling the therapist to connect elements already present in the patient’s sub-conscious mind, which is a kind of memory. It does not enable the therapist to create new memories.
Dr. David Marshall
Ohmstrasse 3
80802 Munich

Karl Kroner’s Report 
Compiled by an unnamed OSS Officer

Typescript from photocopy of original document declassified by US Naval Intelligence 6/6/72
OSS Restricted C.I.D 31963
Serial 24043 (start new series each year, i.e. 1-40, 2-40)
Monograph Index Guide No……………………
(To correspond with SUBJECT given below. See O.N.I. Index Guide. Make separate report for each main title)
From Intelligence Officer at Iceland Date March 21, 1943
Source German refugee in Reykjavik
Evaluation F-3
Subject GERMANY NAZIS – Psychiatric study
Brief. – Here enter careful summary of report, containing substance succinctly stated; include important facts, names, places, dates etc.
The following report on Hitler, prepared by Dr. Karl Kronor, a German refugee living in Reykjavik, and a former nerve specialist in Vienna, is forwarded for information. A tentative evaluation of B-3 has been placed on the report. Dr Kronor is supposed to have been present at the original medical examination of Hitler.

(A psychological study.)
When the first World War came to an end Private Adolf Hitler, as he then was, was not at the front. He was in a military hospital in the small town of Pasewalk in Pomerania. According to the version given in the Nasi literature of the 1920’s, he had gone blind as a result of gas-poisoning. We are not told however, how long he remained in hospital after the armistice.
It cannot have been long, for soon after he turned up in Munich, where he was employed as a sort of spy of the military league, to report to them the activities of the working–class political movement. We are also not told what after effects, if any, on his eyesight were left behind by the blindness. This is remarkable, for, as everybody knows, blindness is not normally cured without trace. Nothing is known, however, of any permanent after-effects, in Hitler’s case. In the numerous photographs which we have of him he always has the same studied, hypnotic stare, which is familiar to us from his prototype, Mussolini. There is no recorded example of gas-poisoning having had so favourable an outcome.
In such a case, there are only two possible explanations:

1) Simulation

2) Hysteria or Psychopathy.

(or, of course a combination of both, for hysterics can simulate, and, in fact, tend to do so.)
1) We will not, in the approved Nazi style cast suspicion on a man simply because he is our opponent. Here we are concerned only with an enquiry into the true facts. We must therefore ask: was Hitler really such a hero in the war as he is represented in the Nazi- controlled press? We have amazingly little subjective information on the subject. One thing only is certain…that after 4 years front – line service with the same unit, he had not been risen to the rank of corporal. It is also established that the Iron Cross, 1st class, which he always wears was never awarded to him, and that he is not entitled to wear it. (Note: In this, Kroner was mistaken. Hitler’s Iron Cross was perfectly legitimate- DL) In view of these facts it is quite possible that Hitler, embittered by his failure to win any distinction after long service at the front, wanted to turn his back on it. In any case his behaviour during the unsuccessful putsch of November 9th, 1923 shows that he was not this fearless hero that he is made out to be. On the evening before he had bombastically declared at a meeting in the Bürgerbräu in Munich: “Tomorrow will see us either victorious or dead”. This, however, applied only to his supporters, not to himself. He fled when the police opened fire on the demonstration.
2) Taking all this into consideration, simulation is a definite possibility. Actually, however, it was the other diagnosis which was made in the military hospital, and by a man well qualified to judge. Professor Forster, at that time Head Doctor at the Berlin University Nerve Clinic and consultant neurologist to the military hospital at Pasewalk, declared Adolf Hitler to be a psychopath with hysterical symptoms. This became known, in spite of all subsequent efforts to hush it up.
What is a psychopath? According to one well known definition, psychopathy is a “mental inferiority usually conditioned by hereditary disposition, and distinguished especially by weakness of will and inability to adapt oneself to society. It produces in consequences tendency to misdemeanour and crime”. Another definition lays more emphasis on abnormal energy and the need to cut a figure in the world. In short, we are dealing with people who, from a spiritual point of view, stand midway between the healthy and the insane. The German psychiatrist, professor Kretschmer, has concerned himself with them not only from the medical aspect. He wrote in a book which appeared over 10 years ago, roughly as follows: The part played by psychopaths in society is always underestimated. In normal times they pass away their lives as adventures, petty swindlers, founders of sects, etc. But in troubled times their opportunity comes. They acquire a tremendous power over the masses. Briefly it can be said; in troubled times the psychopath’s rule over us, in quiet times we investigate them. It became apparent at an early period that Adolf Hitler comes into this category.
The son of a minor official, he felt himself called to an artistic life. He failed the entrance examination to the Vienna Academy but drifted into casual work in building jobs, and so for in the three years immediately preceding the war, disowned by his family, he lodged in a sort of asylum for the homeless in Vienna.
The war of 1914, which he greeted with rejoicing set him free from his untenable position. The end of the war in 1918 threw him back into the same situation again. Once more, he was not disposed to take up any proper, settled profession. He became a political adventurer.
His blindness was cured. But Germany became blind so blind that she chose him to be chancellor. Then, in 1933, came the tragic ending to the story of his illness.
Naturally it was important that it should not become known, what a pitiful part Private Adolf Hitler had played in the hospital at Pasewalk, and what the diagnosis of his illness had been. The story of this episode was hushed up by the well known methods: already, from about the beginning of the 1930’s, no further mention had been made of it. But this alone was not enough; the still surviving witnesses of the incident must be silenced. This was simplest in the case of Hitler’s former company Sergeant-Major Amman. He was bought, being appointed by Hitler’s business manager of the entire German press.Through this position Herr Amman had acquired a large fortune by highly disreputable methods He is today a millionaire many times over.
Forster had, meanwhile, become head of the Faculty of Medicine of Greifswald University, and was not a man who could be bought. He had therefore to be silenced by other means. Shortly after Hitler came to power, Professor Forster suddenly died. The cause of death was given as suicide. At the time doubts were felt, and these have grown to certainty, Professor Forster a man of excellent health. In the best years of his life, cheerful and successful in his career. Nothing, even the most trivial kind, was known which could have driven him to suicide. In short, there can be no doubt to the mind of anyone well acquainted with Nazi methods that Professor Forster was murdered and that the supposed suicide was a carefully arranged deception.
A very critical reader might object that a political murderer or mass murderer, or a man responsible for murders of a political kind, need not to be considered a murderer in the ordinary sense of the word. The following two cases will suffice to prove, however, that even in private life, the psychopath Adolf Hitler belongs to the class of psychopathic criminals.
(a) His own niece, a certain Fraulein Rubal, was found dead with a bullet round in the head and a revolver by her side. Suicide was declared to be the cause of death (as in the case of Professor Forster). Actually she was shot because she refused to surrender to the perverse desires of her uncle. (Hitler, like many psychopaths, is sexually abnormal. He is not, however, as is commonly supposed, homosexual, but a pervert of another kind.. More detailed information on the subject can be found in the recent pamphlet by Otto Strasser, entitled “Gangsters around Hitler”, and in other publications). The murderer, unusually so clever, had failed to remember in this instance that young girls very rarely commit suicide by shooting, and never by a shot in the head.
(b) The other case concerns the bestial murder of the former Bavarian Prime Minister Von Mahr on June 30th 1934. Herr Von Mahr had in 1923 crushed the Hitler putsch referred to above. Already aging then, he had since retired, and had been living for some years in private life, an old man of 70, quite un associated with politics. In this case, therefore, Hitler did not remove a dangerous political opponent from his path, but rather took on a helpless old man a personal revenge for which he had waited 11 years.
It was the same sort of personal revenge which Hitler took, after 15 years, on the unfortunate Professor Forster, whose crime consisted of having made, at an early period, the correct diagnosis of Hitler…a diagnosis which, if it had become generally known, would have made the subject of it impossible as the “leader of a heroic race of supermen”. And that is where the story of the blindness of the “unknown soldier”, Adolf Hitler, ceases to be a trivial private affair, which could be deservedly forgotten. For it gives us a clearer insight into much that would otherwise be difficult to understand. We can perhaps fully understand it’s significance if we refer once more to the dictum of Kretchner’s, quoted above:” In troubled times, the psychopaths rule over us, in quiet times we investigate them”. One can only hope that quiet times will soon return, in which the psychopathic criminal Adolf Hitler will be investigated and brought to justice, and Germany today so blind, will see again.
BY CP——098910 DATE 6/6/72