It Is All Being Revealed


The people who closed
the doors of escape to OLD-SICK-YOUNG POLISH Jews who later went up in smoke as
a result, were ZIONISTS!


The Zionists only
wanted young, healthy Zionists to go to Palestine.
They didn’t want the old, sick, young Polish Orthodox Jews crowding into Palestine and they didn’t
want them going to other countries. So they got Rabbi Wise & CO to boycott Germany & that turned the German people
against the Jews who were left in Germany, mostly Polish Orthodox
Jews who couldn’t escape.


This Plot was
masterminded by Zionist Jews & carried out by demonic German Nazis &
Marrano Nazi Jews.



The term “Zionism”
was first introduced in 1893 by Nathan Birmbaum, but Theodor Herzl, an Austrian
Jew born to a prosperous, emancipated Budapest
family, is recognized as the founder of the Zionist ideology when he published
his book in 1896, “The Jewish State”, where he declared that the cure
for Anti-Semitism was the establishment of a Jewish state. As he saw it, the
best place to establish this state was in Palestine.

While Herzl claimed
that the establishment of a “Jewish” state would cure Anti-Semitism,
he also promoted Anti-Semitism to further his cause.

Herzl stated in his

“It is essential
that the sufferings of Jews.. . become worse. . . this will assist in
realization of our plans. . .I have an excellent idea. . . I shall induce
anti-Semites to liquidate Jewish wealth. . . The anti-Semites will assist us
thereby in that they will strengthen the persecution and oppression of Jews.
The anti-Semites shall be our best friends”. (From his Diary, Part I, pp.

Benny Morris (the
Israeli Historian), described how Herzl foresaw how Anti-Semitism could be
“HARNESSED” for the realization of Zionism. He stated:

“Herzl regarded
Zionism’s triumph as inevitable, not only because life in Europe was ever more
untenable for Jews, but also because it was in Europe’s interests to rid the
Jews and relieved of Anti-Semitism: The European political establishment would
eventually be persuaded to promote Zionism. Herzl recognized that Anti-Semitism
would be HARNESSED to his own–Zionist-purposes.” (Righteous Victims, p.



Babylonian Talmud,
Tractate Sanhedrin 64a

Soncino 1961 Edition,
page 437

Following the Mishnah
is a discussion among the sages. One of the Talmud Sages, Rabbi Ashi, comments
as follows:

propounded: What if one caused his blind or sleeping son to pass through, (3)
or if he caused his grandson by his son or daughter to pass through? — One at
least of these you may solve. For it has been taught: [Any men … that giveth
any of his seed unto Molech; he shall he put to death … And I will set my
face against that man, and will cut him off from among his people;] because he
hath given of his seed unto Molech. Why is this stated? — Because it is said,
there shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter
to pass through the fire. From this I know it only of his son or daughter.
Whence do I know that it applies to his son’s son or daughter’s son too? From
the verse, [And if the people of the land do any ways hide their eyes from the
man] when he giveth of his seed unto Molech [and kill him not: Then I will …
cut him off.]

— Babylonian Talmud,
Tractate Sanhedrin 64b

Soncino 1961 Edition,
page 439

Rabbi Dr. Freedman,
one of the translators of the Soncino Tractate Sanhedrin, clarifies the
passage. In a footnote, Rabbi Dr. Freedman confirms that the Talmud Sages use
“seed” to denote living children, in the same sense as the Biblical
translators understand the term in the above Biblical quotes. In this footnote,
Rabbi Dr. Freedman paraphrases the question from Rabbi Ashi:

3. Is ‘thou shalt not
cause to pass’ applicable only to a son who can naturally pass through himself,
but not to a blind or sleeping son, who must be led or carried, or does it
apply to all?

Rabbi Dr. Freedman

Other footnotes
within the same context clarify the fine point of distinction being drawn in
the Mishnah and subsequent debates among the sages:

5. Lev. XVIII, 21.
This proves that the offence consists of two parts; (I) formal delivery to the
priests, and (2) causing the seed to pass through the fire.

Rabbi Dr. Freedman

5. As two separate
offences, proving that giving one’s seed to Molech is not idolatry. The
differences [sic] is, that if one sacrificed to Molech, or caused his son to
pass through the fire to some other deity, he is not punished.

Rabbi Dr. Freedman

Following the
Mishnah, Sanhedrin 64a and 64b contain a rousing debate between the Sages

* the circumstances
under which worshipping an idol is idolatry,

* which idols may be
worshipped without indulging in idolatry,

* which parts of
child sacrifice in what combination are punishable, and

* how children may be
sacrificed without violating Leviticus.


Exodus 32; 1 KINGS 11:1-11; AMOS 5:22-27!

ALSO READ Acts 7:42-43.


“The Second World War is being fought for
the defense of the fundamentals of Judaism.”

(Statement by Rabbi
Felix Mendlesohn, Chicago Sentinel, October 8, 1942).

“World War II was a Zionist plot to make
way for the foundation of the Jewish State in Palestine.”

(Joseph Burg, an
anti-Zionist Jew).

According to
Wikipedia a Nasi was the highest-ranking member and president of the Sanhedrin
and the Romans recognized the nasi as ‘Patriarch of the Jews’.

The Treaty of Versailles was hijacked by
Jewish international financiers to create the necessary economic, social, and
political and conditions necessary for Hitler to exploit.

Lloyd George told the
New York
journal American of June 24th 1924:

“The international bankers dictated the Dawes
reparations settlement. The protocol which was signed between the allies and
associated powers and Germany
is the triumph of the international financier. Agreement would never have been
reached without the brusque and brutal intervention of the international
bankers. They swept statesman, politicians, and journalists to one side, and
issued their orders with the imperiousness of absolute Monarchs, who knew there
was no appeal from their ruthless decrees. The settlement is the joint ukase of
King Dollar and King Sterling. The Dawes report was theirs. They inspired it
and fashioned it. The Dawes report was fashioned by the Money Kings. The orders
of German financiers [led by the Warburg Bank] to their political
representatives were just as peremptory as those of allied bankers to their
political representatives.”

Hitler was instructed
by German Army Intelligence to spy on The German Workers Party. The head of
German Army Intelligence was none other than Max Warburg brother of Paul
Warburg, founder of The US
Federal Reserve!!! The modus operandi of the Zionists has always been to
infiltrate/and or set up groups and political organizations/parties of every
description including anti-Semitic:-

“It is essential that the sufferings of Jews. .
. become worse. . . this will assist in realization of our plans. . .

I have an excellent idea. . . I shall induce
anti-Semites to liquidate Jewish wealth. . .

The anti-Semites will assist us thereby in that
they will strengthen the persecution and oppression of Jews.

The anti-Semites shall be our best friends.”

Theodor Herzl, Founder of Zionism in 1897.

“It is from us that the all engulfing
terror proceeds. We have in our service persons of all opinions, of all
doctrines, monarchists, demagogues, socialists, communists and utopian dreamers
of every kind…striving to overthrow all established forms of order. All
states are in torture… but we will not give them peace until they openly
acknowledge our international Super government…”

Protocol 9

The Nazi party was
set-up, financed and maintained by Jewish International Financiers. Montagu
Norman, governor of the Rothschild-controlled Bank of England, and a close friend of
Schacht. In fact they were so close that Schacht named his grandson after him.
It was Norman who pressed for and supported the raising of the U.S.
interest rates by the Federal Reserve, which was the final push that led to the
Wall Street crash, the New Deal, and Franklin D. Roosevelt. Norman was the most
influential central banker in the world at that time and his actions, in league
with Wall Street, were crucial.

Once Hitler was safely elected, the attitude of the Bank of England and the Federal Reserve to Germany
was transformed. Credit was offered to the Nazi regime and after the Nazis
successfully invaded Czechoslovakia;
Norman released £6 million of Czechoslovakian
gold to Hitler, which was deposited in London.
This was done with the agreement of the Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain.

On June 11th 1934, and again the following October, Norman
and Schacht met in secret at Badenweiler in the Black
Forest to arrange loans for Hitler and the Nazis. But who was
behind Norman?
His family almost turned the Bank of England into their personal
property. One grandfather, George Warde Norman, was the governor from 1821-1872
and his other grandfather, Lord Collet, was governor from 1887-1889. Montagu
Norman spent a period in the United States at the offices of the
Rothschild-funded Brown Brothers (later Brown Brothers, Harriman) and was
befriended by the family of W.A Delano, relatives of Franklin Delano Roosevelt,
the President of the United States at the same time that Norman was head of the
Bank of England.

This all-powerful
banker was actually a “yes man” for the Rothschild’s, and here again, we see
the ploy at work. He was portrayed as anti-Jewish.

Alfred Rosenberg, an occultist with a Jewish, Estonian and
French background made a copy of The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion available to Hitler.
Why would a man with a Jewish background hand to Hitler the very ammunition
that would lead to the attempt by his regime at the destruction of a grouping
of people we know as the Jews?

When you accept the
proven involvement of Jewish bankers and their political representatives to
have been very involved in the funding of the Nazis re- armament, you have only
two possible answers:

Either Zionists are not Jews or the Zionists wanted a mass
persecution of there own people.

Both these answers are true. Many Zionists are not Jewish.
Those that were knew that to further the rise and creation of the Zionist State
in Palestine,
they required an irrefutable need. The gathering Nazi hatred and blame towards
the Jewish people for the ills of the world which led to the mass persecution,
gave the Zionist elite exactly that.

Ernst Hanfstaengl, a
close friend of Franklin Roosevelt, was also a close associate of Hitler before
the war, says he was warned by the Austrian writer, Rudolf Kommer that,

“if any political party emerges with an
Anti-Semitic programme directed by Jewish or half Jewish fanatics, we shall
have to watch out”.

Hanfstaengl wrote
that later, after experiencing the influence that Alfred Rosenberg had on
Hitler, he began to realize what that remark really meant:

“I thought back to Rudolph Kommer’s
remark about an Anti-Semitic programme directed by Jewish or half – Jewish
fanatics – Rosenberg
was distinctly Jewish in appearance, although he would have been the first to
protest furiously if anyone had questioned his ancestry. Yet I used to see him
most mornings sitting in a dingy café at the corner of Briennerstrasse and
Augustenstrasse with a Hungarian Jew named Holoschi, who was one of his
principle assistants. The man called himself Hollander in Germany and was
another of these Jewish Anti-Semites…I suspected the Aryan background of many
of the others, Strasser and Streicher looked Jewish to me as well as figures like
Ley, Frank and even Goebbels, who would have difficulty in proving their

So the creation of
hatred towards the Jewish race, then the grotesque treatment that followed
Hitler’s decrees, was hyped to enormous proportions to justify the takeover of Palestine for a Jewish
Homeland. No one used this method more than Lord Victor Rothschild in his House
of Lords speeches urging support for a Jewish State in Palestine. You can see the play by the elite
clearly here. To add further to this, Hitler’s book Mein Kampf, was ghost
written by Major General Karl Haushofer, who acknowledged that a major source
for the ‘ideas’ it expressed came from Halford J. MacKinder, a director of the
elite’s London School of Economics.

In 1996, official German documents uncovered by an American
student also proved that many of Hitler’s leading officers and thousands of his
troops were of Jewish decent. You can now understand why Britain appeased Hitler. The elite
had to make sure the re-armament of Germany went un-headed. Only when
Hitler’s war machine was ready would the stance of Britain change.

To what degree Hitler
was aware of his puppet status?

Was he a willing or
unwilling pawn in this Zionist engineered heinous conflict?

Hitler like many
leaders of today was surrounded by a Zionist cabal:

– Heydrich, Goebbels,
Rosenberg, Streicher and Eichmann.

The Nazis opposed the
gold standard. The Nazis opposed the Capitalists and the unregulated private
control of land and of loan capital. The Nazis took the Capitalists’ money, but
the intent of sincere Nazis was always to use this money to drive Jewish
Capitalism from the European Continent forever.

And there were
sincere Nazis, Hitler, Goebbels, Heydrich, Eichmann and other Bolshevik
Zionists were not among them.

So why did the Nazis,
under Hitler’s leadership, and through Gottfried Feder’s tutelage, oppose the
Jews’ gold standard; and why did FDR, an agent of Jewish Communism, seize gold
for the Jews; if Hitler was working for the Jews, and paper money unencumbered with
debt is bad for the Jews?

The Jews wanted a prolonged and devastating Second World
War, which would eclipse the carnage and destruction of WW I. There was not
nearly enough gold in existence to provide the loan capital needed to finance
the war machine required in Germany and America to fund the wartime economies
of those nations. So the Jews taught Hitler, through Feder, how to make his own
money, how to circulate it, and how to engage in international trade without
throwing out all of Germany’s growth into the slop bucket of Jewish usury, nor
let the Jews intervene in international trade and harvest the wealth of German
production as middlemen.

In this way, the
Jews, who also poured money directly into Germany,
financed Hitler in order to ultimately destroy Germany,
and much of Europe, through Jewish
manufactured war. They had done the same with their agent Napoleon Bonaparte,
who considered himself to be the Jews’ messiah, who tried to take Palestine for
the Jews, who emancipated the Jews, and who was rewarded by the Jews with
prison as punishment for promoting good Gentile-Jewish relations, which led to
Jewish assimilation–the Jews most hated enemy.

The Zionists were afraid that the “Jewish race”
was disappearing through assimilation. They wanted to use anti-Semitism to
force the segregation of Jews from Gentiles and to unite Jews, and thereby
preserve the “Jewish race”. They hoped that if they put a Hitler-type
into power—as Zionists had done in the past, they could use him to herd up the
Jews of Europe and force these Jews into Palestine
against their will. This would also help the Zionists to inspire distrust of,
and contempt for, Gentile government, while giving the Zionists the moral
high-ground in international affairs, despite the fact that the Zionists were
secretly behind the atrocities.’

Hitler in pre-WWI Austria got heavily into The Occult
and became a friend of the Jewish Lanz von Liebensfels author of the
anti-Jewish magazine “Ostara” and founder of a secret society called
“The Order of The New Templars.”

He also became an admirer of the works of Jewish Occultist
Helen Blatavsky and The Theosophical Society. Interestingly enough their symbol
has on it a Swastika, Star of David and serpent!

Under the 1935 Nuremberg Laws,
only two flags were permitted in Nazi Germany. One was the swastika. The
other was the blue and white banner of Zionism. The Zionist party was the only
other political party in Nazi Germany
that enjoyed a measure of freedom, and could publish a newspaper.

Zionists had a record of cooperation with the Nazis in the
1930’s. They had a trade plan by which German Jews could redeem their property
in Nazi goods exported to Palestine.
Adoph Eichmann also helped them set up training camps in Europe and even
visited Palestine
as their guest. In 1935 the steamer “Tel Aviv” made its maiden voyage
from Nazi Germany to Haifa with Hebrew letters
on its bow and a Nazi flag fluttering from its mast. The Captain of the
Zionist-owned ship was a member of the Nazi Party. A passenger described the
spectacle as a “metaphysical absurdity.”

Actually it made
perfect sense.

The ship transported German Jews who had taken advantage of
the “Haavara” program, which allowed them to exchange their money for
its value in Germany
products in Palestine.
As a result, the fledgling Jewish colony received about 70,000 highly educated
German Jews and 140 million Reichmarks worth of German industrial equipment.
This laid the foundation of Israel’s

Zionists, welcomed the Nazis’ anti Semitic policies. Like the
Nazis, they believed in race-based national character and destiny. Like the
Nazis, they believed Jews had no future in Germany. The co-operation extended
to political and economic spheres. Adolph Eichmann set up agricultural training
camps in Austria
to prepare young Jews for Kibbutz life. He visited Palestine and conferred with Zionist leaders
who confessed their true expansionist goals Think about it. Hitler could have
just confiscated all the Jewish wealth. Instead he used the “Haavara Program”
to help establish the State of Israel.

On Nov. 25, 1940, a
boat carrying Jewish refugees from Nazi Europe, the “Patra,” exploded
and sank off the coast of Palestine
killing 252 people.

The Zionist
“Haganah” claimed the passengers committed suicide to protest British
refusal to let them land. Years later, it admitted that rather than let the
passengers go to Mauritius
it blew up the vessel.

“Sometimes it is
necessary to sacrifice the few in order to save the many,” Moshe Sharett,
a former Israeli Prime Minister said at memorial service in 1958.

Jack Bernstein in his
book ‘An American Jew in Racist Marxist Israel stated –

“The Ashkenazi Jews, who migrated to Israel from Germany, while sympathetic to
Communism and support it, tend to favor the practices of Nazi-style fascism.
During World War II in Germany
these elite Zionist Ashkenazi Jews worked closely with Hitler’s Gestapo in
persecuting the lower class German Jews and delivering them to concentration
camps. Now living in Israel,
these elite Zionist Jews, who were well trained in Nazi-style fascism and favor
it, have imposed many facets of fascism on Israel.

To give the impression that Israel is a democracy, members of the Knesset (Israel’s
Congress) are elected – but it’s an odd kind of election. This is where Israel’s
so-called democracy stops. It doesn’t make any difference which party wins an
election, the Likud or Labour Party, the elite Zionist Jews rule in a
dictatorial manner – giving favours to the elite clique and brutally
suppressing any dissent.

Concerning Nazism/Fascism please let me clear a
point. Germans are an admirable people – I dare say even great. But in Germany,
the general population was victim of the
Nazis who through cunning and brutality gained power.

In Germany, the average Jews were
victims of the Zionist elite who worked hand in hand with the Nazis. Many of
those same Zionist Jews, who, in Germany,
had worked with the Nazis, came to Israel
and joined hands with the Zionist /Communist Jews from Poland and Russia. It is the two faces of
communism and Nazi-style fascism that rule Israel.

Democracy is merely an illusion.”



*** According to the Israeli
daily newspaper quoted below, before the Nazi Third Reich in Germany plotted to
create a Master Race from the European gene pool, Zionists had already
established a racial purification program to create the perfect Jewish
bloodline. ***

A shocking new study reveals how key figures in the pre-state Zionist establishment
proposed castrating the mentally ill, sterilizing the poor and doing everything
possible to ensure reproduction only among the `best of people.’

Castrating the mentally ill, encouraging reproduction among families
“numbered among the intelligentsia” and limiting the size of “families of Eastern origin” and
“preventing … lives that are lacking in purpose” – these proposals
are not from some program of the Third Reich but rather were brought up by key
figures in the Zionist establishment of the Land of Israel during the period of
the British Mandate. It turns out there was a great deal of enthusiasm here for
the improvement of the hereditary characteristics of a particular race
(eugenics). This support, which has been kept under wraps for many years, is
revealed in a study that examines the ideological and intellectual roots at the
basis of the establishment of the health system in Israel.

In the Yishuv (pre-state Jewish community) in the 1930s there were
“consultation stations” operating on a Viennese model of advice
centers for couples that wished to marry and become parents. In Austria,
with the Nazis’ rise to power, they served for forced treatment. Here the
stations were aimed at “giving advice on matters of sex and marriage,
especially in the matter of preventing pregnancy in certain cases.” They
distributed birth-control devices for free to the penniless and at reduced
prices to those of limited means. In Tel Aviv the advice stations were opened
in centers of immigrant populations: Ajami in Jaffa, the Hatikvah Quarter and Neveh

These are some of the findings of a doctoral thesis written by Sachlav
Stoler-Liss about the history of the health services in the 1950s, under the
supervision of Prof. Shifra Shvarts, head of the department of health system
management at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev.
They were presented at the annual conference of the Israel
Anthropological Association at Ben-Gurion

The father of the theory of eugenics was British scholar Francis Galton. It was
he who coined the term – which literally means “well-born” – at the
end of the 19th century. The aim of the eugenics movement was to better the
human race. Galton proposed a plan to encourage reproduction among “the
best people” in society and to prevent reproduction among “the worst


Between the
end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th, Galton drew many
followers and his ideas spread rapidly to other countries in Europe (among them
Germany, France, Italy,
Denmark, Sweden and Belgium),
to the United States and to
some countries in South America. In various
countries laws were passed that allowed for the forced sterilization of
“hereditary paupers, criminals, the feeble-minded, tuberculous, shiftless
and ne’er-do-wells.” In the United States, up until 1935, about 20,000
people – “insane,” “feeble-minded,” immigrants, members of
ethnic minorities and people with low IQs – were forcibly sterilized; most of
them in California. The Californian law was revoked only in 1979. According to
Dr. Philip Reilly, a doctor and executive director of the Shriver Center for
Mental Retardation, in 1985 at least 19 states in the United States had laws
that allowed the sterilization of people with mental retardation, (among them Arkansas,
Colorado, Georgia, Minnesota, Mississippi, North and South Carolina, Vermont,
Utah and Montana).

“Eugenics is
considered to be something that only happened in Germany,” says Stoler-Liss.
was indeed the most murderous manifestation of eugenics, but in fact it was a
movement that attracted many followers. In every place it took on a unique,
local aspect. It is interesting to note that both in GERMA|NY and in ISRAEL
a link was made between eugenics, health and nationalism.”

Stoler-Liss first encountered the eugenics texts of doctors from the Yishuv
when looking for instruction books for parents for a research project for her
master’s degree.

“I presented a text at a thesis seminar and then the
instructor of the workshop said to me, `But why aren’t you saying that this is
a translated text?’ I replied: `No, no, the text isn’t translated.’ `In Israel,’
he said, `there are no such things.'”

She decided to look into whether there was only anecdotal and non-
representative evidence, doctors and public figures here and there who
supported eugenics – and she found many publications that promoted eugenics.
Supporters of the idea were key figures in the emerging medical establishment
in Palestine;
the people who managed and created the Israeli health system.

One of the most prominent eugenicists of the Mandatory period was Dr. Joseph
Meir, a well-known doctor who acquired his education in Vienna, served for
about 30 years as the head of the Kupat Holim Clalit health maintenance
organization, and after whom the Meir Hospital in Kfar Sava is named.

“From his position at the very heart of the Zionist
medical establishment in the land of Israel in the mid-1930s, he brought young
mothers the gospel of eugenics, warned them about degeneracy and transmitted the
message to them about their obligation and responsibility for bearing only
healthy children,” says Stoler-Liss.

Thus, for example, in 1934 Dr. Meir published the following text on the first
page of “Mother and Child,” a guide for parents that he edited for
publication by Kupat Holim:

“Who is entitled to give birth to children? The correct
answer is sought by eugenics, the science of improving the race and preserving
it from degeneration. This science is still young, but its positive results are
already great and important – These cases [referring to marriages of people
with hereditary disorders – T.T.] are not at all rare in all nations and in
particular in the Hebrew nation that has lived a life of exile for 1,800 years.
And now our nation has returned to be reborn, to a natural life in the land of
the Patriarchs. Is it not our obligation to see to it that we have whole and
healthy children in body and soul? For us, eugenics as a whole, and the
prevention of the transmission of hereditary disorders in particular, even
greater value than for all other nations! … Doctors, people involved in sport
and the national leaders must make broad propaganda for the idea: Do not have
children if you are not certain that they will be healthy in body and soul!”


In its full version, the article,
which was published in the “Health Guard” section of the now defunct
labor Zionist newspaper Davar, the doctor proposed castrating the mentally ill.
Stoler-Liss found many more examples in the “Mother and Child” books
that were published in 1934 and 1935 and in journals like Eitanim, which was
edited by Dr. Meir.

“The support of Dr. Meir and other senior people in the health system for
these ideas has been kept under wraps for many years,”

No one today talks about this chapter
in the history of the Yishuv. In the mid-1950s Dr. Meir’s articles were
collected into a book that came out in his memory. The article mentioned above
was not included in it. Stoler-Liss found a card file with notes scribbled by
the editors of the volume. They defined the article as “problematic and dangerous.”
“Now, after Nazi eugenics,” wrote one of the editors, “it is
dangerous to publish this article.”

During the latter part of the 1930s, adds Stoler-Liss, when word came out about
the horrors that eugenics in its extreme form is likely to cause, they stopped
using this word, which was attributed to the Nazis. Overnight eugenics
organizations and journals changed their names and tried to shake off any signs
of this theory. Dr. Meir, however, during all the years he was active,
continued to promote the ideas of eugenics. At the beginning of the 1950s he
published an article in which he harshly criticized the reproduction prize of
100 lirot that David Ben-Gurion promised to every mother who gave birth to 10

“We have no interest in the 10th child or even in the
seventh in poor families from the East … In today’s reality we should pray
frequently for a second child in a family that is a part of the intelligentsia.
The poor classes of the population must not be instructed to have many
children, but rather restricted.”

“I’m not
making a value judgment,”
says Stoler-Liss.

“Zionism arose at a certain period, in a certain
ideological atmosphere – there were all kinds of ideas in the air and there
were also eugenicist Zionists. Some of the doctors were educated in Europe, and at that time the medical schools taught not
only medicine but also the theory of eugenics.”


Dr. Meir was
not the first Zionist leader who supported eugenics. According to studies by
Dr. Rapahel Falk, a geneticist and historian of science and medicine at Hebrew
University, other major Zionist thinkers – among them Dr. Max Nordau, Theodor
Herzl’s colleague, a doctor and a publicist, and Dr. Arthur Ruppin, the head of
the World Zionist Organization office in the Land of Israel – presented the
ideas of eugenics as one of the aims of the Jewish movement for national
renewal and the settlement of the land.

Prof. Meira Weiss, an anthropologist of medicine at Hebrew University,
describes in her book “The Chosen Body” how the settlement of the
land and work on the land were perceived by these Zionist thinkers as the
“cure” that would restore the health of the Jewish body that had
degenerated in the Diaspora. In Nordau’s terms, a “Judaism of muscle”
would replace “the Jew of the coffee house: the pale, skinny, Diaspora
Jew. “At a time when many Europeans are calling for a policy of eugenics,
the Jews have never taken part in the `cleansing’ of their race but rather
allowed every child, be it the sickest, to grow up and marry and have children
like himself. Even the mentally retarded, the blind and the deaf were allowed
to marry,” wrote Ruppin in his book “The Sociology of the Jews.”
“In order to preserve the purity of our race, such Jews [with signs of
degeneracy – T.T.] must refrain from having children.”

people dealt with eugenics as a theoretical issue,” says Stoler-Liss.
“They even set up a Nordau Club with the aim of researching the racial
aspects of the Jewish people and ways of improving it. What was special about
Dr. Meir and the group that joined him was that for them eugenics was a very
practical matter.”

They wanted to pursue applied

The main institution was the advice station. The first station was opened in
1931 in Beit Strauss on Balfour
Street in Tel Aviv. The aim was to work in
“pleasant ways,” through persuasion and choice. As Stoler-Liss

“Why should people work against their personal interests?
It is here that the connection to the national interest comes in. If I
understand that by having a baby I will harm the national interest, the
building of the land, the `new Jew,’ I will refrain from giving birth. But just
to make certain, Meir told the doctors, in the event that a woman comes to you
who is `a risk’ for giving birth to a sick baby, it is your obligation to make
certain that she has an abortion.”

Miriam Aharonova also wrote extensively on the subject of eugenics,”

adds Stoler-Liss.

“In articles for parents under
headings such as `The Hygiene of Marriage’ she gives a list of eugenic
instructions for parents – from the recommended age for giving birth (between
20 and 25), to the recommended difference in age between the father and the
mother (the reason for which is the betterment of the race) to a list of
diseases that could infect the spouse or “be transmitted through heredity to their descendents
after them.”

In the diseases, she mentions
“syphilis, gonorrhea, tuberculosis, alcoholism, narcotics addiction
(fondness for morphine, cocaine, etc.) and diseases of the mind and the
nerves.” In the volume of “Mother and Child” published in 1935,
says Stoler-Liss, the publication and discussions by doctors who supported eugenics
was greatly expanded. Why, in fact, did they not use force? The establishment
had a great deal of power over immigrants and refugees.

medical establishment’s power was limited at that time. This was an
establishment that developed hand in hand with the system it was supposed to
strengthen and suffered from constant shortages: a shortage of doctors, a
shortage of nurses and a shortage of equipment. It had to examine, treat,
inoculate and so on. We are talking about the period of the British Mandate.
When at long last there was a state, eugenics theory declined. My explanation
is the change of generations: that generation had come to an end
professionally, and a new generation with more national motivation came along
that was not educated at the European universities during that period. They had
already seen what the Nazis had done with it and the ideological identification
was lower. The ideas themselves seeped in but they’re not using the same


The eugenic chapter in the history of
Western culture has been closed, but have eugenics really disappeared?

thinking is alive and well today,”
asserts Stoler-Liss.

“It is expressed mainly in the very high rate of
pre-natal tests and genetic filtering [of genetically deviant fetuses]. Mothers
are very highly motivated to give birth only to healthy children and the
attitude toward the exceptional, the different and the handicapped in Israeli
society is problematic.”

At hospitals today future parents are offered a plethora of genetic tests that
diagnose the fetus before birth. Some of them are aimed at identifying serious
disorders, like Tay-Sachs disease, a degenerative disease that causes a painful
death in infancy. Others, however, are aimed at screening fetuses with
conditions like deafness and sterility, the bearers of which can lead full and
satisfying lives.

SOURCE: Haaretz, “`Do not have children if they won’t be healthy!'”,
By Tamara Traubmann, 11 June 2004.




Born to a family called Steinschneider, Erik Jan Hanussen arrived in
decadent Berlin, and became the prophet of the Third Reich


Historians digging into the
archives to reconstruct the chronicle of the twentieth century will have to
deal with this strange phenomenon of Hanussen, born Herschmann Steinschneider
in the humble home of a poor Jewish actor in Vienna. It will be their task to unravel a
complex maze of reality and legend, myth and romance, to reach the core of the
true personality of Steinschneider, alias Hanussen, and his influence on one of
the most significant chapters of European history, the ascent and reign of
Adolf Hitler.

— Pierre van Paassen, Redbook, May 1942

The story
of Erik Jan Hanussen, the Viennese-Jewish psychic who befriended Adolf Hitler
and became known as the “Prophet of the Third Reich,” is one of the most
peculiar in modern European history. Few twentieth-century historians have
acknowledged Hanussen as a factor in the dissolution of the Weimar Republic.
That the Führer had engaged a wily Jewish clairvoyant might seem the stuff of
mocking political fantasy or occult make-believe — but the story is true.

When Pierre van Paassen, the prominent Dutch author and foreign correspondent,
wrote the above passage in the American periodical Redbook, the
amazing exploits of Erik Jan Hanussen were still hot international copy. At
least fourteen stories on Hitler’s Jewish astrologer and clairvoyant had
appeared in the American press alone beginning in 1937. Several exposés were
penned by Germany’s
greatest journalists, then in exile — acclaimed writers such as Bella Fromm,
Egon Erwin Kisch, and Arthur Koestler.

But after September 1942, the name Erik Jan Hanussen disappeared from public
discourse. The strange tale of “Hitler’s Pal” (as Hanussen was tagged in
American true crime periodicals) was stricken from the record, only appearing
in secret wartime Office of Strategic Services memos related to the character
analysis and psycho­pathology of the Führer. By the time the American home
front had geared up for total war, the very notion of European Jews as anything
less than the targets of Fascist genocide could be viewed in Washington as a
form of fifth columnism. The story of a Jewish mystic who helped usher in the
era of the Third Reich and then became one of its first victims was buried —
and with it, one of the most bizarre chapters in the history of the Second
World War.


Erik Jan Hanussen arrived in Berlin
in 1930. He had already achieved fame and notoriety as a stage clairvoyant and
mentalist in Austria and Czechoslovakia.
In Germany,
he hoped to transform a decent living into a fortune and, possibly, an empire.

A metropolis of four million, inter-war Berlin
was Europe’s largest and most dynamic city. It
was the international center of finance, graphic art, publishing, fashion,
modern architecture, avant-garde cinema, and musical theatre. But more
important for Hanussen, it boasted a nightlife unlike any city before or since
— with thousands of restaurants, risqué dance emporiums (the erotic subculture
of Weimar Berlin
included exactly 120 registered gay and lesbian lounges and dance halls),
cabarets, and honky-tonks.

In 1930, fewer than one percent of Berlin’s
cosmopolitan citizens attended traditional church services. Faith in modern
political ideologies, the occult, or old superstitious beliefs replaced them.
Berlin alone was estimated to have some 20,000 fortune-tellers, astrologers,
tarot readers, hypnotists, crystal-ball gazers, fakirs, hollow-earth theorists,
faith healers, stigmatics, yogic masters, palmists, and bizarrely costumed
leaders of mystic brotherhoods and doomsday cults.

A Jewish cottage industry of conjurers, mentalists, and the like was
flourishing. The Hebraic origins of these entertainers were often masked in
Gypsy greasepaint or in eastern turbans and flowing robes. Some pretended to be
Slavic wonder-healing mystics, others Chinese monks, American Indian shamans,
or scions of Scandinavian aristocracy.

Hanussen’s cover was that he was an itinerant Danish nobleman with exceptional
supernatural powers, a history suggested to him by one of his longtime
promoters at the Vienna Konzerthaus, and
thoroughly entrenched by the time Hanussen reached Berlin. In truth, Hanussen was born
Herschmann-Chaim Steinschneider to a family of unsuccessful cabaret performers
and raised in his father’s native village
of Prossnitz, a sleepy
market town at the edge of the expiring Austro-Hungarian Empire. In 1903, he
pawned his bar mitzvah watch and joined a traveling circus. By 1910, he was
writing cabaret jingles and tabloid journalism in Vienna. It was while researching the secrets
of telepathy for an exposé on Leo Rubini, a reigning Jewish stage magician,
that he discovered he could perform Rubini’s tricks better than the master.
During World War I, Hanussen dazzled audiences with a telepathy-and-circus-show
routine. By 1918 he was filling the Vienna
Konzerthaus night after night, where he was billed as “Europe’s
greatest clairvoyant.”

Hanussen was also possibly Europe’s best-known soothsayer by the time he set
himself up in the freewheeling Berlin.
On stylish Kurfürstendamm Avenue,
he opened a private consultation parlor, which was instantly successful. His
fees were exorbitant by any standard, but Hanussen’s reputation, and his
wealthy clients, allowed for it. He also performed in Berlin’s most gilded
venues, and soon counted among his inner circle the cultural elite of the city:
singer and stage impresario Leo Slezak, opera great Richard Tauber, film
starlet Lilian Harvey, expressionist playwright Ernst Toller, and the
up-and-coming Jewish-Hungarian actor Peter Lorre.

Hanussen became a multimillionaire in Germany. He soon procured a
sanatorium where a panoply of occult cures was offered (including a hormonal
cream he invented to increase male virility and female desire). His new wealth
also secured him an absurdly decadent lifestyle. He had several luxury cars,
seven apartments, and a yacht larger than any a Rockefeller might ponder, which
he named the Ursel IV. For his forays into the nocturnal demiworld of Berlin, Hanussen
enlisted a menacing retinue of six pistol-toting bodyguards, and was also
immediately recognized by the bevy of stunning actresses always at his side,
each swathed in a net of jewels and attired in revealing dresses that the
master himself designed.

Hanussen’s yacht was the scene of lavish feasts, where drugs were offered that
even sophisticated Berliners — who were quite familiar with the enchantments of
cocaine — didn’t know about. Naked women and exotic boys performed shocking
revues. Sometimes, after midnight, Hanussen demonstrated one of his
specialties: his ability to hypnotize women into sexual frenzy and then
sustained orgasm. A Swedish baroness, Barbara van Swieten, otherwise known on
the nightclub circuit as La Jana, often hosted these events and sometimes acted
as a willing participant. Even for a Berlin
accustomed to debauched nighttime displays, Hanussen’s were considered
phenomenal, over the top.

A debate over the veracity of Hanussen’s omnipotent powers was on every
fashionable Berliner’s lips. But still he capitalized on public interest by
purchasing a Breslau printing firm in 1931,
and then launching an occult journal, Hanussen Magazin, and a biweekly
tabloid, Bunte Wochenschau. Prominent writers and artists such as
Gerhart Hauptmann, Hanns Ewers, and Conrad Veidt furnished pieces on their
experiences with the paranormal. Thomas Mann, the leading novelist of the day,
was a regular contributor. Subscribers were encouraged to apply for memberships
in the Hanussen Society, where tickets to his stage productions were offered at
a fifty percent discount. Clairvoyant workshops and discussion groups formed
around the magazine, and its circulation rose into the hundreds of thousands.
But as the psychic’s fortunes grew, Germany’s fell.


In 1931, the Great Depression had not eased in Central
Europe. Long-established banks closed their doors permanently, and
bankruptcies among the middle class and landowners were soaring. Shaken Ruhr industrialists slowed production, and, most
threatening to the already weakened social fabric, unemployment rates tripled.
Eight million Germans were out of work.

The political process stalemated. At the national Reichstag and in the
provincial assemblies, the traditional parties offered few lasting solutions.
Their patrician bickering seemed to cancel out whatever short-term bromides
were concocted. Coalition party cabinets shifted by the month and votes of
no-confidence in the Reichstag became the norm. The common ground had fallen

The German public responded to the deadlock in various ways. Big-city
thrill-seekers intensified their pursuit of back-alley pleasures; those ground
down materially and spiritually by the endless civic chaos gravitated
perilously into the beckoning arms of religious fanatics and “kohlrabi”
prophets like Josef Weissenberg and Therese Neumann; and tens of millions enlisted
in or began supporting extremist parties on the political fringe.

More than three million militant workers swelled the ranks of the German
Communist Party. And stunning the political pundits, Adolf Hitler’s National
Socialists — the radical Nazi movement — had increased its electoral might by a
factor of nine, or by seven and a half million new votes, by 1930. Heavily
armed militias from rival Communist and Nazi factions roamed Germany’s
streets at will. Riots and murderous violence followed them everywhere they
appeared. Municipal police services, like the national politicians, seemed
helpless against the throngs — the army continually threatened to apply
extraordinary measures, but continually failed to re-establish order.

In this chaos, support for the Nazis fell. In 1932, the electorate was having
second thoughts about Hitler’s campaign of nonstop terror, and Nazi party
coffers were effectively depleted by February of that year. Hitler’s
uncompromising bid to be appointed chancellor was openly challenged by the Nazi
movement’s inner council. Talk of replacing Hitler as the party’s figurehead
gained momentum. The future certainly did not look bright for the Nazis — but
it could not have looked bleaker for the Führer himself.


Like many other Berliners at the time, Hanussen had more than a passing
interest in the unstable political scene. And, though he had fame and money, he
longed for respectability. His magazines usually skewed toward articles about
magnetic healing or how to achieve marital bliss through hypnotic suggestion.
But he wanted to be known as an intellectual — not merely a clairvoyant and
popular showman but a real social thinker. On March 25, 1932, Hanussen
issued his first electoral premonition. He could not have been prepared for the

The headline in Hanussen Magazin read HANUSSEN IN TRANCE PREDICTS HITLER’S FUTURE. The cover
story proclaimed, in breathless prose, that Adolf Hitler, the Austrian
housepainter still without German citizenship papers, would be appointed Reich
chancellor in exactly one year’s time. Furthermore, according to Hanussen’s
ecstatic vision, it would be Hitler’s deadly foes, Hindenburg and his
Nationalist allies, who would point the Nazi Führer to the exalted chair at the
head of the Reich Chancellery.

In March of ’32, Hanussen’s prediction was a deranged and comical assault on
conventional political thought. Sophisticated Berliners viewed Hitler as a
hysterical, Chaplinesque figure and his Nazi zealots as little more than
thuggish losers, hawking a senseless racist ideology, adorned with
swastika-laced trinkets. Few took Hanussen’s portent seriously — except,
notably, the Führer himself, who was then barricaded in the Hotel Kaiserhof
with a few remaining political allies.


Hitler was seen by many Germans, even then, as an extremely troubled and
neurotic individual. But his firm belief in his historical mission and overall
megalomania probably had much to do with his seductive appeal. Hitler sustained
his personal convictions, often against all objective reality.

He was known to rely heavily on otherworldly omens and Southern German folk
superstitions. So someone like Hanussen was of interest to the Führer. The Nazi
press ran with the story of Hanussen’s premonition under the heading hanussen,
the man who is never wrong! And while Hitler lost the next presidential
election to Hindenburg by six million votes, the psychic was nonetheless
welcomed into the Nazi fold as someone who might be of great use to the

Count Wolf Helldorf, a Nazi insider and unrepentant libertine, was the first
National Socialist to meet with the seer. On the Ursel IV, Helldorf
partied and had his fortune told. At one orgy, it was reported, Helldorf
flagellated a naked boy so strenuously that the youngster fainted from pain.
Other Nazi officers in Berlin
soon joined Helldorf on visits to Hanussen’s yacht. Later many of them
complained to the Count about Hanussen’s large circle of Jewish friends and
nearly all-Jewish staff.

In June of 1932, Helldorf offered to introduce Hanussen to the Führer, who had
been meaning to extend his warm gratitude to the clairvoyant. Hanussen agreed
enthusiastically — finally, someone was taking his thoughts seriously. Hanussen
then gave a huge donation to the SA fund and showed up at Helldorf’s bank to
quietly pay off the Count’s enormous overdrafts, which had accumulated from his
nighttime activities and gambling.

Hitler and Hanussen, soon to be nicknamed the two “H’s,” had much in common.
Just as Hitler brought prophecy into politics, Hanussen blended politics with
prophecy. They were born within weeks of one another, and both were raised in
German-speaking villages on the outskirts of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. As
children, they suffered from neglect and ran away to Vienna, where they hoped to make their
fortunes as artists. On Vienna’s
Praterstrasse, they may have dawdled over coffee and Sacher tortes in the same
dives. They loved amusement parks and served as lance corporals in a common
cause during the Great War. And finally they came to Germany,
to Berlin,
propelled into the great city by the fuel of ambition.

But Hitler, who railed unceasingly against the existence of the Jewish people
in Europe, didn’t know Hanussen was actually
Herschmann Steinschneider, a Jew, born of Jewish parents, and by then married
three times in traditional Jewish ceremonies. Hanussen told Hitler that he was
the son of an aristocratic Danish family, and was fortunate that no one in
Hitler’s circle ever asked him to utter a word in Danish, in which he knew not
even how to say “thank you.”

Run ragged with electioneering in the summer of 1932, Hitler began to take
regular sessions with the great magician. Hanussen charted the Führer’s
horoscope, taught him the proper use of the mandrake root, and improved
Hitler’s manic body language and patterns of speech for better public effect.
In exchange, the Führer promised Hanussen high office and the directorship of
an Aryan College of the Occult Arts.


While Hanussen was becoming closer to Hitler, the Communist popular press
became obsessed with the clairvoyant, running more than twenty-eight features
on Hanussen in 1932. Bruno Frei, the editor of Berlin am Morgen, and
soon a particularly destructive enemy to Hanussen, launched a vitriolic series
vilified as the “Prophet of the Third Reich” and “Hitler’s Spiritual Father.”
If Hanussen had kept his public persona relatively free of political partisanship
until then, and his dealings with Nazis fairly private and after-dark, now he
found himself — as did, by association, the readers of his publications —
pushed squarely into the Hitler camp. The SA, who took care of their kind,
replaced Hanussen’s private bodyguards. In return, the psychic began to
incorporate Nazi symbolism into his tabloid.

Of course, it wasn’t long before Frei and his digging reporters unearthed the
truth about Hanussen’s Jewish background. Rumors had been floating — some
chorus girls couldn’t keep it to themselves that the Aryan prophet had a
circumcised penis. Frei couldn’t have invented a better story for his
newspaper’s series: Hitler, the defender of the German nation against the
international Jewish conspiracy, was himself under the spell of a duplicitous
. An exposé of Hanussen’s origins ran on August 14, and then, to add
fuel to fire, Frei sent a personal letter to Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi
propaganda chief, stating that Hanussen was a full-blooded Jew, the nephew of a
rabbi from the Austrian ghetto of Pressburg. The allegation appeared in a
December issue of Goebbels’s daily sheet, Der Angriff, where Hanussen
was described as a “Czech Jew.”

Count Helldorf, now the titular head of Berlin’s SA, was appalled and even
frightened by the news. Could his leading benefactor and valued evening
companion be an impostor named Steinschneider? Helldorf visited Hanussen’s
private office on the Kurfürstendamm, where the psychic fabricated a more
detailed personal history for himself. Yes, he said, the Czech passport was
authentic, but the newspaper stories were not. Hanussen explained that his
parents were young Danish nobles, who died in a mountain-climbing accident in Moravia. Hanussen said
he was then adopted by a kindly Jewish couple in the nearby village of
Prossnitz — which is why, he explained, he spoke a smattering of Yiddish and
had a special affinity for Jewish people.

Hanussen then produced forged adoption papers from a drawer. Convinced,
Helldorf informed a disbelieving Goebbels of his discovery. Der Angriff
issued a short retraction on December 13: Erik Jan Hanussen was no Jew.


Of course, the noose was tightening around Hanussen nonetheless. Against odds
that had seemed unsurpassable only months before, Hitler was coming to power.
Hanussen’s Jewish staff were leaving Berlin — taking extended winter vacations
in Paris, Vienna, Prague, or Budapest.
Some transferred German bank accounts to secure firms in Switzerland.
But Hanussen took the opposite tack. As Hitler edged toward the victory line,
Hanussen expanded his Berlin
operations. He bought a mansion on Lietzenburgstrasse, which he then converted
into a gilded venue called the Palace of the Occult.

The place was pure extravagance: gold leaf and Carrara marble covered nearly every surface,
and inscribed on the palace’s doors and passageways were mystic and
astrological signs from the ancient Egyptian and Babylonian pantheon. Blue-eyed
attendants in diaphanous garments of white and pale green floated through
maze-like hallways, leading visitors into inner sanctums, like the Room of
Silence, where a throne rested on a platform that could hoist Hanussen thirty
feet in the air. In the centermost chamber of the palace, under a massive domed
ceiling, stood a colossal bronze sculpture of the master, dressed in a toga,
with his left arm raised in the Nazi gesture of victory.

And for the Nazis there was a victory. Hanussen’s mad premonition from 1932 had
come true. On January 30, 1933, Hitler accepted the title of Reich chancellor
of Germany.
President Hindenburg, no lover of the Nazis, believed that stability could be
achieved by placing Hitler in high office, that this would both stunt the
growth of Communism and appease the Führer’s lunatic hordes.

SA and SS storm troopers took to the streets in glorious celebration. Hanussen
became ever more desperate to ingratiate himself with Hitler and Goebbels.
Conspiracy theorists have it that it was then he became involved in a plan that
would propel Hitler from appointed leader of Germany to its absolute dictator,
no longer subject to constitutional restraints or checks from unsympathetic
commanders of the army — something that would forever keep Hanussen in Hitler’s
good books.

The strategy was simple: destroy the Reichstag building through arson, and then
place the blame at the feet of the Communists. Hitler could then rule by
extraordinary decree. A patsy, the person who would light the fire, was needed.
He is said to have been found in a down-and-out Berlin pub. Marinus van der Lubbe was a
drifter from the Netherlands,
a Communist Party member, and mentally impaired. Whether or not he was
hypnotized by Hanussen remains the subject of rumor, but in any case, van der
Lubbe was shown blueprints of the Reichstag and taught how to use specially
designed incendiary devices.

Which Nazis were involved in the plot is still open to question as well. It is
more than probable that Count Helldorf and a few of his aides participated in
its history-shattering execution. What we do know is that three days before the
planned arson, Hanussen ran an article in his occult magazine predicting the
Reichstag’s fiery demise. And at a séance in his Palace of the Occult, before
Helldorf and a slew of invited reporters, Hanussen ranted about a fire that would
engulf the German nation. He saw it clearly, he said: the conflagration would
take place in the center of Berlin.

The Reichstag fire broke out twenty hours later. The Berlin police caught van der Lubbe, who
confessed to the criminal deed and his membership in the Communist Party. In
the two international trials that followed, it was remarked that the Dutchman
didn’t seem crazed as much as under some kind of hypnotic trance. Hitler used
the Reichstag fire to outlaw the Communist Party and then issued a series of
laws that in March 1933 would shock Germany and the world. The dreaded
Third Reich officially commenced.


In its first days, Hanussen felt secure. He was booked for a few Berlin shows, his tabloid was one of two publications
issued to prisoners in the newly created concentration camp at Dachau, and Nazi bigwigs continued to
frequent the Palace of the Occult.

But his grand complicity in the Reichstag plot, the huge amount of money owed
to him by Helldorf and his SA underlings, as well as films of Nazi orgies
recorded on the Ursel IV, were all capital liabilities. Hanussen, who
may have had faith in blackmail as a way out, forgot that blackmail was very
poor protection against those quite comfortable with murder.

Goebbels was still smoldering from the Angriff retraction, which he
didn’t believe anyway. Hanussen was a Jew. He was a Jewish pest. He was no
longer useful to the movement, and his embarrassing proximity to the Führer
needed to be excised from German history.

SA officers in Hanussen’s circle were suddenly reassigned or demoted. On March
20, 1933, Count Helldorf, who had been appointed high police commissioner of Berlin in February, was
summarily dismissed from his post. Nazi Minister of the Interior Hermann
Goering informed him that his new position was that of chief commissioner of
Potsdam, where one of his prime functions involved the breeding of horses.

Then, on the evening of March 24, a squadron of SA men showed up at Hanussen’s
apartment. The Prophet of the Third Reich was about to depart for a nine
o’clock performance. When informed that he was under arrest, Hanussen laughed
it off as a practical joke. The commanding officer then demanded that all of
the loan receipts Hanussen had collected from his SA debtors be turned over
immediately. Hanussen was driven to Gestapo headquarters on General-Pape
Strasse, where he faced charges of complicity with Communists and of submitting
a phony Aryan certificate in order to gain admittance to the Nazi party. A few
hours later Hanussen was executed with three pistol shots. Two struck him in
the head. His corpse was robbed of everything except thirty marks in bills, and
he was dumped in a field north of Berlin.


When Hanussen’s disfigured body was discovered by a farmer two weeks later,
Hanussen’s relatives were asked to come to the morgue and identify it. By then
the Palace of the Occult and Hanussen’s seven apartments had been thoroughly

Marinus van der Lubbe was beheaded at the conclusion of the Reichstag arson
trial in 1934. From exile in Prague, Paris, and Mexico
City, Bruno Frei continued his journalistic crusade
against Hanussen and Nazism long after the seer’s demise and after the many
materials linking Hanussen to the Führer were thought to have been destroyed.
Count Helldorf, in July 1944, assisted in a Wehrmacht conspiracy to assassinate
Hitler at the Führer’s Wolfsschanze retreat. This Nazi plot failed. After a
sixteen-day investigation, Helldorf and seven other staff officers were found
guilty of high treason. They were hung from meat hooks and left to die by slow

In the end, the Hanussen-Hitler saga proved to be an embarrassment for everyone
involved: Nazi historians — as well as their Allied counterparts — attempted to
destroy or conceal all materials linking the two “H’s.” The relationship was
bad for the National Socialists and bad for the Jews. For post-war America,
exposure of the complicity of any Jews in Hitler’s coup and the Nazi policies
that followed was, at the very least, an exercise in poor political taste. The
most famous clairvoyant in Europe was
consigned to the dustbin of history, with only traces left to tell his
extraordinary story.




Until you have read
the book by Professor Steven E. Aschheim, BROTHERS and STRANGERS: The East
European Jew in German and German Jewish Consciousness, 1800-1923, you will
NEVER understand that it was assimilated German Jews who hated the Polish
Orthodox Jews. Most German Jews had left Germany by 1939 and so it was
mostly Polish Orthodox Jews who died in the Concentration camps. The Zionists
and Jews like Sephen Wise did not want these Jews getting out of Germany and so
by calling for a JEWISH WAR ON GERMANY, in 1933, they started the wheels of the
trains that brought the STRANGERS to the Concentration camps.


Rabbi Dr. Chaim

P.O.B. 1775, Kiryat

90100, Israel

tel and fax:
02-9961252 (within Israel),

972 2 9961252 (from
outside Israel)


August 2007


In an article in the
English edition of “Mishpacha” in January 2005 appeared the

“The Left is
still loyal to the State of Israel
in varying levels of faithfulness, but it hates Eretz Yisrael. The difference
between these two is clear: Eretz Yisrael is a reminder of the Left’s Jewish
past, which it wishes to forget. … The Left’s disconnection from the Jewish
nation has reached the point where they are prepared for settlers to be killed
during the evacuation effort [Gaza area and North Shomron]. Spokesmen of the Left have already
announced that this will not be a war of brother against brother since ‘the
settlers are not our brothers’.” (1)

Unfortunately this is
not a new phenomenon. It has always been an integral part of the secular
Zionist agenda. They wanted a Jewish State (according to some of them, even if
it were to be in Uganda or Argentina) but
it had to be administered according to their programme and perception for the
“New Jew.”



Although much of the
material appearing in this paper can be found in other books or articles, the
material is often brought down as secondary or even tertiary sources. In
addition, the primary sources are on a number of occasions incorrectly quoted
and there are even cases where the quotations given do not occur in the sources
given. Therefore the only quotations of statements made by secular Zionists
brought in this paper are those which the author of this paper has a photocopy
from in the original in his possession. Due to limitations in the disc space,
facsimiles of these documents cannot appear in this online copy. In many cases
the original documents are no longer extant or could not be located, despite
extensive searching. In such cases the information alleged to be contained in
them has been completely omitted from this paper.

In the English
quotes, Palestine
usually appears when referring to Eretz Yisrael and it has of course be left as
it appears in the original.

The following words
appearing in the Hebrew quotes have not been translated:

Aliyah — Jewish
immigration to Eretz Yisrael

Hachshara — Training
given to people in preparation for Aliyah

Shlichim – Jewish
emissaries sent abroad to Jewish communities

Yishuv – Jewish community
of Eretz Yisrael



Eretz Yisrael was
Divinely given to the Jewish people (2) and every Jew has an equal right to
live there. However as we shall see, the secular Zionists thought otherwise.

At the eighteenth
Zionist Congress held in Prague
in August 1933, Ben-Gurion said

“Eretz Yisrael
today needs not ordinary immigrants, but pioneers. The difference between them
is simple — an immigrant comes to take from the land, whereas a pioneer comes
to give to the land. Therefore we demand priority for Aliyah to
pioneers.”(3) (emphasis in original)

The question here is
how would Ben-Gurion define an “ordinary immigrant” and how a
“pioneer”? From his speech, it is obvious that a person working the
land on a kibbutz is a pioneer. However, it would almost certainly appear that
an old person coming to spend his last years in the Holy Land or even a Yeshiva
student would be classed as a mere “ordinary immigrant”!(4)

A few months later in
mid-October 1933 a meeting took place between, amongst others, the High
Commissioner for Palestine,
David Ben-Gurion and Moshe Shertok (Sharett). The Minutes of the meeting were
written up by Shertok.

During the course of
this meeting Ben-Gurion spoke about the three million Jews then living in Poland and
stated that

“Palestine offered no
solution for all Polish Jews. Immigration into Palestine was necessarily limited, therefore
it had to and could be a selected immigration. Zionism was not a philanthropic
enterprise, they really wanted here the best type of Jew to develop the Jewish
National Home, but they had to be given sufficient scope to bring over people
of whom the country was in need.”(5)

The question which
remains is who would decide who was “the best type of Jew”? As will
soon be seen, such a Jew was someone who was a secular Zionist!

It was a few years
later at the 20th Zionist Congress held in Zurich in August 1937, that Weizmann spelled
out more specifically what was meant by “selective Aliyah.”

“I told the
members of the Royal [Peel] Commission that six million Jews want to go on
Aliyah. One of the members asked me ‘ Do you think you could bring all of them
to Eretz Yisrael?’ On this I answered … that two million young people… we
want to save. The old people will pass. They will bear their fate or they will
not. They have already become like dust, economic and moral dust in this cruel

A similar rejection
of elderly Jews to go on Aliyah was made by Henry Montor, the Executive
Vice-Chairman of the United Jewish Appeal for Refugees towards the beginning of
1940. A ship full of refugees not certified by the Zionist organisations, were
on the high seas. Many of the passengers were elderly. The captain of the ship
required money to bring them to Eretz Yisrael. Rabbi Baruch Rabinowitz of Maryland took the matter
in hand and tried to get the necessary money from Montor to pay the captain. In
his long rambling letter of reply, Montor wrote about the Jewish Agency’s
policy of “selectivity” — “the choice of young men and women
who are trained in Europe for productive
purposes either in agriculture or industry.” With regard to the elderly
Jews on board this ship, Montor wrote:

“There could be
no more deadly ammunition provided to the enemies of Zionism, whether they be
in the ranks of the British Government or the Arabs, or even in the ranks of
the Jewish people, if Palestine were to be flooded with very old people or with
undesirables who would make impossible the conditions of life in Palestine and
destroy the prospect of creating such economic circumstances as would insure a
continuity of immigration.”(7)

Maybe it would have
been appropriate for him to have renamed his organisation “United Jewish
Appeal for Selected Refugees”! At least the donors would then have had a
better idea of what they were giving money for.

The secular Zionists
were not even ashamed to put out a memorandum in which they quite openly had a
section “Who to save”. This memorandum (of April/May 1943) was headed
that its distribution was “intended for Zionist functionaries only”
and it included instructions “not to pass it on to non-Zionist groups who
participate in the Working Committee.”(8) Although it came out under the
name of A. [Apolinary] Hartglas, it has been suggested that in fact it was
Yitzchak Gruenbaum who actually wrote it.(9) Under this section, he wrote

“…. to my
sorrow we have to say that if we are able to save only ten thousand people and
we need to save fifty thousand [those chosen] should be of use in building up
the land and the revival of the nation…. First and foremost one must rescue
children since they are the best material for the Yishuv. One must rescue the
pioneering youth, especially those who have had training and are idealistically
qualified for Zionist work. One should rescue the Zionist functionaries since
they deserve something from the Zionist movement for their work…. Pure
philanthropic rescue, for example, saving the Jews of Germany, if
carried out in an indiscriminate manner, could from a Zionist prospective only
cause harm.”(10)

As can be seen, just
as with both Weizmann and Montor, Hartglas was not interested in old people
coming to Eretz Yisrael. Even amongst the younger generation, he was only
interested in those who would work the land – Yeshivah students were of no use
to him.

Further exclusions to
Aliyah by the secular Zionists were people who were not members of the Zionist
camp. Some Jews who succeeded in arriving in Eretz Yisrael in the second half
of 1944 gave evidence on this question.

Pinchas Gross who had
been one of the public workers of Agudat Yisrael in Rumania stated

“The first
principle of the Zionist Aliyah Committee in Bucharest was not to allow members of Agudat
Yisrael to go on Aliyah to Eretz Yisrael. This was despite the agreement which
had been made before the war between Agudat Yisrael and the Jewish Agency on
the Aliyah quotas for members of Agudat Yisrael… Shlichim from the [Aliyah]
Committee in Bucharest arrived in Transylvania
with large sums of money in order to transfer hundreds of pioneers to Bucharest for the purpose
of Aliyah. We also asked for our members the possibility of Aliyah but we were
rudely rejected.”(11)

One might
think that
this money was “Zionist money” and therefore it was proper to reject
such a request. However, this was shown not to be the case just a few
later when Weissberg who was a member of the Aliyah Committee in
Bucharest, gave evidence before the Rescue Committee in Jerusalem.
During this
evidence he stated

“It is true that
the Agudah was not granted equal rights with regards to receiving money for
assistance in Rumania.
We did not know that the money which arrived from Eretz Yisrael was money from
the Rescue Committee in which all the Yishuv participated. We thought that the
money was Jewish Agency money…. I must inform you that help was not given to
the pioneers and youth of Agudat Yisrael. We did not know that Agudah is a
partner in matters of rescue and in particular in matters of Aliyah. Also
regarding the Aliyah of the pioneers of Agudah, we did not know that they were
entitled to go on Aliyah, until we arrived in Eretz Yisrael.”(12)

We can thus see that
the secular Zionists did nothing to even inform the Agudah what they were
entitled to, let alone implement such an entitlement.

There were also
others who had been misled in believing that the money was “Zionist
money”. For example, the Vishnitzer Rebbe, Rabbi Eliezer Hager, testified
that when he asked why the ultra-Orthodox were not receiving any money,
received the answer, “This money is Zionist and it is set aside solely for
Zionists.”(13) (emphasis in original)

Pinchas Gross further

ultra-Orthodox youth were not at all considered for this [financial] assistance
either in their home town or for the possibility of Aliyah. We applied… for
assistance for our youth who before the war did a period of Hachshara and were
no less fit for Aliyah than other pioneers — but we did not even receive an
answer. The excuse was that the money was Zionist money and was solely for

This attitude of the
secular Zionists in their use of public money for their kith and kin and of
their “priorities” did not pass without comment, even from
non-Orthodox sources.

Dr. Judah Leon Magnes in addressing a meeting
of the Rescue Committee in July 1944 was very critical of those who wanted

“first of all to
save the Zionists, and afterwards, if possible — also the others, but above
all the Zionists. I spoke to somebody…. The man said… we will save our
men…. I said to him … the others are also Jews. He said: It is so, they are
Jews, but this is a universal argument, a perpetual argument and we will not
give in on this.”(15)

Magnes’ comments on
the necessity for non-selectivity when doing rescue work are illustrated by the
work performed during the Second World War by Recha Sternbuch, who succeeded in
rescuing thousands of Jews from the Nazis. Recha was associated with the
strictly Orthodox Agudat Yisrael party. However, unlike the secular Zionists,
she rescued Jews (and even some non-Jews) regardless of their level of
religious observance or Zionist party affiliation.(16)


A few months after
the beginning of the Second World War the Zionists received entry visas to
Eretz Yisrael for 2,900 German Jews. It was necessary to have a meeting with
the British Colonial Secretary, Malcolm MacDonald, in connection with these
visas and in November 1939, David Ben-Gurion and Moshe Shertok met to discuss
this question. Ben-Gurion strongly opposed such a meeting with MacDonald and he
told Shertok that

“our political
future is more important than saving 2,900 Jews.” Shertok, who completely
disagreed with Ben-Gurion, commented in his diary, “he [Ben-Gurion] was
prepared to forgo them [the 2,900 Jews].”(17)

Even in July 1944,
which was towards the end of this war, when the Holocaust was still in full
progress and its implementation was already well known, Ben-Gurion still had
the same attitude. A meeting of the Executive of the Jewish Agency was held in Jerusalem at the
beginning of July 1944. On its agenda was the subject of the rescue of Jews.

Rabbi Baruch Yehoshua
Yerachmiel Rabinowicz, the Munkaczer Rebbe in Hungary, was involved in this
rescue effort and the question of a meeting with him was mentioned at this
Jewish Agency meeting. In answer Ben-Gurion stated that he did not oppose such
a meeting, “We must do everything in this matter [of rescue] including
things which seem fantastic.” Had Ben-Gurion said no more, it would have
been praiseworthy, but he then continued, “But there is one condition: the
work will not cause damage to Zionism.”(18)

In a letter to the
Israeli daily newspaper “Ha’aretz” in 1983, the historian Professor
Yigal Eilam confirmed that this was the attitude of the Zionist leaders during
the period of the Holocaust. He wrote

“The policy of
the Zionists during the long period of the Holocaust gave priority to the
building up of the land and the establishment of a State, over the saving of
Jews…. One already needs to tell these things in a open and direct manner.
The Zionists did very little in the saving of Jews, not because they were
unable to do more, but because they were concentrating on the Zionist

In a similar vein, in
an article by the historian Dina Porat which appeared in “Ha’aretz”
in 1991, she wrote

“From the moment
that the State became the primary objective, the life of a Jew became secondary
in accordance with the principal ‘the State of Israel is above everything'”.(20)

The shortsightedness
of the secular Zionist leaders in this matter was written about in 1984 by
Rabbi Morris Sherer, the President of Agudat Yisrael, in his comments on the
report by Professor Seymour Maxwell Finger entitled “American Jewry during
the Holocaust.” Rabbi Sherer commented

“Alas, they [the
secular Zionist leaders] did not perceive how utterly ridiculous and heartless
it was for Jewish leaders to concentrate on a postwar homeland, when the people
for whom they were seeking this home were being slaughtered like sheep!”

Unlike Ben-Gurion who
put Zionism first, and Jewish lives just in second place, the Rabbis of the
period immediately put “Pikuach Nefesh” (the saving of lives) first.
Sabbath observance is one of the fundamentals of Jewish observance, with the
most stringent of punishments for their non-observance, yet despite this,
Pikuach Nefesh overrides the Sabbath.(22) In order to save lives during the
Holocaust, two leading British Rabbis, Rabbi Solomon Schonfeld and Rabbi Isadore
Grunfeld, who were occupied in forging passports to save Jews, continued their
work on the Sabbath.(23) Rabbis Boruch Kaplan and Rabbi Alexander Linchner rode
around Brooklyn in New York in a car on the Sabbath from house to house
collecting money to save Jews.(24) (These actions are normally forbidden on the


In 1933, Hitler rose
to power and during the subsequent years, more and more draconian measures,
such as the Nuremberg
laws were enacted against the Jews. In 1938 Hitler marched into Austria to the
cheers of the non-Jewish population.

The situation for the
Jews under Hitler’s domination became unbearable and places of refuge became a
grave necessity. It was thus at this period that President Franklin Roosevelt
convened a conference of thirty-two nations at the French resort town of Evian
to try and find places of refuge for Jews wanting to flee from Hitler.

One would naturally
have thought that the Zionist leaders of the time would make the most of this
opportunity and devote all their time and energy to ensure that successful
results would emerge from this Conference. But sadly this was not to be.

Already in mid-June
1938, before the opening of the Conference, Dr. Georg Landauer wrote to Dr.
Stephen Wise, who was head of the Zionist Organization of America. In it
he wrote:

“I am writing
this letter to you at the request of Dr. Weizmann, as we are very much
concerned in case the issue is presented at the [Evian] Conference in a manner
which may harm the work for Palestine.
Even if the Conference will not place countries other than Palestine
in the front for Jewish immigration, there will certainly be public appeals
which will tend to overshadow the importance of Palestine…. We feel all the more concern as
it may bind Jewish organisations to collect large sums of money for assisting
Jewish refugees, and these collections are likely to interfere with our own

Two weeks later the
Jewish Agency Executive met in Jerusalem
and opposition to the planned Evian Conference was openly stated.

Yitzchak Gruenbaum

“The Evian
Conference can be expected to cause us grave damage – Eretz Yisrael could be
eliminated as a country for Jewish immigration … [we are] very apprehensive
that in this Conference, it could be relegated to the end of the line. We have
to prevent this damage… There is the danger that whilst searching for a
destination country, some new territory will be found to which Jewish
immigration will be directed. We must defend our principle that Jewish
settlement can only succeed in Eretz Yisrael and that no other settlement can
come into the calculation.”(26)

Menachem Ussishkin
then addressed the meeting in a similar vein. The Evian Conference very much
worried him and he supported the words of Gruenbaum. “Mr. Gruenbaum is
right when he says that there is the danger that Eretz Yisrael will be removed
from the agenda even by the Jews and one should see this as a tremendous blow
to us.”(27)

Of course the ideal
solution was for Jews to go to Eretz Yisrael. However in view of the then
political situation, immigration there was not a feasible proposition. Surely
the only question then should have been how to save and help as many Jews as
possible. It was this fact that should have been the only concern of the
speakers at that Jewish Agency Executive meeting — but it wasn’t!

A few weeks later,
Weizmann wrote to Stephen Wise. Towards the beginning of his letter he wrote:
“I made arrangements, before leaving for my holiday, to put in a few days
at Evian.”(28) If one thinks for a moment about this sentence, one can see
that it is horrific. Surely, if there was even the slightest opportunity of
saving even one Jew, Weizmann who was the President of the Zionist Organization
should have immediately cancelled his personal holiday arrangements and spent
all his time at Evian trying to lobby the various delegates to accept Jews in
their countries. But what do we see? — he will just before going on holiday
“put in a few days at Evian.”

In fact he was later
persuaded by his friends not to even “put in a few days” there, to
which advice he followed.(29) The reason was stated by Dr. Arthur Ruppin at a
meeting of the Jewish Agency Executive on 21 August. Ruppin stated “we
then decided that it would not be to our prestige for Dr. Weizmann to appear in
Evian”(30) — the reason being that he would only have been allowed to
speak in a sub-committee! Jewish lives were at stake and to worry about

One can immediately
contrast this attitude with that of the Jewish religious leaders of the time.
Rabbi Aharon Kotler had come under some criticism for meeting in the course of
his rescue work with Stephen Wise, a leader of the Reform movement. He shrugged
such reprobation saying, “I would prostrate myself before the Pope if I
knew it would help to save even the fingernail of one Jewish child.”(31)

Unfortunately nothing
concrete came out of the Evian Conference. The situation of the Jews in Germany got
even worse and on 9 November 1938 there was the infamous Kristallnacht.

A few days later,
Weizmann heard that there was a scheme to resettle German Jews in a country
other than Eretz Yisrael. This he did not like and he immediately sent off a
telegram to stop any financial backing for such a scheme. This telegram was
sent to Samuel Vandenbergh in Wassemar

“Understand you
are embarking large financial effort for settlement German Jews. Beg of you to
be careful not disperse and dissipate energies which can nowhere be applied
with greater effectiveness both immediately and lasting than in Palestine.”(32)

Since at that period
emigration to Eretz Yisrael was unfortunately not a practical proposition,
Weizmann is effectively saying that rather than immigrate to another country,
the Jews must remain in Nazi Germany.

We can see that also
Ben-Gurion thought on these same lines as the other secular Zionist leaders. It
was at this period that Ben-Gurion addressed the Mapai Central Committee. He
realised the seriousness of the situation and said

“On these
awesome days at the start of the threatened destruction of European Jewry….
If I would know that it would be possible to save all the German [Jewish]
children by bringing them over to England and only half of them by transporting
them to Eretz Yisrael, I would choose the second option — since before us is
not just these children but the history of the Jewish people.”(33)

At this period, the
Germans had already established concentration camps and were sending Jews to
them. In order to pre-empt this, it was necessary to find the means of
arranging their emigration from Germany.
Ben-Gurion, however, felt this could cause a diversion of resources and
endanger Zionism. A few days after his above quoted speech to the Mapai Central
Committee, he addressed the Executive of the Jewish Agency:

“Zionism now
stands in danger…. If the Jews will have to choose on the one hand the
refugee question,[namely] saving Jews from concentration camps and on the other
hand assisting a national museum in Eretz Yisrael, mercy would decide the matter
and all the energy of the [Jewish] people would be diverted to saving Jews in
the various countries. Zionism would be struck off the agenda, not only in
world opinion in England and America, but also in Jewish public opinion. The
existence of Zionism would be at risk if we allow a separation between the
refugee problem and the Eretz Yisrael problem.”(34) (emphasis in original)


The mass
extermination of the Jews of Europe was
already well known by the end of 1942. Saving Jews could and should have been
top priority. But in order to save large numbers of people from extermination
costs money — whether normal expenses or money for bribery. Needless to say,
the money has to come from somewhere. All the time money was donated by world
Jewry to funds such as the Keren Hayesod, the JNF, and so on. It is true that
this money had been specifically donated for Eretz Yisrael, but here was a case
of Pikuach Nefesh and it would have been quite legitimate, indeed mandatory, to
have utilised this money for the saving of Jewish lives. The Jews then living
in Eretz Yisrael were even saying so.

However Yitzchak
Gruenbaum, who was head of the Rescue Committee of the Jewish Agency thought
otherwise. In a speech to the Zionist Smaller Actions Committee in January 1943
he expressed his views:

“Meanwhile a
mood has begun to sweep over Eretz Yisrael which I think is very dangerous to
Zionism…. How is it possible that such a thing can occur in Eretz Yisrael,
that in a meeting they will call out to me, ‘If you don’t have any money [for
rescuing European Jewry] take the money of the Keren Hayesod, take the money
from the bank — there, there is money, in the Keren Hayedod there is money.’
… These days in Eretz Yisrael it is being said, ‘don’t put Eretz Yisrael at
the top of your priorities at this difficult time, at the period of a Holocaust
and destruction of European Jewry,’ …. I don’t accept such a thing. And when
they asked me to give money of the Keren Hayesod to save Diaspora Jewry, I said
no and I again said no…. I am not going to defend myself, in the same way
that I will not justify or defend myself if they accuse me of murdering my
mother …. But I think it is necessary to say here: Zionism is above

The only consolation
from reading Gruenbaum’s speech, is that the Jews living in Eretz Yisrael were
demanding the diverting of Keren Hayesod money to rescue efforts, even though
this meant that less money would arrive in Eretz Yisrael and could accordingly
affect their living standards. In contrast Gruenbaum commented “Zionism is
above everything” even though this meant not rescuing European Jewry from
the Holocaust.

In his book
“Perfidy”, Ben Hecht quoted how Gruenbaum said “No” to the
giving of money for rescue activities.(36) In a critical “Analysis”
of this book by the American Section of the Executive of the Jewish Agency,
they write that this quoted sentence by Ben Hecht “has been most viciously
torn out of context. The writer of this Analysis then tries to prove, quoting
other parts of Gruenbaum’s speech that he wanted to do everything to save
European Jewry.(37) However he conveniently omitted one crucial part of the
speech: “Zionism is above everything” — namely we will certainly do
everything to save European Jewry provided that it is not at the expense of

One might add that in
1961, Gruenbaum gave an interview to the paper “Etgar” from the
comfort of his house in Gan Shmuel, in which he repeated these statements he
made during the war, without even hinting he had been wrong.

Was there then no money in the kitty of the Jewish Agency, the JNF, the Keren

Gruenbaum: Yes. Even
then the argument went: Isn’t there any money? Take it from the JNF. I said:
No! They did not want to forgive me for this and until this day, there are
murmurings about this. The money was needed for Zionism.

Interviewer: What is
the meaning of “for Zionism” when the saving of lives is at stake?
Does Zionism want Jews alive or dead?

Gruenbaum: The saving
of life does not override Zion.
For Jews, the State is essential. Therefore, in accordance with my manner I
said the truth — that is No!”(38)

Gruenbaum went on to
say that he then went to South
Africa to raise money for rescue purposes.
However we all know that the raising of money, especially when one has to
travel to another continent takes time and every day taken meant more Jews were
being sent to the gas chambers. Surely the correct thing was to immediately
take money from these Zionist kitties and if at a later date one succeeded in
raising money, one could return it to the Zionist funds.

Even before the war,
when Jews were already being persecuted in Germany
and Austria,
it was widely accepted that money to save Jewish lives came before money for
Zionism. In was in late October 1938 that the treasurer of the American Jewish
Joint Distribution Committee (JDC) said

“The upbuilding
of Palestine was all very well, but Jews in Europe were starving and persecuted — and they, JDC
felt, had first claim on whatever funds were available.”(39)


Placing Zionism above
the saving the lives of Jews was also a phenomenon of the British secular
Zionists. Towards the end of 1942, when the Nazi extermination plans became
known, British Jewry decided to make representations to the British Government.
At a meeting of the British section of the Jewish Agency held in December 1942,
the “Nazi Extermination Policy” was on the agenda. Here is an extract
from the official minutes of this meeting when discussing this item:

“Dr. Brodetsky
… made it quite clear that if Palestine
was not properly mentioned then he would not be a member of the Delegation to
Mr. Eden….

Lord Melchett said it
would be disastrous for any body of Jews to go to Mr. Eden and not put Palestine in the
forefront of their plans. Such a body would not represent the views of the Jews
either here or elsewhere…..

Mr. Marks said he
fully agreed, and if this condition was not satisfied, then he would not be a
member of the delegation. Unless Palestine
was properly dealt with, they should criticise the delegation up and down the
country and cause a revolution inside the Board of Deputies…. The dignity of
the Jewish people was at stake and it was only in Palestine that the Jews could get their
dignity back.”(40)

As we well see, the
above British secular Zionists would only attend a meeting with British
Government officials to save Jews from the “Nazi Extermination
Policy” if Eretz Yisrael was to be given a prominent place at these meetings.
Furthermore it was Jewish liveswhich were “at stake” and it was no
time to worry about “dignity” being “at stake”.

It was at the same
period that the British secular Zionists sabotaged negotiations that Rabbi Dr.
Solomon Schonfeld was making with the British Government for the rescue of the
endangered Jews in Nazi Europe. Such rescue of
Jews was not a new thing with Rabbi Schonfeld. Just before the Second World
War, he had organised Kindertransports and brought over to England from Germany
and Austria
thousands of children.(41) To accommodate some of them he even utilized his own
house with him sleeping in the attic.(42)

Towards the end of
1942, Rabbi Schonfeld organised steps to rescue Jews from Nazi Europe. To this end he worked exceptionally hard to
organise wide support for a Motion to be tabled in the British Parliament for
the British Government to be prepared to find temporary refuge in its
territories or territories under its control for those endangered by the Nazis.
Within two weeks he amassed a total of 277 Parliamentary signatures of all
parties for this Motion.(43)

One would have
thought that the British secular Zionists would have welcomed and co-operated
in such an initiative. Sadly this was not the case. In a letter to the
“Jewish Chronicle” at that period, Rabbi Schonfeld wrote

“This effort was
met by a persistent attempt on the part of Professor Brodetsky [President of
the Board of Deputies of British Jews] and some of his colleagues to sabotage
the entire move. Without even full knowledge of the details, he and his
collaborators asked Members of the House [of Parliament] to desist from
supporting the new effort.”(44)

Rabbi Schonfeld
further elaborated on this in a letter to “The Times” of London at the time of the
Eichmann trial in 1961.

“Already while
the Parliamentary motion was gathering momentum voices of dissent were heard
from Zionist quarters: ‘Why not Palestine?’
The obvious answers that the most urgent concern was humanitarian and not
political, that the Mufti-Nazi alliance ruled out Palestine for the immediate
saving of lives….When the next steps were being energetically pursued by over
100 M.Ps [Members of Parliament] and Lords, a spokesman for the Zionists
announced that the Jews would oppose the motion on the grounds of its omitting
to refer to Palestine …. and thereafter the motion was dead.”(45)

Rabbi Schonfeld’s
initiative came up at a meeting of the British Executive of the Jewish Agency
in January 1943. At this meeting, Berl Locker said that he and two of his colleagues

“had asked him
[Rabbi Schonfeld] to postpone the meeting in the House of Commons and not to
continue working off his own bat. They had also pointed out that the resolution
which he had proposed did not mention Palestine….
Mr. Locker wondered whether it would be a good thing for him or Dr. Brodetsky
to write a letter to the Chief Rabbi, who might be able to do something to stop
this mischief.”(46)

What was this
“mischief” of Rabbi Dr. Schonfeld’s that these British secular
Zionists wanted “stopped”? This “mischief” was his trying
to save the lives of Jews who were in Nazi Europe!!


In an interview given
by someone who worked with the late Klausenberger Rebbe for half a century, he
said in answer to a question on the Holocaust,

“When the Sabra
and Shatila affair rocked the nation, and hundreds of thousands of Israelis
demonstrated in Tel Aviv, demanding a commission of inquiry into the
government’s lack of response to the massacre of Palestinians by Phalangist
militants in Lebanon, the Rebbe couldn’t restrain himself. During a Shiur he
delivered in Bnei Brak, he asked pointedly why there was no call for a
commission of inquiry into the lack of response of the Zionist leaders in Eretz
Yisrael during the murder of millions of Jews in the Nazi-occupied lands. They
had ignored the matter completely.”(47)


1) Rabbi Moshe
Grylak, “How do they “know” it all?” Mishpacha (English
edition), (Monsey, NY: Tikshoret VeChinuch Dati-Yehudi), 12
January 2005, pp.6-7.

2) e.g. Genesis
chap.12 verse 7.

3) Stenographisches
Protokoll XVIII Zionistenkongresses, [Official Minutes of the 18th Zionist
Congress], (London:
Zentralbureau der Zionistischen Organisation), p.219.

4) David Kranzler,
Thy Brother’s Blood, (New York: Mesorah Publications, 1987), pp.61-62, 241,

5) Minutes of
Interview with His Excellency the High Commissioner, 17 October 1933, pp.4-5
(Labour Archives — Lavon Institute IV-104-49-2-64. There is also a copy in
Ben-Gurion Archives). At a later date Ben-Gurion wrote up these minutes (in
Hebrew) in his memoirs without any suggestion that they were not what he had
said at this meeting, (David Ben-Gurion, Memoirs, vol.1, (Tel Aviv: Am Oved,
1971), p.672).

6) Official Minutes
of the 20th Zionist Congress, (Jerusalem:
Executive of the Zionist Organisation and the Jewish Agency), pp.32-33.

7) Montor to
Rabinowitz, 1 February 1940, pp.2, 4, (Jabotinsky Archives, HT-10/16).

8) A. Hartglas,
Comments concerning assistance and rescue, (April/May 1943 — possibly 24 April
1943), p.1, (CZA S26/1306 [previous no. S26/1232]).

9) Aryeh Morgenstern,
“Vaad hahatzalah hameuchad ….,” Yalkut Moreshet, (Tel Aviv:
Moreshet), vol.13, June 1971, p.95 fn.67.

10) Hartglas, op.
cit., p.3.

11) Evidence of
Pinchas Gross, a public worker of Agudat Yisrael of Rumania, given in Tel Aviv on 27
July 1944, p.2, (CZA S26/1189 [previous no. S26/1079]).

12) Minutes,
Presidium of the Rescue Committee, Jerusalem,
25 August 1944, (CZA S26/1189 [previous no. S26/1079]).

13) Evidence of
Vishnitzer Rebbe taken in Tel Aviv in April 1944, p.1, (CZA S26/1189 [previous
no, S26/1079]).

14) Pinchas Gross,
op. cit.

15) Minutes, Rescue
Committee, Jerusalem,
14 July 1944, p.7, (CZA S26/1327 [previous no. S26/1238aleph]).

16) Kranzler, op.
cit., pp194-95.

17) Moshe Shertok
Handwritten diary, 13 November 1939, p.66, (CZA S25/198/3. [Shertok also made a
handwritten copy of his own diary CZA A245/14]

18) Minutes, Jewish
Agency Executive. Jerusalem,
2 July 1944. p.8, (CZA).

19) Yigal Eilam,
Letters to the Editor, Haaretz, (Tel Aviv), 15 April 1983, p.24.

20) Dina Porat,
“Manipulatzit Haadmorim,” Haaretz, (Tel Aviv), 12 April 1991, p.3b.

21) Seymour Maxwell Finger, American Jewry during
the Holocaust, (New York: Holmes and Meier Publishers, second printing May
1984), Comment by Rabbi Morris Sherer, p.16.

22) Shulchan Aruch,
Orach Chaim, chap.328, para.2.

23) S. Fordsham,
Inbox, Mishpacha (English edition), op. cit., 9 May 2007, p.10

24) Kranzler, op.
cit., p.6.

25) Landauer to Wise,
13 June 1938, p.1, (CZA S53/1552aleph).

26) Minutes, Jewish
Agency Executive, Jerusalem,
26 June 1938, p.6, (CZA)

27) Ibid., p.7.

28) Weizmann to Wise.
14 July 1938, p.1, (CZA Z4/17198).

29) Ibid., p.2.

30) Minutes, Jewish
Agency Executive, Jerusalem,
21 August 1938, p.7. (CZA).

31) Kranzler, op.
cit., p.146.

32) Telegram,
Weizmann to Vandenburgh, 16 November 1938, (CZA Z4/17335).

33) Minutes, Mapai
Central Committee, 7 December 1938, p.41, (Labour Party Archives — Bet Berl
2-23-1938-21 bet).

34) Minutes, Jewish
Agency Executive, Jerusalem,
11 December 1938, p.4, (CZA)

35) Minutes, Zionist
Smaller Actions Committee, 18 January 1943, pp.12-13, (CZA).

36) Ben Hecht,
Perfidy, (New York: Julian Messner, 1962), p.50.

37) The American
Section of the Executive of the World Zionist Organization and the Jewish
Agency. Ben Hecht’s ‘Perfidy’ – An analysis of his rewriting of history, (New
York: [s.n.], 1962), p.9.

38) “Mi asham
b’hafkara,” conversation with Yitzchak Gruenbaum, Etgar, (Tel Aviv: Mercaz
Hapeula Hashemit), no.8, 29 June 1961, p.5.

39) Yehuda Bauer, My
Brother’s Keeper, (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society of America,
1974), p.255.

40) Minutes, Jewish
Agency Executive, London,
21 December 1942, pp.2-3. (CZA Z4/302/26).

41) e.g. David
Kranzler. Holocaust Hero, (New Jersey:
Ktav, 2004).

42) Ibid., pp.38-39.

43) Solomon
Schonfeld, Letters to the Editor, The Times, (London), 6 June 1961, p.13.

44) Solomon
Schonfeld, Letters to the Editor, The Jewish Chronicle, (London), 29 January 1943, p.5.

45) Schonfeld, The
Times, op. cit.

46) Minutes, Jewish
Agency Executive, London,
21 January 1943, (CZA Z4/302/26).

47) “A strength
beyond nature,” Mishpacha (English edition), op. cit., 20 June 2007, p.16.

HOLOCAUST Handbooks Series, Vol. 2

Germar Rudolf
Rudolf Report

Expert Report on Chemical and Technical Aspects
of the ‘Gas Chambers’ of Auschwitz

Expert Report–online version– is dedicated to Ernst Zündel who, at the time
when this document was released, was held in jail as a result of his dissenting
historical views.
more about this dedication.

Click on the cover to view a larger version

Table of Content

1. Prelude, p. 11

1.1. Slow Death in U.S. Gas Chambers, p. 11

1.2. Hydrogen Cyanide—a Dangerous Poison, p. 15

1.3. The Acid that Causes Blue Stains, p. 20

2. The Coup, p. 23

2.1. Fred Leuchter on Auschwitz and Majdanek, p. 23

2.2. Damage Control, p. 26

3. The Origins, p. 29

3.1. On the Problem, p. 32

3.2. On Politics, p. 36

4. A Brief History of Forensic Examinations of
Auschwitz, p. 39

4.1. Introduction, p. 39

4.2. The Moral Obligation of Forensic Examination, p. 39

4.3. A Definition of Forensic Science, p. 41

4.4. Forensic Science and Auschwitz, p. 42

4.4.1. Forensics in the Courts, p. 42 The 1946 Cracow Auschwitz Trial, p. 42 The 1964-1966 Frankfurt Auschwitz Trial, p. 44 The 1972 Vienna Auschwitz Trial, p. 45

4.4.2. Forensics Outside the Courts, p. 46 In Search of Mass Graves, p. 46 Faurisson and the Consequences, p. 46

5. Auschwitz, p. 49

5.1. Introduction, p. 49

5.1.1. “Opera During the Holocaust, p. 49

5.1.2. On the History of the Camp, p. 51

5.2. Epidemics and the Defense Against them, p. 59

5.2.1. Danger of Epidemics, p. 59

5.2.2. Epidemic Control with Zyklon B, p. 60

5.2.3. Epidemic Control in Auschwitz, p. 65 Terminology Used and Responsibilities, p. 65 Procedures Used, p. 67 Results, p. 68 Basic Policy Decisions, p. 69 The Army Medical Officer, p. 70 Short-Wave Delousing Facility, p. 73

5.2.4. Disinfestation Installations BW 5a und 5b, p. 73

5.3. ‘Gas Chamber’ in the Auschwitz I Main Camp, p. 78

5.4. ‘Gas Chambers’ in Birkenau Camp, p. 88

5.4.1. Crematoria II and III, p. 88 Starting Situation, p. 88 The Obsessive Search for “Criminal
Traces”, p. 94 New Cellars Stairways, p. 95 Gassing Cellar, Undressing Room, and
Showers, p. 96 “Gas-tight Doors” for Crematorium II, p. 103 Ventilation Installations, p. 107 Pre-heated Morgues, p. 108 “Cremation with Simultaneous
Sonderbehandlung”, p. 109 “Gas Testers” and “Indicator Devices
for HCN Residues”, p. 111 Zyklon B Introduction Holes, p. 113 Conclusions, p. 133

5.4.2. Crematoria IV and V, p. 135

5.4.3. Farmhouses 1 and 2, p. 139

5.4.4. The Drainage System in Birkenau, p. 141 Background: Eyewitness Accounts, p. 141 The Ground Water Table in Birkenau, p. 141 Open-Air Incineration in Pits, p. 143

5.5. Construction Conclusions, p. 145

6. Formation and Stability of Iron Blue, p. 151

6.1. Introduction, p. 151

6.2. Instances of Damages to Buildings, p. 152

6.3. Properties of Hydrogen Cyanide, HCN, p. 155

6.4. Composition of Iron Blue, p. 158

6.4.1. Overview, p. 158

6.4.2. Excursus, p. 158

6.5. Formation of Iron Blue, p. 159

6.5.1. Overview, p. 159

6.5.2. Water Content, p. 161 Overview, p. 161 Excursus, p. 161

6.5.3. Reactivity of Trivalent Iron, p. 163 Overview, p. 163 Excursus, p. 163

6.5.4. Temperature, p. 164 Overview, p. 164 Excursus, p. 167

6.5.5. pH Value, p. 168

6.6. Stability of Iron Blue, p. 170

6.6.1. pH Sensitivity, p. 170

6.6.2. Solubility, p. 171 Overview, p. 171 Excursus, p. 172

6.6.3. Excursus: Competing Ligands, p. 175

6.6.4. Effects of Light, p. 176 Overview, p. 176 Excursus, p. 176

6.6.5. Long-Term Test, p. 177

6.7. Influence of Various Building Materials, p. 180

6.7.1. Brick, p. 180 Overview, p. 180 Excursus, p. 181

6.7.2. Cement Mortar and Concrete, p. 181 Overview, p. 181 Excursus, p. 182

6.7.3. Lime Mortar, p. 185

6.7.4. Effects upon the Formation of Iron Blue, p. 185

7. Zyklon B for the Killing of Human Beings, p. 191

7.1. Toxicological Effect of HCN, p. 191

7.2. Evaporation Characteristics of Zyklon B, p. 194

7.3. The Gassing of Human Beings, p. 196

7.3.1. Eyewitness Testimonies, p. 196 Boundary Conditions, p. 196 Eyewitness Fantasies, p. 199 Quantities of Poison Gas, p. 208 Overview, p. 208 Excursus 1: Poisoning or Suffocation?, p. 211 Excursus 2: HCN Loss due to Adsorption, p. 216

7.3.2. Critique of the Eyewitness Descriptions, p. 218 Theatre of the Absurd, p. 218 Necessity of Co-Operation, p. 218 Failure to Separate the Sexes, p. 219 Towel and Soap, p. 220 Speed of Ventilation of the ‘Gas Chambers’, p. 220 Introduction, p. 220 Excursus, p. 220 Ventilation of the Morgues of Crematorium II and III, p. 223 Simulation Calculations, p. 227 Excursus: Capacity of Protective Filters, p. 230

7.3.3. Evaluation of Eyewitnesses, p. 233

7.3.4. An Expert on Cyanide Speaks Out, p. 238

7.3.5. Why Precisely Zyklon B?, p. 241

8. Evaluation of Chemical Analyses, p. 245

8.1. Test Sample Taking and Description, p. 245

8.2. Analytical Methods, p. 246

8.3. Evaluation of Analytical Results, p. 247

8.3.1. F.A. Leuchter/Alpha Analytic Laboratories, p. 247

8.3.2. Institute for Forensic Research, Cracow, p. 250

8.3.3. G. Rudolf/Fresenius Institute, p. 252 Samples 1-4: Crematorium II, Morgue 1, p. 253 Samples 5 to 8 and 23, 24: Inmate
Barracks, p. 258 Samples 9 to 22: Disinfestation Building, p. 258 Samples 25-30: Tests, p. 265

8.3.4. John C. Ball, p. 268

8.4. Discussion of the Analysis Results, p. 269

8.4.1. Blue Wall Paint?, p. 269

8.4.2. False Method of Analysis, p. 270

8.4.3. The Memory Hole, p. 273

8.4.4. The Moon is Made of Pizza, p. 276

8.4.5. Anticipated Values, p. 279

8.4.6. Limits of the Chemical Method, p. 283

9. Conclusions, p. 287

10. Acknowledgements, p. 293

11. Hunting Germar Rudolf, p. 297

11.1. What Makes Revisionists?, p. 297

11.2. The Naiveté of a Young Revisionist, p. 316

11.3. Flaws of a State Under the Rule of Law, p. 330

11.4. Rudolf’s Thought ‘Crimes’, p. 345

11.5. The Media and the Case of Germar Rudolf, p. 383

11.6. Outlawed in the Federal Republic of Germany, p. 404

11.7. Biographical Notes on the Author, p. 421

12. Bibliography, p. 423

12.1. Monographs, p. 423

12.2. Periodical Articles, p. 428

12.3. Archival Documents, p. 434

12.4. Internet Documents, p. 434

12.5. Courts Files, Governmental Documents, p. 436

12.6. Video, Audio, and Unpublished Documents, p. 437

13. Lists

13.1. List of Tables, p. 439

13.2. List of Illustrations, p. 440

13.3. List of Graphs, p. 444

13.4. List of Abbreviations, p. 445

14. Index, p. 447

Voices of Scholars



The entire book can be
downloaded in two formats



PDF file**

1.4 MB



* For this file you need WinZip from
Pictures not included. Links will download them from the internet as needed.
** For PDF-files you need Adobe Acrobat Reader. This program can be downloaded for free at


Dedicated to the unknown thousands of Germans now suffering
political persecution in their own country

HOLOCAUST Handbooks Series, vol. 2:
Germar Rudolf:

The Rudolf Report.
Expert Report on Chemical and Technical Aspects of the ‘Gas Chambers’ of

Translated by Carlos Porter, Michael Humphrey, James Damon, and the author.
Chicago (Illinois): Theses & Dissertations Press, March 2003
Paperback: ISBN 0-9679856-5-X
Hardcover: ISBN 0-9679856-6-8
ISSN 1529-7748

First German edition:
Rüdiger Kammerer, Armin Solms (Hg.):
Das Rudolf Gutachten.
Gutachten über die Bildung und Nachweisbarkeit von Cyanidverbindungen in den “Gaskammern” von Auschwitz.

London: Cromwell Press, 1993

Second German edition:
Germar Rudolf:
Das Rudolf Gutachten.
Gutachten über die “Gaskammern” von Auschwitz

Hastings: Castle Hill Publishers, 2001


First German edition: © July 1993 by Cromwell Press, 27,
Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3XX, Great Britain (ISBN 1-898419-00-0.)
Second German edition: © April 2001 by Germar Rudolf, P.O.
Box 118, Hastings, TN34 3ZQ, Great Britain (ISBN 1-902619-03-X)
First English edition: © March 2003 by Theses &
Dissertations Press, PO Box 2577684, Chicago, IL 60625, USA (ISBN Pb:
0-9679856-5-X; Hardcover: 0-9679856-6-8)


Set in Times New Roman



“I am extraordinarily impressed. To my knowledge, you
are the first expert in Germany who has addressed this particular topic in a
scholarly impeccable and well-founded way. It is not for me to attribute an
ice-breaker function to your expert report. It is easy to see which
political-historical effects will originate from it, though its entire dimension
cannot yet be estimated.”


Prof. Dr. Hellmut Diwald, Historian, January 22,


“I read it with great interest. […] My
impression is, however, that this expert report is an important contribution to
a very important question which, since the ‘Leuchter Report,’ needs to be
answered urgently.
[…] One can only very much hope that the well-known
tactics of hushing up is not applied to your expert report, but that critical
responses and comments will be made.”


Prof. Dr. Ernst Nolte, Historian, January 28,


“For me, the significance of receiving your report rests
on the fact that it substantially contributes to our stock of knowledge. With
many of my collegues active in the field of contemporary history, I am overjoyed
and thankful for you having initiated this research activity. Of course, I am
even more delighted regarding the results of your accurate scientific


Prof. Dr. Werner Georg Haverbeck, Historian,
January 31, 1992

“I calmly read your report! It gives me hope to realize
that a representative of the younger generation courageously sets out, with
scientific thoroughness, noticeable great expertise, and corresponding
investigative curiosity, to get to the bottom of a controversial question that
is of worldwide significance! The result is clear and unequivocal! True facts
cannot be suppressed forever! I wish that your work will make the


Prof. Emil Schlee, Historian, April 1, 1992

[…] I sincerely hope that all statements
about this topic would obviously be based on long and intensive work such as
yours. Most of it is certainly unverifiable for the layman, but the
photographs are already quite informative.

Prof. Dr. Ernst Nolte, Historian, January 6,


“Rudolf is a young scientist who tried to prove in an
excellently layed-out work with tables, graphics, and so on, that the gas
chambers were technically impossible.
[…] These scientific analyses are


Hans Westra, Anne-Frank-Foundation, BRT 1
TV (Belgium), Panorama, April 27, 1995


“All in all, he relies on literature which was written
long before this report was completed, and the report must be described as
scientifically acceptable.”

Prof. Dr. Henri Ramuz, Chemist, interrogated as
expert witness about the Rudolf Report
by the Swiss Court at Châtel-St.-Denis, May 18, 1997