The Warsaw Ghetto Uprising – jewish Insurrection or German Police Operation?

The Warsaw Ghetto “Uprising”Jewish Insurrection or German Police Operation?By Robert FaurissonPublished: 1994-03-01

Each year, around April 19, the media and politicians commemorate what they call the Warsaw ghetto “uprising,” “revolt” or “insurrection.” [1] In journalistic accounts the affair has taken on increasingly epic and symbolic proportions. At a Holocaust ceremony in New York in April 1993, American Vice President Al Gore declared: “The story of the Warsaw ghetto is sacred text for our time.”[2] In fact, this “story” is a legend based only partially on historical reality.

“An insurrection never took place.”[3] This remark is by Marek Edelman, who was a leader of one of the armed jewish groups in the ghetto. He added: “We didn’t even choose the day; the Germans set it by entering the ghetto to find the last jews.” Edelman also stated that the number of jews who took up arms never exceeded 220. (Other estimates of the number of jewish ghetto fighters range from several hundred to as many as 2,000. In any case, no more than a minute portion of the ghetto population took part in the fighting.)[4]

Edelman’s view has been confirmed by Yitzhak Zuckerman, another leader of the main jewish armed group in the ghetto. Zuckerman has defined the “war aims” of the jewish fighters in these words: “For us it was a question of organizing a defense, not an uprising. In an uprising, the initiative is with the one rising up. We, we sought only to defend ourselves; the initiative was entirely on the side of the Germans.”[5]

This was no uprising of an entire community to gain its freedom or to resist deportation. It was, rather, the reaction of only a relative handful of young jews who, seeing German troops penetrate their sanctuary, first fought back, then on the third day tried unsuccessfully to flee, and then, finally, surrounded, put up sustained armed resistance.[6]

The whole thing should more accurately be called a German police operation rather than an “uprising” or “insurrection” by the jews of Warsaw. By contrast, a real uprising was staged in Warsaw, August-October 1944, by the Polish Home Army, commanded by General “Bor” Komorowski. However, the media scarcely notes this heroic insurrection, which the Soviets allowed the Germans to crush at their leisure. The Poles fought with such courage that the Germans permitted them to surrender with full military honors, treating them as prisoners of war under the Geneva convention rather than as terrorist insurgents.

To understand what happened in the Warsaw ghetto in April-May 1943, it is important to know why the Germans decided to launch a police operation. In the city’s “jewish quarter” or “ghetto” were 36,000 officially registered residents, as well as, in all probability, more than 20,000 clandestine inhabitants.[7] The ghetto was, in a sense, a city within a city, administered by a “jewish Council” (Judenrat), and a jewish police force, which collaborated with the German occupation authorities, even against Jewish “terrorists.” Many thousands of jewish workers toiled in ghetto workshops and factories, supplying products vital to the German war effort.

Following the first Soviet air attack against central Warsaw on August 21, 1942, bomb shelters were built, on German orders, everywhere in the city, including the ghetto, for the protection of the residents. The Germans furnished the jews with the cement and other necessary materials for these shelters, which legend has transformed into “blockhouses” and “bunkers.”[8] So extensive was this “network of subterranean refuges and hiding places” that, according to one prominent Holocaust historian, “in the end, every jew in the ghetto had his own spot in one of the shelters set up in the central part of the ghetto.”[9]

Small armed jewish groups, numbering no more than 220 persons, were active. The most important of these was the “Jewish Combat Organization” (JCO), whose members were mostly young men in their twenties. Its “general directives for combat” specified “acts of terror” against the jewish police, the jewish Council, and the Werkschutz (protection service for the factories and workshops). This JCO directive stated specifically: “The general staff works out the central plan of action — sabotage and terror — directed against the enemy.”[10]

SS General Jürgen Stroop (center) commanding the 1943 German police action against the Warsaw ghetto.

Accordingly, these “fighters” or “terrorists” used “sabotage and terror” to shake down jewish ghetto police, jewish Council officials, and workshop guards.[11] The “terrorists” also profited from the ghetto’s intensive industrial and commercial life, shaking down merchants and other residents by threat and blackmail, even holding them prisoner in their homes for ransom. They were able to buy weapons from soldiers stationed in Warsaw, who, like troops stationed elsewhere well behind the front lines, often served in patchwork units, ill-trained and poorly motivated. The ghetto “terrorists” even carried out murderous attacks against German troops and jewish collaborators.

The ghetto became increasingly insecure. Because of this, the Polish population became more and more hostile to its existence, while the Germans, for their part, feared that it could become a threat to the city’s important role as a rail nexus in the war economy and as a hub for transport of troops to the Eastern front. Himmler therefore decided to relocate the jewish population, along with the workshops and factories, to the Lublin region, and to raze the ghetto, replacing it with a park. At first the Germans tried to convince the jews to voluntarily accept relocation. But the “terrorists” refused to accept this, aware that such a transfer would mean for them losing, simultaneously, their financial base as well as their freedom of movement. They devoted all their efforts to opposing this, until on April 19, 1943, a police operation to forcibly evacuate the remaining jews was begun on Himmler’s order.

At 6:00 a.m. that morning, troops under the command of SS Colonel Ferdinand von Sammern-Frankenegg entered the ghetto, supported by a single tracked vehicle (captured during the invasion of France) and two armored cars. Initially the “terrorists” or guerrillas offered stiff resistance, wounding 16 German SS men, six Ukrainians (so-called “Askaris”), and two Polish policemen. One Polish policeman was killed.[12]

Himmler, eager to minimize casualties, was angered. That same morning, he relieved von Sammern-Frankenegg of command and replaced him with SS General Jürgen Stroop. Stroop, ordered to carry out the operation slowly to minimize casualties, did so in the following manner: each morning, the troops would enter the ghetto, clear buildings of their residents and use smoke candles (not poison gas) to drive out the jews hiding in the air-raid shelters; the buildings were destroyed as they were evacuated. Each evening the troops sealed the ghetto so that nobody could escape during the night.

jewish police of the Warsaw ghetto pass in review. A governing jewish Council administered the city’s jewish residential district. “In practice,” historian Emmanuel Ringelblum noted, “the ghetto was virtually an autonomous district with its own local city administration, police service, postal system,jail, and even an Office for Weights and Measures.”

Skirmishes lasted from April 19 to May 16, 1943, so that altogether the operation required 28 days. On the third day, many of the jewish armed fighters tried to escape, most whom where shot or captured. Contrary to some reports, the German command never called for air support to destroy the ghetto, and the operation involved no aerial bombardment.

The number of jewish dead is unknown.[13] An often-cited figure of 56,065 is, in fact, the number of jews who were apprehended. The great majority of these were deported, many to the transit camp at Treblinka from where they were taken to Majdanek (Lublin).[14] German deaths in the operation totalled 16. (This included one Polish policeman.)

One should not doubt either the courage of the jewish resistance in the ghetto or the tragic nature of the whole affair, with the civilian population trapped in the cross-fire between various heterogeneous German units and small groups of jewish guerrillas scattered throughout the ghetto. Contrary to some grandiose propaganda claims, though, what took place was far from an “apocalyptic” revolt, as one writer has recently called it,[15] particularly when one is mindful of the tens of thousands of deaths, civilian and military, that occurred during those same 28 days, on battlefields around the globe and in the European cities bombarded by British and American air forces.[16]

Originally found at http://www.renegadetribune.com/the-warsaw-ghetto-uprising-jewish-insurrection-or-german-police-operation/

#worldwar2 #wwii

The National-Socialist Critique of Democracy

Democracy or Leadership

Translated by Hadding Scott from the 16th (1940) edition of Hansjoerg Maennel’s Politische Fibel.

Democracy is the doctrine of the equality of all human beings and of the ability of all human beings to govern themselves. (Democracy, Greek = rule by the folk, rule by the masses.)

The starting point of the democratic conception is: “All men are equal.” “Everything that bears a human countenance is equal.” Not only are the peoples equal to each other (this view leads to Internationalism), but even the human beings within a folk are equal. Consequently all have equal rights, even an equal right to participate in the state. “The authority of the state comes from the people.” (Weimar Constitution, Article 1.) – Since direct rule by the people is unworkable, one chooses representative democracy or parliamentary government.

Parliamentarism is the principle of vote by representatives, who make decisions through majority rule. (Parliamentarism, from Lat. parlare = to speak.)

Critique of parliamentary democracy:

  1. It is not true that all men are equal. Human beings are different. The democratic principle, “to each the same,” leads directly to Communism, to the dispossession of the gifted, industrious, and thrifty (precedent: Russia). – Democracy in the modern age started with the French Revolution (1789). “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity” (“Gleichheit, Freiheit, Brüderlichkeit”) were the catchwords that ruled the entire 19th Century. The democratic principle of equality is always an instrument of the Jew for the elimination of the best racial forces. When all have equal rights (das gleiche Recht), the capable and intelligent are thereby forced onto the same level as the corrupt and stupid.
  2. It is not true that the best and most capable emerge from a vote. Usually the greatest shouters, the most irresponsible, are chosen. Whoever promises the most has the greatest prospect of going to parliament. The MPs of the democratic system were in no way the elite of the nation. The principle of vote by popular representatives leads inevitably to the creation of economic or religious special-interest parties. The MPs did not represent the folk community, but mostly a specific class or group. Thereby unitary, goal-conscious state-leadership was made impossible. The bourgeois parties and the Marxist parties on the other side cancelled each other out. The power of the nation was likewise nil and could not be effectively and coherently (geschlossen) utilized abroad. International Jewry, however, tipped the balance on the scale of the parliament. – Democracy is always the reign of the Jewish money-bag; it leads to the most evil corruption.
  3. It is not true that the decisions of a majority are always right and beneficial to the people. On the contrary: by no means are 51 voices against 49 voices necessarily correct. “What is the majority? Majority is nonsense. Understanding has always only been among few. One ought to weigh voices, not count them.” (Schiller, Demetrius.) The individual MP conceals himself behind an anonymous majority. He has “obeyed only his conscience.” Mostly however the “representatives of the people” had no conscience. Parliamentary democracy is irresponsibility elevated to a principle of government. It leads to the elimination of all authority, thus ultimately to the complete ruin of folk and state.

Adolf Hitler: “The Jewish democracy of majority rule was always merely a means to the destruction of the existing Aryan leader-class.”

National-Socialism is the fiercest enemy of parliamentary democracy. In opposition to that, it stands for the principle of FuehrertumFuehrertum is the direction of an organization by one over-towering man. The fuehrer-principle is based on the conception of human inequality. There are the intelligent and the stupid, the industrious and the lazy, the good and the bad. The particular peoples and races are different, and so are the individual human beings within a people. – Every folk comrade is appraised according to his performance for the folk. Valuation according to performance. – The standard of valuation must be the same for every folk comrade. We National-Socialists reject preferential treatment for one class. (Examples: absolutism of the 18th Century; the Weimar System, in which the National-Socialist was a second-class person, while lower humanity could run wild with impunity; English plutocracy).

There is no privilege for any special class; all folk comrades are evaluated equally (Program, Point 9). The result of an equal evaluation of the individual person is however not the same, but different. Here this principle applies: “To each what is appropriate,”* not “To each the same,” as in democracy. He who sacrifices and achieves much ought to stand higher than he who achieves little and sacrifices nothing. The National-Socialist idea of leadership (Fuehrergedanke) is founded upon a deliberate selection according to race (genetic value), character, and ability. Thus a rank-order develops. The entire folk organically arrays itself as a pyramid. The most capable and gifted member of the folk, who has prevailed through his over-towering achievements, stands at the head of the folk: he is the Leader.

(Draw this on the blackboard.)

In democracy the “power of the state” comes from the people. It consists in the rule of the mass. Authority (power to give orders) goes from below to above, while on the other hand, responsibility goes from above to below. Both are, however, unworkable in practice. One cannot command upward and assign accountability downward. (Examples.) Democracy thus leads directly to leaderlessness and irresponsibility. – In Fuehrertum by contrast these principles apply: authority from above to below, responsibility from below to above. The Leader appoints his lieutenants (Unterfuehrer), he gives them their orders and guidelines, and for the execution and success of these they are responsible to the Leader.

The National-Socialist movement is an example of true Fuehrertum. If a political leader or an SA-fuehrer gives an order, this must be carried out. Every follower (Gefolgsmann) can be called to account by his leaders. Because Adolf Hitler built up the NSDAP rigorously according to the fuehrer-principle, the movement inevitably prevailed against the Marxist and bourgeois mobs. – Likewise the German state, which is led by means of strict Fuehrertum, prevails against the neighboring democratic states. Against the democratic idea of the mass we National-Socialists set the idea of personality. Everything great in this world, all inventions and all cultural achievements are created by personalities. (Examples.) – Our Leader has formed a German folk out of disintegrating mass. Democracy is a symptom of decline in dying peoples (e.g. Greece, Rome, etc.) All ascending peoples are, by contrast, always led by significant personalities. – Democratic propaganda flatters the mass. Everyone would rather command than obey. Consequently democracy was beloved and the idea of leadership was often unpopular.

It is a mistake to believe that under the “people’s government” it goes well for the people. On the contrary! Experience has shown that parliamentary democracy leads to the ruin of the people. A people can only experience progress (Aufstieg) when a leader (Fuehrer) stands at its head. Heroes make history!

A true leader feels that he is responsible to his people. Here Adolf Hitler is a shining example. This principle of the responsibility of the Leader to the Nation is designated “Germanic democracy.” With Western parliamentary democracy, which we reject, Germanic democracy has nothing in common.

The fuehrer-principle has meaning only in service to the entire nation. To be leader carries obligations The leader is the leader not because he bears special distinctions but because he bears greater responsibility. Leadership is not a privilege but an exalted duty. To be leader is to be an example!

Adolf Hitler is the ideal leader: purposeful and inexorable, but at the same time tactically astute; industrious, never resting, moreover prudent and far-sighted; proud and righteous, but also modest and unpretentious; energetic and austere, but full of warm love for his people. From the simplest origins our Leader has worked his way up against the most difficult obstacles to become the greatest statesman in German history. We National-Socialists are proud that we are privileged to follow a man such as our Leader. He is a lofty example for us. We emulate him with all our powers.

Originally found at http://www.renegadetribune.com/the-national-socialist-critique-of-democracy/

#nationalsocialism #ns #hitlerwasright

Germany will spend £450million to help 240,000 Holocaust victims around the world struggling due to coronavirus

The milking continues

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8839683/Coronavirus-Germany-spend-450million-help-240-000-Holocaust-victims-pandemic.html

#6millionlies #6million #holohoax #holocaust #jewlies #zionistlies #worldwar2 #wwii #gentileguilt