Oh yes, I do believe the Brizis have much to hide in this regard. Incidentally I broached this topic with Deanna Spingola in a radio show a few years ago.

The answer to this mystery can be found in Louis Kilzer’s investigative masterpiece, Churchill’s Deception. Since I provided the gist of what Kilzer presents in his book in a previous answer, I will provide more detailed information here.

Before I begin, I want readers to know that Hitler met with Deputy Fuehrer Rudolf Hess in almost complete secrecy for four hours on 5 May 1941. The following phrases, which will make sense shortly, were overheard by Adjutant Alfred Leitgen:

Hess flew to Britain to get Churchill on Hitler’s side against Stalin. He knew that if Britain came out against the USSR in favor of Hitler, there would be no major war. Stalin wouldn’t dare risk it before he secured an alliance with the Western Powers or seized all of east Europe. The problem with Hess is that he misunderstood Churchill and Brizi aims. Churchill wanted more than anything for Germany and Russia to go head to head so that Britain could maintain its longstanding divide and rule hegemony over Europe. The last thing Churchill wanted was peace on the Continent. So he had his ‘peace party’ cronies tell Hitler one thing and Stalin another.

Now, a most interesting thing happened when a certain Welsh doctor, Hugh Thomas, inspected the imprisoned Rudolf Hess. It is well known that Rudolf Hess had a scar on his chest. He had also been shot in his left lung, an injury that would have left scar tissue inside and out. However when Dr Thomas examined Hess and even took X-rays on his lungs, etc., no injuries of any sort were found. No beer mug scar, no bullet entry scar, no exit scar, no rib damage and no scar tissue in the lung. This is why Thomas wrote that Spandau Prisoner No. 7 was not Rudolf Hess in 1977. Thomas assumed that Germany, being ruled by diabolical demons, had sent over a double. Since this was not the case the real question is how the Brizis kept this mysterious double from talking. Was their double mentally off? Drugged into insanity? After all, ‘Hess’ exhibited bizarre behavior at the IMT. Some of his fellow NS comrades couldn’t believe it was him. Maybe this is why the “crazy Hess” myth was introduced: If Allied historians could portray Hess as a madman obsessed with occult postulation and astrology, then ‘his’ IMT behavior and everything that followed at Spandau could easily be explained. For example, if the man at the IMT claimed not to be Hess, the Allies only had to reply, “He’s nuts!” Needless to say the man at Spandau did not allow his family to see him for 28 years(!). This is odd for a man who loved his wife and son dearly.

So, why was this Hess strangled? Well, do we really know that he was? This may be another Brizi coverup…for their ultimate coverup: the murder of the real Rudolf Hess. Churchill needed Hess to frighten Stalin and fool the NS leadership simultaneously. Per Kilzer, the British used Hess “to negotiate a war that killed twenty million Russians,” so “it was important that Hess not be available afterward to tell of it.” The beginning of the Cold War was October 1942, the month and year when Stalin realized he’d been had by Churchill and accordingly sped up his planned offensive against Germany. His delays up to that point – awaiting Churchill’s promised “second front” – nearly cost him the war because Hitler got the jump.

Stalin only stalled prior to Hess, as he thought he had time and a genuine ally in Britain. Stalin kept begging Churchill to open a second front against Germany, which Churchill promised he’d do as soon as he could but which never happened. Of course Stalin could not help but notice the Allies’ sudden odd behavior post-Hess. Hess thus became Churchill’s trump card against Stalin: if Churchill was negotiating a peace deal with Hitler via Hess, what would Stalin do? Who could he turn to? He had already defied several tenets of the Russo-German Pact thereby angering Hitler. Indeed Stalin was compelled to postpone his offensive until he knew where Britain stood. As always, Britain stood for Britain alone and she would, as always, pitch every nation she could one against the other to inherit the spoils of all.

Now, there was one key difference that lay at the heart of Hitler’s and Churchill’s respective willingness to negotiate a peace. Hitler, not Churchill, wanted a genuine peace deal, but one that would allow Germany to keep at least some of what her people had shed their blood to attain. Hitler thus wanted a quick end to hostilities and was even willing to allow Poland to exist as a sovereign state, though smaller than she was before. Hitler came to the table with an honest and genuine proposal, though clearly not one lacking some imperialist intent. In this Hitler was open about his aims. Churchill, on the contrary, came to the table with fingers crossed. His aim was neither peace nor a speedy end to the war but the prolongation of the war for as long as possible. The longer Churchill could delay and string both the Soviets and ‘Nazis’ along, the better the situation was for Britain. Thanks to Hess, Churchill knew that Germany was planning to attack the USSR and that Germany wasn’t up for such a venture on its own. But neither was Stalin!

Anyway, Hess’s genuine peace effort informed Churchill of Hitler’s intentions as well as his misgivings about his own readiness. Churchill then made sure that no one else knew what Hess had conveyed and stalled as long as he could to ensure that either Hitler or Stalin struck first. As Kilzer put it: “America and Russia would fight the war that England couldn’t.” All Churchill had to do was keep Stalin in the dark about Hess and keep stringing the ‘Nazis’ along about the “peace party.” Post-Hess Stalin realized he could no longer wait. Was it Brizi silence combined with Hitler’s decision to suddenly end his blitz over London on 10 May that prompted Stalin to get going? Was it the RAF’s sudden apparent ‘cease fire’ – the RAF was absent after the Hess affair – over Europe that scared Stalin? We may never pinpoint the exact cause for Stalin’s sudden action, but the vozhd started moving his offensive installations to the front lines immediately after Hess’s crash landing. That much is clear.

Of course, the Duke of Hamilton (blackmailed with the threat of treason) and Karl Haushofer’s son, Albrecht, (a double agent) also played their respective roles to foment war on the Continent. The Duke of Hamilton was supposed to meet Hess upon his landing. Hess had memorized the entire route in case of radio failure and had even managed to secure extra fuel tanks to his airplane. Flying as Captain Horn, Hess was told that there was a landing strip near the Duke’s estate but no such landing strip existed. This is why he parachuted out and his airplane crashed off course. He was taken into custody by the Home Guards and requested to see the Duke of Hamilton. He had a very important message and a letter for him. That letter has since disappeared. Hess revealed his true identity only when the Duke arrived to meet him. Hess then told the Duke that his friend Albrecht Haushofer had referred him: “My friend…told me you were an Englishman who would probably understand our point of view.” Hess had come with proposals for peace between Britain and Germany and wished to begin negotiations with the Duke’s ‘party’, i.e. the anti-Churchill Cliveden Set. But the Peace Party was only a chimera to lure the ‘Nazis’ into a trap; Haushofer and the Duke of Hamilton had been the bait all along. Other lures and liars included the Duke of Windsor, Samuel Hoare, D L Blackford, T A Robertson, the Marquis of Clydesdale, and Frederick Winterbotham.

Bottom line: Hess told the British everything about Barbarossa, including the intended start date. And Hess had not been in communication with Hamilton (who was compromised) prior to his arrival, but with the British SIS.

Hitler acted quickly to discredit Hess for the sake of damage control. What would the world think – what would Stalin think – if they found out he was trying to make peace with Britain and that he was about to turn on his Russian ally? They would think Germany was weak and crazy all at once and that Hitler was having second thoughts and/or regrets about what he’d so far done. Hence Hess was declared “crazy”.

The Brizis remained mum about the ordeal which caused everyone to wonder in amazement about what had transpired. Stalin, the paranoid brute he was, suspected British treachery; he feared that the two nations were in the process of some sort of secret alliance. But the Brizi government remained tight-lipped.

Even Goebbels and Ciano were confused by the silence. No atrocity stories signed by Hess? No statements of denunciation of Hitler from Hess? Nothing about Hitler begging Churchill to be his BFF or that Hitler was about to turn on his Soviet buddies? Nothing from Hess at all? It was unbelievable that the British would not use him in some sort of propaganda campaign. But they didn’t. And Stalin, well, he had to move now because neither Churchill nor Hitler could be trusted. The silence was killing him too and Czech intelligence only made him more paranoid, which we’ll revisit in a moment.

These intelligence reports confirm several things. First, Hitler was trying to avoid escalation of the Polish conflict. As we know from Birger Dahlerus, he was willing to back off if the British would agree to some sort of anti-Russian settlement. Even historian John Toland noted in his Hitler biography that Hitler was willing to withdraw from Poland and pay reparations for the damage Germany wrought in Poland. The British would have none of it. They lusted for war.

We also know that Hitler was convinced of the imminence of a Soviet confrontation. But neither Hitler nor Stalin felt he could ‘go it alone’. This is why both men sought Churchill’s acquiescence or at least a promise of British neutrality. Second, we’ve learned that Britain was uninterested in peace. Churchill did everything he could to protract the war.

Third, Stalin harbored offensive intent against Germany; the only question was when he would strike.

Lastly, Hitler had offensive intent against the USSR, but only after he and General Halder caught wind of Stalin’s westward maneuvering. Of course, Stalin was free to move his eastern flank army group westward after Matsuoka informed him, in April 1941, that Japan not only knew of Hitler’s intent to eventually strike out at the USSR but that Japan wished to sign a neutrality pact with Stalin. This visit with Japan’s foreign minister so elated Stalin that, according to Pleshakov, he “informed his generals that he had decided to proceed with the preemptive strike against Germany.”

Stalin dilly-dallied for nine months before he finally ordered his preemptive strike. In the summer of 1940, he had stacked his command with men who knew the south (Ukraine) well. And why was the south important? Stalin wanted to ensure that Germany would have zero access to the Balkan states. Had Stalin’s offensive gone through, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria and Yugoslavia might have been erased from the map. Stalin believed – correctly as it turned out – that Hitler’s main force would be deployed in the south to secure wheat, coal and iron supplies. Thus while he prepared for all-out war against Germany, Stalin tried to pry more and more territorial concessions out of Hitler. When Hitler suggested “joint military action against Britain,” Stalin “replied with his list of desired territories.” Since his demands violated the Russo-German Agreement and infringed upon Germany’s sphere of influence, Hitler did not bother to reply. But Stalin still hoped he could string the Fuehrer along while he plotted and planned in secrecy. The order to construct offensive Soviet fortifications had already gone out in January 1941. That same month Meretskov was replaced as chief of general staff. Zhukov was in.

While certain historians will commend Pleshakov’s thesis, others will attack him demanding a motive for Stalin. Why would Stalin risk a war of aggression? What could possibly motivate that peace lover to do such a thing? Pleshakov has the answer: “By striking first, the Soviet Union would not only defeat Hitler’s army but also acquire more territory in Eastern Europe without any diplomatic bargaining.” That said Stalin’s lax attitude about preparation makes sense in the light of three facts. The Wehrmacht so far had only been victorious over weak armies in Stalin’s opinion. He did not have high regard for France’s military and Germany’s occupation of Western Europe demanded “resolve and nerve” but not “a top-notch army.” Stalin’s own army had proven itself in his opinion. In Mongolia, Zhukov only lost 8,000 men. The Red victory over Finland cost 85,000 lives, but this was negligible for an entity as vast in numbers as the USSR. And the Red Army literally trounced eastern Poland, the Baltics and eastern Romania. Lest we forget, too, that Hitler was still preoccupied with Britain which left his eastern flank vulnerable. And finally, the German state was not as organized and disciplined as its propaganda suggested. Nor was its military as strong as Allied propaganda made it out to be. The former exaggeration was meant to bolster German compliance and morale while the latter exaggeration was intended to stoke fear in the British and American citizen. How else could Churchill and Roosevelt get Americans involved in the war? They had to make Hitler and the ‘Nazis’ appear to be the devil incarnate.

Moving along here, Matsuoka’s assurances to Stalin were pivotal in the vozhd’s decision to finally implement his preemptive plan. He was confident that Japan would not attack the USSR in “the next year and a half” and he sensed a “growing rift between Germany and Japan.” He reasoned he needed to strike soon while Hitler was still preoccupied with the eastern Mediterranean and North Atlantic sectors. On 5 May Stalin effectively pronounced himself ‘prime minister’ (i.e. Council of People’s Commissars). That same day he gave his renowned Red Army academy speech, the one in which he announced without reserve that “it is time to go from a posture of defense to one of attack.” Marshal Shaposhnikov developed Stalin’s preemptive-war blueprint while the much younger Alexander Vasilevsky was appointed executor. The final offensive plan went as follows:  

The Kiev Military District was to lead the attack at the Southwestern Front. These troops would strike at Krakow. This front was to consist of one million men and 8,000 tanks. Romania was also set to be invaded by this group. The northern Western Military District, now the Western Front, was to strike Warsaw. Stalin’s goal was to reach a line running from Ostroleka in Poland to Lowicz, Lodz, Kluczbork, Opole, and finally the Czech city of Olomouc in thirty days. Olomouc was only 270 miles from Munich and 100 miles from Vienna. The Western Front troops, being weaker, were expected to stop at Ostroleka; they were then expected to turn north and occupy eastern Prussia and the rest of Poland. The plan does not specify what was to happen next, though Pleshakov suspects that Stalin would have demanded a peace deal granting him all of Eastern Europe. Pleshakov does not believe that Stalin would have gone so far as to strike the core of the Reich. But who knows what he might have done?

Regardless, this plan openly demanded a preemptive strike for which the Ukraine was to serve as the “springboard of aggression.” To disguise the massive reserve armies they needed on these fronts, the Soviet generals suggested the smokescreen of “training exercises.”

And now we come back to Hess. Stalin figured he’d be ready to assault Europe in 1942. The document itself suggests final preparations in 1942. So Stalin thought he had about a year to get ready. But all of a sudden he launched “an aggressive military buildup” in mid-May, right after the plan was completed. What had prompted this? Why had Stalin suddenly felt rushed for time? Simple. He was spooked by Hess’s apparent British defection. Stalin now suspected that Hitler and Churchill were negotiating a peace deal behind his back and his spies only reinforced his suspicions. They cabled that Hess desired an Anglo-German alliance so that both nations could together strike at the USSR. Stalin, being a serious conspiracy theorist, was so suspicious that not even Hitler’s defeat of the British at Crete on 20 May convinced him otherwise.

So there were two pivotal moments that prompted Stalin to speed up his own offensive preparations. First we have Matsuoka’s revelations, and second we have the Hess flight. These two pivotal moments prompted Stalin to a) implement his offensive plan, and b) speed up his offensive plan, respectively. Stalin acted quickly. Starting on June 25th, aircraft production had to jump from 20 to 50 a day. Five armies – the 16th, 19th, 20th, 21st and 22nd – commenced their secret trek westward. They were expected to be in place by July 10th. The 24th and 28th were soon to follow. The May 20th directives contained offensive terminology. In both May and June some 800,000 reservists were secretly drafted and all military schools were ordered to finish early. The last date for the reservists’ draft was set at 25 August, though the majority was expected to be assembled by 1 June. An estimated 3 million soldiers had been deployed between the Baltic and Black Sea. This included 11 police regiments “charged with imposing order on the territories that were to be occupied.” None of this is indicative of a defensive plan. All of the current Soviet districts had to move to new locations, all of which were just 100 miles from the proposed front line in Stalin’s preemptive-war plan. Furthermore these “districts” were to be renamed “fronts”. As Pleshakov has noted, “[t]he existence of a front unambiguously implied war. The Russian language had no word for a front-line megaunit during peacetime; only a fighting army could have such a thing.”

At the end of May, on the 24th, a top secret meeting was held at the Kremlin. Historians who argue otherwise are either gatekeeping, ignorant of military affairs or plain liars. While the agenda remains a mystery we can confidently hypothesize that Stalin informed his generals for the first time of his true plan, his plan to attack.

Given the secret troop movements, the terminology changes, the offensive language in the directives, and the sudden ruthless purges in Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, we may confidently argue that Stalin was gearing up for aggressive warfare. Pleshakov states that 170,000 Baltic citizens fell prey to this “eleventh-hour purge.” Those among Stalin’s commanders who suggested defensive warfare were shot for “defeatism.” Marshal Yegerov was one of them. He was murdered for suggesting the preparation of a reserve command post. Several more top-level purges followed this one simply because Rychagov had made a silly comment about “the Kremlin forcing his men to pilot ‘flying coffins’.” Apparently that was all it took to send Stalin into a paranoid rage. Levrenty Beria personally tortured a number of generals at this time. Soviet films suddenly described war against capitalist countries as “inevitable.” And Mikhail Kalinin, the president of the USSR, told Lenin Academy graduates on June 5th that “war is the time you can expand communism.” Last but not least, the Red Army Propaganda Directorate prepared a secret document designed for the officer corps on 20 June. This document explicitly asserted that “it was useless to build defenses against the German juggernaut,” therefore the USSR would “apply an offensive strategy against Germany.” Folks, it does not get any clearer than that!

Stalin was not ‘caught off guard’ as too many historians suggest. Spies, German defectors, German violations of Soviet airspace, etc., etc. all notified Stalin of what was to come. He had no excuse, save genuine mental illness, to ignore these signs of impending doom. Not to mention he had his suspicions about the Hess affair to speed him right along. Stalin feigned ignorance to save face and also to make Hitler look like a voracious invader of peaceful nations, the vozdh himself the ultimate victim. In this he succeeded.

And now we’ll revisit that Czech intelligence I mentioned earlier. A top secret cable signed by Beria and featured in Kilzer’s book reads as follows:

Both Joseph Goebbels and Hitler, and perhaps others too, initially believed that Hess might have succeeded in contacting the ‘Peace Party’. The RAF suddenly disappeared, Hitler terminated his London blitz, rumors of peace abounded, and all was quiet for a while. There is only one reason why Hitler suddenly ended his London attack aside from the apparent belief that Hess had succeeded: Hitler caught wind of Stalin’s sudden movements and was alarmed. All other explanations are senseless – e.g., Hitler respected and admired Britain, Hitler was uncommitted to his anti-British campaign, etc. So, it’s one or the other of these logical reasons that Hitler (unintentionally) got himself into a two-front war. If he thought Hess succeeded and he saw Stalin getting aggressive, it makes sense doesn’t it? Hitler was not a dumb or rash man. His decision to take on Russia in June was not taken lightly. Even Hitler confessed that he felt like a man bashing through a door not knowing what lay on the other side. As it turns out Stalin was far more prepared than Hitler could have imagined. He had in his possession more than 35,000 tanks because the Germans claimed to have destroyed 34,000 already by June 1942. Hitler had discussed this issue with General Mannerheim of Finland. In contrast, Germany stormed into Russia with just 3,300 tanks.

In closing, I have found in comment sections on the Web certain elderly Germans poking fun at this thesis. One German commenter denounced me as a “liar” and “kook” and another asserted that books like Kilzer’s are full of crackpot conspiracy fables. These individuals happen to be German chauvinists and “white nationalists”. Strangely, these so-called ‘defenders’ and ‘lovers’ of Germany do more harm than just about any other group when it comes to clearing the air about ‘Nazi’ Germany. I’m not sure if it is stupidity, arrogance or fear that drives these people, but readers ought to know that they will encounter such prattle on the Web. There’s a lot of name-calling, ignorance, hatred, rumor, hearsay and accusation and virtually zero critical thinking based on facts and observations.

Winding the interview down to a philosophical question. In light of all the mysteries of World War Two that we will never know, hypothetically, if you could know the answer to one of these mysteries, what would the question be?

Wow, this is a tough one for sure. I guess the greatest mystery to me is the true attitude of the Jews towards Hitler and the true extent to which the Nazis and Zionists worked together, amicably, to resolve their differences and find a solution to the German-Jewish problem. I cannot help but suspect that collaboration went deeper than any of us can imagine and that German-Zionist relations were more amiable than, say, Edwin Black has led us to believe. May I point out just one essay I found in this regard? It is located in the JSTOR database and is entitled “The Secret Contacts: Zionism and Nazi Germany, 1933-1941.” It was authored by Klaus Polkehn and featured in the Journal of Palestine Studies (Vol. 5, No. 3/4 (Spring - Summer, 1976), pp. 54-82). One can read this online for free at Archive.org³

There are numerous layers to the story about the “evacuation” of the Jews from Auschwitz. But since this flies in the face of the alleged genocide story, the Jews have opted to call this evacuation a “death march,” which it was not.

According to the documents presented by John Ball, there was a deal with the US to remove the Jews before the Russians got to Auschwitz. An incredible deal! – One Slavs were never offered. Apparently it was fine for the Soviets to enslave Poles, Estonians, Latvians, Lithuanians, Hungarians and Czechs, and half of all Germans; but the Jews had to be brought to safety. That tells us lots about America’s priorities. The Jews were more important than anyone.

The Germans must have realized this. When the Jews were given a choice to either stay or evacuate, the Germans likely took written statements from all those who wanted to stay, perhaps merely signed notes in a common log book. Those recorded choices to stay or evacuate might be available in a file somewhere. I wish I could get my hands on such a priceless file, because it would silence many of the lies we’ve been told.

The holocaust narrative unravels in front of us in the midst of such claims. But this is just my own circumstantial thesis, as I don’t yet have the log data or other such proof to affirm it just yet. But...that more than a quarter of a million Jews ‘chose’ to go west with the greatest “mass murderers of Jews” in all of human history is preposterous! Think of the sheer volume of the so-called “survivors”!

If the death marches were really death marches, then why did thousands of Jews leave Auschwitz with the retreating SS men instead of awaiting the Russians to come “liberate” them and use them for their propaganda? The number of such prisoners left for the Russians to rape and subdue, including twin children, was 7,000.

Bystanders' obfuscation, which is standard fare for Jews, is absurd. The so-called “death march” was not orchestrated to kill tens of thousands of Jews who ‘chose’ to flee west. It was a humane attempt to help these people avoid the horrors of the Soviet serial rapists and killers – and the coming Iron Curtain – a term coined by Goebbels, mind you.

This is why it comes as no surprise that Adam LeBor discusses attempts in his book by global Jewish groups and activists to airlift Jews out of the USSR at the end of the Cold War. They wanted out!

In his book Hitler’s Secret Bankers, he wrote:

There were numerous secret dealings: apparently these were done to get as many Jews west as possible from 1944 on…until war’s end. They might even help explain the murder of Rezso Kasztner in 1957. Perhaps he knew too much and was going to speak up. This is what LeBor suggests. He took the details of his negotiations with Adolf Eichmann, who was murdered by the state of Israel, to his grave.

Another Zionist who may have been silenced was a certain Bandi Grosz, who had worked as a German agent in World War II. He was likely paid off to keep quiet about NS-Zionist negotiations in the latter years of the war, dealings that probably would have exonerated the Germans and implicated the Jews and the Anglos in a conspiracy to get Jews west and from there into Palestine.

Himmler had agreed to release 1,210 Jews west for 5 million Swiss francs. Jews were offered in exchange for military trucks: SS officer Kurt Becher brought 318 Jewish passengers from the Bergen-Belsen train to a rendezvous with Saly Mayer, who was Jewish; Kasztner, who was Jewish; Max Grueson, a German officer, and Hermann Krumey, another German officer. Himmler issued an order to the NSDAP in Budapest not to deport the city's Jews to the labor camps on August 24, 1944. Why?

And then there were Swiss Jews trying to cut deals with Himmler for the release of more Jews. Many organizations were involved in deals to get Jews west: the JDC (Joint Distribution Committee), the Swiss War Refugee Board, Swiss Jewish community leaders, the Montreux Committee – led by Isaac and Elias Sternbuch and Isaac's wife Recha; even Intercommerz A.G. of Zürich offered to wipe out all Hungarian debts if the Hungarian government would instead give the money owed to Hungarian Jews—obviously to assist them with evacuation, and thereby emigration!

And lest we overlook Wallenberg and associates: they also helped Jews get out of the east by issuing them false papers. The NS authorities let Raoul Wallenberg's activities proceed virtually unhindered, and so did the Hungarian Arrow Cross government, thanks to German pressure. Why?

Who was behind the Europa Plan to “rescue” – “evacuate” – Slovak Jewry? Saly Mayer was! Why did it fail? Because the Allies fell through on their side of the deal, not the Germans!

The Slovak Jews were going to be used as bargaining chips...ransom...in Jewish-Allied-German negotiations near the end of the war. And notice this all happened in the latter years; why not earlier if rescuing Jews from “the holocaust” was really the intent?

And why did Recha Sternbuch, Jewish activist, persuade Jean-Marie Musy to get in touch with Himmler in order to persuade him to free Jews held in camps? Recha was operating out of Switzerland. The Musy train arrived west with 1,210 Jewish evacuees in the late hour of February 1945. These Jews must really have been worth something. Therefore we must ask who wanted them west and why?

The Allies and Jews did, of course, to create the conditions necessary for Jews to immigrate to Palestine and take it over as a Jewish state after the war. That’s my circumstantial thesis anyway. If too many Jews fell behind the Iron Curtain, they would never be able to escape, let alone emigrate to populate the new Israel quickly. So, I suspect there was a mad rush to get Jews west on this basis. The Ball Report supports my suspicions.

If anyone was responsible for deaths on so-called death marches, it was the Anglos and Jews, not the Germans. So much for the death march hoax. In fact, regarding Mayer’s negotiations with Himmler and company, he received the blessings of Cordell Hull, US Secretary of State, and Roswell McClelland. Mayer showed Becher a cable from the WRB with Hull's signature to demonstrate the authenticity of their rendezvous. The cable assured Mayer of 20 million Swiss francs to help Jews escape to the west, and cleverly dubbed “relief work.” Yes, an American official, a Jewish leader, and an SS officer had met at the Hotel Bauer in Switzerland to exchange Jews for delivery of goods to the Reich.

While many deaths occurred for any number of reasons along the marches west, the worst killers were the Allied bombers and fighter planes, piloted by Anglo-Saxon war criminals.

Inadvertently, the Germans' humane measures to bring Jews to the west safely, for the benefit of Jews who were likely under quarantine for disease, helped bring about the typhus epidemics in the west in places like Bergen-Belsen during the final months of the war. Those horrors and medical catastrophes are the basis for the Jewish holocaust, including the gassing claims. Their humanitarian treatment of Jews in those final months unintentionally brought about the Germans' own vilification. The killers were the Americans and Soviets. Had the NS Germans wished to hide evidence of some alleged evil, like the Soviets and Anglos did, then they could have done so by lying about it afterwards. That's what Stalin and Truman did.

I remember reading on John Ball’s air-photo evidence site that US and German top-level government officials talked with each other through Swiss and Irish consuls in 1944 and 1945 about the condition of inmates in German-operated camps. I also recall reading that in 1944, German officials denied any intention to mass murder inmates. In fact, Germany guaranteed to evacuate inmates ahead of Soviet advance! And even former camp inmates confirmed they were being safely evacuated!

I have some other tantalizing questions about World War II. I mean, I know that the BIS operated during the war. Why would the so-called bankers’ bank keep operating during a war when NSDAP members were on the board? Obviously the Allies weren’t interested in crushing Germany’s economy completely. If they had been then the BIS would have been shut down, or at least shut down during the war.

The Reichsbank was funneling gobs of gold to Swiss banks and the BIS in exchange for francs, all with the Allies’ knowledge. Morgenthau was the one who screamed for the BIS to be destroyed, not anyone else really. He hated the fact that it was doing business with the ‘evil Nazis’. So, I guess the BIS couldn’t have been controlled by Jews or this would not have happened...unless, of course, Jews put profits above defeating the ‘evil Nazis’. Now wouldn’t that be a twist of a book?

Synarchism, NS and the Falange

Another mystery that piques my interest is that of the Spanish Falange, i.e. just how extensive was German-Spanish collaboration before and during World War II? I was able to obtain a few rare primary sources about this topic and I plan to publish what I’ve learned in upcoming books. So far it has proved fascinating though not entirely revealing as of yet.

Perhaps most interesting is that a holocaust occurred in Mexico before World War II even started. In the book No God Next Door: Red Rule in Mexico and Our Responsibility, which ends at the advent of the 1930s, we learn that the Catholics were persecuted, tortured and mass murdered in typical Stalinist fashion. Basically there was an ‘Inquisition’ leveled against the Church and its supporters in Mexico. This anti-Catholic bloodletting apparently stoked fury in Spain because both the Falangists and Synarchists went out of their way to connect and collaborate with German foreign intelligence in Mexico and other states in South America to end it. A few of the names that repeatedly pop up in articles that broach this subject include Juan Ignacio Padilla, Bernardo Bergoend, José Maria Troncoso, Salvador Abascal, Hellmuth Oskar Schreiter, José and Alfonso Trueba Olivares and Otto Gilbert. There are others, of course, but this is a short list.

[Above: Salvador Abascal]

Further along these lines, according to one of Wertz’s online screeds,

“Nominally [the National Union of Synarchists] was founded by Salvador
Abascal, José Olivares, Manuel Zermeño, and Urquiza. In 1943, it had 500,000
members. However, the actual organizers were Hellmuth Oskar Schreiter
and the brothers José and Alfonso Trueba Olivares. The official papers listed
these three, plus Melchor Ortega and Adolfo Maldonado—Governor and
General Secretary of Guanajuato province—and I. G. Validvia, a Mexican
lawyer. Schreiter was a native of Germany and carried a German Nazi Party
card paid up to date on May 23, 1937. The Truevba [sic] Olivares brothers
were Spanish hacendados and leaders of the Falange Española.

This information on the National Union of Synarchists is fully confirmed in the
Oct. 31, 1941 report submitted by Harold P. Braman, Assistant U.S. Naval
Attaché in Mexico, who writes that the Trueba Olivares brothers first tried
to create a group called the ‘Sinarquistas’ in 1935 in Morelia, but the group
fared poorly. Only in 1937, when Schreiter entered the scene, did the Union
take off. Schreiter was a German engineer, who was a professor of English
in a school in Guanajuato. His wife was a relative of the Governor of the
state. In a report submitted on Feb. 2, 1944, Braman confirms that Schreiter
was a Nazi. ‘Oscar Hellmuth Schreiter and Otto Gilbert are principal Nazi
agents connected with Sinarquista organizations and have their
headquarters in Guanajuato.... A strong and dangerous Nazi affiliation with the
Sinarquistas was found throughout the State of Guanajuato. The principal
Germans connected with the movement, and who may be considered as
powerful figures behind the scenes, are Oscar Hellmuth Schreiter and Otto Gilbert.

‘It was also ascertained through a trusted informant, ... that every cent made
available to the Sinarquistas for the first year or so came direct from
Schreiter, who received it periodically from influential members of the German
colony in Mexico City. These latter are understood to have obtained the
funds direct from the German Legation in Mexico City.’

Braman also confirms the relationship between the Synarchists and the Church in
Mexico. ‘It so happens ... that the Church and the Falangists have a joint
council of strategy which, upon orders from Spain, pulls the Union's strings.
Orders to Spain come from Berlin.... [T]he Church of Mexico is at this
moment working in full cooperation with the Falangists whom they supported in
the Spanish Civil War. The Falangists want an all-powerful Spanish world
working alongside Germany, and Mexico is viewed by them as fertile ground
for a change-over in government which will bring the nation under direct
control of the Spain of today, like the days of the Spain of old.’”

(See http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2003/3029cristero.html wherein Wertz claims that the “Nazis used the Falange to create a Synarchist fifth column in Mexico.”)

The bloodbath that occurred in Mexico against the established Catholic order at the behest of Freemasons and their allies is not something most World War II history buffs know about. Apparently this area of research is one that individuals like William F Wertz, Jr of Executive Intelligence Review (EIR) wish to obfuscate. Wertz, like his idol LaRouche (a liberal Trotskyite), blames mostly “Nazis” and “fascists” for Mexico’s longstanding suffering (even today) as well as all the suffering that ensued during World War II. It was not liberal-democratic puppets and their Masonic masters pitting ‘free world armies’ against ‘warmongering fascist hordes’, oh no. It was the mindless ‘fascist hordes’ who had decided for no good reason at all to wage war on the entire ‘free world’, apparently to enslave it under ‘Nazi’ tutelage. The Falangists and Synarchists were just a bunch of “Nazi-Communist” flunkies (because the two are one and the same in Wertz’s opinion) riding on the coattails of Nazidom’s war against the world. Such a thesis would be laughable if so many people did not take it seriously. These are the folks who need to read the books that ignore the whistles and bells veiling the history of Freemasonry and Zionism.

I could talk World War Two with you all day long Veronica! It's been great talking with you about such an interesting and complex subject. Before we end this though, I'd like to bring up the book you are currently working on. Like all of your books, this one sounds very interesting; the treatment of black people in National Socialist Germany. Can you tell us more about it?

Indeed I can. My latest Wehrwolf book, Warwolves of the Iron Cross: Black Wolf, White Reich: An Afro-German Family in Nazi Germany, is my own translation of Preußisches Liebesglück (Prussian Bliss of Love) This is the true story of Gustav Sabac el Cher, a black man who lived in Königsberg, and was “the only black bandmaster of the German Army.”

The book takes the reader back in time, over 150 years ago. We meet the controversial Prussian Prince Albrecht and learn about him through his many adventures traveling and at war. Albrecht brought many things from his travels in Arabia. And one of those “things” was a gift from the Egyptian Viceroy Muhammad Ali: a seven-year-old dark-skinned boy. He was given the name August Albrecht Sabac el Cher and accompanied the Prince from that point on for several decades. The young black man eventually received professional career training as a servant at court in return for his previous services.

The climate in the Prussian state of the 40s and 50s was that of curiosity towards “others” as opposed to hostility. And so August’s dark skin was more of a positive than a negative. His career actually benefited from it. In 1867 he married the German, Anna Maria Jung, the daughter of a Berlin clothes maker. However, their two children, Gustav and Elise, were dealt a different fate. Son Gustav made his career as a conductor and raised a family. Daughter Elise, pregnant out of wedlock at a young age, remained unmarried. And while her daughter Gertrud also had children too early, she was able to find a faithful and successful husband. Elise’s granddaughter, Editha Horn, was successful as an actress during the Nazi period and afterwards.

Utilizing photos, records and witness accounts, the book paints a comprehensive picture of the family. Since the amount of material from the 19th century is thin, the beginning of the book is a bit slow-going, but afterwards the fate of the interesting family moves the reader right along. Thanks to diary entries and letters, the book also describes the relationships of the family members with one another. One learns that the sons of Gustav, Herbert and Horst, were very loved by the family. Both began to make music early on and both pursued professional careers. While Herbert continued in this vein with measurable success, Horst was not so lucky. In 1943 he was drafted as a medic by the Wehrmacht.

The Second World War and the West German vs. East German division tore the family apart. Horst’s wife and children (and children’s children by Elise) remained on the territory of the GDR, while Herbert lived with his family in the West.

Featuring the stories of over five generations, the reader feels that he/she is part of the Sabac el Cher family. Elise’s granddaughters, Editha and Ilse, remained unmarried and childless and the children of Gustav had few descendants. Horst died childless, though Herbert’s son Axel had a daughter (born in 1965) – but it appears she has no children.

Thus what begins as a search into the origins of the subject of a painting end in a family reunion.  

Many thanks for your time and thoughts! Any final words of wisdom?

The only wisdom I have to offer my readers at this point is this: never become dogmatists unless you want to believe in something so strongly that you are willing to lie to yourself and others to defend that belief. I have found that too many revisionists and Hitler/NS admirers find themselves unable to fault either, and in so doing they compromise their honesty and scholarly integrity. If Hitler made a mistake or believed something that readers do not agree with, point it out. If readers feel that National Socialism had faults, name them and counteract them. No one is going to advance any cause by lying about it or presenting it as a perfect rose in a field of rotting weeds. All systems, movements and historical persons have their faults and foibles, so no serious revisionist or student of World War II history should be expected to ignore the faults and foibles of fascism, National Socialism or Hitler.

I would like to wrap up with a germane excerpt from my upcoming title, Black Wolf, White Reich, Vol. II:

Tina Campt, in “Reading the Black German Experience: An Introduction,”
explains how blackness in Germany includes Indians, Arabs and Asians (the
“Schwarze Deutsche”). In other words, blackness is not restricted to skin color or
race in the German schemata. This definition of blackness is important to
my thesis as well as the Black Nazis title. Numerous forum posters (on Axis
History Forum for example) and Amazon.com reviewers repeatedly fail to
understand this Germanic concept of blackness upon seeing the book title
Black Nazis. They imagine that the book is solely about African (“negroid”)
blacks and proceed to poke fun at the title and thesis as a result (usually
without having read the book). All sorts of convoluted visions of a “rainbow
Reich” and “Hitler as diversity advocate” swim around in their demented
heads when in fact my thesis has nothing to do with either of these
absurdities. It is frustrating, as I have explained more than once (and effectively
if I might say so myself) that the title Black Nazis is taken directly from
American wartime propaganda against Germany and the blacks that were
collaborating with ‘Nazidom’. The article in question is from the March 1939
edition of Ken, which I was able to acquire.

When I offered this as an explanation of the title I chose, the folks that swarm
the Axis History Forum day and night proceeded to unleash a barrage of
abuse upon me as well as upon my thesis. These Wehrmacht-worshippers
do not know me personally nor have any of them (save two) even read
Black Nazis. Yet the lot of them screamed “Holocaust denier” and shrieked “Nazi
apologist” without any evidence – aside from Internet rumor and hearsay
babble – thinking they were going to intimidate me and run me off their
little online empire. But that did not happen. Some of these forum boys
even cited fake quotes attributed to me back in 2007 by some blogger, who
I do not know. But I did not write or say the following quote:

“Jews are subhuman [expletive removed].
There. I said it because no one else has the gonads. Would I ever call for a
genocide against Jews? Well, if I was President of Los Estados
Unidos, then, ‘Yes, I would.’ I would bomb the living [expletive removed]
out of Tel Aviv and cut off all funding to all Jews. I would string up
their circus leaders-Chertoffsky would dangle from a rope. So would
Bush, Levy, Feinstein, Feingold, Boxer, Schumer, Lieberman, Clinton,
and all the other Jewish and crypto-Jewish rat-bags in the
Jewmerican government.”

Apparently this same blogger has since told some ‘white supremacist’ that I ran/run a blog at the following URL: http://nether-world.blogspot.com. But this has never been my blog. Incidentally, all of the links this blogger cites are defunct. What a surprise. Next thing I know he’ll be claiming that I wrote that the ‘Nazis’ ought to have gassed all the Jews in Palestine with their “Sun Gun” prototype in 1945!

This silliness aside, I stood my ground on AHF and decided then and there that I was going to provide the full text of this forum conversation as well as a comprehensive introduction addressing the criticisms therein in my sixth Wehrwolf book in the series, Black Wolf, White Reich, Volume II.

I wrote the first five Wehrwolf books from a more or less ‘pro-Nazi’ perspective to get my readership to critically assess and think about what they are told about World War II, its origins and its implications. We all know that the Allies won the war and most of us can agree that world history is consequently pro-Allied. My duty as an historian committed to a balanced point of view was to countermand this pro-Allied bias. This does not mean I ignored or omitted ‘Nazi’ crimes. I did neither. I just challenged the implicit Anglocentrism of the World War II narrative. In the minds of many there was a holocaust and in my view people have the right to assert this. While the number of Jewish sufferers and their manner of death remain debatable, the discrimination, uprooting and suffering that an untold number of Jewish people encountered is not. That was a crime against humanity regardless of what perspective one assumes. But the same must be said of the millions of uprooted Poles and the estimated 2-3 million Slavic soldiers who perished in German POW facilities. Whether they perished as a result of neglect, lack of supplies, exposure or starvation is irrelevant; their deaths were a war crime akin to the deaths of millions of German civilians and POWs held in Allied facilities after the war.

What I have not accepted and will not accept is that any one group’s suffering is either unique or worse than that of any other group in world history. To entertain such a notion is preposterous and I expand on this point in my forum answers later on in my next book.

I portray World War II from the vanquished perspective so that my readers understand that nothing we are told is “the truth.” There is no such thing as truth. There is only perception.

End notes:

¹ Per Wikipedia, “The Qianlong Emperor…ordered the genocide of the Zunghars, moving the remaining Dzungar people to the mainland and ordering the generals to kill all the men in Barkol or Suzhou, and divided their wives and children to Qing forces, which were made out of Manchu Bannermen and Khalkha Mongols. Qing scholar Wei Yuan estimated the total population of Dzungars before the fall at 600,000 people, or 200,000 households… In a widely cited account of the war, Wei Yuan wrote that about 40% of the Dzungar households were killed by smallpox, 20% fled to Russia or Kazakh tribes, and 30% were killed by the Qing army of Manchu Bannermen and Khalkha Mongols,… Based on this account, Wen-Djang Chu wrote that 80% of the 600,000 or more Dzungars (especially Choros, Olot, Khoid, Baatud and Zakhchin) were destroyed by disease and attack which Michael Clarke described as ‘the complete destruction of not only the Dzungar state but of the Zungars as a people.’ Historian Peter Perdue attributed the decimation of the Dzungars to an explicit policy of extermination launched by Qianlong, but he also observed signs of a more lenient policy after mid-1757. Mark Levene, a historian whose recent research interests focus on genocide, has stated that the extermination of the Dzungars was ‘arguably the eighteenth century genocide par excellence.’ It was not until generations later that Dzungaria rebounded from the destruction and near liquidation of the Zunghars after the mass slayings of nearly a million Zunghars….

The Qing ‘final solution’ of genocide to solve the problem of the Zunghar Mongols, made the Manchu Qing sponsored settlement of millions of Han Chinese, Hui, Turkestani Oasis people (Uyghurs) and Manchu Bannermen in Dzungaria possible, since the land was now devoid of Zunghars. The Dzungarian basin, which used to be inhabited by (Zunghar) Mongols, is currently inhabited by Kazakhs. The Dzungar (Zunghar) genocide has been compared to the Qing extermination of the Jinchuan Tibetan people in 1776.” (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dzungar_Khanate)

Learn how to contact Veronica Clark and purchase her books - HERE -

---

Back to Interviews

---