Concentration Camps, the Gestapo and the SA in Nazi Germany a myth

All aspects including lead-in to hostilities and results.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
User avatar
HMSendeavour
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 401
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2018 3:12 pm
Contact:

Concentration Camps, the Gestapo and the SA in Nazi Germany a myth

Postby HMSendeavour » 1 year 3 weeks ago (Fri Sep 06, 2019 12:49 am)

There's a myth we've all heard before about the Nazi gestapo, the Concentration Camps and SA torture. But these issues aren't as simple as academics portray to the public in documentaries, films, and novels. The same academics usually have some revealing passages deep in their books but surrounded by emotional polemics and sometimes outright lies. I want to start this thread to get info posted about the Nazi concentration camp system, the Gestapo and SA as they're all related.

The most people ever put into concentration camps during this period was 100-200,000. They were always Communists, Social Democrats or Socialist and whatever Jews got caught up in was because of their harmful ideology. It should be kept in mind that 200,000 people in 1933 who were subsequently released was less than 1% of the German population as a whole. Violence didn't ever characterize NS Germany until after the war and the birth of the Holocaust storyline. It's an utter lie to pretend actions like those taken against Gilges was commonplace whatsoever. I cannot help but notice how the sources in that section seem to be anecdotal, quoting his daughter isn't a particularly objective measure. But it doesn't matter, these historians love to quote whoever they can to support their views, but as soon as a National Socialist informs the public on the countless academic lies he's suddenly 'not to be trusted'.

Many concentration camp survivors report that it was only the earliest generation of SA guards that tortured prisoners for pleasure. The SS guards who followed them tented rather to be 'businesslike'. - David Schoenbaum, Hitler's Social Revolution, pp. 287


For the Gestapo read this article https://inconvenienthistory.com/8/3/4172

From the above article.

A harsh calling to account of opponents in the first few months of Nazi rule was unleashed on the Communists with the sanction of Göring, not by the Gestapo or the SS but by the SA, and it proved “difficult to contain.”20 However given that the National Socialist assumption to government was a social revolution, it was one of the more bloodless in history in comparison to the revolutions that ushered the modern democratic era, such as the Jacobins with their extermination of the Vendee, and the Bolshevik revolution with its tens of millions of victims.

While Gestapo chief Rudolf Diels, an opportunist, claimed at Nuremberg that up to 7,000 political opponents were killed by the SA during in the first year of Nazi rule, McDonough lowers the figure to 1,000.21 He also points out that most of the Gestapo were veteran civil servants who tried to restrain the SA.22

There are several issues here: (1) This autonomous action by the SA, in conflict with other sections of the party and state, is an indication of the manner in which the Hitler regime was not as totalitarian as supposed and was plagued by factionalism with the personality of Hitler holding disparate elements together even throughout the war. (2) Diels’s testimony at Nuremberg as to the number of SA victims, disputed by McDonough, is an example of the flawed testimony of the proceedings. Why then believe any of it without subjecting the whole lot to scrutiny and doubt?

The Communist Party had its own stormtroopers, the Red Front Fighters League. The fighting between the Nazis and the Reds was a bloody affair. Even the police casualties (1928-1932) from Communist violence resulted in 11 dead and 1,121 injured. Over the same period the Nazi casualties from Red violence were 128 Nazis killed and 19,769 injured.23 That SA vengeance resulting in perhaps 1,000 dead Communists seems remarkably restrained given the years of conflict.


Perspective is a sobering thing my friends.

Beginning in early 1933, the police and Nazi Storm Troopers started cracking heads, and new concentration camps were established, but not much more than a mini-wave of terror swept Germany. By and large, terror was not needed to force the majority or even significant minorities into line. By mid-1933, or the end of that year at the latest, power was already secured, and the brutalities and violence that are identified with the so-called Nazi ‘seizure of power’, began to wane.5 Terror itself does not adequately explain how the Third Reich came to be, nor account for its considerable staying power. [...]. Under the circumstances, there was an obvious political incentive for Hitler’s regime to act decisively against democratic and liberal activities of all kinds, to outlaw opposition parties beginning with the Communists, and to combine that with a crackdown in the name of law and order. - Robert Gellately, Backing Hitler, (Oxford University Press, 2001), pp. 2


In Prussia, for example, the Interior Ministry (Göring) and the Gestapo (Diels) were successful in closing the SA prisons throughout the fall and even pressed charges against SA goons for egregious mistreatment of prisoners. But in Bavaria efforts by the Nazi state authorities to investigate charges of torture in Dachau were thwarted by the SS and SD (Himmler, Heydrich) and the SA (Röhm), who maintained that charges of abuse and torture were fairy tales and, anyway, what right did the Bavarian Interior Ministry have to be snooping around for atrocity stories? Hitler, as usual, did nothing. - Thomas Childers, The Third Reich: A History of Nazi Germany, (Simon and Schuster, 2017), pp. 269


During the early years of the Third Reich, there was no concentration camp system. Camps sprang up across the country, some run by the SA, some by local Nazi governments, some by the regional police, some by the Gestapo. Each camp operated according to its own procedures, its own administration. These camps were not intended to be permanent installations. No long-range plans were made; no thought given as to whether they would continue to operate once the wave of mass arrests of Socialists, Communists, and other outright opponents had passed in 1933. Their purpose was to incarcerate political prisoners; they were not intended to hold Jews unless they were engaged in resistance or anti-Nazi activities. Göring, as head of the Gestapo in 1933, began closing many of the smaller, unregulated camps, and Himmler continued the process in 1934. [...] But the future existence of camps was still uncertain. With camps closing and the number of prisoners falling, the SS system was a rather small-scale operation. Only five camps were still operating in the summer of 1935, and the number of their prisoners had dropped to 4,000. They were dwarfed by the official prison system, which held more than 100,000 inmates, 23,000 of them political prisoners. At this time Hitler even considered closing the camps. Were they really still necessary? Himmler talked him out of it. - Thomas Childers, The Third Reich: A History of Nazi Germany, (Simon and Schuster, 2017), pp. 320-321


Unfortunately with some very important truth admissions comes lies to make up for it. Ones that are unfounded and emotional on Childer's part.
On page 319 of his book he has this very long and lie filled polemic about how Germans supposedly felt, describing Germany as if it were Russia.

But behind the elaborately constructed facade of social solidarity and enthusiastic support for the regime there lurked a more complicated—and uglier—reality. With each passing year, the sinister reach of the Gestapo extended deeper and deeper into the private lives of the population. The Gestapo seemed to be everywhere, always listening, always watching. One might be arrested for “subjective crime,” what one thought, in addition to “objective crime,” public actions, or for being “anti-community-minded.” A prisoner might be released after an hour or so, but the effect was chilling. Since arrests often occurred in the dark early-morning hours when, the Gestapo understood, people were at their most psychologically vulnerable, rumor and fear mounted. It didn’t take many of these nighttime arrests to convince the public that the Gestapo had eyes and ears in every house, every apartment, in every bar and public place. One didn’t dare ask too many questions or express disappointment, not to mention disapproval, too openly. Neighbors and family members were prodded to inform on one another; each building, each city block had its Blockwart (monitor) who made sure that residents of his assigned area put out the flag on the Führer’s birthday, contributed to the Nazi charities, and listened to the Führer’s speeches on the radio. Children were encouraged to report on their parents—had they heard anything subversive at home, anything disrespectful of the regime, its policies or its leaders? A torrent of anonymous denunciations flooded Gestapo offices, as people quickly learned how to instrumentalize the system, settling old grudges by denouncing a rival in love or at work or a troublesome neighbor. The Gestapo, in fact, was quite small—much smaller than the East German Stasi of postwar years—and relied heavily on such denunciations.


This whole section is rubbish. From the article earlier.

he American historian Robert Gellately showed in his 1990 book The Gestapo and German Society, that they relied on public support, and that the “Gestapo posed no real threat to law-abiding citizens in Nazi Germany.” American historian Eric Johnson in his 1999 book The Nazi Terror, based on court files from Cologne and Krefeld and from interviews, showed that loyal Germans were treated with “kid gloves,” and that “most Germans did not fear [the Gestapo] at all.” He did differ from Gellately in considering Gestapo officers as more proactive and brutal. While these studies were limited as to localities, McDonough sought a broader study of Gestapo files. [...] The Gestapo relied on the public for information on state enemies. The assumption that denunciation to the Gestapo meant torture and concentration camps is wrong. The Gestapo spent “an exhaustive amount of time” on cases; “most ended up being dismissed, with no charge, or a surprisingly lenient punishment.” The maximum duration allowed for protective custody was 21 days, but the Gestapo tried to resolve matters before that time. Releases from custody were “the norm, not the exception.” McDonough states that the Gestapo followed “very strict legal guidelines.” The Gestapo had a great deal of autonomy within its own structure. Some cases that carried the death penalty “were often dismissed, without charge,” while some that seem trivial might receive harsh punishment. All cases were investigated with thoroughness. [...] McDonough estimates that 26 per cent of all Gestapo cases started with denunciation from a member of the public, and 15 per cent as a result of Gestapo surveillance. Most denouncers were working-class, 20 per cent were women, and a lot of the latter involved domestic issues, many resulting from a personal conflict with a neighbor, relative or husband. The Gestapo became “adept” at discovering the motive. The denouncer was seldom prosecuted for making false accusations.77 So far from meaning a sentence of death, McDonough states that sentences for anti-Nazi slurs were one to six months’ imprisonment.78 “Contrary to the popular assumption, there was not a flood of denunciations.”79 The Gestapo handled accusations against normally law-abiding individuals “with professional diligence and often surprising compassion.” “It was not even unusual” for individuals to formally complain if they regarded Gestapo actions as “high handed.” 80 Civil complaints could be heard in court. Conditions became stricter with the advent of war. Although one might be jailed for up to two years for listening to a foreign broadcast, one might instead be named and shamed in the local press. Again cases came usually from public information, not Gestapo surveillance.81 McDonough refers to a case where the Gestapo officer acted with “understanding and compassion” in persuading an informant to drop a complaint prompted by someone’s drunken bravado.82

One of the most bizarre cases was that of an unemployed alcoholic laborer, Adam Lipper, who in 1940 walked into a Gestapo office and asked to be interned for six months, to cure his alcoholism. He wanted to be a valuable member of the national community. He was released after seven weeks, having assessed himself cured.83

As the war entered the phase of German defeat, the situation became harsher, with some rather trivial cases of “looting” bombed-out houses resulting in death sentences, yet only a minority of cases went to court, and of those only a minority succeeded in conviction. “Gestapo brutality is almost entirely absent” in cases of denunciation of ordinary citizens. The Gestapo was an organization “that the law-abiding public felt it could trust.”


Childers has straight out lied to the readers of his book. People who would never have known if they didn't read articles or other longer books on the topic.

Historian Eric Johnson has also written another book that is largely statistical and shows us what Germans and Jews felt or experienced during the Third Reich. An article on this book has been written before here http://www.inconvenienthistory.com/10/2/5504 which mainly centers around the recollections and the relation to the Holocaust. I however, want to quote from the sections which had conclusive survey data. This will further cement Childers and those who lie about 'terror' as untrustworthy, for they think it possible to portray some truth surrounded by obfuscations. This will never go unnoticed to those with a keen eye. After all, they only need to hoodwink the public, that has been done already without the publications of these books.

From Eric Johnson's book "What We Knew: Terror, Mass Murder, and Everyday Life in Nazi Germany (Basic Books, 2006)"

In general, the early concentration camps existed only a short time; nonetheless, several thousand people fell victim to all kinds of violence as the Nazis consolidated power in 1933. Around 100,000 people were arrested and temporarily jailed. - pp. 346


our survey evidence shows that most Germans had little contact with either the newly established Gestapo or the other organs of Nazi terror [...] The evidence provided in the table shows that only 47 of the 2,601 people who answered this question in the four cities we surveyed were ever arrested or interrogated by either the Gestapo or the regular police during all the years of the Third Reich. This means that an average of less than 2 percent of the non-Jewish people in these cities--even though many of them hailed from former left-wing backgrounds and most (as will be shown below) had broken the laws of the Third Reich in the course of their daily lives--were ever accused of wrongdoing in Nazi Germany, much less punished for such activity [...] If this evidence calls into question the long-held notion that terror was ubiquitous in Nazi Germany, the evidence in the table showing that most survey respondents did not personally know anyone who had ever been accused of committing an illegal act calls it further into question. Only in dresden, which lies in Saxony, where communist and socialist activity was perhaps more pronounced than in many other regions of Germany, did more than 30 percent of arrested or interrogated. Thus, in the other three cities, over 70 percent of the respondents knew nobody at all who came afoul of the Gestapo or the police. - pp. 348
And here's the table.
193947756762574_193947827968303.jpg


And lastly childers lies about the children who were supposed to snitch on their parents.

On page 141 of Johnson's book he's published a testimony from a man called "Hubert Lutz".

Born in 1928 and raised as the son of a mid level Nazi Party functionary and former truck driver in Cologne, Hubert Lutz was a member of the Hitler youth from the age of seven to seventeen. A physicist by profession, he emigrated to the United States in 1959

Lutz tells us that "In my Ten years in the Hitler Youth, I never heard anybody suggest that you spy on your parents or that you spy on anybody else."

And this should tell us quite a lot. One, this evidence is most certainly as good or better than Childers who no doubt has employed similar stories from those in the Hitler youth, or even just academic hearsay. If this did happen then it happened outside the confines of the Hitler Youth and system in general. In other words, it wasn't policy and there's no document which tells the Hitler youth to do this.
Now what does it mean for the independent expert witness Van Pelt? In his eyes he had two possibilities. Either to confirm the Holocaust story, or to go insane. - Germar Rudolf, 13th IHR Conference

User avatar
Lamprecht
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2033
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 6:32 pm

Re: Concentration Camps, the Gestapo and the SA in Nazi Germany a myth

Postby Lamprecht » 1 year 3 weeks ago (Fri Sep 06, 2019 6:54 am)

HMSendeavour wrote:The most people ever put into concentration camps during this period was 100-200,000. They were always Communists, Social Democrats or Socialist and whatever Jews got caught up in was because of their harmful ideology. It should be kept in mind that 200,000 people in 1933 who were subsequently released was less than 1% of the German population as a whole.

What about regular criminals, such as those who occupy prisons in the West today? About 0.7% of the US population is imprisoned right now.


HMSendeavour wrote:
Many concentration camp survivors report that it was only the earliest generation of SA guards that tortured prisoners for pleasure. The SS guards who followed them tented rather to be 'businesslike'. - David Schoenbaum, Hitler's Social Revolution, pp. 287

There's also:
Murder of Jews a Crime in the Third Reich
https://codoh.com/library/document/2571/


HMSendeavour wrote:From Eric Johnson's book "What We Knew: Terror, Mass Murder, and Everyday Life in Nazi Germany (Basic Books, 2006)"
In general, the early concentration camps existed only a short time; nonetheless, several thousand people fell victim to all kinds of violence as the Nazis consolidated power in 1933. Around 100,000 people were arrested and temporarily jailed. - pp. 346

Contrast this with over 1 million people in Poland enslaved in the Soviet Gulag camps:
Forced Labor "Death Camps" in Communist Poland
viewtopic.php?p=93486#p93486
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance -- that principle is contempt prior to investigation."
— Herbert Spencer

User avatar
HMSendeavour
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 401
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2018 3:12 pm
Contact:

Re: Concentration Camps, the Gestapo and the SA in Nazi Germany a myth

Postby HMSendeavour » 1 year 3 weeks ago (Fri Sep 06, 2019 9:34 am)

Lamprecht wrote:
HMSendeavour wrote:The most people ever put into concentration camps during this period was 100-200,000. They were always Communists, Social Democrats or Socialist and whatever Jews got caught up in was because of their harmful ideology. It should be kept in mind that 200,000 people in 1933 who were subsequently released was less than 1% of the German population as a whole.

What about regular criminals, such as those who occupy prisons in the West today? About 0.7% of the US population is imprisoned right now.


Childers says

In November 1937 Himmler told SS officers that he wanted a total of at least 20,000 prisoners for the camps. Using these powers, Himmler initiated a series of sweeps, ordering police and SS to round up beggars, pimps, prostitutes, drunks, the “work shy,” and “social misfits,” individuals who did not conform to the National Socialist conception of a meaningful contributor to the Volksgemeinschaft. The concentration camp population began to rise, and new camps were established at Sachsenhausen near Berlin in 1936, Buchenwald near Weimar in 1937, Flossenbürg on the Czech border, and Mauthausen in just annexed Austria, in 1938. Ravensbrück, a camp for women, was established in 1939. These were permanent installations, the foundation of the Nazi system of terror. - pp. 320-21


20,000 is a totally insignificant amount in comparison to the rest of the population.

The article again notes

Opposition groups were investigated as to their threat to the national community. McDonough states that concentration camp numbers until the outbreak of the war did not expand greatly. By the time of the declaration of war, 21,400 prisoners were held in six camps.26 Those put under protective custody were rarely subjected to torture. The justice ministry frequently reminded the Gestapo that there were severe punishments for the ill-treatment of prisoners.27


So in reality if we accept that Himmler rounded up some of the lowest scum in society to put into camps it was simply so Hitler didn't close them as we know earlier. The fact that Childers notes this time when Nazi 'terror' was established so late in the 30s is also interesting. But in reality it's not very terrible. By 1939 the Reichs population had increased significantly with the incorporation of Austria the Sudetenland and Czechia minimising this figure even more in comparison.

There's a book you can read online called "Hitler's Prisons" https://libgen.is/book/index.php?md5=D5F2323CB06E99AAD179228B52874F7C by Nikolaus Wachsmann who wrote the book on the history of German concentration camps called 'KZ'. I haven't thoroughly checked this book out but as far as I know the prison system in Nazi Germany only had a few hundred thousand people as well, the number which immediately springs to mind is 200,000. Again the comparisons make this number utterly laughable, especially when framing it as the heart of a 'terrorist state'. If Nazi Germany was a terror state it was surely a poor one compared to the Soviet Union and practically any other 20th century dictatorship. Or even Democracy for that matter. Our prison systems are a joke, even in the smallest countries prisoners would vastly exceed 200,000.

Excuse me while I laugh.

Thanks for the contribution by the way!
Now what does it mean for the independent expert witness Van Pelt? In his eyes he had two possibilities. Either to confirm the Holocaust story, or to go insane. - Germar Rudolf, 13th IHR Conference

User avatar
HMSendeavour
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 401
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2018 3:12 pm
Contact:

Re: Concentration Camps, the Gestapo and the SA in Nazi Germany a myth

Postby HMSendeavour » 6 months 1 week ago (Mon Mar 16, 2020 7:19 am)

More to add here.

R.H.S. Stolfi makes my earlier point VERY succinctly in his book "Hitler: Beyond Evil and Tyranny"

81lICchdXnL.jpg


The great biographers point out ad infinitum that Hitler was harsh and cruel as a dictator and support this contention with his rough handling of the Marxists and Jews in Germany from 1933 onward. They do not effectively present the harshness and cruelty—as it were, the evil—in terms of the numbers of people affected and in a way that gives us a superior comprehension of Hitler.

Pp. 289-290


This is a very worthy and to the point explanation about how all the biographers, save maybe John Toland, and other historians treat so-called "terror" in National Socialist Germany. The Sympathy to the Marxists who do not deserve it is ramped up, their crimes diminished, their aims ignored and lumped in as merely "victims of the Nazis" as opposed to political opponents with actual political agency and influence, ESPECIALLY on the world scene. While National Socialism was still getting to its feet without any credibility in the international community let alone power. If anything it was inherently disadvantaged because its nature lay in German nationalism and Anti-Semitism.

His other point is also important. Everyone who talks about Nazi Germany, from Layman to academic takes liberties in their characterization to the detriment of truth and description of that country. They use the word "terror" so often that even their admissions (as we have seen in the thread already) paint a picture of academic deceit which means they're knowingly muddying the waters to prevent people understanding that "terror" in NS Germany basically didn't exist. The only way they get away with their on the whole inaccurate description is through victimization of Jews and Marxists, people who don't deserve much sympathy anyway.

Continuing on.

The sheer physical dimension of Marxist socialism in Germany, as reflected in the March Reichstag elections in which 7.18 million Germans voted as Social Democrats and 4.85 million as Communists, presented Hitler with yet another insuperable task as characteristically courted by the man. Just how did Hitler proceed in order to “destroy” the 31 percent of Germans reflected in the voting numbers above? He evidently divided the Marxists into those who could be “destroyed” as Marxists by being converted into Germans and those who could not. Given his messianic qualities, Hitler evidently felt capable of saving the vast Marxist rank and file by converting it into a vast German Host. After all, in Hitler's mind, the Social Democratic and Communist workers were Germans misled by a fanatic leadership elite incapable of conversion and marked for extinction.

The Marxist leadership elite would present a special proposition to destroy, and Hitler would sanction the arrest and internment of the Marxist leaders in aptly named concentration camps. Goering, as Interior minister of Prussia, established the first concentration camp in March 1933, and Himmler, as a lesser figure at the moment with his office as police president of Munich, would set up an official camp during the same month only a few miles from that city at Dachau. During the remainder of the year, several additional camps were set up and the Marxist leadership was “destroyed” by being deposited in political internment camps. Prior to the National Socialists coming to power in Germany, the Social Democratic—controlled government of the state of Prussia had established a secret state political police as organized under a Berlin Police Bureau and with a mission to protect the government against both right and left wing subversive elements. Since the Social Democratic Party controlled the Prussian government during the entire period of 1919 through mid-1932 by means of a plurality of seats in the Prussian Landtag, it is a supreme irony of the interwar period that the Social Democratic leaders themselves began to be concentrated as subversive elements into internment camps by their own secret state police organization, now packed with Nazis and redirected in mission.

The conventional wisdom has presented Germany thereby as a police state exemplified by the concentration camps that came into existence in March 1933 and matured during the period 1933–1939. The wisdom has presented the situation in terms such as “the ferocious repression of the Left” and has necessarily left the
impression of a Germany carpeted with such camps.19 Given Goering's energy and Himmler's persistence, the camps for Marxist functionaries would seem to have accomplished their purpose by 1935. In the summer of that year, with Himmler now in control of a unified German police, the great biographers give the number of internees as a minuscule 3,500. At that time, as the concentration camp system seemed to have become dormant, Himmler would exploit the concept of “protective custody” to include additional categories of Germans that could menace state security and dilute the qualities of a heroic National Socialist Germany Himmler and his first lieutenant Reinhard Heydrich, leader of the Reich Security Service, the premier political counterintelligence service in Germany by 1935, would begin to expand beyond Marxists, Jews, and Freemasons as those who could menace internal security New categories would include undesirables such as “gypsies, homosexuals, beggars, antisocial, work-shy, and habitual criminals.”20 As a result, the number of persons detained in concentration camps would rise from 3,500 in summer 1935 to 25,000 in 1939. Most would have been arrested with the order: “Based on Article I of the Decree of the Reich President for the Protection of the People and the State of 28 February, 1933, you are taken into protective custody in the interest of public security and order. Reason: suspicion of activities inimical to the State.

In 1935, therefore, Hitler's “destruction” of the Marxists could be equated with the 3,500 concentration camp internees—mostly former Marxist functionaries and the reorganization of the several millions of Marxist-influenced workers into the German Labor Front. It is a remarkable circumstance that Hitler and Himmler, his determined proponent of an Aryanized National Socialist Germany, could have considered that so tiny a number of Marxist leaders detained would assure German internal security The population of Germany in 1935 was approximately sixty-eight million, and the presence of 3,500 inmates in concentration camps cannot support any view of a pervasive concentration camp system. By 1939, however, Himmler had increased the number to 25,000 “dangerous undesirables” in concentration camps. But the population of Germany had risen to approximately eighty million through acquisition of Austria and Sudetenland and through the effects of a rising birthrate. This number of internees in ten camps within the Germany of September 1939 also does not support a view that there was a system so pervasive that Germans and foreign visitors would sense its physical presence. On the other hand, Hitler uncannily appointed Himmler as Reichsfuehrer SS, the perfect inquisitor, who established control over all police in Germany and established a single, central Reich Security Service Office with a single Secret State Police Office, all of which “provided everything necessary for the spiriting away of active opponents and the ruthless policing of every corner of the Reich.”22 The realistic generalization can be made that through the independent zeal of a faithful, deep, and abiding follower, Hitler set in place during the 1930s a body of men that was capable of maintaining the internal security of the Reich. For all his alleged slavishness to Hitler, Himmler showed remarkable initiative, boldness, and tenacity in piecing together the body of men into an SS that had the primary and foremost duty to attend to the protection of the Fuehrer “but also the widened duty…to secure the interior of the Reich.”23 And to understand the pervasiveness of the somewhat underpopulated concentration camp system of the 1930s, we must understand that it was characterized more by Hitler's will and Himmler's zeal and less by numbers of opponents and undesirables interned during those years.


[...]

Neither he (Hitler) nor his followers nor many other Germans could have seen much evil in the relatively mild internment, especially of the Communist leaders in the period of 1933 through 1935. The Communists had led numerous armed uprisings and conducted threatening and intimidating propaganda and street violence. Yet the great biographers would present the Communists during the great election campaigns of the early 1930s as no danger any longer to the Germans. Under such an interpretation, the Communists would take on the cast of a body of Germans attacked exaggeratedly by Hitler in speeches and then persecuted by his government in 1933. Reality would seem to be that the Communists had been and would continue to be a threat to the Germans who, in turn, would be relieved to see Communist leaders interred. After 1935, however, Himmler, with his command over both the German police and the SS, converted the internment camps into collection centers for undesirables. The relatively mild evil of the internment camps evolved into the greater evil of the collection centers.


Ibid. Pp. 290-294


Stolfi's book is a goldmine of objective analysis of the great biographies. His biography, which this book is, acts as the antidote to the highly distorted and politicized nature of Hitler and his movement. I cut a bit out which you can see ([...]) where he points out that the interpretation of Hitler as an evil villain who "broke the law" by violating the constitution is ridiculous. Stolfi makes quite plain that this rigid interpretation of Hitler to serve a preconceived historical caricature deviates from historical explanations of Hitler as Hitler would have acted and experienced events himself. The biographers paint the man they want to see, not the man as he was or the man he surely thought he was. Hitler violated a constitution he never would've considered German, a constitution put in place by "Marxists, bourgeois politicians and lawyers" (Pp. 293) a constitution Hitler was very clear he would break, and a Democracy he also made no secret of loathing, declaring that he would do away with for the sake of a better Germany, which evidently, everyday Germans also deeply desired. The Un-German constitution Hitler eroded was for the better "As savior of the Germans and their messianic, infallible leader, however, he could not have seen himself as engaged in evil by the incremental erosion of such a document—nor could most Germans by mid-1933." (Pp. 293). The document doesn't matter, and it doesn't define what people SHOULD do. Germany took the course chosen by Germans, and no document that impeded their self determination should ever come before that. Evidently the biographers loathe such freedoms because it doesn't suit their political reservations.

I recommend everyone read this book.
Now what does it mean for the independent expert witness Van Pelt? In his eyes he had two possibilities. Either to confirm the Holocaust story, or to go insane. - Germar Rudolf, 13th IHR Conference

User avatar
HMSendeavour
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 401
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2018 3:12 pm
Contact:

Re: Concentration Camps, the Gestapo and the SA in Nazi Germany a myth

Postby HMSendeavour » 6 months 1 week ago (Mon Mar 16, 2020 7:26 am)

Another very well written and sourced article hosted by Wintersonnenwende.

The Facts About the Origins of the Concentration Camps and Their Administration Article from The Barnes Review, Jan./Feb. 2001, pp. 11-16.

Many illuminating facts about the Concentration Camp system. I implore everyone to read the article for themselves, it isn't terribly long so I will only quote some of it.

Over the years, tens of thousands of inmates were released from the camps once they had shown that they had chosen to reform themselves. On many occasions the commandants of the camps had determined that inmates had abandoned their old ways and had chosen to become loyal members of German society. As late as October 1944, inmates were being released, and many of these were communists who had abandoned their previous beliefs.13


Many of the camps were open to inspection by foreign diplomats and even by German civilians. Often the curious persons would travel to the camps only to be met by friendly guards and escorted through the camps on a personal tour.


The camp commandants were also required to prevent cruelty to inmates. A training manual for camp guards asked the following question: "What is completely prohibited a camp guard? Answer: Under all circumstances he is forbidden to strike prisoners at his own initiative, outside the framework of the disciplinary regulations."

In 1935 Reinhard Heydrich wrote to the camp guards stating that "it is not becoming an interrogator to insult a prisoner, demean him, or behave with rudeness and brutalize or torture him when there is no need to do so." Heydrich went on and warned the camp men that if they beat prisoners they would be court-martialed.16 Eicke himself wrote in 1937 that "the guards should be instructed to abstain from mistreating prisoners.... Even if a guard had done no more than slap a prisoner's face, the slap will be considered an act of brutality and the guard will be punished."17

The SS actually punished a number of its own men for their conduct while serving in the concentration camps. Two concentration camp commandants, Adam Gruenwald and Karl Chmielewshi, were placed on trial and found guilty of the deaths of prisoners as a result of brutality in their camps. The SS tried over 700 staff members throughout the course of the Third Reich for their conduct toward inmates. This was because the SS and the National Socialist state always considered concentration camps to be re-education camps first and foremost.


Source: https://www.wintersonnenwende.com/scriptorium/english/archives/articles/ccfacts.html#note1
Archive: https://archive.fo/gLXYl
Now what does it mean for the independent expert witness Van Pelt? In his eyes he had two possibilities. Either to confirm the Holocaust story, or to go insane. - Germar Rudolf, 13th IHR Conference


Return to “WWII Europe / Atlantic Theater Revisionist Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 4 guests