renegadetribune--2020-04-30--The ‘Discovery’ of ‘Bunker 1’ at Birkenau: Swindles, Old and New

Seven buildings in the infamous Auschwitz concentration camps are claimed to have been equipped with one or more homicidal gas chambers .
Five of those buildings were the former Auschwitz crematoria .
One smaller crematorium was located in the Auschwitz main camp , and four big crematoria were erected in the huge sub-camp Auschwitz-Birkenau .
Since the end of World War Two , it was claimed that the gas chambers in those crematoria were the locations of the biggest mass slaughter that ever took place in human history .
Allegedly of minor importance were two former farm houses outside of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that are said to have been converted into gas chambers as well .
A sudden turn happened in the middle of 2002 , when a German mainstream journalist published a thesis according to which the Auschwitz crematoria did not , after all , serve as locations for mass slaughter .
In his view , the two farm houses were the real location of this atrocity .
Though this thesis was badly flawed , it came in quite handy that just a year prior to the publication of this journalist ’ s provocative thesis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that finally , after over 55 years , the actual location of one of these farm houses had been located-meaning that so far , no traces of this ominous farm house were known .
The following article proves that the 2001 media reports about the alleged discovery of this farm house were nothing but an unfounded hoax , produced by unscrupulous researchers and the media who are always eager to discover some ‘ Nazi ’ relics .
According to the Kalendarium der Ereignisse im Konzentrationslager Auschwitz-Birkenau two Polish farm houses at Birkenau were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the camp administration prior to the construction of the four crematoria .
The ‘ Red House , ’ known as ‘ Bunker 1 , ’ is said to have been put into operation on 20 March 1942 , and the ‘ White House , ’ or ‘ Bunker 2 ’ is said to have been put into operation on 30 June of the same year .
“ Bunker 1 ” is said to have been destroyed in 1943 , and no traces of it are said to remain .
The destruction of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have taken place at the end of 1944 , but the foundation walls of the house referred to as ‘ Bunker 2 ’ and which are said to have been used for this purpose , are still in existence and can still be seen , even today .
On November 20 , 2001 , the Italian daily paper Corriere della Sera published an article by Gian Guido Vecchi on page 35 entitled “ Shoa .
L ’ inferno cominciò in una casa rossa ” ( Shoah : Hell Began in a Red House @ @ @ @ @ @ @ certain Marcello Pezzetti discovered the location of the alleged ‘ Bunker 1 ’ of Birkenau at precisely this location .
A private house occupied by a Polish family is said to have stood on the spot until only a few months ago , but that the house has since been torn down .
According to Marcello Pezzetti , the house in question was none other than ‘ Bunker 1 ’ ( “ [ the author ] wondered how anyone could live in a gas chamber with a clear conscience ” ) .
This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bunker 1 ’ was destroyed in 1943 .
The ‘ discovery ’ is said to have taken place in the summer of 1943 , when “ Schloma ” ( correctly : Schlomo ; in Polish , Szlama ) Dragon , his brother , and Eliezer “ Esisenschmidt ” ( correctly : Eisenschmidt ) are said to have taken ‘ discoverer ’ Pezzett to the house which appears to the left of the small photograph on the above mentioned page of the Corriere della Sera .
Marcello Pezzetti is a researcher for the CDEC @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Centre for Contemporary jewish Contemporary Historical Documentation ) in Milan .
He is chiefly known for his activity as an adviser during the filming of several Holocaust films ( Spielberg ’ s Schindler ’ s List and Benigni ’ s La vita è bella ) as well as for the release of the CD Destinazione Auschwitz ( Destination Auschwitz ) .
The latter is a sort of video game for the purpose of brain-washing the younger generation .
Among Italian journalistic circles , which make a great deal of space available to him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Marcello Pezzetti is considered “ one of the world ’ s best-known experts on Auschwitz and the Shoah ” , something which he himself , tragically , also appears to believe !
The first announcement of the ‘ Discovery ’ Marcello Pezzetti had already announced the remarkable ‘ discovery ’ of alleged ‘ Bunker 1 ’ at Birkenau four years ago .
Pages 94-97 of the February 26 edition of the Italian weekly paper Panorama , carried an article by Valeria Gandus under the title “ Operazione memoria ” relating to the UNESCO @ @ @ @ @ @ @ camp “ into a program for the restoration and maintenance of the world ’ s most important museums.
” ( p. 94 ) The journalist announced that the remains of Crematoria II and III of Birkenau were constantly : “ desecrated and plundered by “ Nazi ” skinheads in search of macabre souvenirs as well as by negationists greedy for ‘ scientific ’ proof.
” ( p. 94 ) For this reason , UNESCO cooked up a program , which “ provides that that which remains of the two buildings should be protected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and only made accessible to scientists.
” ( p. 96 ) The object of the project is obvious .
Revisionist researchers are to be prevented from accessing the ruins of both these alleged extermination installations to prevent in-depth research into the highly significant question of the ‘ chemistry of extermination ’ and the existence of the alleged Zyklon B introduction holes .
Fred Leuchter and Germar Rudolf have obviously put the fear of God into the official purveyors of history .
The journalist furthermore tells us that “ an Italian , Marcello Pezzetti @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( Centro di documentazione ebraica contemporanea ) , is one of the world ’ s leading experts on the sinister location of the collective conscience of Europe , UNESCO Delegate for the project and the control execution.
” ( p .
94f . )
This is followed by the announcement of the extraordinary ‘ discovery ’ : “ In studying the original plans of the camp and interrogating the last survivors of the first ‘ Sonderkommando ’ unit ( the prisoners who had to undress the victims and collect [ ! ]
the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the building .
‘ Few inmates spoke of Bunker 1 in the post-war trials .
But none of them was brought into the camp to identify the location and building ’ , Pezzetti relates .
Political realism , mistakenly intended to soothe old wounds , prevented uncomfortable research on terrain which should have remained protected and dedicated to memory ; instead , it was settled by Poles who were on the lookout for cheap land on which to rebuild houses destroyed during the war , as well as a few earlier residents @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Nazis ” and who returned there .
The latter included returning persons who , prior to the construction of Birkenau , resided in the house later converted into a gas chamber .
And on the ruins of the old farm house partially blown up by the SS in November 1944 [ sic ! ]
, they built the new house.
” ( p. 95 ) At that time this extraordinary ‘ discovery ’ hardly attracted notice , but today things look differently , since this time the Holocaust Industry had its hand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ examine how the historical value of this ‘ discovery ’ was readapted .
The following includes several findings from a current study on the alleged ‘ Bunker ’ of Birkenau , a study which is not yet completed .
The historical value of the ‘ discovery ’ Let it be stated first of all , that the ‘ Bunkers ’ of Birkenau never existed as extermination installations .
On the contrary , the Birkenau camp was surrounded by several Polish houses , some of which were torn down , while others were taken @ @ @ @ @ @ @ given a “ Bauwerk ” number and name , and used for the intended purposes .
For example , the Polish house to which the number 44 was assigned was designated “ Bauwerk 36c ” , converted accordingly , and made available to SS-Sturmbannführer Cäsar , the head of the agricultural operations , as a dwelling house .
Other buildings were left in an unconverted condition , but not taken over by the camp administration and remained unused .
Two of these houses were finally given the designations ‘ Bunker 1 ’ and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as the result of a laborious literary procedure which began in August 1942 , continued between 1942 and 1944 , and finally took concrete form in February 1945 thanks to Szlama Dragon .
But the problem which is of concern to us here is of quite another nature .
The location of ‘ Bunker 1 ’ indicated by Marcello Pezzetti is in complete contradiction to the only source available to official historiography .
This is a report given on August 5 , 1980 , by a Mrs. Wisińska , and made available to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Franciszek Piper , and published in the anthology “ Oświadczenia ” ( Testimonies ) , volume 113 , pp .
77-78 ( see Fig .
1 ) .
Mrs. Wisińska stated that her family had lived in the immediate vicinity of the Birkenau Camp before WWII .
In 1941 , the house , owned by her uncle Józef Harmata ( as well as by her son-in-law Gryzek ) , was confiscated and converted into ‘ Bunker 1 ’ by the Germans .
In 1949 , Mrs. Wisińska returned to the property which had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by her uncle ( alleged ‘ Bunker 1 ’ ) no longer existed .
A few meters away from the location where it had existed , a house was later built which at that time belonged to a Mr. Stanisław Czarnik .
Mrs. Wisińska appended a topographic sketch of the location to her report ( see Figs .
2 and 3 ) , showing the exact positions of the old house owned by J. Harmata ( alleged ‘ Bunker 1 ’ ) and the new house owned by Mr. Czarnik .
Mrs. Wisińska @ @ @ @ @ @ @ owned by her uncle J. Harmata and her son-in-law Gryzek was converted into any ‘ Bunker 1 ’ by SS men stationed at Auschwitz .
This was quite obviously suggested to her by the Auschwitz Museum , which , in 1978 , in an official camp plan of Birkenau , had already indicated the exact location of the alleged ‘ Bunker 1 ’ on an official map of Birkenau camp at the exact location indicated by Mrs. Wisińska in 1980 , and needed this fictitious , subsequent ‘ proof ’ in order to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on a member of the Harmata family is explained by the fact that the judgment of the Höß Trial ( 2 April 1947 ) states that the Polish houses converted into ‘ Bunker 1 ’ and ‘ Bunker 2 ’ had belonged to the peasants Wiechuja und Harmata living in Brezinka ( Birkenau ) .
But the names of these two peasants were arbitrarily chosen from among people who had lived in the area and whose houses had been taken over by the SS , so as to conjure up fictitious ‘ proof @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bunker.
’ In their specious reasoning , the judges equated ‘ Bunker 1 ’ with the house owned by the Wiechuja family , and ‘ Bunker 2 ’ with the house owned by the Harmata family .
In so doing , they followed the findings of the expert Roman Dawidowski in his report dated September 26 , 1946 .
In contrast , Mrs. Wisińska stated that the house converted into alleged ‘ Bunker 1 ’ had belonged to the Harmata family and not the Wiechuja family , which amounts to further proof that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ with the houses of the two families was completely specious .
On September 20 , 1985 , Franciszek Piper produced four photographs of a house which had , according to him , belonged to Mr. Czarnik .
One of the photos , bearing the archive number “ neg .
no .
21225/3 ” in the inventory of the Auschwitz Museum , shows a frontal view of the house in question ( see Fig .
4 ) , which is identical to the photograph appearing in the above mentioned article ( see Fig @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , also photographed by myself in August 2000 ( see Fig .
6 ) , is located on the other side of the street which now runs outside and along the western barbed wire perimeter of the camp ( see Fig .
7 ) , while the house owned by J. Harmatas ( alleged “ Bunker 1 ” ) , as clearly shown by the topographic sketch drawn by Mrs. Wisińskas , was located further to the east , inside the camp ’ s barbed wire perimeter and only a few meters north @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can still be seen today .
The house indicated by Marcello Pezzetti is located west of another symbol which can not be overlooked : namely the monument to Soviet prisoners of war .
This monument is located approximately 200 meters west of the sewage treatment installation and , therefore , west of the location where the house owned by J. Harmatas ( alleged ‘ Bunker 1 ’ ) formerly stood , close to the western fencing of the camp and the street running along this line ( see Fig .
7 ) .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of an old barred gate .
If one walks from there to the right or north , the house in question is located approximately 100 m away .
This house , which , according to Mr. Pezzetti , stood on the ruins of ‘ Bunker 1 ’ or was even exactly identical with ‘ Bunker 1 , ’ lies , as the crow flies , more than 300 m away from the location of the house owned by J. Harmatas , and , therefore , the former location of alleged ‘ Bunker 1.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ conclusions can be drawn : • None That a house ( owned by Mr. Czarnik ) was located only a few meters away from the house formerly owned by J. Harmats ( ‘ Bunker 1 ’ ) , is in no way a discovery made by M. Pezzetti , but rather , a revelation by Mrs. Wisińskas .
• None The identification of the Czarnik house with the house in the photograph in the article in the had already been made by F. Piper eight years before the article by M. Pezzetti .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ with ‘ Bunker 1 ’ is incorrect , since the house in the photograph taken by F. Piper and M. Pezzetti , as well in as my own photograph , can not be identical to the house owned by Mr. Czarnik and can not , therefore , have been located on the ruins of ‘ Bunker 1.
’ It can not , therefore , be the Czarnik house indicated by Mrs. Wisińskas .
• None Pezzetti ’ s ‘ discovery ’ therefore lacks all historical value .
• None Pezzetti reports that in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Abraham , and Eliezer Eisenschmidt had led him directly to the house where ‘ Bunker 1 ’ allegedly stood .
But as will be seen below , Szlama Dragon was interrogated in 1945 , first by the Soviets and then by the Poles , and had , at that time , shown himself unable to give any information on the location of ‘ Bunker 1.
’ How can one then seriously believe that Szlama Dragon could , with complete certainty , find a location which he had been unable to find 48 years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unbelievable when the witness , at the 26 session of the Vienna Trial against the architects of the Auschwitz crematoria Walter Dejaco and Fritz Ertl ( March 2 , 1972 ) , after confusing Crematorium I with ‘ Bunker 2 ’ on the previous day ( ! )
, found himself compelled to admit : “ I can no longer remember after 30 years [ … ] “ By a first-class miracle , therefore , Szlama Dragon remembers something 48 years later , which he had forgotten after 30 years , and which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ later !
Szlama Dragon ’ s brother Abraham did not appear as a witness at either the Höß Trial or the trial of the Auschwitz guard personnel .
Even later , he made no sworn statements and wrote no reports of any kind as to his experiences .
The same is true of Eliezer Eisenschmidt .
Both told their stories in the 1990s for the first time !
In the interview published at that time , the Dragon brothers testified that they had worked at “ Bunker 2 ” for one single day @ @ @ @ @ @ @ claimed to have worked there for only two days in 1944 .
That ’ s all !
Neither Szlama nor Abraham were ever taken to alleged ‘ Bunker 1 ’ .
How could they identify it in 1993 with such certainty ?
Eliezer Eisenschmidt , on the other hand , testified to having worked six full months at ‘ Bunker 1 , ’ but was nevertheless unable to provide even a vague indication of its location .
But that ’ s not all : he was not even aware of the designation ‘ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chamber ; ’ rather , he believed that the “ bunkers ” ( plural ) were identical to the alleged “ cremation pits ” : “ The pits , or ‘ bunkers ’ , as we called them , were large and deep.
” In his book mentioned above , Gideon Greif reports that in the summer of 1993 , during Szlama Dragon ’ s interrogation at the ruins of alleged ‘ Bunker 2 , ’ “ a friend from Italian television ” had come and shown him a page from Szlama Dragon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 1945 .
Based on this document , the Italian had wanted to find the location of the “ cremation pits ” .
Greif told him to ask S. Dragon himself , who was , after all , on the spot .
The Italian is said to have been “ speechless ” .
But E. Eisenschmidt was also in Birkenau in the summer of 1993 , so that the “ friend from Italian television ” obviously was no other than Marcello Pezzetti .
On this occasion , he then spoke with three ‘ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ alleged ‘ Bunker 1 ’ -but why doesn ’ t Greif mention this ‘ discovery ’ with a single word ?
Greif ’ s book reproduces the map of Birkenau which already appeared in the Kalendarium der Ereignisse im Konzentrationslager Auschwitz-Birkenau ( p. 27 ) , in which the “ 1st provisional gas chamber ” is indicated at the same spot ( and with the same symbol ) as in the book Auschwitz .
“ Nazi ” Extermination Camp .
I will have more to say about this book below .
The “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the sewage treatment installation of Bauabschnitt ( construction section ) III , on the spot indicated by Mrs. Wisińska .
But if it is true that Szlama Dragon , Abraham Dragon , and Eliezer Eisenschmidt had already indicated the exact location of ‘ Bunkers 1 ’ as early as 1993 ( naturally in the presence of Greif , who had asked them to come to Birkenau in order to interview them ) , why doesn ’ t he mention it with as much as one single word ?
And why didn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Birkenau reproduced in the book ?
• None Pezzetti claims that the three witnesses had led him , without being asked , “ starting out from Crematorium III ” to the above mentioned Polish house .
This is a mere allegation , about which every person who is only moderately familiar with the topography of Birkenau can only laugh , since the zone around the camp had changed enormously between 1943 and 1993 .
If the story of the meeting between these four men is correct , the three pitiful old men @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to go !
The views of the Auschwitz Museums on the ‘ discovery ’ On November 20 , 2001 , Le Monde published a short article by Henri Tincq , entitled “ Le mystère enfin levé de la première chambre à gas d ’ Auschwitz-Birkenau ” ( The Secret of the First Gas Chamber of Auschwitz-Birkenau Finally Solved ) , which was nothing but a pale repetition of the article in Corriere della Sera .
Via the Paris daily , news of the ‘ discovery ’ finally found an echo in the European @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also heard of M. Pezzetti ’ s ‘ discovery ’ from Le Monde and answered it with an article written by Jerzy Sadecki , entitled “ Auschwitz-Birkenau .
‘ Le Monde ’ Reveals a Secret That Never Was ” , in the Polish newspaper Rzeczpospolita ( Republic ) .
In it , Jerzy Wróblewski , Director of the Museum , and Franciszek Piper had their say .
I quote the most important excerpts from the article , which I found in English on the website of the Auschwitz Museum : „ It is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ does not exist .
‘ That family could not have lived in a gas chamber , because the Germans tore down the Little Red House in 1943 .
Not a trace of it remained ; the Germans did not leave even a bit of its foundation there , ’ explains Dr. Franciszek Piper of the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum .
‘ Only in 1955 did the owners of the property build a new house at the site of the gas chamber and move in.
’ [ … ] Wróblewski is puzzled by the Le @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been discovered now .
‘ The location has long been well known , and did not constitute any sort of mystery .
The location was identified in 1945 in the reports of both the Soviet and the Polish commissions .
It was pointed out by prisoners who gave testimony at the time , including Schlomo Dragon .
Camp Commandant Rudolf Höss described it in his memoirs , which were published later .
‘ All the guides who lead visitors around the camp know the location , ’ Piper and Wróblewski both state .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ wanted to obtain information at the source , in the Museum , we could have shown him the popular study Auschwitz : “ Nazi ” Death Camp , first published by Interpress in 1977 , which contains a map of the Birkenau camp where the site of the first gas chamber is marked .
Back in the 1980s , before anyone here had ever heard of Signor Pezzetti , I consulted the property records and established location of the Little Red House to the meter , ’ says Piper .
‘ A blueprint @ @ @ @ @ @ @ page 114 of the third volume of the five-volume compendium Auschwitz , which was published in Polish , German , and English , ’ he notes .
[ … ] Marcello Pezzetti appeared in Oświęcim several years ago and joined in the deliberations over how to settle the problem of the site of the Little Red House .
Pezzetti found a sponsor , Richard Prasquier .
After protracted negotiations , the Museum managed this year to purchase the property and move its occupants to another house , which was remodeled .
Teams of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the site of the gas chamber , and landscaped the area .
‘ In the spring , ’ says Wróblewski , ‘ we want to fence off the property , sow grass , plant thuja , and place a commemorative plaque in the middle bearing a brief history of the site and a floor plan of the first gas chamber.
’ Today , Dr. Piper notes bitterly that ‘ we had been so happy that we would finally be able to do something at Auschwitz in a planned , deliberate way , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Once again , however , it turns out that not even the noblest initiative connected with the history of the Auschwitz-Birkenau “ Nazi ” Death Camp-and there have been many-can be taken without misunderstandings and falsification . '
” The swindles of the Auschwitz Museum The Auschwitz Museum therefore claims to have made the alleged ‘ discovery ’ itself , but does not dispute that the house referred to by M. Pezetti stands on the spot where ‘ Bunker 1 ’ once stood .
But Wróblewski und Piper can only defend this claim @ @ @ @ @ @ @ [ of ‘ Bunker 1 ’ ] was identified in 1945 in the reports of both the Soviet and the Polish commissions .
It was pointed out by prisoners who gave testimony at the time , including Schlomo Dragon.
” This is completely untrue .
None of the eyewitnesses interrogated by the Soviets immediately after the liberation of Auschwitz was able to indicate the location of ‘ Bunker 1 , ’ neither on the terrain nor on topographical maps .
This is true in particular for Szlama Dragon , the star witness to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was interrogated on February 26 , 1945 , by the Soviets and later , on May 10 and 11 of the same year by the Poles .
He was never able to identify the location where ‘ Bunker 1 ’ had stood .
Quite the contrary .
Regardless of the presence of Dragon and other witnesses , the Soviets were so uncertain as to this structure that it appeared in quite a different location on the map drawn up on March 3 , 1945 , by Engineer Nosal for the Soviet Investigating Commission @ @ @ @ @ @ @ m away from the north barbed wire perimeter of construction section III of Birkenau , i.e.
, approximately 500 m north of the location marked by the Auschwitz Museum on its official maps ( beginning with the one in the book Auschwitz : “ Nazi ” Death Camp ) and approximately 500 m north of the location indicated by M. Pezzetti .
The expert Dawidowski limited himself to accepting the location on the map drawn up by Nosal .
This constitutes further proof that the Harmata and Wiechuja families had nothing to do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ‘ bunkers.
’ None of the witnesses trotted out in the trials of Höß and the camp guards held in 1947 were able to identify the location of the alleged ‘ Bunker 1 , ’ and this is also true of the witnesses who made statements about this building at a later time .
Wróblewski and Piper finally refer to the “ [ … ] popular study Auschwitz : “ Nazi ” Death Camp , first published by Interpress in 1977 , which contains a map of the Birkenau camp where the site @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” It is true that the above mentioned book ( published in 1978 and not 1977 ) contains a map of Birkenau indicating the location of ‘ Bunkers 1 ’ but the bunker is not located outside the camp , where first Franciszek Piper and then Marcello Pezzetti claims to have ‘ discovered ’ it , but rather , north of the sewage treatment installation , at the exact spot indicated by Mrs. Wisińska ( see Fig .
8 ) !
Thus , both representatives of the Auschwitz Museum did not make an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lie consciously .
The swindle is completed by Franciszek Piper with the following statement : “ Back in the 1980s , before anyone here had ever heard of Signor Pezzetti , I consulted the property records and established location of the Little Red House to the meter.
” Here , Piper refers to the report drawn up by Mrs. Wisińskas and taken down by himself personally on August 5 , 1980 .
But as already mentioned , this woman indicated an entirely different location of ‘ Bunker 1 , ’ “ to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is lying in this case as well .
It is true that F. Piper , in his already mentioned work , Auschwitz 1940-1945 .
Studien zur Geschichte des Konzentrations- und Vernichtungslagers Auschwitz ( Auschwitz 1940-1945 : Studies on the History of Auschwitz Concentration and Extermination Camp ) published a ‘ plan ’ of ‘ Bunker 1 , ’ but this contains no reference to the topographical location of the house and , moreover , in regards to structure , orientation , and size of the house , not only contradicts the plan of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1980 , but also the plan drawn by Engineer Nosal in 1945 , based on information from Szlama Dragon !
Marcello Pezzetti is no better than Piper .
In the Corriere della Sera article , he turns Mrs. Wisińska ’ s report into a : “ Plan of the plot of land , a document certified by signature of the owner , containing a reference to the ‘ gas chamber ’ [ sic ] “ This is pure fantasy .
The fact is that according to various German plans of the area of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of October 5 , 1942 , east of the future Construction Section III of the camp , within 500 m of the barbed wire perimeter , there were only six structures corresponding exactly to the structures indicated on the plan sketched by Mrs. Wisińskas ( apart from Building no .
6 , a stall , which does not appear on the plan ) .
In the area in which , according to Mario Pezetti , the house built on the ruins of ‘ Bunker 1 ’ stood , no building ever existed at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the ‘ discovery ’ of alleged ‘ Bunker 1 ’ was not a pardonable error , but , rather , a vulgar swindle .
It is obvious that there are propagandistic and economic grounds for the alleged ‘ discovery.
’ With relation to the house which , according to Marcello Pezzetti , stood on the ruins of ‘ Bunker 1 , ’ the Corriere della Sera writes : “ Today , the house and terrain have been sold , and the house torn down , in order to expose the foundations of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ included in the tour of the Museum [ during camp visits by tourists ] , and thought and prayer are dedicated thereunto ” , Pezzetti explains .
All this thanks to him and Dr. Richard Prasquier , a Paris cardiologist , who , as a small boy , survived the liquidation of the Warsaw ghetto together with his entire family and financed the entire operation.
” The very title of an article published in the Bollettino della Comunità Ebraica di Milano reveals the true purpose of Marcello Pezzetti ’ s miraculous marvellous ‘ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ] : la prima camera a gas di Auschwitz diventa museo ” ( Shoah : The First Gas Chamber of Auschwitz Becomes a Museum ) .
The contribution begins with the following piece of news : “ Two Polish peasant families , the Harmata and Wichaj families ( six persons with grandparents , son and daughter-in-law , as well as two small nephews ) , moved to a brand-new house equipped with all types of finery.
” The new house , the article continues , has been built thanks to the generosity of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dedicate thought ” to ‘ Bunker 1′ ” : “ Yes , since the family returned to the house in 1947 , which had been confiscated by the “ Nazis ” in 1942 and was used as a gas chamber for the jews until April 1943.
” Therefore , the house that “ the family ” ( which of the two families was it ? )
moved into in 1947 was no less than ‘ Bunker 1.
’ As a mitigating circumstance it may be assumed that this gigantic piece of idiocy was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pezzettia , who is quoted in this article as follows : “ Eight years ago , when I discovered that the house inhabited by this family was none other than Bunker 1 , i.e.
, the first gas chamber of Birkenau ” , states Marcello Pezzetti of the CDEC foundation , “ it became soon clear that this was a particularly important place for jewish memory , which ought to be included in the tour organized for visitors by the Auschwitz-Birkenau Museum.
” Marcello Pezzetti finally reports as to the shameful methods by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the family- “ who had no intention of leaving the house ” – to leave the house .
After eight years of pressure from the “ local political authorities ” , “ the new Director of the [ Auschwitz ] Museum , Stefan Wilkanowicz ” , and , finally , from the “ Officials of the Vatican in France for Relations with the jewish World ” , as well as thanks to money from the “ French philanthropist Richard Prasquier , the Chaiman of the Yad Vashem of France , ” the family @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a new house 500 meters away .
In the meantime , Marcello Pezzetti himself did not remain inactive .
He in fact unashamedly admits that the members of the Polish family had , if at all , “ welcomed the move as the end of a nightmare ” , “ [ … ] since , to induce them to move , I had begun to have tour buses run past the house , which I described as the first gas chamber , and its garden as a graveyard .
For years , upon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to come out of the house and try to drive us away with rude words and gestures.
” The pitiful family was psychologically tormented by the ‘ visitors ’ in this manner , i.e.
, with the crudest violation of their property rights , “ for years ” , to soften them up and force them to leave their house .
Marcello Pezzetti adds that the new house was officially paid for by the Polish government , “ [ … ] because the family did not want the neighbours to think that they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ invested in this transaction by the “ French philanthropist ” was unquestioningly repaid with interest and compound interest , thanks to the propagandistic exploitation of this new pavilion by the Holocaust Industry .
We can be certain that the first commercial transaction will be a video film-to be sold in the millions-on the ‘ discovery ’ of ‘ Bunker 1.
’ There is no doubt that the ‘ discovery ’ will even help the Auschwitz Museum increase its sales .
There is also a significant ideological-propagandistic objective to the ‘ discovery ’ : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ severe crisis is building up around the official historiography .
After the collapse of the hot-air balloon blown up by Jean-Clause Pressac , the official historiography has nothing else to offer than a sterile rehash of arguments that are already threadbare , and is making no scientific progress at all .
After the collapse , from Pressac , van Pelt , and Fritjof Meyer , it is caught up in its own mediocrity , and no longer knows what to do to counter revisionist criticism .
The swindle with ‘ Bunker 1 ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ against revisionism .

By Carlo Mattogno
Seven buildings in the infamous Auschwitz concentration camps are claimed to have been equipped with one or more homicidal gas chambers. Five of those buildings were the former Auschwitz crematoria. One smaller crematorium was located in the Auschwitz main camp, and four big crematoria were erected in the huge sub-camp Auschwitz-Birkenau. Since the end of World War Two, it was claimed that the gas chambers in those crematoria were the locations of the biggest mass slaughter that ever took place in human history. Allegedly of minor importance were two former farm houses outside of the immediate perimeter of the Birkenau camp that are said to have been converted into gas chambers as well. A sudden turn happened in the middle of 2002, when a German mainstream journalist published a thesis according to which the Auschwitz crematoria did not, after all, serve as locations for mass slaughter. In his view, the two farm houses were the real location of this atrocity. Though this thesis was badly flawed, it came in quite handy that just a year prior to the publication of this journalist’s provocative thesis news spread through Europe’s media that finally, after over 55 years, the actual location of one of these farm houses had been located-meaning that so far, no traces of this ominous farm house were known. The following article proves that the 2001 media reports about the alleged discovery of this farm house were nothing but an unfounded hoax, produced by unscrupulous researchers and the media who are always eager to discover some ‘Nazi’ relics.
The ‘Discovery’
According to the Kalendarium der Ereignisse im Konzentrationslager Auschwitz-Birkenau two Polish farm houses at Birkenau were converted into ‘homicidal gas chambers’ by the camp administration prior to the construction of the four crematoria. The ‘Red House,’ known as ‘Bunker 1,’ is said to have been put into operation on 20 March 1942, and the ‘White House,’ or ‘Bunker 2’ is said to have been put into operation on 30 June of the same year. “Bunker 1” is said to have been destroyed in 1943, and no traces of it are said to remain. The destruction of ‘Bunker 2’ is said to have taken place at the end of 1944, but the foundation walls of the house referred to as ‘Bunker 2’ and which are said to have been used for this purpose, are still in existence and can still be seen, even today.
On November 20, 2001, the Italian daily paper Corriere della Sera published an article by Gian Guido Vecchi on page 35 entitled “Shoa. L’inferno cominciò in una casa rossa” (Shoah: Hell Began in a Red House). The article claims that a certain Marcello Pezzetti discovered the location of the alleged ‘Bunker 1’ of Birkenau at precisely this location. A private house occupied by a Polish family is said to have stood on the spot until only a few months ago, but that the house has since been torn down. According to Marcello Pezzetti, the house in question was none other than ‘Bunker 1’ (“[the author] wondered how anyone could live in a gas chamber with a clear conscience”).
This is absurd, since the alleged ‘Bunker 1’ was destroyed in 1943.
The ‘discovery’ is said to have taken place in the summer of 1943, when “Schloma” (correctly: Schlomo; in Polish, Szlama) Dragon, his brother, and Eliezer “Esisenschmidt” (correctly: Eisenschmidt) are said to have taken ‘discoverer’ Pezzett to the house which appears to the left of the small photograph on the above mentioned page of the Corriere della Sera.
Who is Marcello Pezzetti?
Marcello Pezzetti is a researcher for the CDEC (Centro di Documentazione Ebraica Contemporanea, Centre for Contemporary jewish Contemporary Historical Documentation) in Milan. He is chiefly known for his activity as an adviser during the filming of several Holocaust films (Spielberg’s Schindler’s List and Benigni’s La vita è bella) as well as for the release of the CD Destinazione Auschwitz (Destination Auschwitz). The latter is a sort of video game for the purpose of brain-washing the younger generation. Among Italian journalistic circles, which make a great deal of space available to him for the presentation of his arguments, Marcello Pezzetti is considered “one of the world’s best-known experts on Auschwitz and the Shoah”, something which he himself, tragically, also appears to believe!
The first announcement of the ‘Discovery’
Marcello Pezzetti had already announced the remarkable ‘discovery’ of alleged ‘Bunker 1’ at Birkenau four years ago. Pages 94-97 of the February 26 edition of the Italian weekly paper Panorama, carried an article by Valeria Gandus under the title “Operazione memoria” relating to the UNESCO decision to include the former Auschwitz concentration camp
“into a program for the restoration and maintenance of the world’s most important museums.” (p. 94)
The journalist announced that the remains of Crematoria II and III of Birkenau were constantly:
“desecrated and plundered by “Nazi” skinheads in search of macabre souvenirs as well as by negationists greedy for ‘scientific’ proof.” (p. 94)
For this reason, UNESCO cooked up a program, which
“provides that that which remains of the two buildings should be protected (presumably by glass walls), and only made accessible to scientists.” (p. 96)
The object of the project is obvious. Revisionist researchers are to be prevented from accessing the ruins of both these alleged extermination installations to prevent in-depth research into the highly significant question of the ‘chemistry of extermination’ and the existence of the alleged Zyklon B introduction holes. Fred Leuchter and Germar Rudolf have obviously put the fear of God into the official purveyors of history.
The journalist furthermore tells us that
“an Italian, Marcello Pezzetti, historian and researcher at the CDEC (Centro di documentazione ebraica contemporanea), is one of the world’s leading experts on the sinister location of the collective conscience of Europe, UNESCO Delegate for the project and the control execution.” (p. 94f.)
This is followed by the announcement of the extraordinary ‘discovery’:
“In studying the original plans of the camp and interrogating the last survivors of the first ‘Sonderkommando’ unit (the prisoners who had to undress the victims and collect [!] the corpses), Pezzetti discovered the location and the building. ‘Few inmates spoke of Bunker 1 in the post-war trials. But none of them was brought into the camp to identify the location and building’, Pezzetti relates. Political realism, mistakenly intended to soothe old wounds, prevented uncomfortable research on terrain which should have remained protected and dedicated to memory; instead, it was settled by Poles who were on the lookout for cheap land on which to rebuild houses destroyed during the war, as well as a few earlier residents of the area driven away by the “Nazis” and who returned there. The latter included returning persons who, prior to the construction of Birkenau, resided in the house later converted into a gas chamber. And on the ruins of the old farm house partially blown up by the SS in November 1944 [sic!], they built the new house.” (p. 95)
At that time this extraordinary ‘discovery’ hardly attracted notice, but today things look differently, since this time the Holocaust Industry had its hand in the matter.
Let us first examine how the historical value of this ‘discovery’ was readapted. The following includes several findings from a current study on the alleged ‘Bunker’ of Birkenau, a study which is not yet completed.
The historical value of the ‘discovery’
Let it be stated first of all, that the ‘Bunkers’ of Birkenau never existed as extermination installations. On the contrary, the Birkenau camp was surrounded by several Polish houses, some of which were torn down, while others were taken over by the Auschwitz camp administration, given a “Bauwerk” number and name, and used for the intended purposes. For example, the Polish house to which the number 44 was assigned was designated “Bauwerk 36c”, converted accordingly, and made available to SS-Sturmbannführer Cäsar, the head of the agricultural operations, as a dwelling house. Other buildings were left in an unconverted condition, but not taken over by the camp administration and remained unused. Two of these houses were finally given the designations ‘Bunker 1’ and ‘Bunker 2,’ but only as the result of a laborious literary procedure which began in August 1942, continued between 1942 and 1944, and finally took concrete form in February 1945 thanks to Szlama Dragon.
But the problem which is of concern to us here is of quite another nature. The location of ‘Bunker 1’ indicated by Marcello Pezzetti is in complete contradiction to the only source available to official historiography. This is a report given on August 5, 1980, by a Mrs. Wisińska, and made available to the Auschwitz Museum, taken down by Franciszek Piper, and published in the anthology “Oświadczenia” (Testimonies), volume 113, pp. 77-78 (see Fig. 1).
Mrs. Wisińska stated that her family had lived in the immediate vicinity of the Birkenau Camp before WWII. In 1941, the house, owned by her uncle Józef Harmata (as well as by her son-in-law Gryzek), was confiscated and converted into ‘Bunker 1’ by the Germans. In 1949, Mrs. Wisińska returned to the property which had belonged to him. The house owned by her uncle (alleged ‘Bunker 1’) no longer existed. A few meters away from the location where it had existed, a house was later built which at that time belonged to a Mr. Stanisław Czarnik. Mrs. Wisińska appended a topographic sketch of the location to her report (see Figs. 2 and 3), showing the exact positions of the old house owned by J. Harmata (alleged ‘Bunker 1’) and the new house owned by Mr. Czarnik.
Mrs. Wisińska obviously had no proof that the house owned by her uncle J. Harmata and her son-in-law Gryzek was converted into any ‘Bunker 1’ by SS men stationed at Auschwitz. This was quite obviously suggested to her by the Auschwitz Museum, which, in 1978, in an official camp plan of Birkenau, had already indicated the exact location of the alleged ‘Bunker 1’ on an official map of Birkenau camp at the exact location indicated by Mrs. Wisińska in 1980, and needed this fictitious, subsequent ‘proof’ in order to justify itself. That the choice fell on a member of the Harmata family is explained by the fact that the judgment of the Höß Trial (2 April 1947) states that the Polish houses converted into ‘Bunker 1’ and ‘Bunker 2’ had belonged to the peasants Wiechuja und Harmata living in Brezinka (Birkenau). But the names of these two peasants were arbitrarily chosen from among people who had lived in the area and whose houses had been taken over by the SS, so as to conjure up fictitious ‘proof’ of the location of the ‘Bunker.’ In their specious reasoning, the judges equated ‘Bunker 1’ with the house owned by the Wiechuja family, and ‘Bunker 2’ with the house owned by the Harmata family. In so doing, they followed the findings of the expert Roman Dawidowski in his report dated September 26, 1946. In contrast, Mrs. Wisińska stated that the house converted into alleged ‘Bunker 1’ had belonged to the Harmata family and not the Wiechuja family, which amounts to further proof that the identification of the two ‘Bunkers’ with the houses of the two families was completely specious.
On September 20, 1985, Franciszek Piper produced four photographs of a house which had, according to him, belonged to Mr. Czarnik. One of the photos, bearing the archive number “neg. no. 21225/3” in the inventory of the Auschwitz Museum, shows a frontal view of the house in question (see Fig. 4), which is identical to the photograph appearing in the above mentioned article (see Fig. 5). But this house, also photographed by myself in August 2000 (see Fig. 6), is located on the other side of the street which now runs outside and along the western barbed wire perimeter of the camp (see Fig. 7), while the house owned by J. Harmatas (alleged “Bunker 1”), as clearly shown by the topographic sketch drawn by Mrs. Wisińskas, was located further to the east, inside the camp’s barbed wire perimeter and only a few meters north of the sewage treatment installation, which can still be seen today.
The house indicated by Marcello Pezzetti is located west of another symbol which cannot be overlooked: namely the monument to Soviet prisoners of war. This monument is located approximately 200 meters west of the sewage treatment installation and, therefore, west of the location where the house owned by J. Harmatas (alleged ‘Bunker 1’) formerly stood, close to the western fencing of the camp and the street running along this line (see Fig. 7). Access to this monument is by way of an old barred gate. If one walks from there to the right or north, the house in question is located approximately 100 m away.
This house, which, according to Mr. Pezzetti, stood on the ruins of ‘Bunker 1’ or was even exactly identical with ‘Bunker 1,’ lies, as the crow flies, more than 300 m away from the location of the house owned by J. Harmatas, and, therefore, the former location of alleged ‘Bunker 1.’
Based on the above, three conclusions can be drawn:
That a house (owned by Mr. Czarnik) was located only a few meters away from the house formerly owned by J. Harmats (‘Bunker 1’), is in no way a discovery made by M. Pezzetti, but rather, a revelation by Mrs. Wisińskas. The identification of the Czarnik house with the house in the photograph in the article in the Corriere della Sera had already been made by F. Piper eight years before the article by M. Pezzetti. The identification of this house with ‘Bunker 1’ is incorrect, since the house in the photograph taken by F. Piper and M. Pezzetti, as well in as my own photograph, cannot be identical to the house owned by Mr. Czarnik and cannot, therefore, have been located on the ruins of ‘Bunker 1.’ It cannot, therefore, be the Czarnik house indicated by Mrs. Wisińskas.
Pezzetti’s ‘discovery’ therefore lacks all historical value.
Marcello Pezzetti’s ‘Witnesses’
Pezzetti reports that in 1993, Szlama Dragon, his brother Abraham, and Eliezer Eisenschmidt had led him directly to the house where ‘Bunker 1’ allegedly stood. But as will be seen below, Szlama Dragon was interrogated in 1945, first by the Soviets and then by the Poles, and had, at that time, shown himself unable to give any information on the location of ‘Bunker 1.’ How can one then seriously believe that Szlama Dragon could, with complete certainty, find a location which he had been unable to find 48 years earlier? The matter becomes even more unbelievable when the witness, at the 26 th session of the Vienna Trial against the architects of the Auschwitz crematoria Walter Dejaco and Fritz Ertl (March 2, 1972), after confusing Crematorium I with ‘Bunker 2’ on the previous day (!), found himself compelled to admit: [5]
“I can no longer remember after 30 years […]“
By a first-class miracle, therefore, Szlama Dragon remembers something 48 years later, which he had forgotten after 30 years, and which he didn’t know three years later!
Szlama Dragon’s brother Abraham did not appear as a witness at either the Höß Trial or the trial of the Auschwitz guard personnel. Even later, he made no sworn statements and wrote no reports of any kind as to his experiences. The same is true of Eliezer Eisenschmidt. Both told their stories in the 1990s for the first time! In the interview published at that time, the Dragon brothers testified that they had worked at “Bunker 2” for one single day, in December 1942. Szlama furthermore claimed to have worked there for only two days in 1944. That’s all! Neither Szlama nor Abraham were ever taken to alleged ‘Bunker 1’. How could they identify it in 1993 with such certainty?
Eliezer Eisenschmidt, on the other hand, testified to having worked six full months at ‘Bunker 1,’ but was nevertheless unable to provide even a vague indication of its location. But that’s not all: he was not even aware of the designation ‘bunker’ for the alleged ‘gas chamber;’ rather, he believed that the “bunkers” (plural) were identical to the alleged “cremation pits”:
“The pits, or ‘bunkers’, as we called them, were large and deep.”
In his book mentioned above, Gideon Greif reports that in the summer of 1993, during Szlama Dragon’s interrogation at the ruins of alleged ‘Bunker 2,’ “a friend from Italian television” had come and shown him a page from Szlama Dragon’s affidavit drawn up in Polish in 1945. Based on this document, the Italian had wanted to find the location of the “cremation pits”. Greif told him to ask S. Dragon himself, who was, after all, on the spot. The Italian is said to have been “speechless”. But E. Eisenschmidt was also in Birkenau in the summer of 1993, so that the “friend from Italian television” obviously was no other than Marcello Pezzetti. On this occasion, he then spoke with three ‘survivors’ and ‘discovered’ the alleged ‘Bunker 1’-but why doesn’t Greif mention this ‘discovery’ with a single word?
Greif’s book reproduces the map of Birkenau which already appeared in the Kalendarium der Ereignisse im Konzentrationslager Auschwitz-Birkenau (p. 27), in which the “1st provisional gas chamber” is indicated at the same spot (and with the same symbol) as in the book Auschwitz. “Nazi” Extermination Camp. I will have more to say about this book below. The “gas chamber” was allegedly located north of the sewage treatment installation of Bauabschnitt (construction section) III, on the spot indicated by Mrs. Wisińska. But if it is true that Szlama Dragon, Abraham Dragon, and Eliezer Eisenschmidt had already indicated the exact location of ‘Bunkers 1’ as early as 1993 (naturally in the presence of Greif, who had asked them to come to Birkenau in order to interview them), why doesn’t he mention it with as much as one single word? And why didn’t the three witnesses correct the map of Birkenau reproduced in the book?
Pezzetti claims that the three witnesses had led him, without being asked, “starting out from Crematorium III” to the above mentioned Polish house. This is a mere allegation, about which every person who is only moderately familiar with the topography of Birkenau can only laugh, since the zone around the camp had changed enormously between 1943 and 1993.
If the story of the meeting between these four men is correct, the three pitiful old men simply took M. Pezetti wherever he wanted to go!
The views of the Auschwitz Museums on the ‘discovery’
On November 20, 2001, Le Monde published a short article by Henri Tincq, entitled “Le mystère enfin levé de la première chambre à gas d’Auschwitz-Birkenau” (The Secret of the First Gas Chamber of Auschwitz-Birkenau Finally Solved), which was nothing but a pale repetition of the article in Corriere della Sera. Via the Paris daily, news of the ‘discovery’ finally found an echo in the European and American press. The Auschwitz Museum also heard of M. Pezzetti’s ‘discovery’ from Le Monde and answered it with an article written by Jerzy Sadecki, entitled “Auschwitz-Birkenau. ‘Le Monde’ Reveals a Secret That Never Was”, in the Polish newspaper Rzeczpospolita (Republic). In it, Jerzy Wróblewski, Director of the Museum, and Franciszek Piper had their say. I quote the most important excerpts from the article, which I found in English on the website of the Auschwitz Museum:
„It is not possible to live in something that does not exist.
‘That family could not have lived in a gas chamber, because the Germans tore down the Little Red House in 1943. Not a trace of it remained; the Germans did not leave even a bit of its foundation there,’ explains Dr. Franciszek Piper of the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum. ‘Only in 1955 did the owners of the property build a new house at the site of the gas chamber and move in.’ […]
Wróblewski is puzzled by the Le Monde assertion that the site has only been discovered now. ‘The location has long been well known, and did not constitute any sort of mystery. The location was identified in 1945 in the reports of both the Soviet and the Polish commissions. It was pointed out by prisoners who gave testimony at the time, including Schlomo Dragon. Camp Commandant Rudolf Höss described it in his memoirs, which were published later. ‘All the guides who lead visitors around the camp know the location,’ Piper and Wróblewski both state. ‘If the Le Monde journalist had wanted to obtain information at the source, in the Museum, we could have shown him the popular study Auschwitz: “Nazi” Death Camp, first published by Interpress in 1977, which contains a map of the Birkenau camp where the site of the first gas chamber is marked. Back in the 1980s, before anyone here had ever heard of Signor Pezzetti, I consulted the property records and established location of the Little Red House to the meter,’ says Piper. ‘A blueprint of the house can be found on page 114 of the third volume of the five-volume compendium Auschwitz, which was published in Polish, German, and English,’ he notes. […]
Marcello Pezzetti appeared in Oświęcim several years ago and joined in the deliberations over how to settle the problem of the site of the Little Red House. Pezzetti found a sponsor, Richard Prasquier. After protracted negotiations, the Museum managed this year to purchase the property and move its occupants to another house, which was remodeled. Teams of technicians from the Museum dismantled the structure on the site of the gas chamber, and landscaped the area. ‘In the spring,’ says Wróblewski, ‘we want to fence off the property, sow grass, plant thuja, and place a commemorative plaque in the middle bearing a brief history of the site and a floor plan of the first gas chamber.’
Today, Dr. Piper notes bitterly that ‘we had been so happy that we would finally be able to do something at Auschwitz in a planned, deliberate way, without outside pressure or any sensationalism. Once again, however, it turns out that not even the noblest initiative connected with the history of the Auschwitz-Birkenau “Nazi” Death Camp-and there have been many-can be taken without misunderstandings and falsification.'”
The swindles of the Auschwitz Museum
The Auschwitz Museum therefore claims to have made the alleged ‘discovery’ itself, but does not dispute that the house referred to by M. Pezetti stands on the spot where ‘Bunker 1’ once stood. But Wróblewski und Piper can only defend this claim with risible arguments.
Wróblewski alleges:
“The location [of ‘Bunker 1’] was identified in 1945 in the reports of both the Soviet and the Polish commissions. It was pointed out by prisoners who gave testimony at the time, including Schlomo Dragon.”
This is completely untrue. None of the eyewitnesses interrogated by the Soviets immediately after the liberation of Auschwitz was able to indicate the location of ‘Bunker 1,’ neither on the terrain nor on topographical maps. This is true in particular for Szlama Dragon, the star witness to the alleged ‘Bunker,’ who was interrogated on February 26, 1945, by the Soviets and later, on May 10 and 11 of the same year by the Poles. He was never able to identify the location where ‘Bunker 1’ had stood. Quite the contrary. Regardless of the presence of Dragon and other witnesses, the Soviets were so uncertain as to this structure that it appeared in quite a different location on the map drawn up on March 3, 1945, by Engineer Nosal for the Soviet Investigating Commission: outside the camp, approximately 300 m away from the north barbed wire perimeter of construction section III of Birkenau, i.e., approximately 500 m north of the location marked by the Auschwitz Museum on its official maps (beginning with the one in the book Auschwitz: “Nazi” Death Camp) and approximately 500 m north of the location indicated by M. Pezzetti. The expert Dawidowski limited himself to accepting the location on the map drawn up by Nosal. This constitutes further proof that the Harmata and Wiechuja families had nothing to do with the houses converted into the alleged ‘bunkers.’
None of the witnesses trotted out in the trials of Höß and the camp guards held in 1947 were able to identify the location of the alleged ‘Bunker 1,’ and this is also true of the witnesses who made statements about this building at a later time.
Wróblewski and Piper finally refer to the
“[…] popular study Auschwitz: “Nazi” Death Camp, first published by Interpress in 1977, which contains a map of the Birkenau camp where the site of the first gas chamber is marked.”
It is true that the above mentioned book (published in 1978 and not 1977) contains a map of Birkenau indicating the location of ‘Bunkers 1’ but the bunker is not located outside the camp, where first Franciszek Piper and then Marcello Pezzetti claims to have ‘discovered’ it, but rather, north of the sewage treatment installation, at the exact spot indicated by Mrs. Wisińska (see Fig. 8)!
Thus, both representatives of the Auschwitz Museum did not make an error in good faith, but they lie consciously.
The swindle is completed by Franciszek Piper with the following statement:
“Back in the 1980s, before anyone here had ever heard of Signor Pezzetti, I consulted the property records and established location of the Little Red House to the meter.”
Here, Piper refers to the report drawn up by Mrs. Wisińskas and taken down by himself personally on August 5, 1980. But as already mentioned, this woman indicated an entirely different location of ‘Bunker 1,’ “to the meter”, so that F. Piper is lying in this case as well.
It is true that F. Piper, in his already mentioned work, Auschwitz 1940-1945. Studien zur Geschichte des Konzentrations- und Vernichtungslagers Auschwitz (Auschwitz 1940-1945: Studies on the History of Auschwitz Concentration and Extermination Camp) published a ‘plan’ of ‘Bunker 1,’ but this contains no reference to the topographical location of the house and, moreover, in regards to structure, orientation, and size of the house, not only contradicts the plan of the house sketched by Mrs. Wisińska in 1980, but also the plan drawn by Engineer Nosal in 1945, based on information from Szlama Dragon!
Marcello Pezzetti is no better than Piper. In the Corriere della Sera article, he turns Mrs. Wisińska’s report into a:
“Plan of the plot of land, a document certified by signature of the owner, containing a reference to the ‘gas chamber’[sic]“
This is pure fantasy. The fact is that according to various German plans of the area of Birkenau, including the extremely important plan of October 5, 1942, east of the future Construction Section III of the camp, within 500 m of the barbed wire perimeter, there were only six structures corresponding exactly to the structures indicated on the plan sketched by Mrs. Wisińskas (apart from Building no. 6, a stall, which does not appear on the plan). In the area in which, according to Mario Pezetti, the house built on the ruins of ‘Bunker 1’ stood, no building ever existed at that time!
This is irrefutable evidence that the ‘discovery’ of alleged ‘Bunker 1’ was not a pardonable error, but, rather, a vulgar swindle.
‘Discovery’ as a business
It is obvious that there are propagandistic and economic grounds for the alleged ‘discovery.’ With relation to the house which, according to Marcello Pezzetti, stood on the ruins of ‘Bunker 1,’ the Corriere della Sera writes:
“Today, the house and terrain have been sold, and the house torn down, in order to expose the foundations of the old bunker; the area is included in the tour of the Museum [during camp visits by tourists], and thought and prayer are dedicated thereunto”, Pezzetti explains. All this thanks to him and Dr. Richard Prasquier, a Paris cardiologist, who, as a small boy, survived the liquidation of the Warsaw ghetto together with his entire family and financed the entire operation.”
The very title of an article published in the Bollettino della Comunità Ebraica di Milano reveals the true purpose of Marcello Pezzetti’s miraculous marvellous ‘discovery’: “Shoà [sic]: la prima camera a gas di Auschwitz diventa museo” (Shoah: The First Gas Chamber of Auschwitz Becomes a Museum). The contribution begins with the following piece of news:
“Two Polish peasant families, the Harmata and Wichaj families (six persons with grandparents, son and daughter-in-law, as well as two small nephews), moved to a brand-new house equipped with all types of finery.”
The new house, the article continues, has been built thanks to the generosity of the Jewish cardiologist in order to “dedicate thought” to ‘Bunker 1′”:
“Yes, since the family returned to the house in 1947, which had been confiscated by the “Nazis” in 1942 and was used as a gas chamber for the jews until April 1943.”
Therefore, the house that “the family” (which of the two families was it?) moved into in 1947 was no less than ‘Bunker 1.’ As a mitigating circumstance it may be assumed that this gigantic piece of idiocy was suggested to this anonymous journalist by Marcello Pezzettia, who is quoted in this article as follows:
“Eight years ago, when I discovered that the house inhabited by this family was none other than Bunker 1, i.e., the first gas chamber of Birkenau”, states Marcello Pezzetti of the CDEC foundation, “it became soon clear that this was a particularly important place for jewish memory, which ought to be included in the tour organized for visitors by the Auschwitz-Birkenau Museum.”
Marcello Pezzetti finally reports as to the shameful methods by means of which he succeeded in forcing the family-“who had no intention of leaving the house” – to leave the house. After eight years of pressure from the “local political authorities”, “the new Director of the [Auschwitz] Museum, Stefan Wilkanowicz”, and, finally, from the “Officials of the Vatican in France for Relations with the jewish World”, as well as thanks to money from the “French philanthropist Richard Prasquier, the Chaiman of the Yad Vashem of France,” the family finally capitulated and agreed to move to a new house 500 meters away. In the meantime, Marcello Pezzetti himself did not remain inactive. He in fact unashamedly admits that the members of the Polish family had, if at all, “welcomed the move as the end of a nightmare”,
“[…] since, to induce them to move, I had begun to have tour buses run past the house, which I described as the first gas chamber, and its garden as a graveyard. For years, upon our arrival, the old grandmother used to come out of the house and try to drive us away with rude words and gestures.”
The pitiful family was psychologically tormented by the ‘visitors’ in this manner, i.e., with the crudest violation of their property rights, “for years”, to soften them up and force them to leave their house. Marcello Pezzetti adds that the new house was officially paid for by the Polish government,
“[…] because the family did not want the neighbours to think that they received money from jews.”
The money invested in this transaction by the “French philanthropist” was unquestioningly repaid with interest and compound interest, thanks to the propagandistic exploitation of this new pavilion by the Holocaust Industry. We can be certain that the first commercial transaction will be a video film-to be sold in the millions-on the ‘discovery’ of ‘Bunker 1.’ There is no doubt that the ‘discovery’ will even help the Auschwitz Museum increase its sales.
There is also a significant ideological-propagandistic objective to the ‘discovery’: it comes at a time when a severe crisis is building up around the official historiography. After the collapse of the hot-air balloon blown up by Jean-Clause Pressac, the official historiography has nothing else to offer than a sterile rehash of arguments that are already threadbare, and is making no scientific progress at all. After the collapse, from Pressac, van Pelt, and Fritjof Meyer, it is caught up in its own mediocrity, and no longer knows what to do to counter revisionist criticism.
The swindle with ‘Bunker 1’ is therefore becoming the new media weapon against revisionism.
Share now!
Author: Aryan - "National Socialist" - Musician Aryan - "National Socialist" - Musician


renegadetribune--2020-04-30--REMIX: Remixing Enemy Propaganda Pt 6 (Graz)

Recap… The enemy , International Jewry , has unlimited means & money to spew its deconstructive anti-White , anti-Hitler and anti-National Socialism propaganda & lies .
WE , the White Race , have at our disposal the creative constructive counter-narrative of pro-White advocacy ( truth ) that will expose the lies of Jewry ( Holohoax ) and their agenda of White Genocide .
With the access to cheap video editing software and/or digital audio workstations , WE can turn enemy propaganda on its head and use it against them .
Dig into the archives and remix enemy propaganda against International @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is the BitChute documentary premier of GRAZ NOW and THEN “ REMIXED ” , alternatively titled PROUD NATIONAL SOCIALIST GRAZ THEN… A LOST GRAZ NOW , which is a pro-White remix of the YouTube anti-Hitler propaganda documentary… GRAZ NOW and THEN .
One hour of video editing , by an amateur created this pro-White ARYAN masterpiece , PROUD NATIONAL SOCIALIST GRAZ THEN… A LOST GRAZ NOW .
Enemy propaganda debunked !
Please share and disseminate to the masses .
Note : If you have not yet watched the documentary HELLSTORM , exposing the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Socialist Germany , please do so immediately ( urgently ) , linked here : https : //www.hellstormdocumentary.com/ Be sure to check out The Noble Protagonist ’ s 1,100 page E-book , “ The Battle to preserve Western Civilization ( European Folk Soul vs. Jewish Supremacy ) .
Free E-Book available at : https : //archive.org/details/ @ nobleprotagonist

PROUD NATIONAL SOCIALIST GRAZ THEN… A LOST GRAZ (AUSTRIA) NOW
Recap… The enemy, International Jewry, has unlimited means & money to spew its deconstructive anti-White, anti-Hitler and anti-National Socialism propaganda & lies. WE, the White Race, have at our disposal the creative constructive counter-narrative of pro-White advocacy (truth) that will expose the lies of Jewry (Holohoax) and their agenda of White Genocide. With the access to cheap video editing software and/or digital audio workstations, WE can turn enemy propaganda on its head and use it against them.
Dig into the archives and remix enemy propaganda against International Jewry!
Case in point… Linked below is the BitChute documentary premier of GRAZ NOW and THEN “REMIXED”, alternatively titled PROUD NATIONAL SOCIALIST GRAZ THEN… A LOST GRAZ NOW, which is a pro-White remix of the YouTube anti-Hitler propaganda documentary… GRAZ NOW and THEN.
Sourced from: https://www.bitchute.com/video/09cgoHq9X1Ps/
One hour of video editing, by an amateur created this pro-White ARYAN masterpiece, PROUD NATIONAL SOCIALIST GRAZ THEN… A LOST GRAZ NOW.
Enemy propaganda debunked! Please share and disseminate to the masses.
Note: If you have not yet watched the documentary HELLSTORM, exposing the real genocide (Holocaust) of National Socialist Germany, please do so immediately (urgently), linked here: https://www.hellstormdocumentary.com/
Be sure to check out The Noble Protagonist’s 1,100 page E-book, “The Battle to preserve Western Civilization (European Folk Soul vs. Jewish Supremacy). Free E-Book available at: https://archive.org/details/@nobleprotagonist
Battle for the West (Website): http://www.battleforthewest.com/
Battle for the West (BitChute): https://www.bitchute.com/channel/65cDI4QdHali/
Share now!
Author: DJ Noble Protagonist (music producer) is a National Socialist & Norse Germanic Pagan of “Nordic” European ancestry, born in the U.S. He has a deep appreciation for ethnic cultures & folkways and has worked with indigenous medicine people (shamans), from many nations, on spiritual efforts to unite the Eagle & Condor (North & South). DJ Noble Protagonist is deeply embedded within the global Hip-Hop community and considers it his duty to fight White Genocide and act as a “Whistleblower” to educate the youth on historical truths that are intentionally being withheld from cross-cultural discourse. DJ Noble Protagonist (music producer) is a National Socialist & Norse Germanic Pagan of “Nordic” European ancestry, born in the U.S. He has a deep appreciation for ethnic cultures & folkways and has worked with indigenous medicine people (shamans), from many nations, on spiritual efforts to unite the Eagle & Condor (North & South). DJ Noble Protagonist is deeply embedded within the global Hip-Hop community and considers it his duty to fight White Genocide and act as a “Whistleblower” to educate the youth on historical truths that are intentionally being withheld from cross-cultural discourse.


renegadetribune--2020-04-30--Eustace Mullins and His Slander of Adolf Hitler

Eustace Mullins was one of the earliest authors/researchers to expose the Federal Reserve scam , Zionism , medical dangers and a host of other important issues .
Very few who have dabbled in the “ conspiracy ” corner haven ’ t heard of Eustace Mullins .
It is without a doubt safe to say he was a trailblazer with some of the best information .
But regardless of the good he did , those of us who are Mullins fans need to take an honest look at his misinformation regarding WW II .
His associations with Ezra Pound on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as Pound was a firm believer that Hitler was no puppet .
Eustace Mullins embodies the quintessential tragedy that is the anti-Zionist researcher .
After so much truthful research and information is offered to his readers , the question of WW II and Adolf Hitler inevitably arrives .
It must be a tense moment for them , I surmise the inner dialogue must be something like this ; “ Am I going to tell the truth or play it safe ?
” with the intent of avoiding the big bad “ Nazi ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it safe ” option .
The solution for this ?
Smear Hitler as a pawn of the Zionists .
It is a tried and true recipe that convinces their J-woke audience while simultaneously rejecting the orthodox historical narrative .
Myron Fagan was the first to do this , Henry Makow and Eustace Mullins followed suit .
( Other more joke-tier shills like Christopher Bjerknes copy this strategy as well ) .
Eustace Mullins , in his desperate attempt to distance himself from Hitler , makes the following claim in his book “ Secrets @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; – Hitler was financed by J.H .
Schroder Banking Company to “ set up ” WW II with Hitler as their agent .
Mullins opens by saying ; “ Although any number of magnates have been given credit for the financing of Hitler , including Fritz Thyssen , Henry Ford , and J.P. Morgan , they , as well as others , did provide millions of dollars for his political campaigns during the 1920s ” It was in actuality J.P. Morgan that was behind the Dawes and Young Plans during the Weimar @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they were very much against NSDAP economic policy , which would have changed their economic control .
Furthermore , as I said in a prior article , J.P. Morgan was at the forefront for agitating for war against Germany in a campaign entitled “ Stop Hitler Now !
” Their is not one shred of evidence J.P. Morgan donated money to Hitler and in actuality had much to lose in doing so .
This is an outright fabrication from Mullins .
To back up his J.H Schroder claim , Mullins cites a self-described @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In his book “ Aggression ” he writes the following ; Aside from the fact that not one single source is cited to prove this alleged meeting even took place at all , it is known Hitler planned to “ break the trade unions ” since his time writing Mein Kampf simply because they were communist strongholds , not because he wanted to help banks and industrialists avoid paying fair wages .
Otto Lehmann-Russbeldt reveals himself to be a typical Marxist-leftist journalist attempting to equate Hitler with capitalist elites .
This is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ order to smear Hitler .
He then goes on to say that the Dulles brothers were present at this meeting and were responsible for “ installing ” Hitler as chancellor .
False !
What actually occurred was Allen Dulles served as the legal adviser of the League of Nations for the limitations of arms .
He traveled to Germany in the 1920 ’ s and 30 ’ s where he met with a host of world leaders including Mussolini and Hitler .
But not to “ fund ” or “ install ” Hitler @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stipulate League of Nations policy onto them mostly in accordance with Versailles guidelines .
By 1934 Allen Dulles was extremely anti-Germany and closed the Sullivan & Cromwell office in Berlin ( Mullins conveniently doesn ’ t mention that part ) .
In addition to that , John Foster Dulles worked as a broker and was responsible for documenting loan payments from Germany .
In 1934 Germany unilaterally stopped payments on private debts of the sort that Dulles was handling , with the Nazis in power , Sullivan & Cromwell ’ s junior partners @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with Germany .
This doesn ’ t make any sense , according to Eustace Mullins the Dulles Brothers and Schroder Bank/Sullivan & Cromwell were there to help Hitler overcome money issues , yet we find the opposite .
They were there attempting to extract loan payments from Germany from the Weimar era .
Again we see that Eustace Mullins did not even mention this little tidbit .
Eustace Mullins twisted historical facts and intentionally left out others .
So where is the hard proof that the Schroder Bank in league with the Dulles @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
According to James Poole ’ s “ Who Financed Hitler ?
” the question was framed in the context of if Montague Norman ( Bank of England ) channeled money through Schroder Bank ( Kurt von Schroder ) , to which the answer was no .
James Poole never mentions the Dulles Brothers at all in connection with Schroder Bank .
There remains absolutely no proof that the Schroder bank company ever donated to Hitler .
Mullins ’ thesis was warped from the get go .
He says the following : “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ did not become Chancellor of Germany , there was little likelihood of getting a Second World War going , the war which would double their profits.
” If it was Hitler ’ s “ job ” to start WW II , then he did a very bad job with it , attempting peace proposals at every turn .
Furthermore , the English ( Rothschild ) school of economics that dictates gold as the foundation of currency saw its power broken and replaced by the National Socialists all across Europe .
Who would have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the global elite .
Perhaps only the weapons manufacturers made a profit , and Hitler said as much in his own speeches .
However , it was the Allies pushing the war , not Hitler .
To attribute the responsibility of the war solely on Hitler is pure 100 % globalist propaganda that for whatever reason , Eustace Mullins embraced .
Mullins then of course then relies on Anthony C. Suttons book “ Wall St. and The Rise of Hitler ” to push his misinformation .
Notice the dates , the first claim @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1933 .
Now according to Sutton its 1944 .
They can ’ t even get their dates straight of when this alleged cash transfer happened .
A question I would love to ask both Anthony Sutton and Eustace Mullins is how on earth would this alleged “ Schroder bank money ” would be transferred to Germany as late as 1944 , when by 1939 the Reich was using work treasury notes NOT backed by gold ?
The money of foreign nations had no value to the German system and hence barter was used @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would that work ?
The Reichsbank printed money ( treasury notes ) for units of work in exchange to give it value .
Nobody ever seems to be able to explain this , certainly not the “ great scholar ” Anthony Sutton , he never even mentions the technicalities of the German economic model .
Eustace Mullins proceeds to embarrass and discredit himself by quoting a self described Marxist economist , Soviet spy and member of the Communist Party USA , Mr Victor Perlo , who was of course Jewish .
He states @ @ @ @ @ @ @ understand when relying on Jewish/Marxist/Communist figures such as Victor Perlo for historical insight , is that they have an agenda to try extremely hard to paint Adolf Hitler as a figure of capitalism , often times flat out lying .
Yet again I will reiterate , this is how low Eustace Mullins had to stoop in order to push his “ Hitler was a puppet ” narrative he oh so desperately wanted .
Very strange for a man that was supposedly awake to Jewish subversion , while himself using Jewish-Marxists as sources .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ disbelief that Eustace Mullins would resort to this , I will leave the PDF link to his book below where he quotes the Jewish communist and Soviet spy Victor Perlo to prove his case .
To address these claims , we already learned that Sullivan & Cromwell , whom Mullins said was a “ front ” for Schroder Bank , was closed down in 1934 by the Dulles brothers .
So the financial “ tentacles ” of Schroder bank , so to speak , were already severed in Germany .
Secondly , we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Who Financed Hitler ?
” that the Bank of England and British financiers never funneled cash through Schroder Bank .
And third , no proof has ever existed that J.H .
Stein was a contributor to to the NSDAP , despite popular accusations .
Montague Norman was said to have possibly donated , but it was never through Schroder Bank .
Kerry Bolton , a CODOH scholar , in his article “ The Myth of Big Business/Nazi Axis ” does an excellent job recounting and debunking leftist accusations of big banks and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doubt that Montague Norman ever donated , simply because the evidence is lacking .
Eustace Mullins finishes off by attempting to tie some bizarre conspiracy together implicating the Schroder Bank dynasty as having paid and controlled the German-Anglo fellowship .
Quoting Mullins : F.C .
Tiarks is said to have been the “ Schroder Bank agent ” involved in the Anglo-German Fellowship , to which Mullins then hurriedly conflates to “ J .
Henry Schroder WAS the Anglo-German Fellowship ” – in actuality , F.C .
Tiarks was merely a partner with J.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ other partnerships he was involved with including the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company .
F.C .
Tiarks was not the CEO , founder or even co-owner of J.Henry Schroder & Co. How Eustace Mullins then spins and conflates that into “ Schroder Bank controlled the Anglo-German Fellowship ” is an outrageous distortion of the facts .
Eustace Mullins then completely fails to produce evidence that J. Henry Schroder was the primary financial backer of the AGF , he just proclaims it to be so .
Mullins then implies the “ Schroder controlled Anglo-German Fellowships ultimate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their would be peace and then set him up for war ” quoting from his book : The two divergent political groups in the 1930 ’ s in England were the War Party , led by Winston Churchill , who furiously demanded that England go to war against Germany , and the Appeasement Party , led by Neville Chamberlain .
After [ the ] Munich [ conference ] , Hitler believed the Chamberlain group to be the dominant party in England , and Churchill a minor rabble-rouser .
Because his own financial backers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Appeasement Party , Hitler believed there would be no war .
He did not suspect that the backers of the Appeasement Party , now that Chamberlain had served his purpose in duping Hitler , would cast Chamberlain aside and make Churchill the Prime Minister .
It was not only Chamberlain , but also Hitler , who came away from Munich believing that it would be “ Peace in our time.
” The success of the Schroders in duping Hitler into this belief explains several of the most puzzling questions of World War II @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Army to decamp from Dunkirk and return home , when he could have wiped them out ?
Against the frantic advice of his generals , who wished to deliver the coup de grace to the English Army , Hitler held back because he did not wish to alienate his supposed vast following in England .
For the same reason , he refused to invade England during a period when he had military superiority , believing that it would not be necessary , as the Anglo-German Fellowship group was ready to make peace with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ England [ in 1941 ] was an attempt to confirm that the Schroder group was ready to make peace and form a common bond against the Soviets .
Rudolf Hess continues to languish in prison today , many years after the war , because he would , if released , testify that he had gone to England to contact the members of the Anglo-German Fellowship , that is , the Schroder group , about ending the war ” 1 ) Hitler did not not need to be “ duped ” into believing their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it even after Churchill became prime minister .
He simply did not want war , regardless of who was controlling England .
2 ) Another primary reason Hitler did not invade England was because by 1939-1940 the Soviet Union was amassing troops in Eastern Europe , and it was becoming clear that the Anglo-Masonic elite were hoping for a triple alliance with Stalin .
Hitler stated in his own speeches that the USSR was waiting for Germany to tire itself out fighting the English and French , and then launch an invasion when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ followed Eustace Mullins ’ strategy of just invading England , the door to Western Europe would have been left wide open for a Soviet attack , and in no conceivable scenario could Germany have simultaneously invaded and occupied England AND repelled a massive Soviet invasion .
Especially not in 1939 when the German armed forces were still relatively small and weak .
3 ) Mullins continues to insist the Anglo-German Fellowship was “ The Schroder Group ” after we clearly demonstrated how minuscule the association was between Shroder bank and the AGF .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ England , the Anglo-German Fellowship had already been disbanded for 2 years .
If Rudolf Hess sought to contact members of the Anglo-German Fellowship , he would have done so with 99 % of its members having absolutely nothing to do with J.H .
Schroder .
In conclusion , Eustace Mullins is a tragic figure .
I will not call him a shill or even a gatekeeper , as I think he had good intentions and undoubtedly did al ot of good for his time .
But all indications point to Mullins being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hitler boogeyman ” away from him , with his cobbling together a flimsy case to smear Hitler , using very seedy sources and outright unsubstantiated heresy .
My guess is he wanted to avoid being called a Hitler sympathizer in order to expand his audience , at the expense of the truth .
– Secrets Of The Federal Reserve ; The history , organization and controlling interests behind the Federal Reserve — by : Eustace Mullins , 1983 , Chapter 7 – The Hitler Connection .
https : //modernhistoryproject.org/mhp ?
Article=FedReserve & C=7.0 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Birth and Funding of The NSDAP .

Eustace Mullins was one of the earliest authors/researchers to expose the Federal Reserve scam, Zionism, medical dangers and a host of other important issues. Very few who have dabbled in the “conspiracy” corner haven’t heard of Eustace Mullins. It is without a doubt safe to say he was a trailblazer with some of the best information. But regardless of the good he did, those of us who are Mullins fans need to take an honest look at his misinformation regarding WW II. His associations with Ezra Pound on the topic of Adolf Hitler remain conflicting, as Pound was a firm believer that Hitler was no puppet.
Eustace Mullins embodies the quintessential tragedy that is the anti-Zionist researcher. After so much truthful research and information is offered to his readers, the question of WW II and Adolf Hitler inevitably arrives. It must be a tense moment for them, I surmise the inner dialogue must be something like this; “Am I going to tell the truth or play it safe?” with the intent of avoiding the big bad “Nazi” label most researchers choose the “play it safe” option. The solution for this? Smear Hitler as a pawn of the Zionists. It is a tried and true recipe that convinces their J-woke audience while simultaneously rejecting the orthodox historical narrative. Myron Fagan was the first to do this, Henry Makow and Eustace Mullins followed suit. (Other more joke-tier shills like Christopher Bjerknes copy this strategy as well).
Eustace Mullins, in his desperate attempt to distance himself from Hitler, makes the following claim in his book “Secrets of the Federal Reserve” as follows;
– Hitler was financed by J.H. Schroder Banking Company to “set up” WW II with Hitler as their agent.
Mullins opens by saying; “Although any number of magnates have been given credit for the financing of Hitler, including Fritz Thyssen, Henry Ford, and J.P. Morgan, they, as well as others, did provide millions of dollars for his political campaigns during the 1920s”
It was in actuality J.P. Morgan that was behind the Dawes and Young Plans during the Weimar era overseeing reparations bleeding Germany dry; they were very much against NSDAP economic policy, which would have changed their economic control. Furthermore, as I said in a prior article, J.P. Morgan was at the forefront for agitating for war against Germany in a campaign entitled “Stop Hitler Now!” Their is not one shred of evidence J.P. Morgan donated money to Hitler and in actuality had much to lose in doing so. This is an outright fabrication from Mullins.
To back up his J.H Schroder claim, Mullins cites a self-described German pacifist and journalist, Otto Lehmann-Russbeldt. In his book “Aggression” he writes the following;
Hitler was invited to a meeting at the Schroder Bank in Berlin on January 4, 1933. The leading industrialists and bankers of Germany tided Hitler over his financial difficulties and enabled him to meet the enormous debt he had incurred in connection with the maintenance of his private army. In return, he promised to break the power of the trade unions. On May 2, 1933, he fulfilled his promise.”
Aside from the fact that not one single source is cited to prove this alleged meeting even took place at all, it is known Hitler planned to “break the trade unions” since his time writing Mein Kampf simply because they were communist strongholds, not because he wanted to help banks and industrialists avoid paying fair wages. Otto Lehmann-Russbeldt reveals himself to be a typical Marxist-leftist journalist attempting to equate Hitler with capitalist elites. This is who Mullins has to resort to in order to smear Hitler.
He then goes on to say that the Dulles brothers were present at this meeting and were responsible for “installing” Hitler as chancellor.
Present at the January 4, 1933 meeting were the Dulles brothers, John Foster Dulles and Allen W. Dulles of the New York law firm, Sullivan and Cromwell, which represented the Schroder Bank. The Dulles brothers often turned up at important meetings. They had represented the United States at the Paris Peace Conference (1919); John Foster Dulles would die in harness as Eisenhower’s Secretary of State, while Allen Dulles headed the Central Intelligence Agency for many years. Their apologists have seldom attempted to defend the Dulles brothers appearance at the meeting which installed Hitler as the Chancellor of Germany, preferring to pretend that it never happened. Obliquely, one biographer Leonard Mosley, bypasses it in “Dulles” when he states, “”Both brothers had spent large amounts of time in Germany, where Sullivan and Cromwell had considerable interest during the early 1930’s, having represented several provincial governments, some large industrial combines, a number of big American companies with interests in the Reich, and some rich individuals.”
False! What actually occurred was Allen Dulles served as the legal adviser of the League of Nations for the limitations of arms. He traveled to Germany in the 1920’s and 30’s where he met with a host of world leaders including Mussolini and Hitler. But not to “fund” or “install” Hitler as Mullins falsely claims, rather to stipulate League of Nations policy onto them mostly in accordance with Versailles guidelines. By 1934 Allen Dulles was extremely anti-Germany and closed the Sullivan & Cromwell office in Berlin (Mullins conveniently doesn’t mention that part). In addition to that, John Foster Dulles worked as a broker and was responsible for documenting loan payments from Germany. In 1934 Germany unilaterally stopped payments on private debts of the sort that Dulles was handling, with the Nazis in power, Sullivan & Cromwell’s junior partners forced Dulles to cut all business ties with Germany.
This doesn’t make any sense, according to Eustace Mullins the Dulles Brothers and Schroder Bank/Sullivan & Cromwell were there to help Hitler overcome money issues, yet we find the opposite. They were there attempting to extract loan payments from Germany from the Weimar era. Again we see that Eustace Mullins did not even mention this little tidbit. Eustace Mullins twisted historical facts and intentionally left out others.
So where is the hard proof that the Schroder Bank in league with the Dulles Brothers and Sullivan & Cromwell funded Hitler?
According to James Poole’s “Who Financed Hitler?” the question was framed in the context of if Montague Norman (Bank of England) channeled money through Schroder Bank (Kurt von Schroder), to which the answer was no. James Poole never mentions the Dulles Brothers at all in connection with Schroder Bank. There remains absolutely no proof that the Schroder bank company ever donated to Hitler.
Mullins’ thesis was warped from the get go. He says the following: “the inescapable fact was that if Hitler did not become Chancellor of Germany, there was little likelihood of getting a Second World War going, the war which would double their profits.”
If it was Hitler’s “job” to start WW II, then he did a very bad job with it, attempting peace proposals at every turn. Furthermore, the English (Rothschild) school of economics that dictates gold as the foundation of currency saw its power broken and replaced by the National Socialists all across Europe. Who would have profited off of that? certainly not the global elite. Perhaps only the weapons manufacturers made a profit, and Hitler said as much in his own speeches. However, it was the Allies pushing the war, not Hitler. To attribute the responsibility of the war solely on Hitler is pure 100% globalist propaganda that for whatever reason, Eustace Mullins embraced.
Mullins then of course then relies on Anthony C. Suttons book “Wall St. and The Rise of Hitler” to push his misinformation.
The Nazi Baron Kurt von Schroeder acted as the conduit for I.T.T. money funneled to Heinrich Himmler’s S.S. organization in 1944, while World War II was in progress, and the United States was at war with Germany.”
Notice the dates, the first claim was that Schroder Bank financed Hitler in 1933. Now according to Sutton its 1944. They can’t even get their dates straight of when this alleged cash transfer happened.
A question I would love to ask both Anthony Sutton and Eustace Mullins is how on earth would this alleged “Schroder bank money” would be transferred to Germany as late as 1944, when by 1939 the Reich was using work treasury notes NOT backed by gold? The money of foreign nations had no value to the German system and hence barter was used with neighboring countries, literally. How would that work? The Reichsbank printed money (treasury notes) for units of work in exchange to give it value. Nobody ever seems to be able to explain this, certainly not the “great scholar” Anthony Sutton, he never even mentions the technicalities of the German economic model.
Eustace Mullins proceeds to embarrass and discredit himself by quoting a self described Marxist economist, Soviet spy and member of the Communist Party USA, Mr Victor Perlo, who was of course Jewish. He states the following;
The Hitler government made the London Schroder Bank their financial agent in Britain and America. Hitler’s personal banking account was with J.M. Stein Bankhaus, the German subsidiary of the Schroder Bank. F.C. Tiarks of the British J. Henry Schroder Company was a member of the Anglo-German Fellowship with two other partners as members, and a corporate membership.”
The thing you must understand when relying on Jewish/Marxist/Communist figures such as Victor Perlo for historical insight, is that they have an agenda to try extremely hard to paint Adolf Hitler as a figure of capitalism, often times flat out lying. Yet again I will reiterate, this is how low Eustace Mullins had to stoop in order to push his “Hitler was a puppet” narrative he oh so desperately wanted. Very strange for a man that was supposedly awake to Jewish subversion, while himself using Jewish-Marxists as sources. For those of you who are in disbelief that Eustace Mullins would resort to this, I will leave the PDF link to his book below where he quotes the Jewish communist and Soviet spy Victor Perlo to prove his case.
To address these claims, we already learned that Sullivan & Cromwell, whom Mullins said was a “front” for Schroder Bank, was closed down in 1934 by the Dulles brothers. So the financial “tentacles” of Schroder bank, so to speak, were already severed in Germany. Secondly, we learned from James Poole’s book “Who Financed Hitler?” that the Bank of England and British financiers never funneled cash through Schroder Bank. And third, no proof has ever existed that J.H. Stein was a contributor to to the NSDAP, despite popular accusations. Montague Norman was said to have possibly donated, but it was never through Schroder Bank. Kerry Bolton, a CODOH scholar, in his article “The Myth of Big Business/Nazi Axis” does an excellent job recounting and debunking leftist accusations of big banks and businesses supporting Hitler. He even casts doubt that Montague Norman ever donated, simply because the evidence is lacking.
Eustace Mullins finishes off by attempting to tie some bizarre conspiracy together implicating the Schroder Bank dynasty as having paid and controlled the German-Anglo fellowship. Quoting Mullins:
The story goes much further than Perlo suspects. J. Henry Schroder WAS the Anglo-German Fellowship, the English equivalent of the America First movement, and also attracting patriots who did not wish to see their nation involved in a needless war with Germany. During the 1930’s, until the outbreak of World War II, the Schroders poured money into the Anglo-German Fellowship, with the result that Hitler was convinced he had a large pro-German fifth column in England composed of many prominent politicians and financiers.”
F.C. Tiarks is said to have been the “Schroder Bank agent” involved in the Anglo-German Fellowship, to which Mullins then hurriedly conflates to “J. Henry Schroder WAS the Anglo-German Fellowship” – in actuality, F.C. Tiarks was merely a partner with J. Henry Schroder & Co, among several other partnerships he was involved with including the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. F.C. Tiarks was not the CEO, founder or even co-owner of J.Henry Schroder & Co. How Eustace Mullins then spins and conflates that into “Schroder Bank controlled the Anglo-German Fellowship” is an outrageous distortion of the facts. Eustace Mullins then completely fails to produce evidence that J. Henry Schroder was the primary financial backer of the AGF, he just proclaims it to be so.
Mullins then implies the “Schroder controlled Anglo-German Fellowships ultimate purpose was to dupe Hitler into believing their would be peace and then set him up for war” quoting from his book:
The two divergent political groups in the 1930’s in England were the War Party, led by Winston Churchill, who furiously demanded that England go to war against Germany, and the Appeasement Party, led by Neville Chamberlain. After [the] Munich [conference], Hitler believed the Chamberlain group to be the dominant party in England, and Churchill a minor rabble-rouser. Because his own financial backers, the Schroders, were sponsoring the Appeasement Party, Hitler believed there would be no war. He did not suspect that the backers of the Appeasement Party, now that Chamberlain had served his purpose in duping Hitler, would cast Chamberlain aside and make Churchill the Prime Minister. It was not only Chamberlain, but also Hitler, who came away from Munich believing that it would be “Peace in our time.” The success of the Schroders in duping Hitler into this belief explains several of the most puzzling questions of World War II. Why did Hitler allow the British Army to decamp from Dunkirk and return home, when he could have wiped them out? Against the frantic advice of his generals, who wished to deliver the coup de grace to the English Army, Hitler held back because he did not wish to alienate his supposed vast following in England. For the same reason, he refused to invade England during a period when he had military superiority, believing that it would not be necessary, as the Anglo-German Fellowship group was ready to make peace with him. The Rudolf Hess flight to England [in 1941] was an attempt to confirm that the Schroder group was ready to make peace and form a common bond against the Soviets. Rudolf Hess continues to languish in prison today, many years after the war, because he would, if released, testify that he had gone to England to contact the members of the Anglo-German Fellowship, that is, the Schroder group, about ending the war”
Some facts to remember:
1) Hitler did not not need to be “duped” into believing their would be peace, he struggled for it even after Churchill became prime minister. He simply did not want war, regardless of who was controlling England.
2) Another primary reason Hitler did not invade England was because by 1939-1940 the Soviet Union was amassing troops in Eastern Europe, and it was becoming clear that the Anglo-Masonic elite were hoping for a triple alliance with Stalin. Hitler stated in his own speeches that the USSR was waiting for Germany to tire itself out fighting the English and French, and then launch an invasion when Germany was weakened. If Hitler had followed Eustace Mullins’ strategy of just invading England, the door to Western Europe would have been left wide open for a Soviet attack, and in no conceivable scenario could Germany have simultaneously invaded and occupied England AND repelled a massive Soviet invasion. Especially not in 1939 when the German armed forces were still relatively small and weak.
3) Mullins continues to insist the Anglo-German Fellowship was “The Schroder Group” after we clearly demonstrated how minuscule the association was between Shroder bank and the AGF. By 1941, when Hess embarked to England, the Anglo-German Fellowship had already been disbanded for 2 years. If Rudolf Hess sought to contact members of the Anglo-German Fellowship, he would have done so with 99% of its members having absolutely nothing to do with J.H. Schroder.
In conclusion, Eustace Mullins is a tragic figure. I will not call him a shill or even a gatekeeper, as I think he had good intentions and undoubtedly did al ot of good for his time. But all indications point to Mullins being somewhat desperate trying to deflect the “Hitler boogeyman” away from him, with his cobbling together a flimsy case to smear Hitler, using very seedy sources and outright unsubstantiated heresy. My guess is he wanted to avoid being called a Hitler sympathizer in order to expand his audience, at the expense of the truth.
Sources:
– Secrets Of The Federal Reserve; The history, organization and controlling interests behind the Federal Reserve
— by: Eustace Mullins, 1983, Chapter 7 – The Hitler Connection.
https://modernhistoryproject.org/mhp?Article=FedReserve&C=7.0#Note69
– James Poole, Who Financed Hitler?
– CODOH – Demystification of The Birth and Funding of The NSDAP.
– CODOH – The Myth of Big Business / Nazi-Axis.
Share now!
Author: Doug Thomas Sincere truth seeker just adding a piece to the puzzle. Sincere truth seeker just adding a piece to the puzzle.