AAARGH

| Accueil général | Homepage English | Archive Rassinier |

Debunking the Genocide Myth

(Part One)

After some fifteen years of historical research, I have come to the following conclusion: it was in 1943 that National Socialist Germany was accused for the first time of the systematic mass extermination of the Jews in the gas chambers. The author of this first, horrible and infamous accusation was a Polish Jew, a refugee in England and a jurist by profession, by the name of Rafael Lemkin. And, he made that accusation in a book published in London, and in English, in that year, entitled Axis Rule in Occupied Europe (Am.ed., New York: Columbia Univ. Press, 1944). At the time the book did not receive much attention; in October, 1943, when I was arrested by the Gestapo, it was still completely unknown in the best informed circles of the French Resistance, and I only heard of gas chambers for the first time at Dora, toward the middle of 1944. But in 1945-1946, Axis Rule in Occupied Europe was the topic of all conversation behind the scenes at the Trial of the Major War Criminals at Nuremberg, where it was cited by the prosecution in the case of Seyss-Inquart (T. XIX, pp. 70 and 92). And, the view maintained in the book was supported by the Kasztner Report on the tragedy of the Hungarian Jews, a report which was also talked about in the corridors during the trial. But, we must be precise and say that it was only after January 30, 1946, the date when French Prosecutor Dubost made public his discovery of the Gerstein document, that these two pieces of writing took on importance. In fact, it was on that day that, in the world press, the gas chambers mythology began its dance to every tune and diabolical rhythm; that unrestrained saraband full of missteps has not stopped since.

Let us try to reconstruct the facts. Until January 30, 1946, aside from the Axis Rule in Occupied Europe and the Kasztner Report, which were only secondhand testimonies, the prosecution and the judges at Nuremberg had only direct testimonies which, juridically, were not much more authentic, given the way in which they were adduced by their authors. All of these witnesses had been interned at Auschwitz, and, as for gas chambers, either they knew nothing about them, or they only knew about them through their prison comrades who were "trustworthy" and who they generally did not name, or who were already dead, if they did name them. Second hand testimony again. An example of this kind of testimony is provided by Dr. Benedikt Kautski who did not appear at court, but, as we have seen, who wrote a book and had his short hour of fame. Another is that of Madame Vaillant-Couturier who arrived at the Auschwitz camp in January 1943, who was a communist, who, for that reason, was hidden away in the hospital where she was an important personage in the Haeftlingsfuehrung, and who, in answer to the question as to whether the hospital had been open to Jews when they were sick, coldly replied to French Prosecutor Dubost, "No, when we got there the Jews did not have the right to go there; they were taken directly to the gas chamber if they were sick." (T. VI, p. 219.) Now, never was a false witness brought before the bar of a Tribunal with such calm assurance, since in January 1943 there existed -- if indeed, there ever existed -- no gas chamber at Auschwitz, the official word being that they were not installed until the end of February 1943. There is no end to the number of false witnesses of this kind that could be cited. But, for the first time, with the Gerstein document, the prosecution had a first-hand witness. But wasn't Gerstein dead? Yes, but he had written, or, at least, he had signed, a statement -- at least that is what was claimed. Was not this statement about Auschwitz? No, not in so far as it concerned what he had seen; but invoices for Zyklon B that was delivered to that camp were appended. His description of extermination by gas in other camps portrayed the operation in such a degree of horror that the journalists assigned to the trial decided that their emphasis of that theme would be sure to sell newspapers at home. The judges themselves accorded much less importance to the Gerstein allegations, but they allowed the journalists a free hand; even though they did not actually encourage them, they never gave them their true impressions of the Gerstein document, which was presented to public opinion as though it had been admitted into evidence when actually it had been rejected (as was discussed in the preceding chapter).

Dr. Benedikt Kautski's book did not come out until the end of 1946. Therefore, it did not play a part in the trial of the Major War Criminals. As a secondhand testimony on gas chambers it would not have been any great help. To have a description of the gas exterminations at Auschwitz as precise as that of the Gerstein document on Belzec, the prosecution had to wait until 1951 and Medecin a Auchwitz by Miklos Nyiszli, about whom we have also learned what to think in the preceding chapters. Since then, nothing. No other de visu witnesses. The literature of the concentration camps -- the historians like Hans Rothfels, Golo Mann, or Raul Hilberg, the War Crimes Commission of Warsaw, and the Center of Contemporary Jewish Documentation, their propagandists like Leon Poliakov or Hannah Arendt, the Institut fuer Zeitgeschichte at Munich, or showmen and film directors like Piscator (producer of Der Stellvertreter by Hochhuth) -- has never been able to bring forth, as far as I know, any more than those two testimonies, both of which I believe I have proved were obviously apocryphal. I shall not belabor the point.

Not having been able to establish the existence of gas extermination any better than that, those championing the genocide indictment did not have much better luck when they wanted to number the losses in human lives. In 1945-1946, during the trial of the Major War Criminals, they found themselves in the following situation: Mr. Rafael Lemkin said simply, "millions;" Dr. Rudolf Kasztner spoke only of Hungarian Jews whose number he estimated to be about 800,000 (page 1 of his Report), and he calculated (page 8) that "500,000 had been deported on the Karchau-Odenberg route between May 15, 1944, and the beginning of July," that is, the 7th, as he makes clear a little farther on; the figures given in the Gerstein document led to results so astronomical that they were useless (it is, perhaps, not useless to recall that all the rest of the material in the document was, at the time, used only by the press because the President of the Tribunal refused even to have it read by the French Prosecutor Dubost); Hoettl and Wisliceny, who, under the circumstances we already know about, spoke in terms of six and five million respectively, estimates that both said came from Eichmann. Finally, Mr. Justice Jackson, as we have seen, added to this confusing state of affairs when he stated in his speech of November 21, 1945, that:

Of the 9,600,000 Jews who were living in Nazi dominated Europe, it is estimated, with full knowledge of the facts, that sixty per cent perished; 5,700,000 Jews are missing from countries where they lived before, and more than 4,000,000 cannot be accounted for, either by a natural death rate, or immigration into other lands. (I.M.T. II, p. 128).

The figure of 4,500,000 exterminated was the claim of the prosecution, and it was, just the beginning. But, it is not easy to see how, between May 8, 1945, and the 21 st of November, Mr. Justice Jackson was able to obtain full knowledge of the facts. Since no official census took place during that period of time -- in any case, how could it have taken place in such a chaos of populations displaced and moving about in every direction? -- it is plainly only a purely conjectural estimate. Be that as it may, it was not sustained in the judgment against the Major War Criminals, and the press sustained Hoettl's estimate. Since then, except for Mr. Gerald Reitlinger, who alone came to a conclusion more or less in accord with Mr. Justice Jackson -- i.e., of 4,200,000 to 4,600,000 exterminated, everything has happened as if, once having laid down the principle that Hoettl's estimate was well founded, all of the other statisticians who have worked on the figures in the same spirit as the Warsaw Commission, the Center of Contemporary Jewish Documentation, or the Institut fuer Zeitgeschichte of Munich had never had any other purpose except to prove that the estimates of Hoettl and Wisliceny corresponded with reality. What is noticeable from the very first is that while they have all come to an overall result in the neighborhood of six million, they do not come to it by the same routes, since the allocation in detail by countries of these six million presents considerable disparities. The clearest example of these differences, it seems to me, is Poland, where Mr. Salo Baron, holder of the chair of Jewish History at Columbia University, found that on the arrival of Russian troops in the country 700,000 Jews were still there (according to his statement of April 24, 1961, at the Eichmann Trial); the World Center of Jewish Documentation at Paris gave the figure of 500,000 (communique to the Figaro litteraire of June 4, 1960), the Institute of Jewish Affairs claimed some 400,000 (Eichmann's Confederates and the Third Reich Hierarchy, p. 59), and Mr. Raul Hilberg found only 50,000 (The Destruction of the European Jews, p. 670). The distribution by camp, or sector of destruction, is not the same either, and offers disparities just as glaring, depending upon which one of these statisticians is referred to. For example: about 4,000,000 Jews met their fate at Auschwitz, the rest in other extermination camps, or in the open at the hands of the Einsatzgruppen, we are told by Leon Poliakov, Olga Wormser, and Henri Michel, among others. This distribution manifestly takes into account the Warsaw judgment that condemned Hoess to be hanged on the charge of having caused the death at Auschwitz of 2,812,000 persons, 2,500,000 of them Jews, from May 1940 to December 1943; therefore, it is argued that this figure is not so far from the four million figure that is claimed for the whole term of the camp; to round things out, 1,950,000 is claimed for all the other camps, another million at Auschwitz (900,000 as corrected by the Institute of Jewish Affairs), 1,400,000 by the Einsatzgruppen, and the remainder in "Mobile operations" as Mr. Raul Hilberg tells us. We must also point out that the latter does not seem to be very sure of the figures himself since he comes to a total of 5,100,000 on page 767 of The Destruction of the European Jews, while he gets 5,407,500 on page 670. For all extermination camps other than Auschwitz Mr. Raul Hilberg gives us 950,000, but the Warsaw Commission and the Judgment of the Jerusalem Tribunal found "850,000 for only four out of five of them" (Chelmno, Belzec, Sobibor and Treblinka, cp. chap. XXIII, p. 80).

All this shows how serious they are and how much to credit their documentary sources, which, although the same for all the statisticians, speak to each of them in so different a language that the only point of agreement is the total number of Jewish losses between 5 and 6 million human lives, when they all make their additions -- except for the more modest Reitlinger and for Poliakov who says "between 5 and 7 million" (Le Troisieme Reich et les Juifs). However, with regard to Reitlinger and Poliakov, they settle on 6 million, which is the mathematical mean.

The reader will readily understand that, faced with this jumble of contradictory calculations, rather than to take up each of the references one by one and to go over each of the additions, I have preferred, by using statistics all from Jewish sources, to try to reconstitute in detail, country by country, the world Jewish population of 1946, and compare it with what it was when National Socialism came to power in Germany in 1933. Rightly or wrongly, this procedure seems to me to be the best method, as we go along, to show up the shameless falsifications of the Warsaw Commission, the World Center of Contemporary Jewish Documentation, the Institut fuer Zeitgeschichte of Munich, and all of their supporters, authors, propagandists, journalists, historians, and others. I imagine that the reader will also readily understand that the statistics which follow cannot be considered correct down to a unit. In the matter of population statistics it is never possible to arrive at more than approximate conclusions, since the figures are based purely on interrogations of interested persons whose answers, when they can be gotten, are always unreliable, or they are not to be had at all because of the faultiness, or even the lack, of a civil service in a very great number of countries.

In the matter of the Jewish population, the vague sort of aversion which all Jews, since the days of Herod, have shown toward census taking is another source of errors. It is these two constant reservations which make approximations of all statistics. Nevertheless, as all statisticians concede, the errors will be so slight as to be negligible in the conclusions drawn from a comparison of two or more sets of figures, if they are of the same origin. With that granted, where do we stand in this month of July 1963?

In 1951 the World Almanac published statistics from which it was concluded that there were then only 11,303,350 Jews in the world as against 16,643,120 in 1939. This conclusion was given as the result of research on the part of the American Jewish Committee Year Book and the Jewish Statistic Bureau of the Synagogue Council which had spent the years 1949 and 1950 at it.

Presented as they were, there are many reasons for thinking that the World Almanac statistics of 1951 were primarily an answer to a study which appeared on February 22, 1948, in the New York Times on the statistical data given by Hanson W. Baldwin, the Times expert on Jewish population matters. He claimed that in 1947, based on a secret census undertaken by the Jews themselves, there were living in the world between a minimum of 15,000,000 and a maximum of 18,000,000 Jews. He also claimed that between 650,000 and 750,000 of these Jews were living in Palestine and that 500,000 were living in the other countries of the Middle East. In October 1959, the American Mercury (pp. 14 to 17) reviewed all of these figures and brought the controversy up to date. In reply to the American Mercury, the 1960 edition of the World Almanac gave, for the year 1959, a world Jewish population of 12,299,780. Then, another bit of information from a Jewish source, which was widely circulated by the world press, appeared in 1963. The Hamburg daily, Die Welt, of April 1, 1963, for example, reported that:

There are only about 13 million Jews still in the world. In 1939 there were 16,673,000. This information was given out over the weekend by the London Institute of Jewish Affairs. Most of the Jews, about 5,500,000, are today living in the U.S.A. In Israel there are 2,045,000 in the Soviet Union 2,300,000, and in Great Britain 450,000 Jews. (1)

But, in the Israel Almanach (5719 in the Jewish calendar, 1958-1959 in the common calendar, P. 282) a Mr. Eric Peretz tells us that "the Jewish population of the state of Israel represents one eighth of the world Jewish population," and he fixed it at "one million eight hundred thousand." Meanwhile, a Mr. Marc Cohen puts that eighth at "two million." So, in that year, the thirteen million Jews of whom a world census was taken again in 1962 by the Institute of Jewish Affairs of London was either 14,00,000, if one prefers the first estimate, or 16 million, if one chooses the second. Incidentally, the Israel Almanach is published in Jerusalem by the "Youth and Hehabouts Department" of the world Zionist movement.

Only out of concern for accuracy and completeness do I give the puerile statement which Mr. Salo Baron, waving his title of Professor of Jewish History at Columbia University, made before the bar of the Jerusalem Tribunal on April 24, 1961; it is herewith summarized from a report that appeared in the Figaro of the next day:

1. "Since 1945 the world Jewish population has increased at the rate of 20%."

2. "In 1939, there were about 16 million of us in the world. We should, therefore, be about 19,000,000 today, and we are only 12 million."

He makes up for his lack of historical knowledge with a very good knowledge of mathematics: 16 million minus 6 million equals 10 million, which, in turn, plus twenty per cent equals 12 million. His conclusion is mathematically indisputable! Now, it only remains for the Professor to establish, first, that the rate of increase of the world Jewish population was indeed 20% in 16 years and, second, that 6 million Jews were indeed exterminated. Well, let us proceed . . .

Let us proceed with the consideration of one particular element of world Jewry: the Jewish population in the United States. In 1959, the American Jewish Committee Year Book and the Jewish Statistical Bureau of the Synagogue Council estimated the American Jewish population at 5,185,000 for the year of 1949, and in 1959, at 5,260,000 for the year of 1958. From which we can conclude that if the world Jewish population increased by twenty per cent from 1945 to 1961, or 1.25% per year, as Mr. Salo Baron proclaimed at the Jerusalem Tribunal, America, at least, was an exception to the rule where the population was decreasing. And, for Russia, the information from the Institute of Jewish Affairs, which puts the population at 2,300,000 in 1962, hardly seems any more serious, if Mr. Nahum Goldmann is to be believed, who, in a report to the World Jewish Congress on September 12, 1963, said: "From 1948 to 1963 Jews in the USSR increased to about three million, according to five writers since dead, and one almanac and two periodicals." (Le Figaro, Paris, September 13, 1963). In 1961 Mr. Nahum Goldmann had already produced these figures before the World Jewish Congress. Just the same, there is a difference of 700,000 between 2,300,000 and 3 million ...

During the whole of 1959, the Jewish population of the United States was the object, in the United States itself, of very strained discussion, after the publication in 1951 of The Iron Curtain Over America, (Dallas: Wilkinson, 1951) in which the author, Mr. John Beaty, complained that the 1924 immigration law was constantly broken and that "since the end of the Second World War the problem of illegal entry has increased tremendously." (p. 45). And, he cited the Jewish immigration from eastern Europe as an example of such illegal immigration. (pp. 36-43). Here again it is the American Mercury which gave emphasis to the discussion. It underlined two things in particular concerning the Jewish immigration:

1. "The principal world Zionist organizations proudly proclaim that two-thirds of the Jews of the world are now living in the United States." And it concluded that if the figures which Hanson W. Baldwin published in the New York Times of February 22, 1948, correspond to reality, it was not of 5,185,000 or 5,260,000 that one should speak, as the statistics from Jewish sources claimed, but of 10,766,666 or 12,800,000 (in 1947!). In any case, Jewish statistics for 1959 claimed that the world Jewish population had risen that year to 12,299,780 persons. If it is true that two-thirds of them were living in the United States, that makes, after all, 8,200,000, or, according to the information of Die Welt (also from a Jewish source) 8,667,000 for the year 1962, and not 5,500,000 as that information claims.

2. The other aspect of the problem was that during the year 1959 the Census Bureau of the United States government decided to conduct a census in 1960 to determine the extent of illegal immigration into the United States. All of the world Zionist organizations immediately protested -- and successfully, the American Mercury pointed out -- when the Census Bureau turned to the churches and to the synagogues with the object of finding out the number of persons who claimed membership within their congregations. The Zionist leaders stated, still according to the American Mercury, that it was "a violation of the principle of the separation of Church and State" -- as set forth in the Constitution of the United States -- for such a census to be taken and even that the proposed action of the census officials would draw down the wrath of God." The true reasons for this opposition can be seen easily; such a census, conducted in that manner, would have brought to light the vast extent of the Jewish immigration into the United States since 1933 and would have forever destroyed the myth of the six million Jewish victims of Nazi "genocide." That none of them at once calculated the Jewish population of the United States at 12 million is not astonishing, particularly if they had read the New York Times article!

Since then, the figure of 12 million has become accepted, more or less, by American public opinion makers, as shown by this excerpt from the National Observer of July 2, 1962:

The nation's major religious groups, representing more than 40 Protestant, Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Jewish denominations have joined forces to tackle one of the country's thorniest domestic problems: race relations.

They have called the first National Conference on Religion and Race to be held next January in Chicago. About 600 clerical and lay leaders, representing nearly 100,000,000 Americans, are expected to participate. One stated objective of the conference is to demonstrate the concern of religious leaders over racial segregation by a "statement of conscience."

Participating will be the National Council of Churches, an organization of 33 Protestant and Eastern Orthodox denominations with nearly 40,000,000 members; the National Catholic Welfare Conference, the administrative agency of Catholic Bishops (there are 43,000,000 Catholics in the nation); and the Synagogue Council of America, which is representative of Jewish bodies at the national level. (Rabbinic bodies of Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform Judaism are represented. There are about 12,000,000 Jews in the United States.)

Such are the points of view that confront each other concerning the Jewish population of the United States. We shall see farther on that for Poland, Russia, and, in a general way, for all of Central and Balkan Europe, statistics of Jewish origin pose in no less a brutal fashion the problem of their obvious falsification.

In 1932, a Jewish journal that was published in New York, the Menorah Journal, (No. 2, February) printed an analysis of the world Jewish population, the facts for which had been taken from the most noted Jewish statistician of the times, Mr. Arthur Ruppin.(2) The latter, said the Menorah Journal, had classified the Jews of the whole world, by occupation and by country. By occupation, it gave the conclusions just as they had been formulated by the statistician. By countries, it gave, in diminishing order, only those where there were more than 100,000 Jews, being content, for the others, to classify them in three categories, between 50,000 and 100,000, between 10,000 and 50,000, and less than 10,000. The following is how the figures appeared:

Commerce..........................................6,1 00,000 or 38.6%

Crafts and industries..........................5,730,000 or 36.4%

Rentiers..............................................2,000,000 or 2.7%

Professions.........................................1,000,000 or 6.3%

Agriculture...........................................625,000 or 4%

In service, laborers...............................325,000 or 2%

Totals..................................................15,780,000 100%

United States...........................................4,500,000

Poland..................................................3,100,000

Russia...................................................3,000,000

Rumania.................................................. 900,000

Germany................................................. 500,000

England................................................... 330,000

France.................................................... 250,000

Palestine ................................................. 250,000

Argentina ................................................. 240,000

Austria.................................................... 230,000

Canada.................................................... 170,000

Lithuania.................................................. 160,000

Low countries............................................ 120,000

French Morocco.......................................... 120,000

Iraq......................................................... 100,000

Other..................................................... 1,810,000

Total...................................................15,780,000

The other countries showed up this way:

1. Countries with between 50,000 and 100,000 Jews:

Latvia, Greece, Yugoslavia, Belgium, Italy, Turkey, Bulgaria, Algeria, South Africa, Tunisia, Egypt.

2. Countries with between 10,000 and 50,000 Jews:

Switzerland, Brazil, Mexico, Uruguay, Persia, Syria, Yemen, India, Afghanistan, China, Spanish Morocco, Tripoli, Australia.

3. Countries with fewer than 10,000 Jews:

Danzig, Sweden, Denmark, Esthonia, Ireland, Spain, Rhodes, Memel, Portugal, Norway, Finland, Cuba, Chile, Japan, Singapore, New Zealand.

All of the preceding figures are dated from 1926 to 1928 and represent 0.8% of the population of the world, then calculated at two billion inhabitants.

In 1932, population movements only interested me professionally, that is, in their major lines of force, and, as far as the Jewish population was concerned, at that time these statistics seemed to me to give a good enough picture so that I felt informed on the matter. I remember having noted that from 1877 to 1932 the Jewish population of the United States had risen from 230,000 to 4,500,000, while that of France had increased from 150,000 to 250,000 between 1850 and the same date, and I concluded that the migration of European Jews was in the direction of the United States via Western Europe. From the lands of pogroms to the land of liberty. For me that was the main point. So, in 1934, when Arthur Ruppin's Les Juifs dans le Monde moderne came out in France, I did not read it. But, that was a mistake. Had I read Ruppin's original work, I would surely have noticed that the Menorah Journal had, for instance, failed to mention Hungary and Czechoslavakia. I was wrong again in not foreseeing that later on I would need figures more exact than those that that publication gave for Belgium, Yugoslavia, Greece, and the like. After the war, when I needed all that information, I was not able to put my hands on a copy of Arthur Ruppin's work, which had so mysteriously disappeared from circulation, except after exercising the wiles of a Sioux Indian. In 1960, when I published Ulysse trahi par les siens, I had not yet succeeded, and for Hungary and Czechoslovakia I had to be satisfied with working out, as a note to the figures quoted, the figures of the World Center of Contemporary Jewish Documentation, leaving it up to the reader to add them to the total which I found for the population of European Jews in countries occupied by Germany, and which came to 8,700,000, but at the same time cautioning the reader that the figures were clearly exaggerated by some 404,000 for Hungary and some 315,000 for Czechoslovakia.

Here now are Mr. Arthur Ruppin's statistics for those countries of Europe occupied by the Germans during World War Two:

From 1932 to 1939, philo-Semites or anti-Semites, everyone who talked about the European or the world Jewish population referred to Arthur Ruppin. In Europe, the first drew attention to the fact that about 9 million European Jews were menaced by National Socialism; the second made use of his classification by occupations to conclude that according to the Jews themselves, few among them really worked, and, in Germany, that was one of the grounds of National Socialism for the accusation of Jewish social parasitism.

I should say that in his study Arthur Ruppin warned that because of the difficulties inherent in all population studies, in particular that of Jewish populations, the figures he gave did not have an indisputable and absolute value. With that consideration in mind, I shall concede that the 9,243,000 Jews in Europe occupied by the Germans could just as well be 9 million. In addition, I shall concede that in figuring 9.6 million, Mr. Justice Jackson had not exaggerated so badly; at least, his overestimation was very much less than the postwar statisticians of theWorld Almanac (cp. on p. 103, the estimate of the Jewish population in 1938, as published in the 1948 edition). In fact, one can hardly say that he exaggerated at all. He had not left anyone out, that's all. His great mistake was in not having thought that in 1939 the Jewish population of those countries was not the same as in 1931; in other words, he erred by not taking into account Jewish emigration during the period when they were directly threatened by National Socialism. He should be censured, therefore, for having stated positively, without any proof -- not having and not being able to have "full knowledge of the facts," as he boldly claimed -- that sixty per cent of that population, certainly overestimated by him, were absent from the roll call at the time he pronounced his indictment.

Finally, in parallel columns, on page 302, are the estimates of Jewish losses published by the World Center of Contemporary Jewish Documentation at Paris (Le Figaro Litteraire, June 4, 1960) and by Mr. Raul Hilberg in 1961 (The Destruction of the European Jews, p. 670).

My first idea had been to put into parallel columns three sets of statistics, the third being those published also in 1961 by the Institute of Jewish Affairs in Eichmann's Confederates and the Third Reich Hierarchy. But that compilation was limited to a list of Jewish losses by country without further reference to their numbers in 1939 other than by percentages.

By stretching Mr. Raul Hilberg's figures for Poland, Czechoslovakia and Russia a little, the Institute of Jewish Affairs gives a total of 5,717,000 exterminated, representing, it points out, 68 percent of the Jewish population of those countries in 1939. From which one can conclude that the prewar Jewish population of those countries came to 8,400,000. The discrepancy is significant only with regard to Poland, for which the Institute gives 400,000 survivors, where Mr. Raul Hilberg came up with only 50,000; Mr. Salo Baron got 700,000; and the World Center of Contemporary Jewish Documentation of Paris, found 500,000. Where it found two million survivors in Russia, Mr. Raul Hilberg found 2,600,000. 360,000 Jews are claimed by the Institute to have been living in Czechoslovakia in 1939, while Mr. Raul Hilberg is content with 315,000, and Mr. Arthur Ruppin with 260,000. In addition, there are a few other misuses. Upon reflection, the dose of phantasy which is provided by the statistics which are set forth on page 302 struck me as quiet enough for the time being, and I finally decided to refrain from citing the third set of figures in addition.

Table p. 302

	WCJD			Hilberg
Country	1939	1946	Losses	1939	1946	Losses
France	300,000	180,000	120,000	270,000	200,000	70,000
Belgium	90,000	50,000	40,000	140,000	20,000	120,000
Holland	150,000	60,000	90,000	140,000	20,000	120,000
Denmark	7,000	6,500	500	6,500	5,500	1,000
Norway	1,500	600	900	2,000	1,000	1,000
Esthonia	5,000	1,000	4,000	4,500	---	4,500
Latvia	95,000	10,000	85,000	95,000	---	95,000
Lithuania	150,000	15,000	135,000	145,000	---	145,000

Poland	3,300,000	500,000	2,800,000	3,350,000	50,000	3,300,000
Germany	210,000	40,000	170,000	240,000	80,000	160,000
Czechoslov.	315,000	55,000	260,000	315,000	44,000	271,000
Austria	60,000	20,000	40,000	60,000	7,000	53,000
Hungray	404,000	204,000	200,000	400,000	200,000	200,000
Yugoslav.	75,000	20,000	55,000	75,000	12,000	63,000
Rumania	850,000	425,000	425,000	800,000	430,000	370,000
Italy	57,000	42,000	15,000	50,000	33,000	17,000
USSR	2,100,000	600,000	1,500,000	3,020,000	2,600,000	420,000
Bulgaria	50,000	43,000	7,000	50,000	47,000	3,000

Greece	75,000	15,000	60,000	74,000	12,000	62,000
Luxemburg	3,000	1,000	2,000	3,000	1,000	2,000
TOTALS	8,297,500	2,288,100	6,009,400	9,190,000	3,782,500	5,407,500

Now, let us have a look at our two sets of statistics. They have the following in common:

1. In comparison with the statistics of Mr. Arthur Ruppin they both take into account the Jewish migration between 1933 and 1939, but for Germany and Austria only. With regard to this emigration everyone, including the statistics of Richard Korherr, head of the Population Bureau of the Third Reich, dated April 17, 1943, is in agreement, a most rare occurrence, in estimating the Jewish emigration at 300,000 from Germany, and 180,000 from Austria. The exaggeration of Mr. Raul Hilberg is unimportant because, being of the same magnitude and kind in the two columns, it does not involve the number of exterminated obtained by comparison. It calls for only one comment: one piece of the record with which he was not acquainted.

2. The victims are largely accounted for by overestimating the prewar Jewish population and minimizing the postwar Jewish population, a little everywhere, but mainly in Poland, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia. We notice that these prewar overestimations lie between 50,000 and 100,000 per country, sometimes more (200,000 for Poland!). If they have minimized proportionately the number of survivors, and on the suppositionthat ten out of the twenty countries concerned in these statistics are affected by an exaggeration of this kind (it was obviously not possible everywhere, in Norway or Denmark, for instance), an exaggeration of at least 50,000 per country would account for a million of the total number of those who claimed to have been exterminated, obtained by the difference, and an exaggeration of 100,000 per country, would yield a total of 2 million. But, that is only a gratuitous supposition, and I only make it here to show how a little stream can easily become a great river. Later on we shall see what the actual worth of these two statistics is. Each thing in its own time.

Next, let us examine the divergencies that are presented by comparing the aforementioned statistics:

1. The total number of survivors varies by about 1.5 million from one to the other, and of those exterminated by a little more than 600,000. In both cases such a variation is a significant margin;

2. Looking at it closely, this divergence derives from the evaluations, respectively, for Russia and Poland. For the first, the figure of 2,100,000 given by theWorld Center of Contemporary Jewish Documentation at Paris does not include the whole of Russia, but only that part which was occupied by German troops. The only persons who know this are those who have readLe Troisieme Reich et les Juifs by Leon Poliakov, from which these statistics are extracted and in which this particular detail is mentioned. If one reintegrates into the two columns the million Jews that Mr. Poliakov very arbitrarily subtracted, the estimate of survivors differs by exactly one million from one to the other for that country, the total number of the exterminated for all countries still differs by a little less than 600,000. Who can say how Mr. Poliakov managed to get the figure, 2,100,000 for the number of Jews living in that part of Russia occupied by German troops; he does not tell us. But, we can be sure that there is no question here of a census evaluation; such a procedure is absolutely impossible on the local level unless that level corresponds to the existing civil administrative districts. Thus, no census could have been made in Russia, because the O.K.W. decided to conquer Russia in accordance with the geographical imperatives of strategy instead of by one administrative district after another. Mr. Poliakov's figure is a purely conjectural evaluation, therefore, and one which seems to assume that the Jews of this region, instead of fleeing before an invasion which they knew was fatal for them, waited nicely in place for the coming of their executioners. Nor can it be said how Mr. Poliakov managed to estimate at 600,000 the number of survivors in 1946, when we can be sure that, with the war over for only a year, order had not been sufficiently reestablished to permit census-taking; obviously, that figure is still another rough estimate! That it showed a loss of 1.5 million was doubtless all that mattered to Mr. Poliakov, and, without doubt, he also worked out ahead of time the result that he was to come to, so that it would harmonize with the legend of the six million. He did not realize that Mr. Raul Hilberg was right behind him!

3. On reading Mr. Raul Hilberg's monograph, we see that he has taken into account the flight of the Jews before the advance of the German armies in Russia. But to what extent does his estimate correspond with reality? That is what we shall see farther on. One must concede, in any case, that when he gives 3,020,000 as the number of Jews living in Russia in 1939, he is in agreement with Mr. Arthur Ruppin; and, when he calculates at 2,600,000 those among them who survived, which gives 420,000 lost, he is also in agreement with the Jewish journalist, David Bergelson, who wrote in Die Einheit, on December 5, 1942, that "Thanks to the evacuation, the majority (80%) of the Jews of the Ukraine, White Russia, and Lithuania and Latvia, were saved" (cited from Der Weg, Buenos Aires, January 1953). Where Mr. Raul Hilberg is no longer in agreement is with himself. If, as he says, 2,600,000 Russian Jews were saved, how can he maintain (p. 190) that for Latvia, Lithuania, and Russia only 1.5 million "escaped behind the Russian lines" at the time of the advance of the German troops? And, how can he also maintain, as he does in his own statistics, that not one Latvian Jew survived?

4. Poland: Here the statistics are more or less in agreement on the Jewish population in 1939, but not at all on the number of survivors; 500,000 for one, 50,000 for the other, a ratio of 1 to 10 -- compared to the 1 to 14 of Mr. Salo Baron. We do not know how the World Center for Contemporary Jewish Documentation came to this conclusion; there is no reference. As for Mr. Raul Hilberg, he is irretrievably lost in the fog of figures that he builds up around himself. Indeed, we have seen that on page 767 of his book he gives 3,000,000 Polish Jewsexterminated, and on page 670, he gives just 50,000 survivors out of 3,350,000; any explanation is superfluous. From what we have seen thus far, we can detect the playing of a little game. These statistics are indiscriminately, and even sometimes simultaneously, supported by theWorld Center of Contemporary Jewish Documentation and various other Zionist organizations and spokesmen. The reader is free to choose between the two and to put himself in the place of one who might find the Jewish population of 1939 as given by the World Center at Paris and the number of Jewish survivors in 1945 as given by Mr. Raul Hilberg closer to reality. Or the other way around. In this saraband of figures, anything goes. In the first case we get: 8,297,500 minus 3,782,500 or 4,515,000 victims; and in the second case 9,190,000 minus 2,288,100 or 6,901,900 victims. The result yields quite an impressive difference. By pursuing further this comparison of the two statistics we could doubtless find even more striking anomalies, but to what purpose?

I think that the moment has come to talk of more serious matters, namely, of that migration of the European Jews between 1933 and 1945, to which I have only alluded so far. Because this movement has not been studied in any detail by any of the authors who we have been discussing, it is full of question marks and is suspectible to all kinds of manipulation. If it is true, as the American Mercury claims, that the Zionists will not permit a census of world Jewry -- what an admission! -- and that that refusal makes an accurate head count impossible, then they have little ground for complaint if any of my conclusions, which are based upon their own statistics, are wrong; after all, the following study would not have been necessary if there were such a census, since the entire truth would be revealed by it.

In order really to understand the movements of the European Jews from 1933 to 1945, it seems to me that a brief historical survey of Jewish migration is indispensable; in short, a history of the "wandering Jew."

Successively or simultaneously popularized as Cartaphilus, Ahasverus, or Laquedem, depending upon the place and the time, the "wandering Jew" seems to have come into the European tradition in about the thirteenth century. Image and song had characterized him definitely in the eighteenth century in a naive ballad in twenty-four couplets, a "Portrait drawn from nature by the citizens of Brussels, at the time of the last appearance of the Jew, the 22nd of April, 1774," which in its own way gives an account of one of the oldest and earliest of historical realities: the Jewish migration. One of the oldest, the peregrinations of that branch, considered legitimate, of the descendants of Noah by Sem and Abraham (5), it is, in its legendary and mythical form, the substance of the Old Testament, which dates their first steps back to the no less legendary and mythical Flood. The earliest: coming into history at a very uncertain date but very probably contemporary with the invasion of Egypt by the Hyksos (18th c. B.C.), in any case, between the 20th and the 12th centuries before Christ, when all the other human migrations had long since come to an end. Not only is the Jewish migration not ended, but twenty centuries after Christ it is still being described in the same legendary terms, and still has the same motive power. "The commercial bent of the Jewish people," Otto Heller said (La Fin du Judaisme. Paris: Guilde, 1933), "is of long tradition." In fact, from Sumer, which, if one is to believe the Old Testament, was its first objective, to New York, which seems to be its present objective, the Jewish migration has followed, as have all human migrations, the great natural arteries, but not in the same haphazard way. Rather, the Jews have constantly turned toward those points or regions on the globe which have achieved the highest economic development. That is why, instead of going directly from the East toward the West, like all the other human migrations, this one went in a zig-zag fashion in all directions. That it encountered various misadventures, particularly the hostility it attracted in certain areas it had chosen for expansion, is certain. But these accidents scarcely modified the movement with regard to the ever constant aims. Incidentally, this hostility was never, historically speaking, either systematic or permanent, doubtless because, unlike all the other human migrations, it was itself never massive or aggressive; instead, it was characterized by the suppleness of the professional tradesman. However, there are two exceptions to this historical generalization. In its Biblical phase, during the time when first Saul, then David, and then Solomon tried to settle permanently and by force at the place where the two great commercial arterial routes of their times intersected -- routes that connected Europe and Asia to Africa, that is to say in Palestine --with the hope of living there by extracting a tithe of all the trade obliged to make use of this passage. And today, still in Palestine where international Zionism plans to reconstitute, in the form of a State Bank, the Kingdom of Solomon, since Israel finds itself once again on the most important commercial arterial of the modern world, the one going from New York to New York, around the world via London, Paris, Tel-Aviv, Calcutta, Singapore, Hong-Kong, Shanghai, and Tokyo. In any case, that is what one gets out of a small book, by a certain Kadmi Cohen, a spokesman for international Zionism, which had some fame between the two world wars:L'Etat d'Israel (Paris: Kra, 1930). The theme of this book seems to be, although presented in vague terminology so as not to reveal the cloven hoof, that the international Zionist movement should not aim at assembling all of the Jews of the world in a country the size of the Kingdom of Solomon and at organizing them into a modern nation, but only its outer flank, whose task it would be to make it a home-port for a Diaspora which would rationally apportion the riches of the world at the point where they converge, after, naturally, siphoning off a portion for themselves. But, on the scale of the modern world, that would in a way be a repetition of the operation which was realized in the first century B.C., on the scale of the Roman world, which was described by Cicero in his celebrated speech Pro Flacco, and which was seen in the periodic shipment, on galleys headed for Judea, of all the gold of that world, which had until then, converted on Rome. If, twice, Rome commissioned Titus (70 A.D.) and then Hadrian (135 A.D.) to destroy the Kingdom of Judea and to disperse its people throughout the Empire, among other reasons, it had this one: to get back what she considered to be her gold. Until Titus she had been very benevolent toward the Jews, as shown by the Bernice story.

Today, speaking metaphorically, the aim is the gold of Fort Knox. If the plan should succeed -- and all that is needed is for the American branch of international Zionism to get its hand on Wall Street -- the Israeli home-port of the Diaspora would become not only the commercial home of the Atlantic world, but, since oil is the primary source of energy for its development, and control of that would be totally assured from the Middle East to Texas, it would also become the command post of all of the world's industry. "You will earn your bread by the sweat of your brow," the Eternal One said to Adam; and to Eve, "You will give birth in pain,"as he chased the couple from the earthly Paradise he had created for them and for their descendants. The women of Israel would, to be sure, continue to bear their children in pain, but their men would earn their bread and that of their children by the sweat of other's brows. Then, at the very least, it could be said that the designation "Chosen People," which the Jews claim for themselves, would assume it full significance.

The chances for this to succeed? In 1932, Mr. Arthur Ruppin (Les Juifs dans le Monde Moderne, op. cit.) told us that in 1927 in the United States, the 4,500,000 Jews controlled a substantial number of periodical publications; they can be broken down in this way: 9 dailies, 68 weeklies, 18 monthlies, 16 others. Furthermore, he specified that 65 of these publications came out in English, 41 in Yiddish, 3 in Hebrew, 2 in German, and that the most widely read of the dailies, the New York Vorwaerts, had a circulation of 250,000. Here it is a question only of the internal press of Judaism, whose aim was solely to maintain homogeneity. No account was taken of Jewish financial participation in the press at large, which Mr. Arthur Ruppin describes as being very significant. And what of this Jewish control of the "mass media" today? We shall see its effect farther on when we take up the significance of the Jewish population in the United States. As for the importance of the internal press of the Zionist movement, I have not one fact which would allow me to estimate it. But it cannot be less than it was in 1927. And, as for the significance of Jewish financial participation in the public press -- as well as in cinema, radio, television, and book publishing -- it will suffice for me to remark that that press publicizes, with remarkable consistency, and assumes responsibility for all the theses of the American Jewish Committee. That these theses are not always in accord with those of theWorld Center of Contemporary Jewish Documentation, and of its subsidiaries, whose propaganda is inspired by Mr. Ben Gurion, is to be accounted for in the political dissension between him and Mr. Nahum Goldmann, who is the inspiration for the American Jewish Committee. The discord between these two men and the two organizations lies only in details and is only barely perceptible in shades of meaning. When it comes to essentials they are always in agreement on the general theme.And their respective adherents follow their example; Mr. Raul Hilberg and Madame Hannah Arendt offer us the best illustration. At the service of Mr. Nahum Goldmann, they credit Auschwitz with one million Jews exterminated (nearly three million less than Leon Poliakov, or Olga Wurmser, or Henri Michel of the World Center of Contemporary Jewish Documentation and its subsidiaries!) and give 950,000 for the five other alleged gas extermination centers (more than one million less than the figure given by the World Center group; in all, a margin of error of nearly four million out of a total of six!) But, when they come to make their additions for the balance sheet of Jewish losses, they still manage to come to a figure near, or at least on the same sort of scale (this is the shade of meaning in the general theme) as the six million of the World Center of Contemporary Jewish Documentation and its subsidiaries at the service of Mr. Ben Gurion. The same holds true for the analysis of the Jewish losses by countries, where, depending upon whether you follow the contentions of the American Jewish Committee, as expressed by Mr. Raul Hilberg or by Mr. Salo Baron, or those of the World Center of Contemporary Jewish Documentation, as expressed by the Poliakov group, you get a total for survivors which varies from 50,000 to 700,000 for Poland, from 500,000 to 2,600,000 for Russia, from zero to 85,000 for Latvia, and from zero to several millions for each one of a dozen other countries, without the overall figure for losses for all the countries being noticeably affected. All this means that in the general contention, shared by both, that six million Jews more or less were exterminated, these two theses nullify each other when it comes to the details.

But, let us return to our examination of Jewish migration.

Of the accidental historical circumstances which had an influence on the general direction which the Jewish migration took, the most important seem to have been the Babylonian Captivity (588-536 B.C.), the intervention of Titus (70 A.D.) and of Hadrian (135 A.D.), the reactions of Christianity in the Middle Ages (especially from the 13th to the 16th century), the policy of the Russian Czars in the second half of the 19th century, Bolshevism, the, so to speak, atavistic hostility of the Polish people since the end of the First World War, and finally Hitler from 1933 to 1945. However, there were other significant circumstances which were not hostile: since 1850, the progressive assumption of industrial and commercial world leadership by the United States has been a positive factor which has been decisive in orienting the actual migration of the Jews, and in accelerating the orientation. 'The figures are revealing: 230,000 Jews in the United States in 1877; 475,000 in 1890; 1,775,000 in 1906; 3,300,000 in 1916; 4,081,000 in 1926; 4,461,184 in 1936, according to Mr. John Beaty (The Iron Curtain over America, p. 41), who claims to be citing from various official censuses of the American populations (6). And, that means that during these sixty years the Jewish population of the United States has multiplied more than twenty-fold, a veritable invasion. However, it is true that during these sixty years, it is not only Jews who have been drawn to the United States. In 1936, the date of the last official statistics which are referred to by Mr. John Beaty, out of a total population of 128 million, there were about 115 million whites. Among these 115 million, approximately 33 million were either foreign-born or of the first generation of foreign-born. These sixty years corresponded to what we in Europe call theGold Rush, which was first set in motion in 1848 by the discovery of gold in California and which laid the foundation for the extraordinary development of San Francisco. It was really an "Industrial Rush" in the United States after 1877.

In 1926 the Germans, or descendants of Germans, made up the largest ethnic or national group in the United States with 7,250,000; the English were next with 5 million; then came the Irish with 4 million; and the Italians with 3,500,000. However, with its 4,081,000 individuals, the Jewish group was the one which was, with regard to its world-wide importance, by far the strongest contingent. It must also be noted that while the other groups settled in the United States between 1850 and 1900, the Jews only began to arrive in large numbers about 1900, particularly after 1906, and, as the statistics show, they were mostly Russian and Polish in origin; those who were not were almost all German. It seems that one can associate the beginnings of the massive migration of the Jews to the United States with two events, contemporary with it: (1) the setback of Theodore Herzl (who died in 1904) in his attempt to found a Jewish state in Palestine, which was especially of concern to the Russian and Polish Jews who were victims of periodic pogroms, and (2) the first steps taken by the United States to establish immigration quotas (1917-1924) which, according to the figures cited above, make it clear that the immigration of the Jews was largely clandestine after 1917. One quickly gets an idea of what it has been since that date. No error is risked in saying that the Russian, Polish, and German Jews have lost no ground since the beginning of the century, and that, especially between 1933 and 1945, their immigration was not any the less clandestine in spite of the existence of the National Origins Law of 1924 which, observing how Jews in Europe were being persecuted, was never brought -- to the honor of America -- into effect against them during this period, although in theory this law was never officially repealed.

If every time the Jewish problem has arisen in the world it has been stirred up by Russian, Polish, and German Jews -- at least -- it is due to the shattering intervention of Titus and Hadrian in Palestine, an intervention which displaced what one might call the center of gravity, or nutrient reservoir, of the Jewish migration in the European triangle lying between the mouths of the Volga, the Danube, and the Vistula. Mistreated as they were by Rome, the refugees from the massacres were scarely drawn to Egypt, also Roman, as their fathers had been in the time of Herod; they preferred to work their way beyond the limes, most of them by way of the Caucasus, with the rest going to settle in Babylon, which had earlier been assigned to their ancestors by Nebuchadnezzar during the time of the Captivity (6th c. B.C.). In the tolerant reign of the Arsacides, the latter formed a sort of vassal state which, from the third to the fifth century, intellectually illuminated the entire Jewish world through its theological academies of Sora, Poumbadita and Hahardea. There, and during that epoch, the so-called Babylonian Talmud was codified. But that branch progressively joined with the larger migration and was incorporated within it.

Had their Palestine experience taught them a lesson? Very likely. The fact remains that all the writers who have described or commented upon these events are agreed on this point: the Jews were very well received on the other side of the Caucasus by the autochthonous peoples among whom they appeared as the bearers of a new religion to whose proselytism they yielded. As they made converts among these people so did they mingle with them, and they rapidly swarmed into the area between the mouth of the Danube and that of the Volga; then, clever merchants as they had remained, they were drawn to the Baltic Sea, and they soon occupied a triangle formed with the mouth of the Vistula, through which necessarily passed all the land routes, highways and rivers, which contributed to the trade between continental Europe and Asia, via the Black Sea and the Caspian.

Caracalla did away with the measures taken against them by Titus and Hadrian. Consequently, during the whole of the third century and until Constantine, who persecuted them again (beginning of the fourth century), their commercial progress was favored by the normalization of their relations with their co-religionists who were still in the Empire, and they too appeared as the bearers of a standard of living, until then unknown to the barbarian peoples of those regions, which attracted the native population as much as, if not more then, their religion did. With conversion and intermarriage contributing, the two or three tens of thousands of Jews, who fleeing before the soldiers of Titus and Hadrian had crossed the Caucasus, had become by the Middle Ages hundreds of thousands, living in trading communities closed to the uninitiated, whose synagogues were at the same time the cement and the keystone, but whose ethnic formation was quite different from the original group. On the eve of the war of 1939, there were several million of the Askenazim in world Jewry, as compared to the Sephardim, descendants of those who had gone into western Europe along the shores of the Mediterranean, without mingling with the autochthonous populations of the countries they went through and who had kept their original ethnic type.

I shall take advantage of the opportunity here presented to say that from the Askenazim to the Sephardim, world Jewry of the twentieth century is composed of men and women of an infinity of types, very clearly distinguishable in their somatic characteristics -- there are even yellow and black Jews! -- who are united only by a religion, customs, a way of life, or, to sum it up, a tradition which is the binding element made up of a singleness of viewpoint and a solidarity that survives all strains, but which is not of the kind that defines a race in the biological sense that we give to the word. By giving a racial character to their struggles, both Hitler and Ben Gurion committed the same error: that of the latter in wanting, in the creation of the State of Israel, not only to save men, but to save a type of man who no longer exists, if he ever did; that of the former in wanting to protect from intermarriage by that imaginary man a German society which he labelled the Germanic type, but which racially was no more that than the Israeli society is Jewish. With regard to its population, this is what Mr. Ben Gurion's State of Israel is: a conglomeration of human types from the Yemenite Jew influenced by the Arab, to the German Jew mixed with the German type, and the Russian, Rumanian or Hungarian Jew infiltrated by the Slav; in short, Israel is populated with all of these types which have few or no somatic characteristics in common. The only things that the Zionist movement can hope for from so anomalous a group are, ethnically or racially speaking, the evolution of a new type of Jewish human being, issuing from a long series of mixtures of all these types, insofar as they consent to be mixed, and, politically speaking, the development of a theological state, a community in its most archaic form, which would correspond with the intellectual level of that community, perhaps very high in religious or mystic qualities but certainly very low, or backward, from the philosophical point of view. So, we see that for peoples as primitive as the Yemen Jews -- together with whom it is proposed to merge into one single people all the Jews of the world in the land of their ancestors, a land much less common to them all than they claim -- international Zionism is not held with the same insurmountable aversion which, ever since Theodore Herzl held it over the baptismal fountain, it has experienced among the peoples of the highest European civilizations. It is commonly known with what stubborn indignation international Zionism has constantly rejected the ideas of the greatest Jewish philosopher of all times, Moses Mendelsohn (1729-1786), who, wanting to put an end to Jewish Apartheid, preached the assimilation of the Jews with the peoples among whom they lived. The reason why his ideas are opposed is that, in trying to raise Judaism above the level of religion and racial myths to the level of philosophy, the ideas of Moses Mendelsohn would have meant, if they had been seriously considered, the end of the Rabbinat, a convenient screen behind which was created, and has prospered ever since, the most vast and ambitious commercial enterprise of all time. Threatened with extinction, or, at the least, with a diminution of its profits, by a society greatly enlarged by the assimilation of the Jews with the civilized Europeans, this commercial enterprise runs no risk at all by merging with the Yemenite Jews on Israeli territory. But, one shudders to think what this future Jewish type would be, with Judaism now proliferating among the blacks and Yellows as it has proliferated in Europe.

As seen from the same angle, Hitler's Germany was quite similar: a society of people of an infinity of types, in which the German type, characterized by a blend, in one person, of considerable height, dolichocephalic head, and deficient pigmentation (pale skin, blond hair), represented only a very small minority. "Between 1874 and 1877," Pierre Gaxotte (Histoire de l'Allemagne, Paris, 1963, Vol. I, p. 21) says, " a study made in German schools involving about six million children, showed only 31% were blond. Other studies show that the north Germans, whom tradition calls as the best preserved type, are only 18% dolichocephalic." Let the Germans not be disturbed. A comparable study to determine, for example, the Celtic type in the French population would give the same sort of results. In western Europe, where the population is a millenary brew of all the migrations meeting there and of the killing of each other off, there is no homogeneous people, anthropologically speaking, not even a type of any one of the migrations which could be called representative of any majority, or perfectly preserved. Even granting that it is possible to define the original Jewish type with as much accuracy as the German or Celtic type, it is very probable that if the same sort of studies were made in world-wide Jewish societies, roughly the same results would be obtained. The Sephardim Jews, who are surely the closest to that original type, do not, in any case, represent more than a tiny minority. And, this shows how far both Hitler and Ben Gurion went astray in the battle with a myth, at the racial level, at least. There is no doubt but that twentieth century humanity is faced with a racial problem: the relations that can or should exist between the white race and the colored races. It is a problem that exists both on a physical level and on an intellectual level and that is a little bit more in harmony with the facts of modem anthropological science. But, concerning the Jews especially, it is not a race that today they represent, but a way of life and its aspirations. And, it is not a racial problem that they pose, as the State of Israel proves so well, but aneconomic and social problem, of such dimensions that, under the wing of a tradition that is essentially religious, it envisages the setting up of a mercantile feudal system, which, as we have said, would take in the whole world.

To return to the Jewish migration at its beginning, we must first say that the greatest impact on Western Europe was made by the Askenazim Jews, by far the most numerous, and that is the case today in the United States. From Constanza via the Danubian artery, which was about their only access to the West until about the eleventh century, and from Warsaw via countries touched by Hanseatic trade (which could not fail to attract them!), which later became a secondary route, they gradually worked their way to the major Rhone-Rhine artery, uniting the North Sea and the Mediterranean. Certainly England interested them at the time of the Hanseatic League, but more especially after the discovery of America. Mention must be made of Spain and the French Midi, regions that attracted their coreligionists who had remained within the Roman Empire after the loss of its western provinces (fourth century) and after the discriminatory measures against them were reintroduced by Constantine, which measures were not imposed in the eastern regions except progressively as those areas were detached from the Empire and, then, definitively upon their fall and conquest by the Turks (fifteenth century). This was the branch of the migration that worked its way to western Europe along the shores of the Mediterranean. At the moment when America was discovered, this spearhead of Judaism -- or rather, what was left of it, since in the meantime the Inquisition had made inroads into it -- found itself on the Madrid-London line where the new commercial centers were relocated, since commerce that was once Euro-Asian now had become global in scope.

In that part of western Europe that was free of the Roman Emperors, it seems that the first violent reactions against the Jews can be dated from the tenth century (7). But it was also in the tenth century that the influence of the Christian church, which was sanctioned by Charlemagne and which the Crusades established as the most important spiritual force, began to be felt a little everywhere. Struck by this coincidence, most historians have perceived these violent reactions as being attributable to Christianity, the word being used in the sense of Christianism. The Inquisition -- and, there is a tendency to forget that it was aimed not only at Jews, but at all heresies, and so it absolutely cannot be said to have been inspired with antisemites or racist feelings -- which was rampant in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries in Spain and the south of France confirmed them in this view. It is true that the Church did not like Jews: against them was held, not their race (because in spite of everything it must be recognized that one of the historic invariables of its doctrine is that even in its most obscurantist undertakings, it was always universalist and never looked at the heresies of men except in relation to dogma), but what it considered the greatest of all crimes, the crucifixion of the Christ. The hostility of the western European peoples toward the Jews was manifested much earlier than the period when the Christian Church exerted its influence on them, and it seems that it had its origins in the nature of the communities that the Jews formed as they worked their way toward the west and in the manner in which, through trade and usury, they drained toward themselves all of the cash wealth of the regions where they settled. Also, for fear of falling into Jewish hands and finding themselves dispossessed, the burgeoning system of Feudalism forbade them, whom they accused of exploiting the people, to become owners of landed wealth. Even before Christianism was talked about, the Roman Patriciate had shown the same defensive reaction against them. Thus, it seems legitimate to me to think that the Christian Church only added religious reasons to those that were essentially economic of Feudalism or of the Roman Patriciate, and not the other way around. If this way of looking at the problem were justified, what I call a confusion on the Part of the historians would not be important except insofar as it determines the original cause of anti-Jewish reactions among Europeans in the Middle Ages. Indeed, it would very well explain things: on the one hand, just when the first of these reactions was noted, the European consciousness was that of being, not European, a politically unknown idea at that time, but Christian, and Christendom stood against paganism, which was synonymous with barbarity; on the other hand, it was the Church, Catholic or Reformed, which led the struggle against the Jews and either claimed this honor in its fight against heretics, or endowed those who imputed "heresy" as a crime with the responsibility of carrying on the struggle. But, that is a problem for Mandarins: whatever the hypothesis, the tangiblereality for the Jews, from the tenth to the sixteenth century, was that in all Christendom they were, in one place or another, periodically stripped of their wealth, which they were reputed to have acquired in a wrongful way, by the princes, the kings, or the emperors, all with the blessing or at the instigation of the Church, which was in on the division of the spoils. The procedure was simple: confiscation of goods together with prison or exile. And, the excuse was always the same: usury, or the profaning of a place or object of piety, or both. One can even cite numerous cases of the bourgeoisie -- since they were very dangerous competitors for them -- accusing the Jews of some profanation or other before the ecclesiastical authorities in order to get them imprisoned, and thus to escape their debts to them.

Doubtless, the worst period for the Jews was during the twelfth, fourteenth, and fifteenth centuries (8), during which time they surged back to eastern Europe, which remained fairly liberal toward them, since conversions to Judaism were constantly being registered. Indeed, it was only later, as the Orthodox religion gained ground in these regions and as the idea of the Empire of all the Russias was born, that the hostility toward the Jews was born which was to manifest itself in far more terrible forms than in the West -- the word pogrom is from the Russian vocabulary. In the West it was the advent of Humanism that brought the first alleviations in the condition of the Jews, and it was the Encyclopedists who dealt the decisive blow to the hostility against them. The French Revolution made them citizens like everyone else (1791), and this practice spread in Europe: Prussia (1812), the Germanic Confederation (1848), England (I 858), Italy (I 870). But, the era of "pogroms" had begun in "all the Russias". Migration toward the west swelled again, until in the second half of the nineteenth century it brought about the appearance of the wordanti-Semitism in all the dictionaries, and anti-Semitism itself -- however, wrongly, as has been said -- in all national policies.

It was in the second half of the nineteenth century that the first significant numbers of Jews crossed the Atlantic, attracted by the Gold Rush and by the dynamic industrialization of the American economy -- where, deriving mainly from "all the Russias" including Poland, and from Germany, the Jews who had spent more than twenty centuries, according to their own Statistics, growing to a little more than ten million in the rest of the world, needed only sixty years to approach five million in the United States.

In the twentieth century, the Russian Revolution, the general Policy of Poland, especially from the time in 1932 when Colonel Beck began to play a role in it, and finally Hitler hastened the movement of Jews toward the United States, and only those who lacked the means to get there remained behind in Holland, Belgium, England and France. Some of them tried to reach the "Jewish national hearth," created in Palestine by the Balfour Commission (on November 2, 1917), and succeeded in doing so, in spite of the hostility of England, which had fixed entry quotas. But the United States was the attraction par excellence. In 1928, the Policy of Stalinist Russia, while hardly benevolent towards the Jews, still wanted to keep them within the frontiers. These borders, the gates to the exit to the west, were closed to them, as they were closed to all Russians. The area of Birobidjan, located on the borders of Manchuria, was set up and placed at their disposal as an autonomous territory in the heart of the USSR. Stalin very quickly saw that although the number of Jews in the Ukraine and White Russia was diminishing, it was not increasing in Birobidjan, where they were nevertheless making their way, but only to reach a frontier close to China, where with the connivance of the Chinese, who at that time were hostile to the USSR, they were able to flee the Soviet regime. From there, via Hong Kong and Shanghai, they went to the United States, which, with the connivance of those who had gone there before them and who had become politically quite powerful, they were entering clandestinely. Just before the Second World War began no one in Russia, nor in the rest of the world, was talking any more about the Jewish autonomous territory of Birobidjan. During the war the matter was almost brought up again, in circumstances which will be described. For the moment, it is enough to say that in making the Jews take the Siberian route again - "Central Asia" as it was called bythose fresh from Russia -- a significant consistency was given to their migration toward the United States by way of the East.

In 1933, the staging area for the Jewish migration, or, if you prefer, its supply area, was no longer the triangle marked by the mouths of the Vistula, Danube and Volga. There had been successively added to those Danubian countries in which political instability and trouble following the First World War had stirred them to leave the nations of Germany, Austria, and Czechoslovakia. And, since 1917 (Balfour Convention) besides the United States, there was a second destination point: Palestine.

In spite of the confusion that has been systematically created by various leaders of the Zionist movement around the period of this migration, a certain number of facts are positively known and irrefutably established which mark the routes that were made use of by the Jews and which definitely destroy the thesis of the extermination of six million Jews. Furthermore, it is international Zionism itself -- which by its policy with regard to Germany and with regard especially to the numerous trials, that have become almost incalculable, which it unceasingly demands against the Germans to prove again and again that these six million were really exterminated -- that has revealed most of these facts to us (if we did not already know them) or has confirmed their actuality (if we only had suspected their existence). An incalculable number of trials calls for an even more incalculable number of witnesses to give weight to the accusations and of journalists to report the hearings; and, it was fatal that among them should be found blunderers like Mr. Salo Baron (a professor at Columbia University and a witness at the Eichmann trial who, on top of everything else, had actually seen nothing!) or like Hannah Arendt (a journalist assigned to cover the same trial by the New Yorker who will be discussed elsewhere) to give the game away. It was no less fatal that there arrived at the bar of the Tribunal of History, Mr. Raul Hilberg and that he should make use of all of these in such a way that not only was everything that had been said earlier reduced to contradictions, but even that which he said himself. "He who tries too hard to prove . . ." as the proverb says.

All of these facts which have set us on the path to historical truth, have been made positively known and have been irrefutably established, unfortunately, only by specialists, most of whom, out of indifference or political interest, have suppressed them or have tried -- as we have seen, and as we shall see again, with regard to the facts concerning the international Zionist movement -- to keep them out of sight. I am among those who, out of respect for my profession and submission to the moral imperatives proper to it, attach great importance to their becoming known to the public at large. I am also concerned that this very lack of information might tend to lead societies in their evolution toward impasses and catastrophes. It is because governmental policies are based generally on conjectures, more often than not elaborated in the personal interests of the politicians who proclaim them and not with regard to established truths, that societies are periodically thrown into these impasses and precipitated into these catastrophes. Consequently, there lies the necessity for finding out and for establishing, for the benefit of the mass of honest people, those truths which will permit them to defend themselves against the interested undertakings of the politicians.

Historians tell us that history is learned by tracing its course through time and, then, is verified by tracing it back again. The police, in their jargon, express this idea by saying that it is by "tracing every clue to its source," not by following every clue, that the truth is discovered. Since it is a question of verifying a statistic, therefore an addition, let us borrow the language of the mathematicians who in accounting teach that in order to verify an addition, it must be done from bottom to top, or inversely to the way that it was done in the first place. The top, in this case, is the area where the Jewish migration started. And, Europe, where it took place, is a forest of testimonies giving only partial views of events which are all overlapped and, which in addition, are falsified by the constituent elements of the psychology of the witnesses. It was from the top that the Zionist historians and statisticians began to total their deaths, pretending, because that is the way they wanted it to be, not to see that the sum which they obtained could only be infinitely reduced, just as a landscape would be enlarged to infinity by placing end to end all of the partial photographs taken of it, without first having removed from each all of the overlapping elements figuring in others. The views of the witnesses overlap just as do the photographs, and a landscape in nature is no more the sum of the latter, retouched by topographers, than a historical landscape is the sum of the former uncounted by historians. Until a general accounting is made, everything will remain confused, uncertain, and conjectural, in the very places where the events took place. However, it does not seem as though such an accounting is likely to be done in the near future given the absurd "fifty years' rule," or whatever else suits the politicians. Until that period is passed, if historians are nevertheless tempted to clarify the circumstances of that drama -- and the urgent need for an assault against the historic myth presses them every day -- they will be forced to proceed by successive stages from the established facts. And, it is in that context that this study is inscribed.

At the bottom of the addition are the two destination points of the migration, the United States and Israel, where, on the other hand, almost everything is known, although obscured by what one might call after the title of a recent film, the Night and Fog of Zionist propaganda. To take the advice of the historians and trace history back, or that of the policemen and trace every clue to its source, or that of the mathematician and go over the addition means to take an inventory of the Jewish population of the world, starting with what it is today in the United States and Israel. The method offers the signal advantage of obeying the basic rule of all scientific investigations: to proceed from the known to the unknown and, thereby, to shed light on the unknown by means of the known. I shall begin with a census of Israel first.

In 1926. Mr. Arthur Ruppin tells us that there were 250,000 Jews in Palestine. But the official statistics of the State of Israel as reproduced by Mr. Andre Chouraqui (L'Etat d'Israel, p. 62) tell us that there were only 150,000 in 1927, and 174,610 in 1931, the eve of the coming to power of Beck in Poland and of Hitler in Germany. Since this study attempts to show that, aside from the fact that they do not agree with each other, all statistics of Jewish origin published after the war do not agree with those published by Mr. Arthur Ruppin before the war, and, taken as a base of reference, one must, if one is to make useful comparisons with the latter, first know exactly what the former have to say about the evolution of the Jewish population in Israel. And for the period after 1931 this is what Mr. Andre Chouraqui has to tell them: 1947 -- 629,000; 1952 -- 1,450,000; 1957 -- 1,763,000.

On the level reached in 1962 we have, on the other hand, two bits of information, perhaps contestable but at least in agreement, of which the first is already known to the reader: the communique of March 31, 1963, of the Institute for Jewish Affairs of London, published on April 1 by Die Welt of Hamburg in which it is said that that population had reached 2.045 million;(9) and a speech given on July 17, 1963, before the Knesseth (the Israeli Parliament) by Mr. Levi Eshkol (successor of Mr. Ben Gurion) in which it is said that out of a total of 2.27 million inhabitants in the State of Israel, 2.05 million were Jews. We shall assume that Mr. Levi Eshkol, President of the Council of the State of Israel, is very probably better informed than theInstitute for Jewish Affairs of London, and we shall retain his figure. In any case with a difference of only 5,000 it is without importance.

Here we are presented with four significant dates in the evolution of the Israeli population: 1931 (just before the rise to Power of Beck in Poland and Hitler in Germany); 1947 and 1952 (the eve and the day after the creation of the State of Israel); and finally 1962 (the year in which this study was written).

In order to determine the importance of Jewish immigration into Israel from 1931 to 1962, a third factor is missing, the normal rate of increase of the world Jewish population. Now, Mr. Salo Baron supplied us with one when on April 23, 1961, he came before the bar of the Jerusalem Tribunal to state that in relation to what it had been in 1945 this population had increased by twenty per cent.

However, "one swallow does not make a summer." I categorically refuse to accept such an estimate as being well founded. A normal rate of increase of twenty per cent over sixteen years amounts in fact to an annual increase of about 1.25 per cent, that is, of the world population, which demographers estimate will double every 80 years at its present rate of proliferation. But, this rate is reached only in the eightieth year. What it is in the 16th year does not seem to have been calculated, or if it has, I do not know about it. What is certain is that it is much less. The population of France, which, it seems, proliferates atthe world rate, has, for example, gone from a little less than 42 million to a little more than 46 million during these sixteen years, or at a global rate of increase of 10 per cent, or annually about .62 per cent. During the same period, the Italian population, which proliferates at a faster rate than the world rate, still has not gone from more than a little more than 43 million to a little less than 50 million, or a global rate of 14 per cent, annually about .89 per cent. The United States seem similarly to have gone from 141 million to 186 million, that is a global rate of about 12 per cent, annually about .75 per cent, but there we must reckon with a significant immigration which the legislative measures of 1901 to 1924 failed to block.

And, what about the world Jewish population? First of all, using the demographers' scale of eighty years, and of the century, this is what Professor Salo Baron's estimate produces, facts which most surely cannot be admitted:

16th year...10 million...plus.20%...equal...12 million (+1.25% per year)

32nd year...12 million...plus.20%...equal...14.4 million (+ 1.37% per year)

48th year...14.4 million...plus.20%...equal...17.28 million (+1.51% per year)

64th year...17.28 million...plus.20%...equal...20.76 million (+1.68% per year)

80th year...20.76 million...plus.20%..equal..24.83 million (+1.86% per year)

96th year..4.83 million..plus..20%..equal..29.86 million (+2.06% per year)

Baron's figures show that, more than doubled after the 64th year, the world Jewish population would be more than tripled after the 96th year. This projection is like saying that the Jews are, if not more, at least as prolific as the Chinese, a fact which is not attested to by all their other information on the subject.

In the absence of any verified information concerning the Jews, I examined the normal annual rate of increase, which would be applicable to them, and I arrived at the following conclusions:

a. The world Jewish population is always in a state of migration.

b. Migrating populations increase proportionately less than sedentary populations.

c. A sedentary population which doubles every 80 years reaches an annual rate of about 1 per cent after the 64th year.

d. But we are concerned with the periods between 1931 and 1962, and the calculations cannot include more than 31 years, and should be 16, or 10 or 5 or 4, which means that the 1 per cent annual rate of increase, if used in the calculations, would give the Jews, migrating, a higher rate than sedentary Italians, all things being normal. However, let us retain the 1 per cent, on the principle of the benefit of the doubt.

The method of calculation: the natural growth of a population is the difference between the number of births and the number of deaths. If we are able to determine the natural increase in each of the great waves of the four important dates of Jewish immigration into Israel, it should suffice to subtract that from the Jewish population of the State of Israel in 1962, to add the number of deaths there to the result obtained, and to arrive at the actual number of immigrants for the period 1931 - 1962. In this particular case account must be taken of those who, disappointed in the venture, left again, and their number should be added. An analysis of these factors -- natural growth, immigration, mortality among immigrants, and emigration -- follows:

1.Natural growth: (10)

a. from 1931 to 1962, the 174,610 counted in Palestine in 1931, have grown by 31 % or 54,129 persons.

b. from 1947 to 1962, the 629,000 counted in 1947 have grown by 15% or 94,350 persons.

c. from 1952 to 1962, the 1,450,000 counted in 1952 have grown by 10% or 145, 000 persons.

To this must be added the natural increase of:

a. those 629,000 Jews counted in 1947 who arrived in Israel between 1931 and 1947;

b. those 1,450,000 counted in 1952, who arrived between 1947 and 1952;

c. those 2,050,000 counted in 1962 who arrived between 1952 and 1962.

Here are the results obtained from the second series of calculations, organized along the elementary rules of arithmetic:

a. from 1931 to 1947, the 174,610 Jews counted in 1931 have increased by 16% and have become: (174,610 x 116)/100 = 202,547. It follows that, with their natural increase included, the new arrivals in this period represent 629,000 minus 202,547 or 426,453, and, their natural increase itself; (426,453 x 16)/116 = 58,821.

b. from 1947 to 1952, the 629,000 Jews counted in 1947, grew by 5% and were: ( 629,000 x 105 )/100= 660,450. It follows that, with their natural increase included, the new arrivals during that period represent 1,450,000 minus 660,450 or 789,550, and their natural growth itself (789,550 x 5)/105 = 37,598.

c. from 1952 to 1962, the 1,450,000 Jews counted in 1952 increased by 10%, thus: (1,450,000 x 110 )/100 = 1,595,000. It follows that, including their natural increase, the new arrivals during this period represent 2,050,000 minus 1,595,000 or 455,000, and their natural growth itself 45 5,000 x 10)/110= 41,364.

The preceding figures give a total natural increase of 431,262.

2. Actual number of immigrants during this period (not adjusted for on the spot mortality). To obtain this number one must not only subtract this figure from the Jewish population of the State of Israel in 1962, but also the 174,610 persons counted in 1931, who are included, which gives 2,050,000 minus (431,262 plus 174,610) equal 1,444,128.(11)

3. On the spot mortality among the immigrants. Jewish sources are not very exhaustive on the death rate, and not on the birth rate either, at least to my knowledge. Concerning the latter one finds from time to time data of this sort: "The average number of children per family is 3.8" (L'Etat d'Israel, Andre Chouraqui, p. 77) which is meaningless. As for the death rate, also from time to time, some journalists now and then will give a figure: 13, 14 and sometimes as low as 10 per 1 000. Specialists of Salo Baron's caliber are fascinated by the natural rate of increase only, and they establish it on the level of the world Jewish population, not in terms of the number of births and deaths, but in terms of the representation that they wish to present to the world for the two dates, 1946 and 1962, after having first subtracted the six million exterminated. It is a rate subject to political pressures, and fluctuations, as we have seen. The Israeli Jewish population is a young population; in all migrations, it is the young who leave, and the old who remain. For example, in Buchenwald, where Jews were interned, I do not remember having encountered one who was less than 50 years old. Among the peoples of Western Europe the death rate is about 17 per 1000. That it lies between 13 and 14 in Israel is probable. But, in 1946, 1947, and 1948, there were consequences of the war which raised it a little for the whole period. So, let us say about 14 per thousand, or about 20,504. In any case, if I miscalculate it cannot be by more than a few thousand at most, and I am prepared to make corrections. Thus, with mortality included, the immigration between 1931 and 1962 totaled 1,464,632 persons.

END PART ONE out of three

| Introduction | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |

You have downloaded this document at:

http://aaargh-international.org/engl/RassArch/PRdebunk/PRdebunk141.html>

ARTICLE 19. <Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.>The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on December 10, 1948, in Paris.

---

[email protected] |

| Accueil général | Homepage English | Archive Rassinier |