After a long wait, the Einsatzgruppen book is finally in my hands

Published by carolyn on Sun, 2018-12-23 00:04

By Carolyn Yeager

I RECEIVED THE OTHER DAY the long-awaited book The Einsatzgruppen in the Occupied Eastern Territories by Carlo Mattogno and am eager to get into it. After first looking at the Table of Contents, I went straight to a couple of pages at the back headed “Conclusion” and was satisfied, as of the moment anyway, with the way it was presented. I will condense it for you even more here:

The mission of the Einsatzgruppen as the German Army moved into and occupied Soviet Russian territory included first and foremost the collection of important Soviet documents. Administratively, they restored the social and economic structure after the devastation of the retreating Soviets, and also were charged with identifying and controlling hostile elements in the population, ie. the partisans. Most Jews fell into that category.

The Einsatzgruppen never received an order to exterminate Jews, but Jewry was seen by National Socialists as the primary breeding ground of Bolshevism, the destruction of which was one reason for the invasion (along with the necessity to pre-empt a planned Soviet assault on Berlin -cy).

Over 40% of the killings listed in the Einsatzgruppen reports are not verifiable. The figures were inflated or even invented because as 'destroyers of Bolshevism' they were seen as heroes in Berlin.

The hypothesis of “gas vans” is an unfounded fable.

It has never been proven that the Reich planned and carried out the institutional elimination of corpses by exhumation and cremation. Such charges are a mass of absurd and contradictory testimonies.

Only a tiny fraction of the mass graves and bodies claimed by Soviet propaganda are documented and can be considered real. The photographs to document such events are insignificant compared to what is asserted.

The few individual cremation operations carried out by the Germans, as local initiatives, left obvious traces.

There is an immense disproportion between the execution figures proclaimed in the Einsatzgruppen reports and the corpses actually found.

The reports handed down can be compared to a river made up of many small rivulets in which every link could have an interest in exaggerating its figures to show efficiency. Former heads of these units spoke openly at the Einsatzgruppen Trials of such exaggerations, and it cannot be excluded that they had already received exaggerated or invented figures from subordinates.


The job of compiling, organizing and analyzing the vast amount of information contained in this book is impressive, to say the least, for which Carlo Mattogno and Germar Rudolf deserve our gratitude and admiration. It's a well-constructed thick volume (716 pages before the appendices) but easy to handle, with a better looking cover than some of the previous Holocaust Handbooks. I like the light, almost white, background with the black title outlined in white very much. The touches of green in the cover images create a pleasing aesthetic. Yes, I really like the look and feel of this book

There are 74 pages of helpful photos and maps in the appendice at the back, plus an extensive bibliography and an index. I'm going to want to read every word so it will take some time but I'm sure I will have more to say when I do.

Buy your copy here.


The Wikipedia page with the title "Gas van" has a brief section that says "gas vans" for executions were first used by the Soviet NKVD against political prisoners during the 1930s. That narrative originated from several Soviet sources, and has been repeated by various authors. Like the Katyn Massacre, which the Soviets perpetrated, and tried to falsely blame on the Germans, the "gas vans" might be another Soviet atrocity that has been falsely blamed on the Germans. 

The All-lies have continually slandered Germany in Bandenbekaempfung while whitewashing the war crimes of the bandits. What is your take on books that continue the All-Lies propaganda such as the British Phillip W. Blood's book "Hitler's Bandit Hunters"?

I am not familiar with Blood's book, so have just looked it up. I could not read such a book for I refuse to abuse myself with delberate attempts to portray the Germans as murderers and the Jews & Slavs as victims. So my take is to ignore such books.

I have evolved to the belief that no historical account of WWI or II by a British writer is fair to Germany -- and that includes David Irving, who so many Germans pathetically see almost as a savior.

I believe that only a German can understand Adolf Hitler and other National Socialists, and the way they deeply wanted to lift up and save Germany, which they had every right to do. Not that every German does understand that, though, because they've been so brainwashed and bullied--beyond anything previously seen in history.

The All-Lies (who welcomed Jewry into their ranks) have so poisoned the image of Germans who stand up for themselves, and will not let up, that the unfair distortions of war that usually fade away following the end of a conflict have not done so in this case. Books like this are meant to keep it alive.

The false idea that Germans want to "take over the world" and abuse everyone else is still firmly entrenched in the public mind. It comes, imo, from the awareness of the superiority of Germans in the economic field (every field actually), our intelligence, efficiency and productivity. This results in hyphenated Germans (especially) avoiding being #1, taking on a personality of subservience, utter harmlessness, supporting others and playing down that they are German or even care about such things.

What's been done to the German nation is nothing less than outrageously EVIL, and it stems from the envy and fear of those who do not want to compete but prefer a GLOBALIST ONE WORLD where they can't fail. This may sound too simplistic but I think it is God's truth. Hitler taught us that Nature loves and relies on competition.

The word Bandenbekaempfung translates as "gang warfare." Very apt; it's hard to defeat a multiple enemy coming from all sides. That's why so many Germans gave up following WWII and all the suffering, humilation, loss of control etc. that pounded down on them. So the farce continues. Portraying a nationalist Germany as a perennial threat to Europe, rather than the victim of Europe, is the crowning EVIL accomplishment of our times.

NOTE: I announced a number of years ago that I wouldn't accept "annonymous" as a name on comments. Please pick a name, any name that is not used regularly by someone else, but not annonymous. That goes for the first comment too. Thanks.

OK. Rudolf Adolf it is then. I look forward to your in-depth review of Einsatzgruppen. Merry Christmas to all!

There is a strange contradiction between the image of the always honest Nazis, in which you seem to believe, and the Einsatzgruppen who would have systematically exaggerated their "achievements" in the East. Suddenly those noble heroes were all liars. Or did they "lie about lying" to save their skin?

One could compare any exaggerations by the Germans on the Eastern Front to those by the Americans in the Vietnam War. See 'Vietnam War Body Count Controversy'. 
The American military in the Vietnam War may have stretched the truth a bit. That isn't to say that 1) Americans weren't right in their characterisation of communism and 2) Americans hadn't created a high-trust society in which truth in everyday dealings (especially business dealings) preponderates over untruth. (If they hadn't created such a society, millions of people wouldn't have emigrated there after the 1965 Hart-Cellar Act had been passed). 
Substitute 'German' for 'American' and you get Carolyn's point, I think. But then, you know this. 
By the way, your heroes the Soviets - those noble, plucky Slavs and Mongols standing up to German tyranny - lied and exaggerated regarding enemy casualties in WWII and downplayed their own to an enormous extent. See John Mosier's Deathride (2010):

Deathride argues that the Soviet losses in World War II were unsustainable and would eventually have led to defeat. The Soviet Union had only twice the population of Germany at the time, but it was suffering a casualty rate more than two and a half times the German rate. Because Stalin had a notorious habit of imprisoning or killing anyone who brought him bad news (and often their families as well), Soviet battlefield reports were fantasies, and the battle plans Soviet generals developed seldom responded to actual circumstances. In this respect the Soviets waged war as they did everything else: through propaganda rather than actual achievement.

But Russia then, as it is today, is a low-trust society.

Franklin - Besides what David said, I want to add that I think you prejudice the debate right from the start by using the term "Nazis," which I did not use. You created a straw man in saying that I believe all "Nazis" were always honest, when this is not something I would ever assert, nor have I. The top National Socialists were basically honest, certainly far more than their counterparts among the warring nations.

I do not know how much the Einsatzgruppen members lied in exaggerating numbers and neither do you until we both read the available documents Mattogno had to work with. Are you going to read this book or continue to rely on Wikipedia?

P.S. to Franklin - My next post might include some very instructive examples of not only lies but vicious behavior of Dutch people against German soldiers in 1914 -- specifically the Flemish community in Belgium. Really shocking stuff! The majority of Dutch are hopeless Anglophiles. Can you explain why?

I have read some articles by Carlo Mattogno on the CODOH website and he made an honest and competent impression on me, but I doubt I will ever read his very thick book on the Einsatzgruppen. I will however read with interest your review of his book.
The Flemish are not Dutch, but Dutch speaking Belgians, so their misbehavior in 1914 does not reflect on us. The Netherlands were neutral in WW I and we hoped that would also be the case in WW II, but in his infinite wisdom the Fuehrer decided otherwise.
I am not aware of the Dutch being "hopeless Anglophiles". Fact is we are a small nation surrounded by bigger ones. We have to learn English, French and German in middle school, but none of those nations learns our language. So the Dutch suffer from a kind of "cultural inferiority complex", and that shows in an exaggerated admiration for the culture of our bigger neighbors. Since English with popular American culture is dominant in the world, so it is also in our country.

“… I doubt I will ever read [Carlo Mattogno's] very thick book on the Einsatzgruppen.”

Then you are derelict in your responsibility, because your denunciation of National Socialist Germany centers mainly on what the Einsatzgruppen are accused of doing in the former Poland and Soviet Union. You have no right to express an opinion of these matters when you refuse to read such an important contribution to the subject as this volume. You can read it free here.

I've always said that the extent of your knowledge about the Third Reich comes from Wikipedia and now you're admitting your unwillingness to read anything that is not easy and short. You're not interested in the truth but only in finding some argument, however flimsy, against what someone like me writes. You are a frequenter of website posts and comment boards; I don't know of anything original you have written.

The Dutch history you received in school has got to be faulty – presenting The Netherlands in a glowing light of neutrality and victimization. The Dutch themselves carried out vicious 'retribution' both during and after the 2nd War, very similar to what their cousins the Flemish had done in WWI. I refer you to this article here on my website.

And since the Dutch are so closely related to Germans, is it normal in your mind for them to have “an exaggerated admiration for the culture” of the English (and English-speaking America) just because they are “dominant in the world?” I would say it is a purely materialistic self-interest and an affinity for the Judaization and materialism of those two countries. Holland is another country that was captured by the Jews. And you reflect that.

Thank you for the link to the Einsatzgruppen book! May the Truth set us free. Free Prussia, free Silesia, free Pomerania. In my heart...

Maybe the Dutch anlophilia goes back to the Jewish backed William of Orange coming to Britain from Holland, being made King and then giving the rights to the Bank of England to the Jews who backed him?

I read the conclusion of Carlo Mattogno's 831 pages long book, in which I found following passage :
"...The Einsatzgruppen never received an order to exterminate the Jews as such, and the execution of Jews they perpetrated did not have a racial character ; Jewry was rather considered a fertile breeding ground of Bolshevism, which was the primary enemy of the National Socialist regime, and as such the Jews were ruthlessly combatted in pursuance of that view..."
Killing partisans in time of war can be considered a legitimate act of war, but killing a whole ethnic group because some of them MIGHT BE partisans, I consider to be a war crime. That would be like killing all Muslims because some of them MIGHT BE terrorists.
As for the unjust persecutions of Dutch collaborators after the war, I don't condone that.
Like in any other Western country, Dutch culture is under influence of popular culture from America, which is at present the major source of cultural "Judaization".

You read the conclusion in which Carlo Mattogno DID NOT say or imply that the National Socialists “killed a whole ethnic group because some of them MIGHT BE partisans.”

He did not say that, did he? Then why do you imply that he did? Carlo Mattogno said 728,000 killings are listed in the Einsatzgruppen reports, and he estimates 40% are fake. That leaves 436,000 which, even if true, is a far cry from the 'entire Jewish ethnic group,' of which the number in the Soviet Union in 1941 is not even known. See if you can find it. I guess you, Franklin, subscribe to the notion that the 'gruppen shot every Jew in a village if some had committed sabotage and atrocities against the German army, but this is not what you've read in Mattogno, as of now.

This: “Killing partisans in time of war can be considered a legitimate act of war” is the right thing to say. Are you willing to dwell on the kinds of things these Jewish partisans did to the Germans they captured? Getting a quick bullet is a lucky fate compared to the things your precious Jews did … for which you exhibit no sympathy to Germans whatsoever.

And do not compare killing “all” Muslims over a few terror attacks with the kind of terror the Wehrmacht endured in SU. You don't read about it because you don't want to know.

As for the unjust persecutions of Dutch collaborators after the war, I don't condone that.”

Oh, big of you. But you condone the society that approved of it and did it. And you judge German society and Adolf Hitler for brutality, but never mention what his enemies did. You're totally hypocritical. To blame the faults of Dutch society on American judaization, not Europe's, makes you definitely irrational. Wouter Kok calls your common country “Horrible Holland” and has other choice words for the Dutch mentality.

I did not mean to say that the Einsatzgruppen committed systematic genocide of Jews in Russia, I meant to say that they killed Jews where ever they found them, because they suspected them to sympathize with communism and the partisans. That I consider a warcrime. Killing active partisans is a legitimate act of war. Killing POSSIBLE SYMPATHIZERS of partisans is not. That is what I read in this passage of Carlo Mattogno's conclusion : "...Jewry was rather considered a fertile breeding ground of Bolshevism, which was the primary enemy of the National Socialist rwegime, and as such the Jews were ruthlessly combatted in persuance of that view..." Notice he doesn't say "JEWISH PARTISANS were ruthlessly combatted", he says "JEWS were ruthlessly combatted".
It is like the Americans during the Vietnam war bombing a whole village because SOME of the villagers MIGHT BE Viet Cong. Clearly a war crime.

The subject of this debate is the actions of the Einsatzgruppen in Russia, not the crimes of the Allies or of European colonial powers (which I don't deny). It is not "hypocritical" to stick to the subject of the debate. I still think that the comparison of the actions of the German Einsatzgruppen in Russia with the actions of the Americans in Vietnam is an apt one. Both killed civilians "suspected" of sympathizing (or enabling) partisans, and that is a war crime in my book.

Who committed war crimes for which they should be punished? If you agree the Allies of WW2 committed war crimes and the European colonial powers (certainly including The Netherlands) committed crimes... then why aren't you calling for them to be punished? Why come on this site and attack Germans fighting for their lives against Bolshevism, while your favored Europeans are never held accountable by you. ("I don't deny" is all you will say.) You are truly an outrageous hypocrite.

"I meant to say that [the EZG] killed Jews where ever they found them, because they suspected them to sympathize with communism and the partisans"

And Franklin takes that from Carlo Mattogno writing in his Conclusion:

"Jewry was rather considered a fertile breeding ground of Bolshevism, which was the primary enemy of the National Socialist regime, and as such the Jews were ruthlessly combatted in pursuance of that view."

Does this say or even mean that "all Jews were killed?" No, Mattogno says that Jews were ruthlessly combatted because they were a breeding ground of Bolshevism. "Ruthlessly combatted" can mean many things. Your interpretation of what Mattogno meant is not worth any more than someone else's interpretation. Interpretations don't cut it - we need actual language, not special interpretations of language. The Holohoax you say you are not a believer in was created almost solely out of "interpretations" of common, everyday language.

Furthermore, the difference between "active partisans" and "sympathizers of partisans" is not great, or maybe not even real. In a war zone like that, how do you know?? Those you call "sympathizers" would in reality be "ENABLERS of active partisans." Otherwise they would inform the German Army of the danger.

Since you believe the Americans in Vietnam committed war crimes, then you must also believe all the Allies during WWII committed war crimes, why do you only go after Hitler's National Socialist regime and leave the rest alone? Because your country was allied with them? The Dutch also committed many human rights crimes in their colonies against truly harmless people (which these Jews weren't), but you never complain about it. You say, "I don't condone it," and that is all. How about just saying you don't personally condone what the NS Germans did to the Jews and leave it at that?

You are a hypocrite. Can you deny that?

Excerpt from this book:
The true politico-ideological nature of the Allied military trials was admirablysummarized by Maurice Bardèche (Bardèche, pp. 17-19):“The true basis for the Nuremberg Trial, the one which no one has ever dared topoint out, is, I suspect, not fear: it is the spectacle of the ruins, it is the panic ofthe victors. It is necessary that the others be in the wrong. It is necessary, for if,by chance, they had not been monsters, how would the victors bear the weight ofall those destroyed cities, and those thousands of phosphorus bombs? It is thehorror, it is the despair of the victors which is the true motive for the trial. Theyhave veiled their faces before what they were forced to do and, to give themselvescourage, they transformed their massacres into a crusade. They invented a posteriori a right to massacre in the name of respect for humanity. Being killers, they promoted themselves to policemen. […]
To excuse the crimes committed in conducting the war, it was absolutely necessary to discover some even more serious ones on the other side. It was absolutelynecessary that the English and American bombers appeared like the sword of theLord. The Allies did not have a choice. If they did not solemnly affirm, if they didnot prove by any means whatever that they had been the saviors of humanity, theywere nothing more than murderers. If, one day, men ceased believing in the German monstrosity, would they not demand an accounting for the devastated cities?">
Very sad ...

The Bardesche book, "Nuremberg or the Promised Land", can be read in full here.

Also, it is more than sad, George, it is criminal, cowardly and should be exposed everywhere. Take no prisoners. It's time.

And this is something that the Franklin Ryckaert types who pretend to be 'Holocaust' revisionists really just stick their toe into. Hold them accountable too.

An another excerpt from this book:
But even the number of defendants – and consequently the related selection from among all the former members of the Einsatzgruppen at the Allies’ disposal – depended upon purely contingent factors, which have nothing to do with the requirements of justice (Hofmann, p. 120):
“The total number of mass killers to be tried depended upon finances and furniture. No Nuremberg tribunal could try more than 24 defendants in the same trial.The reason was that there were only 24 seats in the dock. Historians may not believe it, but it’s true.”
I am speechless ...

Yuletide Greeting Carolyn,
I'm sure you have heard this before but your readers may not have. It is a recording of the singing of  'Stille Nacht' by officers of the Wehrmacht on various battle fronts, east and west, pre-Christmas 1942. The areas mentioned included Lapland, Leningrad, and more poignantly Stalingrad. The quality of the recording, despite its age and the circumstances under which it was made, is quite good. Apparently, it is censored on Youtube and by the usual suspects for the usual reasons. As the presenter says, 'it shows Germans as decent human beings.'
I'm also intrigued by some of your unfavourable comments on David Irving. I have several of his books and have heard him speak on occasions. Undoubtedly, he is a man with a narcissistic component to his nature and is ambivalent on the 'Holocaust,' however, I cannot think of another historian in the English-speaking world who has done more in giving a German perspective of WW2  and in doing so exposing the fabrications, distortions, untruths, and downright lies of the All-lied narrative of the conflict. I found his discourse on Winston Chuchill particularly damning of the man.
It will be interesting reading your distillation of the book on the Eisatzgruppen. We know the 'official' version but it is very much a grey area. Returning to David Irving, I know he takes his figures on their activities from the code-breaking intercepts at Bletchley Park, albeit with the caveat that they could well be exaggerated. I mean Arthur Nebe was one of the unit commanders.
I wish you good health and happiness for the coming year.

I played this recording on a Christmas in the Third Reich program created by Margaret Huffstickler for The Heretics Hour in 2014. Starting point is at 1h18m26s and it runs til 1h28m. Part of that is Margaret and I talking about it.

It's incredible that it cannot be found on Youtube any longer, plus it doesn't come up in a search at all! That really says something ... something very bad!

Your recording quality is probably better than mine was. I should have reposted this Heretics Hour program for this Christmas, and every Christmas!, but I didn't even think of it. I'm always totally into my current project. I should consider reposting some "Oldies but Goodies" again. So thanks for bringing this to my attention.

I didn't say anything "unfavorable" about David Irving in my comment above to Anonymous, only that so many Germans, in their state of weakness and fear, make too much of him simply because he is British and not German! He knows he has the Germans as putty in his hands, and his bank account.

You are clearly British and no matter how much you might be a Third Reich supporter, you look at everything through British eyes. David Irving can expose all he wants to make his reputation (and his best work is on Churchill, not on Hitler, which backs me up) but he doesn't go far enough. He stops short of what's necessary, and thus he is almost like a gatekeeper of sorts. And he's gotten worse as he's gotten older. Right now he's like a prostitute who teases but doesn't deliver. Isn't that right?  The British historian who can sincerely take the German side is Nick Kollerstrom. His last name sounds Germanic to me.

I said in the post above that I would have more to say after I read the book. Now the comments have me practically writing a dissertation on it. Don't hold your breath, as I haven't even started reading it yet because I am still caught up in WWI and Viereck's weekly newspaper devoted to it. Getting into more depth about these knotty historical subjects rather than just skimming the surface takes time, plus I'm no genius, I work alone and I'm slow. It does appear, though, that there is far more interest in The Einsatzgruppen than there is the defense of Germany's honor in WWI.

I appreciate your comment and wish you and your team a great coming year in return.

All of us looking at the 'Third Reich' from the distance of time are no more than dissectologists trying to piece together a large and difficult jigsaw puzzle with some of the pieces missing. Occasionally a missing piece is found and inserted, and the picture begins to take form.
Whether I am a Brit, an American,or even a German is an irrelevancy today. What is relevant is that we have all been lied to and continue to be lied to. But once the lie is uncovered there is no going back to former positions.
One of your commenters mentioned the British and American terror bombing campaign of German cities. I was going to finish with a comment by Victor Gregg, a British POW in Dresden at the the time of the inferno, and his comment on Churchill 'The man should have been hanged for what he did that day.' Oddly when I searched for it again on the internet I couldn't find it. Another casualty of the ongoing propaganda war it would appear.

Whether I am a Brit, an American, or even a German is an irrelevancy today.”

Said like a White Nationalist and the reason I do not include myself in that group today. I do not agree with that statement.

It is no big deal what Victor Gregg said back then. What's important is that statues of Churchill remain all over London and elsewhere throughout the entire British Commonwealth, and no one is calling for them to be taken down.

The book "Dresden A Survivor's Story" by Victor Gregg still can be found on Amazon

Years ago I sat through the entirety of 'Shoah' and I well remember the testimony of an old Jewess who had served as a partisan guerrilla in Poland. She described bombings, ambushes, and sabotage from which the Jews would always slip away back into the forest. I remember her smile when she added, "The Germans would round up and kill hundreds of Poles in reprisal."

But remember, the film was "Shoah" by the Jewish liar Claude Lanzmann. So nothing is what it purports to be. And they love to make the German soldiers appear stupid.

Pro Whites like myself get "Moderated" or outright "Banned" from almost every website that exists on the blogosphere.  So why does the loser/lowlife FRANKLIN get any platform on a Pro-White site that doesn't "sensor".  It really pisses me off.  Hey Franklin.......if there is a hell, I hope you go there.  Sorry.....just needed to vent.  

I'm glad you did, Roy.

If this site would be truly "pro-White" it would respect the equal rights of Slavic peoples, but it doesn't. This site is "pro-National Socialist" and that means that it condones Hitler's anti-Slavic policies, which I criticize. Besides, I am of the opinion that every kind of identity politics should be based on moral principles, and I miss that among NS enthusiasts.

Franklin, you are really in the wrong place to keep repeating the same things. If you were to do the intelligent thing and read my ABOUT section, you would see that this site is devoted to historical and holocaust revisionism from my own German point of view. If Polish and Slavic interests (not facts) are contrary to what I find and believe to be true about German history, you cannot expect me to give Slavs and Poles "equal rights" here. What do you mean by "equal rights" anyway? To give them the benefit of the doubt even when they cannot back up a single thing they say up with facts? That would be a pro-White policy that can't and doesn't work in the interests of Whites.

Truth, not equality based on "moral principles," is what I'm interested in. Besides, your hypocracy is still on display since your big interest in defending Slavs is based solely on your fanatical  desire to blame Adolf Hitler for all their self-induced suffering. Your hatred of Hitler is so intense, you should join up with Daniel S. at Majority Rights where you would be right at home. Why don't you?

Add new comment