Counter-Currents
1,032 words
If a criminal gang comes to power, then they will use criminal means to conduct their policies.
État Français
In May 1940 Germany invaded France and the Low Countries. Paris, the French capital, was occupied on June 14, 1940.
France was divided into a German occupation zone in the north and west, a small Italian occupation zone in the southeast, and an unoccupied zone, the zone libre (free zone), in the south.
A newly-established state, officially named État Français (French State, 1940–1944), but today popularly known as “Vichy France,” administered all three zones. Its administrative center, Vichy, was located in the zone libre. In November 1942 the Axis forces occupied the zone libre as well.
The French State, governed first by Marshal Philippe Pétain, implemented the National Revolution (Révolution nationale), aimed at regenerating the nation. In 1942 Pierre Laval assumed power.
The Soviet Embassy in Paris
One year after the occupation of Paris, on June 22, 1941, Germany invaded the USSR in Operation Barbarossa (Unternehmen Barbarossa), bringing a swift end to German-Soviet cooperation.
Days later, German police accompanied by forensic experts from Reinhard Heydrich’s SS Security Service (Sicherheitsdienst, SD) forced their way into the Soviet embassy.
The German haul included radio equipment and sophisticated explosives.
In a report to German Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop dated July 2, 1941, the SD described the scene:
There were twenty-six Soviet Russians in the building. Five of them (four men and a woman) had locked themselves into strong rooms specially shielded by heavy armourplate steel doors; they were busy destroying documents and other materials in four furnaces specially constructed and installed in there. They could not be prevented from doing this, as even using special technical gear it would still have taken hours to force the door open.
More unnervingly, investigators discovered a special wing of the embassy reserved solely for use by the Communist secret police, the NKVD (Narodnyy komissariat vnutrennikh del, People’s Commissariat of Internal Affairs, 1934–1943) and its predecessor the OGPU (Ob’edinennoe Gosudarstvennoe Politicheskoe Upravlenie, Joint State Political Directorate, 1922–1934).
Admiral Wilhelm Canaris’s military intelligence (Abwehr) agents, also on the scene, issued their own special report about the Communist outpost in France. An Abwehr department head who personally inspected the building stated:
A side wing of the embassy was equipped as a GPU base complete with instruments for torturing, executions, and the disposal of corpses [special cremation furnaces].
The completely isolated wing of the embassy in which the GPU’s offices and execution chambers were located can only be described as a criminals’ and murderers’ workshop of the most outstanding technical perfection: soundproof walls, heavy, electrically operated steel doors, hidden spy-holes and slots for guns to be fired from one room to another, an electrical furnace, and a bathtub in which corpses were cut up, completed the macabre inventory of these rooms, in addition to housebreaking implements, poison capsules and the like. Thus there is every probability that . . . many an awkward White Russian émigré or opponent of the Soviets in France vanished in this way—they literally “went up in smoke.”
Were Generals Kutepov and Miller Tortured and Murdered in the Paris Embassy?
In the 1920s and ’30s, nearly a third of the White Russian diaspora of 1.5 million (i.e., some 400,000 people) lived in France—100,000 in Paris alone.
Paris was also the headquarters of the main White Russian anti-Communist resistance organization, the ROVS (Russkii Obsche-Voyenskii Soyuz, or Russian Armed Forces Union), founded by General Pyotr Wrangel and comprised of former White officers and veterans.
The ROVS was the OGPU’s primary foreign target until the early 1930s, when Leon Trotsky assumed that role.
Two ROVS commanders, General Alexander P. Kutepov (1929–1930) and General Evgenii K. Miller (1930–1937) were kidnapped in Paris and murdered by the Communists. (The kidnap-murder of General Miller figures prominently in Russian émigré writer Vladimir Nabokov’s first English-language short story, “The Assistant Producer” [1943].)
Though the circumstances surrounding their deaths remain murky, the few historians who mention the murders generally state that both men were taken to the Soviet Union and killed. (General Kutepov is believed to have died en route.)
But why would Kutepov and Miller be transported to the Soviet Union for interrogation and execution when the Soviet embassy in Paris was well-equipped—and utilized—for such purposes?
In fact, the French Sûreté determined that Miller had been murdered inside the Soviet Embassy. However, it believed his lifeless body was then delivered in a trunk to a Soviet-bound freighter anchored at Le Havre. But the above facts about the embassy, unknown to the Sûreté, suggest that conveyance of the corpse to the USSR would have been risky and pointless.
In a 2009 interview on Jim Giles’ Radio Free Mississippi, the late federal prosecutor James F. Neal questioned an analogous theory about Teamster boss Jimmy Hoffa’s kidnapping and murder in 1975. (Neal prosecuted Hoffa.) He thought those who believed Hoffa had been transported out of state and murdered were wrong. He quoted Mafia members who said that transporting a victim out of state to kill them increases risk, so it is not done. Hoffa, Neal believed, was killed and disposed of in Michigan.
The same principle applies, perhaps, to the similar kidnap-murders of Generals Kutepov and Miller by the Communists. Possibly they were among the victims tortured and murdered in the Paris butcher chamber of the international Left.
The Soviet Embassy in Berlin
After the discovery in Paris, Hitler ordered a similar search of the embassy in Berlin. There, in the heart of “Nazi Germany,” the same setup was discovered: stocks of guns and ammunition, armored rooms, a torture chamber and associated equipment, and furnaces for cremating bodies.
In his diary, Reich Minister of Propaganda Joseph Goebbels wrote: “These Soviet embassies are in fact the refuges of criminals. If a criminal gang comes to power, then they will use criminal means to conduct their policies.”
Sources
The information about the Soviet embassies in Paris and Berlin is based upon original documents quoted by David Irving in Hitler’s War
11 comments
This is a good article, but I wish that Andrew Hamilton had made Joseph Goebbels’ point — “If a criminal gang comes to power, then they will use criminal means to conduct their policies” — more contemporary. Are not U.S. embassies also “the refuges of criminals”? One can here refer to the role of the U.S. in kidnappings (euphemistically called “renditions”), torture, assassination, and subversion (“coloured revolutions” in which the money is green). In his recent article on Savigny, Hamilton remarked:
“To cite but one example, European law and values and Jewish law and values are as different as night and day. In adopting torture, assassination, criminalization of free speech, thought, and association, genocide, and the abolition of formal restraints on tyranny, whites overnight lost half a millennium or more of slow, painful moral and legal progress.”
This comment is so brief as to constitute an aside, yet it is profoundly true, and it is also profoundly ominous. Who knows? Americans might not be that far away from the time Adolf Hitler described:
“Now begins the great last revolution. In gaining political power the Jew casts off the few cloaks that he still wears. The democratic people’s Jew becomes the blood-Jew and tyrant over peoples. In a few years he tries to exterminate the national intelligentsia and by robbing the peoples of their natural intellectual leadership makes them ripe for the slave’s lot of permanent subjugation.
“The most frightful example of this kind is offered by Russia, where he killed or starved about thirty million people with positively fanatical savagery, in part amid inhuman tortures, in order to give a gang of Jewish journalists and stock exchange bandits domination over a great people.”
None of this is “ancient history.” The “democratic people’s Jew” of today remains a “blood-Jew.” It does not matter what cloak he wears, whether it is that of a Trotskyite or a “neo-conservative,” a left-winger or a right-winger, a Democrat or a Republican. After all, Jews control the garment trade. And, as Hitler said: “His traits of character have remained the same, whether two thousand years ago as a grain dealer in Ostia, speaking Latin, or whether as a flour profiteer of today, jabbering German with a Jewish accent. It is always the same Jew.”
To clarify, I do agree with the points you make. I intended “The Other Side of Diplomacy” to be representative of the kinds of things that still go on.
In my initial draft I referenced Colin Powell lying to the United Nations about Iraq, US Ambassador April Glaspie lying to Saddam Hussein, renditions, and the Phoenix Program run out of the US Embassy in South Vietnam. However, for so short a piece it worked better to omit such extraneous references.
Whites and Jews differ radically psychologically, emotionally, and ethically. It is astonishing that most whites (including too many white racialists and nationalists) cannot see this. Jews certainly understand it. It is a psychological blind spot—a fatal one if it cannot be overcome. That’s why Irving’s tantalizing information is so important. Whites need to adopt a much darker and more realistic view of the enemy of mankind, and of their race, pronto.
As recently as c. 1930 a high American official could still exemplify this difference with respect to spycraft, asserting, “Gentlemen do not read other gentlemen’s mail.” (What could be more non-Jewish than such a belief?) Later, Henry L. Stimson was instrumental in defeating the inconceivably odious and evil Morgenthau Plan for Germany and in giving the Nuremberg Tribunal a legal sheen, which it was not originally intended to have. While well-intentioned, this backfired, setting a precedent for international show trials on the Communist model rather than establishing an evenhanded application of international law.
Well, Goebbels and his pack had all that kind of stuff too. That quote applies to him as well.
Can one beat people like this without resorting to their methods? I think not.
It is a capital issue. I am afraid that using their methods is transforming you in them. In the end there will be no Jews but Judaized men. If the Jew was gone from NKVD it doesn’t mean that their methods and ideas didn’t survive, nor their goals vanished.
If it is not a big Russian and Communist world it is a big American Capitalistic World. The methods survive along with the imperial goal. What is the Jewish role here? They still write or have written the procedure.
“It is a capital issue. I am afraid that using their methods is transforming you in them. ”
Yes that is a danger, but doing nothing or playing by your rules which your enemy does not play by, is to ensure complete and total defeat, and extinction. No one will care that we “played nice” after we cease to exist.
If we have to fight dirty to win, and we survive, we can then work on restoring our former high standards and sense of fair play. Until then, we don’t have the luxury of living in a fool’s paradise where everyone shares our values and sense of fairness.
If you are attacked by a grizzly bear, do you “play fair” and fight him with your bare hands, or do you pick up your rifle and shoot him? You can moralize on the problem after the threat has been removed; moralizing when you are in danger of being killed is suicidal.
It is knowing their methods and finding the proper antidote is one thing. Using their methods is another.
What really changed when Beria lost power. DO you really think that Primakov (much later) was a better sort?
It is you only or it is you and “the tool that you use”?
“Well, Goebbels and his pack had all that kind of stuff too. That quote applies to him as well.”
If the NSDAP state had utilized these kinds of torture chambers and incinerators in their foreign embassies, as the USSR did, that fact would have been discovered after the start of WWII when their embassies in Britain and France would have been seized (and likewise later in the USA when Germany declared war on the USA). If this had been discovered, the Allies would have trumpeted these discoveries to the world, and we would still be talking about them today, they would be in all the history books, these horrors would be lovingly shown on the History Channel, etc as examples of Nazi perfidy, terror, and lack of respect for diplomatic norms.
The fact that there is a resounding silence tells you all you need to know: whatever their other crimes, the Nazis never stooped so low as to turn their foreign embassies into torture chambers and execution centers. They couldn’t have hidden it (the USSR couldn’t hide it, but they did it anyway) because such installations can’t be destroyed in time to prevent seizure after the declaration of war.
And yet, the fact that the USSR did precisely this is never talked about. We have to find out about it on obscure websites from highly marginal, widely reviled outsider types such as our good counter currents staff.
Do you see the difference?
I am speechless…The depths of jewish perversion and organised sadism never cease to amaze me…
Imagine what they do to the Palestinians…
No one can imagine what they did in Bessarabia, Lituania, Estonia, and Letonia. There they were able to operate freely. No international media, no Arab League, no Muslim World. Only defenseless civilians at the mercy of a gang of drunkards, heavily armed and led by some Jewish Commissars.
The reality of the NS era is much more complex, nuanced, and interesting than the conventional narrative.
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.