"It's ironic that the German uranium intended for the Japanese, was ultimately delivered by the Americans." - John Lansdale Jr.

By Arend Lammertink.

Abstract

For years now, revisionist authors have argued that there is something very wrong with the generally accepted historiography about the complex of factories and concentration camps known as Auschwitz. The debate so far has handled mostly about the question of whether or not it is true that the Germans systematically exterminated large numbers of people in gas chambers. For some reason, the remarkable fact that the supposed "Buna" plant within the complex produced absolutely nothing yet consumed more electricity than the entire city of Berlin thus far almost completely escaped attention. As it turns out, this is just one of the reasons to believe that this plant actually was an Uranium enrichment facility. An Uranium enrichment facility without which there would have been no A-bombing of neither Hiroshima nor Nagasaki.

Needless to say, if this were true and was to become widespread knowledge, it would have a significant impact on global politics, which thus would give us a motive for the relentless suppression of revisionists and their theses all over the Western world.

Introduction

While a lot of literature is available on the question of whether or not the Germans systematically exterminated large numbers of people in the gas chambers at Auschwitz, hardly any literature is available on what the actual purpose of the complex was, if it was not primarily an extermination camp.

The answer to that question not only shines new light on the beginning of the Atomic Age, it also explains why there is a geopolitical motive to suppress the truth about what happened at Auschwitz. At the end of the line, this suppression goes so far that a professional chemist, who wrote a report about the forensic research he conducted at the site, ended up behind bars in Germany.

So, apparently what happened at Auschwitz is important, very important. Germar Rudolf, the mentioned chemist, put it this way:

If the Holocaust were unimportant, we wouldn’t have around 20 countries on this planet outlawing its critical investigation. In fact, this is the only historical topic that is regulated by penal law. This is proof for the fact that the powers that be consider this topic to be the most important issue to keep under their strict control. Those censoring, suppressing powers are the real criminals — not the historical dissidents they send to prison.

I don't think many people in Europe will disagree that it is important to fight racism and the spreading of hatred. In The Netherlands, where I live, this is regulated by law, which is very reasonable. In practice, such a general formulation of the law has been used successfully to prosecute a number of "holocaust deniers" in The Netherlands (see for example: [1] and [2]), which were given mild sentences in comparison to other countries.

If anything, these sentences make clear that there is absolutely no reason to explicitly make "holocaust denial" as such punishable by law, while doing so makes it next to impossible to perform independent scientific research on this important historic subject. Especially in Germany, where one cannot even defend one's position on the subject with factual data, it is clear that the German law goes way to far, whereby the sentencing of Germar Rudolf is perhaps the most illustrative example of how well intended laws can go terribly wrong.

The story of Germar Rudolf is told in the following documentary, along with the story of Ernst Zündel and Bradley R. Smith, made by David Cole in 2007. Rudolf ended up behind bars after publishing his "Expert Report on Chemical and Technical Aspects of the “Gas Chambers” of Auschwitz":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwentslVpXw

So far, it is clear that engaging in this debate from a historic and scientific perspective, even in The Netherlands, is not without risks. Yet, as law-abiding and freedom loving citizen, we have a moral obligation to speak out against the prosecution of people who are merely doing their job. We cannot allow science and history to be distorted because of geopolitical interests, which is clearly the case here as we are talking about the history of the Atomic weapons of mass destruction which killed at least 129,000 people in August, 1945.

Howard Zinn, who was a political science professor at Boston University, said this about our democratic responsibility to say what we want to say, especially when we deal with "deception of the public by the government in times of war":

We have a responsibility to speak out, to speak our minds, especially now, and no matter what they say and how they cry for unity and supporting the president and getting in line. We have a democratic responsibility as citizens to speak out and say what we want to say.

One of the other things we need to do is to take a look at history, because history may be useful in helping us understand what is going on. The president isn't giving us history and the media aren't giving us history. They never do. Here we have this incredibly complex technologically developed media, but you don't get the history that you need to understand what is going on today. There is one kind of history that they will give you, because history can not only be used for good purposes, but history can be abused.

History can't give you definitive and positive answers to the issues that come up today, but it can suggest things. It can suggest skepticism about certain things. It can suggest probabilities and possibilities. There are some things you can learn from historical experience. One thing you can learn is that there is a long history of deception of the public by the government in times of war, or just before war, or to get us into war, going back to the Mexican war, when Polk lied to the nation about what was happening on the boarder between the Oasis River and the Rio Grande River.

[...]

[O]f all the things I'm going to tell you, remember two words. Governments lie. It's a good starting point.

I'm not saying governments always lie, no they don't always lie. But it's a good idea to start off with the assumption that governments lie, and therefore whatever they say, especially when it comes to matters of war and foreign policy. Because when it's a matter of domestic policy, there are things that you may be able to check up on, because its here and in this country, but something happening very far away, people don't know very much about foreign policy. We depend on them because they're supposed to know. They have the experts.

With this in mind, let's take a look at David Cole, who made an extraordinary documentary about Auschwitz and addressed all of the issues which should have been openly and honestly debated, instead of having been suppressed for geopolitical reasons. Perhaps the most significant part of this documentary is Cole's interview with Dr Franciszek Piper, "a Polish scholar, historian and author. Most of his work concerns the Holocaust, especially the history of the Auschwitz concentration camp".

Cole managed to get Dr. Piper on tape, explaining that the alleged "gas chamber" in Auschwitz, which was said by Cole's tourist guide to be "all original", actually is a postwar reconstruction by the Soviets. This part starts at 35:50. I would suggest to use your own judgment and decide for yourself whether or not this documentary should be regarded as "historic review" or as "holocaust denial":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQjNs-Ght8s

According to the transcript, these are Dr. Piper's exact words:

So after the liberation of the camp, the former gas chamber presented a view of [an] air [raid] shelter. In order to gain an earlier view ...earlier sight...of this object, the inside walls built in 1944 were removed and the openings in the ceiling were made anew.

So now this gas chamber is very similar to this one which existed in 1941-1942, but not all details were made so there is no gas-tight doors, for instance, [and the] additional entrance from the east side rested [remained] as it was made in 1944. Such changes were made after the war in order to gain [the] earlier view of this object.

This historic documentary was made over 20 years ago and today it is just as explosive as it was when it first came out. Recently, David Cole gave a 2.5 hour long radio interview about his experiences and his current view on the subject.

After this short introduction to what this debate has mostly been about, the analysis of the alleged "gas chambers" in Auschwitz and it's importance in even present day geopolitics, we now continue with the main topic of this article, namely that because the IG Farben plant actually was a Uranium enrichment plant, people like Germar Rudolf are to be considered as having been political prisoners in modern-day Europe, a clear violation of internationally recognized Human Rights.

Hitler's Atomic Program

For decades, few people questioned whether or not Nazi Germany came close to producing an Atomic Bomb, let alone testing one. Yet, the latter is exactly what has been suggested in 2005 by Rainer Karlsch in his book "Hitler's Bomb". Based on eyewitness accounts, he brings forth that in 1944 on the Baltic island of Rügen and in the spring of 1945 in Thuringia atomic bombs were tested. Also, a 1943 OSS report refers to a series of nuclear tests in the Schwabian Alps near Bisingen in July 1943. And measurements are said to have been carried out at the test site that found radioactive isotopes. Daniel W. Michaels' review of Karlsch book reads:

Although the title of his book, Hitler's Bomb, suggests more than the author could actually deliver, Karlsch defines the main thesis of his book much more soberly. He states very clearly that German scientists did not develop a nuclear device at all comparable to the American or Soviet hydrogen bombs of the 1950s. However, they knew in general terms how they functioned and were in a position to excite an initial nuclear reaction by means of their perfected hollow-charge technology. Only further research will determine whether their experiment represented fusion or fission reactions, or both.

Then in 2011, accordingly, "shock waves" were sent "through historians who thought that the German atomic programme was nowhere near advanced enough in WW2 to have produced nuclear waste in any quantities":

German nuclear experts believe they have found nuclear waste from Hitler's secret atom bomb programme in a crumbling mine near Hanover.

More than 126,000 barrels of nuclear material lie rotting over 2,000 feet below ground in an old salt mine.

[...]

Mark Walker, a US expert on the Nazi programme said: 'Because we still don't know about these projects, which remain cloaked in WW2 secrecy, it isn't safe to say the Nazis fell short of enriching enough uranium for a bomb. Some documents remain top secret to this day'.

'Claims that a nuclear weapon was tested at Ruegen in October 1944 and again at Ohrdruf in March 1945 leave open a question, did they or didn't they?'

Dr. Joseph Farrell, author of "Reich of the Black Sun", commented on this article on his blog, mentioning that the Nazi atom bomb tests have begun to be researched and discussed in Germany, continuing with:

This was supplemented by Carter Hydrick's wonderful study Critical Mass, a study that in my opinion was so good that it had to be trashed by reviewers (which it was), because the story it contained was so stupendous. According to Hydrick, the Nazi nuclear program involved, at the minimum, a huge uranium enrichment program, and that program was probably successful to the point that the Nazis had enriched, to varying degrees of purity, uranium 235, and some of it was probably of fissile-weapons grade quality.

Also, he makes the point that the discovery of this nuclear waste is very significant, because it confirms Hydrick's argument, "namely, that the Nazi program was not the haphazard, hit-and-miss, poorly coordinated laboratory affair that got no further than a few clumsy attempts by Heisenberg to build a reactor, but rather, its enrichment program was a huge concern, highly organized, and processing isotopes to a degree similar to, if not exceeding, the Manhattan project in its sheer size."

Manhattan, we have a problem!

A study of the shipment of (bomb-grade uranium) for the past three months shows the following...: At the present rate we will have 10 kilos about February 7 and 15 kilos about May 1.

This small excerpt from a memo written by chief Los Alamos metallurgist Eric Jette, December 28, 1944[I] reveals that the Manhattan project had a serious problem. You see, the uranium bomb "Little Boy", which was dropped on Hiroshima, would have required 50 kilos by the end of July, 1945, more than twice the amount the Manhattan project would have been able to produce themselves according to this memo.

This raises the question: "How did they solve this problem?"

In order to answer this question, we would need to know what the bottleneck in the Oak Ridge production rate was. This could be either a supply problem of raw uranium for the plant, or a problem with the production capacity of the plant itself. If raw material were the biggest problem, additional material could have come from multiple (mining) sources, including Nazi Germany. In fact, the Alsos Mission did just that.

However, if the biggest problem was the production capacity of the plant itself, then they must have gotten additional supply of enriched uranium from some external source, be it in metallic or oxide form. And that could have come from only one source: Nazi Germany.

U-235 on the U-234?

On May 14th, 1945, the German submarine U-234 surrendered to the USS Sutton, along with her precious cargo which was intended to be shipped to Japan:

The cargo included technical drawings, examples of the newest electric torpedoes, one crated Me 262 jet aircraft, a Henschel Hs 293 glide bomb and what was later listed on the US Unloading Manifest as 1,200 pounds (540 kg) of uranium oxide. In the 1997 book Hirschfeld, Wolfgang Hirschfeld reported that he saw about 50 lead cubes with 23 centimetres (9.1 in) sides, and "U-235" painted on each, loaded into the boat's cylindrical mine shafts. According to cable messages sent from the dockyard, these containers held "U-powder".

[...]

The fact that the ship carried .5 short tons (0.45 t) of uranium oxide remained classified for the duration of the Cold War. Author and historian Joseph M. Scalia claimed to have found a formerly secret cable at Portsmouth Navy Yard which stated that the uranium oxide had been stored in gold-lined cylinders rather than cubes as reported by Hirschfeld; the alleged document is discussed in Scalia's book Hitler's Terror Weapons. The exact characteristics of the uranium remain unknown.

There is little doubt that this uranium oxide was shipped to the Manhattan project, as reported by the NY Times, quoting Mr. John Lansdale Jr.:

Historians have quietly puzzled over that uranium shipment for years, wondering, among other things, what the American military did with it. Little headway was made because of Federal secrecy. Now, however, a former official of the Manhattan Project, John Lansdale Jr., says that the uranium went into the mix of raw materials used for making the world's first atom bombs. At the time he was an Army lieutenant colonel for intelligence and security for the atom bomb project. One of his main jobs was tracking uranium.

Mr. Lansdale's assertion in an interview raises the possibility that the American weapons that leveled the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki contained at least some nuclear material originally destined for Japan's own atomic program and, perhaps, for attacks on the United States.

If confirmed, that twist of history could add a layer to the already complex debate over whether the United States had any moral justification for using its atom bombs against Japan.*

[...]

Mr. Lansdale, the former official of the Manhattan Project, displayed no doubts in the interview about the fate of the U-234's shipment. "It went to the Manhattan District," he said without hesitation. "It certainly went into the Manhattan District supply of uranium."

Mr. Lansdale added that he remembered no details of the uranium's destination in the sprawling bomb-making complex and had no opinion on whether it helped make up the material for the first atomic bomb used in war.

In the documentary "U-234-Hitler's Last U-Boat" (2001), a few years later, Mr Lansdale did have an opinion:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xw60hyA0DSw

(48:30) "I made arrangements for my staff to retrieve and test the material. I sent trucks to Porthsmouth to unload the uranium and then I sent it to Washington. After the uranium was inspected in Washington, it was sent to Oak Ridge."

(51:16) "It's ironic that the German uranium intended for the Japanese, was ultimately delivered by the Americans."

(54:12) "The submarine was a God send, because it came at the right time and the right place."

In the same documentary, Hans Bethe, former head of the Theoretical Division at the secret Los Alamos laboratory which developed the US atomic bombs, implicitly gives an estimate of the production capacity of the Oak Ridge plant, together with another person being interviewed:

(49:25) Bethe: "If you have 560 kg of uranium, it would have taken approximately a week in 1945 to separate it into weapons uranium."

(50:27) Unknown: "500 kg of raw uranium might result in half a kg of uranium 235. Not enough to make a bomb with, but an important increment."

Based on this, we can estimate that the production capacity of the Oak Ridge facility was approximately half a kg per week. We can compare this with the data in Jette's memo, about 5 kg in the 12 weeks between February 7th and May 1st, which would mean an average production of about 0.42 kg per week, a pretty good match.

However, contrary to the above quote, the Wikipedia article on the U-234 states that the 560 kg of uranium oxide would have yielded about 3.5 kg of U-235 "after processing", with a reference to the book "American Raiders" by Samuel Wolfgang. On it's turn, this refers to "Hitler's U-boat war: the Hunted" by Clay Blair, wherein the uranium oxide is listed as "1,232 pounds of uranium ore". After mentioning Karl Pfaff's (German Sailor) assistance in unloading the "boxes of uranium-oxide ore" from the submarine (also see: [3]), it states:

Scientists say this uranium ore would have yielded about 3.5 kilograms (7.7 pounds) of isotope U-235 (not a U-boat), about one-fifth of what was needed to make an atomic bomb.

Actually, the critical mass for an uranium-235 bomb is about 50 kg, but it depends on the grade: with 20% U-235 it is over 400 kg; with 15% U-235, it is well over 600 kg. So, 3.5 kilograms would be at most one-fifteenth (7%) of what was needed. The actual bomb dropped on Hiroshima used 64 kilograms of 80% enriched uranium, which in practice comprised almost 2.5 critical masses, because the fissile core was wrapped in a neutron reflector which allows a weapon design requiring less uranium.

Because U-235 constitutes about 0.711% by weight of natural uranium, 560 kg of raw uranium would result in about 3.98 kg of U-235. However, we are talking about 560 kg of uranium oxide and not pure uranium, so we have to correct for the amount of oxygen in the material in order to calculate how much uranium 235 this would yield.

If we assume the oxide to be uranium-dioxide (UO2), then we would have to take about 88% (238/(238+2*16)) of the 3.98 kg in order to correct for the oxygen, which would result in about 3.51 kg of U-235.

We can also assume the oxide to be so-called "Yellowcake", a type of uranium powder as it would be after processing mining ore, but before enrichment. Yellowcake contains about 80% uranium oxide, of which typically 70 to 90 percent triuranium octoxide (U3O8). In that case, we have to correct by about 85% for the oxygen on top of the 80% for 20% impurities, which would result in about 2.70 kg of U-235.

Both of these numbers are significantly higher than the half a kg mentioned in the U-boat documentary, which is rather remarkable. And this is also where this story becomes intriguing, because what we see is that there are discrepancies between what is being told to the public and the hard, factual data that should corroborate with it.

Enter "Critical Mass - The Real Story of the Birth of the Atomic Bomb and the Nuclear Age" by Carter P. Hydrick, who argues that there is a lot more to this story than meets the eye, which can be found in the records of the Manhattan project:

As far as I can tell, I was the first to review the actual uranium enrichment production records, the shipping and receiving records of materials sent from Oak Ridge to Los Alamos, the metallurgical fabrication records of the making of the bombs themselves, and the records and testimony regarding failure to develop a viable triggering device for the plutonium bomb.

[...]

The critical daily production records of Oak Ridge and elsewhere have been all but ignored, though they reveal important information not previously considered in other histories, and although they tell a different story than that presently believed.

[...]

The new-found evidence taken en mass demonstrates that, despite the traditional history, the uranium captured from U-234 was enriched uranium that was commandeered into the Manhattan Project more than a month before the final uranium slugs were assembled for the uranium bomb. The Oak Ridge records of its chief uranium enrichment effort - the magnetic isotope separators known as calutrons - show that a week after Smith's and Traynor's 14 June conversation, the enriched uranium output at Oak Ridge nearly doubled - after six months of steady output.

Edward Hammel, a metallurgist who worked with Eric Jette at the Chicago Met Lab, where the enriched uranium was fabricated into the bomb slugs, corroborated this report of late-arriving enriched uranium. Mr. Hammel told the author that very little enriched uranium was received at the laboratory until just two or three weeks - certainly less than a month - before the bomb was dropped.

The Manhattan Project had been in desperate need of enriched uranium to fuel its lingering uranium bomb program. Now it is almost conclusively proven that U-234 provided the enriched uranium needed, as well as components for a plutonium breeder reactor.

The story so far has been recently summarized as follows by Ian Greenhalgh:

Without the German uranium and fuses, no atomic bombs would have been completed before 1946 at the earliest.

That brings us to the question: "How and where could Germany have managed to produce over 500 kg of enriched uranium?"

Buna or Uranium?

German born engineer Hans Baumann, author of a book about Hitler's alleged escape to Argentina, recently wrote a remarkable introduction to the history of the use of high-speed centrifuges for the enrichment of uranium. He mentions that "while the U.S. had no problem creating sufficient plutonium, creating fissionable uranium proved more difficult" due to the low efficiency of the procedures they tried. In Germany, though, a professor came up with the idea of the (ultra)centrifuge, which proved successful. The rest of the article says it all:

A plant facility was built close to the Polish border (away from possible air attacks). For security reasons, the plant housing the centrifuges, was called a buna-n facility; where buna-n is an artificial rubber. At the end of the war Germany had produced 1,230 pounds of enriched uranium dioxide (UO2, containing the solidified gas of U235).

The Germans then tried to ship this heavy and radioactive metal to Japan but it never arrived.

In January 1945, the Russian army discovered this buna-n facility and evacuated the centrifuges to Russia, where they likely played an important role to create the Russian atomic bomb a few years later.

Hydrick goes into more detail:

By May 1944, compared with American production efforts that at their best resulted in enriching uranium from its raw state of .7 percent to about 10 to 12 percent on the first pass, the first German experimental ultracentrifuge succeeded with enriching the material to seven percent.

[...]

Ultracentrifuge output was so impressive, in fact, that following its very first experimental run, funding and authority were established to build ten additional production model ultracentrifuges in Kandern, a town in the southwest of Germany far from the fighting. [...] The Nazis were now committed in a big way to ultracentrifuge production - and therefore to enriching uranium.

[...]

Production for the German isotope enrichment projects, once the experimental and design work were completed by Ardenne and the others, appears to have been undertaken by the I.G. Farben company under orders of the Nazi Party. The company was directed to construct at Auschwitz a buna factory, allegedly for making synthetic rubber.

Following the war, the Farben board of directors bitterly complained that no buna was ever produced despite the plant being under construction for four-and-a-half years; the employment of 25,000 workers from the concentration camp, of whom it makes note the workers were especially well-treated and well fed; and the utilization of 12,000 skilled German scientists and technicians from Farben. Farben also invested 900 million reichsmarks (equal to approximately $2 billion of today's dollars) in the facility.

The plant used more electrical power than the entire city of Berlin yet it never made any buna, the substance it was "intended" to produce.

When these facts were described to an expert on polymer production (buna is a member of the polymer, or synthetic rubber, family), Mr. Ed Landry, Mr. Landry responded directly, "It was not a rubber plant, you can bet your bottom dollar on that."

Landry went on to explain that while some types of buna are made by heating, which requires using relatively large amounts of energy, this energy is invariably supplied by burning coal. Coal was plentiful and well-mined in the area and was a key reason for locating the plant at Auschwitz when it was still intended to be a buna facility. The heating-of-buna process, to Landry's knowledge, was never attempted using electricity, nor could he envision why it would have been. Landry totally dismissed the possibility that a buna plant, had it tried an electric option, would ever use more electricity than the entire city of Berlin. And the investment of $ 2 billion is, "A hell of a lot of money for a buna plant" even these days, according to Mr. Landry.

The probability of the Farben plant having been completed to make buna appears to be very slim to none. The plant contained all of the characteristics of a uranium enrichment plant, however, which undoubtedly it would never have been identified as, but it would have had an appropriate cover story to camouflage it - such as it supposedly being a buna plant. In fact, buna would have been an excellent cover because of the high level and types of technology involved in both.

From this perspective, it would make perfectly sense for the Germans to make sure the 25,000 workers from the concentration camp were well treated, well fed and even to take surprising measures in order to protect their lives from infectious disease (page 175):

The extent of the German effort to improve hygienic conditions at Auschwitz is evident from an amazing decision made in 1943/44. During the war, the Germans developed microwave ovens, not just to sterilize food, but to delouse and disinfect clothing as well. The first operational microwave apparatus was intended for use on the eastern front, to delouse and disinfect soldiers’ clothing. After direct war casualties, infectious diseases were the second greatest cause of casualties of German soldiers. But instead of utilizing these new devices at the eastern front, the German government decided to use them in Auschwitz to protect the lives of the inmates, most of whom were Jews. When it came to protecting lives threatened by infectious disease, the Germans obviously gave priority to the Auschwitz prisoners. Since they were working in the Silesian war industries, their lives were apparently considered comparably important to the lives of soldiers on the battlefield.

Cui bono?

No investigation is complete without a little exercise in "follow the money", in this case to and from Nazi Germany. While for ages it has been said that all roads lead to Rome, it appears that all financial routes lead to "Wall Street" and have been leading there for decades already, which makes "Wall Street" a global centre of power, the spider in a gigantic web of corporations reaching all over the globe.

Perhaps the first scholar who investigated the involvement of "Wall Street" in geopolitics was Prof. Antony Sutton. In the following interview about his work, he says that "Wall Street" funded and was deeply involved in organizing three forms of socialism. These were the socialist welfare state (particularly under Roosevelt in the US), Bolshevik communism and Nazi national socialism. This gives a very good impression of the extend to which the "Wall Street" crime centre shaped the twentieth century, safely out of the public view:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sah_Xni-gtg

In "Wall Street and the rise of Hitler" Sutton wrote in his conclusions (chapter 12) about the "Pervasive Influence of International Bankers":

Looking at the broad array of facts presented in the three volumes of the Wall Street series, we find persistent recurrence of the same names: Owen Young, Gerard Swope, Hjalmar Schacht, Bernard Baruch, etc.; the same international banks: J.P. Morgan, Guaranty Trust, Chase Bank; and the same location in New York: usually 120 Broadway.

This group of international bankers backed the Bolshevik Revolution and subsequently profited from the establishment of a Soviet Russia. This group backed Roosevelt and profited from New Deal socialism. This group also backed Hitler and certainly profited from German armament in the 1930s. When Big Business should have been running its business operations at Ford Motor, Standard of New Jersey, and so on, we find it actively and deeply involved in political upheavals, war, and revolutions in three major countries."

A recent study by complex systems theorists at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich concluded that a core group of 147 tightly knit companies pretty much control half of the global economy:

AS PROTESTS against financial power sweep the world this week, science may have confirmed the protesters’ worst fears. An analysis of the relationships between 43,000 transnational corporations has identified a relatively small group of companies, mainly banks, with disproportionate power over the global economy. [...] “In effect, less than 1 per cent of the companies were able to control 40 per cent of the entire network,” says Glattfelder. Most were financial institutions. The top 20 included Barclays Bank, JPMorgan Chase & Co, and The Goldman Sachs Group.

In other words: what we see here is that pretty much the same names that came up in Sutton's research as being involved with shady geopolitic activities, continue to come up in investigations into the financial web of control that shapes geopolitics today. Not one, but two US Presidents gave clear and specific warnings about the potential existence of exactly such kind of corporate control structure, which could acquire "unwarranted powers".

Interestingly enough, two later US Presidents were closely related to an individual who was "actively and deeply involved" in the group Eisenhower, Kennedy and Sutton warned us about, as reported by "The Guardian":

The Guardian has obtained confirmation from newly discovered files in the US National Archives that a firm of which Prescott Bush was a director was involved with the financial architects of Nazism.

His business dealings, which continued until his company's assets were seized in 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy Act, has led more than 60 years later to a civil action for damages being brought in Germany against the Bush family by two former slave labourers at Auschwitz and to a hum of pre-election controversy.

The evidence has also prompted one former US Nazi war crimes prosecutor to argue that the late senator's action should have been grounds for prosecution for giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

[...]

The first set of files, the Harriman papers in the Library of Congress, show that Prescott Bush was a director and shareholder of a number of companies involved with Thyssen.

The second set of papers, which are in the National Archives, are contained in vesting order number 248 which records the seizure of the company assets. What these files show is that on October 20 1942 the alien property custodian seized the assets of the UBC, of which Prescott Bush was a director. Having gone through the books of the bank, further seizures were made against two affiliates, the Holland-American Trading Corporation and the Seamless Steel Equipment Corporation. By November, the Silesian-American Company, another of Prescott Bush's ventures, had also been seized."

Other interesting information can be found in the public record regarding the so-called "Business Plot", an attempt to overthrow Roosevelt:

The Business Plot (also known as The White House Coup) was a political conspiracy (see Congressional Record) in 1933 in the United States. Retired Marine Corps Major General Smedley Butler claimed that wealthy businessmen were plotting to create a fascist veterans' organization with Butler as its leader and use it in a coup d'état to overthrow President Franklin D. Roosevelt. In 1934, Butler testified before the United States House of Representatives Special Committee on Un-American Activities (the "McCormack-Dickstein Committee") on these claims. No one was prosecuted.

BBC4 aired a documentary about this in 2007:

The coup was aimed at toppling President Franklin D Roosevelt with the help of half-a-million war veterans. The plotters, who were alleged to involve some of the most famous families in America, (owners of Heinz, Birds Eye, Goodtea, Maxwell Hse & George Bush’s Grandfather, Prescott) believed that their country should adopt the policies of Hitler and Mussolini to beat the great depression.

Conclusion

While there is no direct evidence to prove for the full 100% that the IG Farben plant near Auschwitz indeed was an Uranium Enrichment facility, there is enough circumstantial evidence to state that it almost certainly was. The combination of the characteristics of the IG Farben plant and the U-234 shipment of Uranium oxide, with which the Manhattan project solved their production problem as well as their plutonium bomb ignition problem, leaves little doubt that the cargo of the U-234 indeed contained enriched Uranium, enriched Uranium that came from the IG Farben plant near Auschwitz. The submarine would not have been a "God send" if it would not have contained enriched Uranium. In other words, what we have here is "probable cause", enough to warrant an in-depth investigation into the details.

From this perspective, we indeed have a clear motive for both the US as well as Russia to try and hide this story. We also identified a group, centred around "Wall Street, who has an even bigger motive to keep this story under wraps. In other words: we both see a motive and an opportunity for "Wall Street" to hide this story and to cover it up with propaganda, censorship, lies and deception.

And yes, that means that we, as democratic citizen, have a moral obligation to speak out about this and say what we want to say.

And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular; but one must take it because it is right.

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Offline references

[I] E.R. Jette to C.S. Smith memorandum: Production rate of 25, December 28, 1944, U.S. National Archives, Washington, D.C., A-84-019-70-24, as quoted by Hydrick.

Extra: correspondence with Dutch and European Parliaments

I sent an e-mail to the chair of the Tweede Kamer at July 21st, 2016 (text below), along with this attachment. So far, I have not received confirmation the chair received my message, which is rather unusual. Normally, one receives a confirmation by snail mail within a couple of days.

At July 20th, 2015, I filed a request to the European Parliament(in Dutch), requesting them to debate the issue of "holocaust denial" in relation to the freedom of speech. I received a confirmation of receival and a letter stating that the EP has already taken some decisions on the subject and therewith declaring "case closed".

With this, I hope it is clear that I consider this issue, above all, to be a geopolitical issue.

The text from my e-mail to Dutch Parliament:

Geachte Voorzitter,

Bijgaand mijn artikel inzake Auschwitz en het atoomtijdperk, waarin ik uiteen zet dat de IG Farben "buna" fabriek nabij Auschwitz vrijwel zeker een uraniumopwerkingsfabriek moet zijn geweest. Wat hierbij van groot geopolitiek belang is, is dat het aldaar verrijkte uranium, tezamen met ontstekingsmechanismes voor plutionumbommen, zijn weg heeft gevonden naar het Amerikaanse atoomprogramma. Dit had begin 1945 enerzijds grote problemen om voldoende verrijkt uranium te produceren en beschikte anderzijds niet over de technologie om plutioniumbommen te kunnen onsteken.

We kunnen uiteindelijk vaststellen dat de atoombombardementen op Japan in augustus 1945 niet hadden kunnen plaatsvinden zonder het in Auschwitz opgewerkte uranium en de Duitse plutioniumbom ontstekingsmechanismes.

Deze informatie stelt het debat rond het bestaan van de zogenaamde "gaskamers" in Auschwitz in een geheel nieuw perspectief, te meer ook omdat het werk van Prof. Sutton duidelijk maakt dat "Wall Street" "actief en diep betrokken was bij politieke opschudding, oorlogen en revoluties" in onder andere Nazi Duitsland en Bolsjeviek Rusland. Ook hede ten dage kunnen we de invloed van "Wall Street" herkennen in het globale netwerk van corporaties dat zo ongeveer de helft van de globale economie onder controle heeft.

Juist in deze tijd, waarin rassenhaat opnieuw de kop op steekt, is het van groot belang dat we over objectieve geschiedschrijving beschikken, omdat een goed begrip van de geschiedenis onontbeerlijk is om het heden te kunnen begrijpen.

Wat we zien in de geschiedenis rond Auschwitz is dat zowel de Amerikanen als de Russen er belang bij hebben de waarheid over het atoomprogramma aldaar te onderdrukken. Het zelfde geldt voor "Wall Street", dat er zo mogelijk nog meer belang bij heeft haar betrokkenheid bij "politieke opschudding, oorlogen en revoluties" in de doofpot te doen belanden.

Aangezien "Wall Street" over een enorme financiele macht beschikt, en dus zonder meer in staat is het publieke debat in een voor haar wenselijke richting te sturen, kunnen we vaststellen dat "Wall Street" over zowel motief, gelegenheid als de middellen beschikte om de waarheid over dit belangrijke geopolitieke verhaal middels propaganda, leugens en bedrog te onderdrukken. Daarbij in veel Europese lidstaten geholpen door wetgeving die "holocaust ontkenning" als zodanig strafbaar stelt, zonder dat het de verdachte toegestaan wordt zichzelf te verdedigen met behulp van een forensisch-wetenschappelijk onderzoek van de feiten.

Gelukkig is dat in ons land niet het geval en is onze wetgeving in de praktijk meer dan voldoende gebleken om individuen, die de rond de Auschwitz "gaskamers" gevonden discrepanties aangrijpen om discriminerende uitingen en haat te verspreiden, te veroordelen.

Dat neemt echter niet weg dat de wetgeving in met name Duitsland te ver is doorgeschoten, waardoor individuen, zoals Germar Rudolf, die voor eigen rekening historisch technisch wetenschappelijk feitenonderzoek verrichten achter de tralies belandden. In dit geval betekent dit dat onder meer de heer Rudolf feitelijk gezien moet worden als een plotieke gevangene, een politieke gevangene binnen de grenzen van onze Europese rechtsstaat.

Met andere woorden: we constateren hier dat er binnen onze Europese rechtsstaat sprake is van politieke gevangenen, hetgeen duidelijk in strijd is met de internationaal erkende rechten van de mens en het EVRM in het bijzonder.

Ik vraag daarom nogmaals uw aandacht voor dit dossier en verzoek u er alles aan te doen wat binnen uw macht ligt om een einde te maken aan deze schrijnende gang van zaken. Ik kan me niet voorstellen dat uw kamer het aanvaardbaar acht dat er binnen de Europese Unie politieke gevangenen zijn.

Ik verzoek uw kamer tevens kennis te nemen van de inhoud van mijn artikel en mij te berichten of uw kamer van mening is dat ik met deze publicatie de grenzen van het fatsoen danwel de geest van enig door uw kamer vastgestelde wet heb overtreden, daarbij in aanmerking nemende dat het onze morele plicht is om zaken die niet door de beugel kunnen aan de kaak te stellen en dat de vrijheid van meningsuiting verankerd is in onze grondwet.

In afwachting van uw reactie verblijf ik,

Met vriendelijk groet,

Ir. Arend Lammertink,
[address]