Letter to C J Hopkins #5
Of Otto & Charlotte von Wächter
Of Heroes and Villains
Dear Mr. Hopkins,
Ernst Wolff recently pointed out in a trenchant analysis[1] that one, seemingly paradoxical, feature of the current Fascism[2], which is so universal and complete in its uniformity that it needs no outward signs such as jackboots, uniforms or concentration camps, is an obsession with the vilification of the Fascism of the past. This is doubtlessly of relevance to your ongoing court case for the simple reason that the powers that be desperately and at times hysterically wish to separate what actually belongs together. They most certainly don’t like your pointing out an obvious truth, which explains your political persecution.
I have just this minute finished or rather broken off a book, which attempts to vilify the Fascism of the past, or more exactly, a figure called Otto von Wächter. It’s called “Ratlines” (a misnomer for the book isn’t really or at best marginally about that particular theme) and is by a curious character named Philippe Sands. For a variety of reasons, too tiresome to mention, I read it in German rather than English, which is why I shan’t be quoting from it at all.
The book, which is much too long and poorly structured, starts out as a good yarn. It concerns the ups and downs of the family Wächter, and, for a while at least, is quite gripping, as many family sagas often are. It is essentially written from the viewpoint of Charlotte Wächter for the simple reason that it uses her letters and other documents as its basis. In this respect the reader must be grateful to her son: Horst von Wächter, who generously put these documents at the disposal of what Philippe Sands unhappily continually refers to as “the Jews”. Whether Philippe Sands deliberately, ironically or unintentionally makes this mistake is unclear.
In fact, the odd thing about Philippe Sands is that one knows so little about him. He mentions members of his family in passing but provides no documentary evidence (in contrast to Horst) to substantiate their existence. Are his stories about losing his relatives to the Holocaust true or not? How can one be sure? Who is Philippe Sands and what exactly is his agenda? He remains a man very much of mystery.
I have to mention at the very start that I have a part in this sorry tale and can testify and would testify in a court of law, that Philippe Sands has falsified his narrative. Suffice it to say: this is not an isolated case…
When the film he worked on: “My Nazi Legacy: What Our Fathers Did” was shown in Vienna in 2015 the subsequent discussion didn’t merely revolve around Nazi sins of the past, as he asserts in the book. I pointed out that given British sins, such as in Northern Ireland, the film was pure hypocrisy and dubious double standards. Sands elegantly side-stepped this issue by asserting that he wasn’t British at all and therefore didn’t have to answer to this particular charge. I was tempted to mention Zionist crimes in Palestine but for very obvious reasons desisted from doing so. I also pointed out that the focus of the film should have been the Nazis of the present (who are highly visible in the film and get merely a passing mention in the book) rather than those of the past. To this he gave an extraordinary reply, which I shall never forget: “According to a friend of mine there are no Nazis in the Ukraine” he asserted, which was very obviously a lie. Had he not watched his own film? Had he drunk too much? Or, was he suffering from brain-damage or amnesia?
I surmise that the “friend” he spoke of was Olesya Khromeychuk, who wrote a book: “The Death of a Soldier Told by His Sister” to which Sands penned a forward. Her tome: ““Undetermined” Ukrainians. Post-War Narratives of the Waffen SS “Galicia”, is essentially a worrying whitewash of the well-documented crimes of the Ukrainian SS during the war.
One has to ask the question: was the whitewash of the past and the present, in which Sands is directly implicated, responsible for the current war in the Ukraine? Did the lies encourage the Ukrainian Nazis to be ever more aggressive in their crimes against the civilian populace?
Sadly, the poor scholarship and sheer ignorance of Sands is a great hindrance to a reader actually interested this theme.
As a dramatist you are familiar with the concepts of empathy, sympathy and psychology, ideas, which seem unfamiliar to poor Mr. Sands who prefers to judge rather than provide an accurate picture of events and prefers to ignore the evidence presented to him. Judgements, however unjust or unfair, are, for him, of greater significance than the truth, however complex, paradoxical or contradictory it might be.
Only two serious accusations are made in the book which hold any water: the lament by Otto von Wächter that he was forced to shoot fifty Jews (five of whose lives he subsequently spared), which is clearly a crime, sadly a common-place one but a crime nevertheless and the accusation that he, as civilian administrator, helped facilitate the crimes against the populace perpetrated by Fritz Katzmann (who he loathed) and Himmler (who seems to have liked him).
You’ve probably noticed that I’ve avoided employing the term “crime against humanity”, a term Sands is obviously very fond of. If anything Sands & his ilk, have discredited the words and rendered them meaningless. Everyone the Anglo-American Empire objects to perpetrates “crimes against humanity” while the likes of Bush & Blair commit, by contrast, merely “regrettable mistakes”.
What Sands, in a most serious omission, fails to mention is that Otto von Wächter actively prevented the ethnic cleansing of Galicia and risked his own life in doing so. Fritz Katzmann was furious with him and only Wächter’s good relations with Himmler saved him.
Had Sands been either a gentleman or a scholar (sadly he is neither), he would have done some pertinent or at least useful research. He would have found out that neither Hans Frank nor Otto Wächter had much say in the running of anything and that it was Fritz Katzmann who determined pretty much everything. That the crimes were perpetuated on the territory they were purportedly governing is reason enough for Sands to determine that they were directly involved in all possible heinous acts.
An interesting point the book makes is that Hans Frank was removed from power by the Nazis precisely because he wished to reassert the rule of law. This, for the Nazis, then as now, can’t ever be tolerated, as you are currently experiencing to your personal cost.
Another interesting point is that Otto Wächter seems to have known who poisoned him: a German major working for the Americans. That the Americans should have poisoned Wächter shouldn’t surprise anyone (other than Sands). The Americans employed Nazis long before the end of the war, which is one of the main reasons the relationship with their war-time ally: Russia cooled (another reason was the fact that the promised reparations payments to Russia rapidly dwindled). Nazis were given the option of joining the American payroll or of being silenced. I assume Wächter refused to join, which is why he was murdered.
Also, of interest is the fact that, according to the book, the Americans seem to have based the notorious “six million” figure on the statement of a single captive Nazi, which is extraordinary, to say the least (I shall have to return to Raul Hilberg’s “The Destruction of the European Jews” once more!). This takes “single source” to a whole new level.
Yet, perhaps worst of all, Sands’ sin of sins, is the fact that he has ignored the wealth of scholarship that has been piling up since the revelations of Sutton, Quigley & Preparata. It is beyond serious doubt that the Anglo-American Empire financed the Nazis. It is also extremely probable and logical that the Anglo-American Empire, by use of the mysterious Thule Society, which Sands doesn’t even mention, directly controlled the Nazi leadership.
One mustn’t forget, for example, that Mengele worked for the Rockefellers while Himmler had a slush fund largely financed by the Americans. We also know, beyond any shadow of doubt that Hitler’s body wasn’t found in Berlin in 1945 and that both the Americans and Russians were looking for him after the war. The innumerable personal testimonies to the effect that Hitler could be found in South America (where the British sent Ante Pavelić) can lead to only one possible conclusion, one which also escapes the limited capacities and more limited honesty of Sands.
In short there is much about this book to make one worry. It’s thus hardly surprising that those, such as yourself, who seek the truth, should be so brutally persecuted.
Best,
Michael
https://brownstone.org/articles/the-vicious-punishment-of-cj-hopkins/?fbclid=IwAR2ByHGQVlKx6ftLYGwtuU_Szb6JZpXfaOwiJKpBEU46E8XgvobWMADBzJg
What does Ernst say. English subtitles are not available. But i know it is important, as I have heard him speak previously … in translation. I have requested he include English captions.