Salient point of reflection: the undisputable result of the final solution was that millions of Jews in German custody during World War II had disappeared. The path of many of these Jews, especially those living in western Europe, can be traced to Auschwitz. The day of their deportation and the time of their arrival at Auschwitz was noted in transportation lists. At Auschwitz they were »selected«. Those capable of work were enlisted in factories connected to Auschwitz. A considerable number of these individuals survived, while no trace of others can be found. It is also fact that the decision for the final solution, whatever this happens to be, fell around the new year 1941/42. So far the undisputed incidents. It is conceivable that this decision was felled by Hitler, because the so-called Jewish question played a mayor role in his thoughts. But how to continue?
My essays on totalitarian theories dealt in detail with the so-called table rounds of Hitler. During his stay at the German head quarters, Hitler preferred to eat with a large company. Everybody who was there participated: e.g. German guests like Himmler and employees like Bormann or the wife of his personal chauffeur. Hitler loved these rounds, detailing in a multitude of themes, whereby he dominated in many of them.
Because mayor issues were discussed, Bormann saw to it that they were duly recorded. Heinrich Heims and Dr. Henry Picker were ordered to the headquarters for this job.
I noticed that these rounds coincided with the time when the resolution for the final solution was felled, between the middle of 1941 and the middle of 1942.
Another important presumption arose: One does not decide over the fate of millions of human beings without any show of remorse. Should Hitler be different in this respect? I was sure that I would find a slight implication concerning the Jews in these rounds or in Hitler´s monologues. It wouldn´t be anything spectacular, as these texts weren´t secret. I myself had analysed both books intensively. Was there perhaps a slight fragment of a sentence which may have been omitted while reading the texts?
These aspects made me read again. Finally I found the following citation dated under October 25, 1941:
»In parliament, I prophesized the Jewry that they will disappear from Europe if war cannot be avoided. This criminal race has to account for two million deaths in World War I, and now again they´re taking the toll of hundreds of thousands of lives. Don´t anybody tell me that we cannot send them into the morass! Who cares about our people? It is of benefit if the terror, that we exterminate the Jews, precedes us. The attempt to create a Jewish state will be a blunder«
So, Hitler would send the Jews into the morass. This was indicative, albeit meagre. But where was this morass. Probably, as I thought, in the Soviet Union, as the decision was felled during the invasion of Russia. I came to regard the Pripjet swamps more closely because of a number of associations: namely that morass is similar to swamps; further comments from Hitler: »we don´t want to overcome swamps. We will occupy foremost the richest earth and only the better grounds.«; and last not least references to the Pripjet swamps. The area is very large and was occupied by German troups in the early phase of the war. Maybe this was the morass? On the other hand, population displacements going into the millions must have been obvious! Regarding a map  of the population density of Europe before 1969, one finds the most unsual entries for this area. (See diagram No. 1)
One notices a rectangular area between Minsk and Pripjet extending from 120 km to 40 km with a population density between 100 to 200 persons per square kilometre. As a rule, population conglomerations are found around industrial areas, ports, areas of mineral resources and government sites. Regarding parallel charts on the distribution of mineral resources and industry, there is little reason for such a conglomeration of people in such a region. Earlier charts of the population distribution of this area show the following entries: (See diagram No. 2.)
|Inhabitants per square km||Inhabitants per square km|
|Diagram 1||Diagram 2|
By comparing the two charts, one should note that the classification of the population differs. Nevertheless, this area encountered a drastic expansion of the populace. This surplus overflows the already mentioned, rectangular area, although the increase is most apparent within this space. The rectangle has an area of 120 x 40 equals 4800 square kilometres. By comparing the earlier and later minimun population density one finds
earlier: 96,000 inhabitants
later: 480,000 inhabitants.
Thus the number of inhabitants quintupled. I cannot explain such a drastic increase with the normal growth rate of a population, because fierce battles were fought in this area during World War II. Therefore, when did this population explosion take place and what caused it? In order to localize this epoch, the special circumstances of this area must be considered. Until 1939, this region was devided, the west belonged to Poland and the east to the Soviet Union. One must not presume that nationals of both countries populated this rectangular area together. On the other hand, foreign enclavements can be found in various places inside Belorussia. They are distributed at random, others may be found around Gomel and Mogilew. So, to repeat the question: when did this increase in population take place?
Surely the national census is the basis for these charts. The following enumerations were made in this region:
1926 by the Soviet Union
1931 by Poland
1939 by the Soviet Union, the census of 1937 as annulled.
1959 by the Soviet Union
The region was occupied:
1926 - 1939 by Poland
1939 - 1941 by the Soviet Union
1941 - 1944 by Germany
since 1944 by the Soviet Union.
Quite logically, the settlements must have taken place between 1939 and 1959 as the information of the map of the population density of 1969 was derived from 1959. Another source was unattainable, therefore only two possibilities hold: the settlements occured either during the German occupation or after 1944, through the Soviet Union. Logical reasoning pleads against the latter. Why should the USSR consider the settlement of this region? Does it not possess more land, especially east of the Urals, where a colonization seemed more appropiate. During the German occupation, this area must have been one of the least populated regions. But this is no proof. Thus, again the concrete question: Was there a substantial increase in the populace of this region during the years 1941 and 1944. The German files of Ruthenia, as the region was called at that time, ought to throw light upon the matter. Normally, these files should be kept at the federal archive in Koblenz, Germany. However, no stocks of records from the general commissioner of Ruthenia exist.
Dossiers over these settlements ought to exist in the German army files as well. But one must distinguish whether existing sites were either enlarged, or new ones contructed. Both means would enhance the population density. To get to a logical conclusion, at least two maps of the region are necessary and both must have been made during the time of the German occupation, because the cartographers had access to the region only at this time. It was extremely difficult to attain these maps, at least more than anticipated. The federal archive in Koblenz only possessed a so-called guide map, which was totally unsuitable for the purpose. The military achive in Freiburg presented a complete set of army maps, but unfortunately the chart encompassing the region in question was made in 1941. Finally, through various means, I managed to acquire three separate editions of the copy U54:Minsk from the general map of the German army 1:300000 . I now possess a map from the year 1941 along with two supplements II.43  and VIII.43 . This map covers the area of interest, even though the above mentioned rectangle is not stipulated therein. Naturally, the supplements are the points of significance. For our purpose, a sector south east of Minsk is chosen. Please regard the following sector from II.43:
and compare it to the same sector on map VIII.1943:
The following may be concluded: the number of inhabited places has sharply risen. While map Stand II.43 shows but 18 sites, map Stand VIII.43 portrays 45. Of great importance is the name of a new town, Marjina Gorka. It is by far the biggest village in the region, which however was non-existant in map Stand II.43. Thus it is reasonable to assume that the place was newly founded. Because of the importance of military charts for war purposes, it is feasible that Stand II.43 portrays the actual state of affairs during the German occupation. Not only does this sector show a substantial increase of inhabited areas, but also of the adjacent enviroment.
Consequently, the following can be ascertained: In the areas described above, new colonization sites were founded and inhabited during the German occupation. The question is who and why?
A preview of what seems paradox: no Jews! The interested reader will learn more in the ensuing chapters.
Two questions which will certainly jostle the mind of the engaged reader are: Why didn´t anybody engaged on the German side, point out these sites after the war, and: why didn´t the Jews give any notice? I believe that I can answer both questions reasonably well. But, because a lot of facts to fortify this statement are necessary, the response to this quiry will be dealt with in the chapter »Quiries«.
Back to Table of Contents
Back to Archive