He Who Holds The Devil

Why Does The Portrait Still Hang?

She raised her hand and volunteered to go. To be with the children, to step into the dark and foul of the carriage, to have the light shuttered behind the small windows barred with iron on a journey where the destination was a rumour that had spread like the diseases within the camp but not known for certain.

The existence within the limbo of life and death the camp to which she had arrived in February 1942, just a month after Heydrich, Eichmann and the representatives of the ministries including Dr. Stuckart of the Reichs Ministry of the Interior had decided on the evacuation of the Jews to the east, was strange at best. They all knew that the government that ruled over the territory wished them dead but they had not been killed, instead they had been allowed a relative continuation of the normality of life they once enjoyed outside of the confines, albeit whilst guards looked down with shouldered guns, and horizons of barbed wire lined the paths in which they could move, and a total lack of medicine and food existed.

Lectures were held almost everyday, and on many days two lectures were held, subjects such as art, medicine, economics and Jewish history. Poets mingled with artists and worked together on works. In the evenings there were concerts, performances and even premiers of new musical operas for such events tickets were printed. However, as much as normality tried to continue it was a normality that resembled a tiger in a cage, as much as the habitat of its wild is reproduced it never will change the fact that it is still within a cage, and those on the outside control its fate.

On some occasions the streets were swept and cleaned by the prison masters. Street names were changed and the facades of schools and hospitals erected. The programs of events were encouraged and then special guests would arrive and witness the little city, the little city of the jews. Film cameras arrived, the lives of those within were directed by the minions of Joseph Göbbels, the cameras rolled capturing a verisimilitude of a life that many just about remembered. Then, after the special guests and film cameras had left, the brutaility of the new reality returned and the constant threat of the hangman’s nose fell over their heads.

She was known, she was a writer and musician and often she could be heard reading to or singing to the children of the camp. Through the night she tendered for the children that had grown sick. Typhoid had raged within the walls of the camp and claimed many, medicines could have helped, if they, as Jews, were not banned from their use. She did what she could as she watched the children who once had a life full ahead of them, who might have been destined to be the writers, scientists, artists of the future, withered away before her, their potential unrealised and for many, their names, forgotten.

There were also many who withered and died from starvation. Of the older generations within the camp 92% would die. Many had names that were different to ones they were born with, others had never practiced the Jewish faith, and were there because a legal ordinance on a law defined them as being Jewish. How many filled the squalid barracks infested with lice and disease were there because of the 1st ordinance of the Nuremberg laws, laws that stated who was a Jewish “half breed,” how many men, women and children would have to perish in the horrors of the camps because of the scribblings of a pen in the Reichs Ministry of the Interior in Berlin. The ordinance, that proof exists of, that Eichmann used to send the Jews of Europe to the horrid fates.

In the camp with her was: Rose Pfitzner, who had once requested leniency from the Nuremberg for her daughter Gertrude so that she may attend University, an application denied by Department 1 of the Reichs Ministry of the Interior andPaul Veit, who hoped he could escape the persecution of Nuremberg Laws as he had helped NSDAP members escape Austria when the party was banned in 1933, but was denied by Department 1. Just two who survived to be able to tell the stories of the persecution they and their loved one suffered because of the work of Dr. Globke, whilst the dead were unable to tell how their lives were ruined and destroyed by Dr. Globke.

The noose always hung, even when the shows were being performed for the visiting special guests there still was always a fear of the roundup, of the being forced into the train cattle carts, to be driven to a fate that was officially unknown, but most were certain of. It was two years after her arrival with her husband Willi and son Tommy that Willi’s name was called. For two and a half years, since their arrival they had survived the camp together, she would not allow the family to be broken now so she volunteered, volunteered to go with the children, with her husband and her own son on the train that would transfer her from camp Tereisenstadt to camp Auschwitz. But the train would be the last moments they shared together.

The journey had been harrowing. A distance not so far in peace time but an eternity in war. The train having to stand on sidelines for many hours as trains carrying the too old and too young to fight of Hitler’s Reich regardlessly trundled on in the last desperate throws of a dictator who cared not for humanity. An autumn chill filled the cattle car carriages. She, Ilse, did what she could to settle the worried minds of the children, she would sing or tell them stories as the weak and feeble by the desire of the Reich and its ministers fell around them, falling from life into the horror of the statistic of the holocaust. The train, after many stops and starts arrived at its destination of Auschwitz. Light shone on the carriage, long shadows fell from the bars that covered the square hole that counted as a window before the door was thrown open and those inside blinked at the blinding light that now momentarily washed away their vision.

Once the initial blindness subsided the light then silhouetted their surroundings. Figures watched behind the glass of watch towers, capped men on the platform paced back and forth, dogs barked orders to unload and the hounds at their heels growled and displayed their teeth. Ilse helped the children down Willi too, but within moments a guard was grabbing at Willi and pushing him aside. The Reich’s men were on those trains to the east to have guns placed in their hands, who was going to perform the jobs of the factory workers but the able bodied Jewish men. Ilse and Tommy were held back with the other children of Thereisenstadt, the youthful eyes that should have been innocent looked around upon the barb wire and brick buildings that surrounded them. Carolled together they were led away to a shared fate in the gas chamber’s of Auschwitz a fate shared by many of the victims of the work of Hans Globke.


There will always remain a question mark over as to why Hans Globke was never truly held accountable for his crimes. Many theories could be presented but none will ever be a justifiable reason for why he escaped punishment for the suffering that he caused to millions. The trial that brought together the people who had been punished under the ordinances and laws to which Hans Globke had created that was held in East Germany was, of course, dismissed by the West German state. The exposure by journalists and students of how ingrained the new West German government and judiciary was with former Nazis was dangerous. Any news that was related to the crimes of members of the government was labeled as communist propaganda and in 1956 the fraction of the Communist Party that operated in West Germany was banned. Hans Globke also was quickly, under the Adenauer regime at the head of the government, that was full of Nazis, Globke had, at the farewell dinner of Adenauer’s referent Hans Kleb “you can rely on the old Nazis, they can be relied upon and they will always be reliable because they know what they want,” obvious, therefore, the West German state did not want to pursue him, for they would be pursuing one of their own. But why didn’t the allies, the British, the French, the Americans or the Soviets, pursue him, why after a simple interrogation by the OSS was Hans Globke allowed to walk free and continue his life, whilst those who had fallen under his laws could not.

We are concerned here, with an act of humanity, with the maintaining of cultural values and not least with a measure of considerable political importance, the affect on all nations and not least on the Germans of the fate of these innocent people so maliciously persecuted must not be under estimated. To leave these victims to their misery would be a heavy blow to all those who believe in human solidarity, and would encourage those who only believe in force and oppression and who act accordingly. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdprkUgWTg4

After receiving his American Citizenship Einstein. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBBAZOLxaC0&t=391s

Einstein: I was asked for the reason why I have given up my position in Germany I made this statement. As long as I have any choice I will only stay in a country where political liberty, toleration, and equality of all citizens before the law is the rule. Political liberty implies, liberty to express one’s political opinion aurally and in writing and a tolerant respect for any and every individual opinion.

Democh: That is real American doctrine. But tell me, do you feel that America still fulfills the requirement you mentions as a place in which to live.

Yes Mr. Democh, making allowance for human imperfections, I do feel that in America the most valuable thing in life is still possible the development of the individual and his creative power. There maybe man, who can live without political rights, and without free individual development, but I think that this is intolerable to most Americans. here for generations, man has never been under the humiliating necessity of unquestioning obedience. Here human dignity has been developing to such a point, that it would be impossible for people to endure life under a system, in which the individual is a slave of the state and has no voice in his government, and no decision on his own way of life.

Democh: I agree with you Dr. Einstein, we simply will not be driven about like sheep, we are independent, we are self reliant, we do not know what it means to be detrimental to class or position, fortunately for us, obey is a little heard word, and cooperate is a common one.

One can hear with in the speech the heavily scripted nature of the speech. From Einsteins stark yes there is no doubt that the words were words fed to him, however, the words spoken are very much opposite what a large portion of the American people actually had.

At the time of Einsteins arrival into the United States the country was still very much in the midsts of a racist segregation doctrine that in the Southern states were embodied within the Jim Crow laws and the Supreme Court’s ruling in 1896 in Plessy v. Ferguson of separate but equal.

Johnpeter Grill and Robert Jenkins in the Journal of Southern History (58, no4) wrote in November 1992 that the treatment of the blacks in the American south was in fact a mirror image of the treatment of the Jews of Germany under the Nazi regime. Blacks in the American south were often used as scape goats, their lively hoods destroyed and stolen from them, accused of crimes they did not commit, murdered in the streets, charactured in propaganda, and lynched.

Lynchings were an event. Professional photographers were hired to witness them, as was with the case of Jesse Washington in Waco, Texas where the process of the lynching by 10,000 residents was photographed by Fred Gildersleeve, or of Will James in Cairo, Illinois where again thousands came out in attendance. Photographs of the lynchings were sold and turned into postcards like with Will Stanley in Temple, Texas, where one attendee sent a postcard of the charred body still hung in the air with the words “This is the barbeque we had last night my picture is to the right with a cross over it, your son Joe,” the same occurred with the, once again, charred body of Will Brown after the Omaha race riot of 1919, part of the Red Summer of 1919 an anti-black white supremacist series of riots, where a crowd pose to have their photo taken, none of the faces looking, shocked, saddened or horrified, but unreservedly proud and triumphant with their evil. All of these events taking place before the rise of Hitler and the Nazis to power. However, it was noted that so ingrained was the racism in America, when American troops arrived in Britain during the war complaints were received by the Colonial Office of how Americans were treating black britons, and that it was not possible for colonial servicemen to enter any Service hostel where Americans might be present (J. L. Keith minute, 30 June 1942).

Whilst many Historians have claimed that the horrors of the American systems that existed in 1933 did not inspire the Nazis, legal historian Richard Bernstein writing on the Jim Crow laws and Nazism “were, as far as I can tell, simply attempts to cite vaguely relevant precedents for home-grown statutes and policies to deflect criticism, not actual sources of intellectual influence” (Richard Bernstein,“Jim Crow and Nuremberg Laws,” H-Judaica, March 31, 1999) it is a fact that they did, as they also took inspiration from America’s eugenics program that was exported from California, the state that was performing the more forced sterilisations of its citizens than all the other states combined, when it idealised its eugenics program and sent it to Germany in the form of booklets. Josef Mengel, the so called Angel of Death, and his crimes were a product of The Rockefeller foundation financing.

For most, to think that the horrors of what the Nazis committed across Europe being inspired partly by the systems that already existed in the United States of America is hard to fathom. An association comes therefore with the crimes of the holocaust. But the holocaust was the end result of Nazi Germany’s program that was inspired by the American system not a result of the American system itself. Often, the idea that it would be impossible for Hitler and Nazi Germany to take influence from America is perceived as impossible due to the conflicting political ideas of the two systems, fascism being fundamentally opposed to liberalism. It is more than likely that Dr. Hans Globke took inspiration from the American system as, James Whitman wrote in his dissertation “The United States and the Making of Nazi Race Law (https://www.law.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/upload_documents/Hitler%27s%20American%20Model%20for%20NYU.pdf) “Be it emphasized immediately that there was certainly never anything remotely like unmixed admiration for America among the Nazis, who aggressively rejected the liberal and democratic commitments of Americans government. The Nazis were never interested in simply replicating the United States in Central Europe. Nevertheless Nazi lawyers regarded America, not without reason, as the innovative world leader in the creation of racist law; and while they saw much to deplore, they also saw much to emulate. It is even possible, indeed likely, that the Nuremberg Laws themselves reflect direct American influence.”

James Whitman also notes on the defence against associating the aligning of Nazi and American history in parallel:

“The scholars who dismiss the possibility of American influence on Nazi lawmaking have also used the wrong interpretive tools in making their case. Our literature has taken a crass interpretive track: is has assumed that we can speak of “influence” only where we find direct and unmodified, even verbatim, imitation. That is the assumption behind Rethmeier’s (An Austrian Legal Historian) confident assertion that Amerian race law could not have influenced the Nazis, since American law did not specifically target Jews. We find the same assumption in Hanke: Nazi law was simply different, Hanke declare, because the German laws of the early 1930s were “but on step on the stair to the gas chamber.” Unlike American segregation laws, which simply applied the principle of “separate but equal,” German laws were part of a program of extermination. Now part of the problem with this argument, which Hanke is by no means alone in offering, is that its historical premise is false: It is simply not the case that the drafters of the Nuremberg laws were already aiming at the annihilation of the Jews in 1935. The concern of early Nazi policy was to drive the Jewish population into exile, or at the very least to marginalise it within the borders of the Reich.”

Would bringing Dr. Hans Globke to trial create a difficult situation in which the victorious allies, the defenders of liberty, of the freedom of man, expose their own racist ideologies, their own abhorrent treatment of people’s who they deemed as lesser either because they were not white-europeans or because it was convenient.

For Hans Globke immediately after the war he returned to working in Aachen which fell under the British zone of occupation, the British who proudly boasted of how much of the world was coloured pink.

Britain as the coloniser of history had sought to civilise the world, or so it told itself and its subjects. The Scottish/British Historian James Mill in his work the History of British India first published in 1817 opens with “A duly qualified man can obtain more knowledge of India in one year in his closet in England than he could obtain during the course of the longest life, by the use of his eyes and ears in India.” (Marriott, John, The Other Empire: Metropolis, India and Progress in the Colonial Imagination (Manchester University Press, 2003, ISBN 978-0-7190-6018-2) James Mill sought to justify the need of colonisation of India by degrading India’s long and vibrant history into the notion that it was backwards and secondary.

In 1943 Leopold Charles Maurice Stennett Amery, the Secretary of State for India and Burma between 1940 and 1945 spoke at a meeting of teachers “Empire, brings out the idea of unity comprising infinite variety, but also that of responsibility for peace and good government, of trusteeship towards the weak and backward.’ The presumption, perhaps because of the influential derogatory works of James Mill, that those of other nations must be backwards because in their colonisation by the British could not be trusted to govern themselves, ignoring the entire pre-colonial history of India and seeing as Mill’s did that an India before colonisation was a collection of small states constantly at war with themselves, needing a foreign power to bring order and civilisation to their nations.

Also in 1943 the first Viscount Bledisloe, conservative politician Charles Bathurst, president of the Empire Day Movement spoke at the Empire Day celebrations, “Our Empire, so magnificently united in this period of grave emergency, was not founded on conquest, and oppression, like some Empires of the past, which the Germans are seeking to copy, but upon bold adventure, love of liberty and justice, and spiritual ideas.”

Not found on conquest? Over 80 nations would choose to disagree. Britain was constantly at war to bring more nations under its control, from wars with the French over Egypt in 1799, the Netherlands over Java in 1811, the entirety of Bruma in 1885 amongst others. Not so much to bring liberty, but oppression and exploitation in an economic Lebensraum.

During the Second World War, men of the Empire who arrived in Britain, felt the effects of the British Colour Bar, that could ban people based on the colour of their skin from jobs, entrance to dance halls and bars, or even performing their duties as members of the home guard as one member by the name of Roberts found when he made himself present for his picket duty at a dance hall was sent away, even when he returned in uniform. (https://www.theguardian.com/news/1944/aug/02/leadersandreply.mainsection) Women who arrived from the colonies who wished to become nurses were denied training in England because of the colour of their skin. The British Divisional Post Office stated in 1940 that “they would not employ coloured persons, unless they were a very light colour’ as revealed in a letter between H. Gosney of the Ministry of Labour and Keith of the Colonial Office (15. Nov 1940). It was not so dissimilar overseas in the British Colonies, where White Britons were afforded better status, hotels and opportunities. In Kenya ‘non-whites’ were barred from attending the cinema.

Britain was purposefully keeping its Colonial subjects in a state of constant denial from opportunities at home and abroad. On the Gold Coast a barrister, Dr. J B Danquah wrote: “Is it really true that it is a policy of the Colonial Office to-day that no matter how well an African may be qualified for taking a share in the Government of his own country he will not be given that opportunity to participate…for the simple reason that he is a native? If so, where are Africans to get experience for the promised self-government? If so, why make declarations of trusteeship?” It was the gift of an attainable promise to the minds and mentality of the people of the Empire, to attain greater independence, but on paper and in reality it was something the British used to quell the potential revolutionary minds with no true intention of granting self determination.

In India, the British control during the war was a disaster especially in Bengal, the region of India that borders Burma, where a scorched earth policy was enacted after the success of the Japanese invasion of Burma, coupled with natural disasters and Winston Churchill’s exceptionally racist views of the Indian people would result in the deaths of between 2.1 and 3 million people through famine and the resulting starvation and disease. When speaking to Amery Churchill had stated that he ‘hated’ Indians who ‘bread like rabbits.’ Churchill refused Canadian proposals to send aid to Bengal as it was in the darkest depths of the famine. Amery became exasperated by Churchill and his cabinets abject refusal to allow any help or even for the region to use its own cash reserves and ships to import food. Avery, in his diary would note, “on the subject of India, Winston is not quite Sane, I do not see much difference between Churchill’s outlook and Hitler’s.” Sadly, this story of famine was not the first in India to be caused as a result of the British and the British East India Company’s policies that exploited the native population. Cornelius Walford calculated in 1877 that in the 120 years of British rule there were 34 recorded famines in India, compared to just 17 in the prior two millennia. Before the British the Mughals used tax revenues to finance water conservation and banned exports if a famine look as if it were to hit, the British did away with this system, exploited a nation and let millions upon millions die (in the 120 years that Walford speaks of, the number of deaths at the lowest estimate is 46,4 million) and this was just one area, albeit a very large area, that was under the British flag.

The arrival of Black American G.Is to Britain during the war also created a problem in the minds of the British governmental establishment as Sonya O. Rose writes in her dissertation Race, empire and British wartime national identity, “officials were concerned that ordinary British citizens were insufficiently ‘race conscious’, and that they would as a result be overly friendly to black Americans. This conundrum led to a confusing assortment of British responses to the presence of black Americans, including ‘educating’ British women and girls about the perils of inter racial romance,’ not so dissimilar from Dr. Globke’s work in the Czech lands of Bohemia and Moravia when through his laws Dr. Globke discouraged the marriage of a German to a Czech whom he considered and therefore created a law to ensure became a second class citizen of unworthy racial heritage. Rose goes on to state “…Fundamentally, the British government wanted the U.S. military to take the colour problem’ back to the states with them after the war.

For France, the other member of the Western Allies the story was not much different in terms of brutal control and suppression of the natives of nations under the French flag and the Code of the Indiginate that created an inferior status for natives of the French Colonies from 1887 until 1947. For Algeria the first Code of the Indiginate was not so dissimilar Dr. Globke’s work on the status of the Volksdeutch in the Sudetenland. It read, “The Muslim indigenous is French; however, he will continue to be subjected to Muslim law. He may be admitted to serve in the terrestrial and marine Army. He may be called to functions and civil employment in Algeria. He may, on his demand, be admitted to enjoy the rights of a French Citizen; in this case, he is subjected to the political and civil laws of France.” This was first introduced in 1865 but in 1881 the code was formalised and if a Muslim has chosen, as nearly all did, not a French citizen, their lands could be subject to seizure or appropriation. As the French Empire expanded and came to rule over Guiana, New Caledonia and Madagascar, the Code was used to control the native populace but to deny the native people the rights of Frenchmen.

Rights were given to the commandant of the Cercle, the smallest unit of French political administration, to be the judges of the Inidigenat, but really this meant any caucasian person had the rights to deliver punishments, for any of 34 infractions with punishments ranging from imprisonment to death. Often the punishments were periods of forced labour known as corvée, with much of the operations of Senegal all the way through into the 1940s being operated by forced labour. In 1930 the Geneva Convention outlawed the french system of corvée, France introduced a higher tax on the people of West Africa in reaction, a tax that could be paid of via forced labour. Jean Suret-Canele notes in French Colonialism in Tropical Africa that in 1935 in French Cameroon 32,858 people were imprisoned for infractions of the Indigenat compared to 3,512 common law offences.

So it is quite possible that Dr. Hans Globke was not brought to stand trial because he embodied, through his laws that subjugated, deprived, degenerated native populations of conquered territories, too much of what the Western Allied nations were doing themselves, and placing a man like Globke on trial make be tantamount to placing a mirror on the stand. It also might be due his study of law. He was surely aware of some of the laws that had been created by Britain, France and especially, as we have seen, America and with his sharp legal mind he might of been a formidable foe if brought to stand trial.

An alternative maybe that with Germany in ruins after the war and the faces of the Third Reich, Göring, Speer, Frick, Ribbentrop, having been placed on trial and either executed or imprisoned, a strong yet unknown face might be needed to help in the rebuilding of Germany and Dr. Globke could present a strong candidate for this role, aided in his never being a member of the Nazi party although he did apply, but was rejected by Martin Bormann due to his being a member of the Zentrum Party, he could present a useful role to the allies in the new nation that was forming under the face of Konrad Adenauer. Globke, as he was, could be placed in a situation where he bridged the gaps by those who had once sat in quiet resilience to the Nazi’s as Adenauer, who, in a letter in 1934 reminded Hermann Göring that he had violated Prussian law to allow Nazi flags to be flown and that he had declared publically that the NSDAP should be part of the National government in a leading role, had done, whilst also bringing the now former Nazis together to form some of the infrastructure of the new republic as was with the case with the Gehlan organisation of former SS officers that formed the basis for the modern Bundesnachrichtendienst.

And to worry over the crimes that Globke was part of, it did not seem to matter, either the intelligence of the British or the OSS was lacking on Globke’s role or it was chosen to ignore Globke’s role in the holocaust, or maybe it was easy to dismiss as it was Göring and principally Frick’s, later Himmler’s names that featured on the laws and ordinances, two of those had bitten the pill and one had taken a short drop and were of no worry anymore in revealing accomplices and the roles they had played in one of the greatest crimes in human history. Perhaps the American’s knew and this is how Globke was turned into the spy within the Chancellery, who managed to have the office of the Chancellor bugged, ultimately becoming known in the CIA documents by the codename CAUSA.

Whatever the reason for the lack of punishment of Dr. Hans Globke it remains, for me, to make one last point or question to pose, and it is to end with where, for myself, this journey began.

The beginnings of this podcast came in the form of one of the many Bundespresskonferenzen held in a building just a short walk from where the trial of Hans Globke was held by the DDR in 1963 and today just across the River spree from the new Chancellery of Germany. A reporter for RT Deutschland, Florian Warweg asked a question of the spokes person of the German government Martina Fietz on the 2nd of January 2019. Florian Warweg asks: why does a portrait still hangs in the chancellery building of the known author and main commentator of the Nuremberg racelaws and according to files was also involved in the deportation of 20,000 Jews from northern Greece, does the German government see the possibility of the removal of the portrait from the Chancellery?

Martina Fietz replies: Firstly, I cannot confirm that this picture is hanging there, I simply cannot say anything about it and accordingly I can only offer you that we check it and if there is anything to say we will address it then.

On the 9th of January RT Deutschland released a letter received from the Chancellery that stated: “In the administrative area of the Federal Chancellery, portraits of all former heads of the Federal Chancellery – including – Hans Globke – are hung in chronological order. An evaluation of the work or past life of the chiefs of office is not connected with this.”

It was as cold and as matter of fact that having lived in Berlin for over 6 years I have come to expect of the German government, a portrait still hangs of one of the principal contributors to the race laws of Nazi Germany and the ethnic cleansing of conquered territories is on display in the German Chancellery but we on viewing it should not question the work or past life of the man. Can you separate the image from the crimes? If a portrait of Hitler as Chancellor was hung it would be impossible not to separate the man from the crimes committed by his dictatorial regime and government, so how can the portrait of Hans Globke the man who legally enabled the crimes of the Hitler government stand divided, maybe because his face is not one we have come to associate with the Third Reich for it was always hidden in shadow, from the fact of his involvement in the race laws that led to the persecution and ultimately the deaths of millions. Surely there is another option than to have the portrait of a criminal who was tried and found guilty under the Nuremberg Principals, Article 6 of the London Statuts for International Military tribunals, Article 5 paragraph 1 of the constitution of the DDR and §§211, 47 of the Imperial Criminal Law that was still active in the DDR at the time. It is a portrait that hangs on a wall only a 5 minute walk away from the bleak and somber concrete blocks of the Jewish Memorial, a memorial to all of the Jews persecuted by the Third Reich, many of which were persecuted because of Dr. Hans Globke.

Or maybe the portrait should hang. It should bring the face of the man who was hidden in the dark for so long to light, but not without context, Hans Globke should not be allowed to be remembered in history only as the longest serving head of the Federal Chancellery, he deserves to be remembered for being one of the most vile and horrendous criminals, who brought untold misery to millions of people, who Nazi Minister of the Interior Frick had said had “proven loyalty and constant readiness for action” in carrying out his duties that facilitated and expanded the persecution of those who were subjected to the horrors of the Nazi regime, a man who, even as a devout Catholic, had no regard for the lives of others, be them Jew, Czech, Slovenia, Slovak, Romanian, Lithuanian, Greek or one of those who wished to expose him and his crimes, he was ever dedicated to his, the Nazi and later the Adenauer cause.
But for the allies who let him go, I leave you with Faust and the words he spoke to Mephistopheles, “He who holds the devil, ought to hold him fast, for he will not catch him a second time.”

This has been Achtung! History’s He Who Holds The Devil a production of The Berlin Tour Guide and hosted by Simon J. James. Follow Achtung History on facebook, instagram and twitter at @achtung history, or visit the website at www.theberlintourguide.com/achtunghistory. If you wish to support the production of Achtung History you can do so through patreon at patreon.com/achtunghistory.

Follow Achtung! History on Twitter and Instagram for all the latest updates or visit our tours page to have a guided tour of Berlin with host Simon J. James