Debating the Holocaust

For some decades the consensus has been that the greatest calamity to befall the Jewish people has been the Nazi Holocaust, in which six million Jews met their cruel demise.  Therefore, if you want to make a Jew happy, tell him that far fewer than six million Jews died in that holocaust.  Surely, once you explain that there are difficulties with the official account of those events, he will eagerly and joyously soak up every word you have to say on the matter.
Alas, this is not likely to be the case.  Instead of paying attention to what you have to say, he will probably mock you and call you a “neo-Nazi”.  Not only will your words not be heard, but you will be persecuted for saying them.  In some countries, you can get thrown in prison for speaking them.  This is because the Nazi Holocaust has morphed into a religion of its own – the vast majority of Jews pay far more credence to the official account of the holocaust than they do to the Torah.  Even if you don’t actually dispute the official version, but suspect less than noble intentions for those who promote it, you can lose your job and become a pariah.  Just ask Norman Finkelstein.
Many years ago, I decided to abstain from reading about the holocaust or watching any movies about it.  To do so would only bring me pain and I saw no benefit in torturing my soul over a past I could do nothing about.  I even refrained from asking the survivors I’ve known about their experiences.  Some of them bore the infamous numbers tattooed onto their arms.  This was testimony enough.  Recently, however, a friend sent me the book “Debating the Holocaust” by Thomas Dalton, ph.D.  I reasoned that reading about how so many Jews did not die would not cause depression – and I was right.
At the beginning of the book, Dalton feigns impartiality and tells us how he is going to present both sides of each issue.  However, as the book progresses, it becomes clear that the author favors the revisionist side.  If his claims about the tactics of the pro-“orthodox” camp are accurate, then we should not blame him for this.  After all, if one side of a debate ignores the most powerful arguments of the other while focusing only on the weakest ones – and doesn’t even do a good job at that – is that side worthy of equal respect?
One of the statistics, cited in the book, that I found most shocking was the sheer number of books about the holocaust that are published each year.  They run into the tens of thousands if we include all languages.  At this rate, it would not be surprising if each holocaust victim ended up having his own book eventually.  A recent visit to the largest book store in the U.S., Powell’s Books, verified this.  There were dozens of holocaust books and, indeed, they seemed to outnumber those on Judaism proper.  Will I make it my life’s mission to disprove the official account of the holocaust?  Will I spend years poring over those countless books in order to gain more insight?  No and no.  I am perfectly content with the knowledge that far fewer Jews may have been victimized than I’d been led to believe until now.  This is a comforting thought.
Even after reading the book, I am not 100% convinced that the revisionists are correct.  But, in my mind, the single most damning piece of evidence against proponents of the traditional view is that they resort to throwing revisionists in prison, assassinating their character, destroying their careers and disrupting their meetings.  To me, this behavior is tantamount to an admission that they are being deceitful.  To them I say, “if you have nothing to hide, then meet the revisionists in open debate, read their books and answer their objections.”  I’ve seen this kind of cowardice before.   It is the default tactic of those whose views are based on emotion rather than reason.  Since they lack solid arguments to use in a debate, they resort to thuggery and book-burning.
I am glad that there are those who fight for the truth.  I applaud people like Thomas Dalton and Norman Finkelstein – because the holocaust continues each day and its victims continue to pile up.  These are the Palestinians who are murdered, tortured and whose houses are demolished.  The Jewish children who are raised to believe the whole world is out to get them and who are made to relive the suffering of those “six million” who perished.  The American and European taxpayers whose money is extorted to perpetuate the racket that the holocaust industry has become.

This entry was posted in Jewish stuff and Israel. Bookmark the permalink.

33 Responses to Debating the Holocaust

  1. Patrick says:

    I notice that jailing holocaust questioners makes the holocause revisionism scene seem chic.
    I agree that the USA aid to Israel is not cool. Personally all military aid to all foreign countries by the USA should be stopped. We have no business dicking around with these wars in foreign countries.
    That’s why the American government needs to stop giving tax moneys to foreign powers and once America stops with this military aid then americans can sit back and forget about all these insane wars in foreign lands whether they are in eastern europe, israel, africa, asia, latin america, or spain.
    Seriously whats the point of living in a first world country with a beautiful land and cool people and fun things to do if we’re all gonna spend our time playing these power games in foreign land… what’s more important telling people what to do half way around the world or having a healthy body?

  2. FrankBD says:

    There’s a big difference between debating the number of holocaust victims and denying it entirely. The latter is the province of lunatics. Has anyone been jailed for claiming anything along the lines of “the number of victims was one million, not six”? What’s the original source of the six million figure, anyway? It seems remarkably tenuous for something universally accepted.
    Turning just to how his issue affects me…
    I quickly lost interest in Stormfront (and turned to AmRen) when a couple day’s reading showed that the members admire Hitler and deny the holocaust. I consider this a key issue, because holocaust denial represents gross ignorance. Like any product of modern education outside the South, I had been taught since youth that believing in racial differences represented prejudice and ignorance. Only experience with the most-respected minority group members in my field taught me that belief in HBD is NOT prejudice and ignorance. It’s the people who believe in ethnic intellectual equality because they haven’t spent much time around other groups that are pre-judging (prejudice) based on insufficient information (ignorance).
    BTW, I bet that if you surveyed people’s attitude toward various ethnicities and correlated against their level of familiarity, you’d find that negative attitudes toward Jews correlated with low contact and negative attitudes towards blacks correlates with high.

    • jewamongyou says:

      I agree. Only a lunatic would claim that there was no mass murder of Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals etc. by the Nazis and their sympathizers. This is, according to the book in question, why defenders of “orthodoxy” go out of their way to equate the two; they wish to make holocaust revisionists seem like lunatics.
      As for the law in such places as Germany, they seem to use vague language such as “whoever diminishes/belittles the crimes of National Socialists etc.” Then the question arises, “diminishes/belittles from what?” So yes, it seems conceivable to me that a person could be locked up for claiming only five millions Jews were murdered. I am not familiar with the details of existing cases though. Perhaps somebody else could fill us in on that.

      • sceptic says:

        Only a lunatic would claim that there was no mass murder of Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals etc. by the Nazis and their sympathizers?? How do you know that? By reading one book and ignoring much of what is said there?
        You wanted to find out that there were less Jews killed than you thought. You’re happy with that and don’t want to look any further, obviously. But the idea that NO Jews were intentionally mass murdered you don’t want to find out. That will set you too much against your own kind.
        But, do you want the truth or do you want fables? You have obviously overlooked much of what was presented in Debating the Holocaust, which does indeed give a fair presentation of both sides even if the author finds the revisionist side most compelling. That’s because it is!
        Thanks for the forum to speak.

    • sceptic says:

      To Frank BD,
      One of the main “crimes” committed by Ernst Zundel was publishing a book entitled “Did Six Million Really Die?”
      Whatever else he was accused of was not even as serious as that! This book contained information from the Red Cross that showed far fewer deaths in all the concentration camps, of all ethnic groups – not just Jews – than is claimed by the “Industry.” Zundel was imprisoned for 7 years — two years in Canada in maximum security while fighting extradiditon to Germany, and five years in Germany. The U.S. conspired to arrest and transport Zundel to Canada, using trumped up charges.
      So, yes, it is criminal to question the number who died as well as any other detail of this officially mandated Religion of the 20th/21st Century. If you are Jewish, it is YOUR responsibility to learn the truth by reading revisionist books and articles with an open mind (as much as possible) and stop this insanity that is driving up dislike of Jews in all corners of the world.

    • Gaurav Ahuja says:

      Holocaust denial is like the term racism. People just use it when they want to stop someone from speaking. There are a few things people get angry about when it comes to that period with regards to concentration camp victims under the National Socialist regime. People get angry about numbers, methods, and whether there was an attempt to exterminate every Jew. I have never heard of any holocaust revisionist state that nobody died and that concentration camps were filled with swimming pools and tennis courts. That is what is implied in the popular mind as denial. People think of deniers as people who ignore evidence and do not read history because they are rabid anti-Jewish people. This is definitely not the case with holocaust revisionists who are called deniers. However, there are some people who do actually know what holocaust revisionist state. And they will call holocaust revisionists “deniers” because they are very ignorant about new evidence. For example, if you state that 400,000 Jews died while there was no use of gas chambers to murder or evidence of Hitler’s order to kill every Jew, then you will never be respectable. It does not matter if you evidence cannot logically be disputed. People have a mental block about this issue even when any tourist at the Auschwitz camp can see things do not go along with establishment’s mainstream story. It is easy to realize why when the mainstream media outlets, Hollywood, and publishing have been run by secular Jews whose most emotional link to being Jewish is that terrible period in time. That is why there are so many books, movies, and television programs that emphasize the victimization of Jews in an exaggerated way. I suppose this propagating is expected when a group has that this much money and influence. When you repeat something often enough, many people will believe it because they will think many other people believe it. And if so many other people believe the mainstream story, then it has to be true. Otherwise, how could so many people believe it?

    • R says:

      “The latter is the province of lunatics”.
      This is the precise type of language that amounts to admitting that you aren’t capable of debating anything. The use of such language will neither gather support for the Holocaust narrative nor will it serve to dissuade Holocaust skeptics. In fact, it will always cause the critical mind to become more suspicious. This reality is something that I have a difficult time resolving in light of the purported agenda of Holocaust promoters. Why would they use debate avoidance and oppression tactics that ultimately drum up support for denial? I’m sure that your emotional impulse is to jail all those who disagree with you. Thuggery seems rational to those who can’t rhetorically justify perspectives that serve their personal interests.
      “Like any product of modern education outside the South…”
      You’ve just confirmed, beyond all doubt, that your a raging moron. However, you perfectly represent why your kind has always failed and will always fail at connecting with southern people. You reek of bigoted contempt because you don’t think that you need to disguise it here, and you would undoubtedly but unintentionally reek of bigoted condescension when attempting to communicate with a southerner and disguise your contempt. To stop to your level for a second, in a very generous offer to make you understand exactly what I’m speaking about, social education is exactly the same in the south as it is everywhere else.

  3. What is ‘Holocaust Denial’?
    In recent years, considerable attention has been devoted to the supposed danger of “Holocaust denial.” Politicians, newspapers and television warn about the growing influence of those who reject the Holocaust story that some six million European Jews were systematically exterminated during the Second World War, most of them in gas chambers.
    In several countries, including Israel, France, Germany and Austria, “Holocaust denial” is against the law, and “deniers” have been punished with stiff fines and prison sentences. Some Jewish community leaders have called for similar measures in North America. In Canada, David Matas, Senior Counsel for the “League for Human Rights” of the Zionist B’nai B’rith organization, says: [1]
    “The Holocaust was the murder of six million Jews, including two million children. Holocaust denial is a second murder of those same six million. First their lives were extinguished; then their deaths. A person who denies the Holocaust becomes part of the crime of the Holocaust itself.”
    Often overlooked in this controversy is the crucial question: Just what constitutes “Holocaust denial”?
    Six Million?
    Should someone be considered a “Holocaust denier” because he does not believe – as Matas and many others insist – that six million Jews were killed during World War II? This figure was cited by the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg in 1945-1946. It found that “the policy pursued [by the German government] resulted in the killing of six million Jews, of which four million were killed in the extermination institutions.” [2]
    Yet if that is so, then several of the most prominent Holocaust historians could be regarded as “deniers.” Professor Raul Hilberg, author of the standard reference work, The Destruction of the European Jews, does not accept that six million Jews died. He puts the total of deaths (from all causes) at 5.1 million. Gerald Reitlinger, author of The Final Solution, likewise did not accept the six million figure. He estimated the figure of Jewish wartime dead might be as high as 4.6 million, but admitted that this was conjectural due to a lack of reliable information.
    Human Soap?
    Is someone a “Holocaust denier” if he says that the Nazis did not make soap from the corpses of murdered Jews? After considering the evidence – including an actual bar of soap supplied by the Soviets – the Nuremberg Tribunal declared in its Judgment that “in some instances attempts were made to utilize the fat from the bodies of the victims in the commercial manufacture of soap.” [3]
    In 1990, though, Israel’s official Yad Vashem Holocaust center “rewrote history” by admitting that the soap story was not true. “Historians have concluded that soap was not made from human fat. When so many people deny the Holocaust ever happened, why give them something to use against the truth?,” said Yad Vashem official Shmuel Krakowski. [4]
    Wannsee Conference?
    Is someone a “Holocaust denier” if he does not accept that the January 1942 “Wannsee conference” of German bureaucrats was held to set or coordinate a program of systematic mass murder of Europe’s Jews? If so, Israeli Holocaust historian Yehuda Bauer must be wrong – and a “Holocaust denier” – because he declared: “The public still repeats, time after time, the silly story that at Wannsee the extermination of the Jews was arrived at.” In Bauer’s opinion, Wannsee was a meeting but “hardly a conference” and “little of what was said there was executed in detail.” [5]
    Extermination Policy?
    Is someone a “Holocaust denier” if he says that there was no order by Hitler to exterminate Europe’s Jews? There was a time when the answer would have been yes. Holocaust historian Raul Hilberg, for example, wrote in the 1961 edition of his study, The Destruction of the European Jews, that there were two Hitler orders for the destruction of Europe’s Jews: the first given in the spring of 1941, and the second shortly thereafter. But Hilberg removed mention of any such order from the revised, three-volume edition of his book published in 1985. [6] As Holocaust historian Christopher Browning has noted: [7]
    “In the new edition, all references in the text to a Hitler decision or Hitler order for the `Final Solution’ have been systematically excised. Buried at the bottom of a single footnote stands the solitary reference: `Chronology and circumstances point to a Hitler decision before the summer ended.’ In the new edition, decisions were not made and orders were not given.”
    A lack of hard evidence for an extermination order by Hitler has contributed to a controversy that divides Holocaust historians into “intentionalists” and “functionalists.” The former contend that there was a premeditated extermination policy ordered by Hitler, while the latter hold that Germany’s wartime “final solution” Jewish policy evolved at lower levels in response to circumstances. But the crucial point here is this: notwithstanding the capture of literally tons of German documents after the war, no one can point to documentary evidence of a wartime extermination order, plan or program. This was admitted by Professor Hilberg during his testimony in the 1985 trial in Toronto of German-Canadian publisher Ernst Zündel. [8]
    So just what constitutes “Holocaust denial”? Surely a claim that most Auschwitz inmates died from disease and not systematic extermination in gas chambers would be “denial.” But perhaps not. Jewish historian Arno J. Mayer, a Princeton University professor, wrote in his 1988 study Why Did the Heavens Not Darken?: The ‘Final Solution’ in History: “…From 1942 to 1945, certainly at Auschwitz , but probably overall, more Jews were killed by so-called ‘natural’ causes than by ‘unnatural’ ones.” [9]
    Even estimates of the number of people who died at Auschwitz – allegedly the main extermination center – are no longer clear cut. At the postwar Nuremberg Tribunal, the Allies charged that the Germans exterminated four million people at Auschwitz. [10] Until 1990, a memorial plaque at Auschwitz read: “Four Million People Suffered and Died Here at the Hands of the Nazi Murderers Between the Years 1940 and 1945.” [11]
    Is it “Holocaust denial” to dispute these four million deaths? Not today. In July 1990, the Polish government’s Auschwitz State Museum, along with Israel’s Yad Vashem Holocaust center, conceded that the four million figure was a gross exaggeration, and references to it were accordingly removed from the Auschwitz monument. Israeli and Polish officials announced a tentative revised toll of 1.1 million Auschwitz dead. [12] In 1993, French Holocaust researcher Jean-Claude Pressac, in a much-discussed book about Auschwitz, estimated that altogether about 775,000 died there during the war years. [13]
    Professor Mayer acknowledges that the question of how many really died in Auschwitz remains open. In Why Did the Heavens Not Darken? he wrote: [14}
    “… Many questions remain open … All in all, how many bodies were cremated in Auschwitz? How many died there all told? What was the national, religious, and ethnic breakdown in this commonwealth of victims? How many of them were condemned to die a ‘natural’ death and how many were deliberately slaughtered? And what was the proportion of Jews among those murdered in cold blood among these gassed? We have simply no answers to these questions at this time.”
    Gas Chambers
    What about denying the existence of extermination “gas chambers”? Here too, Mayer makes a startling statement: “Sources for the study of the gas chambers are at once rare and unreliable.” While Mayer believes that such chambers did exist at Auschwitz, he points out that “most of what is known is based on the depositions of Nazi officials and executioners at postwar trials and on the memory of survivors and bystanders. This testimony must be screened carefully, since it can be influenced by subjective factors of great complexity.” [15}
    Höss Testimony
    One example of this might be the testimony of Rudolf Höss, an SS officer who served as commandant of Auschwitz. In its Judgment, the Nuremberg International Military Tribunal quoted at length from his testimony to support its findings of extermination. [16]
    It is now well established that Höss’ crucial testimony, as well as his so-called “confession” – which was also cited by the Nuremberg Tribunal – are not only false, but were obtained by beating the former commandant nearly to death. [17] Höss’ wife and children were also threatened with death and deportation to Siberia. In his statement – which would not be admissible today in any United States court of law – Höss claimed the existence of an extermination camp called “Wolzek.” In fact, no such camp ever existed. He further claimed that during the time that he was commandant of Auschwitz, two and a half million people were exterminated there, and that a further half million died of disease. [18] Today no reputable historian upholds these figures. Höss was obviously willing to say anything, sign anything and do anything to stop the torture, and to try to save himself and his family.
    Forensic Investigations
    In his 1988 book, Professor Mayer calls for “excavations at the killing sites and in their immediate environs” to determine more about the gas chambers. In fact, such forensic studies have been made. The first was conducted in 1988 by American execution equipment consultant, Fred A. Leuchter, Jr. He carried out an on-site forensic examination of the alleged gas chambers at Auschwitz, Birkenau and Majdanek to determine if they could have been used to kill people as claimed. After a careful study of the alleged killing facilities, Leuchter concluded that the sites were not used, and could not have been used, as homicidal gas chambers. Furthermore, an analysis of samples taken by Leuchter from the walls and floors of the alleged gas chambers showed either no or minuscule traces of cyanide compound, from the active ingredient of Zyklon B, the pesticide allegedly used to murder Jews at Auschwitz. [19]
    A confidential forensic examination (and subsequent report) commissioned by the Auschwitz State Museum and conducted by Institute of Forensic Research in Krakow has confirmed Leuchter’s finding that minimal or no traces of cyanide compound can be found in the sites alleged to have been gas chambers. [20]
    The significance of this is evident when the results of the forensic examination of the alleged homicidal gas chambers are compared with the results of the examination of the Auschwitz disinfestation facilities, where Zyklon B was used to delouse mattresses and clothing. Whereas no or only trace amounts of cyanide were found in the alleged homicidal gas chambers, massive traces of cyanide were found in the walls and floor in the camp’s disinfestation delousing chambers.
    Another forensic study was carried out by German chemist Germar Rudolf. On the basis of his on-site examination and analysis of samples, the certified chemist and doctoral candidate concluded: “For chemical-technical reasons, the claimed mass gassings with hydrocyanic acid in the alleged ‘gas chambers’ in Auschwitz did not take place … The supposed facilities for mass killing in Auschwitz and Birkenau were not suitable for this purpose…” [21]
    There is also the study of Austrian engineer Walter Lüftl, a respected expert witness in numerous court cases, and former president of Austria’s professional association of engineers. In a 1992 report he called the alleged mass extermination of Jews in gas chambers “technically impossible.” [22]
    Discredited Perspective
    So just what constitutes “Holocaust denial”? Those who support criminal persecution of “Holocaust deniers” seem to be still living in the world of 1946 where the Allied officials of the Nuremberg Tribunal have just pronounced their verdict. But the Tribunal’s findings can no longer be assumed to be valid. Because it relied so heavily on such untrustworthy evidence as the Höss testimony, some of its most critical findings are now discredited.
    For purposes of their own, powerful special interest groups desperately seek to keep substantive discussion of the Holocaust story taboo. One of the ways they do this is by purposely mischaracterizing revisionist scholars as “deniers.” But the truth can’t be suppressed forever: There is a very real and growing controversy about what actually happened to Europe’s Jews during World War II.
    Let this issue be settled as all great historical controversies are resolved: through free inquiry and open debate in our journals, newspapers and classrooms.
    1. The Globe and Mail (Toronto), Jan. 22, 1992.
    2. Trial of the Major War Criminals Before the International Military Tribunal (IMT “blue series”), Vol. 22, p. 496.
    3. IMT “blue series,” Vol. 22, p. 496.
    4. The Globe and Mail (Toronto), April 25, 1990; See also: M. Weber, “Jewish Soap,” The Journal of Historical Review, Summer 1991.
    5. The Canadian Jewish News (Toronto), Jan. 30, 1992, p. 8.
    6. See: Barbara Kulaszka, ed., Did Six Million Really Die: Report of the Evidence in the Canadian ‘False News’ Trial of Ernst Zündel (Toronto: Samisdat, 1992), pp. 192, 300, 349.
    7. C. Browning, “The Revised Hilberg,” Simon Wiesenthal Annual, Vol. 3, 1986, p. 294; B. Kulaszka, ed., Did Six Million Really Die (1992), p. 117.
    8. B. Kulaszka, ed., Did Six Million Really Die (1992), pp. 24-25.
    9. A. Mayer, Why Did the Heavens Not Darken?: The ‘Final Solution’ in History (Pantheon, 1988), p. 365.
    10. Nuremberg document 008-USSR, in IMT “blue series,” Vol. 39, pp. 241, 261.
    11. B. Kulaszka, ed., Did Six Million Really Die (1992), p. 441.
    12. Y. Bauer, “Fighting the Distortions,” The Jerusalem Post (Israel), Sept. 22, 1989; “Auschwitz Deaths Reduced to a Million,” The Daily Telegraph (London), July 17, 1990; ” Poland Reduces Auschwitz Death Toll Estimate to 1 Million,” The Washington Times, July 17, 1990.
    13. J.-C. Pressac, Les Crémetoires d’Auschwitz: La machinerie du meurtre de masse (Paris: CNRS, 1993), p. 148. See also: R. Faurisson, “Jean-Claude Pressac’s New Auschwitz Book,” The Journal of Historical Review, Jan.-Feb. 1994, p. 24.
    14. A. Mayer, Why Did the Heavens Not Darken? (1988), p. 366.
    15. A. Mayer, Why Did the Heavens Not Darken? (1988), pp. 362-363.
    16. IMT “blue series,” Vol. 1, pp. 251-252; Nuremberg document 3868-PS, in IMT “blue series,” Vol. 33, pp. 275-279.
    17. Rupert Butler, Legions of Death (England: 1983), pp. 235-237.
    18. See: R. Faurisson, “How the British Obtained the Confession of Rudolf Höss,” The Journal of Historical Review, Winter 1986-87, pp. 389-403.
    19. See, for example: B. Kulaszka, ed., Did Six Million Really Die (1992), pp. 469-502. See also: M. Weber, “Fred Leuchter: Courageous Defender of Historical Truth,” The Journal of Historical Review, Winter 1992-93, pp. 421-428
    ( )
    20. “An Official Polish Report on the Auschwitz ‘Gas Chambers’,” The Journal of Historical Review, Summer 1991, pp. 207-216.
    21. G. Rudolf, Gutachten ueber die Bildung und Nachweisbarkeit von Cyanidverbindungen in den ‘Gaskammern’ von Auschwitz (London: 1993) ( ); The Rudolf Report (in English) ( )
    22. “The ‘Lüftl Report’,” The Journal of Historical Review, Winter 1992-93.

  4. Charles says:

    Rather than shield yourself from reading about the Holocaust, try understanding it. By surviving, Jews won. Instead of exterminating all Jews, as Hitler wished, the Hebrew people have thrived. Instead of the death of the chosen people, we see the triumphant spirit of humankind and the new generation of the nation Israel.
    No event in human history has been studied as thoroughly and carefully than the Holocaust. Thousands of thesis and dissertations papers have poured over mountains of data, from physical evidence and anecdotal testimony to captured German war documents. Virtually everyone with a PhD in History will stake their career on the fact that millions of Jews were systematically exterminated by Nazi Germany. One can no more “revise” this fact than one can revise the existence of gravity. Wannsee Conference records prove that Nazis planned the extermination of Jews as, “The Final Solution.” German concentration camp records prove that it was carried out.
    Whenever we stand up to those who deny or minimize genocide we send a critical message to the world. As we continue to live in an age of genocide and ethnic cleansing, we must repel the broken ethics of our ancestors, or risk a dreadful repeat of past transgressions.
    Holocaust deniers ply their mendacious poison everywhere, especially with young people on the Internet. Deniers seek to distort the truth in a way that promotes antagonism against the object of their hatred, or to deny the culpability of their ancestors and heroes.
    Museums and mandatory public education are tools to dispel bigotry, especially racial and ethnic hatred. Books, plays, films and presentations can reinforce the veracity of past and present genocides. They help to tell the true story of the perpetrators of genocide; and they reveal the abject terror, humiliation and degradation resulting from prejudice. It is therefore essential that we disclose the factual brutality and horror of genocide, combating the deniers’ virulent, inaccurate historical revision. We must protect vulnerable future generations from making the same mistakes.
    A world that continues to allow genocide requires ethical remediation. We must insist that religious, racial, ethnic, gender and orientation persecution is wrong; and that tolerance is our progeny’s only hope. Only through such efforts can we reveal the true horror of genocide and promote the triumphant spirit of humankind.
    Charles Weinblatt
    Author, “Jacob’s Courage”

    • R says:

      “Thousands of thesis and dissertations papers have poured over mountains of data, from physical evidence and anecdotal testimony to captured German war documents. Virtually everyone with a PhD in History will stake their career on the fact that millions of Jews were systematically exterminated by Nazi Germany. One can no more “revise” this fact than one can revise the existence of gravity. Wannsee Conference records prove that Nazis planned the extermination of Jews as, “The Final Solution.” German concentration camp records prove that it was carried out.”
      Your statement is full of factual inaccuracy and embarrassing sophistry, and thus it cannot be taken seriously. One would think an old man would have more intellectual dignity and precision at that stage in his life. The search for truth has advanced well past pretty yet inaccurate language. Join the information age.
      Read the article again for hints on how to present your view, as your current statement stands only as a prime example of inadequate yet suppressive rhetoric. Ie: if we believe in gravity we must believe in the Holocaust; appeals to authority in that “everyone” with a PhD in history will risk their livelihoods for your perspective (an especially disingenuous statement since anyone with a PhD in history who argued the other side would lose their career – again, threat of thuggery is a damning reality).
      Post links to some of your thousands of dissertations, which I’m sure you will hand select to offer the most evidence that counters the strongest arguments of the revisionists. Putting the words “mountains of data”, “physical evidence”, and anecdotal testimony” together in a sentence is not an argument. However, it does sound pretty.
      As for the physical evidence, the denier camp famously backs most of their arguments with the physical evidence. You should familiarize yourself with it, and their general arguments, before making statements like this that are obviously untrue from the perspective of anyone who knows of the arguments of both sides. Holocaust supporters famously avoid physical evidence (much of the physical evidence that they used to claim has been debunked and they no longer claim it) and rely on witnesses, “known fact” (similar in rhetorical philosophy to your gravity equation) and supposed statements of German military personnel after the war (with no account of how much duress or threat they may have been under).
      The remainder of your florid rant could have been copy and pasted from a ADL community “education” pamphlet and it sounds ridiculous here.
      Btw, I have the utmost respect for you JAY and any hostility interpreted here has nothing to do with you or other Jewish people, many of whom are my friends. I’m coming from the perspective that the Holocaust conversation has to gain some integrity if this world is ever going to gain some peace. The language and superficial rhetoric that this propaganda horn with a keyboard puts forth makes things much worse.

  5. Patrick says:

    One of the things overlooked about the holocaust is the role of hospitals and psychiatrists.

  6. Pingback: ENGLISH Dakota Fanning; Mossad; British children in tears after Holo roll play hoax | John de Nugent

  7. Patrick says:

    OK, I personally believe there was a holocaust but I feel no sympathy for jewish people when people deny the holocaust because the ADL campaigns against recognizing the armenian genocide as a genocide. I personally feel disgusted with Abe Foxmans behavior.

    • jewamongyou says:

      There are many Jews, even liberal ones, who do not like the ADL and strongly disagree with their tactics and stances.

      • Patrick says:

        Oh ya I totally understand there are a lot of jewish people who are annoyed with Abe Foxman. But I mean Abe Foxman turned off an emotion in my heart by what he did.

  8. jewamongyou says:

    It looks like we might have the makings of a fruitful debate between Michael Santomauro and Charles Weinblatt. I would envision it as a dialog between those two individuals only – in order to avoid others ganging up on somebody and creating a hostile atmosphere.
    I wanted to apologize to Michael; somehow your post get sent to the “spam” folder.

  9. fred says:

    jewamongyou, I’ve seen your comments on amren forever and only recently discovered your blog. The holocaust stuff didn’t bring me here and I cringe every time I see this discussion raise it’s ugly head.
    Also, in the interest of disclosure I’m neither jewish, antisemitic nor philosemitic. I’m neutral in the sense that I think some jews are good, some are bad and some are just regular folks.
    Anyway, here are my comments on several aspects:
    Comment 1: On “politicization”
    I think the holocaust has been politicized and used as a political tool and fund raising hustle by all concerned. And I find it equally offensive that antisemites would disrespect others’ deceased relatives as I do that jewish supremacists would use it to instill ethnic hatred. The proper thing to do is to open up free discussion among legitimate academics. While recognizing that non academics of all stripes just have a hard-on.
    Comment 2: On “denial”
    Suppose someone casts aspersions upon the character of your wife or mother. You’d call them a liar and try to beat them up. Now, what if you think the allegations are true? You’d still call them a liar and try to beat them up.
    But what if you really do think the person is a liar? Now, this raises issues of belief. Think about all the moslems, christians, jews, hindus, etc who believe different things. Now, they can’t all be right. But they all believe their stuff in spite of substantial evidence to the contrary.
    Comment 3: On “neo nazism”
    it should be obvious that there is no organized neo nazi movement. What there is are a few neo nazi demagogues who make a big noise for donations. A few anti nazi demagogues who make a big noise for donations. A few hoodlums who hang out and drink beer or chat on the internet. And a few law enforcement agents who baby sit them.
    Comment 4: On “obligations”
    the only thing that is owed to the victims of ww2 is a moment of silence and a little respect. And that goes for the victims of ALL sides. But the war is over. And anyone old enough to remember is too old to remember it. But the real question is, “Should what we percieve as right and wrong change based on ww2?” My opinion is that the principles of right and wrong aren’t altered by history. People who pretend otherwise are being deceptive.
    Comment 5: On “jews and society”
    I think the discussion creates tensions that radicalize jews and force them away from a normalized relationship with the rest of society.

  10. Techno Dan says:

    There was a book mentioned by the radio news program host John Loeffler (his program is called “Steel on Steel”). He once mentioned a book on the Holocaust, by a Jewish author, that includes the claim that about eight million Christians (that number may also include others such as Gypsies, I’m not sure) also died at the hands of the Nazis. I’m sorry I don’t know the name of the book or its author.
    What bothers me with the conventional view is the silence on the number of non-Jews killed that I hear of and read about in the media. There is rarely even a mention of the Protestants and Catholics who stood against Hitler and died for doing so. One such person was Deitrich Bonhoeffer, a Protestant minister, who’s family tried to assassinate Hitler with a time-bomb, and who also helped Jews escape persecution and death in Germany. Bonhoeffer was eventually interned and put to death in a concentration camp.
    (There is a very good audio recording of a radio theater production by Focus on the Family about his life…I listened to it years ago and it gave me insight into the incredible courage and faith of this man).

  11. john thames says:

    Almost everyone accepts the Nazi Holocaust, the alleged extermination of the Jews, as an incontestable fact. The reasons for that acceptance are rather simple. They are:
    1 – The shocking photos of emaciated bodies being bulldozed into pits at Bergen-Belsen and other camps at war’s end;
    2 – The absence of Jews in their former places of residence in Western Europe at war’s end;
    3 – The “all those people could not be lying” argument
    None of these arguments will withstand the test of investigation. The emaciated bodies in the western camps died of overcrowding and starvation at the war’s conclusion. Camps originally designed to hold a few thousand inmates became overcrowded with tens of thousands of inmates as Jews originally deported to Russia were evacuated back to the Reich with the retreating Wehrmacht. Food supplies originally adequate to feed a few thousand inmates became inadequate to feed populations swollen by war time evacuations. The problem was greatly exacerbated by allied bombing raids that disrupted German supply lines and food transports. Yet this powerful visual impact of diseased and emaciated bodies is undoubtedly the number one reason most people believe in the hoax of the six million. Another point needs to be made. The evacuation of these very much alive Jews back to Germany is proof against the extermination story. If, by 1945, the Germans still had tens or hundreds of thousands of alive Jews under their control to be evacuated back to the Reich, this strongly suggests that the true German policy was to deport the Jews and put them to work for the German war effort. Otherwise, all of these thousands of Jews would already have been shot long before 1945. And why drag them back to Germany to testify to the victors about the exterminations they had seen?
    The second objection, the absence of the Jews from the areas of their former residence, is not convincing either. Wars are times of huge population movements, both during the fighting and afterwards. During the war, the Germans deported large numbers of Jews eastward. The Soviets themselves deported over 50% of the Jews in their western territories eastward to get them out of the way of the advancing Germans and to employ them as technical workers in the Soviet arms factories east of the Ural Mountains. After the war huge numbers of Jews fled to New York City, the United States and South America camouflaged as Poles, Hungarians, etc. Still others were rerouted to Palestine through the Balkans and Greece or shipped to Palestine from Italian ports by the United Nations Rehabilitation and Relief Administration (UNRRA). Numerous Polish Jews were deported by the Red Army in 1939 to escape the Germans. They returned after the war to dominate the 75% Jewish Polish Communist secret police. Similar percentages of Jewish Communists were to be found in East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Rumania and Hungary. Clearly, huge numbers of Jews were alive after the Germans had supposedly exterminated them.
    The argument that all those people could not have lied will not hold up either. This argument is essentially the argument that the Nuremberg Trial was a genuine judicial proceeding. It was not. It was a kangaroo court run by the victors and the “evidence” was tainted in the extreme. The actual German camp records of deaths by typhus and disease were withheld by the victors and bogus testimonies of “gassings” by dozens of witnesses were never proven by forensic testing of the alleged killing sites. Jews in American, British and Soviet uniforms ran the trials behind the scenes and routinely tortured German defendants. Telling tall tales in such an atmosphere and selling them to the world as judicially “proven” fact was not difficult. The Americans and the British, subservient to Jewish loans for their financial survival, could very easily be coerced into going along with the hoax. Besides, the British and Americans had committed massive crimes of their own during and after the war, such as initiating the aerial bombing of civilians, starving German prisoners after the war, delivering millions of Russian POW’s and Cossacks back to Stalin to be murdered during Operation Keelhaul and mass raping thousands of women. The “gas chamber”/Jewish extermination hoax proved very useful in diverting attention from these far more real Allied war crimes. Thus, the popular perception that “The Holocaust” is a proven fact is proven to be an illusion. The analogy of a Potemkin village is useful. The Potemkin village is a façade, superficially imposing from the front but lacking any substance when viewed from the rear. So it is with the Jewish extermination myth. The story is plausible only until examined. Then it falls apart very quickly. Neither written German records, the known technology of execution by gassing and body disposal by crematory oven, support it. Claims of mass shootings of Jews in Russia, although not untrue, greatly exaggerate the numbers of victims. Known Jewish population movements, during and after the war, provide convincing evidence of Jewish survival of the alleged extermination.
    The Holocaust myth shall not die easily. The Jews have set themselves up for enormous retribution if the truth ever comes out. Having conned the world for seventy years with the myth, world wide reaction would make the Nazi movement of the 1930’s look tame by comparison. That is why country after country is passing laws making “Holocaust Denial” a crime. The truth cannot be allowed to come out for, if it ever does, then Adolf Hitler shall be resurrected from the grave as the greatest of all prophets and messiahs.

  12. john thames says:
    My short summary of the evidence and the meaning of it all.

  13. KBO says:

    Brave and excellent article.

  14. “The Jewish children who are raised to believe the whole world is out to get them and who are made to relive the suffering of those ‘six million’ who perished” are cited above as extra victims of the Holocaust. Get over yourself. What about the mandated Holocaust curricula forced on the gentile children in every country in the Eurozone and every state in America? It begins in elementary school and remains as a degree option through graduate school. It’s sadistic to burden young minds with these tales of ceaseless horror and morbidity, yet old “survivahs” are trotted out regularly and sent into Sunday schools, elementary schools, middle schools, high schools and universities to terrify kids in the name of “Remembrance” and “Tolerance.” The Holocaust Industry is a barometer of how sick Western society has become. It’s never not in the news, not in the movies, not on the academic agenda. It’s a psychological billy club that should be grabbed out of the hands of those wielding it and used on them instead.

    • jewamongyou says:

      Yes, those gentile children are victims too, but I’m fairly certain that most of them can retain some degree of detachment since it’s not their own flesh and blood being talked about. It’s fairly common among Jews, however, to weep and agonize over it and lose sleep over it.

  15. ad84 says:

    “if you have nothing to hide, then meet the revisionists in open debate, read their books and answer their objections.”
    this sounds too much like what young-earth creationists say. But debating them by legitimate scientists only lends them credence. So, this is not always applicable.

    • ad84 says:

      also, to hell with homosexeuals. The Holocaust is a Jewish thing. The homos were persecuted not as a group as were the Jews, but as individual pervs. If that conduct was against the prevalent sensibilities in the conservative society that was N**zi Germany, or, for that matter, post-war Britain, then well, tough titty.
      Including homos in the Holocaust only serves the gender agenda. Turing was not the proud, professional gay gay-rights groups make him out to be, he was so ashamed he committed suicide.

    • ad84 says:

      and Gypsies, someone said that compared to them Muslim immigrants are a model minority and an example of aspiration to middle-class values. That says A LOT.

    • ad84 says:

      Homos were being “cured” with electric shock “therapy” in the liberal hell that is Denmark in as late as the 1970’s. Today they love homos über alles and they are (or was it Norway) being wholesale raped by Somalis. What happened? How does a society make such leaps? Or was there no leap to be made in the first place, because as the stifling conformism of olden days, so the hip xenophilia of today are products of the same bourgeois mindset?
      My point is, there’s a Left and there’s a Left. All this proliferation of victim groups is an elitist surrogate for something else. The truth is, a white male can never ever EVER oppress a woman, or a homo, if he’s a downtrodden wage worker and they’re a professional woman (gender equality officer or other such sinecure) and he’s a professional pederast.

  16. Pingback: ENGLISH Dakota Fanning; Mossad; British children in tears after Holo role play hoax - John de Nugent

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *