JANUARY 2006

Were the Germans Guilty? They Certainly Are Not Now.
Let Us look at combatant arguments in that Debate.:



Rachel Whiteread exhib.Tate Modern, London Winter 2005.

NOT GUILTY:

On Dec 8, 2005, at 8:55 AM, andy sylvan wrote:
The Jewish War on Freedom of Speech is awesome!

Here is an essay I wrote that you might enjoy -

All the best - Andy.
I Survived the Holocaust Museum!

The New York Holocaust Museum is itself a concentration camp, a gulag for high school teenagers who are consigned for the day to bear witness to the most monumental event in the history of the universe: The Jewish Holocaust. Fortunately, there are no windows near the exhibits from which the youths might longingly imagine their escape. Though their grandfathers were the very ones which liberated the detainment camps of the Third Reich, the grandchildren are the ones being punished. They are forced to pay homage to the story, a tale, which, though stronger than ever before, has been proven to be largely false.

The many hundreds of Holocaust museums that school children are forced to march through is mandatory Jew-worship. In fact, when you go to a Holocaust museum, notice how the set up and narrative mimics the structure and story of Christ, the Crucifixion, and the Stations of the Cross. As you move through the various exhibits, counter-clockwise, you are confronted with insinuations of the innocent suffering, the righteous persistence, the persecution, and finally, the execution (the sacrifice). Though not entirely clear at the time, one may realize that Jews have shaped and grafted their narrative to correspond to the belief system of the Christian. Their lie, inevitably, has the ring of truth in our society.

*Jews will need to construct a new approach in trying to brainwash, for instance, the rising Chinese tide, who have entirely different myths and cultural stories, ones which Jews will need to study before they can take advantage of the world's future elite. The Holocaust presentation will have to be remolded and refashioned to have maximum impact on such a vastly different people.

A tour guide led the huddle of fidgeting sophomores through the exhibit. She asked the disinterested gaggle what a certain 1930's caricature of a Jew might direct other people to think. Leading them to agree that the picture was intended to "dehumanize a whole group of people," I commented on its similarity to various tractates of the Jewish Talmud, which announces that all non-Jews are animals, and may be deceived and cheated by Jews. To this the kids perked up from their torpor. The guide, however, ignored the statement, demanding to know what I thought the specific cartoon of the hook-nosed Jew was intended to express. I said that I agreed and that it was also similar to the hate Jews have towards others as expressed in their holy books. She claimed to have no knowledge of the Talmud and decided to have a staff member fetch "someone more knowledgeable" from the archives.

Enter Ivan, a Russian Jew and historian who has "read many books." Motioning that he didn't have much time, that it was almost lunch, I figured Ivan would appreciate my candor. Quietly I told him that I don't believe in the Holocaust, and that if the Holocaust had to be proven before a court of law, it would be laughed right out of the door: no physical evidence, no plans, no budget, no paperwork for "soap," "lampshades," or "gas chambers." "Impossible," he declared. "Because there are so many accounts of these things, it is necessarily a truth." I asked Ivan if he was familiar with the Salem Witch trials, or the phenomena of sighting aliens. "There is a historical precedent for people lying en masse." I told him. "People have sworn, in courts of law, that they experienced things which they had not, for a variety of reasons, whether out of revenge or honest hallucination." "The Nuremburg hearings were the same as the Salem Witch courts, taking the testimony of liars as fact - without any real evidence"

I took Ivan to task on the Jewish-led Communist takeover of Russia, Bavaria, and Hungary (1917-1920) and the heavy Jewish involvement in Bolshevik regime which went on to murder a minimum of 30 million Russian and Christian Ukrainians. "This museum presents none of WWII in context" I said. Ivan however, insisted that as a Russian child he was allegiant to Russia and not to Judaism. "That's great," I told him, "but that does nothing to change the facts." It was Ivan's lunch time suddenly, so, while heading for the door, he told me that I need to read more books, more pro-Holocaust Holocaust books (I call those novels).

Before Ivan got out of the windowless corridor, I added "Look, I'm not hateful, I just don't want to be forced to believe lies, and I don't want to fight Israel's wars. This lie is the basis for the unchecked Jewish manipulation of this country." Ivan shrugged and hurriedly walked out. He must have been very hungry.

*One would think that Jews would be thrilled to find out that they were not hated simply for being Jewish. Not true! Jewish Supremacists need the "Holocaust" desperately- the establishment of the Jewish state (and Jewish power in America) is based on this myth. It functions to both silence critics and advance Jewish interests.

Scientists and historians have proven that Jews were never gassed, nor had even close to 6 million died. (Honestly, the European Jews I know personally are not of the heartiest stock - one freezing winter in Poland with limited food supply would do them in, easily). By proving that Jews did not suffer uniquely during WWII, Jews are shown not to be unique (overly special or better than others). This kills them. They demand you recognize them as special (i.e. "chosen"). For these reasons, such scientists and historians have been put in jail on Jewish-sponsored laws forbidding the questioning of their Holocaust. This is not a laughing matter. This odd and out-of-control tale must be challenged wherever you find it.

The New York Holocaust Museum is located at:
36 Battery Place
New York, NY 10280

http://www.historiography-project.org/misc/doors.html

GUILTY :
"the war was a vicious scramble to redivide and suck the life out of most of the world and its resources, people included."Eugene Weixel in correspondence with Sue Blackwell
"You will have to agree that the war propaganda that identified Dachau as a place of mass gassings and creamations turned out to be false. It turns out that indeed there was a gas chamber at Dachau in which clothing of inmates was in fact rid of lice. As distateful as that expresson is it's accepted today. http://www.scrapbookpages.com/ DachauScrapbook/GasChamber/Index.html Gas Chambers at Dachau "Baracke X, erected May 1942 to April 1943. It was to serve both as a killing facility and to remove the dead, but the gas chamber in the middle of the building was not used for mass murder.

"Survivors have testified that the SS did, however, murder individual prisoners and small groups here using poison gas. A Building where Dachau gas chamber was located photographed in May 2003, shows the building where the infamous Dachau gas chamber is located. The gas chamber room is right behind the white table, which has a memorial inscription to the victims. The low shrub on the left hides a memorial plaque on the ground which marks the spot where the gallows stood.

"When soldiers of the US Seventh Army arrived on April 29, 1945 to liberate the concentration camp at Dachau, they found that the inmates in the camp, who were predominantly Communists and other anti-Nazi political prisoners, had organized into an International Committee headed by a Belgian Communist named Albert Guérisse who was using the fake name of Patrick O'Leary and pretending to be Canadian. Patrick O'Leary spoke perfect English and he and his fellow Committee members were very anxious to give a guided tour of the camp to the American heroes and the newspaper reporters who accompanied them. They particularly wanted to show them the five gas chambers outside the prison compound in the new crematorium building, named Baracke X. Many of the soldiers and newspaper reporters who took this tour wrote their descriptions of the gas chambers.

"The official report of the US Seventh Army was printed as a book entitled Dachau Liberated: The Official Report of The U.S. Seventh Army, Released Within Days of the Camp's Liberation by Elements of the 42nd and 45th Divisions. The following quote is from this book: "When the American troops arrived on 29 April 1945, there were approximately 32,500 estimated internees of all nationalities, the Poles predominating. During this period, the camp was notorious for its cruelty, but within the last six or eight months, some 'token' improvement was noted in the treatment of the internees. However, the new crematorium was completed in May 1944, and the gas chambers, a total of five, were used for the executions and the disposals of the bodies."

"Shortly after the liberation of Dachau, the American Army released a photograph which clearly showed that a gas chamber was in operation there. The photograph was published in American newspapers and magazines and was then shown in a traveling exhibit which started in St. Louis and ended in Washington, DC. Films of Dachau taken at the liberation of the camp were shown in the weekly newsreels in American movie theaters. American congressmen traveled to Dachau in early May 1945 and stood in the largest gas chamber, examining its fake shower heads. Their Congressional Report, based on this visit, was entered into the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg as evidence that a homicidal gas chamber was used to murder prisoners at Dachau. After the liberation of Dachau, the Army quickly set up a museum in the new crematorium and General Dwight D. Eisenhower ordered that as many American soldiers as possible should be brought to the camp to view the evidence of Nazi atrocities, particularly the notorious gas chamber disguised as a shower room. However, Eisenhower himself never visited any of the three major Nazi concentration camps in Germany, nor did he mention any gas chambers in his book, Crusade in Europe.

"At the Nuremberg war crimes trial, eye-witness testimony about prisoners being killed in the Dachau gas chamber was given by Dr. Franz Blaha, a Czech Communist who was a prisoner in the camp and a prominent member of the International Committee at Dachau. At the Nuremberg trial of the Nazi war criminals, a film was shown which included some footage of the Dachau gas chamber. Visitors to the Memorial Site can see the gas chamber footage from this film in a 22-minute movie shown every half hour in the museum.

"In the immediate aftermath of World War II, there was no doubt whatsoever in anyone's mind that there was indeed a homicidal gas chamber in the new crematorium building at Dachau and that prisoners in the camp had been murdered there. In 1972 a fictional Hollywood film called Justice at Nuremberg confirmed this belief. Dachau was the only concentration camp mentioned in the movie, giving some people the impression that 6,000,000 Jews had been gassed to death there. Up until 1960, it was an accepted fact that a gas chamber, disguised as a shower room, had been used to murder prisoners at the Dachau concentration camp.

"Then on August 19, 1960 on page 16, Die Zeit, a German magazine, published a letter from Martin Broszat, head of the Institute for Contemporary History in Munich. Herr Broszat stated that the Dachau gas chamber had never been completed and had not been put into operation..."

"Ah, yes, the movie "Judgement at Nuremberg" by which I as a youth learned that the Jews were mass murdered at Dachau. I was like the entire generation of Jewish youths at that time indoctrinated and traumatized by a Hollywood lie. For shame! Guttenplan in The Guardian: "Although the grisly tale of the soap figured in some of the earliest accounts of Nazi-occupied Europe, it is now rejected by historians as a fabrication - similar to the atrocity stories of Allied propaganda during the first world war. Dachau did have a gas chamber, but it was never used.

"This week the BBC referred to the "death camp" at Belsen, but there were no gas chambers at Belsen. Nor did the Nazis come first for the Jews; as Peter Novick explains in his brilliant and provocative new book, The Holocaust in American Life, "First they came for the Communists" - a circumstance acknowledged by Niemöller, who continued, "but I was not a Communist - so I said nothing. Then they came for the Social Democrats, but I was not a Social Democrat - so I did nothing. Then came the trade unionists, but I was not a trade unionist. And then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew - so I did little. Then when they came for me, there was no one left who could stand up for me." The Holocaust Museum in Washington DC is just one of those who, in Novick's phrase "prudently omits" Communists from Niemöller's homily.

"But prudence and political calculation have influenced our knowledge of the Holocaust from the beginning. Even the word itself - from the Greek holos, for whole, and kaustos, for burnt - is contested. In some circles, the Hebrew word Shoah, meaning destruction, is preferred. The Princeton historian Arno Mayer coined the term "Judeocide" to describe the subject of his study Why Did the Heavens Not Darken?

"For a long time after the war, the fate of European Jewry was hardly mentioned, partly because, as the cartoonist Art Spiegelman's father says in Maus, his survivor's tale in cartoon format, "No one wants anyway to hear such stories," and partly because in camps liberated by British and American troops including Dachau, Belsen and Buchenwald, only a minority of the prisoners were Jews. In Ed Murrow's famous 1945 broadcast from Buchenwald the words Jew and Jewish are never spoken. In her first book, Beyond Belief, Lipstadt wrote that even when confronted by the evidence, many correspondents were reluctant to admit to themselves and their readers the reality of genocide. She attributes some reluctance to anti-Semitism. Novick, who teaches history at the University of Chicago, suggests a different reason for postwar reticence: with the realignment of the cold war, talk of the Holocaust was inimical to US interests.

"In 50s America few besides Communists shouted "Remember the six million!" for most Americans, including Jews, the Holocaust was "the wrong atrocity" - mention of it was at best an embarrassment, at worst a cause for suspicion. Today the Holocaust is ubiquitous. Films such as Schindler's List, television programmes, novels, memoirs all add to what we know - or think we know - about what Raul Hilberg called "the destruction of the European Jews". His book with that title was published in 1961. The first reviews were mostly hostile: it was years before Hilberg won prizes. Merely consider the reception of Binjamin Wilkomirski's Fragments (1995) to see how much has changed: it won the National Jewish Book Award for autobiography. Even after evidence mounted that Wilkomirski was really Bruno Dössekker, a Swiss musician whose account of a childhood in the camps is fictional, Fragments attracted readers, such is the appetite for Holocaust literature.

"How did this change come about? Novick mentions a gradual easing of the cold war, outbreaks of neo-Nazism in Germany and the US, the 1952 publication of Anne Frank: The Diary of A Young Girl, adapted to stage and screen. But the single greatest catalyst was the trial of war criminal Adolf Eichmann. Much of the initial response was negative. But as the trial wore on, the mass of detail overcame scepticism. The trial was televised, and for the first time the American public was confronted with the Holocaust distinct from the general carnage of war. Now, nearly 40 years after, Eichmann's name again echoed in a court. For over nine weeks in Courtroom 73 of the Royal Courts of Justice the Holocaust has been on trial as Charles Gray presided over David Irving v. Penguin Books Ltd and Deborah Lipstadt. Towards the end of the trial, which, thanks to British libel laws, forced Lipstadt to prove the truth of the claim in her book Denying the Holocaust that Irving knowingly distorted or suppressed evidence regarding the Nazi massacre of European Jewry, it was announced that the Israeli authorities had agreed to release Eichmann's diaries. But the problem of Lipstadt and her lawyers couldn't be solved by new evidence. The problem was how to interpret what was already there.

"To Irving, author of numerous books on the Third Reich, the Holocaust is "an ill-fitting legend". He didn't deny many Jews died; he denied that any of them were killed in gas chambers, that Hitler directly ordered the annihilation of Jewry, and that the killings were in any significant way different from the war's other atrocities.

"In Hilberg's insight, the destruction of European Jewry was a bureaucratic process, the result of "a series of administrative measures". In their pursuit of the Endlösung - the Final Solution to the Jewish question - the Nazis left the detritus of any large organisation: memoranda, requisition forms, purchase orders and blueprints. A million Jews were murdered at Auschwitz and all had to be taken there by train in the middle of a war in which the railways were the lifelines of the German army. The Zyklon B gas to kill them had to be paid for. And the ovens that disposed of the bodies had to be specially built, by Topf and Sons, a firm that patented the design. For each Stück - piece, as the Nazis referred to a Jew - processed, items had to be accounted for: money, dental gold, hair. Hilberg mapped this bureaucracy in three volumes, but the essential facts are in a series of tables. Deaths by cause shows that more than 800,000 Jews died from "ghetto-isation and general privation," more than 1.3m by "open-air shootings," and up to 3m were murdered in camps - as many as 2.7m in specialised extermination centres such as Sobibór, Treblinka, and Belzec; 150,000 died in other camps, including concentration camps such as Dachau and Buchenwald. In deaths by country, Hilberg's list ranges from the 3m Jews of Poland to the fewer than 1,000 from Luxembourg, and in deaths by year charts the genocide's rise and fall. But the total is the same: 5.1m Jews.

"Other historians dispute Hilberg's arithmetic, arguing for 6m. Scholars remain divided on when and why the Nazis shifted from encouraging Jewish emigration (which saved half of Germany's Jews) to extermination (which murdered 90% of Greece's Jews). They argue about the role of the camps in the German economy. Irving used these disagreements to get into the debate. But his arguments were of a different order. He filed for libel in September 1996; that spring, his US publishers, St Martin's Press, had cancelled the publication of his Goebbels: Mastermind of the Third Reich. Given his history, controversy was to be expected, even courted. Publishers Weekly pronounced the book "repellent"; Jewish organisations expressed outrage; Deborah Lipstadt was quoted as saying that St Martin's would hardly sign up a white supremacist for a book on race relations.

"St Martin's at first stood firm, but between a March Daily News report about the uproar and Frank Rich's April New York Times column calling Irving "Hitler's Spin Artist," it lost nerve and cancelled publication. The principal effect of this, as Christopher Hitchens pointed out in Vanity Fair, was to transform a man with "depraved ideas" about the Holocaust into a poster boy for free speech. This lent the book the cachet of suppressed literature. and gave rise to Gordon Craig's declaration, in a review in the New York Review of Books, that "silencing Mr Irving would be a high price to pay for freedom from the annoyance that he causes us". Craig continued: "He knows more about National Socialism than most professional scholars in his field, and students of the years 1933-1945 owe more than they are always willing to admit" to his research. "Such people have an indispensable part in the historical enterprise, and we dare not disregard their views." On Tuesday, Mr Justice Gray found otherwise.

"The argument is familiar. In the late 70s, French intellectuals were convulsed over l'affaire Faurisson. Robert Faurisson, professor of literature at the University of Lyons, wrote in Le Monde the "good news" that the gas chambers had not existed. "The alleged Hitlerian gas chambers," he said, "and the so-called genocide of the Jews form a single historical lie whose principal beneficiaries are the State of Israel and international Zionism." Hitchens described Irving as "not just a Fascist historian, but a great historian of Fascism". He also assumed that what Irving really wanted was a debate with his critics. If that had been Irving's objective, all he had to do was bide his time. "Someone," Hitchens asserted, "will no doubt pick up where St Martin's left off." Instead, Irving blamed Lipstadt for his troubles in the US and sued her and her publisher, Penguin Books, for libel in England. At which point it became more difficult to defend the proposition that what was at stake was Irving's freedom of speech. Faurisson's chief antagonist, French classicist Pierre Vidal-Naquet, argued : "To live with Faurisson? Any other attitude would imply that we were imposing historical truth as legal truth, which is a dangerous attitude."

"Vidal-Naquet opposed his government's use of torture in Algeria and supports the rights of Palestinians. Perhaps because both his parents were deported by the Nazis (his mother died in Auschwitz), he felt it just as important to expose Faurisson's distortions as to support his right to distort. His scepticism about the role of the state has no echo in Lipstadt, unlike his argument against debating the Holocaust. He wrote: "Confronting an actual Eichmann, one had to resort to armed struggle and, if need be, touse a paper Eichmann, one should respond with paper... In so doing, we are not placing ourselves on the same ground as our enemy. We do not debate him; we demonstrate the mechanisms of his lies and falsifications, which may be methodologically useful for the younger generations." We need only set this passage from Assassins of Memory, his restrained, yet devastating, response to Faurisson, beside a similar passage from Denying the Holocaust to see the extent of Lipstadt's indebtedness. "Not ignoring the deniers does not mean engaging them in debate; it means not doing that. We cannot debate them for two reasons, one strategic and the other tactical... The deniers long to be considered the "other" side. Engaging them in discussion makes them exactly that. . They are contemptuous of the very tools that shape any honest debate: truth and reason. Debating with them would be like trying to nail a glob of jelly to the wall." Though she relies on his arguments, Lipstadt is no Vidal-Naquet. She lacks his intellectual breadth, clarity of thought and expression, and, sadly, his stature as a Jew who has never confined his political engagement to Jewish causes.

"In Israel, as you might expect in a country where in the 40s the slang for Holocaust survivor translated as soap, the battle over representing the Nazi genocide has always been bare-knuckled and open. The arguments go back to the war, when supporters of mainstream Zionism sought to discredit the Emergency Committee to Save the Jewish People of Europe (agitating noisily for rescue) as a vehicle of the right-wing Zionist terrorist group Irgun. As indeed it was. David Ben-Gurion and other Zionist leaders were not thought lessly "writing off" European Jewry, Peter Novick says, but just making a "chilling... appraisal of what was and was not possible".

"Though it is impolite to mention it, there are still live questions about the Holocaust. The dispute between intentionalists, who say that genocide was always part of Hitler's plan, and functionalists, who argue the Final Solution evolved in response to changing conditions and fortunes of war, is far from settled. Another open, though stifled, question is about the number of survivors. Irving's claim that Jews inflated the number of victims to extort money from Germany merely demonstrates his ignorance. The payments to Israel were for resettling refugees, and it would have been in Israel's interest to exaggerate the number of survivors, not the number of victims. But that doesn't mean there weren't individuals who, to qualify for payment, claimed to have spent the war hiding in Poland when they had been living, in relative safety if not comfort, deep in the Soviet Union. More delicate is the question of survivor testimony. According to Elie Wiesel: "Any survivor has more to say than all the historians combined about what happened." Would Wiesel censure Lipstadt for saying: "Lots of survivors who arrived at Auschwitz will tell you they were examined by [Dr Josef] Mengele. Then you ask them the date of their arrival, and you say, 'Mengele wasn't in Auschwitz at that point'." Would he censure her, or any historian, for daring to ask for evidence, documents, corroborating testimony? That is what historians do. And when they are prevented from doing it, either by Jewish groups who feel that the Holocaust belongs to them or by Zionists seeking to preserve Israel's "moral capital", the result is a blurring between memory and propaganda that serves only the interests of the Nazi perpetrators and their political legatees.

"Yet time and again those who insist on the truth in all its complex, unsentimental, paradoxical, and ambiguous detail are shouted down. It isn't only anti-Semites who, in T S Eliot's phrase, find a "large number of free-thinking Jews undesirable". The many obstacles thrown up by the history of our understanding of the Holocaust make Judge Gray's ruling all the more remarkable. But his reasoned arguments are unlikely to make an impact on either the Holocaust deniers or their opponents. Holocaust deniers, as the latest incarnation of a paranoid tradition, are by nature impervious to fact. For them, Irving's defeat confirms his martyrdom; the scale of his undoing proves the power of the forces against them.

"For the growing Holocaust industry, victory over Irving is more likely to be a stimulus than a restraint. In her statement after the trial, Lipstadt described the struggle against denial as unending. Let me be clear: Lipstadt deserved to win. But the encouragement that her victory will give to some groups supporting her - such as the Board of Deputies of British Jews or the Anti-Defamation League of the B'nai Brith - in their efforts to police public discussion of the Holocaust and of Israeli policies, is no cause for celebration. Thanks to the efforts of her lawyers and their experts, we now know a great deal about what is wrong with Irving's scholarship. But the trial did not contribute to our understanding of the Holocaust. There was one aspect of Judge Gray's decision that, left unchallenged, will make greater understanding of the Holocaust even less likely. Time and again, he referred to what an "objective historian" might do. But if judges aren't historians, historians shouldn't be expected to be judges.

"Irving's problem wasn't detachment but dishonesty. The Holocaust has always had a political as well as historical meaning; in America, that meaning has shifted a great deal from the days when conservatives saw a Communist behind every mention of the 6m. Perhaps with Irving safely consigned to the dustbin of history, the rest of us can join the debates that, in scholarly circles, have raged for some time. This may mean giving up comfortable certainties about the distinctness of Jewish suffering, the exterminationist nature of German anti-Semitism and the redemptive force of Zionism. But if the effect of the Irving decision is to strengthen the hand of those who wield the Holocaust like a totem, or a truncheon, then truth and history might as well never have had their day in court."
DD Guttenplan is currently writing an account of the trial for Granta Books, to be published next year. A longer version of this was first published in Atlantic Monthly

Eisen is defending Zundel's right to speak:

Also as a fellow anti zionist he is closing ranks in the face of the enemy. Zundel is sentimental about Hitler. A lot of Germans are. Why? Well you don't have to be a nazi or even like them to want to understand how they came to power. Hitler and the nazis played on a vast antipathy for communism in Germany. Germany had been sundered by the revolutionary upheavals after the First World War,led largey by Jews. I like Rosa Luxemburg! But as in moist revolutions, it's a determined minority who support it until it's won. Rarely is it a majority even of the working class. Well, if a revolution loses, you know the story: "nobody likes a loser." Sadly the reds lost. Those then determined to finish off Bolshevism had the momentum and the result was Hitler

To get this traction Hitler not only pushed fantasy and mytholgical supremacism (like the zionists and Judaists do), he also delivered for a lot of people. And guess what? Not a few subjectively good Germans, who were kind to children and animals, who honored their parents and gave to charities were motivated by love for their neighbors and culture liked Hitler, and were'nt particularly angry at Jews, either. In fact in the elections running up to Nazi power, the played down the whole Jewish Card. They were more about "Law and order" as well as "us (Germans) against them" (the world), not unlike Jewish paranoia also. That kind of stuff sells. Anyhow not for nothing did millions of Germans, including some really nice guys and gals, stupidly follow Hitler to the gates of hell, just as Jews who are charming and have great senses of humor and love children and animals are also zionazis.

To fight this stuff you have to understand it and not simply trash the confused. Of course in war it's different. You demonize every soldier on the other side no matter how stupidly naive and idealistic he is. After all, you are trying to get other nice guys worked up enough to go out and try to kill them at the peril of their own lives. So Zundel is another of these nice guys who happens to be a non zionist racist and non zionist anti communist who has spent years of his life attacking a mytholgy that demonizes his own people

Nazis did lots of horrible crimes in WWII. So did allies. Except for the Soviet people, the Chinese revolutionaries and the antifascist fighters in the underground movements, no one was really on the side of the angels in that scrap. Except for those above mentioned the war was a vicious scramble to redivide and suck the life out of most of the world and its resources, people included. The imperialists who were last at the table, like Germany, Italy and Japan, were no worse for wanting "their fair share" of the booty than were those who got there first, Britain, France and the United States, for not wanting to allow them to the table.

I deny that the Jews are the people who have suffered more than all others.

I deny that the Jewish people were helpless victims.

I deny that Hitler was primarily about Jews - he was about destroying the Soviet Union.

Eugene Weixel in correspondence with Sue Blackwell
.............................................................................................................................

A Factual Appraisal Of
The 'Holocaust'

By The Red Cross
The Jews And The Concentration Camps:

No Evidence Of Genocide

12-12-5

A Factual Appraisal Of The 'Holocaust' By The Red Cross

The Jews And The Concentration Camps:

No Evidence Of Genocide

There is one survey of the Jewish question in Europe during World War Two and the conditions of Germany's concentration camps which is almost unique in its honesty and objectivity, the three-volume Report of the International Committee of the Red Cross on its Activities during the Second World War, Geneva, 1948.

This comprehensive account from an entirely neutral source incorporated and expanded the findings of two previous works: Documents sur l'activité du CICR en faveur des civils détenus dans les camps de concentration en Allemagne 1939-1945 (Geneva, 1946), and Inter Arma Caritas: the Work of the ICRC during the Second World War (Geneva, 1947). The team of authors, headed by Frédéric Siordet, explained in the opening pages of the Report that their object, in the tradition of the Red Cross, had been strict political neutrality, and herein lies its great value.

The ICRC successfully applied the 1929 Geneva military convention in order to gain access to civilian internees held in Central and Western Europe by the Germany authorities. By contrast, the ICRC was unable to gain any access to the Soviet Union, which had failed to ratify the Convention. The millions of civilian and military internees held in the USSR, whose conditions were known to be by far the worst, were completely cut off from any international contact or supervision.

The Red Cross Report is of value in that it first clarifies the legitimate circumstances under which Jews were detained in concentration camps, i.e. as enemy aliens. In describing the two categories of civilian internees, the Report distinguishes the second type as "Civilians deported on administrative grounds (in German, "Schutzhäftlinge"), who were arrested for political or racial motives because their presence was considered a danger to the State or the occupation forces" (Vol. 111, p. 73). These persons, it continues, "were placed on the same footing as persons arrested or imprisoned under common law for security reasons." (P.74).

The Report admits that the Germans were at first reluctant to permit supervision by the Red Cross of people detained on grounds relating to security, but by the latter part of 1942, the ICRC obtained important concessions from Germany. They were permitted to distribute food parcels to major concentration camps in Germany from August 1942, and "from February 1943 onwards this concession was extended to all other camps and prisons" (Vol. 111, p. 78). The ICRC soon established contact with camp commandants and launched a food relief programme which continued to function until the last months of 1945, letters of thanks for which came pouring in from Jewish internees.

Red Cross Recipients Were Jews

The Report states that "As many as 9,000 parcels were packed daily. >From the autumn of 1943 until May 1945, about 1,112,000 parcels with a total weight of 4,500 tons were sent off to the concentration camps" (Vol. III, p. 80). In addition to food, these contained clothing and pharmaceutical supplies. "Parcels were sent to Dachau, Buchenwald, Sangerhausen, Sachsenhausen, Oranienburg, Flossenburg, Landsberg-am-Lech, Flöha, Ravensbrück, Hamburg-Neuengamme, Mauthausen, Theresienstadt, Auschwitz, Bergen-Belsen, to camps near Vienna and in Central and Southern Germany. The principal recipients were Belgians, Dutch, French, Greeks, Italians, Norwegians, Poles and stateless Jews" (Vol. III, p. 83).

In the course of the war, "The Committee was in a position to transfer and distribute in the form of relief supplies over twenty million Swiss francs collected by Jewish welfare organisations throughout the world, in particular by the American Joint Distribution Committee of New York" (Vol. I, p. 644). This latter organisation was permitted by the German Government to maintain offices in Berlin until the American entry into the war. The ICRC complained that obstruction of their vast relief operation for Jewish internees came not from the Germans but from the tight Allied blockade of Europe. Most of their purchases of relief food were made in Rumania, Hungary and Slovakia.

The ICRC had special praise for the liberal conditions which prevailed at Theresienstadt up to the time of their last visits there in April 1945. This camp, "where there were about 40,000 Jews deported from various countries was a relatively privileged ghetto" (Vol. III, p. 75). According to the Report, "'The Committee's delegates were able to visit the camp at Theresienstadt (Terezin) which was used exclusively for Jews and was governed by special conditions. From information gathered by the Committee, this camp had been started as an experiment by certain leaders of the Reich ... These men wished to give the Jews the means of setting up a communal life in a town under their own administration and possessing almost complete autonomy. . . two delegates were able to visit the camp on April 6th, 1945. They confirmed the favourable impression gained on the first visit" (Vol. I, p . 642).

The ICRC also had praise for the regime of Ion Antonescu of Fascist Rumania where the Committee was able to extend special relief to 183,000 Rumanian Jews until the time of the Soviet occupation. The aid then ceased, and the ICRC complained bitterly that it never succeeded "in sending anything whatsoever to Russia" (Vol. II, p. 62). The same situation applied to many of the German camps after their "liberation" by the Russians. The ICRC received a voluminous flow of mail from Auschwitz until the period of the Soviet occupation, when many of the internees were evacuated westward. But the efforts of the Red Cross to send relief to internees remaining at Auschwitz under Soviet control were futile. However, food parcels continued to be sent to former Auschwitz inmates transferred west to such camps as Buchenwald and Oranienburg.

No Evidence Of Genocide

One of the most important aspects of the Red Cross Report is that it clarifies the true cause of those deaths that undoubtedly occurred in the camps toward the end of the war. Says the Report: "In the chaotic condition of Germany after the invasion during the final months of the war, the camps received no food supplies at all and starvation claimed an increasing number of victims. Itself alarmed by this situation, the German Government at last informed the ICRC on February 1st, 1945 ... In March 1945, discussions between the President of the ICRC and General of the S.S. Kaltenbrunner gave even more decisive results. Relief could henceforth be distributed by the ICRC, and one delegate was authorised to stay in each camp ..." (Vol. III, p. 83).

Clearly, the German authorities were at pains to relieve the dire situation as far as they were able. The Red Cross are quite explicit in stating that food supplies ceased at this time due to the Allied bombing of German transportation, and in the interests of interned Jews they had protested on March 15th, 1944 against "the barbarous aerial warfare of the Allies" (Inter Arma Caritas, p. 78). By October 2nd, 1944, the ICRC warned the German Foreign Office of the impending collapse of the German transportation system, declaring that starvation conditions for people throughout Germany were becoming inevitable.

In dealing with this comprehensive, three-volume Report, it is important to stress that the delegates of the International Red Cross found no evidence whatever at the camps in Axis occupied Europe of a deliberate policy to exterminate the Jews. In all its 1,600 pages the Report does not even mention such a thing as a gas chamber. It admits that Jews, like many other wartime nationalities, suffered rigours and privations, but its complete silence on the subject of planned extermination is ample refutation of the Six Million legend. Like the Vatican representatives with whom they worked, the Red Cross found itself unable to indulge in the irresponsible charges of genocide which had become the order of the day. So far as the genuine mortality rate is concerned, the Report points out that most of the Jewish doctors from the camps were being used to combat typhus on the eastern front, so that they were unavailable when the typhus epidemics of 1945 broke out in the camps (Vol. I, p. 204 ff) - Incidentally, it is frequently claimed that mass executions were carried out in gas chambers cunningly disguised as shower facilities. Again the Report makes nonsense of this allegation. "Not only the washing places, but installations for baths, showers and laundry were inspected by the delegates. They had often to take action to have fixtures made less primitive, and to get them repaired or enlarged" (Vol. III, p. 594).

Not All Were Interned

Volume III of the Red Cross Report, Chapter 3 (I. Jewish Civilian Population) deals with the "aid given to the Jewish section of the free population," and this chapter makes it quite plain that by no means all of the European Jews were placed in internment camps, but remained, subject to certain restrictions, as part of the free civilian population. This conflicts directly with the "thoroughness" of the supposed "extermination programme", and with the claim in the forged Höss memoirs that Eichmann was obsessed with seizing "every single Jew he could lay his hands on."

In Slovakia, for example, where Eichmann's assistant Dieter Wisliceny was in charge, the Report states that "A large proportion of the Jewish minority had permission to stay in the country, and at certain periods Slovakia was looked upon as a comparative haven of refuge for Jews, especially for those coming from Poland. Those who remained in Slovakia seem to have been in comparative safety until the end of August 1944, when a rising against the German forces took place. While it is true that the law of May 15th, 1942 had brought about the internment of several thousand Jews, these people were held in camps where the conditions of food and lodging were tolerable, and where the internees were allowed to do paid work on terms almost equal to those of the free labour market" (Vol. I, p. 646).

Not only did large numbers of the three million or so European Jews avoid internment altogether, but the emigration of Jews continued throughout the war, generally by way of Hungary, Rumania and Turkey. Ironically, post-war Jewish emigration from German-occupied territories was also facilitated by the Reich, as in the case of the Polish Jews who had escaped to France before its occupation. "The Jews from Poland who, whilst in France, had obtained entrance permits to the United States were held to be American citizens by the German occupying authorities, who further agreed to recognize the validity of about three thousand passports issued to Jews by the consulates of South American countries" (Vol. I, p. 645).

As future U.S. citizens, these Jews were held at the Vittel camp in southern France for American aliens. The emigration of European Jews from Hungary in particular proceeded during the war unhindered by the German authorities. "Until March 1944," says the. Red Cross Report, "Jews who had the privilege of visas for Palestine were free to leave Hungary" (Vol. I, p. 648). Even after the replacement of the Horthy Government in 1944 (following its attempted armistice with the Soviet Union) with a government more dependent on German authority, the emigration of Jews continued.

The Committee secured the pledges of both Britain and the United States "to give support by every means to the emigration of Jews from Hungary," and from the U.S. Government the ICRC received a message stating that "The Government of the United States ... now specifically repeats its assurance that arrangements will be made by it for the care of all Jews who in the present circumstances are allowed to leave" (Vol. I, p . 649).

Biedermann agreed that in the nineteen instances that "Did Six Million Really Die?" quoted from the Report of the International Committee of the Red Cross on its Activities during the Second World War and Inter Arma Caritas (this includes the above material), it did so accurately.

A quote from Charles Biedermann (a delegate of the International Committee of the Red Cross and Director of the Red Cross' International Tracing Service) under oath at the Zündel Trial (February 9, 10, 11 and 12, 1988).

The above is chapter nine from the book "Did Six Million Really Die?"

For the entire book "Did Six Million Really Die?", click here.

http://www.vancouver.indymedia.org/news/2004/03/122056.php

Comment

From 'Interesting'

From the above account, it would appear that those in charge of the barbarous Allied civilian bombing of Germany, thus attacking the civilian infrastructure (which is a war crime), are primarily responsible for the murder of hundreds of thousands of gays, gypsies, political dissidents, Jews, etc. in the concentration camps of wartime Germany due to disease and starvation.

Comment

William Landsford

By 1944, most of Germany was already at or near starvation, and disease among the civilian population was a severe problem. Transportation and the food supply were in tatters from the unceasing bombing of the US and UK on German civilian targets and infrastructure. Read some biographies of Germans who survived the war. Many Germans died of disease...typhus was very common. One account of a young boy about age 12 at the time described how he was so malnourished he became sickly and then infected with typhus. He was put in a hospital ward with dozens of other typhus victims. Incredibly, he described how a cart with a gas bottle was wheeled into the ward and zyklon gas was actually released in an effort to kill all lice, etc, while all the patients were in their beds. A remarkable story of survival.

AN ISRAELI OPINION
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Thursday expressed doubt the Holocaust took place and suggested the Jewish state of Israel be moved to Europe.


Raanan Gissin, a spokesman for Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, said in Tel Aviv Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was voicing "the consensus that exists in many circles in the Arab world that the Jewish people ... do not have the right to establish a Jewish, democratic state in their ancestral homeland".

"Just to remind Mr. Ahmadinejad, we've been here long before his ancestors were here," Gissin said. "Therefore, we have a birthright to be here in the land of our forefathers and to live here. Thank God we have the capability to deter and to prevent such a statement from becoming a reality."

..................................................................................

Two Aspects of The Palestinian Question - by Arnold Toynbee, 1963


"I can understand the Jews demanding, after their experience at Nazi hands, that they should be given some piece of territory somewhere in the world, where they would be masters in their own house and where there would be an asylum for any Jews who, in future might be threatened with a repetition of what the Nazis did.  But, if the Jews had a claim to be given a piece of territory, this should have been done at the expense of the Western nation that had done its worst to exterminate the Jews..  If the creation of a new state of Israel was judged to be a legitimate form of compensation to the surviving Jews, the territory for this state should have been taken from the Europeans, not from the
Arabs.  The new Israel should not have been carved out of Arab Palestine; it should have been carved out of Central Europe.

This point seems to me to be simple and obvious.  But, once, when I made it in a lecture in a Western country*, (not Germany, not Britain), it was received with shouts of laughter.  The people who laughed were not Jews; they were non-Jewish Westerners, and the country was one that has been traditionally opposed to colonialism.  Yet, they laughed because it seemed to them preposterous that a Western nation should be made to pay for its  own crimes with its own territory, when the West's moral debt to the Jews could, so it seemed to these Westerners, be settled by giving the Jews the territory of a non-Western people that committed no crime at all against the Jews.

This laughter shocked me because it revealed to me what seems to me a
shocking persistence of the colonialist attitude of mind.  A guilty Western people's territory was to be sacrosanct, because, though guilty, they were Westerners.  An innocent non-Western people's territory could, it was held, legitimately be given away to the Jews by the victorious Western powers.This amounts to the declaration of the inequality of the Western and the non-Western sections of the human race.  It is a claim that Westerners are privileged, however guilty they may be.  It is a denial of those universal human rights that, in truth, are possessed by every man, woman, and child in the world, irrespective of differences in civilization; religion, nationality and race."


*The country that Arnold Toynbee refers to is Canada and it was in his lecture at McGill University in Montreal.Arnold Toynbee, one of the most famous and respected  historians-philosophers of the 20th century.  He is the author of "A Study of History", a prestigious work of its kind.

So that is that then??? Are we back to the riddle of the chicken and the egg - or to the one that asks - why did the chicken cross the road?JB,editor.



Rachel Whiteread exhib.Tate Modern