web analytics

WORK WILL MAKE YOU FREE

By Patrick Van Roy On January 27th, 2019

Guest Post from Paul

Today is International Holocaust Memorial Day, when the world remembers the Nazi’s ‘Final Solution’, not only the wholesale slaughter of men, women and children based on their Jewish ethnicity but also of Gypsies, homosexuals, and political opponents. The world said ‘never again’ but echoes of the Final Solution were to be found in the closing decades of the 20th century in Europe in the former Yugoslavia and in Africa in Rwanda.

I was surprised to read today that some 5% of Britons don’t believe the Holocaust happened and that 8% say the numbers murdered have been exaggerated:

https://www.hmd.org.uk/news/we-release-research-to-mark-holocaust-memorial-day-2019/

Of course some will dispute the numbers as a stepping stone to cast doubt on the wider issue but what I find fascinating is the psychology behind such denial, what drives it? Is it ethnic hatred, a sense of superiority, a tendency towards easy manipulation etc? I’ve read psychology articles which have stated that those who tend to believe conspiratorial claims do so out of a sense of narcissistic ego, believing that they are more intelligent / have a higher level of consciousness that enables them to see things others can’t. Of course here at ATW we have our own deniers, some blatant deniers while some are more sneaky.

Opinions? What is it that makes 5% of Britons believe that, based on ethnicity, and to a lesser extent political ideology,  people weren’t persecuted, imprisoned and murdered in industrial quantities by the Nazis?

138 Responses to “WORK WILL MAKE YOU FREE”

  1. What is it that makes 5% of Britons believe that, based on ethnicity, and to a lesser extent political ideology, people weren’t persecuted, imprisoned and murdered in industrial quantities by the Nazis?

    Books like this……..

    https://www.amazon.co.uk/Breaking-Spell-Holocaust-Reality-Handbooks-ebook/product-reviews/B012QGMI5U

    Videos like this…….

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IF71KKd2P-w

    Questions like this……..

    https://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/truth-history-and-integrity-by-gilad-atzmon.html

    If, for instance, the Nazis wanted the Jews out of their Reich (Judenrein – free of Jews), or even dead, as the Zionist narrative insists, how come they marched hundreds of thousands of them back into the Reich at the end of the war? I have been concerned with this simple question for more than a while. I eventually launched into an historical research of the topic and happened to learn from Israeli holocaust historian professor Israel Gutman that Jewish prisoners actually joined the march voluntarily. Here is a testimony taken from Gutman’s book

    “One of my friends and relatives in the camp came to me on the night of the evacuation and offered a common hiding place somewhere on the way from the camp to the factory. …The intention was to leave the camp with one of the convoys and to escape near the gate, using the darkness we thought to go a little far from the camp. The temptation was very strong. And yet, after I considered it all I then decided to join (the march) with all the other inmates and to share their fate ” (Israel Gutman [editor], People and Ashes: Book Auschwitz – Birkenau, Merhavia 1957).

    I am left puzzled here, if the Nazis ran a death factory in Auschwitz-Birkenau, why would the Jewish prisoners join them at the end of the war? Why didn’t the Jews wait for their Red liberators?

  2. You accept that Jews were persecuted, imprisoned and murdered by the Nazis because of their ethnicity yes?

  3. 5% is a low number. I would say they are just stupid and probably prejudiced. Throughout history there has always been a small percentage of the population in the stupid and prejudiced category and probably more than 5%.

  4. Books like this……….

    https://www.waterstones.com/book/eyewitness-auschwitz/filip-muller/9781566632713

    Filip Muller came to Auschwitz with one of the earliest transports from Slovakia in April 1942 and began working in the gassing installations and crematoria in May. He was still alive when the gassings ceased in November 1944. He saw millions come and disappear; by sheer luck he survived. Muller is neither a historian nor a psychologist; he is a source-one of the few prisoners who saw the Jewish people die and lived to tell about it.

    And yet……..

    https://papermacheworld.wordpress.com/holohoax_cartoons/

    According to the ADL-certified eyewitness and Holohoax survivor, St. Filip Muller, in his book “Eyewitness Auschwitz: Three Years in a Gas Chamber”(3), Nazi doctors cut flesh into buckets at the crematorium … yet somehow the flesh was still alive, and as St. Filip tells us, made the buckets jump around!

    Perhaps Muller met the great-aunt of Michael Howard who was put in a gas chamber three times!!!! at Auschwitz, only for the gassings to be cancelled, once because the Germans ‘ran out of gas’

    http://www.atangledweb.org/?p=72296

    Former Home Secretary and Leader of the Opposition, Michael Howard on the BBC’s Desert Island Discs, telling Sue Lawley of his aunt’s lucky escapes from being gassed at Auschwitz.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_SrSBN3dkk

    Jennifer Katona
    3 years ago
    These Holohoax tales get more bizarre and fantastic every year.

    iuno777
    iuno777
    3 years ago (edited)
    German: “Sorry ladies and gentlemen, we must postpone your exectution for the next week, we ran out of gas.”
    Jews “Oooh no! Come on! We want to die today, do it now… come on!”
    German: “Sorry, I am affraid that you really have to wait untill the next week…”
    Jews: “Oh, damn it! What a pity! You can not trust these Germans…”

    vilpian
    3 years ago
    Only three times in the gas chamber…??! But that´s nothing! My dog was twenty eight times in the gas chamber in 1944! And he is still alive and barking at me right now…

    The most worrying feature of the holohoax isn’t the scale of the jews’ lies (many jews don’t believe it either) but the scale of the credulity of the goyim.

  5. I agree with New Yorker. You could probably find that that 5% believes all sort of daft things. Hard core Holocaust deniers are probably fewer in number.

    The psychology of denying is the more appropriate topic for discussion. In my neck o’the woods, it’s JFK conspiracy thinking. I wish I knew what made these people click, but I haven’t a clue.

    Holocaust denying, 9/11, JFK, Sandy Hook et al all have the same features.

  6. The psychology of denying is the more appropriate topic for discussion

    Absolutely Charles, it’s the crux of the post. This, if maybe a bit technical, is an interesting read:

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5724570/

  7. Interesting question you ask here, Paul.
    I can only speak for myself (and for the record, I accept that a monstrously huge number of Jews were murdered by Hitler’s Nazis) –

    When you get to my age and you look at the news these days, and you see that (in a general sense) things that were reported in a certain way in the 1970’s and 80’s are now being turned on their heads and reported in a completely different way (as if the purpose of the media is to try and shape opinions rather than to reflect facts), then you kind of realise that, Aha, the old saying “the victors write the history books” is kind of true, and you slowly realise that “propaganda” is not just some nasty thing that certain foreign contries engage in, but something that you are being subjected to every day, and you think well, this has probably always been the case, so I wonder how accurate certain historically accepted “facts” actually are.
    That’s my explanation as to why people question stuff like this. At least, that’s why I might do so.

  8. Paul – there are stupid people and evil people. They will deny or play cute about a variety of historical things. It was ever thus.

  9. That’s a good post Paul. Thank you.
    Don’t feel down about 5% denying the Holocaust. Apparently, and I find it very scary, about 3% of the world population now believe we live on a flat Earth. I’m afraid that human beings, are not as logical or intelligent as we’d like to believe.
    The Holocaust happened, there’s no denying it.

  10. The film by Steven Spielberg on the holocost, The Last Days, is shown as one big lie…..

    https://vimeo.com/195623868

    Astonishing stuff, and yet everybody here believes every single word of Spielberg’s film. The psychology of credulity is more appropriate for discussion because, bear in mind that in many countries, it’s illegal to question this BS.

  11. Well said Charles.

  12. Allan,

    You accept that Jews were persecuted, imprisoned and murdered by the Nazis because of their ethnicity yes?

    Do you or don’t you?

  13. Thank you Dave. Paul, that’s quite a paper you link to. The introduction reads thusly:

    Belief in conspiracy theories appears to be driven by motives that can be characterized as epistemic (understanding one’s environment), existential (being safe and in control of one’s environment), and social (maintaining a positive image of the self and the social group)

    Taking JFK for example, it seems to me that people build these elaborate conspiracies to try to make sense of a momentous event in a way that they can process. It may be to reduce anxiety in their own lives, to make sense and stay sane in a seemly insane world.

  14. I have visited both Sachsenhausen ( by Berlin ) and Auschwitz/Birkenau ( outside of Krakow, Poland )

    Sobering places, visits that you don’t forget.

    The photo is of the entrance to the massive Birkenau, which is close by Auschwitz .

    Auschwitz was a concentration camp. If you were sent there, you might survive if you were lucky. Birkenau was a death camp.

  15. Brexi,

    You make the claim that the current media is being used to condition opinion rather than reflect facts and that history is written by the victors. There have been several political changes throughout the nineties until today. Who are the ‘victors’, who is it that has influenced the media and what is their agenda?

    Incidentally, I’m 51 and don’t think that there’s any difference in how things were reported in the 70s and 80s and today.

  16. Yeah, because if you don’t then we’ll shout you down with lots of rude names according to the current 2019 court of public opinion.

    If that line of questioning was directed at me, then I might be tempted to answer “Yes, but who were the Nazis? To give them their full name, the National Socialist Workers’ Party. Now, why on earth would a Party that wasn’t Socialist call themselves that? But of course, after the Nazis’ demise it was decided that it was bad form to label them as what they actually were, and so it was that the Nazis became referred to as “far-right” instead of the Leftist socialists that they of course were. (The victors writing the history books again).

  17. (Excuse me, my above refers to 11:11pm).

  18. Charles

    Taking JFK for example, it seems to me that people build these elaborate conspiracies to try to make sense of a momentous event in a way that they can process. It may be to reduce anxiety in their own lives, to make sense and stay sane in a seemly insane world.

    Absolutely spot on Charles. I have a personal interest in why people believe these conspiracy theories. It seems that they want to believe they are in control, and can make sense of the world. They don’t want to believe that these random, unpredictable things can happen. They want to believe that somehow, it’s all a conspiracy that could have been prevented.

    https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/talking-apes/201801/why-do-people-believe-in-conspiracy-theories

  19. Paul, re 11:28pm, IMO there has been only one really big change since the 70/80s, ie the emergence of the globalists, and again IMO as I see it the media now almost completely reports things from the pro-globalist stance (pro-open borders, colonialism = “racism”, the end agenda being the complete end to the concept of the nation state and the forwarding of one-world government).

  20. Yeah, because if you don’t then we’ll shout you down with lots of rude names according to the current 2019 court of public opinion.

    What rude names? Racist or neo Nazi? Allan freely admits to being both.

    Now, why on earth would a Party that wasn’t Socialist call themselves that?

    Brexi, you realise that North Korea isn’t very democratic and that there are no actual shepards in shepard’s pie don’t you?

  21. Dave, that’s a really good article. I recommend it!

  22. Every country is socialist to varying extents

    Apart from the libertarian paradise of Somalia of course

  23. But, getting back to the original question, the way I see it, most anti-Semitism is found on the Left wing (it certainly seems to be most prevalent in the UK Labour party) and it stems from a jealousy that the Jews are and always have been one of the most intelligent races. It’s an inability to accept that fact which gives rise to a lot of anti-semitism.

  24. Dave, I wonder if reduction of anxiety is the key to conspiracy theories. Aniety causing events could be a car accident, death of a loved one, or a 9/11.

    An example from my own life. I recently fell in public b/c of my Parkinson’s. It really increased my level of anxiety to the point that I didn’t want to leave the house. I recognized this and have forced myself to engage the world with my disease. However, I could have easily turned to conspiracy theories as to why I fell and ruminated on them.

  25. Paul (11:37) point taken, but if I was thinking of forming a Party in order to gain (and keep) power, which do you think I would choose: “Free stuff for everyone! We’ll tax the “rich” and give it all to you” or “Keep what you earn! You don’t work? You don’t GET”? I know which one would get me more votes, so it’s not a case of two equal opposites!

  26. Paul -spectacular response.

  27. The dregs of the far left and far right converge on some things.

    Jew hatred Is one of those things.

  28. Brexi, what’s your 11.48 in relation to?

    I think that prjudice is spread right across the political spectrum and none none Phantom.

  29. The history books tell us that Hitler was “far right”and that Stalin was “far left” and that they were both ideologically opposed. But the more I read, the more this seems nonsense to me – they were both just madmen who wanted to wield as much power as they could. The same as two boxers in the ring, or two football teams playing each other: they’re not fundamentally OPPOSED to each other, they just both want to win!

  30. “Auschwitz was a concentration camp. If you were sent there, you might survive if you were lucky. Birkenau was a death camp.”

    Birkenau was both actually, nearly uniquely (the smallest of the sixth death camps – Majdanek – also operated like Birkenau). For the most part the concentration camps were forced labour camps, while the death camps were exactly what the name suggests. Belzec, Chelmno, Sobibor and Treblinka were purely death camps, whose sole design was for the mass extermination of ‘Lebensunwertes Leben’ lit. ‘life unworthy of life’.

    Birkenau was different. There was what was known as the selection. People were loaded off the trains and the sick, the infirm, children, mothers etc… were marched straight up the road from the train yard to the gas chambers. The remainder were then taken to the camp where they were worked until they couldn’t work anymore (they either then died from the conditions or were gassed).

    “the way I see it, most anti-Semitism is found on the Left wing (it certainly seems to be most prevalent in the UK Labour party) “

    Not actually true. While some of the more high profile incidents of anti-semitism in recent times tended to be in the Labour Party, study after study suggest that the further right your political views go the more likely you are to have anti-semetic beliefs. In a survey by Campaign Against Antisemitism they asked a series of questions designed to uncover anti-semetic beliefs (tropes like Jews want more money than other people etc…). They found that anti-semitism was most prevelant in the Conservative Party, closely followed by UKIP, both of which were sizeably ahead of the Labour Party.

    “Now, why on earth would a Party that wasn’t Socialist call themselves that?”

    To convince people who wanted radical change to support them.

  31. charlesintexas,

    Dave, I wonder if reduction of anxiety is the key to conspiracy theories. Aniety causing events could be a car accident, death of a loved one, or a 9/11.

    I think you’re absolutely right Charles. I think people handle very stressful situations in their lives in different ways. And certainly, anxiety can cause people to behave very strangely.

    An example from my own life. I recently fell in public b/c of my Parkinson’s. It really increased my level of anxiety to the point that I didn’t want to leave the house. I recognized this and have forced myself to engage the world with my disease. However, I could have easily turned to conspiracy theories as to why I fell and ruminated on them.

    I’m sorry to hear that you’ve been diagnosed with Parkinson’s Charles. A friend of mine, who drinks at my local has also been diagnosed recently. He’s become a bit of a recluse, but we’re all trying to get him to keep engaging with everybody socially. I think this is a big part of battling the disease, and slowing down the symptoms.
    I know after losing my partner 3 years ago and having serious health issues, that this has a serious effect on your life and personality. Sometimes it’s difficult to keep a positive outlook.

  32. Paul you said that “you realise that North Korea isn’t very democratic” (although it calls itself The People’s Democratic …etc etc”) Well my point is that totalitarians are hardly likely to label themselves as “My totally autocratic strict regime and all who disagree must die”, are they? Therefore why would Hitler’s National Socialists advertise themselves as such? Surely it’s the so called “far-right” which ought to advertise itself as “centrist” or “not very right-wing” if it wishes to be elected.

  33. Seamus.

    If somebody posts something claiming to be factual, that I didn’t know before, I tend to fact check it.
    Can I just say, that you’re one of the most accurate posters on ATW.
    Even though you and I might not agree on everything, I really respect that.

  34. And one look at A. Hitler’s early 1930’s posters advertising his new Party confirm that they were socialist.

  35. Dave, indeed mate. We all handle anxiety and stress differently, sometimes to the point of impacting our lives and outlook. Conspiracy theories may be the more benign methods to reduce stress, as opposed to drink trouble or marital discord.

    And keep up the good work with your friend with Parkinson’s!

  36. “Surely it’s the so called “far-right” which ought to advertise itself as “centrist” or “not very right-wing” if it wishes to be elected.”

    It was the wish to appeal to non-centrist that led it to its label. The centre was pretty well represented in Weimar Germany. In fact one of the major arguments for the problems in Germany at the time is that there were too many parties largely representing the same ideals.

    The extremes were less well represented (and it is through those extremes that the Nazis wanted to take power).

    And if we look at their coalition partners (for the most part) they all came from the political right not the political left. If the Nazis wanted to be a left wing party then they would have more likely teamed up with the SPD, USPD or KPD. They hated all three of them. They instead partnered with the DNVP (a anti-democracy conservative party – largely a continuation of the two main conservative parties in the old German Empire the DKP and DRP), Reichs-Landbund (an agrarian organisation made up of East Elbe landowners) and the Alldeutscher Verband (a racist, right-wing liberal party).

  37. Brexi, your 12.05 confirms Seamus’

    “Now, why on earth would a Party that wasn’t Socialist call themselves that?”

    To convince people who wanted radical change to support them.

    Anyhow, we’ve had this conversation before:

    http://www.atangledweb.org/?p=73987

  38. “Even though you and I might not agree on everything, I really respect that.”

    You’re a gentleman Dave. I put a lot of stock by the great journalist and editor C.P. Scott who famously said “comment is free, but facts are sacred”.

  39. that same old tired baloney

    The Nazis were merciless towards the communists ( the real left )

  40. Seams, while not wishing to contradict your enviable knowledge, it’s also debatable that the labels “right, left, etc” had different meanings and connotations to Germans back in the 1930s than what we take from them today. (Yes, that’s a bit of a cop-out answer I know). So perhaps its unreasonable for me to ascribe these labels to 1930s Germans. All I feel sure of is that they had their savings wiped out in 1923 and that they sought someone to blame for this, and AH seemingly offered a new path for them. Is that a fair comment?

  41. (Mind you, I’ve got to say that I grow tired of every so-called “socialist” failed state, one after another, being labelled as “not quite the right sort of socialism…. next time, trust us, we’ll get it right”. What will they blame Venezuela’s collapse on? (Donald Trump, probably)

  42. Mind you, I’ve got to say that I grow tired of every so-called “socialist” failed state, one after another, being labelled as “not quite the right sort of socialism

    As Phantom correctly states above, there’s an element of socialism in most successful ecomonies.

  43. Most successful capitalist countries – the US, Germany, Korea, Japan, many others have loads of socialist attributes

    They would never have been successful for one minute in the modern world if they didn’t have certain socialist programs

    You cannot have a successful country without socialism and capitalism in the Proper mix for local conditions Along with political and speech liberty

    I’ve always said this

  44. ” All I feel sure of is that they had their savings wiped out in 1923 and that they sought someone to blame for this, and AH seemingly offered a new path for them. Is that a fair comment?”

    Broadly yes. Not so much 1923 (as the Weimar Republic came through hyperinflation intact) but the Wall Street Crash was the major impact. Millions and millions of Germans were out of work, they had seen German territory (even legitimate German territory) taken from them in 1919, and they wanted someone to blame. And like a good snake-oil salesman Hitler was able to offer them several people to blame (most of whom were not in anyway actually to blame).

    “it’s also debatable that the labels “right, left, etc” had different meanings and connotations to Germans back in the 1930s than what we take from them today. (Yes, that’s a bit of a cop-out answer I know).”

    It’s not actually. It’s quite a fascinating element to the whole debate. Firstly most people on this site are from the UK or the United States, and have their political grounding in one of the two. Liberalism, for example, would broadly be considered by most people on ATW to be a left wing political tradition (the Liberal Democrats in the UK, the Democrats in the United States, the Liberals in Canada etc… are all to the political left). In most of Europe however Liberalism is largely seen as a right wing political tradition (the VVD in the Netherlands, FDP in Germany etc…).

    In Germany, certainly in the 19th century, there were four major political camps. And pretty much every party in Germany (and Austria) could fit in one of the four (two of which are combined in Austria).

    The four are:

    Clericalism (largely Catholic) – loyalty to ones faith
    Conservatism (monarchism) – loyalty to one’s feudal lord
    Socialist – loyalty to one’s class
    Liberalism (nationalism) – loyalty to one’s nation

    In the 19th century in most European countries the word liberal and the word nationalist were largely considered to be coterminous. Its also why, despite being one of the least liberal parties in the history of the world, that the Nazis grew out of an extreme (even bastardisation) of liberalism. Over time it abandoned many of the core tenets of liberalism (capitalism, industrialisation etc…) in favour of an almost romantic view of older society and a hatred of modernity (many were anti-capitalist agrarian types).

  45. Very interesting comment, Seamus. How on earth to boil it down and get to what’s relevant right now? It’s almost all too much. For heaven’s sake, I just want to be free and safe and live amongst my own kind and not be subjected to our modern-day power-hungry tyrants’ ideologies about how m nation ought to be. Is that really too much?

  46. I’ve enjoyed reading this thread. Thanks guys.

  47. I mean, a big part of me (the totally selfish part) thinks, Right, the liberal snowflakes keep on voting for multiculturalism and for creeping Islamisation, hah, let them have it! I’ll be gone in 30 years, let them buy their hijabs, let them live under tryannic suppression if that’s what they want, screw em! They’ll soon regret calling the likes of me “wah-wah-wah-wah-waaaah-waaaacist” once they experience life under Shariah, but that’s their call”. But the non-se;fish part of me (the part that voted LEAVE for THEIR sake, not mine) just can’t leave them to their fate. What to do?

  48. //If, for instance, the Nazis wanted the Jews out of their Reich (Judenrein – free of Jews), or even dead, as the Zionist narrative insists, how come they marched hundreds of thousands of them back into the Reich at the end of the war? …Jewish prisoners actually joined the march voluntarily. //

    Like most denialist “arguments”, those are easily explained.

    Towards the end of the war, Nazi Germany was really desperate for labour (and supplies). There was a certain turn-around on the genocide issue, with some (up to and including even Himmler) believing that Jewish should be spared for the time being because their work was needed. Others realised the war would be lost and wanted to pretend to care about their Jewish prisoners.

    The Red Army was approaching fast from the east, and the Nazis therefore had the choice of leaving the Jews to be liberated, killing all of them, or driving them on long marches back to the Reich to work.

    Like most things involving such huge figures and that weren’t centrally regulated with a fixed programme or set of orders, there were many variances in how Jews in the CCs were treated, depending on the place and the time. These differences feed deniers, who jump at one instance of mercy and pretend it stands for the entire Jewish experience in the Holocaust.

    As for “Jews” joining the marches voluntarily (whatever that’s supposed to mean). Like their fellow Poles, Germany, French etc., some Jews detested and feared Bolshevism. If they were working in a secure job for the Germans, e.g. in one the industrial complexes around Auschwitz, and had hopes of surviving a war that they knew would be over in a few months, they might choose to move back to central Europe and be liberated by the Americans. Others – rightly – feared being killed in the final liquidation of the camp if they did not join the march. Others were simply so programmed to being ordered around and staying with the crowd for survival that they went along. Almost all reports of the final liberations tell of how apathetic and mindless the Jewish prisoners had become and were sitting around listlessly not knowing what to do.

    But this “voluntary” thing related to relatively few Jews. Most Jewish prisoners at the time supported the Soviets and, if they had any say in the matter, would have welcomed liberation by the Red Army.

  49. These differences feed deniers, who jump at one instance of mercy and pretend it stands for the entire Jewish experience in the Holocaust

    That’s a great explanation at 8.17 Noel. Wanna have a go at the psychology that drives some to concoct and believe such claims?

  50. Paul.

    The reasons behind people’s denial of the Holocaust is an interesting subject.
    Worryingly, there seems to be a new generation of Holocaust denies, that are poorly educated and incapable of analytical and critical thinking. They’re strongly influenced by what they watch online, and by others with the same point of view.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/22/online-conspiracy-theories-feed-holocaust-denial

  51. I believe that many Holocaust deniers would also 9/11 Truthers.

    Among other things, their feet aren’t entirely on the ground.

  52. Phantom.

    I think the younger, newer Holocaust deniers are also 911 truthers. They’re not necessarily anti-semitic, they’re just massive conspiracy theorists.

  53. I think there are a series of reasons for Holocaust denial. Some are specific to the Holocaust and others are general conspiracy theory stuff.

    Firstly there is an underlying antisemitism to Holocaust denial. Firstly there is a group of people who believe that there is an international cabal of Jews (the Rothschilds, George Soros, the Bilderberg Group) who wish to control the world. And this cabal use the “myth” of the Holocaust as a means of control. So a certain amount of Holocaust denial is good auld fashioned antisemitism and a modern rehash of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

    There is also a certain amount of Holocaust denial in the extremes of the pro-Palestine movement. There is a perception (arguably correct) that people are willing to defend the State of Israel more vigorously from attack because of the Holocaust (ATW’s own Patrick believes all terrorism is bad, except terrorism by Israelis because of the Holocaust – he has literally said that). So there is a perception within elements of the pro-Palestine movement that if you can limit the scope of the Holocaust, or even deny its existence entirely, then you open Israel up to greater criticism, as people would be less likely to defend it in the absence of the Holocaust. Within that Mahmoud Abbas abu Mazen, the recognised leader of Palestine, has been openly sceptical of the Holocaust. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the former President of Iran, has similarly been so. In fact he hosted a conference in Tehran called the “International Conference to Review the Global Vision of the Holocaust”.

    There is then the wider conspiracy theory argument. This goes hand in hand, in a different manner, to the “Nazis were inhuman monsters” trope. The concept that modern industrialised nation, would be so irrational as to engage in a systemic genocide is so outside the realms of normal behaviour for modern industrialised nations that some people don’t want to believe it to be possible. So they go in two different directions. The Nazis either weren’t really human. They were evil, devil people. And that we, as non-devil people, could never do what they did. They chalk it up to “evil”, instead of correctly analysing why the Nazis came to power, what fueled their hatred etc… On the other side of that argument is the people who believe that because it was so outside the realms of normal behaviour that it probably didn’t happen.

    A lot of conspiracy theories are based on comforting the theorist. Charles mentioned the assassination of Kennedy. The President of the United States, the most powerful man in the world, the living embodiment of Camelot, was murdered by a lone lunatic. That’s deeply unsettling, that such an important, great man could be brought down by such a lowly, pathetic person like Oswald. So it is comforting to many people to believe that it must have been something else. Kennedy couldn’t be killed by a lone lunatic. It had to be the CIA, or the Russians, or the Cubans, or the Mob etc…

    There are then other aspects, specifically about the Holocaust. Firstly the Nazis ran a misinformation campaign. Few German records speak openly about the Holocaust. They use euphemistic terms for what they were actually doing. ‘Umsiedlung’ lit. resettlement, or ‘Evakuierung’ lit. evacuation, was used to refer to the forced deportation of Jews and other Untermenschen to concentration or death camps. So the files just say that Jews, and other non-Germans or political opponents, were resettled in the East. ‘Sonderbehandlung’ lit. special treatment (or S.B.), meant killing. So in the files when lists of Jews, entire Ghettos, were marked S.B., all that file suggests would be that these people were resettled in the East with special treatment. In reality it meant being taken to death camps and murdered. The understanding of S.B. became so widespread that in 1943 Himmler ordered Ernst Kaltenbrunner (the SS officer in charge of the Holocaust – the successor to Reinhard Heydrich) to replace the term ‘Sonderbehandlung’ with ‘durchgeschleust’ l.t guided through. So the reports now read that Jews were being resettled in the East, after being guided through a series of detention centres in Poland. They even developed a “model ghetto” at Theresienstadt, and then invited to Red Cross to tour it so that they could see that the Nazis were humanely treating their Jewish citizens.

    The Nazi’s misinformation or cover up of their crimes also included the destruction of physical evidence, known as Sonderaktion 1005. It was actual a Soviet war crime that alerted the Nazis to the idea. In 1943 the Nazis found the remains of 22,000 Polish victims of the Katyn massacre. Due to the conditions that they were buried in the bodies were very well preserved. Realising that similar Nazi atrocities would leave similar evidence Sonderaktion 1005 was ordered. The first step was the destroy the already dead bodies. Initially the Nazis had buried them in giant mass-graves. Sonderaktion 1005 ordered them dug up and burned. Auschwitz and Majdanek had crematoria on site to dispose of the bodies, so there was no need there. The result of this, and other actions (like the detonation of the gas chambers at Birkenau), meant that much of the forensic evidence of Nazi atrocities was largely removed.

    Additionally there is always the fear that it was just propaganda. During the First World War the Allies (particularly the British) issued story after story after story of German atrocities against civilians in Belgium (the overwhelming bulk of which turned out to be fabrications). So when the same people said 25 years later that the Germans are doing it all over again there was natural scepticism.

  54. George Soros really does try to have undue influence in multiple countries. That’s not a conspiracy anything.

    But his actions, bad and good, do not justify these hatreds spoken of.

  55. “George Soros really does try to have undue influence in multiple countries.”

    But no more so that most other billionaires. He certainly tries to exert influence, but no more so than Bill Gates or the Koch Brothers. Yet they don’t get the sort of international puppetmaster tropes thrown at them.

  56. Bill Gates is AFAIK mostly concerned with public health.

    I don’t think that he belongs in the same ballpark is those who seek to manipulate political systems with their cash.

    And AFAIK the Koch Brothers only buy American politicians, not foreign.

    Soros seeks to manipulate foreign countries and their political systems. Very much of the criticism of him is justified.

  57. I don’t want Russian oligarchs buying influence here, and I don’t want American oligarchs interfering in Russia or other countries.

    Soros is very much part of the problem.

  58. Soros largely attempts to influence American politics and European politics, particularly Eastern European politics, particularly Hungarian politics. And he is both American and Hungarian. And largely his influence has been in trying to open up Eastern European politics (particularly in attempting to decommunise countries in the old Eastern bloc).

    So if it is acceptable for the Koch brothers to influence American politics, then it should be acceptable for Soros to influence American and European (particularly Hungarian) politics.

  59. Soros of course poured tens of millions into promoting democracy and transparency in central and eastern Europe, particularly his native Hungary, after the fall of the USSR and the Iron Curtain but of course he only came to prominance after promoting pro EU and human rights causes when his name became a euphemism to suggest (((them))) and he was demonised, usually by the extreme right, and portrayed as everything from an evil Jewish mastermind manipulating governments to a Nazi collaborator willing to persecute his own people in order to ensure his own survvial. Like most relatively recent conspiracies little to nothing was heard of him prior to 2015.

    If you want to look at real foreign interferance in other nation’s politics I’d suggest that the Australian / American media mogul Rupert Murdoch is a much more accurate example.

  60. As usual, an interesting thread for Holocaust Day though I thought that every day was Holocaust Day because it’s in the jew-controlled media every day. Topping the list of points worthy of attention is the refusal of any ‘believer’ to look at any of the evidence which is held by those such as me to support the case against the Holocaust, and that eveidence is in my posts at the top of this thread.

    I used to be a ‘believer’ and part of that belief is indeed the refusal to look at anything which challenges the belief because certain beliefs are the bedrock of one’s entire mindset and upsetting it could cause unpleasantness – so best to settle for what one ‘knows’ i.e. is told by media and authorities. Here is one of my comments from 2006……

    http://www.atangledweb.org/?p=429

    Allan@Aberdeen, on December 12th, 2006 at 11:04 PM Said:

    As I’d always known – anyone who denies the extermination of Jews by the nazis is a nazi. But I don’t want them to be silenced by any ‘holocaust denial’ laws: I want to know who they are! So come on, all those Islington luvvies who think that the “Jews have it coming”. Let’s hear what you really think.

    But around 2009, a chance remark by my niece who worked in a crematorium caused me to look at what Carlo Mottagno and Germar Rudolf had written…….

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germar_Rudolf

    In 1991, Rudolf began work on a paper entitled Report on the formation and verifiability of cyanide compounds in the Auschwitz “gas chambers” on behalf of the Düsseldorf attorney Hajo Herrmann, a former Luftwaffe pilot. In 1993, this work was reported in the media, and Rudolf was told not to enter the Max Planck Institute again without permission. When he did so, his employment was terminated without notice. In 1994, this dismissal was converted into a termination by mutual agreement. In 1996, the University of Stuttgart asked Rudolf to withdraw his application for a final PhD examination, or it would be denied, rendering his PhD thesis worthless. The legal basis for this is a German law which allows universities to deny or withdraw academic degrees where the candidate has used his academic credentials or knowledge to commit a crime. Rudolf subsequently withdrew his application.[3][non-primary source needed]

    Between 1991 and 1994, Herrmann and other lawyers used Rudolf’s Auschwitz report to defend several Holocaust deniers, among them Otto Ernst Remer, a former Wehrmacht officer charged with Volksverhetzung (inciting hatred). Rudolf knew his work would be associated with Holocaust denial, but insisted that even Remer had a right to legal defense. Rudolf stated that his findings at Auschwitz and Birkenau “completely shattered his world view”.

    This is similar to the withdrawal of academic honours from James Watson after he stated the obvious fact that Africa is backward because Africans are backward – facts mean nothing.

    https://wwwkevboyle.blogspot.com/2019/01/a-reflection-on-holocaust-memorial-day.html

    Carlo Mottagno, an Italian researcher examined the coke delivery records at Auschwitz and, because the amount of coke required to incinerate a body in a crematorium is known, he worked out how many corpses could have been cremated by this volume of coke. His results showed approximate equivalence (no contradiction) between the possible numbers and the numbers of cremations/deaths recorded in the OFFICIAL Auschwitz records. (bodies could not be buried because Auschwitz is at the confluence of three rivers and the water table is very high so the bodies would have polluted water supplies).

  61. Soros -was- a Nazi collaborator. He was young when he did it, but he was a collaborator. See the 60 Minutes interview.

    I’d be no friend of Murdoch either.

  62. “Soros -was- a Nazi collaborator. He was young when he did it, but he was a collaborator. See the 60 Minutes interview.”

    That’s a gross simplification of what happened. In modern parlance it is fake news.

    Firstly he wasn’t young at the time. He was a child at the time. The Nazis were defeated when Soros was 14.

    In order to avoid deportation when the Germans took over Hungary in 1944 Soros posed as the son of a Hungarian government official (who also procured papers for Soros’ family saying they were Christian, not Jewish). He would, posing as the official’s son, accompany him on his duties.

  63. Kroft: “My understanding is that you went … went out, in fact, and helped in the confiscation of property from the Jews.”

    Soros: “Yes, that’s right. Yes.”

    Kroft: “I mean, that’s — that sounds like an experience that would send lots of people to the psychiatric couch for many, many years. Was it difficult?”

    Soros: “Not, not at all. Not at all. Maybe as a child you don’t … you don’t see the connection. But it was — it created no — no problem at all.”

    Kroft: “No feeling of guilt?”

    Soros: “No.”

    Kroft: “For example, that, ‘I’m Jewish, and here I am, watching these people go. I could just as easily be these, I should be there.’ None of that?”

    Soros: “Well, of course, … I could be on the other side or I could be the one from whom the thing is being taken away. But there was no sense that I shouldn’t be there, because that was — well, actually, in a funny way, it’s just like in the markets — that if I weren’t there — of course, I wasn’t doing it, but somebody else would — would — would be taking it away anyhow. And it was the — whether I was there or not, I was only a spectator, the property was being taken away. So the — I had no role in taking away that property. So I had no sense of guilt.“

    He himself agreed with the statement that he agreed with the confiscation of property from Jews.

    That makes him a collaborator.

    He wasn’t the worst of them, he was 14, but he was a collaborator.

  64. “Carlo Mottagno and Germar Rudolf had written”

    Carlo Mottagno was not an “Italian researcher”. He is an Italian neo-Nazi. He didn’t carry out peer reviewed research. He published his “research” using the neo-nazi Sentinella d’Italia publishing company. His claims are pseudoscience, as are Rudolf’s.

    Other researchers have carried out similar studies and come to substantially different results, thus undermining the credibility of the studies by Mottango and Rudolf.

  65. “He himself agreed with the statement that he agreed with the confiscation of property from Jews.”

    Yes. He was there when his foster father was confiscating the property. He was 13 at the time. To refer to him as a collaborator totally undermines the word in itself. If what he did was collaboration then the word has no meaning.

  66. Pardon

    that he helped.

    His words, not mine.

  67. “I had no role in taking away that property. So I had no sense of guilt”

    No role in the taking away of property. Children are not guilty of the crimes of the father, never mind the pretend father.

  68. Phantom, here’s a rebuttal of the various claims. Including that interview :

    https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/george-soros-ss-nazi-germany/

  69. //In most of Europe however Liberalism is largely seen as a right wing political tradition (the VVD in the Netherlands, FDP in Germany etc…).//

    I think you’re going a bit far is saying the Liberals in Germany are considered “right wing”. They have certainly had some right-wingers in their ranks in the past, and a lot of professional Lefties would still call them that. But among the general population, probably across Europe, the term “right-wing” is now associated with the new strongly nationalist parties and would not include the likes of the FDP. The FDP are pro-Europe, pro-business, anti-state intervention – not unlike, say, the Remain faction within Britain’s Tories.

    //In the 19th century in most European countries the word liberal and the word nationalist were largely considered to be coterminous./

    That was true especially for the peoples who hadn’t yet attained nationhood – the Germans, Italians, all Slavic peoples. They were confronting the reactionary, bigoted and very anti-democratic regimes in Europe left by the Treaty of Vienna. Roughly, the position of these liberals was not unlike the independence movement in Ireland at the time. They wanted political freedom, and that desire was expressed in nationalist terms.
    The Young Irelanders, maybe even O’Connell too, and later nationalists talked about the “Celtic race” and that kind of thing. But they weren’t right wing. National liberation and socialism can just as easily go hand in hand, as Irish history also shows in abundance.

    Speaking of which: Seamus, what you do think of the proposed FF-SDLP alliance?

  70. Soros was 14 at the time, not 13.

    He himself said that.

  71. “I think you’re going a bit far is saying the Liberals in Germany are considered “right wing”. They have certainly had some right-wingers in their ranks in the past, and a lot of professional Lefties would still call them that. But among the general population, probably across Europe, the term “right-wing” is now associated with the new strongly nationalist parties and would not include the likes of the FDP.”

    I wouldn’t in anyway suggest that they are far-right or even particularly right wing. I would list them on the right in the same way I would list the Liberal Democrats on the left (ie broadly centrist just right of centre).

    “The Young Irelanders, maybe even O’Connell too, and later nationalists talked about the “Celtic race” and that kind of thing. But they weren’t right wing.”

    I think it depends on the what one deems to be right/left. Even within liberalism, in Germany particularly, there were linksliberal and rechtsliberal, literally left liberals and right liberals. Certainly Bismarck, who at least originally was politically closest to the National Liberal group within Germany, would have been considered a figure of the political right.

    “National liberation and socialism can just as easily go hand in hand, as Irish history also shows in abundance.”

    Absolutely, though it is worth pointing out that socialism in most of these countries cam later – towards the end of the 19th century, early 20th century, rather than in the mid 19th century.

    “Seamus, what you do think of the proposed FF-SDLP alliance?”

    I largely think in a democratic age of nationalism in the North that Sinn Féin have largely, and quite successfully, nicked most of the SDLP’s clothing and now the SDLP have largely become irrelevant to politics in the North. The only people who largely vote for them are people who can’t bring themselves to vote for Sinn Féin, largely due to the Troubles. That generation is increasingly dying out and so the SDLP are becoming less and less relevant.

    In reality I think it would be healthy for Nationalism to have more choices (actual choices). As things stand they can vote for People Before Profit (far-left), Sinn Féin (left), or the SDLP (centre-left). Adding a liberal party (a nationalist Alliance perhaps), or a conservative party (one of either of the civil war parties) would be good for nationalism in the North. Having as many of the parties in the Free State standing in the North would also be good to help bring the North more into the political zeitgeist of the South. So, for example, I would likely never vote for Fine Gael but I would welcome them standing in the North.

    Truth be told the link up between Fianna Fáil and the SDLP kind of shows the dysfunction of both of them. The will they won’t they debacle, followed by a fudge is emblematic of Micheál Martin’s leadership of Fianna Fáil (they only thing you can count on is that you can’t count on Micheál Martin), while the are they nationalist first, or social democratic first, or catholic first, cleavages of the SDLP have been laid bare again.

  72. “Soros was 14 at the time, not 13.”

    Fair enough. I don’t think the distinction really is that large.

  73. Phantom, the entire interview is linked to and transcribed in the Snopes article. This is what Soros said himself:

    I was only a spectator, the property was being taken away. So the — I had no role in taking away that property. So I had no sense of guilt.

    I think that accusing a young teenager in hiding of accompanying his ‘godfather’ once to itemise the contents of a Jewish estate whose owners had escaped is taken the meaning of ‘collaborator’ to its wildest extremes.

    Were these allegations levelled against Soros when he was tens, (hundreds?) of millions into central and eastern Europe in the wake of the Iron Curtain?

  74. Point taken

  75. Never forget.

    Never forget that whatever percentage of people in Britain deny the holocaust, most of them are on the hard-left or are muslims. Many of them openly advocate for the destruction of Israel too. Perish the thought that anyone in here would hope to see such a thing.

    https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2019/jan/26/rachel-riley-countdown-extra-security-online-abuse

    The Countdown co-presenter Rachel Riley has revealed she is to be given extra security on the Channel 4 game show after being abused online for her criticism of antisemitism in the Labour party.

    The latest person, and the latest in a long line of women, to be abused by Labour Party members for being Jewish is a tv game show presenter. It’s not a surprise to anyone familiar with the Labour Party, because it’s the national HQ of anti-semites and is led by an anti-semite.

  76. //Never forget that whatever percentage of people in Britain deny the holocaust, most of them are on the hard-left or are muslims.//

    While right before our eyes we see daily all those deniers on ATW with their left-wing and Muslim credentials.

  77. Ah Pete. Beat to the punch, too late:

    Phantom, on January 27th, 2019 at 11:51 PM Said:

    The dregs of the far left and far right converge on some things.

    Jew hatred Is one of those things.

    Paul McMahon, on January 27th, 2019 at 11:57 PM Said:

    Brexi, what’s your 11.48 in relation to?

    I think that prejudice is spread right across the political spectrum and none Phantom.

    I believe you’ve queried it yourself on occasion?

  78. The British far-right is miniscule. The British far-left holds sway in the universities and hopes to form the next government.

    It’s really dishonest to imply that X per cent of a population being holocaust deniers is newsworthy, then attempting to spread the blame equally.

    By a long way, holocaust denial and anti-semitism is the preserve, in the UK, of the hard-left and muslims.

  79. That’ll be that turning things on their head that Brexi was on about last night.

    By a long way, holocaust denial and anti-semitism is the preserve, in the UK, of the hard-left and muslims.

    Yes, I’m sure that historically you’re correct and that previous far right groups like the NF and C18 would absolutely agree.

    Haven’t you queried the Holocaust yourself on occasion?

  80. No, I haven’t, so don’t bother searching.

    The six million figure is bullshit. I said that it could be lower or higher, but six million was arrived at extremely quickly and many decades before the Soviets allowed Western access to the camps it took over. By any measure, six million is a dubious number.

    But there’s no doubt that a programme mass deportation to camps existed.

    And anyone in the UK who denies it is most likely to be a hard-leftist or a muslim.

  81. By the way Paul, do you still advocate liberation of the “disputed territories”?

  82. Pete

    What was the purpose of the immense Birkenau camp?

  83. No, I haven’t […]

    The six million figure is bullshit

    That sounds pretty much like a query to me.

    And anyone in the UK who denies it is most likely to be a hard-leftist or a muslim

    If we take those ‘only asking questions’ on ATW as a sample and extrapolate it out to the wider UK it should give us a basis of the ‘questioners’ politics.

  84. Are you trying to ask do I advocate disoccupation of the occupied territories Pete?

  85. As I said yesterday:

    In a survey by Campaign Against Antisemitism they asked a series of questions designed to uncover antisemitic beliefs. They found that antisemitism was most prevalent in the Conservative Party, closely followed by UKIP, both of which were sizeably ahead of the Labour Party.

  86. What is that organization

    Do they have their own agenda

  87. Their agenda is largely to get rid of antisemitism. Other than that I can see no other real agenda present in their reports.

  88. Do they have their own agenda

    Not sure although I’m certain Pete has.

  89. On International holocaust day, would you spare a thought for the Armenians, one to three million of whome were marched into the Syrian desert and starved to death by the Ottomans a little more than a hundred years ago this year.

    I would also ask, why should the British be made to feel guilty about the WW2 holocaust?
    We fought against Nazi Germany and helped put an end to it.

  90. “On International holocaust day, would you spare a thought for the Armenians, one to three million of whome were marched into the Syrian desert and starved to death by the Ottomans a little more than a hundred years ago this year.”

    That’s an important point. For example, Holocaust Memorial Day, which is how International Holocaust Remembrance Day is marked in the UK, remembers not just the victims of the Holocaust but the victims of all genocides.

    “I would also ask, why should the British be made to feel guilty about the WW2 holocaust?”

    I don’t believe anyone has ever suggested that the British be made to feel guilty about the Holocaust.

  91. apl

    Correct comments

    I would only amend it to say that the Armenians were massacred by the Turks.

  92. I didn’t mention the massacre of Armenians because it happened before the Holocaust and referred to two genocides after the international community stated ‘never again’

    It’s never been suggested much less claimed that the British should be made to feel guilty about the Holocaust.

  93. Some have criticized FDR for not bombing the rail lines leading to the camps, a criticism that perhaps would have been made against Churchill also.

    But the fact is that the Allies ended the Holocaust, and I have a hard time feeling guilt about that.

  94. If Clinton ever did anything good Phantom it was bringing the horror of the Balkans genocide to an end.

    (And his fatigueless contribution and support of the GFA of course).

  95. yep

  96. apl – Fair points.

    Paul – You know what I’m asking. And please define what you mean by “occupied territories”. Some on the left mean Israel when they say that.

  97. Paul – You know what I’m asking

    I don’t, that’s what I rephrased the question. When I speak about the occupied territories I mean those territories captured from Egypt, Jordan and Syria in 1967 and I’ve always opined that an internationally monitored and guaranteed two state solution is probaly the best answer to the Palestine / Israel question.

    So no, you don’t get to try to spin that I’m anti Semitic because of Israel either.

  98. The bombing of the death camps (or their near infrastructure) would have been no small feat for the Allies during the second world war, and likely either would have done more harm than good, or had little tangible impact whatsoever.

    Firstly the Allies routinely bombed railways lines to the extent that Wehrmacht engineers could repair lines sometimes within hours of a bombing campaign. So crippling the railway lines to Auschwitz or the other camps wouldn’t have put much of a dent in the numbers of people murdered by the Nazis.

    Secondly it was probably only in late 1944 that the Allies possessed the ability to carry out a bombing raid that deep into Nazi held territory. These camps were not in Germany, but deeper in Poland. Hitting them would have been complicated. Firstly area bombing raid would have killed many of the prisoners at the camp. In a precision raid (not an area bombing) of Buchenwald killed hundreds. Auschwitz was much, much larger. A precision raid likely would have killed thousands of prisoners. An area bombing could have killed tens of thousands.

    The British didn’t carry out day time bombings. So it would have been American led bombing raids. To hit the target without area bombing would require, most likely, raids with the Douglas A-26, which didn’t enter into service in Europe until 17th November 1944. Auschwitz was evacuated on the 17th January 1945, exactly two months later. Likely speaking, again, bombing wouldn’t have put much of a dent in the numbers killed.

  99. Re the Balkans, great credit would be due to the late Richard Holbrooke, a master negotiator who dealt with some very tough customers in a very tough part of the world.

    I hope that he will be remembered.

  100. the Clintons killed Holbrooke…….. right Harri/Allan

    Mr. Holbrooke was hospitalized on Friday afternoon after becoming ill while meeting with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton in her Washington office. Doctors found a tear to his aorta, and he underwent a 21-hour operation. Mr. Holbrooke had additional surgery on Sunday and remained in very critical condition until his death.

  101. Obama should have appointed Holbrooke as Secretary of State, instead of Clinton.

    He was vastly more experienced, and qualified in every way.

  102. agreed

  103. //Secondly it was probably only in late 1944 that the Allies possessed the ability to carry out a bombing raid that deep into Nazi held territory//

    The Yanks bombed oil fields as far away as Rumania in – I think – mid 1943. They flew from bases in Libya and the distance to their target is further than the distance from, say, London to Auschwitz.
    Of course a few scattered bombs on the railway line wouldn’t have been enough. But a large raid with bombers dropping their bombs at intervals along long stretches of the lines, and bridges etc, to Auschwitz would IMO have brought the logistics of the Holocaust to a standstill, at least temporarily.

    The USAF lost heavily over Rumania (about 200 bombers took part in the raid and more than half were destroyed or damaged), and they were for the most part flying over areas with relatively poor air defence, whereas an attack on the CC would have had to fly all the way over the Reich. But they were learning the art of precision bombing fast in 1943, and a few months later would have performed better against a weakened Luftwaffe.

    I believe there are questions to be asked about why the Allies didn’t even seem to give an air raid on Auschwitz much consideration, or about the extent to which they were even aware of what was happening and where etc at the time.

  104. Pete Moore,

    The six million figure is bullshit.

    Any evidence to back that are searching up Pete? (I won’t hold my breath, you’re not particularly strong on evidence.)

  105. Any evidence to back that are searching up Pete? (I won’t hold my breath, you’re not particularly strong on evidence.)

    Dave – you’re not particularly strong on looking at evidence. Here’s some anyway…..

    https://ia600506.us.archive.org/29/items/BreakingTheSpell_48/BreakingTheSpell-Kollerstrom.pdf

  106. What was the purpose of the immense Birkenau camp?

    Allan

    Perhaps you could weigh in on this one.

  107. “The Yanks bombed oil fields as far away as Rumania in – I think – mid 1943. They flew from bases in Libya and the distance to their target is further than the distance from, say, London to Auschwitz.”

    Operation Tidal Wave, the USAAF bombing of the oil fields in Romania, was one of the costliest of the European front for the USAAF. And was overwhelmingly a strategic failure. Despite losing nearly 30% of their aircraft during the mission oil production out of Romania was completely unaffected. Another 30% were damaged. And for nothing pretty much. It was complete failure.

    “They flew from bases in Libya and the distance to their target is further than the distance from, say, London to Auschwitz.”

    Its not actually. They are relatively similar.

    From Libya (the planes took off from Benghazi) it is about 900 miles to Romania. From southern Italy it was about 650 miles. It’s about 850 miles from the south of England to Auschwitz.

    And as you say the planes would have been largely over densely populated, heavily defended German territory.

    “But a large raid with bombers dropping their bombs at intervals along long stretches of the lines, and bridges etc, to Auschwitz would IMO have brought the logistics of the Holocaust to a standstill, at least temporarily.”

    Again most evidence would suggest that it would have done so for a matter of hours, maybe a few days. The Germans were very good at repairing their railway lines. So, similarly to the Romania attack, you would be talking substantial cost in terms of men and equipment for what would only be a day or two respite.

    Heavy bombers didn’t work in similar precision raids, while the USAAF raid on Ploesti using the P-38 was a failure. Likely it would have required the A-26, which didn’t enter into service in Europe until two months before Auschwitz was abandoned.

    “I believe there are questions to be asked about why the Allies didn’t even seem to give an air raid on Auschwitz much consideration”

    I think it is a myth that they didn’t give it much consideration. They did and came to the conclusion that it wouldn’t work. Both the USAAF and RAF Bomber Command were asked to put together feasibility studies of bombing the camps. Both Winston Churchill, and USAAF General Carl Spaatz, were sympathetic to the idea and encouraged the idea. But both the USAAF and RAF Bomber Command concluded that it wasn’t operationally feasible. And armchair quarterbacking them 75 years later doesn’t do anyone any good.

  108. “Here’s some anyway…..”

    Only if you change the meaning of the word ‘evidence’. Fringe conspiracy theory bullshit is closer to the mark.

  109. Seamus, on January 28th, 2019 at 11:37 PM Said:

    “Here’s some anyway…..”

    Only if you change the meaning of the word ‘evidence’. Fringe conspiracy theory bullshit is closer to the mark.

    Seamus – sure, and you know this because you’ve read it, right? Yeah, right.

    http://www.jpost.com/Jewish-World/Jewish-News/Archeologist-at-Treblinka-Nazi-death-camp-finds-evidence-of-gas-chambers-346947

    In the series “One is Treblinka: Hitler’s Killing Machine” Caroline Sturdy Colls, a forensic archaeologist from Staffordshire University in the UK, uncovers new scientific evidence on the existence and mechanism of the death camp.

    Except that, she doesn’t. Normally, this would be embarrassing and bring a halt to the gravy-train: but the Holoco$t just keeps rolling along.

    http://newobserveronline.com/smithsonian-red-faced-after-treblinka-star-of-david-tiles-shown-to-be-not-jewish-at-all/

    The Smithsonian Institutes’ TV documentary division has been severely embarrassed with the revelation that its recently-released “Treblinka: Hitler’s Killing Machine” documentary—which claimed to have “proved” the existence of “gas chambers” at Treblinka because of the discovery of “tiles with Stars of David,” is an extremely amateurish hoax.

    Imagine a steaming pile of horse-shit – that’s the ‘evidence’ of gas chambers

  110. ” sure, and you know this because you’ve read it, right? Yeah, right.”

    I skimmed it. If it smells like bullshit then it probably is.

  111. “Imagine a steaming pile of horse-shit – that’s the ‘evidence’ of gas chambers”

    Except they found Treblinka’s gas chambers. So it is evidence of the gas chambers.

  112. From the transcripts of the Ernst Zuendel trial in Canada – very interesting stuff there!

    http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v08/v08p417_faurisson.html

    The prosecution expert in the first trial was Raul Hilberg, an American professor of Jewish descent and author of the standard reference work, The Destruction of the European Jews (1961), which Paul Rassinier discussed in Le Drame des Juifs européens (The Drama of the European Jews). Hilberg began his testimony by explaining, without interruption, his theory about the extermination of the Jews. He was then cross-examined by Zündel’s lawyer, Douglas Christie, who was assisted by Keltie Zubko and myself. Right from the start it was clear that Hilberg, who was the world’s leading authority on the Holocaust, had never examined a single concentration camp, not even Auschwitz. He had still not examined any camp in 1985 when he announced the imminent appearance of a new edition of his main work in three volumes, revised, corrected and augmented. Although he did visit Auschwitz in 1979 for a single day as part of a ceremonial appearance, he did not bother to examine either the buildings or the archives. In his entire life he has never seen a “gas chamber,” either in its original condition or in ruins. (For a historian, even ruins can tell tales). On the stand he was forced to admit that there had never been a plan, a central organization, a budget or supervision for what he called the policy of the extermination of the Jews. He also had to admit that since 1945 the Allies have never carried out an expert study of “the weapon of the crime,” that is to say of a homicidal gas chamber. No autopsy report has established that even one inmate was ever killed by poison gas.

    But it gets better in the sense of, even more unbelievable……

    When he was asked by the defense to explain how the Germans had been able to carry out an undertaking as enormous as the extermination of millions of Jews without any kind of plan, without any central agency, without any blueprint or budget, Hilberg replied that in the various Nazi agencies there had been “an incredible meeting of minds, a consensus mind-reading by a far-flung bureaucracy.”

    Absolutely amazing, and unbelievable – but most believe 😉

    So, in summary: no plans, no orders, no death-by-gassing, just an “incredible meeting of minds, a consensus mind-reading by a far-flung bureaucracy”

    And on Birkenau, as raised by Phantom’s insatiably curious mind……..

    Ernst Zündel, in possession of the correspondence I had exchanged in 1977-78 with the six American penitentiaries outfitted with gas chambers, gave attorney Barbara Kulaszka the job of getting in touch with the chief wardens of those penitentiaries in order to see if one of them would agree to appear in court to explain how a real gas chamber operates. Bill Armontrout, chief warden of the penitentiary at Jefferson City (Missouri), agreed to testify and in doing so pointed out that no one in the USA was more knowledgeable about the functioning of gas chambers than Fred A. Leuchter, an engineer from Boston. I went to visit Leuchter on February 3 and 4, 1988. I found that he had never asked himself any questions about the “gas chambers” in the German camps. He had simply believed in their existence. After I began to show him my files, he became aware of the chemical and physical impossibility of the German “gassings” and he agreed to examine our documents in Toronto.

    After that, at Zündel’s expense, he left for Poland with a secretary (his wife), a draftsman, a video-cameraman and an interpreter. He came back and drew up a 192-page report (including appendices). He also brought back 32 samples taken, on the one hand, from the crematories of Auschwitz and Birkenau at the site of the homicidal “gassings” and, on the other hand, in a disinfection gas chamber at Birkenau. His conclusion was simple: there had never been any homicidal gassings at Auschwitz, Birkenau, or Majdanek.

    James Roth, director of a laboratory in Massachusetts, then testified on the analysis of the 32 samples, the origin of which he was unaware of: all the samples taken in the homicidal “gas chambers” contained a quantity of cyanide which was either unmeasurable or infinitesimal, while the sample from the disinfection gas chamber, taken for comparison’s sake, contained an enormous amount of cyanide (the infinitesimal quantity detected in the former case can be explained by the fact that the supposed homicidal gas chambers were in fact morgues for preserving bodies; such morgues could have been occasionally disinfected with Zyklon B).

  113. Except they found Treblinka’s gas chambers. So it is evidence of the gas chambers.

    ……and nobody was gassed in gas chambers – not one single person, not one.

  114. Have you any transcripts for the trial? Because I’m not just going to take the word of well known shite peddler Robert Faurisson on it. Not least because Hilberg was convicted. Which makes me think that if the Holocaust was so easily disproven on the stand then he likely would have been acquitted.

    It is also worth noting that James Roth then repudiated the results. And said the methodology used was flawed because the cyanide would have only penetrated to a certain depth. And that when they ground up the samples they were of indeterminate sizes (and thus could have ground up substantially more than the 10mm that would have held the cyanide), thus diluting the sample and making it seem smaller than it actually was.

  115. “……and nobody was gassed in gas chambers – not one single person, not one.”

    So why the fuck would they have built them? Seriously why build the gas chambers and not kill anyone?

  116. Noel

    The issue was extensively discussed in FDR’s cabinet. One reason they did not bomb is that they reasoned the Nazis could murder a massive amount of Jews and others in many locations, so even if somehow the camps were wiped out, the death toll might not be any lower. There are two books on precisely this issue by respected scholars.

  117. Regarding the 14 year old Soros it is important to acknowledge what he did (whatever you think it is) he did only once. Given his age and that it was a singular occurrence I don’t think he should be condemned for it.

  118. Allan@Aberdeen,

    Dave – you’re not particularly strong on looking at evidence. Here’s some anyway…..

    I’ve looked at your so-called evidence in the past Allan, and it’s anything but.

    ……and nobody was gassed in gas chambers – not one single person, not one.

    And your evidence for this is? Oh that’s right, you haven’t got any.
    To a sensible, logical person, your evidence just makes you sound like these guys Allan:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erA3WQE9Zes

  119. Allan, Pete

    The internets must not be working too good, as you’ve not answered my humble query

    What was the purpose of Birkenau, and its 422 acres, its many large buildings

    Surely such a massive facility had a purpose of some kind?

    https://www.yadvashem.org/yv/en/exhibitions/through-the-lens/auschwitz-aerial-photos.asp

  120. never forget……

  121. BTW, excellent post Paul! At first I thought it was going to be neo-Nazi clickbait, but some of the comments helped me to understand the psychology behind the phenomenon. The articles from you and Dave were especially helpful.

    As Patrick says, “Never forget.”

  122. Thanks Charles.

    I wanted to try to get a discussion going behind the psyche of the deniers and wider conspiracy theorists rather than the actual events and theories themselves and while I expected a bit of what you mention I think it’s been largely kept to a minimum and dealt with.

  123. ……and nobody was gassed in gas chambers – not one single person, not one.

    And your evidence for this is? Oh that’s right, you haven’t got any.

    Dave – the evidence for there not having been anybody gassed in a ‘gas chamber’ is that there wasn’t anybody gassed in a gas chamber, but if you can provide an autopsy of any victims of gassing or images of pink corpses found after the camps were seized, then I shall recant.

    From the evidence requested but which shall remain unread……..

    https://ia600506.us.archive.org/29/items/BreakingTheSpell_48/BreakingTheSpell-Kollerstrom.pdf

    page 44

    Death by cyanide is swift and sure, and leaves a pink corpse. Ditto carbon
    monoxide. Both gases block body oxygen absorption, although at different
    points of the oxygen metabolism. These are the only two gases alleged
    to have been used to kill millions in “Nazi death-camps.”

    Had cyanide been used lethally in the German labour camps, as alleged,
    there would have been millions of pink corpses lying around – but, there
    weren’t any. We’re talking here about a bright, shocking pink.

    The US army sent its top pathologist Dr Charles Larsen to inspect the
    camps at the war’s end, in 1945, to find out what had caused all the deaths.
    After visiting several labour camps he concluded that they had died from famine and disease, largely typhus.58 He didn’t exactly say he had found no
    deaths by gassing, but said (as quoted in the book about him) no systematic,
    mass cyanide gassing. That is a wise position. He conjectured that a few
    mentally ill people were maybe gassed using Zyklon, presumably to avoid
    having the “no Jews were gassed” denier label hanging around his neck for
    the rest of his life; but then, years later in 1980, he told his local paper,
    “never was a case of poison gas uncovered.”59

    The number 59 at the end of the paragraph is a reference number, citing…..

    The Wichita Eagle, April 1, 1980: quoted in “The Liberation of the Camps” by Theodore O’Keefe, Journal of Historical Review, July 1995

  124. The bodies were destroyed in the crematoriums immediately after gassing. As you know.

  125. Allan what was the purpose of Birkenau

  126. So where did all the Jews of Europe go then, Allan? The large populations that had lived for centuries in Poland, Lithuania, Germany, Russia, Hungary, Greece arc almost vanished in the 1940s. The evidence suggests most of them were systematically murdered. If not, where did they all go?

    They didn’t all go to Israel. They didn’t all go on holidays. Where did they go?

  127. Allan@Aberdeen

    Dave – the evidence for there not having been anybody gassed in a ‘gas chamber’ is that there wasn’t anybody gassed in a gas chamber,

    Does that statement actually make sense in your head Allan?
    That’s what you see the proof the Holocaust never took place is it?

    Let me give you the proof that I accept for the Holocaust.
    That would be thousands of witnesses who were in the camps, as well as huge numbers of the armed forces and civilians who saw first-hand what was going on. The mass graves that were discovered, as well as all the dead and dying discovered in concentration camps at the end of the war. Some of the Nazi documented evidence, from unit such as the Einsatzgruppen. Who didn’t manage to destroy all of their records after genocide. As well as many German military, (including senior personnel such as generals), and civilians. Who confessed and/or testified to the atrocities.
    Where are these people just lying for some unknown reason?
    And that’s just the tip of the iceberg Allan, there’s mountains of evidence to prove the Jews were murdered in huge numbers during the second world war.

    but if you can provide an autopsy of any victims of gassing or images of pink corpses found after the camps were seized, then I shall recant.

    Well, as soon as you provide me with a time machine Allan I’ll get right on it.

    From the evidence requested but which shall remain unread……..

    Oh yes, a book written by Nicholas Kollerstrom. a man who believes many crazy conspiracy theories, including that Paul McCartney died and was replaced by a look-a-like. I’ll certainly value anything he’s got to say on the subject. Oh look, he’s written a book on crop circles as well.

  128. Dave

    About 25 years ago a book came out called “Hitler’s Willing Executioners” by a man named Goldman. It put a lie to the saying that the German people didn’t know what was going on. The “final Solution” was too vast an operation, and too many people had to participate, for people on the street not to know.

    My own father as a young US soldier saw some of what went on, but I don’t know the particulars. He never wanted to talk about it.

  129. Charles

    Absolutely mate. As already pointed out his mountains of evidence to prove that the Holocaust happened. As well, as you rightly pointed out, many in the German military, across all ranks, who confessed to the atrocities.
    To claim otherwise is just conspiracy theory nonsense. In absolutely the same league as claiming the Earth is flat, or that we never landed on the moon.

  130. “About 25 years ago a book came out called “Hitler’s Willing Executioners” by a man named Goldman.”

    There is an argument that the German people had some blame (collectively and individually) for the Holocaust. However Daniel Goldhagen’s book is virtually fiction. It has little of any academic merit. It misquotes sources. It then takes a small truth and makes a sweeping generalisation out of it.

    It is on the other side of the issue from the sort of stuff Allan likes to post but belongs in the same category.

  131. // It put a lie to the saying that the German people didn’t know what was going on.//

    Do you mean they deliberately kept the news of what was going on from the Jewish population?

  132. Goldhagen’s thesis was that ordinary Germans knew about the Holocaust and supported it. There is little of any evidence that it is true.

  133. How could the German people not have known? Who did the rounding up and manned the camps? Germans, of course and their allies like Vichy. I have the book somewhere about the place.

  134. “How could the German people not have known? Who did the rounding up and manned the camps?”

    The Schutzstaffel. Who at their peak had 800,000. A lot of people but still only about 1% of the German population. And that’s even suggesting that the entire SS knew about, which is doubtful.

    And just because you know someone is being sent to the camps doesn’t mean you knew they were being murdered there. The SS unit that manned the camps was the SS-Totenkopfverbände (the Death Heads unit). They only number 20,000.

    Some Germans knew what was happening. Likely speaking most didn’t.

  135. Seamus

    I defer to your expertise on the subject. I may look for that book however! 🙂

  136. Gentleman Charles. Goldhagen’s book is a good read (and has been a documentary maker’s best mate). It just isn’t very reputable. Most historians have savaged it as it makes fundamental errors. It makes several assertions with not a whole lot of evidence.

    I think there is an argument that the German people are responsible for Hitler. I don’t think there is much of an argument that they knew what was going on (not least because the Nazis ran a deliberate misinformation campaign). Even SS files have euphemistic references to the Holocaust rather than blatant in your face ones.

  137. As for the holoco$t, numbers matter:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/20/world/africa/20iht-holocaust.html?_r=1&

    JERUSALEM — An Israeli government report that claims to be the first of its kind has set material damage to the Jewish people during the Holocaust at some $240 billion to $330 billion.

    At the beginning of 2004, 1,092,000 Holocaust survivors were still living worldwide, about half of them in Israel. About 10 percent of survivors die each year, the report said.

    Those who are inclined to ask questions would ask just how many ‘holocaust survivors’ were alive in 1945, 59 years prior to 2004?

    http://www.globalfire.tv/nj/03en/history/holostats.htm

    From the Israeli Prime Minister’s Office

    27 July 1997

    Translation from Hebrew

    (transmitted by AMCHA on [H-HOLOCAUST@h-net.msu.edu], 13 Aug. 1997)

    1. General

    At a meeting held on May 14th 1997 at the Prime Minister’s Office, a committee was established for the task of defining who is a holocaust survivor and to estimate the number of survivors living today worldwide.

    Members of the committee are: E. Spanic, chairman; H. Factor and V. Struminsky.

    The committee held four meetings; its members met with researchers and experts in this field: and in some cases the committee commissioned studies to complement existing data.

    2. Findings of the Committee

    a) Definition of the term Holocaust Survivor.

    A holocaust survivor will be defined as any Jew who has lived in a country at the time when it was

    — under Nazi regime
    — under Nazi occupation
    — under the regime of Nazi collaborators

    as well as any Jew who fled due to the above regime or occupation.

    b) Estimates of living Holocaust Survivors

    Total 834.000 — 960.000

    I’m trying to get my head round the idea of the Israeli government providing figures of up to 960,000 holocaust survivors in 1997, and then there being 1,092,000 holocaust survivors in 2004 – and both sets of figures are from the Israeli government. I know that most on ATW are not particularly bothered by numeracy, but numbers matter. If 960,000 Holoco$t survivors are alive in 1997, and if 1.1million ‘holocaust survivors’ are alive in 2004, how many were alive in 1945, 69 years before 2004?

    There was a real laugh to be had from the Montel Williams show a few years ago. The infamous ‘holoco$t denier’ David Cole was on (he’s jewish btw) and he was being harangued by an elderly jew, Ernest Hollander, who, like so many others, had survived the ‘death camp’ at Auschwitz. He said that his brother had been gassed in Auschwitz etc. But in Brooklyn, somebody had noticed that Ernest Hollander looked remarkably like an old guy from eastern Europe whose name was, cohencidentally, also Hollander. Well, it turns out that Ernest Hollander was re-united with his long-gassed brother Zoltan, and Cole was given no thanks at all. So, who was gassed? Not Otto Frank, recovering in Auschwitz hospital when the Soviets arrived, not his daughters who died of typhus in another camp after having been detained in Auschwitz then transferred.

  138. Seamus, on January 29th, 2019 at 11:31 PM Said:

    Some Germans knew what was happening.

    That’s because they were getting extra soap in their rations, and possibly some lampshades……..

    http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/02-19-46.asp

    MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Yes, Mr. President, they were also addressed to the SS units. The first letter, addressed to the administration of the Auschwitz Camp was from the firm Topf and Sons.

    I shall now present to the Tribunal evidence of the fact that besides the stationary crematoria, there existed also movable crematoria. The Tribunal already knows about the movable gas chambers. These were “murder vans.” There were also created transportable crematoria. An SS member, Paul Waldmann, testifies to their existence. He was one of the participants in the crime perpetrated by the German fascists when 840,000 Russian prisoners of war in Sachsenhausen were annihilated at one time. The Exhibit Number USSR-52 (Document Number USSR-52) on Auschwitz has already been presented to the Court. I quote that particular extract from the testimony of an SS member, Waldmann, which mentions the mass execution in Sachsenhausen:

    “The war prisoners murdered in this way were cremated in four movable crematoria, which were transported on car trailers.”

    Murder vans – I hadn’t heard of those. 840,000 people killed in ‘murder vans’, at one time?

    “A machine for the manufacture of soap was completed some time in March or April 1944. The British prisoners of war had constructed the building in which it was housed in June 1942. The machine itself was installed by a civilian firm from Danzig by the name of AJRD. It consisted, as far as I remember, of an electrically heated tank in which bones of the corpses were mixed with some acid and melted down.

    “This process of melting down took about 24 hours. The fatty portions of the corpses and particularly those of females were put into a crude enamel tank, heated by a couple of bunsen burners. Some acid was also used in this process. “I think it was caustic soda. When boiling had been completed, the mixture was allowed to cool and then cut into blocks for microscopic examination.”

    I continue the quotation from the following paragraph:

    “I cannot estimate the quantity produced, but I saw it used by Danzigers in cleaning tables in the dissecting rooms. They all told me it was excellent soap for this purpose.”

    I submit half-finished and some finished soap. (Exhibit USSR-393) Here you shall see a small piece of finished soap, which from the exterior, after lying about a few months, reminds you of ordinary household soap. I give it over to the Tribunal. Beside this I now submit to the Tribunal the samples of semi-tanned human skin (Exhibit I]SSR-394). The samples which I now submit prove that the process of manufacturing soap was already completely worked out by the Institute of Danzig; as to the skin it still looks like a semi-finished product. The skin which resembles most the leather used in manufacture is the one you see on top at the left. So one can consider that the experiments on the industrial fabrication of soap from human fats were quite completed in the Danzig Institute. Experiments on tanning of human skin were still incomplete and only the victorious advance of the Red Army put an end to this new crime of the Nazis

    This testimony is a matter of record from the Nuremburg tribunals. Are we now to believe that there was no industrial production of soap and lampshades from dead jews? Were the witnesses lying?