This next section deals with generic World Jewish Conspiracy theories. They are unrelated to the holocaust but many deniers keep bringing these up during holocaust discussions (derailing topics is their trade) to show us "evidence" that either discredit Jewish claims to modern Israel, or expose Jews as liars and falsifiers of history, or list alleged war crimes committed by the Allies during World War II that resulted in a genocide or planned genocide of the German people. Let us begin, shall we?

CONTENTS:

Debunking the "Ashkenazi Jews are Khazars" theory

"Karl Marx the crypto-Jew"

Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi and "the Kalergi Plan"

False quotes attributed to Ilya Ehrenburg

"Did you know Winston Churchill never mentioned the holocaust?! Amazing, right?"

"B-but I am sure Eisenhower didn't speak of the holocaust either! Or so I've heard!!!!"

Yehuda Bauer and the gambit of "debunking the Wannsee Conference"

Simon Wiesenthal and the "no gassings in Germany" false quote

The fake Voltaire quote

The fake Sefton Delmer quote

The Rothschild Family, Warburg family and the Federal Reserve (FED)

The Kaufman-Plan, Hooton-Plan and Morgenthau Plan

"The Anne Frank diary is a hoax!"

The Diary of Anne Frank

Elie Wiesel's tattoo and many other denier allegations about him

Elie and Shlomo Wiesel voluntarily going on a death-march with the Nazis

Selectively citing novels and newspaper clippings

Moshe Peer, the man who claimed to have been gassed six times

March 24th, 1933: "Judea Declares War on Germany", evening edition

But were there any actual boycotts and to what extent?

Nazi Propaganda

Another document regarding Nazi policy of Jewish "freedom of movement" outside their ghettos

The "history shows us Jews really are a problem" gambit

"Soap made out of Jews", human soap and bars of RIF

"But the mainstream is saying no soap was ever made out of anyone...like...ever!"

Do Jews really control the world?

Supposed fakes and "restored" originals

How denier photo-fakery is easily exposed

The deniers also try to claim the "Judenaktion in Ivangorod" photo is fake

This is a German uniform

Another denier image, this one trying to discredit the "Letzte Jude von Vinnitsa" image

"The most famous holocaust photo a fraud?"

Was Hitler a man of peace?

Hitler's Invasion of the Soviet Union "was just a pre-emptive strike"

The Müller-Lachout Document - anatomy of a hoax

The myths about the Waffen-SS

Adolf Hitler's admiration of Islam

The myth that Britain bombed civilian targets before Germany bombed civilian targets

The Firebombing of Dresden and Tagesbefehl-47

Another denier claim: Eisenhower created death camps to kill 1-2 million German P.O.W.s

Concluding World Jewish Conspiracy theories

 

Debunking the "Ashkenazi Jews are Khazars" theory

One must realize that those who we label as antisemites, don't all necessarily hate all Jews. Some of them only hate "the Big Jews", i.e. those they are convinced are running the world and in control of entire nation states' economies and policy making. When asked who these are, they tell us George Soros, "the guys who own Hollywood and the news stations", AIPAC, wall street bankers or the Rothschild & Warburg family.

 

Then there are those antisemites who keep stressing they don't hate Jews per se, but just the Zionists (including non-Jews who support Zionism). When asked why they do not support Zionism, they spin us the old yarn about land grabbing Khazar Zionists who stole the land from innocent native Palestinian Muslims who had been living there peacefully for 1400 years and totally did not migrate to the region in the recent past at all, no it's just the land grabbing Jews who did in the 20th century.

 

Of course you also have the smartasses who remind us that the term "antisemite" is flawed, because Middle Easterners and North Africans are semitic people as well, and "antisemitic" would mean someone who is disparaging of all semitic peoples, many of whom are already extinct. Semitic comes from the word "Shem", i.e. a people who are descended from one of Noah's sons. You already begin to realize how mythology-based, and therefore bogus this whole concept of classifying people this way is, as there's also a "Hamitic people" who are alleged to be the descendants of Ham, another one of Noah's sons.

 

In any case, the Jewish diaspora today is classified into mainly three branches: Ashkenazi Jews (Jews who gradually moved from the Middle East to Europe in the AD centuries), Sephardi Jews (Jews who gradually moved from the Middle East to the Iberian Peninsula in the AD centuries) and Mizrahi Jews (remained throughout history in the Middle East). It is true that Jews have long practiced endogamy (which reflects in parts of the Jewish community being prone to various genetic diseases such as Tay Sachs). The Inquisition shattered Sephardi Jewry, leading to far more incidences of intermarriage and to a less distinctive DNA.

 

One method "anti-Zionists" (commonly neo nazis, white supremacists, and islamists) use to discredit the legitimacy of the modern Israeli state is by saying that Ashkenazi Jews never ever had any historic connection to this part of the world, and tell you (e.g. Benjamin Freedman) the following tale:

 

"Once upon a time, in the central Asian kingdom of Khazaria during the early Middle Ages, a king decided to pick and choose a new religion for his subjects eeny, meeny, miny, moe style and settled for Judaism. His Khazar subjects who adopted Judaism became known as Ashkenazi Jews, and they poured into Europe over the following centuries. Therefore, these Ashkenazi Jews that make up the bulk of World Jewry today, have no connection to the true Hebrews and have no claims to any land in the Middle East."

 

The same people that call all Jews Christ-killers (rather than just Mizrahi) are, on a different day of the week, peddling the story of only Ashkenazi Jews allegedly converted in the 9th century a.d. being the supposed destructive, nation-wrecking element of "World Jewry" today. Notice the hypocrisy? It gets better: If Ashkenazi Jews really have no connection with other Jews, why do antisemites still speak by and large of "the Jews" as one entity? And isnt Khazaria located near the Caucasus? Wouldn't Khazars converted to Judaism therefore be Caucasians, the race these white supremacists are defending in the first place?

 

Unfortunately, it's not just antisemites who concocted this tale. Even a few "Jewish" authors, such as Shlomo Sand, an Austrian-born Israeli historian who reignited this complex controversy with the 2008 publication of a book as controversial in title as “The Invention of the Jewish People”, and his mentor Arthur Koestler with his 1976 book, “The Thirteenth Tribe,” have given this hypothesis some solid ground.

 

There is a legitimate debate going on in Israel about Judaism being just a religion, or also an ethnicity, an identity or even a race. So the issue is there, but I am here to address the Khazar hypothesis.

 

Let's hear what Rev. Klett has to say about the whole Ashkenazi "Out of Khazaria" theory:

 

So, is it true that most of the Ashkenazi Jews are descended from the Khazars? The evidence by no means leads to the conclusion that they are not descendants of Abraham because of the Khazari connection. Let's see what we can find out about the Khazars:

 

1. We know that the Khazars were a Turkish tribe living between the Caspian Sea and the Black Sea in the eighth century.[1]

 

2. To what extent the Khazars converted to Judaism is open to debate. According to the scholar Robert M. Seltzer, “The Judaism of the Khazars has been much discussed but the historical evidence is very limited. Only the ruling class of the Khazars became Jews...”[2] Raphael Patai states: “For more than two centuries Judaism was the religion of the ruling class while other religions, notably Islam, but also Christianity, were extensively practiced among the people.”[3]

 

3. Abba Eban has written: “...the rulers of the Khazars apparently converted to Judaism at the end of the eighth century, although the majority of the population appears to have remained either Christian or Moslem.”[4]

 

Conclusion: There were members of a tribe of Turkic people who converted to Judaism. Many of their people remained Christian or Muslim, and some of those who had converted to Judaism became Russian Orthodox when conquered by Russia. Some of their descendants probably survived to join the Eastern European Jewish community. This, in a nutshell, is what we know about the Khazars.

 

Not a Race: A “Community of Descent”

 

There is truth to the statement “the Jews are not a race.” The Jewish people are a “community of descent,” which differs from a “race.” Today's Jewish people are, by and large, the community of physical descent from Abraham and the patriarchs.

 

Let me illustrate this point. If I were to marry an Asian woman and father children who then married other Asians, these children would be my descendants. If that woman were to die and I were to marry an African woman and have children, and they were to marry others of African descent, they would also be my descendants. One set of descendants would be racially Asian and the other racially African, but they would both be my descendants! Today's Jewish people are, by and large, the community of physical descent from Abraham and the patriarchs, whatever their race. Race is not the issue. The issue is descent. Black Ethiopian Jews, blonde Jews from Scandinavia, and Cochin Jews from India are racially different but are all Jewish. Sure there has been intermarriage, but at the core, the Jewish community remains descended from patriarchal Israel. There is still a Jewish “community of descent.”

 

From a scientific standpoint, genetic studies have shown Ashkenazi Jews have significant Middle Eastern genetic origins, which demonstrates non-Khazar ancestry.

 

DNA tests [5] have proven the Khazar theory to be complete B.S.: A 2013 trans-genome study carried out by 30 geneticists, from 13 universities and academies, from 9 countries, assembling the largest data set available to date, for assessment of Ashkenazi Jewish genetic origins found no evidence of Khazar origin among Ashkenazi Jews. "Thus, analysis of Ashkenazi Jews together with a large sample from the region of the Khazar Khaganate corroborates the earlier results that Ashkenazi Jews derive their ancestry primarily from populations of the Middle East and Europe, that they possess considerable shared ancestry with other Jewish populations, and that there is no indication of a significant genetic contribution either from within or from north of the Caucasus region", the authors concluded.

 

Only geneticist Eran Elhaik is contesting this. He obviously is backed by Shlomo Sand.

 

Even David Duke, former Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan and one-time Republican Louisiana State Representative, says that the Khazar theory is a complete lie. Straight from the horse's mouth:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udO65M_KIOA [video removed for violating YouTube's policy on hate speech]

 

Also in the video, he makes a big issue about intermarriage laws in Israel but funny enough, he doesnt tell you how "much" freedom non-Muslims have in marrying Muslims (or vice versa) in most Muslim countries.

 

So where did Ashkenazi (literal meaning "the Jews of Germany") originate from? The most well supported theory is the one that details a Jewish migration from Israel through what is now Greece, Italy and other parts of southern Europe.[6]

 

So let us conclude:

 

There is historic consensus that Ashkenazi Jews are not descended from Khazars[7]. There is genetic, and therefore scientific consensus that Ashkenazi Jews are not descended from Khazars[5]. A tiny minority among scholars contests this, chiefly three people: Eran Elhaik (1 scientist), Schlomo Sand (1 historian) and Arthur Koestler (1 journalist writer). By comparison, there's tons more academics who deny evolution, man-made climate change and the WTC collapsing due to a weakened structure (rather than controlled demolition as they claim). But even they, despite their numbers, remain a minority compared to the overwhelming numbers of academics who have concluded the opposite.

 

Sources:

1. My People, by Abba Eban, page 149, Behrman House/Random House, © 1968 by Author.

2. Jewish People, Jewish Thought, by Robert M. Seltzer, page 787 in note 7, Macmillan Pub. Co. NY, NY© 1980 by author.

3. Tents of Jacob, The Diaspora - Yesterday and Today, by Raphael Patai, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ, © 1971

4. Eban, page 149.

5. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25079123

6. Gregory Cochran, Henry Harpending, The 10,000 Year Explosion: How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution, Basic Books, 2009 pp. 195–196.

7. http://www.haaretz.com/jewish/features/1.601287

"Karl Marx the crypto-Jew"

Karl Marx (1818–1883) was a philosopher, economist, sociologist, journalist, and revolutionary socialist. Born in Prussia to a middle-class family, he later studied political economy and Hegelian philosophy. As an adult, Marx became stateless and spent much of his life in London, where he continued to develop his thought in collaboration with German thinker Friedrich Engels and published various works, the most well-known being the 1848 pamphlet The Communist Manifesto. His work has since influenced subsequent intellectual, economic, and political history.

 

Marx's theories about society, economics and politics—collectively understood as Marxism—hold that human societies develop through class struggle: a conflict between ruling classes (known as the bourgeoisie) that control the means of production, and working classes (known as the proletariat) that work on these means by selling their labour for wages.

 

According to Marx, states are run in the interests of the ruling class but are nonetheless represented as being in favor of the common interest of all. He predicted that, like previous socioeconomic systems, capitalism produced internal tensions which would lead to its self-destruction and replacement by a new system: socialism. For Marx, class antagonisms under capitalism, owing in part to its instability and crisis-prone nature, would eventuate the working class' development of class consciousness, leading to their conquest of political power and eventually the establishment of a classless, communist society governed by a free association of producers. Marx actively fought for its implementation, arguing that the working class should carry out organised revolutionary action to topple capitalism and bring about socio-economic emancipation.

 

Karl Marx was born to Heinrich Marx, formerly He(r)schel Mordechai, and Henriette Pres(s)burg. Marx's maternal grandfather was a rabbi, while his paternal line had supplied the city of Trier's rabbis since 1723, a role taken by his grandfather Marx Levy Mordechai. Prior to his son's birth, and to escape the constraints of anti-semitic legislation, He(r)schel converted from Judaism to Lutheranism, the main Protestant denomination in Prussia at the time, taking on the German forename of Heinrich over the Yiddish Herschel. Largely non-religious, Heinrich was a man of the Enlightenment, interested in the ideas of the philosophers Immanuel Kant and Voltaire. His wife, a Jewish woman, Henriette Pres(s)burg, was from a business family that later founded the company Philips Electronics. In contrast to her husband, Henriette retained her Jewish faith until 1825, when she received an adult baptism.

 

So let me recap: Marx's father converted to Protestantism, Marx's mother converted to Protestantism, and Marx himself was not religious, though he was baptized Christian in August 1824 at age 6. But he is apparently still a Jew? Not by religion, but by race? The "once a Jew, always a Jew" National Socialist classification apparently continues to be applied. Yet at the same time, antisemites like to remind us there is no such thing as "one" Jewish race, and keep insisting on the "Ashkenazi out of Khazaria" theory. So what was Karl Marx's ethnicity ultimately? Was he a Jew or a Caucasoid non-Jewish Khazar? Make up your minds, before you apply your labels, revisionists!

 

If revisionists insist Karl Marx being in league with Jewry, well, let me remind them of Karl Marx's antisemitism: "On the Jewish Question" is a work he wrote in 1843, and first published in Paris in 1844 under the German title "Zur Judenfrage". In it, he writes the following: "Let us consider the actual, worldly Jew – not the Sabbath Jew [...] What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money." It is clear he disliked both religious and non-religious Jews.

 

Some other "truth bombs" you might have encountered about Marx is that next to this revelation that he was a non-Judaic Jew, we're also told his real secret name is Moses Mordechai Levy, which is, of course, utter nonsense. The only truth to this is that Karl Marx's father changed his family name from Mordechai to Marx in 1808, ten years before Marx was born. This is why many antisemitic websites have quietly dropped this and continue to call him Karl Marx, but the German Metapedia just as an example, still calls him as such, which tells you a thing or two (once again) about the quality of "alternate encyclopedias" such as these:

 

http://de.metapedia.org/wiki/Karl_Marx

 

I personally do not hold Karl Marx (not a Jew), Friedrich Engels (not a Jew), or Lenin (not a Jew) in high regard, because they set in motion a movement that ended up - with the help of Stalin (not a Jew), Mao (not a Jew), Kil Il-Sung (not a Jew) and Pol Pot (not a Jew) - in the brutal murder of "political enemies" like the children of the Romanov family and claiming the lives of tens of millions in an artificially imposed clash of social orders and the forced redistribution of life's necessities. However, I just brought up Marx as an example of what fact twisting antisemites stoop to, so that they can convert this baptised Protestant, yet irreligious critic of organized religion including Judaism, into a Jew.

 

For further reading regarding the far right's similar obsession with something they call Cultural Marxism:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Cultural_marxism

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Frankfurt_school

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

Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi and "the Kalergi Plan"

Many times when you encounter holocaust deniers and they try to prove to you the holocaust is a hoax, they never seem to be able to focus on one issue. They are more than happy to leave the time period in question altogether, hop on their nazi time machine, and jump all over the place regarding the timeline of history when it comes to cherry picking their little world view, on how Jews are the root of all evil. From reminding us who killed Christ to Talmudic prophecy and numerology to the "Out of Khazaria" theory to the Napoleonic Wars and the Rothschild Family tree to secret societies like the Freemasons, Illuminati and Bohemian Grove, to who REALLY started WW1, to the early roots of the European Union, to modern day Israel and its mistreatment of Palestinians, it is nigh impossible to nail down a holocaust denier on the holocaust itself and discuss a topic (one aspect of this event that itself is extensive) at length. With this behavior, they make it almost impossible for someone to follow them through their time machine of antisemitism and prove them wrong on every account. It's also the reason why this section of my presentation will try to partake a little bit in this wild goose chase all over history and show that the fraudulent modus operandi of holocaust deniers is not just evident in their attempts to distort holocaust historiography, but pretty much wherever else they go as well.

 

One such notion, is their claim that a man named Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi is the spiritual father of the European Union, and the spiritual father of race-mixing, and with it, the downfall/genocide/ethnocide of distinct European ethnic national identities as well. In fact, this topic even made it to the European Parliament itself, when it was brought up by the raving cross-eyed lunatic going by the name of Nick Griffin (BNP member)! See:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmDuPccLON4

 

...which is why Kalergi is an oft used buzzword among the same circles that cry White Genocide because they can't get laid.

 

It is interesting to note, that these same people who talk about a Jewish conspiracy to control gentiles, conveniently forget to mention that Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi was, in fact, NOT a Jew at all.

 

Richard Nikolaus Eijiro, Count of Coudenhove-Kalergi (1894 - 1972) was an Austrian-Japanese politician, and philosopher. A pioneer of European integration, he served as the founding president of the Paneuropean Union for 49 years. His parents were Heinrich von Coudenhove-Kalergi, Austro-Hungarian diplomat, and Mitsuko Aoyama, daughter of an oil merchant, antiques-dealer, and landowner in Tokyo.

 

His first book, Pan-Europa, was published in 1923, and contained a membership form for the Pan-Europa movement which held its first Congress in Vienna in 1926. Coudenhove-Kalergi indeed proposed Beethoven's Ode to Joy as the music for the European Anthem.

 

But this is where the similarities end. The antisemites go on to say that Kalergi not only drafted the so-called "Kalergi Plan", but also stated in his works that he wanted a mixed race Europe, and with it, the destruction of distinct European ethnic identities. The dimwitted morons who parrot this probably dedicated a grand total of 5 minutes of research to get this information instead of finding any of the supposed quotes in Kalergi's books themselves.

 

Kalergi never said he WANTS Europe to become a mixed race continent - it's just a hypothesized observation/prediction he made of the future (you know, like Southpark had that one episode where time travelers from the future are all mixed race). Nor did he EVER imply that Jews will rule over this race in the future. As usual, these convictions come when taking this nonsense from secondary sources (aka neo nazi websites) instead of primary sources.

 

The "race of the future" is in fact a concept that has been hypothesized by many to be a theoretical composite race which will result from ongoing miscegenation. Kalergi predicted in his work "Practical Idealism" (Praktischer Idealismus) in 1925: "The man of the future will be of mixed race. Today's races and classes will gradually disappear owing to the vanishing of space, time, and prejudice. The Eurasian-Negroid race of the future will replace the diversity of peoples with a diversity of individuals." see: Praktischer Idealismus (Wien/Leipzig 1925), page 23

 

The same scenario had been envisaged, with rather less enthusiasm, by Madison Grant in his 1916 "The Passing of the Great Race", calling for a eugenics program to prevent this development, and in a similar ideological context in Lothrop Stoddard's "The Rising Tide of Color Against White World-Supremacy" in 1920. In 1933 Kalergi responded to the ascendance of National Socialism by collaborating with Heinrich Mann, Arthur Holitscher, Lion Feuchtwanger, and Max Brod in writing and publishing the pamphlet "Gegen die Phrase vom jüdischen Schädling" (Against the Phrase 'Jewish Parasite').

 

The other claim, that Jews will rule over this new mixed-race, is also baseless. The origin of this can be found many pages later in Kalergi's book, in a completely different context:

 

"Instead of destroying European Jewry, Europe, against its own will, refined and educated this people into a future leader-nation through this artificial selection process [of persecution]. No wonder that this people, that escaped Ghetto-Prison, developed into a spiritual nobility of Europe. Therefore a gracious Providence provided Europe with a new race of nobility by the Grace of Spirit. This happened at the moment when Europe's feudal aristocracy became dilapidated, and thanks to Jewish emancipation." see: Praktischer Idealismus, page 50

 

For further reading, see:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/White_extinction_scenario

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

False quotes attributed to Ilya Ehrenburg

The reason the odd holocaust denier (or antisemite) might have brought forth an Ilya Ehrenburg quote to a discussion isn't because this is some obscure guy, but because Ilya Ehrenburg (1891–1967) was a Soviet writer, journalist, translator, and cultural figure. Ehrenburg was among the most prolific and notable authors of the Soviet Union; he published around one hundred titles. He became known first and foremost as a novelist and a journalist – in particular, as a reporter in three wars (First World War, Spanish Civil War and the Second World War). His articles on the Second World War provoked intense controversies in West Germany, especially during the sixties. His novel "The Thaw" gave its name to an entire era of Soviet politics, namely, the liberalization after the death of Stalin. The Black Book, edited by him and Vassily Grossman, has special historical significance; detailing the genocide on Soviet citizens of Jewish ancestry. Clearly, he is an important figure. It is true that Ilya Ehrenburg spewed much hate-filled rhetoric against "the German" (as in: German man, German soldier, German enemy), and if the holocaust deniers and generic antisemites had merely stuck to these, they would have a better argument (not that it's a good argument, because this was during a Vernichtungskrieg, a war that claimed the lives of over 20 million Russians. A Russian writer putting his emotion to paper and saying kill those damn German bastards while he witnessed the western part of his country be reduced to a burning, cratered, war-torn ruin by the hands of an invading enemy who had come to conquer it should not come to anyone as a surprise.

 

However, the antisemites shoot themselves in the foot by attributing wholly false quotes to Ehrenburg as well, wherein they claim he called for the rape of German women, such as:

 

"KILL! KILL! In the German race there is nothing but evil. Stamp out the fascist beast once and for all in its lair! Use force and break the racial pride of these German women. Take them as your lawful booty. Kill! As you storm onward, kill! You gallant soldiers of the Red army"

 

Supposedly this was from a Russian leaflet, except that this leaflet never existed, and Ehrenburg stressed multiple times that he never said anything about urging others to rape German women, or even urging anyone to kill German civilians for that matter. And in an article entitled "Justification of hatred" (Krasnaya Svjesda, summer 1942) Ehrenburg explained:

 

"Our people dream not of revenge. Not for this purpose have we educated our youths, so that they stoop to the level of Hitlerite atrocities. Never will Red Army soldiers kill German children, set ablaze the Goethe House in Weimar or destroy the library in Marburg. Revenge means that you will repay with the same coin, that one gets ready to speak the language to speak of the enemy. But we have no language in common with the fascists..."

 

Below are references to some German scholars that have found out this quote is a myth:

 

Fisch, Bernhard: "Ubej! Toete! Zur Rolle von Ilja Ehrenburgs Flugblaettern in den Jahren 1944/45". In: Geschichte, Erziehung, Politik, 8 (1997) 1, S. 22-27

 

Urban, Thomas: "Als Held der Roten Armee gefeiert, als "Deutschenhasser" dämonisiert. Ilja Ehrenburg zwischen den politischen Fronten", in: Süddeutsche Zeitung 14 . 04 . 05, S. 10.

 

Carola Tischler: "Die Vereinfachungen des Genossen Erenburg. Eine Endkriegs- und eine Nachkriegskontroverse"

 

Elke Scherstjanoi (Hrsg.) "Rotarmisten schreiben aus Deutschland". Briefe von der Front (1945) und historische Analysen. Texte und Materialien zur Zeitgeschichte, Bd. 14. K . G. Saur Verlag, München 2004; S. 326-339

 

The latter author cites the expert examination of the Institut für Zeitgeschichte (in Munich) from May 15, 1966. The Institute claims it has no evidence of either Ehrenburg's authorship nor existence of this leaflet in Russian.

 

More info here:

https://rodoh.info/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2050

 

Of course, the fact that many German women did end up being raped by Red Army soldiers is accepted by historians, and there have also been credible books even in Germany about it written by female authors who do not belong to any fringe right wing group. No secrets here, so I don't really know what the "truthers" are trying to achieve.

"Did you know Winston Churchill never mentioned the holocaust?! Amazing, right?"

Another old revisionist chestnut is the tall tale, that none of the great leaders at the time ever mentioned the holocaust in any of their memoirs immediately following WW2, and therefore "the holocaust" was invented some time in the 50s or 60s and retroactively attributed to WW2. The only grain of truth in this is that this continent-spanning atrocity (deliberate mass murder committed by Nazis and their collaborators on the civilians of Europe, with the main goal of exterminating European Jews) was not labeled as "the holocaust" on the closing day of the Second World War. Churchill had this to say about the holocaust in his memoirs:

 

"Crimes were committed by the Germans under Hitlerite domination to which they allowed themselves to be subjected which find no equal in scale and wickedness with any that have darkened the human record."

- THE SECOND WORLD WAR “The Gathering Storm” page 15

 

...which some may interpret as too generic a statement, but Churchill goes on:

 

"The wholesale massacre by systematised processes of six or seven millions of men, women and children in the German execution camps exceeds in horror the rough and ready butcheries of Genghis Khan, and in scale reduces them to pygmy proportions. Deliberate extermination of whole populations was contemplated and pursued by both Germany and Russia in the Eastern war."

-THE SECOND WORLD WAR, Volume 1 “The Gathering Storm”, Book One "From War to War", Chapter One "The Follies of the Victors", page 17

 

https://ia800402.us.archive.org/33/items/in.ernet.dli.2015.211070/2015.211070.The-Second_text.pdf

 

So much for Churchill never mentioning the holocaust.

 

Churchill, in fact, knew a lot more about Jewish politics than you might think. In 1920 he published several essays among which he rightly observed the fact that Zionism and (what he thought Jewish) Bolshevism were movements ideologically opposed to each other, rather than being the same thing as some far-right idiots like to say:

 

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Zionism_versus_Bolshevism

 

The book "The Second World War" is a history of the period from the end of the First World War to July 1945, written by Winston Churchill. It was largely responsible for his being awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1953.

 

For more, a book I can recommend is British historian Martin Gilbert's "Churchill and the Jews: A Lifelong Friendship"

"B-but I am sure Eisenhower didn't speak of the holocaust either! Or so I've heard!!!!"

Eisenhower issued orders to record camp atrocities specifically to counter denial. He also issued the following to Gen. George Marshall on April 19, 1945:

 

"We continue to uncover German concentration camps for political prisoners in which conditions of indescribable horror prevail. I have visited one of these myself and I assure you that whatever has been printed on them to date has been understatement. If you could see any advantage in asking about a dozen leaders of Congress and a dozen prominent editors to make a short visit to this theatre in a couple of C-54's, I will arrange to have them conducted to one of these places where the evidence of bestiality and cruelty is so overpowering as to leave no doubt in their minds about the normal practices of the Germans in these camps. I am hopeful that some British individuals in similar categories will visit the northern area to witness similar evidence of atrocity."

 

General Eisenhower in fact wanted to be in some of the pictures his soldiers were taking in liberated concentration camps. One such picture shows him at Ohrdruf with other high-ranking U.S. Army officers. They are witnessing a view of bodies of prisoners on the 12th of April, 1945. Accessible online via the U.S. National Archives.

 

See: https://www.awesomestories.com/asset/view/EISENHOWER-S-PROOF-Holocaust-Evidence

 

On a similar note, holocaust deniers often either half-quote, or completely paraphrase many non-deniers to lend their theories more credibility, such as Jewish historian Jacob Rader Marcus from the Encyclopedia Britannica as having dismissed gas chamber stories, accuse German historian Martin Broszat as having said "no death camps or gassings in Germany" or Yehuda Bauer from Yad Vashem as having said "The public still repeats, time after time, the silly story that at Wannsee the extermination of the Jews was arrived at.", the latter I will address separately in the next post.

 

To begin with, it is indeed true that early post-war editions of the Encyclopedia Britannica did not contain detailed accounts of the Nazi extermination program in regards to Einsatzgruppen, Zyklon-B and gas chambers, but Jacob Rader Marcus wrote the following:

 

"In World War II the situation of Jewry in the mass settlements of eastern Europe was even worse, for the national socialists set out deliberately to destroy large numbers of Polish and Russian-Jewish civilians. If but a fraction of the atrocities reported were accurate, then many thousands of defenseless Jewish non-combatants, men, women and children, were butchered after September 1939 ..." (Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1947 and 1956 editions, Vol. 13, p. 63 C.)

 

'set out to deliberately destroy large numbers of Polish and Russian-Jewish civilians' and 'Butchered' does not sound like mere resettlement or expulsion to me.

 

Another classic example of deniers (e.g. Germar Rudolf in his publication "Grundlagen zur Zeitgeschichte" purposefully not quoting them entirely, or even properly is regarding Martin Broszat:

 

Martin Broszat said the following:

 

"Die Massenvernichtung der Juden durch Vergasung begann 1941/1942 und fand ausschließlich an einigen wenigen hierfür ausgewählten und mit Hilfe entsprechender technischer Einrichtungen versehenen Stellen, vor allem im besetzten polnischen Gebiet (aber nirgends im Altreich) statt: in Auschwitz-Birkenau, in Sobibor am Bug, in Treblinka, Chelmno und Belzec. Dort, aber nicht in Bergen Belsen, Dachau oder Buchenwald wurden jene als Brausebäder oder Desinfektionsräume getarnten Massenvernichtungsanlagen errichtet, von denen in Ihrem Artikel die Rede ist. Diese notwendige Differenzierung ändert gewiß keinen Deut an der verbrecherischen Qualität der Einrichtung der Konzentrationslager."

 

which translates to:

 

"The mass extermination of Jews by gassing began in 1941/1942 and only at a few camps provided with the appropriate technical equipment for this purpose, particularly in the occupied Polish territory (but nowhere in the Old Reich): in Auschwitz-Birkenau, in Sobibor on the Bug [river], in Treblinka, Chelmno and Belzec. There, but not in Bergen Belsen, Dachau or Buchenwald were those installations of mass exterminations installed, disguised as showers or disinfection rooms, of which there is talk in your article. This necessary differentiation changes certainly not one bit in the criminal quality of the establishment of concentration camps ."

 

So what Martin Broszat said in this quote, is that the mass extermination of Jews by gassing was carried out especially (vor allem) in Polish territory and nowhere in the Altreich*, in a few camps equipped for this. And he said installations of mass exterminations were not installed in Belsen, Dachau, or Buchenwald.

 

He did not say there were no homicidal gassings in the Altreich, or that there were no homicidal gas chambers here either. He said there was no program of mass extermination of JEWS via homicidal gassings in the Altreich. Thousands of people died by homicidal gassing in the Altreich: consider the Aktion T4 euthanasia program whose victims weren't Jewish, but this is not the type of mass extermination that went on in Poland, where the numbers were millions. Hence, the quote.

 

*definition: those territories that were part of Nazi Germany before 1938, therefore not including Austria or the Sudetenland.

Yehuda Bauer and the gambit of "debunking the Wannsee Conference"

Oftentimes, holocaust deniers, in their tactic of trying to cite respected historians and "mainstream people" for their denial arguments, will misquote Yehuda Bauer from Yad Vashem, as having only said: "The public still repeats, time after time, the silly story that at Wannsee the extermination of the Jews was arrived at." and will then go on to quote him as having said: "little of what was said there was executed in detail."

 

This is usually a denier bombshell fired at anyone who tries to bring the Wannsee conference into the debate. Naturally, the astonished person then tries to fact check the quote, realizes it is genuine, and the denier expects his world view to suddenly shatter.

 

However, what we have here is a classic half-quote. As for Yehuda Bauer, this is what he really said:

 

"The public still repeats, time after time, the silly story that at Wannsee the extermination of the Jews was arrived at. Wannsee was but a stage in the unfolding of the process of mass murder." (Canadian Jewish News, Jan. 30, 1992)

 

Historians do not think of Wannsee as the conference where the Nazis first thought of physically exterminating the Jews. It is accepted that this conference was more a formal event to inform the middle echelons of the plan, one that was already known among the higher-ups.

 

The article can be accused of shoddy journalism. Because unlike what it states, Bauer did not "debunk the Wannsee Conference", as he clearly says it was a historical event, a meeting. He rather emphasizes that the DECISION to carry out the Final Solution was not made THERE.

 

The only thing that revisionists have gotten right, is pointing out Mr. Bauer saying "little of what was said there was executed in detail." ...as 'evacuation' and 'resettlement' turned into mass murder.

Simon Wiesenthal and the "no gassings in Germany" false quote

In a similar fashion, Simon Wiesenthal is often quoted by deniers as having said there were no extermination camps and no mass gassings took place on German soil. These are all supposedly admissions that shake the foundations of the holocaust. For deniers, that is. Not for anyone else.

 

Read exactly what Wiesenthal said: "...no mass gassings such as those that took place in Auschwitz, Treblinka and other camps"

 

"Such as those" is a direct comparison. The homicidal gassings that did indeed take place in the camps and facilities Wiesenthal goes on to mention in the 3rd and 4th paragraph, were a fraction of the size and scale of those in Poland. Hence "no mass gassings such as..." rather than "no mass gassings".

 

Of course, details like these are swept under the rug by deniers when they quote mine others.

The fake Voltaire quote

There are tons of fake quotes attributed to famous people by Neo-Nazis, in their quest to "educate" (read: lie to) the public.

 

Perhaps the most famous of them all, is the one presented above, attributed to Voltaire, the pen name of French Enlightenment writer, historian, and philosopher Francois-Marie Arouet famous for his wit, his attacks on the established Catholic Church, and his advocacy of freedom of religion, freedom of expression, and separation of church and state. While it is true that many famous historical figures we previously thought of as unblemished actually were virulent antisemites, such as Martin Luther, Immanuel Kant, H.G. Wells, H.P. Lovecraft or George S. Patton, in reality, Voltaire never said the above.

 

This quote is actually a paraphrase of Kevin Alfred Strom, an American White nationalist, neo-Nazi, Holocaust denier, White separatist and associate editor of the National Vanguard. Strom in his program, "All America Must Know the Terror That is Upon Us" (1993) said: "To determine the true rulers of any society, all you must do is ask yourself this question: Who is it that I am not permitted to criticize?" The misattributed quotation continues to spread across the Internet, just like the "atrocity propaganda" quote falsely attributed to Sefton Delmer, or many false quotes attributed to Winston Churchill.

 

However, it is also true that Voltaire was (at least during a certain time in his life) a raving antisemite. I am not going to list his entire biography here, but if you look into it you will see. He did change his views, however, in his reply to Isaac de Pinto, and ended up writing an apology to the Jews entitled "Apologie pour la Nation Juive". I just find it funny how the far right shoots itself in the foot by attributing false quotes rather than genuine ones, like:

 

"All of the other people have committed crimes, the Jews are the only ones who have boasted about committing them. They are, all of them, born with raging fanaticism in their hearts, just as the Bretons and the Germans are born with blond hair. I would not be in the least bit surprised if these people would not some day become deadly to the human race."- Voltaire, Lettres de Memmius a Cicéron (1771)

 

The fact that quotes falsely attributed to Voltaire (and others) aren't just limited to poorly informed trolls on the internet, but can have international consequences in present-day politics is proven by Australian conservative politician Cory Bernardi spreading the same hoax-quote:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/nov/27/cory-bernardi-mistakenly-quotes-voltaire-on-twitter-with-supposed-neo-nazis-line

 

On a similar note, the famous quote: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it", attributed to Voltaire by many hate speech apologists who like to label themselves as freedom of speech proponents, is also a hoax, as the true author is S. G. Tallentyre, pseudonym of Evelyn Beatrice Hall, who claimed (without evidence) that Voltaire said those words in her 1906 book “The Friends of Voltaire”. It didn't help that many newspapers and other publications contributed in spreading this hoax quote.

 

source: https://quoteinvestigator.com/2015/06/01/defend-say/

The fake Sefton Delmer quote

The quote above is often peddled around in right wing forums as proof of Allied psychological warfare and atrocity propaganda. It is often mixed with anti-German propaganda from WW1, and Allied posters and propaganda films in WW2 as well that portray the German soldier as an enemy (duh).

 

The key point here though, is that this quote supposedly proves that the Allies are trying to suppress a "historic truth" through carefully monitored (post-war) re-education (read: continuous brainwashing).

 

The source for this quote is given to us by the far right "truth seekers" as:

 

"Delmer, Sefton (1904-1979), former British Chief of 'Black propaganda', said after the German surrender, in 1945, in a conversation with the German professor of international law, Dr. Friedrich Grimm in a later publication by him called Politische Justiz, published in 1953."

 

Okay, so we find out there's apparently another person involved, namely one Friedrich Grimm. Who was Friedrich Grimm? Friedrich Wilhelm Johannes Grimm (1888 - 1959) was a German antisemite and national socialist politician, lawyer, publicist and propagandist. He fought the Treaty of Versailles, supported the rise and the crimes of the Nazis and fought resistance fighters like David Frankfurter, Herschel Grynszpan or Berthold Jacob. He was also involved in Nazi policy regarding occupied France. After 1945, he trivialized Nazi crimes, participated in the defense of Nazi criminals and talked about various proposals for a general amnesty for Nazi perpetrators.

 

So let me get this straight: our source, is a real Nazi. And we just have to believe him. Interestingly, even in his publication he does not say the quote was uttered by Sefton Delmer. He does not name his source. In fact his description makes his source rather a Frenchman than an Englishman.

 

Therefore, it can be safely concluded that the quote is, at best, hearsay written by a Nazi propagandist, and in any case even he did not say that Sefton Delmer is the author of it.

The Rothschild Family, Warburg family and the Federal Reserve (FED)

The above is a common pic shared among those who are convinced the Rothschild family runs the world. If you want to excite the average conspiratard, offer him a quotation from a Rothschild:

 

Nathan Rothschild, who allegedly "controlled the Bank of England" after 1820, has been alleged to have notoriously declared:

 

"I care not what puppet is placed upon the throne of England to rule the Empire on which the sun never sets. The man who controls Britain's money supply controls the British Empire, and I control the British money supply." - Ellen Hodgson Brown quoting him in "Web of Debt", p. 65., without further source.

 

See Brown's response when she got called out on her BS:

http://www.garynorth.com/public/7160.cfm

 

By the way, he didn't control the Bank of England. There's no primary source evidence indicating that he did (oh, silly me, I forgot, it's a secret!) His grandson did sit on the board of directors, beginning in 1869.

 

As to why you might not find many individual Rothschilds in the Forbes list of Billionaires, it is not because there is some cover-up going on, but because the "huge net worth" of the Rothschild family (and the Rothschild family has been around for hundreds of years) has been distributed amongst hundreds of heirs, and has therefore diluted each individual’s personal fortune. With this being said 500 trillion is still a nonsense figure, as it is estimated that the Rothschild Family as a whole still possesses in the region of $350-400 billion USD in assets throughout the world. For reference: that is not even 1 trillion, not even 1/500th of what is claimed in the pic above! Also, to claim every Rothschild knows the others, and operates in the best interest of the family (rather than individual gain), and that this also goes against the interests of all non-Rothschilds, is called a baseless accusation (or rather, based on "gut feeling").

 

I have asked many times the people who believe the Rothschild banking family to be "the worst thing ever" and "head of the serpent" to give me some concrete examples of their allegedly many evil deeds. All I got in return was lots of woulda-coulda-shoulda's and "duh"s & ad hominems questioning my intellect.

 

The man pictured in the red-pill infographic above, Jacob Rothschild, only has a net worth of 5 billion, which is comparable to Donald Trump, but nowhere near that of (in 2016) Bill Gates (81 billion), Warren Buffet (65 billion), or Mark Zuckerberg (55 billion). Amancio Ortega is sitting on some 67 billion, and the Koch brothers at 40 billion.

 

Similarly, the Warburg family has also been the subject of many accusations. Out of many long-lasting rich families on the globe, notice how the Jewish ones are always targeted. If anything, historical evidence points to the Rothschild family having a financial interest in keeping peace in Europe in the 19th century, rather than the other way round, and by the 20th century they had lost financial influence to the US.

 

Today, in the world financial market, the Rothschilds are literal whos. Split into three different branches, (Rothschild & Co; Groupe LCF Rothschild, and RIT Capital Partners PLC) their influence is minimal in the grand scheme of things. In today's world, Burger King employs more people and has more to say in the business world than any Rothschild. Which is probably why more serious sounding conspiracy nuts rather focus their attention on Bilderberg meetings than keeping tabs on the Rothschilds.

 

For more, see:

https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4311

Niall Ferguson: "The House of Rothschild" Vol. 1&2 (1999,2000)

 

Similar allegations are made as to "who owns the Federal Reserve". Short answer: no-one. It was created by the Congress and was set up to serve public interest.

http://www.usagold.com/federalreserve.html

The Kaufman-Plan, Hooton-Plan and Morgenthau Plan

On the internet, you will often find conspiracy theorists who like to wail and cry about the existence of various "secret plans" most people have never heard about (but they managed to find out about) that would have almost genocided the German people after WW2, and then wave them around as proof that the Allies were evil. Some even go so far as to claim these Plans are currently being implemented. Before we debunk this nonsense, let us look at what really did happen to Germany each time it lost a World War:

 

We all know what happened to Germany, Austria and the Ottoman Empire after World War 1: All three powerful monarchies ceased to exist and changed into democracies (federal/parliamentary republics).

 

Furthermore, all of them lost territories, and the entente powers gained territories, and new nations were created, many of whom existed earlier in history as well before they had been consumed by these imperial powers.

 

Without going into detailed maps and holding a lecture about the Treaties of Versailles, Saint-Germain, Trianon, Lausanne, the Sykes-Picot Agreement and so on and so forth, let me just briefly summarize:

 

Turkey lost all non-Turkish territories, Austria lost all non-Austrian territories (and lost South-Tyrol to Italy but gained the Burgenland state from Hungary), and Germany did the following:

 

In the west, Germany returned Alsace-Lorraine to France. It had been seized by Germany more than 40 years earlier. Further, Belgium received Eupen and Malmedy; the industrial Saar region was placed under the administration of the League of Nations for 15 years; and Denmark received Northern Schleswig. Finally, the Rhineland was demilitarized; that is, no German military forces or fortifications were permitted there. In the east, Poland received parts of West Prussia and Silesia from Germany. In addition, Czechoslovakia received the Hultschin district from Germany; the largely German city of Danzig became a free city under the protection of the League of Nations; and Memel, a small strip of territory in East Prussia along the Baltic Sea, was ultimately placed under Lithuanian control. Outside Europe, Germany lost all its colonies, e.g. in Africa or New Guinea.

 

When WW2 was over, in the decade of allied military occupation that followed, Austria convinced the allies that it was a victim of National Socialism and therefore escaped much punishment, having already been reduced to a tiny country from a large colonial power (over slavs, with Hungary's help). Germany lost the remaining East Prussian territories to Poland, the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad Oblast was created around the Königsberg region, and the eastern (formerly central) half of Germany became a Communist country for the next 40 years.

 

As if this isn't enough, antisemites instead take great pains to dig up barely known alternate plans that had been drafted by individuals of varying importance, just to show how evil those allies were in destroying Germany for good (funny enough, everyone right now considers Germany the leader of the EU, and it is the strongest economic powerhouse in Europe to begin with. So much for its demise)

 

In short, they have three plans for us:

 

1) The Kaufman Plan

2) The Hooton Plan

3) The Morgenthau Plan

 

Theodore N. Kaufman was a literal who, a nobody operating by himself who self-published a book called "Germany Must Perish!" during wartime where he demanded the sterilization of all Germans and to carve up the country as shown in pic related. Joseph Goebbels got news of this and used the German propaganda machinery to inflate Kaufman's book to a supposedly nationwide US Bestseller, and ultimate proof of the genocidal nature of Jewry, claiming he had close ties to the US President. In truth, his book had a very limited publication in the US and nobody had heard of it until the Germans started using it for their own propaganda of how the Allies are out and about to exterminate them. Funny enough, another time he also called for the sterilization of all Americans instead of sending them to war, something not mentioned by those who drop the Kaufman-Plan info-bomb on the average layman. They also won't tell you this:

 

"Few Americans have ever heard of a prominent fellow-citizen named Kaufmann ... In Germany every child has known of him for a long time. Germans are so well informed about Mr. Kaufmann that the mere mention of his name recalls what he stands for. In one of his recent articles Dr. Goebbels wrote, "Thanks to the Jew Kaufman, we Germans know only too well what to expect in case of defeat." — The Nation, November 14, 1942

 

Ernest Hooton was a perhaps more famous person in that he was an anthropology lecturer at Harvard and eugenicist believing in racial theory who once appeared in an article in the PM Daily newspaper saying attempts should be made to "breed the war strain out of Germans" by mating them with the populace of other nations. This, of course, is interpreted by current conspiracy theorists as an actual officially formulated plan that was then implemented by the powers-that-be, and is proof of Germany's multiculturalism today (quietly forgetting that former Allies countries are, in fact, even more multicultural including Russia that has a large Muslim population).

 

Furthermore, regarding multiculturalism (which is present in both North America and at least half of Europe today rather than just in Germany, already something that debunks the Hooton narrative), the problems arising (apart from crime) are chiefly the presence of parallel societies created by immigrants refusing to assimilate, which is the EXACT OPPOSITE of what Ernest Hooton had in mind, namely large-scale miscegenation with the German population in order to, as he believed, "breed out the war strains".

 

According to statistics, less than 10% of relationships in Germany involve one person who is a German citizen and the other who isn't.

 

source: https://www.focus.de/politik/deutschland/bundesamt-fuer-statistik-deutsche-heiraten-am-liebsten-deutsche-oder-tuerken_id_4487355.html

 

Therefore, claiming multiculturalism is proof of the Hooton Plan is beyond stupid.

 

Perhaps this is the reason why modern far-right activists (from the American Alt-right with figureheads like Richard Spencer, over European Identitarians with leaders like Martin Sellner, to actual murderous terrorists like Anders Breivik or Brenton Tarrant) have dropped the whole miscegenation paranoia and have instead switched to the "we're being outbred by foreigners" rhetoric. I.e. that ethnic Whites are being demographically replaced/genocided, not via miscegenation, but rather by a combination of immigration and the higher birth rate of non-whites, which they conveniently assume will never decrease as a result of wealth and education, as it did for the whites over the past century. This is how they then create all sorts of horror-scenarios, and find a terrified audience willing to accept their models.

 

Now let's look at the last guy.

 

The only actually important figure related to American decision making was Henry Morgenthau Jr., U.S. Secretary of the Treasury during the administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt. He played a major role in designing and financing the New Deal. After 1937, while still in charge of the Treasury, he played the central role in financing US participation in World War II. He also played an increasingly major role in shaping foreign policy, especially with respect to Lend Lease, support for China, helping Jewish refugees, and proposing (in the "Morgenthau Plan") to prevent Germany from again being a military threat by wrecking its industry and mines and turning it into an agrarian state. So yes, if revisionists want to bring up any one of these three figures, it should be Morgenthau.

 

In 1944, Morgenthau indeed proposed the Morgenthau Plan (as an actual plan) for postwar Germany, calling for Germany to lose the heavy industry, and the Ruhr "should not only be stripped of all presently existing industries but so weakened and controlled that it can not in the foreseeable future become an industrial area".

 

Except it was never implemented, because post-war Germany never became an agrarian state, and the Ruhr area (located in West-Germany) remained productive. Interestingly, it was Communist East Germany that suffered from poverty and agrarianism, both of which had nothing to do with Morgenthau.

"The Anne Frank diary is a hoax!"

This is another one of those commonly peddled revisionist "truth-bombs" - that the Diary of a Young Girl, read in tens of thousands of classrooms across the planet each year, and part of the education of our children, is, in fact, a hoax and therefore part of Jewish indoctrination as its author is not Anne Frank.

 

The California-based hub of holocaust denial, the Institute for Historical Review (IHR) says (original):

 

"The evidence compiled by Dietlieb Felderer of Sweden and Dr. Robert Faurisson of France establishes conclusively that the famous diary is a literary hoax."

 

The IHR says (revised):

 

"Evidence compiled by Dr Robert Faurisson of France establishes that the famous diary is a literary hoax."

 

Dietlieb Felderer is a notorious neo-Nazi, probably Austrian, who spent time in a Swedish prison for spreading hate propaganda. He is best-known for mailing snippets of hair to Jews in Europe, and asking them sarcastically if this can be proven to be hair from a gassed Jew. He has also written many disgusting tracts involving sex and Nazi murder. One which is too repulsive to repeat here describes (sarcastically) how cyanide gas influences a female sexual organ. His website is now a porn site.

 

Note that the IHR omits the reference to Felderer in the revised version. Again, as revisionism tries to move from the antisemitic fringes into the mainstream, they must jettison or at least disguise their ties to people like this.

 

Robert Faurisson is at least not as crude as Felderer. But he is not a historian, forensic expert, or handwriting expert. He was a professor of literature at the University of Lyons specializing in medieval and renaissance poems. The testimony of this so-called "foremost Holocaust authority" regarding the authenticity of the writings of Anne Frank was rejected by the Frankfurt Oberlandesgericht (Higher Regional Court) in 1979.

 

In 1981, the Netherlands State Institute for War Documentation submitted Anne Frank's handwritten diaries to the Dutch State Forensic Science Laboratory of the Ministry of Justice to determine their authenticity. The State Forensic Science Laboratory examined the materials used -- the ink, paper, glue, etc. -- and the handwriting and issued a report of some 270 pages:

 

The report of the State Forensic Science Laboratory has convincingly demonstrated that both versions of the diary of Anne Frank were written by her in the years 1942 to 1944. The allegations that the diary was the work of someone else (after the war or otherwise) are thus conclusively refuted.

 

Furthermore, that despite corrections and omissions...the Diary of Anne Frank [i.e., the published version of the diaries] does indeed contain "the essence" of Anne's writings, and that there are no grounds on which the term "forgery" can be applied to the work of the editors or publishers of the book.

 

Deniers argue that there are multiple versions of the Diary of Anne Frank. This fact alone, they claim, proves it is a fraud. There are indeed multiple versions of the diary, and Anne herself explains why this is so: In 1944, a Dutch government official, broadcasting from London, urged the population to save eyewitness accounts of their wartime experience, including memorabilia and diaries. Hearing this, Anne, decided to rewrite some of the entries. She also used her diary as a basis for a novel, "The Annexe". Hence the multiple versions.

 

The most common complaint against the diary however, is that it allegedly contained writing made by a ballpoint pen, and that ballpoint pens were not popular until after Anne's death. This is a fraudulent but persistent myth. The only ballpoint ink in the diary were on slips of paper known to be inserted by someone other than Anne anyway. The writings of Anne herself are not in ballpoint: All the diary entries are written in various types of ink and (colored) pencil, not in ballpoint. The document analysis by the Netherlands Forensic Institute showed that the main part of the diary and the loose sheets were written in grey-blue fountain pen ink. In addition, Anne also used thin red ink, green and red colored pencils and black pencil for her annotations: not ballpoint.

 

The origin of the "ballpoint myth", which deniers cite as source, is the four-page report that the German Federal Criminal Police Office (the Bundeskriminalamt or BKA) in Wiesbaden published in 1980. In this investigation into the types of paper and ink used in the diary of Anne Frank it is stated that "ballpoint corrections" had been made on some loose sheets. The BKA’s task was to report on all the texts found among the diaries of Anne Frank, and therefore also on the annotations that were made in Anne’s manuscripts after the war. However, the Dutch investigation by the Forensic Institute in the mid-1980’s shows that writing in ballpoint is only found on two loose pages of annotations, and that these annotations are of no significance for the actual content of the diary. They were clearly placed between the other pages later. The researchers of the Forensic Institute also concluded that the handwriting on these two annotation sheets differs from the writing in the diary "to a far-reaching degree." Photos of these loose annotation sheets are included in the NIOD’s publication (see The Diary of Anne Frank: The Revised Critical Edition, 2003, pages 168 and 170). In 1987, a Mr. Hans Ockelmann from Hamburg wrote that his mother had written the annotation sheets in question. Mrs. Dorothea Ockelmann was a member of the team that carried out the graphological investigation into the writings of Anne Frank around 1960.

 

In short: the "ballpoint myth" is easy to disprove. The "ballpoint myth" is based on the simple fact that, around 1960, two annotation sheets with ballpoint writing were inserted between the original pages. These two annotation sheets were written by a graphological researcher, Dorothea Ockelmann, whose handwriting differs drastically from that of Anne Frank, and these two sheets are not included in most editions of the diary (apart from the Critical Edition, where photos of the annotation sheets are reproduced). In July 2006, the BKA found it necessary to state in a press release that the 1980 investigation cannot be used to call the authenticity of the diary into doubt.

 

And then we have a guy called Meyer Levin. The allegation goes, that Meyer Levin is the original author of the Anne Frank Diary, i.e. that it is a work of fiction, and as proof for this the deniers point us out to the fact that Meyer Levin sued Anne Frank's father Otto Frank over the rights of the book.

 

Meyer Levin (1905-1981) was an american novelist. What really happened, is that in the 1950s, Levin was caught up in an argument about the rights to a STAGE ADAPTATION of the diary of Anne Frank, which occupied him for many years and left him bitter in the end. His wife had made him aware of the diary in 1951, after which he had promoted its publication in the US and drew attention to it by writing an article about the diary in the New York Times. With the consent of Anne's father Otto Frank, he took up a dramatization of the diary and gave Broadway producer Cheryl Crawford a draft, which she accepted. On the advice of Lillian Hellman however, who found Levin's version inadequate, Crawford instead decided to commission the author-couple Frances Goodrich and Albert Hackett with the diary's adaptation for theatre. Her two-act The Diary of Anne Frank, premiered at the Cort Theater in New York in October 1955, was a huge success, and was awarded the Pulitzer Prize and the Tony Award, and in 1959, George Stevens turned it into a multiple Oscar-winning feature film.

 

Meyer Levin claimed that the play neglected the Jewish subject matter of the diary in shameful fashion, but on the other hand used his design. He sued Kermit Bloomgarden, who had produced the piece instead of Crawford, as well as Goodrich, Hackett and Otto Frank. There followed a long-standing legal dispute, which finally ended with a settlement, according to which Levin received compensation, but refrained from publishing his adaptation. Levin however, did not want to resign himself to the court's decision and continued to fight for the rest of his life trying to bring his play onto the stage. He brought these experiences of his to paper in the novel "The Fanatic" (1964). He also described the events in detail in his (second) memoir "The Obsession" (1973), as did his widow Tereska Torrès in the book "Les maisons hantées de Meyer Levin" (1991). To date, only private prints of Levin's "Anne Frank, A Play" exist.

 

So let's recap: after the war, Levin wrote, with initial approval of Otto Frank, a THEATRE PLAY based on the diary of Anne Frank, called "Anne Frank, A Play", but his play was not produced. Instead a version of the same story dramatized by Frances Goodrich and Albert Hackett reached Broadway theatre. Levin sued them all for plagiarism regarding rights to the play and got compensated. Levin never once claimed anything the deniers are saying about the diary.

 

Source and further reading:

http://www.encyclopedia.com/arts/culture-magazines/anne-frank-diary-young-girl https://www.annefrank.de/fileadmin/Redaktion/Wanderausstellungen/Dokumente/JVA_Tournee_Sieben_Fragen_zur_Echtheit_des_Tagebuchs_JVA_Tournee.pdf

The Diary of Anne Frank

Does this look like ballpoint pen to you?

 

Also, notice how two different styles of handwriting on this page are on display in the museum, visible to the public in broad daylight here. Clearly the museum has nothing to hide.

 

If the deniers keep insisting that a young girl is incapable of changing her handwriting after learning cursive writing in school around the onset of puberty (I know my handwriting changed rapidly around that time), or is incapable of writing alternately in cursive and block letters as a result of this new skill, then I suggest they produce Otto Frank's or Meyer Levin's handwriting samples to prove their claim these sections were not written by Anne.

 

Normal copyright on books extends only 70 years after the author’s death. As Anne Frank died of typhus in Bergen Belsen in February 1945, the book entered the public domain in February 2015.

 

Proposals to extend copyright on the book past the 70 year cut-off period by making Otto Frank, who died in 1980, a “co-author”, is not a sign of admitting fraud, but an attempt to navigate the ocean of copyright infringement, e.g. see the controversy regarding Mein Kampf and the State of Bavaria recently...

Elie Wiesel's tattoo and many other denier allegations about him

A favorite pastime of certain holocaust deniers is to single out Elie Wiesel (to their credit, he does hold the 1986 Nobel Peace Prize, was chairman of The President's Commission on the Holocaust, helped establish USHMM - the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum - in Washington D . C., was founding board member of the New York human rights foundation, and author of 57 books, perhaps the most famous of them being "Night") and call him, arguably the most famous holocaust survivor, a conman and fraud.

 

The deniers' gambit is this: if they manage to expose the posterchild of holocaust survival as a liar, the entire facade of "the holocaust industry" (as Norman Finkelstein puts it, even though he isn't a denier) will come crumbling down and the "goyim" will finally wake up. As a bonus they wouldn't have to bore the broad public to death with their convoluted theories of prussian blue, delousing showers, diesel engines, producer gas, cremation oven capacity and what camp the IRC got to visit when and to what extent.

 

Central to the deniers' attempts to defame Elie Wiesel is attacking details in his book read across many schools, "Night" (such as why he and his father 'decided' to go on the death march), bringing up his dispute with a Hungarian by the name of Nikolaus "Miklós" Grüner, and most importantly, asking the question: "Where is Elie Wiesel's tattoo?" In fact, there is an entire website dedicated to the latter. Surely it will make the average person think, well if there's an entire website dedicated to it, then the question hasn't been answered yet? Also, one of Eric Hunt's videos deals with the issue, so youtube might be the first place the common person may come across this denier accusation for the first time.

 

Couple things you need to keep in mind is that first, it was not customary in all concentration camps to tattoo inmates (therefore not every holocaust survivor has a tattoo) - inmates got tattooed only in Auschwitz and even here, the practice of tattooing did not start from day one. Those prisoners who were liberated at other camps and were tattooed, had been transferred there from Auschwitz by the Germans. Second, tattoos fade over time, and this depends on a ton of factors from the ink used to what kind of things the tattooed skin was exposed to over the decades that followed and so on. In the above collage, the pic in the center bottom displays the arm of one Auschwitz survivor, whose tattoo has faded away almost entirely. However, Elie Wiesel's tattoo (A-7713) is more visible than this, and the pictures should speak for themselves. In fact, on the left image I can even make out an 'A-'. So the question regarding his tattoo is settled for me.

 

The next denier allegation is that Elie Wiesel never spoke about gas chambers in his memoir. Initially, this would make sense to me because he was interned in the Monowitz forced labor camp, also known as Auschwitz III, where there were no gassings, rather than in Birkenau with its 6 gas chambers. And yet, he did find out about them, so the denier allegation that he didn't write about them at all is another lie, since in his book 'Night', chapter 'Prayer', page 85-86, Elie writes the following:

 

"But look at these men whom You have betrayed, allowing them to be tortured, slaughtered, gassed, and burned, what do they do? They pray before You! They praise Your name!"

 

Another denier "proof" that Elie Wiesel wasn't a Hungarian holocaust survivor but a fraud is their claim that he could barely speak Hungarian and was far more fluent in French and English. Well, let us ask ourselves this simple question: Did Elie Wiesel spend his entire, or even a good chunk of his life among a Hungarian community? Hint: Nope. After the war he spent 10 years in France and then left Europe for the US. Let us recap: he spent 16 years with, and 72 years of his life away from, a Hungarian speaking community. Naturally you forget some of your language. And YET, we do see him speaking Hungarian here, albeit like a person who doesn't speak it often (duh):

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWt8ICajaD8

 

There are holocaust survivors who had to flee Germany at a young age and are living in the US today. How many of them can still speak German fluently, without an American accent? Exactly.

 

The deniers' next claim concerns the aforementioned Miklos Gruener (alternate spelling), who claimed Elie Wiesel stole the identity of a dead Auschwitz survivor called Lazar Wiesel who was a friend of Gruner. I find it amusing how deniers suddenly trust a single witness and his testimony when the rest of the time they're calling this a piss poor standard of proving something. I will leave it to the Holocaust Controversies team to show you why the claims of Miklos Gruner are baseless:

 

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2017/04/lying-about-elie-wiesel.html

 

But the quick summary is, this "Lazar Wiesel" has not stepped forward to support his buddy Miklos Gruner's allegation. And if the claim is that Lazar Wiesel is dead and therefore cannot step forward to back his friend, well, he certainly had to have been alive long enough to have become a friend of Miklos Gruner, who claims he met him after arriving at Auschwitz, which in turn means Elie Wiesel could not have known about him on the day of his own arrival and registration at Auschwitz. So how did Elie Wiesel possess the mystical knowledge about another inmate's identity who he had not even met? Exactly. The truth is, Elie Wiesel is Lazar Wiesel. And "Elie" is in fact a shortform of "Eliezer", which can also be shortened as "Lazar". Being only 15 years old, Elie Wiesel lied about being older than he actually was at the time he arrived at Auschwitz in May 1944, so as to be deemed old enough to serve in the labor force, rather than being gassed which was the fate of young teens at the time.

 

What have we so far debunked? The claim that Elie didn't have a tattoo, the claim that his book never mentioned homicidal gassings and the claim that he is a fraud who stole someone else's identity. If none of these claims presented by revisionists have so far been able to hold any water, things are looking pathetic for them indeed.

 

So regarding holocaust deniers' beliefs of Elie Wiesel's tattoo etc. we can safely conclude: "It wasn't real... in their minds!" :-)

Elie and Shlomo Wiesel voluntarily going on a death-march with the Nazis

Another attack on Elie Wiesel by holocaust deniers is their observation that if Elie Wiesel's accounts in his memoir "Night" are true, then Elie and his father Shlomo Wiesel's decision to voluntarily follow the Germans on the evacuation/death-march back into Nazi Germany could only be proof that the German captors were fine gentlemen rather than sadistic tormentors, and Elie and his father's decision detailed in "Night" was therefore a Freudian slip of the fact that those Nazi camp guards really never harmed a soul, because if the mainstream depiction of them is true, then Elie and his father would have surely seized the first opportunity they got to voluntarily leave and put as much distance between them and Nazi Germany as possible.

 

Let's address the above redpill infographic. Note how it raises the question "Why would the Germans evacuate the Jews at all? Why wouldn't they have killed them on the spot?" Why indeed - to address the killing, keep in mind that all gas chambers had been dismantled by late January 1945, so disposing of the camp population this way was no longer possible. And regarding a mass shooting, given that there had already been an uprising in Auschwitz on October 7th, 1944, it would have been a loud and risky undertaking to start shooting all survivors and expect no chaos, assuming there was enough ammunition. Keeping the hope for survival alive is how a small group can instill compliance and therefore exert control over a large crowd of people. Why indeed did the Germans want to evacuate the inmates back into the Reich? Because they did not want these prisoners to fall into Soviet hands as witnesses to what they had been doing to them.

 

Now regarding the quoted passage from Night, couple things to observe here. First of, note the lengthy dilemma this section of "Night" recounts between Elie and his father. They don't know what to do. This already shows that they didn't just follow the Germans blindly, and rather took some time to process this choice they had been given by their captors and evaluate their chances of survival in both cases.

 

Second, has it escaped the deniers that the time of year when the camp was evacuated was the heart of winter in January 1945? Not a good time for anyone to be taking a stroll across the countryside to the nearest village wearing inmate rags once the Nazis are gone. And how long should one wait in an abandoned camp that will not receive any more supplies, for the eventual arrival of an unknown army rumors say are liberators? This reluctance expressed by Jewish inmates is also another nail in the coffin of deniers equating the Soviet Union with Judaism. Let's hear the scholar Dr. Joachim Neander's take on this matter:

 

"The matter is, indeed, somewhat complicated. I studied in great detail the evacuation of the Mittelbau camps in my PhD dissertation (published 1997). I found out that in two cases the SS guards at a certain time declared the transport "finished" and told the prisoners that they were free. Reichsdeutsche prisoners [prisoners who once had been citizens of the Reich], however, being afraid of getting lynched (as it did happen e.g. at Bergen-Belsen and Gunskirchen), preferred to stay with their guards and continued the evacuation march.

 

Similarly, Helen "Tzipi" Tichauer, a Slovak Jewish prisoner who had been employed at the Birkenau administration, told me in 2002 that, on the eve of the evacuation of Birkenau, the camp commandant called Reichsdeutsche female prisoners and offered them Entlassungsscheine (documents stating that they were released from camp), so they could leave and be free. After a lengthy discussion together with the other women prisoners, the Reichsdeutsche women decided to reject this offer. They were afraid of falling into the hands of the rapidly advancing Red Army (unfortunately, being women, this fear not without reason) and therefore preferred to stay with the SS and go on transport into the Reich.

 

Of course these were exceptions and concerned only Reichsdeutsche prisoners, i.e. "Aryans" with Reich citizenship, who generally enjoyed some privileges. As a rule, all concentration camps that could be evacuated were evacuated and only those prisoners who were unable to walk were left behind. As the prisoners feared (not without reason) that those left behind would be killed, even very sick prisoners volunteered for joining an evacuation transport. 'It was always safest to stay with the crowd,' a Camp Dora survivor told me in the 1990s."

 

So while this doesn't directly answer the situation in Elie Wiesel's book Night, it goes on to shed light on why citizens of Nazi Germany, regardless how they were treated by the SS guards, had reasons to stay away from especially Red Army liberators.

 

But coming back to Elie Wiesel, I wonder if deniers have ever heard of something called "Stockholm Syndrome". Perhaps they should try looking that one up. Also, after watching the film "The Shawshank Redemption" (1994), what I realized is just how prolonged incarceration removes one not just physically, but also mentally from the civilian world. When your mind and body have adjusted to camp life, when your psyche has gotten numb from the daily misery, at one point you become apathetic. Especially those who lost their entire family, what hope do they have to keep looking forward to life outside the camp anymore? Did Elie Wiesel and his father not lose family members upon arrival? At one point you even become fearful of leaving behind this camp life you had adjusted to, the only constant in your recent life, and be thrown back into the world out there again, in a miserable physical state to boot. There have been recorded instances in recent history where people released from prison have ended up committing suicide because they just could not adjust back to civilian life anymore. So obvious reasons why Elie and his father decided to follow the Germans is because of a combination of familiarity ("stay with the crowd") as opposed to fear of the unknown variable that was the Soviet Red Army; Stockholm Syndrome; and the fact that staying behind could very likely mean death - either from the fact that in January 1945 winter meant one couldn't just go trekking out of Auschwitz-Birkenau to the nearest hub of civilization in the emaciated, half-starving form without dying, or from waiting for an unspecified amount of time in the derelict camp until the Soviets arrived.

 

The final lie deniers accuse Elie Wiesel of having said in his book, is when he writes about babies being thrown into fire pits (outdoor cremation pits). This video, if you can understand German, is a compilation of testimonies from multiple eye-witnesses during court trials (Severina Schmaglewskaja, Coutourier, Izrael Rozenborn, Dr. Claude Loch, Dr. Samuel Steinberg, Raphael Feigelson, Sonderkommando David Olere (see 1947 drawing), Hermann Langbein (Auschwitz trial), Sonderkommando Filip Müller, Sonderkommando Buki (Auschwitz trial), Sonderkommando Saul Chasan (interview with Gideon Greif published in the 90s), Sonderkommando Henryk Tauber (24 May 1945), and Annani Silovich Perko) that lead credence to Elie Wiesel having told the truth:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGmr6E6XGV0

Selectively citing novels and newspaper clippings

Another pillar of holocaust denial is their cherry-picking of certain things that have little in common with established holocaust historiography, in order to discredit established holocaust historiography. See where I am going with this?

 

What you see above, are many such examples. I am sure the deniers have more. Open the image in a new tab to be able to read everything.

 

Collecting such newspaper clippings or novel excerpts is particularly the work of the denier "The Black Rabbit of Inlé". Take note how the majority of them are from novels and newspapers penned by journalists sitting in an office with little knowledge of history (or even survivors for that matter, a tiny fraction of which turned out to be frauds like Joseph Hirt, Misha Defonesca, Herman Rosenblat...) rather than major holocaust historians like Reitlinger, Hilberg, Dawidowicz, Arad, Gutman, Laqueur, Franciszek Piper, Tomasz Kranz, Kuwalek, Andrzej Strzelecki, Henryk Swiebocki, Piotr Setkiewicz, Janina Kielbon, Andrej Angrick, Götz Aly, Christian Gerlach, Peter Longerich, Dieter Pohl, Thomas Sandkühler, Robert Van Pelt, Jacek Mlynarczyk, Bodgan Musial, Tim Cole, Martin Dean, Donald Bloxham, Michael Thad Allen, Rebecca Wittmann, Robert Gellately, Ian Kershaw, Richard J. Evans, Richard Overy, Adam Tooze, Christopher Browning, John Zimmerman, Roberto Muehlenkamp, Nick Terry, Sergey Romanov, and a whole host of others.

 

For instance, I am still waiting for a denier to systematically tear apart Raul Hilberg's 1200+ page The Destruction of European Jewry, chapter by chapter. Chances are, I'll be waiting for a long time, because Walter Sanning has penned a thesis of his own than having what it takes to attack Hilberg directly.

 

For the sake of brevity, let's refute one such example, the "holocoaster", while another newspaper article, the one about Moshe Peer, is discussed separately here: https://imgur.com/WQc0tfq and the novel "Stolen Soul" was penned by an Australian who wasn't even a holocaust survivor.

 

The rollercoaster/holocoaster redpill image macro as often shared by edgy kids on 4chan/pol comes from war rumors passed out of the camp and to Polish resistance who reported it (among others) to Eugene Aroneanu who compiled these reports in a book which was published in the immediate aftermath of the war, before the first historians could even get to work.

 

These rumors however, while exaggerated, aren't wholly made up, because they are in fact based on the very real rail tracks located in the crematorium which you can see in i.imgur.com/pau3sra.jpg , and these tracks lead directly to the crematory muffles. That is how rumors during the war worked, they are based on truth and something horrible was indeed happening in the camp, so when these descriptions were passed on as rumors out of the camp, they took on a dimension of their own until the dust had settled. 80 years later, deniers cherry pick these snippets and present them as evidence of deliberate lies.

Moshe Peer, the man who claimed to have been gassed six times

We all know how one of the most popular denier memes is "I was gassed six times!" which they then mock as "I was gassed six gorillion times!"

 

This meme has its origins in a 1993 article of the Montreal Gazette where a guy called Moshe Peer not only insisted Bergen Belsen had homicidal gas chambers, but also claimed to have survived half a dozen gassings.

 

We of course also know the deniers' tendencies to cling on to such newspaper stories like parasites. They call Moshe Peer "a famous Canadian Holocaust speaker", while ignoring that his story is not recognized or used by any real historiographers, his name as Moshe Peer is not found on sources like Yad Vashem or the USHMM, and in fact googling him only brings up denier articles.

 

Deniers turn him into an icon, when he's just a guy who got his 5 minutes of fame back in 1993 on one lousy tabloid article, and does not seem to have been active since besides publishing a book ("Unforgettable Bergen-Belsen", Montreal, 1993). Deniers also claim that he still "tours Canada talking to children, telling them of the horrors of the death camps", but provide no proof. And if they had proof, this does not change the fact that nobody, both holocaust scholars or even uneducated simple-folks (seriously, had any of you heard about him before stepping into the world of denial/anti denial? By the way deniers talk about him, they make him look like Anne Frank), care about him.

 

That's not the funny part anyway. The funny part is a picture that is often used by deniers where they claim he is shaking hands with an Israeli politician: All three pictures allegedly show Peer "getting recognized by the state of Israel". The picture furthest to the left, which comes from the article about Peer on everyone's favorite Nazi wiki "Metapedia" also lets us know that Peer is the older guy on the right. To any novice denier who's just taking his first steps into this world, this is yet another proof to all the "Holohoax!" theories, therefore, this picture succeeds in what it's supposed to do, from a denier standpoint. Only problem? Whoever made this picture probably never conceived the idea that an Israeli person would come across it. Because upon seeing this picture, EVERY Israeli person, even if he's dead-drunk at the time, would recognize the guy on the right to be former Israeli president Moshe Katazv. A December 1945 born Persian Jew.

 

I would guess that if this fact was presented to a denier, he'll try to cover his ass by saying that Metapedia and RIghtpedia and all others touting that image just made an honest mistake, and Peer is actually the guy on the left, getting recognized by President Katazv. But even that won't make sense, as whoever this guy on the left is, he does not look even close to be as old as Peer was supposed to have been during Katzav's term as president (2000-2006. Peer was born in 1933)!

 

Indeed, a colleague has pointed out to me that in the photo the left man is Peer Steinbrück, former German minister of finance, and the right man is Moshe Katazv. That is proof how shoddy revisionist research is: Google images for "Moshe Peer" and you actually end up getting a picture that shows one Moshe, and one Peer, but not our Moshe Peer!

 

One must entertain the thought that holocaust survivors can quite frankly suffer from PTSD, and writing novels or giving interviews can be considered their way of trying to cope and process something that they otherwise lock into a deep corner of their mind. Hence, steamy showers they survived can be interpreted as gas chambers, and engine exhaust emanating from homicidal gas chambers can be interpreted as steam chambers to an external observer. Revisionist scholars so quickly calling someone a liar are only shooting themselves in the foot.

 

So the only thing we can conclude from this case study is just how much digging, cherry-picking and exaggerating revisionists need to do regarding what some person said, some decades ago, in order to attack historians or "the holocaust industry". Honestly, if there really were some kind of large-scale brain-washing going on, flaws should be far easier to find.

March 24th, 1933: "Judea Declares War on Germany", evening edition

This is a common newspaper headline peddled around by holocaust deniers in an attempt to reverse the roles of victim and perpetrator. Their conviction is that the mere existence of this newspaper scan somehow proves to the world that Jews declared war on Germany in 1933, six years before the outbreak of WW2, therefore they are the aggressor, and Germany the victim.

 

Why don't we begin by asking the denier giving us this information some very simple questions such as:

 

Who exactly was this "Judea"?

 

What did this "war" allegedly started in 1933 look like?

 

How many tanks, planes & soldiers? What armies and navies were involved?

 

How did international leaders react to this supposed declaration of war? Clearly this can't go unnoticed...

 

They will have difficulty providing answers.

 

An alternate scan of this newspaper, of the same day exists. See here:

http://www.h-ref.de/feindbilder/juedische-kriegserklaerungen/judea-declares-war-morning.jpg

(re-enter url if the image doesn't initially show)

 

Two different versions of the same newspaper of the same day (a morning and evening edition). The morning edition in the linked image even states this was not an action, but a reaction to "medieval Jew-baiting" that was already going on in Germany.

 

So on March 24, 1933, the headline "Judea Declares War on Germany" was indeed splashed across the front page of the British newspaper Daily Express. The problem with this is there was no such thing as "Judea", no unified political entity, nevermind country (the article mentions Israel, but only in a metaphorical sense as this country did not exist anywhere on the world map in 1933), and no Jewish organization declared war on Germany. Sensationalist headline and likeminded fiery rhetoric delivered in subsequent rally speeches aside, the article's actual content was about an economic boycott (and not an enacted one, but a proposed one): the only organization mentioned in the article, the Board of Deputies of British Jews, was scheduled to meet two days later to "discuss the German situation," but they did NOT end up supporting a boycott, for fear that this would only worsen the situation for Jews in Germany (per London Times, March 27, 1933) There's your proof.

 

The article also mentioned protests in many different cities without going into detail, apart from one at Madison Square Garden. But even there, the resolution was caution, rather than bold action.

 

If revisionists still insist that there was a Jewish declaration of war on Germany, I kindly ask them to produce a copy of this declaration of war as proof. Surely a newspaper article is a report ABOUT it and not the declaration of war ITSELF? It would indeed be hilarious if a non-country could declare war on a country via newspaper.

 

I would also like to lecture the revisionist crowd that National Socialist Germany itself did not immediately react to this as a formal (or even informal) declaration of war. Instead, they denounced it as agitation and more proof of Jewish harassment and anti-German propaganda. Only much later (during the war) did Hitler refer to this event as "das Judentum hat uns damals den Krieg angesagt" in some of his speeches ("Judaism declared war on us back then") Challenge to deniers: bring forth ONE German document or politician's speech from that time (March 1933) that took this newspaper headline at face value and recognized it as a declaration of war. Protip: you can't.

 

The reason why this issue is important is because it is a core revisionist claim that tensions between the Nazis and Jews weren't started by the Nazis, but by International Jewry as per their "declaration of war" in March 1933, and that the German boycott of Jewish stores on April 1, 1933 (with the famous "Kauft nicht bei Juden" signs and Stars of David painted on Jewish stores by the SA shown in every German, Austrian, and Swiss school children's history textbook) was a RE-action to this. In fact, if these revisionists had bothered to do more research, they would find out the NSDAP had been existing throughout the 1920s, and calling for anti-Jewish activism since its beginning. Cases in point: Mein Kampf containing chapter upon chapter of antisemitism was written in 1925; the antisemitic NS propaganda newspaper "Der Stürmer" started to be published since 1924, and started inciting hatred against Jews since...1924. And the 25 points of the NSDAP were written in 1920. (Point # 4 being: Jews can't be German citizens)

 

For the Nazi leadership, the American and British campaigns against the Nazi German government as early as March 1933 became more proof for their beliefs about the existence and power of “International Jewry”. The Nazi - and revisionist - argument was/is that this Jew-organized boycott happened simply as a result of the Nazis coming to power in 1933, and was therefore an ACTION, giving Germany every right to REACT to this provocation accordingly. The English historian David Cesarani, in his book "Final Solution: The Fate of the Jews 1933–1949" (Macmillan, 2016) takes the position that the Nazi boycott of Jewish businesses on 1 April 1933 was indeed the regime's RE-action to mounting international outcry/boycott attempts against the Nazi government, BUT that that the Jew-organized boycott itself, was not an ACTION, but itself a REACTION to the Nazi policy concerning Jews that had been existing in their pamphleteering throughout the 1920s, and which already turned into physical violence against Jews in the years before Hitler coming to power in January 1933.

 

So, contrary to the revisionist argument that "the Nazis didn't start it", here's proof they actually did start it after all:

 

___________________________________________

Pre-1933 background

___________________________________________

Cesarani explains that the boycott of Jewish businesses in Germany was not a new weapon for the Nazis in April 1933 but rather a tactic that the SA had deployed earlier already. For example, following Germany's September 1930 elections, “Nazi gangs vandalized the Wertheim and Teitz department stores in Berlin and attacked Jewish shops along the Kurfürstendamm, the main shopping street of central Berlin. . . . Wherever they gained a foothold, [the Nazis] incited local people to cease buying from Jewish shops or dealing with Jews. On the eve of the Jewish New Year, 12 September 1931, 1,000 storm troopers again rioted along the Kurfürstendamm, assaulting anyone who they thought looked Jewish.” (pp 23-24) Cesarani describes a Nazi riot of late January 1933 in which 15,000 SA-men smashed the KPD headquarters - shouting "We {!#%@} on the Jew republic . . . We {!#%@} on freedom." (p 29) Events like these dispense the absurd revisionist argument that the Nazis only reacted on April 1st 1933, rather than already having employed both propagandistic and actual, physical violence against Jews years earlier.

 

That said, the events of March-April 1933 need closer examination.

 

___________________________________________

Early days after the Machtergreifung and following the election of 5 March 1933

___________________________________________

 

The March election was conducted in an extremely fraught environment, as the German government took extraordinary measures following the Reichstag fire. Already the day following the fire, Hindenburg suspended civil rights. The SA established makeshift camps (Konzentrationslager, or KLs) for opponents or suspected opponents of the Nazis and the new government; brown shirt squads raided bars and cafés where leftists and Jews hung out. The KPD, the communist party of Germany, was outlawed and the SPD, the socialist party of Germany, harassed. After the election (the Nazis failed to win a majority despite their terror tactics), “party activists turned on the Jews. From early March a rash of local boycotts spread across the country". (pp 36-37). Note the timing of these assaults: from early March, immediately after the election, weeks before the so-called Anglo-Jewish "declaration of war against Germany" so often toted around by revisionists.

 

Cesarani explains that “These actions were not centrally planned or coordinated, but they stemmed from the well-honed Nazi practice of using intimidation to drive a wedge between Jews and non-Jews.” SA units and local governments took matters into their own hands and “began taking measures against Jews.” (p 37) Again, on 6 March, the SA attacked shoppers on the Kurfürstendamm, leaving many bloodied. The next day gangs set the synagogue in Königsberg on fire, “and two days after that, Jewish-owned stores.” Stores in other cities were defaced or vandalized, including large-scale attacks in Breslau, where Jews in court buildings (lawyers and judges) were targeted. (p 38)

 

___________________________________________

Reactions to Nazi anti-Jewish actions - US and Britain

___________________________________________

 

As the Nazi election terror unfolded, foreign observers reported home on what they were seeing. Cesarani writes that in the US and Britain, “the extensive coverage of events led to outrage in Jewish communities.” (p 40) Jewish leaders began meeting and considering what they could do - with the idea of a boycott of German goods gaining currency. In the US, the American Jewish Committee - representing better off, more assimilated, mostly German - preferred “quiet diplomacy” in coordination with the US State Department. Representing Jewish immigrants, who were less better off, the American Jewish Congress, led by Rabbi Stephen Wise, “responded more viscerally”.

 

As the campaigning gathered headway, with rallies and demonstrations, the American Jewish Committee grew so alarmed that its leaders “condemned boycotts” and other forms of protest and tried to get American diplomats to help calm things with their German counterparts. But the activists went ahead anyway. Rabbi Stephen Wise led a massive rally at Madison Square Garden on 27 March (with speakers including Senator Robert Wagner, two bishops, the mayor of NYC, and Al Smith) - and many thousands of Jews and their supporters rallied in cites across the US (Cesarani estimates that a million people participated in the protests). It is also during March that Samuel Untermeyer began pressing for an international boycott of Germany (it was not until October 1933, however, that the American Jewish Congress finally endorsed the boycott call). Meanwhile, German Jews hoped that the Americans would step back and not inflame the German authorities. (pp 40-41)

 

In Britain, Jewish leaders across the spectrum, fearful of antagonizing the Nazis, favored behind the scenes pressure and careful diplomacy. On 21 March they stated their opposition to street protests. But the bottoms up campaign surged forward in Britain as in the US - focusing on the boycott idea. The protest movement was especially active in East End of London, and on 24 March (the day the “Judea Declares” headline appeared) thousands marched from the East End to the German embassy.

 

With the international protests continuing, the Nazis began to make plans for their response. On 26 March Hermann Göring who was convinced of the fantasy of a coherent, single International Jewry, instructed German Jewish leaders to get their counterparts in the US and Britain to put an end to the boycott movement . German Jewish leaders flew to London to try to get the protests stopped. They failed.

 

___________________________________________

The Nazi anti-Jewish boycott of 1st April 1933

___________________________________________

 

The international campaigns, blunted as they were, outraged the Nazis. Starting 27 March, Nazi bands went into action, especially in the Ruhrgebiet: “in Dortmund shots were fired into the establishment of a Jewish merchant. A hundred Jews were taken into custody by the SA. The local rabbi and five other Jews were forced to parade through the street in Oberhausen.” (p 38)

 

An initially reluctant Hitler then approved a nationwide boycott of Jewish businesses. He demanded that “international Jewry” stop the protests or the Nazis would proceed with retaliation, using their familiar boycott method. In late March, Goebbels, interpreting the situation through the lens of an international Jewish conspiracy and grossly misunderstanding the course of events, wrote in his diary, “We shall make headway against the foreign lies ...We must, therefore, proceed to a large-scale boycott of all Jewish businesses in Germany. Perhaps the foreign Jews will think better of the matter when their racial comrades in Germany begin to get it in the neck.” (p 44)

 

In the last days of March, there was “violence against Jews” at “an unprecedented pitch.” Jews were seized from apartments, Jewish shop windows were smashed and there was a murder of a Jewish shop owner in the town of Straubing in Bavaria.

 

I should add that one of the biggest strengths of Cesarani's discussion of the boycott battles of '33, is the attention paid to Jewish responses. Cesarani is very good on the nature of the Jewish communities - in Germany and overseas: he outlines how political, occupational or class, religious or organizational, ideological, age, veteran, gender, and regional differences among Jews shaped their responses to the Nazis - the critically important aspects of history which revisionists and other deniers subsume under monolithic categories like "international Jewry." There was not a single Jewish interest but many interests which led different people to pursue different lines - often lines that brought people into conflict and sometimes lines which led some to even make "compromises" with the Nazis such as during the Ha'avara Agreement.

 

Special thanks and credit to "Statistical Mechanic" from The Skeptics Society forum.

 

To claim the Nazi boycott of Jewish businesses was a limited reaction, and then nothing of the sort ever happened again, is beyond foolish. It was only the beginning:

 

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

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

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gesetz_über_den_Widerruf_von_Einbürgerungen_und_die_Aberkennung_der_deutschen_Staatsangehörigkeit

 

Here, for example, is a document showing the decree by Herman Göring with which Jews were officially removed from socio-economic life by 1938:

 

imgur.com/cnYugnQ

 

A great book I can recommend that meticulously details how the Jews in Germany were removed from economic, political and social life year by year is "Final Sale in Berlin. The Destruction of Jewish commercial activity 1930-1945" by Christoph Kreuzmüller see:

 

https://www2.hu-berlin.de/djgb/www/book?language=en_US

But were there any actual boycotts and to what extent?

There were many anti-Nazi rallies outside of Germany, yes. It would be pointless if anyone tried to deny this. Most of them were similar in character to demonstrations today, i.e. a group of people gather in a hall or on a street, hold some signs, chant some slogans, and call it a day.

 

I have had trouble finding the source for the images above, i.e. what year they were taken in (1933 or later?) and where. Similarly, the newspaper headline in the middle is about a protest supposedly held in Madison Square Garden, but I can't find the original.

 

Now, how many of these protests actually ended up in committed boycotts? I don't know. Revisionists don't seem to provide properly sourced material either. Obviously, individual stores might have enacted them for varying lengths of time, but what about bigger organizations? If revisionists want to advance the "Anti-Nazi boycott really damaged Germany's economy" theory of theirs, they need to do better than this.

 

What is clear however, is the message revisionists are trying to send here: THEY started it, not Hitler. Which of course, is absolute nonsense because the Nazi Party's rise to prominence was centered around railing against the Treaty of Versailles and against Jews all throughout the 20s. Mein Kampf was written in the 20s. For the revisionists to portray these largely American rallies as an action and not a reaction is them being deliberately fraudulent about history. Furthermore, they go on to label these as provocations which resulted ("naturally") in Germany eventually rounding up all its Jews and sending them to camps. It's a bit like saying 'holding Free Tibet rallies is counter-productive and only makes life worse for the Tibetans in China, so kindly refrain from doing so or you are the aggressor, not the Chinese'.

 

Some even go so far as to say the "Declaration of War" (which I have dismissed previously) meant all Jews were enemies and compare their internment in concentration camps with the internment of SOME Japanese and Japanese-American citizens in camps in the United States after Imperial Japan had attacked the US at Pearl Harbor killing 2,403 people. This is the nerve and modus operandi of revisionists: 'Because foreign Japs attacked the US and the US put local Japs into camps, why is it so criminal for Germany to have done likewise? Put local Jews into camps as a result of foreign Jews declaring war?'

 

Comparing Nazi concentration camps with American Wartime Civil Control Administration (WCCA) Assembly Centers, civilian-run War Relocation Authority (WRA) Relocation Centers, and Department of Justice (DOJ) camps where Japanese-Americans were held and treated well is ridiculous. These people enjoyed freedoms and comforts of life 99% of Nazi camp inmates could only dream of. The death toll in these US camps is so ridiculously low it is shameful to even bring them up in a holocaust discussion. But wait! Holocaust deniers have an answer to that one as well: everyone in Nazi concentration camps was doing juuuust fine until the Allies started their bombing. We've heard that one already, haven't we?

 

Given that holocaust deniers do not believe anyone was gassed, and think far fewer Jews lived in Europe than really did, they still do not deny that Jews were deported into camps against their will. So they need to whitewash Germany in this regard as well. Therefore, foreign anti-Nazi rallies and boycotts and US internment of ethnic Japanese civilians is used as an excuse to justify the rounding up and deportation of completely uninvolved, poverty-stricken Eastern European Jews to slave labor and death: Revisionist logic.

Nazi propaganda

Needless to say, Nazis called others agitators while doing the above. And funny how revisionists who still believe what the Nazis propagated (i.e, Jews are behind most wars) get upset if we call them (Neo-) Nazis.

 

Open the image in a new tab for a better zoom. Some translations:

 

Deutsche! Wehrt Euch! Kauft nicht bei Juden! Kauft in deutschen Geschäften!

Germans! Defend yourselves! Don't buy from Jews! Buy from German stores!

 

So würde es enden! Qualitativer Bevölkerungsabstieg bei zu schwacher Fortpflanzung der Höherwertigen

This is how it would end! Qualitative population reduction from the lack of procreation of those Superior.

 

So wird es kommen, wenn Minderwertige 4 Kinder und Höherwertige 2 Kinder haben.

This is what awaits, when the inferior have 4 children and the superior 2 children.

 

Mit dem Stürmer gegen Juda. Die Juden sind unser Unglück.

With the Stormer [newspaper] against Judea. The Jews are our misfortune.

 

Ich bin am Ort das größte Schwein und lass mich nur mit Juden ein.

I am the biggest swine in town and only deal with Jews.

 

Ich nehm als Judenjunge immer nur deutsche Mädchen mit aufs Zimmer.

As a Jew-boy I always only take German girls to my quarters.

 

Juden sind in Behringerdorf nicht erwünscht.

Jews are not welcome in Behringerdorf.

 

Hinter den Feindmächten: Der Jude

Behind the enemies: The Jew

 

Achtung, Juden!

Warning, Jews!

 

Der Jude! Kriegsanstifter, Kriegsverlängerer

The Jew! Causer of war, prolonger of war

 

Ohne Lösung der Judenfrage keine Erlösung des deutschen Volkes!

Without a solution to the Jewish question, no salvation for the German people!

 

Judas Greueltaten

The Jew's atrocities

 

Bin ich nich ä guter Daitscher?

(in broken German) Am I not a good German?

Another document regarding Nazi policy of Jewish "freedom of movement" outside their ghettos

NOTICE

Concerning:

the Sheltering of Escaping Jews.

 

There is need for the following reminder:

 

In accordance with paragraph 3 of the decree of October 15, 1941, on the Limitation of Residence in General Government (page 595 of the GG Register) Jews leaving the Jewish Quarter without permission will incur the death penalty.

 

According to this decree, those knowingly helping these Jews by providing shelter, supplying food, or selling them foodstuffs are also subject to the death penalty.

 

This is therefore a categorical warning to the non-Jewish population against:

1) Providing shelter to Jews,

2) Supplying them with food,

3) Selling them foodstuffs.

 

Częstochowa 24/9/42

 

Der Stadthauptmann

Dr. Franke

 

In this context, it would be wise to also have a look at the documents and photographs that make up the Stroop Report regarding the liquidation of the Warsaw ghetto, a souvenir album for Heinrich Himmler:

 

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

The "history shows us Jews really are a problem" gambit

There are various lists floating around the internet, showing how many times Jewish communities have been expelled or suffered serious persecution and sarcastically, the question is basically asked in the form of: "Jews have been kicked out of X countries in the past X centuries, but clearly everyone else is the problem", e.g. "109 Locations whence Jews have been Expelled since AD250", or "Jews Banished 47 Times In 1000 Years - Why?"

 

It's a bit hard for me to comprehend how some holocaust deniers try to use very real pogroms they do not deny happened to point out a supposed problem with the Jewish community as a whole, in their quest to deny the greatest of all pogroms. Maybe it's just their rabid Jew-hate seeping through the charade of scholarly debate when they begin to get frustrated.

 

Ignoring the fact that bringing up historic Jewish persecution as defense and thereby only outing themselves as Jew haters, such a comparison, based on historical events can also be made about Whites, regarding colonized countries liberating themselves across the planet from their majority White colonial masters in the recent past - I decided to create the above little joke in my spare time just for the banter.

 

As you can see, if they can generalize an entire people and fool around, so can I.

 

As to answering why Jews really have been persecuted in the past, the answer is simple: Minorities attract suspicion and distrust by a majority. This has been the case for every minority I can think of in any country. When a calamity befalls a people (such as plague, drought or war), it's always easy to put the blame on a minority nobody of the majority really knows well enough, compared to the way they are convinced they know each other. That, and of course the historic fact that Christianity did impose some laws upon itself, making life tough for their co-religionists to flourish in business and banking. Or that many Guilds (with mandatory membership) did not accept Jews, and therefore Jewish merchants, not being guild members, also didn't have to pay fees and could therefore sell their wares at lower prices. Also keep in mind in many cases Jews in Europe could not own property, and therefore had to focus on mercantile rather than agriculture.

 

Another fun fact occurs when White "race realists" try bringing up outdated early 20th century eugenics and race and IQ statistics to "prove" there is scientific correlation between intelligence and a person's race, completely ignoring factors like access to education, opportunity, wealth & prosperity, lack of oppression, motivation, and how large the pool of people who participated in the survey was and from where they came. In such situations I just remind them whether they have read their own "science papers" they are presenting to realize that their supposed master race in fact possesses an inferior IQ than East Asians and Jews or tell them to look up how many Jews have received Nobel Prizes for their work, and how this is more in percentage to the total number of Jews than the percentage of White recipients is to their race total. That's usually when they quietly drop their claims and scurry away to another topic.

"Soap made out of Jews", human soap and bars of RIF

After the war, there were many rumors about the remains of Holocaust victims, specifically Jews, having been made into soap. Tom Segev's "The Seventh Million" reports that Holocaust survivors arriving in Israel after 1948 were sometimes derisively referred to as soap.

 

Holocaust deniers love bringing up the soap story for some reason, so let's see if there is any truth to it. To begin with, pic related shows a bar of "soap" marked RIF, which has sometimes been mistranslated to RJF and then subsequently explained as "Reines Judenfett" (pure Jewish fat) or even "Reichsjudenfett" (State Jewish fat). RIF actually stands for "Reichsstelle für industrielle Fettversorgung" (National Center for Industrial Fat Provisioning), the German government agency responsible for wartime production and distribution of soap and washing products.

 

So while the RIF bars do not have human origin, the "soap story" is far from concluded. Because at the war crimes trial, Simund Mazur, laboratory assistant at the Danzig Anatomic Institute, testified that the institute conducted experiments in producing soap from human bodies and even gave the formula for its production. Mazur said: “The finished soap then went to Professor Spanner, who kept it personally. The work for the production of soap from human bodies has, as far as I know, also interested Hitler’s Government. The Anatomic Institute was visited by the Minister of Education, Rust; the Reichsgesundheitsführer, Doctor Conti; the Gauleiter (party regional leader) of Danzig, Albert Forster; as well as professors from the medical institutes.”

 

We can conclude that soap was never part of the regular and official corpse processing in the manner that hair or dental gold was processed. But other kinds of body-processing was done by individuals, but not as an official policy or undertaking. For this reason we should not be surprised that experimentation with the processing of human fat for soap was apparently undertaken at the Danzig Anatomical Institute.

 

Further citations: Nuremberg Blue Series, XXXIX, p . 463ff. Hilberg, Vol. III, pp . 966-967. His footnote 27, p . 967, quoted from Friedman, "Oswiecim," p . 64, contains a statement that Poles liberating the Danzig Institute discovered 350 bodies which they believed were used for experimentation. While the fact remains that regular processing of human fat for soap was not done, there was some experimentation.

 

*So the fat of which human corpses was this experimental "soap" made out of? In the period to be considered for the soap-making, i . e. February 1944 to January 1945, neither corpses from Jews, nor from executed Poles or Russians could have been delivered to the institute. All eyewitnesses who testified in 1945/46 confirmed that toward the end of the war, the “material” came from the Conradstein/Kocborowo insane asylum and from the prisons of Danzig/Gdansk, Elbing/Elblag, and Königsberg/Kaliningrad. That means that the dead resp. executed must have been, in their great majority, non-Jewish German citizens.

 

That cakes of soap tested positively for human fat underscore this, as an article in a Gdansk newspaper regarding experiments concerning the production of human soap reads as follows:

 

By Roman Daszczynski, Gdansk

July 10, 2006 (From Gazeta Wyborcza)

Translated from Polish by Prof. Arie Galles

 

"This wasn't an invention of communist propaganda. A German scholar in Gdansk manufactured soap from human cadavers, in order to maintain laboratory cleanliness.

   Thus show the results of an investigation just completed by the Gdansk INM.

   In the investigative process there were found samples of soap impounded in 1945 for the needs of the Nuremberg Trials. Over the years it was thought, that they have been lost, but they are kept in the International Justice Tribunal in The Hague. They come from the laboratory of Prof. Rudolph Spanner who was the Director of the Anatomical Institute of the Medical School in Gdansk during the war.

   Samples from The Hague were tested by using, among other means, the innovative method of identifying fats created by Prof. Andrzej Stolyhwo from the Main School of Farm Enterprise in Warsaw. - This soap was made from human fat - ascertains Stolychwo.

   Prof. Spanner who was interrogated by the crime police in Hamburg in May of 1947 confessed, that he manufactured in Gdansk, a substance, which may be called soap.

   Supposedly it was a byproduct resulting from the boiling human bones for anatomical exhibits. He claimed, that he used the substance only for saturating (making waterproof) the specimens. Spanner lied. There exist statements from students, who had the responsibility to remove fat tissues, in the process of dissecting the cadavers, and to collect them in pails.

   By the end of the war he brought great numbers of cadavers from places of execution in Krilewiec, Gdansk, Stutthof and the Hospital for the Mentally Ill in Kocborow, states prosecutor Piotr Niesyn, who was in charge of the investigation.

   Why did Spanner do this? By the end of the war animal fat was completely used for the manufacture of glycerin for the Nazi Armament Industry. Spanner needed soap to maintain hygienic conditions in the laboratory, among others, to wash the dissection tables. He decided to help himself, and produced not more than a few tens of kilograms of soap for his needs. The soap never found its way to the market.

   The INM investigation lasted four years. It was started after articles in Dziennik Baltycki (The Baltic Daily) concluded that soap from people was not made, and the statement from the writer Zofia Na kowska in "Medallions" claimed it was the result of a game of communist propaganda."

 

*credit to Dr. Joachim Neander

"But the mainstream is saying no soap was ever made out of anyone...like...ever!"

Holocaust deniers often present the above articles as proof that "the mainstream" has done a 180° on the soap story. Obviously, they fail to provide context for all their examples.

 

First of all, historians never claimed Nazis made soap out of Jews on the scale the very real rumors circulating among inmates toward the end of the war had suggested (and this is also the reason why you may still find holocaust survivors mentioning the soap story - it doesn't mean they are lying; they are repeating what they had heard in the camps). Therefore, scholars cannot do a 180° on something they never claimed was fact to begin with.

 

The only valid issue deniers can raise with the above articles, is that they also seem to dismiss the experiments at Danzig involving corpses. However, note the dates the articles were published. All of them pre-date the forensic testing results from 2006. Some even by several decades, like Deborah Lipstadt's almost forty year old article deniers love to bring up as if she had said this yesterday.

 

And regarding Yehuda Bauer, more recently, he replied to the previously stated finding as follows:

 

"This whole story was presented at the Nuremberg Trials of blessed memory, and there simply is absolutely nothing new about it. We have known, and published, for 60 years now that Germans used fat of bodies of Polish slave laborers (not Jews) in order to produce this fat, as an experiment, in early 1945.

   The very fact that this was an experimental station at such a late stage disproves all the theories about making soap from Jewish bodies. If they had done that, they would not have needed an experimental station with one "expert" in Gdansk, in 1945. The issue was, at that time, in the air, because of the stories (invented) of Germans in World War I making soap out of dead German soldiers' bodies. German guards in Auschwitz and elsewhere used the story as a means of psychological torture of Jews. There is absolutely no truth whatsoever about soap made of Jews, or anyone else, except for this Gdansk thing. What I am saying here one can read in the Nuremberg Trials proceedings." (letter dated 27 July 2007)

Do Jews really control the world?

The charge of alleging group-thinking and a hive-mentality on all Jews in the world and accusing them of conspiring together to subvert and control all goyim would be hilarious, were it not so serious. The fact that there are so many people (negligible in terms of overall populace, but still a lot in terms of individuals) who are absolutely convinced that Jews run the world and do everything they can to "expose the ZOG" is reason enough for me to feel the need of addressing this charge.

 

It is true that in the western world, you can criticize almost any country as much as you want, but eyebrows will be raised more than in any other instance if you criticize Israel without wording your sentences more carefully. It is also true that the charge of antisemitism is more serious than any other charge regarding common and well-known prejudices in the West, such as islamophobia, sexism, transphobia, homophobia, ableism, fat-shaming, slut-shaming and whatnot.

 

It is also true that Jews are over-represented (i.e. percentage-wise compared to their total numbers in society) in non-menial labor sectors of the economy, just like African Americans and Hispanics are over-represented in US prisons. Does this mean we can make a scientific case that blacks and hispanics are criminal by nature? Or does this rather mean the socio-economic conditions, and perspectives regarding education have unfavorably affected these communities and we're seeing the results of a failure by the government to properly a

 

ddress these persisting deficits when it comes to education and opportunity? Jews have indeed placed importance in education for hundreds of years. Being barred from owning land in Medieval Europe and self-imposing mercantile restrictions helped Jews establish themselves in educational and business ventures. When they came to the New World, they brought these skills with them. But we're here to discuss the following charge: Do Jews control the world? Are they in charge of entire governments, the banks, the film industry, the media, the schools, the colleges, the universities and all centers of learning, are their think-tanks and watch dogs making sure the goyim remain stupid and easily controlled? This has been the charge laid out on "world jewry" since the late 19th century, a charge that continues to persist to this day and therefore can be resolved by something as simple as a fact-check.

 

The charge that the Jews control the world is one of the most easily dismissable things ever conceived by conspiracy theorists, because the entire Islamic world stretching from Morocco to Indonesia is either impartial to, dislikes, or literally hates Israel's guts. Not just their governments but especially the local populace. By definition this means Jews do not control the world. But let's continue: Asia is largely impartial to Israel. There are some countries that view Israel favorably, like India, but most do not even concern themselves with Israel. It's just another country to them, and Jews are literal whos in their societies. Even in Latin America, Jews do not have any kind of influence worth mentioning. So then, we can only lay the charge on Europe, the US and Canada as to whether they are being controlled by Jews. How do we determine this? The most popular way antisemites do is by circulating lists of the CEOs of companies and claim they're all Jewish. If a company is owned by someone of Jewish ancestry or even someone whose wife or uncle has Jewish ancestry, the entire company is kosher and pro-Zion, right? I'm still waiting for these clowns to publish lists for Canada and European countries, but they have so far failed spectacularly. The only country we have lots of lists circulating about, is the United States. So let's take a look at who really is in charge of major US companies, shall we?

 

Do Jews control American media as of 2016? This should be the conspiracy theorists' home turf. Let's first acknowledge where they are right in terms of ancestry:

 

Walt Disney

CEO: Bob Iger (Jewish)

 

CBS

CEO: Leslie Moonves (Jewish)

 

Paramount Pictures

CEO: Brad Grey (Jewish)

 

20th Century Fox

CEO: Stacey Snider (Jewish)

 

Comcast

CEO: Brian L. Roberts (Jewish)

 

Condé Nast (parent company of Vogue, Glamour, Vanity Fair, The New Yorker, Reddit)

CEO: Robert Sauerberg Jr. (Jewish)

 

And here's where they are wrong:

 

CNN (Turner Broadcasting System) CEO: Ted Turner (non-Jew)

 

NBC Universal / CNBC

CEO: Stephen "Steve" Burke (Irish Catholic)

 

Time Warner

Parent Chairman and CEO: Jeff Bewkes (non-Jew)

 

Viacom

CEO: Robert Bakish (non-Jew)

 

21st Century Fox / Fox News

Executive co-chairman: Rupert Murdoch (non-Jew)

Executive co-chairman: Lachlan Murdoch (non-Jew)

(former) CEO, founder: Roger Ailes (non-Jew)

 

PBS

CEO: Paula Kerger (non-Jew)

Chairman: Afsaneh Beschloss (non-Jew; Iranian)

 

C-Span / National Cable Satellite Corp

Chairman: Brian Lamb (non-Jew)

CEO: Rob Kennedy (non-Jew)

 

Univision

President & CEO: Randy Falco (non-Jew)

 

Netflix

CEO: Reed Hastings (non-Jew)

 

Hulu

CEO: Mike Hopkins (non-Jew)

 

Warner Brothers Entertainment

Chairman & CEO: Kevin Tsujihara (non-Jew)

Vice-Chairman: Ed Romano (non-Jew)

 

Universal Studios

CEO: Steve Burke (non-Jew)

Chairman: Donna Langley (non-Jew)

 

Pixar Studios

President: Edwin Catmull (non-Jew)

CEO: John Lasseter (non-Jew)

 

Associated Press

Chairman: Mary Junck (non-Jew)

CEO: Gary Pruitt (non-Jew)

 

Reuters

Chairman: David Thomson (non-Jew, British royalty)

CEO: James Smith (non-Jew)

Woodbridge Company (60% owner), controlled by Thomson family, non-Jewish CEO; not Rothschilds as is frequently claimed

 

Gannett Company / USA Today

Chairman: John Jeffry Louis (non-Jew)

CEO: Bob Dickey (non-Jew)

 

Dow Jones & Company / Wall Street Journal

CEO: William Lewis (non-Jew)

Editor-in-Chief: Gerard Baker (non-Jew)

 

New York Times

President & CEO: Mark Thompson (non-Jew)

Editor-in-Chief: Dean Baquet (non-Jew)

 

Washington Post

CEO: Fred Ryan (non-Jew)

Owned by Jeff Bezos (non-Jew)

 

Philadelphia Inquirer

CEO: H.F. Lenfest (non-Jew)

Editor-in-Chief: Bill Marimow (non-Jew)

 

Financial Times

CEO: John Ridding (non-Jew)

Editor-in-Chief: Lionel Barber (non-Jew)

 

Time Magazine / Time Inc. / Fortune

Parent Executive Chairman: Joseph A. Ripp (non-Jew)

Editor-in-Chief: Nancy Gibbs (non-Jew)

 

IBT Media / Newsweek / International Business Times

CEO: Dev Pragad (non-Jew)

Editor-in-Chief: Jim Impoco (non-Jew)

 

Houston Chronicle / San Francisco Chronicle / Seattle Post-Intelligencer

Houston Chron CEO: John McKeon (non-Jew)

Houston Chron Editor-in-Chief: Nancy Barnes (non-Jew)

San Francisco Chron CEO: Jeffrey Johnson (non-Jew)

San Francisco Chron Editor-in-Chief: Audrey Cooper (non-Jew)

Parent chairman: William Randolph Hearst III (non-Jew)

Parent executive vice-chairman: Frank Bennack (non-Jew)

 

Case closed.

Supposed fakes and "restored" originals

...according to holocaust deniers. It's interesting, because I have yet to come across a (Soviet?) publication that showed merely the images on the left and tried to pass them off as authentic. In fact, various search tools only yielded me denier websites who had already "uncovered this hoax" with the fake/original comparison shots as shown above. Chances are, deniers photoshopped the left images themselves, only to discredit them with the originals on the right and then say "woah guys, look what we uncovered!"

 

This doesn't seem to be the work of "professional" holocaust deniers like Udo Walendy or anyone at CODOH, which is why you wont find this plastered over there, as those folks usually seize any opportunity they get to try and prove photo faking.

 

Note how these foolish hoaxers even had the audacity to keep the ARC website watermark on one of the images they grabbed from the net and doctored.

How denier photo-fakery is easily exposed

In a similar fashion there's another photo-comparison circulated by these denier photoshop clowns where the corpse of the Muselmann that survivors of Dachau are pushing into one of the ovens as a demonstrated re-enactment of the cremation operation to US army photographers has been photoshopped away. The pictures speak for themselves.

The deniers also try to claim the "Judenaktion in Ivangorod" photo is fake

This photo was attached to a letter of a German soldier, intercepted by the Polish resistance in Warsaw. It bore the caption "Ukraine 1942 - Judenaktion in Ivangorod", a misspelling of Ivanhorod. The original print was owned by Tadeusz Mazur and Jerzy Tomaszewski and now resides in Historical Archives in Warsaw.

 

Holocaust deniers have pointed out that several publications only show a cropped version of this picture focusing on the man aiming his rifle at the mother and child, instead of publishing the entire image, and accuse the croppers of being deliberately deceptive this way.

 

But the cropping has nothing to do with sinister propaganda: The photo is sometimes cropped to zoom in on the terrified woman clutching her child the instant before the rifleman's bullet smashes into her skull. It is a horrific visual image which graphically sums up what the Einsatzgruppen were all about - cruel inhumanity. The uncropped image isn't any less sinister at all. We see more unarmed people cowering in fear on the right, and more rifles being aimed at them from the extreme left, only lending credence to the conclusion that this wasn't a lone Nazi in the middle of nowhere posing with his rifle trained at a mother and child, but rather part of a group (both killers and victims) as was the customary practice with the Einsatzgruppen shootings (they are called Gruppen for a reason).

 

The only difference I can observe here, is that the victims are not naked, but without source that this was how all Einsatzgruppen victims were dumped into their graves (and the following photo also questions this practice as customary), I think raising this issue is meaningless. One popular denier theory is that the Nazis are actually selflessly brave souls protecting the civilians from enemies to the extreme right of the image, out of frame. Essentially, the civilians are alleged to be caught in the moment of going to ground while the Nazis fire above their heads. This sounds fine and dandy, were it not for the fact that there is a dead person right next to the boot of the Nazi executioner, while the Nazis themselves are standing tall, making no effort to get to cover. Such a scenario goes against any and all military training, where going to ground while taking enemy fire becomes instinct especially when you come under fire in the open terrain shown in this photo. And when under enemy fire, nobody in their right mind would have the time to take a photo either.

 

One interesting point deniers have raised however, is pointing out the lack of a mass grave nearby. This would corroborate eye-witness accounts of Einsatzgruppen shooting their victims near mass graves, so that the corpses could be disposed of easily. Shooting them in the middle of nowhere would mean they would have to leave the corpses lying about, or carry them with them for disposal, the latter a very unlikely scenario. However, notice the height of the cameraman in the photo. The photographer/camera is at knee-height of the executioner. This leads me to believe the photographer took the photo while being inside a pit himself. And last but not least, notice the shovel next to the cowering civilians. What on earth is a shovel doing in the middle of nowhere, unless of course, it was used for digging?

 

Some holocaust deniers have suggested the Einsatzgruppen were primarily there for intel gathering, and quelling unrest (such as armed partisans), but this is incorrect. You may be surprised to know that the German Army had their own rear area commands (Korück, Oberfeldkommandantur, Feldkommandantur, etc.) already in place, manned with security battalions. The German armed forces had their own counter-intelligence units (the Abwehr) and field police. The Einsatzgruppen of the SS were unnecessary for any other task in the rear areas except the murder of civilians. And woman and infant partisans? Really? And yugoslavian firearms and uniforms in Ukraine? It's funny how the Mauser rifle they're trying to discredit looks so similar to the one in the photo - and even the M24 is a Mauser variant.

 

The author(s) in the denier url quoted in the image above, is in fact also very careful at labeling this photo as anything but authentic:

 

http://www.strangehistory.net/2013/07/28/image-murder-of-woman-and-child-at-ivanhorod/

This is a German uniform

Typical German Schutzpolizei uniform (note the tell-tale dark cuffs), as can be seen in the photo of German stooges posing in front of the destroyed Horák family farm to the right, taken in Lidice, 1942, during or after the Lidice massacre. All other features on the uniform match as well. For deniers to claim the guy at Ivanhorod is a Soviet either displays their ignorance or is deliberate deception.

 

Regarding Lidice and the other photo, a tale of bestial revenge: On May 27, 1942, SS Obergruppenführer Reinhard Heydrich, Deputy Reich Protector of Bohemia and Moravia, had been attacked (Operation Anthropoid) in Prague by Free Czech agents to assassinate him. They shot at Heydrich as his car slowed to round a sharp turn, then threw a bomb which exploded, mortally wounding him. Heydrich managed to get out of the car, draw his pistol and shoot back at the assassins before collapsing in the street. Reinhard Heydrich survived for several days, but died on June 4th from blood poisoning.

 

Meanwhile the Gestapo and SS hunted down and murdered Czech agents, resistance members, and anyone suspected of being involved in Heydrich's death, totaling over 1000 persons. In addition, 3000 Jews were deported from the ghetto at Theresienstadt for extermination. In Berlin 500 Jews were arrested, with 152 executed as a reprisal on the day of Heydrich's death.

 

As a further reprisal, Hitler ordered the small Czech mining village of Lidice to be liquidated on the fake charge that it had aided the assassins.

 

In one of the most infamous single acts of World War II, all 172 men and boys over age 16 in the village were shot while the women were deported to Ravensbrück concentration camp where most died. Ninety young children were sent to the concentration camp at Gneisenau, with some spared and taken later to Nazi orphanages if they were "German looking".

 

The village of Lidice was then destroyed building by building with explosives, then completely leveled until not a trace remained, with grain being planted over the flattened soil. The name was then removed from all German maps.

 

Perhaps now you understand how Aktion or Einsatz Reinhard got its name.

Another denier image, this one trying to discredit the "Letzte Jude von Vinnitsa" image

This is a picture currently stored in the US Library of Congress, courtesy of the USHMM Photo Archives.

 

A picture from an Einsatzgruppen soldier’s personal album, labeled on the back as “Last Jew of Vinnitsa” in German, it shows German soldiers of the Waffen-SS and the Reich Labor Service (Reichsarbeitsdienst) looking on as a member of Einsatzgruppe D prepares to shoot a Ukrainian Jew kneeling on the edge of a mass grave filled with corpses, near Vinnitsa, taken in either 1941 or 1942, sometimes mislabeled 1943 in archives, but most likely 1941, as thousands of Jews from Vinnitsa and its surrounding areas were massacred at the time:

 

There were two mass shootings in Vinnitsa, on the 16th September, and the other on 22nd September. A subsequent massacre of Jews appears to have been of Jews brought in from outside the district. This is the evidence for the date of this photograph. There was one eye witness to the procedure involved. Wehrmacht officer Lieutenant Erwin Bingel had been ordered to assist the Commandant of Uman district with men to guard the railway lines and around the airport. The Jews of the area had been ordered to gather for a ‘census’.

 

In fact you can find a whole bunch of Einsatzgruppen photography - with captions and archival source as well - here:

 

http://history1900s.about.com/od/holocaust/tp/Einsatzgruppen-Pictures.htm

 

As usual, holocaust deniers spin a completely different yarn, as evidenced in the image description above. One has said the following:

 

"Those arent German uniforms and that is not a German pistol in the soldier's hand. The soldier in the image is wearing a Soviet M35 uniform and is holding a Tokerev TT33 pistol. The boy right behind the arm of the soldier wielding the pistol (he looks no more than 16-17 years old perhaps younger) is wearing a Soviet M35 airforce uniform. You can distinctly see everything the soldiers are wearing are Soviet issue, and do not corrospond to German uniforms or equipment."

 

...which of course, is absolute nonsense because on an enlarged version of the photo viewable here:

 

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-1MaLAzQo5AM/UT-wcSzQthI/AAAAAAAAC5M/SN218aYs4Mk/s1600/The+last+Jew+in+Vinnitsa,+1941.jpg

 

you can clearly see the Nazi Reichsadler on at least 6 men's uniforms, and one of the soldiers is wearing shoulder pauldrons indicating he is part of a Heer band. Soviet uniforms, huh?

 

As to what pistol the executioner is using, the deniers trying to say it's either a Korovin TK or Tokerev TT33 are being deliberately dishonest because it is ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TO TELL. The following article gives you an overview of the various pistols used by the Nazis during WW2, and as you can see, not only did they use a bunch of different ones, but many of them look very similar to each other:

 

http://www.imfdb.org/wiki/List_of_firearms_used_by_German_Armed_Forces

or

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

 

It could be a Walther PP, a Sauer 38H, a Mauser HSc, and for the record it would be a deliberate lie to claim Germans just used German or Austrian manufactured weaponry during the entire war.

 

To be able to tell with certainty what type of pistol is used in the image would even make a firearms expert shake his head in disbelief at the level of bold conviction holocaust deniers employ when making their claims, especially when somewhere else they are accusing their opponents of the very same thing.

 

Point 3 is nonsense, because the victim's arms do not seem to be on a position which would imply they were tied behind his back. The white blob rather looks like a hand bandaged with white cloth to me.

 

Point 4 is also nonsense, because this grey "fog" does not appear to cloud the bystanders' faces in the uncropped original, which can be viewed here:

 

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/e4/07/1c/e4071c86a1c07c4a7f18e6f37d251cae.jpg

 

You can also see structures in the background toward the extreme left and right of the image. So chances are, the denier who made this infographic applied some photo manipulation himself. The other points are also moot because the uncropped version is readily available on the net; the fake border and creases is something that is NOT part of the original photo (again, denier photoshop at work) and the uniforms are very much German (Wehrmacht and SS uniforms), including the guy third from left in the cropped version with the white, triangular shoulder pauldrons who is a Gefreiter (corporal) from a Wehrmacht band. Clearly there was something ceremonious about this image (Last Jew of Vinnitsa might be a hint), and therefore representatives from different echelons of German units operating nearby were present at the grave's edge. Given that the victim is, from his kneeling position, looking slightly upward and to his left (our right), it is safe to say there is at least one more person standing to the right of the pit, and the cameraman is on the opposite edge, so we can assume the victim is surrounded by onlookers.

 

Perhaps the only element of truth in the denier infographic is that yes, indeed Vinnitsa had been a place where just a few years earlier, in 1937 or 1938, people had been murdered during the Stalinist Great Purge and buried in unmarked graves as well (Vinnytsia massacre). And these were indeed discovered by the Germans during the German occupation in Ukraine by 1943. Just some of the evidence that Germans were indeed around Vinnytsia is the fact that one of Hitler's Führer HQs (Werwolf) was located there! This would only rule out a Soviet photo manipulation because the last thing they would want to do (after liberating the area only by March 20, 1944) is exhume their own 6-7 year old mass grave sites (kudos if they even find the location without having to dig around blindly!), make a person (victim or actor) stand at its edge, and shoot him (or not) and close the graves once more and then pin it on the Nazis. And if this photo was actually taken during the Stalinist purge, why on earth would the photo feature a bunch of Russians in stolen German uniforms from the future and have a German caption on its back? Especially considering the fact that the Soviets were not enemies of the Reich in 1937 or 38.

 

As for Stalin's "Order No 428" saying "hey comrades, don some Wehrmacht and SS uniforms and do nasty stuff so we can pin it on the Germans", that's a denier hoax. See:

 

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.co.at/2006/07/blame-it-on-germans.html

"The most famous holocaust photo a fraud?"

The allegation made by a British holocaust denier going by the online pen name "TheBlackRabbitofInlé" on his (now inactive) the "Winston Smith, the Ministry of Truth" blog[1], is that the famous Buchenwald photo shown to us, one that includes Elie Wiesel among the bunks, has actually been doctored, as an early newspaper clipping is shown where the inmate Simon Toncman in the foreground isn't visible at all. Was he added in retrospectively? That's what the rabbit claims, see caption.

 

Interestingly, the opposite is the case, i . e. Simon Toncman was actually removed in the newspaper print due to the prude editor's squeamishness taking over his reporting of the holocaust when it comes to showing an emaciated, naked victim covering his modesty with some clothing. So much so, that in the supposedly original newspaper clipping, the first bunk post from the right (not visible in the photo with the inmate in the foreground) is actually missing its base, compared to the ones left of it.

 

I'll leave it to Sergey Romanov from the HC blog to debunk this accomplishment of the Black Rabbit in more detail:

 

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.co.at/2016/07/the-denier-logic-at-its-finest-famous.html

 

Bonus: you are treated to the BlackRabbitofInlé himself throwing a hissy fit in the comment section!

 

So while we have proof of a newspaper editor doctoring an original image available in an enlarged format in the archive, what exactly does this prove? If Simon Toncman was added in, we would first have to find the original print of this famous photo without him (instead of just the pic in the newspaper), as well as the original photo where he has been taken from (so that he could be copy-pasted into the famous photo above), which also no denier has ever been able to find, and in any case, the collage would have only proven that someone was trying to emphasize the very real emaciation that affected most victims found in the liberated camps - which is something no sensible (oxymoron!) holocaust denier disputes in the first place.

 

But the opposite is the case here: the foreground person was removed, so that the image would pass the censor, and in fact LESS of the holocaust's grim reality be shown to the public.

 

So this is The Black Rabbit's greatest accomplishment: The image that adorns the front page of his blog to this day, in fact, PROVES American media were DOWNplaying holocaust atrocities to the civilian populace, rather than the opposite which deniers allege the press of doing. Thanks...I guess?

 

These are the kinds of elephants holocaust deniers make out of flies, and even get the order wrong when doing so, and it only proves how pathetic their cause really is.

 

Source:

[1]: https://archive.is/2gHs5

Was Hitler a man of peace?

Hitler, in his speeches, spent time and time again reminding his German subjects that it is not he, but international racketeers that brought this war upon Germany: He kept saying it was Britain and France that emboldened Poland with the confidence to go to war with Germany, he claimed it was the bankers and war industrialists of America who could make money off this war because unlike him they had stocks in the armament industry, and therefore war was forced on the German people.

 

Carefully selected segments of his speeches with English subtitles are accompanied by colorized high resolution footage stolen from WW2 documentaries with their respective audios muted, then underscored with stolen movie soundtracks like the ones composed by Hans Zimmer, and then presented by today's neo-nazis on Youtube as "documentaries" that "tell the true story" which "THEY don't want YOU to know" and "expose the lies we've all been told about Hitler". One example is a video called "Adolf Hilter's Struggle For Peace": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TW-pw4rRvUI [video isn't available anymore']

 

If you have trouble opening the video, just type the given video title in youtube [or bitchute] and usually some other neo-nazi will have re-uploaded it with comparatively few views, and therefore it isnt blocked yet.

In any case, they garner tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of views and many people get swayed by Hitler the same way the German people did 70 years ago. Part of that fault lies with our own media and education system that ever portray Hitler in fits of rage rather than a cunning and clever orator.

 

The same people who keep saying "you are a sheep if you trust the government" are here trusting the Hitler government's official speeches, because it plays well into their pre-conceived notion that the Allies are the bad guys because in the Cold War that ensued, the "good guys", especially the US, went on waging a ton of proxy wars to stop the enemy's ideology (communism) from spreading, from the Vietnam war in the 60s over Central- and South America in the 70s, Afghanistan and the Middle East in the 90s to the Global War on Terror today. This makes them believe Hitler when he said he does not have stocks in the armament industry to be a profiteer of war, but the enemy.

 

Let's examine this "Hitler was a man of peace" meme, shall we?

 

The first thing this "man of peace" did after the Machtergreifung in 1933 was to ban all other political parties. He confirms it himself in his 10.11.1933 Montagenhalle Berlin speech:

 

"Vielleicht wird mancher unter Ihnen sein, der es mir nicht verzeihen kann, dass ich die marxistischen Parteien vernichtete. Aber mein Freund: ich hab die anderen genauso vernichtet!"

 

which translates to:

 

"Perhaps there's one of you here are who is unable to forgive me because I eradicated the Marxist party. But my friend: I have eradicated all other parties likewise!"

 

Earlier on 10th February 1933, he had also said:

 

"Deutsches Volk, gib uns vier Jahre, und ich schwöre dir: So wie wir, und so wie ich in dieses Amt eintrat, so will ich dann gehen."

 

which translates to:

 

"German people, give us four years, and I swear: Just as we, and just as I came into office, so will I then leave it."

 

Indeed, what became of Hitler's promise 4 years later? By 1937 he was dictator for life, and anyone publicly criticizing the Nazi party would be put in a camp, if not executed for treason to the German people, because the NSDAP had been deemed the one and only representative of the German people, as Adolf Hitler attested during the Parteitag in early September 1934:

 

"Denn als unsere Partei gerade sieben Mann hoch war, sprach sie schon zwei Grundsätze aus: Erstens, sie wollte eine wahrhaftige Weltanschauungspartei sein, und zweitens, sie wollte daher kompromisslos die einzige Macht und alleinige Macht in Deutschland."

 

which translates to:

 

"Because back when our party numbered just seven men, she made two basic principles: First, she wanted to be a party with a real world-view, and second, she therefore wanted without compromise the sole power and only power in Germany."

 

and we have Rudolf Hess who made clear in 1934:

 

"Die Partei ist Hitler! Hitler aber ist Deutschland, wie Deutschland Hitler ist!"

 

i.e.: "The Party is Hitler. But Hitler is Germany, as Germany is Hitler!"

 

This "man of peace" was also orchestrator of the Night of the Long Knives, also known as Operation Hummingbird or the Röhm-Putsch, where from June 30th, to July 2nd 1934 Hitler and his wing murdered the wing of the Nazi party he could no longer work well with: At least 85 people, possibly more than a hundred were killed when Hitler carried out a series of political extra-judicial executions intended to consolidate his and his cabinet's absolute hold on power in Germany. Many of those killed were leaders of the Sturmabteilung (SA), the best-known victim was Ernst Röhm, the SA's leader and one of Hitler's longtime supporters and allies. Leading members of the left-wing Strasserist faction of the NSDAP, along with its figurehead, Gregor Strasser, were also killed, as were prominent conservative anti-Nazis such as former Chancellor Kurt von Schleicher and Gustav Ritter von Kahr, who had suppressed Adolf Hitler's Beer Hall Putsch in 1923. Does this look like a peaceful way of conflict-solving to you?

 

Adolf Hitler has had a long trail of blood covered by telling lies to the public. From re-militarizing the entire nation, over claiming German Volksgenossen residing in north-western Czechia (Sudetenland) were being systematically mistreated to the point that annexation or war were the ONLY options; to getting Austria "Heim ins Reich" (and erasing the entire nation's 900 year identity by calling it Ostmark henceforth including even renaming two of its states, Oberösterreich and Niederösterreich to Oberdonau and Niederdonau), historians can list you a long list of demagoguery that would be too long for this post. Encouraged by the passivity of Britain and France (Hitler-Appeasement policy), he wiped yet another nation off the map, namely Czechia, and eventually set his eyes on reclaiming East Prussian territories lost after WW1, including the city of Danzig and the corridor bearing the same name.

 

Let's not forget Hitler's involvement in the Spanish Civil War, especially the bombing of Guernica (a Basque civilian town) under the code name Operation Rügen on April 26, 1937, during which German Luftwaffe planes (part of the Condor Legion) violated the Kriegsvölkerrecht, international laws of armed conflict. Indeed, what were Germans doing in Spain in the 1930s aiding Franco? Perhaps this "peaceful nation" was rehearsing for war?

 

By this point it was clear that German promises to the rest of Europe were worthless. The annexation of Czechia had already proved that despite assurances in Munich that this would be the last (another lie), Hitler intended to continue taking territory he deemed "should be German", having expanded his army around tenfold and his navy in contravention of treaty obligation.

 

Hitler got away with re-militarizing the Rhineland despite this being forbidden according to treaties. He got away with annexing Austria "democratically", despite this being forbidden according to treaties. He got away with annexing the Sudetenland despite this territory belonging to a sovereign nation. He got away with swallowing whole the rest of this sovereign nation next. And now he was trying the same thing with the territory of another sovereign nation - the Danzig corridor in Poland.

 

So this allegation of Hitler "proposing peace solutions to the Poles who rejected them" were in reality very much like a street thug offering to leave me alone if I would just give him $100, and then my wallet, and then my bank account. He was not offering peace solutions because there already was peace. He was making demands to keep the peace, backed by threats.

 

The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, a non-aggression treaty between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, was signed on August 23, 1939, 9 days before the invasion of Poland. Hitler invaded Poland on September 1st, 1939, having already given the order to do so on August 26th. Early in the afternoon of August 31st, Hitler gave the go-ahead order for pre-planned overt operation that faked an attack around 8pm that evening on the German border radio station Gleiwitz to create a false flag excuse for the invasion that began at 4:45 the next morning, September 1st.

 

The next day, September 2nd, France and England notified Germany that the invasion of Poland had triggered a mutual defense treaty between the 3 countries. That didn't change Hitler's mind. Something revisionists won't tell you.

 

On September 3rd, the Nazi government received an ultimatum by the British ambassador demanding a response by eleven o'clock concerning the assurance to withdraw from Polish territory. Even that was ignored. Again, something revisionists will not tell you.

 

Only as a result of all this was Germany declared war by Britain and France. Indeed, this "man of peace" then proceeded to invade a whole host of other nations like Denmark, Netherlands, Luxembourg, Belgium, Norway, Yugoslavia, and Greece within the next 2 years. Again, something revisionists conveniently decide to "overlook", or try justifying by saying a war between two big powers turns smaller countries around them into something akin to "pawns on a chessboard ripe for the taking, only to prevent the opposing power from claiming them".

 

Let's also not forget the fact that Hitler allied himself with the Empire of Japan on September 27, 1940 through the Tripartite Act. Why? They're on the other end of the world, a beyond useless trade partner especially during wartime, so what practical use could an alliance such as this have after the war had started, given that Hitler had already defeated France and sent the British Army across Dunkirk by June 1940? The only logic is if Hitler were following an expansionist geopolitical strategy, specifically in trying to open an eastern front in the Soviet Union (whose western flank he was to invade without warning in summer 1941). The alliance with Japan after WW2 had started is also a slap in the face to any revisionist who insists Germany did not have any international interests, and was only seeking to secure a future for her own people.

 

And speaking of Dunkirk, another revisionist fairy tale is that Hitler halted the Wehrmacht's advance to spare the lives of the British trapped on the beach, as a show of compassion with which he hoped Britain would see reason and accept peace terms. In reality, it was Von Rundstedt and Kluge who ordered the advance halted, primarily because the advancing tanks had overextended themselves, the terrain was marshy, the armor was valuable and still needed for the final assault on France, and Göring had assured Hitler that his Luftwaffe could deal with the stragglers on the beach.

 

Hitler might have been an admirer of the British people due to their anglo-saxon ancestry. But his "many peace offers" revisionists like to remind us were not worth the paper they were written on given this track record, and Winston Churchill, unlike Joseph Stalin, did not fall for them. Stalin did, and how did history reward him for trusting Hitler? Operation Barbarossa, the largest motorized land invasion in the history of mankind that ended up costing over 20 million Soviet lives, and two poorly sourced novels trying to make a quick buck off people 50 years later claiming Hitler's goal of destroying "Judeo-Bolshevism" was but a pre-emptive strike to an invasion of Europe planned by Stalin. Keep in mind the guy had trouble gaining ground in Finland.

 

Finally, let's address the question revisionists ask regarding the hypocrisy of Britain and France, given that they did not declare war on the Soviet Union when she invaded Poland two weeks after Hitler did. Let me begin by saying the Soviet Union was not part of the Allied powers until Operation Barbarossa, so "letting an allied power get away with something" is not the answer. Rather, given that Britain and France had already committed themselves to war with a European superpower and Poland was all but overrun, it would have made little sense to declare war on the largest nation on the planet on top of that as well. A bit like committing to challenging a 6 foot bully to a fist-fight but realizing there's an 8 foot bully nearby beating someone else up as well. In the end, when that bully got attacked by this bully, he was considered a friend until the first bully was brought down. Then a cold war ensued with the surviving bully.

 

The only legitimate question then, is how Britain and France would have acted, had the opposite been the case: the Soviet Union invading Poland first, and Nazi Germany two weeks later. Would their defense treaty have included guaranteeing Poland's safety from a Soviet attack? The answer is no: there was a legal loop-hole that meant the treaty was mostly tailored to respond to German aggression. The idea of the Soviet Union invading Poland, and nothing happening as a result, and then Hitler invading to take back Danzig, and having Britain and France declare war on him wouldn't have sat well with post-war morality. Good thing for the victors then, that Hitler turned out to be an ideological warmonger after all, and Stalin the cold opportunist, rather than the other way round.

Hitler's Invasion of the Soviet Union "was just a pre-emptive strike"

Nazi apologists often argue that Hitler's invasion of the Soviet Union on June 22, 1941 only ended up preceding a planned Europe invasion of Stalin by mere days or at best, weeks. The German invasion of the Soviet Union was thus a preventive war, meaning: Hitler wasn't such a great villain after all - he had only valiantly tried to defend Europe from a Soviet invasion, and because half of Europe did end up becoming part of the East Bloc for the decades that followed anyway, we should, in fact, nevertheless thank Hitler for his actions and crown him Savior of Western Europe from the Red Terror via the heroic deeds and sacrifice of the Wehrmacht and its Axis allies!

 

This is a story primarily cooked up from the books (such as "Icebreaker") of Russian authors Viktor Suvorov (pen name of one Vladimir Bogdanovich Rezun) and Ignor Bunich.

 

Except: It's bullshit.

 

Pic related shows a declassified document proving Stalin was informed by his intelligence about the imminent German attack and he basically told his informant to fuck off.

 

Because Stalin considered the warning to be unfounded and even thought the transmitter of the warning to be an agent of disinformation, the idea that (if he had been preparing to invade Europe) he would have reacted accordingly can be dismissed.

 

We know Stalin continued to wallow in stark denial for the first few weeks after the invasion, refusing to believe Hitler was actually attacking the Soviet Union in full force, refusing to react as expected and give the orders necessary to prepare defenses. We know Stalin executed many of his own close aides and had huge trust issues. So far, except for those two clowns Suvorow and Bunich, no Russian General, ex-pat or anyone far away from the Kremlin's reach has come forward and said: "Yes, Stalin was preparing to invade Europe". No documentary evidence exists, and historians across the world have dismissed this hypothesis with a collective handwave.

 

The handwritten comment in the pic above that Stalin has written across the message of June 1941, can be roughly translated as:

 

"Comrade Merkulov can take this source coming from Luftwaffe Command and stick it up his ass. This is not an informer, but a disinformer."

 

The signature is clearly that of Joseph Stalin.

 

But let's return to this "Viktor Suvorov" for a moment, shall we? Suvorov says the amount of paratroopers the Soviet Union had compared to other nations in the world at that time is proof that they were on the verge of an attack. (see: Suworow, Der Eisbrecher, S. 129) Suvorov dedicates 15 pages of his book just to emphasize how many paratroopers the Soviet Union had. Except he does not provide a SINGLE source. Another proof of Stalin's aggression for Suvorov, are inflatable gliders made out of rubber (ibid, S. 139)

 

In the same page, Suvorov believes the Soviet Union was busy creating tanks that could fly.

 

Don't believe me? Take a look at his flying tank illustration in the book:

 

http://www.h-ref.de/literatur/s/suworow-viktor/flugpanzer.jpg

 

Behold the glorious KT/A-40 Antonov "flying tank".

 

He even goes on to say this was flown by a pilot called Sergei Anochin. Of course, for Suvorov, Hitler's invasion of the Soviet Union forced the country to abandon all these wondrous plans. We find out later that this is nothing but a drawing.

 

Igor Bunich is the guy behind giving this invasion of Stalin the name "Operatsia Groza" or "Operation Thunder" Bunich, too, has failed to provide any archival source for his claims. Both of them are clowns.

 

There is a third book I am aware of, that also tries to cement the revisionist pre-emptive strike hypothesis. Written in German by a retired general of the former East Germany's People's Army (NVA, Nationale Volksarmee), a guy called Bernd Schwipper, the book's 'convincingly serious' long title reads: "Deutschland im Visier Stalins: Der Weg der Roten Armee in den europäischen Krieg und der Aufmarsch der Wehrmacht 1941 - Eine vergleichende Studie anhand russischer Dokumente", which roughly translates to "Germany in Stalin's sights: The Red Army's path into the war in Europe and the deployment of the Wehrmacht 1941 - a comparative study via russian documents"

 

Again we observe the pattern of an absolute who in the academic world suddenly popping up with a supposedly revelatory book and barely getting noticed outside fringe far-right circles. Which leads us to two conclusions: either the guy is a tosser like the rest of 'em, or there is a global cover-up regarding truths that threaten to expose the mainstream narrative. Hmm....tough call for anyone who isn't hoarding excessive amounts of tinfoil. But I am not going to just dismiss a publication without addressing its content, lest someone thing there is no counter except ad hominem, so given that it is in German, I will link you to a German review by Dr. Klaus Hesse that pretty much destroys the book, feel free to use google translate:

 

http://www.vtnvagt.de/images/aktuelles/rezension.pdf

 

You can find out who Dr. Klaus Hesse is, and what his credentials are, here:

 

http://www.vtnvagt.de/index.php/aktuelles/470-rezension-zu-deutschland-im-visier-stalins

 

On the other hand, I still have trouble finding out about the academic qualifications of this (sometimes Dr.) Bernd Schwipper - how interesting...

The Müller-Lachout Document - anatomy of a hoax

This document was forged by the Austrian Emil Lachout, born in 1928. It is not mentioned by many holocaust deniers, probably because even they have concluded it is a fake, as you can see in the German article here (use google translate if you must):

 

http://vho.org/VffG/2004/2/Schwensen166-178.html

 

At the 1988 trial of Ernst Zundel in Toronto, Canada, an Austrian defence witness named Emil Lachout gave sensational testimony. Lachout said he had served under a Major Müller in the military police after the war, and brought with him a document which, he claimed, had been signed by his superior officer in 1948 but had resurfaced only in 1987 (hmm). This document, sometimes known as the Müller-Document, sometimes as the Lachout-document, or an amalgam of both as stated above, was said to have been a circular letter dated October 1, 1948 which stated that “careful Allied investigations had determined that no homicidal gassings ever occurred in the 13 concentration camps listed, that in these cases it had been proven that victim testimonies were false and perpetrator testimonies had been delivered under torture, and that former internees who persisted in saying that there had been homicidal gassings, especially of Jews, should be charged with giving false testimony.”

 

A detailed English refutation of this revisionist hoax can be read at:

 

http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/orgs/austrian/austrian-resistance-archives/lachout-document.html

 

And then there's the book by Brigitte Bailer-Galanda: "The Lachout 'document': Anatomy of a Forgery".

 

Some of the main reasons that it has been identified as fraud are:

 

1) Lachout could never produce the original document for forensic testing and tracing back to source

2) there never was a body called the "militärpolizeilicher Dienst (Military Police Service)", or "alliiertes Militärkommando (Allied Military Command)" in Austria.

3) The 'official stamp' on the forgery reads "Republik Österreich Wachbatallion Wien Kommando". Austria didn't have a military force until 1955.

4) And there certainly was no "Guard Battalion Vienna" in 1948.

5) Lachout signed the document stating he was a Lieutenant. He was born in 1928 which made him 20 at that time. That's too young to hold such a position in the military.

6) Lachout was a civil servant in Vienna. He could therefore not - by law - have served with the Allies.

7) He claimed he worked for the "military police as line officer" from 1947-1955 and was also with the "Mountain Troops" and the gendarmerie where he was promoted to Hauptmann (captain) in 1954. Austria had no armed forces at that time, as already mentioned.

 

In any case, let's just for a second assume the document is legitimate (which it isn't). Where does it say anything about nobody being gassed in Auschwitz, Treblinka, Sobibor, Majdanek, Chemno and Belzec? At best it would correct the record of a few thousand gassing victims (most of them from Mauthausen), but nowhere close to achieve any kind of significant revision of anything. So once again - what did Emil Lachout want to achieve with this except 5 minutes of fame at the Zündel trial?

The myths about the Waffen-SS

This next subsection will debunk some of the myths surrounding Nazi Germany the far right clings on to.

 

A frequent myth that persists to this day is that the SS were the elite forces of the German Army. Except they weren't. The SS were the armed forces of the Nazi Party, and were never integrated into the German Army.

 

Nor were the SS particularly "elite." The initial SS divisions were trained poorly and fought poorly in the campaigns in Poland, France, and the Balkans. The later Waffen SS panzer and panzergrenadier divisions got first call for men and equipment, so they were larger in size and better-armed than Wehrmacht troops, and were able to fight better. But most of the rest of the SS divisions, drawn from somewhat less "Aryan" manpower sources, were not first in line for weapons and skilled men, and did not fight as well. The 30th SS Division, made of renegade Russians, actually mutinied...

 

The SS Muslim divisions, raised in Yugoslavia to butcher other Yugoslavians, did so poorly that they were disbanded.

 

The SS men that fought to the end in Berlin, oddly enough, were mostly French, Dutch, Norwegian, and Danish renegades, who had nothing to live for, knowing that capture would merely be a ticket to a treason trial in the nation they had disowned and dishonored by their service for Hitler.

 

Other SS units that compiled records of sadism and brutality without any battlefield merit included the Dirlewanger Penal Brigade, an outfit made of convicted criminals, led by a convicted sex offender. Their chief accomplishments were the butchery of partisans in Russia and Warsaw.

 

And finally, most of the KZ (concentration camp = Konzentrationslager, sometimes abbreviated KL) staff were the bottom of the German manpower barrel: thugs, often police and army rejects without the capacity or inclination for skilled work, some declining into petty criminals who saw in KZ service the opportunity for graft and the exercise of power. Some were real sadists, like Wilhelm Boger, the flogger.

 

Most, however, as Roger Manvell wrote, "were insensitive and brutalized morons of a kind any nation can produce if the streets, prisons, and brothels are scoured. The best men of Germany were on the fighting fronts, or doing skilled work in the factories. The worst gravitated towards the concentration camps, or into the guard rooms and interrogation cells of the Gestapo."

 

Manvell further writes in his book 'SS and Gestapo,' that the SS "inherited the men of the poorest quality whom Hitler could spare from his failing battlefronts, and they incorporated the waste products in manpower of the occupied countries in the form of collaborators prepared to join forces with them for what they could get out of the camps in graft and petty theft."

 

He adds: "the most alarming fact about the SS is that it was manned, rank and file, by very ordinary men and women of many nationalities, most of them below normal intelligence, leavened here and there by sadists who reached instinctively for victims, by criminals who welcomed a quick release from jail and the chance for graft, and above them at the 'top,' by intellectuals who savored the opportunity of power.

   The SS attracted the kind of people who were in one way or another the misfits in normal society, from whatever level or class or nation they might originate. They were, whatever their psychological motive, the enemies of the people, and the destroyers of their liberties. This is the final outcome of a police state, that the best must be destroyed at the hands of the worst."

 

Of course, military history buffs might criticize me for not making it clear that the SS in the camps was a DIFFERENT branch of the SS, i.e. not the Waffen-SS - that the camps were run by the Allgemeine SS, who didn't have the same amount of military training. Still, a great many concentration camp guards and staff were transferred from frontline Waffen-SS divisions, e.g. Mengele came from 'Wiking' division. However, the Aktion Reinhard camps were entirely different, and their staff came either from SSPF Lublin, thus from the Police, or from the Allgemeine-SS and Police via T4 euthanasia program (eg Stangl). I wonder what the millions who fought and died as German soldiers would have said if someone had told them that scum like Christian Wirth and Kurt Franz belonged to the elite forces of the German army…

 

Another popular myth is that there were females serving in the Schutzstaffel. According to German scholar Johannes Schwartz, who was recently a Revson Fellow at the US Holocaust Memorial Museum, most women guards in German concentration camps who are listed as being members of the SS actually were not.

 

No female camp guard could become member of the SS. Even Irma Grese, the infamous wardress from Ravensbrück, Auschwitz and Bergen-Belsen, was not a member of the SS. They were never given any positional titles or equivalent ranks of the SS, like Obersturmbannfuhrer, etc. Rather, they were known as "SS-Helferinnen" (SS-helpers) and the supervisory levels within the SS-Helferin were as follows:

 

Chef Oberaufseherin, "Chief Senior Overseer" [Ravensbrück]

Lagerführerin, "Camp Leader"

Oberaufseherin, "Senior Overseer"

Erstaufseherin, "First Guard" [Senior Overseer in some satellite camps]

Rapportführerin, "Report Leader"

Arbeitsdienstführerin, "Work Recording Leader"

Arbeitseinsatzführerin, "Work Input Overseers"

Blockführerin, "Block Leader"

Kommandoführerin, "Work Squad Leader" [Senior Overseer in some satellite camps]

Hundeführerin, "Dog Guide Overseer"

Aufseherin, "Overseer"

Arrestführerin, "Arrested Overseer"

 

The SS was a male organization, which included women only in the so called SS-Sippengemeinschaft, the SS clan, if they married an SS man. Female camp guards were members of the female auxiliary of the Waffen-SS (weibliches Gefolge der Waffen-SS, SS-Helferinnen). They were Reich employees and they could get three different Reich employees grades.

 

After a three-month probation period, a Reich eagle was sewn on the left sleeve. This sovereign insignia showed that they were employees of the Reich. Their grade as simple camp guards was indicated by a black triangle with a bar on the lower part of the sleeve. If they attained a higher service grade, then a star was added. In March 1944, the service grades were further differentiated. Thus female superintendents, chief camp guards (Oberaufseherinnen) could be recognized by three aluminum-colored stripes on the sleeve and silver-gray piping on the edge of the cap. Although the female camp guards had no SS rank, their service grades were based on a military hierarchy.

 

Courtesy of Johannes Schwartz

Adolf Hitler's admiration of Islam

Friendly reminder to all White Supremacist National Socialist Aryan racists, that their beloved Führer was an admirer of the Mohammedan faith. Pic related shows his meeting with the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Mohammed Amin al-Husseini, at the top left in December 1941. He is seen on the right, greeting Bosnian Waffen-SS volunteers in November 1943 (to his left is SS General Karl-Gustav Sauberzweig), and the bottom shows Bosniak soldiers of the SS 13 Division, reading Husseini's pamphlet "Islam and Judaism", wearing one of those funny stereotypical hats you call Fez.

 

Back in the summer of 1940 and again in February 1941, al-Husseini submitted to the Nazi German Government a draft declaration of German-Arab cooperation, containing a clause: Germany and Italy recognize the right of the Arab countries to solve the question of the Jewish elements, which exist in Palestine and in the other Arab countries, as required by the national and ethnic (völkisch) interests of the Arabs, as the Jewish question was solved in Germany and Italy.[1] In the final draft, which differed only marginally from al-Husseini's original proposal, the Axis powers declared their readiness to approve the elimination (Beseitigung) of the Jewish National Home in Palestine.[2]

 

Hmm, this takes a big dump on the Haavara Agreement and all crackpot theories about Adolf Hitler being the "greatest friend of Israel" now, doesn't it? In short, Jews were not simply to be driven out of the German sphere but would be hunted down and destroyed even beyond it.’[3]

 

Here's just some of what Hitler had to say about Islam, Europe and Christianity: "Had Charles Martel not been victorious at Poitiers -already, you see, the world had already fallen into the hands of the Jews, so gutless a thing Christianity! -then we should in all probability have been converted to Mohammedanism, that cult which glorifies the heroism and which opens up the seventh Heaven to the bold warrior alone. Then the Germanic races would have conquered the world. Christianity alone prevented them from doing so."[4]

 

I wonder how stomach churning it is for many of these Hitler fanboys to see men in SS uniforms praying toward Mecca?

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fo99fIsMOI [video has been removed for violating YouTube's policy on hate speech]

 

Of course, for completeness sake it has to be noted that Hitler's religious views changed over time. For instance, back in his speech delivered at Stuttgart on the 15th of February 1933, he defended the Christian image of National Socialism in an attempt to clear it off any charges from being atheistic.

 

Sources:

[1]: page 190 of Lewis, Bernard (2002) [1984]. The Jews of Islam. Greenwood Publishing Group. ISBN 978-1-4008-1023-9

[2]: page 151-152 of Lewis, Bernard (1999). Semites and Anti-Semites: An Inquiry into Conflict and Prejudice. W.W. Norton & Company. ISBN 978-0-393-31839-5.

[3]: Browning 2004, p. 406 drawing on Yisraeli 1974, p. 310.

[4]: page 667 of Cameron, Norman; Stevens, R. H. Stevens; Weinberg, Gerhard L.; Trevor-Roper, H. R. (2007). Hitler's Table Talk 1941-1944: Secret Conversations

The myth that Britain bombed civilian targets before Germany bombed civilian targets

Another, rather pathetic attempt revisionists make in trying to exculpate Germany as an aggressor of any kind is the claim that it was, in fact, the British, who bombed civilians before Germany bombed civilians. Therefore, Germany only started bombing civilians as a retaliatory measure and the real aggressors with complete disregard for human life were the Allies.

 

Pic related shows Warsaw burning after being saturated with German bomb raids in September 1939 during the Polenfeldzug. I sure am curious what proofs deniers have to offer that would place Allied bombing of civilian targets on a date earlier than this. If they say "British bombing of German Wilhelmshaven on September 4th, 1939", they will lose, because on 1 September 1939, at 04:40, the Luftwaffe bombed the Polish town of Wieluń, destroying 75% of the city and killing close to 1,200 people, most of them civilians.

 

So, the revisionists will carefully move the goalposts from "first bombing" to "first strategic bombing of a major city". But even here, they lose, because of the bombing of Warsaw:

 

As the German Army approached Warsaw on 8 September 1939, 140 Junkers Ju-87 Stukas attacked the portions of the city on the east bank of the Vistula River and other bombers bombed the Polish Army positions in the western suburbs. On 13 September Luftwaffe level and dive bombers caused widespread fires. Finally, starting at 0800 on 25 September, Luftwaffe bombers under the command of Major Wolfram Freiherr von Richthofen conducted the largest air raid ever seen by that time, dropping 560 tons of high explosive bombs and 72 tons of incendiary bombs, in coordination with heavy artillery shelling by Army units. The center of Warsaw was badly damaged. Approximately 1,150 sorties were flown by a wide variety of aircraft. By estimates around 20,000 to 25,000 civilians were killed, 40 percent of the buildings in the city were damaged and 10 percent of the buildings destroyed. However, some of the damage was the result of ground artillery fire and not solely caused by aerial bombing—including intense street fighting between German infantry and armor units and Polish infantry and artillery. The September 25 raid was an example of terror bombing, with the aim of breaking Polish morale and forcing a Polish surrender.

 

Of course, the revisionists also have an answer for that: "But the laws of war tolerate bombing cities as long as they are under siege or on the frontline, which was the case with Warsaw or Rotterdam. It has to be recognized that the RAF was the first to target cities or civilian targets, behind the frontline, and thus broke the laws of war."

 

Was Warsaw really on the frontline when it was first bombed on September 1st, 1939? Nope. The troops did not get there till after the 8th, a week later. The Nazis also bombed Wieluri, Frampol, and Kamieniec in Poland killing Polish civilians in September 1939, they bombed 14 cities in France, including Lyons, between May 9 and 10, 1940 and on 14 May 1940 the Luftwaffe bombed Rotterdam, a major city full of civilians, killing over 800 people, destroying the historic city center, which (with the Luftwaffe threatening to terror bomb Utrecht as well) lead to the capitulation of the Dutch, therefore a success when it comes to terror bombing civilian targets for strategic purposes.

 

Now of course, the revisionists will conveniently further move the goalposts and say "well we were talking about whether Germans deliberately bombed British first or whether British deliberately bombed Germans first, and we can guarantee you it was the British who bombed Germans first!" The smirking historical revisionist will then proceed to point out the following date: September 4th, 1939. And name you the city: Wilhelmshaven. He might go to say: It was the first RAF Bomber Command raid of World War II, where ten Bristol Blenheims of No. 110 and No. 107 Squadrons attacked units of the German fleet at low altitude. Except...what he will not say, is that said attack ended in the squadron losing half their number without achieving any significantly damaging hits. Would you consider a terrorist blowing himself up in a crowd but managing to kill none except himself a successful terrorist attack worth remembering compared to one where people actually do get killed?

 

Therefore, the widely accepted view is that Germany successfully bombed British civilians first when a bomber flying over London lost its way and bombed a number of houses instead of factories, killing civilians. In retaliation Britain lead an all out bombing raid on Berlin killing a handful of civilians. Thus, it was Germany who started the bombing of CIVILIANS between itself and Britain, and that's what is considered an atrocity - not any successful or failed attempts to bomb military targets. So to answer the question, only between Britain and Germany, was Britain the first to intentionally order the bombing of non-military targets in German cities, but the Germans were the first to unintentionally kill British civilians, and intentionally kill allied civilians in their bombing raids in Poland, France, Norway, Holland and Belgium. But it gets a bit more complicated because the first deliberate British attack on a German city itself, rather than ON a military target IN a city, was the attack on Mannheim on 16 December 1940. But by then thousands of British civilians had been already killed by the Luftwaffe in what is known as "the Blitz". As Richard Overy puts it: "The raids on Berlin were in reality retaliation for the persistent bombing of British conurbations and the high level of British casualties that resulted. In July 258 civilians had been killed, in August 1075; the figures included 136 children and 392 women."

 

To conclude:

 

First intentional bombing of a civilian target: Germany (on Poland, September 1st, 1939)

First intentional and successful strategic bombing of a city: Germany (on Warsaw, throughout Sep. 39)

Only Germany vs. Britain first intentional bombing of a military target: Britain (September 4th, 1939)

Only Germany vs. Britain first unintentional yet successful bombing of civilians: Germany (Aug 24, 1940)

Only Germany vs. Britain first intentional (and successful) bombing of civilians: Britain

 

While we're at it, let's go back a few years to Hitler's involvement in the Spanish Civil War: the bombing of Guernica (a Basque civilian town) under the code name Operation Rügen on April 26, 1937, during which German Luftwaffe planes (part of the Condor Legion) violated the Kriegsvölkerrecht, international laws of armed conflict. Or even further back, say, couple decades, shall we? Because Germans also turned out to be aggressors during WW1:

 

In WW1, the first civilian target to be bombed from the air was the Belgian city of Antwerp. This city was bombed during the night of 24-25 August 1914. Instead of targeting the surrounding fortresses, the Zeppelin LZ 25's intention was to bomb the clearly distinguishable historical centre of the city. After dropping approximately ten bombs, ten people were killed and forty injured. The British Royal Naval Air Service (RNAS) undertook the first Entente strategic bombing missions on 22 September 1914 and 8 October, when it bombed the Zeppelin bases in Cologne and Düsseldorf. On 19 January 1915 two German Zeppelins dropped 24 fifty-kilogram (110 lb) high-explosive bombs and ineffective three-kilogram incendiaries on the English towns of Great Yarmouth, Sheringham, King's Lynn, and the surrounding villages; in all, four people were killed, 16 injured. London was bombed in May and in July 1916, the Kaiser allowed directed raids against urban centers, sparking 23 airship raids in 1916 in which 125 tons of ordnance were dropped, killing 293 people and injuring 691. Gradually British air defenses improved and the Germans also introduced large bomber aircraft for bombing Britain. The British developed an Independent Force of long-range bombers that could bomb Berlin, but the war ended before these raids began. After the war, bombers' increasing sophistication led to the general belief that aerial bombing would both destroy cities and be impossible to stop; as Stanley Baldwin stated in a 1932 speech, "The bomber will always get through".

 

I want to stress that my intention is to not exculpate Allied war crimes here, least of all Bomber Harris. What I want to do, is combat the fact twisting (who did what first), intent speculation, death toll exaggeration and fake quotes (Churchill, Sefton Delmer...) deniers usually use to spin a narrative to make it stick out as the opposite of historic consensus.

The Firebombing of Dresden and Tagesbefehl-47

The bombing of Dresden was a British/American aerial bombing attack on Dresden, capital of Saxony, that took place in 2 raids between February 13th and 15th, 1945: 722 heavy bombers of the British Royal Air Force (RAF) and 527 of the United States Army Air Forces (USAAF) dropped more than 3,900 tons of high-explosive bombs and incendiary devices on the city. Three more USAAF air raids followed, two occurring on March 2nd aimed at the city's railroad marshaling yard and one small raid on April 17th, aimed at industrial areas.

 

Fact # 1: The allied bombing on Dresden killed fewer people (22,700–25,000 deaths) than the German air-raids on London during the Blitz (40,000 deaths)

 

Fact # 2: In the entire allied bombing raids over Germany, fewer German civilians were killed (305,000 - 635,000) than Soviet civilians who were starved to death by the German siege of Leningrad (1,000,000).

 

"Revisionists" are fond of dismissing the documents they don't like as forgeries, under the flimsiest of pretenses. Yet do they fall for forgeries themselves? The answer is an emphatic "Yes!"

 

One of the most famous forgeries related to far-right history revisionism (as made popular on places like Youtube with "documentaries" like Hellstorm) is the so-called Tagesbefehl-47 and it concerns the number of victims of the Dresden bombing - the famous amateur researcher David Irving fell for it. And after him, many revisionists relied on the bogus Dresden death toll, contained in this "document". In fact, revisionists shamelessly embellish the death toll even further:

 

(some revisionist quotes about Dresden) "The real number of victims in Dresden alone were in excess of 350,000, possibly as high as 500,000! This in one German city alone! More than 260.000 bodies and residues of bodies were counted. But those who perished in the centre of the city can't be traced. Approx. 500.000 children, women, the elderly, wounded soldiers and the animals of the zoo were murdered in one night."

 

In 1977 the Tagesbefehl-47, which had long been strongly suspected as a forgery (e.g. by Max Seydewitz), was conclusively proven to be so: a copy of the original document was discovered by Götz Bergander. Bergander had found a reservist, Werner Ehlich, who reported that not only that he had had the original in his hands, but, as a then member of the Dresden police force, had also made one typed and one hand-written copy of it. The copy was still in Ehlich's possession. It started 'In order to be able to counter wild rumours....', and proceeded to list all the details listed in the version of TB 47 used by Irving: with one crucial difference: In this authentic Ehrlich copy the death figure was put at 20,204, the expected dead at 25,000, and the number cremated at 6,865. What had clearly happened was that someone had doctored the document by simply adding a '0' to the end of each number it contained. What Irving had claimed as authentic documentary evidence turned out to be a crude forgery. It was not until 1977 in Germany that Irving finally described TB 47 as a Nazi fake, as Seydewitz had argued all along. But it was not until 1995 that Irving came clean with his English language readers as well, and made clear that TB 47 was in fact a product of the Propagandaministerium's 'machinations'. Despite having been finally forced to disown TB 47, Irving has continually kept the legend of a higher death toll alive and sown the seeds of doubt amongst the unwary and the ill-informed.

 

Another lie holocaust deniers perpetuate, is the MYTH that Dresden was filled to the brim with refugees fleeing the advance of the Soviet Red Army in the East.

 

As early as 1953, the Dresden civil defence engineer Georg Feydt had struggled to defeat the myth of the city saturated with a million refugees. He wrote: ‘I cannot imagine a more peaceful and calm picture than Dresden on the afternoon of 13 February 1945.’ Rudolf Bergander likewise confirmed from his own memory that at no point did Dresden become crammed with refugees. Bergander proceeded to calculate that the number of refugees in Dresden could sensibly be put at 200,000. To have accommodated some half a million or more refugees would have required one of two measures, neither of which took place: either forced billeting in private homes on a massive scale, or huge temporary camps.

 

The Dresden historian Friedrich Reichert went one step further. He likewise quoted witnesses who attested that no refugees were billeted in Dresden houses and that no billeting took place in the parks or squares. 567,000 were resident in the city at the time. To that he added 100,000 refugees. This was already a very considerable number in view of the city’s overall population; but nowhere near the ‘one or two million’ suggested by Irving in 1995.

 

Exactly 17,295 bodies had been buried in the Heidefriedhof cemetary, including the ashes of the 6,865 people burnt on the Altmarkt. In addition to the 3,462 burials in the Johannisfriedhof cemetary, 514 were buried in the Neue Annenfriedhof cemetary. This gives a total of 21,271 registered burials.

 

Between October 1945 and late 1957, a further 1,557 bodies were recovered, as quoted by Reichert. Reichert adds (1994) that not a single body had been found since 1990, despite heavy building and despite archaeological excavations on the Altmarkt and around the Taschenberg Palace.

 

When Reichert added the sums together he came to the inescapable conclusion that the final number of deaths for the raids of February 13/14 and April 17 1945 was 25,000, as I mentioned earlier.

 

Another revisionist allegation is that Dresden was a civilian city, and the Allied command targeting this city on purpose was because of a new terror bombing strategy with the intent of inflicting mass civilian casualties. They base this claim on the testimony of one Kurt Vonnegut, but they are wrong. Germany had begun moving troops and war material to Dresden precisely because it had been spared for so long. Kurt Vonnegut survived the fire bombing as a POW, but he was wrong about Dresden when he wrote a wrenching tale that Dresden was fire bombed so that a new technique could be tried on a city that hadn't yet been reduced to rubble. This theory of his is not supported by the records of the decision making process that led to this event. The real death toll of 25,000 is relatively low because the Germans had a very effective system for getting people under cover during air raids, and Dresden was at the limit of the RAF and USAAF's range, so they had more than their usual amount of time to take cover. The majority of casualties were civilian refugees who had the least preparation and experience for doing so and they tried to use whatever cover they could find. That Kurt Vonnegut survived on the surface (as a POW and hence of low priority for the Germans) should tell you something in that regard.

 

The bottom line of all this is, while the bombing of Dresden was a tragedy, it DID NOT claim six figures, therefore revisionists who often claim to know history better than "court historians" have been objectively proven to be ideology-driven falsifiers of history. Dresden is a case study where you realize what kind of hypocrites these people are: the same people who question historical accuracy regarding the death toll of the holocaust are here busy pushing vastly inflated death tolls with piss-poor sources when it comes to German casualties. Just like James Bacque and his "Eisenhower death camps".

 

Incidentally, if deniers focused on Operation Gomorrah, the bombing of Hamburg, they could make a better case as Hamburg's death toll is higher.

Another denier claim: Eisenhower created death camps to kill 1-2 million German P.O.W.s

The claim, that 1 million German prisoners of war, rather than upto 56,000 (the highest estimate accepted by historians) dying in US captivity after World War II, were "casually genocided" in Eisenhower's rhine meadow camps ("Rheinwiesenlager") is a claim put forth by James Bacque in his book "Other Losses". But who is James Bacque? A philosophy major (!) from the University of Toronto, who also seems to hold a Bachelor's degree in history. Fair enough, but what did the man proceed to do with his bachelor's history degree for the next few decades after earning it? You guessed it, nothing. Bacque instead proceeded to become a fiction writer and essayist before finally turning his attention in 1989, to the fate of German soldiers held as POWs by the Allies after World War II. He then wrote this book, and is now hailed by the far right (not necessarily holocaust deniers, but Wehrmacht fanboys and those who spend great amounts of time trying to track down every war crime committed by the allies) as some kind of investigative journalist exposing the deliberate "casual" mass murder of upto 1 million German POWs by Eisenhower and subordinates. 1 million....sound familiar? The official Auschwitz death toll is 1.1 to 1.5 million. The intent is clear: creating an allied Auschwitz.

 

Mr. Bacque misread (I'll leave to you whether it was deliberate or not) the documents he based his conclusions on and then coaxed a half-blind old man into confirming his reading. What’s utterly absurd is the notion that about one million or more German POWs could have died in US prison camps without such catastrophe leaving a distinguishable mark in German oral history (while there’s little if anything about this subject, there’s a lot about the horrors of Soviet captivity in the gulags), in the records of German state administration (which in the 1950s went out of its way to establish the fate of prisoners of war in Allied hands) and in the works of German historians, including Rüdiger Overmans and Paul Carell, who have written extensively about the fate of German POWs in Allied hands. Paul Carell, a former Nazi propagandist by the name of Paul Karl Schmidt, whose works about the war are dedicated to glorifying the German soldier, would have been the first to decry a crime of such magnitude if there had been any evidence that it occurred instead of leaving it to a Canadian fiction author to do so in the 1990s.

 

After the publication of Bacque's book, a panel of historians gathered for a symposium in the Eisenhower Center for American Studies at the University of New Orleans from December 7–8, 1990 to review Bacque's work. The historians concluded that the work:

 

- misuses and misreads documents

- ignores contrary evidence

- made no attempt to see the evidence he has gathered in relation to the broader situation

- puts words into the mouths of the subjects of his oral history

 

Academic reviewers question three major aspects of Bacque's work: his claims that there was no post-war food shortage in other European countries; Bacque's estimate of the number of German deaths; and the allegation that Eisenhower was deliberately vindictive.

 

Many German soldiers were sick and wounded at the time of their surrender, and Bacque does not place the plight of the German prisoners within the context of the grim situation in Western Europe in 1945 and 1946.

 

R.J. Rummel, a scholar of 20th-century atrocities, has written that "Bacque misread, misinterpreted, or ignored the relevant documents and that his mortality statistics are simply impossible."

 

More recently, writing in the Encyclopedia of Prisoners of War and Internment, S. P. MacKenzie states, "That German prisoners were treated very badly in the months immediately after the war […] is beyond dispute. All in all, however, Bacque's thesis and mortality figures cannot be taken as accurate".

 

Eisenhower biographer Stephen Ambrose, in a 1991 New York Times book review, claimed that "when scholars do the necessary research, they will find Mr. Bacque's work to be worse than worthless. It is seriously—nay, spectacularly—flawed in its most fundamental aspects. […] Mr. Bacque is wrong on every major charge and nearly all his minor ones. Eisenhower was not a Hitler, he did not run death camps, German prisoners did not die by the hundreds of thousands, there was a severe food shortage in 1945, there was nothing sinister or secret about the "disarmed enemy forces" designation or about the column "other losses." Mr. Bacque's "missing million" were old men and young boys in the Volkssturm (People's Militia) released without formal discharge and transfers of POWs to other allies control areas."

 

I want to add that conditions in the camps improved and, even more important, there was an enormous effort to release these POWs as quickly as possible. By the Fall of 1945 most of the camps were empty.

 

A book-length disputation of Bacque's work, entitled "Eisenhower and the German POWs", appeared in 1992, featuring essays by British, American, and German historians.

 

Bacques 2nd book, "Crimes and Mercies" is no better. He claims the Allies fabricated the worldwide food shortage, that the "Genocide committed against the Germans" was due to “Anglo-Saxon militarism” and that English speaking nations were filled with “warlike peoples”. He gets numbers such as 9.3 million Germans being deliberately starved by the Americans and uses the same botched logic that he used in Other Losses. He blames the entire thing on Eisenhower, saying that he continued the "Morgenthau Plan" and that he “assured the prolonged starvation of Germans.”

 

Deniers love bringing up Morgenthau, conveniently forgetting that the plan was abandoned when public outcry forced its cancellation. Food supplies were short everywhere in Europe. The British rationed meat and other food products until 1954.

 

There you have it. Many historians disagree with this man's novels. We can safely conclude that this book does not belong on the hallowed history shelves which only have place for truth and reality, rather than fabricated numbers and false conclusions. It belongs into the same garbage bin that already holds a copy of Thomas Goodrich's "Hellstorm" and Viktor Suvorov's "Icebreaker".

 

As for the gulags...consider this: The death rate for Russian POW's in German custody was 60-65%. The death rate for Germans in Russian custody was 38%. That is a fairly massive gap. The Russian gulags were awful places, but the German treatment of the Soviet POW's was genocidal: massacres and documented deliberate starvation, which is why Russian POWs are part of the 11 million holocaust death toll.

 

If you want to find out how German soldiers really died; when, where and by whose hand, then the books you should be reading are respected German military historian Dr. Rüdiger Overmans' "Soldiers behind barbed wire. German prisoners of war of World War II" (2000) and "German Military Losses in World War II" (2004), with the latter being the most complete reference work about German casualties in WW II. It is historiographic tomes like these that separate real historians from jokers like James Bacque and Thomas Goodrich.

Concluding World Jewish Conspiracy theories

Pic related is photographic evidence of how humans being loaded into cattle cars for transport very often arrived dead at their destination. and were pulled from the wagons. The CFR logo on the wagon suggests Căile Ferate Române, the state railway carrier of Romania, a country whose dictator Ion Antonescu was an ally of Hitler. In Romania were murdered in various forms, between 280,000 and 380,000 Jews on Romanian soil and in the war zone of Bessarabia, Bukovina and in the Transnistria Governorate.

 

Concluding the aforementioned section:

 

I have debunked the "Ashkenazi Jews are Khazars" theory

I have shown how little baptised, irreligious Karl Marx and even his parents have in common with Judaism

I have debunked the Kalergi Plan

I have shown that Churchill knew and spoke out about the holocaust

I have shown that Eisenhower knew and spoke out about the holocaust

I have exposed fake quotes deniers have created around Ilya Ehrenburg, Jacob Rader Marcus, Martin Broszat, Yehuda Bauer, Simon Wiesenthal, Voltaire, and Sefton Delmer

I have shown how the Rothschild family isn't controlling the world after all

I have debunked the Kaufman-Plan, Hooton Plan and large parts of the Morgenthau Plan

I have debunked Robert Faurisson and Felderer's allegations on the Anne Frank diary being a hoax

I have shown Elie Wiesel's tattoo and exposed an entire movement that tried to slander him

I have demonstrated how deniers use novel excerpts and newspaper clippings to attack historians

I have dismissed the Jewish "Declaration of War" on Germany in 1933 as tabloid sensationalism

I have shown the lack of scholarship regarding the impact some low profile economic boycotts really had

I have shown there is truth to Nazi manufacture of soap from corpses

I have shown Jews, in fact, do not control the world, not even the western world

I have exposed photographic fakes holocaust deniers themselves create to then blame Soviets or others without providing source

I have debunked denier allegations on some famous holocaust photos, like Judenaktion in Ivangorod, Der Letzte Jude von Winnitsa or Simon Toncman's Buchenwald photo

I have debunked various claims of Hitler being a man of peace and Britain and France the warmongers

I have debunked "Operation Groza" and "Hitler's invasion of the Soviet Union was a pre-emptive strike"

I have exposed the Müller-Lachout document as a hoax

I have debunked various myths regarding the SS

I have shown not just the Nazis' but even Hitler's admiration of Islam throwing a wrench into the workings of today's White Nationalist identity that almost universally condemns any and all things Islam

I have debunked the accusation of Britain dropping bombs on civilian targets before Germany

I have debunked the vastly inflated numbers regarding the death toll of Allied bombing on Dresden and exposed Irving's deceptions

I have debunked the vastly inflated numbers regarding the death toll of the Eisenhower camps and exposed Bacque's novel for the fiction it is

I have made a case of German prisoners of war in gulags having a higher rate of survival than Soviet POWs under German control.