Re-examining the Holocaust

Intro: This post is an expanded version of a response I made to an article on the site Unz.com, about an article on the so-called “Devil Doctor of Auschwitz”, Dr Josef Mengele, who, as a new book points out, didn’t do half or a quarter of the crimes attributed to him. As usual, I am not responsible for any fights, quarrels, misunderstandings or whatnot that might break out as a result of divergent opinions/misunderstandings of what I have to say.

**************************************

My own position on the Holocaust has been evolving and changing over the years. I have never believed the six million Jews killed at any point*, but I started out from the idea that an organised attempt to massacre the Jews of Europe had been undertaken by the Nazis. Nor did I accept at any point the claim that six million Jews were gassed, because, well, that was never a claim made even by the Holocaust official story, which only claims a total Jewish death toll, from all causes put together, including disease, beatings, overwork, starvation, shooting, natural deaths in the camps from old age, as well as gassing, of six million**.

But I did accept, as a starting point, that a systematic attempt to murder the Jews of Europe had been made. Which standpoint I have found myself drastically amending over the years.

One strange thing I found out almost immediately: even according to the official story, until the Wannsee Conference of January 1942 at which the Endlösung (Final Solution) to the “Jewish Problem” was allegedly first discussed, no systematic attempt at mass murder of Jews had allegedly taken place. Why? Assuming the Nazis were determined to wipe the Jewish people (I won’t say “race”) off the face of the earth, should they not have been doing this from the moment they came into power, or at least since the late 1930s? Why wait till 1942, when the British were still unbeaten, the effort to eliminate the USSR had failed, Amerikastan had been added to their list of enemies, and any realistic government should be focused on winning the war, not pouring money and effort into a pointless campaign of extermination? (Yes, pointless, even according to the official story; it has SS General Walther Schellenberg claiming that since “only a third of the Jews were under our control, it was…worse than a folly.”) How did this tally with the official account, since said official account also claimed the Nazis were monsters of efficient evil to destroy whom anything, including the mass destruction of German cities, was justified?

It didn’t.

Oh, but, I was then told by Lawrence Rees’ Auschwitz, the Nazis didn’t start out with the object of extermination of the Jews: they intended instead to “resettle” them outside Europe to get rid of them. Perhaps in Palestine, perhaps in Madagascar, but out of Europe. (So how exactly, I asked myself, was this different from the zionist project and the Balfour declaration of 1917, both of which also wanted all Jews to be shifted off elsewhere out of Europe? It wasn’t.) Anyway, so says Rees, the war forced the Germans to abandon those plans, so they had a “storage” problem. Poles had to be shifted out of their houses to make way for Germans to be settled in the annexed part of Poland. Those Poles had to be accommodated by shifting Jews out of Jewish housing. And in order to do that the Jews had to be put somewhere, or killed if there was nowhere to put them. Hence Auschwitz and the death camps of Sobibor, Treblinka and Belzec (I don’t recall that Rees mentioned Majdanek, but it’s been years since I read his book). Inescapable conclusion from Rees’ own logic: assuming that there had been a deliberate attempt to exterminate Jews at all, it had nothing to do with a predetermined plan but entirely owing to the pressure of circumstances.

Let me clarify at this point that when I say “organised attempt to exterminate all Jews”, I mean exactly that and only that. I am not addressing the question of whether Jews were hated in Europe at the time, how extensive that hatred was, or how justified or otherwise. That is a different matter altogether; I will only say here that Nazis – that fascists of all kinds – can only survive by assiduously building up and maintaining a vulnerable minority as a scapegoat and target for public anger. In this article I will focus on the question of whether the Nazis had set out in a planned, organised manner to murder all the Jews they got their hands on.

After all, that’s what they’re supposed to have done, right? That’s what the zionazi pseudostate in Occupied Palestine uses as a shield for its own crimes to this day, right? That’s why assorted vermin, including Pence and Putin, went to the zionazi pseudostate to grovel in fealty before war criminal and zionazi “prime minister” Nazinyahu, isn’t that so?

But had there been a deliberate plan to exterminate all Jews? All?

Here again we come up with a problem. In Occupied France, with a huge French Jewish population, the Nazis didn’t (per Rees, again) deport a single French Jew. Not one! The Vichy French regime, and the local British administration in the occupied Channel Islands (Jersey and Guernsey), picked out and deported foreign Jews – principally German and Austrian refugees – but their own Jewish citizens weren’t touched. Rees even says that if the French and Channel Brutish had left the Jews in their countries alone there was next to nothing the Germans could have done to deport them to the camps. Danish Jews were ignored till late 1944, and then the Danes were tipped off well in time (Rees says this was deliberate) to smuggle them across the North Sea to Sweden. Rich Jews who had the money to buy their freedom, or to at least buy better treatment, were freed and allowed to leave, or sent to less onerous concentration camps like Theresienstadt instead of a place like, say, Auschwitz. Nor were Jewish prisoners of war taken from the western allies treated any different from the rest of the (western) prisoners. This was fairly strange, if you believe a systematic Jewish eradication was planned.

But who would any systematic Jewish eradication help, actually? The Nazis? How the hell would it help them? Keeping the Jews as a convenient target of public anger to blame for everything would help. Getting rid of them would help not at all, because it would remove the scapegoat any fascist regime (as in India, where the fascist Modi regime today blames all its endless failures on Muslims and secular Hindus) needs to distract attention. It would, however, help only one lot: the Zionists. It was, after all, the Zionists who hated Jews at least as much as the Nazis did (as one of the last surviving original Zionists, Uri Avnery, candidly admitted in his column). It was the Zionists who had, before WWI, gone on a hegira to the governments of East Europe begging them to oppress their Jews in order to compel them to emigrate to Theodor Herzl’s planned Judenstaat. And of the Jews who were murdered in the Holocaust, the vast majority, if not all, were anti-Zionist Jews who were available to be murdered, well, because they didn’t emigrate to Herzl’s planned Judenstaat. Over the course of WWII/the Holocaust Jews went from being majority anti Zionist to pro Zionist, mostly because the majority of anti Zionist Jews were killed off by the Nazis.

How the hell did this make sense if the official story were correct?

When I dug deeper more problems emerged. Some objections could be safely disregarded, like the fake gas chambers at Auschwitz. It is true that the “gas chambers” at Auschwitz are fake, and Holocaust deniers make much of the fact that they are fake. But this does not mean that the Holocaust did not happen. It does not even mean that there were no gas chambers at Auschwitz. Rees notes that the Nazis blew up the originals and today’s are reproductions, even if not publicly acknowledged as such. Why they are not publicly acknowledged as such is something passing strange; it’s as though the people responsible are afraid that if they admit to recreating one bit of evidence, they might be considered to have recreated it all. Also, the Nazis themselves destroyed the alleged death camps at Belzec, Treblinka, and Sobibor when they had finished with massacring the Jews sent there, leaving no proof of their existence. These are valid arguments which one can accept as valid arguments. But there’s much, much more.

For instance, before the gas chambers were invented, Jews were killed in other ways. The first attempts at mass shooting were carried out by squads of machine gunners called Einsatzgruppen. If memory serves, there were only four Einsatzgruppen, numbered A through D, and between them they machine gunned tens to hundreds of thousands of Jews to death after the invasion of the USSR. Now this method of mass murder was, so goes the tale, so traumatic to the shooters that they were abandoned. To be humane to the killers, you understand. To put this in perspective, the same SS sadists who beat Jews to death on a whim, medically experimented Jews to death to satisfy their “racial” theories, and, yes, stuffed trainloads of Jews into gas chambers after stripping them naked and murdered them with poison gas were disturbed by the (logically no worse, and perhaps far more humane) act of machine gunning them en masse. This method being perforce abandoned, they were then gassed as a “more efficient” method. But this wasn’t in chambers right away, no; it was by the (extremely inefficient and small scale) method of gas vans where the exhaust was run into the airtight passenger compartment. I can literally not conceive of a more inefficient, time-consuming, and failure-prone method of mass-murder, but that's just me.

Now this gas van method was allegedly invented and pioneered, by one Walter Rauff. Said Rauff, originally a naval officer, transferred to the SS, and was acused of having gassed at least a hundred thousand people. At the close of the war he was captured in Italy but “escaped” from an Amerikastani PoW camp, later reaching Syria. (Come to think of it, it’s amazing how many wanted SS war criminals managed to “escape” from Amerikastani and Brutish PoW camps at the end of WWII, while they never managed to do so from Soviet camps. Total coincidence, I’m sure!) Even Wikipedia admits that while in Syria he was a spy for……Mossad. Managing to escape Syria, this Mossad spy (tell me again how a mass murderer of Jews gets to be a Mossad spy, assuming the official tale is true) went to Chile, there joining up with Klaus Barbie, another “wanted” SS war criminal, both of them now spies for the CIA (or, to be more precise, the West German CIA-puppet intelligence agency) against Communists in South America. According to this same Wikipedia, in 1960 Rauff openly went to West Germany, where he was allegedly still a wanted war criminal, to claim his pension as an ex naval officer,collected said pension, and returned uneventfully to Chile, becoming a Chilean citizen and living out the rest of his life in comfort. Again, tell me, how the hell does all this work?

Then we get to the fact that the same people promoting the Holocaust account aren’t exactly known for their truthful nature in other things. We know now that by 1948 South Korea was planning to invade North Korea, and that the North Korean attack was – at most – pre emptive. We know there was no Tonkin Gulf attack on Amerikastani ships in Vietnam. We know Iraq had no WMDs, Serbia wasn’t massacring anyone in Kosovo, there was no Hutu genocide of Tutsis in Rwanda (the exact opposite, a Tutsi genocide of Hutus, did happen), no Russian invasion of Ukraine, and no gassing of Syrian cities by the Assad government. Since the people promoting the Holocaust account lied about literally everything else, why the hell should we trust them on this point without proof of every single thing they say? What sense does it make to do that?

A few words about Josef Mengele, now:

Some days ago some moron or other on Unz.com insinuated that I had not read Elie Wiesel’s book Night. As I told the idiot, not only had I read it, I had obviously read it with a great deal more attention than said idiot had. And though I was all of seventeen years old when I read it, I had immediately dismissed it as a fraud. Why?

One of the immediate red flags was 14-year-old Wiesel, on arrival at Auschwitz from Hungary in the middle of the night, recognising Mengele among the SS doctors watching the arrivals. Even if Mengele had indeed been there, how the hell would Wiesel have recognised him or known who he was? Even his description of Mengele has nothing in common with the real Mengele’s very pedestrian, unmemorable features: anyone who’s seen a photo of Mengele will have noticed how totally unremarkable he was.

Now, look at this:

Did you notice anyone in particular? Was it the big man in the front of the photo? That's Mengele, right?

Wrong.

In the photo above, Mengele is the one in the middle, with the gap between his teeth. Did you look at him twice? Would you have looked at him twice if I hadn’t just told you who he was? It was more than obvious to me that Wiesel had merely mentioned Mengele to add cachet to his tale. (I’ll not go into the other laugh out loud absurdities in the story, like how arrivals in Auschwitz were allegedly burnt alive in ditches, or how a child was “too light” to be hanged to death by an SS noose, a notion that can only occur to somebody who has no idea how a hanging works.) Let’s just say I was less than surprised many years later when it came out that Wiesel had merely made up and/or stolen the entire story.

Also, let’s assume the Holocaust happened exactly as stated. Then, I have this question about the effectiveness of criminalising Holocaust denial. What does it achieve?

If the Holocaust really happened as claimed (including six million dead Jews, not one less), then there’s as much point of criminalising Holocaust denial as there is in criminalising denial of evolution or a spherical earth. Anyone who denies those is merely a crank and/or an ignoramus and can be laughed at but isn’t jailed, because denying evolution exists or that the earth is round does nothing whatever to harm the facts that evolution exists or the earth is round. However, if something is built from a tissue of half truths, outright lies, and fantasy, then questions are dangerous and need to be suppressed. So by suppressing enquiry into the episode, all it does is encourage sceptics, increase doubts, and create doubts as to whether the thing happened at all, let alone exactly as advertised.

It’s a simple question: why suppress all discussion of the matter if you really don’t have anything to hide?

Maybe you’re asking at this point whether I believe the Holocaust happened at all. I can say this: it isn’t important what I believe; it’s important what the truth is. And if the truth is to be protected by systematically sidelining, or even penalising, questions and analysis, then it’s a truth that probably isn’t very truthful. So even though I have as little time for Holocaust deniers*** as I have for zionazis, they have an excellent point: why cover up if you have nothing to hide?

In any case, whether the Holocaust happened at all or not, it has, or should have, absolutely zero relevance in 2020. And even if it happened exactly as advertised, at best it was one among many Holocausts in the 20th century. For instance, the official Holocaust account claims that the Nazis killed six million Jews between what, 1933-45. Twelve years. And yet the Nazis murdered well over three million Soviet prisoners of war and I don’t know how many Poles and Romani in a small fraction the same period, along with homosexuals, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and dissident Germans (including the officers who tried to eliminate Hitler in July 1944) but the Holocaust apparently doesn’t cover them. The Japanese murdered millions of Chinese, including a quarter of a million in Nanjing, but that’s nothing important either. And in one single year of 1943-44, the evil Brutish war criminal Winston Churchill verifiably starved 4 million Indians to death in the artificial Bengal famine, but nobody talks about that either. It’s like the Jews, or rather those who speak for the Jews, have a monopoly on history. Isn’t it as much an insult to the non Jewish victims of the Nazis as Holocaust denial is supposed to be for the Jews?

And even if the Holocaust happened as advertised, it cannot possibly be permitted to be used as a shield by anyone to commit their own crimes of equivalent nature in the 21st century.

But, as Dr Norman Finkelstein – child of concentration camp survivors – has said, the Holocaust isn’t a fact, it isn’t a myth, today it is only one thing, a full fledged industry.

To finish with, I will leave you a photo. It depicts the Soviet Red Army's 60th Army, the force that liberated Auschwitz. And I will remind you that when the Soviet Union exposed its horrors, the Amerikastanis, at the time still their wartime ally, for weeks pretended it was all "Red propaganda."

That should tell you, if you have any doubts, which side I am on.

Footnotes:

*Given that even the World Jewish Council in 1945 had claimed 4-4.5 million killed.

**I assume that the six million also includes the Jews murdered by Poles and Balts, who did a lot of Jew-killing of their own, and the Ukranazis of Stepan Bandera, now a national hero of the Amerikastani-supported regime in Ukraine.

***One of the biggest problems created by the western liberal group moving in toto over to the warmonger camp is that it is becoming increasingly difficult to oppose western and zionazi warmongering without finding oneself rubbing shoulders with neo-Nazis, racists, other assorted right wingers, or similar people. I do not know whether this is by design, but it’s forced me to increasingly ignore most of many peoples’ opinions while sticking to those I agree with. I’m nostalgic for the days of the mid 2000s when everyone hated Bush and you didn’t yet know that the majority of them would change sides in a heartbeat to support the war crimes of Barack Hussein Obama.