The Non-Jewish Stake in the Holocaust Mythology: Why the Continued Success of a Failed Ideology?
Paul GrubachThe Enigma Surrounding the Holocaust Doctrine
During the past four decades mainstream historians have made some surprising admissions with regard to the traditional Holocaust story, the alleged premeditated mass murder of six million Jews by the Germans during WWII, mainly with the use of “gas chambers.” Let us review some of them.
Holocaust historian Leon Poliakov pointed out in the late 1970s that there are no documents to prove that the Nazis ever had any plan to murder the Jews of Europe. He wrote: "[T]he campaign to exterminate the Jews, as regards its conception as well as many other essential aspects, remains shrouded in darkness. Inferences, psychological considerations, and third- or fourth-hand reports enable us to reconstruct its development with considerable accuracy. Certain details, however, must remain forever unknown. The three or four people chiefly involved in the actual drawing up of the plan for total extermination are dead and no documents have survived; perhaps none ever existed." In short, the "evidence" that "proves" the existence of an alleged Nazi plan to exterminate the Jews is simply the guesswork of Holocaust historians. Hard documentary proof is missing.
The late Holocaust historian Lucy Dawidowicz would presumably concur with Poliakov. In her The War Against the Jews: 1933-1945, she revealed how weak and flimsy the evidence that supports the traditional view of the Final Solution (the alleged premeditated Nazi plan to exterminate the Jews) really is. Dawidowicz admitted "the abundant documents of the German dictatorship have yielded no written order by Hitler to murder the Jews..." Even more importantly, she conceded there is no documentary evidence to prove her orthodox version of the Final Solution: "If Mein Kampf is the terminus ad quem for the conception of the Final Solution, does its beginning indeed go back to November 1918, as Hitler himself claimed? It is a hazardous task to construct a chronology of the evolution of this idea in Hitler’s mind. The historical evidence is sparse and no doubt would be inadmissible as courtroom evidence. The very idea of the destruction of the Jews as a political goal demanded, when Hitler first began to advocate it, camouflage and concealment. Its later consummation demanded, within limits, secrecy. Consequently, there is a paucity of documents, and even those we have handicap the search for definitive evidence because of the problem of esoteric language."
So there you have it. The evidence for the orthodox view of the Final Solution would be inadmissible as courtroom evidence. Nevertheless, in many European countries, courts send people to prison for rejecting this orthodoxy!
Two crucially important pieces of “evidence” for the traditional view of the Holocaust are the testimonies of SS Lieut.-Colonel Adolf Eichmann (Head of the Jewish Office of the Gestapo, 1940-45) and former Auschwitz Commandant Rudolf Höss. Christopher Browning, widely considered to be one of the foremost academic experts on the National Socialist Final Solution, admitted that both Eichmann and Höss are unreliable witnesses. Hidden in a footnote of his magnum opus, we learn that “the testimonies of especially Höss and to some extent Eichmann are confused, contradictory, self-serving, and not credible.” In a 2003 collection of essays, he pointed out Eichmann’s testimonials, traditionally considered to be a pillar of the Holocaust story, “contain calculated lies for legal defense.”
At the first, high-profile Holocaust trial of Revisionist publisher Ernst Zündel in Toronto in 1985, the premier Holocaust historian, the late Raul Hilberg, admitted that scientific proof for the existence of the "Hitler gas chambers" is missing. No authentic and genuine autopsy report exists to show that Jews were killed with poison gas. Furthermore, no one has ever produced any photographs of Jews being gassed. Just three years later in 1988, Princeton historian Arno Mayer admitted that the evidence supporting the existence of the “Hitler gas chambers” is scant and untrustworthy. In his own words: "Sources for the study of the gas chambers are at once rare and unreliable."
In his 2008 collection of essays on the Nazi Final Solution and the Holocaust, a British authority on Germany’s Third Reich, Professor Ian Kershaw, was just one step away from admitting that credible evidence supporting the “Nazi gas chamber” story is non-existent. "Recorded comments about the murder of Jews refer almost invariably to mass shootings by the Einsatzgruppen [anti-guerilla warfare units of the German army],” the academic historian pointed out, “which in many cases were directly witnessed by members of the Wehrmacht [German army]. The gassing, both in mobile gas-units and then in extermination camps, was carried out much more secretly, and found little echo inside Germany to go by the almost complete absence of documentary sources relating to it."
Holocaust historian Robert Jan van Pelt conceded that the wartime claims that Jews were electrocuted en masse in "electrocution chambers" at the Belzec concentration camp and on "electric conveyor belts" at Auschwitz are falsehoods. If the evidence that "proves" that Jews were electrocuted en masse is bogus, isn’t it also possible that the "evidence" that "proves" that Jews were murdered in "gas chambers" is also bogus, or at least very suspect?
In early 2010, Professor van Pelt made another eyebrow raising admission. He stated that there is no physical evidence to prove ninety nine percent of what is known about the alleged Auschwitz extermination camp story.
At the postwar Nuremberg Tribunal, the Allies declared that the Germans exterminated four million people at the Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp. Until 1990, a memorial plaque at Auschwitz read: 'Four Million People Suffered and Died Here at the Hands of the Nazi Murderers Between the Years 1940 and 1945.'" During a June 1979 visit to the camp, Pope John Paul II stood before this memorial and prayed for and blessed the alleged four million victims.
In July 1990, the Polish government's Auschwitz State Museum, along with Israel's Yad Vashem Holocaust center, conceded that the four million figure was a gross exaggeration, and references to it were accordingly removed from the Auschwitz monument. Israeli and Polish officials announced a tentative revised toll of at least 1.1 million dead, about 90 percent being Jews from almost every country in Europe.
Around September of 1989, mainstream Holocaust historians began admitting that the four million figure was a deliberate myth, demonstrating that conspiracy (premeditated distortions introduced for political ends) was involved in the shaping of the Holocaust doctrine. According to Israeli historian Yehuda Bauer, the Poles wanted to create a “national myth,” so this “required” that a large number of both Poles and Jews lost their lives at Auschwitz. Polish propagandists intentionally exaggerated the figures, and told the world that 1.5 million Poles and 2.5 million Jews were murdered at Auschwitz concentration camp.
Professor van Pelt, along with his fellow Holocaust historian Deborah Dwork, concede that the contemporary Auschwitz concentration camp tourist site contains outright falsifications with a controlled ideological message, which mislead visitors. This should raise this question in the reader’s mind: how much of the Auschwitz extermination story is politically inspired falsehood?
Professor van Pelt also admitted that the "evidence" for the mass killings of Jews at Treblinka, Sobibor and Belzec—where allegedly millions were murdered--is sparse at best. In reference to these three camps, he wrote: "There are few eyewitnesses, no confession that can compare to that given by [Auschwitz commandant Rudolf] Höss, no significant remains, and few archival sources."
Archeological investigations of Belzec concentration camp in the late 1990s found no trace of the alleged homicidal gas chambers. Holocaust researcher Robin O’Neal, a firm believer in the traditional Holocaust narrative and one of those who took part in the archeological investigations of Belzec, admitted: “We found no trace of the gassing barracks dating from either the first or second phase of the camp’s construction.”
In 1946-1947, the Central Commission for Investigation of German Crimes in Poland claimed that 250,000 people were murdered at the alleged Nazi extermination camp of Sobibor. Israeli and Polish archeologists who investigated the Sobibor site found no physical evidence to prove the Sobibor “gas chambers” existed, or that hundreds of thousands were massacred there. For sure, these forensic scientists (who are firm believers in the traditional Holocaust extermination story) find it difficult to imagine how 250, 000 could have been murdered there. To date, archeological science cannot determine the site of the “gas chambers” or even if they existed. The reader is strongly encouraged to read the forensic study to see that this is indeed the case.
The bitter critic of “Holocaust denial”, Professor Deborah Lipstadt, conceded that the story that the Nazis made soap from Jewish corpses is another war time falsehood. Another Holocaust era historian, Richard Breitmann, made a similar finding: the claim that the Nazis manufactured fertilizer and fats from corpses is erroneous.
Dr. Lipstadt also pointed to evidence that casts doubt on the value of Holocaust survivor testimony, the form of “evidence” that comprises most of the "proof" of the traditional view of the Holocaust. She wrote: “For a variety of reasons some [former Nazi concentration camp] inmates did and still do embellish their experiences. Others sometimes adopt the experiences of fellow survivors as their own.”
Although Lipstadt argues that there are ways to vindicate Holocaust eyewitness testimony, she goes on to make this eye opening statement in regard to the testimonies in the possession of Israel’s national memorial to the Holocaust, Yad Vashem: “[T]he Institute for Historical Review published a report from the Jerusalem Post in which the director of Yad Vashem’s archives reported that more than half of its testimonies from Holocaust survivors are ‘unreliable.’ According to Yad Vashem officials, these testimonies have never been used as evidence in Nazi war crimes trials because survivors who wanted to be ‘part of history’ may, in fact, have allowed their imaginations to ‘run away with them.’” Here we have a prominent Holocaust historian putting forth reasons (perhaps unwittingly) showing that a significant number of Holocaust “eyewitness testimonies” are simply unreliable. Since a large portion of Holocaust “eyewitness testimony” has been labeled “unreliable,” it is certainly correct for historians to be, at the very least, skeptical of all such testimony.
Another academic historian provided reasons for the reader to be very skeptical of “eyewitness testimony” to the Holocaust. French-Jewish historian Pierre Vidal-Naquet briefly discussed eyewitnesses who claimed they “saw gas chambers” where there were none. He admits “there were imaginary gas chambers.” That is, many Holocaust survivors gave false testimony, claiming there were “homicidal mass gassings” where it is now known that they never happened. He cites the false testimony “of a Protestant theologian, Charles Hauter, who was deported to Buchenwald, never saw any gas chamber, and who went on to rave about them.”
In a paraphrase of Dr. Robert Faurisson’s Holocaust revisionist argument, Vidal-Naquet’s translator states the dilemma in the form of a question: “Moreover, since numerous eyewitness reports [about the “homicidal gas chambers”] had already been discredited, on what basis could anyone accept any such testimony?” Once again, the reader should ask himself this question. How can the testimony of survivors of the “death camps” prove that the Holocaust and the death of six million Jews is a historical fact when so many of these testimonies have been shown to be unreliable?
In the foregoing discussion, only mainstream and “academically respectable” sources were used to make my case. All material that mainstream academics would label as “Holocaust denialist” was deliberately ignored. This alone should suggest to the reader that there is something seriously amiss with the traditional Holocaust story. Indeed, the list of deceptions, very weak and suspect evidence, highly questionable claims, politically inspired falsehoods, contradictions, and absurdities in the traditional Holocaust doctrine are seemingly endless. For all of these reasons, one can rightfully refer to the orthodox Holocaust story as “the Holocaust mythology.”
One would think that after all of the damaging admissions and concessions made by official Holocaust sources, the doctrine itself would have undergone world wide scrutiny, questioning and debunking. Yet, this is not the case, and herein is the enigma that surrounds the Holocaust doctrine. Despite the fact that the orthodox Holocaust story is demonstrably weak, it continues to thrive and flourish. Is this state of affairs solely due the enormous power and influence of the International Jewish-Zionist power elite and the state of Israel?
In the early 1980s, the late Revisionist scholar Dr. Charles Weber wrote a very important, but now largely forgotten essay concerning the non-Jewish groups that promote and benefit from the Holocaust mythology. "Obvious though the usefulness of the ‘Holocaust’ material to Zionists may be, it continuous exploitation by various non-Jewish groups in various lands for various reasons is of a continuing importance that heretofore has not been generally realized. As corrosive, divisive and destructive as the ‘Holocaust’ material and extermination thesis are, we must certainly not consider Jews exclusively responsible for their continued propagation,” Weber stated.
There are some who operate under the illusion that the sole reason the Holocaust mythology survives and flourishes is because of Jewish-Zionist power and influence. Although Israel and the International Jewish-Zionist power elite are the most important forces behind the Holocaust ideology, there are also non-Jewish groups that promote it and benefit by it, and thus help to insure its continued success. These non-Jewish groups have largely been overlooked.
A Word of Caution Before We Begin
Before we examine the non-Jewish groups that promote the Holocaust mythology, it is important to note that all of them were or still are subject to Jewish pressure and influence. The world Jewish community has played a decisive role in the history of the twentieth and first decade of the twenty first centuries, and all of the governments and non-Jewish factions we are about to discuss have felt their enormous impact. Whether it be the post WWII German governments, the former Communist regimes of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, the governments of Britain, Poland and the United States, left-wing liberal or neo-conservative groups of the West, all of them have been subject to Jewish influence.
As historian Weber rightly pointed out in his 1982 essay, we are confronted with the question as to what extent we are dealing with a non-Jewish group and non-Jewish interests in each case. That is to say: do these non-Jewish factions promote the Holocaust ideology solely because Jews pressured them to do so, contrary to their specific group’s best interests? Or, do they promote the Holocaust ideology because it is serving some specific non-Jewish interest that just happens to be congruent with Jewish interests?
Be that as it may, all of these governments and groups had or still have powerful non-Jewish people in them who harbor non-Jewish political interests, and at least some of the latter coincide with Jewish interests on the issue of the Holocaust mythology. Many members of these non-Jewish groups likely believe that the traditional Holocaust story is objectively true, but this in no way nullifies the fact that they also have underlying agendas that motivates them to promote this doctrine.
Germany and the Holocaust Mythology
At the close of WWII, the occupying powers of Germany divided the country up and created two different governments. The West German government was a creation of the United States, Great Britain and France, with East Germany’s governing body being a creation of the communist Soviet Union.
The late historian, political analyst and international affairs authority, William Henry Chamberlin, summed up the situation in regard to the former East Germany. In 1963, he observed: “The so-called DDR (initials for German Democratic Republic) is neither German nor democratic nor a republic. It is a totalitarian police regime, completely subservient to the will of a foreign power, the Soviet Union.”
While the government in West Germany was less totalitarian in nature than that in the East, the West German political establishment could still rightly be classified as a colonial government of the United States, Great Britain and France. The occupation powers retained the right to manage German domestic affairs and administration and to nullify German legislation.
Professor Arthur Butz described the political landscape in his seminal work of Holocaust revisionism: “The entire political structure of West Germany was established by the U.S. government. This includes the control of newspapers and other media, the control of the schools, and the constitution of the Bundesrepublik. As a puppet creation, this ‘German’ political establishment necessarily had an interest in the lies of the conquerors and behaved accordingly.”
The historical evidence supports Butz’s viewpoint. The “Nazi extermination camp” mythology was declared “historical truth” at the Nuremberg trials, and it was then used as an ideological cornerstone for the Allied installed governments in postwar Germany. The conquered Germans were to be fully indoctrinated with the Holocaust ideology. Political analyst Chamberlin pointed out in 1963 that government education ministries ordered that school children receive full information about “Nazi policies of violence and cruelty [real or made up?].” In accord with this policy: “Films of Nazi brutalities [real or made up?] have been widely shown in German schools, and the interest of the children is kept alive by discussions and questionnaires.” Furthermore, the military establishment of West Germany was under the control of the United States and NATO. As of 2008, there were 150,000 American troops stationed within southern Germany.
The government of the former West Germany believed it attained the imprint of legitimacy from numerous Holocaust trials. A historian of Jewish-German relations (who undoubtedly would condemn my views in this essay), Jeffrey Herf, noted: “The Auschwitz trial conducted in Frankfurt-am-Main in 1964, as well as trials of those who had participated in murders in the Einsatzgruppen and at the extermination camps in Belzec, Treblinka, Sobibor, Chelmo, and Maidanek, offered further details to the West German public about the Holocaust and the death camps in Poland.” In a political culture such as this, prosecutors could advance their careers by aggressively pursuing alleged Nazi war criminals.
A divided Germany is a now a thing of the past, but the Holocaust mythology still remains an ideological cornerstone of the present German government. Indeed, in April 1999, the German Federal Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer stated: “All democracies have a basis, a cornerstone. For France it is 1789, for Germany it is Auschwitz.” In the German daily Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Patrick Bahners put forth a founding belief of the present German government. If one “denies the murder of the Jews, he repudiates the legitimacy of the Federal Republic.”
At the present time, it is impossible for anyone to contest the traditional Holocaust extermination story within the German legal system. “Holocaust denial” is a criminal offense which is punishable with up to five years of imprisonment. In a German court, no exonerating evidence may be introduced in such trials, since the same evidence would amount to ‘denial’ as well and would merely lead to another criminal indictment of the defendant and his lawyer.
It is in this sociopolitical context that we must decipher German motives. Since the governing class’s position of power and influence is “justified” and “legitimized” by the Holocaust ideology, it makes sense that they would aggressively indoctrinate the German masses with it. All German politicians must accept and promote the Holocaust mythology, for in the present German political culture they cannot do otherwise.
Since the late 19th century, Germany was incapable of growing sufficient food for its growing population; they were forced to export or starve. This brought them into economic conflict with other European nations that must also compete for overseas markets. This problem became even more acute after the post-war loss of formerly eastern German lands to Poland. We let political analyst Chamberlin describe the dilemma: “In short, Germany, never self-sufficient in food, was first to be deprived much of its best arable land, located in the regions transferred to Poland, and was also to be placed under a multitude of restrictions extremely prejudiced to its industry and foreign trade.” The present German government is faced with delicate problems with regard to approval from other nations, for the reason of satisfying the basic economic needs of the nation. Thus, as a result of the ongoing, decades long and overwhelming propaganda deluge against National Socialist Germany, successive German governments were forced to disavow everything that Germany of 1933-1945 represented.
Jewish influence on the American political system would also play a role in determining how German government officials would behave in regard to Jewish interests. Since the United States government had the final control of Germany, Jewish groups could influence American policy toward Germany by way of the United States government. Indeed, President Eisenhowers’s Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles, stated point blank in the context of the 1956 Suez crisis: “We cannot have all of our policies made in Jerusalem […] I am aware how almost impossible it is in this country to carry out a foreign policy not approved by the Jews. Marshall and Forrestal learned that. I am going to try to have one.” (Let me give just one small piece of evidence in support of Dulles’s statement. In 1952, eighty percent of the Democratic Party presidential campaign funds came from Jewish sources. )
Source: Wikimedia Commons.
With that being said, it is now easier to understand why from 1953 to 1965 West Germany delivered to the Zionist state goods such as ships, machine tools, trains, autos, medical equipment, and telephone technology that were crucial for the construction of infrastructure. These deliveries amounted to between 10 and 15 percent of annual Israeli imports. Not only did such a course of action satisfy an alleged “moral necessity” (e.g., assuage a “guilty” German conscience), it also served an economic and political function.
German political and economic subordination to Israel and the Jewish power elite continues to this very day. In a speech to the Israeli Knesset on March 18, 2008, the current German Chancellor Angela Merkel spoke of “Germany’s Holocaust shame” and pledged its continuing support for the Jewish state in the Middle East. This is precisely the psychological reaction that the Holocaust mythology is meant to induce in the German people, because it “wins” mass support for the current German rulers and their relationship with Israel and Zionism.
The current political structure of contemporary Germany, and the political-economic relationship between Germany and Israel, can be explained by some of the basic tenets of Marxism. Political philosopher Roger Scruton explains the function of "ideology" in Marxist theories: "[I]deology’ denotes any set of ideas and values which has the social function of consolidating a particular economic order, and which is explained by that fact alone, and not by its inherent truth or reasonableness […] Ideology wins support for class rule, by persuading oppressed classes to accept the description of reality which render their subordination ‘natural.’ It therefore has three principal functions: to legitimate, to mystify, and to console."
The contradictions, absurdities, and outright falsehoods in the Holocaust ideology are endless. The promotion of the Holocaust ideology in the Federal Republic of Germany is not to be explained because of its inherent truth or reasonableness. Rather, its dominance is largely explained by the fact that it serves to "justify" and "legitimize" the entire sociopolitical structure in the Federal Republic, and the exploitative economic relationship between the Israeli and German people. The Holocaust ideology "persuades" the German masses that “their” government is “good and legitimate” and financial subordination to Israel and Zionism is "wholly morally correct and natural." With the vigorous promotion of the Holocaust ideology, the current German rulers solidify their position of power over the German people.
Yet, the Holocaust doctrine and the sociopolitical status quo that it "justifies" contain with it the seeds of its own destruction. The more the German national identity is assaulted with Holocaust falsehoods, the more the German people are financially exploited by this, so to will more and more Germans come to reject the Holocaust doctrine and the sociopolitical order that is associated with it.
If the current German rulers are truly interested in building a stable democratic society, and one that serves the best interests of the German people, they would allow freedom of debate on the Holocaust issue, and attempt to get at the whole truth. Basing political systems upon demonstrable falsehoods that degrade and exploit the German masses makes for a very politically unstable and volatile situation.
Russia and the Holocaust Mythology
It is well established that Jews played a decisive role in the establishment and functioning of Soviet Communism. Yet, Soviet promotion of the Holocaust ideology cannot be totally explained by this fact alone. Hitler realized that as long as the tyrannical dictator Joseph Stalin was in control of the Soviet Union, its foreign policy would be dictated by Soviet Communist interests independently of specifically Jewish interests. In a speech of January 1941, the German dictator stated: “Though we have very favorable political and economic agreements with Russia, I prefer to rely on the powerful means at my disposal…As long as Stalin lives, there is probably no danger; he is intelligent and careful. But should he cease to be there, the Jews, who at present occupy only second- and third-rank positions might move up again into the first-rank.”
In their brutal war against National Socialist Germany, Stalinist Communism utilized the Holocaust mythology as an important propaganda weapon in order to blacken the image of their hated enemy. On December 19, 1942, a “special statement” was issued by the Soviet Bureau of Information from Moscow, which reported on the alleged extermination of the European Jews. It read in part: “The cannibalistic plan elaborated by Hitler in the beginning of the current year provides for the concentration before the end of 1942 in the east of Europe, chiefly in the territory of Poland, of about 4,000,000 Jews for the purpose of murdering them.”
There was, however, a certain ambiguity inherent in the Soviet promotion of the Holocaust ideology. Stalinist Communists promoted it because it served their interests in winning the war. Yet, at times they underplayed the claim that the Germans were attempting to exterminate the Jews, because they did not want to give credence to the National Socialist idea that Bolshevism and World Jewry were virtually identical. As we shall see, ambiguity in regard to the Holocaust carries on to this very day in contemporary Russia.
Until the end of communism in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, the Holocaust ideology was continually used by communist rulers to attain their ends. Revisionist historian Charles Weber noted that the Holocaust material had proved to be a useful ideological weapon in a number of Russian-Soviet propaganda efforts, including the Nuremberg trials. It enabled the Soviet Union to cover up, hide and obliterate by contrast the awareness of the many crimes the Soviet Union perpetrated against other nations and peoples, such as the Katyn massacre in Poland. Even the anti-Holocaust revisionist historian Jeffrey Herf admits that the Soviets ran concentration camps in which death was brought about by exposure to the elements or slow starvation. The Holocaust ideology was very useful in masking the ongoing brutality of the Soviets.
Weber added this astute observation about Soviet Communist use of the Holocaust mythology: “An essential objective of this propaganda effort is the demonstration that in spite of the obvious and continued oppressiveness of the Soviet empire, a German victory would have meant a worse life. The ‘Holocaust’ material thus plays an essential role in the pacification of the many nations and ethnic groups of the Soviet empire, including a number of lands which fought as sovereign states on the side of Germany during the titanic struggle against Communism during 1941-1945: Hungary, Rumania, Bulgaria and Slovakia. The material is continually used as a justification to the outside world for the retention of Eastern Europe in the Soviet empire. A further advantage to the Soviet empire from stressing the ‘Holocaust’ material lies in its appeal to the Jewish minorities in various lands, especially in the United States.”
The Soviet Union has been consigned to the dustbin of history, but the promotion of the Holocaust ideology still serves the interests of the current Russian government, as they want to instill a sense of national pride in the Russian masses. Here is a statement of the Russian representative to the United Nations in regard to the 2007 United Nations Resolution condemning "Holocaust denial”: "[T]he Red Army had freed the Auschwitz death camp, one of the largest. The memory of the heroism of the Soviet soldiers and the many millions of victims in his country could never reconcile itself with those of ‘opportunistic political interest’ who sought to distort the significance of that history." Thus, the Holocaust mythology forms a cornerstone of Russian nationalism, as it casts the Russian people in the role of “heroic liberators” during WWII.
UN Russian Federation representative Vitaly Churkin hinted that this is what is behind Russia’s support of the 2007 United Nations Resolution condemning "Holocaust denial": "[M]ember States were bound to include in that condemnation attempts to revise the history of the Second World War and the merits of those who took up arms to fight the Nazis. Any attempt to make heroic the henchmen of fascism must be rejected."
In an August 2009, Russian-Israeli statement, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and his Israeli counterpart, Shimon Peres, jointly declared: "We express our deep indignation at attempts to deny the great contribution that the Russian people and other peoples of the Soviet Union brought to the victory over Nazi Germany and also (attempts) to deny the Holocaust of European Jews…No kind of attempt to revise history can diminish the clear facts."
The “Nazi gas chamber” mythology provides the Russian people with an exaggerated self-image as heroic liberators and freedom fighters. After all, so the propaganda line goes, they “saved the world” from the clutches of the “evil Germans” who were “attempting to exterminate” the “inferior races” who opposed them. Take away the Holocaust mythology, and what do we end up with?
A repudiation of the Holocaust ideology would allow another reappraisal of the crimes, atrocities, genocide and oppression committed by the Stalinist regime. The end result of such historical revisionism would be the demolition of a pillar of Russian patriotic ideology, and the world-wide realization that Stalinist Communism was more oppressive and evil than National Socialism. Indeed, even the bitter intellectual opponent of Holocaust revisionism, Deborah Lipstadt, admits that Stalin killed more people than Hitler ever did.
But alas! Ambiguity in relation to the Holocaust has reared its head again in post-communist Russia. As Russia authority Jonathan Brent points out: “In 2001, a notion to condemn anti-Semitism was rejected again by the Duma, and in April 2001, Vladimir Zhirinovsky and other deputies protested effectively against observing a minute of silence to commemorate the victims of the Holocaust on Soviet soil—approximately one half of all Jews murdered by the Nazis.”
This suggests that Russians are gradually becoming cognizant of the negative role that the Holocaust mythology plays in world affairs. Keep in mind that Russians are well aware of the negative and destructive role that certain Jewish groups have played in Soviet Communism and contemporary Russia (e.g.., the oligarchs), and that Russia is a major supplier of Israel’s enemies, Syria and Iran. All of these factors combined could set the stage for a possible future confrontation with Zionist groups and the state of Israel. If this scenario comes to pass, the Russian government may repudiate the Holocaust mythology.
When the Soviet Communists took control of Auschwitz in January 1945, they transported to Moscow hundreds of boxes of war time German documents about the camp, and deposited them in an archive controlled by the secret police. In the future, political realities may dictate that Russia should expose the Holocaust mythology for the politically inspired falsehood that it is. If this comes to be, the Russians may reveal formerly hidden documents to the world and deliver the final death blow to the Holocaust mythology. Revisionist historian Jürgen Graf made another interesting suggestion: in a serious future confrontation between the Russian and United States governments, the Kremlin may decide to publish formerly suppressed documents, proving that the “Nazi extermination camps” belong to the realm of propaganda.
These suggestions by historian Graf and I are not far-fetched at all. During WWII and at the Nuremburg trials in the aftermath of the war, the Soviets claimed that the Germans “committed” the Katyn massacre in Poland. It was not until April 1990 that the former USSR confessed up and admitted that the Soviet secret police were indeed responsible for the atrocity. We may live to see a similar scenario play out with the Holocaust mythology. It may be Russians, and not Jews, that will determine the future fate of the Holocaust mythology.
Poland and the Holocaust Mythology
In the August 18, 1967 issue of Time magazine (pp. 28-29), Jewish influence in the former Polish Communist government was highlighted. They wrote: “Though anti-Semitism has a long and virulent history in Poland, Jews form a vital and powerful segment of the present Polish government. As in other countries in Eastern Europe, the roots of the Polish Communist Party go back to 19th century Jewish-led organizations. And as Europe’s Communist parties grew after World War I, so did the influence of the Jews within them. During World War II and Nazi occupation, many Polish Communist Jews fled to Russia for sanctuary – and many returned with the Red Army to hold high military, secret police and administrative posts. Thus, though there are only 30,000 Jews in Poland today, they are seeded influentially from the politburo down through the intellectual community and the Polish press. After Party Boss Wladyslaw Gomulka’s decision to break off diplomatic ties with Israel last June at Moscow’s behest, there was a modicum of wry truth in a gibe that quickly made the rounds in Warsaw: Tel Aviv was going to retaliate by withdrawing the Polish government…” Nevertheless, as in the case of Russia, Polish promotion of the Holocaust mythology cannot be solely explained by Jewish influence.
In 1947, the Polish government enacted a law that commemorated the martyrdom of Poland and other nations at the Auschwitz concentration camp, and the new Auschwitz State Museum was born. As Robert Jan van Pelt observed, “Poles and Jews contend for the spiritual ownership of the camp. Auschwitz is the most significant memorial site of the [Jewish Holocaust], and it is also the most significant memorial site of Polish suffering under German rule.”
As in the case of Russia, the Holocaust ideology was made into a cornerstone of Polish nationalism. Indeed, the Poles wanted to create a “national myth,” so this “required” that a large number of both Poles and Jews lost their lives at Auschwitz. With this political end in mind, Polish propagandists conspired to intentionally exaggerate the Auschwitz death figures.
To the credit of the New York Times, they did point out how the Holocaust ideology, inclusive of the falsehood that four million people were murdered at Auschwitz, granted an air of legitimacy to the political landscape in Poland in 1979: "[P]oland’s suffering at the hands of Nazi Germany is still viewed as a source of unity, and the country’s liberation by the Red Army is regarded as the imprint of the legitimacy of the country’s Marxist leadership."
The “etched in stone fact”—that four million people were murdered at Auschwitz—has been exposed for the intelligently designed lie that it was. Nevertheless, the current Polish government provides more than $3.6 million a year to maintain Auschwitz concentration camp as a memorial site of the Holocaust. Does the Polish leadership do this solely because the Jewish lobby wants them to do this? The answer is no.
The need to promote the Auschwitz mythos survives in both Jews and Poles. “The collapse of communism had done nothing to resolve the tensions between Poles and Jews over spiritual ownership of the site,” Professors Dwork and van Pelt so rightly noted. By the Polish church’s calculations, 2,647 Polish Roman Catholic Priests died at the camp, thus providing the Polish nation with a story of martyrdom.
The Auschwitz-Birkenau complex is a major tourist site that provides the Polish economy with much needed revenue. In 1989, 700,000 people from eighty-nine countries visited the camp. In 2008, it experienced more than one million visitors, and in 2009 a record number of 1.3 million toured the site.
Dutch-Jewish historian Robert Jan van Pelt noted that the falsehood that four million people were murdered at Auschwitz was originally “established” by the Soviets, and then later used by the communist rulers of Poland for their own political goal of laying claim to formerly German territories. He wrote: "As relations between the East and West deteriorated after the war, with the largest part of Germany becoming part of NATO and with that country refusing to recognize the legitimacy of postwar Polish annexation of the former German territories of East Prussia, Pomerania, and Silesia, the number of victims [at Auschwitz concentration camp] became a political issue. The communist rulers of Poland were unwilling to give an inch on their claims against Germany as long as the Bonn government did not recognize the territorial integrity of the People’s Republic of Poland, and therefore they continued to maintain, as a matter of policy, that 4 million people had been killed in Auschwitz."
Whether or not the Polish position vis-à-vis the disputed territories is legitimate or not, Polish authorities still have an ulterior vested interest in promoting the Holocaust ideology. Although Germany and Poland are presently at peace, there is a history of hostility between them. The two countries have quarreled bitterly over war damages, past suffering, and the rights of an estimated 3 million ethnic Germans expelled as Poland became a Soviet communist satellite. After the unification of Germany, the issue of lands ceded to Poland after the war was again raised in Germany.
Polish hostility toward Germany was brought to surface when the late Pope John Paul II visited Auschwitz in June 1979. When asked how he felt about Germans, one Polish citizen was quoted as saying: “As a Christian, it is my duty to forgive, but as a Pole and as a human being I am still thinking it over.” Just as the Holocaust mythology serves to “justify” Jewish hatred of Germans, so to does it serve to “justify” Polish suspicion and hostility toward Germans.
For the Polish nation, not only does the Holocaust mythology serve as a cornerstone of Polish nationalism, a useful ideological weapon against Germany, a “justification” for anti-German hostility, and a source of much needed revenue for its sometimes sluggish economy, it also provides a "safeguard" against any future German demand that Poland give back the disputed territories to Germany. Many Poles fear in their hearts that the post-war state of Poland stands and falls with Auschwitz.
Yet, again as in the case of Russia, the Holocaust mythology stands on some shaky ground in Poland. The remembrance of the suffering that both Poles and Germans experienced under Communism could be a future unifying force between the two. The finding of mass graves dating from the end of WWII have brought the two together. In September 2009, the Polish parliament passed a resolution condemning the Soviet invasion of Poland, which led to a massive loss of Polish lives and prison camps for many. The resolution, which irked Russia, referred to a series of massacres of Poles in Russia, as well as mass deportations of over one million Poles to Siberia. Poland also called on Russia to condemn the crimes.
The ongoing realization of the devastation that Poland suffered because of Stalinist communism and the significant role that Jews played in the Communist nightmare could help trigger a dramatic reappraisal of the Holocaust mythology in Poland. Indeed, it may have already begun. In January 2010, retired Polish Bishop Tadeusz Pieronek pointed out how Jewish groups exploit the Holocaust ideology for political gain.
As Revisionists Jürgen Graf and Carlo Mattogno opined, a real and lasting reconciliation between the Polish and German peoples can only flourish on a foundation of complete truth about what really happened in those concentration camps located on Polish soil. The lies and exaggerations in the Holocaust mythology only exacerbate German-Polish hostilities.
The Holocaust as a Weapon Against European People and Biological Theories of Human Behavior and Race
Jewish intellectual Leon Klinghoffer made an honest admission in the Forward. He pointed out that the Holocaust ideology is not only a “Jewish memory” but also a Jewish weapon against non-Jewish people: “"The world is aware how jealously the Jewish community guards the Holocaust, both as a memory and a weapon." Indeed, the president of the Union for Reform Judaism, Rabbi Eric Yoffe, used the Holocaust ideology as a weapon against all Europeans. He stated: “And in Europe, which bears the mark of Cain for its complicity in the Holocaust, the Arab-Israeli conflict has become a means of absolving guilt. In turning Israelis from victims into Nazis, they [non-Jewish Europeans] seek to cleanse their consciences by casting their sins upon us [the Jews].”
It is not only Jews that use the Holocaust as a weapon against Christian White people, for Non-White intellectuals do the same. The Black-American evolutionary biologist and critic of White Culture, Joseph L. Graves Jr., stated: “The roots of the twentieth century Holocaust were planted with the behavior of Christians [read: White Europeans] toward Jews in medieval Europe.”
In addition, the Holocaust mythology is used as an ideological weapon against scientific theories that postulate genetics as playing an important role in determining behavioral differences between individuals and racial groups. Once again, we quote Joseph Graves Jr.: “Certainly, eugenics has to take some responsibility for the Holocaust.”
The Holocaust Mythology: A Motivating Force for Liberal Social Action
For many influential non-Jewish, American and European liberals, belief in the Holocaust has replaced belief in God as the supreme virtue. Expressing a widely held sentiment among liberal US political elites, Teresa Heinz Kerry, wife of former presidential candidate John Kerry, stated in the highly influential Forward: “Need it be said again? The gas chambers, the bureaucratic system of murder, the efforts to sever an entire people from their place in the world, did happen, did exist and remains a unifying cause for those who choose justice, now and forever more.” Thus, for left-leaning Gentile liberals, the Holocaust ideology is a motivating force for social action.
In regard to the politically inspired falsehood that four million people were murdered at Auschwitz, here is how the late Pope John Paul II proposed it is to be used. We let the New York Times pick up the story here about his June 1979 visit to the camp: "His voice going hoarse on the sixth day of the visit to his native Poland, the Pope asked that all his listeners commit themselves to the care of human beings and the oppressed, in testimony for the four million—including two and a half million Jews—who died in the camps he could see from the raised altar platform." As in the case of Theresa Heinz Kerry, the Pope proposed that the Holocaust mythology should be a motivating force for social action.
The United States, Great Britain and the Holocaust Mythology
It is well established that Jewish groups have had a huge influence upon the American and British governments and societies. Yet, as in the case of Russia and Poland, Jewish influence alone cannot explain the success of the Holocaust ideology in these nations.
Quite obviously, as in Russia and Poland the Holocaust story is part and parcel of American and British political culture. After all, the Americans and British also “saved” the world from “the evil Germans” who were “attempting” to “exterminate” the Jews and other “inferior races.” This writer was raised in a non-Jewish, patriotic American community, and he clearly remembers how this theme was emphasized by his educators--Catholic nuns and priests, teachers, family members and non-Jewish political officials. It was not exclusively Jewish sources in the mass media who were indoctrinating my young mind with this American patriotic belief.
Non-Jewish American and British power elites also have a vested interest in promoting the Holocaust ideology. As the Holocaust historian Jeffrey Herf revealed in his study, The Jewish Enemy, the Holocaust ideology paints the American and British war effort during WWII in a good and ethical light, and thus "justifies" the entire Allied war effort against Germany. In the titanic struggle against Germany, which sacrificed an enormous number of lives and cost a massive amount of resources, the British and American governments had to provide their people with “justifications” for such expenditures of human blood and treasure. Can one find a better “justification” than the story that the “monstrous Germans,” if they won the war, would attempt to exterminate all Jews, “inferior races,” and anyone else who stood in their way in “gas chambers?”
As anti-Holocaust revisionist historian Herf makes clear, one of the important characteristics of mass propaganda is that it appeals to stark contrasts between good and evil. The Holocaust doctrine fits the bill perfectly. He wrote: "Reports of the Final Solution [the Nazi attempt to exterminate the Jews during WWII] underscored the stark moral dichotomy between Nazi Germany and its allies, on the one hand, and the United Nations [Americans, British, Soviets, etc.,] on the other. They reinforced the Allies’ conviction that this was a war between freedom and tyranny, good and evil, civilization and barbarism."
In a formal declaration reflecting the official view of the United States government, it was stated: "The 1945 defeat of Nazi Germany by the U.S. and its allies finally put a stop to dictator Adolf Hitler’s campaign of genocide."
In a word, take away the Holocaust ideology and one important "justification" of the American and British war effort against Germany is consigned to the dustbin of history. Americans and Britons will start asking uncomfortable questions, such as: Why did we go to war with Germany? Maybe we should not have gone to war with Germany, and maybe it was a huge error to be allied with the murderous Stalinist regime? Questions like this clearly pose a threat to the power and influence of the governing elites in American and British society.
One must also not forget that, just as the Soviet Union did, so to did the American and British governments use the Holocaust mythology to hide and obliterate by contrast the awareness of the brutality and mass killing of innocents that they are responsible for. For example, anti-Holocaust revisionist historian Herf admits that the British bombing campaign against Germany resulted in an estimated 500,000 German civilian deaths, disproportionately among women and children. Perhaps now we can understand an underlying motive behind Winston Churchill’s statement on the alleged Jewish Holocaust toward the end of the war. He declared: “There is no doubt that this is probably the greatest and most horrible crime ever committed in the whole history of the world, and it has been done by scientific machinery by nominally civilized men in the name of a great state and one of the leading races of Europe.”
If the alleged mass murder of six million Jews by the Germans is the greatest and most horrible crime ever committed in the whole history of the world, then the mass killing of hundreds of thousands of German women and children by British government bombs pales in comparison, and is obliterated by contrast. The Holocaust ideology performed its services well for Winston Churchill.
Certainly, economic factors usually play a role in the relationships between nations. As in the case of Poland, Great Britain had an economic motive in their promotion of the Holocaust ideology. There is a history of commercial and industrial rivalry between England and Germany, as they were both long-time competitors for overseas markets. The Holocaust ideology aided England in their psychological discrediting of their economic competitor Germany.
In March 2006, former US President George W. Bush publicly admitted that concerns about Iran's alleged nuclear weapons program derive largely from the threat it poses to Israel. In his own words: "The threat from Iran is, of course, their stated objective to destroy our strong ally Israel." In September of 2007, he invoked the Holocaust ideology in order to "justify" any possible American or Israeli attack upon Iran. A respected British news source, quoting a former Bush aide, claimed his rhetoric was a precise attempt to link Iran's quest for nuclear weapons and desire to wipe Israel off of the map with Hitler's destruction of the Jews. "Iran's active pursuit of technology that could lead to nuclear weapons," Bush was quoted as saying, "threatens to put the region already known for instability and violence under the shadow of a nuclear holocaust."
The former White House aide clarified the meaning of his statement: "By using the word "holocaust," Mr. Bush has provided a moral reason to allow the Jewish state to do what it needs to do-He is reinvoking the notion of "never again." If you believe that there could be another Holocaust, it becomes morally indefensible to stand back. It is a powerful and loaded term. Those people in Europe who believed that the neo-cons have gone away and shrunk under a rock had better wise up fast."
In the fall of 2008, Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, in her debate with her Democratic rival Joe Biden, also invoked the Holocaust ideology as a “justification” for any future American military action against Iran. Bush and Palin are two influential, Christian Zionist politicians who firmly believe that support for Israel and Zionism is in the best interests of the United States—and they used the Holocaust ideology as a “justification” for their agenda.
Nevertheless, as in the case of Germany, Russia, and Poland, the Holocaust ideology in the United States and Great Britain is on shaky ground. The masses in these nations are gradually becoming aware of the negative role it plays, most notably as a “justification” for the continued oppression of the Palestinian people by Israel, as an ideological weapon against the European-descended portion of the population, and a “justification” for future destructive wars that could threaten the very survival of the two countries. All of these factors coming together could trigger a massive future reappraisal of the Holocaust mythology in the US and Britain.
Jewish Promotion of the Holocaust Mythology: Why the Success?
There are many, even dedicated critics of Zionism and Israel, who reject the findings of Holocaust revisionism for this reason. They say it is just not believable that Israel and Jewish-Zionist groups could make most of the world accept the traditional Holocaust story as a “well established fact” if it actually were a falsehood. Surely, if it were false, it would have been exposed a long time ago by a multitude non-Jewish governments and researchers. This viewpoint is mistaken, as it ignores some salient facts.
One must view Jewish-Zionism’s success in elevating the Holocaust ideology to the status an unquestionable religious dogma in the surrounding context of non-Jewish interests. During and after WWII, the interests of powerful international Jewish groups dovetailed with the other most powerful groups on this planet—the victorious Allied governments of the Soviet Union, the United States, Great Britain, France and others. Since the most powerful political forces on this planet had a vested interest in promoting the same story, it would be very difficult for anyone to discover that it is false. This is one important reason why the “Holocaust” became an “established fact” throughout much of world.
There is little question that the Holocaust mythology still thrives and flourishes, for the most part, because it is thrust upon the world by aggressive Jewish-Zionist groups, but this is far from the entire story. Again, the success of Israel and Jewish-Zionist groups in promoting the Holocaust mythology must be placed in the surrounding milieu of non-Jewish interests. Some of the world’s other most powerful groups--the American, British and Russian governments, along with “lesser powers” like the German and Polish governments--and other non-Jewish factions, also have a vested interest in promoting the same story. Indeed, time and space considerations did not permit me to discuss many other non-Jewish groups (e.g.., the French government, French political factions) that benefit by promoting the Holocaust ideology.
In short, the most powerful political forces on this planet (both Jewish and non-Jewish) in combination with the enormous influence of the mass communications industry in modern life have, to this day, insured the success of the Holocaust mythology.
The Future of the Holocaust Mythology: What is to be done?
The traditional Holocaust story plays an enormous political, social and economic role in world affairs. It is as if the whole emotional, intellectual, and institutional set-up of the post World War II world has been built around it. It serves as an ideological "justification" for the sociopolitical arrangements in many parts of the world today. Despite the fact that it is a demonstrably weak and flimsy ideology, it has amazing resiliency. The major reason that the traditional Holocaust story still survives is because there are a wide range of powerful groups that benefit from its perpetuation.
The world sociopolitical status quo that the Holocaust ideology "justifies" and "legitimizes" is threatened with collapse. In this world of endless war and violence, it is the duty of politicians, intellectuals and scholars to attempt to come up with peaceful resolutions to the problems humanity faces. It is now up to the powerful interests that are behind the Holocaust mythology to engage its opponents, the revisionists, in free and democratic debate so we may get at the truth about the fate of the Jews during World War II. In this way, we can help to build a more rational and humane world order, one that is based more upon truth and less upon politically inspired propaganda.
- Leon Poliakov, The Harvest of Hate: The Nazi Program for the Destruction of the Jews of Europe (Holocaust Library, 1979), p.108.
- Lucy S. Dawidowicz, The War Against the Jews 1933-1945 (Bantam Books, 1981), p. 162.
- Ibid, p.202.
- Christopher Browning, The Origins of the Final Solution: The Evolution of Nazi Jewish Policy, September 1939-March 1942 (University of Nebraska Press and Yad Vashem, 2004), p544n169.
- Christopher R. Browning, Collected Memories: Holocaust History and Postwar Testimony (The University of Wisconsin Press, 2003), pp. 4-5.
- The Sault Star. (Canada), "Scientific evidence of Holocaust missing," January 18, 1985, p.A11; See Hilberg’s testimony in Barbara Kulaszka, ed., Did Six Million Really Die? Report of the Evidence in the Canadian "False News" Trial of Ernst Zundel—1988 (Samisdat, 1992), p. 39. Online:
- Arno Mayer, Why Did the Heavens Not Darken?: The “Final Solution” in History (Pantheon, 1988), p.362.
- Ian Kershaw, Hitler, the Germans, and the Final Solution (International Institute for Holocaust Research, Yad Vashem, Jerusalem, Yale University Press, 2008), p. 203.
- Robert Jan van Pelt, The Case for Auschwitz: Evidence from the Irving Trial (Indiana University Press, 2002), pp. 145, 159.
- Brett Popplewell, “A case for letting nature take back Auschwitz,” Toronto Star (Canada), 27 December 2009. Online:
- Nuremberg document 008-USSR; IMT "blue series," Vol. 39, pp. 24-25. Yisrael Gutman and Michael Berenbaum, eds., Anatomy of the Auschwitz Death Camp (Indiana University Press, 1994), pp. 61-62; Deborah Lipstadt, Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory (The Free Press, 1993), p.188, footnote.
- See photograph at Also, see photograph at Paul Grubach, "The Christian Religion and the Iran Holocaust Conference: An Open Letter to Pope Benedict XVI." Online:
- Gutman and Berenbaum. Lipstadt, p. 188, footnote.
- Yehuda Bauer, “Auschwitz: The Dangers of Distortion,” Jerusalem Post International Edition, week ending 30 September 2009; Peter Steinfels, “Auschwitz Revisionism: An Israeli Scholar’s Case,” New York Times, 12 November 1989.
- Deborah Dwork and Robert Jan van Pelt, Auschwitz: 1270 to the Present (WW. Norton & Company, 1996), pp. 360, 361, 363, 364, 367, passim.
- Robert Jan van Pelt, p. 5.
- Robin O’Neil, “Belzec—the ‘Forgotten’ Death Camp,” East European Jewish Affairs, Winter 1998, pp 49-62.
- Gilead, I.; Haimi, Y.; Mazurek, W., “Excavating Nazi Extermination Centres,” Present Pasts, North America, 110 05 2009, vol. 1, no. 1, 2009. Online:
- See the “News and Reports” section of
- Gilead, et al.
- Lipstadt, p. 188.
- Richard Breitman, The Architect of Genocide: Himmler and the Final Solution (Alfred A. Knopf, 1991), p. 6.
- Lipstadt, p. 53.
- Ibid, p.101.
- Pierre Vidal-Naquet, Assassins of Memory: Essays on the Denial of the Holocaust (Columbia University Press, 1992), pp.14, 181fn44.
- Ibid, p. 181fn44.
- Ibid, p.14.
- Ibid, p.xii.
- For example, see Ernst Gauss [Germar Rudolf], ed., Dissecting the Holocaust: The Growing Critique of "Truth" and "Memory" (Theses and Dissertations Press, 2000). Online:
- Charles Weber, “Cui Bono? An American Veteran’s Views on Non-Jewish Toleration and Propagation of the Extermination Thesis,” The Journal of Historical Review, Summer 1982 (Vol. 3, No. 2), p. 115. Online:
- For a small selection of works that document Jewish power and influence, see Alexander Bloom, Prodigal Sons: The New York Intellectuals and Their World (Oxford University Press, 1986); Neal Gabler, An Empire of Their Own: How the Jews Invented Hollywood (Crown Publishers, 1988); Benjamin Ginsberg, The Fatal Embrace: Jews and the State (University of Chicago Press, 1993); Ernest van den Haag, The Jewish Mystique (Stein and Day, 1969); Jacob Heilbrunn, They Knew They Were Right: The Rise of the Neocons (Doubleday, 2008); Paul Findley, They Dare to Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront the Israeli Lobby (Lawrence Hill & Co., 1985); Arthur Liebman, Jews and the Left (John Wiley & Sons, 1979); Alfred Lilienthal, The Zionist Connection II: What Price Peace? (North American, 1982); Kevin MacDonald, The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements (Praeger, 1998); Kevin MacDonald, Cultural Insurrections: Essays on Western Civilization, Jewish Influence, and Anti-Semitism (The Occidental Press, 2007); Stanley Rothman and S. Robert Lichter, Roots of Radicalism: Jews, Christians, and the New Left (Oxford University Press, 1982); Charles Silberman, A Certain People: American Jews and Their Lives Today (Summit Books, 1985).
- William Henry Chamberlin, The German Phoenix (Duell, Sloan & Pearce, 1963), p. 129.
- Ibid, p.56.
- Arthur Butz, The Hoax of the Twentieth Century: The Case Against the Presumed Extermination of European Jewry (Theses & Dissertations Press, 2003), p. 293. Online:
- Chamberlin, p. 252.
- Ibid, p. 253.
- Ibid, p. 245.
- See “Germany-United States relations,” Wikipedia—The Free Encyclopedia. Online:
- Jeffrey Herf, Divided Memory: The Nazi Past in the Two Germanys (Harvard University Press, 1997), pp. 337-338.
- Wilhelm Stäglich, The Auschwitz Myth: A Judge Looks at the Evidence (Institute for Historical Review, 1986), p.225.
- Quoted in Germar Rudolf, The Rudolf Report: Expert Report on Chemical and Technical Aspects of the ‘Gas Chambers’ of Auschwitz (Theses & Dissertations Press, 2003), p. 325. Online:
- Ibid, p.326. For more appropriate quotes concerning the traditional Holocaust story as an ideological cornerstone of the present German government, see Ernst Gauss [Germar Rudolf], ed., Dissecting the Holocaust: The Growing Critique of "Truth" and "Memory" (Theses and Dissertations Press, 2000), pp. 49-50. Online:
- See Robert Faurisson’s statement in Fred A. Leuchter, Jr., Robert Faurisson, Germar Rudolf, The Leuchter Reports: Critical Edition (Theses & Dissertations Press, 2005), p. 19. Online:
- Chamberlin, p. 33.
- Charles Weber, p. 108.
- Quoted in George W. Ball and Douglas B. Ball, The Passionate Attachment: America’s Involvement with Israel, 1947 to the Present (W.W. Norton & Co., 1992), p. 47.
- Ibid, p.218.
- See Jeffrey Herf, Divided Memory, pp. 286-287.
- Ibid, p.288.
- See “German-Israel relations,” Wikipedia—The Free Encyclopedia. Online:
- Roger Scruton, A Dictionary of Political Thought (Harper & Row, 1982), p. 213.
- See Gauss, footnote 29.
- Winston Churchill, “A Struggle for the Soul of the Jewish People,” Illustrated Sunday Herald, 8 February 1920; Online: Kevin MacDonald, The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements (Praeger, 1998); Kevin MacDonald, “Stalin’s Willing Executioners: Jews as a Hostile Elite in the USSR,” Online: Yuri Slezkine, The Jewish Century (Princeton University Press, 2004); Benjamin Pinkus, The Jews of the Soviet Union: The History of a National Minority (Cambridge University Press, 1988); Arkady Vaksberg, Stalin Against the Jews (Knopf, 1994); Mark Weber, “The Jewish Role in the Bolshevik Revolution and Russia’s Early Soviet Regime: Assessing the Grim Legacy of Soviet Communism,” The Journal of Historical Review, Jan.-Feb. 1994 (Vol. 14, No. 1), pp. 4-22: Online:
- Hitler’s speech quoted in Alan Bullock, Hitler: A Study in Tyranny (Harper Brothers, 1952), p. 576.
- “Russia Issues Statement,” The New York Times, 20 December 1942, p. 6.
- See Pinkus, p. 187.
- Jeffrey Herf, The Jewish Enemy: Nazi Propaganda During WWII and the Holocaust (Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2006), p. 126. In his Divided Memory, Professor Herf points out the barbaric death rate in Soviet communist concentration camps: "According to Soviet documents released by the Brandenburg Ministry of the Interior just before the collapse of the German Democratic Republic (GDR), of about 122, 671 Germans who were interned in camps in the Soviet Zone between 1945 and 1950, 42, 889 died ‘as a result of sickness.’ Recent work by Norman Naimark and Karl Wilhelm Fricke indicate that the actual figures are closer to 240,000 internees, of whom between 78,500 and 95, 643 died." See Jeffrey Herf, Divided Memory: The Nazi Past in the Two Germanys, p. 73.
- Charles Weber, p. 114.
- General Assembly, GA/10569, 26 January 2007, "General Assembly Adopts Resolution Condemning Any Denial of Holocaust: United States Representative Says to Deny Events of Holocaust Tantamount to Approval of Genocide in All its Forms." Online:
- “Russia wins Israeli backing over Soviet WWII role,” European Jewish Press, 18 August 2009. Online:
- Lipstadt, p.213.
- Jonathan Brent, Inside the Stalin Archives: Discovering the New Russia (Atlas & Co., 2008), p. 280.
- For the Jewish role in post Communist Russia, see Daniel W. Michaels, “Capitalism in the New Russia,” The Journal of Historical Review, Vol. 16, no. 3. Online:
- Dwork and Van Pelt, p. 10.
- See Smith’s Report On the Holocaust Controversy, February 2008, no. 147, p. 7. Online:
- See “Katyn massacre,” WIKIPEDIA—The Free Encyclopedia. Online:
- Dwork and van Pelt, p364: Van Pelt, p. 14.
- Ibid, p. 359.
- See footnote 14.
- John Vinocur, "Pope Prays at Auschwitz: ‘Only Peace!,’" The New York Times, 8 June 1979, p.A1.
- Judy Dempsey, “More Money for Auschwitz After Theft of Sign,” The New York Times, 26 December 2009. Online:
- Dwork and Van Pelt, p. 372.
- Dwork and van Pelt, p. 373.
- “Germany donates 60 million euros to Auschwitz upkeep,” European Jewish Press, 17 December 2009. Online: “Former death camp Auschwitz saw record 1.3 million visitors in 2009,” HAARETZ.com, 3 January 2010. Online:
- Robert Jan van Pelt, p. 109.
- Monika Scislowska, “Mass WWII grave brings Poles, Germans together,” Associated Press release, 10 August 2009. Online:
- Dwork and van Pelt, p. 357.
- See Vinocur.
- See Scislowska.
- “70 years on, Polish resolution condemns crimes under Stalin,” Deutsche Welle, DW-WORLD.DE, 25 September 2009. Online:
- “Catholic Bishop from Poland accuses Jews of exploiting Holocaust,” World Jewish Congress, 26 January 2010. Online:
- Jürgen Graf and Carlo Mattogno, Concentration Camp Majdanek: A Historical and Technical Study (Theses & Dissertations Press, 2003), p. 247.
- David Klinghoffer, "Our Role in Promoting Holocaust Denial," Forward, 30 December 2005, p. 9.
- Quoted in the Forward, 14, November 2003, p.9.
- Joseph L. Graves Jr., The Emperor’s New Clothes: Biological Theories of Race at the Millennium (Rutgers University Press, 2001), p.22.
- J. Philippe Rushton, Race, Evolution, and Behavior: A Life History Perspective, 3rd ed., (Charles Darwin Research Institute, 2000), p.256.
- Graves Jr., p. 100.
- Teresa Heinz Kerry, “The Outrageous Silence of George W. Bush,” Forward, 23 December 2005, p. 9.
- See Vinocur.
- For a small sample of works documenting Jewish influence upon the American and British governments, consult the work in footnote 31. Also see Martin Gilbert, Churchill and the Jews: A Lifelong Friendship (Holt, 2007); Janine Roberts, “The Influence of Israel in Westminster,” The Palestine Chronicle, 24 May 2008. Online:
- Jeffrey Herf, The Jewish Enemy: Nazi Propaganda During WWII and the Holocaust, p.176.
- Ibid, p. 33.
- Jeffrey Herf, The Jewish Enemy: Nazi Propaganda During WWII and the Holocaust, p. 176.
- VOA News, Editorials Reflecting the Views of the United States Government, "Holocaust Conference in Iran," 22 December 2006. Online:
- Jeffrey Herf, The Jewish Enemy; Nazi Propaganda During WWII and the Holocaust, p. 156.
- Churchill quoted in Raul Hilberg, The Destruction of the European Jews, Student Edition, (Holmes & Meier, 1985), p.330.
- Charles Weber, pp. 111-112.
- Quoted in John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy (Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2007), p. 72.
- Tim Shipman, "Will President Bush bomb Iran?," Sunday Telegraph (Great Britain), 4 September 2007. Online: .
All rights reserved.
This page URL: