the nature of The Big Lie

[Otium]

I think Hektor is basically right, but the "historians dispute" in 1980s Germany was the event which made National Socialism, Hitler and the Holocaust holy writ as far as the foundation myths of the current age we live in. It was fundamentally about treating Fascism and National Socialism as a historical phenomenon subject to the rule of objective scholarship and comparison/evaluation granted to all other historical topics. The left didn't want this and instead by using the Holocaust, were able to make National Socialism and it's epoch into something above history, something that was worse than Communism even without the extensive track record of brutality. It's the largest subject you're not allowed to evaluate in an honest way that could even conceivably purvey the idea that it had anything to offer anyone at all. That there's anything worth taking seriously or even granting legitimacy to. Nothing in the history of the Third Reich is allowed to gain any traction as "good" or successful, for that could mean a rehabilitation of National Socialism beyond the Holocaust. Much like the left today disseminate the "cool" trend of being a Communist, especially among the youth by preaching it's philosophical or economic virtues without getting bogged down in the murderous history of their ideology. They're allowed to transcend, obfuscate, ignore or just appeal to how "bad" Hitler and "Fascism" was. In doing so they talk about how the Soviets defeated Hitler, thus to them this is a sort of redeeming virtue of Communism, even though it doesn't mean a goddamn thing.

[Hektor]

I think Hektor is basically right, but the "historians dispute" in 1980s Germany was the event which made National Socialism, Hitler and the Holocaust holy writ as far as the foundation myths of the current age we live in. It was fundamentally about treating Fascism and National Socialism as a historical phenomenon subject to the rule of objective scholarship and comparison/evaluation granted to all other historical topics. The left didn't want this and instead by using the Holocaust, were able to make National Socialism and it's epoch into something above history, something that was worse than Communism even without the extensive track record of brutality. It's the largest subject you're not allowed to evaluate in an honest way that could even conceivably purvey the idea that it had anything to offer anyone at all. That there's anything worth taking seriously or even granting legitimacy to. Nothing in the history of the Third Reich is allowed to gain any traction as "good" or successful, for that could mean a rehabilitation of National Socialism beyond the Holocaust. Much like the left today disseminate the "cool" trend of being a Communist, especially among the youth by preaching it's philosophical or economic virtues without getting bogged down in the murderous history of their ideology. They're allowed to transcend, obfuscate, ignore or just appeal to how "bad" Hitler and "Fascism" was. In doing so they talk about how the Soviets defeated Hitler, thus to them this is a sort of redeeming virtue of Communism, even though it doesn't mean a goddamn thing.

The "Historikerstreit" was an attempt by some historians to challenge the notion that National Socialism was some kind of "unique evil", but that it was to a large extent a response to the evils of Communism (which it was actually admitted could or were bigger). In the end Nolte & Co. lost that debate - For the simple reason that there are a lot of Germans that take some negative pride in the Holocaust and of course that there is a lot of vested interest among German elites in having the Holocaust as some kind of unique evil. This applied especially to many of the younger intellectuals that could use the Holocaust as some kind of blunt instrument in debates and inner-corporate conflicts against their older colleagues, who often had some kind of entanglement with National Socialism. OK, 1985 was 40 years after 1945. So at that stage only the oldest academics had some chance to be still in positions of power within the cultural apparatus of Germany. However many of the somewhat younger 50 to 60 year olds were still educated during the NS-Period or by people stemming directly out of that period. So they may still have had a different (more balanced and differentiating) view on National Socialism. Needless to say that a lot of leftists in West Germany had a vested interest into painting "Nazism" and "Fascism" in a far worse light as to contrast Soviet Communism that didn't have a good reputation with moderate, liberal, or conservative folks neither.

Another thing is of course that a lot of even intellectually minded people had a pretty hard time arguing against National Socialism with older folks that still had a lot of good memories from that period. That is, if it wasn't for the Holocaust. So the whole issue came as some kind of silver bullet to them. Well, it is ever since. And that's not limited to Germany at least when some hammer is needed to bash at Nationalism or Patriotism within a Western country. This used to be the case from the traditional left, but Cuckservatives have discovered its uses as well. The thing is that works with people that are gullible, ill-informed and have empathy. This doesn't work on well-informed, street-wise people or individuals that simply don't care about history or the plight of others. And believe me this over-shaming for political purposes achieved exactly that: people that grew a thick skin towards it. Or simply don't care about stuff like this anymore.

[Lamprecht]

The "Historikerstreit" was an attempt by some historians to challenge the notion that National Socialism was some kind of "unique evil", but that it was to a large extent a response to the evils of Communism (which it was actually admitted could or were bigger). In the end Nolte & Co. lost that debate - For the simple reason that there are a lot of Germans that take some negative pride in the Holocaust and of course that there is a lot of vested interest among German elites in having the Holocaust as some kind of unique evil. This applied especially to many of the younger intellectuals that could use the Holocaust as some kind of blunt instrument in debates and inner-corporate conflicts against their older colleagues, who often had some kind of entanglement with National Socialism.

Judging these sorts of controversial issues by using votes is rarely going to end in success, especially when you're asking a party that was allegedly involved. By default, the involved parties will downplay the alleged crimes committed by them or exaggerate the ones committed against them. Europeans west of the Hajnal line (and those who descend from them, as most White Americans, Canadians, Australians, etc do) are really the only exception to this rule. Just logically looking at it, there is no way a person can conclude that "consensus" actually has anything to do with history. If the "Consensus" on whether a historical event occurred or not can change, that tells you all you need to know. History by definition can't change as it's describing what actually happened in the past - even if liars or people who are simply wrong due to ignorance call themselves "historians." Everyone could be wrong about what happened at a specific time and place, but that doesn't change what truly happened.

As I mentioned in another post:
"I think a better idea than just paying more Jews, who have already [unscientifically] drawn their conclusions prior to entering the sites, would be to employ archeologists and other qualified experts that would be more objective. Perhaps some Chinese, Koreans, Indians, Guatemalans, Nigerians, etc. Why not have an international team of experts from all over the world come together and do these thorough diggings?" viewtopic.php?p=97044#p97044

It would be interesting to see a debate between revisionists and exterminationists that is judged by foreigners who did not grow up being subjected to "Holocaust education." East Asian students of English, for example, might be better able to look at this subject objectively since they (their ancestors) were not involved in any way.

[Lamprecht]

Why would killing women and children do anything to invalidate the revisionist case? It doesn't prove that there was a plan to systematically genocide the Jews.

In any case you're wrong, the killing of women and children occured because many such people were partisans. Children were killed because some National Socialists in the Einsatzgruppen feared that as the children of partisans grew up they would hold hatred and revenge in their hearts and be a security threat to the Reich, so it was better to just kill them. Cruel but logical, there is no denying that and it doesn't refute the revisionist position at all.

Both the USSR and Third Reich had "children" fighting in their militaries, it still happens in the world today.
It's also an indisputable fact that a large number of children were killed in various civilian bombings, somehow that is excusable though?
But the fact of the matter is that, if governed by the Geneva Convention (signed by Germany but not the USSR) of that period, it was not a crime to shoot civilians (including women or children) in partisan reprisals. What was illegal was the attacks by these partisan/terrorist groups. The only group that it was illegal to execute in these reprisal measures is POWs, and if you read the text it seems to suggest that if your opponent did not sign the agreement and doesn't abide by the rules then you do not necessarily have to. And captured partisans were not considered proper POWs since they were, by definition, not uniformed soldiers.

And atrocities committed by individual soldiers (or camp guards) that were not explicitly instructed to do these things should not fall under the "Holocaust" banner, but a general brutality of war. But everything supposedly bad the Third Reich did falls under the "Holocaust" banner like their T4 euthanasia program. Even anti-Jewish pogroms committed by Eastern Europeans on their own accord are part of the "Holocaust" despite no German involvement.

[Lamprecht]

Perhaps I jump to conclusions in calling most of you white nationalists or Nazi sympathizers or anti-semites but come on lets be honest . . . look at your avatar lol

Do you have examples of historians during the 50s and 60s who provided sober commentary doubting some facts about the holocaust and had their careers damaged?

What? It's relevant to the subject & at hand. You seem obsessed with finding an "Authoritative source" but why historians of this specific period? The Berlin wall was only torn down in the 1990s. Germany was under occupation by the foreign powers who "Proved the Holocaust" for decades after the war. Arguably it's still under US occupation.

It takes a lot of time and effort to gather up these sources for the first time and present an entirely new thesis. A lot of documents were only released to the public when the uSSR fell... I wonder how many were destroyed?

Although to be fair it wasn't an entirely "new" thesis, as a good chunk of the people allegedly involved did "deny" parts of the mainstream "Holocaust" story. Links have been provided.
Some of those allegedly involved that "denied" specific aspects of the narrative conveniently "committed suicide" in mysterious ways. I don't understand what source could be more authoritative than a competent individual who was actually there? Even if they're lying, they're still "authoritative" sources; they just happen to be telling falsehoods.
Paul Rassinier and Josef G. Burg were both prisoners in NSDAP concentration camps. Werner Rademacher, Wilhelm Stäglich, and Douglas Collins were all "Deniers" that served in the war.

And there's a lot more to the "Holocaust" than just studying history. There are "Holocaust denier" engineers, chemists, physicists, and linguists as well, not just historians. And there's a big difference between simply not believing it and being motivated enough to spend years/decades of your life gathering sources and writing books. There was no internet back then...

And do you know how long the Nuremberg transcript is? CW Porter is the only person I know who claims to have read it in its entirety.
Besides Jews (who can hardly be assumed unbiased on this topic) who exactly was all that interested in researching this topic?

Even as late as 1966, when Commentary published a forum on "Jewish belief" in its pages,
"the Holocaust, did not figure in any of the questions, nor, it must be said, did it figure in the answers." (Nathan Glazer, American Judaism, p. 172)
In a collection of 1960s-era interviews with Israeli prime minister David Ben Gurion,
"the word Holocaust never appears." (Ilse Sternberger, "Princes Without a Home". Kirkus Reviews, 15 August 1995)

It was the Anne Frank diary that really brought people's attention to the subject.
According to Theodore Ziolkowski, PhD:
"...it was not until the 60s with Edward Wallant's The Pawnbroker, Norma Rosen's Touching Evil, Susan Schaeffer's Anya, Arthur Cohen's In the Days of Simon Stern, and later works by Cynthia Ozick and Saul Bellow -- that the Holocaust became a genuine theme." (Ziolkowski, "Anatomies of Holocaustics". The Sewanee Review, V. XL, no. 4, Oct-Dec, 1982, p. 599)

Like I said, it's not all about "Historians" - individuals who can instead choose to study the remaining 99.9999% of human history.
Walter Luftl, an engineer and former president of the Austrian Chamber of Engineers, wrote a report stating that the alleged homicidal gas chambers were absurd. Another Austrian engineer with expertise in process engineering and gas applications, Wolfgang Froehlich, also openly denied the "Holocaust" narrative.

Wolfgang Froehlich, an Austrian engineer and an expert witness whose field of expertise is process engineering and gas applications, simply shredded the gas chambers lies in court. In 2008 Froehlich began serving his third term for "Holocaust denial" - 6 years!

The Lüftl Report wasn't made public until 1990s. Leuchter's report was first released in 1988, but Germar Rudolf (a qualified chemist) published his "Rudolf Report" first in 1993 (in German) and later in English in 2003.

Barnes and Hoggan (who first met in 1955) did not accept the "Holocaust" narrative. In 1962 Barnes claimed that there was a:
"lack of any serious opposition or concerted challenge to the atrocity stories and other modes of defamation of German national character and conduct."

After that, Barnes translated some of Rassinier's work into English. Both Barnes and Hoggan were PhD historians. Willis Carto published a 1960 work by Hoggan in 1969, titled "The Myth of the Six Million" - but it was without Hoggan's permission and he sued him over it. All 3 of these individuals are American where "Holocaust denial" is legal.

As for being able to understand and analyze the past, particularly primary source documents, yeah I'll say historians are probably the best at that. Especially historians that speak German and have access to the archives.

There are still documents that we do not have access to right now. And it's more than just history, one must look at this from a scientific perspective as well. And as explained, the USSR was holding on to huge quantities of documents (all "extermination camps" were in areas occupied by the USSR) that were never released until its fall in the 1990s.

In 1966 the Auschwitz State Museum allowed a Polish company (Hydrokop) to drill holes at Auschwitz-Birkenau and analyze the samples. To date, they have never been released, but somehow Udo Walendy received several pages photocopied and republished them.

Faurisson, who was a French professor of literature, really only got involved in the 1970s. Faurisson was convicted of "Holocaust denial" multiple times.

Kurt Bolender was an SS officer at Sobibor, and he was arrested in 1961. When first asked, he denied that the camp was an extermination center. He supposedly "Committed suicide" in 1966 leaving behind a note stating his innocence.

I think good advice is that you should actually try to read two (or more) sides of the story and then determine which one makes the most sense. Letting "experts" decide what you believe (especially on such a contentious subject) is quite silly. Everyone is ignorant about most things. I know virtually nothing about brain surgery, building rocket engines or automobiles. So why should I have a strong opinion on any of these subjects?

It's perfectly OK to just sit back and say that "There's too much information to go through on this subject; am busy/uninterested"
But in such a case, you should not have any opinion on whether or not it happened as alleged. To just assume it did happen exactly as claimed because your perceived "Experts" said so is ridiculous and fallacious. This line of argument is often defended with the No-True-Scotsman fallacy, where any "Holocaust denier" is just deemed to be a non-expert no matter what.

[slob]

[Imgur](https://i.imgur.com/ktx9ini.mp4)

[Otium]

Why would killing women and children do anything to invalidate the revisionist case? It doesn't prove that there was a plan to systematically genocide the Jews.

In any case you're wrong, the killing of women and children occured because many such people were partisans. Children were killed because some National Socialists in the Einsatzgruppen feared that as the children of partisans grew up they would hold hatred and revenge in their hearts and be a security threat to the Reich, so it was better to just kill them. Cruel but logical, there is no denying that and it doesn't refute the revisionist position at all.

Both the USSR and Third Reich had "children" fighting in their militaries, it still happens in the world today.
It's also an indisputable fact that a large number of children were killed in various civilian bombings, somehow that is excusable though?
But the fact of the matter is that, if governed by the Geneva Convention (signed by Germany but not the USSR) of that period, it was not a crime to shoot civilians (including women or children) in partisan reprisals. What was illegal was the attacks by these partisan/terrorist groups. The only group that it was illegal to execute in these reprisal measures is POWs, and if you read the text it seems to suggest that if your opponent did not sign the agreement and doesn't abide by the rules then you do not necessarily have to. And captured partisans were not considered proper POWs since they were, by definition, not uniformed soldiers.

And atrocities committed by individual soldiers (or camp guards) that were not explicitly instructed to do these things should not fall under the "Holocaust" banner, but a general brutality of war. But everything supposedly bad the Third Reich did falls under the "Holocaust" banner like their T4 euthanasia program. Even anti-Jewish pogroms committed by Eastern Europeans on their own accord are part of the "Holocaust" despite no German involvement.

Yes that is all true. I would laugh at anybody who would claim the Germans must have abided by Geneva when dealing with the Soviets who didn't sign the convention anyway. There are plenty of those people who just want, more than anything, to try and get one over on the Germans in anyway they can. The fact is, the rules of law do not apply, and are not fair, if only one side is abiding them. The aim is to win, not to lose but win in moral terms. The enemy couldn't care less.

The point about city bombings is quite salient and in-fact made by Otto Ohlendorf in the Einsatzgruppen video I linked along with my comments. I needn't have supplied more information when that video was readily available for viewing. I would just be rambling.

Q. Will you agree that there was absolutely no rational basis for killing children except in genocide and the killing of race?

A. I believe that it is very simple to explain if one starts from the fact that this order did not only try to achieve security, but also permanent security because the children would grow up and surely, being the children of parents who had been killed, they would constitute a danger no smaller than that of the parents.

[...]

A. Mr. Prosecutor, I did not see the execution of children myself although I attended three mass executions.

Q. Are you saying they didn't kill children now?

A. I did not say that. May I finish? I attended three mass executions and did not see any children and no command ever search for children, but I have seen very many children killed in this war through air attacks, for the security of other nations, and orders were carried out to bomb, no matter whether many children were killed or not.

Q. Now, I think we are getting somewhere, Mr. Ohlendorf. You saw German children killed by Allied bombers and that is what you are referring to?

A. Yes, I have seen it.

Q. Do you attempt to draw a moral comparison between the bomber who drops bombs hoping that it will not kill children and yourself who shot children deliberately? Is that a fair moral comparison?

A. I cannot imagine that those planes which systematically covered a city that was a fortified city, square meter for square meter, with incendiaries and explosive bombs and again with phosphorus bombs, and this done from block to block, and then as I have seen it in Dresden likewise the squares where the civilian population had fled to - that these men could possibly hope not to kill any civilian population, and no children. And when you then read the announcements of the Allied leaders on this - and we are quite willing to submit them as document - you will read that these killings were accepted quite knowingly because one believed that only through this terror, as it was described, the people could be demoralised and under such blows the military power of the Germans would then also break down.

Q. Very well, let's concede - I think there is truth in what you say, though I never saw it. . .

See Here: https://archive.org/details/VincentReynouardEinsatzgruppenHitlerAndTheJewishsWar1De4

[Otium]

Perhaps I jump to conclusions in calling most of you white nationalists or Nazi sympathizers or anti-semites but come on lets be honest . . . look at your avatar lol

Read here what Germar Rudolf wrote regarding this:

To everyone who has ever suspected that revisionists are motivated by a desire to whitewash National Socialism, or restore the acceptability of right-wing political systems, or assist in a breakthrough of Nationalism, I would like to say the following:

While researching historical events, our highest goal must be at all times to discover how it actually was--as the 19th century German historian Leopold Ranke maintained. Historians should not place research in the service of making criminal accusations against, for example, Genghis Khan and the Mongol hordes, nor to whitewash any of their wrong-doings. Anybody insisting that research be barred from exonerating Genghis Khan of criminal accusations would be the object of ridicule and would be subject to the suspicion that he was, in fact, acting out of political motives. If this were not so, why would anyone insist that our historical view of Genghis Khan forever be defined solely by Khan's victims and enemies?

The same reasoning applies to Hitler and the Third Reich. Both revisionists and their adversaries are entitled to their political views. The accusation that revisionists are only interested in exonerating National Socialism and that such an effort is reprehensible or even criminal is a boomerang: This accusation has as a prerequisite that it is deemed unacceptable to partially exonerate National Socialism historically, and by so doing, always also morally. But by declaring any hypothetical exoneration based on possible facts as unacceptable, one admits openly not to be interested in the quest for the truth, but in incriminating National Socialism historically and morally under any circumstances and at all costs. And the motivation behind this can only be political. Hence, those accusing revisionists to misuse their research for political ends have themselves been proven guilty of exactly this offense. It is therefore not necessarily the revisionists who are guided by political motives--though quite a few of them certainly are--but with absolute certainty all those who accuse others of attempting to somehow historically exonerate a political system which has long since disappeared.

As a consequence, our research must never be concerned with the possible 'moral' spin-off effects of our findings in relation to politicians or regimes of the past, but solely with the facts. Anyone who argues the opposite does not understand scientific research and should not presume to condemn others on the basis of authentic research.

Germar Rudolf, THE RUDOLF REPORT (The Barnes Review, 2nd Revised and Expanded Edition, 2011), Pp. 36-37 https://archive.org/details/Germar-rudolf-the-rudolf-report-expert-report-on-chemical-technical-aspects-of-t

[Otium]

In 1966 the Auschwitz State Museum allowed a Polish company (Hydrokop) to drill holes at Auschwitz-Birkenau and analyze the samples. To date, they have never been released, but somehow Udo Walendy received several pages photocopied and republished them.

Where did Walendy publish this by the way? Would like to see what some of the results were of this Polish Company.

I think good advice is that you should actually try to read two (or more) sides of the story and then determine which one makes the most sense. Letting "experts" decide what you believe (especially on such a contentious subject) is quite silly. Everyone is ignorant about most things. I know virtually nothing about brain surgery, building rocket engines or automobiles. So why should I have a strong opinion on any of these subjects?

It's perfectly OK to just sit back and say that "There's too much information to go through on this subject; am busy/uninterested"
But in such a case, you should not have any opinion on whether or not it happened as alleged. To just assume it did happen exactly as claimed because your perceived "Experts" said so is ridiculous and fallacious. This line of argument is often defended with the No-True-Scotsman fallacy, where any "Holocaust denier" is just deemed to be a non-expert no matter what.

Wonderful post Lamprecht, I enjoyed reading it. Very sensible and intelligent, it's a shame most people don't have the intellectual ability to just admit they don't know, or not have an opinion. Many people it seems think they're smart if they do have an opinion, even if they know nothing about the topic they "have an opinion" about. To me, it makes someone like that look very unintelligent and not very inquisitive.

[Lamprecht]

Where did Walendy publish this by the way? Would like to see what some of the results were of this Polish Company.

From: Subject: Roberto Muehlnkamp's excuse for the lack of human remains at Auschwitz blows up in his face.

John Ball referred to the Hydrokop report in Air Photo Evidence:

Some time ago the Polish firm Hydrokop carried out drillings in Birkenau at the sites where, according to witnesses, mass graves and/or burning pits had been located. A few parts of the report based on these drillings have been published by U. Walendy in Historische Tatsachen No. 60, Verlag für Volkstum und Zeitgeschichtsforschung, Vlotho 1993. According to this report, charred wood as well as bones and hair were found at some points. A correct interpretation, however, would require access to the entire report. Also, the fragments of the report which are available fail to specify the exact location of the drill sites.

https://codoh.com/library/document/919/#ftn30

Udo Walendy’s Historische Tatsachen No. 60 is available here. The Auschwitz museum sent 2 pages of the 40 page report to Walendy (pp. 7 f.), wherein schematic drawings of 10 drillings are shown, 2 of which contained hair with charred wood and 1 of which contained bones. (Why did the Nazis take great care to not burn the hair?) Walendy’s analysis is exhaustive and very good, maybe somebody can translate it for the forum. There’s nothing about these drillings that contradicts the revisionist theses. The unwillingness by the Auschwitz museum authorities to show the complete report demonstrates their scientific and ethical bankruptcy.

That link is dead, but archive.org has it here: http://web.archive.org/web/20190513062150if_/http://nsl-lager.com/ht/Historische%20Tatsachen%20-%20Nr.%2060%20-%20Udo%20Walendy%20-%20Naturwissenschaft%20ergaenzt%20Geschichtsforschung%20(1993,%2040%20S.,%20Scan).pdf

See page 7 and 8, referring to each "bohrung" (drilling)


mirror: http://archive.fo/0d36D


mirror: http://archive.fo/gaIlo

[Clay]

gl0spana:

The genocide as described in the camps has an almost inhuman rationality to it, it was the Jewish sonderkommandos instead who led Jews to their deaths and disposed of the bodies... If it was important for the Nazis to be as secretive as possible about these killings, which of course makes sense, doing it in a camp was a much better option.

gl0spana, do you believe that jews were "genocided" at Belzec? If so, could you please tell us how many jews you believe were "led to their deaths" there? And could you please also explain, in detail, how their bodies were allegedly "disposed of"?