the nature of The Big Lie

[gl0spana]

One question about The Big Lie that seems important to me is how such a thing could be perpetuated.

I am just getting into revisionism so I'm not sure about the various strains of thought in this subject, but from what I've gathered there are two main ones.

#1 is the idea that it is a misinformation campaign, which started during the war from isolated and scant reporting about genocidal crimes. After the war this continued, Jews and influenced governments could see that sanctification of such a myth could greatly further the ZIonist project. As such they worked to disseminate propaganda supporting the idea of genocide and put on show trials of "Nazi criminals".

After the state of Israel's formation, though the holocaust cult still had not achieved enormous prominence in the US and Europe, I imagine that Jewish power was already asserting tremendous pressure against skeptics. It would be useful to create a historiography of this. This pressure alone was enough to get not only the public, but also historians, many German speaking, to buy into the myth completely, despite the "overwhelmingly flawed" evidence supporting the theory.

#2 is the idea there is a vast Jewish program that is fabricating extremely convincing evidence and/or paying off/blackmailing "witnesses" and historians

this idea may be less popular among this group, but it is one I am sympathetic to. I imagine that the uneducated masses could easily fall victim to a simple propaganda campaign, as they have so often throughout history, but what about the experts? These are trained historians, who have to pass through a university system that preaches rigorous, well sourced historical analysis of all periods. These historians work with primary documents, their analysis is what forms the basis of most popular history books.

So in essence you have many WW2 German historians basically living in the archives, going through mountains of papers kept by Germans during the war, which include orders, meeting transcripts, correspondences, situation reports from lower level officers, as well as diaries and personal letters to family members.

To give you an inside look into this process, there is a rather incredible book called The Good Old Days that in particular has a lot of accounts of Nazi "genocidal intent" in the occupied eastern territories. For example in one section a Nazi commander tries making desperate appeals to spare the lives or delay the removal of skilled Jewish mechanics whose work is vital to the Reich's military interests, however the Germans are under orders to liquidate all Jews pg 174. There are many such examples in this book, as well as more "mundane" accounts of the cold blooded murder of Jewish women and children.

https://ru.b-ok2.org/book/3386059/d230de

Every historian that I know of that speaks German and has access to the primary source archives, is a believer that at least there was genocidal intent by the Germans at least up until 42/43. Even David Irving has said 4 million Jews died, and does not doubt that terrible, unspeakable things happened in the East. Here he is discussing a passage taken from what he claims to be Eichman's private journals about the Einsatzgruppen.

Eichmann himself -- and I wasn't surprised to find it in his papers -- actually witnessed this. He went to see one at Minsk, and being a proper SS officer he went right to the front to make sure that everything was being carried out. He got so close, in fact, that he saw with his very own eyes how the victims were being made to go into the pits and stand there waiting to be shot. (We've all heard these descriptions of it, and I've seen some terrible descriptions from sources that I find credible.) He says he saw that one woman was holding a little child in her arms, petrified, and she held the child out to him, and he writes in his memoirs: "I was a parent too, and I instinctively stepped forward as though to take the child. But at that very moment the salvo of shots rang out. Both were killed only a few feet away from me. The child's brains were spattered over my leather greatcoat, and my driver had to clean the mess off."  

So even a man like Irving, certainly no friend of the Jews, whose career and fortune and life has been wrecked by Jews, does not doubt all of these documents (when he says "sources that I find credible).

Clearly there is foul play afoot, but what exactly ?

The only reasonable explanation I can think of is either he is being payed off or blackmailed, or the primary documents are just that convincing, which in my mind only evinces the sophistication, power, illegality and secrecy of the group that is behind all of this. If this is indeed true, revisionists should not be disheartened, for if this "conspiracy" can be traced, if there is money trail or paper trail that they have left behind, then they can be fully exposed and the world may know once and for all who or what was really behind many of the greatest calamities of the 20th and 21st centuries.


CONCLUSION

if #1 is true, this is just a misinformation campaign and there is no new evidence or revelations to be revealed, revisionists are in trouble. There has been little success in mainstreaming revisionist views over the last 40 years, why should anything but the same be expected?

If #2 is closer to the truth, in my mind, revisionists should work to expose the "conspiracy" by secretly contacting sympathetic German historians who may be afraid to publicly speak the truth, tracing the genesis of all these fabricated primary documents through rigorous journalistic practice, and compiling a massive dossier to be unleashed on the world in one fell swoop.

[EtienneSC]

Your first option seems closer to the truth. However, the Allies were amongst the principal purveyors of the myth, though individual Jews were involved, e,g, at Nuremberg. The Eichmann trial, in the wake of Raul Hilberg's myth-making Destruction of the European Jews, gave the story new legs and increased Jewish and Israeli interest. By that time, revisionist work was available, such as the books of Paul Rassinier. What has to be explained is the exclusion of revisionist work from mainstream discourse from this time on.

Whilst there are some forged documents and photographs, particularly of Soviet origin, they are not a main part of the story.

You should also note that many German documents were removed to the USA and Soviet Union after the war and only returned decades later.

[Revision]

"After the state of Israel's formation, though the holocaust cult still had not achieved enormous prominence in the US and Europe, I imagine that Jewish power was already asserting tremendous pressure against skeptics. It would be useful to create a historiography of this. This pressure alone was enough to get not only the public, but also historians, many German speaking, to buy into the myth completely, despite the "overwhelmingly flawed" evidence supporting the theory."

A quote relating to that:

Peter Novick - The Holocaust in American Life (1999), p. 148

"As is well known, the spring of 1967 was a dramatic turning point in American Jews' relationship to Israel. Less dramatically, and in a less thoroughgoing way, it marked an important stage in their changing relationship to the Holocaust.

In the escalating Middle East crisis, Arab spokesmen proclaimed their determination to 'wipe Israel off the map' and 'drive the Jews into the sea.' One said that 'the surviving Jews will be helped to return to their native countries,' but, he added, 'there will be very few survivors.' The great majority of American Jews, including many who had not previously shown the slightest interest in Israel, were in a state of high anxiety, and plunged into a flurry of rallies and fund-raising. In fact, Israel was hardly in serious peril. Shortly before the outbreak of war in June, President Lyndon Johnson's intelligence experts debated whether it would take a week or ten days for Israel to demolish its enemies. But this was not the understanding of American Jews, for whom Israel was poised on the brink of destruction — and it is our perceptions of reality, not the reality itself, that shape our responses. Though there were surprisingly few explicit references to the Holocaust in American Jewish mobilization on behalf of Israel before the war, thoughts of a new Holocaust were surely present. The Holocaust, for many, was suddenly transformed from 'mere,' albeit tragic, history to imminent and terrifying prospect."

[Lamprecht]

Atrocity propaganda is nothing new, and after the war they did in fact put on many show trials. There were many motives. For the Zionists, the "Holocaust" story created sympathy for their goals. For the "Allies" it justified the senseless war.

Regarding the Nuremberg Show Trials, Justice Robert Jackson explains:
"As a military tribunal, this Tribunal is a continuation of the war effort of the Allied nations. As an International Tribunal, it is not bound by the procedural and substantive refinements of our respective judicial or constitutional systems."

Forgery and deception was the bread and butter of the USSR, refer to the following thread:
The Soviet Union's documented use of document forgeries, Active Measures
viewtopic.php?t=12297

The Western countries were not nearly as corrupt as the USSR, but they did want their revenge post-war and many Jews did play a role in this. From another post: viewtopic.php?p=96701#p96701

The Germans were invaded by the USSR on one hand and the Western Allies on the other hand. Both of these groups at the end of the war had great animosity towards the German people as many of their loved ones who invaded Europe never returned. The atrocity propaganda, including but not limited to homicidal gas chambers, was already widely circulating in the Western press years before the war had ended. Various "reports" ranging from dubious or outrageous to preposterous were written. This was just as much a part of the war as bombs and bullets. During the war, officials in the various governments remarked that they did not find these "gas chamber" stories credible. WW1 had a lot of that nonsense and people remembered that the allegations were nothing but lies.

Nevertheless, what we know is that the USA, the British, the USSR, and many other governments did in fact launch a "Conspiracy" to invade and conquer Germany. And after they did that, they orchestrated post-war show trials which have since been criticized by numerous legal experts throughout the world. I have compiled a number of quotes in the Nuremberg thread that is stickied at the top of this forum discussing this.

In the USA there was a man named Thomas J. Dodd, who was both a senator and diplomat. Eventually he became a prosecutor at Nuremberg. His son went on to become a US senator as well and even tried unsuccessfully to run for president. Tom Dodd's son wrote a book, entitled "Letters from Nuremberg" which includes a multitude of the letters he wrote in 1945-46 to his wife while he was abroad, mostly in Germany, as a top prosecutor in the Allied war crimes trials.

During September 1945, Thomas J. Dodd wrote:

"You know how I have despised anti-Semitism. You know how strongly I feel toward those who preach intolerance of any kind. With that knowledge -- you will understand when I tell you that this staff is about seventy-five percent Jewish. Now my point is that the Jews should stay away from this trial -- for their own sake.
"For -- mark this well -- the charge 'a war for the Jews' is still being made and in the post-war years it will be made again and again.
"The too large percentage of Jewish men and women here will be cited as proof of this charge. Sometimes it seems that the Jews will never learn about these things. They seem intent on bringing new difficulties down on their own heads. I do not like to write about this matter -- it is distasteful to me -- but I am disturbed about it. They are pushing and crowding and competing with each other and with everyone else."

- "Letters from Nuremberg: My Father's Narrative of a Quest for Justice"
http://archive.vn/W5CuD or http://web.archive.org/web/202005300056 ... berg-dodd/

There is also Robert Kempner, a Jewish lawyer born in Germany. He fled in 1935 and eventually made his way to the USA in 1939. When the war had ended, he returned to Germany to take part in these trials. Kempner and his team were involved in "discovering" a lot of "incriminating" documents, such as the Wannsee Protocols and Himmler's Posen speech. Irving has a page on his website where he accuses Kempner of being
"almost certainly responsible for the attempt to conceal from posterity the March 1942 Schlegelberger Document, in which a hard-pressed Adolf Hitler ordered the postponement of the Final Solution of the Jewish Problem until after the war" http://fpp.co.uk/Germany/Kempner/index.html

Eichmann's trial was certainly also a show trial, and it appears that the purpose was to get Eichmann to "confess" to altering the Wannsee Protocols, as they say nothing about a plan to exterminate Jews. I discuss this here: viewtopic.php?p=93199#p93199

And also suggest:
The Adolf Eichmann Trial
https://codoh.com/library/document/the- ... -trial/en/

It was the 1960s when the "Holocaust" started to become part of the public consciousness, probably related to the 1967 Arab–Israeli War. From the book "When Victims Rule":

In Israel, in the early years after the Holocaust, Jewish survivors were even scorned with contempt by Israeli Jews as "soap" (i.e., feebly passive Jews who were passively turned into bars of soap by Nazi tormentors, [GOREN, p. 159] the fulfillment of demeaning stereotypes about fellow Jews. "With what scorn," noted Georges Tamarin in 1973, "Israeli youth reacts to the alleged faint-heartedness of the six million victims of Nazis!" [TAMARIN, p. 115] The Holocaust was an emblem of shame to Jewry, little discussed, more often avoided. "Even in their extraordinary death agony," notes Haim Breseeth, "the millions of European Jews had not attracted sympathy [in Israel] -- a minimum expectation from an important Jewish community." [BRESEETH, p. 196] "In retrospect," says Arye Carmon," it appears that a disturbing conjunction evolved between the incomprehensible magnitude of evil of the Nazis and the victims who conscientiously were presented as an ideological object to be disassociated from. This conjunction may explain the duality of guilt and shame that has portrayed mourning in Israel." [CARMON, p. 76] A daughter of Holocaust survivors who was raised in Israel remarked at a conference there that

"What I hated and dreaded most when I was a child was summertime. It was a time when the [tattooed concentration camp] numbers on my mother's arm would be there for all to see and people would know that she was a survivor and was one of the despised people. People like my parents were despised in Israel, and I was ashamed of them." [EMMETT, p. 147]

"In 1947 a Jewish concentration camp survivor, Primo Levy, could only interest a small, obscure press to publish an account of his experiences and the volume was little noticed. [TRAVERSO, p. 104] Even Eli Wiesel's ultimately influential work about the Holocaust, Night, did not appear in English until 1960, after twenty publishers had rejected it. [WHITFIELD p. 74] "We would look in vain in the 1950s," says Jacob Neusner, "for what some call 'Holocaustomania.'" [NEUSNER, STRANGER, p. 84]

"Many Jews raised in the United States in the wake of the Holocaust," notes Melanie Kaye-Kantrowitz, "experienced it like a family secret -- hovering, controlling, but barely mentioned except in code or casual reference." [BRODKIN, K., p. 141]

In 1961 only two of 31 discussants in a major Jewish magazine's symposium on "Jewishness and Younger Intellectuals" put any emphasis on the Holocaust effecting their lives. In that same year, another important Jewish magazine's theme of "My Jewish Affirmation" overlooked the Holocaust almost completely. [LINENTHAL, p. 8] Even as late as 1966, when Commentary published a forum on "Jewish belief" in its pages, "the Holocaust," notes Nathan Glazer, "did not figure in any of the questions, nor, it must be said, did it figure in the answers." [GLAZER, American, p. 172] In a collection of 1960s-era interviews with Israeli prime minister David Ben Gurion "the word Holocaust never appears." [STERNBERGER, I., 8-15-95]

The book that first attracted, and furthered, widespread interest in the particularly Jewish experiences of World War II was the diary of Ann Frank (The Diary of a Young Girl), a volume that a Jewish novelist, Meyer Levin, almost single-handedly pushed to fame. Levin urged the diary's publication in the American Jewish Congress Weekly; it was serialized in the Jewish magazine, Commentary. Doubleday eventually published it and Levin himself heralded its importance on the front page of the New York Times Book Review, his editors not informed about his own "vested interest" -- commercially and politically -- in the story. [BLAIR, p. 3] The volume has since sold over sixty million copies in fifty-one languages. [WHITFIELD, p. 72] (There appeared with such revelations a corresponding shame and guilt among diaspora Jews and a rising need to atone for their own sin of doing so little to help European Jewry during the Hitler era. [RUBENSTEIN, p. 24]) The diary of Ann Frank is so well publicized internationally that, note David Goodman and Masanori Miyazawa,

"Ann Frank's Diary of a Young Girl has sold over a four million copies in Japan, more than any other country except the United States. So beloved is Ann Frank in Japan that the first Japanese company to market sanitary napkins designed especially for Japanese women called itself Anne Co., Ltd., and sold its product under the brand name 'Anne's Day' (Anne no hi), which quickly became a euphemism for menstruation in Japan." [GOODMAN, p. 6]

The Jewish Telegraphic Agency noted continued popular promotion of Anne Frank in 2001, half a century after her death:

"A four hour miniseries, following Anne's life from her happy school days through her two years in hiding in Amsterdam and to her final days in the concentration camp, air nationally over ABC TV on May 20 and May 21. The 20th Century Fox studio is developing a feature move based on 'The Diary of Anne Frank.'A new edition of the diary, including five previously unpublished pages describing her parents' difficult marriage, was released in March. The Helos Dance Theatre premiered 'About Anne: A Diary in Dance'in Los Angeles last month. An interactive CDROM titled 'Anne Frank House: A House with a Story'was released earlier this year, offering a virtual tour of the building and the 'secret annex' where the Frank family hid. In Boise, Idaho, ground has been broken on a $1.6 million Anne Frank Human Rights Memorial Park." [TUGEND, T., 5-13-01]

In formal literature, "apart from the notable exception of [Saul] Bellow's The Dangling Man," says Theodore Ziolkowski, "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, p. 599] By 1998, however, Sheila Schimpf noted that

"For 10 years Barry Gross has asked Michigan State University students in his English classes how many have read or seen 'The Diary of Anne Frank.' Almost every hand goes up. 'It has become almost the common text for this generation of students,' Gross says." [SCHIMPF, p. E1]

In 1967, with the multiple-nation Arab war against Israel, worldwide Jewry snapped to a new kind of attention and consciousness, one that has since accelerated to our own day into deeply politicized Jewish obsessions with anti-Semitism, the hallowed specialness of the Holocaust, and the absolute sanctity of Israel. During the 1967 Arab war, Jews everywhere (as it is told and retold in Jewish scholarship) imagined the prospect for another Holocaust. "It would be impossible to understand the present Israeli stance toward the Arabs without taking full account of the Holocaust," says Jay Gonen. [GONEN, p. 151] In the Arab armies Jews saw Nazi storm troopers. In the PLO leadership of Yassar Arafat, they stamped the face of Hitler. "Israel," says Melvin Urofsky, "made it possible [for Jews worldwide] to endure the memory of Auschwitz. Were Israel to be destroyed [by Arabs], then Hitler would be alive again, the final victory would be his." [UROFSKY, M., 1978, p. 351]

The old Jewish self-identity of weakness and victimization -- based on the Jewish martyrological tradition of death, destruction, and terror -- became now a conviction of armor, militantly wielded, shaped with the very shame and horror of the Holocaust. The resultant Israeli victory over the Arabs meant a symbolic return to physical power, along biblical lines even, for many Jews, redemption. It also meant the springboard for a new Holocaust-centeredness, aggressive in its character, hostile and embittered to non-Jews everywhere around them. And it was adept in milking communal guilt from comfortable Jews in America who experienced nothing of the risks of 1967 Israel nor the European Holocaust years. A victorious Israel rising up out of ashes of the Holocaust became the cornerstone of Jewish self-conception. The Holocaust was no longer shamefully harmful to the Jewish self-image. It was now a much-heralded building block for the state of Israel and impassioned Jewish vigor, everywhere discussed, everywhere publicized.

Jews who paid little attention to the Jewish annihilation during World War II, and in the early years after, two decades later were increasingly consumed with it. "A profound sense of their status as survivors seized world Jewry," notes Jacob Neusner. [NEUSNER, Holo, p. 976] "The question," adds Hanno Loewy, "which constantly recurs is, 'Why did I of all people survive?' -- a question which pursues the survivor and to which there is no answer." [LOWEY, p. 240] "Every time I attend a gathering of Jewish children," wrote well-known lawyer Alan Dershowitz in 1991, "at a family event, at a Bar Mitzvah, at Simchath Torah -- I imagine SS guards lining up these children for the gas chambers." [DERSHOWITZ, p. 178]

---

http://archive.is/OiKrM or http://web.archive.org/web/200303102125 ... 8holo1.htm

And with all of the "Holocaust reparations" schemes, there is a strong financial incentive for people to claim they were part of this "Holocaust."

Most of the people pushing "The Big Lie" are not aware that it even is a lie. The propaganda has become so powerful, as the "Holocaust" has come to define good and evil, that many people simply cannot think rationally about it.

I suggest you review the statements made by Sociology Professor Dr. Robert Hepp, found here:
Primitivism is back: taboos used to secure power
viewtopic.php?t=1580

As well as: viewtopic.php?p=93126#p93126

As for Irving:

Some context on Irving, who was never much of a “Holocaust revisionist” and never published a book focused on it. He in fact thought it was a “boring” topic, much more interested in the war and Hitler himself:

1. In “Hitler’s war” (1970s) Irving said Jews were systematically exterminated, first by execution squads, later by mobile gas-trucks and eventually in the camps

2. After 1988, because of the Leuchter report, Irving started questioning the Auschwitz gassing story. Irving’s introduction to the Leuchter Report (which he republished in 1989) stated:
“Too many hundreds of millions of honest intelligent people have been duped by a well–financed and brilliantly successful postwar publicity campaign”

3. After that, in the new edition of Hitler’s War, all references to the extermination camps were removed

4. In the early 1990s he denied the homicidal gas chamber hoax but said Jews were still “exterminated by bullets” in the East

5. In 1996 Irving filed his libel suit, and lost the case in 2000

6. In 2005 Irving was arrested for “Holocaust denial”

And then started going on about how “It really happened” which is quite common after “Deniers” get out of jail, for such mysterious reasons…

I suggest the following article:

Talking Frankly about David Irving: A Critical Analysis of David Irving’s Statement on the Holocaust
https://codoh.com/library/document/4061/?lang=en&page=1

The war in the East was something remarkable, yes. There were a lot of executions, many Jews were involved in partisan/terrorist operations. And it was the case that "innocent civilians" were killed in reprisal actions, but this was neither illegal nor unprecedented.

Mark Mazower in his book 'Hitler's Empire' notes that partisan warfare and the brutality of it was a traditional method of European warfare, stating (p. 353):
"The uncomfortable truth is that the counter-insurgency war was more the product of a certain European way of fighting than of Nazism itself."

So there is definitely one element of truth to the "Holocaust" story, as it is an allegation of mass killing of Jews and took place during WWII, a period in which millions of people were killed in Europe. The idea that if a Jew died in WWII (for any reason) they are a "Holocaust victim" but if a non-Jew died they are a "WWII casualty" could perhaps be classified as "chutzpah." The camps were certainly not extermination centers, but they were not holiday resorts either. There was plenty of suffering going around, and these sorts of emotions are easily exploited by propagandists.

[Archie]

I imagine that the uneducated masses could easily fall victim to a simple propaganda campaign, as they have so often throughout history, but what about the experts? These are trained historians, who have to pass through a university system that preaches rigorous, well sourced historical analysis of all periods. These historians work with primary documents, their analysis is what forms the basis of most popular history books.

So in essence you have many WW2 German historians basically living in the archives, going through mountains of papers kept by Germans during the war, which include orders, meeting transcripts, correspondences, situation reports from lower level officers, as well as diaries and personal letters to family members.

They've been taught it their whole lives. And they don't want to get fired and/or prosecuted. It's really that simple.

The only reasonable explanation I can think of is either he is being payed off or blackmailed, or the primary documents are just that convincing, which in my mind only evinces the sophistication, power, illegality and secrecy of the group that is behind all of this. If this is indeed true, revisionists should not be disheartened, for if this "conspiracy" can be traced, if there is money trail or paper trail that they have left behind, then they can be fully exposed and the world may know once and for all who or what was really behind many of the greatest calamities of the 20th and 21st centuries.

Again, you don't need to blackmail people and falsify documents. You just need to have control over academic institutions and mainstream publishing and media and you excommunicate anyone who questions the Holocaust. That way by definition 100% of people with institutional prestige will subscribe to Holocaust orthodoxy and dissenters can be dismissed as cranks who lack university positions and have to publish independently.

if #1 is true, this is just a misinformation campaign and there is no new evidence or revelations to be revealed, revisionists are in trouble. There has been little success in mainstreaming revisionist views over the last 40 years, why should anything but the same be expected?

The dominance of a historical narrative is more about political power than quality of evidence. In my opinion, the tide will eventually turn not because of some breakthrough in the evidence, but rather because of a shift in the political climate. The myth will collapse when and if they lose the power to enforce it.

If #2 is closer to the truth, in my mind, revisionists should work to expose the "conspiracy" by secretly contacting sympathetic German historians who may be afraid to publicly speak the truth, tracing the genesis of all these fabricated primary documents through rigorous journalistic practice, and compiling a massive dossier to be unleashed on the world in one fell swoop.

Contrary to what you say, the documentary record is quite thin. This is why they have to debate between "intentionalism" and "functionalism" and why Pressac had to point to criminal "traces" of the gas chambers.

[gl0spana]

Your first option seems closer to the truth. However, the Allies were amongst the principal purveyors of the myth, though individual Jews were involved, e,g, at Nuremberg. The Eichmann trial, in the wake of Raul Hilberg's myth-making Destruction of the European Jews, gave the story new legs and increased Jewish and Israeli interest. By that time, revisionist work was available, such as the books of Paul Rassinier. What has to be explained is the exclusion of revisionist work from mainstream discourse from this time on.

Whilst there are some forged documents and photographs, particularly of Soviet origin, they are not a main part of the story.

You should also note that many German documents were removed to the USA and Soviet Union after the war and only returned decades later.

You do realize that if the primary source documents that have convinced even openly anti-semitic historians like David Irving are true, that makes the revisionist case MUCH MUCH harder.

If the nazis were willing to shoot women and children in front of ditches, whole families, is it such a reach for them utilize more advanced industrial methods to do the same job?

Even if there is no evidence for the gas chambers, it really does make sense given

a) if they were killing women and children wantonly in 41-42, why would they suddenly stop? Of course many Jews are going to be too sickly/weak/old/young to be productive workers, why would you channel vital Reich resources to feeding, housing, caring for them? Especially considering this is the period of the war when it becomes a life and death struggle for Nazi Germany

b) one could argue that killing Jews with gas is much more humane and probably the moral equivalent to shooting them, imagine standing there watching some soldiers killing your friends, family, and then you in front of a ditch

c) the killing was considerably stressful for German soldiers as described in The Good Old Days

I still dimly recall our detachment executing fifteen to twenty Jews,
including women and four or five children aged between six and
nine months, on the march from Kiev to Poltava. ... I can no longer
describe the execution area today. I think that I also had to do some
of the shooting, but I know for sure that I did not have to shoot any
children. I still remember today one of the men saying that the
children hung on to life like the adults. He must have shot children.

After the first wave of shootings it emerged that the men, particularly the officers, could not cope with the demands made on them.
Many abandoned themselves to alcohol, many suffered nervous breakdowns and psychological illnesses; for example we had suicides
and there were cases where some men cracked up and shot wildly
around them and completely lost control. When this happened
Himmler issued an order stating that any man who no longer felt able
to take the psychological stresses should report to his superior officer.

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.

d) 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. With the Einsatzgruppen activities, they are by necessity out in the open where many villagers can see these Jews leaving and then not coming back. According to exterminationist orthodoxy often villagers would be employed to dig and cover graves or burn bodies.

THE BOTTOM LINE

If it is indeed true the Germans were wantonly killing Jews on the eastern front in 1941/1942, Germany has absolutely no moral ground to stand on. If they were killing women and children, as the documents that have convinced people like Irving suggest, this is in no way comparable to what the allies did bombing German cities. Though the allies were trying to kill and terrorize the German people, they were also forcing the Germans to spend vast resources defending those cities. The vast majority of luftwaffe losses (something like 70%) occurred defending the Reich from allied air attacks, if these hadn't happened something like the d-day landings (where the allies had basically total air superiority wouldn't have happened). Allied air raids on germany probably shortened the war by at least a year or two.

What is the military value of killing specifically Jewish children and women?

IMO there are none, therefore the revisionist case really hinges on these documents being false. I wish there was more time spent debunking, for example, the kind of documents which David Irving said proved to him that such atrocities were taking place in 41/42. The reason I believe the Jewish "conspiracy" is more plausible, is because forging such documents is very difficult without some kind of advanced secret operations, and ditto to blackmailing / paying off witnesses and historians.

[Hannover]

gl0spana refers to a classic piece of propaganda, The Good Old Days, which has been taken apart at this forum repeatedly.
It is covered here:

'Irrefutable Response Falls Flat', Book Review By John Weir : http://codoh.com/library/document/2590/

from the thread 'Jäger Report': viewtopic.php?f=2&t=8510&p=64659&hilit=good+old+days+hannover#p64659
By John Weir :

'German accounts of Gas Vans used to kill Jews': viewtopic.php?f=2&t=10529

'Nizkorite Taubner': viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1201

'alleged death camps and rail gauges' : viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2237

- Hannover

[Lamprecht]

I imagine that the uneducated masses could easily fall victim to a simple propaganda campaign, as they have so often throughout history, but what about the experts? These are trained historians, who have to pass through a university system that preaches rigorous, well sourced historical analysis of all periods. These historians work with primary documents, their analysis is what forms the basis of most popular history books.

So in essence you have many WW2 German historians basically living in the archives, going through mountains of papers kept by Germans during the war, which include orders, meeting transcripts, correspondences, situation reports from lower level officers, as well as diaries and personal letters to family members.

They've been taught it their whole lives. And they don't want to get fired and/or prosecuted. It's really that simple.

The only reasonable explanation I can think of is either he is being payed off or blackmailed, or the primary documents are just that convincing, which in my mind only evinces the sophistication, power, illegality and secrecy of the group that is behind all of this. If this is indeed true, revisionists should not be disheartened, for if this "conspiracy" can be traced, if there is money trail or paper trail that they have left behind, then they can be fully exposed and the world may know once and for all who or what was really behind many of the greatest calamities of the 20th and 21st centuries.

Again, you don't need to blackmail people and falsify documents. You just need to have control over academic institutions and mainstream publishing and media and you excommunicate anyone who questions the Holocaust. That way by definition 100% of people with institutional prestige will subscribe to Holocaust orthodoxy and dissenters can be dismissed as cranks who lack university positions and have to publish independently.

Indeed, being a historian is not by default a very lucrative field. In the countries where German is the native language, it is a crime to deny the "Holocaust" - what exactly would someone gain from doing this?

Official list of Revisionist scholars persecuted / imprisoned for questioning the "Holocaust"
viewtopic.php?t=12642

Even in the USA where it is not a crime to "Deny the Holocaust" it would be career-suicide for many. Nobody is getting rich by questioning the "Holocaust" narrative. So, we do not know how many historians in Germany or elsewhere do not believe the orthodox narrative because they know it is illegal to publicly dispute it and we do not know how many self-censor, or simply avoid the subject altogether because it is tabooed.

The fact is, you don't need to be an "Expert" to understand that no huge mass graves at the so-called "extermination camps" means there was no "Holocaust" as alleged. Millions of pounds of human remains cannot vanish by being covered with a layer of soil.

But if you are not the sort of qualified "Expert" you will be immediately dismissed on this basis, and if you are that is something that would have taken many years of your life to achieve. But if you're a historian you are not a chemist or engineer, and therefore you would be declared insufficiently qualified to conclude that the gas chamber narrative is fraudulent. Fred Leuchter (who built gas chambers himself) was dismissed in court for not being a toxicologist nor a chemist. Germar Rudolf, a chemist, was dismissed for not being a toxicologist nor a historian. Prof. Dr. Werner Georg Haverbeck, a historian, was dismissed for not being a chemist or toxicologist.

[gl0spana]

Even in the USA where it is not a crime to "Deny the Holocaust" it would be career-suicide for many. Nobody is getting rich by questioning the "Holocaust" narrative. So, we do not know how many historians in Germany or elsewhere do not believe the orthodox narrative because they know it is illegal to publicly dispute it and we do not know how many self-censor, or simply avoid the subject altogether because it is tabooed.

.

When did denying the holocaust become illegal in Germany? 1985. German historians had literally 40 free years of study. 6 months should have been enough to see through the lie if it is that obvious.

They've been taught it their whole lives. And they don't want to get fired and/or prosecuted. It's really that simple.

I think this is really the key question. We can look at the example of Paul Rassinier, who is considered "the father of holocaust denial"

Rassinier published books questioning the gassing as early as 1950 and had a long and fruitful career writing other books which were received. His book from 1950, "the lie of Ulysses", was controversial and staunchly argued against but it did not damage his career. Going by the historical record, sober minded holocaust skepticism did not become a problem until at earliest the 1970s and really the 80s, though I would be interested to see evidence to the contrary.

It seems unlikely that historians, even now, would simply go with such a lie, if it is as blatant and egregious as most here claim. Yet if this is the case, why not prepare an anonymous dossier, do anything.

The big issue here is not merely one of historical inaccuracy. I trust that most here are white nationalists. In addition to Zionism, the Jews have clearly used the holocaust as the primary bludgeon with which to demean white nationalism, and more generally to dethrone the white race. If the lie of the holocaust were ever uncovered, if the truth (that the Nazis did absolutely nothing wrong, that the Nazis are in fact the victims) ever came out, it would be a world historical event, clearly one of the most important events of all time. This should be obvious to you all as it is to me, and as it would be to any historian, who very well could become a world historical figure if he brought such a thing to light. We're talking about a complete rewrite of the most important period of time in the 20th century, and accordingly a rewrite of much of the 20th century and possibly the 21st century, in almost a single instant.


There is a massive incentive here.

[Lamprecht]

When did denying the holocaust become illegal in Germany? 1985. German historians had literally 40 free years of study. 6 months should have been enough to see through the lie if it is that obvious.

Are you a mind-reader? How do you know the number of people who believe in something?
There are many periods of history to study, why choose that one and publicly express controversial opinions? It's just silly to expect such a thing from people with families to feed and bills to pay when it would be ruinous to their career and reputation.

And you also realize that the "Extermination camps" were not on German soil, correct? Were they supposed to cross the Berlin wall, go to communist Poland and dig up these sites to search for mass graves?

Just because something isn't illegal to say doesn't mean people will publicly say it just because they believe it.

And it is not necessarily in the realm of a historian, these are alleged crime scenes. So maybe you should be asking about why archaeologists didn't come out and declare the lack of huge mass graves in precisely known locations, rather than historians.

It seems unlikely that historians, even now, would simply go with such a lie, if it is as blatant and egregious as most here claim.

Why? What do they have to gain? Please explain.

Yet if this is the case, why not prepare an anonymous dossier, do anything.

There are plenty of books written on this subject. I don't see your complaint, nor do I understand your obsession with historians specifically when there are many other aspects to the "Holocaust" story.

I think this is really the key question. We can look at the example of Paul Rassinier, who is considered "the father of holocaust denial"

Rassinier published books questioning the gassing as early as 1950 and had a long and fruitful career writing other books which were received. His book from 1950, "the lie of Ulysses", was controversial and staunchly argued against but it did not damage his career. Going by the historical record, sober minded holocaust skepticism did not become a problem until at earliest the 1970s and really the 80s, though I would be interested to see evidence to the contrary.

Rassinier was himself a prisoner in the concentration camps, so it's a bit different.
And I don't understand what you mean by "Problem" - be more specific please.

The big issue here is not merely one of historical inaccuracy. I trust that most here are white nationalists. In addition to Zionism, the Jews have clearly used the holocaust as the primary bludgeon with which to demean white nationalism, and more generally to dethrone the white race. If the lie of the holocaust were ever uncovered, if the truth (that the Nazis did absolutely nothing wrong, that the Nazis are in fact the victims) ever came out, it would be a world historical event, clearly one of the most important events of all time. This should be obvious to you all as it is to me, and as it would be to any historian, who very well could become a world historical figure if he brought this new world to light. We're talking about a complete rewrite of the most important period of time in the 20th century, and a rewrite of the entire 20th century and possibly the 21st century, in almost a single instant.

There is a massive incentive here.

You're not making any sense.
The claim "The Holocaust did not happen" and "Nazis did absolutely nothing wrong" are completely different.
There are also various "Holocaust deniers" that are not White Nationalists, there are even Jews that deny the "Holocaust" conspiracy theory.
Additionally, there is nothing inherent to White Nationalism that would require one to support the NSDAP or question the "Holocaust" conspiracy theory. 90% of White Americans polled during WWII said they would rather lose the war than give equality to Blacks.

The nature of reality is that facts are facts no matter how many people accept them. It is even possible that everyone can be wrong about something. The reality is:
- Many Germans who were in the so-called "extermination camps" denied the allegations of gassings immediately after the war
- Some concentration camp prisoners denied the allegations of gassings
- There is absolutely no physical evidence that has been shown to exist to refute "Holocaust denial" yet there would be enormous quantities in precisely known locations if the narrative was true
- It is illegal to "Deny the Holocaust" in many countries, and people have been imprisoned and fined for it, and yet you continue to ask why more people don't choose to sacrifice their personal lives to expose a myth that has no basis in reality whatsoever

And "Holocaust denial" is growing, or perhaps you are going to claim that there is a Jewish conspiracy to fake the statistics here?

Eurispes survey: 15.6% of Italians deny "Holocaust" - up from 2.7% in 2004
https://archive.fo/kVHpD

ADL: 27% of Mexicans who have heard about the "Holocaust" believe that the event is either a myth or exaggerated
https://archive.fo/0L89L#selection-3050.0-3050.3

63% of Middle Eastern Arabs said they heard about the Holocaust and think “it’s a myth or it has been greatly exaggerated.”
https://archive.is/8xab3

And the ADL figures for "Holocaust denial" are quite high for East Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa as well.

[gl0spana]

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?

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.

[Archie]

When did denying the holocaust become illegal in Germany? 1985. German historians had literally 40 free years of study. 6 months should have been enough to see through the lie if it is that obvious.

They've been taught it their whole lives. And they don't want to get fired and/or prosecuted. It's really that simple.

I think this is really the key question. We can look at the example of Paul Rassinier, who is considered "the father of holocaust denial"

Rassinier published books questioning the gassing as early as 1950 and had a long and fruitful career writing other books which were received. His book from 1950, "the lie of Ulysses", was controversial and staunchly argued against but it did not damage his career. Going by the historical record, sober minded holocaust skepticism did not become a problem until at earliest the 1970s and really the 80s, though I would be interested to see evidence to the contrary.

It seems unlikely that historians, even now, would simply go with such a lie, if it is as blatant and egregious as most here claim. Yet if this is the case, why not prepare an anonymous dossier, do anything.

Really? I think you have to consider more than just that one law. I am skeptical of your assertion that Germans could "freely" question the Holocaust (a term not yet in use) during the aggressive denazification period. I suspect you would have had a very hard time if you did anything that was seen as an attempt to rehabilitate Nazism.

I believe the French anti-denial law is from 1990. But in the early post-war period, people were very eager to distance themselves as much as possible from the vanquished Nazis. If you were deemed to have been overly cozy with the Germans during the Vichy period you could be accused of being a Nazi "collaborator." After the war, thousands were executed for this. If they are rounding up "traitors" who were too pro-Nazi, you don't want to be the guy "defending" the Nazis. Rassinier had some cover because he himself was a political prisoner.

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

[borjastick]

Ask yourself why the law was introduced. The simple answer is, I think, that the story was being questioned and doubted and so it was in real danger of falling apart. That is because as we all know when you look critically at the holocaust you see that it is indeed a Big Lie. Secondly because the fall-out of the Big Lie becoming general knowledge could upset a few people's sensibilities. These people are the permanently offended lefty types who are stoked up by the ones who have most to lose if the truth comes out.

[Hektor]

When did denying the holocaust become illegal in Germany? 1985. German historians had literally 40 free years of study. 6 months should have been enough to see through the lie if it is that obvious.
......

Really? I think you have to consider more than just that one law. I am skeptical of your assertion that Germans could "freely" question the Holocaust (a term not yet in use) during the aggressive denazification period. I suspect you would have had a very hard time if you did anything that was seen as an attempt to rehabilitate Nazism.

I believe the French anti-denial law is from 1990. But in the early post-war period, people were very eager to distance themselves as much as possible from the vanquished Nazis. If you were deemed to have been overly cozy with the Germans during the Vichy period you could be accused of being a Nazi "collaborator." After the war, thousands were executed for this. If they are rounding up "traitors" who were too pro-Nazi, you don't want to be the guy "defending" the Nazis. Rassinier had some cover because he himself was a political prisoner.

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

Don't confuse explicitly illegal with making something illegal by other ways or means. The German legislation book already had other paragraphs that could be weaponized against "Holocaust Denial". It was just more difficult to argue and you needed a judge to play along with this as well. A good defence lawyer could however poke holes into this or get the case dismissed.
The "forty years of study" are also definitely untrue. Firstly Germany was fully occupied since 1945 and it took well into the 1950s before this was relaxed. Second World War wasn't really history then, while memory was of course fading away. Frankly I think most Germans wanted to forget this period that was traumatising for most all of them. The focus was also on reconstructing Germany and lifting it out of poverty: "Our kids should have it better one day" - This is what led to the 'Wirtschaftswunder'. At least for the Western party. The Eastern part was occupied by Poland and the USSR (while leaving around two million ethnic Germans behind) and the central part was a whole different ball game. "Denying the Holocaust" had the potential of getting you harassed under the pretext that you were "defending Nazism". And remember that virtually all Germans with some academic background were in some NS-organisation at some time, while the rest were fanatical "Antifascists"/"Anti-Nazis". The press was controlled by the occupational powers and they made sure publishers were started by people with some "Anti-Nazi"-credentials and even, if they were in NS-organisations, they made sure those people were controllable (perhaps with some potential accusations to Trump up against them). Academics, with no other practical times, were especially vulnerable to exclusions from their limited, albeit well-paying job market. The archives were mostly under Allied control so access to relevant documents was limited. I think a lot of the more intellectual Germans anyway thought that this propaganda story would just go away, when it wasn't needed anymore. The whole affair was only revived after the 1968s cultural revolution with the some show trials in the 1960s as background and a rather cheap made for TV-series in the 1970s (Holocaust) and a lot of similar themed productions afterwards. Most German's knowledge was anecdotal and their memories were fading away (mental entropy effect) over time. Memories may also be replaced and reinterpreted. And then who would listen to "ever-yesterdays" that "try to White-Wash Hitler". Good research also requires resources and a lot of time at hand. And yes, you need a thick skin and keep a sober mind as most Revisionist can certainly testify. So you already deal with a high level of milieu control in terms of public communication, which limits the debate to private conversations with people that have limited knowledge to people that have no real first hand knowledge. So Archie got a point there. Proficient "Holocaust Denial" would be very exceptional. And probably limited in terms of people that would learn about it. And then almost nobody would believe you, dismissing it as the "rantings of an old Nazi". Here in South Africa we had some old Germans that lived through the period, but they were also more busy with rebuilding their lives regaining what they had lost, a lot of them were from good families that had lost everything during and after the active war period. Their skills were also sought after, since they were hard-working, creative and technical proficient. They may have been soldiers, but given the choice between "fighting a lost battle" and dedicating themselves to using their skills to earn a good living, guess what their choices were.

So in conclusion Dispute was possible, but not career friendly to put it mildly, all around refutation not really feasible. Getting heard was limited.
But one facts remains and that is that the core claims of the Holocaust (gassing, 6 million Jews, extermination policy through killing) haven't been substantiated - all we ever got was whining, accusations, rumours, innuendo and a whole load of salami tactics. The evidence supports the Revisionist thesis that Jews were physically removed from Germany's sphere of influence with no intention of 'exterminating' them. If the later was the case the available evidence would have looked quite differently - and the salami tactics weren't necessary at all.

Ask yourself why the law was introduced. The simple answer is, I think, that the story was being questioned and doubted and so it was in real danger of falling apart. That is because as we all know when you look critically at the holocaust you see that it is indeed a Big Lie. Secondly because the fall-out of the Big Lie becoming general knowledge could upset a few people's sensibilities. These people are the permanently offended lefty types who are stoked up by the ones who have most to lose if the truth comes out.

"The Holocaust" became a public issue in Germany after the release of the Holocaust soap-opera in Germany. Mind you 30 years after WW2 concluded with the Axis being vanquished. Previously the debate was about democracy vs. dictatorship. But after the media hype around the series a change of theme and also a widespread change of mind among Germans was 'detected'. This was also the period when Germany reached pre-war prosperity levels again. The 68s students were getting established in institutions and "reworking the repressed past, became a big thing". Well, there was a repressed past and that was the atrocities AGAINST Germans that already stem from the pre-war period. Those in positions during 1940 were either dead or above pension age. Not exactly people that tend to fight back, but rather those that want to be left alone. The actual danger both the Allies, the Elites and the left saw was a rise in German national consciousness free from wild accusation. So the Holocaust became a means of controlling the public mind. Challenge was to be expected and hence this needed to be suppressed in some way. You can bully academic historians, but private researcher are a different game. There legislation to suppress free speech comes in handy, especially with people as law observing as the Germans. And while prisons in Germany aren't exactly tough, imprisonment (and being the accused at "criminal" trials) are a stigma to educated middle and upper class people. That condenses the number of people that might even try. This was also the era of the "Historikerstreit" with Ernst Nolte and some Frankfurt School advocates. Those Freudomarxian academic activists knew quite well what cultural asset a Holocaust Myth would be to them. Without the Holocaust the Nazi-club would lose it's power quite quickly. So rather take the critique of suppressing free speech in some fringe (however socially and politically important) cases, then allowing for a sober, but fair debate on the issue. For the leftists control of public academic and cultural institutions was at stake. Others might be concerned about international problems, if Germans stopped admiring the Fuehrers new clothes. The Holocaust is the Both the original sin as well as Calvary event of Political Correctness:"If we can say Hitler was for it, we can argue easily that we are against way". That way the reasonably unjustifiable can be justifiable. Hitler was pro-Nation - we are against it. Hitler was against Jews (while being friendly to some qualified form of Zionism), we are philosemites. Hitler was pro-military, we are against it. Hitler was a "racist" (an ambiguous term loaded negatively by leftists via media and education), we are anti-racists (anti preservation of ethnic stock). Hitler was pro-leadership, we are against it. Hitler was pro-authority, we are against it. Hitler was pro-family, we are arguing that this is outdated and repressive. Hitler was pro-German culture, we are multicultural (whatever that is actually supposed to mean) Hitler was against abortion, we want to legalize it, make it even a "right" Etc. pp. Now one can build arguments against all those issues in some way, but this would be far more difficult if the playing field was level. With the Holocaust in the back of people's heads, this becomes far more difficult. In fact you would have to argue rationally that your position or policies are desirable or even feasible in the long run. Christian beliefs (or the Churches) were already widely discredited in the minds of many Germans, but even there the Holocaust was employed given Christian criticism of Jews (And the silence of the Churches on the Holocaust of course). Ironically some other controversial aspects of National Socialism are mostly left out (social policy, economic policy, price controls, etc.), but I wonder if that is by design, since both big finance and the left are rather fond of such policies and the present economic model may require more intervention at some stage (listen to what is suggested by politicians and public academics relating to the present COVID19 hype and its consequences).

We can of course have a further look on what benefits the Holocaust holds for specific interest groups. It's so useful to some, they'd have to invent it, if it wasn't already believed by so many.

[Otium]

What is the military value of killing specifically Jewish children and women?

IMO there are none, therefore the revisionist case really hinges on these documents being false. I wish there was more time spent debunking, for example, the kind of documents which David Irving said proved to him that such atrocities were taking place in 41/42. The reason I believe the Jewish "conspiracy" is more plausible, is because forging such documents is very difficult without some kind of advanced secret operations, and ditto to blackmailing / paying off witnesses and historians.

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.

See Vincent Reynouard's video documentary on the Einsatzgruppen: https://archive.org/details/VincentReynouardEinsatzgruppenHitlerAndTheJewishsWar1De4 on "the killing of partisan progeny" see from 2:25

Also see: https://www.bitchute.com/video/HXQxANjcOuKv/ (video description contains links to all 4 parts of the video series)

Onto your exaggerated and simplistic claims about documents.

If you fake documents convincingly you don't need to pay off anyone, historians have been fooled, or willingly accepted much lesser fakes. If you knew about the history of, say, the Hitler Diaries, the bullshit Rauschning frauds, the Emery Reeves frauds, the Eberhard Jäckel frauds etc. etc. you wouldn't be suggesting such lengths needed to have been made to convince historians of anything. Your assumption, which is false, is that they're objective. Obviously they're not if you can pay them off.