History: The Holocaust re-visited

Historical Re-visit to the Holocast!

In the following text you will find questions, which are most frequently asked about Holocaust. 

1. Why is re-visiting the holocaust important?,

2. What is meant by “Holocaust” or “Shoah,

3. What do some people claim?,

4. What about pictures of heaps of dead bodies in the camps?,

5. What difference does it make whether the victims died of typhus or in gas chambers?, and

6. Does it really matter how many Jews died during the 3rd. Reich, since even 1,000 would have been too many?, and whatever the circumstances, don’t Jewish victims deserve respect and compensation?

But first, I have to point the following out regarding what is maintained and not maintained in this post:

1. No denial that Jews were persecuted under the Third Reich; 2. No denial that Jews were deprived of civil rights; 3. No denial that Jews were deported; 4.  No denial of the existence of Jewish ghettos; 5. No denial of the existence of concentration camps; 6. No denial of the existence of crematoriums in concentration camps; 7. No denial that Jews died for a great number of reasons; 8. No denial that other minorities were also persecuted. 9. There was no National Socialist order for the physical extermination of Jews; 10. Likewise, there was no National Socialist plan for physical extermination of Jews; 11. There was no German organization and no budget for carrying out the alleged extermination plan. Consider the statement by the world-renowned Holocaust researcher Prof. Raul Hilberg: “But what began in 1941 was a process of destruction not planned in advance, not organized centrally by any agency. There was no blueprint and there was no budget for destructive measures [of the Juden]. They [the measures] were taken step by step. Thus came about not so much a plan being carried out but an incredible meeting of minds, a consensus mind-reading by a far-flung [German] bureaucracy”. 

Profess. Raul Helberg

In detailed investigations of former German concentration camps, expert researchers have established: The internment camps had no sophisticated methods for mass murder, in particular no homicidal gas chambers. Furthermore, the reports of mass shootings behind the German-Russian front were greatly exaggerated and taken out of context; 12. There were neither adequate industrial facilities nor sufficient fuel to cremate such a huge number of corpses. In fact, the capacity of the crematories was barely sufficient to cremate the bodies of those who died from starvation and epidemics, and 13. There is no documentation for the existence of homicidal gas chambers, and no material traces of alleged mass murders. All ‘proof’ relies on eyewitness accounts only, whose unreliability is widely acknowledged. Despite massive observation by spies and resistance groups in areas in the near vicinity of the German concentration camps, all of Germany’s wartime enemies conducted themselves as if no exterminations of Jews were taking place. The charges of genocide were not raised until after Germany’s defeat, when there was no German government to dispute them. Statistical investigations of living Jews worldwide show clearly that the losses of this ethnic group during the Second World War were nowhere near six million. The exact number is probably well under half a million. 

ANSWER 1: Science is not a static condition. It is a process, specifically the creating of knowledge by searching for evidence. When ongoing research finds new evidence, or when critical researchers discover mistakes in old explanations, it often happens that old theories have to be changed or even abandoned. Hence, it is always good to always critically examine established theories and hypotheses in order to test their validity. Scientists need to know when new evidence modifies or contradicts old theories; indeed, one of their main obligations is to test time-honored conceptions and attempt to refute them. Only in an open society in which individuals are free to challenge prevailing theories can we ascertain the validity of these theories, and be confident that we are approaching the truth.

For the non-Jew, the Holocaust is a historical event and not a matter of religion. As such it is subject to the same kind of research and scrutiny as other past events, and so our inceptions of the Holocaust must be subjected to critical investigation. If new evidence necessitates a change of our view of the Holocaust, then a change must take place. The same holds true when old assumptions are proven false. Therefore, it is not reprehensible to approach prevailing conceptions of the Holocaust with skepticism, as long as it is done objectively and there are valid reasons to be skeptical.

Most people know that the powers existing today, particularly in the western hemisphere, are opposed to any critical approach to the Holocaust. In fact, many European nations prosecute such approaches legally. Those European governments obviously intend to maintain the present concept of Holocaust with all the official power at their command. One reason for this is the massive political and financial interests of those religious groupings so meticulously described by the US professor of political science N. G. Finkelstein in his book, The Holocaust Industry. Because of widespread inventions and distortions of the Holocaust, Prof. Finkelstein laments the fact that there are not more Holocaust skeptics. And Prof. Raul Hilberg, the leading Holocaust specialist, repeatedly states that superficiality and inadequate quality control are the greatest problems in the field of Holocaust research.

N. G. Finkelstein and his book

It is clear that Holocaust skeptics are badly needed. But this is not just about the special interests of religious and financial groupings. It must be contended with the entire post-war order, which was created by the victorious Allies. The very credibility of the victors’ version of history is at risk. The Holocaust is the central tile in the mosaic of their version of history. In addition, we must deal with the political and cultural hegemony of internationalist and egalitarian circles. For egalitarianists, the conventional Holocaust image is an extremely useful symbol in their effort to suppress ethnic, regional and national struggles for independence. It does not matter whether these struggles take place in Asia, Arabia, Africa, South America, or Europe. After all, struggles for national independence assume that nationalism is a good thing.

For egalitarianists, nationalism is evil because once upon a time, nationalism led to the gas chambers of Auschwitz… German politicians know very well that Germany would be subjected to tremendous pressure if it allowed anything like critical investigation of the Holocaust. Finally the credulity of all those is at risk who built their world upon the moralistic foundation of the ‘Holocaust’ as well as those who face complete moral and social bankruptcy if they face their doubts. There are profound psychological and egotistical reasons, which make it impossible for many intellectuals to entertain doubts about the Holocaust, even to themselves. However, the circumstance of whether one is for or against internationalism and egalitarianism is irrelevant. So is one’s opinion regarding the class games people play, or the spiritual orientation of the powerful. The significant fact is that there are extremely powerful groups, which are determined to hinder critical consideration of the Holocaust.

Throughout the world, the media heap abuse on those who express doubt about the orthodox version of the Holocaust. In the German speaking countries, publicly expressing doubt about the Holocaust is a political offense punishable by long prison sentences (Section 130 Paragraph 3 of German Penal Code; Section 3h of Austrian Code; Section 216bis of Swiss Code.) This alone should be enough to arouse the suspicions of anyone who has the capacity to think critically. It should make one ask why the power elite still have such drastic need of hate propaganda left over from World War II.

The Austrian Catholic pastor Viktor R. Knirsch has given some insightful remarks on this subject: “It is the right and the duty of everyone who seeks the truth to doubt, investigate and consider all available evidence. Wherever this doubting and investigating is forbidden; wherever authorities demand unquestioning belief – there is evidence of a profane arrogance, which arouses our suspicions. If those whose contentions are questioned had truth on their side, they would patiently answer all questions. Certainly they would not continue to conceal evidence and documents which pertain to the controversy. If those who demand belief are lying, however, they will call for a judge. By this ye shall know them. He who tells the truth is calm and composed, but he who lies demands worldly justice.” 

To conclude our answer of this question let us consider a slogan of an advertisement that caused a scandal in Germany in summer 2001. Shortly before that, the German government had finally decided, after many years of discussion, to erect a huge Holocaust memorial in the center of Germany’s capital Berlin.

ANSDER 2: By “Holocaust” (the Greek word for sacrifice of a burnt offering) as well as “Shoah,” which is the Hebrew word for “Catastrophe,” it is the near total extermination of a distinct group of persons through violence. Who are referred to here, are the Jews; those who lived in areas controlled by the Third Reich. Loss of citizenship, deportation, and incarceration with forced labor, things which have always existed and exist today, should not be included since they do not result in the physical destruction of these groups. In the mind of the public the opinion is often created that simply depriving Jews of civil rights during the Third Reich was part of the Holocaust. But if this were true, then depriving blacks in South Africa until the end of last century, Palestinians in Israel and the territories occupied by it, or the (partial) deprivation of civil right of Blacks and Native Americans in the USA until the middle of the 20th century would also have to be described as part of a Holocaust.

The common historical image of the Holocaust against the Jews is postulated on the following specific points: 1. An intention on the part of the National Socialist government to physically exterminate Jews; 2. An actual plan of the National Socialist government to physically exterminate the Jews; 3. A governmental agency and a budget to carry out this plan; 4. Technically refined methods of mass killing to achieve this goal, whereby homicidal gas chambers as well as mass shootings behind the Russian front would play a major role; 5. Techniques for disposing of millions of bodies; that is, crematories or pyres with adequate capacity and fuel. Such allegations of mass murder in fast acting homicidal gas chambers followed by disposal of the bodies in adjoining crematoriums, that is, expertly planned and efficiently functioning assembly lines for homicide, are described as having been “unique” in human history. They distinguish the Holocaust from all atrocities that happened heretofore. 

ANSWER 3: Here is a photograph of victims of the typhus epidemic in a mass grave on the concentration camp in Bergen-Belsen, taken by the British Army. It is typical of a large number of such photos often shown on TV Holocaust documentaries either without commentary or else with allegations that the dead are victims of the Holocaust.

In fact, it is a photograph of victims of an epidemic which occurred at war’s end. The cause of death is evident from the condition of the corpses. If they had been gassed they would not be emaciated and if they had died of starvation they would have swollen joints and stomachs. Any medical professional will see at first glance that these people died of typhus. All photographs of heaps of corpses were taken in western camps around the end of the war, such as Dachau, Bergen-Belsen, and Buchenwald, where historians now agree no mass murders took place. Significantly, there are no such photographs taken at the camps in which mass murder is alleged to have occurred (Auschwitz, Treblinka, Belzec, Sobibor, Chełmno, Majdanek.)

Are they Jews, or victims of typhus? A good question that require a well-invistigated answer, not just conjecturing.

These eastern camps were all in areas which came under Soviet control at war’s end. It is very telling that the Soviets released no pictures of mass graves or heaps of corpses and allowed no journalists, medical professionals, or other experts to examine the camps. Since the end of the 1980s, Revisionists have been investigating these sites for evidence of mass murder, but the officials have obstructed their efforts by all possible means. In the absence of authentic photographs documenting mass murder, it frequently happens that photographs of those who died in the western camps at war’s end of malnutrition and typhus are presented as evidence of deliberate mass murder. To be sure, the hellish conditions in the western camps at war’s end convinced many Allied observers that mass murder had taken place, as initial reports indicate. In reality, these conditions resulted from a situation for which the German government was not solely responsible. Toward the end of the war, Himmler illogically ordered the evacuation of the eastern Photo of typhus victims in a mass grave in Bergen-Belsen concentration camp, taken by British troops. By that time, Allied bombing had completely destroyed the German infrastructure, it was impossible to supply the camps with food, medicines, and sanitation supplies. Misunderstandings about the causes of the massive die-off continue to this day, especially among Americans. 

The respected leftist historian Norbert Frei has given the following reason for misinterpretation, (from Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte 35 (1987) page 400): “The shock of these discoveries [of mountains of corpses] often led to false conclusions which turned out to be enduring.” There is no denying that a government which imprisons people in camps is responsible for them and so the unjustly imprisoned were therefore victims of the Third Reich, even if they died “only” of disease. However, one should not overlook the fact that by the war’s end, mountains of corpses had become commonplace throughout Germany. In German cities there were 600,000 victims of Allied terror bombings. Millions more died of starvation and disease, which continued rampant through 1949.

In Eastern Germany and Czechoslovakia, three million Germans were murdered by Serbs, Czechs, Poles, and Russians in the course of history’s bloodiest ethnic cleansing. In the POW camps of the western Allies, a million young German men died and millions more vegetated. Hundreds of thousands more were shipped to the labor camps of the Soviet GULag never to be seen again. But the media show only one variety of corpse piles, those in the concentration camps. We should all ask urselves why this is so. Should the dignity and respect, which we owe the victims of atrocities, depend on their nationality?

ANSWER 4: From the point of view of each victim and its personal suffering there is no difference. One could even make the point that it would be preferable to die quickly from poison than to die slowly from an epidemic disease. However, in the present discussion I am not focusing on the intensity of suffering of the victims, which no one questions. Here I am concerned with the historical accuracy of certain allegations and the moral guilt of the so-called German “nation of perpetrators” as well as the consequences which resulted from these allegations.  

Considered from the point of view of the historian as well as the perpetrators, there is a tremendous difference between being victims of raging epidemics and victims of planned industrial mass murder in chemical slaughterhouses designed specifically for homicide. Epidemics, starvation, and other catastrophes resulting from poor treatment, political mistakes, and military defeats are recurrent in the history of mankind. 

Here I am concerned with the historical and moral uniqueness of industrial mass annihilation of a specific group of the population. The entire German nation has been held responsible for this unique crime, not just individual perpetrators. This is the source of today’s negative treatment of the Germans (“collective responsibility” and “hereditary guilt”). It is also the source of the privileged treatment of the actual or alleged victims of genocide. 

I strongly suggest you read what Prof. Finkelstein’s has to say on this subject in his (The Holocaust Industry).

Answer 5: Doubtless it is correct that even one is one too many, and really one must go even farther than that: even those measures of Third Reich persecution which did not result in outright deaths were in every respect unacceptable. But this is not a valid argument against the statistical investigation of the ‘whether’ and ‘how’ of the destruction of the Jews, and for reasons.

First, this objection does not satisfy simply for the reason that it is precisely the number of victims that has been considered sacrosanct for decades. If the number of victims did not matter, it would not be necessary to protect it as a social and even criminal taboo. Evidently there really is more to the six million figure than merely the fact that it includes a great many individual fates: what is at stake is a symbol not to be easily relinquished, since justified doubts about the number might quickly lead to further undesirable skepticism about further subsections of the Holocaust complex.

While not wishing to deny the victims the tragedy of their individual fates in any way, science must nevertheless insist that numbers must always be open to discussion. It is downright irrational that those, on the one hand, who doubt the six-million figure are socially persecuted or even subjected to criminal litigation while society and the justice system, on the other hand, react to valid arguments against this selfsame six-million figure by suddenly declaring this figure to be irrelevant and insisting instead on the dignity of even the very first victim. Is the six-million figure a standard deserving of protection by criminal law, or is it irrelevant? It cannot be both at once.

Secondly, and this is the most important argument – the ethically correct evaluation that even one victim would be too many must not be a pretext for prohibiting scientific research. This is intolerable for the simple reason that science must always be allowed to find precise answers. What would we think of an official who demanded that a physicist not be allowed to determine the exact value of his stress experiment, because even a small value would be bad enough? A physicist subjected

ANSWER 6: Everyone who is treated unjustly is entitled to reparations and every victim of crime deserves respect commensurate with human dignity. I am, therefore, concerned solely with determination of objective historical facts and has no desire to deny either respect or restitution to anyone who has suffered injustice. In case the evidence shows that a particular historical event did not have anywhere near as many victims as was previously believed, this is simply a historical determination, which has no effect on the fate of anyone. Objective evidence could even be of assistance to newly discovered victims. 

Since the end of WWII, Germany has paid well over 50,000,000,000 (fifty billion) dollars in reparations to Jewish individuals and institutions.In the course of these reparations, over five and a half million applications by Holocaust survivors have been processed. Obviously, the number of survivors is very large.

Since the German obligation has no statute of limitations, demands for reparation have been uninterrupted and have even escalated in recent years. However, we are not addressing the question of whether those who are demanding still more money are entitled to it, after fifty-five years. Much more important is the question of why the present day German taxpayer should pay these sums. 99.9% of all German taxpayers today are sixty-five years or younger and thus were at most small children when WWII ended. 

Let me direct a somewhat provocative question to you: How many Jews have you murdered in your lifetime, how many foreigners have you enslaved, how many members of minorities have you persecuted? 

The above is an absurd question, of course, because the answer is always “none” (at least I hope so). 

-Now-

1. Why then should German taxpayers contribute billions upon billions in reparations?,

2. Why are they condemned to eternal extortion, penance, and humility?, and

3. Does anyone really wonder why taxes and unemployment in Germany are constantly rising? 

Perhaps you remember a basic Christian principle, which is the law in every constitutional state: accountability does not extend to our relatives; there is no such thing as hereditary guilt! In Germany, this principle is violated. In case of Germany, someone is cashing in on the alleged guilt of German parents, grandparents, great-grandparents. In passing, wouldn’t it be interesting to know when the millions of Germans who were exploited as slaves by Frenchmen, Dutchmen, Englishmen, Belgians, Yugoslavs, Poles, Danes, Russians, Czechs, for years and even decades after the end of WWII, will finally be allowed to claim reparations?

-Now-

1. When will the 12 million eastern German victims of ethnic cleansing and the survivors of the three million who were murdered in the process, the six hundred thousand victims of Allied terror bombings, the five million who died of starvation under Allied blockade and de-industrialization and Eisenhower’s withholding of food to them, be given proper restitution? 

2. Do not all victims of injustice deserve the same respect and reparations? 

3. Or is it the case that some are more equal than others?

When scales of justice are not leveled, then God have mercy on us all.