Kingfisher, you propose a possible confluence of events and human error where the Holostory might have originated without
lying, manipulation and conspiracy. However, a key componant to the so - called Holocaust narrative are the testimonies of
quite a number of innocent individuals who were forced to play the role of perpetrator in this nefarious drama.
I cannot imagine Hoess, Franz Stangl, Eichmann etc stumbling into their critical niches by the mere elements of collective hysteria
and chance. The "perpetrator testimony" that may seem to lend credibility to this nonsensical tale of gas chambers and genocide could only have
been obtained via torture, threats, bribery and the utter corruption of several post war judicial systems.
In other words, to dismiss the concept of "the Hoax" from the Holobullcrap is to let Jews and Communist stooges off the hook for
the mistreatment and exploitation of innocent Germans.
No, that's not really my position. In fact I don't have a clearly delineated position: I'm quite open to evidence.
I just don't know how far the parties involved, Jewish, American, British, Russian believed the stories coming out of Poland. I suspect the intelligence services were fairly sceptical. I'm pretty sure there was plenty of lying and manufacture of evidence from the Russian side, and there appears to have been some on the American side as far as Dachau was concerned. I was alive at the time, though far too young to understand anything. But I recall very clearly that "The only good German was a dead one". The levels of hatred are difficult to appreciate today. Nobody cared what happened to the Germans. Quite the contrary they were out for revenge and to make sure that "it never happened again".
I'm not suggesting for one moment that the "collective hysteria" applied to the Germans who "confessed". It's obvious that the confessions were obtained by a variety of forms of bargaining, manipulation and intimidation, including torture. The position of the interrogators was similar to that of the courts today: that everybody "knew" what had happened, so it was just a matter of getting the prisoners to "confess" what they were supposed to say. That Nuremberg was a travesty of justice is beyond doubt. But the hysteria probably applied to the interrogators and prosecutors, who believed what they wanted to believe, and were just out for a "result". Most people believe what they are told and no one questioned the evil Germans and their concentration camps at the time. Did the WJC, Morgenthau, etc. believe it? Probably. Just as most national, ethnic groups would in similar circumstances. You're more likely to believe an atrocity story if your own group are the victims, and the deportations and the camps were real enough. It doesn't make a lot of difference whether they did or not. Either way they wanted revenge on the Germans, and so did the Allies.
The Hoax is a religious-based victim industry...
Absolutely, yet this is actually a relatively recent development. Though the stories were generally believed (including the lampshades, etc.) in the years after the war, they were generally pushed into the background and nobody, not even Jews, particularly wanted to talk about them. The cold war was a major factor, of course, as the old enemy was suddenly an ally against the new one. The cult dates back to roughly 1980, since when what Finkelstein identified as the Holocaust Industry has gone from strength to strength. Before that the anti-denial laws only applied to Germany and Austria, on this side of the Iron Curtain at least. It's a massive PR campaign, and as such is concerned with emotional manipulation and not argument or debate.
Above, I've given reasons why I don't greatly stress the "hoax" aspect in my own thinking; I rather prefer Samuel Crowell's approach. It's not even specific to the "Holocaust"; the public perception of most events is conditioned by the media and very different from the reality. But there is another important angle to this, which is the picture we present to the public: PR, if you like... your opponents are professionals at it. The first step is to get people to look at the evidence against the conventional story; if you come over to them as an extremist and an antisemite they won't. Ad hominem
it may be but most people won't listen to the story if they don't like the teller, and you must be only too aware of the image of the Holocaust Denier which is promoted, so don't confirm it.
Most people haven't a clue what happened, and just believe it because everyone else does and only those evil weirdos the "Holocaust Deniers" question it. I know... I've been there. That enough people to fill Wembley stadium (or the Super Bowl for other cultures) were allegedly murdered (with a Diesel engine!) every month for a year at Treblinka by a couple of dozen SS and a couple of hundred Ukrainians, then dug up and burned without leaving any material or documentary trace, is preposterous and was what finally tipped the balance for me. But the Holocaust Industry won't discuss what happened. They are just interested in sob story after sob story. It's professional PR. If people can actually see the evidence, some, at least, are going to start questioning the story. Nuremberg, too, is a sacred cow that doesn't stand up to investigation.
After all, there is a time line hindering the Jew efforts to establish the largest victim industry possible before their funding is cut off.
I'd have thought the opposite. The Industry has become self-financing. True that they can only do over the Swiss banks once, though, but I don't think they have much trouble raising money. The US Jewish community is one of the richest on Earth.
It's the very laws that exist (and being established) which outlaw the debate of the topic that will stop the progress of Revisionism. Stopping them (along with the reduction of funding) seems to be the best course of action. Once the doors to debate are closed, the Jews will have their permanent victim status. Each step taken to close those doors must be stopped by showing the burden of proof (as understood in the majority of legal matters) is absolute and necessary.
But how can we ever stop those laws? They are spreading to new countries and we don't even have the right to argue against the laws that stop us arguing. Even the UK and US. Two Englishmen were jailed for 3 and 4 years for publishing the Holocaust cartoons on a US web site. They fled to California but were refused political asylum and sent back. Only one (local) newspaper even reported the issue. Elsewhere, total censorship. The best hope is the Net, but at the moment "the biggest and liveliest revisionist forum on the net" has me, 2 visitors and the Google and Yahoo bots.
I think it would be helpful not to throw around accusations against "the Jews" in the same all-encompassing manner that people condemned "the Germans" after the war. Probably it is meant in the same way that people loosely say "the Americans" for the US government and political and economic establishment, but it is unhelpful. I have Jewish friends and there are plenty of Jews out there in public life who are actively anti-Zionist. Finkelstein has done more than anyone alive to expose the Holocaust Industry. Chomsky argues forcefully against Zionism and supported Faurisson's right to publish although he didn't agree with him. David Cole is Jewish. Gilad Atzmon is ethnically Jewish, though he renounces his background. Ilan Pappe... Michael Howard and Leon Brittan, who stopped the extension of Holocaust Denial laws to the whole of the EU, are both Jewish. If you mean Zionist, say Zionist. If you mean the Holocaust Industry, say so. Likewise for the ADL, AIPAC and the rest.