What did the Jews have to gain?

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
User avatar
Callahan
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 222
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2012 9:40 am

What did the Jews have to gain?

Postby Callahan » 7 years 5 months ago (Wed May 23, 2012 3:13 am)

It takes a lot of nerve to tell such an atrocious lie as those told about "gas chambers", "human lampshades" and other nonsense claims. We know some of the motives that may have inspired such dishonesty. Many Jews were angry for having been put into unhealthy, potentially hostile environments after being taken from their homes as prisoners for several years. Many have lost relatives due to circumstances created by the Germans, some even having been shot or killed in cold blood by some of the more antisemitic members of the German military. Others had an intent to pursue, by whatever means possible, the expansion of Israel as a Jewish homeland and saw the opportunity to utilize their powerful propaganda post-war in places like the United States and elsewhere. By spreading a falsified account of their wartime experiences, a probable result would be a degree of vengeance against the German people, financial "reparations", an expansion of the Zionist state and worldwide recognition as Jewish suffering being more pertinent to world history than the suffering of any other cultural group.

What exactly did the Jewish people end up gaining, both as individuals and as a whole?

In terms of reparations, has an exact figure ever been calculated?

User avatar
borjastick
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2514
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2011 5:52 am
Location: Europe

Re: What did the Jews have to gain?

Postby borjastick » 7 years 5 months ago (Wed May 23, 2012 4:39 am)

Israel. Simple as that.
'Of the four million Jews under Nazi control in WW2, six million died and alas only five million survived.'

'We don't need evidence, we have survivors' - israeli politician

User avatar
Kingfisher
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1673
Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2010 4:55 pm

Re: What did the Jews have to gain?

Postby Kingfisher » 7 years 5 months ago (Wed May 23, 2012 5:10 am)

Where do I begin?

Well, firstly no one hesitates to tell "atrocious lies" in the context of total war. That's what wartime propaganda is all about, and in that context, people are only too willing to believe them.

Secondly, it's inaccurate to put it all down to "da Joos". British, American, Soviet, Polish and Communists all played their part in promoting the story. How far they actually believed it during the war is not even all that relevant. The point is an atmosphere had been created in which, when the awful conditions at Belsen, Buchenwald, etc. were discovered, it was easy to present them as a consequence of unique German bestiality. It was cynical manipulation on the part of a small number, perhaps, but in the atmosphere of the time the only good German was a dead one and the vast majority of people didn't stop to question what they were told, even if they cared. A few voiced doubts, including George Orwell, but they went largely unheard. The propaganda was a necessary counterbalance to our own brutal destruction of cities and their populations, that in any war before or since would be condemned as war crimes, as well as the expulsions of Germans from Eastern Europe and the Russian murders, rapes and predations.

The gas chamber story came from the Soviets (following on from their gas vans), together with others about steam chambers and electric floors which were soon quietly forgotten, whereas the lampshade was presented at Buchenwald by the American Psychological Warfare team, along with the shrunken heads and pieces of tattooed skin. (See Denierbud's Buchenwald video.). The Russian accusations did not single out Jews as victims.

Just a month or two earlier, the US War Refugee Board (under Henry Morgenthau) had published their report on Auschwitz, based on Rudolf Vrba's account, claiming that mass murder was going on in Auschwitz.

In the run-up to the Nuremberg Tribunal, American Jewish representatives were asked for their input and the 6M figure was adopted at this point. Direct involvement of Jewish organisations was not great but on an individual level Jews were heavily represented in the US at government level and in the Nuremberg team, as also in Soviet propaganda (Ilya Ehrenburg and Vassili Grossman). The post-war Polish (Communist) Ministry of State Security was completely dominated by Jews and carried out savage reprisals on both ethnic Germans and Polish Nationalists.

I can see no reason to think that the vast majority of people involved, Jews and non-Jews alike, did not believe the stories they were repeating, after the trauma of a catastrophic war, though a little manipulation of evidence to strengthen the case would not go amiss, in the tradition of police forces and prosecution lawyers the world over. Samuel Crowell sees this as a mass delusion, a hallucination, that has since morphed into a fanatical conviction that is not questioned because it cannot, must not, be questioned. Doubts must be suppressed and heretics silenced because both are evil. Of course, it provides Jews with a get-out-of-jail-free card, as legitimate and reasoned criticism of Jews, such as other groups must necessarily undergo, is conflated under the label "anti-semitism" with bigoted hatred of all Jews (which undoubtedly exists and is expressed frequently on this forum).

Though Jews, both individually and through representative organisations, undoubtedly played a part in both the origin and the propagation of the myth, and were predisposed to accept these stories (as discussed in other threads, but see in particular The First Holocaust, a book that can be downloaded at The Barnes Review site) I think it is mistaken to attribute to them a predominant role. Partly because I don't think it is accurate, but also because doing so hands a weapon to your opponents who will then claim that Revisionists are bigoted anti-semites who only "deny the Holocaust" because it suits their agenda, and therefore can be dismissed without the awkward requirement of actually examining their arguments.

What did they gain? Israel, of course, and the world's sympathy. Any rational examination of Jewish power and influence is taboo. I see recent signs that this taboo may be beginning to break. All the more reason, therefore, that those of us who want to see it go should concentrate our attentions narrowly on the target, and not indulge in bigoted rhetoric that makes ordinary Jews (many of whom are also critical) feel threatened just on account of their ethnicity.

User avatar
Callahan
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 222
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2012 9:40 am

Re: What did the Jews have to gain?

Postby Callahan » 7 years 5 months ago (Wed May 23, 2012 11:45 am)

Wow. Eye-opening. Thank you.

neugierig
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 352
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 7:01 pm

Re: What did the Jews have to gain?

Postby neugierig » 7 years 5 months ago (Wed May 23, 2012 10:07 pm)

Well done, Kingfisher, and you are right; the Soviets spoke of “peaceful Soviet citizens murders by Nazis”, not Jews per se. I have often wondered at what time the Jewish “Holocaust” was born and by whom? Next to nothing was known about it during the war, aside from rumors of course. Now Jews are the main beneficiaries, but the ‘democracies’ also depend on the whole of the version to be true. And I also agree that pointing this out is of no benefit to us, true as it is, for the anti semite charge only distracts.

Today’s Die Welt article Immer weniger Deutsche mögen Israel (Less and less Germans like Israel,
http://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/ ... srael.html)
gives rise to some hope, but I am not holding my breath. The Israeli daily Ha’aretz could not ignore this, of course, their caption Poll: Majority of Germans think Israel is 'aggressive'.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-d ... e-1.432226

The Israeli professor of military history, Martin van Crevelt, wrote in his “The Sampson option:…”:

"We possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can launch them at targets in all directions, perhaps even at Rome. Most European capitals are targets for our air force. Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: 'Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother.' I consider it all hopeless at this point. We shall have to try to prevent things from coming to that, if at all possible. Our armed forces, however, are not the thirtieth strongest in the world, but rather the second or third. We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that that will happen before Israel goes under”.

All I can link to right now is Wiki, but I have seen this quote confirmed, I just can’t find it at the moment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Option

And exposing “The Holocaust” as a lie would be the end of this ‘shitty little…’, pardon, Israel. The Zionists who rule this heaven for criminals are fanatics and will do what Creveld wrote.

Regards
Wilf

User avatar
Steven Willow
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 156
Joined: Sat Apr 28, 2012 4:50 pm

Re: What did the Jews have to gain?

Postby Steven Willow » 7 years 5 months ago (Thu May 24, 2012 9:56 pm)

Kingfisher
Secondly, it's inaccurate to put it all down to "da Joos". British, American, Soviet, Polish and Communists all played their part in promoting the story. How far they actually believed it during the war is not even all that relevant. The point is an atmosphere had been created in which, when the awful conditions at Belsen, Buchenwald, etc. were discovered, it was easy to present them as a consequence of unique German bestiality. It was cynical manipulation on the part of a small number, perhaps, but in the atmosphere of the time the only good German was a dead one and the vast majority of people didn't stop to question what they were told, even if they cared. A few voiced doubts, including George Orwell, but they went largely unheard. The propaganda was a necessary counterbalance to our own brutal destruction of cities and their populations, that in any war before or since would be condemned as war crimes, as well as the expulsions of Germans from Eastern Europe and the Russian murders, rapes and predations.


I may be misinterpreting this paragraph, but I worry that some might view the Holocaust myth as having an innocent origin in the human tendency to exaggerate, or in the mere manipulation of "Holocaust propaganda." It is critical that we not lose sight of the central role that torture and forgery played in shaping the Holohoax. The proof that we have regarding torture and forgery should convince us that the Holohoax involved a coordinated effort, involving a large number of conspirators under a centralised leadership. Thus, to speak of "mass hysteria" as Crowell might, gives one the impression that we are all victims of human psychological gliches rather than dupes in a highly reasoned attack on our civilization.

There were, IIRC, some 29 AR staff members - people who worked, one presumes at these transit camps, and were privy to the most intimate details of the daily function of Treblinka, Belzec and Sobibor - who all gave post war statements avowing the routine and repeated use of mass gassing. Add to these 29 a large number of Ukrainian guards and an even larger number of functionaries of the Auschwitz Garrison, and you have overwhelming evidence of the use of systematic, brutal torture to extract a terrifying conformity to a preconcieved narrative. There has not been a single staff member employed in the areas of the so called killing instalations who ever stood up and stated, "these gas chambers did not exist, I was there and would have known if they did." No one said this.
Not prior to trial, not during trial, not after conviction, not after release, not ever. Such was the brutality of this coordinated, centralised, conspiratorial system of brutality.

This is not manipulation or exaggeration or hysteria. This is conspiracy, pure and simple. By the same token, we have the Jager Report documenting tens of thousands of murders of women and children. Is there even one person on this board who believes that the Jager report is authentic? Like the tortures of AR staff, the Jager report is one of many documents forged by a centralised group of conspirators. Whether these were exclusively jews, or a combined group of jewish and other interests remains to be known. My personal intuition is that mostly jews operated the controls of this conspiracy, but I can hardly concieve of so many convenient testimonies emerging out of happenstance.

User avatar
Callahan
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 222
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2012 9:40 am

Re: What did the Jews have to gain?

Postby Callahan » 7 years 5 months ago (Fri May 25, 2012 12:10 am)

Forgive my noobishness but what does "AR" stand for?

Random
Member
Member
Posts: 15
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 7:41 pm

Re: What did the Jews have to gain?

Postby Random » 7 years 5 months ago (Fri May 25, 2012 12:40 am)

Aktion Reinhard

User avatar
Hektor
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 3356
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:59 am

Re: What did the Jews have to gain?

Postby Hektor » 7 years 5 months ago (Fri May 25, 2012 3:34 pm)

Kingfisher wrote:Where do I begin?

Well, firstly no one hesitates to tell "atrocious lies" in the context of total war. That's what wartime propaganda is all about, and in that context, people are only too willing to believe them.
Secondly, it's inaccurate to put it all down to "da Joos". British, American, Soviet, Polish and Communists all played their part in promoting the story. How far they actually believed it during the war is not even all that relevant. The point is an atmosphere had been created in which, when the awful conditions at Belsen, Buchenwald, etc. were discovered, it was easy to present them as a consequence of unique German bestiality. It was cynical manipulation on the part of a small number, perhaps, but in the atmosphere of the time the only good German was a dead one and the vast majority of people didn't stop to question what they were told, even if they cared. A few voiced doubts, including George Orwell, but they went largely unheard. The propaganda was a necessary counterbalance to our own brutal destruction of cities and their populations, that in any war before or since would be condemned as war crimes, as well as the expulsions of Germans from Eastern Europe and the Russian murders, rapes and predations.
....

That's often forgotten. There were several groups with vested interest in atrocity propaganda against Germany and the "Nazis".
- Any war enemy had a motive to smear the Germans. Partially to strengthen it's own morale, partially for weakening the Germans. Later this was important to justify the war in toto (which would be difficult, since the Allied countries weren't actually attacked) and as a means of controlling the Germans
- Ideological enemies had a motive to portray National Socialism in the worst light possible. These were especially the Communists doing this.
- German Collaborateurs that worked with the Allies had a motive to accuse the National Socialists of the most evil things in order to justify there own behaviour, suppress criticism or debate about it and of course to re-educate and psychologically control the rest of the German populations.

Between those efforts there is of course synergy, given that there narratives will confirm each other at least after a while. Notably most people will base their Holocaust believe on corpse and sick people's from the Western camps, yet orthodox Holocaustianity claims that the "extermination program" was carried out on territories under Eastern Block control, where they were conveniently shielded from more critical investigations at least until Glasnost.

Take that as a pretext, but now add to this "Holocaust Historians" civil societies organisations dedicated to the Holocaust as well as anyone that preached Holocaust to anybody that has a vested interest into keeping that narrative alive. Especially Holocaust Historians have quite something to loose. If their pet subject is reduced to an event were just some Jews were interned as a war measure instead of the world biggest extermination program, then being a Holocaust Historian will loose most of its prestige.

So you see it isn't Jews only that had something to gain. Still they did: Defence against criticism, justification for Zionism, financial gains from Germany, building a non-theistic group identity that Jews do benefit from as a group.
The gas chamber story came from the Soviets (following on from their gas vans), together with others about steam chambers and electric floors which were soon quietly forgotten, whereas the lampshade was presented at Buchenwald by the American Psychological Warfare team, along with the shrunken heads and pieces of tattooed skin. (See Denierbud's Buchenwald video.). The Russian accusations did not single out Jews as victims.
Actually I think some speeches of Thomas Mann were broadcasted and they included references to homicidal gassings.

Steven Willow wrote:....There were, IIRC, some 29 AR staff members - people who worked, one presumes at these transit camps, and were privy to the most intimate details of the daily function of Treblinka, Belzec and Sobibor - who all gave post war statements avowing the routine and repeated use of mass gassing. Add to these 29 a large number of Ukrainian guards and an even larger number of functionaries of the Auschwitz Garrison, and you have overwhelming evidence of the use of systematic, brutal torture to extract a terrifying conformity to a preconcieved narrative. There has not been a single staff member employed in the areas of the so called killing instalations who ever stood up and stated, "these gas chambers did not exist, I was there and would have known if they did." No one said this.
Not prior to trial, not during trial, not after conviction, not after release, not ever.
Such was the brutality of this coordinated, centralised, conspiratorial system of brutality.....

You mean you do not know of any event where someone said something like this?! Do you really think this would be published broadly in case something like this had happened? Well, Do you really expect them to make a public negative claim like this? Consider the probelm of a generalised negative claim. Don't forget that most of the camp staff was of lower social standing, people just doing a job. The kind of people that does do what they are told as long as it doesn't cause them problems. Not the kind of people that would stand up against intimidation. Some of them have been in captivity and of course they counsel will have told them what to say and what not. You see, they were not really safe from further trials or treatments either. The mass-hysteria is plausible, but it doesn't preclude an organized, planned, covered up effort neither.

User avatar
truth
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 147
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2012 6:51 am
Location: USA

Re: What did the Jews have to gain?

Postby truth » 7 years 5 months ago (Fri May 25, 2012 6:02 pm)

The New World Order and the Holocaust will be the religions backbone to enslave humanity (I hope I am not right). Any questioning of the chosen ones will lead to another HC.

There is no future for humanity under this scenario. One can only hope that if we must die because of this $h!t#, they, the instigators of the NWO, die too. Humanity is not good enough then for this planet earth, especially not the elite.

The worst religion of all will always be the Holocaust cult.

neugierig
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 352
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 7:01 pm

Re: What did the Jews have to gain?

Postby neugierig » 7 years 5 months ago (Fri May 25, 2012 6:20 pm)

Looking at earlier holocaust publications has me convinced that it was not originally planned as such, but developed over time. It all started with wartime Greulpropaganda, a la WWI, to later become “The Holocaust”. But, following WWI a German government existed, sort of, to investigate and expose the propaganda as lies.

The allies had no intention to make the same mistake when WWII was over, this time there would be no investigation, German or otherwise, the lies told just transformed into “facts”. But Dönitz, the head of state as appointed by Hitler, made an effort to investigate, his biggest mistake. From “Stunde Null in Deutschland” (Hour Zero in Germany, by Trees/Whiting/Omansen/Ruhl/Thies/von Doak, Droste Verlag Düsseldorf, 1980):

„Was für eine Existenzberechtigung aber hatte nach der Kapitulation eine Regierung, die in der von den Alliierten nicht besetzten Enklave Mürwik ein Scheindasein führte, völlig in der Hand des Gegners...Und wie sollte die Frage nach der deutschen Schuld bewältigt werden, als immer mehr von den KZ-Greueln und den Vernichtungslagern bekannt wurde, deren Millionen Opfer auch heutige Historiker nicht genau zu beziffern wissen? Am 7. Mai hatte von Friedeburg, aus Reims zurück, eine Ausgabe der amerikanischen Soldatenzeitung »Stars and Stripes« mitgebracht. Sie enthielt grauenhafte Bilder aus dem Konzentrationslager Buchenwald bei Weimar. Es war am 11. April von den Amerikanern befreit worden. »Ich war der Ansicht«, erinnert sich Dönitz, »daß diese Dinge eine deutsche Angelegenheit seien, daß wir selbst alles, was an Unmenschlichem geschehen war, zu klären hatten und die Schuldigen zur Verantwortung ziehen sollten.« Auf einen an Eisenhower gerichteten Vorschlag zur Untersuchung und Aburteilung der Greueltaten durch ein deutsches Gericht blieb die Regierung Dönitz ohne Antwort. Ohne das Wissen des Großadmirals war das Schicksal dieser letzten Reichsregierung schon entschieden. (p.32)

My very rough translation: “What right to exist did the government have, totally dependent on the enemies?…And how was German guilt to be addressed as more and more details became known about the atrocities in the concentration camps and the extermination camps, the numbers of victims not known to this day? Returning from Reims on May 7, von Friedeburg (a member of the Dönitz government. Wilf) had brought with him a copy of “Stars and Stripes”, containing horrible pictures of Buchenwald, liberated on 11. April. “I was of the opinion”, Dönitz remembered later, “that those were German issues and that we must make every effort to investigate and punish the guilty”. A request send to Eisenhower, asking for permission to investigate and to be allowed to punish the guilty according to German law, was ignored. Dönitz was not aware that the fate of his government had already been sealed.”

What we have here then is: The horror stories became known after the war, an impossibility, German authorities informed about them by “Stars and Stripes”. And in any case, Buchenwald was not an extermination camp, the shortages in the camps a result of the allied bombings, the authors of the book provide details. But most important, why was Dönitz not allowed to investigate? Germans should have been forced to do so and the guilty punished according to German law! When I raised this at Rodoh, Roberto Muehlenkamp answered that this would have put Dracula in charge of the blood bank. The man is a fool, for Germans were totally dependent on the goodwill of the victors for everything, including permission to travel, etc., the authors provide details here as well.

For me this refusal to allow an investigation is all the evidence I need to convince me that all is a lie – if an investigation would have been allowed, the lies would have been exposed, see WWI. But now, that the story has been concocted, it is used to keep Germans in submission, along with the rest of the world.

Regards
Wilf

User avatar
Steven Willow
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 156
Joined: Sat Apr 28, 2012 4:50 pm

Re: What did the Jews have to gain?

Postby Steven Willow » 7 years 5 months ago (Fri May 25, 2012 7:48 pm)

Steven Willow wrote:....There were, IIRC, some 29 AR staff members - people who worked, one presumes at these transit camps, and were privy to the most intimate details of the daily function of Treblinka, Belzec and Sobibor - who all gave post war statements avowing the routine and repeated use of mass gassing. Add to these 29 a large number of Ukrainian guards and an even larger number of functionaries of the Auschwitz Garrison, and you have overwhelming evidence of the use of systematic, brutal torture to extract a terrifying conformity to a preconcieved narrative. There has not been a single staff member employed in the areas of the so called killing instalations who ever stood up and stated, "these gas chambers did not exist, I was there and would have known if they did." No one said this.
Not prior to trial, not during trial, not after conviction, not after release, not ever. Such was the brutality of this coordinated, centralised, conspiratorial system of brutality.....

You mean you do not know of any event where someone said something like this?! Do you really think this would be published broadly in case something like this had happened? Well, Do you really expect them to make a public negative claim like this? Consider the probelm of a generalised negative claim. Don't forget that most of the camp staff was of lower social standing, people just doing a job. The kind of people that does do what they are told as long as it doesn't cause them problems. Not the kind of people that would stand up against intimidation. Some of them have been in captivity and of course they counsel will have told them what to say and what not. You see, they were not really safe from further trials or treatments either. The mass-hysteria is plausible, but it doesn't preclude an organized, planned, covered up effort neither.


You make some good points, Hektor, but the point that I am making is that the compliant testimony of these AR staff is powerful evidence that they were not just tortured or threatened, but tortured and threatened in a way over the top manner that obliterated any chance to be heard. Regardless of social class, all people rebel against oppression, and these camp guards and functionaries were forced to testify that their primary task was to gas jews and process the possessions of so called victims - even though their real task was to oversee hygenic measures to protect
the people that later were proclaimed to be victims. Surely, whatever their humble origins, people like Franz Stangl and Kurt Franz, who was only a cook, must have wanted to tell their family members the truth, and would have wanted to announce to all their friends that the story of these so called death camps was pure poppycock.

But after so many beatings and threats to their families they were ground down to the deepest despair, and unable to get the word out regarding the true purpose of Treblinka. The fact that these
so called war criminals could not present their side of the story shows that the beatings, torture and threats must have been carried out with coordinated purpose. The torturers did not miss even one so called death camp guard, not Franz Suchomel or Otto Horn. They got to every one and made it clear that their silence must be life long.

Hektor, if the threat of violent retribution did not hang over their heads I am certain that several of these brave souls would have made public statements. After all, the honor of the German people was in their hands. If we revisionists should ever find details of who ordered and carried out this torture, such information would hit the Hoaxters hard. But of course, the conspirators covered their tracks well.

User avatar
Hektor
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 3356
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:59 am

Re: What did the Jews have to gain?

Postby Hektor » 7 years 5 months ago (Sat May 26, 2012 6:03 pm)

The torture hypothesis needs to be proved as well. Now I don't say it isn't that way, but I think that the social psychological factor is the more potent one. You mention Stangl and I see he live under his real name in Syria and South America. Strange indeed. Don't we investigate this already in another thread?

User avatar
Steven Willow
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 156
Joined: Sat Apr 28, 2012 4:50 pm

Re: What did the Jews have to gain?

Postby Steven Willow » 7 years 5 months ago (Sat May 26, 2012 10:14 pm)

Hektor wrote:The torture hypothesis needs to be proved as well. Now I don't say it isn't that way, but I think that the social psychological factor is the more potent one. You mention Stangl and I see he live under his real name in Syria and South America. Strange indeed. Don't we investigate this already in another thread?


I am not sure that I understand what you mean by "social psychological" factor. My way of thinking is pretty nuts and bolts, meaning that if someone is tortured or their family threatened then they will play ball and comply with things that they know to be nonsense. Are you saying that Nazi testimony about gas chambers was extracted by some subtle sort of psychological process that did not involve torture? Please explain what sort of evidence we have about this process and how it worked as I am quite curious about this and have not really considered such.

As far as torture of Nazi defendants needing to be proved, I have heard this alleged so many times that I am almost certain that it has been proven.


Return to “'Holocaust' Debate / Controversies / Comments / News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests