Collaboration and Denial

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
Friedrich Paul Berg
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 938
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2003 11:16 am

Collaboration and Denial

Postby Friedrich Paul Berg » 1 decade 6 years ago (Thu Jun 26, 2003 1:48 pm)

In the book for which Elie Wiesel is most famous, namely Night, which is recommended reading in public schools across this country, Wiesel paints an horrendous picture of life in Auschwitz from April 1944 to January 1945 when he was there. Although many hundreds of thousands of Jews were supposedly gassed there during this time, Wiesel makes no mention of gassings or gas chambers anywhere in his book, as Jürgen Graf and Robert Faurisson have pointed out to us. He does however claim to have seen flames from the chimneys and Dr. Mengele wearing a monocle. Both claims are clearly lies.

When the Russians were about to overrun Auschwitz in January 1945, both Elie and his father "chose" to go west with the retreating 'Nazis' and SS rather than be "liberated" by America's greatest ally. They could have told the whole world about Auschwitz within days--but, both Elie and his father as well as countless thousands of other Jews chose instead to trek west with the 'Nazis' on foot at night in the middle of one of the coldest winters and continue working for the defense of the Reich thereafter. In effect, they chose to collaborate.

Some of Wiesel's exact words in Night are:

"The choice was in our hands. For once we could decide our fate for ourselves. We could both stay in the hospital, where I could, thanks to my doctor, get him [the father] entered as a patient or nurse. Or else we could follow the others. 'Well, what shall we do, father?' He was silent. 'Let's be evacuated with the others,' I told him."

Elie's tale in this regard is corroborated by other "survivor" accounts including that of Primo Levi. In Levi's book Survival in Auschwitz, we have his words for January 17th, 1945:

"It was not a question of reasoning: I would probably also have followed the instinct of the flock if I had not felt so weak: fear is supremely contagious, and its immediate reaction is to make one try to run away."

But he's talking here about running away with the 'Nazis'--and not 'Nazis' who were mere rank and file party members but supposedly the worst of the worst. He's talking here about running away with the same 'Nazis' and SS who had supposedly carried out the greatest imaginable mass murders of Jews and others in the entire history of the universe. He's talking about running away with the people who supposedly did the actual killings of thousands daily for several years. But, according to his own words he would probably have gone with them nonetheless, except that he was not feeling good that day; he was feeling weak. The "fear" that he overcame was clearly fear of the Russians and not the 'Nazis;' there is no mention of fear of what the 'Nazis' and SS might do when the evacuees entered the forest or sometime later.

The choices that were made here in January 1945 are enormously important. In the entire history of Jewish suffering at the hands of gentiles what moment in time could possibly be more dramatic than this precious moment when Jews could choose between, on the one hand, liberation by the Soviets with the chance to tell the whole world about the evil 'Nazis' and to help bring about their defeat--and the other choice of going with the 'Nazi' mass murderers and to continue working for them and to help preserve their evil regime. In the vast majority of cases, they chose to go with the 'Nazis'.

The momentous choice brings Shakespeare's Hamlet to mind:

"To remain, or not to remain; that is the question: to remain and be liberated by Soviet troops and risk their slings and rifles in order to tell the whole world about the outrageous 'Nazis'--or, take arms and feet against a sea of cold and darkness in order to collaborate with the very same outrageous 'Nazis.' Oh what heartache--ay there's the rub! Thus conscience does make cowards of us all."

So what was the final score--here a drum roll seems fitting in the background as Vanna White comes onto the stage with the sealed envelope and the answer to the great riddle. The envelope is torn open and the choice is--drum roll again--according to Levi himself 800 choose to remain in Auschwitz, but 20,000 choose to go and collaborate with the 'Nazi' mass murderers. Wow! Such a surprise--already!

We see the same deliberate pro-'Nazi' collaboration in the "survivors" from Schindler's List. In their well-known story, as the Russians were about to overrun Plaszow just thirty miles down the road to the east from Auschwitz in November 1944, Schindler and more than a thousand Jews chose to go west with the retreating 'Nazis' rather than hang back and be "liberated" by the Soviets. Some even spent the next several weeks at Auschwitz--and none were gassed, not even in the movie. The hoax has certainly had its day. If there had been any kind of extermination of Jews at all Auschwitz, all of the Jews in Cracow and Plaszow would have known about it as well. All of the Jews who went west in effect also denied the Holocaust albeit only with their hands and feet. The Jews themselves were the first true Holocaust deniers, and it is about time they get all the credit they deserve.

The rather simple analysis of Holocaust survivor tales I have given here is an easy to understand refutation of the hoax in general. I urge all readers to reexamine "survivor accounts" for themselves but critically and systematically. The internet with search engines like Google allows anyone to analyze literally thousands of survivor accounts in seconds for major flaws of the type I have discussed. Just search for keywords like "evacuation" or combinations of words like "holocaust survivor Auschwitz."

One last piece of literature for this discussion is the highly acclaimed book Sophie's Choice by William Styron. What does Styron have to say about Sophie or any other Auschwitz survivor going west in January 1945? The book is a novel, but it is an historical novel by a great writer and intellect--or so we are told--and where we might find an explanation or insight for Elie's kind of choice. But there is really nothing there. The important choice Sophie made in the book was between her two children; which one should be killed in the gas chamber and which one should live? Certainly, that would have been a heart-wrenching choice and worthy of a great novel--but as to the later choice to go west with the 'Nazi' mass murderers, even the murderers of one of those same precious children, there was nothing except for the following:

"The Russians were coming and the SS wanted the children destroyed. Most of them were Polish; the Jewish children were already dead. They thought of burning them alive in a pit, or shooting them, but they decided to do something that wouldn't show too many marks and evidence. So in the freezing cold they marched the children down to the river and made them take off their clothes and soak them in the water as if they were washing them, and then made them put on these wet clothes again. Then they marched them back to the area in front of the barracks where they had been living and had a roll call. Standing in their wet clothes. The roll call lasted for many, many hours while the children stood wet and freezing and night came. All of the children died of being exposed that day. They died of exposure and pneumonia, very fast."

If anything like that had actually happened, it would have been all the more reason to stay in Auschwitz and wait for the Soviets to arrive rather than go west with the 'Nazis' and the SS. I dare say there is not even the slightest corroboration for Styron's tale of the freezing children--but his obscene tale is published and widely disseminated without any serious resistance at all--such is the state of literature in America today. Although Styron does not tell us, Sophie apparently chose to trek west with the Nazi murderers as well.

The fact is that hundreds of thousands of Jews chose to collaborate and help defend the Reich and Europe because they knew perfectly well, from their own experience over several years, that they would be treated well and given food, shelter, medical attention, protection and more (they were probably paid for their works as well) from the SS. Why else would they have possibly chosen to go west with the Nazis. Fear of communism or the Soviets? Many Jews were communists themselves. I dare say, every Jew knew the Soviet Union was their friend where Jews were protected and had risen to positions of influence and power out of all proportion to their numbers. And yet, they generally preferred to go west. Obviously, the Jews were either in deep denial, or the Holocaust story is a monstrous hoax just as revisionists claim.

The horrors in many camps at the end of the war were an indirect result of Allied bombing and strafing.

The SS were indeed the good guys and all of us owe them our eternal gratitude for keeping at least part of Europe free from communism--and that is what almost certainly gave the rest of the world a chance as well. The Jews must have understood that--but, of course, when the war was over they changed their tune completely: they were suddenly the greatest victims in the entire history of the world and, of course, deserved special consideration far above and beyond everyone else who suffered in the war. The truth is that six months earlier they were lining up by their own choice to stay with and work for the Nazis.

No doubt, Anne Frank and her father were among the Jews who preferred the company of alleged Nazi murderers rather than that of the Soviets. That is why she died in Bergen-Belsen, far to the west, rather than in Auschwitz. The good guys were the Nazis.

Friedrich Paul Berg
Last edited by Friedrich Paul Berg on Thu Jun 26, 2003 6:49 pm, edited 4 times in total.
The Holocaust story is a hoax because 1) no one was killed by the Nazis in gas chambers, 2) the total number of Jews who died in Nazi captivity is miniscule compared to what is alleged.

User avatar
Sailor
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 810
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 6:54 pm
Location: California

Postby Sailor » 1 decade 6 years ago (Thu Jun 26, 2003 5:21 pm)

Wiesel, a fervent Jewish anti-Germanist and leading Jewish author on the Holocaust and the 1986 recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize:

Every Jew, somewhere in his being, should set apart a zone of hate - healthy, virile hate - for what the German personifies and for what persists in the German. To do otherwise would be a betrayal of the dead.

There are presently about 20,000 Jews leaving annually Israel and immigrating to Germany. I simply cannot understand how these people imagine how to live there peacefully with that sort of philosophy.

Elie Wiesel frequently describes the Holocaust as "holy history", and at one point even asserted "The Holocaust is a sacred subject. One should take off one's shoes when entering its domain, one should tremble each time one pronounces the word ['Holocaust']"

According to him "In Buchenwald they sent 10,000 to their deaths every day."
This wildly irresponsible statement is, unfortunately, all too typical of the glib rhetoric of the man who was also chosen to head the U.S. government's official Holocaust Memorial.

:D
fge

Gorgias
Member
Member
Posts: 11
Joined: Tue May 27, 2003 6:56 am

Postby Gorgias » 1 decade 6 years ago (Fri Jun 27, 2003 3:26 am)

In "Night" Wiesel, on the other hand, explicitly says, that he was afraid that the Germans will kill the people that stayed in the camp. This was based only on a rumour, of course, but he believed that. Or says so in his book.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9914
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 6 years ago (Fri Jun 27, 2003 9:22 am)

Oh really? If he believed it then why didn't the vast majority of other inmates?

Why, if the Germans intended to kill all Jews, was Primo Levi spared (or the thousands of others that were left behind). Levi had been caught red-handed as a communist partisan. He was a so called Jewish 'intellectual', and according to the myth, he would have been a witness to events that the Nazis were supposedly trying to hide. Levi or the thousands of others would not have been left behind, or even left alive to talk...if it were all true.

The 'holocau$t' Industry in their usual inversion of the facts refers to the retreat as a 'death march'.

The 'marches' were combinations of foot and rail transport. Ofcourse, some died during these endeavors; to be expected given the scarcity of medical supplies, food, and lack of general provisions in a bitterly cold winter. At that stage of the war, chaos and deprivation were the norm, largely due to the Allied attacks on 'anything that moved'. Those that chose to leave with the SS knew of the difficulties ahead, but went anyway. Again, it doesn't speak well for the standard story.

- Hannover
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

TMoran
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 513
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 7:00 pm

Postby TMoran » 1 decade 6 years ago (Fri Jun 27, 2003 9:26 am)

Gorgias says:
In "Night" Wiesel, on the other hand, explicitly says, that he was afraid that the Germans will kill the people that stayed in the camp. This was based only on a rumour, of course, but he believed that. Or says so in his book.

=============================================

Yikes. Wiesel thought if he stayed behind the Germans would have killed him so he went off with the Germans?

You just have to 'love' Holocaust defense.

TMoran
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 513
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 7:00 pm

Postby TMoran » 1 decade 6 years ago (Fri Jun 27, 2003 9:32 am)

Friedrich passed along that Wiesel said he saw flames coming out of Holocaust chimneys. That is great to have such a noted figure having a record of bellowing about Holocaust chimneys since the flaming Holocaust chimney tales are the most 'corrobaratiing' testimonies in the Holocaust story and yet flaming Holocaust chimneys are so slam dunk debunkable.

Friedrich Paul Berg
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 938
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2003 11:16 am

Gorgias' Comment

Postby Friedrich Paul Berg » 1 decade 6 years ago (Fri Jun 27, 2003 2:22 pm)

Gorgias’ comment, or criticism, that Elie may have believed he would be killed in the infirmary is valid based on page 77 of the Bantam paperback edition of his book. Lack of space and sufficient writing skill had persuaded me that the issue was too complex to dwell upon for my essay. No doubt, any choice made at that time would have had risks— but nonetheless, the fact seems clear enough that the vast majority of Jews did choose to go west with the Nazis, including Elie and his father, regardless of what the exact reasoning process was to make the critical choice. And that meant, as they all knew and as numerous comments from Elie and others show, working for the Reich and the Nazis--in other words, collaboration!

There was a third option prior to evacuation: run and hide! In the chaos that abounded in the camp prior to evacuation as described by Wiesel and others, there were many opportunities to hide and/or even escape to the surrounding fields and forests. Inevitably, those areas would have soon been overrun by the Russians and that is, I dare say, the real reason for why that option was not even mentioned anywhere, by Wiesel or any others either.

Another possibility was that the Russians, not the Germans, would simply kill everyone in the infirmary. For Russian POW’s this was a real fear as explained so well in Stalin’s War of Extermination by Joachim Hoffmann. Any Russian who had surrendered to the Germans had automatically, according to Soviet philosophy, betrayed his homeland . For Jews and others whom the Russians found, it was important to convince the Russians that they had been hostile to, or victims of the Nazis and, therefore, deserved to live. Hence, victimhood became a necessity—and hence, the holocaust mythology got another early boost.

But let us look at the words on page 77. The “faceless one” was an Hungarian Jew, sick with dysentery, whom Elie had met in the hospital days earlier. Elie had been operated on by a Jewish doctor in mid-January and was still to get a “fortnight” of rest. Elie’ regarded the “faceless one” as an exceptionally pessimistic crank who actually believed--inspite of Elie's protest--Hitler would keep his promises to the Jews, that is “annihilate all the Jews before the clock strikes twelve, … ” Elie's words on page 77 are: "I burst out: 'What does it matter to you? Do we have to regard Hitler as a Prophet?" In other words, the faceless one’s opinion did not represresent any kind of concensus of Jewish opinion at all--it did not even represent the opinion of Wiesel at that point. If it had, then that would have been all the more reason to run and hide. But there is no discussion of this option to hide which suggests that Elie’s inclusion of the “faceless one’s” remarks was probably done to accommodate an incredulous editor long after the war.

Friedrich Paul Berg
The Holocaust story is a hoax because 1) no one was killed by the Nazis in gas chambers, 2) the total number of Jews who died in Nazi captivity is miniscule compared to what is alleged.

User avatar
Scott
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 306
Joined: Mon Dec 02, 2002 7:00 am

Postby Scott » 1 decade 6 years ago (Fri Jun 27, 2003 3:39 pm)

Curiously, Wiesel claims they had to scrub down the barracks before leaving in order to impress the Russians. Why bother to carry out that order with everybody leaving shortly? I didn't quite follow how Wiesel even got from the infirmary to the barracks or why this was so important. Obviously he had the run of the camp looking for his father, so he must not have wanted to hide too badly.


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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: MSN [Bot] and 8 guests