War Against Syria and the 2010s' Pop-Narrative of WWII

[Sannhet]

A theme of "Denierbud's" work is that the WWII-Holocaust narrative, as it is understood by the regular person today, is used to justify wars now.

There seems to be a clear example of this from a commenter on the Washington Post site. In response to other commenters who said that the USA should avoid intervention in Syria because it "isn't our fight", he wrote:

"According to the WingNuts here, we should have let Hitler gas the Jews. After all, it wasn't our fight."

The full exchange:


Others said:
"Actually, we did let Hitler gas the Jews. We got in when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor."
"Hitler didn't gas the Jews until late in the war."
"We also liberated many concentration camps."

A lot of ignorance is revealed in just a few short sentences above.

WWII as primarily about "gassing the Jews" is implied by those comments. It's not even that the Holocaust is "believed", that gassing is still "believed". It's that the entirety of WWII history, in the minds of these commenters, seems to revolve around the fantasy that Hitler invaded a series of countries solely to kill their Jews until a few other countries courageously said "No!" and stopped him from killing more Jews. I'm sure these people are aware that other political issues existed in 1939, but they just don't think they are important. Even the defender of U.S. policy in the WashPost thread boasts that "we liberated concentration camps"!

[Hannover]

And like the laughable 'gassing of Jews' propaganda, the absurd Syrian 'gas attacks' are a proven fraud, see here.

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2013 ... ad-to-war/

This would be an appropriate topic for the 'holocaust' forum.

- Hannover

[Sannhet]

This would be an appropriate topic for the 'holocaust' forum.

I wasn't sure which forum to put it in. Moderators, feel free to move this thread.
[OK. Moved to 'Holocaust' debate forum 5/28/13 - M1]

Inseparable in the popular imagination today is that "WWII" and the "Big-H" are one and the same. I suppose that is my point. WWII as "all about Jews" , to many/most people born after (pick a date). Would scholarship 'countering' this be "Holocaust revisionism" or "WWII revisionism"?

A secondary point is that this drive to war against Syria using "the gas chambers of the 1940s" as moral justification is a knockout example of what Denierbud meant by the Holocaust promotes military aggression and war today. See Episode 22 of the Buchenwald video ("Militarism Needs the Holocaust Myth").

[Cloud]

A theme of "Denierbud's" work is that the WWII-Holocaust narrative, as it is understood by the regular person today, is used to justify wars now.!

Pffft. I look at war using an evolutionary perspective. Genetically differing groups are merely competing each other for the necessary space and resources in order to sustain themselves. Debunking the "Holocaust narrative" won't stop what has being on between these groups for thousands of years . The weaker groups will be conquered by those who are stronger. The genes of the latter go on to replicate, while the genes of the former are eliminated. From this, we can easily see that the "Native Americans" and the Palestinians are among those that are weak.

[ginger]

I agree that what is giving force to this push to go to war with Syria is the myth of the gas chambers.

It seems that John Kerry's renewed intererest in the non-starter peace talks between Israel and Palestine is tied in with the frenzy over Assad's alleged use of sarin gas on his people. Think of Israel and you must never forget the gas chambers of World War II. Israel get your gas masks ready!

I've been waiting for some evidence of sarin gas attacks on Syrians. Where is one autopsy?

[hermod]

In response to other commenters who said that the USA should avoid intervention in Syria because it "isn't our fight", he wrote:

"According to the WingNuts here, we should have let Hitler gas the Jews. After all, it wasn't our fight."

That guy has perfectly understood why the British and American Allies supported the Zionist myth of the Holocaust during and after WW2. The myth of the Holocaust was perfect for the myth of "the Good War" which the Allied leaders wanted to create and the Allied citizens wanted (and still want) to believe in. Of course there was a huge Zionist influence in America and Great Britain, but 'the Holocaust' wouldn't have been so easy to propagandize if that myth hadn't inserted so well into the Allied propaganda. The British and American propagandists had massively used atrocity propaganda during WW1 (the German corpse factories making human soaps, the crucified Canadian soldiers, the bayoneted Belgian babies, the gassed Serbian civilians, the Belgian children whose hands were cut off, the Belgian nurses whose breasts were cut off, etc.), so why wouldn't they have bought into the Zionist Holocaust fantasies during WW2? Isn't 'the Holocaust' the best example of Über atrocity propaganda after all?

"Every war when it comes, or before it comes, is represented not as a war but as an act of self-defense against a homicidal maniac." - George Orwell

And, icing on the cake, 'the Holocaust' even enabled the British and American armies to conceal their own war crimes, as well as their Bolshevist allies' ones.

Here under is a February 29, 1944 letter to the BBC & higher members of the British clergy, from the British Ministry of Information:

Sir,

I am directed by the [British] Ministry [of Information] to send you the following circular letter:

[...]

We know the methods of rule employed by the Bolshevik dictator in Russia itself [...] We know how the Red Army behaved in Poland in 1920 and in Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Galicia and Bessarabia only recently.

We must, therefore, take into account how the Red Army will certainly behave when it overruns Central Europe. Unless precautions are taken, the obviously inevitable horrors which will result will throw an undue strain on public opinion in this country.

We cannot reform the Bolsheviks but we can do our best to save them -- and ourselves -- from the consequences of their acts. The disclosures of the past quarter of a century will render mere denials unconvincing. The only alternative to denial is to distract public attention from the whole subject.

Experience has shown that the best distraction is atrocity propaganda directed against the enemy. Unfortunately the public is no longer so susceptible as in the days of the "Corpse Factory," and the "Mutilated Belgian Babies," and the "Crucified Canadians."

Your cooperation is therefore earnestly sought to distract public attention from the doings of the Red Army by your wholehearted support of various charges against the Germans and Japanese which have been and will be put into circulation by the Ministry.

Your expression of belief in such may convince others.

[...]

http://winstonsmithministryoftruth.blog ... 3857673081

[hermod]

I agree that what is giving force to this push to go to war with Syria is the myth of the gas chambers.

It seems that John Kerry's renewed intererest in the non-starter peace talks between Israel and Palestine is tied in with the frenzy over Assad's alleged use of sarin gas on his people. Think of Israel and you must never forget the gas chambers of World War II. Israel get your gas masks ready!

1981: An Israeli air raid on Iraq has just prevented a Holocaust of 600,000 Israeli Jews.

http://fotos.fotoflexer.com/176e0d11666 ... a701d5.jpg


1991: Iraq has gas chambers for all Jews - gas chambers supplied with German Zyklon B of course.





http://fotos.fotoflexer.com/4c17aff5e9f ... 081afb.jpg

[Carto's Cutlass Supreme]

It is important to grasp the mainstream mindset regarding this. The idea that the USA liberated some concentration camps, means to most Americans that these camps were like all others and were concentration camps for Jews, and the Jews were going to be all killed there except that the Americans and British liberated the camps and kept that from happening. They liberated the camps just in time, to save some of the Jews.

Fast forward to Syria: the US is going to liberate the Syrian people before Assad can use gas on his own people.

Too amazing that it's gas again.

As an aside, a similar belief was that Hitler was in Africa (Rommel) and Norway because his plan was to take over the world, and thus this expanding empire. But few know that these areas were taken to intercept the British in Norway and to intercept Britain and America in Africa, but I don't want to go off topic with this aside.

[hermod]

It is important to grasp the mainstream mindset regarding this. The idea that the USA liberated some concentration camps, means to most Americans that these camps were like all others and were concentration camps for Jews, and the Jews were going to be all killed there except that the Americans and British liberated the camps and kept that from happening. They liberated the camps just in time, to save some of the Jews.

Most of the American and British people to whom I've said that all the German concentration camps equipped with (alleged) homicidal gassing facilities were in fact liberated by the Russians were very disappointed. The disappearance of all the Western Nazi 'gas chambers' (Belsen, Dachau, Buchenwald, etc.) from the official Holocaust narrative has been a real tragedy for the morale of the American and British "saviors of the world and humanity".

[hermod]

A secondary point is that this drive to war against Syria using "the gas chambers of the 1940s" as moral justification is a knockout example of what Denierbud meant by the Holocaust promotes military aggression and war today. See Episode 22 of the Buchenwald video ("Militarism Needs the Holocaust Myth").

I disagree with Denierbud on that point. That's true the Holocaust myth is often used in order to sell wars to Western citizens. But Denierbud also says that Hitler's alleged militarism led to WW2. Hitler's alleged militarism has been vastly exaggerated by History distorters. Hitler in fact first tried to make the other countries disarm as they had promised they would do at the Versailles Conference in 1919. In 1919 the German disarmament was supposed to be the first step of a general disarmament. When he came to power in 1933, Hitler took part in the World Disarmament Conference and requested a disarmament of the other Powers, and especially his overarmed Neighbors. France stubbornly refused Hitler's request but also refused any German rearmament. So France didn't want to reduce her own armament and didn't want to allow any German rearmament either. After months of obstinate French refusal and fruitless negociations, Hitler finally left the World Disarmament Conference and the League of Nations. A little period of time later he decided to rearm his country in order to be able to defend the German soil against any possible attack by his Neighbors. Refusing to leave his country and his people at the mercy of potential enemies, that's what is now called "Hitler's militarism".



And the scale of the German rearmament after 1933 has also been vastly exaggerated...

"The state of German armament in 1939 gives the decisive proof that Hitler was not contemplating general war, and probably not intending war at all." (Prof AJP Taylor, The Origins of the Second World War, p. 267)

"Even in 1939 the German army was not equipped for a prolonged war; and in 1940 the German land forces were inferior to the French in everything except leadership." (Prof AJP Taylor, The Origins of the Second World War, p. 104-5)

[Sannhet]

It is important to grasp the mainstream mindset regarding this. The idea that the USA liberated some concentration camps, means to most Americans that these camps were like all others and were concentration camps for Jews, and the Jews were going to be all killed there except that the Americans and British liberated the camps and kept that from happening. They liberated the camps just in time, to save some of the Jews.

Fast forward to Syria: the US is going to liberate the Syrian people before Assad can use gas on his own people.

Hence Denierbud's point: The Holocaust Myth can justify essentially any military actions by the liberal-democracies of the West today, a grand pretext for intervention with no expiration date.

I remember the 1990s. Milosevic was also called "Hitler" by the Western media and the U.S. government. The overt message was "Stop Milosevic before he does to the Kosovar-Albanians what Hitler did to the Jews".

The reality of both Kosovo (vis-a-vis Serbia and the Kosovar-Albanians) and WWII-Europe (vis-a-vis the Nazis and the Jews) was muchmore complicated than "a maniac is trying to physically exterminate an ethnic group", but liberal-democracies would not tolerate wars of these kinds very much without that myth.

[borjastick]

Sannhet. The reality is as far as I am aware, the kosovo issue goes back to a lost battle or two and no doubt massive casualties in the 12th century. The other obvious difference is that Milosovic and his boys did in fact slaughter thousands of Muslims in the region, sometimes right under the noses of the inept UN soldiers. Sometimes when those inept UN soldiers led by gonadless officers walked away and them the murder begin.

What's more is the bodies of thousands of murdered Muslims were then found, dug up along with the proof of their mass murder. If the Jews could have done the same with proof of gassing and mass murder including details of the locations of all the so called holocaust by bullets, carried out by about 600 SS men who amazingly killed up to 2m jews, we might start believing them.

[Sannhet]

Milosovic and his boys did in fact slaughter thousands of Muslims in the region

The fact is, all parties were guilty to some degree in the mess of 1990s-Yugoslavia. It was never as simple as "Milosevic and the Bosnian-Serb militias were ethnically cleansing millions of people, but NATO heroically stopped them". This is an appealing narrative. It is. People want it.

What's more is the bodies of thousands of murdered Muslims were then found, dug up along with the proof of their mass murder.

You refer to the "Srebrenica Massacre". Some scholarship casts doubt on the narrative NATO and the Bosnian Muslims presented to the world in the 1990s. Just google around for Srebrenica+hoax to see some of it. Here is a good synopsis. Its Wikipedia article even gives the revisionist position a fair hearing. One of the revisionists is UN General MacKenzie, hardly a crank. I think the revisionist case is strong.

My understanding of the "Srebrenica Revisionist" position: It is a hoax because of (1) Inflated numbers, (2) Attributing large-scale genocidal intentions where none existed, (3) The mechanics of what happened are all wrong in our narrative -- The Muslims who died were almost entirely combatants (militia) who attempted a breakout during a siege. The failure of the breakout allowed the Serbs to mow down the retreating Muslims, with up to 2,000 dying during the retreat. This is what happens, sometimes, in war. Isolated ad-hoc killings or prisoners or even civilians occurred, true (as in every war), and by all sides, but not just by the Serbs. This event is really much more complicated than we were/are told.

Srebrenica is off-topic, but may be indirectly relevant to the Jewish Holocaust story. To the extent that that the revisionists (like General MacKenzie) are correct and Srebrenica is a "hoax", it should be studied by Holocaust revisionists. It is a mini-Holocaust-narrative. It is better documented than the supposed Jewish Holocaust of 50 years earlier, so studying the Srebrenica story could even shed light on the Jewish "Holocaust" story, how it started, and spread. Denierbud played up the shameless lies told in 1990 about Iraqi soldiers murdering Kuwaiti babies, and compared them to the Holocaust story. (The difference, of course, is that the Kuwaiti stories were proven false by open investigation later in 1991, after the war, but nothing like that was allowed in the Soviet camps...) The same in principle is true of Srebrenica. Postwar political considerations demanded that the narrative be upheld at all costs, and few other than ethnic-Serbs and Western dissident seekers-of-the-truth have even bothered looking into it.

_________________________________
What is for sure is that the "pop-narrative of WWII" I allude to above also applies to Bosnia/Kosovo. "Hitler invaded a series of countries solely to kill their Jews, until we heroically stopped him and liberated the camps". "The Serbs invaded a series of semi-autonomous regions solely to kill Muslims [etc.], until NATO heroically stopped them". A form of this narrative is playing out again in Syria...

[borjastick]

I don't solely refer to srebrenica but many acts of total barbarity and mass murder. I don't buy the hoax case against these actions. There is no case for it being ok because they were combatants etc. The laws on prisoners of war and their treatment had changed since WW2 and there are conventions that are agreed to. The UN staff who might have an argument to make in favour of it being a hoax do so because the UN on the ground totally fucked up and let many hundreds if not thousands be murdered by running away. For this read Dutch. The bodies were found and logged etc unlike the Holohoax. Records, films, photos etc all exist, people talked and as it was investigated very quickly thereafter and teams of British SAS were doing the rounds there hard info was quickly put together. Read General Sir Mike Jackson's autobiography 'Soldier' a truly astonishing good read of its type, he was there and recalls much info and detail on the matters at hand. NATO didn't heroically stop anyone, in fact they were embarrassingly pathetic as a group. Things went bad for Milosovic when he decided to get rid of his bully boy and had him shot dead as he was walking along with him puffing his chest out, filmed and available on youtube. Thereafter it all got sticky for him and fell apart. It was one of NATO's worst moments. The US wouldn't put boots on the ground and the UK were stretched, the others like the Dutch were rubbish. I understand the point you make by comparing this to German troops and the allies doing their John Wayne thing by sending in the cavalry to save the day but in reality it was a very different scenario to the camps and holocaust.

[Carto's Cutlass Supreme]

Borjastick wrote:

Things went bad for Milosovic when he decided to get rid of his bully boy and had him shot dead as he was walking along with him puffing his chest out, filmed and available on youtube.

Sometimes when those inept UN soldiers led by gonadless officers walked away and them the murder begin.

Milosovic and his boys

This kind of language is holocaust myth-like.

I know of a famous barbed wire photo (to imply concentration camp) on the cover of Time or Newsweek that brought the public into indignation against Serbia but was a photo later shown to be out of context so as to make pro-war propaganda.

Then there is Robert Holbrooke, one of the biggest proponents of intervention. A Jew with a very anglo name who later became security council representative using the the USA veto power to support Israel. I think Tom Lantos was also a big interventionist.

I remember the Jewish controlled media at the time of that conflict putting out pro-war propaganda articles against Serbia, and I remember often mentioned comparisons to Hitler and ethnic cleansing.

I remember US bombs included bomblets (or cluster bombs?) in a market place if I remember, and journalists killed when the tv station was bombed.

I remember an article on General Wesley Clark who had discovered his father was a Chicago politician and Jewish, saying something about connecting the Jewish holocaust to his military actions in Serbia and preventing something similar to what happened to the Jews from happening in the former Yugoslavia.

This all fits the mold quite well of subsequent military actions based on bogus info and propaganda.

This is off topic though, and I haven't really studied it.