1,232 words
“The Holocaust” has come to mean the mass killing of Jewish civilians by Germany during the Second World War. In Adolf Hitler’s “Mein Politisches Testament” (My Political Testament) dictated on April 29, 1945, the day before his suicide, there is a passage that seems to mention and justify the Holocaust.
The German original reads:
Es ist unwahr, dass ich oder irgendjemand anderer in Deutschland den Krieg im Jahre [p. 2] 1939 gewollt haben. Er wurde gewollt und angestiftet ausschliesslich von jenen internationalen Staatsmännern, die entweder jüdischer Herkunft waren oder für jüdische Interessen arbeiteten.
Ich habe zuviele Angebote zur Rüstungsbeschränkung und Rüstungsbegrenzung gemacht, die die Nachwelt nicht auf alle Ewigkeiten wegzuleugnen vermag, als dass die Verantwortung für den Ausbruch dieses Krieges auf mir lasten könnte. Ich habe weiter nie gewollt, dass nach dem ersten unseligen Weltkrieg ein zweiter gegen England oder gar gegen Amerika entsteht. Es werden Jahrhunderte vergehen, aber aus den Ruinen unserer Städte und Kunstdenkmäler wird sich der Hass gegen das, letzten Endes verantwortliche Volk immer wieder erneuern, dem wir das alles zu verdanken haben: Dem internationalen Judentum und seinen Helfern!
Ich habe noch drei Tage vor Ausbruch des deutsch-polnischen Krieges den britischen Botschafter in Berlin eine Lösung der deutsch-polnischen Probleme vorgeschlagen – ähnlich der im Falle des Saargebietes unter internationaler Kontrolle. Auch dieses Angebot kann nicht weggeleugnet werden. Es wurde nur [p. 3] verworfen, weil die massgebenden Kreise der englischen Politik den Krieg wünschten, teils der erhofften Geschäfte wegen, teils getrieben durch eine, vom internationalen Judentum veranstaltete Propaganda.
Ich habe aber auch keinen Zweifel darüber gelassen, dass, wenn die Völker Europas wieder nur als Aktienpakete dieser internationalen Geld- und Finanzverschwörer angesehen werden, dann auch jenes Volk mit zur Verantwortung gezogen werden wird, das der eigentlich Schuldige an diesem mörderischen Ringen ist: Das Judentum! Ich habe weiter keinen darüber im Unklaren gelassen, dass dieses Mal nicht nur Millionen Kinder von Europäern der arischen Völker verhungern werden, nicht nur Millionen erwachsener Männer den Tod erleiden und nicht nur Hunderttausende an Frauen und Kindern in den Städten verbrannt und zu Tode bombardiert werden dürften, ohne dass der eigentlich Schuldige, wenn auch durch humanere Mittel, seine Schuld zu büssen hat.
In translation:
It is not true that I or anyone else in Germany wanted the war in 1939. It was desired and instigated exclusively by those international statesmen who were either of Jewish origin or who worked for Jewish interests.
I have made too many offers for the control and limitation of armaments, which posterity will not be able to disregard forever — for the responsibility for the outbreak of this war to be laid on me. I have furthermore never wished that after the first disastrous world war a second should arise against England, much less against America. Centuries will pass away, but out of the ruins of our cities and monuments the hatred will continually grow anew against the people that is ultimately responsible, and for whom we have to thank for all this: international Jewry and its helpers!
Three days before the outbreak of the German-Polish war I again proposed to the British ambassador in Berlin a solution to the German-Polish problem – one similar to the solution that had been applied in the case of the Saar territory involving international supervision. That proposal likewise cannot be denied. It was rejected only because the leading circles in English politics wanted the war, partly on account of the hoped-for business opportunities, and partly prompted by the propaganda organized by international Jewry.
But I also left no doubt that if the peoples of Europe are once again viewed as mere blocs of shares by these international money and financial conspirators, then the people who are actually guilty of this murderous struggle will also be held accountable: Jewry! I also left no one in any doubt that this time, millions of children of European Aryan peoples will not starve to death, nor will millions of adult men die, nor will hundreds of thousands of women and children be burned and bombed to death in the cities, without the actual culprit having to atone for his guilt, even if through more humane means. (For a full translation, click here.)
At the end of his life, Hitler naturally wanted to set the record straight on the Second World War. The two main issues he addressed were responsibility for the outbreak of the war and the fate of European Jewry. In the first three paragraphs, he denies responsibility for starting the war. I wish to focus on the last paragraph, which deals with the fate of the Jews.
As I read it, Hitler is saying that before the Second World War, he “left no doubt” that if a Second World War were to break out, he would hold the responsible party accountable, namely “Jewry.” He then says that if millions of European men, women, and children were to die in battle, of starvation, and by bombs and firestorms that he would make the actual culprits – again, Jewry – pay for their crimes, “even if through more humane means.”
Hitler makes a point of mentioning the deaths of European men, women, and children, combatants and non-combatants alike. Does this imply that justice should be served on Jewish men, women, and children, combatants and non-combatants alike? And what would justice be? Since Hitler refers only to the deaths of millions of Europeans, does that imply that justice requires the death of millions of Jews? What are these humane means of punishment? They could be virtually anything short of starvation, being crushed under bombed out buildings, or being burned alive in firestorms. This would include a whole range of forms of execution.
Now, at the end of the war, Hitler is saying that the war indeed happened, millions of Europeans are indeed dead, and that he has indeed made the culprits pay, albeit humanely.
This sounds like an admission that the Germans executed millions of Jewish men, women, and children. In short, it sounds like the Holocaust. It also sounds like Hitler is justifying the Holocaust as collective punishment for starting a war in which millions of European men, women, and children died, often in far more horrible ways than the Jews were dispatched.
Indeed, given Hitler’s belief that Jews were responsible for the war, it is hard to believe that his policy was to care for and feed millions of Jews when he could not do the same for his own people.
But what does Hitler mean when he said that he made this all clear before the war? It is likely that he is referring to his speech of January 30, 1939, delivered to the Reichstag at the Kroll Opera House in Berlin on the sixth anniversary of his rise to power. In this speech, Hitler makes a prophecy about what will happen if international Jewry instigates a Second World War:
Ich will heute wieder ein Prophet sein: Wenn es dem internationalen Finanzjudentum in und außerhalb Europas gelingen sollte, die Völker noch einmal in einen Weltkrieg zu stürzen, dann wird das Ergebnis nicht die Bolschewisierung der Erde und damit der Sieg des Judentums sein, sondern die Vernichtung der jüdischen Rasse in Europa!
Today I will once more be a prophet: If the international Jewish financiers in and outside Europe should succeed in plunging the peoples once more into a world war, then the result will not be the Bolshevization of the earth and thus the victory of Jewry, but the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe!
At the end of his life, was Hitler saying that he tried his best to make this prophecy come true?
317 comments
There was a mutual war of annihilation that occurred between global Jewry and the state of Germany. Ultimately no quarter was asked for or given. Things got very grisly; after all it was a war of annihilation. The Jews fed millions of their own lesser regarded tribesmen and women and children into the fires of this global catastrophe. Jewish losses were, to say the least, grievous. The winners of this war call this the “Holocaust” a biblical term to describe a burnt offering made up to God. There was a war.
The jews fed millions of other people’s children to this catastrophe. Meaning White people. The jews did not lose millions. They cut and ran as usual after instigating things. Basically things went the way they wanted them to in the end. Sure, I’m stating the Reader’s Digest version but it’s the truth.
Interesting find. I didn’t know that “Mein Politisches Testament” existed.
Who says that exactly? No Revisionist that I know.
I conceded a long time ago that Hilberg’s 5.1 million Jewish mortality figure could be true ─ but not that Hitler had any kind of Jewish extermination order.
I also claim that nobody was gassed, which I think is hugely important for Holocaust(tm) lore, and the decent historiography that we don’t have yet thanks to largely Marxist academia.
I’ve explained how it might be possible to nail down how many Jews died or went missing during the war with adequate genealogical research, a daunting project.
I’ll leave that to the Jews themselves, if any of them are genuinely interested, because if a Gentile comes up with a lesser figure than Hilberg now, then they will probably just go to jail for Hate Speech.
In the end, I don’t really care how many Jews died in WWII because 1) they are no better than anybody else, and 2) we know that scores of millions died in the global conflict overall, and 3) that “it takes two to tango.” Both sides fight wars cruelly and with “fire” if they want to win.
Hitler actually made the latter point in Mein Kampf where it seems that all German weapons and war measures in the World War (No. 1) were cruel and inhumane, but never so for the Good Guys.
🙂
Couldn’t have happened to a nicer people.
Ouch!
Careful Greg. Mike Enoch isn’t going to take too kindly to this. He might even have some mean words for you on Twitter.
You were a denier back when I first found out about you on 2014 TDS. Then over the years that seems to have changed? What happened?
I always thought denial was dumb and the more TRS leaned into it the more boring it became.
No, back when I was friendly with Moike (more than 8 years ago), I was not a denier, just a stepper-over.
Very thoughtful and clever essay.
No one can say they were not warned.
Well, that “testament” is fake, made by someone in the allied inteligence who spoke good german, possibly a european jew, US intelligence was packed of them.
This is a good forgery, unlike many others bad forgeries, like the Goebbels Diary.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/13507486.2018.1532983&ved=2ahUKEwjL2ZatvdiOAxU8TDABHTicOtoQFnoECB0QAQ&usg=AOvVaw0X6M2O27fZ2EQUvkfZUbQ-
No, this is about a different document that purportedly consisted of late table talk notes.
As far as I know, no serious doubts have been raised about the authenticity of the document I cite here.
David Irving said it was real.
I think it is essentially real, and David Irving agrees that the provenance is suspect.
🙂
Is it possible to find the entire text of Hitler’s Testament in English somewhere? Hitler allegedly wrote instructions to the future chancellor of Germany shortly before his death. Are you familiar with this document, Greg? In this document, he warns the future chancellor to do whatever it takes to prevent Jews from coming to power in Germany, because there is a difference between losing a war and losing Germany again, and there is a difference between losing a race and being exterminated by the enemy! Hitler knew that the Allies and the Russians would blame him for World War II. And that the Germans and National Socialism would be blamed for all the victims of World War II.
On the subject of National Socialism and the Holocaust, there is Himmler’s speech at the end of the war, in which Himmler directly tells the Junkers that everyone knows how we treated the Jews and what the final solution to the Jewish question is in National Socialism. Attendance was taken at this speech so that it could be determined who had heard it. This speech caused consternation at the time. And the Junkers knew that National Socialism had to win, otherwise they would be condemned after losing the war.
The link at the top has the entire text in photocopies and German transcripts.
Here is a good translation in English: https://ihr.org/other/hitlertestament-html
I thought he lived out the rest of his life in Argentina? He even had a few kids. Whatever happened to that story?
He died of a heart attack when he saw the gas bill.
You’re right! Public utilities can track you down anywhere.
There are a couple of other theories: 1) That he lived out his life in Franco’s palace in Spain. 2) That he travelled to the Antarctic, and lived in a cave, eventually he had his head grafted onto a robot body (they made a movie about it). 🙃
No, Hitler chose to go down with the ship in the capital city of Berlin.
He also made sure that the corpse of the Geman Head of State was sufficiently disfigured so that the Enemy could not put it on display as a trophy to mock Germany like they had with Mussolini and his mistress when captured by Communist brigands. Berlin Gauleiter Goebbels attempted the same, but due to the shortage of fuel, his insufficiently-charred corpse was still recognizable in Soviet newsreels.
Stalin did not try to put the bodies on display, or show them being urinated on, but he did behave rather strangely on the subject, falsely claiming to the Allies that they had not found Hitler’s body. In fact, SMERSH did do autopsies but publicly spread all kinds of disinformation for some reason.
In reality, Hitler’s body was firmly identified by his dental work and by the grilling of his personal staff as to what happened at the end, and Stalin knew this.
Hitler bit a cyanide capsule and simultaneously shot himself in the head with his own 7.65 mm Walther police pistol to make sure. The Red Army was less than two miles away.
🙂
Harry Cooper is still around, with his U-boot newsletter blog. He really had me going there, however briefly, with his Hitler-in-Argentina claim. Of course there are plenty of intelligence inquiries and wire-service stories from 1945 and after, which claim or suggest that Hitler escaped, possibly fleeing by submarine via Spain.
Just enough plausibility in these nuggets to make you go,”I wonder…”
It reminds me of those IQ Bell-Curve memes where the midwits in the middle are the truly clueless ones, while the feebleminded and the hooded geniuses are in agreement because they’re just too stupid or smart to fall for the standard narrative. In one of them they agree Santa Claus (St Nicholas) is real, except for the midwit who insists Santa doesn’t exist. This could be easily modified with the midwit telling us Hitler committed suicide in his bunker, and that’s true because it was on TV.
It looks like “atone for his guilt, even if through more humane means” refers to the widespread dispossession occurring from discriminatory laws and boycotts of Jewish professional businesses. This much did take place. If we stipulate as a premise that all the Holo-propaganda lore is true, then that whole litany of torments would be much less humane than dying in battle.
As for the “I left no doubt” part, I recall a passage in Mein Kampf stating that, if further bad behavior was observed, Jews would pay a heavy penalty though short of war. This isn’t clarified further, and at the time I read it I thought Hitler had in mind to kick them out of the country. On second thought, banning them from the lucrative trades which they’d largely taken over would also constitute a dire penalty short of war.
Really? Do you think Hitler would consider boycotts, professional discrimination, or even mass deportation sufficient payback for causing the death of millions of Germans? Hitler wasn’t a Norwegian Social Democrat, after all. How many Germans did he execute for simple military insubordination? Do you think he would be less punitive and more discriminating with the people he held responsible for the whole war?
Well, shucks. I had a very long reply, but it didn’t post. I’ll just say that Hitler was enough of a dick to dish out collective punishments, but not enough of one to take it to the max and turn six million Jews into bars of soap.
“Do you think Hitler would consider boycotts, professional discrimination, or even mass deportation sufficient payback for causing the death of millions of Germans?”
I can easily imagine a reasonable man thinking that economic punishment was necessary and sufficient. That is what Bob Whitaker thought, and eventually I came to the same view. The Jews use the corrupting power of money to destroy us. For the sake of future generations of White children, this weapon should be taken from the Jews’ hands. This is consistent with Rudy Giuliani’s theory on how to diminish the power of the Mafia. If a Mafia family has a two million dollar racket and you put the head of the family in prison then the next boss takes over and you’ve accomplished nothing, but if you reduce that two million dollar racket to a one million dollar racket you’ve done a lot.
So that is one of the possible ways a reasonable man might think, but would Hitler think like that? Maybe not.
I can easily put myself in the place of millions of British people who were happy that Chamberlain and Hitler had made peace. They thought they knew what Hitler would do from then on because it made sense to them; it would surely be the same sort of thing they would want to do.
It made sense but it wasn’t correct. They were completely wrong about what Hitler would do.
People who think like me have a track record of guessing wildly wrong about what men who think like Hitler might do.
Well, the innocents among the British public might’ve had a better idea of what the future would hold if they had any idea about how their own leaders were agitating for war behind the scenes.
By your own logic, even if you take the clearly falsified absurdities & exaggerations of the holocaust as fact, no such thing as a “holocaust” occurred, it was just a war.
Otherwise, you must accept that the Germans experienced a holocaust & they’re owed reparations from the allies & jewry. You’re giving jews, the very instigators of murderous boshevism & WW2, special status when they don’t deserve it. An actual holocaust requires the rest of the context to be ignored.
As I said at the start (very first sentence), the term has come to mean the mass killing of Jewish civilians by the Third Reich in WWII. That really did happen.
Do you deny that that happened?
A lot of revisionist discussion continually oscillates just like you are between denying some version of the Holocaust (usually based on an overly specific, straw-man definition) or admitting it but saying that it wasn’t unique, doesn’t matter, was worse for others, and the like.
On the one hand, there’s a strategic use of very specific definitions and straining analysis of single words and, on the other hand, a (probably also strategic) ambiguity about the overall agenda.
Your position on the holocaust has always been interesting to me. I agree that even if it happened exactly as stated in the history books, we would still have the right to a wn movement. And that we should simply ignore this historical event in favor of the current movement. However revisionism is simply not supported by straw man arguments. Every revisionist book or documentary I have ever read or seen has started with the official narrative as the basis for the investigation.
The official narrative says this is how it happened…. And then the revisionist asks is this possible? If so, is this likely? Many claims fall into the not possible category. From there most possible claims fall into the unlikely or absurdly ridiculous category.
A straw man is made from a misrepresentation of the position and arguing with said invention. How is arguing directly with the sources of the entire holocaust narrative word for word a straw man?
Further, if the claims fall due to the fact that they are not true, the biggest fear the normie has of a wn movement is negated.
Either way I do respect C.C. very much and will continue reading.
A strawman can also take the form of overly rigid definitions of terms. If I stipulate that the word “Holocaust” means lampshades + soap + millions of dead Jews, I can declare that it never happened quite easily simply by defining it that way.
True but revisionism has shown the millions of dead Jews by the methods stipulated by the mainstream official narrative is physically impossible , logically improbable and ridiculous. It almost sounds as if you are arguing for a holocaust that isn’t claimed. Millions of dead Jews, killed intentionally as an attempt to extinguish the jews, by the Germans is the holocaust. If this didn’t happen neither did the holocaust. If you have a nebulous definition that doesn’t require a planned and executed extermination attempt (that is actually physically possible), then not only does that disagree with the definition of holocaust defined by yad yshem and general opinion on the event, it cedes the narrative to people pushing an impossible story as a reason to deny our peoples right to exist.
Somehow, it was physically possible for 70 to 80 million people to die during WWII, but it is not physically possible for 5+ million of them to be Jews? These arguments just don’t pass a basic plausibility test.
I do not deny that the deaths are possible. But the holocaust is not simply dead Jews. It’s a deliberate and systematic extermination attempt, with well defined methods and timetables. It is an compilation of very specific claims(gas chambers, mass cremations and a deliberate coverup). The actual claims of the holocaust have been refuted. It was not possible for these killing to take place by the methods described, and it was not possible for the bodies to be disposed of by the methods described. Or in the time given by the very people who define the holocaust.
Your arguments here have been redefining the holocaust into a claim that isn’t being made. If this was a murder trial and the defense proves that the elements of the case are not just false but physically impossible in the time Window that the murder took place; Is it logical for the prosecution to be able bring up a completely different means and timetable? And then retry the accused?
This is confusing because you are accepting the holocaust AND claiming it to be an event that the people who define the holocaust already deny. It’s as if you’re saying that just because the claims given as evidence aren’t true, it must have just happened a different way. And that there is no possibility of people lying so that they can pursue the agenda that is causing our peoples current crisis.
Greg should debate Mike Enoch on wether it happened
Agree with you. This is all he meant. I don’t think you can read anything too particular into that statement. Confirmation bias.
The Holocaust as described would have been as barbaric as anything.
In Mein Kampf, Hitler actually remarks that instead of German soldiers suffering the poison gas, it would have been better to subject traitorous Jews to this treatment.
We should not take this too literally. Lots of bellicose things are said in wartime by all sides. It could be argued that the United States subjected Muslim Filipino insurrgents to “Genocide” during the Spanish-American War, and there was even a jingoistic Gary Cooper movie made about this.
Also, the conflicts with the sparse Native Americans (Injuns) is often described as “Genocide” by the Left. This is nonsense of course but every College Professor is required to have an (Indigenous Land Acknowledgment) or Struggle Session declaration at the end of his e-mail in our Marxist Universities. I am not sure if they do this at BYU or not; they are a private institution so resist some of this.
“Genocide” is an extremely polemical term ─ as was intended when it was invented in 1944 by a Polish jurist named (((Raphael Lemkin))), and I advise our people to avoid that weird term altogether.
Every party with any butthurt or a legitimate grievance is not a “Genocide” victim.
🙂
I guess in hindsight the take home lesson is to avoid being humane with enemies.
I recall reading in an issue of the Barnes Review that the NS went out of their way to debate how to deal with the Jewish population. Should they assimilate them? Should they make them useful and teach them farming? Should they just find them another place to live like Madagascar?
The same lesson that Caesar’s demise tells us, and a lesson the Israelis are taking to heart.
I guess in hindsight the take home lesson is to avoid being humane with enemies. A lesson that too many Whites refuse to take seriously, even as pure daydreams. They’re inhumanly cruel to their own especially for jews but never against the primary enemy and their liege no matter what evils are done to them. This cancer of ‘luv and tolerance’ of the intolerable must be ferociously extirpated.
This ‘argument’ (if you could even stretch the word so far) is a popular one, but it’s such a feeble attempt that I honestly cannot believe anyone takes it seriously.
Firstly, there’s a lot of presupposing going on here to make this idea work. Frankly, Hitler says literally nothing which could possibly allude to an idea so absurd as admitting the ‘holocaust’ – which conveniently encompasses everything the person making the argument already believes about it.
Consider it.
If you believe Hitler was trying to ‘admit’ to attempting to genocide the Jews of Europe; and he was admitting this whilst already knowing he was going to die the next day, why bother with such a vague admission? If it is an admission, then this surely means he expected this Jewish ‘atonement by more humane means’ to be discovered (after all, he wouldn’t want his ‘admission’ to be misinterpreted, surely!); otherwise, there’d be no point in saying any of this in the first place. And if he expected it to be discovered, then he’d have no reason not to simply come right out and say it without the opaque language which, again conveniently, invites historians looking for statements of admission to hermeneutically discover them in what would otherwise be a document which wouldn’t otherwise invite such a conclusion, or even consideration. This is to say that you already need something like the holocaust in mind to even consider the possibility that this is something Hitler could be referring to.
The fact is that the interpretation of what Hitler was saying is so obviously contentious and unclear (unless you proscribe it by law) that if such an admission was intended but isn’t immediately obvious for some reason – despite the circumstances providing no reason to hide it, which is paradoxically the precise claim being made in calling it an ‘admission’ – that it must be questioned whether such an interpretation is even valid at all; and I would say that objective judgement should lean towards it being decidedly NOT – all things considered.
If you don’t presuppose the holocaust, is it not simply more likely that Hitler was referring to what all the documentary evidence shows? That the ‘Final Solution’ to the Jewish question was the mass deportation of Jews from Europe (think of the non-conspiratorial and plain language ‘interpretation’ of Göring’s July 31, 1941, letter to Heydrich “for bringing about a total solution of the Jewish question in the German sphere of influence in Europe”, or the Wannsee minutes from January 20, 1942) which could certainly be said was a ‘more humane’ punishment for the Jews than being murdered the way Hitler describes Europeans as having suffered because of the war.
When Raul Hilberg, the world’s foremost holocaust scholar, made this argument, Carlo Mattogno, the world’s foremost revisionist scholar, responded quite plainly: “These “more humane means” refer to the cessation of the Jewish role in Europe mentioned in Hitler’s “prophecies,” to which this text clearly alludes. . .” (Mattogno, Carlo: Bungled: “The Destruction of the European Jews”, London: ARMREG 2024, pp. 221 ff.) Considering that in January 1939 when Hitler first uttered his ‘prophecy’ the idea of mass murdering Jews wasn’t even a thought – and neither was the prospect of going to war for that matter – as is now widely admitted by historians (most notably Christopher Browning and Peter Longerich believe Hitler only decided to murder all the Jews as early as Oct.-Dec. 1941; some give a date as late as 1942) it begs the question why the allusion to the prophecy in 1945 should have any more sinister meaning about it than the prophecy of 1939. Arthur Butz in his famous The Hoax of the Twentieth Century basically says the same thing.
Wilhelm Stäglich points out in his book Auschwitz: A Judge Looks at the Evidence (London: ARMREG 2024, pp. 107-108) [Originally: Der Auschwitz-Mythos – Legende oder Wirklichkeit, Tübingen 1979] that Hitler “only says that the “real guilty party in this murderous struggle” “international Jewry” – but not “the Jews” as such – would have to pay for its guilt. . .” Therefore, he “was not referring to any possibility of physically eliminating the Jewish people, but anticipating that the stratum of Jewish leaders would receive some kind of punishment, which, in his own words, would be more “humane” than the slaughter of European soldiers and civilians in the war.” Stäglich considers that Hitler’s remarks “could apply to the period after the victory for which he may still have entertained some hope. If so, it should be understood as an exhortation and assignment that for his successors.”
While Stäglich doesn’t take this evaluation further by considering other parts of the Testament, it’s clear he has a good basis for supposing this to be Hitler’s viewpoint. That Hitler ends the document with the following statement: “Above all, I enjoin the government and the people to uphold the race laws to the limit and to resist mercilessly the poisoner of all nations, international Jewry.” (Maser, Werner: Hitler’s Letters and Notes, New York: Harper & Row, 1974, p. 365) is a clear indication that he doesn’t consider the fight over, nor the punishment completed; and even before this final paragraph, after appointing his new government, with all sincerity, Hitler implores them to “always remember that our task, the consolidation of a National Socialist state, represents the work of centuries to come. . .” (Ibid., p. 362) It is therefore a very good indication of the correctness of Stäglich’s interpretation.
Stäglich also supposes that if Hitler actually knew anything about any supposed mass extermination, then he would’ve worded his testament much more explicitly; but of course, this entire ‘debate’ relies largely on speculation most due to the introduction of the presupposition of belief in ‘the holocaust’ being imposed on the document from without; muddying what might have otherwise been a clear and unobjectionable interpretation.
What’s clear enough to me, is that all this proves, when you consider the chronology, is that it’s very easy to succumb to confirmation bias because you’re looking for an interpretation without accounting for your prior beliefs. […]
I don’t think the passage in question is vague. I think it is blunt and straightforward, especially if you assume a basic “eye for an eye” view of punishment: Hitler claims that Jews have caused the death of millions of innocent Europeans, therefore, why would he not believe that millions of Jews should die to avenge them?
Was Hitler stingy about using the death penalty, even on his own people?
Surely Hitler thought that starting a World War was far worse, say, than a group of partisans attacking German soldiers. What sort of retribution did the Germans mete out to partisans and the people who happened to live near them?
Why would Hitler be picky about meting out collective punishment to Jews, given that the treatment of Germans was indiscriminate slaughter though bombing and starvation?
I honestly find it hard to believe that Hitler, given his beliefs about the Jews and their responsibility for the war, his highly vindictive character, and his lack of scruples on matters of collective punishment, planned to let the Jews atone “poolside,” being fed and cared for while his own people were being starved, incinerated, and buried under rubble.
It is vague because you have to ‘assume’ that Hitler took an ‘eye for an eye’ view.
That Hitler blamed the Jews for the war could also be seen as merely typical and generic rhetoric. At various points during the war he blamed everyone including the various Allies (who were certainly much more to blame, rather than the Jews, who I actually think were fairly irrelevant), yet he did not exact an ‘eye for an eye’ against Allied POWs; nor did he exact an ‘eye for an eye’ against them after the bombing of German cities, especially Dresden. Nor did he against the Poles, for instance. And we have no evidence to think he’d have done so on a larger scale had he won the war either. Quite the opposite in case of the latter, where there are documents (the most well-known being Himmler’s letter to Hitler of May 25, 1940 on the ‘Reflections on the Treatment of Peoples of Alien Races in the East’: IMT, Green Series, Vol. XIII, pp. 147 ff.) which discuss populating sifting and assimilation plans!
Or, using your logic here, should we just adduce that based on these remarks, and your presuppositions (if we were to take them as particularly ‘plausible’), that actually Hitler must surely have intended to do so? This is obviously an absurd method which ignores the limitations of the evidence.
There’s no doubt Hitler could be ruthless, but he was not always ruthless even if he made ruthless remarks. Hitler did, and his government did, only what can be proved. Anything else must fit into that larger frame; and this frame cannot be discerned by this document.
In any case, you’re really making the same mistake as Hillberg did ‘by eliminating the comparative, which deprives the text of its meaning’ as Mattogno observed. He went on to put forward the following viewpoint: ‘In his conflict with the Jews, Hitler used the term “more humane means” as compared to the means employed against European men, women and children – this referred in particular to the British bombing of Dresden.’ Which is to say that the ‘comparative’ is between what Hitler saw as the barbarism of the war inflicted upon Europeans, and the ‘more humane’ atonement those responsible would have to face. If any line comes as close to outright refuting the idea that Hitler could possibly be ‘admitting’ to mass murder in this document, then it is this. Unless somehow a mass extermination program is somehow ‘more humane’. This seems doubtful. To assume that you’d not only have to do more assuming, but it’d have to be such a dissimulation effort on Hitler’s part that his words portray multiple meanings which cannot help but possibly, and so conveniently, still ‘admit’ what it is you have already preconceived him to have been admitting; which means Hitler was not saying what he seems to have been saying. So here too we have to assume he was being sarcastic or being euphemistic, because you have already assumed that anything short of mass murder isn’t conceivable; and you have to assume that because Hitler is ruthless; and being ruthless, you’re assuming, must also mean programmatic extermination plans. This just gets more and more implausible to me because it’s based on nothing.
Anyway, back to the document: What is unclear, and I consider vague, is whether this holding to account of the ‘culprits’ refers to what has supposedly already taken place, or what is still yet to come in the long term in some indeterminate future, or in some symbolic ‘they will be punished by history’ kind of prediction. I base this question on the document itself, wherein Hitler still supposes the fight will continue (both militarily and against world Jewry), and therefore calls into question whether the significance of this paragraph is in relation to the continuing struggle. He is, then, merely reiterating his prediction rather than ‘admitting’ to something which you have no evidence he had in his mind, and which seems incredibly unlikely because we cannot determine with certainty what timescale the remarks refer to, since he makes no mention of tense. So, I maintain that this is vague; but only because you cannot prove a negative, which is how I view your argument. And I maintain that according to your argument this is not what you’d expect because he’s supposed to be admitting it, so there shouldn’t be such ambiguity if it really that straight forward.
Although I suppose you simply deny that there’s ambiguity because of what you ‘assume’; to admit it’s vague would be to essentially concede (because then the idea that it should be explicit obviously isn’t true, and neither is the argument, you have to maintain otherwise). However, the fact a disagreement is even possible, where it wouldn’t be if Hitler just said something more explicit, cannot be ignored.
Ultimately, I disagree that the mere phrase “the real culprit having to atone for his guilt” in any way invokes knowledge of mass murder; Hitler doesn’t say what would be considered atonement, only that they would atone, and not even that they have atoned already! This is vague.
You ask why Hitler wouldn’t think millions of Jews should die as recompense, or ‘atonement’, ignoring that Hitler said their atonement would be more humane; nonetheless, I can only say by way of reply that it’s not conceivably possible for me to know one way or the other. I cannot, and will not, assume that he must thought millions of Jews should die because I think it fits his personality – or what you’re really saying, that this means he specifically authorized a mass extermination policy. However, I should be clear here and say that this does not mean he didn’t approve, tacitly or otherwise, of brutal reprisals and indiscriminate killings. This sort of thing obviously took place, and Mattogno documents it too.
No revisionist denies that many Jews died as recompense at various points in the war (in reprisals), what is disputed is that this was apart of a genocidal extermination campaign, specifically targeted at Jews for being Jewish. Mattogno shows how the claims in this regard do no hold up; that Jews were disproportionately affected by anti-partisan reprisals, but this is as far as the ‘collective’ punishment went. It didn’t amount to systematic slaughter, it didn’t amount to gassings, or endless shootings. That reprisals took place says all you need to know about retribution; that it was retributive means it must’ve been sufficiently considered as such, regardless of the numbers or whether there was an ‘extermination plan’ in operation. It could just as well not have been and still have been considered sufficient. What you seem to be claiming is that ‘retribution’ isn’t enough unless the numbers are higher; and the numbers can only be higher if there was an explicit policy and design to commit genocide. But this is an unfounded assumption – based on your own arbitrary presuppositions – not derived from the evidence, and can therefore be dismissed. After all, it’s not as if none of what the Germans did was considered ‘reprisals’. This can hardly be considered ‘stingy on the death penalty’.
You forget too that Hitler was fighting a war, he was preoccupied by more than just Jews. The evidence shows that Hitler repeatedly demanded the Jewish question be put on hold until the war was over. Then resettlement would continue. So, Jews were being used to aid the war effort, deported to work and transit camps, etc. They had a purpose in the war machinery.
If one wonders about Hitler’s apparent ‘lack of scruples’ it’s a wonder, again, he let the Allied POWs and even Soviet POWs survive. He even increased their rations when he could (there was a great back and forth between German historians about this in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung back in 2005). They were not all summarily killed. But, like with the Jews, the policy was always that the Germans on the home front and German soldiers would be fed first. So, this idea that he was really concerned about keeping the Jews fed and cared for at the expense of the Germans is simply untrue, they were on the bottom of the totem pole, but he nonetheless had no intention of killing them all, nor did he do so. I fail to see how this should be insufficient, unless you just wildly assert otherwise, it’s not as if the Jews were afforded special treatment; you know well enough that no serious revisionist makes any such claim.
Unfortunately it seems to me that you have some particular vendetta against Hitler and his movement that is worth defending at the expense of right-wing solidarity. And for this vendetta you will aid the enemies of white people to do it. This is unfortunate. It might be all well and good to take this position in the Anglophone world, but when the Germans today have had enough, what will you do? Betray them? Remind them of their supposed ‘guilt’ which they will have hung like an albatross around their neck by the Anglophone world at any moment they try to assert themselves in the future, god forbidding they develop interests which may come into conflict with ours! We might just have to whip out the holocaust card as an excuse to put them back in their wretched place? In any case, the Germans have a lot of self-reflecting to do, and they have a deep revisionist culture waiting to burst forth. This is something neither you nor Keith Woods, for instance, has recognized. You have only seen how narratives of German history should be twisted and warped to fit non-Germans interests and sensibilities, but this will backfire when the Germans come to themselves again. I’d prefer the right stand with them, not with the Jews, and the gentiles who would aid and abet them, all to play into this Hitlerphobia. This is apart of a larger sociological trend I have noticed, and theory I have developed, but I will not go into that here.
I don’t think it is implausible that Hitler believed in an “eye for an eye” forms of retaliation.
I suppose historians could adduce many examples of how he meted out justice to settle this question.
Given that Hitler believed that the Jews were responsible for the war, and given that he had millions of them in his power, doesn’t it strike you as at least plausible that the thought had crossed his mind from time to time to punish these people? If he didn’t, what would explain it?
I see a very simple moral argument in the Political Testament. To dismiss it, you have to argue that Hitler was a big moral softie, or that he couldn’t follow simple arguments to their conclusion. Neither seems likely.
He seems to be talking about something that resembles this “Holocaust” thing we keep hearing about.
Hitler certainly believed in “fighting fire with fire.”
That is why the enemy gets so much truck out of Anne Frank memorials.
Though she was not gassed at Auschwitz (nor was anyone else by the Germans) she did die of the typhus epidemic at the overcrowded Bergen-Belsen camp in the breakdown at the end of the war.
We are not likely any time soon to see any bronze memorials of some young girl of Japanese ancestry who might have died of measles in one of FDR’s wartime concentration camps.
Although, once the Good War is forgotten somewhat, there might be an attempt in the future to do just that in the sacred fight against White Supremacy.
🙂
It’s not implausible, but that doesn’t make it probable. I’m sure you know that.
What I have said thus far never questioned the plausibility of the idea that Hitler wanted to punish the people he saw as ‘responsible’, only that this punishment, or atonement, didn’t amount to a systematic, or even haphazard, plan to exterminate all of Jewry. It seems to me that you have constituted your argument around this central, arbitrary, idea which despite having nothing but intuition to be said for it, rules out any other possibility other than mass extermination as a sufficient punishment.
Your reasoning goes beyond anything concrete and into the realm of your own circular logic. Once you abide by this idea that it’s not plausible Hitler didn’t see an eye for an eye as reasonable; and that what constitutes an ‘eye for an eye’ could only amount to genocide; then you’ve locked yourself into this self-confirming cycle where nothing else is possible, the evidence and context be damned, the text of what the document says be damned too.
This passage in Hitler’s final testament is pretty much what I’d expect. I think it’s fairly predictable that Hitler would blame his opponents and that he would declare that they ought to be punished, or would suffer punishment, for what they’ve done. Yet because it’s Hitler you see in this some sinister invocation of his own (alleged) ‘evil deeds’ which are merely divined (by you) – or assumed – so far as the parameters of this document are concerned. This is unreasonable and you wouldn’t apply this method to anyone or anything else.
There’s also no reason to maintain that the punishment Hitler envisioned resembles the arbitrary punishment you have convinced yourself he must’ve wanted through unfalsifiable presuppositions defended by the words ‘plausible’ and ‘implausible’, which have, as I’ve said, no determinative nor real explanatory value in themselves.
And in any case, your logic is self-defeating when faced with undisputed, chronological, historical fact. For instance, the fact that on January 30, 1939, Hitler famously told the Reichstag: “Today, I will once more be a prophet: If the international Jewish financiers in and outside Europe should succeed in plunging the nations once more into a world war, then the result will not be the bolshevization of the earth, and thus the victory of Jewry, but the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe, for the time when the non-Jewish nations had no propaganda is at an end.”
In other comments you seem to have also believed this too stands as ‘proof’ for Hitler’s stated intention to kill a bunch of Jews. The problem being that at this time war wasn’t even conceived of yet; and once it broke out the extermination of Jews did not occur straight away (according to the orthodox position). This is why Hans Mommsen admitted that: “The first self-quotation in January 1941 was quite unrelated to the implementation of the Holocaust, which did not begin until the fall of that year. But even later the context of Hitler’s prediction would change only slightly and patently did not refer to the implementation of the holocaust but had merely become a cliché of propaganda [Talking about your enemy in a threatening and aggressive way is hardly a novelty] which in no way revealed what in fact was being carried out against the Jews.” And with respect to January 30, 1939, specifically, he states: “In the context in which it was made, however, it rather indicates that at that time Hitler did not perceive any other solution than the enforced emigration of the Jewish population, including resurrecting the idea of settling the Jews in Madagascar.” because forced Jewish emigration was the position of the government in the first few years of the war (the Madagascar plan wasn’t abandoned until after January 1942, see chapter two of Carlo Mattogno’s The Einsatzgruppen in the Occupied Eastern Territories (London: ARMREG 2024) for commentary and refutation about the so-called development of the ‘first stage’ in the holocaust which allegedly begun with the decision to kill the Soviet Jews, and only later, the rest of Europe’s Jews). Revisionists simply maintain that the subsequent evidence provided for a shift to a genocidal policy is inadequate to justify that conclusion, and that instead, the Jews were to be dealt with in much the same way as originally conceived but their deportation ‘to the east’ was put on hold while the war was being fought.
In any case, this fact chronologically proves that Hitler could make such a ‘prophecy’ using violent rhetoric without intending violence; in this case the ‘annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe’ is now proved to have been a piece of rhetoric which didn’t require anything really sinister behind it. Mommsen would later claim that when Hitler referred to the prophecy again after the ‘holocaust’ was under way that, “some of the allusions were sharpened in conjunction with the ongoing genocide” – which he cannot prove since he can only take for granted that the ‘ongoing genocide’ was indeed happening to infer this ‘sharp rhetoric’ was related to these events – before he admits that “Hitler preserved the masked language and avoided any direct mention of the mass murder.” The key word here being ‘masked’, because the prophecy, and the references to it in later documents, do not in themselves reveal anything about an extermination plan.
But this is much worse for your argument Greg; because while these mainstream historians can assert unfalsifiable nonsense by interloping their belief in background events as motivation for otherwise benign and unremarkable statements being made by Hitler (or any of this underlings) at any given moment, inventing evidence by supposition, you have created in your mind this logical trap wherein Hitler cannot possibly have not resolved to kill Jews once Jewish power became responsible for killing Europeans. Your ideas about ‘plausibility’ and ‘eye for an eye’ and that you cannot conceive of it being any other way than Hitler not believing “that millions of Jews should die to avenge them” might’ve been superficially convincing in a vacuum of postulation (it being entirely detached from any evidence, which I will come back to), yet the reality is much different. The fact is that Hitler didn’t hold this axiomatic view on January 30, 1939, it was simply impossible due to its premature place in the chronology, so why should he have held it in his statement made in 1945? It is this axiomatic assumption that even provides you with the forethought to interpret the 1945 testament in the way you have. Yet the statements referring to the prophecy as a whole, the testament is no different, work within the revisionist framework (namely by allowing us to understand the context of Hitler’s remarks as they relate to the wartime Jewish policy, which was evidently sufficient enough to constitute recompense in Hitler’s mind; what you think about whether this is sufficient doesn’t matter); all the remarks can be aligned with the lack of physical evidence for the holocaust and interpreted in benign ways which even mainstream historians have to admit from time to time when faced with the chronological evidence (like Mommsen above).
Mattogno covers a variety of the quotations used and even evaluates many of the recurrent references to the prophecy (Carlo Mattogno, Germar Rudolf: Auschwitz Lies: Legends, Lies, and Prejudices on the Holocaust, Uckfield: Castle Hill Publishers 2017, pp. 265 ff.). When Hitler made his first prophecy on January 30, 1939, he makes the point that “No one among those bold extrapolators ever quotes the lines that follow and that clearly explain the terms of this threat”, in which immediately after the line: “the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe … ” he continues in the same sentence by saying, “ … for the time when the non-Jewish nations had no propaganda is at an end.” Then, in the immediately following sentence he continues: “National Socialist Germany and Fascist Italy have institutions which enable them, when necessary, to enlighten the world about the nature of a question of which many nations are instinctively conscious, but which they have not yet clearly thought out.” Thus, the ‘annihilation’ of the Jews was just a particularly strong metaphorical way of emphasising that the Jews would lose their power at the hand of counter-propaganda from Nationalsocialist Germany and Fascist Italy, or as Mattogno puts it: “Thus, the “annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe” consisted simply in “educating” the other peoples by spreading the “scientific knowledge” about the “Jewish question” which those German and fascist institutions had compiled.” (Ibid., p. 265; Rudolf, Germar: Lectures on the Holocaust Controversial Issues Cross-Examined, London: ARMREG 2024, pp. 351 ff.) This is much more convincing, and textually appropriate explanation – which is also amply supported by a mountain of other evidence which directly invokes this ‘prophecy’ – which of course, we cannot forget, is what Hitler invoked in the 1945 testament. So it’s relevant insofar as one would want to explain what Hitler ‘meant’.
The first time Hitler referred to this prophecy on January 30, 1941, Hitler’s remarks make it even clearer that he was not talking about extermination, he says that he will “not forget the indication I have given once before to the German Reichstag […] that, if the rest of the world were to be plunged by Jewry into a general war, entire Jewry will have finished the role they have been playing in Europe.” (Mattogno, Auschwitz Lies, op. cit., p. 266) And again a year later on January 30, 1942, “We realize that this war can only end like this: either the Aryan peoples will be exterminated (ausgerottet werden) or Jewry will vanish from Europe (das Judentum aus Europa verschwindet) … I have told the German Reichstag once before – and I shy away from risky prophecies – that this war will not end the way the Jews think, that is with the Aryan peoples of Europe being exterminated (ausgerottet werden), but that the result of this war will be the annihilation of Jewry (die Vernichtung des Judentums). […] And the day will come when the worst enemy of mankind will have finished his role, perhaps at least for a thousand years.” (ibid.) The Jews will vanish, and their role will be finished? That’s not very genocidey. Keep in mind that Hitler quotes his words from 1939 verbatim, so he cannot even be accused of obfuscating what he said before, he is literally clarifying what it was he meant. This (and much more not quoted) seems to confirm my argument that you, Greg, are bringing your preconceived baggage to the table rather than divorcing your preconceptions in light of the evidence; since the only way to get a genocidal interpretation is to invent dissimulation efforts which are completely divorced from the evidence. In the same Reichstag speech, he even declared that in the vanishing/disappearance of Jewry from Europe: “For the first time, the old, truly Jewish rule of “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth,” will obtain.” (Domarus, Max: Hitler: Speeches and Proclamations 1932–1945, Wauconda, IL.: Bolchazy-Carducci Publishers, 1990, p. 2574) So, this constituted an ‘eye for an eye’, just not in the way you believe Hitler ought to have seen it.
Hans Frank too once invoked the prophecy on December 16, 1941, “The Führer once uttered: should organized again succeed in setting off a world war, then the blood sacrifice shall not be made only by the peoples driven into war, but then the Jew of Europe will have met his end.” Did he mean this literally or figuratively? Considering Frank goes on to say that “I will therefore, on principle, approach Jewish affairs in the expectation that the Jews will disappear. They must go away. I have initiated negotiations for the purpose of having them deported to the East. In January there will be a major conference on this question in Berlin […] In any case a huge Jewish migration will set in.” (Carlo Mattogno, Thomas Kues, Jurgen Graf: The “Extermination Camps” of “Aktion Reinhardt”: An Analysis and Refutation of Factitious “Evidence,” Deceptions and Flawed Argumentation of the “Holocaust Controversies” Bloggers, Uckfield: Castle Hill Publishers, 2015, pp. 265 ff.) The latter seems most likely to me. It is true that Frank made some other much more violent statements, but these were of no practical significance, whereas that quoted here was the only remark which refers to what was to actually be done.
It’s interesting too that in later recapitulations, for instance, by Joseph Goebbels in his diary on January 3, 1943, he would write about how short sighted the Jews are in connection to what he saw as their influence in bringing Roosevelts armies to North Africa, “They will keep up this frivolous playing with fire until they are completely destroyed.” Which he says, “corresponds to the Führer’s prophecy, when he explained at the beginning of the war that it would not end with the destruction of the Aryan race, but with the expulsion [Austreibung] of Jewry from Europe.” (Dalton, Thomas: Goebbels on the Jews: The Complete Diary Entries 1923-1945, Uckfield: Castle Hill Publishers, 2019, p. 179) Goebbels refers to this prophecy multiple times in his diary, another revealing instance is on June 20, 1941, in which he writes: “Dr. Frank talks about the General Government. There they are already gladly looking forward to deporting the Jews. Jewry in Poland gradually decays. A just punishment for inciting the people and instigating the war. The Führer has also prophesied that to the Jews.” (Ibid., p. 108) The Nationalsocialist leadership – at least if Goebbels’ diary entry of April 27, 1942, is anything to go by – recognized that that this punishment, or atonement was perfectly sufficient: “I spoke again to the Führer in detail about the Jewish Question. His attitude toward this problem is unrelenting. He absolutely wants to push the Jews out of Europe. That’s how it should be. The Jews have brought so much misery to our continent that the harshest punishment imposed on them is still too mild.” (Dalton, Goebbels on the Jews, op. cit., p. 156) Goebbels’ opinion that it’s ‘too mild’, is simply generic a “they deserve way worse than this”, yadda yadda; “no punishment is enough”, blah blah blah; but that the ‘pushing the Jews out of Europe’, was nonetheless ‘how it should be’, is firm evidence against any exterminationist policy being what was considered necessary for a sufficient ‘atonement’.
So, it’s true, there may well be a very simple moral argument, but this says nothing about its practical nor theoretical reality. This kind of generalized moral assertion that an enemy will get their comeuppance is not uncommon. Even if I accepted your interpretation of the ‘eye for an eye’, it doesn’t necessitate that the holocaust happened. I don’t think it would’ve been particularly ridiculous for Hitler to have simply made a statement like that which he made in the testament while not alluding to anything, especially since it cannot be shown that he was alluding to anything. It can simply be a generic moral statement, which seems likely since, as I just said, he doesn’t actually attach it to anything specific to it, which is a good sign that he had nothing specific in mind, not least the alleged ‘holocaust’: “. . . without the real culprit having to atone for his guilt, albeit by more humane means.” [ohne dass der eigentlich Schuldige, wenn auch durch humanere Mittel, seine Schuld zu büssen hat.] can either be taken at face value, as another generic prediction, or the reader has to imbue in it some reference to something in the past tense, and in that case it takes the form of a mere hint, not an explicit remark; and even worse, in saying their atonement would be more humane, you must then assume had a double meaning and was not meant to be taken at face value. I do not think that’s plausible. There’s nothing indicating that this paragraph in this document should be interpreted in this way and imbued with extant meaning. Like I’ve said, the remark only has the meaning you put into it based on your preconceptions. Anyway, going with face value, since the passage cannot be determined to have been related to any kind of atonement either past or present tense; and since the remark resembles, with obvious intentionality, his original January 1939 prediction (when extermination wasn’t even the embryo of a possibility), it’s most obvious to me that it’s merely a prophetic reiteration. Big deal.
The remark can’t function this way only once you invent some reason why it can’t; but this reason, your reason, is divorced from the document itself: You initially stated that you didn’t think the passage was vague, that it’s ‘blunt and straightforward’ (basically that your interpretation is self-evident and explicit; but only paradoxically once one accepts your preconceived assumption – which you admitted is what it was), and your reasoning amounted to the idea that Hitler’s invocation of the horrors and fallout of war means it’s logical to assume, or otherwise pose the question as to why Hitler not being particularly forgiving (again assuming what occurred during the war from the revisionist perspective amounts to being forgiving; this is just another interpretation of yours which is arbitrarily made to suit your argument aimed at justifying why ‘mass murder’ is the only possible ‘unforgiving’ outcome) means he would not then also kill millions of those he sees as symbolically ‘responsible’. On the surface it seems related and possibly even supported by the text, but the text has been used to pose the question imbued with the assumption, but by this point, and in doing so, you have divorced the answer from the text because it cannot actually be found in the document. It has to come from the outside. So much for being ‘straightforward and explicit’.
To reiterate: At first you tried to make it seem like your interpretation was derived from the text, but this is a deception (I’m not saying this was intentional or malicious) because the argument subtly transitions into a textual reference: ‘Hitler claims that Jews have caused the death of millions of innocent Europeans’, and switches immediately with the use of a single word: ‘therefore’ (this word is all you, none of it is Hitler), and you’re off to the races with: ‘why would he not believe that millions of Jews should die to avenge them?’, and now you adduce the holocaust must have happened and Hitler admitted it in this document! What a revelation! But no. I don’t think so. This conclusion has nothing to do with the document, nothing to do with the text, nothing to do with what Hitler actually said or what we can determine he believed in any meaningful way. But this time you brought it back full circle by falling for your own ‘therefore’ by saying: ‘He seems to be talking about something that resembles this “Holocaust” thing we keep hearing about.’ But this, as explained, is just simply not true. Maybe even you believe it. Nonetheless, you can keep saying it, but it won’t be any more valid the next time.
You claim that to dismiss your conclusion one has to believe Hitler ‘was a big moral softie’, or that he ‘couldn’t follow simple arguments to their conclusion’. Of course, following an argument theoretically doesn’t mean one follows it practically – this isn’t answered in the testament. Whether it was followed practically is a different matter which concerns the validity of the big picture view of the holocaust. Whether you think the revisionist postulation, if taken to be true, means Hitler is a ‘softie’ says nothing about whether Hitler considered his decisions to be ‘soft’. The assumption is that anything short of mass murder makes Hitler soft, and therefore, because Hitler can’t be soft, nothing else will suffice as a conclusion; but the problem remains that this determination is derived you’re your personal estimation of what’s considered ‘soft’ so that it can play into what you want to believe, without telling us anything factual. I personally don’t think Hitler divorcing the Jews from Europe as punishment is soft, but it is certainly more humane than killing. So, “to dismiss it”, as you said – and which implies your claim has some textual fidelity which as I’ve shown it doesn’t have – is easy, because the evidence doesn’t support your particularly insular and self-confirming external axiom.
I am sorry, the claim that when Hitler uttered his Jan 30 1930 prophecy about the “annihilation of Jewry in Europe” that “at this time war wasn’t even conceived of yet” is untrue. He’s talking about the prospect of war and threatening/promising to annihilate the perpetrators.
You write:
Basically, you are asking me to believe that Hitler had millions of Jews, whom he blamed for the death of millions of Germans and threatened to “annihilate” in his power, and the just punishment he envisioned for them was to educate the world about how bad they were. Frankly, if that is true, then you are painting a picture of Hitler as a morally weak quasi-imbecile. Is it possible that I think better of Hitler than you do? That scarcely seems possible. I think he was a mass murderer, but you seem to think he was an idiot.
Being “annihilated” would certainly entail being “finished.” So the two statements are consistent if read that way. The way you prefer to read them is that “finished” somehow cancels out “annihilation.” That strikes me as arbitrary.
You do it again here:
Being annihilated definitely means being “finished” and “vanishing.” As for the “thousand years” part, it sounds to me that Hitler envisioned the surviving Jews from outside Europe trying to worm their way back in someday. But that is still consistent with reading the “annihilation” of European Jewry as “annihilation.”
This is quite ironic:
No, I reject the idea that the only reason one would read “annihilation” as “annihilation” is that one is carrying around a preconceived notion of what happened in WWII. I submit that anyone who reads this without preconceptions would think, “Sounds genocidey to me.” How would you respond if someone threatened to annihilate you? Would you think, “Uh oh, he’s going to write educational pamphlets about me”?
Also, thanks for quoting Hitler using “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.” If you believed in that form of punishment, and you believed that X was guilty of the murder of millions, what is the logical punishment?
It’s not implausible, but that doesn’t make it probable. I’m sure you know that.
What I have said thus far never questioned the plausibility of the idea that Hitler wanted to punish the people he saw as ‘responsible’, only that this punishment, or atonement, didn’t amount to a systematic, or even haphazard, plan to exterminate all of Jewry. It seems to me that you have constituted your argument around this central, arbitrary, idea which despite having nothing but intuition to be said for it, rules out any other possibility other than mass extermination as a sufficient punishment.
Your reasoning goes beyond anything concrete and into the realm of your own circular logic. Once you abide by this idea that it’s not plausible Hitler didn’t see an eye for an eye as reasonable; and that what constitutes an ‘eye for an eye’ could only amount to genocide; then you’ve locked yourself into this self-confirming cycle where nothing else is possible, the evidence and context be damned, the text of what the document says be damned too.
This passage in Hitler’s final testament is pretty much what I’d expect. I think it’s fairly predictable that Hitler would blame his opponents and that he would declare that they ought to be punished, or would suffer punishment, for what they’ve done. Yet because it’s Hitler you see in this some sinister invocation of his own (alleged) ‘evil deeds’ which are merely divined (by you) – or assumed – so far as the parameters of this document are concerned. This is unreasonable and you wouldn’t apply this method to anyone or anything else.
There’s also no reason to maintain that the punishment Hitler envisioned resembles the arbitrary punishment you have convinced yourself he must’ve wanted through unfalsifiable presuppositions defended by the words ‘plausible’ and ‘implausible’, which have, as I’ve said, no determinative nor real explanatory value in themselves.
And in any case, your logic is self-defeating when faced with undisputed, chronological, historical fact. For instance, the fact that on January 30, 1939, Hitler famously told the Reichstag: “Today, I will once more be a prophet: If the international Jewish financiers in and outside Europe should succeed in plunging the nations once more into a world war, then the result will not be the bolshevization of the earth, and thus the victory of Jewry, but the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe, for the time when the non-Jewish nations had no propaganda is at an end.” In other comments you seem to have also believed this too stands as ‘proof’ for Hitler’s stated intention to kill a bunch of Jews. The problem being that at this time war wasn’t even conceived of yet; and once it broke out the extermination of Jews did not occur straight away (according to the orthodox position). This is why Hans Mommsen admitted that: “The first self-quotation in January 1941 was quite unrelated to the implementation of the Holocaust, which did not begin until the fall of that year. But even later the context of Hitler’s prediction would change only slightly and patently did not refer to the implementation of the holocaust but had merely become a cliché of propaganda [Talking about your enemy in a threatening and aggressive way is hardly a novelty!] which in no way revealed what in fact was being carried out against the Jews.” (Mommsen, Hans: “Hitler’s Reichstag Speech of 30 January 1939”, History and Memory. Volume 9, Issue 1/2. Fall 1997.) And with respect to January 30, 1939, specifically, he states: “In the context in which it was made, however, it rather indicates that at that time Hitler did not perceive any other solution than the enforced emigration of the Jewish population, including resurrecting the idea of settling the Jews in Madagascar.” (Ibid.) because forced Jewish emigration was the position of the government in the first few years of the war (the Madagascar plan wasn’t abandoned until after January 1942, see chapter two of Carlo Mattogno’s The Einsatzgruppen in the Occupied Eastern Territories (London: ARMREG 2024) for commentary and refutation about the so-called development of the ‘first stage’ in the holocaust which allegedly begun with the decision to kill the Soviet Jews, and only later, the rest of Europe’s Jews). Revisionists simply maintain that the subsequent evidence provided for a shift to a genocidal policy is inadequate to justify that conclusion, and that instead, the Jews were to be dealt with in much the same way as originally conceived but their deportation ‘to the east’ was put on hold while the war was being fought.
In any case, this fact chronologically proves that Hitler could make such a ‘prophecy’ using violent rhetoric without intending violence; in this case the ‘annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe’ is now proved to have been a piece of rhetoric which didn’t require anything really sinister behind it. Mommsen would later claim that when Hitler referred to the prophecy again after the ‘holocaust’ was under way that, “some of the allusions were sharpened in conjunction with the ongoing genocide” – which he cannot prove since he can only take for granted that the ‘ongoing genocide’ was indeed happening to infer this ‘sharp rhetoric’ was related to these events – before he admits that “Hitler preserved the masked language and avoided any direct mention of the mass murder.” The key word here being ‘masked’, because the prophecy, and the references to it in later documents, do not in themselves reveal anything about an extermination plan.
But this is much worse for your argument because while these mainstream historians can assert unfalsifiable nonsense by interloping their belief in background events as motivation for otherwise benign and unremarkable statements being made by Hitler (or any of this underlings) at any given moment, inventing evidence by supposition, you have created in your mind this logical trap wherein Hitler cannot possibly have not resolved to kill Jews once Jewish power became responsible for killing Europeans. Your ideas about ‘plausibility’ and ‘eye for an eye’ and that you cannot conceive of it being any other way than Hitler not believing “that millions of Jews should die to avenge them” might’ve been superficially convincing in a vacuum of postulation (it being entirely detached from any evidence, which I will come back to), yet the reality is much different. The fact is that Hitler didn’t hold this axiomatic view on January 30, 1939, it was simply impossible due to its premature place in the chronology, so why should he have held it in his statement made in 1945? It is this axiomatic assumption that even provides you with the forethought to interpret the 1945 testament in the way you have. Yet the statements referring to the prophecy as a whole, the testament is no different, work within the revisionist framework (namely by allowing us to understand the context of Hitler’s remarks as they relate to the wartime Jewish policy, which was evidently sufficient enough to constitute recompense in Hitler’s mind; what you think about whether this is sufficient doesn’t matter); all the remarks can be aligned with the lack of physical evidence for the holocaust and interpreted in benign ways which even mainstream historians have to admit from time to time when faced with the chronological evidence – like Mommsen above.
Mattogno covers a variety of the quotations used and even evaluates many of the recurrent references to the prophecy (Carlo Mattogno, Germar Rudolf: Auschwitz Lies: Legends, Lies, and Prejudices on the Holocaust, Uckfield: Castle Hill Publishers 2017, pp. 265 ff.). When Hitler made his first prophecy on January 30, 1939, he makes the point that “No one among those bold extrapolators ever quotes the lines that follow and that clearly explain the terms of this threat”, in which immediately after the line: “the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe … ” Hitler continues in the same sentence by saying, “ … for the time when the non-Jewish nations had no propaganda is at an end.” Then, in the immediately following sentence he continues: “National Socialist Germany and Fascist Italy have institutions which enable them, when necessary, to enlighten the world about the nature of a question of which many nations are instinctively conscious, but which they have not yet clearly thought out.” Thus, the ‘annihilation’ of the Jews was just a particularly strong metaphorical way of emphasising that the Jews would lose their power at the hand of counter-propaganda from Nationalsocialist Germany and Fascist Italy, or as Mattogno puts it: “Thus, the “annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe” consisted simply in “educating” the other peoples by spreading the “scientific knowledge” about the “Jewish question” which those German and fascist institutions had compiled.” (Ibid., p. 265; Rudolf, Germar: Lectures on the Holocaust Controversial Issues Cross-Examined, London: ARMREG 2024, pp. 351 ff.) This is much more convincing, and textually appropriate explanation – which is also amply supported by a mountain of other evidence which directly invokes this ‘prophecy’ – which of course, we cannot forget, is what Hitler invoked in the 1945 testament. So it’s relevant insofar as one would want to explain what Hitler ‘meant’.
The first time Hitler referred to this prophecy on January 30, 1941, his remarks make it even clearer that he was not talking about extermination, he says that he will “not forget the indication I have given once before to the German Reichstag […] that, if the rest of the world were to be plunged by Jewry into a general war, entire Jewry will have finished the role they have been playing in Europe.” (Mattogno, Auschwitz Lies, op. cit., p. 266) And again a year later on January 30, 1942, “We realize that this war can only end like this: either the Aryan peoples will be exterminated (ausgerottet werden) or Jewry will vanish from Europe (das Judentum aus Europa verschwindet) … I have told the German Reichstag once before – and I shy away from risky prophecies – that this war will not end the way the Jews think, that is with the Aryan peoples of Europe being exterminated (ausgerottet werden), but that the result of this war will be the annihilation of Jewry (die Vernichtung des Judentums). […] And the day will come when the worst enemy of mankind will have finished his role, perhaps at least for a thousand years.” (ibid.) The Jews will vanish, and their role will be finished, and perhaps only for one thousand years? That’s not very genocidey. Keep in mind that Hitler quotes his words from 1939 verbatim, so he cannot even be accused of obfuscating what he said before, he is literally clarifying what it was he meant. This (and much more not quoted) seems to confirm my argument that you are bringing your preconceived baggage to the table rather than divorcing your preconceptions in light of the evidence; since the only way to get a genocidal interpretation is to invent dissimulation efforts which are completely divorced from the evidence. In the same Reichstag speech, Hitler even declared that in the vanishing/disappearance of Jewry from Europe: “For the first time, the old, truly Jewish rule of “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth,” will obtain.” (Domarus, Max: Hitler: Speeches and Proclamations 1932–1945, Wauconda, IL.: Bolchazy-Carducci Publishers, 1990, p. 2574) So this constituted an ‘eye for an eye’, just not in the way you believe Hitler ought to have seen it.
Hans Frank too once invoked the prophecy on December 16, 1941, “The Führer once uttered: should organized [Jewry] again succeed in setting off a world war, then the blood sacrifice shall not be made only by the peoples driven into war, but then the Jew of Europe will have met his end.” Did he mean this literally or figuratively? Considering Frank goes on to say that “I will therefore, on principle, approach Jewish affairs in the expectation that the Jews will disappear. They must go away. I have initiated negotiations for the purpose of having them deported to the East. In January there will be a major conference on this question in Berlin […] In any case a huge Jewish migration will set in.” (Carlo Mattogno, Thomas Kues, Jurgen Graf: The “Extermination Camps” of “Aktion Reinhardt”: An Analysis and Refutation of Factitious “Evidence,” Deceptions and Flawed Argumentation of the “Holocaust Controversies” Bloggers, Uckfield: Castle Hill Publishers, 2015, pp. 265 ff.) The latter seems most likely to me. It is true that Frank made some other much more violent statements, but these were of no practical significance, whereas that quoted here was the only remark which refers to what was to actually be done.
It’s interesting too that in later recapitulations by Joseph Goebbels, for instance, in his diary on January 3, 1943, he would write about how short sighted the Jews are in connection to what he saw as their influence in bringing Roosevelt’s armies to North Africa, “They will keep up this frivolous playing with fire until they are completely destroyed.” Which he says, “corresponds to the Führer’s prophecy, when he explained at the beginning of the war that it would not end with the destruction of the Aryan race, but with the expulsion [Austreibung] of Jewry from Europe.” (Dalton, Thomas: Goebbels on the Jews: The Complete Diary Entries 1923-1945, Uckfield: Castle Hill Publishers, 2019, p. 179) Goebbels refers to this prophecy multiple times in his diary. Another revealing instance is on June 20, 1941, wherein Goebbels writes: “Dr. Frank talks about the General Government. There they are already gladly looking forward to deporting the Jews. Jewry in Poland gradually decays. A just punishment for inciting the people and instigating the war. The Führer has also prophesied that to the Jews.” (Ibid., p. 108) The Nationalsocialist leadership – at least if Goebbels’ diary entry of April 27, 1942, is anything to go by – recognized that that this punishment, or atonement was perfectly sufficient: “I spoke again to the Führer in detail about the Jewish Question. His attitude toward this problem is unrelenting. He absolutely wants to push the Jews out of Europe. That’s how it should be. The Jews have brought so much misery to our continent that the harshest punishment imposed on them is still too mild.” (Dalton, Goebbels on the Jews, op. cit., p. 156) Goebbels’ opinion that it’s ‘too mild’, is simply a generic “they deserve way worse than this”, yadda yadda; “no punishment is enough”, blah blah blah; but that the ‘pushing the Jews out of Europe’, was nonetheless ‘how it should be’, is firm evidence against any exterminationist policy being what was considered necessary for a sufficient ‘atonement’.
So, it’s true, there may well be a very simple moral argument, but this says nothing about its practical nor theoretical reality. This kind of generalized moral assertion that an enemy will get their comeuppance is not uncommon. Even if I accepted your interpretation of the ‘eye for an eye’, it doesn’t necessitate that the holocaust happened. I don’t think it would’ve been particularly ridiculous for Hitler to have simply made a statement like that which he made in the testament while not alluding to anything, especially since it cannot be shown that he was alluding to anything. It can simply be a generic moral statement, which seems likely since, as I just said, he doesn’t actually attach it to anything specific to it, which is a good sign that he had nothing specific in mind, not least the alleged ‘holocaust’: “. . . without the real culprit having to atone for his guilt, albeit by more humane means.” [ohne dass der eigentlich Schuldige, wenn auch durch humanere Mittel, seine Schuld zu büssen hat.] can either be taken at face value, as another generic prediction, or the reader has to imbue in it some reference to something in the past tense, and in that case it takes the form of a mere hint, not an explicit remark; and even worse, in saying their atonement would be more humane, you must then assume had a double meaning and was not meant to be taken at face value. I do not think that’s plausible. There’s nothing indicating that this paragraph in this document should be interpreted in this way and imbued with extant meaning. Like I’ve said, the remark only has the meaning you put into it based on your preconceptions. Anyway, going with face value, since the passage cannot be determined to have been related to any kind of atonement either past or present tense; and since the remark resembles, with obvious intentionality, his original January 1939 prediction (when extermination wasn’t even the embryo of a possibility), it’s most obvious to me that it’s merely a prophetic reiteration. Big deal.
The remark can’t function this way only once you invent some reason why it can’t; but this reason, your reason, is divorced from the document itself: You initially stated that you didn’t think the passage was vague, that it’s ‘blunt and straightforward’ (basically that your interpretation is self-evident and explicit; but only paradoxically once one accepts your preconceived assumption – which you admitted is what it was), and your reasoning amounted to the idea that Hitler’s invocation of the horrors and fallout of war means it’s logical to assume, or otherwise pose the question as to why Hitler not being particularly forgiving (again assuming what occurred during the war from the revisionist perspective amounts to being forgiving; this is just another interpretation of yours which is arbitrarily made to suit your argument aimed at justifying why ‘mass murder’ is the only possible ‘unforgiving’ outcome) means he would not then also kill millions of those he sees as symbolically ‘responsible’. On the surface it seems related and possibly even supported by the text, but the text has been used to pose the question imbued with the assumption, but by this point, and in doing so, you have divorced the answer from the text because it cannot actually be found in the document. It has to come from the outside. So much for being ‘straightforward and explicit’.
To reiterate: At first you tried to make it seem like your interpretation was derived from the text, but this is a deception (I’m not saying this was intentional or malicious) because the argument subtly transitions into a textual reference: ‘Hitler claims that Jews have caused the death of millions of innocent Europeans’, and switches immediately with the use of a single word: ‘therefore’ (this word is all you, none of it is Hitler), and you’re off to the races with: ‘why would he not believe that millions of Jews should die to avenge them?’, and now you adduce the holocaust must have happened and Hitler admitted it in this document! What a revelation! But no. I don’t think so. This conclusion has nothing to do with the document, nothing to do with the text, and nothing to do with what Hitler actually said or what we can determine he believed in any meaningful way. But this time you brought it back full circle by falling for your own ‘therefore’ by saying: ‘He seems to be talking about something that resembles this “Holocaust” thing we keep hearing about.’ But this, as explained, is just simply not true. Maybe even you believe it. Nonetheless, you can keep saying it, but it won’t be any more valid the next time.
You claim that to dismiss your conclusion one has to believe Hitler ‘was a big moral softie’, or that he ‘couldn’t follow simple arguments to their conclusion’. Of course, following an argument theoretically doesn’t mean one follows it practically – this isn’t answered in the testament. Whether it was followed practically is a different matter which concerns the validity of the big picture view of the holocaust. Whether you think the revisionist postulation, if taken to be true, means Hitler is a ‘softie’ says nothing about whether Hitler considered his decisions to be ‘soft’. The assumption is that anything short of mass murder makes Hitler soft, and therefore, because Hitler can’t be soft, nothing else will suffice as a conclusion; but the problem remains that this determination is derived you’re your personal estimation of what’s considered ‘soft’ so that it can play into what you want to believe, without telling us anything factual. I personally don’t think Hitler divorcing the Jews from Europe as punishment is soft, but it is certainly more humane than killing. So, “to dismiss it”, as you said – and which implies your claim has some textual fidelity which as I’ve shown it doesn’t have – is easy, because the evidence doesn’t support your particularly insular and self-confirming external axiom.
[You: “I am sorry, the claim that when Hitler uttered his Jan 30 1930 prophecy about the “annihilation of Jewry in Europe” that “at this time war wasn’t even conceived of yet” is untrue. He’s talking about the prospect of war and threatening/promising to annihilate the perpetrators.”]
It is true, actually. Which is one of the contextual reasons it was really just violent antisemitic rhetoric with nothing serious behind it; or I should specify, nothing so serious as what you’re supposing, the Jews were going to be deported anyway. So, unless you want to revive the functionalist vs. intentionalist debate, you better start understanding the nuance and complexities of evidence and chronology which is not denied to historical figures viewed in hindsight, where ‘plans’ and ‘intentions’ can be axiomatically derived by poor historical insight, judgement, and methodology. If you were to take that position at this point in time, you’d be simply one among many laymen who are the sole advocates for an antiquated and reductionist view against every single mainstream and revisionist historian for the past sixty years. In other words, people who are poles apart, but understand the scope and quantity of the evidence much better than you do; and all I’m saying, is that that’s abundantly obvious to me in this discussion. There’s plenty more out there which has been debated on the meaning and use of specific German words, as well as debates about a plethora of other statements and their chronological relevance, as well as their contextual allusions which are simply too enormous and interwoven to discuss like this.
[You: “Basically, you are asking me to believe that Hitler had millions of Jews, whom he blamed for the death of millions of Germans and threatened to “annihilate” in his power, and the just punishment he envisioned for them was to educate the world about how bad they were. Frankly, if that is true, then you are painting a picture of Hitler as a morally weak quasi-imbecile. Is it possible that I think better of Hitler than you do? That scarcely seems possible. I think he was a mass murderer, but you seem to think he was an idiot.”]
Your contention, or so it seems to me, is that he was an idiot for not conceiving and implementing an extermination program against all of the Jews he had in his power (and that anything less is going soft on them), but this amounts to nothing more than a reflection of your own moral thinking and it has nothing to do with Hitler or history during this period. It’s not even a necessary logical extension which imposes itself as the only possible solution. In any case, to make this moral determination and then to claim – as if it were self-evident – that Hitler must’ve been “a morally weak quasi-imbecile” is not only something I reject because you’ve provided no conclusive, nor objectively empirical evidence that in order for Hitler to have been a sufficient enough tough man and therefore not an idiot (according to this arbitrary moral dichotomy) he must’ve actually planned and prepared to kill all the Jews and then actually done so whereupon “Hundreds of documents (projects, budgets, orders, etc.) should therefore remain, attesting to its preparation, and enabling a precise chronology to be established” (Roques, Henri: The “Confessions” of Kurt Gerstein: Key Testimony on the Bełżec Camp Scrutinized, London: ARMREG 2025, p. 450 f.), as French historian Henri Roques pointed out – in regard to just this kind of semantical argument that revolves around interpretations made about statements from the German leadership (millions upon millions of documents have been uncovered revealing nothing about the actual process and methods by which this was to have been done) – it’s that you seem to think that even though Hitler could’ve conceived of such a conclusion (which as I’ve said is theoretically possible, and I don’t doubt he thought of – since he certainly knew that there were rumors about mass exterminations going around), he couldn’t possibly stop himself from going an alternative route. There’s nothing idiotic about that, there is, however, something very humane about it.
Since you bring it up, do you actually have a positive view of Hitler? One that is derived from this view of the holocaust you have expressed. Is that why you’re arguing for the orthodox position on the holocaust, because you think it was morally righteous and better for Hitler’s image to have actually maintained a genocidal policy? I do not take that view, I step over it, because I recognize that the moral crusade is often a cover for realist intentions. People want to punish their enemies, and to do so they will invent moral paradigms and principles that they couldn’t care less about if it meant their side of the aisle was guilty of it too. This is why people prefer an honest crook rather than a liar. We see this today under our liberal democratic despotism which refuses to admit it has not a single democratic or liberty loving principle it will not violate for the ‘greater good’. Unfortunately, as much as we lament it, human beings are just that way and always have been.
[You: “Being “annihilated” would certainly entail being “finished.” So the two statements are consistent if read that way. The way you prefer to read them is that “finished” somehow cancels out “annihilation.” That strikes me as arbitrary.”]
He didn’t say being ‘finished’ full stop; he said the role they’ve played in Europe would be finished, which means the purpose they previously served and the power they had, and so forth – and he related this back directly to the meaning of his original prophecy; and in fact it agrees with the textual interpretation of the original prophecy, which you derided below, about the Germans and Italians annihilating their influence in Europe by allocating the means of propaganda to the gentile races and deporting the Jews; hence why his refers to the ‘Jewish race’ as well as Jewry. This is evident because, as I pointed out and you ignored, the original plan was to deport the Jews not to kill them (Jansen, Hans: Der Madagaskar-Plan. Die beabsichtigte Deportation der europäischen Juden nach Madagaskar, München: Langen-Müller Verlag 1997.). This was the most important point I made against your argument, which goes beyond mere contestations about the semantic use of words by Hitler in his speeches; but about the undeniable chronological fact that Hitler made this prophecy in 1939 when he had no genocidal intent whatsoever. So it’s not arbitrary at all, it’s informed.
[You: “You do it again here:
[…]
Being annihilated definitely means being “finished” and “vanishing.” As for the “thousand years” part, it sounds to me that Hitler envisioned the surviving Jews from outside Europe trying to worm their way back in someday. But that is still consistent with reading the “annihilation” of European Jewry as “annihilation.””]
Theoretically I grant you, yes. However, for the multitude of reasons already explained, this is objectively the least likely explanation. I would also say that this presents a problem from a hermeneutic standpoint since you have now introduced the words ‘finished’ and ‘vanish’ as euphemisms, for which you have no evidence and therefore couldn’t be evidenced without establishing the practical question of the reality of whether or not X number of Jews were deliberately murdered by Hitler’s regime and on his say so. The other reason this is a problem is because you’ve taken the position that other words like “annihilation” could not be figurative or rhetorical. My argument has been that the most parsimonious explanation which explains the ways these words are meant, has to do with the context and chronology which confirms my view definitively. Whereas you have no such certainty.
[You: “No, I reject the idea that the only reason one would read “annihilation” as “annihilation” is that one is carrying around a preconceived notion of what happened in WWII. I submit that anyone who reads this without preconceptions would think, “Sounds genocidey to me.” How would you respond if someone threatened to annihilate you? Would you think, “Uh oh, he’s going to write educational pamphlets about me”?”]
It depends on the context. You cannot honestly tell me you’ve never heard someone say they will ‘annihilate’ another person and not mean it. I ask rhetorically: Have you seen ’12 Angry Men’? Perhaps it’s a bad example, the kid probably still did it, but you get the idea. I maintain that it only sounds genocidey because you’ve been primed to interpret any use of such words by Hitler as being literal and pregnant with meaning. It’s clear that you think because Hitler was talking in the context of a war and because you know in wars people die must mean he meant it literally. Except, as I’ve pointed out already, this is chronologically impossible because that wasn’t what he did in the first instance.
And look, I know that little snipe about writing educational pamphlets is supposed to be cheeky and make the argument sound absurd, but like I said, the argument is much more in line with what was actually said – since Hitler actually said this – than what you’ve alleged, and it ultimately changes nothing about the fact the remark is not indicative of a literal intention to exterminate the Jews.
[You: “Also, thanks for quoting Hitler using “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.” If you believed in that form of punishment, and you believed that X was guilty of the murder of millions, what is the logical punishment?”]
The logical punishment is what they did; and what they did included punishing Jewish partisans and their communities, ‘an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth’, which did not necessitate the killing of literally every single Jew. Plus, that sort of rhetoric, throwing this proverb back into their faces is just a rhetorical quip. What else would he say to threaten them? Something more verbose and cumbersome? Something that doesn’t reflect the equalitarian way in which people typically warn each other: “If you hit me, I’ll hit you back.” It says nothing about what actually happened in reality, quite apart from any public statements like this. And like I said, there is the matter of the various interpretations given to Hitler’s prophecy by people like Goebbels and Hans Frank, who ought to have known about any genocidal ‘plan’.
For instance, there’s an entry in the Goebbels diary from December 13, 1941, wherein Goebbels seems to come to the precise conclusion as you; he refers to the prophecy of 1939, and he says, “These were not empty words. The world war is here, so the annihilation [Vernichtung] of the Jews must be the necessary consequence. This question must be treated without sentiment. Our compassion is not for the Jews, but for our German people. If the German people have to sacrifice another 160,000 victims on the Eastern Front, then the instigators of this conflict must pay with their lives.” (Roques, Confessions, op. cit., p. 450; Dalton, Thomas: Goebbels on the Jews: The Complete Diary Entries 1923-1945, Uckfield: Castle Hill Publishers, 2019, pp. 134-135) Yet this is not the whole story, and we have this problem which occurs again and again, which that when Goebbels actually discusses the Jewish question – especially with Hitler in private – and its practical solutions, there’s not a trace of genocidal intent; for instance, a mere five days later on December 18, Goebbels writes in his diary that he has spoken with Hitler “regarding the Jewish Question.” He says that Hitler is “determined to take consistent action and not be deterred by bourgeois sentimentality. Above all, the Jews must leave the Reich.” Is ‘leave’ supposed to be a euphemism? I don’t think so, and Goebbels confirms it moments later when he says: “The Jews are all to be deported to the East. We are not very interested in what becomes of them there. They wished this fate upon themselves, they started the war, and now they must pay the price.” (Dalton, Goebbels on the Jews, Ibid., p. 136) So, this was in fact, the price to be paid.
Hans Frank a couple of days earlier on December 16, asked: “What is to happen to the Jews [after evacuation]? … We have in the General Government an estimated 2.5 million Jews—perhaps with those closely related to Jews and what goes with it, now 3.5 million Jews.” And he concluded that “We can’t shoot these 3.5 million Jews, we can’t poison them…” And had already said that “a huge Jewish migration will set in.” (Ibid., p. 137; and for a fuller understanding of the context and disputes around this particular document, see, for example: Carlo Mattogno, Thomas Kues, Jurgen Graf: The “Extermination Camps” of “Aktion Reinhardt”: An Analysis and Refutation of Factitious “Evidence,” Deceptions and Flawed Argumentation of the “Holocaust Controversies” Bloggers, Uckfield: Castle Hill Publishers, 2015, pp. 265-269; Rudolf, Germar: Lectures on the Holocaust Controversial Issues Cross-Examined, London: ARMREG 2024, pp. 355-356) The main thrust of the interpretational dispute was over the rest of the sentence in which frank continued to say, “but we will undertake measures leading to their successful destruction in some way or other…”; was the phrase “die irgendwie zu einem Vernichtungserfolg führen”, supposed to be literal or figurative? Exterminationists took it literally, despite the fact Frank had already just specified that Jews couldn’t be shot or poisoned. If you weren’t aware of the context of the document, which Frank discusses in relation to the Wannsee conference, and where he speaks of deporting Jews as well, one would be easily led to the wrong conclusion: namely that the Jews of the General Government in Poland were to be brought to their successful “destruction” was meant literally – which requires ignoring the rest of the document that contests this idea – but also ignores the fact that these Jews were in-fact deported quite successfully (Mattogno, Carlo: Bungled: “Denying History” How Michael Shermer and Alex Grobman Botched Their Attempt to Refute Those Who Say the Holocaust Never Happened, London: ARMREG 2024, p. 124).
In another document dated the same day, according to a “Memo on a Conversation with the Führer on 14 December 1941.” Alfred Rosenberg discussed with Hitler a speech he was to give at the Berlin Sports Palace, wherein, regarding the Jewish question, he told Hitler that he had taken the position “not to speak of the extermination [Ausrottung] of Jewry.” And that, “The Führer affirmed this position and said that they had forced the war on us and had brought destruction, and it was no surprise if consequences hit them first.” (Mattogno, Carlo: The Einsatzgruppen in the Occupied Eastern Territories: Genesis, Missions and Actions, London: ARMREG 2024, p. 150) This document was brought up against Rosenberg at Nuremberg on April 17, 1946, and he was forced to explain to the American prosecutor Thomas Dodd what the word Ausrottung meant, clarifying the way in which he meant it in a non-homicidal sense (Mattogno, Einsatzgruppen, op. cit., pp. 150-152), which, of course, was typically the meaning of that word in particular for a very long time (this has been discussed at length, for instance, by Mattogno in Auschwitz Lies the relevant section from which I quoted in my other comments; also by Jürgen Graf, David Irving, and was even admitted by Ian Kershaw at one point). Anyway, if this is true and you don’t just assume Rosenberg was lying, then on December 16, again, we have evidence for the Ausrottung (uprooting/extirpation) of the Jews, not their physical extermination.
On March 7, 1942, Goebbels writes that he has “read a detailed report from the SD and police regarding a final solution of the Jewish Question. This involves a tremendous number of new viewpoints. The Jewish Question must be solved within a pan-European frame. There are more than 11 million Jews in Europe. They will have to be concentrated first in the East; perhaps later after the war, an island can be assigned to them, such as Madagascar. In any case, there can be no peace in Europe until the last Jews are totally excluded from the European territory.” (Dalton, Goebbels on the Jews, op. cit., p. 148) The report he’s referring to is that of the Wannsee conference. Obviously, the holocaust wasn’t on the docket.
And, just to illustrate another example: On May 30, 1942, Goebbels returned to the topic of the Jews by writing in his diary discussing the prospects of where they ought to be sent, not killed. He discusses their subversiveness and ghettoization in Western Europe, he remarks that “West European civilization represents only an external coat of paint to them. However, there are also Jewish elements that work with a dangerous brutality and vindictiveness.” And, therefore, “the Führer does not want the Jews to be evacuated to Siberia. There, under the harshest living conditions, they would undoubtedly again develop a strong life-element. He would much prefer to resettle them in central Africa. There they would live in a climate that would certainly not make them strong and resistant. In any case, the Führer’s goal is to make Western Europe completely Jew-free. They can no longer have their homeland here.” (Ibid., 161-162) This is remarkable if you believe the Jews were being exterminated, because, as Dalton points out, by this point the mass killing operation was to have already killed more than 2 million Jews. So how is a conversation like this even happening? “Goebbels is not just substituting ‘deported’ for ‘killed’; he would have to be inventing entire conversations, phony alternate plans, false Hitler quotes. This of course is absurd.” The only thing one could conclude is that – if the holocaust is true – “Goebbels clearly knew nothing of systematic, comprehensive mass murder.” (Ibid., p. 162) So one could not interpret the quotation from December 13 as being reflective of anything, and in all the other entries, including this one, you’d have to assume Hitler was keeping Goebbels in the dark about it (especially insane since Goebbels was one of Hitler’s constant companions and closest friends). Now, if you want to talk implausible, this is implausible to me. But if not, it means Goebbel’s diary must be ruled out as a source.
It is always the passages in these kinds of documents which are used to ‘prove’ intent on genocide that are the most difficult to interpret, whereas the ones which mention non-homicidal solutions are always the most clear and detailed.
So this obviously raises questions. The first thing that might be said, is that on December 13, 1941, Goebbels drew his own conclusions, there’s no evidence that these conclusions are anyone else’s other than his, perhaps he was particularly angry, or as Mommsen supposed – quite reasonably, but nonetheless speculatively:
“The “prophecy” in Hitler’s Reichstag speech may have been only one episode on the “twisted road to Auschwitz,” but it was symptomatic of a phenomenon that Martin Broszat tried to define in the formula “the propaganda takes one at its word.” Broszat was noting here the phenomenon of Nazi propaganda, whose primary function consisted in political mobilization, but which in the long run rebounded on the concrete political course pursued by the regime. In other words, what originally was destined for purely propagandistic uses inadvertently turned into actual politics …” (Mommsen, Hans: “Hitler’s Reichstag Speech of 30 January 1939”, History and Memory. Volume 9, Issue 1/2. Fall 1997.)
This is essentially the view you’d be forced to take chronologically if you believe the holocaust actually occurred, but this proposition is beset by contradictory and opaque evidence that goes beyond mere statements by the German leadership.
What I have noticed is that the big difference between revisionists and exterminationists and how they reach a deadlock in argumentation, is that the former rely mainly on physical evidence and procedure for the holocaust, trying to interpret documents and statements best to suit what can actually be proved by what is alleged, whereas the latter rely almost purely on statements, like you have so far, which revisionists contend the interpretations thereof depend one’s conclusion about the physical evidence. Mainstream holocaust scholars have largely and always ignored the physical and technical evidence, and do not respond to challenges based on it; they have only done so on exceptional cases in the late 1980s, really starting with Zundel and Pressac, and stopped engaging in the early 2000s; and only periodically in the 2010s when some hack or other claims to have found mass graves, but actually, they found nothing.
Determining the reality behind the holocaust will take much more than evaluating quotations; and I also think a revolutionary state of mind is needed to really achieve a fruitful and fair conclusion on this topic. I only think this will happen once the current shackles of the post-war regime are removed, and even people who think the holocaust happened will not be so bent out of shape about it because the mythology it was meant to keep in place has been thrown off. In that situation, we can allow revisionism and orthodoxy to live side by side and hash it out properly. This is what I hope for.
But in the meantime, those on the Right who believe in this holocaust bilge need to tolerate those who don’t, and vice versa. But those whom know particularly little about it should remain quiet, in the same way those who know little about any other topic should not be so quick to make judgements, especially on contested group where care and precision is needed to bear fruitful results.
One of your objections seems to amount to the claim that nobody could look at the Political Testament or the prophecy/threat of the annihilation of European Jewry and conclude that something awful is being discussed without already having headfull of Holocaust propaganda and a bias toward believing it. Nobody should take that seriously.
I disagree. My argument is that, indeed, nobody could because there’s nothing in it to suggest otherwise.
I think writing comments which are longer than the article means you’re a windbag and therefore automatically wrong.
Yeah, some people have short attention spans. That is one of the problems with our leaders today. They pander to the slam-dunk gallery, or argue to the typical O.J. Simpson juror.
🙂
You should see the length of my attention sp
I also don’t see the point in publishing an article about this; isn’t the ‘new line’ to be taken that Hitler should be ignored and stepped over as Keith Woods maintains? You seem to be on Wood’s side on this question, so why play into this silly ‘re-litigation’? It seems hypocritical. Although it also seems highly convenient and hypocritical that these evens should be stepped over, because they’re apparently so ‘irrelevant’, unlike the myriad of other topics which are obviously so much more pertinent. Take your pick!
In am interested to see if revisionists have any plausible answers.
The plausible explanation, as I outlined in my other comment, is that Hitler refers to what his government actually did and was in the process of doing, but never finished.
This is the most basic preliminary fact which I think can be agreed upon.
Now, whether you think that what the NS-Regime was doing amounted to an intentional program of mass murder is a different question; and it is, nonetheless, neither proven nor disproved by this document.
Considering the implausibility of the mass murder program might be too large of a presupposition to take into account here. But the document is hardly irreconcilable to the revisionist position.
Moreover, whether you think it’s ‘plausible’ or not doesn’t depend on this document, it depends on the big picture. If the big picture proves that the holocaust story is basically erroneous, then no matter how implausible you think think Hitler’s remarks are in relation to what the revisionist position is, it really doesn’t matter. It may just mean your knowledge on the topic isn’t great enough.
The fault in what you personally find plausible could be due to a number of factors, but unless the evidence is engaged with, it basically means fighting a straw man; and I’m not willing to agree that what you find ‘implausible’ about this amounts to a reasonably informed claim that I should take as a valid premise, which, based on that, I should then evaluate whether the holocaust ‘happened’.
Just on the surface of it, why was it plausible that 75 to 80 million people were killed in WW2, but not plausible that several million largely unarmed Jewish civilians whom Hitler blamed for the whole war were among them?
Theoretically, sure. But so what? That doesn’t mean it happened. This question is so reductionist that it of practically no determinative value whatsoever.
One could just as well suppose the gas chambers must have existed and been used merely because it’s possible Zyklon B could’ve been used to kill humans; and because you already think the Germans were intentionally exterminating the Jews, why wouldn’t they have used poison gas? Yet this ignores the substantive historical and scientific evidence and debate.
It is worthless, even if it’s theoretically possible.
I would not pay too much attention to stuff like Andrew Anglin might say.
🙂
Revisionists having “plausible answers” to what exactly?
This seems to be a giant case of begging the question, and it is not clear to me what Revisionsts you are even referring to.
For example, Mike Enoch Peinovich only became competent in Revisonist research and arguments comparatively recently, maybe on account of his second wife, I don’t know. He has studied the Holocaust Handbooks Series extensively and even had Germar Rudolf on his podcast numerous times now.
I see that Striker recently had Rudolf on for an hour and a half, which I have not listened to yet. I don’t follow Striker much but by no stretch of the imagination would I call him a Revisionist. At least he has a college degree.
So I am not honestly clear exactly what your beef is here. I do appreciate that you appear to take devil’s advocate positions and try to milk discussions. I definitely think that we can use a lot more intelligent discussions.
Anyway, people love to find “smoking guns” with snippets uttered by people such as Himmler, Goebbels, etc. But their arguments about this also carry a lot of unspoken baggage. We don’t even have a working clinical definition of the Holocaust(tm) itself in most cases, and yet so much is put into Hitler’s mouth. This is very weird.
🙂
I saw the interview. It was good stuff, and this week they had on the young man who demolished that brown media stooge on Jubilee. Very smart for 19 years old.
The name of Hitler is not going away. It’s like Napoleon. Love him, hate him, he’s going to be there forever and ever.
I forget who originally said the Third Reich should be “stepped over,” but that’s only a partial and ad hoc solution, mainly to be used against those who are patently dishonest, arguing in bad faith. Ignore them.
Yes, Hitler is forever because he evinces an endless fascination. There’s a reason they have all that NS artwork locked away tightly at Fort Belvoir (only scholars and handpicked journalists can see it); and why they ban taking pictures at shows of NS propaganda artwork and why the shows are sold out; and why a pen used by him sells for an exorbitant price; and why they fretted about what to do with his boyhood home. The man comes with his own warning of High Voltage but nonetheless one way or another it appears that everyone wants nothing more than to touch.
Jonathan Bowden, in one of his speeches. See comment 16 and replies.
Great article! I’m not buying it, the Germans were embroiled in a two-front war, they didn’t have the manpower, resources, and time to holocaust anyone. Then there is the issue of leaving evidence of the crimes. By 1944 the Germans knew they were losing the war, any intelligent person would have realized that no traces of death camps, and survivors could be left to be found. Even the jews have admitted that the Germans were very intelligent, and efficient. No, the camps were there for detention, processing, and eventual immigration. That document is a fake! For a more informative description of the camps read The Controversy of Zion by Douglas Reed. 🙃
Nobody seriously claims that Mein Politisches Testament is a fake.
Somehow, we are supposed to believe that 75 to 80 million people died in WWII, but it wasn’t feasible that millions of Jews were among them.
Well, cabbages do have a definition and they are not lettuce. One does not mistake one’s wife for a hat.
Murder also has a precise definition, which is not the same as Killing or Homicide, and likewise not the same as Mass-Murder.
Basically the idea that any anti-Semitic thought or policy inexorably means the literal mass-murder of Jews is questionable (though that is apparently what they believe).
Extraordinary Claims require Extraordinary Evidence
One of the problems that Dr. Arthur R. Butz and demographer Walter N. Sanning recognized early on with The Hoax of the 20th Century (1977) and The Dissolution of Eastern European Jewry (1983) was that it was problematical if Hitler ever could have gotten ahold of more the five-million Jews demographically, assuming he ever had wanted to kill them all.
It does not seem surprising to me that Hilberg’s 5.1 M methodology reflects this.
🙂
So 5.1 million Jews died in the war, but there was no gas, so no Holocaust?
Actually, yes. To say that the real figure is (at most) only 85% of the official one, and that none of them were gassed, is the sort of blasphemy worth a prison sentence in liberal democratic Germany. The high estimate left over still would constitute a massive calamity, quite obviously, but quibbling about the details is heresy that chips away at the all-important exceptionality factor. This is what bolsters the Good War narrative, the Zionist “get out of criticism free” card, the guilt stick, and a pile of other corollaries up to and including “this is what Nationalism leads to, so we have to open the borders, QED.”
You are the philosopher, define “Holocaust.”
In modern (1978) content it is an Orwellian label ─ or as David Irving says, a B.S. box that can contain a lot of unexamined atrocity propaganda, as much or as little as you please. It means everything and nothing.
Nobody besides Revisionists ever tries to define the Big-H trademark. It is probably anti-Semitic by definition to even try.
I don’t see how you can not use definitions in any discipline, not Science and History for sure.
🙂
I don’t have a definition of “cabbage” but I never mistake it for lettuce. The first sentence above says that the word has come to mean the mass killing of Jewish civilians by the Third Reich in WWII. That’s close enough to get a conversation started.
Scott said: “I conceded a long time ago that Hilberg’s 5.1 Jewish million mortality figure could be true”
Ditto but I have a question: Are you Hadding Scott, the same one who a few years ago, in a long thread, argued with Greg Johnson in The Occidental Observer about the Holocaust?
Are you the same individual, Cesar Tort, from the Mexican webzine “The West Darkest Hour,” who promotes Nazism, extermination of “non-Aryan” folks, and constantly whines about how your dastardly Catholic parents ruined your life?
No, I’m Scott Smith. I do some specific research for some Revisionists, and you can find some of my book reviews from the old Journal of Historical Review and the old Revisionist journal at CODOH.
I started a message forum on “real” Holocaust debate in 2003 because the CODOH forum had temporarily folded ─ Bradley Smith never liked message forums and neither does Germar Rudolf ─ and also because my friend, the Columbia-educated Engineer and major Revisionist, Fritz Berg had been frozen out by the IHR and CODOH because he criticized on technical grounds some of the work of Prof. Faurisson and Fred Leuchter, who were a team. In particular, Leuchter falsely portrayed himself as an Engineer.
My philosophy was more free-speech oriented than Revisionist “catechism” and there were even Jews with doctorates debating at RODOH in the day. Dr. Nick Terry, a History lecturer at Exeter in the UK was the lead RODOH moderator ─ but the anti-Revisionists later bailed to the Holocaust Controveries blog, whom Revisionist Carlo Mattogno calls the “Controversial Bloggers.”
Today CODOH has excellent free-speech practices, so RODOH is not really necessary any longer, but I will put its archive back up when our old Swedish webmaster is released from prison in a few years.
🙂
the peoples of Europe are once again viewed as mere blocs of shares by these international money and financial conspirators,…
I do find this statement interesting! Did you know that there is a number on the back of your birth certificate which can be found on the stock exchange? Yes, you are a commodity! 🙃
Trading shares of human stock. Note the Communist framing there. It is fine to kill scores of millions for Marxism, however.
I remember a kid in one of my college History classes noticing this, i.e., that Stalin and Mao were far more bloodthirsty than ever was claimed of Hitler. I think Pol Pot’s victims were originally claimed to be about 6M (but actually overestimated by about three or four times).
I did not know if my professor, who was a substitute, was Jewish or not. He did not have the side curls but did always wear black with a big black hat and beard like an ultra-Orthodox Jew.
In any case, the sub became visibly upset at this innocent observation that the Commies actually killed many more millions than Hitler, and he stammered out some kind of lame response.
I was so tempted to blurt out from underneath a Fiddler on the Roof soundtrack ─ yeah, the Communists killed more, but Hitler’s victims were Jews!
I had to bite my tongue to stay silent and not to laugh.
Ya gotta sell it, Baby!
🙂
This reminds me of the old George Lincoln Rockwell joke about the young man who quit the American Nazi Party–he said he could accept that Hitler had not killed six million Jews but not that he didn’t even try. But I think Greg is correct: he did try, and at least somewhat succeeded, and said as much towards the end.
All I know is the “gas chambers” as shown/built at Auschwitz, with their wooden doors, wouldn’t really work. If actual working chambers were built then they would have provided a very inefficient way to kill so many people. Where are all the remains, even all the ash etc? Monuments are built on the sites in such a fashion as to keep anyone from actually looking for remains. Why is that?
Probably because there are no remains. At leat not in the millions. Considering Jews and Germans are so meticulous in their records, where are the names, the actual lists? Sure, Jews were killed in the war. But in the millions? No. Conceding to their blood libel does not gain us any better standing in the world. When will the Jews admit to the millions they slaughtered in the old USSR and Eastern Bloc? Never.
This is a nice rehearsal of revisionist cliches.
1. Focus on Auschwitz, as if the Holocaust was supposedly confined to that site.
2. Focus on gas chambers. Don’t forget the wooden door!
3. Where are the names? You might start with the 4.8 million compiled by Yad Vashem. Why would Germans keep names anyway?
4. Then pivot to Jews killed elsewhere. Usually, the tactic here is to be generous and grant that it could be millions. Apparently anything under a million doesn’t count as a genocide for you.
5. Then change the topic to other genocides, in your case ones committed by Jews.
You need to know more to have an informed opinion on this issue.
In fairness to Mr. Williams, Auschwitz was originally listed as having 4 million Jews as victims. Then it kept getting revised, down to about 1 million and will peobably be lowered even more as the truth slowly becomes available. The 6 million toll was based on Auschwitz being at 4 million. If Auschwitz numbers have been lowered by 75% then what other lies and exaggerations are we having to accept, lies used as a cudgel against all Whites. Taking Yad Vashem at face value might not be the best course. Consider the source(s).[…]
The 4 million figure was claimed by the Soviets. It was not the basis for the 6 million total, so yes, 6 million minus 3 million is still 6 million. This is not hard to find out, but your argument continues to circulate among revisionists like it is a great “own.”
The Auschwitz 1 million figure was Hilberg’s (1961) who says 5.1 M total. The 3-4 million figure, though Soviet, was still being used in some places in the West in the 1980s, such as in encyclopedias. The question was how many Jews comprise the 4 million (usually given as at least 3.5 M).
By the 1960s, with the exception of “six euthanasia hospitals,” nearly all the gassing was done East of the Iron Curtain, and “Battleship Auschwitz” featured prominently in the Big-H until the 1980s, when publisher Ernst Zündel was prosecuted in Canada for printing things that Jews don’t like, and Faurisson/Leuchter started doing forensic examinations of the “murder sites.”
There were technical problems with Prof. Faurisson and Leuchter’s work, which have long been corrected, and Germar Rudolf continued those investigations, but the point is that “Battleship Auschwitz” had capsized.
In 2002, the Leftist journalist and editor of Der Spiegel, Fritjof Meyer, published “The Victims of Auschwitz: New Insights from New Archival Finds” in the respected academic journal Osteuropa (52:5 May 2002) and he controversially dropped the Auschwitz figure down to 510 K, including 356 K by gas. There was an uproar, but curiously, (Leftist) Meyer ─ unlike German-Canadian publisher Ernst Zündel ─ was not prosecuted for Hate Speech nor “obscenity.”
🙂
It certainly is possible to kill millions by denying them food, holding them in bad conditions, letting diseases spread and not giving any medical aid. Maybe add in some forced labor and forced marches. Armenian Genocide and the Holodomor needed no gas chambers.
Then the Big-H would not be unique, “the incomparable crime.”
It still leaves Intentionality up for debate.
The Armenian massacre occured during the First World War and the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire.
Narratives of atrocities against Armenians and Greeks were promoted by the father of the famous Carthaginian Treasury Secretary, Hank Morgenthau, Sr., while he was President Woodrow Wilson’s Ambassador to Ottoman Turkey. Ambassador Morgenthau sought to inflame American hostilities with Germany, where he had been born a humble Ashkenazi tobacconist.
The historian Barbara W. Tuchman was the granddaughter of the elder Morgenthau. Her excellent book, the Guns of August (1962) on the events leading to the breakout of the First World War, is somewhat flawed, in my opinion, by a weird chapter about the rape of Belgium. Here, thanks to the sacred resistance of the non-surrender monkeys who braved the baby-bayoneting brigades, the “Hun aggression” failed to capture Paris.
With respect to the Ukrainian Famine, apologists have always blamed that on an unintentional shortage of seed corn available for planting the next crop when Soviet collectivization apparatchiks miscalculated the amount of grain that could safely be requisitioned to finance the expansion of industrial infrastructure with Western assistance.
The Soviets were buying a huge amount of high-tech industrial plant machinery and employing Western engineers at this time to get it humming in the strategic Urals region. In fact, from 1928 onward, the Soviets had been in a full blown arms race with Germany.
This still leaves the fact that the Collectivization came largely at the expense of the slightly-more-prosperous Kulak agricultural class, a step or two above the typical Serf, what Thomas Jefferson might have called the Yeoman Farmer.
🙂
Both Nazis and the Deniers among you need to be stepped over. Both. The only thing that matters now is mass deportation. If it doesn’t start now we will all be Mulatos in two generations.
Need to be stepped out? Not true. Believe it or not, the Nazis and ‘deniers’ (though not all holocaust revisionists are right-wing politically, but in any case, you don’t need to worry about them) want the same thing as you. No need to worry about it. If anyone is being counter intuitive, it’s those on the right worrying about Nazis and deniers when they should be maintaining solidarity.
Yes, stepping over, as Jonathan Bowden advised. He noticed what the left was doing and saying with regard to Soviet atrocities.
It’s hardly an even comparison. I’ve seen zero debate on the left about what to make of their side’s towering mountain of dirty laundry. They don’t need to come up with a Party Line about the matter, since not enough Ukrainians and Taiwanese own TV stations. On the very rare occasions that leftists ever get called out on it, the usual fallback position is that “true Communism has never been tried yet.”
No! The Truth is always the right answer and I have barely even started to comment on this thread. (Longer posts were not being accepted for some reason and I was remiss in saving my text before posting.)
What part of “Nobody was Gassed” is so difficult to understand here?
Lots of people get their feathers burnt in wartime ─ and that is cruel and unfortunate, but it is the nature of the beast. War is not going to be banned anytime soon.
In fact, this is the normal “state of nature” between sovereign Nation-States according to the political philosopher Thomas Hobbes.
General Curtis E. LeMay, who became the Chief of Staff of the U.S. Air Force and later ran for Vice President under George Wallace in 1968, also admitted that the WWII enemy would have regarded him as a War Criminal (he wasn’t) for the two atomic bombings (and the even more deadly fire-bombings) of Japan, IF they had won the war instead. This is because the Victors make the rules.
That was also understood by the great mind of the “Isolationist” Ohio Senator Robert Alphonso Taft, the son of the former President and Supreme Court Chief Justice, who argued that the Nuremberg Trials were by definition ex post facto law and Victor’s Justice.
In his Pulitzer Prize-winning 1955 book Profiles In Courage, the future U.S. President, John F. Kennedy (while not necessarily in agreement with “Mr. Republican”) nevertheless admired his Senate colleague’s great courage in making this unpopular argument immediately after the Good War.
At the 1978 Air Power Symposium at the U.S. Air Force Academy, the retired Gen. LeMay went on to say that “all war is immoral and if you can’t handle that, then you are not a good soldier.”
Hitler was a good soldier.
🙂
Did I say anything about gas?
Are you doing a Faurisson here?
Dang, I made another long post and hit the Send button before saving it again and of course it is now lost.
Okay, you define the Holocaust then …
This term was not even popularized in this context until a certain NBC TV miniseries by that name aired in 1978.
Most major Revisionists (including Faurisson) say that the Holocaust(tm) consists of three parts:
1. The murder of millions by poison gas.
2. The claim of an Extermination Order from Hitler to kill all Jews possible for being Jews.
3. At least 6 million dead.
Raul Hilberg (1961) said it was 5.1 M. Gerald Reitlinger (1953) said it was 4.5 M. They were “Functionalist” Holohistorians unlike the “Intentionalist” Holohistorian school such as Nora Levin and Lucy Davidowicz whom nobody follows anymore largely because there was no Hitler Order.
So the drama of the Jews according to Holocaust doyen Hilberg was the result of “an incredible meeting of [Nazi] minds” or anti-Semite telepathy and not a real plan, order, budget, nor intention.
Historian Christopher Browning follows along in this vein with his “Oordinary Germans” thesis.
Jews are taught with their mother’s milk that Gentiles are lucrative marks and personally-beguiling beautiful blondes, but fundamentally they are always about murderous anti-Semitism.
The Israeli demographer Sergio Della Pergola said that there were a million Holocaust Survivors still alive in 2003.
Well, if a million Holosurvivors were still alive in 2003, who did Hitler kill?
I see nothing incriminating with either of Hitler’s statements from this article, which strike me as almost reserved in tone compared to what they could be.
Unless you have the vaunted Hitler Order, proof of homicidal gas-chambers used, or six-million (or whatever) verified names of the Jewish dead ─ and how exactly they died, big nothing-burger here.
🙂
It would be well to recall that the evidence for the “Holocaust” comes not from German documents or the alleged crime scenes, but—from Nuremberg to the present day— overwhelmingly from the testimony of the camp internees and the confessions of the supposed perpetrators. Mass gassing, not starvation or the “Holocaust by bullets,” is central to that testimony and to its use by the myriad of “Holocaust” “historians.”
No gas, no “Holocaust.”
Scott,
You’ve convinced me that stepping over isn’t just receding from trying to find the truth but tactically wrong. Ankle biting the current H narrative could be tactically useful in a multiple front public relations war now occurring – the Palestinian genocide, Epstein debacle, and drop in favourability to Israel among the young demographics.
After Hollywood churned out film after film, won’t some of the older ages general public be peeved by previous and possible future clamp downs on narrative enforcement? Some of the H narrative pushers like Lipstadt, in their lofty positions, have been hamfisted in the Gaza War. Not attempting to deflate the narrative could be ceding a possible victory, even a small one.
Why did TRS name their show Between Two Lampshades?
I watched the show ─ or listened to the podcast, since I don’t think TRS was actually doing videos at that time. But I can’t quite remember anything specific about the show.
“Between Two Lampshades” is where your guest sits facing you for the interview, I guess.
I suppose it was also a play on the Human Lampshades claim, which General Lucius Clay debunked. If that influenced the naming of the podcast, it’s pretty clever.
🙂
I think it’s almost certainly a reference to the Holocaust “lampshade.” There was also a show called Between Two Ferns that I assume it is also referencing. To wit:
“Between Two Ferns is a comedic web series hosted by Zach Galifianakis, featuring awkward celebrity interviews characterized by humor and absurdity.”
It’s the second. The follow-up replacement was called the Daily Shoah, a play on John Stewart’s (Leibowitz’s) Daily Show.
When it comes to the very existence of the Holocaust, revisionists should address the fact that countless specific individual Jews did not survive the war. With such a large number of individual cases in many European countries, it is completely impossible that this was one big hoax.
When it comes to Hitler’s individual role in the Holocaust, it is more interesting to ask to what extent Hitler was aware of the terrible conditions in the extermination camps. Hitler never visited any such camp and was apparently not interested in the “details” of how prisoners were treated.
There is a book called Conquest Through Immigration by George W. Robnett, which has a passage in it that states the disappearance of jews in WWII can be accounted for by the number of jewish immigrants that settled in Palestine immediately after the war. 🙃
In Prague, Czech Republic, there is a synagogue that has been converted into a Holo- memorial (Pinkhas Synagogue). Inside, the walls are covered with the names and dates of birth of 77,000 Jews from Bohemia and Moravia who perished during World War II.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinkas_Synagogue
There are many such memorials in Europe. Do you think the names of these Jews are fictitious? Nothing would be easier than to prove it from official records. And yet the deniers never provide such proof. If these Jews did not die during the war but left for Israel, where they changed their names, this would again be very easy to prove (such people would certainly maintain contact with their relatives who remained “officially” alive, or they would try to regain their property, perhaps through proxies- as many Jewish survivors actually did. ). It is also unlikely that the missing Jews would not want to continue their previous professional lives in Israel or America in some way—for example, by proving their previous education or work in a certain field. During the decades after the war, there would inevitably be many cases where a Jew declared dead would be recognized by his pre-war acquaintances.
Regrettably, deniers do not concern themselves with such details. They are essentially a quasi-religious movement that merely accumulates evidence in favor of their version of events, but never addresses the facts that refute their theory. In this respect, they are very similar to liberal deniers of crime committed by immigrants of color. For them, individual crimes committed by immigrants are also irrelevant, despite their high number.
Were the 77 thousand Prague Jews ─ or piles of shoes in museums ─ gassed, shot, or murdered somehow?
Has anybody ever verified with genealogy or by checking family trees that the names are from real people who ever existed in the first place and the lists de-duplicated?
This is how you begin to separate real history from “theology.”
🙂
The official Holo-Researchers have already created on-line databases where individual Jews who were killed in WWII can be found, along with photos from their pre-war documents and other archival materials relating to individuals:
https://www.holocaust.cz/en/database-of-victims/
Everybody that died between 1939-1945 (some say between 1933-1945) was not necessarily murdered ─ nor Genocided, whatever that means.
🙂
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czech_diaspora_in_Israel
“Czech-born residents
50,220 (2001 Census)
90,000 (2009 ONS estimate)”
Compare to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_the_Czech_lands#The_Holocaust
“It is estimated that of the 118,310 Jews living in the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia upon the German invasion in 1939, 26,000 emigrated legally and illegally; 80,000 were murdered by the Nazis; and 10,000 survived the concentration camps”
If 26k emigrated and 10k survived, how can we explain that the Israeli 2001 Census shows 50k Czech-born residents, considering that many would have emigrated to America or other Western countries and many would have stayed behind the Iron Curtain?
We also know that many non-religious, non-nationalist Jews were absorbed into the wider Gentile population in Communist Eastern Block countries (while the nationalist ones went to Israel and the religious ones stayed among their own kind).
I think that the 50,000 are more likely to be Israelis of Czechoslovak origin (logically, they cannot be the original immigrants, who are mostly dead 80 years after the war). They are probably people who had, for example, one Jewish Czech or Slovak parent. Alternatively, they are Jews who were born in post-war Czechoslovakia but emigrated to Israel in the post-war waves, for example, only in the 1960s. In any case, the idea that it would be possible to simulate the deaths of tens of thousands of specific people or invent tens of thousands of non-existent victims is absurd. The creators of such a conspiracy would have to realize that the hoax would easily be exposed in 20th-century society, where official archives are carefully kept (this is especially true in Central Europe) and, moreover, every individual leaves behind a wealth of records and traces wherever they live. On the contrary, it is clear that these memorials are made precisely for the purpose of taking the wind out of the sails of deniers by pointing to specific Jews who were killed. What, of course, does not follow from such records is how specific people died (only that they were deported to a camp and did not return). But even the official narrative does not claim that all Jews were killed by gas. It is clear that many died of starvation, frostbite, disease, or were shot, etc. For old people and children, a few days in a Nazi camp was certainly enough.
“One Big Hoax” is a straw dog argument.
Let’s stick with engineer Fritz Berg’s slogan:
Nobody was gassed! Niemand wurde vergast!
Then we can start discussing the claims and the historiography. Degreed Chemist and Revisionist publisher Germar Rudolf is an excellent practitioner of this.
The Big-H is not a monolith.
And revisionism, small-r is an inextricable part of the historian’s craft. The Scientific Method itself, is also an example of endless revision based on testable hypotheses of current evidence and ongoing empirical observation.
“Science” is not what Democrats think it is, i.e., some kind of canon of “settled” Scripture.
🙂
High death rates and overcrowding was primarily true only at the end of the war and you can see this easily by looking at the mortality figures in the last few months of the war at, for example, Bergen-Belsen, which was the subject of the Allied propaganda films that showed emaciated corpses being plowed into mass-graves with bulldozers.
Almost nobody claims today that people were homicidally gassed at Dachau, but nearly all camps had extensive fumigation and sanitation infrastructure built at great cost to SAVE lives.
You can inspect these facilities at museums like Dachau today, and even the water purification infrastructure built next to the ruined Krema 2 at Auschwitz-Birkenau today. This was done at great cost to save the lives of internees, and Himmler and Arms Minister Albert Speer allocated the funding, engineering, and manpower to make it so to extents possible in wartime.
This fumigation infrastructure is nearly identical to that used at border control and quarantine points long before WWII like Ellis Island in New York harbor, Manly Quarantine Station at Sydney, Australia, and the Santa Fe Street Bridge at El Paso, Texas ─ where immigrants were inspected by the Health Department, forced to delouse and shower, and had their clothing and baggage GASSED either in steam autoclaves or with Zyklon-B cyanide fumigant. In both Europe and America, entire railroad boxcars were even fumigated with Zyklon-B in giant gas-chamber barns, which is rather remarkable.
Leftists feature this fact in some of their anti-anti-immigrant “Rosa Parks” propaganda. Just Google “Zyklon-B” with El Paso, Texas (LINK).
🙂
Of course lots of people died unjustly. Still, the basic elements of the holo narrative are that:
— 6,000,000 Jews died in it – perhaps more, but absolutely not a single one less
— The six million were all deliberately murdered as a result of premeditated policy, usually by poison gas
— This constituted by far the most evil event in human history
If you quibble about numbers, intent, causes of death, feasibility, the validity of Allied drumhead trials, etc., or perhaps just ask too many questions, this gets you labeled as a denier who just wants to whack six million more.
“When it comes to Hitler’s individual role in the Holocaust, it is more interesting to ask to what extent Hitler was aware of the terrible conditions in the extermination camps. Hitler never visited any such camp and was apparently not interested in the “details” of how prisoners were treated.”
This might be a confused understanding of the term “extermination camps” – which everyone should be cognizant of. I think that some people have the misunderstanding that most Jews were sent to live in camps and were maltreated and died and something such as that is what is being referred to as “extermination camps”. After Barbarossa comparatively few Jews were sent to live in any camps. The “extermination camps” were extremely small camps which had little space for anywhere near the amount of people sent to them to be exterminated. Jews were sent to and immediately killed in “extermination camps”.
Jewish deaths in the Holocaust run along the lines of:
About 1.8 million in the AR camps and Chelmno – “extermination camps” where those sent were immediately killed – not “prisoners” or anything like that.
About 1.3 to 2 million shot in the East – mostly by the Einsatzgruppen or similar type groups helped and egged on by the Nazis.
About 1 million at Birkenau.
This is the vast majority of Jewish deaths in the Holocaust and do not in any way involve Jews dying in camps in which they were sent to live – which would be a tiny percentage of Jewish deaths during the war.
Just want everyone to be clear about that. “Extermination camps” were camps of immediate deaths to Jews sent there.
If I understand it correctly, Mr Johnson’s meta-level argument is that Holocaust revisionism is inessential because even if the Revisionists were substantially correct, the Jews would still have suffered substantial losses, particularly on a per capita basis. A fifth of a Holocaust would still be a Holocaust, and still be mass murder of Jews by German Nazis.
If the document we’re talking about was not forged, then the statement “the actual culprit having to atone for his guilt” can certainly be read to imply revenge killings on a significant scale.
However, at this point a Revisionist could argue that a lot of terrible vengeance and mass murder can be carried out without coming close to the figure of half a dozen million deaths – particularly if the person seeking revenge thinks in per capita terms.
Mr Johnson, how many Jews do you believe were killed by the Germans in WWII? Do you think there were gas chambers?
These are good points.
I have no idea about the final death toll or whether gas chambers were used. Quite a few methods of execution are more humane than being burned alive.
Nobody was gassed. Zero.
But Jews themselves and their sufferings are no better than anyone else’s.
The opposite view is what they wish to indelibly impart onto both their fellow tribesmen and onto the Gentiles ─ which is why they spend gazillions of dollars long after the Good War sanctifying whatever is meant by the Big-H.
🙂
I said nothing about gas. Practically every form of execution is more humane than being burned alive.
Again, begging the question. You define the Holocaust(tm), then.
The Greek term of burning a sacrifice (in whole or “holo”) was used in many contexts before a certain 1978 TV show popularized the word in the Jewish context. Jews usually say “Shoah” in their own periodicals since 1945.
This word Holocaust, or the Big-H as I call it, was almost never found in non-Jewish periodicals (i.e., read by Gentiles) prior to then. I found one reference in the Jewish context in Manchester Guardian from 1968.
We used to hear the term “Nuclear Holocaust” a lot fifty or so years ago during the Cold War.
Calling the Chicago Fire of 1872 or the San Francisco Fire of 1906 a “holocaust” today is almost considered anti-Semitic now ─ let alone Tokyo, Hiroshima, or Nagasaki ─ almost enough to get put onto an ADL watch list.
And including Dresden in Germany in this today is done almost at the risk of imprisonment for Hate Speech.
Modern Germans do not appreciate David Irving now for calling attention to the 1945 Allied fire-bombing of Dresden as they did in 1963 when the Left was becoming angry about American “Insurgent Wars” in SE Asia. Oddly, the 1943 fire-bombing of Hamburg, which killed tens of thousands in a similar firestorm, is not so sensitive an issue ─ probably because David Irving did not expressly write about it.
🙂
Dominic Fox obviously doesn’t think that even if the revisionist position is true that this makes Hitler a ‘softie’, and you even agreed by saying he made ‘great points’. Of course, it’s not even necessary for the ‘logical conclusion’ that you would expect revenge to be generally taken out on literally every member of the responsible group, especially since reprisals had already taken place on the Eastern Front. These were brutal, nobody would deny that, so this means Hitler was neither a softie nor genocidal.
Even though a much much smaller number of Jews were killed by German ‘Nazis’, this ignores the key difference between the much more significant claim of a centrally planned extermination effort. If this is thrown out the window, then these reprisals basically just become old fashioned wartime brutality – not even crimes necessarily, since the Soviet Union was not party to the Geneva convention.
And on the other side of the coin, this unique obsession with the wickedness of the Nazis would have to be discarded. One could even more readily wave their hand and say they ‘don’t care’ about what excesses were wrought during this war which took place nearly 100 years ago; human history is brutal and savage; and it is replete with examples of horrors which still don’t prevent us from seeing our history symbolically. The second world is no exception.
Nobody cares, after all, that the Allies murdered more than 500,000 German civilians in saturation bombing (this hasn’t stopped anything singing the Allies’ praises, or opposing their ideologies on principle).
Nobody cares that more than 3 million innocent Germans were murdered by being forcibly deported by death march from their ancestral homes in Eastern Europe; that’s provided anyone even knows about that.
Nobody today really cares about the Japanese citizens who died by the atomic bombs.
Nobody cares about the millions of Russians who were sent back to the Soviet Union only to be immediately killed or thrown in a Gulag because they failed to die in war.
Nobody cares about the Poles the Soviets murdered at Katyn – but they really care about the Polish intellectuals killed by the Nazis for some reason.
Nobody cares about the German women raped and murdered by the Red Army, or, quite frankly, any of the crimes committed by the Red Army which one can bet exceeded, or at least was on par, with anything the Nazis did in the revisionist conception.
It all, simply, doesn’t matter.
The war is seen as symbolic and heroic regardless of the atrocities that took place by every party involved except the Germans who have been abused and forced to existentially question their entire history, and discard it. They have also been forced to constantly put the crimes committed by the Germans in that war at the centre of their consciousness. If the holocaust was discarded, and the most you were left with were a couple or a few hundred thousand shooting; and perhaps a few hundred thousand deaths in the concentration camps – which were not due to gassing, but mainly disease and starvation at the latter end of the war – this would be far less compelling than the traditional narrative sets out to be.
And let’s not forget the rest of history. The right-wing, or at least some segment of it, has a real passion for antiquity, but do they moral-fag about every atrocity in the ancient world connected to the aesthetic era of human history they geek out about? No. Modern Empire enthusiasts don’t care about when European colonialists conquered the world, that’s ‘Faustian’, or whatever. Nobody on the Right cares about the American settlers giving the Indians diseases and killing them, intentionally or not. By giving the German shit for some of their baggage, you’re just being a hypocrite.
There seems to be a shift in your argument here.
Do you wish to argue that there was no “Holocaust” — or do you admit that there was, but they just want to argue that it wasn’t really any worse than other historical crimes, so it is hypocritical to reproach Germans with it?
Not at all. I’m not taking the orthodox view of the holocaust on board; I thought I made that clear when I stated that there’s a difference between a smaller number of Jews being killed by the Nazis and a centrally planned extermination effort; and when I said that if that idea is thrown out the window, then reprisals – admittedly brutal – are by no means more morally significant than the other list of questionable historical acts and wartime funny business that took place even in that war but on the Allied side.
I also said that if the holocaust narrative was discarded that the most you’d be left with were a couple or a few hundred thousand shootings which, if you read Mattogno’s book, you’d know “The Einsatzgruppen never received an order to exterminate the Jews as such, and the executions of Jews they perpetrated did not have a racial character; Jewry was rather considered the fertile breeding ground of Bolshevism, which was the primary enemy of the National-Socialist regime, and as such the Jews were ruthlessly combatted in pursuance of that view.” (Mattogno, Carlo: The Einsatzgruppen in the Occupied Eastern Territories: Genesis, Missions and Actions, London: ARMREG 2024, p. 757.) Maybe this is what confused you, because revisionists do not deny that many Jews were killed in the German conduct of anti-partisan warfare – of which many Jews were involved (Porter, Jack Nusan: Jewish Partisans of the Soviet Union During World War II, Boston: Cherry Orchard Books 2021.) If not, then I’m not sure how you interpreted from my above comment that I was saying anything affirmative about the legitimacy of the orthodox holocaust narrative.
My point was that I disagree with Dominic Fox that “A fifth of a Holocaust would still be a Holocaust, and still be mass murder of Jews by German Nazis.” Because what conceding the revisionist position would mean, is that no Jews were systematically sought out on a genocidal basis, and that not nearly the number of Jews killed is sufficiently high enough to warrant a pedantic and particularist moral narrative based on ‘uniqueness’.
I think that Mr. Johnson is testing us as to our frame of mind per the so-called holocaust. I get it, these discussions can go on ad infinitum without being productive. It is best to stick to the “new line” (multiculturalism destroys diversity). I agree it is best to just jump over the subject, but I am still going to burn a candle for Hitler on his birthday. 🙃
I strongly disagree.
These discussions ARE essential ─ although I acknowledge that most people have no historiographical training, and the easy slam-dunks or Denials (while entertaining) such as you might find done (competently) by Mike Peinovich or on edgy podcasts, are in reality only superficial.
We can start forgetting the Big-H and the Good War only when it becomes possible to discuss all of it in mainstream academia and popular historiography.
Historians are literally afraid to have a civil discussion, let alone a Holocaust debate, with Germar Rudolf, for example.
Like the American Civil War ─ with the exception of an honest discussion of RACE ─ we can do this in that genre but certainly not with the Good War.
Until then, Holocaust Revisionism is probably best left to interested and competent Amateurs and not to the peanut gallery.
The Truth is not something to be abated ─ not for tactical nor for any other reasons. No good can come from any WN movement not accepting this.
🙂
The greatest problem with this kind of reasoning is that it projects the horrors of Third Reich’s fall back to the beginning of the war. They hoped the war with the Soviet Union would be swiftly deal with. What sense does it make for Hitler to want bloody revenge at the beginning of 1942 (the supposed start of the Holocaust) when it seemed victory was at hand at little cost?
Considering the vagueness and briefness of Hitler’s statement – suggesting that he did not deem it too noteworthy – it seems more in line with the revisionist view: that he was simply referring to the merciless war against Jewish partisans (including their families) and using Jews for slave labor.
Holocaust Revisionism has reached its intellectual peak only in recent years thanks to the work of Germar Rudolf and Carlo Mattogno. Looking at the all the paperwork left behind at Auschwitz-Birkenau, it seems quite unlikely that mass extermination ever occurred. Otherwise we have to conclude that Germans were madmen that exterminated anyone unfit for work but simultaneously took care of ill inmates in hospitals for weeks and even months at a time, forbid physical punishments, persecuted SS men for mistreating prisoners (judge Konrad Morgen), let female inmates give birth, and so on.
In perhaps the earliest account of Auschwitz-Birkenau published in a book – The Death Factory (1946) – one of the authors informs us that the Birkenau hospital was nothing but a reservoir for the gas chambers, that it meant “almost certain death.” Curiously, just a few pages before that he tells us that he spent six weeks in the very same hospital to recover from typhus. What sense does that make?
He also writes that every pregnant woman and newborn was exterminated. Bold words for someone who got his wife pregnant in the camp as his son tells us in his own book. Mysteriously, despite being “in a late stage of pregnancy,” she was not gassed but transferred to Stutthof concentration camp where she gave birth in September 1944. She died of typhus in February 1945. Oh, and may I mention the fact that the son, Otto Dov Kulka, was only 10 when he arrived in Birkenau in 1943? Very “mysterious” that he was not gassed in the three years that he spent there as a child.
The two authors, Erich Kulka and Ota Kraus, were not exactly shy about the fact that they were members of the underground resistance in the camp. The truth is that they simply kept on peddling inane resistance propaganda even though their own experiences suggested a very different picture of the camp.
I find it highly unlikely that the Holocaust narrative is true. But since I am just a dumb denier, after all, I’ll let a Holocaust survivor speak for himself:
“What are you writing?” the Rebbe asked. “Stories,” I said. He wanted to know what kind of stories: true stories. “About people you knew?” Yes, about people I might have known. “About things that happened?” Yes, about things that happened or could have happened. “But they did not?” No, not all of them did. In fact, some were invented from almost the beginning to almost the end. The Rebbe leaned forward as if to measure me up and said with more sorrow than anger: “That means that you are writing lies!” I did not answer immediately. The scolded child within me had nothing to say in his defense. Yet, I had to justify myself. “Things are not that simple, Rebbe. Some events do take place but are not true; other are—although they never occurred.”
—Elie Wiesel in Legends of Our Time
I like the line: If 6 million died, there really is a God.
I’m not an expert in methods of execution, but if you wanted to kill people quickly and on the cheap, wouldn’t you just deprive them of drinking water?
Yes, not very humane but it would take less than four days. If you drowned them with water, it would only take about four minutes.
One of the arguments used by the Holocaust promoters is that Himmler, Höß and others settled on poison gas for mass-murder because it was more humane than shooting and because hardened SS security troops were supposedly weenies when it came to shooting insurgent Jews.
But happily there was a commercial fumigant just lying around for fighting insect-borne diseases like typhus in the camps.
It is really odd that the Germans did not think to use their commercial fumigation chambers in the camps for doing these mass-murders. Really odd.
That is because the Allied propagandists were journalists and jurists and not engineers, so they did not understand how commercial fumigation actually worked ─ and certainly Yiddish-Israeli storytellers like the Treblinka carpenter Yankiel Wiernik, who had ties to Marxist labor organizations in Warsaw and New York, did not understand either.
🙂
jesus christ, you probably have amerikans that die falling off the toilet. It can’t be that hard to dispose of populations if one were so inclined to quickly, efficiently, cruelly or not.
It is an interesting psychological phenomenon that people seldom choose the easy way of killing. For instance, when people are executed in the US, there is a variety of different techniques which must be administered with great expense and protocol. They don’t just leave the criminal in a cell without water for a few days, or have a random guard shoot him with his sidearm. I’d like to know the explanation for this.
I think it is because the easy way is generally the gruesome way, and they want to make it as antiseptic and clinical as possible, so to somehow make it clean and distance themselves from it.
Close the cell. Four days later send the cleanup crew. Many of the clean and clinical ways of killing cause defecation and urination. Killing is usually rather unpleasant.
On Gas-Ovens, Capital Punishment, and “Naked Race-Murder.”
People are hung-up about capital punishment for some reason which I strongly favor.
A serial killer used to kill and rape teachers and convenience store clerks in Idaho whom I knew in 1987 because he lived around the corner from the radio shop where I worked that was connected to a convenience store. One male clerk working at the gas station near the new hospital was shot and stuffed into the walk-in cooler where he died hours later ─ all for a few cartons of smokes. The murderer was caught after a local terror panic and put on Death Row in Idaho, and the death sentence of Paul Ezra Rhoades was finally executed twenty-four years later.
At about 4:15 AM Sunday morning on November 13, 2022 at an off-campus student house at the University of Idaho in Moscow, some Aspergery criminal justice studies PhD candidate named Bryan Kohberger from nearby Washington State University walked into the unlocked back door of the student house and proceeded to beat and stab four sleeping and probably drunk college students ─ leaving two survivors who were never attacked, one of whom never heard anything at all, and the other who saw a Covid-like masked figure in black with bushy eyebrows walk past her bedroom door, but she was too scared to investigate further, and went back to sleep it off in the downstairs bedroom room with the other surviving girl after locking their door.
The bewildered survivors were left wondering whether anything really happened or if they were just “punked.” They could not raise their roomies on their Smartphones the next morning, and went into some kind of weird helpless state. Otherwise, I can’t understand why they could not have physically checked on their roommates’ welfare in the other bedrooms. “Nothing happens in Moscow” as one tearful survivor told the responding police officer.
The 911 call that was finally made around Noon later that Sunday sounds like a bunch of stoned sorority airheads who can’t even get their address right for the frustrated 911 dispatcher.
The lone officer who confidently arrived at the scene with a defibrillator then emerged shortly from the house ready to shed his big breakfast. As soon as the police officer’s backup arrived, they cleared the house for threats and found two more gruesomely-mutilated girls in bed in another upstairs bedroom.
I don’t want to be too hard on the girls, but when I was 20 I was not only trained in how to handle pressure but could get an improvised antenna into the air and call for a medivac. I don’t really understand kids today, but I am pretty certain that most of my nieces and nephews could do the equivalent with their Smartphones.
To me this was a fascinating murder case, and because I graduated from both BYU-Idaho and Idaho State University (the one in Pocatello not in Moscow) the crime was especially interesting. I lived in a similar apartment in college, although it was not co-ed and nobody that I lived with drank or got high.
The point, however, is that some crimes rise to the level of the Death Penalty, and this was one of them if anything is.
Neverthless, the Latah County Prosecutor ─ who is a Liberal Democrat with over thirty years of sinecure, living in a small Libtard college town ─ managed to unilaterally get a plea bargain deal through just before trial, conveniently dropping the Death Penalty. So either these crimes don’t rise to that level or he did not think that they could convince a jury for a conviction (which seems unlikely).
Upon conviction for a capital crime, Idaho and Arizona both have the same jury decide whether the DP is really the appropriate punishment ─ so some bearded-geezer hippie in sandals really cirumvented justice here by my way of thinking (and if I lived there I would make sure that this prosecutor fights a tough reelection). U of I in Moscow is the location of Idaho’s only Law School, btw, so it is not like they can’t find better talent.
Recently, Idaho and many other states changed its method of capital punishment, in this case from Lethal Injection to Firing Squad. This is because Leftist groups are blocking the distribution of medical-grade chemicals to prisons.
Last year, Idaho botched the execution of Thomas Eugene Creech by Lethal Injection. They failed to kill him because they called it off when they could not find a vein, and nobody wanted to hurt his arm further. I am pretty sure that any junior EMT would somehow find a vein regardless of how much they hurt me if I were riding to the hospital in an ambulance.
But this underscores the original problem with Lethal Injection ─ you can’t ethically use actual medicos who have practiced by treating thousands of patients. You simply don’t work as both the execution guy and the healer.
The Leftist chemical blockade is why Arizona refurbished its hydrogen cyanide gas chamber a few years ago, even though Jews were very outraged and vocal about this un-Holy form of capital punishment.
Arizona did hire real engineers for this gas-chamber refit, however, which is why Fred Leuchter was complaining that the next Arizona execution would be botched. No, Fred, because they actually did hire real engineers.
Arizona is the only state that still uses anti-Semitic hydrogen cyanide ─ and this was last done in 1999, but hopefully again real soon.
Some states have recently experimented with nitrogen asphyxia, which does not require any “fortress architecture” since nitrogen is not toxic nor explosive (unlike hydrogen cyanide). But I think they still need to rethink the engineering just a bit, mainly because the condemned prisoners still try to “act out” for the witnesses.
In fact, the gas-chamber is about as painless a process for capital punishment as you can get, although it takes longer than a fired bullet for the heart to fully stop, and it is far less messy than the guillotine or hanging.
Lethal Gas is also foolproof so long as the prisoner does not try to hold his breath and visibly “perform” for witnesses. I would put him in a mask of some kind to hide his face during the process to eliminate the contrived drama.
(From what I understand, the Red Chinese used to cut the vocal cords of the condemned prisoners the day before their executions so that they could not yell out counter-revolutionary slogans at the gallows pole.)
It would have been easy for the Germans to have built homicidal gas-chambers with Zyklon-B and some basic engineering ─ and they were already doing this in many military and concentration camps with Degesch fumigation cubicles that worked far more efficiently than the crockpot cyanide salt and battery acid gas-generation method used in American HCN execution gas-chambers.
The Germans even had Zyklon-B fumigation barns that you could put entire railroad cars into (not loaded with the people, of course).
Holocaust lore claims that the Germans killed patients at six state “euthanasia” hospitals like Hartheim and Hadamar using carbon monoxide gas. That would be quite doable, as CO is very toxic, but there is zero technical evidence for this. At best they show a municipal gas pipe in a room near the crematoria oven(s).
The rule of atrocity propaganda is to conflate the ordinary with the unordinary and then to make it seem scary.
So we have fumigation chambers as were built by Degesch and American Cyanamid for killing bugs at border stations and calling it mass-murder. Then we have crematorias at hospitals and prisons that are inherently scary that are now processing “mass-murder” corpses.
And we have municipal gas mains that provide combustible gas to hospitals, that are now claimed to be killing people with carbon monoxide gas-ovens. That is not doable without some real engineering, however.
In fact, prior to the late 1960s in Europe and America, ordinary cooking gas had a large CO component which was highly-toxic and combustible, and it was usually generated from coal and distributed by the municipal gas mains.
This meant that there were a lot of carbon monoxide suicides simply from sticking one’s head into the home gas-oven and not lighting the pilot light. Author Sylvia Plath’s 1963 suicide comes to mind.
Nowadays all cooking gas is completely CO-free and the combustible gas is usually just methane (CH4).
It is important to provide a working definition of the Holocaust because it is simply not sound to checkin a lot of baggage without also checking for bedbugs.
It is hard to imagine anybody who is not slandered and defamed more than Adolf Hitler.
This is well-funded propaganda by design, and ignoring it will not make it go away for the purposes of WN. The Holocaust is supposed to be the ultimate trump card against raycissm ─ laying bare “naked race-murder” as its cautionary tale.
🙂
OK, I’ll take a stab.
Just going off the translation only – what was the time period given for the 3rd and 4th paragraphs? Wasn’t it “Three days before the outbreak of the German-Polish war?”
So he is admitting that he had murdered 6 million Jews “Three days before the outbreak of the German-Polish war?”
No, that’s not the time frame. He’s writing at the end of the war.
??
I’ll take another stab.
He wrote the words down at the end of the war. But the words were about what time period?
In all 4 paragraphs he is talking about how it all got STARTED in 1939.
He only jumps ahead to the future in paragraph 2: “Centuries will pass away…(but) the hatred will continually grow anew…” Here, even though he is now talking about the future and not past (1939), he’s saying that the same causes of 1939 will rise again.
The entire focus of all 4 paragraphs of the translation is 1939 and the causes of the war.
And he’s clearly (at least to me) talking about what he had done to the Jews PRIOR to the outbreak of war in paragraph 4.
Paragraph 3: “Three days before the outbreak of the German-Polish war I again proposed to the British ambassador…”
… leading into paragraph 4 (“But…”).
In other words (MY translation of a translation, I suppose), he is saying “I was willing to bend for peace. BUT I was taking action on the point I brought up in paragraph 2 – I boycotted their businesses, I barred them from positions in the government and the military, etc.”
I think the writing is clear and holds together nicely. But maybe he would have worded it differently if he had known that some years AFTER the end of the war the holocaust narrative would be created.
Before the war, he uttered the prophecy/threat that if international Jewry starts another World War, they will not be spared the same fate awaiting Europeans. He spoke of the “annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe.”
Now that the war is ending, Hitler is saying one of two things.
1. That he has carried through on his threat.
or
2. That he didn’t. That it was just empty bluster.
I think that he’s clearly saying the former. If his meaning was the latter, why would he even mention it?
Is it your theses that at the end of the war, after millions of Germans have died, that Hitler is proudly announcing that he has . . . boycotted the businesses of the people he held responsible?
I don’t know if Hitler was PROUDLY announcing anything – but I think he was announcing that he was in the process of either EXPELLING the Jews, not just from Germany, but as an ultimate goal, from all Europe (the annihilation of the Jewish race IN EUROPE) or he was in the process of MURDERING all the Jews he possibly could (the annihilation of the Jewish race period full stop). I used “etc.” to describe that process which STARTED with the boycotting of businesses. We don’t know where the process would have gone because it got interrupted by the war.
(I also think he was moved to some extremes of speech due to his anger about the treatment of the German people, which is something very difficult for most people to understand. The conventional wisdom is that white people absolutely do not count in terms of suffering. Pretty much no one – perhaps including yourself – has any issue at all with the slaughter of white people.
There is a true extermination going on right now, this very minute, although as of now it is proceeding slowly and quietly, via things like immigration and anti-white propaganda. At some point when the (dropping) relative population of whites goes below a certain percentage I think it is likely that the extermination will quickly become more obviously violent – as it was with the Germans. Book title: “Germany Must Perish.”
That’s the subtext here – that’s what we are really talking about. If Hitler truly WAS a murderous and evil madman, then do you and I have the obligation to commit suicide, since we are both white and Hitler was white? Historical TRUTH matters but usually does not inspire so much passion, except maybe from historians. And if Hitler WAS nothing more than a genocidal killer, we should admit that. But I am currently not prepared to admit that because (a) I am honestly not sure that is really true and (b) because our enemies have decided that if it’s true it DOES mean that it is OK to exterminate white people. Funny how the rules change depending on the race of the people involved.)
I was focused on the translation. It seems to me that the translation is, as I said, focused on 1939. He was not reviewing the course of events after the start of the war (in those 4 paragraphs). I suspect that in his mind he felt he had to explain/justify the actions he took against the Jews (again) PRIOR to the start of the war. AFTER the start of the war it was pretty much equal opportunity suffering for all. From what I understand, the Jews were put into work camps, and Jews weren’t the only ones in such camps.
He wrote “But I also left no doubt…” in the context of his communication with the British ambassador at a specific point in time. He didn’t write “now that the war is about to end, I HAVE left no doubt” or simply “I HAVE left no doubt.”
PS I guess I should be clear that I think Hitler’s actions were extreme by any measure of accounting, as pretty much absolutely EVERYONE understands. I just think that his actions were in RESPONSE to something which was also extreme (what almost NOBODY understands). My only wish is that white people would turn on their BS detectors and push back against all the various forms of nonsense that have been directed at us. That is really ALL that we need to do.
There is nothing even remotely incriminating by either Hilter passage.
He speaks with extraordinary restraint in both cases.
Jews bleed red like anybody else and they suffered greatly during the war, which killed scores of people besides the throngs of God’s Chosen.
What Jews are not is better than anyone else.
When a Jew is called out AS A JEW, and regardless of whether he suffers the loss of a fingernail in the process ─ he screams bloody murder and “Genocide.”
Anne Frank may have been innocent, but Sammy Untermyer, Rabbi Stephen S. Wise, and Hank Morgenthau, Jr. were not. These people could have mitigated the conflict and thus saved their coreligionists much hardship, but that is not what they were about. Hitler, on the other hand, was always willing to negotiate.
It might surprise some that I do not consider myself to be an anti-Semite at all. I have no fear of nor hatred for the Jews whatsoever.
That is why I permitted Jews to discuss and debate the Holocaust and other issues at the RODOH discussion forum 22 years ago, which preserved the spirit of free-speech more conscientiously than CODOH did then ─ although the modern CODOH forum is exemplary in that regard.
Now, I heard on a recent Dershowitz podcast about what he considers to be anti-Semitic, and basically it is nearly all criticism of Jews, plus most criticism of Israel and Zionism, including by Leftist Jews.
Dershowitz made a torturous comparison about White colonialism in New Zealand to fend off the real source of criticism of Israel by the Jewish Left, which falls under the category of “White” imperialism.
And personally, I am disgusted by the ginger-haired active-duty U.S. Air Force kid who doused his body with gasoline at the Israeli embassy in 2024 and immoliated himself horrifically on video. These weasels hate what they think is Whiteness so much! We don’t need them in our gene pool.
Even German Communists and troublesome theologians like Niemöller were justifiably sent to camps to learn how to grow cabbage. That requires no apology.
🙂
The natural reading of predicting the “annililation of the Jewish race in Europe” is not, “Ahh, such ‘restraint'” and “There is nothing even remotely incriminating” here.
Restraint is not my word and that is not what Hitler is doing here.
I think “annihilation” is nothing more than bellicose rhetoric, however, such that we find with any war. Inspiring historically, yes, but basically a nothing-burger with cold fries.
The Zionist leader Rabbi Stephen S. Wise was complaining about “Boxerism” circa 1900 going along with the Tsar’s Orthodox anti-Semitism, which he said threatened to “exterminate millions.”
That is weird in modern context. About 200 Christian missionaries were killed in the Boxer Rebellion, but probably Wise is reading the newspapers and putting all of this into Eschatological terms.
Like Hitler, Winston Churchill uses the term Jewish “Race” in contexts which are strange to modern ears.
In 1920, Churchill wrote:
“The conflict between good and evil which proceeds unceasingly in the breast of man nowhere reaches such an intensity as in the Jewish race.”
Wow. That is a pretty remarkable statement about a “remarkable race” (his actual words).
And Good and Evil, superlatively. It sounds like Churchill also wanted to Genocide the Joos.
As George Lincoln Rockwell once noted, all it would take to get the Jews onto every one-way cruise ship to Israel ─ or looking for some other happy hunting grounds ─ is to nationalize the banks and prevent them from holding office or practicing Law.
None of them would be killed by mean Stormtroopers, but the Jews would most certainly call this “the annihilation of the Jewish race.”
Edit:
Okay I did say “extraordinary restraint” in this thread regarding Hitler’s words, but what I meant is that it’s inspirational but not necessarily too hyperbolic ─ and of course, it is indeed bellicose in context, but could be much worse.
Hitler thinks that he has fought the good fight even though the Jews have won. But that will not always be so, and he thinks that he gets some credit for that. The Germans will ultimately prevail and the Jews will not.
I just don’t see the dilemma here.
🙂
“As George Lincoln Rockwell once noted, all it would take to get the Jews onto every one-way cruise ship to Israel ─ or looking for some other happy hunting grounds ─ is to nationalize the banks and prevent them from holding office or practicing Law.”
Ezra Pound said you had to keep Jews out of finance, education, and media. Law too though, for sure. Essentially what the Jews did was come to America, open up movie studios, own newspapers, and infiltrate academia. The reason you hear so much about the Holocaust and next to nothing about the Holodomor is because Ukrainians never did any of that.
It’s no wonder that Hitler said that in America the Jews had found a “new hunting ground.”
It might surprise some that I do not consider myself to be an anti-Semite at all. I have no fear of and hatred for the Jews whatsoever. You should. Cause they have a depth of psychotic murderous hatred for you, your family, and if a goblin-faced kike like dershoshitz doesn’t even rouse the antisemitic response, then I don’t know what else to say.
Oh, I have no illusions about what Leftists really think, and why Jews overwhelmingly support Leftists. I am also not beguiled by “Libertarian” Jews.
🙂
Die Zweite Babylonische Gefangenschaft, written in the 1970s(?), makes the case for large Jewish settlements coming into being around the Pripet Marshes. Were these people forced into the wilderness at gunpoint from Treblinka, Majdanek?
Revilo Oliver (a little biased to be sure) claimed that American transport ships ferried huge numbers of Jews from Russia to the East Coast and that they were admitted as special refugees.
I had to look it up. The book The Second Babylonian Captivity: The Fate of the Jews in Eastern Europe Since 1941 was written in 1990 by Steffen Werner. An English translation was published in 2019 by Germar Rudolf’s Castle Hill Publishers.
🙂
Greg, you’ve been very insightful about the power of spite in leading people to act against their own interests. I would ask whether your feelings of spite towards “wignats” are compelling you to embrace the Holocaust narrative. This concept has been fundamental to our dispossession, as you well know. It seems very counterproductive to present an argument in support of it. I certainly hope the goal wasn’t just to dunk on TDS or something.
No, that’s not it. I have argued for years that the Holocaust is an expression of Jewish power, not the foundation, thus revisionism isn’t the key to overthrowing it. That’s basically Mark Weber’s position. I find it convincing.
Attacking revisionism by focusing on people like Enoch and Striker would be a classic example of strawman argumentation.
I just want to go back to various source materials, read them as straightforwardly as possible, and see if there are any good responses.
When one’s entire existence revolves around “owning the Jews” (i.e., revision), you end up in some strategically dumb places apropos of white advocacy. Exhibit “A” is this old gal. Imagine being so myopic about revision (and ostensibly improving the lot of white people) that you write off Greg Johnson, Kevin MacDonald, and Mark Weber just because they aren’t zealous enough about exonerating Uncle H.
Major Revisionists are not trying to “own” the Jews.
Dialog and Debate is necessary, however, and that is not possible today with Revisionists facing Thoughtcrimes laws and the matter being de facto banned in the hallowed halls of Marxism called the Universities.
A good reason NOT to ignore the Big-H is that Racism ─ or anything related to White Nationalism ─ would likewise be banned by those who simply DO NOT LIKE such things, and thus it is Wrongthink just the same.
Promoting the Big-H is one means of many in the Holy War of attacking White Identity.
So, like it or not, this weird and unpleasant subject is not an un-important battle.
🙂
It looks that way to me, in Yeager’s case. She is not a stupid person presumably, so the only sane conclusion, given how impossible it is for one to make the case that stumping for Hitler is tantamount to fighting for whites’ rights, is that she has taken a cue from the Negroes and decided that low impulse control (where “owning the Jews” is concerned) is just too satisfying for her to pass up, even if it means shunning some of the greatest minds of White Nationalism.
Greg put it well:
“There are people who insist on combining White Nationalism with a list of Right-wing add-ons…holocaust revisionism, etc. Furthermore, they insist that these peripheral issues are essential to white preservationism….This approach is guaranteed to create a smaller, weaker, dumber, poorer, and less effective…movement.” (The White Nationalist Manifesto)
I find Mark Weber just the opposite of convincing.
I agree that the Holocaust is purely the Expression of Jewish Power.
But the Big-H is also inextricably linked to Jewish Identity itself, and therefore it is indeed a Foundational issue.
In an age where Jews are threatened with assimilation and atheism, it is extremely important for Über-Jews to circle their wagons with the Holocaust(tm) and blow the trumpet for a hearty Never Again!
They would invent anti-Semitism if they could not actually find it, and they are not going to “make Aliyeh” and go live in Israel to live the Zionist dream any time soon. They want some other Good Jew to do that.
What major Revisionists are actually saying that “the Holocaust is the Foundation of Jewish power” ?
I agree that the Big-H and historiographical matters in general should be left to the experts. But many such debates do remain important in WN.
The way to beat Jewish power is the same as it was in 1933, i.e., to pass laws that prevent a minority from monopolizing majority interests, and to promote White supremacy in general.
Why are about 2 percent of a certain demographic running such a commanding involvement with politics, finance, education, the media, etc. ???
Jews don’t even deny that they own the media; they embrace it. Joel Stein, the 53 year old “punk” of the L.A. Times, jokingly laughs that he is only bothered by the thought of Jews not running all things.
One Jew who I was talking to about this matter on a message forum says that the USA is a Meritocracy. So, if Jews run Hollywood or Finance or Congress, etc., then they deserve to because there is no real DEI quota system in place in the halls of power.
Really?
Makes me want to start ordering cans of commercial fumigant (for the prison laundry).
🙂
You know the answer. Jews have such disproportionate control because their IQs, especially concentrated in verbal IQ, are higher than everyone else’s. KMac admits this. This cognitive advantage combines with their unmatched ethnic nepotism; their lower-than-average-whites’ moral level; and, I think from personal observation, greater professional ambition and aggression compared to whites. All of this plays out against a background of morally superior white people, who believe in old-fashioned white Christian virtues (or those descended from and perpetuated by Christianity) like fair play, the rule of law, and individual rights. Jews could never get away with what they do if they were located among similarly ethnocentric peoples, like the Orientals and the Hindus, not to mention, of course, Arabs. We are simply their perfect marks.
Yes, whenever I ask who will inherit the earth, I conclude it won’t be White people. We are not ruthless and don’t want to be inhuman monsters. I guess Nature will see to it that those not willing to fight will die out.
Hindus, Chinese, jews and cockroachs will inherit the rubble covered and polluted earth.
The proper answer to the Jew in the forum would’ve been that in capitalism trusts and monopolies can can form. These are recognized as anti-competitive practices and extensive legislation was formulated in the late 19th early 20th century, with substantial input from jewish talent, about breaking up monopolies and restoring competitive market environments.
From the text quoted it seems clear to me that Hitler is saying the Jews were NOT killed. He says “millions of adult men die” and then says that the Jews were dealt with more humanely. That implies that however they were dealt with, it was more humane than killing.
One scarcely believable story is that in 42 or 43, while Fritz and Franz were ordered to the front, a certain Rabbi Scheerson and his large family were escorted out of a concentration camp and sent all expenses paid to the safety of New York, where his descendants live to this day, full of gratitude to Uncle Adolf for saving them… Is that story true???
A French resistance chap called Rassinier did a detailed study of the Holocaust. He concluded that it was mostly lies, but there was just possibly one very small experiment with gassing Jews in a tiny camp in Poland. The staff of the camp were Jewish, only a few thousand were gassed and obviously no rich Jews among them and it was shut down fairly soon. Tragic and wrong, of course, but a relatively tiny number of people killed.
Most forms of killing are also more humane than being burned alive
True. But in the text quoted, Hitler does not mention how the millions of men were killed. He mentions that the women and children were burned, bombed and starved to death. He just says that the adult men were killed.
The experts can correct me, but isn’t there a specific mention mention of gassing “ten or twenty thousand” of the nastier Jews in Mein Kampf. He is clear that this is restricted to a small minority of bad Jews.
Like him or loathe him, he seems to have made a clear Good Jew/Bad Jew distinction. Does anyone dispute that Good Jews were welcome to serve in the army or get resettled in Palestine?
The clearest evidence I’ve seen for lack of gas chambers and very minimal level of executions is in the writings of Auschwitz camp resident and Italian Jew Primo Levi. He records only 12 executions of Jews in the year he was there. He also tells of how the Germans put him working next to a beautiful German girl in his office job. He did what any man would do and attempted to chat to her. She complained to the authorities, but he was not executed or punished.
Did he need to spell out how adult men die on the battlefield? Plus, of course, the adult men who died from bombings, firestorms, and hunger.
Sure, but how many bad Jews were in Hitler’s power during the war? Millions? A Holocaust’s worth?
>> “The experts can correct me, but isn’t there a specific mention of gassing “ten or twenty thousand” of the nastier Jews in Mein Kampf. He is clear that this is restricted to a small minority of bad Jews.” <<
Yes, I don’t recall the exact number without looking it up, but ten thousand is in the ballpark. In Mein Kampf, Hitler says that instead of German soldiers in the First World War suffering poison gas on the battlefield, that it would have been better to subject traitorous Jews to it instead.
This is clearly not a serious proposal, but some on the Intentionalist school of Holo-historiography have argued that this is early Hitlerite planning for what we now call the Holocaust.
We also have Israeli historians like Brown University Professor of Holocaust and Genocide Studies Omer Bartov, whose view is that WWII was started and fought to exterminate Jews and Slavs.
The “ecumenical [Genocide victim] thesis” as I call it, is nonsense, of course ─ and the world itself and its history certainly does not revolve around the Jews. That is the Jewish theological version of History, however.
🙂
At a rally against the Govt last Saturday here in NW Ireland, we were met with an “anti-fascist” counter rally who roared at us that we were Nazi scum, fascists etc. One sign threatened us with death: “The only good Nazi…etc”.
How to react? I ignored them, although I would prefer a more active response. If I had confidence in our cops, I would report them for making threats.
Amusingly, among the Antifa crowd were English people, and even a Jewish lady from the USA. The Antifa crowd was totally white.
Various African and brown Asian people observed our rally with what can only be described as amusement.They were not in the slightest upset or angry or afraid.
Perhaps the false accusation that we are all Fascists actually raised our status in the eyes of the Africans and Asians. After all, didn’t hundreds of thousands of blacks, browns, yellows and Jews fight for the Axis in WWII?
Our right to live and thrive and have our own homelands has nothing to do with whether Hitler was great or terrible, or whether the Holocaust happened the way it’s supposed to have, or whether if at all. The sooner White Nationalists recognize that and stop using controversial proxies for whether our concerns are legitimate, the sooner we can have a fighting chance.
What Hitler said in this document should, for us and our goals, be unremarkable. Rather than reactionarily screaming, “NO!” then scurrying to post pics of Mein Fuhrer feeding the fawn we should simply add it to the other pieces of data, favorable or unfavorable, concerning him personally, and say to anyone who’d use those data (or the broader topic) against us, “And??? So what? I’m a white man in 2025; the group to which I belong is exclusively singled out for state-sanctioned discrimination on every level and in every country where our way of life–our lives–used to be sacrosanct. It appears, from this document, that Hitler might have taken credit for the Holocaust. Now, back to the matter of us, not our enemies’ convenient distraction; the Holocaust, 6,000,000 or 6,000,000,000, Hitler, Himmler, Schmitler, it’s all irrelevant apropos of that. No more distractions. I simply will not play along.”
There’s a place for revisionism, if something needs revising. But there is no place whatsoever in the would-be wise man’s arsenal for impossible stand-ins that make our already difficult task nigh impossible. Good article, Greg.
no, many leftists use the holocaust as the absolute knockdown reason that white identity or white nationalism are unacceptable. I’ve often heard them say this, and I believe that they actually believe it. Holocaust is a very strong element of white disempowerment and motive for brown replacement or whatever. White identity leads to genocide. They say this all the time.
Yes, they say it all the time. The big question is how to answer it.
Idk, it may be an unsquareable circle. Revisionism, tincture of time, probably nothing.
I know exactly how to answer it, even by accepting the holocaust as true even though I still think the holocaust narrative is not empirically sustainable, I’ve been working some essays about it, but they’re not developed enough yet.
We shouldn’t be baited into accepting their premise by arguing about the Holocaust is the point. Refusal to take the bait (and by doing so accept their premise) is a far superior move. Defang the snake. But let’s not beat around the bush: Do you think our right to be left alone to live our lives hinges on Hitler’s guilt or innocence, or on details of the Holocaust? I sure hope you don’t.
Hitler was a man and not a God. He was what he was. So what? I was not impressed enough by Savitri Devi, for example, to care about this and have never advocated for esoteric Hitlerism.
That’s incredibly weird framing of the narrative. The you-know-whos do control the narrative, and the Big-H is not going away whether we ignore it or not.
We have to respond somehow, or at least understand intelligently, and the Truth is the best answer. This isn’t done competently by any Joe Blow with a podcast, of course.
I don’t know what “Wignat” means exactly, maybe Anglin?
But I really dislike it when our guys “name the Joo” ─ Hoo Hah! It was Epstein or Weinstein, or the Sacklers, etc. and then they basically walk away from serious questions like Race as if a slam-dunk was scored and then just go back to their Latin Rite pews on Sunday morning to get their wafer and wine from the asexual or pedo holy man as if that is all that is really needed to right the world.
It seems that E. Michael Jones literally believes this. I don’t recall if he is really a Sedevacantist, but he is bristled whenever White Nationalists ask about Race, and this kind of theologically anti-Semitic, or “owning the Joos” approach will therefore fail in any case.
The Joos impose ─ with an investment of bazillions of media bucks and weird memorialization ─ their Big-H narrative and their own related Genocide theology onto the Gentiles, but especially onto themselves. And they do this for a reason!
An excellent description of the Holocaust is that it is a modern religious faith.
But even if this were not true, we ignore History at our peril.
🙂
Yes, exactly that.
Moreover, how many times have we heard this discussion-ender before? “You’re pro-White? Well, then, you’re a Nazi!” Of course, that’s quite illogical, but they don’t give a crap. The NPCs believe this because they’ve been programmed that way. The corollary, of course, is that pro-Whites (thus “Nazis”) are the most evil people on the planet, because holo, therefore they don’t deserve freedom of speech and should be mobbed on the streets. It would be awfully nice to short-circuit this programming somehow…
An even worse problem is the effect on Jews, who are the primary consumers of tales of their own historical sufferings – real, exaggerated, and imaginary. Given their biologically-rooted tendencies toward neuroticism and paranoia, they come away traumatized by their own propaganda. It’s a major reason why they’ve been behaving so badly. It would be great to deescalate this, hopefully to the point that Jews and everyone else aren’t in constant conflict. To that end, taking the piss out of the more fanciful parts of their historiography might do a lot of good for everyone.
More and more one gets the urge to shout “who the hell cares about the damned holocaust” and more and more this seems like the proper mindset.
As the Soviets used to say ─ or maybe it was Yakov Smirnoff ─ “You might not care about the Party, but the Party cares about you.”
🙂
I agree that we should for the most part ignore the Holocaust, but as far as the truth is concerned the scales are on the revisionist side. You seem to defer to Mark Weber in your views, but his knowledge of revisionism is stuck in the 90s. I am not exaggerating when I say that the most profound and important research has only been published in the past 15 years. People like Robert Faurisson walked so that Germar Rudolf and Carlo Mattogno could run. There are 54 books in the Holocaust Handbooks series and new titles are published every year. You can download any volume for free as a PDF and read to your heart’s content.
We can trace how the Auschwitz myth developed through the years by examining early resistance reports from Auschwitz. Why is it that the first “eyewitness” reports from the resistance told tales of electrical chambers, steam chambers, executions using the mythical weapon “Hammerluft,” eternal fire pits that never cease burning and consume thousands alive, but barely mentioned gas chambers, if at all? The resistance settled on gas chambers as the main weapon of extermination only toward the end of the war. In fact, you can still see traces of the old stories that circulated among inmates even in the writings of the Holocaust superstar Elie Wiesel – his tales focus on the “eternal fire pits” and mention gas chambers only in passing.
The work of Mattogno and Rudolf is monumental and it can be quite boring to sift through thousands of pages of testimonies and documents, but anyone who goes through the effort of reading a good part of the series must inevitably arrive at the conclusion that something is amiss with the idea of mass extermination. The few examples I gave in this comment and the previous one are just the tip of the iceberg.
There is no question that every historical event rapidly accretes lies, exaggerations, myths, and political agendas. The question is: when you deduct all these from the Holocaust is there nothing left? Or is there “Holocaust enough” to explain what Goebbels referred to as the “barbaric” fate awaiting the Jews in the East or the “annihilation” threatened by Hitler?
There is definitely “Holocaust enough” left, Greg, but the strength and mania of the Holocaust doesn’t stem from the “enough” parts.
If you could prove to a Christian that the body of Jesus did in reality rot and decay like that of a common criminal, it would shatter the faith of billions despite the fact that there is still “Christianity enough” in the Bible without it.
I agree, Holocaust Revisionism is all too often handled by foolish people. In the proper hands, however, it can be a deadly weapon, a shock treatment. Erudite revisionist is a powerful dialectician that no mainstream historian could ever tackle. I discovered Holocaust Revisionism before I knew anything about race, the JQ, and much of the other good stuff. Its revelations were so powerful and shocking that it enabled me to fully reconsider just about any viewpoint I held. That is why I am here ten years later.
Therefore I deem it wise to keep revisionism in its proper place – not in the spotlight, but not hidden too much either. It’s not the most important unit on the battlefield but it has its own purpose and can be very effective in certain cases – like that of my own.
“Therefore I deem it wise to keep revisionism in its proper place – not in the spotlight, but not hidden too much either. It’s not the most important unit on the battlefield but it has its own purpose and can be very effective in certain cases – like that of my own.”
Bohemian: This is sound advice. We don’t want to be seen as being obsessed and monomaniacal about the Holocaust and always talking about it. At the same time, we need to have the work of our diligent scholars always ready and in reserve, in our back pocket as it were, to be a kill shot when the time arises.
In the future, in a position of power, should we be willing to engage in lex talonis and be vindictive and without scruples in delivering collective punishment? Should our goal be a form of genocide or just punish the organized and powerful jews who have caused the most damage?
I think Hitler gave his answer here.
He mentions international jewry “and its helpers”. I’d like to see the dogs of war unleashed on both in the future. But I think jews should be allowed to leave Western countries first before they (and other groups) have to be forcibly removed. I guess I’m a softy!
Jews have their own country now, with their own nuclear deterrent. They aren’t going to be “Holocausted” again.
Genocide is an ugly jew word we shall not use. An endless nightmare in hell on earth for all of their monstrous crimes against Whites, the animal kingdom, and Gaia should be unleashed as cruel punishments against all inner traitors, outer enemies, and all appeals to moralism and appropriateness be goddamned to the pit. The younger generations who only know antiWhite misery will be infinitely more ‘radical’ and angry than angry than any intellectual’s gentlemanly good form. Jared Taylor niceguyness has no place anymore in this war for our lives and I’m tired of Whites pampering these monsters and their rape orcs with kid gloves.
Yes, we are an endangered species. If we don’t become ruthless Nature will wipe us out.
An interesting discussion that will go back and forth ad infinium, but for our purposes let’s stick to this one question, “Yes, or no, is our race worth preserving.”
I say yes, and leave the Jews’ holocaust tale to qualified historical revisionists on our side to sort out, which they have done definitively for decades in many works. America came in on the side of Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin and other White nations to vanquish Mr. Hitler and Germany for exposing and defeating Jewry. That’s a fact. Jewry won WWII by having Allies vanquish Germany.
There are scores of books available that look at the Jews’ Holocaust story from the Aryan POV, One can begin his journey to truth by first reading just these two books:
“The Holocaust: 100 Questions and Answers – Paperback by Thomas Dalton – Cosmotheism” in stock at cosmotheistchurch.org
“Holocaust Encyclopedia – Full Color Hardback produce by Germar Rudolf – Cosmotheism” (currently out of stock on cosmotheistchurch,org but reordered.)
The Holocaust is a topic whose public discourse is tightly controlled by powerful groups. Only their side of the story is permitted to be discussed. In fact, they insist that there is no other side. They guard the West’s last taboo, and enforce swift punishment for those who dare to violate the taboo by asking prohibited questions, and by unearthing evidence leading to unwelcome answers.
Undaunted by this threat, and for the first time in history, a team of critical scholars has produced an encyclopedic compendium of cutting-edge information on this topic that pays no tribute to any power; respects no taboo; poses all the questions worth asking; and gives answers exclusively based on where the evidence leads. Its contents have not been censored by any legal authority, and they are not constrained to “acceptable” questions and answers.
The lead editor of this encyclopedia made sure that all contributors to this project are truly independent, and will defend what they consider to be true and accurate, even when threatened with imprisonment, due to laws in many countries that don’t allow to question the Holocaust.
In this encyclopedia, you are not lectured in so many entries what we think the Holocaust was. Rather, you find the many pieces summarized and explained that make up the larger picture: Nearly three hundred entries present the essence of the most-pertinent witness accounts. They are the mainstay on which the Holocaust narrative rests. All of them are subjected to painstaking source criticism, which is one of the most important tools of an historian. This enables the reader to assess which witness is trustworthy and which one is not.
This Holocaust Encyclopedia addresses all the major Holocaust crime scenes, such as Auschwitz, Belzec, Sobibor and Treblinka, but discusses not just what today’s narrative is. It explains how this narrative has evolved, how in most cases it has changed dramatically, and it explains why.
Forensics are the most important tool to investigate any murder case. Therefore, this encyclopedia contains many entries discussing the many tools said to have been employed to commit the mass murders, and to erase the traces: execution chambers, gas vans, mass graves, crematoria, cremation pyres. It discusses toxicological issues surrounding the various lethal gases claimed to have been used: gasoline and diesel exhaust gases, carbon monoxide, Zyklon B/hydrogen cyanide, to name only the most important ones. How did they work, if at all? What traces can we expect to find, if any? And ultimately: which traces were actually found during the forensic investigations undertaken since war’s end?
This encyclopedia also has multiple entries on certain more-or-less common claims about aspects of the Holocaust, including a list of “Who said it?” These cover topics such as “flames shooting out of chimneys, “fat extracted from burning corpses,” “blood geysers erupting from mass graves,” “soap and towels issued to gassing victims,” to name only a few.
Finally, several entries address factors that have influenced the creation of the Holocaust narrative, and how we perceive it today. This includes entries on psychological warfare and propaganda during the war, on conditions prevailing during criminal investigations and trials of alleged Holocaust perpetrators, on censorship against historical dissidents, on the religious dimension of the Holocaust narrative, and on motives of all sides involved in this debate that refuses to go away, to name but a few.
In this important volume with 579 individual entries, you will discover – for the very first time uncensored and unconstrained – the bare bones of this skeleton in the West’s historical closet. Be prepared to be mind-boggled and amazed.
Until Germar Rudolf’s Holocaust Encyclopedia is back in stock, several chapters of it can be read online, like this one, here: “Holocaust Insights 6: The “Six Million” Number” at nationalvanguard.org.
These cover topics such as “flames shooting out of chimneys, “fat extracted from burning corpses,” “blood geysers erupting from mass graves,” “soap and towels issued to gassing victims,” to name only a few. I think Dark larry david and eli roth wrote that episode. Let’s not forget Uncle Adolf’s diesel death vans, perhaps driven by Montana Max. Being masturbated to death, irene zisblatt eating her shit diamonds, and German Shepherds chewing their balls off. These ‘people’ are unfuckingbelievable…
Even neutral words like “camps” are now suspect. When I went to a camp in the country when I was a Boy Scout, we did things like shoot skeet. If I went to a psychiatrist now and told them that, they would say I had really been shooting catapulted jewish or black babies, but didn’t know.
It’s a hard world when you can’t trust Lewis Mumford. But just a couple months ago I had to put down one of his books, never to take it up again, when he unreflectively wrote and, dare I say, stupidly repeated the canard about Nazis recycling jewish bodies into soap and lampshades. I really liked Mumford, who I thought was the premier public intellectual of the 20th century until then, and am still recovering from this awful revelation (The Pentagon of Power, Harcourt, 1970, page 279). If you can’t trust Lewis Mumford, who can you trust?
Uncle Semantic: July 27, 2025 These cover topics such as “flames shooting out of chimneys, “fat extracted from burning corpses,” “blood geysers erupting from mass graves,” “soap and towels issued to gassing victims,” to name only a few. I think Dark larry david and eli roth wrote that episode.…These ‘people’ are unfuckingbelievable…
—
Eli Weasel read those lines, Unc. Epstein enjoyed having world class liars, Jew and goyim alike, flying to his sex parties with underage White girls.
Consider frequent flyer Bill Clinton who said his receiving a blow job from a young Jewish intern did not constitute sex, or fellow horndoggy, Teddy Kennedy, claiming his 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act would not alter the demographics of the U.S.
Jeffrey’s exclusive sex club was also a world class liars club.
As Scott points out the make believe for television show Holocaust made a tremendous impact in 1978, in awareness of and use for “the Holocaust”, it did what the show Roots did for blacks and around the same time. I’ve always wondered if the Jews did not foist the TV Show The Six Million Dollar Man (1973-1978) on us just to get the figure Six Million into people’s minds.
In Israel they did not call the show The Six Million Dollar Man—they called it “The Man Worth Millions.” They did this because they feared the phrase “Six Million” would be too traumatic for viewers—so it at least shows that they were thinking along those lines, and perhaps they wanted that number in wide circulation in America. If so, it only goes to show that one should never put anything past the Jews.
As can be seen from my website post today, commenter Benjamin and I are both Holocaust affirmers and Hitlerites, an exception among today’s Hitlerites who are almost all Holocaust deniers.
The words are inspiring to Hitler’s intended audience ─ but otherwise, Big Deal.
If you passed anything close to the 1935 Nuremberg Laws today, whether the Jews left for Israel or not with their nuclear weapons, and it did not involve the loss of a single Jewish fingernail, it would be regarded as the “annihilation of the Jewish race” by the usual suspects.
My problem with Jews is that they always stand for race-mixing and the bowdlerization of Nationalism. This makes them a political and cultural threat ─ maybe an existential thread considering their activism on immigration.
I don’t want to kill any of them who are not guilty of severe statutory crimes, but the laws need to change or authentic Whites will simply not survive.
🙂
Inspiring? Inspiring of what? Annihilation?
“Annihilation” is pretty much what all conflict is about from the PTA to the PLA.
It can and does run the full gamut from hyperbole to literal whatever.
Trump scores the most points with his base from his take-no-prisoners talk, and he is a master at trolling the Liberal opposition. Whether Trump follows through with all the superlatives is quite another story. But ask hysterical Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) types and you would think that Trump has been busy bayoneting babies.
🙂
I’ve been considering that myself. Phraseology like “wiped off the map” isn’t always meant literally. One could say that the Indian Removal Act annihilated the Indian presence in the eastern part of the USA. Even so, it wasn’t about mass slaughter, but rather packing them off to Oklahoma. Still, it is true that some died on the way, although unintended. It’s possible say that Whites have been eradicated from Detroit. This wasn’t a coordinated massacre – mostly it was diversity making life intolerable until we moved – though of course street crime and “peaceful protests” did cause casualties. This is the sort of complexity we’re looking at. One can imagine that the Third Reich had quite a tradition of tough talk; they weren’t much for beating around the bush. If it’s generally taken at face value, while any language moderating such statements is disregarded, then of course this tends to present a worse picture of things.
The English words “exterminate” and “eradicate” both originally had an expulsion/removal meaning.
“Exterminate” = ex + termine = push out of the borders
“Eradicate” = ex + radix = “pull up by the roots”
In pre-industrial agricultural societies, fertile land/pasture ground was the most valuable ressource, so violence was mostly about taking other people’s land i.e. removing the other tribe from the soil in which he was rooted. I think expulsions – or ethnic cleansing as we say today – were historically much more common than complete slaughter of the enemy.
Often, “Just get out” is an attempt at conflict resolution and violence minimization.
Source:
https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=exterminate
https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=eradicate
I miss a reflection on why the topic of the Holocaust remains captivating even for non-Jews decades after WWII. I think that stories about the Holocaust contain a special part of human experience that many modern people can identify with. In Holocaust memoirs, novels, and films (both fiction and documentary), the protagonist is a normal white person (“one of us”) who just happened to have the misfortune of being registered as a Jew. The wheels of an inhuman machine are turning against him, and he is trying to survive somehow. Many modern people have experienced this feeling of alienation and being at the mercy of a system that unjustly crushes you. The Holocaust is therefore also an ideal backdrop for depicting the “everyday heroism” of ordinary people (again very relatable). In addition, the story contains a powerful moment of sudden catharsis (liberation in 1945) and even of “turning the tables” (Nurnberg trials).
You are onto something. I remember seeing some but not all of the sprawling Holocaust miniseries in 1977(?) when I was 10. The only thing I remember about it was the everyman German played by Michael Moriarty (?), an actor who never went on to become a star. But judging by the inpact that miniseries had, Moriarty had one of the most effective and important roles of our time.
James, I followed your hyperlink that brought back some long forgotten memories of personal interaction with that ol’ gal around 13 years ago. Thanks. I was invited on her show a couple of times back then. The comments that are still up on her site after all these years are fascinating.
—
James Kirkpatrick: July 26, 2025 When one’s entire existence revolves around “owning the Jews” (i.e., revision), you end up in some strategically dumb places apropos of white advocacy. Exhibit “A” is this old gal. Imagine being so myopic about revision (and ostensibly improving the lot of white people) that you write off Greg Johnson, Kevin MacDonald, and Mark Weber just because they aren’t zealous enough about exonerating Uncle H.
—
Ms. Yeager, not her real name, invited me on her January 2013 radio show to debate her Identity Christian pastor friend, William Finck, though she did not tell me in advance that her friend was a CI pastor, or that he would even be on the show with me. Fireworks ensued, as expected, emphasising that the biggest obstacle to building an effective White resistance is Whites’ many contradictory religious beliefs. Still, it’s worth a look back at this and even to read the comments under those two early podcasts: The Heretics’ Hour: Will Williams meets William Finck | Carolyn Yeager
Carolyn had invited me to be on her show a few months earlier and I had agreed since the theme of the show would be: How would William Pierce advise us today? | Carolyn Yeager.
That first show was actually pretty good, except when she would interrupt me as I was telling her listeners what Pierce would be advising us today. Here is a exceptional quote I put up there, written by Pierce 50 years ago. It could have been written today:
WW: Here is one of my favorite excerpts from Who We Are which throws some light on the Cosmotheist world view and the sort of racial idealist Dr. Pierce wanted to attract to it:
…The workers at the task will be only a tiny minority of the race. Any program which envisages an “awakening of the masses” or which relies on the native wisdom of the great bulk of our people — which is to say, any populist program — is based on a false vision and a false understanding of the nature of the masses. No great, upward step in all of our long history has ever been accomplished by the bulk of any population, but always by an exceptional individual or a few exceptional individuals. The masses always take the path of least resistance: which is to say, they always follow the strongest faction. It is important to work with the masses, to inform them, to influence them, to recruit from among them; but they must not be counted on for determinative, spontaneous support until after a small minority has already, by its own efforts, built a stronger force than that of any opposing faction.
The task is inherently fundamental, and it will be accomplished only through a fundamental approach. That is to say, those who devote themselves to it must be pure in spirit and mind; they must understand that their goal is a society based on quite different values from those underlying the present society, and they must be committed wholeheartedly and without reservation to that goal; they must be prepared to outgrow all the baggage of superstition and convention inherent in the present society. Thus, the task is not one for conservatives or right wingers, for, “moderates” or liberals, or for any of those whose thinking is mired in the errors and in the corruption which have led us to the downward course, but it is a task for those capable of an altogether new consciousness of the world.
The task is a biological, cultural, and spiritual one as well as an educational and political one.
WW: The portions highlighted describe for me the rare, ideologically sound individual from that “tiny minority” of our people that fit best into Dr. Pierce’s vanguard. He told me once that we had to kiss a lot of frogs to find our princes. So be it. He’s gone now but he told us precisely how to attract those uncompromising, “pure in spirit and mind,” capable few who will eventually lead our unique people away from the abyss and on the upward course to greater heights.
I rarely listened to Carolyn Yeager’s podcast because I personally found her voice grating ─ though not as grating as I find AI announcers today. The Germanophile octogenarian has now retired from being a “radio” host.
But I always liked Carolyn Yeager, and had good interactions with her. For example, we were both using the same Swedish webmaster when he was sentenced to an eight-year prison sentence in 2021 and both of our websites crashed.
Our guy was a good programmer and worked for almost nothing and hopefully can restore his backup of the RODOH forum Archive from about 2012 to 2021 once he gets out. This seems like a very harsh prison sentence for one of those soft European penal systems. He did not kill or rape anybody.
Anyway, I don’t think CY invented the idea, but I think she did subscribe to the so-called “Hitler Test.”
Basically there was either the Jewish view of Hitler as the greatest demon of all time, or the Truth ─ whatever that may be. Hitler was neither Devil nor Saint. Neither was he merely the Austrian Corporal ─ or, as some of his more feckless Junker generals put it, the GröFaZ.
I don’t think that WN should ignore the Feldherr, however, and the Jews certainly will not. We blinker this at our peril.
🙂
I believe much of the reductio ad Hitlerum on autojew mode is because they desperately wish he had been one of theirs instead of stuck with a ben shapiro or seth rogan.
I rarely listened to Carolyn Yeager’s podcast because I personally found her voice grating … Scott
Grating? Do you ever listen to Judge Napolitano or Alex Jones? Now that’s grating. I somehow think you are overstating the case. And … I have an enormous amount of written material on my website https://carolynyeager.net. Podcast were only a lesser part of it, but they were popular in spite of my critics.
But I always liked Carolyn Yeager, and had good interactions with her. Thanks, I feel the same about you.
I don’t think CY invented the idea, but I think she did subscribe to the so-called “Hitler Test.” No test, but I do think we can make no progress at all by criticizing/denying Adolf Hitler. Thus I say so. I think it’s proven itself, too. “Hitler was neither Devil nor Saint.” What he was was the best, most noble European leader of the 20th century. Anyone who wants to give that spot to Francisco Franco is delusional. (I say that because some do.)
Hey, it’s great to see you! I’ve been following your work. We should get in touch some time and compare notes.
Thanks. From looking at some of your comments here, we’re on the same page. I think I remember you from TOO.
I just spent too much time trying to write a comment/reply Will Williams that the monitoring system here threw out. Sec0nd time. It’s not worth it. If anyone wants to talk to me, come over to https//unz.com, an eminently user-friendly platform compared to this one.
I recommend copying the text here before posting it, in case it drops. It’s fairly rare, but it happens.
I may be missing something, since I can’t find a way to reach you on Unz. If you’d like to write to me, that’s described halfway down this page.
It was a joke. I always admired your work. I just don’t have a lot of time for NSFW podcasts, and that is pretty much all I like to listen to.
🙂
That’s very interesting, Will. I’ll have to go check out those comments, and your interviews, sometime. Yeah, I always hate to see someone who might otherwise have something interesting to contribute ostracizing allies in the struggle and creating strife where there shouldn’t be any. I think there’s a place for revisionism, as I said, when there’s something that needs revising. I just don’t like to see it shoehorned into where it is tangential or where it does more immediate harm than good (e.g., when we’re trying to convince other Whites to start living and thriving and that doing so isn’t evil).
“Ms. Yeager, not her real name, invited me on her January 2013 radio show to debate her Identity Christian pastor friend, William Finck, though she did not tell me in advance that her friend was a CI pastor, or that he would even be on the show with me.”
This is my 2nd attempt to respond to this so I’ll keep it as short as possible. Yeager IS my real name (https://carolynyeager.net/my-ancestry) and I DID tell W.W. who Finck was and he knew who he was. What difference would it have made in any case? W.W. did a poor job and now is trying to make excuses. Sad.
Someone sent me this comment by Ms. Yeager that mentioned me. I had missed it and it has scrolled off, but I just managed to find it, so I’ll address now.
carolyn yeager, responding to what I had commented, below: July 28, 2025
W.W.: “Ms. Yeager, not her real name, invited me on her January 2013 radio show to debate her Identity Christian pastor friend, William Finck, though she did not tell me in advance that her friend was a CI pastor, or that he would even be on the show with me.”
=============
c.y.: This is my 2nd attempt to respond to this so I’ll keep it as short as possible. Yeager IS my real name (https://carolynyeager.net/my-ancestry) and I DID tell W.W. who Finck was and he knew who he was. What difference would it have made in any case? W.W. did a poor job and now is trying to make excuses. Sad.
Long time no see, Carolyn. It’s good to learn you are still kicking and keeping up with things. No need to be defensive. Jäger is German for Yeager, or hunter., a fine name. Someone, long forgotten, told me your given name was different and I figured wrong that you had chosen the name from Oscar Yeager, the protagonist in Pierce’s second novel, Hunter.
Some people say that my given name cannot possibly be William White Williams, II. White is a family name. I’m named after my Uncle Bill; my paternal grandmother’s maiden name, believe it or not, was Lily White. We should all be proud of our names (if not named after Hebrew patriarchs and their women, that is).
Fortunately, thanks to you, folks can listen to that old “debate” between me and your double seedline pastor friend and decide for themselves if either of us did a poor job.
Your introduction to that “debate” and conclusion say it all:
Two men with very distinct personalities and followings meet each other for the first time on this program, revealing in the ensuing exchange that the division among White Nationalists over religion is deeper than any other disagreement.
Perhaps no white person still goes to public libraries anymore, but you know how there are the stickers they would put on the spines of books for genres like Mystery, Sci Fi, Western, Horror, Romance, etc.? Now they have one called Holocaust, I kid you not. I’m not sure if the Holocaust sticker is for nonfiction books or fiction. Does it make a difference? Sophie’s Choice is no choice. When the library supply company deems it necessary to have premade stickers, we have a new genre and a new industry.
This article is exactly correct. In his political testament of April 29, 1945, Hitler boasted of his mass murder of Jewish civilians, and gave his reasons to justify it. And on Jan 30, 1939, he had promised to do just that, in his “prophesy speech”. Even if his “reasons” were valid, that does not justify the murder of innocents, in huge numbers.
Today, Israel justifies its mass murder of Arabs in Gaza for equally dubious “reasons”. Hitler and Netanyahu are the same. Both are psychopaths.
For the last 3,000 years, Jews have committed a long list of genocides, which they celebrate in their religion. The case at issue here is the only occasion in which the Jews were the victims of a genocide, instead its perpetrators.
The Holocaust Museum on the Mall in DC should be repurposed. All of its exhibits should be removed and stored somewhere. New exhibits are required, showing atrocities committed by Jews against the Palestinians. That would be long overdue.
In his diaries, Goebbels does mention killing over 2 million Jews. I believe this led both David Irving and David Cole to reconsider their views on the Holocaust. Last I heard, Cole puts the total number at 3 to 3.5 million.
in one of the diaries from the Russian front, a soldier casually mentions killing Jews and communists. But it seemed to me that they were fighting and/or attacking German troops. So, they were killed as enemy combatants-not as Jews.
That is not exactly what Goebbels says, and David Irving, in my opinion ─ I asked him to his face ─ does not really believe this B.S. either.
David Cole probably does “believe” this because his major goal in life is to continue living on the fringes of Jewish Hollywood society, even if they reject him categorically as a traitorous Jew. They have frozen him out on publishing another book, but if he can succeed in doing so, I will buy a sequel.
In any case, David Cole is not being particularly brilliant here. Yes, he helped sink “Battleship Auschwitz” with some clever video reporting about the Auschwitz StaLag and its phony Krema I gas-chamber when he was a young go-getter.
But here Cole is simply borrowing from the tired thesis of the late Israeli spook Yitzhak Arad, who argued in 1987 that several million Jews (i.e., One Third of the Holocaust) were killed in the “pure extermination camps” of Operation Reinhard(t), i.e., Treblinka, Sobibor, and Belzec.
According to Arad, these were supposedly not labor camps like Auschwitz. And with Arad’s “pure extermination camp” theory, he basically just follows the story of Polish-Israeli carpenter Yankiel Wiernik that this Treblinka mass-murder was done with engine exhaust from captured Soviet (diesel) tanks. Utter büllshït.
In fact, we do know that contrary to popular belief, the tiny Treblinka camp had a labor barracks (with visible concrete foundations) on one side of a big gravel pit that you can also still see today, or from Google maps, and a small administrative “Death Camp” complete with a dog kennel and a water well on the other side of the gravel quarry.
There are wartime photos of a power shovel or two that was parked in the middle of the two small camps that was loading quarry gravel (not Jewish cremains) onto railroad cars for the purposes of building roads in Poland.
Arad was trying to get ahead of the “Auschwitz was an internment camp and a labor camp, and therefore not primarily a Death Camp” argument. Cole glommed onto this so that he can deflect away from the idea that he was once a Revisionist.
Mark Weber is even stupider if he truly believes this. My late friend, the Columbia-educated engineer Fritz Berg, who was once on the IHR board, thinks that Mr. Weber is only angling for Jewish money in exchange for dropping Holocaust Denial, and now he advocates for Brown people as Leftist Jews often do by hitting at the idea of Israel as “White colonialist.”
In fact, we do not know how many ever entered the “Black Hole” of Treblinka in the first place, nor do we know how many are “missing” let alone who “never left the camp alive.” This death toll is certainly not in the ballpark of a million dead, however.
Probably the Germans did dispose of crap taken from Jewish Warsaw Ghetto deportees induced into forced-labor or building roads and rails. Probably there was a trash dump somewhere near the Treblinka camp.
There are wartime pictures of the camp, and from wartime aerial photos, as Mark Weber knows very well, we see a great deal. If any besides laborers were sent there, then they likely were sent to transit through for showers and delousing before being conscripted for labor gangs elsewhere.
We know that the Allies in the middle of the war were claiming from the usual sources that Jews were being steamed to death at Treblinka rather than as an obvious reference to steam autoclaves used for wartime disinfection purposes. No mass-graves have ever been found at least. Cole accepts that the Treblinka camp was “erased” somehow, without a trace, but you can still see the building foundations and other remains of it on Google. Go figure.
Well, we do know that Yankiel Wiernik certainly did leave Treblinka alive, as he wrote a far-fetched memoir about his year in the camp, which was published by a Communist imprint in New York in 1944.
At the end of the war, the Soviets put the death tolls for Treblinka at three-million, for Majdanek at about 1.5 M (today the figure is South of 100 K), and Auschwitz was also put up at about 4 M. Prof. Hilberg lowered the Auschwitz death toll down to about a million in 1961, and he gave a figure of 5.1 M victims for the entire Shoah. Any historian today who argues for any less than Hilberg is probably going straight to jail.
🙂
If the Goebbels diary passage is the one I think it is, he doesn’t mention two million. Rather, if memory serves, he estimated that the resettlement program would involve one third casualties, which he characterized as a barbaric outcome. As grim as that was, it’s ultimately hearsay and rather inchoate, particularly since it’s unclear from the brief passage what the basis for his estimate was or what the details would involve. Still, had it gone to full fruition and his estimate turned out to be correct, it would still fall considerably short of turning six million Jews into soap and lampshades.
Tyler Durden was the Schnazi soap maker and the shrunken heads were from the sprinkling guy in Beetlejuice-he looks German by today’s standards. Steamed to death, gassed to death, masturbated to death, Alsatians chewing their balls off, and my personal favorite is black market tickets on a flying carousel for a better view of the jews burning in the Warsaw uprising. Any more full of shit and their ass would explode.
Don’t forget the pedal-powered head bashing machine. No, I’m not making it up; they did.
Well, Mr. Johnson, If I may return back to the main topic of your article. Without having to resort to necromancy, the Hitler’s Table Talk may help us shed some light on the matter. Maestro Hitler, may you speak from beyond the grave:
“From the rostrum of the Reichstag I prophesied to Jewry that, in the event of war’s proving inevitable, the Jew would disappear from Europe. That race of criminals has on its conscience the two million dead of the first World War, and now already hundreds of thousands more. Let nobody tell me that all the same we can’t park them in the marshy parts of Russia! Who’s worrying about our troops? It’s not a bad idea, by the way, that public rumour attributes to us a plan to exterminate the Jews. Terror is a salutary thing.”
– Hitler’s Table Talk, 25th October 1941
“One must act radically. When one pulls out a tooth, one does it with a single tug, and the pain quickly goes away. The Jew must clear out of Europe. Otherwise no understanding will be possible between Europeans. It’s the Jew who prevents everything. When I think about it, I realise that I’m extraordinarily humane. At the time of the rule of the Popes, the Jews were mistreated in Rome. Until 1830, eight Jews mounted on donkeys were led once a year through the streets of Rome. For my part, I restrict myself to telling them they must go away. If they break their pipes on the journey, I can’t do anything about it. But if they refuse to go voluntarily, I see no other solution but extermination. Why should I look at a Jew through other eyes than if he were a Russian prisoner-of-war? In the p.o.w. camps, many are dying. It’s not my fault. I didn’t want either the war or the p.o.w. camps. Why did the Jew provoke this war?
A good three hundred or four hundred years will go by before the Jews set foot again in Europe. “
– Hitler’s Table Talk, 23rd January 1942
“The Jews must pack up, disappear from Europe. Let them go to Russia. Where the Jews are concerned, I’m devoid of all sense of pity. They’ll always be the ferment that moves peoples one against the other. They sow discord everywhere, as much between individuals as between peoples.
They’ll also have to clear out of Switzerland and Sweden. It’s where they’re to be found in small numbers that they’re most dangerous. Put five thousand Jews in Sweden — soon they’ll be holding all the posts there. Obviously, that makes them all the easier to spot.
It’s entirely natural that we should concern ourselves with the question on the European level. It’s clearly not enough to expel them from Germany. We cannot allow them to retain bases of withdrawal at our doors. We want to be out of danger of all kinds of infiltration.”
– Hitler’s Table Talk, 27th January 1942
“While we’re on the subject, it’s somewhat interesting to observe that our upper classes, who’ve never bothered about the hundreds of thousands of German emigrants or their poverty, give way to a feeling of compassion regarding the fate of the Jews whom we claim the right to expel.”
– Hitler’s Table Talk, 4th April 1942
“It does not occur to any of those who howl when we transport a few Jews to the east that the Jew is a parasite and as such is the only human being capable of adapting himself to any climate and of earning a living just as well in Lapland as in the tropics.”
– Hitler’s Table Talk, 15th May 1942
It’s a little miracle that none of the quotes were censored by the publishers. The revisionist view is vindicated by none other than the Führer himself. Note that all the quotes except the first one were uttered after the infamous Wannsee Conference where the plan to exterminate Jewry was supposedly put into action.
Final Solution consisted of a brutal resettlement, expulsion, and slave labor, as he quite explicitly explains. He admits they may die on the journey and that he is willing to kill those who would refuse to go, but he makes it more than clear that it is a program of expulsion, not genocide. He also says it is not his fault that many are dying in the camps – hardly something you would say after deciding to massacre them all! In the last quote, he specifically mentions that Jews will adapt to harsh conditions in the East and will be capable of earning a living. The dead don’t have to earn a living, do they.
A persisting theme is that of a resettlement to Russia, echoing a passage from Goebbels’ diary, written on March 7th 1942:
“I read a detailed report from the SD and police regarding a final solution of the Jewish Question. Any final solution involves a tremendous number of new viewpoints. The Jewish Question must be solved within a pan-European frame. There are 11 million Jews still in Europe. They will have to be concentrated later, to begin with, in the East; possibly an island, such as Madagascar, can be assigned to them after the war. In any case there can be no peace in Europe until the last Jews are shut off from (ausgeschaltet) the continent.”
There was never any plan of mass extermination.
Interesting. Who was he speaking to? Is it possible that he was minimizing what was going on because certain people at the table were not authorized to be fully informed?
The conversations were recorded by Heinrich Heim, Henry Picker, Hans Müller and Martin Bormann in the privacy of Führer’s headquarters.
The skepticism you express rests on an insane notion: the idea that it was such a terrible secret that Hitler felt the need to “deny the Holocaust” even in privacy. In reality, British radios have been busy blasting allegations of Germans gassing Jews en masse at least since 1942 (see Anne Frank’s Diary). As is usual for Holocaust orthodoxy, a nonsensical scenario is created: the Holocaust was a tightly kept secret that not even Hitler dared to speak of in private, but at the same time the British knew about it practically immediately and told the world as much in their propaganda.
So yeah, I guess all the top-secret code words and meticulous planning to keep everything under the wraps really paid off for about two weeks until the enemy discovered the horrible truth and started telling everyone about it in the radio.
Of course all this makes perfect sense if we accept the revisionist conclusion that it began as an atrocity propaganda made by the enemy in the first place.
I don’t have my copy of the Table Talk available, but as I recall, each entry lists the people present at each meal. It should be easy enough to check who was present at these sittings.
Hannah Arendt reviewed the original German edition of the Table Talk in an essay called “At Table with Hitler” (collected in a book called Essays in Understanding) and made the point that many of the people Hitler dined with were military brass, whom he regarded as reactionary and squeamish. Thus he spoke of resettlement even when he knew that mass killings were already underway.
It is a reasonable hypothesis, and it could be “tested” — at least to assess its plausibility — by looking at the guest list for each dinner.
Th entries do not usually list people present. The conversations unfolded in his private headquarters, presumably only with the inner circle present. They do make a special mention when outsiders came as guests:
The first quote, 25th October 1941, was uttered with Himmler and Heydrich as special guests
The second quote, 23rd January 1942 , was uttered with Himmler, Lammers, and Colonel Zeitzler as special guests. The last one was indeed “an innocent” Wehrmacht member.
The third quote, January 27th 1942, was uttered with no guests mentioned.
The fourth quote, April 4th 1942, was uttered with no guests mentioned.
The fifth quote, 15th May 1942, was uttered with no guests mentioned.
Your hypothesis therefore cannot be proved but it can’t be definitively dispelled either. Only with regards to the second quote could we say that he had a good reason to hold back – despite that it does not differ in content from the other ones and one could note that it’s actually the most aggressive of all the quotes presented, ironically enough. It is a piece of a puzzle and it does fit in with the revisionist view rather nicely: Third Reich’s leadership didn’t know about “mass extermination” until their enemies kindly informed them of it.
Does “no guests mentioned” imply that there were no guests, or just that these were not recorded?
It’s not really possible. The people he most often spoke to were all people who were supposedly informed: Himmler, Heydrich, Goebbels, Lammers, Bormann, etc. Unless you suppose people like Heim and Picker weren’t supposed to know, and that by the very practise of taking notes he would not wish to incriminate himself in such a way; except that can’t be true in your view, despite it being a cop out, because you hold that his public statements are reflective of very real genuine genocidal expressions and not simply violent metaphorical language. Supposition, at the end of the day, is not evidence. The fact Hitler says nothing in his Table Talks about the supposed extermination, but actually the opposite (which is reflected in plenty of other sources, no less Goebbels’ diaries), is rather proof that no such thing was taking place, if indeed it is proof of anything at all.
Yes, I wondered about people like Heim and Picker.
@Bohemian,
Those of us who have paid attention to what David Irving has said about the Holocaust might respond with something analogous to Irving’s conjecture.
While it’s true that Hitler originally preferred the Madagascar Solution, what he was really focused on was winning the war.
That’s why, according to Irving, once all the relevant nations turned against the Third Reich, he allowed Himmler and Heydrich to do their thing, but a final solution à la Himmler/Heydrich wasn’t originally in Hitler’s blueprints. He aspired to be the architect of a new Germania, yes: but the bold quotes you provide can be understood in this light.
Interesting. I have a question: does Hitler ever explicate how he thought that the Jews caused World War I? In Mein Kampf he frequently refers to them as having “betrayed Ludendorff”, but he does not ever explain how or precisely what he means. What were the dynamics of this? Can you explain any of this to me?
ed. To differentiate my question from Josephus Cato below, I’m asking do Hitler or any of the major Nazis at any point explicate this in their own words, not just what people commonly assume.
I don’t recall Hitler stating that the Jews caused World War I exactly, but I’m pretty versed on Gen. Ludendorff and Field Marshal Hindenberg’s Dolchstoß (stab in the back) story about the Armistice. I’ll have to get into it some time, but I’m a little keyboard fatigued right now and probably nobody wants to read any more of my screeds just yet.
🙂
Knowledge of this haulocaust is limited to the massive 1995 ny curriculum, instituted on the school children.
However, I have studied soviet atrocities, and the scale and scope of them are mostly fabricated, as revealed by studying the flawed methodology of the western historians of the time and the opened soviet archives. Instead of 70 million, it was probably 5 million, including the famine, civil war, purges and gulags–all during stalin’s time.
It’s likely that the haulocaust is fudged similarly.
Can someone elaborate on German grievances towards Jews before the war? There is this gem here where a black lady is wondering what the Jews did the Germans to warrant such behavior: https://discord.com/channels/1319822481686794311/1320056825835556925/1398218672127868970
I’m aware of Weimer Germany and that there were some unsavory Jewish characters involved with various levels of subversion. But to what extent? Was it similar to what is going on in the US where a democratic majority votes to restrict public services to illegal aliens and one subversive Jew judge strikes it down? I fail to see how Jews were responsible for the war.
The major particulars were:
— Marxist subversion, leading to a number of outbreaks beginning in 1919 (Bavaria and elsewhere) and ongoing through the Weimar period. This was a pattern which also was observable in Hungary’s brief interwar Marxist regime, as well as the USSR
— Financial exploitation, such as dominating lucrative trades through ethnic nepotism. Also, Germany’s financial collapse (far more severe than America’s Great Depression) left ordinary Germans utterly ruined, but a noticeable number of Jews profiteered during all that. This pattern also occurred in Hungary and Romania, and perhaps other parts of Bohunkia.
— A massive wave of cultural degeneracy, courtesy of the usual suspects. This also went on in Hungary’s Marxist period back then, which the regime called “cultural terrorism”, and in the USSR’s Lenin administration. (Wilhelm Reich had front row seats to that one and wrote about it extensively, who was sad to see it go after the Soviets found it to be completely unworkable.) In America, some of the same types later helped revive this sort of thing during the 1960s and in our present Clown World.
As for agitating for war, that much wasn’t by the Jews of Germany, but rather by “International Jewry” – particularly Untermyer, Wise, the Warburgs, some other Deep State New Dealers, Churchill’s handlers, etc.
For some nuance here, a lot of the ordinary German Jews were basically decent people. Much of the trouble in the domestic sphere was caused by recent arrivals from Bukovina, a fever-brained lot hopped up on Marxist ideology.
I am quite familiar with interwar literature and journalism. The fundamental problem with our understanding of that period is that liberalism and anti-whiteism have since triumphed and devastated public discourse to such an extent that even the most subversive Jews of that time seem to be on a par with today’s moderate white nationalists in terms of their views. This even applies to the Soviet Bolsheviks.
Scott, responding to me about Ms. Carolyn: July 27, 2025 I rarely listened to Carolyn Yeager’s podcast because I personally found her voice grating… But I always liked Carolyn Yeager….
—
Interesting comment, Scott.
I’d like to hear, if you have the time to listen to these two podcasts of hers and can stand the sound of her voice, what you think of them, especially of the question she asked, “How would William Pierce advise us today?” She was sufficiently impressed with him to make that the theme of one of her shows. Hadding Scott and I were her guests on that episode because both of us had worked closely with Dr. Pierce.
The Heretics’ Hour: Will Williams meets William Finck | Carolyn Yeager
Carolyn had invited me to be on her show a few months earlier and I had agreed since the theme of the show would be: How would William Pierce advise us today? | Carolyn Yeager.
A question I might ask now: How would William Finck advise us today?
Back then the pastor was pushing his “double seedline” Biblical theory. I recall I’d asked him on Carolyn’s show if he actually believed that the Jew was the product of the union between Eve and the Serpent in the mythical Garden of Eden? It pissed him off that I had the temerity ask such a question, but, incredibly, that was what he pushed on his gullible CI followers. So, was that a legitimate “debate” question, or not?
Christian Identity is a re-hash of the British-Israeli fantasy, the idea that White people are the real Lost Tribe of Israel, or something odd like that. It was quite popular in England in the Nineteenth Century, even Victoria more or less subscribed to it. In my opinion this one is so crazy even the bats have left the Belfry.
Will, I am looking on Carolyn’s site and will be listening to the podcasts that you are on.
🙂
The reply chain apparently became too long for further replies as I see no reply button there.
“Greg Johnson: Does “no guests mentioned” imply that there were no guests, or just that these were not recorded.”
Unfortunately, my memories of past lives are fuzzy. We have no way to infer if there were any guests present unless the text says so and almost all the entries are Hitler’s monologues.
However, let me say this: You focus the fight around the outskirts, around quotes that in themselves have no direct bearing to what happened in the concentration camps. You try to find a genocidal meaning there with a preconceived notion.
For some mysterious reason, you apparently count yourself among semi-revisionists like David Irving, David Cole, and Mark Weber. I am not sure what these smug merchant types that bailed out when they found out that going against the current will cost them wealth and reputation have to say regarding revisionism. Did they ever publish a single book dealing with the subject? Am I unaware of a great research refuting Mattogno and Rudolf that is being published by them? Or were they fleeting stars that shirked away as soon as they found out dedicated revisionists have to suffer and that genuine research is painstakingly boring?
Weber proclaimed that his views are essentially the same as David Irving’s. That is to say they believe Auschwitz-Birkenau – the very birthplace of all the horror stories about gas chambers and medical experiments – was not actually a real killing center. But those smaller camps, which were largely ignored? Oh yeah, that’s totally were the real Holocaust happened.
Do you know why the majority of revisionist research is focused on Auschwitz-Birkenau? Because that’s where all the testimonies, witnesses, documents, and physical traces are. All the pompous show trials were centered around it. That is the very heart of the Holocaust where millions perished in gas chambers (or so we are told).
How can anyone say with a straight face that the heart of the Holocaust is a lie based on false testimonies, but then proceeded to proclaim his confidence in the “real killing centers” in Reinhardt Aktion camps?
Why do they center their beliefs around these camps in particular? Because there is a severe lack of documentation in comparison to Auschwitz. We have a field day with Auschwitz precisely because there are tons of purported evidence to go through. I have more respect for credulous Holocaust orthodoxy because at least their view is internally consistent. What sense does it make to tear apart chosen testimonies (Auschwitz-Birkenau) but when it comes to tall tales from Treblinka suddenly the demented witness accounts must be accepted without questioning?
Let me illustrate this insanity on an example: On September 11th 2001, the Twin Towers collapsed after planes hit them. There are people, engineers among them, that hold the view it must have been a controlled demolition. Their opponents claim that the evidence is in line with the mainstream narrative. The two sides continue to present arguments and defend their beliefs. But then comes in strolling a trifecta of geniuses, they alone are enlightened enough to realise the truth in the middle: It’s true, the first tower collapsed due to explosives, but the second one? That’s where the real Muslim terrorism happened. It fell solely due to the plane.
The Holocaust tale began in Auschwitz and that’s where it must end. It either did happen with Auschwitz as the epicenter or it did not. That’s how simple it is. Unless Mark Weber intends to construct an elaborate explanation involving overlapping realities and alternate timelines manifesting simultaneously that is – which I highly doubt is his intention.
What does it say that he derives his views from a coward? When David Irving became a “denier” he publicly proclaimed that it’s gonna be tough 5 – 10 years or so before revisionists rewrite history books. He imagined himself as a legendary figure in history, the one who defeated the outrageous lie. When that did not come pass and he found himself bankrupt – a far cry from his previous fame and wealth as a successful author – he suddenly remembered that the Holocaust was true all along.
Thus I implore you to do away with this baseless semi-revisionism. Read the Holocaust Handbooks series + standalone articles on CODOH and see for yourself where the truth is regarding the camps. Germar Rudolf gets interviewed often. You can invite him for a talk as well.
Again, I agree that we should step over the Shoah and ignore it. Truth to be told, revisionism is a profound waste of time. It takes hundreds of hours to gain comprehensive knowledge of the subject. Regardless, it doesn’t change the fact that revisionists are right.
Basically, you are engaged in the Faurisson gambit of insisting on a very narrow definition of what the Holocaust was, and then saying by that definition it did not happen. There’s a word for that: arguing against a straw man.
Interesting, I would say the same thing about your view. Perhaps we should ask a thousand people on the street what the Holocaust was? I am sure many of them will go on a tangent about the improper sanitary facilities and food shortages.
You are the one playing word games. Nobody out there in the real world imagines under the label Holocaust anything other than homicidal gas chambers, burning people alive, and senseless medical experiments.
No, a straw man is when you construct a weak version of a thesis and refute it instead of the real thesis.
I am just trying to take Hitler’s statements at face value, and so far the revisionist response has not been convincing.
I am baffled by your response after the lengthy conversation we had under this article. I thought we were wondering whether there truly was a plan of mass extermination. That is to to say whether the goal was to literally wipe out every Jew in Europe.
But if by Holocaust you mean the death of many through indifference then there certainly was one. Are you happy now? What purpose does this article serve then?
And this is only an issue because of a lot of unopened baggage carried along. This happens to some extent with any public figure, but Hitler is not just any public figure.
🙂
180 comments! Is that a new Counter-Currents record?
Are the Germans really alleged to have burned people alive? I must have missed that. My understanding is the allegation is that they gassed them and then burnt the bodies in the Crematoria, hence all the maudlin talk of ashes raining down on the neighborhood. Please instruct if I am mistaken.
One oddity is that some Holocaust accounts refer to “gas ovens.”
Greg, a straw man argumentation is when you take some semi-ambiguous sentences from a wartime document to conclude that it is admission of a 6 million genocide.
Threatening the enemy of ‘annihilation’ is standard wartime phraseology.
Like ‘killed’ or ‘bombed’ to a comedian.
The “Three Pillars of the Holocaust” have been known to be 1) 6 million Jewish deaths, 2) a deliberate plan to use industrial methods to kill them fast in large numbers, and 3) the use of gas chambers followed by cremation for the greater part. Now, you are calling to change these rules originally made by the Slavic and Jewish people themselves, yet still call it “the Holocaust” — as a way to “step over” it, in your words. It won’t fly.
If you want to be overly pedantic about definitions then you can win victories like Faurisson did, namely purely verbal victories.
“If you want to be overly pedantic about definitions then you can win victories like Faurisson did, namely purely verbal victories.”
I agree with this.
If you define “The Holocaust” exclusively as six million with gas, etc, but it was three million without gas it would not be, strictly speaking, “The Holocaust,” but it could still be a holocaust (small h), with that word taken literally in the vernacular.
The real point in all of this is to simply find out what actually happened, without fear or favor, and lay the cards on the table, not to get hung up on words and definitions.
I think what we can all agree on is that with their pet story the Jews sure did at the very least gild the lily.
Their positions violate parsimony, Occam’s Razor, in other words.
Ryan Faulk (aka. AltHype/Knight’s Move [on Youtube]) has made some great videos discussing the holocaust narrative on the whole, and critiquing many of the ‘logical’ pretensions of exterminationists. His video ‘Proven at Nuremberg‘ is great; he makes the point by using documents from the Nuremberg prosecution how the narrative has been constantly shifting, yet the same conclusions have been ludicrously maintained: “Why revise the numbers downward? Because when you do, you call into question the validity of the charge in its first instance. Like, if someone was attacked by a Dragon, then someone else says to them ‘That’s impossible, Dragons don’t exist.’ but then the person goes ‘Oh, well, I was attacked by a bear.’ Okay so now we’re supposed to believe that he was attacked by a bear? Just because he changed his story from the impossible to something possible? No.” (Timecode: 9:00 – 9:33)
‘The Russians in England‘ is also fantastic critique of the intellectual framing of ‘eyewitness’ nonsense. And ‘Where Did The Jews Go?‘.
“Close the cell. Four days later send the cleanup crew. Many of the clean and clinical ways of killing cause defecation and urination. Killing is usually rather unpleasant.”
Fair enough.
Nothing like Hitler and Holocaust to start a rambunctious, sometimes contentious conversation, it’s at 171 Comments and counting. Is that a record?
Well, already 6-7 of my comments, perfectly civil and pertinent to the topic, have been thrown off under the pretense of triggering some “error code”, and my person/presence thrown off with them. That’s a way to discourage “some” people from participating here; Ron Unz does it at his site, too. It’s called censorship.
Nobody is censoring you here Carolyn. If you are having Boomertech issues, make a screenshot and send them in.
I don’t believe it is a “Boomertech” issue, Greg. I believe it is a length issue, combined with the paywall. I don’t want to join anything as I don’t intend to be a regular commenter. So if I write a longer (and imo more convincing comment/argument), it’s going to be rejected bc I’m not a “member” of the club. Fair enough, it would just be good to be told upfront.
carolyn yeager: July 31, 2025 Well, already 6-7 of my comments, perfectly civil and pertinent to the topic, have been thrown off under the pretense of triggering some “error code”, and my person/presence thrown off with them. That’s a way to discourage “some” people from participating here; Ron Unz does it at his site, too. It’s called censorship…
—
Greg has told you it’s a Boomertech issue. That’s funny, and true.
Being a Boomer myself, I used to have similar issues, but since I don’t know about sending in screenshots like Greg suggests to you, I simply copy and paste C-C comments in my email Drafts before sending. That way, if there is an “issue,” they are saved to resubmit later without having to retype.
I just made my 1,000th C-C comment and have never had even a single one not eventually appear, unedited. Not one. That may be because I paid to get behind C-C’s paywall. You might want to try that. If Greg says you haven’t been censored, you have not been censored.
Don’t be so contentious, Carolyn. I happen to be at least halfway in your corner, not buying the “stepping over” of Jewry’s biggest lie since Christianity.
So, with the Jew Unz is where people can find you, eh? And he censors you? That’s weird. No one will ever find me at that racial Jew multi-millionaire’s’s site.
I’ve had a couple of posts disappear lately, though I’m not on any kind of naughty list. So it’s either the network or the server. Anyway, simple fix here. Before posting:
Click inside the post field and press CTRL-A (“select all”)
With the entire comment now selected, press CTRL-C (“copy”)
Click “post comment”
If on the off chance it gets stuck, then try to reply again. Click inside the post field and press CTRL-V (“paste”) and there’s your comment ready to retry.
You have my very kindest regards as always!
Hitler’s remark at the end of his testament is indeed vague and open to interpretation. What is not dubious however are Himmler’s two POSEN SPEECHES in which he openly speaks about the extermination of the Jewish people, including its women and children:
“…We came to the question: How is it with the women and children? I decided to find a clear solution here as well. I did not consider myself
justified to exterminate the men – in other words, to kill them or have them killed – and allow the avengers of our sons and grandsons in the
form of their children to grow up. The difficult decision had to be taken to make this people disappear from the earth…”
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posen_speeches
You need to read more about the debate about the Posen speeches and the holocaust more generally. You should read the Holocaust Handbooks published by CODOH (where the Posen speeches are discussed as well). Because even if one interpreted Himmler’s Posen speeches in this way, this does not explain the lack of evidence nor the other innumerable remarks by others in the German leadership. Anyway, there’s more to the Posen speeches (and some details about the actual audio recordings) than you might initially suspect. There are important differences between the October 4 and October 6 speech. Himmler also repeated the remarks in December 1943, and in that case he specifically spoke in the context of partisan warfare, which cannot be squared with the idea that he was speaking generally about all Jews in October. See the Metapedia articles (sometimes the German articles are more detailed) on the Posen speeches as well, they’re kind of interesting; as well as Udo Walendy’s contributions.
Himmler’s Posen Speech is more blatant, but I still don’t think it means much except maybe for Big-H fans.
Himmler is giving a typically bellicose and inspirational pep-talk to a bunch of bureaucrats.
This hyperbole probably ranks along the lines of Gen. Patton orating that he intends to rip the entrails out of the enemy and grease his tanks’ treads with them.
Holohoaxsters like that Himmler is on audio saying these things, as the Big-H is always very media-focused. Maybe AI can soon put Himmler’s voice into English for the school kiddies.
But I’m pretty sure that I have heard worse, and the only reason this has any locomotion at all is because all of the pre-existing and never-examined-critically Holocaust(tm) baggage associated with the subject.
At best we have the “banality of evil.” Yawn.
Btw, Himmler’s voice on this recording has never been electronically authenticated.
The original magnetic tape has been lost.
But the audio was presumably later pressed onto shellac records and distributed to inspire stodgy bureaucrats ─ and, of course, a single copy was found for use in the Nuremberg Trials after searching through the “Genocide collections” of various Alte Kameraden.
But I mentioned that nobody had ever authenticated the recording as Himmler’s voice, so a Jewish medical examiner on a forum offered to put up the money if I would do so.
I proposed to collect various recordings of Himmler’s voice from newsreels for samples, and then to have a forensic audio laboratory compare them with the Posen Speech and see if they match.
No lab ever contacted me back. I am told that you need letters of introduction from professionals or something to be taken seriously.
In any case, I don’t think the Posen Speech is important enough to bother with. I don’t really doubt that it is actually Himmler’s voice, but I don’t think it is any smoking-gun for sure.
🙂
Well, if all counter arguments fail, then call even the most explicit genocidal pronouncements merely meaningless “bragging”.
It is only “explicit” with a whole host of propaganda prep attached to it ─ billions of dollars unabated to this very day. Otherwise, it actually says very little.
🙂
Scott had responded to a Mr. Bilbo who had said, “Both Nazis and the Deniers among you (in the C-C community) need to be stepped over. Both.” That’s an aggressive statement by Mr. Bilbo, who I presume is both a subscriber to the Jews’ exterminationist theory and is anti-National Socialist. Scott replied, saying “the Truth is always the right answer… What part of “Nobody was Gassed” is so difficult to understand here?
Greg, you then said to Scott, and this is what I don’t understand:
—
Greg Johnson: July 26, 2025 Did I say anything about gas? Are you doing a Faurisson here?
—
I don’t know if you had said anything about gas, but your comment about Robert Faurisson seemed odd to me. I, for one, will not be “stepping over him,” whatever that means. In my mind Professor Faurisson was one of the most courageous truth-tellers our side has ever had — one of the firstest with the mostest in debunking the Jews’ Holocaust story, and he paid a price for his courageous truth-telling.
FAURISSON: The problem of the ‘gas chambers’ (1978) (from archive.org)
Conclusions after 30 years of research by Revisionist authors:
1. The Hitler “gas chambers” never existed.
2. The “genocide” (or “attempted genocide”) of the Jews never took place. In other words: Hitler never gave an order — nor permission —
that anyone should be killed because of his race or religion.
3. The alleged “gas chambers” and the alleged “genocide” are one and the same lie.
4. This lie, which is largely of Zionist origin, has made an enormous political and financial fraud possible, whose principal beneficiary is
the state of Israel.
5. The principal victims of this fraud are the German people (but not the German rulers) and the entire Palestinian people.
6. The enormous power of the official information services has, thus far, had the effect of ensuring the success of the lie and of censoring
the freedom of expression of those who have denounced the lie.
7. The participants in this lie know that its days are numbered. They distort the purpose and nature of the Revisionist research. They
label as “resurgence of Nazism” or as “falsification of history” what is only a thoughtful and justified concern for historical truth.
French Historian Who Dismisses Holocaust Is Beaten Sept. 17, 1989
PARIS — One of France’s leading “revisionist” historians, who claims the Holocaust never took place, was severely beaten Saturday by three youths said to belong to a group called “The Sons of the Memory of the Jews,” officials said.
Robert Faurisson, 60, was ambushed by the youths while walking his dog in a park in Vichy. The trio repeatedly kicked and punched Faurisson, breaking his jaw, then ran off, a police report said.
Faurisson was admitted to a Vichy hospital, then transferred to a hospital in the nearby city of Clermont-Ferrand. French radio said the attack was claimed by the previously unknown group, which said in a statement that “Faurisson is the first but will not be the last.” “Let those who deny the Shoah (Holocaust) beware,” it said….
French Historian Who Dismisses Holocaust Is Beaten – Los Angeles Times
This tribute to Dr. Faurisson that is worth reading: “Robert Faurisson, RIP: A Lifetime of Defying Jewish Bigots” at nationalvanguard.org. It includes this relevant passage by the author:
… A couple of years ago when I wrote my articles criticizing the retreat from Revisionism by Weber and Irving, and also by David Cole, the time that my girlfriend and I had spent with Professor Faurisson on 5 August 2000 was constantly in the back of my mind…
I agree with you here, Will. Robert Faurisson is among the greatest, and one of the earliest of the revisionists, too. It just shows you that your friend Greg is an ignoramus when it comes to “holocaust.” He’s actually embarrassing.
This is ironic, given the poor performance of revisionist advocates on this thread.
Poor performance?
I haven’t heard any narrative put forth by you showing that anti-Semitic remarks necessarily means that millions (billions?) of Jews must have been murdered.
One might as well argue against Superstition in the Middle Ages. A literal Thoughtcrime.
Sometimes three-million people die for some reason ─ like when Churchill refused to allocate the Allied shipping necessary to send grain during the 1943 Benghal famine.
Of course, there are very different standards of conduct for the Good Guys compared to any others.
As Prof. James J. Martin noted when he examined the career of (((Raphael Lemkin))), the Polish jurist who coined the term “Genocide” in his Axis Rule in Occupied Europe (1944), some people are just more important than others when their ox gets gored.
Besides, who needs precision and definition, legal or otherwise, for “incomparable” crimes?
The singing Wïgger and philosopher Bono dreams of a world without Race or Class “where the streets have no name.”
🙂
“As Prof. James J. Martin noted when he examined the career of (((Raphael Lemkin))), the Polish jurist who coined the term “Genocide” in his Axis Rule in Occupied Europe (1944), some people are just more important than others when their ox gets gored.”
That’s a good one, Scott, the Jews are indeed the Prima Donnas of suffering–nobody does it better.
Greg, I don’t understand the point of this essay. I won’t pretend to understand why you posted it.
I don’t know if you meant to, but it *sounds* like you’re punching right. (I’m not accusing you of doing so, only expressing how I think it’ll be perceived.)
There’s a lot I don’t grok here, but I’m pretty sure THIS DISCUSSION SHOULD NOT BE HAPPENING IN PUBLIC.