As the so-called "Holocaust" reveals itself more and more as the chameleon it is under the influence of a changing political environment, the role of the "Einsatzgruppen" on the Eastern Front becomes ever more evident as a substitute and replacement for the traditional version of the "Holocaust."
During the first Great Holocaust Trial in 1985, Ernst Zundel already prophesied that this would happen, and jokingly said: "We will have to pursue these liars all the way to Wladivostok to ever newer Holocausts . . ."
And now it's happening before our very eyes!
Vastly simplified for newcomers, the picture looks like this:
Traditional, Spielberg-version Holocaust - roughly 1945 till now:
"The Germans, animals that they were, herded 6 million innocent Jews into concentration camps and sadistically gassed them to death while observing their agonized dying through peepholes."
"New, Improved" Einsatzgruppen version Holocaust 1998:
"What does it matter how Jews died? Can you deny that the SS herded them all - women and children, babies included - into the open pits and shot them?"
What is of note here is that the Einsatzgruppen version was known from the beginning to Holocaust Enforcers, since the Allies had broken the German radio transmission codes, with which guerilla reprisals etc. were reported to Berlin. This knowledge never played out for commercial exploitation. Why not?
Again vastly simplified, because it would have led to scrutiny of the war-time ***sabotage role many of the Eastern Jews actually played*** - a can-of-worm the Holocaust Enforcers would just as soon not have opened.
More than that, the Einsatzgruppen action was, in part, retaliation action for not just wartime Jewish sabotage against German soldiers and civilians but retaliation for the largely Jewish-inspired Bolshevik Revolution with all of its atrocities to begin with. Some people even argue that it must have played a part in the famous political "Kommissars' Order" - which was to capture, interrogate and execute these commissars because they were, to a great extent, Jews responsible for agitating the Soviet armies into committing horrible mutilations of German soldiers.
Also, what is rarely brought out is that Stalin refused to sign the Geneva Convention and similar rules of warfare conventions. That's why the war in the East was particularly brutal and vicious. And it should also be remembered that elimination of guerrillas is allowed and has been practiced by all nations.
"Massacres" - as is so often claimed? I would say no. Mass executions of guerillas in guerrilla-infested areas - yes. It happens all the time. The US did it with Viet Cong in Viet Nam. The French did it with Ho Chi Minh. The British did it in Malaysia and Kenya. And the Soviets did everywhere they ruled. That it also happened on the Eastern Front should not be a surprise.
Also, don't forget that "Partisans", as they were called, who were engaged in sabotage were not in uniform and not identifiable as soldiers. Uniformed soldiers at war act lawfully - if there is "law" in war. More often than not, "civilians" were not "innocent" but were in fact involved in direct and indirect aiding and abetting guerillas who killed and mutilated almost 1 million German soldiers in Russia.
The purpose of this new laundry cycle of "Holocaust brainwashing" is, of course, to ***confuse*** the two versions - the "gassing version" and the "Einsatzgruppen version" - and to make the sheeple believe that they were morally equivalent.
In response to this re-shaping of the "Holocaust", ASMarques, a well-known cyber Revisionist, wrote the following:
"I've posted a message to the BBS which has a lot to do with some of the disagreement about "holocaust", "denial", "revision" and such definitions and their acceptable usage that sometimes have been discussed on this list.
The last paragraphs are the most important with respect to this.
**********
Holocaust Enforcer:
Let me engage the question this way then: Were or were not the Einsatzgruppen responsible for primarily civilian or military massacres?
ASMarques
They certainly were and probably on both counts. But my point, you see, is they were engaged in the same business the Partisans themselves, as well as the Soviet rearguard NKVD units and indeed the Soviet troops of the front, were. You might say the same about the RAF and the USAAF, probably the American marines in the savage fights in the Pacific that required the systematic flame-throwing clean-up, the British commandos in their "no prisoners taken" raids, etc etc ad nauseam, were.
But those murderous "civilian and military massacres", as you rightly put it, were not the "Holocaust". They constitute what we call "The Second World War".
The "Holocaust", as I said before, has been for more than half a century, the planned industrial massacre of the Jews in human slaughterhouses called gas-chambers. This has absolutely nothing to do with the real war being fought in the USSR where the Einsatzgruppen acted as rearguard political/military combat units. The "Holocaust" is the murder of millions of Jews in the six "extermination camps" with the following names: Auschwitz (incl. Birkenau, of course), Treblinka, Majdanek, Belzec, Sobibor and Chelmno. This is what is called the "Holocaust" and it is a gigantic lie, having nothing whatsoever to do with the actions of the Einsatzgruppen integrated in the conduct of the organised massacres both the Germans and their Allied counterparts called "warfare".
This particular distinction of having millions of innocent people killed under notoriously different conditions from everybody else, in a planned unique 24 hours a day, day-after-day quiet extermination, for years, far from the military action and the prosecution of any military objectives, is what used to confer to the Jewish victims of the War a unique character deserving a special status. This is why, say, the sons and grandsons of the Dresden victims who live today in Germany are supposed to contribute indemnities to, say, the sons and grandsons of the Auschwitz victims that live today in Israel, and that's why the simple idea of having *countries* paying "Holocaust" indemnities to other *countries* (not individual victims) even exists.
**********
Holocaust Enforcer:
For instance, is Babi Yar indicative of the kind of "special action" the Einsatzgruppen were responsible for, or is something like the Soviet massacre of Polish officers at Katyn a better parallel?
ASMarques
Both were for a long time (and Babi Yar still is, to a high degree) obscure events immensely exploited for propaganda purposes, and therefore are not yet entirely clear. I won't go into them to avoid getting off topic. Suffice to say -- for those who may not know -- that Katyn was a large massacre of Polish military officers by the Soviets and Babi Yar appears to have been a massacre of civilian Jews by the Germans as reprisal for partisan sabotage actions in the nearby city of Kiev. Katyn's details are much better known today than Babi Yar's, as might have been expected.
(Ingrid's comment here: Revisionists, to the fore to shed some light on Babi Yar!)
However, neither one nor the other massacre has anything remotely to do with the presumed "Holocaust" since they are probably true and the "Holocaust" is false. Both appear to have been massacres of innocent people by shooting, decided under pressure and not integrated in any massive plans of racial extermination. Certainly a good number of instances of this sort of thing took place (mainly in the Eastern Front), where they were committed by both sides. This doesn't make either the German Einsatzgruppen or the Soviet NKVD units which were undoubtedly responsible for true massacres and deportations, guilty of, say, the supposed gassings of Auschwitz-Birkenau.
**********
Holocaust Enforcer:
I would state the former is a much better example. The evidence supports the idea -- and Irving's evidence is in this group -- that the Einsatzgruppen were deployed against plain citizens.
ASMarques
They certainly were, in the same sense that special units of the French Army in Algeria, the British Army in Malaysia or the US Army in Vietnam were. It's not a war crime to have special military units constituted against a primarily civilian or non-regular enemy in a anti-subversive war. You should not forget the relative proximity of the events to the Russian Revolution, subsequent Civil War, and great Ukrainian famine of the 30s. No Einsatzgruppe was ever needed in France, for instance, and France had a large Jewish population. Obviously the character of the German formations was connected to the type of war being fought, and not to any special extermination mission.
**********
Holocaust Enforcer:
And largely Jewish citizens. Hitler knew the area they'd encounter first in Soviet territory would be largely populated by Jews, it being the traditional "Pale of Settlement." Further, if the Einsatzgruppen were to be deployed for the specific purpose of military defeat over the Soviets, why not use them at Stalingrad, for example?
ASMarques
Because of their concept, role and nature. That's like asking why isn't heavy armour used in island fighting or why aren't submarines used to bomb cities. The Einsatzgruppen were very specialised units of small size roaming over enormous areas in the rear and making these safe for communication and supply, going where trouble was being reported, etc. They also did the dirty job; there is strong evidence that they were looked upon as a sort of travelling executioners that would free the nearby regular units from the "dirty business"; this however doesn't mean that innocent people were being specially executed in nonsensical situations from the military perspective of a subversive war. What it means is the madness of war has a logic that exists in a coherent fashion, not in the surrealistic way required by the supposed "Holocaust" and its gas chamber exterminations.
Where were the Einsatzgruppen during the battle for Stalingrad, you ask?
Well, they were doing exactly the job they had been created for. See my message titled "The Partisan War" in the thread on "Gollancz and the 6 million" initiated by Michael Mills. You'll see there a calendar of the Battle itself compared to the one in Himmler's Report on anti-partisan activity.
*********
Holocaust Enforcer:
You'll notice, though, that civilized nations and people tend to take exception when individuals or groups grossly violate accepted rules of war.
ASMarques
True. It's part of the global accepted masquerade. The Germans, Soviets, etc were no exception in this "taking exception" of yours. Taking exception is the easiest thing in the World; telling the truth would be something else, believe me...
**********
Holocaust Enforcer:
Take, for instance, Calley's culpability for My Lai, as common an instance as it may have been.
ASMarques
It's called the *scapegoat syndrome*.
You also have similar cases on the German side during WW2. I recommend to you Alfred De Zayas' book on the Bureau of Investigation of War Crimes of the Wehrmacht. To give you an example: although the 1945 final Allied offensives were what you might call open season for rape, the 1940 German offensive in France was an extremely "clean" one from the point of view of civilian casualties, abuses, etc. There were one or two Allied massacres (such as the one at Abeville where right-wing Belgian political prisoners turned over to the retreating French were murdered, with Leon Degrelle closely escaping that fate), and little or no German abuses.
There was however one instance of rape of a French girl committed by two German soldiers. The two were promptly court-martialled, condemned to death and shot by their own people. There you have your Calleys. You will also find other Calleys in the East, in De Zayas' book. You'll probably even discover one or two Soviet Calleys just to keep the horde disciplined. Does this mean the Germans were always swell guys and the Allies always monsters? Of course not!
I'll let you conclude what it does mean by suggesting the following to you: to keep the common belief that the rules of 20th century War are a "civilized" convention, one or two sacrifices are needed every now and then. They are, in fact, very good to keep the morale.
**********
Holocaust Enforcer:
You'll also notice the outcry by conscience-ridden citizens of the victorious nations of WWII against the carpet- and atomic-bombings of Germany and Japan.
ASMarques
No such thing existed at the time (nor does it exist now, since they continue to be regularly commemorated as excellent ideas). It was not even well-understood the bombings were designed for terror purpose, back then and for a long time after. That sort of thing was always dissimulated, as you may easily see by reading the contemporary papers and magazines.
That entire cities could have been razed to the ground without people at large understanding (for decades!) that all-out terror -- instead of selected military objectives -- was the name of the game, is indeed one of the most impressive "achievements" of war propaganda.
**********
Holocaust Enforcer:
No such outcry came from within Germany or from within the German gov't against Einsatzgruppen atrocities. In fact, the evidence -- again Irving falls within this group -- suggests that the Einsatzgruppen *themselves* objected to their "duty" before their superiors ever did.
ASMarques
Very probably true, and a strong indication their duties fell well within the dirty side of military and anti-subversive operations, rather than "holocaustic" outlandish racial extermination. Remember the usual portraits of the SS involved in the presumed gassings is almost always that of evil comic book characters with grinning smiles (if not complete with monocles), never true people under real stress. Try reading the "eyewitness" or "didn't-saw-but-was-told" literature on Auschwitz and Treblinka alone, and you'll see what I mean.
***********
(Holocaust Enforcer argument missing here)
ASMarques:
Not relevant to my point. My point was WW2 = the Holocaust. Given the present knowledge of the facts, there is no point in having a special Jewish equation unless one is out to blackmail and rob the Swiss Banks, and I'm not.
Holocaust Enforcer:
You seem to suggest that the whole "Holocaust story" has been about getting Swiss banks' money. Can you substantiate this, especially given the only recent judgments against Swiss Banks vs. the 50-year-old history of the events in question?
ASMarques
I did not suggest what you say. I simply said the only point of maintaining the "Holocaust" legend today would be the continuation of intolerable hold-ups such as have been visited on Switzerland. I believe only very naïve observers will not have clearly understood that indeed "blackmail" and "robbery" are the correct words to describe what has been going on.
This, of course, is not even remotely to say that innocent Jews should be held individually or collectively responsible for the actions of the organisations that speak in their name, or that they should be paying indemnity to the victims in the future.
**********
ASMarques
The goal of revisionism is quite simply truth. What is the goal of truth? Well, truth has no goals. People have and they are very different from each other.
Holocaust Enforcer:
That's one answer, I guess. I suspect it's not the *only* one.
ASMarques
If there was another goal different from "get the truth and use it for your personal purposes" it would have to be "falsify the truth and use it for your personal purposes". This would not (by definition) be "revisionism"; this would be the falsification of history. You might call it "anti-holocaustianism in the holocaustian mold".
I would rather call it "lies", provided they were lies and one could prove this, as one proves organized religion is the mother of all lies since the beginning of time.
Its current version for the Western World consumption is called the "Holocaust". This "Holocaust" I deny.
Holocaust Enforcer:
Well, at least you admit that.
ASMarques
I don't think you understood that. I said I *denied*. It's the exact opposite of "admitting" anything at all. If you deny, you *affirm* your denial, you don't *admit* it.
You "admit" when there is room for doubt. You "deny" when there isn't. I "admit" there may be an escaped elephant from the zoo running around in the street right now. I "deny" there may be a live adult elephant in hiding inside my desk's drawer. This "denial" is in fact a form of affirmation, not of admission.
Therefore, and until new evidence will be presented showing that every bit of coherent information at our disposal is corrupted, I will *deny* the "Holocaust". I like the word very much, if you don't mind. One should always be ready to "revise" (i.e. look anew) and should always be open to discussion.
However the correct word for the non-acceptance of a patently false premise that is being forced on you and withheld from discussion is "denial".
Thought for the Day:
"For the dwindling number of Holocaust survivors, the deniers have given them an enhanced sense of duty to tell their stories.
"I don't have a right not to," Edith Vardy said.
When she dies, Vardy told her son Michael, she wants the arm with the Auschwitz tattoo removed and left for a museum.
"This should be for the next generation, for the deniers," she said, holding out her arm. "I will not talk from my grave, but my hand should be there."
(Newsday, Feb 24, 1994)