On BBC's Homepage (World: Europe) Wednesday, 26 January, 2000, there is another stunning mainstream article by Andre Vornic, titled provocatively and courageously: "Is there a Holocaust 'Industry'?" Now is that music to your ears - or what?!
Again, we have the now emerging vacillating pattern in this opinion piece - acknowledging that, ". . . yes, there is strong legitimacy to questioning the Holocaust but, heavens, what about the Lobby? Quick, quick - another kneefall!"
As so many times before, the marvel of the Internet - not only to be informed globally about these articles, but also the opportunity to comment on such articles and falsehoods immediately - gives us a chance to reply:
BBC:
As the annual Nazi Holocaust day approaches, delegates have gathered for a commemorative international conference in the Swedish capital, Stockholm.
And as compensation claims continue against companies with one-time Nazi associations, tributes and museums have multiplied: many American cities now have their own memorials, and European cities such as Stockholm and Berlin are preparing to acquire theirs.
It all testifies to the central - and haunting - position which the murder of between five and six million Jews by Nazi Germany has acquired in the Western consciousness.
Zundelsite:
Ah yes - by hook and crook. Say mantras long enough, and people start repeating them. But note - it's no longer "six million." It's now a cautious "between five and six million."
If Revisionist scholars were allowed into the hallowed halls of Arolsen in Germany, where all those all-important records of World War II German concentration camp inmates, their birth and death records, and in many cases, their criminal histories are meticulously kept and preseved, the "six million" number would shrink and shrivel like the proverbial prune in the sun.
BBC:
But for the first time in the last quarter of a century, a new school of academic thought is emerging - one which questions the accepted vision of the Holocaust and the universality of its moral teachings.
Zundelsite:
Well, not exactly "for the first time." We are talking decades of painstaking Revisionist work - against the greatest of all odds and under conditions of sacrifice and persecution and even danger to life and limb that few people have ever really understood, much less appreciated until now.
The German Arthur Erhard, publisher of Nation Europa, said way back in 1957, after having analyzed population statistics, that approximately 1 million Jews might have died ***of all causes*** in World War II German-occupied Europe.
Similarly, Paul Rassinier exposed many of the fraudulent claims and lies by former inmates in his books during the same period. So it is hardly "for the first time. . . that a new school of academic thought is emerging. . . "
BBC:
In more recent years, the Holocaust industry has effectively turned into a shake-down racket in which more and more countries throughout Europe are being bludgeoned into coughing up compensation.
Zundelsite:
Now that is language with the strong aroma of mint! Three cheers for the BBC writer - who seems to be quoting verbatim from some of the Zundel Power newsletters - using the very lines for which Ernst stands accused before a Human Rights Tribunal!
BBC:
In his forthcoming book, "The Holocaust Industry:, Professor Norman Finkelstein of the University of New York argues that our present interpretation of the Holocaust has been deliberately devised by American Jewish groups for purposes of ethnic supremacy, political advantage and financial gain.
"Since the late 19560s, there has developed a kind of Holocaust industry which has made a cult of the Nazi Holocaust. And the purpose of this industry is, in my view, ethnic aggrandisement - in particular, to deflect criticism of the State of Israel and to deflect criticism of Jews generally," Professor Finkelstein says.
Zundelsite:
Tom Segev, the Israeli historian in his book, The Seventh Million, and Rabbi Goldberg of California, detailed this disgusting manipulation of Jewish misfortune in World War II in their writings. Decent, thoughtful Jews finally speak up on the exploitation of the Holocaust - a healthy, long overdue first step!
Professor Finkelstein is one of that rare breed of Jews who calls a spade a spade and speaks the truth where he finds it. He deserves our greatest respect. We should promote and defend him whenever and wherever we can - on and off the Internet, in Letters to the Editor, letters to his university etc. - for he isn't going to have an easy time with his fellow Chosenites.
BBC:
The discovery of the Nazi concentration camps of World War II by allied troops and journalists has shaped our perception of the very worst of human nature.
Zundelsite:
Nonsense! "The very worst of nature" could easily be found in the Soviet Gulags - and not in German concentration camps where, many times, conditions of safety, shelter and food were superior to conditions that millions of Germans experienced as they fled from the murderous Red Army.
Furthermore, as we have pointed out so many times before, the Allies had their own concentration camps already in and before World War II - with carbon copies of the German regulations and design. Some 6 months or so ago the Zundelsite received original documentation all the way from Australia from a former Allied camp commander making that very point and complimenting the Germans on their restraint and fairness.
BBC:
It has also defined our view of Hitler's principal victims, the Jews, as a martyr nation deserving eternal atonement.
Zundelsite:
It's amazing! Did they conspire to invent their lie - or merely exploit it once it was created as a World War II propaganda tool?
BBC:
But for Professor Finkelstein, himself the son of concentration camp survivors, that view of the Holocaust is a manufactured one. For Professor Finkelstein, the Holocaust is not incomparable. To compare and contrast, he argues, is a historian's duty.
Attempts were made to relativize the Holocaust. "Oh, what happened to the Jews is no different to what happened to the Armenians or what happened to the Biafrans or Rwandans." Well, it was different. It was different in scale, in quality, and above all, its origins are quite singular.
Zundelsite:
Professor Finkelstein is right. And the BBC writer is wrong in immediately adding a qualifier to weaken Finkelstein's statement.
The so-called "Holocaust" was not "different in scale, in quality." The Black Book of Communism can serve as a comparison.
And as to "singular origin" - the Jewish people have a history of expulsion from dozens of countries over several millennia. Why did the Egyptians, the Romans, the Spaniards, the British and finally the Germans become upset and irritated enough by this troublesome minority in their midst four thousand, two thousand, a hundred and some sixty years ago - that in an act of frustration and self-protection decided to kick out the troublemakers out? Why? Could it have been unacceptable Jewish behavior?
BBC:
For most scholars, however, the Nazis' barbarity in their treatment of the Jews was unique and unparalleled. This case is argued by David Cesarani, a teacher of modern Jewish history at the University of Southhampton in England.
"The Nazis' attempt to exterminate the Jews of Europe, and indeed the Jews of the world, is unique, because it's the first time that all the apparatus of a modern state was applied to destroying a group of people who were defined according to racial, biological politics," Mr. Cesarani says.
Zundelsite:
See paragraph above. The nerve and illogic of this Jewish professor and historian is amazing! He produces no documents to prove his wild, off-the-wall "genocide" claim. He simply repeats the old, stale accusation.
The actual, non-Hollywoodized Nazi treatment of Jews was not substantially different from the treatment of concentration camp inmates in America, Canada or Britain during the war.
Soviet, American, Polish, Czech and Serbian treatment of German captives after the war was far worse than what the Jews experienced in Auschwitz or elsewhere at Nazi hands. That story has yet to be written, and the guilty have yet to account.
BBC:
Although Professor Finkelstein's view is shared by few in today's academia, he is not an entirely isolated figure. Several younger scholars agree that the Holocaust should not be a moral narrative with a single authorised reading.
For Tim Cole of the University of Bristol, an authority on the Budapest ghetto, the Holocaust's significance has varied considerably according to place and time. (...)
"It's only much more recently that museums have been built. If you like, it's a kind of 1980s, 1990s ideology, sentiment thing, if you like, to build Holocaust museums - that we, at this particular point in history, remember the Holocaust for all sorts of reasons," Mr. Cole says.
Zundelsite:
Museums exist to shame and humiliate the Germans and Western civilization before visiting dignitaries - to condition them before they get pummeled by the Holocaust Lobbyists, inside and outside of government.
BBC:
This is disputed by Michael Friedman of the Jewish Congress. It took 20 years, he says, to build three memorials because the shock of the Holocaust was so great.
"How could the brain immediately react? Take a private tragedy - if you lose your parents or children by accident, how long do you need to come back to a minimum of emotionality and working out this tragedy? And multiply this by the biggest human tragedy that ever happened on earth," Michael Friedman argues.
Zundelsite:
What absolute, unmitigated bunk! Friedman is wrong! Totally wrong! In mining disasters, monuments are up within a few years. War veterans in Europe have their monuments up within five to ten years. Family gravestones are up within two years in most cases. The world did not put up Holocaust memorials because there was nothing to commemorate - until the Jewish agenda kicked in.
Did the East German expellees need several decades before they remembered that they had been hurt? Did the Russian-Germans? Did any other people build such nauseating horror places called "museums"?
And as to ". . . the biggest human tragedy that ever happened on earth", Michael Friedman needs to start reading about Jewish-Bolshevik crimes from 1917 to the present to get some perspective and balance.
BBC:
Schindler's List, the Oscar-winning film about the Holocaust directed by Steven Spielberg, was a huge success across the world in 1993 - and is said to have popularised the suffering of the Jews to an unprecedented extent. Some academics have scorned such materials as a less than accurate and easily digestible view of history.
Zundelsite:
Serious scholars have discussed all these Jewish formula films as part of the Zionist-Israeli agenda to advance a political, ethnocentric agenda - with the aim of enhancing Jewish victimhood and deflecting criticism of Israel's brutal torture-and-breaking-of-bones-of-Palestinians policies in Palestine.
BBC:
Historians are increasingly disputing another historical interpretation - that the whole of the German nation was to blame for the fate of the Jews. (...)
It is, however, something that Dr. Friedman of the Jewish Congress strongly believes.
Zundelsite:
The collective guilt of the Germans, advocated in the last few years - first of the German nation by Goldhagen, then recklessly expanded by Bronfman and his ilk to the Swiss and all of Europe, and now to the Americans as well for not bombing Auschwitz, for not doing enough for the Jews of Europe and the world before and during World War II - will surely backfire in the near future. Now all are guilty? Only the Jews are innocent?
BBC (Friedman speaking)
"After World War II, when I came to Germany at the age of 10, 15, the majority of Germans said to me: "We didn't want Auschwitz." And I would believe them, that they didn't want it.
"But what does this mean, this statement? Was what happened not enough to say "No" to? Because they didn't say "No", Auschwitz happened. Even if they didn't want it, they are responsible for it. They are responsible because, without their daily acceptance of the steps beforehand, it wouldn't have been possible to build the concentration camps," Dr. Friedman says.
Zundelsite:
Friedman is lying. No such conversations could have taken place. Auschwitz was virtually unknown to the German population, in fact to the world, until the 1960s.
Dachau was the horror camp peddled until then by especially American propaganda. Auschwitz was used as a new scare crow only after Broszat of the Institute for Contemporary History in Munich and even Wiesenthal correctly admitted that there were no gas chambers in the so-called Altreich.
Friedman would be a little more believable if he today engaged in as vigorous a criticism of the Israelis in their treatment of the Palestinians as he demanded of the Germans. Significantly, he does not.
=====
Thought for the Day:
"A CEREMONY to dedicate land for Germany's first national Holocaust memorial was soured by controversy yesterday when the Mayor of Berlin boycotted the event . . . despite several moving speeches on what was the 55th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz death camp, the organisers were unable to hide the continuing squabbles.
"Eberhard Diepgen, the Mayor and Prime Minister of Berlin, had opposed the Bundestag's decision to go ahead last summer and he turned down an invitation to attend."
(The Telegraph, January 28, 2000)
Postscript to the Thought for the Day:
Obviously the votes and sentiments of the majority of Berliners are more important to the German Mayor of Berlin than kowtowing to a hysterically promoted historical lie.
Take note: ***The votes are where the revisionists are!***