I am repeating the introduction in each of this 11-part ZGram series. Read it until you know it by heart!
=====
A mainstream Jewish writer, giving his readers the standard Jewish slant on well-worn Holocaust orthodoxy in response to the then upcoming Irving/Lipstadt-Penguin Trial, made amazing and telling pre-emptive admissions in an article published in the February 2000 Atlantic Monthly. This 19 page article, significantly titled "The Holocaust on Trial" by D.D. Guttenplan, is so far the most comprehensive and extensive write-up on the subject of Revisionism and the Holocaust that has appeared in the global mainstream press.
The choice of the title itself speaks volumes. It is an open acknowledgement - long overdue! - that Revisionism, far from being a fringe movement run by a few crackpots and "Hitler lovers", is in fact a vibrant, legitimate historical discipline of far greater spiritual depth and political importance than has been admitted by those who would like us to listen to the B'nai Brith and Anti-Defamation League type smearmongering just a little bit longer.
Holocaust orthodoxy is not yet a sacred religious dogma of Judaism. It is, in fact, the central core of the Zionist political agenda. This agenda has had diabolical, monstrous results. It gave us World War II, the Morgenthau Plan, Operation Keelhaul, the Nuremberg Trials, an Israeli state, German reparations to maintain that state, more than half a century of Bolshevic occupation of the heartland of Europe, deliberately media-induced, all-permeating "Holocaust thinking" and, as a by-produce, permanent, bloody wars and upheaval in the Middle East. It is also the backbone of the New World Order.
Understanding this Zionist agenda is of crucial relevance to every person on this earth who prefers truth over lies, unfettered scientific and historical inquiry to back up that truth and demolish those lies, and freedom over slavery for future generations.
Leuchter's findings, Irving's adoption of these findings, and the subsequent Errol Morris documentary film about Leuchter played a central role in the lengthy Irving-Lipstadt/Penguin litigation, as the court transcripts reveal. This illustrates the crucially important role played by the much-maligned Fred Leuchter in the demolition of this edifice and relic of World War II propaganda lies.
Guttenplan's choice of the Title, "The Holocaust on Trial" - was borrowed from a Zundel publication - the 1988 'consumerized" version by Reporter Robert Lenski of the 1988 Zündel trial, reviewable on the Zundelsite. (Use the Zundelsite-specific search engine for topics of specific interest!) The title signifies acknowledgment by the back door of the importance of the two Zundel Trials and their seminal impact on Holocaust historiography.
It is only fitting that Ernst Zundel should review the Atlantic Monthly article. In this article, Guttenplan is continuing the traditional modus operandi of the "in-elite" by talking about us, around us, past us and against us. Who better than a German to respond to the continued blood libel against the Germans - and to assure more balance, sanity and honesty?
Who better than Ernst Zundel, battle-scarred veteran of this herculean struggle and originator/catalyst of the all-important Leuchter Report?
I yield my ZGrams to Ernst Zundel. The Internet allows this veteran of Holocaust Revisionism to have his say - his way!
(Paragraph pairs are numbered and separated by a line. )
=====
Part VIII
93. Guttenplan: Eichmann in Jerusalem, Hannah Arendt's report on the Eichmann trial, fared no better. Writing in The New York Times Book Review, Barbara Tuchman accused Arendt of "a conscious desire to support Eichmann's defense." The Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith condemned what it called an "evil book," reminding its members, It is common knowledge that Eichmann himself deliberately planned the cold-blooded senseless liquidation of an entire people .... Eichmann personally conceived the idea of liquidating Jews as a means of "solving" the Jewish problem .... He probably could have successfully proposed mass Jewish emigration to his superiors [but] instead he selected the gas chamber, the crematorium and the soap factory.
ANSWER TO 93. Even Jews like Hannah Ahrendt were targeted! Like a religious incantation, a permanent refrain: "...he selected the gas chamber, the crematorium and the soap factory!" The soap factory! The largest Jewish "Service organization" whose only reason for being allegedly is to stop the "defamation of the Jews" uses one of the most devastating accusations in its ongoing, deliberate defamation of the German nation!
===========
94. Guttenplan: These attacks, as Peter Novick points out, were "not just false but the reverse of the truth." Like Hilberg, Arendt was assailed for highlighting the role of the Jewish communal leadership in the tragedy - perhaps even more virulently than Hilberg, because in her view Jewish leaders had been particularly culpable. "Wherever Jews lived," she wrote, there were recognized Jewish leaders, and this leadership, almost without exception, cooperated in one way or another, for one reason or another, with the Nazis. The whole truth was that if the Jewish people had really been unorganized and leaderless, there would have been chaos and plenty of misery but the total number of victims would hardly have been between four and a half and six million people. Once again Commentary, the voice of the American Jewish leadership, pronounced its anathema, with the editor, Norman Podhoretz, personally declaring Arendt's reports "complex, unsentimental, riddled with paradox and ambiguity" - all, to Podhoretz, apparently, terms of abuse. Arno Mayer's Why Did the Heavens Not Darken? is subtitled "The 'Final Solution' in History." Mayer wanted to rescue the Holocaust from a "cult of remembrance" that in his view had "become overly sectarian" and thus impeded historical understanding. "Whereas the voice of memory is univocal and uncontested, that of history is polyphonic and open to debate," Mayer wrote. History "calls for revision."
ANSWER TO 94. Even Peter Novick says these accusations were "not just false, but the reverse of the truth." I hasten to point out, lest the gullible reader might think he is referring to the "gas chamber", crematory, soap factory accusation - he is not! These lies are okay, in Novick's frame of reference! It's the false accusation that Hannah Ahrendt wanted to help Eichmann, which bothers this Jewish academic.
The Jew Sherman Skolnick of Chicago, whom I met in 1973 during a lecture tour, says that untold millions of dollars in money and valuables entrusted to some of the chief rabbis in Eastern Europe during the German occupation was kept by them, after the names of those trusting Jews ended up on deportation lists supplied to the Germans by Jewish community leaders. Skolnick is actively looking for witnesses, so the surviving Jewish embezzlers, their children or grandchildren, can be sued by the surviving Jewish victims and their heirs. Skolnick claims the money is mainly invested in real estate and construction companies.
This seems to be one of the deep, dark secrets - little explored, of course by mainstream "Holocaust scholars" or Jewish organizations, who would rather deflect from their own misdeeds by accusing countries like Switzerland, Austria and Germany and shaking down their industries for billions. No wonder Arno Mayer is disliked. Quite correctly he says: "Whereas the voice of memory is univocal and uncontested, that of history is polyphonic and open to debate." He must have really hit a raw nerve when he wrote that ". . . history calls for revision."
===========
95. Guttenplan: To the Anti-Defamation League those were fighting words. Even worse, Mayer claimed that the Nazis were motivated not by simple anti-Semitism but by a hostility to "Judeobolshevism" - the Nazi word for the belief that Jews controlled both communism and capitalism. Mayer wrote that there was no evidence to suggest that when Adolf Hitler invaded Poland, his objective was "to capture the maximum number of Jews for slaughter." Indeed, the Nazis went to great lengths to push Jews to emigrate. Contrary to Lucy Dawidowicz's The War Against the Jews (1975), which argued that genocide was one of the Nazis' principal war aims, Mayer held that Hitler was far more concerned with his "crusade" against communism, and that only after the failure of Operation Barbarossa, the invasion of the Soviet Union, did the Nazis vent their murderous frustration on the Jews of Eastern Europe. Mayer's book jacket carried an endorsement by Pierre Vidal-Naquet, who also wrote a preface to the French edition! !
ANSWER TO 95. Not since Hitler's death did anyone have the intellectual honesty and scholarly integrity to talk systematically and forcefully about the problems caused to the world by "Judeobolshevism." Even well-read Jews like John Sack did not want to admit that Bolshevism was a Jewish brainchild and was used as an instrument of mass murder against any one, class or nation, these psychopathic killers did not like.
Hitler's Army and the much-maligned Einsatzgruppen put a temporary end to that spree of mass murder, until the Western Allies made the victory of the murderous hordes of Stalin's serial killers possible - through their massive bombing campaign against Germany.
The suggestion that "the Nazis vented their murderous frustration on the Jews of Eastern Europe" is clap-trap! Even by their own version of World War II history, the alleged killings started in 1941 - whereas the German reverses on the Eastern front started only in 1943 in Stalingrad.
===========
96. Guttenplan: Mayer's thesis that anti-communism was more important in Nazi ideology than anti-Semitism was certainly open to argument, as was his account of events leading to the Final Solution. But argument was just what Mayer didn't get from his critics, who preferred insult and innuendo. "'A mockery of memory and history,' 'outrageous,' ... 'bizarre,' and 'perverse'" were, said the historian Richard Evans, reporting on the controversy for a London newspaper, "just some of the more printable" responses. Leading the charge was The New Republic's reviewer, a young Harvard graduate student named Daniel Goldhagen.
ANSWER TO 96. Ahhh, those hired intellectual assassins of the Holocaust establishment! Richard Evans, now used by Lipstadt-Penguin, made a name for himself even then by attacking a Jew like Arno Mayer in virulent terms.
"A mockery of memory and history" "outrageous", "bizarre" and "perverse"? Stoning the messenger because they don't like the message, be he Jew or Gentile, is their age-old tactic. Again it was Jew versus Jew - dogma versus history.
===========
97. Guttenplan: Hilberg, Arendt, and Mayer are all not just Jews but refugees from the Nazis. There can be no doubting their obvious, sympathetic, personal identification with the victims of the Holocaust. "By 1942, in her eighties and blind," Raul Hilberg's grandmother "lay in bed most of the time," Hilberg writes in The Politics of Memory (1996). "Apparently that is where the German raiders found her and where they shot her on the spot." Hannah Arendt had been arrested for illegal Zionist activity, and interned by the Vichy French, before escaping to the United States. Arno Mayer's book opens with "A Personal Preface" telling of his own hair-raising escape from Luxembourg and occupied France, and of the fate of his grandfather, who refused to leave Luxembourg and died in Theresienstadt. Such personal bona fides didn't prevent the Anti-Defamation League from including Mayer in its 1993 report "Hitler's Apologists: The Anti-Semitic Propaganda of Holocaust 'Revisionism,'" where his work is cited as an example of "legitimate historical scholarship which relativizes the genocide of the Jews"; his crime is to "have argued, with no apparent anti-Semitic motivation" - note how the absence of evidence itself becomes incriminating - "that though millions of Jews were killed during WWII, there was actually no premeditated policy for this destruction."
ANSWER TO 97. One again, we see that Hannah Ahrendt was not arrested because she was a Jew but because "she engaged in illegal Zionist activity." Israel has been arresting Palestinians for 50 years for illegal PLO or other activities, making a thousand excuses and justifications for their arrests, detentions and torture of Palestinians. Always the Jewish double standard!
Poor Arno Mayer, the Jewish refugee from the dreaded Nazis, gracing the same ADL smear book as the Ernst Zündels, Faurissons and Irvings of the world - because he dared to question their new cult of the Holocaust!
===========
98. Guttenplan: Defending Raul Hilberg or Arno Mayer from the charge of anti-Semitism (or, as it is more frequently put, "self-hatred") is tedious and pointless. So why bother? Because such attacks on honorable scholarship demonstrate that the Holocaust has from the very beginning been contested ground even - perhaps especially - among Jews themselves. And because it isn't only Holocaust deniers who twist facts, obscure the truth, and, in Deborah Lipstadt's phrase, create "immoral equivalencies."
ANSWER TO 98. Guttenplan better be careful! If he keeps up this line of reasoning, he will go "beyond the pale", as the Jewish Thought Police and Holocaust Orthodoxy Enforcers call free inquiry by Jews into their own history. "...it isn't only Holocaust deniers who twist facts, obscure the truth" and, to quote the self-appointed High Priestess of the Holocaust Dogma, none other than Deborah Lipstadt, who weighs in with the mighty phrase "...create immoral equivalencies." It's amazing what a good education in Israel can produce!
===========
99. Guttenplan: The Lever of Guilt
In Israel, as you might expect in a country where in the 1940s the slang for "Holocaust survivor" translated as "soap," the battle over how to represent the Nazi genocide has always been bare-knuckled and out in the open. The arguments go back to the Second World War itself, when supporters of mainstream Zionism sought to discredit the Emergency Committee to Save the Jewish People of Europe - the group agitating most noisily for rescue - as a vehicle of the right-wing Zionist terrorist group Irgun. As indeed it was. David Ben-Gurion and other Zionist leaders were not thoughtlessly "writing off" European Jewry, Peter Novick says. They were just making a "chilling ... appraisal of what was and was not possible."
ANSWER TO 99. The best source on this dark chapter of Jewish-Zionist history is Tom Segev's book, The Seventh Million and Edwin Black's book, "The Transfer Agreement." They are revealing treatises.
===========
100. Guttenplan: Still, when the dimensions of the Jewish catastrophe became clear, Ben-Gurion moved quickly to turn guilt into political capital. What is notable about this effort is that it failed. With the possible exception of Britain, where fear of being compared to the Nazis may have prevented a more forceful response by London to the Zionists' unilateral declaration of independence, countries responded to the birth of Israel on the basis of their own national interest, as Novick points out. The Soviet Union, which was eager to undercut British influence in the Middle East, supported it. Countries with ties to the Arabs - Britain among them - did not. President Harry Truman, who recognized Israel over State Department opposition, may have been motivated by domestic political considerations - or by a sincere concern for Jewish refugees. But there is no evidence that guilt played any part in his decision. Indeed, as we have seen, the initial responses to the Eichmann trial revealed a mistrust of Israel's motives that was perhaps understandable, coming only a few years after President Dwight Eisenhower had condemned Israel's actions in the Suez crisis. Novick barely mentions Suez, which is a shame, because it gives strong support to his view that at least in the 1950s the Holocaust provided Israel with no useful "moral capital."
ANSWER TO 100. Interesting, the phrase "...in the 1950s, the Holocaust provided Israel with no useful moral capital." Is that callous, or what?
Support to Zionism was given for many reasons. The British gave them the Balfour Declaration because they were on the verge of losing the war in France against the Germans in 1916-17. Hitler cooperated with them because he wanted the Jews out of Europe. The Zionists were eager to get skilled German Jews for building their new state. Truman, according to Gore Vidal, the American Jewish playwright, got a $2 million Jewish bribe in the form of an election contribution, when his campaign was virtually broke. (See Israel Shahak's book, "Jewish History, Jewish Religion")
=====
101. Guttenplan: Novick also appears not to notice that just as the Cold War shaped American responses to the Holocaust, it also shaped responses to Israel - because until June of 1967 it was far from clear that Israel was on "our" side. After all, Ben-Gurion and his associates were socialists. In their war for independence the Israelis were armed with Czech machine guns; from 1956 to 1967 Israel bought the bulk of its weaponry from France, a country whose discontent with American power actually led it to withdraw from NATO's military command. And it was not until after the Six-Day War that Norman Podhoretz declared that Israel was the religion of the American Jews. What support there was tended to come from the left, from places like The Nation and the newspaper PM, whose columnist I. F. Stone was an early and vocal advocate for the new state.
ANSWER TO 101. "Israel was the religion of the American Jews"? Something to think about for the American and Canadian Intelligence community in light of the Rosenberg, Lonsdale, and Pollard Spy Affair.
===========
102. Guttenplan: All that changed after 1967. Novick doesn't draw an explicit connection between Israel's debut as America's strategic asset in the Middle East and the explosion of Holocaust discourse in the United States, but what he does say is suggestive. For one thing, the image of Jews as military heroes effaced "the stereotype of weak and passive victims, which [had] inhibited Jewish discussion of the Holocaust." More important, in Cold War terms Israel was now unambiguously on America's team. And if circumstances made it easier for American Jews to talk about the Holocaust, to draw on the "moral capital" that Israel had miraculously accumulated, that was just as well. For in its determination to hold on to the territories gained in battle, Israel began to forfeit whatever sympathy it had attracted as an underdog.
ANSWER TO 102. No human rights story here - just cold-eyed, geopolitical military power considerations! Alleged cowards who walked by the millions like lambs to the slaughter transform miraculously into fierce warriors because of the use of the Holocaust as an instrument of policy. Amazing!
===========
103. Guttenplan: The crucial point, surely, is that it was only after Israel and the United States were bound together strategically that the Holocaust and support for Israel became, in Novick's phrase, "the twin pillars of American Jewish 'civil religion.'" Similarly, it was only in post-1967 America that certain aspects of the Holocaust and its aftermath-from questions of resistance and collaboration to arguments over the propriety of accepting reparation payments-became not just controversial but unmentionable. An exaggeration? In 1953 Lucy Dawidowicz, at the time the American Jewish Committee's resident expert on communism, could both criticize Israel for taking German money and invidiously contrast that willingness with Israel's refusal to take responsibility for displaced Palestinians. Thirty-five years later, when Arno Mayer merely disagreed with Dawidowicz's interpretation of Hitler's intentions, he was practically excommunicated.
ANSWER TO 103. The Holocaust - "the twin pillars of American Jewish 'civil religion.'" Peter Novick and Guttenplan are beginning to lay bare something most Goyim have been too shallow and stupid to see, much less comprehend in its importance. Arno Mayer was practically excommunicated. Is that proof of a cult-like religious mindset or what?
===========
104. Guttenplan: Though it is considered impolite to mention them in public, there are still a number of "live questions" about the Holocaust. The dispute between intentionalists like Dawidowicz, who say that genocide was part of Hitler's plan from the beginning, and functionalists like Mayer, who argue that the Final Solution evolved in response to changing conditions and the fortunes of war, is far from settled. David Irving may seize on the arguments of the functionalists as part of his campaign to exculpate Hitler from responsibility for the Holocaust, but that hardly makes them his allies.
ANSWER TO 104. In other words, it's okay for some intra-Jewish quibbling about the so-called Holocaust details, as long as no fundamental questions are asked about it - like "where is the Führer Order?" or "Where is the scientific proof for homicidal gas chambers?" etc. The Jewish factions want to continue to control and contain the Holocaust debate. They don't want to lose control to some loose cannon Goy like David Irving, who might say anything, quicksilvery as he is in his arguments.
===========
105. Guttenplan: Another open - though stifled - question regards the number of survivors. Irving's claim that Jews inflated the number of Holocaust victims in order to extort money from Germany merely demonstrates his imperviousness to fact. The payments to Israel were for absorbing and resettling refugees, and it would thus have been in Israel's interest to exaggerate the number of survivors, not the number of victims. But that doesn't mean there weren't individual beneficiaries who, in order to qualify for payment, claimed to have spent the war hiding in Poland when they had in fact been living, in relative safety if not in comfort, deep inside the Soviet Union.
ANSWER TO 105. One more time Guttenplan hijacks Revisionist scholarship, which unearthed many of these facts, like in Dr. Butz's books, "Hoax of the 20th Century", but even more so, in Sanning's book The Dissolution of Eastern European Jewry. Numbers do matter. Numbers are their Achilles Heel.
===========
Tomorrow: Part IX