War Propaganda – National-Socialist Worldview

Dr. Robert Faurisson talks about Dachau

Hadding — Wed, 20 May 2020 17:51:00 +0000

Professor Robert Faurisson demonstrates that the pattern of deaths at Dachau concentration-camp, where there happens to be a thorough record of all deaths, is completely inconsistent with the Holocaust narrative.

Probably the most important point here is that appearances can be misleading, and moreover that appearances can be used to create very misleading propaganda. One should not therefore allow oneself to be manipulated into reacting with rash emotionality to scenes like those in the concentration-camps in 1945, because in that case the cause of the situation was not what one gratuitously supposes, and because the Germans had in fact tried to prevent such a situation from developing.

A point that Faurisson does not emphasize is that the way that the Allies waged war against Germany, above all the demand for “unconditional surrender,” meant that Germany must be in total collapse before the war could end. Rampant typhus in Germany at the end of the war, and especially in the crowded concentration-camps, was a ramification of this demand.

Professor Faurisson’s statement near the end of this presentation from 1992, that he did not believe that there was a “Jewish conspiracy” to lie, deserves an asterisk, because when I met him at his home in August 2000 he said something that on its face might seem at variance from what he had said publicly 8 years earlier. About the lie of the Holocaust, he said:

“It is not a British lie; it is not a Communist lie: it is a big Jewish lie.”

One can reconcile these statements by emphasizing the word conspiracy. It means that Jews did not have a meeting as portrayed in the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion where they decided in an organized manner to tell this lie. Rather, it is a story that began perhaps as a rumor*, which Jews in general have taken up and repeated because it suited their disposition and their purposes. The Holocaust, and the willful credulity of Jews toward this story, is best understood perhaps as a religious movement, where there is a wish to believe, and facts and logic do not count for much. (See my article noting that the Holocaust now is regarded as part of the Jewish identity in the same sense as Biblical mythology.) Unquestionably there are Jews at the top of today’s Holocaust hierarchy who understand that they are obfuscating problems in the story, and perpetuating it through dishonesty (as happens in some other religions), but they did not create the story; rather, they inherited it, and they do not have to conspire (in the sense of secret, organized planning).

In my exchange with Professor Faurisson, the question of who was responsible for the lie of the Holocaust came up because he was talking (or really, I should say, complaining) about David Irving, and when I mentioned Irving’s claim that British psychological warfare had invented the gas-chamber story, that was the professor’s reaction.

When you look at the documents on Irving’s own blog, you discover that the story came from Jews. Victor Cavendish-Bentinck, chairman of Britain’s Joint Intelligence Committee, opined in an internal memo of 27 August 1943 that the British government should not be promoting a story for which there was no evidence, and which was likely false because it resembled lies told during the First World War:

“I think we weaken our case against the Germans by publicly giving credence to atrocity stories for which we have no evidence.

“These mass executions in gas chambers remind me of the story of the employment of human corpses during the last (1914-18) war for the manufacture of fat, which was a grotesque lie and led to the true stories of German enormities being brushed aside as being mere propaganda.”(quoted by S. Ward, Independent, 22 August 1993)

An official named Richard Allen commented:

“It is true that there have been references to the use of gas chambers in other reports; but these references have usually, if not always, been equally vague, and since they have concerned the extermination of Jews, have usually emanated from Jewish sources.” (Ibid.)

If you listen only to David Irving, you might get the impression that Cavendish-Bentinck had invented the gas-chamber story, when in fact it was a report that his bureau had received, originating mainly from Jewish sources, about which Cavendish-Bentinck was skeptical and uncomfortable. Even Wikipedia’s article about Cavendish-Bentinck says this.
______________________
* The Jewish psychologist Leon Festinger, in his 1957 book A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance, cites the development of a similar rumor among Japanese held in U.S. concentration camps during the Second World War. The explanation for such a rumor, according to Festinger, is that when people expect to be treated cruelly but receive kind treatment instead, their imagination tends to make up the difference: they assume that what appears to be kindness is a trick. Thus a perfectly innocent shower-room becomes a gas-chamber to the fearful imagination.

Soviet Propaganda faked scenes at Auschwitz in imitation of Anglo-American camp-liberation propaganda

Hadding — Sun, 22 Mar 2020 10:52:00 +0000

During the Good Morning Britain of 27 January 2020 Auschwitz survivor Eva Schloss said this:

“And something I wanted to point out to you. You know, there are many pictures about the Russians liberating Auschwitz, and there is never any snow. And the snow was honestly that high (indicating several feet of snow). And, so I have some connection with the Russian Embassy, and I was there once, and I said: something puzzles me, those photos are fakes, because there is no snow. And they said: well, yes, they are not fakes, but when the army came they didn’t have cameras, they didn’t photograph; so, only much later, when they realized we should have pictures of it, they took pictures like you see now. But this is definitely not in Auschwitz, and not the liberation of Auschwitz.

“There were not that many … children – and [the pictures show] no snow!” (Eva Schloss , Good Morning Britain, 27 January 2020)

This attack on the claim to authenticity of images used in propaganda about Auschwitz and the Holocaust is of the highest importance, because whenever it is suggested that the gas-chamber story might not be true, the first reaction is almost always: What about the pictures? Are you saying that those are fake?

It turns out that, yes indeed, some of them definitely are fake — and we can cite an Auschwitz survivor as our authority for that fact.

The fact that there was snow in late January when the Red Army arrived at Auschwitz is not controversial. It is admitted, for example, in Irmgard von zur Mühlen’s 1985 documentary The Liberation of Auschwitz. The memoir Eva’s Story mentions that the ground was covered with snow several times during February, and never indicates a time when this was not the case, until Soviet authorities finally decided to evacuate civilians from the Auschwitz complex.

Significantly, snow is lacking from nearly all of the visually shocking scenes that are supposed to represent Auschwitz at the time of the “liberation.”

In 1985 Soviet cameraman Alexander Vorontsov admitted that all barracks-scenes from Auschwitz were staged, making excuses for the deception:

“Initially, we did not film the misery inside the barracks. After evacuating the camp on January 19, the SS cut off the electricity. Because initially our camera crews had no lights, we could not shoot indoors. The prisoners had to be transported as quickly as possible, because they were starving to death, and almost frozen.” (The Liberation of Auschwitz, 11:04-11:26)

The narrator tells us that the barracks-scenes were dramatized with Polish women “after the snow had melted.” We are supposed to trust that the dramatization was faithful to reality. Is Soviet propaganda trustworthy?

The USHMM in 2020 still presents this scene — a fraud exposed as long ago as 1985
— as if it were genuine.

Further undermining the credibility of Soviet documentary film, Vorontsov says that the original idea of how to dramatize the liberation of Auschwitz was completely different from the form that Soviet Auschwitz-propaganda eventually took.

In the original cinematic vision of the liberation of Auschwitz it did not seem to occur to the Soviet cinematographers to show emaciated corpses. (Perhaps they hadn’t seen any?) Instead they showed healthy-looking prisoners anxiously waiting at the gate and cheering when the Red Army arrived to set them free.

In those scenes, there is no snow on the ground, nor on the roofs of the buildings, which indicates that this film was not made immediately after the arrival of the Red Army.

Furthermore, this filming must have been done after the general evacuation in which Eva Schloss participated, since she told Good Morning Britain that the Red Army had no cameras, and her memoir gives no account of any movie being made. Based on the vague chronology in Eva’s Story this evacuation seems likely to have happened in March (rather than February as she said in one interview; if in February it would have had to be very late February). The filming of the first conceptualization of the liberation of Auschwitz, then, must have happened later than that.

Here is an important fact. Although the Red Army had arrived at the Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration-camp complex on 27 January 1945, Soviet propaganda did not immediately give Auschwitz the importance that it has today. The narrator of The Liberation of Auschwitz tells us:

“The Soviet press agency TASS did not inform the world about the scale of crimes committed in Auschwitz until May 7, 1945. (The Liberation of Auschwitz, 49:41)

Why did it take so long?

The beginning of this kind of Auschwitz-propaganda may have arisen from emulation of British and American camp-liberation propaganda. More than two months after the Red Army arrived at Auschwitz, the Western Allies captured Buchenwald (11 April), Bergen-Belsen (15 April), Dachau (27 April), etc. The timing suggests that this new Soviet Auschwitz-propaganda was inspired by Anglo-American camp-liberation propaganda.

The 1945 Soviet propaganda-film Auschwitz (Oświęcim ) (made from about 20 minutes of selected footage, with German-language narration) is called a “film-document” and is supposed to prove “horrific crimes.” What happens to that pretense when it is admitted that parts of the movie are dramatizations? In particular, the movie shows the now admittedly staged scene of the women in the Auschwitz barracks. The narrator evokes pity by emphasizing that they were all seemingly harmless elderly women:

“Warum ermorderten die Nazihenker diese armen alten Frauen?” (Auschwitz (Oświęcim ), 04:08)

“Why did the Nazi hangmen murder these poor old women?”

This 1945 production of course gives no indication that the scene was staged.

The narration in Auschwitz (Oświęcim ) clarifies that one famous scene is definitely fraudulent. A pitiable group in striped uniforms crowds at the fence, as we are told:

“Und so fand sie die Rote Armee. Die Sowjetkämpfer haben die Deutschen aus Auschwitz vertrieben. Den überlebenen Gefangenen haben sie erklärt: Ihr seid frei! Frei für immer! Die Unglücklichen aber konnten es zuerst gar nicht fassen.”

“And this is how the Red Army found them. The Soviet fighters drove the Germans out of Auschwitz. They declared to the surviving prisoners: You are free! Free forever! At first, the unfortunates could not believe it.”

With this original narration from 1945, indicating that the scene is supposed to represent the very moment of the arrival of the Red Army at Auschwitz, the fraud becomes obvious — because, as Eva Schloss points out, there is no snow.

The memoir Eva’s Story contradicts the whole narrative (whether the 1945 or 1985 version) that images of “the liberation of Auschwitz” are supposed to support. We are supposed to believe that the Red Army made horrible discoveries when they arrived at Auschwitz, and immediately took great interest in the liberated prisoners and their wellbeing. In fact, the behavior of the Red Army during February and late January 1945 as described in Eva’s Story does not reflect any great sense of importance about Auschwitz-Birkenau or its inhabitants. The Birkenau women’s camp, according to Eva Schloss, was not even permanently occupied by the Red Army, nor was any special effort made to help its inhabitants for at least several weeks after the so-called liberation. Official Soviet solicitude for the wellbeing of the inhabitants of the Auschwitz complex was invented retroactively, and supported with dramatizations.

This is a greatly condensed version of an article that can be read in full from CODOH.

Hidden Origins of the Second World War

Hadding — Fri, 10 Jan 2020 22:02:00 +0000

For more information about William C. Bullitt’s character and likely motives read The Jew Who Caused the Second World War.

source

Facts don’t care about Ben Shapiro’s Holocaust

Hadding — Sat, 07 Dec 2019 06:20:00 +0000

This redacted clip from the Radical Agenda show of 2 December 2019 contains foul language and adult references.

At Stanford University on 7 November 2019 Ben Shapiro quoted a document from the Communist legal system of post-war Poland, a deposition attributed to a former concentration-camp inmate named Henryk Tauber, to the effect that 2500 corpses per day were cremated by a crew working in Birkenau’s Krema II. According to information from the manufacturer of the crematory ovens used at Birkenau, Topf und Söhne, this is simply impossible.

There were 15 crematory retorts in Krema II and each could cremate (on average) one body per hour. In 24 hours of continuous operation, then, 360 bodies could be cremated. All the 38 retorts in Birkenau operating continuously for 24 hours could cremate 912 bodies.

It’s really worse than that, because the ovens had to be out of service for 3 or 4 hours each day to be cleaned. In that case the maximum possible numbers are 315 for Krema II and 798 for Birkenau as a whole.

The idea that cremations could be accomplished faster by piling in bodies seems to be based on the assumption that a crematorium functions like an open fire, where the energy released as heat is mostly wasted. In fact a crematorium, especially the kind used at Auschwitz-Birkenau, functions more like an oven for baking food, where the temperature is controlled and waste of energy is minimized. It is a well known fact that in a household oven the time required for cooking a piece of meat is roughly proportional to the mass. This rule also applies to crematory ovens.

Apart from false testimonies like Tauber’s, there is no reason to believe that Birkenau’s crematoria were operated to the maximum extent possible. A document discovered by Carlo Mattogno refers to a “twelve-hour workday” in relation to fuel-consumption. Also, some of Birkenau’s crematoria spent considerable time out of service needing repairs, which surely would not have been allowed if the full capacity for cremation had been needed at all times.

The impossibly high rate of cremation claimed in Tauber’s deposition seems to have been calculated to support the old Soviet line, that 4 to 5 million died in Auschwitz-Birkenau. The Auschwitz Museum’s current claim (still a gross exaggeration) is that only about 1.1 million died there.

Indisputably, that document from the Communist legal system of post-war Poland makes absurdly inflated claims about how fast corpses could be cremated in Birkenau concentration camp, and Ben Shapiro was a fool to trust it.

Shapiro felt the need to try to demonstrate the factuality of the Holocaust because of Nick Fuentes’ mockery of it in a video-clip from last January, which had been dredged up and publicized as a way of attacking Fuentes after his followers humiliated the representatives of a phony conservative organization called Turning Point USA. A discussion of the conflict around Nick Fuentes can be read here: America First vs. Holocaustian Mind-Control.

Holocaust Skepticism in 45 Seconds!

Hadding — Tue, 02 Apr 2019 03:07:00 +0000

Now on Bitchute instead of Youtube, which removed the video after three months (alleging that it violated “terms of service” although this is not at all evident):

In 1945 Hollywood director Billy Wilder made Die Todesmühlen for OMGUS (U.S. occupational military government of Germany). This film told the German people that TWENTY MILLION people had been murdered in THREE HUNDRED concentration camps operated by their government during the war.

The clip here is from the War Department’s English-language version, Death Mills, apparently made for indoctrination of U.S. armed forces.

The information at the end of the video is from an article that I wrote for CODOH, “Anti-Gentiles Deny the 5 Million!” The statement from Professor Yehuda Bauer, that “no more than half a million” non-Jews died in the German concentration-camps, was published by the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, 31 January 2017.

The point here is to show what kind of extreme accusations were being made in 1945, and how enormously the story has changed — except in regard to the alleged number of murdered Jews, which has remained strangely constant.

Of course, a reasonable person could suspect that the story as it stands now might still not be correct.

Bill O’Reilly’s Terrible Book about the SS — Part One

Hadding — Sun, 17 Feb 2019 05:37:00 +0000

Killing the SS by Bill O’Reilly and Martin Dugard, although number one on the New York Times’ hardcover nonfiction list for many weeks, is very possibly the worst book on the subject ever written.

Despite O’Reilly’s image as an arch-conservative, this book’s perspective is more leftist than conservative, more Jewish than Christian, more Soviet than American. That is no exaggeration!

It is a consequence of the fact that O’Reilly’s “conservatism” is based in the new normal that was established during the Carter Administration and then allowed to stand by subsequent Republican administrations under Neoconservative influence. The older conservatives like William F. Buckley, Patrick J. Buchanan, and Senator Robert Taft were skeptical about the Soviet-style justice meted out by postwar tribunals, did not believe that the Soviet Union was better than Hitler’s Germany, and saw that so-called Nazi-hunting did not serve American interests.

The book is loaded with flaws, ranging from careless mistakes to what appear to be tendentious misrepresentations. Here is an example. You decide whether this was a mere blunder or a deliberate misrepresentation.

In Chapter Three O’Reilly and Dugard present what they claim is an exchange between Otto Ohlendorf and prosecutor James Heath at the Einsatzgruppen Trial (October 1947 to April 1948). They call it “a classic courtroom Q and A” where “James Heath destroys the SS killer.”

In fact, the exchange is not from the Einsatzgruppen Trial at all, but from the International Military Tribunal about two years earlier, where Ohlendorf was being questioned, not by American prosecutor James Heath but by a Soviet judge, General Iona Nikitchenko.

The misidentification of the source is not the only problem. The exchange includes these statements:

THE TRIBUNAL (Gen. Nikitchenko): And in what category did you consider the children? For what reason were the children massacred?

OHLENDORF: The order was that the Jewish population should be totally exterminated.

THE TRIBUNAL (Gen. Nikitchenko): Including the children?

OHLENDORF: Yes. (IMT transcript, 3 January 1946)

At the Einsatzgruppen Trial two years later Ohlendorf consistently repudiates the proposition that there was any order to kill all Jews:

Q. Did you know about plans or directives which had as their goal the extermination on racial and religious grounds?

A. I expressly assure you that I neither knew of such plans nor was I called on to cooperate in any such plans. (Trials of War Criminals before the Nuernberg Military Tribunals, Vol. IV, p. 245)

Why did Ohlendorf make admissions in 1946 that he rejected two years later? Perhaps because he had been tortured.

This misrepresentation of Ohlendorf’s exchange with a Soviet judge during the IMT as an exchange with an American prosecutor during the Einsatzgruppen Trial is highly consequential. It allows O’Reilly and Dugard to pretend that the accusations against the SS are incontrovertible when in fact there is plenty of reason for doubt.

Is this a blunder or a deliberate misrepresentation? I posted something about it on Bill O’Reilly’s Twitter page several months ago but he has never responded.

Read more of my criticisms of this book from CODOH.

The generals should have listened to Hitler!

Hadding — Wed, 23 Jan 2019 09:04:00 +0000

It has long been a facile judgment of semi-informed people that Hitler lost the war in the east because he was a megalomaniac who would not heed the advice of his experienced Prussian generals. “Hitler should have listened to his generals!” However, as the moral obligation to find fault with Hitler fades into the past, eroded by easily available historical truth in the Age of Internet, one begins to hear more and more that wisdom was on the side of Hitler in that disagreement, that Hitler’s strategic plan in Operation Barbarossa was quite sensible, and that it was the generals — specifically Halder and Bock — who fouled up a good plan.

Even with flawless execution of Hitler’s plan, a victory over the Soviet Union would have been remarkable, due to the enormous imbalance of quantities favoring the Soviet side, but it was some generals who made this difficult situation even worse.

Why invade the Soviet Union at all? Contrary to what the old propaganda says, Hitler’s fundamental motive in 1941 was not to gain the Lebensraum about which he had written in 1925. To the extent that people are willing to believe that Hitler undertook an unnecessary invasion of the USSR with the war against Britain still ongoing, they have assumed that Hitler was very foolish. Hitler was not so foolish, and the invasion of the USSR in 1941 was not optional. It was necessary. It had to be done because the Red Army was deployed for attack in 1941, and the best hope for saving the situation was a war of prevention. (See Hitler’s Policy toward the USSR Justified.)

After a lifetime of defying Jewish Bigots, Robert Faurisson dead of a Heart-Attack at age 89

Hadding — Mon, 22 Oct 2018 02:29:00 +0000

The video below, by Vincent Reynouard, shows what was happening in Faurisson’s life the day before he died. The computer-pronunciation of Faurisson’s name in the video below is not quite right. It is FOE-ris-son.

Professor Robert Faurisson was a professor of French literature at the Sorbonne, and later at the University of Lyon. He was a famous scholar in the 1960s because of his work on French authors like Rimbaud. He was sufficiently famous as a literary scholar, in fact, to be invited to appear on French television.

His book about Rimbaud is called A-t-on lu Rimbaud? — Has one read Rimbaud? The emphasis on the word lu (read) in the title meant that people had missed the poet’s meaning because they had not read him carefully.

It was not only poetry that people read with insufficient care. Faurisson, when I visited him in 2000, said that he had conducted a class wherein students were asked to read and interpret news-reports. When people read the news, they often do not remember what they have read, and do not notice contradictions in what they have read, and do not derive the full implications. When the news is read carefully, sometimes the meaning turns out to be completely unclear. Not infrequently, the details buried within an article contradict the title or the first paragraph. With this kind of thing, Faurisson started to get into trouble, because now he was teaching skepticism toward mass-propaganda. The Holocaust was part of that.

Faurisson became interested in the Holocaust in 1960 when he learned that the claims of gassings at Dachau and Buchenwald had been abandoned, according to Martin Broszat of the Institut für Zeitgeschichte in Munich. This was remarkable news, because there had been some so-called witnesses to these alleged gassings, who, now it must be concluded, had lied. What then was the full extent of the lying?

Faurisson spent years researching the question. He traveled to Auschwitz where he questioned officials of the museum and acquired documents, and in 1978 went public with his conclusion that there had been no gassings there. Ultimately he concluded that there was no real evidence for gassings of anybody anywhere by Hitler’s government.

Faurisson told me that the period after he published his conclusion about Auschwitz was very hard, because nobody that he knew accepted his finding. The solitude that he experienced, he said, was like having ice on his heart.

In the mean time he at least found intellectual support among likeminded people around the world, traveling to California to attend the first annual conference of the Institute for Historical Review in 1979.

Faurisson became the architect of Ernst Zündel’s defense in the Canadian False News Trials of 1985, 1988, and 1992, where Zündel was prosecuted for republishing a booklet called Did Six Million Really Die? The defense masterminded by Faurisson, which set out to prove that Zündel had not published “false news” as charged, was earthshaking in its effects. Faurisson was heavily involved in preparing cross-examinations of the prosecution’s witnesses, forcing them to make embarrassing admissions. It was Faurisson who proposed that an expert on gas-executions from the United States, the only country where gassing was used as a method of execution, should be procured as an expert witness for the defense. That expert was Fred Leuchter. It was Faurisson who interviewed Leuchter to determine whether he could be of use to the defense. Faurisson was apprehensive because Leuchter said that he believed in the Holocaust, and with his curly, dark hair Faurisson was concerned that he might be Jewish — but Zündel decided to bet on Leuchter’s professional integrity, and the rest is history.

Faurisson’s reward for seeking the truth consisted of physical attacks by Jews (whom the police would not arrest), endless litigation, and recurring imprisonment. He told me that he did not keep his files at his home, “Because the police could come at any time.” In recent years, the recurring litigation became much more onerous because he had to care for his ailing wife, which he could not do if he were sent to prison. But he never bent under the pressure.

In fact, he even taunted the government. There was a telephone hotline for reporting incidents of Holocaust Denial, and Faurisson would call in to report himself. Whenever Faurisson was put on trial, the courtroom became a forum for him to present his views.

If you can momentarily forget the worst consequences that Faurisson endured, you may find something amusing about a little old man who refuses to stop saying precisely those things that people are most afraid to say and most prohibited from saying. Faurisson’s example of defiance reduced the fears of other people, and the sign of this reduction of fear is laughter. In his last years Faurisson acquired something like a countercultural following among young people in France; in particular he was befriended by the famous mulatto comedian Dieudonné.

I think that we can say that in the end, through persistence, Faurisson won. Suppose that you have the most powerful group of people in the world trying to beat you down, destroy you, or intimidate you any way they can, to shut you up, and you survive to a ripe old age without ever yielding even slightly, while gradually more and more people believe that you are right. That is winning.

He was irritated with some people who did yield under pressure. My girlfriend and I spent five hours with him on that day in August 2000, and a good bit of that time he spent complaining about Mark Weber and David Irving. Weber, as editor of the Journal of Historical Review, seemed to be constantly trying to soften the impact of Faurisson’s articles, which did not please Faurisson at all. He was annoyed with Irving for his lack of rigor, which unfortunately gave some validity to Deborah Lipstadt’s accusation that he was a falsifier of history. The faults that Faurisson noticed in these men eventually became much more evident. Within a decade, both had retreated to the point of endorsing the proposition that some Jews had been gassed. 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.

The following is a general introduction to Holocaust Revisionism. You might have some difficulty with the pronunciation here and there, but it is very worth the effort, if you want to have a good basic knowledge of the subject.

The Holocaustian Propaganda Campaign Against Bashar al-Assad — audio

Hadding — Tue, 10 Apr 2018 14:33:00 +0000

This is a presentation of an article written for CODOH and originally published on 30 June 2017. It can be viewed here.

Important Points

The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum has been heavily involved in agitation for war against the government of Bashar al-Assad. In this activity the USHMM acts in effect as a propaganda-agency for the State of Israel, which has an interest in overthrowing the secular government of Syria, as a continuation of the agenda of “régime change” advocated by Neoconservative Jews in the 1990s, begun with the invasion of Iraq in 2003, and continued with the so-called Arab Spring in 2011.

An early advocate that the government of the United States should take hostile measures against the government of Syria was Peace-Prize Winner Elie Wiesel, at a ceremony of the USHMM in 2012.

President Obama eventually issued his “red line” ultimatum, which was the kind of action, likely to lead to war, that Elie Wiesel had advocated in the Washington Post of 8 June 2012.

From 2012 to 2017 huge quantities of inconclusive evidence were amassed to lend specious credibility to accusations that Bashar al-Assad was a monster who gassed his own people. This supposed evidence consisted of thousands of photographs of unidentified dead people, and horror-stories told by people hostile to President Assad. A moderately skeptical person could recognize that this so-called evidence did not really prove wrongdoing by Assad’s government. The USHMM however was heavily involved in promoting this so-called evidence, which happens to be the same kind of evidence used to generate spurious belief in the Holocaust.

Russia Today on 30 October 2014 explicitly accused the USHMM of using the Holocaust to drum up a war against the Syrian government.

In early 2017, a group of 90 rabbis, citing the now deceased Elie Wiesel as their moral inspiration, sent a letter to President Trump advocating airstrikes against Syrian airbases. This was subsequently advocated by Hillary Clinton and finally executed by President Trump.

Subsequently, there was a ceremony held by the USHMM in the Capitol, where the Israeli Ambassador to the United States, Ron Dermer, amid a flood of moralizing rhetoric about so-called lessons of the Holocaust, praised President Trump for his missile-attack on Syria.

Marcel Nadjari’s Message in a Bottle: another ridiculous attempt to salvage the Holocaust

Hadding — Sat, 02 Dec 2017 14:21:00 +0000

A thirteen-page letter written by Marcel Nadjari and buried near Krema III at Birkenau, where he allegedly worked in a Sonderkommando, has now been rendered legible, and is being hailed as a central document of the Holocaust.

The content of the letter, however, destroys its credibility. The impossible details include:

(1) packing 3000 people into a “gas-chamber” of only 2260 square feet;
(2) flammable human corpses that need no fuel for cremation (because the fat on them burns);
(3) cremated human remains that weigh only 1.41 lbs (when a realistic figure is about 5 lbs);
(4) dumping a thousand tons of crushed bone into the River Vistula without leaving a trace.

And this is now said to be one of “the most central documents of the Holocaust”!

Read more.