Gosh, so many words to basically deny what really happened--and they elicit comments from ignoramuses who perpetuate anti-Jewish and anti-Israel ideas--just because some murder numbers were wrong! Was Eisenhower lying? Should Oscar Schindler not have bothered to rescue Jews, since the Holocaust was supposedly a myth? What’s your next series going to be about, how the Turks didn’t slaughter the Armenians, or how Stalin didn’t starve Ukraine? How about an expose about Harriet Beecher Stowe’s assertions of slavery conditions in Uncle Tom? I guess writers have to prattle on about things, to make a living.
Interesting interpretation. I think he's using so many words more to state a case that historical narratives are greatly simplified and their popular interpretation is entirely dependent on current social/political beliefs and opportunities…
Kinda like that Norm McDonald joke: "It says here in this history book that, luckily, the good guys have won every single time. What are the odds?" , but more verbose. 🤓
When "so many words" are dedicated to surveying 20 years of human historical and cultural output to come up with like 2 things about the Holocaust that weren't military or government-associated, do not blame me for the results. This is what happened. If you can not produce any amount of words contradicting the facts, then you have nothing to offer but your hurt feelings.
Not so much, because proof from military & government sources shouldn’t be automatically disqualified by you. Case in point, my unanswered question about Eisenhower & soldiers (military)—did they lie about what they found?
Figures from the April 28 1945 Buchenwald Army report are arguably of fair accuracy. This is still the era when pen-and-paper records seem more competent than what we can pull off today.
So you have a reported 4,000 Jews at Buchenwald out of a total 20,000 rescued prisoners. 4,000 Jews is the same number wikipedia currently thinks were sent to Gurs by the French before being conquered in 1939. So this isn't really supportive of the comic-book narrative. Of course you have to try to estimate how many died vs. survived compared to non-Jewish prisoners, given reported differences in treatment, but really (since none of these were likely German Jews), you're better off basing estimates off of other proxies, i.e. how many Jews did France Holland etc. seem to round up and turn in to Nazi overseers, what are estimated depletions in the population. The military report of numbers alive on April 28 doesn't tell you how to interpret the report of numbers recently dead (~6k of all prisoners per month) or extrapolate it to before winter 44/45. If you want to do history-ing you need to look elsewhere.
Beyond that, things get less obviously reliable. Gas chambers aren't even mentioned in the first report from Buchenwald, but at Dachau suddenly there's chambers on either side of the crematorium (seems like a dangerous design) with the shower-head design; and it's not clear that there's any more mediation of testimony (vs. the news just printing whatever wild tale someone mailed to somebody). At Buchenwald Eisenhower seems to have assembled a table of human artifacts. Maybe this was real (it's not exactly weird if in all of Germany, the people with freakish interests sought out jobs as camp overseers; it happens everywhere), or maybe Eisenhower just brought a suitcase of silly objects to put on a table for propaganda. Again the work of history-ing begins with looking outside of the camp to understand what to think of the April 28 report.
Brian: At this point it seems like you’re letting clerical minutiae about historical records run away with your prodigious intellect. Eisenhower would be the last person to take “silly” human artifacts to exaggerate Nazi barbarity. Nazism’s atrocities cannot be exaggerated. What’s next, your expose of how benign was Japan’s ten year domination of China, before the USA kicked their Imperial ass? Truth be told, some of Communist China’s current regional ambitions are their way of ensuring “never again” to Japanese power.
In other news, I’ll respond to your red herring argument about gas chambers if I can locate it again--this app is murder to navigate!
Well there you go - Chang's "Rape of Nanking: The Forgotten Holocaust" proved to be borderline fiction, and as befits spectacular morbid fiction the author committed suicide in dramatic SoCal fashion [eta: this was wrong - it turns out she was on the 17 to Santa Cruz, more of a David Lynch energy] a few years after publication.
I cannot easily perceive the logic behind your Eisenhower Scouts' Honor intuition. Sure, his life doesn't seem as obviously sordid as MacArthur's, but I'm still not going to leave my laptop near him when I go to the bathroom. His eyes are weird. America had no business in Europe seeing to the vanquishing and subduing of any particular conquering race, morally repugnant or otherwise. A true patriot should have taken his troops to chillax on a beach somewhere.
Unfortunately General Patton did not live long enough to write his memoirs. He did not agree with Eisenhower or Churchill. But yes, I think Eisenhower lied about the camps. You should look into what happened to the Germans after the war. It was horrible, so it is hard to find information about it. But it is out there for those who dig.
KenKrypto: There’s a lot to unpack in your reply! What did Patton disagree with, images of bodies & starved prisoners? Or military tactics--everyone knows Churchill wasn’t a masterful tactician.
The Germans after the war--I must’ve been educated on another planet during the 1960-70’s, because that’s nothing new to me. Or maybe American schools obliterated this part of history, aided by Silicon Oligarchs censoring the info.
Back to the point, Germans paid the high price for allowing Nazism, by having half of their nation dominated & brainwashed by the Soviet Union from 1949-1990.
As for Allied atrocities during and after WWII, we have to recognize what total war actually is. Same with Imperial Japan; I await with bated breath those who will gainsay the way America conquered Japan. Nuking two cities was part of total war.
*Is* it nothing new? This is a difficult topic to argue about because the dissonance between discrete mainstream knowledge and the comic-book narrative is so great - two people can know the same thing, and yet one considers the other a "denialist" or "minimizer" for pointing out that the fact of the thing demonstrates a problem with how most people understand the Holocaust. So here, the example is that even wikipedia can tell us that after Yalta and Potsdam the Allies executed a system of refusing to acknowledge captured Germans as POWs, to house them in open-air camps, to ship some number off to Russia to not be seen again for decades, to use them in the low-lands to clear (German) mines with thousands of injuries and deaths, in seriousness you cannot say that "everyone knows" this is what the Allies did. Just like most people have never heard about Dresden or Tokyo. There is a huge gap. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_labor_of_Germans_after_World_War_II
Not at all! Notice I said anti-Jewish and ant-Israel, not anti-semitic. Arabs are Semites too, but we forget. So many things get forgotten these days.
Your YouTube video simply says that criticizing Israeli policies & politics isn’t inherently anti-Jewish. I totally agree. No government is perfect, and citizens must be allowed free political speech.
Amy Goodman and Shumalit Aloni both used the term antisemitic in the YouTube video. Is not claiming "antisemitism" a ploy to restrict "free speech?" Simply questioning the Holocaust for example will get you labeled antisemitic. If one states uncomfortable truths about Jews they are labeled antisemitic. No one wants that label applied to them so most steer away from these things. Just like getting labeled a conspiracy theorist will get you associated with those crazy truthers.
So which is it? Free speech, or free speech as long as it is not revealing of an uncomfortable truth about Jews?
Sorry I didn’t agree clearly enough. It has to be completely free political speech to be at all free. I remember when the Soviets freed Anatoly Scharansky. Once in Israel he availed himself of freedom to participate politically in that republic. But in short order, the forces you allude to came against now-Natan Scharansky as if he’d bitten the hand that fed him.
America’s current Globalist leaders have a similar convention--ESG rules, social engineering policies, weakening the currency etc--which cronies dare not oppose.
Thanks for teaching me a new law--I had to look up Poe’s! Well, I’m being factual & serious; the proof is that I didn’t include a winky.
The more familiar parry would be to accuse me of using Uncle Tom in a strawman argument. But oppression of American slaves is analogous to the oppression of Jews under Nazism. Not in every detail, and that’s another story.
Jon: Why? Because when righteous action is needed to keep evil in its place, the time for academicians is over. When it’s time to galvanize a people toward a noble goal which will cost lives and treasure, stories are essential. Legend says that Lincoln greeted Harriet Beecher Stowe with "So you are the little woman who wrote the book that started this great war” and do we have to quibble whether he said exactly that, or if her novel wasn’t statistically correct--that’s why Mowrey’s dwelling on whether 1, 2, or 4 million Jews died in one Nazi camp. Academics are not men of action.
> Reitlinger disputes the notion that 4,000,000 prisoners were somehow killed at Auschwitz, whereas mainstream Holocaustiography asserted this outlandish figure until it was conspicuously revised downward in 1992
That statement is false. Raul Hilberg was always in agreement with Gerald Reitlinger over the issue. The four million figure was maintained on a plaque by the Auschwitz Musuem in Soviet Poland. But it was not something commonly held by Western academics. The fall of the Berlin Wall was more conspicuous than the change of the plaque at Auschwitz. But try finding any place where Christopher Browning or Richard Evans ever maintained the four million number.
Rabinowitz and Taylor, in their 1979 "How we know it" book spurred by the President's Commission, tally 4,252,000 deaths in Poland and other eastern realms (p 2), and disqualify the Einsatzgruppen from being able to generate such a terrible figure in the chapter "The Death Factories" (p 21) -- so there is a dissonance between the, yes, more realistic work of Hilberg/Reitlinger/Arendt and this renegade "official" history that emerges in the 1970s. It isn't truly academic but it is still institutional, not just the plaque in Soviet Poland.
We were all indoctrinated with the Holocaust and stories of gas chambers proven by Fred Leuchter to not exist. We have been bombarded over and over with the myth of 6 million with no proof other than eyewitnesses, who are proven to be unreliable. Any thinking person that tries to put a pencil to the numbers will realize the impossibility of the number. But the myth persists. But the atrocities committed by the allies after the war are almost unknown.
A treatise on censorship. We are subject to weaponized language. Awareness of it defangs it's potency. Terms like misinformation, conspiracy theory, vax denier and so on. These terms aim to restrict discourse. In some cases "rules" are backed by threat of trial and punishment.
Great analysis but I guess it's much simpler than that. Besides Hilberg's book in 1961, the sixties were the time of the Nazi death camp trials: the Eichmann trial, the Auschwitz trial in Frankfurt, the Sobibor trial, the Belzec trial, the Treblinka trials, they all took place in the 1960s. These trials launched the modern Holocaust story.
It appear to me that "Holocaust" is a word chosen by Jews to advance the idea that what happened to them (and them alone) during WW2 is a novel and uniquely evil, the worst crime ever.
It is not. Deicide is; in fact, it is literally impossible to think of a graver crime.
In typology, holocaust in the Old Testament:
The Holocausts were sacrifices: See Catholic Encyclopedia:
(a) Among the various classes of bloody sacrifice, the burnt offering takes the first place. It is called both the “ascent sacrifice” (‘õlah) and the “holocaust” (kâlil);... Septuagint holokautoma; in Philo, holokauston), because the whole victim — with the exception of the hip muscle and the hide — is made through fire to ascend to God in smoke and vapour (see HOLOCAUST)... As the “ever enduring” sacrifice, it had to be offered twice daily, in the morning and in the evening (cf. Exodus 29:38 sqq.; Leviticus 6:9 sqq.; Numbers 28:3 sqq., etc.). As the sacrifice of adoration par excellence, it included in itself all other species of sacrifice. [Concerning the altar, see ALTAR (IN SCRIPTURE).]
(b) The idea of expiation received especially forcible expression in the expiatory sacrifices, of which two classes were distinguished, the sin and the guilt-offering. The distinction between these lies in the fact that the former was concerned rather with the absolution of the person from sin (expiatio), the latter rather with the making of satisfaction for the injury done (satisfactio).
Turning first to the sin-offering (sacrificium pro peccato, chattath), we find that, according to the Law, not all ethical delinquencies could be expiated by it. Excluded from expiation were all deliberate crimes or “sins with raised hand”, which involved a breech of the covenant and drew upon the transgressor as punishment ejection from among the people because he had “been rebellious against the Lord” (Numbers 15:30 sq.). ... The usual and best sacrificial portions of the victims (pieces of fat, kidneys, lobes of the liver) were then burned on the altar of burnt-offerings, and the remainder of the victim eaten by the priests as sacred food in the outer court of the sanctuary (Leviticus 6:18 sq.). Should any of the blood have been brought into the sanctuary, the flesh had to be brought to the ash-heap and there likewise burned (Leviticus 4:1 sqq.; 6:24 sqq.).
The guilt-offering (sacrificium pro delicto, asham) was specially appointed for sins and transgressions demanding restitution, whether the material interests of the sanctuary or those of private persons were injured — e.g. by misappropriating gifts to the sanctuary, defrauding one’s neighbour, retaining the property of another, etc. (cf. Leviticus 5:15 sqq.; 6:2 sq.; Numbers 5:6 sqq.), The material restitution was reckoned at one-fifth higher than the loss inflicted (six fifths had thus to be paid). In addition, a guilt-sacrifice had to be offered, consisting of a ram sacrificed at the north side of the altar. The blood was sprinkled in a circle around the altar, on which the fatty portions were burnt; the rest of the flesh as sacrosanct was eaten by the priests in the holy place (Leviticus 7:1 sqq.).
(c) The third class of bloody sacrifice embraced the “peace offerings” (victima pacifica, shelamim), which were sub-divided into three classes: the sacrifice of thanks or praise, the sacrifice in fulfilment of a vow, and entirely voluntary offerings. The peace sacrifices in general were distinguished by two characteristics:
(i) the remarkable ceremony of “wave” and “heave”;
(ii) the communal sacrificial meal held in connexion with them.
All animals allowed for sacrifice (even female) might be used and, in the case of entirely “voluntary sacrifices”, even such animals as were not quite without defects (Leviticus 22:23). Until the act of sprinkling the blood the rites were the same as in the burnt-sacrifice, except that the slaying did not necessarily take place at the north side of the altar (Leviticus 3:1 sqq.; 7:11 sqq.). The usual portions of fat had, as in the case of the sacrifice of expiation, to be burned on the altar. In the cutting up of the victim, however, the breast and the right shoulder (Septuagint brachion; Vulgate armus) had to be first separately severed, and the ceremony of “wave” (tenupha) and “heave” (teruma) performed with them. According to Talmudic tradition the “wave” was performed as follows: the priest placed the breast of the victim on the hands of the offerer, and then, having placed his own hands under those of this person, moved them backward and forward in token of the reciprocity in giving and receiving between God and the offerer. With the right shoulder the same ceremony was then performed, except that the “heave” or “teruma” consisted in an upward and downward movement. The breast and shoulder used in these ceremonies fell to the share of the priests, who might consume them in a “clean place” (Leviticus 10:14). They also received a loaf from the supplementary food-offering (Leviticus 7:14). The offerer assembled his friends at a common meal on the same day to consume in the vicinity of the sanctuary the flesh remaining after the sacrifice. Levitically clean guests, especially the Levites and the poor, were admitted (Deuteronomy 16:11; Leviticus 19 sqq.), and wine was freely drunk at this meal. Whatever remained of a sacrifice of thanksgiving or praise had to be burned on the following day; only in the case of the vowed and entirely voluntary sacrifices might the remainder be eaten on the second succeeding day, but all that thereafter remained had to be burned on the third day (Leviticus 7:15 sqq.; 19:6 sqq.). The idea of the peace-offering centres in the Divine friendship and the participation at the Divine table, inasmuch as the offerers, as guests and table-companions, participated in a certain manner in the sacrifice to the Lord. But, on account of this Divine friendship, when all three classes of sacrifice were combined, the sacrifice of expiation usually preceded the burnt-offering, and the latter the peace-offering.
In addition to the periodical sacrifices just described, the Mosaic Law recognized other extraordinary sacrifices, which must at least be mentioned. To these belong the sacrifice offered but once on the occasion of the conclusion of the Sinaitic covenant (Exodus 24:4 sqq.), those occurring at the consecration of the priests and Levites (Exodus 29:1 sqq.; Leviticus 8; Numbers 8:5 sqq.) and certain occasional sacrifices, such as the sacrifice of purification of a healed leper (Leviticus 14:1 sqq.), the sacrifice of the red cow (Numbers 19:1 sqq.), the sacrifice of jealousy (Numbers 5:12 sqq.), and the sacrifice of the Nazirites (Numbers 6:9 sqq.). On account of its extraordinary character one might include the yearly sacrifice of the paschal lamb (Exodus 12:3 sqq.; Deuteronomy 16:1 sqq.) and that of the two he-goats on the Day of Atonement (Leviticus 16:1 sqq.) among this class. With the appearance of the Messias, the entire Mosaic sacrificial system was, according to the view of the Rabbis, to come to an end, as in fact it did after the destruction of the Temple by Titus (A.D. 70). Concerning the sacrificial persons see PRIESTHOOD.
++++++++++++++++
Were the crimes committed against the Jews (and them alone) in World War Two a holocaust?
Well, if you think Germans were a race of priests killing Jews as a act of worship, and if you think that after they sacrificed the Jews the Germans ate them then, sure, it was a holocaust.
Informative and interesting Brian. I had something to say but the sewer of the comments made me forget it all. Not sure if you are legitimately attracting a new kind of crazies or if this is astroturfed to make discussion impossible, either way good article.
Jul 2, 2023·edited Jul 2, 2023Liked by Brian Mowrey
I was in public school in the US throughout the 1960s, in a small city in northern NJ. Maybe 15-20% of my classmates were Jewish. We celebrated Jewish holidays as well as Christian then and I don't recall a single bigoted remark addressed to my Jewish peers. You'd have been regarded as insane if you'd started nattering about the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion", at least in that place.
In the mid to late 60s no one in my little world ever used the term "Holocaust". It wasn't a thing. What was a thing was desegregation, and the Vietnam War. That was all over the place.
But one day in 1965 a Jewish friend brought in a book (this was the 5th grade) called something like "Never Again". It got passed around amongst us without the teacher's knowledge. It was full of photos of dead and dying concentration camp inmates. It was almost the worst thing I've ever seen (except for the post Labor Day National Enquirer that one kid brought in that year. Back in those days the Enquirer was printing photos of the gruesome blood-and-guts of car wrecks in Labor Day traffic. That may be tied with "Never Again" for imprint on young minds.)
But nowhere in the book on the atrocities of the Nazis did the term "Holocaust appear. That seems to have arisen after the end of the Vietnam War. My best friend's mother had escaped Hitler and come to the US. I never heard her talk about a Holocaust. She didn't need to.
My earliest indelible memory of Holocaust content is Seinfeld 5:19... As a kid what shook me were the macabre little Christian comics, especially the one where the dad puts off buying shoes and his daughter cuts her foot and dies.
The Holocaust narrative was formulated long before any forensic investigation ever took place. Simply questioning anything about the "official" narrative would result in scorn and claims of antisemitism. This terminology is much like "conspiracy theory" which is used to effectively shut down discussion about certain "taboo" topics. I call this "weaponized language."
Fred Arthur Leuchter Jr. conducted the first serious forensic evaluation of Auschwitz in 1988. He was a known execution technology expert having built a career in the execution industry. Leuchter was a staunch believer in the Holocaust narrative as were we all. However after reviewing the site and performing some tests, he concluded that the so called gas chambers were unfit for the stated purpose. Also, the crematoriums on the site could not possibly have kept up with the claimed number of "executions."
The Red Cross periodically visited the concentration camps and estimated that around 277,000 inmates perished in the camps. Far fewer than the 6 million claimed. Most of the deaths were attributed to typhus, a disease that plagued the theater during war time.
Fred Leuchter speaks about his findings in this short clip.
The gas chambers meme has a sort of "lip my stockings" energy to it. In Schindler's List it's the primary shibboleth which must be alluded to, but not portrayed. The logistics of using gas for bulk execution would manifest as silly and implausible if one made a sincere attempt at reconstruction - you could imagine the punchline, "do you want me to genocide you or not?!" being expressed in exasperation by the end of it. Meanwhile, as noted in my other comment, the US was concurrently and openly using gas chambers for execution of individual prisoners in the War years.
Jul 2, 2023·edited Jul 2, 2023Liked by Brian Mowrey
to make sense of whats going on today, got to know history, otherwise nothing makes sense ... but if you know, all connects together and whats happening in america is a logical conclusion ... same tactics, same things always. knowledge is very important and that is why mass media, universities, are always a target and key. that is why libraries have always been burned, or in the case of constandinople (istanbul) still not open to this day.
re: the Holocaust revival in the 70s -- part of this is the experience of having to explain to your born post-war teen-aged children what it was that happened.
The parallels with conversations parents had to undertake after the George Floyd video are probably substantial (after all that's the whole thesis of this series). It seems to happen less in the reverse direction, e.g. "why did you just go along with this sudden new normal that came out of nowhere," on subjects like giving kids 15 vaccines every two weeks etc.
Hitler was elected by the German people. They put him in power. He created a currency based on credit certificates for labor.
The Russian Revolution, more accurately stated, The Bolshevik Revolution was financed by international bankers. Jacob Schiff was head of the New York investment firm Kuhn, Loeb and Co. He was one of the principal backers of the Bolshevik revolution. Other funds came from London, New York and Germany.
Who financed Hitler? Edwin and Helene Bechstein, part of a rich aristocratic family who sold pianos, supported Hitler financially. The Ruhr steel barons Fritz Thyssen and Gustav Krupp donated almost five million Reichsmarks to the Nazi Party over the course of the war.
A bogus quotation that’s been circulating on Facebook recently with a picture of Twain was a new addition to his list of fakes. It says: “If voting made any difference they wouldn’t let us do it.”
Hirst is the curator of the Mark Twain Papers at the University of California, Berkeley, and when asked if that quotation was accurate, he said “absolutely not.”
In any case, is there any evidence that Hitler was selected? None that I have seen. He was a passionate supporter of the German people. And the people responded in kind. If you have evidence to the contrary, please share it.
Trump is a staunch supporter of the American people. Hillary was selected but Trump won in 2016. Of course those who rig elections realized their mistake and doubled down in 2020 after TPTB rolled out the plandemic hoax.
Hitler a small time crook? Are you referring to his attempted coup? Did he participate in any other criminal activities other than the coup? A failed political stunt does not make Hitler a "small time crook."
You know Hitler was a war time hero, decorated many times for bravery. Your characterization of Hitler does not ring true. And Schacht may have supported Hitler's efforts. But to claim he was behind the economic miracle lacks convincing evidence.
Did you know that operation Warpspeed predated the Trump administration? Trump made it public, but he did not originate it. It was a DOD operation. Sasha Latypova and Katherine Watt cover that on their Substack Channels.
The point I made was about Hitler. I only mentioned Trump in response to your vote comment. So you can tell me how Trump won election if Hillary was selected? Let's get back on topic.
The Ernst Zundel trial provided the best evidence against the Holocaust. The forensic examination disproved the Holocaust narrative, it being impossible to have occurred the way we have been led to believe.
I may get around to him. I'm more interested in the meta aspect at this point - has the subject been approached as history or as myth. But a look at his wikipedia, it's funny that someone can be called a "neo-Nazi" and simultaneously condemned for denying that the Nazis sought to "systemically etc. etc." Like being a "neo-plantationist" for arguing there was no slavery in the plantations, what would that even mean.
Ernst has a lengthy video on Bitchute where he covers Hitler's art. When you see what a sensitive artist Hitler was, it is hard to believe he was a psychopathic murderer.
KenKrypto: This statement is pregnant with implications: “When you see what a sensitive artist Hitler was, it is hard to believe he was a psychopathic murderer.”
Similarly, Anthony Burgess explored in A Clockwork Orange how the sociopathic character enjoyed music by “Ludwig van”--and in the movie we were regaled by violent crime scenes with Beethoven on the soundtrack.
Enjoying music is not the same as creating art, like painting watercolors.
Hitler liked the arts. His favorite composer was Wagner.
You want to believe Hitler was a demon. I understand that. I myself believed it once. But I have since evaluated forensic evidence.
The desire to paint Hitler as a mass murderer is very strong. However the evidence is nonexistant.
Firmly held beliefs are hard to change. Try convincing a globe believer that the Earth is flat. The evidence supports flat Earth, but few even bother to look into it.
Last comment from me since I said goodbye a moment ago. Everyone knows that Wagner’s was empire-building music; it’s no surprise Hitler loved it. And the same goes for the architecture Hitler commissioned--every wannabe Caesar has his way to get his grandeur across.
Empire building is a long way from murdering or genocide. The US went about empire building. And Confessions of an Economic Hitman details how we did it. Hitler is a prince by comparison.
KenKrypto: There, you said it. I couldn’t bring myself to ask. But now you publicly say that Hitler wasn’t a murderer. And you continue by asserting that Americans didn’t land on the Moon. All that plus your Flat Earth comment makes me say goodbye.
The art school that rejected Hitler was known for pornagrophers that infiltrated Berlin between the wars. Google images for Hitler's,'s art. High quality digital images are free for the taking.
Hitler was good at architectureal art. And new to me was his graphic arts skills.
Questioning the "event" will land you in prison in 17 countries. So the question becomes; do those willing to fight for truth and risk the wrath of the state have more or less credibility than the censors, who risk nothing?
Gosh, so many words to basically deny what really happened--and they elicit comments from ignoramuses who perpetuate anti-Jewish and anti-Israel ideas--just because some murder numbers were wrong! Was Eisenhower lying? Should Oscar Schindler not have bothered to rescue Jews, since the Holocaust was supposedly a myth? What’s your next series going to be about, how the Turks didn’t slaughter the Armenians, or how Stalin didn’t starve Ukraine? How about an expose about Harriet Beecher Stowe’s assertions of slavery conditions in Uncle Tom? I guess writers have to prattle on about things, to make a living.
Interesting interpretation. I think he's using so many words more to state a case that historical narratives are greatly simplified and their popular interpretation is entirely dependent on current social/political beliefs and opportunities…
Kinda like that Norm McDonald joke: "It says here in this history book that, luckily, the good guys have won every single time. What are the odds?" , but more verbose. 🤓
When "so many words" are dedicated to surveying 20 years of human historical and cultural output to come up with like 2 things about the Holocaust that weren't military or government-associated, do not blame me for the results. This is what happened. If you can not produce any amount of words contradicting the facts, then you have nothing to offer but your hurt feelings.
Not so much, because proof from military & government sources shouldn’t be automatically disqualified by you. Case in point, my unanswered question about Eisenhower & soldiers (military)—did they lie about what they found?
Figures from the April 28 1945 Buchenwald Army report are arguably of fair accuracy. This is still the era when pen-and-paper records seem more competent than what we can pull off today.
So you have a reported 4,000 Jews at Buchenwald out of a total 20,000 rescued prisoners. 4,000 Jews is the same number wikipedia currently thinks were sent to Gurs by the French before being conquered in 1939. So this isn't really supportive of the comic-book narrative. Of course you have to try to estimate how many died vs. survived compared to non-Jewish prisoners, given reported differences in treatment, but really (since none of these were likely German Jews), you're better off basing estimates off of other proxies, i.e. how many Jews did France Holland etc. seem to round up and turn in to Nazi overseers, what are estimated depletions in the population. The military report of numbers alive on April 28 doesn't tell you how to interpret the report of numbers recently dead (~6k of all prisoners per month) or extrapolate it to before winter 44/45. If you want to do history-ing you need to look elsewhere.
Beyond that, things get less obviously reliable. Gas chambers aren't even mentioned in the first report from Buchenwald, but at Dachau suddenly there's chambers on either side of the crematorium (seems like a dangerous design) with the shower-head design; and it's not clear that there's any more mediation of testimony (vs. the news just printing whatever wild tale someone mailed to somebody). At Buchenwald Eisenhower seems to have assembled a table of human artifacts. Maybe this was real (it's not exactly weird if in all of Germany, the people with freakish interests sought out jobs as camp overseers; it happens everywhere), or maybe Eisenhower just brought a suitcase of silly objects to put on a table for propaganda. Again the work of history-ing begins with looking outside of the camp to understand what to think of the April 28 report.
Brian: At this point it seems like you’re letting clerical minutiae about historical records run away with your prodigious intellect. Eisenhower would be the last person to take “silly” human artifacts to exaggerate Nazi barbarity. Nazism’s atrocities cannot be exaggerated. What’s next, your expose of how benign was Japan’s ten year domination of China, before the USA kicked their Imperial ass? Truth be told, some of Communist China’s current regional ambitions are their way of ensuring “never again” to Japanese power.
In other news, I’ll respond to your red herring argument about gas chambers if I can locate it again--this app is murder to navigate!
Well there you go - Chang's "Rape of Nanking: The Forgotten Holocaust" proved to be borderline fiction, and as befits spectacular morbid fiction the author committed suicide in dramatic SoCal fashion [eta: this was wrong - it turns out she was on the 17 to Santa Cruz, more of a David Lynch energy] a few years after publication.
I cannot easily perceive the logic behind your Eisenhower Scouts' Honor intuition. Sure, his life doesn't seem as obviously sordid as MacArthur's, but I'm still not going to leave my laptop near him when I go to the bathroom. His eyes are weird. America had no business in Europe seeing to the vanquishing and subduing of any particular conquering race, morally repugnant or otherwise. A true patriot should have taken his troops to chillax on a beach somewhere.
Unfortunately General Patton did not live long enough to write his memoirs. He did not agree with Eisenhower or Churchill. But yes, I think Eisenhower lied about the camps. You should look into what happened to the Germans after the war. It was horrible, so it is hard to find information about it. But it is out there for those who dig.
KenKrypto: There’s a lot to unpack in your reply! What did Patton disagree with, images of bodies & starved prisoners? Or military tactics--everyone knows Churchill wasn’t a masterful tactician.
The Germans after the war--I must’ve been educated on another planet during the 1960-70’s, because that’s nothing new to me. Or maybe American schools obliterated this part of history, aided by Silicon Oligarchs censoring the info.
Back to the point, Germans paid the high price for allowing Nazism, by having half of their nation dominated & brainwashed by the Soviet Union from 1949-1990.
As for Allied atrocities during and after WWII, we have to recognize what total war actually is. Same with Imperial Japan; I await with bated breath those who will gainsay the way America conquered Japan. Nuking two cities was part of total war.
*Is* it nothing new? This is a difficult topic to argue about because the dissonance between discrete mainstream knowledge and the comic-book narrative is so great - two people can know the same thing, and yet one considers the other a "denialist" or "minimizer" for pointing out that the fact of the thing demonstrates a problem with how most people understand the Holocaust. So here, the example is that even wikipedia can tell us that after Yalta and Potsdam the Allies executed a system of refusing to acknowledge captured Germans as POWs, to house them in open-air camps, to ship some number off to Russia to not be seen again for decades, to use them in the low-lands to clear (German) mines with thousands of injuries and deaths, in seriousness you cannot say that "everyone knows" this is what the Allies did. Just like most people have never heard about Dresden or Tokyo. There is a huge gap. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_labor_of_Germans_after_World_War_II
Playing the antisemetic card?
https://youtu.be/LLbtu0-mgvw
Not at all! Notice I said anti-Jewish and ant-Israel, not anti-semitic. Arabs are Semites too, but we forget. So many things get forgotten these days.
Your YouTube video simply says that criticizing Israeli policies & politics isn’t inherently anti-Jewish. I totally agree. No government is perfect, and citizens must be allowed free political speech.
Amy Goodman and Shumalit Aloni both used the term antisemitic in the YouTube video. Is not claiming "antisemitism" a ploy to restrict "free speech?" Simply questioning the Holocaust for example will get you labeled antisemitic. If one states uncomfortable truths about Jews they are labeled antisemitic. No one wants that label applied to them so most steer away from these things. Just like getting labeled a conspiracy theorist will get you associated with those crazy truthers.
So which is it? Free speech, or free speech as long as it is not revealing of an uncomfortable truth about Jews?
Sorry I didn’t agree clearly enough. It has to be completely free political speech to be at all free. I remember when the Soviets freed Anatoly Scharansky. Once in Israel he availed himself of freedom to participate politically in that republic. But in short order, the forces you allude to came against now-Natan Scharansky as if he’d bitten the hand that fed him.
America’s current Globalist leaders have a similar convention--ESG rules, social engineering policies, weakening the currency etc--which cronies dare not oppose.
Thanks for teaching me a new law--I had to look up Poe’s! Well, I’m being factual & serious; the proof is that I didn’t include a winky.
The more familiar parry would be to accuse me of using Uncle Tom in a strawman argument. But oppression of American slaves is analogous to the oppression of Jews under Nazism. Not in every detail, and that’s another story.
Jon: Why? Because when righteous action is needed to keep evil in its place, the time for academicians is over. When it’s time to galvanize a people toward a noble goal which will cost lives and treasure, stories are essential. Legend says that Lincoln greeted Harriet Beecher Stowe with "So you are the little woman who wrote the book that started this great war” and do we have to quibble whether he said exactly that, or if her novel wasn’t statistically correct--that’s why Mowrey’s dwelling on whether 1, 2, or 4 million Jews died in one Nazi camp. Academics are not men of action.
> Reitlinger disputes the notion that 4,000,000 prisoners were somehow killed at Auschwitz, whereas mainstream Holocaustiography asserted this outlandish figure until it was conspicuously revised downward in 1992
That statement is false. Raul Hilberg was always in agreement with Gerald Reitlinger over the issue. The four million figure was maintained on a plaque by the Auschwitz Musuem in Soviet Poland. But it was not something commonly held by Western academics. The fall of the Berlin Wall was more conspicuous than the change of the plaque at Auschwitz. But try finding any place where Christopher Browning or Richard Evans ever maintained the four million number.
Rabinowitz and Taylor, in their 1979 "How we know it" book spurred by the President's Commission, tally 4,252,000 deaths in Poland and other eastern realms (p 2), and disqualify the Einsatzgruppen from being able to generate such a terrible figure in the chapter "The Death Factories" (p 21) -- so there is a dissonance between the, yes, more realistic work of Hilberg/Reitlinger/Arendt and this renegade "official" history that emerges in the 1970s. It isn't truly academic but it is still institutional, not just the plaque in Soviet Poland.
https://open.substack.com/pub/kenkrypto/p/conflicting-historical-narratives?r=4qa41&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
We were all indoctrinated with the Holocaust and stories of gas chambers proven by Fred Leuchter to not exist. We have been bombarded over and over with the myth of 6 million with no proof other than eyewitnesses, who are proven to be unreliable. Any thinking person that tries to put a pencil to the numbers will realize the impossibility of the number. But the myth persists. But the atrocities committed by the allies after the war are almost unknown.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/jMBJtPcgqf2H/
A treatise on censorship. We are subject to weaponized language. Awareness of it defangs it's potency. Terms like misinformation, conspiracy theory, vax denier and so on. These terms aim to restrict discourse. In some cases "rules" are backed by threat of trial and punishment.
https://open.substack.com/pub/sashalatypova/p/select-subcommittee-report-on-cisa?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=4qa41
Great analysis but I guess it's much simpler than that. Besides Hilberg's book in 1961, the sixties were the time of the Nazi death camp trials: the Eichmann trial, the Auschwitz trial in Frankfurt, the Sobibor trial, the Belzec trial, the Treblinka trials, they all took place in the 1960s. These trials launched the modern Holocaust story.
"Truth does not fear investigation."
It appear to me that "Holocaust" is a word chosen by Jews to advance the idea that what happened to them (and them alone) during WW2 is a novel and uniquely evil, the worst crime ever.
It is not. Deicide is; in fact, it is literally impossible to think of a graver crime.
In typology, holocaust in the Old Testament:
The Holocausts were sacrifices: See Catholic Encyclopedia:
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13309a.htm
Different categories of the bloody sacrifices
(a) Among the various classes of bloody sacrifice, the burnt offering takes the first place. It is called both the “ascent sacrifice” (‘õlah) and the “holocaust” (kâlil);... Septuagint holokautoma; in Philo, holokauston), because the whole victim — with the exception of the hip muscle and the hide — is made through fire to ascend to God in smoke and vapour (see HOLOCAUST)... As the “ever enduring” sacrifice, it had to be offered twice daily, in the morning and in the evening (cf. Exodus 29:38 sqq.; Leviticus 6:9 sqq.; Numbers 28:3 sqq., etc.). As the sacrifice of adoration par excellence, it included in itself all other species of sacrifice. [Concerning the altar, see ALTAR (IN SCRIPTURE).]
(b) The idea of expiation received especially forcible expression in the expiatory sacrifices, of which two classes were distinguished, the sin and the guilt-offering. The distinction between these lies in the fact that the former was concerned rather with the absolution of the person from sin (expiatio), the latter rather with the making of satisfaction for the injury done (satisfactio).
Turning first to the sin-offering (sacrificium pro peccato, chattath), we find that, according to the Law, not all ethical delinquencies could be expiated by it. Excluded from expiation were all deliberate crimes or “sins with raised hand”, which involved a breech of the covenant and drew upon the transgressor as punishment ejection from among the people because he had “been rebellious against the Lord” (Numbers 15:30 sq.). ... The usual and best sacrificial portions of the victims (pieces of fat, kidneys, lobes of the liver) were then burned on the altar of burnt-offerings, and the remainder of the victim eaten by the priests as sacred food in the outer court of the sanctuary (Leviticus 6:18 sq.). Should any of the blood have been brought into the sanctuary, the flesh had to be brought to the ash-heap and there likewise burned (Leviticus 4:1 sqq.; 6:24 sqq.).
The guilt-offering (sacrificium pro delicto, asham) was specially appointed for sins and transgressions demanding restitution, whether the material interests of the sanctuary or those of private persons were injured — e.g. by misappropriating gifts to the sanctuary, defrauding one’s neighbour, retaining the property of another, etc. (cf. Leviticus 5:15 sqq.; 6:2 sq.; Numbers 5:6 sqq.), The material restitution was reckoned at one-fifth higher than the loss inflicted (six fifths had thus to be paid). In addition, a guilt-sacrifice had to be offered, consisting of a ram sacrificed at the north side of the altar. The blood was sprinkled in a circle around the altar, on which the fatty portions were burnt; the rest of the flesh as sacrosanct was eaten by the priests in the holy place (Leviticus 7:1 sqq.).
(c) The third class of bloody sacrifice embraced the “peace offerings” (victima pacifica, shelamim), which were sub-divided into three classes: the sacrifice of thanks or praise, the sacrifice in fulfilment of a vow, and entirely voluntary offerings. The peace sacrifices in general were distinguished by two characteristics:
(i) the remarkable ceremony of “wave” and “heave”;
(ii) the communal sacrificial meal held in connexion with them.
All animals allowed for sacrifice (even female) might be used and, in the case of entirely “voluntary sacrifices”, even such animals as were not quite without defects (Leviticus 22:23). Until the act of sprinkling the blood the rites were the same as in the burnt-sacrifice, except that the slaying did not necessarily take place at the north side of the altar (Leviticus 3:1 sqq.; 7:11 sqq.). The usual portions of fat had, as in the case of the sacrifice of expiation, to be burned on the altar. In the cutting up of the victim, however, the breast and the right shoulder (Septuagint brachion; Vulgate armus) had to be first separately severed, and the ceremony of “wave” (tenupha) and “heave” (teruma) performed with them. According to Talmudic tradition the “wave” was performed as follows: the priest placed the breast of the victim on the hands of the offerer, and then, having placed his own hands under those of this person, moved them backward and forward in token of the reciprocity in giving and receiving between God and the offerer. With the right shoulder the same ceremony was then performed, except that the “heave” or “teruma” consisted in an upward and downward movement. The breast and shoulder used in these ceremonies fell to the share of the priests, who might consume them in a “clean place” (Leviticus 10:14). They also received a loaf from the supplementary food-offering (Leviticus 7:14). The offerer assembled his friends at a common meal on the same day to consume in the vicinity of the sanctuary the flesh remaining after the sacrifice. Levitically clean guests, especially the Levites and the poor, were admitted (Deuteronomy 16:11; Leviticus 19 sqq.), and wine was freely drunk at this meal. Whatever remained of a sacrifice of thanksgiving or praise had to be burned on the following day; only in the case of the vowed and entirely voluntary sacrifices might the remainder be eaten on the second succeeding day, but all that thereafter remained had to be burned on the third day (Leviticus 7:15 sqq.; 19:6 sqq.). The idea of the peace-offering centres in the Divine friendship and the participation at the Divine table, inasmuch as the offerers, as guests and table-companions, participated in a certain manner in the sacrifice to the Lord. But, on account of this Divine friendship, when all three classes of sacrifice were combined, the sacrifice of expiation usually preceded the burnt-offering, and the latter the peace-offering.
In addition to the periodical sacrifices just described, the Mosaic Law recognized other extraordinary sacrifices, which must at least be mentioned. To these belong the sacrifice offered but once on the occasion of the conclusion of the Sinaitic covenant (Exodus 24:4 sqq.), those occurring at the consecration of the priests and Levites (Exodus 29:1 sqq.; Leviticus 8; Numbers 8:5 sqq.) and certain occasional sacrifices, such as the sacrifice of purification of a healed leper (Leviticus 14:1 sqq.), the sacrifice of the red cow (Numbers 19:1 sqq.), the sacrifice of jealousy (Numbers 5:12 sqq.), and the sacrifice of the Nazirites (Numbers 6:9 sqq.). On account of its extraordinary character one might include the yearly sacrifice of the paschal lamb (Exodus 12:3 sqq.; Deuteronomy 16:1 sqq.) and that of the two he-goats on the Day of Atonement (Leviticus 16:1 sqq.) among this class. With the appearance of the Messias, the entire Mosaic sacrificial system was, according to the view of the Rabbis, to come to an end, as in fact it did after the destruction of the Temple by Titus (A.D. 70). Concerning the sacrificial persons see PRIESTHOOD.
++++++++++++++++
Were the crimes committed against the Jews (and them alone) in World War Two a holocaust?
Well, if you think Germans were a race of priests killing Jews as a act of worship, and if you think that after they sacrificed the Jews the Germans ate them then, sure, it was a holocaust.
Informative and interesting Brian. I had something to say but the sewer of the comments made me forget it all. Not sure if you are legitimately attracting a new kind of crazies or if this is astroturfed to make discussion impossible, either way good article.
I was in public school in the US throughout the 1960s, in a small city in northern NJ. Maybe 15-20% of my classmates were Jewish. We celebrated Jewish holidays as well as Christian then and I don't recall a single bigoted remark addressed to my Jewish peers. You'd have been regarded as insane if you'd started nattering about the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion", at least in that place.
In the mid to late 60s no one in my little world ever used the term "Holocaust". It wasn't a thing. What was a thing was desegregation, and the Vietnam War. That was all over the place.
But one day in 1965 a Jewish friend brought in a book (this was the 5th grade) called something like "Never Again". It got passed around amongst us without the teacher's knowledge. It was full of photos of dead and dying concentration camp inmates. It was almost the worst thing I've ever seen (except for the post Labor Day National Enquirer that one kid brought in that year. Back in those days the Enquirer was printing photos of the gruesome blood-and-guts of car wrecks in Labor Day traffic. That may be tied with "Never Again" for imprint on young minds.)
But nowhere in the book on the atrocities of the Nazis did the term "Holocaust appear. That seems to have arisen after the end of the Vietnam War. My best friend's mother had escaped Hitler and come to the US. I never heard her talk about a Holocaust. She didn't need to.
My earliest indelible memory of Holocaust content is Seinfeld 5:19... As a kid what shook me were the macabre little Christian comics, especially the one where the dad puts off buying shoes and his daughter cuts her foot and dies.
The Holocaust narrative was formulated long before any forensic investigation ever took place. Simply questioning anything about the "official" narrative would result in scorn and claims of antisemitism. This terminology is much like "conspiracy theory" which is used to effectively shut down discussion about certain "taboo" topics. I call this "weaponized language."
Fred Arthur Leuchter Jr. conducted the first serious forensic evaluation of Auschwitz in 1988. He was a known execution technology expert having built a career in the execution industry. Leuchter was a staunch believer in the Holocaust narrative as were we all. However after reviewing the site and performing some tests, he concluded that the so called gas chambers were unfit for the stated purpose. Also, the crematoriums on the site could not possibly have kept up with the claimed number of "executions."
The Red Cross periodically visited the concentration camps and estimated that around 277,000 inmates perished in the camps. Far fewer than the 6 million claimed. Most of the deaths were attributed to typhus, a disease that plagued the theater during war time.
Fred Leuchter speaks about his findings in this short clip.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/FhjxVW5A8omy/
The gas chambers meme has a sort of "lip my stockings" energy to it. In Schindler's List it's the primary shibboleth which must be alluded to, but not portrayed. The logistics of using gas for bulk execution would manifest as silly and implausible if one made a sincere attempt at reconstruction - you could imagine the punchline, "do you want me to genocide you or not?!" being expressed in exasperation by the end of it. Meanwhile, as noted in my other comment, the US was concurrently and openly using gas chambers for execution of individual prisoners in the War years.
to make sense of whats going on today, got to know history, otherwise nothing makes sense ... but if you know, all connects together and whats happening in america is a logical conclusion ... same tactics, same things always. knowledge is very important and that is why mass media, universities, are always a target and key. that is why libraries have always been burned, or in the case of constandinople (istanbul) still not open to this day.
Have you been to Istanbul lately?
why?
re: the Holocaust revival in the 70s -- part of this is the experience of having to explain to your born post-war teen-aged children what it was that happened.
The parallels with conversations parents had to undertake after the George Floyd video are probably substantial (after all that's the whole thesis of this series). It seems to happen less in the reverse direction, e.g. "why did you just go along with this sudden new normal that came out of nowhere," on subjects like giving kids 15 vaccines every two weeks etc.
I think the best light to shine on the story of the Holocaust is the Holodomor, and who was behind it.
who put in power hitler/nazis
Hitler was elected by the German people. They put him in power. He created a currency based on credit certificates for labor.
The Russian Revolution, more accurately stated, The Bolshevik Revolution was financed by international bankers. Jacob Schiff was head of the New York investment firm Kuhn, Loeb and Co. He was one of the principal backers of the Bolshevik revolution. Other funds came from London, New York and Germany.
Who financed Hitler? Edwin and Helene Bechstein, part of a rich aristocratic family who sold pianos, supported Hitler financially. The Ruhr steel barons Fritz Thyssen and Gustav Krupp donated almost five million Reichsmarks to the Nazi Party over the course of the war.
still believe in voting ehhh ... not sure who said it, but the line was if voting mattered they wouldnt let you vote. hitler was a small time crook
A bogus quotation that’s been circulating on Facebook recently with a picture of Twain was a new addition to his list of fakes. It says: “If voting made any difference they wouldn’t let us do it.”
Hirst is the curator of the Mark Twain Papers at the University of California, Berkeley, and when asked if that quotation was accurate, he said “absolutely not.”
In any case, is there any evidence that Hitler was selected? None that I have seen. He was a passionate supporter of the German people. And the people responded in kind. If you have evidence to the contrary, please share it.
Trump is a staunch supporter of the American people. Hillary was selected but Trump won in 2016. Of course those who rig elections realized their mistake and doubled down in 2020 after TPTB rolled out the plandemic hoax.
Hitler a small time crook? Are you referring to his attempted coup? Did he participate in any other criminal activities other than the coup? A failed political stunt does not make Hitler a "small time crook."
You know Hitler was a war time hero, decorated many times for bravery. Your characterization of Hitler does not ring true. And Schacht may have supported Hitler's efforts. But to claim he was behind the economic miracle lacks convincing evidence.
here links on trump ...
https://archive.vanityfair.com/article/2017/8/deal-with-the-devil
Vanity Fair. Are you kidding me?
Did you know that operation Warpspeed predated the Trump administration? Trump made it public, but he did not originate it. It was a DOD operation. Sasha Latypova and Katherine Watt cover that on their Substack Channels.
The point I made was about Hitler. I only mentioned Trump in response to your vote comment. So you can tell me how Trump won election if Hillary was selected? Let's get back on topic.
"not sure who said it, but the line was if voting mattered they wouldnt let you vote" I think it was the ladies at Red Scare
stalin said smt along the lines it does not matter what people vote, it matters who count the votes ... that dominion software comes to mind.
The Ernst Zundel trial provided the best evidence against the Holocaust. The forensic examination disproved the Holocaust narrative, it being impossible to have occurred the way we have been led to believe.
I may get around to him. I'm more interested in the meta aspect at this point - has the subject been approached as history or as myth. But a look at his wikipedia, it's funny that someone can be called a "neo-Nazi" and simultaneously condemned for denying that the Nazis sought to "systemically etc. etc." Like being a "neo-plantationist" for arguing there was no slavery in the plantations, what would that even mean.
same template like in this covid fiasco and black is suddenly white.
Ernst has a lengthy video on Bitchute where he covers Hitler's art. When you see what a sensitive artist Hitler was, it is hard to believe he was a psychopathic murderer.
KenKrypto: This statement is pregnant with implications: “When you see what a sensitive artist Hitler was, it is hard to believe he was a psychopathic murderer.”
Similarly, Anthony Burgess explored in A Clockwork Orange how the sociopathic character enjoyed music by “Ludwig van”--and in the movie we were regaled by violent crime scenes with Beethoven on the soundtrack.
Enjoying music is not the same as creating art, like painting watercolors.
Hitler liked the arts. His favorite composer was Wagner.
You want to believe Hitler was a demon. I understand that. I myself believed it once. But I have since evaluated forensic evidence.
The desire to paint Hitler as a mass murderer is very strong. However the evidence is nonexistant.
Firmly held beliefs are hard to change. Try convincing a globe believer that the Earth is flat. The evidence supports flat Earth, but few even bother to look into it.
Last comment from me since I said goodbye a moment ago. Everyone knows that Wagner’s was empire-building music; it’s no surprise Hitler loved it. And the same goes for the architecture Hitler commissioned--every wannabe Caesar has his way to get his grandeur across.
Empire building is a long way from murdering or genocide. The US went about empire building. And Confessions of an Economic Hitman details how we did it. Hitler is a prince by comparison.
Creative license. Stanley Kubrick was a great artist. Love his work. But he also deceived us with the moon landings.
Hitler was not a psychopathic murderer. I read lots of books on Hitler. Many were written to demonize him. Here is one for you.
The Psychopathic God: Adolph Hitler https://a.co/d/9wMfEE4
KenKrypto: There, you said it. I couldn’t bring myself to ask. But now you publicly say that Hitler wasn’t a murderer. And you continue by asserting that Americans didn’t land on the Moon. All that plus your Flat Earth comment makes me say goodbye.
So, you prove to me that you believe what you are told. You don't do your own research or due diligence.
The art school that rejected Hitler was known for pornagrophers that infiltrated Berlin between the wars. Google images for Hitler's,'s art. High quality digital images are free for the taking.
Hitler was good at architectureal art. And new to me was his graphic arts skills.
Questioning the "event" will land you in prison in 17 countries. So the question becomes; do those willing to fight for truth and risk the wrath of the state have more or less credibility than the censors, who risk nothing?