“It is time for all of us to say that we reject Zionism’s implicit assertion that the Nazi holocaust justified its ethnic cleansing of Palestine and still justifies its oppression of the occupied Palestinians, and that we are no longer going to be blackmailed into silence by Zionism’s use and abuse of the holocaust.”
By Alan Hart
I am writing this piece fully aware that it will result in me being reviled and condemned by some who read my articles on web sites other than my own (www.alanhart.net) and are fixated with Nazi holocaust denial and/or what is called “holocaust revisionism”, which is usually something less than complete denial.
Incidentally, I never use the term The Holocaust (neither a capital T for the definitive article nor a capital H for the noun) in any reference I make to the fate of Jews in Nazi Germany and Nazi occupied Europe. Why not? The holocaust experience – being the victims of genocide – is not a uniquely Jewish experience as Zionism wants and needs the world to believe, and as the capital letters (used by the mainstream media to avoid offending Zionism) imply it to be. Since the obscenity of the Nazi holocaust there have been more than 70 other genocides and there were more than a few before it – the elimination of most of the native Indians of America, for example.
Those who deny and/or revise the Nazi holocaust offer three main assertions in support of their case.
The first is that the Nazis had no official policy or intention of exterminating Jews.
In my understanding of real history there is what could be called a starter grain of truth in that assertion but only to this extent. Killing Jews in large numbers was not on the Nazi agenda when Hitler came to power in 1933. As has been well documented by others, there was on some levels co-operation between the Nazis and Zionism to empty Germany of its Jews and get them into Palestine. Killing Jews in large numbers only became behind-closed-doors Nazi policy after the 1939 British White Paper effectively repudiated the Balfour Declaration of 1917 and reversed British policy for Palestine.
(The detailed and documented background to what I am attempting to summarize here is contained in Britain Admits, Too Late, “We were Wrong”, Chapter 8 of Volume One of my book Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews, which is sub-titled The False Messiah).
Six weeks before the White Paper was published on 17 May 1939, a committee whose members included the Lord Chancellor, Vincent Caldecot, reported that His Majesty’s Government were not free to dispose of Palestine without regard for the wishes and interests of the inhabitants of Palestine (the majority of whom were Arabs).
The White Paper set out its stall by pointing to the ambiguity in the Balfour Declaration of the expression “a national home for the Jewish people” and “the resulting uncertainty as to the objective of (Britain’s) policy.” The indicator that there was to be no more ambiguity and uncertainty was this most explicit statement:
His Majesty’s Government therefore now declare unequivocally that it is not part of their policy that Palestine should become a Jewish state.
Britain’s newly defined policy objective was an independent Palestinian state within 10 years, and to prevent it becoming a Jewish state, Jewish immigration was to be limited to 10,000 a year for five years, after which no more Jews would be allowed to enter Palestine without the consent of the Arabs (consent which everybody knew would not be given).
Zionists declared the White Paper to be a betrayal of Britain’s promise to them. And that in the proverbial nutshell was why Zionism in some of its in-Palestine manifestations turned to terrorism – initially to break Britain’s will to stay and implement the White Paper policy.
Britain’s new Palestine policy, in particular the limits on Jewish immigration which were enforced, was a problem for the Nazis, too. If they couldn’t make use of Zionism as an agency to assist with the removal of Jews to Palestine, what to do? The answer was, “Kill them.”
There is a great deal of documented and irrefutable evidence of what Nazi leaders said behind closed doors and wrote in their diaries on the matter of exterminating the Jews.
One of the responsibilities of Heinrich Himmler, the commander of the SS, was setting up and controlling the Nazi concentration camps. To a secret meeting of top SS officials on 4 October 1943, he said:
“I also want to refer here very frankly to a very difficult matter. We can now very openly talk about this among ourselves, and yet we will never discuss this publicly.” What was the “very difficult matter”? In Himmler’s own words to his audience, “the extermination of the Jewish people.”
When Germany’s defeat was imminent and Nazi leaders feared they would be captured and brought to trial, Himmler instructed his camp commandants to destroy records, crematoria, and all other signs of mass extermination.
The Nazi leader who most frequently and explicitly committed his thoughts about exterminating the Jews to paper was Joseph Goebbels, Hitler’s Minister of Propaganda. Here, for example, are just a few of his diary entries:
5 February 1942: The Jewish question is again giving us a headache; this time, however, not because we have gone too far, but because we are not going far enough.
14 February 1942: The Jews have deserved the catastrophe that has now overtaken them. Their destruction will go hand in hand with the destruction of our enemies. We must hasten this process with cold ruthlessness.
18 February 1942: …We must show them no mercy and no indulgence. This riffraff must be eliminated and destroyed.
6 March 1942: … the greater the number of Jews liquidated, the more consolidated will the situation in Europe be after this war.
20 March 1942: …the Fuehrer is as uncompromising as ever. The Jews must be got out of Europe, if necessary by applying most brutal methods.
27 March 1942: The procedure is a pretty barbaric one and not to be described here more definitely. Not much will remain of the Jews. On the whole it can be said that about 60 per cent of them will have to be liquidated whereas only about 40 per cent can be used for forced labour,
29 April 1942: Short shrift is made of the Jews in all eastern occupied areas. Tens of thousands of them are liquidated
14 December 1942: Jewry must pay for its crime just as our Fuehrer prophesied in his speech in the Reichstag; namely, by the wiping out of the Jewish race in Europe and possibly in the entire world.
9 March 1943 … (Hitler) approved of my measures and specifically ordered me to make Berlin entirely free of Jews.
13 May 1943: There is therefore no other recourse left for modern nations except to exterminate the Jew….
The second main assertion of those who deny and/or revise the holocaust is that the Nazis did not use gas chambers to mass murder Jews.
I wonder how many of those who believe this and display in comments on web sites their loathing and even hatred of all Jews everywhere have ever met and talked with Jewish survivors of the Nazi holocaust. I have and I’ll quote just one of them, my anti-Zionist friend Dr. Hajo Meyer who survived Auschwitz.
He told me, and I believed him without reservation, that some of his Jewish “comrades” in Auschwitz were assigned the task of removing the corpses from the gas chambers and transferring them to incinerators for burning. He added that the smoke and fumes from the chimneys of the incinerators could be seen and smelled all over the camp.
The third main assertion of holocaust revisionists is that the figure of six million Jewish deaths is a gross exaggeration and that the real number was very significantly lower. That might be the case but even if it was, my response is still – so what! For the sake of discussion, let’s assume that only one million Jews were exterminated, would that be a rational reason to deny that there was a holocaust? Of course not!
As I note in Holocaust – Jewish Death, Zionist Life, Chapter 9 of Volume 1 of my book, holocaust denial (and most aspects of holocaust revisionism) is something I cannot get my Gentile mind around. It strikes me as evil on a par with the commissioning of the slaughter and the slaughtering itself.
The paragraph immediately above is my message to holocaust deniers and revisionists but transmitting it is not the main purpose of this article. It is to draw attention to the real significance today of the Nazi holocaust.
Its initial significance can be summarized as follows. Without the holocaust there almost certainly would be no Israel because prior to the unleashing of Nazi ant-Semitism there simply was not enough Jewish support for Zionism’s colonial enterprise.
The real significance of the Nazi holocaust today is in its use by Zionism and all supporters of Israel right or wrong as a card to blackmail non-Jewish North Americans and Europeans into refraining from criticizing Israel or, to be more precise, staying silent when its leaders demonstrate their absolute contempt for international law and resort to state terrorism.
In a recent editorial even the New York Times expressed a measure of despair at the consequences of Zionism’s ability to shut down honest discussion and debate. It said:
“One dispiriting lesson from Chuck Hagel’s nomination for defense secretary is the extent to which the political space for discussing Israel forthrightly is shrinking. Republicans focused on Israel more than anything during his confirmation hearing, but they weren’t seeking to understand his views. All they cared about was bullying him into a rigid position on Israel policy. Enforcing that kind of orthodoxy is not in either America’s or Israel’s interest.
I am sometimes asked if I have any regrets about publishing our book. As of today, my only regret is that it isn’t being published now. After the humiliations that Obama has endured at the hands of the lobby and now the Hagel circus, we’d sell even more copies and we wouldn’t face nearly as much ill-informed criticism. — STEPHEN M WALT.
Criticism of Israeli policy, the editorial concluded, “is essential.”
Question: What must happen if there is ever to be enough political space in America for informed and honest debate which includes criticism and condemnation of the policies and actions of Israel’s leaders?
In my view what is most needed is a president with the courage to say something very like the following to the Jews, not only his fellow Americans who are Jewish but the Jews of the world.
“The persecution you suffered on and off down the centuries and which climaxed with the obscenity of the Nazi holocaust IS NOT A JUSTIFICATION FOR ZIONSIM’S PERSECUTION OF THE PALESTINIANS IN THE NAME OF YOU ALL.”
If I was drafting a presidential speech which contained those words or something very like them, I would add this. “It is time for all of us to say that we reject Zionism’s implicit assertion that the Nazi holocaust justified its ethnic cleansing of Palestine and still justifies its oppression of the occupied Palestinians, and that we are no longer going to be blackmailed into silence by Zionism’s use and abuse of the holocaust.”
Footnote
I am fascinated by the fact that some of those who display their loathing and hatred of Jews while denying the Nazi holocaust in the comment spaces of web sites, the Veterans Today site in particular, seem to be speaking from the same script. That makes me entertain the thought that the script they are working from was provided by Zionism, and that they are, in reality, Zionist assets. That’s by no means impossible because, as I have previously noted, Zionism needs anti-Semitism. The more anti-Semitism there is lurking around web sites, the less likely it is that Zionism will be called and held to account for its crimes. It would not surprise me if that is Zionism’s calculation.
Editor: Debbie Menon
Alan Hart’s latest book Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews, is a three-volume epic in its American edition. He blogs on http://www.alanhart.net and tweets on www.twitter.com/alanauthor
On the topic of "speaking from the same script"; the same applies to 9/11 truthers – they are speak from the same script which for a while now has led me to believe that they are Zionist assets. What better way to discredit the critics of Israel then to make them appear at best, loopy, & unhinged, and at worst deviously mendacious.
I am not a zionist plant, nor do I so hate Jews that I feel compelled to deny the holocaust — whatever logic that makes. I don't believe Jews were gassed in ovens at Auschwitz for several reasons, which I would be happy to lay out in a larger space than this comment box. I respect Alan Hart, but I wonder why so very much effort is made to keep the holocaust narrative alive — even by downplaying it — but no ink whatsoever is committed to exposing to Americans and British that their governments deliberately starved to death 800,000 German civilians in World War I; and deliberately incinerated 600,000 German civilians in World War II. The son of US Supreme Court justice Charles Evans Hughes was in the military in WWII.
In a conversation that took place in 1961, that is transcribed in an anthology of "Commentary" magazine articles, Hughes says that the firebombing of German cities was the world's first use of Weapons of Mass Destruction to terrorize civilians. Mr. Hart, and Debbie, with every ounce of respect I can muster and that you are due, STOP with the holocaust reaffirmations. Americans and the British do not know the truth about what their countries did to innocent civilians in WWI and WWII. As a result, resting on false and unearned virtue, they repeat and increase the slaughter of innocents: how many hundreds of thousands did American kill in Viet Nam? How many hundreds of thousands did WE AMERICANS kill in Iraq?
I deny the holocaust of the Jewish people. Jewish people deliberately provoked a war with Germany, just as surely as we are watching Jewish people and their willing acolytes provoke a war with Iran, having devastated Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria. In the name of justice, the German people are entitled to have THEIR holocaust acknowledged. And in the name of the Christianity Americans claim to observe, the American and British people must come to terms with their complicity in and provocation of the wars involving Germany.
Alan, how many died at Auschwitz? We've been told for decades that 4 million Jews perished there, until the USSR imploded and some TRUTH came out that maybe 2.5 million died at Auschwitz. Several years back, the Israeli paper Haaretz published an article that said a little over one million died there and that number included political dissidents, criminals, etc. who were NOT Jews.
So take away 3 million from six million and you should get 3 million, but not in Zionism. And if we were LIED to about Auschwitz, what else were we lied to about the holocau$t?
And NO, I'm not going to buy your book.
Americans are systematically misinformed about Iran. The campaign of demonization follows hard on 100 years of brainwashing that Americans have endured re Zionism.
Sadly, Alan Hart perpetuates the misinformation campaign.
First of all, he perpetuates the notion that the zionist project to dispossess Palestinians began in the hot war era of World War II. In fact, Jews had been colonizing Palestine, and dispossessing Palestinian Arabs, for at least 50 years by the time White Papers restricted the flow of European Jewish colonists. In 1891 Jewish philosopher Ah'ad Haam excoriated his co-religionists for their brutalization of Arabs, whose lands were already being expropriated by European Jewish colonizers.
Arthur Ruppin, a German Jew, used his knowledge gained from his connections in German government and academia to "produce Hebrew culture in Palestine," beginning in 1907. His schemes included subverting Arab agriculture and trading systems built up over long years; by 1910, Ruppin had hastily built Tel Aviv with the goal of undermining Arab orange trade at Jaffa.
Hart wrote: "Britain’s new Palestine policy, in particular the limits on Jewish immigration which were enforced, was a problem for the Nazis, too. If they couldn’t make use of Zionism as an agency to assist with the removal of Jews to Palestine, what to do? The answer was, “Kill them.”
This is an unwarranted — and ludicrous — conclusion. It's also an offense against the intelligence of readers. As Edwin Black discusses in "The Transfer Agreement," in 1933, zionists realized that their project would go bankrupt unless wealthy German Jews migrated; White Papers required that only Jews with (equivalent of ) $5000 cash could migrate; only German Jews had that kind of money; German Jews were unwilling to leave Germany. They needed some 'incentivization.'
Black notes that "within a fortnight" of Hitler's appointment to chancellorship (Jan 30, 1933), Louis Brandeis told Rabbi Stephen Wise: "All Jews must leave Germany."
Black also notes that Arthur Ruppin objected to plans for expanded colonization UNTIL THE PROBLEM OF JABOTINSKY"S TERROR GANGS was resolved: zionist terrorists were operating throughout Germany to frighten Jews into leaving for Palestine.
Nuremberg Laws were not enacted until 1935. STILL, not enough Jews were leaving Germany.
In 1938, Herbert Hoover held private conversations with Hitler and with Goering; he came away convinced that "Hitler has three idees fixe: 1. to unify Germany from Versailles's fragmentation; 2. expand physical resources by moving into Russia or Balkans; 3. destroy Russian Communism.
As Black notes in "Transfer Agreement," "zionists triumphed at Versailles." He does not say, but the rest of the world knows, that the zionists' Versailles "triumph" set the stage for WWII — as well as the betrayal of Middle East Arabs that is still going on today. So Hitler's first goal is a rational "idee" for a proud nation.
"Idee" #2 was motivated by starvation that Germans endured as result of Allied blockade on Germany that caused the deaths of 800,000 German civilians. A rational leader's first duty is to ensure that his people will not be starved to death — again.
"Idee" #3 — When Churchill delivered his Iron Curtain speech in Missouri in 1946, he was treated as a hero. Subsequent American and world leaders up to Ronald Reagan pursued the agenda Churchill announced: defeat Russian Communism. That was Hitler's goal in 1938. As Herbert Hoover wrote in "Freedom Betrayed," had Britain and US stayed out of Europe's business in 1933-38, Hitler and Stalin would have exhausted themselves, and Europe would have enjoyed "100 years of peace."
What's missing from the list of Hitler's "idees fixes" is the determination to KILL JEWS.
It. is. not. there.
Does Hart intend us to believe that Brandeis had the gift of prophecy in 1933, that British white papers would cause Germans to respond in 1945 by "killing Jews?" Did Brandeis think that a Jewish boycott of Germany was going to make Germans more friendly towards Jews? Did Brandeis and Erich Mendelsohn think that firebombing 175 German cities and incinerating 600,000 German civilians was going to cause Germans to embrace Jews with open arms?
Hart did make one important statement in his article: "Without the holocaust there almost certainly would be no Israel because prior to the unleashing of Nazi ant-Semitism there simply was not enough Jewish support for Zionism’s colonial enterprise."
Indeed. As Edwin Black unwittingly revealed in "Transfer Agreement," without zionist gangs terrorizing German Jews into migrating to Palestine, the zionist project would have failed. And without continued, indeed perpetual financing from Germany, Switzerland, the USA, and whoever else can be blackmailed and holocaust guilted, the project could still fail. Netanyahu knows this: like Hitler, his 'idee fixes' are to expand Jewish territory, and to steal water and land from its rightful owners in Palestine in order to feed Jewish colonizers.
Mr. Hart has come to the same conclusion as me before him: There's no (more profitable) business thant shoah business.