Challenging the Dogma of the Holocaust

The Holocaust was a post War conception to describe the deaths and ethnic cleansing of Jews at the hands of the Third Reich; if taken in the context of the Second World War, it was a minor event. Yet the Holocaust has obtained a mythological and elevated status. The Holocaust has more to do with Zionist mythology than it has to do with history. Challenging this dogma is necessary to reclaim the historical context of the Second World War, which is constantly presented in patently false terms of good and evil. The reality of course, is that Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin were as much the architects of the Second World War as Hitler; and it was they who committed the greater acts of genocides throughout that War. However, the Holocaust is more than an ex post facto justification for Allied atrocities during the Second World War: it is used to give moral credence to Zionism and Western imperialism.

However, challenging the Holocaust is not easy; there is no other episode of history so void of academic scrutiny or so heavily politicised. In much of Europe, it is actually unlawful to question the varsity of the Holocaust. Often, as is the case in Germany, one cannot even question the uniqueness of the Holocaust. This amounts to State enforced mythology.

Events in History, do not lend themselves to single interpretations, particularly when the interpretation is placed within an exclusively Jewish context. The systematic killing of Jews, whilst tragic, cannot be afforded an elevated status over and above the systematic killing of non-Jews nor does it justify Zionism - an ideology that is no less genocidal or xenophobic than Nazism.

Even, in Britain where it is still currently legal to challenge the veracity of the six million figure the Jewish lobby are arguing that this should be classified as a hate crime. Yet why should the Holocaust not be subject to historical comparisons and critical analysis? The lack of scrutiny, the failure to distinguish between the objective and the subjective, the uncritical acceptance of questionable evidence, the lack of tangibles, the discounting of counter-evidence, the overvaluation of secondary evidence, and the over reliance on wartime propaganda in relation to the Holocaust undermines the integrity of Western academia, pedagogy and journalism. So pervasive is the Holocaust political indoctrination that it not only goes unchallenged; it also goes unrecognised. So much so, that it is without any irony, that accusations of anti-Semitic political bias are levied against anyone who dares to challenge the official Holocaust dogma.

In any other field of history, it is accepted that two historians, having assessed the same evidence, may take opposing views. If they have arrived at different positions, having assessed largely different evidence, this might even be expected. In fact, one of the arguments for a Holocaust denial law is that future generations may doubt that it took place because of the lack of evidence, therefore by that rationale, it must be at the very least, reasonable to take an opposing view. Thus the true objection to Holocaust revisionism is not that it is predicated on anti-Jewish prejudice or even that it is unreasonable interpretation of events; rather that any revisionism that rejects the central dogma of the Holocaust, also rejects the main Western justification for the Zionist colonization and ethnic cleansing of Palestine.

Hence without the veil of the Holocaust, Zionist aggression against the Palestinians can only be viewed in terms of genocide against an indigenous population by a colonial invader. Therefore the historicity of the Holocaust is irrelevant: it is a necessary Zionist myth and apologia. Hence the Holocaust dogma is also veiled in sophistry; the central facts are unverifiable and predicated upon a subjective Judeo-centric interpretation of history. The Holocaust dogma in essence can be summarised thus: the Nazis systematically exterminated six million Jews during World War Two; that most of the six million died from gas inhalation in Nazi death camps; and they further planned to exterminate World Jewry. The first two are unprovable and the third is untenable.

The six million figure is pure mythology, plucked out of the air, there is no possible way to verify this figure: it is not as if six million Jewish corpses have ever been recovered or that there are any German records in existence that confirm the execution of six million Jews. Britain's Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, in an open letter to the Jewish community, dated the 6th March 1996, states: "the Yad Vashem Centre in Jerusalem has only ever been able to compile the names of a mere 2.5 million murdered European Jews".

In fact, such figures only establish that millions of European Jews were unaccounted for after the Second World War; there is no way to definitively determine how many of them actually died during that war and certainly there is no evidence to establish the manner of death. Many people presumed dead during the Second World War were later found to have relocated. The six million figure is also not supported by census data; it is reliant, firstly upon us accepting that millions of Jews, for whom we have no tangible evidence ever existed, did in fact exist, and secondly, that they were killed during the Second World War, notwithstanding that there is also no tangible evidence that they died. In the absence of both cadavers and documentary evidence to substantiate the number of Jewish dead during the Second World War, the six million figure is nothing more than pure conjecture.

The alleged plan to exterminate World Jewry is something for which no contemporaneous evidence exists. There are no documents or radio intercepts that indicate such a plan; there is undoubtedly evidence of transportation to Eastern Europe and of massacres of Jews during the course of the Second World War. Nor has any contemporaneous evidence to indicate that Hitler gave such an order been discovered. Therefore the presumption that Hitler authorised the extermination of European Jews in a single order is based upon speculation that an oral order was given, which was deliberately never written down, nor referred to in any document or over the radio, and which no one has ever testified to having ever heard.

In contrast, there is an abundance of evidence to prove that the Nazis used concentration camp prisoners as slave labour and that rations, however basic, were being supplied to the concentration camps because had this not have been the case, then there would have been no survivors at any of the camps when they were liberated. Therefore, it is irrational to conclude that there was a plan to exterminate World Jewry, such a plan would have been an illogical solution to the Jewish Question in the context of the war: the majority of Jews lived outside of Nazi territory. In fact, most were living in the USA, yet Germany had no territorial ambitions in the USA.

Conversely, Jewish expulsion from Nazi territory had proved successful hence Jewish migration to the USA was of no consequence to the Nazis. If anything it was beneficial, the more Jewish migration to New York, the more anti-Jewish resentment, and the greater the sympathy for the Germany. It has to be born in mind that whilst the war with Japan was popular in the USA, the war with Germany was less so. A further problem is that there is no cogent reason why such a plan should be kept secret. There is certainly no indication that this would have been an unpopular policy; if anything, it would have been welcome in Germany and much of Nazi occupied Eastern Europe, particularly after US President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, announced his intent to castrate all German males and place Germany under the control of Jewish US Treasury Secretary, Henry Morgenthau Junior, if the Allies won the war.

Clearly, there was no need for Hitler to be concerned that the Allied Forces (United Nations) would find out: after all, they were already at war. In fact, it would have been to his advantage that they should know; if saving World Jewry was perceived to have been the raison d'etre for the war, it would have sapped British and US public support, particularly given that Churchill and Roosevelt were related (distant cousins) and both men were known to have been heavily associated with the Rothschilds and other prominent members of the international Jewish financial cartel and Zionists, through financial, political and family connections.

Roosevelt's Jewish ancestry and connections to the New York based Jewish crime syndicate were perceived in the USA to have been a motivating factor in his desire to involve the USA in a war with Germany. Churchill, also faced accusations of treachery and being an agent of Chaim Weizmann, who was variously the President of the World Zionist Organization, the Jewish Agency and the Zionist government in Palestine. The Nazi policy of Jewish expulsion from Western Europe was well attested to prior to the war; both the British and US government's played down this as a motive for war because they knew it would not be well received, it was certainly a popular policy throughout Nazi occupied Europe. Therefore, it was not to Hitler's advantage to conceal a policy to exterminate World Jewry; there is no evidence that he concealed such a policy; and there is no evidence that such a policy existed.

It is undoubtedly true that the Nazis used gas chambers to exterminate handicapped people as part off their euthanasia plan; it is also plausible that they used this method to execute large numbers of political prisoners, including Jews, at concentration camps but again the evidence is rather lacking. There is no indication in the Auschwitz death book or any other document of anyone being gassed at any concentration camp; there are no post mortem of any corpses that indicate this as cause of death. When someone is said to have died in the gas chambers of Auschwitz or Treblinka this is conjecture. It is impossible to know whether an inmate died of gas inhalation or whether they died of some other cause, such as: as malnourishment, fatigue, exposure, dysentery, typhus, or bludgeoned to death by fellow inmate or guards. In fact, of all the corpses found in concentrations camps after they were liberated, none had died from gassing. Moreover, not all the European Jews that died during the Second World War were killed in concentration camps: it is impossible to say how many died of natural causes; as the result of bombing; were killed in combat; were executed; were murdered; committed suicide; or died in accidents. Therefore, to declare that a particular individual died in a gas chamber in a concentration camp is beyond absurd it is dishonest. Consequently, estimates of the number of inmates who died in gas chambers are equally fraudulent.

If one strips away the dogma what is the Holocaust? It is a subjective and Judeo-centric narrative of history. The term holocaust, literally "burnt offering", might be seen to be a more apt description of another episode in European history: that of the Inquisition, where victims were burned at the stake in a religious sacrifice known as an auto de fe (act of faith). It is often believed that the term Holocaust, arises from an association with the crematoriums of the concentration camps, in fact the term Holocaust was first used to describe the Nazi book burning fest, in 1933, it later use stems from wartime propaganda that Jews were being burned to death in their millions by the Germans. To extend the definition to accommodate non-Jews who died in Nazi concentration camps detracts from the pseudo-religious mythology of the Holocaust.

The myth of Jewish exclusivity is integral to the supposed uniqueness of the Holocaust, in truth there was no Holocaust, what there was, was a war that encompassed much of the World, and resulted in more civilian loss of life than any other before or after it. It is often overlooked that the Allied Forces were no more restrained than the Nazis, in regard to the loss of enemy civilians; in fact, they were a great deal worse. It was the USA who dropped atomic bombs of the civilian populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and it was the British who carried out the punitive genocide of the civilian population of Dresden.

Moreover, Dr. Mohammad Qoli Majd's research that including recently released US government documents reveal that under British occupation the Iranian population decreased from twenty million to eleven million between 1914 and 1919, an occurrence that can be directly attributed to a deliberate policy of mass starvation and genocide under British military rule between 1917 and 1919. During this period eight to ten million people died, mostly of malnutrition or related disease, these deaths were largely avoidable, the British government withheld Iranian oil revenues, horded food supplies, and stopped food distribution, which resulted in a famine. Even the lower figure of eight million exceeds the highest estimates of the total Jewish loss of life during both World wars, and also exceeds the total number of combatants who lost their lives during the First World War. In addition, another overlooked fact is that is although the total number of Iranian death under Allied occupation during the Second World War remains to this day unknown, cemetery records alone reveal a figure of over three million, which exceeds the total number of verified Jewish deaths in Nazi occupied territory during the same period.

Incidentally, whilst the USA was prepared to estimate the number of Jewish dead during the Second World War at 5.7 million, they are not prepared to estimate the number of Iranian deaths, although they have more reliable evidence for Iran during this period. Therefore, the concept of a unique Jewish genocide, in the context of the Second World War is derisible. Not only is it historically unsustainable, it is premised upon the unsavoury moral qualification that Jewish life has greater sanctity than non-Jewish life. The juxtaposition of this is the rejection of any moral relativism between Jewish and non-Jewish suffering, the corollaries of which are all too obvious in the Middle East.