Questioning the Jewish holocaust

#holocaust #holohoax #6millionlies #6million #worldwar2 #wwii #allylies #gentileguilt

David Skrbina* writes:

At least in the Western world, the global Jewish/Zionist lobby has no better propaganda tool than “holocaust guilt”. As are of immense suffering by an innocent minority, it pulls on heart strings everywhere, and induces the public to perpetually defer to Jewish desires. The German nation is under eternal supplication, as are incidentally complicitous countries like Austria and Switzerland. Victimised nations such as Poland, Belgium and the Netherlands are said to owe compensation to Israel, and even the victors in World War II – the US, UK and France – are compelled to shower cash upon Jews, in part because they weren’t aggressive enough in defeating the evil Nazi regime.

In these nations and many others, an unthinking public is appalled and saddened by the “six million” deaths and the gas chambers, such that they give explicit or implicit support. Worse still, holocaust guilt forestalls all critical questioning of the global Jewish lobby, Zionism or Israeli policy. Only a heartless fiend, a racist or a neo-Nazi, they say, could criticise a people who suffered so mightily, those many decades ago.

Unpicking the conventional story

All this guilting works only if we accept the conventional account of the holocaust: the systematic intentionality by the Nazi leadership, the homicidal gas chambers and, yes, the “six million”. These are the three central pillars of the story. As it happens, there are serious questions about all three aspects – to the point where the entire holocaust story is at risk of major collapse. If that should happen, the primary Jewish guilt tool would crumble. Jewish complicity in promoting a deficient story would become obvious. And, for the first time in decades, the way would be clear for an entirely new critical/sceptical approach to Jewish and Zionist actions worldwide. Hence, much turns on the integrity – or lack thereof – of the conventional account.

The “six million” figure first emerged in the year 1916

So let’s take a moment to question the holocaust. Take the “six million” figure. Where did this number come from? When did it first appear? And what is the evidence for it? Surely, these are fair questions. And yet even these lead into difficult terrain. The figure was reported by the New York Times, for years, without any evident substantiation. It appeared in September 1945 (“the loss of six million Jews during the war”) and in May (“in all about six million Jews were deliberately slaughtered”). More surprisingly, it appeared in January 1945, five months before the end of the war (“6,000,000 Jews dead”). In fact, it was cited or implied throughout the duration of the war. As early as June 1940, Nahum Goldmann stated that “Six million Jews in Europe are doomed to destruction”. And even earlier still: in January 1939 we read about extensive Jewish persecution (“6,000,000 victims noted”). Incredibly, the number appeared in the interwar period, and even during the First World War – for example, February 1916 (“Nearly six million Jews are ruined, in the greatest moral and material misery”) and January 1917 (“Six millions of Jews are…oppressed, exploited, crushed, and robbed of every inalienable human right”). There are dozens of such examples, all matters of public record.

What is one to conclude from this? Could it be a case of a purely symbolic figure, perpetuated over decades? Worse still, why are none of the claims supported by actual forensic evidence? – no body counts, no significant human remains, no verifiable statistics, almost nothing?

The gas chambers

What about that second claim, regarding the gas chambers? On the standard account, fully half of the six million Jewish deaths came from gassing. Of these, about one million are claimed to have occurred by cyanide poisoning at Auschwitz. The other two million gassings occurred via carbon monoxide from diesel engine exhaust, at such notorious sites as Treblinka, Belzec and Sobibor (diesel experts insist that such engines put out far too little carbon monoxide, but I leave that aside for now).

Sceptics raise several questions about the Auschwitz gassing scheme. For the whole of 1942, nearly all of the claimed 160,000 deaths occurred in two converted farmhouses (“bunkers”) at Birkenau. But the bunkers had no ventilation systems, and deadly Zyklon pellets continued to leak gas for hours. It would have been a slow, dangerous and entirely amateurish scheme, at best. Furthermore, the Germans had much better options, including the cyanide fumigation devices used at Dachau; why didn’t they use them at Auschwitz?

Then during 1943 and 1944, another 750,000 were said to have been gassed, now primarily in two crematoria. At its peak, in May and June 1944, the camp supposedly gassed some 56,000 Jews per week, or about 8,000 daily. But the problem of body disposal would have been insurmountable; neither crematoria nor open-pit fires could have handled that load. Furthermore, why do aerial photos of Auschwitz at that time show little or no smoke, and virtually no activity indicating that a huge mass-murder was underway? More difficult questions.

German intentionality

Finally, what about that third pillar, intentionality? Everyone knows that the Nazis hated the Jews and wanted them out of the Reich. But did Hitler want them killed? For years, he spoke of “exterminating” (ausrotten) or “destroying” (vernichten) the Jews. Our conventional historians are unanimous that, at least into 1941, the Nazis only wanted to drive them out. And yet the very same words, spoken after 1941, are said to be proof of homicidal intention. But what is the actual evidence for this? Hitler’s speeches, written documentation and the words of others like Joseph Goebbels, all point to a process of evacuation and ethnic cleansing, not murder. As late as March 1942, Goebbels was still speaking of shipping the Jews to Madagascar (diary, 7 March 1942). As late as October 1943, Himmler’s direct report, Oswald Pohl, was ordering camp officers to improve inmate health and to reduce the overall death rates. Why do we find no explicit talk of killing Jews?

And more generally: where is the physical evidence of significant human remains, such as bodies, bones, ashes or disturbed earth, at the major camps? And not just hundreds or thousands of bodies, but hundreds of thousands?

This is just the tip of the iceberg. Interested readers should consult reliable critical sources, like Thomas Dalton’s Holocaust: Introduction or his Debating the Holocaust, or Germar Rudolf’s Lectures on the Holocaust. They persuasively argue that the Jewish death toll was closer to 500,000, virtually none of whom died in gas chambers. If true, Jewish deaths account for just one per cent of global total during World War II.

But even this very cursory analysis shows that the conventional holocaust story has many significant, unanswered questions – to the point where one could reasonably challenge it as the basis for Jewish manipulation of public emotions. Without their primary guilt-tool, Jewish/Zionist interests would have a much harder time achieving their goals. An entirely new light would be cast upon Jewish actions everywhere, and those interested in truth and justice would find their tasks a good deal easier. It’s high time that we all began questioning the holocaust.

Originally found at

Published by

Ellie Wolfe

International supporter of NBU, follow my bitchute and on telegram

3 thoughts on “Questioning the Jewish holocaust”

  1. Pingback: Questioning the Jewish holocaust – Fascist Bostonian – RuDarts. Truths the system is hiding to you

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.