My goal is to assist individuals to think for themselves, free of external intellectual coercion or self-imposed political correctness.  But not only that: I would like to see kindred spirits do as the saintly George Orwell enjoined us to do, "To speak Truth to power!"
Books by Vaughn Klingenbeg
Interested in learning more about us?
Contact Us
Did the Nazis really want the Holocaust or were there other, far more important, players involved in orchestrating the Holocaust?

I, too, can pull a number out of the air—six millions Jewish dead in the Holocaust—and say that that is true, but is it? Where is the critical skepticism? Where is the proof? And why isn’t anyone asking these questions?!!!

Very simply, my scholarly view of the Holocaust is as follows: the Holocaust is untrue, but not false. The Holocaust is "untrue" in the sense that we do not have a whole, complete, multifaceted account of it. Instead of a holistic account of the Holocaust what we have is some good information, some misinformation, and some outright dis-information. The Holocaust is "not false" in the sense that, yes, some Jews died (but, contrary to popular opinion, exactly how many is the subject of profound scholarly debate). Furthermore, to make this topic relevant to today, if the Holocaust is untrue, then Israel does not in fact have a right to exist. Have I piqued your curiosity? I invite you to read more.

Someone may object: "What about the tens of thousands of U.S. soldiers who were ordered to visit the concentration camps and what about the hundreds--if not millions--of Jewish survivors of the camps?  Surely one cannot deny their eyewitnesspersonal accounts of the horrors of the camps!   How dare you suggest that their eyewitness testimony be minimized!!!"  Point taken. However, if one asked a peasant from say, 1033 AD, England whether the earth was flat or round, he would angrily declare that it was obviously flat!!! Only someone who denied their senses could even suggest otherwise. He might even wish to have you turned over to the Inquisition for preaching heresy. If that peasant had the modern vocabulary of a 21st century psychologist the peasant might even define you as being "in Denial"--a "flat-earth Denialist"--and have your burned at the stake for uttering such a monstrosity, or at least housed in an institution where your corrupting thoughts could not infect others. This is exactly analogous to the situation today with the Holocaust. In some limited way, eyewitness testimony is useful, but in understanding the broad strategic issues of the Holocaust it is arguably even a hindrance to comprehending the totality of the Holocaust and who is truly culpable.

(In essence, I argue here that "Big Jews" conspired with the Allied leadership, both before and during World War II, to once and for all silence criticism of both the Jewish community as well as the Zionist movement.  They did this by orchestrating having "Little Jews" murdered in the Holocaust in order to foment Jewish emigration to Palestine and found a Zionist state after the war. After World War II the flourishing anti-Zionist movement was effectively dead. Virtually all Jews are Zionists now.)

To order this book, The Big Lie: The Holocaust (An Introduction to the Greatest Fraud of the 20th Century), send $15.00 USD to NonConformist Press, 975 County Road C2 West, Roseville MN USA 55113.

-- Vaughn Klingenberg.

The Big Lie: The Holocaust (An Introduction to the Greatest Fraud of the 20th Century), by Vaughn Kllingenberg.
HomeThe Bruderschaft ManifeThe Big Lie: The HolocaParadigm Shift: Shake-sHamlet-Christ

Te Big Lie: the Holocaust.

(An Introduction to The Greatest Fraud of the 20th Century.)


Vaughn Klingenberg
 M.A. in Philosophy

“The first casualty of war is Truth,” and “A lie [e.g., the conventional account of the Holocaust] repeated often enough, becomes the truth.”

Dedicated to my daughters, Anastasia and Lidia: may they keep their curiosity about the world, and unlike many people, not be fearful of thinking for themselves, for the worst form of censorship is self-censorship.

Dedicated to the “Little Jews,” but also to the Germans, the Nazis, and Hitler—the real victims of the Holocaust. Granted, many Germans did horrible things during the war, but many did not, and to blame the Germans as solely, completely, and absolutely responsible for the Holocaust is to slander the dead, as well as being a gross misrepresentation of history. Similarly, many Jews, Allied leaders, and Allied soldiers did horrible things during the war, but their sins are ignored or forgiven by the purported “justness” [sic] of their cause. Goebbels was right, “History is written by the victors.” My effort here is offered as a small antidote against the falsification of history by the victors and conventional Holocaust scholars, and as a homage to the dead and injured.


If I presented the information in this booklet at a public forum in Western Europe--Germany, Austria, France, Spain, Portugal...etc.--today, instead of in the United States, we could all be arrested, fined, and go to prison for aiding and abetting Holocaust denial. In a total of 15 European countries, plus Israel, it is literally illegal to challenge the veracity of the Holocaust. In the U.S. questioning the Holocaust is not illegal outright, but it could just as well be. One jeopardizes one’s career and faces social ostracism if one has the temerity to dare challenge the conventional account of the Holocaust in public. Self-censorship is the rule in the U.S. Hopefully, by the end of this booklet, you will begin asking yourselves both, "Why?" and “What interests are being served by the conventional, but untrue, account of the Holocaust?”

For those of you who think that the topic of the veracity of the Holocaust is merely a question of academic interest to arcane scholars I want to point out one thing: if the Holocaust is untrue, then the modern state of Israel does not have a right to exist. One often hears the question put to dispossessed Palestinians suffering from Jewish/Israeli oppression: “Does Israel have a right to exist?” The point of this question is to place the Palestinian in a dilemma: if he answers “Yes,” then he can kiss goodbye to any claim he has on land appropriated by Israel. On the other hand, if he answers “No,” he is immediately associated with homicidal Nazi Holocaust perpetrators. It is a very dishonest (and very calculated) question to ask someone, a Palestinian, being held in a de facto Jewish/Israeli-run konzentrationslager, i.e., Gaza or the cantons of the West Bank.  

A prefatory note: I am a Gentile. I think this is important to note because the vast majority of Holocaust scholars and educators are Jewish. What I will relate to you here in what follows is not “rocket science.” All it takes is some healthful skepticism, a willingness to think for oneself, and an ability to see the salient fissures in an argument—“Though [the whole community of Jewish Holocaust scholars] should gape and bid one to hold one’s peace,” to paraphrase Hamlet. This does take some bravery, for most people are used to—and prefer—living in chains. But as the bumper sticker on my van declares, “I do not want to tiptoe through life, only to arrive safely at death.” Life is too precious and dear for one to live the life of a coward, and one thing I am not is an intellectual coward—but judge that for yourself.


Other books written by Vaughn Klingenberg include:

Hamlet-Christ (under the pen name “Odysseus Er”).
Paradigm Shift: Shake-speare (under the pen name “Odysseus Er”).
5744 H.E. (under my own name).

Visit my website:


© Copyright February 25th, 2011

[Caveat: while I would prefer compensation for composing this booklet, my interest in the Truth is greater than my desire for financial remuneration. Therefore, feel free to reproduce this booklet, in part or in full, in small batches (10 printed copies or less), or simply go to my website— download a free copy. All I ask is that I receive attribution for my efforts here.]

If you wish to order a copy of this book, please send a check for $15.00 USD to:

Vaughn Klingenberg
975 County Road C2 West
Roseville MN USA 55113


First Printing: Fed-X/Kinkos, New Year’s Eve, January 1st, 2012, St. Paul MN USA.


“All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.” 
  -- Arthur Schopenhauer


Any man more right than the majority is--by himself, and alone--a majority of one! – Henry David Thoreau (author of On the Duty of Civil Disobedience).


Before I begin I would like to make some relevant observations and pose some salient questions in order to get you to think critically, right from the start, about the Holocaust. In many respects I feel like Socrates at his capital show-trial in 4th century BC Athens: I am challenging the whole ideological structure that most people have been carefully indoctrinated and inured in since birth so I often have to, so to speak, “spar with shadows,” when presenting my case. I can’t name all of the myriad individuals and institutions that have consciously, calculatedly, and often successfully crafted your ideological world-view, especially with respect to the Holocaust. All I can do is show that, however impregnable this gargantuan ideological façade is, it is merely that—a façade—and can easily be brought crashing to the ground if you have the open-mindedness to question conventional, orthodox belief. It begins with one person daring to state the obvious, that the Emperor has no clothes—that the Holocaust is a fraud--and that often gives permission to less hardy souls to publicly acknowledge the truth as well. Why don’t we begin?

This short booklet, I freely acknowledge, is a propaedeutic, an introduction. I do not have the time or the resources to develop a full exposition of the ideas contained herein. I do not consider that necessarily a fault. I believe that it is only by you—the reader—investigating and validating the ideas outlined here that you will come to realize the truth of my exposition. So, with that said, I enjoin you to marshal all of your critical abilities and intellectual resources and bring them to bear on this topic. Hold in suspense what you have been told is true concerning the Holocaust, and once again decide for yourself what is really true!

The first preliminary observation I want to make is that we give far too much deference to Holocaust survivors when discussing the Holocaust. On the radio one can hear the interviewer of a Holocaust survivor speak in hushed, reverent, and deferential tones when addressing such a guest. I can imagine the host genuflecting as he bows and apologetically asks the survivor a question. How dare anyone call in and question the sufferings of this victim or his or her knowledge of the Holocaust! How dare he!!! The fact of the matter, however, is that we need to be able to question anyone, Holocaust survivor or not, on his understanding of an event to make certain both the survivor and we understand it. The mere fact that someone, a Holocaust survivor, experienced suffering does not, in itself, therefore necessarily mean that they know why they suffered. To explain this I like to use the analogy of one man holding a gun to the head of another man. In my analogy the man with the gun to his head is the Holocaust survivor (we may also picture him as having myopia—he can see things right in front of his face but not things at a distance), the gun is a Nazi, and the man holding the gun is an Allied officer. The Holocaust survivor sees the gun pointed at his head and is quick to see the tool (i.e., the gun or the Nazi) as the main cause of his suffering. However, when one takes a broader, more encompassing, understanding of the situation one sees that it is not the tool that threatens the victim primarily but rather the man who manipulates the tool and who has his finger on the trigger (i.e., the representative of the Allies) who is the real culprit in this whole scenario.  

Or, to employ another analogy, someone may object by asking, "What about the tens of thousands of U.S. soldiers who were ordered to march through the concentration camps and what about the hundreds--if not millions--of Jewish survivors of the camps? Surely one cannot deny their eyewitnesspersonal accounts of the horrors of the camps! How dare you suggest that their eyewitness testimony be minimized!!!" Point taken. However, if one asked a peasant from say, 1033 AD, England whether the earth was flat or round, he would angrily declare that it was obviously flat!!! Only someone who denied their senses could even suggest otherwise. He might even wish to have you turned over to the Inquisition for preaching heresy. If that peasant had the modern vocabulary of a 21st century psychologist, the peasant might even define you as being "in Denial"--a "flat-earth Denialist"--and have your burned at the stake for uttering such a monstrosity, or at least housed in an institution where your corrupting thoughts could not infect others. This is exactly analogous to the situation today with respect to the Holocaust. In its limited way, eyewitness testimony is useful but, in understanding the broad strategic issues of the Holocaust, eyewitness testimony is arguably a hindrance to comprehending the totality of the Holocaust and who is truly culpable. In a nutshell, this is how I see the Holocaust: many lower strata Jews were victims, Nazi and German officials were the immediate, but less culpable perpetrators, and many upper strata Jews and Zionist Allied leaders were the mediate, but more culpable perpetrators.  

Related to the point above, a question that needs to be answered is: “If the Holocaust is true, then why do so many Jews, especially, feel the need to falsify Holocaust documentation?” The Diary of Anne Frank is a fraud, the phrase “The Final Solution” from the Wannsee Protocal is grossly—and I would say, deliberately--misrepresented, Bruno Dosseker’s book, Fragments, is a hoax, and The Painted Bird, by Jerzy Kosinski, is also a fraud, just to name a few.[1] With respect to Kosinski’s book, for example, it perfectly reinforced the conventional account of the Holocaust with sado-masochistic Nazis and innocent, defenseless Jews, but once exposed for the fraud it was, Kosinski committed suicide. Fragments, is a book by the Protestant author, Bruno Dosseker. The reason I mention him is that the Jewish community is eager to embrace anyone who recounts horrific stories of the Holocaust, ideally with Germans as sexual sadists and Jews as cowering, impotent victims, regardless whether the accounts are true or not. Dosseker wrote under the pseudonym Binjamin Wilkomirski and posed as a very young Baltic Jewish concentration camp inmate. He became the poster boy for Holocaust supporters and was feted by the international Jewish community, accumulating great financial benefits and many awards, including, in the United States, the National Jewish Book Award in 1996, and, in France, the Memory of the Holocaust Prize (Prix Memoire de la Shoah) for his "factual" portrayal of German brutality and sexual sadism. It turns out Dosseker was in Switzerland for the whole of the war and never spent any time at all in a concentration camp.

But even more pernicious (and certainly much more difficult for an uncritical reader to detect) than the outright falsification of Holocaust documentation is the deceitful presentation of half-truths as though they contain the whole truth of the Holocaust. This deceitful practice among Holocaust scholars and educators is so pervasive that it cannot be unintentional or mistaken. There is an agenda at work here: what reinforces the conventional account of the Holocaust gets published and feted, and what challenges the conventional account is demonized, marginalized, or ignored. Literature challenging the Holocaust lies on the publishing house floor, only to await swift disposal. Censorship has a variety of forms in the U.S.; it is not merely banning or burning a book, it is also prohibiting a dissident book from being published, marketed, or distributed, and flooding the market instead with acceptable (to the powers-that-be), conventional fare. Much of what I investigate and relate in what follows centers on an attempt to correct this gross imbalance.

Another related point: we all know that the conventional, and widely held belief (unsubstantiated though it is) that 6 million Jews died in the Holocaust. Be that as it may, we don’t readily know exactly how many Jews actually survived the Holocaust in 1945. That number is suppressed while the inflated number of Jews who died in the Holocaust is trumpeted. Why is one number suppressed and the other number loudly publicly trumpeted? One would think that it would be much easier to establish how many Jews survived the Holocaust (in fact, Germany today is paying tens of millions of euros to Israel as compensation to Holocaust victims) and have that number made public because they are around to tell us, and yet the average person does not know how many real survivors there truly are. In fact, whatever this number is, it seems to be deliberately suppressed from being made public. Why is that? Well, if it were established that millions of Jews survived the camps that might lead some to question the conventional narrative of the concentration camps as being fundamentally “death” camps. In fact, I would argue that every single survivor of the camps is an argument against the Nazi concentration camps being “death” camps. Is this why we do not have that figure? Something to think about since literally 100s of thousands of Jewish survivors have in fact claimed and collected reparations from Germany. Once again, do we have an instance here of a half-truth being presented as the whole truth? Why don’t we know how many Jews survived the “death camps”? Please, think about it. Once again, what reinforces the conventional view gets repeated—namely, that “6 million Jews” [sic] died in the “death camps” [sic]—but what challenges the conventional view—namely, that millions of Jews likely survived the so-called “death camps”—is ignored and suppressed. 

False flag operations. A False Flag operation is a covert operation used by an individual, organization, or state in order to cast responsibility away from the clandestine perpetrators of a crime themselves (most commonly a terrorist crime) and, instead, assign culpability to another individual, organization, or state, typically to an organization or entity opposed to the actual covert perpetrators of the crime. Perhaps the most famous example of a False Flag operation is the “Lavon Affair” of 1954 in which clandestine Israeli operatives blew up American and British sites in Egypt and blamed the Muslim Brotherhood in order to foment discord between the Egyptian government and the U.S. and Brittan. The Lavon Affair was discovered by Egyptian intelligence after several bombs were set off in Cairo. It took 50 years for Israel to finally publicly confess to this False Flag operation; on this occasion not only did the Israeli government acknowledge the Lavon Affair, it gave state medals, in March 2005, to the Jewish members of the cell who attempted to kill Americans and British personnel. Israel, supposedly “our” [sic] friend! 

What is the point of mentioning False Flag operations and a famous instance of the leaders of Israel employing such an operation against the United States and Brittan, two close allies of Israel? Only this: if Israel will employ False Flag operations against their close friends and allies, they why wouldn’t some Jews possibly employ the same operation against their very own people? If it is true (as I will argue it is in what follows) that some powerful Jews and Zionist Allied leaders conspired to orchestrate and exacerbate the Holocaust and then projected blame solely onto the Nazis and Germans so as to foster Jewish emigration to Palestine and found a Zionist state, then what we have here with the Holocaust is, obviously, a False Flag operation on a macro, global scale perpetrated by Jews on fellow Jews!!!  

Finally, some remarks on how elite American Establishment leadership (political, Media, finance and others), maneuvers the common people of United States into wars of aggression while feigning victimhood. Given that the United States is a military and economic colossus and that it is necessary to get at least pro forma (but preferably enthusiastic) support for war making, how does the United States power elite conscript the nation into war? Very simple: traditionally the United States leadership invites, precipitates, or manufactures attacks on the U.S. in order to use that as a pretext for fighting a “defensive” [sic], reactionary war against a so-called “aggressor.” We are always the victims of, as President Roosevelt disingenuously termed it, “unprovoked and dastardly attack.” Every war the United States has been involved in during the 20th Century has been precipitated and orchestrated domesticallyIn World War I Anglo-American banking interests were threatened by a German victory so the Lusitania was set up so that it would be sunk by a German submarine so as to use that as a pretext to get the U.S. to join the war on the side of the Entente. In violation of American neutrality, the Lusitania, a passenger ship, was packed with thousands of tons of munitions bound for the armies of the Entente to be used to kill Germans. The German embassy learned of this massive shipment of arms to the Entente and even attempted to post warnings in U.S. newspapers telling American civilians not to board that ship! The Wilson administration intervened and had virtually all of those warning advertisements from the German embassy pulled from American newspapers before they could be published. The sinking of the passenger/munitions ship, Lusitania, marked a turning point in World War I and was used by President Wilson and the American Media to tar the Germans as heartless murderers, and was used, successfully, as a propaganda event to goad the U.S. public into war. In the Vietnam War, the Tonkin Gulf Incident was completely manufactured by the Johnson administration—no one even questions that today (though few average Americans now know about this event); as a result, over 50,000 American soldiers died, 3 million Vietnamese died, and untold thousands on both sides were wounded. Finally, the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars today. The recently invented international Islamic terrorist group, Al Qaeda, and its purported leader, Osama bin Laden, reportedly planned 9/11 from the caves of Afghanistan and were given succor and support by Iraqi leader, Saddam Hussein, or so the American public was told, so we simply had to invade and occupy those two bellicose and war mongering countries. The only problem was that Osama bin Laden had nothing to do with 9/11 (he was not even on the FBI Most Wanted List for responsibility for 9/11), Saddam Hussein was an opponent of Al Qaeda, and Iraq possessed no weapons of mass destruction, nuclear weapons, or bio-chemical weapons. Where was America’s (self-defined) “vaunted” Media and “Intelligence” (or should I say, “domestic propaganda Intelligence”) agencies when it came to exposing these lies for what they were? Nowhere!!! The public was completely bamboozled and misled so as to enable the Establishment elite to authorize invading those two countries by the Republican President George Bush II, and the American and international Media conspired to agitate for war as well. Democratic President Barak Obama, not surprisingly, continues the lie by increasing U.S. military involvement in Afghanistan and by having no plans to pull the United States out of that barren, pointless military occupation.

Once again, we have a consistent pattern here: the U.S., in spite of its huge size and military might, is—strangely--often the target of attack by far smaller, rogue nations or “terrorist” organizations and therefore, unwillingly, has to combat the aggression that was visited on it first—at least that is the narrative we are always supposed to believe. The U.S. is always the victim of unprovoked, unjustified assault and it only attacks countries or organizations that have attacked it first—hence, the domestic myth of the United States as victim in international affairs and not as imperial bully. Hence also the need, for domestic propaganda purposes, for American leadership to portray the U.S. to the American public as pacifistic and only re-active to threats and unprovoked attacks on itself.  

Finally, this would be a good point to remark on the Fallacy of False Conflation. It occurs when someone, through confusion, sloppy thinking, or deliberate malicious obfuscation improperly fuses two distinct and separate items into one entity. One sees this fallacy employed constantly in the Media. We see this, for example, when the Media talks about the U.S. president’s or congress’s policy or position on an issue and casts it in such a way as to give the appearance that the public is one with the government on that issue. To elaborate, instead of the U.S. Media stating that “the U.S. government is restricting travel by all American citizens to Cuba” instead it will say “the United States’ policy is to limit travel to Cuba.” By conflating the U.S. government’s official policy with the purported attitude of the totality of American public the Media gives a false sense of unanimity to that issue. Someone might argue that this is legitimate because the U.S. government is representative of the people, and therefore it can speak on behalf of the whole public, but the simple fact of the matter is that this is not true. For example, while the poor comprise approximately 30% of the U.S. population there is literally no poor person who actually sits in congress or the White House. Only a full democracy or a lotteryist government (i.e., a government body selected by random lots and in which the actual demographics of a country are proportionately represented in government) can truly consider itself “representative.” The ruling elite in the U.S. that controls the political parties and institutions here love the practice of False Conflation because it deceitfully conflates legislation and policy which benefits the wealthy and powerful ruling elite as being also, and simultaneously, in the interests of the ruled masses. Instead today, until things change and we get a truly demographically representative government, there should always be a distinction made between the rulers and the ruled in the United States.


As the old English proverb has it, “The devil does not trip you up with outright lies, but with half-truths,” and, as we shall, see the conventional account of the Holocaust is riddled with half-truths. (This fallacy is otherwise known to philosophers and logicians as the “Argument by Half Truth” or “Suppressed Evidence.”)

I.) Introduction

My Theoretical Framework for Understanding the Holocaust, Some Definitions, and Other Important Background Considerations.

Very simply, my scholarly view of the Holocaust is as follows: the Holocaust is untrue, but not false. The Holocaust is "untrue" in the sense that we do not have a whole, complete, multifaceted account of it. Instead of a holistic account of the Holocaust what we have is some good information, some misinformation, and some outright dis-information. Truth is whole, and we do not have the whole truth with the conventional account of the Holocaust. Yes, the standard account of the Holocaust has some elements of truth to it, but what is more significant is what the conventional account leaves out—the “suppressed evidence” of which I spoke earlier. The Holocaust is "not false" in the sense that, yes, some Jews died (but, contrary to popular opinion, exactly how many is the subject of profound scholarly debate—or should be). Since there is some truth to the conventional account of the Holocaust I cannot call it false.

Another way to look at this is: the standard account of the Holocaust is untrue in that it purports to be a complete picture of the circumstances and suffering of Jews in the camps, but it is not. Just to cite one important example—what are the reasons the Nazis had for their antipathy towards the Jews? Surely if one wants to truly understand the Holocaust one must be able to give an honest account of this, but we do not have it. Instead, we are told to believe that the Nazis had an irrational and racist homicidal bloodlust for Jews and that there were no good reasons why the Nazis (or the Germans, for that matter) were skeptical of Jews and the Jewish community. The virtue of this line is that it excuses lazy or biased Holocaust scholars from having to explain that, yes, the Nazis did have some legitimate concerns with Jewish behavior and that these concerns resonated with the German public. What is perhaps even more significant about the standard narrative of what happened at the camps is what the standard account excludes or ignores. It is in order to correct this imbalance in Holocaust scholarship, i.e., that the Nazis, alone, are solely responsible for the Holocaust, that I write this booklet. As I will argue, many powerful, high-level Jews and Zionists conspired with Allied leaders to, in fact, orchestrate the Holocaust and then, after the war, blame the Nazis and the Germans as the ones solely responsible for it.

As I acknowledged, I certainly do not deny that Jews died in the camps, but even here a lot more has to be said. How many deaths make a “Holocaust”? One? Ten? A hundred? A thousand? Ten thousand? A hundred thousand? A million? Six million?...and so on. And what if, for the sake of argument, it turns out that the original and now widely accepted figure of 6 million was deliberately grossly overstated and has to be scaled back to, say, 3 million? Is it still “The Holocaust” or do we need to invent a new term that includes in it the connotation that the original figure was a fabrication—“The Holofraud” perhaps? I too, can pull a number out of the air—six million--and claim that that many Jews died, but is it true? Where is the critical skepticism? Where is the proof? And why doesn’t anyone ask? And if we do not invent a new word for designating an event that was consciously and fraudulently exaggerated, why not? And does it matter that while approximately half of those who died in the camps were non-Jews, there is no term like “the Holocaust” to refer to those dead? Once again, why is that? Does Jewish suffering trump Gentile suffering? Do the deaths of Gentiles not count? Why does the phrase “the Holocaust” in the popular imagination only refer to Jewish death and Jewish suffering in the camps? Who is responsible for that and why? Do we have evidence here of a historical event being invented linguistically? Does the mere fact that a word exists--the “Holocaust”--prove the existence of the thing it names, or does this beg the question? Once a term is invented to define and invent an event, institutions and interests grow up around that term and the term can be seen to take on a life of its own. Words conjure reality into existence. While I find the invention of the “Holocaust” to be a fascinating topic in and of itself, I merely want to point out to some of my more philosophical readers that there are profound epistemological issues at play when discussing the “Holocaust,” issues that rarely get raised but should. For now, I merely want to acknowledge and note that. Recognizing that the “Holocaust” is both untrue, but not false, is an important conceptual distinction to keep in mind when attempting to wrap one’s mind around this topic and it is the scholarly viewpoint I have arrived at from my investigations into conventional, Establishment Holocaust scholarship. This is not a mere verbal quibble but a crucially important distinction to draw when framing this investigation into the “Holocaust.”  

“The Holocaust,” a Definition.

Here, belatedly, would probably be a good time to raise the question of what is meant by the phrase, "The Holocaust"? A Jewish woman at one of the talks I gave on Jewish/American Holocaust Denial insisted that the "Holocaust" was simply a German soldier shooting an innocent Jew on some back alley in Europe during World War II, period. At first hearing, this may sound all well and good—every individual is important—but if one accepts this definition, then when an Israeli (Jewish) solider puts a bullet in the head of an unarmed Palestinian youth that would be a "Holocaust" as well. (I suspect she was not willing to go there however.) I think we need a more sophisticated (and generally accepted) definition of "The Holocaust." As I see it, when most folks use the phrase "The Holocaust" they are referring to the conscious, malicious, and institutionalized murder of innocent Jews by the Nazi regime on the eve of, and during, World War II. (True, approximately half of the persons who died in German concentration camps in World War II were Gentiles, but since the Jewish community has appropriated the term "Holocaust" to only refer to their suffering, I will begrudgingly accept that limitation to this definition. When I refer to both Jews and Gentiles suffering and dying in the camps, I will use the phrase, "The Carnage.")

Some important preliminary notes and questions.

First of all it is important that we think clearly about the topic of the Holocaust, and an important part of this is having clearly understood and defined terms. True, the Jewish community is not monolithic, and though virtually all Jews today are Zionists in one form or another--with the constant reminder of the horrors of the Holocaust in the back of their minds Jews today almost all believe that a Jewish state is necessary for the protection and survival of Judaism and the Jewish community--this wasn’t necessarily the case in the 1930s.

Jewish responses to Zionism

According to the website Third World Traveler, “Anti-Zionism, Definition and Description,”[2] before the 1930s the majority of the world's Jews could loosely be considered “anti-Zionist,” in that they did not actively support the Zionist goal of the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine or elsewhere. Nevertheless, calling them “anti-Zionist” needs to be heavily nuanced.
In the 19th and early 20th century Reform Jews of Germany used the word "Zionism" to refer to a political and social movement which encouraged them to emigrate to Palestine. Reform Jews who did not want to emigrate are sometimes described as anti-Zionists. Nevertheless, Reform Jews did not reject the right of individual Jews to move to Palestine and found a Jewish nation. Instead, they rejected the idea that they themselves had an obligation to do so.

Furthermore, before the 1930s, the majority of Western European and American Jews were of the opinion that since Jews could live safely and freely in countries such as the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, and France, there was no need for a Jewish state. Jews campaigning for a unique state of their own would be harmful, it was believed, because it would create the impression that Jews were not loyal to the countries in which they lived. Many Jews also believed that the Jewish "mission" had evolved from tribalism to a more nationalistic and inter-nationalistic stance. They identified themselves as citizens of their particular country first and only after that as persons who happened to practice the Jewish faith. They did not see themselves primarily as Jews first who only resided in a “foreign” nation.

As for 19th century and early 20th century Orthodox Jews, many of them objected to Zionism because they rejected secular and atheist attempts to build a secular and socialist Jewish state in Palestine. These Orthodox Jews did not oppose the right of Jews to move to Palestine and found a Jewish nation, but they wanted that nation to follow Jewish law and tradition and that the leaders there would be religious Jews. Other Orthodox Jews of that time opposed the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine before the arrival of the messiah. They did, however, accepted the right of individual Jews to move to Palestine.

Many European Jews supported socialist or communist political ideas. They took the position that the defeat of anti-Semitism and securing civic equality for Jews required participation in the common, joint, struggle against capitalism and oppressive governments. By Zionists advocating emigration to Palestine they were perpetuating the segregation of the "ghetto"—something that many of these socialist Jews were fighting to get away from. In fact, the largest Jewish socialist organization in Europe, the General Jewish Labor Union, known as the Bund, forcefully opposed Zionism right up until the German invasion of Poland in 1939. In short, while the majority of Jews did not object to fellow Jews resettling in Palestine, nevertheless the great majority of Jews did not feel any obligation or compulsion to settle in Palestine themselves.

Now, with respect to at least one significant division within the Jewish community, I would like to draw a distinction between “Big Jews” and “Little Jews.” Yes, this sounds somewhat patronizing, but it is a justified and convenient distinction to make and it is important that we acknowledge this split. By “Big Jews” I mean influential and wealthy Jews who directly shaped imperial Allied policy, both domestically and internationally, both before and especially during the war. Many “Big Jews” were Zionists, but with a twist—they believed in a Jewish homeland in Palestine but were willing to postpone establishing a Jewish colony there until after the war was settled, after assimilated and Orthodox European Jews suffered and died in large enough numbers to make them into Zionists and want to emigrate to Palestine. As I will argue, this was a very conscious, very calculated move on their part. As noted, they wanted to exacerbate the sufferings of “Little Jews” under the Nazis in order to foment European Jewish emigration to Palestine. In contrast to the “Big Jews” we have the “Little Jews,” the great mass of Jews who did not shape Allied governmental or military policy and who were not necessarily committed to establishing a Jewish homeland in Palestine; of the “Little Jews” who were Zionists, they generally wanted a Jewish homeland in Palestine immediately and were willing to work with anyone, British or Nazi, who would facilitate that outcome.

It is perhaps difficult, especially for modern Jews who have been so indoctrinated in the conventional account of the Holocaust, to realize that there was more dissention and debate over the need or desire for a Jewish homeland in Palestine in the early 20th century than there is today. Today, in retrospect, the horrors of the Holocaust justify the founding of the Jewish state of Israel, but there was no such perceived cataclysmic event that transparently justified establishing a Jewish state in the early part of the 20th century. Besides, many Jews had become comfortable with European life and the idea of returning to an economically backward, undeveloped, and arid region was not all that appealing, even given the Jewish religious associations with the land of Israel/Palestine. If re-colonizing Palestine was so attractive to your average European Jew, then most would have left for there long before World War II began, but they did not. With this in mind it is important to consider that if the war had ended early, with relatively little Jewish suffering, then would there have been the same fervor among Jews to re-settle Palestine and convert it into a Jewish state as there was after World War II and the horrors of the Holocaust got wide publicity? And if there would not have been the same groundswell of Jewish interest in re-settling Israel/Palestine had a full Holocaust not happened, then might this calculation have played a role in Jewish Zionist leaders (“Big Jews”) negligence, reluctance, and obstructionism when it came to their oddly recalcitrant behavior, i.e., their temporizing and refusal to come to the aid of the suffering masses of “Little Jews”? In short, did “Big Jews” want “Little Jews” to suffer, starve, and die so as to advance the cause of founding a Zionist Jewish state in Palestine and in order to get masses of “Little Jews” to emigrate there? This possibility is something that needs to be seriously entertained, especially since it would go a long way towards explaining “Big Jew” Zionist behavior towards the prosecution of the war and their arguable heartlessness towards “Little Jews.” Once again, in sum, with respect to the Holocaust, were “Little Jews” the sacrificial pawns used by “Big Jews” in order to found a Jewish state in Palestine and people it with Jews?

Continuing with the topic of having clearly defined terms, what is meant by “The Big Lie”? The answer: It is a lie so outrageous, a lie so impossible to believe someone would have the audacity to utter it were it not true, that it takes on, because of its sheer magnitude, the appearance of unimpeachable truth. While originally a practice attributed by Hitler to the Jewish community, it has come now to be seen—through a curious inversion of logic—as an attribute of Nazi, not Jewish, propaganda. With the above in mind, I have entitled this booklet The Big Lie: the Holocaust for obvious reasons.

On the use and abuse of the pejorative label, “Holocaust denier.” One more thing needs to be said about the conventional narrative of the Holocaust and those so-called “scholars” who label critics of the orthodox Holocaust narrative as suffering from the mental illness defense mechanism known of as “Denial.” “Denial” is a psychological defense mechanism reportedly employed by a mentally ill person to deny reality, to deny what is transparently and universally acknowledged as true. So-called Holocaust “scholars” very often label their opponents as being “in Denial,” or “Holocaust Deniers,” and therefore mentally ill by not being able to, or wanting to, face the reality of the Holocaust. Some contemptible Holocaust “scholars” do this to cheaply and easily denigrate and dismiss free-thinkers who want to challenge the veracity of the conventional account of the Holocaust so as to avoid debating some very real, very disturbing, and very salient issues surrounding the Holocaust. Reportedly one is “in Denial” when one supposedly rejects overwhelming evidence (according to whom?) and maintains a contrary or alternative position in spite of this so-called “overwhelming” evidence. One can easily see why many conventional Jewish Holocaust scholars would latch onto this term and use it as a truncheon to intimidate and silence a free-thinking opponent: who wants to be labeled “out of touch with reality” or “mentally ill”?--no one! To my (apparently disturbed) mind, even if the conventional account of the Holocaust were true (but it is not), it is completely wrong and dishonest to dismiss an opponent by attacking their mental health (argumentum ad hominem, abusive) instead of their arguments. Such a demagogic ploy can also be seen as committing the fallacy of “poisoning the well.” In other words, denigrate your opponent as mentally ill or unstable so that whatever comes out of his mouth (or his pen) is tainted and can be dismissed without much ado. It is a very effective ploy to use on an unsophisticated audience. Any so-called “scholar” who dismissively uses the self-serving and loaded psychological label “in Denial” to brand, intimidate, threaten, and silence an opponent should be severely reprimanded (in my view at least). For my own part, if I were to have to label myself, I would term myself a “Holocaust Truther,” because I want the whole truth, not just self-serving portions of half-truths, presented to the public.

A Preliminary Note on the Jewish versus the Christian Weltanschauung and How It Relates to the Holocaust.

It is vitally important to note how, ideologically, Judaism differs from Christianity, especially with respect to interpreting and dealing with slights, perceived and otherwise. Judaism, broadly speaking, is much more oriented towards acknowledging and reminding Jews of the sufferings they have experienced, particularly at the hands of non-Jews. Victimhood is almost celebrated, and certainly commemorated, by Judaism. Judaism is also a theology and morality of revenge, unlike “turn-the-other-cheek” Christianity. Just to mention two major Jewish holidays, Passover and Hanukkah: with Passover Jews commemorate their escape from Egyptian slavery and the punishment the Jewish God meted out on the first born sons of Egypt—these children were all killed. Apparently Jews and their god do not have a problem with infanticide, especially if the victims are Gentile. Of course Jews and most Christians believe in the Passover (after all, it is in the Torah and the derivative Bible so it must be true!) but the simple fact of the matter is that the story is just that—a story. Jews were never slaves in Egypt (the Egyptians paid day laborers to work on the pyramids) nor is there any independent historical or archeological evidence that Jews were ever slaves in Egypt—it is a complete fantasy.[3] On the other hand, Jews were very heavily involved in the international slave trade in the Roman Empire.[4] 

Second, Hanukkah: which typically occurs in December, often right near Christmas. While Christians the world over are celebrating forgiveness and the universal, international brotherhood of man at Christmastime, Jews instead are celebrating the slaughter of assimilated Jews by Orthodox Jews (led by the Maccabeus brothers) at Hanukkah. We could not have more contradictory celebrations in December: Christians celebrating universal brotherhood, Jews celebrating parochial and homicidal Orthodox Jewish racial, ethnic, and religious purity—ethnic “cleansing” of their own people by their own people!!! As Christ taught, we should all learn to love our enemies and practice love and forgiveness. Jews, on the other hand, in the words of the apostate Jew, Baruch Spinoza, worship “a God of hate.”[5] Venality and brutality are praised and genocide is celebrated as an appropriate punishment for any non-Jewish tribe that either dares to stand up to the Jews or is simply on land that the Jews want (see Jewish genocidal treatment of the Amorites and Canaanites in the PentateuchDeuteronomy 2:33-34 & 20:16-17). It is very important to know that Christians and Jews come from different ideological worlds and have very different worldviews and moral categories with which to understand history and behavior. The reason this is important to note is, for example, if you are a Christian, your general orientation and interpretation of victimization is, generally, much different from someone who has a traditional Jewish upbringing and perspective. Christians are more apt to discount or dismiss victimization whereas Jews, generally speaking, are more apt—because of their traditional religious ideology—to affirm, nurse, and remember their perceived victimization and seek vengeance as a remedy. Furthermore, Christianity, because it is an exoteric religion, is more apt to recognize all people as equals, regardless of race, heritage, or ethnicity. Jews, on the other hand, because it is a esoteric religion based on blood and ethnic lines, is much more apt to divide people into human beings (the Jewish in-group) and sub-human beings (everyone outside of the Jewish in-group). Finally, with respect to Judaism, it is important to note that it is a religion based on practice, not belief. There is no Nicene Creed that all Jews must affirm to call themselves “Jewish.” Instead, if one practices kosher dietary rules and performs the traditional Jewish practices at Passover, one can call oneself “Jewish.” Hence the odd (to Gentile ears) notion that, yes, one can be an atheist and a “Jew.”

A Note on Journalism as Practiced in the United States.

According to standard journalism practice here is the U.S., if a “fact” can be thought to be a part of the “common knowledge” (whatever that means) of a society, then it does not need to be footnoted or referenced. Depending on how you look at this practice, there are either profound problems with it, or it is a god-send (to those who set and control public opinion, i.e., “common knowledge,” here in the U.S.). With respect to the former, there are a whole slew of epistemological problems—who establishes “common knowledge,” what if “common knowledge” is wrong (as so often is the case), it still gets repeated as though it were true (remember that old truism: a lie repeated often enough becomes the truth), what if “common knowledge” is in fact established for the nefarious purpose of domestic indoctrination instead of for benignly informing the public, and what if Intelligence agencies and the entertainment Media have a very deliberate and self-serving covert agenda…etc? On the other hand, some would consider it a god-send: it eliminates the cumbersome need to footnote everything (though one could avoid this and at least put a general disclaimer on, say, the front page of a newspaper reminding readers to be wary of unsupported claims), but it also could be used maliciously and covertly by the conventional Establishment Media to set the terms and parameters of an issue or topic of debate and thereby make it burdensome for someone who challenges “common knowledge” by placing the onus on the dissident to document and set the record straight. All this reminds me of the dictum by the apostate Jew, Karl Marx: “The ruling ideas are the ideas of the ruling class.” That is transparently obvious in the pro-capitalist, pro-Jewish/Zionist, and anti-poor (and, in many respects, anti-Christian) United States. Unless one is willing to mouth conventional pro-Establishment pablum on the tv, radio, or in print, one rarely has the opportunity to speak to a broad audience, let alone find employment in the Media. Censors and screeners stand guard at the door, and even though the Media does not explicitly and publicly prohibit dissenting views at the front door, it often only invites as front door guests opinion-shapers who are hand-selected and Establishment vetted. Even well known so-called “reputable” dissidents like Noam Chomski are, arguably, covert Mossad intelligence gatherers or sayanim as witnessed by his tortured, pro-Establishment accounts of the Kennedy assassination and 9/11.  

In sum, the deck is stacked. Given present journalism practice, bias and prejudice are reinforced and the burden of proof is placed on anyone who wants to challenge “common knowledge”—or, more accurately, “common bias and prejudice.” Platitudes and conventional thinking (especially ruling Establishment thinking) is reinforced, and dissident and novel, unconventional ideas are discouraged, given the present practice of journalism here in the U.S. I think this is deliberate, and this practice and bias needs to change as well. My only wish here is to acquaint you with this as an issue because it does factor into your conscious and sub-conscious predisposition to accept or reject what I will argue in what follows here.[6] 

Finally, do I have an agenda? Yes and no: unlike many Establishment Holocaust scholars I am attempting here to provide a balanced, complete (to the degree possible in an Introduction), and holistic interpretation of the Holocaust (how many Holocaust scholars that you know of actually provide a sympathetic interpretation of the Nazis?), so in that respect I do not have a parochial agenda; on the other hand, I do want you to think critically about the Holocaust (and other things as well) so in that respect, yes, there is an outcome I am trying to bring you to--namely, I am trying to get you to think for yourself--if you want to call that an “agenda.”

One of the Great Life Lessons I Learned from Studying Philosophy.

One of the great life lessons I learned from studying philosophy is that if one is going to challenge an opponent, one must construct the best and strongest argument for the opposition before taking him on. Anyone can always set up and then easily knock over a straw man (which, in all honesty, seems to be the modus operandi of most Holocaust scholars towards the Nazis), but if you are going to be truly intellectually honest you must show proper intellectual respect, honesty, integrity, and understanding for your opponent. It is with this guiding principle in mind that I will here re-open an investigation into Nazi, Jewish, and Allied responsibility for the Holocaust.

II.) On the Germans, the Nazis, and the Jews.

A.) When and Where to Begin Our Investigation.

We have to start somewhere. A logical point of entry would be the Nazi rise to power. True, we could go back farther and begin, also logically, with the history of World War I and the Treaty of Versailles or, perhaps even better, with the formation of the German nation as a national state in 1871 and the incipient challenge it posed to the existing global imperial powers of France and Brittan (and, to a lesser degree, the United States). However, since we have to start somewhere, a good, but granted somewhat artificial, point of demarcation would be the Nazi rise to power in Germany and their critique of the Jewish community. Their critique obviously resonated with many Germans, so we need to investigate why.  

B.) What Was the Nazi Critique of the Jewish Community?

If Jews are honest when they say “never again,” then they should all be familiar with the Nazi critique of the Jewish community. If one honestly wants to know how to prevent something from happening again, especially if it resulted in massive suffering and death, it is only logical that one would look very carefully to the causes that brought about that event, and not dismiss such an inquiry. Very often Holocaust scholars attribute the rise of Naziism to inexplicable hate-mongering and irrationality--the Nazis merely had an irrational blood-lust for Jews. If something is preemptively defined as “inexplicable” or “irrational” it excuses one from having to explain that “something.” How can reason be used to understand the irrational? That dishonest tactic for dismissing potentially legitimate Nazi criticisms and concerns with respect to the Jewish community needs to be exposed for what it is—a self-serving demagogic ploy used to obfuscate history and justify ignorance rather than to understand an event. The same Holocaust scholars who employ this dishonest method often, out of the other side of their mouth, reverently proclaim that we must “understand history,” as though they themselves do and that we need to consult with them, as the repositories of historical (half-)truth, to learn what “history” has to teach us.  

The simple fact of the matter is that the Nazis and the Germans had a litany of complaints against the Jewish community as listed below:[7] 

a) Jews were, as a group, highly conspiratorial, and highly organized. More loyal to the Tribe than to the nation-state in which they resided. Jews also unjustly favored and promoted fellow Jews over better qualified (non-Jewish) candidates as means of seizing control of an institution, organization, or political party. (George Orwell called this tactic and practice “oligarchic collectivism” in his classic dystopian novel, 1984.) 
b) Jews controlled international banking and finance.  
c) Jews controlled the international Media 
d) Jews controlled Hollywood and often used Hollywood to disseminate propaganda under the guise of entertainment.  
e) Jews controlled most Western political parties (through the Media, through blackmail, and through legalized bribery, otherwise know of as “campaign contributions”).  
f) Jews controlled White Slavery (at least in Vienna and German speaking countries, according to Hitler).  
g) Jews were a nationality without a nation (similar to the condition with Poles during the Partitions, and similar to the Germans in the Sudetenland and in 1930s western Poland); just as Hitler and the Nazis believed in a Germany for Germans, they also believed in a “Jerusalem for Jews,” so to speak. The Versailles Treat had many Jewish representatives and delegates (in fact, the Weimar Republic constitution was written by a Jew), and the Nazis, and many ordinary Germans, felt cheated and abused by the Entente by having German speaking home territories and colonies dismantled and appropriated by the French and British and having German speaking populations separated from Germany proper and instead being assigned to non-German speaking countries—as happened in Poland and Czechoslovakia for example.  
h) Jews dominated the Soviet communist movement (“Judeo-Bolshevism” it was called), Marxist groups, Unions, and labor movements, and were responsible, via agitating for labor unrest, for Germany's defeat in World War I, the famous German “stab-in-the-back” hypothesis. Jewish politicians also dominated the Weimar Republic, the Entente's (France, Brittan and the US) imposed effete government on intrawar Germany. German National Socialism stood in opposition to Jewish International Socialism.  

With regard to the first point, that Jews did not see themselves primarily as citizens of the country they resided in, Rabbi Stephen Wise, an “American” and arguably the most important Jewish leader and Zionist of the pre-war and war years, agreed with Hitler:

"I am not an American citizen of the Jewish faith, I am a Jew... Hitler was right in one thing. He calls the Jewish people a race and we are a race."[8]  

With the above in mind, the question that needs to be asked is, “What did the Nazis or the Germans get wrong?” Which of these planks was false? (As an interesting exercise, ask yourself whether there is any truth to any of these claims with respect to the modern international Jewish community today vis-à-vis the country in which you live. I leave it to each individual to answer that question on their own.)

C.) How Did the Nazis Respond to Their Critique of the Jewish Community?

Since the Nazis believed Jews were highly conspiratorial, highly organized, and highly nepotistic, their solution to crypto-Judaism was to require Jews to wear identifying badges—the famous yellow Star of David patches. They also, for example, made it illegal for Jews to hide the fact that they were Jewish. For example, on Nazi German national ID documents Jews had a large, red “J” stamped on them and, moreover, Jewish men had to have the forename “Israel” and Jewish women had to have the forename “Sara” printed on their IDs as well.[9] This was a very public notice and point of education for Germans that Jews were conspiracists and name-changing was a common methodology Jews employed to disguise their ethnic identity. By publicly identifying who was a Jew, Jews could not operate clandestinely. Even today Jews continue the very odd (to Gentiles), but commonplace amongst themselves, practice of changing their names so that they are perceived to be “native” to the country they find themselves in. Merely to cite some prominent Jewish Bolshevik leaders, Leon Trotsky, the Soviet Minister of War, was originally named Lev Davidovich Bronstein, and two of Stalin’s very closest top ranking political allies were the Jews, Lev Kamenev (or Lev Rosenfeld) and Gregory Zinoviev (or Gregory Apfelbaum). These two Jews (plus Stalin himself) formed the “Troika” that was decisive in catapulting Stalin to leadership of the Soviet Union after the death of Lenin. (Jewish dissimulation while at the same time holding high ranking positions of leadership authority in the Soviet Union also gives you a taste of Nazi concerns about Judeo-Bolshevik internationalism as a cover for international Jewish totalitarianism.) It should therefore come as no surprise to anyone familiar with pre-World War II German history and Jewish involvement in socialist and communist insurrections in Weimar Germany (e.g., the Spartacist Uprising) and in Russia that the Nazis would want Jews to be publicly identified as potential disloyal insurrectionists.

As for nepotism, just to cite merely one example, the Nazis believed that Jewish department heads and university faculty unfairly (and often clandestinely) reciprocally promoted Jews over better qualified nonJews at German universities simply because they were Jews.[10] To once again use Orwell’s succinct phrase, the Jews employed “oligarchic collectivism” to advance their own people into positions of power and authority over non-Jews. In other words, Jews would overtly and covertly reciprocally promote members of their own quasi-religious, quasi-masonic, in-group to higher and higher positions of authority until the whole of the organization so targeted was completely in their control. To combat this move the Nazis simply banned all Jews from university professorships, period. It does make sense.[11]

Regarding Jewish control of the Media, obviously the Nazis did not have control over the international Media but they did have control over their own domestic Media, so on October 4th 1933 Jews were banned from being newspaper editors and opinion shapers. As for Jewish control of international banking and finance, and Jewish businesses in general, on April 22 of 1938 Aryans were banned from operating front organizations for Jews, and on June 14 of 1938 Jewish-owned businesses were required to register with the state. On December 3, 1938 a law was passed requiring compulsory Aryanization of all Jewish-owned businesses.[12] 

Alternative political parties were of course banned in Nazi Germany, but more has to be said on this. If in fact it were true that Jews used the deceitful methodology of “oligarchic collectivism” to take over an organization, institution, or state “from the inside,” so to speak, then it does make some sense, at least, that the Nazis would be very wary of allowing easily infiltrated, easily corrupted, and easily hijacked organizations, such as political parties, from forming. Hitler and the Nazis would certainly have agreed with Chekov’s observation in The Government Inspector and would have seen it readily applied to the Jewish community, namely, Any damn fool general can invade a country from without; it takes real genius to invade a country from the middle--from the inside! This is what the Nazis were very concerned with—a cancerous Jewish invasion of the German body politic from the inside by a mutually and reciprocally self-promoting Jewish Kabal that would covertly promote fellow Jews to higher and higher positions of authority until the whole of the German state was under Jewish control; hence the banning of political parties and labor unions since they were easy inroads for such a potentially cancerous Jewish invasion. The Nazis were not without their reasons for being wary or concerned about all this; hence the increasingly onerous laws against the Jewish community in an effort to get Jews to emigrate from Germany and hence, looking ahead, the Nazi promotion of, yes, Zionism!  

D.) Nazi efforts to get Jews to leave Germany, pre-War.

a) The Reichstag Fire (February 27, 1933); a Marxist, Marinus van der Lubbe, set the Reichstag fire and he and his associates (including the leader of all Soviet operations in Western Europe, the Bulgarian Comintern leader Georgi Dimitrov--later, Soviet imposed post-War communist leader of Bulgaria) were arrested and charged with this crime.[13] (Only van der Lubbe was convicted however.) The burning of the Reichstag was interpreted by the Nazis as an attempt to foment a broad communist uprising in Germany and, given Comintern involvement, there is some evidence for that. Instead, the Nazis used this event as an opportunity to establish Hitler as Fuerher and establish a one party Nazi state in all of Germany. 
b) The Nazi counter-boycott of Jewish goods on April 1st 1933—often seen as the first national salvo in Nazi Germany directed at the Jewish community. True, the Nazis did declare a national boycott of Jewish goods, but this was only after the international Jewish community first declared a boycott of all German goods on March 24, 1933.[14]  
c) The Nuremberg Laws (Sept, 1935), forbid marriage and sexual relations between Germans and Jews, and it defined German citizenship by designating three classes: Jews, Mixed Bloods (“Mischling”) and Germans. However, Jews could fly the Zionist Star of David flag inside Nazi Germany, and many Orthodox Jewish rabbis and Zionists supported the Nuremberg laws (to maintain Jewish racial purity contra German Gentiles); after World War I the Jews of Germany were among the most assimilated in all of Western Europe since they spoke German, not their native Yiddish, at home. Laws segregating Germans from Jews and prohibiting inter-racial sexual relations was quietly greeted with applause in some Jewish quarters at least.[15]  
d) Krystalnacht (Nov. 9-10, 1938). Often presented today as Nazis and Germans gone berserk nationally, without presenting any historical context. The fact of the matter is that a couple of days before Krystalnacht a Jewish assassin, Herschel Grynszpan, assassinated a deputy German embassy official in Paris, Ernest von Rath. The riots in Germany began two days after von Rath was shot. The Germans only began rioting after von Rath died of his gunshot wounds on November 9th, 1938, not before then. Thousands of Jewish shops were destroyed and dozens of synagogues were vandalized.[16]  
e) The Evian Conference (France, July 6-13, 1938). This was a conference convened by U.S. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt to address the issue of Jewish emigration from Germany. President Roosevelt did not send an official State Department representative (as would be standard practice with an international conference called by the President); instead, Roosevelt merely sent a personal banking friend of his to act as the representative of the U.S. at the conference--Myron C. Taylor. This has given rise to the very legitimate claim that FDR did not take the conference seriously. Nazi Germany was not invited to attend, and—oddly, or not so oddly—Poland and Romania (which had large Jewish populations and would likely have been willing to take in Jewish refugees) had their solicitations to attend the conference rejected.[17] Only the Dominican Republic agreed to take in large numbers of Jewish refugees. "Evian" spelled backwards is "Naive", which Roosevelt no doubt knew when he deliberately selected the obscure French town of Evian in order to “send a message” to Hitler and the Nazis, namely, that we—the Allies—are not going to help Germany to transfer Jews to another country and that it would be naïve for the Nazis to think they would.
f) Besides the Nuremburg Laws, there were numerous other increasingly onerous laws placed on the Jewish community in Germany.[18] For example, Kosher food was prohibited (1933), Jews were placed under professional and employment restrictions (1934), banned from voting or holding office (1935-36), placed under educational restrictions (1938), and forced to emigrate (1939). All this was done slowly, but inexorably, to encourage Jews to leave Nazi Germany.
g) Nazi pre-War support of Zionism. The Nazis saw the Jews as in internally displaced nationality; therefore, they were more than supportive of Jewish Zionism and Jewish nationalism. In fact, once in power, the Nazis were the strongest supporters of Jewish Zionism in the world, period. Yes, it’s true. Hitler himself supported the Zionist movement.[19] This only makes sense because the Nazis wanted to rid themselves of a foreign nationality living on German soil, especially were war to break out. To foster support of Zionism, the Nazis did allow Jews to leave for Palestine, and actively encouraged Jews to go there.

To foster Jewish emigration to Palestine, the Nazis signed an agreement with the Zionist Federation of Germany, the Haavara Agreement of August 25, 1933. In this deal Jews would transfer most of their wealth to German holding companies and then upon arrival in Palestine their wealth could then be used to purchase German export goods for import to Palestine. It was a win-win situation for both the Nazis (who wanted Jews to leave Germany) and Jewish Zionists (who wanted an influx of Jews to Palestine) and was designed to facilitate the transfer of Jews to a Jewish homeland in the Middle East. 

Furthermore, to increase Jewish emigration to Palestine the Nazis sent an SS delegation to visit Palestine in 1934 as guests of Jewish Zionists there. The SS officers wrote glowing accounts of Jewish Zionist activity and settlements in Palestine (which was widely published in the Nazi press under the title, "A Nazi Travels to Palestine").[20]  
In fact:

...the Zionist movement flourished in Germany under Hitler. The circulation of the Zionist Federation's bi-weekly Jüdische Rundschau grew enormously. Numerous Zionist books were published. "Zionist work was in full swing" in Germany during those years, the Encyclopaedia Judaica notes. A Zionist convention held in Berlin in 1936 reflected "in its composition the vigorous party life of German Zionists."[21] 

In sum, the Nazis actively supported the Zionist press and Zionist newspapers before the war. (After the war began, the Allies shut off all emigration of Jews from Germany and therefore effectively choked off the emigration of Jews from Nazi territories.)

E. Some Pre-War Jewish Anti-Zionists.

Of course everyone is familiar with the so-called “heroic” and “foreknowing” Jewish Zionists who wanted to found a Jewish state in Palestine in the early part of the 20th century, but few people today realize that there was a strong anti-Zionist movement as well. According to “A Brief History of Jewish Anti-Zionism,” the main reasons most Jews were opposed to Zionism, before the war, was as follows: [22]  

The assertion of Jewish nationalism would cause the loyalty of Jews to be questioned in the country in which they resided. 
Zionism contradicted the desire of upper class Jews to integrate with the national life of the countries in which they lived, in order to attain economic and social advancement.... In Germany and Britain, the Jewish upper classes were sizeable, and provided the leadership of the Jewish community as well as leadership in German and British cultural, economic and political life. 
Anxiety of religious and social leaders that the Zionist movement threatened their pre-eminence. Zionism was not a movement of the [religious and social] Jewish establishment…. 
Understandable disbelief that the project of gathering millions of Jews and bringing them to "the Holy Land" was at all possible. 
Skepticism that Jews could be transformed into a nation of workers and soldiers. 
An understandable unwillingness to abandon comfortable homes and secure places in society in civilized places like Berlin or Warsaw, for the primitive, disease ridden and insecure conditions of [colonial British] rule in Jerusalem or the swamps of the Galilee. 

Jewish anti-Zionist organizations formed such as Agudas Yisrael (founded in 1912) and Neturei Karta (founded in Jerusalem in 1938) to combat Jewish Zionism. Be that as it may, some terroristic Jewish Zionists were not above murdering fellow Jews who stood in the way of founding a Jewish state. For example, there was Jacob Israel de Haan, an Orthodox Jewish writer who came to reject Jewish Zionism; he was murdered on June 30th, 1924 in Jerusalem by the Haganah on the orders of its leader, Yitzhak Ben-zvi, who was later to become the second President of Israel. De Haan’s crime? He wanted to negotiate with Arabs and he opposed a Zionist state.[23]  

There were also some very prominent politicians who opposed Jewish Zionism such as Sir Edwin Montagu (1879-1924), British-Jewish liberal politician; he not only opposed Zionism, he also opposed the “Balfour Declaration” (actually, merely a private letter composed by a Rothschild and then given to Foreign Secretary Balfour for his imprimatur); Laurie Magnes (1872-1933) was a prominent member of the anti-Zionist League of British Jews (founded in 1919); he edited the League’s newspaper, the Jewish Guardian, which began publication in the early 20th century expressly to combat Jewish Zionism.

From all this we see that, unlike today, Zionism was not monolithic in the Jewish community before World War II, and that some very prominent Jews not only opposed Jewish Zionism but actually tried to combat it.

F.) Why the Nazis wanted Jews to leave Germany before war broke out.

First of all it must be noted that the Nazis were not stupid. They knew that, were war to break out, there would be tremendous and onerous costs to the German economy and the German war machine were it required to incarcerate millions of Jews. There would also be profound logistical issues as well. These costs included setting up a police apparatus to round up and arrest Jews, the costs of transporting Jews to camps, and the costs of feeding, housing, and maintaining millions of Jews. Besides it would pull important and significant personnel resources--tens of thousands of men who could otherwise be better used at the front--from the German war effort were they assigned to protect internal security in Germany and the occupied territories. Moreover, given the very public Nazi antipathy towards Jews, the Jewish community itself was pre-disposed to be pro-Allied both before and during the War. It is not surprising then that the Nazis, very reasonably in a time of war, would want to intern potential dissidents, spies, and saboteurs, and this included the whole of the Jewish community. From the standpoint of strict efficiency, were the Nazis intent on exterminating the whole of the Jewish community in Europe, it would have been far more effective to kill Jews right on the spot than to transport them to camps, often hundreds of miles away from their domicile. Nevertheless, the Nazis did set up a huge internment apparatus and transported Jews there. There is a reason hundreds of thousands if not millions likely survived the camps—because, yes, the Nazis did attempt to keep them alive!!!

III.) Judeo-Allied Zionist Culpability for World War II and Nazi Attempts to Avert War and Save Jewish Lives.

A.) President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s Manipulation and Incitement of The United States into World War II on the Side of the Allies. 

1.) The Neutrality Acts.

President Franklin Delano Roosevelt was certainly not a peace-loving, unwilling conscript to World War II. If anything, FDR was a war-monger, pure and simple. During the 1930s when the Neutrality Acts were in place, FDR skirted their enforcement by cherry-picking the application of their enforcement. For example, according to the Neutrality Act of 1935, which forbade the U.S from trading with either warring faction in time of war, FDR invoked the Act to cut off all aid to both Italy (an Axis power with which the U.S. had had extensive trade) and Ethiopia (with which the U.S. had virtually no trade) in October of 1935. But when Japan (once again, an Axis power) went to war with China in July of 1937 Roosevelt refused to invoke the Neutrality Act (which had far more positive ramifications for the Chinese since they were dependent on importing arms and far more deleterious ramifications for Axis Japan, who controlled the Pacific Ocean, since the “cash and carry” provision was thereby not granted to Japan). In sum, Roosevelt was a transparent hypocrite when it came to following the spirit of the Neutrality Acts as Congress envisioned.  

2.) “Cash and Carry” and Lend-Lease.

Roosevelt also used loopholes in the Neutrality Acts, pre-war and after, to support a war footing in England and France but discriminated against assisting Nazi Germany. According to the “Cash and Carry” provision of the Neutrality Act of 1937 alluded to above, warring parties could purchase American war materials provided it was done on a “cash and carry,” not a loan, basis and the recipients took possession of the materials in American ports. Since the Allies controlled the Atlantic Ocean this was viable for them to do, but not for the Germans. In effect, this was a transparent breech of non-interventionism and very plausibly a de facto declaration of war against Germany, but it was permitted. When financial credit was running low for the Allied powers Roosevelt was able to end the Neutrality Act of 1937 so that by 1941 Lend-Lease was permissible. No longer would England have to pay cash, up front, for war material; instead, the U.S. war manufacturers could accept loans in lieu of cash payment for American war supplies. The U.S. government at that point dropped all pretense of being even-handed concerning the war in Europe; now the U.S. could give away (scot-free), lend, or lease war materials to belligerent nations at the (partisan) discretion of the U.S. government (more accurately, at the discretion of President Roosevelt).

I have already noted how in democracies, and in particular in U.S. representative democracy, the will of the people is subverted and manipulated into war, and how all of the other American wars of the 20th century were manufactured in order to enlist public support. With respect to World War II we have the same manipulation done by the political and domestic elite so that the U.S. would side with France and England against Nazi Germany. For example, in World War II Roosevelt had the United States cut off all oil shipments to Japan in the middle of 1941. As a result, the Japanese were forced to choose: either they had to end their imperial ambitions or seize the oil fields in Southeast Asia (and at the same time disable the U.S. naval fleet guarding those oil fields). Obviously, Japan chose the latter course. On December 7th 1941 the Japanese not only attacked Pearl Harbor, they also on that day assaulted the Philippines, Hong Kong, Singapore, Malaya, Guam, Wake Island, and Midway Island. Germany, in alliance with the Japanese Empire, declared war on the United States on December 11th, 1941, but the fact of the matter was that this was only a formality. The Roosevelt government--through lend-lease, through ignoring the domestic Neutrality Laws, by setting up, attending, and ratifying the pre-war, military preparation ABC (American/British/Canadian) Conference in the spring of 1941 (whereby Roosevelt planed, with the British and Canadian governments, how to get the U.S. entered into the war) as well as by the Atlantic Conference of August 9-12 of 1941—was, de facto, a very partisan and material ally of the British and French long before war was declared between the U.S. and Germany. The actual U.S. declaration of war against Germany was really a mere belated formality. 

B.) Nazi Attempts to Negotiate a Peace with the Allies in order to Bring the War to an End Early and Speculation on Why the Allies Refused to Negotiate.

After the Nazis got the last piece of real estate they wanted (the Danzig Corridor, and German speaking areas of western Poland), and defeated the Poles, a period of over eight months elapsed before the Nazis invaded France. What exactly happened during this eight month lull? It would have been wise for the Nazis to invade France as soon as possible after the defeat of Poland in order to take advantage of their superior military preparations and stockpiles, but they waited, and waited? Why?[24]  

While we do not have complete public records of the negotiations during the “Sitzkrieg” (the “sitting war,” i.e., the more than eight month span between the Nazi invasion of Poland and the Nazi invasion of France), my strong suspicion is that, now that Germany had the last piece of German-speaking territory it wanted reclaimed, it was prepared to negotiate a peace. Hitler in fact declared as much when, in frustration, he was forced to declare war on the United States. As Hitler laments at the very beginning of his declaration of war speech: 

“After the renewed refusal of my peace offer in January 1940 by the then British Prime Minister and the clique which supported or dominated him, it became clear that this war - against all reasons of common sense and necessity - must be fought to its end.”[25]

We do know that there was a flurry of negotiations between Germany and the Allies—the Nazis apparently wishing to end the war, and the Allies (France and Brittan) acting dilatorily in order to buy time to increase their war production. Interestingly, on May 10th, 1940, on the very day the bellicose Winston Churchill replaced the pacifistic Neville Chamberlain as Prime Minister in the British Parliament, the Nazis launched their attack on France and the Low CountriesThat was not a coincidence. From that day forward, from the very day of the election of Churchill as Prime Minister, it was transparent that the British were not going to negotiate a peaceful end to hostilities with the Germans. Hence, the Germans invaded on that very same day (no surprise there). The significance and symbolism of choosing that day for the invasion of France needs no elaboration.

Okay, the Germans successfully overran France and chased the British Expeditionary Force to Dunkirk where—supposedly mysteriously—Hitler called a halt to the German assault so British soldiers could retreat to England proper. This has come to be known as the “Miracle at Dunkirk,” but it wasn’t a “miracle” at all. The reason Dunkirk was called a “miracle” by the Allied leadership is because miracles do not need to be explained to the domestic public, they just happen. The truth of the matter, however, is that it was a very deliberate move on the part of the Nazis. So why did Hitler order the temporary suspension of military operations against the defeated and corralled British Expeditionary Force? Military common sense says that you completely route and destroy an enemy when he is “on the ropes,” so to speak. So why, exactly, did Hitler call a temporary cease-fire and allow thousands of British soldiers to escape across the English Channel possibly to fight again? One answer had to do with the town Hitler and his generals chose to corral the British Expeditionary Force into—“Dunkirk.” From a geo-political psychological warfare perspective it made sense that the British were backed into Dunkirk instead of say, Calais or Cherbourg, which they also could have easily have been forced to retreat to by the victorious German armies. “Dunkirk,” if anglicized, may be loosely translated to mean “done” + “church [“kirk” being “church” in Scottish].” The psychological message Hitler was sending to the Allies was that Big Jewish rule, and Churchill’s rule, in Brittan is at an end. It was also, by calling off the German assault so British soldiers could escape, an invitation, once again, from the Nazis to Brittan to come to a negotiated settlement to end the war. That of course, as we all know, did not happen, but it does explain the reason for the Nazi halt at Dunkirk—the Nazis were extending an olive branch to the defeated Allies. (Geo-political psychological warfare was also employed by the Nazis against Stalin in Operation Barbarossa, the German invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941. The Nazis deliberately picked June 22, the date of the summer solstice, the “longest day”—as it no doubt was for Stalin and fellow Soviet communists--for the timing of that invasion.)[26]  

Rudolf Hess. This man is perhaps the most tragic Nazi figure in all of World War II. On the one year anniversary of the invasion of France (May 10th) in 1941 he flew to England to attempt to avert a cataclysmic war engulfing all of Europe, especially including the Soviet Union. He was third in charge in the Reich, after Adolf Hitler and Herman Goering, and held the title “Deputy Fuerher.” He flew to Scotland to the estate of the Duke of Hamilton who Hess believed was an opponent of Churchill. Instead of being allowed to negotiate a peace, he was instead immediately arrested by British authorities and spent the rest of his life in solitary confinement, isolated from the public and the Media. After the war he was transferred to Spandau Prison in Berlin and held incommunicado for 40 years until he died. Many Nazi concentration camp commanders in fact were released from Allied custody well before Hess died. There was a reason Hess was completely isolated from the public until he died. If he testified publicly he would expose the lie that the Allies only wanted peace and that it was the Nazis who were uncompromising warmongers. Rumor has it that when he eventually died he was in fact murdered in Spandau Prison by British agents; that is the view of his son, Wolf Hess, at least. Regardless, it is a crime against history to have had him, an influential Nazi peacenik acting to bring an early end to the war and thereby save literally millions of lives, rot in jail. With the tragic death of Rudolph Hess we have the Fallacy of Suppressed Evidence writ large, and yet I never heard of any Holocaust scholars call for his release in order to provide the public with his insider account of Nazi political maneuverings vis-à-vis the war or the Holocaust. Shame. Shame!!! 

Another salient point: so why did the Allies only accept “unconditional surrender” from the Nazis? Roosevelt and Churchill declared the policy of “unconditional surrender” at the Casablanca Conference (January 14th to 24th, 1943). With Hess in mind, the answer as to why the Allies would only accept unconditional surrender is all too easy to understand. If the Allies agreed to a conditional surrender, the Nazis and the Germans might get a public hearing on their critique of the Jewish community, on their attempts to end the war, on Allied deceit in the run-up to, and prosecution of, the war, and on true responsibility for the budding Holocaust. It would be a public relations fiasco for the Allies to agree to a conditional surrender with the Nazis. Besides, the ‘Little Jews’ had to suffer more in order to get them to become committed Zionists and actually get them to emigrate to Israel. Consequently, a Media blackout of the Nazis’ own accounts of their motives and behavior simply had to be imposed in order to maintain the fiction of “The Good War,” and part of this blackout strategy was to accept only “unconditional surrender” from the Nazis.

C.) Nazi Attempts to Avoid the Holocaust and Save—Yes, Save!!!--the Lives of Jews.

As already noted, the Nazis actively encouraged Zionism and a homeland for Jews in Palestine. Interestingly, as an aside on Allied disinformation, one often hears that the Nazis seriously considered transferring Jews to the island of Madagascar, off the southeastern coast of Africa, the so-called "Madagascar Plan" for a Jewish homeland. The fact of the matter is that while the Nazis did not in any way seriously pursue this "Plan," the Allies, on the contrary, did in fact imprison over 1,000 "Little Jew" Zionists on the island of Mauritius, just off the coast of Madagascar, during World War II so they would not settle in Palestine. Talk about hypocrisy!!!

The "Blood for Goods" Mission. In early 1944 the Nazi responsible for Jewish settlement, Adolf Eichmann, sent a Jewish emissary, Joel Brand, to the Allies. This Nazi official wanted to exchange 1,000,000 Jews held in the camps for 10,000 trucks (to be used on the Soviet Front) and some other assorted non-military items. The Jew, Brand, was arrested by British authorities when he got to the Turkish-Syrian border and was only freed by the British when he eventually went on a hunger strike. By that time, Eichmann's offer had long since expired. How many thousands of Jews died as a result of deliberate Allied temporizing is anyone’s guess.

"The Final Solution" (Die Endlösung) --the deliberately mis-stated phrase from the Wannsee Protocal that purportedly was a Nazi euphemism for exterminating all of European Jewry. It is often employed by Holocaust scholars to mis-inform the public about the Holocaust. The phrase "the Final Solution" from the Wannsee Protocal actually has to do with transferring Jews, alive, to Soviet territory. See the following pertinent quote from the Protocal:

"In the course of the practical execution of the final solution [emphasis mine], Europe will be combed from west to east. Germany proper, including the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, will have to be dealt with first due to the housing problem and additional social and political necessities. The evacuated Jews will first be sent, in stages, to so-called transit ghettos, from where they will be transported to the East."[27] 

East of Germany and German occupied territories is, of course, Soviet Russia. That is where the Jews of Western and Central Europe were to be relocated. Misrepresenting the phrase “the final solution” is arguably the most transparent falsification of Nazi motives in all of conventional Holocaust literature.

The famine in Nazi Germany during the last year and a half of the War. The Allies were aware of this (it is even mentioned in the Diary of Anne Frank). Question: in a time of war and general suffering who would be the last to get food aid—German soldiers and civilians, or war prisoners and detainees? The answer is self-evident.

But what about the fact that, as we are told, many victims of the Holocaust were immediately gassed to death at the camps as they got off of the trains? Surely this shows the murderous intent of the Nazis. But not so fast: even assuming the Nazis gassed to death thousands of victims of the Carnage, the fact remains that the Nazis did not have enough food to feed everyone. Plausibly, therefore, the Nazi doctors at the camps--when they were reportedly selecting some Jews for immediate death, the old and the infirm—could in fact have been performing triage!!! Keeping alive those Jews who the Nazis thought would survive, and mercifully gassing those who would otherwise slowly starve to death without food. As for Zyklon B, the cyanide pesticide purportedly used to gas and asphyxiate Jewish internees, it was mainly a disinfectant used both before, during, and after the war as an insecticide against typhus. While some Jews may have been gassed in order to kill them, many others may have been gassed simply to disinfect and protect them (and the German soldiers guarding them) from typhus, a scourge that literally killed millions during World War I (as the many Germans who lived through World War I were no doubt were aware). Many Jews, dare I say, may not have (as we have been told) been asphyxiated and died in the gas chambers at all but instead they had their hair shaved and their clothing disinfected and de-liced with Zyklon B in order to prevent the spread of disease at the camps. It certainly is a very plausible explanation worth entertaining and has more explanatory force than merely presuming the Nazis and the Germans were irrational and hell-bent on indiscriminately murdering Jews and others in the camps.

[With the above in mind, I would like to settle once and for all the charge that the Nazis indiscriminately gassed millions of Jews to death in the camps.  I call for an independent, scientific, statistical exhumation of deceased and buried Jews from the camps to learn whether they have lethal doses of Zyklon B in their lungs.  Surely no one interested in the truth of what really happened during the Holocaust would object to this, right?!!!]

Besides it being in Nazi interests to expel Jews to Palestine (and work with willing ‘Little Jew’ Zionists to this end) and transfer them from German territory to a territory of their own, it also served a geo-political purpose as well. If the Jews were transferred to Palestine that would create a geo-political headache for the Allies (especially the British) who had to deal with an Arab uprising against Jewish Zionists in Palestine from 1937-39, and which may have sparked a broader anti-colonialist, anti-British and anti-American uprising around the world as well had Zionist colonial agitation not been postponed until after the war. Now we can see why the Nazis championed anti-colonialism: it fit in with their general “nationality for the natives” ideology, it was a potential weak point to leverage against the colonial powers (France, Brittan, the United States, and the Soviet Union) that stripped Germany of all its colonies after World War I, and it could further Nazi war aims as well by causing colonial unrest in the provinces of the established colonial imperial powers. In fact, one plausible explanation for the Teheran Conference [codenamed “Eurika”] being held there, of all places, is that the Nazis did, in fact, foment successful anti-British, anti-Allied colonial uprisings in both neighboring Iraq and in Iran (Persia) proper in 1941; by holding a conference from November 28th to December 1st in 1943 in Iran, Churchill, Roosevelt, and Stalin were sending a belligerent “in your face” message to the Nazis that their attempt to foment anti-colonial insurrections had failed once and for all![28] Furthermore, with respect to the Teheran Conference, reportedly Roosevelt was ill during the conference and this led him to appease Stalin by granting Stalin’s wish to appropriate pre-war Polish territory and give Poland part of pre-war Nazi German territory, all of which occurred, of course. It is ironic and disheartening to note that one reason the Nazis rose to power was because German-speaking peoples were cut off from Germany proper courtesy of the Versailles Treaty; this travesty of justice directly led to the outbreak of World War II. Hitler and the Nazis wanted to return Germans back to Germany proper. That was the main territorial goal of the Nazis. At the Teheran Conference not only did the Allies thumb their collective noses at the Nazi German wish for “lebensraum,” or “living space” for reuniting dislocated Germans, they went further and signaled that they would further truncated German territory after the war was won--yet another reason for the Nazis and the Germans to fight to the bitter end. While the Nazis failed to foment a viable, broad anti-colonial uprising in imperial Allied territories, the victorious imperial Allied powers at the Teheran Conference agreed and advertised their plan to further shrink German territory after the war as punishment to the presumptuous, ambitious, and upstart Nazis.

On a related note, for example, see domestic Allied propaganda employed to minimize to the domestic Allied public the Nazi threat to foment an anti-colonialist uprising in North Africa and the Middle East. To minimize the Axis anti-colonial strategy against the Allies it was necessary to downplay to the Allied public the Nazi anti-colonialist efforts in these regions of the world; hence, the “Panzerarmee Afrika,” as the Germans termed their army group (composed of 8 Italian divisions and 7 German divisions) was minimized by the Allies by terming it the “Afrika Korps” to the domestic Allied public.[29] There is a big difference between a “corps” (typically composed of two military divisions) versus an “army” (typically composed of two or more corps). The fact that the Germans and the Italians together formed an army group to combat the Allies speaks, decisively, to the seriousness with which they took the North African/Middle Eastern campaign, and goes to show how seriously the Germans were about fostering an anti-colonialist uprising there. The task of Panzerarmee Afrika was not merely to seize the Suez Canal or Middle Eastern oil, as Allied propaganda would have you believe, it was also done to foment anti-colonialist uprisings in British territories.

D.) Allied Attempts to Ensure the Holocaust Took Place.

There are numerous examples in which the Allies behaved in ways that fostered the Holocaust and ensured that it took place. Let’s look at this chronologically. To begin with, the Allies refused to accept additional Jewish emigrants both before and during the war—this in spite of the fact of Hitler and the Nazis’ well known antipathy towards the Jews. Before the war, in 1938, Rabbi Stephen Wise spoke on behalf of “Big Jews” and actively lobbied against the U.S. increasing Jewish immigration to America. He wanted them to go to Palestine. We also have the example of the Evian Conference of 1938, called by President Roosevelt (but not attended by either Roosevelt or his Secretary of State). Nazi Germany was not invited to the conference even though it took place right across their border in France. Purportedly the conference was a dismal failure (or was it?) because virtually no country agreed to accept any increase in Jewish immigrants.

Second, the Allies (and ‘Big Jews’) prohibited the Red Cross from sending food and emergency supplies to Jews and others in the Nazi concentration camps, even though the Nazis were allowing these humanitarian shipments to go through. Nor did the Red Cross report discovering any extermination gas chambers at any of the Nazi concentration camps during their visits.[30] The Allied Establishment rationale given to the public for the policy of denying food shipments to internees was that the Nazis would commandeer the shipments and use them for themselves—even though Jewish agencies in Europe did acknowledge that the Nazis were, in fact, giving the aid to the internees.[31]  

Third, there was an Allied Media blackout of the Holocaust. The general public had no idea that Jews were suffering especially onerously in Europe, even given well known Nazi antipathy for the Jews. This information was suppressed from the public. Why was that? Well, one reason was that by avoiding and subverting publicity of the Holocaust it allowed the Allies to avoid public demands for a speedy resolution to the war. And, as I am arguing here, if the war was brought to an early end, the “Little Jews” of Europe would not have suffered enough to get them to want to emigrate to Palestine and found, and people, a Jewish state. Hypocritically, the Allies and “Big Jews” claimed that they knew absolutely nothing of the 12+ million people in the camps (and the reported six million Jewish dead) until after the war. “Ya, right.” (For those who don’t get my sarcasm, here is an example.) 

Fourth, the Allies (Roosevelt and Churchill) declared at the Casablanca Conference in 1943 that they would only accept “unconditional surrender” from the Nazis. Ergo, there was absolutely no incentive for the Nazis to surrender early (and bring an early halt to the Holocaust), and end the war. Therefore, understandably, the Nazis fought to the bitter end since there was no incentive for them to do otherwise. By declaring that only “unconditional surrender” was acceptable, the Allies scored demagogic propaganda points with their domestic audiences and sounded resolutely bellicose during the war, but it also condemned millions of Jews and Gentiles to die in the Carnage that would last another two years after this self-serving declaration.

Fifth, Churchill and Roosevelt nixed General George C Marshall's scheduled invasion of Nazi-occupied France for April 1st, 1943.[32] By calling off this invasion of Nazi occupied Western Europe in early 1943, Churchill and Roosevelt arguably knowingly condemned millions more to die in the camps. Instead, the invasion of Western Europe by the Allies would be postponed until June 6th, of 1944—14 months later. Stalin, on the other hand, repeatedly pestered Churchill and Roosevelt to open up a second front in France as soon as the Soviet Union was attacked by the Nazis in 1941,[33] but Roosevelt and Churchill refused.

From this sampling of examples we can see merely some of the evidence for Allied and “Big Jew” promotion of the Holocaust.

E.) “Little Jew” Zionist Retribution for Allied Responsibility for the Holocaust.

Here I will cite one example, which on the surface seems absurd: why would Zionists alienate the British soon-to-be victors of World War II by assassinating the British Magistrate of Palestine in 1945 if the Zionists would necessarily have to negotiate with the British for Palestine after the war? However, on a deeper—dare I say, a “humanitarian”—level, the assassination of Lord Moyne makes perfect sense. 

As I have noted, there are Jewish Zionists terrorists and then there are Jewish Zionists terrorists. In World War II the basic distinction I draw between each of their approaches is that, while Establishment Jewish Zionist organizations and dissident Jewish Zionist organizations both wanted Jews to emigrate to Palestine, they each had different methodologies and time frames. The dissident Jewish Zionists (“Little Jews” such as the Stern Gang) thought that they could manipulate or work with the Nazi’s (“Germany for Germans! Israel for Jews!”) to get a Jewish homeland in Palestine—and they were correct (in a letter to the Nazi German embassy in Turkey, the Stern Gang even offers to fight for the Nazis and against the British in Palestine!)[34]; likewise, they thought it was the Allies—the Americans and especially the British—who were interfering with this goal. Not only were the Allies interfering with immediately establishing Palestine as a Jewish homeland, they were also, via deliberate negligence and temporizing, condemning millions of Jews to death in German camps. On the other hand, the Establishment Jewish Zionists (and “Big Jew” terrorists such as the Haganahdeliberately planned to orchestrate and facilitate a Holocaust of their fellow Jews (“Little Jews” as I term them), saddle the Nazis with the blame, and use that as a pretext to get a Jewish homeland in Palestine. The goal for each set of Zionists was the same—a Jewish homeland in Palestine—but while one group of Zionists (the dissident ones) wanted to avoid the Holocaust and immediately have Jewish refugees transferred from Europe to Palestine, the other group of Zionists (the Establishment ones) temporized and actively encouraged the Holocaust by working with the Allies and temporizing in order to exacerbate Little Jew suffering so as to ensure and establish a Jewish state in Palestine post-war. Of the three main pre-war and wartime paramilitary Zionist organizations—Haganah, Irgun, and Lehi (or the “Stern Gang”)--roughly speaking, the Haganah was by far the largest and was most willing to temporize with the Allies concerning a Jewish homeland, the Irgun was ambivalent, sometimes working with the British, sometimes not, and the Lehi were most consistently militant against the British occupation of Palestine. (In fact, after the assassination of Lord Moyne on November 6, 1944, the Haganah turned against fellow paramilitary Zionists and declared a “hunting season” on Lehi and Irgun members; persons involved in these groups were identified and reported to the British authorities by members of Haganah and funds, shelter, sanctuary, and employment was denied Lehi and Irgun members.)

Exemplum: Why the Stern Gang, a “Little Jew” Zionist terrorist organization, assassinated Lord Moyne, the British Magistrate of Palestine, at the very end of World War II?

By late 1944 the Nazis had lost World War II. It was now only a matter of time before the Nazi surrender was complete. If that was so, then why would the Stern Gang of Jewish Zionists assassinate the British Magistrate of Palestine on November 6th? The Germans could no longer help the Stern Gang get control of Palestine, so it would seem to be at least a tactical blunder to assassinate the British Magistrate since Zionists, after the war, would presumably need good relations with the British if they hoped of getting Palestine for themselves. So why did the Zionist Stern Gang murder Lord Moyne in Cairo, Egypt, when the war was almost over?

To understand the motives of the Stern Gang we have to step back half a year, to May of 1944. In that month SS Officer Adolph Eichmann met with Hungarian Jewish refugee representative Joel Brand and offered to transfer to him literally a million Jews—from “Auschwitz, Birkenau, wherever…”, provided in exchange he would get the Germans 10,000 trucks for the Eastern Front and other assorted non-military goods from the Allies. This has come to be known of as the “Blood for Goods” deal. Brand agreed to approach the Allies and was given safe passage by the Nazis to go to Turkey and then on to British controlled Syria, but when he approached the Allies to discuss the Nazi offer to spare Jews, he was arrested by the British and conveyed to Cairo for interrogation. Reportedly, while there, Lord Moyne interviewed him and asked him, rhetorically, “What am I to do with a million Jews?!”,[35] and the Allies ignored the Nazi offer, thereby condemning perhaps a million more Jews to death!!! 

Earlier warned by dissident Jewish Zionists in Turkey that the British would arrest him, Brand could not believe the Allies would apprehend him and prohibit him from carrying out a humanitarian mission to save Jews—but he was wrong! He was arrested by the British on the Turkish-Syrian border at Allepo, transferred and held in Egypt, incommunicado, and only released when he went on a hunger strike. But by now the timeframe to get an answer back to Eichmann had long since passed, so the chance to save countless Jewish lives went with it. The British, and Lord Moyne, by arresting and holding a Jewish emissary from the Nazis who was on a humanitarian mission to save Jews, are directly responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Jews as a result.

Therefore, not surprisingly, 6 months later, also in Cairo, Lord Moyne, the British magistrate who refused the Nazi offer to take in Jewish refugees from the Holocaust, lay dead. He was dead at the hands of dissident Zionists (“Little Jews”), not Establishment Zionists (“Big Jews”), because Establishment Zionists approved of Lord Moyne’s prohibition of Jewish emigration to Palestine during the war. Some Zionists, at least dissident ones, were aware that the Allies were not on their side when it came to rescuing Jews from the Holocaust—quite the contrary!!! I believe the Stern Gang knew exactly what I am telling you here: that the Allies were fomenting and nurturing the Holocaust and then going to blame it on the Nazis, solely. As retribution for British complicity in the Holocaust the Stern Gang assassinated Lord Moyne, the British Magistrate of Palestine. No other hypothesis that I can see makes sense or explains the Stern Gang’s behavior, especially, as I said, since Jewish Zionists would, very shortly, have to negotiate with Brittan in order to secure a Jewish homeland in Palestine. I rest my case. [Q.E.D.] 

F.) An Attempt at Recasting Half-Truth into Whole Truth: an attempt to give a more balanced account of Nazi motives and their plausible attempts to save Jews from death—Three Salient Examples. 

This brings me to perhaps the most sensitive (to those inured in the conventional account of the Holocaust in which blood-thirsty Germans were Hell-bent on butchering all the Jews they could get their hands on) counter-arguments I am going to present. As I noted right at the start, it is vital to present the most positive interpretation of an opponent’s position before one attacks him because (A) that is only fair and (B) it is often a truer account of an opponent’s motivations. True, most Holocaust scholars are uncritically pre-disposed to assign, categorically, malicious motives to the Nazis (remember my warning about “history as propaganda?”), but that is dishonest. Instead of this conventional approach, I will take the opposite view, and presume benign motives, or even well intentioned motives, on the part of the Nazis. To give three examples where we can recast Nazi or German motives from malicious to benign are the following: camp internment, the purported gassing of newly arrived internees, and the selection of the “weak” for immediate extermination by Nazi medical officials at the camps.

First, to begin with camp internment, just as the U.S., for example, interned thousands of Japanese and Germans during World War II for national security reasons, so also the Nazis interned Jews for national security reasons as well. Both nations took steps they thought were reasonable and defensible given the purported questionable loyalty of these populations in a time of war. But while the U.S. escaped damage and famine during World War II, the Germans did not, and the Allies took advantage of this. Not only did arresting, transporting, and interning millions of Jews cost the Nazi war machine dearly, and siphon off needed men from the front, it also open up German civilian concentration centers (i.e., cities) for indiscriminate aerial bombardment—the infamous Allied carpet bombing campaigns against German, city-dwelling civilians in World War II. By having Jews interred in concentration camps outside of cities, this freed up German cities for massive aerial assault. Interestingly, there is no record of the Allies bombing a single Jewish ghetto in all of World War II in spite of the dozens of German cities bombed and fire-bombed by the Allies. This is odd. Cracow, for example, had a very large Jewish ghetto, was close to Auschwitz, and had significant strategic importance (it was the capitol of the Nazi-run General Government of Poland), and yet the Allies never bombed that city. Why is that? Most curious. Was there an Allied prohibition against bombing German or German-occupied cities if they had a significant Jewish population? That would seem to be the case from a strictly empirical point of view. In any event, the Allies may have taken advantage of the Nazi policy of holding Jews in concentration camps in order to bomb German cities. With Jews in the concentration camps it freed up German cities for merciless fire-bombing. Hence, the Allies could “kill two birds with one stone,” so to speak: with Jews in the camps and out of harms way from the Allies, it would be easy to make the case that the Nazis now were solely responsible for Jewish suffering and death, and by having Jews transferred outside of cities it freed up German cities for a massive Allied aerial bombing campaign.

Next, what about the gas chambers? Just because some people may have been later asphyxiated in the gas chambers does not mean that the gas chambers were originally set up for that purpose solely. Zyklon B, we are told, was the main chemical used to gas people in the chambers, but Zyklon B was mainly used, both before and during the war, as a fumigant to de-louse and de-flea potential carriers of typhus (as well as being used as an insect and rodent exterminate). Typhus was a terrible illness that killed millions during World War I, and it would be horrific if it became endemic to the concentration camps. Not only would it kill untold numbers of internees, it would also kill the German soldiers and staff at the camps and possibly spread beyond the camps and kill German civilians living nearby. Therefore, while gas may have been used to immediately put some Jews to death at the camps (but, as to how many exactly, it is debatable since we only have anecdotal testimony and unscientific estimates based on rumor), Zyklon B was certainly used as a fumigant to disinfect and protect both internees and German staff from the scourge of typhus.[36] The question to ponder then is, “Why would the Nazis go through all the trouble of saving untold thousands—if not millions--of Jewish lives by protecting them from typhus only to gas them to death later?” It is interesting that while typhus literally killed millions during World War I, especially on the Eastern Front, that Holocaust scholars rarely bring up the potential scourge of typhus at the camps and what the Nazis did, often successfully, to prevent its spread among the prisoners.

Finally, what about the notion that Nazi medical officials purportedly sent some of the “weak” directly from the trains to the gas chambers to be killed. Surely that speaks to the malicious, murderous intent of the Nazis! Not so fast. For the sake of argument I will accept that this was done, but it has to be kept in mind that there was a famine in Germany during the last year and a half of the War. It is even alluded to in the Holocaust literary fraud The Diary of Anne Frank. Now I ask you, in a time of famine and short supplies, who would be the very last to get food and supplies—German soldiers and civilians or POWs and camp internees? The latter, of course. On top of the fact that there were food shortages in Germany and in the German occupied territories, more and more people were being sent to the camps, and refugees were pouring into Germany to avoid Soviet dominion. These refugees had to be fed as well. As a result, the camps simply did not have enough food to keep everyone alive so a very difficult decision had to be made: possibly either starve everyone in the camps or try to select from among the internees who would most likely survive the camps and the war and who would not. I believe the Nazi medical officials at many camps probably opted for this latter position. In sum, instead of acquiescing to the slow deaths of all internees, the Nazi medical officials tried to, yes, save as many Jews as they could by performing triage—by trying to determine who would most likely live beyond the war (and give that person food and care) and mercifully acquiesce to the deaths of those unlikely to survive the war and who would siphon off food from the healthier, stronger Jews. In other words, yes, the old, this sick, the infirm, and the debilitated may—may--have been put to immediate death near the end of the War, I will, for the sake of argument, concede this, but this was not necessarily to satisfy some pathological blood-lust in the Nazis and the Germans but as a way for the Germans to preserve as many internee lives as possible. In fact, given the heartless fire-bombing of German cities by the Allies and the death and maiming of millions of German women and children I think the Germans and the Nazis showed remarkable restraint in not butchering all of the camp internees in a spasm of impotent vindictive rage at their personal sufferings.

G.) A Sample of “Big Jew” Zionist Statements on Zionism and ‘Little Jews,’ Both Pre-War and During the War.

In essence, the "Big Jews"--leaders of Establishment Zionist organizations and prominent Jewish policy-makers (for example, FDR confidant Rabbi Stephen Wise, Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau Jr., Supreme Court Judge Felix Frankfurter...etc.) conspired to shut down all public knowledge of the Holocaust (including actively prohibiting aid to displaced and imprisoned Jews held in Nazi concentration camps). On this score, some remarks of “Big Jew” Zionists are in order. For example, in 1938, in Rabbi Wise's capacity as leader of the American Jewish Congress, he wrote a letter in which he opposed any change in U.S. immigration laws which would enable additional Jews to find refuge here in the U.S. He stated:

"It may interest you to know that some weeks ago the representatives of all the leading Jewish organizations [i.e., the "Big Jews"] met in conference ... It was decided that no Jewish organization would, at this time, sponsor a bill which would in any way alter the immigration laws."[37]  

Since we are dealing with famous "Big Jew" statements concerning abandoning "Little Jews" during the Holocaust, also consider these pre-war and wartime quotes from "Big Jews":

“Germany…has too many Jews.” Observation made by Chaim Weizman, the first President of Israel.[38]  

“We Jews are aliens… a foreign people in your midst and we… wish to stay that way. A Jew can never be a loyal German; whoever calls the foreign land his Fatherland is a traitor to the Jewish people“.[39] Statement made by Zionist ideologue Jacob Klatzkin.

It is essential that the sufferings of Jews... become worse. . . this will assist in realization of our plans. . .I have an excellent idea. . . I shall induce anti-Semites to liquidate Jewish wealth. . . The anti-Semites will assist us thereby in that they will strengthen the persecution and oppression of Jews. The anti-Semites shall be our best friends”.[40] Statement made by Theordor Herzl, the founder of Zionism. [Emphasis mine.]  

"One Cow in Palestine is worth more than all the Jews in Poland." 
Izaak Greenbaum -- head of Jewish Agency Rescue Committee [sic].[41]  

"If I am asked, "Could you give from the UJA [United Jewish Appeal] moneys to rescue Jews, 'I say, NO! and I say again NO!" 
Izaak Greenbaum -- February 18th, 1943; head of Jewish Agency Rescue Committee [sic] during World War II, and later a cabinet minister in Israel's first government.[42]  

"If I knew that it would be possible to save all the [Jewish] children in Germany by bringing them over to England and only half of them by transporting them to Eretz Israel, then I opt for the second alternative." 
David Ben-Gurion informed a meeting of Labor Zionists in Great Britain in 1938; Ben-Gurion was the first Prime Minister of Israel.[43]  

From “Big Jew” Zionists themselves, many of whom went on to become presidents and prime ministers of Israel, we can see their, dare I say, monomaniacal, socio-pathological goal of founding a Jewish state in Palestine. If this meant sacrificing “Little Jews” as pawns—then so be it. Here we have a classic case of “the end (i.e., founding a Jewish Zionist state) justifies the means (i.e., orchestrating the murder of the very people one will later claim, through the establishment of a Zionist state, one is trying to save and protect), at least with respect to “Big Jews.” The chutzpah, breathtaking, and murderous hypocrisy is so overwhelming that it really is difficult for the average “Little Jew,” let alone a Gentile, to comprehend, but comprehend this you must if history is not to repeat itself.

H.) “Big Jew”/Allied Propaganda about the Holocaust: Allied Disinformation about the Holocaust and the Successful Tactic of Hiding the Holocaust from the Allied Public until after the War.

The standard version of the Holocaust is that it was not discovered by the Allies until the camps were actually liberated in 1945. This is, of course, complete bullshit. We are supposed to believe that, at least, 12 million internees (virtually all of whom were sympathetic to the Allied cause), escaped the attention of Allied intelligence, the international Jewish community, and Allied leadership. This in spite of the fact of the Nazis well publicized antipathy towards Jews well before the war and in spite of the fact that the Allies did likewise—imprisoned native Germans and Japanese—in their own countries.

A couple of notable “Little Jew” Zionist efforts concerning the Holocaust must be mentioned. First, there is Hillel Kook. On October 6, 1943, he organized the “March of 400 Rabbis” on the White House. The point of the march was to draw attention to the growing severe holocaust of Jews in Europe. The rabbis all marched to the White House to see President Roosevelt, but they were turned away. Reportedly Roosevelt was advised by his confidant and personal friend, Rabbi Stephen Wise (a “Big Jew”), not to see the assembled rabbis. As a result, Roosevelt shunned the rabbis, left them waiting at the front door, and then literally escaped through the back door of the White House to go on an immediate, unannounced vacation. Consequently, this attempt to publicize the Holocaust went nowhere. Apparently Roosevelt had to maintain “plausible deniability” of the Holocaust even if it literally meant running away like a frightened schoolboy from a meeting he did not want to attend.

Second, there is the production of “We Will Never Die,” a homage to Jews dying in Europe. Curiously, we do not have the extant script even though supposedly many politicians saw the show, so it is hard to piece together how much of an expose it really was. Also noteworthy is the fact that Rabbi Stephen Wise (yes, him again) tried to suppress the production of this arguable expose of the Holocaust. Odd that the Jew in charge of the Jewish Refugee Agency would want to censure information about Jewish suffering in the Holocaust (or is it?)! Rabbi Wise is the same Jewish leader who infamously is recorded as ordering the World Jewish Counsel (WJC) to stop giving aid to Polish Jews even though it was known that the Nazis were allowing these shipments to get to Jews. Rabbi Wise reportedly cabled to WJC delegates in London and Geneva, “All these operations with and through Poland must cease at once, and at once in English means AT ONCE, not in the future.”[44] Nice, humanitarian guy this Rabbi Wise.

Now to return to our discussion, first of all we have to ask the question, “How would public knowledge of the Holocaust have affected the war?” For one thing, if word got out “early,” so to speak, that the Jews were suffering a holocaust, then the sufferings of “Little Jews” could have been ameliorated resulting in Jews being less willing to leave Europe for Palestine. It also would have put pressure on the U.S., the British Empire, and France, and other nations to take in Jews (and thereby short circuit “Big Jew” Zionists’ wish to have them all relocate to Palestine), and it would possibly have forced the Allies to agree to a conditional surrender of Germany (and therefore have forced the Allies to have to deal with all the public relations headaches that entailed for the Allied leadership and “Big Jew” Zionist designs).  

Another, related, question we need to raise is, “Why were the “Big Jews” and the Zionist Allied leadership so intent on hiding the Holocaust from the general public?” The answers are simple. For one thing, a fear that the “Big Jews” and Allied leadership had was that the Nazis would successfully spark an anti-colonialist uprising in imperial Allied territories, especially in Palestine. There was, in fact, an anti-Zionist Arab uprising in Palestine from 1937 to 1939. If the Nazis could get indigenous colonial populations to rebel against their imperial overlords this could prolong the war, if not lead to a successful Nazi stalemate of the Allies (the Nazis knew they could not win a literal “world” war against the Allies, especially with so many empires arrayed against them). With this in mind, it is significant that the Allies held two conferences right after each other in late 1943. The first conference was the Cairo Conference (November 22-26). It was codenamed “Operation Sextant” as a probable ‘dig’ at Hitler and the Nazis because the tide of the war was now beginning to turn with the decisive defeat of the Germans at both El Alamein (October 23 to November 5, 1942) and at the Battle of Stalingrad (August 23, 1942 to February 2 1943). Oddly, the topic of the Cairo Conference was how to reconfigure Japanese territory after the war was successfully completed. Besides Roosevelt and Churchill, Chang Kai-shek was also in attendance.

After the Cairo Conference was completed Roosevelt and Churchill met with Stalin further east, at Teheran (November 28 to December 1). The codename for this conference was “Eurika” (ancient Greek, “I have found [it],” an interjection used to celebrate a discovery). Once again it is a bit odd in that the talk at this Conference, further east mind you, was how to reconfigure German territory after the war was successfully concluded by the Allies. Once again this may be an ironic probable ‘dig’ at Hitler and the Nazis for thinking that they could successfully foment an insurrection in the Middle East. While it is true that there was a pro-Nazi, anti-colonialist coup d’etat in Iraq on April 1st 1941, it was soon put down by the British. Moreover, adjacent Iran (Persia), led by Reza Shah Pahlavi, refused to expel Germans from Iran and he also refused to allow the Allies to ship weapons and supplies through Iran to the Soviet Union. He attempted to assume a neutral political position during the war and not choose sides. The Allies would not allow this. On September 16, 1941, British and Soviet forces invaded and occupied Iran. The son of Reza Shah Pahlavi, Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, was installed as the puppet, pro-Allied ruler of Persia by the British and Soviet invaders. This was a geo-political slap in the face to the Nazis. Two instances of the Nazis successfully fomenting anti-imperial, anti-Allied colonial uprisings, one in Iraq and the other in Iran, were successfully put down by the Allies. That, along with the fact that these meetings took place over the American holiday of Thanksgiving followed by the religious holiday of Advent, are some of the symbolic reasons why Roosevelt and the other Allied leaders were so insistent on the timing of their meeting at Cairo and immediately thereafter at Teheran of all places.  

As a final aside here, the Syria-Lebanon Campaign (Operation Exporter) of June-July 1941 needs to be noted as well. This campaign was tightly censored by the British Media gatekeepers because Vichy French forces in Syria and Lebanon, with the assistance of the Nazis, fiercely fought against British and Commonwealth military units there. The British and Commonwealth forces did not want their domestic publics to learn that Vichy French forces were actively opposing them; they wanted to maintain the public fiction that Vichy French forces were reluctant allies of the Nazis. Eventually the Vichy French forces were over-run, but of the approximately 40,000 Vichy French soldiers who surrendered only about 5,500 agreed to join De Gaulle and the Free French and fight against the Nazis. The rest, 34,500 soldiers, preferred to return to pro-Nazi Vichy France (where they were repatriated). The only point I want to make here is that, in spite of Anglo-Commonwealth censorship of war reporting, the Nazis did have some considerable success in stirring up trouble for the British in particular in the Middle East during the early part of World War II.

IV.) Post War

A.) “Give a dog a bad name and then hang him for it” (a.k.a. Blaming the Victim): The Nuremburg Trials, the Assignment of Collective Responsibility and Collective Guilt to the Germans, the Concomitant Collective Punishment of the Germans by the Allies after the War, and the Geneva Convention of 1949.

The Nuremburg Trials were a sham and a travesty of justice, as anyone familiar with the proceeding will attest. Much has already been written on this. A law, “Crimes Against Humanity,” was invented ex post facto and then used to prosecute Nazi leaders. This law did not exist before or during the war, and the Nazis certainly were not signers to any such international convention or criminal code; still, the Nazis were prosecuted for a crime that did not exist when, reportedly, it was taking place. Nor could the Nazis introduce evidence of equally horrific crimes against humanity (such as the carpet bombing of German civilian centers, e.g., cities such as Dresden, Hamburg, or Berlin) by the Allies in order to point out the gross hypocrisy of the whole Allied judicial charade.  

Immediately after the war the Allies seized the whole of the means of communication, the education system, and the Media and began a program of “de-Nazification” in Germany. In other words, what the Allies did was employ the conquered German Media to unilaterally assigning responsibility and guilt for the Holocaust to Germans, period. This was a conscious and deliberate policy [see the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff Directive 1067], and it, in turn, was employed to justify the “collective punishment” of Germans. Germans were deliberately denied food (extra military food supplies were ordered destroyed, post-war, rather then giving the excess food to starving Germans, and it was a crime for Allied soldiers to give food to emaciated Germans).[45] Roosevelt’s Jewish Treasury advisor, Morgenthau, wanted to de-industrialize Germany and further starve the German population; in fact, he had Treasury officials (called “Bernstein’s boys” after the name of their leader) attached to the military and it was their job to make certain food was not given to starving German women, children, and men after the war was over; once the post-war policy of starving the German population ended (1947), Bernstein’s boys quit en masse. To repeat, once the “Berstein’s Boys” were no longer allowed to starve the post-war German population, they all quit.

While the legal code of Crimes Against Humanity was only applied against the Nazis, specifically with respect to their treatment of the Jewish community, it is curious that the Japanese war criminals were never prosecuted for Crimes Against Humanity even though that principle was available to the Allied prosecutors of Japanese war crimes. Naturally this raises the question of whether Jews were given privileged status at least after the war. The deaths of Jews seems to trump the deaths of Gentile victims—especially when Nazis are the perpetrators. This also could have been a conscious strategy on the part of the Allies to cast blame away from themselves for Jewish deaths and focus it solely on the Nazis. After all, the Allies were diligently prosecuting the Nazis for the harm they did to Jews during the war, so they could not have been culpable for Jewish deaths during the war, right?! The behavior of the Allied prosecutors at the Nuremburg Trials all smacks to me of post-war damage control and culling favor with the Jews that survived the Holocaust. Furthermore, in effect, the Allies committed “collective punishment” against all Germans after the war was over by their conscious strategy of starving the German population. It was only after the Allies had ended their policy of “collective punishment” against German civilians in 1948 did they, in 1949, call for the Geneva Convention (of 1949) whereby in Article 33 “collective punishment” was finally outlawed internationally. What absolute hypocrites the Allies were!!! It really makes one ashamed to be an American. 

B.) Allied Psychological Warfare-Operations (Psy-ops): The DeNazification Program and the Re-education of Germans as having sole Culpability for the War and the Holocaust.

The Allies were very open about their psychological warfare operations (psy-ops) policy of de-Nazification; the strange thing is that Germans today do not seem to realize that their views of the Nazis and Hitler is profoundly colored by calculated and self-serving Allied indoctrination which expressly targeted occupied Germany and its citizens. Literally the whole of post-war German Media was appropriated by the Allies—all newspapers, all book publishers, all tv and radio stations…etc.—the education system was purged of anyone remotely sympathetic to the Nazis, the post-war German political leadership was all vetted by the Allies, and the Germans were treated as malleable “guinea pigs” in a gigantic national public relations/mass indoctrination campaign. There was simply no independent media or institutions in post-war Germany. Literally every conceivable institution became an outlet and a mouthpiece for Allied propaganda. The whole of the Media was employed to indoctrinate and re-educate Germans in pro-Allied views. And if the Media failed to indoctrinate all Germans, laws were also passed, such as the law criminalizing challenging the conventional version of the Holocaust (German Statute §130, on public incitement) to intimidate and silence would-be independent free-thinking Germans and other Europeans. Goebbels was only half right: history is not only written by the victors, it is also broadcast, published, and televised by the victors!

The Allies have been wonderfully (or frighteningly) successful in re-educating and re-indoctrinating the Germans. The situation is such in Germany today that that nation is ashamed of its Nazi past, while few Germans truly understand what brought the Nazis to power and why. Grandchildren hate their grandparents. The Allies have been so successful in re-educating the Germans that it is virtually a taboo to discuss—openly, honestly, and critically—what actually happened on the eve of and during the war, and this ethos of shame and silence is exactly the outcome the Allies and their psy-ops clinicians wanted.

(One cautionary addendum I would like to add here for my American audience: just as the Allies worked hard to “re-educate” the Germans, here in the U.S. during the war all movie scripts, for example, had to pass government censorship approval before they could be produced and newspapers and radio programs were censored as well. Some might reasonably claim that this broad censorship and control of information never stopped even after World War II ended! Anti-Nazi, anti-German propaganda was the soup de jour of the American Media in World War II. I only hope you are not so naïve as to think that Big Jewish/Zionist/Allied intelligence interference in popular Hollywood movies and in the American Media ended after World War II was over and that these organs for mass indoctrination were voluntarily, and benignly, returned to a broad demographic of private ownership, especially given the success of these organs in mobilizing anti-Nazi hysteria here in the U.S. and given their success in “re-educating” post-War Germans.)

V.) Conclusions.

A.) What is the Very Best that We Can Say--the Best Spin We Can Give--to “Big Jew” and Zionist Allied Leadership and Aims vis-a-vis the Holocaust? 

What is the very best that we can say about the "Big Jews" and the Zionist Allied leaders (Roosevelt and Churchill in particular) who, as I have argued, actively promoted the Holocaust and who were willing to sacrifice millions and millions of Jews and non-Jews to the camps? I think it is this: Zionists all agreed on securing a Jewish homeland in Palestine, but whereas "Little Jew" Zionists wanted it to happen immediately and were willing to work with the assistance of the Nazis, "Big Jews" Zionists, on the contrary, were willing to consciously temporize and sacrifice millions and millions of fellow Jews and nonJews to the concentration camps in order to quell the possibility of an Arab civil uprising in the Middle East, in order to advance pre-eminent Allied military goals during the war, and in order to ensure Little Jew suffering and consequent emigration to Palestine. I think that is the very best spin we can put on “Big Jew”/Zionist Allied leadership and behavior.

B.) What is My Unvarnished Assessment of “Big Jew” and Allied Leadership Culpability for the Holocaust?

What is my view of “Big Jew” and Zionist Allied leadership culpability for the Holocaust? I think the Holocaust was orchestrated and facilitated by “Big Jews” and the Allied leadership so as to bring about a mass emigration of “Little Jews” to Palestine in order to found, and people, a Zionist state. “Big Jews” and the Allied leadership set up the Nazis to take the blame for the Holocaust in a gigantic False Flag operation, they prolonged the war so as to ensure acute Jewish suffering and popularize Zionism, and the Allies and “Big Jews” encouraged a willingness on the part of “Little Jews” to emigrate to Palestine. The Nazis bear responsibility for mistreating Jewish (and non-Jewish) internees, but they are not the ones mainly responsible for the Holocaust. “Big Jews” and the Zionist Allied political leadership are the ones mostly responsible for the Holocaust.


The most disgusting thing in all of this, I think, is that very many Holocaust scholars and all Holocaust institutions actively and consciously promote mistruth and disinformation about the Holocaust. Before and during World War II powerful Jews actively promoted the Holocaust, blamed the Nazis and the Germans as solely responsible for the Holocaust after the war was over, and then used the horrific crime of the Holocaust as a pretext for founding the Jewish State of Israel. What chutzpah!!! What colossal, mind-boggling hypocrisy!!! Now you can see why, logically, Jews--as a group—are, dare I say, the party now most responsible for Holocaust denial. Jews today are not equipped to deal with their myopia concerning true culpability for the Holocaust. If I may put it undiplomatically and crassly, “Today’s Jews are themselves the ones who are most in denial about the Holocaust—not Holocaust Truthers such as myself. Unfortunately, many ordinary Jews, raised over the years in the standard, Establishment propaganda of the Holocaust, now believe their own bullshit. The simple fact of the matter is that it was not the Nazis, who truly wanted to avoid the Holocaust!!!, but various Establishment Jewish Zionist groups and their political quislings (such as Roosevelt and Churchill) who really wanted the Holocaust!!!


I do not expect that everyone, or maybe even most of you, will agree with my thesis, at least on first reading, and that is fine. Like Socrates, I do not believe that education is possible, only self-education is. All I can hope to do is be a catalyst and provide you with the occasion to think critically and for yourself. Many of you have been so indoctrinated in received views of the world (including the Holocaust) that it will take an intellectual sea-change, an ideological paradigm shift, to embrace or even understand the totality what I am arguing here. I will have served my purpose, and consider my task successful, if I can get some of you to investigate the veracity of the Holocaust on your own (and other unquestioned, unchallenged issues as well) and form your own opinion. Don’t take my word for it. Hell, I often change my mind even today on topics and issues as I get new information or look at an issue from a different perspective. It would appall me if you merely substituted the Establishment’s worldview for my worldview without deciding for yourself, critically, what is true and why. Once again: Think for yourself! Reclaim the intellectual curiosity that our education/indoctrination system has driven out of you. I deliberately entitled my booklet an “Introduction.” There are a lot of issues and questions to be raised and addressed and, given the limitations I have placed on this work (it being a very general introduction), the baton is now handed to you. My booklet is only a propaedutic. Where you go with the information and knowledge I have attempted to impart here to you is for you to decide.  


End Notes.

[1] The Anne Frank Diary Fraud by Brian Herring; please see the website: With respect, specifically, to the Holocaust fraud, The Diary of Anne Frank, it was reportedly conveniently “discovered” two years after she purportedly died in a concentration camp and was written in ball point pen when ball point pens had not even been invented yet. [Note: ball point pens were invented after the War.] I also find her name too convenient: Anne “Frank”--Anne “Earnest,” so to speak--purportedly wrote that heart-felt diary; it has all the earmarks of an O.S.S. psy-ops exercise to me at least, and most certainly is a fraud; please look into the provenance of the diary yourself, including the lawsuit, won by the reputed ghost writer of the Diary, Mr. Meyer Levin, in New York.

[2] Please see the website: “Third World Traveler, Anti-Semitism, A Definition.”

[3] Eric Rohmer, Testament (Bible and History). Viking Press, 1999, pp. 57-8. Also see: “Slaves Didn’t Build Pyramids: Egypt,” Discovery News, by Katarina Kratovac, Monday, January 11, 2010,

[4] Edward Flannery, The Anguish of the Jews. by Edward Flannery, Page 175. See the website:

[5] Edward Flannery, The Anguish of the Jews, by Edward Flannery, Page 55. See the website:

[6] This would, perhaps, be a good point to raise the issue of history as propaganda. I can’t say a lot here because it would detract from the flow of my argument, but I believe most people, very naively, see historical investigation and reportage as simply a matter of setting forth the so-called “facts.” Most historians, many ordinary people believe, don’t have agendas; they merely “tell it like it is.” History speaks for itself and interpretation plays little, if any, role in historical reporting. This of course is an embarrassingly simple-minded view of history. Much of history has to do with understanding intangible cause and effect relationships as well as the intangible motives behind those causes and effects. This is not a simple task to do well. “Facts” are sifted, some are included, some are excluded, and this all happens in the context of an overarching explanatory theoretical framework which itself is the result of an interplay between “facts” and theory.

Napoleon reportedly defined history as “an agreed upon set of lies,” and Napoleon had a front row seat to history, so he should know something of what he speaks. The Establishment rulers of a nation (not necessarily just the political leaders) want the ruled public to believe in the benevolence or benignity of their rule, so it is in their interest to present domestic history in the most favorable light possible to the domestic public. Hence over time the American Civil War is recast from the issue of states rights versus federal rights being of central concern to it being a moral crusade to free southern Blacks from slavery. Similarly with World War II, in the popular imagination, it has been recast from an attempt by the Nazis to reconnect dispossessed Germans with Germany to a war in which the Nazis intended to conquer the world (from the existing global imperial powers of France, Brittan, the United States, and the Soviet Union—that part is left out) and exterminate the Jewish race. Popular history is domestic propaganda, and some Jewish Media figures are masters of it. While remaining above the fray as being neither “White” nor “Black,” they often pit Whites against Blacks (and vice versa) by framing inflammatory racial issues with this simple-minded duality. By framing racial issues as simple dualities some elitist Jews benefit by thereby excluding themselves from the issue of race-baiting and the responsibilities of racial fairness—they do this in spite of the fact that Jews, as an ethnic group, are the most prominent owners of Media in the U.S. today owning or controlling over 95% of the American Media--please see the website:, “Six Jewish Companies Own 96% of Media,” March 19th, 2009,
There is a reason popular history is popular—because it is what the ruling elite want you to believe about their rule, themselves, and their motives. Please don’t be fooled.  

[7] While there does not appear to be any books solely on the topic of the Nazi critique of Jewish culture—a book that sorely needs to be published (but good luck finding an Establishment publisher to accept and market such a book!)—one can easily glean from the more and more onerous legislation the Nazis proscribed against Jews the issues the Nazis, and the Germans, had with the Jewish community. Please see the Jewish website: United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, Holocaust Encyclopedia, “Anti-Jewish Legislation in PreWar Germany,” ( and I also refer you to Hitler’s own book, Mein Kampf (trans. Ralph Manheim, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston 1971).

[8] “Dr. Wise Urges Jews to Declare Selves as Such,” New York Herald Tribune, June 13, 1938, p. 12.

[9] “The Imposition of the Names Israel and Sara on Identity Papers,” The Gianfranco Moscati Collection, please see the website: 

[10] op. cit., see my earlier note on the more and more onerous laws placed on Jews by the Nazis.

[11] As an aside I have to mention a couple of pertinent personal anecdotes on purported discrimination against Jews. When I was studying English as a graduate student at the University of Florida/Gainesville in the mid 1980s I took a course on Shakespeare from the resident Shakespeare scholar, a Jew by the name of Sidney H. The guy was an absolute idiot. At our first meeting Professor H. had us all introduce ourselves to the class. He began with himself. He started by acknowledging that he was Jewish and then went on to lament how Jews were historically discriminated against in academia and he noted, in duly hushed tones, that at one point there were actual quotas limiting the number of Jews entering college in the United States. For shame!!! Prof H. no doubt wanted us to commiserate with him and the obstacles Jews faced even in the United States. Then, proud of being an Ivy League graduate, he went on to tell how he had applied to go to college at Princeton University but was turned down. His mother, not giving up on him, then marched him down to see a dean at Princeton and, after appealing to pity and begging the dean to let her son into Princeton, he got accepted. By telling us about quotas on Jewish enrollment he no doubt wanted us to express sympathy for him and the barriers Jews faced in society, but I came away with just the opposite view. Maybe to keep out unqualified Jewish candidates we should have quotas on Jews so there is a somewhat level playing field for non-Jews who don’t have the same “old boys network” like Prof. H. had to call on to get him jumped to the head of the enrollment queue at Princeton!!! Like I said, Sidney H. was an idiot—he couldn’t even spot the duplicity in his story even as he was telling it to us! 

Second, one of my best friends at the University of Florida was a Jewess, also in the English department, named Ivy G. She was in the creative writing program, and she got some very good grades. The only problem was, as she explained to me, her Jewish creative writing professor always gave her “A”s on her creative writing assignments and she thought this was not because the work she submitted was especially good but because she, too, was Jewish!!! “Jews promote Jews, regardless of ability” was the message I got from these two vignettes. Just some food for thought from my own personal experience at least.

[12] “Examples of Anti-Semitic Legislation. 1933-1939,” United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, Holocaust Encyclopedia; please see the website: 

[13] The Marxist, Marinus van der Lubbe, burnt down the Reichstag. Please see:

[14] Please see the website: True Torah Jews Against Zionism, “The Zionist War on Nazi Germany,”

[15] “Zionism and the Third Reich,” Mark Weber, Institute for Historical Review; see the webpage:

[16] Wikipedia, Krystallnacht, see the website, Also see the Unites States Holocaust Museum Memorial, Holocaust Encyclopedia, “A Nationwide Pogrom,” November 9-10, 1938,

[17] Palestine Facts, “What was the Evian Conference?” Please see the website:  

[18] ob. cit. see the website, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, Holocaust Encyclopedia, “Anti-Jewish Legislation in Pre-War Germany.”

[19] F. Nicosia, Third Reich (1985), pp. 141-144; On Hitler's critical view of Zionism in Mein Kampf, see. Esp. Vol. 1, Chap. 11. Quoted in: Robert Wistrich, Hitler's Apocalypse (London: 1985), p. 155. Also see W. Feilchenfeld, et al., Haavra-Transfer (1972). Entire text in: David Yisraeli, The Palestine Problem in German Politics 1889-1945 (Israel: 1974), pp. 132-136.

[20] “Zionism and the Third Reich,” Mark Weber, Institute for Historical Review; see the webpage:  

[21] "Zionism and the Third Reich." See the website:

[22] A Brief History of Jewish Anti-Zionism (Jews Against Zionism); see the website:

[23] Wikipedia, “Jacob Israel de Haan,” See the website:; also see: Part Two, “The Story of a Spiritual Peace Activist,”

[24] Another interesting question I can only raise here but not pursue is “Why didn’t France and Brittan also declare war on the Soviet Union since the Allied mutual defense treaty encompassed any invasion by any foreign power on any of their countries?” Most curious and most hypocritical of the Allies.

[25] “Hitler declares war on the United States,” Jewish Virtual Library. See the website: 

[26] As for another example of Nazi psychological warfare against the British, see the Nazi choice for the capitol of defeated France, the very small town of Vichy. The form inter-Establishment psychological warfare takes, whether by Axis or Allied nations, is to elicit a hemorrhaging, free-association of threatening ideas in the enemy Establishment. By the Nazis selecting “Vichy,” of all places, for the capitol of quisling France I believe the message the Nazis were sending were several: first, Winston Churchill was famous for his “V for Victory” finger salute, and the “V sign” is the classic sign of crypto-Jewish self-identification, so every time Chuchill would finger that sign the Nazis wanted to remind England of the defeat of France and the quisling Vichy government that took its place. Vichy, France is also famous for both its water (and allusion perhaps to the English Channel) and a particular blue and white (the colors of the Israeli flag) fabric, Vichy gingham. With an eye back to England, Manchester was the city world famous in the industrial age for its textiles. Manchester also was the center of armaments production for all of England. The transparent message the Nazis were sending to the British here is that the Nazis would be—at some point—bombing Manchester. This was a warning both to the Judeo-English ruling Establishment of an impending attack as well as to in-the-know Brits that they should leave Manchester. It was a sort of “humanitarian” pre-warning of an attack for those who understood geo-political psychological warfare. And of course the attack did come. After a raid to warn British civilians of the impending aerial assault, the Nazis launched their main assault at the time of the winter solstice, December 22, 1940, the longest night of the year. Over the next two days the munitions capitol of England was bombed and fire-bombed as a “Christmas present” to Churchill and his minions. Contrary to popular opinion, Hitler did order the Luftwaffe to avoid civilian casualties at all costs (see Hitler No. 17 Directive, issued on August 1, 1940) and Hitler even went so far as to punish German airmen who, intentionally or not, harmed civilians. With regard to this last point, the Nazis easily could have fire-bombed British civilian centers during the Battle of Brittan and caused widespread destruction and massive civilian casualties but they choose surgical strikes against military (e.g., ports and munitions plants) and political (e.g., the Whitehall and the City of London area) targets. It was Churchill who first ordered the strategy of targeting cities and civilians (see the bombing of Berlin on August 25, 1940, and the terror-bombing of Mannheim on December 16, 1940) during the Battle of Brittan which began the sorry story of civilians as aerial bombing targets in time of war, as even British military historians acknowledge (e.g., Sir Basil Collier and Horst Boog). Also see:  

As for Allied employment of geo-political psychological warfare, see the later discussion on the Cairo and Teheran Conferences of 1943, as well as consider the reason the Allies met at “Yalta” [read, “Halt”], of all places, in the Crimea, right after the defeat of German forces at nearby Stalingrad in the German rush to seize the oilfields of the Caucasus, which had marked the highpoint of German advance in the war. 

And just so that my readers do not think that the geo-political psy-ops campaigns are a thing of the past, just remember the pseudo-assassination of Osama bin Ladin in 2011 (he had actually been killed years earlier but he was “kept alive” to tease out other “terrorists” and to frighten the American public). President Obama announced that bin Ladin was assassinated on May 1st—the international day set up for anti-capitalist, pro-labor revolution—thereby creating a quandary for poor, exploited Muslins and others the world over: do they celebrate May 1st as a day of labor solidarity or do they morn the death of bin Ladin that day? President Obama no doubt had this in mind when he manufactured the death of bin Ladin for happening on May 1st of all days!
[27] Wannsee Protocal. When the phrase “The Final Solution” is translated non-euphemistically it merely means that the solution to the problem of Jews in Nazi controlled territory is simply to transfer Jews, alive, to the Soviet Union. Please see the following quote from “The Minutes of the Wannsee Conference”:, and also see The Wannsee Conference, Mark Roseman, Metropolitan Books, New York NY, 2002, pg. 165. As evidence, please see the following quote from “The Minutes of the Wannsee Conference”: 

"In the course of the practical execution of the final solution [emphasis mine], Europe will be combed from west to east. Germany proper, including the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, will have to be dealt with first due to the housing problem and additional social and political necessities.
  The evacuated Jews will first be sent, in stages, to so-called transit ghettos, from where they will be transported to the East."

With respect to the phrase “the final solution,” Jewish scholars inevitably point to the Wannsee Protocal as evidence that this phrase was used euphemistically to refer to the extermination of all of European Jewry. The fact of the matter is, however, quite the opposite. The Nazi phrase "the final solution” here--non-euphemistically--refers to moving interned Jews, alive, to the East—to the Soviet Union! However, more to the point, how do we know if the Nazis had defeated the Soviets that the Nazis would not have transferred Jews from the concentration camps, the “transit ghettos,” to the conquered Soviet territories to the east for re-settlement?! Contrast all this with Theodor Herzl’s positive remark concerning Zionism being “the ‘Final Solution’[sic] of the Jewish Question.” [see: Th. Herzl, "Der Kongress, " Welt, June 4, 1897. Reprinted in: Theodore Herzls zionistische Schriften (Leon Kellner, ed.), ester Teil, Berlin: Judischer Verlag, 1920, p. 190 (and p.139). 
I can’t let this little digression on the “final solution” pass without mentioning the criminal firebombing of Dresden on Ash Wednesday and for the two following days, February 13-15 of 1945. The target, Dresden, and the timing, Ash Wednesday, no doubt was deliberate. Dresden had no significant military facilities, the war was already won by the Allies, but Dresden was, historically, the seat of the German Reformation. The geo-political psychological warfare purpose of obliterating Dresden is all too obvious: the torching of Dresden signaled the final coup de grace to the Nazi reformation effort to counter Jewish hegemony in the West. It was an indiscriminate, city-wide auto da fe. That is why the Allies murdered at least 50,000 German civilians and refugees--the Allied bastards!!!

While we are speaking of Allied perfidy, I can’t let this topic pass either without mentioning the highly suspicious and highly convenient—for Churchill, Stalin, and Roosevelt—death of the Polish Prime Minister-in-exile, Wladyslaw Sikorski, on, of all days, Independence Day (in the U.S.), July 4th, 1943. It certainly was not in Nazi interests to have the Polish Prime Minister-in-exile die. Sikorski’s very existence was a public thorn in the side of Churchill especially; because of the Anglo-French-Polish mutual defense treaty of August, 1939, that initiated the war, the Polish President-in-exile had to have a seat at the Allied table with other Allied leaders, but the major Allied nation that fought the Nazi armies were the Soviets; relatedly, since Stalin had seized half of Polish territory along with the Nazis in September, 1939, Stalin despised the Polish leader because he was a threat to Soviet hegemony over post-war Soviet occupied Poland. Because of the French-British-Polish treaty obligation, Churchill felt obliged to recognize Sikorski as the representative of the Polish government, and Sikorski was unquestionably the highest profile Pole demanding an independent Poland after the war was brought to a victorious conclusion. Stalin also despised Sikorski because Stalin had formed a pro-Soviet, puppet, Polish government-in-exile in the Soviet Union and the very existence of Sikorski gave the lie to the legitimacy of Stalin’s puppet Polish government. In fact, a short month before Sikorski died Stalin had recalled his ambassadors from the United States, the British Empire, and Canada, to protest Anglo-Allied recognition of the Sikorski government-in-exile. The very existence of Sikorski was threatening the cohesion of the Allies. Then the July 4th, 1943, plane crash occurred just off the British overseas territory of Gibraltar in southernmost Spain killing Sikorski as he had just completed an inspection of Polish troops in the Middle East. The circumstances of the plane crash are extremely dubious (e.g., in spite of the fact that the plane crashed into the sea a mere 16 seconds after takeoff, of the seven people on board who reportedly died, five of the bodies were never found). Furthermore, a mere four months after Sikorski’s death, Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin met in Teheran and agreed to redraw the borders of Poland, giving a good piece of it to the Soviet Union. Most convenient—and suspicious! No Polish representative from the Polish-government-in-exile in the West was permitted to attend that conference nor the Yalta or Potsdam Conferences either. Finally, still to this day, over 65 years after the death of Sikorski, the British government refuses to release its documents on the investigation into Sikorski’s mysterious death. If you think the Nazis were evil, just look at the perfidy of the Allied leadership regarding—yes—the assassination of one of their “own,”--Wladyslaw Sikorski!!!

[28] As for the symbolic reason for the conference in Teheran in 1943, the Nazis did successfully foment a popular rebellion in the neighboring state of Iraq in 1941 which was put down by the British. By the Allied leadership meeting in Teheran to message being sent to the Nazis was that their attempt to foment a Middle Eastern anti-colonialist revolution went bust; for more details about Iraq please see, How The Haganah and The Mossad Eliminated Jews, by Naeim Giladi, Dandelion Books; Tempe, Arizona, 2003, pp. 11-16.])

[29] “Afrika Corp,” Wikipedia; please see the website:; also see the website entitled, “Desert Warfare: German Experiences in World War II,” by Major General Toppe:

[30] A Factual Appraisal Of The 'Holocaust' By The Red Cross. “The Jews And The Concentration Camps: No Evidence Of Genocide.”,].

[31] “Stephen Samuel Wise,” Wikipedia; see the website:; also see the book by Saul Friedlander, The Years of Extermination: Nazi Germany and the Jews, 1939-1945, pg 304. 

[32] “General George C Marshall,” Wikipedia; please see the website:; also as early as April and July of 1942, while in Britain for discussions, Marshall opposed to landings in North Africa, preferring cross-channel attack; please see: “Timeline of George C. Marshall’s Life” at Also see the website “US Army in World War II, The War Department, Washington Command Post, the Operations Division, Chapter IX,” by Ray S. Cline, page 156:  

[33] Sparticus educational, “D Day,” see the website:

[34] 51 Documents, Lenni Brenner, Barricade Books, 2002. 

[35] “Lord Moyne,” Wikipedia, see the website:,_1st_Baron_Moyne#.22Blood_for_trucks.22_proposal; as for details of the assassination as discussed in Parliament on November 9, 1944, see the website:

[36] ”Zyklon B and the German Delousing Chambers,” by Friedrich Paul Berg, please see the website: 

[37] Rabbi Stephen Wise in a position letter released in 1938, on the eve of World War II, in which he states disapproval of allowing increased Jewish immigration to the United States; see the website True Torah Jews Against Zionism; also see “The cold-blooded stance of Zionists in the face of the Holocaust,” by Yossi Schwartz; see the website:

[38] “Zionism and Anti-Semitism,” True Torah Jews Against Zionism, see the website: (Told to a Berlin audience in March 1912.)

[39] “Zionism and Anti-Semitism,” True Torah Jews Against Zionism, see the website: Said by Jacob Klatzkin, Zionist political ideologue; remark made in 1921, before Hitler had composed Mein Kampf.

[40] From the website, ”Zionism and Anti-Semitism,” True Torah Jews Against Zionism, “Theodor Herzl, The Founder of Zionism,” see his Diary, Part I, page 16. Also see the website: 

[41] See the website, “Zionism and Anti-Semitism,” True Torah Jews Against Zionism.

[42] See the website, “Zionism and Anti-Semitism,” True Torah Jews Against Zionism.

[43] See the website, “The brutal Zionist role in the Holocaust,” True Torah Jews Against Zionism, Yahya, page 149. Please see: (Remark made to a 1938 Mapai Central Committee meeting.)

[44] “Rabbi Kestenbaum: Jews Died During Holocaust Because of Zionist Rabbi Stephen Wise,” True Torah Jews Against Zionism, please see the website:  
[45] “Morgenthau Plan,” Wikipedia, please see the website:; also see: The Morgenthau Plan for deliberate deindustrialization and starvation of Germany. Especially: document JCS 1067, “The Unoffical Bog,” by Robert Faurisson, Thursday, January 20, 2011,

Did the Nazis really want the Holocaust or were there other, far more important, players in orchestrating the Holocaust?

I, too, can pull a number out of the air—six millions Jewish dead in the Holocaust—and say that that is true, but is it? Where is the critical skepticism? Where is the proof? And why isn’t anyone asking these questions?!!!

Someone may object: "What about the tens of thousands of U.S. soldiers who were ordered to visit the concentration camps and what about the hundreds--if not millions--of Jewish survivors of the camps? Surely one cannot deny their eyewitness, personal accounts of the horrors of the camps! How dare you suggest that their eyewitness testimony be minimized!!!" Point taken. However, if one asked a peasant from say, 1033 AD, England whether the earth was flat or round, he would angrily declare that it was obviously flat!!! Only someone who denied their senses could even suggest otherwise. He might even wish to have you turned over to the Inquisition for preaching heresy. If that peasant had the modern vocabulary of a 21st century psychologist the peasant might even define you as being "in Denial"--a "flat-earth Denialist"--and have your burned at the stake for uttering such a monstrosity, or at least housed in an institution where your corrupting thoughts could not infect others. This is exactly analogous to the situation today with the Holocaust. In some limited way, eyewitness testimony is useful, but in understanding the broad strategic issues of the Holocaust it is arguably even a hindrance to comprehending the totality of the Holocaust and who is truly culpable. Furthermore, it is my contention that the real “Holocaust deniers,” if you wish to use that phrase, are those folks—mostly Jewish—who are blindly and combatively insistent that no Jews had any role in fomenting the Holocaust.  

Very simply, my scholarly view of the Holocaust is as follows: the Holocaust is untrue, but not false. The Holocaust is "untrue" in the sense that we do not have a whole, complete, multifaceted account of it. Instead of a holistic account of the Holocaust what we have is some good information, some misinformation, and some outright dis-information. The Holocaust is "not false" in the sense that, yes, some Jews died (but, contrary to popular opinion, exactly how many is the subject of profound scholarly debate—or should be). Furthermore, to make this topic relevant to today, if the Holocaust is untrue, then Israel does not in fact have a right to exist. Have I piqued your curiosity? I invite you to read more.

(In essence, I argue here that "Big Jews" conspired with the Zionist Allied leadership, both before and during World War II, to once and for all silence criticism of the Jewish community and at the same time promote the Zionist movement by orchestrating having "Little Jews" murdered in the Holocaust in order to foment Jewish emigration to Palestine and found a Zionist state after the war. After World War II the flourishing anti-Zionist movement was effectively dead. Virtually all Jews are Zionists now. In other words, the Holocaust was a False Flag, Jew-on-Jew, Zionist Allied operation the purpose of which was to exacerbate Jewish suffering in Europe while they were under Nazi occupation in order to get Jews to emigrate to Palestine after the war and found, and people, a Zionist state. The totality of the Holocaust was then, falsely, blamed on the Nazis.)

-- Vaughn Klingenberg.