Auschwitz as Shoah Business
Hollywoodism’s part in creating the myth of “the Holocaust” by Robert Faurisson
“The Holocaust” of the Jews then became a sort of religion whose three main components are the extermination, the gas chambers and the six million martyrs.
According to an article of faith of this religion Hitler ordered and planned the methodical slaughter of all European Jews; in so doing he committed a crime without precedent, a specific crime, later called genocide.
Then, in order to commit this specific crime, he had a specific weapon developed, a weapon of mass destruction, the gas chamber, operating especially with a powerful insecticide, Zyklon B, whose active ingredient was hydrogen cyanide.
Finally, the result of this enormous crime was the death of six million European Jews.
The Auschwitz-Birkenau camp was the focal point, the apogee, the Golgotha of that horror. After the war a whole propaganda developed around this holy trinity of “the Holocaust”, a whole industry of “the Holocaust”, a whole business: the “Shoah Business”.
In the United States the film industry has fed on this belief and spread it throughout the Western world. It is especially since 1978 that such propaganda has been developed, particularly with the four episodes of the U.S. miniseries Holocaust recounting the saga of the Weiss family. It is no exaggeration to say that the showing of that series became, as of 1979, practically mandatory in an entire portion of the world. It triggered a torrent of films including, by Steven Spielberg, Schindler’s List, by Roberto Benigni, Life is Beautiful, by Roman Polanski, The Pianist. In France, in 1985, Claude Lanzmann honoured us with a documendaciary running for over nine hours: Shoah. The number of Emmy Awards, Oscars and other prizes given to films like these is staggering. A mogul of the Entertainment Industry, Andrew Wallenstein, once stated in The Hollywood Reporter: “Let’s just say it: the real reason we see so many of these movies is that they’re awards bait.” It is such observations that have given rise to the saying “There’s No Business Like Shoah Business,” inspired by the refrain of the song, sung by Liza Minnelli amongst others, “There’s No Business Like Show Business.” For more see: http://robertfaurisson.blogspot.it/2012/02/against-hollywoodism-revisionism.html
From 1979 to 2009, that is, for thirty years, the proponents of the authorised version of Second World War history have failed in their attempts to reply to the revisionists on the level of history, science, material research and the careful study of documents and testimonies. To compensate for this failure the “Holocaust” worshipers have sought refuge via the reserves of imagination or belief; hence a remarkable propagation of novels, notoriously false “testimonies”, plays, films, ceremonies, pilgrimages. And so it is that “Shoah Business” and the “Holocaust Religion” have flooded the world with their products and their phantasmagoria. For more see: http://robertfaurisson.blogspot.com/2011/09/victories-of-revisionism-continued.html
* * *
Shoah Business loves the horror movie by Carolyn Yeager
In the free-wheeling, anything-goes world of shoah business, movies are described as documentaries and documentaries double as movies. The division between entertainment and historical fact based on honest research becomes blurred, to say the least, and we are offered up a distortion of reality—although an entertaining distortion.
Movies are generally taken to be primarily for entertainment, but horror is a form of entertainment for many people. It’s not surprising then, since Hollywood has been overwhelmingly run by Jews since it’s early days, that a favorite type of horror movie deals with “the Holocaust.” We’ve had Sophie’s Choice and Schindler’s List as top box-office hits, both of which suggest, if they don’t actually, physically depict, horrors of “chilling” proportions going on behind the scenes. In Haaretz, Israel’s largest daily newspaper, Ruth Schuster explained why Hollywood likes to make these films in an April 7, 2013 article, “Beyond Schindler’s List: 10 Holocaust movies worth seeing.”
It is known as the Holocaust. Jews call it the “Shoah” – an ancient word for “disaster” or “catastrophe.” The mass, industrialized murder of European Jewry, the culmination of centuries of hate in an explosion of unimaginable brutality, left nearly six million Jews dead.
Except that none of what she said in that second sentence is true. Not the “mass, industrialized murder,” not the “centuries of hate,” and not “six million dead Jews.”
Not killed in battle or even casualties of war but done to death, often in factories built expressly for murder.
What “factories” would these be? Can crematoriums and shower rooms and rooms to disinfect clothing be called “factories?” The old, discredited stories about conveyor belts carrying corpses from here to there, and electrical floors and walls for instant electrocution of hundreds of living people at a time, might be thought to be factory-like. But they didn’t exist in the crematorium buildings and shower facilities found in the camps. Ruth Schuster continues:
Since the gruesome discoveries of just how Nazi Germany set about eradicating Europe’s Jews, aided and abetted by anti-Semitic or just cowed populations, mankind has struggled to understand what happened. And to answer the ultimate question – could it happen again? The subject is exhaustively covered in media, literature – and cinema, too, where some set out to document, some to investigate and some even, finally, to riff. Directors wonder, dabble in alternate realities and ask: What if? And then what if?
So films are made in which directors “dabble” in possible or pretend scenarios. How it might have been.
What won’t you find on this list? Stephen Spielberg’s 1993 epic “Schindler’s List” – a movie the director himself said he felt compelled to do, rather than wanted to do; a work that has become almost a cliché for cinematic coverage of the Holocaust. Based on the book [novel – it is fiction] “Schindler’s Ark” by Thomas Keneally, it is a movie that shatters, explaining exactly how the stinking cesspool underneath a communal toilet can be a haven for a child. Here is a list in no particular order of 10 other movies our writers feel are worth seeing, some for sharing, and yes, some for the joy of it.
“Schindler’s List” is already too familiar to be on the list. Schuster calls it “a cliché of the Holocaust.” True enough. Following this article on this page you’ll find a video featuring Ernst Zundel giving a detailed review of “Swindler’s List” – I recommend you watch it. But from the Haaretz list, there is only one film that could be called a real horror flick. It is
INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS (2009) “Inglourious Basterds” is a quintessential Quentin Tarantino romp and an audacious revenge flick that defies categorization. One of the most chilling fairy tales in recent memory, this visual feast walks the blurred line between fantasy and horror – each uber-stylish scene dripping with more tension than the last. But its real power is in the outrageous rewriting of Holocaust history. Rejecting mere re-enactment and transcending the typical Hollywood history lesson, it makes a daring case for what might have been.
“What might have been” in the case of Inglourious Basterds is the culmination of centuries of Jewish hate exploding into unimaginable brutality, leaving hundreds of “Nazis” and SS officers dead, just because they’re “Nazis” and SS officers. It is presented as justice, even though it’s idea of justice is delivered with a baseball bat used as a club
Reaching back to the old for something new
A different kind of violence is shown in a British film made in 1945, allegedly for German consumption only but never shown, that is being released “later this year” according to a Jan. 8, 2014 story in the Independent. It’s described as a documentary on German wartime atrocities, based on the footage of the camps shot by entering British and Soviet film units. (Actually, much of the film comes from American film units from the “liberation” of Dachau, Buchenwald, Ordruf and other camps in the American Zone.)
Known as a “Hitchcock” film, it actually was not directed or even pieced-together by the famous filmmaker Alfred Hitchcock. It was Sidney Bernstein, chief of the Psychological Warfare Film Section of SHAEF, who commissioned the film and got Hitchcock included in the production, along with editor Stewart McAllister. Hitchcock was more of an adviser on the film’s editing and some say his style is evident in places.
Dr. Toby Haggith, Senior Curator at the Dept. of Research, Imperial War Museum (which has painstakingly restored the film using digital technology), says it was suppressed because, by the end of 1945 when the film was finally ready, the political situation had changed for the British, leaving them wanting to work with the Germans, not alienate them.
In this scene from the film, Dr. Fritz Klein, showing every sign of the brutal British treatment toward him, tells the camera that he’s been in Bergen-Belsen camp for one-and-a half-years, while in the background German SS guards are forced to carry typhus-infested corpses to a pit and arrange them for a mass burial. Klein was later sentenced to death and hanged at Hamlin jail in December 1945.
The film, with it’s many scenes of corpses and emaciated bodies, was shown once in Germany at the 1984 Berlin Film Festival, followed by a 1985 broadcast on American PBS under the title “Memory of the Camps.” It can currently be seen on the Internet at topdocumentaryfilms.com. The narrative is read by British actor Trevor Howard in what has been described as “sardonic understatement,” but which sounded to me like snide superciliousness with sarcasm added. In the new version, the narration is read by a new actor (so far unnamed) and the film has been retitled, also not yet revealed.
Will this kind of “horror movie” still work?
The restored film is scheduled to be shown on British TV in January 2015 as part of the 70th Commemoration of the liberation of Auschwitz-Birkenau on Jan. 27. Before that, it will be shown in various locations during the last part of 2014. How will it be received by contemporary audiences? It is expected to be highly disturbing, perhaps even traumatizing to some. But will it be convincing—to a 2014 audience that has had the benefit of 20 plus years of revisionism which a 1945 audience did not have?
Display at Buchenwald with shrunken heads of “former prisoners,” pieces of tattooed skin and lampshade “made of human skin.”
For my part, as a revisionist, I counted nineteen baldface lies which the psychological warfare section had to know at the time were untrue, even if they were being used at the Nuremberg Tribunal for Major War Criminals. (Note these National-Socialist leaders were designated “war criminals” before they were even tried!). The lies include the “shrunken heads” and “lampshades made from tattooed human skin” of detainees at Buchenwald—shameful excesses which have since been admitted to be false by all holocaust historians. Also false is the claim in the film that shower heads at Dachau emitted poison gas instead of water, which the Court at Frankfurt am Main during the Degesch trial in 1949 found to be incorrect. It accepted the expert testimony of Dr. Heli and Dr. Ra that “introducing Zyklon B gas into a room by means of a tap through fake shower heads” was impossible. If these items remain in the film, it should be interesting to see the reaction. (See Carlo Mattogno, “Court finds gassing through fake shower heads is not possible”)
Because the Imperial War Museum and other of the film’s sponsors realize the explosive nature of this film (which could drive audiences either way), another newly created feature-length documentary from Spring Films Ltd. will be shown at the same time as the older film. The purpose of the new film, titled “Night Will Fall” is to “tell the remarkable story behind the making of the 1945 film, the people involved, and the reasons why it was never shown.” This explanation is apparently deemed necessary to facilitate the acceptance of the 1945 footage by 2015 audiences.
What is surely the most “horrific” of all Holocaust horror film documentaries is soon to be released to selected cinema screens worldwide—but will it be believed?
* * *
“Swindler’s List” by Ernst Zundel
The Propaganda of Swindler’s List: Ernst Zundel reviews the Spielberg hit “Schindler’s List”
(Part 1 of 2 15m29sec)
Abundance of Bogus Holocaust Memoirs is now a Widely Publicized Fact by Hadding Scott
False memoirs have long been a common tool of propaganda.
Sometimes, as in the case of Yankel Wiernik’s A Year in Treblinka, the memoir is published by a government (in this case the post-war Communist government of Poland). Wiernik’s pseudo-memoir claims, among other fantasies, that a naked Jewish woman wrested a rifle away from a guard and leapt over a three-meter fence — which would be a world’s record even today.
Very often, however, this kind of lying occurs without direct sponsorship of any government. Private individuals will make up stories about themselves that conform to the prevailing myth, whatever it may be. The motive may be just to attract attention, or to make money, or of course to add to the overall campaign of propaganda. Also, when some accused person seems guilty but the evidence of guilt is inconclusive, it can always happen that some false witness will come forth to fill the gap. That person thereby makes himself important, and can rationalize in his own mind that he is aiding justice by lying.
One subset of this kind of liar that we commonly encounter is the person who claims to have “lost” some number of relatives in “the Holocaust.” If you hear somebody make such a claim, ask for details. If any are given, compare them to known facts. Be aware that there may be a kernel of truth augmented with fiction to make an otherwise dull story more interesting (as may be the case with Norman Finkelstein’s claim that his father was in both the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising and Auschwitz).
The Daily Mail (21 June 2013) carries an essay by novelist and sometime historian Guy Walters that scratches the surface of this phenomenon. The title asks: “Could there be anything more twisted than these Holocaust fantasists?” It says that “more and more people are making up memoirs about witnessing Nazi crimes.” Walters names the following as fake memoirs:
Towards the Dawn by Joe Corry (2001). Corry claims to be a former member of a “Special Service Unit” during the Second World War. Walters points out that Corry’s claim to have discovered an “experimental extermination camp” in Holland cannot be true.
Fragments: Memories Of A Wartime Childhood by Binjamin Wilkomirski (1995). Walters says that this author was exposed as a liar in 1998 “by a Swiss journalist, who revealed the author had been nowhere near the camps; that he was in fact called Bruno Grosjean, and had been raised in an orphanage.” (The book had won the National Jewish Book Award in the USA and the Prix Memoire de la Shoah in France before Daniel Ganzfried exposed it as a fraud.)
Angel at the Fence by Herman Rosenblat (2008). Rosenblat had gained notoriety through an appearance on Oprah in 1996. After the book was published, former inmates of the camp where the story was alleged to have taken place said that it was impossible, and within months Penguin withdrew the book from publication.
Misha: A Memoir Of The Holocaust Years by Misha Defonseca (1997). This Jewish woman claimed to have survived the Warsaw ghetto and been raised by wolves. She explained: “It’s not the true reality, but it is my reality.”
The Man Who Broke Into Auschwitz by Dennis Avey (2011). Walters himself exposed this as a fraud. (But not until after Carolyn Yeager exposed Avey first here, here and here. -ed)
Survivor Of The Long March: Five Years as a PoW 1940-1945 by Charles Waite (2012). This author claims to have witnessed a Jewish baby being snatched and killed by a guard in front of its mother. Walters notes that such episodes have become a staple of Holocaust literature; he considers them to lack credibility “for the simple reason that killing babies in front of their parents is not the best way to pacify a train full of prisoners.” Walters also suggests that most guards probably did not want to kill babies.
Do The Birds Still Sing In Hell? by Horace Greasley (2013). This author claims to have escaped from a German POW camp more than 200 times. Walters comments: “Mysteriously, Greasley’s PoW record held at the National Archives does not make one mention of these 200 ‘escapes’. Working camps for NCOs such as Greasley were not the tightly-guarded places conjured up by our collective imagination, which is weaned on images from Colditz and The Great Escape. In fact, bunking out of one’s camp to fraternise with local girls was hardly unusual, and certainly not ‘escaping’ in the sense most of us understand it.” One may infer that Greasley’s reference to his German POW camp as “Hell” is likewise an exercise in histrionics.
Defects in Walters’ Criticism
While presenting information that by its very nature suggests that the Holocaust story in general ought to be questioned, Walters has not gone all the way. On the contrary, Walters has taken preventive measures against being called a Holocaust-Denier, and against being called an anti-Semite. He has compromised his veracity in order to do that.
In the first place, Walters pretends that lying about “the Holocaust” is a relatively new phenomenon that only became common in the 1990s*. Walters is either shockingly ignorant of the history of disputes in this field or he is putting us on. Yankel Wiernik’sA Year in Treblinka was published in 1945. Paul Rassinier, a Socialist who had been an inmate of Buchenwald and Dora, criticized the dishonesty of other former inmates with The Lie of Ulysses: A Glance at the Literature of Concentration Camp Inmates as early as 1950, and continuing with other books into the 1960s. The observation that many people have lied about what they experienced during the Second World War dates from the war itself.
In his discussion of Joe Corry’s pseudo-memoir, Walters refrains from stating a fact that casts the entire Holocaust story into doubt. Walters does not point out that the Holocaust story has changed drastically since 1945. Mainstream historians today do not claim that there was any extermination-camp west of the current border between Poland and Germany, but the propaganda of 1945 claimed more extermination-camps spread over a wider area. (You will still encounter people who think that there were gassings at Dachau, Bergen-Belsen, and Buchenwald, but these are people that haven’t gotten the memo.) Corry’s tale of the “experimental extermination camp” might have been treated as credible in 1945 but it is not consistent with the official story that is enshrined today. Walters avoids mentioning that the Holocaust story has changed.
Walters covers himself against accusations of anti-Semitism by quoting a Jew who also complains about the lying. That Jew is one Felix Weinberg.
Based on the briefest perusal of what is available online of his book, I can say that Weinberg himself seems to be far from rigorously truthful. I noticed some obvious problems. Weinberg says: “…. the fact that inmates disappeared exactly six months after their arrival and that the chimneys were spouting smoke conveyed an ominous message.” Is it really true that inmates consistently disappeared six months after arriving at Auschwitz? It is hard to argue with Weinberg’s claim, because he could simply say the person who had allegedly spent more than six months in Auschwitz was lying — but the most easily available material indicates that there are such people. In any case Weinberg’s assumption that anybody who disappeared had been gassed is nothing more than an assumption and a rumor.
But it seems that Weinberg also fabricated aspects of his own story. Weinberg claims that the Germans made inmates waste their valuable labor in purely sadistic exercises, like digging holes and refilling them, and carrying bricks around in circles. For a highly educated nation at war, which was at the time suffering a severe shortage of labor, this is obvious poppycock.
Weinberg’s warning against Holocaust-liars seems to be a diversion. It’s analogous to a thief saying, “Watch out for pickpockets!” as he dips his hand into your pocket.
Walters does more than just quote Weinberg, however. He concludes his essay with: “We should all share the repugnance felt by the late Professor Weinberg, and read his book instead.” Really? Walters surely realizes that very few readers of his essay will bother to obtain Weinberg’s book. If they do, and if they have learned from Walters’ essay to exercise some skepticism, they will realize that Weinberg is hardly better than those he criticizes. And they will realize that Guy Walters does not tell the whole truth.
I suppose that Walters had to hide behind the apron of some Jew in order to get his essay published in mainstream media without suffering repercussions (such as have been experienced by David Irving) that would make it the last time he could get such exposure. After all, if it is true that publishing false memoirs damages the credibility of the Holocaust story, the key element in that damage is the exposition of the frauds, and Walters has contributed to that. I hope that Walters at least felt the urge to hold his nose while endorsing Weinberg in order to use him as a shield.
I cannot know for certain what Walters’ real intention was, but it seems to me that despite his stated intention to save the Holocaust from critics, despite his commendation of some allegedly legitimate Holocaust memoirs, the admission in a major news-source that much of the writing about the Holocaust is false — something that the general public likely did not know — represents a net plus for historical truth.
_______________________
*I will concede however that the growth of Holocaustomania may have required a decade or so to peak after the NBC mini-series “Holocaust” initially popularized the term and the concept in 1978. Also, the end of the Cold War, and the fact that people in general were freed from worrying about themselves being incinerated in a nuclear holocaust, may have increased public receptivity to propaganda that urges pity for Jews to the near-exclusion of everybody else.
From Hadding Scott’s blog “National-Socialist Worldview“