1933 Germany vs. 2009 Israel


“The ‘main surprise’ of the recent Israeli elections Avigdor Lieberman is a man who really has much in common with Adolph Hitler.”

By Khalid Amayreh

Journalist — Occupied Palestine
Editor’s note: The rise of the rightwing in Israel through the recent Knesset elections that was preceded by the bloody war on Gaza — which left more than 1,300 dead most of them are women and children — has aroused a lot of criticism among Palestinians. Khalid Amayreh opines about the rise of Lieberman.

In the early 1930s, many in Germany saw the Nazis as the wave for the future. Thousands of new members joined the Nazi party, giving absolute allegiance to the Fuhrer, Adolph Hitler. In the spring of 1932, with six million unemployed, chaos in Berlin, starvation and ruin as well as the threat of Marxism, and a very uncertain future, the masses turned to Hitler by the millions.

In the German presidential elections, which took place on March 13, 1932, Hitler received over 11 million votes or 30 percent of the total. His opponent, President Hindenburg, received more than 18 million votes or 49 percent.

With Hindenburg failing to get the absolute majority he needed, Hitler seized the opportunity and immediately embarked on a frantic campaign, arousing national feelings and promising something for everyone. In the Third Reich, he said, every German girl would find a husband.


Eventually, on a dark, rainy Sunday, April 10, 1932, the people voted, giving Hitler nearly 13.5 million votes, or 36 percent of the total, with Hindenburg receiving 19.3 million votes. After some political changes, in January 1933, Hitler took the reins of the German republic, being appointed as Chancellor.

We all know the rest of the story.

Now, a similar story is being worked out in Israel, with Nazi-minded Israeli leaders, triumphing in the recent elections which came at the heel of a genocidal blitzkrieg that destroyed the bulk of the Gaza Strip and killed and maimed thousands of innocent Palestinians, including hundreds of children.

Towards Full-fledged Fascism

Lieberman combines the ruthlessness of Joseph Stalin and the jingoism of the Nazi Fuhrer.
The outcome of the elections, which took place on February 10, proves beyond doubt that the Israeli Jewish society is drifting toward full-fledged fascism.

True, Zionism has always been inherently fascist since it embodies racism in its ugliest forms. However, the new breed of Zionist leaders are quite unapologetic about their genocidal propensities.

Take for example, Avigdor Lieberman, the “main surprise,” of the recent elections. This is a man who really has much in common with Adolph Hitler. He is ambitious, calculating, and very manipulative. He is also racist to the core, anti-democratic, and especially genocidal in his views and political thoughts. He combines the ruthlessness of Joseph Stalin and the jingoism of the Nazi Fuhrer.

During the recent murderous onslaught on Gaza, Lieberman proposed dropping a nuclear bomb on Gaza. He was not speaking facetiously; he says what he means and he means what he says.

Lieberman’s other ideas include flooding Egypt by bombing the Aswan Dam, blanket-bombing Palestinian population centers, throwing thousands of Palestinian prisoners into the Dead Sea, and destroying Tehran with nuclear bombs.

Now Lieberman, whose manifestly fascist party has become the third largest in Israel, is the rising star of Israeli politics very much as Adolph Hitler was the rising star of German politics in the late 1920s and 1930s.

And as German political leaders sought to endear themselves to Hitler, most Israeli politicians on the right and left (the Israeli left is actually more right-wing than the most right-wing party in the Western world) are now currying favor with Lieberman and imploring him to join them in a coalition government.

But Lieberman’s ambitions go far beyond becoming merely an important component of the Israeli political system. His eyes are focused on one thing: Becoming leader of Israel.

Not the Black Sheep of Israeli Politics

Unlike the Germans, many of whom did not really know where they were being led to, most Israelis seem quite aware that fascism, or more correctly, Jewish Nazism, represents the modus operandi in Israel today.
Despite his repulsive notoriety, Lieberman is not really the black sheep of Israeli politics. In fact, Lieberman, notwithstanding his Nazi propensity, the former Moldovan immigrant may be considered “moderate” when compared against a plethora of other fascist parties in Israel such as Ichud Leumi (National Union), Habayit Hayehudi (the Jewish Home) which advocates or stops short of advocating biblical-style genocidal annihilation of all Palestinians “because God says so.”

However, Lieberman’s pubic appeal and ability to arouse the rabble makes him far more dangerous than any other political party in Israel. He is a man who is capable of leading Israelis to the same destination that Adolph Hitler took Germans to nearly 80 years ago.

But, unlike the Germans, many of whom did not really know where they were being led to, most Israelis seem quite aware that fascism, or more correctly, Jewish Nazism, represents the modus operandi in Israel today.

On Thursday, February 12, the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz quoted Rabi Dr. Michael Ben-Ari as saying that the outcome of the Israeli elections proved that Israelis in general accepted the racist views of Rabbi Meir Kahane.

“Rabbi Kahane made long inroads and I think the Israeli public in these elections gave an unequivocal answer as to where it is turning,” Ben-Ari said in an interview with Galli Tzahal, the Israeli Army Radio.

Kahane advocated the genocidal ethnic cleansing of non-Jews in Israel-Palestine. He put his evil ideas into a book entitled “They Must Go.”

Ben-Ari, a self-confessed Kahane disciple, had declared that Palestinians in Israel-Palestine should be expelled to places like Venezuela and Turkey.

He declared that he would want to be Interior Security Minister, presumably in order to ethnically cleanse non-Jews in Israel.

“Someone has to create order with regard to a few matters!!. And I wouldn’t object to filling those shoes.”

Committing the Unthinkable

The gloomy portents coming from Israel these days must be taken seriously.
The gloomy portents coming from Israel these days must be taken seriously, or else humanity would allow the repetition of the events that led to the massive atrocities of the Second World War.

The criminal, psychotic, and megalomaniac political class in Israel is simply capable of committing the unthinkable.

They are armed to the teeth, nearly immune from external pressure, and firmly confide
nt that the Jewish lobby or lobbies is in tight control of America from California to New York and that all America’s leaders, from Nancy Pelosi to Barack Obama are deep in the Jewish pockets.

Hence, the world must not allow this menacing bellicosity to go unchecked.

I know that some of those languishing under the influence of Zionist hasbara, especially in Europe and North America, may dismiss my warnings as far-fetched or highly exaggerated.

Well, those I want to ask a simple question: Who would have thought in 1933 that Hitler would ever do what he did?

Khalid Amayreh is a journalist living in Palestine. He obtained his MA in journalism from the University of Southern Illinois in 1983. Since the 1990s, Mr. Amayreh has been working and writing for several news outlets among which is Aljazeera.net, Al-Ahram Weekly, Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA), and Middle East International. He can be reached through politics.indepth@iolteam.com.

Source : islamonline.net

9 thoughts on “1933 Germany vs. 2009 Israel

  1. well and true said, my brother Khalid.

    The world like always will agree wen it is too late.
    I dnt care about the west, i just hope the Arabs do something about it before it is too late.

  2. I did read although not proven that Adolph Hitler is the grandson of a Rothchild. I also read that the state of DAvid was not adopted until the Rothchilds adopted it. I also read that Rothchilds own 80% of zionist Israel and partners with the Rockefellers on our Federal REserve Bank.

  3. Elie Wiesel vs Encyclopaedia Britannica:

    Wiesel has been a prominent spokesman for the very sizeable group of people known as Holocaust survivors. [According to Norman Finkelstein of the City University of New York in his book The Holocaust Industry published in 2000, ‘The Israeli Prime Minister’s office recently put the number of “living Holocaust survivors” at nearly a million’ (p.83)]. Wiesel has chaired the US Holocaust Memorial Council and has been the recipient of a Congressional Gold Medal and Nobel Peace Prize.

    Time Magazine, March 18 1985:

    ‘How had he survived two of the most notorious killing fields [Auschwitz and Buchenwald] of the century? “I will never know” he says. “I was always weak. I never ate. The slightest wind would turn me over. In Buchenwald they sent 10,000 to their deaths every day. I was always in the last hundred near the gate. They stopped. Why?”

    Compare this with Encyclopaedia Britannica (1993), under ‘Buchenwald’:

    “In World War II it held about 20,000 prisoners.. Although there were no gas chambers, hundreds perished monthly through disease, malnutrition, exhaustion, beatings and executions.”

    http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/0199/9901055.html

    Washington Report on Middle East Affairs | January/February 1999

    “A Terrible Fraud” :
    Wiesel Ignores Palestinians
    To the Jerusalem Post, Oct. 9, 1998 (as submitted).

    (from Prof. Daniel McGowan, Professor of Economics at Hobart and William Smith Colleges, Geneva, NY)

    In your Oct. 9 article on Elie Wiesel, the American icon of Holocaust survivors, he is paid a special tribute as a “speaker of truth.” This is the same Elie Wiesel who is continually referred to by Noam Chomsky and others as “a terrible fraud.” What can explain such disparity of opinion?

    Perhaps it is because Wiesel, who has written literally volumes Against Silence, remains silent when it comes to such issues involving Palestinians as land expropriation, torture and abrogation of basic human rights.

    Perhaps it is because Elie Wiesel proclaims with great piety that “the opposite of love is not hate; it is indifference,” while he remains totally indifferent to the inequality and suffering of the Palestinians. Perhaps it is because he enjoys recognition as “one of the first opponents of apartheid” in South Africa, while he remains totally silent and indifferent to the apartheid being practiced today in Israel.

    Perhaps it is because he decries terrorism, yet never apologizes for the terrorism perpetrated by the Irgun at Deir Yassin on April 9, 1948. He refuses even to comment on it. He dismisses this act of terrorism in eight short words in his memoirs, All Rivers Run to the Sea. He remembers the Jewish victims at Kielce, Poland (July 1946) with great anguish, but ignores twice as many Palestinian victims of his own employer at Deir Yassin. The irony is breathtaking.

    It is even more shocking that the world’s best known Holocaust survivor can repeatedly visit Yad Vashem and yet keep silent about the victims of Deir Yassin who lie within his sight 1,400 meters to the north. He bitterly protests when Jewish graves are defaced, but has nothing to say when the cemetery of Deir Yassin is bulldozed. He refuses even to acknowledge repeated requests that he join a group of Jews and non-Jews who wish to build a memorial at Deir Yassin.

    Elie Wiesel may profess modesty and claim he is “not a symbol of anything” but, unfortunately, he has become a symbol of hypocrisy.

    Daniel A. McGowan, Director, Deir Yassin Remembered, Geneva, NY

  4. The Origins of World War 2 –
    The unexpected views of four key diplomats who were close to events

    Just consider the following:

    Joseph P. Kennedy, U.S. Ambassador to Britain during the years immediately preceding WW2 was the father of the famous American Kennedy dynasty. James Forrestal the first US Secretary of Defense (1947-1949) quotes him as saying “Chamberlain (the British Prime Minister) stated that America and the world Jews had forced England into the war”. (The Forrestal Diaries ed. Millis, Cassell 1952 p129).

    Count Jerzy Potocki, the Polish Ambassador in Washington, in a report to the Polish Foreign Office in January 1939, is quoted approvingly by the highly respected British military historian Major-General JFC Fuller. Concerning public opinion in America he says “Above all, propaganda here is entirely in Jewish hands…when bearing public ignorance in mind, their propaganda is so effective that people have no real knowledge of the true state of affairs in Europe… It is interesting to observe that in this carefully thought-out campaign… no reference at all is made to Soviet Russia. If that country is mentioned, it is referred to in a friendly manner and people are given the impression that Soviet Russia is part of the democratic group of countries… Jewry was able not only to establish a dangerous centre in the New World for the dissemination of hatred and enmity, but it also succeeded in dividing the world into two warlike camps…President Roosevelt has been given the power.. to create huge reserves in armaments for a future war which the Jews are deliberately heading for.” (Fuller, JFC: The Decisive Battles of the Western World vol 3 pp 372-374.)

    Hugh Wilson, the American Ambassador in Berlin until 1938, the year before the war broke out, found anti-Semitism in Germany ‘understandable’. This was because before the advent of the Nazis, “the stage, the press, medicine and law [were] crowded with Jews…among the few with money to splurge, a high proportion [were] Jews…the leaders of the Bolshevist movement in Russia, a movement desperately feared in Germany, were Jews. One could feel the spreading resentment and hatred.” (Hugh Wilson: Diplomat between the Wars, Longmans 1941, quoted in Leonard Mosley, Lindbergh, Hodder 1976).

    Sir Nevile Henderson, British Ambassador in Berlin ‘said further that the hostile attitude in Great Britain was the work of Jews and enemies of the Nazis, which was what Hitler thought himself’ (Taylor, AJP: The Origins of the Second World War Penguin 1965, 1987 etc p 324).

    Is all of this merely attributable to antisemitism?

    The economic background to the war is necessary for a fuller understanding, before casting judgement on the originators of these viewpoints.

    At the end of the First World War, Germany was essentially tricked [see Paul Johnson A History of the Modern World (1983) p24 and H Nicholson Peacemaking 1919 (1933) pp13-16] into paying massive reparations to France and other economic competitors and former belligerent countries in terms of the so-called Treaty of Versailles, thanks to the liberal American President Woodrow Wilson. Germany was declared to be solely responsible for the war, in spite of the fact that ‘Germany did not plot a European war, did not want one, and made genuine efforts, though too belated, to avert one.’ (Professor Sydney B Fay The Origins of the World War (vol. 2 p 552)).

    As a result of these massive enforced financial reparations, by 1923 the situation in Germany became desperate and inflation on an astronomical scale became the only way out for the government. Printing presses were engaged to print money around the clock. In 1921 the exchange rate was 75 marks to the dollar. By 1924 this had become about 5 trillion marks to the dollar. This virtually destroyed the German middle class (Koestler The God that Failed p 28), reducing any bank savings to a virtual zero.

    According to Sir Arthur Bryant the British historian (Unfinished Victory (1940 pp. 136-144):

    ‘It was the Jews with their international affiliations and their hereditary flair for finance who were best able to seize such opportunities.. They did so with such effect that, even in November 1938, after five years of anti-Semitic legislation and persecution, they still owned, according to the Times correspondent in Berlin, something like a third of the real property in the Reich. Most of it came into their hands during the inflation.. But to those who had lost their all this bewildering transfer seemed a monstrous injustice. After prolonged sufferings they had now been deprived of their last possessions. They saw them pass into the hands of strangers, many of whom had not shared their sacrifices and who cared little or nothing for their national standards and traditions.. The Jews obtained a wonderful ascendancy in politics, business and the learned professions (in spite of constituting) less than one percent of the population.. The banks, including the Reichsbank and the big private banks, were practically controlled by them. So were the publishing trade, the cinema, the theatres and a large part of the press – all the normal means, in fact, by which public opinion in a civilized country is formed.. The largest newspaper combine in the country with a daily circulation of four millions was a Jewish monopoly.. Every year it became harder and harder for a gentile to gain or keep a foothold in any privileged occupation.. At this time it was not the ‘Aryans’ who exercised racial discrimination. It was a discrimination that operated without violence. It was exercised by a minority against a majority. There was no persecution, only elimination.. It was the contrast between the wealth enjoyed – and lavishly displayed – by aliens of cosmopolitan tastes, and the poverty and misery of native Germans, that has made anti-Semitism so dangerous and ugly a force in the new Europe. Beggars on horseback are seldom popular, least of all with those whom they have just thrown out of the saddle.’

    Goodness gracious, Sir Arthur! What made you get out of the wrong side of the bed?

    Strangely enough, a book unexpectedly published by Princeton University Press in 1984, Sarah Gordon (Hitler, Germans and the “Jewish Question”) essentially confirms what Bryant says. According to her, ‘Jews were never a large percentage of the total German population; at no time did they exceed 1% of the population during the years 1871-1933.’ But she adds ‘Jews were over-represented in business, commerce, and public and private service.. They were especially visible in private banking in Berlin, which in 1923 had 150 private Jewish banks, as opposed to only 11 private non-Jewish banks.. They owned 41% of iron and scrap iron firms and 57% of other metal businesses.. Jews were very active in the stock market, particularly in Berlin, where in 1928 they comprised 80% of the leading members of the stock exchange. By 1933, when the Nazis began eliminating Jews from prominent positions, 85% of the brokers on the Berlin Stock exchange were dismissed because of their “race”.. At least a quarter of full professors and instructors (at German universities) had Jewish origins.. In 1905-6 Jewish students comprised 25% of the law and medical students.. In 1931, 50% of the 234 theatre directors in Germany were Jewish, and in Berlin the number was 80%.. In 1929 it was estimated that the per capita income of Jews in Berlin was twice that of other Berlin residents..’ etc etc.

    Arthur Koestler confirms the Jewish over-involvement in German publishing. ‘Ullstein’s was a kind of super-trust; the largest organization of its kind in Europe, and probably In the world. They published four daily papers in Berlin alone, among these the venerable Vossische Zeitung, founded in the eighteenth century, and the B.Z. am Mittag, an evening paper.. Apart from these, Ullstein’s published more than a dozen weekly and monthly periodicals, ran their own news service, their own travel agency, etc., and were one of the leading book publishers. The firm was owned by the brothers Ullstein – they were five, like the original Rothschild brothers, and like them also, they were Jews.’ (The God that Failed (1950) ed. RHS Crossman, p 31).

    Edgar Mowrer, Berlin correspondent for the Chicago Daily News, wrote an anti-German tract called Germany Puts the Clock Back (published as a Penguin Special and reprinted five times between December 1937 and April 1938). He nevertheless notes ‘In the all-important administration of Prussia, any number of strategic positions came into the hands of Hebrews.. A telephone conversation between three Jews in Ministerial offices could result in the suspension of any periodical or newspaper in the state.. The Jews came in Germany to play in politics and administration that same considerable part that they had previously won by open competition in business, trade, banking, the Press, the arts, the sciences and the intellectual and cultural life of the country. And thereby the impression was strengthened that Germany, a country with a mission of its own, had fallen into the hands of foreigners.’

    Mowrer says ‘No one who lived through the period from 1919 to 1926 is likely to forget the sexual promiscuity that prevailed.. Throughout a town like Berlin, hotels and pensions made vast fortunes by letting rooms by the hour or day to baggageless, unregistered guests. Hundreds of cabarets, pleasure resorts and the like served for purposes of getting acquainted and acquiring the proper mood..’ (pp. 153-4). Bryant describes throngs of child prostitutes outside the doors of the great Berlin hotels and restaurants. He adds ‘Most of them (the night clubs and vice-resorts) were owned and managed by Jews. And it was the Jews.. among the promoters of this trade who were remembered in after years.’ (pp. 144-5).

    Douglas Reed, Chief Central European correspondent before WWII for the London Times, was profoundly anti-German and anti-Hitler. But nevertheless he reported: ‘I watched the Brown Shirts going from shop to shop with paint pots and daubing on the window panes the word “Jew”, in dripping red letters. The Kurfürstendamm was to me a revelation. I knew that Jews were prominent in business life, but I did not know that they almost monopolized important branches of it. Germany had one Jew to one hundred gentiles, said the statistics; but the fashionable Kurfürstendamm, according to the dripping red legends, had about one gentile shop to ninety-nine Jewish ones.’ (Reed Insanity Fair (1938) p. 152-3). In Reed’s book Disgrace Abounding of the following year he notes ‘In the Berlin (of pre-Hitler years) most of the theatres were Jewish-owned or Jewish-leased, most of the leading film and stage actors were Jews, the plays performed were often by German, Austrian or Hungarian Jews and were staged by Jewish film producers, applauded by Jewish dramatic critics in Jewish newspapers.. The Jews are not cleverer than the Gentiles, if by clever you mean good at their jobs. They ruthlessly exploit the common feeling of Jews, first to get a foothold in a particular trade or calling, then to squeeze the non-Jews out of it.. It is not true that Jews are better journalists than Gentiles. They held all the posts on those Berlin papers because the proprietors and editors were Jewish’ (pp238-9).

    The Jewish writer Edwin Black notes ‘For example, in Berlin alone, about 75% of the attorneys and nearly as many of the doctors were Jewish.’ (Black, The Transfer Agreement (1984) p58.

    To cap it all, Jews were perceived as dangerous enemies of Germany after Samuel Untermeyer, the leader of the World Jewish Economic Federation, declared war on Germany on August 6 1933. (Edwin Black The Transfer Agreement: the Untold Story of the Secret Pact between the Third Reich and Palestine (1984) pp272-277) According to Black, ‘The one man who most embodied the potential death blow to Germany was Samuel Untermeyer.’ (p 369). This was the culmination of a worldwide boycott of German goods led by international Jewish organizations. The London Daily Express on March 24, 1933 carried the headline Judea Declares War on Germany. The boycott was particularly motivated by the German imposition of the Nuremberg Laws, which ironically were similar in intent and content to the Jewish cultural exclusivism practiced so visibly in present-day Israel (Hannah Arendt Eichmann in Jerusalem p 7).

    Hitler saw the tremendous danger posed to Germany by Communism. He appreciated the desperate need to eliminate this threat, a fact that earned him the immense hatred and animosity of the Jewish organisations and the media and politicians of the west which they could influence. After all, according to the Jewish writer Chaim Bermant, although Jews formed less than five percent of Russia’s population, they formed more than fifty percent of its revolutionaries. According to the Jewish writer Chaim Bermant in his book The Jews (1977, chapter 8):

    ‘It must be added that most of the leading revolutionaries who convulsed Europe in the final decades of the last century and the first decades of this one, stemmed from prosperous Jewish families.. They were perhaps typified by the father of revolution, Karl Marx.. Thus when, after the chaos of World War I, revolutions broke out all over Europe, Jews were everywhere at the helm; Trotsky, Sverdlov, Kamenev and Zinoviev in Russia, Bela Kun in Hungary, Kurt Eisner in Bavaria, and, most improbable of all, Rosa Luxemburg in Berlin.

    ‘To many outside observers, the Russian revolution looked like a Jewish conspiracy, especially when it was followed by Jewish-led revolutionary outbreaks in much of central Europe. The leadership of the Bolshevik Party had a preponderance of Jews.. Of the seven members of the Politburo, the inner cabinet of the country, four, Trotsky (Bronstein), Zinoviev (Radomsky), Kamenev (Rosenfeld) and Sverdlov, were Jews.’ Other authors agree with this:

    “There has been a tendency to circumvent or simply ignore the significant role of Jewish intellectuals in the German Communist Party, and thereby seriously neglect one of the genuine and objective reasons for increased anti-Semitism during and after World War 1.. The prominence of Jews in the revolution and early Weimar Republic is indisputable, and this was a very serious contributing cause for increased anti-Semitism in post-war years.. It is clear then that the stereotype of Jews as socialists and communists.. led many Germans to distrust the Jewish minority as a whole and to brand Jews as enemies of the German nation.” (Sarah Gordon Hitler, Germans and the ‘Jewish Question’ Princeton University Press (1984) p 23).

    “The second paroxysm of strong anti-Semitism came after the critical role of Jews in International Communism and the Russian Revolution and during the economic crises of the 1920s and 30s… Anti-Semitism intensified throughout Europe and North America following the perceived and actual centrality of Jews in the Russian Revolution.. Such feelings were not restricted to Germany, or to vulgar extremists like the Nazis. All over Northern Europe and North America, anti-Semitism became the norm in ‘nice society’, and ‘nice society’ included the universities.” (Martin Bernal, Black Athena vol. 1 pp. 367, 387).

    “The major role Jewish leaders played in the November (Russian) revolution was probably more important than any other factor in confirming (Hitler’s) anti-Semitic beliefs.” (J&S Pool, Who Financed Hitler, p.164).

    Hitler came to power in Germany with two main aims, the rectification of the unjust provisions of the Versailles Treaty, and the destruction of the Soviet/ Communist threat to Germany. Strangely enough, contrary to the mythology created by those who had an opposing ethnic agenda, he had no plans or desire for a larger war of conquest. Professor AJP Taylor showed this in his book The Origins of the Second World War, to the disappointment of the professional western political establishment. Taylor says, “The state of German armament in 1939 gives the decisive proof that Hitler was not contemplating general war, and probably not intending war at all” (p.267), and “Even in 1939 the German army was not equipped for a prolonged war; and in 1940 the German land forces were inferior to the French in everything except leadership” (p104-5). What occurred in Europe in 1939-41 was the result of unforeseen weaknesses and a tipping of the balance of power, and Hitler was an opportunist ‘who took advantages whenever they offered themselves’ (Taylor). Britain and France declared war on Germany, not the other way around. Hitler wanted peace with Britain, as the German generals admitted (Basil Liddell Hart, The Other Side of the Hill 1948, Pan Books 1983) with regard to the so-called Halt Order at Dunkirk, where Hitler had the opportunity to capture the entire British Army, but chose not to. Liddell Hart, one of Britain’s most respected military historians, quotes the German General von Blumentritt with regard to this Halt Order:

    “He (Hitler) then astonished us by speaking with admiration of the British Empire, of the necessity for its existence, and of the civilisation that Britain had brought into the world. He remarked, with a shrug of the shoulders, that the creation of its Empire had been achieved by means that were often harsh, but ‘where there is planing, there are shavings flying’. He compared the British Empire with the catholic Church – saying they were both essential elements of stability in the world. He said that all he wanted from Britain was that she should acknowledge Germany’s position on the Continent. The return of Germany’s colonies would be desirable but not essential, and he would even offer to support Britain with troops if she should be involved in difficulties anywhere..” (p 200).

    According to Liddell Hart, “At the time we believed that the repulse of the Luftwaffe in the ‘Battle over Britain’ had saved her. That is only part of the explanation, the last part of it. The original cause, which goes much deeper, is that Hitler did not want to conquer England. He took little interest in the invasion preparations, and for weeks did nothing tospur them on; then, after a brief impulse to invade, he veered around again and suspended the preparations. He was preparing, instead, to invade Russia” (p140).

    David Irving in the foreword to his book The Warpath (1978) refers to “the discovery.. that at no time did this man (Hitler) pose or intend a real threat to Britain or the Empire.”

    This gives a completely different complexion, not only to the war, but to the successful suppression of this information during the war and afterwards. Historians today know only too well where the boundaries lie within which they can paint their pictures of the war and its aftermath, and the consequences of venturing beyond those boundaries, irrespective of the evidence. Unfortunately, only too few of them have been prepared to have the courage to break out of this dreadful straitjacket of official and unofficial censorship.

    E-mail comment received:

    I worked and studied in Berlin for three years, have an MA in International Relations and a BA in Government with a minor in History. I am embarrassed to say that until I read this article, I had no idea of the scope and cause for the anti-Semitism in Germany before WWII. The Halt Order at Dunkirk was never mentioned in my studies, nor was the ownership of the media, banks and businesses.

    Thank you for the excellent article. It certainly gives me a new perspective. I have always questioned the actual numbers of Jewish victims of the concentration camps, as the numbers didn’t make sense based upon Germany’s population. Perhaps it was fear of failing or being labeled an anti-Semite by my history professors (all but two were Jewish) and classmates that I refrained from demanding an honest discussion during my classes. I once said that the only reason Israel existed was out of Holocaust guilt, and I was immediately labeled a terrorist sympathizer.

    I see what is now happening in Israel and I am aghast. The parallels to WW II are frightening. Even today, one cannot bring up this subject without being labeled a Holocaust denier or white supremacist.

    Thanks again for an excellent article. I am forwarding it to several friends.

    JBP

  5. It’s now official – there’s no actual shortage of Holocaust survivors:

    ‘The Israeli Prime Minister’s office recently put the number of “living Holocaust survivors” at nearly a million’ (extract from The Holocaust Industry by Norman G. Finkelstein of the City University of New York, published by Verso, London and New York, 2000, p.83).

    I’ve checked out Churchill’s Second World War and the statement is quite correct – not a single mention of Nazi ‘gas chambers,’ a ‘genocide’ of the Jews, or of ‘six million’ Jewish victims of the war. (The final volume was published several years after the war ended).

    Eisenhower’s Crusade in Europe is a book of 559 pages; the six volumes of Churchill’s Second World War total 4,448 pages; and De Gaulle’s three-volume Mémoires de guerre is 2,054 pages.
    In this mass of writing, which altogether totals 7,061 pages (not including the introductory parts), published from 1948 to 1959, one will find no mention either of Nazi ‘gas chambers,’ a ‘genocide’ of the Jews, or of ‘six million’ Jewish victims of the war.

  6. Interesting arithmetic
    Have a look at a typical account by one of the seemingly endless number of survivors: Olga Lengyel’s Five Chimneys: a woman survivor’s true story of Auschwitz (Granada/ Ziff-Davis, 1947, 1972).

    The blurb on the cover of the book quotes the New York Herald-Tribune: “Passionate, tormenting”. Albert Einstein, the promoter of the US construction of the bombs used at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, is quoted as offering “You have done a real service by letting the ones who are now silent and most forgotten (sic) speak.”

    Lengyel says

    ‘After June, 1943, the gas chamber was reserved exclusively for Jews and Gypsies.. Three hundred and sixty corpses every half-hour, which was all the time it took to reduce human flesh to ashes, made 720 per hour, or 17,280 corpses per twenty-four hour shift. And the ovens, with murderous efficiency, functioned day and night. However, one must also reckon the death pits, which could destroy another 8,000 cadavers a day. In round numbers, about 24,000 corpses were handled each day. An admirable production record, one that speaks well for German industry.’ (Paperback edition, pp80-81). [No trace of any remains of or in ‘death pits’ has been found.]

    This implies almost 100,000 corpses per four working days, or a million in 40 days, or six million in 240 days (eight months).

    Could this claim be a misprint?

    Kitty Hart, in spite of her name a Jewish survivor born in Poland, fully confirms these figures:

    ‘Working around the clock, the four units together could dispose of about 18,000 bodies every twenty-four hours, while the open pits coped with a further 8,000 in the same period.’ (p 118; Return to Auschwitz – paperback edition by Granada (1981, 1983).

    According to the cover blurb, ‘The subject of the award-winning Yorkshire television documentary of the same name.’ ‘Both engaging and harrowing…an important addition to the growing holocaust literature, very little of which conveys so courageously both the daily torment and the will to survive’ – Martin Gilbert, The Times.

    Martin Gilbert, indefatigable Jewish campaigner on behalf of the ‘Holocaust’ and biographer of Winston Churchill, adds to the rich flavour and makes his own numerical claims, certainly not without chutzpah:

    In his book Auschwitz and the Allies (1981) he states

    ‘The deliberate attempt to destroy systematically all of Europe’s Jews was unsuspected in the spring and early summer of 1942: the very period during which it was at its most intense, and during which hundreds of thousands of Jews were being gassed every day at Belzec, Chelmo, Sobibor and Treblinka.’ (p.26).

    If we assume a minimum figure of 200,000 per day, this amounts to say a million a five-day working week, or 6 million in six weeks, and this does not include the truly awe-inspiring claims for Auschwitz put forward by Hart and Lengyel with Gilbert’s blessing.

  7. A detailed forensic examination of the site of the wartime Treblinka camp, using sophisticated electronic ground radar, has found no evidence of mass graves there.

    For six days in October 1999, an Australian team headed by Richard Krege, a qualified electronics engineer, carried out an examination of the soil at the site of the former Treblinka II camp in Poland, where, Holocaust historians say, more than half a million Jews were put to death in gas chambers and then buried in mass graves.

    According to the Encyclopedia of the Holocaust (1997), for example, “a total of 870,000 people” were killed and buried at Treblinka between July 1942 and April 1943. Then, between April and July 1943, the hundreds of thousands of corpses were allegedly dug up and burned in batches of 2,000 or 2,500 on large grids made of railway ties.

    Krege’s team used an $80,000 Ground Penetration Radar (GPR) device, which sends out vertical radar signals that are visible on a computer monitor. GPR detects any large-scale disturbances in the soil structure to a normal effective depth of four or five meters, and sometimes up to ten meters. (GPR devices are routinely used around the world by geologists, archeologists, and police.) In its Treblinka investigation, Krege’s team also carried out visual soil inspections, and used an auger to take numerous soil core samples.

    The team carefully examined the entire Treblinka II site, especially the alleged “mass graves” portion, and carried out control examinations of the surrounding area. They found no soil disturbance consistent with the burial of hundreds of thousands of bodies, or even evidence that the ground had ever been disturbed. In addition, Krege and his team found no evidence of individual graves, bone remains, human ashes, or wood ashes.

    “From these scans we could clearly identify the largely undisturbed horizontal stratigraphic layering, better known as horizons, of the soil under the camp site,” says the 30-year old Krege, who lives in Canberra. “We know from scans of grave sites, and other sites with known soil disturbances, such as quarries, when this natural layering is massively disrupted or missing altogether.” Because normal geological processes are very slow acting, disruption of the soil structure would have been detectable even after 60 years, Krege noted.

    While his initial investigation suggests that there were never any mass graves at the Treblinka camp site, Krege believes that further work is still called for.

    “Historians say that the bodies were exhumed and cremated toward the end of the Treblinka camp’s use in 1943, but we found no indication that any mass graves ever existed,” he says. “Personally, I don’t think there was a mass extermination camp there at all.”

    Krege prepared a detailed report on his Treblinka investigation. He says that he would welcome the formation, possibly under United Nations auspices, of an international team of neutral, qualified specialists, to carry out similar investigations at the sites of all the wartime German camps.

  8. Review

    Abraham Bomba, Barber of Treblinka

    by Bradley R. Smith

    I HAVE NOW SEEN the complete nine and one half hour documentary Shoah, which purports to be “An Oral History of the Holocaust.” It was produced, directed, narrated and is now being promoted by Claude Lanzmann. From the newspapers I gather that Lanzmann is an assimilated French Jew who speaks neither Hebrew nor Yiddish. He is presently 60 years old. He worked as a journalist for many years in association with Jean Paul Sartre and Les Temps Modernes until 1970, when he turned his attention to making movies.

    That is, Claude Lanzmann worked for twenty-five years in the eye of the intellectual storms that swept across France following the end of World War II. As a journalist he certainly learned during those twenty-five years how to conduct professional interviews. He certainly learned, through his associations with Sartre, de Beauvior, Camus and those who criticized the great triad, how to pursue a train of thought, considering the high-powered company he kept. It’s a real eye-opener then to watch Lanzmann reveal his intellectual corruption in scene after scene of this shoddy movie, which he claims took ten years to complete.

    My favorite interview in Shoah is the one with Abraham Bomba, the Barber of Treblinka. I’m not alone in my fondness for Bomba either. Many critics have commented on his performance. They gave him rave reviews. George Will of ABC Television, for example, wrote in the Washington Post that Bomba’s narrative was “the most stunning episode in this shattering film.”

    Some eyewitnesses to alleged gas chamber horrors recount stories that are so lacking in credibility that they can be dismissed out of hand. Others repeat stories that cannot easily be shown to be false but reveal the characters of the tale-bearers to be so sniveling and shameless that one feels compromised by even listening to them. Bomba is becoming an important character in the Holocaust-survivor-eyewitness scenario in that he embodies much of both of these characteristics.

    The way Bomba tells the story, he had been interned in Treblinka about four weeks when the Germans announced that they wanted some barbers for a special detail. Bomba volunteered, of course, then helped the SS identify 16 other Jewish barbers among the internees. They were all taken to the second part of the camp where the ‘gas chamber’ was. They were led inside the gas chambers where a Kapo (almost certainly a Jew; note 1) explained that the 17 barbers were to shear the hair from the woman who would arrive to be gassed. Lanzmann asked Bomba about the greatest murder weapon of all time, the German homicidal poison gas chamber.

    Lanzmann: How did it look, the gas chamber?

    Bomba: It was not a big room, around twelve feet by twelve feet. (note 2)

    And there you have it. Claude Lanzmann is finished with his in-depth investigation of how the Treblinka gas chamber looked. It takes all kinds. If I had been in Lanzmann’s shoes I could have thought of a few more questions to ask about “how it looked”. Particularly if I had some feelings about the stories that maybe a million of my kinsmen had been exterminated in it. Maybe I would have wanted to know what Bomba could tell me about what material the walls of the gas chamber were made of — what the roof was made of. How would Bomba describe the ventilation system? Where and how, exactly, did the “gas” enter the room? Maybe Bomba would have remembered if the room had been illuminated or not. If it had been, how? What were the doors made of? How did they seal so that the “gas” could not escape? As historians have not bothered to ask these simple questions, Lanzmann could have done their work for them and helped uncover one of the great mysteries of the 20th century — how the fabled Nazi gas chambers really looked.

    As to whether Bomba is being honest about having seen a gas chamber at Treblinka consider Rachel Auerbach’s description of that gas chamber in her The Death Camp Treblinka (note 3). Auerbach is given a place of honor in this, the most comprehensive book published on the camp. As she was (she died in 1976) a permanent research staff member of the Yad Vashem Holocaust Memorial museum in Jerusalem, her description of the gas chamber should not be dismissed out of hand.

    … The floor of the gas chamber was sloping and slippery. The first ones in would slip and fall, never to rise again. Those who followed would topple over them … About 25 to 45 minutes later — [after the “gassing” began, that is] — the chutes on the other side could be opened and the corpses tumbled out.”

    It would seem that while he was being interviewed for Shoah Mr. Bomba forgot about how slippery the floor is supposed to have been in his little gas chamber. It seems he forgot how it slanted steeply in the direction of the chutes. As a matter of fact, Mr. Bomba forgot to mention the chutes. If Lanzmann had read the literature even superficially he would have been aware that Bomba was leaving a few things out of his story. As Lanzmann claims he worked for ten years on Shoah, I’m going to guess that Lanzmann is aware of Auerbach’s description of the Treblinka gas chamber and chooses to ignore it.

    In any event, once Lanzmann’s curiosity was satisfied about how the gas chamber looked (not big), he wanted to know happened next.

    Lanzmann: Can you describe precisely?

    Bomba: Describe precisely … We were waiting there … inside the gas chamber … until the transport came in. Women with children pushed into that place … They were undressed, naked, without clothes, without anything else — completely naked — because they come from the undressing barrack … where they had undressed themselves.

    Lanzmann: What did you feel the first time you saw all those naked women?

    Bomba: I felt that accordingly I got to do what they … [Germans] … told me, to cut their hair …

    There you have in a nutshell how eye witnesses to the gas chamber atrocities typically describe their behavior. They did whatever the Germans or anyone else requested of them. When they received a request to help prepare their kinsmen — and even their own families as well as we shall soon see — to be exterminated, or genocided or whatever, these fellows say they hopped right to it. I don’t believe them, but that’s the persona that they have chosen to project to the world at large. In the neighborhood where I grew up men who behaved like Bomba claims he behaved would have been spit on. In the upside-down world of Holocaust survivordom, however , the Abraham Bombas are seen as martyrs and even heroes. It’s a peculiar psychological slant on manly behavior.

    Lanzmann expresses a little more curiosity about how Bomba cut his ( for hasn’t Bomba according to his own story become a working partner in the alleged genocide of his people?) victims hair than he did about how the gas chamber looked. He asked if Bomba had shaved them, if he had used scissors, and if there had not been mirrors available inside the gas chamber. Bomba said that he did not shave the women, and that the Germans had not provided the barbers with mirrors.

    Lanzmann: “There were no mirrors?”

    Bomba: “No, there were no mirrors. There were just benches — not chairs, just benches …

    There’s an interesting note. According to Bomba the Germans had provided benches inside the little gas chamber for the ladies and their children to sit on. We’re not told how many benches. There could have been 17 individual ones, but more likely Bomba would have said — if Lanzmann had thought to ask him — that there were maybe four or five, half a dozen perhaps. Two or more ladies with their kids could have sat on each bench. No matter how you slice it, traffic is picking up. Seventeen barbers, the benches for 17, and now the 17 women and their kids are all there together inside the gas chamber, which is about the size of a small bedroom in the rear of an ordinary tract house — and the hair is flying. But we’re not finished yet:

    Lanzmann: “You said there were about sixteen … [Lanzmann has forgotten that Bomba makes the seventeenth] … barbers? You cut the hair of how many women in a one batch?”

    Bomba: “In one day there was about, I would say, going into that place between sixty and seventy women in the same room at one time.”

    You might think that Claude Lanzmann is about to express some doubt about how Bomba is blocking out this scene for him. Sixty to seventy naked women in the 12-square-foot room. Lanzmann isn’t going to express doubt, however, about anything told to him by a survivor. Lanzmann is a Holocaust fundamentalist. The role of the fundamentalist in any cult is to accept absolutely the testimony of those who claim to have been eyewitnesses to the original sacred event. Once the original story is made to fly, the most elegant minds can elaborate on it endlessly in good faith.

    Two thousand years ago there were Jews who believed utterly that the son of their God had been nailed to a pole and executed and that he rose from his tomb to sail off the planet into the heavens. That tale was a runaway hit. Now we have Jews everywhere committed to the proposition that millions of them were exterminated in itty-bitty gas chambers, were cremated, and rose up toward the heavens in smoke. This one has all the signs of becoming a real blockbuster too. We Gentiles used to be made of sterner stuff. It took the Jesus story more than three hundred years to be accepted as Truth by the State. In our own time the State bought the Holocaust story at the first screening.

    What was the rush, one wonders?

    Lanzmann urged Bomba to say something more about how he felt as he went about preparing the women and their children to be exterminated. Something more perhaps than the homely: “I felt that accordingly I got to do what they told me, to cut their hair …”

    Bomba: “I tell you something. To have a feeling about that … It was very hard to feel anything … your feelings disappeared, you were dead. You had no feeling at all.

    This is a universal response by eyewitnesses to the alleged gas chamber murders. The claim Bomba makes that his feelings were “dead,” that he had “no feeling at all,” resembles the “temporary insanity” claim murderers use to diminish their responsibility for their behavior in the eye of the State. The ordinary murderer claims that his mental process was so diminished at the time he murdered that he was not responsible for his act. The eyewitness to the alleged gas chamber murders claims that his sensibilities were so diminished while he worked as a link in the murder process that he was not responsible for his behavior. The murderer was out of his “mind,” while gas-chamber eyewitnesses ran out of “feeling.” When Bomba describes himself as being inwardly “dead’ he is saying that he cannot be judged guilty of being an accomplice to mass murder. He can accuse Germans of whatever he likes — participate in the crimes he accuses them of — yet remain forever innocent while Germans remain forever guilty. It’s a nice set-up.

    In the film Bomba goes on to illustrate how dead he was inwardly while working for the SS at reblinka. He describes how he shared the hair from women he knew personally from his home town, from his own street: “. . . and some of them were my close friends.” They would ask Abe: “What’s going to happen to us?” But Abe would hold his tongue. With Abe it was just snip, snip, snip. “What could you tell them?,” he asks Lanzmann. “What could you tell?”

    Snip, snip, snip.

    Now Bomba relate to Lanzmann the story that reviewers have remarked on more than any other in Shoah. (note 4)

    Bomba A friend of mine worked as a barber — he was good barber in my hometown — when his wife and his sister came into the gas chamber … I can’t. It’s too horrible. Please.

    Lanzmann: “We have to do it. You know it.”

    Bomba: (holding back tears) “I won’t be able to do it.”

    Lanzmann: (very quietly) “You have to do it. I know it’s very hard. I know and I apologize.”

    Bomba : (struggling) “Don’t make me go on, please.”

    Lanzmann: “Please. We must go on.”

    Bomba: (unable to control tears, leaving the frame for a moment, returning) “I told you it’s going to be very hard. They were taking that … [hair] … in bags and transporting it to Germany.”

    Lanzmann: “Okay, go ahead. What was his answer when his wife and sister came?”

    Bomba: “They tried to talk to him and the husband of his sister. They could not tell him this was the last time they stay alive, because behind them was the German Nazis, SS, and they knew that if they said a word, not only the wife and the woman, who were dead already, but also they would share the same thing with them. In a way, they tried to do the best for them, with a second longer, a minute longer, just to hug them and kiss them, because they knew they would never see them again.”

    To tell the truth, this is my kind of story, simple and lurid. There is also some new information in it. In addition to the 60 to 70 women and their kids, and the barbers and the benches, there were also “SS men” inside the 12-foot by 12-foot gas chamber. We don’t know how many, but as Bomba speaks in the plural he must mean that there were at least two. If Lanzmann had thought to ask him about it, Bomba might have said that there were 10 or 15 SS men in there. And then there is the welcome news that the SS would allow the Barbers to hug and kiss certain of the naked women inside the gas chamber. Bomba speaks only of married couples. Lanzmann might have asked perhaps how the SS were able to identify which of the naked women were married to which of the barbers. It must be doubtful that the naked women entered the gas chamber carrying their marriage certificates. Maybe the barbers had previously petitioned the SS to keep their own copies of their marriage certificates on the chance that just such a reunion as Bomba claims he witnessed would take place. On the other hand, maybe the SS men took the barber’s word for who was married and who wasn’t. If they did, it would betray a generosity of spirit that is not usually ascribed to the SS by Jewish survivors.

    Imagine trying to visualize this scene from the wife’s point of view. Try imagining what might have gone through her mind at the moment she spied her husband. The hope that must have jumped in her heart. Then what her thoughts were as her husband sheared off her heir without speaking to her. Imagine what she must have felt as he held her silently for a minute or so, his cheek pressed lovingly against her scalp, then turned with scissors and comb to the next patient lady waiting her turn. Did his wife run her fingers over her skull and think:

    “Ah, I’ve always known what kind of man you are. A schmuck when I married you and a schmuck today.”

    There are a number of observations that can be made about my presentation of Lanzmann’s presentation of Bomba’s testimony. It could be observed that while Rachel Auerbach’s research suggests that Bomba is inventing his gas chamber story out of whole cloth, it can still be claimed that we are left with Auerbach’s scholarly outline of the alleged reblinka gas chambers. Therefore, while Bomba’s investigations may destroy his own credibility as a witness, the Treblinka gas chamber story itself remains as it was, an extensively documented story of a weapon used to annihilate about a million Jews. To give you a quick fix on Ms. Auerbach’s scholarly instincts and her even-handed objectivity, I will quote from her famous essay “In the Fields of Treblinka.”

    As I read such passages in Rachel Auerbach’s essay I take the trouble to remind myself that after the war was she was “one of the first active members of the Jewish Historical Committee in Poland;” that after emigrating to Israel she became a “permanent research staff member of the Yad Vashem Holocaust Memorial Museum,” and that this In-the-Fields-of-Treblinka essay was thought worthy of reprinting as recently as 1979 by The Holocaust Library, which was found and is managed by survivors themselves and is distributed by a major Jewish publishing house, Shocken Books.

    Polish people still talk about the way soap was manufactured from the bodies of Jews. ‘Sent away for soap!’ was the expression the Poles would use when they spoke of transports to Treblinka, Belzec and Sobibor. The discovery of Professor Spanner’s soap factory in Langfuhr near Danzig proved that their suspicious had been well founded. Witnesses tell us that when the corpses were burned on pyres, pans would be placed beneath the racks to catch the fat as it ran off, but this has not been confirmed. But even if the Germans in Treblinka or at any of the other death factories failed to do this, and allowed so many tons of precious fat to go to waste, it could only have been an oversight on their part. They were fully capable of doing things like that. It was entirely in keeping with their proclivities. Only the newness of this branch of manufacturing was to blame for this omission. If the Germans ever would make another drive across Europe, they would not make this mistake again.

    Professors Spanner’s “soap factory” in Langfuhr near Danzing was apparently an invention of active members of self-proclaimed Jewish historical committees, based upon the entrepreneurial reports of professional slanderers, and has since been kept alive by research staffs at Jewish Holocaust memorials around the world. A photograph of this “factory,” with no documentation, appears in the scholarly Encyclopedia Judaica, published in Israel and shelved in many of the larger libraries across the United states.

    Polish Jews such as Rachel Auerbach witnessed Germans destroying their culture. They witnessed Germans tearing apart Jewish families during the titanic, brutal resettlement programs. Those Jews can be forgiven their credulity and even some of their hatred, expressed in their eagerness to believe every accusation made against Germans, no matter how corrupt. Americans, however, who suffered nothing of what European Jews suffered at the hands of Germans, have little right to indulge themselves with it. Which brings me to Mr. George Will, Washington Post columnist and ABC Television commentator.

    I am willing to accept Mr. Will’s own assessment of himself. He is a brilliant and principled man. I disagree with some of his viewpoints, particularly with his obsessive-compulsive attachment to the state of Israel, but I can’t show that attachment to be morally wrong. As luck would have it, Mr. Will has written a column about Shoah where he makes a remarkable observation.

    The most stunning episode in this shattering film lasts about five minutes and involves ‘only’ the talk of a barber now in Israel. While he clips the hair of a customer he talks, never needing to raise his voice to be heard over the small sounds of a familiar ambiance. He describes his duties in Treblinka, cutting hair from naked women on the threshold of the gas chamber, and the day a fellow barber saw his wife and sister enter the room. (note 5)

    Remarkable, eh? Cutting hair from naked women on the “threshold” of the gas chamber. Do you see it? The threshold is the place directly below the door to a room. A door sill perhaps. An entrance or a doorway. According to Mr. Webster it is a “place or point of beginning.” Taking Mr. Will’s own obvious assessment of himself, he is the proud possessor of a formidably organized intellect. A man who always distinguishes carefully between similar but different points of fact. While doing so enrages those lesser men who cannot do it themselves, it gives Mr. Will a lot of pleasure, which is why he does it so regularly. That being so, what am I to make of the fact that Mr. Will has changed the wording of Mr. Bomba’s testimony?

    Lanzmann: “Excuse me. How did it happen when the women came into the gas chamber? Were you yourself already in the gas chamber?”

    Bomba: “I said we were already in the gas chamber, waiting over there for the transport to come in. Inside the gas chamber — we were already in.”

    If Mr. Bomba swears that he was inside the gas chamber at that particular time, why does Mr. Will write that he barbed those naked women on the “threshold” of the gas chamber? Mr. Bomba can be seen on film saying that he was inside the gas chamber when he did it. In the text of the film published by Mr. Lanzmann, Mr. Bomba again insists he was inside the thing. What happened in Mr. Will’s brain as he wrote “threshold” rather than “inside” or “in?” Is it possible that Mr. Will found Mr. Bomba’s story ludicrous? He wouldn’t want to say so publicly of course as Mr. Will is one of our brightest and best Holocaust fundamentalists. Nevertheless, having the kind of relentlessly rational mind that he does, something at the bottom of it might not have bought Mr. Bomba’s story the way Mr. Will would have preferred to buy it. Maybe a single wire got crossed in the depths of Mr. Will’s brain, out of the millions that are twisted around in there. Maybe Mr. Will wanted to express some doubt about Mr. Bomba’s story but could not bring himself to do it. He may have been in that peculiar place where writers sometimes find themselves — smart enough to know that something needs to be said but without enough character to go ahead and say it. When this happens it causes a psychological malfunction known as writer’s block. Mr. Will isn’t the sort to be bothered with writer’s block, he has the habit of full production, but if he wasn’t going to spill the beans he had to turn somewhere. It looks like he turned to invention. I suppose in the moment it was easy enough for a man wired the way Mr. Will is wired to invent a threshold image and use it to replace the one Mr. Bomba invented. You can judge how much more intelligent Mr. Will is than Mr. Bomba when you compare the rationality of their two opposing visualizations.

    Now that Mr. Will had Mr. Bomba on the threshold of the gas chamber rather than inside it, Mr. Will could go on indulging his fantasy about Mr. Lanzmann’s Shoah. As the threshold to an exterior door not only leads inside, but turning about leads to the great outdoors and indeed to the survivors who claim to have actually seen a homicidal poison gas chamber. In this scenario, as the eyewitness testimony is not allowed to be challenged, the genocide theory can not be challenged either, and if that is so then European Jews had every right to conquer Palestine and the U.S. Government is morally obligated to protect forever the Israeli State. That is the line that has been spoon-fed to American so successfully for 40 years now. Mr. Will’s threshold caper is a small example of how our intellectual elites accept the use of invention on the one hand and the suppression of good sense on the other to bolster a world view that is based, incredibly, on a handful of stories told by a handful of Abraham Bombas.

    I believe the worldwide Jewish community is being betrayed by the coupling of such men as Abraham Bomba and George Will. Jews are being betrayed by their own spokesmen, and they are being betrayed by gentiles who profess to be friends and allies of the Jewish community but who in reality are merely supporters of a Zionist leadership, entrapped by the rhetoric of the Holocaust Lobby, too ashamed to reveal the immense fraud and falsehood on which so much of its influence has been built.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s