Personally, I do not believe in the gas chambers. For the rest of the Holocaust, I do indeed believe; just, not the gas chambers as such. I’ve seen sufficient evidence that Zyklon B delousing chambers for clothes were present in the West as well. Zyklon B was used in Pindostan itself as a delouser. It was a successful delousing product worldwide, under that very brand name, not the evil mystery you were taught in shul, darling. I was there, by the way, at the shul. I’ve seen cheap, unhistorical, sensationalist, fringe-pornographic pulp paperbacks about the so-called Holocaust, with huge horrible swastikas on the front, handed to little girls at their Bat Mitzvahs. I get around, you know. Anyway, I am supported in my dismissal of the gas chambers as such by an ever-increasing number of surprising people, most recently by William Blum, who wrote one of the definitive unauthorized histories of the CIA, “Killing Hope.” I find it easy to see how the gas-chambers legend started in prisoner rumour, along with many even more far-fetched and nightmarish rumours. I am sure that the decisive evidence remains carefully locked away in Moscow’s GRU archives, which tells us something about the Russian leadership, by the way – RB
Hitler the Ultra-Zionist!
Gilad Atzmon. May 4 2016
In a bizarre effort to paper over the historical truth regarding Hitler and the Haavara Agreement, Prof Rainer Schulze of Essex University wrote an article totally lacking intellectual integrity. Schulze’s piece in the Independent (Lebedev’s so-called ‘Independent’ – RB), ‘Hitler and Zionism: Why the Haavara Agreement does not mean the Nazis were Zionists’, demonstrates that fear of Zionists and their extensive power extends beyond the Labour party. It is deeply entrenched within the British psyche and institutionally embedded in academia. Schulze article leads him to the conclusion:
Any claim that Nazis and Zionists ever shared a common goal is not only cynical and disingenuous, but a distortion of clearly established historical fact.
The German-British professor’s failure to apply elementary academic analytical skills to the issue results in faulty scholarship. Schulze accepts this much:
(The Havaara Agreement provided that) Jewish emigrants from Germany had to hand over their possessions before they departed, and the proceeds from the sale of such possessions were used by a company specifically set up for this purpose in Tel Aviv to purchase German goods for sale in Plastelina.
But Schulze continues:
The Haavara Agreement does not mean the Nazis were ever Zionists. Instead, it is testament to the fact that Nazi policy towards the Jews was not clear-cut from the beginning, but evolved greatly over the years.
Schulze clearly doesn’t understand what Zionism was and who the Zionists were at the time of the Agreement. Schulze defines Zionism as; “a movement based on the right of self-determination.” This definition of Zionism is profoundly anachronistic, and it is wrong. Zionism was primarily and fundamentally the belief that Jews should return to Zion. Zionism was a “Jewish homecoming project.” Zionist Jews were divided amongst themselves, (but only about) what the “homecoming” might mean. Some believed that Zionism should aim to create a spiritual centre, others believed in binationalism. Many engaged in a pragmatic political struggle to erect a racially-oriented, Jews-Only State. Crucially, Hitler like Churchill and many others, saw in Zionism an opportunity for Europe to rid itself of some problematic Jewish elements. Whether Schulze likes it or not, Zionism was a successful project because from its onset, it formed a symbiotic relationship between Zionist Jews and the Jew-haters who wanted the Jews out of Europe. Zionism promised a national home for the Jews and at the same time offered to “take the Jews away.” In 1933, Hitler was a Zionist. Like Zionists (both Jews and their detractors) he wanted the Jews out of Europe. Plastelina was his preferred solution. At a later stage, probably around 1936, Hitler changed his mind about Zionism. He realised that the Zionist project was celebrated at the expense of the indigenous Plastelinan people (This is an idiotic statement. Gilad is trying to paint Hitler as a compassionate fellow, a sentimental anti-imperialist. Granted he was a vegetarian, but he wasn’t a goddamned anti-imperialist, Gilad, don’t be ridiculous – RB). One would expect an academic scholar specialising in modern Jewish History to grasp that Zionism as well as the State of Israel are sustained by Jew-hatred. If “anti-Semitism” disappears, Israel and Zionism become obsolete concepts. Understanding this, Israel and Zionism have consistently contributed to the rise of anti-Semitism. When there is no anti-Semitism to point at, Jewish institutions simply invent it, as they are presently doing in the (British) Labour party. Enough Schulze-bashing for one day. To his credit, Prof Schulze is not entirely dishonest. Like other contemporary German historians, Schulze is very careful with his wording regarding the German oppressive mechanisms and practicality. Towards the end of his Independent article, Schulze writes about the 1939 German Polish Campaign:
They (the Nazis) were looking for dumping grounds for Jews and other “undesirables.” These people were at best treated as “assets” to exploit, or later a stock of slave labour, and at worst simply expected to die of disease and starvation.
Did Schulze miss something? He did. He forgot to mention the gas chambers. Was this unintentional? I don’t think so. I have noticed that more German mainstream historians are unwilling to commit to the homicidal gas chamber narrative. Let’s see how long it will be before Schulze is kicked out of Essex University for heresy of the one and only universal Western religion.