Archivio | 11:39 am

The “Nazi Extermination Camp” of Sobibor in the Context of the Demjanjuk Case – by Paul Grubach

20 Ott

The “Nazi Extermination Camp” of Sobibor in the Context of the Demjanjuk Case

Paul Grubach


Claiming he spent most of WWII as a prisoner of the Germans, John Demjanjuk gained entry to the United States in 1952. In 1977, he was first sought out by US Federal Prosecutors, who insisted he was a war criminal who murdered Jews during WWII. Years later, in 1986, the former autoworker was extradited to Israel where he stood trial, accused of herding Jews into “gas chambers.” In 1988, he was sentenced to death for crimes against humanity after former concentration camp inmates identified him as the notorious “Ivan the Terrible”, a guard at the purported death camp of Treblinka.

In 1993, the Israeli Supreme Court acquitted Demjanjuk with regard to the allegations that he was “Ivan the Terrible,” and his United States citizenship was restored shortly thereafter. Unfortunately, the travails of the hapless Seven Hills, Ohio resident did not end here.

The Justice Department’s Office of Special Investigations (OSI) revived his case in 1999 by bringing a new legal complaint against the Ukrainian born retiree. They maintained Demjanjuk was a guard in other Nazi concentration camps and he lied about his wartime activities. After losing a long legal battle to stay in the US, John Demjanjuk was deported to Germany on May 12, 2009 to stand trial for alleged war crimes. German prosecutors formally charged him in July with helping to murder 27,900 Jews at the Sobibor camp.

Eli M. Rosenbaum, director of the US Justice Department’s Office of Special Investigations (OSI), summed up the US and German governments’ stance on Demjanjuk: “Thousands of Jews were murdered in the gas chambers of Sobibor, and John Demjanjuk helped seal their fate.”1

The original charge against John Demjanjuk—that he was a brutal guard who operated the “gas chambers” of Treblinka—was shown to be unfounded. Could it be that this new charge against Mr. Demjanjuk—that he herded Jews into the “gas chambers” of Sobibor—is even more baseless than the original one?

The reader should take note of this oddity. In 1962, SS man Erich Bauer mentioned a Ukrainian who had been on duty at the alleged gas chambers of Sobibor, who went by the name of Iwan and was nicknamed “The Terrible.” Holocaust historian Jules Schelvis suggested that perhaps Bauer was referring to John Demjanjuk.2 The Israeli Supreme Court already acquitted Demjanjuk with regard to the allegations that he was the notorious “Ivan the Terrible” of Treblinka. Will the international Holocaust lobby attempt to make Demjanjuk into a new mythological character, “Ivan the Terrible” of Sobibor?

The Traditional Sobibor Extermination Story and John Demjanjuk

Camp Sobibor was located in a sparsely populated, woody and swampy area of eastern Poland. According to the orthodox Holocaust story, the first stage of the extermination operation went on for three months, from the beginning of May to the end of July 1942, during which 90,000 to 100,000 Jews were allegedly murdered. The second stage of the purported murder operation ran from October 1942 to September 1943, which brought the total number of Jews killed to approximately 250,000, the official etched-in-stone Sobibor statistic. At first, the bodies were buried in trenches. At the end of the summer of 1942, the burial trenches were opened and the burning of the victims’ corpses was begun. A prisoner revolt broke out on October 14, 1943, and some three hundred prisoners managed to escape, but most were later killed. In the aftermath of the uprising, the Germans destroyed the camp. By the end of 1943, the official story says that no trace of Sobibor was left.3

Demanjanjuk ID Card

Illustration 1. The famous ID card showing Demjanjuk being transferred to Sobibor. Much has been written about this card including the charge that it is a forgery. It has no date of issue, the SS symbol was entered by hand, and it has been asserted that the photo of Demjanjuk was added after the fact. Photo: US Department of Justice.

In 2002, US District Court Judge Paul R. Matia claimed in his ruling that John Demjanjuk served as a guard at Camp Sobibor, circa March 27, 1943 to October 1, 1943. In regard to this alleged extermination camp, Matia asserted that the guards “assigned to Sobibor met the arriving transports of Jews, forcibly unloaded the Jews from the trains, compelled them to disrobe, and drove them into gas chambers where they were murdered by asphyxiation with carbon monoxide.” Matia charged Demjanjuk with a specific crime: “In serving at Sobibor, Defendant [John Demjanjuk] contributed to the process by which thousands of Jews were murdered by asphyxiation with carbon monoxide.”4

The Holocaust affirming Judge further claimed that the “guards assigned to Sobibor also guarded a small number of Jewish forced laborers kept alive to maintain the camp, dispose of the corpses, and process the possessions of those killed.”5

Further on in his ruling, Matia made this most important statement: “This [case against John Demjanjuk] is a case of documentary evidence, not eyewitness testimony.”6 Here, what Matia wrote is misleading. The current case about Demjanjuk allegedly serving at Sobibor is based upon purportedly authentic documents. But what Matia asserts about Sobibor being an “extermination camp” is based exclusively upon eyewitness testimony.

No Physical or Forensic Evidence to Prove Traditional View of Sobibor

Professor Christopher Browning is considered one of the world’s foremost authorities on the WWII concentration camps of Treblinka, Belzec and Sobibor, collectively known as the Operation Reinhardt Camps. In his formal statement for the David Irving vs. Deborah Lipstadt and Penguin Books libel trial in London in 2000, Browning admitted that documents relating to mass gassings at these camps are scant. The same holds true for the material evidence (the mass graves and remains of the camps themselves): it is scarce.7

Holocaust historian Robert Jan van Pelt also conceded the evidence for the mass killings of Jews at Treblinka, Sobibor and Belzec—where allegedly millions were murdered—is very meager. In reference to these three camps, he wrote: “There are few eyewitnesses, no confession that can compare to that given by [Auschwitz commandant Rudolf] Höss, no significant remains, and few archival sources.”8 The statements by Sobibor researcher and former inmate of the camp, Thomas Toivi Blatt, harmonize with Professor van Pelt, for he admitted: “Sobibor was the most secretive of the extermination camps, and very little official documentation survives. Most of what was written in the camp or by [German officials in the Lublin district of Poland] was destroyed.”9

Israeli and Polish archeologists who investigated the Sobibor site found no physical/archeological evidence to prove the Sobibor “gas chambers” existed, or that 250, 000 people were murdered there. To date, archeological science cannot determine the site of the “gas chambers” or even if they existed. The reader is strongly encouraged to read the forensic study to see that this is indeed the case.10 For sure, these forensic scientists (who are firm believers in the traditional Holocaust extermination story) find it difficult to imagine how 250, 000 could have been murdered there.11 This allegation was first made by the Central Commission for Investigation of German Crimes in Poland in 1946-1947.12

Clearly, the only support for the traditional Sobibor extermination story is the testimony of former inmates and the post war statements of German officials who were on trial for alleged war crimes.

How Were the Jews Allegedly Murdered at Sobibor?

Judge Matia and the mainstream historians claim that Jews were murdered in gas chambers at Sobibor, and carbon monoxide was the death-gas. Yet, there are former prisoners who have claimed that chlorine was the death-gas.

Sobibor witness Hella Fellenbaum-Weiss told the story of how Jews on their way to Sobibor were gassed with chlorine: “The arrival of another convoy distressed me in the same way. It was thought to come from Lvov, but nobody knows for sure. Prisoners were sobbing and told us a dreadful tale: they had been gassed on the way with chlorine, but some survived. The bodies of the dead were green and their skin peeled off.”13

The allegation that Jews were gassed on their way to Sobibor with chlorine has been quietly discarded by the Holocaust promoters—an implicit admittance that it must be false.

In his thorough study of Belzec concentration camp, Belzec in Propaganda, Testimonies, Archeological Research, and History, Revisionist historian Carlo Mattogno cited Sobibor inmates who specifically stated that chlorine was a gas used to asphyxiate Jews at Sobibor. Inmate Zelda Metz recounted: “They [the alleged ‘gas chamber’ victims] entered the wooden building where the woman’s hair was cut, and then the ‘Bath’, i.e., the gas chamber. They were asphyxiated with chlorine. After 15 minutes, they had all suffocated. Through a window it was checked whether they were all dead. Then the floor opened automatically. The corpses fell into the cars of a train passing through the gas chamber and taking the corpses to the oven.”14

The mainstream historians of Sobibor have abandoned the “chlorine death gas” and “trap-door-in-the-gas-chamber” stories—once again, an implicit admittance that they are both false.

Leon Feldhendler also declared chlorine was a “death-gas,” although he also claimed the Germans experimented with other gases. Alexander Pechersky alleged that some type of “heavy, black substance” was the death-gas.15 However, chlorine is a greenish-yellow gas.

Stanislaw Szmajzner believed the Germans used exhaust fumes, but also Zyklon B gas.16 Dr. Joseph Tenenbaum, a well known author and renowned Jewish civic leader, went on a fact-finding tour of Poland in April to June 1946. He too “discovered” the “fact” that Jews were murdered with Zyklon B gas at Sobibor. In his own words: “The Germans used Cyclon [sic] as the lethal medium.”17

Alterations in the story abound. In 1943, one Sobibor witness even claimed the Jews were killed with electricity and gas.18

The chlorine gas, Zyklon B gas, “other un-named” gas, and electrocution stories have clearly been discreetly dumped by the “official history” of the Holocaust—an implicit admittance that they are all false. At this point Judge Matia should ask himself this question: since the stories of Jews being murdered with electricity, chlorine, Zyklon B and other un-named gases at Sobibor are false, isn’t it also possible that the “official truth” that Jews were murdered with carbon monoxide is also false?

I again call the reader’s attention to Matia’s precise wording about the alleged method of murder at Sobibor. He claims the guards “drove them [the Jews] into gas chambers where they were murdered by asphyxiation with carbon monoxide.” Notice that Matia did not mention the specifics of the murder weapon, because he does not know what the alleged murder weapon really was. Did the Germans use a diesel engine or a benzene engine to generate the carbon monoxide?

The pre-eminent historian of the Holocaust, the late Raul Hilberg, claimed that a diesel engine supplied the deadly gas to “gas chambers.”19

This is supported by Israeli historian Arad, as he published a large portion of the post-war testimony of Kurt Gerstein, a German officer who was allegedly deeply involved with the extermination of Jews in the Operation Reinhardt camps. In the Gerstein testimonial, it is stated that a diesel engine was used at Sobibor, and also at Majdanek, Treblinka, and Belzec. More specifically, Gerstein quotes SS and Police Leader Odilo Globocnik, who gives Gerstein his alleged instructions: “Your other duty will be to improve the service of our gas chambers, which function on diesel engine exhaust.”20 According to the traditional Holocaust story, Globocnik was a major supervisor of the alleged mass exterminations at Sobibor, and he should have most certainly known the exact nature of the “gas chamber” weapon.

Arad then undermines this “evidence” by quoting the testimony of SS soldier Erich Fuchs, a German official who supposedly operated the engine that supplied the death gas to the “gas chamber,” and was subsequently put on trial for alleged war crimes committed at Sobibor. He “identified” the engine that supplied the deadly gas as a “heavy Russian benzene engine (presumably a tank or tractor motor) at least 200 horsepower (V-motor, 8 cylinder, water cooled).”21 A diesel engine is not a benzene engine.

The exact identity of the engine is further complicated by the testimony of SS man Erich Bauer, an alleged “operator of the gas chambers” who was nicknamed “the Gasmeister.” He identified the engine in question as follows: “In my opinion it was a petrol engine, a big engine. I think a Renault.” Renault is a French built engine, and not Russian as claimed by Fuchs.22

Another German who allegedly operated the “gassing engine” at Sobibor, Franz Hödl, offers us another problematic “identification” of the murder weapon. Here is his description of the “gassing engines” that serviced the “gas chambers”: “In the engine room there were indeed two engines. There was a petrol engine, probably from a Russian tank, and a diesel engine. The latter was never used, however.”23

The instructions from an alleged supervisor of the gassing operations at Sobibor and the other Operation Reinhardt camps, SS leader Odilo Globocnik, described the engine that supplied the deadly gas as a diesel engine. Yet, Franz Hödl, who allegedly operated the engine, says that the diesel engine was never used.

Even mainstream Sobibor expert Christopher Browning admits that the type of engine used to generate the death gas cannot be determined, for he wrote: “Gerstein, citing Globocnik, claimed the camps used diesel motors, but witnesses who actually serviced the engines in Belzec and Sobibor (Reder and Fuchs) spoke of gasoline engines.”24

We repeat the statement of Judge Matia. He claims that the Sobibor guards “drove [the Jews] into gas chambers where they were murdered by asphyxiation with carbon monoxide.” Notice that Matia’s wording is vague and imprecise; he failed to mention the exact identity of the murder weapon. Matia did not mention the exact nature of the “murder engine” that generated the carbon monoxide, because if he did, he would have involved himself in another dilemma that casts serious doubt on the traditional Sobibor extermination story. The reader is reminded that this is no “trivial inconsistency” in the testimony. In any murder investigation, the exact nature of the murder weapon is very important.

By the mere fact that the men who allegedly directed this “gas chamber” process and operated the engines that generated the carbon monoxide contradict each other on the important issue of what type of engine was used, is consistent with the Revisionist hypothesis that these testimonies are unreliable. By the mere fact that these “eyewitnesses” produced such divergent testimony on a murder weapon that they should have known about, witnessed, observed and examined very closely for an extended period of time, lends further credence to the Revisionist view that their testimonies on this matter are false, and these “gas chambers” never existed.

At the very least, this divergent testimony should give a true believer in the Holocaust, such as Judge Matia, a reason to be skeptical of the traditional Sobibor extermination story.

The Number, Dimensions and Capacities of the Sobibor “Gas Chambers”

Holocaust historian Leon Poliakov claimed there were five gas chambers, fifty square meters each, and built to hold approximately 2,000 people. Each chamber was packed with 400 victims.25 He may have taken this from the Central Commission for Investigation of German Crimes in Poland inquiry, where they allege that there were probably five chambers that could hold 500 victims each.26

Holocaust historian Miriam Novitch gives a different story on the number, dimensions and capacities of the “gas chambers.” She claims that each “original” gas chamber (three of them) were ten square meters and could hold 50 people.27 Later, she says that new gas chambers were built: there were now five gas chambers, each 4 x 12 meters (48 square meters), with a capacity of 70 to 80 people. Thus, 400 victims could be put to death at the same time, if children were included.28

This is all contradicted by another “expert” on the Sobibor camp, Yitzhak Arad. He insisted there were originally three gas chambers, each 4 x 4 meters and able to hold about 200 people.29 In the autumn of 1942, Arad claims the Germans added three new gas chambers, to make a total of six gas chambers. They were of the same dimensions as the old gas chambers, 4 x 4 meters (sixteen square meters). This information was published in 1987.30 In a 1990 article in The Encyclopedia of the Holocaust, Arad changed the capacity of the gas chambers. He said that each chamber could hold 160 to 180 victims, not 200.31

Franz Hödl, an alleged operator of the Sobibor “gas chambers,” put forth another problematic testimony. He stated: “In Lager 3 [the area of the camp that had the ‘gas chambers’] a concrete building, 18 to 20 meters long with about 6 to 8 gas chambers, had been erected. The gas chamber had either 4 or 6 chambers on either side of the central corridor, three on the left, three on the right.”32 So, were there 3 chambers on each side of the central corridor as Arad claimed, or were there 4 on each side? Were there a total of 6 chambers as Arad claimed, or were there 8 chambers?

These discrepancies on the number, dimensions and capacities of the “gas chambers” are not trivial. As stated earlier, in any murder investigation the nature of the murder weapon is of prime importance. Indeed, even the official mainstream historian of Sobibor, Jules Shelvis, finally admitted that the capacities of the chambers cannot be determined: “It is virtually impossible to deduce from the various witness examinations and documents how many people were actually killed at any one time in the gas chambers; the numbers given by the SS men and one Ukrainian are too divergent.”33

The mere fact that the dimensions, capacities and the number of the Sobibor “gas chambers” cannot be resolved is consistent with the Holocaust revisionist hypothesis that these “murder devices” never existed, and what these “eyewitnesses” are claiming is false. Once again, at the very least this is one more reason for the hardcore Holocaust believer to doubt the traditional Sobibor extermination story.

What Were the “Gas Chambers” Made Of?

Serious contradictions in the traditional Sobibor extermination story are seemingly endless. Operation Reinhardt expert Arad says this: “The first gas chambers erected in Sobibor were in a solid brick building with a concrete foundation.”34 This is challenged by Sobibor historian Schelvis, who writes that “[T]he first gas chambers of Sobibor had been constructed of wood.”35 Let us delve into this very important issue in more detail.

In the aftermath of the war, the inquiry of the Central Commission for Investigation of German Crimes in Poland found that the alleged gas chambers “were situated in a building with stone-inside walls and wooden outside-walls.” They did admit, however, that their data is imprecise because none of their witnesses were actually employed in the “gas chamber” area.36

Franz Stangl, who oversaw the last phase of the camp’s construction and served as commandant from March to September 1942, described the first installation as a “brick building” in his interview with British journalist Gitta Sereny.37 On the other hand, he told a German court a different story. Arriving at Sobibor early April 1942, he said “I noticed a stone construction on a partially wooded site which had not yet been fenced off. This building had not been included in the plans. After some days I began to suspect that gas chambers were being built.”38 Were the first “gas chambers” made of brick or stone? Stangl apparently changed his story.

Erich Fuchs, who supposedly installed the gassing engine and also participated in the first trial gassings, implied in 1963 that the chambers were housed in “a concrete structure.”39 Historian Schelvis “corrected” Fuchs, for he wrote: “Because he [Fuchs] had put into place so many installations over the course of time, he did not remember that the first gas chambers at Sobibor had been constructed of wood.”40

Erich Bauer was supposedly nicknamed “The Gasmeister of Sobibor”. In 1950 he was sentenced to death (later commuted to life imprisonment) by a West German court for operating the “Sobibor gas chambers.” According to a “confession” penned by Bauer while in prison, the first gas chambers were in a “wooden building on a concrete base.”41

Revisionist historian Thomas Kues sums up the dilemma: “While, on the one hand, Sobibor’s first commandant, Franz Stangl, testified that the first gas chambers were housed in a brick building, ‘Gasmeister’ Erich Bauer on the other hand penned a ‘confession’ which described the same building as made of wood. To confuse things further, former SS-Unterscharführer Erich Fuchs stated in his 1963 testimony that the first Sobibor gas chambers were in a ‘concrete structure.’”42

Kues rightly asks a most important question: “How is it that Stangl and Bauer, two men who both should have been familiar with this building, produced such divergent testimony?”43

Kues then makes a very important point. Stangl and Bauer are two men that would have been intimately familiar with the “gas chambers,” as they were in charge of supervising and carrying out the alleged gassings. By the mere fact that these two important “eyewitnesses” produce such divergent testimony on a structure that they should have witnessed, observed and examined very closely for an extended period of time, lends further credence to the Revisionist view that their testimonies on this matter are unreliable. Their testimonies on this matter undermine each other and tend to cancel each other out.44

How long did it take to asphyxiate the Victims in the “Gas Chambers?”

The Israeli and Polish archeologists who excavated Sobibor made this claim about the Sobibor “gas chambers.”: “When the gas chambers were filled with victims, the gas was vented into the rooms asphyxiated the victims in about 20-30 minutes.”45 They provide no source for this claim.

Nevertheless, this is contradicted by The Central Commission for Investigation of German Crimes in Poland, where they “found” something different in 1946-7, about the operation of the Sobibor “gas chambers.” They wrote: “According to the statements of witnesses it did not take more than some 15 minutes to kill a group of about 500 persons.” They admit that their data is imprecise because none of their witnesses were actually employed in the “gas chamber” area.46

Once again, here we have a major discrepancy about the alleged murder weapon. The archeologists say it took 20-30 minutes to asphyxiate the victims. Yet, the Central Commission for Investigation of German Crimes in Poland claimed it did not take more than about 15 minutes to do the same. And might I add, Erich Fuchs, an alleged gas chamber operator, declared he witnessed a “trial gassing” in which 30 to 40 women were killed in about ten minutes.47

Once again, this is no trivial inconsistency. How the murder weapon operated is a very important issue in any murder investigation.

How Were the Corpses Removed from the “Gas Chambers”?

The next logical question: how were the bodies removed from the “gas chambers?” Historian Arad says that the victims entered through one door and their dead bodies were extracted through the other.48

This is contradicted by Sobibor inmate Moshe Bahir. He claimed that after the conclusion of a mass gassing, when all of the victims were dead, the “gas chamber operator” Bauer would open the “trap doors” in the floor of the gas chamber (the “bathhouse”) and the bodies would fall into wagons positioned below. In his own words: “At his [Bauer’s] order the machinery which opened the floor of the ‘bathhouse’ was activated, and the corpses fell into small carts which took them at first to mass graves and, later when time was short, to cremation ovens instead.”49 This is sustained by Sobibor survivor Chaim Engel, who also claimed that the bodies fell through trap doors.50

According to Arad, however, when three new gas chambers were added in autumn of 1942, they were the same size as the “old” gas chambers, 4 x 4 meters. He made no mention of any “trap doors” through which the bodies fell into carts positioned below.51

The “gas chamber-trap door” story of Bahir and Engel has been quietly abandoned by the mainstream Sobibor historians. Historian Schelvis even implies that it is false.52 Keep in mind that Bahir’s testimony was considered by the German legal system to be very credible, so much so that he testified at the Sobibor trial in Hagen, West Germany in 1965.53

Let us move onto the next logical question: how were the dead bodies transferred from the gas chambers to the mass graves, where they were allegedly burned?

According to Sobibor expert Arad, the bodies were originally put in carts, which were horse-drawn or pushed by prisoners. Eventually, this inefficient system was replaced by a narrow railway trolley that ran to the burial pits.54

Yet, even here, the testimony of Bahir is substantially different from the story presented by Holocaust expert Arad. Toward the end of July 1942, the Germans supposedly installed giant cranes to transport the bodies from the “gas chambers” to a crematorium. In Bahir’s own words: “After a few days, two giant cranes were brought to camp and set up near the gas chambers. These cranes worked unceasingly, three shifts a day, taking the bodies out of the chambers and transferring them to the new crematoria which had been built nearby.”55

This “giant crane” story of Bahir has also been abandoned by the mainstream Sobibor historians—again, an admittance that it is false. The reader should again note that Sobibor inmate Bahir was considered by the German legal system to be an accurate witness, as he testified at the Sobibor trial in Hagen, West Germany in 1965.

Was the Site of the Sobibor “Gas Chambers” Found?

In a 1972 visit to Sobibor, British journalist Gitta Sereny claimed she identified the site of the “gas chambers.” British Holocaust historian Martin Gilbert identified a different location for the “gas chambers” in a 1997 book. The Israeli and Polish archaeologists who are investigating the camp now say that both are wrong, and the exact site of these Sobibor “gas chambers” has not been scientifically determined.56

Was Judge Matia aware of all of these false claims in the Sobibor extermination story when he declared in his ruling that the orthodox Sobibor extermination story is true?

How Did the Germans Dispose of the Hundreds of Thousands of Corpses?

I call attention to Judge Matia’s statement about what allegedly happened to the bodies of the murder victims. He wrote that the guards “assigned to Sobibor also guarded a small number of Jewish forced laborers kept alive to maintain the camp, [and] dispose of the corpses…”

Notice how vague Matia’s wording is. He only refers to the “disposal of corpses.” By failing to note that the “official history” claims that 170,000 to 250,000 bodies were all eventually burned in open air mass cremations, he avoids entering into all of the problems associated with this allegation.

So, how did the Nazis dispose of the bodies of the Jewish murder victims? Holocaust expert Hilberg claimed that no crematoria ovens were ever installed; the bodies were burned in mass graves.57 Nevertheless, Dr. Joseph Tenenbaum, the Jewish leader who carried out a fact-finding mission in Poland from April to June 1946, “established” a different and contradictory version of events. He wrote: “The crematorium [at Sobibor] was fenced in. After the gassing, the victims’ bodies were tossed into pits and sprinkled with chlorine powder. The pits were open and the stench escaped into the air. This fact compelled the Germans to build a modern stench-free crematorium.”58 (This information was gleaned from Sobibor inmate Leon Feldhendler, who was said to have been chosen by the Germans for “special work.” This could mean that he was chosen to work around the “gas chambers.”)

Hilberg says no crematoria were ever installed. Tenenbaum “established” that the Germans built a “modern stench-free crematorium.” The “official truth” about Sobibor has stuck with Hilberg’s versions of events. No crematoria were ever installed at Sobibor, as the bodies were burned in mass graves—rendering Tenenbaum’s “established fact” that the Germans built “stench-free crematoria” at Sobibor as untrue.

Sobibor survivor Stanislaw Szmajzner’s map of Sobibor supports Tenenbaum’s falsehood. On his map, a building is drawn in where the crematorium was allegedly housed.59 Israeli historian Arad’s map points out that there were no crematoria housed in a building. Szmajner’s claim of a crematorium housed in building is just another falsehood to add to the long list of other Sobibor falsehoods.60

The official history now says the bodies were burned in open air mass burnings. It is said that rails were used for the cremation pyres on which the bodies were burned. Nevertheless, the Israeli and Polish archeologists who are investigating the camp admit: “To the best of our knowledge, no rails used for cremation have yet been found at Sobibor.”61

What substance was used to burn the bodies? One Sobibor survivor, Kurt Thomas, claims the bodies were burned with coal.62 Yet, this is conflicts with Sobibor historian Jules Schelvis, who says that wood was used.63 Another, Thomas Toivi Blatt, also says that wood was used, but the funeral pyres were sometimes doused with kerosene.64 Still another, Alexander Pechersky, says the bodies were burned with gasoline.65 Unsubstantiated alterations in the traditional Sobibor story are seemingly endless—another good reason for believing that the orthodox extermination story is a historical falsehood.

An important source of information about Sobibor was the SS man Franz Suchomel, who worked with Sobibor Commandant Franz Stangl. “In Sobibor,” Suchomel stated, “one couldn’t do any killing after the snow thawed because it was all under water. It was very damp at the best of times, but then it became a lake.”66

Yet, the official history of Sobibor states that the killing of Jews started at the beginning of May 1942 (after the snow thawed) and went to end of July 1942: all total, 90,000 to 100,000 Jews were allegedly buried in mass graves, and the burial trenches were not opened and the bodies were not burned until the end of the summer of 1942.67

Judge Matia and the mainstream historians never figured out how the Germans buried tens of thousands of bodies in an area that was like a lake.

The burning of bodies leaves behind a large amount of unburned bones and teeth, as the official historians of Sobibor are clearly aware.68 Holocaust historian Arad declares that the bones of the hundreds of thousands of alleged murder victims at Chelmno were “destroyed with a special bone-crushing machine.”69 Yet, on the next page, he quotes Sobibor survivor Leon Feldhendler, who declared: “The bones were crushed into ashes with hammers [at Sobibor]…”70 This allegation is highly improbable, if not downright ridiculous.

Why did the Germans use a special “bone-crushing machine” at Chelmno, and then resort to inefficient manual hammering at Sobibor? And if they did use a special bone-crushing machine at Chelmno, where is the physical proof that such a device even existed? Did Israeli historian Arad ever think that the story of the “special bone-crushing machine” is another concocted Holocaust tale, like the “steam chambers” of Treblinka and the “soap factories” that utilized the bodies of dead Jews?71

Furthermore, Arad never considers the enormous problems associated with crushing the charred teeth and bones of hundreds of thousands of victims into ash with hammers. There were the charred bones and teeth of 200,000 to 250,000 victims. Imagine how long it would take the small number of Sobibor inmates who allegedly worked in the “gas chamber area” to manually crush into ash with hammers the millions of bones and teeth from these hundreds of thousands of victims!

Holocaust researcher Thomas Dalton discussed the enormous problems in regard to the unburned bones and teeth of the corpses. The ash from the burnt corpses would have to be sifted every day for bones and teeth. Imagine how long it would take to find and smash millions of bones and teeth with hammers! If not found and ground to ash, they are still in the earth, waiting to be discovered.72

The “Top Secret” Extermination Camp Sobibor: Another Contradiction

According to the official US government position on Sobibor, as contained in Judge Matia’s ruling on the Demjanjuk case, Sobibor was a top secret camp. In his own words: “The extermination camp [Sobibor] was a secret operation, not well known during World War II.”73 This is congruent with the orthodox Sobibor saga, as historian Schelvis points out that the camp “was surrounded by very sparsely populated marshland, as far as possible from prying eyes to prevent the outside world from ever discovering the camp’s secret purpose.”74

Schelvis then provides evidence that undermines this orthodox Sobibor saga. Even though he too claimed that Sobibor was a “top secret” extermination camp, he still wrote: “[B]y September or October of 1942, when the Germans had started to burn rather than bury the bodies after gassing them, virtually everyone in the surrounding area soon realized precisely what was going on at the camp. The glow from the fire was clearly visible for miles around, especially by night, while the foul stench of burning human flesh also polluted the air over a wide area.”75

Again, Schelvis claims that: “The mass cremations resulted in huge fires, which flared so high they could be seen far and wide, especially at night…They were visible even…in the village of Zlobek, three kilometers to the north-west…”76

According to Erich Lachmann, a German “eyewitness” who was put on trial for war crimes, what was allegedly going on in Sobibor was well known: “Any child in Poland could tell you that these were extermination camps. It was obvious that Jewish transports kept arriving at the camp and that no Jews ever came back out.”77 (The Jews were being deported elsewhere; this is why they were never seen again.)

Consider the testimony of Sobibor survivor, Zelda Metz. She claims the village in which she lived was only fifty kilometers from Sobibor, and Polish peasants were well aware that it was an extermination center for Jews; they “saw evidence” of this with their own two eyes. She recalls: “Polish peasants told me that Jews came to Sobibor in all directions, and that they were murdered. ‘We see the flames of the crematoria from a distance of fifteen kilometers,’ they used to say. We lived in terror.”78

If Sobibor was the most secretive of the extermination camps, why was the surrounding population well aware of the mass murders that were allegedly taking place there? If Sobibor was this ultra-secretive extermination center as Judge Matia and historian Schelvis state, why did the Germans call mass attention to the killings by allowing the flames, glow and smoke of the mass burnings to be seen from a distance of fifteen kilometers? Directly contradicting what they claim, there was nothing secret about the alleged exterminations at Sobibor. Rumors of mass exterminations of Jews at Sobibor were widely circulated.

Perhaps the earliest reference to Sobibor as an “extermination camp” is in the New York Times of Nov 25, 1942 (p.10). They quote from a report by the Polish Government in exile in London: “Wherever the trains arrive half the people are dead. Those surviving are sent to special camps at Treblinka, Belzec, and Sobibor. Once there the so-called settlers are mass-murdered.” So Sobibor obviously wasn’t top secret after that!

What is the significance of all this? That is, the official history alleges that Sobibor was a top secret extermination camp. Yet, we have cited “evidence” from those same “official histories” that shows that the alleged exterminations and mass burnings at Sobibor were well known and not top secret.

Bizarre contradictions like this are exactly what one should expect from a historical falsehood. The official history says that Sobibor was a top secret extermination camp. Yet, the eyewitnesses—upon whom the official history is based—claim that the mass exterminations were well known and not top secret. If the official history is correct, then the eyewitnesses are wrong. But if the eyewitnesses are correct, the official history is wrong. The official history and the eyewitnesses undermine each other, and tend to cancel each other out.

Here is my most important point. If a true believer in the orthodox Sobibor extermination story simply consults academically acceptable sources, even he will find enough evidence to be very skeptical of the Sobibor “gas chamber” claim. The contradictions and falsehoods that I’ve enumerated here are exactly what one should expect from a historical myth.

How Many Were Allegedly Murdered at Sobibor?

In the aftermath of WWII, the Commission for the Investigation of German Crimes in Poland asserted that 250,000 people were murdered at Sobibor.79 This is the official, etched in stone truth still promoted by the Polish authorities.

In the climate of anti-German hatred that followed WWII, wild and irresponsible exaggerations and distortions about the number allegedly killed at Sobibor abounded. In his 1948 book, Jewish civic leader and author, Dr. Joseph Tenenbaum, wrote that from May 1942 to October 1943, a half a million human beings were murdered at the site.80 This is twice the estimate made by the Commission for Investigation of German Crimes in Poland in 1946-1947. This example shows how easy it was in the aftermath of WWII to openly promote outright falsehoods about Sobibor.

In March 1972, British journalist Gitta Sereny noted what was stated on a Sobibor memorial, very near the camp site: “In this place from May 1942 until October 1943 there existed a Hitler extermination camp. At this camp 250,000 Russian, Polish, Jewish and Gypsy prisoners were murdered […].”81 The “official truth” about Sobibor now claims that this is false.

On the road to the camp in present day Poland, there are five plaques along the road by the camp, which read: “At this site, between the years 1942 and 1943, there existed a Nazi death camp where 250,000 Jews and approximately 1000 Poles were murdered.”82

The reader should take note of the variation in the propaganda. In 1972, when Poland was under Communist rule, it was 250,000 Polish, Russian, Jewish and Gypsy prisoners who were murdered—so claimed the memorial plaque. The Communists refused to “recognize” that mostly Jews were supposedly targeted for death by the Germans. Yet, in present-day Poland, with the disappearance of Communism, now it is 250,000 Jews and 1000 Poles who were allegedly murdered at Sobibor. The Sobibor extermination story has evolved in a way that reflects the propaganda needs of the moment and the interests of political elites.

Even so, the Israeli and Polish archaeologists who investigated the site and are firm believers in the “reality” of the Holocaust admit that it is hard to imagine how 250,000 could have been murdered there. In their own words: “The camp was destroyed by the Germans after the prisoner revolt, so it is very difficult to imagine that the killing of 250,000 people took place here.”83

The pre-eminent Holocaust authority, the late Raul Hilberg, engaged in “Holocaust denial.” He denied that 250,000 people were murdered at Sobibor. In the 1985 edition of his magnum opus, he reduced this figure by twenty percent, as he claimed that up to 200,000 people were slaughtered. In the final 2003 edition, his “Holocaust denial” reached new heights of outrage. He says the number supposedly murdered was “over 150,000.” 84

Sobibor historian Jules Schelvis, who wrote the definitive mainstream history of the camp, also engaged in a serious form of “Holocaust denial.” He too denied that 250,000 people were slaughtered there! He minimized the number of alleged Sobibor deaths down to 167,000.85

How come Hilberg and Schelvis were never put on trial for “Holocaust denial?”

Sobibor expert Christopher Browning recommended Miriam Novitch’s, Sobibor: Martyrdom and Revolt, as an “authoritative source” for the history of the alleged extermination process at Sobibor.86 What do we learn from one important witness account in this “authoritative source”? Sobibor witness Moshe Bahir claimed that Heinrich Himmler visited the camp for the second time in order to celebrate the completion of the first million Jews murdered at the camp.87

German soldier Erich Fuchs’s estimate of the number of victims was 650,000 less than Bahir’s, as he estimated the total number of Sobibór victims to have been 350,000.88 This is still 100,000 more than the official estimate of 250,000 made by the Commission for Investigation of German Crimes in Poland, and more than twice the estimate given by Sobibor expert Schelvis.

I repeat: Polish forensic scientists cannot imagine how 250,000 people could be murdered at Sobibor. Nevertheless, Moshe Bahir, whom the German legal system believed to be a credible witness, claimed that four times 250,000 were murdered at the site! Fuchs claims that 100,000 more than the wild exaggeration of 250,000 were killed at Sobibor. Erich Fuchs is a looked upon as an important source for the “facts” about Sobibor.

Such is the quality of the “eyewitnesses” upon which the traditional Sobibor extermination story is based.

A Question for Judge Matia

Since Judge Matia effectively sealed John Demjanjuk’s fate, I would like to ask him this pointed question. Since we cannot determine how many “gas chambers” there were, nor their dimensions and capacities; what the exact death gas really was; what type of engine was used to generate the death gas; what the chambers were made of; where these structures were located; how long it took for the victims to be asphyxiated; how the corpses were removed from the chambers; how the bodies were buried in a lake-like area; what substance was used to burn the bodies; how the millions of unburned bones and teeth were disposed of; and how many were killed: how then can Judge Matia rule with any confidence that John Demjanjuk “contributed to the process by which thousands of Jews were murdered?”

The testimony of Thomas Blatt: A Witness against Demjanjuk?

After John Demjanjuk was deported to Germany, German television reported that a survivor of the Sobibor camp could help confirm Demjanjuk’s identity. The witness, 82-year-old Thomas Blatt, is a somewhat well-known Sobibor survivor and researcher who authored a book about his experiences at the camp during WWII. He described the state of affairs at Sobibor akin to a death factory.

Here is what Blatt told the German magazine, Spiegel: “”They abused us. They shot new arrivals who were old and sick and could not go on. And there were some who pushed naked people into the gas chambers with bayonets…Sobibor was a factory. Only a few hours passed between arrival and the burning of a body.”89

The official history of the camp calls Blatt’s claims into serious question. The late Holocaust historian Gerald Reitlinger explains: “Only sixteen women and three men returned after the war to Holland from Sobibor, where the chance of avoiding immediate death in the gas chamber was not one in four, but less than one in forty. From most trains about 40-80 young men were picked for the services of the death camp, but they lasted only a few weeks.”90

Blatt provides one with a very obvious reason to be skeptical of his story. It says on the back cover of his book that Blatt survived a total of six months at Sobibor.91 If what Blatt says is true—that Sobibor was a death factory where people were murdered and their bodies burned within a few hours of arrival—then it is logical to infer that Blatt himself should not be around to tell his story. How did Blatt survive a whole six months in the camp? Blatt makes it perfectly clear in his memoir that he never worked in the area that housed the alleged “gas chambers.” Since he was never needed for this job, why would the Germans allow him to survive a half of a year in the camp if “only a few hours passed between arrival [of Jewish prisoners] and the burning a body?”

If the official history is correct—in that a Jew could survive only a few weeks at most—then isn’t Blatt’s claim that he survived six months untrue? But if Blatt’s story is true—that he survived six months in the camp—then this calls into question the traditional Sobibor extermination story.

By the mere fact that Blatt was allegedly at Sobibor for six months and was not murdered, is consistent with the Revisionist hypothesis that Sobibor was not an extermination center for Jews, but rather a transit camp where Jews were deported further east.

Just as importantly, one is led to conclude that his most important claims about the “gas chambers” are just “hearsay” or word of mouth gossip. Blatt claims that inmates were not allowed to see inside the “top secret” area of Sobibor that contained the “gas chambers.” In his own words: “Prisoners from the other lagers [areas that did not have “gas chambers”] were never allowed to see the inside of Lager III [the area of Sobibor that harbored the “top secret gas chambers”].”92 His friend who did peek inside the “gas chamber” area was presumably killed.93 According to the Polish and Israeli archeologists who investigated the camp, prisoners who survived Sobibor never saw the “gas chambers,” because “seeing it implied instant execution.”94

Thus, if Blatt would have actually seen “naked people being driven into the gas chambers,” he should have been killed by the Germans–according to the official story.

Elsewhere Blatt says the Nazis made it difficult to collect “any direct evidence” of the alleged mass exterminations in gas chambers. After the war, the information about the “gas chambers” allegedly came from inmates who spoke with other inmates who worked around the gas chambers or from “limited observations” of the extermination area from a different area of the camp. The testimony of Ukrainian and German guards filled in the rest of the story.95

Nevertheless, Blatt offers some “detailed knowledge” of the Sobibor “gas chambers.” He says they were “decorated with flowers, a Star of David, and the inscription ‘Bathhouse.’”96 How did he get this “information?” Did he actually see the “gas chambers?” If he did, then how come he was not killed by the Germans, as “seeing” implied instant execution? Or did he get these “facts” by word of mouth from other prisoners or from former guards?

Nowhere in his 1997 book does Blatt claim he actually saw, with own two eyes, “naked people being pushed into the gas chambers with bayonets.”

Finally, another of Blatt’s claims is inconsistent with the official lay out of Sobibor. We let Blatt pick up his story here: “Our job in this section done, SS Oberscharführer Karl Frenzel randomly chose four prisoners, myself included, and led us to the hair-cutting barrack, less than twenty feet from the gas chambers.”97 Notice what Blatt is saying: the barracks where the hair of the female victims was cut (before they went to the gas chambers) was less than twenty feet (6.1 meters) from the gas chambers. Elsewhere he again states that the special barrack where the women’s hair was cut before entering the gas chambers was “just steps away from the gas chambers.”98

Yet, Sobibor historian Yitzhak Arad claims the path (the “tube”) that led from the reception area for Jews (Lager II) to the extermination area (Lager III) was 150 meters long. Arad adds: “Halfway through the ‘tube’ was the ‘barber shop,’ a barrack where the hair of the Jewish women was cut before they entered the gas chambers.”99

If the path from Lager II to the gas chambers was 150 meters long, and the “barber shop” was halfway through the “tube,” then the “barber shop” was 37.5 meters from the gas chambers, not 6.1 meters from the gas chambers. The “barber shop” was not, as Blatt says, just steps away from the gas chambers.

If Blatt is correct, in that the “barber shop” was just steps away (6.1 meters) from the gas chambers, then Arad’s official story that the “barber shop” was 37.5 meters from the “gas chambers” is false. But if Arad is correct, then this calls into question the veracity of Blatt’s testimony.

Once again, inconsistencies like this should make even the most hardcore believer in the Sobibor extermination story somewhat skeptical.

Did the Germans Destroy Evidence of Mass Murder?

In Sobibor historian Schelvis’s own words: “Very few documents relating to Sobibor and the other death camps had actually survived. After the uprising, Globocnik wrote to Himmler that ‘the evidence should be destroyed as quickly as possible, now that all else has been destroyed,’ and virtually all of the incriminating documents were burnt soon thereafter.”100

First, I will assume the document in question—a Globocnik to Himmler letter of 5 January 1944—is authentic and accurately translated, and not an altered document or outright forgery. (It is in the Bundesarchiv Koblenz, Germany.)

Even if it is authentic and accurately translated, it does not necessarily support the view that exterminations of Jews were taking place at Sobibor. There is a non-criminal interpretation one could give to the document. As Holocaust historian Gerald Reitlinger pointed out in his The Final Solution: The Attempt to Exterminate the Jews of Europe, SS leader Himmler told a representative of the World Jewish Congress toward the end of the war: “In order to put a stop to the epidemics we were forced to burn the bodies of incalculable numbers of people who had been destroyed by disease. We were therefore forced to build crematoria, and on this account they are knotting a noose for us.”101

The German leadership was well aware of the false atrocity tales of the First World War, and they were just as aware of the false atrocity tales of the war then in progress. Mainstream Holocaust historian Richard Breitman points out that in September 1942, Rabbi Stephen Wise, president of the American Jewish Congress, related to American Undersecretary of state Summer Welles the story that the Nazis were making soap from the flesh of gassed Jews and artificial fertilizer from their bones. This news ultimately leaked back to Himmler. Breitman then admits that this particular rumor was a false atrocity tale: “Himmler knew that no one was supposed to be manufacturing fats or artificial fertilizers from corpses (in fact, it turned out that this part of the report was erroneous).”102

Schelvis wants the reader to believe that Globocnik and Himmler wanted to destroy “evidence of exterminations.” Quite the contrary. The Germans were aware of the false atrocity tales of the Allies and Zionists, and they may have wanted to destroy Camp Sobibor so that its remains could not be used to create propaganda lies that could ultimately be used against them.

Sobibor Archeology: Religion Masquerading as Science?

Israeli and Polish archeologists, whose forensic investigations of Sobibor are ongoing, made this statement: “We regard the extermination process as a past reality, a series of historically established events, which do not need to be proven by archeological excavations. Archaeology, in our case, has the role of supplementing and filling gaps, especially in terms of site layout, structures and artifacts.”103

Evolutionary Biologist, atheist, and prominent critic of religion Richard Dawkins explains what he believes to be characteristic of religious fundamentalism: “Fundamentalists know they are right because they have read the truth in a holy book and they know, in advance, that nothing will budge them from their belief. The truth of the holy book is an axiom, not the end product of a process of reasoning. The book is true, and if the evidence seems to contradict it, it is the evidence that must be thrown out, not the book.”104 On this issue of religious faith, again, here is what Dawkins writes: “Faith is evil precisely because it requires no justification and brooks no argument.”105

According to the Sobibor archeologists, the physical evidence is not to be used to test the entire Sobibor extermination story, to see if it is true or false. Rather, the physical evidence is to be used to “corroborate” and “support” the “official truth” about Sobibor. The official extermination story of Sobibor is thus a non-scientific axiom, because it cannot be falsified. It is just assumed to be true—just like a religious dogma. The Sobibor “gas chamber” story has only eyewitness testimony to support it—just like a religious dogma.

What the Sobibor archeologists say fits the pattern of Dawkins’s description of religious fundamentalism. These Holocaust fundamentalists regard the extermination process as “historically established,” and it does not need to proven by forensic investigations. The extermination process is an axiom—it is not the end product of scientific evidence. Their belief in the extermination process needs no scientific evidence to prove it, and they simply refuse to honestly evaluate the Revisionist critique of the traditional Holocaust story.

Why Did German Soldiers “Confess” to “Nazi Gas Chamber” Crimes at Sobibor?

Long before the enactment of the present laws in Germany that criminalize any “denial” of the Holocaust, there were still social and political pressures that induced German officials on trial for alleged war crimes to “confess” to the “truth” of the extermination of the Jews.

The “Nazi extermination camp” mythology was declared “historical truth” at the Nuremberg trials, and it was then used as an ideological cornerstone for the Allied installed governments in postwar Germany. Since the German government is based upon the “Nazi gas chamber” ideology, to dispute it in a German court is virtually impossible.

Indeed, in April 1999, the German Federal Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer stated: “All democracies have a basis, a cornerstone. For France it is 1789, for Germany it is Auschwitz.”106 In the highly respected German daily Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Patrick Bahners put forth a founding belief of the present German government. If one “denies the murder of the Jews, he repudiates the legitimacy of the Federal Republic.”107

It is any wonder that former German soldiers who served at Sobibor “confessed” that there were “gas chambers” at the camp? From a legal standpoint they had no choice but to give credence to this legend. The tribunals that these German military men and National Socialist officials faced were committed to the dictum that there was a Nazi plan to exterminate the Jews, and it was done with the use of “gas chambers.” It was out of the question for them to contest this in court, so they simply built their defense strategies accordingly. In a word, it was simply in their best legal interests to simply “admit” the “truth” of the orthodox Jewish extermination story and then build their defense strategy around it–thus falsifying the historical record along the way.

The late Dr. Wilhelm Stäglich, a former judge who was punished by the German government for his “Holocaust denial,” expressed this dilemma when he stated: “From the outset, the defendants in the ‘Nazi Crimes of Violence’ trials knew that it was utterly pointless to dispute all or part of the picture of the ‘mass murder of the Jews’ in which they were accused of having taken part, since that picture had been inculcated into the public mind long before the trials began. To the defendants it must have seemed the most expedient course not to dispute that the alleged murders occurred, only that they were involved in them. Particularly if they lacked an airtight alibi, the defendants had to secure the goodwill of the court. In short, they had but one aim in mind: their own acquittal.”108

Evidence in favor of this view is provided by Holocaust expert Christopher Browning. One of Browning’s key pieces of evidence for alleged mass exterminations at Belzec is the post- war testimony of former SS Sergeant Josef Oberhauser. Buried in a footnote Browning provides us with a reason to be skeptical of Oberhauser’s testimony. He accuses Oberhauser of falsifying the dates of events in order to create an adequate defense at the “Belzec trial” in Germany in the 1960s. Specifically, he writes that Oberhauser is guilty of “clearly falsifying chronology to give the impression that until August 1942—i.e., for the period for which he was on trial—only a small number of test gassings were being carried out in a single gas chamber capable of holding 100 people.”109

Why didn’t Oberhauser claim that until August 1942 (the period for which he was on trial) he never witnessed or operated any homicidal gas chambers? This would have been the best defense, would it not? No, because of the nature of the German legal system that he was entrapped in, it would have been hopeless to attempt to repudiate the Belzec gas chamber story. So, it was simply in Oberhauser’s best legal interests to “confess” to the existence of “gas chambers,” and then claim that there were only a small number of “gassings” while he was in the camp.

Professor Browning also admitted that even the memoirs of Adolf Eichmann contain “calculated lies for legal defense.”110 This would not be the first time that a German officer in a post-war statement falsely claimed that there was a Nazi policy to exterminate Jews in order to create a defense at his upcoming trial. Browning’s colleague, Final Solution Historian Ian Kershaw, pointed this out in his latest book.

Kershaw concedes that some post-war court testimony of German military officers about the existence of an order from Hitler to exterminate the Jews is bogus: “The early post-war testimony of Einsatzkommando leaders about the prior existence of a Führer order [to mass exterminate the Jews] has been shown to be demonstrably false, concocted to provide a unified defense of the leader of Einsatzgruppe D, Otto Ohlendorf, at his trial in 1947.”111

We see a similar legal defense strategy in regard to the Germans who stood trial for alleged crimes committed at Sobibor. Karl Werner Dubois, who was sentenced to three years imprisonment at the 1966 Sobibor trial for his alleged involvement in mass murder, explained an overall defense strategy: “What should be taken into account is that we did not act on our own initiative, but in the context of the Reich’s Final Solution to the Jewish problem.”112

British journalist Gitta Sereny interviewed Franz Stangl, a former commandant of Sobibor, while he was in prison and his sentence was on appeal. Sereny was aware that Stangl would attempt to make his case in way that would be in his best legal interests. It simply was not in Stangl’s interests to contest the Sobibor “gas chamber” claim. Indeed, it was in his best legal interests to simply “go along” with the Sobibor extermination ideology, and then attempt to mitigate his alleged guilt.113

At the present time, it is impossible for anyone (including John Demjanjuk) to contest the traditional extermination story in a German court. Revisionist historian Robert Faurisson profiled the situation perfectly when he pointed out that “Holocaust denial” is “an offense which is punishable with up to five years imprisonment. In Germany, no exonerating evidence may be introduced in such trials, since the same evidence would constitute ‘denial’ as well and would merely lead to another criminal indictment of the defendant and his lawyer.”114

In such a judicial climate, is it any wonder that German officials on trial for alleged war crimes “confessed” to the existence of the Sobibor “gas chambers?”

Does Browning’s Convergence of Evidence Prove the Sobibor Extermination Story?

In a court document prepared for the Irving-Penguin Books/Lipstadt trial in London, Professor Browning put forth his argument as to why human testimony “proves” that the mass extermination of Jews took place at the Operation Reinhardt camps. He admitted that “eyewitness” reports of mass exterminations at Sobibor and other camps are contradictory and somewhat unreliable, but nevertheless, we should believe them anyway. He wrote: “Once again, human testimony is imperfect. The testimonies of both survivors and other witnesses to the events in Belzec, Sobibor, and Treblinka are no more immune to forgetfulness, error, exaggeration, distortion, and repression than eyewitness accounts of other events in the past. They differ, for instance, on how long each gassing operation took, on the dimensions and capacity of the gas chambers, on the number of undressing barracks, and on the roles of particular individuals. Gerstein, citing Globocnik, claimed the camps used diesel motors, but witnesses who actually serviced the engines in Belzec and Sobibor (Reder and Fuchs) spoke of gasoline engines. Once again, however, without exception all concur on the vital issues at dispute, namely that Belzec, Sobibor, and Treblinka were death camps whose primary purpose it was to kill in gas chambers through carbon monoxide from engine exhaust, and that the hundreds of thousands of corpses of Jews killed there were first buried and then later cremated.”115

Browning is mistaken. His claim that–without exception all witnesses concur on the vital issue that Jews were murdered in gas chambers using carbon monoxide from engine exhaust—is demonstrably false. There are Sobibor survivors who claimed that Jews were murdered en masse with chlorine gas, Zyklon B gas, “unnamed gases” and electricity at Sobibor, and not with the use of “carbon monoxide/engine exhaust chambers.” Browning failed to inform his readers of the serious problems such false eyewitness testimony raises.

Just because some of the “eyewitnesses” do concur on some points, it does not follow that their claims are therefore true. A series of false testimonies can converge on a falsehood. Let it suffice to say that even false testimony can be “corroborated” by other false testimony; a series of false and lying testimonies can “corroborate” and “vindicate” each other, for even historical lies can develop a certain consistency.116 Browning fails to take this into consideration. For example, consider the false story of the phony “homicidal steam chambers” at Treblinka, or the bogus claim that the Germans manufactured soap from the bodies of dead Jewish corpses.117 Both lies have a chain of “evidence” with a certain logical coherency to “corroborate” them.

Why Should We Reject the Traditional Extermination Story?

The traditional extermination story at Sobibor has no authentic war-time documentation to support it, nor does it have any forensic or physical evidence to prove it. It is based exclusively upon the testimony of former Sobibor inmates and the post-war testimony of former German and Ukrainian soldiers who served at Sobibor.

There are good reasons for even the most hardcore believer in the Holocaust to be very skeptical of the Sobibor extermination story. As the Scottish philosopher David Hume pointed out centuries ago, the veracity of human testimony is undermined when “the witnesses contradict each other; when they are but few, or of a doubtful character; when they have an interest in what they affirm; when they deliver their testimony with hesitation, or on the contrary, with too violent asseverations, etc.”118

As we have shown here, the “eyewitnesses” to Sobibor do contradict each other; they are of a doubtful character, and they do have an interest in what they affirm.

The German officials who “confessed” to the existence of the Sobibor “gas chambers” had a vested legal interest in promoting this falsehood. They could not do otherwise in the judicial system they were entrapped in. Former Sobibor inmates had a burning desire for revenge. For sure, former Sobibor inmate Zelda Metz admitted that: “We [Sobibor inmates] all wanted to escape and tell the world the crimes of Sobibor. We believed that if the people knew about it, Nazi Germany would be wiped out. We thought that if mankind knew of our martyrdom, we would be admired for our endurance, and revered for our sufferings.”119

Many of these Jewish survivors from Sobibor put forth testimony that is truly doubtful, and they did have an interest in promoting horrendous atrocity stories about Sobibor. This would help to defeat and forever degrade their hated enemy, National Socialist Germany, and they would come away as heroes in the eyes of the world. These former Sobibor inmates were embroiled in the German-Jewish hatreds of the war, and their testimonies must be evaluated with this in mind.

A Rebuttal to Judge Matia’s Ruling

Judge Matia charged Demjanjuk with a specific crime: “In serving at Sobibor, Defendant [John Demjanjuk] contributed to the process by which thousands of Jews were murdered by asphyxiation with carbon monoxide.”

Even if it is proven that Demjanjuk served as a guard at Sobibor, there is no evidence he ever contributed to the process by which Jews were murdered in “gas chambers”—because there is no credible evidence the “gas chambers” of Sobibor ever existed. And for those hardcore believers in the traditional Sobibor extermination story, who still insist that the “gas chambers” existed, it is up to them to provide the physical proof of their assertions, something they cannot do.

As Judge Matia wrote, the current case against Demjanjuk is based upon purportedly genuine documents that allegedly show that he served as a guard at Sobibor. At his trial in Israel, however, the late forensic expert Dr. Julius Grant claimed there is good reason to believe that certain documents used against Demjanjuk were forgeries. Matia dismissed at least some of Grant’s testimony in Israel as “not reliable or credible.”120 Yet, Demjanjuk’s former Israeli attorney, Yoram Sheftl, discussed the evidence that suggests Grant’s claims very well may have been correct.121

We don’t have possession of the documents in question, so we cannot subject them to a thorough examination to determine if they are genuine. But even if it is proven that Demjanjuk served as a guard at Sobibor, there is no credible evidence that he ever harmed a single person. Recently, a Canadian court ruled in a case similar to Demjanjuk’s that Ukrainian-born Wasyl Odynsky’s citizenship should not be revoked, even though he served at the German forced labor camp of Tranwiki. Odynsky served as a perimeter guard, and the Federal Court of Canada ruled there is no evidence he harmed a single person.122 The same could be true for John Demjanjuk.

We now give the reader one of Judge Matia’s most important conclusions in regard to his ruling against John Demjanjuk: “This is a case of documentary evidence, not eyewitness testimony. It is not at all unusual sixty years after an event that eyewitnesses are not available. Indeed, if they were, their testimony would be subjected to close scrutiny because of the effect of time and the ravages of age upon memories and eyewitness identifications. The defendant’s successful defense against the ‘Ivan the Terrible’ charges shows the unreliability of eye witness testimony so long after the event.”123

Once again, what Matia wrote is misleading. The current case about Demjanjuk allegedly serving at Sobibor is based upon purportedly authentic documents. But what Matia and the official history assert about Sobibor being an extermination camp is based upon the grossly unreliable testimony of former Sobibor inmates and the equally unreliable testimonies of German soldiers that were given years after the events in question and in grossly unfair courts. Indeed, it was not possible for the Germans who were put on trial for alleged crimes at Sobibor to contest the official extermination story

Judge Matia rightly pointed out that Demjanjuk’s successful defense against the ‘Ivan the Terrible’ charges shows the unreliability of eyewitness testimony so long after the event. Now it is time for Judge Matia to admit the “eyewitness testimony” that the Sobibor “gas chamber” story is built upon is as equally unreliable as the “eyewitness testimony” that the original “Ivan the Terrible” charges were built upon.

Hunting Demjanjuk: Injustice, Double Standards, Ulterior Agendas

The late historian and journalist John Sack documented how Jewish officials in Poland persecuted and murdered large numbers of German prisoners in the aftermath of World War Two in his book, An Eye for an Eye. After committing such dastardly deeds, many of these Jews came to America.124 If it is right and just that alleged non-Jewish war criminals like Demjanjuk be legally hounded and deported, then Jewish war criminals should be met with the same fate. If the U.S. government devotes resources to the rooting out of non-Jewish war criminals, then they should devote resources to the rooting out of Jewish war criminals. To concentrate only upon non-Jewish war criminals is selective justice. And selective justice is in fact injustice. Why the hypocritical double standard? What really lies behind this campaign?

Holocaust revisionism, the theory that the traditional view of the Jewish Holocaust contains lies, exaggerations and other falsehoods, is a serious threat to Zionist power and the German government that is subservient to Israeli/Zionist interests. Various governments have resorted to “war crimes trials” to combat its phenomenal growth. Indeed, Israel’s former Attorney General, Yitzhak Zamir, publicly admitted that this was one of the major purposes of the Israeli Demjanjuk trial: “At a time when there are those who even deny that the Holocaust ever took place, it is important to remind the world of what a fascist regime is capable of…and in this respect the Demjanjuk trial will fulfill an important function.”125

In 1993, as the case against Demjanjuk was falling apart, an Israeli prosecutor close to the case acknowledged a political motive for continuing the campaign. “So the important thing now is at least to prove that Demjanjuk was part of the Nazi extermination machine…otherwise…we will be making a great contribution to the new world-wide movement of those who deny the Holocaust took place.”126

It is not just the international Jewish-Zionist lobby that wants to benefit from another Demjanjuk “Holocaust” trial. The government of Germany, installed upon a prostrate German people by the victorious Allies, believes it gets the imprint of legitimacy from these Holocaust trials. As mainstream historian of Jewish-German relations, Jeffrey Herf, noted: “The Auschwitz trial conducted in Frankfurt-am-Main in 1964, as well as trials of those who had participated in murders in the Einsatzgruppen and at the extermination camps in Belzec, Treblinka, Sobibor, Chelmo, and Maidanek, offered further details to the West German public about the Holocaust and the death camps in Poland.”127

As French Revisionist Robert Faurisson so rightly pointed out, one of the reasons that Ernst Zundel was deported from Canada to a prison cell in Germany is because the Canadian authorities believed his Holocaust revisionist views destabilize the government of Germany.128

The reader should keep this in mind during the upcoming German trial of John Demjanjuk for the crime of “helping to lead Jews to the gas chambers.” Indeed, this is among the ulterior reasons for the further prosecution of the unfortunate Demjanjuk. The promoters and the beneficiaries of the Holocaust ideology—International Zionism, Israel and the current German government–want to use a Demjanjuk show trial to fight the phenomenal growth of Holocaust revisionism, a movement that poses a dire threat to the Zionist government in Israel and the government subservient to Zionism in Germany.

  1. John Caniglia, “Demjanjuk’s family vows to keep fighting,” The Plain Dealer (Cleveland, Ohio), 30 December 2005, p. B.3.
  2. Jules Schelvis, Sobibor: A History of a Nazi Death Camp(Berg, 2007), p.35.
  3. Yitzhak Arad, “Sobibor,” Encyclopedia of the Holocaust, vol. 4, Israel Gutman, ed., (Macmillan, 1990), pp. 1373-1378.
  4. See page 27 of Judge Paul R. Matia’s Ruling on the Demjanjuk case. United States of America (Plaintiff) vs. John Demjanjuk (Defendant). Case No. 1: 99CV1193. Online:
  5. Ibid.
  6. Ibid, p.97.
  7. Christopher R. Browning, “Evidence for the Implementation of the Final Solution: Electronic Edition.” Online:
  8. Robert Jan van Pelt, The Case for Auschwitz: Evidence from the Irving Trial (Indiana University Press, 2002), p. 5.
  9. Thomas Toivi Blatt, From the Ashes of Sobibor: A Story of Survival (Northwestern University Press, 1997), pp. 227-228.
  10. Gilead, I.; Haimi, Y.; Mazurek, W., “Excavating Nazi Extermination Centres,” Present Pasts, North America, 110 05 2009, vol. 1, no. 1, 2009. Online:
  11. See the “News and Reports” section of
  12. Central Commission for Investigation of German Crimes in Poland, German Crimes in Poland: Volumes 1 and 2 (Howard Fertig, 1982), vol. 2, p. 103. This was first published in English in 1946-1947.
  13. Miriam Novitch, ed., Sobibor: Martyrdom and Revolt(Holocaust Library, 1980), p. 50.
  14. See Carlo Mattogno, Belzec in Propaganda, Testimonies, Archeological Research, and History (Theses & Dissertations Press, 2004), p.10. Online:
  15. Ibid.
  16. Ibid.
  17. Joseph Tenenbaum, In Search of a Lost People: The Old and the New Poland (The Beechhurst Press, 1948), p. 285.
  18. Shelvis, p. 215.
  19. Raul Hilberg, The Destruction of the European Jews: Student Edition(Holmes & Meier, 1985), p. 229.
  20. See Gerstein’s testimony in Yitzhak Arad, Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka: The Operation Reinhard Death Camps(Indiana University Press, 1987), p.101.
  21. Arad, Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka, p. 31.
  22. Schelvis, p. 102.
  23. Ibid, p.104.
  24. Online: “Eyewitness Testimony concerning Gassing at Belzec, Sobibor, and Treblinka: Fifth Category.”
  25. Novitch, p.12.
  26. Central Commission for Investigation of German Crimes in Poland, vol. 2, p. 100.
  27. Ibid, p.24, 26.
  28. Ibid, p. 26.
  29. Arad, Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka, p.31.
  30. Ibid., p. 123.
  31. Arad, “Sobibor,” Encyclopedia of the Holocaust, p.
  32. Schelvis, p. 104.
  33. Ibid, p.102.
  34. Arad, Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka, p. 31.
  35. Schelvis, p.114n17.
  36. Central Commission for Investigation of German Crimes in Poland, vol.2, pp.100-101.
  37. Gitta Sereny, Into that Darkness: An Examination of Conscience(Vintage Books, 1983), p. 109.
  38. Schelvis, p.33.
  39. Ibid, p.100.
  40. Ibid, p. 114n17.
  41. Ibid, p.101.
  42. Thomas Kues, “The Alleged First Gas Chamber Building at Sobibor.” Online:
  43. Thomas Kues, “Sobibor Strangeness—A small compendium.” Online:
  44. Kues, “The Alleged First Gas Chamber Building at Sobibor.”
  45. Gilead, et al.
  46. Central Commission for Investigation of German Crimes in Poland, vol.2, pp.100-101.
  47. Schelvis, p.101.
  48. Arad, Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka, p.31.
  49. Novitch, p. 147.
  50. Schelvis, p. 68.
  51. Arad, Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka, p. 123.
  52. Schelvis, p.68.
  53. Novitch, p. 152.
  54. Arad, Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka, pp. 32, 123-124.
  55. Novitch, p. 155.
  56. Gilead, et al.
  57. Hilberg, p. 229.
  58. Tenenbaum, p. 285.
  59. See map in Sereny, p.94.
  60. Arad, Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka, pp. 34-35.
  61. Gilead, et al.
  62. Novitch, p.78.
  63. Schelvis, p.112.
  64. Blatt, p.232.
  65. See Mattogno, p. 10.
  66. Sereny, p.115.
  67. Arad, “Sobibor,” Encyclopedia of the Holocaust, vol. 4, pp. 1373-1378.
  68. Schelvis, p.112.
  69. Arad, Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka, p.171.
  70. Ibid, p.172.
  71. See Mark Weber and Andrew Allen, “Treblinka,” The Journal of Historical Review, Summer 1992, pp. 133-158. Online: Mark Weber, “Jewish Soap,” The Journal of Historical Review, Summer 1991, pp. 217-227. Online:
  72. Thomas Dalton, Debating the Holocaust: A New Look at Both Sides(Theses & Dissertations Press, 2009), p. 122.
  73. See Judge Matia’s Ruling, p.27.
  74. Schelvis, p.28.
  75. Ibid, p.38.
  76. Ibid, p.112.
  77. Ibid, p.34.
  78. Novitch, p.130.
  79. Central Commission for Investigation of German Crimes in Poland, vol. 2, p. 103.
  80. Tenenbaum, p.285.
  81. Sereny, pp. 114-115.
  82. Schelvis, Plate 28.
  83. See the “News and Reports” section of
  84. Hilberg, p. 338. See also the 2003 edition (3rd edition) of The Destruction of the European Jews(Yale University Press, 3 volumes), p. 1320.
  85. Schelvis, back cover. On page 1, he says that approximately 170,000 were gassed at Sobibor.
  86. Christopher R. Browning, “Implementation of the Final Solution.” Footnote 151. Online:
  87. Novitch, p.156.
  88. Ernst Klee, Willi Dreßen, Volker Reiß, The Good Old Days: the Holocaust as Seen by Its Perpetrators and Bystanders(Free Press, 1991), p. 232.
  89. “Demjanjuk vows to fight death camp charges,” The Local: Germany’s News in English, 12 May 2009. Online:
  90. Gerald Reitlinger, The Final Solution: The Attempt to Exterminate the Jews of Europe: 1939-1945 (Jason Aronson, Inc, 1987), p.337.
  91. Blatt.
  92. Ibid, p.103.
  93. Ibid.
  94. Gilead, et al.
  95. Blatt, p232n7.
  96. Ibid, p231n2.
  97. Ibid, p.101.
  98. Ibid, p230n2.
  99. Arad, p. 33.
  100. Schelvis, p.2.
  101. Quoted in Reitlinger, p.480.
  102. Richard Breitman, The Architect of Genocide: Himmler and the Final Solution (Alfred A. Knopf, 1991), p. 6.
  103. Gilead, et al.
  104. Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (Houghton Mifflin Company, 2006), p.101.
  105. Ibid, p.308.
  106. Quoted in Germar Rudolf, The Rudolf Report: Expert Report on Chemical and Technical Aspects of the ‘Gas Chambers’ of Auschwitz (Theses & Dissertations Press, 2003), p. 325. Online:
  107. Ibid, p.326.
  108. Wilhelm Stäglich, The Auschwitz Myth: A Judge Looks at the Evidence (Institute for Historical Review, 1986), p. 224.
  109. Christopher R. Browining, with contributions by Jürgen Matthäus, The Origins of of the Final Solution: The Evolution of Nazi Jewish Policy, September 1939-March 1942(University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, Nebraska. Yad Vashem, Jerusalem, 2004), p. 543n163.
  110. Christopher R. Browning, Collected Memories: Holocaust History and Postwar Testimony(The University of Wisconsin Press, 2003), pp. 3-4, 8-9.
  111. Ian Kershaw, Hitler, the Germans, and the Final Solution(Yale University Press, 2008), p. 258.
  112. Schelvis, p. 246.
  113. Sereny, pp.22-23.
  114. See Fred A. Leuchter, Jr., Robert Faurisson, Germar Rudolf, The Leuchter Reports: Critical Edition (Theses & Dissertations Press, 2005), p. 19. Online:
  115. 115. Online: “Eyewitness Testimony concerning Gassing at Belzec, Sobibor, and Treblinka: Fifth Category.”
  116. See Paul Grubach, “Convergence of Evidence: Reflections on the Irving-Lipstadt Affair.” Online:
  117. See Mark Weber and Andrew Allen, “Treblinka,” The Journal of Historical Review, Summer 1992, pp. 133-158. Online: Mark Weber, “Jewish Soap,” The Journal of Historical Review, Summer 1991, pp. 217-227. Online:
  118. J.C.A. Gaskin, Hume’s Philosophy of Religion (Barnes & Noble Books, 1978), p. 113.
  119. Novitch, p. 131.
  120. See Judge Matia’s Ruling, p. 4, passim.
  121. Yoram Sheftel, Defending Ivan the Terrible: The Conspiracy to Convict John Demjanjuk(Regnery Publishing, Inc, 1996), passim.
  122. Yahoo News! Canada, By the Canadian Press, “Judge rejects Jewish groups bid to oust former SS guard,” 19 June 2009. Online:
  123. Judge Matia’s Ruling, p. 97.
  124. An Eye for an Eye: The Untold Story of Jewish Revenge Against Germans in 1945(Basic Books, 1993), p.150.
  125. See Cleveland Jewish News, March 21, 1986, p.16.
  126. Quoted in Sheftel, p.402.
  127. Jeffrey Herf, Divided Memory: The Nazi Past in the Two Germanys(Harvard University Press, 1997), pp. 337-338.
  128. See Leuchter, Jr., Faurisson, Rudolf, p.19.

Copyrighted 2009, by Paul Grubach



( Fonte: )

Christianity, Judaism and German National Socialism: Revisionism Confronts the Theology of Susannah Heschel – by Paul Grubach

20 Ott

Christianity, Judaism and German National Socialism: Revisionism Confronts the Theology of Susannah Heschel

Paul Grubach

copyright 2010

In the interests of fairness, Susannah Heschel was sent the following essay prior to its publication here, and asked to correct any possibly false or misleading statements. Ms. Heschel never responded.

Does Theology Matter?

Even atheists and skeptics admit that Christianity and the other equally influential religions exert a decisive impact upon world affairs. A leading historian of the ancient world, Michael Grant, in his history of the Jewish people during the Roman era, pinpointed religion’s effect upon mankind with this astute observation: “For religion is an immensely significant part of secular history: whether god-given or delusive, its beliefs and cults have guided people more powerfully than any other force.”1 The premier skeptic, eighteenth-century Scottish philosopher David Hume, would agree. Although he contended that Christianity was “superstition,” he also seriously doubted that it could ever be eliminated, as it would continue to exercise its influence far into future centuries.2

Regardless of your religious or anti-religious beliefs, one must accept that the Christian religion—along with Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism and others—will continue to exert a decisive impact upon human affairs long after all of us are dead and gone. Whether you like it or not, theology really matters.

Susannah Heschel, a Jewish theologian and researcher into Christian-Jewish relations, is widely considered to be a leading authority on Christian theology in National Socialist Germany, having published a long list of studies on this topic. Her most recent book (and probably her most important), The Aryan Jesus: Christian Theologians and the Bible in Nazi Germany, received very favorable reviews in mainstream publications. As the present century marches on, the issues of Christianity’s relationship to the Judaic religion, the Jewish people, and racial nationalism are becoming ever more important. This is one reason why Heschel’s writings are of great interest, as her research addresses these topics.

The following essay is not an attempt to prove that Christianity is either true or false, or to convert anyone to any religious or anti-religious belief. Our purpose is to address (at least in part) these issues. Are there social, political or religious factors that are distorting Susannah Heschel’s theological viewpoints? Does Susannah Heschel—like many other intellectuals and politicians in the West—apply a hypocritical double standard to the Jewish religion, National Socialism, Israel and the Zionist movement? Is Heschel’s view of Christianity’s relationship to Judaism accurate? Was there any truth to some of the religious viewpoints of Germany’s National Socialist theologians? Was Jesus Christ really Jewish or was he of another ethnicity? Did the Evangelist Paul attempt to turn Christianity into a “Jewish religion?” Was at least some of what the National Socialist theologians believed consistent with a Christian message? What do Christianity and Judaism teach about ethnic nationalism? On what theological issues were the National Socialist theologians in error? Are there any similarities between Judaism and National Socialism? Are Judaism and National Socialism similar in their opposition to miscegenation? Are Jewish studies of Christianity motivated by an ulterior agenda? Are many Jews the enemy of Jesus Christ and Christianity? Was Jesus Christ really a militant opponent of the Jewish religion as some National Socialists claimed?

These are not idle questions. Indeed, the future political and religious landscape of the world will be impacted by theological issues of this nature.

Susannah Heschel: Her Ethnic/Religious/Political Background and Ideological Biases

Susannah Heschel is the daughter of the prominent Jewish scholar and religious activist Abraham Joshua Heschel (1907-1972), who was born in Poland, fled Europe in 1939 and subsequently became a US citizen.3 He is generally considered to be one of the most important theologians of Judaism of his era. In the 1960s, he became an ardent supporter of the Black American movement for racial integration, as he marched with Martin Luther King Jr. in Selma, Alabama.4 Like many other Jewish intellectuals and activists in his camp, he operated with a hypocritical double standard. Rabbi Heschel worked to create a racially integrated society in the United States. Yet, he was a zealous supporter of what Israeli scholar Uri Davis has shown to be the racially/ethnically segregated state of Israel. Indeed, the title of Davis’s book says it all—Israel: An Apartheid State.5

The elder Heschel even wrote a religious tract, Israel: An Echo of Eternity, devoted to the racist Jewish country in the Middle East: daughter Susannah gave her endorsement to the book, as she wrote an approving Introduction in a later edition.6 Although Ms. Heschel claims that her father spoke out against the oppression of Palestinians by Israel in the years prior to his death, he still viewed the Zionist state with mystical reverence. This statement typifies his beliefs: “For all who read the Hebrew Bible with biblical eyes the state of Israel is a solemn intimation of God’s trace in history.”7 Throughout his life, Abraham Heschel attempted to articulate a religious position for left-wing Zionists and Israelis.8

Currently, Susannah Heschel is the Eli Black Professor of Jewish Studies at Dartmouth College. She has a very strong Jewish identity, having written: “I have a passion for Jewishness, for every manifestation of it, from Workmen’s Circle to Chasidic shtibls. My passion came to me as mother’s milk, from wanting to emulate the Jews around me.”9 In 2005, the Jewish weekly Forward identified her as a candidate for the World Zionist Congress. She was then a member of The Green Zionist Alliance, which was described as advocating “an environmentalist-peace slate.”10 Her political position is similar to her father’s, and can be depicted as leftist-religious-Zionist.

In her 1998 study of the nineteenth century Jewish theologian and historian Abraham Geiger, Heschel revealed the decisive influence that her religious/cultural surroundings had upon her outlook: “Above all, I have come to understand the history of Jewish-Christian relations in Germany through the German Jews I have been privileged to meet since my childhood.”11 In her most recent book, The Aryan Jesus, she again reveals where many of her views came from: “My childhood home was filled with German-Jewish refugee scholars who vividly illuminated for me the intellectual world that was destroyed. I want to thank my father for conveying to me a taste of the Germany he experienced in the 1920s and ’30s, and for constantly reminding me, Never Despair!”12 There is little doubt that Heschel’s views have been profoundly shaped by a Judeocentric interpretation of the Jewish-German conflict of the Second World War.

In Germany during the era of the Third Reich she rightly points out that “theological scholarship was also shaped by contemporary politics.”13 As we shall soon see, “contemporary politics” also impacts her theological scholarship. Although Heschel’s books and essays are well written, interesting and intellectually stimulating, she lets her Jewish identity and Zionist politics act as distorting influences upon her work.

Professor Heschel emphasizes how the Holocaust ideology traumatized her. She says that family members were murdered by the Germans: “Within my family certain horrors stood out. The murder of family members was so terrible that it was discussed only rarely, perhaps once in five years, and then only in whispers. Mentioning even briefly what had happened to my grandmother, for example, caused a depression that hung over our household for days.”14

She experienced a sense of horror while examining documents in the Central Archives of the Protestant Church, located in the former West Berlin, which dealt with the activities and beliefs of bishops, pastors, and professors who were passionately opposed to the Jewish people during the Third Reich. After hearing the archivist defend the activities and claims of these pro-National Socialist Germans and the German cause, she “trembled uncontrollably,” and the next morning “woke up covered with hives.”15

Heschel’s theological viewpoints are profoundly shaped by the assumption that the traditional Holocaust story is an unquestionable fact. She emphasizes that “the Nazi regime carried out its genocide of the Jews” during “the six years of its existence,” and was “deeply moved” by her German friends’ “understanding of the enormity of German crimes.”16 And of course, she firmly believes the Germans murdered Jews in “gas chambers” with Zyklon B gas.17 Taking a quote from her father, Heschel writes that “Auschwitz is in our [the Jewish people’s] veins.”18

Heschel ignores the fact that her traditional Holocaust story is not only a feeble ideology that cannot be substantiated with physical/forensic evidence, but also, much of it can be shown to be false. Consider this. In December 2009, one of the widely recognized authorities on the Auschwitz concentration camp, Robert Jan van Pelt, admitted that: “Ninety-nine per cent of what we know [about the Auschwitz extermination story] we do not actually have the physical evidence to prove…” Professor van Pelt added this most telling statement: “We in the future—remembering the Holocaust—will operate in the same way that we remember most things from the past. We will know about it from literature and eyewitness testimony…”19

Here we have a Dutch-Jewish academic who was recognized by the British legal system as an expert on the alleged Auschwitz “gas chamber” technology, admitting that there really is no physical/scientific evidence to prove that those “homicidal gas chambers” ever existed! The “truth” of the orthodox Auschwitz extermination story is ultimately based upon eyewitness testimony—really no different from a religious dogma that has only eyewitness testimony to substantiate it. Other genocidal mass killings of the past, such as the Katyn Forest massacre committed by the Soviet Secret Police in the 1940s, have abundant, undeniable physical/forensic evidence to prove that they actually occurred.20

Furthermore, just like other influential intellectuals in her camp, Heschel overlooks all the scientific evidence that discredits the traditional Holocaust story. As an example, consider the revisionist studies of the alleged Auschwitz “gas chambers.” Fred Leuchter was at one time the main authority on gas-chamber technology in the United States. Though flawed, his forensic study of the “Auschwitz extermination technology” dealt a damaging blow to this legend.21 A more thorough and scientifically accurate study of the Auschwitz “gas chambers” was carried out by the German scientist Germar Rudolf. Rudolf’s meticulous inquiry showed beyond a reasonable doubt that the traditional Auschwitz extermination story is false.22 The present German government was unable to refute Rudolf’s expert report and his other Revisionist studies of the “Holocaust” with reason and evidence. The only thing they could do is imprison him for telling the truth.

In a series of well documented and skillfully argued studies, Revisionist historians Carlo Mattogno and Jürgen Graf discredited the claim that “homicidal mass gassings” of Jews took place at the Treblinka, Majdanek and Belzec concentration camps.23 Heschel and her group of pro-Zionist intellectuals have conveniently ignored all of the foregoing Revisionist evidence.

Heschel criticized the Christian Church’s past ideological dominance, as she referred to “the institutional power of the [Christian] church that transformed falsehoods into accepted truth, a system of power that more recent theorists have termed an ‘ideological regime.'”24 In the Western world of the past, Heschel continues, “the dominant ideology was a Christian one, attempting to present itself as secular moral and cultural values and equating Christianity with the highest expression of religion, rather than as one particular religion whose claims required justification before the bar of reason and historical investigation.”25

Likewise, a very similar statement could be used to describe Heschel’s traditional view of the Holocaust. The institutional power of the Jewish-Zionist power elite has transformed “Holocaust” falsehoods into accepted truth, a system of power that could be rightly termed an “ideological regime of the Holocaust.” The only unquestionable ideology in the Western World today is that of the “Holocaust,” as it has been elevated to the status of a secular religion. In the Western world, the Holocaust religion does not require justification before the bar of reason and historical investigation. Quite the contrary! It cannot even be disputed in “respectable” forums. Belief in it is strictly enforced with taboos, underhanded tactics and prison sentences in many European nations for people who dispute it. Indeed, in America and Europe the Holocaust is to be slavishly accepted as “historical fact,” and any “Holocaust deniers” are to be persecuted and/or denied a public forum in mainstream discourse. The intolerant Holocaust religion is the ideological backdrop of Heschel’s theological and historical views.

Rarely does Heschel point out where the National Socialist intellectuals put forth an accurate viewpoint. Much of the time she simply condemns and demonizes them, implicitly or explicitly. Yet, whether she is aware of it or not, some of her declarations actually support National Socialist viewpoints. Consider this example. Heschel admits that the Jewish community is an alien element among Christian European societies, for she wrote: “Although the Jews did not constitute a territorial colony of Europe, they formed an internal colony in Europe, under the domination of Christian powers.”26 Later on in the same essay she adds: “As much as Jews are inside the Christian world, they are also outsiders; they occupy a position of ambivalence and ambiguity that functions as a kind of counter-history to the multicultural account of the West: not all White Europeans are Christians.”27 Interestingly enough, this is similar to the belief of an intellectual forefather of National Socialist ideology, Paul de Lagarde (whom Heschel refers to twice in The Aryan Jesus). In the words of George L. Mosse, a Jewish historian whose research Heschel relies upon: “Lagarde felt that their religion kept Jews separate, and that they were in fact a coherent and dangerous minority within the Christian state.”28

Finally, as we shall see in the following sections, Heschel’s writings are plagued with a hypocritical double standard. She condemns (implicitly or explicitly) aspects of German National Socialism that are also characteristic of her own beliefs and the sources of her identity—Jewish culture and Israel.

Zionism and National Socialism: Heschel’s Hypocritical Double Standard on the Race Issue

In her books and essays Heschel sends the message that ethnic/racial nationalism is evil and bad for non-Jews, while at the same time she supports ethnic nationalism—that is, Zionism —for Jews. Heschel is also a critic of White Christian civilization, for she has written: “When the story of male, white, Christian Western civilization is related, should not its cultural glories be tempered with the evidence of its racism and misogyny?”29 Likewise with Heschel’s Judaism: when the story of Jewish history is related, should not its cultural glories be tempered with the evidence of its racism and misogyny?

In her magnum opus, The Aryan Jesus, she consistently condemns as “racist” non-Jewish movements of racial nationalism, like German National Socialism and the former South African Apartheid society.30 Yet, I cannot find anywhere where she specifically condemns Jewish-Zionist ethnic nationalism and ethnic/racial segregation in Israel. Quite the contrary! She ardently supports the apartheid Zionist state.

To be fair, Heschel has criticized certain actions of the Zionist movement and Israeli government, but makes it clear that she is a “strong Zionist.” We give you Susannah Heschel in her own words from a October 2002 essay: “Many of us on campus are deeply critical of what we consider to be gross violations of human rights committed by Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, and yet we are strong Zionists. Unlike the Likud Party, we believe two states need to be established, Israel and Palestine, for reasons of politics, security and morality.”31

Heschel piously insists she wants to follow in her father’s footsteps, as she chooses to raise her daughters with “the spirit of Selma [Alabama].”32 (This is the Southern city in the United States where Martin Luther King Jr. marched to achieve racial integration.) That is, she wants to instill in her descendants a desire to build egalitarian and racially integrated societies—everywhere outside of her beloved Israel. In regard to the Jewish state in the Middle East her “morality” demands that she supports segregation, where Jews and Palestinian Arabs would live in separate states.

A recent US State Department report shows that the object of Heschel’s ethnic/religious identity, Israel, is an intolerant society that discriminates against non-Jews and where Jewish supremacy is the order of the day—a fact that is in total conflict with her left-wing politics. The Zionist state falls short in tolerance toward minorities, equal treatment of ethnic groups, openness toward various streams within society, and respect for holy and other sites. The US State Department’s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor documented how Israel discriminates against Muslims, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Reform Jews, Christians, women and Bedouin people. According to this comprehensive report, “”the government implements regulations only for Jewish sites. Non-Jewish holy sites do not enjoy legal protection under it because the government does not recognize them as official holy sites.” Among other examples, the report notes that more than 300,000 immigrants who are not considered Jewish under rabbinical law are not allowed to marry and divorce or be buried in Jewish cemeteries.33

Furthermore, Israeli law distinguishes between “citizenship” and “nationality.” This legal artifice gives Jews special privileges that non-Jews are deprived of. The special status of “Jewish nationality” has been a way to undermine the citizenship rights of non-Jews, especially the fifth of the population who are Arab. Some thirty laws specifically favor Jews to the detriment of others, including in the areas of immigration rights, naturalization, access to land and employment.34 Despite the fact that the racial-integrationist “spirit of Selma, Alabama” is totally absent in Israel, the Jewish state still captivates Heschel’s allegiance.

The “anti-racist” Heschel supports her father’s condemnation of “racism.” She emphatically repeats what the elder Heschel preached : “Racism is Satanism, unmitigated evil…”35 If this is so, then daughter Heschel should abandon her Zionism, as it is a philosophy and violent movement that is firmly grounded in the anti-integrationist racial thought of the past and present.36 Echoing the feelings of a large number of Jews, the prominent Zionist leader Stephen S. Wise, a former president of the American Jewish Congress and the World Jewish Congress, told a New York rally in June 1938: “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.”37

Heschel refers to “Germany’s military and racial goals of domination over Europe.”38 Likewise with her Zionist movement—their racial goal was the domination of land occupied by Palestinian Arabs. With the use of archival evidence, Israeli historians Simha Flapan and ILan Pappe have demonstrated that from its very inception a central plank of Israel’s founding ideology was the forcible removal of Palestinian Arabs and the creation of an ethnically homogenous, Jewish supremacist state.39

In the words of a prophet of Zionism, Moses Hess, “Jews are not a religious group, but a separate nation, a special race, and the modern Jew who denies this is not only an apostate, a religious renegade, but a traitor to his people, his tribe, his race.”40 In a similar vein, the founder of modern Zionism, Theodore Herzl, wrote: “I referred previously to our [Jewish] assimilation [with gentiles]. I do not for a moment wish to imply that I desire such an end. Our national character is too glorious in history and, in spite of every degradation, too noble to make its annihilation desirable.”41 This is very significant. Both Heschels, the father and daughter, worked to promote racial integration and assimilation between whites and non-whites in the United States. Yet, both are on record as propounding an ideology that opposes integration and assimilation between Jews and non-Jews. Indeed, as the Jewish weekly Forward recently pointed out, separation between Jews and Palestinians is an integral platform of left-wing Zionism—the political movement that Susannah Heschel is a part of.42

Heschel is fond of pointing out how National Socialism discriminated against Jews, but she fails to note that very similar discriminatory practices against non-Jews are in place in the Israeli state that has captivated her devotion. She says that Christian churches failed to condemn the Nazi laws that put Jews into a separate racial category and also banned non-Aryans from the German civil service.43 Yet, almost-identical laws are in place in her beloved Israel. In the Zionist state, racial categorization begins at birth. As the Israeli scholar Uri Davis has pointed out, the law is set up in such a manner that a Jewish infant is registered as having Israeli citizenship at birth, whereas an Arab newborn is stateless at birth, his citizenship status being indefinite.44

American-Jewish scholar Ian Lustick pointed out that the Israeli military is, by and large, a segregated institution. Most Muslim Arabs, who constitute the overwhelming majority of Israeli Arab citizens, do not serve in the armed forces—they are not conscripted, nor are they permitted to volunteer for service. This has important social consequences. In Israel, participation in the armed services is a prerequisite to social advancement and mobility. Cut off from the military, they are cut off from access to one of the main avenues of social advancement.45 Just as National Socialist laws banned Jews from the German civil service, so too do Israeli practices and laws ban Arabs from social advancement and upward mobility.

As the evolutionary psychologist Kevin MacDonald has cogently argued, German National Socialism and Jewish Zionism are mirror images of each other—something that the Abraham and Susannah Heschels of the world do not admit.46 It is clearly hypocritical for Heschel to act as a critic of National Socialist ethnic nationalism and discriminatory practices against Jews while she herself passionately identifies with a state and ideology that espouses a similar ethnic nationalism for Jews and practices a similar discrimination against non-Jews. In all of her work, Heschel never explains why (in her view) it was “morally wrong” for Germans to have been racial nationalists (i.e., National Socialists), yet, it was and is “morally correct” for Jews to be racial nationalists (i.e., Zionists). Professor Heschel, a theologian well immersed in religious ethics, never explains the moral dichotomy she has brought to light. Why it was “morally wrong” for Germans to have supported a National Socialist state that discriminated against Jews: yet, it is “morally correct” for Jews to ardently support a Zionist state that discriminates against non-Jews. This hypocritical racial double standard plagues all of her work.

Heschel’s Depiction of Christianity in National-Socialist Germany

During the era of the Third Reich, there were two major competing factions within German Protestantism. The Confessing Church held that the Old Testament, with its Jewish origins, formed a permanent part of the Christian religion. Although they were critical of Jewish influence, Confessing Church clerics accepted Jews who had undergone the rite of baptism into the Christian religion.47 Nonetheless, most members of this faction maintained support for the National Socialist government and they believed that Jews and Judaism were a degenerate moral and spiritual influence upon Christians.48

The German Christians promoted a more radical, racial-ethnic oriented Christianity. They linked religion with ethnicity, which Heschel admits is also characteristic of Judaism.49 They were adamantly opposed to the Jews, and many of them contended that Jesus was not Jewish, and the Old Testament should be expunged from the Christian canon of sacred literature.50 Even so, at least some of them believed that there was religious value to the Old Testament, but its “Jewish spirit” needed to be eliminated. In a 1940 German Christian catechism it was stated: “What do we think of the Old Testament? Just as in a field grain and weeds grow together, so the Old Testament contains good and evil. We have reverence for its eternal truths about God, but we exterminate its Jewish spirit root and branch.”51

The German Christians also insisted that large portions of the New Testament needed to be revised in order to reconcile it with their racialist National Socialism.52 The German Christian movement rejected the idea of the Confessing Church that once a Jew had undergone the rite of Baptism he became a Christian.53 The movement’s leaders believed that Baptism could not wipe away the imprint of race or ethnicity. On key issues the German Christians stood in opposition to the Confessing Church, and there was tension between the two factions throughout the Third Reich.54

Heschel maintains that German Catholicism was in a position similar to that of the Confessing Church. Being theologically conservative, they refused to alter basic Christian doctrines, but nevertheless, they still maintained that Jews were a negative influence upon Christians.55

In May 1939, a group of German Christian clerics, churchgoers and theologians founded the Institute for the Study and Eradication of Jewish Influence on German Church Life (hereafter referred to as “the Institute”). The Institute’s goal’s were to rid Christianity of Jewish influence, and to redefine Christianity as a Germanic religion whose founder, Jesus, was no Jew, but an enemy of the Jews, who had fought to destroy Judaism, but in the end fell as a victim in that struggle.56 Some members of this National Socialist think tank went so far as to claim that Jesus Christ was an Aryan, and Paul, as a Jew, had falsified Jesus’s message.57

The Institute’s academic director, Walter Grundmann, was a prolific scholar and professor of New Testament and Völkish Theology at the University of Jena.58 He declared that just as Luther had overcome Catholicism during the Reformation, so too did Protestants have to overcome Judaism. This meant that the Bible would have to purged of the Old Testament—a platform that Confessing Church theologians rejected.59 In the post World War II era, Grundmann was an informant for the communist secret police in East Germany.60 To Susannah Heschel, Grundmann is a Satanic figure who is guilty of spreading propaganda lies. We shall see if this is so later on in this essay.

The preceding depiction of Christianity during the Third Reich is based solely upon Professor’s Heschel’s writings. It is assumed to be reasonably accurate.

Christianity’s Relationship to Judaism: Is Heschel’s View Correct?

In response to the Institute’s attempt to wipe out Jewish influence upon Christianity—that is, to “dejudaize” it—Heschel proposed an opposing view on the association between the two religions. In her theological outlook, Christianity is inextricably bound to Judaism, for she stated: “Christianity depends on Judaism for its central theological concepts.”61 She developed this theme more completely in The Aryan Jesus: “The question of the dejudaization effort of the Institute has to be examined not only in terms of Third Reich politics, but as a Christian theological phenomenon that engaged a vast number of pastors, bishops, and academic theologians. Christianity came into being by resting on the theological foundations of Judaism; it is often said that Judaism and Christianity stand in mother-daughter relationship. Nearly every central theological concept of Christianity rests on a Jewish foundation, from messiah to divine election. Affirming what is central to Christian teaching usually entails an affirmation of a Jewish idea or a text from the Old Testament, so that attempting to eradicate the Jewish was a kind of ‘theological bulimia.'”62

Heschel’s view is contradicted by that of one of her mentors, Abraham Geiger. In a discussion of the work and arguments of this nineteenth-century Jewish historian who wrote extensively on the historical background of Jesus and early Judaism, she stated: “The later dogma of Christian theology concerning Jesus—the virgin birth, the Incarnation, the Resurrection—were later theological inventions that resulted from pagan philosophical influences.”63 So, in The Aryan Jesus she says that “nearly every central theological concept of Christianity rests on Jewish foundation, from messiah to divine election.” Yet, in another book, she repeats the claim of a researcher who said that the most important dogmas of Christian theology—the Virgin Birth, the Incarnation, and the Resurrection—did not rest on a Jewish foundation, but were acquired from non-Jewish sources: Heschel never said that this was false.

Directly refuting Heschel, some of the most important concepts of Christianity are totally foreign to Judaism. The central doctrine of the Trinity—three persons in one God (the Father, Son and Holy Spirit)—does not rest on a Jewish foundation. Heschel noted that before the fourteenth century, Judaism legally classified Christianity as “idolatry” for its trinitarianism.64 The Incarnation is another prime example—God became a human being in the person of Jesus Christ. Skeptics of the past, such as Voltaire, have pointed out that the Jewish religion regarded the idea of a God-man as “monstrous.” These non-Christians contend that this Christian concept was borrowed from pagan sources such as the Romans, who deified mortals.65

The late Holocaust historian Raul Hilberg also noted that the idea of a God-man is anathema to Judaism. This Jewish intellectual’s view of Christian origins is much more accurate than Heschel’s: “In the very early stages of the Christian faith, many Jews regarded Christians as members of a Jewish sect. The first Christians, after all, still observed the Jewish law. They had merely added a few nonessential practices, such as baptism, to their religious faith. But their view was changed abruptly when Christ was elevated to Godhood. The Jews have only one God. This God is indivisible. He is a jealous God and admits of no other gods. He is not Christ, and Christ is not He. Christianity and Judaism have since been irreconcilable. An acceptance of Christianity has since signified an abandonment of Judaism.”66

Hilberg’s view is supported by the statement in John 5: 18. It is said that the Jews wanted to kill Jesus Christ because he put himself on the level of God: “This was why the Jews sought all the more to kill him, because he not only broke the Sabbath, but also called God his Father, making himself equal with God.” Even if, as some skeptics say, this passage is not historically accurate because the event depicted never happened, it still accurately expresses one reason why religious Jews have rejected the Christian religion throughout the ages: the thought of a God-man is abhorrent to them. The Incarnation, arguably the most important concept in all of Christianity, does not rest on a Jewish foundation. Directly contradicting Heschel, Christianity does not depend upon Judaism for this central theological concept.

The central Christian doctrine of the Second Coming of Jesus Christ (Mark 13: 1-37) does not rest on a Jewish foundation. Judaism contends that he was a mere mortal who will never return to earth. Contrary to what Heschel claims, affirming this doctrine does not also entail affirming a Jewish idea.

We have identified three central Christian concepts—the Trinity, Incarnation and Second Coming—that do not rest on a Jewish foundation, which discredits Heschel’s claim that “nearly every central theological concept of Christianity rests on a Jewish foundation, from messiah to divine election.” To be fair, it could be said that the doctrine of the Resurrection rests on a Jewish foundation. Catholic scholars point out that it was expressed in Daniel 12: 1-3 and other passages in the Old Testament.

It is important to point out that even where a Christian teaching entails affirming or quoting a text from the Old Testament, the Christian teaching many times contradicts Jewish teachings. Let me give three examples.

Although the Virgin Birth from Matthew 1: 22-23 is based upon a passage from the Old Testament, it is a uniquely Christian interpretation of a passage from Isaiah 7: 14. Jews throughout the ages have rejected this interpretation. The central Christian theological concept of Christ being the prophesied messiah of the Old Testament has been adamantly rejected by Jews down through the ages. Jews say that Christians misinterpreted the meaning of the messiah foretold by the Prophets. Christians say otherwise, as it is the Jews who fail to accept that Jesus is the Divine Savior foretold by the Hebrew Scriptures. Even here, as one of Heschel’s mentors, the Jewish historian Abraham Geiger, pointed out, Christians and Jews give the messiah doctrine two different and irreconcilable interpretations.67

A scholar of ancient history, Michael Grant, provided another example. He notes that the Evangelist Paul, by appealing to various Old Testament texts, believed that the crucifixion of Jesus made possible the forgiveness of men’s sins. Yet even though Paul used beliefs from Jewish Scriptures to bolster his argument, the end result was still incompatible with Jewish thinking. We let Professor Grant complete the story: “For all Paul’s Pharisaic background, it was an argument singularly unacceptable to the Jews, because belief in the expiatory death of Jesus clashed with the great prophetic doctrine according to which God vouchsafed the penitent sinner his free forgiveness—a doctrine which, according to Jewish thought, was the only real remedy for sin.”68

Christianity did indeed come from Judaism, as it was founded within a Jewish milieu. Paul made this perfectly clear in his Letter to the Romans 3:2: “To begin with, the Jews are entrusted with the oracles of God.” Even the Gospel of John (4:22), which is very critical of the Jews, says that “salvation comes from the Jews.” The list of Old Testament ideas and allusions in the New Testament are numerous. But this does not mean that Christianity is therefore forever bound to and fully compatible with Judaism. Lutheranism and Catholicism came from the same source, but centuries ago there was a split because of the irreconcilable differences between them: so too is the split between Judaism and Christianity even more pronounced because of the even greater irreconcilable differences. The Jewish Talmud provides us with even more good reasons why we should reject Heschel’s claim that Judaism and Christianity stand in a “mother-daughter relationship.”

The reader must understand how important the Talmud is to Judaism and the Jewish people. Adin Steinsaltz, Talmudic authority and former Head of the Israel Institute for Talmudic Publications, explained: “If the Bible is the cornerstone of Judaism, then the Talmud is the central pillar, soaring up from the foundations and supporting the entire spiritual and intellectual edifice. In many ways the Talmud is the most important book in Jewish culture, the backbone of creativity and national life. No other work has had a comparable influence on the theory and practice of Jewish life, shaping spiritual content and serving as a guide to conduct. The Jewish people have always been keenly aware that their continued survival and development depend on the study of the Talmud, and those hostile to Judaism have also been cognizant of this fact.”69

As far back as 1892, the Russian Roman Catholic Priest I. B. Pranaitis uncovered the hate for Jesus Christ and the anti-Christian beliefs that characterize the Talmud.70 Pranaitis’s research has been subsequently confirmed by more recent scholarship. Professor Peter Schäfer, who is the head of Princeton University’s Judaic Studies Program, devoted an entire book to this issue.

The Talmud says that Jesus is punished in Hell for eternity by being made to sit in a cauldron of boiling excrement. That image appears in early manuscripts of the Babylonian Talmud, as does a brief account of Jesus’s trial and execution—not by the Romans but by the Jewish high court, the Sanhedrin. The Jewish community, to the extent Jews were even aware of these excised texts, has been content to let them remain obscure and unknown. The Talmud’s scattered portrait of Jesus unapologetically mocks Christian doctrines including the virgin birth and the resurrection. The rabbinic invective is meant to insult Christianity. In his book, Schäfer calls the Talmud’s assault on Christian claims “devastating.”71 In her declaration on the relation of Christianity to Judaism, Heschel omits consideration that the Talmud contains some of the most degrading statements on Jesus Christ and Christian religion that one will ever read.

Shäfer’s study makes it clear that the Talmud is every bit as offensive to Christians as the Gospels are to Jews. Indeed, the historian of ancient Judaism and Christianity, Michael Grant, contends that “despite [the Christian Gospels’] insistence on the Judaism of Jesus, all four Gospels are at the same time markedly, indeed violently, anti-Jewish.”72 Jews throughout the ages maintained that the Christian Scriptures are very offensive. Likewise with Christians: they find the Jewish Scriptures to be very offensive. This fact alone undermines Heschel’s belief that Christianity is inextricably bound to Judaism.

The German Christian View of the Relation between Judaism and Christianity

In April 1939, the German Christians published the Godesburg Declaration. In it we find this key passage: “What is the relation between Judaism and Christianity? Is Christianity derived from Judaism and its continuation and completion, or does Christianity stand in opposition to Judaism? We answer this question: Christianity is the unbridgeable religious opposition to Judaism.”73

The German Christians were somewhat mistaken on this issue. Christianity was derived from Judaism—this is bridge between the two. Yet, Christianity evolved into a religion that is, in many ways, irreconcilable with Judaism. On the other hand, Heschel is also wrongheaded. If Heschel wants to claim that Christianity and Judaism “stand in a mother-daughter relationship,” then it is a case in which the “mother” (Judaism) came to hate and despise her own “daughter” (Christianity), and vice versa: the antagonistic “daughter” ultimately cut herself off from her hostile “mother.”

We have already noted that in her attempt to rebut the German Christians, Heschel wrote: “Christianity came into being by resting on the theological foundations of Judaism.” This is only partly correct. As the German Protestant theologian Rudolph Bultmann (who opposed Hitler’s National Socialist regime), and historian of Christianity Robert M. Grant have so convincingly shown, Christianity had its roots in the Old Testament and the Jewish tradition. However, contact with other religions and philosophies—Hellenistic paganism, Near Eastern religions, Stoicism, and Gnosticism—added much to the foundation of the early Christian movement.74 Christianity came into being by resting on some of the theological foundations of Judaism, and also upon theological sources that were separate from the traditional Jewish religion. Believing Christians say that that the latter sources are also of supernatural origin, but the Jews have rejected them.

It is interesting to note that both Heschel and her opponent, the anti-Christian National Socialist ideologist Alfred Rosenberg, made almost identical claims. Rosenberg preached that Christianity’s central teachings were Jewish.75 Heschel advocates a similar creed.76 As the preceding discussion shows, both are mistaken.

“[B]y rejecting selected doctrines about Jesus, theologians easily could manipulate the gospel texts and revise them to construct a Jesus in their own image.”77 Interestingly enough, a similar charge may be reflected right back at Heschel: by rejecting selected Christian doctrines, she could easily manipulate Christian history and theology and revise them to construct a Christian religion into an image that serves her own agenda. A major intent of Heschel’s research is to find out “how German Protestantism benefited from Nazi racism.”78 A quite similar question is raised by this study: how does Heschel’s racist Jewish-Zionism benefit from her distorted theological beliefs? To this issue we must now turn our attention.

What is the Goal of Jewish Studies of Christianity?

German Christians associated with the Institute alleged that Jews throughout the centuries distorted and falsified the Christian religion. Expounding upon this theme, Heschel writes: “Paranoia about Jewish power over Christianity was regnant in their [the Institute’s] theology; the Jews had falsified the message of Jesus, judaizing the gospels with their interpolations of Jewish teachings that went contrary to the anti-Jewish campaign launched by Jesus. Christianity required purification from Jewish influences in order to recover the original, true meaning…”79

To be sure, the Institute did, at times, engage in exaggeration and distortion. Nonetheless, their concerns about Jewish attempts to twist the meaning of the Gospels were not unfounded. Heschel herself has indirectly confirmed this. Let us quote exactly what Heschel has claimed was an original intent of Jewish religious studies: “[T]he first practitioners of Jewish studies saw the study of Judaism as not simply an addition to the general curriculum but as a revision of that curriculum, an effort to resist and even overthrow the standard portrayal of Western history. In this version, at the heart of the West would stand the Hebrew Bible and rabbinic literature, not the classical Greek civilization of the New Testament, and the history of Christian thought would be presented as a derivatory offshoot of Jewish ideas.”80 In other words, the aim of Jewish studies was to make Judaism and rabbinic ideas dominant in Christian theology and history—a claim consistent with belief of the Institute that certain Jews were trying to “judaize the gospels.”

Heschel continues on the agenda of Jewish studies: “Thus, Jewish studies emerged not as a politically neutral field concerned with describing the history of the Jews but as a politically charged effort to reconceive Christian history as well.”81 Heschel makes more statements that may shed even more light upon her ulterior agenda and that of her Jewish studies colleagues: “Telling the story of Christian origins from a Jewish perspective was an act of Jewish empowerment.”82 Once again, here we have another Heschel admission that certain Jews were driven by an ulterior political agenda: they wanted to gain power over Christianity and thereby fashion Christian history to make it more subservient to a Jewish agenda.

Finally, Heschel may have revealed her ulterior motives when she wrote: “Seen in this light, the modern Jewish retelling of Christian origins is not really a matter of Jews attempting to ‘set the record straight.’ Rather, it demonstrates a Jewish desire to enter the Christian myth, become its hero, and claim the power inherent to it.”83 Continuing in this vein, consider what she has written about the motives and agenda of the Jewish theological historian Abraham Geiger: “Telling the story of the life of Jesus became Geiger’s appropriation of the Jesus myth. Through his retelling, Geiger the Jew became the hero, claiming the power that inheres in the story for himself and his community.”84

So there you have it. By telling the story of Jesus and Christian origins from a Jewish perspective, Jews gain power over Christianity by “judaizing the gospels,” and this in turn, serves to empower the Jewish community. Now perhaps we can better understand any underlying motives Heschel may have. A distorted and inaccurate view of Christian origins like the one Dr. Heschel promotes enables her to enter into the Christian story, and harness the power of the story for the best interests of her Jewish community and the Zionist movement. Her skewed views would suggest to Christians that they are bound to and forever beholden to the Judaic religion and Jewish interests.

The “Aryan Jesus”

As Heschel points out, the theory that Jesus Christ was not Jewish, but rather an Aryan, had its beginnings in nineteenth-century historical, theological and racialist writings.85 Here is the “Aryan Jesus” argument in brief. The New Testament region of Galilee remained outside the Jewish sphere until Aristobulus I, a Jewish king, conquered it c. 103 BCE, forcibly converting its inhabitants to the Judaism. Before the birth of Jesus then, the Galilee was populated by Gentiles. Those inhabitants who were forcibly converted to Judaism were Jewish by religion only, not by ethnicity. The end result was a Galilee of mixed ethnicity. Some then speculated that because Jesus was a Galilean, he was not truly of Jewish ethnicity. One of the central arguments of the Institute was that Jesus was a descendent of the purportedly Aryan population of Galilee.86

In a well documented and skillfully argued study of ancient Galilee, New Testament scholar Mark A. Chancey concluded that it is a myth that Galilee in the time of Jesus Christ was populated by mostly Gentiles. There may have been a small minority of Gentiles, but the vast majority of its inhabitants were of Jewish descent.87 Thus, even if Jesus was born and raised in Galilee, it is unlikely that he was an Aryan as the members of the Institute claimed. (A thorough, critical evaluation of this viewpoint is beyond the scope of this essay.)

Heschel insists that the German Christians who promoted the Aryan Jesus concept were fashioning a view of Jesus Christ that served their agenda: they wanted a God who had their own ethnic identity and “fit in” with their racialist ideology.88 Yet, this twisting and fashioning of the historical evidence in order to make it conform to a National Socialist agenda is really a mirror image of Heschel’s twisting and fashioning the evidence to make the Christian religion conform to her own Zionist agenda. She admits that Jews of centuries past “constructed” Jesus Christ in “their own image.”89 Heschel is heir to this tradition.

Nevertheless, as Biblical scholar Chancey points out, the Gospel writer of Matthew (1: 3-16) lists Gentile women in Jesus’s genealogy, and suggests that this may have been mentioned to show that Gentiles will eventually be included in God’s salvation plan.90 In fact, one Catholic Biblical authority identifies four of the women in the genealogy as Gentiles: including women in a genealogy was contrary to Semitic custom.91 Although there is a huge controversy that surrounds all aspects of the New Testament’s genealogies of Jesus, with some claiming they are fabrications, there are other Biblical scholars who believe that Matthew’s genealogy is of Christ’s mother, Mary.92 If Jesus really did have Gentile women in his ancestry, then Heschel’s view is weakened: Jesus was not “totally Jewish.” Either Professor Heschel is unaware of this fact or she is aware of it and chose not to mention it. I now ask her this question: If Jesus Christ was not “purely Jewish,” but of mixed Jewish-Gentile ancestry, what are the theological implications?

The Issue of Paul’s Jewish Ethnicity and National Socialism

Some German nationalists and National Socialists charged that Paul, a former Pharisee of Jewish descent and the second most important figure in Christianity, falsified the Christian message with Jewish beliefs. The 19th century philologist Paul de Lagarde alleged that while Jesus was not Jewish, Paul had falsified the Christian message by “judaizing it.”93 The members of the Institute held similar beliefs: Paul, as a Jew, had falsified Jesus’s message.94 Supposedly, Hitler himself believed that Jesus’s message was falsified and exploited by Paul.95 When in November 1933, a German Christian leader denounced Paul as a “Jewish theologian” in a speech in which he preached other anti-Jewish claims, he received a thunderous applause from 20,000 attendees at a Berlin rally.96 In 1936, a National Socialist pastor charged that Paul transformed Christianity into a Jewish religion.97 Nevertheless, Heschel notes that Institute director Walter Grundmann at one point in his career put forth the directly opposite view of Paul: he was “the sharpest fighter against judaizing tendencies within Christianity.”98 Wherein lays the truth?

In the Christian view, Paul was simply a messenger from God, and the only thing that really counts in the end is the message that Paul sent his listeners. What should be pointed out to both Heschel and the anti-Pauline critics is that Paul put forth an ambivalent and paradoxical view of the Jewish people. His stance can be summed up by his statement in Romans 11: 28: “In respect to the Gospel, the Jews are enemies of God for your sake; in respect to the election, they are beloved by him because of the patriarchs.”

For those National Socialists who charged that Paul was a “judaizer of Christianity,” I would quote this passage from 1Thessalonians 2: 14-16: “Brothers, you have been made like the churches of God in Judea which are in Christ Jesus. You suffered the same fate from your own countrymen as they did from the Jews, who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and persecuted us. Displeasing to God and hostile to mankind, they try to keep us from preaching salvation to the Gentiles. All this time they have been ‘filling up their quota of sins,’ but the wrath has descended upon them at last.” Only by a twisted and contorted interpretation could one conclude that this is the declaration of a “judaizer” of the Gospels. The Catholic editors of The New American Bible point out that here Paul is condemning “the active Jewish opposition to the Gospel, branding it as sin and worthy of divine punishment.”

Paul wrote in Titus 1: 13-14: “Admonish them sharply, in an attempt to keep them closely to sound faith, and unaffected by Jewish myths or rules invented by men who have swerved from the truth.” According to the Catholic editors of the New American Bible, in this passage Paul was expressing opposition to the forcing of Mosaic Law upon Gentile converts to Christianity. This is consistent with the view that Paul was an opponent of attempts to enforce Jewish customs upon the growing Christian movement.

Finally, historian of the ancient world Michael Grant put forth other reasons why Paul’s doctrines conflicted with the traditional Jewish religion. The proper basis for membership in “Israel,” Paul insisted, had never been observance of Jewish Law or descent from the Jewish patriarchs, but faith. Another source of friction was Paul’s deliberate campaign of Gentile conversion, which seemed to violate the doctrine of the Chosen People, the Jewish elect.99 Clearly, many in the German Christian movement were mistaken on the issue of Paul and his alleged attempt to “judaize” the Christian religion. In this writer’s opinion, Heschel never adequately noted this.

The Fear of Miscegenation in Judaism, Zionism and National Socialism

The German Christian movement held that miscegenation is a sin against God’s will.100 Heschel condemned German Nationalists as “racists” and “anti-Semites” because of their “fear of miscegenation,” for she wrote: “Legal cases in German courts, brought in the wake of the Nuremberg Laws’ criminalization of sexual relations and marriage between Jews and Aryans, and widely reported in the German press, implicated Jews as sexual predators of Aryans, further encouraging Christian theologians to insist on protecting Christian purity by eradicating Jewishness with even more measures. The penetration of Christian bodies by Jewish sex reiterated a typical motif of racist rhetoric, the dangers of miscegenation, and reinforced fears that Aryanism was not immutable, but subject to destruction by Jews. Anti-Semites had long insisted that German Aryan women were vulnerable to Jewish predation […]”101

Here, Heschel has applied her hypocritical racial double standard, for she is on record as opposing intermarriage between Jews and non-Jews. In a 2004 essay on how to “pass down Jewishness,” she wrote: “Simply to teach that human beings are made in the image of God is not a solution to the rising rates of intermarriage and assimilation [between Jews and non-Jews]. I don’t think there are any easy answers.”102 So, according to Heschel’s “morality,” it is “right” that Jews oppose miscegenation and assimilation between Jews and non-Jews. Yet, Germans who opposed miscegenation between Germans and Jews are “anti-Semites” who engaged in “racist rhetoric.”

Heschel fails to note that the Jewish religion, Zionist movement and Israeli state that she so passionately identifies with are also deeply imbued with deep fears of the danger of miscegenation between Jews and non-Jews. In this sense, Judaism, Zionism and German National Socialism are mirror images of each other.

In Jewish Scripture, Ezra 9: 1-10, 14-15; 10: 10-11 and Nehemiah 9: 1-5; 10: 31: 13: 3, 23-31 mixed marriages were denounced and the Hebrews were commanded to give up their non-Hebrew wives. According to the Catholic editors of the New American Bible, this was done to preserve the unique racial/cultural identity of the Hebrews. Consider these passages: “shall we again violate your [God’s] commandments by intermarrying with these abominable peoples [Canaanites, Hittites, Moabites, Egyptians, etc.]” In Ezra 10: 2-4 we read: “Then Shecaniah…made this appeal to Ezra: ‘We indeed have betrayed our God by taking as wives foreign women of the peoples of the land. Yet, even now there remains a hope for Israel. Let us therefore enter into a covenant before our God to dismiss all our foreign wives and the children born of them, in keeping with what you, my lord, and those who fear the commandments of our God.”

If the criterion of distinction was religious, God would have commanded the Jews to give up only spouses and children who did not convert to the Hebrew religion. That He commanded them to give up loved ones who were non-Hebrew by ethnic origin—irrespective of whether or not they converted—shows that the dividing line was in fact racial or ethnic.

If Heschel was fair and honest, she would have noted that the fear of miscegenation is an integral part of both German National Socialism and the entities that she so passionately identifies with—Zionism and the society of Israel. For reasons unknown, Heschel failed to report that during the 1930s, The Zionist Federation of Germany displayed the same resistance to miscegenation that was displayed by National Socialism. These German Jews of the Zionist persuasion declared: “[B]ecause we, too, are against mixed marriage and for maintaining the purity of the Jewish group and reject any trespasses of the cultural domain, we—having been brought up in the German language and German culture—can show an interest in the works and values of German culture with admiration and sympathy.”103

Vladimir Jabotinsky (1880-1940), the founder of the Zionist-Revisionist movement that became the ideological foundation of Israeli Likud Party, also condemned miscegenation. Consider this most revealing statement: “An increase in the number of mixed marriages is the only sure and infallible means for the destruction of nationality as such. All the nations that have disappeared in the world (apart from those, of course, who were completely massacred or who disappeared as a result of abnormal conditions of existence) were swallowed up in the chasm of mixed marriages.”104

This fear of miscegenation between Jews and non-Jews carries on to this day with the present Israeli government. In mid 2009, the Prime Minister’s Office and the Jewish Agency launched an aggressive advertising campaign, the goal of which is to prevent Jews from marrying non-Jews.105 In September 2009, the Guardian (Great Britain) reported that Israel has state sanctioned “anti-miscegenation programs,” in order to prevent Jews from marrying or dating non-Jews, especially Arabs.106

The reader should ask himself this: how can Heschel criticize National Socialist opposition to miscegenation, while she herself opposes it, and identifies with a religion (Judaism), ideology (Zionism), and state (Israel) that openly condemn miscegenation? We pose this question to Susannah Heschel: why was it “wrong and evil” for National Socialists to be opposed to miscegenation, and yet, “right and good” that Jews be opposed to miscegenation?

Christianity and Ethnic/Racial Nationalism

Heschel leaves the reader with the impression that she condemns Christian ethnic/racial nationalism, for she wrote: “Racism’s argument that distinct and immutable orders exist in society lent support to a ‘theology of creation.’ One Institute member, William Stapel, attempted to demonstrate that racism supported Christian claims to divine creation: just as God had created societal orders—marriage, family, Volk, profession, hierarchy, property, and so forth—God had given each Volk a task and place on earth. Believers in racial hierarchy could see it as an extension of the biblical account of God’s creation of hierarchical orders within nature, and social orders such as marriage, and Christians were told that racial orders were an extension of the divine order.”107

Contrary to what Heschel insinuates, Stapel’s claim is somewhat accurate. A passage in Paul’s speech to the Athenians is consistent with the view that the Supreme Being did give each different ethnic/racial/cultural grouping a different task and place on earth. In Acts 17: 26, it is written: “From one stock he [God] made every nation of mankind to dwell on the face of the earth. It is he who set limits to their epochs and fixed the boundaries of their regions.”

According to this Biblical passage, God did not integrate the peoples of the earth, but rather established boundaries between them and set limits to their historical eras. The passage also states that God created “nations.” In other words, despite the fact that all men came from one stock, the Supreme Being separated humanity into groups which are different from one another in a social, political and racial sense.

In addition, Heschel may have not noticed that the message of the Hebrew legend of the Tower of Babel is similar to the National Socialist view that each Volk was given a different a task and place on earth. In Genesis 11: 1-9, the Supreme Being separates mankind into different groups and endows them with different languages—each is thereby given a different task and place on earth.

Mysticism and Racial Nationalism: Another Similarity between Zionism and National Socialism

Heschel points out that the German Christians mixed religious mysticism with their ethnic nationalism, as she notes: “‘Aryan,’ for them, meant not simply a physical or biological type, but much more an inner spirit that was simultaneously of great power […].”108 Further on in the same book she again expounds on this theme: “Yet, race, according to the völkisch Christians [German Christians], was manifest not only in body, but, just as importantly, in the soul. Character, personality, culture, and spirituality were all products of a racially impregnated soul […].”109

Heschel fails to note that this National Socialist view is similar to the Zionist view expressed by her father. The elder Heschel believed that each different ethnic or racial group’s development was the product of their unique group soul or spirit, for he wrote: “Every people has a right to its own territory, in which it can develop its own culture and strive for making a contribution to the world out of its own spirit.”110 Later on in the same book he again mixes his religious mysticism with his Jewish nationalism: “What brought the State of Israel into being? A stream of dreaming, the sacred river flowing in the Jewish souls of all ages. No heresy could stem it, no apostasy could defile it. The State of Israel having been born out of our soul is itself a state of our soul, a reality within us.”111 (Keep in mind that Susannah Heschel wrote an approving Introduction to the book in which her father made these statements.)

Again, note the similarity between Rabbi Heschel’s religious/mystical vision of his Jewish people, Israel and the Jewish “ethnic/racial soul,” and the German National Socialist religious/mystical vision of their German people and the German “racial/ethnic soul.” I ask Susannah Heschel this question: why was it wrong for National Socialists to have mixed mysticism with their German nationalism; yet, it was “morally correct” for her father to have mixed mysticism with his Jewish nationalism?

Walter Grundmann’s Important Insights

One of the great “villains” in Heschel’s writings is the National Socialist theologian and Institute Director, Walter Grundmann. One reason that Heschel condemns Grundmann is because: “Anti-Semitism remained constant within Grundmann’s writings, fed in part by denunciations of Bolsheviks as Jews, at least prior to the 1939 Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact […].”112 National Socialist claims that deeply offend Heschel’s Jewish sensibilities are simply labeled “anti-Semitic,” and this is supposed to function as a “logical disproof” of the claim! Heschel totally ignores the fact that on this issue Grundmann was correct: Jews did play a decisive role in the establishment and functioning of Bolshevism.

Winston Churchill discussed this in his famous 1920 article: “There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution by these international and for the most part atheistical Jews. It is certainly a very great one; it probably outweighs all others. With the notable exception of Lenin, the majority of the leading figures are Jews [Lenin was part Jewish.—Ed.]. Moreover, the principal inspiration and driving power comes from the Jewish leaders. Thus, Tchitcherin, a pure Russian, is eclipsed by his nominal subordinate Litvinoff, and the influence of Russians like Bukharin or Lunacharski cannot be compared with the power of Trotsky, or of Zinovieff, the Dictator of the Red Citadel (Petrograd), or of Krasin or Radek—all Jews. In the Soviet institutions the predominance of Jews is even more astonishing. And the prominent, if not indeed the principal, part in the system of terrorism applied by the Extraordinary Commissions for Combating Counter-Revolution has been taken by Jews, and in some notable cases by Jewesses. The same evil prominence was obtained by Jews in the brief period of terror during which Bela Kun ruled in Hungary. The same phenomenon has been presented in Germany (especially in Bavaria), so far as this madness has been allowed to prey upon the temporary prostration of the German people. Although in all these countries there are many non-Jews every whit as bad as the worst of the Jewish revolutionaries, the part played by the latter in proportion to their numbers is astonishing.”113

Recent scholarship has supported Grundmann’s viewpoint. In his 1993 academic study, historian Benjamin Harshav observed: “Jews were prominent in the ranks of the early Soviet governments, and the antisemitic expression ‘Judeo-Bolshevism’ is not without foundation.”114 The Jewish historian Yuri Slezkine has fully documented the decisive role that Jews played in the establishment and functioning of Soviet Communism in his 2004 work, The Jewish Century: Jews formed the “backbone of the new Soviet bureaucracy.”115 Russian Jewish investigative journalist Arkady Vaksberg pointed out that Jews were in charge of eleven of the twelve major camp complexes of the GULAG archipelago, the Soviet Communist slave labor system that brought horror, death and suffering to millions of people.116

I now pose this perplexing question to Susannah Heschel. Did Walter Grundmann engage in “Anti-Semitism” because he accurately pointed out the decisive Jewish influence in Soviet Communism?

Concerning Grundmann’s view of the Jewish people’s historic relationship with Jesus Christ, Heschel writes: “Grundmann argued that Jews were the mortal enemies of Jesus and all who followed him.”117 There is objective truth to this belief, and one does not even have to quote the Christian Scriptures to show that this so. We have already pointed out how the Talmud brags that it was a rabbinical court which put Jesus to death, in addition to his degrading depiction in these sacred Jewish texts. Some of the most debasing things ever written about Christ are in the Talmud.

Circa 180 AD, Jewish sources compiled a historically influential, direct attack upon Jesus Christ, further supporting the view of Grundmann that many Jews throughout the centuries were his mortal enemy. We let a historian of the ancient Mediterranean world, Michael Grant, pick up the story here: “The gulf between the two faiths [Judaism and Christianity] had been steadily and rapidly widening over the years, but now in the later second century AD, when the Gospels were becoming more and more widely known, their strongly anti-Jewish tone helped to cause even the most tenuous final bridges to disappear […] And it may well have been at this date, or just a little later, that the Jews first compiled the book which emerged subsequently as the Toledoth Yeshu. That work, at considerable length and in abundant detail, described Jesus as a sorcerer, the son of uncleanness. (He was also said to be a bastard, the son of a soldier called Panthera or Ben Pandera, or Ben Stada.) The Toledoth Yeshu enjoyed an enormous circulation throughout the ages, and its perusal, combined with a reading of the Gospels, explains clearly enough why the split between Judaism and Christianity was now irrevocable.”118

The late Israeli scholar, Israel Shahak, in his classic study, Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years, revealed the hate for Jesus and Christianity that is so deeply imbued in Judaism. He points out that although Christian persecution of Jews aggravated anti-Christian feelings, these hateful attitudes exist independently of any Christian wrongdoing against Jews. They are shared by Jews who were never persecuted by Christians or who were even helped by them, and were present even when the Christian religion was itself weak and persecuted by Jews. “The very name ‘Jesus’ was for Jews a symbol of all that is abominable,” this maverick Jewish scholar pointed out, “and this popular tradition still persists. The Gospels are equally detested, and they are not allowed to be quoted (let alone taught) even in modern Israeli Jewish schools.”119

There is more than a kernel of truth to Walter Grundmann’s view: many Jews were, and still are, the mortal enemies of Jesus Christ and Christianity. To my knowledge, Heschel never said that this is false. Expressing a widespread sentiment that has been held by many Jews down through the ages, a prophet and intellectual forefather of Zionism, Moses Hess, held that Christianity is “poison” for Jews.120 I wonder if a dedicated Zionist like Susannah Heschel shares this opinion.

Was there any truth to the German Christian View of Jesus and Christianity?

Heschel says that “the Institute for the Study and Eradication of Jewish Influence on German Church Life redefined Christianity as a Germanic religion whose founder, Jesus, was no Jew but rather had fought valiantly to destroy Judaism, falling victim to that struggle.”121 She clearly believes that this is all “Nazi lies.”

The Institute’s belief that Jesus “fought to destroy Judaism” is an overstatement. Nonetheless, there is historical evidence that Jesus Christ was a militant opponent of the ancient Jewish religious authorities. The four Gospels unanimously insist that he was a severe critic of the Pharisees and Sadducees. Historian Michael Grant argues that, though their details vary, the four Gospels are also unanimous that Christ forcibly drove out the money changers and traders who thronged the Jerusalem Temple precincts: the surprising character of these reports suggest that they reflect an authentic historical event. If this is so, not only was Jesus violating Rome’s public order, he was also attacking the Jewish priestly aristocracy, which controlled Temple affairs and derived profits from the money-changers tables he drove out. 122

Previously we noted that the genealogy of Jesus in Matthew claims that he was of mixed Jewish-Gentile ancestry. If this is accepted, and because we have good reason to believe Jesus really did militantly oppose the Jewish priestly aristocracy, then the belief of the Institute is to a limited extent accurate. Jesus was not “purely Jewish,” and he did fight against the Jewish religious authorities, whose ideas and customs formed the basis of the Jewish religion.


In regard to the course of history, theology really matters. And I would be quick to add, if the theology is in the wrong, the consequences can be ruinous. Although Susannah Heschel’s research is of value because of the theological and historical material from National Socialist Germany that she has made public, it must be viewed with a healthy skepticism. Her Jewish-Zionist value system and outlook act as distorting influences upon all of her writings. As Revisionists, it is our duty to confront her distortions and correct them. Indeed, if Heschel’s distortions and hypocritical double standards are allowed to go unanswered, they will continue to mislead many Christian people, with possibly disastrous historical consequences.

One only has to look at the problems in the Middle East to see the disaster that a partisan theology can help bring about. One of the main reasons that Israel gets unqualified support for their dispossession and oppression of the Palestinians (many of whom are Christian) is because there are a large number of Christians in the United States and Europe who accept the ideology of Christian Zionism. According to this fallacious line of thought, the Bible demands that Christians fan the smoldering fuze of World War III by supporting Israel’s depredations on its neighbors and minorities.123

Apparently, there are also another large number of Christians and non-Christians who accept the skewed theological beliefs of Susannah Heschel, as evidenced by the favorable—and utterly uncritical—reviews that her most recent book, The Aryan Jesus, received. One comes away from some of these naïve reviews wondering how such apparently intelligent and learned scholars could be so unthinking and spineless.124

Heschel’s deceptive claims and hypocritical racial double standards go unchallenged, at least in part, because in the contemporary world the Jewish-Zionist power elite wields enormous power, and they can brand any intellectual who deviates from their line with the dreaded “neo-Nazi” and “anti-Semite” labels. In regard to the “Holocaust” and other issues that involve National Socialism, the Jewish-Zionist power elite has enforced ideological conformity throughout much of the Western world. For the best interests of Christian nations and world peace, it is our duty, as Revisionists, to break down this Iron Curtain over the Western World.

  1. Michael Grant, The Jews in the Roman World(Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1973), p. xii.
  2. David Hume, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, 2nd ed., ed. Richard H. Popkin, (Hackett Publishing Company, 1980), p. viii.
  3. Abraham Joshua Heschel, Israel: An Echo of Eternity(Jewish Lights Publishing, 1995), p. xx. This is a reprint of the book originally published by Farrar, Straus and Giroux, Inc.
  4. Ibid, p. xxi.
  5. Uri Davis,Israel: An Apartheid State(Zed Books Ltd., 1987).
  6. Susannah Heschel, “Introduction.” In A. Heschel, Israel: An Echo of Eternity(Jewish Lights Publishing, 1995), pp. xvii-xxix.
  7. Ibid, pp. xxviii, 220.
  8. Ibid, p. xxviii.
  9. S. Heschel, “How Do We Pass on Our Jewishness?,”, 4 March 2004. Online:
  10. E.J. Kessler, “Zionist Election Has High Stakes, Strange Pairings,” Forward, 25 November 2005. Online:
  11. S. Heschel, Abraham Geiger and the Jewish Jesus(University of Chicago Press, 1998), p. xi.
  12. S. Heschel, The Aryan Jesus: Christian Theologians and the Bible in Nazi Germany (Princeton University Press, 2008), p. xvi.
  13. Ibid, p. 59.
  14. S. Heschel, “Post-Holocaust Jewish Reflections on German Theology.” In From the Unthinkable to the Unavoidable: American Christian and Jewish Scholars Encounter the Holocaust,ed. Carol Rittner and John K. Roth (Greenwood Press, 1997), pp. 57-58.
  15. Ibid, pp. 62-63.
  16. S. Heschel, The Aryan Jesus,p. 1; Susannah Heschel, Abraham Geiger and the Jewish Jesus, p. xi.
  17. S. Heschel, The Aryan Jesus, p. 16.
  18. A. Heschel, Israel: An Echo of Eternity, p. xxvi.
  19. Brett Popplewell, “A case for letting nature take back Auschwitz,” Toronto Star, 27 December 2009. Online:–a-case-for-letting-nature-take-back-auschwitz
  20. See “Katyn Massacre,” Wikipedia. Online:
  21. Fred A. Leuchter, Jr., Robert Faurisson, Germar Rudolf, The Leuchter Reports: Critical Edition (Theses & Dissertations Press, 2005). Online:
  22. Germar Rudolf, The Rudolf Report: Expert Report on Chemical and Technical Aspects of the ‘Gas Chambers’ of Auschwitz(Theses & Dissertations Press, 2003). Online:
  23. Carlo Mattogno and Jügen Graf, Treblinka: Extermination Camp or Transit Camp (Theses & Dissertations Press, 2005). Online: Jürgen Graf and Carlo Mattogno, Concentration Camp Majdanek: A Historical and Technical Study (Theses & Dissertations Press, 2003). Online: Carlo Mattogno, Bełżec: In Propaganda, Testimonies, Archeological Research, and History (Theses & Dissertations Press, 2004). Online:
  24. S. Heschel, Abraham Geiger and the Jewish Jesus, p. 3.
  25. Ibid.
  26. S. Heschel, “Jewish Studies as Counterhistory.” In Insider/Outsider: American Jews and Multiculturalism, ed., David Biale, Michael Galchinsky and Susan Heschel (University of California Press, 1998), pp. 101-102.
  27. Ibid, p. 112.
  28. George L. Mosse, The Crisis of German Ideology: Intellectual Origins of the Third Reich(Grosset & Dunlap, 1964), p. 37.
  29. S. Heschel, “Jewish Studies as Counterhistory,” p. 106.
  30. S. Heschel, The Aryan Jesus, p. 7n14, passim.
  31. S. Heschel, “College Ad Misses the Point,”, 24 October 2002. Online:
    See also S. Heschel, “Introduction.” In A. Heschel, Israel: An Echo of Eternity, pp. xxvii-xxviii.
  32. “Following in my father’s footsteps: Selma 40 years later,” Vox of Dartmouth, 4 April 2005. Online:
  33. Akiva Eldar, “U.S. State Department: Israel is not a tolerant society,”, 6 November 2009. Online:
  34. Jonathan Cook, “Lawsuit challenges Israel’s discriminatory citizenship definition,” The Electronic Intifada, 6 April 2010. Online:
  35. S. Heschel, “Introduction.” In A. Heschel, Israel: An Echo of Eternity, p. xxvii.
  36. Roselle Tekiner, Samir Abed-Rabbo, Norton Mezvinsky, eds., Anti-Zionism: Analytic Reflections (Amana Books, 1988); Uri Davis, Israel: An Apartheid State(Zed Books, LTD, 1987); The International Organization for the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination, Zionism and Racism (North American, 1979); Francis R. Nicosia, The Third Reich and the Palestine Question(University of Texas Press, 1985); Lenni Brenner, Zionism in the Age of the Dictators (Lawrence Hill, 1983); Regina Sharif, Non-Jewish Zionism: Its Roots in Western History (Zed Press, 1983).
  37. New York Herald Tribune, 13 June 1938, p. 12.
  38. S. Heschel, The Aryan Jesus, p. 66.
  39. Simha Flapan, The Birth of Israel: Myths and Realities (Pantheon Books, 1987); ILan Ilan Pappe, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine(Oneworld Publications, 2006).
  40. Quoted in Robert John, Behind the Balfour Declaration: The Hidden Origin of Today’s Mideast Crisis(Institute for Historical Review, 1988), p. 35.
  41. See Arthur Hertzberg, The Zionist Idea(Greenwood Press, 1959), pp. 219-220.
  42. Noam Sheizaf, “Out with Israel’s Old Left, in with the New,” Forward, 8 January 2010, p. 9.
  43. S. Heschel, Transforming Jesus from Jew to Aryan: Protestant Theologians in Nazi Germany(The Albert T. Bilgray Lecture, April 1995: The University of Arizona, Tuscon, Arizona), p. 2.
  44. Uri Davis, Israel: An Apartheid State, pp. 27-30.
  45. Ian Lustick, Arabs in the Jewish State; Israel’s Control of a National Minority(University of Texas Press, 1980), pp.93-94.
  46. Kevin MacDonald, Separation and Its Discontents: Toward an Evolutionary Theory of Anti-Semitism (Praeger Pulishers, 1998), pp. 133-175.
  47. S. Heschel, Transforming Jesus from Jew to Aryan, p. 2.
  48. S. Heschel, The Aryan Jesus, p. 5.
  49. Ibid, p. 20.
  50. S. Heschel, Transforming Jesus from Jew to Aryan, pp. 1-2, 7-8.
  51. S. Heschel, The Aryan Jesus, p. 127.
  52. S. Heschel, The Aryan Jesus, pp. 108-109, passim.
  53. S. Heschel, Transforming Jesus from Jew to Aryan, p. 2.
  54. S. Heschel, The Aryan Jesus, p. 4.
  55. Ibid, p.5.
  56. Ibid, pp. 1-2; S. Heschel, Transforming Jesus from Jew to Aryan, p. 7.
  57. S. Heschel, The Aryan Jesus, p.8.
  58. S. Heschel, Transforming Jesus from Jew to Aryan, p.5.
  59. S. Heschel, The Aryan Jesus, p. 2.
  60. Ibid, pp. 256-259.
  61. David B. Green, “A conversation with Susannah Heschel,”, 12 March 2009. Online:
  62. S. Heschel, The Aryan Jesus, p.20.
  63. S. Heschel, “Jewish Studies as Counterhistory,” p. 108.
  64. S. Heschel, “Theological Bulimia: Christianity and Its Dejudaization.” In After The Passion Is Gone: American Religious Consequences, ed. J. Shawn Landres and Michael Berenbaum (AltaMira Press, 2004), p. 180.
  65. Voltaire, Philosophical Dictionary, Translated, with an Introduction and Glossary by Peter Gay (Harcourt, Brace & World, 1962), pp. 240-241.
  66. Raul Hilberg, The Destruction of the European Jews: Student Edition(Holmes & Meier, 1985), pp. 5-6.
  67. S. Heschel, Abraham Geiger and the Jewish Jesus, p. 72.
  68. Michael Grant, The Jews in the Roman World, p. 156.
  69. Adin Steinsaltz, The Essential Talmud(Basic Books, 1976), p. 3.
  70. I. B. Pranaitis, The Talmud Unmasked: The Secret Rabbinical Teachings Concerning Christians, Translation of the Author’s Latin Text.
  71. Peter Shäfer, Jesus in the Talmud(Princeton University Press, 2007). See David Klinghoffer’s review of this book, “What the Talmud Really Says About Jesus,” Publisher’s Weekly, 31 January 2007. Online:
  72. Michael Grant, The Jews in the Roman World, p.212.
  73. S. Heschel, Transforming Jesus from Jew to Aryan, p.4.
  74. Rudolf Bultmann, Primitive Christianity In Its Contemporary Setting, Translated by the Reverend R.H. Fuller, (World Publishing, 1956); Robert M. Grant, Augustus to Constantine: The Thrust of the Christian Movement into the Roman World, (Harper & Row, 1970).
  75. S. Heschel, The Aryan Jesus, p. 191.
  76. Ibid, p. 20.
  77. S. Heschel, “Theological Bulimia: Christianity and Its Dejudaization,” p. 185.
  78. S. Heschel, The Aryan Jesus, p. 20.
  79. Ibid, p. 158.
  80. Susannah Heschel, “Jewish Studies as Counterhistory,” pp. 102-103.
  81. Ibid, p.107.
  82. Ibid, p.109.
  83. Ibid, p.110.
  84. Ibid, p.111.
  85. S. Heschel, Transforming Jesus from Jew to Aryan, p.7.
  86. Mark A. Chancey, The Myth of a Gentile Galilee (Cambridge University Press, 2002), p. 14-15; S. Heschel, The Aryan Jesus, pp. 26-66.
  87. See Mark A. Chancey, The Myth of a Gentile Galilee.
  88. S. Heschel, The Aryan Jesus, pp. 63-66; S. Heschel, “Theological Bulimia: Christianity and Its Dejudaization,” p. 185.
  89. S. Heschel, Abraham Geiger and the Jewish Jesus, p.137.
  90. Chancey, p. 173.
  91. Bruce Vawter, The Four Gospels: An Introduction, Vol. 1, (Image Books, 1967), p. 94.
  92. “Genealogy of Jesus,” Wikipedia. Online:
  93. S. Heschel, The Aryan Jesus, pp. 37, 42.
  94. Ibid, p.8.
  95. Ibid, p.8.
  96. Ibid, p.69.
  97. Ibid, p.50.
  98. Ibid, p.191.
  99. Michael Grant, The Jews in the Roman World, pp.157-158.
  100. S. Heschel, The Aryan Jesus, p.195.
  101. Ibid, p.11.
  102. S. Heschel, “How Do We Pass on Our Jewishness?”, 4 March 2004. Online:
  103. “The Zionist Federation of Germany Addresses the New German State.” In 51 Documents: Zionist Collaboration With the Nazis, ed. Lenni Brenner (Barricade Books, 2002), p. 44.
  104. Vladimir Jabotinsky, “A Letter on Autonomy” (1904). In 51 Documents: Zionist Collaboration With the Nazis, ed. Lenni Brenner, p.11.
  105. Dana Weiler-Polak, “WATCH: New ad campaign targets Jews ‘abducted’ by intermarriage,”, 2 September 2009. Online:
  106. Seth Freedman, “Israel’s vile anti-miscegenation squads,”, 29 September 2009. Online:
  107. Susannah Heschel, The Aryan Jesus, p. 19.
  108. Ibid, p.1.
  109. Ibid, p. 47.
  110. A. Heschel, Israel: An Echo of Eternity, p. 121.
  111. Ibid, p. 136.
  112. S. Heschel, The Aryan Jesus, pp. 198-199.
  113. Winston Churchill, “The Struggle for the Soul of the Jewish People,” The Illustrated Sunday Herald, 8 February 1920. Online:
  114. Benjamin Harshav, Language in the Time of Revolution( University of California Press, 1993), p. 43.
  115. Yuri Slezkine, The Jewish Century (Princeton University Press, 2004), p. 224.
  116. Arkady Vaksberg, Stalin against the Jews, Translated by Antonia W. Bouis, (Alfred A. Knopf, 1994), p. 98.
  117. S. Heschel, The Aryan Jesus, p. 14.
  118. Michael Grant, The Jews in the Roman World, p. 266.
  119. Israel Shahak, Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years(Pluto Press, 1994), pp. 97-98.
  120. S. Heschel, Abraham Geiger and the Jewish Jesus, p.136.
  121. S. Heschel, The Aryan Jesus, pp.1-2.
  122. Michael Grant, The Jews in the Roman World, p. 109.
  123. Dewey M. Beagle, Prophecy and Prediction (Ann Arbor, Michigan: Pryor Pettengill, 1978); Grace Halsell, Prophesy and Politics: The Secret Alliance between Israel and the U.S. Christian Right (Lawrence Hill, 1986); Regina S. Sharif, Non-Jewish Zionism: Its Roots in Western History (Zed Press, 1983); Stephen Sizer, Christian Zionism: Road-map to Armageddon?(Inter-Varsity Press, 2004).
  124. For example, see Daniel J. Harrington, “Suppressing All Jewishness,” America Magazine, 16 February 2009. Online:



( Fonte: )

Churchill, International Jews and the Holocaust: A Revisionist Analysis – by Paul Grubach

20 Ott

Churchill, International Jews and the Holocaust: A Revisionist Analysis

Paul Grubach

Copyright 2011

In the interests of fairness, Jeffrey Herf, whose work is here critiqued, was sent the following essay prior to its publication here, and asked to correct any possibly false or misleading statements. No response from Mr. Herf had been received by press time.


Winston Churchill played an important role in the history of the twentieth century. For this reason alone, it is important that revisionists re-examine the beliefs and historical forces that motivated this lionized British icon. By improving our understanding of Churchill’s views of and his relationship with the Holocaust and the powerful Jewish groups that played a decisive role in his career, we gain a more accurate view of the past and can use these lessons to hopefully make a more peaceful future for all.

This essay is based upon the studies of three well-known Jewish historians, and will focus only upon issues that most mainstream intellectuals ignore or are afraid to deal with. In 1985, Professor Michael J. Cohen published his obscure but well researched academic study, Churchill and the Jews. Churchill’s official biographer, Sir Martin Gilbert, published his more widely known Churchill and the Jews: A Lifelong Friendship in 2007, which inspired a recent Canadian movie documentary. Finally, we will be commenting upon some of the material included in Professor Jeffrey Herf’s “Holocaust classic,” The Jewish Enemy, published in 2006.1

Winston Churchill’s 1920 article, in which he highlighted the predominant Jewish role in the world-wide communist movement, is pretty well known. What is not discussed is how he misled his readers in essays and books published many years later. In many contemporary academic environments, it is held that the concept of “International Jewry”—groups of powerful Jews who operate on an international basis and feel that the world-wide Jewish community is united by racial bonds—is a “neo-Nazi” and “radically anti-Semitic” canard that should be immediately dismissed. Sir Winston and the British government showed us otherwise. Finally, it may raise the eyebrows of many when they find out what Churchill told the House of Commons in August 1946 about his knowledge of the Holocaust during the war.

Winston Churchill poses for air raid

Churchill poses for air raid warning circa 1940

By Library of Congress (Library of Congress) [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

Jews and Communism: Churchill’s Duplicity

During the early part of the twentieth century, Winston Churchill was very much aware of the decisive role that Jews played in the rise of Bolshevik Communism in Russia. Gilbert writes:

“He was familiar with the names and origins of all its leaders: Lenin was almost the only member of the Central Committee who was not of Jewish origin. Neither Churchill nor his colleagues, nor the Jews, knew that Lenin’s paternal grandfather was a Jew.” The Jewish historian adds an observation that, if stated by a non-Jew, could possibly earn him the dreaded “anti-Semite” label: “Churchill had studied the Bolshevik terror against political opponents, democrats and constitutionalists, and he knew the significant part individual Jews had played in establishing and maintaining the Bolshevik regime.”2

In a June 1919 telegram to a British general, Churchill pointed out the prominent role Jews played in the Bolshevik regime and the atrocities they were guilty of.3 In a 10 October 1919 letter to Lloyd George, Churchill again noted that Jews certainly “have played a leading role in Bolshevik atrocities.”4 Gilbert attempts to put this in historical context: “Not only was there a deeply anti-Semitic tradition in southern Russia and the Ukraine that had seen pogroms and massacres in both the seventeenth and nineteenth centuries, but after the Bolshevik revolution in November 1917 many Jews, hoping for a better break, had thrown in their lot with the Bolsheviks. A few Jews, whose deeds were much publicized and greatly feared, became political commissars, charged with the imposition of Bolshevik rule in southern Russia, and carrying out their tasks with cruelty and zeal.”5

Gilbert devotes a long discussion to Sir Winston’s famous 1920 article, “Zionism versus Bolshevism: A Struggle for the Soul of the Jewish People.”6 Churchill pointed out that left-wing Jews were a major force behind Communist Marxism in many parts of Europe and Russia, which ultimately brought horror and suffering to millions. He discussed:

“the schemes of the International Jews. The adherents of this sinister confederacy are mostly men reared up among the unhappy populations of countries where Jews are persecuted on account of their race. Most, if not all of them, have forsaken the faith of their forefathers, and divorced from their minds all spiritual hopes of the next world. This movement among the Jews is not new. From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxemburg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (United States), this world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing. It played, as a modern writer, Mrs. Webster, has so ably shown, a definitely recognizable part in the tragedy of the French Revolution. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century; and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire.”7

Churchill specifically stated that Jewish Marxists were causing major problems in Germany. He wrote:

“The same phenomenon [i.e., Jewish involvement with left-wing and Communist movements] has been presented in Germany (especially in Bavaria), so far as this madness has been allowed to prey upon the temporary prostration of the German people. Although in all these countries there are many non-Jews every whit as bad as the worst of the Jewish revolutionaries, the part played by the latter in proportion to their numbers is astonishing.”8

More recent scholarship has vindicated some of Churchill’s views. Jewish-American political scientists Stanley Rothman and S. Robert Lichter, and anti-National-Socialist historian Robert Payne documented the decisive role that Jews played in far left and Communist movements in Germany prior to World War II, although they may not believe that Jewish influence was as destructive as Churchill believed it to be.9

Despite Churchill’s 1920 exposé of the decisive Jewish involvement with Communism, in a November 1935 article he criticized Hitler and the German National Socialists for believing that Jews “were the main prop of communism.”10 Of course, this is precisely what Churchill had stated in “Zionism versus Bolshevism: A Struggle for the Soul of the Jewish People,” when he wrote:

“There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution, by these international and for the most part atheistical Jews. It is certainly a very great one; it probably outweighs all others. With the notable exception of Lenin, the majority of the leading figures are Jews [Gilbert pointed out that Lenin’s paternal grandfather was a Jew. Ed.]. Moreover, the principal inspiration and driving power comes from the Jewish leaders.”11

Furthermore, in his famous book, The Gathering Storm, written after the Second World War and widely regarded as a “classic,” Churchill again misled his readers. He insinuated that Hitler and his followers engaged in “delusional thinking” when they claimed that Jews played a major and destructive role in German Communist and Left wing groups. Describing the alleged fantasies of Hitler in regard to Jewish influence prior to and during the First World War, Churchill wrote: “As in a dream everything suddenly became clear [to Hitler]. Germany had been stabbed in the back and clawed down by the Jews, by the profiteers and intriguers behind the front, by the accursed Bolsheviks in their international conspiracy of Jewish intellectuals.”12 In fact, there is nothing in this “masterpiece” about the decisive role that Jews played in German communism, the international Bolshevik movement, and the threat this posed to Germany and the world, which Churchill had so vividly complained about in decades past.

On this issue, Churchill was deceitful. In 1935, he criticized National Socialists for holding beliefs that he himself had propounded years earlier. In 1948, when criticism of Jewish influence became taboo, he implied that the National Socialist idea of Bolshevism being a world-wide conspiracy of left-wing Jews that wreaked havoc in Germany was all a “paranoid fantasy.” He dishonestly failed to point out that this is very similar to what he emphatically stated in his 1920 article.

Churchill, the British Government, and the Reality of International Jewry

In his widely known works on National Socialist Germany, Jeffrey Herf asserts that the concept of “International Jewry” is a paranoid fantasy of “radical anti-Semites.” This allegedly false notion “rested on the belief that the Jews were a cohesive, politically active subject—that is, a group united on a global scale by racial bonds that transcended any allegiance to nation-states.”13 Of course, enlightened people of today should immediately reject this “canard.” The University of Maryland professor insists that Hitler was delusional, as he believed “International Jewry” to be an “actually existing political subject with vast power that was hostile to Germany.”14 According to Herf’s politically correct mode of thought, a world-wide Jewish entity that transcends the boundaries of nation-states had no existence whatsoever before, during or after the Second World War. Winston Churchill’s statements and behavior, and that of the British government, show us otherwise.

We remind the reader that in his 1920 article, “Zionism versus Bolshevism: A Struggle for the Soul of the Jewish People,” Churchill referred directly to the “schemes of International Jews,” their “sinister confederacy” and “world-wide conspiracy.” Historian Gilbert, relying upon Churchill, defines “International Jews” as “those Jews who supported Bolshevik rule inside Russia and Bolshevik revolution beyond its borders.”15 (As we shall soon see, this is an incomplete and inadequate definition of the term, “International Jews.” To cite just one problem, it does not include international Jewish Zionists who were opposed to Bolshevism.)

What was the goal of these “International Jews?” Churchill believed that they were seeking “a world-wide communistic State under Jewish domination.”16 It is important to note that in The Gathering Storm, he correctly imputed this very belief to Adolf Hitler. In Churchill’s description, Mein Kampf promoted the idea that the aim of Soviet communism was the triumph of international Judaism.17 Of course, Churchill never informed his readers of the striking similarity between his 1920 article and Hitler’s book on this issue.

Professor Herf apparently believes that only “radical anti-Semites” promoted the concept of “International Jewry”—but Winston Churchill was a philo-Semite and Gentile Zionist who worked for Jewish interests his entire career, and was accused of being “too fond of Jews” by his friend and fellow parliamentarian General Sir Edward Louis Spears.18

In November 1917, the British Foreign Office issued the Balfour Declaration. It read: “His Majesty’s Government view with favor the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country”19 Gilbert reveals the beliefs that moved the British government to issue the Declaration: “The War Cabinet hoped that, inspired by the promise of a national home in Palestine, Russian Jews would encourage Russia—then in the throes of revolution—to stay in the war, and that American Jews would be stimulated to accelerate the military participation of the United States—already at war, but not yet in the battlefield. To secure these results, [Jewish-Zionist diplomat] Weizmann agreed to go first to the United States and then to Russia, to lead a campaign to rouse the pro-war sentiments among the Jewish masses in both countries.”20

In 1921, Churchill reiterated the British government’s position on the Balfour Declaration. One of the main reasons that it was issued is because the assistance of Jews from various parts of the world was needed to induce the nation states in which they lived to enter the war on Great Britain’s side.21 A similar agenda motivated Churchill during the late 1930s: he believed continuing British support for a Jewish home in Palestine would motivate American Jewry to help bring the United States to Britain’s side in the expected war with Germany. Here is a quote from a December 1939 Churchill memorandum:

“…it was not for light or sentimental reasons that Lord Balfour and the Government of 1917 made the promises to the Zionists which have been the cause of so much subsequent discussion. The influence of American Jewry was rated then as a factor of the highest importance, and we did not feel ourselves in such a strong position as to be able to treat it with indifference. Now, in the advent of [an American] Presidential election, and when the future is full of measureless uncertainties, I should have thought it was more necessary, even than in November, 1917, to conciliate American Jewry and enlist their aid in combating isolationist and indeed anti-British tendencies in the United States.”22

In order that there is no misunderstanding, we will quote Professor Cohen:

“[Churchill] believed that the Zionist movement commanded powerful political and economic influence, particularly in the United States. As late as in December, 1939, he lectured his cabinet colleagues on the important role Zionists could play in mobilizing American resources to the British war effort. He told them that it had not been for light or sentimental reasons that the Government had issued the Balfour Declaration in 1917, but in order to mobilize American support. In 1939, Churchill believed that history would repeat itself, that the Zionists, via their proxies across the Atlantic, could be influential in accelerating the vitally needed early entry of the Americans into the war.”23

Churchill’s beliefs regarding “international Jews” had validity: certain groups of Jews from one continent did engage in political actions that served the interests of Jews on other continents. As historian of the American film industry Neal Gabler pointed out in his An Empire of Their Own: How the Jews Invented Hollywood, Jewish screen writers and movie executives in Hollywood USA were concerned about the plight of their Jewish brethren across the ocean in Europe.24 These important Hollywood figures held a meeting in early 1936 during which they discussed what was to be done to combat Hitler’s Germany. Film producer David Selznick wanted to fight against Hitler “in the usual Jewish way of being on the fringes and not letting yourself appear as involved in it.” He further suggested: “Don’t get too public. Do it quietly. Behind the scenes.” Apparently, other screen industry figures present wanted to conduct a more open and straightforward campaign.25

In autumn 1936, the more conservative Jewish film industry figures began launching “tentative attacks upon the Hitler regime.”26 Film producer and studio executive Louis B. Mayer warned that war in Europe was looming, and he urged the United States to join forces with Britain. Before the US declared war following the Pearl Harbor attack in December 1941, certain Hollywood Jews were willing to use their influence to incite a pro-war sentiment in the United States. In a 20 May 1940 memo to President Roosevelt from studio executive Harry Warner, the latter stated: “[P]ersonally we would like to do all in our power within the motion picture industry and by use of the talking screen to show the American people the worthiness of the cause for which the free peoples of Europe are making such tremendous sacrifices.” A few months later motion picture mogul Nick Schenck offered to place his entire studio in the service of President Roosevelt’s campaign for war with Germany.27

Here we have another example showing the reality of International Jewry, as Churchill would have conceived of it. Viewing the fight against Hitler’s Germany as in the interests of Jews everywhere, Hollywood executives put their powerful instruments of mass persuasion in the USA in the service of Churchill’s across-the-Atlantic campaign for war with Germany.28 As Professor Cohen so rightly noted: “Until the American entry [into the Second World War], Jewish influence was naturally at its highest premium, as a solid force countering neutralist forces in the United States [groups that opposed US involvement in a war with Germany].”29

In March 1922, on Churchill’s instructions, the Middle East Department issued a defense of the Balfour Declaration. They wanted the Jewish National Home in Palestine to “become a centre in which Jewish people as a whole may take, on grounds of religion and race, an interest and a pride [emphasis added].”30 Churchill discussed the Zionist desire to build a Jewish state in Palestine in his 3 September 1937 Jewish Chronicle article: this political entity would serve as a “rallying point for Jews in every part of the world.”31

The reader should take special note of the beliefs that Churchill and his British government acted upon. At the time of the Balfour Declaration in 1917, the English promise to support a Jewish national home in Palestine would be used to enlist the aid of Jews from Russia and the United States to encourage their respective countries to keep fighting the First World War. In addition, an international Zionist diplomat would travel to these two nations to arouse pro-war feelings. Similar beliefs motivated Churchill in the 1930s prior to the Second World War. Supposedly, Jewish proxies across the Atlantic would help bring the US onto the British side in a war with Germany.

But just as importantly, the Jewish National Home would be of interest to Jews on the basis of race and religion, an entity that would galvanize Jewish support from all parts of the globe.32 Significantly enough, this is very similar to the viewpoint of German National Socialist Foreign Minister Constantin von Neurath, who said that a Jewish state in Palestine would provide an internationally recognized power base for Jews world-wide, like the Vatican for Catholics or Moscow for international communists.33

Directly refuting Jeffrey Herf and those who think like him, by enacting policies such as these, Winston Churchill and the British government clearly realized that many powerful and influential groups of Jews throughout the world in fact saw themselves as “a cohesive, politically active subject—that is, a group united on a global scale by racial bonds.” In other words, the entity “International Jewry” does in fact exist, although not all Jews should be considered a part of it.34 There are Jews from all parts of the world who feel little or no attachment whatsoever to any world-wide Jewish community. Nevertheless, this belief that Jews are an internationally organized, racial entity has survived the Second World War and is still held by many Jewish groups world-wide, influencing Zionist and Israeli thinking to this very day. One example should suffice to demonstrate my point.

A convinced believer in the traditional view of the Holocaust, Dr. Herf claims: “The radical anti-Semitism that accompanied and justified the Holocaust described Jews first and foremost as a racially constituted political subject.”35 Well lo and behold! Something strikingly like this “radical anti-Semitic idea” has led to Israel’s interest in scientific studies that delineate genetic/racial differences between Jews and non-Jews.

In an article that appeared in Natural History of November 1993, renowned Jewish scientist Jared Diamond discussed the genetic studies on how Jews differ from non-Jews. He made this astounding statement: “There are also practical reasons for interest in Jewish genes. The state of Israel has been going to much expense to support immigration and job retraining of Jews who were persecuted minorities in other countries. That immediately poses the problem of defining who is a Jew.”36 According to Diamond, Israeli policy asserts that Jews are a racially constituted political subject: they differ from non-Jews on a genetic/racial basis, and these biological differences may be used to determine who will be granted citizenship in the political entity of Israel.

The reader may scratch his head in wonder, asking: “So why do intellectuals like Jeffrey Herf deny the reality of International Jewry?” In the Twentieth Century, the Jewish community has emerged as one of the most powerful elements in the United States and Europe.37 If they become widely viewed as an international, racially constituted political entity that is separate and distinct from the surrounding culture, this could create suspicion and distrust in the minds of the non-Jewish peoples they reside among. Non-Jews might start saying: “Since certain segments of the Jews are separate and distinct from us and they form a hostile and alien elite, perhaps they should not wield the power over our society that they have.” If such ideas ever attained widespread legitimacy, it might spawn political and social movements that could bring about a marked reduction in Jewish power and influence. Jeffrey Herf’s denial of the existence of International Jewry may be based in a desire to maintain the Jewish community’s elite status in the Western world.

Churchill and Holocaust Revisionism

In June of 1941, British code-breakers at Bletchley Park were intercepting and reading the most secret communications of the German enemy. Gilbert claims that decoded top-secret messages about the alleged mass murder of Jews and non-Jews in the German-occupied Soviet Union were shown to Churchill. In response, the Prime Minister emphatically stated in his radio broadcast of 24 August 1941, that “whole districts are being exterminated,” and concluded with this judgment: “We are in the presence of a crime without a name.”38

On August 27, and September 1, 6, and 11, 1941, Churchill was shown German police decrypts reporting on the execution of thousands of Jews on Soviet territory.39 This information is consistent with the Holocaust revisionist position. As far back as the mid-1970s, Revisionist scholar Arthur Butz made the point that this is the one part of the Holocaust legend that contains a kernel of truth. During the war between Germany and the Soviet Union, thousands of Jews and non-Jews were shot by German police units and auxiliaries of local police in their attempt to stop the guerilla warfare being waged against them.40 Brutality was practiced by both the Soviets and the Germans.

On 27 August 1941, the Bletchley Park code-breakers informed Churchill: “The fact that the [German] Police [in the Soviet Union] are killing all Jews that fall into their hands should by now be sufficiently well appreciated. It is not therefore proposed to continue reporting these butcheries specifically, unless so requested.”41

Gilbert admits there is nothing in Bletchley Park decrypts about the alleged mass shooting of 33,000 Jews at Babi Yar near Kiev in September 1941. Therefore, should one conclude that this atrocity never took place? Not according to Gilbert: he says that German police units in Russia were cautioned by Berlin “not to compromise their ciphers.”42 Gilbert encourages his readers to conclude that this alleged mass killing took place, although supposedly a top-secret message about it was never sent out.

Gilbert believes that Churchill received sufficient details from other sources about the mass killing of Jews in the Soviet Union, and in response, sent the Jewish Chronicle a personal message, which was published in full on 14 November 1941. It read in part: “None has suffered more cruelly than the Jew,” and he referred to “the unspeakable evils wrought on the bodies and spirits of men by Hitler and his vile regime.”43

In London on 29 October 1942, Christian and Jewish leaders led a public protest against the alleged mass murders of Jews that were supposedly taking place in the German concentration camps. Churchill, who was in the United States at the time, addressed the gathering by way of a letter that was read by the Archbishop of Canterbury. It stated in part:

“I cannot refrain …to protest against the Nazi atrocities inflicted on the Jews…The systematic cruelties to which the Jewish people—men, women, and children—have been exposed under the Nazi regime are amongst the most terrible events of history, and place an indelible stain upon all who perpetuate and instigate them. Free men and women denounce these vile crimes…”44

In December 1942, Churchill was shown a report from a Polish Catholic member of the Resistance, Jan Karski. He claimed to have seen Jews being forced with great brutality into cattle cars, and then taken to an unknown “extermination location.”45 In response, Anthony Eden of the War Cabinet wanted to issue a public declaration. “It was known,” he asserted, “that Jews were being transferred to Poland from enemy-occupied countries, for example, Norway: and it might be that these transfers were being made with a view to wholesale extermination of Jews.”46 (Notice that Eden said the exterminations “might be” happening, and not that they were in fact happening. This suggests that he was skeptical of the “evidence” regarding the alleged mass exterminations of Jews. More on Eden in a moment.)

The Allied Declaration, supported by Great Britain, the United States, the Soviet Union, and other members of the Allied cause, was published on 17 December 1942, and it had considerable political impact, just as Churchill wished. Its central paragraph condemned “in the strongest possible terms” what was described as “this bestial policy of cold-blooded extermination.”47

On 19 December 1942, Polish-Jewish official Samuel Zygielbojm appealed to Churchill to save the one and a quarter million Polish Jews who were still alive and were in danger of “being exterminated” by the Germans. As Cohen points out, there is no record of any reply from Churchill, and no Allied operation was initiated to halt the alleged slaughter.48

In June 1944, Churchill viewed a Jewish Agency report on the workings of the alleged “Nazi gas chambers” in the concentration camps. He sent a memorandum to Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden, asking: “Foreign Secretary, what can be done? What can be said?” The evidence indicates that Churchill wanted to issue another Allied threat of retribution, but the Foreign Office said that too many such pronouncements had already been made.49

On 6 July 1944, Foreign Secretary Eden informed Churchill of an appeal he received from Zionist diplomat Chaim Weizmann, that the British government should take steps to mitigate the “appalling slaughter of Jews in Hungary.”50 We let Professor Cohen pick up the story here:

“Now Weizmann reported mistakenly that 60,000 Jews were being gassed and burned to death each day at Birkenau (the death camp at Auschwitz II). Eden told Churchill that this figure might well be an exaggeration. But on the next day, Eden forwarded an additional report to Churchill, describing the four crematoria at the camp, with a gassing and burning capacity of 60,000 each day. Some 40,000 Hungarian Jews had already been deported and killed there. Over the past one year and a half, some one-and-a-half million Jews had been done to death in the camp.”51

Cohen, a firm believer in the traditional version of the Holocaust, still highlighted the exaggerations in the story. Buried in a footnote he writes; “It seems that the Zionist figure of 60,000 per day, should in fact have been 6,000.”52 As of the date of this writing, even anti-Revisionist Holocaust historians would point out that the figure of 1,500,000 Jews being murdered at Auschwitz-Birkenau is another exaggeration of around 540,000 deaths! Robert Jan van Pelt, widely considered to be a contemporary expert on the alleged mass murder of Jews at this concentration camp, wrote in 2002 that total number of Jewish deaths at the site was 960,000.53 The important lesson here is this: we have evidence from a respected academic source that, during the war, Churchill was being handed exaggerated atrocity information, to say the very least.

On 7 July 1944, Churchill approved the bombing of Auschwitz by the British Air Force, but the operation was never carried out.54 Four days later, on 11 July, Churchill issued his oft-quoted declaration on the Holocaust: “There is no doubt that this is probably the greatest and most horrible crime ever committed in the whole history of the world, and it has been done by scientific machinery by nominally civilized men in the name of a great State and one of the leading races of Europe.”55

At the end of August 1944, Churchill’s son showed his father a copy of the full report of four escapees from the Auschwitz “extermination camp,” an official document that had been published a month and a half earlier by the War Refugee Board in Washington. Before this, Churchill had only seen a summary version. Gilbert comments: “Not for the first time, Randolph had alerted his father to an aspect of the Jewish fate that had not reached the Prime Minister through official channels.”56

Gilbert points out that in the latter part of 1944, Berlin issued a statement denouncing at least some of the reports about the deportations to Auschwitz, claiming they were “false from beginning to end.”57 Gilbert is unclear on exactly what the Germans were claiming to be false.

Despite all of the authoritative declarations Churchill made or supported during the war with regard to the “reality” of the Nazi extermination of the Jews, when the war ended he made an astonishing statement that casts doubt on the sincerity of all of these wartime pronouncements. In a speech before the House of Commons on 1 August 1946, he emphatically declared that he knew nothing of the alleged Nazi mass murder of Jews while the Second World War was taking place. We quote him verbatim: “I must say that I had no idea, when the war came to an end, of the horrible massacres which had occurred; the millions and millions that have been slaughtered. That dawned on us gradually after the struggle was over.”58

As far back as 1985, Professor Cohen stated the dilemma in these terms. He says it is debatable how familiar the Prime Minister was with the Intelligence information regarding the alleged Nazi extermination camps, but by “July, 1944 at the very latest, Churchill was supplied by the Zionists with very precise details of the murderous capacity of Auschwitz.”59 In light of this, Cohen asks, how should we interpret Churchill’s August 1946 denial of knowledge of the mass murder of Europe’s Jews during the war?60

The reader should take careful note of the implications of Churchill’s words. If Sir Winston was not aware during the war of the alleged mass killings of Jews, and if he and his associates realized only after the war ended that these supposed mass murders took place, then all of his “authoritative” declarations we listed above about the mass murder of Jews taking place during the war were just unconfirmed and baseless allegations in his estimation.

Bizarre inconsistencies like this are exactly what the Holocaust Revisionist hypothesis would predict, and this is why even the most anti-Revisionist reader should consider Churchill’s statements from a Revisionist perspective. Revisionism states that many of the wartime claims of the Allies and Zionists in regard to the alleged extermination of the Jews were simply false propaganda, designed to serve ulterior Allied and Zionist political agendas.

Churchill was well aware that representations of the Jewish fate at the hands of the Germans were linked to plans for a Zionist state in Palestine. Indeed, Gilbert points out: “In Churchill’s mind, the Jewish fate in Europe and the Jewish future in Palestine were inextricably linked.”61 In his seminal Revisionist work The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, Arthur Butz made a somewhat parallel point: “”The Zionist character of the [Nazi extermination] propaganda is quite clear; note that, as a rule, the persons who were pressing for measures to remove Jews from Europe (under the circumstances a routine and understandable proposal) coupled such proposals with demands that such Jews be resettled in Palestine, which shows that there was much more in the minds of Zionist propagandists than mere assistance to refugees and victims of persecution.”62

Throughout his entire book, Gilbert discusses how the unrelenting Churchill, being wedded to Zionist policy, was up against the resistance of many factions within his own government and from around the world who were opposed to establishing a Jewish state in Palestine. They realized it would end in disaster for the indigenous people of the Middle East and for British interests in general.63 In a situation such as this, one can readily see how “Nazi extermination” propaganda would be useful to Churchill—it would silence opposition to Zionist aims and create mass sympathy for the future Jewish state.64 There is evidence that is consistent with this interpretation. In December 1942, Colonial Secretary Oliver Stanley put the request to the Prime Minister that 4500 Bulgarian Jewish children, with 500 accompanying adults, be allowed to exit Bulgaria for Palestine, adding that British pubic opinion had been “much roused by the recent reports of the systematic extermination of the Jews in Axis and Axis-controlled countries.” Churchill replied: “Bravo!”65

Professor Cohen notes the strange inconsistency between Winston Churchill’s public statements about the Holocaust and his lack of action to do anything to stop it: “But against the frequent expression of his horror at Nazi crimes, one must record the almost total absence of any meaningful gesture or action by him to save Hitler’s Jewish victims—either when in Opposition, or in the position of supreme power, which was his from 1940 to 1945.”66

I ask the most hard-core believer in the traditional Holocaust story to ponder this dilemma. During the war, Churchill was making authoritative pronouncements about the “etched-in-stone” fact of the Nazi extermination of the Jews—and after the war, he tells British parliament that he had no idea such “exterminations” took place during the war, and only realized their “reality” after the war was ended! To say the least, Churchill’s statements are consistent with the point that Professor Butz made decades ago: the first claims about the “Nazi extermination of the Jews” made during the war were not based on one scrap of credible intelligence data.67

Butz’s revisionist hypothesis is further supported by the fact that even academic “Holocaust experts” will have to admit that, during the war, Churchill was handed exaggerated data in regard to the number of Jewish deaths, as we have shown in this essay. Finally, Churchill’s public outcries regarding the alleged Nazi extermination of the Jews were declarations that, “coincidentally,” served British and Zionist military and political agendas.

We will end here with a short note regarding Churchill’s 1 August 1946 statement that the “reality” of the Holocaust “dawned on us gradually after the struggle was over.”68 Gilbert points out that Churchill used what was found at some German concentration camps at the war’s end as “proof” of the “Holocaust.”69 A thorough discussion of this is beyond the scope of this short essay, so I refer the reader to the Revisionist studies of the topic.70

  1. Michael J. Cohen, Churchill and the Jews (Frank Cass, 1985); Martin Gilbert, Churchill and the Jews: A Lifelong Friendship (Henry Holt, 2007); Jeffrey Herf, The Jewish Enemy: Nazi Propaganda During World War II and the Holocaust(Belknap Press, 2006).
  2. Gilbert, p. 37.
  3. Ibid., p.31.
  4. Ibid., p.33.
  5. Ibid., p.31.
  6. Winston Churchill, “Zionism versus Bolshevism: A Struggle for the Soul of the Jewish People,” Illustrated Sunday Herald, 8 February 1920. Online: reproduces the article in facsimile, but it is virtually unreadable.
  7. Ibid..
  8. Gilbert, pp. 40-41.
  9. Stanley Rothman and S. Robert Lichter, Roots of Radicalism: Jews, Christians and the New Left (Oxford University Press, 1982), pp.84-89; Robert Payne, The Life and Death of Adolf Hitler(Popular Library, 1973), pp.124-125.
  10. Gilbert, p. 104.
  11. Ibid., p.40.
  12. Winston S. Churchill, The Gathering Storm(Bantam Books, 1948), p.48.
  13. Herf, p.7.
  14. Ibid., p.3.
  15. Gilbert, p.40.
  16. Ibid., p.42.
  17. Churchill, p.51.
  18. Gilbert, p.xv.
  19. Ibid., p.27.
  20. Ibid., p.28.
  21. Ibid., pp.69, 78-79, 112.
  22. Cohen, p.195; Gilbert, p.165.
  23. Cohen, p.328.
  24. Neal Gabler, An Empire of Their Own: How the Jews Invented Hollywood(Crown Publishers, 1988), p.342.
  25. Ibid..
  26. Ibid., p.343.
  27. Ibid., p.343.
  28. Ibid., pp.342-343.
  29. Cohen, pp.186-187.
  30. Gilbert, p.74.
  31. Ibid., p.132.
  32. Gilbert, p.132.
  33. Quoted in Francis R. Nicosia, The Third Reich and the Palestine Question(University of Texas Press, 1985), p.121.
  34. For a further discussion of this topic, see Paul Grubach, “Does ‘International Jewry’ Exist?: Grubach Contra Herf.” Online:
  35. Herf, p.265.
  36. Jared Diamond, “Who Are the Jews?,” Natural History, November 1993, pp. 12-19.
  37. The following is just a small sample of the works that document Jewish power and influence in the Western world. Alexander Bloom, Prodigal Sons: The New York Intellectuals and Their World (Oxford University Press, 1986); Neal Gabler, An Empire of Their Own: How the Jews Invented Hollywood (Crown Publishers, 1988); Benjamin Ginsberg, The Fatal Embrace: Jews and the State (University of Chicago Press, 1993); Ernest van den Haag, The Jewish Mystique (Stein and Day, 1969); Jacob Heilbrunn, They Knew They Were Right: The Rise of the Neocons (Doubleday, 2008); Paul Findley, They Dare to Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront the Israeli Lobby (Lawrence Hill & Co., 1985); Arthur Liebman, Jews and the Left (John Wiley & Sons, 1979); Alfred Lilienthal, The Zionist Connection II: What Price Peace? (North American, 1982); Kevin MacDonald, The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements (Praeger, 1998); Kevin MacDonald, Cultural Insurrections: Essays on Western Civilization, Jewish Influence, and Anti-Semitism (The Occidental Press, 2007); Janine Roberts, “The Influence of Israel in Westminster,” The Palestine Chronicle , 24 May 2008. Online:; Stanley Rothman and S. Robert Lichter, Roots of Radicalism: Jews, Christians, and the New Left (Oxford University Press, 1982); Charles Silberman, A Certain People: American Jews and Their Lives Today(Summit Books, 1985).
  38. Gilbert, p.186.
  39. Ibid., pp.186-187.
  40. Arthur R. Butz, The Hoax of the Twentieth Century: The Case Against the Presumed Extermination of European Jewry (Theses & Dissertations Press, 2003), pp.241-242. Online:
  41. Gilbert, p.186.
  42. Ibid., p.187.
  43. Ibid., p.187.
  44. Gilbert, p.192.
  45. Ibid., p.194.
  46. Ibid., p.195,
  47. Ibid..
  48. Cohen, p.271.
  49. Ibid., p.290.
  50. Ibid., p.294.
  51. Ibid..
  52. Ibid., p.368fn120.
  53. Robert Jan van Pelt, The Case for Auschwitz: Evidence from the Irving Trial(Indiana University Press, 2002), p.116.
  54. Cohen, pp. 294-296.
  55. Cohen, p. 291; Gilbert, pp.215, 216.
  56. Gilbert, p.219.
  57. Ibid., p.220.
  58. Gilbert, p. 257; Cohen, pp. 266-267.
  59. Cohen, p.267.
  60. Ibid., p.268.
  61. Gilbert, p.188.
  62. Butz, p.114.
  63. Gilbert, pp. 46, 58-59, 71-72, 76, 77, 78, 93, 102, 117, 144, 154, 157, 202, 205, 222, 229, 230, 232, 235, 237, 246, 249, 285.
  64. Ibid., pp. 109, 180, 213, 243, 245, 257.
  65. Ibid., p.193.
  66. Cohen, p.325.
  67. Butz, p.113.
  68. Gilbert, p.257; Cohen, p.267.
  69. Gilbert, pp.240-241.
  70. A good place to start would be Ernst Gauss, ed., Dissecting the Holocaust: The Growing Critique of “Truth” and “Memory” (Theses & Dissertations Press, 2000), pp. 285-309.


( Fonte: )