Subtitle: (An examination of) Raul Hilberg and his Standard Work on the “Holocaust”
Reading the Charles Weber booklet led me to this one. It is 118 pages though very well sourced, published in 2001, the author is a European professor, and thankfully, Graf never uses the word “Aryan” anywhere, unlike Weber. Graf investigates Raul Hilberg’s 1961 work THE DESTRUCTION OF THE EUROPEAN JEWS upon which, says Graf, lay the foundation upon the entire orthodox belief in a Nazi Holocaust of the Jews and the resulting number of 6 million deaths.
I had never before heard of this Raul Hilberg fellow and am not much of a student of this particular history; not yet anyway. But assuming I had heard of this Raul Hilberg fellow, I would certainly have assumed that the level of scholarship behind the book would be creditable. However, Graf shows that Hilberg’s research was far from creditable. I had no idea that the main book upon which the world now bases “the Holocaust” and the number of 6 million (assuming Graf is right about even this–like I said, this is my first foray into this history–this REVISIONIST history) was written with such lack of regard for concrete investigation.
First, Graf writes that Hilberg never did any actual concrete research of the historical places; in fact, Graf writes that Hilberg never did any research that did not come out of a book; Graf, citing another revisionist historian, calls Hilberg a purely “paper historian.” Furthermore; Graf writes that there is a standard procedure of serious historical investigation, with some forms of evidence being valued as more reliable by serious academics; and, writes Graf, serious academics hold that the lowest or least reliable form of historical evidence comes from eyewitnesses; yet apparently Hilberg flipped all this upright and placed eyewitness testimony as being the most important. Moreover, Graf writes that the eyewitness testimony Hilberg provides nearly all came from ex-Nazis who were being tortured by the Allies at the time and therefore might have confessed to anything. In addition, Graf writes that what these tortured eyewitnesses confessed to and claimed does not match up with the known concrete facts such as the aerial photography of the geographic terrain involved, and the mathematics of how many Jews were there to begin with in the several European nations involved versus how many Jews were left there after WWII or who had been known to have emigrated prior to that. Oh, and then there is the fact that a great many of the claims of these tortured, ex-Nazi “eyewitnesses of the Holocaust” also defy certain, and very basic, laws of physics.
Although Jurgen Graf has convinced this reader that the number of 6 million is probably a gross exaggeration (as, in truth, I suppose I had suspected all along), I do not know that I am ready to embrace Graf’s other claim, the one that necessarily goes further, the one that states that there was no general policy on the part of Hitler and the S.S. to extirminate Jewish people. Graf does once admit that a figure of almost–but certainly not more than–one million Jewish people may have been killed by the horrendous events of those places during that epoch, but he maintains that there never was any order of “final solution” which equated to extirmination. Like all of his other claims, he does offer documentary evidence to support this. However, for this reader, here Graf makes an even more compelling point just in his logic alone: Such as reminding the reader of how notoriously well-organized and assiduous the Nazis–and the German people as a culture–were and are; and then he reminds the reader how any government policy, or any huge group of people with rules and tasks before them, must needs have a very detailed plan of instructions if those tasks which the leaders want done are going to be carried out correctly by the vast numbers of distant underlings at multitudes of different levels. Instructions would have to be written out for each level in the pyramid of governmental power, top to bottom and everything in between. This is how governments operate. Yet, writes Graf, neither Hilberg nor any other orthodox Holocaust writer has ever been able to produce one single shred of a document showing that Hitler, or even subordinate S.S. commanders, had ordered the physical destruction of the Jews as is claimed by these orthodox Holocaust writers. Graf writes that there are a few lame attempts to ascribe this total lack of documentary evidence to the Nazis being really really good and fast at shredding and burning up incriminating documents in the nick of time towards the end of WWII, but Graf shows how this position is entirely untenable, and notes how, instead, the orthodox Holocaust writers more often just gloss over this glaring lack of evidence as though it is a mere trifle.
This is a compelling book. I am not sure what to do with it. And I still believe, as LH Lehman and other suppressed historians have shown, that Hitler was working for the Vatican and Hitler was at the very least instructed by the Vatican to make things really hot for the Jews in order that the Jews would opt to be sent to Israel so that, now in our own day and for however long it takes, the Vatican can manipulate this situation and ultimately wrest control for itself of all of Jerusalem (and note: in 1993, Shimon Peres ceded the majority of Jerusalem to the Vatican in the Oslo Accords, and that is a FACT, however little known it may be; see the work of Barry Chamish on that). Nobody plans for long term like the Vatican does. Nobody.
So no, I do not know what to do with this. I no longer believe the orthodox teaching of 6 million European Jews being murdered. Not 6 million. That much I do know. Unless Graf is lying about the whole thing. I should read Hilberg’s book first before making up my mind. Yes, I know. That would be the conscientious and painstaking thing to do; maybe some day I will. However, just knowing that the Hilberg book is accepted by the majority while researchers like Graf are scoffed at or silenced by the majority tells me that Graf is probably telling the truth and Hilberg’s level of scholarship was indeed a sham. As is the motto for this site (which was lifted from Henrik Ibsen): The Majority is Always Wrong! I only wish that was not a truism, but I have found it to be so. Have I ever indeed.
Rating: Δ Δ Δ