DisInfoWars with Tom Secker: False Flag Operations in WW2

Continuing our exploration into the origins and development of false flag operations, this week we look at World War 2 and the British Double Cross System. Run by an Oxford academic, this system was set up to detect Nazi agents as they landed in Britain and turn them into double agents working for the British. To help maintain the cover the Special Operations Executive carried out false flag sabotage attacks, to give the appearance that the agents were still loyal to the Nazis and carrying out their missions. Using MI5 documents from the period this episode examines how senior security service officials discussed how these bombings caused a useful 'stimulation of security consciousness' which in turn caused an 'increase in security', just like the Gladio operations that came in the following decades.

Sources

BBC Timewatch: Eddie Chapman

MI5 documents on Eddie Chapman

Mutt and Jeff dossier

Listen to the Preview Clip Here

Listen to the full episode here (BFP Subscribers Only):

SUBSCRIBE

FB Like

Share This

This site depends….

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by SUBSCRIBING and/or DONATING.

Comments

  1. Hi Tom,

    I was unable to listen to the full interview which I could not access. So, I am coming into your thesis a bit blind, but nonetheless, I think you and your listeners will find it quite interesting regarding S.O.E. “False Flag” or even “False Propaganda” operations being run in the United States and Latin American countries. The reason for such operations according David Irving’s research was Winston S. Churchill’s desire to bring the United States by hook or by crook into the war against Germany using the S.O.E. I will write verbatim from Volume I and Volume II of “Churchill’s War” by David Irving. If you have already discussed this please accept my apologies in advance. However, I am providing another source on SOE operations which might help us glean further the extent of their power. Moreover, if you would like references and footnotes to this information, please say so. I will provide it upon request:

    Churchill’s War Volume I, page 524:

    “Operating from the thirty-fifth and thirty-sixth floors of the Rockefeller Center on Fifth Avenue, Stephenson acted for both S.I.S. and S.O.E.” Here, I am establishing that William S. Stephenson, a Canadian, was running a British inspired intelligence service on U.S. soil. Notice the S.O.E. affiliation.

    Churchill’s War Volume II, page 25 & 26:

    “Using Sir William Stephenson – secret service code number ‘48,000,’ head of that service in North America, operating from a suite of offices in the Rockefeller Center in New York – Churchill masterminded a slew of ‘dirty tricks’ designed to help Roosevelt to stir up public feeling. Most of the British files on these are still sealed, but some episodes are known: The British secret service faked a letter from the Bolivian military attache’ in Berlin indicating that he was in league with Nazis in La Paz planning a pro-Hitler coup. Stephenson handed the letter to the U.S. state department, which turned it over to the Bolivian government on July 24. Though spluttering his innocence, Major Elias Belmonte, the attache’, was charged with treason and dismissed from the Bolivian army in disgrace. Bolivia promptly declared war on Germany and interned her German population, and Roosevelt gained one more item to boost the fraudulent claim that the Nazis had designs on the Americas.”

    “By August 1941the (British-designated) head of Roosevelt’s new secret service, Colonel William B. Donovan, was talking about infiltrating American guerrillas into South America. Meanwhile, one of Stephenson’s agents duped the Governor of Dutch Guyana into believing that a ‘German raider’ was busy in their waters: the governor appealed for American aid. On August 2 Stephenson’s man in Bogota’ asked the U.S. embassy there to collaborate in planting forged documents which would squarely place the responsibility for a riot on the German legation. In his most barefaced fraud yet, Stephenson then palmed off onto President Roosevelt a ‘secret Nazi map’ showing Hitler’s ultimate designs on South America. By that time a deciphered Japanese dispatch from Ankara suggested that the reverse was true: Hitler was not only restraining his over-eager forces from making war on the United States, but urging the Japanese not to attack them either…”

    I will include one footnote for edification on Bolivian attache’ Elias Belmonte, Page 861, note 23: “There was a sequel. After former SIS officer Harford Montgomery Hyde admitted the forgery in The Daily Telegraph in Oct 1979, the Bolivian government rehabilitated Belmonte and promoted him to general. Hyde’s papers are now housed in Churchill College–but the Intelligence items, including his history of William Stephenson’s clandestine operations, have been sealed indefinitely.

    • Hi Pick,

      I am familiar with Little Bill Stephenson and his involved in British Security Co-ordination. Roald Dahl and Ian Fleming were also part of it, and they all remained friends after the war for many years. A newspaper magnate and two of the most important authors in the English language of the whole 20th century. All kinds to say about that – Fleming even uses the Rockefeller center as a setting for an assassination in one of the early Bond novels, so I can only assume this is what he spent his days doing – staring out of the window thinking about shooting people. A nasty piece of work.

      I have to admit though, I find David Irving quite repugnant, and while I’ve no doubt Churchill did want the US to enter the war and that British Security Coordination was set up with this partly in mind, the US did not enter the war because of SOE. Nor did Fleming write the blueprint for the OSS or the CIA, they are myths probably put out by Fleming himself, who was a raging narcissist.

      • Hi Tom, thank you for replying. Again, I would like very much to listen to your podcast but evidently my membership is no more. Perhaps, your information on S.O.E. can found within other sites and I shall definitely look for it. I do wonder if you were aware of the information I provided in my above post on S.O.E.? As for David Irving being repugnant, however, I am more intrigued not so much with the man but his information. I feel historians are doing a great disservice, whether they like the man or not, by not looking at how Irving attained his information, i.e., S.O.E. operations and the like. As you know most historians do not have the time, money or energy to look “sideways” at history. Irving has spent a considerable amount of time over the years looking not just in the archives, but also at intelligence intercepts, personal diaries, presidential libraries and testimonies on all sides to give a clearer picture on WWII, especially S.O.E. operations and how Bletchley Park disseminated it to only those privileged for its use. I digress….

        • Hi Pick,

          If you can log in then your membership is still working, no?

          I was broadly aware of the SOE information you posted. As to Irving – I would hesitate in calling it ‘his information’, and forgive me but I truly believe that how one uses information is just as important as the information itself. Spending a lot of time on something doesn’t make a historian’s work credible. All those Oxford academics have spent decades studying all sorts of history but they barely know a thing, it seems.

          • “All those Oxford academics have spent decades studying all sorts of history but they barely know a thing, it seems.”- priceless:-) Applies to the ones here @ Harvard, Berkley, Yale.

          • Hi Tom,
            Yeah, tried umpteen times to get the full interview, but to no avail. Good, you were aware of the information. I agree, that interpretation of information is just as important as finding it. This is what intrigues me about Irving’s research. He has crossed reference those sources I mentioned above with others to give a more complete picture of history juxtaposed to other historians research. The devil is in the details with regards to substance and context. I find Irving has this in spades. Yes, I read not just Irving but others as well for balance. Thanks, again, Tom.

          • Hi Pick,

            Are you able to download other episodes or is it just a problem with this one?

          • ‘“All those Oxford academics have spent decades studying all sorts of history but they barely know a thing, it seems.”- priceless:-) Applies to the ones here @ Harvard, Berkley, Yale.’ You will get no argument from me here. I couldn’t agree more, Tom and Sibel. If I may paraphrase David Irving regarding “historians” I think he summed it up nicely:
            “Historians quote each other like a snake eating it tail. One quotes another and that one quotes another and that one quotes another and another and another until it looks like “Jacobs Jacket” with all its colors. It is like a bubble that gets bigger and bigger. It starts to wobble and oscillate back and forth as it continues to get heavier and heavier just waiting for some idiot to prick it. And…I’m just that prick.” And that’s just it. I pay attention to the “pricks.”

        • I tried the others, Tom. Can’t get the full podcasts. I’ll have to check on this with my brother who holds the account. Before I forget have you written a book on your research. I’ll check Amazon in the meantime.

          • Hi Pick,

            Yes, I have a book on the 7/7 bombings which also gets into some other stuff. And if you want to pay attention to the pricks then of course, it’s up to you what you read. A lot of people think I’m nuts for spending so much time reading government files, so I’m not going to tell you what to do.

            Hope you get the download problem solved, I think you would be interested in this one especially.

  2. wallace gromit says:

    Really impressed once again, Tom. Wonderful job with the pacing and background info, I’ve come to greatly enjoy your series. The idea to get more historic is a great one, too. All the directions you mention to go in from here forth seem pretty good to me, as long as you take the same care that you have been with this content.

    • Wallace,

      My feeling and take exactly. Many, unfortunately, do not understand the importance of history and pretext on topics like this- not important but a ‘must.’ I haven’t seen anyone else out there delving into macro issues like this. Tom is a treasure, and we all are lucky to have him here @ BFP as a partner producer/analyst.

    • Wallace,

      I’ve come to love doing this series, so it’s great to know that is being received so well. I always try to be patient and careful with these things, and most of the time I manage it.

      I will certainly continue exploring the history that I know about, which is mostly this sort of stuff. I spend a lot of time reading MI5 files on the national archives website and there’s a lot more to get into on that front. But for the next couple of episodes at least we’re going to continue going back in time, and when I figure out what I think of this Gunpowder Plot controversy I will certainly present that.

  3. Sibel, I do. Did I just not give very specific historical examples of S.O.E. operations, not just in Europe which I am very well acquainted with, but those which have been directed at Latin America, the United States and its people? Moreover, I gave very specific examples to support Tom’s S.O.E. research on a micro level. Is there no value with my post?

    • Pick,

      Now this comes across as a real ‘paranoia.’ Who was talking about ‘You’? Who was talking about anyone here @ BFP. The reference was to the mainstream and pseudo-alternatives: the ones that almost never cover ‘real history’ and ‘deeper context.’

      So, next time don’t go get wounded without first understanding ‘who/what I’m referring to.’ This site is not for the purpose of ‘psychotherapy,’ counseling,’ ‘babysitting wounded feelings.’ I am looking for warriors not ‘worriers.’ For touchy feely sensitive delicate types there are art sites, poetry sites …

      • Sibel, you’re projecting. I am not the sensitive type or a worrier in the least. However, when “warriors” as you call them spend a great deal of time, such at what Tom has shown, enlightening a thesis the polite thing to do is acknowledge that such information supports a thesis for the betterment of the whole forum. You’re a BFP partner/analyst who acknowledged one poster yet doesn’t have the respect or courtesy to acknowledge another who brings information to the table! Now, Sibel, who is really counseling or babysitting who? Is that “touchy feely” enough? Now what about the information I put up? I would like to know that you being an expert warrior analyst were you aware of such S.O.E. operations?

  4. That was great again, and thanks for the documentation!

  5. Eddie, Eddie. Eddie. He never went back and helped Dagma. What a ratbag man. To not do that. To Leave that gal in the lurch as collaboratorfor 50 years. tsk tsk.
    Now if he’d gone to Eton…..
    Anyway. Its all there. Newspaper cover stories. Set directors. flash bang. Money. wiping the criminal slate clean.
    Maybe that’s who Graham Fuller is…the Hendon flash bang of Boston..the modern Eddie ‘for President and country…” The history we grew up with had no allowance for the morphing of techniques into “GLADIO”..we were taught the war ended. We won. Means justified the Ends, but its all over now..’we don’t do that sort of thing anymore’..’a bit of a lark..’
    Surcuc..Reyhani, Ghouta. Gaza. Felluja ! SAS dressing as ISIS. MH17..who would Eddie fly for now, do we think.

    • Remo,

      Indeed. I think these days Eddie would be on a perpetual whistle stop tour of the Middle East doing favours for any government who sustained his tastes for women and adventure. I could see him dressed up in a ninja turtle/anonymous outfit jumping through hoops and shooting at ancient monuments like these ISIS dumbwits. If you paid him enough and he got to go sailing afterwards.

      Indeed, the history I grew up with didn’t tell me much about all this, though like a lot of people I learned so much more as soon as I left school…

      • What Eddie teaches me, is the irrefutability of heroism in war as conduit to treachery becoming acceptable. That is, given the rightness of cause, all is forgivable. Eddie was fighting the nazi, so his crimes are commutable, or at least waivable. But the rules of truth, are expendable . Prop painters from entertainment industries will pretend a bombing. Newspapers will amend truth and follow D notices. Wide-boy Eddies can become heroic – cultish – Deception becomes autonomous within the system.

  6. The Holocaust wasn’t used to justify WW2.

  7. True. I believe it had something to do with Great Britain and France declaring war over Germany’s invasion of Poland. But the Holocaust narrative has most certainly been used sanctify the war ex post facto.

    • Arnar Steinsson says:

      Completely agree with what Tom has said here. Opposing facism is one of the main reasons I delve into the issues that are covered on this site.

    • Great podcast BTW. SOE false flags during “the Good War” – fascinating material. It is interesting to note that seeds for Gladio were planted during the war with the so called stay behind units.
      Regarding Holocaust skeptics, one should why are they being imprisoned? What kind of truth needs to be defended with threats of imprisonment?

      Both sides slaughtered millions of innocent people in that war. And as your podcast correctly pointed ,both sides resorted to fascist measures to prosecute it.

      • Tim,

        “Regarding Holocaust skeptics, one should why are they being imprisoned? What kind of truth needs to be defended with threats of imprisonment?”

        What do you think the answer to these questions is?

        • Well it’s an obvious infringement of free speech. I suspect the reason is to shutdown open debate on the matter. That should make us all skeptical.

        • Hi Tom & Tim,
          Tim generally summed up Irving’s thesis on Hitler fairly well. However, to clarify Irving’s contentions the narrative has to be defined. One, the Final Solution. Irving contends that Hitler’s Final Solution was moving Jews out of Germany which was to be addressed after the war. Two, Irving has contested traditionalist historians to provide ONE document whereby Hitler knew of exterminations of Jews at Auschwitz-Birkenau. To date not one scintilla of evidence has come forth. Three, Irving has contested the magnitude and means of the exterminations. This means how many Jews died and by what means? What Hitler and the Third Reich did with Jews and all peoples was wrong. Sending Jews to forced labor camps is affront to humanity just as we did with Japanese Americans in the United States. Throwing researchers or anyone who disagrees with the Holocaust in jail because we don’t agree with their opinion is wrong. There has to be an open and fair debate between the traditionalists and revisionists on this issue. As for looking at the evidence on the Holocaust I highly recommend the readers at Boiling Frogs read Thomas P. Dalton’s Phd., “Debating The Holocaust.” I would also like to see Boiling Frogs have a revisionist guest such as a David Irving or Thomas Dalton give their opinion on the matter. Sibel, can you do this so we can have an in depth debate on this contentious issue? Let us know, please. I will immediately re-up my membership for the sake of this debate.

        • Pick,

          No one died in WW2. My proof? You can’t show me a document that proved Hitler knew that anyone died in WW2. Ditto 9/11. And in fact the whole of world history. No one has died in the whole of world history.

  8. The failure to manifest a specific order by Hitler “authorizing” the Final Solution, while interesting, does not prove the Holocaust narrative to be false. After all, Mafia dons and other criminal kingpins have often “authorized” murders without signing an incriminating documents. For example, Al Capone was never convicted of murder although he was no doubt guilty of that crime several times over. All throughout history, henchmen have committed crimes following the vague orders given to them by their masters e.g. “Won’t someone rid me of this meddlesome priest?”

    Historians very discover “smoking gun” proof. Usually, they must painstakingly sift through old documents, photographs, letters, forms, various artifacts etc., apply critical thinking, all the while taking human nature into consideration, and then draw the most logical inferences from the available evidence. I suppose therein lies the source of so much controversy. Hence the need for historical revisionism.
    Contrary to Tom’s earlier point regarding David Irving’s research, his “crime” was not being sloppy. Indeed, he was guilty of being too thorough. In short, he was acting like a real historian, not a propagandist. Irving’s research upset the power-that-be which is why the once celebrated historian was targeted for destruction.
    When it comes to the Holocaust narrative what we are dealing with is a group of people being accused of a horrible crime.
    It is often said that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I agree.
    So where is the extraordinary evidence to substantiate the extraordinary claim that the Third Reich implemented a program to annihilate European Jewry in the midst of a war that was already taxing its limited resources?
    Nuremberg is not a reliable source because that tribunal rejected the standard rules of evidence. And more than few of its conclusions are now acknowledged as being false or incorrect e.g. the aforementioned Kaytin Forest massacre finding.
    Moreover, it is now known that the confessions of the various Nazi officials, often cited as “proof” of the Holocaust, cannot be taken at face value because they were obtained under duress. For instance, it is now admitted that Rudolf Höss , the former Auschwitz commandant, confessed only after being tortured by his interrogators. Many other German officials provided false testimony in return for favorable treatment and employment in the post-war government.

    The oft cited six million death toll is now acknowledged as a gross exaggeration. Whereas once it was claimed that the Nazis operated 22 death camps in Germany and throughout occupied Europe, that claim has been reduced to a mere six in Eastern Europe. It also been admitted that stories of gas chambers at the Dachau concentration camp were not true but were product Allied post war propaganda. A similar tales were told regarding Buchanwald. The stories human soap, lampshades, and shrunken heads were lies told to traumatized and credulous public. The gas chambers at Auschwitz are not relics from the war but are props constructed after the war for the purposes of propaganda and tourism. Moreover, the death toll at the infamous labor camp has been continuously revised downward: from a peak of 4 million to less than 1 million. And even that reduced figure is dubious.

    The truth is there is no forensic or documentary evidence supporting the Holocaust narrative. All we are really presented with are alleged survivors telling harrowing and heartrending stories but nothing constituting real evidence.

    That is telling for given the supposed enormity of the Final Solution, it is hard to believe that the Third Reich, with its armies in retreat and facing imminent collapse, would have been able to destroy all documents, letters, requisition forms, etc. Industrialized genocide would have required an enormous bureaucracy producing mountains of paperwork that would have undoubtedly survived the war. Nevertheless, we are asked to believe that such an ambitious and sinister undertaking was carried out by officials and bureaucrats employing only the word of mouth.

    I suspect the Holocaust narrative is so persistent because it supports the entire post-war international system and is routinely used to brow-beat and extort Europeans, particularly Germans. Certainly the Zionist project was greatly aided in its fulfillment by reports of a Jewish genocide. Moreover, German atrocity stories were used to obscure or justify Allied war crimes such as the terror bombing of German cities, the mass raping of German women by the advancing Red Army, and the forced removal of ethnic Germans from eastern Europe, an upheaval that resulted in the death of an estimated three million people in the winter of 1945.
    I am glad Pick mentioned Thomas Dalton’s book. It is the best treatment on this issue I have read so far. He’s a college professor with no apparent axe to grind. Dalton takes an academic approach and carefully analyzes the arguments pro and con. The balance of the evidence weighs in favor of the skeptics (aka deniers) and the intellectually honest person must then contend with the implications.

    • Tim,

      Can you show me a document proving that anyone died in WW2? If not, then clearly no one died, and the ‘WW2 narrative’ was just made up for political purposes. I don’t think it ever happened, which is good enough for me…

  9. Tom,
    Now you are just trying to be cute and ignoring the points I have made in the postings above. If you are not going to pay me that respect I see no reason in wasting anymore of my time. That said, I suggest you do some more research on the topic and perhaps then we engage each other in more substantive debate.

    • Curious that as soon as I apply your own standards back on your argument that you accuse me of paying you no respect. You’re the one denying the deaths of hundreds of thousands if not millions of people, for entirely political reasons (you give yourself away by demonising the Red Army, which is not remotely relevant to whether or not the Holocaust happened).

  10. So the Red Army didn’t engage in mass rape? Allied war crimes are relevant because I cited them as a possible explanation for the Holocaust narrative. Check into the role OSS agent CD Jackson played in pulling off the Buchanwald hoax. He would later figure in the cover up the JFK assassination.

    Sixty million people died in that war. No one denies there was mass death and destruction. The point is there is little forensic and documentary evidence to support the Holocaust narrative. You failure to contend with that point betrays the weakness in your argument. In the absence of evidence, you simply default to Holocaust narrative.

    Tom, when you displace tens of millions of people, firebomb entire cities, disrupt commerce and blockade entire continents, millions of people will die or go missing. The fact is most of the deaths in the camps were a result of disease and starvation, a condition made inevitable by the Allied bombing campaign. That is why the death rates soared in 1944-45.

  11. Tim,
    I think you did an excellent job pointing out the weaknesses in the “Holocaust narrative.” Substantial research has been done by Irving on the Reinhardt camps (Sobibor, Treblinka, Madyanaic, Belzec). Irving concluded millions of Jews were transported through these camps; in the process, hundreds of thousands died at the hands of Germans and Polish collaborators. The signatures connected to these atrocities were Himmler’s and Heydrich’s. Nowhere was Adolph Hitler’s name or office referred/included in any communiques from the lowest camp officer to Himmler. In fact, Himmler was very careful in not forwarding any information to the fuhrer. Most importantly, in the lowest levels of Nazi bureaucracy there was no mention in classified or non-classified communiques that Hitler knew or was involved with this program (1941-1943). Also, there was no mention in any personal diaries that Hitler was involved. Conversely, Irving contends that Hitler’s killings for whatever reason, i.e., assassinations, political shootings, treasonous disciplines etc., are well documented with the fuhrer’s approval. This begs the question of why historians cannot find ONE document whereby Hitler signs off or acknowledges programs of genocide. Yes, politically the buck of any atrocity stops at the pinnacle of leadership. This means that Hitler should have been tried for war crimes. Just as Churchill, Stalin and FDR should have been tried, period. However, they didn’t lose the war, did they? According to Irving’s research on Himmler, when Himmler informed Hitler that the Soviets overran Auschwitz-Birkenau the fuhrer’s response was – “okay” – and moved onto the next topic. This also begs the question that if Auschwitz-Birkenau was THE major extermination camp then I would think Hitler (if he knew) would have had the camp dismantled much in the same way Himmler had Treblinka dismantled.

    • 1. TomS doesn’t seem to deny that the 6M figure and the camp-to-chambers mapping can be contested.
      2. pick & Tim don’t seem to deny that Jews were slaughtered on an industrial scale.

      Looks to me like there’s room for agreement.

      Going from there, the discussion doesn’t look very constructive because you guys are already bickering about debating technique, without even having made explicit what it is that you think you disagree about.

      • Olivier,

        Pick and Tim believe that ‘The truth is there is no forensic or documentary evidence supporting the Holocaust narrative.’ They put Holocaust in quotation marks. They attributes the deaths to any factor except extermination. They obviously don’t believe that it happened.

        That leaves no room whatsoever for agreement. I’ve had this conversation a hundred times in my life, it always involves the same arguments from the deniers, and the refusal to just say explicitly what they obviously believe – that it didn’t happen, and that Hitler wasn’t such a bad guy after all. This crap has gone completely overboard in the alt media recently and I see no reason to let people use ‘free thinking’ or any number of other relativistic non-concepts to defend it.

        • OK, but now you’re filling in words for your opponents. Let’s have them say it more explicitly then. Here’s an explicit statement that you three might take a position on:

          Thesis: “More than one million Jews were killed by the Germans during WW2. It was planned to be so by high level Nazi leadership.”

          (Sorry to put a number in there, otherwise you’re going to end up making assumptions about the meaning of “industrial”, and “narrative”, and “it”).

          TomS do you agree with the thesis?
          Pick and Tim do you disagree with the thesis, as TomS seems to imply?

          If you don’t want to take a position, then what position dó you want to take that you think your opponent disagrees with? If you can’t formulate a thesis that you disagree on, then it seems to me the bickering is just for bickering’s sake, but I’m open to be corrected on that point.

  12. Well, I’m glad for one thing. This episode has helped draw out the Hitler apologists and holocaust deniers…

  13. It would seem that Andreas Strassmeir of OKC fame received training in the practice you describe:

    “He told The Sunday Telegraph that he had received military intelligence training. Part of his work was to detect infiltration by Warsaw Pact agents, he explained, and then feed them disinformation.”

    Quoted from Ambrose Evans-Pritchard here: http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/OK/ok2.html

  14. I don’t believe that is the case at all, Tom. I read all the posts and I did not see anyone apologizing or denying the “Holocaust” whatsoever. What I read was clarifications by Tim and myself that a more detailed and honest examination of the “Good War” needs to be explored on both sides of the conflict. Much of what we don’t know regarding WWII is still classified. I am sure you already know this with your research on S.O.E. operations. Do we fault someone like David Irving or Thomas Dalton because they went to great lengths other than the archives to obtain for an honest readership the intricacies and intrigue surrounding this war however distasteful that might be? It is important in this day and age to understand why and how certain events in history happened. It is complex study in human nature and societies on the whole. Furthermore, history has always been revised as we learn more. It is not static contrary to popular belief. The challenge is let the true facts determine history and have an open and honest debate on these issues. Labeling people “apologists” or “holocaust deniers” only adds to repression and fear; eventually it spills over in genocide as history has shown. It polarizes free thinking and impedes scholarly research, something which is a very big concern as the corporate media continues to define the narrative. I think within the limited scope of this forum it has been productive. By no means should we cast any and all opinions in stone. The important thing is to help “draw out” the truth and have that uncomfortable dialog. Do you not agree?

    • It isn’t that I find any aspect of this dialogue uncomfortable – I’ve heard it all before. If anything I find it boring as hell, and completely misleading.

      When someone says ‘The truth is there is no forensic or documentary evidence supporting the Holocaust narrative’ and someone else praises them for saying that then I don’t consider it ‘labelling’ to call them holocaust deniers. It’s simply an accurate description.

      When someone tries to make out that there was no policy of extermination and instead focuses on crimes of the Red Army as though that somehow proves that Hitler wasn’t so bad after all, then they are a Hitler apologist. It’s simply an accurate description.

      This is not a way of shutting down the discussion – let me be clear: I have no interest in discussing this with you or with anyone else. I don’t think it has anything to do with the truth about WW2. I think it is completely misleading and that if you applied the same epistemological demands to virtually any historical event they would not meet it and thus you could conclude that no one died in the whole of human history…

  15. Tom’s use of strawman arguments betray the weakness of his position. He obviously hasn’t “heard it all before .” No one has and we all exist in a state of relative ignorance. Some more than others…. His inability to approach this topic and some others with the necessary humility has created huge blind spots in his overall analysis which I still to quite excellent and useful most of the time.

  16. Olivier,

    Yes, I believe over one million Jews were killed by decisions to move Jews to forced labor camps. I believe deaths were caused by shooting, starvation, and Typhus. Himmler and Heydrich were responsible for the targeted genocide of Jews sent to the Reinhardt camps. These two individuals constitute “high level” Nazi leadership. On the starvation issue, much of it was caused by the bombing of rail lines going into many of these camps by allied air raids from February 1945 through April of 1945. Intentionally or unintentionally, these raids led to what Irving calls “Innocenticide,” (the killing of innocents.) Dresden, Hamburg, Freiburg and Berlin were deliberately targeted by the allies, just as London and Coventry were targeted by the Nazis. Both were war crimes. Moving onto the Rhine camps, 1.2 million Germans were shot, starved, died of exposure and suffocated by bulldozers [Defense Enemy Forces (Germans) dug holes in the mud to avoid exposure to the elements] from May of 1945 through 1946. These war crimes are documented by James Bacque in his book “Other Losses.” The end result is that civilians (Jews and Germans alike) were targeted by both Allied and Axis leadership. There is such thing as a good war. Again, Hitler should have been tried and hanged for war crimes just Churchill and Roosevelt should have been tried and hanged. Neither side should have gotten a pass.

    • OK so the 1M figure seems to be out of the way. That leaves the question of premeditation by high level nazi leadership, let’s say Himmler and Heydrich for now. When you say “… killed by decisions to move Jews to forced labor camps. I believe deaths were caused by shooting, starvation, and Typhus “, then you seem to imply that those murders were not premeditated. Rather they were unforseen consequences of decisions that were not intended as mass murder. Is that what you’re saying? If yes, and if you speak for Tim, then would it be correct to summerise this discussion as:

      TomS: The 1M+ killings were premeditated.
      Pick & Tim: The 1M+ killings were not premeditated.

      [I’m ignoring your points about crimes committed against the Germans because they are not relevant for the thesis, and because I suspect that people would agree with you anyway].

      TomS: Do you agree that this seems to be the difference between the debating sides? Or do you consider premeditation to be part of the background noise you mentioned?

      • Olivier,

        I have given up on this discussion because the degree of equivocation renders it meaningless:

        Tim: ‘The truth is there is no forensic or documentary evidence supporting the Holocaust narrative.

        Pick: ‘Tim, I think you did an excellent job pointing out the weaknesses in the “Holocaust narrative.”

        A couple of days later:

        Pick: ‘I believe over one million Jews were killed’.

        So Pick supports the idea that over 1 million Jews were killed, but also supports the idea that there’s no evidence that they were killed. How can I respond to this? Indeed, why should I respond to this? It’s just a load of self-contradictory, equivocating bollocks. I’d have a lot more respect for the deniers and apologists if they just admitted what they are, but they won’t. They’ll duck and dive and dodge and equivocate and contradict themselves. Tim hasn’t even answered your simple question yet. That’s the degree of personal and intellectual dishonesty inherent in this discussion. I applaud your efforts to bring some degree of rationality to this but you’re trying to rationalise a mentality which is the same as that of a child drawn to naughty words – they’ll sort of say it, but they won’t really say it, so when you tell them off they’ll say ‘but but but but but I never said it!!!!’…

        • TomS: Equivocation can only be the result of not defining the terms in a discussion. It’s a condition that can be solved rather than be given up on.

          You both are guilty of not defining your terms:

          Tim & Pick complain about the “holocaust narrative” without defining it. Then TomS asserts that “it” happened without defining the term.

          Only when you define your terms will you even know if there is disagreement. It does require the effort of defining your own terms, and asking the other party to clarify their terms before drawing any conclusions.

          Executing those tasks I think will lead you to the questions I was asking, which brings us back to the question I was asking:

          Is the amount of premeditation what you guys are bickering about? If yes, then formulate your theses. If you can arrive at a point where you defined your terms, and formulated a thesis that you disagree about, THEN do you go and bring your supporting arguments.

          Anything below that standard is just going to leave anger and frustration worthy of an FBI “let’s have them fight” operation.

  17. Correction: There is no such thing as a good war.

  18. More strawmen arguments from Tom. What a surprise!

  19. Olivier,

    The British Intelligence intercepts strongly suggest the Rienhardt Camps deaths were indeed premeditated by a closely held program ran by Himmler and Heydrich. Not 100% conclusive, but strong enough to take a position at this point. Doubtful that they were forgeries. This horrific program puts the unintended consequence theory by Revisionists up for serious debate. This is a mosaic of sorts. Intercepts are not complete, free flowing documents where one is handed a clear picture. Irving offers that dots must be connected between a lot of empty space. Irving’s position is that the intercepts are most likely genuine. Very rarely are British intercepts forgeries.

    • One clarification. When I Irving speaks of premeditated killings this means shootings and hangings.

    • Pick, TomS

      You seem to have agreement on the following:
      1. 1M+ dead Jews
      2. A high-level Nazi premeditated plan to mass murder Jews in camps.

      If you still think it’s worth disagreeing, then you could disagree on:
      A. How high was the death toll 1M -> 6M
      B. What fraction of that death toll is attributable to premeditation, and what fraction to unintended consequences

      TomS, do you categorize A & B as background noise?

  20. Yes, a serious debate is necessary but it’s difficult to have one if skeptics are being harassed, hounded and in a dozen or more “free” countries being jailed.

    The intercepts may indeed be genuine but the Brits and their American cousins excelled at forgery so they cannot be considered a smoking gun.

    But even if they are genuine the sinister program would not approach the scale claimed by advocates of the Holocaust exterminationist narrative. As a wrote above given the alleged enormity of the so called Final Solution, logic and reason dictate that there would be mountains of evidence (aerial photos, requisitions for fuel and other supplies, letters and correspondences etc). The lack of evidence should make one very skeptical.

  21. The biggest lies usually contain some truth.

  22. Other than Tim, I again advocate that to get a handle on why revisionists contend the Holocaust narrative is to read Thomas P. Dalton’s book – “Debating The Holocaust – for no other reason than to apply mathematics, time, means, magnitude and the logistics to carry out genocide programs. Let’s get a handle on what the Traditionalists have claimed versus what the Revisionists are challenging.

    As for the biggest lies and truth we must be careful and continue to dig without bias. According to David Irving’s research he contends that Churchill’s quote regarding the war should be a warning to all researchers in evaluating the truth – ”the truth is so fragile that it has to be protected by a bodyguard of lies.”

    And more importantly, how we evaluate the facts with this passage below in David Irving’s book “Churchill’s War,” page 11: “Give me the facts,” he would tell his research assistant, “and I will twist them the way I want to suit my argument.”(*) Do we have any recent examples whereby facts were twisted? Sure we do. We have the lies surrounding the Iraqi WMD issue. Has recent history taught us something with regards to the past?

    *Notes and References, page 593.: Note 23 – Maurice Ashley, Churchill as Historian (London 1968), 18.

  23. Olivier,
    I have a feeling that Tom bailed out of this debate. I am okay with this. I wish to thank you for your mediation. I think you are most professional. Forums such as this need a level headed person to step and define positions. This is a very serious topic. It is something I do not take lightly. I will attest to you and anyone following this debate that as information comes forward, I shall respond in earnest kind. Like a top on a table, I shall follow gravity. Gravity is honest and objective. Like it, so shall truth follow.

  24. It would appear that Tom needs take a remedial course in logic. The fact that he finds the matter boring might partially explain why he is so dismissive of skeptics. Like so many others he has uncritically accepted the traditional narrative and internalized it.

  25. Pick and Tim:

    TomS has a point: You guys don’t take positions. I offered you an opportunity to take one by having you state an opinion about the thesis that 1M+ were killed in a premeditated way.

    * TomS answered in clear way: (Yes he believe the thesis to be true).
    * Pick initially answered in an unclear way (Circumscribed Yes) [Which I took to mean Yes for the deathcount, No for the intention. Pick subsequently stated he tended towards believing in some sort of premeditation, but seemed to disconnect it from the 1M+ deathcount].
    * Tim didn’t answer as far as I can see.

    Now you can complain about TomS bailing out and/or complain about his capacity for logic, but as far as I can see it’s your turn to put some cards on the table.

    It would be good if you would keep your answers short, as in one of {“Yes”, “No”, “I have no opinion”}.

    If your answer is “No”, then we have a starting point for a debate: You all go back to your libraries and collect arguments.

    If on the other hand your answer is “I have no opinion”, then would you please clarify what it is that you’re trying to argue? Pick you seem to want to disconnect the premeditation from the industrial scale. But that’s an essential point. You could take a position by subscribing to
    Thesis2: “1M+ got killed. There was a plan for mass murder which led to no more than 50’000 deaths” (or whatever your numbers are).

    Tim can you take position?

  26. Olivier,

    I did not complain about Tom bailing out. I said I was okay with it. Clear?

    I support the figure 1 million plus (intentional and unintentional). The break down is in Thomas Dalton’s book. I am open to any new material that comes my way. The exact intentional figure needs more research.

  27. The above is at odds with the Holocaust narrative (Traditionalists’ view). This is when smear labels are offered up by the traditionalists against the revisionists. In countries like France, Austria, and Germany, one could go to jail for taking the revisionist’s position. See Christopher Hitchens defense of David Irving’s right to free speech.

  28. My position is that Holocaust narrative is most likely a myth created by the victors to obscure their own crimes and create a post-war environment favorable to their political and geo-political objectives.

    Now if the Third Reich had implemented a genocidal program on the scale claimed by traditionalists, there would be evidence of it all across formerly Nazi- occupied Europe and in Germany. The fact is there is not. For example, aerial photographs taken by the Allies of the Auschwitz labor camp show nothing extraordinary going on below – no billows of smoke, no long queues of victims awaiting their doom, no large fuel depots, necessary to burn all the bodies produces by the supposed homicidal gas chambers.

    The actual death toll for Jews maybe around 1 million. (I believe the Red Cross estimated it at 300k). That is indeed a grim figure but it suggests something very different than genocide. After all, tens of millions of people died during the war so it is not surprising that many Jews would be among the victims.

    This is not to say the Jews were not singled out for mistreatment by the Nazis. They certainly were but that does mean that mistreatment was part of a genocidal program.

    That is my current position. I am certainly willing to change if new information is forthcoming.

  29. I thought it would be apropos to at least find Dalton’s thesis in his book “Debating The Holocaust.” Take a look at chapter 1. However, I cannot entreat strongly enough to read the entire book to understand the argument between the traditionalists and the revisionists in detail regarding the camps.

    http://debatingtheholocaust.com/chapter_1

Speak Your Mind