Davin News Server

by Thomas Dalton, Ph.D.

WELL, THE JEWISH LOBBY is at it again. In the latest kerfuffle over
“Holocaust denial,” Jews and their sycophants are in an uproar over a
podcast interview aired on September 2 in which Tucker Carlson spoke
at length with a “popular historian” named Darryl Cooper. The two-hour
episode is titled “The True History of the Jonestown Cult, WWII, and
How Winston Churchill Ruined Europe” — a bit of a stretch for a single
show, but with the central theme that conventional or orthodox history
is often wrong about events small and large, and thus frequently in
need of revision. History is not only written by the victors, it is
sustained by powerful lobbies that have a vested interest in a certain
interpretation of past events. This much is so obvious that it
scarcely needs mentioning.

And yet, when it comes to World War Two and especially the Holocaust,
all rules go out the window. The “victors” cannot be named; alternate
interpretations are not allowed; and revisionism is declared a crime.
In the interview, Cooper offers the mildest of mild statements
regarding his thoughts on WW2 and on what happened to “civilians and
prisoners of war” at that time. Two points seemed to have raised the
greatest ire: that Churchill, not Hitler, was the true villain of the
war; and that the millions of people who died — presumably meaning
millions of Jews — were, in effect, accidental victims rather than
targets of a premediated and planned genocide. Our cultural guardians
are upset by the first point but truly enraged by the second.

The horror of stating such views was too much for both our Jewish
media and for our Jewish-inspired Biden regime. The headlines are
alarming: “Tucker Carlson Criticized for Hosting Holocaust
Revisionist” (NYT); “Tucker Carlson Welcomes a Hitler Apologist to His
Show” (NYT, Michelle Goldberg); “White House condemns Tucker Carlson’s
‘Nazi propaganda’ interview as ‘disgusting and sadistic insult’”
(CNN); “Tucker Carlson Blasted for Interview with Holocaust
Revisionist” (The Hill). CNN reports that the Biden administration
took the unusual step of publicly “denouncing Tucker Carlson” and his
guest. Deputy press secretary Andrew Bates issued a formal statement,
not only calling the interview “a disgusting and sadistic insult to
all Americans” but also condemning Carlson for “giving a microphone to
a Holocaust denier who spreads Nazi propaganda.” Bates’ chief concern
seems to be with “the over 6 million Jews who were genocidally
murdered by Adolf Hitler.” “Hitler was one of the most evil figures in
human history,” Bates assures us — “full stop.” Certainly no
revisionism allowed in this most “freedom-loving” of nations.

This whole incident is worthy of some reflection. Let me start with
what exactly Cooper said. Here are the relevant statements (from 46:30
to 49:00):

When [the Germans] went into the East, in 1941, they launched a war
where they were completely unprepared to deal with the millions and
millions of prisoners of war, local political prisoners, and so forth,
that they were going to have to handle. They went in with no plan for
that. And they just threw these people into camps and millions of
people ended up dead there.

You have letters as early as July, August 1941 from commandants of
these makeshift camps that they’re setting up for these millions of
people who were surrendering or people they are rounding up. And it’s
two months after [Operation] Barbarossa was launched [in June], and
they’re writing back to the high command in Berlin saying, “We can’t
feed these people…” And one of them actually says, “Rather than wait
for them all to slowly starve this winter, wouldn’t it be more humane
to just finish them off quickly now?”

At the end of the day, [Hitler] launched that war [against the USSR]
with no plan to care for the millions and millions of civilians and
prisoners of war that were going to come under [his] control. And
millions of people died because of that.

To assess what Cooper is saying here, we must remind ourselves of the
basic facts: Hitler launched his war against Poland in early September
1939. Based on a mutual nonaggression pact, Stalin attacked Poland
from the East two weeks later, and the two great powers quickly
divided Poland in half. England and France then declared war on
Germany, not vice versa (wait — who was the aggressor again?), and so
Hitler was compelled to direct his military efforts to the west. He
never wanted a war to his west, and as Cooper explains, Hitler tried
frequently to make peace with Chamberlain (not yet Churchill).
Chamberlain sought compromise but the rest of his divided government —
including Churchill — preferred to continue a war they were
ill-equipped to fight. Germany invaded the Low Countries in May 1940,
Chamberlain resigned, and Churchill was elevated to prime minister.

Throughout the second half of 1940 and into the first half of 1941,
Hitler continued his impressive string of victories. France was all
but defeated and England was on its last legs. Then suddenly, on 22
June 1941, Hitler broke his pact with Stalin and invaded the Soviet
Union (“Operation Barbarossa”). This, says Cooper, was the war in
which Germany was unprepared to handle “millions” of prisoners. And
indeed, more than 3 million Soviet POWs came under German control by
the end of 1941, many of whom in fact surrendered or defected. They
were initially housed in the nearly 100 ad hoc camps established in
German-controlled Russia, and conditions were indeed horrible, as
Cooper suggests. Upwards of 500,000 Soviet POWs died each month:
around two million dead by the end of 1941. As far as we know, this
was unplanned; the Germans were too busy fighting on the front to take
much care for their 3 million newly-captured prisoners. They indeed
simply “ended up dead,” as Cooper says.

Notably, nowhere does Cooper talk about Jewish prisoners. The whole
discussion centers on Soviet POWs and other political prisoners, of
whom there were relatively few Jews. Jews did pay a price during
Barbarossa, but it was because they were partisan fighters: attacking
German troops from behind the front lines. According to international
rules of warfare, partisans are to be treated the same as soldiers —
meaning, they could be captured, or they could be killed. And the
Germans preferred to kill partisans; this was logical, given their
already overcrowded ad hoc POW camps.

This resulted in the true beginning of “the Holocaust,” if we wish to
call it that. Thousands of partisan Jews were shot on the Eastern
Front — perhaps 30,000 or 40,000 in 1941, based on reasonable
estimates (certainly not the 400,000 or 500,000 that our orthodox
historians would have us believe). But Cooper was not discussing these
deaths. Jews also died in the ghettos in 1941 — perhaps another 40,000
or 50,000, most from natural causes (old age, illness, accident,
suicide). And precisely zero Jews died in “homicidal gas chambers” or
“death camps” in 1941; none of the infamous six camps — Auschwitz,
Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka, Chelmno, and Majdanek — were operational
that year. For that matter, precisely zero Jews died in “homicidal gas
chambers” during the entire war, precisely because such things did not
exist. But neither Carlson nor Cooper dared step into that sticky
wicket.[1]

So, in Cooper’s (and Carlson’s) defense, the passage at hand says
nothing about Jews and thus nothing about “the Holocaust.” Everything
Cooper said there was factually correct. In fact, in the entire
two-hour-plus interview, Jews were only mentioned a handful of times,
and the “Holocaust” not once, that I can recall.

Jews Go on the Attack

But that’s not how our Jewish Lobby sees it. Every reference to
“millions” of deaths is, to them, a coded reference to Jews. Even
discussing Hitler as anyone other than a comically-evil madman means
that you are a “Nazi sympathizer,” a “denier” (whatever that means),
or simply “disgusting and sadistic.”

A good example the absurdly inane orthodox response can be found in
(Jewish) Michelle Goldberg’s op-ed in the (Jewish) New York Times of
September 6. The alleged “Hitler apologist” Darryl Cooper failed to
toe the party line on the unconditional evil of the Nazis, and so she
condemns him in the strongest terms, without even knowing what she is
talking about. She clearly doesn’t like the idea that Holocaustianity
is our current “state religion” (which it is), and she is incensed
when Cooper rightly mentions the “emotional triggers” that keep us
from asking tough questions. To Goldberg, Cooper offers us only
“clever rhetorical formulations” that are presented in a “soft-spoken,
faux-reasonable way.” So overwhelmed is she by Carlson’s and Cooper’s
audacity that she is reduced to the following idiocy: “Nazi sympathy
is the natural endpoint of a politics based on glib contrarianism,
right-wing transgression, and ethnic grievance.” This, from a staff
writer at the New York Times.

More to the point, despite the utter lack of mention of the Holocaust
in the interview, Goldberg is fixated on this supposed inference. She
laments “Carlson’s turn toward Holocaust skepticism”; she frets over
the “disgraced, Holocaust-denying author David Irving” (as if he is
relevant here); and she bemoans the fact that “there are few better
trolls than Holocaust deniers.” Those clever deniers “love to pose as
heterodox truth-seekers,” and they “excel at mimicking the forms and
language of legitimate scholarship” — when in fact their level of
scholarship often equals or exceeds that of our conventional so-called
experts.[2] Deniers “blitz their opponents with out-of-context
historical detail and bad-faith questions” (How dare they go into
detail! How dare they ask questions!). In the end, “they only know how
to use crude provocation to get attention” — says the
attention-seeking Jewess.

One of Goldberg’s biggest fears is that, in her Jewish-controlled
ideological universe, that the jig might be up. She worries about the
red-pilled right-wing belief “that all you’ve been told about the
nature of reality is a lie, and thus everything is up for grabs.” In
fact, much of what we have been told by our Jewish-inspired orthodoxy
has been a lie, or a half-truth, or otherwise deeply deceptive, and
Goldberg worries that more and more people are figuring this out. And
she is right to worry: a mass awakening will spell big trouble for her
and her co-ethnics.

Finally at the end of her piece, she puts her finger on a bit of
truth: “Ultimately, Holocaust denial isn’t really about history at
all, but about what’s permissible in the present and imaginable in the
future.” Hitler and the Nazis must be viewed “as the negation of our
deepest values,” or else we are “softened up” for Trump-like fascism.
Holocaust denial — that is, deeply questioning the basic assumptions
of that event — is indeed not really about history simply because the
revisionists have won: the orthodox story of the “homicidal gas
chambers,” “the 6 million,” and the alleged National Socialist mad
plot to kill all the Jews — all these have been utterly demolished.
Orthodox historians no longer even try to respond to revisionists
because they know that they will be disgraced. Instead, they and their
potent Jewish backers resort to censorship, lawfare, slander,
intimidation, and (in many countries) imprisonment to stifle
revisionism. Such things are a sure sign of defeat.

As for her remark about what is permissible and imaginable, this too
is correct: The standard Holocaust story is the keystone of
present-day Jewish power in the US and the West; everything rests on
our collective guilt, and all Jewish/Israeli atrocities are thereby
justified. Jewish power presently declares that questioning the
Holocaust is impermissible; and that a society in which Hitler and
National Socialism are viewed neutrally or even positively is
unimaginable. But this will soon change. When Holocaust revisionism
becomes permissible, and National Socialism becomes imaginable, then
everything — everything — will change. That day cannot come soon
enough.

The great irony in this whole much-ado-about-nothing is that it could
have been something: Carlson and Cooper could have actually discussed
the many problems with the Holocaust story, and they could have
actually asked the tough questions that orthodoxy cannot answer. They
could have examined the many works of Germar Rudolf or Carlo Mattogno;
they could have reviewed the reasons why homicidal gas chambers were
technically impossible; they could have explained that the best
evidence to date suggests that perhaps 500,000 Jews died during the
war, not 6 million. And when all that comes out, Michelle Goldberg and
friends will truly have something to fear.

Notes

[1] For details, see my book Debating the Holocaust (4th ed., 2020) or
Germar Rudolf’s Lectures on the Holocaust.

[2] For the full academic story, see the 50-volume “Holocaust
Handbook” series. For a concise treatment of all the core issues, see
the newly-released Holocaust Encyclopedia.

* * *

Thomas Dalton, Ph.D., has authored or edited numerous books and
articles on politics and history, with a special focus on National
Socialism. You can support National Vanguard by buying Dr. Dalton’s
works through Cosmotheist Books; his personal Web site is
www.thomasdaltonphd.com.

* * *