Wannsee Demystified Holocaust Exceptional FALSE According to Genocide Scholar Bloxham

The Final Solution, by Donald Bloxham. 2009

A Much Larger Polokaust Thwarted Only By Events. Wannsee Clarified. The Holocaust Was NOT “Special” in Any Objective Sense of the Word, According to This Genocide Scholar and Author!

Author Donald Bloxham is identified as Professor of Modern History at Edinburg University, and an expert on genocide. This work certainly shows it!

A BIGGER POLOKAUST (POLOCAUST) WAS AVERTED BY MILITARY EVENTS, NOT SOME NAZI GERMAN ESTEEM OF SLAVS OVER JEWS

We are frequently reminded that, whereas some 90% (exaggerated) of ethnic Poles survived the Nazi German occupation, only about 10% of Poland’s Jews did. Such statements fuel the fires of victimhood competition, implying as they do a valid meritocracy of genocides. In addition, these percentages are multiply disingenuous, as now shown, and again in the rest of this review.

Donald Bloxham discusses the implications of the USSR not collapsing militarily and politically in 1941, as had been expected, “Mercifully, one of the designs put into abeyance was the mooted starvation of many millions of urban Soviet civilians. By some estimates 30 million or even more people would die…Pragmatism militated against the enactment of the ‘Hungerplan’: logistics, the lack of available manpower for sealing off whole urban areas from their agricultural hinterlands, and the recognition that the policy might lead to mass rebellion anyway…Fear of arousing rebellion were also behind the postponement of various ideas floated in 1942-3 for the murder of Poles with tuberculosis, or of particular categories of elderly Poles and children.” (p. 183).

NAZI GERMANY WINNING THE WAR WOULD HAVE MEANT THE DEATH OF MORE JEWS, BUT ALSO THE DEATH OF TENS OF MILLIONS OF SLAVS

Genocide-scholar Bloxham reminds us that, “Alternatively, had German victory transpired, the death of European Jewry would have been only part of a much larger program of direct and indirect genocide. The swift defeat of the USSR would have permitted the enactment of the GENERALPLAN OST with all of the horrors that it implied for tens of millions of Slavs…An ongoing supply of enemies was needed for the self-justification of Nazism as an ideology of constant struggle and ever-greater racial fitness.” (p. 246).

STATING THE OBVIOUS: THE HOLOCAUST HAS GOTTEN FAR MORE ATTENTION, AND MYSTIFICATION, THAN ANY OTHER GENOCIDE

Donald Bloxham reminds us that, “The truth is that most other genocides have been of insufficient interest to Western intellectuals for them to ponder their metaphysical dimensions in the way the Holocaust has been pondered.” (p. 318). Why not?

HOLOCAUST PREEMINENCE SERVES POLITICAL PURPOSES, INCLUDING THE HOLOCAUST INDUSTRY

The opined uniqueness of the Holocaust is no longer a matter of ongoing scholarly interest: It is now something tacitly assumed in matters of public policy. Bloxham writes, “Yet the idea of uniqueness, and there universal significance, is important to the establishment of various Holocaust memorial days and museum exhibitions across the Western world. If there is a ‘Holocaust Industry’, these ideas of didactics and commemoration are its workshops and uniqueness one of its most important raw materials.” (p. 319).

HOLOCAUST UNIQUENESS IS A CONSTRUCT BASED ON MYSTICISM, NOT FACTS

The issue is lucidly spelled out by Bloxham, “Ultimately, uniqueness is not susceptible to proof by agreed means of testing.” (p. 317). That says it all.

AMBIGUITIES IN THE WANNSEE PROTOCOL: TOTAL EXTERMINATION OF THE JEWS SHOULD NOT BE INFERRED

The author makes it clear that it is dangerous to read-in too much into the Wannsee Protocol. This is especially the case with the notion that it was some kind of blueprint for the destruction of all Jews of continental Europe, and even that of the world. It was no such thing!

To begin with, the fates of the 11 million Jews, including those of neutral and Allied countries, was predicated on an unconditional German victory. (p. 227). No wonder Bloxham calls Wannsee, “an aspiration, rather than a plan”. (p. 227).

The provisions of Jews for forced labor, in Wannsee, were real (p. 225), and not simply a disguise for extermination. Obviously, the sparing of some Jews for forced labor had been built-in, and not some kind of afterthought brought about after Germany was clearly losing WWII.

The bulk of the world’s observant Jewry lived in Eastern Europe. Heinrich Himmler concluded that the destruction of Eastern European Jewry meant that “‘Jewry as a whole would never recover from the blow.” (p. 188). Obviously, the destruction of all the Jews of the world, or even those of continental Europe, was not necessary in order to achieve Nazi objectives. The destruction of the essence of Jewry, and not necessarily that of every single Jew, parallels the ideas of Raphael Lemkin, the Polish Jew who coined the term genocide, on the Nazi German genocide of Poles (Polokaust). That is, the liquidation of the Polish intelligentsia, Polish culture, etc., was sufficient for the destruction of the essence of Polishness. (pp. 188-189). The death of every single ethnic Pole was not necessary.

Far from being a master blueprint, the Wannsee Protocol had always been subject to evolving interpretations as a result of actual events. For instance, both Himmler and Goebbels wrote of “the Jewish question being settled” by the end of 1943. (p. 244). This is despite the fact that Hungarian Jewry had yet to be exterminated, and the Jews of Britain were probably now forever out of reach. Thus, Himmler and Goebbels were referring to that part of Europe then under direct German occupation. Furthermore, had the later wartime contingencies not allowed for the 1944 destruction of Hungarian Jewry, the nowadays-popular perception of the Holocaust as a European-wide project would have been significantly weakened. (p. 246).

Finally, and most important of all, Wannsee related to the politics involving Reinhard Heydrich, as concluded Bloxham, “The extent of genuine possibility was of less concern to Heydrich than the claim to authority over continent-wide deportation IF it ever became a possibility.” (p. 227; Emphasis in original).

DESTROYING JEWS WAS NEVER AN ALL-CONSUMING NAZI GERMAN PRIORITY

Bloxham takes issue with the presumed “unique irrationality” of the Holocaust, “This is also the popular understanding of the Holocaust, the view that the Nazis would have gone literally to the ends of the earth to track down each and every living Jew with no regard for the practical consequences. But the historical record shows that it is SIMPLY NOT TRUE.” (p. 187, Emphasis added).

He adds that, “We have also seen that the idea that Hitler (and Himmler) actively sought to murder every last Jew everywhere is open to question. It is far from clear that Hitler himself was overly concerned with the fate of Jews of Norway or Rhodes.” (p. 316).

A GERMAN VICTORY WOULD NOT NECESSARILY HAVE MEANT THE DEATH OF EVERY SINGLE EUROPEAN JEW

Bloxham pokes more holes in Holocaust orthodoxy as he comments, “It has been contended that any European Jews exempted from genocide during the war would have been murdered had the Nazis won the war. Barring perhaps the small Jewish communities of the Iberian Peninsula and in other neutral countries this is sensible contention, though, depending on the absolute or conditional nature of victory British Jewry may also have escaped. THE ONLY PROBLEM WITH THE ARGUMENT IS THAT IT IS AN EXTRAPOLATION BASED ON A CONSTANT TRAJECTORY RATHER THAN THE CHANGING TRAJECTORY THAT ACTUALLY EXISTED. One might equally posit that, had the USSR been defeated as swiftly as Hitler intended, the policy of immediate killing of the majority of Jews would not have occurred, and the destruction of the Jews would have been a matter of more drawn-out attrition, as some of the unrealized Nazi deportation plans suggested.” (pp. 245-246; Emphasis added).