Jewish historian says “easier to prove something did happen than did not”

Published by carolyn on Mon, 2018-06-18 16:11

Pictures like this are supposed to convince you that there is tons of evidence for the Holocaust. US Army staffers are organizing stacks of German documents collected by investigators in preparation for the 1946 International Military Tribunal.

By Carolyn Yeager

IT SHOULDN'T BE UP TO REVISIONISTS TO PROVE the Holocaust didn't happen.

It is up to proponents of the Holocaust to prove that it did. Unfortunately for them, no proof exists though the believers believe that it does.

As a recent case in point, a Hebrew University historian has discovered that proving something did not happen is difficult. He says it's because such proof is based on the absence of evidence rather than its presence.

Prof. Shaul Stampfer (left) has spent the last four years studying the Khazar Kingdom, seeking to discover whether the Ashkenazi Jews of Europe are descended from the Khazarians who are claimed by some to have converted to Judaism in the eighth century. This theory gained prominence when Tel Aviv professor Shlomo Sand published his book “The Invention of the Jewish People” in 2008. The book became a best seller and was translated into several languages. Sand argued that Ashkenazi Jews had no connection to the so-called land of Israel.

Stampfer, who is considered an expert in Jewish history, analyzed material from various fields, but found no reliable source for the claim that the Khazars converted to Judaism. “There never was a conversion by the Khazar king or the Khazar elite,” he said. “The conversion of the Khazars is a myth with no factual basis.”

In an article published this month in the journal “Jewish Social Studies,” Stampfer concluded that there is no evidence to support the assertion. “Such a conversion, even though it’s a wonderful story, never happened,” Stampfer said.

As a historian, he said he was surprised to discover how hard it is to prove that something didn’t happen.

“Until now, most of my research has been aimed at discovering or clarifying what did happen in the past ... It’s a much more difficult challenge to prove that something didn’t happen than to prove it did.

“The silence of so many sources about the Khazars’ Judaism is very suspicious. The Byzantines, the geonim [Jewish religious leaders of the sixth to eleventh centuries], the sages of Egypt – none of them have a word about the Jewish Khazars.”

Stampfer said his research had no political motives, though he recognizes that the topic is politically fraught. “It’s a really interesting historical question, but it has political implications,” he said. “As a historian, I’m naturally worried by the misuse of history. I think history should be removed from political discussions, but anyone who nevertheless wants to use history must at least present the correct facts. In this case, the facts are that the Khazars didn’t convert, the Jews aren’t descendants of the Khazars and the contemporary political problems between Israelis and Palestinians must be dealt with on the basis of current reality, not on the basis of a fictitious past.”

Holocaust yet to be proved

In like measure, the Jewish holocaust story has been presented as fact, and many have strong political reasons for upholding it. So even though the evidence that it did happen is not there, it's difficult to convince people it didn't happen once they are convinced it did.

When the Revisionist movement began to ask questions the upholders of the holocaust couldn't answer (as in the Vidal-Naquet quote below), the upholders slapped the label “holocaust denier" on them and worked to get laws passed in order to scare them off and shut them up.

However, the simple fact is, there has never been a book or a court case that definitively demonstrated how, when and where, in real time, the events making up “the Holocaust” took place ... including the famous International Military Tribunals. For example, mass murder by gassing thousands of persons at a time in assembly line fashion in rooms, the disposal of their poison-impregnated bodies immediately afterward by burning, and the subsequent disposal of mounds of ashes. Aerial photography taken at times when this was supposed to be happening do not show any evidence of such activity. In addition, no mass burial sites of corpses or ashes at these locations have been found.

This adds up to no forensic evidence for said crimes, only accusations and prejudiced witness testimony. The two prerequisites for any murder verdict—a dead body and a murder weapon—are missing.

Numerous weak excuses or explanations for this are given, which most people accept because they don't want to challenge the whole belief structure, but they are definitely not adequate, especially for serious historians. For example, back in 1979 in France, a very famous historian answered this way:

One must not ask oneself how, technically, such a mass murder was possible. It was technically possible, since it happened. […] there may not be any debate on the existence of the gas chambers.” (P.Vidal-Naquet, Le Monde)

This is shameful, but it passed without comment for political reasons. No 'facts' were presented by Vidal-Naquet, as Professor Stampfer says is necessary. As I've said, there is no hard evidence that backs up the three pillars of the Holocaust: the homicidal gas chambers (1) in which several million Jews were murdered (2) through a planned program of extermination by the Nazis (3). The only thing that happened was the decision to deport the Jews from Europe, then the later plan to put them in camps and the ultimate moving them about to various labor camps due to the ongoing world war. Most Jews survived the war and the camps and even the deportations. They survived better than the Germans did.

These facts are drowned out by the drum-beating, media-controlling Holocaust Lobby which is composed almost entirely of well-financed Jewish organizations. They also have way more influence over top government officials, including presidents and prime ministers, than they should have considering the minor importance of the issue and the very small population group it involves. This is how history becomes fraught with politics and is misused, as Prof. Stampfer warns.

If the Holocaust enforcers were forced to prove that the “murder of 6 million” actually happened instead of holocaust revisionists being forced to prove that it did not, this whole sleazy episode and all the misfortune it has brought in its wake would have been over long ago. We need to keep that firmly in mind.


Khazars, Khazaria


Evidence that this famous event happened is vanishingly thin in the historical records of the time.
And yes, there are historical records (Egyptian) of the time. In that the hieroglyphics in the past were not translated/translatable, these might even be said to be "new" historical records.

Whether the Holocaust happened or not, its a fact that many in the United States especially Evangelicals use modern day Israel in their prophetic pre-millenialism doctrines. That fact has  had huge political ramifications on US foreign policy. One has to wonder why the United States, a large and powerful nation is always at the beckon call of Israel.

The answer to your question is simple.  Look to Congress and the huge, disproportionate influence Jews have over it via their voting bloc, financial contributions and their media control. This affects the executive and judicial branches too.

This is why the Jews have to be seen as a hostile fifth column within our country,  just as Adolf Hitler saw them in Germany after WWI.

You are totally right Carolyn, this is why the US needs a man like Hitler to free the country, but sadly I can't see something like that anywhere near...

How can the US possibly produce a man like Hitler if it doesn't even know it's own heroes? How many Americans can distinguish between the Deism we're told about and the Deism the founding fathers were familiar with?


You're right that a man like Hitler is nowhere near in the US, and is a virtual impossibility, so why even mention it? Like most of what you write, it's wasted typing, just irrelevant copying and repeating of what you've heard other people say. What we want here are some original ideas.

Carolyn I didn't copy anything, it's simply what I think and not just repeating what others say. Sorry if you think that it's wasted typing...

You don't get it. You are a well-meaning person but don't have anything to say that hasn't already become a cliche. I tried to tell you before, privately, but you persist.

Very succinct and on point as always, Carolyn, and I always enjoy these - and your comments over at Occidental Observer (see here). Now if only I could get you to read Francis Parker Yockey, the first Holocaust Revisionist (who was there at Nuremberg and in post-war Germany, and a mentor to Otto Remer):

This propaganda announced that 6,000,000 members of the Jewish Culture-Nation-State-Church-People-Race had been killed in European camps, as well as an  indeterminate number of other people. The propaganda was on a world-wide scale, and was of a mendacity that was perhaps adapted to a uniformized mass, but was simply disgusting to discriminating Europeans. The propaganda was technically quite complete. "Photographs" were supplied in millions of copies. Thousands of the people who had been killed published accounts of their experiences in these camps. Hundreds of thousands more made fortunes in post-war black-markets. "Gas-chambers" that did not exist were photographed, and a "gasmobile" was invented to titillate the mechanically-minded.
We come now to the purpose of this propaganda which the regime gave to its mentally-enslaved masses. From the analysis in the 20th Century Political Outlook, the purpose is seen to be only one: it was designed to create a total war in the spiritual sense, transcending the limits of politics, against the Western Civilization. The American masses, both military and civilian, were given this mental poison in order to inflame them to the point where they would carry out without flinching the post-war annihilation-program. In particular: it was designed to support a war after the Second World War, a war of looting, hanging, and starvation against defenseless Europe.

The above was written in 1947.

Thanks for your positive words about me. I checked over at your website and saw again the May 2, 2017 post you wrote (a little over a year ago!) titled In Defence of Trump.

I'd like to take this opportunity to address something you said there:

"But both Yeager's criticisms of Trump and those of the pro-Putin side of the Alt Right stem from a common source: a belief that Trump, since becoming elected, has become a pawn of Zionism and Jewry.

This is incorrect as I have never believed or thought that Donald Trump was a pawn of anyone or anything, including not of the Jews or Zionists. I have stated this several times, often in comment replies to those who say he is. 

I believe Trump is an original and is expressing his own real views. I think he does indeed favor and support Israel, but he's also aware that American and diaspora Jewry don't like him. Trump is a sincere American Firster, nationalist and pro-Christian because he identifies as an American with a White European background. It's as simple as that.

He's doing a pretty brilliant job so far of maneuvering through all the nets and snares that are being set out to trip him up. He's a born fighter.