"I have been reading your amazing blog and listening to some of your podcasts with Carolyn. Not sure how I haven't run across your work before. Amazing stuff." (reader's comment, 10 May 2016)
Come chat with us! Download and install an IRC-client -- Hexchat is recommended -- and go to the channel #National-Socialism on the Undernet server.

22 March 2011

Whites Have Greater Lung Capacity than Chinese

In a previous post I presented the fact that Whites have greater lung-capacity than Negroes, which, along with dense skeletons, explains why Negroes do not swim well. It turns out that Chinese also have smaller lungs than Whites, and "weaker inspiratory muscles."

Actually this piece of Chinese medical research proves something that is almost self-evident: when did you ever see a broad-shouldered, barrel-chested Chinaman? Could you even imagine such a person?

Eur Respir J. 1995 Mar;8(3):446-9.

Lung elastic recoil in normal young adult Chinese compared with Caucasians.

Dept of Respiratory Medicine, Tan Tock Seng Hospital, Singapore.


Chinese people have smaller total lung capacity (TLC) compared with Caucasians of similar age, sex and height. One possible reason would be a higher lung elastic recoil in Chinese. Most published values for lung elastic recoil viz static lung compliance (CLst), shape constant K, and maximal static transpulmonary pressure (PLmax) have been from Caucasian subjects. The aim of our study was to obtain values for lung elastic recoil in normal young adult Chinese subjects. Static expiratory pressure-volume (P-V) curves were studied in 22 healthy Chinese subjects (12 males and 10 females). The P-V curve was fitted using an iterative least mean squares regression on a computer, according to an exponential equation: V = A-Be-KP, where V is lung volume, P is transpulmonary pressure, and A, B and K are constants. Mean values +/- SD for K, CLst and PLmax were 0.12 +/- 0.04, 230 +/- 103 ml.cmH2O-1 and 27.5 +/- 7.5 cmH2O, respectively. The values of CLst and K were similar to that of normal Caucasian subjects, whereas values of PLmax were lower. We attributed the lower PLmax partly to weaker inspiratory muscles in Chinese compared with Caucasians. We conclude that lung elastic recoil in normal young adult Chinese is similar to that of healthy young adult Caucasians. Hence, lung elasticity is unlikely to explain the racial differences in static lung volumes.
PMID: 7789492 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]Free Article

William L. Pierce defends National-Socialism against Americanist Qualms

I knew Dr. William Pierce, and I had a great respect for him, but at times I found myself disagreeing with him. Regarding National-Socialism as  formerly practiced in Germany, I find that Dr. Pierce's view is in some ways correct, but in some ways deficient. 

A letter-writer objected to whatever "socialist" aspect there was in National-Socialism. The word socialism of course has never made a good impression in the United States -- nor was Dr. Pierce favorable to it -- but in 1920s Germany it was an asset, insofar as the NSDAP managed to recruit many supporters away from the Marxist parties. Hitler himself had been drawn to the Social Democrats before he understood that they were hostile to German  ethnic loyalty. While National-Socialism under Hitler does not entirely fit the textbook definition of socialism (involving government ownership of enterprises), National-Socialist Germany did conduct social programs and economic regulation on a colossal scale. But like George Lincoln Rockwell, Dr. Pierce seems  rather uninterested in National-Socialist economics.

Dr. Pierce's statement of the probable impact of a German victory on World Jewry is entirely excessive.  It would not have been "the beginning of the end for the Jews everywhere" since Hitler's intention all along was simply resettlement of Europe's Jews, preferably far away on the island of Madagascar, which under the peace treaty with France would have been a German protectorate, or, failing that, in some eastern territory carved out of the Soviet Union. At worst the Jews would have had to adopt a way of life different from the parasitic lifestyle to which they were accustomed.

Deprived of its economic component, National-Socialism is reduced to a very common American way of thinking, one  that had great influence in the first half of the  20th century, when interracial marriage was illegal and persons of substandard intelligence were subject to forced sterilization in many states. Forced resettlement of an entire population as a way to solve a social problem is also  an idea that is not alien to the United States.

It was an effect of war-propaganda that the racial idea, which is native to the United States, became primarily associated with Germany, and the subsequent caricaturing of that idea with some alleged intention of killing every Jew is of course a result of propaganda. 

Dr. Pierce is completely correct in stating the centrality of the principle of putting the common interest of our people ahead of individual interest, but effective support of that ethos involves economic modifications that require some rethinking of American assumptions.

From "Letters to Editor," National Vanguard No. 103, Jan.-Feb. 1985:

“No” to Socialism

I read the article in Issue No. 102 by William Simpson twice. I’ve read all of his articles very carefully since you first began printing them, and I am greatly impressed by his conclusions.

I was raised in a Christian home. Both my parents were very religious, and I started reading the Bible, at my mother’s urging, when I was 12 years old. From the beginning I had some doubts about both the Old Testament and the New Testament, and ever since then I’ve had struggles with myself about the Bible’s teachings.

After reading William Simpson’s articles in NATIONAL VANGUARD I have come to agree with him that Christianity is not a suitable religion for the Germanic peoples. It is leading our nation to destruction. Our civilization is being wrecked by Biblical doctrines and the fuzzy thinking of church leaders. Their acceptance of all the inferior races into America has convinced me of this. Jesus’s own teachings are partly responsible.

What I cannot accept in NATIONAL VANGUARD, however, is your affinity for Hitler and his National Socialism. I detest any socialism, national or otherwise. I do not believe that it is necessary to establish a socialistic government in Washington in order to break the Zionist hold over our politicians and rid ourselves of the international pests. Do you agree?

Van Buren, AR

 Editor’s Reply:

The Second World War was the great watershed in the collapse of the West. Had any major Western nation — in particular, Britain, France, or America — had the integrity to resist the Jews and avoid being drawn into their worldwide conspiracy against Germany, there would have been no world war, but only a war between National Socialist Germany and the Marxist Soviet Union. Germany would have won, Marxism would have been eradicated, and it would have been the beginning of the end for the Jews everywhere.

Instead, Western men were persuaded by their bought politicians, their Judeo-Christian priests, and the Jewish manipulators of public opinion in their midst to take up arms against their German brothers in an unholy crusade to eradicate National Socialism, so that the Jews and the Marxist cancer they had unleashed on the world could survive. Before the Second World War the West was still viable; afterward it was not.

The catastrophe of 1945, with the triumph of the Jew and his allies, made inevitable the opening up of the immigration floodgates for non-Whites into Britain and the United States; the destruction of American White public schools; the enactment of laws curtailing White freedom of association and the rights of White employers and renters (and with them the rights of White employees and tenants); the rise of feminism, homosexuality, and drug use; the breakdown of the traditional family structure; a soaring miscegenation rate; and the displacement of healthy White art, music, literature and drama by a Judeo-democratic-Hollywood ’schlock’ culture. It also led to the metastasis of the Marxist cancer throughout huge areas of Europe and the rise of malignant Zionist power in Palestine — a power which surely would be the instigator of the Third World War.

It behooves those of us who still hope that enough healthy genes for a new beginning can be salvaged from the coming chaos, therefore, to understand everything we can about the Second World War; about its preeminent personality, Adolf Hitler; and about his ideology, National Socialism, from the eradication of which logically followed the evils briefly accounted above. That’s why NATIONAL VANGUARD often has articles on these subjects and will do so in the future.

As for the “socialism” in National Socialism, don’t let yourself be deceived by its enemies, among whom are the adherents of the Judeo-capitalists New Right; it certainly has nothing to do with the Semitic socialism Marx and his kinsmen peddled. The first slogan of Hitler’s National Socialists was: “The common interest before self-interest!” They believed that every German, whether a factory owner or a janitor, should put the interests of his nation and his race ahead of his personal interests. That was really what they meant by the “socialism” in National Socialism.

They also believed that it was the responsibility of the nation’s leaders to concern themselves with the physical health of every member of the nation — not to cater to special-interest groups or to win popularity contests with the fickle and easily swayed masses.

These beliefs determined the racial, economic, and educational policies of Hitler’s government. That government was “socialist,” in that it devoted much of its efforts to improving the economic welfare of working-class and middle-class Germans, as well as the racial quality and racial consciousness of the whole nation. But it did not attempt to enforce any sort of artificial “equality” on its citizens, either of status or income. And it did not discourage the entrepreneurial activities of individual Germans, so long as those activities were not harmful to national interests. Private property not only remained sacrosanct in National Socialist Germany, but the government instituted new policies to enable small farmers to avoid losing their land to moneylenders.

Whether that is “socialism,” or not, NATIONAL VANGUARD certainly is not against it. To go further: We will not break the Zionist hold on America until White Americans have made a conscious decision to put their common racial interests ahead of their private interests.—

12 March 2011

The Fraud of Marxism

”Death of the lie”--
Marxism and High Finance are different aspects of the same animal.

Ch. 10 of Politische Fibel by Hansjoerg Maennel, 16th (1940) edition. Translated by Hadding Scott, 2011.

Marxism or Nationalism

Marxism stands  for Democracy,  the International, Pacifism, and the Class Struggle with the goal of the abolition of private ownership.  The founder of this doctrine was  Karl Marx (real name Mardochei*; 1818—1883). Marx was a Jew; this fact in itself explains the entire manner and thrust of his thinking. He was no "proletarian," but came from bourgeois Jewish circumstances. Marx was also no workers’ leader [Arbeiterfuehrer] but a typical literatus. He drew not from life, but from books. The liberal-capitalist writings of the English national economists [Volkswirtschaftler] strongly influenced him. His chief work is Das Kapital. It is teeming with unusual foreign words; a factory worker for example cannot understand it at all. There are no greater opposites than Karl Marx and Adolf Hitler.   

Marxism incorporates in their acutest form all the fallacies of the 19th Century that plunged our folk into misery. The Marxists proclaim the International, they deny the value of folkdom, and want to replace it with "international solidarity." The Marxists were pacifists; they have always appealed to cowardice and conducted or glorified treason. Marxism openly called for the class struggle. The Marxists advocated democracy and parliamentarism; their biggest party called itself "Social-Democratic."

We have dealt with these views already. We have recognized that these principles are completely to be rejected, because they consistently bring about the collapse of a nation.   

From the spirit of this pernicious fallacy Karl Marx constructed an economic theory. It would be amiss if we critically examined all the elements of Marxism. With that one could at best awaken the memory of this destructive way of thinking. In a few years the Marxist poison instead should be completely extirpated, so that no German knows at all anymore what Marxism is. Therefore only the crucial point of Marxism should be extracted here.   

Marx asserts: every entrepreneur always exploits his workers; no employer ever pays out the full earning. Consequently businesses grow at an ever-increasing rate. Big business absorbs small business. In a necessary process of development it finally reaches the point, according to Marx, that there are only a few big capitalists, who on the other hand are faced with an enormous army of proletarians. 

On the basis of this prospect Marx does not, however, call for an economic policy that would prevent such a development. Rather he explains with quintessentially Jewish skill at distortion [Verdrehungskraft] that this development in the economy is to be welcomed: it is good that big capital constantly increases; it is good that there are ever more powerful, and accordingly fewer, capitalists. That is, according to Marx, a necessary development, which one cannot and should not prevent but only promote. Then, according to Marxist prophecy, comes the blink of an eye in which the few capitalists are dispossessed ("expropriation of the expropriators"(!), in other words dispossession of the dispossessors) by the teeming masses. 

The proletariat is to wait patiently for this moment.

This doctrine of the Jew Karl Marx shows the whole fraud of Marxism. Here we discern that  the goal of Marxism itself is like that of Capitalism: the dominion of World Jewry. We see the same thing when we consider the attitude toward private ownership. Marxism calls for dispossession, for the abolition of private ownership. Everything is to belong to the state. The result is a reward for the stupid and lazy along with a punishment for the efficient, who have achieved something and are now dispossessed, and with that comes a paralysis of productivity, an education for laziness and parasitism. 

Capitalism on the other hand stands for the inviolability, the  "sanctity" of private ownership. It is irrelevant how the capital was derived and how it is utilized. The result is the exploitation of the productive.  

National-Socialism stands fundamentally  on the side of private ownership. What each one creates through honest labor should belong to him. But the state has the right to dispossess when ownership is not used for the wellbeing of the folk or is not honestly gained.

  • Effect of Marxism: everything belongs to one entity, the state,   i.e. the Marxist leaders, thus  to Jewry.   
  • Effect of Capitalism: everything belongs to one entity, the big capitalists, thus also to Jewry.   
  • Effect of National-Socialism: to each his due [jedem das Seine]; evaluation  according to achievement.

Because of Adolf Hitler, the workers have been brought into the folk community, rooted in the soil, and de-proletarianized.

Marxism and Capitalism take ownership. National-Socialism makes ownership.   
Both Marxism and Capitalism have the same Jewish goal and the same Jewish effect. In both, everything belongs to international high finance; all other human beings are propertyless: "proletarians."

The practice of Marxism has exposed the entire fraud for the German Worker. The ostensible concern for the proletarian was merely a dramatic performance [Spiegelfechterei] made to fool a great many workers and to rope them into the Jewish-led organizations. Marxism has always taken care that the middle classes and the entire bourgeoisie be ruined [vernichtet] and proletarianized. Thereby the Marxist parties also hoped to gain better prospects for agitation and thus better election results.   

Social-Democracy and Communism both had the same final aim: they differed only in externals, because of different tactics. Communism is the consistent path of Marxist insanity. Especially in the KPD Lower Humanity organized for the murder of respectable [anstaendigen] Germandom, which joined the SA against the destruction and for the defense of all worthy things.

Adolf Hitler: "Everything from robberies, arsons, railroad attacks, assassination attempts, and so on, receives moral sanction in the Communist Idea. The method of individual mass terror alone has, in the course of a few years, cost the National-Socialist movement over 300 dead and ten-thousand injured. 

In Communist Soviet Russia all foundations of folkdom are being systematically destroyed. Here there is no freedom for the worker or the farmer, no marriage and family, no religion, and no honor anymore. Here Asiatics and Jews are triumphant. Whoever opposes this slavery is crushed with bloody terror.   

Before the National-Socialist Revolution the Marxist Terror in Germany was manifesting itself ever more clearly. Adolf Hitler had perceived that one could overcome the terror of Marxism not through bourgeois propriety and cowardice, but only through bitter opposition. To this end he founded the SA.  The SA has shattered the Marxist Terror. They have accomplished their mission under the heaviest losses.    

Marxism and Liberalism both have the same root. They are different varieties of the same Jewish Materialistic worldview. Marxism is a Liberalism with reversed early symptoms. Liberalism is the avarice of the "propertied class"; Marxism is the envy of the "unpropertied class." But National-Socialism is the sacrifice of one nation for the nation.

Marxism and Capitalism are both instruments of Jewry for the enslavement of peoples. Adolf Hitler recognized that one could break Jewish power only when one had led the German Worker out of the Marxist organizations.

The enormous propaganda campaign of the NSDAP had the goal of enlightening the German people about the deceit of Jewry.   Whenever the bourgeois Capitalist parties turned against Marxism, they turned against the working class. But they represented essentially the same materialistic worldview as Marxism itself, only in another variation. Therefore the bourgeoisie was unable to defeat Marxism. No party of class, only a national movement, could accomplish this task.   

The struggle of National-Socialism against Marxism was never a struggle against the worker, but always about the worker and for the worker. Therefore our leader fought above all against the Marxist plague. This struggle has ended victoriously. The National-Socialist Revolution destroyed Marxism. At the onslaught of the SA this rotten doctrine collapsed like a house of cards.  

Our leader has, with the destruction and eradication of Marxism, created the prerequisite  for the reascent of Germany . 

Joseph Goebbels: "We do not want to abolish ownership; rather we want to generalize ownership."

Adolf Hitler: "On the day when Marxism is smashed in Germany, its fetters are in truth broken forever. For never in  our history have we been conquered  because of the strength  of our opponents, but always only because of our own vices and because of the enemies in our own camp."  

Adolf Hitler: "The highest aim of the folkish state is thus the maintenance of those fundamental racial elements which, as imparters of culture,  bring the beauty and dignity of a higher humanity."

Further Reading

See inter alia: Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, especially vol. I, chapters 5 and 10; vol. II, chapters 2, 3, 4, & 1o. Otto Bangert, German Revolution. Joseph Goebbels , Revolution of the Germans ; Revolution of the Spirit. 

Karl Marx’s father, son of a rabbi, had changed the family name from Mordechai to Marx. The spelling Mardochei appears in a few sources, but Mordechai seems much more common, appearing for example in John Spargo’s Karl Marx: His Life and Work (1910).

04 March 2011

African Governments Commemorate the Role of Jews in Subverting White Rule

The text below is reproduced verbatim from a website advertising postage stamps, released in collaboration by the governments of  Liberia, Gambia, and Sierra Leone, that commemorate the role of Jews in subverting White rule in South Africa. Each stamp bears a Jewish star on the lower right.

The claim "that Jews were over represented by 2,500 percent in their proportion to the governing population" is on the original site, which you can view here.

I have removed only the "read more" links, since it appears to me that what is stated on the front page more than makes the point.

Legendary Heroes of Africa

In the anti Apartheid South African Liberation struggle, it was estimated that Jews were over represented by 2,500 percent in their proportion to the governing population. This stamp issue acknowledges the extraordinary sacrifices made by Jews to the liberation of their African brethren, and these stamps recognize some of the most significant contributors to global humanity in the 20th Century.


Helen Suzman
Helen Suzman (née Gavronsky) was born in the South African mining town of Germiston on 7 November 1917 to Samuel and Frieda Gavronsky, both immigrants from Lithuania who had come to South Africa to escape the restrictions imposed on Jews.

Eli Weinberg
Eli Weinberg was born in 1908 in the port of Libau, in Latvia on the Baltic Sea. He experienced the First World War and the October Revolution of 1917 as a child, and this led to his socialist political development. During World War I, he was separated from his family.

Esther Barsel
Esther Barsel (born October 17, 1924, in Raguva, Lithuania; died October 6, 2008, in Johannesburg) was a South African politician and long-standing member of the South African Communist Party (SACP). She was a member of both her local African National Congress branch and the SACP's Johannesburg Central Branch..

Hymie Barsel
Hymie Barsel was born on September 11, 1920 in Fordsburg, Johannesburg, South Africa to Faiga and Moishe Barsel, both of Litvak heritage. He was raised in a Zionist oriented home. He suffered from epilepsy which was ill understood at that time, eventually receiving treatment from Dr. Max Joffe, also a Zionist.


Yetta Barenblatt
Yetta Barenblatt was born on 24 September 1913, in Dublin, Ireland, to Basna and Solomon Malamed of Lithuanian origin. In 1925, a friend encouraged her to come to South Africa with the promise of employment. However, due to her circumstances, further education was not possible and Barenblatt was forced to seek employment at a retail store.

Ray Alexander Simons
Ray Alexander Simons née Alexandrowich was born on 12 January 1913 in Latvia. While at school, she displayed little fear in challenging authorities. Her independent thinking suggested she pursue a career in medicine but she soon took up politics. When she was about 13, she became active in the underground Latvian Communist Party.

Baruch Hirson
Baruch Hirson, named after his late grandfather, was born on 10 December 1921 at Doomfontein near Johannesburg in the Transvaal. His father was an electrician. His parents, Joseph and Lily Hirson, were Jews who had immigrated to South Africa to evade the pogroms, persecution and discrimination Jews were subjected to in the old Romanov Empire.

Norma Kitson
Norma Kitson was one of a generation of Jewish activists, who committed themselves to the struggle against racial tyranny in South Africa. The drive of these South African Jews was to give witness against racism and social injustice, even at great personal cost. Norma Kitson's autobiography, Where Sixpence Lives (1986), uniquely fuses the personal and the political.


Ruth First
Ruth First was born on May 4, 1925 to Jewish immigrants Julius and Matilda First. Julius, a furniture manufacturer, was born in Latvia and came to South Africa in 1906. He and his wife were founder members of the Communist Party of South Africa (CPSA) or South African Communist Party (SACP) in 1921. Ruth and her brother, Ronald, grew up in a household in which intense political debate between people of all races and classes was always present.

Hilda Bernstein
Hilda Bernstein was born in London in 1915. Her father was Simeon Schwartz from Odessa, Ukraine. He relocated to England in 1901 where he became a Bolshevik and represented the new USSR in UK for a short while in 1920's. He returned to the USSR when recalled in 1925, and died in the 1930's without ever having returned to the UK.

Lionel "Rusty" Bernstein
Lionel “Rusty” Bernstein was born in Durban, in 1920; the youngest of four children of European émigrés. Orphaned at eight years old, he was raised by relatives. These early disruptions to his family life were compounded when he was sent to finish his education at a boys’ boarding school. Hilton College, a private school, that was the South African equivalent of Eton or Harrow.

Ronald Segal
At an early age, Ronald Segal proclaimed himself a Socialist, saying he did not want to be a millionaire. But he had no choice. His father was a co-owner of Ackerman's, a giant cheap clothing chain in South Africa. At their home on the slopes of Cape Town's Lion's Head, his Zionist parents entertained visiting dignitaries. At age eight, Ronald read “Gone With the Wind” and a biography of Disraeli.

01 March 2011

Does Norman Finkelstein Embellish His Family's History of Suffering?

Updated 5 April 2017.

Generally when I hear some Jew say that he lost some huge number of relatives in the Holocaust, of course I am skeptical, because we know that there were no homicidal gas-chambers, which are supposed to have been responsible for the vast majority of such deaths, and because from time to time it is reported that some person "lost in the Holocaust" turns out to be still alive and was merely separated from the rest of his family in the chaos following the war. Usually, however, it is not practical to investigate a person's specific claim about his family.

Usually the most that you can do is to ask the Jew making the claim to explain how he could know what he is claiming, and also have him give some details so as to determine whether his story is consistent with known facts.

Norman Finkelstein is a Jew with academic credentials who has criticized the uses of the Holocaust, and policies of the State of Israel. He does not, however, suggest that the Holocaust may not have occurred (despite abundant evidence that should raise that question in the mind of any thoughtful person examining the matter). He even goes so far as to call the people who do ask these questions "crackpots."

In a presentation at Waterloo University (Canada), Dr. Finkelstein, facing a difficult audience, decides, as he calls it, "to play the Holocaust card." Finkelstein says that both of his parents were in the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, and that (subsequently) his father was in Auschwitz and his mother was in Majdanek. All of his mother's relatives and all of his father's relatives, he says, were "exterminated."

"My late father was in Auschwitz concentration camp; my late mother was in Majdanek concentration camp. Every single member of my family on both sides was exterminated. Both of my parents were in the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising."

Finkelstein spoke with greater explicitness in a Canadian interview:

"My parents were in the Warsaw Ghetto from September 1939 to May 1943. My father was then taken to Auschwitz concentration camp. My mother was in Majdanek concentration camp. They were there through the duration of the war."

There is a problem here. The overwhelming majority (more than 300,000) of Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto were sent before the uprising to Treblinka, so that about 70,000 were left at the time of the uprising. After the uprising, a relatively small number were sent to Majdanek, but according to the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum none were sent to Auschwitz.

The USHMM gives the following approximate figures for Jews deported from Warsaw after the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising of April-May 1943:

  • 7,000 to Treblinka
  • 18,000 to Majdanek
  • 16,000 to Poniatowa forced-labor camp
  • 6,000 to Trawniki forced-labor camp
  • 2,000 to smaller forced-labor camps such as Budzyn and Krasnik

None of the named camps is anywhere near Auschwitz, where Finkelstein says that his father was sent.

Finkelstein may have learned, since I originally posted on this matter in 2011, that the story that he had been telling about his father does not match the record, because he now tells a different story.

On 5 April 2017 I asked Finkelstein this question: "Did your father go directly from the Warsaw Ghetto to Auschwitz, or was he sent to another camp and from there to Auschwitz? If so, to which camp?"

Finkelstein was kind enough to answer: "Majdanek."

So now it is alleged that Finkelstein's father was sent to Majdanek, and thence to Auschwitz. It is a direct contradiction of what he told Michael Coren.

He also told Michael Coren that his father was in Auschwitz until the end of the war. This is not what he says now. Responding to a question, Finkelstein wrote on 5 April 2017:

"My Father was in seven different camps. He ended up Auschwitz, and was on the Auschwitz Death March."

When I asked how long his father was in Auschwitz, Finkelstein said:

"I don't know. We never discussed it."

Previously, Finkelstein claimed to know that his father was sent from the Warsaw Ghetto to Auschwitz and stayed there until the end of the war. Now he claims that his father was in seven different camps, and admits that he does not even know how long his father was in Auschwitz. 

Finkelstein also could not possibly know that all the relatives of both his parents were "exterminated." This is at best a surmise based on not knowing the whereabouts of these people. Some may have died, but it frequently happens that Jews presumed by their relatives to have been killed during the war turn out to be alive (example 1) (example 2) (example 3). 

Finkelstein's account of his family's experience in the Holocaust, changing as it does, seems to be an invention. This is not to say that Finkelstein's parents were never in a concentration camp, but he fabricates the details, including the detail about all his relatives on both sides having been killed. The rhetorical advantage that Finkelstein gains with such fiction is obvious: in a milieu where it is customary to tell this kind of lie, it enables him to out-kvetch his critics.