In order for Auschwitz to rise above the rest of the carnage of WW II so as to be used as the means by which to keep the goyim full of guilt and shame, it most certainly did need the embellishment of serial lying. Without that serial lying, coming in the way of embellishment and exaggeration Auschwitz is just one more tragic incarnation of evil found so frequently in WW II like Katyn forest, the liquidation of the Christian Kulaks, Operation Keelhaul, or American run death camps where 1 million German “disarmed enemy forces” perished in conditions every bit as horrid as Auschwitz.
There is nothing about Auschwitz that makes it anymore hororfic than many of the other events of WW II except for the lying exaggerations surrounding Auschwitz that embellished it so that it might stand heads and tails above all the other Banalities of evil that so characterized WW II. Honestly, if one wants hororfic apart from the need of embellishment or exaggeration one need only to consider the Quebec, Teheran, or Yalta conferences where post-war enslavement was agreed upon, and where countless millions were left to suffer for nearly 50 years under the bloody thumb of Soviet Communism.
And all that embellishment, with all the diminishing of all the other vile evil that necessarily followed the embellishing of one over the others, had a political advantage of allowing the Bagel to shame the rest of the world into giving way to his later malfeasance at every turn.
The civic cult of “Auschwitzism” did not appear immediately, out of nowhere, after the WW II. It took decades of patient work, lobbying and propagandizing by Jewish groups (together with gentile anti-Fascists), to elevate it to its current status. One can observe how in William L. Shirer’s classic anti-Nazi opus “The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich,” published in 1960, the Jewish “Holocaust” is duly noted, but it has not yet achieved the position of supreme sanctity and exceptionalness yet that point.
Protestants can observe this kind of “growth of tradition” when they study the development of Popish institutions; for example, around 400 AD the bishop of Rome is already in a highly honored position, but still far from the status of Hildebrandine despotic authority that was reached in the High Middle Ages.
The Jewish casualties of the WW II essentially became the martyrs and patron saints of liberal democracy – the great warning of history of what happens when the principle of Sacred Equality is violated. That was clearly their semi-theological function: their memory was always invoked when the threat of Far Right re-appeared, like in ancient times Christian zealots called forth the memory of martyrs and confessors in their struggle against heresies. Medieval papacy also turned Thomas Becket of Canterbury into the martyr and hero who had struggled for the rights of the Roman church against secular kingly power. And like with other martyr-cults, Holocaustianity became more and more sumptuous as time went on. But martyrs can also go out of fashion – after Reformation in England, Thomas Becket was no longer seen as a hero:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Becket#Cult_in_the_Middle_Ages
“So a “major new feast day was instituted, commemorating the translation… celebrated each July almost everywhere in England and in many French churches.”[24] It was suppressed in 1536 with the Reformation.[25] The shrine was destroyed in 1538 during the Dissolution of the Monasteries on orders from King Henry VIII.[1][26] He also destroyed Becket’s bones and ordered all mention of his name obliterated.[26][27]”
As for those other horrible events of the WW II, they might have been sins, but they were not sins against Equality and Democracy. And therefore things like Dresden bombing were not such a big deal, because they were done for a GOOD CAUSE. This logic is explained here:
https://www.academia.edu/38818023/Vox_populi_vox_Dei_The_Pantheistic_Temptation_of_Democracy
“An even stronger rejection of the pantheistic temptation is visible in [Carl] Schmitt’s writings after the Second World war. Again and again he criticized Spinoza’s formula deus sive natura—the identification of God and nature—as leading to inhuman concepts of democracy:
“Deus sive natura. Merging in nature. Elimination of every distance, that is of every perspection, the non-perspective forming; … theism; transcendence, even intelligence: this all is yet still distance, perspection, difficulty, defection from the pure immanence of an immediate natural undisguised worldliness and an unproblematic bodily existence. Therefore: down with distance! Pure identity. Do you now realize on which side the logic of pure democracy can be found and who will be given absolution … from the most inhuman atrocities as long as everything remains democratic?” (Schmitt 1991, 84-85)”