Within five minutes, any intelligent, open-minded person can be convinced that the Holocaust gassings of World War II are a profitable hoax.
Fred A. Leuchter is America’s leading specialist on the design and fabrication of execution equipment, including homicidal gas chambers. In 1988, Leuchter scraped samples from the alleged gas chamber walls in Auschwitz, Birkenau and Lublin. Cyanide residue would be clearly evident on all these walls if gassings did occur. To his astonishment, Leuchter found no significant cyanide traces in any one of these rooms.
In 1991, the Polish government repeated these tests to disprove Leuchter’s findings, but they as well found no evidence of any gassings ever occurring.
The structural integrity of these “gas chambers” is also extremely faulty. These rooms have ordinary doors and windows which are not hermetically sealed! There are large gaps between the floors and doors. If the Germans had attempted to gas anyone in these rooms, they would have died themselves, as the gas would have leaked and contaminated the entire area. Also, no equipment exists to exhaust the air-gas mixture from these buildings. Nothing was made to introduce or distribute the gas throughout the chambers. There are no provisions to prevent condensation of gas on the walls, floors or ceilings. No exhaust stacks have ever existed.
Though six million Jews supposedly died in the gas chambers, not one body has ever been autopsied and found to have died of gas poisoning. We have been shown piles of bodies from World War II, but most of these persons died of typhus or starvation or Allied bombings and a great many of those were murdered Germans, not Jews. Roughly the equivalent of ten football fields should be packed full of gassed bodies to present as evidence, yet not one body has ever been discovered.
The Germans documented everything in meticulous detail from shrubbery to arbors, but no pre-war or wartime plans or documents exist that detail or even mention any gas chambers for reasons of genocide. All documents ever presented were drawn up AFTER the war.
Even if we threw away all the evidence and accounted for every so-called gas chamber, it would have taken 68 YEARS to accomplish gassing six million Jews!
Even The Diary of Anne Frank is a hoax. Portions of the diary were written with a ball point pen. These pens were not in use at the time Anne Frank lived.
It is not denied concentration camps existed. Tragically, many died of typhus or starvation, as often happens in such situations. There is, however, no evidence that any gassings occurred for the reasons of genocide.
Israel continues to receive trillions of dollars worldwide as retribution for Holocaust gassings. Our country has donated more money to Israel than to any other country in the history of the world—over $35 billion per year, everything included. If not for our extravagantly generous gifts to Israel, every family in America could afford a brand new Mercedes Benz. Surely the American people would be outraged if they realized their hard-earned money is being squandered in these difficult times.
With all this money at stake for Israel, it is easy to comprehend why this Holocaust hoax is so secretly guarded. The Jewish name for Holocaust is “Shoah.” In Zionist circles, it is known as “Shoah Business.” If nothing else, this unbelievable coverup demonstrates the irrepressible Zionist influence and control of our country. Their only defense against the facts is to cry out “antisemitic,” “Skinhead” or “Nazi,” whereas the majority of those who question the Holocaust are ordinary citizens…though you would never know it from the media.
In whatever way you can, please help shatter this profitable myth. It is time we stop sacrificing America’s welfare for the sake of Israel and spend our hard-earned dollars on Americans. (For more information contact The Institute for Historical Review P.O. Box 2739 Newport Beach, CA 92659 USA).
There are compelling reasons to believe that the so-called holocaust never existed. Page 223, in The Diary of Anne Frank, (Pan Horizons edition, Pan Books Ltd., London, 1989), indicates that the size of Auschwitz, the most notorious of all German work camps, WAS VERY SMALL, with only 11,000 people (many of whom may not even have been Jews) being evacuated by the Germans at the time of the Russian advance in 1945. Certainly, compared to Spielberg’s film, Schindler’s List (which Emilie Schindler, Oskar’s widow, said was full of lies), and other Jewish propaganda, that millions upon millions of Jews were systematically exterminated, 11,000 people is a very small number. Simple arithmetic tells us that the Germans would have had to have had hundreds of camps, or else they would have had to exterminate 137 people PER HOUR, in order for six million Jews to have been exterminated at such small camps as Auschwitz, a feat that would have been humanly impossible considering that, according to Douglas Reed’s Behind the Scene and The Controversy of Zion, a mere 850,000 soldiers and others were killed by the entire German and Japanese war machines combined during WW2 (see p.397-400 of Douglas Reed’s book Controversy of Zion). People who would believe the Jewish propaganda that six million Jews were exterminated by Hitler must KEEP IN MIND THE SMALL SCALE CONSTRUCTION OF AUSCHWITZ AND THE VERY FEW OTHER GERMAN WORK CAMPS THAT EXISTED DURING WW2.
On July 13, 1994, a documentary on the life of Charles A. Lindbergh broadcast on the Public Broadcast System (PBS – KENW-TV) said that when Lindbergh visited one of these few camps in Germany following WW2, he was told that 25,000 died in 1-1/2 years. Again, simple arithmetic tells us that 25,000 times a half dozen camps does not equal 6,000,000. In fact, it doesn’t even equal 600,000. . . .
It is an interesting fact that the number of so-called persecuted Jews KEEPS INCREASING. Hal Greenwald, program director for the Hillel Foundation at Duke University, a Jewish student group, has been promoting the idea that NINE MILLION JEWS WERE EXTERMINATED IN HITLER’S GAS CHAMBERS (New York Times, Nov. 9, 1991, AP). NOW IT’S 9 MILLION AND GROWING. ..JUST LIKE OUR DEBT/TAX MONEY SUPPLY…THE NUMBERS JUST KEEP COMING OUT OF THIN AIR. . . (The Bible Caused Economic and Financial Slavery in the New World Order by Lee Cheney).
The Holocaust Issue: Three Christian Views
Christian Responsibility to Truth by Herman Otten
While most Revisionists appear to be opposed to the construction of the [US government] Holocaust Museum in Washington, DC, right next to some of our nations’s most cherished monuments, I say: Let it be built! One day it will serve as a monument to the stupidity of modern man, who can still accept a hoax as a fact. Hopefully it will then serve as a reminder to study all the facts and evidence, and repudiate all hoaxes.
The day is surely coming when all the evidence showing that the Germans never exterminated six million Jews can no longer be suppressed. Truth is not determined by majority vote. I learned this lesson in high school, and since then have repeatedly discovered how the majority of scholars, even within our churches, can be in error. That our presidents, senators and congressmen are all supposed to be convinced that the Germans killed six million Jews, that almost all of our nation’s professors and churchmen are said to maintain that the Holocaust is a fact, doesn’t make it a fact.
There is no dispute over the fact that large numbers of Jews were deported to concentration camps and ghettos, or that many Jews died or were killed during World War II. Revisionist scholars have presented evidence, which “exterminationists” have not been able to refute, showing that there was no German program to exterminate Europe’s Jews, and that the estimate of six million Jewish wartime dead is an irresponsible exaggeration.
The Holocaust—the alleged extermination of some six million Jews (most of them by gassing)—is a hoax and should be recognized as such by Christians and all informed, honest and truthful men everywhere.
Here are the reasons that have impressed me as particularly persuasive in coming to my own conclusion that the Revisionist view of the Holocaust story is the correct one:
– There is no convincing or substantial evidence for the allegation of mass killings in gas chambers in the wartime German camps. Careful investigation—in particular that carried out by American engineer Fred Leuchter—has thoroughly discredited the “gas chamber” extermination claims.
– The most reliable statistics available cannot be reconciled with the legendary “six million” figure. The best evidence indicates that no more than a million, or perhaps a million and a half, European Jews perished from all causes during the war years.
– Neither the major Jewish organizations in the United States, nor the wartime Allied governments, nor the International Red Cross, nor the Vatican acted as if they seriously believed the wartime extermination propaganda.
– Although the German government kept extensive and detailed records of its wartime Jewish policy, not a single document has ever been found which substantiates or even refers to an extermination program or policy. Instead, the voluminous German records confiscated by the Allies at the end of the war clearly show that the German “final solution” program was one of emigration and deportation, not extermination.
– Even prominent Jewish “exterminationist” historians now acknowledge that the stories of gassings and extermination in camps in Germany proper are not true, in spite of the fact that such claims were once seriously made, particularly at the great Nuremberg Trial of 1945-1946.
– The Holocaust story now centers on just six former camps in Poland. The so-called “evidence” presented to prove mass exterminations in these camps is qualitatively no better than the now discredited “evidence” once cited for extermination in the camps in Germany proper.
– Much of the so-called “evidence” presented by “exterminationists” over the years has already been thoroughly discredited. For example, the well-known horrific photographs of piles of corpses taken in camps in western Germany at the end of the war are now acknowledged to be photos of victims of disease and malnutrition who perished as indirect victims of the war in the final weeks and months of the conflict. Also, so-called “confessions”—such as those of Auschwitz commandant Rudolf Hoss—have been shown to be untruthful and extracted by torture. Many of the official reports and testimonies presented as “evidence” by the prosecution in the Nuremberg trials have since been shown to be lies.
– The fact that so many Jews “survived” German rule during the war—many of them even in so-called “extermination” centers such as Auschwitz-Birkenau—is enough to show that there was no German program or policy to exterminate the Jews of Europe.
Israel is using the “fact” of the Holocaust as an excuse to kill Palestinians in Israel. This slaughter, together with the anti-scriptural notions of the Israel-first Millennialists, almost all of whom believe in the Holocaust, could lead to another bloody war.
The Holocaust is not some innocent hoax, such as children’s fairy tales that entertain and have no evil consequences.
The “chosen people” and “Holocaust” myths make mission work among non-Christians far more difficult. Arabs, who are told that the Bible teaches that their land belongs to the Jews, find it more difficult to believe what the Bible says about Christ. Herman Otten is a Lutheran pastor and editor-publisher of the weekly Christian News of New Haven, Missouri. This commentary is excerpted from his address at the Ninth IHR Conference. The complete text is published in the Fall 1989 Journal).
The Jews endured the most dementedly calculated and well-documented—but hardly the only—case. To separate the Nazi evil from other evils is understandable but Eurocentric. It trivializes all suffering but its own. . . It awards special, extra-human stature to the victims. Nothing that occurs inside Israel can be wrong, because Jews were gassed at Auschwitz. And so people set themselves apart from, against, and above others.
She has caught the note of most Holocaust rhetoric: intense self-absorption. This is a human reaction, and it can be excused up to a point. That point comes when those whose rights have been violated begin disregarding others’ rights, as when Jewish apologists for Israel feel persecuted by criticism of Israel’s brutality toward non-Jews.
Even many pro-Israel Jews feel uneasy about the Museum being in America, on government land, paid for with tax money. The implication of its presence is that all Gentiles, especially Christians, need to be instructed, to have their consciousness raised, even to be made to feel guilty about Jewish suffering. As if we didn’t know that murder and persecution are wrong! As if Israel were a moral model for *us*!
In the same way, the implication of the word “anti-Semitism” is that the chief moral test for anyone is whether he has the correct attitude toward Jews. And again, this is understandable—but also very narrow. Murdering Ukrainians is every bit as evil as murdering Jews, after all. But why should we even have to say that?
The wrong lesson is being drawn. You would think that the evil of Hitler was mere anti-Semitism as such, rather than mass murder. But if anti-Semitism were confined to country-club snobbery, even Jews wouldn’t mind it too much. The real evil is the use of the state as an instrument of death. Government, perverted from it modest uses, can magnify every crime unimaginably.
That is the real “lesson of the Holocaust,” the lesson our time still refuses to learn. We think it’s only the Hitler or Stalin version of the superstate that is wrong. But think how America’s conduct in World War II would have appeared to our ancestors. It’s hard for us to feel the sheer monstrosity of bombing cities.
I recently heard some interesting testimony on this point. During that war the US government commissioned a series of propaganda films from Frank Capra, which were made under the collective title “Why We Fight.” One of them, “The Battle for China,” describes the barbarity of the “Japs,” also called “Nips,” and mocked them for their “grinning yellow faces.” Among the horrors perpetrated by the Japs was the unprecedented atrocity of bombing cities, killing civilians by the thousands!
Of course Capra and his staff didn’t know that the US government was planning to do exactly that to Japanese and German cities. In their innocence, they assumed that only a savage, alien race could have stooped to such barbarism.
But we have supped full with horrors. Evil bores us. Its statistical extremes have long since lost their interest, and there is something ritually formulaic in the demands that we profess belief in, and abhorrence toward, Nazi and Communist abominations. “Holocaust denial” has become the big thought crime, denounced by Christians who are quite tolerant of those who deny the Redemption. No similar opprobrium, by the way, attaches to Gulag denial. After all, nobody who really believes a thing wants to force others to profess belief in it. Sincerity never demands hypocrisy.
Even the word “Holocaust” has come to seem a polemical appropriation of human suffering that verges on the indecent. I remember an old Jewish woman I slightly knew who had a number tattooed on her wrist. That told me all I needed to know about Hitler, and it would be pedantic to wonder whether a regime that was willing to brand Jews like cattle meant to kill them all. But it would have seemed morally crass to call what that woman had been through as a girl “the Holocaust”: It’s beginning to sound like a brand name, of special utility to glib hawkers. All the victims of World War II, including Jews, deserve more respect than that. (Joseph Sobran is a nationally-syndicated columnist, lecturer and Critic-at-Large for National Review. This commentary is taken from his “Washington Watch” column in the May 13, 1993, issue of The Wanderer, a conservative Roman Catholic weekly).
“Examine All the Evidence” by Louis Vezelis
On April 22, 1993, an ugly, monstrous edifice was dedicated in Washington, DC. It is a grotesque museum dedicated to the victims of evil. The only problem is that the majority of people throughout the world have been conditioned like Pavlovian dogs to react irrationally to predetermined stimuli. Those who refuse are summarily isolated from the rest of the dehumanized human herd through use of meaningless but emotionally-charged epithets.
It is quite easy to observe which newspapers are subservient to this modern day hoax. The subject is the so-called “Holocaust Museum” built on public land “generously” donated by the US government…
Insulting terminology in an editorial appearing in the left-wing, pro-Zionist, anti-Christian Democrat and Chronicle [newspaper of Rochester, New York] introduces the reader to the most obvious abuse of logic and good taste. But, logic and good taste have systematically been expunged from the American mind during a period of more than thirty years.
Well-informed American citizens demonstrated [in Washington, DC, on April 22] against the historically false accusations constantly made against the German people and other nationalities whose only real crime was resisting the international gangsters who facetiously call their brand of exploitation “Communism.”
The Democrat and Chronicle editorial starts out:
The mindless folks who were waving signs at the opening of the Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, DC, last week claiming that the Holocaust never happened merely demonstrate why the museum is so important: to preserve the facts, before they disappear in the mists of history.
These “mindless folks” include none other than well-educated professors and professional historians, investigative reporters and, in general, are among the most descent people of a civilized society. It is their *right and duty* to examine all the evidence, and draw the truthful conclusions concerning what really happened in history.
There is already a strong indication that those who promote the Holocaust story are afraid of the truth. That can only explain the need for ridiculing those who seek only to present the entire matter before an open world forum of unbiased and unprejudiced investigators. Because the preponderance of objective and factual evidence shows the promoters of the Holocaust story to be libelous frauds, sneak tactics and irrational emotionalism must be used.
We are concerned for the truth. Only those who are not of the truth must resort to lies and bloodshed. Facts by themselves do not constitute truth. Truth is in the judgment . . .
The Hollywood cosmetics exploiting the unfortunate victims of death do not prove anything. For example, to film or photograph dead bodies, and then label them according to one’s political need is a travesty of justice and truth beyond the capability of morally responsible individuals. Facts must be correctly interpreted before they can tell something of truth.
Another example is the famous “Anne Frank Diary” which has been foisted upon the American people at all levels. We all wept at the Hollywood tear-jerker action on the silver screen. Decent people reacted as expected by the unscrupulous falsifiers of fact. It has come to the attention of more and more people that this diary is a fraud. Yes, it has been proven to be fake. Public school facilities are periodically used to foist this fraud upon unsuspecting citizenry to re-enforce the psychological brainwashing.
Anne Frank was not fake: She really did live. But everything else about her life is a melodramatic, money-making operation to overwhelm the world with hatred for a nation. . . No one says anything comparable about the children brutally murdered by the Soviets when they occupied the Baltic States in 1940, and Germany in 1945.
A French Professor whose love for truth is greater than his love for fame and life, Robert Faurisson, has proven that the alleged “diary” of Anne Frank could not have been written by her . . .
While the American people are being lulled into very dangerous apathy by being fed psycho-babble, a real holocaust, including child murder, is taking place every day in occupied Palestine. . .
Could it be that someone is trying to put a guilt complex on the American people so they will not dare raise a loud voice of protest against greater evils? (Louis Vezelis, O.F.M., is editor of The Seraph, a traditionalist Roman Catholic monthly published by the Franciscan Friars (Order of St. Francis of Assisi) of Rochester, New York. This commentary is from an editorial by Bishop Vezelis in the May 1993 issue of The Seraph).
Articles reprinted by permission from The Journal of Historical Review, Vol. 13, Number 5 (Sept./Oct. 1993): P.O. Box 1306, Torrance, CA 90505, USA.
You Have a Right to Know the Truth!
David Irving: Intrepid Battler for Historical Truth by Mark Weber
Soviet premier Nikita Kruschev might have had David Irving in mind when he once warned that historians are dangerous because they have the power to upset everything. German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck once said that the main thing is not to write history, but to make it. Irving is a man who has been able to do some of both.
He is also living proof that the life of a historian need not be dull. The leftist British daily The Guardian once commented, “If one can overlook his outrageously odious views, Irving—like Hitler—can be a funny man. The humor comes from a hint of self-mockery and an obvious delight in making liberal flesh creep.”
At the Eleventh IHR Conference in October 1992—as he had in his presentations at the IHR Conferences of 1983, 1989 and 1990—this good friend of the Institute for Historical Review not only shed new light on important chapters of twentieth-century history, he delighted attendees with humorous updates on some of the new ways he had found to make liberal flesh creep.
In the three decades since he published his first book, Irving has firmly established himself as not only one of the most successful and widely-read historians of our time, but also as one of the most courageous.
He has an enviable track record of uncovering startling new facts about even supposedly well-known episodes of history. His effectiveness is due in very large measure to his discovery of original source materials, such as diaries, original documents, and so forth, from both official and private sources. He is tenacious in his ceaseless digging in just about every important historical archive in the western world.
A professional historian, Irving has little respect for taxpayer-financed scholars who are guilty of what he calls “inter-historian incest,” and who thereby help to keep alive dangerous myths and legends left over from wartime propaganda.
His first work, The Destruction of Dresden, was published in 1963 when he was 25 years old. Since then, he has published more than two dozen books, many of them best-sellers, including biographies of Hermann Goring, Winston Churchill, and Erwin Rommel. He is currently at work on a biography of Joseph Goebbels.
Several of Irving’s books have appeared in various languages, and several have been serialized in prominent periodicals, including the Sunday Express, the Sunday Telegraph and Der Spiegel.
Over the years, he has also contributed articles to some 60 British and foreign periodicals, including the Daily Telegraph and the Sunday Express in London, the Mainichi Shimbun in Tokyo, and Stern and Der Spiegel in Hamburg.
Irving’s reputation first came under vicious attack following the publication in 1977 of Hitler’s War, a monumental work that was hysterically criticized for its contention that Hitler did not order the extermination of Europe’s Jews. The mass killings must have been carried out by Himmler and his cohorts behind Hitler’s back, Irving concluded at that time.
As a journalist for Time magazine once told him, “Until Hitler’s War you couldn’t put a foot wrong, you were the darling of the media. After it, they heaped slime on you.”
So enraged was the Zionist Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith by this book that the shadowy organization promptly added his name to its ever-growing list of enemies. As it turned out, the ADL’s troubles with Irving were only just beginning.
The international campaign against him became even more vicious following the publication in 1981 of Uprising, a history of the 1956 anti-Communist revolt in Hungary. This book enraged the ADL crowd because it does not whitewash the significant Jewish role in the Hungarian Communist regime.
Irving has made several highly successful speaking and promotion tours in Germany, Canada, Australia, South Africa, the United States, and other countries. German listeners in particular delight in hearing an Englishman say out loud what many in that country believe in their souls but have been intimidated into keeping to themselves. In Germany, Irving has become a kind of conscience for a people who have been largely robbed of their own.
A startling climax in the second “Holocaust Trial” of Ernst Zundel in 1988 was the testimony of Irving, who was the last of 23 defense witnesses. He stunned the completely packed Toronto courtroom by announcing that he had changed his mind about the Holocaust story. During his three days on the stand, he explained in detail why he now endorses the Revisionist view of the extermination story.
In June 1989, Irving published the British edition of The Leuchter Report. This handsome, illustrated edition, for which he wrote a foreword, was launched by him at a press conference in London. He told the journalists there that the infamous extermination gas chambers of Auschwitz and Majdanek did not exist, except, perhaps, as the brainchild invention of Britain’s wartime propaganda bureau, the Political Warfare Executive (PWE).
A magnificent 860-page Focal Point edition of Hitler’s War was published last year. Taking account of his most recent research and insights, references to so-called “extermination camps” have been removed from this revised edition. And in his introduction, Irving deftly tears apart one historical legend after another.
This work—the product of decades of patient research and writing—has proven particularly enraging to the enemies of truth in history.
In addition to the usual lies, his adversaries have even turned to criminal burglary and arson in their fitful and frantic efforts to silence him.
Not long ago, an official of the American Jewish Committee, a certain Kenneth S. Stern, declared that Irving “NEVER has been considered a serious historian.” (The Oregonian, Portland, Oct. 7, 1992).
That is simply a baldfaced lie.
In fact, Irving’s remarkable abilities have been acknowledged by some of the most prominent names in the field. British historian Hugh Trevor-Roper, writing in the Sunday Times of London, once declared, “No praise can be too high for Irving’s indefatigable scholarly industry.” Trevor-Roper also called Irving one of the “few guides I would entirely trust . . . indefatigable in pursuit of the evidence, fearless in face of it, sound in judgment . . .”
Another prominent British historian, A. J. P. Taylor, once wrote of him: “David Irving is a patient researcher of unrivalled industry and success.”
David John Cawdell Irving was born in Hutton, Essex, England, on March 24, 1938, the son of an illustrator and Royal Navy commander. His father and mother were both well-known writers. After a liberal arts education at the four-century-old Sir Anthony Browne’s school in Brentwood, Essex, young Irving won a scholarship to study physics at the Imperial College of Science and Technology in London.
It did not take long, though, for him to realize that his life’s calling would not be in the hard sciences.
In 1959 he moved to Germany’s industrial Ruhr region to spend a year working in a steel mill to perfect his fluency in German. Then, after a stint working as a clerk-stenographer with the US Strategic Air Command at an airbase near Madrid, he returned to England to study political economy at London’s University College.
Irving speaks fluent German, very good Spanish, and quite passable French, and reads several other languages.
On a personal note, he is the father of four daughters. His hobbies are oil painting, travel, and cinematography, and his favorite song is the English naval hymn, “For Those in Peril of the Sea.”
He lives in the Mayfair district of London’s West End, although in recent years has spent quite a lot of time at a south Florida retreat, where he now prefers to do his serious writing.
You’d need a pickup truck to carry away all the newspaper and magazine clippings that have appeared over the years about Irving.
In January 1992, for example, a flurry of reports appeared in newspapers and television broadcasts around the world suggesting that he had abandoned his highly skeptical view of the Holocaust extermination story because of what he had found in the postwar “memoir” of Adolf Eichmann, the German SS officer who coordinated the wartime deportations of Jews.
Had Irving defected from the Revisionist camp? In the wake of this uproar, he told the IHR: “My position remains unchanged.” There were “certain My-Lai-type atrocities” by German troops in the occupied Soviet territories, but the “gas chambers and factories of death are legend,” and there is no wartime evidence of an order by Hitler to exterminate the Jews. In an interview at the time with the London Jewish Chronicle (January 17, 1992), Irving said, “The Jews are very foolish not to abandon the gas chamber theory while they still have time.”
Last May, a German court fined Irving 10,000 marks—about $6,000—for public statements he had made challenging the Holocaust story. His crime? At a meeting in Munich in 1990, Irving had said that the building in the Auschwitz main camp that has been portrayed for years as an extermination gas chamber is a phony reconstruction (or, in German, “Attrappen”).
The Munich district court refused to permit the defense to present even a single witness or exhibit. For example, it would not permit Irving’s attorneys to call as a witness the director of the Auschwitz State Museum, Dr. Franciszek Piper, who has privately confirmed on several occasions that what Irving had told the meeting in 1990 is, in fact, the truth. After his attorneys dramatically walked out of the courtroom to protest the judge’s outrageous rulings, Irving delivered a stirring plea for truth and justice that has since been widely circulated in Germany on audio cassette and as a leaflet. (For more on this trial, see the July-August 1992 IHR Newsletter).
Also last year, Irving played the key and highly publicized role in bringing to light the long-suppressed diaries of Third Reich propaganda chief Dr. Joseph Goebbels. Last July, the London Sunday Times, one of the world’s most influential papers, published extensive translated excerpts from the diary, which Irving found and transcribed. (See report in the October 1992 IHR Newsletter).
International and British Jewish organizations lost no time in attacking the paper for employing Irving, and the resulting furor made headlines in newspapers and magazines around the world. A report in the London Jewish Chronicle headlined “Sunday Times comes under pressure” (July 17, 1992), described the extent of the campaign to punish the paper for its collaboration with Irving. Officials of the American Jewish Committee added their voices to the worldwide pressure campaign, expressing particular anger because the historian has addressed several IHR conferences. The Sunday Times capitulated, and in breach of contract, refused to pay Irving the agreed-upon fee of 83,000 pounds. He is suing.
On July 3, more than 300 Jewish demonstrators gathered outside Irving’s London residence to denounce him. The next day, July fourth (by the way, the ninth anniversary of the devastating 1984 arson attack against the IHR office-warehouse), a larger crowd of several hundred met at the same place to shout more insults. Among the banners carried by the crowd of Marxists, Jews, homosexuals and Rastafarians were placards reading “Return to the Road of Lenin and Trotsky!,” and “Build a Bolshevik Party, Tribune of All the Oppressed!”
That same day, though, about 250 persons defied intimidation and threats to hear and cheer Irving and other speakers at a Revisionist seminar in London. Besides Irving, the audience heard addresses by Kirk Lyons, Leuchter’s US attorney, and Georgia attorney Sam Dickson (who addressed the 1986 IHR conference).
In all this, it is gratifying to note that it is a Revisionist historian who was—once again—at the forefront of historical discovery. In spite of the well-organized international campaign to boycott and silence him, David Irving remains at the vanguard of his profession—and, by the way, SOLELY on the basis of his indisputable knowledge, skill and industry.
It is also gratifying to realize that, as a result of each of those recent controversies, hundreds of thousands—if not millions—of newspaper and magazine readers around the world are now aware that a historian of recognized international stature rejects critical aspects of the orthodox Holocaust extermination story. (Based on introduction of Irving at the Eleventh IHR Conference, 1992. Reprinted by permission from The Journal of Historical Review, Vol. 13, Number 1 (Jan./Feb. 1993): P.O. Box 1306, Torrance, CA 90505, USA).
Following are four articles:
- An opinion piece from a revisionist perspective (written by Bradley R. Smith) on a typical reaction of the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith (ADL) to a revisionist critique of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington D.C.
- The article by ADL spokesman Marvin Stern which appeared in The Oregonian (Portland, OR) and is representative of the ADL response to what Mr. Stern describes as “the growing Holocaust revisionist movement.”
- The CODOH advertisment (written by B. R. Smith) criticizing the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum that so exercises the ADL and others. This is the second major CODOH campus ad.
- The first (and now-famous) major CODOH campus ad, also written by Bradley R. Smith.
First a brief note from Bradley R. Smith:
“I suspect that if spokesmen for the Museum, or for the ADL, could answer any of the questions suggested by the text of the ad, they probably would not react to it so hysterically.
“The ad or the text of the ad has run in student newspapers at Stanford, Georgetown, University of Michigan, SUNY-Buffalo, Michigan State, Notre Dame and at other major campuses.
“If you have any questions or need more background please call me at (209) 627 8757. Thanks, [signed] Bradley R. Smith”
Bradley R. Smith PO Box 3267 Visalia CA 93278 Tel/Fax: (209) 733 2653
The AntiI-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith: Trapped in a Nazi Fantasyland by Bradley R. Smith
Marvin Stern, director for the Northwest regional branch of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), can’t conceal his bewilderment over what he calls “the growing Holocaust revisionist movement.”
Mr. Stern expressed his dismay in a column published in The Oregonian, the largest-circulation daily in the Northwest. His alarm was triggered by the appearance in that newspaper of our ad, “A Revisionist’s View of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum.”
He lays the blame for the growing influence of revisionism on the “ignorance” and “anti-semitism” of Americans. He appears not to understand that he’s charging tens of millions of American citizens with being ignorant, anti-Jewish bigots (a recent Roper poll reported 20 to 30 percent of adult Americans doubt they are being told the truth about the Holocaust story).
Spokesmen for the ADL have propagandized themselves into an empty intellectual corner. Having refused to judge revisionist research on its merits, refusing still to admit that revisionists have any substantive arguments whatever, refusing debate or even an exchange of civility, the ADL’ers are left with no intellectual tools to work with but invective, misrepresentation, slander, and a sickly dependence on playing their “nazi” card.
One result of this intellectually and psychologically stunted behavior is that many ADL-ers appear to be obsessed with nazis and nazism, neo-nazis, intimations of nazism, rumors about nazis and crazy nazi conspiracies to rehabilitate Adolf’s reputation.
Some ADL’ers, Stern appearing to be one of them, live in an imaginary nazi wonderland where they fantasize armies of nazis marching toward them from distant horizons, singing songs of conquest, whips in hand, about to leap through the ADL office window to lash the hapless drudges inside and mistreat them sexually. Such fantasies must be traumatizing for those who suffer them, but to others they can appear comic and infantile.
The text of my ad, which prompted Stern’s response, makes at least two claims which admittedly are controversial. It asserts that the Holocaust Museum exhibits no proof that homicidal gas chambers existed anywhere in Europe, and no proof that even one child, woman or man was “gassed” at any German camp liberated by the Allies. I flew to Washington, toured the Museum, and that’s my assessment of its exhibits.
Mr. Stern writes that the best response to the “outrageous lies” of revisionism, that is, the text of my ad about the Museum, is to “reiterate the truth” and “repeat the facts.” It’s good advice, but Stern avoids it like the plague. Instead, he reveals the common ADL self-serving obsession with hate movements growing like cancers in American society. He doesn’t even try to assure his readers that the Museum does, in fact, exhibit proof of one gas chamber or one victim of a gas chamber. Why?
The Marvin Sterns and the ADL face a conundrum. They can continue to rail with empty irrationalism against legitimate revisionist research and watch the number of Americans who are increasingly unsure what to believe about the Holocaust story increase year after year.
Or they can turn to the orthodox scholars in the field for help in responding to revisionist questions. That would be the adult thing to do. The ADL’ers however, true to form, have chosen to do the childish thing—to substitute schoolyard insults for a grown-up exchange of ideas.
Stern’s article in The Oregonian ran under the head, “Holocaust Revisionists Should Be Challenged, Repudiated With Truth.” Marvin and I are in complete agreement on this one. Do it! Challenge the claims in my ad with truth! That has always been what I’ve asked for. It’s my invitation to the ADL’ers and my challenge to them—and to all others. Respond to my ads with truth. I don’t EVER want to run an ad that contains an inadvertent error of fact.
Why do the Marvin Sterns talk about repudiating revisionism with “truth” and always evade doing so? Here’s my guess. While revisionists almost certainly are not right about everything, we’re not wrong about everything either. No one is wrong about everything! That’s what terrifies Marvin Stern and his ADL buddies. The day they admit the possibility that revisionists are not wrong about everything, their psychological world will collapse. They’ll have admitted that revisionists are human beings, that we eat our soup with a spoon just like they do.
And there’s the rub. The ADL-ers can’t afford to admit that revisionists are ordinary men and women—that is, human beings. The ADL committed itself to its nazi devil fantasy half a century ago and has ridden it so long so successfully it can’t get off, no matter how broken down and exhausted the old nag is.
Marvin Stern is probably a nice guy. He’s probably a smart guy. When a smart guy goes over the line and becomes a true believer it’s almost impossible for him to change his mind. When a true believer changes his mind he becomes an apostate. He feels like a traitor. A dumb guy can just change his mind and go about his business. A smart guy who’s become a true believer has to work out a theory explaining how, being so smart, he could have believed something so dumb so long. It’s not easy. I know.
Marvin, I used to believe everything about the Holocaust story you believe now. It’s not a sin to be wrong. It’s human. You have a theory you believe is true, I have a theory I think is true. Let’s talk things over. You know how it goes. I listen to you. You listen to me. We have a beer. We settle the world’s problems. (Bradley R. Smith is director of Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust.)
Holocaust Revisionists should be Challenged, Repudiated with Truth
by Marvin Stern
The changes in the world over the last five years have been breath-taking. If anyone sought to deny the facts of the fall of the Berlin Wall, the crumbling of South African apartheid, the anti-Iraq coalition in the Persian Gulf War, the historic handshake on the White House lawn, he would be met with ridicule or ignored as a fool.
How then to explain the growing Holocaust revisionism movement, spearheaded by the California-based Institute for Historical Review—founded by longtime anti-Semite Willis Carto of the Liberty Lobby to deny history’s most fully documented atrocity?
There are two answers: the danger of ignorance and the power of anti-Semitism.
Consider how Holocaust denial reflects traditional anti-Semitic themes. Typically, anti-Semites charge Jews with too much power, with conspiratorial control of events and institutions. The best-known illustration of this is “The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion,” the notorious turn-of-the-century forgery.
Distributors of Holocaust-denial literature spread this hoax as well. Deniers describe the Holocaust as a myth concocted by Jews to extract sympathy, money, and moral carte blanche; they portray the Holocaust and the Nuremberg Trials as conspiracies to promote Jewish power and influence.
When Holocaust revisionists dispute the facts of the Nazi genocide, they are attacking what they assert is the Jewish stranglehold on academia, the media and international politics.
Another motive behind far-right efforts to deny the Holocaust is the rehabilitation of the reputation of Nazism and its leaders. A third goal is to undermine the legitimacy of the state of Israel. Indeed, revisionists have often referred to the Holocaust as Zionist propaganda.
How to respond to such outrageous lies? First, reiterate the truth. Repeat the facts—they are clear, hideous and plentiful—as often as necessary. Education is crucial. The following noteworthy development at a major campus is instructive:
When the campus newspaper at Duke University published a large advertisement by Holocaust deniers, the university’s History Department published a unanimous rebuttal, criticizing the paper for treating such garbage as legitimate analysis.
“As historians,” they wrote, “we deplore this effort to use the language of scholarship to distort and obliterate an event which to our everlasting shame did occur. We urge all members of the (campus) community to treat such advertisements with the contempt they deserve.”
In addition, we must demand the same sense of moral courage and principle from other intellectual and political leaders in the face of this hate movement masquerading as scholarship. Otherwise it will continue to grow like an untreated cancer.
Clearly, today’s extremists are more subtle, deceptive and technologically sophisticated. The Institute for Historical Review publishes a journal and holds conventions to mimic the formalities of legitimate learning. Resourceful racists, anti-Semites and xenophobic haters around the world are using sanitized and computerized campaigns to exploit controversial social issues, to gain access to national debates, and to influence an all-too-often uninformed public.
In response to this propaganda, measures to preserve the memory of Adolf Hitler’s victims have taken on a new importance. The Anti-Defamation League’s work in this regard includes the activities of the Braun Center for Holocaust Studies, the Jewish Foundation for Christian Rescuers and the Hidden Child Foundation, our yearly Holocaust symposium for high school students and teachers held in conjunction with the Oregon Holocaust Resource Center at Portland State University, as well as curriculum materials used in hundreds of school systems.
But a largely uninformed new generation presents Holocaust revisionists with an opportunity to exploit. An increasing distance separates this generation from the events of World War II. As the survivors pass from the scene, and as hollow comparisons proliferate, the danger posed by ignorance about the Holocaust grows.
We know that an awareness of the past is crucial to understanding its consequences in the present, and avoiding its tragedies in the future. Understanding and communicating the uniqueness of the doctrines and methods through which the Nazis implemented their destructive agenda are crucial steps toward ensuring that such horror never recurs.
The task of the decent majority is to safe-guard historical memory, and to educate our neighbors and future generations against lies, hatred and the blandishments of evil. (From The Oregonian, Portland, OR, 9 November 1993). (MARVIN STERN IS PACIFIC NORTHWEST REGIONAL DIRECTOR FOR THE ANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE OF B’NAI B’RITH IN SEATTLE).
A Revisionist’s View of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museumin Washington, D.C.
by Bradley R. Smith
After ten years in the planning, $165 million in start-up costs and a government guarantee of tens of millions more in tax subsidies, the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum demonstrates why, according to a Roper Organization poll, 22 percent (some 25 millions!) of all adult Americans have doubts about the orthodox Holocaust story.
What are the facts?
The U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum displays no proof anywhere of homicidal “gassing” chambers and no proof that even ONE INDIVIDUAL was “gassed” at any camp liberated by Allied armies.
“Proof” for a gas chamber at Birkenau is a plastic model created by a Polish ARTISTE. A plastic copy of a metal door is displayed as “proof” of a homicidal gas chamber at Maidanek. And, INCREDIBLY, the Museum has simply “dropped” the Auschwitz gas chamber, the basement room visited yearly by hundreds of thousands of tourists in Poland.
There is no mention of the alleged gas chambers at Buchenwald or even at Dachau, where after World War Two American G.I.s and German civilians were assured that more than 200,000 victims were “gassed and burned.”
Human soap? Human skin lamp shades? Not a sign of them in this Museum. These monstrous lies are now all gone—straight down the memory hole!
The notion that eyewitness testimony given under highly politicized and emotional circumstances, which this museum relies so heavily on, is, PRIMA FACIE, true, was refuted by the Israeli Supreme Court when it acquitted John Demjanjuk of being “Ivan the Terrible.” The Israeli Court found that the eyewitnesses who testified against Demjanjuk could not be believed!
Deborah Lipstadt argues in her much-praised Denying the Holocaust, that revisionists [“deniers”] should not be debated because there “can not be” another side to the Holocaust story. She charges that it is “hateful” to listen to a defense of those accused of mass murder! In essence, she argues that we bury America’s old civil virtues of free inquiry and open debate—but to what end?
The Deborah Lipstadts—and there is a clique of them on every campus—work to suppress revisionist research and demand that students and faculty ape their fascist behavior. If you refuse to accept the Lipstadt clique as your intellectual FUHRERS, you risk being slandered as an “anti-semite.” These quasi religious Holocaust zealots claim that because of the “purity” of their own feelings about the Jewish experience during World War Two, yours are soiled if you doubt what they preach as “truth.”
Winston Churchill, in his massive six-volume history of World War Two, and Dwight D. Eisenhower in his memoirs, both omitted all reference to “gas chambers” and their use in an alleged “genocide” of the Jews. How do the Museum and the Deborah Lipstadts explain that?
To many it will appear impossible that deception on such a grand scale can actually be taking place. Yet such deception is not unusual in the realms of politics, ideology or religion. We are being deceived for one reason, and one reason only—we have refused to listen to the other side of the story.
The Operation and Technique of the Museum
The Museum’s exhibit technique is a mixture of sinister suggestion and dishonest omission. The first display confronting visitors beginning the Museum tour is a wall-sized photograph of American soldiers looking at corpses smoldering on a pyre. The “context” in which you see the photo suggests that the dead are “exterminated” Jews.
But were the prisoners killed or did they die of typhus or some other disease during the last terrible weeks of the war? Autopsies made by Allied medical personnel found that inmates died of disease. Not one was found to have been “gassed.” ALL SUCH RELEVANT INFORMATION IS PURPOSELY OMITTED FROM THE EXHIBIT. WE DON’T EVEN KNOW THAT THE DEAD PICTURED IN THE PHOTO ARE JEWS!
Unable to judge the significance of the photograph, and not wanting to believe the Museum would mislead you, you are moved to accept the false and manipulative suggestion that it represents the “genocide” of the Jews.
THE LAST BARRIER
Academic bureaucrats, career-driven professors and an opulent Holocaust Lobby of self-described intellectual “giants” are those who form the last barrier against a free exchange of ideas. It is childish and dishonest to insinuate that open debate is “dangerous” to the Jewish community. Don’t believe it! Open debate BENEFITS Jews and Gentiles alike—for precisely the same reasons!
Contact CODOH to inquire about speakers or to view our one-hour video on the scandal of the Auschwitz “gas chamber.” Demonstrate to the fuhrers of conformity on your campus that you want intellectual liberty, not “leaders.”
This ad [when published in newspapers] has been published and paid for by CODOH Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust
PO Box 3267 Visalia CA 93278 Tel/Fax: 209 733 2653
(CODOH) was founded to promote a free exchange of ideas about the Holocaust story. CODOH is not a membership organization and is not affiliated with any political party or group. Only your contributions enable us to publish this ad in college and high school newspapers across the country. Our overhead is minimal. Every donation is welcome. Your support is needed. 1093
THE HOLOCAUST CONTROVERSY: The Case For Open Debate
by Bradley R. Smith
THE CONTEMPORARY ISSUE
No subject enrages campus Thought Police more than Holocaust Revisionism. We debate every other great historical issue as a matter of course, but influential pressure groups with private agendas have made the Holocaust story an exception. Elitist dogma manipulated by special interest groups corrupts everything in academia. Students should be encouraged to investigate the Holocaust story the same way they are encouraged to investigate every other historical event. This isn’t a radical point of view. The premises for it were worked out centuries ago during a little something called the Enlightenment.
THE HISTORICAL ISSUE
Revisionists agree with establishment historians that the German National Socialist State singled out the Jewish people for special and cruel treatment. In addition to viewing Jews in the framework of traditional anti-Semitism, the Nazis also saw them as being an influential force behind international communism. During the Second World War, Jews were considered to be enemies of the State and a potential danger to the war effort, much like the Japanese were viewed in this country. Consequently, Jews were stripped of their rights, forced to live in ghettos, conscripted for labor, deprived of their property, deported from the countries of their birth and otherwise mistreated. Many tragically perished in the maelstrom.
Revisionists part company with establishment historians in that Revisionists deny that the German State had a policy to exterminate the Jewish people (or anyone else) by putting them to death in gas chambers or killing them through abuse or neglect. Revisionists also maintain that the figure of 6 million Jewish deaths is an irresponsible exaggeration, and that no execution gas chambers existed in any camp in Europe which was under German control. Fumigation gas chambers did exist to delouse clothing and equipment to prevent disease at the camps. It is very likely that it was from this life-SAVING procedure that the myth of extermination gas chambers emerged.
Revisionists generally hold that the Allied governments decided to carry their wartime “black propaganda” of German monstrosity over into the postwar period. This was done for essentially three reasons. First, they felt it necessary to continue to justify the great sacrifices that were made in fighting two world wars. A second reason was that they wanted to divert attention from and to justify their own particularly brutal crimes against humanity which, apart from Soviet atrocities, involved massive incendiary bombings of the civilian populations of German and Japanese cities. The third and perhaps most important reason was that they needed justification for the postwar arrangements which, among other things, involved the annexation of large parts of Germany into Poland. These territories were not disputed borderlands but included huge parts of Germany proper. The millions of Germans living in these regions were to be dispossessed of their property and brutally expelled from their homelands. Many hundreds of thousands were to perish in the process. A similar fate was to befall the Sudetan Germans.
During the war, and in the postwar era as well, Zionist organizations joined with the Allied Governments and became deeply involved in creating and promulgating anti-German hate propaganda. There is little doubt that their purpose was to drum up world sympathy and political and financial support for Jewish causes, especially for the formation of the State of Israel. Today, while the political benefits of the Holocaust story have largely dissipated for the others, the story still plays an important role in the ambitions of Zionist and other organizations in the Jewish community. It is the leaders of these political and propaganda organizations who continue to work to sustain the orthodox Holocaust legend and the myth of German monstrosity during the Second World War.
Those who would claim that these interpretations are anti-Jewish are reading into them something which simply is not there. Revisionists do not claim that Jewish leaders or organizations did anything in the war and postwar era which the Allied Governments themselves did not do.
For those who believe that the Nuremberg Trials revealed the truth about German war crimes, it is a bracing shock to discover that the then Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, Harlan Fiske Stone, described the Nuremberg court as “a high-grade lynching party for Germans.”
We’ve all seen “The Photographs.” Endlessly. Newsreel photos taken by U.S. and British photographers at the liberation of the German camps, and especially the awful scenes at Dachau, Buchenwald and Bergen-Belsen. These films are typically presented in such a way in which it is either stated or implied that the scenes resulted from deliberate policies on the part of the Germans. The photographs are real. The uses to which they have been put are base.
There was no German policy at any of those camps to deliberately kill the internees. In the last months of the war, while Soviet armies were advancing on Germany from the east, the British and U.S. air arms were destroying every major city in Germany with saturation bombing. Transportation, the food distribution system and medical and sanitation services all broke down. That was the purpose of the Allied bombing, which has been described as the most barbarous form of warfare in Europe since the Mongol invasions.
Millions of refugees fleeing the Soviet armies were pouring into Germany. The camps still under German control were overwhelmed with internees from the east. By early 1945 the inmate population was swept by malnutrition and by epidemics of typhus, typhoid, dysentery and chronic diarrhea. Even the mortuary systems broke down. When the press entered the camps with British and U.S. soldiers, they found the results of all that. They took “The Photographs.”
Still, at camps such as Buchenwald, Dachau and Bergen-Belsen TENS OF THOUSANDS of relatively healthy internees were liberated. They were there in the camps when “The Photographs” were taken. There are newsreels of those internees walking through the camp streets laughing and talking. Others picture exuberant internees throwing their caps in the air and cheering their liberators. It is only natural to ask why you haven’t seen those particular films and photos while you’ve seen the others scores and even hundreds of times
Spokesmen for the Holocaust Lobby like to assure us that there are “tons” of captured German documents which prove the Jewish genocide. When challenged on this, however, they can produce only a handful of documents, the authenticity or interpretation of which is always highly questionable. If pressed for reliable documentation, the Lobby will then reverse itself and claim that the Germans destroyed all of the relevant documents to hide their evil deeds, or it will make the absurd claim that the Germans used a simplistic code language or whispered verbal orders for mass murder into each others’ ears.
With regard to the alleged genocide of the European Jews, all available documentation indicates that there was no order for it, no budget, no weapon (that is, no so-called execution gas chamber) and no victim (that is, not a single autopsied body at any camp has been shown to have been gassed).
As documentary “proofs” for the mass-murder of the European Jews fall by the wayside, Holocaust historians depend increasingly on “eye-witness” testimonies to support their theories. Many of these testimonies are ludicrously unreliable. History is filled with stories of masses of people claiming to be eyewitnesses to everything from witchcraft to flying saucers.
During and after the war there were “eyewitnesses” to mass murder in gas chambers at Buchenwald, Bergen-Belsen, Dachau and other camps in Germany proper. Today, virtually all recognized scholars dismiss this eyewitness testimony as false, and agree that there were no extermination gas chambers in any camp in Germany proper.
Establishment historians, however, still claim that extermination gas chambers existed at Auschwitz and at other camps in Poland. The eyewitness testimony and the evidence for this claim is, in reality, qualitatively no different than the false testimony and evidence for the alleged gas chambers at the camps in Germany proper.
During the war crimes trials many “eyewitnesses” testified that Germans made soap out of human fat and lamp shades from human skin. Allied prosecutors even produced evidence to support these charges. For decades, highly respected scholars at the most prestigious universities in the Western world sanctioned these stories, leading us to believe that they were “irrefutable truths.” But with time, many such stories have become untenable, and in May 1990 Yehuda Bauer, director of Holocaust studies at Hebrew University in Tel Aviv, admitted that: “The Nazis never made soap from Jews . . .” (quoted in The Jerusalem Post, International Edition, 5 May 1990, p. 6). This is only one recent example where an “irrefutable” Holocaust “truth” has been exposed as a monstrous lie.
With regard to confessions by Germans at war crimes trials, it is now well documented that many were obtained through coercion, intimidation and even physical torture.
British Historian David Irving, perhaps the most widely read historian writing in English, has called the Auschwitz death-camp story a “sinking ship” and states that there were “no gas chambers at Auschwitz . . .”
The Auschwitz State Museum has recently revised its half-century-old claim that 4 million humans were murdered there. The Museum now says maybe it was 1 million. But what proof does the Museum provide to document the 1 million figure? None! The communist propagandists who manage the museum have put on display piles of hair, boots and eyeglasses, etc. While such displays are effective propaganda devices, they are worthless as historical documentation for “gassings” or a program of “extermination.”
Meanwhile, Revisionists want to know where those 3 million souls have been the last 45 years. Were they part of the fabled Six Million?
Those who promote the Holocaust story complain that “the whole world” was indifferent to the genocide which allegedly was occurring in German occupied Europe. When asked why this was the case the promoters usually respond by saying that it was due to some great moral flaw in the nature of Western man. At other times they make the absurd claim that people did not realize the enormity of what was happening. It is true that the world responded with indifference. How else should people have responded to that which they did not believe, and which for them was a non-event?
It is certain that if there had been “killing factories” in Poland murdering millions of civilians, then the Red Cross, the Pope, humanitarian agencies, the Allied governments, neutral governments, and prominent figures such as Roosevelt, Truman, Churchill, Eisenhower and many others would have known about it and would have often and unambiguously mentioned it, and condemned it. They didn’t! The promoters admit that only a tiny group of individuals believed the story at the time—many of whom were connected with Jewish propaganda agencies. The rise of the Holocaust story reads more like the success story of a PR campaign than anything else.
Winston Churchill wrote the six volumes of his monumental work, The Second World War, without mentioning a program of mass-murder and genocide. Maybe it slipped his mind. Dwight D. Eisenhower, in his memoir Crusade in Europe, also failed to mention gas chambers. Was the weapon used to murder millions of Jews unworthy of a passing reference? Was our future president being insensitive to Jews?
POLITICAL CORRECTNESS AND HOLOCAUST REVISIONISM
Many people, when they first hear Holocaust Revisionist arguments, find themselves bewildered. The arguments appear to make sense, but “How is it possible?” The whole world believes the Holocaust story. It’s just not plausible that so great a conspiracy to suppress the truth could have functioned for half a century.
To understand how it could very well have happened, one needs only to reflect on the intellectual and political orthodoxies of medieval Europe, or those of Nazi Germany or the Communist-bloc countries. In all of these societies the great majority of scholars were caught up in the existing political culture. Committed to a prevailing ideology and its interpretation of reality, these scholars and intellectuals felt it was their right, and even their duty, to protect every aspect of that ideology. They did so by oppressing the evil dissidents who expressed “offensive” or “dangerous” ideas. In every one of those societies, scholars became Thought Police.
In our own society, in the debate over the question of political correctness, there are those who deliberately attempt to trivialize the issues. They claim that there is no real problem with freedom of speech on our campuses, and that all that is involved with PC are a few rules which would defend minorities from those who would hurt their feelings. There is, of course, a deeper and more serious aspect to the problem. On American campuses today there is a wide range of ideas and viewpoints that are forbidden to be discussed openly. Even obvious facts and realities, when they are politically unacceptable, are denied and suppressed. One can learn much about the psychology and methodology of Thought Police by watching how they react when just one of their taboos is broken and Holocaust Revisionism is given a public forum.
First they express outrage that such offensive and dangerous ideas were allowed to be expressed publicly. They avoid answering or debating these ideas, claiming that to do so would give them a forum and legitimacy. Then they make vicious personal attacks against the Revisionist heretic, calling him dirty political names such as “anti- Semite,” “racist” or “neo-Nazi,” and they even suggest that he is a potential mass murderer. They publicly accuse the Revisionist of lying, but they don’t allow the heretic to hear the specific charge against him or to face his accusers so that he can answer this slander.
The Holocausters accuse Revisionists of being hate filled people who are promoting a doctrine of hatred. But Revisionism is a scholarly process, not a doctrine or ideology. If the Holocaust promoters really want to expose hatred, they should take a second look at their own doctrines, and a long look at themselves in the mirror.
Anyone on campus who invites a Revisionist to speak is himself attacked as being insensitive. When a Revisionist does speak on campus he is oftentimes shouted down and threatened. Campus libraries and bookstores face intimidation when they consider handling Holocaust revisionist materials. All this goes on while the majority of faculty and university administrators sit dumbly by, allowing political activists to determine what can be said and what can be read on their campus.
Next, the Thought Police set out to destroy the transgressor professionally and financially by “getting” him at his job or concocting a lawsuit against him. The courts are sometimes used to attack Revisionism. The Holocausters often deceptively claim that Revisionist scholarship has been proven false during a trial. The fact is that Revisionist arguments have never been evaluated or judged by the courts.
Finally, the Thought Police try to “straighten out” that segment of academia or the media that allowed the Revisionists a forum in the first place.
It can be an instructive intellectual exercise to identify taboo subjects, other than Holocaust Revisionism, which would evoke comparable responses from Thought Police on our campuses.
Recently, some administrators in academia have held that university administrations should take actions to rid the campus of ideas which are disruptive to the university. This is a very dangerous position for administrators to take. It is an open invitation to tyranny. It means that any militant group with “troops at the ready” can rid the campus of ideas it opposes and then impose its own orthodoxy. The cowardly administrator finds it much easier and safer to rid the campus of controversial ideas than to face down a group of screaming and snarling militants. But it is the duty of university administrators to insure that the university remains a free marketplace of ideas. When ideas cause disruptions, it is the disrupters who must be subdued, not the ideas.
The influence of Holocaust Revisionism is growing steadily both here and abroad. In the United States, Revisionism was launched in earnest in 1977 with the publication of the book The Hoax of the Twentieth Century by Arthur R. Butz. Professor Butz teaches electrical engineering and computer sciences at Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois.
Those who take up the Revisionist cause represent a wide spectrum of political and philosophical positions. They are certainly not the scoundrels, liars and demons the Holocaust Lobby tries to make them out to be. The fact is, there are no demons in the real world. People are at their worst when they begin to see their opponents as an embodiment of evil, and then begin to demonize them. Such people are preparing to do something simply awful to their opponents. Their logic is that you can do anything you want to a demon.
That logic will not succeed.
* * *
For those wishing to verify the truthfulness of statements made in this paper, you may want to contact experts who are prominent authorities on these matters. It’s important to ask specific, concrete questions on matters of fact and receive direct and unambiguous answers. Organizations such as the Simon Wiesenthal Center, Hillel and the Anti-Defamation League are not scholarly institutions, but are primarily political and propaganda organizations.
Auschwitz Director Comes Clean About Fraudulent “Gas Chamber”
An exclusive videotape interview Debunks a major part of the “Holocaust” story, and reveals the deception that is STILL GOING ON. . . !
This is a video that will make you ask—”Just how much of the ‘Holocaust’ story can we believe?”—as you learn of falsified “proofs” and deceptive claims about “gas chambers,” not from the mouths of Holocaust “revisionists” but in the words of one of the most knowledgeable and ardent supporters of the orthodox “Holocaust” story. This is a video that affirms what revisionists have maintained for years: that the Soviets and Poles made a practice of “creating” proofs of “homicidal gas chambers” AFTER World War Two, and that the hundreds of thousands of tourists who journey to Auschwitz each year to see for themselves proof of the “final solution” are being deceived.
In this unprecedented interview given to Jewish revisionist David Cole, (who has debated the “Holocaust” nationally on the Montel Williams Show and has been profiled by CBS’ 48 Hours), Dr. Franciszek Piper, Senior Curator and Director of Archives at the Auschwitz State Museum states on camera that the alleged “homicidal gas chamber” at the Auschwitz main camp shown off to tourists from all over the world as being in its “original state” is, in fact, a RECONSTRUCTION, redesigned AFTER THE WAR to look like a gas chamber.
Dr. Piper reveals to David Cole, on camera, how walls were knocked down and holes with “Zyklon B induction chimneys” installed in the roof so that the building could be exhibited as a “proof” of the “final solution.” And he doesn’t stop there. For a solid hour Dr. Piper talks about other “proofs” at Auschwitz for the “final solution” which are ALSO “reconstructions,” and discusses details of the camp that only a man such as he, who has worked at Auschwitz for a quarter century, would know. Then, in stunning footage, you’ll see David Cole, while on the official tour of Auschwitz, being told by his guide that the Auschwitz main-camp “gas chamber” is in its ORIGINAL STATE, the same—and there’s no other word for it—lie told to all tourists. The uncomfortable conclusion cannot be avoided: the people who run Auschwitz tell people things that THEY THEMSELVES KNOW ARE NOT TRUE!
Will you be able to argue with the words of a respected “Holocaust” scholar when he states for the record that one of the main “proofs” of the “final solution” is NO PROOF AT ALL? (Video available from: “CODOH,” POB 3267 Visalia CA 93278, or the Institute for Historical Review P.O. Box 2739 Newport Beach, CA 92659).
“We’re Loud, We’re Proud, & Best of All, We’re Right!”
A JEWISH REVISIONIST’S VISIT TO AUSCHWITZ by (Jew) David Cole
(Presented at the Eleventh IHR Conference, October 1992)
When I decided last September to take a well-deserved vacation, I thought, what better destination than Europe. After all, as a Revisionist, I’d always felt it my duty to see the concentration camps in person. My girl-friend, though, said that she’d like to go to Europe to visit Euro-Disney, the new Disneyland theme park in France. So I thought for a while about where to go: Auschwitz or Euro-Disney. And as I looked around, and saw the miserable state of the world and this country, the political and social malaise and depression, I realized that if I did take a vacation, I wanted to go to a place as far away from reality as possible: a fantasy land of wondrous fairy tales. So, of course, I chose Auschwitz.
Now that I’ve gone through the Auschwitz main camp, Auschwitz-Birkenau, Majdanek, Mauthausen, and Dachau, I feel even more secure in my position as a Revisionist that there exists no convincing evidence that Jews or anyone else were taken EN MASSE into gas chambers and killed by the Nazis at these camps. In fact, the remains that I inspected at the camp sites seem, in many different ways, to directly contradict these claims.
I returned to the United States with more than 25 hours of video footage from the camps. At Majdanek I uncovered obvious tampering with the buildings exhibited as gas chambers. This evidence was discovered when my attractive camerawoman busted a lock and got us into a room that is not open to tourists. There we were able to view several items in their original state, most notably the doors, which were clearly constructed to latch from both the outside AND the inside.
(DAVID COLE [is a Jew who] was raised and educated in Los Angeles, where he lives and works. Because of his support for Holocaust Revisionism, he was assaulted during a meeting at the University of California at Los Angeles on January 22, 1992, by thugs of the Jewish Defense League, who hit him in the face and bloodied his nose. JDL leader Irv Rubin also tried to push Cole down a flight of stairs. In April 1992 he appeared—along with Journal editor Mark Weber—as a guest on the Montel Williams Show, a nationally syndicated television program, to present the Revisionist view of the Holocaust story).
The high point of my visit, though, was my interview with Dr. Franciszek Piper, Senior Curator of the Polish government’s Auschwitz State Museum. He has worked there for more than 26 years. On tape, he admits that the so-called gas chamber in Crematory Building (Krema) I, which is shown to half a million visitors a year as a genuine homicidal gas chamber, is in fact a reconstruction—even down to the holes cut into the ceiling. Piper also admits that walls were knocked down and bathroom facilities removed. He went on to tell us that the remains of the “white cottage,” supposed site of the first preliminary gassings at Birkenau, are also reconstructed. This was hardly news to me. Even a quick examination of the remains of the “white cottage” shows that the bricks are not connected in any way, but are simply laid on top of each other like children’s building blocks.
Piper has no problems with the Leuchter Report. He told me that he agrees with Leuchter’s findings regarding traces of ferro-ferric-cyanide in the walls of Crematory Buildings (Kremas) I, II and III. So what is his explanation for this lack of traces in the supposed homicidal gas chambers when, by contrast, there are significant traces in the non-homicidal delousing chambers? He told me that the amount of hydrogen cyanide (from Zyklon) supposedly used by Germans to kill people—unlike the amount needed to kill lice in delousing chambers—was not enough to leave blue (ferro-ferric-cyanide) staining, or appreciable traces.
This argument has problems, though. For one thing, the supposed homicidal gas chambers at Majdanek (which in reality were non-homicidal delousing chambers) have abundant blue staining. So according to Piper’s “Holocaust logic,” gassing people in Auschwitz did not leave blue stains, but gassing people at Majdanek did. Talk about a Magic Kingdom! As we spoke, I half expected to see Piper’s nose grow as long as Pinocchio’s!
The importance of Piper’s revelations is obvious. The burden of proof has now shifted decisively to the Exterminationist side. For example, Piper’s admission that the four holes in the ceiling of Crematory Building (Krema) I were put in after the war makes ludicrous the oft-repeated claim of Auschwitz tourists that “Now I’ve seen the gas chambers with my own two eyes.” Now that the often-made claims about Krema I in its present state are no longer valid, can the Exterminationists produce ANY evidence—a photograph, document, plan or order—showing that the supposed gas chamber there was EVER used to kill people as alleged? Most likely not, but what else is new? We’ve never been asked to accept the Holocaust story on anything but faith, and for me, that’s not good enough.
On the issue of the Holocaust—and perhaps uniquely on this issue—we are told: “Close the books, there will be no more learning, no more discussion, no more questions. Not only will no questions be tolerated, but anyone who dares to ask such questions will be slandered and viciously attacked.”
Now, as someone who believes that part of being human is to learn something new every day, I respond: “How dare you tell me there will be no more learning?” The establishment that maintains the Holocaust story on life support admits that there is no direct proof of homicidal gassings. No order, no document, no pictures, only “eyewitnesses.”
And what of these eyewitnesses? The Holocaust lobby insists that this is convincing evidence. But what kind of evidence is this? In some European countries, a person who denies the gas chambers can be jailed, fined, or physically attacked. He might lose his job, his standing in the community, maybe even his life. Something similar has happened in Canada. In the United States, he might be attacked and vilified. And if he says that he comes by his knowledge from first-hand experience—in other words from helping to run the camps during the war years—then he might easily find himself deported to Israel or eastern Europe, where he might be sentenced to death or at least stripped of his US citizenship and denied due process.
In other words, we only hear of eyewitnesses from one side because witnesses from the other side have been strong-armed into silence. This is governmental coercion of the worst kind, and on a worldwide scale no less. One kind of eyewitness is encouraged, the other kind if warned that his words might lead to deportation, imprisonment, loss of livelihood, property, and even life. Some great victory for the Holocaust lobby: The game has been fixed!
Let people speak! If for no one else, I demand this for my own sake. I want to know what happened during World War Two, and yet how can I if those who might have firsthand knowledge are told: “Speak only the official line, or suffer the consequences.” I insist on my human right to learn.
There are those who say, “Okay, so maybe the Holocaust is a bit exaggerated, but do we really want to destabilize society by openly talking about all this, possibly encouraging hostility against Jews?” This raises an important philosophical question: Do you believe mankind to be so inherently cruel and stupid that people must be lied to in order to make them behave? If so, then the lies you tell them are only a small bandage to cover up a much greater evil: Lack of confidence in mankind’s ability to handle the truth. And if you truly believe that people cannot handle the truth, but instead need a “Big Brother” to handle it for them, then surely democracy is the most dangerous thing on earth.
Of course, I understand that people can be cruel and stupid, but I also believe in the human ability to learn, and to grow with each new piece of knowledge. Rather than censor information that we subjectively perceive to be “dangerous,” we should teach our children to think critically, to remain open-minded, and to look for truth rather than cling to emotionally appealing falsehoods.
And that is just about all we can do: teach our children and hope for the best, realizing that people cannot be programmed like robots. Eighty years of failed Communism should have taught us that. To use the power of the state to force men to be what the state defines as “good” creates a world far more hellish than the one that is supposedly being prevented. I would rather live in a world where people are free to be cruel and stupid than one in which “goodness” is enforced at gun point.
Keep in mind also that truth, objective truth, does not need threats and intimidation to prevail. We Holocaust Revisionists are often likened to those who said that the earth was flat. But just the reverse is true: It is the other side that acts like a Holy Inquisition, institutionalizing one viewpoint and punishing heretics. Remember: We only accepted that the earth is round after the debate was opened. And since then, the round-earth adherents have not needed false news laws, hate crimes laws, and libel or slander laws to protect the truthfulness of their view. Likewise, all we ask is that the Holocaust story either stand or fall according to the evidence—or lack of it.
While we Holocaust Revisionists sit on a wealth of wonderfully heretical information, can we get it out to the general public? Can we “mainstream” Holocaust Revisionism before it’s too late, that is to say, before all those who have firsthand information of what really happened die off entirely?
As a Jew, it would be wrong for me not to mention the issue of Jewish influence. Influence is a very strange thing. People spend so much time and energy to acquire it, and then an equal amount of time and energy denying they have it. Jewish influence does exist. If it didn’t, why would billions of dollars be spent annually by Jewish lobbying groups? That money isn’t to pay for dance lessons for Senators and Congressmen, of course, it’s for influence. Jews must come to terms with the fact that they are not only a powerful and influential group, but have responsibilities that come with that—particularly the responsibility not to abuse power, or, more specifically, to avoid abusing people with that power.
It is a testament to the strength of Revisionist research and scholarship, and to Revisionist tenacity, that all the Jewish influence in the world has not erased this movement. Despite the best efforts of our most clever and determined adversaries, Revisionist books are still read, and the Institute for Historical Review continues to function.
But how much progress are we really making in getting our message to the public? Unfortunately, we’ve been making only tiny, pussycat steps. I am not a patient man. Every day, I fool myself into thinking that I can be patient—I can’t. I don’t want to be a guerrilla fighter of the political underground for the rest of my life. The time has come, indeed has never been better, to take Revisionist scholarship to the rest of the world, and if the powers that be try to stop us, we either go around them or, if necessary, we go right through them.
TWO MORE YEARS! That’s my new motto. In two years’ time, Holocaust Revisionism should be in the mainstream, squarely in the public eye.
I am sure that we will eventually succeed in getting out our message. Information can be suppressed for just so long. But that’s not enough for me. It’s not enough that fellow Revisionists recognize Professor Faurisson’s scholarship for the brilliant work it is. I want it to be WIDELY recognized as such, and in his lifetime!
So let’s make a concerted effort. Mindful of the recent Jewish New Year, I hereby make a Jewish New Year’s resolution: Two more years! No more sitting in the back of the ideological bus. We’re loud, we’re proud, and best of all, we’re right! (Institute for Historical Review P.O. Box 2739 * Newport Beach, CA 92659. Reprinted by permission from The Journal of Historical Review, Vol. 13, Number 2 (Mar./Apr. 1993): P.O. Box 1306, Torrance, CA 90505, USA).
Taking the Gas Out of Nazi Infamy by Jim Redden
Some historians say Hitler had no master plan to exterminate the Jews in World War II . . . But what are Nazis without the Holocaust?
Irving declares that he has never come across a document proving that Hitler ordered the total eradication of European Jews.
October 16, 1992: David Irving, a British historian specializing in World War II, is speaking at Mount Hood Community College near Portland, Oregon. Irving is an advocate of Holocaust revisionism, a controversial movement that disputes the historical accuracy of the widely held version of what happened to European Jews at the hands of the Germans during Hitler’s Third Reich.
Police dressed in riot gear line the road that leads to the windowless building where Irving is scheduled to talk. The police have been summoned to protect people who wish to attend Irving’s speech from an angry mob harassing everyone who tries to enter the building. An elderly couple slips through the corridor of Plexiglass shields held by police and reaches the front doors. From the mob, a young man yells, “We know where you live!”
Shaken, the couple approaches a police officer stationed in the lobby. “They said they know where we live,” the man says in a quavering voice. The cop answers coolly, “I’m sorry, sir, but there’s nothing we can do about that,” leaving the couple to wonder if a late-night fire bombing is the price they will pay for attending a history lecture.
* * * *
At age 54, David Irving has authored more than a dozen books on World War II. Unlike many chroniclers of the past, Irving does not rely on the writings of other historians when researching his works, but insists on seeing original documents whenever possible. According to the New York Times Book Review, “Mr. Irving is an indefatigable interviewer, a prodigy of enterprise and industry, a researcher who almost literally [leaves] no stone unturned and [succeeds] in digging up papers, letters and diaries which [are] believed to be lost or nonexistent, or which escaped, for other reasons, earlier writers. His dogged persistence puts many professional historians to shame.”
After more than ten years researching declassified war records, Irving declares that he has never come across a document proving that Hitler ordered the total eradication of European Jews, no written or other correspondence proving that Hitler was aware of concentration-camp gassings, and no evidence that Hitler ordered the death of the Jews in any of the top-secret Nazi radio transmissions that were intercepted by the Allies during the war.
As a result of this research, Irving concluded that Hitler did not, in fact, order the notorious Final Solution.
Irving calls the Holocaust a legend. “Historians have all been busy quoting each other. They’ve been pumping hot air into this bubble, and the bubble has been getting bigger and bigger and more and more unstable. These professors know the truth, but they’re terrified that some irresponsible idiot is going to come along and prick that bubble. And,” he adds with comic timing, “I am that prick.”
Mainstream historians acknowledge the lack of a documented Final Solution order from Hitler, believing the Fuehrer was too shrewd to leave behind palpable evidence of his evildoing.
“[That Hitler would not sign a written order] is hardly surprising considering the monstrosity of the crimes being committed,” notes British historian Alan Bullock.
In May 1988 Irving provided expert testimony on behalf of Canadian Ernst Zundel, who was charged with violating Canada’s “false news” laws by reprinting a 28-page booklet titled Did Six Million Really Die? Irving produced a report prepared by Fred Leuchter, an American authority on gas chambers who performed forensic tests on the gas chamber at Auschwitz. Leuchter’s report found no indication of traces of poisonous gas in the walls of the gas chamber and alleged the chamber was, consequently, a fake.
Irving testified that there were no grounds to support the existence of a Nazi plan to exterminate Jews. Upon returning to Europe, Irving published a special edition of the Leuchter report, writing an introduction in which he boldly dismissed the traditional version of the Holocaust as a “well-financed and brilliantly successful postwar publicity campaign.”
Publication of the Leuchter report in Europe led to Irving’s arrest. By alleging that the Auschwitz gas chamber was built AFTER the war, he was convicted of a serious crime in Germany. In May 1992, a Munich court fined Irving the equivalent of $7,000 for violating a German law against “defamation of the memory of the dead.”
* * * *
Books and pamphlets challenging various aspects of the Holocaust began to appear shortly after the end of WWII. One of the first revisionist texts was written by a French concentration-camp survivor named Paul Rassinier. Rassinier’s books, Le Mensonge d’Ulysse [The Lie of Ulysses], published in 1949, and Le Drame des Juifs Europeens [The Drama of the European Jews], published in 1964, claimed Rassinier had not seen any evidence of the mass gassings that had come to light after the camps were liberated.
(Dr. Arthur Butz argued that although Jews were persecuted by the Nazis, they were not specifically targeted for mass extermination).
In the 1970s, Holocaust revisionism saw public debate in the United States. In 1976, Dr. Arthur Butz, an American professor from Northwestern University, published The Hoax of the Twentieth Century. Butz argued that although Jews were persecuted by the Nazis, they were not specifically targeted for mass extermination. According to Butz, less than half a million people died in Nazi concentration camps during WWII, and only a fraction of them were Jews.
Today, the central core of Holocaust revisionism in the U.S. is the Institute for Historical Review (IHR) in Costa Mesa, California. Founded in 1979 by conspiracy theorist Willis Carto, the IHR largely functions as a clearing house for a broad range of revisionist propaganda, including such titles as Dealing in Hate: The Development of Anti-German Propaganda; My Father, Rudolph Hess; and Auschwitz: Truth or Lie—An Eyewitness Report. The IHR also holds annual conferences at which Irving and other revisionists present their latest findings. The definition of the term HOLOCAUST lies at the heart of the revisionism controversy. Since WWII, the expression has been used to describe a systematic Nazi effort—either originating with Hitler or approved by him—to exterminate all of Europe’s Jews. Commonly known as the Final Solution, the plan is thought to have culminated in the construction and operation of the gas chambers at Nazi concentration camps.
Opponents of Holocaust revisionism—those who embrace the traditional version of the war (the American Jewish Committee [AJC] and the Anti-Defamation League [ADL] in particular)—consider the fight against Holocaust revisionism a crusade against a growing army of neo-Nazis around the world. In a series of extensively researched briefing papers, the AJC and the ADL argue that Hitler’s dream of an Aryan world did not die with him, but comprises a conspiracy that stretches from the U.S. to Europe and the Middle East. They refer to their opponents not as Holocaust revisionists, but Holocaust DENIERS.
“The movement to deny that six million Jews were exterminated by the Nazis during World War II is a weapon of anti-Semitic extremist groups operating in the United States and abroad,” claims the ADL.
Jewish advocacy groups and their supporters admit that legitimate Holocaust reappraisal has occurred since the end of WWII. For example, it was widely assumed after the war that 2.5 million Jews were gassed to death at Auschwitz alone. Recently Yahuda Bauer, the director of the Division of Holocaust Studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem’s Institute of Contemporary Jewry, announced that the actual number was probably closer to 1.35 million.
Though this revision raises questions about the total number of Jews killed by the Nazis, the questions raised by Holocaust revisionists are seen as part of a larger agenda of discrimination.
Irving denies that his views on the Holocaust are anti-Semitic.
“The revisionist scene [incorporates] people from the field of history, like myself, to people who are at the other end of the spectrum, who find in revisionism a [means] to vent their anti-Semitism,” he explains.
Holocaust revisionism is a common link between many overtly racist and anti-Semitic groups, such as the California-based White Aryan Resistance, which produces a cable-access television show called RACE AND REASON.
Some viewers claimed to be offended by an early episode of the program that opened with canned laughter playing behind WWII film footage of corpses at Nazi concentration camps.
But support for Holocaust revisionism comes from pro-Semitic sides as well. A young Jew named David Cole visited Auschwitz in late 1992 and videotaped an interview with Dr. Franciszek Piper, the curator of the Holocaust museum at the camp.
In the interview, Piper admitted that the gas chamber shown to tourists was remodeled by the Soviets after the war. In Cole’s view, this statement confirms Irving’s support of the Leuchter Report.
Mainstream historians supporting the traditional version of the Holocaust point to an abundance of eyewitness accounts and Nazi confessions collected during numerous war-crimes trials. At the International Military Tribunal, otherwise known as the Nuremberg Trial, Auschwitz commander Rudolf Hess testified that he personally arranged the gassing of two million Jews between June 1941 and the end of 1943.
(Revisionists argue that the Germans, obsessive insect-haters, shipped large quantities of Zyklon-B to concentration camps during the war to kill lice).
“There’s no doubt that the Germans did kill thousands of people, machine-gunning them into pits,” says Irving. “But I don’t believe they planned and installed factories of death with gas chambers.”
* * * *
The presence of gas chambers at several Nazi concentration camps is the most incriminating evidence of Hitler’s genocidal intent. Unsuspecting Jews were tricked into entering the deadly chambers, usually under the pretext that the rooms were large showers. Once the doors locked behind them, poisonous gas spewed out of the shower heads, killing great numbers in a matter of minutes. The bodies were then hauled out, and either burned in adjacent crematoriums or dumped into pits. According to eyewitness accounts and Nazi testimony, this process was repeated until millions of Jews had been gassed.
Physical evidence of gas-chamber extermination is hard to come by. Mainstream historians agree that the Germans installed gas chambers at only seven camps in Poland—Auschwitz (and its satellite facility, Birkenau), Stutthof, Treblinka, Chelmno, Sobibor, Majdanek, and Belzec. All of these camps were liberated by Soviet troops, and Poland became part of the Soviet Union after the war. The result was that during the long decades of the Cold War, the camps and the tons of documents captured by the Russians have been restricted from Western researchers.
Most of the concentration camps were destroyed by the Germans before they fell into Soviet hands. Many of the buildings were blown up, including those that reportedly housed the gas chambers.
Today, the only gas chambers extant are found at Auschwitz, Birkenau and Majdanek. Basic operating equipment is missing at all of the facilities. None of the chambers currently have air-tight doors, venting systems for piping gas or exhaust systems for removing the gas after the victims have been killed.
Historians agree that the gas chambers used a cyanide-based insecticide called Zyklon-B. Revisionists argue that the Germans, obsessive insect-haters, shipped large quantities of Zyklon-B to concentration camps during the war to kill lice and other insects. Delousing rooms, the doubters point out, can still be found at many of the camps.
More scientifically minded revisionists argue that Zyklon-B does not vanish without a trace, but bonds permanently with porous surfaces like bricks and mortar. According to Rick Gates, a chemist with the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality who is not involved in the revisionist debate, “Cyanide traces can remain in [such materials] a long time.”
Acting on this scientific principle, Fred Leuchter and several companions traveled to Poland in 1988, where they took samples from the walls and floors of the gas chambers at Auschwitz, Birkenau and Majdanek. According to the Leuchter report, only minimal traces of cyanide could be found in the gas chambers. This shortage of forensic evidence leads Leuchter to conclude that the rooms could not have been used as gas chambers, and revisionists take this as proof that the gas chamber story is a hoax.
Jean-Claude Pressac, author of Auschwitz: Design and Fabrication of the Gas Chambers, refutes Leuchter’s theory, alleging that the Germans used enough Zyklon-B to kill people, but not enough to leave substantial traces.
Pressac, a French pharmacist, uses complex chemical formulas to prove that traces of cyanide would be found in the delousing rooms, but not in the gas chambers.
“A hydrocyanic gas concentration of 0.3 grams per cubic meter—a lethal dose—is immediately fatal to a man, while killing lice requires a concentration of five grams per cubic meter for a period of at least two hours,” claims Pressac. “Maintaining that concentration for six hours will kill [every insect infesting a person]. The dose used at Birkenau was lethal 40 to 70 times over (12 to 20 grams per cubic inch)—which infallibly killed 1,000 persons in less than five minutes.”
Without a master plan to eradicate Europe’s Jewry, the revisionists argue, the Nazis were no worse than many other military aggressors in recorded history. “The killings [perpetrated by the Nazis], the pits and so on, were no worse than what the Americans did in Vietnam in My Lai,” claims Irving, referring to the March 16, 1968, slaughter by American ground troops of nearly 300 unarmed and unresisting Vietnam civilians, many of whom were forced to stand on the edge of a ditch and machine-gunned. “There are eyewitness descriptions of both. But the idea of setting up killing factories, with the gas chambers and so on, implies a certain degree of industrialization and precision that, frankly, I don’t think [belongs] in the record.”
Jewish advocacy organizations are not willing to be drawn into a public debate with Holocaust revisionists. They contend that the Holocaust is not a matter to be argued and that, for the sake of the memories of countless families whose relations perished at Nazi hands, the claims of the revisionists should not be dignified with public responses. “We need not waste time or reffort answering the deniers’ contentions,” states Jewish historian Deborah Lipstadt. “It would be never-ending to respond to arguments posed by those who freely falsify findings, quote out of context and simply dismiss reams of testimony. Their commitment is to an ideology, and their ‘findings’ are shaped to support it.”
The AJC and the ADL routinely publish and distribute the results of lengthy background checks indicating that revisionists are not merely disinterested academics, but anti-Semitic political activists.
The ADL has identified former Institute for Historical Review director David McCalden as the founder of the British National Party, an offshoot of the neo-Nazi National Front, and reports that revisionist writer Arthur Butz addressed the 1985 convention of the Nation of Islam, led by notorious anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan.
Irving has a proposal for settling the controversy: a full enquiry. Says Irving, “I think it would be most satisfactory if the Jews themselves investigated and discarded the legend [of the Final Solution], because any other solution is going to lead to an increase in anti-Semitism. The world will say, ‘Look how they tried to get away with it for 50 years!'” (From Hustler magazine, August 1993:
Revisionists Challenge Extermination Story
THE HOLOCAUST: Let’s Hear Both Sides by Mark Weber
Just about everyone has heard that the Germans killed some six million Jews in Europe during the Second World War. American television, motion pictures, newspapers and magazines hammer away on this theme. In Washington, DC, an enormous offical Holocaust Museum is being built.
Scholars Challenge Holocaust Story
During the past decade, though, more and more “Revisionist” historians, including respected scholars such as Dr. Arthur Butz of Northwestern University, Prof. Robert Faurisson of the Univeristy of Lyon in France and best-selling British historian David Irving, have been vigorously challenging the widely-accepted extermination story. They do not dispute the fact that large numbers of Jews were deported to concentration camps and ghettos, or that many Jews died or were killed during the Second World War. Revisionist scholars have, however, presented considerable evidence to show that there was no German program to exterminate Europe’s Jews and that the estimate of six million Jewish wartime dead is an irresponsible exaggeration.
Many Holocaust Claims Abandoned
Revisionists point out that the Holocaust story has changed quite a lot over the years. Many extermination camps that were once widely accepted have been quitely dropped in recent years. At one time it was alleged that the Germans gassed Jews at Dachau, Buchenwald and other concentration camps in Germany proper. That part of the extermination story proved so untenable that it was abandoned more than twenty years ago. No serious historian now supports the once supposedly proven story of “extermination camps” in the territory of the old German Reich. Even famed “Nazi hunter” Simon Wiesenthal acknowledged in 1975 that “there were no extermination camps on German soil.” (‘Books & Bookmen’, London, April 1975, p.5). Prominent Holocaust historians now claim that masses of Jews were gassed at just six camps in what is now Poland: Auschwitz, Majdanek, Treblinka, Sobibor, Chelmno and Belzec. However, the “evidence presented for “gassings” at these six camps is not qualitatively different than the “evidence” for alleged “gassings” at the camps in Germany proper. At the great Nuremberg trial of 1945-1946 and during the decades following the end of the Second World War, Auschwitz (especially Auschwitz-Birkenau) and Majdanek (Lublin) were generally regarded as the really important “death camps.”
For example, the Allies alleged at Nuremberg that the Germans killed four million at Auschwitz and another 1.5 million at Majdanek. Today, no reputable historian accepts these fantastic figures. In addition, more and more striking evidence has been presented in recent years which simply cannot be reconciled with the allegations of mass exterminations at these camps.
For example, detailed aerial reconnaissance photographs taken of Auschwitz-Birkenau on several random days in 1944 (during the height of the alleged extermination period there) were made public by the CIA in 1979. They show no trace of the piles of corpses, smoking chimneys and masses of Jews awaiting death, all of which have been alleged and would have been clearly visible if Auschwitz had indeed been an extermination center. We now also know that the postwar “confessions” of Auschwitz commandant Rudolf Hess, which is a crucial part of the Holocaust extermination story, was obtained by torture. (Rupert Butler, “Legions of Death” (England: 1983), pp. 235-237, and R. Faurisson, “Journal of Historical Review”, Winter 1986-1987, pp. 389-403.)
Other Absurd Holocaust Claims
At one time it was also seriously claimed that the Germans exterminated Jews with electricity and steam, and that they manufactured soap from Jewish corpses. For example, at Nuremberg the United States charged that the Germans killed Jews at Treblinka, not in gas chambers, as is now claimed, but by steaming them to death in “steam chambers” (Nuremberg document PS-3311 (USA-293). IMT blue series, Vol. 32, pp. 153-158; IMT, Vol 3, pp. 566-568.; NMT green series, Vol. 5, pp. 1133, 1134.) These bizarre stories have also been quietly abandoned in recent years.
Disease Claimed Many Inmates
The Holocaust extermination story is superficially plausible. Everyone has seen the horrific photos of dead and dying inmates taken at Bergen-Belsen, Nordhausen and other concentration camps when they were liberated by British and American forces in the final weeks of the war in Europe. These people were unfortunate victims, not of an extermination program, but of disease and malnutrition brought on by the complete collapse of Germany in the final months of the war. Indeed, if there had been an extermination program, the Jews found by Allied forces at the end of the war would have long since been killed. In the face of the advancing Soviet forces, large numbers of Jews were evacuated during the final months of the war from eastern camps and ghettos to the remaining camps in western Germany. These camps quickly became terribly overcrowded, which severely hampered efforts to prevent the spread of epidemics. Furthermore, the breakdown of the German transportation system made it impossible to supply adequate food and medicine to the camps.
Captured German Documents
At the end of the Second World War, the Allies confiscated a tremendous quantity of German documents dealing with Germany’s wartime Jewish policy, which was sometimes officially referred to as the “final solution.” But not a single German document has ever been found which even refers to an extermination program. To the contrary, the documents clearly show that the German “final solution” policy was one of emigration and deportation, not extermination. Consider, for example, the confidential German Foreign Office memorandum of August 21, 1942 (Nuremberg document NG-2586-J. NMT green series, Vol. 13, pp. 243-249). “The present war gives Germany the opportunity and also the duty of solving the Jewish problem in Europe,” the memorandum notes. The policy “to promote the evacuation of the Jews (from Europe) in closest cooperation with the agencies of the Reichsfuhrer SS Himmler] is still in force.” The memo noted that “the number of Jews deported in this way to the East did not suffice to cover the labor needs.” The document quotes German Foreign Minister von Ribbentrop as saying that “at the end of this war, all Jews would have to leave Europe. This was an unalterable decision of the Fuhrer [Hitler] and also the only way to master this problem, as only a global and comprehensive solution could be applied and individual measures would not help very much.” The memorandum concludes by stating that the “deportations [of Jews to the East] are a further step on the way to the total solution . . . The deportation to the [Polish] General Government is a temporary measure. The Jews will be moved on further to the occupied [Soviet] eastern territories as soon as the technical conditions for it are given.” This unambiguous document, and others like it, are routinely suppressed or ignored by those who uphold the Holocaust extermination story.
Holocaust historians rely heavily on so-called “survivor testimony” to support the extermination story. But such “evidence” is notoriously unreliable. As one Jewish historian has pointed out, “most of the memoirs and reports [of “Holocaust survivors”] are full of preposterous verbosity, graphomanic exaggeration, dramatic effects, overestimated self-inflation, dilettante philosophizing, would-be lyricism, unchecked rumors, bias, partisan attacks and apologies.” (Samuel Gringauz in “Jewish Social Studies” (New York), January 1950, Vol. 12, p. 65)
Hitler and the “Final Solution”
There is no documentary evidence that Adolf Hitler ever gave an order to exterminate the Jews, or that he knew of any extermination program. Instead, the record shows that the German leader wanted the Jews to leave Europe, by emigration if possible and by deportation if necessary. A document found after the war in the files of the Reich Ministry of Justice records his thinking on the Jews. In the spring of 1942, State Secretary Franz Schlegelberger noted in a memorandum that Hitler’s Chief of Chancellery, Dr. Hans Lammers, had informed him: “The Fuhrer has repeatedly declared to him [Lammers] that he wants to see the solution of the Jewish problem postponed until after the war is over.” (Nuremberg document PS-4025. D. Irving, “Goering: A biography” (New York: 1989) p. 349.) And on July 24, 1942, Hitler emphasized his determination to remove all Jews from Europe after the war: “The Jews are interested in Europe for economic reasons, but Europe must reject them, if only out of self-interest, becuase the Jews are racially tougher. After this war is over, I will rigorously hold to the view . . . that the Jews will have to leave and emigrate to Madagascar or some other Jewish national state.” (H. Picker, “Hitlers Tischgesprsche im Fuhrerhauptquartier” (Stuttgart: 1976), p. 456).
Himmler’s SS and the Camps
Jews were an important part of Germany’s wartime labor force, and it was in Germany’s interest to keep them alive. The head of the SS camp administration office sent a directive dated Dec. 28, 1942, to every concentration camp, including Auschwitz. It sharply criticized the high death rate of inmates due to disease, and ordered that “camp physicians must use all means at their disposal to significantly reduce the death rate in the various camps.” Furthermore, it ordered: “The camp doctors must supervise more often than in the past the nutrition of the prisoners and, in cooperation with the administration, submit improvement recommendations to the camp commandants. . . The camp doctors are to see to it that the working conditions at the various labor places are improved as much as possible.” Finally, the directive stressed that “The Reichsfuhrer SS [Heinrich Himmler] has ordered that the death rate absolutely must be reduced.” (Nuremberg document PS-2171, Annex 2; NC&A red series, Vol. 4, pp. 833-834). The head of the SS department that supervised the concentration camps, Richard Glucks, sent a circular letter to each camp commandant dated January 20, 1943. In it he ordered: “As I have already pointed out, every means must be used to lower the death rate in the camp.” (Nuremberg document NO-1523; NMT green series, Vol. 5, pp. 372-373)
There is no real evidence for the incessantly repeated claim that the German exterminated six million Jews. It is clear, though, that millions of Jews “survived” German rule during the Second World War, including many who were interned in Auschwitz and other so-called “extermination camps.” This fact alone should raise serious doubts about the extermination story. A leading newspaper of neutral Switzerland, the daily “Baseler Nachrichten”, carefully estimated in June 1946 that no more than 1.5 million European Jews could have perished under German rule during the war (“Baseler Nachrichten”, June 13, 1946, p.2).
Even after more than forty years, the stream of Holocaust films and books shows no sign of diminishing. This relentless media campaign, which Jewish historian Alfred Lilienthal calls “Holocaustomania,” portrays the fate of the Jews during the Second World War as the central event of history. There is no end to the heavy-handed motion pictures, the simplistic television specials, the vindictive hunt for “Nazi-war criminals,” the one-sided “educational courses,” and the self-righteous appearances by politicans and celebrities at Holocaust “memorial services.” Britain’s chief rabbi, Immanuel Jakobovits, has accurately described the Holocaust campaign as “an entire industry, with handsome profits for writers, researchers, film-makers, monument builders, museum planners and even politicians.” He added that some rabbis and theologians are “partners in this big business.” (H. Shapiro, “Jakobovits,” ‘Jerusalem Post’ (Israel), Nov. 26, 1987, p.1) Non-Jewish victims just don’t merit the same concern. For example, there are no American memorials, “study centers,” or annual observances for Stalin’s victims, who vastly outnumber Hitler’s.
The perpetual Holocaust media blitz is routinely used to justify enormous American support for Israel and to excuse otherwise inexcusable Israeli policies, even when they conflict with American interests. The sophisticated and well-financed Holocaust media campaign is crucially important to the intersts of Israel, which owes its existence to massive annual subsidies from American taxpayers. As Prof. W. D. Rubinstein of Australia has candidly acknowledged: “If the Holocaust can be shown to be a ‘Zionist myth,’ the strongest of all weapons in Israel’s propaganda armory collapses.” (“Quadrant” (Australia), Sept. 1979, p.27).
Jewish history teacher Paula Hyman of Columbia University has observed: “With regard to Israel, the Holocuast may be used to forestall political criticism and suppress debate; it reinforces the sense of Jews as an eternally beleaguered people who can rely for their defense only upon themselves. The invocation of the suffering endured by the Jews under the Nazis often takes the place of rational argument, and is expected to convince doubters of the legitimacy of current Israeli government policy.” (‘New York Times Magazine’, Sept. 14, 1980, p. 79). One major reason that the Holocuast story has proven so durable is that the government of the major powers also have a vested interest in maintaining it. The victorious powers of the Second World War—the United States, the Soviet Union and Britian—have a stake in portraying the defeated Hitler regime as negatively as possible. The more evil and satanic the Hitler regime appears, the more noble and justified seems the Allied cause. For many Jews, the Holocaust has become both a flourishing buisness and a kind of new religion, as noted Jewish author and newspaper publisher Jacobo Timerman points out in his book, ‘The Longest War.’ He reports that many Israelis, using the word Shoah, which is Hebrew for Holocaust, joke that “There’s no business like Shoah business.” (‘The Longest War’, (New York: Vintage, 1982), p. 15). The Holocaust media campaign portrays Jews as totally innocent victims, and non-Jews as mortally retarded and unreliable beings who can easily turn into murderous Nazis under the right circumstances. This self-serving but distorted portrayal greatly strengthens Jewish group solidarity and self-awareness. A key lesson of the Holocaust story for Jews is that non-Jews are never completely trustworthy. If a people as cultured and as educated as the Germans could turn against the Jews, so the thinking goes, then surely no non-Jewish nation can ever be completely trusted. The Holocaust message is thus one of contempt for humanity.
The Holocaust story is sometimes ued to promote hatred and hostility, particularly against the German people as a whole, eastern Europeans and the leadership of the Roman Catholic church. The well-known Jewish writer, Elie Wiesel, is a former Auschwitz inmate who served as chairman of the offical U.S. Holocaust Memorial Council. He recieved the 1986 Nobel Peace Prize. This dedicated Zionist wrote in his book, ‘Legends of Our Time’: “Every Jew, somewhere in his being, should set apart a zone of hate—healthy, virile hate—for what the German personifies and for what persists in the German.” (‘Legends of Our Time’ (New York: Schocken Books, 1982) chap. 12, p. 142).
Let Both Sides Be Heard
For several years now, the Holocaust story has been the subject of legitimate controversy in Europe. It was debated for several hours on Swiss television and over French national radio. The respected Italian historical journal “Storia Illustrata” has given extensive coverage to both sides of this issue. Here in America, though, powerful organizations have so far prevented any real public exchange of views on this issue. Many thoughtful Americans are having growing doubts about at least some of the more sensational Holocaust claims, but all the public ever sees and hears is the orthodox view of the extermination story. That’s not right. Americans have the right to judge this important issue for themselves.
The Holocaust extermination story is breaking down as suppressed evidence becomes better known, and as more people become aware of the facts about what is certainly the most hyped and politicized chapter of modern history. Artificially maintaining the hatreds and passions of the past prevents genuine reconciliation and lasting peace. Revisionism promotes histiorical awareness and international understanding. That’s why the work of the Institute for Historical Review is so important and deserves your support.
About the Author:
Mark Weber is editor of the ‘IHR Newsletter’ and associate editor of the ‘Journal of Historical Review’, both published by the Institute for Historical Review. He studied history at the University of Illinois (Chicago), the University of Munich, Portland state University, and Indiana University (M.A., 1977). For five days in March 1988, he testified as a recognized expert witness on the “Final Solution” and the Holocaust issue in a Toronto District Court case. He is the aurthor of many published articles, reviews and essays on various aspects of modern European history. (Institute for Historical Review P.O. Box 2739 Newport Beach, CA 92659)
66 Questions on the Holocaust
Read these questions. If you would like the answers send a stamped addressed envelope to the INSTITUTE FOR HISTORICAL REVIEW, 1822 1/2 Newport Blvd., Suite 191, Costa Mesa CA 92627 USA.
- What proof exists that the Nazis practiced genocide or deliberately killed six million. Jews?
- What evidence exists that six million Jews were not killed by the Nazis?
- Did Simon Wiesenthal once state in writing that “there were no extermination camps on German soil?
- If Dachau was in Germany and even Simon Wiesenthal says that it was not an extermination camp, why do thousands of veterans in America say that it was an extermination camp?
- Auschwitz was in Poland, not Germany. Is there any proof that gas chambers for the purpose of killing human beings existed at or in Auschwitz?
- If Auschwitz wasn’t a “death camp,” what was it’s true purpose?
- Who set up the first concentration camps, and where and when?
- How did German concentration camps differ from America relocation camps which interned Japanese-German-and Italian-Americans during W.W.II?
- Why did the German intern Jews in concentration camps?
- What extensive measure did world Jewry undertake against Germany as early as 1933?
- Did the Jews of the world “declare war on Germany?”
- Was this before or after the rumors of the “death camps” began?
- What nation is credited with being the first to practice mass civilian bombing?
- How many gas chambers to kill people were there at Auschwitz?
- How many Jews were in areas that came to be controlled by the Germans before the war?
- If the Jews of Europe were not exterminated by the Nazis, what happened to them?
- How many Jews fled to deep within the Soviet Union?
- How many Jews emigrated prior to the war, thus being outside of German reach?
- If Auschwitz was not an extermination camp, why did the commandant, Rudolf Hoess, confess that it was?
- Is there any evidence that it was American, British, French, and Soviet policy to torture German prisoners in order to exact confessions before the trials at Nuremberg and elsewhere?
- How does the “Holocaust” story benefit the Jews today?
- How does it benefit the State of Israel?
- How does it benefit many Christian clergy?
- How does it benefit the Communists?
- How does it benefit Britain?
- Is there any evidence that Hitler knew of a mass extermination of Jews?
- What kind of gas was used by the Nazis in concentration camps?
- For what purpose was, and is, this gas manufactured?
- Why did they use this instead of a gas more suitable for mass extermination?
- How long does it take to ventilate fully an area fumigated by Zyklon-B?
- Auschwitz commandant Hoess said that his men would enter the gas chamber ten minutes after the Jews had died and remove them. How do you explain this?
- Hoess said in his confession that his men would smoke cigarettes as they pulled the dead Jews out of the gas chambers ten minutes after gassing. Isn’t Zyklon-B explosive?
- What was the exact procedure the Nazis allegedly used to exterminate Jews?
- How could such a mass program have been kept secret from Jews who were scheduled for extermination?
- If Jews scheduled for execution knew the fate in store for them, why did they go to their deaths without fight or protest?
- About how many Jews died in the concentration camps?
- How did they die?
- What is typhus?
- What is the difference if six million or 300,000 Jews died during this awesome period?
- Many Jewish survivors of the “death camps” say they saw bodies being piled up in pits and burned. How much gasoline would have to be used to perform this?
- Can bodies be burned in pits?
- “Holocaust” authors claim that the Nazis were able to cremate bodies in about 10 minutes. How long does it take to incinerate one body according to professional cremator operators?
- Why did the concentration camps have crematory ovens?
- Given a 100 (to the 6th power) duty cycle of all the crematoria in all the camps in German-controlled territory, what is the maximum number of corpses it would have been possible to incinerate during the entire period such cremators were operating?
- Can a crematory oven be operated 100 (to the 6th power) of the time?
- How much ash is left from a cremated corpse?
- If six million people had been incinerated by the Nazis, what happened to the ashes?
- Do Allied wartime photos of Auschwitz (during the period when the “gas chambers” and crematoria were supposed to be in full operation) reveal gas chambers?
- What was the main provision of the German “Nuremberg laws” of 1935?
- Were there any American precedents for the Nuremberg Laws?
- What did the International Red Cross have to report with regard to the “Holocaust” question?
- What was the role of the Vatican during the time the six million Jews were alleged to have been exterminated?
- What evidence is there that Hitler knew of the ongoing Jewish extermination?
- Did the Nazis and the Zionists collaborate?
- What caused Anne Frank’s death just several weeks before the end of the war?
- Is the Anne Frank Diary genuine?
- What about the numerous photographs and footage taken in the German concentration camps showing piles of emaciated corpses? Are these faked?
- Who originated the term “genocide”?
- Were films such as ‘Holocaust’ and ‘The Winds of War’ documentary films?
- About how many books have been published which refute some aspect of the standard claims made about the “Holocaust”?
- What happened when a historical institute offered $50,000 to anyone who could prove that Jews were gassed at Auschwitz?
- What about the claim that those who question the “Holocaust” are anti-Semitic or Neo-Nazi?
- What has happened to the historians who have questioned the “Holocaust” material?
- Has the Institute for Historical Review suffered any retaliation for its efforts to uphold the right of freedom of speech and academic freedom?
- Why is there so little publicity for your point of view?
- Where can I get more information about the “other side” of the “Holocaust” story as well as facts concerning other areas of W.W.II Historical Revisionism?
If you would like the answers send a stamped addressed envelope to the INSTITUTE FOR HISTORICAL REVIEW, 1822 1/2 Newport Blvd., Suite 191, Costa Mesa CA 92627