Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

THE HOLOCAUST WARS

Expand Messages
  • PAUL EISEN
    THE HOLOCAUST WARS The virulently anti-Semitic Zundelsite (www.zundelsite.org) has posted this essay, ( Jewish Power by Paul Eisen) which it describes as
    Message 1 of 16 , Aug 5, 2005
      THE HOLOCAUST WARS

      "The virulently anti-Semitic Zundelsite (www.zundelsite.org) has posted
      this essay, ("Jewish Power" by Paul Eisen) which it describes as
      "brilliant." Of course, Eisen cannot control the use of his work by
      these scum, but that is hardly the point. The sad fact is that it
      represents a "brilliant" endorsement of their own ideology of
      Jew-hating."

      Joel Finkel (1)

      -------------------------------------------------------------

      I. SCUM

      The "scum" to which Joel Finkel refers are Ernest Zundel, currently in
      solitary confinement in the Metro West Detention Center, Toronto, and
      Ingrid Rimland, his wife, who owns and runs the Zundelsite - a website
      dedicated to supporting Zundel, his work and his struggle. All day every
      day Zundel sits in his cell on a pile of court transcripts (chairs are
      not permitted), wearing the same orange jumpsuit as all the rapists and
      murderers, and with the permitted pencil stubs (ball-points are
      forbidden) he fights his campaigns, writes, draws and meditates on the
      past, present and future. Meanwhile, from her Tennessee home Ingrid
      wheels and deals, begs and borrows, plots, posts and publishes to try to
      get him out, or at least to stop his imminent deportation to his native
      Germany where he can expect a warrant for his arrest under Germany's
      severe "hate laws" and a possible five year sentence.

      Ernst Zundel immigrated to Canada in 1958 to avoid the draft (he is a
      lifelong pacifist), where he has lived for forty two years. Unlike most
      Holocaust revisionists (rather an austere, academic lot), Zundel is a
      hands-on activist - by all accounts, a gentle, good-humored man, kind
      and honest and with those qualities often found in the strangest places:
      a fine mind and a good heart. Born in Germany's Black Forest, Zundel
      sometimes refers to himself as a 'Swabian peasant', and it's true, he
      does have that about him. But Zundel understands people and, most
      important, he understands history. He is, to use his own word, a
      Vordenker - one who thinks ahead of the crowd, one who sees the panorama
      of life.

      For decades now Zundel has battled the Holocaust establishment:

      "I was like everybody else in my own postwar years in Germany. I was
      disgusted with my father's generation whom I believed to have been
      monsters. Like practically all people on our planet, I used to believe
      in the standard, widely accepted notion that the government of National
      Socialist Germany, under the leadership of Adolf Hitler, had attempted
      to kill the Jews by an act of state-decreed genocide. I was ashamed to
      be a German…..In the 1960's ….I experienced my first doubts about
      some details of the Holocaust story. Further study, mostly at night,
      convinced me that many segments of the story were highly exaggerated,
      and the number of Jewish losses were wildly inflated." Ernst Zundel

      Thus began Zundel's activism - persistent, flamboyant and effective. Who
      else would have got himself photographed carrying a martyr's cross up
      the steps of a Canadian courtroom? And who else, after having been
      beaten on the steps of a courthouse by members of a violent Jewish group
      when he appeared for court dates, would thereafter appear for all court
      hearings in a hard hat and bulletproof vest?

      His first brush with Canadian law was when the government sought to
      remove his special mail privileges. He won that one and has never
      looked back.

      In 1985 Zundel ended up in court when he distributed a booklet: Did Six
      Million Really Die?, and ran foul of Canada's "False News" Laws:

      "Everyone who willfully publishes a statement, tale or news that he
      knows is false and that causes or is likely to cause injury or mischief
      to a public interest is guilty of an indictable offense and liable to
      imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years."

      Twice Ernst Zundel was in court for what turned out to be the two
      greatest Holocaust revisionism trials of our time, twice he was
      convicted and twice the convictions were overturned. The first in 1985
      lasted seven weeks and ended with a 15 month sentence, overturned in
      1987 by the Ontario Court of Appeal citing errors of law ordering a
      retrial. This, the second Zundel trial in 1988, lasted for almost four
      months. It was in this trial that Zundel commissioned Fred Leuchter, an
      expert on executions by gas in the U.S. to visit Auschwitz and conduct a
      forensic examination, which was presented in court as proving
      conclusively that there were no homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz.
      For the revisionist community, that day in April 1988,when Fred Leuchter
      presented his report to the court, was the day the myth of the Holocaust
      was finally laid to rest.

      Despite an impressive defence from revisionist heavyweights such as
      Robert Faurisson, Mark Weber and David Irving who, having just read the
      Leuchter report, took the opportunity of the trial to proclaim his
      conversion to Holocaust revisionism, Zundel was again found guilty and
      sentenced. But in 1992, the Supreme Court of Canada struck down as
      unconstitutional the law banning the spread of false news. This
      decision temporarily put an end to the deportation proceedings launched
      against Zundel after his 1988 conviction.

      For the next few years Zundel continued his struggle despite various
      assaults, both legal and illegal - prosecutions, violence against his
      person, arson against his home and possessions.

      "In the spring of 1994, several Marxist street groups organized to
      attempt to drive Zundel out of his neighbourhood in Toronto. Pamphlets
      were distributed calling him a "hatemonger" and "white supremacist" and
      calling for his charging under Canada's hate laws. These groups began a
      campaign of posters put up across Toronto with Zundel's face in a rifle
      sight, giving directions to his home with instructions on how to build
      Molotov cocktails. Street graffiti appeared on fences and buildings
      calling for people to "drive Zundel out." Zundel lodged complaints with
      Toronto police but nothing ever came of his complaints…On May 7, 1995,
      an arsonist torched Zundel's house which was almost completely gutted on
      the second and third floors, causing over $400,000.00 in damages and
      destroying an extensive library and rare book collection. No person was
      ever charged with this offence. After the arson, Zundel suffered from
      severe anxiety, loss of memory, and loss of concentration……At the
      end of May 1995, a powerful pipe bomb was sent to Zundel through the
      mails from Vancouver, British Columbia. Suspicious of the parcel, he
      took it unopened to the police. The bomb contained nails and metal
      shrapnel; Toronto police determined it would have killed anyone who
      opened it and anyone within 90 metres of the blast." (2)

      Twice he submitted faultless applications for Canadian citizenship, and
      twice he was refused. There was a conviction for 'hate crime' in
      Germany and prosecutions for being "a threat to the safety and security
      of Canada", and there were the incessant legal battles about the
      Zundelsite.

      In 2000, exhausted after the struggles of the eighties and nineties,
      Zundel moved to the United States, where he married Ingrid, a U.S.
      citizen. There the couple lived quietly, establishing an art gallery,
      experimenting in organic agriculture and thinking about future
      campaigns. Then, on February 5th 2003 Ernst was arrested because, as he
      was told, he had missed showing up at a scheduled immigration hearing in
      May of 2001.

      "Remember what I told you?" He said to Ingrid as they faced together the
      arresting officers, "That's what they were going to do. Use a
      bureaucratic excuse to get me." He also told her, as he was led away in
      handcuffs, where to find her Valentine gift.

      In what amounted to a legal kidnapping, Zundel was deported to Canada,
      where he faces extradition proceedings to Germany where "Holocaust
      denial" is against the law. There, you can get up to five years in
      prison for having the wrong opinion or, as they put it, for "...
      defaming the memory of the dead." Two years later Zundel is still in
      prison as the legal wrangles continue.


      -"….you have just arrived at what is sneeringly called a 'Holocaust
      denier.'"
      Ingrid Rimland


      I had neither heard of Zundel nor the Zundelsite until I received an
      email from Ingrid Rimland asking permission to post my essay Jewish
      Power as one of her 'Z-Grams' - the emails she sends out to Zundel
      supporters all over the world. I agreed, and logged onto the
      Zundelsite. I appreciated its excellent selection of revisionist
      literature, but confess to being a little unnerved by its schwarz weiss
      rot livery, runic-style logo and anti-Jewish cartoons. But I carried on
      until I came across her introduction to my piece.

      "Despite some occasional slipping into the RKPS mode….this Eisen essay
      is one remarkably crafted essay! Beautifully done! Rich in imagery and
      ice-cold in precision. "

      …one remarkably crafted essay! Rich in imagery and ice-cold in
      precision! But what was this RKPS that I was occasionally slipping into?

      "Dear Paul

      RKPS stands for Requisite Knee-fall Paragraph Syndrome. It is a common,
      near universal writer's affliction in every Western country. It
      neutralizes what crude folks call a "sh-t detector." It befalls
      otherwise perfectly reasonable intellectuals much more than low-brow
      folks. It is as common as freckles.

      It kicks in whenever the so-called "Holocaust" comes up. It's
      automatic. One cannot help it. By inner command, one must immediately
      get down on ones knees, bow to the dust, pay homage to the "six
      million", get up, kick Hitler in the shin, deplore the "racism" of the
      Third Reich, and otherwise distance oneself from the period of '33-'45
      so that there is no doubt as to exactly where one stands - fair square
      against (gulp!) "Nazis".
      Now, dear (future) friend - I have probably nixed a potentially
      congenial friendship right at the start by showing my true colors and
      putting my foot in the mouth - but I am a German, married to the world's
      premier thought-criminal presently languishing in Abu Ghraib North, and
      my heart aches when I read otherwise magnificent writing like yours -
      and then detect the RKPS. It hurts me, because it is unworthy of
      thinking and otherwise fair people who have been raised on the Holocaust
      Drip that has deformed that part of their nature that is meant to be
      fair and critical.

      Here is the example of the RKPS in your piece:-
      "In its zeal and self belief Zionism has come to resemble the most
      brutal and relentless of modern ideologies. But unlike the brutal
      rationality of Stalinism, willing to sacrifice millions for political
      and economic revolution, this Jewish ideology, in its zealotry and
      irrationality, resembles more the National Socialism which condemned
      millions for the attainment of a nonsensical racial and ethnic
      supremacy." (From "Jewish Power" by Paul Eisen) (3)

      You see, Paul, when I read passages like that, I wince. Let me take it
      apart, bit by bit. "Zealotry", yes - to the extent one wants a better,
      cleaner, saner, more honest, more compatible world for one's own where
      life does not feel like having to wear a hair shirt for the benefit of
      strangers. Scientists deeply committed to their inventions are zealous.
      Mothers are zealous in wanting the best for their children. I am
      zealous when it comes to keeping smut out of the language I love. But
      not zealous like some Deep South Baptist preacher who thumbs the Bible,
      chews tobacco, and thinks nothing of spitting on your feet.

      "Irrationality" - far from it! I used to think like that - I am ashamed
      to say I suffered badly from RKPS for most of my life. When I first
      started questioning why I behaved exactly like some brainless robot, I
      became curious about what people who were part of the National Socialist
      movement really thought. I talked to an old man whom I respected deeply
      for his integrity, and who had lost his only 18-year-old son at
      Stalingrad. He said to me, holding his son's picture in his hands: "It
      felt right in my mind, and it felt right in my soul." I asked: "You
      paid a price. Do you regret it?" And he said very quietly: "How could
      I? How could anyone who took the trouble understanding?"

      That was the start of my resolve to take the trouble understanding.
      "Non-sensical racial and ethnic supremacy." You are just plain
      misinformed. Let me put it this way. You have been lied to about the
      murder of JFK, about Vince Foster, about the USS Liberty, about Weapons
      of Mass Destruction, about --- you get the point. You have been lied to
      and lied to and lied to. You know you have. You accept that. And you
      haven't been lied to about this "racial and ethnic supremacy" nonsense?

      Here's what I say to people who question my motives. Hitler has been
      dead for more than half a century. I don't want to resurrect him.
      Nobody in my circle does. It cannot be done. What is gone is gone and
      is never going to return. But what we Germans want is balanced
      thinking, fair assessment of what the Hitler days were like. We don't
      want people to assault us morning, noon, and night for things we didn't
      do. I for one don't like to watch grown men and women run and hide like
      rabbits the moment the Holocaust Lobby says "Boo!" After all, we all
      enjoy the Autobahn, don't we? Why should not our world enjoy the
      benefits that came out of those times - the research in fighting cancer,
      for instance? The superb appreciation of genuine art? The emphasis on
      simple lifestyle, respecting the ecological system? The brilliant
      strides in space research? It is unworthy of us to let ourselves be
      spooked by professional smear mongers for profit. Paul, put your hand
      on your heart and confess: Just what have you read of the times that
      did not come out of the propaganda mills of Hollywood and such?

      For me, your sentence read like a traditional RKPS - to nodding
      agreement of the audience. Am I wrong? If I am right, you have just
      arrived at what is sneeringly called a "Holocaust Denier." I will look
      you straight in the eye and say that one cannot deny what did not exist.
      And now, to my regret, we have a mis-tone in our new-found mutual love
      (dare I say zealotry?) for ideas expressed in precise and finely honed
      words.

      I suggest that forensic science ought to settle that disagreement about
      what Germans did or did not do in World War II in an open public forum -
      not by imprisonment and "torture lite" - as has happened to my husband,
      who sent the first forensic team EVER to inspect the "murder weapon",
      the so-called "gas chambers at Auschwitz" - and found it not what it was
      purported to be.
      Ingrid.


      -"…I am frightened of you but I am more frightened of my
      ignorance…."
      Message to Ingrid Rimland from a ZGram
      reader

      Ernst Zundel is a Holocaust revisionist or, a 'Holocaust denier' as some
      would have it. Like all revisionists, Zundel does not deny that the
      National Socialist regime targeted Jews or that Jews suffered at their
      hands, but he does deny specific, albeit key aspects of the Holocaust
      narrative as we know it. His denial is limited to three areas which
      should be clearly understood.

      - That there ever was an official plan on the part of Hitler or
      any other part of the Nazi regime systematically and physically to
      eliminate every Jew in Europe.

      - That there ever existed homicidal gas-chambers.

      - That the numbers of Jewish victims have been exaggerated.

      Although unpopular enough itself, if Zundel had stuck to Holocaust
      revisionism he might have had an easier ride. But for Ernst Zundel
      revisionism is but a means to an end. He cannot and will not relinquish
      his loyalty and devotion, as he sees it, for his country, his people and
      their history. For him, the revision of the Holocaust is not just the
      pursuit of a truth, but the pursuit of a truth that will set his people
      free. Germans stand accused of having committed the worst crime in
      human history: the premeditated attempt to coolly and efficiently
      annihilate every Jew in Europe. Zundel rejects this. He is prepared
      for National Socialist Germany to be held accountable for the crimes it
      did commit but the attempted genocide of European Jews is, for him, not
      one of them.
      Some readers, even those who stand for free speech, may now be reaching
      for their delete buttons. After all, maybe Zundel should not be
      penalized for his beliefs, but that doesn't mean that his views must be
      disseminated, and it certainly does not mean that we have to read them.
      But free speech is not only the right to think, to speak and to write
      freely, but also to be given a fair hearing without ridicule and abuse
      or at least until a proper examination has been made. And you never
      know, even those who generally find such views repellent, if they were
      to hear them, even they might hear something worth hearing. So, for
      those folk prepared to grant to Ernst Zundel the same freedom they grant
      to themselves, for those who have the curiosity and the courage to pause
      awhile, this could be an opportunity rarely offered - an opportunity to
      hear and consider another and hitherto unheard, point of view.

      Everybody has a story and everybody has a point of view, and in the
      matter of the events in Europe from 1933-1945 there are many points of
      view. The British have a point of view, the Americans have a point of
      view, the Poles, the Dutch, the Russians, the Serbs they all have a
      point of view and the Jews certainly have a point of view. But the
      Germans, too, have a point of view, even those Germans who once called
      themselves National Socialists, even those Germans who still call
      themselves National Socialists.

      "Dear Paul
      Many WWII soldiers (now very old) have told me that World War II - that
      is, the war against the East - was really a preventive/defensive war
      against Communism, which was Jewish. Europe was about to be overrun by
      the Red Terror - Stalin had amassed his assault troops at the border,
      and it was only a matter of weeks, so Hitler hit first. Right now I am
      reading a book by a Swede, Juri Lina that is one long, horrid accounting
      of the Bolshevik/Jewish horrors. I don't know how good his sources are -
      but he has certainly documented them. Six million? Even if it were
      true, which we say it isn't, it was peanuts compared to the bloodbath in
      Russia, starting with the 1917 Revolution, all of it laid at the feet of
      the Jews. How much of that was known in Germany by the common people, I
      don't know. But it was certainly known by the leadership. And the Jews
      were seen as subversives, rightly or wrongly, more and more so as the
      war went on. Add to that the Versailles Treaty that brutalized Germany
      financially, and the corruption of the Weimar Republic, which brutalized
      it spiritually, both of which were blamed on the Jews - and you have
      cause aplenty, as that generation saw it. Ingrid"

      How do those Germans now nearing the end of their lives, feel when told
      that what seemed so right then and perhaps even still seems so right,
      was in fact so wrong? And how do those Germans today, born and educated
      in postwar Germany, feel when told of the shame and disgrace of their
      parents and grandparents? How might it feel, to be forbidden, alone
      amongst the peoples of Europe, to recall your recent history with
      anything but shame? Year after year all over the western world nations
      proudly parade, remembering their country-men and women and the
      contribution they made in the war. At ceremonies they remember their
      dead and the sacrifices made. But for Germans, only the atrocities are
      to be remembered - not a word, nothing of the achievements and
      sacrifices of their fellow Germans. Such was and is the price of
      'rehabilitation' and the re-entry of Germany into the family of nations.

      Of wartime suffering we hear plenty. The British in the blitz,
      Americans in the Pacific, French, Dutch and Danes under occupation,
      Russians and Poles in the East and of course, Jews in the Holocaust, but
      who hears about the suffering of Germans: the terror-bombing of German
      cities with the deliberate causing of firestorms, the only purpose of
      which was the mass slaughter of civilians? In the 1940 bombing of
      Coventry around 550 civilians were killed, whilst in the 1945 bombing of
      Dresden around 35,000 (the lowest figure I could find) were killed. And
      our response is to twin Dresden with Coventry, which says all you'll
      ever need to know about 'balance'.

      Who cares or even knows about the deportations of millions of Germans
      from their generations-long homes in the East, the rape and pillage of
      Berlin and other cities and the hunger and deprivation endured for years
      and years after the defeat of National Socialism? Who remembers the ten
      million Germans and Austrians who died in World War 2? Who much cares
      about Germany post World War 1 - the injustices of Versailles, the
      hunger, hopelessness, degradation and humiliation? So who will try to
      understand how it might have felt when a leader came along - a veteran
      of the war, a brave soldier by all accounts (twice wounded; Iron Cross
      First-Class), a fellow sufferer, one of their own, a man who promised
      peace, stability and well-being and the restoration of pride and honor -
      and, most incredibly of all, at that time kept his promises?


      -The Hitler we loved and why…-

      Ernst Zundel was once involved in the publication of a book called The
      Hitler We Loved and Why, but Ernst Zundel was not the only German who
      loved Hitler and is probably not the only German who still loves Hitler.
      Millions of Germans loved Hitler, who for twelve years impacted on them
      as no German has or probably ever will, and, though they never say so,
      must, deep down still cherish his memory.

      In his book Setting the Record Straight: Letters from Cell #7 Zundel
      tells of a visit he made back to Germany to his aged mother still living
      in their Black Forest home. They were sitting there, at the table
      eating supper, just the two of them. It was dark, the clock ticking
      away on the wall as it had done for years, when his mother said to him,

      "You know, Ernst, you would never have been born if Adolf Hitler had not
      come to power."

      And she told him how because Hitler kept his promises of bringing work,
      peace, stability and honour to a ravaged German people, thousands of
      families who had felt unable to have children, now felt able to have
      them.

      "You are one of those children" she said.

      Ernst Zundel the Holocaust denier is a German nationalist and, by his
      own admission, a racialist. He is an admirer of Hitler and is nostalgic
      for the National Socialist period of German history. He is anti-Jewish.
      He is also interested in UFO's. So Ernst Zundel is easily dismissed as
      a crank, a Nazi, or as Joel Finkel would have it, as 'scum'.

      But Ernst Zundel is a Holocaust denier because he believes the Holocaust
      narrative falsely defames his people and their history. He is a
      racialist because race, for him - a cultural, emotional and spiritual,
      as well as biological determinant - is vital and precious in the life of
      human beings, and that his own white and German race, as he would term
      it, is, as is every other race, something to be cherished and preserved.
      He is a patriot who loves his country, his people, their language,
      culture and history. He remembers Adolf Hitler for the national
      regeneration he brought. He knows that he committed terrible crimes but
      asks that he be judged as any other historical figure like Stalin or
      Napoleon, no more, no less, and that National Socialism be judged also
      on its merits and demerits. He believes, as do many others (including
      many, if not most, Jews), that there exists some kind of Jewish spirit
      or sensibility, but further believes that this Jewish spirit, so often
      creative and energizing can, if unchecked and unbalanced, be damaging
      and corrosive to any society, and he grieves for the damage he believes
      it has caused to the world he loved.

      But Ernst Zundel does not hate Jews because Ernst Zundel doesn't hate
      anyone. Ernst Zundel has never committed an act of violence, nor has he
      ever called on anyone else to commit an act of violence. Ernst Zundel
      has never discriminated against anyone, nor has he called on anyone else
      to discriminate against anyone. Ernst Zundel has never stifled anyone's
      freedom of expression, nor has he ever called on anyone else to stifle
      anyone's freedom of expression. Ernst Zundel looks on his enemies as
      they try to silence, prosecute, imprison, bomb and burn him, with
      bewilderment, sorrow and some anger because, as he has said, "sometimes
      I simply run out of cheeks to turn".

      ---------------------------------------------------------------

      II. THE WAR FOR THE TRUTH

      -The Revisionists-

      It bears repetition that the denial of the Holocaust revisionists does
      not extend to the entire Holocaust narrative. Revisionists do not deny
      that the National Socialist regime brutally persecuted Jews. They do
      not deny that Jews in Germany were discriminated against, violently
      assaulted, dispossessed, imprisoned in camps and expelled. They also do
      not deny that Jews in countries occupied by Germany or within the German
      sphere of influence were also pitilessly assaulted, dispossessed and
      subjected to brutal deportations many to forced labour camps where many
      hundreds of thousands died. Nor do they deny that many Jews were
      executed by shooting in the East. But they do deny the Holocaust
      narrative as we know it in three specific areas.

      - They deny that there ever was an official plan on the part of
      Hitler or any other part of the Nazi regime systematically and
      physically to eliminate every Jew in Europe;

      - They deny that there ever existed homicidal gas-chambers;

      - They deny the figure of six million Jewish victims of the Nazi
      assault and claim that the actual figure was significantly less.

      In making their claims, Revisionists have offered a considerable body of
      work. To what degree they are right, everyone must judge for
      themselves. Many will take the view that Holocaust revisionism is but
      pernicious nonsense motivated only by a hatred of Jews and a desire to
      rehabilitate Hitler and National Socialism specifically, and fascism in
      general, and therefore not even worthy of scrutiny. I don't agree, and
      those with sufficient curiosity to wish to research the subject can
      visit the website of the premier Revisionist think tank, the Institute
      for Historical Review, locate the Journal of Historical Review (4) and
      its archive of articles and papers and start reading. For an overview
      of the whole subject, they can obtain a copy of Joel Hayward's 1993 M.A.
      thesis "The Fate of Jews in German Hands" (5)

      The Revisionist case is broadly as follows:-

      - There exists no documentary evidence whatsoever that there ever
      was a decision on the part of Hitler or the National Socialist state to
      physically murder all the Jews of Europe. There is, however, an
      abundance of evidence for the decision to persecute, disempower and
      expel all Jews from Europe

      - There is no physical evidence whatsoever for the existence of
      homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz or indeed anywhere else. There is,
      however, abundant evidence for the widespread use of hydrogen cyanide
      (Zyklon B) gas and gas chambers for delousing and disinfection against
      typhus. No-one has yet been able to produce, draw or describe a
      homicidal gas chamber or produce a photograph or plan of one, because
      no-one has ever seen a homicidal gas chamber.

      - No-one has ever seen a homicidal gas chamber because they did
      not exist. The gas chambers shown to thousands of visitors to Auschwitz
      are, by the admission of the museum authorities, post-war
      reconstructions. Common images of gas chambers from other locations are
      either disinfestation chambers or more commonly morgues, air-raid
      shelters (often gas-tight) or crematoria. Common images of the gassing
      of Jews - deportees boarding and disembarking from trains, mountains of
      eyeglasses and shoes, piles of corpses, crematoria chimneys are just
      that - people and trains, eyeglasses and shoes, corpses, smoking
      chimneys, no more, no less - they do not constitute evidence of mass
      gassing.

      - Not only is there no physical evidence for the existence of
      homicidal gas chambers, there is substantial physical, architectural,
      topographical, geographical and forensic evidence against their
      existence. The critical evidence is in three reports all resulting from
      investigations at the site itself at Auschwitz. The first and most
      famous of these was the Leuchter report commissioned by Ernst Zundel in
      1988. Acclaimed by revisionists, this report was somewhat hurriedly put
      together and, because of dispute about the interpretation of its
      conclusions, must be regarded as revelatory but nonetheless,
      inconclusive. However, Leuchter's findings and conclusions were refined
      and confirmed by a forensic study carried out by German chemist Germar
      Rudolf and by a forensic examination and report commissioned by the
      Auschwitz State museum and conducted by Institute of Forensic Research
      in Krakow.

      - The gassing and cremation of the numbers claimed, in the time
      claimed and with the facilities claimed, is simply not possible. Some
      of the evidence for this conclusion comes from studies of individual gas
      executions performed in the United States, any study of which will show
      how hard it is to kill one person safely and efficiently, let alone the
      hundreds claimed.

      - The numbers of Jews killed by the Nazis, usually held to be
      around six million, is grossly exaggerated. This is largely because of
      greatly inflated pre-war Jewish population figures and underestimated
      Jewish survival and emigration figures.

      - The context of much of the evidence for the Holocaust narrative
      was the Nuremberg Trials - an extraordinary and unprecedented set of
      trials of the vanquished by the victors with little attempt to find or
      to tell the truth. Without the evidence generated by these proceedings,
      there would be no significant evidence that the extermination of Jews
      took place at all. The legitimacy of the court itself was questionable,
      its procedures were a disgrace with defendants denied basic procedural
      rights and with much of the evidence presented in the form of survivor
      testimony taken at face value or confessions beaten and tortured out of
      the hapless defendants. As a matter of record, the key confession of
      Auschwitz Commandant, Rudolf Hoess, was obtained through torture and
      coercion. (6)

      - Overall there is very little evidence for the established
      Holocaust narrative. Hard evidence is elusive, and what evidence as
      does exist is built largely on eyewitness reports, confessions and
      hearsay. Witness reports, notoriously unreliable anyway, are in this
      case totally false. Many key witnesses have already been demolished in
      the witness box and many noted ones, such as those by Rudolf Vrba,
      Felipe Muller, Kurt Gerstein and Rudolf Hoess, are now partially or
      completely discredited.

      - Many key elements of the Holocaust narrative have already been
      disproved to the extent that even establishment Holocaust writers have
      conceded their inaccuracy. Examples of these are the Jews-into-soap
      story - the long disproved story of how the Nazis used the bodies of
      gassed Jews to make soap - the use of "steam chambers" to steam victims
      to death, and the existence of homicidal gas chambers at concentration
      camps in Germany itself such as Dachau and Buchenwald. All claims were
      made at Nuremberg, and all have subsequently been quietly discarded.
      Most telling is the quiet downgrading of the figures of victims
      illustrated by the removal of nineteen signs at Auschwitz, which told
      visitors in nineteen languages that four million Jews died in the camp.
      These have now been replaced with signs claiming a million and a half
      (still claimed by revisionists to be a significant exaggeration).

      Revisionist research seems to have been carried out in a scholarly
      manner, is well supported by evidence and is presented in a calm and
      restrained way. That some revisionists (not all) have histories in
      far-right activism is true. That some (not all) exhibit anti-Jewish
      sentiment is also true, although this may in part be due to the assaults
      that many have come under from Jews and Jewish organisations. Some (not
      all) have, in the past, been affiliated to racist and nationalist
      organisations, some (not all) speak fluent German and some even are
      Germans. Such information should lead us to look closely for signs of
      bias in their research; but not to discount their findings per se.


      -"Show me or draw me a Nazi gas chamber…"Robert Faurisson (7)-

      "No-one is able to show us, at Auschwitz or anywhere else, even one of
      these chemical slaughterhouses. No-one is capable of describing to us
      their exact appearance or workings. Neither a trace nor a hint of their
      existence is to be found. Not one document, not one study, not one
      drawing. Nothing. Nothing but some occasional, pitiful "evidence",
      which vanishes, like a mirage, as soon as one draws near, and which the
      Jewish historians themselves, in recent years, have finally been obliged
      to repudiate." Robert Faurisson (8)

      "For 15 years, every time that I heard of a witness anywhere, no matter
      where in the portion of Europe that was not occupied by the Soviets, who
      claimed to have himself been present at gas exterminations, I
      immediately went to him to get his testimony. With documentation in
      hand, I would ask him so many precise and detailed questions that soon
      it became apparent that he could not answer except by lying. Often his
      lies became so transparent, even to himself, that he ended his testimony
      by declaring that he had not seen it himself, but that one of his good
      friends, who had died in the camps and whose good faith he could not
      doubt, had told him about it. I covered thousands and thousands of
      kilometers throughout Europe in this way." Paul Rassinier (9)

      Robert Faurisson, the veteran revisionist scholar, has written that at
      the heart of the Holocaust is Auschwitz, and at the heart of Auschwitz
      are the gas chambers. He therefore urges those who wished to combat the
      Holocaust myth to focus their efforts on that heart. It was Faurisson
      who, in the mid seventies first thought of putting Holocaust revisionism
      on firm ground by focusing on the material and forensic evidence for or
      against the existence of homicidal gas chambers. He visited a
      functioning gas execution facility in the U.S. and saw for himself
      exactly what it took to efficiently and safely (for the executioners at
      least) kill one person at a time, let alone the many hundreds at a time
      claimed by Holocaust writers, and he concluded that "for physical and
      chemical reasons understandable to a child of eight" the existence and
      operation of the Nazi gas chambers was fundamentally impossible. But it
      was the activist Ernst Zundel who, at the time of the second False News
      trial in 1988 had the idea of sending to Auschwitz a forensic team to
      determine the issue once and for all. According to revisionists, and
      despite its flaws (most likely due to the speed under which it was
      formulated), the findings of the Leuchter Report were clear - the
      facilities held to have been homicidal gas chambers were neither used
      for that purpose nor could they have been used for that purpose.

      Nothing seems to fit about the gassing story. The numbers of victims
      crammed into the space, the design and construction of the gassing
      facilities, the lack of protection for the attendants, the
      implausibility surrounding the rate of cremation, the huge errors,
      omissions and disparities in eye-witness accounts - all these and more,
      when added to the near total absence of hard affirmative evidence, makes
      one wonder why anyone believed such a story in the first place. No-one
      has yet been able to explain how a gas chamber worked. No-one has been
      able to explain how pellets of Zyklon B were poured into holes that do
      not and never have existed. No-one has been able to explain how the
      Sonderkommando (special detachment) of Jewish prisoner/attendants was
      able to enter a gas chamber immediately, (even wearing gas masks which
      do not offer anything like proper protection especially when the wearer
      is active), after a mass gassing to remove the bodies, even though such
      an environment would have been an ocean of hydrogen cyanide. The deadly
      gas would have still been everywhere and particularly in the soft tissue
      of the corpses. In effect, no one has been able to take up the Faurisson
      challenge: "Show me or draw me a Nazi gas chamber!"

      The established Holocaust narrative can, and to a degree, has survived
      the successful promotion of two of the three revisionist claims. The
      debate between "intentionalists" and "functionalists" within the
      establishment in effect concedes that there may not have been a definite
      intention on the part of the German state to exterminate all the Jews.
      Similarly by downgrading the Auschwitz figures, the establishment has
      accepted at least the possibility of downgrading the overall figure of
      six million. But with the issue of the gas chambers there is simply
      nowhere to go. To paraphrase Faurisson: no gas-chamber, no Holocaust.



      -The Holocaust Establishment -

      Anti-revisionists, Holocaust affirmers, exterminationists - the range of
      labels on offer reflects the difficulty in naming the opposition. Even
      the word "opposition", like the phrase "anti-revisionist" itself is
      misleading because it implies a reflexive, defensive posture. Although
      establishment writers do often find themselves responding to revisionist
      initiatives and do often sound rather defensive, the words "opposition"
      or "anti-revisionist" also suggest that they are the weaker party or
      that they have not themselves taken the initiative. This is not the
      case. Few narratives, true or false, have been promoted more forcefully
      or more widely than the Holocaust, and few lobbies have been stronger,
      better resourced and enjoyed such complete dominance over the accepted
      discourse. The same holds true for the term 'affirmers'. The Holocaust
      narrative may well turn out to require affirmation, but you would never
      know it looking at the huge amount of 'affirming' material currently
      available. Finally the term 'exterminationist', usually used by
      revisionists to describe their opponents, though strictly accurate, is
      rather sneering and demeaning in tone. So we will adopt the relatively
      neutral term of 'Holocaust establishment'.

      For over sixty years there has been no shortage of material promoting
      the establishment view of the Holocaust - books, articles, films, plays,
      poems, TV programs, academic studies, conferences, memorials, museums -
      all supporting and promoting the established narrative, and it is only
      recently that the establishment has felt the need to respond to the
      claims of the revisionists. As before, for those who wish to research
      the subject, the following starting points are recommended:-

      - The ADL website (10)
      - The Niskor website (11)

      Many of the contributors to these sites are known Jewish and Zionist
      activists, many with open and established links to Jewish and Zionist
      activist organizations. Again, this may lead us to view their findings
      with appropriate caution, though not to discard them per se.

      The establishment has attempted to respond to specific revisionist
      claims, but only sporadically. They claim that extermination and
      cremation facilities were indeed perfectly capable of processing the
      numbers claimed, and that all claims are well supported by hard
      evidence. Any reader can study the evidence, which is freely available
      on the internet, but the debate has degenerated somewhat into a
      yes-it-is, no-it-isn't squabble - one which could possibly be resolved
      by the appointment of some kind of judicial body with powers to call on
      expert witnesses.

      But there still remains the problem that there is just not all that much
      available evidence to support the Holocaust narrative and what is
      available is often far from satisfactory - documents are often
      "ambiguous", witnesses are often "confused" or "traumatized", and
      buildings and installations are often "demolished". Instead of denying
      the undeniable, the establishment has chosen rather to offer
      explanations. The lack of documentary evidence is explained by the fact
      that the final solution was top secret so not only were written
      communications kept to an absolute minimum but were also written
      euphemistically. Thus "special treatment" must mean extermination and
      "evacuation to the East" must mean deportation to a death camp.
      Similarly, no-one has yet been able to come forward and take up Robert
      Faurisson's challenge to show him or draw him a gas chamber, because
      anyone who saw a gas-chamber obviously did not live to tell the tale.
      The gassing facilities at Auschwitz-Birkenau shown to so many visitors
      over the years are now conceded to be "post-war reconstructions", but
      only because the original gas chambers were destroyed in 1944 to remove
      the evidence in the face of the advancing Soviet forces. Finally the
      statements of survivors and perpetrators, whilst conceded to be
      confusing and contradictory, are so because of the traumatic conditions
      under which these terrible events were observed and the sheer quantity
      of these statements, and often their poignancy as well, qualify them as
      acceptable evidence.

      But whether because of the lack of evidence or not, the establishment
      has, in the main, been less concerned with refuting specific revisionist
      claims than with questioning the right of revisionists to make them.
      For many Holocaust writers, and indeed for almost the entire
      intellectual establishment worldwide, the Holocaust happened and that is
      that. In 1979 in response to Faurisson's questioning of the
      gas-chambers, thirty four French intellectuals published an appeal in Le
      Monde, the second sentence of which stated, "We must not ask how such a
      mass murder was technically possible - it was technically possible
      because it happened." For most establishment figures to even discuss
      the issues is to concede to revisionism legitimacy it does not deserve.

      "If somebody came along today and reported the calling of a scientific
      congress to examine the question of whether the sun revolves around the
      earth or the earth around the sun, he would either be ridiculed or
      declared non-compos mentis. It wouldn't occur to anyone to discuss the
      matter seriously... A similar thing occurs with the propagandists of the
      so-called 'Auschwitz Lie' or 'Holocaust Lie': their statements that
      there was no extermination of the Jews, is so obviously false that it is
      basically unworthy of serious scientific discussion." (12)

      Such is the view of Deborah Lipstadt, Associate Professor of Jewish and
      Holocaust Studies at Emory College. Lipstadt, to her supporters a
      scholar of the Holocaust, to her detractors, a Jewish ethnic activist,
      has written extensively about Holocaust revisionism. Jewish herself and
      from a relatively orthodox background, Professor Lipstadt has had a
      lifelong allegiance to, and has been active in Jewish causes. She is a
      committed Zionist and is funded and aided by many Jewish and Zionist
      organizations such as the Vidal Sassoon International Centre for the
      Study of Anti-Semitism at the Hebrew University and the ADL - again,
      cause for scrutiny of her claims but not outright rejection.

      Rather then dealing with revisionist claims, Lipstadt has focused on the
      revisionists themselves: their credibility, qualifications, motivations,
      affiliations and methods. In her book Denying the Holocaust: The Growing
      Assault on Truth and Memory, she traces the development of revisionism
      from the late forties to the early nineties and aims to demonstrate that
      the revisionists are overwhelmingly anti-Semitic with long connections
      to fascist, white supremacist and generally racist organizations, that
      their motivation is nothing less than to rehabilitate the Hitler regime
      specifically, and fascism and anti-Semitism generally, and their
      scholarly veneer is just that; a cover for their racist and intolerant
      views.

      "Those who argue that the Holocaust deniers must be given a fair hearing
      fail to recognize that the deniers' quest is not a search for truth.
      Rather they are motivated by racism, extremism, and virulent
      anti-Semitism.
      …their methodology is based on deception and falsification, and the
      scholarly and restrained tone of most revisionist writings, are merely
      window dressing to conceal their real character and intentions." Deborah
      Lipstadt (13)

      She maintains that the revisionists are not only a danger to the
      validity and memory of the Holocaust itself but also constitute a
      general danger to history and scholarship itself and even to democratic
      life as we know it.

      "Holocaust denial should not be seen as an assault on the history of one
      particular group. It repudiates reasoned discussion, the way the
      Holocaust, itself, engulfed all civilization. Its attack on Jewish
      history is, like anti-Semitism, an attack on the most basic values of a
      reasoned society." Deborah Lipstadt (14)

      For a long time Professor Lipstadt chose to ignore the revisionist
      challenge, but the ever-improving quality of revisionist scholarship
      does not go unnoticed,

      "Lately, the deniers' work has become more virulent and dangerous, in
      part because it has become more sophisticated. Their publications,
      including The Journal of Historical Review, mimic legitimate scholarly
      publications. This confuses those who do not immediately know the
      Journal's intentions." Deborah Lipstadt (15 )

      So she now responds, but only insofar as to challenge their credibility,
      she still refuses to either debate them or to respond to their specific
      claims. For her there can be no discussion of the essential truth of the
      Holocaust.

      Despite the favorable balance of power and their successes both inside
      and outside the courtroom, neither Professor Lipstadt nor the rest of
      the Holocaust establishment are actually doing all that well.
      Revisionism and its influence has grown steadily and the revisionists
      exhibit a confidence and sureness of touch whilst the establishment
      seems at times to be somewhat rattled. And the revisionists are not
      without guile. Identified as the eternal underdogs in this struggle,
      they have adopted a devastatingly effective passive-aggressive posture -
      a wide-eyed innocence in claiming that revisionism has no ideological
      base and is simply a method for seeking the truth. Nonetheless,
      whatever their ideological motivations, they have in the main confined
      themselves to scholarly investigation conducted in a responsible manner
      and have, with devastating single-mindedness, piece by piece, proceeded
      to unpick the hitherto sacred Holocaust narrative.

      Take the case of Raul Hilberg. In 1961 Hilberg published The
      Destruction of the European Jews. In this book, seen as a foundational
      text of the Holocaust, Hilberg describes an undertaking personally
      supervised by Hitler, who issued two effective orders to set the
      genocide in motion. These orders were acted upon by various
      administrative agencies, especially in the police and military which
      prepared, organized and executed this vast criminal enterprise. For
      twenty-five years this view remained substantially unchallenged until in
      1976 Arthur Butz published The Hoax of the Twentieth Century and in
      1978-1979 Robert Faurisson published two articles in Le Monde claiming
      that the Nazi Gas chambers could not have existed. A panel of experts
      was assembled to assert that the gas chambers did exist, and among the
      experts was Raul Hilberg. Just before the start of the proceedings
      Hilberg gave an interview to the French magazine Le Nouvel Observateur
      in which he acknowledged there were no existing documents to prove the
      existence of the gas chambers or that the extermination of the Jews was
      conceived and planned by the National Socialist regime. On February
      22nd 1983 in New York, at an event organized by the Holocaust Survivors
      Foundation, Hilberg said,

      "What began in 1941 was a process of destruction not planned in advance,
      not organized centrally by any agency. There was no blueprint and there
      was no budget for destructive measures. They were taken step by step,
      one step at a time. Thus came about not so much a plan being carried
      out, but an incredible meeting of minds, a consensus - mind reading by a
      far-flung bureaucracy."

      This was confirmed in Hilberg's testimony at the first Zundel trial in
      Toronto in 1985 and again in the same year in the revised edition of his
      book which included the following:

      "In the final analysis, the destruction of the Jews was not so much a
      product of laws and commands, as it was a matter of spirit, of shared
      comprehension, of consonance and synchronisation."

      Apart from bewilderment at such a tale of consensual genocide conceived
      and directed by mind-reading, there must also be some acknowledgement
      that such a protracted and agonizing volte-face could only have come
      about as a result of the steady drip-drip of revisionist endeavor - and
      all achieved whilst the revisionists were being prosecuted, fined,
      imprisoned, assaulted and certainly shunned.

      The Holocaust establishment has often preferred to respond less with
      argument and more with power. Largely due to pressure from Jewish
      organizations, Holocaust revisionism is subject to legal penalty in
      Israel, France, Germany, Canada, Switzerland, Australia, Belgium,
      Austria, Sweden, Poland, and Spain. Laws in these countries make it a
      crime for anyone, regardless of their credentials or the factual basis
      of their views, to question or revise any aspect of the history of World
      War II or the Holocaust in a manner that goes beyond the standards
      established by the governments of those countries. Also some countries
      punish revisionism without even having such laws (USA, Great-Britain,
      Netherlands etc). In the U.S. a California judge took against the IHR
      "judicial notice" of the existence of the Nazi gas chambers. In France,
      in 1949-1950, forty years before the specific law of July 13 1990,
      revisionists had been sentenced for their writings.

      "A person who, in writing or by word of mouth, publishes any statement
      denying or diminishing the proportions of acts committed in the period
      of the Nazi regime which are crimes against the Jewish people or crimes
      against humanity, with intent to defend the perpetrators of those acts
      or to express sympathy or identification with them, shall be liable to
      imprisonment for a term of five years". (16)

      Historians, researchers, authors, and publishers are being fined,
      imprisoned, placed under gag orders, expelled from their native
      countries, and denied entry into others. Revisionists facing
      prosecution have sometimes faced the absurdity that any defense of a
      revisionist character, i.e., any claim that the revisionist position was
      actually correct, would itself constitute a repetition of the offence;
      also, any witness who gave testimony in support of the revisionist
      position could, upon demand of the prosecution service, himself be
      immediately charged.

      In addition in these and most other countries in the western world, even
      where not technically illegal, revisionism has carried the risk of
      severe penalty including loss of employment and social exclusion of many
      kinds. Finally revisionists have been on the receiving end of much
      violence, both threatened and real. All leading revisionists suffer
      legal assaults, all suffer social and professional exclusion, and many
      have suffered physical attacks. Holocaust revisionism today is, quite
      simply, held as witchcraft was held in previous times - to be a
      Holocaust denier is to place oneself on the outside of civilized society
      on a level with a pedophile.

      This exercise of power has yielded victories. Revisionism has been kept
      out of the main media; revisionists have been denied access to the
      discourse, and the establishment has achieved a couple of stunning
      retractions such as this one from Joel Hayward, who in 1993 wrote a
      thesis in which he endeavored (and in my view, succeeded) to faithfully
      describe the state of the revisionist/establishment conflict.

      "I now regret working on such a complex topic without sufficient
      knowledge and preparation, and hope this brief addendum will prevent my
      work causing distress to the Jewish community here in New Zealand and
      elsewhere or being misused by individuals or groups with malevolent
      motives….. I can now see that I failed in my M.A. thesis to place
      adequate analytical weight on the motivation of numerous authors on the
      Holocaust, even though some were obviously writing with a view to
      attacking Jews and rehabilitating Nazis." Joel Hayward (17)

      And this statement from the young Jewish revisionist David Cole,
      obtained through less than legal means and faxed to Irv Rubin, then head
      of the Jewish Defense League, is worth quoting in full.

      "This statement is given in an attempt to set the record straight about
      my current views regarding the Holocaust and Holocaust denial. As
      anyone who follows the subject of the Holocaust denial knows, from 1991
      until 1994 I was well known in the movement as a Jewish Holocaust denier
      (a self-described "revisionist"). For the last three years I have no
      longer been associated with this movement, having realized that I was
      wrong and that the path I was taking with my life was self-destructive
      and hurtful to others. I have spent the last few years in silence on the
      subject of my time with the denial movement, a silence caused mainly by
      my shame at what I had done with my life and my desire to distance
      myself from that life.

      However, in that shame-induced silence it has been brought to my
      attention that I have not gone as far as I should have to make a clear
      and complete public statement in order to set the record straight as to
      where I stand. It is my great hope that this statement accomplishes
      that task.
      I would like to state for the record that there is no question in my
      mind that during the Holocaust of Europe's Jews during World War II, the
      Nazis employed gas chambers in an attempt to commit genocide against the
      Jews. At camps in both Eastern and Western Europe, Jews were murdered
      in gas chambers which employed such poison gases as Zyklon B and carbon
      monoxide (in the Auschwitz camp, for example, the gas chambers used
      Zyklon B). The evidence for this is overwhelming and unmistakable.

      The Nazis intended to kill all of the Jews of Europe, and the final
      death toll of this attempted genocide was six million. This atrocity,
      unique in its scope and breadth, must never be forgotten.

      During my four years as a denier, I was wracked with self-hate and
      loathing, a fact that many of my critics were quick to point out.
      Indeed, this self hatred was obvious to most, but I was too blind to see
      it. The hate I had for myself I took out on my people. I was seduced
      by pseudo historical nonsense and clever-sounding but empty ideas and
      catch-phrases. When my eyes were finally opened, thanks to several
      good, kind friends who refused to give up on me even at my worst, I was
      horrified by what I had done. My instinct was to flee and never look
      back, but I now understand that I owe it to the people I wronged to make
      a forceful repudiation of my earlier views. I also owe a very large
      apology, not only to the many people I enraged, and to the family and
      friends I hurt, but especially to the survivors of the Holocaust, who
      deserve only our respect and compassion, not re-victimization.

      Therefore, to all of the above people, let me offer my most humble and
      very, very sincere apology. I am sorry for what (I) did, and I am sorry
      for the hurt I caused.

      And just as I must set the record straight concerning my views, it is
      also incumbent on me to set the record straight regarding the video
      "documentaries" and media appearances I did from 1991 to 1994. These
      "documentaries" are merely videotaped garbage filled with self-hatred
      and pseudo-intellectual nonsense. My "media appearances" were nothing
      but an embarrassment. My glazed look, specious reasoning, and
      talking-in-circles during my talk show appearances would have hopefully
      alerted any astute viewers that this was a man not in touch with
      reality.

      It has been brought to my attention that Bradley Smith is still using
      one of my videos in advertisements he is running on college campuses.
      Therefore, I would like to make these additional points: This video is
      being advertised without my consent, and I denounce this video as being
      without worth. Bradley Smith is no historian, and denial is no
      "historical field". Students on college campuses should look elsewhere
      to find out about the Holocaust. To these students, I would say, look
      to books like Hilberg's "Destruction of the European Jews", Yahil's "The
      Holocaust", and Dawidowicz's "War Against the Jews" for correct
      information. If your school library doesn't stock these books, have
      them order copies. Do not pay any attention to any "David Cole" videos,
      except to rightly denounce them as frauds.

      I am thankful for being given the opportunity to make this statement.
      This statement is made freely and under no duress, and is quite
      willingly, even happily given to Mr. Irv Rubin of the Jewish Defense
      League for the widest possible distribution. This statement is the most
      current and accurate compilation of my views, and it supersedes any
      previous writings, videos, or statements. It is my hope that there will
      be no more confusion as to where I stand. I thank you for letting me
      set the record straight." David Cole (18)

      Despite these victories it is still true that there is remarkably little
      hard evidence to support the established Holocaust narrative, and people
      are bound to ask how such a vast and complex undertaking as the
      premeditated and mechanistic extermination of such a huge number of
      people could possibly have taken place without leaving a clear trail of
      evidence, both documentary and physical. Also with regard to tactics
      and strategy, Holocaust activists are in something of a no-win
      situation. If they debate the revisionists they give them credibility
      and concede that the Holocaust is a matter for debate; if they refuse to
      debate with them, as in the main they do, they lay themselves open to
      the charge that they have something to hide.

      And of course the internet has changed everything. Revisionist
      material, previously unseen, is now available at the click of a mouse
      and you don't have to go into some dubious bookshop to get it. Online
      booksellers who have elected to stock revisionist materials have
      inevitably given it a new respectability. E-mails and newsgroups have
      widened and speeded up the debate. So much more can be said, so much
      quicker and to so many more people and for the moment at least, no-one
      can stop you saying it or reading it.

      Reading the revisionist literature one senses a confidence, not only
      that revisionists believe themselves to be right but also that the
      future lies with them. In 1988, at the time of the second Zundel trial
      and in reference to Ernst Zundel himself, Robert Faurisson wrote:

      "Zündel may once again go to prison for his research and beliefs or be
      threatened with deportation. All this is possible. Anything may happen
      when there is an intellectual crisis and a realignment of historical
      concepts of such a dimension. Revisionism is the great intellectual
      adventure of the end of this century. Whatever happens, Ernst Zundel is
      already the victor."


      -But how could it be so?-

      This must surely be the establishment's strongest weapon - the sheer
      incredibility of the revisionist proposition. How could such a
      deception have taken place? How could all those survivors be so wrong
      in their testimonies? How could all those perpetrators be so wrong in
      their confessions? How could all those documents, unspecific as they
      are, have been falsified? Arthur Butz called his groundbreaking
      revisionist study "The Hoax of the Twentieth Century", but a hoax of
      this size and nature just defies belief. Conspiracy theories rarely
      convince, nor do those who propagate them, so surely the sheer absurdity
      of the revisionists' claim tells us all we need to know. If revisionism
      is to have any credibility at all, it must demonstrate how, if false,
      the Holocaust narrative, as we know it, came to be.

      The first reports of the mass slaughter of Jews by the Germans were
      propagated in the spring of 1942 by Jewish and Zionist agencies and
      published in the Jewish press. These entirely uncorroborated reports
      received immediate and unmatched credibility by being broadcast (on one
      occasion in Yiddish) back into Poland by the BBC, and by repetition in
      the American press, particularly the New York Times. They spoke for the
      first time of extermination, but not only by gas. According to these
      reports Jews were being steamed to death, suffocated to death, pressed
      to death and electrocuted as well as being gassed. It is only later in
      reports compiled by the Soviet authorities, when they liberated the
      camps of Majdanek and Auschwitz-Birkenau in 1944 and 1945, that gassing
      emerges as the main method of slaughter and even later, as just one
      element in the shower-gas-cremation sequence which now lies at the heart
      of the Holocaust narrative.

      It is with these Soviet reports, plus others from the World Refugee
      Board, that the now-familiar extermination narrative emerges. The
      victims disembark from trains for selection. Those designated for
      extermination are taken to complexes designed to look like disinfection
      facilities. There they are separated into sexes and led to undressing
      rooms where they undress. Then they are led, 600-700 at a time, into
      huge rooms resembling shower rooms. When the rooms are crammed full,
      Zyklon B pellets are dropped from apertures in the roof and, as the
      temperature rises, hydrogen cyanide gas is released. The victims take
      about five to fifteen minutes to die, watched all the time through glass
      peepholes in the doors by SS personnel. An interval of about half an
      hour is allowed for the gas to clear, assisted by a ventilation system,
      after which a Jewish Sonderkommando (special detachment) enters with gas
      masks, rubber boots, gloves, hooks and hoses to disentangle, hose down
      and remove the bodies. The bodies are taken to mortuaries, where gold
      teeth etc. are extracted with pliers, and they are then transported to
      crematoria where they are burned to ashes. If the number of corpses
      should prove to be too great for the cremation facilities, then those
      remaining are taken to be burned in specially designed open pits.

      But if such a narrative is false, it is interesting to speculate as to
      how it took the form it did. Possible answers may be found in the
      50-100 year history of Europe prior to the events under investigation.
      This period saw huge movements of people westwards, many of them Jews
      and many of them migrating to or through Germany. All over central and
      western Europe, but particularly in Germany, there was a problem with,
      and a fear of epidemics, particularly of typhus - and many of the
      receiving authorities, and particularly the German authorities, were
      intent of developing and implementing mass disinfection and
      disinfestation procedures. These included mobile and stationery mass
      steam and shower baths and mobile and stationery facilities for the
      disinfestation of clothing by gas. The gas used for disinfestation was
      of course hydrogen cyanide gas in the form of Zyklon B pellets.

      This use of gas for delousing and disinfestation must be set against the
      background of the very real use of poison gas as a weapon in the Great
      War and in various other areas of conflict both real (such as by the
      Italians in Abyssinia) and imaginary (as by the Martians in The War of
      the Worlds radio broadcast of 1938). It should also be noted how after
      the introduction of gas onto the battlefield in 1915, stories of
      homicidal gassings of civilians began to appear in atrocity propaganda.
      In March 1916 the Daily Telegraph reported that the Austrians and
      Bulgarians had murdered hundreds of thousands of Serbians using poison
      gas.

      At roughly the same time cremation was increasingly being used for the
      disposal of bodies and particularly for the mass disposal of epidemic
      victims. Cremation as a means of corpse disposal was widely promoted by
      the German National Socialist regime - a regime noted for its modern
      attitudes to technology - and it was also universally used in its
      euthanasia programme. One result of the use of cremation in these
      euthanasia killings, was that it fed the general suspicion that
      cremation was used to conceal the cause of death by gas poisoning
      (deaths in the euthanasia programme are now thought more likely to have
      been by lethal injection) which was widely (and falsely) believed to
      cause disfigurement. So cremation became associated with attempts to
      deceive the population about the cause of death. In effect, all these
      techniques of disinfection and cremation, considered to be at the very
      cutting-edge of modernism by enlightened western Europeans, were viewed
      by large sections of the European masses - and particularly by
      immigrants, usually poor, conservative and deeply superstitious, and
      even more particularly by the eastern Jewish masses with their
      additional religious concerns about mass undressing and cremation etc -
      with the deepest suspicion.

      It's not so crazy if you put yourself in the shoes of a poo<br/><br/>(Message over 64 KB, truncated)
    • Bernard Marx
      5 years old to 12 / 13 years old. CharlieChimp1@aol.com wrote:In a message dated 05/08/05 19:07:58 GMT Daylight Time, ecsredeye@yahoo.com writes: Politically
      Message 2 of 16 , Aug 5, 2005
        5 years old to 12 / 13 years old.

        CharlieChimp1@... wrote:
        In a message dated 05/08/05 19:07:58 GMT Daylight Time, ecsredeye@... writes:
        Politically what I know is my step children are being drilled in Holocaust "studies" in their elementary classrooms in Harlem. How do "we" forget that ??
        Forgive an Englishman for asking but what ages are elementary schoolchildren?
         
        Chris


        Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
      • Israel Shamir
        This is scary news. Do you remember the outcry about Rushdee fatwa? Now, no outcry. A Christian state may now pass a bill against Christ-denial, applicable
        Message 3 of 16 , Aug 5, 2005
          This is scary news. Do you remember the outcry
          about Rushdee fatwa? Now, no outcry. A Christian
          state may now pass a bill against Christ-denial,
          applicable world-wide. But they have no guts.
          ----- Original Message -----
          From: "Dr. Rhino Rick" <wilcoxrb@...>
          To: <togethernet@yahoogroups.com>
          Sent: Friday, August 05, 2005 1:58 AM
          Subject: [tnet] Global Holocaust-deniers bill
          passed in Knesset


          :
          http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/
          : ShowFull&cid=1090294696522&p=1078113566627
          :
          : Global Holocaust-deniers bill passed in Knesset
          :
          : By NINA GILBERT
          :
          : Legislation that would make Holocaust-denial
          committed overseas an
          : offense under Israeli legal jurisdiction was
          approved unanimously in
          : first reading by the Knesset on Tuesday.
          :
          : The passage of the measure would enable Israel
          to demand the
          : extradition of Holocaust-deniers for
          prosecution.
          :
          : The bill was drafted by MK Aryeh Eldad
          (National Union) as a move
          : against former Palestinian Authority prime
          minister Mahmoud Abbas (Abu
          : Mazen) for his doctoral dissertation 20 years
          ago in which he estimated
          : that the Nazis killed less than a million Jews.
          :
          : It is likely to serve as a deterrence against
          Holocaust-deniers
          : visiting Israel, although the possibility of
          countries consenting to
          : extradition on the offense is unlikely.
          :
          : The legislation expands the territorial
          jurisdiction of the Israeli
          : law against Holocaust-denying outside of it
          borders.
          :
          :
          :
          :
          : Yahoo! Groups Links
          :
          :
          : togethernet-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
          :
          :
          :


          --------------------------------------------------
          ------------------------------
        • e.paramo@tiscali.co.uk
          Dear Paul Could I have too an updated and re-formated copy of the article for distribution, please. Ernesto ... anger ... get ...
          Message 4 of 16 , Aug 6, 2005
            Dear Paul

            Could I have too an updated and re-formated copy of
            the article for distribution, please.

            Ernesto
            -----------------------
            >Dear Chris
            >
            >Thank you for your note.
            >
            >"The Holocaust Wars" has not only aroused fear and anger amongst those
            >who you and I would classify as Zionists, but amongst many others too.
            >In fact it has been a most telling indication of the influence Zionism
            >has had. For my part, the responses to the piece have been a painful,
            >but nonetheless, worthwhile education. I am struggling to understand
            >precisely what is about some people that make them able to accept such a
            >
            >piece, and others to reject it so forcefully.
            >
            >AMW, and indeed all other Palestinian organisations are well advised not
            >
            >to get involved and to remain silent. To keep my spirits up, I will
            >continue to take their silence as a sign of helpless and tentative
            >approval.
            >
            >I have been told by people, many of whom I much admire, that this is a
            >subject best avoided. Some say that it is irrelevant and some say that
            >it is so explosive as to be counter-productive. I have taken all these
            >comments very seriously but I cannot forget my mum who always said that

            >the thing you fear most is probably the thing you most need to look at.

            >Could it be that Robert Faurisson was right when he claimed that there
            >are in fact only two things that the Zionists fear: the stones of the
            >Palestinians and the words of the Revisionists? And could it be that our
            >
            >fear of the power is the very reason why we must defy it? I really don't
            >
            >know.
            >
            >Anyway, fearful as I am, I still say please circulate it anywhere and
            >everywhere you think appropriate. I did post it onto FP, though I think

            >it should be re-posted by someone else, but I have not posed it to AWL
            >nor anywhere else.
            >
            >The biggest problem with this piece has been that people haven't read it
            >
            >properly. They see the name Zundel and then they freak. Part of the
            >problem is its length and structure. For this reason, good presentation

            >is all the more important. I can stand being labelled "Holocaust Denier"
            >
            >but I cannot bear being called a sloppy writer, so can I send to you an

            >up-to-date text version, correctly formatted?
            >
            >Paul
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >In message <1e9.416a717f.3024e0ee@...>, CharlieChimp1@... writes
            >>
            >>In a message dated 05/08/05 02:43:23 GMT Daylight Time,
            >>b3rnard_marx@... writes:
            >>
            >>From Paul Eisen:
            >>
            >>The Holocaust Wars
            >>
            >>
            >>
            >>
            >>I read the essay again, Paul, less hurriedly than the first time. I think
            > it
            >>is a very important piece of work. I can well understand the fears and
            anger
            >>you have aroused among Zionists. As you expected, AMW are reluctant to
            get
            >>involved in what they see as a battle between London Jews. AMW is in any
            >case
            >>not a discussion list and the website has major problems with hackers.
            >>
            >>However, I do think this essay should have as wide a readership as possible.
            >>I belong to a number of pro-Palestine lists which I would like to post

            >it to
            >>but would not do so without prior agreement of the Moderator/Owner. You
            >>yourself actually belong to 2 of these lists so you may have already
            >>posted it.
            >>I will not seek agreement if you have some objection. The lists and
            >>moderators are as follows:
            >>
            >>Al-Awda-Zahi,
            >>Free Palestine-all moderators but particularly Sami and Marlene,
            >>Al-Awda-Universalist-Miriam
            >>Al-Awda-London-Amjad and Abed
            >>Anti-Allawi-Vicki
            >>
            >>I wouldn't propose posting it to FP or AWL if it has already been posted
            >>there. I think this is particularly important at this time of the Israelis
            >>claiming universal jurisdiction.
            >>
            >>Chris
            >
            >--
            >PAUL EISEN
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >Yahoo! Groups Links
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >


            ___________________________________________________________

            Book yourself something to look forward to in 2005.
            Cheap flights - http://www.tiscali.co.uk/travel/flights/
            Bargain holidays - http://www.tiscali.co.uk/travel/holidays/
          • PAUL EISEN
            Hi Ernesto It s on its way to your private e-mail Best wishes Paul In message , e.paramo@tiscali.co.uk
            Message 5 of 16 , Aug 6, 2005
              Hi Ernesto

              It's on its way to your private e-mail

              Best wishes

              Paul



              In message <42E8B70100036CF5@...>,
              e.paramo@... writes
              >
              >
              > Dear Paul
              >
              >Could I have too an updated and re-formated copy of
              >the article for distribution, please.
              >
              >Ernesto
              >-----------------------
              >>Dear Chris
              >>
              >>Thank you for your note.
              >>
              >>"The Holocaust Wars" has not only aroused fear and anger amongst those
              >>who you and I would classify as Zionists, but amongst many others too.
              >>In fact it has been a most telling indication of the influence Zionism
              >>has had. For my part, the responses to the piece have been a painful,
              >>but nonetheless, worthwhile education. I am struggling to understand
              >>precisely what is about some people that make them able to accept such a
              >>
              >>piece, and others to reject it so forcefully.
              >>
              >>AMW, and indeed all other Palestinian organisations are well advised not
              >>
              >>to get involved and to remain silent. To keep my spirits up, I will
              >>continue to take their silence as a sign of helpless and tentative
              >>approval.
              >>
              >>I have been told by people, many of whom I much admire, that this is a
              >>subject best avoided. Some say that it is irrelevant and some say that
              >>it is so explosive as to be counter-productive. I have taken all these
              >>comments very seriously but I cannot forget my mum who always said that
              >
              >>the thing you fear most is probably the thing you most need to look at.
              >
              >>Could it be that Robert Faurisson was right when he claimed that there
              >>are in fact only two things that the Zionists fear: the stones of the
              >>Palestinians and the words of the Revisionists? And could it be that our
              >>
              >>fear of the power is the very reason why we must defy it? I really don't
              >>
              >>know.
              >>
              >>Anyway, fearful as I am, I still say please circulate it anywhere and
              >>everywhere you think appropriate. I did post it onto FP, though I think
              >
              >>it should be re-posted by someone else, but I have not posed it to AWL
              >>nor anywhere else.
              >>
              >>The biggest problem with this piece has been that people haven't read it
              >>
              >>properly. They see the name Zundel and then they freak. Part of the
              >>problem is its length and structure. For this reason, good presentation
              >
              >>is all the more important. I can stand being labelled "Holocaust Denier"
              >>
              >>but I cannot bear being called a sloppy writer, so can I send to you an
              >
              >>up-to-date text version, correctly formatted?
              >>
              >>Paul
              >>
              >>
              >>
              >>
              >>
              >>In message <1e9.416a717f.3024e0ee@...>, CharlieChimp1@... writes
              >>>
              >>>In a message dated 05/08/05 02:43:23 GMT Daylight Time,
              >>>b3rnard_marx@... writes:
              >>>
              >>>From Paul Eisen:
              >>>
              >>>The Holocaust Wars
              >>>
              >>>
              >>>
              >>>
              >>>I read the essay again, Paul, less hurriedly than the first time. I think
              >> it
              >>>is a very important piece of work. I can well understand the fears and
              >anger
              >>>you have aroused among Zionists. As you expected, AMW are reluctant to
              >get
              >>>involved in what they see as a battle between London Jews. AMW is in any
              >>case
              >>>not a discussion list and the website has major problems with hackers.
              >>>
              >>>However, I do think this essay should have as wide a readership as possible.
              >>>I belong to a number of pro-Palestine lists which I would like to post
              >
              >>it to
              >>>but would not do so without prior agreement of the Moderator/Owner. You
              >>>yourself actually belong to 2 of these lists so you may have already
              >>>posted it.
              >>>I will not seek agreement if you have some objection. The lists and
              >>>moderators are as follows:
              >>>
              >>>Al-Awda-Zahi,
              >>>Free Palestine-all moderators but particularly Sami and Marlene,
              >>>Al-Awda-Universalist-Miriam
              >>>Al-Awda-London-Amjad and Abed
              >>>Anti-Allawi-Vicki
              >>>
              >>>I wouldn't propose posting it to FP or AWL if it has already been posted
              >>>there. I think this is particularly important at this time of the Israelis
              >>>claiming universal jurisdiction.
              >>>
              >>>Chris
              >>
              >>--
              >>PAUL EISEN
              >>
              >>
              >>
              >>
              >>Yahoo! Groups Links
              >>
              >>
              >>
              >>
              >>
              >>
              >
              >
              >___________________________________________________________
              >
              >Book yourself something to look forward to in 2005.
              >Cheap flights - http://www.tiscali.co.uk/travel/flights/
              >Bargain holidays - http://www.tiscali.co.uk/travel/holidays/
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >Yahoo! Groups Links
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >

              --
              PAUL EISEN
            • Dr. Rhino Rick
              I saw a report on CNN (a very reliable source of information!) that actually mentioned (off the cuff) that the US is turning into a police state. There were
              Message 6 of 16 , Aug 6, 2005
                I saw a report on CNN (a very reliable source of information!) that
                actually mentioned (off the cuff) that the US is turning into a police
                state. There were some real civil libertarians (ie., average decent
                folks worried about the police state) interviewed about the "slippery
                slope" and "incremental" pace of a "republic" (the US long ceased to be
                a republic and good bye constitution) turning into a Police State
                (i.e., the elimination of Habeas Corpus). More like
                Military-Prison-Industrial Complex. A majority of Americans polled were
                against various manifestations of the Police State, but this was
                reported as too-little too-late, since the government has already moved
                to increase the rate of Police Statization (and then cut to commercial
                and latest Britney Spears video clip!). National ID card and all that
                reported with some trepidation, but the spin is always that "you
                shouldn't worry, law abiding sit-a-clones will not be targeted". The
                companies that have a vested interest in the
                Police-Military-Prison-Industrial Complex assure us that all is well
                and that we need the tecchnology of the new Police State to stay safe
                from Terrorists (like our own government?). CNN only now, after
                several years of this information being available at alternative
                websites, is reporting this as "news". It's what Michael Hoffman calls
                the "revelation of the method," in other words, testing the waters as
                to the next level of implementation.

                Maybe if Israel builds a few thousand more hollowcost museums in the US
                there will be no need to extradite their sit-a-clones for having the
                wrong thoughts. :-)


                On Aug 6, 2005, at 6:50 AM, Israel Shamir wrote:

                > This is scary news. Do you remember the outcry
                > about Rushdee fatwa? Now, no outcry. A Christian
                > state may now pass a bill against Christ-denial,
                > applicable world-wide. But they have no guts.
                > ----- Original Message -----
                > From: "Dr. Rhino Rick" <wilcoxrb@...>
                > To: <togethernet@yahoogroups.com>
                > Sent: Friday, August 05, 2005 1:58 AM
                > Subject: [tnet] Global Holocaust-deniers bill
                > passed in Knesset
                >
                >
                > :
                > http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/
                > : ShowFull&cid=1090294696522&p=1078113566627
                > :
                > : Global Holocaust-deniers bill passed in Knesset
                > :
                > : By NINA GILBERT
                > :
                > : Legislation that would make Holocaust-denial
                > committed overseas an
                > : offense under Israeli legal jurisdiction was
                > approved unanimously in
                > : first reading by the Knesset on Tuesday.
                > :
                > : The passage of the measure would enable Israel
                > to demand the
                > : extradition of Holocaust-deniers for
                > prosecution.
                > :
                > : The bill was drafted by MK Aryeh Eldad
                > (National Union) as a move
                > : against former Palestinian Authority prime
                > minister Mahmoud Abbas (Abu
                > : Mazen) for his doctoral dissertation 20 years
                > ago in which he estimated
                > : that the Nazis killed less than a million Jews.
                > :
                > : It is likely to serve as a deterrence against
                > Holocaust-deniers
                > : visiting Israel, although the possibility of
                > countries consenting to
                > : extradition on the offense is unlikely.
                > :
                > : The legislation expands the territorial
                > jurisdiction of the Israeli
                > : law against Holocaust-denying outside of it
                > borders.
                > :
                > :
                > :
                > :
                > : Yahoo! Groups Links
                > :
                > :
                > : togethernet-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                > :
                > :
                > :
                >
                >
                > --------------------------------------------------
                > ------------------------------
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > Yahoo! Groups Links
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.