HOLOCAUST Handbooks, Vol. 4: Jiirgen Graf, Carlo Mattogno
and its Function in National Socialist Jewish Policy
The concentration camp at Stutthof near Danzig in western Prussia is another camp which had never been sci- entifically investigated by Western historians. Officially sanctioned Polish authors long maintained that in 1944, Stutthof was converted to an "auxiliary extermination camp" with the mission of carrying out the lurid, so-called "Final Solution to the Jewish Problem." Now, Jiirgen Graf and Carlo Mattogno have subjected this concept of Stutthoff to rigorous critical investigation based on Polish literature and documents from various archives.
Their investigations lead to unambiguous conclusions about the camp which are radically different from the official theses. Again they have produced a standard and methodical investigative work which authentic historiography can not ignore. 122 pp. pb, 6"x9", b/w & color ill., bibl., index, $/€15.-/£10.-
HOLOCAUST Handbooks, Vol. 5: Jiirgen Graf, Carlo Mattogno
Majdanek
A Historical and Technical Study
Amazingly, little scientific investigation had been directed toward the concentration camp Lublin-Majdanek in central Poland, even though orthodox Holocaust sources claimed that between fifty thousand and over a mil- lion Jews were murdered there. The only information available from public libraries is thoroughly discredited Polish Communists propaganda.
This glaring research gap has finally been filled. After exhaustive research of primary sources, Mattogno and Graf created a monumental study which expertly dissects and repudiates the myth of homicidal gas chambers at Majdanek. They also investigated the legendary mass executions of Jews in tank trenches ("Operation Harvest Festival") critically and prove them groundless.
The authors' investigations lead to unambiguous conclusions about the camp which are radically different from the official theses. Again they have produced a standard and methodical investigative work which authentic historiography can not ignore. 320 pp pb, A5, 6"x9", b/w & color ill., bibl., index, $/€25.-/f 18.-
HOLOCAUST Handbooks, Vol. 6: Dott Heddesketmer
J ewish Fund Raising Campaigns With Holocaust Claims During And After World War I
We all know that the suffering and death of Six Million Jews during the second world war was an event unparalleled in world history. But do we really?
The First Holocaust is an extremely irritating book, because it proves us all wrong. Supported with many publications from mainstream US media, in particular The New York Times, Don Heddesheimer provides the evidence to show that between 1916 and the late 1920s, mainly American Jewish organizations were claiming that up to six million Jews(\) would suffer terribly in poverty stricken Eastern Europe.
In this context, it was claimed that eastern European Jewry would face a Holocaust if they did not receive massive aid. With such claims, millions of dollars were raised in the United States, which at the end were prob- ably used to finance the Bolshevik revolution in Russia.
This book is a key to understand the much more successful Holocaust propaganda which was unleashed during World War II. 146 pp. pb., 6"x9", ill., bibl., index, $/€9.95-/£7.-
( ufttvfllnMtai (asp
Stutthof
< Biiccnlnilion * wi'M*
Ma jdane k
HI' —
J^^^jyj ^^^^
HOLOCAUST Handbooks, Vol. 7: Arthur R. Butz
I \m IT ©IE: @f ^Im Tim^Mt Gom^ry
The Case A gainst the Presumed Extermination of E uropean J ewry
With his book Hoax of the Twentieth Century, A. R. Butz, Professor of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, was the first (and so far the only) writer to treat the entire Holocaust complex from the Revisionist perspective, in a precise scientific manner. This book exhibits the overwhelming force of historical and logical arguments which Revisionism had accumulated by the middle of the 70s. It was the first book published in the US which won for Revisionism the academic dignity to which it is entitled. It continues to be a major revisionist reference work, frequently cited by prominent personalities.
Because of its prestige, no library can forbear offering The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, and no historian of modern times can ignore it. A "must read" for every Revisionist and every newcomer to the issue who wants to thoroughly learn about revisionist arguments. This issue is a revised version with a new preface.
506 pp. pb, 6"x9", ill., bibl., index, $/€25.-; £18.-
Order now! CHP, POB 257768, Chicago, IL 60625, USA; chporder@vho.org; www.tadp.org
s
2
ISSN: 1542-376X
J ournu] fear Crtta] ^Istofeul asraqpljy
QJ
.o 5
QJ QJ
£
Volume 1 •Number 4 - November 2003
12
QJ 0.
Revisionism in Russia: Toppling Taboos, p. 366
100 Years of War against Germany: British Aggression Exposed, p. 373
Small Lies of Big Guys:
Dachau Horror-Tale Unmasked, p. 385
A Deep-Frozen General, p. 386
Auschwitz: 4.000.000 Figure:
The Roots of Soviet Propaganda, p. 387
<Z Delusional Worlds:
Unreal Truth and Untrue Reality, p. 415
Groupthink:
Herd Instincts and Revisionism, p. 422
Death of J ean-Claude Pressac: Anti-Revisionist Revisionist, p. 426-435
New Zealand Revisionism Continued: Scholars Show Solidarity, p. 435-448
Show Trial in Canada Today:
The Ernst Zundel Ordeal, pp. 449-455
False Memory Syndrome:
Weakness of our Memory, pp. 456-466
vastle
The Revisionist •) ournal for Critical Historical Inquiry
Publisher: Castle Hill Publishers, PO Box 257768, Chicago IL 60625, USA; chp@vho.org
PO Box 118, Hastings, TN34 3ZQ, UK
Foreign Language Editor: Jurgen Graf Reviews: reviews@vho.org
Established: in Fall 2002, first edition in February 2003 Chief Editor: Germar Rudolf; tr@vho.org
News & Civil Rights Editor: Dr. Fredrick Toben; news@vho.org Copy Editor: Perry Huntoon; proof@vho.org Customer Care, Subscriptions, Orders: chporder@vho.org
Fax: USA: ++1(413) 778-5749; UK: ++44(8701) 387263 (faxes to both numbers reach us immediately by email) Internet: http://www.vho.org/tr
Advertisements : price list from Jan. 1, 2003; please ask us for our Media Data (www.vho.org/tr/MediaData.pdf). ISSN: 1542-376X
Publication Dates: quarterly: February, May, August, November; each issue currently has some 120 pages, perfect bound. Subscriptions (including shipping and handling):
- Normal: $55 (3 years: $150).
- Students: $38 (3 years: $96) (please send photocopy of ID).
- Supporter: $100 (3 years: $270).
- Free: donators with a yearly donation volume >$55 receive The Revisionist for free for one year, but are then asked to convert this into a normal subscription.
Single Issues: $15*
Trial Issues: free. Just ask us for one!**
Promotion Copies: We can send you free promotion copies as well as promotional material for The Revisionist on request. Please get in touch with us.
Shipping: The Revisionist is currently printed in, and shipped from, the UK; all subscription prices include airmail delivery worldwide. Single issues come with a shipping fee.* Payment terms: 60 days net.
- cash: preferably US$; we can also accept € and GB£.
- checks: make payable to Castle Hill Publishers
• in US$ only if drawn on a Canadian or U.S. bank!
• in GB£ only if drawn on a British bank!
• in € only if drawn on a bank within the European Currency Union.
- online with credit card: www.vho.org/chp.
- transfer: please contact us for our bank accounts in Germany, the UK, and the U.S.A.
Cancellation: 3 months before the end of your current subscrip- tion, otherwise the subscription will renew automatically for another (3) year(s).
Copyrights: Reprint of published articles only with written per- mission. All rights reserved.
Royalties: We pay scholars suffering persecution a royalty for contributions published in our periodical. This seems to be the most appropriate way to help them.
Support: Should you consider our work valuable, we cordially ask you to support us according to your possibilities, be it by subscribing to our periodical, by donating subscriptions to others, by hiring new (potential) subscribers, by volunteering for our editorial efforts (proof-reading, translations, marketing), or even by donating funds. Any financial surplus will flow 100% into researching important historical topics.
Requirements for the Publication of Articles in The Revisionist
Requirements of Content: Topics: History, especially modern history; also freedom of speech and freedom of science. If possible, new and hitherto unpublished reports, overviews, and research papers;
Style: Systematic structure; objective; backing up of factual statements with references; separation of opinion from factual statements.
External Requirements: For understandable reasons, we will also publish articles written under a pen name, which will, of course, be treated as highly confidential. Contributions sent in anonymously, which are also welcome, can only be published if their content is ready for print.
There is no restriction regarding the length of contributions. How- ever, contributions which exceed 10 pages of our journal (some 50,000 characters or 9,000 words), may be split in several parts and published in consecutive issues. In such cases, the structuring of articles should allow such a partition.
Articles of two pages and more should include illustrations to break up the text (covers of works dealt with, document facsimi- les, portraits of personalities and authors, pictures of historical events, maps, etc.).
Procedure: Except for articles sent in anonymously, proofs of all
articles considered for publications will be sent to the authors; no right for publication arises from this. The editors reserve their right to determine in which issue such articles will be published. Royalties are paid only in case the author(s) suffer under social and/or legal persecution for expressing her/his opinions. Authors receive only one proof copy. If expressively wished, we can send up to five proof copies.
Data: We prefer to receive contributions per email. We can process various data carriers (PC, 3.5"/l .44MB, and ZIP/100 or 250 MB, CD ROM). The file formats of all major type-setting and DTP programs can be read; for reasons of portability, file formats of *.rtf (Rich Text Format), *.html (HyperTextMarkupLanguage, i.e., Internet files) and MS -Word files are preferred. Please do not send manuscripts by fax, as this renders optical character recognition almost impossible. Images can be sent in all usual data formats (*.gif, *.jpg, *.png, *.tif...) and also as hard copies. 3.5" floppy disks as well as unsolicited manuscripts will not be sent back; solicited manuscript as well as image hard copy only if expressively desired.
Should you agree to these conditions, we are looking forward to receiving your papers.
'■ plus a shipping fee of $1.- for each started $12.50 of your entire order, if your order is not paid in advance. / ** Only one copy for each new customer
GET A CURRENT TRIAL COPY NOW!
□ Yes, I want a FREE trial copy of The Revisionist (Only one copy for each new customer!)
SUBSCRIBE NOW!
□ Yes, I want to subscribe to The Revisionist (77?). The subscription starts with the next issue published after I subscribed. I will receive a renewal notice each time my subscription expires.
(Please check the subscription type you prefer. When sending in this slip, you can include payment by check/money order made out to Castle Hill Publishers, or you can wait until we send you an invoice with further instructions on how to pay.):
Type of Subscription 1 year (4 issues) 3 years (12 issues)
Support: □ $ 100.-/ £66.- □ $ 270.- /£180.-
Normal: □ $ 55.-/ £36.- □ $ 150.- / £96.-
Studenf': □ $ 38.-/ £24.- □ $ 96.- / £66.-
Prices in US-Dollars/GB Pound Sterling, including shipping; f Proof required. Please send in a photocopy of your student ID.
Name
Address
Town, State/Province, ZIP/Postal Code
Country, if not USA
Date
Signature
Send your order to: Castle Hill Publishers
USA: PO Box 257768, Chicago, IL 60625 Fax: ++1 (413) 778-5749 UK: PO Box 118, Hastings, TN34 3ZQ Fax: ++44 (8701) 38 72 63 Email : chporder @ vho . org
Did you miss earlier issues of The Revisionist? There is no need to worry. All issues are still available, and we will keep them in print. You can order them from us at any time for just $/€15.- or £10.- per copy.
HOLOCAUST Handbooks, Vol. 1: Germar Rudolf (Ed.)
EDfiss@ctt fang; tl:\& rflor.oceiiist
The Growing Critique of 'Truth' and 'Memory'
"There is at present no other single volume that so provides a serious reader with a broad understanding of the contemporary state of historical issues that influential people would rather not have examined. " — Prof. Dr. Arthur R. Butz, Evanston, IL
"There is much in the various contributions that strikes one as thoroughly convincing. "
Historian Dr. Joachim Hoffmann, Expert Report
Dissecting the Holocaust applies state-of-the-art scientific technique and classic methods of detection to investigate the alleged murder of millions of Jews by Ger- mans during World War U. In 22 contributions of each ca. 30 pages, the 17 authors dissect generally accepted paradigms of the 'Holocaust'. It reads as exciting as a crime novel: so many lies, forgeries, and deceptions by politicians, historians and scientists. This is the intellectual adventure of the 21st century. Be part of it!
2nd, revised paperback edition! 616 pp. pb, 6"x9", b/w ill., bibl., index: $/€30
Gfimr Roifsir (El.)
Dissecting
the
Holocaust
-, £20 -
Contents
Revisionist Notebook 364
By Bradley Smith
Revisionism in Russia 366
By Wolfgang Strauss
Hundred Years of War against Germany 373
By Steffen Werner
The Dachau Horror-Tale Exposed 385
By Baurat h.c. Dipl.-Ing. Walter Liiftl
The General in the Ice-Block 386
By Baurat h.c. Dipl.-Ing. Walter Liiftl
The Four Million Figure of Auschwitz 387
By Carlo Mattogno
What Was Kulmhof/Chelmno? 400
By Ingrid Weckert
Sir Henry Strakosch "a Jew"? 412
By Prof. Dr. Arthur R. Butz
Delusional Worlds 415
By Ernst Manon
Groupthink 422
By Germar Rudolf
In Memoriam Jean-Claude Pressac
Jean-Claude Pressac and Revisionism, by Jurgen Graf. 426
My Memories of Jean-Claude Pressac, by Carlo Mattogno 432
The New Zealand Saga Continues 435
By Germar Rudolf
The Fate of Joel Hayward in New Zealand Hands: from Holocaust Historian to Holocaust? 439
By Thomas A. Fudge
Censorship in East and West - the Ziindel Ad Campaign 449
By Dr. Ingrid Rimland
Thanksgiving in Jail: Canadian Show Trial against Ernst Ziindel Continues, by Paul Fromm 453
False Memory Syndrome
False Witnesses, by David Irving 456
Dr. Elizabeth Loftus, Controversial Expert on Human Memory, by Caroline Song 456
My Critique of Dr. Loftus ' Behavior, by Robert H. Countess, PhD 459
False Memory Everywhere - Except in Modern History, by Germar Rudolf. 460
Memories of a War that Never Happened, by Andrea Schneider 462
False Memories in Disneyland, by Ronald Reeves 463
Forced Confessions: Why Innocent Defendants Admit their Guilt, by Manfred Kohler 465
Research News
Intelligence: Genetically Inherited or Learned Behavior? , by Andrea Schneider 467
From the Records of the Frankfurt Auschwitz Trial, Part 4, by Germar Rudolf. 468
Book Reviews
Bulldozing the Facade of 'Israel As Victim, by Francis Dixon 472
Conspiracy - the Umpteenth, by John Weir 473
The Blind Spots of Mainstream 'Holocaust Research', by Germar Rudolf 474
Jewish Supremacism, by Germar Rudolf 475
Book Notices, by Francis Dixon 476
Letter to the Editor 477
In Brief. 478
The Revisionist ■ 2003 • Volume 1 ■ No. 4 363
Revisionist Notebook
By Bradley Smith
Arnold Schwarzenegger's Father Was a Nazi Storm Trooper; Anne Frank's Father Was a Nazi Collaborator and War Profiteer; Why Is One of these Stories Being Suppressed?
Arnold Schwarzenegger's father, Gustav, volunteered for the 'brownshirts' in May 1939 - about "six months after the storm troopers helped launch Kristallnacht [...] when Jewish homes, businesses and synagogues were attacked across Ger- many."1
Anne Frank's father, Otto Frank, was a war profiteer who sold goods to the Nazi army as it 'freed' Europe of its Jews in a gigantic program of ethnic cleansing (see below for more de- tails).2
Questions:
- How do we know that Gustav Schwarzenegger was a storm trooper?
- How do we know that Otto Frank collaborated with the Na- zis?
- What 'goods' did Otto Frank sell to the German army?
- Why is the press covering the Gustav Schwarzenegger story now?
- Why is the press still covering up the Otto Frank story after half a century?
- How are we to judge men like Gustav Schwarzenegger and Otto Frank?
- Who benefits - profits - by 'outing' Gustav 's story and at- tacking Arnold, while covering up Otto's story when Anne remains a great cultural icon?
The 'Hidden Life' of Anne Frank's Father, Otto. It's One Surprise after Another.
I didn't know that Anne Frank's father, Otto, was a Nazi collaborator and war profiteer. Where have I been?3 I didn't know that Otto manufactured and wholesaled materials to the German army while hiding in his notorious 'annex' in Amster- dam. I didn't know that he collaborated with the Dutch Nazis as well as with Germans. It's just one bloody thing after another.
This story was brought to my attention by Joe Orolin. Joe sends me news clippings from Pennsylvania papers and na- tional media. A lot of the stories he sends I have already re- ceived via the Internet, but there are always others that I would never see because they originate locally, or they are distributed nationally but fall 'below the centerfold' of Internet distribu- tion.
One afternoon I received a clipping from Joe released on 27 July, written by Ray Locker of the Associated Press. The article was a review of The Hidden Life of Otto Frank by Carol Ann Lee, published by HarperCollins /William Morrow. This is how the surprising review kicked off.
"For a man forever tied to the Holocaust and the cause of world Jewry, Otto Frank - the father of Holocaust diarist Anne Frank — went through life carrying a sense of constant ambivalence. Now, with this probing and insightful book by Carol Ann Lee, we may know why.
While it would be going too far to call Frank a 'collabo- rator' with the Nazi government that eventually sent him and his family to concentration camps, he nevertheless did business with the German army occupying the Netherlands.
Frank also worked with Dutch sympathizers of Hitler 's Third Reich and traveled in circles that ultimately led to his family 's capture after almost three years in hiding in the annex above their Amsterdam business. " These observations astounded me. I hadn't even heard of this book. I did an Internet search and found that The Hidden Life of Otto Frank was published six months ago, in February. I searched for reviews of the book in The New York Times, At- lantic Monthly, and The Wall Street Journal. Major institutions that have forwarded the Anne Frank story for half a century. Nothing by the big boys.
I did find three additional reviews of the book, all by small publications. I found that the book had been published in Eng- land in 2002 - a full year earlier! I hadn't heard a word about it. In America the press, the business, about Anne Frank never ends. Never. Now we have a dramatic book about Anne's fa- ther by a respected writer, the book reveals very controversial information, and there is no interest in it. One wonders, why would that be?
On the Internet I went to Amazon.com, ordered The Hidden Life and received it five days later. I read through it in one night in our bedroom, and during one afternoon at an outdoor cafe in Tijuana while my wife and a lady friend were shopping. Otto appears to have been a good and decent man caught up in mat- ters that were beyond him, as was most everyone else in those years in that part of the world.
I never thought much about Otto Frank. I never heard much about him. I knew more or less what most of us know. He left Amsterdam with his wife and two daughters under the supervi- sion of the Germans, and when he returned to Amsterdam his wife and two daughters were dead. We've all lost family, many of us have half-lost dear family members, and I can imagine something of how Otto must have felt when Miep Gies first gave him Anne's diary pages, scavenged from the floor of the annex after the family was taken away.
Otto must have been near overcome with a tidal wave of memory, surprise, and then a kind of elation at finding that, at the very least, he had these pages, written in her own hand, while they were all living together. He had something of her. She wasn't entirely gone. He had something.
An earlier book by Carol Ann Lee, Roses from the Earth: The Biography of Anne Frank, was well received in Britain. Based on that work, she has a good deal to say in Otto's story about how the 'Diary' was put together. She is quite open about how Anne was rewriting her diary, the problems with the dif- ferent translations contracted for by Otto, Otto's editing of the manuscripts, and so on. Essentially she supports the revisionist position, without saying so, codified in the 1970s and 80s, that the 'Diary' is a literary work based on diary entries, and edited by her father and others, not a diary.
364
The Revisionist ■ 2003 ■ Volume 1 ■ No. 4
Nothing wrong with that. Other than the fact that those fronting for the Holocaust Lobby lied about it for so many years.
The primary work of Carol Ann Lee's The Hidden Life of Otto Frank, is to find out who 'betrayed' the Frank's hiding place and the Frank family to the Germans. For myself, it's the least interesting part of the story. No accounting for taste. But along the way Ms. Lee documents the fascinating story of Otto Frank's wartime collaboration with the Nazi regimes, both in Germany and the Netherlands. She writes:
"Otto Frank made a pact with the devil [...]" Here's what she's referring to. Otto manufactured and wholesaled pectin and other products to the German army.
"Pectin was a preservative that could be put to many uses, depending upon the type of pectin it was. All pectin was useful for food production, but certain kinds could be applied as a balm for wounds and as a thickener for raising blood volume in blood transfusions. Other types of pectin were used in the steel industry as a hardener and in the oil industry as an emulsifier. Therefore, it is possible that the Wehrmacht used the pectin they bought from Otto Frank's company for the war industry. "
With regard to Otto producing and selling products to the German army, Lee writes:
"The deliveries to the Wehrmacht (via brokers) ensured the survival of Otto's business. More than 80 percent of Dutch firms delivered to the Wehrmacht during the war, and one can hardly be shocked by the statistics of the fact that Otto did the same. "
Miep Gies, the lady who collected Anne's diary pages from the floor of the annex after the Germans took off the Franks, is quoted as saying:
"[...] the circumstances of his [Otto's] company in war- time should be kept in mind. There was no choice - no de- livery could mean the closing down of the company. " Here is a 'revisionist' take on Otto Frank's life in Amster- dam during WWII. Otto Frank ran a business during the war, in the ground floor of the 'annex' where he hid his family, that de- livered goods to the German army. He made a profit doing it. He paid a Dutch Nazi to keep his business 'secret.'
Otto then was a Jew, a Nazi collaborator, a war profiteer, and a good man with highly developed sensibilities. I would very much liked to have known him, to have been his friend, and to have done what I could to have saved his daughters from those who saw them as their enemy.
I should add that it appears very likely indeed that Otto paid blackmail to the Dutch Nazi factotum, Tonny Ahlers, after the war as well as during it, to cover up Otto's wartime collabora- tion with the Nazis. As a matter of fact it looks like Otto was still paying blackmail to Tonny Ahlers at the time of Otto's death in 1980!
In the first instance, what does all this mean to someone like me? The first thing it means is that collaborating with the Ger- mans/Nazis was something very different than what the Holo- caust Industry wants you to think, and very different from how the Office of Special Investigations use the word "collabora- tion" as it goes about its work of running down old European men who "collaborated" with the Germans during WWII.
Collaboration was a norm, though admittedly not for every- one. In the Netherlands, for instance, only 80% of Dutch busi- nessmen collaborated with the Nazis. In the camps nearly all Jews whom the Nazis chose to work for them themselves chose to collaborate with the Nazis. It was the norm. There were some who chose not to collaborate. Same as with the Dutch busi- nessmen.
And then we would want to ask how many Belgian compa- nies helped the German war effort. How many French? Polish, Danish, Norwegian, Czech? And how many of the businessmen in those countries were run by Jews?
As to that: how many Jews served in the German army dur- ing the Hitlerian regime?4 How many Jews continued to run their businesses in Germany throughout the war? Were there any? Is anything known about this? Are their histories being covered up like Otto's was covered up?
On August 1st, 2003, a 79-year-old suspected former Nazi camp guard now living in Queens, Jakiw Palij, was stripped of his citizenship by a federal judge. Federal prosecutors did not accuse Palij of personally committing any atrocities. But Brooklyn U.S. Attorney Roslynn Mauskopf said Palij has blood on his hands.
"By guarding the prisoners held under inhumane condi- tions at Trawniki, Jakiw Palij prevented their escape and directly contributed to their eventual slaughter at the hands of the Nazis. "
Palij is 79 years old. In 1944, when he was "collaborating" with the Germans by working as a perimeter guard at Trawniki, he must have been about 21. In 1944, when Otto Frank was helping feed and perhaps arm the German army, he was 55 years old.
One would think that you are better equipped to judge the political and moral nature of the great events you are living through when you are 55 than when you are when you are 21. Maybe it is going to be argued by the ADL and the Industry in general that Otto, being a Jew, necessarily needed a few extra decades to grow a moral conscience. I don't think that was it.
When I was 21 years old, I was with the Seventh Calvary in Korea. I was a young man who, as the song had it a few years ago, just wanted to have fun. I was a volunteer. I had no poli- tics. I didn't want to hurt anyone, but I would have done any- thing my superiors asked of me. As a matter of fact, that's what I did do. Anything I was asked (ordered) to do.
I can hardly imagine how a 21 -year old Ukrainian or Ger- man or Dutch kid could have sorted out the 'moral' issues of WWII, and then acted upon them. Some did, to one extent or the other, but to judge them now, after sixty years have gone by, a lifetime, is an ugly, self-serving charade of self-promoting
'morality. ' First published in Smith 's Report (print edition) in August 2003
Brainwashing Student Editors
Arthur Sulzberger of The New York Times and Abraham Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League have teamed up to per- sonally put the kibosh on my campus work. Try to imagine it - Sulzberger and Foxman, two of the most influential men in American culture and politics, each with access to tens of mil- lions of dollars, teaming up to kill a project run by one man with a couple volunteer helpers and no budget.
The Revisionist ■ 2003 ■ Volume 1 ■ No. 4
365
The story below appears in the 2003 special summer edition of ADL on the Frontline (the article does not appear on the ADL Website - if I'm wrong about this please forward me the correct URL).
"Guidance on Extremism from The New York Times and ADL
When a campus newspaper editor is asked to print an ad denying that the Holocaust took place - or calling for 'open debate ' on the subject - can he or she say 'no ' without com- promising freedom of the press?
In the view of the ADL and The New York Times, the answer is yes. Both organizations have been disturbed by the continuing - and often successful — attempts by Holo- caust deniers and other extremists to place advertisements and other materials in campus newspapers. Out of their common concern came an annual colloquium, 'Extremism Targets the Campus Press: Balancing Freedom and Re- sponsibility. '
'We seek to educate campus journalists, ' said ADL Campus Affairs/Higher Education Director Jeffrey Ross, 'to balance freedom of the press with responsibility of the press when responding to hate submissions. '
The third colloquium in the series, held in The Times' headquarters in New York City, was attended by close to
100 student journalists and editors and administrators, in- cluding ten college and university presidents, representing 53 different academic institutions — the largest number to date. Participants came from all areas of the U.S., some from as far away as California.
ADL National Director Abraham H. Foxman and The New York Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger, Jr. addressed the gathering. A plenary panel discussion moderated by ADL Legal Affairs Director Steven Freeman featured Mr. Ross, Steph Jespersen, Director of Advertising Acceptability for The Times, and Dorothy Samuels, a member The Times ' Editorial Board. Mr. Freeman and Mr. Ross also led inter- active breakout discussion sessions. "
Notes
1 LA Times, August 23, 2003.
2 Carol Ann Lee, The Hidden Life of Otto Frank, William Morrow, NYC, 2003.
3 See the entry of April 1, 1943, in Anne Frank's Diary; Robert Faurisson was the first to reveal this fact: "The Diary of Anne Frank: Is it Genuine?", Journal of Historical Review 19(6) (2000), pp. 2-11, esp. pp. 5f.
4 Bryan Mark Rigg, Hitler 's Jewish Soldiers: The Untold Story of Nazi Racial Laws and Men of Jewish Descent in the German Military, University Press of Kansas, 2002.
Revisionism in Russia
By Wolfgang Strauss
Russians Research into the 'Holocaust' Matter
A German order to destroy Novgorod did not exist. The population suffered under Soviet bombings. Novgorod's church treasures were robbed by the retreating Soviet troops, and its ar- tifacts were sunk on a ship in the Wolchow River. The world famous Novgorod monument "Thousand Year Russia" was saved by the Wehrmacht from destruction. Jasnaja Poljana, Tolstoy's estate, was under the protection of the German Panzergruppe 2 by order of General Heinz Guderian. The 49th German Gebirgsjagerkorps proceeded against the anti-Jewish pogrom in Lemberg on June 29, 1941. After the occupation of Smolensk in 1941, the population of the local district discov- ered 135,000 bodies in mass graves, Russians shot by the NKVD during the 'Chistka.' The cathedral of Smolensk, dam- aged by Soviet shells, was restored during the time of German occupation and was reopened for the orthodox believers. Against the advice of the German military leadership, the masses of the rural population attached themselves to the re- treating German occupation troops, when in 1944 the big re- treat started.
This can be read in the latest book about Russian historical revisionism: The Great Civil War 1941-1945 (Moscow 2002, 642 pages, ISBN 5 941 38015 1). The volume, a collection of separate articles, published by the former Komsomol leader Igor Djakow, includes, among others, articles about the preven- tive war of June 22, 1941, in which German documents are also
quoted. The timeliness of the discussion about the thesis of the preventive war is further indicated in still other new books on the Russian book market, for example Mikhail Melityukhovs 544 pages volume Stalin 's Missed Chances. The Soviet Union in the Fight for Europe 1939-1941. It was published by the well-known national-liberal publisher "Vyeche" (Thing). Dif- ferent perspectives about "Barbarossa" in Germany and in Rus- sia: While in Germany the raison d'etre of the regime defines the borderline of permissible thoughts regarding the research for the cause of the war, one can observe the opposite in Rus- sia, as put forth in The Big Civil War 1941-1945. Yes, in Rus- sia, where a refusal to crawl to foreign dogmas does not cost the head of an historian. Djakow dedicates the book "to all Russian and German soldiers, who were killed in a war that was unleashed by the enemies of the European culture." "In Russia rules a freedom never known before. "
This judgment by the author Leo Rubinstein applies espe- cially to political-historical publishers; otherwise the printing and sale of the Big Civil War could not be imagined. In every chapter of this book, the taboos of the Allies (Dyakov: "The white spots in our history of lies") are destroyed.
An order by the Wehrmacht to shoot the Jews of Kiev in Babi Yar does not exist (p. 57). Soja Kosmosdemyanskaya, a partisan fighting against the Germans, was arrested by Russian farmers and handed over to the Germans for punishment. It was a tragic fate that stood somewhere between obedience and
366
The Revisionist ■ 2003 ■ Volume 1 ■ No. 4
crime. In obeying a Stalin-directive, ("scorched earth") this young partisan woman set fire to farmhouses in the district of Petrishchev. Before the eyes of these farmers, Soja was hanged. Stalin's war propaganda made a heroine out of this arsonist (p. 444). In the district of Pskov with its two million inhabitants, religious classes took place in all elementary schools after the Wehrmacht entered; in the town of Pskov, the Russian-Ortho- dox church opened its own Sunday school for youths and adults (p. 504). On June 22, 1941, 5.3 million men were serving in the Red Army. By October of the same year, however, this army did not exist anymore: around 800,000 were killed and 4.5 mil- lion preferred German internment over fighting. Stalin ordered the forming of "blocking groups" ("sagraditelniye otryadi") only a few weeks after the beginning of the war. Movie pro- ducer Alexander Ivanov-Sukharevski:
"One has to pound it into the heads of the young people today: Nobody wanted to fight for the Soviet power, nobody wanted to go into the war. After the first blows of the Wehrmacht one threw the weapons away and fled into the hinterland, back into the home villages. In order for the Red Army not to completely disintegrate, blocking commandos with machine guns closed off the area between the front line and the homeland. Those who still wanted to flee, deserted forward, to the Germans. " (p. 450)
From the co-author Ivanov-Sukherevski originates the fol- lowing statement:
"The Wehrmacht, i.e., the army of the Third Reich, was the best army in the history of the European civilization, es- pecially in one area: The valuation of the life of the simple soldier. " (p. 437)
A large part of this book deals with the 'Holocaust' and the "yevreiski vopros" (Jewish question). The common denomina- tor of revisionist authors and publishers in the former eastern block is the "denial" of the Holocaust, alleges Mikha Shafir in the magazine East European Perspectives (June 12, 2002).
This is not the case with the authors of Big Civil War, since they neither deny persecution nor massacres against Jews. However, the concept of 'Holocaust' is given a different his- torical meaning; it is reported as a farmer's holocaust, a Ukrain- ian holocaust, a Cossack holocaust (p. 206f). He who wishes to deny the incredible dimensions of the "Cossack murders", the "Ukrainian murders", the "Slav murders", the "farmer mur- ders", does not understand that the communist idea was an ex- termination strategy right from the start, and therefore a holo- caust program.
Contradicting numbers about Jews before the war and after 1945 (based on statistics of various types) will not be men- tioned here (pp. 43, 83, 90), however, on page 45 the "six- million myth" is mentioned. An article without a given author has the title "About the Holocaust Topic" (pp. 81-90).
"The western democracies refused to accept the masses of German Jews", this contribution states. The Russian comment on Kurt Gerstein is very revealing. The SS disinfestation tech- nician boasted after his capture in 1945, according to a report by Raymond Carrier, the later chief editor of Paris Match, to have killed one million people (Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung of June 3, 2002); Big Civil War says that Gerstein confessed to the killing of even 25 million through poison gas. The "subject
Holocaust" is also based upon Gerstein' s self-accusation, al- though not exclusively, as one can read on page 89. The fact that all extermination camps were located in areas, which came later under the "control of the communists," made it quite diffi- cult to determine the number of the victims.
"Up to today statistical acrobatics dominates. [...] The number of Auschwitz victims sank from 4 million to 400,000. [...] The camp Wolczek, in which supposedly one million people were killed until 1945, cannot not even be found on Polish maps. " (p. 40)
Not four million, but "only" one tenth of this - is reducing already denial? Until recently, Fritjof Meyer did not belong to the protagonists of historical revisionism. That seems to have changed since May 2002. In the May-edition 2002 of the scien- tific magazine Osteuropa, an article was published by this lead- ing editor of Germany's largest newsmagazine Der Spiegel with the title "The number of Auschwitz Victims. New findings through new archival discoveries." For the leftist editor it is about the numbers: about the Auschwitz numbers. The histori- cal starting point in the number mess: A Stalinist investigating commission. The investigation culminated in the allegation blessed by the communist Politburo:
"During the time of the existence of the camp, 4.5 to 5
million people were exterminated. "
This number is based on estimates of the gas chamber ca- pacity and goes back to the declaration of Jewish inmate doc- tors Gordon, Shteinberg and Epshtein, as told to two Soviet of- ficers on January 27, 1945.
Meyer quoted from the files of the International Military Tribunal and the central archive of the Soviet defense ministry of the Stalin time. And Meyer exposed the number of victims in the Soviet investigation report as "a product of war propa- ganda". Therefore a lie, an Auschwitz lie? Meyer combines his refutation with sharp criticism of the German post war histori- ans:
"Since historiography, for understandable but inadmis- sible reasons, has not accepted Auschwitz as an object for research, propaganda naturally invaded the unoccupied field. Those of Soviet origin still control public opinion, as in the number of four million at Auschwitz or over 400, 000 murdered Hungarian deportees, or mass gassings in the crematorium cellars. "
Based on new documents about the capacity of the cremato- ria and based on the documents about the admissions to the camp, Meyer arrives at a surprising result in his study with ref- erence to the number of the Auschwitz victims:
"An estimated 510,000 dead, of these probably 356,000
murdered with gas. "
This result does not diminish the weight of the crimes, but "verifies" them, writes Meyer. With the new number, Ausch- witz "finally" moves within the range of the "imaginable".
Meyer confides that his "new perceptions" are based on a recently found "key document" which gives information about "the capacity of the crematoria of Auschwitz/Birkenau". Ac- cording to Meyer, this "breakthrough" is owed to the Canadian Auschwitz expert Robert-Jan van Pelt. To formulate this in short: The important question for further historical research, that is, whether mass murders took place in the gas chambers of
The Revisionist ■ 2003 ■ Volume 1 ■ No. 4
367
the four crematoria, is answered by Meyer with a clear "No":
"The gas chambers of the Birkenau crematoria I and II were, except during the experimental phase, evidently hardly in operation, HI and IV probably mainly only in the most horrible month of October 1944. " As shown in documents, the original plan was to use the morgues, after completion of the crematoria by early summer 1943, to store the great number of dead (where Meyer puts the key word "Vergasungskeller" in quotation marks). To this Meyer replies:
"Apparently, the tests were not successful, both be- cause the ventilation was counterproductive3 and because the expected masses of victims did not arrive during the ensuing eleven months. The actually committed genocide probably took mainly place in the two converted farm- houses outside of the camp; the foundations of the first of these houses, the 'White House, ' or 'Bunker I' has re- cently been discovered. "
Polish farm houses as preliminary gas chambers: a provable fact, a Meyer-like "probably" or a mystery? Meyer admits that "revisionists" doubt the existence of "rebuilt farm houses" (Meyer mentions Jiirgen Graf, among others).
There is no end to the mystery. Fritjof Meyer mentions Cap- tain Shatunovski and Major Morudshenko of the Smersh- Department of the 8th Soviet Army, who allegedly interro- gated, in March 1946, the German engineers of a crematoria as to their hourly capacity. Does the Russian expert Fritjof Meyer really not know what SMERSH meant in the years of Stalin's war-terrors? SMERSH (acronym for "smertj shpionam" - "Death to the Spies") raged between 1941 and 1953 as the most savage special department of the Stalinist Secret Police, under the defense ministry umbrella. The Ukrainian GULag expert Borys Lewytzkyj judges:
"The SMERSH-officers, a gallery of fanatics, degener- ates, and alcoholics, appear like a picture of horror before our eyes. "
In practice, SMERSH exceeded all perversions of the Ye- shovshchina: hunt down, torture, and liquidate. SMERSH killed right there, right then. Without SMERSH there was no "Soviet war propaganda" (as in Meyer's criticism). It was a bloody joke in World History: While SMERSH researched in Auschwitz, it organized at the same time the Red Holocaust in Kolyma, Kingir, Vorkuta, Norylsk, and Karaganda.
The Communism researcher Meyer should actually know about these absurdities, since he quoted from the Central Ar- chive of the KGB of the USSR, file 17/919, in the case SMERSH/Auschwitz. As a long time student, i.e., internee of the GULag camps, I claim that Meyer seems to try to cover up his "key documents", which he received from the Central Ar- chive of the KGB of the USSR as mentioned by him, because what other archive basements might store (or better: hide) the truth and nothing but the full truth in matters Auschwitz?
Spiegel magazine praises itself for its investigative journal- ism; why, then, could Fritjof Meyer, familiar with the Russian language, not have been lucky - of course with a little Russian help - in opening certain file basement? During the Yeltsin era, so-called death books of Auschwitz were released for publica- tion. They were found in the Soviet archives and confirm the
death of some 69,000 camp inmates, of course only of the reg- istered inmates "fit for work."
(On Meyer's article, read also the contributions in The Revi- sionist 1(1) (2003), pp. 23-37. The editor.)
© Sept. 28, 2002
Ehrenburg and the Figure of Six Million
In the never-ending controversy over Auschwitz numbers, those provided by Fritjof Meyer are unlikely to remain the last word. At least, this is the opinion of Jerzy Wroblewski, director of the Auschwitz Museum, who wrote to the editor of Spiegel on 17th November 1999: "No camp documents have survived relating to victims sent to extermination immediately following selection."
Meyer exposed as a lie the falsified figures furnished by Auschwitz Commandant Rudolf HoB while a prisoner of the British. He said the "confession" had been obtained under tor- ture - "under evidentiary blows." HoB later reported that alco- hol and the whip "were too much for me, too." At 2:30 am he signed the following sentences: "In Auschwitz alone, in my es- timation, around 3,000,000 people died. I would estimate that around 2,500,000 of these were gassed."
Ernst Nolte, whom Meyer calls a "respectable historian of philosophy," enjoys great credibility in the area of myth demo- litions. His recently released book on Auschwitz, Der kausale Nexus. Uber Revisionen und Revisionismen in der Geschichts- wissenschaft (The Causal Nexus: Concerning Revisions and Revisionisms in Historiography, Herbig, Munich 2002), states: "The statement of the commandant of Auschwitz, Rudolf Hofi, which unquestionably contributed greatly to the col- lapse of the defense in the Nuremberg trials, was obtained by torture. Therefore, according to the norms of Western legal procedure, it was not admissible in court. The so- called Gerstein documents contain so many contradictions and physical impossibilities that they, too, should have been disallowed. Statements by witnesses at Nuremberg were based upon hearsay and unsupported assumptions, while reports of the few eyewitnesses contradicted one another. The result is that they evoke great doubt concerning credi- bility. "
In contrast to the investigation of the Katyn Forest massacre organized by the Wehrmacht in 1943, a thorough investigation of Auschwitz by an international commission of experts was not carried out at the end of the War. It was clearly the fault of the Soviet and Polish Communists that this was not done. Says Nolte:
"Release of photographs of crematory ovens and sev- eral cans bearing the words 'Zyklon B. Poisonous Gas ' has no evidentiary value at all. Crematories were necessarily present in all typhus infested internment camps, and Zyklon B was a recognized medium of disinfestation. It was indis- pensable wherever large numbers of people lived under poor sanitary conditions. " (page 96)
In these passages, Nolte is responding to the customary po- lemics, which Fritjof Meyer dutifully rolls out in support of "gas chambers." But Nolte emphatically concludes:
"The general conclusion that there were no mass exter- minations by poison gas is obviously impermissible. "
368
The Revisionist ■ 2003 ■ Volume I ■ No. 4
He then quotes the Jewish American historian Arno Mayer, according to whom materials for the investigation of gas cham- bers "are scarce and unreliable."
It is surprising that Meyer does not mention Joachim Hoff- mann, the military historian and Vlassov biographer. Hoff- mann, who died on 8th February 2002 in Freiburg, succeeded in proving that the "Six Million Number" was introduced into Al- lied propaganda by Ilja Ehrenburg 23 days before the occupa- tion of Auschwitz by the Soviet 60th Army.
"The passage listed below appeared in the weekly So- viet War News issue for 22nd December 1944, published by the Soviet ambassador in London This was exactly five weeks before the liberation of the Auschwitz concentration camp with its alleged five million victims. The passage was contained in a seemingly objective essay written by the leading Soviet propagandist, Ilja Ehrenburg, under the headline 'Remember, Remember, Remember. ' In it, the fol- lowing was reported, apparently with the greatest naturalness:59
'In regions they seized, the Germans killed all the Jews, from the old folks to infants in arms. Ask any German pris- oner why his fellow countrymen annihilated six million in- nocent people, and he will reply quite simply 'Why, they were Jews.
This article by Ehrenburg was reprinted on Janu- ary 4, 1945, i.e., 23 days before the liberation of Auschwitz, under the headline 'Once Again — Remem- ber!'" (Stalin's War of Extermination 1941-1945, Theses
& Dissertations Press,
Capshaw, Al, 2001, p. 189)
Is it possible that Political Scientist Dr. Fritjof Meyer did not read Hoffmann?
This is hard to believe, since Hoffmann's definitive Stalin 's War of Extermination 1941-45 has appeared in eight editions. It has become a standard work for the study of the causes of World War II even in the USA, and is re- quired reading for students of history in post-Soviet Russia. Hoffmann repeatedly refers to the source of the Six Million figure:
"The six-million fig- ure, stated exactly for the first time by Ehrenburg in the Soviet War News on December 22, 1944, at first inconspicuously, and then repeated by him once again on January 4, 1945, in the same Soviet pro- paganda newspaper, then appeared on March 15,
1945, in another article by Ehrenburg in the Soviet War News weekly under the headline 'Wolves They Were - Wolves They Remain ' - in bold print, as a fact no longer to be disputed by anyone. " (p. 189f.)
Hoffmann concludes his chapter on Ehrenburg with the commentary:
"The stereotypical repetition of a total figure of six mil- lion murder victims, already claimed with precise clarity on December 22, 1944 - and this in the propaganda newspa- per Soviet War News, intended for English-speaking read- ers - gives rise to the conclusion that the six-million figure, just like the Auschwitz figure of May 7, 1945, is a product of Soviet propaganda, intended to influence and indoctrinate public opinion, particularly, the thinking of the Anglo- Saxon countries. The evidence, from Soviet War News of December 22, 1944, January 4, 1945, and March 15, 1945, that it was Ehrenburg who introduced the six-million figure in the Soviet war propaganda, is not without importance to scientific discussion of this emotionally charged topic. " (p. 190)
Any one who seriously pursues the subject of Auschwitz and ignores Joachim Hoffmann invites doubts about his compe- tence. So much for the subject of Fritjof Meyer.
Today, Russian revisionist historians are paying renewed at- tention to an important but inadequately researched chapter of the Auschwitz saga: the Stalinist persecutions and murders of Jews. Here again, the subject begins and ends with the ques- tion: How many victims were there? The latest example is an
ILYA EHRENBURG, back from a two-weeks' .visit to Germany, sums up his impressions
or ..,..■!.: ua at il. .'I'ltcy Hid help llolthrciis you are hi
riffn. b ef Hmt u
r»lle»f...li«r. help Tlnliheciks you
I hale mu mcl genuine tcmnric in j idej of llw new Luto
■ingle German -only fear and pretence. N„ Cernuny cnnnl .
If llicre ire any crealurel at ill lo be criniei by pulling ihe clod
pitied on ihe road* ol Ccrmany. ii i» only
Ihe tiny bewildered children, Ihe crazed,
unmilLcd yonj, Mid the abandoned Cats
and due*. ' ThcK alone had no ihare xi:
Germany'* alrocitie*. All honour to Ihe
Soviet aoldicr who doc* not believe in
Ihe magic at blood, lo uhoro act infant it
if thev
Waives tkui weve—
not h -,'li i mil; children ami "1.1 are nut l;ucuti, We ium: crime to Germany it-al to vent our feeling;, but eradicate ihe very
The World now Lulua* llut Germany hit killed UK .mill. ..i Jt*>. Da ihey think it ii ennui h for them Im like dawn the Unci lisn*. iW ibulr iirotHLfi to b« forgflltirn T They xwelr : "We □cilhir.c about il. We ire LaaHCfrl." lim Ehe rviHicnEe ii ibere. Thty ria awiy Irani m in kWieh A hurry Eh AC ihcy
dliMri*! ddi only Mr eiiy mtm iff,
In Co-many, tide by iide with .verywhere we find intellectual'"
1
HAVE spent two we tcjTor-ai rkken , Naming
here hnji wander in and The German >dra town halls, and ihe wind watch two houni-
^.crmany, where oui of deserted
Germany history. Nut don*! asi; , her how. . she siuoltillii trcaLed Galya, her' Kustian ma i dscn am t ' >'tnc« 'ihe . hands-nf.his Il is 'now cxactly
;|t.m' I
memory of ihe vampire Kvery home has iti collection of books,
state, splendidly bond copieiof * Mcin Kamat,"
The bonwi of iht bumfer* The Starch imo Poland." '* Race with ^"(Ti^tTS HilkTlS 1 Hie Jewish Plague," " Russian
ween ^phki. "or Vheivih iub-men," 11 Our faithful Prussia." What *>n*>v The beer hallf. h«e intelkclual poverty ! However, these hook* weren't often opened, by ihe look oflhem. They were part of (he furniture.
like the
clatn i
e tatlerj of municipal banner* twelve minute* past three, Moscow time,'"
emblazoned with eagles, lions and Hag*, he beams. He is prepared lo lite hy
We might gloat and uv : It ttrt tt ih* V|^i*«*(«k time. *0 lnnK as he isn't asked
jilt-IT malice were not beneath H. »ODUt ,hc four worked
Kor us, this ii ihe triumph cf juilicr. 'uf hlfn-
nJ cuthk
i ind KiHtrnUji
n .: ■ ,■ ihe wjr i hey hi^i ■■ ■■' Ici.i.'.i Irani I'ui
Manv, when l hey u1L«d of retribution. ," lam l"J therefore * humamsl, FtonM .«! Wmwm wA Ki
tnoagl.i only of the clau«s of some future ™2» ,h< ™ f" **a*f> "J* * « I«uUr 1 *«
treaty. One ihinj; h ««»in. Ptedd veneraWe ph^jc.an. while the v(uar-^neral A™> ■ rji obKuranmm will tind it, defenders, jealoui ™h? ,h" u,u1,s m-umur. : The |^ ,h>, ,
nklMiini of " equilibrium "-equilibrium l,y* ™nJcn",ed 1 B*H m Ii ikh cnw*h f« .hem. t;r«J
between Jij;ht and Jarlnos Of course, I eouldn i condemn him openly, di^c ihrm iD->ntk ihe Urah snd lrm(.
still, I condemned him This May Teach Them in my own heart. Hut
as for the Evangelical} — " The I -ui lie ran pastor.
peaie i -is k, one inni|" is clear for bis part, *ows : "Wc Rlnbution bM bepun. .erinany ba* come t0n,|cmnc.i (\n un.
tolearnwlwt war means. Andw hoknow^? ^ ime » -perhaps these weeks and months of war An E|birif, erigiMtr on German sod wll nuke * far deeper JwUrw ; "Aiamanof impression on German memories than any nmeressive view^ [ am treaty ilipuLtionj, . . Then with a> crafty »m
I looked in vain in Loetzen, Ha^>lenburg and Tapiau for a puhlic librarv. There M1) nch a thing. I found only one museum— in Darlcnilcin. What did it contain ? fotnfa of llindenburg and the epauleltn of an ufneer of the lurist army, labelled : " Victory at Tanncnberc."
The ml.
Ihu
li'.l
:a» of the
■N him openly, .!■.-.. iheiw i- i. ihe Urah uid
W<dves1h
Polish oHker and a photograph i
■>\ .i
I [illei
Itilkr,
Atrocity propaganda by Ehrenburg: "The world now knows that Germany has killed six million Jews". "Wolves they were - Wolves they remain", Soviet War News Weekly, March 15, 1945.
The Revisionist ■ 2003 ■ Volume 1 ■ No. 4
369
article in the August 2000 issue of the Russian- Jewish maga- zine Krug, "Bloody Prolog to a New Holocaust." In 1952, on the instructions of Stalin, the Jewish Anti-fascist Committee was annihilated. "Why were they shot?" asks the historian Alexander Borshchakovski. The answer: "Because they were Jews." This is a quotation from the revelatory book by Borsh- chakovski published in Germany and Russia.
The Jewish Antifascist Committee (JAK) became active at the beginning of 1942, as Stalin's regime had just survived the winter battle for Moscow. Without the aid of American capital- ism, the defeated and much despised Stalinist regime could not have won the war. This was precisely the reason why JAK was founded. The head of the committee was the actor Solomon Mikhoels; the secretary (and therewith Beria's man) was the author Isaak Feffer. JAK traveled extensively in the USA and collected many millions of dollars from Soviet sympathizers in press and radio, Hollywood, and the labor unions. As its heri- tage, it left behind an intellectual Fifth Column. After the war, this valuable service rendered to Stalin cost almost the entire JAK membership their lives. On October 12, 1946, the Ministry for State Security (MGB) presented the Central Committee a dossier on anti-Soviet activities of the JAK. A secret in- vestigation of JAK activities came to the con- clusion that they had greatly exaggerated their contribution to the achievements of the USSR in their coverage of the lives of Soviet Jews. This was all the more true since this coverage had appeared in the foreign, that is to say, American media. The Politburo decided to dis- solve JAK on November 20, 1948. For Mik- hoels, the MGB engineered a fatal automobile accident in Minsk, while JAK functionaries Feffer, Suskin and Gofshtein were arrested at the end of 1948. Stalin's Holocaust plans were becoming reality.
On January 13, 1949, Georgi Malenkov, a close associate of Stalin who personally partici- pated in executions during the 1930s, ordered
Generalfeldmarschall Friedrich Paulus
www, twschwarzer. delpaulus.jpg
the former head of the Soviet war propaganda bureau, Central Committee member Soloman Losovski (recte Dridso) to report to him so that he could listen to Losovski' s confession that he had engaged in a criminal activity as a Jew. Malenkov referred to a memorandum written for Stalin by Losovski on February 1944 and signed also by Mikhoels, Feffer and Epshtein. In the memo, which had been written at the height of the American- Soviet war alliance, it was suggested that the Crimean Tatars be removed and a Jewish Socialist State be established in the Cri- mea. In 1944, the international JAK were certain of success in the matter of the Crimea.
With the end of the war, however, a great change occurred. The Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union voted to remove Losovski, and he was arrested on Janu- ary 26, 1949. In that same month, the Jewish chief physician of the Moscow Botkin Hospital, Shimeliovich, disappeared in the Lubyanka, followed by JAK activists Kvitko, Perez, Marhish, and Bergelsson. In April of 1952, their files were made avail- able to the military committee of the Supreme Court. Following
trial on May 8 to July 18, 1952, 13 defendants were sentenced to death before a firing squad. The remaining defendants were sentenced to concentration camp terms ranging from 10 to 25 years. The head of the Soviet Writers Association welcomed the executions of the thirteen, as did Central Committee mem- ber Alexander Fadejev (the "Young Guard"). "A new Holo- caust was dawning" as the thirteen Jewish prisoners were being shot in the cellars of the Lubyanka, says Mikhail Nortshtein in the Russian Jewish emigre publication Krug, published in Co- logne.
"Only the death of Stalin in 1953 avoided that calamity. "
© Sep. 30,.2002
General Paulus Returns to Stalingrad
The last military headquarter of the commander of the 6th German Army was the cellar of the central mall "ZUM". In July 2002, its present director and the management of the War Museum of Wolgograd decided to restore the original furnish- ings of the German Headquarters, complete with ammunition, military decorations, flags, charts, wireless sets, photographs. The Paulus cellar 1943, for whom? The restorers admit that a "Paulus" in the cellar is not only a tourist at- traction, but addresses foremost the Russian youth. Communist veteran organisations pro- tested against the project and called it a pro- fascist fraud of actual historic events. Some even named it blasphemy. Officials of various antifascist committees in Moscow asked whether such projects intended to propagate ideals of the German army amongst the Russian juveniles. Newspapers aligned with Beresovski and Gusinski cited an American Jew, Susan Sontag, who introduced the term "fascinating fascism" into the international print media. This seems to hold true for post-Soviet Russia.
Mass production of books, picture books, videos, CD's, all portraying the German point of view, i.e., the reasoning of the German army and its millions of eastern European volunteers, aligns with Russian revisionism. To point out three illustrious examples from the spring/summer of 2002:
- the life-work of the scientist of human evolution, the social anthropologist Hans F.K. Giinther;
- Konstantin Rodsayevskiy's two volumes entitled "Testa- ment of a Russian Fascist" (original title in 1943: "The Con- temporary Judaisation of the Globe or the Jewish Question in the 20th century");
- Igor Djakow's omnibus volume "The Great Civil War 1941
- 1945".
Compilation, print and distribution of such literature have an important prerequisite in Russia: the lack of political cor- rectness. Wolfgang Kasack, Germany's leading authority on Slavic Peoples, remarks:
"Today, there is no state censorship, everybody can ac- quire books on world religions and philosophies of all col- ours, everybody can say, write or print whatever his convic-
370
The Revisionist ■ 2003 ■ Volume 1 ■ No. 4
tion may be. The past ordeals of authors, having to consider whether their text might infringe their or their family 's se- curity due to political duress, or whether their typescript would pass either the editor 's office or censorship, are ob- solete. " (Novalis 1/2 2002)
Two years ago, the St. Petersburg's organisers of the Inter- national Documentary Film Festival presented Leni Riefen- stahl's soundtrack "Triumph des Willens" (1934) along with the Olympic epos "Fest der Volker" and "Fest der Schonheit" (1936). The Russian public spent minute-long standing ova- tions. The Riefenstahl films made their continuous debut. Only a few gazettes in Moscow criticized the St. Petersburg Riefen- stahl fans. In this case, the liberal progeny of the Stalinist anti- Fascist movement lost their sovereignty over gist, and terrain over common sense. This point remains valid in spite of mount- ing cemetery desecrations. In June of this year, anonymous per- sons violated the cemetery for German POWs in Krasnogorsk near Moscow, whereupon the city council fded a criminal com- plaint. On the other hand, young Russian patriots are committed to the inauguration of German military cemeteries, as happened in Smolensk.
Over an extended period of time, the Anti-Defamation- League in the USA, the Centre for Antifascism in Moscow, the Wiesenthal Centre in Paris, the Jewish Society of the Russian Federation and multibillionaire George Soros' Moscow "Open Society" prepared a bill entitled "Countermeasures to Extremist Actions" (o protivodeystwiy ekstremistkoi deyatelynosti) which landed on the agenda of the members of the Duma and in the Federal Council. The reading lasted the entire summer. On Au- gust 1st the law passed parliament. The publisher of the Guenther omni-book, Vladimir Awdejew, exclaimed:
"This law does not apply to us. The opus can already be purchased nation-wide, the Russian Institute for Anthropol- ogy welcomed the edition and ordered a larger quantity. " Three years ago, a similar bill was discussed in the Duma. From the very beginning, the communist fraction resisted the extremist bill, because in it they foresaw an attempt of public denunciation and state oppression of leftist opposition. Their member of parliament, Vladimir Ryshkov decreed that military action would suffice in containing juvenile extremism. The co- ordinator of that fraction feared that such a "spongy paragraph" would allow "any local village official" to accuse undesirable individuals or groups of extremism. The strongest "no" came from one of the very first human rightist, the Jewess Valeriya Novodvorskaya, who leads a non-parliamentary op- positional party, the so-called Demo- sojus (Democratic Bond). "There is no change in Russia" judges the old lady of the dissidents of the sixties. "One had a scaffold, one had a hangman's axe and there are always plenty of necks."
Proponents of the law argue that the bill is not directed against parties or opinions, but principally against "fascist skinheads". The German
newspaper correspondents in Moscow, Kerstin Holm from the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung and Jens Hartmann from Die Welt agree. According to Uwe KluBmann from Der Spiegel (American equivalent to "Time Magazine"), the skinheads' fa- vourite lecture is Mein Kampf which can be bought anywhere in Moscow, and: they fight to kill, their victims being mainly dark-skinned. (24/2002).
Ms. Holm states "wealthy clans" promulgated "fascist deeds," which were gaining popularity thanks to "martial, anti- intellectual traditions." Holms' insinuation of "wealthy clans" supporting fascist skinheads seems credible, since the Moscow Justice Department simply confiscated the rented institutional building from the "grand captain of capitalism" (Holm on Soros). Soros was quite literally thrown out; he lost his Centre for Global Propaganda and Neo-Liberal Education in the heart of Moscow.
One argument the Soros people have (they're maintaining student homes, libraries, and colleges) is that the military sup- ports fascist skinheads. Actually, the special police force Omon (Otryad Miliziy Osobogo Nasmatsheniye) teaches young work- ers and juveniles of various national patriotic parties and movements. The armed wing of the Ministry of Internal Af- faires has great interest in efficiently trained paramilitary re- cruits, and this is no secret in Putin's Russia. Thus, Omon offi- cers train their recruits for close combat every Tuesday and Thursday in the Omon Complex in the Tallinn Street. Free of charge. Nobody contradicts this ever since the boulevard ga- zette Moskovski Komsomolets published an extensive report of this event on May 1 st of this year.
According to the right-wing opposition, the law in question is the revenge of the Marxist cosmopolitan left for the collapse of communism. In their fight for historic relativity, the pursuers of extremists have taken blows. A wave of "fascinating fas- cism" is thundering against the predominance of anti-Fascist paradigms. The Rammstein affair best illustrates this phenome- non. A corresponding hard rock band from Germany played in the Moscow's Mammut Super Bowl before more than one hun- dred thousand fans coming all the way from Vladivostok and Irkutsk via airplane. Impartial Russian reporters mentioned that fascinated people wrote the word Rammstein in Cyrillic script onto Metro stations. Why?
Rammstein stands for 'Fascist' video-clips and stage per- formances, per the left-wing radical German newspaper taz.
Univermag building before the war and today. In this building General Field Marshal Fhedrich Paulus surrender on January 31, 1943.
(www.stalingrad-info.com/patrikphotos.htm)
The Revisionist ■ 2003 ■ Volume 1 ■ No. 4
371
The "Pathos-Rockers" from Rammstein, according to Der Spiegel, worship a so-called "superior race aesthetic, in the very same mania as the Nazi-illuminated Leni Riefenstahl did." (28/2002).
Enter the advent of Stalingrad's Friedrich Paulus.
©Aug. 11,2002
Stalin's War Effort
The Russian 'Historikerstreit' (row of historians) is gaining momentum. While Vladimir Dmitrev from the Moscow Cul- tural Film Channel shows never before seen documentaries lasting entire evenings concerning the active support between the Wehrmacht and the population of the USSR, war historian Andrey Cherkassov ascertains the validity of the German pre- emptive strike, whereby the astounding part being that Cher- kassov is a member of the Communist Party in Russia. He does not belong to the growing number of historical revisionists, but his internet contribution on the home -page of the Pravda sus- tains the central thesis of the revisionists claim: long before June 22, 1941, Stalin was preparing a war of aggression against Germany.
Cherkassov, resident of Wolgograd, attacked a broadcast from Radio Rossiy, which mentioned that Stalin did not believe his foreign agents and was thus taken by "Barbarossa" com- pletely by surprise. This is an absolute lie, so Cherkassov:
"As far back as 1927, Stalin wrote about the inevitabil- ity of a war. Since 1927 Stalin invested one-half of the en- tire Russian revenue into the military. Yes, Stalin prepared his troops for final victory. Long before the beginning of the war, he called his sons to himself and told them: soon there will be war and you will be soldiers. On April 7th Franz Haider noted in his diary, 'an analysis of the Russian mili- tary concentration compels us to consider that their troops are capable of performing an offensive strike at any time '. " (http://pravda.ru/main/2002/06/1142496.html) Russian historians like Suvorov, Meltyuckov, Danilov, Sokolov, searching for the causes of the war, agree on exactly this point. The communist Cherkassov does not object; Stalin was planning to ambush Germany, that's his message. Vladimir Malyshev (author) and Vladimir Dmitrev 's (producer) destruc- tion of the legend of the "Great Fatherland War" is a calculated paradigm breach. Following the German invasion, the majority of the population felt liberated and sought revenge. German soldiers were not only embraced as liberators in the Ukraine, but also in the Baltic States and Belarus, receiving as token bread and salt, and in the western part of central Russia itself - this is at any rate the notion of the film. The real enemy was neither Germany nor its Wehrmacht, nor the occupancy, but the communist regime all the more so, since victims of Stalin's ter- ror were exhumed under the protection of German guns. This film, sponsored by the independent Gosfilmfonds, shows dis- turbing scenes from Lvov liberated by German troops in July 1941, and photographed spontaneously by German soldiers. "Propaganda lies" is the term the two Russian film producers apply to the official version of the NKVD massacre in Lvov.
It's quite a subversive film in the eyes of those historians and politicians, who regularly celebrate the triumph of the "Great Fatherland War" on May 9th
In the era of the GPU, Stalin read the novels of Dosto- yevski, drew caricatures and wrote comments on the books' covers. The historian Boris Ilisarov comments on this in his newly published manuscript In Stalin. A Portrait from his Li- brary and Archives, one finds indications that Stalin wanted to launch the "final solution of the Jewish question" by public mass executions on the Red Square (p. 142).
The philosopher and historian Alexej Kara-Mursa, a na- tional liberal reform proponent, close to the "Bond for Rightist Power", demonstrates Stalin's anti-Semitic, Jew deploring character in his essay in the Literaturnaya gazeta. Stalin wanted to rid the world of the Jewish question (jevreiski vo- pros), identical to the foul cosmopolitism as he saw it, the same way as Hitler did, so Kara-Mursa. He mentioned the great purge, where the elite of international-Leninist Jewry was liq- uidated. It was not Stalin who won the Soviet-German war, but the Russian people, who returned to their national religious fundaments. The popular Russian intellectual and author leaves no doubt in his essay published in the Literaturnaya gazeta on January 23, 2002, that Stalin was the biggest criminal who ever lived.
Despite all criticism on Putin's western policies - there is freedom of thought in Russia, quite in contrast to Germany and other western European nations. No forbidden discussions, no forbidden publishing. No suppression of historical revisionism. There is freedom for the Russian Noltes and Hoffmanns and no criminalization for the GULag lie, the ideological pendant to another "lie". Workuta and White See Canalisation, Treblinka and Lubyanka, Solovetski and Vinnitsa, Auschwitz and Katyn, Norylsk, Kingir, Karaganda, the Bartholomew's Night of Yek- tarinburg: all open in Russia for historic evaluation.
On January 26 and 27, 2002, an International Revisionist Congress took place in Moscow, where celebrities like Alexan- der Sinovjev, Roger Garaudy, Michael Piper, Oleg Platonov along with David Duke, Jilrgen Graf, Fred Toben, Ahmed Rami, Boris Mironov, Russ Granata, Mikhael Kusnetsov, Rich- ard Krege, Rene-Louis Berelaz, and Christopher Bolyn gave speeches. The publishing team of the Encyclopaedia Russian Civilisation was the organiser, the ensuing discussion was held in the Humanitarian Social Academy. Russian philosophers and sociologists term the Bolshevist seizure of power as the "great- est catastrophe of the occidental culture in the 20th century". (Nikolai Simakov: "The Russian Golgatha is the martyrdom of all Christians. Since 1917, no real Christian monarchs exist in Europe any more, no nobility, no statesmen, they're all but merchants."). St. Petersburg's philosopher Lyubomudrov con- demns the capitalistic globalisation, being a facade of western liberalism and in this context cites Polish-American Zbginiew Brzezinski, the secret eminence of the American world strat- egy: "A good Russia is a Russia which does not exist." This ha- tred of the Russian people is "satanic" says Prof. Ljubomudrov. "Here you '11 find the anti-Russian genocide, which has
been in progress for a long time. "
© June 25, 2002
First published in Vierteljahreshefte fur freie Geschichtsforschung, 6(4) (2002), pp. 394-397. Translated by Fabian Eschen, James M. Damon, Harald Hortig, and Hans Rummel.
372
The Revisionist ■ 2003 ■ Volume 1 ■ No. 4
Hundred Years of War against Germany
By Steffen Werner
In August 1895, a series of articles began in the British weekly The Saturday Review, which called for the annihilation of Germany and whose disastrous greed for German plunder still reverberates to the present day.
With the Second Reich, a German state came into being which was rapidly creating a modern economy which imperiled the economic predominance of Great Britain. Coal and steel were the two indicators by which national economies were measured prior to the First World War. The production of raw materials in Germany grew by 334% in the quarter-century be- fore the First World War, from 4 million to 17.8 million tons, while the figures for Great Britain rose from 7.7 to 9 million, therefore an increase of 17%. During the same period the min- ing of coal in Germany increased from 76.2 to 255.8 million tons (240%) but in Britain only 60%, to 240 million tons. Ger- many's foreign trade was reaching proportions alarming to Great Britain. An investigation by the English Parliament in 1885 noted that the Germans produced more cheaply and their products were geared to the preferences of their buyers. Knowledge of languages, tirelessness and flexibility were con- sidered to be the merits of the German commercial travelers. A trademark law was passed in England as a counter-measure, which prescribed that German products be marked "Made in Germany," yet the British middlemen and consumers neverthe- less still often preferred the German goods, on which account the obligatory mark was modified to "Foreign made."1
That this new development was no accident was discovered by Paul Valery in a British commissioned work from the year 1896, in which the reasons for this new development would be raised to a dogma:2
"One learns that the military victories through which this [German] nation established itself are small when com- pared with the economic triumphs which it has already wrested; already their many markets in the world are more tightly held than the territories which it owes to its army [...] one grasps that Germany has turned to industry and trade as it once did to its military: with level-headedness and resolve. One senses that it is omitting no means. If one wishes to explain this new [...] greatness, then one should call to mind: constant hard work, most precise investigation of the sources of wealth and unrelenting manufacturing of the means for producing it; exact topography of the favor- able sites and most convenient connecting routes; and above all, perfect obedience, a subordination of all motives under a sort of simple, exclusive, powerful thought - which is strategic in form, economic in purpose, scientific in its profound design and its realm of authority. Thus does the totality of the German enterprises have its impact upon us. " The European upper classes saw their indolent life imper- iled by this upswing of the German economy. They were living, according to Max Scheler, in a Paradise:3
"For our Eastern neighbors there was more dreaming, plotting, feeling, praying, and quiet submission to the yoke of fate, but also the drinking of schnapps, strolling romanti-
cally through life, careless and illicit coarse enjoyment [...] For the English, it was easy to buy and sell, according to the old way, accustomed to winning, and in the manner of old grand merchants, proud of the old proven types of goods, without adapting to the needs of customers in the world market [...] it was also, however, to enjoy life in sports, wagering, gaming, country life, traveling, to end the week 's work on Friday evening and to go to the sports sta- dium [...] - but to do all this with a matter-of-fact feeling, grounded in the situation and geography of the island, of having been divinely chosen to be Lord of the Sea [...] not as a member of Europe, but as a power equal to all of Europe, indeed, a power which was a match for the entire world, equal to guiding the nations outside of Europe, of leading them and of being their political arbiter. And the same paradise meant for France: increasing financial wealth with few children, pensions after 20-30 years of work, great colonial empire, time and idle leisure for lux- ury, intellect, outward appearances, adventures full of sen- suality with beautiful women. "
The terror which the German power of achievement set loose in these European upper classes, was captured by Max Scheler in the parable:
"There [...] appeared on their every horizon [...] the image of a new, strange archangel, the face [...] as severe and iron-like as the old one of the myth, but otherwise quite different [...] He bore the stamp of a plain workman, with good, tough fists, he was a man who labored and kept work- ing, on and on, according to the inner testimonial of his own convictions, not in order to outdo or for the sake of some sort of renown, and not for enjoyment apart from or after the work, nor in order to contemplate and admire the beauty of the world in that spare time following work, but quietly and slowly, immersed in his labor, yet with a terror- exciting steadiness, exactitude and punctuality when seen from the outside, and wholly lost within himself and his task, he worked, worked on and kept working - and this the world was least able to grasp - out of pure joy in boundless work in itself - without goal, without purpose, without end. What will become of us, what shall happen to us — felt the nations [...] How shall we exist, faced by these new masses? Shall we change ourselves, seeking to emulate him? No and again no! We cannot obey this new demand! But we do not want it and shall not do it! " In 1895 these upper classes, beginning with Great Britain, formed a War Party against Germany which is still at work to- day and which will be documented by citations from the years 1895 to 1994.
Delendam, Delendam, Delendam!
The Saturday Review of 24 August 1895:4 "OUR TRUE FOREIGN POLICY.
[. . .] As we have before pointed out, the dominant fact of the situation with regard to our foreign policy is the stead-
The Revisionist ■ 2003 ■ Volume 1 ■ No. 4
373
fast enmity of France. We can call this enmity unreasonable or untimely, but its existence is not to be doubted. Some pa- pers, therefore, recommend that England should at once join the Triple Alliance; that Lord Salisbury should promise the German Emperor assistance and support in case of any attack made upon the estates or interests of the Allies in Europe, on condition that the Allies should support England in case of any aggression upon her territories in other parts of the world. For various reasons this policy, although emi- nently safe, does not altogether please us. First of all, we English have always made war hitherto upon our rivals in trade and commerce; and our chief rival in trade and com- merce to-day is not France but Germany. In case of a war with Germany, we should stand to win much and lose noth- ing; whereas, in case of a war with France, no matter what the issue might be, we stand to lose heavily. " The Saturday Review of 1 February 1896:5 "A Biological View of our Foreign Policy by a Biologist.
The record of the past history of life upon the catch has made us familiar with one phase in the drama of evolution. For countless generations a number of species may have been struggling on tolerably equal terms, now one, now the other, securing some little advantage, when suddenly a turn in the kaleidoscope of the world gives one of them an advan- tage of real moment. The lucky species multiplies rapidly; it spreads over the land and the seas, its rivals perishing before it or being driven into the most inhospitable corners; [...]
The great nations of the earth are local varieties, spe- cies in the making. It is not necessary that there should be anatomical distinctions among them; although, indeed, the English, Germans, French, Russians and Americans, Chi- nese and Japanese, have each their distinct groups of aver- age characters. [...]
The world is rapidly approaching the epoch of these last wars, of wars which cannot end in peace with honour, of wars whose spectre cannot be laid by the pale ghost of arbi- tration. The facts are patent. Feeble races are being wiped of the earth, and the few great, incipient species arm them- selves against each other. England, as the greatest of these - greatest in geographical distribution, greatest to expan- sive force, greatest in race-pride - has avoided for centuries the only dangerous kind of war. Now, with the whole earth occupied and the movements of expansion continuing, she will have to fight to the death against successive rivals. [...]
Of European nations, Germany is most alike to England. In racial characters, in religious and scientific thought, in sentiments and aptitudes, the Germans, by their resem- blances to the English, are marked out as our natural ri- vals. In all parts of the earth, in every pursuit, in commerce, in manufacturing, in exploiting other races, the English and the Germans jostle each other. Germany is a growing na- tion; expanding far beyond her territorial limit, she is bound to secure new foothold or to perish in the attempt. [...] Were every German to be wiped out to-morrow, there is no English trade, no English pursuit that would not im- mediately expand. Were every Englishman to be wiped out tomorrow, the Germans would gain in proportion. Here is
the first great racial struggle of the future: here are two growing nations pressing against each other, man to man all over the world. One or the other has to go; one or the other will go. [...]
The biological view of foreign policy is plain. First, fed- erate our colonies and prevent geographical isolation turn- ing the Anglo-Saxon race against itself. Second, be ready to
fight Germany, as Germania est delenda [Germany must be destroyed]; third, be ready to fight America when the time comes. Lastly, engage in no wasting tears against peoples
from whom we have nothing; to fear. " The Saturday Review of 1 1 September 1897:6 'England and Germany
Prince Bismarck has long recognised what at length the people of England are beginning to understand - that in Europe there are two great, irreconcilable, opposing forces, two greet nations who would make the whole world their province, and who would levy from it the tribute of com- merce. England, with her long history of successful aggres- sion, with her marvellous conviction that in pursuing her own interests she is spreading light among nations dwelling in darkness, and Germany, bone of the same bone, blood of the same blood, with a lesser will-force, but, perhaps, with a keener intelligence, compete in every, corner of the globe. In the Transvaal, at the Cape, in Central Africa, in India and the East, in the islands of the Southern sea, and in the fair North-West, wherever - and where has it not ? — the flag has followed the Bible and trade has followed the flag, there the German bagman is struggling with the English pedlar. Is there a mine, to exploit, a railway to build, a na- tive to convert from breadfruit to tinned meat, from temper- ance to trade gin, the German and the Englishman are struggling to be first. A million petty disputes build up the greatest cause of war the world has ever seen. If Germany were extinguished to-morrow, the day after to-morrow there is not an Englishman in the world who would not be the richer. Nations have fought for years over a city or a right of succession; must they not fight for two hundred million pounds of commerce?
[...] Our work over, we need not even be at the pains to alter Bismarck 's words to Ferry, and to saw to France and Russia 'Seek some compensation. Take inside Germany whatever you like: you can have it.' [...] 'Germania esse delendam.' [Germany must be destroyed7] " Secret speech of Winston S. Churchill in March 1936 in the Lower House:8
"For four hundred years the foreign policy of England has been to oppose the strongest, most aggressive, most dominating Power on the Continent [...]. Faced by Philip II of Spain, against Louis XIV under William III and Marlbor- ough, against Napoleon, against William II of Germany, it would have been easy and must have been very tempting to join with the stronger and share the fruits of his conquest. However, we always took the harder course, joined with the less strong Powers, made a combination among them, and thus defeated and frustrated the Continental military tyrant whoever he was, whatever nation he led. Thus we preserved the liberties of Europe [.. .].
374
The Revisionist ■ 2003 ■ Volume I ■ No. 4
Observe that the policy of England takes no account of which nation it is that seeks the overlordship of Europe. The question is not whether it is Spain, or the French Monarchy, or the French Empire, or the German Empire, or the Hitler regime. It has nothing to do with rulers or nations; it is concerned solely with whoever is the strongest or the poten- tially dominating tyrant. Therefore, we should not be afraid of being accused of being pro-French or anti-German. If the circumstances were reversed, we could equally be pro- German and anti-French. It is a law of public policy which we are following, and not a mere expedient dictated by ac- cidental circumstances, or likes and dislikes, or any other sentiment.
The question, therefore, arises which is today the Power in Europe which is the strongest, and which seeks in a dan- gerous and oppressive sense to dominate. Today, for this year, probably for part of 1937, the French Army is the strongest in Europe. But no one is afraid of France. Every- one knows that France wants to be let alone, and that with her it is only a case of self-preservation. Everyone knows that the French are peaceful and overhung by fear. [...]
Germany, on the other hand, fears no one. She is arming in a manner which has never been seen in German history. She is led by a handful of triumphant desperadoes. The money is running short, discontents are arising beneath these despotic rulers. Very soon they will have to choose, on the one hand, between economic and financial collapse or internal upheaval, and on the other, a war which could have no other object, and which, if successful, can have no other result, than a Germanised Europe under Nazi control. Therefore, it seems to me that all the old conditions present themselves again, and that our national salvation depends upon our gathering once again all the forces of Europe to contain, to restrain, and if necessary to frustrate, German domination. For, believe me, if any of those other Powers, Spain, Louis XIV, Napoleon, Kaiser Wilhelm II, had with our aid become the absolute masters of Europe, they could have despoiled us, reduced us to insignificance and penury on the morrow of their victory. "
Report of Carl J. Burkhardt of a conversation on 1 5 August 1938 with the Polish foreign minister Beck:9
"The Poles are waiting in apparent calm. Beck, during our nocturnal journey, made me privy to his plans to some extent. Furthermore, he is playing his double-game. It is no German game, as many French and the Polish opposition believe. It is a game in which the greatest profit is hoped for Poland, a profit which is supposed to come out of a final and unavoidable German catastrophe. For this reason, the Germans are being encouraged in their wrong actions, and in Danzig they are enjoying letting the extremists triumph while at the same time they repeatedly stress adherence to the outer form of the treaties. One day there will be a reck- oning, interest and compound interest will be demanded. Already now, by collaborating in this way with the National Socialists, they have succeeded in creating a solidarity of aversion toward any revision of the treaties in the whole West, in France, England and America. [...] That was en- tirely different in 1932. At that time Western opinion in the
great democracies for the most part supported the German minorities. People got excited over badly drawn borders, over isolated provinces. Thanks to the excessive methods of Nazism, all of that has ended, and now in Warsaw they are hoping not only for the unconditional integration of Danzig into the Polish state territory, but for much more, for all of East Prussia, for Silesia, even for Pomerania. In the year 1933 they still spoke in Warsaw of Polish Pomerania, but now they say 'our Pomerania. ' Beck makes a purely Polish policy, ultimately an anti-German policy, a policy of only a seeming Polish-German detente, since the occupation of the Rhineland and the French passivity at the occasion of this event. But they are making efforts to encourage the Ger- mans quite methodically in their errors. " Note of Eduard Benesch of August 23/24, 1939, in Lon- don:10
"It was a properly tough tactic, to drive Hitler to war. " Report of Friedrich Grimm concerning a visit in May 1945:11
"In May 1945, a few days after the collapse, I had a memorable discussion with an important representative of the opposing side. He introduced himself to me as a univer- sity professor of his nation who wished to talk with me about the historical foundations of the war. It was a conver- sation on an elevated level that we were having. Suddenly, he broke off and pointed to the leaflets which were lying on the table in front of me, with which we were flooded in the first days after the surrender and which were mainly con- cerned with the concentration camp atrocities. 'What do you say to that? ' he asked me. I replied: 'Oradour and Buchenwald? You 're beating a dead horse with me. I am an attorney and condemn injustice wherever I meet it, but most of all when it occurs on our side. Nonetheless, I know how to make a distinction between facts and the political usage made of them. I know what atrocity propaganda is. After the First World War, I read all publications of your experts concerning these questions, the writings of the Northcliff bureau, the book From War to Peace ' of the French fi- nance minister Klotz, in which he describes how the fairy tales about the hacked-off children 's hands were invented, and what use was made of them, the enlightening writings of the magazine Crapouillot, which compares the atrocity propaganda of 1870 with that of 1914/1918, and finally the classic book by Ponsonby: Falsehood in Wartime. ' In it, it is revealed that in the previous war they already had maga- zines in which artificial mountains of corpses were ar- ranged by means of a photo montage with dolls. These pic- tures were distributed. In doing so, the captions were left blank. They were later inserted telephonically by propa- ganda headquarters according to need. ' My visitor ex- ploded: T see I've come across an expert. Now I also want to say who I am. I am no university professor. I am from the headquarters of which you have spoken. For months I have been conducting what you have correctly described: atroc- ity propaganda - and with it we have won the total victory. ' I replied: T know and now you must stop! ' He responded: No, now we are just properly beginning! We will continue this atrocity propaganda, we will increase it until no one
The Revisionist ■ 2003 ■ Volume 1 ■ No. 4
375
will have a good word to say about the Germans any longer, until any of the sympathy you have had in other countries will have been destroyed, and until the Germans themselves will have fallen into such confusion that they no longer know what they are doing! ' I ended the conversa- tion: 'Then you will be taking a great responsibility upon yourself.
The British magazine Sunday Correspondent on September 17, 1989, for the fiftieth anniversary of the start of the Second World War and of the reunification marking it:12
"We must now be honest about the German question, as uncomfortable as it may be for the Germans, for our inter- national partners and even ourselves [...] The question re- mains, in essence, the same. Not how do we prevent Ger- man tanks from rolling over the Oder or the Marne, but how Europe will deal with a people whose number, talent, and efficiency is allowing it to become our regional super- power. We did not enter the war in 1939 in order to save Germany from Hitler or the Jews from Auschwitz or the Continent from Fascism. As in 1914, we entered the war for the no less noble reason that we were not able to accept a German predominance in Europe. "
Lech Walesa in an interview with the Dutch newspaper El- sevier of April 7, 1990:13
"I do not shrink even from making a declaration which makes me unpopular in Germany. If the Germans destabi- lize Europe anew in one way or another, one should no longer resort to a division, but rather simply eradicate the nation from the map. The East and the West possess the necessary advanced technologies to carry out this sen- tence. "
Henry Kissinger in the Welt am Sonntag of November 13, 1994:
"President Clinton 's idea of the USA and Germany as Partners in Leadership was not exactly very wise [...] Actu- ally, this notion drives everyone to the barricades, for in the final analysis two world wars were waged in order to pre- vent just that, a dominant role of Germany. " The citations imply that all the wars, revolutions, persecu- tions and expulsions of the 20th century were matter-of-factly initiated by rationally planning nations or were tolerated, for the sake of power and money. In view of the apocalyptic terror and horror resulting from these undertakings, a clear analysis appears more practical than moral accusations.
For the British upper class - and their international partners - war is an entirely normal activity. The British pragmatically ask: How did our forebears hold it? What was their advantage? Did they not, for four hundred years, wage war against their main rival or the strongest continental power? One weighs, like a merchant: is it advantageous to wage war against France, can Austria hurt us? What will war against Germany bring us? 250 million pounds = 5 million marks per year? The security of our predominance? Must we fight against the USA later?
The thought of whether a war is morally defensible does not even occur! For it is, in any case, "tough" to drive someone to war. For war becomes a game, a double-game. For one places snares by quite methodically encouraging the opponent in his errors. In this 'game,' the 'greatest profit' entices. "Take inside
Germany whatever you like": that's how one buys allies; for oneself, one takes money. Is it not better that the other, the en- emy, totally disappears? Does he not destabilize the situation, imperil the loot, if he has recovered? Is it not better to extermi- nate the Germans at once? Is it not smarter to eradicate Ger- many from the map? Germania esse delendam! One has the ad- vanced technologies - by which the neutron bomb is probably meant: the Germans would be dead and the loot intact.
For there is no honorable peace permitted. For the atrocity propaganda is to be continued and increased until no one will any longer have a good word to say about the enemy. The en- emy becomes Evil in himself. The objection of Friedrich Grimm, which generally applies to such actions: "Then they will take a great responsibility upon themselves" - fails here. Responsibility toward the enemy does not exist and guilt not at all. Guilt, in this system, is merely a question of power. God isn't needed here, there is no God permitted! "Thou shalt not kill" devolved into meaningless chatter. Man puts himself in God's place.
The sponsors embracing such ideas are: a high British poli- tician, Navy Minister of the First World War and Prime Minis- ter of the Second World War; a former Czech state President; a Polish foreign minister of the year 1938; a Polish President of 1990; and a former American Secretary of State.
The continuity with which these ideas are pursued from 1895 to 1994 is alarming, and the matter-of-fact attitude with which not only the ideas, but also their acceptance, are still pre- sumed in 1989 by a probably broad public of a British weekly paper. Baffled, with Kissinger, that here it is no longer prevent- ing a German predominance, which is discussed, since even the thought of a Germany as partner of the USA is pronounced dangerous.
Winston Churchill and Thomas More
What is the intellectual-historical background of the conti- nuity of British policy? The model can be found in Utopia by Thomas More. Utopia, misread as social design, is a state with an aristocracy of priests, in which the priests are subject to no public court but only to god and their conscience. The system of government of the Utopians encompasses, in addition to the much-cited social model, a model for world rulership as well. Through the over-valuation of the "Utopian" social model, the significance of More's ideas for the British power policy has been misapprehended - and, at least in this century, forgotten.14
Machiavelli had the Prince rule over his people and main- tain himself against his neighbors. The Utopians, however, have mastery over the world. They decide worldwide over what is just and unjust, so, if "their friend's merchants in any part of the world have been unjustly accused under some pretext of justice, either by using unjust laws speciously or by interpreting good laws perversely." The Utopians are the ruling economic power of their world.15 They hoard and pile up money, for money is the source of their power, the breaking off of trade re- lations one of their preferred weapons. In case of war, they buy soldiers and traitors with money, or sow discord between their foes, without any kind of moral restriction: "So easy it is to get someone to commit any crime whatsoever by means of bribe." Thanks to their wealth, most nations are in debt to them.16
376
The Revisionist ■ 2003 ■ Volume 1 ■ No. 4
Along with Churchill, one can find in Utopia the foundations for a credo of Liberalism.17
Utopia, which appeared exactly 379 years before the first Saturday Review article, seems to have served British policy as a handbook. Even when it was published it was understood to be a political roman a clef: "In truth, the Utopian flag marks British goods."18 Set pieces from Utopia, which seem very fa- miliar to the Germans, have left their imprint upon classical British policy: "[...] they stir up neighboring people and set them against their enemy by digging up ancient claims such as is never lacking to kings."19 The mercilessness in conduct of war can also be found there. "Certainly, whether the cause was just or unjust, it was avenged by a hideous war, in which the surrounding nations also added their energy and resources to the hostile forces of the major opponents so that some prosper- ous peoples were ravaged, others were badly shaken."20 Also from More came the advice of having others fight for one, for in addition to mercenaries "they use the forces of those for whom they have taken up arms, and after that the auxiliary troops of their friendly nations. As a last resort do they add their own citizens."21 (There are still numerous other references here to British policy, to deal with which would lead us too far afield.)
When Winston Churchill, in his secret speech of 1936 - 420 years after More had written the first part of his Utopia - ad- duced, as a four-hundred-year British policy, the struggle against the ruling tyrant, and then went on to claim: "thus we preserved the liberty of Europe," he was arguing in the tradition of the Utopians:22
"Therefore, [...] they are reluctant to go to war and
also only [...] out of compassion and humanity, they use
their force to liberate oppressed people from tyranny and
servitude. "
Charles VIII of France was viewed as an actual tyrant by More. In Utopia, More discusses his concrete situation in a fic- tional discussion between Charles VIII and his counselors.23 With the pretense of disgust, the Utopian techniques are illus- trated here of inflaming others toward the actual enemy by means of money and plunder. In 1511 England entered the Holy League, by which the beginning of this four-hundred- year-old British war policy invoked by Churchill was probably made.
Common Sense...
The Saturday Review articles appeared anonymously be- tween 1895 and 1897. But what sort of magazine was this? The German Brockhaus encyclopedia of 1908 mentions it as "impe- rialist 'magazine' published since 1855 with witty reviews of Engl., Fr. and German literature"24 In accordance with its im- portance, it is found in many German libraries, and the annual series from 1855 are partially extant. There is not much that can be said about the readers, but they must surely have come from the educated upper class. A judgment concerning the contribu- tors, among whom can be found many illustrious British names, is more easily made. Many of them published several times, a portion of them on a regular basis.
Many of the articles appear anonymously, which gives an even greater weight to the list of names, since it seems to have
been customary in England for high-ranking and wealthy per- sons to have others write for them.25 But in the period between 24 August 1 895 and 1 1 September 1 897, in which this series of articles appeared, there are renowned British names: G. Ber- nard Shaw,26 H. G. Wells,27 Winston S. Churchill,28 W. B. Yeats,29 Conan Doyle,30 Henry M. Stanley,31 Rudyard Kip- ling,32 and Algernon Charles Swinburne.33 Four of those named received Nobel prizes and one was very influential in the First World War and was the key figure in British politics in the Second World War.
The reputation of many other contributors is so significant that they are still named even 70 years later in one other Ger- man encyclopedia,34 from which also the information about the authors was taken: Sir Max Beerbohm,35 English writer and caricaturist from the circle around Wilde and Beardsley; John Bagnell Bury,36 classical philologist and historian, professor at Cambridge and one of the most important scholars in the field of late ancient and Byzantine history, editor of E. Gibbons' History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire; Stephen Crane,37 American writer, a friend of J. Conrad, H. James and H. G. Wells; John Davidson,38 Scottish poet and dramatist; Charles Wentworth Dilke,39 editor of the periodical Athenaeum as well as Member of the Lower House 1868-86 and 1892- 1911, in the Foreign Office under Gladstone 1880-82 (Bit.-Fr. Trade Agreement of 1882), publicist and representative of a liberal imperialism; Edward Dowden,40 British historian of lit- erature, professor in Dublin; Richard Garnett,41 English writer and Librarian at the British Museum; Frank Harris,42 American writer of Anglo-American descent and owner of The Saturday Review, who appointed G. B. Shaw as theater critic; William Henry Hudson,43 English writer, whose books are distinguished by the exactitude of their descriptions of Nature; Sir Oliver Lodge,44 British physicist, professor at Liverpool and first President of the University in Birmingham; Margaret Mac- donald,45 British proponent of arts and crafts, formed the Glas- gow School in Birmingham with her sister and her husband, Ch. R. Mackintosh; Frederic William Henry Myers,46 English writer, co-founder of the Society of Psychical Research; Coven- try Patmore,47 English poet; Sir Will(iam) Rothenstein,48 Brit- ish painter and graphic artist, influenced by Degas and Whis- tler, official painter of the war for the British and Canadian army in the First and Second World War; Arthur Symons,49 English lyric poet and critic, most zealous advocate of Symbol- ism in England; Silvanus Phillips Thompson,50 British physi- cist, Professor at Finsbury, made contributions to the history of Natural Science; Alfred Russel Wallace,51 British zoologist and explorer; the impressions obtained from his journeys suggested to him the idea of natural selection by means of selection in the struggle for existence. Darwin intentionally beat him to publi- cation and created with Bates the theory of mimicry; Sir Wil- liam Watson,52 English lyric poet, honored several times, yet not named "Poet Laureate," because he was an opponent of the policy of empire, from which an opposition to the above ideas may be deduced. The contributors were for the most part re- cruited from the wealthy educated middle class. I have scarcely found any well-known military figures, apart from two names: General Neville Chamberlain,53 an old veteran of 70 from In- dia, who does not appear in the above lexicon; in any case, he is
The Revisionist ■ 2003 ■ Volume 1 ■ No. 4
377
probably distantly related to the political Chamberlain family, and Admiral Colomb,54 the inventor of the Colomb signal appa- ratus.
Not one of these authors and not any of the readers objected to the proposals in The Saturday Review for the destruction of Germany or dismissed them as insane ideas, not even after these ideas were repeatedly put forward. The global lay-out of the idea of destruction with the biological and historical re- course to Darwin's Theory of Evolution, the analogy of Rome = Great Britain and Carthage = Germany, and the reference to Cato with his inflammatory speech for war: "Ceterum censeo Carthiginem esse defendant" reveals the wire-pullers. Thus it was only consistent when further articles and letters to the edi- tor were anchored upon the notion of destruction. The compari- son of the British and the Roman Empire surfaced in a clear al- lusion to an appeal to destroy Germany in other texts in The Saturday Review in 1896. J.B. Bury55 analyzed the causes of the fall of Rome through the invasion of the Germans, in which he ascertained that Rome fell, not because of a moral decline, but rather because it did not possess at least a small class with a pronounced will to power. But Great Britain - according to Bury - possessed this class! In an anonymous letter to the edi- tor of a "GREATER ENGLANDER"56 responding to the article by Bury, a superior fleet was promoted as the basis for the Brit- ish world empire.
The growth of Germany's economic power was suspi- ciously observed. Above all, the increase in the German iron and steel exports was followed objectively in editorial articles57 or excitedly in an anonymous letter to the editor from a "Per- plexed."58 But beyond this, a monster-image of Germany was also constructed. In order to prepare the path for replacing France with Germany as the arch-enemy, the English reader learned how unpopular the German and how well-liked the Frenchman was in England of those days, a fact that an Eng- lishman who lived in England would not, however, have needed to learn from the newspapers. As another example, the war between Denmark and the German confederation in 1 864 was falsified into in attack of Prussia against Denmark.59 As one of the few strategically placed exculpatory articles, one can possibly name an essay on Martin Luther, which refers to the fact that Luther makes the individual obligated to God before anything else.60
...and its Antipode
Only George Bernard Shaw vehemently objected in the most manifold ways by word and deed to these ideas from 1898, although at first in a veiled manner, to the extent that he has become the chief witness for the prosecution against Great Britain. But in Germany the connection between Shaw's pro- tests and the battle cry "Germania esse delendam" was not rec- ognized.
Shaw's historical drama Caesar and Cleopatra, which ap- peared in 1898, is a unique answer to the insane ideas of the British middle class of The Saturday Review. The argument runs through the prologue, the drama and notes. In the play, Rome - analogous to Great Britain - stands at a crossroads. Shaw juxtaposes to the image of the old, power-hungry Rome which, like Pompey, claimed to "being himself a god",61 the
other, new Rome of Caesar. By breaking with the old Rome, Caesar leads it to greatness and endurance.
Shaw glorifies Caesar as a duty-bound, kind and wise statesman. Thus, as if Shaw had had a presentiment of the Mos- cow show-trials, he has Caesar throw into the sea incriminating letters which his secretary Britannus (!), a repugnant character, proudly presented him because by using them Caesar would have power over his enemies. Caesar to Britannus:62
"Would you have me to waste the next three years of my life in proscribing and condemning men who will he my friends when I proved that my friendship is worth more than Pompey 's - than Cato 's. [who at this time had been dead for 100 years and whose slogan "Cathago esse delendam" was annulled by Caesar] O incorrigible British Islander: am I a bull dog, to seek squarrels merely to shew show how stubborn my jaws are? "
In another scene, in desperate straights, in the spirit of old Rome inevitably at the start of a chain of murders, Caesar op- poses this path and prophetically warns:63
"And so, to the end of history, murder shall breed mur- der, always in the name of right and honor and peace, until the gods are tired of blood and create a race than can un- derstand. "
Instead of the statesman for Great Britain whom Shaw por- trayed in his writing, Shaw found only Sir Edward Grey, "an unscrupulous imposter and fool, and worse [...] than Caesar Borgia",64 and so twenty years later, he was no longer thinking of the welfare of Great Britain and the world, but only of that of his own soul. In Heartbreak House, which was written between the years 1913 and 1919, in imitation of Chekhov, he creates a portrait of the idle European society to which Scheler also makes reference. For Shaw, the attitude toward life of this class is typical for all nations of Europe:65
"The same nice people, the same extreme superficiality [...] they hated politics, they did not want the land of Utopia realized for the common man. They wanted their pet fanta- sies and favorite verses realized in their own lives, and if they were able to manage it, they lived lightheartedly from an income which they did nothing to earn! " In Heartbreak House, an old seaman and a young girl - who, it seems to me, embody the young and the aging Shaw - encounter each other. The old man, paraphrasing Matthew 16:26, warns the young girl that she should be careful:66
"It is clever to win the whole world and thereby lose your soul. But do not forget that your soul does not aban- don you if you hold it firmly; only the world has its way of melting away in your hands. "
So much for the writer and his work. We will be returning yet to the politician and his words.
The Tough Kernel
The authors of the three anonymous articles quoted in the beginning are partly known. Concerning the author of the first article of August 24, 1895: "The Proper Foreign Policy for Us English," Hans Grimm, who in 1895 was in Great Britain as a young businessman, learned this about his host:67
"And it happened by chance that my boss, who himself
belonged to the English Conservative Party, had been un-
378
The Revisionist ■ 2003 ■ Volume I ■ No. 4
expectedly informed that that essay of August 24, 1895, on English foreign policy had originated from a quite definite faction in the English Foreign Office, directed by the half- German, Sir Eyre Crowe. "
Behind the biologist, the author of the article of February 1, 1896: "A Biological Perspective on our English Foreign Policy by a Biologist," is concealed Sir P. Chalmers Mitchell, Profes- sor of Astronomy and Biology at Oxford, as Hans Grimm like- wise discovered.68 According to Grimm, Mitchell was a Cap- tain in the British General Staff from 1916 to 1919 and had connections to Crowe.
Information about the group around Crowe is given in a di- ary note of October 12, 1918, of First Lieutenant C. Repinton, in which he writes that Crowe, Mallet, and Tyrell will be going as negotiators from the Foreign Office to the planned peace conference. Moreover, he maintains:69
"They joined the F.O. between 1885 and 1893, and,
with Carnock and Bertie, were the head and front of the
anti-German party all along, vexed at our surrenders to
Germany and persuaded that Germany
planed our ruin. Between them they made
the German peril the central feature of
our foreign policy. "
There is still one more to be counted as belonging to this circle of the F.O., whose significance for the outbreak of the First World War can hardly be overestimated: Sir Edward Grey.
In 1 892, Edward Grey became parliamen- tary Under-Secretary under Lord Rosebery, who took over the Foreign Office. In 1895 Rosebery is voted out and Grey loses his of- fice. Grey writes that these years were "very important" for his life.70
To these experiences clearly belongs also the world-view that England must oppose Germany and turn to France. In his memoirs, couched in a very vague diplomatic language, we read:71
"In light of after-events, the whole policy of these years from 1896 to 1904 may be criticized as having played into the hands of Germany. "
Concrete criticism is expressed by Grey in this manner:72
"We relied on German support i and we received it; but we never could be sure when some price for that support might not be extracted. "
The England of Grey wanted to remain the sole master of the world and not share the power with anyone, most certainly not Germany. This is the basic thought, which runs through Grey's memoirs, and his joy when the British policy of 1904 draws closer to France expresses itself effusively in comparison with his otherwise dry text:73
"The real cause for satisfaction was that the exasperat- ing friction with France was to end, and that the menace of war with France had disappeared. The gloomy clouds were gone, the sky was clear, and the sun shone warmly. Ill-will, dislike, hate, whether the object of them be a person or a nation, are a perpetual discomfort; they come between us
Sir Eyre A. July 30, 1864
and all that is beautiful and happy; they put out the sun. If the object be a nation with whom our interests are in con- tact, they poison the atmosphere of international affairs. This had been so between Great Britain and France. [...] That was all to be changed; it was to become positively pleasant, where we had seen before only what was repel- lant; to understand and to be understood where before there had been misrepresentation and misconstruction; to have friends instead of enemies - this, when it happens, is one of the great pleasures of life. "
Of course, the price for this was "perpetual discomfort," "poison," "misrepresentation," and "misconstruction" in the re- lationship to Germany, but that did apparently not let anything come between Grey and "all that is beautiful and happy." In Grey's eyes, France was no longer a match for England, whereas Germany was about to outperform England economi- cally. In 1905, Grey took over the Foreign Office and subse- quently surrounded himself with the gentlemen from the anti- German circle of the Foreign Office. Crowe, Mallet, Tyrell, and Bertie all reached key positions and collabo- rated closely with Grey. Carnock is the only one about whom I did not find anything. Ber- tie had already previously been ambassador in Paris and in future formed one of the pil- lars of the new British policy.74 According to Margaret Bovari, the ambassadors of the most important European nations were ex- changed under Grey, but the Parisian em- bassy, with Sir F. Bertie, remained un- changed, and "it emerges from the private letters between him and Grey that close rela- tions and an excellent accord must have pre- vailed between the two men." From 1905 to 1906, Louis Mallet was Private Secretary to Grey, and from 1906 to 1907, he was Senior Clerk in the Foreign Office. From 1907- 1913, he was Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and diplomat in Constantin- ople between 1913 and 1914. Margaret Boveri sees the influence of Mallet upon Grey as having been "considerable" and numbers him "amongst the most zealous advocates of English-Russian friendship. Still more pronounced with him than this tendency is the anti-German attitude." Wil- liam Tyrell was Senior Clerk in the Foreign Office from 1907 to 1918 and from 1907 to 1915 he was Private Secretary to Edward Grey.75
In his memoirs, Grey especially emphasized Tyrell and writes in reference to him:76
"The public little or no means of knowing how much it owes in public service to special gifts and qualities in indi- vidual civil servants in high positions in thr Department of State. In each case, where such qualities exist, a man ren- ders service peculiarly his own, besides taking an able part in the conduct of business in the Department. [...]/ had the occasion, in office to know the great value of Tyrell 's public service; but the thing that is prize is our friendship, that be- gan in the Foreign Office, and has continued uninterrupted and intimate after official ties ceased. "
B.W. Crowe : f April 28, 1925
The Revisionist ■ 2003 ■ Volume 1 ■ No. 4
379
Eyre Crowe finally became Senior Clerk in the Foreign Of- fice in 1906 and was Assistant Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs from 1912 to 1920. 77 His role in the British pol- icy toward Germany cannot be overestimated. For Hermann Lutz, expert in the investigatory committee of the Reichstag for the war-guilt question, Eyre Crowe is "the Evil Spirit of the Foreign Office.",78 and Margaret Boveri confirms this:79
"Although we [...] must assess his direct influence upon the daily decisions in the Foreign Office as small [because of his relatively low position; due to his German mother he presumably climbed only slowly], his fixed stance was however surely of enormous effect upon the shaping of the atmosphere which prevailed in the Western Department and from which policy was made. "
It should be briefly remarked - this will be developed later - that from a subordinate position, as expert on Germany, Crowe decisively influenced official policy several times. Ed- ward Grey himself gives Crowe prominent mention in his
80
memoirs:
"It has been a great satisfaction since I left office to see great knowledge, ability and unsurpassed devotion to the public service recognized in the promotion of Sir Eyre Crowe to be head of the Foreign Of- fice. "
And he added as a footnote:
"Since these words were written the public service of the country has suffered an irreparable loss in the death of Sir Eyre Crowe. "
Under Grey, the anti-German circles which were behind the Saturday Review arti- cle of 1895, thereby ascended to key posi- tions.
Grey knew portions of the pattern of thinking there and approved indirectly. Thus, Grey recorded a conversation of 28 April 1908 with Clemenceau and considered it to be so important that he included it as one of the few documents in his memoirs. There we read:81
"M. Clemenceau had some conversation with me at the Foreign Office this morning.
He dwelt with great emphasis upon the certainty that we should have to intervene on the continent of Europe against any power which attained a position of domination there, just as we had had to do in the time of Napoleon.
He said we ought to be prepared for this. [...] He felt this to be most important. The fate of Napoleon had been decided not at Trafalgar but at Waterloo. And so it would have to be again, in the case of any Power which attempted to dominate the continent. "
Clemenceau is consciously making use of those modes of thought from the Saturday Review articles in order to drive England into war against Germany, and Grey responds in such a way that not only are these modes of thought familiar to him, but he is also influenced by them. This is also shown by a quo- tation from Grey, which is found in Margaret Boveri:82
Sir Edward Grey April 25, 1862; f Sept. 7, 1933
"The Germans are not clear about the fact that England always has gotten into opposition to or has intentionally proceeded against any power which establishes a hegemony in Europe. "
By his conduct, Grey deceived many Germans about his anti-German attitude, and not only diplomats but also scientists, to the extent that caused Hans Rothfels to derisively refer to the remark of a Prussian artillery lieutenant concerning Napoleon:83 "A kindhearted fellow, but stupid, stupid. " As a contributor to The Saturday Review in the years from 1895 to 1897, GB. Shaw was of course familiar with the anti- German development and surely knew the authors of the arti- cles agitating against Germany. He tried to warn the German ambassador Lichnowsky in London about Grey and his policy. He laid out a proposal to Lichnowsky. Shaw:84
"He rejected it without reflecting for a moment. It was inappropriate [he said], because Sir Edward Grey was one of the greatest living statesmen, moreover the most sincere friend of Germany. I could [...] not raise my hands to heaven and, with Huss, cry out: Sancta simplicitas [holy simpleton]/ Besides, it was of course Lichnowsky, not I, who was going to the stake. [...] It was not my task to enlighten the Duke about the fact that he was walking straight into a trap. " A trap so thorough in construction that Shaw writes concerning the British wirepull- ers on the occasion of the outbreak of the First World War:85
"They felt in this important hour, as though England was lost if but a single traitor in their midst let out into the world a tiny kernel of truth about anything. " From 1905 onward, the Foreign Office begins systematically to construct a front with Russia and France against Germany. This development is proven on the basis of the public documents from the German side after the lost war. Crowe, but not only he, worked systematically against Germany through numerous papers, but above all through his memoran- dum of January 1, 1907, 86 in which he claimed that Germany was striving for world rule and wanted to secretly attack Eng- land. In a counter-expert opinion, Sanderson, Permanent Un- der-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs from 1894 to 1906, dismissed the worst distortions in Crowe's memorandum. Grey passed the paper on only to his like-minded comrades; other- wise it went nowhere.87
It would lead us too far afield to present all the lies, distor- tions, misrepresentations and ploys with which Grey, Crowe, and Company prepared the way for a war against Germany. They have been thoroughly explored to the last detail in many investigations in Germany.88
GB. Shaw has reduced the First World War to this nullity:
"The present destruction of the German military power is [...] a completely regular operation of British foreign policy, which was executed according to plan with all the resolve, patience, cunning and power which we in England
380
The Revisionist ■ 2003 ■ Volume 1 • No. 4
are accustomed to use, and with overwhelming success. But likewise also, however, with the amazing English talent of veiling from oneself what one is doing. The Englishman never knows what the 'Foreign Office' is up to; [...] An in- stinct tells him that it is better for him [...] not to know. " The whole text is rife with such quotations and others, which describe the techniques and partly the motive of British imperialism. Concerning the key role of Grey and his methods, one more citation:
"Grey was not ruined over his mistakes; rather, for him the fact became fatal that the necessity of feeding the British public a children 's fairy-tale about the nature and causes of the war made it impossible for him to highlight his triumph; for this was of a kind which he himself had described as machiavellian. "
There is also a solid fact, which proves that Shaw knew ex- actly what he was talking about, that he knew the fundamental ideas of Grey. In 1912, he made a public proposal for how the peace could be kept; that is what he had also laid out to Lich-
nowsky:89
"In order to avoid war, England would have to strengthen its army as guardian over the balance of powers and officially and unambiguously declare that in the event of a German attack on France, it will throw its sword onto the scales in favor of the latter. But on the other hand, it would have to give its assurance that it will defend Ger- many in the event the latter is attacked by Russia or France or by both. "
According to all that is known today, the First World War of 1914 would not have happened. Germany would have been able to calmly put up with the parade from Russia toward its borders!
The Enemy as Criminal
War as Armageddon, where the opponent is no longer only the opponent and, ultimately, the defeated party, but is, rather, absolute Evil, had already been prognosticated by the Saturday Review on February 1, 1896. After the Second World War this path was then consistently trodden by means of war crimes tri- als and more. That these trials were directed against Germany as such is shown by the Charter of the United Nations, which withholds human rights and the right to self-determination from Germany. Since the Charter is also directed against Japan, which is, however, not charged with 'unique' crimes, the true background becomes obvious: it was directed against the two great non- Western economic powers and therefore was about safeguarding the most sacred treasure of the West: the key to power and material wealth.
War crimes trials were already demanded by the victors at the end of the First World War. The behavior of Eyre Crowe al- lows us to presume that he was the political initiator of this de- mand, unusual in modern European history. Lutz writes:90
"It is typical that the statements of the German delega- tion in Paris regarding the extradition of the German 'war criminals ' made a certain impression upon all, apart from the representative of England, Sir Eyre Crowe, who con- ducted himself in a completely negative way and was almost offensive. "
Winston S. Churchill, who was connected to these circles and their activities not only through his collaboration at The Saturday Review, subsequently promote the continuation of this British policy; he also had an affectionate relationship with Grey, about which Wilfrid Scrawen Blunt reports in his diaries: "Winston nevertheless wants nothing to be said about Grey other than that he is a shining example of an English- man, the best of his type, and they are obviously good friends; in fact, Grey is the godfather of Winston 's son. " His role as Navy minister is well-known, in which he brought about an assemblage of the British Mediterranean fleet by an order of July 30, 1914, that is, before the outbreak of the war, which, in case of in a war between Germany and France, would have pulled England into the war under any circum- stances, even without a marching through Belgium of German troops.91
"Quite a few things seem to have been handed down here due to the brisk-and-lively manner in which Churchill wanted to see foreign policy conducted," according to Margaret Boveri, who also cites a letter from Mallet to Grey, which warns against indiscretions which "will slip out of Churchill during maneuvers."92 To this character weakness of Churchill we pre- sumably owe knowledge of the secret speech of March 1936, which was cited above. The text of the speech was passed on in April 1936 to the German embassy in London.93 After the Sec- ond World War, Churchill published the speech in The Second World War - The Gathering Storm in the Boston edition of 1948. Presumably there was some intervention, since in the London edition of 1948 and naturally, of course, in the German edition, it is missing!
Here Churchill declares:
"For, believe me, if any of these other powers, like Spain, Louis XIV, Kaiser Wilhelm, had become absolute ruler of Europe through our assistance, then they would have robbed us and on the morning after their victory have condemned us to insignificance and poverty. " Here it is once again, the void which is the gist of it all: power and money - the rest is window-dressing! Neither the vic- tory over Spain, nor that over Louis XIV or Napoleon, which of course also belongs in this roll call, led to the triumph of democ- racy in these nations! How things went for the people in these systems was a matter of total indifference to the powerful in Great Britain - and democracy, which was allegedly so important according to Western propaganda, was not only withheld from the French and the Spanish, but also from their own subjects.3
For had the struggle really been waged against the tyrant and for democracy, then British policy would have had to ve- hemently and energetically oppose the Soviet Union, be it only by means of continuous massive support of the Whites against the Reds. In the 20th century, morality was discovered as a weapon and directed against Germany. By labeling the enemy a criminal, one justifies any crime against him! By raising his crimes to the status of 'uniqueness,' one relativizes and trivial- izes any other crime into insignificance!
False Parallels
As is well known, Rome and Carthage fought three wars, Great Britain and Germany, so far, only two! Since Germany
The Revisionist ■ 2003 ■ Volume 1 ■ No. 4
381
I
SINISTER AIMS OF COMMUNISM
SIR H. SHAWCROSS ON WESTERN UNION
Sir Hartley Shawcross, the Attorney- General, speaking at Stourbridge last night, said that recent tragic events in Czechoslovakia had brought a new sense of urgency to the movement for western union,
I do not mean only the suicide of Jan Masaryk, he - added, 1 was thinking rather of the attempted murder of democracy in Czechoslovakia. Overnight, without any election to indicate the people's will, the Com- munists have secured dominating jjowct, not through the ballot box, not through Parlia- ment, but through threats of force and fear.
And so the iron curtain is moved farther westwards. The lights of freedom go out : darkness and terror spread across the land The peoples of western Europe ask themselves whose turn it will be next.
1 do not greatly fear Communism in this island of ours, this fortress of freedom and democracy. But I do fear the danger that on the Continent of Europe one by one the demo- cratic countries may have their economic systems so sabotaged, their industrial and trade union organizations so infiltrated their politics so demoralized by Communist in- trigues that the Parliamentary systems of government will break down.
SAME NAZI TECHNIQUE
Believe me, three years ago, two years ago I was violently pro- Russia n— on the extreme left of my party. 1 still feel that it is of the utmost importance to secure cooperation with Russia involving a mutual respect for each other's rights, but in these last years I have seen what has been going on. Step by step 1 have- been forced more and more to the conclusion that the aims of Communism in Europe are sinister and deadly aims.
I prosecuted the Nazis at Nuremberg. With my Russian colleagues 1 condemned Nazi aggression and Nazi tenor. I feel shame and humiliation now to sec under a different name the same aims pursued, the same technic! 110 followed without check.
My belief it that two things only can secure peace in the world and economic and political stability in Europe: the dose cooperation and powerful influence of the British Com- monwealth of Nations, that great free associa- tion of free peoples ; and the organization of western union, that grand conception of close economic and political collaboration which Mr Bevin sponsored in his remarkable speech iri January. . . . The time to defend our demo- cracy and freedom Is now by building up our own economic stability, by contributing all we can to the stability of western Europe-
has been reunified and Communism has collapsed, as a result of which German assistance against the Soviet Union is no longer needed, this Car- thage Syndrome surfaced again. Kiss- inger and Walesa, whose greed for loot is immeasurable, were cited. But there are still other texts without aggressive background, which give reason for hope.
On March 12, 1948, a few days af- ter the downfall in the CSR and the subsequent suicide of Jan Masaryk, the Chief Prosecutor for Great Britain at the Nuremberg war crime trials, Sir Hartley Shawcross, stated according to the London Times:94
"Step by step I have been forced more and more to the con- clusion that the aims of Commu- nism in Europe are sinister and deadly aims.
I prosecuted the Nazis in Nur- emberg. With my Russian col- leagues I condemned Nazi aggres- sion and Nazi terror.[95] I feel shame and humiliation now to see under a different name the same aims pursued, the same technique followed, without check. " The international edition of the U.S. magazine Newsweek wrote on May 8, 1995, the 50th anniversary of the unconditional surrender of the German Armed Forces:96
"The chiefs of state who are as- sembling this week for the solemn remembrance of the end of the Sec- ond World War, will formally dedi- cate themselves to the theme of rec- onciliation. The winners of the year 1945 showed toward the losers an unusual degree of generosity, as they had not done after the First World War - with disastrous con- sequences. However, the state which first brought about this rec- onciliation will not be taking part in the gathering. It is the Soviet Union, whose ideological menace caused the victorious Western powers to put Germany and Japan on their feet again in the frame- work of a free-market economy and political democracy. More closely considered, this war did not end even in 1945. Those who were waging war merely found them-
Sir Hartley Shawcross, Chief Prosecutor for Great Britain at the Nuremberg war crime tri- als, feels ashamed for having been an accom- plice with the Soviets in delivering Europe to Stalinism.94
selves in new systems of alliances, and with modified tactics. The end did not come until 1990-91, when Germany was reunified and the So- viet Union imploded. According to this general view of the chronol- ogy, it can be said that the war lasted seventy-five years. The Kai- ser and Hitler lost and Germany has won. "
And the German government? A small episode proves that those who govern there know much better than the governed what is going on glob- ally. When then British Prime Minister John Major, in his address in Berlin for the 50th anniversary of the war's end, spoke of the second Thirty Years War from 1914-1945:
"Fifty years ago Europe saw the end of the 30 Years War, 1914 to 1945. The slaughter in the trenches, the destruction of cities and the oppression of citizens: all these left a Europe in ruins just as the other 30 Years War did three centuries before. " The Bulletin of the German gov- ernment (No. 38, May 12, 1995) falsi- fied the text of the speech into:
"Vor funfzig Jahren erlebte Eu- ropa das Ende der dreifiig Jahre, die nicht einen, sondern zwei Welt- kriege beeinhaltet hatten. Das Ge- metzel in den Schutzengrdben, die Zerstdrung der Stadte und die Un- terdruckung der Burger hinterlie- fien ein Europa in Triimmern, ge- rade, wie es einige Jahrhunderte zuvor der Dreifiigjahrige Krieg ge- tan hatten. " In English:
"Fifty years ago, Europe ex- perienced the end of the thirty years which encompassed not one, but two world wars. The slaughter in the trenches, the destruction of cities and the oppression of citizens left behind a Europe in ruins, just as the Thirty Years War had done some centuries before. " But still weeks after the speech, the British embassy sent the upper text with the clear formulation "the other 30 Years War"! By the will of the German Federal Government, the fact that Major sees the First and Second World War as parts of a single event,
382
The Revisionist ■ 2003 ■ Volume 1 ■ No. 4
was not allowed to become publicly known in Germany.
Berthold Brecht once wrote warningly, with an eye on Germany:97
"Great Carthage waged three wars. It was still powerful after the first, still inhabitable after the second. After the third, it could no longer be found. "
After the First World War, a foreign diplomat expressed to Churchill:98
"In the twenty years of my residency there, I was wit- ness to a profound and total revolution in England, even as the French Revolution was. The ruling classes in your coun- try have been almost completely robbed of their political power and, to a large extent, their prosperity and property as well; and all this [...] without the loss of a single human life. "
The European upper classes, the idle ones of Scheler and Shaw, who wanted to be "clever" as they went out of their way to start a war, they have paid! Anastasia, the wife of the Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolayevitch - who, in 1914 after a murder in Sarajevo, is supposed to have called out triumphantly to Poin- care: "War will break out. Nothing more will remain of Austria [.. .] Germany will be destroyed!"99 - lost everything!
In 1947, after the Second World War, India, the Crown of the British Empire, became independent. Egypt freed itself from Great Britain and subsequently Great Britain had to cede the Suez Canal. In 1957 the Gold Coast became the first inde- pendent state of Black Africa, after which a large number of colonies followed. Churchill had yet to learn what Shaw knew: that the world for which one exchanged one's soul, had its own way of melting in one's hands. Not even the First, and most certainly not the Second World War, Great Britain was able to win by its own resources! From a position as master of the world, Great Britain was relegated to insignificance, and the descent seems not to have come to an end yet. New powers are arising. Their influence, by means of the modern terrorist tech- niques of war and the unhesitating way with which they are used, can easily grow to extreme proportions. They are staking claims and creating new centers of conflict. They threaten to unite the Islamic powers and Fundamentalism. A new war against Germany would propel their power into the strato- sphere. It is to be feared that powerful groups will continue not to see that the world of today is much larger than the White man's world.
In any case, the analogy of Rome = Great Britain and Car- thage = Germany is false. For Carthage was the commercial and sea power and Rome the land power of antiquity! Brecht was a master of language, but had no head for politics. His his- tory would tell a different story today: Great Britain won two wars. It was still powerful after the first, still inhabitable after the second. Does anyone seriously believe that Great Britain could dare to wage yet a third war against Germany?
Notes
1 Heinrich Fried Jung, Das Zeitalter des Imperialisms 1884-1914, Vol. 1, Berlin 1919, p. 230, 80.
2 Paul Valery, Erne methodische Eroberung, Zurich, New York 1946. p. 9; Cf. also: Hans-Dietrich Sander, Der nationale Imperativ, Krefeld 1980. p. 116ff.
3 Max Scheler, Die Ursachen des Deutschenhasses, Leipzig 1917. p. 6 Iff.
Concerning Great Britain, cf. also Winston S. Churchill, Meine friihen Jahre. Weltabenteuer im Dienst, Munich 1965, 4th ed., p. 79. There it says: "In those days English society still had kept its old form and tradition, a shining and impressive Whole, of a highly elevated standard of behavior and conduct, and with sure methods of establishing their general accep- tance, as today they are completely forgotten. Thus each man quite knew each man, and knew who he was. The few hundred Great Families who ruled England for many generations and had experienced the ascent of the country to the zenith of its glory, were related by marriage to the ut- most degree. Everywhere one went, one met friends or relatives. The leading personalities of Society were often at the same time the leading statesmen in Parliament and likewise the leading sportsmen on the turf. Lord Salisbury always carefully avoided summoning the cabinet when there was racing at Newmarket; and the lower House basically held no sessions during the Derby. " This testimony of the British upper class reveals the talk of British democ- racy to be pure hypocrisy.
Editor's note: In the English edition of this book, My Early Years. A Roving Commission, Butterworth, London 1930, 1 did not find the passages Werner quotes here and in note 98.
4 Quoted by Hans Grimm, Warum-Woher-Aber wohin, Lippoldsberg 1954. p. 33. For the original see "Our True Foreign Policy," The Saturday Review, August 24, 1895, p. 228.
5 Ibid., p. 46ff. For the original see "A Biological View of our Foreign Pol- icy," "by a Biologist," The Saturday Review, 01 February 1896, p. 118ff.
6 Up to the headline, H. Grimm, op. cit. (note 4), p. 58f. For the original see "England and Germany," The Saturday Review, 1 1 September 1897, p. 278f.
7 Editor's note: These last three words of this article, meaning "Germany must be destroyed" do not appear in the microfilmed version in the Public Library of Chicago as well as in other libraries, as Mr. Werner was told be readers of his original German article. However, Mr. Werner sent me a copy of this article which does include these words. It seems that there are two different versions of this article, one of which had these words omit- ted/deleted (most likely those which were later microfilmed).
8 Winston S. Churchill, The Second World War, Vol. 1. "The Gathering Storm", Boston 1948, p. 207ff.
9 Carl J. Burckhardt, Meine Danziger Mission 1937-1939, 3. rev. ed., Munich 1980, p. 156f.
10 Igor Lukes, "Benesch, Stalin und die Komintem 1938/39," Vierteljahrshefte fur Zeitgeschichte, 41(3) (1993), p. 325.
" Friedrich Grimm, Politische Justiz, die Krankheit unserer Zeit, Bonn 1953, p. 146ff.
12 Retranslated from Frankfurter Allgemeine, September 18, 1989, p. 2. Since the 18th of September 1989 was a Monday, the day of appearance ofthe ar- ticle is taken to be the 17th of September 1989.
13 Quoted by a letter to the editor from Ferdinand Otto Mischke, Officier de la Legion d'Honneur, Paris, Frankfurter Allgemeine, April 27, 1990, p. 14. For the original text see Elsevier, April 7, 1990, p. 45.
14 Thomas More, Utopia, Yale Univ. Press, 2001, p. 133. Also, in Utopia di- vorce is only a formality (cf. p. 98f). It can be assumed that Utopia inspired Henry VIII in several respects. In 1529 More became Lord Chancellor. In 1534 Henry VIII made himself Supreme Head of the Church and thereby to a certain extent its Chief Priest and - since he was also King - he, like the priests of the Utopians, was subject only to God and his conscience. In a let- ter Henry VIII describes himself as King and Sovereign, who recognizes above himself no one on earth save God alone and who is not subject to the laws of earthly creatures. Quoted by Winston S. Churchill, A History of the English Speaking Peoples, vol II: "The New World," Dodd, Mead & Co., New York 1956, p. 61. In fairness to More it should be mentioned that he vehemently opposed this self-elevation of Henry VIII and for that reason was executed in 1535.
15 T. More, ibid., p. 105. One should recall here the trade war between the USA and Japan which was beginning to develop in 1995 where the thinking was similar on the American side.
16 Ibid, p. 74, pp. 106-109, esp. 108.
17 In Churchill one finds this sentence concerning the time after Henry VIII: "Thomas More's definition of government as a conspiracy of rich men pro- curing their own commodities under the name and title of a commonwealth fitted England very accurately during these years," op. cit. (note 8), vol. II, p. 93.
18 Hermann Oncken, in: Thomas Moras, Utopia, Darmstadt 1979, p. 32 (in- troduction). Oncken has also made detailed reference to the connection be-
The Revisionist ■ 2003 ■ Volume 1 ■ No. 4
383
tween More and British colonial policy, p. 33. T. More, op. cit. (note 14), p 109. Ibid., p. 106. Ibid., p. 111.
Ibid., p. 105. The contradictory absurdity is that the Utopians in their coun- try know slavery quite well (p. 95f). When More introduced slavery into his ideal state, it had disappeared in the West. But of all things, such a model is chosen by the intellectuals of Modernism as namesake for their future plans! Ibid., p. 39-50, cf. also footnotes. That the discussion is fictitious is natu- rally an assumption for which, however, inspection speaks, since from where could More have be able to get his information? Brockhaus Konservations-Lexikon, Leipzig 1908, Vol. 8, p. 374. In an bitter comment on the death of Juarez, Shaw wrote, obviously out of knowledge of the practices of the English press:
"I once proposed a press law [...] each article printed in a newspaper should not only give the name and address of the author, but also give the sum which was paid for the contribution. If the miserable fool who murdered Juarez had known that the worthless articles [...] were not the voice of imperiled France, but instead the ignorant scrawling of some poor devil who no longer knew how to earn three francs for himself he would hardly have thrown away his own life. " Bernard Shaw, Der gesunde Menschenverstand im Krieg (Commons Sense in War), vol. II. Zurich 1919, p. 75. Editor's remark: I did not find an Eng- lish version of this German book.
G. B. Shaw had taken over the theater paper between 1 895 and 1 898; cf. Hermann Stresau, George Bernard Shaw, Rowohlt, Reinbek 1962, p. 56. For H. G. Wells, as with the names following, only one publication may be named: "The Well at the World's End," The Saturday Review, October 17,
1896, p.413ff.
Winston S. Churchill published three articles, all about the war in Cuba. With his first article of February 15, 1896, his name is erroneously given as Winston L. Churchill, but Churchill repaired this in his next essay "Ameri- can Intervention in Cuba", The Saturday Review, March 7, 1896, p. 244f. W.B. Yeats, "The Twilight of Forgiveness," The Saturday Review, Novem- ber 2, 1895, p. 573.
Conan Doyle wrote two reader letters: The Saturday Review, January 2,
1897, p. 15f.; January 9, 1897 p. 40f.
Henry M. Stanley, "The Recent Attacks on the Congo Administration," The Saturday Review, September 19, 1896, p. 307.
Rudyard Kipling, "The Vampire," The Saturday Review, April 24, 1897, p. 443.
Algernon Charles Swinburne, "A February Roundel," The Saturday Review, February 22, 1896, p. 194
Meyers enzyklopddisches lexikon, 25 volumes, Mannheim 1971. Informa- tion about these persons also comes from this excyclopedia. Max Beerbohm, "Madame Tussaud's," The Saturday Review, February 13, 1897, p. 165f.
J. B. Bury, "The British and the Roman Empire," The Saturday Review, June 27, 1896, p. 645.
Stephen Crane, "London Impressions," The Saturday Review, July 31, 1 897, p. 105f.
John Davidson, "The Hymn of Abdul Hamid," Saturday Review, May 22, 1897, p. 570.
Charles Wentworth Dilke, "Lord Roberts, Lord Salisbury, and Russia," The Saturday Review, January 23, 1 897, p. 83ff.
Edward Dowden, "Mattew Arnold's Letters," The Saturday Review, De- cember 12, 1895, p. 757f.
Richard Garnett, "Recollections of Coventry Patmore," The Saturday Re- view, December 5, 1896, p. 582f.
For the latter information cf. Hermann Stresau op. cit. (note 26), p. 56.
W. H. Hudson, "London Birds in Winter," The Saturday Review, March 13,
1897, p. 264f.
Oliver Lodge, "Roentgen Radiography and its Uses," The Saturday Review, April 25, 1896, p. 422f.
Margaret Macdonald, Reader letter "Salvagia," The Saturday Review, Octo- ber 24, 1896, p. 445f.
Frederic William Henry Myers, "A Cosmic Outlook," The Saturday Review, December 7, 1895, p. 758.
Coventry Patmore, "Mrs. Meynell's New Essays," The Saturday Review, June 13, 1896, p. 593f.
Will(iam) Rothenstein, "Goya II," The Saturday Review, September 19, 1896, p. 307.
Arthur Symons,"A Visit to Dumas fils," The Saturday Review, November
30, 1895, p. 724f.
Silvanus P. Thompson, "The Progress of Electric Traction," The Saturday Review, June 29, 1897, p. 600.
Alfred Russel Wallace, "Our Native Birds," The Saturday Review, Septem- ber 14, 1895, p. 342f.
William Watson, "Estrangement," The Saturday Review, May 2, 1896, p. 451.
Gen. Neville Chamberlain, "Our Treatment of the Kafirs," The Saturday Review, May 16, 1896, p. 494ff. For personal data: Mayers Konversations- lexikon, 5th rev. ed., Leipzig and Vienna 1897.
Admiral P. H. Colomb, "The Naval Programme," The Saturday Review, March 14, 1 896, p. 268f. For personal data see previous note. J. B. Bury, op. cit. (note 36), p. 64.
GREATER-ENGLANDER, "The British and Roman Empire," letter to the editor, The Saturday Review, July 11, 1896, p. 39.
"German Competition," The Saturday Review, January 25, 1896, p. 91, or "The German Menance," The Saturday Review, August 29, 1896, p. 208. Perplexed. "The Spectator and Political Economy, " letter to the editor, The Saturday Review, August 8, 1896, p. 137.
"The Failure of Germany," The Saturday Review, October 24, 1 896, p. 434. "Luther: Liberalism: Individualism", The Saturday Review, January 2, 1897, p. 6.
Bernard Shaw, "Caesar and Cleopatra," Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York, 1965, p. 5.
Ibid., p. 78. In his character of Britannus, Shaw expressly maintains conti- nuity of character between the inhabitants of the Great Britain in Caesar's time and that of today (cf. p. 123f). In his argument, he personifies the mind-set which is found in the essay by "a Biologist" (cf. footnote 5), as when he stresses the importance of the climate and of the forest for the character of Britannus and of present-day Britons. Ibid, p.m.
Bernard Shaw, op. cit. (note 25), vol. I., p. 35.
Hermann Stresau, op. cit. (note 26), p. 126; retranslated.
Ibid., p. 127; retranslated.
Hans Grimm, op. cit. (note 4), p. 33f.
Ibid., p. 52.
Charles a Court Repington, The First World War 1914-1918, Personal Ex- periences, vol. II., London 1920, p. 463; cf. p. 478.
Edward Grey, Twenty Five Years, 1892-1916, Fredrick A. Sokes Company, New York 1925, p. 2; cf. p. 25. Ibid., p. 32.
Ibid. Editor's note: On pp. 9-11, Gray reports how Germany pressured competing England in the 1 890s to withdraw its offer to build a railway through Minor Asia (Turkey) or Germany would stop supporting England in Egypt. England complied, but was mischievous ever since. Ibid., p. 50.
Cf . the detailed exchange of letters which Grey reproduces in his memoirs, ibid., p. 70-7 '4, 76-79, 102-107, 1 10, 139ff.
Margret Boveri, Sir Edward Grey und das Foreign Office, Berlin- Grunewald 1993, p. 134; 198; 105; 198. Edward Grey, op. cit. (note 70), p. xviii. Margret Boveri, op. cit. (note 75), p. 197.
Hermann Lutz, Eyre Crowe, der bose Geist des Foreign Office, Stuttgart and Berlin 1931.
Margret Boveri, op. cit. (note 75), p. 1 12. Edward Grey, op. cit. (note 70), p. xviif. Ibid., Vol. 2, p. 302.
Margret Boveri, op. cit. (note 75), p. 183.
Hans Rothfels, "Zur Beurtellung Greys," in: "Die Kriegsschuldfrage," Ber- liner Monatshefte fur Internationale Aufklarung, April 1927, p. 35 If. Bernard Shaw, Winke zur Friedenskonferenz, Berlin 1919, p. 22. Bernard Shaw, op. cit. (note 25), p. 5.
Friedrich Thimme, "Das Memorandum E. A. Crowes vom 1. Januar 1907. Seine Bedeutung fur die Kriegsschuldfrage," Berliner Monatshefte fur In- ternationale Aufklarung, August 1929, p. 735. Hermann Lutz, op. cit. (note 78), p. 9.
Cf. e.g. Friedrich Thimme, op. cit. (note 86), pp. 732ff; Hermann Lutz, Deutschfeindliche Krafte im Foreign Office der Vorkriegszeit, Berlin 1932, p. 13ff.; Werner Frauendienst, "Crowe, der Deutschland-Referent des Foreign Office," Berliner Monatshefte fur internationale Autklarung, Au- gust 1931, p. 776ff.; Hermann Lutz, op. cit. (note 78), p. 10-55; Margret Boveri, op. cit. (note 75), p. 114ff. Bernard Shaw, op. cit. (note 84), p. 8; 9; 20
384
The Revisionist ■ 2003 ■ Volume 1 ■ No. 4
Hermann Lutz, Deutschfeindliche Krdfte..., op. tit. (note 88), p. 18, foot- note 35.
Hermann Lutz, Lord Grey und der Weltkrieg, Berlin 1927, p. 48; 299 foot- note 82a.
Margret Boveri, op. tit. (note 75), p. 53.
Fritz Hesse, Das Spiel um Deutschland, Munich 1953, p. 66.
The Times, March 13, 1948, p. 4.
Editor's note: Between these two sentences, one often finds quoted other sentences, the entire text allegedly stemming from an AP press release of that time (the date often quoted, March 16, 1984, is obviously wrong): "Hitler and the German people did not want war. According to the prin- ciples of the balance of powers, we, goaded on by the 'Americans ' around Roosevelt, declared war against Germany in order to destroy it. We did not respond to the various appeals for peace of Hitler. Now we must discover that Hitler was right. In place of a conservative Germany which he had offered us, stands the enormous imperialistic power of the Soviets. "
These sentences are, however, not part of the London Times article, which
does not claim to be based on an AP release. Associated Press informed me that they have no record of such a press release, which may or may not be result of AP archiving exclusively national U.S. news releases on microfilm at that time. I also did not find Shawcross' speech quoted in the New York Times or the then German-friendly/IMT critical Chicago Tribune. Since Shawcross always indicated his full and uncritical support for the IMT show trial and its judgment (cf. his memoirs Life Sentence, Constable & Co., London 1995), it is more than unlikely that these sentences were added by a third person.
Kenneth Auchincloss, "The Long Shadow," Newsweek International Edi- tion, May 8, 1995, p. 1 1. [Although order via inter-library loan, I had to re- translate this quotation from German to keep the deadline. Editor.] Bertolt Brecht, "Offener Brief an die Kiinstler und Schriftsteller vom 26. September 1951," in: Bertolt Brecht, Gesammelte Werke, Suhrkamp, Frank- furt/Main 1967, p. 496. Churchill, op. cit. (note 3), p. 80.
Dieter Friede, Das russische Perpetuum Mobile, 2ncl ed., Wiirzburg 1959, p. 181.
The Dachau Horror- Tale Exposed
By Baurat h.c. Dipl.-Ing. Walter Liiftl
From the book Einer aus dem Dunkel (One out of the dark), which describes the work of the representative of the Interna- tional Red Cross (IRC) Louis Haeflinger during the liberation of the concentration camp Mauthausen in May 1945 (how does one 'liberate' a camp, whose guards were already pulled out?), the following can be found on page 42
"The textile industrialist [note: and later president of the Austrian Industrial Associa- tion] Franz Mayer-Gunthof remembers the beginning of the time of his internment in the concentration camp Dachau:
' ...but at one time I lifted myself up to the window, and then I saw corpses and more corpses, and I realized with horror that we were directly above the gas chambers, and I saw how people were gassed and their corpses were cremated. The snowflakes, they were ashes from the crematorium... '" What is the truth?
Truth his, the future president of the Austrian Industrial Association is a storyteller of fairy tales, because:
1. Even the camp administration of the memo- rial concentration camp Dachau and the town Dachau explain that nobody was gassed in Dachau. The alleged 'gas chamber,' which now exists, is a fake, which was erected after the war. This was already reported by a for- mer SS-man to the author in 1952, who met this man at a construction site in Vienna. The former SS-man worked there as a brick layer, while the author was a vacation trainee. The informant explained:
"I helped erect the gas chamber as a prisoner of war. "
This man also informed the author about the massacre by the US-Army of the arrested and un-armed guard personnel. 2. There was no room for inmates above the pseudo gas cham- ber - a one-story building with an unfinished gable roof. The 'eye witness' of the horrors, Mayer-Gunthof, could therefore not have been "directly above the gas chambers."
One of these two is a Holocaust-Liar - or maybe both?
Dr. Dr.h.c. Mayer-Gunthof, at- torney, born August 18, 1894 in Mahrisch-Trubau. In 1820, he took over the weaving mill Voslauer Worsted Yarn Fac- tory, which was founded by his great-grandfather. He was in- volved in the Association of Austrian Industrialists (Vere- inigung osterreichischer Indus- trieller). He died February 2, 1977 in Vienna.
Alphons Matt, born 1920, died Dec. 4, 2000. Since 1945 correspondent in Austria for various Swiss newspapers and for Radio Studio Zurich of the station Beromunster. In 1963 he joined the main editorial office of the newspaper Die Weltwoche. Later he became
the political editor of the Swiss TV station DRS. Through his activity, Alphons Matt met many politicians and statesmen, national and international.
The Revisionist ■ 2003 ■ Volume 1 ■ No. 4
385
3. He therefore could neither have observed how people were gassed nor where corpses were cremated.
4. The crematorium was located outside of the actual area of the camp.
5. As the cremation process was "free of dust and smell" ac- cording to Neufert, he therefore could not have seen parti- cles of ashes from the crematorium ("always like snow flakes").2
It can therefore be stated with certainty that all the state- ments of the 'eye witness' are from A to Z, at least to a large extent, objectively incorrect.
Therefore, if Herr Mayer-Gunthof is correctly quoted, he can report this only from hearsay. The local and technical cir- cumstances permit quite a clear assessment: The statements of the 'eye witness' about the horror are false.
One asks frequently during the narratives of the 'eye wit- nesses', why otherwise honorable and trustworthy people relate so obviously the untruth. The author knew Herrn Mayer- Gunthof personally, but could not have asked about the above quoted fable because the author learned about this only after the death of the 'eye witness'.
Is it the 'Odysseus syndrome'? A psychologist should be consulted, unless already 'Pseudologica phantastica' is diag- nosed, in which case a psychiatrist should be consulted.
Paul Rassinier already asked What is the Truth.3 And he was, after all, interned for years as a French resistance fighter in the German concentration camp Buchenwald. When he tried to testify during the big Auschwitz-trial to inform the courts about the truth, his entry into the country was refused. But why? Be- cause he knew the truth, which was probably 'pedagogically undesirable' or 'social-ethically confusing'!
Notes
First published as "Dachau-Greuelmarchen bloBgelegt" in Vierteljahreshefte fur freie Geschichtsforschung 7(2) (2003), p. 165. Translated by Fabian Eschen.
1 Alphons Matt, Einer aus dent Dunkel. Die Befreiung des Konzentrationsla- gers Mauthausen durch den Bankbeamten H. (One out of the Dark. The Liberation of the Concentration Camp Mauthausen by the Bank Clerk H.), SV Intermit, Schweizer Verl.-Haus, Zurich 1988.
2 E. Neufert, Bauentwurfslehre, (Textbook for the Building Design) Ullstein Fachverlag, Frankfurt/Main 1962, p. 423.
3 In the German edition of his last book Was ist Wahrheit, Druffel, Leoni 1982.
The General in the Ice-Block
By Baurat h.c. Dipl.-Ing. Walter Luftl
The following passage, headed "East European Monuments in Austria," has been taken from pp. 20 and 21 of the 1/2002 edition of the International Municipal Forum Graz (Interna- tionales Stddteforum Graz):
"Another type of East European commemorative plaques is that at locations of former concentrations camps set up by the Third Reich. In the former Mauthausen camp there exists the monument for Major General Karbyshev of the Red Army, which resembles a block of ice with a human face [...]. During an icy December, night he was drenched with cold water until he finally froze into a block of ice. The monument symbolizes this event. "
This event cannot possibly have taken place in this way. On a living body, water will not freeze even at very low tempera- tures. It is only when the surface temperature has dropped con- siderably below 0°C that ice can form.
I have visited the Mauthausen camp in 1952 and 1991. In 1952, an obelisk had been erected there for General Karbyshev. At that time, I believed in the event thus depicted and took the inhuman deed of the SS to be an act of revenge. I knew then that on December 29, 1941, and for several days thereafter, So- viet troops had thrown wounded German soldiers from the windows of the army hospitals of Feodosia on the Crimea, leav- ing them on the beach to freeze until they were dead - to the extent that they had not previously been stabbed or bludgeoned to death. The freezing spray of the breakers eventually shaped the corpses of the 160 wounded soldiers into bizarre blocks of ice.1 I could easily imagine that buddies or relatives of the vic- tims of Feodosia wrought a brutal revenge on innocent people.
When I returned in 1991, I looked in vain for the obelisk. Instead, there was a commemorative plate on the inside of the
camp wall, mentioning the murder of General Karbyshev. Some time later, I learned that on January 9, 1993, the Austrian newspaper Die Presse had shown a painting by the artist Adolf Frohner, entitled "The Russian General," illustrating a particu- larly cruel method of killing devised by the Nazis. The corre- sponding article stated:
"Alfred Frohner has produced an artistic document de- picting the death of General Karbyshev who, together with 200 other Russian PoWs, was doused with cold water when the temperature was minus 20°C cold until they had all fro- zen into a solid block of ice. "
Meanwhile, I had developed some doubts on the technical feasibility of turning a living creature into a block of ice. Fire fighters whom I had questioned had expressed their own doubts on the subject of spraying from hoses, at a temperature of -20°C, sufficient amounts of water to turn 200 people into a mass of ice without having the water freeze in the hoses in turn.
Thus, it became necessary to do some fundamental investi- gation.
The book Die Geschichte des Konzentrationslagers Mauthausen (The History of the Mauthausen Concentration Camp) tells us:2
"16 and 17 February 1945: More than 200 weak pris- oners and all detainees from a Sachsenhausen transport were killed by having them stand naked (for three days and two nights) near the Wall of Lamentations and subjecting them to a 'bathing action, ' at temperatures between -2 and —7°C. Among the 200 or 300 old and weak people selected at random there were members of all European nations, but primarily Soviet and Polish citizens, among them the Soviet Artillery General Dimitri Mikhaelovich Karbyshev. "
386
The Revisionist ■ 2003 ■ Volume 1 ■ No. 4
Technically, we now approach feasibility, as it makes a great deal of difference whether the unfortunate people were ef- fectively sprayed with water at -20°C or supposedly sprayed at -2°C. Meteorological data was needed for further clarification.
As it turned out, the Central Office for Meteorology and Geodynamics was able to shed light on the matter. The expert advice from the Central Office stated:
The weather at Mauthausen on February 16, 1945, was sunny. Air temperature in the afternoon rose to about 5°C, after an early morning reading of only 0°C. Between February 10 and 16, 1945, Mauthausen experienced rather mild winter weather. Morning temperatures were between -2 and +3°C, ris- ing to 4 to 10°C at noon.
Hence, it is impossible for the "ice block event" to have taken place on the day mentioned.
It is quite possible that on that day, there were piles of corpses at Mauthausen, including General Karbyshev's body; it is quite possible that victims indeed froze to death on account of inhuman treatment, but no living person could have been turned into a block of ice at that time.
Is this another legend, like Simon Wiesenthal's "parachut- ists"? In his book Denn sie wufiten, was sie tun (For they knew what they did), Wiesenthal has, after all, captioned a drawing showing men being thrown from a cliff, as follows:3
"It was rare for Jews to be shot at Mauthausen. They
were destined for the 'Wiener Graben ' [a street in Vienna,
transl.]. On a single day, March 31, 1943, 1000 Dutch Jews were thrown from a height of 50 meters before the very eyes of Heinrich Himmler. The SS called them 'parachutists. ' The brown crowd was highly amused. " The Mauthausen book tells us that in March 1943 there were altogether 850 deaths,4 on March 31, 1943, the camp counted 13 Jewish detainees; for this month, only two Jewish deaths were recorded. The total number of Jewish detainees never rose above 16 throughout 1943, only from May 1944 would it suddenly jump from 78 to 2141. 5 Furthermore, Himmler was not at Mauthausen on March 31, 1943. 6
Hence, either Wiesenthal is mistaken about the date or else he relates from hearsay, just like the Presse journalist with re- spect to the Frohner painting.
Notes
First published as "Der General im Eis" in Vierteljahreshefte fur freie Ge- schichtsforschung 7(1) (2003), pp. 43f. Translated by Thomas Dunskus.
1 Cf. Alfred M. de Zayas, Die Wehrmachtsuntersuchungsstelle. Deutsche Ermittlungen iiber alliierte Volkerrechisverlaizungen im Zweiten Weltkrieg, 4* ed., Ullstein, Frankfurt/Main/Berlin 1984, pp. 308-317.
2 Hans Marschalek (ed.), Dokumentation der Osterreichischen Lagergemein- schaft Mauthausen, 2nd ed., Vienna 1980, pp. 235, 238.
3 Zeichnungen und Aufzeichnungen am dem KZ Mauthausen, Deuticke, Vi- enna, 1995, pp. 63-65.
4 Hans Marschalek (ed.), op. cit. (note 2) p. 157.
5 Ibid., pp. 282f
6 Cf. Institut fur Zeitgeschichte, Munich, Dok. NO- 1025
The Four Million Figure of Auschwitz
Origin, Revisions and Consequences
By Carlo Mattogno
Although scientifically untenable, it passed for a long time, in public thought, as an irrevocable truth that four mil- lion prisoners perished in the concentration camp Auschwitz. When Fritj of Meyer, a leading editor of Germany's big- gest news magazine Der Spiegel reduced the death toll of Auschwitz to a new record low of just over 500,000 victims in May 2002,2 The Revisionist reacted to this with the publication of three articles which dealt with the latest up-to-date state and development of victim numbers of Auschwitz.3 However, the question as to how the figure of 4,000,000 vic- tims - grossly exaggerated but spread dogmatically as true for decades - actually came into existence and what conse- quences would result from so many revisions of the past, was so far untouched. In these two papers, Carlo Mattogno investigates the two main causes of the false four million number: Soviet propaganda and the tireless propaganda activ- ity of the Polish communist historian Franciszek Piper.
I. Thrust to the Roots of Soviet Propaganda
1. The Origin of the Propaganda Figure of Four Million
The propaganda story of the alleged four million Auschwitz victims appeared first in the Pravda of May 7, 1945, as is gen- erally known, and it received its official blessing at the Nurem- berg trial during the court session on February 19, 1946, thanks to the Soviet prosecutor Smirnow.4 But far less known is the origin of this story.
Within the framework of the investigations in Auschwitz between February 14 and March 8, 1945, by a Soviet investiga- tion commission, four engineers, the Polish citizen Dawidowski and the Soviet citizens Dolinski, Lavrushins and Shuer, pre- pared an expert report about the "gas chambers" and crematoria of Auschwitz-Birkenau. In it is a short "Appendix 1" with the title "Calculations for determining the Number of Persons liq-
The Revisionist ■ 2003 ■ Volume 1 ■ No. 4
387
uidated by the Germans in the Camp Auschwitz". On these three pages we find the genesis of the four million number. The "expert report" starts with the following premises:*
"Based on the investigated material it can be deter- mined that the Germans, by carefully removing the traces of their crimes and misdeeds, destroyed all documents which would have made it possible to determine more or less ac- curately the number murdered by Hitler's butchers in the camp.
Thus, the Germans removed, as an example, the docu- mentation about the arrival of railroad transports carrying people; they destroyed the documentation about the quanti- ties of women 's hair, eye glasses and dresses, as well as other evidence, which would have made it possible to de- termine, with the help of statistical calculations, the number of persons that perished in this camp.
Nevertheless, we think that it is possible to perform a calculation which would permit us to determine the order of magnitude of the extermination of camp inmates by the Germans. "
Because they didn't have any documents, the Polish-Soviet 'experts' used a completely unreliable method of calculation - the counting of the cremated corpses in the crematoria of Auschwitz - and made additionally grotesque exaggerations.
First they divided the time of operation of these installations into three periods:
First period: Beginning of 1941 [sic! Correct: 1942] to
March 1943; duration 14 months. Second period: March 1943 to May 1944; duration 13 months. Third period: May to October 1944; duration 6 months. I quote:6
"During the first period, the crematorium and the gas chambers™ I and 2 were in operation as well as the pyres located next to them. During the second period the cremato- ria II, III, IV and V [were in operation]. During the third pe- riod the crematoria II, III, IV and V as well as the gas chamber 2 and the pyres next to it [were in operation]. " All calculations about the cremations in ovens are based on the presumption that 9,000 corpses per month were cremated in Auschwitz I, while the crematoria of Birkenau had the follow- ing monthly cremation capacities: 8 Crematorium II: 90,000 Crematorium III: 90,000 Crematorium IV: 45,000 Crematorium V: 45,000 Total: 270,000 corpses per month
This cremation capacity corresponds to 9,000 corpses daily (3,000 each for crematorium II and III, 1,500 each daily for crematorium IV and V) and is in reality eight times higher than the theoretical maximum capacity of these installations!
The 'experts' inexplicably determined a capacity for crema- torium I which is exaggerated by a factor of only two. From this it follows that the alleged hourly cremation capacity of a two-muffle oven (two corpses per hour) would have been four times less than a three-muffle oven as well as an eight-muffle oven (eight corpses per hour). This is absurd, because the two- muffle ovens were not only not inferior to the ovens of Birke- nau, but actually superior.
The 'experts' calculated the number of the cremated bodies during the third period based on the following factors:
270,000 = monthly number of cremations in the crema- toria of Birkenau;
6 = Number of months the crematoria were in opera- tion;
0.9 = Utilization factor of the crematoria;
Therefore: (270,000 x 6) x 0.9 = 1,450,000 dead. For the second period of thirteen months the 'experts' as- sume a utilization factor of 0.5, so that their calculation appears as follows:
(270,000 x 13) x 0.5 = 1,755,000 corpses; this number is rounded down to 1,750,000.
Also for the first period of fourteen months, during which only the crematorium I was in operation, the 'experts' decided an utilization factor of 0.5 and came thus to: (9,000 x 14) x 0.5 = 63,000 dead.
Accordingly the total number of corpses cremated in the crematoria as per commission during these three periods amounted to 3,263,000.
For the "gas chamber 2", the so-called 'Bunker 2,' which was supposed to be in operation for six months during the third period, the 'experts' determined a daily killing capacity of 3,000 people, or 90,000 per month. They assumed an utilization factor of 0.5, which according to them will result in a the total number of the murdered in that location of (90,000 x 6) x 0.5 = 270,000.
According to the 'experts,' the "gas chamber 1," i.e., the so- called 'Bunker 1,' was in operation during the first period for fourteen months and had a killing capacity of 5,000 per day or 150,000 per month. Using a utilization factor of 0.25 the 'ex-
Ti 1:1 1 i-*-^
MARTYRER- UND TODESORT VON 4 MILLION EN Of FERN
ERMORDET VON NAZISTISCHEN VOLKERMORDERN
1940 * 1945
...... .
Photo 1: Soviet propaganda chiselled in stone - removed in 1990: "Site of martyrs and the death of 4 million victims killed by Nazi genocidal mass murderers 1940 - 1945"
388
The Revisionist ■ 2003 ■ Volume I ■ No. 4
perts' therefore calculated (150,000 x 14) x 0.25 = 525,000 dead.
Under these presuppositions, the number of gassed in both 'bunkers' and then on pyres cremated would have resulted in 795,000. Adding this number to the murdered and cremated in the crematoria results in a number of 4,058,000, which was rounded off by the 'experts' to 4,000,000.
2. The Arrangements between 'Experts' and 'Witnesses'
It is not necessary to unleash too many words about the evi- dently outrageous character of this statistical method, which is based on gigantic exaggerations of the cremation capacity as well as on totally arbitrary utilization coefficients.
It has to be emphasized that the testimonies of 'eyewitnesses' fit seamlessly into the framework of propaganda claims. This 'expert report' as well as the 'eyewitness reports' support each other, which suggests that the witnesses were without any doubt instructed by the 'experts' before they made their statements. It is a fact, in any case, that the witnesses as well as the 'experts' made intrinsically incorrect statements. I am thinking primarily about the capacity of the crematoria as postulated by both.
Henryk Tauber, plainly the key witness, was questioned by the Soviets on February 27 and 28, 1945. He maintained that the two-muffle ovens of crematorium I operated at a muffle temperature between 1,200 to 1,500 degrees Celsius, which is absolutely absurd.9 He further testified that within 20 to 25 minutes four to five corpses were cremated in one muffle in the five three-muffle ovens of the crematoria II and III - techni- cally an impossibility. Finally, he testified that in the crematoria II and III 3,000 corpses were cremated per day, which corre- sponds exactly to the number as stated by the Polish-Soviet 'experts'.10
A coincidence? Certainly not, because the statements with regards to the functioning of the cremation ovens as made by Tauber and the 'experts' are practically identical. The 'experts' started from the hypothesis that three to five corpses were cre- mated in the three-muffle ovens at the same time, which took 20 to 30 minutes, and in an eight-muffle oven the cremation of a corresponding number of corpses lasted 30 to 40 minutes.
Any engineer, even having only a cursory knowledge of
thermo-dynamics, would laugh at such nonsense. The Polish- Soviet engineers, however, maintained with all their know-how that their statements were of scientific value! Any engineer with basic thermo-dynamic knowledge would dismiss as in- competent any witness coming up with such silliness, but the Polish-Soviet engineers were primarily the willing tools of So- viet propaganda, and at that time crude propaganda was in great fashion.
The Soviet-Polish commission, which inspected Majdanek in August 1944, 'calculated' a number of 1,380,000 victims for that camp;11 but in May of 1945, it was necessary that Ausch- witz should horrify the world, and for this a number of victims was needed that would exceed the one claimed for Majdanek - four million to be exact!
Half a year earlier, in August 1944, other Soviet 'experts', the engineers Krause, Telyaner, and Grigorev, prepared an 'ex- pert report' about the cremation ovens of concentration camp Majdanek, which were constructed by the company H. Kori. In this report, among others a "schematic diagram for the determi- nation of the cremation time of the corpses in different crema- tion ovens at different temperatures" was included. According to its authors, this diagram was based on operating tempera- tures measured for civilian ovens of the models Klingenstierna, Siemens, and Schneider. According to this, the cremation time at an operating temperature of 800°C was two hours, which is not below but actually above the actual time required. Accord- ing to the diagram, the cremation of a corpse at an operating temperature of 1000°C - the temperature at those gigantic "hot air cremation ovens" - lasted 60 minutes, at 1200°C 50 min- utes, at 1300°C 45 minutes, at 1400°C 30 minutes, and at 1500°C 15 minutes.12 The temperature inside the muffle of ov- ens for civilians could actually reach only a maximum of 1100°C, and this for a few minutes only. Engineer Richard Kessler, one of the best-known German specialists in the area of cremation, said in this regard:13
"Operating temperatures of 1200 to 1500°C, as they are frequently mentioned in reports about the operation of cre- matoria, [...] are probably only erroneously estimated but not measured temperatures. At these temperatures, the bones and the fireclay soften and weld together. The most
Photos 2 & 3: Memorial plaques at the Auschwitz-Birkenau camp in October 1991: the old inscription with the Soviet propaganda figure of four million victims is removed © Carlo Mattogno
The Revisionist ■ 2003 ■ Volume 1 ■ No. 4
389
practical operating temperatures lie between 850 and
900°C, according to tests in Dessau. "
It is therefore clear that the Soviet 'specialists' who dealt with Auschwitz based their absurdly short cremation times of Topf ovens of 20 to 40 minutes on this diagram, according to which such cremation times could be reached at temperatures between 1200 and 1500°C.14
From this it follows easily that Henryk Tauber's deposi- tions, claiming that the ovens had an operating temperature be- tween 1200 to 1500°C, were nothing else than the attempt to explain the claimed, impossibly short cremation times. The only logical conclusion is that these temperatures - as well as the alleged cremation times - were directly or indirectly given to Tauber by the 'experts' themselves!
Later, on May 24, 1945, Tauber (who understood very little of these questions), when questioned by the Polish judge Jan Sehn, testified that the operating temperature of the ovens was between 1000 to 1200 degrees Celsius,15 but maintained his un- tenable assertions about the cremation capacity and expres- sively mentioned the Soviet figure of four million victims!16 Tauber did not even understand that he contradicted himself with this, because according to the diagram mentioned, the cre- mation of a corpse at these temperatures lasts an average of 75 minutes!
3. The Reason and Meaning of Franciszek Piper's Revision
It is generally known that the propaganda figure of four mil- lion Auschwitz victims, as propagated by the Soviets, was chis- elled into the memorial plaques, which were erected not far from crematoria II and III of Birkenau as an 'eternal' warning for posterity. Until 1990, the plaques announced that four mil- lion people were murdered there by the "Nazis." In that year - the Soviet system had just collapsed - the Auschwitz museum undertook a revision of the number of victims: Franciszek Piper, head of the historical department of the museum, estab- lished a new propaganda figure of 1.5 million.17 Following this, the inscriptions on the memorial plaques were removed.18 Sev- eral years later, new plaques with the following text were in- stalled:19
"May this place be a cry of despair and a warning to mankind. Here the Nazis murdered about one and a half million men, women and children. Most of them were Jews from different countries of Europe. Auschwitz-Birkenau 1940-1945. "
In 1991, F. Piper wrote a long article about the number of victims of the camp, in which he announced the publication of another detailed study; in this article, he no longer spoke of 1,500,000, but only of 1,100,000 dead.20 In the following year, this study was indeed published in the form of a small book,21 and again two years later, in 1993, Piper published the 'defi- nite' version of his study under the title The Number of Victims in Auschwitz?2
On what fragile foundation this new figure of 1 . 1 million is based and to what new revisions it was subjected during the last decade, is well known. But how was it possible that the Soviet propaganda figure of four million could stay valid in Auschwitz itself up to the year 1990? F. Piper wrote about this as fol- lows:23
"The number of four million victims was spread in the literature by Jan Sehn, who in 1945 and 1946 was head of the Polish commission for the investigation of crimes in Auschwitz. This number was mentioned in many publica- tions in Poland (Auschwitz State Museum, Main Commis- sion for the Investigation of Nazi Crimes in Poland), in Czechoslovakia and in the GDR [former communist East Germany]. However, this number of three to four million did not find greater resonance in publications of the West, regardless of the known testimony of Hofi in Nuremberg. One of the first researchers who questioned this high, esti- mated number of victims in Auschwitz was the British histo- rian Gerald Reitlinger. In his elaborate study on the de- struction of the Jews during World War II, he wrote that in Auschwitz 'considerably less than a million people' died; of these about 550,000 to 600,000 were Jews who were mur- dered immediately after their arrival at the camp, and an unknown number of about 300,000 registered prisoners, who were no longer there on the day of liberation; the ma- jority of them were Jews. "
In reality, the propaganda figure of four million had been dictated by the Soviets and was maintained by the communist world for pure self-interest. The West, however, generally ac- cepted the lapidary judgment of G. Reitlinger:24
"The world became suspicious about such 'estimates, ' and the round figure of 4 million cannot withstand a serious examination. "
The Polish judge Jan Sehn was actually more Soviet than the Soviets themselves: In the known summary of conclusions of his investigation of the year 1946, which became the founda- tion of the indictment against Rudolf H6B the following year, he wrote of even five million victims ("piqciu miliondw")\25
J. Sehn knew very well that the Soviet four million figure was an obvious lie. During his investigations prior to the H6I3 trial, he thoroughly reviewed the so-called transport lists. These were simplified transcripts of the original documents prepared secretly by inmates who were employed by the political de- partment of the camp. In one protocol dated "Cracow, Decem- ber 16, 1945", Sehn transcribed and analyzed these lists; they included:
a) 2,377 transports with male prisoners arrived between May 20, 1940, and September 18, 1944. The arrivals were as- signed the registration numbers 1-199,531.
b) 1 ,046 transports with female prisoners arrived between Feb- ruary 26, 1942, and March 26, 1944. These prisoners re- ceived the numbers 1-75, 697. 26
c) 78 male transports ordered by the RSHA (Reichssicherheit- shauptamt) arrived between May 12 and August 1944 (reg- istration numbers A-l/A-20,000).
d) 60 transports with male Jews arrived between July 31 and September 21, 1944, ordered by the RSHA (registration numbers B-l/B-10,481).
e) 90 transports with female Jews arrived between May 15 and September 20, 1944, ordered by the RSHA (registration numbers A-l/A-25,378).
f) 171 transports with prisoners for re-education arrived be- tween October 21, 1941, and September 20, 1944 (registra- tion numbers E/l/E-9,339).27
390
The Revisionist ■ 2003 ■ Volume 1 ■ No. 4
Although these lists are not complete, they allow us to de- termine roughly the order of magnitude of prisoners that arrived in Auschwitz. In fact, they also serve as the basis for the Auschwitz Chronicle by Danuta Czech published in the German language between 1959 and 1964.28
As is generally known, the French- Jewish historian Georges Wellers wrote an article in 1983 about the number of victims of Auschwitz, which is also based on the study by D. Czech.29 Wellers came to the conclusion that 1,613,455 people were de- ported to Auschwitz, of which 1,334,700 were killed.30 Al- though his calculations are full of mistakes (which I pointed out in a separate study31), his writing dealt a deathblow to the four million fairy tale. Why did the Auschwitz-Museum defend the four million figure until 1990, although the study, which formed the basis for their revision, existed since 1964? F. Piper gave the following explanation:32
"The state-run Auschwitz museum in Oswiecim [Polish name of Auschwitz] started relatively late in the seventies to research the problem of the number of victims. At that time, the research did not give clear results and neither confirmed nor questioned the numbers of the Soviet and Polish investigating authorities. "
As already noted, this is completely wrong, because the pri- mary instrument of the propagandistic four million figure - D. Czech's Kalendarium - was created by the Auschwitz-Museum itself, and this refutes that figure categorically, as G. Wellers proved later, regardless of his own mistakes. And although the Kalendarium, as already mentioned, existed since 1964, F. Piper wrote the following in 1978 in a French book, which was one of the first books published by the Auschwitz museum ad- dressing the general history of the camp (chapter "extermina- tion"):33
"In the barely five years of the existence of the camp, about 4,000,000 people perished as the consequence of dis- eases and executions as well as from mass murders in the gas chambers. "
F. Piper states that he started working on the number of vic- tims of Auschwitz in 1980 and came to preliminary conclusions in 1986,34 but can one seriously believe that a researcher, who has been employed by the historical department of the Ausch- witz museum since 196535 and is its manager today, took the Soviet four-million legend at face value? Should this really be the case, it would be proof of a tragic blindness, unworthy of a history researcher. But if it is not so, as I assume, then it is proof of indecent political and ideological opportunism, also not befitting of a history researcher.
It should also be mentioned that the so-called memoirs of the first Auschwitz commandant Rudolf H6B were first pub- lished in Poland, and that H6B speaks therein of two and a half million victims; he claims that Eichmann gave him this figure. H6B lists the "largest actions", from which a total of 1,130,000 deportees derives;36 this would have been one more reason for the Auschwitz museum as well as F. Piper to check the four million figure.
In 1990, after the collapse of the communist regime in Po- land, F. Piper made use of the favorable hour to ban the thor- oughly discredited old figure into history's scrap heap: he pre- tends now to be a free and critical spirit who undertook a ma-
jor revision and therefore deserves the attention of the histori- ans!
4. The Consequences of Giving Up the Propaganda Figure of Four Million
Whoever thinks that the propaganda figure of four million can be dropped without punishment deceives himself com- pletely. This figure is closely connected with the thesis of mass extermination in Auschwitz and cannot be thrown overboard without bringing the whole artificial building into sway. Re- gardless of the futile efforts of Jean-Claude Pressac to prove this thesis of mass extermination by documents, it is up to this day based exclusively on statements of alleged eye witnesses, and Pressac himself had to make use of those when he tried to describe the first alleged homicidal gassing in crematorium II of Birkenau.37
As already said, the witness testimonies and the four million figure were intimately woven together right from the start, in a way that the refutation of the witness testimonies would have been equivalent to a refutation of this figure and vice versa; at the same time, the entire thesis of mass extermination in Auschwitz would become untenable.
Today, as the four million figure is finally off the table, the official history has in fact taken this irreversible path to refute the orthodox Auschwitz version. The investigation of the actual capacity of the cremation ovens of Auschwitz causes the inevi- table breakdown of the thesis of mass extermination of human beings in Auschwitz, because the most important witnesses, whose testimonies are necessary to support this thesis, have in the meantime been exposed as vulgar deceivers. Without fear of refutation, it can be said today that not a single one of the key witnesses - the members of the so-called "Sonderkom- mando" - ever told the truth about the cremation ovens; they all lied shamelessly without exception. They lied in order to rein- force the thesis of mass extermination.
But if they lied in this key point, then what credibility can their testimonies have regarding the 'gassings' of humans?
An honest dispute of this question has to result necessarily in a radical reduction of the number of people allegedly 'gassed,' and the article published by Fritjof Meyer in the spring of 2002,38 further reducing the number of victims in Auschwitz, is a writing on the wall for the official historiogra- phy.
This is of course only valid for those researchers who pos- ses a minimum of honesty and critical spirit, and certainly not for the Auschwitz-museum: although its historians have aban- doned the four million figure, they still quote the thermo- dynamically ridiculous testimonies of 'eye witnesses' as serious sources and could not care less about the obvious contradictions resulting from this.
In this sense, F. Piper was not ashamed to write the follow- ing as late as 1994:39
"A letter of the Central Construction Office to Group C of June 24, 1943, states that the capacity of crematorium I was 340 bodies, 1,440 each for crematoria II and III as well as 768 each for crematoria IV and K[40] Thus, the five cre- matoria could cremate 4,765 bodies daily. This estimate agrees with the descriptions of the capacity of a five muffle
The Revisionist ■ 2003 ■ Volume 1 ■ No. 4
391
crematorium for POW's, according to which two bodies could be cremated within 30 minutes.[4l] However, cremato- rium I was shut down in the following month, which re- duced the capacity to 4,515.
In their attempt to increase the cremation capacity of the ovens, the camp administration recommended to cut down the cremation time to 20 minutes and to triple the number of corpses, depending on the size of the bodies. As a result, the capacity of the crematoria could almost be doubled and went up to 8,000 corpses within 24 hours, as an inmate of the Sonderkommando, Feinsilber, testifies. " Thus this 'critical spirit' of the Auschwitz museum, who re- duced the number of victims of the camp to almost a quarter, opportunistically invented a cremation capacity, which was eight times above the actual capacity! F. Piper of course knows exactly that the credibility of his 'eyewitnesses' goes down the drain if he would state the true capacity of the ovens, and this would also render all the allegations about homicidal gassings from these same witnesses untrustworthy. This is the reason why the Auschwitz museum is and continues to be an authority on superstition and prefers fairy tales of 'eyewitnesses' over science.
Abbreviations
AGK: Archiwum Glownej Komisji Badania Zbrodni przeci- wko Narodowi polskiemu (archive of the main com- mission for the research of the crimes against the Pol- ish people, Warsaw)
GARF: Gosudarstvenni Archiv Rossiskoi Federatsiy (States archive of the Russian Federation, Moscow)
RGVA: Rossiiskii Gosudarstvennii Voyenniy Archiv (Russian state archive of war, the former TCIDK - Tsentr Khra- neniya Istoriko-dokumental'nikh Kollektsii, Center for storing historical-documentary collections, Moscow)
Notes
First published as "Die Viermillionenzahl von Auschwitz: Entstehung, Revi- sionen und Konsequenzen" in Vierteljahreshefte fur freie Geschichtsforschung 7(1) (2003), pp. 15-27. Translated by Fabian Eschen.
1 Werner Rademacher, "Die Wandlungen der Totenzahl von Auschwitz", VffG, 3(3) (1999), pp. 256-267 and Robert Faurisson, "How many deaths at Auschwitz?", TR, 1(1) (2003), pp. 18-23.
2 F. Meyer, "Die Zahl der Opfer von Auschwitz - Neue Erkenntnisse durch neue Archivfunde", Osteuropa. Zeitschrift fur Gegenwartsfragen des Ostens, No. 5, May 2002, pp. 631-641. This article is available online at www.vho.org/D/Beitraege/FritjofMeyerOsteuropa.html.
3 "Auschwitz: The Dwindling Death Toll", TR, 1(1) (2003), pp. 18-37.
4 Der Prozefi gegen die Hauptkriegsverbrecher vor dem Internationalen Militdr- gerichtshof Niirnberg 1947, Vol. VII, p. 647.
5 GARF, 7021-108-14, pp. 18-20.
6 Ibid,p. 18.
7 "Gasovye kamery": The so-called 'Bunker' 1 and 2 were thus labeled in all So- viet documents. This designation was introduced by Szlama Dragan in his fol- lowing Polish statements of May 10 and 11, 1945.
8 Ibid,p. 15.
9 The operating temperature of the muffles went up to 800°C. Temperatures of 1,500°C were only attainable in the fire places of the gas generators.
10 Protocol of the questioning of Henryk Taubers from Febraar 27-28, 1945. GARF, 7021-108-13, pp. 1-12.
1 1 J. Graf, C. Mattogno, Concentration Camp Majdanek. A Historical and Techni-
cal Study; Theses & Dissertations Press, Chicago 2003, p. 79. The actual number of
victims from Majdanek was around 42,300 (ibid., Chapter 4). 12 Ibid, p. 286.
lj R. Kessler, Rationelle Warme-Wirtschaft in Krematorien unter besonderer Be- riicksichtigung der Leuchtgasfeuerung, in: V. Jahrbuch des Verbandes derFeu- erbestattungs-Vereine Deutscher Sprache 1930, Konigsberg 1930, p. 136.
14 Even more crazy were the statements of the Soviet 'experts:' according to them, four to five corpses could bum as quickly as one corpse. German law, by the way, prohibited burning more than one corpse in a muffle at a time.
15 H6I3 Trial, Band 11, p. 133.
16 Ibid., p. 150.
17 "Neue Zahlen iiber Auschwitz. Historiker: bis zu 1,5 Millionen Tote," Frankfurter Rundschau, July 18,1 990. This articles expressly refers to a study by F. Pipers.
18 See photos 2 and 3 . © Carlo Mattogno 1991.
19 See photos 4 and 5 . © Carlo Mattogno 1997. The text is on 20 memorial plaques in 20 languages. In his book, Die Luge spricht zwanzig Sprachen, V.H.O., Ber- chem 2000, Bruno Montoriol reproduces pictures of all 20 memorial plaques.
20 F. Piper, "Estimating the Number of Deportees to and Victims of the Auschwitz-Birkenau Camp", in: Yad Vashem Studies, XXI, Jerusalem 1991, pp. 49-103.
21 F. Viper, Auschwitz. Wie viele Juden, Polen, Zigeuner... wurden umgebracht. Universitas, Krakau 1992.
22 Die Zahl der Opfer von Auschwitz, National Museum Publishing House, Oswie- cim, 1993.
23 Ibid, p AO.
24 G. Reitlinger. Die Endldsung. Hitlers Versuch der Ausrottung der Juden Euro- pas 1939 - 1945. Colloquium Publishers, Berlin 1992, p. 522.
25 J. Sehn, Oboz koncentracyjny i zaglady Oswiecim, in: Biuletyn Glownej Komisji Badania Zbrodni Niemieckich w Polsce. Posen 1946, p. 128.
26 These lists were put in order by K. Smoleh on December 16,1 947, at the Ameri- can "Counsel for War Crimes" and presented at the Nuremberg follow-up proc- ess as Document NOKW-2824.
27 AGK, NTN, 95, pp. 12f. The protocol spans p. 12 to p. 123.
28 D. Czech, Kalendarium der Ereignisse im Konzentrationslager Auschwitz- Birkenau, in: Hefte von Auschwitz, 2, 1959, pp. 89-1 18 (1940-1941); 3, 1960, pp. 47-110(1942); 4, 1961, pp. 63-111 (January-June 1943); 6, 1962, pp. 43-87 (July-December 1943); 7, 1964, pp. 71-103 (January-June 1944); 8, 1964, pp. 47-109 (July 1944-January 1945. Wydawnictwo Pahstwowego Muzeum w Os- wiecirniu.
29 The second, revised edition of the Kalendarium appeared in 1989 by Rowohlt, Reinbek.
30 G. Wellers, "Essai de determination du nombre de morts au camp d'Auschwitz," in: Le Monde Juif n. 112, Oct.-Dec. 1983, p. 153.
31 Wellers e i "gasati" di Auschwitz. Edizioni La Sfinge, Parma 1987.
32 F. Piper, op. cit. (note 22), p. 13.
33 F. Piper, "Extermination", in: J. Buszko, Auschwitz. Camp hitlerien d 'extermination, Editions Interpress, Warsaw 1978, p. 134.
34 F. Piper, op. cit. (note 22), p. 13.
35 Y. Gutman, M. Berenbaum (ed.), Anatomy of the Auschwitz death camp, Indiana University Press, Bloomington and Indianapolis 1994, p. XIII
36 Glowna Komosja Badania Zbrodni Hitlerowskich w Polsce, Wspomnienia Ru- dolfa Hoessa komendanta obozu oswiecimskiego. Wydawnictwo Prawnicze, Warsaw 1956, p. 193.
37 Jean-Claude Pressac, Die Krematorien von Auschwitz. Die Technik des Massen- mordes. Piper Verlag, Munich-Zurich 1994, p. 95; Pressac stiitzt sich hier auf die Zeugenaussage H. Taubers.
38 "Die Zahl der Opfer von Auschwitz. Neue Erkenntnisse durch neue Archiv- funde", in: Osteuropa, No. 5, May 2002, pp. 631-641. See also my article "Auschwitz. Fritjof Meyer's New Revisions", TR 1(1) (2003), pp. 30-37.
39 F. Piper, "Gas Chambers and Crematoria", in: Y. Gutman and M. Berenbaum (ed.), op. cit. (note 35), pp. 165f.
40 See also my article "'Schlusseldokument' - eine alternative Interpretation," VffG, 4(1) (2000), pp. 50-56.
41 F. Piper refers to Erlduterungsbericht zur Vorentwurffur den Neubau des Kriegsgefangenenlagers der Waffen-SS, Auschwitz 0/S(RGVA, 502-1-233, p. 20). This document was written at a time when the Topf tripple-muffle ovens did not yet exist and reflects the wishfull thinking of the Topf Company. The project planned at that time was different from the one later realized.
392
The Revisionist ■ 2003 ■ Volume 1 ■ No. 4
II. Franciszek Piper and The Number of Victims of Auschwitz
1. Introduction
In the previous article "The Four Million Number of Auschwitz: Origin, Revisions and Consequences," I described how Franciszek Piper, head of the history department at the Auschwitz Museum, let himself always be guided by political and ideological opportunism. During the time of the communist regime he accepted the four million figure faithfully and blindly according to the party instructions, but as soon as the regime broke down he freed himself from the rubble of the Soviet propaganda and published a pretentious 'scientific' piece with the title The Number of Victims of Auschwitz. 1 This study was highly regarded by official historians. In the following article I shall show what its real value is.
2. The Number of Deported Jews
F. Piper investigates the extent of the Jewish transportations to Auschwitz from the various countries and summarizes the results in tables, in which he enumerates the corresponding transports (p. 182-198). On page 199 he then represents the fi- nal result of his summaries.
In this section the veracity of these conclusions will be checked in detail.
2.1. Hungary
Number of deportees: 438,000 (p. 182 and 199). A total of 437,402 Jews were deported from this country between May and July 1944; of these, however, at the most 398,400 arrived in Auschwitz according to current knowledge.2 Therefore, the number quoted by F. Piper is too high by 39,600.
2.2 Poland
Number of deportees: 300,000 (p. 183-186 and 199). F. Piper notes for the time from May to August 1 942 the follow- ing - allegedly all gassed - transports from Polish ghettos:
Date of Arrival |
Place of Origin |
Deportees |
May 5, 1942 |
Dabrowa Gornica |
630 G |
May 12, 1942 |
Sosnowiec |
1,500 |
May 1942 |
Zawiercie |
2,000 |
May 1942 |
Bedzin |
2,000 |
June 17, 1942 |
Sosnowiec |
1,000 |
June 20, 1942 |
Sosnowiec |
2,000 |
June 1942 |
Biesko-Biala |
5,000 G |
June 1942 |
Olkusz |
3,000 G |
June 1942 |
Krzepice |
1,000 G |
June 1942 |
Chrzanow |
4,000 G |
August 1-3, 1942 |
Bedzin |
5,000 G |
August 15, 1942 |
Sosnowiec |
2,000 |
August 16, 1942 |
Sosnowiec |
2,000 |
August 17, 1942 |
Sosnowiec |
2,000 |
August 18, 1942 |
Sosnowiec |
2,000 |
Total |
13,000 |
These transports are pure inventions;3 there is not the trace of an indication of these in the existing documentation, and in
her PMSchwitz-Kalendarium Danuta Czech cannot furnish the slightest proof for the reality of these transports. The transports marked by me with a "G" are mentioned in the well-known At- las of the British-Jewish historian Martin Gilbert,4 a study without any sources, which therefore has no historical value at all, because it is impossible to separate reality from fantasy.
Information about the alleged transport of 1000 Jews from Grodno in November 1942 (Piper does not give the exact date), supposedly all gassed right after their arrival, is taken from D. Czech's Kalendarium^ the same is true for the transport of 1000 Jews from Bialystok of November 8, 1942. For both transports D. Czech quotes the diary of Dr. Johannes Kremer as a source:6
"This is the 12th Sonderaktion, in which Dr. Kremer participates. (Auschwitz in den Augen der SS, op. cit. Di- ary Kremers, p. 232). "
"This is the 13th Sonderaktion, in which Dr. Kremer participates. (Auschwitz in den Augen der SS, op. cit. Di- ary Kremers, p. 232). "7
However, the source quoted by D. Czech refutes her own claim: the corresponding part from Dr. Kremer' s diary as printed in the 1997 edition of Auschwitz in den Augen der SS actually read as follows:
"November 8, 1942. Participated tonight in 2 Sonderak-
tionen^ in rainy gray fall weather (12. and 13.) "
Dr. Kremer neither mentions the arrival of those two trans- ports nor the number of admissions, and both cases are there- fore pure inventions by D. Czech.
In a footnote Jadwiga Bezwihska as well as Danuta Czech explain themselves (!):9
"Jews from the concentration camp Lublin (Majdanek)
arrived. 25 men were assigned as inmates to the camp; the
others (number unknown) were gassed".
In other words: D. Czech never had in her possession any proof for the arrival of the two mentioned transports in Ausch- witz, and therefore these are to be categorized as pure inven- tions. The same is true for the transport of 2,500 Jews from Chrzanow on February 18, 1943, for which Pipers again quotes Gilbert's Atlas.10
The transport with 4,000 Jews from Lomza of January 14, 1943 is not even listed in D. Czech's Kalendarium. The same for the transports with 1,000 Jews from Czestochowa on June 25, 1943, with 5,000 Jews from Tarnow on September 2, 1943, with 3,500 Jews from Przemysl on September 2, 1943, with 1,000 Jews from Rzeszow in November 1943, with 600 Jews from Boryslaw on March 28, 1844, as well as finally with 700 Jews from Boryslaw on June 22, 1944.
Thus, the second group of transports comprises a further 20,300 fictitious deportees.
An even more characteristic example for F. Piper's methods is the case of Lodz. The subtotal of his table about transports of Polish Jews to Auschwitz is 225,464 deportees. This table lists, among others, 1 1 transports from the ghetto of Lodz, to which F. Piper assigns an - incomplete - number of 4,818 deportees.
The Revisionist ■ 2003 ■ Volume 1 ■ No. 4
393
Photo 4&58: The 'new' memorial stones in the Auschwitz- Birkenau camp: again already invalid...
© Carlo Mattogno
He then adds farther 55,000 to 65,000 Jews sent to Auschwitz from this ghetto for August and September 1944 and arrives thus at the already mentioned total number of 300,000 Jewish deportees who arrived from Poland.
However, subtracting the subtotal from the overall total re- sults in (300,000 - 225,464 =) 74,536 deportees. To these the 4,818, which were already included in the table, have to be added, which results in 79,354 Jews who were sent to Ausch- witz from Lodz, but Piper specifies their number between 60,000 to 70,000, so that the resulting number from his table is 9,354 higher than the maximum number stated by himself. But this difference is not decisive; the reality actually looks quite different. As I described in my article "The Evacuation of the Ghettos of Lodz and the Deportations to Auschwitz (August 1944)", 1 1 the number of the Jews sent from Lodz to Auschwitz is approximately 22,5000, which shows that F. Piper pulled a further 56,854 deportees out of his hat.
In summary, the number of the Piper's fictitious Jewish ar- rivals from Poland is therefore (35,130 + 20,300 + 56,854 =) about 112,300.
2.3 France
Number of deportees: 69,1 14 (rounded to 69,000) (p. 187f.).
Piper's source for this is the known documentation of Serge Klarsfeld,12 in which the number of the French Jews deported to Auschwitz is listed as 68, 921. 13 However, F. Piper did not consider the Jews, which were selected in Kosel, whose number according to Klarsfeld was between 3,056 and 4,000 (so we can use a average of 3,500). Therefore the number of Jews who ar- rived in Auschwitz is about (68,921 - 3,500) =) 65,400, and the number listed by Piper is too high by (69,000 - 65,400 =) 3,600.
2.4 Holland
Number of deportees: 60,085 (rounded to 60,000) (p. 189f.). In this case as well, Piper ignores the Jews who were sorted out in Kosel, numbered by the Dutch Red Cross at 3, 540. 14
2.5 Greece
Number of deportees: 54,533 (rounded to 55,000) (p. 191 an 199). In the corresponding table, a transport with 2,500 Jews is
listed, which arrived on August 16, 1944, from the Island Rhodos. But the same transport also appears in the table for It- aly, except that the date of arrival is here July 23, 1944, and the number of deportees is listed as 1,805. As the Italian historian Liliana Picciotto Fargion explains, a transport with 1,820 Ital- ian Jews left the Dodekanes (Rhodos and Koo) on July 23, 1944, made an intermediate stop in Athens on August 3, and ar- rived in Auschwitz on August 16.15 F. Piper counts it, as we have seen, twice and gives a different number in each case. This transport has to be counted under Italy, since at that time those islands were Italian territory, and the number of deported Jews from Greece has to be reduced by 2,500.
2.6 Theresienstadt
Number of deportees: 46,099 (rounded to 46,000) (p. 192). According to the memorial book of the ghetto Theresienstadt, 43,454 Jews were transferred to Auschwitz between 1942 and
1944, 3,400.
so that Piper's number is too high by approximately
2.7 Yugoslavia
Number of the deportees: 10,000 (p. 196 and 199). For the transports from Zagreb on May 7 and 13, 1943, F. Piper counts a total of 4,000 deportees, while D. Czech tallies these to
2,000." sleeve.
This means that F. Piper had 2,000 deportees up his
2.8 Belgium
Number of deportees: 24,906 (rounded up to 25,000, p. 197 and 199). Piper's source is a book by Maxim Steinberg, which actually mentions 24,906 Jews deported from Belgium to Auschwitz,18 but also mentions that 1,380 of these were sorted out in Kosel.19 Therefore, Piper lists an excess of approximately 1 ,400 deportees.
2.9 Italy
Number of deportees: 7,422 (rounded to 7,500) (p. 109f.) 5,951 Jews were sent from Italy to Auschwitz, to which 1,820 Jews from the islands Rhodos and Koo (Dodekanes) have to be added.20 Therefore the total is 7,711 and Piper's number is too low by 300.
394
The Revisionist ■ 2003 ■ Volume 1 ■ No. 4
2. 10 Concentration Camps, Auxiliary Camps and other Places
Number of deportees: 34,000 (p. 199).
Piper simply lists here the number without specifying the origin and number of transports. According to D. Czech's Kal- endarium the number of deported under this category is about 12,500,21 to which 7,500 Jewess are to be added who arrived from Plaszow on August 6, 1944,22 as well as 1,400 Jews who also came from Plaszow on May 14, 1944.23 This results in a total of 21,400. Under these circumstances, Piper's number is too high by 12,600.
2.11 Summary
In summary: F. Piper invented at least 180,600 Jews alleg- edly deported to Auschwitz. Thus, 180,600 have to be sub- tracted from his total number of 1,095,190 Jewish deportees as listed in his table 28 on p. 199, and the actual total is about 914,600, of which about 205,000 were registered (p. 103).
3. The Number of Registered, Non-Registered (Accommodated in the Birkenau Transfer Camp) as well as of Allegedly Gassed Deportees.
On p. 102, F. Piper includes a table, which indicates that a total of 400,207 prisoners were registered in Auschwitz. On p. 1 18 is another table with numbers assigned to the prisoners, ac- cording to D. Czech's Kalendarium, The listed total number - 390,50024 - does not include the estimated 11,000 (11,186) re- education prisoners, so that the actual total number of the regis- tered is about 401,500. The following table summarizes the numbers of the surviving inmates, as furnished by F. Piper:
Year |
Trans- ferred |
Released |
Escaped |
Liberated |
p. |
1940 |
92 |
? |
3 |
152 |
|
1941 |
2,282 |
? |
6 |
154 |
|
1942 |
2,916 |
997 |
48 |
156 |
|
1943 |
19,859 |
0 |
139 |
160 |
|
1944/1945 |
163,000 |
500 |
300 |
8,000 |
163 |
Total |
188,149 |
1,497 |
496 |
8,000 |
Adding in the re-education prisoners to this results in a total of 198,142 survivors. According to Piper, the "25,000 non- registered prisoners who were transferred to other concentration camps after a brief stay in the KL Auschwitz" (p. 163f.), have to be added to this total. This would therefore yield a total of about 223,000 survivors. Under these circumstances, the num- ber of dead according to Piper would be (1,300,000 - 223,000 =) 1,077,000, but Piper rounds it up to a total of 1,100,000.
The total number of 1,300,000 deportees to Auschwitz as listed by F. Piper includes also groups of non-Jews, which were - according to his allegations - murdered in the camp without registration: 3,000 Soviet POWs, 1,700 gypsies, 10,000 Poles (p. 149f), which is a total of 14,700, rounded up to 15,000 (p. 200). With the exception of a few dozen Poles, however, there is absolutely no documentary evidence for these allegations, so that these allegedly non-registered killed can be banned into the realm of fantasy as well.
The number of the non-registered admitted to the Birkenau transfer camp is considerably higher than F. Piper admits. To
this category belong at least 79,200 Hungarian Jews and about 19,400 Jews from Lodz.11 On October 2, 1944, there were 17,251 Jewesses still in the transfer camp who were then included with the camp population26 without being assigned a registration number. The number of inmates who did not re- ceive such a number was at least 98,600. Andrzej Strzelecki confirmed the probability of this number when he wrote:27
"Between May and October 1944, several tens of thou- sands, most probably up to one hundred thousand Jewish prisoners went through the Birkenau camp without registra- tion ".
And finally F. Piper considerably underestimates the num- ber of the Jews who were transferred out of Auschwitz in 1944 as well as in early 1945, because in reality this number was not less than 192,300 prior to January 17, 1945. At that time, there were still 67,000 prisoners in the camp; about 58,500 of them were transferred and 8,500 remained.28
4. The Number of Dead (Registered Inmates)
4.1. 1940-1941
For this period, F. Piper calculates 21,000 dead. Since the - incomplete - documentation begins on July 29, 1941 (death certificate No. 1 of the inmate Peter Pakosch),29 F. Piper relies for his calculations on the difference between the numbers of registered inmates on one hand and those who were actually present, escaped, or had been dismissed on the other hand. A more exact calculation, which I will publish later, results in 19,500 victims during this period, including the Soviet POW's.
4.2. 1942
F. Piper says that the highest registration number, which appears in the (incomplete) last "Sterbebuch" (death book) of 1942, is 45,616. It was assigned to the female inmate Erna Haubenstock on December 3 1 of that year, but the document shows that this woman died on December 23. Since this "Ster- bebuch" listed as an average 128 deaths per day, it stands to reason, according to F. Piper, that until December 31 1,000 more prisoners died and that the total number of dead according to the death books therefore is about 47,000 (p. 156). The high- est registration number of a dead inmate is 47,020 (Jewish in- mate Jacques Caufman).30 Not included in this number are 1,427 Soviet POWs who perished in 1942, whose death is sepa- rately listed in the "Totenbuch" (book of the dead).
F. Piper finally asks, whether this number is accurate, and negates it with the following argument:
From the opening of the camp until December 31, 1942, ca. 126,000 inmates were registered. Of these, 29,630 were still in the camp on January 1, 1943, and therefore about (126,000 - 29,630 =) 96,500 were missing. Of these, some 23,500 disap- peared in the two previous years 1940 and 1941, and in 1942, 2,916 were transferred to other camps; 48 had escaped and 997 were discharged. Under these circumstances, Piper calculates that a total of about (96,500 - 23,500 - 2,916 -48 - 997 =) 69,000 prisoners died in the year 1942, about 22,000 more than were listed in the "Sterbebilcher."
To explain this alleged difference, F. Piper refers to a for- mer Auschwitz inmate Klari WeiB, who worked in the political department of the camp:
The Revisionist ■ 2003 ■ Volume 1 ■ No. 4
395
"Because of my access to the files I can estimate that there were about 48,000 natural deaths in the camp in 1942. The natural deaths of Jews were not listed in 1943, however, the files of about 35,000 deaths of non-Jews were kept. The number of natural deaths of non-Jews in 1944 were about 30, 000 " (p. 227).
F. Piper underlines that Klari WeiB talks only about "natural deceases;" he therefore calculates an additional 22,000
'"not natural' deceases - these inmates were killed in the gas chambers and with phenol injections. " (p. 158). F. Piper's calculations, however, are basically worthless, because it has to be shown first that two different books were kept for the deaths, an official book - the "Sterbebilcher" for the registered inmates - as well as an unofficial book for those who died an 'non-natural' death. There are no documentary traces of the latter; there is not a single example of a decease other than those officially listed in all the documents about mortalities in Auschwitz - the "Leichenhallenbuch" (morgue book, 13,526 deceases), the "Starkebuch" (number of inmates book, 22,168 deceases) as well as death certificates (4,839 de- ceases).31 This information is on p. 155 of F. Piper. On the con- trary: As Thomas Grotum and Jan Parcer emphasize, the "Ster- bebilcher" include indications about 'non-natural' deaths, like those 67 inmates who were "shot during an escape."32 The two authors even explained:33
"Most death causes, as can be found in the death en- tries, were feigned. In order to cover up the true circum- stances of the deaths of the Auschwitz inmates the clerks had instructions to choose possible reasons for the deaths from a prepared list. " In the following they add:34
"Among the 68,864 death entries are 2,727, where 'sudden heart failure ' is mentioned as the cause for death. In several of these cases it can be shown that these were unnatural death causes. "
Thus, according to T. Grotum and J. Parcer, the 'non- natural' deceases were listed in the death books, either explic- itly or implicitly, with false entries for the cause of death. On the other hand, the number of examples mentioned by them is so small that their allegation that "most causes of death" were false is not justified. It can be assumed that, if manipulations occurred, they were initiated by the desire to bypass the rigid bureaucratic routine, which was laid down in the regulations for the concentration camps in 1941. According to it, the following documents had to be prepared in duplicate "in cases of unnatu- ral deceases and suicides:"
1 Interrogation protocol of the witnesses
1 Report for the commandant
1 Death certificate by the doctor
1 Autopsy report
1 Funeral certificate of the SS- and police court 1 Termination certificate of the SS- and police court.35 It may be that the individuals responsible in some cases thought that it would be easier to bypass the bothersome bu- reaucratic paperwork and to list a false cause of death instead.
In view of these facts the thesis of F. Piper has to be dis- carded as being unsound. Because, as is common knowledge, the documentation about Auschwitz is incomplete, there is no
reason to assume that the numbers of transferred, escaped, and released prisoners are complete, as they are listed by F. Piper with reference to D. Czech's Kalendarium. For example: D. Czech listed less than half of the actual transfers from Ausch- witz to other camps for the year 1944. 29
For this reason, the exact opposite of F. Piper's assertion is true: Because all death were entered into the death books, the missing 22,000 inmates did not die in the camp but belong to the other three categories, mainly of course the one of transfers.
4.3. 1943
F. Piper indicates that the highest registration number in the last death book of the year 1943 is 36,991 and was assigned to the inmate Zelik Gieclik, who died on December 18. Because the average daily mortality during that period was about 105, 1,400 further inmates can be assumed to have died until De- cember 31, so that the total number of deceased for 1943 is to be estimated at over 38,000 (p. 160).
However, this calculation is erroneous: While the last death book of the year 1942 (No. 31) only partly survived, this is not the case for the last death book of 1943 (No. 25); this one is complete, and the apparent discrepancy is because the number- ing of the registrations was not handled in strict chronological order. The relevant death book actually covers the period until December 31, 1943, and the highest listed number of a de- ceased is 36,983; the dead is the inmate Stanislaw Domanski.
F. Piper refers a second time to Klari WeiB, who according to him said
"that the deaths of Jewish inmates in 1943 were no longer registered, even in case of a 'natural' death (cer- tainly not even death certificates were prepared in these cases). As Klari Weifi reports, the result of her evidence is that in 1943 a total of 35,000 non-Jews died. " (p. 160) However, this allegation cannot be backed by documents in any way either, and F. Piper's hypothesis that Jewish inmates who died a natural (or unnatural) death could have disappeared without a death certificate (or with a falsified entry of the cause of death) from the camp's population, is simply wrong.
F. Piper again took refuge in a awkward method of calcula- tion in order to account for the difference between the number of dead as claimed by him and those listed in the death books. He emphasizes that ca. 282,000 prisoners were registered until the end of 1943, of which 85,298 were still in the camp on De- cember 31, 1943, so that ca. 197,000 inmates were missing. Of these, he writes, about 96,500 disappeared in the previous years (1940 to 1942). In 1943, 19,859 prisoners were transferred to other camps and 139 escaped, so that the number of perished inmates in that year (197,000 - 96,500 - 19,859 - 139 =) is about 80,500 (p. 160ff), which would be some 43,500 above the documented number. In reality, it is likely that most of these inmates were transferred to other camps.
April 4, 1944 (-1945)
F. Piper maintains that no document at all exists today about the mortality in Auschwitz for this year, but D. Czech's Kalen- darium states that "in the year 1944 about 30,000 registered in- mates were killed" (p. 162). In order to determine the number of victims for 1944, Piper uses the following method of calculation:
396
The Revisionist ■ 2003 ■ Volume 1 ■ No. 4
The total number of registered prisoners in the camp of Auschwitz since its existence is about 400,200, of these 197,000 disappeared from the camp population prior to the end of 1943. Of the remaining 203,000, 163,000 were transferred or evacuated, 300 escaped, about 500 were released and about 8,000 were liberated by the Soviets. Under these circumstances, argues F. Piper, the number of perished inmates in 1944 were to be estimated at (203,000 - 163,000 - 300 - 500 - 8000 =) 30,000 (p. 163; 31,200 would be correct). He states
"that the number of 30,000 deaths includes Jews as well
as non-Jews, and those who died of a 'natural' death as
well as killed inmates. " (p. 163)
On the other hand, Klari WeiB explains that
"the number 30,000 refers only to non-Jews and only to
inmates who died of a 'natural ' death. "
In order to explain this contradiction, F. Piper resorts to the idea of a general falsification of the "Sterbefalldokumentation" (death case documentation), allegedly used by the SS for rea- sons of camouflage. This 'explanation' is simply nonsense, be- cause if it is true that in 1944 a total of 30,000 prisoners per- ished, and if it is further correct that in the same year 30,000 inmates were gassed, it has to be concluded that in 1944 not a single inmate died of a natural cause, which of course is radi- cally impossible.
Furthermore, F. Piper almost criminally underestimates the number of those, who were transferred or evacuated from Auschwitz. Because if the approximately 8,500 inmates, who stayed in the camp until the Red Army arrived, are allowed for, the actual number is about 250, 00029 and definitely not just 188,888 (163,000 registered as well as 25,000 non-regi- stered).36
A correct calculation of the number of dead for 1944 is as follows:
The population of the camp on December 31, 1943, was 85,298.37 1 14,500 inmates were registered in 1944, while 98,600 went through the transfer camp in Birkenau. During that year, at least 250,800 prisoners were transferred or evacuated, 300 es- caped, and ca. 8,500 stayed in the camp until the end. Of these, 536 died, and their corpses were autopsied by the Soviets.38 Un- der these circumstances, the number of those who died in the camp cannot have been higher than about ([85,298 + 1 14,500 + 98,600] - [250,800 + 300 + 500 + 8,500] =) ca. 38,500.
The order of magnitude of this number is in agreement with the one mentioned by Klari WeiB. The numbers of Klari WeiB agree, by the way, quite well with those documented, thus they can be considered reliable. Incorrect, of course, are her state- ments about the categories to which the deceased should be listed. The reason for her incorrect statements in this respect can be understood easily. In the verdict of the H6B trial, the al- legation was arbitrarily made that 300,000 registered inmates died or were killed in Auschwitz,39 so that Klari WeiB could, of course, not testify during the later Cracow trial against the camp personal that 'only' as many inmates died as were regis- tered in the death books; she had to maintain that there were additional cases of death besides those registered.
F. Piper explains that the number of 340,000 dead among the registered inmates, a figure frequently mentioned in the Auschwitz-literature, is based
"on an erroneous interpretation of the number men- tioned by Sehn, which covers the transferred inmates in Auschwitz as well in other concentration camps " (p. 164) Although it is true that the Polish judge Jan Sehn wrote:40
"More than 400,000 inmates, listed in different registra- tion series, arrived in the camp Auschwitz. Of these, 340,000 died in Auschwitz and other camps, to which they were transferred. "
But if this statement is interpreted wrongly, than nobody else is responsible for this than F. Piper, since he himself claimed in 1978 that "about 340,000 of the registered inmates - men, women and children" died or were killed in Auschwitz.41
5. Conclusions
What has been explained so far permits one to come to the following (preliminary) conclusions:
1. The number of deportees to Auschwitz is about 1,111,100; of these 914,600 were Jews and 196,500 non-Jews.
2. About 401,500 prisoners were registered in the camp; of these about 205,000 were Jews, the rest non-Jews.
3. The number of Jews who were assigned to the "Durch- gangslager" (transfer camp) of Birkenau and then trans- ferred to other camps is not less than 98,600.
4. At least 250,800 prisoners were transferred or evacuated in 1944 as well as in January 1945.
5. The number of those who perished in Auschwitz is about 135,000. The breakdown of the deceased for the various years is listed in the following table:
1940-1941 19,500
1942 48,500 (48,447)
1943 37,000 (36,991)
1944 30,000
1945 500 (536)
Total 135,500
6. The total number of released, escaped, and transferred in- mates as well as inmates liberated by the Soviets is at least ([401,500 + 98,600] - 135,500] =) 364,600.
7. The difference between these numbers and the total number of the deportees to Auschwitz is a maximum of (1,111,100 - 364,600 - 135,500 =) about 611,000, or 55%. According to official history, these are the 'non-registered gassed.'
8. A total of not less than 500,100 prisoners were admitted to the camp, of these ca. 401,500 were registered and ca. 98,600 were quartered in the transfer section of Birkenau.
6. The Fate of the Missing Jews
It is hardly necessary to emphasize that neither F. Piper nor any other historian has ever furnished even a trace of evidence for the gassing of the non-registered inmates, who are by and large probably identical with those unable to work. On the other hand, it can be proven without any doubt that two of the most widely exploited alleged gassings - the one of the Birkenau gypsy camp in Birkenau (2,897 inmates) as well as those of the inmates of the ghettos of Lodz (66,900 inmates) - were actually historiographic falsifications.11 Not a single one of the other al- leged gassings can be backed up with documents. It is furthermore a fact that until 1989, official historiography considered at least 79,200 non-registered Hungarian Jews, who
The Revisionist ■ 2003 ■ Volume 1 ■ No. 4
397
were assigned to the transfer camp, as 'gassed.' F. Piper, however, still counts (79,200 - 25,000 =) 54,200 of them as gassed!
As far as the fate of the 611,000 missing Jews is concerned, there are various documents indicating that they were deported further to the east. Reichsminister Albert Speer talked about this in this connection with specific reference to Auschwitz in an important document of the "Ostwanderung" (eastward mi- gration).43
7. Meaning and Importance of Jean-Claude Pressac's and Fritj of Meyer's Revisions as well as Future Revisions
In the first part of this article, I emphasize that an investiga- tion of the number of victims of Auschwitz from a technical point of view must necessarily lead to a radical reduction of those allegedly 'gassed' in that camp. The currently accepted number of 1.1 million victims, as published by F. Piper, will doubtlessly be thrown into the garbage can of history very soon, as happened to the Soviet propaganda number of four million.
In fact, Piper's number and the number accepted by official history were already drastically reduced by Jean-Claude Pres- sac and Fritjof Meyer. These reductions are without question a direct consequence of revisionist research.
Jean-Claude Pressac starts with 667,200-747,200 Jews who were sent to Auschwitz; he lists the number of dead among the registered camp inmates as 161,000 (including 15,000 Soviet POW's and 20,000 gypsies) and believes that there were 470,000 to 550,000 non-registered Jewish gassed.44
For his calculations, Pressac refers to the study of F. Piper but reduces the number of admitted Jews from Poland and Hungary as well as the number of deaths among registered in- mates. Regarding Poland, he believes that the number of as- sumed passengers riding on each individual train was exagger- ated and reduces the total number from 300,000 to 150,000. He bases this mainly on the relation between those who can work (30 to 35 %) and those who are unable to work (65 to 79%); according to this, there were 50,000 employable (registered) Polish Jews against 150,000 non-employable (non-registered). However, in the case of deportations from Bendsburg and Sos- nowitz, Pressac used a revisionist argument: He emphasizes that, according to D. Czech's Kalendarium, 23,714 'non- employable' Jews were sent to Auschwitz in the beginning of August 1943 within six days, in addition to one transport from France and one from Belgium. If all these Jews were really gassed, then the number of daily gassed would have been in the average 4,000. Pressac believes that the operating crematoria at that time - Krema I, III and V - had a daily cremation capacity of 1,750 corpses, and that this was reduced to 1,500 after shut- ting down Krema I at the end of July 1943. Thus, according to Pressac, the cremation of such a large number of corpses was impossible; he continues:45
"It appears that the number of Jews per transport (2000 to 3000) -poorly estimated by the eye witnesses - was dou- bled. "
Although Pressac uses an untenably high cremation capac- ity (the actual maximal capacity of crematoria III and V to- gether was about 460 corpses per day), he uses a typical revi-
sionist, technical argument and therefore abandons the testimo- nies of the witnesses as unreliable.
In the case of Jewish transports from Hungary, Pressac made use of one of my arguments, which I had already made a long time ago; this was based upon a problem, which could not be solved at that time but could be explained subsequently.46
Pressac accepts the number of about 438,000 deported Hungarian Jews between May and July 1944, but he thinks that only between 160,000 and 240,000 of these actually arrived in Auschwitz.47 He can unfortunately not explain where the re- maining 198,000 to 278,000 went.
Regarding the number of deaths among registered inmates, Pressac accepts for 1942 and 1943 the data of the death books, uses for 1944 the numbers of Klari WeiB, and determines for the period from January 1 to 18, 1945, a number - certainly too high - of 1,500 dead, and posits for the period from May 1940 to the end of 1941 a number of victims of 11,988. He adds to this 15,000 Soviet POW's and 20,000 gypsies and arrives at a total of 161,000 dead.48 Since the number deceased among the gypsies is already included in the death books, 20,000 have to be deducted from Pressac's total, resulting in a total of 141,000 dead, which is approximately identical with the figure I quoted in this article.
The weak point of the revision undertaken by Pressac is primarily the number of the Hungarian Jews sent to Auschwitz. (That the number of deported Hungarian Jews quoted by Piper is actually very inflated can be assumed as certain). There is no doubt that several transports with Hungarian Jews were sent to Austria (StraBhof and Ganserndorf), to Bergen-Belsen, to Lat- via and to Estonia; further transports did probably arrive in Plaszow and Cracow without an intermediate stop in Ausch- witz.49 Still, according to today's knowledge, the numbers as listed by Pressac cannot be proven with documents.
From a statistical point of view, future additional revisions of the deportees to Auschwitz will depend first of all on new findings about the deportations of Hungarian Jews to other places than Auschwitz.
In May 2002, Fritjof Meyer revised the number of victims even more radically than Pressac,50 and not only with reference to the new reduction of the number (he mentions 510,000 per- ished inmates in Auschwitz, of these 356,000 allegedly gassed), but especially with regards to the method.
Meyer's procedure is barely veiled revisionism. He ap- proaches his issue not from a statistical, but from a technical point of view: His drastic reduction of the number of victims as quoted by Piper is based primarily on technical criteria, namely the capacity of the cremation ovens of Auschwitz-Birkenau. I indicated in an earlier article that Meyer's choosing of this cri- terion is unassailable, but he uses it incorrectly, because the technical data, which he accepts is not in accordance with real- ity.51 Nevertheless, F. Meyer dealt two deadly blows to official historiography, first by accepting the technical method of revi- sionists, concluding from it that no historic basis exists for the thesis of mass gassings, and second because any reduction of the number of Auschwitz victims lower than the number of missing inmates means de facto that a corresponding number of non-employable inmates were transferred from Auschwitz to other places.
398
The Revisionist ■ 2003 ■ Volume 1 ■ No. 4
By using the number of 356,000 gassed Jews in Auschwitz, as quoted by F. Meyer, one arrives at the conclusion that (611,000 - 356,000 =) 255,000 non-employable Jews left the camp alive and were transferred somewhere else. In this case, Auschwitz certainly could not have functioned as an extermina- tion camp for all non-employable Jews deported to this camp, and this key argument of the official history collapses in itself.
Notes
Translated from the Italian by Jiirgen Graf.
1 Verlag Staatliches Museum in Oswiecim, 1993. The following page num- bers in parentheses refer to this work.
2 See C. Mattogno, "Die Deportation ungarischer Juden von Mai bis Juli 1944. Eine provisorische Bilanz", in: VffG, 5(4) (2001), p. 389.
3 For this see my study "Sonderbehandhmg " ad Auschwitz. Genesi e signifi- cato, Edizioni di Ar, Padua 2001, p. 42f. Soon to be published as Special Treatment in Auschwitz, Theses & Dissertations Press, Chicago, 2004.
4 M. Gilbert, Endldsung. Die Vertreibung und Vernichtung der Juden. Ein At- las. Rowohlt Verlag, Reinbek bei Hamburg 1995, pp. 100, 105.
5 D. Czech, Kalendarium der Ereignisse im Konzentrationslager Auschwitz- Birkenau 1939-1945, Rowohlt, Reinbek 1989, p. 335. D. Czech claims that this transport was received on November 8, 1942, coming "from the ghettos of the so-called administrative district Zichenau."
6 Auschwitz in den Augen der SS, Staatliches Museum Auschwitz-Birkenau 1997, p. 164.
7 Ibid, pp. 335f.
8 Regarding the actual meaning of this term see my study ''Sonderbehand- hmg" ad Auschwitz. Genesi e significato, op. cit. (note 3), pp. 101-1 16.
9 Auschwitz in den Augen der SS, op. cit. (note 6), p. 164.
10 D. Czech, op. cit. (note 5), p. 416.
11 See my article "Das Ghetto von Lodz in der Holocaust-Propaganda" in Vierteljahreshefte fur freie Geschichtsforschung, 2(1) (2003), pp. 30-36; an English will soon appear in The Revisionist.
12 S. Klarsfeld, Le memorial de la deportation des Juifs de France. Edite et publie par Beate et Serge Klarsfeld, Paris 1978.
13 Ibid., p. 13 (my page numbers; the book has no pagination).
14 Het Nederlandsche Roode Kruis. Auschwitz, Deel III. 's-Gravenhage, 1952, pp.12-15
15 L. Picciotto Fargion, // libro della memoria. Gli Ebrei deportati dall Italia (1943-1945). Mursia, Milano 1991, pp. 62f.
16 Terezinska Pametni Kniha. Terezinska Iniziativa, Melantrich 1995, pp. 67- 73 (transport list).
17 D. Czech, op. cit. (note 5), pp. 488, 493.
18 S. Klarsfeld, M. Steinberg, Memorial de la deportation des Juifs de Belgi- que. The Beate Klarsfeld Foundation, New York 1994, p. 13.
19 Ibid, p. 45
20 L. Picciotto Fargion, op. cit. (note 15), pp. 26, 32.
21 The transfers took place on the following days: 22.5.1942, 30.6, 6.10, 21.10, 24.10, 24.10, 24.10, 25.10, 8.11, 26.6.1943, 1.7, 8.7, 11.7, 23.10, 17.12, 12.1.1944, 16.4, 29.4, 13.5,29.7, 11.8,22.8,29.8, 1 1.10, 2.1 1. These trans- fers also included non-Jews.
22 D. Czech, op. cit. (note 5), p. 842.
23 Ibid., p. 774. M. Kunicka-Wyrzykowska, Kalendarium obozu ptaszows- kiego 1942-1945, in: Biuletyn Glownej Komisji Badania Zbrodni Hit- lerowskich w Polsce, XXXI, 1982, p. 68 (transport of 1,400 Jewesses).
24 Rounded to 500.
C. Mattogno, op. cit. (note 2), p. 385. APMO, Stdrkemeldung, D-AuII-3a, p. 53a.
A. Strzelecki, Endphase des KL Auschwitz. Verlag Staatliches Museum Au- schwitz-Birkenau 1995, p. 352.
This figure results from a study of mine about Jews transferred to Ausch- witz tiberstellten Juden, which will appear in a later issue of The Revisionist. Sterbebuch 1/1941, p. 1. RGVA, 502-4-48, p. 73.
All these documents record deceased inmates in one way or another. First, a dead inmate would be listed as such in the "Starkebuch" as a reduction of the camp's total inmate number. Next, this inmate would appear in the "Sterbebuch" or "Totenbuch," which lists all deceased inmates. The "Lei- chenhallenbuch" lists inmates as they are delivered and stored in a morgue before cremation. Death certificates, finally, are prepared by doctors and German registar officials confirming the death and determining the reason of death for legal and general administrative purposes. Theoretically, each dead inmate should be mentioned in all of these documents. But since all of these documentations are fragmentary, they are often used for extrapola- tions to fill the gaps in the documentation. The editor. T. Grotum, J. Parcer, EDV-gestutzte Auswertung der Sterbeeintrage, in: Sterbebiicher von Auschwitz, edited by the State Museum Auschwitz- Birkenau, K.G.Saur; Munich/New Providence/London/Paris 1995, vol. I, p. 247.
Ibid, p. 242. Ibid., p. 243. AGK, NTN, 131, p. 186.
In the first edition of his book (Auschwitz. Wieviele Juden, Polen, Zigeu- ner... wurden umgebracht. Universitas, Krakau 1992, p. 45). F. Piper states that the Auschwitz Museum has three different calculationsof the inmates transferred from Auschwitz in 1944 and 1945: the first is from A. Strzelecki (187,820 inmates), the second from L. Krysta (182,000 inmates), the third from S. Iwaszko (225,000 inmates). The third is closest to reality. AGK, NTN, 134, pp. 282 and 287. GARF, 7021-108-21.
Verdict of the HoB trial (April 2, 1947). AGK, NTN, 146z, pp. 3, 6 and 29. J. Sehn, Oswie^cim-Brzezinka (Auschwitz-Birkenau) Concentration camp. Wydawnictwo prawnicze, Warsaw 1961, p. 40.
F. Piper, Extermination, in: J. Buszko (ed.), Auschwitz (Oswiecim) Camp hitlerien d' extermination, Editions Interpress, Warsaw 1978, p. 134. C. Mattogno, op. cit. (note 2), p. 385.
C. Mattogno, op. cit. (note 3), pp. 67-73; C. Mattogno, J. Graf, Treblinka. Vernichtungslager oder Durchgangslager? Castle Hill Publishers, Hastings 2002, pp. 312-315. This book will soon be published in English as Treb- linka. Extermination Camp or Transit Camp?, Theses & Dissertations Press, Chicago 2003.
J.-C. Pressac, Die Krematorien von Auschwitz. Die Technik des Massen- mordes, Piper Verlag, Munich-Zurich 1994, p. 202. Ibid, p.\97.
C. Mattogno, op. cit. (note 2), pp. 381f. J.-C. Pressac, op. cit. (note 44), pp. 200f. Ibid., pp. 195 and 202. C. Mattogno, op. cit. (note 2), p. 387.
F. Meyer, Die Zahl der Opfer von Auschwitz. Neue Erkenntnisse durch neue Archivfunde. In: Osteuropa. Zeitschrift fur Gegenwartsfragen des Ostens, No. 5, May 2002, pp. 631-641
See my article "Auschwitz. Fritjof Meyer's New Revisions", TR 1(1) (2003), pp. 30-37.
SPONSORS WANTED 1>M1> OR ALIVE!
If you think that the entire content of The Revisionist should be made available online for the
whole world to read and learn, and if you would be willing to donate for such an enterprise on a regular basis, we would very much appreciate if you got in touch with us:
Castle Hill Publishers, PO Box 257768, Chicago, IL 60625, chp@vho.org, ph: (773) 769 1 121
The Revisionist ■ 2003 ■ Volume 1 • No. 4
399
What Was Kulmhof/Chelmno?
Questions about a controversial extermination camp
By Ingrid Weckert
Up to now, no monograph has appeared about the alleged National Socialist 'extermination camp' Kulm- hof/Chelmno. The reason for this may lie partially in the extremely difficult evidentiary situation, which relies exclu- sively on witness testimonies. The book Nationalsozialistische Massentotungen durch Giftgas, edited by Eugen Kogon, Hermann Langbein, Adalbert Riickerl et al. and published in 1983 by the S. Fischer Verlag in Frankfurt a.M., serves as a basis for the following description. This presentation is supplemented with quotations from other standard works of the 'Holocaust' literature. The author could not do her own research at the actual location. This article is therefore only a summary and critical review of published reports about Kulmhof/Chelmno. The main purpose is above all to show that the Kulmhof orthodoxy is quite needy for research and revision.
A Note for the German Public Prosecutor
The following investigation is not 'pseudo-scientific,' as the works of Revisionists are usually rated by German public prosecutors, but a serious attempt to help clarify the events about the alleged 'extermination camp' Kulmhof/Chelmno. It is not my fault that I can only submit the questionable parts of the works existing so far on this subject. It is quite evident that his- torical research has so far neglected to seriously investigate Kulmhof/Chelmno. I hope that the summary of all unclear and contradictory witness testimony, of allegations and conclusions will encourage historians and other interested groups to try to find out the truth. If there was an extermination camp in Kulm- hof/Chelmno where thousands of people perished, then the re- spect for these victims alone should be sufficient reason to fight through the undergrowth of uncertain memories, pure assump- tions, rumors, and suppositions in order to find historical truth.
This article does not present revisionist research results. It merely repeats the reproaches and accusations, which are con- nected with the complex Kulmhof/Chelmno. Similar to the au- thors quote, I have no intention to deny or to minimize mass crimes. I simply conclude what every reader will understand af- ter he has studied the arguments submitted: The research situa- tion about this topic is still completely unsatisfying. Questions and doubts raised by the contradictory contents of the works published so far merely nurture the distrust of the skeptics in this type of description.
Historiography is about researching historic occurrences and courses of events. It is my desire that this should also apply to the events at Kulmhof/Chelmno.
1. Introduction
According to mainstream sources, a small town in Poland, about 50 km north-west of Lodz, was a terrible extermination camp of the National Socialists: Kulmhof, or Polish Chelmno. An unknown number of Jews were allegedly brought here for the sole purpose to be killed. Contrary to other German camps, the victims here allegedly did not even have the chance to sur- vive in some work commando. The Jewish work commando, which existed here as well, had only the task to put the corpses of their murdered brothers into the ground in gigantic mass graves or to cremate them. After the work was finished, the so- called gravediggers were murdered themselves. The three or
four survivors of Kulmhof/Chelmno claim that they owe their survival to the fact that they could escape.
The scheme, as described to us in Massentotungen, is very simple: The Jewish population of Lodz and the surrounding area were transported via railroad to the vicinity of Kulmhof, then continued to Kulmhof itself by truck. At Kulmhof, an SS- unit had converted the former palace building into a killing sta- tion. The victims entered the building, undressed, and walked through a basement passage straight into a gas truck, which was parked close to a side exit. After the truck was filled with peo- ple, the doors were closed, the engine started, and the exhaust fumes, which were piped into the interior, killed the victims. Afterwards, the truck drove to a small forest, where a Jewish work commando emptied the truck and first stacked the corpses in large pits, but later cremated them in self-made 'ovens' erected just for that purpose. The ashes were scattered, buried, or poured into the rivers Ner or Warthe.
2. Planning and Early Phase of the Extermination Camp
The quoted sources do not agree whether Kulmhof/Chelm- no or a similar installation in Semlin was the first death camp built by the National Socialists. Reitlinger1 mentions both pos- sibilities (p. 152). Other authors are certain: The first extermi- nation camp was erected in Kulmhof/Chelmno, (Dawidowicz, Krieg,2 p. 125; Sereny, Abgrund,3 p. 98). While Dawidowicz emphasizes that the camp was for the destruction of the Jews from the ghetto of Lodz, Sereny and also Reitlinger think (p. 153) that it was originally planned as a euthanasia-institute.
2.1. Letter from Rolf-Heinz Hoppner
In order to prove that Chelmno was a planned and care- fully prepared matter, Massentotungen (p. 11 Of.) quotes a let- ter by the SS-Sturmbannfiihrer Rolf-Heinz Hoppner to Adolf Eichmann dated July 16, 1941, in which Hoppner informs Eichmann of a danger that the Jews "will not all be able to be fed." He therefore thinks that it should be "seriously consid- ered whether it would not be a more humane solution to finish off the Jews with some fast effective means, as far as they are not able to work." As a source for this document, Mas- sentotungen quotes the "Archive of the Polish Main- Commission for the Investigation of National socialistic Crimes" in Warsaw, Vol. III.
400
The Revisionist ■ 2003 ■ Volume 1 ■ No. 4
The text of the same document, which is marked not as a letter but as a file memo, is found in Riickerl,4 p. 256f. The source given is again the above-mentioned Polish Archive, ex- cept that it is now Volume XIII (instead of III). Although it is the same reference, the text is not the same. Besides of two missing lines, Massentdtungen has seven linguistic and textual differences as compared with the Riickerl book. But what is more serious is that Massentdtungen is completely silent about the fact that this note, including the accompanying letter to Eichmann, exists only in non-signed copies, and that Hoppner firmly contested after the war that this note is from him (Riick- erl, p. 256f.)
2.2. The Sonderkommando (Sk) Kulmhof/Chelmno
The murders in Kulmhof/Chelmno were allegedly done by an SS-Sonderkommando, which is presented to us with the most diverse names. Massentdtungen decided to call it "Son- derkommando (SK) Kulmhof/Chelmno" or also "SK Lange" or "SK Bothmann" after the Kommandofuhrer at the time {Mas- sentdtungen, p. 116). Other authors, however, know only "SK
Bothmann" (Reitlinger, p. 153, 280; Nellessen,6 p. 240). A for- mer member of this Kommando, who should actually have known best, claimed that it was called "Einsatzkommando Heinrich Himmler" (Riickerl, p. 243).
Massentdtungen writes that the first Kommandofuhrer was Hauptsturmfuhrer Herbert Lange (p. 111). Other authors con- tradict this statement. One version says that the first Kom- mandofuhrer was Christian Wirth (Sereny, Abgrund p. 98, 127). Riickerl (p. 334) thinks that the Sonderkommando was di- rectly under Artur Greiser, Gauleiter and Reichsstatthalter in the Reichsgau Wartheland.
The composition of the Kommando is as controversial as its name. Some see in it the group of people who are claimed to have already worked together in the so-called "Aktion T 4," the killing of incurable mentally sick (Reitlinger, p. 153; Dawid- owicz, Krieg, p. 126); others maintain that the crew received their "training for mass murder" in East Prussia, (Laqueur,7 p. 159), while Hilberg found that the core of the Kommando was simply recruited from the Gestapo in Posen and Lodz, (Hilberg, Vernichtung* p. 603). Massentdtungen, on the other hand, says that the men of the Kommando consisted of members of the Sicherheitspolizei and of the Schutzpolizeikommando (p. 116).
The relations with the local population, mainly ethnic German settlers relocated from the Volhynia area, were evidently good, even friendly. Men worked for the SS unit and young women from the village were employed in the cafeteria (Massen- tdtungen, p. 134; Reitlinger, p. 280).
During the Nuremberg Tribunal, how- ever, it was maintained that the inhabitants of the neighboring village were evacuated before the erection of the extermination sta- tion. (IMT,9 Vol. VIII, p. 363). But since the same residents of the village later appeared as witnesses who testified under oath, there is an unsolvable contradiction between this allegation and the witness testimony, be- cause they could not have made any obser- vations and later testified about them, if they had been evacuated.
3. The Town Kulmhof/Chelmno and its Palace
Kulmhof/Chelmno, as we read in the various Holocaust textbooks, was a small town at the river Ner, a tributary of the Warthe close to the direct railroad line War- saw - Posen - Berlin. According to the dec- larations of various authors, it was 40, 55 or 60 km northwest of Lodz.10 Other publica- tions, however, claim that the horrific deeds did not occur in Kulmhof/Chelmno but in Cholm = Chelm, a larger town about 350 km east from it, south of Sobibor and east of Lublin.11 Lichtenstein based his investi- gations on the plans of the Deutsche Reichs-
\ D a n z \ g -J
nsee /WestpreuRen
1939 dt
V air t h e land
TrebUnka
3erto vet' nicMtt1943
Biajyslok
Sobibo
<-_. \ jtattowit
\ \ /•
V < V 0bei
%. W \ ahreln ^
e n t
BeizecH.-r"-'
Location of the six NS camps generally designated as 'Extermination Camps': Chelmno, Treblinka, Sobibor, Majdanek, Belzec and Auschwitz; Chelmno allegedly was the smallest and 'most insignificant' one of all.5
The Revisionist ■ 2003 ■ Volume 1 • No. 4
401
balm and the Ostbahn (the name for the Reichsbahn in occu- pied Poland) and tried to prove mass murder in Chelmno by pointing to its railroad connection to Cholm.
The center of the murder action allegedly was, as already mentioned, the former manor of the Polish domain Kulm- hof/Chelmno, which was also designated as "Palace". Accord- ing to sketches of the town, which Riickerl published in NS- Vernichtungslager (p. 261), this building was in the center of the town at the crossing of two streets. Church, pub, school, and administration buildings were all in immediate vicinity.
Several authors had evidently a different idea on how such a building, "the first murder factory of human history" (Hohne12, p. 343), had to appear. Hohne, for example, looks for the palace "in the forests of Kulmhof [...] secluded, as if created for its bestial mission" (p. 343). Reitlinger talks of "an old building known as the 'Palace', of which exists an incredibly horrible photograph" (Reitlinger, p. 153). He unfortunately does not say where this incredibly horrible picture can be seen.
The SS had this old building with the attached park repaired by Polish prisoners. A wooden fence, taller than men, was al- legedly erected around the whole area, so that nobody could look at the interior from the outside. Arriving vehicles had to stop before the wooden gate, the drivers had to get out, and men of the SS-Kommando drove the car into the fenced in area (IMT, VIII, p. 363; Klee, p. 371; Massentotungen, p. 114; Riickerl, p. 266, 268).
4. Beginning of the Extermination Actions in Kulmhof/Chelmno
Is evidently not exactly known when exactly the camp be- gan with its extermination actions. Dawidowicz writes that gas- sing experts had already arrived in the early fall of 1941 and that there was at least one "gassing truck" in Chelmno. {Krieg, p. 126), but on a page before and after it she says that the gas trucks of Chelmno "started to operate" exactly on December 8, 1941 {Krieg, p. 125, 278). The Polish investigation commis- sions, however, came to the conclusion, that the extermination camp Chelmno had already started its sinister operation in Oc- tober 1941 (Reitlinger, p. 274). Reitlinger does not offer any proof for this. Lichtenstein shares this opinion (p. 40). Laqueur (p. 159), Hilberg (Destruction, p. 604), Poliakov13 (p. 192), Sereny (Abgrund, p. 113), Hohne (p. 343), Riickerl (p. 268), and Klee (p. 371) asserted the beginning for December 1941. Riickerl writes:
"After Jews were taken by truck from the closer vicinity to Chelmno from December 5, 1941, to the middle of Janu- ary 1942, the transports from the ghetto began on January 16, 1942" (p. 276)
That Jewish inhabitants were also taken from towns around Lodz to Chelmno is not uniformly reported, as the following American study proves. The New York magazine Jewish Fron- tier published an article in November 1 942 with the title "The Extermination Center". The article is about Chelmno and is based on a document, which the magazine received from the Polish- Jewish worker's association Bund. This association claims that it received the document from the Jewish documen- tation center Oneg Shabbat in the Warsaw ghetto. There are two versions on how this center received its documentation on
Kulmhof/Chelmno: Either one refugee from the Kulmhof camp, Jakov Grojanowski, fled to the Warsaw ghetto and brought the report, which he wrote himself, completed in his pocket (Massentotungen, p. 131). Or several Kulmhof refugees arrived and reported their experiences to assistants of the head of this center, Dr. Emanuel Ringelblum (Laqueur, p. 139). They then prepared the report.
In this report, which was prepared by or according to eye- witnesses, it says that the Jewish population of the vicinity of Lodz was not transported to Chelmno, but to the forests of Zagorow in the time between October 1941 and the beginning of January 1942. There they disappeared without a trace. Only the Jews from Lodz came to Chelmno and were killed there. According to this description, these transports began on January 15, 1942.
Riickerl, however, believes (in addition or in contradiction to his statement on p. 276, which was quoted above) that the Jews from the vicinity of Lodz were transported to Chelmno "a few in the month of March and a large quantity in the month of April 1942" (p. 278, note 72).
January 16, 1942, is the day when the first transport de- parted from the ghetto Lodz. All authors also agree that there is no documentary proof that the transports from Lodz actually went to Kulmhof/Chelmno.14 This date is occasionally men- tioned as the actual start of the murder actions in Chelmno (Nellessen, 57).
5. Arrival of the Victims
According to the presented descriptions, the Jewish popula- tion was transported from Lodz and the surrounding areas to Kulmhof/Chelmno in order to be murdered there. The transpor- tation routes were precisely but inconsistently described in the various studies.
The authors do not agree about where the victims were transported by railroad. Either to Warthbriicken/Kolo, a town on the main railroad line Lodz-Posen, and from there by truck to Kulmhof/Chelmno, or to Powiercie (German: Pauers), a small town on the secondary railroad line Warthbriicken - Dabie/Deutscheneck and from there by truck to Kulm- hof/Chelmno (Hilberg, Destruction15 (p. 625); Hilberg, Ver- nichtung (p. 656); Massentotungen (p. 116, 119, 120); Riickerl (p. 77f.)), or directly by railroad to Kulmhof/Chelmno (Hohne (p. 343), (p. 277).
Riickerl and Hilberg (in Vernichtung), who refers to Riick- erl, try to bring order to this mess by putting together a time schedule and listing the various transports for the various dates. But these efforts do not convince, because the dates, which the witnesses testified to, unfortunately contradict each other. Some stated that at the beginning of the transports in early 1942 the Jews were discharged in Warthbriicken and ten transports - ei- ther spent the night there in the Synagogue (Hilberg, Vernich- tung, p. 656; Riickerl, p. 277), or marched to the market place in Warthbriicken and there were picked up by trucks (Riickerl, p. 277). Massentotungen for example alleges that the victims were actually driven up to Powiercie in January /February 1942, then marched to Zawadki and stayed there overnight in a mill (p. 120). However, four pages earlier (p. 116) it is stated that the transports did not spend the night in the mill in Janu-
402
The Revisionist ■ 2003 ■ Volume 1 ■ No. 4
ary /February but rather from March to July 1942, for which a separate "mill guard" was commanded. A witness quoted by Rilckerl, on the other hand (p. 277f.), says that the people stayed overnight only from March to May 1942, i.e., not until July, in the mill of Zawadka (the name of this town is spelled differently by the various witnesses: Dawadki, Zawacki, Za- wadki, Zawadka). Hilberg, however, thinks (Vernichtung, p. 656) that the Jews did not stay overnight in a mill but in a fac- tory in Zawacki. There are clearly as many opinions as there are witnesses.
Gilbert describes the following events, which allegedly oc- curred in early December 1941:
"The Jews were taken by narrow-track railroad from Kolo to Powierce, then driven with whips to the river, there locked into the factory of the village Zawadki [...] without food and water overnight, were taken the next morning with trucks to the forest of Chelmno and during the trip asphyxi- ated with exhaust fumes. [. . .] A total of five trucks were thus employed. " (Gilbert,16 p. 83)
This description, however, does not agree with the custom- ary stories. According to them, the victims were murdered in the yard of the palace in 1941. And the number of gas vans was two or three, not five.
Just where in Kulm- hof/Chelmno they finally ar- rived is not clear either. Ac- cording to most allegations, they were driven by truck into the palace, but there are also reports according to which they were discharged in front of the church or the wheat silo (Mas- sentdtungen, p. 119).
One witness of the trans- ports of Jewish victims to Warthbriicken/Kolo in Mas- sentdtungen, a Polish railroad employee, observed testified before a Polish court what he claims to have observed:
"In the summer of 1942, a daily train (the same wagons) traveled for several months between Lodz and Kolo. This train consisted of twenty closed, mostly 15 tons freight wagons. [...] The wagons were jam-packed. [Could the rail- road employee look into the inside of the closed wagons?] In the beginning I counted, how often the train of the de- scribed composition brought Jews to Kolo. I counted 101, [i.e. 101 days. During three months] but I stopped counting when I saw that the transports to Chelmno did not come to an end. " (p. 121)
This recorded statement is contradicted by a table, which originates from the notes taken by the Judenrat (council of Jews) in Lodz and which shows that between May 15 and Sep- tember 5, 1942, i.e., during those summer months of which the railroad employee talked, the evacuations of Lodz were halted (Massentotungen, p. 132). Other publications dealing with the resettlement of the Jews of Lodz also refer to the notes made by
"Deported Jews at their arrival in the death camp Chelmno where many were killed in gas vans. Jewish Historical Insti- tute, Warsaw, Poland. "17 This is the only allegedly authentic photo document of Chelmno known to us.
the Judenrat of Lodz and consider them as reliable (for example Rilckerl, p. 276f, 288; Hilberg, Vernichtung, p. 361).
6. Arrival of the Victims
According to explanations by witnesses, the discharge of the victims after their arrival in Kulmhof/Chelmno occurred in various ways. One witness could not remember:
"I don 't know exactly where the trucks were unloaded. I
believe that in the beginning the transports were discharged
in front of the church in Chelmno and later in front of the
silo. " {Massentotungen, p. 119)
Others state that the arrival first gave a friendly appearance: "In order to enforce the impression that the arrivals would be treated well, they were also often assisted when leaving the vehicles. " (Rilckerl, p. 269) But this appearance was completely undone, because they "were driven by police officers with leather whips through the gate into the interior of the palace yard", (Massentotungen, p. 119). Later the trucks drove right away through the gate of the wooden wall into the palace yard (Massentotungen, p. 119;
IMT, Vol. VIII, p. 363). Riick- erl combined both versions and thinks that always only one truck entered the palace yard, while the others had to wait outside (p. 269).
Assembled in the palace yard, they were greeted by the leader of the commando or his deputy or some other member of the commando with friendly words, who explained:
"they were to work in Germany, but first had to take a bath and hand in their clothes for disinfec- tions. " (Rilckerl, p. 269) The descriptions by Laqueur (p. 160), Nellessen (p. 56f, 139), Klee (p. 371), in Massentotungen (p. 122, 140f.) and in the documentations of the Nuremberg trials (IMT Vol. VIII, p. 363) sound similar. This is one of the few points in the his- tory of Kulmhof, in which all depositions conform.
But in the continuation of the events the memories or the procedures varied continuously. The Jews were requested to take off their clothes and jewelries and to hand in their papers and valuables. For this they were brought a) "into a building" (Nellessen, p. 57); b) into the hall of the palace (Massentotun- gen, p. 123) or "into a hallway" (Nellessen, p. 139); c) "into a large well heated room" (Laqueur, p. 160), to the second floor of the villa (IMT, Vol. VIII, p. 363) or "in a higher located room" (Massentotungen, p. 117); d) "in a larger room in the back" (Rilckerl, p. 269); or e) in two rooms (Massentotungen, p. 122, 124)
7. Murdering the Victims
A ramp was allegedly built at a side exit of the palace, which was additionally obscured with a view-blocking wooden
The Revisionist ■ 2003 ■ Volume 1 ■ No. 4
403
wall, although the whole area was already fenced in (Klee, p. 371; Massentotungen, p. 123, 125f.; Riickerl, p. 266, 270). Af- ter the people were undressed, they marched under guard along a hallway in the basement of the palace, which led to a truck parked at the side of the palace at the ramp. When the truck was full, the rear doors were closed, the exhaust fume hose screwed to a special device and the motor started. The inmates were killed within minutes by the exhaust fumes, which were enter- ing the wagon. (Nellessen, p. 139f; Riickerl, p. 271, 291). Other authors, however, maintain that there were repeated break- downs of the equipment and that the whole procedure was not very effective (Klee, p. 371; H6B, p. 162; Sereny, Abgrund, p. 127; Reitlinger, p. 154f).
"The naked people then had to enter the gas trucks over the ramp. This was always backed-up by the driver against the opening at the ramp, so that after opening the wing doors a totally closed space was created on the ramp, with the floor at the same height with the gas truck floor, com- pletely closed. " (Riickerl, p. 270)
"After the wing doors were opened, a completely closed space was created on the ramp, which could not be viewed from the outside. " (Massentotungen, p. 126) Although the ramp could not be seen, Massentotungen and Riickerl quote witnesses, who could observe from the outside events that occurred on the ramp.
"I went to the right side of the palace, as I was or- dered, where a gas truck stood at the already men- tioned ramp. [...] I saw how the Jews were led into the basement and climbed over the ramp into the open gas truck. " (Massentotungen, p. 125)
Yes, a guard was even posted outside the ramp, although he could not see a thing from there and, as alleged by Mas- sentotungen, the victims could not escape anyway. Where could they have gone, completely naked and inside of a fenced- in area guarded by the SS?
"While the Jews walked over the ramp, they were, be- side the Poles and police guards who accompanied them, supervised by another police guard, who stood outside the ramp next to the gas truck in order to encounter attempts to escape. " (Riickerl, p. 270)
It is a riddle, how the guard could "supervise" something through view-blocking fence boards.
After all victims were dead, the truck drove to the forest, where the bodies were thrown into pits. During his trials in Je- rusalem, Adolf Eichmann described the scene completely dif- ferently:
"The Jews had to undress. A truck came, closed on all sides, the door opening in the front. The wagon drove to a
certain roadblock. There the naked Jews were forced to en- ter. The doors were closed and the truck took off. " (Haus- ner,Justice,ls p. 89)
This was a completely new type of truck, which was loaded from the front - through the driver compartment? And the whole thing occurred evidently in the center of the town, "at a certain roadblock", where the naked Jews had to wait for the ar- rival of the wagon. In the German abbreviated edition of this work,19 the translator (or the publisher) did not dare to present this unbelievable story to his readers. There the trucks drove to the "ramps" and let the Jewish victims enter there (p. 105). The version Eichmann told during police interrogations prior to his trial was again somewhat different. The interrogations were in German and the protocol tapes were published.20 It says there: "In the fall of 1941 [...] / was sent to Chulm in the Warthegau. [...] I saw the following: A room, maybe if I remember correctly five times as large as this one here, with Jews inside. They had to undress and a truck came which was completely closed, the doors were opened and sort of pulled into a ramp. And the naked Jews had to enter.
Then the wagon was closed and took off. " (p. 71) If Eichmann testified to this also during the trial, then serious translation errors must have oc- curred, that the Israeli general attorney Hausner could have misunderstood him so.
An alleged "killing gas van" of Chelmno/' This wrongful designation by Gerald Fleming23 was already in 1988 cor- rected by Ingrid Weckert: There exists no source for this picture of a damaged German truck of unknown use.24
21
7.1. The Gas Vans of Kulm- hof/Chelmno
It is reported about Kulm- hof/Chelmno, that it was a "Gas van station". And it's gas trucks were those ' Sonderwagen' (spe- cial wagons) of the Reichssi- cherheitshauptamt (Reich Secu- rity Main Office, RSHA), which we already exposed several
times/'
Among others things, a document dated June 5, 1942, from the German Bundesarchiv in Koblenz with the archival number R 58/871 serves as proof for the gas van thesis. This is an 'Ak- tenvermerk' (file memo) of the RSHA. I showed elsewhere that this 'document' is a complete forgery. 1 This note starts as follows:
"Since December 1941, for example, 97 000 were proc- essed with the use of 3 vehicles, without any defects in the vehicles becoming apparent. The known explosion in Kulm- hof should be considered as an exception. Its cause can be attributed to incorrect operation. " Riickerl writes about this (p. 291):
"This part of the secret note obviously refers to the camp Chelmno, because it correctly states the beginning of the extermination action (December 1941) as well as the number of gas vans (three deployed vans) and connects these statements directly with the explosion of a gas van in Chelmno. "
404
The Revisionist ■ 2003 ■ Volume 1 ■ No. 4
"Since December 1941 [...] with 3 deployed vans". In the chapter about the origin of the gas trucks, Massentdtungen ex- plained that at this time, December 1941, the delivery of the Saurer-vehicle chassis was still being negotiated and were then, after delivery, to be equipped with a body by the firm Gaub- schat. The completed trucks could therefore not have been de- livered prior to spring 1942. How was it then possible that three of these vans were already in operation since December 1941?
"97,000 were processed". Even under the presupposition of a camouflage language, this formulation cannot imply a mur- der. The number of 97,000 furthermore contradicts the statistic by Ruckerl as adopted in the conclusion of Massentdtungen (p. 132) of the deportations from Lodz, which are generally equated with the murder victims of Kulmhof/Chelmno. Ruckerl says (p. 276) that until the end of May 1942 some 55,000 Jews were deported from Lodz. This number should have been in the Aktenvermerk of June 5, 1942, if it is really about the murder victims of Kulmhof/Chelmno.
"The known explosion in Kulmhof '. As a matter of fact, there exists no information at all about such an explosion any- where, except in this note.
Massentdtungen does not doubt in any way that the gas trucks of Kulmhof/Chelmno are those 'Sonderwagen' (special vans) of the RSHA, which were thoroughly discussed else- where:21
"The Kommando received gas vans from Berlin. " (p. 114)
"They appeared to be new and came to us [...]from the Reichssicherheitshauptamt. " (p. 115)
The reader is quite surprised, when he learns between these two sentences:
"The vans were medium Renault-trucks with gasoline engine. " (p. 1 14)
How so? The RSHA had Saurer trucks with Diesel engines modified to gas trucks. Where do the Renault vehicles with gasoline engines come from so suddenly? By the way, Eichmann also said:
"Experiments were made in the vicinity of Lublin [...] about killing people with the exhaust fumes of a U-boat Diesel engine. The latest inventions, which were used at that time, were movable gas trucks, which were first utilized in the extermination camp Chelm (Kulm). " (Hausner, Ver- nichtung, p. 105)
7.2. Mass Graves and Cremation Ovens
In order to take care of the corpses, the SS had mass graves
excavated. A certain area in a close-by forest was reserved.
There the Jewish inmates, the so-called forest Kommando, had
to do this work.
One of the survivors of Kulmhof/Chelmno reported about
this as a witness during the Eichmann trial in Jerusalem:
"There we had to dig trenches, about 25 people had to dig. We went out there early in the morning, it was still dark, at six-thirty, it was winter, you know, the end of 1941, two days before New Year. " (Nellessen, p. 140) The prosecutor did not like it that these were trenches. He
suggested more precisely: "They dug graves. "
The Jewish witness, survivor of terrible events, does not ob- ject. And why should he?
So they dug trenches in the middle of winter, when the earth was frozen hard like stone. Ruckerl thought that that was not a reasonable job for the prisoners. Therefore he had large pits ex- cavated with excavators (Ruckerl, p. 268).
Krausnick/Wilhelm25 explain that the idea of digging graves at that time is nonsensical: "The severe frost which soon after [November 1941] started" resulted in "the excavation of the mass graves being too difficult" and the actions had to be stopped (p. 547).
There is no agreement about how many such mass graves existed. One witness talks about two, another four, a third of three or four. They do not agree about length, width and depth of the graves.
One witness, whose testimony is quoted by Massentdtun- gen, talks about graves each 10 m wide and 3 m deep; three pits were 30 m, one 12 m long (Massentdtungen, p. 115). He also maintains that the graves were located in three different clear- ings of the forest; some were so narrow that the gas trucks could not even drive to the side of the pits in order to discharge their load.
Another witness thinks that the graves were about 6-8 m wide, but 4 m deep (Ruckerl, p. 272); a third makes them 4 m wide, 3 m deep and 5 m long (Ruckerl, p. 274). Laqueur (p. 160) talks of a pit almost 2 m wide and 5 m deep. Other authors abstain from any opinion about the size of the pits and only talk briefly about "mass grave" (Klee, p. 372) or "mass graves" (Reitlinger, p. 153,279).
In the summer of 1942, the mass graves lead to serious dif- ficulties:
"At several places [...] blood bubbled out in thick streams [...] and formed large puddles near the grave." (Ruckerl, pp. 273f.)
Gases from the corpses escaped from the graves, and a strong odor from the decomposing corpses was noticeable (Klee, p. 372; Ruckerl, p. 273). The corpses were therefore dis- interred and cremated, initially in open pits, later in self-made 'ovens.'
"In the summer of 1942, they began to open the graves and to cremate the bodies. "
This according to an eyewitness of Ruckerl (p. 273). An- other witness, quoted by the same Ruckerl a few lines earlier, thinks that this started only in the fall of 1942. Klee, who talks smartly of "ausbuddeln" (dig out) also is for the fall (p. 372), and so is Hilberg (Vernichtung, p. 661). Ruckerl evidently con- cludes from the contradictory testimonies of his witnesses that they were both wrong and moved the disinterment of the corpses to the winter months. His notes are:
"From the end of 1942 to the spring of 1943 [...] the corpses, which were buried in mass graves, were dug out again and cremated, the pits were then leveled in. " (p. 280) Next, the disinterred corpses had to be cremated. Mas- sentdtungen gives us the following version about this: In the forest camp
"two cremation ovens were erected, which were de- signed by Polizei-Oberleutnant Gustav H. [...] The crema- tion ovens had a width of 10 m and a length of 5-6 m. They
The Revisionist ■ 2003 ■ Volume 1 ■ No. 4
405
did not extend outside of the earth. They had no chimneys. They tapered downwards where the gratings were located, which consisted of railroad tracks. " (p. 1 15) The co-editor of Massentotungen, Adalbert Riickerl tells us a completely different story in his NS-Vernichtungslager. Ver- sion number two: They did not build cremation ovens immedi- ately, but the corpses were first burned in four pits, 5 by 4 m large.
"The corpses from the mass graves were placed in these pits in layers, covered with a powder and set on fire. " (p. 274)
Further, there was a cremation oven that consisted of an open pit with several railroad tracks as a grating (Riickerl, p. 273). A large oven was built later - one oven, not two — and this oven had a chimney 4 to 5 m tall (Riickerl, p. 274) contrary to the testimony of the witness from Massentotungen, who em- phasized that there were no chimneys.
But there is still a third version about the cremation of the corpses: Here the main person is infamous SS-Standartenfiihrer Paul Blobel with his "disinterment commando 1005". This Kommando was allegedly created by Reinhard Heydrich shortly before his death (June 4, 1942) specifically for the pur- pose to eradicate all traces of mass graves and corpses in the occupied eastern territories (Reitlinger, p. 153).
Blobel with his men - Jewish forced laborers, which he continuously received from the Auschwitz camp, because those Jews were always shot after finishing a section (H6B,26 p. 162) - started the job and began to "ausbuddeln" (dig out) the corpses in Kulmhof/Chelmno, according to Klee (p. 372), against Riickerl, who maintained that the Jewish Sonderkom- mando in the forest camp performed this work (p. 273). And then Blobel started to experiment.
"He erected pyres and primitive ovens and even tried it
with dynamiting. " (Hilberg, Vernichtung, p. 661)
"But this was only partially successful" said H6B (p. 162), who nevertheless went to Kulmhof/Chelmno in order to "ob- serve BlobePs unsuccessful attempts to make the mass graves disappear with the help of dynamite" (Reitlinger, p. 153). Reitlinger continues:
"This method was used, because Himmler [...] gave
Blobel the order to also destroy the ashes of the dead. "
Because evidently this method did not succeed and the corpses did not disappear completely:
"Blobel also used a bone grinder. " (Reitlinger, p. 153)
But eventually, one managed somehow to turn the corpses into ashes because these ashes were then
a. "scattered in the extended forests " (HoB, p. 162);
b. "buried in the pits or poured into the river" (Nellessen, p. 57) or
c. "filled in large bags and buried or poured into the Ner" (Riickerl, p. 273) or
d. "poured into the Warthe from a bridge at night " (Klee, p. 372)
After that, the forest was swept clean (Klee, p. 372).
7.3. Children and Russians
Massentotungen reports about children transports to Kulm- hof/Chelmno from Czechoslovakia, from Poland and from the
Soviet Union (p. 133). The two witnesses who are quoted, how- ever, know of only one transport with children. There were three trucks with about 200 children, says one witness, and that happened in the summer of 1942. The other witness reports that the children did not look Jewish at all but rather Polish. Riickerl also mentions this transport. He estimates the number not at 200, but talks of 50-75 children at the age of 4-14 years:
"The children transport consisted allegedly, according
to Polish investigations, of children from Lidice, who could
not be Germanized. " (Riickerl, p. 280, Note 76)
He adds that proof for this does not exist.
The files of Yad Vashem, Jerusalem, actually contain a written correspondence dated from July 4 to 25, 1942, exactly within the time frame mentioned in Massentotungen, about a group of "children from the Protectorat Bohmen and Mahren who could not be Germanized."27 But this were neither 200 nor 75, but only 12 children at the age from 1 to 15 years, whose full names, date of birth, place of birth, and addresses were listed. These children were sent to the Gestapo in Litzmann- stadt (Lodz) for further accommodation. No further information comes from the correspondence. A witness alleges in Mas- sentotungen that these children were also killed in Kulm- hof/Chelmno.
A group of Russian POW's is mentioned also in the context of alleged murder of non- Jewish persons. One day, also in the summer of 1942, two trucks with "some military people" alleg- edly arrived, which the observing witness recognized as Rus- sian POW's by their light green uniforms. The trucks stopped in front of the fenced-in palace area. The soldiers stayed inside the trucks. Two drivers of the Sonderkommando replaced the truck drivers and continued driving the truck into the direction of the forest. After 25 minutes, the truck returned empty. So per the witness. Massentotungen concludes:
"The largest part of them was [...] gassed, the rest was shot. " {Massentotungen, p. 134f.) The authors do not disclose the source of their knowledge. The Polish witness who observed the arrival of the trucks was a resident of Warthbrticken and worked for a Sonder- kommando: He filled straw bags. It is difficult to believe that he did this on the open highway. He probably performed this activity in the area of the palace yard, which was fenced-in with a very tall board fence, as we are told. The trucks with the Russians parked outside the gate. Under these circum- stances, the witness could at best listen to the noises of the ve- hicles, but it would have been impossible for them to see any- thing because of the board fence. Nevertheless, he not only described the uniforms exactly, but claimed also to know that one of the soldiers seated in the truck and who did not leave the truck had only one leg. He could therefore not only look through the board fence, but also through the side walls of the truck. Could it be that he only gave his deposition because they were later useful to him, a Polish collaborator, when the times were different?
Massentotungen claims that the Russians were driven in their truck to the forest where some of them were 'gassed.' The authors do not explain how this was done, since the spe- cially prepared gas trucks were parked at the palace and the Soldiers did not transfer the inmates from their truck into the
406
The Revisionist ■ 2003 ■ Volume 1 ■ No. 4
gas trucks. It is not clear, why only some of the Russians should have been 'gassed,' but the rest shot.
8. The Spoils
While undressing, the victims had to hand over their jewelry and other valuables as well as their money, so we are told. This was allegedly done under supervision. Finger rings were none- theless removed later from the corpses (Massentotungen, p. 117; Riickerl, p. 272; Nellessen, p. 57, 140).
Special Kommandos were deployed to count and sort the jewelry and valuables. Gold teeth, which were removed from the corpses, were carried in bags from the forest to the palace.
"The collected valuables of the victims (jewelry, watches, coins, gold teeth, fur coats, and others) were sorted, registered, and then sent to the ghetto administra- tion in Lodz, the same with the money, which at the end of the extermination activities amounted to a total of 2, 650, 000 Reichsmark. " (Riickerl, p. 272f.)
This large booty from the claimed murder actions is surpris- ing, as the victims of the deportations from Lodz did not belong to the wealthier part of society. The head of the Judenrat (council of Jews) in Lodz, Chaim Rumkowski, who compiled the lists of deportations, followed the dictum: Away with the bad ones.
"I solved the problem in such a way that I assigned that
part for deportation which was a festering ulcer to the
ghetto. The list contained convicts of the underworld?* the
scum, and several individuals who were harmful to the
ghetto. " (Dawidowicz, Krieg, p. 279)
After criminals and 'undesirable persons' had been de- ported, the resettlement commission checked the files of the Social Office under the supervision of Rumkowski and discov- ered that 80% of the 160,000 ghetto residents received welfare support. From them the next victims were selected for deporta- tion (Dawidowicz, Krieg, p. 279f).
Always assuming that the deportees were actually taken to Kulmhof/Chelmno and murdered there, one should ask oneself under these circumstances, where the wealth came from which fell into the hands of the alleged murderers. Even Riickerl noted:
"The people who arrived in Chelmno were throughout
poorly nourished and clothed. " (p. 280)
Dawidowicz talks of "poor, badly dressed men, women, and children" {Krieg, p. 279), and Poliakov calls the deportees the "useless eaters" (p. 152).
Elsewhere we are told that the pieces of clothes of the vic- tims of Kulmhof/Chelmno were sent to various places, which returned them partly because those clothes were too shabby and therefore useless (Hilberg, Vernichtung, p. 644).
But even if all the victims had been millionaires, the alleged spoils of the murder action do not fit into the picture. The quan- tities mentioned do not relate to the number of people allegedly murdered. For instance, we are told about a telex of the ghetto administration Lodz to the office of rationing in Posen on May 27, 1942:
"The Sonderkommando Lange has approximately 370 railroad cars with pieces of clothes stored, which requires for its transportation about 900 trucks with trailers. " (quoted by Riickerl, p. 275)
The Sonderkommando Lange was the commando Kulm- hof/Chelmno under its first Kommando leader. Up to May 1942, the time of this telex, about 55,000 people had been de- ported from the ghetto Lodz (Massentotungen, p. 132; Hilberg, Vernichtung, p. 361). 55,000 people would fill 1,100 trucks, each with 50 persons. How could it be that for the transporta- tion of the clothes, which these 55,000 people brought with them, almost twice the space was required, i.e. 1,800 trucks (or 900 trucks with trailers)? The deportees had to leave their dwellings with a minimum of luggage.
9. Twice Extermination Camp Kulmhof/Chelmno
In order to understand the various allegations about Kulm- hof/Chelmno, it is important to know that this camp is claimed to have had two "Action Phases".
9.1. The First Action Phase
The first one lasted from the end of 1941 to April 1943. During this first period, the extermination process is claimed to have been as described: trip of the victims to the palace in Kulmhof/Chelmno; killing of the victims in gas trucks parked there; transportation of the corpses - inside the gas trucks - to the forest area close-by; burial, later cremation of the corpses in the forest; return of the empty gas trucks to the palace, where they were cleaned. According to Klee (p. 372), however, the trucks were cleaned in the forest.
At the end of the first action phase, the mass graves were opened and the corpses cremated. This happened in the summer or fall of 1942 (according to Riickerl, p. 273; Klee, p. 372; Hil- berg, Vernichtung, p. 661). At another place (p. 280), Riickerl dated the cremation of the corpses to the time period from the end of 1942 to spring 1943.
The SS blew up the palace in April 1943, destroyed the cremation ovens, and erased all traces (Massentotungen, s. 135; Nellessen, p. 57; Riickerl, p. 281). Klee, who not only read Riickerl but also studied Polish files, does not know anything about blowing up the palace in this time period. According to him, the murders of the second action phase also occurred within the area of the palace (p. 371).
Next "the Kommando Bothmann left Chelmno, to go to Dalmatia" (Reitlinger, p. 279; similar Klee, p. 371; Mas- sentotungen, p. 135; Nellessen, p. 57; Riickerl, p. 280, 281; the dates in the various publications do not match).
9.2. The Second Action Phase
One year later, in 1944, the Kommando Bothmann returned surprisingly to Kulmhof/Chelmno in order to start a new exter- mination action. Either in February 1944 (Reitlinger, p. 161, 279), or in April 1944 (Riickerl, p. 283; Massentotungen, p. 138; Hilberg, Vernichtung, p. 604) they came back and contin- ued with their murder business anew.
Surprisingly, Massentotungen thinks that the new season in Kulmhof/Chelmno started by erasing all traces of the first ac- tion phase and by opening the mass graves and cremating the corpses:
"In April 1944, a telex arrived in Weimar from Both- mann in Posen, in which he requested us back again to the extermination camp Kulmhof/Chelmno. We took off to
The Revisionist ■ 2003 ■ Volume 1 ■ No. 4
407
Kulmhof/Chelmno. Bothmann welcomed us in Kulmhof. Bothmann explained to us that all traces in Kulmhof have to be erased according to an order by the Reichsfiihrer of the SS Himmler. The mass graves in the forest camp were opened. The corpses in these graves were cremated in a previously built oven with the help of Jewish work comman- dos. " (Massentotungen, p. 142)
But according to what we reviewed above, this had already been completed a year earlier. There were no more mass graves, the corpses had disappeared a long time ago, the ashes were scattered or buried.
Further allegations of the second camp period are as fol- lows: Two wooden barracks were erected in the forest after the arrival of the SS-Kommando. A "path, fenced-in with boards taller than man" (Rilckerl, p. 283), led from one barrack to a ramp, which in turn was connected to a gas truck parked there. This is, as we remember, similar to the description of the instal- lation at the palace during the first camp period. But Ruckerl used it once more for the second camp period.
The victims were transported by railroad to Kulmhof/ Chelmno and stayed there overnight in the church. The next morning, they were driven into the forest, had to undress in the barracks, and walk into the gas trucks. After the murder, the corpses were cremated in one or two ovens. During this period, SS-Hauptscharfiihrer Walter Piller was deputy camp com- mander. In a 'voluntary' statement, which he made as a POW of the Soviets,29 he declared:
"The two barracks in the forest, where the Jews were cremated, were being erected at the time when I arrived in Kulmhof. The two ovens, which were used to cremate the corpses, did not yet exist. Only after the two barracks were finished did SS-Hauptscharfiihrer Runge build the two ov- ens with the help of Jewish workers from the ghetto Litz- mannstadt [...]. / would assume that it was the beginning of June or end of May 1944, when the extermination of the Jews from the ghetto Litzmannstadt began, and [it] lasted until the mid of August 1944. " {Massentotungen, p. 138f) Ruckerl maintains, however, that there was only one oven (p. 283). Piller explains the purpose of the two barracks:
"For example, half of the 700-person transport, i. e. 350 persons, if possible grouped by families, were brought by trucks to the already mentioned forest. At one of the wooden huts, which were erected by the SS-Sonderkommando and which were divided in two rooms, one for men and women each, and equipped with hooks and shelves to hang clothes, the people were requested to exit and to line up in front of the hut, which was surrounded with a wooden fence. Only two huts were built in the forest, with a length of 20 m and a width of 10 m. " (Massentotungen, p. 140) A gate of the fence had a sign "Z«r Badeanstalt" (to the bath) and another sign in front of the center of the hut reading "ZurArzt Baracke 9" (to the doctor hut #9).
"After everyone was completely naked, they had to go in line through a door with the mentioned sign 'Zur Badean- stalt ' — the women first, closely followed by the men. Behind the door was a 20-25 m long IV2 m wide pathway, obscured with a board fence. This pathway ended in a 90-degree turn into a ramp. In front of the ramp was a closed truck (special
van), the Jews had to enter this truck. The door was closed after about 70-90 persons were inside the truck, and the truck drove to the ovens, about 200 m away. The driver Laab opened a valve during the trip, which discharged gases. These were gases produced by the gasoline engine. [...] " (Massentotungen, p. 141)
Different from Piller, who alleges that the victims were killed with gasoline engine exhaust fumes, Ruckerl writes:
"Two gas trucks were alternatively deployed, which were the same vehicles already earlier used in Chelmno. " (p. 285)
And the vehicles were, as is known from other sources, Saurer trucks with Diesel engine, (see Section 7.1). Piller continuous:
"After the special truck arrived at the oven, it was opened by Laabs, and the corpses were thrown into the oven, where they burned to ashes in a short time (about 15 minutes). " (Massentotungen, p. 142)
Besides the installations in the forest, there were other facili- ties erected in the former palace yard for the second action phase: one hut to store the valuables taken from the victims; next to it a tent with a shredder for clothes, which could not be used any- more. During this second phase, the Jewish Arbeitskommando was accommodated in a wheat silo, while the Polish prisoners had to stay in the basement of the palace, of which remnants sur- vived the dynamiting (Ruckerl, p. 283). Massentotungen contra- dicts this and describes a jail with upper and lower cells (p. 143). Nellessen (p. 141) quotes the statements of one of the four escap- ees, who were brought to Kulmhof/Chelmno in the beginning of 1944 - long before the time, which most authors indicated as the beginning of the second action phase. This escapee belonged to the "Hauskommando" , which worked within the area of the pal- ace. During the Eichmann trial in Jerusalem, this witness testified that he observed how people entered the gas trucks:
"They received soap, a towel, and were told that they
would go to take a shower. Between 80 to 100 persons had
to enter into the trucks. After the doors were closed, the gas
was discharged; thus they were destroyed. "
But he could not have made such observations with the "Hauskommando" during the second camp period, because the trucks allegedly picked up with the victims from the church, where they had stayed overnight, and from there they were driven directly to the forest. The filling of the gas trucks with 80-100 or 70-90 persons, as claimed by Piller, is contradicted by other descriptions, which listed the capacity of the trucks with 30, 35, 40, 50, but at a maximum of 70 persons, (Mas- sentotungen, p. 122f, 128; Ruckerl, p. 272).
According to Hilberg (Vernichtung, p. 604), the murder ac- tions of this second phase had already ended in July 1944. Other authors put the end of the "death business" (Nellessen) several months later (Nellessen, p. 57), to the middle of August (Massentotungen, p. 139), or to the "end of the occupation time" (Klee, p. 371). After that the Jewish workers had only the clean-up work to do (Ruckerl, p. 286). "The SS-Sonderkom- mando stayed until the beginning of February 1945" in Kulm- hof/Chelmno (Massentotungen, p. 139).
The SS Sonderkommando started to shoot the surviving Jewish workers in the night from January 17 to 18, 1945,
408
The Revisionist ■ 2003 ■ Volume 1 ■ No. 4
(Riickerl, p. 287; Massentdtungen, p. 143; Poliakov, p. 197). Two prisoners succeeded to escape at this occasion: Shimon Srebnik and Mordechai Zurawski.
9.3. The Numbers of Victims of the Second Action Phase The deportation lists from Lodz are usually the basis for the numbers of the transports to Kulmhof/Chelmno in the year 1944, but there are also different victim numbers.
Riickerl refers to the information from the Judenrat (Jewish council) of Lodz. According to this, a total of 9 transports with 7,176 persons left Lodz from June 23 to July 14, 1944.
Piller, on the other hand, writes that the extermination of the Jews from the ghetto Litzmannstadt began at the end of May or the beginning of June and lasted until the middle of August. Each week three transports arrived, allegedly with 300 or 700 persons. "But I will consider as the basic number 700", he con- tinues, defying all statistical rules. By backdating the beginning of the transports to the middle of May - although he talked ear- lier about end of May or beginning of June -, he arrives at a to- tal number of 25,200 victims who were allegedly murdered during the time of his substitute commando.
"I cannot state the exact number. But the error can only be a small differential number of more or less Jews. " (Mas- sentdtungen, p. 139)
10. The Witnesses
I already mentioned in the beginning that the events in Kulmhof/Chelmno became known only through testimonies of witnesses.
Some of these witnesses were the defendants of the Kulm- hof trial at the Landgericht (district court) Bonn in 1 962/1 96330 and the escapees from the first and the survivors of the second action phase of the extermination camp. The results of this criminal trial were used by Riickerl in his study. The files of the trial are not accessible, but the written verdict was published and can be reviewed.31
Besides those individuals directly involved, two more per- sons are to be mentioned in this context: Rabbi Schulman from Grabow, a town about 15 km east of Kulmhof,32 and Dr. Emanuel Ringelblum, who headed an underground archive in the Warsaw ghetto. Both played important roles in spreading 'news' about Kulmhof.
On January 19, 1942, Rabbi Schulman wrote a letter:
"An eyewitness visited me, who was saved through God's grace. [...] / learned everything from him. The town where they were exterminated is Chelmno. [...] The men are killed in two ways: either shot or gassed. [...] For several days now they have been taking thousands of Jews from Lodz and did the same with them. " (Laqueur, p. 163f.;33 Po- liakov, p. 153f.34)
It does not seems to be certain if this letter was really writ- ten by Rabbi Schulman, because Laqueur put his name in brackets, which indicates that his document is not signed. It is also uncertain, to whom the letter was addressed. Laqueur maintains that it was to Schulman' s brother in law and used the address: "My dear"; Poliakov instead writes (p. 153): "My very dear friends", because he believes that the letter went to Schul- man's friends. The document is evidently not clear about it.
Dawidowicz, on the other hand, has a completely different opinion. She knows only about a postcard instead of a letter, which Schulman allegedly sent to an acquaintance in Lodz. In it he wrote about three Jews who escaped from Chelmno and re- ported to him about it:
"These were the first news in Lodz about the death
camp. " (Dawidowicz, Krieg, p. 281)
A third version sounds completely different. According to it, Rabbi Schulman turned to Chaim Rumkowski, the oldest of the Judenrat in Lodz, and asked for information. Rumkowski then informed him about the Chelmno camp (Laqueur, p. 160).
It is also uncertain, if Schulman was visited by only one es- capee, as is claimed for the letter, or by several. Laqueur (p. 160f. footnote) and Dawidwicz (Krieg, p. 281) thinks that there were three.
We can find different opinions about the Kulmhof escapees in various documentations. Massentdtungen claims:
"Only few inmates succeeded to escape from the Ar- beitskommando '. The first was Jakov Grojanowski. " (p. 131)
His date of escape is stated to be January 19, 1942 (p. 328). He arrived in Warsaw and made contact with Ringelblum. He handed him a "report written by himself about the killing instal- lation Kulmhof. Grojanowski later perished in the ghetto, but his report was found in the ruins of the ghetto among the files of Ringelblum (Massentdtungen, p. 131). However, in the German edition of Ringelblum's "Diaries,"35 Grojanowski is not mentioned at all and Chelmno only in one listing (Ringel- blum, p. 23).
According to other authors, the report about Chelmno, which allegedly was given to Ringelblum by Grojanowski, came from a "small group of grave diggers," which escaped in January 1942 from Chelmno and gave it to Dr. Ringelblum and his secret documentation center in Warsaw.
"Their statements were put in writing by friends of Ringelblum. The report probably came to London by cou- rier and then to the United States, where it appeared in many news papers." (Laqueur, p. 139; also p. 132, 136, 160-164, 273; Poliakov, p. 153)
Dawidowicz contradicts the allegation that Grojanowski was the first escapee from Chelmno (Krieg, p. 282). She reports about two Jews who escaped from the death camp at the end of 1941 or the beginning of 1942 and contacted the Jewish Society for Social Welfare in Warsaw.36 There their statements were re- corded, but not forwarded, because they appeared to be too un- believable to the assistants of the Jewish Society for Social Wel- fare.
Another witness, who allegedly escaped before Groja- nowski, is Michael Podchlebnik, (Massentdtungen, p. 145; Riickerl, p. 274; Nellessen, p. 139-141; Hausner, Vernichtung, p. 236). Pochlebnik appeared as a witness during the Eichmann trial in Jerusalem on June 5, 1961, and reported there the fol- lowing: He was brought to Chelmno on December 28 or 29, 1941 (Nellessen, p. 139; the date can be derived from the fol- lowing described events). At first he worked in the palace Kommando. But already "on the next day" ("it was two days before New Year"; Nellessen, p. 140 - therefore December 30, 1941) he reported for duty at the forest Kommando. They exca-
The Revisionist ■ 2003 ■ Volume 1 ■ No. 4
409
vated graves or trenches in the forest. After having worked in the forest for a "few days" (Nellessen, p. 140), a car came "on Tuesday" (this Tuesday was January 6, 1942), which brought the corpses of his family. Three days later, he succeeded in es- caping (Hausner, Vernichtung, p. 236). This was therefore January 9, 1942.
Besides the names of the two escapees Grojanowski and Podchlebnik, we also learn the names of those who survived the alleged massacre of the final camp dissolution on January 18, 1945: Shimon Srebnik, then 14 years old (Poliakov, p. 197; Riickerl, p. 287; Nellessen, p. 141-143) and Mordechai Zuraw- ski, (Poliakov, p. 197; Riickerl, p. 287). Srebnik was also a wit- ness during the Eichmann trial in Jerusalem.
11. Controversial Numbers
The number of people who fell victim to the extermination actions in Kulmhof/Chelmno is not known. The various state- ments differ by hundreds of thousands and are as follows: 11,000 (Reitlinger, p. 101), 34,000 (Delarue,37 p. 257); 54,990 (Faschimus - Getto - Massenmord, p. 285); at least 100,000 (Klee, p. 371); more than 100,000 (Hilberg, Destruction, p. 572); 150,000 (Hilberg, Vernichtung, p. 604); at least 152,565 (Massentdtungen, p. 145); 300,000 (Hohne, p. 431); more than 300,000 {Massentdtungen, p. 145); 349,000 (Dawidowicz, Krieg, p. 139; Nellessen, p. 57); at least 340,000 (IMT, Vol. VI-
11, p. 364); 360,000 (Gilbert,16 map p. 169). There are certainly more numbers in other works, but the selection shown here is sufficient to prove that one cannot talk about certainty of knowledge. Most of the numbers are accompanied with notes stating that these are only estimates. Most authors think, how- ever, that the actual number of victims could also be many times higher.
The basis for these estimates is the deportations of the Jew- ish population of Lodz and the surrounding areas. The literature assumes that the evacuatees were brought to Kulmhof/Chelmno and were killed there.
12. Evacuation of the Jewish Population
Various documents can be used to calculate the number of Jews the evacuated. First, there is a statistic of the Altestenrat (Senior Council) of the Jews in Lodz, which is in the archive of the Jewish Historical Institute in Warsaw and was reproduced in Faschimus — Getto - Massenmord, p. 285.
One column of the table, which was published by the Jew- ish Historical Institute, is titled "Resettled to Kulmhof/Chelm- no". But it is impossible that this title originates from original documents of the Jewish Council, because other sources indi- cate that the name Kulmhof/Chelmno is never mentioned in any lists:
"The statistical lists do not indicate that these transports went to Chelmno. "(Riickerl, p. 293)
Additionally, the Seniors of the Jewish community were evi- dently not suspicious that the deportations went to death camps: "Even at the very end of the resettlement, in September 1942, the president of the Jewish Council in Lodz, Chaim Rumkowski, did accompany the children on their march to the railroad station without fears because his own orphan- age was spared. " (Reitlinger, p. 279f.)
The total number of Jews deported as listed in the statistic is 54,990.
Further documentary evidence reproduced in this publica- tion of the Jewish Historic Institute are reports of the Gestapo in Lodz, which talk about "evacuations" of the Jewish popula- tion, (Faschismus - Getto - Massenmord, p. 285f, 292f). The name Kulmhof/Chelmno does not appear in these reports any- where either. The editors nevertheless chose to add the follow- ing title on top of the first of these reports:
"Abstract of a situation report of the Gestapo in Lodz
about the mass deportations of the Jews from the district
Lodz to the extermination camp Kulmhof (Chelmno). "
The originals of these Gestapo reports are supposedly stored in Polish archives. Other publications, however, stress over and over:
"The Jews were deported to an unknown destination ", (Dawidowicz, Krieg, p. 279, 283; Reitlinger, p. 101) Some of the deportees were "transferred to work camps and
to vacated ghettos of the district of Lublin", (Reitlinger, p.
279). Others were deployed "for the reclamation of the Pripjet
swamps and to the Jewish agricultural colonies close to Kriwoi
Rog in the Ukraine", (Reitlinger, p. 101). Reitlinger says at another point:
"During their march from Kriwoi Rog to Dnjeprope- trowsk, the Einsatzgruppe C found a large Jewish agricul- tural settlement, which was established during the time of the Czar but was now a collective. [...] The number of Jews in this settlement presumably increased in 1942, when Jews from the Warsaw and Lublin 'resettlement actions ' were sent to the village to help with the harvest. Three of these Jewish collectives between Kriwoi Rog and Cherson were large enough to form a 'National Precinct' of the Soviet Union - Stalindorf Kalinindorf and Nowo Zlatopolje. " (Reitlinger, p. 265)
Even though Reitlinger then continues that "the entire sur- viving Jewish population was liquidated towards the end of May 1942" according to the evidence collected by Salomon M. Schwarz, 300 pages later he shows that the allegations by Schwarz cannot be trusted: "Schwarz arrives with the help of a completely arbitrary method" to his conclusions; he "pays ab- solutely no attention to the German police reports"; "he dis- cards the official reports" and also rejects other believable sources (Reitlinger, p. 571). Reitlinger even deemed it neces- sary to add similar comments about the dubious statements by Schwarz in his bibliography (p. 617). We must therefore ask, how he can consider Schwarz' claims about the alleged total liquidation of all surviving Jews "towards the end of May 1942" trustworthy, if he considers Schwarz' credibility to be very poor.
According to a study about the fate of the Jews in European areas occupied by German troops, which was published in Au- gust 1943 by the American Jewish Congress together with the Jewish World Congress,39 the Jews of Lodz were resettled in 1941/1942 to various areas and to work in the swamps of Pinsk and Rokitno, unless they found accommodations within the ghettos of other Polish towns. If one does not assume that the two Jewish organizations lied, this study proves that up to Au- gust 1943 either nothing was known about an "extermination
410
The Revisionist ■ 2003 ■ Volume 1 ■ No. 4
camp Kulmhof/Chelmno" or the messages delivered to the out- side world were not believed.
13. Summary
According to all existing documents, it is only certain that the Jewish population of Poland was first resettled from the countryside to major cities, where the ghettos became hope- lessly overcrowded. Men and women who were able to work were then selected from the ghettos, while the rest where de- ported to unknown or uncertain destinations. Whether or not the 'extermination camp' Kulmhof/Chelmno was one of these destinations cannot be proven with certainty with the compiled documentary evidence in the literature examined here.
The former Chief Pubic Prosecutor of the "Zentralen Stelle der Landesjustizverwaltungen zur Aufklarung nationalsozial- istischer Verbrechen " (German Center of the judiciary admini- stration for the investigation of National Socialist crimes) in Ludwigsburg, Dr. Adalbert Riickerl, noted after the completion of the Kulmhof trial:
"Because of the long time that has passed since the events occurred, the ability to remember of most witnesses is considerably diminished and errors of memory become frequently quite evident. [...] The three survivors of this horrible evenfi40^ — the fourth one passed away — are simply overburdened to give a reliable description of their experi- ences concerning the logical sequence of events (accusa- tions of specific crimes) and the error-free identification of the defendants. In some cases, they had to experience and undergo such a variety of horrible events for several months at a very young age that it is beyond the limits of their ca- pabilities, when they had to go back in time for their de- scriptions. " (Riickerl, p. 253)
Considering these circumstances, the findings made in the courtroom at that time cannot be considered to be an unalter- able base for historiography, which is obligated to truth and re- ality anyway and cannot be based on "errors of memory." Ac- cording to my knowledge, no efforts were undertaken after the Kulmhof trials to subject the claimed events to a thorough in- vestigation. An extermination camp, which arguably caused the death of up to several hundred thousand victims, had to leave traces behind, which can be found. The purpose of this essay was to point to this gap in historiography.
© Ingrid Weckert, Munich, 1999
Notes
First published as "Wie war das in Kulmhof/Chelmno?" in Vierteljahreshefte fur freie Geschichisforschung 3(4) (1999), pp. 425-437. Translated by Fabian Eschen.
1 Gerald Reitlinger, Die Endlosung. Hitlers Versuch der Ausrottung der Ju- den Europas 1939-1945, (The Final Solution. Hitler's Attempt of the Aus- rottung of the Jews in Europe 1939-1945) Berlin: Colloquium 1961; Bernd Nellessen, Der Prozess von Jerusalem. Ein Dokument (The Trial of Jerusa- lem. A Document), Diisseldorf/Wien: Econ 1964.
2 Lucy S. Dawidowicz, Der Krieg gegen die Juden 1933-1945 (The War against the Jews), Munich: Kindler 1979.
3 Gitta Sereny, Am Abgrund: Gesprdche mil dem Henker. Franz Stangl und die Morde von Treblinka. (Engl. Original title: Into That Darkness: From Mercy Killing to Mass Murder, London 1974.) Translated from English by Helmut Rohrling, 3rd revised edition, Munich: Piper 1997.
4 Adalbert Riickerl (ed.), Nationalsozialistische Vernichtungslager im Spiegel deutscher Strafprozesse. Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka, Chelmno (National
Socialist Extermination Camps Reflected in Criminal Trials. Belzec, Sobi- bor, Treblinka, Chelmno). Munich: Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag 1977.
5 From: Christian Zentner, Der grofie Bildatlas zur Weltgeschichte (The Great Pictorial Atlas of the World History), Stuttgart: Unipart 1982, p. 522.
6 Bernd Nellessen, Der Prozefi von Jerusalem. Ein Dokument (The Trial of Jerusalem. A Document), Dtisseldorf/Wien: Econ 1964.
7 Walter Laqueur, Was niemand wissen wollte. Die Unterdriickung der Nach- richten iiber Hitlers Endlosung ' (What Nobody Wanted to Know. The Suppression of the News of Hitler's 'Final Solution'), Frankfurt/M.: Ull- stein 1981.
8 Raul Hilberg, Die Vernichtung der europaischen Juden. Die Ge- samtgeschichte des Holocaust (The Destruction of the European Jews. The History of the Holocaust), Berlin: Olle & Wolter 1982.
9 Der Prozess gegen die Hauptkriegsverbrecher vor dem Internationalen Mi- litdrgerichtshof (IMT) (The Trial of the Principal War Criminals before the International Military Tribunal), Ntirnberg, 14. November 1945 - 1. Oktober 1946, Niirnberg 1947
10 Ernst Klee, "Euthanasie" im NS-Staat. Die "Vernichtung lebensunwerten Lebens " ("Euthanasia" in the NS-State. The "Destruction of Unworthy Life"), Frankfurt/M.: S. Fischer, 1983, p. 371, talks of 40 km; Laqueur, p. 159, estimates the distance to 60 km; Riickerl, Vernichtungslager, states first 55 km (p. 259), but then quotes from court files which mention 60 km (p. 334).
1 1 Gitta Sereny, Into that Darkness. An Examination of Conscience, New York: Vintage Books 1983, p. 139, 373; Heiner Lichtenstein, Mit der Reichsbahn in den Tod. Massentransporte in den Holocaust 1 94 1 bis 1945 (With the Railroad into the Death. Mass transportations in the Holocaust, 1941 to 1945), Koln: Bund- Verlag 1985, p. 88, 91, 145, 158. Sereny as well as Lichtenstein list in their indices the towns Chelmno and Cholm as identi- cal.
12 Heinz Hohne, Der Orden unter dem Totenkopf. Die Geschichte der SS (The Order under the Scull. The History of the SS), Munich: Bertelsmann 1976.
1 ' Leon Poliakov, Harvest of Hate. The Nazi Program for the Destruction of the Jews of Europe, New York: Holocaust Library 1979.
14 Editor's note: On the deportations of Jews from Lodz, see also C. Mattogno, Vierteljahreshefte fur freie Geschichisforschung 7(1) (2003), pp. 30-36. This paper will soon be published in TR.
15 Raul Hilberg, The Destruction of the European Jews, New York: Harper & Row 1983.
16 Martin Gilbert, Endlosung. Die Vertreibung und Vernichtung der Juden. Ein Atlas (Final Solution. The Expulsion and Destruction of the Jews. An Atlas), Reinbek: Rowohlt 1982.
17 Michael Berenbaum, The World Must Know: the History of the Holocaust as Told in the United States Holocaust Museum, Washington D.C. 1993, S. 84.
18 Gideon Hausner, Justice in Jerusalem, New York: Holocaust Library 1968.
19 Gideon Hausner, Die Vernichtung der Juden. Das grofite Verbrechen der Geschichte (The Destruction of the Jews. The biggest Crime in History), Munich: Kindler 1979 (includes chapters 2, 4-12 of Justice in Jerusalem).
20 Jochen von Lang, Das Eichmann-Protokoll. Tonbandaufzeichnungen der is- raelischen Verhore, (The Eichmann Protocol. Tape recordings of the Israeli Interrogations) Berlin: Severin and Siedler, 1982.
21 Cf. Ingrid Weckert, "The Gas Vans: A Critical Assessment of the Evidence" in: Germar Rudolf (ed.), Dissecting the Holocaust. The Growing Critique of 'Truth ' and 'Memory ' , 2nd ed., Theses & Dissertations Press, Chicago, IL, 2003, pp. 215-241.
22 From the Website of Nizkor: http://www2.ca.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/ camps/chelmno/images/chelmnovan.jpg.
2j Gerald Fleming, Hitler und die Endlosung, (Hitler and the Final Solution) Berlin: Limes 1982, after p. 128.
24 Compare the letter from Yad Vashem to the author on 3/16/88, without opening address, printed in: Pierre Marais, Les camions a gaz en question, Paris: Polemique 1994, p. 300.
25 Krausnick, Helmut/Hans-Heinrich Wilhelm: Die Truppe des Weltanschau- ungskrieges. Die Einsatzgruppen der Sicherheitspolizei und des SD 1938- 1942, Stuttgart: Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt 1981.
26 Martin Broszat (ed.) Rudolf Hofi, Kommandant in Auschwitz. Autobiogra- phische Aufzeichnungen, Munich: Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag 1963.
27 Sign.: Eich 936-939, Copy in the Miinchner Institut fur Zeitgeschichte.
28 In the English version of her book, the text quoted by Mrs. Dawidowicz is: "the poor workers, the scum of the underworld" (Lucy S. Dawidowicz, The War Against the Jews 1933-1945, New York: Bantam Books 1975, p. 394).
29 The following quotes from Piller's explanation are translations of the origi-
The Revisionist ■ 2003 ■ Volume 1 ■ No. 4
411
nal text as printed in Massentdtungen.
First Kulmhof trial from Nov. 26, 1962 - March 30, 1963, LG Bonn, against 12 defendants, former members of the SK Chelmno; six received prison terms between three and thirteen years, six were acquitted. After ap- peal, a new trial, from July 5, 1965 - July 23, 1965, LG Bonn, against 1 1 defendants was held; eight prison terms between 13 months and 13 years, three acquittals. Separate trials against Gtinter Fuchs and Dr. Bradfisch in Hannover, sentencing on Nov. 18, 1963; sentence against Fuchs: lifelong, against Dr. Bradfisch: 13 years imprisonment.
Published in: Justiz und NS- Verbrechen: Sammlung deutscher Strafurieile wegen nationalsozialistischer Totungsverbrechen 1945-1966, Amsterdam: University Press 1968, vol. XXI: Massenvernichtungsverbrechen in Lagern. KZ Kulmhof (Chelmno) (Polen). Gilbert, Endlosung, p. 41. (Final Solution)
N. Blumental (ed.), Dokumenty i Materialy, vol. I: Obozy, Lodz 1946.
34 Source: "Aus der Sammlung von Frau Novitch ". (From the Collection of Mrs. Novitch).
Emanuel Ringelblum, Ghetto Warschau. Tagebiicher aus dem Chaos, Ghet- to Warsaw. Diaries from the Chaos), Stuttgart: Seewald 1967.
36 Polish abbreviation ZTOS, Dawidowicz, Krieg, p. 234.
37 Jacques Delarue, Geschichte der Gestapo (History of the Gestapo), Konig- stein/Ts.: Athenaum 1979.
38 Jiidischen Historischen Institut Warschau (ed.), Faschismus - Getto - Mas- senmord. Dokumentation ilber Ausrottung und Widerstand derJuden in Po- len wdhrend des zweiten Weltkrieges (Fascism - Ghetto - Mass Murder. Documentation about the Extermination of the Jews in Poland during the Second World War), Frankfurt/M. : Roderberg-Verlag 1962.
3' Hitler 's Ten-Year War on the Jews, New York 1943, p. 30.
40 They were Mordechai Zurawski, Michael Podchlebnik, and Simon Srebnik.
Sir Henry Strakosch "a Jew"?
By Prof. Dr. Arthur R. Butz
In vol. 5 of his biography Winston S. Churchill, published in 1976, historian Martin Gilbert relates the working relationship that existed during the 30s between Churchill and the South Af- rican economist and gold mining executive Sir Henry Stra- kosch. Most of the figures on German armaments that Churchill brought to the House of Commons and publicized elsewhere were supplied by Strakosch, who wished anonymity in the af- fair.
Strakosch eventually had to pay heavily for such services. Gilbert relates that Strakosch saved Churchill from financial ruin in 1938 when, due to declines in the New York markets, Churchill's brokerage account went into debt in the amount of £18,000 ($90,000), which Churchill could only begin to cover by selling his house Chartwell. Strakosch picked up the tab for this fancy sum, at a time when a decent American salary was perhaps $2,000 per year. In addition, Strakosch bequeathed Churchill £20,000 when he died 5 years later.1
In vol. 1 of his Churchill's War (1987), David Irving re- peats this story but adds that "Strakosch was a Jew born in Mo- ravia, Czechoslovakia." While Strakosch was not born in Mo- ravia, a book by Marie-Theres Arnbom published in Austria in 2002 has made it clear that he was at least half Jewish in terms of ancestry.2 The purpose of this note is to revise, in considera- tion of the subsequent Arnbom book, my earlier remarks on this problem3 and to explore whether the classification "a Jew" was appropriate in the context. By that I mean several questions. Did the Jewish aspect motivate Strakosch in this involvement with Churchill? Was Strakosch considered a Jew during his life? Did he so consider himself?
Strakosch was not Considered a Jew
Strakosch died near London on Saturday Oct. 30, 1943, and The Times (London) published a long obituary on Nov. 1, eulo- gies on Nov. 2, and on Nov. 4 a report of a memorial service for Strakosch. It was clearly a Christian service, held at St. Mi- chael's, Chester Square. Thus Strakosch died a nominal Chris- tian.
From several routine sources we learn the following about Strakosch.4 He was born May 9, 1871, in Hohenau, Austria, son of Eduard Strakosch and Mathilde Winterberg.5 Hohenau is on the Austria-Moravia border, and Eduard Strakosch was a pioneer in the Austrian beet sugar industry. Henry was edu- cated at the Wasa Gymnasium in Vienna and then privately in England. He joined the Anglo-Austrian bank in London in 1891, rising quickly to become foreign exchange manager. He then became interested in gold mining and finance and emi- grated to South Africa in 1895, joining the gold mining enter- prise Goerz and Co. in 1 896 as assistant managing director.
The founder of the company, Adolf Goerz (1857-1900), was an immigrant from Germany and not a Jew.6 Although the company had maintained close relations with Germany and in particular the Deutsche Bank in Berlin, Goerz had incorporated it in England. On the outbreak of war in 1914 five of the eight directors were German subjects. The British forced them off the board and by 1918 both the name of the company (now Union Corp.) and the character of the board had changed.7 The British would not have distinguished in this purge between Germans and German Jews, and Austrians would have been considered Germans, but Strakosch had become a British citizen in 1907 and survived,8 rising to chairman in 1924, a position he held until his death. Strakosch was known as "keen on polo, an in- veterate motorist, and a bachelor."
He was adviser to the government in the drafting of the South African Currency and Banking Act of 1920, which led to the establishment of the South African Reserve Bank. From 1925 on, India retained him for similar purposes. He was knighted in 1921, and became K.B.E. in 1924, G.B.E. in 1927.
He got married late in life, in 1941, to the widow Mrs. Mabel Elizabeth Vincent Temperley, in a Christian ceremony at St. Andrew's in Kingswood, Gloucester. His wife and Churchill were not the only beneficiaries of his will when he died two years later, as there were bequests to several others,9 e.g. Field Marshall Smuts and Brendan Bracken, and also an interesting trust fund that he set up to be10
412
The Revisionist ■ 2003 ■ Volume 1 ■ No. 4
"applied by my trustees to a fund for any purpose which in their opinion is designed to strengthen the bonds of unity between the Union of South Africa and the Mother Country and which incidentally will conduce to the appeasement of racial feeling between the Dutch and English speaking sec- tions of the South African community. " The Boer War (1899-1902) had no doubt left a lasting im- pression on Strakosch.
None of the sources on which the above summary is based, except for Arnbom who is cited only in the matter of Stra- kosch' s British citizenship, gives any indication of a Jewish connection for Strakosch.
The Judisches Biographisches Archiv, 1994, a massive da- tabase available on microfiche, cites two sources that suggest he was a Jew. The first is a book or pamphlet entitled The Jews ' who's who. Israelite finance. Its sinister influence., Judaic Pub- lishing Co., London, 1920. It seems very unreliable because its accusations are based on the character and name of Strakosch' s company in 1914, before the changes forced by the British (I have not been able to get a copy of this publication but the Judisches Biographisches Archiv quotes from it).
The second source mentioned by the Judisches Biographi- sches Archiv is more credible. In a 1949 article Albert M. Hyamson, a leading Jewish biographer, listed about 2,500 prominent "Anglo- Jewish" people, each getting one or two lines in his 69 pages. One of them was11
"Strakosch, Sir Henry (1871-1943). Economist & ban- ker; The Times, 1.11.43; Ann. Reg.; 'Randlords. '" The first two references are to Strakosch' s obituaries, al- ready cited here, which do not say he was a Jew. The third is to the book Randlords, by Paul H. Emden, Hodder and Stoughton, London, 1935. The Emden book merely gives some biographi- cal information about Strakosch and mentions his relation to Adolf Goerz thus:12
"One of the earliest collaborators of Adolf Goerz (from 1896 on) was the present Sir Henry Strakosch, whose influ- ence and importance extend far beyond the limits of gold production. He is recognized the world over as an authority on monetary matters and exchanges; his influence on the development of currency and the organization of Banking in South Africa was so great that the objection was expressed that 'the Commission seems to have been clay in the hands of Sir Henry Strakosch.
Emden does not say that Strakosch was a Jew.13 Two more observations should be made on Hyamson' s list- ing of Strakosch. In his introduction to his list Hyamson writes: "The term Jew has been interpreted in the following list in the widest sense, to include not only men and women con- nected with the Jewish community, but also those only of Jewish parentage, or half-Jewish parentage, and in a few exceptional instances of more remote Jewish origin. " That is, a person need not have been "Jewish" to appear in the list. Second, Hyamson also published a general (not specifi- cally about Jews) reference work, Dictionary of Universal Bi- ography, issued in 1915, 1950 and (in the USA) 1951. His en- try for Strakosch in the last is:
"Strakosch, Sir Hy.; Hung.-Eng. econ. and financ, 1871-1943. S"
The "S" signifies that his obituary is to be found in the An- nual Register. In accord with his general objectives in this work, Hyamson does not declare Strakosch to be Jewish, but he does declare him to be Hungarian-English. None of the other sources indicates he was Hungarian and to so classify him is wrong.
Hyamson seems not well informed about Strakosch and his rule of classification begs the question in any case.
Two books that ought to have much about an important man such as Strakosch, if he had been Jewish, do not list him in their indices. They are Jewish Roots in the South African Economy, by Mendel Kaplan, C. Struik Publishers, Cape Town, 1986, and The Jews in South Africa. A History, editors Gustav Saron and Louis Hotz, Oxford Univ. Press, London, 1955.
The Encyclopaedia Judaica (1971) mentions two Jewish Strakosches, but not Sir Henry. The death and obituary notices in the four issues of the London weekly (Fridays) Jewish Chronicle for November 1 943 do not mention Strakosch.
I conclude that Strakosch did not consider Strakosch a Jew, and neither have the Jews.
The Arnbom Book
In the absence of the Arnbom book, I saw no significant grounds for classifying Strakosch as a Jew. The book estab- lishes that Strakosch was at least half Jewish in terms of ances- try, but does not show that he should be considered "Jewish" or "a Jew" according to my understanding of the meanings of such terms.
The general aim of the Arnbom book is to demonstrate the great business and professional accomplishments of the five named Austrian families. At the outset, the author is evasive or unclear on whether these families should be considered "Jew- ish", presenting them as having been strongly committed to as- similation, many members sincerely converting to Christian- ity.14 Assimilation and religious conversion were commonplace in Germany in the 19th century, and about 60,000 German Jews out of a community of less than 200,000 converted.15 Arnbom suggests a similar trend in Austria.
Arnbom's history of Sir Henry's line of the Strakosches starts with his grandfather, Salomon Strakosch (1795-1867), and ends with the rise of the National Socialists in the 1930s. The Strakosch family members in Austria, long assimilated and religiously converted, did not initially see any threat to their po- sition but were forced to leave the country after the National Socialist AnschluB of 1938. Sir Henry helped some of them move to England.16
The emphasis of the Arnbom book is on the business and professional achievements of the five families treated and not on social history, though the latter seems more interesting and even tantalizing, in view of the remarks about their progressive assimilation. Specifically, assimilating Jews interact with gen- tile society at all levels (otherwise they wouldn't be assimilat- ing), and yet we are told little of these interactions.
Most important, intermarriage with gentiles is inadequately treated for the Strakosches. For example Arnbom remarks, very briefly, that the opera impresario Karl Strakosch was "manager of, and in 1887 married, one of his singers: Clara Louise Kel- logg of the later distinguished American industrial dynasty."17
The Revisionist ■ 2003 ■ Volume 1 ■ No. 4
413
In fact Kellogg (1842-1916) was a famous singer in her own day, and Arnbom does not tell us she was not Jewish.18
Another example is that of Moritz Strakosch, who managed the even more famous singer Adelina Patti and married her sis- ter Amalia. 19 Arnbom notes these facts but does not tell us that the Patti family was not Jewish.20
Sir Henry was born Heinrich in 1871, son of Eduard Stra- kosch and Mathilde Winterberg.21 Eduard was 100% Jewish in ancestry but of Mathilde Winterberg I know nothing. The vari- ous biographical indices list both Jewish and gentile Winter- bergs.
Under the circumstances the problem of whether Sir Henry was "a Jew" or "Jewish" depends on definition. Jews are al- ways quarreling among themselves on this problem of defini- tion, and I am not inclined to try to settle the issue for them, or gainsay them where they agree.
Rabbinic law is clear that failure to practice the Jewish re- ligion has no impact on the Jewish status of a person; a non- observant Jew is still a Jew. A principle Jews traditionally use in their definitions is matrilineal descent: a Jew is somebody with a Jewish mother. That breaks the rules of definition by de- fining the noun in terms of the corresponding adjective, but is useful anyway. If Mathilde Winterberg was not Jewish (which may or may not be the case), and if Sir Henry was not raised in a Jewish environment (which seems indicated by the Arnbom book) then I do not think anybody should consider him a Jew.
If Mathilde Winterberg was Jewish, then either Eduard and Mathilde converted and raised Heinrich as a Christian, or Heinrich or Sir Henry converted later in life. Under generally accepted rabbinic standards, a Jew who voluntarily converts to Christianity ceases being a Jew.22 By this standard Sir Henry would not have been considered a Jew by the Jews, and the sources I cited imply that the Jews have not in fact considered him a Jew and neither did he.
That the Jews do not consider him a Jew is a weighty con-
Sir Henry Strakosch
414
sideration, but it does not quite settle it for me because I am not inclined to accept that a person can stop being Jewish via a re- ligious conversion. It takes more. For example, I consider the French Cardinal Jean-Marie Lustiger to be still a Jew, and evi- dently so does he.23 1 doubt that the Jews agree.
Then What Was he up to, and Why?
The only significance of the question of Sir Henry Stra- kosch's Jewish status is in assessing the forces that were at work, during the Thirties, in organizing a war against Germany. While this status remains to be definitively established, it is not correct to designate Strakosch, simplistically, as "a Jew", and Arnbom' s book clearly presents his relatives as long assimi- lated Austrians. Such designation in this context would imply Jewish motivations in his campaign against Hitler.
If he was not acting from Jewish motivations, then what were his motivations? Why was he out to get Hitler? An answer is given in a booklet he published in 1935, in which the gold miner argued for the restoration of an international gold stan- dard for currency.24 He considered that the cooperation of Brit- ain and other "Sterling countries" was attainable, but it was not possible to25
"attain a full measure of recovery unless America and Germany are also brought into the fold [...]. Substantial progress in this direction has already been achieved in America [...]. The German situation, on the other hand, re- mains hopelessly confused, not so much because her prob- lems are fundamentally so very different and so much more difficult, but because of the manner in which they are being faced. There is hardly a single one of the many and varied measures she has taken which can be said to be of real value for her restoration - indeed, most of them tend to im- pede it [...]."
It is well known that this judgment of the efficacy of Hit- ler's economic policies was wrong. The National Socialist eco- nomic policies were notoriously successful, and have been called "The Nazi Miracle" which Hitler performed knowing at the outset that "The international financial world would stand on its head and attack our currency with all the means at its command."26
The important point is that we see the motivations that Stra- kosch brought to the campaign against Germany. Hitler was on the way to proving him wrong. Thus to describe Strakosch as "a Jew" in this context is to do more than make a mistake about ethnicity. It is to camouflage a very important dimension of the background to, and causes of, the Second World War. Stra- kosch should, rather, have been described as "a South African gold miner campaigning for restoration of the international gold standard". If he had been a full Jew, then I still would not have described him as Irving did. I would have written "a Jewish South African gold miner campaigning for restoration of the in- ternational gold standard".
Notes
1 The Times, Feb. 7, 1944.
2 Marie-Theres Arnbom, Friedmann, Gutmann, Lieben, Mandl und Stra- kosch, Fiinf Familienportrats aus Wien vor 1938, Bohlau Verlag, Vienna, 2002.
3 Arthur R. Butz, "Was Churchill's Gold Bug Jewish?," Journal of Historical
The Revisionist ■ 2003 ■ Volume 1 ■ No. 4
Review, 21(1) (2002), pp. 9-13; Also in Vierteljahreshefte fur freie Ge- schichtsforschung, 6(2) (2002), pp. 212-215.
4 Annual Register (London, 1943); The Times, August 15, 1941; John F. Rid- dick, Who Was Who in British India, Greenwood, Westport, Connecticut, 1998; Eric Rosenthal, Encyclopaedia of Southern Africa, 6"' edition, Freder- ick Warne, London and New York, 1973; C.J. Beyers, Dictionary of South African Biography, Tafelberg-Uitgewers, Cape Town, 1977; Walter H. Wills and R.J. Barrett, The Anglo-African Who's Who and Biographical Sketch-Book, George Routledge & Sons, London, 1905.
5 In my earlier papers on this subject (note 3) the spelling was "Winterburg" because my sources used that form. Arnbom uses "Winterberg" and that ap- pears to be the correct spelling. Also I use the correct "Eduard" rather than "Edward".
6 Robin McGregor, McGregor 's Who Made South Africa, vol. 1 , Purdey, Saxonwold, 2000, pp. 138-141. As the Preface explains this is vol. 1 of a projected series on "the positive contributions made by each of South Af- rica's twenty five odd cultural groups to its development [...] the Jewish contribution [...] comprises the first part of this volume. As a significant number of Jews are of German origin, it seemed appropriate to relate the contribution made by the Germans as the second part."
7 Geoffrey Wheatcroft, The Randlords, Weidenfeld and Nicholson, London, 1985, pp. 118,244.
8 M.-T. Arnbom, op. cit. (note 2), p. 1 18.
9 The Times,! Feb. 1944, p. 6.
10 The Times, 17 May 1949, p. 6.
11 Albert M. Hyamson, "Plan of a dictionary of Anglo- Jewish biography," in Anglo-Jewish Notabilities. Their Arms and Testamentary Dispositions, The Jewish Historical Society of England, London, 1949. Hyamson was presi- dent of this Society.
12 Paul H. Emden, Randlords, Hodder & Stoughton, London, 1935, pp. 217, 342.
13 This remark is based on the listings of Strakosch in the index of the Emden book.
14 M.-T. Arnbom, op. cit. (note 2), pp 11, 16.
15 Rabbi Arthur Hertzberg, Professor Emeritus of Religion at Dartmouth Col-
lege, in the Jewish weekly Forward, 30 Aug. 2002, p. 12. Hertzberg contin- ues with comments on Jewish history in the USA: "Nearly 40 years ago, I was asked to do a study of the founding fathers of the major Jewish institu- tions. I went back to the 1840s when B'nai B'rith was founded, along with such bastions of Reform Judaism as Temple Emanuel in New York. I could find hardly a single family among the charter members still represented in the Jewish community through their descendants." In a related way, Hilaire Belloc remarked on the ephemeral nature of Jewish dynasties in comparison to the gentile (The Jews, 3rd ed., Houghton Mifflin, Boston, 1937, pp. 77, 86f). Such ephemerae should be contrasted to the millennial durability of the Jews. A resurrected ancient Roman would consider deja vu much of what is said of the Jews today, but Rome is long gone, and the Jews are still here.
16 M.-T. Arnbom, op. cit. (note 2), 132-135.
17 Ibid., pp. 111,230.
18 Clara Louise Kellogg, Memoirs of an American Prima Donna, Putnam, NY, 1913. When she was a young girl her family celebrated Christmas and she sang in the church choir (p. 8).
19 M.-T. Arnbom, op. cit. (note 2), 109, 230.
20 John Frederick Cone, Adelina Patti: Queen of Hearts, Amadeus Press, Port- land, Oregon, 1993, pp. 12, 267.
21 M.-T. Arnbom, op. cit. (note 2), p. 1 1 8.
22 Rabbi Allan Nadler, director of the Jewish studies program at Drew Univer- sity, writing in the Jewish weekly Forward, 19 Oct. 2001, p. 10.
2j On a visit to Australia Lustiger was quoted in The Weekend Australian, 4-5 August 2001, p. 9, thus: "I was born Jewish and so I remain, even if that's unacceptable for many. [...] For me, the vocation of Israel is bringing light to the goyim. That's my hope and I believe that Christianity is the means for achieving it."
24 Sir Henry Strakosch, The Road to Recovery. With Special Reference to the Problem of Exchange Stability and the Restoration of the International Gold Standard, Economic Forum, New York, and The Economist, London, 1935. 70 pages, of which 27-36 were missing from the copy I read.
25 Ibid., p. 51.
26 Alan Milard in the London Review of Books, January 23, 1986, p. 21. Mi- lard reviews several books on the subject.
Delusional Worlds
By Ernst Manon
In The Revisionist, No. 1/2003, we published the first of Ernst Manon's observations on problems relating to Jewish 'memories' of the 'Holocaust' along with observations on the German compulsion to self-accusation. In the present ar- ticle, Ernst Manon extends and deepens his observations, analyzing tendencies to mistake delusion for reality, which are common among Mosaic fundamentalists. He demonstrates how these delusional worlds are created and describes their significance for the phenomenon of "Vergangenheitsbewaltigung" (Coming to Terms with the Past).
In the psychiatric journal Der Nervenarzt (the Psychia- trist), as mentioned in The Revisionist No. 1/2003, Drs. L. Wilkes and R. Albert of the Department for Juvenile Psychia- try at the University of Erlangen discuss the case of young Heinrich Heine:1
"Heine grew up in Diisseldorf, the son of a Jewish mer- chant. [...] His mother a staunch follower of the Enlighten- ment and the pedagogical ideals of Rousseau. [...] 'Her enlightenment and sensitivity were the very essence of con- ventionality, and so it was not from her that I inherited my penchant for the romantic and fantastic. She had a great fear of poesy and took away every novel she found in my hands. She would not allow me to visit the theatre and even forbade me to participate in Folk Theatre. She monitored housemaids who she thought might be inclined to tell ghost
stories; in short, she did everything in her power to protect me from fantasy and superstition. ' All her efforts were in vain. Young Heine listened spellbound when his nurse told fairy tales and ghost stories. [...] He was especially atten- tive when elderly aunts would relate scary family tales or resurrect long dead ancestors with their oral histories. [...] Stories about his great-uncle Simon de Geldern were the most prominent of all. [...] He was called 'the chevalier' or 'the Asian ' because he had traveled extensively in the Ori- ent and used to return from lengthy voyages garbed in ex- otic oriental dress. [...]It was said that a tribe of Bedouins, who feuded constantly with neighboring tribes and were the scourge of the caravans, chose him as its sheik. In Heine 's words: 'In European terms, my venerable great-uncle be- came a robber chieftain. '[...]
The Revisionist ■ 2003 ■ Volume 1 ■ No. 4
415
Young Heine 's fascination knew no bounds. While rum- maging through a dusty trunk in the attic he found a note- book written in the hand of his great uncle, which he always considered his greatest and most precious discovery. Al- though he could not gain certainty about what he was read- ing [...], its very vagueness and mystery cast a magical spell over him and stimulated his fantasy. [...] Everything he learned about his great-uncle made an indelible impres- sion on his young mind, T immersed myself so deeply in his devious ways that sometimes, in the middle of the day, an eerie feeling would come over me. It seemed that I had be- come my fantastic great-uncle, my own life a continuation of the life of this long dead relative. ' [2]
Here we have a classic example of a developing Pseu- dologia Phantastica, as the psychiatrist Anton Delbriick first termed the condition around the end of the 19th Century.^ It describes a convergence of fantasy and reality which is so intense that the daydreaming subject is no longer able to distinguish fiction from reality. This condition can be tem- porary or it can coalesce and control the subject 's thought for prolonged periods. It is a characteristic of this abnor- mal condition that an assumed role not only captures the subject 's fantasy, but also actually intrudes into his reality because of its vividness and subjective nature.
There is evidence of such intrusion in Heine 's memoirs, in which he describes his lifelong practice of blaming mis- takes on 'my Asiatic Doppelganger. ' His parents were well aware of his delusional fantasies and identification with his great-uncle; his father reacted humorously, telling young Heinrich that he hoped great-uncle had not gone about writing IOUs which he might have to pay. Heine recalled that this 'wondrous condition ' lasted a whole year. Sources suggest that he must have been 13 at this time. 'In my dreams I totally identified with my great-uncle. I shuddered to think I was someone else, living in a different time. I would find myself in places that I had never been before and in situations of which I had no inkling, yet I moved about with a firm step; I knew just how to conduct myself. I would meet strange people with wild visages in dazzling costumes, but shake hands as though we were old acquaintances; I could understand their strange and outlandish language even though I had never heard it before. To my own amazement I would answer them in their own language, ac- companied by violent gesticulations which were completely foreign to me; and say things which completely contradicted my usual thinking. ,[4]
Even if Heine wrote that after one year he recovered normal integrated consciousness, he admitted that mystic traces of delusion remained in his subconscious.
Factors that triggered Heine's infantile pseudologica phantastica were an uneventful existence combined with a lively imagination. Like many youngsters today, young Heinrich saw himself and his daily life as dull and petty. What rich compensation he found in the world of ghost sto- ries and fairy tales! Without doubt, the power of his imagi- nation (an indicator of his primary personality) was a nec- essary precondition for the creation of this abnormal psy- chological event. Thus the exotic setting of the tales from
the journal of his great-uncle, combined with the atmos- phere in which Heine was reading the mysterious lines, played an important role.
[...] Certain indignities to which young Heinrich was exposed, including pranks by his schoolmates and insults by street urchins, should be named as additional factors.
Heine reported a number of incongruous idiosyncrasies, sympathies and antipathies, as delayed effects that his ab- normal condition had on his subsequent life. Even insignifi- cant acts which contradicted his normal habits seemed to him delayed effects of that dream period in which he had been his own great-uncle. "
So much for excerpts from The Psychiatrist. "Wondrous conditions" similar to Heine's pseudologia phantastica abound in the area of religion. The magazine Spiegel recently printed an article entitled "Das Testament des Pharao" (Pharoah's Tes- tament) based on the research of Rolf Krauss, a specialist with the Egyptian Museum in Berlin. Mr. Krauss gives us the fol- lowing insight:5
"Under a barrage of scientific research, the historical basis of the Old Testament has been unmasked as a fantas- tic potpourri in which real persons haunt illusory and pseudo-historical worlds while truth and fiction are inextri- cably intertwined. [...] The Heidelberg theologian and aca- demic dean Prof. Diebner, among others, has drawn rigor- ous conclusions from the new state of scientific knowledge: 'The Old Testament functions as a fairy tale, " he says, " it is of no help whatsoever as a guide to history. " [...] Bottom line of the debate: the Books of Moses are 'literary fic- tion.
It is religious fiction, and this realization is not altogether new. Several years ago the theologian Thomas Thompson of Copenhagen published a work similar to Prof. Diebner' s study, which is based on archeological research. When asked about his opinion concerning authenticity, a prominent rabbi re- marked that the important thing is not historical factuality, but rather the "wisdom" behind it. Thus we have a conflict between the "Wisdom of Fiction" and the "Factualism of Actuality." During a convention of biblical archeologists in San Francisco, Harvard Professor Lawrence Stager attacked Thompson on grounds that a critical attitude toward the historical correctness of certain Old Testament reports bolsters the arguments of Re- visionists who deny that homicidal gas chambers were used during the "Holocaust:"6
"I reject such a confusion and collapse of scientific
standards with total revulsion of my heart, soul and mind. "
Thompson views the process of biblical creation as a dis- cussion about tradition.7 He goes so far as to challenge the ex- istence of a United Kingdom of David and Solomon in the 10th Century BC,8 and his colleague Niels Peter Lemche of the University of Copenhagen even questions the existence of David.9 The myth of Masada also began to waver a bit several years ago, when pork bones were found there; nevertheless, recruits for the Israeli Army are still taken there every year for their "Never Again" oath. Larry Williams claims to have lo- calized Mt. Sinai in southern Arabia, which would of course present the "Exodus from Egypt" in an altogether different
416
The Revisionist ■ 2003 ■ Volume I ■ No. 4
Concerning the myths that underlie fundamentalist belief in the Bible, the Jewish linguistic philosopher Fritz Mauthner wrote:11
"It is difficult to remain serious when investigating the concept 'Word of God. ' Consider: In the Beginning was the Word, and God was a word. Gods are words. Soon that group of religions which we call monotheistic began putting words into the anthropomorphic mouth of the most exalted word of all: God. These were man 's words of wisdom and ignorance, and for a long time they looked like other words in books by old authors. However, when Heresy began to doubt authenticity, they became stamped as authentic words of God. [...] Jews and Christians have been attempting to establish the authentic text of the word of God for 2000 years. [...] If we want to know what the church means by 'authentic, ' then we have to disregard fairy tales which con- fuse the minds of our children such as the Finger of God. According to the Jewish tale, this divine digit chiseled the 10 Commandments into tablets of stone. We must also dis- regard the ever-present Holy Ghost of the Christian tales. Beginning with Moses and continuing until the time of the Evangelists, this supernatural spirit was present when mor- tal men wrote each of the canons. The Holy Ghost was also present when a different man translated it and likewise when his translation was retranslated into Latin, which be- came the official language of the Catholic Church. With subsequent appearances of new languages, however, the Holy Ghost ceased supervising. And what did it mean when the Council of Trent declared the Vulgate to be the authen- tic word of God, in 1546? We can not overlook the gro- tesque fact that this text was not even produced until several decades after it had been declared authentic - that the Holy Ghost allowed the members of the Council to authenticate words which, for philological reasons, were not found to be correct until a generation had passed. " Germany's biggest daily newspaper, the Siiddeutsche Zeit-
ing, provides the following gloss by Nikolaus Cybinski:12
"The idea that the Holocaust might be a Hollywood in- vention is becoming more and more difficult to refute; one need only watch Schindler's List often enough. " In 1990, a leading orthodox rabbi in Israel announced that
the Holocaust was God's punishment of the Jews for eating
pork.13 According to Yehuda Bauer, Professor of Holocaust
Studies at the University of Jerusalem:14
"Poles and Jews alike are supplying Holocaust deniers with the best possible arguments. " In the words of Benjamin Netanyahu:15 "Israel was born of the Holocaust. "
As Ignatz Bubis, the late president of the Central Council of Jews in Germany, said on the 60th anniversary of the so-called "Crystal Night":16
"Whoever forgets the Shoa, murders them all over
again. "
The Freiburg professor of psychology Franz Buggle re- cently completed a comprehensive study of literal belief in the Bible in his book Denn Sie Wissen Nicht, Was Sie Glauben (For They Know Not What They Believe).17 An additional problem is that the original language of the Bible was a very impover- ished one. According to Prof. Y. T. Radday, it had only 56,000 different words;18 according to Richard Wurmbrand, 65,000. 19 For this reason, most words have numerous meanings; thus, it is unavoidable that every text is based on arbitrary interpreta- tions. For today's reader, this is true even when working with the original text. This fundamental realization takes away all factual background from most Biblical literature as well as cen- turies of religious strife, for these have ultimately depended on words and concepts. By pointing out that Hebrew used the same word for "son," "descendant," "follower" and other of our words, Wurmbrand relativizes even the concept of 'Sonship" (Son of God), placing Jesus' relationships to God the Father and the Holy Ghost in a different perspective.
In his discussions of God and the world, the Israeli philoso- pher Jeshajahu Leibowitz sees the matter in this light:20
"The foundation of our faith is our oral Tora, written by men. However, this is also the divine Tora, which obligates us to our faith. This is the dogma of Judaism, [p. 124...] The oral Tora, which man created, has decreed that the written Tora is the divine word. On one hand we acknowl- edge that the oral Tora is a product of man; on the other hand, we accept it as divine, and so the Tora that we our- selves wrote, is the divine Tora! [p. 125...] Empirically speaking, the Tora is a Tora only to the extent that the Jew- ish people accept it. In response to the pronouncement of Jesaja (Jes. 43, 12) 'Ye are my witnesses, sayeth the Lord, and I am God' Midrasch^ dares to reply: 'If ye are my witnesses, then I am God; if ye are not my witnesses, then I am in a manner of speaking, not God. '" (p. 133) He despises Christianity, because it dares to imply that the Hebrew bible is a Christian book! (p. 80) Tales of fiction can- not stand solidly on one leg alone:
"Are there not enough historians, sociologists and other intellectuals — in the world and in Israel as well - who deny the existence of a Jewish nation? [p. 16. . .] The most glori- ous prophesies for future existence were given to the ten tribes of Israel by Jeremia, Ezekiel and Hosea. Then these ten tribes promptly disappeared without a trace, [p. 141...]
Concerning Untruthful Happenings and Truths Which Never Happened
'"What are you writing?' the Rebbe asked. ' - Stories,' I said. He wanted to know what kind of stories: true stories. 'About people you have knew?' Yes, about people I might have known. About things that hap- pened?' Yes, about things that happened or could have happened. 'But they did not?' No, not all of them did. In fact, some some were invented from almost the beginning to almost the end. The Rebbe leaned for- ward as if to measure me up and said with more sorrow than anger: 'That means that you are writing lies!' I did not answer immediately. The scolded child within me had nothing to say in his defense. Yet, I had to jus- tify myself. 'Things are not that simple, Rebbe. Some events do take place but are not true; other are - al- though they never occurred.'"
Elie Wiesel in Legends of Our Time, Schocken Books, New York, 1982, p. viii of introduction.
The Revisionist ■ 2003 ■ Volume 1 ■ No. 4
417
The only genuinely Judaic content which many Jewish intel- lectuals find in their Judaism is a preoccupation with Shoa: 'We are the nation to whom this was done!' These Jews have replaced Judaism with the Shoa. " (p. 98) The Germans are confronted with the mirror image of this: their Germanness is defined by what they allegedly did to Jews. Germany has become the inheritor of biblical Amalek, the nephew of Esau and brother of Jacob, who is later called Israel (1 Moses 36, 12). According to the account of Moses Maimon- ides, it is the 189th Commandment for Jews, derived from the Tora, to remember what Amalek did to them (5 Moses, 25, 17). The 59th Commandment reiterates that they must never forget this (5 Moses, 25, 19), while the 188th Commandment instructs them to wipe out the memory of Amalek (5 Moses, 25, 19):22
"Maimonides expostulates that the people must con- stantly talk about this, in order to cultivate hatred and incite the people to holy war. [...]/« support of this admonition to self-righteousness and glorification of the victor, it is of de- cisive importance to destroy the memory of the vanquished. Transcribing it in 'death letters ' was annihilating it in ef- figy-"
When Helmut Kohl congratulated Simon Wiesenthal on his 85th birthday several years ago, he expressed thanks for "the path which we are allowed to take." Perhaps his implication was that the gradual self-extermination and self-incrimination, like that of Amalek, is appropriate as "the final solution for Germany." Perhaps the Germans are supposed to be grateful for gradual extermination, as opposed to the originally planned to- tal annihilation through war.
Concerning the pseudological fiction of the so-called Jewish nation, in his 1976 book The Thirteenth Tribe,23 Arthur Koest- ler popularized the well-known thesis that most of the Ashke- nazi Eastern Jews are descendants of the Khasars. This was a Caucasian Turkish people that converted to Judaism in the 8th Century for purely pragmatic reasons. They, in turn, brought Judaism to the surrounding nations:24
"Many Polish, Bessarabic, and Ukranian Jews descen- ded from Slavs or Tatars, who had converted to Judaism under the military and political influence of the Khasars. The Khasars, originally Turanides, had ruled over a mighty empire on the Dnieper from the 6th to the 10th centuries and had in their turn been converted to Judaism. " This theory had been published in Hebrew early in the 1940s by Abraham N. Poliak, a professor at the University of Tel Aviv (Khazaria, Tel Aviv). Koestler later called the story of the Khasar empire "the most cruel hoax which history[?] has ever perpetrated."25 It is no wonder that many believe he did not voluntarily leave this life. Viewed from his subjective posi- tion, it is understandable that he considered this "deceit" the most cruel of all.
The circumstances surrounding the death of another author, Erwin Soratroi, who was mortally injured in a Turkish sauna, are likewise unexplained. He had just finished elucidating the Khasar story under the graphic title Attilas Enkel auf Davids Thron (Attila's Heirs on David's Throne).26 Koestler's book is now out of print, and Soratroi 's book has been banned in Ger- many, even though there have long been anthropological inves- tigations by Jewish scientists in support of the Khasar theory.27
Such suppression of scientific knowledge is all the more as- tounding since Zvi Ankori of the Department of Jewish History at Tel Aviv University in the above mentioned work28 writes that, as far as the racial purity of this or that branch of Judaism is concerned, Koestler merely opened a door that had long stood open anyway!
"But even if we assume that the original Israelites of biblical times constituted a 'hebraic race' - a highly unlikely assumption - the proselytizing and acceptance of non-Jews at various times was in itself enough to hinder ra- cial homogeneity. "29
"Thus the quality of being Jewish was for a long time not a question of genes, but of 'mindset '. "30 In other words, it was a mental attitude, a matter of one's worldview. A large part of this attitude is the belief that the Jews are God's chosen. In 1938, Ben Chaim directed a procla- mation to the Jewish nation: Juda erwache! (Judea Awake! Zurich):31
"Ultimately, the suffering of the Jews has its origin in the 'chosen people ' belief proclaimed by the Jewish relig- ion, which has been drilled into our people for millennia, to the extent that it has become part of our flesh and blood. Even today, even among irreligious or antireligious Jews, the belief persists that we are special and chosen. [p. 9...] The world, however, has little respect for 'God's Chosen People. ' This is because of the perception that a people who subordinate duty to fellow men to duty to God, cannot possibly be a Chosen People. [...] Millions of Jews still repeat this prayer every day: 'Ato bochartonu mi kol ho om ' ( God, Thou hast chosen us from among all peo- ples). Even if many are unaware of the monstrosity, crimi- nality and ridiculousness of the utterance, it is still an ex- pression of the basic attitude of our people, revealed in everything we do or fail to do. This attitude confronts us in every area of our life, hindering and separating us from others in our morality, our dealings with our fellow citi- zens, our hosts, etc. During thousands of years of wander- ing and humiliation, this delusion of grandeur has de- formed and ruined all the noble characteristics of our people. " (p. 13)
Hannes Stein of Jerusalem, formerly with the German newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung and Germany's largest newsmagazine Spiegel, and today a writer for the Ber- liner Zeitung, informs us in all seriousness that
"when Moses received the Ten Commandments on Mount Sinai, accompanied by thunder and lightning, the free individual was born. Since that time, man has been re- sponsible for his own actions. Christianity carried this Jew- ish insight over the entire world, sometimes voluntarily and sometimes involuntarily P2^ Among the joyous revelations of the Bible are the glad tidings that it is possible to break with inherited tradition. [...] Europe provides the best ex- ample for this possibility of escaping from our own origins. After all, what did European culture have to do with Chris- tianity? Nothing at all! The genuine, original European cul- ture was pagan: Europe was where people ate porridge and drank beer. [...] The triumph of Christianity in Europe was also the triumph of Mediterranean culture. "33
418
The Revisionist ■ 2003 ■ Volume 1 ■ No. 4
In point of fact, the "triumph of Mediterranean culture" was the triumph of Judaism! Ankori, quoted above, clearly formu- lated this last idea:34
"The Jewish Diaspora was successful in that it prepared the way for the dissemination of monotheism. All the non- Jewish peoples of the Mediterranean adopted it, albeit this was done in the form of its Christian variant rather than its original Jewish form. " As Shimon Peres expressed it:35
"The whole world has become Jewish. " David Feuchtwanger had already informed us that democ- racy is a Jewish innovation:36
"There is absolutely nothing which is democratic which is not Jewish, because all things democratic flow from Jew- ish springs. "
Should we laugh or cry about so much Chutzpal We leave it to the (healthy) imagination of the reader to decide what analogies should be drawn from the following examples, and whether he perceives a pathological syndrome that might be called "collective-hereditary pseudologia phantastica judaica." In addition, the question arises as to whether, as Hermann Schaber believes,37 an actual, even messianic solution of an age-old conflict can be derived "from the overall teachings of the Bible." Again we refer to Leibowitz:38
"As for the coming of the Messiah, the most significant
aspect of the messianic idea is that it is always a future
coming. This means that every Messiah that actually arrives
is of necessity a false Messiah. "
The messianic concept, at least in its worldwide form, is a purely Jewish innovation. It is an Asiatic myth, if you will. I have already referred to the first 'humorous' anti- Jewish pam- phlet in the Book of Esther, written by the Jews themselves as a parody.39 In the same way that Haman and his ten sons were hanged, so were "on the 16th and 17th of October 1946, in the Year of Creation 5707, in Nuremberg, 1 1 leading Nazis hanged (the 12th, Hermann Goring, committed suicide)." Thus writes Dr. Daniel Krochmalnik, an expert in the area of Jewish history and historical trans- mission. Through rabbinical hermeneutics, computation of the date 5707 can be achieved by naming the sons of Haman.40
"Thus a Happy End was pre-pro- grammed in the Bible. "
"While many Christians as well as some Jews take the Book of Esther to be aggressive in nature [...], most Jews consider it fun and fantasy. ' [...] Jews, having endured cruel whims and perse- cutions by non-Jews, indulge in the fan- tasy of role reversal, of placing them- selves in the role of non-Jews and vice-
,.41
versa.
The function of such humor is to decon- struct a world, which just a short time be- fore, had seemed immutable; the victim be- comes the victor, and the fool becomes the wise man. Laughter leads to healing and
emotional transcendence of the world. Just as the pious Jew Mordechai replaces the anti-Semitic tyrant Haman in the Per- sian court, Jews in their fantasy replace non-Jews in the world hierarchy. Such a jovial ignoring of reality, as occurs during the festival of Purim, shows how easily a Haman can emerge from a Mordechai - how easily a warrior for righteousness can turn into a plain killer. The authoritarian nature of this goal has to be acknowledged.42
Irit Ciubotaru stresses the contemporary nature of the Esther story:43
"The symbolism of this story concerns Jews today as well as then. Conformity, invisibility and humility cannot permanently conceal Jews from evil intentions. Circum- stances will always be such that, in one way or another, the Jews in their uniqueness will expose themselves and tear away the veil of assimilation. What makes this hidden mira- cle so important for us is the message that God ever and again, in His way, leads us back to our true identity. " The carnival like character of the Purim festival invites comparison with Fasching, Fastnacht (Shrovetide), Carnival, and Mardi Gras, which leads the Swiss cultural anthropologist Peter Weidkuhn to the conclusion
"that Shrovetide represents an archaic form of political class struggle, in that it is a cultural institution which ritu- alizes the permanent social struggle. It allows the politically exploited to indulge in a kind of revolution without really making revolution; that is, to temporarily 'improve ' his so- cial position without taking risks involved in challenging the existing class structure.
It reminds us of the ancient Roman festival of Saturnalia and related Greek Kronian festivals, in which slaves were served by their masters and free men could be whipped by slaves. In Babylon there was even the festival of Sakkaen, in which a slave assumed the role of the king (p. 300). Modern
UNITED STATES HOLOCAUST MEMORIAL MUSEUM
The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum is dedicat-' ed to presenting the history' of ■ the persecution and murder oKix million Jews and millions of other victims of Nazi tyranny from 1533 to 194S.
Temple of Idolatries of the 20th and 21st Centuries
The Revisionist ■ 2003 ■ Volume 1 ■ No. 4
419
English social anthropology has created the concept of the "rit- ual of rebellion" or ritualized rebellion.
"Ritual anarchy allows society to recover from itself. [...] In the process, society quickly learns again just how important social norms really are. The Shrovetide- anarchistic dissolution of social structure quickly demon- strates to everyone the necessity of them. " At the end comes the "Signal for the anti-Shrovetide Coun- terrevolution."45 The effect of this is twofold: On the one hand, there is reconciliation and re-enforcement of the existing order until next year; on the other hand, a gradual re-evaluation of "ritualistic" rebels.
Weidkuhn, who based his study on the Paris student revolt of 1968, next discusses the "most modern form of Shrovetide chaos," German philosopher Herbert Marcuse's slogan of the "Great Refusal":46
"What in the case of Marcuse is masked as Philosophy of Revolution is, underneath the mask, a philosophy of per- manent Shrovetide. "
From the outset, this movement was set up as double strat- egy; a make-believe terrorist revolt on the one hand and a "March through the Institutions" on the other. In the Germany of today, the latter has been realized to the extent that the first half of the strategy has become obsolete, or else transferred to other groups.
One of the leading spokesmen of the late 60s, Jean Paul Sar- tre, expected the ultimate solution of the Jewish question to be assimilation of the Jews into a "classless society." According to Sartre, the Jew is the human being who is considered as such by others. That is to say, the anti-Semite creates the Jew.47 In his last interview with Sartre in 1979, Benny Uvy protested against this way of considering the matter. Instead, he wanted to "liber- ate Judaism from anti-Semitism."48 Sartre, however, exhorted the former Maoist to remain true to the world revolution as a Jew. The former militant atheist now relativized his former po- sition and described Jewish identity in a positive light, empha- sizing a special relationship to God. His life's companion Simone de Beauvoir, who conducted the interview, remarked:49 "What a sw...!"
Let us return to the Purim festival. The "social-hygienic" function which it long shared with Shrovetide and Carnival has probably become obsolete. In 1945, the March Through the In- stitutions reached its "happy ending." The humor of Tora be- came cruel and bloody for those hanged at Nuremberg. Julius Streicher's last words are said to have been:40 "This is my Purim festival for 1946. "
It is more likely that the words were posthumously put in his mouth to make the executions appear to be fulfillments of prophecy. Harlan Fiske Stone, the Chief Justice of the US Su- preme Court, dubbed the Nuremberg Tribunal a "high class lynching party."
More recently, "The [first] Gulf War, which Saddam wanted to turn into an annihilation of Israel, came to an end on Purim."40 In view of such semi-official disclosures, we are not resorting to dubious conspiracy theories when we point out that American and allied war machinery follow Toranic and Cab- balistic timelines.
Today quite a few people are reading (assisted by computer analysis) the prophesy about "Holocaust in Israel" into the Bi- ble, which comes complete with the nickname of the recent prime minister, "Bibi".50 Christian and other non- Jewish read- ers of the Bible normally do not have access to such lore, be- cause they are unfamiliar with the Hebrew language, the nu- merical values of Hebraic letters, and the occult interpretations that can be drawn from them.
Taking all this into consideration, do we not now have ac- cess to previously unknown aspects of Jewish humor? George Tabori was the only one "who could allow himself the cruel wisecrack of saying 'the shortest German joke is Auschwitz.'" On this subject he "once wrote that only he who remembers with his belly, his ass, his colon and his sex organ is capable of remembering anything."51 So now we know: "The secret of redemption is memory. " It matters not whether our memory is retained in our belly or in our posterior. In a footnote on the Jewish expulsion from Spain in 1492, which was carried out by the converted Jewish grand inquisitor Torquemada, Walter Benjamin pointed out that, according to cabbalistic notation, "salvation means libera- tion as well as catastrophe."52
Does this mean that catastrophe can also be salvation and that memory can be the secret of catastrophe as well as salvation?
"In order for the past to remain alive, and not petrify into mere thought, it is necessary for the collective to con- stantly reinvent it. [...] Metaphysical hatred, when there is no immediate cause for it, [...] must emphatically be pro- duced. [...With both the above mentioned commands to hate in the Tora], a kind of commemoration is demanded which corresponds to neither experience nor memory. It is a kind of 'counter-present ' commemoration. [...] Remember that the assault by Amalek did not come from the clear blue sky, but because of Israel 's massive loss of faith. [...] It was not Amalek but Israel herself who was to blame. "53
The Real Victim of Holocaust Veneration is the Truth
'According to one of the worldwide leading Holocaust scholars, Yad Vashem Prof. Yehu- dah Bauer [right]: 'The story of the 93 girls in the Beis-Yaacov Girls School in Krakow, who in 1942 preferred suicide over falling into the hands of the Nazis, is not necessarily a lie. It just didn't happen.' [...] However, no explanation about the origin of the myth of 'the 93' will satisfy Mr. Leathon. 'It is extremely important that the story of the Holocaust not be sullied by absurd untruths' he writes to the synagogue in protest. 'If we want the world to believe the testimony of the survivors, we have to make certain that we do not allow sensationalistic myths to continue."
Simon Rocker and Joseph Millis, writing in "Is truth the real sacrificial victim?", Jewish Chronicle, April 23, 1999, p. 31 (Retranslated from German)
420
The Revisionist ■ 2003 ■ Volume I ■ No. 4
It is all really quite simple. Remember that Elie Wiesel him- self, the premier "Holocaust Survivor" and winner of the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1986, wrote the following in Legends of Our Time concerning Holocaust tales:54
"In fact, some some were invented from almost the be- ginning to almost the end. [...] 'Things are not that simple, Rebbe. Some events do take place but are not true; other are - although they never occurred. And in the same vein, Dieter Lattmann wrote:55
"There is the paradox of creative 'authenticity, ' which continues to fantasize from the vantage of a post- experiential reaction, half a century later. " Can self-referential delusion also be a raison d'etre? As Weizman said at the end of his speech to the German Bundes- tag:56
"We are a people of prayer and remembrance. We are a people of Hope and the Word. We have created no great empires, castles or palaces; all we have done is string words together. We have laid up courses of ideas, con- structed houses of memories, and dreamed towers of long- ing. "
In Hannes Stein's words, "breaking with hereditary ficti- tious traditions and escaping from one's fictitious origins" ap- parently does not apply to Judaism.
Jehovah before Absolute judgment: Such hollow bombast! "I am who I was And will eternally remain who I am! " You should say: "I will never change! " (Friedrich Hebbel) "A religion which causes inner unrest, war and disunity can not be the true religion. " (Michael Hospitalius, 1 560) This is true of Judaism's daughter religions as well, one might add, including Marxism, the "fourth Judaic religion, in which Yahweh, the god of Jews, Christians and Muslims, is re- placed by 'Historical Necessity'."57 To this, one hundred mil- lion humans were sacrificed, of whom Alexander and Margaret Mitscherlich opined that they would be "somehow compen- sated."58 Most certainly not by that fifth Judaic religion, which is built on artificially induced metaphysical hate. At present, this is being pursued under great pressure as "counter-present commemoration."
Notes
First published as "Wahnwelten" in Vierteljahreshefte fur freie Geschichtsfor- schung 3(3) (1999), pp. 307-313. Translated by James Damon.
1 May 1998, pp. 437f.
2 H. Heine, Samtliche Schriften, Ullstein, Frankfurt 1 98 1 , pp. 562f .
3 A. Delbriick, Die pathologische Luge (The Pathological Lie), Enke, Stutt- gart 1891
4 H. Heine, op. cit. (note 2), p. 573
5 No. 26, 23. June 1997, p. 190.
6 Biblical Archaelogy Review, March/ April 1 998, p. 6 1 .
7 Ibid., July/August 1997, p. 32.
8 Ibid., p. 34.
9 Ibid, p. 40.
10 The Mountain of Moses, CTI Publ. Co., Solana Beach, CA; Reference in: Biblical Archaeological Review, Nov. /Dec. 1996.
11 Worterbuch der Philosophic (Dictionary of Philosophy), 9, Vol. 1, "Got- teswort"("Word of God"), Georg Muller, Munich und Leipzig 1910, pp. 458ff.
12 Siiddeutsche Zeitung (South German Newspaper), 23. November 1996, "Krimi Spezial" (Special Mystery).
From Alan M. Dershowitz, Chutzpah, Little/Brown, Boston 1991, p. 132, Footnote.
The Jerusalem Post - International Edition, 30. September 1989, p. 7. Weser-Kurier, 24 April 1998, p. 3. Siiddeutsche Zeitung, 10 November 1998, p. 5. Rowohlt, Reinbek, 1992.
Yehuda T. Radday, Auf den Spuren der Parascha (On the Trail of Para-
scha), Diesterweg, Frankfurt/Main and Sauerlander, Aarau.
Jesus, Freund der Terroristen (Jesus the Friend of Terrorists), Stephanus,
Uhldingen 1994, p. 78.
Dvorah, Frankfurt/Main 1990.
Homiletische, erzahlerische und rechtliche Auslegung und Erklarung der hebraischen Bibel. (Homiletic, Narrative and Legal Description and Expla- nation of the Hebrew Bible)
Daniel Krochmalnik: "Amalek - Vernichtung und Gedenken in der jiidi- schen Tradition" (Amalek: Annihilation and Commemoration in Jewish Tradition) in: Der Landesverband der Israelitischen Kultusgemeinden in Bayern, no. 65, March 1995, p. 6.
The Thirteenth Tribe, Random Hous, New York 1976; German Edition: Luebbe, Bergisch Gladbach 1989.
Georges Friedmann, Das Endes des judischen Volkes? (The End of the Jew- ish Race?), Rowohlt, Reinbek 1968, p. 209.
See the back cover of the Arthur Koestler's The Thirteenth Tribe, op. cit. (note 23): "The story of the Khazar Empire, as it slowly emerges from the past, begins to look like the most cruel hoax which history has ever perpe- trated."
Grabert, Tubingen 1992.
R. M. Goodman, A. G. Motulsky, Genetic Diseases Among Ashkenazi Jews, New York, 1979, pp. 19f., 171f, 296f. Ibid, p. 22.
Raphael and Jennifer Patai, The Myth of the Jewish Race, Detroit 1989, p. 51.
Ibid., p. xiv.
Reprint: Ben Chaim, Juda erwache! (Judea Awake) Proclamation to the Jewish Nation, Faksimile-Verlag, Bremen 1983.
Moses und die Offenbarung der Demokratie (Moses and the Revelation of Democracy), Rowohlt, Berlin 1998, p. 9. Ibid, pp. 49f.
Goodman & Motulsky, op. cit. (note 27), p. 23.
Spiegel-Spezial (Special Issue) 2/1989, p. 80.
Quoted in Jewish Community, Vol. 1, Issue 24/25, Vienna.
Sleipnir, 6/98, pp. 40f.
Leibowitz, op. cit. (note 20), p. 148.
The Revisionist, 1(1) (2003), p. 91.
Landesverband..., op. cit. (note 22), p. 5.
Edward Greenstein, The Jewish Holidays; quoted in Svi Shapiro: 'A Life on the Fringes" in: Tikkun; vol. 14, no. 1, Jan./Feb. 1999, p. 25. Svi Shapiro, Purim: Humor in a Bitter World, ibid., p. 25. Landesverband..., op. cit. (note 22), p. 3.
Weidkuhn, "Fastnacht - Revolte - Revolution" (Shrovetide - Revolt - Re- volution); in: Zeitschrift fur Religions- und Geistesgeschichte, Vol. XXI, Is- sue 4, 1969, pp. 297f. Ibid., p. 302. Ibid., p. 303.
Reflexions sur la question juive (Reflections on the Jewish Question), Paris 1954; German: Drei Essays, Ullstein, Frankfurt/Main 1985. In: Histoire, No. 3, 1979, p. 175.
Daniel Krochmalnik, "Die letzten Worte des Jean-Paul Sartre" (The Last Words of Jean-Paul Sartre), in: Landesverband der Israelitischen Kultus- gemeinden, No. 60, Dec. 1993, pp. 20ff.
Michael Drosnin, Der Bibel Code (The Bible Code), Heyne, Munich 1997. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Sept. 1, 1998, p. 41. Footnote No. 6 1 in H.-D. Sander, Die Auflosung alter Dinge, (The Dissolu- tion of All Things), Castel del Monte, Munich undated, p. 92. Krochmalnik, in: Landesverband..., op. cit. (note 22), p. 6. Schocken, New York, 1 982, p. VIII.
"Ltigner haben kurze Beine" (Liars Have Little Legs), in: Siiddeutsche Zei-
tung, 26 Feb 1999, p. 13.
See The Revisionist, 1(1) (2003), p. 84.
Arnold Toynbee, Menschheit und Mutter Erde (Mankind and Mother Earth), Vienna 1982, p. 485.
Die Unfahigkeit zu trauern (The Inability to Grieve), Piper, Munich 1969, p. 333.
The Revisionist ■ 2003 ■ Volume 1 ■ No. 4
421
Groupthink
Lemming-Like Thinking as Reason for Political and Scientific Fiascoes
By Germar Rudolf
1. Introduction
Homo sapiens is a social animal, equipped with herd in- stincts, thus susceptible to mass and group psychological effects. Our social nature can have positive consequences, for example symbiotic and synergetic effects, but also negative consequences, like uncritical conformism and lemming-like loyalty.
In order to prevent negative consequences of group psy- chology, group dynamic effects influencing a group of humans must be understood. Next, it requires courage and stamina to name problems and to keep pointing them out even if the group pressures to ignore them. Research has shown that only a small percentage of any group of humans has the skill to step out of the group's bias and observe and analyze its own group objec- tively with a mental and emotional distance. And after having gained the necessary insight, an even smaller percentage of humans has the strength and character to act accordingly, which might be helpful to the group in the long run, but which is very often detrimental for the acting individual.
The most important feature of a group caught in negative group dynamic is that it has turned self-referential. Information from the outside no longer reaches the group, or only in a re- duced way. Instead of objective input from the outside, it re- ceives biased information mainly from and about itself; it con- sists of informational feedbacks. When such a system gets out of balance, it frequently does not tend to recognize and correct mistakes, but to sweep them under the carpet or to simply re- peat or even increase them. In technology, the result is called a resonance catastrophe, which, under certain circumstances, can lead to the total destruction of the observed system.
Irving Janis coined the term groupthink for the group dy- namic behavior of social groups of humans as discussed here. The basis of this behavior is the tendency of every human group to exert pressure on its members to conform to the group's norms. In the eye of its members or its leaders, these norms define the group, and in their mind, these norms thus create group cohesion and subsequently improve the group's capability to compete with other groups.
Tensions within the group occur, if a minority of group members violates these written or unwritten norms, which may be consciously defined or only subconsciously assumed. Initially, the conforming majority tries to convince the heretics to abide by those norms. If this does not succeed, a process of ostracizing and exclusion commences. The more severe the norm violation is or the more important the violated norm is for the subjective self- understanding of the group, the earlier and the more intensive this process will be. The highest priorities have those norms which are considered untouchable taboos of a society.
However, the social censorship of non-normative or non- conformist views starts much earlier, namely in the mind of the potential dissident who, already prior to any possible ostracism, has moral scruples to oppose the group majority, knowing that this act would be considered as non-conformist/non-normative,
or in other words: as outrageous and immoral. In his novel 1984, George Orwell described these 'scissors in the head' in an extreme way with terms like "Doublethink" and "Crime- think." The first term refers to the difference between what a potential dissenter really thinks and what he dares to explicitly think through in view of the consciously as well as subcon- sciously perceived conformity pressure. "Crimethink," on the other hand, is the well formulated thought or even the ex- pressed thought violating norms, paradigms or taboos.
2. Symptoms
2.1. Self-Overestimation of the Group
Synergetic effects result in a group that can perform better than the sum of each individual member could, if they were by themselves, because the awareness of not being alone, but to fight for a 'common cause,' has a motivating effect on most group members, driving them to higher performances compared to a scenario where they all were mavericks.
On the other hand, the same effect may also result in the group overestimating its capabilities up to the point of a feeling of invulnerability of individual members. This is accompanied by uncritical optimism, self-destructive, sacrificial courage and a dangerously high preparedness to take risk on an individual level.
Another negative group dynamic effect is an uncritical as- sumption which is especially modern in democratic societies: that the majority is always right, in particular when it comes to moral assessments. The more dominant a majority is in a con- troversial matter, the less the majority opinion will be ques- tioned by its members. This can lead to a point where the indi- vidual member no longer considers the moral consequences of its decisions and actions.
2.2. Narrow-Mindedness and Prejudice
Because what cannot be true is not true, group members of- ten collectively try to hush up or explain away statements devi- ating from their norms, in particular warnings about detrimental developments and information, which run contrary to their views.
Very often, stereotypical views about the carriers of differ- ent ideas prevail, especially about members and prominent per- sonalities of competing groups. These views are dominated by negative, often malicious judgments, in which the weakness and inaptitude of the adversary is put in contrast to their own (overestimated) strength just as much as their own alleged moral superiority is contrasted by the claimed moral inferiority or even evilness of the adversary.
2.3. Conformity Pressure
I already mentioned the tendency of group members to be obediently submissive, to censor themselves even before any reprisals become effective or even before they are consciously aware of possible reprisals. Believing that the opinion of the
422
The Revisionist ■ 2003 ■ Volume 1 ■ No. 4
group or at least the majority of its members are right has as a consequence that doubts are already blocked when they have barely come to mind; that the doubter does not spell out his doubts, because he tends to underestimate the justification and importance of his arguments.
This swallowing down of contradicting opinions results in a lack of objections, which the entire group misinterprets as a tacit agreement, which in turn increases the impression of con- formity, thus enhancing the conformity pressure - a fatal vi- cious circle.
If the self-understanding of a group is challenged in spite of this conformity pressure, in particular if central dogmas and ta- boos are attacked with strong, rational arguments, this usually does not result in objective discussions of these arguments, but in accusations against the dissident to be disloyal to the group or that he has malicious or immoral motives.
The next step in increasing conformity pressure is reached when a group develops self-assigned "Guardians of Virtue," who make sure that all members abide by the group's norms and that information running contrary to the group's paradigms are kept away from the group, so that nobody doubts the objec- tive and moral correctness of the group's actions. In extreme cases, larger groups even institutionalize such censorship by as- signing individuals or even entire departments with the task to ensure that the group's norms are respected by all members, and that offenders are reported and subjected to disciplinary measures, which are often defined in meticulous detail.
3. Consequences
In exceptional cases, Group Think may well have positive effects, for example if a group is in deep crisis, the only way out of which is extreme cohesion of its members to prevent dis- integration of the group and when extreme, self-sacrificial ef- forts of individual members are the only hope for success. But even in these exceptional cases, Group Think has a series of negative effects, which may even increase in a crisis:
3.1 . Poor Collection and Processing of Information The result of a wrong confidence in possessing the absolute
truth is often that only such information is sought or taken seri- ously which fits into the preformed opinion. Intentional se- arches for information challenging preconceived views do not occur or are ostracized or suppressed as an unwanted "heresy".
Even if information contradicting preconceived views is gathered, it is frequently not objectively interpreted. It is simply forced into the existing image, often contrary to its obvious meaning.
3.2. Incomplete Survey of Alternatives
Because of the group's bias, alternative objectives and cour- ses of action are ruled out dogmatically when operative goals and strategies are set, which means that alternative scenarios are not even assessed for their potential qualities. Thus, poten- tially better goals and strategies are rejected out of hand.
3.3. Failure to review Old Decisions
Even if strategies agreed upon encounter enormous difficul- ties, and even if the initial objective seems to be unreachable, a
critical reassessment of old decisions is often avoided, because doubts about the correctness of old decisions is considered a lack of loyalty and any alternative suggestion is considered to be a heresy.
3.4. Failure to Examine Risks
False information and examination of the reality necessarily results in a faulty assessment of risks involved in suggested courses of action. Group Think thus results in careless action, aggressive, conflict-prone economic or political behavior. Eco- nomical and political disasters are very often provoked by such behavior.
3.5. No Alternative plans
Believing in the group's infallibility results in a lack of find- ing and surveying all reasonable alternatives, so that the group has backup plans in case it turns out that the initial evaluation is wrong. Thus, once agreed upon, plans without alternatives are being pursued even if they have already failed.
4. Antecedent Conditions
Group Cohesion: A trivial condition is of course that the group has any kind of identity giving it cohesion.
Insulation from Criticism: Decision makers of groups tend to insulate themselves from criticism coming from the outside. Outsiders are usually not taken seriously or are even rejected as hostile to the group.
Hierarchy: Authoritative hierarchical structures prevent or impede the forwarding of criticism from the bottom to the top.
Faulty Decision Making Procedures: No formalized proce- dures are implemented, which renders it unlikely that critical views from inside and outside reach the decision makers with- out negative consequences for the critics.
Homogeneity of the Group: One major factor for a group's cohesion, its homogeneity, is at the same time its weakest spot, if this homogeneity is also given for views decisive for the de- cision making process.
Stress: Threats against the group from outside - even if only perceived subjectively - increase the tendency for Group Think, because conformity pressure grows in such situations.
5. Remedies
The first step in avoiding Group Think and the failures regularly resulting from it is to prevent the conditions listed above - except, of course, for group cohesion, which should just be kept at a reasonable level.
A culture of open and objective critique has to be cultivated, which includes the repeated encouragement to critique. A sys- tem must be implemented which channels such critique effec- tively to the decision makers, surmounting all the hierarchical hurdles.
Such an institutionalization of critique must not only in- clude internal critics, but also critics from outside of the ob- served group, who are to be invited regularly to the decision making procedures or whose views should at least be presented and explained on a regular basis.
Advocati diaboli are especially effective, that is, individuals who intentionally take positions in opposition to - or even hos-
The Revisionist ■ 2003 ■ Volume 1 ■ No. 4
423
tile against - views and strategies agreed upon, and who try their best to defend these positions. This forces the decision makers to convincingly harden their views against such argu- mentative critic or, if this is not possible, to revise their views.
It has to be pointed out and stressed over and over again that all analyses and all research is initially open to all results. This means that those results which are most radical and diametri- cally opposite to the expected results should be defined and discussed. Under no circumstances should they be excluded a priori from consideration or marked as objectionable. For each of the case scenarios under consideration, courses of action are to be outlined, preferably by different, independent groups, whose different results are henceforth to be discussed.
Searching information about an objective must be an ongo- ing process and has to include in particular such information which contradict hitherto held views, because only this infor- mation are able to reveal dangers resulting from decisions al- ready made.
6. Group Think and Revisionism
6.1. The Anti-Revisionists as a Group
6.1.1. Definition of this Group
The group dealt with here consists of 95 to 99% of the en- tire population of all western societies, that is in an order of magnitude of probably up to one billion people. The only factor that defines the cohesion of this group is their sometimes fa- natical opposition to fascism, racism, anti-Semitism, and Na- tional Socialism. Leading members in the hierarchy of this group, that is in media, politics, and academia, may each have other individual reasons, which contribute to their identification with this anti-group, like scholarly, economic and political as- pects, but these reasons will not be considered here.
Fact is that almost all attempts to subject German history of the years 1933-1945 and those aspects of general European his- tory entangled with this era of German history to a critical revi- sion, encounter sometimes fanatical resistance by this group with the declared reason that such endeavors are an attempt to revive or rehabilitate fascism, racism, anti-Semitism, National Socialism and so on.
6.1.2. Str ucture and Symptoms
Leading Jewish organizations like Yad Vashem, the Anti- Defamation League and the Simon Wiesenthal Center are on top of the anti-revisionist Hierarchy. Whatever these organiza- tion declare is taken as sacred law by their group. Ideologically seen, we deal here with Jews, committed Zionists, and dedi- cated German-Haters. This is the absolute, impenetrable hierar- chical top of this group. Historians, political scientists, sociolo- gists, and religious scholars, who have dedicated their career to the Holocaust dogma, define the correctness of factual state- ments. Politicians of many nations define the rules - sometimes only by setting school curriculums and memorial days, but sometimes even by enacting penal laws. These rules define what is to be believed, what has to be commemorated and hon- ored and how. Finally, the media - in some countries together with the public prosecutors - watch with eagle eyes that an- nounced truths are accepted and behavioral rules are obeyed. Ideologically seen, this elite is essentially - at least subcon-
sciously - anti-racist/egalitarian on one hand, but anti-German as well as philo-Semitically racist on the other, two irreconcil- able ideological poles, to be sure, which is, however, typical for this worldview.
The almost unassailable power of the upper hierarchical level has led to a hubris when it comes to defining alleged his- torical truths, which is then abused to deduct a political pseudo- wisdom that has become as widespread and universally ac- cepted as nothing else in mankind history. This absolute power has led to a moral overestimation, in which "Auschwitz" is de- fined as the absolute zero on the moral scale, the absolute evil. As a result of this, victims of "Auschwitz" as well as all activi- ties apparently in opposition to "Auschwitz", are considered to be absolutely good.
This moral hubris and extreme power resulted in a world- wide conformity pressure. Revisionist periodicals like The Re- visionist are full of examples about the legal and social repres- sions of individuals who dared to criticize dogmatic views of this group. This is not restricted to Holocaust revisionists, who challenge the central taboo of this group head-on, but also for critics who merely scrutinize more marginal issues, like the "race question," the "Jewish question," or similar topics.
Insulation from criticism is total. Everybody who opens his mouth, within this group or outside of it, will be socially ostra- cized and may even end up in prison. Internal critics are si- lenced, if need be with threats of violence, as was shown by the example of the Jew David Cole. Academic critics lose their job, their career, their academic degrees, and sometimes even their freedom (Staglich, Faurisson, Reynouard, Plantin, Walendy, Witzsch, Rudolf...). These opponents of this group's views are dehumanized and depicted as devils incarnate and treated ac- cordingly.
Dissenters within this group are not accepted at all, not even for a second. A critical review of reigning views and decisions is not only not encouraged, but also expressively condemned and punished.
If this group gets into a precarious situation due to obvious failures uncovered by daring dissenters, rather than admitting mistakes, a wave of propaganda is unleashed against these evil dissenters in order to increase the coherence of the group and to reinforce the uncritical belief of all members in the moral supe- riority and objective correctness of the group's views and dog- mas: media campaigns are launched, movies are made, muse- ums built, memorial days announced, Holocaust education made compulsory, etc... The resulting extreme hysteria of the group's members leads to an extreme form of Group Think, against which only a tiny minority can resist. Under such hys- terical and threatening conditions, 99% and more of all humans start cutting out thoughts in their minds already at such an early point that they consider mere doubts about the correctness of the prescribed truth already as worthy of condemnation and punishment. Thus, a potential doubter develops guilt feeling al- ready before he has even finished his heretical thoughts.
All symptoms and conditions listed above are given for the group under consideration, some of them to an extreme degree. I therefore conclude that this group has indeed developed an extreme form of Group Think, as it can hardly be found with any other group on this planet.
424
The Revisionist ■ 2003 ■ Volume 1 ■ No. 4
6.1.3. Consequences
Since the end of World War II, entire academic schools in history, sociology, political science, and also in other affected areas (like human biology), whose views could or can some- how be associated with fascism, racism, anti-Semitism or Na- tional Socialism - no matter if justly or unjustly so - have been prevented from participating on an equal level in scholarly dis- cussions and controversies. This led unavoidably not only to scientific imbalances in those areas, but also to imbalances in the affected societies, because essential aspects and facts have been excluded from the decision making process. It is hard to determine how much this fact contributes to today's problems of mainly western societies, but in some areas an influence can hardly be ignored, for instance in analysis and controlling the middle east conflict, the worldwide migration, collapsing birth rates of Caucasians with resulting instability of pension sys- tems, the increasingly desolate condition of western educational systems, as well as the effect of international mega-capitalism and neo-imperialism under the cover of the term "globalization."
In the meantime, the decision makers in Jewish lobby groups and in science, politics, and media have maneuvered themselves into a position, where an admission of profound mistakes is no longer possible without a fundamental destruc- tion of their credibility. This would resemble a social suicide of this group. It can therefore not be expected that these power el- ites will ever stop pursuing the strategy of inducing hysteria in the masses in order to keep up the conformity pressure. Thus, as a result of increasingly uncontrollable political, social, and economical imbalances, this system will have to collapse on a worldwide basis before any fundamental change seems to be possible.
6.2. The Revisionists as a Group 6.2.1. Definition of this Group
I define as members of this group all those who are seen as adversaries or even enemies by the first group discussed above, which includes: Biologists who are convinced that human char- acteristics and behavior is mainly genetically determined; po- litical scientists who prefer national values over international ideologies; sociologist and pedagogues who reject egalitarian views on education; opponents of the Jewish faith and of Zion- ism; historians who view the German-European history in a more balanced, differentiating way. These subgroups are neces- sarily very heterogeneous, thus having only a very low group cohesion. Although some representatives of these subgroups are aware that all of these different subgroups are in a mutual, though involuntary confrontational position against the world- wide dominating ideology of the first group discussed above, only the subgroups develop group structures, which usually do not differ from the structures of any other average group. No structure exists that would give those subgroups a common ba- sis to form a super-group, thus no Group Think can develop ei- ther.
In a more narrow sense, I define as members of the revi- sionist group all those individuals who have a critical attitude towards the dogmatic core of the first group, that is Holocaust revisionists, a subgroup of the before mentioned critical histori- ans. This group has a structure that is quite different from
"normal" social groups, mainly as a result of measures of per- secution, repression, and ostracism to which the members of this subgroup are exposed. Subsequently, I will therefore focus on this subgroup.
6.2.2. Structure and Symptoms
Although the ideological make-up of this subgroup is any- thing but homogeneous, the proportion of individuals who have anti-Semitic, racist, or National Socialist views or who at least do not have any problems in associating with such individuals, is many times higher within the group of Holocaust revisionists than in the average population. To a certain degree, this unbal- anced consistency is a counterpart to the ideological bias of the anti-revisionist group. The possible danger emanating from this reduced heterogeneity is thus similar in both groups.
Stress is the main factor causing symptoms of Group Think in this subgroup, which has its origin in social persecution as well as sometimes legal prosecution. Members of this subgroup tend to generalize morally reprehensible behavior of some members of the anti-revisionist group, thus accusing all mem- bers of the anti-revisionist group to be morally inferior, which can, in an extreme case, lead to the confrontation with almost the entire rest of the world. This subgroup as well develops a sense for loyalty and exerts conformity pressure, leading to non-objective attacks against dissident members of this group who dare to criticize group specific behavior. However, since this subgroup lacks any organizational structure and executive powers - both prevented by permanent persecutory intrusions by the anti-revisionist environment - such attacks are only ver- bal and do not last very long.
Dealing with arguments and views of the anti-revisionist school of thought is the main focus of revisionist activity. Hence, an insulation of this subgroup from external criticism and a restriction of the search for, and interpretation of, infor- mation cannot occur categorically for principal reasons. Such a restriction can, however, occur on a lower level, that is when certain details are discussed, which still can be decisive. In this regard, the revisionist school of thought is not any different than any other normal school of thought, which all have the tendency toward a certain academic self-satisfaction.
6.2.3. Consequences
With its persecutory pressure, the anti-revisionist environ- ment tries to push the revisionists into total social isolation. This isolation results in a lack of objective criticism rendered against revisionist theories. For mere self-protection, non- revisionists try to avoid being brought into context with revi- sionists, even if they consider revisionist views to be partly in- triguing or even convincing. This tendency of outer isolation is increased by an inner tendency of this subgroup to suppress in- ternal dissidents, whose dissent is seen as a threat to the group's cohesion, which isn't that strong anyway due to this subgroup's heterogeneity and the permanent social pressure it faces. Both bear the danger that revisionists turn into a group of self- referential researchers and writers, or, as mainstream writers express it sometimes, that they develop a "cartel of self- quoters". Active resistance and counter measures are necessary to fight this tendency.
The Revisionist ■ 2003 ■ Volume 1 ■ No. 4
425
7. Observations
As all schools of thought, so does historical revisionism need critical, unconventional thinkers as well as individuals who are eagerly prepared to assume and introduce controversial or opposing standpoints into any discussion. It is necessary to break through the walls of social isolation, which the environ- ment keeps building around the revisionist group. This can be done first of all by cultivating a culture of discussion, which does not only accept advocati diaboli, but gladly welcomes them. This is so because only if revisionist theories can with- stand the critiques of its harshest opponents, can it be consid- ered fit to convince the world - at least theoretically.
There are sometimes attempts within revisionism to exclude from a scholarly debate critical, unconventional thinkers who have accepted the revisionist challenge and want to answer on an objective, factual basis. Such a behavior is not only detri- mental to the revisionist group at large, but even more impor- tantly to the entire process of researching the truth.
Despite all the stress this group is subjected to and which should be taken seriously, controversies are the extra something in any scholarly discourse and the key to the truth. For this rea- son, papers should continue to be published in revisionist peri- odicals, which challenge revisionist views. As the editor of two such periodicals, I am sometimes criticized for opening the col-
umns of my journals to contributions which appear to contra- dict "our" philosophy or whose lack of scholarly value appears to be "self-evident". It is exactly such dogmatic judgments ex cathedra which define Group Think and which are thus so dan- gerous. If a discussion shows that a certain view is untrue or untenable, it is much better to expose this fact to the world rather than to stay silent, and thus to give the impression that one has run out of arguments. And if it turns out that opposing arguments aren't completely untenable after all, they will help to render our research result even more accurate.
As long as such an exchange or arguments is objective and is dealing with facts, it is worth a discussion. Everything in moderation, of course.
Further Reading
— Irving L. Janis, Groupthink. Psychological Studies of Policy Decisions and Fiascoes, Houghton Mifflin, Boston 1982
— Paul 't Hart, Groupthink in Government. A Study of Small Groups and Policy Failure, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore 1994
— Paul Kowert, Groupthink or Deadlock. When do Leaders Learn from their Advisors?, State University of New York Press, Albany 2002
In Memoriam Jean-Claude Pressac
Jean-Claude Pressac and Revisionism
By Mr gen Graf
When Jean-Claude Pressac suddenly died at the early age of 59 on the 23rd of July 2003, I was deeply moved. I had never met him personally; however, on account of his important role in the 'Holocaust' controversy, I had been involved with him since 1991, when I began my own research into the subject. Like other revisionists, I was challenged by his ideas. Of all the champions of tales of Jewish exterminations and homicidal gas chambers, Pressac, together with the long dead Jewish-English historian Gerald Reitlinger, was the only one whom I could re- gard with any degree of respect.
Pressac was a pharmacist by profession, and like nearly all writers who support the 'Holocaust' tale he had no formal training as a historian. This is true of most of those who subscribe to the official version of the fate of the Jews during the Second World War, as well as most revisionists. Pressac was not Jewish and he stood on the right politically.
In his youth, Pressac read a novel by the French author Robert Merle entitled La mort est mon metier (Death is My Profes- sion). This was a gruesome tale about Ru-
witz, and had strong emotional impact on the impressionable child. For the rest of his life, Pressac was haunted by the thought of Auschwitz. At some point in his adult life he began to have doubts about the accuracy of official horror stories con- cerning 'extermination camps,' however, and so began to in- vestigate revisionism.
He made the acquaintance of Robert Faurisson, Pierre Guil- laume and other French revisionists, whom he assisted for some time. The collaboration with Faurisson ended in personal ani- mosity, which characterized all their subse- quent relations. Pressac then rejected revi- sionism and set out to disprove its argu- ments. His willingness to engage revision- ists in open debate distinguished him from orthodox 'Holocaust' historians such as Raul Hilberg, Leon Poliakov or Lucy Dawidowicz, who categorically refused to consider scientific objections to the offi- cial version of 'Holocaust.' Thanks to his earlier collaborations, Pressac was inti- mately familiar with revisionist arguments, which he realized could be refuted only by proving the technical feasibility of alleged
dolf HoB, the first commandant of Ausch-
Jean-Claude Pressac
exterminations of Jews in homicidal gas
426
The Revisionist ■ 2003 ■ Volume 1 ■ No. 4
chambers. This became the precise goal that he set for him- self.
During his collaboration with Faurisson, Pressac had visited Auschwitz several times and gained the trust of the staff of the Auschwitz Museum. He was allowed admittance to the ar- chives, where he examined and copied a great many documents and construction plans.
He soon became one of the best-informed authorities on the subject of Auschwitz. In the eyes of the defenders of orthodox lore, he was the ideal person to scientifically refute Revisionist views. Since the late 1970s revisionism had made tremendous progress, thanks to the investigations of Arthur Butz,2 Wilhelm
Staglich,3 Robert Faurisson,4 Henri Roques,5 and other re- searchers6. The 'Holocaust' profiteers and other defenders were greatly upset. In addition, in the Spring of 1988, the Leuchter reporter was released.
Looking for someone who could refute Leuchter, the oppo- nents of revisionism settled on Pressac. Late in 1988 he pub- lished an article identifying several weak points in the Leuchter article, although his arguments also contained mistakes.7
The article was impressive for two reasons. In the first place, it proved that Pressac was undeniably talented and well informed. On the basis of construction plans, without having visited Majdanek concentration camp, he undertook an incisive
The Double Agent
By Germar Rudolf
In May of 1993 great doings were afoot at Max- Planck Institute for Solid State Physics in Stuttgart. One of the young PhD candidates there had become involved in a scandal, which was making news throughout Germany. The name of the PdD candidate was Germar Rudolf, the author of these lines. My scandalous activity consisted of having prepared, at the request of the legal defense of Major General Otto Ernst Remer, an expert report on the so-called 'gas chambers' of Auschwitz, in which I arrived at the con- clusion that it was physically impossible for mass gas- sings to have taken place as reported by eyewitnesses. Shortly after Easter of 1993, Gen. Remer had sent thousands of copies of this report to prominent politi- cians, jurists, historians, chemists and the various me- dia in Germany. As a result of this, every lobbyist and pressure group imaginable demanded that my activi- ties as expert witness be suppressed by every means available. In that memorable springtime I received a number of telephone calls from various news media at my worksite, which displeased the business office of the Institute. The identities of the various callers and contents of conversations are of no interest here, with one exception: when the gentleman on the other end identified himself as Jean-Claude Pressac. He asked for my private telephone number, which I politely de- clined to give him.
I suggest that he communicate with me in writing. To this he replied that, for reasons of security, he pre- ferred to not communicate with me in writing, because it would be dangerous for him to do so. Then he warned me that I too should be on guard. Concerning the 'Holocaust' in particular, he advised me to avoid challenging every aspect of it at one time. He said that in dealing with 'Holocaust' the only hope for success without risking personal danger was to attack it piecemeal, one aspect at a time.
Since that telephone conversation, I have been con- vinced that Jean- Claude Pressac believed that we revi- sionists are correct in principle. In view of the over- whelming might of the exterminationists, however, he arrived early at the conclusion that the 'system' had to
be fought from within. His apparent defection to the ranks of 'the enemy' and service to the cause of exter- minationism was his version of salami tactics. His plan was to use the 'system' in order to extract one conces- sion after another.
If we consider his publications in chronological or- der, it is obvious that with each publication, Pressac came closer to one or another aspect of revisionism. His first step was simply to make public discussion of the subject possible; his second, to make the 'system' acknowledge the priority of scientific evidence over eyewitness testimony; his third, to force it to acknowl- edge the contradictions inherent in such testimony. With every new publication he also reduced the num- ber of victims, while his evaluation of eyewitness testi- mony grew more critical. Finally, after attacking the very foundations of the 'Auschwitz Myth,' he turned upon the other so-called 'extermination camps' (see page 431.)
After the publication of his second book in 1993, he must have gradually grown frightened, since subse- quent revisions of the book made him many enemies. His telephone conversation with me was not the only place where he revealed his fears. Carlo Mattogno re- ports that he broke off all contacts with him at that time. Prof. Faurisson reports that he suffered a near collapse during Faurisson's trial in 1995, begging the judge to excuse him from answering Faurisson's ques- tions:1
"You must understand that I have only one life. You must understand that I am alone in my battle. " He refused to testify because he clearly saw that he was completely isolated and his life was in danger. The only explanation for this is the fact that a candid statement before the French court would have had se- vere consequences since it would have been revisionist in nature.
And so, even though his writings are scientifically suspect, Pressac was without doubt the most politically successful revisionist to date. He was in fact our double agent.
Many thanks, Jean-Claude!
The Revisionist ■ 2003 ■ Volume 1 ■ No. 4
427
analysis of its alleged homicidal gas chambers. According to official views, Jews had been murdered there primarily with Zyklon B and to a smaller extent with carbon monoxide. Pres- sac proved indisputably that, because of camp design and con- struction alone, Zyklon B could not have been used to commit murder. He continued to argue that homicidal gassings were committed using carbon monoxide, however.
Ten years later Carlo Mattogno, in his book on Majdanek,8 which he co-published with me, relegated the carbon monoxide theory to the realm of legend alongside Zyklon B. With his ar- ticle on Majdanek, Pressac opened to debate a central point of orthodox 'Holocaust' concepts. He also showed that the sup- porters of Jewish annihilation theory were as annoyed with him as were the revisionists.
I do not know whether the 'Nazi Hunters' Serge and Beate Klarsfeld initially contacted the maverick researcher or whether he first approached them. At any rate, collaboration now came about. The Klarsfelds provided Pressac with the necessary fi- nancial support to produce a book, which was supposed to squelch revisionism for all time, by scientifically proving be- yond all doubt that exterminations of Jews really took place in the fabled gas chambers of Auschwitz.
By the end of 1989 Jean-Claude Pressac's Auschwitz: Tech- nique and Operation of the Gas Chambers was finally com- pleted and published in English by the Beate Klarsfeld Founda- tion in New York. The French version was never published. The work, massive in its size and tremendous in its scope, was never available from book dealers, but was privately distributed by Pressac himself. It did not deliver what its title promised. The mammoth work did indeed provide a tremendous amount of information about Auschwitz; but the new information did not concern the technique and functioning of the alleged homi- cidal gas chambers.
Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers is a truly exceptional and puzzling book, a treasure trove of un- published wartime German documents, which give new insight into numerous heretofore unknown aspects of camp history. There can be no doubt as to its scientific significance.
The Klarsfelds had paid Pressac to prove the reality of Jew- ish exterminations in gas chambers, but this is not what he did. To the contrary: As far as the 'death factory' myth was con- cerned, Technique and Operation represented an interception and touchdown for the revisionist side.
Pressac was honest enough to concede that he had discov- ered no actual documentary evidence for the existence of homi- cidal gas chambers. Instead, he presented his readers with "39 criminal traces" which, in their entirety, were supposed to abol- ish all rational doubt about homicidal gassings. These "traces" were goof-ups by the SS, especially the Central Building Ad- ministration. Despite strict orders to leave behind no documen- tary evidence of homicidal gassings, according to Pressac, they had been unable to avoid having indirect references to such crimes make their way into the written record. As evidence of this, he referred to an order for 'gastight doors' as a "criminal trace," because to his mind a gastight door could be used for only one thing: homicidal gas chambers.
The fact that Pressac, in order to 'prove' the reality of mass gassings on a gigantic scale (at this time he was still speaking
of a million to a million and a half victims at Auschwitz) was forced to resort to such flimsy evidence, speaks volumes about the shaky foundations on which was constructed the orthodox concept of Auschwitz. If mass exterminations in gas chambers had really taken place, they would have left behind so much evidence that resorting to "criminal traces" would have been superfluous. Faurisson hit the bull's-eye when he called the book a "stroke of good fortune for the revisionists and a catas- trophe for the exterminationists." In a superb review, he used biting irony to totally demolish Pressac's arguments for the ex- istence of gas chambers. 9
In contrast to practically all orthodox 'Holocaust' writers, Pressac possessed enough of the scientific spirit to reject un- questioning acceptance of the statements of Auschwitz 'gas chamber witnesses.' In Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers, however, he neglected to take logical con- sequences into consideration. He picked and caviled at eyewit- ness testimony, pointing out inaccuracies here and contradic- tions there, but ultimately treated most testimony as credible. In most cases he was content to arbitrarily reduce the numbers of victims claimed.
It is impossible to determine what criteria Pressac used to judge the credibility of 'gas chamber witnesses.' In one in- stance he included without commentary a long extract from a book by a mentally disturbed man named Moshe Maurice Gar- baz who claimed that an excavation unit dug, in a single night, a mass grave measuring 50 to 60 meters long by 20 to 30 me- ters wide and one and a half meters deep.10 He lauded as "95% credible" a report by the Polish Jewish shoemaker Henryk Tauber, who described such things as prisoners in a large pit being basted with boiling human fat. Tauber also related that, as allied airplanes neared, the members of a cremation unit stuffed more than the usual number of bodies in the furnace muffles, causing huge fires to shoot out of the chimneys in an attempt to call attention to mass murders in progress.11 Pressac also included the notorious 'Franke-Griksch Report,' one of the most flagrant falsifications in all 'Holocaust' literature. This re- port, allegedly written by SS Col. Alfred Franke-Griksch on the occasion of his visit to Auschwitz on 4th May of 1943, de- scribes the ramp at Birkenau, which was not built until a whole year later.12
Pressac's tendency to 'correct' eyewitness reports not only did not improve the credulity of orthodox historiography, it made it shakier. One example: Pressac doubted the authenticity of the statement of Rudolf HoB in which he stated that in June of 1 94 1 he had been informed by Heinrich Himmler of the se- cret planned extermination of Jews and given the task of setting up extermination facilities. HoB stated that at the time of this meeting with Himmler there were three extermination camps: Treblinka, Belzec and "Wolzek." Since Belzec was not com- pleted until March of 1942 and Treblinka until July of 1942, and since there was never any such camp as "Wolzek," the en- tire story collapses. Pressac should have concluded from this and other obvious impossibilities that HoB was an unreliable witness whose statements were a priori suspect. After all, Pres- sac was aware that HoB had been tortured for three days by a British team headed by the Jewish sergeant Bernard Clarke.13 HoB' subsequent statements to Polish Stalinists were also made
428
The Revisionist ■ 2003 ■ Volume 1 ■ No. 4
under coercion. Pressac, however, concluded that H6B had merely confused the dates and had actually received Himmler's order in the summer of 1942. This version also collapsed very quickly. How could 'extermination camps' have been con- structed before orders went out to exterminate Jews? According to 'Holocaust' literature, Chelmo had begun operations around the end of 1941 and Belzec in March of 1942. In Auschwitz - Birkenau, exterminations are said to have begun in the spring of 1942 in two farmhouses, which had been converted to homi- cidal gas chambers. The problem is: this was before the crema- toria were built. How could mass murders have been already underway in the farmhouses that were allegedly converted into gas chambers? It is obvious that orders from the highest author- ity would have been required for the construction of these al- leged extermination facilities. It is equally obvious that orders for mass murder would have been required before the facilities began committing such atrocities. Thus, Pressac's new version was no more convincing than the old; it merely added to the confusion.
This is not the end of his inconsistencies, however. Pressac had studied the blueprints of the crematories carefully and had arrived at the same conclusions as the revisionists, namely that the crematories were constructed for normal sanitary purposes with no criminal intent. He decided that it was not until later that the administration of Auschwitz decided to convert them into 'death factories' by converting the existing morgues into homicidal gas chambers.
Apparently this theory is still prevalent in official 'Holo- caust' literature. Raul Hilberg includes it in his book14 in spite if its obvious illogicality. The first problem with the theory is that there is not a shred of documentary or scientific evidence to support farmhouse conversions. Even more significant than the lack of documentation is the following consideration: if in the summer of 1942 Himmler had entrusted H6B with organiz- ing exterminations of Jews at Auschwitz and had also chosen Auschwitz as the location for future morgues for the planned crematories at Birkenau, why did the Auschwitz Central Con- struction Office not design the crematories as extermination fa- cilities from the beginning? Why did they wait until they were already completed and then make necessary alterations by primitive manual means? One must be exceedingly naive to be- lieve such nonsense.
Is it possible that Pressac did not notice the obvious impos- sibilities that he was perpetuating? And what demon possessed him when he wrote that 97 to 98 percent of Zyklon B was in- deed used to exterminate lice at Auschwitz and only 2 to 3 per- cent for exterminating Jews; yet H6B and consorts, when order- ing Zyklon B to combat lice, pretended that they were using the poison to murder Jews? In his own words: 15
"The truth is that the SS used exterminations of Jews, about which their superiors had a general knowledge, with- out being informed of the practical details, to hide the terri- ble hygienic conditions in the camp, and to cover up their enormous consumption of gas for disinfestation purpose. If knowledge of the disastrous state of affairs had reached Berlin, this would have had unfortunate consequences for Hoess, who had recently been congratulated by Himmler and promoted in rank, and for his entourage. [...] So the SS
made the Jews take the blame (the usual practice) for the huge Zyklon-B requirements, in order not to be accused of incompetence in the running of the camp and lack of control over the conditions obtaining their. " (emphasis in original) Pressac certainly blundered with his description of gassings in Crematories IV and V, which according to him took place as follows:16 an SS man climbed onto the roof over the gas cham- ber in order to drop Zyklon B granules through holes that had been made for this purpose. He used a ladder to do this. Since the openings were far apart and the SS man could carry only a limited amount of Zyklon B, he had to climb down after each insertion and get more Zyklon B.
Then he would climb up the ladder again. Altogether this SS man had to climb up and down the ladder a total of 18 times. The men assigned to this task began complaining about the "circus act." They demanded that changes be made to the gas chamber in order to rationalize the process of mass murder. The camp leadership then agreed to increase the size of the holes by 10 centimeters but rejected the idea of altering the gas chamber because, in Pressac's, words:
"[...] the camp authorities considered that a little physi- cal exercise would do the medical orderlies responsible for gassing a world of good. "
Whatever possessed Pressac, a trained and gifted scientist (among other things, an excellent draftsman and photographer), to put such claptrap down on paper? Could it have been, in the final analysis, intended as irony? Was Pressac subtly exposing exterminationist theory to ridicule by demonstrating the ab- surdities inherent in official depictions of homicidal gassings? Perhaps this question will remain forever unanswered. At any rate, Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers was totally useless as a weapon against revisionism. For this reason the media ignored it whereas revisionists studied it closely.
It was a different story four years later, in September 1993, when Pressac's second and last book appeared, Les crematoires d'Auschwitz. La machinerie du meurtre de masse11 (The Cre- matories of Auschwitz: Machinery of Mass Murder). This time, publication was accompanied by a noisy and well-orchestrated propaganda campaign coming from Frankfurt. The media were delirious with enthusiasm, tirelessly repeating that revisionism had been vanquished for all time. Even before release of the German translation in the spring of 1994,18 the 'free press' of the 'freest state in German history' joined the howling chorus of triumph west of the Rhine. Writing in the Frankfurter All- gemeine Zeitung on October 14, 1993, Joseph Haniman an- nounced:
"This book, complete with building plans and photo- graphic materials, reads like an engineer's handbook. [...] Technical details, such as cremation capacity and fuel con- sumption per body, coldly document the horrendous subject matter. "
Any observant reader could see that this was not the case. Pressac's new work was anything but a scientific study, as it contained no references whatsoever to scientific literature on the subject. The 'Holocaust' propagandists were undeterred by such minor details, however. One of the most primitive of these, Eberhard Jackel, blathered in Die Zeit for March 18, 1994:
The Revisionist ■ 2003 ■ Volume 1 ■ No. 4
429
"Pressac 's book is so scientific that it is well nigh bor- ing, and for this reason is particularly valuable. [...] Pres- sac contradicts the anti-Semitic liars with their own scien- tific arguments. We are very curious to see what they will do now. "
The "anti-Semitic liars" responded with a book entitled Au- schiwitz: Nakte Fakten (Auschwitz: Bare Facts), in which "Manfred Kohler" (Germar Rudolf), Serge Thion, Robert Fau- risson and Carlo Mattogno uprooted Pressac's arguments point by point.19 Neither Pressac nor Mr. Eberhard Jackel responded to the rebuttal.
In comparison with Pressacs's first book, his second (which was about a tenth as long) was a scientific step backward. There was at least a trace of the critical spirit glimmering through Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers, de- spite all the inanities, but there was hardly anything in Les cre- matoires dAuschwitz that could be called critical. In his intro- duction, Pressac promises us that this time, he will not rely solely on eyewitness reports to prove that mass murders took place, since these are "always unreliable." This time, he assures us, his arguments will be bolstered by documents. Unfortunately he promptly forgot his promise. Every time he described a gassing, he 'documented' it with an eyewitness report!
The "39 criminal traces" of Auschwitz: Technique and Op- eration of the Gas Chambers have shrunk to a quarter of the original number in Les crematoires dAuschwitz. As Faurisson masterfully points out in his review, this means that Pressac "had now found harmless explanations for 30 details which four years earlier had seemed evidence of frightful atrocities." As replacement for the disappearing "traces" Pressac now in- troduced "definitive proof of the existence of homicidal gas chambers. This consisted of a letter dated 2 March 1943 from the Topf company, addressed to the Central Building Admini- stration at Auschwitz. The letter, concerning an order for "10 indicators of hydrogen cyanide residue" for Crematory II, initi- ated a lively discussion among revisionists. Robert Faurisson, "Werner Rademacher" (Walter Liiftl) and Carlo Mattogno pro- vided differing explanations for the letter, but all agreed that it did not provide evidence of homicidal gassings.20
Les crematoires dAuschwitz strongly ressembles a novel. As a framework for narration, Pressac used documents, which had recently been discovered in Moscow's Central Archives for Collections of Historical Documents. He relates the story of how an engineer named Kurt Prilfer "with pretended concern" determines that a warranty for an oven has expired. Then the author describes how the SS personnel stationed at Auschwitz are mobilized for combat duty at the front and cancel their req- uisitions "with noisy protestations of disappointment" which "barely disguise their cowardly general relief." Next he de- scribes how Oswald Pohl, after observing sick gypsy children at Auschwitz, "cursed the day" that he made the acquaintance of Heinrich Himmler. The obvious question for the serious re- searcher: how could Pressac have possibly known all that?
This kind of narration has very little in common with scien- tific research. Pressac then goes on to commit particularly grave scientific sins with statements concerning the capacities of the crematories, which he grossly overstates for reasons that are all too clear. At the end of his critique of Pressac,2' Carlo
Mattogno vividly describes the dilemma in which the French scientist found himself, along with the entire 'Holocaust' elite:
"In an article which appeared in 'Le Monde' on 21 February 1979, 34 French historians published a statement which ended with these words: 'One may not ask oneself whether such mass murder was technically possible. It was technically possible because it happened. ' Jean-Claude did not abide by this principle. He was determined to scientifi- cally challenge the question of the crematories of the al- leged gas chambers of Auschwitz even though he lacked the competence to undertake such a task. Thus he was forced to acknowledge the methodological principle of revisionists that, when a contradiction arises between witness state- ments and empirical science, the latter is definitive. He made this acknowledgment by relating the numbers of , gas- sing victims ' to the capacities of the crematory ovens, even though he greatly overstated this. Thus he made an irrepa- rable breach in exterminationist historiography, because science clearly proves the impossibility of mass extermina- tions at Auschwitz. "
The fact that Pressac had challenged the revisionists on their own turf and in effect given them the choice of weapons was unacceptable to many followers of orthodox 'Holocaust' lore. The Jewish-French movie producer Claude Lanzmann com- mented angrily that he preferred "the tears of the barber of Treblinka" to Pressac's gas testers. In "Barber of Treblinka," Lanzmann refers to Abraham Bomba, a character in his melo- dramatic film Shoa. Between sobs, Bomba describes how, pre- paratory to every gassing, he, along with sixteen other barbers, was obliged to shear the hair of seventy naked women sitting in a gas chamber which measured four meters square.22 Lanzmann was right: the 'Holocaust' can survive only as myth and melo- drama. Any attempt to prove it scientifically must end in catas- trophe for true believers.
Another reason why exterminationists were horrified with Pressac's second book was because he massively reduced the number of Auschwitz victims. In the French version he men- tions a total of 775,000 to 800,000 victims; in the German ver- sion, 630,000 to 710,000 (still an exaggeration of around 400 percent.) At that time the Auschwitz museum was no longer claiming four million, but rather one and a half million. With this reduction in numbers by the worldwide leading 'Auschwitz expert,' the number of six million 'Holocaust victims' was less defensible than ever. For this reason, Pressac fell into disgrace. After the brief storm of propaganda that accompanied publica- tion of Les crematoires dAuschwitz died down, his name quickly disappeared from the headlines. At the defamation trial Irving versus Lipstadt, which took place in London in 2000, Lipstadt called as expert witness, not Pressac, but rather the Dutch Jew Robert Jan van Pelt, who was clearly less informed than Pressac.23
According to his interview, Pressac had planned to publish a book on the Topf & Sons factory of Erfurt, which had been re- sponsible for the construction of the crematories at Auschwitz. This will not happen now. However, the restless interloper be- tween exterminationism and revisionism did leave behind an article following Les crematoires dAuschwitz, as well as an in- terview. They are both challenging.
430
The Revisionist ■ 2003 ■ Volume 1 ■ No. 4
In 1995, an article by Pressac dealing with the "pure exter- mination camps" Auschwitz, Treblinka, Sobibor, and Belzec appeared in the French magazine Historama.24 In contrast to of- ficial historiography, according to which these camps were supposed to have been designed exclusively for exterminating Jews, Pressac believed they were originally established as tran- sit and delousing camps. He pointed out that, according to eye- witnesses, three adjacent barracks had originally been built in Belzec. The first barracks had served as a waiting room, the second as a bathhouse, and the third as homicidal gas chamber. The gas chamber was said to have contained three ovens. Pres- sac logically argued that it would have been pointless to build bathhouses in a facility designed for mass murder: why bathe your victims before killing them? Furthermore, he pointed out, ovens would not function in a chamber designed for carbon monoxide. Eyewitnesses had stated that Treblinka contained a furnace room with water boiler to produce steam in addition to the 'suffocating chambers.' Pressac pointed out that the only explanation for this was that "between the end of 1941 until middle of 1942 in Belzec, Sobibor and Treblinka, three steam delousing facilities were constructed." He went on to explain:
"The Wannsee Conference on January 20, 1942, estab- lished a program for the deportation of Jews to the East, which necessarily included processing the deportees in these three sanitary facilities. "
Subsequently, as Pressac wrote in the article, the delousing facilities were converted to extermination facilities, that is to say homicidal gas chambers. It is unclear whether he actually be- lieved this or simply made a tactical concession in order to have his article published. At any rate, his revelation that the "eastern extermination camps" had been constructed as transit and delous- ing facilities shook official 'Holocaust' lore to the core.
In June of 1995, Pressac granted an interview to Valerie Ig- ounet, which, along with post-interview changes as stipulated by Pressac, was not released until 2000. 25 In this interview, Pressac drastically reduced the number of victims as postulated by the official historiography for 'extermination camps' with the exception of Auschwitz:
"Chelmno: 80,000 to 85,000 instead of 1 50,000 Belzec: 100,000 to 150,000 instead of 550,000 Sobibor: 30,000 to 35,000 instead of 200,000 Treblinka: 200,000 to 250,000 instead of 750,000 Majdanek: fewer thanl 00,000 instead of 360,000. "
Pressac based his numbers not on documents, but rather on private computations of the capacity of the 'extermination fa- cilities,' which were not explained in the interview. Since the existence of these 'extermination facilities' is unproven and we would not know, even if they had existed, to what extent they were used, Pressac 's figures have no scientific value whatso- ever. In the case of Majdanek, the only one of these camps for which documentary evidence is available, Pressac's figures are more than double the real number of victims, since we can tell from existing documents that around 42,300 persons died in Majdanek camp.26 But still, based on the lowest of his esti- mates, he has reduced the total number of victims of the five camps to 510,000, which is just one quarter of the official num- ber. For the keepers of the official 'Holocaust' grail, this must have set off all kinds of alarm bells. It got even worse, how-
ever. In his interview with Igounet, Pressac said things, which must have made the blood run cold in the veins of the extermi- nationists:27
"Concerning the massacres of Jews, several basic con- ceptions must be thoroughly revised. The expression 'geno- cide ' is no longer appropriate. Every epochal change leads to a new evaluation of rigid canons of memory which we have heretofore been taught to regard as eternal. However, new documents inevitably surface which increasingly upset official certainties. Thus, today 's depiction of the system of concentration camps, while still triumphant, is doomed to collapse. What can be salvaged from it? Very little. The truth is that exaggeration of the extent of the concentration camp system is like squaring the circle — it means declaring that black is white. The truth is that national conscience does not care for sad stories. The life of a zombie is not in- spiring, since pain suffered is exploited and converted into jingling coins: Medals, pensions, public office, political in- fluence. Thus it becomes possible to be simultaneously vic- tim and privileged individual, even executioner. " No revisionist could have expressed it better! Serge and Beate Klarsfeld thought they had found an invaluable asset in Jean-Claude Pressac in the struggle against "anti-Semitic liars." After falling out with Faurisson, he had become a specialist on Auschwitz and turned his back on revisionism. They provided him massive financial backing to produce a book which was in- tended as a springboard against revisionism, but which pro- duced a colossal backfire instead. Pressac, a chaotic and incon- stant spirit, had too much self-respect to allow himself to be dominated by the Klarsfelds and their clique. By his constant reductions of the number of victims, his critiques of eyewitness accounts, and his treading on the core belief of orthodox 'Holo- caust' lore, he caused immense damage to everyone who tried to hitch him to their wagon. As the premier champion of Jewish genocide and gas chamber theories, he entered into a debate about the scientific feasibility of the 'Holocaust' as suggested by the revisionists. He did this without first obtaining the nec- essary scientific and technical armor plating, and the discussion turned into a debacle for orthodox historiography. Facts are le- thal enemies of the 'Shoa' legend, and every discussion of sci- entific details of the alleged genocide is a step further into the abyss for followers of the politically correct version of history. It is now too late to turn the rudder about. Since the extermina- tionists presented Pressac to the world as a genius who check- mated the revisionists with scientific evidence, it is no longer possible for them to hide behind the argument of the 34 French historians that "the Holocaust was scientifically possible be- cause it happened, and no further discussion is allowed."
No doubt the Klarsfelds rue the day that they were taken in by Faurisson' s rogue student. We revisionists, on the other hand, have every reason to wish that Jean-Claude Pressac may rest in peace.
Notes
Translated from German by James M. Damon.
1 R. Faurisson, "My Revisionist Method," Journal for Historical Review 21(2) (2002), p. 7.
2 A.R. Butz, The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, Historical Review Press, Brighton 1977; updated 3rd edition: Theses & Dissertations Press, Chicago
The Revisionist ■ 2003 ■ Volume 1 ■ No. 4
431
2003.
3 W. Staglich, Der Auschwitz-Mythos, Grabert, Tubingen 1979; Engl.: The Auschwitz Myth, Institute for Historical Review, Newport Beach, CA, 1986.
4 Faurisson, R., Memoire en defense, La Vieille Taupe, Paris 1980; S. Thion, Verite historique ou verite politique?, La Vielle Taupe, Paris 1980.
5 H. Roques, The Confessions of Kurt Gerstein, Institute for Historical Re- view, Costa Mesa, CA, 1989.
6 Primarily: W.N. Sanning, The Dissolution of East European Jewry, Institute for Historical Review, Newport Beach, CA, 1983; Carlo Mattogno, // mito dello sterminio ebraico, Sentinella dTtalia, Monfalcone 1985 (Engl.: Eng- lish: "The myth of the extermination of the Jews: Part I," Journal of His- torical Review 8(2) (1988) p. 133-172; part II: Journal of Historical Review 8(3) (1988) p. 261-302; Mattogno, // rapporto Gerstein: Anatomia di un falso, Sentinella dTtalia, Monfalcone 1985; Mattogno, La risiera di San Sabba. un falso grossolano, Sentinella dTtalia, Monfalcone 1985; Mat- togno, Auschwitz: Due false testimonianze, Edizioni La Sfinge, Parma 1986 (Engl. : "Two false testimonies from Auschwitz," Journal of Historical Re- view, 10(1) (1990), pp. 25-47); Mattogno, Auschwitz: Un caso diplagio, Edizioni La Sfinge, Parma 1986 (Engl.: "Auschwitz: A case of plagiarism," Journal of Historical Review, 10(1) (1990), pp. 5-24); Mattogno, Wellers e i "gasati" di Auschwitz, Edizioni La Sfinge, Parma 1987; Mattogno, Ausch- witz: Le confessioni di Hoss, Edizioni La Sfinge, Parma 1987; Mattogno, "Medico ad Auchwitz" : Anatomia di un falso, Edizioni La Sfinge, Padua 1988; Mattogno, Come sifalsificia la storia: Saul Friedldnder e il "rap- porto Gerstein," Edizioni La Sfinge, Padua 1988.
7 Jean-Claude Pressac, "Les carences et incoherences du rapport Leuch- ter,"JourJ, December 1988.
8 J. Graf, Carlo Mattogno, KL Majdanek, Castle Hill Publisher, Hastings 1998; Engl.: Concentratioon Camp Majdanek, Theses & Dissertations Press, Chicago 2003.
9 Robert Faurisson, "Bricolages et 'gazouillages' a Auschwitz et Birkenau se- lon Jean-Claude Pressac," in: Revue d'Histoire Revisionniste, No. 3, No- vember 1990 ; Engl.: The Journal of Historical Review, 1 1(1) (1991), p. 25- 66; 11(2) (1991), p. 133-175.
10 Jean-Claude Pressac, Auschwitz. Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers, New York 1989, p. 164. Garbarz' Report was published under the title The Survivor in 1984 by Editions Plons, Paris.
11 J.-C. Pressac, Auschwitz. Technique..., p. 481. Taubers testimony is found in Appendage 18 to Volume XI the HoB Trial in Krakau (1947).
12 On this subject see also Brian Renk, "The Franke-Gricksch Resettlement Action Report: Anatomy of a Fabrication," Journal of Historical Review, Fall 1991, pp. 261-279.
13 Rupert Butler, Legions of Death, Arrow Books, London 1983, pp. 235ff.
14 Raul Hilberg, Die Quellen des Holocaust. Entschliisseln und Interpretieren, Fischer Verlag, Frankfurt/M. 2002, p. 60; Engl.: Hilberg, Sources of Holo- caust Research: An Analysis, R. Dee, Chicago 2001
15 J.-C. Pressac, op. cit. (note 10), p. 188.
16 Ibid., p. 386.
17 Published by CNRS, Paris 1993.
18 J.-C. Pressac, Die Krematorien von Auschwitz, Piper Verlag, Munich/Zurich 1994.
H. Verbeke (ed.), Auschwitz. Nackte Fakten. Eine Erwiderung an Jean- Claude Pressac (Auschwitz: Bare Facts. A Response to Jean-Claude Pres- sac), V.H.O, Berchem 1995.
20 Robert Faurisson in: Auschwitz. Nackte Fakten (see preceding footnote), p. 76. Werner Rademacher, "The Case of Walter Liiftl," in: G. Rudolf, Dis- secting the Holocaust, 2nd ed., Theses & Dissertations Press, Chicago 2003, pp. 78-80; Carlo Mattogno: "Die 'Gaspmfer' von Auschwitz," VffG 2(1) (1998), pp. 13-22; Engl: "The 'Gaspriifer' of Auschwitz," http:/codoh.com/gcgv/gcgvpruf.html.
21 Carlo Mattogno, "Auschwitz. Das Ende einer Legende", in: Auschwitz. Nackte Fakten, op. cit. (note. 19), p. 162; Engl: Auschwitz: The End of a Legend, Granata Publishing, Palos Verdes, CA, 1994.
22 See B. Smith, "Abraham Bomba, Barber of Treblinka," TR 1(2) (2003), pp. 170-176; an older version of this article appeared in Journal of Historical Review 7(2) (1986), pp. 244-253.
23 See C. Mattogno, "Architektonische Stumpereien zweier Plagiatoren," VffG 4(1) (2000), pp. 25-33; G. Rudolf, "Gutachter- und Urteilsschelte", VffG 4(1) (2000), pp. 33-50; Engl.: "Critique of Claims Made by Robert Jan Van Pelt," http://www.vho.Org/GB/c/GR/RudolfOnVanPelt.html.
24 "Enquete sur les camps de la mort," in: Historama, No. 34, 1995.
25 "Entretien avec Jean-Claude Pressac realise par Valerie Igounet" (Interview with Jean-Claude Pressac, Conducted by Valerie Igounet), in: Valerie Igou- net, Histoire du negationnisme en France, Editions du Seuil, Paris 2000.
J. Graf, C. Mattogno, Concentration Camp Majdanek, op. cit., (note 8), Chapter 4. 27 V. Igounet, op. cit., pp. 641, 652.
My Memories of Jean-Claude Pressac
By Carlo Mattogno
In spring of 1987, the first issue of the journal Annates d'Histoire Revisionniste appeared in France, containing, la., a long article authored by me, "Le mythe de 1' extermination des Juifs. Introduction historico-bibliographique a l'historiographie revisionniste".1 Other articles contributed by me appeared in the issues no. 3 and 5. 2 The latter issue also carried a French translation of the Leuchter Report?
In March 1989, Jean-Claude Pressac sent me a brief letter, in which he wrote that he had read the articles referred to above "with interest" and that he wanted to show me his response to the Leuchter Report. Enclosed with his letter was a photocopy of a study with the title "Les carences et incoherences du 'Rap- port Leuchter'" (the deficiencies and incoherences of the Leuchter Report), which had just been published in the French periodical Jour J. The subtitle was given as "A scientific study against the gas chamber deniers," but it had been replaced with pencil by "A scientific study in view of the gas chamber den- iers". This correction indicated - as I understood later - Pres- sac's honest desire to discuss with (at least some of) the revi- sionists and to let arguments decide the outcome of this discus- sion.
In his letter, Pressac mentioned a work on Auschwitz- Birkenau, which he had concluded in 1988, and he invited me to meet him in Camaiore, a fabulous tourist town in France, where he had rented a mansion during August of that year.
At that time, Pressac had already finished an article with the title "Les Krematorien IV et V de Birkenau et leurs chambres a gaz" (The crematoria IV and V of Birkenau and their gas chambers).4 A summary of it appeared with the headline "Etude et realisation des Krematorien IV et V d'Auschwitz-Birkenau" (Study and realization of the crematoria IV and V of Ausch- witz-Birkenau) in the French anthology L 'Allemagne nazie et le genocide juif. Additionally, Pressac had supplemented the Auschwitz Album6 with appendices about the crematoria of Birkenau as well as with explanations and comments.
Although I did not agree with his conclusions, it was obvi- ous to me that Pressac was one of the most knowledgeable scholars in the field of Auschwitz. I was therefore glad to ac- cept his invitation, and in August 1989 I finally had the pleas- ure - if not the honor - to meet him personally.
Pressac and his family welcomed me warmly and let me en- joy their hospitability, of which I have nice memories to this day.
432
The Revisionist ■ 2003 ■ Volume 1 • No. 4
Our discussions unfolded in a very relaxed atmosphere. They mainly revolved around his then upcoming book Ausch- witz: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers.7 With great enthusiasm, Pressac showed me the most important sec- tions of his work. He had written down the French text on huge, 50 cm x 66 cm sheets, which carried photocopies of the docu- ments reproduced for this books. Pressac gave all these sheets to me as a gift, but asked me not to talk about it prior to the re- lease of his book.
The documentation prepared by Pressac was truly impres- sive, and I diligently started to study it. Pressac was honestly interested in a constructive critique of his book, and shortly af- ter its publication, in March 1990, he invited me again, this time to his home in La Ville du Bois, a small village not far away from Paris. As before in Camaiore, he and his family wel- comed me again very cordially.
Pressac lodged me in a small apartment located on top of his pharmacy, which he had turned into his study and where I was allowed to review thousands of documents in his posses- sion. I always felt honored by the faith that Pressac had in me. He also dedicated one copy of his big book to me with the
handwritten entry "Pour M. Carlo Mattogno. Le 8 Mars 1990. Jean-Claude Pressac,"
During our lengthy discussion, my astonishment about his attitude grew steadily: it was apparently not important to him to convince me, and once he even recommended that I should re- main a revisionist. His sincerity cannot be doubted, and it seemed to me that he was more interested in free spirits, who are capable of objective criticism, than in uncritical followers. He was, of course, himself very much a free spirit, perhaps a little bit to much - in contrast to those official historians, who still cling to the outdated Auschwitz image of 1945. He told me that the Jewish translator who translated his book from French to English interrupted his work several times threatening to re- ject this project because some of Pressac's "revisionist" views tasted bitter to him.
Pressac's sincere desire for a dialog with those revisionists he considered respectable was also the basis of his friendship with Michel Sergent, a retired teacher who, in the late 1980s, had established an "Association for the Defense of free Histori- cal Research" and promoted a dialog between revisionists and representatives of the official version of history. I had the
Jean-Claude Pressac: In Memoriam
By Robert H. Countess, PhD
On February 17th, 2001 I drove my rental car from Le Vesinet - where I was visiting friends - down to La Ville du Bois, about a two hour drive on a nice, sunny afternoon to drop in at Jean-Claude Pressac's phar- macy and hope to find and meet him at the close of the day's business. It was Saturday and I calculated that I might succeed better by not calling in advance.
It worked wonderfully.
He closed the pharmacy about seven o'clock and I arrived about fifteen minutes beforehand, introduced myself to a clerk who then brought me to Monsieur Pressac. I began in English, but he preferred German, since my French is almost non-existent. Immediately, I made reference to my friend David Cole's visit to the pharmacy some years earlier and that I would like a few minutes, if possible.
Then I showed him a copy of our Theses & Disserta- tions Press book Dissecting the Holocaust, but I quickly opened to the Index and pointed to the many references to "Jean-Claude Pressac," thinking that he, like the rest of us, might be influenced positively out of an Ego- interest - he was indeed!
I told him I had an extra copy in case he might want to purchase it, and he paid me in French Francs. I recall asking to see the pharmacy and he showed me around, then excused himself to call his girl friend and invited me to join them for dinner - to my pleasant surprise, of course.
His girl friend arrived wearing a short fur coat and nicely dressed, while he was already attired in a dark suit. I then followed them several kilometers to their home, parked my car, and then rode with them to, I
later at the nice but modest home of a retired French mili- tary professor where a full five-course French meal - sump- tuous and most delicious - was served over the next two hours. Most of the conversation was in French with Pressac occasionally explaining something to me in German. We men toured the host's wine cellar where I saw an enormous collection of fine and ordinary wines.
At one point during the meal, Pressac brought out the Dissecting the Holocaust book and showed it to his host, particularly pointing to the Index entries for Pressac him- self.
I must say that the entire evening was quite enjoyable and the Pressac and his friends were most hospitable to me and made me feel as comfortable as possible. I departed around midnight from their home, heading back to Le Ve- sinet, fully intending to visit again one day to discuss our book.
Of course, Jean-Claude Pressac was a controversial fig- ure for his research and writing what Professor Faurisson calls "the Big Book". I got my copy of this "Big Book" and worked through it over a two-month period of intense read- ing and concluded that Pressac had obviously produced a major work that his sponsors - the Klarsfelds - seemed not to have read, or at least not to have read with careful un- derstanding, since Pressac's "Big Book" contained enor- mously important documents and photographs that caused great problems for the traditional Jewish Holocaust Story.
I am grateful to Pressac and his friends for their warm, French hospitality shown to me - a complete stranger who simply showed up unannounced - on that Saturday evening in February 2001. His contributions to revising the Jewish Holocaust Story will, without doubt, continue to be felt for ecadestocome.
The Revisionist ■ 2003 ■ Volume 1 ■ No. 4
433
pleasure to meet Michel Sergent in Pressac's house; Pressac had invited him in order to solve a logistic problem. I had the opportunity to stay at Sergent' s home for several days; he treated me with utmost courtesy and gave my all the support I wished for. He also accompanied me on a very revealing visit to the crematoria ovens of the Parisian cemetery Pere Lachaise. I recall Michel Sergent as a man sincerely engaged for the con- cerns of his association.
In 1991, Pressac announced to me that he would travel to Moscow in order to evaluate documents captured by the Red Army in 1945 in Auschwitz. His research in Russia's capital initiated his second book Les crematoires d 'Auschwitz. La ma- chinerie du meurtre de masse, which was published in 19938 and of which I received a dedicated copy as well. I assume that he thought to have finally proven the existence of gas chambers in Auschwitz. My subsequent merciless response to his second book, Auschwitz: Fine di una leggenda,9 of which I sent him a copy in March 1994 - the book was also published in English and German10 - was most likely the reason for the sudden dete- rioration of our relationship. Pressac never responded to my cri- tique, neither in writing nor privately. In an interview given to French journalist Valerie Igounet on June 15, 1995 (he later changed the wording of this interview), he expressed the fol- lowing bitter and unfair judgment about me:11
"I met Carlo Mattogno several times. Our discussions were interesting and instructive. After I noticed that, instead of taking notice of the undeniable documents of the Topf company that I had published, he had resorted to dishonest arguments in order to reject them, I ended all dialog with him. "
If I really had resorted to "dishonest arguments," it would have been a breeze for Pressac to publicly destroy me. But I was - and still am - absolutely convinced that I had written a technical critique, which objectively investigated all essential arguments brought forward by Pressac and refuted them with technical arguments. I showed for instance that the alleged gas chambers of the crematoria II and III at Birkenau were equipped with a ventilation system allowing just as many air exchanges as it was (and is) common for normal mortuaries and that the ventilation systems of the alleged undressing cellars were even slightly more powerful than those of the claimed gas chambers - a fact which finally clarifies the unsuspicious na- ture of these ventilation systems. I also proved that those fa- mous "Gasprufer" (gas testers) were nothing but plain normal instruments to analyze exhaust gases and that the device to measure remnants of hydrogen cyanide were actually called "Gasrestnachweisgerdt fur Zyklon" (gas residue detection de- vice for Zyklon).
Apart from general technical literature quoted, all of my ar- guments rest exactly on those documents of the Topf company, which Pressac called "undeniable," but what he really meant with "undeniable" was his flawed interpretation of these docu- ments. Facing such a well-founded and well-documented criti- cism as mine, one can understand Pressac's bitterness, although it cannot be justified.
His bitterness might also have been increased be the fact that his second book shattered the foundations of the official Auschwitz image even more than did his first book, so that the
Guardians of the 'Holocaust' Grail finally stated turning against Pressac. After the initial praise accompanying the launch of his book had subsided, Pressac was more and more ostracized. He was no longer a valuable goldmine to the guardians of the 'Holocaust' orthodoxy, but had turned into a more and more rebellious and uncontrollable Goy, jeopardizing the official his- toriography with each new publication. An Italian Shoa- Pharisee called him "reductionist", which reminds us in a fatal way at the term "negationist" used for all revisionists scholars by the most imbecile under the polemicists. Thus, Pressac had been banned to the purgatory of historiography, located some- where in the middle between the revisionist hell and the 'Holo- caust' paradise.
For this reason, the position as the "world's leading Ausch- witz expert," until then occupied by Pressac, was taken by a trustworthy Yehudi, who was to take Pressac's theses - cleaned from all revisionist waste - and embed them into an unalter- able, definitive version of Auschwitz.
The new rising star on the Holocaust firmament was Robert Jan van Pelt, a scholar who is clearly inferior to Pressac both intellectually as well as regarding his critical attitude, but who brings with him the prerequisites necessary to play the role as- signed to him. I remember my disappointment and even anger after I had read the book Auschwitz 1270 to the present, which was authored by him and Deborah Dwork.12 Van Pelt was so brazen as to repeat Pressac's essential arguments as if he had invented them, and reproduce the plans as if he himself had discovered them. Beyond that, he mentions Pressac only once in his 403 pages book (on page 304), and then only in a totally irrelevant context!
The anthology Anatomy of the Auschwitz Death Camp,u which was edited by Y. Gutman and M. Berenbaum and was published in 1994, contains an article with the title "The Ma- chinery of Mass Murder at Auschwitz" with Pressac and van Pelt given as the authors, even though it is merely a summary of Pressac's book Les crematoires d Auschwitz. It is a riddle to me what van Pelt's contribution to this article is and why Pres- sac agreed to this kind of procedure.
The most positive aspect of Pressac's personality was his passion for research. This passion was genuine through and through and led him to obtain new documents and to make new discoveries, most recently in the archives of the German com- pany Topf in Erfurt.
The Pressac of the 1980s was critical and open to a debate with persons of different views. This openness was most inten- sively expressed in Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers. His second book, however, published four ye- ars later, displays an uptight and dogmatic Pressac. Little was left of his original critical spirit, and at that time he handled documents far less carefully than he did in 1989. In my intro- duction to Auschwitz: The End of a Legend I wrote accord- ingly:14
"But in fact, reading his Les crematoires d'Auschwitz [in comparison to his prior work], one senses an uncomfort- able reversion: Jean-Claude Pressac returned to the worst cliches of the worst traditional historiography. " The author had changed his style from writing a critical his- tory of the camp to writing novel-like stories.
434
The Revisionist ■ 2003 ■ Volume 1 ■ No. 4
In my eyes, Pressac's most severe mistake was that he never seriously studied the structure and operation of crematory ov- ens in general and those installed in Auschwitz by the Topf company in particular. This restricted his research tremen- dously and distorted his assessment of witness testimony and interpretation of documents. I remember the difficulties I had while staying at his house to convince him that corpses in a coke-fired furnace are not incinerated directly by the flames produced by the fuel, but by burning gas produced in the gas generator (the fireplace) by the process of gasification of coke (resulting mainly in a mixture of oxygen and carbon monox- ide). If Pressac had acquired the knowledge needed to under- stand the cremation ovens of Auschwitz-Birkenau, his interpre- tation of documents and his assessment of witness counts would have been totally different.
Pressac's impact on the historiography of the Auschwitz camp is well known, so I will not repeat this here. But to be quite honest, I have to point out that the main aspects of his re- search (the so-called "criminal traces," which in his opinion prove the existence of homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz) go back to Roman Dawidowski, who listed most of those "traces" and quoted many of Pressac's documents in his expert report concluded on September 26, 1946, in preparation of the Hofi-Trial.
Pressac also had some influence on revisionist scholars. In my case Pressac stimulated me to widen the horizon of my re- search, which was still quite narrow at the time of our meetings. He initiated my love for archival research and therefore paved the way for me in this regard. My first visit to the archive of the Auschwitz museum took place in summer 1990, after my sec- ond visit to Pressac, and his personal dedication in the book he gave me served quite well as a door opener.
In 1995, when I traveled for the first time to Moscow to-
gether with Jiirgen Graf and Russell Granata, I was still follow- ing Pressac's trail, but after that Jiirgen Graf and I took the ini- tiative in that field of research. We have visited archives that Pressac never entered: in Russia, Poland, Lithuania, Czechia, Slovakia, Hungary, Ruthenia, Ukraine, and the Netherlands, and we discovered a huge amount of hitherto unknown docu- ments.
Official historiography owes Pressac many reviving im- pulses, keeping it afloat at least for a while; but even those im- pulses can no longer prevent its fossilization and internal crum- bling, to which it has been condemned as a result of the dull dogmatism of its proponents.
Notes
1 An English version "The Myth of the Extermination of the Jews" appeared in two installments in the Journal of Historical Review vol. 8(2) (1988), pp. 133-172, and 8(3) (1988), pp. 261-302.
2 "Comment on falsifie l'histoire", "Reponse a Jean-Amrie Braitenberg", AHR, 3 (1987), pp. 89-95; 96-101; "Auschiwtz: Un cas de plagiat", "Aus- chwitz : Deux faux temoignages", AHR, 5 (1988), pp. 1 19-140, 141-165 ; for the latter two, cf. "Two false testimonies from Auschwitz", "Auschwitz: A case of plagiarism", JHR 10(1) (1990), pp. 5-24, 25-47.
3 "Fred A. Leuchter. Rapport technique", AHR 5 (1988), pp. 51-102.
4 Le Monde Juif, No. 107.
5 Gallimard-Seuil 1985.
6 L 'album d 'Auschwitz, Seuil, 1983.
7 Beate-Klarsfeld-Foundation, New York 1989.
8 CNRS, Paris. Germ.: Die Krematorien von Auschwitz, Piper, Munich 1994.
9 Edizione di Ar, Padua 1 994.
10 Auschwitz: The End of a Legend, Granata Publishing, Palos Verdes, CA, 1994 (online: vho.org/GB/Books/anf/Mattogno.html); Germ.: in: Herbert Verbeke (ed.), Auschwitz: Nackte Fakten, Vrij Historisch Onderzoek, Ber- chem 1995.
11 V. Igounet, Histoire du negationnisme en France, Seuil 2000, pp. 645f.
12 W. W.Norton & Company, New York-London 1996.
13 Indiana University Press, Bloomington 1994.
14 C. Mattogno, Auschwitz: The End of a Legend, op. cit. (note. 10), first chap- ter; Germ.: p. 102.
The New Zealand Saga Continues
By Germar Rudolf
In issue No. 2/2003 of The Revisionist (pp. 197-202), Dr. Fredrick Toben reported on the case of Joel S.A. Hayward, who in 1993 had completed a master's thesis at the University of Canterbury in Christchurch, New Zealand, on revisionist writ- ings about the alleged extermination of European Jews by Na- tional Socialist Germany. Because Hayward not only concluded that revisionist writings on this topic are scholarly contributions to historiography that ought to be taken seriously, but also agreed with some revisionist conclusions on the matter itself, various pressure groups demanded that his master's degree be revoked. Although the University of Canterbury did not go that far, the ac- tual actions taken were severe enough to cause opposition by some scholars who felt that academic freedom was at stake.
Two of those scholars are Dr. Thomas A. Fudge and Prof. Dr. Ian Campbell, historians at the University of Canterbury where Hayward had earned his master's and PhD degrees.
Campbell, who at that time was also the editor of his univer- sity's small history journal History Now, asked Dr. Fudges to write an article on the Hayward affair, which was published in the May issue of that magazine. When the magazine was re- leased, however, the history department withdrew and pulped this issue and sacked Prof. Campbell as the journal's editor. As a reaction to this academic book burning, an uproar went through the academic world on almost a worldwide level. To counter this act of censorship, the New Zealand Herald re- printed Dr. Fudge's article in two installments on the 23rd and 24th of July 2003, albeit without footnotes. Thus, the attempt of the university to prevent Fudge's article to be published in 500 copies - the actual print-run of History Now - resulted in it be- ing published in tens of thousands of copies. Parallel to this act of media solidarity, Dr. Martin Lally, Associate Professor of Finance at Victoria University, Wellington, organized a petition
The Revisionist ■ 2003 ■ Volume 1 ■ No. 4
435
to the University of Canterbury, signed by many scholars from all over the world, which was published on Aug. 26, 2003, in The Dominion Post (Wellington) and The Press (Christchurch, see separate text box). Both dailies later also published brief ar- ticles supporting the view that what was going on at the Uni- versity of Canterbury was censorship unworthy of an academic institution.1
As a reaction to Dr. Fudge's and Prof. Campbell's article as well as to Prof. Lally's involvement on behalf of academic freedom and the right to ask critical questions regarding the 'Holocaust', Philip Matthews wrote an article which was pub- lished by the New Zealand newspaper Listener on September 20, 2003, under the headline "Canterbury Tales" (pp. 26-29). In it, Matthews asks:
"Is Canterbury University in the business of suppressing
academic freedom? Or is this issue really about academic
standards? "
This is of course a valid question. But before addressing it, Matthews first reveals that Prof. Dr. Vincent Orange, who was Dr. Hayward's supervisor during his studies, had written in a letter to Canterbury University Chancellor Phyllis Guthardt in April 2001, that Dr. Fudge had expressed "His warm approval of the [Hayward] thesis" and that Dr. Fudge "finds much merit in the work." Both Dr. Fudge and Prof. Campbell had offered support to Prof. Orange and Dr. Hayward while the university was investigating this case in 2000. Matthews juxtaposes these statements with Dr. Fudge's refusal during an interview with him to assess the quality of Hayward's thesis. Matthews then quotes Prof. Dr. Richard Evans, who not only appeared during the infamous Irving vs. Lipstadt trial in 2000 as an expert wit- ness for the defense (Lipstadt and Penguin books), but who also wrote an expert report on the Hayward thesis during the same year. In Evans' eyes, Hayward's thesis is "a thoroughly tenden- tious, biased and dishonest piece of work." Evans recom- mended that Canterbury University strip Hayward of his mas- ter's degree. In a more recent comment, Evans is quoted by Matthews that this is not about academic freedom, but:
"It is rather the upholding of academic standards. No- body has stopped Hayward or Fudge from publishing what they have written. "
Reasons given for the withdrawal of Dr. Fudge's article were not only that the history department disagreed with it, but also that Dr. Fudge allegedly misused personal and interde- partmental communications and breached an informal agree- ment to stop discussing the Hayward affair in public. Consider- ing the severity of the intrusion into Dr. Hayward's academic freedom, it does not appear to be all that important to find out whether or not these claims are true. It is, however, quite comi- cal that an act of censorship is justified with the fact that the victim of censorship had ignored an earlier "agreement" of cen- sorship.
In his article, Matthews does not properly address the ques- tions he himself posed at the very beginning of his article. All he has to say about it is that Prof. Evans, a real expert in Mat- thews' eyes, made the above quoted statement, which Mat- thews accepts uncritically. I wonder if Matthews has read Prof. Evans' expert report and if he has any idea what "academic standards" are in the first place. Let us examine this question.
First of all, Matthews should have noticed that no thesis could ever be "dishonest". If Prof. Dr. Evens really said this, it shows some problems he has with expressing himself. Whereas a thesis cannot be dishonest, a scholar writing it can very well be dishonest, but such dishonesty cannot be proven by examin- ing a thesis (except for an admission of dishonesty being found in it, which is not very likely to occur). Thus, Prof. Dr. Evans, who has never met Dr. Hayward personally, cannot possibly know whether Dr. Hayward is dishonest or not. It therefore cannot surprise that Canterbury University did not follow Dr. Evans' conclusion in this regard. What can be stated here, how- ever, is that making such ad hominem attacks on other scholars without knowing them is very much an indication of lack of academic standards!
Next comes the question whether or not Hayward's thesis is tendentious and/or biased. Since Hayward takes revisionist ar- guments seriously and endorses some of them, it can come as no surprise that Dr. Evans, who is one of the most ardent de- clared adversaries of all revisionist viewpoints, labels such an
THE
PRESS
History lessons
It is time to close a troubling chapter in the history of the University of Canterbury. The Hayward-Fudgc affair has festered for three years and is damaging all involved. Beginning with a com- plaint about a Master's thesis, the issue has been allowed to develop into a many-tentacled incubus that refuses to die. It is dragging down what was once the university's un- sullied reputation for promoting free thought, encouraging fearless inves- tigation, and protecting its members.
This sorry state of affairs is partly the result of good intentions. The university has consistently sought to address fairly the issue of the disputed thesis. It listened to the deeply felt complaint of the Jewish Council and responded with a working party of distinguished and independent people who carried out a thorough investigation. The univer- sity accepted their advice. Even in the latest round of the affair — the suppression of Dr Thomas Fudge's article defending Joei Hayward — the university sought to maintain the standard of publications issued under its imprimatur.
The trouble is that these good intentions have not converged with common sense. A more vigorous application of the principle that lies at the heart of its being — that those within its walls must be allowed maximum freedom of thought and expression — would have prevented the issue developing.
Joel Hayward and his thesis, while being subjected to the full blast of criticism some thought they
deserved, should not have been subjected to wliat amounted to censure from the university. It had, after all, accepted Dr Hayward as a suitable candidate for a Master's degree, supervised his work, and accepted his examiners' assessment. To renege — to open the thesis to a second assessment — was to be seen as craven at worst and confused at best, and fed the embers of the affair.
That they have now burst into flame was inevitable, but that they have burned so bright was not By accepting then rejecting Dr Fudge's article, the history department underscored the perception of repressive incompetence. By with- drawing and destroying the publi- cation containing the article, the university literally became that odious tiling, a burner of books.
That is the public's damaging per- ception and it will be difficult to change. By reversing its stand, the university would reinforce its reput- ation for ineptitude. The best course would be for the university to reas- sure the public that it has learned lessons from the affair - that it recognises the need to appear fair as well as be fair, and that its defence of academic freedom will be more forthright. That would help it close an unsavoury chapter and move on.
So would the prompt resignation of Dr Fudge. He is out of sympathy with the university and unforgiving of its behaviour. For its sake and his, he should sever his employment His staying does not further his cause or the university's.
The Press (Christchurch), Sept. 3, 2003
436
The Revisionist ■ 2003 ■ Volume 1 ■ No. 4
attitude as tendentious and biased. However, isn't an attitude that rejects opposing viewpoints out of hand, attacks their sup- porters as dishonest, and asks for the destruction of their liveli- hood (by withdrawing their academic degrees) by itself an indi- cation of tendentiousness and bias?
The question could be easily answered if we could come to a conclusion that revisionist arguments are factually correct or at least scholarly valid. Since I am a revisionist myself, it can be argued that I am biased in this regard, so I won't argue along this line, as the other side would not accept it, and I have no in- tention to convince those who are already convinced. I there- fore would like to concentrate on formal issues.
First, let me try to summarize what academic standards for any scholarly work are, to which Prof. Evans refers:
- Systematic organization.
- Clear separation between facts and opinions.
- Factual claims are backed up with any or all of the fol- lowing:
- sources proving the facts, quoted in a way that the source can be found by others,
- experiments described in a way that they can be re- peated by others.
- logical reasoning/deduction which can be followed by others.
- Opposing arguments taken into consideration to the extent they were accessible at that time.
- Depending on the faculty involved, the observance of cer- tain faculty-specific evidentiary or methodic rules (if they are not themselves the subject of scrutiny).
Prof. Evans' accusations against Dr. Hayward concentrate primarily on the claim that Dr. Hayward did not take opposing arguments into consideration or at least did not give them the consideration they deserved. This is what Prof. Evans calls bias and tendentiousness. In his 1999/2000 apologies, Dr. Hayward recognized that he learned about opposing arguments after he had finished his thesis in 1993, and that he now, with his knowledge of the late 1990s, would write and conclude his the- sis differently. In my correspondence with Dr. Hayward start- ing in 1998, 1 told him that certain parts of his thesis were built on weak arguments and would attract partly justified criticism. This is primarily true for his relying on the accuracy of the so- called Leuchter-Report, which was both a groundbreaking work but also a work with many deficiencies. There is no doubt that Dr. Hayward got carried away by revisionist enthusiasm in the wake of the Leuchter-Report, which might have made him a lit- tle careless by adopting revisionist viewpoints too eagerly. Though this may be bias, it is still within the normal and ac- ceptable range of what can happen to all of us.
One also has to take into consideration that Hayward was a mere student in a master thesis program doing his work at the other end of the world. With his limited budget and the huge distances involved to access source material, it was not easy for him to collect all the information he needed, and his own su- pervisor was not an expert in this field either. This is why Dr. Hayward emphasized the fact that he had no funds available during his research, whereas Dr. Evans is equipped with a gen- erous salary and is also well paid for the expert reports he writes. For instance, Dr. Evans received ca. $100,000 for his
expert report in the Irving trial alone. With such payments, it is of course easy to do a much better job, and it is cheap to criti- cize others who are pauper students down under (as does Mr. Matthews). It may therefore be stated that Evans' expectations as to the completeness of Hayward's survey of opposing argu- ments is a bit unrealistic.
JKhe Dominion Post
Thursday, September 4, 2003
Academic freedom must apply to all
LAST week, 63 signatories from New Zealand and overseas paid for half- page advertisements in daily newspapers to excoriate Can- terbury University. They are affronted by a series of decis- ions taken by university man- agement that started 10 years ago. In 1993, student Joel Hay- ward wrote a master's thesis that questioned the validity of Holocaust history during World War II. Instead of being advised by his thesis supervis- or to think again, Dr Hayward was awarded his degree with first-class honours. Before long, however, he realised his mis- take and repudiated the conclu- sions he had reached.
The controversy that sur- rounds Dr Hayward's work re- fuses to die. Last May, univer- sity historian Thomas Fudge wrote an article for a depart- mental publication. History To- day, that reviewed the uproar over the Hayward thesis. The article was published but the university ordered that edition of History Today be destroyed, in what some see as akin to book-burning. Nonetheless, the university council has backed its employee. Last week, it reit- erated its confidence in vice- chancellor Roy Sharp — for- merly at Victoria University — and said that an inquiry into his actions revealed no failure to protect, promote or enhance academic freedom.
Professor Sharp will wel- come that reassurance. But the council's view is not shared by the advertisement's signatories and their view is worth consid- eration. Some — maybe many — of the academics, think-tank inhabitants and others who put their names to the petition to the university council, might well have had to swallow hard in involving themselves with the unlovely conclusions Dr Havward drew in his benight-
ed treatise. But they have shown more courage than the university council. Professor Sharp and reportedly some at Massey University, to which Dr Hayward subsequently moved.
Last October, he resigned from Massey, apparently after what he regarded as harass- ment of himself and his chil- dren. Today, he lives with his family in Palmerston North penning books and poetry, well removed from the maelstrom his ill-conceived academic work has caused in the south.
Such controversy is not con- fined to Canterbury. Waikato University has encountered a similar row. But it duck-shoved student Hans Kupka's ques- tioning of the Holocaust to the Human Rights Commission. And last October, political sci- ence professor Dov Bing, who was involved in the Kupka con- troversy two years ago, claimed he had uncovered an- other thesis from 1994 that also denied the Nazi pogrom. New Zealand's Jewish community is as sensitive as its counterparts anywhere to suggestions that the suffering of their forebears did not amount to much.
Academic freedom is jeal- ously protected by those who inhabit the hallowed halls of academia. However, if it is to mean anything, it must apply to those who are plain daft as well as to those who are merely conventional.
Like press freedom, it de- mands that scholarship be free to investigate and explore the highways, byways and narrow lanes of an issue, even those that a majority deem offensive and repugnant. It surely means the right to be wrongheaded and downright stupid, as well as the right to espouse an orthodoxy that a majority be- lieve simply because they agree with it.
The Revisionist ■ 2003 ■ Volume 1 ■ No. 4
437
But let us push this a little further. In all of his writings, Prof. Evans considers the thesis that the 'Holocaust' did not happen (whatever this implies) to be evidence for bias by itself. For him, the documentation proving the factuality of the 'Holo- caust' is irrefutable. When so doing, does he stick to his own rules, that is, does he take opposing viewpoints into considera- tion? I am not talking here about David Irving's writing, as David Irving has never been a Holocaust revisionist as such. He has never written a single article, not to mention an entire monograph, on this topic. He might have made remarks during some of his speeches, but it is an undeniable fact that he is not a scholar in this field. The question is: do we find references to the finest revisionist scholars and their works as well as refuta- tions of their arguments in Evans' writings? Let us take only one example: is the name Carlo Mattogno mentioned in Evans' expert reports? As a matter of fact, in his report on Irving, Mat- togno's name appears on page 182, footnote 173, and on page 189, footnote 293. But not as a reference to arguments put for- ward by Mattogno, but only as a means to prove that already with the headlines of their articles revisionists prove that they "deny the Holocaust"2 (as if that would be denied by anybody). In other words: Evans doesn't care at all to even address revi- sionist arguments. It suffices for him to prove that revisionists "deny" to make his point about the alleged morally inferiority of revisionists.
Maybe Prof. Evans did not know about any other writings by Carlo Mattogno (most of which were in Italian at that time), but considering his vast resources and knowledge of the "denial movement," that is not an excuse that could be accepted. That is the difference between the poor student Hayward down under and the abundantly equipped expert in London. Thus, it is not Hayward whose potential bias is unacceptable, it is Prof. Ev- ans' ignorance that indicates massive bias to a point of inten- tional omission.
Next comes the question about the nature of science and its role in human society. The reader will agree with me that scien- tific knowledge is not a static thing but that it is permanently evolving, mostly toward more accuracy and completeness. As trivial as this may sound, this simple truth was forgotten in Hayward's case. What happened to Hayward is that his thesis, mainly written in 1992, was measured with the knowledge of the years 1999/2000, a point in time when both revisionists and their adversaries had made tremendous progress (and had, for instance, both stepped far beyond the Leuchter-Repori). If such a retrospective method of evaluating the quality of a thesis were to be applied in general, the result would unavoidably be that every thesis ever written would be found wanting. This is sim- ply an unfair and profoundly flawed method.
The reader will hopefully also agree that scholars aren't an- gels either. They all are influenced by their social environment, which unavoidably leads to certain biases. To a certain degree, we all are products of our environment. The bias resulting from it is not intentional, and as such it is acceptable. As long as we are aware of this fact and as long as we can assess the social in- fluence a scholar was and is exposed to, this should not be an issue. A bias is often followed and/or caused by an agenda. Reading Evans' writings, for example, easily exposes his agen- da as a crusader against "deniers." Evans perceives them as evil
persons, and he tries everything to prove this (and so does Deb- orah Lipstadt, who called Prof. Evans to her defense). His agen- da is that of a professional character assassin, a man who fo- cuses on ad hominem attacks against scholars with viewpoints he considers as morally reprehensible. Prof. Evans might not have noticed it, but he will sooner or later find out that the ve- racity of factual claims are independent of the moral standing of the person making such claims. It is only the investigation of the claim itself that can solve the points at issue, not any al- leged revelation of the claimer's character or political opinions. This is also the reason why I will not descend to Prof. Evans' level by trying to dig out some ideological dirt he or any of his supporters are possibly involved in. It does not solve any his- torical issue and is a waste of time and resources.
I am far from saying that having an agenda is necessarily a bad thing. Quite to the contrary. As long as such an agenda does not interfere with academic standards, this is perfectly le- gitimate. After all, every scholar needs a motivation to do the sometimes exhausting research on his topic, and the mere love for accuracy is only one of the motivations that are usually in- volved. Honor and pride as well as materialistic hopes are very often involved, too, and as soon as we turn to the humanities, ideological agendas unavoidably play a major role for almost all parties involved in a controversy, whether they are aware of it or not.
It is quite funny to see how Dr. Evans and his friends try to find an anti-Semite and neo-Nazi behind everybody involved or somehow associated with revisionism, while at the same time they accuse revisionists and their defenders as "paranoid" when those people, in turn, see left-wing radical and/or Jew- ish/Zionist motivations behind their adversaries' and oppres- sors' actions. The fact is that both sides have developed a mir- ror-symmetrical paranoia in suspecting the other side of in- verted agendas.
As deplorable as the emotions and the resulting bias are that often result from such ideologically overheated topics as the 'Holocaust,' this has nevertheless an advantage, and that is the tenacity with which all sides try to prove their point. There is no other single topic in historiography where so much research has been done and is still ongoing. No single village in man- kind history has ever attracted so much scholarly attention as Auschwitz. Whether Prof. Evans likes it or not, without the re- visionists permanently pushing for answers to uncomfortable questions, the progress done over the last three decades would have been impossible - despite the fact that Prof. Evans and his friends try to suppress such revisionist inquiry and any news about it. Neither Prof. Evans' work would exist nor that of Deborah Lipstadt, Jean-Claude Pressac, Michael Shermer, Wolfgang Benz, or Jan van Pelt, to name only a few. These works with all their insight (or lack of it) as well as their biases are the result of revisionist publications.
It may therefore be summarized that an agenda, always coming with a certain bias, is the main driving force behind 'Holocaust' research. This is not necessarily a bad thing, as long as we do not try to persecute each other for our dissenting views. And it sure isn't decided yet which side of this scholarly struggle is more tendentious. However, looking at the way es- tablishment authors are still ignoring (and trying to suppress)
438
The Revisionist ■ 2003 ■ Volume 1 ■ No. 4
the finest of revisionist works indicates that they are still limp- ing behind.
In a reaction to Matthews' article, The Listener published several letters to the editor the following week, of which the one by Dr. Tom Ryan from the Anthropology Department of the University of Waikato (Hamilton, NZ) is arguably the most controversial. Dr. Ryan basically supports Matthews' view and adds that it is morally reprehensible to support Dr. Hayward or Dr. Fudge, as this amounts to indirect support to "the interna- tional Holocaust denial movement." He also makes demands to "stop representing Hayward as an innocent martyr caught up in some great Jewish conspiracy."
First, it must be emphasized that there is no attitude more hostile to academic standards than the one asking for censor- ship of certain views or facts because it allegedly helps some perceived political enemy. This is Stalinist-like totalitarianism. Dr. Ryan exposes here his own lack of any scientific or schol- arly standards. As such, it is not Dr. Hayward and Dr. Fudge, but rather the unfathomable clown-like behavior of Dr. Ryan and his ilk that helps revisionism tremendously in discrediting and unmasking those scholars as the hypocrites they really are.
Next, if Hayward is not innocent, as Dr. Ryan implies, where is the proof for his guilt? All one can say is that he didn't know better when he wrote his thesis. But that is true for all scholars at the time they write their papers. We all are prone to err. If this is guilt deserving punishment, I am sure Dr. Ryan should start with himself, whipping himself every morning in front of his mirror, before pointing at others.
The ball is now back in the court of those 'established' his- torians, and it is up to them to try to get it back to us revision- ists. And we revisionists will sure keep the heat on to make them move!
With this in mind, we dare to publish Dr. Fudge's defense of Dr. Hayward' s academic freedom, because it is a defense of everyone's academic freedom, and we see it as our duty to de- fend the most fundamental human right to doubt and question. This academic freedom mandates that any kind of initial thesis may be chosen for a scholarly work - even that the 'Holocaust' did not happen - and that no power other then evidence may
ever be allowed to force us to come to certain conclusions. And when the evidence suggest that there was no 'Holocaust', so be it. The earth will still be revolving around the sun.
Prof. Evans and with him Mr. Matthews, on the other side, suggest that such a thesis should not be allowed in academia. While it is true that, after Joel Hayward and Dr. Fudge had written what they wrote, nobody prevented them from publish- ing it, this is not the main point. The message sent out by Can- terbury University is a different one: Should any scholar ever dare to come up with conclusions which some authorities - university or government - emphatically disagree with, he is in danger of losing (or never gaining) his reputation and his aca- demic degree. And once it has been accepted that suppressing revisionist views on an academic level is admissible, the door is open for the government to introduce suppressing measures on a general level as well. Where this leads to at the end can be seen in Europe, where people with dissenting views on the Holocaust go to jail with no right to defend themselves.3
What the actions of Canterbury University boil down to is punishment of scholars for coming to unwanted conclusions. If such an attitude prevails, this would be the death of science. And even more: If we are forbidden to doubt and question, then we are denied our most profound human dignity, for the only thing that separates us from the animal world is that we do not have to take our sensory impressions for granted, but can doubt and question them. As such, revisionism is the most human ac- tivity of all. To outlaw or ostracize revisionism is equivalent to outlawing or ostracizing humanity.
Notes
1 "Academic Freedom must apply to all," The Dominion Post, Sept. 4, 2003; "History Lessons," The Press, Sept. 3, 2003.
2 "Expert Report by Professor Richard Evans", Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London, David John Cawdell Irving vs. (1) Penguin Books Limited, (2) Deborah E. Lipstadt, Ref. 1996 I. No. 113. Evans refers to Mattogno's article "The Myth of the Extermination of the Jews", The Journal of His- torical Review, Vol. 8 (1988), pp. 133-72 and 261-302, simply because of the word "myth" in the title.
3 For this, see my contribution "Discovering Absurdistan", The Revisionist, 1(2) (2003), pp. 203-219.
The Fate of Joel Hayward in New Zealand Hands: from Holocaust Historian to Holocaust?
By Thomas A. Fudge
For the past three years, newspapers, national periodical publications and television programmes have intermittently provided coverage about the Joel Hayward affair: a story of a New Zealand student who wrote a controversial thesis. Con- testable work and arguable conclusions are not uncommon in modern universities but Hayward's unpublished work as a stu- dent seems to remain, after ten years, a point of unusual and continuing interest.
Late in 2002 the New Zealand Listener ran a "special re- port" on what is popularly termed holocaust denial.1 Juxtaposed photographs of David Irving, Adolf Hitler and Joel Hayward on page 28 provide adequate summary of the article's focus. When asked why he was putting forth another piece on Hayward the author Philip Matthews replied that nothing had appeared for a while. The Listener article says little new or relevant and the questions of motivation might be raised. Is Canterbury Univer-
se Revisionist ■ 2003 ■ Volume 1 ■ No. 4
439
sity supportive of holocaust denial? The university answers no.2 Is Hayward a denier? He claims he is not. Does his thesis con- stitute holocaust denial? His critics say yes (though some with- out having read it), while others (who have read it) answer in the negative.
The Story so far
In June 2002, Joel Hayward resigned from his position as senior lecturer in history at Massey University where he had been respected as an effective teacher and productive scholar. His departure generated applause from some quarters. Others lamented academe's loss. "[S]hame on the scholarly community for not rallying behind the universities' necessary freedoms."3 What brought Hayward, a year and a half after the Hayward af- fair, still in the early stages of a potentially distinguished career, to this act of professional extinction? The protracted "facts" in the so-called Hayward affair may be distilled briefly.
In 1 993 Hayward was awarded a Master of Arts degree with First Class Honours in History by the University of Canterbury for a thesis on the historiography of the holocaust. He later wrote a PhD thesis and in 1996 was appointed to a lectureship at Massey University. In late 1999 the MA thesis was publicly denounced. The New Zealand Jewish Council alleged that the work amounted to historical revisionism constituting holocaust denial, and called on the University of Canterbury to revoke the degree.4
Hayward repeatedly apologized for any harm or distress his thesis might have caused, agreed to the extraordinary step of including an appendix to his thesis modifying his findings, co- operated with the subsequent investigating Working Party and appears to have made efforts to distance himself from holocaust denial.5 Under pressure, the University appointed an independ- ent Working Party to investigate the claims against the thesis.6 This committee consisted of retired High Court judge Sir Ian Barker and academics Professor Ann Trotter and Professor Stu- art Macintyre to look into the matter and make recommenda- tions.7 The lengthy report concluded the Hayward thesis was "seriously flawed" and that Hayward "should not have essayed a judgment in such a controversial area..."8 The report did not recommend withdrawal of the thesis by the University and did not agree with the allegations that Hayward' s argument was racist or motivated by malice. While the opinion that the thesis did not deserve the high marks it received was widely publi- cized in the media, no fewer than six serving or retired mem- bers of the History department persisted in their own judgment that it was a first-class effort.
Notwithstanding the apparent finality of the report and its qualified exoneration of Hayward, during 2000, 2001, and 2002 Hayward received hundreds of pieces of "hate" mail, abusive telephone calls, threats against himself, his wife and small chil- dren, harassment at Massey University and continued negative media attention.9 Further attempts to publish as well as efforts at finding other employment have been unsuccessful. The issue therefore goes beyond the apparent concern over alleged flawed (but unpublished) research. Is this issue really about academic values and freedom?
Animosity towards Hayward arose not in 1999 but several years earlier.10 The subject of Hayward's thesis was controver-
sial before he wrote it and there were attempts to censure Hay- ward at the time.11 Aware of these factors, Hayward embargoed the thesis for three years as soon as it was examined. When the embargo expired, he notified the University Library that the thesis could be made available to researchers. The library re- plied that it had decided to restrict the thesis so that it could be consulted only with Hayward's permission until January 1999. 12 Almost immediately allegations were published about his alleged "holocaust denial." That someone should have chanced upon the thesis so promptly seems an unlikely coinci- dence. Rather, events were to show that there were good rea- sons for the embargo on access. Was this because Hayward had written things that he knew to be reprehensible? The Barker enquiry found no evidence of malicious intent, dishonesty or deliberate efforts to circumvent the truth on Hayward's part. Is it possible that the outrage over the thesis itself was also a de- vice for attacking Hayward?
Academic Values
One of the complexities of the Hayward affair is its appar- ent relation to issues of academic freedom and intellectual fash- ions. Hayward's detractors claim that he is wrong in terms of both. One of his critics stated that "academic freedom cannot exist without academic responsibility."13 However, considered legal opinion concluded that the interpretation of academic freedom being applied in the Hayward affair permitted a "very limited right to academic freedom."14
Proponents of academic freedom insist that universities should be great storehouses of wisdom and learning, and stu- dents ought to be able to go there, learn and choose. Academic freedom implies there are no taboo subjects, no off-limits top- ics.15 The fuss made about this obscure piece of work fits rather awkwardly with the position taken by New Zealand academic libraries. Official statements read, "No library materials should be excluded... because of the... views of their authors [and] no library materials should be censored, restricted or removed from libraries because of partisan or doctrinal disapproval or pressure."16
International intellectuals also defend the right of dissidents to say things they disagree with. Noam Chomsky defended the right of "holocaust denier" Robert Faurisson to say what he thought about "Zionist lies."17 Raul Hilberg objected when St Martin's Press cancelled David Irving's contract for his book on Goebbels, saying, "If these people want to speak, let them. . . I am not for taboos and I am not for repression."18 Universities and other institutions of higher learning are regarded as mar- ketplaces for the exchange of ideas; as forums for discussion; as venues for critical thinking, honest enquiry and the challeng- ing of status quo}9 In this context, the Hayward thesis was a legitimate academic exercise. Others argue that Hayward was simply wrong, his judgements flawed, his conclusions errone- ous, his methodology ill-conceived and his entire MA thesis a sustained exercise in egregious violation of scholarly proce- dure. Amid such extreme position, one might ask whether the significance of the Hayward matter is an issue of truth? Is it a crucial indictment of education in general? Does it have to do with accountability within institutions of higher education? Or, is it about the limits of toleration in New Zealand society?
440
The Revisionist ■ 2003 ■ Volume 1 ■ No. 4
Just as there is no such thing as a perfectly free market, similarly academic "freedom" operates within a framework partly determined by non-academic considerations. Senior aca- demics within New Zealand universities are often sensitive to public opinion and political moods. They may actively discour- age graduate students from investigating certain topics. There are other topics that although encouraged or permitted, are sometimes subject to constraints on arguments that may be em- ployed, evidence that may be weighed and conclusions reached. This is especially the case in areas that touch on contemporary political or ethical concerns. Many people do not regard these strictures as problematic but rather praise them as virtuous.20 The Jewish holocaust is one of those delicate topics about which certain beliefs have become so fashionable as to be unas- sailable regardless of intellectual considerations. The Hayward affair elicited the pronouncement "that at least in this country anyone wanting to. . . question received notions about the Holo- caust is controlled by accepted truth standards."21 The danger in this thinking lies in the ambiguity of the term "truth standards". Does it mean "standards for establishing truth" or "propositions proclaimed to be true"? Some insist that the religious sig- nificance of the holocaust is equal to the
revelation on Mt. Sinai to Moses, a "truth standard"?
Is that
Listener, September 20, 2003,
What Did Hayward Say?
The major issue appears to be the be- lief that Hayward rejected well-estab- lished facts about the holocaust.23 His thesis examined the writings of some of those who question the holocaust industry which has reached significant political proportions in the past thirty years.24 Set- ting aside the question of whether Hay- ward's conclusions were really so excep- tional, is it not the duty of universities and researchers to challenge conventional understandings? Modern philosophy tea- ches that all theories worth defending must be continuously subjected to re-evaluation and retesting.
In his MA thesis titled "The Fate of Jews in German Hands: An Historical Enquiry into the Development and Significance of Holocaust Revisionism" Joel Hayward investigated holo- caust historiography, especially that branch thereof regarded as revisionist.25 He concluded that some of the revisionist litera- ture was unworthy of sustained scholarly consideration.26 Other approaches within the genre he found to be significant and wor- thy. He came to three principal conclusions from the historio- graphy, the weight of historical evidence and his own discern- ment: first, that there is no unimpeachable evidence that Adolf Hitler personally ordered the physical extermination of Jews. Second, that it is impossible to know how many Jews were killed and third, that gas chambers were not used systematically to murder Jews in European concentration camps. Do these conclusions make Joel Hayward a "holocaust denier"?
This allegation that he is can be easily evaluated. First, there is no document which has yet come to light to prove that
Hitler gave a "final solution " order. That Hitler was anti-Semi- tic is beyond denial. That Hitler wished for Jews to be subju- gated is without argument. Hayward makes these points. That Hitler gave an order for Jews to be exterminated cannot be proven.27 Second, Hayward agrees that millions of Jews per- ished during the ravages of the Second World War.2S He re- gards the figure of 6,000,000 murdered as symbolic and impos- sible to actually prove on the basis of documentary evidence. There are no reliable or comprehensive records available to es- tablish the exact number of those who perished during the Nazi era. Projections must be calculated guesses which necessarily have variation.29 The traditional figure of 1 1 million killed by the Nazis (Jews and others combined) is essentially the inven- tion of Simon Wiesenthal, the famous hunter of Nazi war criminals. This speculative figure has attained virtual canonical status in holocaust historiography.30 In 1986 Shmuel Kra- kowski, then archives director of Yad Vashem, the international center for holocaust documentation in Jerusalem, told the Jeru- salem Post that of the 20,000 testimonies he had on hand from alleged "survivors" of the holocaust most of them were untrustworthy, fraudulent, lacking support or in some way untruth- ful.31 Although this statement is at least as "revisionist" as anything Hayward wrote, Krakowski is not regarded as a holocaust denier. Wiesenthal admits that he manu- factured figures but appears to have es- caped censure; Hayward merely ques- tioned other suggested figures and was denounced for it.
Third, it was once held that concen- tration camps in Germany were used to gas Jews en masse. That hypothesis has now been abandoned by most historians of the Second World War without this be- ing condemned as holocaust denial. i2 (See map, and the distinction made on it between "death [extermination] camps" and "concentration camps".) There is stronger evidence for the use of gas chambers in Polish camps. Hayward relied upon certain studies (now regarded as highly controversial or discredited) to ques- tion the extent of the use of Polish gas chambers and for his skepticism was labeled a "holocaust denier" although he un- equivocally states that millions of Jews perished under the Nazi regime through various means.33 He wondered merely what contribution gas chambers made to these results. Some of his detractors, however, claimed that he denied the existence of gas chambers altogether.34
That the historic Jewish community has been subjected to various measures of discrimination and persecution must be ac- knowledged, but that does not mean that there might not be new understandings of that experience. It does not therefore provide that same community or any of its representatives with immunity to investigation. Nor is it true that what happened to Jews historically is fundamentally different from atrocities per- petrated against native Americans, Africans, Gypsies, the vic- tims of the witch hunts in early modern Europe, those trapped
The Revisionist ■ 2003 ■ Volume 1 • No. 4
441
in the Stalinist purges in Russian lands, the fate of Iraqis in the hands of Saddam Hussein, heretics hunted by crusaders, and indigenous peoples around the world throughout human his- tory, in which large numbers of people have been subjected to campaigns of mass extermination. There is a great difference between anti-Semitism and arriving at research-based conclu- sions which do not support or conform to values, ideas and in- terpretations held by Semitic peoples and cultures.
Diversity of interpretation is not the same thing as discrimi- nation. To contest common opinion is not racism. To argue against or disagree with conventional wisdom, regardless of the subject, cannot, ipso facto, be characterized as cultural or reli- gious insensitivity. Even Jewish communities cannot stand de- tached from intolerance, violence and destruction against oth- ers. The conquests recorded in the Hebrew Bible are one exam- ple. To argue that the holocaust is in some way culturally spe- cific or historically significant in unique ways on a universal level is opinion, neither binding, necessarily persuasive, nor in- tellectually obligatory. To insist that it is amounts to "intellec- tual terrorism".35 A holocaust of those dimensions is less about history and more about myth. To say so does not constitute a "total betrayal of Jewish history."36 Whether Nazis were en- gaged in the "banality of evil" or in displaying collective con- sciousness is a matter to be investigated not legislated.37 There may be good reasons for preferring Stanley Milgram over Daniel Goldhagen.38
The Working Party found that Hayward was not guilty of
racism or anti-Semitism, or of deliberately falsifying data. Nev- ertheless, the report was critical of the quality of Hayward's work, and dissented from the grade that it was awarded.
Hayward's novice research exercise however, became widely regarded by academics, university administrators, news media persons and members of the general population, as the product of a contemptible scoundrel, a man lacking in probity, unfit to influence impressionable minds, and indeed unworthy of being employed even in non academic circles and whose writings, even though he has written nothing on the holocaust since his MA thesis, should be suppressed.39 It should be borne in mind that unlike many ambitious young academics, Hayward made no attempt to publish any aspect of his MA thesis.40 Nor was it the basis of his employment as an academic. Its only role in his career was to qualify him to proceed to the PhD degree, for which he undertook research on an unrelated topic.
Judging from the essays in The New Zealand Jewish Chronicle, the report issued by the Working Party in December 2000 and the articles appearing in the New Zealand news me- dia, the Hayward affair might seem to be a rather straightfor- ward case of incompetent research and defective supervision.41 There are other details which have been less publicised if at all. While some voices have condemned the lack of balance in the Hayward affair,42 others have dismissed it all as a "hysterical diatribe."43 Continuing publicity indicates that important parts of the story are not known.
Widely used map of Germany and Poland during World War II depicting National Socialist concentration and (alleged) extermination camps.
442
The Revisionist ■ 2003 ■ Volume 1 ■ No. 4
The Working Party Report and the Reaction
In December 2000 the Working Party established by the University of Canterbury in April that year, to investigate the Hayward thesis released its report totalling 296 pages including supporting materials.44 This report was received by the admini- stration, adopted by the University council on 1 8 December and no public contest was offered to its findings.45 However, the re- port was not accepted unanimously. Several senior Canterbury University historians took the view that their institution had been far too apologetic.46 Vincent Orange, Hayward's thesis supervisor, contested a great deal in the report by the Working Party and that of Richard Evans (see below) 47 Professor John Jensen of Waikato University likewise did not accept these re- ports as fundamentally accurate.48
Other academics considered the report's verdict to have been "pre-determined", to have exceeded its own legal advice, and upon which the University of Canterbury assumed an offi- cial position "on a matter that seems to be the province of indi- vidual academics."49
In February 2001, the History Department at Canterbury took the report under consideration and concluded its delibera- tions by affirming that it "supports the broad thrust of the rec- ommendations of the Barker inquiry..."50 The vote was over- whelmingly in favor of this ambivalent motion but not unani- mous. Three members of the department (besides Orange) put forward arguments in opposition to the report and to the nature of the enquiry. One member of the department insisted on being named in the minutes of the meeting as opposing both the re- port and the departmental support for it.51 Among those who supported the motion were some who admitted having read nei- ther the report nor the thesis. One senior member argued that the department should not be seen as being in opposition to the university.52
Vincent Orange, who absented himself from the February meeting submitted to the department for consideration a dossier consisting of thirty-one documents titled "A Case for the De- fence of Dr. Joel Hayward."53 The dossier included submis- sions from academics who had read Hayward's thesis, docu- ments presenting another side of the matter and related materi- als. These materials had been submitted to the Working Party but appear to have had no significant influence on the ultimate report.54
The dossier was prepared for three reasons: first, for consid- eration by the Working Party, second, that it might be attached to the Working Party report as an extended appendix (to pro- vide balance) and, third, so that it might be placed in the uni- versity library where scholars or students in the future consider- ing this matter might have access to both sides of the story. The Working Party Report did not respond to the contents of the dossier. Efforts to have the dossier appended to the report itself were unsuccessful, and the other objectives were not attained. This casts doubt on the statement of the Working Party that it had "fully and properly considered the matters at issue" and on the corroborating comment by Vice-Chancellor Daryl LeGrew that the report submitted by the Working Party was "an open and thorough academic review."55
Why was this body of material not made more widely avail- able to those actively involved or interested in the Hayward af-
fair? Vincent Orange or other members of the History De- partment opposing the submissions of the New Zealand Jewish Council could very well have distributed the dossier on their own. The apparent reason that they did not do so appears to be that they agreed to acquiesce in repeated requests by university officials that no comment be made to the media and that the university administration be responsible for comment on the Hayward affair.57 The university administration, though aware of the dossier, elected not to publicize it.
For this reason, the public has not been able to form a bal- anced judgment informed by testimony on both sides.
The Barker committee, however, did rely heavily on a re- port, noted above, by Cambridge University Professor Richard J. Evans who was engaged by the New Zealand Jewish Council (NZJC) to provide comment on Hayward's thesis.58 The NZJC originally presented a fourteen page submission to the Working Party on the Hayward thesis which summarized their concerns and specified their wishes about the enquiry.59 It submitted that the thesis was dishonest, the award of Hayward's MA should be revoked, and all University of Canterbury endorsement of Hayward's work towards the MA be withdrawn and by impli- cation that the Hayward thesis be removed from the university library.60
Fresh from his very public victory over David Irving (a con- troversial figure in the German historiography of the 1930s and 1940s) in a high profile London court case in April 2000 wherein Irving was found to have falsified historical evidence, Evans submitted a 71 page report trenchantly condemning the thesis. Professor Gerald Orchard, one of New Zealand's most highly regarded lawyers, in turn denounced this report to the Working Party as "adversarial", the work of a "partisan advo- cate," and not an "objective expert", who engaged in exaggera- tion, omission of material and misrepresentation, and whose opinions in the Hayward case could not be relied on.61 The Working Party acknowledged that Evans "appeared to diminish the objectivity required of an expert witness", submitted unwar- ranted allegations, and was "highly antagonistic." It professed to have "made every effort to discount Professor Evans' ten- dency to intemperate expression" but accepted the report as au- thoritative and seems not to have been influenced markedly by the sustained responses to Evans' report included in the "Dos- sier for the Defence".62 But faced with the profound disagree- ment on the merits of Hayward's thesis between its official ex- aminers (Orange and Jensen) and Evans, the Working Party had received legal counsel that preference for one perspective over the other was "a question for appropriate expert historians."63 Macintyre and Trotter were historians but not "appropriate ex- pert historians". No "appropriate expert historians" were ap- proached. Why, on such a critical point supported by legal ad- vice, did the Working Party not take this step? Vincent Orange and Joel Hayward made a strategic error in not also contracting an expert on holocaust historiography to review the Hayward thesis and submit a report. This step apparently did not occur to them at the time and the faux pas proved costly and monumen- tal in its eventual implications. The willingness of the Working Party to accept a partisan opinion commissioned by an inter- ested caucus is curious and places the enquiry itself in a trou- bling light.
The Revisionist ■ 2003 ■ Volume 1 ■ No. 4
443
Notwithstanding the Working Party's remarks on Evans's intemperate language and lack of objectivity, he appeared both to the Jewish Council and the Working Party as a witness oth- erwise above reproach. Evans is an excellent scholar but pub- lished reviews of his own books accuse him of sometimes "go- ing over the top in ways that are unnecessary to his argument"; of engaging in "gratuitous speculation"; in certain cases of not having "studied the primary sources... under discussion"; else- where that he often misses the point, resorts to intemperate at- tack and is often confused.64 In other words, in the opinion of some of his peers even Richard Evans violates many of the sound principles of historical method that he considered defec- tively employed in Hayward's thesis.
Evans is also curiously inconsistent in his attitude to schol- ars who have erred. In the 1980s a scandal arose over a book written by a young political scientist, David Abraham, and which Evans had reviewed favourably. When it was revealed that Abraham was guilty of egregious errors he was hounded out of the academic profession. Evans writes of how unfair this was even though, as he points out "the book was so riddled with errors" that Abraham was sometimes contradicting his own thesis. "My own view is that while Abraham did not delib- erately falsify evidence, he was extremely careless with it, far more than is permissible in a work of serious historical scholar- ship." Nevertheless, he concluded, "To deny Abraham the... chance of making amends... was surely wrong."65 In support of this conclusion Evans cites the case of Lawrence Stone whose early published work was exposed as fundamentally flawed and yet he subsequently spent a long and productive career engaged in highly regarded scholarship. His early work is barely re- called. Abraham's work was on the Weimar Republic, Stone's on early modern England. Hayward's alleged shortcomings were not of the same order as Abraham's, and were not pub- lished as Abraham's were, but Evans's report makes no refer- ence to extenuating circumstances, qualifications about the na- ture of Hayward's preliminary research exercise go unnoted and Hayward is treated as though the thesis in question was the culminating work of a long career rather than an inaugural ef- fort. Why? At the same time as Evans was recommending Hayward's censure and the revocation of his MA degree, he was also reflecting again on Abraham's situation with the comment, "this fate is also thankfully extremely rare."66
Continued Dissent
The Working Party Report satisfied neither of the protago- nists. It appears to have been intended to soothe by offering a compromise solution: it agreed with the Jewish Council and Richard Evans that there were serious flaws in the Hayward thesis, but not that it was either dishonest or fraudulent, or that it was unworthy of being awarded a master's degree, or that the degree should be withdrawn or that the thesis itself should be removed from library collections.67 On the other hand, the re- port was not the exoneration of the thesis that Hayward and Or- ange had hoped for, and the university's examination proce- dures were severely criticised. Consequently both parties were embittered; neither could claim victory, and indeed, everyone seemed discredited by the whole affair: the academics felt be- trayed and the NZJC felt that its cause had been frustrated. The
official Jewish view was that the outcome of the enquiry was unacceptable.68 David Zwartz told a newspaper, "We must take it further."69
However, the University of Canterbury was unprepared to invest further time or financial resources on the Hayward affair which it considered resolved.70 Since the university clearly was not going to revoke Hayward's degree, excoriate him any fur- ther, censure Vincent Orange (the thesis supervisor whom some regarded as ultimately responsible for Hayward's work) or keep the matter at the forefront, one might have expected that the Hayward affair had run its course. Hayward continued with his duties at Massey University and press releases seemed to indicate that his tenure there was secure and the university had no inten- tion of withdrawing support.71 The affair was closed at last.
It did not, however, end. There were people whose passions had evidently been aroused by the affair and the extensive pub- licity it had received, and these had recourse to informal and sinister methods of expressing their anger. In early 2001 Hay- ward began to receive even more vitriolic hate mail along with obscene and disturbing telephone calls. More than a year after the report by the Working Party became public, Hayward re- ceived death threats directed at his children. He continued oc- casionally to issue apologies for any unintended consequences created by his MA work and tried to get on with his life and ca- reer. Feeling ridiculed and harassed, and believing that even among his colleagues at Massey sentiment had turned against him, Hayward suffered an emotional breakdown. He spent over two years under medical care.72
More than that he became disenchanted with the world of higher education. He no longer believed universities (at least in New Zealand) were places for the free exchange of ideas. He had come to regard the exalted virtue of academic freedom as an illusion now sold out to considerations of expediency. He became convinced the ideals he had been taught by his profes- sors and lecturers at Canterbury were simply rhetorical. He no longer believed in the alleged ideals of the academy. In brief, he no longer wished to be an academic. He regarded higher education irreparably soiled by "indifference and moral cow- ardice."73 In December 2001, in deep depression, Hayward ten- dered his resignation from Massey University effective in June 2002. Massey appears to have made no effort to assess Hay- ward's condition or provide support of the kind usually avail- able to distressed employees.
With Hayward out of Massey and his academic career at an end was the Hayward affair now truly over and done with? Ef- forts were made to link another Canterbury thesis to holocaust denial and to Hayward but came to naught,74 but for Hayward there was more to come. In early December 2002 he was in- formed by HarperCollins, a major international publisher, through their Auckland office, that they wished to withdraw from publishing a book of which Hayward was co-editor. The volume in question was a collection of essays about New Zea- land airmen.75 The book was fully prepared and ready for print- ing. Hayward was shocked at the news and pressed for an ex- planation. A volume of essays about New Zealand airmen seems innocuous enough. HarperCollins was reluctant to provide Hay- ward with an explanation for their eleventh-hour decision apart from saying they had been put under considerable pressure not to
444
The Revisionist ■ 2003 ■ Volume 1 ■ No. 4
associate with Hayward on account of the negative publicity sur- rounding him.76 Somehow, the matter had been taken far beyond the question of whether a thesis had been honest.
Nor is HarperCollins alone in shunning Hayward. People fear being seen in a cafe with him. Others are afraid that emails might be monitored and association with him might have seri- ous consequences for their own careers. They no longer con- verse with him for fear of being linked to him. Some of his former associates suspect their own work has been scoured for traces of "heretical" thinking about topics on which freedom of thought and independence of expression are unwelcome. Was this a consequence that could have been imagined when the Working Party submitted its report a year earlier?
Shortly after the HarperCollins shock, Hayward was hired by Fonterra, the large dairy and meat company as Communica- tions Coordinator with responsibilities for writing the com- pany's internal communications, information and training documents.77 His employment with Fonterra, however, ended the day he began when the company decided to terminate the position having been advised that employing him was a very risky proposition.78 Was this commensurate with what Hay- ward was alleged to have done ten years before?
Why Won't the Hayward Affair Come to an End?
Apologies have availed nothing. Resignation has been for naught. Passivity has been unproductive and the Hayward affair continues. One feature which has been entirely overlooked in all the publicity is why an unpublished, embargoed, research- training exercise should have been given such notorious public- ity. Do the alleged (but contested) deficiencies of the thesis jus- tify the chain of events from the unauthorised copying of a the- sis, to a highly publicised but not public inquiry, to nation-wide ridicule and humiliation, personal threats, isolation and termi- nation of a career? What good was it thought was being served by this action? Relatively early in the story, some senior New Zealand academics wanted to know why the issue was pursued, and called for an enquiry into the "motives for such activi- ties."79 On the most recent publicity, even a senior Canterbury University official wondered what the motivation could be in keeping the Hayward affair at issue.80 Another opinion was blunt: "There seems to be a determination both to break Joel's career and to silence enquiry into the facts about the Holo- caust."81 On the latter, the implications are precipitous. Dog- matic emphases on the holocaust only "reinforces and legiti- mates closedmindedness, unrealistic foreign policies and bar- baric behaviour."82
Further, why has Joel Hayward been frustrated in attempt- ing to publish or work even in fields totally unrelated to his MA research exercise? These are questions the media have not asked. Do they deserve an answer? What specifically consti- tutes denial of the holocaust? Is it as simple as questioning whether less than 6,000,000 Jews died? Does it extend to ex- pressing sympathy for Germans in Dresden in 1945? Question- ing testimonies of survivors? Alleging that countries other than Germany committed war crimes? Denying that Jewish suffering during the Second World War was somehow unique?83 Is it anti-Semitic to try to remove the element of "sacred myth" from 1940s Jewish history? Is it really so intolerable to deny
that the holocaust "transcends history", that it is "the ultimate event" or the "ultimate mystery"? Is it truly obligatory to ac- quiesce in the view that "any survivor has more to say than all the historians combined about what happened?"84 Alternatively, to express sympathy with the Palestinian cause in the contem- porary Middle East in some quarters suggests hostility to the Jews and to argue that Palestinians perhaps should be accorded their own autonomous territory free from Israeli oppression is regarded as anti-Semitic. Such arguments are as specious as they are jejune but the shackles of a new orthodoxy suggests universities can not allow certain assumptions to bear the weight of enquiry. Can morality be that flexible?
There is nothing redemptive about the holocaust and argua- bly less redemptive value in the pursuit of Joel Hayward along a journey from holocaust historian to the fate of personal holo- caust. A consideration of the larger story suggests quite clearly that the Hayward affair is not just "a storm in a teacup."
What is the motivation for keeping Hayward on the front burner? Justified comeuppance? Malice? Witch hunting? Witch hunters in early modern Europe were renowned for tenacity, success and ruthless application of their programme. Would their successors be any less vigilant? Are there "witch-finder generals" in New Zealand? Has the ghost of Joseph McCarthy appeared again? Is Joel Hayward a victim of outlooks analo- gous to these? If so, how should New Zealand society re- spond?85
Notes
1 Philip Matthews, "In Denial: The continuing story of why a New Zealand university refuses to dishonour thesis denying the Nazi Holocaust" Listener (2-8 November 2002), pp. 26-30.
2 "We do not endorse or in any way condone Holocaust revisionism. . . ," Daryl LeGrew, letter to university staff, 20 April 2000 and "Audit pans the- sis on Holocaust" The Press (2 1 December 2000).
3 Tania Hinehou Butcher, "Relentless persecution of a respected academic" Manawatu Evening Standard (2 November 2002), p. 8.
4 Dov Bing, Professor of Political Science at Waikato University, raised the alarm as early as 14 December 1999 in an email to Vincent Orange. More specifically, The New Zealand Jewish Chronicle 56 (April 2000), pp. 1,6. The New Zealand Jewish Council subsequently obtained official university documents that enabled it to make a formal submission on the thesis. David Zwartz made a formal request to Alan Hayward, University Registrar (and no relation to Joel Hayward), under provisions of the Official Information Act 1982 on 4 April 2000. In reply, Alan Hayward declined to release some materials. Acting on a request from the New Zealand Jewish Council, the Office of the Ombudsmen twice contacted Vincent Orange about the same materials on 19 June and 14 July. Orange declined to make public the re- quested documents. However, in his reply of 17 July 2000, Orange wanted to know how David Zwartz had knowledge of a letter dated 2 1 April that Orange had sent to the University Chancellor. Request for documents was again raised by the law firm of Macfarlane, Dougall, & Stringer, in a letter to Gerald Orchard, 9 August 2000, pp. 1-2.
5 The New Zealand Jewish Chronicle 56 (No.6, 2000), p. 6; Sunday Star- Times (28 May 2000); The Press (31 May 2000); letter to the University of Canterbury Working Party, 25 September 2000, 29pp, passim; Listener (24 June 2000), pp. 5-6; Listener (9 November 2002), p. 8; Report by the Joel Hayward Working Party (University of Canterbury , December 2000), p. 34.
6 Dame Phyllis Guthardt, Chancellor of Canterbury University, letter to uni- versity staff, 20 April 2000; "Holocaust thesis investigated" The Press (27 April 2000); "Former High Court judge to chair Holocaust thesis inquiry" rtePress (16 May 2000).
7 Barker: Chancellor of Auckland University from 1991 to 1999 and former Senior Puisne Judge of the High Court of New Zealand; Trotter: Emeritus Pro- fessor of History at the University of Otago; and Macintyre: Professor of His- tory at the University of Melbourne. Suggestions were made that the Working Party permit observers at its proceedings, but they were held in private.
The Revisionist ■ 2003 ■ Volume 1 ■ No. 4
445
Report by the Joel Hayward Working Party, p. 86. Some of that negative reporting is referred to in the notes of this essay. Telephone calls have caused Hayward several times to have his home tele- phone number changed and at times has received threatening or abusive email on a daily basis. Vincent Orange, letter to Miles Fairburn, 10 Febru- ary, 2001, p.3.
Detailed in various documents and correspondence. For example, Joel Hay- ward, letter to Vincent Orange, 22 April 2000, pp. 1-2; W. David Mclntyre, letter to Ian Barker, undated [2000], p. 2; W. David Mclntyre, letter to Alan Hayward, 25 May 1992, p. 1 ; Kingsley McFarlane, letter to Alan Hayward, 5 May 1992, pp. 1-2; McFarlane, letter to Alan Hayward, 9 September 1992, p. 1; Ian Catanach, letter to Vincent Orange, 30 December 2000, p.3; and Report by the Joel Hayward Working Party, pp. 1 7-1 9, 73 . The head of the History department at that time refused to consider the mat- ter. W. David Mclntyre, letter to Alan Hayward, 25 May 1 992 wherein Mclntyre stated "the interference they have attempted is intolerable." Joel Hayward, Letter to the University of Canterbury Working Party, 25 September 2000, p. 3.
"Submission to the University of Canterbury Working Party on the Joel Hayward MA Thesis," by the New Zealand Jewish Council, undated, para- graph 40, p. 8.
L.L. Stevens, QC, "Memorandum for Members of the Working Party,"15 September 2000, p. 15.
Part XIV of the Education Act 1989 underscores the essential principles of academic freedom. Section 161(2) (a) states that students and academics have the freedom, within the law, to query and test received wisdom, to ad- vance new ideas and to state unpopular or controversial opinions. Reprinted Statues of New Zealand (Wellington: New Zealand Government, 1996), volume 34, p. 167. Other relevant canons include the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, Section 14. Grant Huscroft and Paul Rishworth, eds, Rights and Freedoms: The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and the Human Rights Act 1993 (Wellington: Brooker"s, 1995), pp. 500^4 atp. 501. Statement adopted by the Council of the New Zealand Library Association, 15 May 1980. http://www.lianza.org.nz/censorship.htm and commented upon favorably by library personnel. For example, John Redmayne, letter to Daryl LeGrew, 20 April 2000.
Noam Chomsky, "The Faurisson Affair: His Right to Say It" Nation (28 February 1991), p. 231. Chomsky is a prominent Jewish intellectual. Quoted in D. D. Guttenplan, The Holocaust on Trial: History, Justice and the David Irving Libel Case, (London: Granta Books, 2001), p. 302. Hilberg is a well-respected Jewish historian.
These principles are urged for example by Frank Haden, "Holocaust denier should have freedom to upset" Sunday Star-Times (21 May 2000) and Tim Darlington, "Politics has no place in thesis arguments" Sunday Star Times (4 June 2000). After the Working Party Report was released supportive let- ters to the editor were published in The Press (2 1 December 2000) and (26 December 2000). Hayward"s students likewise expressed their support for him. "Backing for controversial ex-lecturer" Evening Standard (3 1 October 2002).
There are academics who oppose this. For example, Chris Connolly, "Sub- mission on Joel Hayward"s Thesis," [undated, ca. July 2000] p. 4 where he states, "We have no business trying to "neuter" history at the postgraduate level, turning out students who shrink from controversy." "Submission to the University of Canterbury Working Party on the Joel Hayward MA Thesis" by the New Zealand Jewish Council, undated, para- graph 23, p. 5.
Elie Wiesel, "Words from a Witness," Conservative Judaism 2 1 (Spring 1967), p. 43.
David Cohen, "Revisionist history casts campus shadow" The National Business Review (22 November 2002), p. 4.
An irrefutable historical, social and political phenomenon. See for example the thorough and dispassionate treatment in Peter Novick, The Holocaust in American Life (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1999) and Norman G. Finkelstein, The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jew- ish Suffering, (London: Verso, 2000).
J.S.A. Hayward, "The Fate of Jews in German Hands: An Historical En- quiry into the Development and Significance of Holocaust Revisionism," unpublished MA thesis, University of Canterbury, 1993, 360 pp. Hayward, "The Fate of Jews in German Hands," passim but especially pp. 143-260.
See Christian Leitz, "Holocaust Research: The Current Position," History Now 6(1) May 2000, p. 28: "the search for a written order from Hitler will continue as long as there are still files of the Third Reich hidden away in the
archives of Russia and elsewhere."
28 Hayward, "The Fate of Jews in German Hands," p. 336.
29 Israel Gutman, ed., Encyclopedia of the Holocaust, 4 volumes (New York: Macmillan, 1990), vol. 4, pp. 1797-1802 projects a figure between 5.6 mil- lion and 5.9 million while stating the figures are "estimates," Estimated to- tal deaths during and as a result of the Second World War are commonly es- timated at between 50 and 60 million.
30 Yehuda Bauer, "Don't resist: A Critique of Phillip Lopate," Tikkun 4 (May- June 1989) p.67.
31 Cited in Barbara Amouyal, "Doubts over Evidence of Camp Survivors" Je- rusalem Post (17 August 1986), p. 1.
32 A standard reference work, however, lists Neuengamme, Sachsenhausen and Ravensbriick as German camps where gas was used, but does not men- tion camps such as Dachau and Buchenwald which were formerly thought to have been primarily extermination centres. Encyclopedia of the Holo- caust, vol. 2, pp. 539-41.
33 Hayward, "The Fate of Jews in German Hands," p. 336 and Appendix to the thesis, p. 2.
34 Hayward"s discussion of gas chambers has sometimes been presented as concluding that no gas chambers existed at all. "POW angry over thesis" The Press (20 December 2000); "Audit pans thesis on Holocaust" The Press (21 December 2000) and "MP wants choice of tutor probed" The Press (9 January 2001).
35 Jean-Michel Chaumont, La Concurrence des Victims. (Paris: Editions le Doucouverte, 1997), pp. 137, 148^19, 156.
36 As argued by Elie Wiesel. See Irving Abraham, ed. Against Silence: The Voice and Vision of Elie Wiesel, 3 vols. (Washington: Holocaust Library, 1995). Others argue the uniqueness doctrine amounts to "intellectual sleight-of-hand", fetish and cult characteristics (Peter Novick, The Holo- caust in American Life, pp. 9, 198) just plain silly (Jacob Neusner, The Pub- lic Side of Learning (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1985), p. 128) or "sterile" (Finkelstein, The Holocaust Industry, p. 47). The most systematic treatment of the doctrine of uniqueness is Steven T. Katz, The Holocaust in Historical Con- text, vol. 1 . (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994) esp. pp. 28, 58, 60.
37 A reference to the outrage prompted by Hannah Arendt, Eichmann in Jeru- salem: A Report on the Banality of Evil (London: Faber, 1 963). It is note- worthy that "almost all scholars have come to accept Arendt' s thesis," No- vick, The Holocaust in American Life, p. 137.
38 Goldhagen says institutionalised hatred of Jews among Germans produced the holocaust. Daniel Goldhagen, Hitler's Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust (London: Little, Brown & Co. 1996). For a ro- bust critique see Miles Fairburn, Social History: Problems, Strategies and Methods (London: Macmillan, 1999), pp. 263-80 and Raul Hilberg, "La Phenomene Goldhagen," Les Temps Modernes 592 (Feb-Mar. 1997), pp. 1— 10. On the other hand, Stanley Milgram, a Yale psychologist, in the early
1 960s carried out experiments which suggested that ordinary moral people under dictatorial influence could easily engage in atrocities. Stanley Mil- gram, Obedience to Authority: an Experimental View (London: Tavistock, 1974).
39 For example, "Hayward lacks the integrity necessary to hold a position of trust in the academic world," Comment by David Zwartz cited in "Thesis supervision angers Jewish group," The Press (3 March 2001), p. 1.
40 Hayward was criticised for having disseminated his thesis, while others condemned him for having embargoed it. It is true that Hayward did give copies of his thesis to two or three individuals. That does not constitute aca- demic publication. While he has been criticized for this there is nothing un- usual in it. Whether or not he was naive is hardly relevant. It is a common practice for people assisting research scholars with information to expect or even require a copy of the thesis in return for their cooperation. Hayward gave copies in this manner. "But I expressly forbade any use or publication of the thesis, in part or in whole, and even attached a clearly worded state- ment to the inside cover, which read: Copyright 1993 J.S.A. Hayward All Rights Reserved No reproduction, copy or transmission of any part of this MA thesis may be made without written permission from the author," Hay- ward goes on to say that as far as he was aware only Frederick Toben of the Adelaide Institute made any effort to further "holocaust denial" by using his thesis. As soon as this came to Hayward"s attention he "took immediate and successful steps... to prevent any mischievous or harmful use of my thesis being made by that man," Joel Hayward, letter to the University of Canter- bury Working Party, 25 September 2000, pp. 3-4. It came to wider attention only after a copy apparently was removed from the Canterbury University library, illegally photocopied and distributed. This act of theft was appar- ently never investigated by the authorities.
The Revisionist ■ 2003 ■ Volume 1 ■ No. 4
David Zwartz, president of the New Zealand Jewish Council put it bluntly: "We lay full responsibility on the experienced professional historians at the university whose job was to guide and assess his [Hayward's] work," "Mak- ing History" The Press (20 May 2000), p. 2. Astonishment later was ex- pressed that Orange had been appointed convener of the History department Research Committee which oversees all thesis proposals. "Historian in the- sis post" The Press (10 June 2000), p. 8. Elsewhere, Orange's resignation was called for. "Shonky thesis a dire scandal" Sunday Star-Times (14 Janu- ary 2001), p. A8. See also the New Zealand Jewish Chronicle 56 (No. 6,
2000) , pp.1, 6, 7-8.
Lyall Lukey, letter to the editor of the Sunday Star-Times (19 January
2001) .
Frank Jones, "Rabid Attack" Sunday Star-Times (21 January 2001). Report by the Joel Hayward Working Party is 89 pages in length but also includes over two hundred pages of supporting materials. A news media report claimed "amid tight security" the University Council "debated for two hours the findings. . .," The Press (19 December 2000). According to the Vice Chancellor, "At its meeting on Monday 18 December 2000 the Council adopted the. . . Report from the Working Party and ap- proved its public release," Daryl LeGrew, letter to Vincent Orange, 19 De- cember 2000.
For example, Ian Catanach and Marie Peters to Vincent Orange, 30 Decem- ber 2000. A dozen other scholars from around the country expressed their disapproval, some in strident terms.
Vincent Orange, letter to the Working Party, 1 8 October 2000, 7pp and Or- ange, letter to Miles Fairburn, 10 February 2001, 18pp. "A tale [...] full of sound and fury, signifying nothing!" "Comments by Professor (retired) John H. Jensen on 'Submission to the University of Can- terbury Working Party on the Joel Hayward thesis' by the New Zealand Jewish Council and 'Report' by Professor Richard J. Evans," undated, 5pp. For example, Martin Lally, Victoria University, letter to Daryl LeGrew, 1 February 2001 , p. 3 but passim. On legal advice, L.L. Stevens, QC, letter to Ian Barker, 10 October 2000, pp. 1-2. http://www.hist.canterbury.ac.nz/news/index.htm Minutes of Special Departmental Meeting, 21 February 2001, p. 2. At least three New Zealand academics (outside Canterbury) publicly calling for Hayward's disgrace admitted not having read the thesis. Certain indi- viduals appeared on national television decrying the thesis but only after- wards read it. Elsewhere, "I have no hesitation in endorsing the New Zea- land Jewish Council's condemnation of [Hayward's] University of Canter- bury MA thesis," Greg Ryan, letter to the editor, The Press (5 May 2000), p. 4. A month later (6 June), Ryan, a lecturer at Lincoln University, admit- ted to a member of the Canterbury History department he had not read the Hayward thesis. See also Chris Connolly, "Submission on Joel Hayward's Thesis," p. 5.
Miles Fairburn, memorandum to History Department, 8 February 2001 and Vincent Orange, letter to Miles Fairburn, 10 February 2001, pp. 2-16. The dossier assembled formally by Orange in February 2001 consists of ap- proximately 144 pages.
Vincent Orange, letter to Ann Trotter, 25 May 2000, pp. 1-2 referring to many of the documents eventually included in the dossier and attaches cop- ies in advance of his own meeting on 26 July. Receipt of the documents also acknowledged by Stuart Macintyre, letter to Vincent Orange, 12 June 2000, p. 1 . The documents again are referred to in some detail in Orange"s letter to "Ian Barker and Colleagues" on 16 July 2000, pp. 1-4. Report by the Joel Hayward Working Party, p. 86 and Daryl LeGrew, letter to the academic community, 21 December 2000.
The materials evidently were placed in the University archives. Chancellor Phyllis Guthardt, letter to Vincent Orange, 30 April 2001. "We feel that the Department should be 'closed lip' if approached by any media. Also we should wait until we have heard from the VC [vice chancel- lor], as to what we should say to the media," Judy Robertson (on behalf of Miles Fairburn, head of the department of history), letter to all history staff, 20 April 2000. This was the basis for Orange declining to appear in a pro- posed segment of the 60 Minutes television programme. Vincent Orange, letter to Melanie Jones, 5 August 2000. A similar communique was circu- lated throughout the History Department on 2 February 2001 and again on 23 October 2002: "We are to give 'no comment' and if anyone is persistent refer them to. . . the Registry."
Evans was supplied with the examiners' reports on Hayward's thesis as well as Vincent Orange's letter to the Canterbury Chancellor (21 April 2000) by Macfarlane, Dougall, Stringer, barristers and solicitors, and asked by David Zwartz to examine and comment on them. Richard J. Evans, letter to David
Zwartz, 19 September 2000, p. 1. Evans concluded that all three documents are problematic, essentially repeating his arguments detailed in his report on the thesis.
"Submission to the University of Canterbury Working Party on the Joel Hayward MA Thesis," (undated) consisting of seventy statements. There is some dispute over this last point. "Holocaust thesis investigated" The Press (27 April 2000) stated the Jewish Council wanted the thesis re- moved from the library but Mike Regan of the New Zealand Jewish Council denied it (Canta 3 May 2000), as did David Zwartz. "Flawed arguments" Sunday Star-Times (28 May 2000) and in his letter to Chancellor Phyllis Guthardt, 4 April 2000, p. 2.
Gerald Orchard, "To the Working Party inquiry into JSA Hayward"s MA Thesis," 13 October 2000, 4pp.
See Report by the Joel Hayward Working Party, pp. 36-37.
L.L. Stevens, QC, "Memorandum for Members of the Working Party," 15
September 2000, p. 21.
Journal of Social History 32 (No. 4, 1 999), pp. 94 1-2; History and Theory 39 (No. 2, 2000), pp. 218-29; The Times Literary Supplement no. 4935 (31 October 1997), p. 10; History - Reviews in History (October 1999), and others.
Richard J. Evans, In Defence of History (London: Granta Books, 1997), pp. 121, 123.
Richard J. Evans, Lying About Hitler: History, Holocaust, and the David Ir- ving Trial (New York: Basic Books, 2001), p. 248. Report by the Joel Hayward Working Party, pp.3, 57, 70 and 86. "An odious decision" The New Zealand Jewish Chronicle 57 (No. 3, 2000 [sic]), pp. 1,7.
Comment by David Zwartz in Sunday Star Times (28 January 2001). The cost of the enquiry has been reported at $200,000. "Thesis casts shadow" The Press (20 December 2000). Also in Daryl LeGrew, letter to Vincent Orange, 19 December 2000, p. 2 estimated at between $150,000 and $200,000 and in "An open letter to our community from the University of Canterbury", 22 December 2000.
"Varsity leader defends historian" The New Zealand Herald (15-16 April 2000) wherein Pro Vice Chancellor Barrie Macdonald of Massey University affirmed the high regard the university had for Hayward. Joel Hayward, letter to Vincent Orange, 9 May 2000, p. 1 wherein he refers to specific treatment by a physician. In 2002 Hayward again referred to con- tinuing care.
Joel Hayward, letter, 6 December 2002, read publicly at Orange's retire- ment function at Canterbury University on the same day. The letter was an expression of gratitude and congratulations to Orange who devoted forty years to Canterbury.
"Second Holocaust thesis controversy" The Press (24 October 2002) and "Essay was revisionist" Waikato Times (23 October 2002). The suggestion was advanced by Dov Bing. Ironically, an editorial shortly thereafter dis- missed Bing"s suggestions as "Trivial to-do" The Press (29 October 2002). One wonders why editors of a leading newspaper permitted a "trivial" mat- ter to appear on the front page or composed an editorial on the same "triv- ial" subject?
Glyn Harper and Joel Hayward, eds, Born to Lead: New Zealand Military Commanders and their Style of Command.
Tony Fisk, letter to Joel Hayward, 29 November 2002. Fisk is the managing
director of HarperCollins in New Zealand.
Joel Hayward, letter to Vincent Orange, 4 December 2002.
Joel Hayward, letter to Vincent Orange, 5 February 2003.
John H. Jensen, submission to the Working Party, p. 8; Hayward, letter to
the University of Canterbury Working Party, p. 25 and Hayward, letter to
Melanie Jones, 6 October 2000 declining to participate in the proposed 60
Minutes programme.
Alan Hayward, letter to Vincent Orange, 17 October 2002.
Vincent Orange, letter to Alan Hayward, 7 May 2000, p. 4.
Charles Liebman, "What should have been done?" Jerusalem Report 2 (9
January 1992), p. 37.
All of these are considered constituent aspects of holocaust denial in Deb- orah E. Lipstadt, Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory (New York: The Free Press, 1993). On what basis can these criteria be considered binding?
Elie Wiesel, "Trivializing the Holocaust," New York Times (16 April 1978), p. 2: 1 ; Harry J. Cargas, "An interview with Elie Wiesel," Holocaust and Genocide Studies 1 (1986), p. 5.
Neither Joel Hayward nor Vincent Orange has been associated with the preparation of this article and neither has seen it prior to publication.
The Revisionist ■ 2003 ■ Volume 1 ■ No. 4
447
PETITION: TO THE UNIVERSITY OF CANTERBURY
In relation to the master's thesis of Joel Hayward at the University of Canterbury, we note the following events, of which the first five are detailed on the University's own website:
1. Joel Hayward was awarded a Masters degree by thesis, with first class honours, by the University of Canterbury in 1993, in accordance with the procedures that the Uni- versity employed at the time.
2. It was subsequently argued by an external party that the degree should be revoked.
3. The University of Canterbury established a Working Party in 2000 to examine this claim.
4. The Working Party concluded that the thesis was not dishonest, and therefore could not be "amended, removed, downgraded or altered". It further concluded that the the- sis was flawed and did not deserve the award of first class honours.
5. The University accepted these conclusions, apologised to those who were offended by the thesis, and stated that it did not support holocaust revisionism.
6. Dr Hayward resigned from his position at Massey University in 2002, apparently as a result of the ongoing hostility towards him arising from the previous events.
7. Recently, Dr Thomas Fudge of Canterbury's History Department wrote a review of these events, for inclusion in the University's journal 'History Now'. Although the journal was printed with this article, the Head of the University's History Department (Professor Peter Hempenstall) destroyed copies of the journal, with the concurrence of the University's Vice-Chancellor (Professor Roy Sharp). As a result of this action by the University, the editor (Associate Professor Ian Campbell) has now left that po- sition, and Dr Fudge has indicated his intention to resign from the University.
Our views on these events are as follows. Notwithstanding any personal misgivings or objections that individual signatories may have as to the content of the thesis, we believe that certain fundamental principles have been breached by the University. First, we ac- cept that a University has both the right and the obligation to revoke any thesis on the grounds of proven dishonesty. However, in the event of it not revoking a thesis on those grounds, we believe that it is totally inappropriate for any university administrator or sponsored body to issue negative public judgements about it, or to apologise to anyone who may be offended by it. No student should be subject to a de facto second round of assessment as to the quality (as opposed to the honesty) of their thesis, particularly after having just been exonerated of the charge of dishonesty.
Secondly, we believe that the Working Party's actions in criticising the quality of the thesis, and the University's public reiteration of that, constitutes the very 'downgrade' that the Working Party asserted to be unwarranted. We consider it inconceivable that the University and the Working Party did not understand the contradiction involved here. Thirdly, we do not believe that it is the business of any university administrator to issue public pronouncements upon any historical issues that are unrelated to the University. This is a matter for individual academics in the relevant area, in the normal exercise of their professional duties.
Finally, whilst there may be a range of opinions concerning the University's action in destroying copies of 'History Now', we view the destruction of any published academic work with considerable concern. These concerns are not ameliorated by the University's earlier and clear breaches of the fundamental rights of a thesis student, of its own judge- ment that the thesis could not be downgraded, and of the proper boundary between aca- demics and administrators in the issuing of public statements.
We further consider that the effect of the University's actions has been to send a clear signal to potential students and other researchers at the University as to the acceptable conclusions to be reached in a particular area of enquiry, and this is antithetical to the proper function of any university. Furthermore, the effect of the University's actions is likely to have contributed to the general climate of hostility towards Dr Hayward, and therefore to his subsequent resignation from Massey University.
These University actions are improper, and place an obligation upon the University of Canterbury to acknowledge its errors and to offer appropriate remedies to Dr Hayward. Signatories
- Martin Lally, Associate Professor of Finance, Victoria University, PhD (Victoria Uni- versity)
- Glenn Boyle, Professor of Finance, University of Otago, MA (Canterbury), PhD (Uni- versity of Texas, Austin)
- Beverley McNally, MBA (Henley), PhD student
- Tim Beal, Senior Lecturer in Marketing, Victoria University, DBA, PhD (Edinburgh)
- Benoit Julien, Assistant Professor in Economics, University of Miami, PhD (Western Ontario)
- Vincent Orange, Reader in History (ret), Canterbury University, PhD (Hull)
- Stephen Brewster, Accountant, Ministry of Economic Development, CA, BCA MBA (Victoria University), MTax student
- Scott Chaput, Lecturer in Finance, University of Otago, MBA (UIC), PhD (Oklahoma)
- Robert Mann, Senior Lecturer in Environmental Studies (ret), University of Auckland, PhD (University of California, Berkeley) Geoff Bertram, Senior Lecturer in Econom- ics, Victoria University, D Phil (Oxford)
- Bryce Wilkinson, Capital Economics, BSc Hons, MCom, PhD (Canterbury)
- Rodney Hide, Member of Parliament, MSc (Canterbury and Lincoln), MSc (Montana State)
- Richard Marriott, Managing Director, Altair Financial Consulting Pty Ltd, formerly Senior Lecturer in Finance at Victoria University, MCom, MBA, B.Eng (elec)
- Alan Wilkinson, Company Director, BSc Hons, PhD (Canterbury)
- Richard Martin, Lecturer in Economics, Victoria University, PhD (Simon Fraser Uni- versity)
- Stephen Burnell, Senior Lecturer in Economics, Head of School of Economics and Fi- nance, Victoria University, PhD (Cambridge)
- Clare Gardner, Lecturer in Accountancy, University of Otago, MCom
- Arie Brand, Associate Professor, Dept of Sociology and Anthropology (ret), Univer- sity of Newcastle (NSW), MA, PhD (Leiden)
- Charles Corrado, Professor of Finance, University of Auckland, PhD (University of Arizona)
- Anna Carr, Lecturer in Tourism. University of Otago, Postgraduate Diploma in Tour- ism Studies, PhD student
- Bryan Sinclair, Strategic Adviser, LLB, BMS
- Jerry Bowman, Professor of Finance, University of Auckland, PhD (Stanford)
- Michael Naylor, Lecturer in Finance, Massey University, MSc (University of London)
- Matthew Ryan, Senior Lecturer in Economics, University of Auckland, PhD (Yale)
- Andrey Ivanov, Research Assistant, Dept of Economics, University of Auckland, BCom Hons, PhD student
- Roger Kerr, MA (Canterbury)
- Rhema Vaithianathan, Lecturer in Economics, University of Auckland, PhD (Univer- sity of Auckland)
- Stephen Poletti, Senior Tutor, Dept of Economics, University of Auckland, PhD (Uni- versity of Newcastle, England)
- Maureen Coulter, Teacher, MA, PhD student in English and French
- Tony Chad, Musician/Poet/Editor
- John Randal, Lecturer in Finance, Victoria University, MSc PhD (Victoria University)
- Katie Drake, Postgraduate Diploma in International Relations and Security Studies, MA student
- Andrea Bennett, Lecturer in Finance, Massey University, BSc Hons (Canterbury), MBS Hons (Massey)
- John Jensen, Professor in History (ret), University of Waikato, MA, PhD (University of Pennsylvania)
- Francis Jensen, BEd (University of Waikato)
- Trevor Reeves, writer/publisher, Dunedin
- Christopher Milne, BComm LLB (University of Otago), CA
- Jeff Sluka, Associate Professor, Social Anthropology Programme, Massey University, PhD (University of California, Berkeley)
- Tania Hinehou Butcher, Poet, GradCert ResAn, BA, PGmd Cert Def Start Studs
- Mary Beth Taylor, Language Education Consultant, MA (University of Washington)
- Rick Boebel, Senior Lecturer in Finance, University of Otago, MBA (Chicago), PhD (University of North Carolina) Blair Simpson, Student Teacher, BA (Massey Univer- sity)
- John Ross, Hon Research Fellow in English, Massey University, MA (VUW), PhD (University of London)
- Joseph Tanner, Engineer, MA in Philosophy
- John Irvine, Poet, Writer and Editor, Coromandel
- Adrian Phillips, Director, Kanuka Grove Educational Resource Centre, Massey Uni- versity
- Carl Bradley, Masters student in Defence Studies, Massey University
- Emma Hamilton, BSLT, Masters student in Speech and Language Therapy, University of Canterbury.
- Doreen D'Cruz, Senior Lecturer in English and Media Studies, Massey University, PhD (University of Michigan) Brendan Judd, Engineer, BA Hons, MA (Massey Uni- versity)
- Ananish Chaudhuri, Senior Lecturer in Economics, University of Auckland, PhD (Rut- gers)
- Roger Openshaw, Professor of Social and Policy Studies in Education, Massey Uni- versity College of Education, MA, D.Phil (University of Waikato)
- Cary Nederman, Professor of Political Science, Texas A&M University, formerly lec- turer in Political Science at Canterbury, MA, PhD (York University, Canada)
- James Corum, Professor of Comparative Military Studies, School of Advanced Air and Space Studies, MA (Brown), M.LITT (Oxon), PhD (Queen's University)
- Simonne Walmsley, Legal Secretary, BA (History) student
- Alan Papprill, Teacher, Auckland, BA, Dip TCh
- Kris Vette, General Manager in the National Health Service, UK, BSc, Dip Bus, Dip Bus. Admin, MPhil (Massey University)
- Lazar Drazeta, PhD (Massey University)
- Garth Martin, Manager, Rotorua
- Paul Dunmore, Associate Professor of Accounting, Victoria University, BSc Hons, PhD MBA (McMaster University, Ontario)
- Judith Lawrence, Copy Editor, formerly librarian at Massey University, MA Hons in English (Massey University)
- Tania Lamb, Counsellor, B.Ed, MPhil, M. Management
- Philip Meguire, Senior Lecturer in Economics, University of Canterbury, MBA PhD (University of Chicago)
Petition Organiser: Martin Lally, Associate Professor, School of Economics and Fi- nance, Victoria University of Wellington, PO Box 600, Wellington (mar- tin, lallyt@vuw.ac.nz). Further signatories are very welcome, and should if possible be communicated to me by email. Contributions to the cost of this advertisement are also welcome."
448
The Revisionist ■ 2003 ■ Volume 1 • No. 4
Censorship in East and West - the Ziindel Ad Campaign
By Dr. Ingrid Rimland
As reported in The Revisionist No. 2/2003 (pp. 183-196), Ernst Ziindel was arrested and deported from the U.S. to Can- ada in February 2002 for allegedly overstaying his visitor visa waiver. In Canada, he is being held in a maximum security prison under inhuman circumstances and being subjected to Kafkaesque secret hearings, the purpose of which is to try to categorize him as a security threat to Canada. The ultimate goal of the Canadian authorities is to deport Ziindel back to his na- tive Germany, where political trials and a long prison-term await him.
In the meantime, his wife Ingrid has launched an advertise- ment campaign in an attempt to gain public attention for the massive breach of human rights being perpetrated against her husband. A one-page ad appeared on June 12, 2003, in the Washington Times, a smaller, less well-known competitor of the Washington Post. A second ad was published in September 2003 in the Washington Times (Sept. 7) and in the Russian newspaper Zavtra. This time, however, the Washington Times decided to heavily censor the ad by removing any revisionist
argument and viewpoint and by totally omitting the call for help in an Open Letter to Vladimir Putin, the president of Russia.
The following text is a reprint of the ad as it was published in the Russian newspaper Zavtra. We have underlined those passages that the Washington Times omitted. It is a lesson on censorship. Once the media in Russia were well-known for their massive censorship. As the saying went, there was no Pravda (truth) in the Isvestiya (news), and no lsvestiya in the Pravda. Today, however, this cold war reality has turned up- side down. Today, there is not much left of the truth in the news spread by U.S. mainstream media, and even the little bit of truth that does get published is objected to by many pressure groups, as the letter to the editor reproduced after this article shows.
Following this is a short report by the Director of the Cana- dian Association for Free Expression (CAFE), Paul Fromm, who is attending the show trial against dissident Ernst Ziindel and does everything possible to help him. It speaks for itself.
The Editor
An American Refusenik Story
"There are a thousand hacking at the branches to one who is striking at its roots. " (Henry David Thoreau, 1817-1862)
Herewith I alert the Russian people and, specifically, the Russian leadership to one of the most dictatorial events that happened in America. It is an intensely personal story.
For three years, I was happily married to a kind, gentle man with politically incorrect views - until, in broad daylight on American soil, my husband was brutally kidnapped by agents of the American government and taken away in leg irons.
The claim is that my husband was "deported" because he "overstayed his visa" We have the evidence to prove this alle- gation is untrue. We intend to prove in court that American law enforcement agencies were used unwittingly as opportune "en- forcement squads" for a nasty political lobby with an agenda of muzzling free speech- Brief Background Information
I am a United States citizen, of German background, born in the Ukraine, having lived in the U.S. since 1967. My husband, Ernst Ziindel, is a high-profile activist best known for various highly publicized Free Speech Holocaust trials in several coun- tries. For decades, Ernst Zundel has fought for his right to chal- lenge the orthodox Holocaust tale, which claims relentlessly the "gassing of six million Jews", allowing no debate- Ask yourself this: Who is powerful enough to dictate what shall be heard or not heard, spoken or not spoken, written or not written? Truth does not fear investigation. A lie must be inves- tigated and disarmed.
To accept without doubt, to accuse without trustworthy evi- dence, to intimidate without proof, to lie without punishment.
The Revisionist ■ 2003 • Volume 1 ■ No. 4
to censor with impunity was unthinkable in the Western democ- racies in ages past. In the case of the 'Holocaust', the "murder weapon" is missing, Jewish casualty numbers are highly in- flated, and the tales of the "witnesses" are unverifiable and of- ten grossly bizarre. For instance, Elie Wiesel, by universal ac- claim a remarkable Holocaust Survivor deserving of the Nobel Prize, wrote this:
"I learn from a witness that, for month after month, the ground [of an alleged Jewish mass grave at Babi Yar in the Ukraine! never stopped trembling; and that, from time to time, geysers of blood spurted from it." ( Paroles d'etranger. Editions duSeuil, 1982, p. 86.)
In practically all Western countries, self-serving fictionaliz- ing about the Holocaust proceeds untouched by common sense and forensically verifiable science. Why? It is really very sim- ple: Certain enormously powerful interests, Jews and non-Jews alike, benefit handsomely from a simplistic view of history no- body is allowed to question - especially since taxpayers are willingly footing the bill- World- wide, the 'Holocaust' has grown into a secular relig- ion. To question the new dogma makes one a heretic, subject to vicious persecution and even prosecution. Russian-born Israel Shamir, a noted Israeli journalist and courageous critic of the current Israeli government, defined the problem well: "...the Holocaust is not a Jewish religion; it is a religion par excellence for goyim" - a disrespectful Hebrew word for non-Jews.
The 'Holocaust' must be examined, and questions must be
449
asked. It is not un-American to want to know the facts and to make known those facts, once found and carefully examined.
Ernst Ziindel did just that - for decades! As a German de- scendant, Ernst Ziindel refuses to live on his knees. For his re- sponsible activism on behalf of his forebears' maligned genera- tion, he has been targeted for assassination - twice by parcel bomb, once by arson, and once by a young woman posing as a journalist who was put on an airplane to Israel by Canadian au- thorities before she could do mischief with a microphone dis- guising a gun.
Because of his insistence to check out the 'Holocaust' claims, Ernst Zundel has made powerful political enemies at the highest levels of governments in various Western countries. Follow what happened recently:
ERNST ZUNDEL - PRISON MEMOIRS, FEBRUARY 5 TO FEBRUARY 19, 2003
I lived for more than 40 years in Canada. After my marriage to Ingrid, I had applied for my papers so I could live with her in Tennessee. My application had been accepted by Immigration authorities. I had been fingerprinted, given a work permit, a so- cial security number, a medical. I was waiting for an interview with Immigration officials which I understood to be the last step before being granted permanent resident status. Since our first interview had to be canceled due to a time schedule con- flict, our attorney requested a new date. We have in our posses- sion a return receipt that our request to be re-scheduled had been received by INS.
We waited for that interview in the belief that we had done everything we knew how to do, according to government regu- lations. In our lawyer's opinion, the overwhelmed Immigration and Naturalization Service checking into thousands of illegal immigrants in the United States simply had not come around to looking at the file of two pension-aged Whites setting up resi- dence in Tennessee and bothering no one. We had purchased an art gallery and planned to open it in weeks. One of my handy- men was helping me frame some of my water colors, oils and line drawings which I intended to hang that very afternoon. All this came to an abrupt end when a virtual posse of police cruis- ers and paddy wagons materialized in our driveway at about 1 1:00 a.m., February 5, 2003.
I was dressed in my work outfit, blue jeans, mountain hik- ing boots, colorful carpenter's suspenders and casual flannel shirt. I inquired what brought them there as they surrounded me menacingly. They told me to put my hands on the hood of a truck in the driveway. They said that they were Immigration Service Enforcement Officers who had come to take me into custody because I had failed to keep a court date.
There was no "court date" that we knew of. We were wait- ing to be notified of our re-scheduled interview. I was stunned - as was Ingrid. The five officers had no arrest warrant. I asked to call my attorney. The request was denied. Ingrid, too, was told no call to our attorney was allowed. I asked Ingrid to get my jacket, passport and medication, since I was not permitted to go back into the house. Ingrid was later told that this was deemed to have been a "civil" arrest and no arrest warrant was needed. There was nothing "civil" about this arrest!
Within minutes, I was in handcuffs and leg irons in a prison
van, escorted in a police convoy down our mountain road, past our art gallery, into our little town where Ingrid and I did our shopping, and onto highway 1-40 to the Knoxville Immigration Office, where I was processed, finger printed, and photo- graphed. A Polaroid photo was taken of me against the wall of some garage, part of a hollow block-type building. This photo was then trimmed and later on stapled onto a document. I was given some documents to sign, which were lying on the desk of one of the bureaucrats when I came in. They had yellow post-it notes, and one clearly said in someone's handwriting, "Add to- day's date here". One Immigration officer, not directly in- volved in my case, had his wall decorated with a 2 x 4-foot large Israeli flag. Needless to say, I found this somewhat of an odd wall decoration in a U.S. Immigration Office!
I was then put again into a prison van in handcuffs and leg irons and driven for approximately VA to VA hours through heavy traffic from Knoxville to a nearby jail, a cold, unfriendly place. The processing there took over four hours. I was kept in an ice-cold, all-concrete holding cell - even the seats and floors were concrete - until well after midnight. The medication I had brought with me to jail was disallowed. As a result, my blood pressure began to act up. I was told by the nurses, to whom I was taken - still in handcuffs and leg irons - that it was dan- gerously high.
I was housed in a two-man cell, in 24-hour lockup, only al- lowed a brief shower after two to three days and a short call to Ingrid - I don't remember when. My cell-mate was an engineer in chemistry, a manic depressive who hallucinated, talked to unseen people all day and jumped up and down and out of bed all night long, hollering orders to persons unseen, thinking he was in charge of the CIA and talking loudly to "the President" on his make-believe telephone. He smelled awful, obviously not having showered in weeks. He annoyed the guards repeat- edly in the middle of the night by using the in-cell intercom. Finally, the guards came, six or seven of them, and told me to get off my top bunk, grab my mattress and sheets and get out of the cell. I stood in the hallway where I heard hollering, scream- ing, and punching. I saw blood squirting against the wall as my crazy cell-mate was dragged on one leg across the floor into a different area of the prison. I saw him a few days later. He was bruised, all black and blue over his eyes and head as guards led him past me from the doctor's office.
I was put into a two-man cell with a gentle, soft-spoken 65- year-old barber who had tried to shoot his mother. He was kind and helpful to me. I was now briefly with the general popula- tion, half Black, Mexican and Indian, the rest being Whites, mainly from the Smoky Mountain area. Most were hardened criminals, murderers, bank robbers, car thieves. Almost all were repeat offenders. Many had 25 to 30 year sentences. There was anger, frustration and rage in that place that was palpable.
Guards were unfriendly, cold, abrupt. One guard woke me up in the middle of the night by poking me into the ribs with a flashlight because I had left a book on the window sill.
Come Sunday, I heard dogs barking. We were all ordered into our cells while black-uniformed SWAT teams with dogs went systematically from cell to cell, threw us on the floor face down, hand-cuffed, arms twisted behind our backs. They dragged us outside the cells like sacks of potatoes while hel-
450
The Revisionist ■ 2003 ■ Volume 1 ■ No. 4
meted, visored, New World Order-type cops hollered com- mands at us. They searched our pockets, beds and plastic bins. The dogs, dripping saliva from their snapping jaws, were mainly Dobermans and German Shepherds and were kept on chain leashes two feet away from our bodies and faces. Young, pretty women in skin-tight uniforms and tightly-fitting flak jackets, all black in color, kept climbing over the men who were curled up, face down, shaking, frightened out of their wits. Some had tears streaming down their faces. The women filmed these hapless prisoners with mini-camcorders close up, laughing and joking, having themselves a ball. Why were those videos taken?
I was there on two weekends, and this terrorizing of the prisoners happened on both weekends. I was lucky to miss it the second time because my American attorney, whom Ingrid had in the meantime engaged, had come to see me and I was in the visitor meeting area of the prison. He had found out by the grapevine that I was going to be deported from the USA to Ger- many where I was born, even though I lived in Canada for over four decades.
This lawyer filed a request with the District Court that I be permitted to see a judge to tell him what happened - a request that was denied the same day. We challenged that decision the very next day in the Cincinnati Sixth Circuit Court where a law suit is still pending. According to procedural court rules, I should not have been taken out of that prison and deported without having seen a judge - yet that is exactly what happened a few nights later, February 17, 2003 - a national holiday in America, "President's Day".
I was awakened by pounding on my cell door at 2:30 a.m. and told to get ready. By 4:30 a.m., the guards came to get me for "processing out". I was given a shower, ice cold, and changed back into my civilian clothing. Because of the holiday, the guards could not let me have my medication and the U.S. $400 I had brought with me to prison. To this day, that money has not been returned.
I was taken to the Knoxville Airport without a single cent in my pocket and without my medication. We boarded a plane to Atlanta, Georgia shortly after 7:00 a.m., landing there after 9:00 a.m. I was not told where we were going, but I saw a sign at the airline counter: Buffalo, New York. I realized they were ship- ping me to Canada, not to Germany.
I had had no opportunity to let Ingrid know where I was and what was happening to me. To this day, not one agency has contacted Ingrid - either by phone, letter or visit - explaining, much less justifying the arrest.
We arrived in Buffalo, New York at 11:30 a.m. in a bad snowstorm. There I was told I was banned from the United States for 20 years, which meant Ingrid would be 87, and I would be 84 years old before I might have my first chance to see her again. I was taken across the Canadian border and kept in a locked room at Canadian Immigration offices at the Peace Bridge. There was lots of gesticulation and loud talking. The end result was that I was taken back across the U.S. border, still in a snowstorm. We seemed to slide and slither for hours until I finally spotted a sign saying "Attica, New York, Maximum Se- curity Prison". Luckily, the vehicle turned into Batavia and we finally arrived there at dusk.
The Revisionist ■ 2003 • Volume 1 ■ No. 4
That prison was way out in a wind-blown farming area. It was a flat-roofed facility, surrounded by high barbed-wire fences and search lights with a small guard hut and a barrier, reminiscent of the Dr. Zhivago film. A huge six-foot guard, dressed in a Russian-type fur hat and a dark green greatcoat, came to check papers and cargo. It was a seemingly new, very clean, well-organized facility. Unfortunately, I was only there for not quite two days before I was taken back to Canada, this time for good.
I was deported via the Peace Bridge at Fort Erie on Febru- ary 19, 2003. I was interrogated for about seven or eight hours off and on. I was allowed to call Ingrid, my lawyer and, within two hours, some Scottish friends from Hamilton, Ontario. They came to bring me some much-needed money.
I was "arrested" again - I thought I had already been ar- rested! - and taken to Thorold, the Niagara Region Detention Center where, a few weeks later, I was "arrested" for the third time, this time right in my cell.
I have been labeled a "security risk" for Canada by ministe- rial decree - NOT for what I have done in 42 years of responsi- bly living in that country, where I have no criminal record, but for what somebody else in the future "might" do by reading what I have discovered about the murky business called the 'Holocaust'.
I came to Canada in 1958 - a nineteen-year-old kid in search of a productive life. I will be judged at age 64 by secret hearings where neither I nor my attorneys will know what is be- ing said about me, much less who the witnesses are. No way can I defend myself - except by raising public awareness.
Can this be happening in America - the Land of the Free and the Brave?
Since my husband's arrest, six months have gone by. He is still in maximum detention. He is not allowed a chair, a pillow, or a pen. Yet there are no criminal charges.
With this ad, I am pleading for public awareness.
If somebody smashes my window, I can go to the police and complain - and can expect that someone will investigate. If somebody smashes my life, is there no recourse because my husband holds politically incorrect views backed up by solid re- search about the so-called 'Holocaust'?
Holocaust Revisionism is not a cult or a subversive ideol- ogy. It is a scientific methodology to sort out truths from false- hoods. Research has shown the 'Holocaust' is not "self-evi- dent" - yet it is shielded by practically all Western govern- ments. The term has the power to hurt, and it has the power to silence. It is the central taboo of our time.
I say the 'Holocaust' has grown into a cult and a subversive ideology!
Recently, I paid for an ad in one of the major American pa- pers. The question I put to my country's elected officials is simply: Exactly, what is meant by 'Holocaust'? HISTORY? OR DOGMA?
- If the Holocaust is history, it MUST be open to investiga- tion, like any other historical claim.
- If, on the other hand, the Holocaust is a religious dogma, it has no place in law enforcement training manuals, sup- ported by taxpayers' money.
451
In my young years, I lived under four dictators - Stalin and Hitler in Europe, Peron and Stroessner in South America. When I came to America, I thought that I had entered paradise, where there was justice, where there was law and order. I willingly and proudly became a US citizen. I'd like to think that this is still America where dissident views have a place.
Or am I wrong?
Does my own government approve of American law en- forcement officers to act as hit squads for alien interests, drag- ging a law-abiding man of retirement age away in handcuffs and leg irons to be dumped in maximum detention for months on end with no relief in sight - because he questions claims that demonize his people, the Germans of the World War genera- tion?
A taboo has bitten into America's soul - a taboo that is pose and pretense. It seems to get a free pass from the American government. And yet its claims have no foundation in reality. Those claims must be checked out. It's time to check them out. It's time to ask hard questions.
I will ask the members of my Congress and my Senate to take swift, concrete steps to have my husband be returned to me, replete with his politically incorrect views. I ask that men of principle and courage stand up to the abuses of the Holocaust Lobby - and do so with verve and conviction. I ask that men of honor, elected to serve the American people, not dive for the politically correct fig leaf the moment the Holocaust Lobby says "Boo!" .
But I will do more! I am asking the Russian President, Wladimir Putin, to take a stand, condemning this abuse by gov- ernment - exactly as America, in past years, condemned the dictatorial actions in Soviet Russia. I ask the Russian people to cut out the letter below and send it to the Kremlin. Please do that for a man who has done nothing wrong - who merely fol- lowed his conscience!
Dear President Putin:
You probably are not aware of my husband, Ernst Ztindel - but hundreds of thousands of people all over the world know his name. Ernst Ztindel is the man who, under vicious siege by a powerful political lobby, sent an investigative team from Canada to Auschwitz in 1988 to test forensically if "gassings" really happened - and found that they did not. Science does not lie, and scientific findings can be verified. His evidence must stand or fall in the free market of ideas. My husband has pleaded for a safe, impartial global forum ever since to make his findings known.
The Canadian Holocaust Lobby has never forgiven Ernst Ztindel. Recently, he was arrested on US soil - allegedly be- cause he missed an interview with Immigration and Naturaliza- tion Services officials. No judge. No hearing. No recourse. In- stead, leg irons and handcuffs - and brutal incarceration in four maximum detention prisons, first in America and now in Can- ada. False news was spread in mainstream media that he had "overstayed his visa". Not so. He was married to a U.S. citizen, and we have irrefutable documentation that he was legally enti- tled to be here. His "punishment", just for a starter? Banned from the U.S.A. for 20 years!
My husband's brutal treatment by government officials in what many vainly hope are still two of the West's most law-
452
abiding democratic countries is reminiscent of the darkest days of Soviet Russia. I know whereof I speak. At the age of five, I lost my father in a very similar arrest in 1941 - never to see him again!
I am a Russian-born, German-descendant, award-winning novelist, best known for an early novel, "The Wanderers", a fictitious account of the life of my Russian-born Mennonite grandmother. More recently, I wrote a trilogy, spanning seven generations and 200 years and all the major political upheavals of the last two gruesome, bloody centuries.
My people, living peacefully in the Ukraine since 1789, were ethnically cleansed in the political purges of 1938-1941, and only a handful of us could save ourselves, escaping with the retreating German Army in 1943 to Germany and, then, in 1948, to South America.
I grew up in the jungles, functionally illiterate and knowing little of the political realities of dictatorships that transformed and decimated countries like Russia and Germany. As an adult, I emigrated to Canada and then to the United States, always thinking of the country of my birth, Russia, as a place out of the depths of hell - until I learned about an intellectual movement called Revisionism.
My now imprisoned husband is globally known as a Revi- sionist pioneer. Ernst Ztindel has a profound geopolitical under- standing of the moneyed interests setting brother against brother, causing rivers of blood and tears for the gains of a handful of oligarchs who fattened themselves on our pain. To- day I know that Russia was as horribly victimized as Germany was. Russia suffered as much as Germany did - and as America will suffer, unless America wakes up and comes to understand today's events in light of what was done so cruelly to law- abiding people yesterday.
Referring to my husband's brutal arrest, one of my Russian Revisionist correspondents called Ernst and myself "America's Refuseniks" and pledged his intellectual solidarity. It is an apt description of who we are and what we do. We refuse to be- lieve in historical lies. We refuse to be dictated to and told who are our friends and who should be our enemies. We refuse to surrender our Freedom of Speech. We refuse to swallow manu- factured history such as the "Holocaust by gassing" - a lie that has become an intellectual stranglehold on every Western coun- try. If our findings are deemed "wrong", then let's have a civi- lized debate in a respectable national forum where both sides can offer arguments and evidence - and let the people judge!
Recently, I read an essay by Russian General Anatoly Wolkow, titled "People, Listen To The Signals!" Here is a for- mer enemy of Germany who stretches out a hand of friendship to soften the political mistakes of the past and bring long- needed healing to both Germany and Russia. I believe there are millions of Russians who would identify with what he says. I know there are millions of Germans all over the world who would like nothing better than to bury the hostilities of World War II and once again be known as Russia's partners, friends and scientific benefactors. America would benefit from such a reconciliation. America is not in need of yet another war.
We need to find ways to each other!
I plead with you to send a message to those millions, Ger- mans and Russians alike, as well as millions in America and
The Revisionist ■ 2003 ■ Volume 1 ■ No. 4
Canada, that we are kin, not enemies. A Russian leader of cour- age and vision could tell the Western world that the Russia of today has finally become autonomous, living by democratic principles, abhorring censorship.
There is a way to shame short-sighted Western bureaucrats for their repressive laws - and wake up people globally to the realities of vested interest power plays that move us ever closer to a frightening abyss. A simple gesture, even if only symbolic.
would telegraph around the world that Russia, emerging out of decades of repression, has thrown away her dictatorial shackles:
Declare Ernst Ziindel, Prisoner of Conscience, in broad day- light kidnapped "legally" by his nefarious enemies on U.S. soil, to be the West's most notable "Refusenik" - and offer him asy- lum and a passport.
Sincerely,
Ingrid Ziindel, Ed.D.
Aftermath
Letter to the Editor, The Washington Times, Sept. 10, 2003: "Wrongheaded advertisement
While paid advertisements may be the financial life- blood for many newspapers, I would have hoped that The Washington Times would have displayed more selectivity when confronted by an advertisement from a Holocaust denier [page A 7, Sunday]. Convicted of that crime in Ger- many and guilty of spreading his message of hate through- out the world, Ernst Zundel is not misunderstood and a vic- tim, but instead an advocate of religious and racial hatred. He supports the extermination of not only Jews, but blacks and any other members of so-called inferior races.
It is disappointing that this modern exponent of Hitle- rian hatred and mass murder would be allowed to use the pages of this newspaper to convey his message. Certainly, this full-page advertisement places your newspaper, or at least the individual who decided to run the advertisement, in a different and certainly not a favorable light.
When I brought a much smaller advertisement, an ad- vertisement for a Holocaust denial book, to the attention of your rival newspaper, the individual in charge of that sec-
tion ceased to run any further advertisements from that Holocaust denial source and an apology was forthcoming from the head of that newspaper.
Ernst Zundel does nor deserve any space in your news- paper. To have printed this travesty was a disgrace to your reputation of journalistic integrity.
NELSON MARANS
Silver Spring "
It is amazing how so many lies can be packed into such a short letter to the editor. In the context of his own society, "Holocaust denial" is not "a crime", but the prosecution of such "deniers" would be of crime; Ziindel's message is the message of love for his German people and his fatherland, which people like Mr. Marans might hate, but that does not make Ziindel's views hate. Most outrageous is the claim that Zundel "supports the extermination of not only Jews, but blacks and any other members of so-called inferior races." This is one of the most evil lies I have ever heard about Ernst Zundel. If the Washing- ton Times would objectively follow Mr. Marans demand to not publish anything from persons spreading hateful messages, Mr. Maran would be the first censorship victim. For he does not know what he is doing. . .
Thanksgiving in Jail: Canadian Show Trial against Ernst Zundel Continues
By Paul Fromm
On Wednesday, the final day in this round of Revisionist publisher Ernst Ziindel's detention hearing before Mr. Justice Pierre Blais, Donald Macintosh, the Crown Attorney, talked out the clock, ensuring that Mr. Zundel will remain in prison for another 13 weeks until the hearings resume for three days on December 10.
Hour after hour, Macintosh picked away at Mr. Zundel with an ever more obscure series of questions about people he might have interviewed at some time or known slightly. Allegations, often from hostile Jewish sources and sometimes third- and fourth-hand hearsay, were put to him for his agreement or comment.
Political prisoner Ernst Zundel arrived in court with five plainclothes guards. Two sat near him beyond the barrier sepa- rating the court officials and lawyers from the spectators; three more sat among the spectators or stood along the walls.
While the lawyers toted their piles of legal volumes on suit- case-like carts with wheels, Mr. Zundel had to haul his legal papers in two white pillow-cases.
The day opened with a testy exchange between defence
lawyer Douglas H. Christie and the judge. The judge expressed unhappiness that Mr. Christie had had a number of meetings with Mr. Zundel while he was under cross-examination. On July 30, it had been agreed that Mr. Christie could phone or visit Mr. Zundel to get instructions or to discuss other aspects of the case, provided he did not discuss Mr. Ziindel's evidence.
"I didn't hear a caveat that each and every time I wish to talk to my client I must inform or ask the Court," Mr. Christie snapped. When agitated, the judge pronounces "asked" with an aspirate: thus, "hasked". At the end of the exchange, it was agreed that Mr. Christie could continue to consult with Mr. Zundel as long as he is under cross-examination - at least until December 10 - provided he does not discuss his evidence or coach his responses.
Then Crown Attorney Macintosh commenced a long and laborious series of questions about Tom Metzger. Hovering, crow-like in his black robe, his nose an inch or two above the document on the podium, Macintosh would spend long minutes searching for a quotation. More time would be wasted each time the judge and Mr. Christie, with Mr. Zundel on the witness
The Revisionist ■ 2003 ■ Volume 1 ■ No. 4
453
stand, had to locate the often unnumbered page being refer- enced. After each answer, Mr. Macintosh would painstakingly make notes of the answer, despite the fact that he had three le- gal assistants backing him up. It was a classic time-waster, like a veteran hockey player who hogs the puck while his team is ahead to run out the clock.
In the fishing expedition about Tom Metzger, Mr. Macin- tosh quoted from an author named Kaplan, who wrote The En- cyclopedia of White Power, and quoted Morris Dees quoting Harold Covington's brief quotation of something Tom Metzger allegedly said. An angry Douglas Christie objected:
"My position on all these documents is that they 're all inadmissible hearsay. You have allowed the process to de- generate into a political inquisition and filibuster. It's cre- ating a prejudicial record of guilt-by-association. This is prejudicial hearsay. It's bad enough that we have to deal with secret hearings. This is fourth-hand hearsay. " Macintosh argued:
"The statutory scheme of Section 78 [of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act] clearly states that you can rely on evidence you might not otherwise. " Then, in a remarkable one liner indicating how slight the Crown's burden of proof is, he reminded Mr. Justice Blais:
"The case law is the reasonableness, not necessarily the correctness, of the certificate. "
The whole sinister process then became clear as a mountain pool. CSIS's case is a wild series of guilt-by-associations. Mr. Ziindel knows or knew a series of people, some of whom at some time or other may have made an extreme statement, or are alleged to have done so. Under questioning, he admits he knew these people. Often, he is called on to acknowledge that he dis- agrees with a statement he never knew they'd made or to ac- knowledge that, if they did or advocated what a third party says they did or advocated, they might be considered a terrorist. Then, with this record, the Crown will argue that the CSIS ac- cusation that Mr. Ziindel is a terrorist is "reasonable" - even if it isn't true. After all, he admits knowing all these extreme peo- ple. Once again, truth will be no defence.
If you want to help
We're heading into another costly round of hearings and, so, we need your continued financial support for Mr. Zundel's defence. We have a number of delicate color-pencil sketches by Ernst Ziindel done in prison. Each is dated and signed. Each is a nature study. Mr. Ziindel has long been a paint and sketch artist. He had returned to his love of art before the U.S. INS picked him up and deported him. If you send us a check for $100 or more, we'll send you one of these collector's items, a thank you sketch by political prisoner Ernst Ziindel.
Mail your donation today to CAFE, Box 332, Rexdale, ONT M9W 5L3, Canada, or e-mail us your VISA number and expiry date to paul@paulfromm.com. On your check or an accompanying piece of paper, note: "For Ziindel Defence Fund."
Paul Fromm Director
CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION
Outside the Court, Mr. Christie said:
"This is like a Soviet show trial. It's a process of guilt- by-association. The condemned man is forced to disown or denounce all his friends or associations [like Terry Long, Tom Metzger, Ewald Althans]. That doesn 't save him. The Court then says that his denunciations are untruthful and just calculated to save himself. Then, all alone now, the prisoner is found guilty and shot. "
This is Canada. Canada ostensibly does not have capital punishment. However, it condemns a man who is seriously ill to solitary confinement and denies him proper herbal medica- tion, where the reasonable likelihood of the State's action is the prisoner's death or incapacity.
In answering Mr. Christie's objection, Mr. Justice Blais was a study in apparent fairness and convoluted expression.
"Mr. Metzger is not here. He is not the object of this case. The problem I have is that we have 1,806 pages of documents filed by the Crown. [Ernst had counted them and told the Court the number the day before.] When he [Mr. Ziindel] says 'I don 't know or have any relation with this individual, ' that 's it. I take very seriously Mr. Christie 's ob- jection. Anyone can make speeches, but it does not mean he 's responsible for others ' actions. In a sense, we must be careful about guilt-by-association. We 're here to trial [sic] Mr. Zundel's certificate. "
So far, so good. Then, with a verbal pirouette, the Judge said that, as these documents were before the Court, the inter- rogation could continue, and Mr. Macintosh was off again.
When questioned on passages from the book The Encyclo- pedia of White Power, Mr. Ziindel said:
"Mr. Macintosh, I sent a researcher to the University of
Toronto Library to get a copy of this book. I'm not even in
the glossary. Yet, I'm supposed to be the guru of the White
racist right. "
In the morning session, a Globe and Mail reporter com- plained to both the Crown and Mr. Christie that his tape re- corder had been confiscated by the Court security guards. After the break, Mr. Christie argued:
"The Ontario Court of Justice Act permits the bringing of recorders into Court for note taking. My position is that we should allow the widest latitude for re- cording. "
No, said Mr. Justice Blais:
"I don 't think our rules allow that. " A casual observer might have concluded that Tom Metzger was on trial in Courtroom 1 in Toronto on September 24. Mr. Ziindel was asked if he knew of a publication called White Berets, published by a branch of the Ku Klux Klan. Mr. Ziindel said he didn't know the pub- lication, but was sent some Klan literature from time to time by supporters. "You never asked anyone not to send you Klu[sic] Klux Klan literature!" Mr. Macintosh said trium- phantly, as if he'd scored a knock out point.
Douglas Christie leaped to his feet object- ing:
454
The Revisionist ■ 2003 ■ Volume 1 ■ No. 4
"The Ku Klux Klan literature is another prejudicial document thrown into the hopper. Mr. Ziindel didn 't recog- nize it, hadn 't received it and didn 't adopt it. " Now, Mr. Justice Blais admonished Mr. Christie for object- ing so often:
"Talking about a filibuster, but I don 't want to stop any
objection. I try to be flexible pursuant to Section 78.J. "
He then ruled:
"The Klan document will be admitted. "
In the afternoon, the Crown played a portion of a video enti- tled Hearts of Hate produced with buckloads of Canadian tax- payers' money. The video seemed to show Ernst Ziindel sing- ing "Happy Birthday" in a pub on the occasion of the birthday of Toronto skinhead Chris Newhook. Mr. Ziindel had earlier testified that he could not recall singing "Happy Birthday" on that evening almost a decade ago.
Douglas Christie objected:
"What is the relevance and purpose of the TV. tape? If
it shows Ernst Ziindel involved in violence, okay. If it shows
him singing Happy Birthday, ' it 's collateral and should not
be allowed. "
Although he permitted showing of the propaganda video, it was too much even for Mr. Justice Blais:
"Section 78.j allows flexibility, but we should apply it in good faith. No one will be deported for singing Happy Birthday. ' Frankly, Mr. Macintosh, it happens to everyone. People start singing 'Happy Birthday ' in a bar and every- one joins in. "
Then Mr. Ziindel was questioned about Church of the Crea- tor founder Ben Klassen, whom he had never met and didn't know, and his alleged sale of property to William Pierce. Again Mr. Christie objected:
"Guilt-by-association is what this is all about. The wit-
ness was asked whether he knew Mr. Klassen. He said 'No. ' Then he was asked if he knew of a connection between Mr. Klassen and Mr. Pierce. I just point out that it's like asking whether person A, whom I don 't know, has any connection with person B, whom I don 't know. Where 's the relevance to actions? "
The later part of the afternoon was taken up with setting the agenda for the next round of hearings to be held December 10- 12. Mr. Macintosh said he would need another hour and a half to complete his cross-examination. Both lawyers will prepare written submissions as to whether Mr. Justice Blais has juris- diction to decide Mr. Christie's constitutional challenge to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, particularly the sec- tions surrounding the CSIS certificate, which allow no appeal of the judge's decision and which permit secret hearings. The jurisdictional question will be argued. If the judge decides he has jurisdiction, the constitutional question will be argued. Both parties are preparing written submissions on this point as well. Finally, Mr. Ziindel' s detention will be argued.
Optimists feel there's a chance Mr. Ziindel will be free for Christmas. Despite the incarceration, which will be 10 months come December, Mr. Justice Blais said:
"The personal question for Mr. Ziindel is important, but
we 're breaking new ground with a new law. So, we must
take our time. I'm pre-occupied by this point, by Mr.
Ziindel 's detention. "
Later that night, speaking to the Alternative Forum in To- ronto, Mr. Christie praised those loyal 25-30 people who had filled the courtroom each day in support of the dissident pub- lisher. Mr. Christie said:
"Every minute you 're in the court bears witness to the
fact that you have not surrendered to a corrupt government.
It 's a political inquisition. "
False Memory Syndrome
Assessing the reliability and accuracy of witness testimony is probably one of the most difficult tasks both in jurisprudence as well as in historiography. Although it is generally acknowl- edged by experts that witness testimony is the least reliable type of evidence and must be critically and carefully scrutinized before any of its contents can be accepted as facts, most people are unaware of this. For them, witness statements carry enor- mous weight, in particular if seemingly corroborated by other witness statements of similar content.
Prof. Elizabeth Loftus is one of the most prominent scholars in the field of human memory and the way it can be manipu- lated and distorted. Although her field of expertise is mainly the court of law, where witness testimony can decide the fate of de- fendants, the relevance for historiography is all to obvious, since many historians seem to rely primarily on witness ac- counts to write history.
John Cobden was the first to make revisionist scholars aware of Prof. Loftus' research on the unreliability of human
memory in his review1 of her book Witness for the Defense.2 Although Cobden focused on those parts of Loftus' book where she describes her experiences with a court case involving an al- leged event of the 'Holocaust' - the infamous Demjanjuk case3 - there is much more to Loftus' work that is of enormous im- portance to revisionist scholarship. The following contributions inform about the progressing research results of Prof. Loftus and her co-workers during the past ten years and highlight the relevance of these results for revisionism. The Editor
Notes
1 J. Cobden, Journal of Historical Review, 11(2) (1991)pp. 238-249 (online: vho.org/GB/Joumals/JHR/ll/2/Cobden238-249.html).
2 E. Loftus, K. Ketcham, Witness for the Defense, St. Martin's Press, New York 1991.
3 See Arnulf Neumaier, "The Treblinka Holocaust", in: G. Rudolf, Dissecting the Holocaust, 2nd ed., Theses & Dissertations Press, Chicago, IL, 2003, pp. 471-500; cf. also Yoram Sheftel, The Demjanjuk Affair. The Rise and Fall of the Show Trial, Victor Gollancz, London 1994.
The Revisionist ■ 2003 ■ Volume 1 ■ No. 4
455
False Witnesses
By David Irving
The world of medical science has produced another stun- ning book about the phenomenon first identified as "Holocaust Survivor Syndrome" - the manner in which groups of people genuinely and honestly come to believe over the years that they have witnessed episodes which are, in fact, largely products of trauma and fantasy: Prof. Dr. Elizabeth Loftus, The Myth of Re- pressed Memory (St. Martin's Press, New York, 1994, 290 pp.).
"It is possible," writes Elizabeth Loftus, then a psychologist at the University of Washington, in what Newsweek magazine calls a disturbing new book, "to create an entire memory for a traumatic event that never happened."
According to her some of the best neuro-scientific brains are trying to find out how this can happen: this may throw light on the current bitter debate about "recovered memory," which ranges across cases of Satanism, childhood sexual abuse, and UFO abductions; and, as may fairly be pointed out, otherwise inexplicable and unsubstantiated Holocaust eye-witness survi- vor stories - the kind that were nearly the nemesis of Cleveland auto worker John Demjanjuk.
Summary: hundreds of experiments have shown that people easily slip false details (from a TV report for example) into their recollection of an event they witnessed. "They even 're- member' events they have only heard about," wrote Newsweek, reviewing the 290-page Loftus book.
In May 1994, Harvard Medical School hosted a conference on the neurological bases of false memories. James McClel- land, of the Center for the Neural Basis of Cognition at Pitts- burgh, provided one explanation; Michael Nash, of the Univer- sity of Tennessee, another.
Nash calls it chilling that "there may be no structural differ- ence" between a true memory of an event and a false one. The problem is similar to distinguishing a remembered dream from a recollected factual event: some people, says Daniel Schacter of Harvard, cannot distinguish:
"You could be remembering a dream, a fear, or some- thing someone talked about. What gives the memory a feel- ing of authenticity is that authentic parts are included. " Only one person in four appears, from Loftus' studies, prone to this disorder. But others can be conditioned by events. "Severe emotional stress overcomes internal checks on plausi- bility," states neuro-scientist Marsel Mesulam of Northwestern University, "and you are left with a false 'memory.'"
In the United States a False Memory Syndrome Foundation has been set up to represent the interests of the victims of such retrieved "memories;" some people have been sentenced to forty years in jail on this evidential basis alone. Harvard psy- chiatrist Judith Herman is however angry:
"Scientists have no business using the term false memory. "
First published in Action Report, no. 11. Dec. 18, 1996
Dr. Elizabeth Loftus, Controversial Expert on Human Memory
By Caroline Song
Professor Elizabeth Loftus holds the title of distinguished professor of psychology, social behavior, criminology, law and society at U.C. Irvine and has recently been nationally recog- nized for her findings in a study that proves memories could not only be distorted, but also completely reconstructed. Professor Loftus is considered an expert in the medium of memory re- search and is the author of nineteen books, has lectured all over the world, and has testified in over two hundred court cases in which she testified about her skepticism of the repressed mem- ory theory. Loftus evokes intense criticism because she testifies on the side of the defense, and as a result there is a chance that she may be helping to free guilty perpetrators.
The study in which Dr. Loftus proved impossible memories could be constructed is known as the Bugs Bunny study. In this study the subjects were asked to examine three advertisements that had a pictures of Bugs Bunny standing next to the magic castle at Disneyland. They were then asked to recall any memo- ries at Disneyland that included meeting Bugs Bunny. 36% of the subjects recalled meeting Bugs Bunny and some included specific sensory details such as shaking his hand and touching his fur. The 36% of subjects who say they do remember meet- ing Bugs Bunny prove Loftus' theory that memories not only can be distorted, but completely made up. It is impossible to
meet Bugs Bunny at Disneyland because Bugs is a Warner Bros. Character.
When asked what prompted her to do the Bugs Bunny study, Professor Loftus said, "We often get criticism that maybe what our techniques are doing are reviving a real mem- ory instead of planting a false one. We had to come up with something impossible. [...] We know that when our subjects are now telling us they remember Bugs, it'd have to be a false memory. [...] For years I've been doing studies where we dis- tort people's memories in crimes and accidents and other simu- lated events that they witness, [. . .] but in the 90's we wanted to see whether we could plant wholly false memories. Not just a distorted memory here or there, but a complete false memory. [...] And this newer study shows you that when you get a false memory going, people can be really detailed about it." When asked if it was the false advertisement that may have prompted the subjects to recall this false memory, Loftus said, "Yes, I think it was the visual presentation of the ad with Bugs at Dis- ney. Essentially it was telling people that it was plausible. That Bugs could have been there. And that is the first step down the road to developing a false memory."
The results of this study show how unreliable a memory can be. The unreliability of memories can cause problems when
456
The Revisionist ■ 2003 ■ Volume 1 ■ No. 4
they are relied upon during court cases in which people testify according to what they remember. When asked if eyewitness testimony, should not be used in a trial, Loftus says," I don't think they're useless because we have to rely on eyewitness tes- timony to catch guilty people. The problem is that eyewitness testimony of faulty memory is the major cause of wrongful conviction. So we just have to be more careful in how we evaluate it. And not just believe every single claim because it's detailed."
One of the cases done by Professor Loftus is important not only for it's research, but also because it may have been a pri- mary factor in why she moved from the University of Washing- ton to U.C. Irvine. The Jane Doe case was about a six-year-old
girl who claimed to be sexually abused by her mother. Psychia- trist David Corwin interviewed Jane when she was six years old, and then again when she was seventeen. Eleven years later, Jane had trouble remembering the abuse she received when she was six years old. The fact that Jane did not fully recall her memories of abuse supported the views held by supporters of the repressed memory theory, who believe that traumatic memories can be buried deep inside the mind, and with the use of counseling and therapy these memories can be remembered. But Dr. Loftus disagreed. On the subject of memory repression she says, "The idea that you could be raped for ten years and be completely unaware of it, bury it in the unconscious, I say there's no concrete evidence for it." Loftus learned the identity
"Scientists" at Work
Since end 1994, reports were published in the media that Steven Spielberg has launched a project to archive the testi- mony of "Holocaust survivors" (cf. Newsweek, Nov. 21, 1994 (right); Stuttgarter Zeitung, Dec. 28, 1994; New York Times, Jan. 7, 1996; Geschichte mit Pfiff, 11/1996, p. 37; Welt am Sonntag, Nov. 17, 1996). Apart from Spielberg, the Moses- Mendelsohn-Center in Potsdam (a suburb of Berlin, Ger- many) is also engaged in archiving "survivor" testimonies.
Steven Spielberg has found helpers who volunteer to con- duct these interviews. They have been prepared by an intro- duction seminar lasting 20 hours to do this job. It can be rule out that these helpers received a thorough education in the relevant sections of history in this short period of time. It is also unlikely that they were trained to the point to conduct non-suggestive and highly critical interviewed. The fact that most of these volunteers were themselves affected by the 'Holocaust' in one way or another, almost excludes the possi- bility that they can deduct objective interviews (cf. Stuttgarter Zeitung, Dec. 28, 1994).
It is also very enlightening, how the topic is approaches by the Moses-Mendelsohn-Center, as directed by Prof. Julius Schoeps and Geoffrey Hartmann (Yale University): "Questions without Guideline
As hard as it is to scientifically evaluate individual memories, it is exactly the subjectivity of the accounts which promises to record historical experience, which evades the brittle factuality of the usual historization. Similar to psycho-analytical interviews, one tries to leave room to the witness ' own memories by a very unobtrusive interview technique, in order to guarantee the authenticity of the accounts. " ("Archive der Erinnerung", Suddeutsche Zeitung, July 3, 1995)
The generally accepted view of scholars is totally ignored here that most witness testimonies are distorted beyond repair after more than 50 years - all the more so when dealing with a topic which has been treated in public in a very one-sided and sometimes hysterical way. But even worse: this subjec- tive distortion is not only ignored, it is actually presented as a promising quality. One is furthermore proud to avoid any critical investigation and questioning of the witness accounts, and claims brazenly that this would guarantee the authenticity
: Recording the memories ofDuehnu prisoners iubaw. JfMflJ
'A Race Against Time'
History: I IoIot;ausL survivors lell their own slorie?
I
,<t Mi rVINd FASriys^F. aTTIIIL :cl ol Strvrn SpiclLvrR's, 5tf lilni "Schindlcr's Lisl." :t UmH prucvwpn of elderly mem iind w-uinrn make their w¥ hrtlhnitfv across ihf- wettjSA. 'Jtwsr HoJuchusi survivors, whose sUifie* inured Efae Mm. have now inspired a w-roncf Sjiirlr»-Tjr prujert LpsI spring the- director up a new jsi>u-
■pinffl (i M,ip"irE jtl_]r:i| i rfccJirj-iU cd to
colWrinR am* ptfuerving RbJdCWSl tMti- monv liv (he end ol he plans lo have a^emhled ul*HH SO.WrUi vidwrf^J inlor- vfc-ws. each twp hour* lung, with SLirvivors
ill '•- • : I' : • I '" In
largest oral-hislorv archive in e\istenrr. The «li>ru«i with' I mi vjikinNi- In !»■ lultl
In iw mH nfil ci^n.d \iilY, 1 1 !»-■ Tn* I ,A
I.
:>pcd is Ihc
■ i L ■ I'll ill1-;: 1 1 1 " I ■ ■ \ I ■■! * i !■■ II
prototype. But ipielbcrft s Iran e»|wi-ls Irie Ipcknoln^i- Lu In reiinrd within three yeai* To tal eosls may reach $65 million about iJ?l ni ill ion - eemiiflh fa the first year ■ has iilmnl cjimf in. Cjartlrihulrtrs iixliwj* MC/VLloniersa], MCA chair Spieftierg Irwri U-w Wjssrrniwn Time V. e-. nil I ^jw- .. y_
I I ni-y. lhi< puigulj .11 id lh- liigl
speed mohilirjlion are making scholars, ii
(lie lu'ltl .1 huh ■'■ii- This is suit
vasl project/" savs Gecffrev i 3artman. proj itt director oil h<- Fortuooff Video ArchW< feir llcltwausl Testimonies at Yale, whie! brnw! 3/hxj aurvtvor vkirutupe! (He <"sti
ihv»tf» llvil -iLiiii fijH'tfl c<irh TirlrtnliWM>
of the witness accounts. Such interviewing techniques, how- ever, have nothing to do with science. The accounts recorded with this method are not only worthless, but have a negative value! They consist of an inseparable mishmash of facts, con- fusions, errors, and lies labeled as "scholarly," presented as "authentic" truth, and abused to cement a historical dogma which becomes increasingly codified by penal laws in many countries of the world. Future scholars will rub their eyes in disbelief if confronted with such unprofessional incompe- tence and dogmatic blindness. Germar Rudolf
The Revisionist ■ 2003 ■ Volume 1 ■ No. 4
457
of Jane Doe and began work on an article regarding the case. In 1999 Doe complained to the University of Washington and claimed that her privacy was not being observed. As a result, the University of Washington placed a gag order on Dr. Loftus, restricted her from any continued contact with those in the case, and she was only allowed to publish the information she had gathered up to that time. About the restriction Loftus says, " After I got the UCI offer I said 'you cut those strings or I'm leaving' [...] then they cut them but it was too late." After be- ing a professor at the University of Washington for nearly 30 years, Dr. Loftus came to UC Irvine this past fall.
Dr. Loftus' participation in trials on the side of the defense has raised criticism from those who believe that she is ignoring the repression that occurs in our minds. Her testimonials also raise concern that she is helping guilty perpetrators avoid con- viction. However, Dr. Loftus' purpose is to protect the falsely accused. When a confession is extracted from a suspect, police officers are known to lie and use force during the questioning of the suspect. It is this kind of conduct that Professor Loftus tries to protect the falsely accused from. She says, " Police do lie to people. And they're allowed to. And they do it, they say, to extract a confession. [...] I worry about that practice. Be- cause when they lie to people and they say, ' by the way some- one saw you do this,' that's a very strong suggestion and it can make people believe they did things they didn't do. [. . .] That's one cause of most confessions, [...] the bit about false confes- sions I'm really interested in is when they come to believe they really did it, [...] People get very excited and worked up over the poor or the sick or the disabled, or whatever their cause is. But mine is the falsely accused. I just think it is horrible when it happens to people."
Dr. Loftus has had the bomb squad at her house and she has had armed guards accompany her to lectures. Her critics are so resolute in their opposition that on more than one occasion her safety has come into question. When asked what she is criti- cized about, Loftus says, " They don't like my false memory work. They think it's going to be put in the hands of pedophiles and they'll use it to get off. [...] Sometimes people fight dirty. If they want to fight it out intellectually that's one thing but when they start with the threatening letters. [...] I went to give a lecture at the University of Michigan and there were some threats that were made so the administration assigned a police officer to accompany me all day."
One critic of Dr. Loftus is Robert H. Countess, Ph.D. In chapter nine of her book, "Witness for the Defense: The Ac- cused, the Eyewitness, and the Expert Who Puts Memory On Trial." Dr. Loftus writes about the John Demjanjuk trial, which occurred in 1987. During the Holocaust there was a death camp called Treblinka. At Treblinka there was a Ukrainian guard who was known as Ivan the Terrible who committed horrifying acts on the prisoners of the death camp. John Demjanjuk was identified by five survivors of Treblinka as Ivan the Terrible. Demjanjuk's defense attorney, Mark O'Connor, pleaded with Dr. Loftus to testify in the trial on the side of the defense, say- ing, "We need your help. [...] You're [...] the world's expert on eyewitness memory, and without your testimony it's con- ceivable that an innocent man will be sentenced to die." (Wit-
458
ness For the Defense: The Accused, the Eyewitness, and the Expert Who Puts Memory on Trial. Elizabeth Loftus, p. 211). John Demjanjuk was stripped of his U.S. citizenship, and was expatriated to Israel, where the trial was held in a converted theater. As Mark O'Connor is quoted in the chapter, "the U.S. government pasted Demjanjuk's 1951 immigration picture on a sheet of cardboard along with photographs of sixteen other Ukrainians suspected of war crimes and sent the sheet of pho- tographs to the Israeli government." (p. 213). Eugen Turowski, Abraham Goldfarb, Elijahu Rosenberg, Josef Czarny, Gustav Boraks, Pinchas Epstein, Sonia Levkowitch, Chil Meir Rajch- man, and Abraham Lindwasser all identified John Demjanjuk as "Ivan the Terrible," but by the time of the trial, Turowski, Goldfarb, and Lindwasser passed away and Levkowitch with- drew her identification. Thus remained the five witnesses. There were discrepancies regarding Demjanjuk's guilt/inno- cence such as several witnesses testifying after the war that Ivan the Terrible was killed in an uprising in Treblinka in Au- gust 1943. But on April 18, 1988, John Demjanjuk was found guilty, and on April 25, 1988, he received the death penalty.
Dr. Loftus refused to testify in the trial because, "If I take the case, [...] I would turn my back on my Jewish heritage. If I don't take the case, I would turn my back on everything I've worked for in the last fifteen years. [...] I didn't have the heart to take the case. Or perhaps I didn't have the courage." (p. 232) When asked why he criticizes Dr. Loftus for choosing not to testify, Robert Countess says:
"She with the Demjanjuk case was willing to let an in- nocent man be put to death and found guilty when her own expertise could have perhaps given this man life. And I say that she chose to collaborate with her own Ethnic religious brethren rather than use her considerable talent and skills in support of justice. "
Countess also says that Dr. Loftus, "seemed to believe there was quite a bit of mistaken identity. And [. . .] I think this chap- ter is included because she got criticism and she's trying to jus- tify her coming down on the side of her fellow Jews rather than helping this Ukrainian American who had been taken over there to Israel for this show trial." When asked what convinces him of Demjanjuk's innocence, Countess said:
"I don 't think he 's guilty of anything, but on the other hand I'm willing to say he's guilty of something if the evi- dence can show it. " Robert Countess also says:
"My criticism of her is not personal [...] she may be fine, wonderful, true and good, decent mother, daughter, and wife [...] but I'm saying professionally for her to be called distinguished professor raises enormous questions about the wisdom of the University of California system. " In response to Countess's criticism, Dr. Loftus said:
"I did the best thing I could. [...] I found a perfect ex- pert. "
On Dr. Lotus' recommendation, Willem Wagenaar testified at the Demjanjuk trial as the expert on memory.
First published in New University newspaper, University of California, Irvine.
The Revisionist ■ 2003 ■ Volume I ■ No. 4
My Critique of Dr. Loftus' Behavior
By Robert H. Countess, PhD
On February 20, 2003, I received an email request from a University of California at Irvine student newspaper reporter, Caroline Song (horseycow@hotmail.com), in which she asked me to comment on Professor Elizabeth Loftus and the John Demjanjuk Trial that took place in Israel during 1987.
Loftus is "Distinguished Professor of Psychology and So- cial Behavior, Criminology, Law, and Society" at UCI and can be reached at eloftus@uci.edu or 2393 Social Ecology II, Ir- vine, California 92697-7085, and (949) 824-3285, Fax: (949) 824-3002.
My interview with New University reporter Song focused on Loftus' book Witness for the Defense (New York: St. Martin's Press) and chapter nine, "Ivan the Terrible: John Demjanjuk," where she revealed - in my opinion - an amazing disregard for this innocent American citizen of Ukrainian background whose life was about to be snuffed out by a Rache [German for re- venge] obsessed Israeli court system with its unhealthy fixation on the Jewish Holocaust Story.
Professor Loftus has been paid enormous sums of money to testify in courts in the USA and to defend all sorts of defen- dants accused of horrible criminal deeds and she has enjoyed great publicity and wealth from her creating doubts about wit- nesses for the prosecution - her focus of expertise being that witnesses "remember" events and conversations that simply did not happen.
In chapter nine of the book, Loftus states clearly that the Is- raeli case against Demjanjuk lacked believable witnesses, that is, that certain Jews who testified about Demjanjuk had either created their stories or had acquired them from other witnesses or from newspaper stories or books. She also wrote that Dem- janjuk's attorney, Mark O'Connor, asked her to help with the defense for Demjanjuk. O'Connor flew out from New York to Seattle, Washington, to meet with Loftus and explained the case up to that point.
Loftus wrote:
"[...] an eyewitness identification, positive or negative, doesn't actually prove anything. A positive identification only tells us that the person believes that he recognizes a face or that he believes a certain person is guilty of certain crimes. A belief is not absolute proof. " (page 219) Sitting in her living room with O'Connor, "She wanted to say, 'Yes, of course, I'll take the case'." Loftus indicated that she was aware of Israeli police interrogation practices and that these could be "questionable" in terms of fairness and brutality (page 223).
"But in those long hours spent listening to Mark O 'Connor talking about the Treblinka death camp and the aging memories of the victims of the Holocaust, something cracked my cool, professional exterior. Inside, like one of those Russian folk toys that pull apart to reveal a slightly smaller version of the same figure, was Beth Loftus, wife of Geoffrey Loftus, best friend of Ilene Bernstein, niece of Un- cle Joe Breskin. Beth Loftus ' fear for her friendships, for the personal price that she would pay if she testified for John
Demjanjuk. Beth Loftus kept thinking about Uncle Joe, a survivor of anti-Semitic pogroms in Russian and the only relative of her parents ' generation still alive. 'What would Uncle Joe say if I took this case? ' Beth Loftus asked herself over and over again. 'What would Geoff say, what would Ilene say? ' " (pages 222f.)
Professor Loftus, in my opinion, has amazingly and hon- estly demonstrated in what follows that she surrendered her professional ethics and, instead, chose to side with narrow- minded, sectarian Jewish interests and, thereby, to become a collaborator with Israeli Holocaustian fanaticism that would have murdered an innocent man.
"But Beth Fishman couldn't stop with the file. Thirty years earlier I had turned my back on my Jewish heritage, pretending it didn 't exist, pretending it was just one of those things you 're born with, like a mole or big feet, or blond hair. Pretending it didn't matter. / had ignored the Holo- caust for years, shoving it out of my mind. [...] I read Anne Frank again, and Elie Wiesel, Hannah Arendt, Aaron Ap- plefeld. I stalked the library shelves, searching for the an- swer to one particular question - who was Ivan and what did he do? [...] / found some answers. Jankiel Wiernik, a Warsaw building contractor deported to Treblinka on Au- gust 23, 1942, wrote [...]" (pages 224f.) For me, as one who has read the Wiernik book and can readily grasp some of the anti-intellectual ravings of his factu- ally unbelievable stories, I knew that Loftus was a Kindergart- ner in the field of Holocaustology - Anne Frank, Elie Wiesel, Jankiel Wiernik; some of the most unreliable writers ever to get wealthy (Otto Frank as Anne's father) from the Holocaust Story! Loftus amazed me that she could be so proficient in her narrow specialized field of witness psychology and yet so pro- foundly ignorant about the Jewish Holocaust Story. She told her friend David Sucher:
" 'If I take the case, ' I explained, having talked this out with myself hundreds of times, T would turn my back on my Jewish heritage. If I don't take the case, I would turn my back on everything I've worked for in the last fifteen years. To be true to my work, I must judge this case as I have judged every case before it. If there are problems with the eyewitness identification, I must testify. It's the consistent thing to do. " (p. 232)
Dr. Loftus flew to Israel to attend the trial in an old theater - how fitting indeed! - converted into a courtroom and big enough for large numbers of school children bussed in to watch this "Show Trial" drama. When asked there by a friend, Mar- greet, why she was not testifying for Demjanjuk, she said:
"As I looked around the audience filled with four gen- erations of Jews - little children, their parents, grandpar- ents, and great-grandparents - I tried to explain to Mar- greet that it was as if these were my relatives, and I, too, had lost someone I loved in the Treblinka death camp. With those kinds of feelings inside me, I couldn 't switch roles and become a professional, an expert. " (page 237)
The Revisionist ■ 2003 ■ Volume 1 ■ No. 4
459
It was all this in mind that I gladly made a small contribu- tion to the UCI New University student journalist article on the famous Jewish expert, Professor Elizabeth Fishman Loftus. If I had it to do all over again, I would have been even more force- ful in my criticism of this hypocrite who was willing to collabo- rate with a Jewish "Show Trial" where an innocent man might
have been hanged until he gasped his last breath - all because Loftus had surrendered her professional principles for the un- ethical, the shameful, and the propagandistic program required by the Jewish Holocaust myth.
The author, residing in Huntsville, Alabama, can be contacted by email at boblbpinc@earthlink.net
False Memory Everywhere - Except in Modern History
By Germar Rudolf
There is currently no topic of human history that is treated more emotionally and one-sidedly in public than the Holocaust. It represents the central taboo of western civilization, and to question it is the epitome of heresy, punishable by imprison- ment in many western 'democracies.'
Given this state of affairs, the expert on the evaluation of eyewitness testimony, Professor Elizabeth Loftus, pointed out in 1991 that, for many different reasons, testimony pertaining to actual (or merely alleged) National Socialist atrocities, wit- nessed in a particularly high stage of emotion, is less reliable than almost any other testimony. Elaborating, she observes:
a) The time elapsed since the end of World War II has con- tributed to an inevitable fading of recollections.
b) In trials of alleged National Socialist criminals pre-trial pub- licity has meant that witnesses had generally known the identity of the defendants and the crimes they were charged with already before the trial.
c) Prosecutors have asked witnesses leading questions, such as whether they could recognize the accused as the perpetrator. Witnesses have rarely been called on to identify the accused from a number of unknown people.
d) It is fairly certain that witnesses have discussed identifica- tions among themselves, which facilitated subsequent 'iden- tifications' by other witnesses.
e) Photos of defendants have been exhibited repeatedly, each additional showing of the pictures making witnesses more familiar with the face of the accused, and thus increasingly certain.
f) The extremely emotional nature of these cases further in- creases the risk of a distortion of memory, since the accused to be identified by the witnesses were more than alleged tool of the National Socialists - they were devils incarnate:
said to have tortured, maimed and mass-murdered prisoners. They were allegedly responsible for the murder of the wit- nesses' mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, wives and chil- dren.1
g) Professor Loftus, herself Jewish, uses her own experience to describe how a false sense of loyalty to her heritage and her people and "race", as she puts it, prevented her from taking a stand against the obviously false testimony of her fellow Jews. It is safe to assume that this is a widespread, common reflex among Jews.2
Unwelcome Applause
It cannot surprise that Prof. Loftus' research was highly praised and welcome by revisionist scholars - except for the aspects exposing Prof. Loftus' apparent moral deficiencies in handling the Demjanjuk affair. After all, she confirms what re- visionists have claimed for decades: that witness testimonies about the 'Holocaust' are unbelievable to an extent that one has to ignore them totally in research on this topic, if one intends to come to scholarly tenable conclusions.
Of course, this confirmation by the world's foremost expert in witness testimony critique was neither intentional nor wel- come, but this is a different matter. When Michael Shermer, a dedicated adversary of revisionism, directed Prof. Loftus' atten- tion to the fact that her work was intensively quoted and used by revisionists, her reaction was indicative:3
"She was shocked and had no idea about what was go- ing on. "
This shows clearly that Prof. Loftus is obviously still not pre- pared to apply the consequences of her own research to those court trials, from which her own people (or "race," as she puts it) benefits enormously politically, socially, and financially.
Reminiscences of events, which did not happen that way or did not happen at all, can be planted into memory by suggestion and imagination. It is therefore appropriate to be skeptical about some statements of traumatic experiences - for exam- ple regarding early childhood abuse.
Elizabeth Loftus, Spektrum der Wissenschaft, January
1998, p. 62.
Worldwide renowned and highly praised expert on eye- witness testimony
Reminiscences of events, which did not happen that way or did not happen at all, can be planted into memory by suggestion and imagination. It is therefore appropriate to be skeptical about some statements of traumatic experiences - for exam- ple regarding gas chamber experiences during the 'Holocaust.'
Revisionist Standard Statement
Punishable with up to ten years imprisonment in countries like Germany, Austria, Israel, France, Belgium, Poland, Czechia, Switzerland, the Netherlands, and others.
460
The Revisionist ■ 2003 ■ Volume 1 ■ No. 4
Loftus' Assessment Generalized
Objectively seen, there are not many differences between the trial against John Demjanjuk on one hand and almost all other trials conducted against hundreds and thousands of other defendants accused of having committed crimes during the 'Holocaust' on the other hand, particularly those, which at- tracted considerable media attention, like the Jerusalem trial against Adolf Eichmann, the Frankfurt Auschwitz trial, the Dilsseldorf Majdanek trial, the trials against Klaus Barbie, Maurice Papon, Erich Priebke and many others more.
It is also revealing that in her list of factors potentially dis- torting and manipulating the memory of witnesses involved in such trials, Prof. Loftus omits (or suppresses?) three very im- portant and unique factors which are almost never present in any other case:
a) Accounts of witnesses' alleged personal experiences during the 'Holocaust' have always - and not only during criminal
1. Interview
2. Interview
3. Interview
0 20 40 60 80 100
■ True Memories
■ Fale Memories
Graph 1: It apparently becomes progressively easier to recall merely suggested childhood experiences as time goes by, be- cause the details of what is suggested becomes more and more familiar and because the original source for this informa- tion is forgotten. American researcher Ira Hyman confronted the persons involved in these experiments not only with several real events of their childhood - confirmed by their relatives - but also with an embarrassing event which was actually freely invented: It was claimed that during a wedding they had poured a bowl of punch over the dress of the bride's parents. During the first interview, not a single participant accepted this story as true; during later interviews, however, some 18% and later even 25& claimed to be able to recall this event.
trials - been widely disseminated by word of mouth, print and broadcast media, and particularly among the witnesses themselves through personal correspondence and all sorts of relief organizations.
b) Since at least the late 1970s, the topic of the 'Holocaust' has been ever-present - and increasingly so as time passed by - in the mass media, and in an extremely one-sided manner, so that memories inevitably become standardized.
c) Where the 'Holocaust' is concerned, it is not only unforgiv- able but at times even a criminal offense not to know, not to admit, or perhaps only to doubt, certain things. There is thus a very strong social (or even legal) pressure on witnesses in particular to recall certain 'facts' and to repress others. This highly effective social pressure was even admitted by the expert witness Prof. Loftus, and she caved in to this pres- sure! How many of her colleagues, and how many non- expert witnesses gave in just like she did?
All three factors are much more 'persuasive' than those al- ready listed by Prof. Loftus, leading to an additional tendency of memories to become deformed.
Popular Criticism of Testimony
In its September issue of 1997, the popular scientific maga- zine Scientific American published an article by Prof. Loftus with the title "Creating False Memories'"? As already men- tioned in earlier articles in this issue of The Revisionist, one of the focuses of Prof. Loftus' research is the attempt to verify, under which circumstances and to which extent false childhood memories can form. The background of these efforts was a steeply rising number of alleged childhood abuse cases primar- ily in the United States, but also in Europe, in the 1980s and early 1990s. These trials, which led to the destruction of many individual lives as well as entire families, caused many head- lines in the media at that time due to their very controversial nature. They were sometimes reminiscent of show trials, in par- ticular after it had become apparent during some of these cases that the testimony of witnesses involved had been manipulated by suggestive interview techniques of psychologists and psy- chiatrists. As a result, modern criticism of witness testimony was booming during those two decades.
The main obstacle to psychologically investigating false memory is that one cannot apply techniques while experiment- ing with humans which would lead to mental suffering, as this is of course morally unacceptable and legally prohibited. Thus, Prof. Loftus and her co-workers always had to apply rather mild methods and deal only with such (invented) events, which would not lead to traumatic experiences. It is needless to say that the results of such experiments are not equal to what could be expected with false memories formed by suggestive tech- niques dealing with factual (or only alleged) traumatic events like childhood abuse or an orgy of mass slaughter.
About the Ease to Manipulate Human Memory
Graph 1 shows the results of experiments presented in Lof- tus' article. From this and other experiments, she concluded that freely invented events put into a framework of real events are increasingly accepted as true and part of the subject's mem- ory, the more often they are suggested to be real and the more
The Revisionist ■ 2003 ■ Volume
l-No.4
461
one forgets about the true source of this 'information.' Whereas all persons subjected to this experiment insisted during the first interview that the suggested event did not occur, the percentage of persons accepting the invented event as true and part of their memory rose from 18% during the second interview up to 25% during the third. It would be interesting to find out how high this rate of manipulated memories would grow if these persons would be subjected to hundreds or perhaps even thousands of such interviews, a number which can be easily assumed for so- called 'Holocaust' witnesses, who have been exposed to a steady flow of many interrogations, interviews, story telling, anecdotal exchanges, and media reports for six decades.
It clearly results from Prof. Loftus' work that a considerable number of all humans are susceptible even to the most simple manipulations of their memory. Manipulating factors are omni- present in our environment, in particular in the form of mass media and all other forms of communication, of which we draw many bits of information on a daily basis. But we hardly ever memorize the original source of this information alongside with the information.
Unfortunately, Prof. Loftus' work does not contain any statements as to how the manipulation of human memory in- creases with the rise of emotional pressure. Since experiments with humans are limited in this regard, we probably must de- pend on real cases to investigate this question.
The case of the trial against John Demjanjuk, however, has shown that the susceptibility of our memory for manipulation rises with the increase of emotional stress we are exposed to, which is in accordance with the predominant view.
Because the 'Holocaust' is an event of permanent emotional stress especially to witnesses, we have to expect a massive sus- ceptibility for memory deformation in this field. It must remain open just how much of the stress perceived by those witnesses is a result of real memory and how much is the result of memo- ries merely induced by an uninterrupted feeding of suggestive 'information' leading to hysterical responses of the subject.
Lack of Psychological Critique of Witnesses to History
It would be worthwhile if finally experts on witness testi- mony would dedicate some of their time and resources to inves- tigate the topic "witness testimony in modern history." This does not even have to start with the hot potato Holocaust, be-
cause for general reasons all witness accounts relating to events of modern history are problematic, as they are often tainted by political interest and social paradigms and pressures.
When doing such research, one could proceed as follows:
Such a project would do research on various different events in modern history involving a broad variety of emotional 'ballast.' One could pick various recent historical events with different emotional impacts on witnesses. The range would start with events which would not cause any considerably emotional involvement of witnesses to such events where most witnesses are emotionally touched in a massive way, for instance: The visit of a U.S. president to European countries; the uprising of Hungarians in 1956; the expulsion of fifteen million Germans from eastern Germany and eastern Europe.
Similar research could be done for events which were simi- larly traumatic for participants, but which received different degrees of media coverage, like a plane crash; a minor local war, and a major war getting broad media attention lasting even after the war is over.
It would be interesting to find out, whether or not the obser- vation already made in other contexts could be confirmed that memories of witnesses are more susceptible to manipulation with an increasing emotional impact of the witnessed event and with an increased reporting about this event in the media.
Needless to say that for the witnesses concerned, the 'Holo- caust' will always be at the top of the scale of emotional stress and trauma, with which we have finally determined what it really is that makes the 'Holocaust' unique: The mind and memory manipulating emotions linked to it.
Notes
1 E. Loftus, K. Ketcham, Witness for the Defense, St. Martin's Press, New York 1991, p. 224; cf. review in J. Cobden, Journal of Historical Review (JHR), 1 1(2) (1991) pp. 238-249 (online:
vho.org/GB/Journals/JHR/1 l/2/Cobden238-249.html). The author thanks R. Faurisson for the latter reference.
2 E. Loftus, K. Ketcham, ibid., pp. 228f.
3 M. Shermer, Why People Believe Weird Things, Freeman, New York 1997, p. 183.
4 vol. 277, no. 3, pp. 70-75; http://cogprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/archive/00000597/00/199802007.html; the article also appeared somewhat revised in German language as "Falsche Er- innerungen" in: Spektrum der Wissenschaft no. 1, 1998, p. 62-67.
Memories of a War that Never Happened
By Andrea Schneider
On June 28, 1998, Joe Sharkey reported in New York Times about a phenomenon that is well-known to revisionists. It all started with a documentary on CNN on June 7, 1998, by the veteran CNN war correspondent Peter Arnett and producer April Oliver. In it, Vietnam War veterans claimed that certain units of the U.S. Armed Forces where they served had applied the nerve gas Sarin. A follow-up article about this topic ap- peared the next day in Time magazine. As a result of the report, the Pentagon began an investigation.
But it quickly turned out that the central allegation of the
report was largely based on a disputed interviewing technique involving recovered memories that the American Psychiatric Association has condemned. This technique to "recover" for- gotten "memories" is based upon highly suggestive interview- ing of patients. This results in "memories" of events, which the patients never experienced or which actually never occurred, being planted into their brains.
Recovered memories - suppressed horrors dredged up un- der therapy - drew attention in the 1990 when they became the basis of a spate of charges of incest, satanic-ritual abuse, and
462
The Revisionist ■ 2003 ■ Volume 1 ■ No. 4
sexual abuse at child-care centers. They were discredited when investigators determined that many of them had been implanted by zealous therapists determined to find a cause for a patient's emotional distress.
More recently, experts have discovered that some Vietnam- era veterans under psychiatric care in Veterans Administration Hospitals are especially suggestible. Recovered memories have made a comeback, and veterans, they say, find themselves "re- membering" events that never happened. Neither the CNN re- port nor the Times article mentioned that the central accusation was based on recovered memories.
General Smith said last week that several other veterans who had been interviewed for the report told him Ms. Oliver "planted" the notion that Sarin had been used in the commando raid. CNN has denied that. But experts in the field of false
memories say it is not difficult to manipulate a susceptible sub- ject, given the right conditions.
Pamela Freyd, the executive director of the False Memory Syndrome Foundation, a national organization of doctors and researchers that has worked to identify false memories, said:
"Recovering a false memory as a war atrocity is not as
unusual as you might think: "
Of course, this applies also to many memories of witnesses of atrocities alleged committed by Germans during World War II, all the more so because there is nothing in our world, which has been more massively and in a one-sided manner propagated for almost 60 years now, 24/7 by all means and channels of all mass media, than the highly suggestive claim that these atroci- ties are 'a given fact.'
False Memories in Disneyland
By Ronald Reeves
Prof. Elizabeth Loftus is pennanently under pressure to jus- tify her thesis that human memory can easily be manipulated to 'recall' events that actually did not take place. In June 2001, she published more recent findings, which indicate that human memory is even less reliable than she had already found in ear- lier studies. To make her research understandable to everybody, Prof. Loftus chose a background to which Johnny Doe can eas- ily relate: Disneyland. The following report was taken from the Internet:1
False Memories Easily Created, Researchers Discover
About one-third of the people who were exposed to a fake print ad describing a visit to Disneyland and how they met and shook hands with Bugs Bunny said later they remembered or knew the event happened to them.
The scenario described in the ad never occurred because Bugs Bunny is a Warner Bros, cartoon character and wouldn't be featured in any Walt Disney Co. property, according to University of Washington memory researchers Jacquie Pickrell and Elizabeth Loftus.
Pickrell will make two presentations on the topic at the annual meeting of the Ameri- can Psychological Society (APS) on Sunday (June 1 7) in Toronto and at a satellite session of the Society for Applied Research in Mem- ory and Cognition in Kingston, Ontario, on Wednesday.
Pickrell, UW psychology doctoral stu- dent, said:
"The frightening thing about this study is that it suggests how easily a false memory can be created. It 's not only peo- ple who go to a therapist who might im- plant a false memory or those who wit- ness an accident and whose memory can
EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY
With a New Prelate
EL12A1E1H F. LOFTUS
be distorted who can have a false memory. Memory is very vulnerable and malleable. People are not always aware of the choices they make. This study shows the power of subtle association changes on memory. "
The research is a follow-up to an unpublished study by Loftus, a [former] UW psychology professor who is being hon- ored by the APS this week with its William James Fellow Award for psychological research; Kathryn Braun, a visiting scholar at the Harvard Business School; and Rhiannon Ellis, a former UW undergraduate who is now a doctoral student at the University of Pittsburgh.
In the original study, 16 percent of the people exposed to a Disneyland ad featuring Bugs Bunny later thought they had really seen and met the cartoon rabbit.
In the new research, Pickrell and Loftus divided 120 sub- jects into four groups. The subjects were told they were going to evaluate advertising copy, fill out several questionnaires and answer questions about a trip to Disneyland.
- The first group read a generic Disneyland ad that mentioned no cartoon characters.
- The second group read the same copy and was exposed to a 4-foot-tall cardboard figure of Bugs Bunny that was casually placed in the interview room. No mention was made of Bugs Bunny.
- The third, or Bugs group, read the fake Disneyland ad featuring Bugs Bunny.
- The fourth, or double exposure group, read the fake ad and also saw the card- board rabbit.
This time, 30 percent of the people in the Bugs group later said they remembered or knew they had met Bugs Bunny when they visited Disneyland and 40 percent of the people in the double exposure group reported the same thing.
Pickrell explained:
mm
The Revisionist ■ 2003 ■ Volume 1 ■ No. 4
463
"'Remember' means the people actually recall meeting and shaking hands with Bugs. 'Knowing' is they have no real memory, but are sure that it happened, just as they have no memory of having their umbilical cord being cut when they were born but know it happened.
Creating a false memory is a process. Someone saying, I know it could have happened, ' is taking the first step of actually creating a memory. If you clearly believe you walked up to Bugs Bunny, you have a memory. " In addition, Pickrell said there is the issue of the conse- quence of false memories, or the ripple effects. People in the experiment who were exposed to the false advertising were more likely to relate Bugs Bunny to other things at Disneyland not suggested in the ad, such as seeing Bugs and Mickey Mouse together or seeing Bugs in the Main Street Electrical Pa- rade. Pickrell said:
"We are interested in how people create their autobio- graphical references, or memory. Through this process they might be altering their own memories. Nostalgic advertising works in a similar manner.
Hallmark, McDonald's and Disney have very effective nostalgic advertising that can change people 's buying hab- its. You may not have had a great experience the last time you visited Disneyland or McDonald's, but the ads may in- advertently be creating the impression that they had a won- derful time and leaving viewers with that memory. If ads can get people to believe they had an experience they never had, that is pretty powerful.
The bottom line of our study is that the phony ad is mak- ing the difference. Just casually reading a Bugs Bunny car- toon or some other incidental exposure doesn 't mean you believe you met Bugs. The ad does. "
In earlier works, Prof. Loftus focused mainly on the influ- ence of real or invented traumatic events on human memory, as shown in preceding articles.2 This new study shows how media products like ads, intruding into our world of experience, have a manipulating effect. It is obvious that the power of the media to manipulate human memory is considerably larger than the
FALSE-MEMORY
CREATION IN CHILDREN
DAVID F BJORKUiMJ
MANUFACTURING
VICTIMS
WHAT THE f*VCHOl.0CY IWDUSTHY IS DOING TO PEOPLE
by Dr. Tana Dineen
NEW [JXHQN tOWJtETf IT B.fVl JED *K» U>D WED
influence of personal interviews. Whereas not even 20% of all persons exposed to two suggestive interviews claimed false, implanted information to be part of their own memory,3 this latest example shows that already on single intensive exposure to a fake media advertisement by a trusted source can suffice to deform the memory of 30 to 40% of all persons subjected to such an experiment.
This reflects the faith most people have in the media - in- cluding advertisements as long as they stem from well-known and trustworthy companies, all the more so because in our times, commercials make up the majority of all contents trans- ported by the media, particularly in most mainstream printed periodicals.
What, then, can we expect when basically all trustworthy and renowned media of the world have been exposing every- body on this globe with an ever increasing shower of one-sided, distorted, and even fabricated 'information' about the 'Holo- caust,' including of course those who witnessed these (alleged) events? How reliable can testimony from such witnesses possi- bly be today? What is therefore the value of all those projects focusing for several years now on uncritically recording wit- ness accounts of 'survivors' on tape and video?4
Further Reading
- David F. Bjorklund (ed.), False-Memory Creation in Chil- dren and Adults: Theory, Research, and Implications, Law- rence Erlbaum Ass., Mahwah, NJ, 2000
- Terence W. Campbell, Smoke and Mirrors: The Devastating Effect of False Sexual Abuse Claims, Insight Books, New York 1998
- Tana Dineen, Manufacturing Victims: What the Psychology Industry Is Doing to People, R. Davies, Montreal 1996
- Hans Jiirgen Eysenck, Decline and fall of the Freudian em- pire, Penguin Books, Harmondsworth 1986
- Eleanor Goldstein, Kevin Farmer (ed.), True Stories of False Memories, Social Issues Resources, Boca Raton, FL, 1993
- Elizabeth F. Loftus, James M. Doyle, Eyewitness testimony: civil and criminal, 3rd ed., Lexis Law Pub., Charlottesville, VA, 1997
- Elizabeth Loftus, Katherine Ketcham, The Myth of Repressed Memory: False Memories and Allegations of Sexual Abuse, St. Martin's Press, New York, 1994
- Richard Ofshe, Making Monsters: False Memories, Psycho- therapy, and Sexual Hysteria, 3rd ed., University of California Press, Berkeley, CA, 1996
- Mark Pendergrast, Melody Gavigan, Victims of Memory: Sex Abuse Accusations and Shattered Lives, 2nd ed., Upper Ac- cess, Hinesburg, VT, 1996
- Gary L. Wells, Elizabeth F. Loftus (eds.), Eyewitness testi- mony: psychological perspectives, Cambridge University Press, New York 1984
Notes
1 http://unisci.com/stories/20012/061301 l.htm
2 See David Irving's review "False Witnesses," this issue, as well as Germar Rudolf, "False Memory Everywhere - except in Modem History," this issue.
3 See G. Rudolf, ibid.
4 See G. Rudolf, "Scientist at Work," this issue, p. 457.
464
The Revisionist ■ 2003 ■ Volume 1 • No. 4
Forced Confessions: Why Innocent Defendants Admit their Guilt
By Manfred Kohler
The series of articles in this issue of The Revisionist ad- dresses the question how it could be explained that many wit- nesses to the so-called 'Holocaust' testified about events that did not take place in the way described or not at all.
From a psychological standpoint of trying to make the revi- sionist position understandable to Johnny Doe, it is even more important to explain how defendants, who are accused - whether in trials or only in public - to have participated in, or merely been indifferent to, certain crimes, could confess their guilt even though it can be shown that they are innocent - most radically because the reported crimes did not happen at all.
In my analysis of "The Value of Testimony and Confes- sions Concerning the Holocaust,"1 1 pointed out several factors, which can lead a defendant to believe against his own recollec- tion that he is guilty for a crime he did not commit or which did not happen in the first place. Third degree torture, that is the in- fliction of painful physical injuries, is only one means to this end. Although it certainly was occasionally applied during in- terrogations in the early years after the war - Rudolf H6B2 and the infamous Dachau trials3 being the most prominent examples
- it is correct to conclude with Arthur Butz4 that physical vio- lence is hardly ever capable to changing the mind and mindset of a defendant permanently. He might sign a statement right af- ter the torture, but he is not likely to support it once he is out of reach of his torturers.
Much more effective are various brain washing techniques
- also referred to as second degree torture - which change the memory and the mindset of the defendant. If not treated psy- chologically, this can have dramatic lasting effects. The fol- lowing example, taken from a recent media report, highlights that such techniques are quite frequently used and have little to do with sophisticated psychological techniques or psycho- pharmaceuticals - quite contrary to popular belief. All that is needed is to isolate the defendant for an extended period of time from the outside world, to put him under emotional stress, and to expose him repeatedly to the stories he is sup- posed to endorse.
If we consider the situation of almost all defendants in- volved in trials of so-called National Socialist Violent Crimes, then it can easily be seen that in these cases the situation of the defendant was as extreme as it could get, whether it was during the trials in Dachau, Nuremberg, Krakow and elsewhere in 1945-1948, or during all the post-war trials held since 1949 in West Germany, or the Eichmann and Demjanjuk trials in Jeru- salem: All defendants were locked away for years prior to the actual start of the trial proceedings. They were for years ex- posed to massive accusation of involvement of the most atro- cious crimes, facing the destruction of their lives, either by capital punishment or by high prison sentences, and heard 'Holocaust' stories from public prosecutors, police officers, witnesses, the media, and sometimes perhaps even from their own defense lawyers. It would have required an enormously strong will and psychological resistance to withstand such tre- mendous mind-mending pressure.
Most defendants, of course, were not that strong. Eichmann, for example, succumbed totally. Others, like most defendants of the Auschwitz, Treblinka, and Majdanek trials, did not dare or could not imagine to contest the general story, but merely tried to save their own skin as good as possible, which was the only realistic defense strategy anyway, objectively seen, since trying to contest the entire story would have brought the wrath of the entire world upon both defendants and - more importantly and effectively - the defense lawyers.5
Reading the following dramatic story of everyday life in the United States should make everybody think twice before taking confessions of defendants in 'Nazi' trials at face value.
One night in April 1993, someone slit the throats of Gary Gauger's elderly parents on their farm near Richmond, Illi- nois. It was bad enough for Gauger to learn of his parents' violent death, but it turned out that his nightmare was just be- ginning.
Gauger told police that he was asleep on the property when his parents, Morris, 74, and Ruth, 70, were killed. But the po- lice didn't buy it, and brought him in for interrogation. After 21 hours of questioning, Gauger broke down and confessed to a crime he did not commit.
Though police had no physical evidence against him, the confession was enough to persuade a jury to convict him of double murder. He was sentenced to death.
Two years later, in an unrelated federal investigation, sur- veillance tapes captured a member of a motorcycle gang brag- ging about how he and another gang member had killed the Gaugers. The gang members were later convicted of the mur- ders and other crimes, and Gauger was freed in 1996, after spending three years behind bars.
Every year, thousands of criminals are convicted on the ba- sis of confessions obtained from police interrogations. Experts say law enforcement interrogation techniques are so effective that they can break down the most hardened criminal - and even people who are innocent of the crime they are being ac- cused of. Experts believe there have been hundreds of cases where innocent men succumbed to interrogation and confessed to crimes they did not commit.
"You take someone who is vulnerable, like a grieving fam- ily member or someone who isn't used to being confronted by police," says Rich Fallin, a former Maryland police officer who specialized in interrogations, "If interrogated long enough, they'll probably confess."
Assuming Police Tell the Truth
During his interrogation, Gauger says, he kept denying any involvement with the murders. But he says police told him they had evidence. He mistakenly assumed police would not lie to him, an assumption often made by innocent people undergoing interrogation, according to experts.
"They told me that they had found bloody clothes in my bedroom; they found a bloody knife in my pocket," says Gau-
The Revisionist ■ 2003 ■ Volume 1 ■ No. 4
465
ger, who never asked for an attorney, be- cause he felt he had nothing to hide.
At about 1 a.m., he says, the interro- gation turned ugly. Police showed him gruesome crime scene photos of his dead parents, sending him into an emotional freefall. The combination of losing his parents and being told by police repeat- edly that he was a liar and killer was just too much.
"I was emotionally distraught, look- ing at these people for help," he says. "They wouldn't stop the interrogation. I was exhausted. I gave up." Though Gau- ger had no memory of the crime, he ended up believing what police told him. "I thought I must have done it in a blackout," he says.
None of what Gauger described surprises Fallin. "They're kept in an interview room, in a cold interview room, with very little clothing on for hours and hours," he says, adding that people are often not given anything to drink or allowed to use the bathroom while being interrogated.
The detectives who interrogated Gauger refused to be inter- viewed by ABC NEWS, but their lawyer in Gauger's ongoing lawsuit denied that police lied. "I believe that the circumstances surrounding the interview of Gary Gauger were completely ap- propriate," says Jim Sotos, a defense attorney for the police, who is still trying to raise doubts about Gauger's innocence, even though another man is in jail for the crime.
Psychological Warfare
Allen Chestnet says he also fell victim to "thorough investi- gation." In May 1998, the developmentally disabled man, then 16, cut his hand at his home in Maryland. As he was sitting on his front porch, local reporters covering the murder of Chest- net's neighbor saw him. After noticing blood on his hand, they called state police.
Chestnet, who had no violent history, was picked up and in- terrogated for hours.
During the interrogation, he says, police seemed to have no doubts about his guilt.
"He was like, T know you did it, so why are you lying to me?'" says Chestnet. "They had me so upset, I wasn't thinking right."
For hours, he says, his interrogators told him he was a killer and said his denials were lies that were only getting him in deeper. He says he was desperate to appease the cops, who of- fered him an easy way out: by confessing.
Even after authorities determined that his DNA did not match traces found at the crime scene, Chestnet was kept in jail until November 1998, where he says he was stabbed and raped twice by other inmates. Authorities contend they still had rea- son to suspect his involvement in the murder.
To this day, Chestnet says he's afraid of the police. He is suing authorities over his arrest and incarceration.
In both the Chestnet and Gauger cases, police initially re- fused to admit they had coerced a confession from an innocent man, despite evidence clearing the suspect. According to Fallin,
Raymond Wood's interrogation was videotaped
this kind of attitude is pervasive among interrogators.
"Some of the detectives are hot shots. Some of them know they're good, know they can get a confession," he says. "No- body tells them what to do or how to do it."
"They Wore Me Down"
In Raymond Wood's case, detectives in Maine had nothing more than suspi- cion that he had hit his girlfriend with a car and killed her. But police turned up the heat to entice him to confess.
Wood had argued with his girlfriend, Bessie Selek, when he says he got fed up and drove to a store. Bessie, according to witnesses, left home soon after with a blood alcohol level of 0.28, walking in the opposite direction on a dark, remote road. She was hit by a car and killed.
"You have no idea how much evidence I have, Raymond, do you hear me?," one of the cops said during the interrogation, which was videotaped.
In fact, witnesses reported seeing a van with a broken head- light speeding from the scene. Wood's van had two working headlights. Also, a shattered bug shield at the scene didn't match the van Wood was driving.
Wood repeatedly denied any involvement in his girlfriend's death, but the police pressure was too much for him. After about six hours in police custody, he gave in.
"They literally, they wore me down. I was going through emotional torture by these people," he says. "They convinced me that I had to have done it."
After seeing the videotape, a judge threw out his confession and police dropped all charges, but not before Wood spent a year in jail. Police declined to be interviewed, citing an ongoing investigation into Selek' s death. But in a statement, they stood by their detectives.
Wood is free, but says it won't really be over until there's an apology from police.
"It would take them down off their God-like pedestal, that [they] can make no mistakes," says Wood, who would prefer an apology to financial compensation. "It would make them hu- man again."
ABC News, March 15, 2003
Notes
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/2020/2020/2020_020315_falseconfessions.html 1 In Germar Rudolf (ed.) Dissecting the Holocaust, Theses & Dissertations
Press, Chicago, IL, 2003, pp. 85-131. 1 Ibid., p. 96
3 Ibid, p. 92ff.
4 Arthur R. Butz, The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, 3rd ed., Theses & Dis- sertations Press, Chicago, IL, 2003, pp. 235f.
5 The only lawyer who ever went a little into that direction while defending an alleged 'perpetrator' by challenging witness testimony in general was de- fense lawyer Ludwig Bock during the Majdanek trial, and he subsequently felt the heat of public outrage, cf. M. Kohler, op. cit. (note 1), pp. 109f. To- day, it is illegal in Germany even for defense lawyers to challenge the 'Holocaust' as such, cf. ibid., p. 110.
466
The Revisionist ■ 2003 ■ Volume 1 ■ No. 4
Research News
Intelligence: Genetically Inherited or Learned Behavior?
By Andrea Schneider
The following is a press release recently issued by Dr. Paul M. Thompson about recent findings of his research team at the University of California in Los Angeles (UCLA) about the in- fluence of genetics on human intelligence. This information is one more argument fueling the long-lasting debate between the so-called behaviorist (egalitarian) school and the genetic school of sociology about the question whether intelligence and other personality traits are primarily inherited or formed by environ- mental influences. This research is one more piece of evidence putting more weight on the scale of the genetic school, although this school has been vilified and ostracized successfully since the end of World War Two, because it is being accused of as- sisting racist arguments, thus helping ideologies, which, as we all know, led directly to the gas chambers of 'Auschwitz.'
Of course, the evidence proves not only the average histo- rian's concept of 'Auschwitz' to be wrong, but also the average sociologist's concept of the nature of homo sapiens. Thus, we have to face the fact that the entire egalitarian ideology of to- day's western societies is built upon sand - historically as well as bio-sociologically.
Brain mapping researchers at the UCLA have created the first images to show how an individual's genes influence their brain structure and intelligence.
The findings, published in the November 5 issue of the jour- nal Nature Neuroscience, offer exciting new insight about how parents pass on personality traits and cognitive abilities and how brain diseases run in families.
The team found that the amount of gray matter in the frontal parts of the brain is determined by the genetic make-up of an individual's parents, and strongly correlates with that individ- ual's cognitive ability, as measured by intelligence test (IQ) scores.
More importantly, these are the first images to uncover how normal genetic differences influence brain structure and intelli- gence. Brain regions controlling language and reading skills were virtually identical in identical twins, who share exactly the same genes, while siblings showed only 60 percent of the nor- mal brain differences. This tight structural similarity in the brains of family members helps explain why brain diseases, including schizophrenia and some types of dementia, run in families.
Paul Thompson, Ph.D., the study's chief investigator and an assistant professor of neurology at the UCLA Laboratory of Neuro Imaging, said:
"We were stunned to see that the amount of gray matter
in frontal brain regions was strongly inherited, and also
predicted an individual's IQ score. The brain's language
areas were also extremely similar in family members. Brain regions that were found to be most similar in family mem- bers may be especially vulnerable to diseases that run in families, including some forms of psychosis and dementia. " The scientists employed magnetic resonance imaging (MPJ) technology to scan a group of 20 identical twins, whose genes are identical, and 20 same-sex fraternal twins, who share half their genes. Using a high-speed supercomputer, they created color-coded images showing which parts of the brain are de- termined by our genetic make-up, and which are more adapt- able to environmental factors, such as learning and stress.
To make the maps of genetic influences on the brain, the UCLA scientists teamed up with the National Public Health In- stitute of Finland, and the Finnish Universities of Helsinki and Oulu. In a national initiative, the Finnish team tracked all the same-sex twins born in Finland between 1940 and 1957 - 9,500 pairs of twins - many of whom received brain scans and cogni- tive tests. Their genetic similarity was confirmed by analyzing 78 different genetic markers. These individual pieces of DNA match exactly in identical twins, and half of them match in sib- lings.
Recent research has shown that many cognitive skills are surprisingly heritable, with strong genetic influences on verbal and spatial abilities, reaction times, and even some personality qualities, including emotional reactions to stress. These genetic relationships persist even after statistical adjustments are made for shared family environments, which tend to make members of the same family more similar. Until this study, little was known about how much individual genotype accounts for the wide variations among individual brains, as well as individual's cognitive ability.
The UCLA researchers are also applying this new genetic brain mapping approach to relatives of schizophrenic patients and individuals at genetic risk for Alzheimer's disease to screen them for early brain changes and help understand familial risk for inherited brain disorders where specific risk genes are un- known.
Further Reading
Paul M. Thompson et ah, "Genetic Influences on Brain Structure," Nature Neuroscience, 4(12) (November 2001). (www.loni.ucla.edu/~thompson/MEDIA/NN/Nature_Neuro200 l_genetics.pdf).
Contact Information:
Prof. Dr. Paul Thompson, Laboratory of Neuro Imaging, UCLA Medical Center, 710 Westwood Plaza, Westwood, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA.; thompson@loni.ucla.edu; ph: 310- 206-2101; fax: 310-206-5518
The Revisionist ■ 2003 ■ Volume 1 ■ No. 4
467
From the Records of the Frankfurt Auschwitz Trial, Part 4
By Germar Rudolf
In late 1958 and early 1959, public prosecutor Weber of the Public Prosecutor's Office in Stuttgart, Germany, received a large number of witness statements, mainly consisting of accu- sations against Wilhelm Boger, who was already in custody at that time for crimes allegedly committed by him in the former concentration camp at Auschwitz.1 Some of these witness statements will be investigated more closely in this article.
1. Lack of Knowledge = Lack of Credibility?
Gerhard Grande was incarcerated at the Auschwitz main camp between Easter 1 943 and April 1 944, where he served as a report secretary. In this position, he had some 80 inmates working for him as typists in the administration of the camp. There can be no doubt that he was thus in an excellent position to know what was going on in this camp. Although Grande confirms that W. Boger was known as a rough person, he claims to remember only one incident of corporal punishment: Early in 1944, an inmate with the name Osterloh had been pun- ished for stealing a pair of shoes: he was put on the "swing bow" and received several blows with a stick:2
"As far as I know, however, Osterloh did not sus- tain any physical injuries. " (p. 358R)
Grande also remembers that in the Fall of 1943 several in- mates who had worked outside of the camp were executed. They had murdered one of their guards. As a reprisal measure, some 20 Polish inmates had been executed as well. Grande at- tributes his inability to recall details to the amount of time that has passed since then and also to the fact that, as he claims, "such crimes were daily events" (p. 359R). At the end of the in- terrogation protocol, the interrogating officer Schubert wrote that Grande was unable to remember anything specific (ibid.).
It is noteworthy that Grande was only interrogated about al- leged crimes committed by Boger, although Grande, as a report secretary, would have certainly been able to testify about many more issues of the camp's organization and administrative pro- cedures and events. But at the time of his interrogation, appar- ently nobody was interested in learning about general condi- tions and events in Auschwitz.
Whereas the interrogating officer abstained from making any comment about Grande, it was entirely different regarding the witness Jakob Fries, a criminal inmate who had been trans- ferred to Auschwitz for a work assignment. In 1952, Fries had been sentenced to 14 years in prison for crimes not mentioned in the files. In contrast to the professional liar Rogner, however, Fries was not very cooperative. Because he could not contribute anything that would incriminate Boger, the interrogating officer simply refused to make a protocol of this interrogation:
"Fries did not make a credible impression and was not
eager to testify. One could get the impression that he made
no effort to clarify the matter at hand. Apart from this, he
made only general statements, which is why it was decided
not to protocol his interrogation. " (p. 437)
We therefore depend on the interrogating officer Weida's summary of Fries' statements. According to Weida, Fries was
head of all inmate labor commandos in the Auschwitz main camp, but regarding alleged crimes:
"He claims not to have heard anything about shootings in Auschwitz. [...] He merely remembers that in Auschwitz inmates, who had tried to climb over the fence, were shot by guards. He also claims to have heard nothing about other crimes against inmates. He claims to have learned only af- ter 1945 and through media reports what had been going on in Auschwitz and especially in Birkenau. " (p. 437R) Here we have a witness who is either unable to distinguish between what he experienced himself and what he learned only after the war, or a witness who, as the person responsible for the organization of forced labor, was himself so involved in criminal activities that he did not want to remember anything for tactical reasons. The interrogating officer probably assumed the latter. It must, of course, be assumed that Fries knew very well what was going on in Auschwitz, since his direct superior was none other than Hauptsturmfuhrer Aumeier, who was then the head of the "Protective Custody Camp" (Schutzhaftlager- fuhrer) and deputy commander of the entire camp.
Unfortunately, the interrogating officer did not explain why he considered Fries to be an unreliable witness. The lack of spe- cific memories could not, by itself, prove him unreliable, because if the interrogating officer considered only testimony that con- firmed a predetermined claim to be credible, this would indicate that the purpose of the entire proceeding was not to find the truth, but to find evidence for a foregone conclusion. And this would prove that the interrogating officer was not objective and that his entire legal case was legally unsound.
2. Rumors and Hearsay
"But gruesome things are supposed to have happened there, as I have heard. " (p. 393)3
This seems to be the main characteristic of an entire series of testimony that impresses with its wealth of detail about al- leged events in the Auschwitz camp; but how the witnesses gained their knowledge is unclear. As unyielding and unsatisfy- ing as the testimony of Grande and Fries may be, at least these two witnesses were honest to the degree that they did not invent things or declare as firsthand knowledge that, which they learned from hearsay from unnamed sources. The remaining testimonies in this file read more like horror fables. It seems in- credible that anyone can remember events in utmost detail after fifteen years.
The account of former SS-Mannes Emil Theodor Gehri is particularly enlightening in this regard. He was employed in the administration of inmate funds, which paid a small salary to all inmates. Gehri remembers that larger amounts of coins and valuables were sent to Berlin as time went by. He cannot testify about any mistreatment by SS-members (pp. 433, 435R), yet he states:
"Of course I know that essential portions of newly arriv- ing transports were gassed immediately since 1942. " (p. 434R)
468
The Revisionist ■ 2003 ■ Volume 1 ■ No. 4
The protocol does not reveal how he could know this, since he vehemently claims to have neither participated in it nor wit- nessed it:
"I myself was never present at a gassing [...]. was prohibited for us under threat of the most severe punish- ment to enter the crematoria and the area belonging to it. " (p. 433)
One possible source of his 'knowledge' is revealed at the very beginning of his interrogation, where he mentions that he had been put on trial in 1946 in Krakow, where he was sen- tenced to eight years imprisonment by the Polish authorities for his activities at the Auschwitz camp (p. 432). One page later, he reports about the source of his knowledge:
"It is said that those unfit for labor were separated im- mediately and came to Birkenau, where they were gassed. " "It is said" -in other words: it was claimed or rumored. . . But Gehri also testifies about exonerating details, probably more accidentally and most likely without the interrogating prosecutor noticing it: He describes how he, as the administra- tor of the inmate bank, needed to update his inmate lists with that of the political department of the camp each time an inmate had died. On each occasion, he also learned about the cause of death (p. 433R). He elaborates on this as follows:
"The number of deaths rose only when a typhus epi- demic broke out in 1942 and later several times again. Each time after the epidemic waned, the number of deaths re- ceded as well. " (p. 434R)
Gehri is unaware of either the "Boger swing" or the "Black Wall" (p. 434R), but he mentions fistfight contests (p. 435).
The testimony of Jakob Sebastian is a particularly extreme case of hearsay. The most dramatic parts of his statement read as follows:
"It then became known to the inmates within the camp that the relatives of the escaped inmate are said to have been executed by SS-Oberscharfuhrer Palitzsch. The 3 year old child is even said to have asked innocently what would happen there. Palitzsch is said to have grabbed the infant at its legs and battered it against the wall with the remark: 'We do not shot such a thing! ' At that time, it was an open secret in the camp that this event had happened under the direction ofBoger. [...]
In this case as well I have to declare that I myself did not see Boger committing any cruel acts or being in- volved in the shooting of the relatives of the escaped inmate. I know this only due to what other inmates told me and due to the general mood and views that Boger was at least re- sponsible for these things. " (p. 489) The interrogating officer Matthaus added:
"K r o n a u e r made his statement freely and repeat- edly indicated that the events are also reported in the book 'Mutzen ab ' [hats off] by Zenon Rozanski - Eine Reportage aus der Strafkompanie des KZ.Auschwitz [A report from the penal company of the Auschwitz camp] -published in 1948 by 'Das andere Deutschland', owned by Fritz Kuster, in Hanover. Kronauer owns this book. [...]
In September 1958, Jakob Kronauer had been put into the Psychiatric Clinic Heppenheim, because he had ut- tered suicidal intentions after a nervous breakdown [...].
Already on Nov. 24, 1945, Kronauer was interrogated about his incarceration. He then basically made the same statements as those made above, without giving any details about the behavior of the guards. This interrogation, how- ever, was only about the duration of his incarceration and was initiated by the Association of Former Political Prison- ers in Hesse.
On June 24, 1946, the former landlord, at whose house Kronauer lived, the late Jakob Kling, Sedanstrasse 36, stated on request that Kronauer had been a 'Kapo ' at Auschwitz. Because Kronauer had disappeared for two days, he assumed that former Displaced Persons - at that time residing in Lampertheim — might have recognized him and might have caused his arrest. On June 26, 1946, Kro- nauer reported to the local police and stated that he had been interrogated for two days in Bensheim, but had been released thereafter. " (pp. 493f.)
I have quoted this as extensively as I have because these statements emphasize four points:
1. As Kronauer admits himself, he did not report from his own experience but from what he had learned otherwise.
2. Kronauer was obviously mentally instable, which might have made him susceptible to suggestive, memory-distor- ting influences of dramatic stories.
3 . In an interrogation performed only ten months after the end of the war, he apparently did not see any reason to make any statements about misbehaviors of former camp guards, even though his memory was still quite fresh at that time and the interrogating inmate organization was certainly open for such reports.
4. "Kapos" or inmate supervisors were very often the main culprits for cruelties committed against other inmates in German concentration camps. It is therefore possible that Kronauer himself did not have a clear conscience, i.e., that he had a vested interest in accusing others in order to dis- tract attention from himself and in order to secure the goodwill of former inmates and their organizations.
3. Testimony Manipulated by the Auschwitz Committee
In two instances in the file investigated here, the influence of the communist-dominated Auschwitz Committee under the leadership of former Auschwitz inmate and longtime active communist Hermann Langbein can be proved:
On January 21, 1958, Public Prosecutor Weber wrote about the situation of the defendant Boger:
"it cannot be ignored that the defence situation of the defendant is unfavorable, because accusations are system- atically filed by the Auschwitz Committee, which has its headquarters in Krakow [Poland]. The incriminating mate- rial includes, among others, written statements of individu- als from communist countries who can neither be reached nor verified. " (p. 477)
In the 1950s, an organization could only have its headquar- ters in Poland if it was Stalinist and radically anti-German in nature, or in other words: if it was willing to continue the Ilya- Ehrenburg-style atrocity propaganda started during World War II. By juxtaposing two of the written testimonies filed by the Auschwitz Committee with the Public Prosecution of Stuttgart,
The Revisionist ■ 2003 ■ Volume 1 ■ No. 4
469
it can be shown that there is something fishy about these testi- monies (see table).
Both witnesses lived in the same town, dated their state- ments with the same day, and sent it to Stuttgart at roughly the same time as all the other Polish witnesses, obviously encour- aged by the Auschwitz Committee. It can easily be recognized that the style and content of the two testimonies are so similar that one has to assume that the witnesses prepared their testi- mony together or that they were instructed by the Auschwitz Committee, or both.
4. Bock and Rogner: Two False Witnesses
Parts of Richard Bock's testimony, written down during the investigations for the Auschwitz trial, are sometimes quoted by revisionists and used as evidence of the lack of credibility of this and other similar testimonies.5 The statements quoted stem from an interrogation of Nov. 2, 1960. Bock had, however, al- ready been interrogated much earlier: on February 5, 1959.
Bock was a driver in the car pool of the Auschwitz camp, where his primary duty was to organize the transport of sup- plies for the camp.6 Both the style and the content of his testi- mony clearly indicate that he identified much more with the former inmates of the camp than with his former SS comrades - at least during the time of his interrogations. For example, he claims that he smuggled mail in and out of the camp over an extended period of time (pp. 447, 461, 463). Although an inves- tigation by the political department (Gestapo) was initiated as a result, there were no consequences for Bock (pp. 449-451). And even though he had been arrested for a short period of time in the context of those investigations, he claims to have never heard anything about the "Boger swing" (p. 450). His comical descriptions of his alleged resistance activities are a clear indi-
cation that his hero stories are either not true or that the Ge- stapo in Auschwitz was utterly harmless.
Due to his intensive contacts with the inmates, Bock also had contact with inmate Adolf Rogner, who, according to Bock, was a "Kapo" in Auschwitz and a member of the so- called camp underground, which even owned its own radio transmitter (p. 446). It is thus quite possible that Rogner be- longed to that circle of inmates described by Bruno Baum as being proud to have put into circulation the Auschwitz propa- ganda, which is now spreading all over the world.7 As a mem- ber of an "Inmate Investigative Commission," Rogner also managed to liberate Bock from Allied post-war incarceration by organizing several affidavits of former inmates who testi- fied on behalf of Bock (pp. 443, 459-465). During his second interrogation, Bock mentions further that Rogner was em- ployed in the electrical department of the car pool (p. 6879). In other words: Bock and Rogner were obviously friends. This is also the only explanation for why Bock repeatedly mentions Rogner in his testimony without having any reason to do so.
The first three installments of this series reported in detail about the perjured liar and professional denunciator Rogner.8 Bock's relationship with Rogner raises the suspicion that some- thing other than dedication to the truth was hiding behind Bock's eagerness to testify, as was the case with Rogner. I therefore will analyze Bock's statements in more detail.
During his first interrogation, Bock claimed that he had wit- nessed a gassing "once myself. That must have been in summer of 1943" (p. 453). During his second interrogation, this gassing suddenly took place "in the winter of 1942/43" (p. 6881). Even though it was "strictly prohibited" for him as an unauthorized person, he easily managed to get to the gas chamber by getting
'Witness' Testimony - 'Organized' by the Communist Auschwitz Committee
"Henryk Wysoczynski [...]
Together with 400 other inmates, I arrived at the concen- tration camp Auschwitz from the Gestapo prison in Lodz on February 28, 1943. Only seven of these 400 survived the hell of Auschwitz.
I was accused to be a member of the resistance movement, and was forced to do heavy work in the commando fish ponds. ' After the quarantine during May, I worked in the com- mando 'fish ponds Raysko ' until May 5, 1943. [...]
In August 1944, the soldiers of the Soviet army, who were incarcerated at Birkenau, fled. Four of them were arrested a brought back to Birkenau, were they were supposed to be exe- cuted. One day (I cannot recall the exact date) the were sup- posed to be hanged after the roll call.
Accompanied by SS men, they were led into the camp. Prior to the execution, which took place in front of the kitchen, one of them attacked SS-Oberscharfuhrer Boger. The SS men threw this inmate on the ground and SS-Oberscharfuhrer Boger beat him and kicked him with his feet. Then Boger put the noose around the neck of all four and hanged them. I have seen this and all comrades had to watch this execution.
I was in Auschwitz until January 18, 1945, and I had the inmate number 97,640. " (p. 425)
"[...] Windyslaw[\..]
I arrived at the concentration camp Auschwitz on Feb- ruary 28, 1943, coming from the Gestapo prison together with 400 other inmates. As a political prisoner I had the inmate number 97,673. I was assigned to the working commando 'kitchen ' in Auschwitz Birkenau.
I was from February 28 until January 18, 1945, in Au- schwitz, i.e. until the evacuation of the inmates.
The prisoners of the Soviet Army were also in this camp. In the month of August 1944, some of these prisoners fled from the camp. Within a short while, four of them were recaptured by the SS and brought back to Birkenau. They were supposed to be punished with death.
The gallows were erected in front of the kitchen and af- ter the roll call, I forgot the date of this day, the soldiers were supposed to be executed by hanging.
SS men led the soldiers, tied with wire, [illegible...] af- ter the roll call. When they stood already before the gal- lows, one of the soldiers broke loose and attacked Boger. SS men threw [illegible...] soldier down and Boger beat [illegible. . .] and he kicked him with his feet.
[illegible...] all four soldiers hanged [illegible...]" (p. 426)
470
The Revisionist ■ 2003 ■ Volume 1 ■ No. 4
a ride in the ambulance car (ibidem). Similar to this is another statement in his first interrogation, where he secretly witnesses an execution in a gravel pit by simply "following" the column of the executee and his SS guards "in a few meters distance" (p. 451). According to Bock, the command for the execution of inmates was: "Ready, set, go!" (p. 452).
There are three options: a) the gassings/executions were not secret (that is, Bock is lying in this regard); b) the SS consisted of dim-witted morons who did not follow the most primitive security measures and did not even notice it when somebody followed them only a few meters away into a gravel pit; or c) Bock is lying about these events. Since an execution is not a 100 meter sprint - execution commands are something like "Ready, aim, fire!" - the reader can figure out by himself which case is most likely given regarding Bock.
Another of Bock's allegations fits perfectly into this picture: He claims that one day he was ordered to come with a truck- load of sandwiches to the railroad ramp at Birkenau, where a selection of incoming inmates was taking place, but he eventu- ally had to return again with all of his sandwiches (p. 6884). According to Bock, the reason for this was:
"Because they wanted to be prepared if a commission
would come from Switzerland to observe the 'resettlement
of the Jews'. " (p. 6883)
Bock speculates that those sandwiches were meant to make the commission of the International Red Cross believe that the inmates were treated well. For the same reason, the van used to transport Zyklon B to the gas chamber had allegedly been cam- ouflaged with a Red Cross symbol (ibidem). As if the mighty SS was not in control of whether or not a delegation of the Red Cross would enter the camp, and as if anybody would have been fooled by a few sandwiches into ignoring the allegedly atrocious general conditions in the camp !
On pages 6882f, we find those statements that have been frequently quoted and interpreted as indications that this wit- ness makes false claims:
"Finally, an SS man came, I believe it was a Rottenfuh- rer, to our ambulance and got out a gas canister. With this gas canister he then went to a ladder, which stood at the right side of this building, seen from the gate. At the same time, I noticed that he had a gas mask on while climbing the ladder. After he had reached the end of the ladder, he opened the circular tin lid and shook the contents of the canister into the opening. I clearly heard the rattling of the canister against the wall, as he hit it while shaking it out. Simultaneously I saw a brown dust rise through the wall opening. When he had closed the little door again, an inde- scribable crying began in the chamber. I simply cannot de- scribe how these humans cried. That lasted approximately 8-10 minutes, and then all was silent. A short time after- wards, the door was opened by inmates and one could see a bluish cloud floating over a gigantic pile of corpses. " (p. 6882)
"At any rate, I was surprised that the inmate commando which was assigned to remove the bodies, entered the chamber without gas masks, although this blue vapor floated over the corpses, from which I assumed that it was a gas. " (S. 6883)
Since Zyklon B does not produce a brown dust when poured out of its cans, and hydrogen cyanide gas is colorless, and the inmate commando cannot have been immune against the same poison gas that killed the victims within a few minutes just a few moments earlier, it is obvious that Bock cannot have seen what he claims to have seen.
But this is not yet all. In the fall of 1941, Bock claims to have accidentally witnessed, how 60 prisoners were gassed in the crematorium I, located in the Auschwitz main camp:
"In the fall of 1941, I observed one evening after my shift at the car pool was over how Ustuf. [SS Untersturm- fuhrer] Gr abner stopped in front of crematorium a, main camp, with some 60 male Jews, coming from the di- rection of the train station Auschwitz. Then he drove all Jews into the crematorium by ordering them to go in there. After all Jews had entered, I saw how another SS man stepped onto the crematorium and opened some kind of a shutter. At the same time I heard terrible screams, but this lasted only a short while. Then it was silent. " (p. 6886) This statement is problematic for several reasons:
1. According to official historiography, there was only one gassing during the fall of 1941, and it allegedly took place in the basement of camp building no. 1 1 with several hun- dred Russian POWs as victims.9 It is the general belief that the mortuary of the old crematorium of the main camp has been redesigned for use as a 'gas chamber' in 1942, hence could not have been used for gassings in late 1941.
2. The alleged gas chamber of the old crematorium was a rela- tively large mortuary by its design. According to established historiography, several hundred victims were murdered in it, not just 60.
3. Bock himself admits that the car pool at Auschwitz, where he worked day in day out for several years, was located just on the other side of the road, near the old crematorium - Bock even added a hand drawn map to this effect to the pro- tocol of his interrogation (p. 6887, map p. 458). How is it that he neither witnessed nor even heard anything about the mass gassings, which allegedly took place in that cremato- rium during the years 1942-1943 according to orthodox his- toriography?
Bock tries to balance his general lack of knowledge about what was going on on the other side of the road by claiming that he made the following observation:
"In any case, during the entire time of my presence in Auschwitz I could observe that inmate corpses were cre- mated in the old crematorium. This decreased somewhat only toward the end of 1944. I could see every day how the flames shot two meters high out of the chimney. It also smelled intensively like burned flesh. " The following comments have to be made about these claims:
1 . The old crematorium in the main camp was taken out of op- eration after the new crematoria in Birkenau went into op- eration in spring 1943. In early 1944, the old crematorium was converted into an air raid shelter. Thus, Bock cannot possibly have witnessed cremations at the main camp until the end of 1944.
2. For technical reasons, no flames can come shooting out of a crematorium chimney. Either Bock lied, or he hallucinated,
The Revisionist ■ 2003 ■ Volume 1 ■ No. 4
471
or he talked himself into believing things he heard from elsewhere.
3. Coke-fired crematorium chimneys might emit the smell of burning coke, but certainly not the smell of burning flesh. A repetitive theme is the claim that SS men participated at selections for mass gassings because they were rewarded with alloweance of schnapps (p. 393, Bock, p. 6884). Additional al- lowances of food and liquor for difficult tasks may actually have existed, but the allegation that the SS was an accumulation of drunkards raises the suspicion that the source for such a cli- che are Polish propagandists and vodka lovers, projecting from themselves onto others.
I want to mention only as an aside that Bock shifts the con- struction of the Birkenauer railway ramp to the year 1943 (p. 6880) - it was constructed in 1944. But here he might for once have just erred. The remainder of Bock's Statements are basi- cally nothing else but - well, I cannot hold it back, so please forgive me - B.S. ©
Notes
First published in Vierteljahreshefte fiirfreie Geschichtsforschung, 7(2) (2003), pp. 224-229. Reproductions of Public Prosecutor Weber's assessment of Boger's defence situation as well as six pages of Richard Bock's testimony are print there.
1 Cf. TR 1(1) (2003), pp. 115-118; 1(2) (2003), pp. 235-238; 1(3) (2003), pp. 352-358.
All vol. and page nos refer to: Staatsanwaltschaft beim LG Frankfurt (Main), Strafsache beim Schwurgericht Frankfurt (Main) gegen Baer und Andere we- gen Mordes, ref. 4 Js 444/59; vol. 3, pp. 325-494, vol. 29, pp. 6677-6903.
3 The first 1 7 pages of this interrogation protocol are illegible so that the name of the witness is unknown.
4 Name hardly legible.
5 Cf. G. Rudolf, The Rudolf Report, Theses & Dissertations Press, Chicago, IL, p. 203ff.; J. Graf, Auschwitz - Tatergestandnisse und Augenzeugen des Holocaust, Neue Visionen Verlag, Wiirenlos 1994, pp. 213-218.
6 In this context Bock's remark should be noted that the truck driven by him was a "producer gas" truck, that is: a poison gas truck, p. 442.
7 B. Baum, Widerstand in Auschwitz, Ostberlin 1949, p. 34.
8 The verdict against Adolf Rogners for perjury became effective, ibid. , p. 40 1 .
9 Cf. in this regard Carlo Mattogno, Auschwitz: La prima gasazione, Edizioni di Ar, Salerno 1992.
Book Reviews
Bulldozing the Facade of Israel As Victim
By Francis Dixon
Michael Hoffman, Moshe Lieberman, The Israeli Holo- caust against the Palestinians: A Chronicle of War-crimes and Atrocities against People Judged Less Than Human by the U.S. Government and Media, Independent History and Research Co., Coeur d'Alene 2003, 110 pp., paperback, $12.95.
During the past several years, the State of Israel has made crystal clear that it will not stand for a Palestinian state. The Is- raelis have recently been signaling that even a Palestinian homeland in the rump districts West Bank and Gaza, honey- combed as these are by Israeli colonists, is unacceptable. And now it seems as if Israel is gearing up to "transfer" {i.e., expel) the bulk of the Palestinians, perhaps during a future Mideast distraction, from what remains of their ancestral country.
The evidence of these Israeli intentions has been rather more forceful than official statements or diplomatic communiques: since September 2000 Israeli troops and police have violated Muslim shrines; invaded Pales- tinian territory; shot down youthful demon- strators; shelled, rocketed, and machine- gunned civilian settlements with U.S.- pro- vided ordnance; cold-bloodedly murdered suspected adversaries and civilian bystanders alike; hauled off thousands of Palestinians to concentration camps, where many of them have been tortured; taken hostages for use as
'flu- Krucii liiilnriiuM
AtfuinHt tin.' Palestinians
human shields during their forays into Palestinian towns; blown up or bulldozed the homes of relatives of alleged guerrillas in a Sippenhaft policy reminiscent of the latter days of the Third Reich; and destroyed as much of the Palestinians' economy as has seemed practical. All this at a time when Israel's chief sponsor, the United States of America, was becoming em- broiled in an international war of terror in which at least ap- peasing, if not winning, the hearts and minds of a large majority of the world's one billion Muslims is crucial to success. None- theless, the facts and the implications of Israel's treatment of the Palestinians have been so expertly spun, and spiked, by America's media that most Americans re- main fixated on the sporadic Palestinian ter- ror attacks against Israelis rather than the far bloodier policies that provoke them.
Michael Hoffman, a seasoned journalist, and Moshe Lieberman, a researcher for the late Israeli dissident Israel Shahak, go a good way toward setting the record straight in The Israeli Holocaust against the Palestinians. Part compilation of previously published re- ports by objective journalists from around the world, part sharp and sometimes impassioned analysis, and part historical background, the book provides compelling and graphic evi- dence in pictures and print of the ongoing atrocity of Israeli policy toward the Palestini- ans. The authors might perhaps have better organized the medley of different articles and chapters in The Israeli Holocaust against the
All
The Revisionist ■ 2003 ■ Volume 1 • No. 4
Palestinians, Yet the interweaving of reportage on such specific incidents as the destruction of Jenin and the Israeli shelling of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Bethlehem with critiques of how U.S. policy makers enabled these crimes and American media misreported the facts makes for a satisfying and often in- formative texture.
The potential appeal of The Israeli Holocaust against the Palestinians is somewhat reduced by the tone of the book, in which justified anger sometimes gives way to shrillness. Chap- ter titles such as "The Bethlehem Church Fire and Talmudic Lies" and political judgments such as "The Right-wing in Ame- rica, properly described as 'kosher conservative'..." (p. 11), as well as passages that breathe a Delphic conspiratorialism ("In this, the Cryptocracy's Revelation of the Method era..." p. 9),
fairly well assure that this book's impact will largely be on those already open to informed and forthright condemnations of Israeli brutality and American complicity. Nonetheless, even at its most impassioned, Hoffman's writing in The Israeli Holo- caust against the Palestinians is nearly always informed, and above all (so rare a commodity in most writing on this topic!) interesting.
As with most books "mainstream" publishers wouldn't touch, the design is amateurish, though the covers are arresting and the binding seems strong. While $12.95 might seem steep for so short a book, all in all The Israeli Holocaust against the Palestinians is a bargain at that price and well worth buying and reading.
Conspiracy - the Umpteenth
By John Weir
Dr. John Coleman, Conspirators' Hierarchy: The Story of the Committee of 300, America West, Carson City, NV, 1992, 267 pp., $16.95.
"Three can keep a secret, if two of them are dead. "
Benjamin Franklin
One thing that strikes a student of the history of the United States is the trend toward expanding and centralizing the power of the Federal government, particularly since America's War between the States.
There is no question that the bureaucracy governed from Washington, D.C., has never been larger, better funded, and more powerful than it is today. Taxation and regulations by the central authority have never been more onerous or ubiquitous. The government's domestic policies are driving jobs overseas, while encouraging the immigration of mil- lions of foreign workers with little educa- tion and even less in common with Ameri- can culture and traditional values.
The question is not whether government actions have brought about these results, but whether they are the unintended conse- quences of an incompetent government, or the intended outcome of a program to de- stroy America both economically and cul- turally.
Dr. John Coleman's answer is that the situation America and Americans confront today is the result of a conspiracy that dates back centuries, spans continents and impli- cates thousands of the political and private elite across the entire political spectrum.
His unified field theory of conspiracies includes - but is not limited to - such events as the creation of the United Nations in the 1940s, the invasion of America by the Beatles in the 1960s, the assassination
Conspirators' HIERARCHY:
Tin: Story of the
Committee of
300
of President John F. Kennedy; the resignation of President Richard M. Nixon, and the ousters of the Shah of Iran and of Manuel Noriega of Panama.
A major source of income for the conspirators in what Coleman calls the "Committee of 300" is the illegal drug trade. The drugs that are the main source of this income are heroin and other opiates, although in the 1980s cocaine started to play a larger role. This means of funding goes back to the eighteenth century and the capstone of the racket is the British monarchy.
Using the money generated by the drug trade and govern- ment taxation, the conspirators operate through foundations, political think tanks, and such channels of pop culture as book publishing, television, radio, and Hollywood movies in order to push its political agenda.
The ultimate goal of the Committee of 300 is the control of all the world's natural resources. Since the Committee views the limited resources of the planet as ex- haustible - a la Thomas Malthus - the hu- man population needs to be drastically re- duced to a level of "sustainability." This means that to achieve this goal, 90 percent of the people living on the planet will have to die without leaving replacements.
"Committee of 300" appears to be a term of Dr. Coleman's invention. How he came to use it is not explained - the con- spiracy doesn't appear to contain a fixed number of three hundred members. Promi- nent people move in and out of front or- ganizations and government agencies on a regular basis. Yet the conspiracy itself re- mains constant. That this group has oper- ated for as long as it has, with its constant turnover in lower-level membership, with- out being challenged or exposed, is in- credible.
Despite the amazing size and longevity of the conspiracy, the author's proof of it is
The Revisionist ■ 2003 ■ Volume 1 • No. 4
473
to be found nowhere in the book. There are no footnotes. There are no specific references to consult. The reader is expected to believe Dr. Coleman based on his word. He claims to have at one time had access to the secret, private papers of the Commit- tee as a member of a government intelligence agency - yet he neither reproduces nor quotes from any of these papers in the book. The best his presentation does is give some historical facts, which he contends are related to describe the big picture.
The book itself is poorly organized. There are no chapters, and the topics covered appear and reappear throughout. Don't expect chronology: Time shifts randomly. This may give some insight into how Dr. Coleman thinks.
Dr. Coleman may be right nonetheless, but as Gertrude Stein wrote "there is no there there" in this book. Or it may be he is partially right in that the picture he presents is a distortion of the truth. Conspiracies certainly exist. People cooperate to- ward goals all the time. Sometimes groups work in secret. There is nothing outlandish about that. But one has to wonder if some "unintended consequences" of history were really unin- tended at all.
A case in point is the recent war in Afghanistan. Though this book was written while George Bush the Elder was presi- dent, Dr. Coleman explains the importance of the heroin trade to the conspirators. The elder Bush invaded Panama allegedly
to help stem the flow of cocaine into the U.S. Yet the drag trade from South America didn't slow. It simply shifted west, away from Florida. This implies that Panama may be a better cocaine transit hub now than it was under the man ousted by the U.S. invasion. Then, when the Taliban cut the poppy crop by 98 per- cent (see the 2001 Drug Enforcement Agency Drug Situation Report for Afghanistan from South America www.usdoj.gov/ dea/pubs/intel/intel0901.html) they suddenly became intoler- able for the West. The attack on New York City and Washing- ton, D.C., on September 11, 2001, was quickly followed by George Bush the Younger' s ousting of the Taliban, and the planting of more opium in Afghanistan than had been grown there in years. One has to wonder if that was an unintended consequence or merely an unstated goal of the invasion. Re- moving the Taliban to resume opium cultivation is all the more convincing as a motive for the U.S. -led invasion since the res- toration of the poppy fields is about the only thing that has changed in Afghanistan since the Taliban were removed to Pakistan.
Coleman's suggestive insight into the importance of the trade in addictive drags to the Conspiracy is one of the few credits that can be awarded to his book. Otherwise, there is lit- tle to recommend in Conspirators ' Hierarchy.
The Blind Spots of Mainstream 'Holocaust Research'
By Germar Rudolf
Harry James Cargas (ed.), Problems Unique to the Holo- caust, University of Kentucky Press, Lexington 2003, pb, 198 pp., $19.95
Are there any problems that are unique to the 'Holocaust'? Asking this question in a revisionist periodical seems to be a bad joke. But when mainstream scholars use this question as the title for a collection of essays, hope arises that finally they might understand that there are some unique problems with the 'Holocaust,' indeed.
To cut this review short: no, they don't get it. Rather than addressing any of the real problems of the 'Holocaust' - lack of physi- cal and documentary evidence, evidence re- futing or contradicting many claims, unreli- ability, false, and contradictory witness ac- counts, suppression of research, researchers, and research results, monopolization of the entire dispute - all the fourteen authors can do is to philosophize over moral dilemmas allegedly experienced by 'Holocaust survi- vors' who might have made arrangements with their suppressors and 'Holocaust' perpe- trators in order to survive, or who made other morally ambiguous decisions. "Can Betrayal Ever Be Legitimate?", "The Moral Dilemma of Motherhood in the Nazi Death Camps", "Holocaust Victims of Privilege", "Suicides
or Murders?", "Holocaust Suicides", "Indifferent Accom- plices", "Reflections of Post-Holocaust Ethics"... This excerpt of headlines of some of the papers presented in this volume in- dicates that moral navel gazing of 'Holocaust victims' and their fan community is the main focus of this book.
Thus, contrary to what one might hope, this book is not solving any problems unique to the 'Holocaust,' it is actually a part of the problem, and as such it is increasing the problem.
The second paper by David Patterson, for ex- ample, spreads lies with its claim that an "or- der came from Berlin" that "No more Jewish children are to be born." (p. 11) Of course, there is no evidence for this, and the fact that many babies were born and left alive in Auschwitz is evidence enough that this is not true. But this entire paper is built upon this lie: "in Birkenau maternal love was a capital crime" (p. 13). On pages 15-17, the author tells some atrocious fairy tales about Joseph Mengele. On page 12, Patterson quotes from a Jew's diary:
"This murderous German nation! That [killing pregnant Jewish women] was their chief joy! "
This quotation goes uncommented, leav- ing a stench of anti-Germanism in the air.
The only headline which raised hopes to address a real problem - "Is Objectivity
474
The Revisionist ■ 2003 ■ Volume 1 • No. 4
Morally Defensible in Discussing the Holocaust?" by Robert S. Frey - is also a disappointment. I wrongly hoped to find ques- tions like 'Is it morally defensible to discuss victim numbers, murder methods, exact circumstances of suffering, credibility of witness accounts, etc.?' What Frey does discuss in his essay is merely the question if medical experiments with involuntary human guinea pigs should be permissible. Since I cannot imag- ine anybody answering this with yes, I wonder why this needs to be discussed in the first place.
Dogmatic opposition against revisionism flares up at several instances in this book. For instance, in his essay about "Intrud- ing on Private Grief," Hunter defends the necessity that non- survivors must be allowed to critically write about the 'survi- vors' experiences:
"Shoah [...] needs that common discourse if, for exam- ple, the lies of the deniers are to be countered. [...] if we re- ject our common discourse, [...] we lose the moral grounds upon which to deny the deniers their [...] claim to 'equal time ' and a fair hearing. ' " (pp. 127.)
Isn't that fantastic? They claim moral superiority due to the fact that they guarantee a discourse with 'survivors,' only to take this moral superiority then as a justification to deny the same discourse with those harboring dissenting views, as "fair hearing" is just another word for discourse.
Another morally superior author is Leon Stein, who defends the right of Christians to be 'Holocaust' scholars - which seems to be necessary, as most scholars are Jewish and view non-Jews with suspicion, as Stein claims (pp. 135-151). One argument used by him to buy an entry ticket into the prosperous field of 'Holocaust studies' runs as follows:
"Christian participation in Holocaust scholarship and teaching provides a dramatic refutation of Holocaust den- iers [...]. Christians are passionately opposed to denial [...]. "(p. 149)
What an academic prostitute! Hence, this book is nothing more than another superfluous waste paper product churned out by screwed-up minds of the Holocaust Industry. A perfect waste of time, money, resources, and energy.
Jewish Supremacism
By Germar Rudolf
David Duke, Jewish Supremacism. My Awakening to the Jewish Question, Free Speech Press, Mandeville, LA, 2003, he, 368 pp., $24.95
Who would want to associate himself with a former Ku Klux Klan member, a convict currently sitting in a federal prison for (probably constructed) tax charges, a man described as a neo-Nazi, anti-Semite, racist? That being said, the worst that can be said about this book is said.
I received this book as a gift, accepting it a bit reluctantly with a strange feeling in my stomach. After a while, I started reading it, more because I had run out of other literature and got bored during my dinners than due to genuine interest. Once started, I couldn't put it down anymore. I actually took it with me to the emergency room after I had pulled my right hamstring so badly during beach volleyball that I thought I might have a more serious injury. But the only new insight I got during my stay at the hospital was that you better not take such books with you in public unless you want to either make enemies or embar- rass yourself by falsely distancing yourself from a book you actually like.
As in his first book My Awakening, this one also has a biographical style, in that Duke describes how he learned about Jew- ish influence in western societies, Jewish rules and laws, Jewish attitudes, and the way western society reacts to it. His story thus flows naturally and is pleasant to read.
Duke's central thesis is that Judaism is an ideology based on the 'racist' assumption
that Jews are superior to non-Jews, and that they try and greatly succeeded to gain decisive influence - disproportionately large as compared to their percentage of the population - over many important aspects of western societies. These claims are, of course, to be expected from a "neo-Nazi, anti-Semite..." How- ever, Duke is smart enough to almost exclusively rely on main- stream and in particular Jewish sources to support his thesis, and as such his book is convincing to a great degree.
There are a few issues that I personally disagree with, in particular when he endorses the thesis that Jews are, indeed, a distinct race genetically considerably different from non-Jews. Although nowadays promoted by many Jews themselves, the scientific evidence to support this is, in my eyes, too meager to make such a far-reaching conclusion. Such a thesis also prevents the only possible solu- tion that the Jewish question can possibly have, if one wants to solve it at all, that is dissolution by assimilation. It is easier to as- similate a group with merely cultural differ- ences than one which thinks it is genetically set apart from the rest of us (whether it is true or not).
As convincing and worthwhile as Duke's book might appear to many: A really convincing book on the Jewish ques- tion would require a book published by a David Duke together with a Jewish critic of his who is willing to confront Duke's argu- ments, if he can. Such a dispute would sepa- rate Duke's chaff from his grain, and would convince the reader that what is left over really is close to the truth. Don't say yet it is unrealistic! There are Jews who might be
The Revisionist ■ 2003 ■ Volume 1 • No. 4
475
willing to do this, perhaps under a pseudonym, because many Jews are appalled by the conduct of many of their mighty and influential brethren in particular and by Jewish supremacism in general. One just needs to keep looking. Because if we do not get such a dialogue, books like this one will keep preaching to the choir of those not afraid to be labeled "neo-Nazi, anti-Semite, racist..."
Everything could be done better, of course: the layout is a
bit poor, and it appears that Duke quite frequently relied on second hand sources or popular literature to support his points, which he should avoid when making such controversial claims. But considering that this book was rushed to the printer shortly before Duke had to start serving his sentence, it can be ex- pected that such flaws might be remedied in a future revised edition.
Book Notices
By Francis Dixon
iKiiirt ciititt it tun tttm iu> EDWIN BLACK
Edwin Black, War against the Weak: Eugenics and Amer- ica's Campaign to Create a Master Race, Four Walls Eight Windows, New York 2003, 592 pp., hardcover, $27
War against the Weak is a much- heralded attempt to make the Ameri- can eugenics movement of the early twentieth century the direct inspira- tion for Hitler's euthanasia program, if not the fanciful gas chambers of Auschwitz. Unfortunately, the jour- nalistic weaknesses of superficiality, exaggeration, and partisanship that Black displayed in his earlier IBM and the Holocaust and The Transfer Agreement are just as evident in War against the Weak. Black's impres- sive rosters of American supporters of eugenics and depressing catalogs of coercive state measures against the helpless can be found in such standard works as Kevles's In the Name of Eugenics - minus his flawed interpre- tation of the eugenics movement in general and U.S. and Ger- man eugenic policies in particular.
Ovidio Diaz Espino, How Wall Street Created a Nation: J.P. Morgan, Teddy Roosevelt and the Panama Canal, Four Walls Eight Windows, NY 2003, 276 pp., paperback, $16
A retelling by a Panamanian his- torian of the story of how the United States, led by President Theodore Roosevelt, banker J.P. Morgan, and assorted other adventurers, financed the secession of the Panamanian isthmus from Colombia, then pro- ceeded to construct the long mooted canal between Atlantic and Pacific across the newly created state of Pa- nama. Diaz Espino doesn't unearth much that's new, but the details of this hundred-year-old exercise in covert action, preemption, capitalist buccaneering, and full-throttle Yanqui imperialism make enlightening reading for those who believe Uncle Sam's only interest in "aggression" was to chastise it. In fact, the treaty that
HOW ML 5TM^
mm * hatioh
BEYOND
^PALE
created the Canal Zone provided for U.S. control in perpetuity, and the Panamanian constitution authorized direct American in- tervention to suppress "unrest" - which American troops have done five times in the past century.
Benjamin Nathans, Beyond the Pale: The Jewish En- counter with Late Imperial Russia, University of California Press, Berkeley, CA, 2002, 426 pp., hardcover, $54.95
That numerous Jews lived out- side the Tsarist Pale of Settlement - legally and illegally - is a little known fact that eventually proved fateful for the Russia of the Ro- manovs. Beyond the Pale is the first systematic study of the presence, power, and influence of Jews in Russia's former capital, St. Peters- burg, in the half century before the Revolution. Professor Nathans's thesis of a Jewish integration into Russian political and financial af- fairs that paved the way for widespread Jewish leadership in the Communist revolution and state has proved controversial among Zionists, but his book is indispensable for serious stu- dents of the Jewish role in Bolshevism.
Marcia Mitchell, Thomas Mitchell, The Spy Who Se- duced America: Lies and Betrayal in the Heat of the Cold War: The Judith Coplon Story, Invisible Cities Press, Mont- pelier, VT, 2002, 416 pp., hardcover, $29.95
A re-investigation of a once fa- mous legal affair, now long forgot- ten, that pitted the U.S. Justice De- partment against one of its own staffers, pretty young Jewish- Ameri- can Judith Coplon, who was twice tried and acquitted and acquitted as a Soviet spy after her arrest in 1949. The authors Mitchell - Thomas, a former FBI agent and his wife Marcia a writer and administrator - reveal how an array of brass-knuck- led tactics, included illegal wiretap-
THE
SPY WHO SEDUCED AMERICA
476
The Revisionist ■ 2003 ■ Volume 1 • No. 4
ping and perjury, by FBI agents and prosecutors failed to make up for missing or mishandled evidence and helped make Cop- Ion something of a heroine and martyr (especially in New York City). The authors' dwelling on the trial transcripts seems over- done, particularly since Coplon is identified as a Red agent in the Venona intercepts gleaned by U.S. intelligence from Soviet radio traffic. The case and the book are still relevant in view of renewed interest in U.S. anti-Communist measures of the late Forties and early Fifties, and today's menacing legal measures against the alleged terrorist threat.
Robert G. Moeller, War Stories: The Search for a Usable Past in the Federal Republic of Germany, University of Cali- fornia Press, Berkeley, CA, 2001, 342 pp., paperback, $29.95
American historian Robert Moel- ler's study of German attitudes to the tragedies of World War II during the formative years of the Federal Republic finds that, in the years be- fore kowtow and Kniefall before the Holocaust cult became obligatory in West German public life, there was widespread discussion and concern about such crimes against Germans as the postwar expulsions of mil- lions from east central Europe and the heavy postwar losses among Wehrmacht POWs. Despite obligatory and often intrusive fin-
war stories
ger wagging by the author, the ways in which a still vivid memory of the sufferings of the war years was adjusted to Cold War politics (the crimes of the Western allies remained largely ignored until very recently) and the contemporary reemergence of WWII crimes against the Germans as an issue in today's Germany make War Stories a book of unusual interest.
Robert Levy, Ana Pauker: The Rise and Fall of a Jewish Communist, University of California Press, Berkeley, CA, 2001, 428 pp., hardcover, $35
Ana Pauker, who dominated postwar Romania with an iron fist for Joseph Stalin, continues to be remembered there for her fanaticism and cruelty, above all in persecuting Romanian anti-Communists. Enter historian Robert Levy, who attempts to show that underneath it all Pauker had a warm Jewish heart. Indeed, Ana Pauker was the child of Ortho- dox parents, and Levy's account of her political career shows that her strong ethnic identification with Jewry shaped her activities in many ways, most noticeably in her cooperation in a large exodus of Romanian Jews to Israel against Stalin's wishes, leading to her later purge. An (inadvertently) valuable contribution to the study of the vexed question of the role of (not necessarily warmhearted) Jews in Communism.
Letter to the Editor
Re.: G. Rudolf, "The Moon Landing: Fact or Fiction," 77?, 1(1) (2003), pp. 75-81.
Dear Editor:
In The Revisionist #1 you have an article which includes a tidbit about VI rockets:
"Mockup of a German WWII VI Rocket at the Space and Rocket Museum in Huntsville, AL. There is probably no other place on earth where German engineering is more adored and honored than here. "
In San Francisco is a machine performance art group, Sur- vival Research Laboratories (SRL), who has made a working mockup of the VI rocket motor (sans glider) and uses it in some of their shows of the last 15 years, including Europe (the prodigal rocket returns.) Their mockup is powered by a large turbine turned by a V-8 engine and rides on the ground on a pullcart-like system driven by what looks like a detached fork- lift truck. Also attached is a 70 or so gallon tank of gasoline that fuels the rocket motor.
The last (?) show that they used the VI for was in March 1997 in Austin, Texas: http://www.srl.org/shows/austin/
Some photos of the VI in Austin:
Working V1 Rocket Engine of Survival Research Laboratories (SRL), San Francisco
The Revisionist ■ 2003 ■ Volume 1 • No. 4
All
- http://www.srl.org/shows/austin/preshow/austinpre37.html
- http://www.srl.org/shows/austin/preshow/austinpre38.html
- http://www.srl.org/shows/austin/show/vl-5.JPEG
- http://www.srl.org/shows/austin/show/vlcauseway2.JPEG
- http://www.srl.org/shows/austin/show/vlsubjugator.JPEG
- http://www.srl.org/shows/austin/show/vlbigarmswave.JPEG
- http ://www. srl.org/ shows/ austin/ show/v 1 towerfb . JPEG
- http://www.srl.org/shows/austin/show/vllarmbubbacrane.JPEG
Another recent use of the VI was on the street in front of a movie theater's premiere of an SRL video in October 1996 in their hometown of San Francisco (this was one of their guerilla performances: SRL didn't forewarn anyone, including the po- lice, about it):
http://www.srl.org/shows/sf_minna96/roxiepics.html
In a few of SRL's recent email newsletters they have men- tioned that they have been working on and have replaced their VI 's old flimsy valve bank with an entirely new "solid state" (my phrase) one that should prevent any burned out "flaps" (my phrase) that caused occasional breakdown in the past. (Of course, when the Germans were using the original VI they were made for a single flight, not repeated use, so burned out "flaps" were not an issue back then.) The next time SRL uses it's VI should be in November 2003 in Berkeley, California.
I've seen SRL shows for about ten years now and have seen most of the videos of their earlier shows and none of the newer machines that they have made has outdone the spectacle that the VI provides.
Sincerely, G.M., San Mateo, Calif.
In Brief
Belgian Revisionist Sentenced and Raided Again
On Sept. 9, 2003, Belgian revisionist Siegfried Verbeke (63) was sentenced to one year in prison (suspended) for dis- seminating literature "minimizing the genocide against the Jews by the Nazis." The Antwerp court also revoked some of Ver- beke's civil rights for ten years. Considering that centuries ago dissenters ended up on pyres, Verbeke said that his sentence wasn't that bad after all.
Only three weeks later, the Belgian police raided six of Verbeke's premises in order to confiscate revisionist material and evidence that it had been disseminated. French revisionist Vincent Reynouard, currently residing in Belgium, was one of the inviciduals 'visited' by the police.
Austrian Revisionist Jailed
On Sept. 3, 2003, an Austrian 'Holocaust' revisionist was sentenced by a Vienna court to one year in prison, with another two years suspended. Wolfgang Frohlich, 52, an engineer and expert for disinfestation gassings, is notorious for claiming it was technically impossible for the National Socialists to have killed six million Jews in gas chambers. The court said it took into consideration his "multitude of incriminating acts" and the long period of time over which they were committed. (The New Zealand Herald, Sept. 5, 2003)
Because all the evidence introduced by Fohlich's lawyer Dr. Herbert Schaller was rejected by the Austrian court, the audi- ence grew more and more upset about this injustice. As a con- sequence, the judge excluded the public from the proceedings and sentenced Frohlich in camera. Since Frohlich was tried only for offenses committed up to 1999, he will have to face another indictment for his dissenting writings between 1999 and 2003.
German Lawyer Loses Passport for Revisionist Views
German lawyer Horst Mahler, enfant terrible of Germany's high society, once more provoked the German authorities by announcing publicly in July that he will organize a demonstra- tion in Auschwitz announcing that the death figures of this
camp will have to be reduced according to recent findings (see 77? 1/2003) and that "the only path to reconciliation between Germans and Jews is the path of truth." Because this was con- sidered an "outrageous provocation" by the German authorities, they simply withdrew Mahler's passport for the period of time he had announced his visit to Auschwitz. Although this was a clear violation of German law, the administrative court of Brandenburg, where Mahler resides, ruled that this passport withdrawal was legitimate because Mahler was jeopardizing Germany's reputation abroad.
European-Wide Law against Revisionism
Starting in 2004, a new European-wide law will allow member countries of the European Union to execute arrest war- rants in other member countries without any further legal ado. The list of crimes covered by this law has 32 items and includes the publishing or dissemination of "racist and xenophobic" ma- terial, including revisionist writings. So far only seven coun- tries within the EU explicitly outlaw revisionism, but the new law would enable those countries to have anybody arrested even if residing in a country without such laws. (Daily Tele- graph, 2/18/2003) Britain, however, announced recently that it will exempt publishers of 'racist' or 'xenophobic' material from this law. (Libertarian Socialist News, 6/30/2003)
More Jewish Censorship in New Zealand
New Zealand born Elizabeth Laird wrote A Little Piece of Ground, a children's book that tells the story of a 12-year-old Palestinian boy, Karim, whose suffering begins when his fam- ily is dispossessed of its olive groves and his father humiliated by Israeli troops. Laird rejects the allegation that the book is anti-Israel. Laird said she "toned down" several parts of the book, but that the motivation for suicide bombing had to be tackled. "Suicide bombings are going on in the background, and in one scene I have Karim' s uncle questioning his [Karim' s] hunger for vengeance after his father is humiliated by the soldiers. He tells him: 'Does that make it right for us to go and bomb them?'" (The Guardian, Aug. 23, 2003)
478
The Revisionist ■ 2003 ■ Volume 1 ■ No. 4
Australia to Outlaw Criticism of Minorities
There are now precedent cases in the Federal Court of Aus- tralia, Jones vs. Scully/Toben, where criticizing Jewish matters, such as the 'Holocaust' orthodoxy, is deemed to be a racial matter and is "regarded by reasonable persons as being, in all the circumstances, offensive". Both cases were not properly de- fended because it was not possible for Mrs. Olga Scully and Fredrick Dr Toben to get legal representation "for fear of the Jews". The court imposed a gag order on both Scully and Toben, and Mrs. Scully was also presented with a $150,000 le- gal bill. Such actions send a clear message to anyone who in- tends to criticize the behavior and deeds of Jewish individuals in Australia. Mrs. Scully has declared herself bankrupt in order to escape the horrendous debt imposed upon her.
But there is more to come from Australia's financially pow- erful Jewish lobby. The Federal Government is now looking at ways of criminalizing so-called 'race-hate' on websites, emails, Internet chat rooms, and computer games. Instead of continuing to amend the Racial Discrimination Act (RDA) itself, which contains an explicit non-criminalization clause, the communications minister and the justice minister stated they will amend the Criminal Code Act. The terminology that will catch anyone is couched in fa- miliar vague generalities. A two-year prison sentence awaits those who use the Internet for "offensive and menacing purposes", such as "cyber racism" that "rea- sonable persons would regard as being, in all the cir- cumstances, offensive".
As with the RDA, truth is no defense in such pro- ceedings because a 'hurt feeling' is enough to prove guilt. The injustice of such proposed legislation has been made glaringly clear in the Ernst Ziindel case in Toronto, Canada. Australia is gradually catching up to Canada's legal absurdities where the resurrection of Soviet show trials has become a nightmare for those who believe in truth, honor, and justice for all. (The Australian Jewish News, Sept. 5, 2003)
ered to be anti-Semitic, something Evans denies (see illustra- tions). Public criticism received by the newspaper then moved the editor to sack their cartoonist who had been with them for seven years. Evans said that he will not be dictated to by an edi- tor who wants to tell him what to draw: "I have got to acknowl- edge in the first instance that the paper had the balls to publish those cartoons, but once they were published and reaction came in, the paper seemed to shrink from association with them and ultimately I received this edict." (The Sydney Morning Herald, Aug. 15,2003)
Apologies for Praising Hitler's Economic Success
In its July newsletter, Glenview State Bank president Raub reported how Hitler was the only major leader during the 1930s who successfully resuscitated his country's economy when oth- ers such as President Franklin Roosevelt could not.
"The Great Depression of the 1930 's saw falling prices, staggering unemployment and shattered stock markets all over the world, and the world's leading statesmen seemed
Forced Commemoration of Lies in Germany
In June 1999, the German parliament approved the construction near the Brandenburg Gate and close to Hitler's former bunker of a national Holocaust memo- rial in Berlin. It is now anticipated that the memorial will be completed in 2005. The US architect who de- signed the memorial, Peter Eisenman, says the design will force people to confront the past by evoking feel- ings of loss and isolation. "You'll feel like what it is to be alone," he said. "You will feel what it is like to be lost in space. I talked to people who walked alone at Auschwitz, who saw their parents taken away, who felt lost to the world." (BBC, Aug. 16, 2003)
Israel-Critical New Zealand Cartoonist Sacked
In August 2003, New Zealand was again making news because its leading daily newspaper The New Zealand Herald sacked its award winning cartoonist, Malcolm Evans. His cartoons, critical of Israel and its attitude towards the Palestinian Intifada, were consid-
EVAWS
NEW7EMANP HERAID
AuhlanrJ
NEW ZEALAND
I 5M> I'M HOT COMING KW
uhtiltoj maum
VWLEHCi'.l
Israel-critical cartoons by Malcolm Evans. With friendly permission by the artist himself
The Revisionist ■ 2003 ■ Volume 1 ■ No. 4
479
helpless to defeat it. Except for one. His name was Adolf Hitler. Unlike France and Britain, and unlike the United States, Germany spent most of the 1930's growing eco- nomically, not declining. If we can understand why Depres- sion-era Germany resisted the disease, we may better un- derstand how alarmed we should be today in the 21st cen- tury. "
After furious complaints, in particular by the local Chicago chapter of the Jewish 'Anti' -Defamation League, the bank pulled this newsletter from its website and issued an apology. The bank also apologized for a remark Raub made regarding Palestine. In the newsletter, he said "America is showing that it stands for something more than its most narrow self-interest by taking on thankless jobs in Palestine, Africa and Iraq." The bank's apology and the Anti-Defamation League's letter are posted at www.gsb.com. (Chicago Sun-Times, 7/30/2003)
Artistic Freedom for Auschwitz Souvenirs
Polish fine arts graduate, Agata Siwek, 30, www.siwek.nl, is selling her own 'Auschwitz' souvenir creations in the Dutch city of Den Bosch. They range from crematorium fridge mag- nets and 'Arbeit Macht Frei' (work liberates) key rings to T- shirts with the skull-and-crossbones symbol from the camp's electric fences. She claims that because she grew up near Auschwitz, her creations are designed to remind people of the Holocaust and will help combat discrimination and war. "Tak- ing a souvenir and hanging it on your keys is a way to remem- ber the evil inside all of us. It [Auschwitz] is the symbol of the ultimate evil," Siwek said. Some don't agree with Siwek' s sales-pitch because "It's a scandal that they do that. I have one real souvenir from Auschwitz - like all survivors - it's on my arm," said Salomon Zanten, referring to the number tattooed on his arm at the camp. "The survivors have trouble every day. We never forget it. Those things don't help us. It's a bad idea. Where is the border? How far does one go?" said the 81 -year- old, who was incarcerated for 1 8 months in Auschwitz and was the only member of his family to survive the Holocaust. (Reuters, Aug. 22, 2003)
"Health Nazis" in New Zealand?
'Denialism' in New Zealand's public health debate is taking a turn for the surreal. When United Future party leader Peter Dunne used the term 'health Nazis' to describe those who seek to legislate for the control of smoking in public places, Leigh Sturgiss - head of the Smokefree Coalition - countered by stat- ing that proponents of tobacco control want to save lives, not destroy them. National Socialist Germany did indeed legislate against smoking in public places. This regime also enacted other 'tyrannical' health measures such as testing for TB and breast cancer, occupational safety laws, the banning of certain pesticides, campaigns against alcohol and against butter dyes, the promotion of nutritional food and the discouraging of addi- tives, and the restriction of tobacco advertising. The "health Nazis" also proved the link between cancer and tobacco. If it wasn't for the banal propaganda that has made National Social- ism synonymous with everything evil, which suppressed these findings, I wonder how many lives could have been saved from the tobacco holocaust. (Newstalk ZB News, Sept. 18, 2003)
Another Witch Hunt against German War Veteran
The U.S. witch-hunt organization Office of Special Investi- gations (OSI) of the 'Justice' department announced that it is trying to revoke the U.S. citizenship of Joseph Wittje, 83, of Bensenville (Chicago). Although Wittje admits that he was a member of an SS Death's Head battalion, he denies ever having served as a camp guard. Wittje, a bricklayer by trade, spent much of his time working on construction of air raid shelters and in a military sports program.
Wittje was born in Romania, where he entered the army in 1942. A year later, he joined the German elite troop Waff en SS and later to a SS Death Head unit. When he immigrated to the U.S. in 1950, he did not disclose his membership in the Waffen SS and SS. If stripped of his citizenship, Wittje would be the 72nd victim of the OSI. (AP, Sept. 10, 2003)
'Nazi Hunter' a Fraud
On August 28, 2003, the District of Columbia Court of Ap- peals ordered Neal Sher "disbarred by consent effective forth- with" from the Bar Association of the District of Columbia. Sher was accused of having misappropriating 'Holocaust survi- vor' funds for personal use. To avoid further investigations, Sher signed a statement of consent to be thrown out. Sher is one of the most well-known 'Nazi Hunters' and was also one of those prominent Jews deeply involved in extorting billions of Dollars from Switzerland and Germany over the last decade. (Forward, September 5, 2003)
Russian City Opposes Atrocity Story
The city authorities of Mozyr, 370 km (230 mi) south of the Byelorussian capital Minsk, gave orders to level in an old cemetery. The World Association of Byelorussian Jews pro- tested against it, claiming that the remains of some 40 Jews, who locked themselves into a barn in 1941 and set it on fire in order to prevent their capture by the Germans, should still lie there. Yacov Gutman, head of the World Association of Byelo- russian Jews, stated:
"These humans repeated the dead of the Jews at Ma-
sada. "
The authorities of Mozyr deny this story of mass suicide and point out that no documentary evidence supports this lore. Sergei Kostyan, representative of Mozyr in the Byelorussian parliament, said:
"We refuse to accept that this event happened. "
A gas pipeline is supposed to be constructed through the former cemetery. Kostyan:
"Are we supposed to leave the city without gas because
of the Jews? I am not an anti-Semite, but the Byelorussians
did not suffer less than the Jews. " (The Moscow Times,
Sept. 17, 2003, p. 3.)
No Apology from a Genius
On September 8, 2003, famed filmmaker Leni Riefenstahl died at age 101. Much loved for her pioneering film work, Riefenstahl was also hated by those who pressed her to apolo- gize for having been associated with Adolf Hitler and the Na- tional Socialists, something she never did. On October 18, 2002, a German public prosecutor dismissed an allegation of
480
The Revisionist ■ 2003 ■ Volume 1 ■ No. 4
race hate/Holocaust denial brought against her by the German gypsies' association Rom. What is not well known is the treat- ment Riefenstahl endured after the war. The American occupa- tion forces confiscated all her money and property, and then threw her into Dachau concentration camp. From there she was transferred to a French military prison, then to Breisach prison. The US military administration then ordered her to receive shock treatment at the psychiatric ward of Freiburg Clinic. Only in 1948 was Riefenstahl released from house arrest. So much for the new US-imposed democracy and re-education for Germany. Until her death, Leni Riefenstahl insisted her films were documentary rather than propagandistic (BBC, http://news.bbc.co.Uk/2/hi/entertainment/3104828.stm; 77? will feature Riefenstahl in the next issue.)
No Apology from an Admirer
Another woman who refused to apologize for admiring Adolf Hitler was Diane Mosley (see picture), wife of Britain's pre-war fascist leader Sir Oswald Mosley. During the war years she spent three and a half years in prison for her beliefs, and she died at 93 on August 11, 2003, in Paris where she had lived for over 50 years. "They'll go on persecuting me until I say Hitler was ghastly," she said in a recent interview. "Well, what's the point in saying that? We all know that he was a monster, that he was very cruel and did terrible things. But that doesn't alter the fact that he was obviously an interesting figure. It was fascinating for me, at 24, to sit and talk with him, to ask him questions and get answers, even if they weren't true ones. No torture on earth would get me to say anything different." The affection was mu- tual. Hitler described Diana and her sister Unity as "angels". She claimed, however, that Hitler never mentioned his anti- Semitism to her during many hours of conversation. (The Guardian, Aug. 13, 2003)
Poles in Panic before Joining EU in May 2004
When Poland joins the EU next year, it can expect to re- ceive claims for financial compensation for the property taken at the end of World War Two from Germans made to flee their homes - ethnic cleansing! Poland has also objected to a Memo- rial for the 12 million Germans who were expelled after the war from their homes in Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary. Leszec Kolakowski, an Oxford philosopher, has also criticized the planned center.
"Thousands of German women were raped by Soviet
soldiers: does their destiny not deserve to be remembered?
Why are those who are planning the centre not ready to
take up the issue of these much worse, much more cruel,
much more painful persecutions? "
The president of the German Refugee Association, Erika Steinbach, 60, also a member of the Christian Democratic Party, has broad support from other parliamentarians for her plan to build a center in Berlin, next to the Holocaust Memo- rial. She says the memorial is important so that Germans can "mourn and remember those killed and dispossessed". Some
opposition is brewing over the fact that the Holocaust Memorial is dedicated to six million Jews killed, while the German Me- morial would remember the memory of 15 million Germans. (Times, London, Sep. 24, 2003)
Jewish Crimes in Poland?
The National Institute of Remembrance is investigating a massacre of about 35 civilians said to have been committed by 50-60 Jewish partisans belonging to a 120-strong Soviet parti- san group at Koniuchy in Poland on January 29, 1944. "It is very convenient for the Canadian Polish Congress to raise this issue instead of providing explanations about pogroms of Poles against Jews during and after the war," said Hebrew University historian Dov Levin, who was a member of one of the Jewish partisan units operating under Soviet command in that region and has written several books on the issue. Severin Hochberg, a historian with the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, said material he had seen suggested that civilians were indeed killed by partisans, a view endorsed by several experts inter- viewed for this article. "At the time, the Soviets were on the of- fensive and the Jews fought with them, so I believe something serious took place," he said. "But there is still a lot of research to be done." (Forward, Aug. 8, 2003)
UK Grants Asylum to Russian Tycoon
Boris Berezovsky (picture), for- mer Russian billionaire businessman and political opponent of President Vladimir Putin, has had his second application for political asylum granted. That Berezovsky thereby escapes the charges of fraud leveled against him by Russian public prosecutors is deemed to be ir- relevant. Berezovsky claims that he is being wanted in Russia for his political beliefs, but critics argue that the oligarchs - the group around Boris Yeltsin who initiated the switch from a cen- tral to a market controlled economy - retarded Russia's eco- nomic progress by effectively pillaging state assets and sending billions of dollars overseas, especially to Israel. (BBC, Sept. 10, 2003)
Pulling the Race Card to Point-Score in US Politics
The US national security adviser, Dr. Condoleezza Rice, who claims that bringing democracy and free market econom- ics to Iraq is "the moral mission of our time", has leveled the charge of racism against those who oppose US policy. She compares this challenge with that of the 1960s USA civil rights movement. "Like many of you, I grew up around the home- grown terrorism of the 1960s. I remember the bombing of the church in Birmingham in 1963, because one of the little girls that died was a friend of mine," she said. (Telegraph, Sept. 8, 2003)
George W. Bush 'Haunted' by Auschwitz Visit
The May visit to Auschwitz is still moving the US Presi- dent, and it entered his considerations when Israeli Prime Min- ister Ariel Sharon visited the White House. On July 29, 2003, Bush said that seeing Auschwitz "encouraged me" to go on
The Revisionist ■ 2003 ■ Volume 1 • No. 4
481
with a campaign against terrorism and weapons of mass de- struction. (New York Post, Aug. 1, 2003)
Israeli Fighter Planes over Auschwitz
Three F-15 planes, piloted by descendents of 'Holocaust' survivors, circled over the Auschwitz-Birkenau railway track as 200 Israeli soldiers attended a ceremony below. Israel's ambas- sador to Poland, Shevach Weiss, said:
"It 's a protest against the inhumanity of the Nazis on the
Polish territory. It 's a tribute to the ashes of those who were
killed here. "
But Auschwitz Museum spokesman Jaroslaw Mensfelt said the museum was not consulted about the fly-past, and he de- plored "the demonstration of Israeli military might in this place. It's a cemetery, a place of silence and concentration." It is claimed that up to one-and-a-half million people were killed by the Nazis in the Auschwitz-Birkenau camps between 1940 and 1945, a figure that Fritj of Meyer, editor of the German weekly Der Spiegel, reduced to around 500,000 last year. Of those about 300,000 Jews were allegedly gassed, not in the cremato- ries but in outlying farmhouses. (BBC, Sept. 4, 2003)
Israel Categorically Rejects Right of Return
A new dispute erupted over the right of Palestinian refugees to return to Israel, with the Jewish state categorically rejecting a Palestinian claim. The prospect was guaranteed in a US-backed peace plan. (AFP, Aug. 16, 2003)
Aftermath of the UN Durban Race Conference
The 2001 August-September UN-sponsored Race Confer- ence in Durban was a fiasco for the Jewish delegation that wished to debate the 'Holocaust' and 'anti-Semitism'. Instead, at this conference the pro-Palestinian sentiment turned against Jewish-Zionist delegations. It is thus not surprising that at the September 4-5, 2003, conference in Vienna about 300 delegates from 50 countries discussed 'racism, discrimination and xeno- phobia', but not 'anti-Semitism'. Although considered a follow- up conference of that convened by the Organization for Secu- rity and Cooperation in Europe held earlier, in June, where the topic specifically focused on how to combat anti-Semitism, very few Jewish organizations were represented at this Septem- ber conference. At the June meeting it was found that a new form of anti-Semitism was developing, where Israel is becom- ing the hate-object because there is now a clear identification of Jews and Israel with the USA, which then combines with anti- Semitism, anti-Zionism, and anti-Americanism.
Pascale Charhon, the director of the Brussels-based Euro- pean Jewish Information Center told the JTA:
"The Jewish people and the European Jewish world are definitely part of Europe; we are citizens of Europe. This inclusive Europe will protect the rights of everyone, includ- ing Jews. We have a role to play. We have to take part in general battles in order to show others that we care. " Joseph Moustaki, a member of the Israeli delegation said:
"I can understand why most Jewish organizations didn 't send representatives, since the issue of anti-Semitism was not on the agenda. Still, with the Israeli presence and the organizations that did come, we manifested in a clear way
482
how seriously Israel and the Jewish world are fighting not just anti-Semitism but other forms of hatred and discrimina- tion. " (JTA, Sept. 9, 2003)
Israeli Pilots Rebel against Air Strikes
A group of Israeli air force pilots are refusing to carry out strikes against targets in the Palestinian territories. The declara- tion by 27 pilots, some of whom regularly carry out combat missions, has been condemned by Israeli military leaders. (http://news.bbc.co.Uk/2/hi/middle_east/3 1 37392.stm)
Collapse of Israeli Society Predicted
The "countdown to the end of Israeli society has begun", says former Knesset speaker Avraham Burg. "Traveling on the fast highway that skirts barely a half-mile west of the Palestin- ian roadblocks, it's hard to comprehend the humiliating experi- ence of the despised Arab who must creep for hours along the pocked, blockaded roads assigned to him. One road for the oc- cupier, one road for the occupied," he said. "Having ceased to care about those children who are washed in hatred, Israel should not be surprised when they blow themselves up in the centers of Israeli escapism. "We cannot keep a Palestinian ma- jority under an Israeli boot and at the same time think ourselves the only democracy in the Middle East," said Burg. (The Guardian, Sept. 16, 2003)
Dangers of Arab Holocaust Revisionism
The recent awarding by Libyan president Mummar Qaddafi of the International Human Rights Prize to Roger Garaudi prompted Rabbi Abraham Cooper of the Simon Wiesenthal Centre to comment:
"Qaddafi and Roger Garaudy are members in a broth- erhood of hate that knowingly spreads the big lie of Holo- caust denial as part of a worldwide effort to demonize the Jewish people. "
Jonathan Eric Lewis stated in the magazine Israelinsider.
"Arab Holocaust denial is both about Jews and not about Jews. It simultaneously seeks to mock Jewish suffer- ing and explain Arab failures. It is employed both to dis- parage Israel's existence and to present a narrative by which Arabs, not Jews, were the primary victims of Europe. It denies historical reality while simultaneously creating an alternative narrative of twentieth-century history. This line of irrational political thinking lends itself to totalitarianism, not democracy.
Jews need not feel guilty for building a vibrant democ- racy in the Middle East. The Arab world, on the other hand, must examine its flaws in a manner that doesn 't blame its failures on Jewish success. The danger that the irrational politics of Holocaust denial represent is so great that it can no longer be seen as solely a problem of anti-Semitism or as a challenge for Jewish groups alone, but rather as a threat to liberal civil society and democracy taking root in the Arab-Islamic world. "
The above does, however, not explain away the Zionist's own apartheid and racist mentality that is the make-up of the State of Israel. (Israelinsider, Sept. 19, 2003)
Updated: October 9, 2003
The Revisionist ■ 2003 ■ Volume I ■ No. 4