From the book Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Jews But Were Afraid to Ask Because You Thought You'd Be Called 'Antisemitic'
Note: The original version of this essay was written especially for fellow Mensan Max Loick, who declared, in his superintelligent and openminded way, that he wasn't going to read it. It is dedicated to Lawrence Nevers, whose scholarship on the Jewish Question has been both an inspiration and a critical help in writing this essay.
************
Eisenhower's Crusade in Europe is a book of 559 pages; the six volumes of Churchill's Second World War total 4,448 pages; and de Gaulle's three-volume Memoires de guerre is 2,054 pages. In this mass of writing, which altogether totals 7,061 pages (not including the introductory parts), published from 1948 to 1959, one will find no mention either of Nazi "gas chambers," a "genocide" of the Jews, or of "six million" Jewish victims of the war. --Richard Lynn, Professor Emeritus, University of Ulster - http://www.rlynn.co.uk
----------
The term 'historical revisionism' was first used to apply to the work of historian Harry Elmer Barnes and his associates, whose earliest historical work was motivated by the belief that the generally-accepted versions of events of the First World War not only harbored serious errors, but were heavily influenced by the biases of the institutions which underwrote the "Court Historians" responsible for these versions. Barnes, however, noted that historical revisionism -- "The effort to correct the historical record in the light of a more complete collection of historical facts, a more calm political atmosphere, and a more objective attitude" in his words (Barnes Review Oct 94: 3) -- was itself an activity with a very long history, going back at least as far as the exposure of the forgery of the "Donation of Constantine" by Lorenzo Valla (1407-57).
The subject which has attracted the most attention in historical revisionism, both among scholars who contribute to the revisionist literature, and those who are interested in the results of revisionist work, is Holocaust revisionism, ie, the examination of the supposed genociding of Jews in the Third Reich. The generally-accepted version of this event -- or, more properly, this NON-event -- is what I call the Orthodox Jewish Version of the Holocaust, or OJV for short, which holds in its present version that the Nazis killed 'six million' Jews in 'gas chambers'. As it happens, however, there are numerous problems with the OJV. The following is a list of the major ones.
The 'evidence' for the OJV consists primarily of the records of the court proceedings of the Nuremberg trials. As it happens, however, vengeful Jews were largely in charge of these trials. (According to Louis Marshalko in his book The World Conquerers, of the 3000 persons on the trial staff, 2400 were Jews.)
Adding to the problem was the fact that (1) there was no historical precedent for war crimes trials in which only the vanquished were called to account for their actions; and (2) these trials violated the fundamental principle of fairness that no one is to be tried for violating a law that was instituted 'ex post facto', ie, after the crime was committed.
* 'Confessions' used in the trial were highly dubious, since many were extracted by torture or or other unethical means, such as threatening the families of the accused (According to British scholar Vivian Bird, more than one hundred German defendants had their testicles beaten to a pulp by 'interrogators'.) Two confessions were particularly egregious: That of Rudolf Hoss, commandant of Auschwitz, which was (among other things) written in a language he did not even understand, and which provided the major basis for the 'six million' figure; and that of Kurt Gerstein, the dubiousness of which was the subject of a French doctoral dissertation.
* Many of the atrocities that were seriously alleged at the trials are now rejected by even establishment historians as false, the most prominent of which are the stories that Jewish bodies were made into soap and their skin was made into lampshades. Evidently such stories were created as war propaganda, just as were similar stories in WW1 about 'Huns' who were 'bayonetting babies'.
* The defendants in the trials had no opportunity to gather evidence in their defense, and in addition were often given poor food, subjected to freezing weather without proper clothing, deprived of sleep, and -- as stated earlier -- often brutally beaten. Furthermore, those who were condemned to death had their sentences postponed until they could be carried out on the Jewish High Holy Days in a sort of 'blood libel' celebration.
* The printed trial transcripts often do not match the trial recordings, and were evidently deliberately changed to cover up embarrassing facts brought out by defendants in their trials.
* Auschwitz was not a 'death camp', as alleged at the trials, but a large industrial complex in Poland, and the inmates were forced laborers. The Nazis were desperate for labor, so it would have been irrational for them to have 'gassed' anyone, and equally irrational for them to have mistreated inmates or underfed them. In fact, there was a special court, under SS Judge Konrad Morgen, to try complaints against camp personnel for abusing inmates. Beyond this, Heinrich Himmler, who held principal authority over the camps, sent a memo to all camp commandants stating that inmate deaths must be reduced 'at all costs' -- hardly something one would expect to find in a 'death camp'. And while it was alleged at the trials that 4 million Jews were 'gassed' at Auschwitz, the German camp records were not admitted into evidence, and would probably have vindicated many of the defendants if they had been. In particular, the Auschwitz death books, which were released by the Russian government about a decade ago, show that only about 74,000 people died at Auschwitz in all the years of its operation, most from typhus, with only about 30,000 of them being Jews. Furthermore, the crematoria were intended not for the 'killing of Jews', but rather for the sanitary disposal of the bodies of those who died from typhus.
* While there were Allied spies in most camps reporting on camp conditions by radio, none of these spies ever made a report about mass killings or 'gas chambers'. The idea of 'gas chambers' evidently arose from the fact that all the clothes of arriving inmates were disinfected in a kind of gas chamber in which Zyklon B was used to kill lice which were feared as disease vectors (Lousy Jews?). These delousing chambers, it should be noted, were far too small for killing people, particularly in the numbers posited by the OJV. It should also be noted that Zyklon B, the form of cyanide supposedly used to kill Jews, was in fact a special form of slow- release cyanide which was appropriate for de-lousing clothing, but inappropriate for the instantaneous killing that was supposedly done in the "gas chambers". (The irony of Germans being accused of killing Jews by an instrument which they (Germans) used for preserving Jewish lives should not go unnoticed.) In addition, as revisionists have noted, such killings would have been impossible on the scale claimed by the OJV because cyanide is so dangerous that the bodies would have had to lie for hours before they could be safely removed, even by those wearing protective clothing and gas masks. Beyond this, cyanide gas is explosive, so that any little spark, as from the friction of shoes on the floor, or any flame, as from a cigaret, would have caused any 'gas chamber' to be transported to the place where it was supposedly sending Jews.
* Revisionists have proved that the rooms alleged to be 'gas chambers' could not possibly have served this purpose. The first investigation of this problem was done not for the Nuremberg trials, but rather many years later by Fred Leuchter, an American execution expert, who took samples from the walls of supposed 'gas chambers' at several camps and found that there was essentially no cyanide residue -- an impossibility if the rooms had been used as alleged. (Altho Leuchter's work was flawed, his conclusions have been confirmed independently by two other experts, Walter Luftl and Germar Rudolf.) Other problems posed for the OJV by the alleged 'gas chambers' involve such things as no air circulatory system for dispersing or ventilating the gas, no means for heating the Zyklon B discs for proper dispersal, the fact that the doors of the 'gas chambers' opened from the INSIDE, and that Allied aerial photographs of Auschwitz during the war showed no holes in the roof of the supposed 'gas chambers' which would have allowed the introduction of Zyklon B -- a point made by Holocaust revisionists in their oft-repeated challenge, "No holes; no Holocaust!"
* There is no good evidence that Nazi references to the 'final solution to the Jewish question' referred to anything other than removal of Jews from the area of the Third Reich, the (false) allegations about the Wannsee Conference notwithstanding. In particular, no 'Hitler order' (or order from anyone else) has ever been discovered, in spite of the known German propensity for extensive record-keeping, altho there is an internal memo of a phone conversation with Hitler signed by Hans Lemmerer of the Ministry of the Interior showing that Hitler wanted the solution of the Jewish problem SHELVED until the end of the war. Beyond this, the Nazis actually cooperated with the Zionists under the so-called Transfer Agreement ("Ha'avara") to train Jews for settlement in Palestine, and the training camps for Zionists were the only places in Nazi Germany in which the flag of the Zionist state was allowed to fly.
* Jewish population numbers published in standard reference works both before and after the war do not show a decrease of Jewish numbers, but rather an INCREASE. These reference works also demonstrate that THERE WERE NOT EVEN SIX MILLION JEWS IN NAZI-OCCUPIED EUROPE DURING THE PERIOD.
* The 'six million' is a mystical number derived from Jewish scripture, and in particular is the number of Jews who are said to be required to die before Israel can be re-established. This accounts for why "New York governor Martin Glynn, in a major Albany speech in October 1919 [that's TWENTY YEARS BEFORE THE START OF WORLD WAR TWO, for all you who are a tad weak on dates], reported at length on the 'holocaust [of] six millionJewish men and women' who were dying due to the 'awful tyranny of war and a bigoted lust for Jewish blood' during the 'Great War'" (Irena Zdiarska, "Holocaust Is Undeniable -- But Should Be Debated", Barnes Review Oct 94: 27)). It also accounts for the fact that, in spite of the formal reduction from 4 to 1.1 million of the number of Jews claimed to have been killed at Auschwitz (see pix of Auschwitz plaques below), the 'six million' number has never changed, and thus that in the Orwellian Kabbalistic mathematics on which it is based, six minus three still equals six.
* The OJV has changed significantly over the years. We have already mentioned that the 'soap' and 'lampshade' allegations are now rejected by even establishment historians, altho this does not keep Jews from continuing to hold burial ceremonies for newly-discovered bars of old Reich soap (we don'tknow whether they have also done the same for lampshades.) Another feature of the original OJV that has now changed was the allegation that Jews were exterminated at the camps in Germany as well as Poland -- an allegation which has been abandoned for some time. Yet another abandoned allegation is that mass killings were carried out by means of steam, electricity, gas vans (using the exhaust), and burning in pits; and in fact, the Holocaust received its name from the latter allegation -- yet another irony of this congeries of lies.
* The one thing which has done most to convince people that the allegations of German atrocities are true is the film clips we have all seen of the liberation of the concentration camps, in which bodies are shown piled high, and surviving inmates are seen to be little more than walking skeletons. But in fact these admittedly-shocking films do not make a case for German atrocities, and in fact actually refute the notion of "gas chambers": If Germans were gassing Jews by the millions, as the OJV alleges, then Jews simply would not be around long enuf to starve, as the "walking skeletons" and emaciated bodies of the dead obviously were doing. The starvation, it should be noted, was simply a reflection of the fact that, toward the end of the war, the German supply lines had broken down, and food was not getting to the camps. And above all, one should not think that there is anything unique to Germany about "walking skeletons" in "concentration camps": Exactly the same thing happened at the Andersonville prison during the American Civil War, and the photo at the left is a picture of one of those inmates.
* If there is any one thing which is a clinching argument to the matter of the OJV, it is the fact that it is illegal to openly express doubt about this story in most countries of the Western world, including Germany (of course!), Israel (of course!), Austria (of course!), Spain, France, Australia, and Canada; and in those few countries in which it is not illegal, the laws forbidding 'race hate' are increasingly being interpreted as forbidding such expression. The point here is that truth does not require the support of legislation -- only falsehood does. And of course it does not take a rocket scientist to figure who is behind this illegalization; nor does it take a rocket scientist to figure why cases of 'Holocaust denial' are so vigorously prosecuted: Jews, and particularly Israel, have profited in numerous ways and by billions of dollars in playing this scam, including an unending number of Holocaust movies (more than 400 at last count, according to scholar Michael Hoffman), Holocaust museums (popping up everywhere), Holocaust books (Elie 'The Weasel' Wiesel has written more than 30; The Diary of Anne Frank is a perennial best- seller, etc, etc, etc), TV dramas (the airing of "Holocaust' in 1970 is when the scam really took off), 'survivors' by the millions -- all pensioned by the German government, shakedowns of companies which supposedly profited from 'slave labor' or were otherwise tinged by Third- Reich-related activities (eg, IBM, Swiss banks), and of course the billions in 'reparations', 'foreign aid' and other 'guilt money' showered on Israel by Germany and the US. It has gotten so bad that Jewish Professor Norman Finkelstein calls it "The Holocaust [Industry]" in his book by the same name, where he quotes his mother as asking, "If Hitler killed so many Jews, then where did all the 'survivors' come from?" No need to explain, then, why there is a saying among Jews that "There's no business like Shoah (Holocaust) business."
* The only facts that come within even a country mile of supporting the contention of Nazi extermination of Jews are reports of the shootings on the Eastern front of communist partisans, many of whom were Jews. The following is what Lawrence Nevers has had to say on the subject:
"The notion that the Germans were 'exterminating' the Jews in Russia rests on two sources. The first is British intercepts of captured German anti- partisan radio decrypts claiming huge numbers of Jews executed during Operation Barbarossa. The second are the Einsatzgruppen reports of executed partisans sent back to Berlin. Before considering these two sources it is necessary to realize, as Walter Sunning has demonstrated, that between one-half and two-thirds of all the Jews in European Russia had been deported into the interior of the Soviet Union by the largely Jewish commissars ahead of the German advance. How could the Germans have killed the number of Jews alleged when most had already been removed? The conclusion must be that the intercepts are either forgeries or that the kill totals are interpolations. The English forged a great many claims of German atrocities during the First World War. Why would they not have done the same a second time? With respect to the Einsatzgruppen reports, the reports still extant are only the reports to Berlin. The field reports from the units to their commanders in Russia have conveniently disappeared. One suspects that the numbers in the field reports are considerably lower than the numbers claimed in the easily-doctored-after-the-war Berlin reports. The diaries of the German police chief Heinrich Himmler have been in Israeli hands since the war. What is there in those diaries which the Israelis do not want the rest of the world to see?" (Nevers, personal communication)
If anyone were guilty of "war crimes" during WW2, it was the Allies. The RAF's General "Bomber" Harris' terror firebombing of Dresden, a city of no military importance, caused the deaths of some quarter-million civilians; and a similar effect was produced by Gen Curtis LeMay's firebombing of Tokyo. The dropping of the two atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki may also be mentioned, particularly in view of the almost desperate attempts of the Japanese government to surrender well before those events. And then there was the Allied treatment of Germans and their allies at the end of the war -- a curious replay of what happened at the end of WW1, but worse: Much of the story is recounted in James Bacque's books Other Losses and Crimes and Mercies; while another part of the story will be found in Jewish author John Sack's book An Eye For an Eye. And guess what: The death rate for Allied prisoners in German POW camps was lower than for the Allied civilian population as a whole!
But if, as the revisionists allege, the OJV is wrong in so many important respects, we should ask why this came about. The general answer, I think, is that, as Harry Elmer Barnes remarked, "Truth is the first casualty of war." This point is of special interest here because it was actually the Jews who were first to declare war on Germany (in the form of an economic boycott), which they did shortly after Hitler came to power in 1933, and which predated by some six years the beginning of military conflict. But if Jewish hatred of Hitler were a major factor in the lies of the OJV, there is yet another factor whose importance may be considerable, namely, that Jews were looking for a devil to take attention away from the atrocities committed by the regime of 'Jewish Bolsheviks' in Russia, particularly those of Stalin, now known to be a Jew (his family name, Dugashvili, means 'son of a Jew' in Georgian), who -- with his right-hand man the Jew Kaganovich -- deliberately starved millions to death, and sent other millions to the Gulag. In fact, as Robert Conquest and other scholars have discovered, deaths under the communist regime in the Soviet Union totalled some 60 million, and in China some 80 million, both of which far outnumber anything Hitler was ever accused of. And yet we hear little or nothing about "communist atrocities", in spite of being deluged on an almost-daily basis with Holocaust mythology.
As a final important point, it should be noted that a number of men have had to suffer considerably for daring to speak out about the Jewish 'Big Lie' of the Holocaust. (Jews accuse Hitler of using the Big Lie technique -- telling a lie so big that it is believed because no one could conceive of such a lie being told unless it were true -- but in reality this was a lie, for it was Hitler that accused the JEWS of using the Big Lie technique, which they have certainly done with the Holohoax, er, Holocaust.) Among the best-known of these are the following:
* Germar Rudolf, because of his revisionist Rudolf Report which concluded that gassings were 'irreconcilable with the laws of physical science', was denied his PhD and fired from his job at the prestigious Max Planck Institute, and was forced to leave Germany in order to avoid a 14-month prison sentence.
* Fred Leuchter, the execution expert who did a forensic examination of the 'gas chambers' has been hounded unmercifully, and in particular was required to fight an artificial charge in Massachusetts of "practicing engineering without a license".
* Ernst Zundel was charged with 'hate crimes' and 'reporting false news' in the Pimple Republik of Kanada for publishing revisionist writings, but, after protracted battles which twice went all the way to the Kanadian Supreme Court, won a stunning victory. Unfortunately, this victory has now been largely nullified, both from the legal standpoint which allows Kanadian 'Human Rights Commissions' staffed with easily-offended minorities to pass judgment on 'hate incidents' and which have formally declared that 'truth is no defense' against minority offense; and also from Zundel's personal standpoint, as he was hounded out of Canada by one of these tribunals, and then kidnapped in the US and -- after more than a year in solitary confinement in Kanada, was extradited to Germany where he is still a citizen and where he will probably remain incarcerated for the remainder of his life.
* Revisionist scholar and "Shoah Constrictor" Robert Faurisson, author of Are the Diaries of Ann Frank Genuine? (It turns out parts of the diary were written with a ball-point pen which was manufactured after 1945) was beaten almost to death by a bunch of Jewish thugs.
* Henri Roques wrote his doctoral thesis debunking the 'Confessions' of Kurt Gerstein, a set of documents on which the OJV is significantly based; but altho the doctorate was awarded, it was later revoked because of pressure from the Uno Hooze.
* The revisionist Institute for Historical Review was burned down on July 4, 1984 by an unknown group -- most probably the Mossad (the Israeli equivalent of the CIA).
But if the cases of the men whom we have mentioned above are tragic, it is at least as tragic that the organizations which are supposed to stand up for free speech have had a severe case of weak knees in the case of revisionism, and for that matter, in virtually every case where there is opposition to establishment Jewish interests. These particularly include Amnesty International, which supposedly supports 'prisoners of conscience', but seems to think that those who engage in 'hate speech' (ie, anything the Self-Chosen do not like) do not qualify for support. Likewise, the premier organization supporting free speech on the Internet, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, will not touch 'hate speech' with a ten-foot pole. As a third example, the ACLU became infamous among its liberal clientele several years ago for supporting the free speech rights of the 'Skokie Nazis', but since that time has not to my knowledge offered any help to the 'hate community'. But it is of course precisely the most unpopular speech that requires defense, and that is exactly what 'hate speech' is in the present day. And with these organizations in the lead, there is virtually no support at all for real free speech, except among those who dare to do it and be damned.
In conclusion, some might say that the Jews and their friends are trying to suppress revisionism because they think it is false; but my suggestion is that they are trying to suppress it because they know damn well it is true.