PAGE - 12 A HOLOCAUST INQUIRY I dedicate this work to Dr. Israel Shahak, a Jewish holocaust survivor and Israeli citizen who showed the moral and intellectual courage to challenge the Jewish Supremacism that endangers both Jews and Gentiles.

David Duke You can purchase a handy little copy of David Duke's original PDF book here - Just 3.26 Mb 368 pages - plus illustrations. At $15 it's an essential buy !!

After I became aware of the ethnocentrism that permeated Judaism and Zionism, and of the pervasive Jewish presence in the media, I read some books and articles that hinted that the stories of German atrocities during the Second World War were exaggerated and misconstrued. Some suggested that the persistent saturation of the media with what is now called the Holocaust, decades after the war, was motivated by the strategic interests of Israel. At first, I rejected the idea that some of the allegations against the Germans could be false, for I had seen the gruesome photos and films that seemed to make German atrocities self-evident. The following is an account of how I came to question some aspects of this somber episode of European history. I wrote an essay for an English class at Louisiana State University on the liberalization of American sexual morality. I recounted how I had never seen a picture of a frontally viewed, completely nude woman until I was a freshman in high school. That reminiscence may sound strange to young people of today, but even Playboy magazine omitted the most private sexual area until the mid-1960s. After I wrote the essay, a right-wing friend who read it told me that I was mistaken about not seeing full nudity in my childhood. “You have seen fully nude women,” he said, “graphic pictures of nude men and women, often emaciated, in horrible scenes of death. You saw many photographs and films of the Jewish victims of Nazi atrocities.”

On reflection, I had to admit that he was right. Television and print media of the late 1950s and early 1960s were much more prudish than they are today, but during the years of my childhood, the media often showed horrific photographs and newsreels depicting graphic scenes of mutilated and emaciated nude Jewish victims of the Second World War. They burdened the pages of magazines such as Look and Life; they never failed to appear in television documentaries on the war, and even daily newspapers reprinted them — including my hometown newspaper, the Jewish-owned Times-Picayune. In a time of innocence when my friends and I had never seen a photograph of a completely disrobed woman, the media showed us cadavers, often of nude women or the small frames of children, piled up like so much cordwood being bulldozed by Allied troops into mass graves. Those photographs were powerful, for even today those images remain vivid, etched deeply by the emotion evoked by them. My friend suggested that there was a political reason why the media repeatedly showed me the Jewish victims of the Second World War. “Was it accidental?” he asked rhetorically. “If it was just for the sensationalism of nudity and death, why are Jewish victims practically the only ones shown?”

When the movie The Faces of Death 522 opened in theaters across America in 1974, millions lined up to see actual film footage of real people in the throes of death. Seeing a human being in the maladroit pose of death is perhaps the most riveting sight a human being can witness. Parents shield their children from such scenes, and television news programs seldom show the most gruesome pictures of a homicide. Despite the media’s frequent use of sensationalism to boost ratings, even after the crash of a passenger airliner they usually show only general footage at the scene rather than severed heads and torsos. In the 1990s many voice concern that television programs and movies are too violent and gory for young children, yet the horrific scenes of the Holocaust have become mandatory viewing for some school children by state law. Jewish groups have lobbied to pass laws to require “Holocaust Studies” in public schools, and many thousands of local school systems, at Jewish urging, have simply mandated it. The bloody violence of the rankest of fictional movies or television programs could not possibly be more graphic than the gory scenes of the Holocaust. Would those same schools show films of the bloody victims of airline crashes to their young charges? Would they show the massacres of Palestinian women and children butchered at the Sabra and Chatila camps in Israeli-occupied Lebanon or the victims butchered by the Communists in Cambodia, to 9-year-olds? For what reason, I asked myself, must they show little children these horrible scenes of Jewish victims of half a century ago?

Proponents of “Holocaust Studies” for school children say that the trauma is necessary to teach them about the dangers of racism and Anti-Semitism. Yet they show no victims with their brains blown out to teach children about the horrors of criminal homicide, no scenes of the millions of corpses starved or butchered by the Soviet mass murderers to teach children the dangers of Communism. No colleges have a “Gulag Studies Department,” and no public high schools require studies about the Gulags to graduate. One of the arguments used by those who promote Holocaust Studies for our young children is that the Holocaust shows the evils of racism. It reveals, they say, that mass murder is the ultimate consequence of racial consciousness. They fail to point out that far more human beings have been slaughtered in the name of equality than in the name of racism. From the days of the bloody excesses of the French Revolution, to the millions butchered by the Soviets in their Gulags, the murderous Red Guards in China, and the killing fields of Cambodia, no doctrine has killed more people than Communism — and at its very heart lies fanatical devotion to egalitarianism. The awful scenes of Jewish suffering and death touched my heart as a young man, and they still do. They spawned revulsion at the inhumanity that produced such horrors. Indeed, it arouses anger in all of us against those responsible for the carnage. Nevertheless, as I became more aware of the early Jewish domination of the international Communist movement, I wondered why the media’s focus was almost entirely on Jewish suffering, with little attention afforded the other victims of mass murder.

The only victims of whom I was really conscious were Jews. They were the victims I read about, the victims I saw in television dramas, the victims I saw in the graphic photographs and newsreels. No greater human crime exists than the slaughter of the innocent. British historian David Irving labels it “innocenticide.” Yet I eventually learned of an innocenticide far more extensive than even the terrible crimes of the Nazis. This knowledge did not come from television documentaries or docudramas or from well-publicized trials of war criminals or searches for them, but from the quiet pages of books and documents little discussed by the popular media. Communists in Russia, Eastern Europe, and China killed at least ten times more innocent people than allegedly killed by the Nazis. As a young teenager, those victims of Communism were outside my awareness. I heard comments about atrocities by the Communists, but I saw no newsreels or photographs of the victims of Communism. I cannot recall even one. I saw no documentaries, nor did I read any diaries of young girls (or anyone else, for that matter) who had suffered at the hands of the Communists. Thus, I had no emotional involvement with the Christian victims of Communists, but I had strong emotional ties to the Jewish victims of the Second World War. Spurred on by my anti-Communism, I read about the greatest human slaughter in world history: the murder of tens of millions of Christians in Communist Russia. I read with fascination about the horrible murder of Czar Nicholas and his family by Jewish Bolsheviks and the mass murders begun by Lenin and climaxing in the unparalleled slaughter committed by Stalin. Lenin’s classic statement about mass murder by the Soviet state illustrated the cold-blooded nature of these killings. He said, “You can’t make an omelet without breaking some eggs.” By the early 1960s, published information from the Kremlin itself acknowledged that the early leaders of Communism had organized the liquidation, by the Communist Party’s own estimates, of 25-to-40 million people. During this period, the media remained focused on the suffering of Jews, with little sympathy or attention shown to the other victims of totalitarianism. I found it amazing that the media lavished so much attention on atrocities against Jews while showing indifference to the mass murder of millions of Christians by Jewish commissars in the Soviet State. The muted response to Soviet atrocities seemed unexplainable considering the fact that at the time, America was in a “Cold War” with the Communists. What psychological weapon could have been better used against the Communists in that world-wide ideological Cold War than exposing the historical truth of their massacre of tens of millions of human beings?

The Western press kept mostly silent on the Soviet mass murders even while millions still suffered in Communist concentration camps. Millions more died in Red China during the “Cultural Revolution,” in many nations of Africa, in the jails of Cuba, in the killing fields of Cambodia, and in the “re-education camps” of Vietnam. Yet, during a period when Marxists liquidated millions, all we seemed to see was the endless parade of stories about Jewish suffering of decades before. At the same moment Jewish pundits were screaming “Never again!” about atrocities committed by a solitary regime dead and gone for decades, millions of innocent people faced torture and death in dozens of Communist tyrannies around the world. While the murders continued, we heard only a few whispers about them, but the saturation publicity about Jewish suffering in the war goes on to this day. During the late 1960s and early 1970s I attended meetings of anti- Communist Cubans and many Eastern European nationalities who had suffered grievously at the hands of the Communists. Latvians, Estonians, Lithuanians, Ukrainians, White Russians, Romanians, Hungarians, Czechs, Poles, Croatians, Serbs, and many other refugees told a story of oppression, torture, and murder that received only a fraction of the media coverage of the Holocaust — yet their story concerned the suffering of even greater numbers of people. While the media trumpeted the search, capture, and trial of German war criminals, modern-day Communist war criminals continued incarcerating, torturing, and murdering millions in concentration camps across the world. The Jewish-dominated media made no determined effort to prevent the destruction of lives that might have been saved, nor did they make a righteous call for the prosecution of Communist war criminals past or present. After I learned of the great massacres organized by the Jewish Bolsheviks in the Soviet Union, I wondered why I reserved such special rancor for the Nazi perpetrators of war crimes. Why, I wondered, did I reserve special enmity for one mass murderer over another? Whether it is a commissar murdering the Czar and his children, an SS commander in war-torn Eastern Europe liquidating Jews, a Chinese Maoist Red Guard murdering thousands in the so-called Cultural Revolution, a Jewish member of the Stern Gang massacring Palestinians at Deir Yassin, or an Arab terrorist blowing up a commercial market in Tel Aviv, are not all mass murderers equally depraved? Yet undeniably, it was for the Jewish victims that I had the most empathy, and for their anti-Semitic persecutors, I had the most disgust and anger. I asked myself, what brought that on?

At that point I began to understand how I had been manipulated. Because of Jewish influence in the news and entertainment media, it was their story I saw on television and in the movies; it was their heartbreak I shared in books, their mangled bodies I saw in pictures and films, their horror I heard from teachers and preachers. How powerful is the impact on a 9- or 10-year-old if the first nudity he sees in media is accompanied by horrible scenes of death? I began to ask other politically incorrect questions about the Holocaust. Even if everything the media say about the Holocaust is true, why does it occupy our attention a thousand fold more than the massacre of many more people by the Soviets? Now that Communism has fallen, why is there no clamor for Nuremberg-type trials for the Communist mass murderers? Another question I have come to ask in the 1990s is why there are no war crimes trials for Israel’s many mass murders of Palestinians, such as at Dier Yassin, at Kibya, at Chatila and Sabra, and at Qana. These crimes are documented crimes against humanity, easily proven, and there are even many Israeli officials who have already publicly the confirmed these crimes against humanity. But, no one seems to be interested in bringing Jewish murderers to justice. If suspected German war criminals are the only ones to be targeted, doesn’t that suggest an anti-German ethnic bias in itself? Other questions began to plague me. If putting an innocent Jewish civilian in a gas chamber was the epitome of evil, was the aerial firebombing of millions of German and Japanese civilians morally wrong too? Is there an ethical distinction between murdering the innocent by poison gas and murdering the innocent by burning them alive? Does it make it morally acceptable that America firebombed civilian women and children because we were at war with the Germans and Japanese? By that standard, would Second World War German atrocities against Jews be somehow acceptable if they considered themselves to be at war with the Jews?

I read a book by David Irving called The Destruction of Dresden. 523 It exposed the murderous firebombing of Dresden in the waning days of the Second World War. Most Americans have heard much about the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, but few are aware that more people perished in Dresden than in either of the cities obliterated by atomic bombs. Dresden was an Allied “experiment.” They wanted to discover if they could create a “firestorm” by dumping tons of incendiary bombs on the city center. Dresden was a city of priceless artistic and cultural treasure that had been untouched up to that point during the war. The bombing set the entire inner city ablaze, creating hurricane- like winds that fed the flames. Asphalt bubbled and flowed in the street like lava.

When the aerial attack was over, some 100,000 people had perished. To avoid the spread of disease, the authorities burned the ghastly remains of tens of thousands of people in grotesque funeral pyres. Dresden had no military significance and when it was bombed, the war was practically won. If anything, the bombing only stiffened German resistance and cost more Allied lives. I sincerely asked myself, was the bombing of Dresden a war crime? Was it a crime against humanity? Were the children who suffered the cruelest death of all, being burned alive, any less wronged than, say, Anne Frank, who was placed in a concentration camp and ultimately succumbed to disease? Today the British government admits that their Air Ministry, from February 1942, embarked on a policy of targeting German civilians for bombing. As Willis Carto’s Barnes Review point out, more than 600,000 men, women and children perished from bombing calculated to kill as many civilians as possible.524 The United Nations now defines deliberate bombing of civilians as a crime against humanity. The double standard that seemed to exist in all things dealing with the Second World War nagged at my sense of fair play. An example of the media’s morality of convenience is the treatment of the Oklahoma City bombing as compared to the tremendous civilian bombing in the Second World War. I still remember the refrain after the Oklahoma City carnage, and the incredu lity that echoed in the trial of Timothy McVeigh. In essence, it went, “What kind of monster would bomb and burn to death children?” Is the burning alive of tens of thousands of innocent babies by intentional civilian bombing from planes any less morally wrong than the murder of two dozen children by Timothy McVeigh? Governments give one bomber of children medals, and another the death penalty. However, the ultimate blame must fall on the governments that institute such policies not on the soldiers that follow their orders. I view the intentional mass murder of women and children by anyone, any cause, or any government — as unjustifiable.

Even after the war’s end, for many months the Allies allotted an official calorie ration for each German civilian that was less than could sustain life. The Barnes Review pointed out that hundreds of thousands of civilians died in those months of hunger, exposure, and disease. The Soviets forced millions from their homes in German lands in the east. 525 In violation of the Geneva Convention and longstanding rules of war, millions of German soldiers were held long after the war’s end and thousands died from starvation, exposure and illness in the Allied-administered camps. Those deaths occurred after the fury of war had ceased and while massive stores of food and medicine were close by, stockpiled in Allied warehouses.526 I found a perfect example of the “us and them” double standard of morality in a book I learned about in college called Germany Must Perish! 527 by an American Jew, Theodore N. Kaufman. Published in 1941 before America’s involvement in the war and before the allegation of any German extermination program against Jews, the preface states:

This dynamic volume outlines a comprehensive plan for the extinction of the German nation and the total eradication from the earth of all her people. Also contained herein is a map illustrating the possible territorial dissection of Germany and the apportionment of her lands. Both Time magazine and The New York Times reviewed the book rather than simply dismissing it, and neither publication seemed too outraged at its open call for genocide. How would today's moralists react if the Nazis had published a book called Jews Must Perish, and major magazines and newspapers in prewar Germany had publicized a book calling for “the total eradication from the Earth of all the Jewish people?" Would not they offer it as proof of the moral depravity of Germany? As a teenager, although I was fiercely patriotic and pro- American, I began to see that in war no side had a monopoly on virtue. And in total war, in which one side annihilates the political and cultural establishment of the other, only the victors write the history. The adage that “In war, truth is the first casualty” applies here. So what of the truth of the Holocaust? I knew that America's mass media had deceived me about the origins and driving force behind Soviet and international Communism, and about the extent of Communist mass murder. It certainly seemed possible that the Jewish-dominated mass media would be just as deceptive on an issue immensely important to them. By the time I looked into details of the Holocaust I had already learned that the media-generated image of the always innocent Jewish religion and people was false. Yet I still found it difficult to look at the Holocaust objectively, for not so many years before my eyes had misted with tears when I read Anne Frank- the Diary of a Young Girl. 528 I was — and still am — deeply moved by the scenes of human carnage from the Second World War.

On the surface, it seemed the evidence of the Holocaust was overwhelming. Mountains of books, magazine and newspaper articles, movies, sermons and speeches, and documentaries proclaimed it with nary a word of contradiction. In addition, as a fiercely proud young American, with a proud military history in my family, I was prone to believe all the war propaganda about my country’s enemies. My father, a full colonel who still participated in the active Army Reserves, viewed his participation in the Second World War as the most meaningful period of his life. He would not hear of any mitigation of German guilt. The Holocaust was part of Father’s belief system and it became part of mine. However, I discovered that a number of distinguished Americans had made state- Holocaust survivor and revisionist Paul Rassinier. ments dissenting somewhat from the establishment version of World War II history. They included such men as Senator Robert Taft, Charles Lindbergh, General George Patton, and former Supreme Court chief justice Harlan Fiske Stone. I read the interesting views of Paul Rassinier, a Holocaust survivor who spoke out against what he called the lies of the Holocaust. A French political opponent of the Nazis, Rassinier suffered greatly during the war. In a number of concentration camps during the war, he never saw any evidence of human gas chambers or any program to exterminate the Jews. After his liberation, he read sensationalized accounts that he knew were false. Although he had little respect for his German captors, he felt it was his ethical duty to tell the truth about the camps and refute the exaggerated and false claims being made in the world’s press. In addition to the poignant accounts of his own experiences and observations, he began to research the entire issue after the war. Rassinier contended that the death toll in the camps was far lower than alleged and that the deaths were primarily caused by the poor conditions of the camps — the unintended effect of the losses and devastation of a nation crushed in a catastrophic war. He also called the allegations of gas chambers “classic examples of war propaganda that had no basis in fact.” Rassinier had nothing to gain personally in postwar France by taking such an unpopular position. In fact, he had much to lose, and after suffering all the hardships and privations of the German concentration camps, he then suffered intense persecution for his courageous writings. Three Famous Victims of the Holocaust Years later, I read a pamphlet outlining the inconsistencies and improbable content of Anne Frank: the Diary of a Young Girl. 529 Dr. Robert Faurisson, a liberal professor who specializes in the authentication of literature at the University of Lyon, France, made a strong case that the book’s form and content made it unlikely that a girl in her early teens had written it, at least in its published form. It also amazed me that this girl, the most famous victim of the Holocaust— who spent most of the war at Auschwitz — did not die in the gas chambers. Near the end of the war, the Germans evacuated her, along with many others, to Bergen-Belsen. In the last months of the war, she succumbed to typhus. Anne Frank’s sister, Margot, and her mother were not gassed either. They both died from typhus as well. Her father, Otto, fell ill while at Auschwitz and was nursed back to health in the camp hospital. Near the end of the war the Germans evacuated him to Mauthausen and he was liberated there. Otto Frank himself attested to these facts.

These facts seemed at variance with the stories I had read about Auschwitz. Books and movies portrayed the camp as an assembly line of murder, a place where whole trainloads of Jews were taken straight from the arrival platforms to the gas chambers. The Nazis supposedly inspected the new arrivals and sent the able-bodied to work, the young children and the sick to the gas chambers. If these stories are true, why then were the young Anne and her sister, who arrived in Auschwitz at the supposed height of the killing, not gassed? The other famous survivor of Auschwitz is the high priest of the Holocaust, Elie Wiesel, the man who won the Nobel Prize for his writings about it. Wiesel, like Anne Frank’s father, also had a sojourn in the camp hospital during the end of the war. In his autobiographical work Night, Wiesel relates that in January 1945, at the Birkenau section of Auschwitz, he had surgery on an infected foot in the camp hospital. His doctor suggested two weeks of rest, but the Russians were soon to liberate the camp. Hospital patients and all others who were considered unfit to travel, were given the option by the German authorities to remain in the camp to be liberated by the Russians or be evacuated with the Germans. After discussing it, Wiesel and his father decided to evacuate with their supposed “killers.”530 531 I should also note that the third most famous survivor of the Holocaust is Simon Wiesenthal, who has become famous for fighting those who dare to have doubts about some aspects of the Holocaust. Much like Anne Frank’s father and Elie Wiesel, Wiesenthal also had a sojourn in the Nazi camp hospitals. Wiesenthal wrote that while incarcerated by the Nazis he tried to commit suicide by cutting his wrists.532 The Nazis — whom he alleges were trying to kill all the Jews of Europe — did not let him die; instead they sent him to the hospital where they carefully nursed him back to health. If the Germans were the fiendish brutes that Wiesel suggests in his books, and were truly dedicated to the extermination of all Jews, why would he and his father have chosen to leave with the Germans rather than waiting for the Soviets? When I read of this admission by Wiesel, I was incredulous. Why would they send Anne Frank’s father to the hospital, and why on earth would they endeavor to save the life of a Jew who tried to commit suicide? Upon learning these things, I realized they were completely inconsistent with the Holocaust story as it is usually presented.

I wondered if the Holocaust story had changed over the years. So the first thing I did was pull out my much-thumbed volumes of the 1956 Encyclopaedia Britannica.533 It had only one reference to Nazi atrocities against the Jews. The extensive Second World War article made no mention of Nazi pogroms against the Jews. The edition also had no articles devoted to the “Holocaust.” In an article titled “Jews,” there was a short section on the Jews in Europe during the war. This article, written by Jacob Marcus, perhaps the preeminent Jewish historian in the world at that time, cited many Jewish writers and authorities as sources, including Encyclopedia Judaica, Judishe Lexicon, the Jewish Encyclopedia, and the Universal Jewish Encyclopedia. A pro-Jewish perspective dominated the article, and Marcus described Jewish conditions under the Nazis with these words: In order to effect a solution of the Jewish problem in line with their theories, the Nazis carried out a series of expulsions and deportations of Jews, mostly of original east European stock, from nearly all European states. Men frequently separated from their wives, and others from children, were sent by the thousands to Poland and western Russia. There they were put into concentration camps, or huge reservations, or sent into the swamps, or out on the roads, into labour gangs. Large numbers perished under the inhuman conditions under which they labored. While every other large Jewish center was being embroiled in war, American Jewry was gradually assuming a position of leadership in world Jewry. 534 [found in the 1947, 52, and 56 editions]

Imagine my surprise to find this description of what is now called the Holocaust in the 1956 Encyclopaedia Britannica, published within 11 years of the war’s end and after the most important of the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials. I had expected to read a detailed article about the “greatest human carnage in history.” The article certainly painted a grim picture of human suffering, but, importantly, it did not mention the famous six million figure or gas chambers or even the word Holocaust. Instead, Encyclopaedia Britannica simply stated that the Nazis put Jews into concentration camps and made them work in labor gangs where many perished from the terrible conditions. I thought, what a far cry from today’s image of the Holocaust. It seemed curious to me that the most famous and respected encyclopedia in the world would report the Jewish suffering in that way. It sparked my first real glimmer of doubt about the whole question and began to open my mind to new questions. I went to the public library in 1970 and again looked up the heading, “Jews,” in a 1967 edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica. 535 In stark contrast to its 1950s editions, it stated unequivocally that the Germans attempted to exterminate all of European Jewry and had employed a method that was “more efficient and economical than shooting or hanging: poison gas.” What did the Britannica staff know in 1967 that it did not know in 1956? Why the change from the earlier editions? I asked myself. Had new evidence been uncovered decades after the war? If the efficient Nazi war machine controlled Europe’s Jews and aimed to kill them, how could so many have survived? In fact, millions of Jews have applied for and received compensation from the German government. How did all those survive? I also noted that in Wiesel’s famous autobiography, published in 1956, the same year as the Britannica article, even though he mentions crematories at Auschwitz, he never mentions gas chambers — not once. In fact, he writes that Jews were killed en masse by being thrown alive into burning pits, a horrific allegation to be sure, but far different from modern claims. Wiesel also quotes accounts of Jews being murdered at Babi Yar, where for “month after month the ground never stopped trembling” and “from time to time, geysers of blood spurted from it.”536 I thought, Is this from the man who will tell me the truth of the Holocaust? Other impertinent questions occurred to me. Did the Nazis, while in the midst of the war effort, really construct huge and complex gas chambers; transport millions of Jews to camps, and exterminate their victims in this manner? If their intention was to kill them, wouldn’t bullets, costing a few cents apiece, have killed them more efficiently and eliminated the huge expense and logistical nightmare of transportation, housing, food and medical care? I asked myself, If the Nazis really intended to kill all the Jews, why would they even need to build concentration camps?

I was uneasy asking myself these questions. I wondered if I was somehow defending mass murder by questioning whether the atrocity tales had been exaggerated. I had seen survivors on television telling the stories of Jewish victims’ skin turned into lampshades and their body fat made into soap. A wave of sympathy sometimes arose, causing me to drop my inquiry for a while. I finally decided to continue my reading and think more about the issue. The search for the truth is never wrong. The only sin is to lack the courage to follow where truth leads. I began my inquiry into the Holocaust by looking into the Nuremberg Trials, the international proceedings that supposedly proved the nature and extent of the Holocaust.

The Nuremberg Trials

My father was a traditional Republican who admired Senator Robert Taft of Ohio. Taft agreed with many American military men that the Nuremberg Trials set a dangerous precedent that could endanger American military personnel captured in future conflicts. If the victorious armies of the Second World War could prosecute their defeated enemy for war crimes, he thought the same could happen someday to captured American soldiers. I saw the award-winning movie Judgment at Nuremberg and read a book that depicted the trials as dispensing justice to war criminals who deserved the gallows or the firing squad. Interestingly, the first alternative view I read about the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, came from a man whom I viewed as an enemy of the South: President John F. Kennedy. In the pages of his Pulitzer Prize-winning book Profiles in Courage,537 Kennedy wrote of the political heroism of Senator Taft, whose personal code of honor required him to denounce the Nuremberg Trials at the risk of jeopardizing his lifelong quest for the presidency. Despite vociferous opposition and an unprecedented smear campaign against him by the Jewish-influenced media, Taft questioned the fairness of the Nuremberg Trials. He contended that they were not the shining example of Western jurisprudence that the mass media had led me to believe. Taft conducted a Senate investigation in which many American witnesses disclosed that there had been widespread torture of German defendants. Such conduct appalled Senator Taft and he had the temerity to suggest that one could not trust such confessions. He went on to question the very foundations of the trials and the image of justice they were supposed to represent.

In Profiles in Courage Kennedy quotes Taft speaking at Kenyon College in Ohio. On page 238 Kennedy writes, “The trial of the vanquished by the victors,” he [Taft] told an attentive if somewhat astonished audience, “cannot be impartial no matter how it is hedged about with the forms of justice.” 538 Kennedy goes on to quote at length from Taft’s speech. About this whole judgment there is the spirit of vengeance, and vengeance is seldom justice. The hanging of the eleven men convicted will be a blot on the American record we shall long regret. In these trials we have accepted the Russian idea of the purpose of trials — government policy and not justice — with little relation to Anglo-Saxon heritage. By clothing policy in the forms of legal procedure, we may discredit the whole idea of justice in Europe for years to come.539

Kennedy comments,

Nuremberg, the Ohio Senator insisted, was a blot on American Constitutional history, and a serious departure from our Anglo- Saxon heritage of fair and equal treatment, a heritage which had rightly made this country respected throughout the world. “We can’t even teach our own people the sound principles of liberty and justice,” he concluded. “We cannot teach them government in Germany by suppressing liberty and justice…” 540 Taft’s argument was that the victor’s justice is no justice at all. Although the media gave the trials an appearance of fairness in a courtroom setting, it was superficial. Real justice cannot be done when the accusers have control over the judges, prosecution, and defense. Our Western concept of law rests on the idea of impartial justice. Is that possible when the judges are the political enemies of the accused.? Is it possible when men face prosecution for acts of war that the Allies themselves had committed? Are the trials credible when they allow massive amounts of testimony without cross-examination of witnesses… when so-called evidence consists of confessions exacted through torture…when witnesses for the defense could face arrest for showing up at court…when men are tried for violations of laws that did not even exist at the time of their alleged commission? Judge Edward Van Roden was a member of the Simpson Army Commission that investigated the methods used at the Dachau Concentration Camp. In the January 9, 1949, Washington Daily News and in the January 23, 1949, London Sunday Pictorial he told of some examples of the use of torture. . . .The investigators,” he said, “would put a black hood over the accused’s head and then punch him in the face with brass knuckles, kick him and beat him with rubber hoses. . . . All but two of the Germans, in the 139 cases we investigated, had been kicked in the testicles beyond repair. 541 542 Much of the “Holocaust proof” offered today by historians is the “confessions” extracted at the war crimes trials. I thought, Can we trust the “confessions” of those whose testicles were damaged during interrogation? I was also shocked when I learned that Russian KGB officials, who themselves had committed extensive crimes against humanity, sat as judges. One of my friends at the Citizens Council told me that an American judge who was president of one of the tribunals exposed the injustices of the Nuremberg Trials. I found out that Iowa Supreme Court justice Charles F. Wenersturm had resigned his appointment in disgust at the proceedings. He charged that the prosecution pre vented the defense from obtaining evidence and preparing their cases, that the trials were not trying to create a new legal principle but were motivated solely by hatred of Germans. Additionally, he said that 90 percent of the Nuremberg Court consisted of persons who, on political and racial grounds, were biased against the defense. He contended that Jews, many of whom were refugees from Germany and newly made “naturalized” American citizens, dominated the staff of the Nuremberg Courts and were more interested in revenge than justice. The entire atmosphere is unwholesome. . . . Lawyers, clerks, interpreters and researchers were employed who became Americans only in recent years, whose backgrounds were embedded in Europe’s hatreds and prejudices. 543

I also found out that my military idol, General George S. Patton, had opposed the war crimes trials. For example, in a letter to his wife he wrote

I am frankly opposed to this war criminal stuff. It is not cricket and is Semitic. I am also opposed to sending POW’s to work as slaves in foreign lands, where many will be starved to death. 544 The armies of our ally, the Soviet Union, raped almost all the German women in their occupied areas — from young children to the elderly. They murdered millions and forced millions from their homes in the winter of 1945. East Prussia, a German land for centuries, had its entire German population expelled or murdered by the Soviets. In the 1990s, Jewish researcher, John Sack, documented the Jewish mass murder of tens of thousands of Germans in the months following the war.545 It was not only the Soviets and the Jews who committed war crimes. The Western allies committed their share as well. One was Operation Keel Haul, which deported hundreds of thousands of Russian and Eastern European anti-Communists to torture, slave labor and mass murder in the Soviet Union. When they learned of the forced repatriation planned by the Allies, scores of them committed suicide. The Morgenthau Plan was another disgraceful crime the Allies implemented after the war. The plan called for each German civilian to receive a ration of food that was less than that alleged to have been allotted to inmates in Germany’s concentration camps. It sickened me to read of German mothers who were forced into prostitution to feed their children. After the war was over, hundreds of thousands of German civilians and soldiers died in the first year of the harsh Allied occupation. 546 When I began to understand that war created these kinds of injustices on both sides, I began to seriously question my belief that Germans were the only ones guilty of wrongdoing during the Second World War.

Discovering that the Allies also committed atrocities reminded me of vicious anti-Southern propaganda unleashed when Yankee forces liberated Andersonville Prison Camp in the War Between the States. Many Northern prisoners there had died of disease and malnutrition. This came about because the Southern forces had literally nothing to feed their prisoners. Many Southerners themselves suffered terribly from the “scorched-earth” policy of William Tecumseh Sherman, the destruction of railroads, and the naval blockade of the South. Under such circumstances, it isn’t surprising that the prison camps were hellholes, and no malevolent plan or conspiracy is required to account for it. While still in college I learned that although the North suffered no food shortages, the conditions in Yankee-run prison camps were little better than those in Southern camps.547 When I read of Lincoln’s direct order forbidding Yankee jailers to give their captured Southerners the food parcels and blankets sent from concerned relatives, I learned the bitter truth that the victors always portray themselves as just and the conquered as unjust. When I considered the patent injustice of the Nuremberg Trials, it became easier for me to view the Holocaust objectively, for its foundation lay in the allegations set out by the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg. One example of Nuremberg’s shabby evidence is the purported confession of Rudolf Hoess, the former Nazi commandant at Auschwitz Concentration Camp. For years, Holocaust historians trumpeted the Hoess “confession” as proof that the Nazis purposefully exterminated the Jews. In fact, it formed the foundation of the Auschwitz allegation of mass gassings. Chief Holocaust historian, Raul Hilberg, heavily relied upon it, but when its full unedited content became widely known in the 1960s, many Holocaust experts became embarrassed by it, and by the 1990s some admitted its obvious unreliability. Historian Christopher Browning admitted in a Vanity Fair article that: Hoess was always a very weak and confused witness. The revisionists use him all the time for this reason, in order to try to discredit the memory of Auschwitz as a whole. 548 The first problem lay in the numbers. In his alleged confession, Hoess said there were more than 2.5 million Jews gassed at Auschwitz. Nearly all so-called authorities on the Holocaust, including the current curator of the museum and center at the Auschwitz camp, Dr. Francizek Piper, now say that the figure was 1.2 million. Why should Hoess have lied?

Hoess also confessed to things that were impossible. For example, he alleged that after hundreds of victims were gassed with hydrogen cyanide, workers immediately entered the nonvented rooms and removed the bodies without wearing gas masks. He described how they smoked and ate snacks as they performed their task. By comparison, in modern times, the State of California vents its gas chamber for hours after an execution. Even then, workers cannot enter the room without gas masks and body suits to avoid the toxic substance that can kill just by entering the pores. Anyone in the camps who immediately entered a large room saturated with deadly hydrogen cyanide that had killed hundreds of people would have quickly found himself among the victims. In his confession, Hoess also alluded to a concentration camp that did not even exist — Wolzek. Hoess wrote his memoirs while awaiting trial and execution in a KGB-run Communist prison in Poland, with all that such circumstances imply. Rupert Butler, in his anti-Nazi and anti-Hoess book Legions of Death, vividly describes Hoess’ capture. Here is Butler’s account of Hoess’ torture and arrest: At 5 p.m. on 11 March 1946, Frau Hoess opened her door to six intelligence specialists in British uniform, most of them tall and menacing and all of them practiced in the more sophisticated techniques of sustained and merciless investigation… We discovered later that he had lost the cyanide pill most of them carried. Not that he would have had much chance to use it because we had rammed a torch [flashlight] into his mouth… Clarke yelled: “What is your name?” With each answer of “Fritz Lang,” Clarke’s hand crashed into the face of the prisoner. The fourth time that happened, Hoess broke and admitted who he was… The admission suddenly unleashed the loathing of the Jewish Sergeants in the arresting party… The prisoner was torn from the top bunk, the pajama ripped from his body. He was then dragged naked to one of the slaughter tables, where it seemed to Clarke the blows and screams were endless. Finally a medical officer urged the Captain: “Call them off, unless you want to take back a corpse…” [Hoess] was dragged back to Clarke’s car, where the sergeant poured a substantial slug of whiskey down his throat. Then Hoess tried to sleep. Clarke thrust his service stick under the man’s eyelids and ordered in German: “Keep your pig eyes open, you swine…” The party arrived back at Heide around three in the morning. The snow was swirling still, but the blanket was torn from Hoess and he was made to walk completely nude through the prison yard to his cell. It took three days to get a coherent statement from him. 549 Another powerful example of the inaccuracy of the Nuremberg Trials was that the Allies had represented as fact that 300,000 people had perished by gassing at the Dachau Concentration Camp near Munich. Today no authorities on the Holocaust claim that the Germans gassed even one person at Dachau, and the official death toll has been reduced to approximately 30,000 from all causes. Approximately half the death toll occurred from disease epidemics that had ravaged the camp, and many of the deaths occurred even after the Allies took control of it.
Even after the liberation of the Dachau camp, thousands of inmates died of typhus as the Allies struggled to get the epidemic under control. Allied photographs at the time show speed limit signs in Dachau that read, in English,
SPEED LIMIT 5 MPH. DUST SPREADS TYPHUS.

War-torn Europe suffered widespread and catastrophic typhus epidemics. German authorities fought lice infestation with disinfestation chambers for clothing and personal articles, just as American jails fight lice by disinfecting prisoners with a delousing spray. Zyklon B was used only on clothes and other articles and it had to be used in a custom-built, airtight chamber so as not to endanger anyone. Because I read the Holocaust literature extensively, and compared both the old and the new material, I began to see cracks in its foundation that threatened the whole edifice. Most of us have read or heard accounts of American soldiers who have related that they knew what the Nazis had done because “they saw it with their own eyes.” What did American sol- diers actually see? They saw terrible scenes of human suffering and death. They saw piles of corpses emaciated from hunger and disease, just as Yankee troops saw the same at Andersonville during the War Between the States. Nevertheless, did any Americans see gas chambers? According to accepted authorities on the subject, including the famous Nazi hunter Simon Wiesenthal, Americans saw no such sights in Germany — nor could they have — because the only gas chambers used on Jews were in Eastern Europe.

One classic picture shown around the world depicts a helmeted American soldier at Dachau standing next to a heavy metal door painted with a skull and crossbones and the German warning CAREFUL, LIFE THREATENING. The photo caption read “Gas Chamber at infamous Nazi death camp at Dachau.” No one who saw that photo and caption could be blamed for thinking they had seen a picture of a gas chamber in which Nazis had murdered human beings. When I first saw the photograph, I thought the same thing. Years later I found that it was indeed a gas chamber — one used for the fumigation of clothing to kill lice — the vermin that spread typhus and other diseases that killed concentration camp inmates. In fact, many hundreds of Allied soldiers died from those vermin-spread diseases during and after the war. The soldier in the famous photograph stood next to a disinfestation chamber intended to save inmate’s lives, not take them. Napoleon said, “In war, the mental is to the physical as three to one.” Near the end of the war, Allied governments had to paint the German enemy in the worst possible light. Rumors proliferated, exaggerations exploited. It was not a big leap for war propaganda to represent disinfestation chambers for lice as gas chambers for humans. American camp liberators, who had read and heard a thousand times over about Germans gassing Jews, came to believe that they had seen the results of gassing with their own eyes. It is a psychological phenomenon familiar to judge and journalist alike. After having experienced the psychological shock of the horrible scenes of death at the camps, no one could be blamed for believing the “official explanation” as touted by the media. Many years after the war, long after it became known that no American soldiers had seen a single gassed victim, the media still support the myth. Newspapers and magazines frequently quote soldiers who “know” that the Germans gassed the Jews because they “were there” and they “saw it with their own eyes.” Yet, no editor corrects the error. In the late 1960s and early 1970s I noticed the beginnings of a significant revision of the Holocaust story. “Death camps” where hundreds of thousands had supposedly been gassed suddenly became “concentration camps” where there had been no purposeful effort to exterminate the prisoners. Camps such as Dachau, which were formerly alleged to have gassed Jews, suddenly dropped any mention of gassing and their death figures were revised downward. Plaques on the camp gates showing old inflated numbers of victims were quietly replaced. Even the professional “Holocaust historians” began to classify Dachau as a “concentration camp” rather than a “death camp.” Under greater scrutiny, the previous claims of human gassing in camps on German soil became exposed as a wartime falsehood. Much of the popular press still supports the error, even though the official chroniclers of the Holocaust had shifted the gas chamber allegations entirely to the “Communist-liberated” camps of the east. The socalled experts who now say that all death camps were in the east, had just a few years earlier claimed the same of the camps in the west.

The Jewish Soap Story

The outlandish story that the Nazis made soap from the bodies of Jews is perhaps one of the most startling examples of the fraudulent nature of the evidence and conduct of the Nuremberg Trials — and the falsehoods contained in the Holocaust story. During the Nuremberg Trials, L.N. Smirnov, chief counselor of justice for the U.S.S.R., declared: The much-published map of concentration camps (white) and “death camps” (black). Note that all the “death camps” were Soviet-captured.. The same base, rationalized SS technical minds which created gas chambers and murder vans, began devising such methods of…the production of soap from human bodies and the tanning of human skin for industrial purposes…550(Nuremberg exhibit U.S.S.R.- 197) Allied prosecutors produced affidavits that alleged that Dr. Rudolf Spanner, head of the Danzig Institute, had called for the production of soap from the bodies of concentration camp inmates. Dr. Spanner’s supposed formula for human soap was presented (Nuremberg document U.S.S.R.-196), and actual soap presumed to be made from humans was submitted to the IMT (exhibit U.S.S.R.-393). Sir Hartley Shawcross, chief British prosecutor, in his summation to the court stated, “On occasion, even the bodies of their [the Germans'] victims were used to make good the wartime shortage of soap.” As part of the Nuremberg verdict, the judges stated, “attempts were made to utilize the fat from the bodies of the victims in the commercial manufacture of soap.”551 This sensational allegation made headlines all over the world and is still often repeated today. After the Nuremberg Trials, the Jewish soap story grew with each recounting. Survivors recounted washing their bodies with Jewish soap.

Nazi hunter Simon Wiesenthal wrote about the human soap during the Nuremberg Trials. In 1946, in the Austrian Jewish Community paper Der Neue Weg, he wrote:

During the last weeks of March the Romanian press reported an unusual piece of news: In the small Romanian city of Folticeni twenty boxes of soap were buried in the Jewish cemetery with full ceremony and complete funeral rites. This soap had been found recently in a former German army depot. On the boxes were the initials RIF, “Pure Jewish Fat.” These boxes were destined for the Waffen-SS. The wrapping paper revealed with completely cynical objectivity that this soap was manufactured from Jewish bodies. Surprisingly, the thorough Germans forgot to describe whether the soap was produced from children, girls, men or elderly persons. 552 The allegation that the Nazis made soap out of Jews during the last years of the war was presented simply as a grim fact of the inhumanity of the Germans against the Jews. It was repeated in books such as William Shirer’s media-touted Rise and Fall of the Third Reich and in thousands of articles, documentaries, and even in textbooks.553 In Israel, there have even been Jewish funerals for bars of soap alleged to be the remains of Jews. The soap bars, wrapped in funeral shrouds, were interred according to solemn Jewish ritual. Every article, statement, affidavit and drama about the Germans making soap from the bodies of Jews has been shown to be false. After the war, the Allies initiated indictment proceedings against Dr. Rudolf Spanner. After a lengthy investigation, the prosecutor’s office found no evidence that the Danzig Institute had ever made soap of human bodies, and they dropped charges against him. It turns out that the initials “RIF” that appeared on the soap in question did not stand for “pure Jewish fat” but for the official name of the government agency that distributed soap and other cleansers. “Reichsstelle fur Industrielle Fettversorgung” means simply “Reich center for Industrial Fat provisioning.” In fact, “Pure Jewish Fat” would be “RJF” (Rein Judisches Fett), not “RIF,” but in the hysterical anti-German atmosphere at the end of the war, the Holocaust-hypers would not let simple facts get in the way. When “Holocaust revisionists” confronted the atrocity-mongers with the truth, they had to admit the soap lie or lose credibility.

Jewish historian Walter Laqueur, in his 1980 book The Terrible Secret, acknowledged that the human soap story was a fantasy.554 Gitta Sereny, another famed Jewish historian, noted in her book Into That Darkness555 that “the universally accepted story that the corpses were used to make soap and fertilizer is finally refuted by the generally very reliable Ludwigsburg Central Authority for Investigation into Nazi Crimes.” Deborah Lipstadt, professor of modern Jewish history and Holocaust Studies at Emory University, wrote in 1981 that “the Nazis never used the bodies of Jews, or for that matter anyone else, for the production of soap.”556 Finally, in April 1990, the man acclaimed as the world’s foremost Holocaust historian, Professor Yehuda Bauer of Israel's Hebrew University, as well as Shmuel Krakowski, archives director of Israel's famous Yad Vashem Holocaust Center, stated that the human soap stories were not true. Bauer said that camp inmates “were prepared to believe any horror stories about their persecutors.” In his interesting statement, Bauer blamed the whole human soap story on the Nazis. Krakowski commented that “Historians have concluded that soap was not made from human fat. When so many people deny the Holocaust ever happened, why give them something to use against the truth?”557 Historian Mark Weber, writing in the Journal for Historical Review, sums up his article on “Jewish Soap” stating, “That so many intelligent and otherwise thoughtful people could ever have seriously believed that the Germans distributed bars of soap brazenly labeled with letters that indicated they were manufactured from Jewish corpses shows how readily even the most absurd Holocaust fables can be — and are — accepted as fact.”558 Just as the “Jewish Soap” story turned out to be a gigantic falsehood, there is a wealth of information that also contradicts many of the other popular beliefs. Many researchers, drawn to the contradictions and implausible scenarios of the Holocaust story, independently came up with new findings. The body of inquiry that challenges the Holocaust story — “Holocaust revisionism” — continues to uncover new evidence even as I write these lines. (See also: “The Myth that Refuses to Die,” Barnes Review)559 The Holocaust experts have countered the revisionists with invective and suppression. Just a few years ago, those who dared to question the Jewish soap story were called Nazis and haters. Even today anyone who dares to question any part of the Holocaust package: its nature, numbers, or policies — is condemned as a “Holocaust denier” (a term that will probably be trademarked and written with a capital “D,” just as Holocaust has come to be spelled with a capital “H”). To call anyone who questions the Holocaust dogma a “Holocaust denier” is to suggest that he is a witless (or evil), anti-Semitic lunatic. How could anyone deny, ask the holocaust “authorities,” what, after all, everyone has seen with his own eyes — the photos and newsreels of gassings and shootings, the mounds of Jewish bodies. In reality, I discovered that no responsible revisionist denies that large numbers of innocent people, including many Jews, died at the hands of the Germans and their allies during the Second World War. No one denies that the Germans rounded up the Jews from all over occupied Europe and put them into deplorable concentration camps. Revisionists do not deny that Nazis committed atrocities against Jews; they do, however, contend that the numbers of those killed have been grossly inflated. More importantly, they maintain that there was no central program, plan, policy, or order by the German government to exterminate all of the Jewish people. Revisionists claim that the Nazis created the camps to confine Jews because they considered them a security risk, much like the American government rounded up and incarcerated Japanese for security reasons.

Revisionists argue that scientific and documentary evidence supports their position and that the proponents of Holocaust orthodoxy must ruthlessly suppress debate if the Holocaust story is to survive. Finally, they argue that there are powerful political and economic motives for the creation and perpetuation of the Holocaust story. Throw the Holocaust heretics into prison -- and cast their books into the fire! In the 1990s, hundreds of individuals all over the Western world, including many scholars and researchers, have been harassed, intimidated, physically attacked, fired, fined and even jailed simply for of fering evidence that challenges parts of Holocaust orthodoxy. Professors, judges and teachers have been fired from their jobs. Some have been fined tens of thousands of dollars merely for expressing politically incorrect opinions. Professor Robert Faurisson at France’s University of Lyon-II, for example, has been fined thousands of francs for his opinions and had his face crushed and doused with acid in a brutal attack. Often such victims are well educated, respected men who were never accused of Anti-Semitism until they researched and wrote about the Holocaust.

A prime example of the persecution of the Holocaust questioners is the story of historian David Irving. His books are found in almost every library in the world. Irving has written more than thirty volumes on the Second World War published by a half dozen of the most prominent publishers in the Western World, including: The Viking Press; Harper & Row; Little, Brown; Simon & Schuster; and Avon Books.

The most respected historians in the world, including A.J.P. Taylor, Trevor Roper, Gordon Craig, and Stephen Ambrose have praised some of his works. He has researched in the German State Archives for more than thirty years, as well as in the U.S. National Archives, the British Public Records Office, the government archives of Australia, France, Italy and Canada, and even the former Soviet Secret State Archives. He was the first historian to challenge the validity of the widely heralded (and later debunked) Hitler Diaries.560 In the course of his wide-ranging research, Irving has uncovered many documents that challenge parts of the Holocaust orthodoxy. While he was in Germany, Irving quoted the videotaped admission of the head curator of the Auschwitz State Museum, Dr. Francizek Piper. Piper had admitted that the facility shown to the world (and more than 40 million visitors) for 40 years — as a genuine Nazibuilt gas chamber — is not authentic. Polish Communists had actually built it after the war. For simply quoting Piper’s admission, the government charged Irving with “Defaming the memory of the dead.” Although he had clear evidence proving the truth of his statement, Irving was forbidden to present it at his trial or even to call Dr. Piper as a witness. For making his statements of historical fact, the German government fined him 30,000 marks. In “the German State’s interest” they banned him from using the German State Archives where he had labored for more than thirty years, and to which he had donated priceless collections of original documents. The German government has now banned him from the country. Canada, France, Austria, Italy, South Africa, Australia and many other nations have subsequently banned him at the behest of the Jews. His publishers have been harassed and intimidated into canceling contracts. He has been physically attacked and has had lectures broken up by pipe-wielding thugs. In Canada, at the request of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, the authorities seized, shackled, and deported him from the country in handcuffs. The Toronto Globe & Mail asked why he had been handcuffed and then answered its own question with another, “Did someone think he might use his typewriter?”

With the American tradition of First Amendment rights, few realize that in the so-called “Free World” it is possible for a historian to be jailed simply for voicing an opinion about a historical event of 50 years ago. Speaking inside his home near the U.S. embassy in London, Irving did an interview with a French television station, again repeating the fact that the main gas chambers shown to tourists at Auschwitz are fakes. For making this statement in his own living room in London, he was prosecuted in the Paris courts. In France, it is illegal to challenge any of the “crimes against humanity” as alleged in the Nuremberg Trials Charter of 1945 — even if one does so in his own home and in another country.

There are those who say that we should not debate aspects of the Holocaust any more than we should debate those who say the world is flat. Yet, would any knowledgeable person be afraid to debate an advocate of the Flat Earth theory? Would he urge the passage of laws to prevent the advocate of that theory from speaking, writing or publishing? Would he try to have his livelihood destroyed, have him fined thousands of dollars, and if that did not work, cast him into prison? I believe in freedom of speech because I am not afraid. I believe that my ideas are well reasoned and that I can back up my opinions with logic and evidence. In an atmosphere of free and open discussion, I fear not, for there is not a truth that I dread. What do the opponents of David Irving, or of all revisionists, fear? Our libraries and schools are well stocked with orthodox Holocaust literature. Newspapers and magazines publish an endless stream of related stories. Theater and television screens light up with drama, commentary, interviews, and images of the Holocaust. It would seem that with this much overkill, there should be little to fear from the David Irvings of the world — unless of course, his persecutors think that his evidence is convincing, his reasoning sound and his presentation eloquent. Thus, to protect their popular version of the Holocaust, they seek to hound this man to the ends of the Earth. What “historical fact” is so vulnerable that it must be protected by terror, by jail, and deportation? What do the opponents of David Irving and the other revisionists fear? Are the revisionist arguments so convincing that their opponents must use naked political oppression to silence them?

Auschwitz: The Centerpiece of the Holocaust

The Holocaust story centers on the Auschwitz concentration camp in Poland. For years, it was presented to the world as a death camp where the Nazis gassed three to four million Jews as well as millions of non-Jews. Whatever doubts visitors might have about the enormity of the Holocaust, and the veracity of the gas chamber stories — are wiped away by the camp tours. Half of a million tourists each year see what are purported to be the actual gas chambers where millions of Jews were murdered. From 1945 to 1989, a plaque at the front gate proclaimed in many different languages that 4.1 million victims had died there. During a visit to the camp in June 1979, Pope John Paul II stood before this monument and blessed the four million victims’ souls. It turned out that at least three million of the perished were figments of imagination.

Shortly after the pope’s visit, with no fanfare or publicity, the camp historians removed the plaque and replaced it with one reflecting the new official figure: 1.2 million. For many years, the officially declared six million Jewish victims of the Holocaust included the four million supposedly killed at Auschwitz. Interestingly, when the Auschwitz figure went down by about three million, there was no rush to correct the encyclopedias or the endless stories quoting the six million figure.

When the “experts” made the Auschwitz reduction, they did something for which revisionists have been jailed: They revised the Jewish casualty rate downward. However, they had no real choice. They had to radically lower their figures or lose credibility. It was one thing to make fantastically ludicrous claims when Auschwitz was a little-visited Communist Party-controlled site of the 1950s and 1960s, but with greater access came more questions. By revising the figures, the camp curators were in effect admitting that the Communists and the subsequent camp museum officials had fabricated numbers and that they were just too inflated to be believed. Jewish revisionist David Cole traveled to Auschwitz in September, 1992. Wearing a yarmulke, he interviewed the curator, Dr. Francizek Piper, who admitted that while the “official tour guides” tell the visitors the gas chamber is exactly as it was when the camp was liberated, it is actually a “reconstruction.” That revelation is just one of the gaping holes in the bow of battleship Auschwitz, the mothership of the Holocaust fleet. Cole was subsequently beaten up and his life threatened repeatedly.561

In the face of mounting evidence exposing the blatant Auschwitz falsehoods, the Holocaust promoters admitted much of what people such as David Irving had been condemned for saying. Interestingly, in perhaps the most authoritative and exhaustive book on Auschwitz yet published, Auschwitz: 1270 to Present by Robert Jan Van Pelt and Deborah Dwork, it is admitted by the two Jewish Holocaust authors that the gas chamber at the main Auschwitz camp and that the one shown to tourists was a fake built by the Polish Communists long after the war. 562 The authors, however, allege that there were gas chambers in another Auschwitz camp.

The overthrow of Communism in Russia brought to light many documents that were hitherto inaccessible to Western researchers. Startling pieces of evidence have recently turned up in the Moscow State Archives. When the Soviets “liberated” Auschwitz, the Germans had hurriedly abandoned it, leaving behind tons of documents. Among the items recovered by the Communist troops was the Auschwitz Death Register — chronologically bound volumes of death certificates of those who had died in the camp. For 45 years, these crucial documents had languished in the secret files of the KGB. Russian President Mikhail Gorbachev authorized release of the ones researchers had located: 46 bound volumes. The volumes show that doctors and other medical personnel meticulously recorded each death at Auschwitz. The records included descriptions of the cause of death, which ranged from execution (generally shooting or hanging) to disease, heart attack and similar causes. Most of the deaths were from disease. The incomplete Death Register volumes contain records that add up to approximately 74,000 deaths, of which approximately 30,000 were Jews. The rest were Poles, Russians, and other nationalities. The Death Register raised immediate questions. If the authorities recorded executions by shooting or hanging, then why not those by gassing? More importantly, why had the books been kept hidden for so many years? Had the Soviets suppressed the books because they knew that they did not correlate with their official KGB versions of Auschwitz?

Powerful evidence from Allied sources also conflicts with the fantastic alleged murder rate at Auschwitz. In the mid-1970s, the U.S. government released wartime aerial photographs of the Auschwitz camp. Jewish historian Raul Hilberg, in his article for Encarta Encyclopedia, writes, “In 1944 the camp was photographed by Allied reconnaissance aircraft in search of industrial targets; its factories, but not its gas chambers, were bombed.” The United States Army Air Corps took the photographs over a lengthy period, and they are so remarkable in their clarity that vehicles and even people can be distinguished in them. Many of the photographs had been taken during the supposed height of the alleged killing. The surveillance flights took many at mid-morning on typical workdays. Not one of the photos taken over a number of days shows huge pits or piles of human bodies; nor are there any fires suggesting their burning or smoke billowing from the chimneys of the crematoria.

Thousands of tons of coke would have been needed to fuel the crematoria if the murder and cremation of millions of people had been in progress. Yet, the photos show no mountains of coke, and there are no long lines of railway cars filled with the fuel. No lines of people are assembled outside the doors of the alleged Auschwitz gas chamber, and no holes appear on the very roof where allegedly Zyklon B was supposedly tipped in on top of the victims. Another startling piece of evidence surfaced with the release of the British “Enigma Secret.” Using computers, the British broke the supposedly indecipherable ultra-secret code that the Germans had relied on to send communiqués between the battlefront and the high command. Cracking the code helped turn the tide of war, for the British and Allied forces knew the German’s military plans and orders — sometimes even before the German field commanders themselves. Sir Frank H. Hinsley, master of St. John’s College and professor of International Relations at Cambridge University, published a special appendix to Volume II of his magisterial British Intelligence in the Second World War: Its Influence on Strategy and Operations.563 In the section titled “German Police Cyphers,” Hinsley reveals that during 1942 and 1943 British intelligence intercepted daily coded communications for Dachau, Buchenwald, Auschwitz, and seven other camps. Every day each camp reported the number of people brought in, the number transferred to other camps, and the numbers who were born and those who died. It also reported executions by shooting or hanging. “The returns of Auschwitz,” states Hinsley, “the largest of the camps with 200,000 prisoners, mentioned illness as the main cause of death but included references to shootings and hangings. There were no references in the decrypts to gassing.” The numbers of dead in the decoded messages correlate with the records of the death books and the amount of coke consumed. More importantly, if gassing had been taking place, why would they have not been reported, just as shootings and hangings were? Since the Germans dutifully reported executions or killings to their superiors, and their reports were made in top secret transmissions, why would they hide the method of execution used?

Interestingly enough, British Intelligence also intercepted the communications of German commando forces called “einstatzgruppen” that were locked in an horrific partisan war in the east against the Communists. In those decrypts are graphic descriptions of mass murders of Jewish partisans and groups of civilians. Why would those secret messages include grim accounts of the murder of civilians, but not the decrypts from Auschwitz?

Scientific Evidence

In a criminal trial, scientific evidence is usually the most powerful because it can be validated in an objective, scientific manner. There is no scientific evidence indicating mass gassing at Auschwitz or any other German camp. The United States Army had toxicology experts do autopsies on hundreds of dead in the Nazi concentration camps. Human remains can show signs of cyanide poisoning for years. No scientific evidence existed that even one of the victims was gassed to death. Nor do records of autopsies by Russian doctors in the Eastern European camps show any evidence of gassing. Although autopsies had been performed, the results were not presented at Nuremberg. Why? Is it because the results would not have served the prosecution since none of the deaths could be blamed on poison gas? In every murder trial doesn’t the prosecution attempt to show the cause of death? In the most publicized murder trial of all time, the International Military Tribunal, proof of the cause of death is conspicuously absent. If the Nazis had really gassed people by the millions, would not the prosecution have produced at least one autopsy proving the cause of death to be poisoning by the cyanide gas produced by Zyklon B?

Holocaust orthodoxy “experts” claim that one “proof” of the gassing of human beings is the great quantity of Zyklon B used at Auschwitz during the war. Attempting to rebut revisionist questioning of gas chambers, Jean Claude Pressac, a French chemist, in his book Auschwitz: Techniques and Operation of the Gas Chambers, supplies data showing the large consumption of Zyklon B at Auschwitz.564 A more logical explanation is simply that the Germans used the chemical in an effort to control the epidemics that ravaged the camps. Additionally, the data published by Pressac himself shows that the per capita amount of Zyklon B used in the Auschwitz concentration camp was similar to Zyklon B consumption in German camps such as Oranienburg, where the experts admit that no human gassing took place. If Auschwitz was the great center of extermination, and if Zyklon B was the poison used, how could it be that records of the chemical’s purchase and usage show no greater consumption at Auschwitz than at the many concentration camps where Zyklon B was used strictly for lice infestation and where there were no alleged gassings? Pressac also inadvertently revealed that coke consumption was no greater per capita in Auschwitz than the camps in Germany where extermination is not alleged.

In February 1988, the Canadian government charged Holocaust questioner Ernst Zundel with violating an archaic law against “spreading false news.” Defense attorneys in this criminal case commissioned an American engineering consultant on prison gas chambers, Fred Leuchter, to make a scientific examination of the alleged homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz. Leuchter, an apolitical person, is perhaps the premier authority in the United States on the construction and use of execution equipment, and he was actually in charge of the design and construction of execution facilities used in a number of American prisons.

In his investigation, Leuchter surveyed the construction of the alleged gas chambers and researched the chemical properties of the Zyklon B fumigant. He found that Zyklon B is a compound that, when exposed to air, releases deadly hydrogen cyanide gas. It clings to surfaces and has a tendency to react chemically with materials containing iron (ferric compounds), creating a ferricyanide. If Zyklon B is used in iron chambers or in red brick structures, it reacts with ferrous (iron) material to produce a distinctive blue color. The printing ink industry has used these chemical reactions for many decades to produce a distinctive color called Prussian Blue. Random House Webster’s Electronic Dictionary, 1992 edition, defines it as follows: Prussian Blue n. 1. a moderate to deep greenish blue. 2. a dark blue, crystalline, water-insoluble ferrocyanide pigment, used in painting, fabric printing, and laundry bluing. Not only did Leuchter find that the supposed homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz were structurally unsuitable for gassing, he also took samples from the walls and had them chemically analyzed. Independent laboratories in the United States found no evidence of the ferricyanide compounds. Yet, when Leuchter examined the rooms used as disinfestation chambers for clothes and luggage, he readily observed the distinctive blue coloring associated with ferricyanide. After further chemical analysis of the samples, he proved that the disinfection walls had heavy concentrations of the ferricyanide caused by exposure to cyanide. Leuchter also pointed out that the disinfestation chambers used for delousing clothes were well made, airtight, and designed for safety. On the other hand, the supposed human gas chambers were shoddily constructed. He asked why gas chambers for killing lice would be properly engineered, whereas chambers allegedly for killing millions of people would be improperly engineered and constructed — and dangerous for operators.

The Fight Against Revisionism

When Leuchter published his report, Holocaust authorities reacted predictably — with defamation, suppression, intimidation and even imprisonment. Leuchter became the victim of an intense international campaign to discredit him and ruin him financially. Jewish groups wrote defamatory letters to all of his state penitentiary clients urging them to cancel his contracts. They were able to get authorities to prosecute him in his home state of Massachusetts, in spite of his obvious expertise and his patents, under an arcane statute of practicing engineering without a license.

The German government jailed Leuchter for six weeks simply for reporting his technical findings in a lecture in November 1991 at Weisshiem. For simply translating and commenting on Leuchter’s speech, Mr. Günter Deckert, a former high-school teacher with a clean record, was sentenced to a year’s probation. In their verdict, the judges, Dr. Orlet and Dr. Muller pointed out that Deckert was a city councilor who graduated with distinction in law from Heidelberg University and was of high moral character. Because they did not sentence Deckert harshly enough according to the international press, the judges themselves faced intimidation and efforts to overturn the sentence they imposed.

Frau Saline Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger, the German minister of justice, called the verdict a slap in the face for every victim of the Holocaust and had the two judges suspended and placed on “sick leave.” Mannheim prosecutor Hans Klein appealed the verdict with the result that Deckert received a two-year jail sentence. Klein also promised to go over the wording of the verdict in search of anything that might be grounds for prosecuting the two judges. It is obviously not a free system if a judge can face termination, or even be criminally charged for stating why he is lenient within the bounds of his authority. It seems that little has changed in Germany during this century. In America it is hard to imagine someone going to jail simply for translating a scientific lecture, or having judges suspended or threatened with arrest for rendering a verdict or sentence deemed politically incorrect. Nevertheless, such are the methods of protecting the Holocaust story. Germany is not the only violator of free speech in this matter. Some time later, the frail and spectacled Fred Leuchter was also incarcerated and forcibly deported from Great Britain. A year after the Leuchter controversy, the Auschwitz Museum staffers secretly duplicated Leuchter’s tests and arrived at the same scientific results. They do not, however, discuss these scientific facts in their guidebooks. Their feeble explanation for the lack of ferricyanide in the human gas chambers is that somehow it dissipated over time — a chemical impossibility. They offer no explanation why the ferricyanide did not dissipate in the disinfestation chambers. Another Holocaust expert argued that it takes less cyanide to kill humans than it does to kill lice, therefore there would be less in the human gas chambers than in the disinfestation chambers. Yet, it is alleged that huge amounts of Zyklon B were used to kill millions of people in a veritable “factories of death.”

The Holocaust revisionists, in spite of enduring vicious attacks from the press, caused such a stir by the release of the Leuchter Report and subsequent revelation of the details of Auschwitz’s own chemical study, that the Auschwitz staff authorized a new investigation that purports to refute Leuchter and their own earlier study. However, they will still not allow any independent studies by scientists and engineers, although it would be relatively easy and quick to obtain samples and do analyses of the alleged gas chamber walls. Repeatedly, in the study of the Holocaust, those with a personal or political stake in maintaining their version of events are opposed to academic or scientific inquiry. They endeavor to prevent a physical inspection of records or scientific studies of sites, and they make even the public reporting of scientific or historical investigations punishable by imprisonment.

Even a well-respected Jewish historian who believes in the existence of the gas chambers offers a somewhat revisionist viewpoint. In his 1988 book Why Did the Heavens Not Darken?: The “Final Solution” in History, Princeton University professor Arno J. Mayer pointed out that there are many questions about the Holocaust. Mayer, who himself lost close family in the Holocaust, writes: Many questions remain open. . . . All in all, how many bodies were cremated in Auschwitz? How many died there all told? What was the national, religious, and ethnic breakdown in this commonwealth of victims? How many of them were condemned to die a “natural” death and how many were deliberately slaughtered. . . ? We have simply no answers to these questions at this time. (pg. 366)

From 1942 to 1945, certainly at Auschwitz, but probably overall, more Jews were killed by so-called “natural” causes than by “unnatural” ones. (pg. 365) Sources for the study of the gas chambers are at once rare and unreliable. 565 I must repeat that Mayer strongly believes that gas chambers did exist at Auschwitz, but he points out that “Most of what is known is based on the depositions of Nazi officials and executioners at postwar trials and on the memory of survivors and bystanders. This testimony must be screened carefully, since it can be influenced by subjective factors of great complexity.” 566Mayer’s statements would be grounds for prosecution in France and Germany.

Witnesses to the Holocaust

As Mayer points out, much of the Holocaust story is based on eyewitness accounts. Revisionists argue that so-called eyewitness testimony is not always reliable. They give as an example, the John Demjanjuk case. Demjanjuk, a naturalized American autoworker from Eastern Europe, was accused of being Ivan the Terrible, a nefarious concentration camp guard at Treblinka concentration camp who allegedly murdered hundreds of people. Demjanjuk maintained his innocence, but hundreds of Jewish eyewitnesses testified that he was Ivan. The witnesses screamed, cried, and postured, telling the most incredible stories of cruelty and sadism. They swore under oath that they clearly remembered that Demjanjuk was Ivan. Ultimately, Demjanjuk was deported to Israel, an Israeli court tried and convicted him, primarily on “eye-witnesses” testimony. But new evidence came forward that proved that the Soviet KGB had framed Demjanjuk. Documents that supposedly showed him to be a guard proved to be Soviet forgeries. When faced with a world-wide scandal, even the Israeli Supreme Court had to agree that the eyewitness accounts were not credible and that Demjanjuk was innocent.

Those Incredible Numbers

In examining the Holocaust, I found that sources varied wildly in their estimations of the number killed, ranging from 4 to 24 million. Reproduced below is the entry under Holocaust in the Compton’s Multimedia Encyclopedia, 1991.

As Nazi Germany gained control of one country after another in World War II, there was much killing of civilians and maltreatment of soldiers that can be classified as war crimes. These crimes, however, pale in comparison to the massive, deliberate, and wellplanned extermination of more than 15 million persons in what is termed the Holocaust. This genocide of staggering proportions was carried out with scrupulous efficiency by a well-coordinated German bureaucracy in which nothing was left to chance. 567 Elsewhere in the same Compton’s Encyclopedia (under the topic Concentration Camp) is the following statement: The most horrible extension of the concentration camp system was the establishment of extermination centers after 1940. They were set up primarily to kill Jews. This slaughter is known as the Holocaust. It is believed that from 18 to 26 million people were killed in them, including 6 million Jews and 400,000 Gypsies. 568 Holocaust chroniclers assessing German crimes obviously see no need for accuracy or even consistency. But regardless of which set of numbers is used, the figures are so fantastic that they strain credulity. If 18 to 26 million people were murdered and cremated in the “extermination centers” of Poland (most of them at Auschwitz), the daily count would have had to be in the tens of thousands. As cited previously, the expert cited by the Holocaust scholars themselves, Pressac, now estimates the death toll at Auschwitz of all victims to have been between 600,000 and 800,000. How do these figures, which themselves could be greatly exaggerated, square with the wild numbers for Auschwitz bandied around in the popular encyclopedias? When a nation is accused of such terrible crimes, shouldn’t there be at least a demand for accuracy and consistency? If not, then any people could be accused of any transgression without fear of reproach. About the time I noticed the discrepancies in Holocaust numbers, I saw a television interview of a Zionist who attacked Holocaust revisionism by saying that “Whether it was ten million or one million, 100,000 or 1000, it does not make the crime any less abhorrent!” The truth is that if hundreds of thousands rather than up to 26 million were killed, and if most of those deaths were caused by the expected brutalities of war rather than a calculated plan of extermination, then the prevalent version of the Holocaust story is grossly inaccurate.

Other Holocaust Questions

The main component of the Holocaust story is that the Nazis had a plan or program for exterminating the Jews. But even though the Allies captured Germany’s government and military headquarters and most of the concentration camps with their records intact, there has never been a single order or instruction found that calls for the gassing of Jews or that indicates a plan to exterminate all of European Jewry. No blueprint has been found for the construction of a human gas chamber, or instructions or orders written for gassing human beings. On this subject, as on others, the Holocaust story has undergone revision. No longer do the experts claim the Nazis gave direct orders to exterminate the Jews. Raul Hilberg in the 1961, first edition of his major work on the Holocaust, The Destruction of the European Jews, wrote that in 1941 Hitler had issued two orders for the extermination of the Jews. In Hilberg’s revised three-volume edition of the book, published in 1985, all reference to such orders had been removed. 569 In a review of Hilberg's revised edition, historian Christopher Browning, himself an “exterminationist historian,” wrote: In the new edition, all references in the text to a Hitler decision or Hitler order for the “Final Solution” have been systematically excised. Buried at the bottom of a single footnote stands the solitary reference: “Chronology and circumstances point to a Hitler decision before the summer ended.” In the new edition, decisions were not made and orders were not given. 570

A Holocaust under the Nose of the Red Cross?

Jewish leaders have directed anger toward the International Red Cross for not revealing the Holocaust or doing anything to stop it. They point out that international teams of Red Cross inspectors visited and inspected all the major German concentration camps, including Auschwitz, right up to the end of the war. On one hand, the Holocausters expect us to believe that the Germans were murdering tens of thousands of people a day in a super-secret plan that they dared not mention even in their top-secret orders. On the other hand, they expect us to believe that the Nazis would let the International Red Cross inspect those same camps at the during the same period they were supposedly killing many thousands each day. Here are excerpts from a telling U.S.A. Today article: Many Jewish leaders and Holocaust experts long have contended that the Red Cross failed spectacularly during World War II — mostly by not raising an alarm about Nazi atrocities — and compounded the failure later by refusing to acknowledge it… In fact, in a Nov. 22, 1944, letter to U.S. State Department officials about the visit, the Red Cross said: “(We) had not been able to discover any trace of installations for exterminating civilian prisoners… In this case, the documents show, the Red Cross failed at every possible turn. Not only had Red Cross officials neglected to grasp the situation, but they then passed along bad information to the Allies.

A TENDENCY TO DISBELIEVE HORROR STORIES

Several Red Cross documents suggest that the organization was reluctant, at least initially, to put much faith in tales and rumors of Nazi brutality. Like the general public, Red Cross officials didn't comprehend the true extent of the Nazis' crimes… “There is no doubt that the Red Cross let itself be used by the Nazis,” says Radu Ioanid, director of the Holocaust Survivors Registry at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum. ``There is no doubt they were fooled.”571 Obviously, if the grievously high death toll was from lack of medicine, shortages of insecticide (for killing disease-spreading lice), and food — because of the destruction and disruption of the war — the Nazis would have had no fear of International Red Cross inspectors and volunteers in the camps any more than the British would have feared them helping in the ruins of East London after an air raid. Do the promoters of the Holocaust story believe the members of the International Red Cross were part of an anti-Semitic, Nazi, Holocaust conspiracy? Or did their members, in spite of visiting the camps during the war and delivering to prisoners 973,000 packages and parcels (as their own records show), simply see no evidence at all of mass gassings or burnings or “extermination facilities” or for that matter, any effort on the part of the Nazis to purposefully exterminate the Jewish people? While helping hundreds of thousands of refugees, Red Cross volunteers undoubtedly heard stories of Nazi brutality and rumors of mass gassings and they noted those rumors and kept an eye out for any evidence of them, but they saw nothing to indicate that the rumors were true. At the end of the war, in camps such as Buchenwald, they saw great numbers of bodies, but their own reports laid the horror on disease epidemics, which even the British occupiers and the Red Cross itself had great difficulty controlling. For instance, the British estimated that more people perished after they assumed control of Bergen-Belsen than before the camp’s liberation.

Jewish forces condemn revisionists who raise common sense questions about the Holocaust, such as “How could there have been a Holocaust right under the nose of the International Red Cross?” It’s no wonder they want such questions quashed and the questioners imprisoned. Their version of the Holocaust story cannot withstand such inquiries.

Why No Debate?

The official keepers of the Holocaust wage an international campaign to silence the disturbing questions. Most people never even hear the revisionist position because Jewish forces dominate the media and block mainstream access to material that questions Holocaust orthodoxy. Among the most potent of such forces is the world-wide “Anti- Defamation League of the B’nai B’rith,” which has a $37 million annual budget in the United States devoted to defaming those who criticize Israel or question parts of the Holocaust tale. The ADL instructs its spokesmen never to debate any aspect of the Holocaust. If their version of the Holocaust is so overwhelmingly documented, why do they fear free and open discussion? An honest debate between the high priests of the Holocaust and Holocaust questioners would reveal that the latter are not crackpots or hatemongers but people with legitimate questions and arguments based on sound evidence. Such a debate would reveal that revisionists do not deny that Jews, like the Japanese in World War II America, were incarcerated in concentration camps. Revisionists acknowledge that the conditions in the European camps were horrendous near war’s end, and they maintain that many thousands of Jews died in the camps, mostly from malnutrition and disease. Finally, revisionists also freely admit that some massacres of innocent civilians took place and that such horrors should be condemned. Revisionists maintain that while there were certainly Germans who committed what is today defined as “war crimes,” the Allies themselves, which include the Soviets, were guilty of them to at least an equal degree. Revisionists point to the Allied intentional firebombing of civilian populations as well as to the Soviets’ mass rape, expulsion, and murder of millions of Germans and other peoples of Eastern Europe (see Willis Carto’s Barnes Review).572They also point out that many of the deaths in the concentration camps in the last years of the war were caused by Allied bombing of rail lines vital for transportation of food and medicines. They point out that specific targeting and destruction of pharmaceutical factories that produced medicines and medical supplies increased the death rate among German civilians, soldiers and also among those in the camps.

To challenge the popular perception of the Holocaust, obviously, is not condoning mass murder. Those who refute the popular conception of the Holocaust make it clear that they view atrocities against innocent Jews or any other people as crimes against the moral values of Western civilization. Revisionists simply contend that the Jews were not the only victims of the world’s most horrific war. Many revisionists also argue that the motive for a horrendous Holocaust story is the furtherance of the economic and political objectives of Israel and the Jewish organizations. When I began to learn many of the disturbing facts that challenged my perception of the Holocaust, I asked myself how the Holocaust story began and why it so ubiquitous more than 50 years after the end of the Second World War. Usually, there is a great deal of bitterness and hatred at the end of any war, but as time passes, the hysteria lessens and cooler heads prevail. Yet there seems to be as much if not more frenzy about German war crimes today as there was immediately after the war. Just months after the war’s end, a U. S. Senate leader, Robert Taft, condemned the International Military Tribunals as a “blot on the American record we will long regret.”573 The Chief Justice of Supreme Court of the United States, Harlan Fiske Stone, said of Justice Jackson, who left the court to lead the tribunal: Jackson is away conducting his high grade lynching party in Nuremberg. I don’t mind what he does to the Nazis, but I hate to see the pretense that he is running a court and proceeding according to the common law. This is a little too sanctimonious a fraud to meet my old-fashioned ideas. 574 Fifty years later, one would be hard-pressed to find even one American congressman who would dare condemn the war crimes trials. Even if he secretly harbored that opinion, he would know that uttering it would bring upon his head such wrath that his political career would be over. What is the motive, then, that keeps Holocausters striving to keep the story so ingrained in our minds and hearts?

Motives for the Holocaust Story

Pressure was placed on the Allied powers to establish a permanent haven in Palestine for Jewish survivors. The establishment of Israel three years after Germany’s defeat was thus an aftereffect of the Holocaust. 575 –Encarta Encyclopedia article on Holocaust by Raul Hilberg, leading Jewish Holocaust historian During every war, there is war propaganda. In modern warfare, it has become a powerful psychological weapon. While propaganda has no necessary relation to truth, it can be used on a nation’s own forces as well as those of the enemy. During the First World War, the British War Office issued dispatches saying that the German soldiers would enjoy themselves by hoisting up the babies of Belgium on their bayonets, and, furthermore, that they boiled the babies’ bodies to derive the phosphates used in munitions. After the war, the British War Office confirmed that these stories were blatant falsehoods. In the Second World War — in an expanding age of radio, movies, and mass-circulation newspapers and magazines — propaganda became ever more refined and powerful. Jews, who exercised considerable power in the American and British media, began circulating stories about German atrocities in the 1930s, and the stories escalated with the coming of war. As the revisionist Barnes Review 576 points out, just as Germans were accused of boiling babies in the First World War, Germans were now accused of making soap from the bodies of their murdered victims. However, this time it took almost half a century for the historical truth to vanquish the soap story lie, and the blatant falsehood is still often repeated. As a student, in the basement of the Louisiana State University library, I surveyed a great many magazines published between 1945 and 1950, and I found compelling reasons why the war propaganda did not stop after the end of the war. The guns in Europe had scarcely been silenced when a new war began that was vital to the world-wide Jewish community. A massive Jewish invasion and ensuing war began in Palestine for the creation of the Zionist State of Israel. Its success depended to a great degree on the Holocaust story. In his Encarta Encyclopedia article, Raul Hilberg accurately depicts the establishment of Israel as an “aftereffect of the Holocaust.” Actually the establishment of Israel was not so much an aftereffect of the Holocaust as it was an aftereffect of the Holocaust story. The realities of the Holocaust were not as important as the perception that there was a Holocaust. Today, there are important historical questions concerning the sinking of the Maine preceding the Spanish-American War; the Gulf of Tonkin incident preceding heavy American involvement in Vietnam; and whether the Lusitania, which the Germans sank in the First World War, was illegally carrying munitions. The importance of these decisive incidents lay more in the public’s perception of them than in whatever their factual basis may have been at the time. The same is true of the Holocaust. The Zionist’s dream of Israel needed a “Holocaust” — the most monstrous Holocaust imaginable — to further their aims.

Modern Israel could not have been established without the story of the “six million.” The creation of the Jewish state depended on the massive influx of Jews from all over the world into Palestine and a successful war of terror against both the British who administered the region under a League of Nations mandate and against the region’s native inhabitants. The displaced Jewish populations of Europe were a tremendous source of immigration to Palestine. Without that invasion, it is doubtful that the relatively small prewar Jewish population there could have wrested control from the British and the native Palestinians. The Zionist military takeover of Palestine required vast economic, military, and political support from around the world. It entailed the terrorization of the Palestinian majority, driving them from their homes and lands and denying them their civil and political rights. Only the perpetuation of the Holocaust story could make these crimes tolerated by the world. Sympathy for the Jews, deeply stirred by recollections of the Holocaust, made whatever grievous offenses committed against Palestinians, no matter how unjust, seem trivial. The Holocaust story has generated tens of billions of dollars of aid from the United States and even greater amounts from Germany in reparations. Perhaps most importantly, the Holocaust was the fuel that fired the flame of Jewish Zionism all over the world. Recital of the Holocaust united Jews world-wide and elicited the huge monetary and political support necessary for the establishment and maintenance of Israel. After 50 years of almost unbroken conflict with the Palestinians and her Arab neighbors, Israel still relies heavily upon American and German support. Israel is America’s biggest annual recipient of foreign aid, just as it has been since her establishment. Constant harping on the Holocaust keeps the money flowing from both Jews and non-Jews and forms a subtle excuse for every injustice committed against the Arabs.

Nahum Goldmann, president of the World Jewish Congress, wrote a popular book called The Jewish Paradox, published by Grosset & Dunlap in 1978. Goldmann writes dramatically of the impact of German reparations for Israel.

The Germans will have paid out a total of 80 billion…Without the German reparations that started coming through during the first ten years as a state, Israel would not have half of its present infrastructure: All the trains in Israel are German, the ships are German, and the same goes for electrical installations and a great deal of Israel’s industry. . . and that is setting aside the individual pensions paid to survivors. Israel today receives hundreds of millions of dollars in German currency each year. . . . In some years the sums of money received by Israel from Germany has been as much as double or treble the contribution made by collections from international Jewry. 577 In this amazing book, Goldmann admits that even during the war the Zionists were planning war crimes trials and reparations from Germany.

During the war the WJC (World Jewish Congress) had created an Institute of Jewish Affairs in New York (its headquarters are now in London). The directors were two great Lithuanian Jewish Jurists, Jacob and Nehemiah Robinson. Thanks to them, the Institute worked out two completely revolutionary ideas: the Nuremberg tribunal and German reparations. The Institute’s . . . idea was that Nazi Germany ought to pay after its defeat, …The German reparations would first have to be paid to people who had lost their belongings through the Nazis. Further, if, as we hoped, the Jewish state was created, the Germans would pay compensation to enable the survivors to settle there. The first time this idea was expressed was during the war, in the course of a conference in Baltimore. 578

The Nuremberg Trials were presented to the public as an effort by the Allies to levy justice on war criminals. In The Jewish Paradox, Goldmann admits that the Nuremberg Trials and the idea of German reparations were originated not by the Allies but by Zionists before any evidence of a Holocaust, and that the compensation would be vital to the foundation of Israel.

Since the Second World War, the Holocaust story has engendered tens of billions of dollars from the United States and even greater amounts from Germany in reparations. The staggering sum, easily exceeding $150 billion, would certainly provide a powerful motive to Israel and World Zionism to perpetuate the sensationalized Holocaust story.

Another possible motive for keeping the propaganda alive became apparent to me as I read the stacks of 1940s magazines in the LSU library. I found numerous stories predicting the eminent rebirth of Nazism. Many of them claimed fancifully that secret hordes of gold existed that would fund the neo-Nazi movement in Germany and all over the world, including North and South America. Associating the Holocaust with Nazism was certainly the most effective way to rebuke the National Socialist philosophy. Of course, the Holocaust not only rebukes the Nazis, it insulates the Jews from practically any criticism. It is also a psychological weapon in the hands of the Jewish-led egalitarian movement, for the mass media never seemed to miss an opportunity to link racial thinking and science to the Nazi horrors (except of course for Jewish racial horrors against Palestinians).

In advancing the Holocaust story, the Jewish-dominated media had a willing partner in the Allied governments. At the end of the war, with Europe in ruins, tens of millions dead, and half of Europe under the Communist tyranny, many could be forgiven for asking if involvement in the original Polish-German war had been worth it. The Holocaust story provided powerful emotional justification. I enjoyed reading Raymond Chandler murder mysteries when I was in college. When studying the Holocaust, I remembered that in making a criminal case, the prosecution shows that the defendant has motive to commit the offense and the opportunity to do so. Powerful Jewish interests certainly had the motive to create and promote the Holocaust story in its most extreme version, and with their domination of the media they certainly had the opportunity. There are literally thousands of books in print focusing on aspects of the Holocaust and countless magazine articles, speeches, sermons, documentaries, novels, plays and movies tell us of its terror. An overwhelming number of the authors of material on the Holocaust are themselves Jewish. Is it likely that Jews, who passionately believe in the unspeakable horrors of the Holocaust, can write objectively about it? Could Elie Wiesel write an unbiased account of Nazi Germany or the Holocaust, or could Adolf Hitler, were he alive, write an unbiased one of Wiesel and the Second World War?

Elie Wiesel writes:

Every Jew, somewhere in his being, should set apart a zone of hate — healthy, virile hate — for what the German personifies and for what persists in the German. To do otherwise would be a betrayal of the dead.579 Imagine if a Russian survivor of the murderous Gulags under Jewish Bolshevism made a statement saying that, Every Russian, somewhere in his being, should set apart a zone of hate — healthy virile hate — for what the Jew personifies and what persists in the Jew. To do otherwise would be a betrayal of the dead. I don’t believe he would have won a Nobel prize. In fact, in the Europe of today he would be jailed and called an evil anti-Semite. The real power of the Holocaust story has been in the human emotion it evokes. It is the tearful remembrances of elderly Jewish survivors, the coquettish words of Anne Frank, and the photographs and newsreels of emaciated and mangled bodies that are ingrained in the consciousness of us all. It is the pictorial record that is the real “proof” of the Holocaust, for we have all seen its victims in their terrible poses of death. However, similar pictures could be shown from many wars. We could see the millions of victims of Communism under Trotsky’s Red Army or Stalin’s purges. We could see the women and children who died by the thousands in the British-run concentration camps of the Boer War. We could see the remains of the tens of thousands of men, women, and children who were burned alive at Dresden or Hamburg. We could see the dead of the killing fields of Cambodia or the blood-drenched jungles of Rwanda. But we do not see these victims in photographs and films day after day, year after year. These other victims of war have no multimillion-dollar memorial among the national monuments of Washington, D.C., no political lobby, no Hollywood promoters. To remember them doesn’t suit the agenda of those who decide what the public will view and hear. During the coming century, as communications flow with greater ease and rapidity, more people will challenge many of the premises and allegations of the Holocaust story. Errors and falsehoods will fall before vigorous cross-examination and intellectual challenge. Each day the story unravels a bit more, becoming increasingly untenable. The truth grows incrementally. Terror and suppression will no longer suffice to block its advance. It shall prevail someday, triumphant in its naked power.

I cannot say with absolute certainty that some parts of the Holocaust story did not occur just as the leading “exterminationists” allege. But certainly, there is now enough contrary evidence and reasonable questions to warrant a full and open inquiry and debate on Holocaust dogma.

We cannot know the full truth until dissenting opinions and free inquiries into the Holocaust are allowed. Those historians and scholars who harbor doubts about aspects of Holocaust orthodoxy must be allowed to investigate and analyze; and then to present their findings without fear of retaliation of the sort suffered by David Irving. After researching and questioning elements of the Holocaust story, I came to realize that those who challenge parts of it are no more unjustified than those who dispute the establishment’s version of the Kennedy lone assassin theory. The difference is that there is less political, economic, social, or religious repercussion when challenging the Warren Commission findings. To simply ask pertinent questions about any aspect of the Holocaust story will bring down upon oneself the unbridled wrath of those who dominate the media and who support Israel. I have already paid dearly for my apostasy, and this book will probably exact an even greater personal cost. In America, if a researcher dares to publish and then publicly discuss the issue, it can result in the loss of his livelihood and even physical endangerment. In Canada and Europe it has meant revocation of university degrees and loss of employment, professional standing, pensions, businesses, and, in addition, imprisonment and physical attacks.

As I write these words, news has come to me that the French nationalist leader Jean-Marie Le Pen has been convicted by a French court and fined thousands of dollars for simply saying in a conversation with a journalist that the gas chambers were a “footnote” of the Second World War.580 Sir Winston Churchill, in his monumental sixvolume The Second World War,581 has no mention of gas chambers — not even a footnote. The same can be said for Eisenhower’s Crusade in Europe.582 Perhaps the Zionists can arrange for a posthumous trial for these two men who did not pay proper homage to the holy Holocaust. After Le Pen’s comment, the European director of the Wiesenthal Center demanded the waiver of Le Pen’s European Parliamentary immunity to make him liable for prosecution and ineligible to run for elective office.583

A society that does not allow free discussion, inquiry, and debate is not free. The greater the fear of government and media for an idea, the more intense the suppression. In the case of politically incorrect ideas about the Holocaust, this fear has reached hysterical proportions. A government or media establishment that fears certain ideas, suppresses them, not because the ideas are weak, but because they are powerful; not because those ideas are refutable, but because they are convincing. If it really believes the ideas to be weak, it has no urgency to suppress them. If we are to know the true story of the Holocaust, there must be freedom of inquiry, freedom to question and freedom to doubt.

If there is one thing I have learned in my political life, it is to question. We must have free speech and press, free inquiry and discussion. Before we can know what is true or untrue, fact or fiction, we must hear all sides. This holds for every issue before us, including the phenomenon that produces such incredible hysteria: the Holocaust, spelled with a capital “H.”

The Holocaust increasingly assumes the dimensions of a religion. It is a sort of death and redemption theme that takes on the image of an innocent people being slaughtered but rising in an aura of unassailable holiness. There are refurbished concentration camps as shrines and pilgrimages to them; holy writ full of saints and sinners, and temples such as the Holocaust Museum in Washington, D.C. Anyone who questions even the slightest detail of it is a heretic who deserves scorn and derision at the least, but more preferably the loss of his livelihood and his imprisonment. The writings of the blasphemers must be confiscated and burned. If the heretical works somehow, even to a small degree, find their way to the public, the authors and their works must be systematically demeaned and ridiculed. The Holocaust legend lives on, fueling intense ethnic solidarity among Jews and collective hatred toward Gentiles. Among Gentiles, the chronic replay of the Holocaust story destroys our most elementary psychological defenses against Jewish Supremacism. Actually, the greatest holocaust born of ethnocentrism was the mass murder of tens of millions of Christians by the Jewish-led Bolsheviks in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. It seems sadly ironic so little is focused on that Holocaust of Holocausts. In our age, though, events and their significance are defined as supremacist Jews choose to define them. Holocaust terminology remains the exclusive preserve of the Jewish victims of the Second World War. The Jewish Holocaust is sacredly held apart from all other loss of life. There are Jews and then there is all the rest of humanity — the small “g” gentiles of the world.

The Mother of All Holocausts

It would be far more appropriate to describe the entire Second World War as a Holocaust, rather than simply the sufferings of the Jews. The bombing and burning of Europe’s most beautiful cities and artworks, the death of tens of millions of the bravest and fittest young men, and the ruthless uprooting, starvation, rape and murder of tens of millions of innocent civilians from all nations and ethnic groups of Europe — that was the greatest Holocaust the world has ever known. The civilized world will feel the cultural and genetic effects of the Second World War for many generations to come. The British Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain, put it succinctly when he said the German-Polish border dispute wasn’t worth the blood of one English grenadier. All of those born during and since the conflict, grew up with the catechism of parents and press about the “good war.” If the death of 50 million human beings is a good war, then what exactly is a bad one? Naturally, the same forces that have publicized the Holocaust have emphasized the necessity of the war, and the Nuremberg Tribunals decreed the ultimate war guilt of the Germans. Seeking to end the 20-year Polish subjugation of eastern German territory, Germany had invaded Poland. At that point, it was a border war, with minimal loss of life and little bombing of cities or civilians. The war widened as France and England declared war on Germany, and soon it was a World War, ultimately the greatest human carnage in history (see Willis Carto’s Barnes Review). 584 In many nations there were those who wanted war. There were Germans looking to the east for Lebensraum; Poles, who would rather have war than give back their Versailles-expropriated German territory. Among the French, there were those jealous of their German rivals; and among the British, those who were fearful of the economic, political, and military power of a united Europe. Those forces and others helped create the Holocaust of the Second World War. And, let us not forget one other group that bears a heavy responsibility for this Holocaust of war: the world-wide forces of organized Jewry. In 1933, the World Jewish Congress proclaimed war on Germany.585 For six years, in every nation of the West, they exacerbated every national grievance and paranoia. They ran inflammatory articles about Germany in the Jewish owned or controlled press. They used their great financial power to advantage. They used their powerful political and media influence to agitate for war and feed the fires of hate, a fire still stoked by the media 55 years after the fact.

We Americans, along with British, Germans, French, Poles, Russians, Italians, and others slaughtered millions of European women and children, killed and maimed our young men, and burned our most sacred works of beauty in our European cradle of culture and civilization. When I was very young, I developed a feeling of guilt for slavery and Jim Crow. I shed that guilt as I came to realize that our race has given far more to the people of the Earth than it has taken. As I came to understand the realities of the Second World War, feelings of guilt came upon me again, but this time, not for what my race has done to others, but for what we have done to ourselves. Ultimately, we have no one to blame for that carnage more than ourselves. The Second World War was the most destructive and devastating occurrence in the long history of European mankind. Communism raped half of Europe and was unleashed across the planet, killing and enslaving millions more before it burned itself out. With their Pyrrhic victory, Jewish Supremacists consolidated their power, with the result that the 21st century begins with Zionist hegemony in the highest echelons of media and political power. At the end of the Second World War, as Supremacist Jews invaded Palestine, while their con federates in Europe and America planned a different form of invasion for European and American homelands: an immigration invasion. In the early years of the 21st Century we can now easily envision the demographic and genetic catastrophe that looms ahead. An ancient hatred is now being settled by the people who “never forget and never forgive.”