Holocaust 66 Questions Counter Propaganda Series - Question 1

[mgt23]

i'm releasing a new series based on the Zundel 66 questions/Nizkor project debate, over the next few months. I invite people to debate and provide material in support or refutation of positions.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/qar/qar00.html

The IHR's Questions & Answers, and Nizkor's Responses
A Reply to the IHR/Zündel's "66 Q&A"

      General

   1. What proof exists that the Nazis practiced genocide or deliberately killed six million Jews?

      Note that this reply is unusually long, serving as a quick primer on Holocaust "revisionism" itself. Remaining replies are much more to-the-point.

   2. What evidence exists that six million Jews were not killed by the Nazis?

   3. Did Simon Wiesenthal once state in writing that "there were no extermination camps on German soil"?

   4. If Dachau was in Germany and even Simon Wiesenthal says that it was not an extermination camp, why do thousands of veterans in America say that it was an extermination camp?

   5. Auschwitz was in Poland, not Germany. Is there any proof that gas chambers for the purpose of killing human beings existed at or in Auschwitz?

   6. If Auschwitz wasn't a "death camp," what was its true purpose?
      Trivializing the Holocaust; Blaming the Jews

   7. Who set up the first concentration camps, and where and when?

   8. How did German concentration camps differ from American relocation camps which interned Japanese-, German- and Italian-Americans during WWII?

   9. Why did the Germans intern Jews in concentration camps?

  10. What extensive measure did world Jewry undertake against Germany as early as 1933?

  11. Did the Jews of the world "declare war on Germany"?

  12. Was this before or after the rumors of the "death camps" began?

  13. What nation is credited with being the first to practice mass civilian bombing?
      The Fate of the Jews

  14. How many gas chambers to kill people were there at Auschwitz?

  15. How many Jews were in areas that came to be controlled by the Germans before the war?

  16. If the Jews of Europe were not exterminated by the Nazis, what happened to them?

  17. How many Jews fled to deep within the Soviet Union?

  18. How many Jews emigrated prior to the war, thus being outside of German reach?

  19. If Auschwitz was not an extermination camp, why did the commandant, Rudolf Hoss, confess that it was?

  20. Is there any evidence that it was American, British, French, and Soviet policy to torture German prisoners in order to exact confessions before the trials at Nuremberg and elsewhere?
      Conspiracies

  21. How does the "Holocaust" story benefit the Jews today?

  22. How does it benefit the state of Israel?

  23. How does it benefit many Christian clergymen?

  24. How does it benefit the Communists?

  25. How does it benefit Britain?

  26. Is there any evidence that Hitler knew of a mass extermination of Jews?
      Zyklon-B

  27. What kind of gas was used by the Nazis in concentration camps?

  28. For what purpose was, and is, this gas manufactured?

  29. Why did they use this instead of a gas more suitable for mass extermination?

  30. How long does it take to ventilate fully an area fumigated by Zyklon-B?

  31. Auschwitz commandant Hoss said that his men would enter the gas chamber ten minutes after the Jews had died and remove them. How do you explain this?

  32. Hoss said in his confession that his men would smoke cigarettes as they pulled the dead Jews out of the gas chambers ten minutes after gassing. Isn't Zyklon-B explosive?
      General

  33. What was the exact procedure the Nazis allegedly used to exterminate Jews?

  34. How could such a mass program have been kept secret from Jews who were scheduled for extermination?

  35. If Jews scheduled for execution knew the fate in store for them, why did they go to their death without fight or protest?

  36. About how many Jews died in the concentration camps?

  37. How did they die?

  38. What is typhus?

  39. What is the difference if six million or 300,000 Jews died during this awesome period?
      Cremation

  40. Many Jewish survivors of the "death camps" say they saw bodies being piled up in pits and burned. How much gasoline would have to be used to perform this?

  41. Can bodies be burned in pits?

  42. "Holocaust" authors claim that the Nazis were able to cremate bodies in about 10 minutes. How long does it take to incinerate one body according to professional crematory operators?

  43. Why did the concentration camps have crematory ovens?

  44. Given a 100% duty cycle of all the crematoria in all the camps in German-controlled territory, what is the maximum number of corpses it would have been possible to incinerate during the entire period such crematoria were in operation?

  45. Can a crematory oven be operated 100% of the time?

  46. How much ash is left from a cremated corpse?

  47. If six million people had been incinerated by the Nazis, what happened to the ashes?

  48. Do Allied wartime photos of Auschwitz (during the period when the "gas chambers" and crematoria were supposed to be in full operation) reveal gas chambers?
      Trivializing Anti-Jewish Laws

  49. What was the main provision of the German "Nuremberg laws" of 1935?

  50. Were there any American precedents for the Nuremberg Laws?

  51. What did the International Red Cross have to report with regard to the "Holocaust" question?

  52. What was the role of the Vatican during the time the six million Jews were alleged to have been exterminated?
      General

  53. What evidence is there that Hitler knew of the ongoing Jewish extermination?

  54. Did the Nazis and the Zionists collaborate?

  55. What caused Anne Frank's death just several weeks before the end of the war?

  56. Is the Anne Frank Diary genuine?

  57. What about the numerous photographs and footage taken in the German concentration camps showing piles of emaciated corpses? Are these faked?

  58. Who originated the term "genocide"?

  59. Were films such as Holocaust and The Winds of War documentary films?
      About "Revisionism"

  60. About how many books have been published which refute some aspect of the standard claims made about the "Holocaust"?

  61. What happened when a historical institute offered $50,000 to anyone who could prove that Jews were gassed at Auschwitz?

  62. What about the claim that those who question the "Holocaust" are anti-Semitic or neo-Nazi?

  63. What has happened to the historians who have questioned the "Holocaust" material?

  64. Has the Institute for Historical Review suffered any retaliation for its efforts to uphold the right of freedom of speech and academic freedom?

  65. Why is there so little publicity for your point of view?

  66. Where can I get more information about the "other side" of the "Holocaust" story as well as facts concerning other areas of WWII Historical Revisionism?

[mgt23]

http://www.zundelsite.org/basic_article ... t.004.html

66 Questions and Answers on the Holocaust
        (an early IHR publication)

        1. What proof exists that the Nazis killed six million Jews?
            None. All we have is postwar testimony, mostly of individual "survivors." This testimony is contradictory, and very few claim to have actually witnessed any "gassing." There are no contemporaneous documents or hard evidence: no mounds of ashes, no crematories capable of disposing of millions of corpses, no "human soap," no lamp shades made of human skin, and no credible demographic statistics.

        2. What evidence exists that six million Jews were not killed by the Nazis?
            Extensive forensic, demographic, analytical and comparative evidence demonstrates the impossibility of such a figure. The widely repeated "six million" figure is an irresponsible exaggeration.

        3. Did Simon Wiesenthal state in writing that "there were no extermination camps on German soil"?
            Yes. The famous "Nazi hunter" wrote this in Stars and Stripes, Jan. 24, 1993. He also claimed that "gassings" of Jews took place only in Poland.

        4. If Dachau was in Germany, and even Wiesenthal says that it was not an extermination camp, why do many American veterans say it was an extermination camp?
            After the Allies captured Dachau, many GIs and others were led through the camp and shown a building alleged to have been a "gas chamber." The mass media widely, but falsely, continues to assert that Dachau was a "gassing" camp.

        5. What about Auschwitz? Is there any proof that gas chambers were used to kill people there?
            No. Auschwitz, captured by the Soviets, was modified after the war, and a room was reconstructed to look like a large "gas chamber." After America's leading expert on gas chamber construction and design, Fred Leuchter, examined this and other alleged Auschwitz gassing facilities, he stated that it was an "absurdity" to claim that they were, or could have been, used for executions.

        6. If Auschwitz wasn't a "death camp," what was its true purpose?
            It was an internment center and part of a large-scale manufacturing complex. Synthetic fuel was produced there, and its inmates were used as a workforce.

        7. Who set up the first concentration camps?
            During the Boer War (1899-1902), the British set up what they called "concentration camps" in South Africa to hold Afrikaner women and children. Approximately 30,000 died in these hell-holes, which were as terrible as German concentration camps of World War II.

        8. How did German concentration camps differ from American "relocation" camps in which Japanese-Americans were interned during WWII?
            The only significant difference was that the Germans interned persons on the basis of being real or suspected security threats to the German war effort, whereas the Roosevelt administration interned persons on the basis of race alone.

        9. Why did the German government intern Jews in camps?
            It considered Jews a direct threat to national security. (Jews were overwhelmingly represented in Communist subversion.) However, all suspected security risks -- not just Jews -- were in danger of internment.

        10. What hostile measure did world Jewry undertake against Germany as early as 1933?
            In March 1933, international Jewish organizations declared an international boycott of German goods.

        11. Did the Jews of the world "declare war on Germany"?
            Yes. Newspapers around the world reported this. A front-page headline in the London Daily Express (March 24, 1933), for example, announced "Judea Declares War on Germany."

        12. Was this before or after the "death camp" stories began?
            This was years before the "death camp" stories, which began in 1941-1942.

        13. What nation is credited with being the first to practice mass civilian bombing?
            Britain -- on May 11, 1940.

        14. How many "gas chambers" to kill people were there at Auschwitz?
            None.

        15. How many Jews were living in the areas that came under German control during the war?
            Fewer than six million.

        16. If the Jews of Europe were not exterminated by the Nazis, what happened to them?
            After the war millions of Jews were still alive in Europe. Hundreds of thousands (perhaps as many as one and a half million) had died of all causes during the war. Others had emigrated to Palestine, the United States, and other countries. Still more Jews left Europe after the war.

        17. How many Jews fled or were evacuated to deep within the Soviet Union?
            More than two million fled or were evacuated by the Soviets in 1941-1942. These Jews thus never came under German control.

        18. How many Jews emigrated from Europe prior to the war, thus putting them outside of German reach?
            Perhaps a million (not including those absorbed by the USSR).

        19. If Auschwitz was not an extermination camp, why did the commandant, Rudolf Hoess, confess that it was?
            He was tortured by British military police, as one of his interrogators later admitted.

        20. Is there any evidence of American, British and Soviet policy to torture German prisoners in order to exact "confessions" for use at the trials at Nuremberg and elsewhere?
            Yes. Torture was extensively used to produce fraudulent "evidence" for the infamous Nuremberg trials, and in other postwar "war crimes" trials.

        21. How does the Holocaust story benefit Jews today?
            It helps protect Jews as a group from criticism. As a kind of secular religion, it provides an emotional bond between Jews and their leaders. It is a powerful tool in Jewish money-raising campaigns, and is used to justify US aid to Israel.

        22. How does it benefit the State of Israel?
            It justifies the billions of dollars in "reparations" Germany has paid to Israel and many individual "survivors." It is used by the Zionist/Israeli lobby to dictate a pro-Israel American foreign policy in the Middle East, and to force American taxpayer aid to Israel, totaling billions of dollars per year.

        23. How is it used by many Christian clergymen?
            The Holocaust story is cited to justify the Old Testament notion of Jews as a holy and eternally persecuted "Chosen People."

        24. How did it benefit the Communists?
            It diverted attention from Soviet war mongering and atrocities before, during and after the Second World War.

        25. How does it benefit Britain?
            In much the same way it benefitted the Soviet Union.

        26. Is there any evidence that Hitler ordered mass extermination of Jews?
            No.

        27. What kind of gas was used in German wartime concentration camps?
            Hydrocyanic gas from "Zyklon B," a commercial pesticide that was widely used throughout Europe.

        28. For what purpose was "Zyklon B" manufactured?
            It was a pesticide used to fumigate clothing and quarters to kill typhus-bearing lice and other pests.

        29. Was this product suitable for mass extermination?
            No. If the Nazis had intended to use poison gas to exterminate people, far more efficient products were available. Zyklon is a slow-acting fumigation agent.

        30. How long does it take to ventilate an area after fumigation with Zyklon B?
            Normally about 20 hours. The whole procedure is very complicated and dangerous. Gas masks must be used, and only trained technicians are employed.

        31. Auschwitz commandant Hoess said that his men would enter the "gas chambers" to remove bodies ten minutes after the victims had died. How do you explain this?
            It can't be explained because had they done so they would have suffered the same fate as the "gassing" victims.

        32. Hoess said in his "confession" that his men would smoke cigarettes as they pulled bodies out of gas chambers, ten minutes after gassing. Isn't Zyklon B explosive?
            Yes. The Hoess confession is obviously false.

        33. What was the exact procedure the Nazis allegedly used to exterminate Jews?
            The stories range from dropping gas canisters into a crowded room from a hole in the ceiling, to piping gas through shower heads, to "steam chambers," to "electrocution" machinery. Millions are alleged to have been killed in these ways.

        34. How could a mass extermination program have been kept secret from those who were scheduled to be killed?
            It couldn't have been kept secret. The fact is that there were no mass gassings. The extermination stories originated as wartime atrocity propaganda.

        35. If Jews scheduled for execution knew the fate in store for them, why did they go along with the Germans without resisting?
            They didn't fight back because they did not believe there was any intention to kill them.

        36. About how many Jews died in the concentration camps?
            Competent estimates range from about 300,000 to 500,000.

        37. How did they die?
            Mainly from recurring typhus epidemics that ravaged war-torn Europe during the war, as well as from starvation and lack of medical attention during the final months of the conflict, when virtually all road and rail transportation had been bombed out by the Allies.

        38. What is typhus?
            This disease always appears when many people are jammed together under unsanitary conditions. It is carried by lice that infest hair and clothes. Ironically, if the Germans had used more Zyklon B, more Jews might have survived the camps.

        39. What is the difference if six million or 300,000 Jews died during the Second World War?
            5,700,000.

        40. Some Jewish "death camp" survivors say they saw bodies being dumped into pits and burned. How much fuel would have been required for this?
            A great deal more than the Germans had access to, as there was a substantial fuel shortage during the war.

        41. Can bodies be burned in pits?
            No. It is impossible for human bodies to be totally consumed by flames in this manner because of lack of oxygen.

        42. Holocaust historians claim that the Nazis were able to cremate bodies in about ten minutes. How long does it take to incinerate one body, according to professional crematory operators?
            About an hour and a half, although the larger bones require further processing afterwards.

        43. Why did the German concentration camps have crematory ovens?
            To dispose efficiently and sanitarily of the corpses of those who had died.

        44. Given a 100 percent duty cycle of all the crematories in all the camps in German-controlled territory, what is the maximum number of corpses it would have been possible to incinerate during the entire period such crematories were in operation?
            About 430,600.

        45. Can a crematory oven be operated 100 percent of the time?
            No. Fifty percent of the time is a generous estimate (12 hours per day). Crematory ovens have to be cleaned thoroughly and regularly when in heavy operation.

        46. How much ash is left from a cremated corpse?
            After the bone is all ground down, about a shoe box full.

        47.If six million people had been incinerated by the Nazis, what happened to the ashes?
            That remains to be "explained." Six million bodies would have produced many tons of ashes, yet there is no evidence of any large ash depositories.

        48. Do Allied wartime aerial reconnaissance photos of Auschwitz (taken during the period when the "gas chambers" and crematoria were supposedly in full operation) show evidence of extermination?
            No. In fact, these photographs do not even reveal a trace of the enormous amount of smoke that supposedly was constantly over the camp, nor do they show evidence of the "open pits" in which bodies were allegedly burned.

        49. What was the main provision of the German "Nuremberg Laws" of 1935?
            They forbid marriage and sexual relations between Germans and Jews, similar to laws existing in Israel today.

        50. Were there any American precedents for the Nuremberg Laws?
            Years before Hitler's Third Reich, most states in the USA had enacted laws prohibiting marriage between persons of different races.

        51. What did the International Red Cross have to report with regard to the "Holocaust" question?
            An official report on the visit of an IRC delegation to Auschwitz in September 1944 pointed out that internees were permitted to receive packages, and that rumors of gas chambers could not be verified.

        52. What was the role of the Vatican during the time six million Jews were allegedly being exterminated?
            If there had been an extermination plan, the Vatican would most certainly have been in a position to know about it. But because there was none, the Vatican had no reason to speak out against it, and didn't.

        53. What evidence is there that Hitler knew of an on-going Jewish extermination program?
            None.

        54. Did the Nazis and the Zionists collaborate?
            As early as 1933, Hitler's government signed an agreement with the Zionists permitting Jews to emigrate from Germany to Palestine, taking large amounts of capital with them.

        55. How did Anne Frank die?
            After surviving internment in Auschwitz, she succumbed to typhus in the Bergen-Belsen camp, just a few weeks before the end of the war. The was not gassed.

        56. Is the Anne Frank Diary genuine?
            No. Evidence compiled by Dr. Robert Faurisson of France establishes that the famous diary is a literary hoax.

        57. What about the familiar photographs and film footage taken in the liberated German camps showing piles of emaciated corpses? Are these faked?
            Photographs can be faked, but it's far easier merely to add a misleading caption to a photo or commentary to a piece of footage. Piles of emaciated corpses do not mean that these people were "gassed" or deliberately starved to death. Actually, these were tragic victims of raging epidemics or of starvation due to a lack of food in the camps toward the end of the war.

        58. Who originated the term "genocide"?
            Raphael Lemkin, a Polish Jew, in a book published in 1944.

        59. Are films such as "Schindler's List" or "The Winds of War" documentaries?
            No. Such films are fictional dramatizations loosely based on history. Unfortunately, all too many people accept them as accurate historical representations.

        60. How many books have been published that refute some aspect of the standard "Holocaust" story?
            Dozens. More are in production.

        61. What happened when the Institute for Historical Review offered $50,000 to anyone who could prove that Jews were gassed at Auschwitz?
            No proof was submitted as a claim on the reward, but the Institute was sued for $17 million by former Auschwitz inmate Mel Mermelstein, who claimed that the reward offer caused him to lose sleep and his business to suffer, and represented "injurious denial of established fact."

        62. What about the charge that those who question the Holocaust story are merely anti-Semitic or neo-Nazi?
            This is a smear designed to draw attention away from facts and honest arguments. Scholars who refute Holocaust story claims are of all persuasions and ethnic-religious backgrounds (including Jewish). There is no correlation between "Holocaust" refutation and anti-Semitism or neo-Nazism. Increasing numbers of Jewish scholars openly admit the lack of evidence for key Holocaust claims.

        63. What has happened to "revisionist" historians who have challenged the Holocaust story?
            They have been subjected to smear campaigns, loss of academic positions, loss of pensions, destruction of their property and physical violence.

        64. Has the Institute for Historical Review suffered any retaliation for its efforts to uphold the right of freedom of speech and academic freedom?
            The IHR had been bombed three times, and was completely destroyed on July 4, 1984, in a criminal arson attack. Numerous death threats by telephone have been received. Media coverage of the IHR has been overwhelmingly hostile.

        65. Why is there so little publicity for the revisionist view?
            Because for political reasons the Establishment does not want any in-depth discussion about the facts surrounding the Holocaust story.

        66. Where can I get more information about the "other side" of the Holocaust story, as well as facts concerning other aspects of World War II historical revisionism?
            The Institute for Historical Review, P.O. Box 2739, Newport Beach, CA 92659, carries a wide variety of books, cassette and video tapes on significant historical subjects. (updated 1/95)

        Extra Copies of this Question and Answer sheet are 10 copies: $2.00 -- 50 copies: $5.00 -- 100 or more: 8 cents each.

        For more detailed study of the Holocaust issue, read these books available from the Institute for Historical Review: The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, by Dr. Arthur Butz, Pb., $9.95. The Holocaust Story and the Lies of Ulysses, by Paul Rassinier, Pb., $12.00. Auschwitz: A Judge Looks at the Evidence, by Wilhelm Staeglich, Hb. $19.95; Pb., $11.95.

        (On all book orders, please add 10% for shipping and handling.)

        The Journal of Historical Review is published six times yearly by the IHR. Subscriptions are $40 per year (domestic). Write for our catalog of books, leaflets, and audio and video cassette tapes. We wish to acknowledge that the above publication was made available courtesy of the Institute for Historical Review.

        Copyright restrictions:

        The copyright holders (Greg Raven and/or the Institute for Historical Review) hereby grant to anyone the right to reproduce electronically or magnetically the BBS versions of these files. We do not grant reprint rights to any words-on-paper versions of these files except for extracts up to 500 words in book reviews or citations in other books. You are allowed to print out one copy of these files for your own personal use. You are not allowed to sell a print-out.

        For a current catalog, with a complete listing of books and audio and video tapes, send one dollar to:

        Institute For Historical Review
        Post Office Box 2739
        Newport Beach, California 92659

        The Zundelsite was notified on January 2, 1996 that a properly prepared rebuttal document to this much-visited and talked-about "66 Q&A" is now available at Nizkor.

        We will reply to Nizkor's rebuttal with a rebuttal of our own as soon as time permits.

[mgt23]

http://www.nizkor.org/features/qar/qar01.html

1. What proof exists that the Nazis practiced genocide or deliberately killed six million Jews?

The IHR says (original, Samisdat, and revised versions combined):

    None. The only evidence is the postwar testimony of individual "survivors." This testimony is contradictory, and no "survivor" claims to have actually witnessed any gassing. There are no contemporaneous documents and no hard evidence whatsoever: no mounds of ashes, no crematoria capable of disposing of millions of corpses, no piles of clothes, no human soap, no lamp shades made of human skin, no records, no credible demographic statistics.

Nizkor replies:

    Lie piled upon lie, with not a shred of proof.

    This is as good a place as any to present some detailed evidence which is consistently ignored, as a sort of primer on Holocaust denial. It will make this reply much longer than the other sixty-five, but perhaps the reader will understand the necessity for this.

    Let's look at their claims one at a time:

  # Supposedly the only evidence, "the postwar testimony of individual survivors."

    First of all, consider the implicit conspiracy theory. Notice how the testimony of every single inmate of every Nazi camp is automatically dismissed as unconvincing. This total dismissal of inmates' testimony, along with the equally-total dismissal of the Nazis' own testimony (!), is the largest unspoken assumption of Holocaust-denial.

    This assumption, which is not often spelled out, is that the attempted Jewish genocide never took place, but rather that a secret conspiracy of Jews, starting around 1941, planted and forged myriad documents to prove that it did; then, after the war, they rounded up all the camp survivors and told them what to say.

    The conspirators also supposedly managed to torture hundreds of key Nazis into confessing to crimes which they never committed, or into framing their fellow Nazis for those crimes, and to plant hundreds of documents in Nazi files which were never discovered until after the war, and only then, in many cases, by sheer luck. Goebbels' diary, for example, was barely rescued from being sold as 7,000 pages of scrap paper, but buried in the scattered manuscript were several telling entries (as translated in Lochner, The Goebbels Diaries, 1948, pp. 86, 147-148):

        February 14, 1942: The Führer once again expressed his determination to clean up the Jews in Europe pitilessly. There must be no squeamish sentimentalism about it. The Jews have deserved the catastrophe that has now overtaken them. Their destruction will go hand in hand with the destruction of our enemies. We must hasten this process with cold ruthlessness.

        March 27, 1942: The procedure is a pretty barbaric one and not to be described here more definitely. Not much will remain of the Jews. On the whole it can be said that about 60 per cent of them will have to be liquidated whereas only 40 per cent can be used for forced labor.

    Michael Shermer has pointed out that the Nazis' own estimate of the number of European Jews was eleven million, and sixty percent of eleven million is 6.6 million. This is fairly close to the actual figure. (Actually, forty percent was a serious overestimate of the survival rate of Jews who were captured, but there were many Jews who escaped.)

    In any case, most of the diary is quite mundane, and interesting only to historians. Did the supposed Jewish conspiracy forge seven thousand pages to insert just a few lines? How did they manage to know Goebbels' affairs intimately enough to avoid contradictions, e.g. putting him or his associates in the wrong city at the wrong date?

    As even the revisionist David Cole has admitted, revisionists have yet to provide a satisfactory explanation of this document.

    Regarding postwar testimony from Nazis, were they all tortured into confessing to heinous crimes which they supposedly did not commit? This might be believable if only a few Nazis were captured after the war, or maybe if some had courageously stood up in court and shouted to the world about the supposed attempt to silence them. But hundreds testified regarding the Holocaust, in trials dating from late 1945 until the 1960s. (For example, see Böck, Hofmann, Hössler, Klein, Münch, and Stark.)

    Many of these Nazis testified as witnesses and were not accused of crimes. What was the basis for their supposed coercion?

    Many of these trials were in German courts. Did the Germans torture their own countrymen? Well, Holocaust-deniers sometimes claim that the Jews have secretly infiltrated the German government and control everything about it. They prefer not to talk too much about this theory, however, because it is clearly on the lunatic fringe.

    The main point is that not one of these supposed torture victims -- in fifty years, not one -- has come forth to support the claim that testimony was coerced.

    On the contrary, confirmation and reconfirmation of their testimony has continued across the years. What coercion could have convinced Judge Konrad Morgen to testify to the crimes he witnessed at the International Nuremberg Trial in 1946, where he was not accused of any crime? And to later testify at the Auschwitz trial at Frankfurt, Germany, in 1963-65? What coercion was applied to SS Doctor Johann Kremer to make him testify in his own defense in 1947, and then, after having been convicted in both Poland and Germany, emerge after his release to testify again as a witness at the Frankfurt trial? What coercion was applied to Böck, Gerhard Hess, Hölblinger, Storch, and Wiebeck, all former SS men, all witnesses at Frankfurt, none accused of any crime there?

    Holocaust-deniers point to small discrepancies in testimonies to try to discredit them. The assumption, unstated, is that the reader will accept minor discrepancies as evidence of a vast, over-reaching Jewish conspiracy. This is clearly ludicrous.

    In fact, the discrepancies and minor errors in detail argue against, not for, the conspiracy theory. Why would the conspirators have given different information to different Nazis? In fact, if all the testimonies, from the Nazis' to the inmates', sounded too similar, it is certain that the Holocaust-deniers would cite that as evidence of a conspiracy.

    What supposed coercion could reach across four decades, to force former SS-Untersturmführer Dr. Hans Münch to give an interview, against the will of his family, on Swedish television? In the 1981 interview, he talked about Auschwitz:

        Interviewer: Isn't the ideology of extermination contrary to a doctor's ethical values?

        Münch: Yes, absolutely. There is no discussion. But I lived in that environment, and I tried in every possible way to avoid accepting it, but I had to live with it. What else could I have done? And I wasn't confronted with it directly until the order came that I and my superior and another one had to take part in the exterminations since the camp's doctors were overloaded and couldn't cope with it.

        Interviewer: I must ask something. Doubters claim that "special treatment" could mean anything. It didn't have to be extermination.

        Münch: "Special treatment" in the terminology of the concentration camp means physical extermination. If it was a question of more than a few people, where nothing else than gassing them was worthwhile, they were gassed.

        Interviewer: "Special treatment" was gassing?

        Münch: Yes, absolutely.

    And what supposed coercion could reach across four decades, to force former SS-Unterscharführer Franz Suchomel into giving an interview for the film Shoah? Speaking under (false) promises of anonymity, he told of the crimes committed at the Treblinka death camp (from the book Shoah, Claude Lanzmann, 1985, p. 54):

        Interviewer: You are a very important eyewitness, and you can explain what Treblinka was.

        Suchomel: But don't use my name.

        Interviewer: No, I promised. All right, you've arrived at Treblinka.

        Suchomel: So Stadie, the sarge, showed us the camps from end to end. Just as we went by, they were opening the gas-chamber doors, and people fell out like potatoes. Naturally, that horrified and appalled us. We went back and sat down on our suitcases and cried like old women.

        Each day one hundred Jews were chosen to drag the corpses to the mass graves. In the evening the Ukrainians drove those Jews into the gas chambers or shot them. Every day!

    Ask the deniers why they shrug off the testimony of Franz Suchomel. Greg Raven will tell you that "it is not evidence...bring me some evidence, please." Others will tell you that Suchomel and Münch were crazy, or hallucinating, or fantasizing.

    But the fantasy is obviously in the minds of those who choose to ignore the mass of evidence and believe instead in a hypothetical conspiracy, supported by nothing but their imaginations.

    That total lack of evidence is why the "conspiracy assumption" almost always remains an unspoken assumption. To our knowledge, there has not been one single solitary "revisionist" paper, article, speech, pamphlet, book, audiotape, videotape, or newsletter which provides any details about this supposed Jewish/Zionist conspiracy which did all the dirty work. Not one.

    At best, the denial literature makes veiled references to the World Jewish Congress perpetuating a "hoax" (in Butz, 1976) -- no details are provided. Yet the entire case of Holocaust-denial rests on this supposed conspiracy.

    As for the testimony of the survivors, which the "revisionists" claim is the only evidence, there are indeed numerous testimonies to gassings and other forms of atrocities, from Jewish inmates who survived the camps, and also from other inmates like POWs. Many of the prisoners that testified about the gassing are not Jewish, of course. Look for instance at the testimony of Polish officer Zenon Rozansky about the first homicidal gassing in Auschwitz, in which 850 Russian POWs were gassed to death, in Reitlinger, The Final Solution, p. 154:

        Those who were propped against the door leant with a curious stiffness and then fell right at our feet, striking their faces hard against the concrete floor. Corpses! Corpses standing bolt upright and filling the entire corridor of the bunker, till they were packed so tight that it was impossible for more to fall.

    Which of the "revisionists" will deny this? Which of them was there? Which of them has the authority to tell Rozansky what he did or did not see?

    The statement that "no 'survivor' claims to have actually witnessed any gassing" is clearly false; this was changed to "few survivors" in later versions, which is close to the truth.

    But we do not need to rely solely on testimony, from the survivors, Nazis, or otherwise. Many wartime documents, not postwar descriptions, specifically regarding gassings and other atrocities, were seized by the U.S. armed forces. Most are in the National Archives in Washington, D.C.; some are in Germany.

    Regarding the gassing vans, precursors to the gas chambers, we find, for example, a top secret document from SS Untersturmführer Becker to SS Obersturmbannführer Rauff (from Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression, 1946, Vol. I, pp. 999-1001):

        If it has rained for instance for only one half hour, the van cannot be used because it simply skids away. It can only be used in absolutely dry weather. It is only a question now whether the van can only be used standing at the place of execution. First the van has to be brought to that place, which is possible only in good weather. ...

        The application of gas usually is not undertaken correctly. In order to come to an end as fast as possible, the driver presses the accelerator to the fullest extent. By doing that the persons to be executed suffer death from suffocation and not death by dozing off as was planned. My directions now have proved that by correct adjustment of the levers death comes faster and the prisoners fall asleep peacefully.

            * Health Insurance
            * Booking
            * Single Women
            * Dating Websites
            * Pile
            * Equibase horse racing
            * Suitcases

    And Just wrote of the gas vans to Rauff, on June 5, 1942, in a letter marked both "top secret" and "only copy". This is a horrific masterpiece of Nazi double-talk, referring to killing as "processing" and the victims as "subjects" and "the load." (See Kogon, Nazi Mass Murder, 1993, pp. 228-235.)

        Since December 1941, for example, 97,000 were processed using three vans, without any faults occurring in the vehicles. ...

        The normal capacity of the vans is nine to ten per square meter. The capacity of the larger special Saurer vans is not so great. The problem is not one of overloading but of off-road maneuverability on all terrains, which is severely diminished in this van. It would appear that a reduction in the cargo area is necessary. This can be achieved by shortening the compartment by about one meter. The problem cannot be solved by merely reducing the number of subject treated, as has been done so far. For in this case a longer running time is required, as the empty space also needs to be filled with CO [the poison exhaust gas]. ...

        Greater protection is needed for the lighting system. The grille should cover the lamps high enough up to make it impossible to break the bulbs. It seems that these lamps are hardly ever turned on, so the users have suggested that they could be done away with. Experience shows, however, that when the back door is closed and it gets dark inside, the load pushes hard against the door. The reason for this is that when it becomes dark inside, the load rushes toward what little light remains. This hampers the locking of the door. It has also been noticed that the noise provoked by the locking of the door is linked to the fear aroused by the darkness.

    Slip-ups occurred in written correspondence regarding the gas chambers themselves, some of which, fortunately, escaped destruction and were found after the war. A memo written to SS man Karl Bischoff on November 27, 1942 describes the gas chamber in Krema II not with the usual mundane name of "Leichenkeller," but rather as the "Sonderkeller" "special cellar."

    And two months later, on January 29, 1943, Bischoff wrote a memo to Kammler, referring to that same chamber as the "Vergasungskeller." (See Gutman, Anatomy of the Auschwitz Death Camp, 1994, pp. 223, 227.) "Vergasungskeller" means exactly what it sounds like: "gassing cellar," an underground gas chamber.

    Holocaust-deniers turn to Arthur Butz, who provides a specious explanation for the Vergasungskeller: "Vergasung," he says, cannot refer to killing people with gas, but only to the process of converting a solid or liquid into gas. Therefore, he says the "Vergasungskeller," must have been a special room where the fuel for the Auschwitz ovens was converted into gas -- a "gasification cellar."

    There are three problems with this explanation. First, "Vergasung" certainly can refer to killing people with gas; Butz does not speak German and he should not try to lecture about the language. Second, there is no room that could possibly serve this function which Butz describes -- years after writing his book, he admitted this, and helplessly suggested that there might be another building somewhere in the camp that might house a gasification cellar. Third, the type of oven used at Auschwitz did not require any gasification process! The ovens burned solid fuel. (See Gutman, op. cit., pp. 184-193.)

    So what does the term "gassing cellar" refer to? Holocaust-deniers have yet to offer any believable explanation.

    An inventory, again captured after the war, revealed fourteen showerheads and one gas-tight door listed for the gas chamber in Krema III. Holocaust-deniers claim that room was a morgue; they do not offer to explain what use a morgue has for showerheads and a gas-tight door. (See a photograph of the document, or Pressac, Auschwitz: Technique and Operation, 1989, pp. 231, 438.)

    A memo from the Auschwitz construction office, dated March 31, 1943, says (Hilberg, Documents of Destruction, 1971, pp. 207-208):

        We take this occasion to refer to another order of March 6, 1943, for the delivery of a gas door 100/192 for Leichenkeller 1 of Krema III, Bw 30a, which is to be built in the manner and according to the same measure as the cellar door of the opposite Krema II, with peep hole of double 8 millimeter glass encased in rubber. This order is to be viewed as especially urgent....

    Why would morgues have urgently needed peepholes made out of a double layer of third-of-an-inch-thick glass?

    The question of whether it can be proved that the cyanide gas was used in the Auschwitz gas chambers has intruiged the deniers. Their much-heralded Leuchter Report, for example, expends a great deal of effort on the question of whether traces of cyanide residue remain there today. But we do not need to look for chemical traces to confirm cyanide use (Gutman, op. cit., p. 229):

        Letters and telegrams exchanged on February 11 and 12 [1943] between the Zentralbauleitung and Topf mention a wooden blower for Leichenkeller 1. This reference confirms the use of the morgue as a gas chamber: Bischoff and Prüfer thought that the extraction of air mixed with concentrated prussic acid [cyanide] (20 g per cu m) required a noncorroding ventilator.

    Bischoff and Prüfer turned out to be wrong, and a metal fan ended up working acceptably well. But the fact that they thought it necessary demonstrates that cyanide was to be routinely used in the rooms which deniers call morgues. (Cyanide is useless for disinfecting morgues, as it does not kill bacteria.)

    Other captured documents, even if they don't refer directly to some part of the extermination process, refer to it by implication. A captured memo to SS-Brigadeführer Kammler reveals that the expected incineration capacity of the Auschwitz ovens was a combined total of 4,756 corpses per day (see a photograph of the document or Kogon, op. cit., p. 157).

    Deniers often claim that this total could not be achieved in practice (see question 45). That's not the point. These crematoria were carefully designed, in 1942, to have sufficient capacity to dispose of 140,000 corpses per month -- in a camp that housed only 125,000. We can conclude that massive deaths were predicted, indeed planned-for, as early as mid-1942. A camp designed to incinerate its full capacity of inmates every four weeks is not merely a detention center.

    Finally, apart from the abundant testimonies, confessions, and physical evidence of the extermination process, there is certainly no want of evidence of the Nazis' intentions and plans.

    Here are just a few examples. Hans Frank's diary (from Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression, 1946, Vol. I, pp. 992, 994):

        But what should be done with the Jews? Do you think they will be settled down in the 'Ostland' [eastern territories], in [resettlement] villages? This is what we were told in Berlin: Why all this bother? We can do nothing with them either in the 'Ostland' nor in the 'Reichkommissariat.' So liquidate them yourself.

        Gentlemen, I must ask you to rid yourself of all feeling of pity. We must annihilate the Jews, wherever we find them and wherever it is possible, in order to maintain the structure of the Reich as a whole. ...

        We cannot shoot or poison these 3,500,000 Jews, but we shall nevertheless be able to take measures, which will lead, somehow, to their annihilation....

        That we sentence 1,200,000 Jews to die of hunger should be noted only marginally.

    Himmler's speech at Posen on October 4, 1943 was captured on audiotape (Trial of the Major War Criminals, 1948, Vol. XXIX, p. 145, trans. by current author):

        I refer now to the evacuation of the Jews, the extermination of the Jewish people. This is one of those things that is easily said: "the Jewish people are being exterminated," says every Party member, "quite true, it's part of our plans, the elimination of the Jews, extermination, we're doing it."

    The extermination effort was even mentioned in at least one official Nazi court verdict. In May 1943, a Munich court wrote in its decision against SS-Untersturmführer Max Taubner that:

        The accused shall not be punished because of the actions against the Jews as such. The Jews have to be exterminated and none of the Jews that were killed is any great loss. Although the accused should have recognized that the extermination of the Jews was the duty of Kommandos which were set up especially for this purpose, he should be excused for considering himself to have the authority to take part in the extermination of Jewry himself.

    And Hitler spoke quite clearly in public on no fewer than three occasions. On January 30, 1939, seven months before Germany invaded Poland, he spoke publicly to the Reichstag (transcribed from Skeptic magazine, Vol. 2, No. 4, p. 50):

        Today I want to be a prophet once more: if international finance Jewry inside and outside of Europe should succeed once more in plunging nations into another world war, the consequence will not be the Bolshevation of the earth and thereby the victory of Jewry, but the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe.

    By the way, this last phrase is, in German, "die Vernichtung der jüdischen Rasse in Europa," which German-speakers will realize is quite unambiguous.

    In September, 1942:

        ...if Jewry should plot another world war in order to exterminate the Aryan peoples in Europe, it would not be the Aryan people which would be exterminated but Jewry...

    On November 8, 1942:

        You will recall the session of the Reichstag during which I declared: if Jewry should imagine that it could bring about an international world war to exterminate the European races, the result will not be the extermination of the European races, but the extermination of Jewry in Europe. People always laughed about me as a prophet. Of those who laughed then, countless numbers no longer laugh today, and those who still laugh now will perhaps no longer laugh a short time from now.

    There are many other examples of documents and testimonies that could be presented.

    Keep in mind that the IHR's answer to "what proof exists?" is "none." It has certainly been demonstrated already that this pat answer is totally dishonest. And this is the main point we wish to communicate: that Holocaust-denial is dishonest.

    We continue by analyzing the remaining, more-specific, claims about what evidence supposedly does not exist.

  # "No mounds of ashes" is an internal contradiction. In an article in the journal published by the same IHR that publishes these Q&A, the Journal's editor reported that a Polish commission in 1946 found human ash at the Treblinka death camp to a depth of over twenty feet. This article is available on The IHR's web site.

    (Apparently some survivors claimed that the corpses were always thoroughly cremated. Because uncremated human remains were mixed with the ash, the editor suggested that the testimonies were false. Amazingly, he had no comment on how a twenty-foot layer of human ashes came to be there in the first place. Perhaps he felt that to be unworthy of mention.)

    There are also piles of ashes at Maidanek. At Auschwitz-Birkenau, ashes from cremated corpses were dumped into the rivers and swamps surrounding the camp, and used as fertilizer for nearby farmers' fields.

  # "No crematoria" capable of disposing of millions of corpses? Absolutely false, the crematoria were more than capable of the job, according to both the Nazis' own internal memos and the testimony of survivors. Holocaust-deniers deliberately confuse civilian, funeral-home crematoria with the huge industrial ovens of the death camps. This is discussed in much detail in the replies to questions 42 and 45.

  # "No piles of clothes"? Apparently, the IHR considers piles of clothes to be "hard evidence"! This is strange, because they do not deny the other sorts of piles found at Nazi camps: piles of eyeglasses, piles of shoes (at Auschwitz, Belzec, and Maidanek), piles of gold teeth, piles of burned corpses, piles of unburned corpses, piles of artificial limbs (see Swiebocka, Auschwitz: A History in Photographs, 1993, p. 210), piles of human hair (ibid, p. 211), piles of ransacked luggage (ibid, p. 213), piles of shaving-brushes (ibid, p. 215), piles of combs (ibid), piles of pots and pans (ibid), and yes, even the piles of clothes (ibid, p. 214) that the IHR claims do not exist.

    Perhaps the authors of the 66 Q&A realized that it was dangerous for them to admit that these piles were hard evidence, because then they would also be forced to admit a number of other things as "hard evidence." Perhaps this is why they removed this phrase from the revised 66 Q&A.

    If items were not generally found in mass quantities, it is only because the Nazis distributed them to the German population. A memo on this was captured, revealing that they even redistributed women's underwear.

  # "No human soap"? This is true, but misleading. Though there is some evidence that soap was made from corpses on a very limited experimental scale, the rumored "mass production" was never done, and no soap made from human corpses is known to exist. However, there is sworn testimony, never refuted, from British POWs and a German army official, stating that soap experiments were performed, and the recipe for the soap was captured by the Allies. To state flatly that the Nazis did not make soap from human beings is incorrect.

  # "No lamp shades made of human skin?" False -- lampshades and other human-skin "ornaments" were introduced as evidence in both trials of Ilse Koch, and were shown to a U.S. Senate investigation committee in the late 40s. We know they were made of human skin because they bore tattoos, and because a microscopic forensic analysis of the items was performed. (A detailed page on this is being prepared.)

  # "No records"? This is nonsense (which may explain why this claim was removed from the "revised" versions of the 66 Q&A). True, extermination by gassing was always referred to with code-words, and those victims who arrived at death camps only to be immediately gassed were not recorded in any books. But there are slip-ups in the code-word usage that reveal the true meanings, as already described. There are inventories and requisitions for the Krema which reveal items anomalous with ordinary use but perfect for mass homicidal gassing. There are deportation train records which, pieced together, speak clearly. And so on. Several examples have been given above.

  # "No credible demographic statistics"? This is the second internal contradiction -- see question 2 and question 15. The Anglo-American committee who studied the issue estimated the number of Jewish victims at 5.7 million. This was based on population statistics. Here is the exact breakdown, country by country:

    Germany   195,000
    Austria   53,000
    Czechoslovakia   255,000
    Denmark   1,500
    France   140,000
    Belgium   57,000
    Luxemburg   3,000
    Norway   1,000
    Holland   120,000
    Italy   20,000
    Yugoslavia   64,000
    Greece   64,000
    Bulgaria   5,000
    Rumania   530,000
    Hungary   200,000
    Poland   3,271,000
    USSR   1,050,000
    Less dispersed refugees   (308,000)
    Total number of Jews killed   5,721,500

(This estimate was arrived at using population statistics, and not by adding the number of casualties at each camp. These are also available -- for instance, a separate file with the ruling of a German court regarding the number of victims in Treblinka is available. The SS kept rather accurate records, and many of the documents survived, reinforced by eyewitness accounts).

Some estimates are lower, some are higher, but this is the magnitude in question. In an article in CMU's student newspaper, the head of CMU's History Department, Peter Stearns, is quoted as saying that newly discovered documents -- especially in the former USSR -- indicate that the number of victims is higher than six million. Other historians claim not much over five million. The Encyclopedia of the Holocaust uses 5,596,000 as a minimum and 5,860,000 as a maximum (Gutman, 1990, p. 1799).

# In summary:

"Revisionists" often claim, correctly, that the burden of proof is on historians. The proof, of course, has been a matter of public record since late 1945, and is available in libraries around the world. The burden has been met, many, many times over. You've just seen a brief presentation of some of the highlights of that immense body of proof; much more is readily available.

To even argue that the Holocaust never happened is ludicrous. To claim straight-faced that none of this proof even exists is beyond ludicrous, and it is a clear example of "revisionist" dishonesty.

[ Previous | Index | Next ]

Home ·  Site Map ·  What's New? ·  Search Nizkor
      

© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2009

This site is intended for educational purposes to teach about the Holocaust and to combat hatred. Any statements or excerpts found on this site are for educational purposes only.

As part of these educational purposes, Nizkor may include on this website materials, such as excerpts from the writings of racists and antisemites. Far from approving these writings, Nizkor condemns them and provides them so that its readers can learn the nature and extent of hate and antisemitic discourse. Nizkor urges the readers of these pages to condemn racist and hate speech in all of its forms and manifestations.

[Michael K.]

Dear mgt23,

You do well to introduce the Nizkor refutations of "holocaust denial," again for the purposes of gaining a true understanding of what is in question.  Debate over the factual nature of the various, highly public "holocaust(tm)" claims is another blind canyon for researchers.  A few questions that blow this debate out of the water are ones such as, "what is a Soviet Gulag?"  "How many people were tortured to death by commies."  And, "how did the State of Israel co-ordinate its activities with those of the Third Reich?"

I think that there is no question that something terrible was going on in the Nazi concentration camps, by and large.  But there seems to be ample evidence that some "Jews" were protected by the camp system, and others exploited.  What was the difference?  Are,"some pigs more equal than others?" Why did the Nazis help some Jews immigrate to Palestine, while exterminating others?  

When we look at the atrocious nature of rationalistic concentration camp atrocities, both German and Jew/British, we see the crushing of the human spirit as a function of all such arrangements.  What is the pro-life answer to all the craziness?  Why should anyone suffer such oppression?  It is clearly an 'in-group vs. out-group' dilemma in every case.  There were "In-Jews" and "Out-Jews;" there were "In-Soviets" and "Out-Soviets."  Why should anyone go into a F*ing Camp?

Where should the debate take us?  To the point of deciding who should be put in camps next? To the point of abolishing camps?  What is life truly worth?

[Christopher Marlowe]

Although it is wrong to stick innocent people into camps, the Jewish Congress had declared war on Germany and it was common practice for many countries to put suspected enemies into concentration camps.  

The question here is not the morality of forced labor camps, but whether there was an extermination program in the German work camps. This is commonly known as the "Holocaust", which is a term formerly used to describe the Crucifixion of Our Lord Jesus Christ.  Now the holocaust is used to describe the gassing and burning of 6 million Jews during WWII, and I am convinced that this story is a total lie. It is truly a hoax.  

The Nizkor propaganda site does a good job of snowing people of good faith into believing that the revisionist story is totally groundless, but they engage in all types of subterfuge and don't fairly deal with the questions being asked.  Oh, and they lie all over the place.  They are liars.  And they are probably fat.  

I don't have time to debate all of their lies, but maybe I will just make this a long-term project.  Starting with the beginning:

First of all, consider the implicit conspiracy theory. Notice how the testimony of every single inmate of every Nazi camp is automatically dismissed as unconvincing. This total dismissal of inmates' testimony, along with the equally-total dismissal of the Nazis' own testimony (!), is the largest unspoken assumption of Holocaust-denial.

Not dismissing the testimony of every single inmate of every camp, but just the liars. Like the liars who said that fountains of blood poured out of the ground: or that the Germans buried the gassed victims, then dug them up again and burned them in pyres, putting the fat ones on the bottom to burn the skinny one at the top.  Discounting testimony that runs contrary to what is physically possible is easy.  e.g. When human blood pours out of a body, it coagulates when exposed to the air; So blood cannot form underground pools and it cannot make fountains.  Also, burning human bodies is endothermic, which means it takes energy. It takes a lot of energy just to burn one human body. So stacking fat bodies on the bottom of a pile will not help to burn other bodies.  All the bodies in a pile will need coal or coke or wood to burn, and the records of the camps do not show that they had this enormous amount of coal, coke or wood.  

To see more examples of lying sacks of crap, watch this documentary, "The Last Days of the Big Lie", by Eric Hunt:
[Part I]
[youtube:w2hpj6ea]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyMVWVBmGVo[/youtube]w2hpj6ea]
This video also shows an example of an inmate who should be believed.  The lady tells about how they put on dramatic productions in the camp, and how the guards put her in charge of painting sets for a play.  

This assumption, which is not often spelled out, is that the attempted Jewish genocide never took place, but rather that a secret conspiracy of Jews, starting around 1941, planted and forged myriad documents to prove that it did; then, after the war, they rounded up all the camp survivors and told them what to say.

We know this is the case.  MSMD, or rather CIBYW, just posted a huge collection of headlines and book citations that shows Jewish people crying out that 6 million Jews were being killed even forty years before the holohoax supposedly started.  viewtopic.php?f=40&t=14822

The 6 million number comes from a kabbalistic reading of Leviticus 25:13:

13 "In this year of jubilee, each of you will return to his ancestral property.

which was written somewhere missing a letter, and some rabbis attached a great deal of meaning to it. Specifically, "ta·shu·vu" [return] was missing a "vav" [in the letter/number system, the number six].  Returning minus six was not dramatic enough, so it became 6 million, and kabbalistic rabbis have been worrying about six million being killed ever since.  Apparently Jews are very picky about their spelling. e.g. Here is a commonly used Hebrew spelling mnemonic taught in elementary school:

"I before E, except after C, or else 6 million will die..."

It sounds crazy, except that we have tons of evidence supporting this claim being made over and over again before WWII even started.  So yes, there is a secret meaning behind the six million, and a bunch of rabbis were in on it, and it is easily proven.  

As to the "planted and forged myriad documents to prove that it did", this is a good example of Nizkor just flat out lying.  There is not a myriad of documents proving that the holohoax.  In fact, the myriad of documents, like the Auschitz death books, http://www.historiography-project.org/m ... books.html, reveal a number closer to 130,000 to 150,000:

the bottom line is that there are 67,227 recorded deaths in the partial set of Auschwitz death registers found (or at least made available) so far. To these are added an additional 63,069 extrapolated deaths, for a total death toll at Auschwitz/Birkenau of 130,296. Of course, toward the end of the war when conditions were chaotic, there could easily have been additional unrecorded deaths, but almost certainly the total death toll at Auschwitz/Birkenau is less than 150,000.

The numbers of dead for all the camps, according to the International Red Cross, which had access to the camps during the war, was less than 300,000.  viewtopic.php?f=40&t=14822

I will go further and allege that thousands of Jewish lawyers have conspired for years afterwards into suing governments for BILLIONS of dollars for a holohoax. They continue to extract money for alleged victims, and then keep the money for themselves.  

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v17/v17n6p19_reparations.html
Germany Has Paid Out More Than $61.8 Billion in Third Reich Reparations

Since 1951 Germany has paid more than 102 billion marks, about $61.8 billion at 1998 exchange rates, in federal government reparation payments to Israel and Third Reich victims. In addition, Germans have paid out billions in private and other public funds, including about 75 million marks ($49 million) by German firms in compensation to wartime forced laborers, the Welt am Sonntag newspaper reported recently. These figures are based on calculations by the German Finance Ministry, the influential paper said.

For examples of how the money is then taken by people who were never in a camp, see:
http://www.dnainfo.com/20101109/manhatt ... ganization
http://www.sunray22b.net/bankers_and_robbers.htm
http://www.sunray22b.net/where_did_the_ ... ney_go.htm

Back to the Nizkor Lie-O-Rama:

The conspirators also supposedly managed to torture hundreds of key Nazis into confessing to crimes which they never committed,

Like the "eyewitness" testimony of the inmates, confessions of Germans is also subject to the laws of physics.  We know that confessions which break the laws of physics, or defy common sense, are also untrue.  If you watch the series of videos, "One Third of the Holocaust", you can see examples of confessions that can be discounted.

One example is SS officer Kurt Gerstein, who saw mountains of clothing 115 to 130 feet high.  Why would anyone make a pile of clothes 130 feet high? Gerstein was a mining engineer, and would know that a pile of clothes that high would be as useful as a box of hair. (Or a mattress of typhus infected hair...)
http://www.holocaustdenialvideos.com/mo ... 7_mov.html

One Third of the Holocaust makes the case that the confessions were made purposefully stupid, so that they could be seen as the lies they were. Gerstein used precision to discredit his report.  Gerstein confessed to 25 million being killed.  

Another example is using diesel exhaust to gas inmates.  This was widely reported, but can be seen to be a lie because diesel exhaust, unlike a gasoline engine, doesn't have a high percentage of carbon monoxide:

http://www.codoh.com/gcgv/gcpatwill.html
Even under maximum load, a Diesel's exhaust contains less than 0.4% carbon monoxide. By contrast, all gasoline engines easily produce 7% CO--and, with some adjustment of the idle mixture adjustment screw on the carburetor, as much as 12%. Diesels, by contrast, have no carburetors to begin with; no adjustments are possible.

From the vague anecdotal descriptions of the Diesel murder process in the Holocaust literature, there is no reason to believe that anything more than a crude, simple arrangement was involved. The Diesel engine was supposedly located outside of the gas chamber building either on a stand or in a tank or truck--take your pick-- with the exhaust directed into the gas chambers. Those arrangements would have meant that the engine would have been operating at idle or, at worst, fast idle. Under such non-load conditions, any Diesel ever built would produce less than 600 ppm of CO--that is less than 1/10th of 1% carbon monoxide. That would be barely enough CO to give someone a headache after half-an-hour of continuous exposure -- but, nothing worse than that.

Nizkor makes it sound crazy that the Allies tortured Germans after the war.  But it seems reasonable that ex-officers of the German army had 2 very good reasons to "confess":

http://crookedtimber.org/2007/12/07/torture-in-germany-after-world-war-ii/
Torture in Germany after World War II
by HENRY on DECEMBER 7, 2007
When leafing through a copy of the New York Review of Books from a few weeks back, I came across Patricia Meehan's review (behind paywall, unfortunately) of Giles MacDonogh's After the Reich: The Brutal History of the Allied Occupation. It's an eye-opener.

At Schwaebisch Hall, a particularly infamous prison near Stuttgart for officials suspected of major war crimes, MacDonogh writes:
The Americans had used methods similar to those employed by the SS in Dachau. ... Worse still were the mock executions, where the men were led off in hoods, while their guards told them they were approaching the gallows. Prisoners were actually lifted bodily off the ground to convince them they were about to swing. More conventional methods of torture included kicks to the groin, deprivation of sleep and food and savage beatings. When the Americans set up a commission of inquiry into the methods used by their investigators, they found that, of the 139 cases examined, 137 had "had their testicles permanently destroyed by kicks received from the American War Crimes Investigation team."

137/139 = 98% chance that a German guy getting the testicle treatment is going to need a nut transplant.  

It's very frightening to face the prospect of losing one's genitalia:
[youtube:w2hpj6ea]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RHP_V9WRu8[/youtube]w2hpj6ea]

One last point because I am getting bored:  

or into framing their fellow Nazis for those crimes, and to plant hundreds of documents in Nazi files which were never discovered until after the war, and only then, in many cases, by sheer luck. Goebbels' diary, for example, was barely rescued from being sold as 7,000 pages of scrap paper, but buried in the scattered manuscript were several telling entries (as translated in Lochner, The Goebbels Diaries, 1948, pp. 86, 147-148):

February 14, 1942: The Führer once again expressed his determination to clean up the Jews in Europe pitilessly. There must be no squeamish sentimentalism about it. The Jews have deserved the catastrophe that has now overtaken them. Their destruction will go hand in hand with the destruction of our enemies. We must hasten this process with cold ruthlessness.

March 27, 1942: The procedure is a pretty barbaric one and not to be described here more definitely. Not much will remain of the Jews. On the whole it can be said that about 60 per cent of them will have to be liquidated whereas only 40 per cent can be used for forced labor.

This can be classified as intellectual dishonesty.  Nizkor quotes Goebbels' diary as proof of the holohoax, but fails to mention that there has never been found any order given to exterminate the Jews.  Think of that: the Allies had the enigma machine and could decipher all the German messages for most of the war, but they NEVER FOUND A SINGLE ORDER TO EXTERMINATE THE JEWS.  We always hear about German soldiers "just following orders".  That's the old stereotypical excuse that we hear from Nuremberg.  Of course, the really good question would be: "What f*cking orders?  Where did you get these orders?  Did thousands of officers go read Goebbels' diary?  Didn't he have a lock on his diary, or keep in a secret place?  Is the German word for "diary" the same word we use as "newspaper" or "list of orders to be printed and sent out"?"

I got news for Nizkor: My niece's diary says that she is a fairy princess.  Does that mean my niece IS a fairy princess?  Nizkor has proof of absolutely nothing.  They are liars and bullsh*t artists.  

To Be Continued if I ever get around to it.....

[Michael K.]

Dear Christopher Marlowe,

Excellent refutation of Nizkor's biased claims.  I believe that the energy spent refuting such propaganda is not wasted, and I praise you highly.  Another angle that comes to mind is John Sack's book, "An Eye for an Eye."

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v20/v20n1p-9_Sack.html

The Facts Come Out

So Lola was telling the truth. But, she wasn't telling the whole truth. Lola had told me the people in her prison were German soldiers. And yes, twenty of them were German soldiers, men who worked as painters, carpenters, and such. But there were a thousand other prisoners there, and they were German civilians: German men, German women, German children.

One prisoner was a fourteen-year-old boy. He had been out in Gleiwitz wearing his boy scout pants. A man cried out, "You're wearing black pants! You're a fascist!," and he chased the boy and tackled him at the Church of Saint Peter and Paul, and then took him to Lola's prison. Now, the boy was completely innocent. So were most of the people in Lola's prison. They weren't Gestapo. They weren't SS. They weren't even Nazis. Out of a thousand prisoners, just twenty were ever even accused of it.

But the Germans in Lola's prison were slapped and whipped. And I'm so sorry to have to say it, but they were also tortured. The boy scout: the guards poured gasoline on his curly black hair and set it on fire. The boy went insane. The men: they were beaten with a Totschläger, a "beater-to-death." It's a long steel spring with a big lead ball at the end. You use it like a racketball racket. Your arm, your wrist, the spring: they deliver a triple hit to a German's face.

Lola didn't tell me, but the Germans in her prison were dying. I found their death certificates in Gleiwitz city hall. One of Lola's guards told me, "Yeah, the Germans would die." He told me, "I'd put the bodies in a horse-drawn cart. I'd cover them with potato peels so no one would see. I'd ride to the outskirts and, after I threw the potato peels out, I'd take the Germans to the Catholic cemetery. To the mass grave."

We all know about Auschwitz. But I have to tell you, the Germans in Lola's prison were worse off than Lola had been at Auschwitz. Lola at Auschwitz wasn't locked in a room night and day. She wasn't tortured night after night. She herself told me: "Thank God, nobody tried to rape us. The Germans weren't allowed to." But all of that happened to German girls at Lola's prison in Gleiwitz.

One woman I talked with wasn't even German. She was Polish. In 1945 she was twenty years old: a tall, blonde, beautiful medical student. The guards at Lola's prison pulled off her clothes and told her, "Let's do it!" They beat her and beat her, night after night, until she was black and blue. One morning, she came back to her cell and fell on the floor, sobbing. Her cellmate asked her, "What, what is that blue thing you're wearing? Oh, oh, it's your skin."

Also, I don't think that anyone, even the revisionist, questions that the German POW camps on the Eastern Front were incredibly brutal and deadly.  But this is not Auschwitz or Berger-Belsen.  But the deaths of an estimated five million ethnic Germans, mostly civilians, after the war (presumably including members of my great-grandmother's family in the Sudaten) have yet to receive the attention and investigation they deserve, in my opinion.

[Michael K.]

I think we should look more into John Sack's, An Eye for an Eye, as a sort of case study in the field.  I mean, I never hear those I suspect of being IDF desk-jockeys even comment on Sack.  Actually his research is impeccable, and well documented.  Yet the official Jews still tell outrageous lies and deny everything:

Doing the Research

In April 1989, I fly to Germany. I go to this castle, this concrete castle, high on a hill above the Rhine. It's the German Federal Archives, and they've got forty thousand statements there by Germans who lived in what now is Poland during World War II... I find five statements from Germans who were in Lola's prison.

I go to another place in Germany:..a reunion of a thousand people from Gleiwitz. ...I'm going around asking, "Uh, excuse me. Anyone here who was in prison in Gleiwitz?" Yeah, I am a party pooper. I admit it. But eventually I find five of Lola's prisoners.

I take the train to Gleiwitz. Now it's Gliwice, Poland. And going through Communist East Berlin, I'm arrested, taken off the train, and locked up in a little room because with me I have a copy of the book Die Vertreibung der deutschen Bevölkerung aus den Gebieten östlich der Oder-Neisse ["The Expulsion of the German Population from the Territories East of the Oder-Neisse," published in the 1950s by the Bonn government]. Hours later I'm let out and I get to Gleiwitz/ Gliwice at four in the morning. It's a city of two hundred thousand people, almost none of whom speak English. I don't speak Polish, but I find three of Lola's guards. They remember her well.

It's 1989, Poland is still Communist, but I get into Lola's prison, into the prisoners' cells...I see the prison records. Remember when, according to Lola, she went to the Polish government and said, "I want revenge"? Well, I find her application, in her own handwriting. She wrote, "I want to cooperate against our German oppressors." I find the official document appointing her commandant in Gleiwitz.

After that, I go to Germany eleven more times, to Poland three more times, to France, Austria, Israel, Canada, and all around the United States. Through interpreters I talk to two hundred people in Polish and Russian, Danish and Swedish, German and Dutch, French and Spanish, Yiddish and Hebrew. I left out English. I get three hundred hours of tape-recorded interviews, and I see thousands of documents.

And what do I learn? Well: Lola was telling the truth. ..

Cover-up

...There's a working reporter right now in New York City who was in Poland right after World War II. He told me, "Whatever, whatever the Germans tell you, believe me, it's true." But he himself, he never wrote about it.

The truth was covered up, and was still being covered up. In 1989, I went to Yad Vashem in Jerusalem, Israel's central Holocaust center. As you may know, they have fifty million documents there about the Holocaust. I ask them, "Well, what do you have on the Office of State Security?" They have nothing. I ask them, "What do you have on the Jews in the Office of State Security?" Nothing. I say, "Well, there were Jewish commandants, Jewish directors, Jewish ..." The chairman of Yad Vashem responds, "It sounds rather imaginary," and the director of archives says to me, "Imm-possible! Impossible!"

I'm a reporter. That's what reporters do. Someone kills sixty thousand people, we report it. If we don't report it, it might become common, or more common, than it already is...

And I write that at Yom Kippur, 1945, Lola -- again at the risk of her life -- escaped from Gleiwitz, just as she had escaped some months earlier from Auschwitz, and came to the United States. Almost all the Jews in the Office of State Security escaped, at the risk of their lives, in September, October, and November 1945. And I write that too. They crept through the woods into Germany, or climbed the pass into Italy. They did what the SS never did: they deserted, they defected...

Rejection

I was crying while I was writing this. My advance from Henry Holt was $25,000, and for three years I was writing An Eye for an Eye. In September 1991 I finally finished it, wrapped it up, and mailed it to Henry Holt in New York. And I told myself: "Okay. I've done it. That's the end of the cover-up."

No. Because then the people at Henry Holt say, "We don't want it." They don't say it's wrong. They know it's right. They just say, "We don't want to publish it. Keep the twenty-five thousand." Okay. My agent and I send the manuscript to other publishers: to Harper's, to Scribner's -- you name it, we sent it -- to two dozen other publishers.

And let me tell you. The letters we get from these people, they're practically blurbs. The publishers say: "well-written," "extremely well-written," "chilling," "compelling," "disturbing," "dismaying," "shocking," "startling," "astonishing," "mesmerizing," "extraordinary," "I was riveted," "I was bowled over," "I love it!" And the publishers all reject it. The letter from St. Martin's Press says, "I am always moved by Holocaust books, but I'd have trouble distinguishing this book ... from other books ... in this vast area of literature."

So we send the chapter ... to Esquire magazine. I've been a contributing editor there, a war correspondent in Vietnam, Iraq, Bosnia. Esquire says, "No." We send it to GQ magazine. GQ says, "Yes!" The editor says it's the most important story in GQ's history. He even tells that to an editor of Esquire at a bar in Greenwich Village. He tells him, "Ha, ha! You don't have it! We do!"

For six weeks GQ is fact-checking. They don't find a single error. They send me the galley proofs, the page proofs, and on Wednesday the presses will roll. And then the telephone rings at my home in the Rocky Mountains. The editor of GQ says, "John, this isn't a happy phone call. We aren't going to run it." He tells me to keep the $15,000 and to sell the story somewhere else.

So once again my agent and I are making calls, sending faxes, passing out the GQ page proofs. Harper's magazine says no. Rolling Stone says no and "I'm sure you'll understand." Mother Jones, that great exposé magazine ("Extra! Extra! Cigarettes are bad for you!") doesn't even call back. The New Yorker (which has published ten pieces by me) refuses even to look at it.

The Attacks Begin

But finally, finally, in March 1993, the story of Solomon Morel is published in the Village Voice. And in November, An Eye for an Eye is published by Basic Books, a division of HarperCollins. So, thank God, now it's all over. I can relax now. Not.

Because one day later there's a telephone call to Basic Books. It's from the executive director of the World Jewish Congress. He says he wants an immediate retraction, and if he doesn't get it he'll call a major press conference tomorrow. He says he'll denounce me, Basic Books, and HarperCollins, and say, "They are all anti-Semites." Well, we don't retract, and the World Jewish Congress doesn't denounce. But ...

Then the reviews come out. And the reviewers say that An Eye for an Eye isn't true, that what I wrote there never happened at all.

Please! Much of An Eye for an Eye had been fact-checked by California magazine, fact-checked by GQ, and, for the Village Voice, fact-checked by a woman who is the Fact-Checker from Hell. She and I checked every single word, even if we had to call up Poland. And when, after two weeks of this, night and day, we were finally done, the editor of the Voice gave an interview saying, "This may be the most accurate story in the history of American journalism."

Much of An Eye for an Eye was corroborated by 60 Minutes, which found eight eyewitnesses I hadn't found. It was corroborated by the New York Times and the International Herald Tribune. Historians hired by major newspapers in Germany went to the German Federal Archives and wrote, "The facts are true," "The facts are right," "The facts are iron-bound."

But in the United States, one review was entitled "False Witness." Another was headed "The Big Lie, Continued."

The Jewish paper Forward said, "Sack is transparently writing docudrama," and told readers that Lola Potok was not the commandant of the prison in Gleiwitz. Well, Lola herself had told me, "I was the commandant," and thirty-five other people, including the current commandant, including the current director of prisons, said yes, Lola was the commandant. I have the document that says, "We appoint Citizen Lola Potok Commandant," and I have a document signed by Lola Potok, Commandant. But still the Forward said, "The unlikelihood is overwhelming but Sack ... seems ... oblivious." As I read this, I felt I was being lectured by Chico Marx. Remember? "Who you gonna believe? Your own two eyes or me?" I wrote a letter to the Forward. Over the last seven years, I've had to write, at last count, about 1,500 letters about An Eye for an Eye. And all those letters, added up, are twice as long as the book is.

Wages of Hatred

...So why don't we understand that about hate? If we hate, and if we act on that hate, then we hate even more later on. If we spit out a drop of hate, what happens? Well, we stimulate the saliva glands, and we produce a drop and a quarter of it. If we spit that out, we produce a drop and a half, then two drops, three, a teaspoon, tablespoon, a Mount Saint Helens. The more we send out, the more we've got, until we are perpetual-motion machines, sending out hate and hate until we've created a holocaust.

You don't have to be a German to become like that. You can be a Serb, a Hutu, a Jew. You can be an American. We were the ones in the Philippines. We were the ones in Vietnam. We were the ones in Washington, DC, for ten thousand years the home of the Anacostia Indians. They had one of their camp grounds at what now is the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum.

We all have it in us to become like Nazis. Hate, as Lola discovered, hate is a muscle, and if we want to be monsters all we have to do is exercise it. To hate the Germans, to hate the Arabs, to hate the Jews. Hate. The more we exercise it, the bigger it gets, just as if every day we curl forty pounds, far from being worn out, in time we are curling fifty, sixty pounds. We become the Mr. Universe of Hate. We all can be hate-full people, hateful people. We can destroy the people we hate, maybe, but we surely destroy ourselves.

That's what the Jews in the Office of State Security have taught us. That's what I tried to write, what I did write, in An Eye for an Eye. The very first words are the dedication. I'd like to read them: "For all who died and for all who because of this story might live."

That's what I'd planned to say at the Holocaust Memorial Museum.

As a footnote, check out the John Sack website.  The part pertaining to his book An Eye For An Eye doesn't open a link, it doesn't work.  Are we watching as he slowly disappears beneath the flood?