{"id":8521,"date":"2016-07-12T18:55:01","date_gmt":"2016-07-12T06:55:01","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.frot.co.nz\/design\/?p=8521"},"modified":"2019-11-18T21:32:13","modified_gmt":"2019-11-18T08:32:13","slug":"a-good-example-of-the-sort-of-news-that-is-censored-on-the-internet","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.frot.co.nz\/design\/conspiracies\/a-good-example-of-the-sort-of-news-that-is-censored-on-the-internet\/","title":{"rendered":"A good example of the sort of news that is censored on the internet."},"content":{"rendered":"

Did Six Million Really Die?<\/strong><\/span><\/h1>\n

This information is fairly old (1988 and 1992) and pretty badly edited here, but nevertheless it’s an excellent example of the sort of news that has been censored on the internet for decades, and is censored even more so now on sites like Facebook, Wikipedia<\/a>, and all of the zionist owned mainstream media. <\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

I do have a copy of the book, but at 900 pages it’s too much information to include here in this post. I’ve posted this introduction here to troll anyone who hasn’t done any research on this subject at all, but who packs a hissy fit at anyone who calls bollocks on the six million story.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

And if the whole six million is fake story is too controversial to cope with, another one that could really mess with a few heads is the nuclear lies <\/a>controversy – talk about a can of worms!<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"\"
\nIn the early 1980s, Samisdat Publishers Ltd., under the signature of its president,
\nErnst Z\u00fcndel, published a 32-page booklet entitled Did Six Million Really Die?.<\/p>\n

The booklet was published under a licence from Historical Review Press in England which
\nprohibited Samisdat from making any changes whatsoever to the publication.
\nSamisdat sent the booklet to hundreds of teachers, ministers, politicians and media
\npersonalities across Canada in the hope that interest could be aroused in discussing
\nthe subject explored in the booklet: did six million Jews really die pursuant to a
\nsystematic policy of extermination by Nazi Germany during World War II?
\nSamisdat received no complaints regarding the booklet’s factual accuracy.
\nNevertheless, in 1983, Samisdat’s president, Ernst Z\u00fcndel, was charged under a
\nprivate information laid by Sabina Citron, a founder of the Canadian Holocaust
\nRemembrance Association, with the criminal offence of “spreading false news” likely to cause racial and social intolerance.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The charge was later assumed by the Crown and led to two lengthy jury trials in 1985 and 1988,both of which ended in convictions.
\nThere is no doubt that Did Six Million Really Die? contained errors. It was written
\nhastily by a young University of London graduate, Richard Verrall (who used the
\npseudonym “Richard Harwood”) in the early 1970s. The errors, however, were the
\ntype of minor error which one can find in the first edition of any non-fiction book. For
\nexample, Verrall wrote that the first allegation of mass murder of Jews was made
\nagainst the Germans in 1943 by the Polish Jew Raphael Lemkin. In fact, the first
\ncharge of mass murder was made by the Allies in a Joint Declaration issued on
\nDecember 17, 1942. The error played no significant part in the argumentation of the
\nauthor. The significance and importance of Did Six Million Really Die? lay in its
\nlogic, its reasoning and its opinions. It critiqued the weaknesses of the evidence and
\narguments provided in orthodox “Holocaust” literature and it gave to the reader little-
\nknown alternate views of what happened in the camps, such as those of Dr. Russell
\nBarton (who was present in Bergen-Belsen immediately after its liberation) and Thies
\nChristophersen (who was stationed near Auschwitz during the war). It summarized
\nthe findings of the French revisionist historian Paul Rassinier, whose works at that
\ntime were not known at all in the English-speaking world. In short, Did Six Million
\nReally Die? did what polemical works were meant to do: it provided the reader with
\nan alternate viewpoint on a historical event.
\nTwo juries convicted Z\u00fcndel notwithstanding devastating cross-examination of
\nHolocaust “survivors” and Holocaust historians by defence attorney Douglas H.
\nChristie and notwithstanding expert evidence which crushed the basis of the
\nHolocaust story, namely, the allegation that millions of Jews were done to death with
\nindustrial efficiency in gigantic gas chambers and disposed of in crematories and
\nburning pits. It did not matter to the jury in the second Z\u00fcndel trial in 1988 that the
\nwarden of a United States penitentiary, Bill M. Armontrout, testified to the enormous
\ndifficulties of gassing even one person today in gas chambers. It did not matter to the
\njury that a forensic investigation of Auschwitz, Birkenau and Majdanek by the only
\nexpert in gas chamber technology in the United States, Fred A. Leuchter, Jr., resulted
\nin Leuchter’s opinion that no gassings could have taken place in the alleged Nazi gas
\nchambers. It mattered not that the Canadian crematory expert, Ivan Lagac\u00e9, testified
\nthat the thousands of persons alleged by Holocaust historians to have been cremated
\nin Birkenau and Auschwitz daily were “ludicrous” and “beyond the realm of reality.”
\nIt did not matter to the jury that the internationally-known British historian David
\nIrving testified that he no longer believed in the “Holocaust” as it had been defined by
\nits historians. It did not matter that Holocaust historian Raul Hilberg refused to return
\nto testify in 1988 after testifying in 1985 for fear of cross- examination. It did not
\nmatter that the Crown could not produce one expert witness in gas chambers or
\ncrematories to refute the defence expert evidence.
\nIf the evidence presented at the 1988 trial of Z\u00fcndel was not enough to convince the
\njury to acquit him, it was enough to start an explosive chain reaction of books and
\nstudies into the veracity of the gas chamber claim. The evidence of Fred A. Leuchter,
\nJr. and his report on the gas chambers at Auschwitz and Majdanek by far caused the
\nmost reverberations. The Jewish Holocaust lobby at first ignored the Leuchter Report,
\nbut as its influence mounted internationally, they scrambled to attempt to refute it.
\nThe Beate Klarsfeld Foundation published the books Auschwitz: Technique and
\nOperation of the Gas Chambers and Truth Prevails: Demolishing Holocaust Denial:
\nthe end of “The Leuchter Report.” The success of these books in “demolishing” the
\nLeuchter Report can perhaps be measured by the fact that almost no one has heard of
\nthem; the mass media, usually so willing to use anything to smear Holocaust
\nrevisionism, has virtually ignored them.
\nApparently unable to find competent experts to support the gas chamber claim among
\nengineers and crematory experts, the Jewish Holocaust lobby turned the use of their
\nconsiderable resources instead to ensuring the destruction of Fred Leuchter’s career
\nand the passage of laws in France and Austria making “denial of the Holocaust” a
\ncriminal offence. A full account of the tactics used against Leuchter can be found in
\nhis article “Witch Hunt in Boston” (Journal of Historical Review, vol. 10, pp. 453-
\n460). While the Jewish lobby has succeeded in the political arena in having repressive
\nlaws enacted against revisionism, they have not succeeded in refuting revisionism on
\nits merits, most importantly its technical and forensic evidence. The report of Fred A.
\nLeuchter, Jr., has engendered three further studies of the gas chambers.<\/p>\n

\"\"
\nKrakow Forensic Institute<\/strong>
\nIn response to the Leuchter Report, the Auschwitz State Museum in 1990
\ncommissioned the Krakow Forensic Institute to carry out an investigation of the
\nalleged gassing sites at the camp. The result of the testing of brick and mortar samples
\nfully corroborated the findings of Leuchter: the Institute found either no traces or
\nextremely small traces of cyanide in its samples. The Institute explained the test
\nresults, however, by stating that it could not be assumed that cyanide traces would still
\nbe detected after 45 years of being subjected to the weather and the elements. The
\nKrakow Forensic Institute also tested samples of hair from the Auschwitz Museum for
\ncyanide. The tests proved negative. (For a copy of the report and commentary, see
\n“An Official Polish Report on the Auschwitz ‘Gas Chambers'”, Journal of Historical
\nReview, vol. 11, pp. 207- 216).<\/p>\n

Germar Rudolf<\/strong>
\nGermar Rudolf, a diplom chemist in Germany, investigated the sites of the alleged gas
\nchambers of Auschwitz and took samples for the purpose of determining cyanide
\nlevels. Tests on the samples showed no or minimal traces of cyanide. Rudolf’s report
\nconcluded, like Leuchter’s, that the alleged gas chambers at Auschwitz could never
\nhave been used for gassings. Rudolf disputed the Krakow Forensic Institute’s
\nconclusion that the cyanide had been removed by environmental factors, pointing out
\nthat it was well-known that cyanide compounds have enormous environmental
\nresistance. Ernst Z\u00fcndel’s attempts to call Rudolf as an expert witness on charges in
\nGermany regarding the “Holocaust” were prevented by the German judge.
\nWalter L\u00fcftl<\/strong>
\nWalter L\u00fcftl is a professional engineer with a large engineering firm in Vienna and is
\npresident of the Austrian Chamber of Engineers. In 1992 L\u00fcftl wrote a report calling
\nthe alleged extermination of millions of Jews in gas chambers “technically
\nimpossible.” He pointed out that the design of the crematories themselves showed that
\nthey were incapable of handling the number of victims alleged. “Corpses are not
\nflammable material,” wrote L\u00fcftl, ” to cremate them requires much time and energy.”
\nThese reports and other mounting evidence have shown the durability of the
\nconclusions stated in Did Six Million Really Die?. The booklet has proven to be, in
\nthe words of Dr. Robert Faurisson, “prophetic.”
\nIn 1988 Samisdat published Did Six Million Really Die?: Report of the
\nEvidence in the Canadian “False News” Trial of Ernst Z\u00fcndel, 1988. The book was the
\nresult of four years of work and summarized for the reader the evidence presented at
\nthe second Z\u00fcndel trial in 1988. That included, for the Crown, the evidence of
\nHolocaust historians Raul Hilberg (whose evidence from 1985 was read to the jury
\nsince he refused to reattend personally) and Christopher Browning and the evidence
\nof Red Cross representative Charles Biedermann. For the defence, it includes the
\nevidence of the premiere revisionist historian today, Dr. Robert Faurisson, that of the
\ninternationally renowned British historian David Irving, German historian Udo
\nWalendy, American historian Mark Weber, Canadian crematory expert Ivan Lagac\u00e9
\nand Canadian aerial photograph expert Ken Wilson. It included the evidence and the
\nreport of Fred A. Leuchter, Jr., concerning his forensic investigation of the alleged gas
\nchambers at Auschwitz, Birkenau and Majdanek and the evidence of chemistry expert
\nDr. James Roth concerning the cyanide content of samples removed from the alleged
\nAuschwitz gas chambers by Leuchter.<\/p>\n

It summarized the evidence of the path-breaking Swedish revisionist writer, Ditlieb Felderer, and reproduces the revealing photographs of Auschwitz and Birkenau which Felderer showed the jury.
\nIt is shocking that the persecution of Ernst Z\u00fcndel continued for ten years and
\nwith virtually no protest either in the intellectual or media elites of
\nCanada. These elites are apparently no longer interested in objective truth, but
\ninterested only in maintaining the “political correctness” which will ensure access to
\nlucrative government and institutional positions, the continuation of government and
\nacademic grants and the accolades of their like-minded peers. These elites did not
\nsimply remain silent concerning the Z\u00fcndel trials but participated in a feeding frenzy
\nof hatred against him simply because he had published a booklet questioning the
\nHolocaust. Few voices were raised in defence of intellectual freedom and its relation
\nto the workings of a true democracy. Instead, Z\u00fcndel was attacked, vilified and
\nridiculed. The media willingly censored the 1988 trial. The performance of these
\nelites in the Z\u00fcndel affair has shown that they are unwilling to inform Canadians
\nhonestly about controversial and vital issues which offend powerful vested interests;
\nindeed, it has proven their total corruption.
\nErnst Z\u00fcndel, in the foreword to the first Did Six Million Really Die?, wrote the
\nfollowing words:
\nTruth has no need of coercion. Those who choose to ignore the truth are not punished
\nby law — they punish themselves. We of Samisdat Publishers do not believe that you
\nshould be forced to read something, any more than we believe that you should be
\nforced not to read something…Whether you agree or disagree with the facts presented
\nin this booklet, we invite you to assist us in reclaiming and safeguarding the freedoms
\nwe have all so long enjoyed, until now, in Canada…Without freedom of enquiry and
\nfreedom of access to information we cannot have freedom of thought and without
\nfreedom of thought, we cannot be a free people.
\nToday those words apply with even greater force as more and more individuals face
\nprosecution in Canada and Europe for their beliefs and opinions. Samisdat offers this
\nbook to its readers in the hope that they will reclaim for themselves the right to decide
\nwhat is truth in history.<\/p>\n

While Jewish organizations and the mass media expressed satisfaction that Z\u00fcndel
\nhad been convicted, many ordinary people in Canada were shocked at the
\nimplications of the trial for freedom of speech and thought. In a letter to the Toronto
\nSun, Lynda Mortl of Toronto wrote:
\nWhy are we Canadians allowing a certain pressure group to act as censors for us? And
\nworse, to have a member of society brought to trial, probably jailed, and\/or deported
\nfor saying something we will not even be allowed to read. The more I think about the
\nimplications of this trial, the more angry and frightened I become. I am one Canadian
\nwho does not want Sabina Citron, Alan Shefman or Julian Sher to decide what I will
\nread or what I will call the truth.
\nIndeed, the purpose of the prosecution of Ernst Z\u00fcndel was to make sure that ordinary
\nCanadians would not have access to the type of information contained in Did Six
\nMillion Really Die?. Even today, Canadians do not realize how far the original
\n“Holocaust” story has disintegrated in the face of ongoing historical research and
\nforensic studies of the alleged Auschwitz execution gas chambers. The tight control of
\ninformation in this regard is a wonder to behold to those of us involved in this case.
\nCanadians who believe they enjoy a “free” press in North America are sadly mistaken.
\nThere is never any attempt in the mass media to analyse why more and more people
\nno longer believe in the “Holocaust”; there is no transferal of any basic information to
\nthe average reader to let them decide for themselves whether there is anything to what
\nthe revisionists say or whether it is hogwash. Instead, Z\u00fcndel and anyone else who
\nquestions Holocaust claims are simply branded as “evil” and “hatemongers”.
\nThis book ensures that both sides of this ethnic dispute are at least available to the
\ngeneral reader. The record of the 1988 trial is unique in that the major historians on
\nboth sides of the issue testified and were cross-examined relentlessly on their research
\nmethods, bias, sources and findings. It records the only instance where Holocaust
\nhistorians have been forced to defend their assertion that the Jews of Europe were
\nexterminated (mainly in gas chambers) by the Nazi government during World War II.
\nFor the reader it is a rare opportunity to see how in fact history is written, how indeed
\nhistory has become the tool of politics.
\nBritish historian David Irving testified that it is the reader who decides what
\nconstitutes a “historical fact”; it is the reader who decides what has been proven to
\nhappen in history and what has not. I therefore invite the reader to read the evidence
\nof one of the most significant trials of our century and with respect to the story of
\nwhat really happened to the Jews of Europe during World War II, to decide for
\nhimself.
\nBarbara Kulaszka
\nAugust 1992
\n9<\/p>\n

Foreword
\nby Dr. Robert Faurisson
\nDid the “Holocaust” of the European Jews really occur? Is it true that during the
\nSecond World War, the Germans ordered, planned and carried out a policy of
\nphysical destruction of the European Jews? More specifically, did they design, build
\nand use execution gas chambers for that purpose? Did they cause the deaths of
\nmillions of Jews in that manner?
\nTo these questions, the majority of writers say yes; they believe in the “Holocaust” of
\nthe European Jews. We shall call these writers “exterminationists” because they
\ndefend the thesis of the physical extermination of the Jews. To these same questions,
\nother writers say no; these writers are called “revisionists” but it goes without saying
\nthat the revisionists do not dispute the fact that, during a world conflict which caused
\n40 to 50 million deaths, many Jews (the approximate number remains to be
\ndetermined) died.
\nWho is right? The exterminationists or the revisionists?
\nFor the layman, there are, in principle, three main ways of forming a personal opinion
\non a historical controversy.
\nThe first way consists in reading the writings of both sides but in this specific case
\nthat would require much time and revisionist literature is often difficult to obtain.
\nThe second way is to attend a public debate between the two sides: the orthodox side
\n(the exterminationists) and the heterodox side (the revisionists). Unfortunately, the
\nexterminationists have always refused the public debate proposed to them by the
\nrevisionists and which the revisionists continue to propose. In certain countries such
\nas France and Austria, the supporters of the exterminationist thesis have recently gone
\nso far as to obtain special laws that punish revisionists with heavy prison terms and
\nfines for “contesting” the existence of the “Holocaust” and the execution gas
\nchambers.
\nFortunately, there remains a third way of forming an opinion on this controversy, that
\nof reading the transcript of a trial where the two sides found themselves face to face
\nbefore a judge and jury. In the case which concerns us, that is what happened twice, in
\n1985 and 1988, in actions brought against the revisionist Ernst Z\u00fcndel in Toronto by
\nexterminationist members of a Jewish organization.
\nThis remarkable book by Barbara Kulaszka rests upon the transcripts of the 1988 trial.
\nIt will enable the layman to obtain a precise idea of the historical controversy
\nsurrounding the Jewish “Holocaust” and to form an opinion for himself. I must,
\nhowever, express a reservation and issue a warning to the reader: a courtroom is not
\nan appropriate place for a historical debate. A trial has its own formal rules of
\nprocedure and it is very limited as to time; freedom of expression is not total since one
\nof the parties is seeking to obtain a condemnation as the other party is trying to avoid
\nthat condemnation. Finally, a judge and jury, even if they listen to experts, have
\nneither the competence nor the means required to settle a point of history.
\nI participated in the preliminary hearing of Ernst Z\u00fcndel in 1984, in the first Z\u00fcndel
\ntrial in 1985 (quashed on procedural and substantive grounds), and, finally, in the
\nsecond Z\u00fcndel trial in 1988. I published a complete account of the case in The Journal
\nof Historical Review, Winter 1988-1989, pp. 417-431 in an article entitled “The
\nZ\u00fcndel Trials (1985-1988)”. I take the liberty of referring the reader to it but I would
\nalso wish to quote here a passage from the article and to comment on it in the light of
\nwhat has happened since 1988. This passage deals essentially with my own discovery
\nin the 1970s of the chemical impossibility of the Auschwitz execution gassings and
\nthe confirmation of that impossibility by Fred Leuchter. I wrote then:
\nFor my part, I appeared as an expert witness for nearly six days. I concentrated
\nparticularly on my investigations of the American gas chambers. I recalled that
\nZyklon B is essentially hydrocyanic acid and that it is with this gas that certain
\nAmerican penitentiaries execute those who have been condemned to death.
\nIn 1945 the Allies should have asked specialists on American gas chambers to
\nexamine the buildings, at Auschwitz and elsewhere, which were supposed to have
\nbeen used to gas millions of people. Since 1977, I have had the following idea: when
\none deals with a vast historical problem like that of the reality or the legend of the
\nHolocaust, one must strive to get to the core of the problem. In this case the central
\nproblem is Auschwitz and the core of that problem is a space of 275 square metres:
\nthe 65 square metres of the “gas chamber” of crematorium I at Auschwitz and, at
\nBirkenau, the 210 square metres of the “gas chamber” of crematorium II. In 1988, my
\nidea remained the same: let us have expert studies of those 275 square metres and we
\nwill have an answer to the vast problem of the Holocaust! I showed the jury my
\nphotos of the gas chamber at the Maryland State Penitentiary in Baltimore as well as
\nmy plans for the Auschwitz gas chambers and I underlined the physical and chemical
\nimpossibilities of the latter ones.
\nA Sensational Turn of Events: The Leuchter Report
\nErnst Z\u00fcndel, in possession of the correspondence I had exchanged in 1977-78 with
\nthe six American penitentiaries outfitted with gas chambers, gave attorney Barbara
\nKulaszka the job of getting in touch with the chief wardens of those penitentiaries in
\norder to see if one of them would agree to appear in court to explain how a real gas
\nchamber operates. Bill Armontrout, chief warden of the penitentiary at Jefferson City
\n(Missouri), agreed to testify and in doing so pointed out that no one in the USA was
\nmore knowledgeable about the functioning of gas chambers than Fred A. Leuchter, an
\nengineer from Boston. I went to visit Leuchter on February 3 and 4, 1988. I found that
\nhe had never asked himself any questions about the “gas chambers” in the German
\ncamps. He had simply believed in their existence. After I began to show him my files,
\nhe became aware of the chemical and physical impossibility of the German “gassings”
\nand he agreed to examine our documents in Toronto.<\/p>\n

After that, at Z\u00fcndel’s expense, he left for Poland with a secretary (his wife), a
\ndraftsman, a video-cameraman and an interpreter. He came back and drew up a 192
\npage report (including appendices). He also brought back 32 samples taken, on the
\none hand, from the crematories of Auschwitz and Birkenau at the site of the homicidal
\n“gassings” and, on the other hand, in a disinfection gas chamber at Birkenau. His
\nconclusion was simple: there had never been any homicidal gassings at Auschwitz,
\nBirkenau, or Majdanek.
\nOn April 20 and 21, 1988, Fred Leuchter appeared on the witness stand in the Toronto
\ncourtroom. He told the story of his investigation and presented his conclusions. I am
\nconvinced that during those two days I was an eyewitness to the death of the gas
\nchamber myth, a myth which, in my opinion, had entered its death throes at the
\nSorbonne colloquium on “Nazi Germany and the Extermination of the Jews” (June 29
\nto July 2, 1982), where the organizers themselves began to grasp that there was no
\nproof of the existence of the gas chambers.
\nIn the Toronto courtroom emotions were intense, in particular among the friends of
\nSabina Citron. Ernst Z\u00fcndel’s friends were also moved, but for a different reason: they
\nwere witnessing the veil of the great swindle being torn away. As for me, I felt both
\nrelief and melancholy: relief because a thesis that I had defended for so many years
\nwas at last fully confirmed, and melancholy because I had fathered the idea in the first
\nplace. I had even, with the clumsiness of a man of letters, presented physical,
\nchemical, topographical and architectural arguments which I now saw summed up by
\na scientist who was astonishingly precise and thorough.
\nWould people one day remember the skepticism I had encountered, even from other
\nRevisionists? Just before Fred Leuchter, Bill Armontrout had been on the witness
\nstand, where he confirmed, in every detail, what I had said to the jury about the
\nextreme difficulties of a homicidal gassing (not to be confused with a suicidal or
\naccidental gassing). Ken Wilson, a specialist in aerial photographs, had shown that the
\nhomicidal “gas chambers” of Auschwitz and Birkenau did not have gas evacuation
\nchimneys, which would have been indispensable. He also showed that I had been
\nright in accusing Serge Klarsfeld and Jean-Claude Pressac of falsifying the map of
\nBirkenau in The Auschwitz Album (Seuil Publishers, 1983, p. 42). Those authors, in
\norder to make the reader believe that groups of Jewish women and children surprised
\nby the photographer between crematories II and III could not go any farther and were
\nthus going to end up in the “gas chambers” and those crematories, had simply
\neliminated from the map the path which, in reality, led up to the “Zentralsauna,” a
\nlarge shower facility (located beyond the zone of the crematories), where those
\nwomen and children were actually going.
\nJames Roth, director of a laboratory in Massachusetts, then testified on the analysis of
\nthe 32 samples, the origin of which he was unaware of: all the samples taken in the
\nhomicidal “gas chambers” contained a quantity of cyanide which was either
\nunmeasurable or infinitesimal, while the sample from the disinfection gas chamber,
\ntaken for comparison’s sake, contained an enormous amount of cyanide (the
\ninfinitesimal quantity detected in the former case can be explained by the fact that the
\nsupposed homicidal gas chambers were in fact morgues for preserving bodies; such
\nmorgues could have been occasionally disinfected with Zyklon B). (pp. 428 430)
\nThat happened in 1988. Four years later, the Leuchter Report was confirmed by three
\nother reports: first, that of the Krakow Forensic Institute; then, that of the German
\nGermar Rudolf, and finally, that of the Austrian Walter L\u00fcftl. The most stunning of
\nthese three reports is the one from Krakow. It had been pressed for by the authorities
\nat the Auschwitz State Museum in the hope that it would disprove the Leuchter
\nReport’s conclusions. The opposite happened and despite embarrassed explanations to
\ntry to minimize the meaning of their own tests, the authors of the Krakow report
\nindeed confirmed — involuntarily — that Fred Leuchter was right. As a result, the
\nexterminationists prefer to treat the report of the Krakow Forensic Institute with
\nsilence.
\nIn 1989, the pharmacist Jean-Claude Pressac published, under the aegis of New
\nYork’s Beate Klarsfeld Foundation, an enormous book entitled Auschwitz: Technique
\nand Operation of the Gas Chambers. I rendered an account of that exterminationist
\nattempt in The Journal of Historical Review in 1991 [Spring 1991, pp. 25-66 and
\nSummer, 1991, pp. 133-175]. I showed there that “the exterminationist mountain” in
\nlabour had brought forth “a revisionist mouse.” The occasion gave me the opportunity
\nto emphasize again what I call “one of the 20th century’s great paradoxes”: that
\nmillions of people, stupefied by incessant media propaganda, believe in the Nazi gas
\nchambers without ever having seen one, without having the slightest idea of what this
\nallegedly fantastic weapon was, without any ability to describe its shape and
\noperation. The Nazi gas chamber is alleged to have physically existed; yet no one can
\nprovide us with a representation of it! This gas chamber is immaterial and magical.
\nNobody, and above all, not J.-C. Pressac in his work with the misleading title, has
\nbeen able in a half-century to provide us with a photograph, a blueprint or a model.
\nThe rare attempts in that direction have ended in failure. In their works, such men as
\nPoliakov, Wellers, Hilberg or Pressac have not dared — and for a good reason — to
\nreproduce a complete photograph of the alleged “gas chambers” which tourists can
\nvisit in certain concentration camps. Nor do they reproduce the large mock-up which
\ntourists can see at the Auschwitz Museum’s Block 4, for they know that this is but a
\ngrotesque trick. Thus, the challenge I have made to the adepts of the “Holocaust”
\nreligion for decades remains the same: “I will be prepared to believe in the Nazi gas
\nchamber, the central pillar of the ‘Holocaust’ religion, on the day you can describe ‘a
\nsingle one of those gas chambers’ to me.” Sometimes I add: “But you are unable to do
\nso. Those chemical slaughterhouses where, according to you, one could have entered
\nwith impunity to retrieve millions of bodies out of an ocean of hydrocyanic acid were
\na physical and chemical impossibility. One cannot describe or draw the alleged
\nhomicidal gas chamber of Auschwitz as one cannot describe or draw a square circle or
\na circular square.”
\nOur age believes itself to be skeptical, believing only that which it sees. It claims to be
\nthe age of television. Yet it believes in a material thing of which it does not have the
\nleast material representation and never has a book, a movie or the television provided
\nus with an image of this material thing. The best way to deceive the masses is by
\nsuggestion which entails auto-suggestion. Television cannot show or describe a Nazi
\ngas chamber but it suggests the idea; for example, it shows a building and the
\ncommentary asserts: “Building containing a gas chamber”; or it settles for showing us
\na simple shower sprinkler and like Pavlovian dogs we are conditioned, lo and behold,
\n“to see” a “gas chamber.” Other times, our pity will be aroused over some “hair of the
\ngassed”, “suitcases of the gassed”, “baby carriages of the gassed infants.” Thus do we
\ngo from suggestion to auto-suggestion.
\nThe myth of the gassing of civilians in enclosed places dates back to 1916; already, at
\nthat time, the Germans, Austrians or the Bulgarians were accused of gassing Serbian
\nmen, women and children. After the war, this myth was quickly overshadowed by the
\nmyth of the Belgian children having their hands crushed by uhlans; it vanished only to
\nreappear twenty years later. This time the victims were no longer Serbs but Jews. And
\nit is this myth, absurd and painful, that at the end of the 20th century is persistently
\nimposed upon us.
\nIn centuries past, people believed, likewise, in the devil, in his physical shape, in his
\npales and tenterhooks, in his shouts and in his smells. Tribunals, chaired by judges
\nwho reckoned themselves intelligent and enlightened, posited in principle (judicial
\nnotice!) that such was true, so obviously true that demonstrating it was unwarranted.
\nYet it was false. Smack in the middle of the 20th century, devilry came back and
\njudges who thought themselves more intelligent and more enlightened than their
\npredecessors of centuries past, posited in principle (judicial notice anew!) that the
\ndevilish Nazi gas chambers had indeed existed. In Toronto in 1988, Judge Ron
\nThomas took “judicial notice” of the “Holocaust” notwithstanding that this was the
\nvery issue at the core of the trial where the matter was one of determining whether
\nErnst Z\u00fcndel was spreading false news or not when he distributed a piece of
\nrevisionist literature entitled Did Six Million Really Die?.
\nI was a witness to Ernst Z\u00fcndel’s judicial and extra-judicial calvary. This man is a
\nheroic figure of our time. He honours the German people of whom he was born. He
\nhonours Canada where he came to settle. But Germany and Canada, without reason,
\nwork against him at the instigation of the leaders of the world Jewish community. It is
\na disgrace. As historian David Irving said so well: “The Jewish community have to
\nexamine their consciences. They have been propagating something that isn’t true.”
\n(The Jewish Chronicle, London, 23 June 1989).
\nUnder a simple exterior, Ernst Z\u00fcndel has a visionary’s depth. This peasant of
\nSwabian origin, this artist, this businessman, casts a penetrating gaze on history,
\nsociety, politics, institutions and men. In my article on his trials which I have already
\nreferred to, my conclusion had been the following:
\nErnst Z\u00fcndel had promised that his trial would be “the trial of the Nuremberg Trial” or
\n“the Stalingrad of the Exterminationists.” The unfolding of those two long trials
\nproved him right, even though the jury, “instructed” by the judge to consider the
\nHolocaust as an established fact “which no reasonable person can doubt,” finally
\nfound him guilty. Z\u00fcndel has already won. It remains for him to make it known to
\nCanada and to the entire world. The media blackout of the 1988 trial was almost
\ncomplete. Jewish organizations campaigned vigorously for such a blackout, and even
\nwent so far as to say that they did not want an impartial account of the trial. They did
\nnot want any account of it at all. The paradox is that the only publication which
\nreported relatively honestly about the trial was the Canadian Jewish News.
\nErnst Z\u00fcndel and the Leuchter report have left a profound mark on history; both will
\nbe remembered for many years to come.
\nToday I would add that to me Ernst Z\u00fcndel’s fate appears both more tragic and more
\nenviable than in 1988. It is even more tragic because I fear that the leaders of the
\nworld Jewish community will not leave any respite to a man of this breadth, able not
\nonly to discern what he calls truth, freedom and justice but also to struggle with so
\nmuch skill and courage for that truth, that freedom and that justice. In a general way, I
\nam pessimistic for the future of revisionists. But I am optimistic for the future of
\nrevisionism: the work initiated by Paul Rassinier and crowned by the brilliant work of
\nthe American Arthur Robert Butz, The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, has known,
\nthanks to Ernst Z\u00fcndel, such a great expansion that no obstacle will be able to impede
\nits course. And it is in this sense that, notwithstanding everything, one can envy the
\nfate of Ernst Z\u00fcndel.
\nRobert Faurisson
\nAugust, 1992<\/p>\n

\n

Here is a good example of what a researcher who fully looks into the story finds:<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Free Speech, the Internet and Holo\u00adcaust Revisionism<\/strong> <\/span><\/h2>\n

by<\/strong><\/span> Rae West 1997<\/span>
\n<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

http:\/\/www.big-lies.org\/holocaust-revisionism\/ww2-holocaust-revisionism.html<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

This is the text of a long talk I gave on 12th Oct 1997 at Conway Hall, in Red Lion Square, London, with a few additions. It was printed in the \u2018Ethical Record\u2019 in my heavily-edited form, from which however the conclusion was omitted. It’s online here Ethical Record, December 1997<\/a>. It was based on Internet research, supplemented by cross-checking where possible with books and other documents published in the 1940s and 1950s. (Cf. the notes at the end). I had naturally assumed the revisionist case was nonsense, but being aware of the possibilities of systematic lying (cf. e.g. official downplaying and evasion of Vietnam War Crimes, also on this website\u2014just one example) I considered I had an obligation to look into it. Where the information surprised me, in the sense of being diametrically opposite to the convention, I\u2019ve flagged it, throughout this text. The conclusion I came to was that the \u2018Holocaust\u2019 was a largely or completely manufactured story.\u2014Rae West<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n

\n


\n Introduction<\/span> <\/b>
\nThanks to you all for coming. This is a complicated subject and I\u2019ll do my best to do it justice.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Quotation<\/span> <\/b>
\n Let me start with an account:<\/i><\/p>\n

\u2018According to the New York Times of October 3, 1965 there have been.. 170,000 civilians killed; 800,000 maimed by torture; 5,000 burnt alive, disembowelled or beheaded; 100,000 killed or maimed by chemical poisons; 400,000 detained and tortured savagely. One method of torture used by the American troops is partial electrocution or \u2018frying\u2019 as one United States Adviser called it\u2014by attaching live wires to male genital organs or the breasts of Vietnamese women prisoners.\u2019<\/p>\n

\u2018Already 8,000,000 villagers are living in the 6,000 hamlets so far completed.. with bamboo fences, barbed wire, and armed militiamen.\u2019<\/p>\n

What\u2019s the relevance of that? We\u2019ll see later.<\/p>\n

Outline<\/span> <\/b>
\nOn the principle of \u2018telling them what you\u2019re going to tell them\u2019, this is what I\u2019m going to say:
\nFirst, some comments on Internet, since this is the source of this talk. I should make it clear I\u2019m not obsessed by this topic and indeed only became aware of its existence a month or two ago. Many of the things said came as a surprise to me, and I\u2019ll flag these during my talk. I\u2019ll also supplement Internet with a few publications, of the sort readily available in second-hand bookshops.
\nThen some comments on free speech and the issues surrounding it, including technology. This is apparently a well-worn theme and I\u2019ll try not to be too banal.
\nThen I\u2019ll survey revisionism as a concept, and home in on holocaust revisionism, looking first at the types of revisionists.
\nThen I\u2019ll go into detail as to the personalities involved, first the revisionists, then the anti-revisionists.
\nI\u2019ll have to look at the Nuremberg Military Tribunal, and try to summarise the evidence brought by revisionists and by anti-revisionists.
\nI\u2019ll end with political and historical comments (some addressed specifically to the left.) <\/a><\/p>\n

The Internet<\/span> <\/b>
\nOn Internet, opinions vary; Christopher Hitchens said it\u2019s been tremendously oversold, you\u2019ll get oligopolies and the same consumerist hogwash; he likes print. (Since writing that, it appears Hitchens knew for years he was a ‘Jew’\u2014and not likely to advertise the liberation from Jewish lies of Internet). John Pilger said \u2018look to see who controls the Internet; the American government and multinationals.\u2019 I ought to point out that, in fact, it\u2019s quite difficult to use; skilled computer people can store downloaded text on their computers for use later, but unskilled ones find this difficult; in my view, the promotional campaigns of the BBC\u2019s \u2018Computers Don\u2019t Bite\u2019 type are dangerously misleading; I\u2019ve seen adults go into rages of frustration trying to work these things. There are dangers of losing all one\u2019s work, and so on. In practice, most users seem to belong to institutions\u2014typically students or employees who offload the costs onto their organisations. Many sites are maintained not by the people whose names appear there, but by associates or friends or whatever. Incidentally you\u2019ll often be told that the quality of the material is very poor. In my opinion this isn\u2019t true\u2014the medium is purely verbal, there\u2019s no way of making your points other than through well-chosen words, and the standard is generally not at all bad, though of course much of it is repetitive and rather silly. Incidentally many people don\u2019t know there\u2019s a subset of Internet called Usenet, consisting of thousands of interest groups, a bit like special-interest magazines.<\/p>\n

Free Speech<\/span> <\/b>
\nOn free speech, the amazing thing really is that such an ideology exists at all. You might expect any group having achieved some sort of dominance to oppose free speech, and generally this is true. Roughly speaking, without straining for precision, you might divide a population into well-off & poor, and also into intelligent and not intelligent; this gives four types, of which only two are likely to be interested in free speech; and of these, established people generally can\u2019t be expected to favour free speech\u2014King George V said \u2018people who write books ought to be shut up\u2019. That was his contribution to culture. Many important intellectual changes have therefore only been introduced by the intelligent not-well-off, for this reason; I\u2019m thinking for example of Faraday. This is the pragmatic argument for free speech; something useful might come of it. But in practice free speech is something of a dead letter\u2014and I\u2019ll give this organisation as an example! So far as I know, in its 100 years, nobody at South Place has ever spoken on the financial resources of the Church of England. [Or of course the Talmud, and Jewish issues]. With critics like that, establishments can rest easy.
\nThis sort of thing of course isn\u2019t anything special; for example, democracy is more of a slogan than a reality; \u2018free trade\u2019 is generally a cover for the expansion of strong economies, and there\u2019s an analogy with free speech, which may be a cover for pushing pornography or Hollywood tripe or what not.
\nMany of the theoreticians of free speech are more restrictive than is generally realised; Milton\u2019s Areopagitica<\/i> , at least according to Chomsky, advocates licensing of books rather than anything that would normally be considered free speech. John Stuart Mill would not (e.g.) allow the view that Queen Victoria should be assassinated, even by someone conscientiously convinced that it would be a good thing. So generally free speech is conceived in rather vague terms, and I think it\u2019s fair to say nobody has come up with a theory to adequately deal with it. As a problematic issue you might take secrecy of banking, which seems more secure even than government, where there are at least 30 or 100 year rules on documents allowed to survive; but banks have no obligation to publish papers (as far as I know). And in practice censors don\u2019t take a theoretical line; they just cut out anything that might be tricky.
\nOne of the most important determinants of free speech is technological change; for example the Arab world had not one single printing press until the 1880s. In Britain, the Levellers broke up the Stationers Company monopoly, partly because printing was becoming easier. Similarly there\u2019s a widespread belief that the Dutch were valuable in the 17th century, as permitting the publication of books banned in Britain and elsewhere. In my view this is probably a mistake\u2014if you consider Dutch printers, they had the capacity to print books, but demand in Dutch of course was limited. So an Englishman with a bag of gold wanting 200 copies of a book on how terrible the Archbishop of Canterbury was would be an attractive proposition. Something similar appears to be the case with Internet; providers of it want to make money\u2014or, if I\u2019ve read the press aright, in most cases, want to lose less of it.
\nTechnology is also important because the most up-to-date type looks reliable. About the time of the first world war, I\u2019ve read, English people believed newspapers were \u2018as reliable as encyclopaedias\u2019, and this must have been a factor in promoting the war. Later, radio was the thing, and one finds for example Bernard Shaw, when he wasn\u2019t writing in his garden shed, listening to his radio most of the time. This attitude still exists in some elderly people, who imagine the 1 o\u2019clock BBC news to be the apex of accurate communication. <\/a><\/p>\n

Revisionism as a Concept<\/span> <\/b>
\nRight. Let\u2019s look at revisionism as a concept. As far as I know the word originated with Marxism, Bernstein starting the revisionist movement of the German sozialdemokratisch<\/i> movement. Lenin wrote on this disapprovingly in (or before) 1908. There are no doubt religious revisionists too, considering e.g. whether Jesus Christ ever existed. But by now it\u2019s extended into very many fields; in history journals I\u2019ve found \u2018revisionism\u2019 applied to the Merovingians, Danes, and 19th century Wales. If we consider WW2, we find what we might call left-wing revisionists who point e.g. to Standard Oil of New Jersey, which seems to have supplied Germany with oil through the war, or Opel (the German branch of General Motors) making German armoured cars; I might quote Tony Benn:\u2014
\n\u201cI think it\u2019s time we did a bit of reexamination, you know, of the 1930s and got away from the idea that the British government believed in appeasement. They didn\u2019t .. appease Hitler. They supported Hitler. They backed Hitler. .. captured German foreign office you\u2019ll find that when Halifax went to talk to Hitler on behalf of the British government the first thing he did was to congratulate the German chancellor on having destroyed communism in Germany, and acted as a bulwark against it in Europe. And the whole of that 1930s period was a period when western governments were happy to use fascism in order to destroy socialism in all its forms, not just in Russia but in the west as well. …\u201d
\nRevisionists also look at the entire basis for war: Robert Blake, the Disraeli biographer, \u2018Why Britain Went to War\u2019:\u2014\u2018It would be nice to say that Britain fought for ideals\u2014democracy, freedom, the rule of law etc. But it would be untrue. Britain fought because government and people believed that its existence as a great imperial power was threatened.\u2019 In America, Gabriel Kolko was, or should have been, very influential, on the American Empire.
\nNow. Until recently I\u2019d more or less ignored what I\u2019d thought of as right-wing revisionists. In fact, at least on the Internet, the word \u2018revisionism\u2019 now applies only to holocaust revisionism. For example, there\u2019s a Usenet site called alt.revisionism devoted entirely to this topic.
\nHowever, I\u2019ll look at the various distinctive people and groups which you find if you search using the key phrase \u2018holocaust revisionism\u2019 or \u2018revisionist\u2019.<\/p>\n

Holocaust Revisionists\u2019 Beliefs<\/span> <\/b>
\nFirst, for orientation purposes, I\u2019ll try to summarise what the revisionists claim in common, the subset of beliefs that more or less unite them. These are actually fairly simple: the claims are that a deliberate extermination policy of Jews didn\u2019t exist, that gas chambers are a myth, and that although lots of Jews died, the deaths weren\u2019t proportionally more than other groups; Czechs, Poles, Ukrainians, Russians, various Baltic peoples; a quarter of all British merchant seamen. Those are the key beliefs, but of course, as you appreciate many other issues get brought in. Many of these issues are very well-established taboos indeed, but, as we\u2019re in a sort of temple of rationalism, I\u2019ll list a few which seem important; (i) that Jews actually are descended from Jews, (ii) that Jews took no special part in the Bolshevik revolution, (iii) that Judaism is a fundamentalist\/racist ideology. Thus for example E H Carr\u2019s series of books on the Bolshevik Revolution, which came out from the 1950s, has virtually no mention of Jews, despite purporting to be serious history; it\u2019s rather like discussing former Yugoslavia without mentioning Moslems and Christians. <\/a><\/p>\n

Types of Holocaust Revisionist<\/span> <\/b>
\nThe next section is the longest; I\u2019ll look at the most important revisionists, at least as far as I can judge by their Internet presences. First let\u2019s see the motivations. There seem to be about ten categories: Some seem purely anti Semitic, for example posting more or less selective lists of what famous people have said about Jews\u2014Voltaire, Henry Ford, George Washington, Mark Twain. Some are anti-Zionist and\/or pro-Palestinians. There\u2019s a group called Radio Islam of this sort; I\u2019ll talk more about them later. Some are German-extraction Americans; I recall reading in a paper that a third of all Americans in the US claim German ancestry (whatever that means), and such people have a motivation of course for not being anti-German. There also seem to be white Russian or Polish types who consider Bolsheviks were Jewish, some of them Catholics (cf. Hilaire Belloc, the Roman Catholic who wrote his book \u2018The Jews\u2019<\/a> in 1922). There are anti-Communists, laying stress on Stalin\u2019s crimes rather than Hitler\u2019s. There are miscellaneous types including for example Protestant fundamentalists, blacks like Louis Farrakhan, and other black Americans, quite a few of whom seem to dislike American Jews, and also whites who think their power is slipping. It may seem strange to think of the 1930s or 1950s as a golden age, but then US cars led the world, the blacks were kept in their place, and so on. Another site is Michael A. Hoffmann II, who looks among other things at neglected aspects of history like white slavery in the US. There are groups who consider fairly taboo second world war issues, such as the connections between Zionism and the Third Reich. Common sense suggests there must be Polish or Hungarian or South African groups and others, but if so they\u2019re not on Internet, or not much.
\nAnd there are, I presume, genuine truth-seekers, who are interested in truth in history, who might or might not be in some of the previous groups. I\u2019ll concentrate on what I take to be people of this sort.<\/p>\n

And here we come to my first surprise<\/b> <\/span> . Namely how old all this is. The first revisionists appeared at the same time as the Nuremberg tribunal which started in November 1945 and ended in 1949, producing 22 volumes of official transcript. Recently I was told (by a researcher into ‘AIDS’) that she\u2019d heard the holocaust described as a myth in the mid-1970s, by an American, on a journey on the trans-Siberian railway. My second surprise<\/b> <\/span> is how industrious some revisionists are\u2014many have been doing this for years. E.g. the Swede Ditlieb Felderer says he has 30,000 slides, some in infra-red, taken at all the concentration camps. The Frenchman Faurisson seems to have spent years following up reports and interviewing, or trying to interview, people. Another example is David Irving, the self-trained document historian, who has amassed mountains of documents and has a card index of 10,000 separate items, arranged by date, so he can see what happened on any date he\u2019s interested in. Perhaps more cards by now. However I should add that Irving doesn\u2019t claim to be a holocaust revisionist, strictly speaking; the holocaust appears as something of a side-issue in his work on original documents. However, with that proviso, I\u2019ll include him here since his work on the biographies of e.g. Hitler, Churchill, and his book on Goebbels, which seems to have been banned, is so relevant. He is somewhat looked down on by some holocaust revisionists as late as 1977 in \u2018Hitler\u2019s War\u2019 he believed in the holocaust. <\/a><\/p>\n

Internet Revisionists: Survey by Countries<\/span> <\/b>
\nThe first name I\u2019ll mention is Professor Paul Rassinier, a Frenchman, now dead, who was in concentration camps for much of the war. Depending on your taste, he was a socialist who turned to fascism after the war, or a socialist who didn\u2019t believe accusations being made against the Germans and published quite a few books on the subject. So far as I\u2019ve found out, his first book was 1949 Le Mensonge d\u2019Ulysse<\/i>, and the only one translated into English was The Drama of the European Jews<\/i>, trans 1975 by Harry Elmer Barnes, a sociologist from Chicago university. He also wrote on the Eichmann trial.<\/p>\n

<\/a>\"Fabius-Gayssot
\nCartoon from <\/b> 2nd Holocaust international cartoon exhibition in Teheran, Iran.<\/a><\/b> By Zeon, of France. The cash register, surmounted by a model of part of the Auschwitz-Monowitz complex, has ‘SHOAH BUSINESS’ on its drawer, with the ‘6 000 000’ figure (not the far higher cash sums extorted), with LOI FABIUS-GAYSSOT on its keys.<\/div>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 Rassinier (and another man, Bard\u00e8che) seem to have started what I might call the French school, which includes Robert Faurisson (of Lyons\u2014the man whose book had a preface on free speech signed by 100 people, including Chomsky, and for which act Chomsky received endless attacks. Chomsky incidentally said he never read the book and didn\u2019t know anything in detail about the subject, though he accepts the mass killing idea). Rassinier influenced Faurisson, according to Faurisson, by replying in detail to Faurisson\u2019s letters when anti-revisionists were evasive. And also Roger Garaudy (described as an ex-Marxist \u2018theoretician\u2019, now a Catholic) [Several people have pointed out to me he converted to Islam-RW]. Incidentally in France under the Gayssot-Fabius law, passed in 1990, it is a criminal offence “to contest by any means the existence of one or more of the crimes against humanity as defined by Article 6 of the Statutes of the International Military Tribunal, attached to the London Agreement of August 8, 1945, committed either by the members of an organization declared criminal in application of Article 9 of the same Statutes, or by a person held guilty of such a crime by a French or international jurisdiction.”<\/span>
\n Faurisson is a literature professor (I\u2019m not sure what that status means) whose writings don\u2019t in my opinion read very well in English, paying minute attention to documentary oddities. However I think he claims to be the first person to assert that gas chambers were a myth.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

There\u2019s no German school\u2014in Germany and Austria the entire topic is banned under a law apparently passed by Hitler. So far as I gather this law prohibits any discussion of the holocaust, which is simply stated to be a historical fact. However, there are isolated Germans, including Wilhelm Staeglich (a judge who published The Auschwitz Myth<\/i> in 1979 in German), Udo Walendy who has published on what he says are fake photos, and several historians of the second world war.<\/span><\/p>\n

\"Satire The English revisionists seem rather unimportant (Note Jan 2015: I may have underestimated Douglas Reed] as regards original work; the book \u2018Did Six Million Really Die?\u2019 (1974\u2014added 2012: 5th edition, 2011, revised, updated, and expanded, is published by historicalreviewpress.com though it is not stated whether the original author(s) were responsible for the added work) was originally published pseudonymously, by \u2018Richard Harwood\u2019 but apparently by a London University graduate called Verrall & others. It was reviewed by Colin Wilson, who\u2019s mostly an \u2018occult\u2019 writer, in Books & Bookmen<\/i> in the same year, causing months of controversy. It is mostly translated from French sources, I think. Another man I\u2019ll mention is Dr Russell Burton, a medical doctor who was in Belsen in 1945 and wrote an article in something called Purnell\u2019s History of the Second World War, in which he maintained the deaths were caused by intense overcrowding\u201453,000 people in a camp designed for 3,000\u2014and typhus. Burton is not, or was not in 1988, a revisionist in a sense; he accepts the usual figure for Jewish deaths but not I think gas chambers.
\n[Note added Sept 24 2013: the book starts with a complaint to the effect that Britons opposing the immigration of aliens into Britain wanted to kill them! This seems part of Jewish methodology in addition to fake claims of persecution. Very likely it reflects Jewish attitudes, since the Talmud<\/i> and other material explicitly calls for killing of Christians and others.]<\/p>\n

As regards USA, because of the important part played by the US in the Nuremberg Tribunal, and doubts about them emerged quite early on. 1947 to 1951; we\u2019ll look at this later. There were several books (one published anonymously but apparently by David Hoggan, 1969, and one by Austin App, 1973) but the most important known to me is Arthur Butz, a chemical engineer [in fact I’m told a professor of electrical engineering and computing – RW], who published with an obscure publisher The Hoax of the Twentieth Century<\/i> in 1975, his methodology being to order original documents through US inter-library loan systems. He has a lot of material involving American politics. Butz has an Internet site, but his book is not available on his site, perhaps because he\u2019s still selling it. His chemical engineering background enabled him to take a long look at the technical side of Auschwitz as a manufacturing plant, the sort of thing which historians generally are unable to do. So far as I know, no legal action has been taken in the U.S. over this.
\nIncidentally my third surprise<\/b> <\/span> is the obscurity of almost all the people involved in this dispute, in the sense that very few are official historians, on either side. You might imagine that the supposedly heavyweight historians, e.g. Alan Bullock or Trevor-Roper (Dacre) or Hobsbawm, would weigh in from their supposedly Olympian heights, since the received impression is they have enormous amounts of evidence which they could easily produce. You might imagine this, but it doesn\u2019t happen.<\/p>\n

From the viewpoint of Internet users, Canada has one of the largest sites; this is because of Ernst Z\u00fcndel, a naturalised German born in 1939 who has a site called the \u2018Zundelsite\u2019 in Toronto. This contains the complete text of \u2018Did Six Million Really Die?\u2019 (which Z\u00fcndel started to distribute in 1980) and also a trial transcript, the outcome of two trials of Z\u00fcndel in 1985 (7 weeks) and 1988 (four months). This incidentally is about the same time as Mordechai Vanunu\u2019s abduction, and imprisonment in Israel. The suit seems to have been brought by Sabina Citron of the \u2018Canadian Holocaust Remembrance Association\u2019 and Simon Wiesenthal. The second trial transcript is available on Internet; it has five major testimonies, each<\/i> about 400K long, that\u2019s about half the length of a novel like say Lord Jim<\/i> , each. There are other shorter testimonies too. The two main prosecution witness were Christopher Browning, an American professor of history, and Raul Hilberg, b 1929, a prolific author on the holocaust; the three main defence witnesses (judging by length) were Faurisson and Mark Weber, I presume a German-American, and David Irving. Another significant witness was Fred A. Leuchter, an American designer of execution equipment, including gas chambers, for which there seems considerable demand in the USA. At this point I register surprise #4<\/b> <\/span> : amazingly, there seems never to have been any official technical examination, or even description, of the gas chambers.
\nI had intended to include part of Raul Hilberg\u2019s cross-examination, in dramatised form, to give you a change from my voice, but there seems not to be time for this. However, I found it surprisingly unimpressive; for example Hilberg admitted he\u2019d never been to any of the concentration camps except on a day-trip or two. The impression I received from this trial of Z\u00fcndel was that it went wrong from the prosecution point of view, somewhat in the way the McDonald libel trial twisted out of their control.
\nZ\u00fcndel was found guilty on both occasions and I think jailed. He is provocative, though whether as a cause or effect I don\u2019t know. His site has a logo of a white circle on red, with the letter Z at an angle, unmistakably resembling half a swastika in perspective. Since he is or was a commercial artist, I presume he designed this himself.<\/p>\n

The other large Internet site is \u2018Radio Islam\u2019; I\u2019m not sure if it actually has a radio broadcasting branch. It seems to be based in Sweden. It includes holocaust revisionism as a subset, but has other material, including the complete text (with map) of Arthur Koestler\u2019s 13th Tribe<\/i> , which more or less for the first time popularised the idea that the Khazars, a tribe or group living north of the Black Sea and the Caspian were converted to Judaism from above by their Khan in about 750 AD. This is not an original idea of Koestler\u2019s, but brings together the work of many obscure scholars e.g. Paul Erich Kahle in a popular essay, but written in a longwinded style with many digressions which makes the message difficult to decipher. In effect, he says European Jews aren\u2019t racially Jews at all. I once wrote to Jonathan Sacks, the chief Rabbi, about this, and received back a book review, beginning unpromisingly by comparing Koestler to a crab with two giant claws. Anyway this theory can be assumed to be viewed with Rabbinical disfavour. Radio Islam also has Roger Garaudy\u2019s Founding Myths of Israeli Politics, 1996, more or less banned in France, although it was published by Le Vielle Taupe<\/i> (\u2018The Old Mole\u2019). Other topics include: ADL (anti-Defamation League)\u2019s suspected links with Mossad. Deir Yassin massacre 1948 and other massacre accounts. Marlon Brando saying Hollywood is run by Jews. Unflattering things on Zionism. Wannsee Conference of 1940 which it says is a fabrication, little more than a sheet of paper without authentication of any kind. It also less accountably has the \u2018Protocols of the learned elders of Zion\u2019 (the basis of Norman Cohn\u2019s very disappointing book 1967 book \u2018Warrant for Genocide\u2019.<\/p>\n

Other sites include: CODOH (Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust) PO box in California, Campaign for Radical Truth in History (Michael A. Hoffmann), Institute for Historical Review (California). Also someone called Greg Raven\u2014there seems to have been a lot of behind the scenes manoeuvring in these organisations. Another group is called the Adelaide Institute but they seem a bit elusive. I haven\u2019t been able to find much out how they are funded. <\/a><\/p>\n

Anti-revisionists<\/span> <\/b>
\nWell, that\u2019s our survey of the revisionists. Let\u2019s now look at the anti-revisionists, though not all would call themselves this. Their opponents call them \u2018exterminists\u2019. As I said before, the surprise really is how obscure these people are. There\u2019s one main organisation, called Nizkor, N-I-Z-K-O-R. This is by far the most important; others include skeptics group, of the sort typified by James Randi and CSICOP, the people who investigate the paranormal but perhaps sensing there\u2019s limited scope in astrology and spoon-bending have branched out into e.g. medical topics (getting into deep water as shown e.g. in Martin Walker\u2019s book Dirty Medicine<\/i> ) and, as here, holocaust revisionists. The main person here is Michael Shermer, who has posted an article on David Irving. I won\u2019t say anything more about him as his work is derivative. Incidentally there\u2019s a UK magazine more or less on this topic, called Searchlight<\/i> , from which I fairly recently heard a speaker discuss whether there should be a law in Britain against holocaust revisionism. The specimen copy I bought dealt with pop music and Nazi imagery. I think the title might be a riposte to Spotlight<\/i> , published by \u2018the Liberty Lobby\u2019. I\u2019ve heard it suggested it\u2019s an MI5 (or is it MI6?) production, admittedly from a not very good source. However, as I say, Nizkor is the main anti-revisionist Internet group, so I\u2019ll concentrate on them.<\/p>\n

Several names appear relating to Nizkor, Daniel Keren, Jamie McCarthy, Ken McVay, who seem to be full-time employees; I\u2019m uncertain even if the names are genuine. I don\u2019t know whether they claim any originality. As an example, Ken McVay posted on the \u2018Institute for Historical Revisionism\u2019 e.g. this was founded in 1979 by Lewis Brandon, who in 1975 founded Britain\u2019s National Party. Someone called Willis Carto is connected with it, who funds it, founded \u2018the liberty lobby\u2019 and whom McVay describes as \u2018by far the most successful and influential American anti-semite of the 1970s.\u2019)<\/p>\n

I repeat that most of these people are somewhat obscure. The next three I\u2019ll discuss are all French: a Nizkor site called \u2018Hatewatch\u2019, which conflates revisionism with skinhead and racist violence, neo-Nazis, and similar topics, leads on to three essays by Pierre Vidal-Naquet, Nadine Fresco, and Lin Collette. Pierre Vidal-Naquet\u2019s essay is in English translation \u2018Assassins of Memory\u2019. By coincidence, I came across him in a book by Peter James, the chronology revisionist of the ancient world; Vidal-Naquet is a classicist in the traditional Greco-Roman sense and his 1987 article has references to the Peloponnesian War, Sparta, George Grote, Thucydides, as well as Algeria and the post-war French group Socialisme ou Barbarie<\/i>. He says there\u2019s \u2018nothing more common in history, more sadly banal, than massacres\u2019. I couldn\u2019t find much in the way of direct argument here. Nadine Fresco\u2019s 1990 article is \u2018The Denial of the Dead: On the Faurisson Affair\u2019. She seems to be a journalist on Les Tempes Modernes<\/i>. This is mostly on Faurisson and Chomsky with excursions into French authors. Both these authors quote Johann-Paul Kremer, a doctor at Auschwitz, who however so far as I can find seems to have given testimony to both Nuremberg and Polish communist courts and to have subsequently retracted some of it before being hanged.
\nThe third of the three Hatewatch essays is by Lin Collette, called \u2018Encountering Holocaust denial\u2019. She is or was described as a doctoral candidate in religious studies at the Union Institute, Cincinnati. Her article deals with whether an advert should have been placed by Bradley R. Smith of the Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust in student newspapers. She discusses the Ku Klux Klan, American tolerance, and so on.<\/p>\n

Perhaps more impressive is Deborah Lipstadt who wrote a 1993 book Denying the Holocaust: the Growing Assault on Truth and Memory<\/i>. She\u2019s in the \u2018Dorot chair in modern Jewish and Holocaust Studies\u2019 at Emory University, which is in Atlanta, Georgia. This book is much reviewed on Internet; I found about eight reviews. Incidentally David Irving is involved in a libel case with her and Penguin books, what he calls her \u2018odious little tract\u2019, and her books are stocked, Irving\u2019s not, by Waterstones [a British bookstore chain]. Her book isn\u2019t on Internet and I\u2019ve only been able to find scattered quotations there.<\/p>\n

In a way of course they hardly need to put material on the Internet, as there\u2019s a huge array of holocaust literature; here for example is \u2018The Scourge of the Swastika\u2019 by Russell of Liverpool, which was marketed almost like pornography; (1954), \u2018The Nuremberg Trial\u2019 by Ann & John Tusa (1983), \u2018The Battle for History\u2019 (1993) by John Keegan.
\nThere are countless books of a rather vague derivative type, mostly based on the Nuremberg trials, by such authors as George Steiner<\/a> (‘literary critic’), Bruno Bettelheim (‘psychoanalyst’), Gerald Fleming (a German who was invited to read the newly-opened Polish & Russian archives, but was something like an assistant in the audio-visual department in the linguistics department at Surrey University, not a historian at all.)
\nThere are also what are, or may be, memoirs, such as Elie Weisel (writer), Primo Levi (chemist) who\u2019s now dead. Quite a few memoirs have been written many years, ten or twenty or more, after the events in them. \u2018M\u00e9d\u00e9cin Auschwitz\u2019 Miklos Nyszli 1953, \u2018Kommandant at Auschwitz\u2019, supposedly the memoirs of H\u00f6ss, came out in 1958; Olga Lengyel \u2018Five Chimneys\u2019 in 1959.
\nRaul Hilberg, main book 1961, The Destruction of the European Jews<\/i> .
\nMartin Gilbert (e.g. biographer of Churchill\u2014his book doesn\u2019t mention the fact that Churchill\u2019s mother was Jewish, as appears to be the case), assisted with this 1995 booklet, \u2018A History of the Holocaust\u2019.
\nLeon Greenman who spoke here in 1994.
\nAnd of course there\u2019s a huge fictional output\u2014the Odessa File, to Schindler\u2019s List. <\/a><\/p>\n

Five Revisionist Disputes<\/span> <\/b>
\nThat\u2019s something like the personal line-up you\u2019ll find on Internet; if you look at it, you\u2019ll recognise most of these names. Now I want to turn to the actual claims made by revisionists, in a fairly brief but I hope accurate way. I\u2019ll take five subjects: the meaning of \u2018final solution\u2019, problems with the Nuremberg trials, the issue of fake documents and photos, the problem of population figures, and the gas chambers. OK. Here we go.<\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 1. \u2018Final Solution\u2019<\/span> <\/b>
\nWhat does \u2018final solution\u2019 mean? There are endless debates reminiscent of A J P Taylor\u2019s remark that the question perhaps was what was meant by a \u2018plan\u2019. For the sake of brevity I\u2019ll confine myself to the word \u2018endlosung\u2019. This was used in many German documents and speeches; nobody disputes this. Unfortunately its meaning seems to be ambiguous and also to have changed over the years. It could mean extermination; but it could mean uprooting. The revisionist view is that \u2018final solution\u2019 meant expelling Jews from Germany; they seriously considered Madagascar as a destination. According to David Irving, Eichmann went to Palestine in 1939 to negotiate with Zionists there for a removal. Revisionists support this by asserting that throughout the war Germany was willing to do deals sending Jews out. There\u2019s a suggestive comparison I might make with the with miners recently; no one suggested killing them; the object was to make them unimportant in power terms. David Irving seems to have been the first person to definitely assert that Hitler never issued a command with an explicit word like \u2018kill\u2019. However it\u2019s important to realise that the Nazis regarded the Soviet system as Jewish-run; when they invaded the Soviet Union on June 22nd, 1941, they were accompanied by battalion-size units of Security Police and Security Service. These units, called \u2018Einsatzgruppen\u2019, had explicit instructions to kill \u2018commissars and Jewish Bolshevik chieftains\u2019<\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 2. Problems with the Nuremberg and International Military Trials<\/span> <\/b>
\nOn Nuremberg, and this is another of my surprises, number 5<\/b> <\/span> , it\u2019s disconcerting to find evidence that the best-known and most horrifying confessions, the damning ones, seem to have been obtained only with torture. I asked my elderly father what he could remember about the news treatment of this, and he said the impression given was of a proper trial\u2014men in robes or uniforms or wigs or what have you. None of the leading defendants [29 August 1945: Goering, Ribbentrop, Hess, Kaltenbrunner, Rosenberg, Frank, Bormann, Frick, Ley, Sauckel, Speer, Funk, Schacht, Papen, Krupp, Neurath, Schirach, Seyss-Inquart, Streicher, Keitel, Jodl, Raeder, Doenitz, Frisch. The Press approved ..] said they\u2019d had anything to do with death camps; the most famous was H\u00f6ss, kommandant of Auschwitz. However, in 1983 a book by Rupert Butler, \u2018Legions of Death\u2019, revealed that his confession was obtained after three days of torture. This is apart from other problems, such as the main document being typed in English.
\nThis is not new knowledge; some anti-revisionists state such things have only recently been discovered. But this seems to be a complete lie. I found three references: An interview with Judge Edward L. Van Roden, in \u2018The Progressive\u2019 February 1949\/ Morris W Kolander in Pennsylvania Bar Assn Quarterly April 1947\/ Manstein: His Campaigns and His Trial written by Field-Marshal Erich von Manstein\u2019s defence lawyer R.T. Paget, K.C., M.P. (1951).
\nPaget wrote: p. 109: This commission, consisting of Judges Simpson and Van Roden, and Colonel Laurenzen had reported among other things that of the 139 cases they had investigated 137 had had their testicles permanently destroyed by kicks received from the American War Crimes Investigation team.
\nNames given: Lt.-Col. Burton F. Ellis (chief of the War Crimes Committee) and his assistants, Capt. Raphael Shumacker, Lt. Robert E. Byrne, Lt. William R. Perl, Mr. Morris Ellowitz, Mr. Harry Thon, and Mr. Kirschbaum. The legal adviser of the court was Col. A.H. Rosenfeld.
\nIt\u2019s disquieting to find the Tusas book on Nuremberg mentions none of this; none of these people are indexed or appear anywhere in the book.
\nAnother irritation of the Tusas\u2019 book is this sort of thing: the defendants\u2019 list \u2018named the wrong Krupp: Gustav. He was only a Krupp by marriage.. .. from 1943, by agreement with the Nazi government, Alfried had become the sole owner of the firm .. .. it was undoubtedly a slip of the pen\u2014early lists of defendants had used Alfried\u2019s name…\u2019 [p 138 says Gustav Krupp was bedridden]
\npp 139-140: [The Tribunal was supposedly horrified at the suggestion Alfried Krupp should be substituted, for his father, \u2018a practice unacceptable in any court.\u2019
\nBy 144, this becomes \u2018an old canard\u2019] The Tusas\u2019 claim seems nonsense, since the IMT were making up the rules as they went along; it seems absurd to suggest they would hesitate to correct a misprint.
\nYet another aspect is the fact, or allegation, that the American consisted mostly, at least 9 out of 10, Jews, mostly straight from Europe, not in any serious sense Americans at all. The Tusas give virtually no information about the American prosecution team.
\nAnd another aspect is that Nuremberg was rigged: (A) the Prosecution controlled all documents; (B) no cross examination of witnesses, so any written statement could be submitted without ever being checked; (C) torture was applied to witnesses.
\nNuremberg procedures are little mentioned, for example in TV \u2018documentaries\u2019. At the time, this was possibly an aspect of wartime censorship; obviously there was intense censorship during the war, and probably the habits and the personnel continued. There were of course secret issues, such as German personnel, equipment and patents taken from Germany.<\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 3. Fake Documents and Photographs<\/span> <\/b>
\nOn fake documents and pix, I\u2019ll just list some fakes, a small set taken from a long list, claimed by David Irving, armed with his card index. \u2018Several works hitherto accepted as \u2018standard\u2019 sources\u2014Konrad Heiden, the Abwehr\/OSS double agent Hans Bernd Gisevius, Erich Kordt, Hitler\u2019s dismissed adjutant Fritz Wiedemann. Professor Carl-Jakob Burckhardt\u2019s \u2018diary\u2019; while Hermann Rauschning\u2019s Conversations with Hitler<\/i> (1940), West German historian Professor Eberhard Jaecel\u2014who carelessly included 78 forgeries in a serious volume of Hitler\u2019s manuscripts, Fritz Thyssen\u2019s \u2018memoirs,\u2019 I Paid Hitler<\/i> (London, 1943). The anonymous \u2018memoirs\u2019 of the late Christa Schroeder, Hitler Privat<\/i> (Dusseldorf, 1949) were penned by Albert Zoller, a French army liaison officer to the U.S. Seventh Army. Martin Bormann\u2019s alleged notes on Hitler\u2019s final bunker conversations, published with an introduction by Professor Hugh Trevor-Roper in 1961 as The Testament of Adolf Hitler<\/i> are in my view quite spurious. Albert Speer\u2019s Inside the Third Reich<\/i> made him a personal fortune after the West Berlin firm of Propyl\u00e4en published the book in 1969. They earned him wide respect for his disavowal of Hitler. But some critics were puzzled that the American edition differed substantially from the German original.. A courageous Berlin author, Matthias Schmidt, later published a book exposing the Speer legend and the \u2018memoirs\u2019; two different men claimed to possess the entire diaries of Vice Admiral Wilhelm Canaris, the legendary Abwehr chief hanged by Hitler in April 1945…. The genuine Kersten diaries which Professor Hugh Trevor-Roper saw in Sweden were never published, perhaps because of the political dynamite they contained on Sweden\u2019s elite, including publisher Albert Bonnier, alleged to have offered Himmler the addresses of every Jew in Sweden in return for concessions in the event of a Nazi invasion. Per contra<\/i> Irving alleges that the Israelis have authentic diaries of Himmler which they will not allow anyone else to examine.<\/p>\n

\n

<\/a>\"David<\/a><\/p>\n

Youtube of David Irving discussing the bombing of Germany. (Recorded 2015; about 1 hour).
\nHe doesn’t mention another possible motive for bombing housing: it left factories alone. After the war claims were made on damage, ownership etc of factories and presumably other assets, such as railways, in Germany. [Inserted 5 Aug 2015 – RW]<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 On photos, the source prominent on Internet is Udo Walendy. He gives examples of photos misattributed and with their backgrounds changed and so on. And film: for example a doctor in a film supposedly at a camp recognised himself at a scene of burning corpses after Dresden bombing.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

I haven\u2019t seen Walendy\u2019s book. Of course faking propaganda isn\u2019t new; Arthur Ponsonby\u2019s 1928 Falsehood in Wartime<\/i> included an account of a French firm making atrocity films, I think in the Bois de Boulogne, on sale to anyone.<\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 4. Population Figures<\/span> <\/b>
\nNow let\u2019s look at population difficulties. This reveals a weakness of both sides. Reliable figures seem impossible to get. On the one hand, there was the chaos of war, with vast migrations and also changes of border. Also the Nazis had their own definition of Judaism which may not have been accepted by people so labelled. On the other hand, it remains true that states still retained bureaucracies and passport systems. Various revisionist estimates for numbers of Jewish victims have been made; I\u2019ll just give three, one by Felderer who so far as I recall estimated 200,000, using UN figures for populations. Rassinier gives a figure of 900K – 1.2 M. \u2018Did Six Million Really Die?\u2019 by using encyclopedia figures gets an absolute maximum of 1.5 M.
\nI\u2019ll also note that the 6 million figure and the word \u2018holocaust\u2019 were used earlier; the first rather vague reference I found is 1919 (see below).
\nNote also that US immigration figures aren\u2019t very usable because the category \u2018Hebrew\u2019 was discontinued in November 1943, and \u2018no official record has been keep since then\u2019 at least according to a 1947 book on refugees by Maurice Davie.
\n[Note added January 2015: British journalist and novelist Douglas Reed was the first prominent person to expose the fraudulent “Holocaust” propaganda narrative. The World Almanac of 1947 showed that the jewish race increased in population from the year 1937, not decreased<\/i> is a statement by ‘Jim Ferguson’ who cites How Many Jews?<\/i> online as the source. Far and Wide<\/i> (1951) is also cited in the ihr website. Many Internet sites seem unable to understand the importance of exact citings.]
\nSo this is another surprise, my sixth<\/b> <\/span> : no proper examination of demography ever seem to have been made. Figures quoted by Martin Gilbert in this booklet [copy of glossy booklet, A History of the Holocaust<\/i> ] are 1978 figures and seem based only on Nuremberg evidence; at any rate no sources are given.<\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 5. Gas Chambers<\/span> <\/b>
\nGas chamber & translation problems; e.g. \u2018gasungskeller\u2019. this is complicated by the existence of precautions against gas warfare. There\u2019s a large literature, including most famously a book 1989 called Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers<\/i> , Jean-Claude Pressac which I haven\u2019t been able to get hold of, as it wasn\u2019t in my sample university library (my hunting suggests very few revisionist books are held anywhere). I won\u2019t attempt to summarise the dismal material on capacity of rooms, dangers of using cyanide, time taken to cremate bodies, in all of which the revisionist case seems to me strong. I\u2019ll mention though my final surprise #7<\/b> <\/span> : there appears to be not one authenticated photograph of a gas chamber designed for human beings.
\nBWP [ British Way and Purpose<\/i> , a British Army wartime collection of morale-boosting papers] has a brief mention which seems to confirm that extermination stories were taken very seriously. (Nov 1942-May 1944). This is often interpreted as deliberate evasion of responsibility.
\nLater on the liberation of German camps was reported by e.g. Richard Dimbleby. Here\u2019s a BBC book of the time, with a piece called \u2018The Man from Belsen\u2019. There\u2019s mention of hard work and some violence, but the deaths in the camps seem to be caused by starvation as a result of bombing, chaos, blockades, typhus, although a BBC source couldn\u2019t be expected to emphasise the results of their own bombing.
\nLet me just note the changing claims made here; at first Dachau was regarded as the central extermination camp; then the focus moved out of Germany, mainly to Auschwitz, and it was conceded that no German camps were for extermination. The claims are now generally being scaled down, as you mayn\u2019t be aware.
\nI should also note the revisionist comment that in the early stages of the end of the war allegations of steaming to death, electrocution, and gas wagons were made.<\/p>\n

Conclusion<\/span> <\/b>
\nI think this\u2019ll have to do\u2014I\u2019ve already spoken too much. I would however like to make a point specifically for the left. Nobody seems to have noticed how useful the six million figure with or without evidence has proved for post-second world war establishments; whatever they do, millions killed here or there, they can always say they\u2019re not as bad as the Nazis, we\u2019re not as bad as Hitler. Hence my stories at the beginning.<\/p>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n

\n

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES<\/h2>\n

[Back to start of ‘Free Speech, Internet, & Holocaust Revisionism’]<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n