May 23, 1996
"The reply to Nizkor's breathless and hysterical blurb is tedious but fairly straightforward. The "science" part is relatively easy. It's really the "style" part that counts.
McCarthy seems to have a platoon of jokers on hand with oodles of time to throw thousands of balls up into the air at you, and then wants you to go pick them all up and throw them back at him. Such unproductive travail has to be avoided. Inasmuch as possible, avoid his agenda and provide a "global" response.
I offer the following suggested approach.
First of all, the basic principle is, you don't have to prove anything. It's McCarthy that has back up his assertions and theories, not you. And as usual, Nizkor is strong in heat department, but provides very little light. For instance, he attacks the assertion by the young engineering graduate that it takes 300 kg to cremate a corpse.
Wrong, says McCarthy, once a fire is started, a corpse self-combusts. What does that mean? That zero fuel is required to cremate further corpses? That only 300 kg of coal was required to cremate 6 million, or whatever the number? Spontaneous combustion? If cadavers burst into fire on their own, why do commercial crematories waste time and money doing cremations differently? By McCarthy's own assertion, he and his people at Nizkor "have no credibility to lose". They have no expertise in anything.
Well, it shows.
A thousand ignorances assembled together do not make for one knowledge. We see nothing to be gained from unknowledgeable people chewing the cud, for months on end, over a topic on which they know little or nothing - in this case, the technology of the cremation of human remains - when such knowledge is readily available from experts.
(Here I would refer to the testimony of Ivan Lagace on 5 and 6 April 1988 at the Zundel trial. This testimony can be picked up at the Zundelsite - see Barbara Kulaszka's book. I would summarize the salient points from Lagace's testimony, in "bullet" form, and invite people to pick up the document for themselves for the detail).
If Nizkor doesn't like Zündel's expert, then let them get their own. But then they can't, can they, because if they did, they couldn't boast that they're beating the pants off Zundel-even though "they have no expertise"? Besides, would any expert consent to give contradictory evidence, if he had any concern or pride as to his future standing as an expert in his field? The crematory oven has to be cooled off after each cremation. What else is there to say? No fuel - no cooling off period in between jobs - no cremation.
As to alleged "internal contradictions".
Revisionists do not claim to speak with one voice and never have. That's why the CODOH website exists: to encourage open debate on the holocaust. Each Revisionist speaks for himself, in his own quest for historical truth.
Revisionists may, therefore, freely express conflicting opinions and many do so: without dissent and debate, there is obviously no issue.
But contrary to where Nizkor comes from, there is no pain associated with Revisionist debate: Revisionism has no central authority, no "Politburo" to decree what is undeniable truth and what is heinous "denial", and to hurl thunderbolts from on high at the offending party.
As in so many other fields of human endeavor, historical truth is really arrived at through debate over opposing views by knowledgeable individuals, periodic revision of the historical record, and new discoveries. In attempting to follow such a process, Revisionism has seen no evidence that would lead it to revise its main conclusions respecting the official thesis of Exterminationism.
Revisionism's conclusions are: (a) that gassings in specifically designed, homicidal mass gassing chambers didn't happen - the "gas ovens" are a propaganda tool; (b) that there never was a Hitler order that called for a genocide of the Jews, and (c) that the numbers of Jewish victims are irresponsibly inflated to boost the reparations claims and to gain moral and political advantage globally. (This is from one of EZ's letters to McCarthy). (By contrast) the Pope of the holocaust dogma, Raul Hilberg, ran away to revise his book, rather than to come forth and bear witness to his assertions at the 1988 Z=FCndel trial. This does not augur well for the extermination cult. Anyone who reads the record of that trial will understand why.
The revisionist position is not carved in stone as religious dogma, contrary to that of the exterminationists. Revisionists have always been open to credible proofs in support of other scenarios.
Fifty years after the alleged event, we are still awaiting such proofs. .= . "
I couldn't have said it better myself!
Ingrid
Thought for the Day:
"A nation that has lost sight of its history, or is discouraged from the study of it by desiccating professionalism. . . is intellectually and perhaps politically amputated."
(Trevor Roper)