Don 't forget that David Irving's segment is supposed to play tonight on CNN. Here in California it has been announced to be 6 p.m.
I am glad it is now a weekend. My fax and telephones can barely handle the incoming calls and copies of news and commentary about the Irving Trial. In all the excitement we have almost forgotten what seemed major news less than ten days ago: The Errol Morris-Leuchter Film.
Perhaps that story dovetails with what is happening in Europe, as can be seen by this Letter to the Editor of the New Times, Los Angeles, January 14, 2000 in response to an article penned by Scott Timberg and titled "Unwanted Thoughts" in the December 23-29,1999 issue.
This letter is titled HOLOCAUST DENIERS AREN'T THAT BAD. It is a poignant response to the issues in question that were raised by the additional cuts of the film to make it politically correct and please the Mighty Lobby:
Regarding Scott Timberg's "Unwanted Thoughts" from the Dec. 23-29 issue:
I attended the screening of Mr. Death at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art and a better article would be on the hatchet job that filmmaker Errol Morris did on Fred Leuchter, the expert on death machines who made forensic examinations and discovered no gassings could have taken place in the alleged homicidal gas chambers.
Timberg wrote that after the screening a lady stood up and denounced the film and the audience as being insensitive to what happened at Auschwitz. She then asked a very important question, as did another man in the front row, which Timberg failed to report.
They both asked why no international scientific investigation had been made long ago, or by now, to prove or disprove the existence of the gas chambers so that this controversy could be resolved once and for all.
Morris gave an answer like: "After over 40 years, everything is dust, so they really can't prove anything now." He also said that in this film he didn't want to delve into any forensic proof. I wonder why? Did Morris remove some forensic evidence from this version (Timberg called it "a rough cut") of his film that may have given more credence to the revisionist position held by more qualified people?
If he did, perhaps it was because, by his own admission, he found something disturbing: Some of the students were convinced by Leuchter while others thought that Morris was convinced by him, and they started to wonder if the Holocaust had ever happened.
Perhaps I can fill in what Morris may have cut out: A forensic examination (and subsequent report) commissioned by the Auschwitz State Museum and conducted by the Institute of Forensic Research in Krakow confirmed Leuchter's finding that minimal or no traces of cyanide compound could be found in the sites alleged to have been gas chambers.
The significance of this is evident when the results of the forensic examination of the alleged homicidal gas chambers are compared with the results of the examination of the Auschwitz disinfestation facilities, where Zyklon B was used to delouse mattresses and clothing. Whereas only trace amounts, or less, of cyanide were found in the alleged homicidal gas chambers, massive traces of cyanide were found in the walls and floor in the delousing chambers.
Another forensic study has been carried out by German chemist Germar Rudolf. On the basis of his on-site examination and analysis of samples, the certified chemist concluded: "For chemical-technical reasons, the claims of mass gassings with hydrocyanic acid in the alleged `gas chambers' in Auschwitz did not take place. The supposed facilities for mass killings in Auschwitz and Birkenau were not suitable for this purpose." Neither the Max-Planck Institute nor its entire professorial staff of inorganic chemistry have been able to find any factual errors in this report.
Timberg wrote that Leuchter took samples of the crematoria walls and found no significant traces of the cyanide used to gas prisoners, concluding the Holocaust never happened. Now what is wrong with that sentence? It says: "Leuchter took samples of crematoria walls."
Timberg makes the same mistake that many people make when they confuse crematoria with the so-called gas chambers. Crematoria burn corpses; alleged gas chambers supposedly (although it's never been proven) gas live people! Some people have even said that revisionists deny there were any crematoria, which is another blatant lie used against the revisionists.
People also get confused when they erroneously think that revisionists not only deny the alleged gas chambers, but deny that there were any other deaths of Jews; therefore, they are Holocaust deniers. Of course, this is false.
Revisionists agree with orthodox historians that the Nazis singled out the Jewish people for special and cruel treatment. During World War II, Jews were considered to be enemies of the state and a potential danger to the war effort, similar to how we viewed Japanese citizens in this country. Therefore, Jews and Japanese were stripped of their rights, forced into concentration and relocation camps, conscripted for labor, deprived of their property, and mistreated. Many tragically perished in the maelstrom.
Toward the end of the war, millions of refugees fled the Soviet armies and poured into Germany. British and U.S. bombers were destroying major cities in Germany with saturation bombing. Transportation, the food distribution system, and medical and sanitation services all broke down, which was the purpose of the Allied bombing. The camps still under German control were overwhelmed with internees from the east. By early 1945, the inmate population was swept by malnutrition and epidemics of typhus and typhoid - even the mortuary systems broke down. When the press entered the camps with British and U.S. soldiers, they found the results of all that, then took the photographs of bodies being bulldozed into the pits.
The Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust (CODOH) has challenged those with views contrary to revisionists to debate for years. Do you know any debaters, Mr. Morris? Mr. Timberg? Could it be there is something wrong with the orthodox view of the Holocaust? Maybe it needs more revisionism.
For more information about Holocaust revisionism, see the Bradley R. Smith/CODOH Web site (www.codoh.com). For the other side of the controversy, see the Simon Wiesenthal Center's Web site (www.wiesenthal.com).
Name withheld by request
Culver City
=====
Thought for the Day:
The pedigree of honey
does not concern the bee,
a clover, any time, to him
is Aristocracy.
(Emily Dickinson)
Back to Table of Contents of the Jan. 2000 ZGrams