I have two corrections to make.
1. I mentioned Dr. Lubomyr Prytulak in several previous ZGrams, stating he was Polish. A friend corrected me:
"One small mistake. Dr. Prytulak is Ukrainian, not Polish, In fact, he is the websmaster of the UKrainian Archive (UKAR) Web site."
2. In my June 8, 2000 ZGram I wrote:
"Charles Provan, an American Revisionist who (strangely!) believes in the gas chamber story of Auschwitz, gave a politely received lecture on his work dealing with Auschwitz doctor Miklos Nyiszli, a hitherto mysterious figure. Provan found out that this "witness" was not only Jewish but was also a Communist to boot - and during the war a Nazi collaborator for good measure. After his speech I found him corraled by an energetic Dr. Faurisson who appeared to read Mr. Provan the Riot Act for being fuzzy on his science. I smiled and walked away."
My explanation: "'Reading someone the riot act', as I understand the phrase, does not imply hostility. I did not mean it in that way. I used my analogy more in the sense of a father sitting down a child and saying: "Now 'fess up! What is this I heard? Are you a naughty boy?"
Certainly an invited speaker at a Revisionist conference "doubting the Holocaust" would have been looked at askance by many, but I did not mean to imply that there was serious disagreement or even rudeness - and if my ZGram came across that way, then I say mea culpa. Revisionists form a community, and even if there are disagreements (as there often are) they are handled in a civilized and courteous manner - which is what sets us apart from the Nizkorite type Holocaust promoters who shriekingly shout their opponents down and vilify and persecute them in public and in private.
Especially Dr. Faurisson, who is civility and gentleness personified, would never have used a convention to dress somebody down in full view of other guests. I thought what I observed was funny!
I gladly yield today's ZGram to Charles Provan to give us a fuller explanation of what happened.
Here goes:
Dear Mrs. Rimland,
I am writing to you with regard to a mistake posted as a recent Z-gram, that of 9 June, 2000. I am referring specifically to the statement that after my speech I was corraled by Dr. Faurisson and apparently read the riot act. I thought I would write to you and ask you to change this, since it is not correct. When I gave Dr. Faurisson a copy of my booklet on the holes of Leichenkeller 1 of Krema 2 (Sunday night), I said to him that I would be very pleased to hear any critical remarks he had to make about it.
Dr. Faurisson had, after my speech on Monday, mentioned to me that he would like to talk to me concerning my paper later on in the afternoon. I said that I would be quite eager. Later on in the afternoon or early evening, John Sack and Dr. Faurisson asked if it was convenient to talk; I readily agreed. At this point, we all went out to the swimming pool area and sat down. Dr. Faurisson then spoke to me concerning my paper on the holes. He was courteous, even friendly, the entire time, and complimented me, even though he disagreed with my conclusion, and told me what I needed to do to improve it. He then asked me if I understood what he meant; I did. At no time did he ever read me the riot act. I remember Ernst walked up and laughed during our conversation.
The only speaker who read me the riot act was Dr. Toben, and then only for a short while. I explained to him that my belief in the existence of gas chambers is in no way a slander of the German people, since people are not responsible for what government agencies do, even if they do things wrong. (This was the case even in U.S. war crimes cases till 1944.) I asked Dr. Toben what responsibility I had for the atomic bomb being dropped on Japanese civilians. I am a citizen of the US, born 10 years later, and am emphatically against the A-bomb on Biblical grounds. After a while, Dr. Toben was again friendly. The German people are guilty of nothing at all, even if the gas chambers existed, since they had nothing to do with them. Still less the Gemans of today.
At lunch, I was called over to speak with David Irving, who spoke quite negatively of my paper and asked me some questions about it, which I answered. I told him that we had been on friendly terms for many years, and hoped things would remain that way. The conversation ended by shaking hands.
Anyway, I am only writing to you for a correction, because I value Dr. Faurisson and his opinions, and I don't want people to think that Dr. Faurisson was angry with me. That he disagreed with me is fine, as criticism from a worthy source is good.
By the way, I certainly do not want you to think that I think ill of you. I just think it was a misperception, or something like that.
It was nice to meet you and your friend, and to talk with you both. Please feel free to ask John Sack or Dr. Faurisson whether what I have said is correct. Mr. Sack, I believe, recorded some of the conversation. I myself wrote my own account of Dr. Faurisson's advice, especially since I was honored to receive it. And I do mean honored.
Best Wishes,
Charles D. Provan
=====
Thought for the Day:
"At one time there was a grand theory of superconductivity. It was elegant and refined. Then one day came an undeniable fact which shows it can not be true and it was abandoned overnight by its creators.
"An elegant theory of gas chambers collapses from "no holes."
(Letter to the Zundelsite)
--