Holocaust Revisionism in One Easy Lesson

[zgrams at zgrams.zundelsite.org]

Holocaust Revisionism in One Easy Lesson

By John "Birdman" Bryant

 From the book Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Jews But 
Were Afraid to Ask Because You Thought You'd Be Called 'Antisemitic'

Note: The original version of this essay was written especially for 
fellow Mensan Max Loick, who declared, in his superintelligent and 
openminded way, that he wasn't going to read it. It is dedicated to 
Lawrence Nevers, whose scholarship on the Jewish Question has been 
both an inspiration and a critical help in writing this essay.

************

Eisenhower's Crusade in Europe is a book of 559 pages; the six 
volumes of Churchill's Second World War total 4,448 pages; and de 
Gaulle's three-volume Memoires de guerre is 2,054 pages. In this mass 
of writing, which altogether totals 7,061 pages (not including the 
introductory parts), published from 1948 to 1959, one will find no 
mention either of Nazi "gas chambers," a "genocide" of the Jews, or 
of "six million" Jewish victims of the war. --Richard Lynn, Professor 
Emeritus, University of Ulster - http://www.rlynn.co.uk

----------

The term 'historical revisionism' was first used to apply to the work 
of historian Harry Elmer Barnes and his associates, whose earliest 
historical work was motivated by the belief that the 
generally-accepted versions of events of the First World War not only 
harbored serious errors, but were heavily influenced by the biases of 
the institutions which underwrote the "Court Historians" responsible 
for these versions. Barnes, however, noted that historical 
revisionism -- "The effort to correct the historical record in the 
light of a more complete collection of historical facts, a more calm 
political atmosphere, and a more objective attitude" in his words 
(Barnes Review Oct 94: 3) -- was itself an activity with a very long 
history, going back at least as far as the exposure of the forgery of 
the "Donation of Constantine" by Lorenzo Valla (1407-57).

The subject which has attracted the most attention in historical 
revisionism, both among scholars who contribute to the revisionist 
literature, and those who are interested in the results of 
revisionist work, is Holocaust revisionism, ie, the examination of 
the supposed genociding of Jews in the Third Reich. The 
generally-accepted version of this event -- or, more properly, this 
NON-event -- is what I call the Orthodox Jewish Version of the 
Holocaust, or OJV for short, which holds in its present version that 
the Nazis killed 'six million' Jews in 'gas chambers'. As it happens, 
however, there are numerous problems with the OJV. The following is a 
list of the major ones.

The 'evidence' for the OJV consists primarily of the records of the 
court proceedings of the Nuremberg trials. As it happens, however, 
vengeful Jews were largely in charge of these trials. (According to 
Louis Marshalko in his book The World Conquerers, of the 3000 persons 
on the trial staff, 2400 were Jews.)

Adding to the problem was the fact that (1) there was no historical 
precedent for war crimes trials in which only the vanquished were 
called to account for their actions; and (2) these trials violated 
the fundamental principle of fairness that no one is to be tried for 
violating a law that was instituted 'ex post facto', ie, after the 
crime was committed.

* 'Confessions' used in the trial were highly dubious, since many 
were extracted by torture or or other unethical means, such as 
threatening the families of the accused (According to British scholar 
Vivian Bird, more than one hundred German defendants had their 
testicles beaten to a pulp by 'interrogators'.) Two confessions were 
particularly egregious: That of Rudolf Hoss, commandant of Auschwitz, 
which was (among other things) written in a language he did not even 
understand, and which provided the major basis for the 'six million' 
figure; and that of Kurt Gerstein, the dubiousness of which was the 
subject of a French doctoral dissertation.

* Many of the atrocities that were seriously alleged at the trials 
are now rejected by even establishment historians as false, the most 
prominent of which are the stories that Jewish bodies were made into 
soap and their skin was made into lampshades. Evidently such stories 
were created as war propaganda, just as were similar stories in WW1 
about 'Huns' who were 'bayonetting babies'.

* The defendants in the trials had no opportunity to gather evidence 
in their defense, and in addition were often given poor food, 
subjected to freezing weather without proper clothing, deprived of 
sleep, and -- as stated earlier -- often brutally beaten. 
Furthermore, those who were condemned to death had their sentences 
postponed until they could be carried out on the Jewish High Holy 
Days in a sort of 'blood libel' celebration.

* The printed trial transcripts often do not match the trial 
recordings, and were evidently deliberately changed to cover up 
embarrassing facts brought out by defendants in their trials.

* Auschwitz was not a 'death camp', as alleged at the trials, but a 
large industrial complex in Poland, and the inmates were forced 
laborers. The Nazis were desperate for labor, so it would have been 
irrational for them to have 'gassed' anyone, and equally irrational 
for them to have mistreated inmates or underfed them. In fact, there 
was a special court, under SS Judge Konrad Morgen, to try complaints 
against camp personnel for abusing inmates. Beyond this, Heinrich 
Himmler, who held principal authority over the camps, sent a memo to 
all camp commandants stating that inmate deaths must be reduced 'at 
all costs' -- hardly something one would expect to find in a 'death 
camp'. And while it was alleged at the trials that 4 million Jews 
were 'gassed' at Auschwitz, the German camp records were not admitted 
into evidence, and would probably have vindicated many of the 
defendants if they had been. In particular, the Auschwitz death 
books, which were released by the Russian government about a decade 
ago, show that only about 74,000 people died at Auschwitz in all the 
years of its operation, most from typhus, with only about 30,000 of 
them being Jews. Furthermore, the crematoria were intended not for 
the 'killing of Jews', but rather for the sanitary disposal of the 
bodies of those who died from typhus.

* While there were Allied spies in most camps reporting on camp 
conditions by radio, none of these spies ever made a report about 
mass killings or 'gas chambers'. The idea of 'gas chambers' evidently 
arose from the fact that all the clothes of arriving inmates were 
disinfected in a kind of gas chamber in which Zyklon B was used to 
kill lice which were feared as disease vectors (Lousy Jews?). These 
delousing chambers, it should be noted, were far too small for 
killing people, particularly in the numbers posited by the OJV. It 
should also be noted that Zyklon B, the form of cyanide supposedly 
used to kill Jews, was in fact a special form of slow- release 
cyanide which was appropriate for de-lousing clothing, but 
inappropriate for the instantaneous killing that was supposedly done 
in the "gas chambers". (The irony of Germans being accused of killing 
Jews by an instrument which they (Germans) used for preserving Jewish 
lives should not go unnoticed.) In addition, as revisionists have 
noted, such killings would have been impossible on the scale claimed 
by the OJV because cyanide is so dangerous that the bodies would have 
had to lie for hours before they could be safely removed, even by 
those wearing protective clothing and gas masks. Beyond this, cyanide 
gas is explosive, so that any little spark, as from the friction of 
shoes on the floor, or any flame, as from a cigaret, would have 
caused any 'gas chamber' to be transported to the place where it was 
supposedly sending Jews.

* Revisionists have proved that the rooms alleged to be 'gas 
chambers' could not possibly have served this purpose. The first 
investigation of this problem was done not for the Nuremberg trials, 
but rather many years later by Fred Leuchter, an American execution 
expert, who took samples from the walls of supposed 'gas chambers' at 
several camps and found that there was essentially no cyanide residue 
-- an impossibility if the rooms had been used as alleged. (Altho 
Leuchter's work was flawed, his conclusions have been confirmed 
independently by two other experts, Walter Luftl and Germar Rudolf.) 
Other problems posed for the OJV by the alleged 'gas chambers' 
involve such things as no air circulatory system for dispersing or 
ventilating the gas, no means for heating the Zyklon B discs for 
proper dispersal, the fact that the doors of the 'gas chambers' 
opened from the INSIDE, and that Allied aerial photographs of 
Auschwitz during the war showed no holes in the roof of the supposed 
'gas chambers' which would have allowed the introduction of Zyklon B 
-- a point made by Holocaust revisionists in their oft-repeated 
challenge, "No holes; no Holocaust!"

* There is no good evidence that Nazi references to the 'final 
solution to the Jewish question' referred to anything other than 
removal of Jews from the area of the Third Reich, the (false) 
allegations about the Wannsee Conference notwithstanding. In 
particular, no 'Hitler order' (or order from anyone else) has ever 
been discovered, in spite of the known German propensity for 
extensive record-keeping, altho there is an internal memo of a phone 
conversation with Hitler signed by Hans Lemmerer of the Ministry of 
the Interior showing that Hitler wanted the solution of the Jewish 
problem SHELVED until the end of the war. Beyond this, the Nazis 
actually cooperated with the Zionists under the so-called Transfer 
Agreement ("Ha'avara") to train Jews for settlement in Palestine, and 
the training camps for Zionists were the only places in Nazi Germany 
in which the flag of the Zionist state was allowed to fly.

* Jewish population numbers published in standard reference works 
both before and after the war do not show a decrease of Jewish 
numbers, but rather an INCREASE. These reference works also 
demonstrate that THERE WERE NOT EVEN SIX MILLION JEWS IN 
NAZI-OCCUPIED EUROPE DURING THE PERIOD.

* The 'six million' is a mystical number derived from Jewish 
scripture, and in particular is the number of Jews who are said to be 
required to die before Israel can be re-established. This accounts 
for why "New York governor Martin Glynn, in a major Albany speech in 
October 1919 [that's TWENTY YEARS BEFORE THE START OF WORLD WAR TWO, 
for all you who are a tad weak on dates], reported at length on the 
'holocaust [of] six millionJewish men and women' who were dying due 
to the 'awful tyranny of war and a bigoted lust for Jewish blood' 
during the 'Great War'" (Irena Zdiarska, "Holocaust Is Undeniable -- 
But Should Be Debated", Barnes Review Oct 94: 27)). It also accounts 
for the fact that, in spite of the formal reduction from 4 to 1.1 
million of the number of Jews claimed to have been killed at 
Auschwitz (see pix of Auschwitz plaques below), the 'six million' 
number has never changed, and thus that in the Orwellian Kabbalistic 
mathematics on which it is based, six minus three still equals six.

* The OJV has changed significantly over the years. We have already 
mentioned that the 'soap' and 'lampshade' allegations are now 
rejected by even establishment historians, altho this does not keep 
Jews from continuing to hold burial ceremonies for newly-discovered 
bars of old Reich soap (we don'tknow whether they have also done the 
same for lampshades.) Another feature of the original OJV that has 
now changed was the allegation that Jews were exterminated at the 
camps in Germany as well as Poland -- an allegation which has been 
abandoned for some time. Yet another abandoned allegation is that 
mass killings were carried out by means of steam, electricity, gas 
vans (using the exhaust), and burning in pits; and in fact, the 
Holocaust received its name from the latter allegation -- yet another 
irony of this congeries of lies.

* The one thing which has done most to convince people that the 
allegations of German atrocities are true is the film clips we have 
all seen of the liberation of the concentration camps, in which 
bodies are shown piled high, and surviving inmates are seen to be 
little more than walking skeletons. But in fact these 
admittedly-shocking films do not make a case for German atrocities, 
and in fact actually refute the notion of "gas chambers": If Germans 
were gassing Jews by the millions, as the OJV alleges, then Jews 
simply would not be around long enuf to starve, as the "walking 
skeletons" and emaciated bodies of the dead obviously were doing. The 
starvation, it should be noted, was simply a reflection of the fact 
that, toward the end of the war, the German supply lines had broken 
down, and food was not getting to the camps. And above all, one 
should not think that there is anything unique to Germany about 
"walking skeletons" in "concentration camps": Exactly the same thing 
happened at the Andersonville prison during the American Civil War, 
and the photo at the left is a picture of one of those inmates.

* If there is any one thing which is a clinching  argument to the 
matter of the OJV, it is the fact that it is illegal to openly 
express doubt about this story in most countries of the Western 
world, including Germany (of course!), Israel (of course!), Austria 
(of course!), Spain, France, Australia, and Canada; and in those few 
countries in which it is not illegal, the laws forbidding 'race hate' 
are increasingly being interpreted as forbidding such expression. The 
point here is that truth does not require the support of legislation 
-- only falsehood does. And of course it does not take a rocket 
scientist to figure who is behind this illegalization; nor does it 
take a rocket scientist to figure why cases of 'Holocaust denial' are 
so vigorously prosecuted: Jews, and particularly Israel, have 
profited in numerous ways and by billions of dollars in playing this 
scam, including an unending number of Holocaust movies (more than 400 
at last count, according to scholar Michael Hoffman), Holocaust 
museums (popping up everywhere), Holocaust books (Elie 'The Weasel' 
Wiesel has written more than 30; The Diary of Anne Frank is a 
perennial best- seller, etc, etc, etc), TV dramas (the airing of 
"Holocaust' in 1970 is when the scam really took off), 'survivors' by 
the millions -- all pensioned by the German government, shakedowns of 
companies which supposedly profited from 'slave labor' or were 
otherwise tinged by Third- Reich-related activities (eg, IBM, Swiss 
banks), and of course the billions in 'reparations', 'foreign aid' 
and other 'guilt money' showered on Israel by Germany and the US. It 
has gotten so bad that Jewish Professor Norman Finkelstein calls it 
"The Holocaust [Industry]" in his book by the same name, where he 
quotes his mother as asking, "If Hitler killed so many Jews, then 
where did all the 'survivors' come from?" No need to explain, then, 
why there is a saying among Jews that "There's no business like Shoah 
(Holocaust) business."

* The only facts that come within even a country mile of supporting 
the contention of Nazi extermination of Jews are reports of the 
shootings on the Eastern front of communist partisans, many of whom 
were Jews. The following is what Lawrence Nevers has had to say on 
the subject:

"The notion that the Germans were 'exterminating' the Jews in Russia 
rests on two sources. The first is British intercepts of captured 
German anti- partisan radio decrypts claiming huge numbers of Jews 
executed during Operation Barbarossa. The second are the 
Einsatzgruppen reports of executed partisans sent back to Berlin. 
Before considering these two sources it is necessary to realize, as 
Walter Sunning has demonstrated, that between one-half and two-thirds 
of all the Jews in European Russia had been deported into the 
interior of the Soviet Union by the largely Jewish commissars ahead 
of the German advance. How could the Germans have killed the number 
of Jews alleged when most had already been removed? The conclusion 
must be that the intercepts are either forgeries or that the kill 
totals are interpolations. The English forged a great many claims of 
German atrocities during the First World War. Why would they not have 
done the same a second time? With respect to the Einsatzgruppen 
reports, the reports still extant are only the reports to Berlin. The 
field reports from the units to their commanders in Russia have 
conveniently disappeared. One suspects that the numbers in the field 
reports are considerably lower than the numbers claimed in the 
easily-doctored-after-the-war Berlin reports. The diaries of the 
German police chief Heinrich Himmler have been in Israeli hands since 
the war. What is there in those diaries which the Israelis do not 
want the rest of the world to see?" (Nevers, personal communication)

If anyone were guilty of "war crimes" during WW2, it was the Allies. 
The RAF's General "Bomber" Harris' terror firebombing of Dresden, a 
city of no military importance, caused the deaths of some 
quarter-million civilians; and a similar effect was produced by Gen 
Curtis LeMay's firebombing of Tokyo. The dropping of the two atomic 
bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki may also be mentioned, particularly 
in view of the almost desperate attempts of the Japanese government 
to surrender well before those events. And then there was the Allied 
treatment of Germans and their allies at the end of the war -- a 
curious replay of what happened at the end of WW1, but worse: Much of 
the story is recounted in James Bacque's books Other Losses and 
Crimes and Mercies; while another part of the story will be found in 
Jewish author John Sack's book An Eye For an Eye. And guess what: The 
death rate for Allied prisoners in German POW camps was lower than 
for the Allied civilian population as a whole!

But if, as the revisionists allege, the OJV is wrong in so many 
important respects, we should ask why this came about. The general 
answer, I think, is that, as Harry Elmer Barnes remarked, "Truth is 
the first casualty of war." This point is of special interest here 
because it was actually the Jews who were first to declare war on 
Germany (in the form of an economic boycott), which they did shortly 
after Hitler came to power in 1933, and which predated by some six 
years the beginning of military conflict. But if Jewish hatred of 
Hitler were a major factor in the lies of the OJV, there is yet 
another factor whose importance may be considerable, namely, that 
Jews were looking for a devil to take attention away from the 
atrocities committed by the regime of 'Jewish Bolsheviks' in Russia, 
particularly those of Stalin, now known to be a Jew (his family name, 
Dugashvili, means 'son of a Jew' in Georgian), who -- with his 
right-hand man the Jew Kaganovich -- deliberately starved millions to 
death, and sent other millions to the Gulag. In fact, as Robert 
Conquest and other scholars have discovered, deaths under the 
communist regime in the Soviet Union totalled some 60 million, and in 
China some 80 million, both of which far outnumber anything Hitler 
was ever accused of. And yet we hear little or nothing about 
"communist atrocities", in spite of being deluged on an almost-daily 
basis with Holocaust mythology.

As a final important point, it should be noted that a number of men 
have had to suffer considerably for daring to speak out about the 
Jewish 'Big Lie' of the Holocaust. (Jews accuse Hitler of using the 
Big Lie technique -- telling a lie so big that it is believed because 
no one could conceive of such a lie being told unless it were true -- 
but in reality this was a lie, for it was Hitler that accused the 
JEWS of using the Big Lie technique, which they have certainly done 
with the Holohoax, er, Holocaust.) Among the best-known of these are 
the following:

* Germar Rudolf, because of his revisionist Rudolf Report which 
concluded that gassings were 'irreconcilable with the laws of 
physical science', was denied his PhD and fired from his job at the 
prestigious Max Planck Institute, and was forced to leave Germany in 
order to avoid a 14-month prison sentence.

* Fred Leuchter, the execution expert who did a forensic examination 
of the 'gas chambers' has been hounded unmercifully, and in 
particular was required to fight an artificial charge in 
Massachusetts of "practicing engineering without a license".

* Ernst Zundel was charged with 'hate crimes' and 'reporting false 
news' in the Pimple Republik of Kanada for publishing revisionist 
writings, but, after protracted battles which twice went all the way 
to the Kanadian Supreme Court, won a stunning victory. Unfortunately, 
this victory has now been largely nullified, both from the legal 
standpoint which allows Kanadian 'Human Rights Commissions' staffed 
with easily-offended minorities to pass judgment on 'hate incidents' 
and which have formally declared that 'truth is no defense' against 
minority offense; and also from Zundel's personal standpoint, as he 
was hounded out of Canada by one of these tribunals, and then 
kidnapped in the US and -- after more than a year in solitary 
confinement in Kanada, was extradited to Germany where he is still a 
citizen and where he will probably remain incarcerated for the 
remainder of his life.

* Revisionist scholar and "Shoah Constrictor" Robert Faurisson, 
author of Are the Diaries of Ann Frank Genuine? (It turns out parts 
of the diary were written with a ball-point pen which was 
manufactured after 1945) was beaten almost to death by a bunch of 
Jewish thugs.

* Henri Roques wrote his doctoral thesis debunking the 'Confessions' 
of Kurt Gerstein, a set of documents on which the OJV is 
significantly based; but altho the doctorate was awarded, it was 
later revoked because of pressure from the Uno Hooze.

* The revisionist Institute for Historical Review was burned down on 
July 4, 1984 by an unknown group -- most probably the Mossad (the 
Israeli equivalent of the CIA).

But if the cases of the men whom we have mentioned above are tragic, 
it is at least as tragic that the organizations which are supposed to 
stand up for free speech have had a severe case of weak knees in the 
case of revisionism, and for that matter, in virtually every case 
where there is opposition to establishment Jewish interests. These 
particularly include Amnesty International, which supposedly supports 
'prisoners of conscience', but seems to think that those who engage 
in 'hate speech' (ie, anything the Self-Chosen do not like) do not 
qualify for support. Likewise, the premier organization supporting 
free speech on the Internet, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, will 
not touch 'hate speech' with a ten-foot pole. As a third example, the 
ACLU became infamous among its liberal clientele several years ago 
for supporting the free speech rights of the 'Skokie Nazis', but 
since that time has not to my knowledge offered any help to the 'hate 
community'. But it is of course precisely the most unpopular speech 
that requires defense, and that is exactly what 'hate speech' is in 
the present day. And with these organizations in the lead, there is 
virtually no support at all for real free speech, except among those 
who dare to do it and be damned.

In conclusion, some might say that the Jews and their friends are 
trying to suppress revisionism because they think it is false; but my 
suggestion is that they are trying to suppress it because they know 
damn well it is true.