2. What evidence exists that six million Jews were
not killed by the Nazis?
Ernst ZŸndel Replies:
Rebuttal # 2
Reaching conclusions radically at variance with
"conventional wisdom" on the basis of available evidence can hardly
be construed as "proving a negative". One might as well contend that
Galileo and Copernicus were "proving a negative" with their revolutionary
observations about the solar system. Of course, they were doing no such thing.
...
..Galileo
and Copernicus
Let it also be said in passing that, contrary to
Nizkor's childish reasoning, a negative proposition cannot be proved - for
reasons of logic. The very idea of trying to do so is absurd. If Nizkor cannot
understand this point, this is perhaps due to the fact that their normal
environment for discourse is mud-slinging matches, not debates.
In any debate based on the rules of logic known to
civilized man since the days of Aristotle, Plato and Archimedes, the burden of
proof is always on the side postulating the positive, not on the side upholding
the negative.
Indeed, the side upholding the negative need prove
nothing: it can content itself with merely poking holes in the arguments of its
opponents.
But in fact, Revisionism has done substantially
more than that!
Since we are still in the freshman mode, let's
therefore start out with the ABC, - i.e., with definitions as taken from a
dictionary:
¥ Forensic
means: ". . . relating to, or characteristic of, or used in courts of
justice or public debate. . . "
¥ Demographic
means: ". . . the study of vital and social statistics, as of births,
deaths, disease etc. . . "
¥ Analytical
means: ". . . the use of logic in separating into constituent parts or
first principles a hitherto unproved assertion. . . "
¥ Comparative
means: ". . . pertaining to, resulting from, or making use of comparisons.
. . "
That is what Holocaust Revisionism does. Extensive
forensic, demographic, analytical and comparative evidence exists and is
readily available to any serious scholar. Most of it you can find in any good
research library some is stored and archived at the California-based
Institute for Historical Review. One does not even need a library
card. On the Internet websites like the Institute for Historical Review, CODOH or
the Zundelsite also store hundreds of documents -
free of charge to view and download.
There is no evidence in the
rambling rebuttal submitted by Nizkor that Nizkor ever visited the IHR or
seriously and without prejudice studied their material, or their sources.
A
second treasure drove for "extensive forensic, demographic, analytical and
comparative evidence" can be found in the court transcripts of the two
Great Holocaust Trials in Toronto where Ernst ZŸndel was charged with
"spreading false news." Extensive pro- and anti-Holocaust testimony,
given under oath under the watchful eye of
a judge and jury, has been duly recorded - word for
word! This testimony had been tested in cross-examination by both sides! On the
face of the earth, there is no stronger evidence!
A condensed
version of what was said at this trial under oath exists in the (from a legal
point of view) magnificently indexed and annotated work of Barbara Kulaszka
entitled: "Did Six Million Really Die? Report of the Evidence
in the Canadian "False News" Trial of Ernst ZŸndel - 1988."
Additional groundbreaking Revisionist work has been
done by the following scholars and experts:
¥ Professor
Robert Faurisson in France, an expert on ancient texts and documents
¥ Dr.
Wilhelm StŠglich , a former German judge, who wrote "Der Auschwitz
Mythos."
..
......Ernst
Zundel with Dr. Butz ..............Ernst
Zundel with Joseph Ginzburg...Ditleib
Felderer..
Dr. Arthur Butz , author of "The Hoax of the
Twentieth Century."
Dr. William Lindsey, former Chief Research Chemist
of DuPont of America
Joseph Ginzburg, eminent Jewish Historian and
author of numerous books critical of the "Holocaust," the Anne Frank
commercial enterprise, Zionism etc.
JŸrgen Graf, a brilliant linguist who is fluent in
12 languages and the author of "Holocaust auf dem PrŸfstand der
Geschichte," "Social and Political Impact of the Holocaust Campaign
in Europe," among many other works.
Dipl. Pol. Udo Walendy , an expert in forged
photographs, prolific writer on W.W. II related historical topics and
author of a monthly Revisionist publication in German called "Historische
Tatsachen."
.
Jewish Revisionist David Cole and
Ernst Zundel . Germar Rudolf .
◦
Germar Rudolf, a German-trained chemical
expert and author of a brilliant report verifying and expanding on the Leuchter
findings entitled "Das Rudolf Gutachten."
◦
Dr. Walter LŸftl, long-time president of the
Austrian Chamber of Engineers and a frequently consulted, court-approved
expert. Author of the "LŸftl Report" debunking gassing on
scientific-technical grounds.
◦
John Ball , geologist and air photo
interpreter. http://www.air-photo.com
◦
Ditlib Felderer of Sweden, author of a book
on the Diary of Anne Frank entitled "Otta Frank - the Diary of Anne
Frank" and researcher who investigated every German concentration camp -
Auschwitz, Birkenau, Majdanek, Chelmno and Treblinka and who has 30,000 slides
to show for his resarch.
◦
David Cole , a young Jewish film maker who
interviewed Dr. Franczesik Piper, head of the Auschwitz Archives, and got him
to admit on video tape that the so-called gas chambers of Auschwitz foisted as
"authentic" on gullible droves of millions of tourists and visitors
were built or re-built after the war. David Cole, under threat of the Jewish
Defence League has since recanted. He made films in Auschwitz with Ernst Zundel available
from Samisdat Publishers
¥ And, of
course,
=
◦
Fred Leuchter's four groundbreaking, detailed
reports - and many, many more.
▪
The Historical "Leuchter Report"! - I
▪
The Historical "Leuchter Report"! - II
▪
The Historical "Leuchter Report"! - III
▪
The Historical "Leuchter Report"! - IV
Holocaust Revisionism, for the publishing of which
Ernst ZŸndel has been persecuted and prosecuted for almost twenty years in
Canada and in Germany, involves the impartial critical study of evidence put
forward by these and many other individuals in the rejection of the claim that
the National Socialist government of Adolf Hitler had a policy and the
necessary instrument to deliberately exterminate some six million Jews during
World War II - mainly in homicidal gas chambers in concentration camps such as
Auschwitz, Dachau, Buchenwald etc.
For many of these Jewish and
Allied claims of genocidal policies, Revisionists have found the evidence to be
non-credible, bizarre, fraudulent or entirely absent.
Hundreds of
thousands of additional pieces of evidence that six million Jews did not die
due to genocidal policies and actions are scattered around the globe and are
found and added to our already existing storehouse of knowledge of this
subject. In the submitted Nizkor document there is no evidence that Nizkor has
seriously tried to find them, or that Nizkor has even bothered to look for any
new evidence of its own.
Nizkor has merely regurgitated repulsive
matter that millions had swallowed already because of systematically induced
guilt, i.e., psychological warfare against the German people - a warfare ever
more stepped up in media and in governments because it facilitates collecting on
a claim that is based on a clever and diabolically political fraud.
This
fraud, as stated before, had been initially concocted and served up by the
Psychological Warfare Department of the U.S., Britian and other occupation
armies after the war under the policy of "Re-Educating the Germans."
Two recent video films entitled "German Re-Education after 1945 / Part
1 & 2" and "Speeches by Herzog and Weizman" are
ample evidence of that.
In summary:
Contradictions
and exaggerations in "Holocaust survivor" testimony and other
evidence have brought the entire "Genocide by Holocaust" story into
question. The collective evidence that has been found, so far, fails to prove a
deliberate German policy of extermination of the Jews, the existence or use of
homicidal gas chambers by the Germans to kill millions of people, or the
killing of six million Jews as a state policy.
The "Six
Million" figure is very much open to question because of:
¥ Lack of
credible scientific or forensic evidence in support of this contention
¥ discovery
of credible documentary evidence to the contrary since W.W. II, and
¥ the
persistent and unreasonable refusal of the Allied governments to allow
independent research into vital archives such as those at The International
Tracing Service run by the ICRC Arolsen, Germany, which house the most complete
records, some 14 million documents of the German concentration camp system -
including records of real crimes committed by those people for which a great
many - Jews and non-Jews alike! - were sent to concentration camps by the
Germans in the first place.
There are now available to the public partial but
impressive and very thought-provoking repositories and documents where serious
scholars can go to get updated, respectable, and internally consistent
information. While all of the nuggets are there, it will still take some
digging and sifting, weighing and analyzing of the information.
This
is serious, scholarly work. To belabor an obvious point, it cannot be done at a
party with lampshades on your head, as Jamie McCarthy of Nizkor so flippantly
suggested.
What does that mean, translated for the common man
with little interest in scholastic endeavors? Here's what it means:
Let's
say there was an accident where a drunk person in the dark of the night rammed
into a carful of people, resulting in some casualties - not just in his own
vehicle but in the car with which he collided.
It was a sad, sad
night, but there's an aftermath of a financial, legal nature involving fraud,
deception and misuse of public trust because a great many more people are
claimed to have perished in that car accident than can be documented.
Let's
say that there is an insurance company, ordered at political bayonet point to
pay compensation to people in the first car but not to people in the second
car. In fact, although it looks as though the driver of the first car was
responsible for the accident in the first place, the driver of the second car
is blamed.
What might be the first step that any good insurance
company would want to check out in detail? The alcohol blood level of the
drivers of both cars. Would you not think that such a test should be done by an
independent, impartial authority or laboratory?
Now it gets
interesting: The survivors in the first car, intent on collecting their claims
at the expense of people in the second car, move heaven and earth to prevent
the insurance investigators from checking. They have the power to pass laws
called "hate laws". They have the media to incite mob action against
the insurance company's investigation. They have the money to bribe witnesses.
They have the legal wherewithal to twist and change vital testimony and to
falsify affidavits. They even fabricate and magnify their own
"evidence" to fit the compensation claim - such as the claim that,
". . . well it wasn't just a car; it really was a train." Next thing
you know, the train has turned in airplane and then a fleet of airplanes.
Let's
now assume that, even though the political pressure is all-but-incapacitating
for the besieged insurance company with a compelling interest to find out what
has really happened, its detectives manage to get hold of a small vial of blood
of the first driver of the first car and have it tested in a lab that does not
know the reason for which it is testing and has no vested interest in the
outcome.
Presto! - forensic evidence reveals that the dead
driver's blood was high enough to have caused the horrendous accident.
"Eureka!"
shouts the insurance company and thinks the work is done.
But
what if ten survivors of the first car now come forward, claiming to a voice
that the driver of their car was as sober as a stone?
Does that
change the lab's findings? Whom would a reasonable person believe? What might a
judge decide? That such forensic evidence is "inadmissible" - as in
"judicial notice" because the outcome is already a foregone
conclusion? And that truth is not a defence?
Is that impartiality?
Not if you have a love for justice and for truth! You could
involve another lab if there are questions about the first lab's findings - but
what "survivors" with an interest in collecting the insurance money
claim does not "cut the mustard" when put against forensic scientific
labratory tested evidence.
That is it, in a nutshell! Forensic
evidence put against anecdotal evidence!
But it gets ever more
interesting. One of the questions, for example, that the beleaguered insurance
company now raises is that the numbers don't add up. That many people claimed
to have been "casualties" don't fit a car, a train - not even an
entire fleet of airplanes!
What if the opposition now comes up
with hundreds of testimonials to prove that, yes, they did! A thousand. A
hundred thousand - all hoping to collect!
Does that change one
iota what has been checked as thoroughly as possible and scientifically
verified forensically? Whom will a reasonable person believe - the lab that did
the work, or scores and scores of "survivors" who wring their hands
and shout "hate mongering"? If the lab's findings are in question, an
impartial third party could find another lab.
If you want to get to the bottom of our
hypothetical accident, you can re-check the blood. You can find out if we are
talking car or train or airplane.
That is and has been the Revisionist method for the
past 50 years. A lie re-told six million times does not become the truth by
mere, incessant repetition.
Nor does it become truth by ever
greater numbers of brainwashed uncritical, uninformed adherents. In the Middle
Ages, people believed the earth to be flat and that witches had sex with the
devil. The popularity of such bizarre beliefs did not make that claim true, but
it led to the tragic death of tens of thousands of innocent young women!