January 25, 1998

Good Morning from the Zundelsite:

Don't worry, nothing serious happened to me - just technology glitches on a weekend - and miserable ones, at that.

Yesterday my computer went out, and I blamed the modem, but as it turned out, there was something wrong with my telephone line. To show that I am still here but only half-functioning - I am learning how to use a "turbo mouse" as well - I am shipping you yesterday's and today's ZGram, hoping that I will be up to full speed tomorrow.

Here is one letter showing Holocaust recycling a reader sent to me. What is being trotted out by the New York Times is that old saw, the Wannsee Conference, at which the so-called "Final Solution" is said to have been discussed. The story has been discredited many, many times - but sure enough, there it pops up again!

Let me also preface the letter below by saying that Israel has had Heinrich Himmler's diaries in their possession since the early sixties. If there were any entries about the "Final Solution - and surely there would have had to be of such a stupendous order! - the Israelis would have produced those orders during the Eichmann trial, at the very latest during the Demjanjuk trial. They didn't. There is no evidence!

Regardless! There is that Wannsee fairy tale again!

Six years ago already, in the Canadian Jewish News, January 30, 1992, the following was said:

"An Israeli Holocaust scholar has debunked the Wannsee Conference, at which top Nazi officials are said to have gathered at a villa in a Berlin suburb in 1942 to draw the blueprint of the "Final Solution."

"According to Professor Yehuda Bauer of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, Wannsee was a meeting, but "hardly a conference", and "little of what was said there was executed in detail . . . The public still repeats, time after time, the silly story that at Wannsee the extermination of the Jews was arrived at . . . Hardly a month passes without a new TV production, a new film, a new drama, a number of new books of prose or poetry dealing with the subject."

So you would think that the message would finally sink in. Not so.

My ZGram reader wrote:

"I've just faxed to you an article from today's NY Times which is of interest. I hope it was readable. By Alan Cowell, a reporter who knows where his bread is buttered on the subject of the big H, it is entitled 'Hitler's Genocide Order: 5 Days After Pearl Harbor?'

"Is this it? Finally, evidence of the long sought Hitler Order of Extermination?

"Well, no, not quite, despite the enticing headline which must have made Simon Wiesenthal heart beat faster. What a let-down it must have been when he read the actual story! At least the Times editors had the decency to add that question mark!

(Comment: The headline read: "Hitler's Genocide Order: 5 Days After Pearl Harbor?")

"It turns out that the story is a re-hash of the old Wannsee Conference story, long abandoned by serious people as a source of (extermination by genocide) proof. What makes it different is that an obscure German "scholar" (I've learned to be wary of that word. It usually means that someone is trying to buttress a weak argument by an appeal to "authority") claims that eight words in a Himmler note found in the Soviet archives IMPLY that there must have been such an order.

"On closer examination we find that the note does not relate to a supposed plan for extermination of the Jews but to the actions of the German Army anti-Partisan units in Russia.

(Comment: ". . . which historians researching the Partisan activities have claimed killed almost 1 million German soldiers by snipers, mining roads, bridges, train tracks etc.)

"Now, whatever excesses may have been committed by such units, they do not amount to proof of the homicidal gas chambers, etc., and the usual big H agenda. In fact, under the rules of war, the executions of captured partisans may have been "legal" - part of the gigantic brutality which was World War II (the real holocaust), and they were well matched by the brutalities of the enemies of the Germans, often inflicted on innocent civilians and disarmed prisoners AFTER the end of hostilities."

(Comment: In fact, the execution of captured Partisans must be seen in the context of how that war was fought. One thing people always forget is that the Soviet Union specifically did not sign the Geneva Convention or the Haague Convention on Land Warfare, both of which declare Partisan warfare of armed civilians against organized, uniformed troops illegal. Thus the war by the Red Army was waged with great ferocity and brutality, to which the German Army soon responded.)

"Anyway, the real significance of this story to me is the open concern by this holocaust- promoting writer (based on my reading of him for years) about the fact that there is no evidence of the famous "Hitler Order", and there still isn't.

"Usually the big H promoters deal with this by ignoring it, as you know, so it is good to see it in print in the New York Times, although that aspect of the story is, of course, not pushed. Sort of like the (extortion perpetrated on the) Swiss. I found it interesting that the Times, which hyped the Swiss extortion scheme, ignored the real story when the Swiss opened the(ir) books. There were no significant "Jewish" assets!"

(Comment: And let's not forget that every Allied nation and many bankers with Jewish connections had apparently had their hands in the till after the war. This article is typical of the Times and other media. Why was this story evenwritten? For the headline? How does the average reader treat news these days? By skimming the headlines and very little more! I say that when it comes to the Final Solution story, gutter media writers are truly hanging on and in there by the skin of their teeth.)

Thought for the Day:

"Abductees appear to tell a more consistant story than holocaust survivors. I will continue to wait for physical evidence of either case but on the basis of testimony alone, abductees are more credible. "

(A ZGram reader)

Comments? E-Mail: irimland@cts.com

Back to Table of Contents of the Jan. 1998 ZGrams