Myth of the Six Million

[oldiesman]

Who are you going to believe??? History and eyewitnesses??? ----

There are eyewitnesses on both sides. If you read some of the revisionist books, they quote many writings of direct eyewitnesses. Most of the believable information from Jews themselves (and these Jews are not neo-Nazis). That is what makes this topic so controversial.

[oldiesman]

Thought I would post some interesting revisionist thought/data, for Greasespot perusal:

Zgram- "Holocaust 101" - Part I

Zgram - Where Truth is Destiny: Now more than ever!

June 3, 2004

Good Morning from the Zundelsite:

Once again, I am forced to resort to recycling some oldies but

goodies due to time constraints. If you are a seasoned Revisionist

aficionado, take a break for about a week from my Zgrams. I will

resume regular Zgrams, including the Prisoner of Conscience Letters,

about June 9th.

[sTART]"Holocaust 101"

This document below was prepared and posted on the Zundelsite as an

"Introduction to Revisionist Thought" during the first week of

January, 1996. It was meant to be a lead-in to an Internet debate

with another website, Nizkor, a "Holocaust Promotion Lobby" website.

This debate was aborted after the Simon Wiesenthal Center was

notified of this debate and immediately went into an all-out

offensive, starting with an article in the New York Times January 10,

1996, followed by 2000 letters to Internet Service Providors and

university presidents in an attempt to prevent Revisionist material

from being published on the Web.

In response to this censorship move, "computer kids" and cyberspace

journalists worldwide took up the "sheltering" of the Zundelsite by

creating Zundelsite Mirrors. From mid-January to mid-February, it was

high electronic drama - as at the most prestigous universities,

"Zündel-Mirrors" sprang up spontaneously. We know of Zündel-Mirrors

as far away as Australia.

The struggle for Freedom of Speech on the Net continues.

In the days to follow, I will run six somewhat condensed and modified

summaries of revisionist claims.

Ernst Zundel replies to Nizkor:

[sTART]

Before I get into the actual rebuttal, I would just like to call

attention to a few important points in (Nizkor's) detailed, elaborate

summary:

1. I am described by Nizkor, citing Canada's Security Intelligence

Review Committee, as a ". . . prolific publisher of hate literature."

That is not quite correct.

In Canada, the distribution of hate literature is a criminal offense,

as is bank robbery and child molestation. If you call me a bank

robber in print and I am not a bank robber, that is called libel. If

you call me a child molester and I am not a child molester, that is

called libel also.

You called me in electronic print a ". . . prolific publisher of hate

literature." You have just libeled me.

I have lived and worked in Canada for almost 40 years and have never

been convicted of having published and/or distributed hate literature

in that country. I have never even been charged with having published

and/or distributed hate literature in Canada, although in Canada

there are such things as "hate laws."

In point of fact, various judicial and police bodies, after extensive

study, have specifically cleared me of that charge. Had there been

proof, my enemies would have made sure I would have been charged and

convicted.

I have been charged with ". . . spreading false news," a frivolous

charge a malcontent, multi-millionaire Jewess brought against me. It

cost Canadians approximately $6 million . . . and all, for what? The

Supreme Court of Canada decided in the end that society may be

enriched by cultural and intellectual diversity, which does include

unpopular views on history and other matters of discomfort to certain

minorities.

I'll summarize 8 points to serve as "Holocaust" Revisionism 101.

Before I do so, I would like to state what I mean when I refer to

certain individuals and groups collectively as the "Holocaust

Promotion Lobby."

I use the phrase as a generic term to describe those people who have

a vested interest in keeping the Holocaust Myth alive and who will

act politically to make sure that this happens.

The Holocaust Promotion Lobby is a summarizing construct meant as a

shortcut to describe a subset of the human race, most but not all of

whom are Jews, with unique and identifying social and political

characteristics and dedicated to the maintenance and enhancement of a

dogma called the "Holocaust."

I use this phrase for summarizing purposes, as in "The Flower

Generation" describing a hedonistic youth culture, or "The Jet Set"

describing the rich.

I will leave it up to each individual, Gentile or Jew, to decide for

himself whether or not he belongs in that group.

What Revisionists are offering below is the state of the art on

Revisionism as of right now. The final word is not yet in; it will

come when more people in all kinds and sorts of disciplines will

kneel into the murky matter of the "Holocaust" and find out for

themselves was is and isn't true.

To capture the essence of what follows below, readers will need to

understand that, after years of insisting that ". . . the

Revisionists don't MERIT a response!" and refusing to engage in

debate, at the beginning of the year [ingrid's comment: Remember,

this was in January of 1996!] a serious debate was actually planned -

or so, at least, we thought.

A world-wide censorship move was unleashed to stop this debate from

happening. Part of this effort by our opposition apparently caused

Nizkor to back out of the debate, insisting that they merely talked

of "linking." It is unfortunate that a debate didn't happen, but that

is now water under the bridge.

The Nizkor folks now say that they prefer to "link," so we will let

them "link." We would have liked a real debate with mutual and

respectful cooperation. However, that was not to be, but since we

promised we would answer a rebuttal, that is what we are doing now.

___

By way of introduction, Revisionism has taken hold as an intellectual

revival movement all over the world. People are beginning to ask

questions about the Holocaust. These questions are uncomfortable. No

longer can the Holocaust Promotion Lobby ignore the global interest

in the TRUE facts surrounding very murky claims pertaining to the

"Holocaust" by shouting "Anti-Semitism!"

In essence, Revisionism claims can be grouped into eight fairly

distinct topics. They are, as elaborated below:

1. The Revisionist claim: The Holocaust is useful postwar propaganda

that started as a systematic, insidious campaign during World War II

as one of the tactics employed by moneyed interests to rally the

troops and engage the world, specifically America, in what turned out

to be, essentially, a fratricidal war.

The principle behind this propaganda was: "Let's get an enemy to kill

an enemy."

How was this done? In old-fashioned, time-tested ways.

Sophisticated war-time propaganda about an enemy's alleged

"atrocities" is nothing new. It is an effective psychological weapon,

routinely employed to keep the home-grown troops fired up so that

they believe that they are fighting for a righteous, patriotic cause.

The enemy is demonized with systematic atrocity stories. The media

repeats over and over and over again how cruel and demonic he is.

This tactic was used by the Allies - extensively. Here is one piece

of evidence:

On February 29, 1944 the British Ministry of Information sent the

following note to the higher British clergy and to the BBC:

"Sir,

"I am directed by the Ministry to send you the following circular letter:

"It is often the duty of the good citizens and of the pious

Christians to turn a blind eye on the peculiarities of those

associated with us.

"But the time comes when such peculiarities, while still denied in

public, must be taken into account when action by us is called for.

"We know the methods of rule employed by the Bolshevik dictator in

Russia itself from, for example, the writing and speeches of the

Prime Minister himself during the last twenty years. We know how the

Red Army behaved in Poland in 1920 and in Finland, Estonia, Latvia,

Galicia, and Bessarabia only recently.

"We must, therefore, take into account how the Red Army will

certainly behave when it overruns Central Europe. Unless precautions

are taken, the obviously inevitable horrors which will result will

throw an undue strain on public opinion in this country.

"We cannot reform the Bolsheviks but we can do our best to save them

- and ourselves - from the consequences of their acts. The

disclosures of the past quarter of the past quarter of a century will

render mere denials unconvincing. The only alternative to denial is

to distract public attention from the whole subject.

"Experience has shown that the best distraction is atrocity

propaganda directed against the enemy. Unfortunately the public is no

longer so susceptible as in the days of 'Corpse Factory.' the

Mutilated Belgian Babies," and the 'Crucified Canadians.'

"Your cooperation is therefore earnestly sought to distract public

attention from the doings of the Red Army by your wholehearted

support of various charges against the Germans and Japanese which

have been and will be put into circulation by the Ministry.

"Your expression of belief in such may convince others.

"I am, sir, Your obedient servant

(signed)

"H. Hewet, Assistant Secretary"

There was even a postscript, as follows:

"The Ministry can enter into no correspondence of any kind with

regard to the communication which should only be disclosed to

responsible persons. (Rozek, Edward J., Allied Wartime Diplomacy: A

Pattern in Poland, John Wiley and Sons, NY. page 209-210)"

This is quite an astounding document. This letter is ample evidence

that during World War II, the Allies used atrocity propaganda against

Hitler Germany to distract their own people from the atrocities being

committed primarily but not exclusively by the Red Army - their

"comrades"! - in the invasion of Europe as Hitler's war drew to an

end.

Note, though, that there was nothing in this letter that talked of

gassing people.

Why not? Because foolish atrocity propaganda is something else again.

The gas chamber claim was floated briefly as a propaganda test kite

but was quickly abandoned as too "unbelievable." If atrocity fiction

is found to be so gross, outlandish and implausible that thinking,

feeling people simply cannot swallow it, it is not in an army

leader's interest to peddle such a "crime."

This was the case originally with the "gas chamber" claim.

In point of fact, the British Ministry of Information at first

requested British clergy to help spread the "gas chamber" story which

was planned to be put in circulation by the Ministry. (Rozek, Edward

J., Allied Wartime Diplomacy, pp 108-110. John Wiley and Sons, New

York ) However, from the start, it was judged to be too problematic

and bizarre and, therefore, it was quickly withdrawn as a potential

strategic embarrassment.

Some of the "lesser" so-called "crimes" that people were willing to

swallow did survive and thrive for a while, both during World War I

and World War II - some of them for longer periods than others.

For example, many of the older generation, both in Europe and

America, still vividly remember the macabre World War I Allied

propaganda claims of the German ". . . cadavers-into-soap factories,"

the ". . . chopped-off hands of Belgian babies," the ". . . crucified

Canadian soldier" stories - all of which proved to be lies, and for

some of which post WWI Allied statesmen apologized to the Germans.

Some even remember the incredible, hysterical claim made by the

then-Governor of New York State, even in 1917-18, (!) that the

Germans had been ". . . exterminating millions of Jews."

Even more telling was the claim about the ". . . six million"!

(Glynn, Martin, The Crucifixion of the Jews Must Stop The American

Hebrew, October 31, 1920.)

So you see - the "six million" story is old. Very old.

It had been peddled before. In a recent book entitled "Keystone of

the New World Order: The Holocaust Dogma of Judaism," the author, Ben

Weintraub, makes the point that the number has, in fact, mythical

significance because it is based on cabbalistic sources. (Weintraub,

Ben, The Holocaust Dogma: Keystone of the New World Order, Cosmos

Publishers, 1994)

Unfortunately, it took a gullible, systematically miseducated

populace such as we have today, coupled with relentless brainwashing

by a corruptiblelap dog media, to peddle the lie for decades. In

World War I, there was no electronic media. After WWII, this handy

tale was dusted off and heaved once more against the German people.

The massive psychological onslaught really only started, however,

with the fictitious television series, "Holocaust," shown worldwide

to an estimated 100 million people. Next there was "Schindler's

List." There were thousands of other production not nearly as vicious

in impact, but cumulatively destructive.

Let us be very clear on one point: There would have been no

hesitation to use the story of the "gassings" even during the war -

had it been plausible. However, even during the war, the leadership

of the Allied Nations - such as Churchill and Roosevelt as well as

those of the Catholic hierarchy, including the then-Pope Pius XI -

knew from their various intelligence agencies, spies on the ground,

inmates with radio transmitters inside various camps (including

inmate soldiers, inmate priests, even those who took confessions of

local military, police and guard personnel) that no organized mass

exterminations by gassing or any other means were going on inside

these camps.

How did they know?

The Allied leaders had detailed aerial photos, none of which

corroborated the hysterical claims then made by Zionist agitators

like Rabbi Stephen Wise and others around the world. It simply wasn't

true. There were no gassings of people going on - only of lice! The

story was a cheese with many, many holes. And it was judged as

problematic.

As a consequence, the Allied leadership specifically removed any

reference to "gas chambers" in their wartime atrocity propaganda,

even in their diplomatic dispatches, because there was no proof.

(Allied Diplomacy in Wartime, Samisdat Resource Book, pp 108-110)

In August of 1943, the Allies decided officially not to make this

specific allegation of "gas chambers" against the Nazis in a

published declaration on the grounds of "insufficient evidence to

justify the statement regarding execution in gas chambers." ( Foreign

Relations of the United States Diplomatic Papers, 1943. Samisdat

Resource Book)

The Allies and the Pope thus did not need to deny what did not take

place - except in the feverish brains of the Zionists who were

jockeying through unique "victimhood" for the creation of the State

of Israel and postwar political advantage (including massive

reparations payments from Germany) which needed the accusation of

genocide against the Jews.

And, as we will explain in more detail, the trials at Nuremberg were

based on those accusations. The Zionists needed a conviction, in

order to leverage the guilt money out of a craven government created

by the Allies.

[END]

[Abigail]

Oldies,

I would be interested in seeing some of these quotes you mention, as well as the documentation that proves they are from genuine witnesses and genuine quotes.

I am pretty set in my opinions on this subject - and feel that regardless of whether or not it was 6 million or 2 million, whether it was ethnic cleansing or simply murder, it was insane and wrong. However, it is always good to be informed about all sides of an issue.

I do wonder what the "revisionists" feel they stand to gain by proving themselves correct, too.

[Tom Strange]

Thanks for the info Sunesis... here's the opening paragraph from Wannsee Conference on Wikipedia:

The Wannsee Conference was a high level ministerial meeting of Nazi German civilian government and SS officials convened by Reinhard Heydrich, to bring together the leaders of the German organizations whose cooperation was necessary to carry out the Nazi plan to kill the Jewish population of Europe and to make it clear to these other German ministers that this "Final Solution of the Jewish Question" was a strategic imperative of the Third Reich. The conference was held during World War II on January 20, 1942 in the Wannsee Villa overlooking the Wannsee lake in southwestern Berlin.

I don't know how anyone could read this (or a lot of the other stuff) and still deny the holocaust... but closed minds are just that... closed... yeah... Hitler was all about "fighting the communists"...

[WordWolf]

Basically,

it's a strategy of distraction.

It says that:

A) Some people have used atrocity propaganda in the past,

therefore the Holocaust didn't happen.

B) It claims there were eyewitnesses who did flybys of

some sites, and they claim they didn't see atrocities,

therefore no atrocities occurred anywhere.

C) This was virtually unknown at the time, therefore

it didnt happen.

As to the first, it is a non-issue, and a distraction.

Some people have lied in the past-that doesn't

invalidate any truth.

As to the second, as Abigail pointed out,

it's missing SPECIFICS.

WHO made these claims?

WHERE did they claim to look?

And so on.

Heck, if a guy looked all over England and didn't

see Jews being massacred, he could not honestly

say this is proof they aren't being massacred in Dachau

or any other location at that very moment.

(I'm making an example.)

As to the third, I've done some research.

Some members of the Roman Catholic Church

actually operated an "underground railroad"

to try to get Jews out of Nazi occupied areas.

There are photos of the 'railroad',

the Jews,

and the Churchmen.

And the non-Jew I met, who had a number tattoed

into his arm by the Nazis,

he said NOTHING about ANYTHING being reported

being exaggerated-

but he spoke of much that he DID see...

=========

OM,

I would respect your candor a lot more if you just

came right out and said you refused to seriously

consider the vast majority of the MATERIAL EVIDENCE

and EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS

because you do not WISH to, and do not WISH to

CHANGE YOUR MIND.

It would at least be more intellectually honest than

claiming that you've examined the cases for and

against, and honestly can't tell where the preponderance

of the evidence is.

[oldiesman]

The examination is a work in progress.

Why do I have to be loyal to one side or another?

I am simply examining information. You are free to do likewise.

[Tom Strange]

At some point in time go to the link I provided. Read the entire article there and then go to the subtopics if you wish. I know it's not an avant garde wacko site OM but perhaps you'll find something of worth there...

BTW OM... did any of the quote I posted earlier sound familiar? It should have because it pretty much outlined your exact approach (including what to cite) to this whole thread...

Sunesis, thanks again for steering me in that direction...

[Abigail]

Oldies,

The authors racism and therefore agenda comes through loud and clear in what you posted. I prefer resources who are truly intrested in facts (with nothing to gain via an agenda for or against) as opposed to those who have such an obvious agenda.

Here are some excerpts that clearly reveal an agenda (emphasis added by me):

"The Holocaust Promotion Lobby is a summarizing construct meant as a

shortcut to describe a subset of the human race, most but not all of

whom are Jews"

"hysterical claims then made by Zionist agitators

like Rabbi Stephen Wise "

[Have you ever noticed that it generally only the revisionists with an agenda who rever to the "Zionist agitators" - but those without an agenda do not?

and again

"feverish brains of the Zionists who"

Those who are merely interested in presenting facts and have no other agenda, hidden or otherwise, generally avoid the derogatory labels and descriptions.

[oldiesman]

Abigail,

You are free to form whatever conclusions you wish to, from the information posted.

As I have suggested in previous posts, I think Zionism and its promotion may prove to be a destructive idea for the U.S., costly in money and lives; ... and if this information alerts us to a purported Zionist Lobby who is helping to form U.S. opinion/policies, it may be worth further examination by all of us.

Even if the "six million" is all true, the propaganda of it and subsequent U.S. actions therefrom, is a concern to me.

I think it is worth examining all sides. Feel free to post yours.

[Abigail]

Oldies,

You have mixed or confused the issues, I think. With respect to my comments regarding the article you posted. I was simply pointing out that those who are lacking in an agenda (either for or against ) generally stay away from derogatory descriptions and simply state the facts.

So, when you, or anyone, post articles that they claim are factual, and the writing style and descriptive words clearly expose an agenda, then I have to question the accuracy of the facts presented.

Now, the article you posted seemed to be dealing with the "myth of the 6 million", with an agenda to prove that there is a "Zionist agenda and its promotion may prove to be a destructive idea for the U.S., costly in money and lives" to rephrase your quote a bit.

I take issue with the authors presentation of the "facts" with regard to the 6 million. However, I will not disagree that there are people with a Zionist Agenda. In fact, I think I have previously agreed with you on just that notion. However, WHO those people are, I am not sure we necessarily agree upon. How powerful or how much influence those people have, again we may or may not agree upon. And How destructive or costly that agenda may be to the U.S. is also something we may or may not agree upon.

But above all of that - and in light of your concern about how this zionist agenda effects our relations in the middle east - as I have said earlier - a brief study of history would support the notion that our problems with the Middle East are not SOLELY or even just PRIMARILY a result of our ongoing support of Israel. Rather, these problems are the result of a number of ongoing factors, not the least of which is the United States continued insistance upon putting governments in place, in middle eastern countries, for as long as those governments support our economic or military agenda - and then removing those governments when they no longer do. Particularly in light of the fact that this continued practice has not only cost American lives, but also the lives of many many many Islamic citizens and several of those govenments have been lead by horrible dictators that slaughtered their own countryman and instituted the islamic regimes we are not fighting.

Edited May 3, 2006 by Abigail

[Abigail]

I would add - - there are many people, lobbyists, and special interest groups who have their own agendas which may or may not be harmful to our country. I am not an zionist - in fact I am largely opposed to the notion and I AM a Jew.

I guess my goal here is simply to prevent or argue agains "hysteria" where this issue is concerned, because I see hysteria as equally damaging.

Just my thoughts and perspective, so you understand where I am coming from. As for the notion that you believe what you do because of VPW - well I really don't care much what your opinion regarding VPW is, because its your opinion and your entitled to it. I am simply trying to discuss this particular issue in a reasonable and rational fashion.

[oldiesman]

Oldies,

I would be interested in seeing some of these quotes you mention, as well as the documentation that proves they are from genuine witnesses and genuine quotes.

Abigail, there are others, but the study of this man's works may be among the most informative:

Paul Rassinier

[Tom Strange]

I've been thinking along the same lines as Abigail (and probably others)... whether or not there is a "Zionist Agenda" is a moot point IMO, of course there is... just as there's an "Oil Agenda", a "Republican Agenda", a "Democratic Agenda", etc...

The idea that some have used the Holocaust to further their agenda is not being debated or denied. I think we can all agree that it has happened. Some of it for good reasons, some of it for bad... just as happens with any "agenda".

But to deny that the Holocaust happened simply because some may have used it as leverage for their agenda is insane. If you're so upset with the "Zionist Agenda" choose another avenue to attack it... I'm sure there are plenty to choose from... but to deny the Holocaust? Lunacy. Only a morally and ethically blind man would deny it when presented with the preponderance of evidence IMO.

If one is so "concerned" about where different groups agendas are taking the U.S., I would worry about those with far greater muscle to flex than the "Zionist"... I'd start with "Big Oil"... that should be pretty easy to do since they don't bother at all to hide what they're doing...

[Ron G.]

This thread is far to long to really follow properly...at least for me it is.

I just want to toss in some facts that no one can deny.

1. Western culture sacrificed enough treasure and human life to overthrow the Third Reich that any guilt associated with the holocaust should be thoroughly assuaged. We owe the Jewish people NOTHING in that regard.

2. Russia is not now, nor has it EVER been "Jew friendly" except for when political expediency demanded it. This may not seem germane, but it is, as more died unspeakable deaths at the behest ofthe Czars and Joseph Stalin than the Third Reich could possibly have done...yet there are no memorials.

3. Atrocity has always been, and always will be a part of war and conquest. If we could look past the shroud of history, we'd find, no doubt, that the holocaust was just one of many, many such incidents involving all ethnicities and religions and political persuasions through the ages. I doubt seriously if the Third Reich had anything on the old Roman Empire.

4. History is always written by the victors. I have no doubt that had the Germans defeated the Soviets and prevailed against the European Allies, a truce or armistice would have been signed (since it would have been impossible for the Wehrmacht to have invaded the American continent) and we Americans would have entered into an era of cold war with the Third Reich and holocaust museums would honor the Jews who died at the hands of the Russians.

For these reasons, we should NEVER take any historical occurence as an article of faith but always question...always be cynical and weigh any and all evidence and information with total objectivity.

All those from Kaiser Wilhelm to Hitler to Churchill to Truman to Stalin to Elie Weisel to Golda Mier to David Duke to VPW and LCM have an agenda...to mold the minds of as many people as possible to their view in order to gain some hegemony to that view...in other words, political expedience.

[Tom Strange]

Those are good points Ron, and at first glance (though I reserve the right to later) I don't argue with any of them. But they do not negate the fact that the Holocaust happened. Genocide still takes place today and that's not to be negated either.

I don't think that anyone has ever inferred that the Holocaust was the only act of genocide to have taken place, in fact I think the reason it always seems like it's on the 'front of our minds' is because they do have a quite vocal and influential "lobby" (mostly 'their' people)... I do not discount that it happened, nor it's effect simply because they do a good job of promoting 'rememberance'... that's all...

What I "get" from a lot of the Holocaust denial information is that they're sort of jealous of the attention it gets... and to me, it's not a big deal that it gets attention... we should all remember things like the Holocaust, Rwanda, Pol Pot, etc. We should always be steadfastly opposing it and anything like it.

[GarthP2000]

Why do I have to be loyal to one side or another?

But that's the point, Oldies, the whole point that is the main undercurrent to your whole pretense of 'open minded consideration' of this topic: ie., your loyalty to Victor Paul Wierwille. Period.

I seriously *doubt* that you would give the time of day to the revisionist side if it weren't for VeePee's acceptance of their drivel. Good grief! What would you accept if VPW taught that the earth is flat?!

:blink:

Those are good points Ron, and at first glance (though I reserve the right to later) I don't argue with any of them. But they do not negate the fact that the Holocaust happened.

There is always that nagging fact that the revisionists just can't quite shake, can they Tom? Ron is indeed right in that holocausts (in general) happen in just about any war you can name. This one, in particular, stands out in that it was (one of the few, at most) where the determined and planned extermination of a certain type/kind of people was deliberately attempted. That is what sets it apart from your 'garden variety' holocaust/war crime. (And yes, the Soviet Russians do need to be more focused upon for their part in exterminating Jewish people, not that that focus hasn't occured at all, mind you)

There is a REAL difference between simply accepting that the Holocaust happened just 'cuz some authority figure says so, and accepting that the Holocaust happened because of the overwhelming evidence (notwithstanding what the revisionists say) supporting such claims. I mean, there is a certain threshold to a set of facts, after which when challenging said set becomes an exercise in futility, irrational thinking, and illogic. ... Kinda like trying to argue why the earth _is_ flat, or why H2O does _not_ make water.

Edited May 3, 2006 by GarthP2000

[Tom Strange]

What would you accept if VPW taught that the earth is flat?!

Huh??!!?? ...just what are you trying to say Garth? ...do you mean....

[GarthP2000]

Yes Tom, what I'm trying to gently tell you, ... is that the earth ... is NOT flat.

:blink: :blink:

Now, now, just sit right down here, and if you feel the need to cry, go right ahead. I'm here for ya.

:D

[oldiesman]

... pretense of 'open minded consideration' ...

Garth, please feel free to make your points, but without your personal insults please?

Fair enough, I might not have been as exposed/involved/interested in this topic, had Dr. Wierwille not had those books in the twi bookstore...

Just like I might not have been as exposed/involved/interested in the works of Bullinger, Kenyon, Stiles, Leonard, and so forth.

I have already explained what my motives/concerns are, in previous posts.

But in the final analysis, the information must itself stand or fall on its own, independent of the works of VP Wierwille.

[GarthP2000]

... and more and more experts in the field, having shown documented evidence that is still showing up, have indeed shown us that information.

Hint: the revisionists are not in that group of experts, due to the dishonest and selective portrayal of either propaganda or evidence that they may very well have. One clear evidence of this is their pre-set mindset against the Jewish people, often using the 'Zionist' issue as their clarion call to cover up said mindset (much like Joe McCarthy has used the clarion call against Communism as a jump off point for his abuses of power)

And it is this evidence that automatically (in my POV) discards/stains whatever valid points they may have.

[Raf]

Questioning the aspects of the Holocaust that Oldiesman is questioning is akin to questioning the release of Star Wars in 1977. Question it all you want. Debate it. Discuss it. Consider the evidence to the contrary. Bottom line is that Star Wars was released in 1977. You may argue it was released in 1980, 1983, 1999, 2002 and 2005. And you'd have evidence to back you up. But it's distorted evidence: Star Wars was released in 1977. And Hitler ordered the execution of Jews, killing about six million, many in gas chambers. Is there evidence to the contrary? Sure, as long as you're allowed to selectively choose your evidence and distort it so that it is saying something different. But there was still a Holocaust that specifically targeted Jews for execution, and succeeded at executing about six million, many in gas chambers, and that the mass execution was ordered by Hitler.

[GarthP2000]

Something has just occured to me.

Ron,

History is always written by the victors.

This is a classic example of a quote that has a certain extent of truth to it. Ie., History is always written by the victors. However (you knew it was coming, didn't ya? ;) ), that concept is not total and complete in and of itself. Ie., it only goes so far.

What that line does not cover is archaeological evidence, specific dates, specific incidences that has occured (and can be documented), etc., etc., ie., things that are based on reality and fact.

In those instances, there is only so much that the 'victor' can do, ... except to hide said information. But the information is still _there_, regardless of the writings of the victor.

So no, I don't take this oversimplified line of 'History is always written by the victors.' as the be-all and end-all of what/how to determine history. It is something to take into consideration, yes. But it isn't something that cannot be challenged.

[oldiesman]

Here is a continuation of revisionist thought/data:

Zgram -- "Holocaust 101" -- Part II

Zgram - Where Truth is Destiny: Now more than ever!

June 4, 2004

Good Morning from the Zundelsite:

We continue with excerpts from the "Holocaust 101" series.

[sTART]The Revisionist claim : There is no proof that the Holocaust, as

depicted by the Holocaust Promotion Lobby and the highly politicized

Hollywood industry, actually occurred.

Revisionists don't claim that Jews didn't suffer. They don't argue

the fact that Jews were, in fact, unwanted in Germany, and that there

was a state policy to remove them as a "parasitic people" harmful to

the country.

It is absolutely true that Jews were incarcerated and often treated

cruelly. They were seen as the enemy, just as in our times the

"Nazis" are seen as the enemy of entrenched oligarchies.

Revisionists do claim and argue that there was no state policy that

called for the "mass extermination of the Jews" or any other unwanted

minorities. The Allies, independently and singly, interrogated 26,000

functionaries of the National Socialist regime immediately after

Germany's defeat, all based on the same set of questions. Some people

might have thought of lying for their own benefit by implicating

others.

Not one German official reported knowing of such a program. They all

said that the first time they heard about it was from the Allies

after the war.

This really gets down to the nitty-gritty of where the story of the

mass extermination came from - which is the Rudolf Hoess "confession."

The Rudolf Hoess Confession is an incredibly "incriminating"

document. All evil stems from it. Here is the background story.

Rudolf Hoess, the former wartime commandant of Auschwitz "confessed"

to the most incredible things during the Nuremberg Trials in this

widely used and much-quoted "document." (Š)

Many Germans, at Nuremberg and elsewhere where they were made to

stand trial for "war crimes." have "confessed" to brutalities under

"duress" or inducements. Documents, testimony and confessions as well

as affidavits presented at Nuremberg and elsewhere were frequently

produced and signed after psychological and physical torture of its

authors.

For proof of torture of captured Germans by the Allies, read Legions

of Death, a book by Rupert Butler, an English writer, who gives a

vivid description of how the wartime, one-time Concentration Camp

Commandant, Rudolf Hoess, was beaten mercilessly and drugged with

alcohol for several days before he signed his famous "confession"

admitting to two-and-a-half million of people gassed in gas chambers

in Auschwitz.

Suffice it to say here that this so-called "confession" was written

in English, and that Hoess did not speak or even understand English.

(Butler, Rupert, Legions of Death, Hamlyn Paperbacks, Great Britain,

1983, pp 10-12)

Julius Streicher, to name another German official who was savagely

tortured by American interrogators to extract a "confession,"

reported that he was beaten so badly that he lost 40% of his hearing.

He was kept naked in an unheated cell and was made to drink from the

latrine. Guards forced his teeth open with a stick so as to spit in

his mouth. ("Streicher Opens His Case,", London Times, April 27. 1946)

This information was later expunged from the Nuremberg Trial

transcripts, with the consent of the president of the Tribunal and

even the "defense" lawyer.

Yet another source is the Simpson van Rhoden Commission of Enquiry

into the conduct of US interrogators during the Malmedy-Dachau

trials. This commission reported mistreatment and tortures, including

mock executions, the administering of fake confessions by equally

fake "priests," beatings, hoodings etc. to get forced confessions out

of prisoners. (The Progressive, written by Judge Edward L. Van Rhoden

in February of 1949 entitled American Atrocities in Germany)

Here is a sample of how such "confessions" were routinely obtained:

"American investigators at the U.S. Court in Dachau, Germany, used

the following methods to obtain confessions:

"Beatings and brutal kickings. Knocking out teeth and breaking jaws.

Mock trials. Solitary confinement. Posturing as priests. Very limited

rations. Spiritual deprivation. Promises of acquittal (ed. expl: if

the victim implicated fellow prisoners to corroborate the Allied

trial scenarios) . . . All but two of the Germans, in the 139 cases

we investigated, had been kicked in the testicles beyond repair."

(Did Six Million Really Die? Report of the Evidence in the Canadian

"False News" Trial of Ernst Zündel - 1988, Edited by Barbara

Kulaszka, pp 44-45)"

U.S. Chief Justice Harlan Fiske Stone, referring to the Nuremberg

trials and speaking of the American Chief Prosecutor, Jackson, had

this to say, as quoted in a Viking Press hard cover, "Harlan Fiske

Stone: Pillar of the Law:"

"Jackson is away conducting his high grade lynching party in

Nuremberg," he remarked. "I don't mind what he does to the Nazis, but

I hate to see the pretense that he is running a court and proceeding

according to common law. This is a little too sanctimonious a fraud

to meet my old-fashioned ideas." (Mason, Thomas, Harlan Fiske Stone:

Pillar of the Law, Alpheus The Viking Press, page 746)

An accusation does not make a fact. A headline does not make a fact.

A tortured prisoner making a "confession" cannot make his words a

fact.

Here is another good example of a "well-documented" crime:

The Germans were accused at Nuremberg of having killed 15,000 Polish

officers and members of the Polish elite at Katyn. Seven German

military officers and soldiers were executed by the Soviets after a

trial in which more than 4,000 (!) sworn affidavits and dozens of

"experts" and "witnesses" were proffered by the Stalinist prosecutors.

In 1989, Soviet leader Gorbachev admitted publicly that the Stalin

regime was responsible for these mass murders of the Poles. Not the

Germans. America's ally - Joseph Stalin! - had ordered the killings!

So if Judge Thomas T. Johnson of the California Superior Court, and

Judge Thomas of the Toronto District Court took smug "Judicial

Notice" of the Holocaust, they based it on "readily available"

documentation tortured and coerced out of the victims of Allied

torture masters.

What kind of "documented evidence" is that? It would not be

permissible in any U.S. or Canadian Court. [ingrid's comment:

Remember, this was written 8 years ago!]

In Nuremberg and in many subsequent trials against so-called "Nazi

war crimes" these methods were routinely accepted and "acceptable" as

a matter of policy and "the rules."

[END]

[Raf]

Coming soon, a continuation of the Moon is Made of Green Cheese argument...

[oldiesman]

Here's what "Myth" says about Hoess:

The Myth of the Six Million

14. The Role of Rudolf Höss in the Administration of Wartime Concentration Camps, and the Nature of the Höss Memoirs

The concept of the death camp as a means of liquidating Jews returns us to Auschwitz. Poliakov's Harvest of Hate placed great stress on Polish lanquage memoirs, Wspomnienia, by Rudolf Höss, which were later published in English as Commandant of Auschwitz (Cleveland, 1960). Höss was the commander of what is supposed to have been the greatest death camp in world history.

The fact that these memoirs were published under Communist auspices makes it utterly impossible to, accept their authenticity without decisive reservations. Furthermore, the statements made by Höss both to British security officers at Flensburg under third-degree conditions and under torture at Nuremberg makes it very difficult to believe that anything attributed to Höss after his capture in 1946 bears much relation to actual facts. Even Gerald Reitlinger, who grasps at every straw to document the extermination program, rejects the Nuremberg trial testimony of Höss as hopelessly untrustworthy.

The purpose in examining the Höss material here is to decide to what extent, if any, a plausible narrative has been presented under Communist auspices. The atrocity photographs in the English-language edition are "supposed" to have been taken, by an "unknown SS man" who received "special permission." They were allegedly found by a Jewish woman in the Sudetenland and sold to the Jewish museum in Prague. There is nothing whatever about these photographs to render plausible their authenticity. They are undoubtedly akin to the pictures of the piles of corpses alleged to have been civilians slain by the Germans during their eastern campaigns during the First World War but were later proved to be Jews and others killed in pogroms carried out by the Russians under the Tsar, years before 1914.

The introduction to the American edition of Höss's memoirs was written by the Germanophobe Lord (Edward F.) Russell of Liverpool. He is the author of The Scourge of the Swastika (N.Y., 1954) which contains a brief survey of the atrocity evidence presented at Nuremberg. The survey ends with obsolete claims about Dachau as a death camp. These claims about Dachau had been repudiated and disproved years before, by Cardinal Faulliaber of Munich.

Russell, after mentioning the fact, in introducing Höss, that there were very few camps and prisoners in Germany at the outbreak of World War II, claimed that not less than five million Jews died in German concentration camps during the war. He discussed other estimates, and, after satisfying himself that he was between those who claim six million and those who claim four million, concluded: "The real number, however, will never be known". One can only add that he had no right to claim "not less than five million". One might have expected that there would be more interest than there apparently has been in persuading, even at this late date, such countries as the United States, Great Britain, the USSR, and the Communist satellites to count and report their Jewish populations.

The site at Auschwitz was allegedly selected for a concentration camp in 1940, in addition to the availability of good transportation facilities, because it was a fearfully

unhealthy place. This is totally untrue. The Neue Brockhaus for 1938 indicated a population of 12,000 in the town of Auschwitz including 3,000 Jews. Although the place was not a popular health resort, it did enjoy a reputation for a healthy and bracing Upper Silesian climate.

Höss began the story of his life in convincing fashion with his account of a happy boyhood in the German Rhineland. His first disturbing experience was a violation of confessional by a Catholic priest who informed on him to his father for a minor dereliction. Höss succeeded in joining the German army at an early age in 1916. He was sent to Turkey and served at the fronts in Iraq and 1?alestine. At the age of seventeen he was an NCO with extensive combat experience and the iron cross. He had his first love affair with a German nurse at the Wilhelma hospital in Palestine. The end of the war found him in Damascus. Three months of independent traveling at the head of a group of comrades brought him home and thus enabled him to escape the fate of internment.

Höss was unable to adjust to the post-war life at home with his relatives, and he joined the Rossbach Freikorps for service in the East. Höss was arrested on June 28, 1923, for participating in the murder of a Communist spy. He was sentenced to ten year's in prison on March 15, 1924, and was amnestied on July 14, 1928. Although he had a brief period of mental breakdown while in solitary confinement, Höss emerged with the record of a model prisoner.

Höss spent ten exciting days in Berlin with friends after his release before turning to farming. He believed that National Socialism would best serve the interests of Germany, and he had become Party Member no. 3240 at Munich as early as November, 1922. He joined the Artamanen farming fraternity, to which Himmler also belonged, in 1928. He married in 1929 and was persuaded by Himmler to join the SS. In 1934 he agreed to serve at the Dachau concentration camp.

At first, Höss was bewildered by the philosophy of hostile reserve toward the prisoners at Dachau, which was indoctrinated into the SS guards by a local commandant, later replaced. Höss himself had been a prisoner, and be tended to see all questions from the inmate's viewpoint. Nevertheless, he believed that the concentration camps were a necessary transitional phase in the consolidation of National Socialism, and he was greatly attracted to the black SS uniform as a symbol of quality and prestige. After a few years he was transferred to Sachsenhausen, where the atmosphere, was more favorable.

The outbreak of war in 1939 brought a new phase of experience to the SS men on concentration camp service. The enemies of Germany had sworn to annihilate the National Socialist Reich. It was a question of existence, and not merely of the fate of a few provinces. The SS were supposed to hold the ramparts of order until the return of peace and the formulation of a new code of laws. A high-ranking SS officer, whose laxity had made possible the escape of an important Communist prisoner, was executed by his comrades on direct orders from Himmler. This brought home the seriousness of the situation to all of the SS men at Sachsenhausen. Some of the prisoners were amnestied in 1939 when they agreed to serve in the German armed forces.

An untoward incident occurred in 1939 when some Cracow University professors were brought to Sachsenhausen, but they were released a few weeks later through intervention by Göring. Höss had extensive contacts at Sachsenhausen with Pastor Martin Niemoeller, a much-respected opponent of National Socialism.

Höss went to Auschwitz with high hopes early in 1940. There was no camp there as yet, but he hoped to organize a useful one which would make an important contribution to the German industrial war effort. He had always been idealistic and sensitive about prison conditions, and he hoped to establish housing and supply conditions for the prospective inmates which would be as normal as possible for wartime. Höss ran into all the irritating obstacles of red tape and shortage of supplies in his early work of organizing the camp, and he bitterly criticized the inadequate qualifications of many of his colleagues.

Polish prisoners constituted the largest single group in the camp during the first two years, although many inmates were also brought to Auschwitz from Germany. Russian contingents began to arrive late in 1941 in poor condition after long marches. From mid-1942 the Jews constituted the main element in the camp. Höss recalled that the small groups of Jews at Dachau had done very well with their canteen privileges in the early days of the system. There had been virtually no Jews at Sachsenhausen.

It is at this very point that the hitherto highly plausible Höss narrative becomes highly questionable. The manner in which the alleged deliberate extermination of the Jews is described is most astonishing. A special large detachment of Jewish prisoners was allegedly formed. These men and women were to take charge of the contingents, either newly arrived or from within the camp area, who had been selected for destruction. The role of the SS was to be limited to the most general supervision and to the release of the Zyklon-B gas pellets through the shower fixtures of the supposed extermination sheds.

The actual taking of the clothes and the leading of the Jews into the pre-extermination sheds was to be done by this special group of Jews. Later they were to dispose of the bodies. If the "doomed" Jews resisted, they were beaten or forced to comply in other ways by the "privileged" Jews. Allegedly, the latter did their work so thoroughly that it was never necessary for the SS guards to intervene. Hence most of the SS personnel at the camp could be left in complete ignorance of the extermination action. Of course, no Jew would ever be found to claim to be a member of this infamous "special detachment." Höss was released from his post at Auschwitz at the end of 1943, and he became a chief inspector of the entire concentration camp system. He supposedly concealed his earlier activities from his SS colleagues.

It should be pointed out that no Auschwitz inmate has ever personally claimed to have witnessed the actual operation of these so-called "gas chambers." The explanation has been that those who were victims did not survive, and those who were accomplices had good motives not to admit anything.

The Communist editors of the Höss memoirs obviously did everything in their power to make the account plausible. Much effort was made to show that the individual in the SS counted for nothing, orders for everything. The evident timidity of Höss in voicing his criticism of the hostile rather than friendly attitude of the SS leadership toward the Dachau prisoners in the early years was exploited to lend credence to the supposition that be would have been willing to accept any excesses, including the massacre of huge numbers, even millions, of captive Jews. The same account depicts Höss as a highly sensitive and gifted man living a normal family life with his wife and children throughout his period at Auschwitz.

Höss is supposed to have said that the Jehovah's Witnesses at Auschwitz favored death for all Jews because Jews were the enemies of Christ. This was a staggering slip on the part of the Communist editors. It must be remembered that a bitter struggle against the Jehovah's Witnesses is waged today by the Communists throughout all Satellite countries, and especially in the Soviet zone of Germany. One cannot escape the conclusion that this special defamation of the Jehovah's Witnesses was introduced by the Communist editors.

It is, hence, impossible to avoid the conclusion that these so-called memoirs of Höss have been subjected to an editorial supervision by Communists and others sufficiently extensive to destroy their validity as an historical document. They have no more validity than the alleged Memoirs of Eichmann. The claim that there is a hand-written original of these supervised memoirs can scarcely be regarded as relevant. The Communists are notoriously successful in obtaining "confessions," and they possessed an amplitude of techniques which could be used to persuade Höss to copy whatever was placed before him. The evidence of hand-writing in this case is no more convincing than the famous after-the-event gas chamber film of Joseph Zigman, "The Mill of Dealth," used at the Nuremberg Trial. The so-called Höss memoirs end with the irrelevant statement that the Nuremberg documents had convinced the defendant that Germany was exclusively to blame for World War II.

It is important to note that Hermann Göring, who was exposed to the full brunt of the Nuremberg atrocity propaganda, failed to be convinced by it. Hans Fritzsche, The Sword in the Scales (London, 1953, p. 145) related that Göring, even after hearing the early Ohlendorf testimony on the Einsatzgruppen and the Höss testimony on Auschwitz, remained firmly convinced that the mass extermination of Jews by firing squad and gas chamber was entirely propaganda fiction.

Fritzsche pondered this question, and he concluded that there had certainly been no thorough investigation of these monstrous charges. Fritzsche, who was acquitted at the trial, was a skilled propagandist. He recognized that the alleged massacre of the Jews was the main point in the indictment against all defendants. Ernst Kaltenbrunner, the SID (SS Security Service) chief, was on trial as main defendant for the SS because of the suicide of Himmler, just as Fritzsche was representing Goebbels for the same reason. Kaltenbrunner was no more convinced of the genocide charges than was Göring, and he confided to Fritzsche that the prosecution was scoring apparent successes because of their effective technique in coercing the witnesses and suppressing evidence. It was easier to seize a German and force him to make an incriminating confession by unmentionable tortures than to investigate the circumstances of an actual case.