Zundel Videos

Ingrid's Veterans Today Articles


File Index

  • 1.

  • 2. What evidence exists that six million Jews were not killed by the Nazis?




    Ernst Zündel Replies: Rebuttal # 2

    Ernst Zündel Replies:
    Rebuttal # 3

    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 Zündel 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 Zündel - 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 Stäglich , 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.

    Jürgen Graf, a brilliant linguist who is fluent in 12 languages and the author of "Holocaust auf dem Prüfstand 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 Lüftl, long-time president of the Austrian Chamber of Engineers and a frequently consulted, court-approved expert. Author of the "Lüftl 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 Zündel 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!

  • 3. Did Simon Wiesenthal once state in writing that "there were no extermination camps on German soil"?


    Ernst Zündel Replies:
    Rebuttal # 3

    First of all, let's get a perspective on numbers:

    According to a Time Life book compilation called "Prisoners of War" by Ronald H. Bailey, the British had 86 concentration camps during World War II. The Soviet Union, according to this source, had at least 150 concentration camps - probably many, many more. The United States had 666. Germany had 90!

    Map of U.S. concentration camps
    LEFT: How Germans lived in Eisenhower camps. Hardly any shelter, lived in ditches and holes, now compare to picture on RIGHT, the solidly built warm and weather proof barracks of Auschwitz.

    People died in every one of them. That did not make them "death camps." The false premise always put forth is that the German concentration camps were somehow different not just in quantity but quality. When German concentration camps are mentioned, they are always equated with "death camps."

    In truth, they were no different from any other wartime camps.

    The next claim following the claim of German death camps is that only Germans were engaged in genocide - specifically, killing "undesirables" by gassing. Shortly after the war, it was vociferously claimed world-wide by journalists beholden to the Holocaust Promotion Lobby point view that in "all", then in ". . . almost all" then in ". . . just a few" and finally in ". . . none" of these concentration camps in the Altreich - that is, in Germany proper - did gassings of human beings occur.

    Why this retreat?

    It's really very simply: because these camps located in the Western sphere were readily accessible. It took the Holocaust Promotion Lobby almost 50 years to come clean on those concentration camps that were open to inspection and admit that no gassings took place in these camps, but in the end, they had no choice.

    So they admitted it.

    Today, no respectable scholar of the "Holocaust" will insist that ". . . there were indeed gas chambers and homicidal gassings in the Altreich," as so blithely and ignorantly stated by Nizkor.

    To cite just one example, Christopher R. Browning, a star witness for the prosecution in the 1988 Zündel Trial, was forced to admit that after 17 years of research, he had never seen a single gas chamber or what purported to be a gas chamber.

    Another well-known source on this topic is Martin Broszat's letter dismissed by Nizkor as irrelevant. As early as 1960, the director of the German Institute for Contemporary History admitted there were no gas chambers. He wrote to the German newspaper Die Zeit: "Neither in Dachau nor in Bergen Belsen nor in Buchenwald were Jews or other prisoners gassed." It does not follow from this statement, to use a crass example, that to say ". . . there were no murders in Boston, Chicago and New York" implies or proves that there were murders in San Francisco. It is a silly argument!

    A third glimpse into information suppression or manipulation can be glimpsed by checking on what happened to author Hellmut Diwald who wrote in his book, "History of the Germans," first edition, 1978, pages 164-165 that the rooms displayed at Dachau as "gas chambers" were dummy chambers that the US military had forced imprisoned SS men to build after the capitulation of the camp. Sales were immediately stopped by the German government, the pages re-written and the book re-issued without the offending passages. The author was not consulted. (Journal for Historical Review, Vol 13, No 6, Nov-Dec 1993)

    Anyone who makes a statement that there were gassings in the Altreich reveals gross ignorance of the whole scholarship field surrounding the "Holocaust" matter! No wonder that the Wiesenthal Center pulled out the rug from under Nizkor when it became clear that statements like that were going to be broadcast to the world!

    One by one, the stories of gassings in Germany Proper have been long put to rest. It proved simply absurd and soon impossible to uphold such ludicrous, self-serving claims.

    For skeptics, the finest source to double-check this matter is Dr. Faurisson's court testimony, as summarized in pages 286 - 351 of crucial testimony in the 1988 Zündel trial. "Did Six Million Really Die? Report of the Evidence in the Canadian "False News" Trial of Ernst Zündel - 1988." It stands as a beacon of scholarship. (Scroll down to Faurisson Chapter)

    It was a different story with concentration camps that were in the Soviet domain. They could not be checked out for many, many years during the Cold War, and that is why the stories developed about the "massive gassings" in places like Auschwitz, Birkenau, Treblinka, Chelmno, Majdanek etc. and became so deeply entrenched.

    In fact, some people will go so far as to speculate that maybe Cold War strategies by the Western and the Eastern victors to keep the Iron Curtain up were part of the underpinning to the unsavory Holocaust claims, because if people the world over knew that the systematic financing of much of the State of Israel was largely based on having people take on faith that these gassings did occur, the whole disgusting matter of the creation and the financing of the State of Israel by billions in sympathy and reparations based on that claim would come into serious question.

    The claim that ". . . it was easier to conceal from the German people" what was going on in Auschwitz. . . " only shows up Nizkor's ignorance of European demographics. Hundreds of thousands of natives to Eastern territories such as Silesia lived in what is now Poland. The language spoken there was German. The entire social, financial and military system was coordinated with the Reich in a wartime occupation measure. Much of Poland, a Protectorate at that time, was treated as part of Germany. It made no difference where these camps were located because there were hundreds of thousands of Altreich-Germans in Poland, including the military.

    What went on inside Auschwitz, furthermore, could easily be observed from the outside, for there were mostly barbed wire fences around most of the installations. Photos and drawings in the Ball Report are one fine way to check that out. This report is available from Samisdat to anyone willing to cover mailing costs.

    And, finally, to claim that people like Wiesenthal ". . . have attempted repeatedly over the years to dispel several myths about the Holocaust. . . " is a little bit like saying that a person caught red-handed thieving was really only "checking" on someone else's thievery.

    Both Jews and Gentiles call that chutzpah.

  • 4. If Dachau was in Germany and even Simon Wiesenthal says that it was not an extermination camp, why do thousands of veterans in America say that it was an extermination camp?


    Ernst Zündel Replies:
    Rebuttal # 4

    What Dachau was and wasn't is very adequately summarized in one of the IHR pamphlets written by Theodore O'Keefe entitled "The Liberation of the Camps - Facts versus Lies." No need to re-invent the wheel.

    This essay was written more than ten years ago, but the research and arguments are still as relevant today as they were then. Full documentation for footnotes is available by clicking here:

    "Nothing has been more effective in establishing the authenticity of the Holocaust in the minds of Americans than the terrible scenes US. GIs discovered when they entered the German concentration camps at the close of World War II.


    US. government authorities, mindful that most Americans, who remembered the atrocity stories fed them during World War I, still doubted the Allied propaganda directed against the Hitler regime, resolved to "document" what the GI's had found in the camps. Prominent newsmen and politicians were flown in to see the harrowing evidence, while the US. Army Signal Corps filmed and photographed the scenes for posterity. The famous journalist Edward R. Murrow reported, in tones of horror, but no longer of disbelief, what he had been told and shown, and Dachau and Buchenwald were branded on the hearts and minds of the American populace as names of infamy unmatched in the sad and bloody history of this planet.



    When American and British forces overran western and central Germany in the spring of 1945, they were followed by troops charged with discovering and securing any evidence of German war crimes. Among them was Dr. Charles Larson, one of America's leading forensic pathologists, who was assigned to the Judge Advocate General's Department. Dr. Larson performed autopsies at Dachau and some twenty other German camps, examining on some days more than 100 corpses. After his grim work at Dachau, he was questioned for three days by US. Army prosecutors. (note 1)

    Dr. Larson's findings? According to an interview he gave to an American journalist in 1980, "What we've heard is that six million Jews were exterminated. Part of that is a hoax." (note 2)

    And what part was the hoax? Dr. Larson, who told his biographer that to his knowledge he "was the only forensic pathologist on duty in the entire European Theater," (note 3) informed Wichita Eagle reporter Jan Floerchinger that "never was a case of poison gas uncovered." (note 4) Neither Dr. Larson nor any other forensic specialist has ever been cited by any Holocaust historian to substantiate a single case of death by poison gas, whether Zyklon-B or any other variety.

    Typhus, not poison gas





    No lampshades, no handbags, etc.


    The lampshade and tattooed-skin charges were made against Ilse Koch, dubbed by journalists the "Bitch of Buchenwald," who was reported to have furnished her house with objects manufactured from the tanned hides of luckless inmates. But General Lucius Clay, military governor of the US. zone of occupied Germany, who reviewed her case in 1948, told his superiors in Washington: "There is no convincing evidence that she [Ilse Koch] selected inmates for extermination in order to secure tattooed skins or that she possessed any articles made of human skin." (note 7) In an interview General Clay gave years later, he stated about the material for the infamous lampshades: "Well, it turned out actually that is was goat flesh. But at the trial it was still human flesh. It was almost impossible for her to have gotten a fair trial." (note 8) Ilse Koch hanged herself in a West German jail in 1967.

    It would be tedious to itemize and refute the thousands of bizarre claims as to Nazi atrocities. That there were instances of German cruelty, however, is clear from the testimony of Dr. Konrad Morgen, a legal investigator attached to the Reich Criminal Police, whose statements on the witness stand at Nuremberg have never been challenged by believers in the Jewish Holocaust. Dr. Morgen informed the court that he had been given full authority by Heinrich Himmler, commander of Hitler's SS and the dreaded Gestapo, to enter any German concentration camp and investigate instances of cruelty and corruption on the part of the camp staffs. According to Dr. Morgen's sworn testimony at Nuremberg, he investigated 800 such cases, in which over 200 convictions resulted. (note 9) Punishments included the death penalty for the worst offenders, including Hermann Florstedt, commandant of Lublin (Majdanek), and Karl Koch, Ilse's husband, commandant of Buchenwald.

    In reality, while camp commandants in certain cases did inflict physical punishment, such acts had to be approved by authorities in Berlin, and it was required that a camp physician first certify the good health of the prisoner to be disciplined, and then be on hand at the actual caning. (note 10) After all, the camps were throughout most of the war important centers of industrial activity. The good health and morale of the prisoners was critical to the German war effort, as is evidenced by a 1942 order issued by SS-Brigadefuehrer Richard Gluecks, chief of the office which controlled the concentration camps, which held camp commanders "personally responsible for exhausting every possibility to preserve the physical strength of the detainees." (note 11)

    Concentration camp survivors merely victims?






    Additional corroboration of inmate brutality has been provided by Ellis E. Spackman, who, as Chief of Counter-Intelligence Arrests and Detentions for the Seventh US. Army, was involved in the liberation of Dachau. Spackman, later a professor of history at San Bernardino Valley College in California, wrote in 1966 that at Dachau "the prisoners were the actual instruments that inflicted the barbarities on their fellow prisoners."(note 14)

    'Gas chambers'

    On December 9, 1944 Col. Paul Kirk and Lt. Col. Edward J. Gully inspected the German concentration camp at Natzweiler in Alsace. They reported their findings to their superiors at the headquarters of the US. 6th Army Group, which subsequently forwarded Kirk and Gully's report to the War Crimes Division. While, significantly, the full text of their report has never been published, it has been revealed, by an author supportive of Holocaust claims, that the two investigators were careful to characterize equipment exhibited to them by French informants "so-called lethal gas chamber," and claim it was "allegedly used as a lethal gas chamber". (note 15)



    Furthermore, a number of Holocaust authorities have now publicly decreed that there were no gassings, no extermination camps in Germany after all! All these things, we are told, were located in what is now Poland, in areas captured by the Soviet Red Army and off-limits to Western investigators. In 1960 Dr. Martin Broszat, who later became director of the Munich-based Institute for Contemporary History, which is funded by the West German government to support the Holocaust story, wrote a letter to the German weekly Die Zeit in which he stated categorically: "Neither in Dachau nor in Bergen-Belsen nor in Buchenwald were Jews or other prisoners gassed." (note 16) Professional Nazi-hunter Simon Wiesenthal wrote in 1975 that "there were no extermination camps on German soil." (note 17) And Dachau "gas chamber" No. 2, which was once presented to a stunned and grieving world as a weapon which claimed hundreds of thousands of lives, is now described in the brochure issued to tourists at the modern Dachau "memorial" in these words: "This gas chamber, camouflaged as a shower room, was not used."(note 18)

    The propaganda intensifies


    Time for the truth




    The conclusions of the early US. Army investigations as to the truth about the wartime German concentration camps have since been corroborated by all subsequent investigators and can be summarized:




    The alleged homicidal showers and gas chambers had been used either for bathing camp inmates or delousing their clothes; the claim that they had been used to murder Jews or other human beings is a contemptible fabrication. Orthodox, Establishment historians and professional "Nazi-hunters" have quietly dropped claims that inmates were gassed at Dachau, Buchenwald, and other camps in Germany (Ed: Germany Proper called the Alt-Reich). They continue, however, to keep silent regarding the lies about Dachau and Buchenwald, as well as to evade an open discussion of the evidence for homicidal gassing at Auschwitz and the other camps captured by the Soviets."

    So far O'Keefe's summary. Since then we have had Leuchter Report # 2. We have obtained documentation that the Red Cross, which had a delegate living right in the camp, could not verify any "gas chambers." We have had David Cole's "lowered ceiling argument." Finally, at the Second Great Holocaust Trial in Toronto, during the Christopher Browning testimony, the Stephen Pinter Letter to the Editor came up. It was affirmed as accurate by Browning, a prosecution witness:

    "I was in Dachau for 17 months after the war, as a US. War Department Attorney, and can state that there was no gas chamber at Dachau. What was shown to visitors and sightseers there and erroneously described as a gas chamber was a crematory. Nor was there a gas chamber in any of the other concentration camps in Germany. We were told that there was a gas chamber at Auschwitz, but since that was in the Russian zone of occupation, we were not permitted to investigate since the Russians would not allow it . . . I interviewed thousands of Jews, former inmates of concentration camps in Germany and Austria, and consider myself as well qualified as any man on this subject." (Source: Our Sunday Visitor, June 14, 1959)

    If the Institute for Zeitgeschichte in Munich changed its tune and now claims that ". . . a gas chamber was established {at Dachau} etc.", it could have something to do with the nature of funding and with the current political climate in Germany.

    For detailed clarification, read John Cobden's "The Dachau Gas Chamber Myth" and/or the March/April 1995 Journal for Historical Review (v15, n2p14). Among other things, you fill find what really made Dachau a "death camp" in the days when the Allies moved in:

    520 Dachau guards were lined up and mowed down in cold blood by the Allies. These victims were not SS soldiers. They were not even regular guards -- most of whom had fled and abandoned the camp.

    Here is the American war crime in progress.
    The men still standing are German medics from the medical barracks pictured behind. The butcher kneeling down on the machine gun is 1st Lt. Jack Bushyhead, an American Indian.
    This is the murderer, 1st Lt. Jack Bushyhead!
    Obviously, the murder of 560 Germans didn't bother him

    These people who were shot like dogs were simple German troopers who had lost their units in the scramble of the last desperate days of the war or simply civilians, too young or too old to have been drafted. These men and boys were rounded up and ordered to put on the uniform of guards so as to watch the inmates. Most of them had not been at Dachau for more than a few days.

    We have at least one Zündelsite reader who told us he was there. No questions asked. No time for explanations. Just execution-on-the- spot!

    Also see the testimony of Bernard Kneuper who was a member of a prisoner of war interrogation team attached to the United States Army 42nd Rainbow Division


    April 22, 1996


    3. Crime Doctor, p. 46.
    4. Wichita Eagle, April 1, 1980, 4G.
    8. Interview with Lucius Clay, Official Proceeding of the George C. Marshall Research Foundation, cited in "Buchenwald: Legend and Reality," Mark Weber, The Journal of Historical Review, Vol. 7, no. 4.
    10. Cited in The Theory and Practice of Hell, Eugen Kogon, Berkley Books, New York, pp. 108-109.
    11. Nuremberg document NO-1523.
    13. "Communist Atrocities at Buchenwald," Donald B. Robinson, in American Mercury, October 1946.
    14. San Bernardino Sun-Telegram, March 13, 1966 (cited in The Man Who Invented 'Genocide,' James J. Martin, Institute for Historical Review, IHR, 1984, pp. 110-111.
    18. Leaflet, Memorial Site Concentration Camp Dachau, The International Dachau-Committee, Dachau, Germany, n.d.


    Ernst Zündel Replies:
    Rebuttal # 5

    It is true that the award plus court costs were paid. Mermelstein "won" the court case because the judge took "judicial notice" of the Holocaust.

    Judicial notice means the following:

    "There are certain facts that cannot be argued. It cannot be argued that the sun sinks in the West, or that Washington, D.C. is the capital of the United States of America. These things are facts.

    The Holocaust is such a fact. There is the door. The argument is over. Case closed."

    Was anything proven or disproven that way? Of course not. There was no opportunity. The deck was stacked. It is impossible to win a case against a judge who makes that kind of a priori ruling.

    Imagine a judge who will say to such an insurance company that fights a claim that is not substantiated by forensic evidence: "The accident happened. That is a fact. The claims are legitimate. There is nothing to argue about. Get out of my sight."

    Is that considered impartial, unbiased, civilized legal justice in any court of law?

    Unfortunately, when it comes to Revisionism, many judges have taken that approach. While fighting back, stating their case and defending their viewpoint, Revisionists have had to contend themselves by arguing as follows, to use the previous analogy about an "accident" where an insurance company is zapped with having to pay restitution whereas the plaintiff has nothing to "prove":

    "Granted that there was an accident. But what kind of an accident? Was it a car? What color? What make? What capacity?

      Was it even a car? Was it a train? Was it a plane?

    Why do the witnesses tell stories that simply don't check out against the simplest scientific criteria?"

    In other words, in the past Revisionists have argued detail against a foregone judicial conclusion. Nizkor admits as much by stating glibly: ". . . the American court system is not meant to be a place for people to try to prove crackpot theories."

    But that is the crux of the matter that has escaped Nizkor so far. How can you defend yourself against a judge who acts like an ostrich when it comes to Holocaust claims and details?

    It is impossible.

    It is instructive, though, to know how some of the details surrounding Mermelstein played out. The Institute for Historical Review went to some length to check out the Mermelstein claim that he and his relatives had indeed been the victims of genocide or attempted genocide.

    The entire unsavory matter has been summarized by Theodore J. O'Keefe in 'Best Witness': Mel Mermelstein, Auschwitz and the IHR. I am quoting here excerpts of some of the details that were unearthed in what turned out to be one of the sadder chapters of American jurisprudence:

    ". . . with the help of high-priced lawyers, a corrupt media, and Jewish terrorists, Mermelstein seemingly laid to rest the historical issue by obtaining Judge Johnson's ridiculous judicial notice. His lawyers went on to concoct a massive $17 million assault for breach of contract, conspiracy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and so forth, until IHR had virtually no choice but to capitulate by settling out of court in preference to losing a potentially ruinous trial.

    The frustrating thing for all informed and conscientious Revisionists was that the IHR's researchers were aware from the beginning, thanks to the very affidavit Mermelstein presented to claim the $50,000 reward, that when he described watching his mother and sisters enter "gas chamber no. 5" through a tunnel, he was speaking of an impossibility, an absurdity that became even more absurd six months later, when, in sworn testimony, he said he'd seen them going down the stairs into the tunnel to the gas chamber. Why? Because even then it was well known to all students of Auschwitz that "gas chamber no. 5" -- in fact, Auschwitz Krematorium building V -- had no stairs descending from the outside, no tunnel, and no basement. It was entirely above ground!

    As the IHR's staff and supporters gathered more evidence, in the months and years of the first trial, they learned more. In Mermelstein's own book, By Bread Alone, which offers a detailed account of the single night and day he spent at Birkenau (May 21-22, 1944), and which was published only two years before his sworn affidavit in application for the reward, Mermelstein wrote nothing of witnessing his mother and sisters enter any building at all, let alone any gas chamber -- whether down the stairs, up the ladder, through the window, or down the chimney.

    During the course of the long discovery phase, that is, the period in which the opposing parties gather evidence to support their case, researchers for the IHR, led by Louis A. Rollins, were able to gather much more information about what Mermelstein had said (or hadn't said), and was still saying, about his experiences in wartime Europe.

    Working from a mass of statements, either direct or reported, made by Mermelstein about his past life (paying particular attention to his time at Auschwitz and other camps), Rollins was able to compile a list of instances in which, it seemed to him, Mermelstein had either:

    • First, contradicted himself in his various statements on what he had seen or experienced during the Holocaust (for example, his several different accounts of how and where his father died), or;
    • Second, made absurd claims about what had happened to him and others during the Holocaust -- for example, witnessing a non-existent tunnel leading to the imaginary cellar of Krematorium 5, or being ordered to wash with soap made from dead Jews.

    Contradictions and absurdities -- Lou Rollins compiled 33 of them on a list that ran to eleven pages. But because of the judicial notice, all of this research went to naught."

    And later, as the Mermelstein claim resulted in a second "judicial notice" and a lot of grief for the Institute for Historical Review that was pinned against a set of loaded dice:

    "Aided by numerous volunteers who worked not only in California but across the United States, and in Germany, Poland, and Israel, we searched for whatever we could find about Mermelstein and his family. This included evidence about his mental soundness (Mermelstein had admitted to being under the care of a psychiatrist); information as to his litigation with persons other than the IHR; newspaper reports quoting Mermelstein on his Auschwitz experiences; and, of course, wartime documents from Auschwitz and elsewhere that would disprove his claims about witnessing atrocities, above all the alleged gassing of his mother and sisters at Auschwitz in May 1944.

    A first step was to nail down the existing evidence, much of it from the first trial: Mermelstein's sworn statements in the form of transcribed depositions (of which there were eleven, running to some twelve hundred pages of close interrogation by IHR and Liberty Lobby lawyers), written responses to interrogatories, and the like; Mermelstein's writings, above all his autobiographical account of his concentration camp experiences, By Bread Alone; and his public statements on his Holocaust years, reported in more than a hundred different newspaper and magazine articles, and on several recordings of presentations by Mermelstein at synagogues or seminars as well as on radio broadcasts.

    Further evidence came from history and reference books, such as Jewish encyclopedias; public documents and records, including statements made by Mermelstein to authorities at the Auschwitz State Museum and the German consulate in Los Angeles; wartime documents from the German camps; and Mermelstein's US Army medical records.

    As this mass of paper and audiotape accumulated, (we) had to read and re-read, to analyze and evaluate, to extract and collate and tabulate the evidence that would serve our defense against Mermelstein's complaint . . . While Mermelstein was a rather difficult witness who had attempted (sometimes with success) to intimidate IHR attorneys during depositions by playing the Holocaust card, he was often boastful and extravagant, and provided many nuggets for analysis and comparison. . .

    (We) compiled a new list, longer and more thorough than his original . . . This listing had to be not only exhaustive, but reasonable and persuasive. Citing mere slips of the tongue, or mistakes attributable to sloppy journalists, would not only have been poor scholarship, it wouldn't have persuaded a jury.

    In all, (we) discovered 30 absurdities, 22 contradictions, and a number of exaggerations. These examples went directly to the matter of Mermelstein as a "demonstrable fraud," a "vainglorious prevaricator," and a "false-tale spinner."

    Among the absurdities were the nonexistent subterranean tunnel to the above-ground crematory, the soap made from Jewish bodies, a claim that Auschwitz camp "were rewarded for every prisoner they killed," and that there was a railroad track leading from the crematory to a pond for dumping ashes.

    Since the summer of 1980, Mermelstein has repeatedly stated that he saw his mother and sisters go into a gas chamber, or into tunnel leading to it, from a distance of "a stone's throw away," a distance of "40, 50 feet," and that he watched the "gas chamber" building for "a couple of hours." Remarkably, though, Mermelstein made no mention of witnessing any of this in any account available prior to 1980, including his supposedly autobiographical book, By Bread Alone.

    This is nothing compared to his varying versions of the fate that befell his father. In a declaration given in November 1969 at the German consulate in Los Angeles, Mermelstein said his father died during "evacuation marches to Blechhammer from other camps." According to the account given in By Bread Alone, though, Mermelstein's father died in bed after working himself to death, trading food for cigarettes. In a May 1981 deposition, his father had died of overwork and exhaustion, while in a June 1985 deposition, he died of "exhaustion, cruelty, starvation, and beatings." According to still other accounts given by Mel Mermelstein, his father was "gassed at Auschwitz."

    Mermelstein has given similarly contradictory accounts of what he did while interned at Auschwitz (between approximately May 21 and July 1, 1944). In a statement given in November 1969 at the German consulate in Los Angeles, he had "no occupation." Similarly, in a May 1981 deposition, he declared that he had done "practically nothing ... just some detail work" and "no physical work."

    In February 1987, a dramatically different account of Mermelstein's time in Auschwitz appeared. Ed Koch (who was then mayor of New York City) told of a meeting with Mermelstein during a tour of Auschwitz. Koch reported in a newspaper article that Mermelstein had told him: "I was part of the special detail which hauled the bodies from the gas chamber and took them to the crematoria."

    In claiming that Auschwitz camp kapos would kill an inmate if "they didn't like the shape of your nose," Mermelstein seemed to suggest that his own nose was not unattractive. Survival could be just as cruel as death, Mel implied on another occasion, because the bread given to Auschwitz inmates (during the period when he claimed to have done "practically nothing") was intended not for nourishment, but to kill inmates "as fast as they expected us to die." At Buchenwald, Mermelstein would have us believe, he went swimming "in blood," even though he and others had been transported to Buchenwald "only for one purpose" -- to be disposed of in a crematorium rather than "litter ... the beautiful towns and cities with our bodies."

    Fortunately, Mermelstein and many others like him miraculously survived. One of these friends, Dr. Miklos Nyiszli (who wrote his own book about his stay entitled, Auschwitz: A Doctor's Eyewitness Account), was a truly exceptional survivor. In a 1981 deposition, Mermelstein claimed that Dr. Nyiszli, whom he supposedly knew personally, would testify on Mermelstein's behalf about the alleged crimes of Dr. Josef Mengele at Auschwitz. At that time, though, Nyiszli had been dead for more than 25 years. . .

    In addition to all the evidence cited above, we obtained yet another piece of potentially explosive evidence: a document that indicates that Mermelstein's sisters may have been alive nearly five months after he insisted they were killed. This secret German document, dated October 12, 1944, lists 500 Jewish females who were being transported from Auschwitz to Altenburg (a sub-camp of Buchenwald). Among those listed are Edith and Magda Mermelstein, names identical to those of Mermelstein's two sisters. This document is dated almost five months after the day in May 1944 when Mermelstein swears he saw them gassed. While the birth dates of Edith and Magda as typed on this document do not tally precisely with those given by Mermelstein for his two sisters in By Bread Alone, there is good reason to believe that the two women on the list were, in fact, his sisters.

    From the volume of evidence we acquired, we learned two important things:

    • First, that Mermelstein is simply not a credible witness to gassings at Auschwitz, or to very much else involving concentration camps and the Holocaust. The contradictions, exaggerations, and absurdities lovingly noted and recorded by the IHR's researchers amply demonstrate this, not merely to Revisionists and others skeptical of "survivor" testimony, but any knowledgeable, intelligent, and fair-minded person. Whether Mermelstein is fibbing, to others or to himself; whether he has forgotten; or whether whatever he did experience has so deranged his mind as to render him incapable of rationally recounting the facts, his testimony proves nothing about the existence of Nazi gas chambers or a policy to exterminate Jews. If anything, careful analysis of his statements indicates the opposite: that there were no Auschwitz gas chambers or German policy to exterminate the Jews.
    • Second, there is no evidence that Mermelstein ever claimed to have witnessed the gassing of his mother and sisters until after he learned of the IHR's reward offer. He apparently first claimed to have personally seen them enter a so-called gas chamber in letters attacking the IHR that appeared in newspapers in southern California and Israel in the summer of 1980.

    Neither his book, By Bread Alone (published in 1979), nor a statement made for the Auschwitz State Museum in 1967 about his wartime experiences in the camp, nor a sworn affidavit given at the German consulate in Los Angeles in 1969 about crimes he had witnessed during his time at Auschwitz, contains a word about witnessing any gassing."

    So much for the IHR/Mermelstein saga. But the IHR reward was not the only one that has been offered. We know of at least two additional awards.

    One was a rather hilarious and telling incident that happened during a Deborah Lipstadt lecture in Atlanta a few years ago, as recounted in a tape made by British historian David Irving.

    Deborah Lipstadt was shooting from the lip, insisting that she had blueprints from the Moscow Archives of Auschwitz architectural drawings of the gas chamber, clearly showing the holes in the roof for throwing the gas pellets in etc.

    Irving stood up, pulled out $1,000, waved it around and said: "I will give you this for a photocopy of these drawings."

    Of course Lipstadt had no such drawings, and Irving is still waiting.

    The third award was put up by a Brazilian citizen and well-known Revisionist publisher, S. Castan, and it is in the amount of 6 million cruzeiros.

    There is a taped interview explaining the criteria, available from the Zündel-Haus, describing a highly exacting and impartial panel of judges who will examine the evidence and decide who will get the award. I suggest that the Nizkor people get busy.

    Regarding the Michael Shermer challenge - who is Michael Shermer, except the editor of Skeptic? He tried to debate Mark Weber at the Institute for Historical Review, and that tape, too, is educational. It is worth viewing and digesting. Those who were there have not forgotten that exchange. It was like a bikini - what it revealed was interesting, but what it concealed was telling.

    Shermer, according to Nizkor's reply, has in an Open Letter ". . . offered to take the IHR up on a similar offer, but only if they precisely define ahead of time what they will accept as evidence." The claim is that the IHR has not replied.

    I cannot second-guess the IHR and what their motives are, but I can tell you what I will accept as evidence: forensic, scientific data in place of musings, fairytales or what has been described by one Jewish historian as

    ". . . preposterous verbosity, graphomanic exaggeration, dramatic effects, overstated self-inflation, dilettante philosophizing, would-be lyricism, unchecked rumors, bias, partisan attacks, and apologies."

    In Auschwitz, the Zionists and Communists claimed for 50 years that "four million died" - they were lying.


    Under duress, after the Zundel trial they reduced that number to 1.6 million, and they were still lying.

    Ernst Zundel in Auschwitz pointing to where the old plaque to 4 million was

    The Truth Will Set You Free

    Now it says 1.5 million

    Pressac decided it was 800,000, and he, too, was lying.

    The count now stands at 74,000 dead - registered meticulously in the Auschwitz Death Books released by Gorbachev to the International Red Cross, after a worldwide write in campaign organized by Ernst Zundel after his 1988 trial, to Michael Gorbachev to release those then missing volumes of the Auschwitz Death Records.

    And is it over yet?

    Revisionism is an evolutionary science. Truth must and will be revealed - one scientific document at a time.

    April 22, 1996

  • 6. What evidence exists that six million Jews were not killed by the Nazis?


    Ernst Zündel Replies:
    Rebuttal # 6

    As with Dachau, the purpose of Auschwitz has been adequately summarized in an Institute for Historical Review pamphlet, written by Mark Weber, which is posted here for convenience's sake and as backdrop.

    Mark Weber of the IHR

    It is entitled "Auschwitz: Myths and Facts." (Full documentation for footnotes, where indicated, is available here):


    Scholars Challenge Holocaust Story


    The Auschwitz Camps




    Four Million Victims?



    Bizarre Tales



    Höss utterly terrified of British interrigators
    who obtained a "confession" out of him
    Click here for full story of this picture
    The Höss 'Confession'



    Höss confession? - click here and read




    No Documentary Evidence


    Many Jewish Inmates Unable to Work





    Anne Frank





    Allied Propaganda



    Survivor Testimony






    Inmates Released


    Himmler Orders Death Rate Reduced



    Furthermore, it ordered:



    German Camp Regulations


    New arrivals in the camp are to be given a thorough medical examination, and if there is any doubt [about their health], they must be sent to quarantine for observation.Prisoners who report sick must be examined that same day by the camp physician. If necessary, the physician must transfer the prisoners to a hospital for professional treatment.The camp physician must regularly inspect the kitchen regarding the preparation of the food and the quality of the food supply. Any deficiencies that may arise must be reported to the camp commandant.Special care should be given in the treatment of accidents, in order not to impair the full productivity of the prisoners. Prisoners who are to be released or transfered must first be brought before the camp physician for medical examination.

    Telltale Aerial Photos


    Absurd Cremation Claims



    Gassing Expert Refutes Extermination Story

    America's leading gas chamber expert, Boston execution technician Fred A. Leuchter, carefully examined the supposed "gas chambers" in Poland and concluded that the Auschwitz gassing story is absurd and technically impossible.






    So far the IHR pamphlet. There is a wealth of information about Auschwitz in 15 years' worth of articles in the Journal for Historical Review, indexed at http://www.ihr.org


    Seek, and Ye shall find.

    This information is such basic stuff that it boggles the mind that Nizkor would still peddle Auschwitz, that theme park of anti-German hate, as "evidence" that gassings and burnings of millions or even hundreds of thousands bodies were going on there as a matter of routine.

    That claim has now as many holes as the the proverbial cheese. Any serious scholar, either on the side of the so-called "Holocaust" or on the side of those who challenge the "Holocaust" claims will not be able to get around the facts as they are are now available and summarized in engineering, architectual and forensic reports and in the aerial photos.

    Perhaps two additional things need to be mentioned that are implied in the Nizkor post:

      1) that the "unfit" - meaning the elderly, the children, and most of the women - were immediately sent to the gas chambers" and that (implied)

      2) the fuel that was produced at Auschwitz was used on location to burn the genocidal evidence.

    Regarding 1): How did it come about, then, that at war's end photos show the elderly, women and children being "liberated" - very much alive and not any the worse for the wear? Or why was Elie Wiesel, sent to the Auschwitz hospital for an operation? and

    2) why would the Germans be so foolish as to waste precious heating fuel to incinerate dead Jews when their own children were freezing to death in the ditches as they were fleeing from the Communists, when their own vehicles stalled by the thousands and clogged the roads because there was no fuel?

    The fuel shortage was indeed one of the most serious shortages that Germany was battling at the time. Anybody who has lived through the last years of the war will talk of the cold as being the most tormenting reality - claiming victims in many parts of Germany and on the Eastern front - way, way ahead of bombs, diseases and starvation!

    Why would the Germans have been so foolish as to have wasted something as precious as fuel that was so desperately needed in the arteries of warfare? It only stands to reason that the Germans would have used valuable fuel for urgent military needs, rather than for some harebrained scheme to burn cadavers in water-filled ditches.

    April 22, 1996

  • 7.

  • 8. How did German concentration camps differ from American relocation camps which interned Japanese, German- and Italian-Americans during World War II?


    Ernst Zündel Replies:
    Rebuttal # 8

    Germany's treatment of "Bandenverdächtige," - namely suspected terrorist or guerilla gangs, many of whom were Jews hurting the war effort, particularly on the Eastern Front - will be dealt with in Question # 9 where it more logically belongs.

    The main thrust of this part of the "66 QA" is whether or not race played a part in unjust persecution in Germany. Implied in this question is the moral judgment that in Germany it did - whereas in "democratic countries" such as Canada and the US, it didn't.

    Consider this:

    Tens of thousands of Jews lived in National-Socialist Germany during the entire war, working often in essential war industries. A good source for this claim is Holocaust Promotion Expert, Sol Litman, who in an article in the Canadian Jewish News dated December 2, 1993 claims that 48,000 Jews were still living in war time Berlin, Hitlers Capitol, alone in 1942.

    The famous Rabbi Leo Baeck was a practicing Rabbi in Berlin as late as 1943. Jewish organizations listed in the Berlin phone book in 1943 numbered as high as several dozen, running such social services as soup kitchens, pension and welfare offices, Jewish hospitals etc.

    For other salient details on Jewish life in wartime Germany, check the "Book II - The Last Jews in Berlin."

    Now, by comparison, take a close look at Japanese camps in California. Below are excerpts from a paper painstakingly researched and referenced by Mark Weber of the Institute for Historical Review:

    his full document can be seen at http://ihr.org/jhr/v02/v02p-45_Weber.html

    ". . . In the months following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, many expected an immediate attack against the West Coast. Fear gripped the country and a wave of hysterical antipathy against the Japanese engulfed the Pacific Coast.

    The FBI quickly began rounding up any and all "suspicious" Japanese for internment. None was ever charged with any crime. Almost all were simply Japanese community leaders, Buddhist or Shinto priests, newspaper editors, language or Judo instructors, or labor organizers. The Japanese community leadership was liquidated in one quick operation.


    Men were taken away without notice. Most families knew nothing about why their men had suddenly disappeared, (or) where they were taken, or when they would be released. . . Some families learned what had happened to their men only several years later. The action also included the freezing of bank accounts, seizure of contraband, drastic limitation on travel, curfew and other severely restrictive measures. But this FBI operation merely set the stage for the mass evacuation to come.

    In February 1942, Lt. Gen. John L. DeWitt, Commanding General of the Western Defense Command, requested authorization from Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson to evacuate "Japanese and other subversive persons" from the West Coast area. On 19 February, President Franklin Roosevelt signed Executive Order No. 9066 authorizing the Secretary of War or any military commander to establish "military areas" and to exclude from them "any or all persons" (of Japanese descent). A month later, President Roosevelt signed Executive Order No. 9102 establishing the War Relocation Authority, which eventually operated the internment camps.

    Without a murmur of dissent, the Congress quickly affirmed Executive Order 9066 with the passage of Public Law 77-503.

    Posters appeared the length of the West Coast ordering the Japanese to evacuation points. "Instructions to all persons of JAPANESE ancestry," read the bold headline on a typical poster. The text read: "All Japanese persons, both alien and non-alien, will be evacuated from the above designated areas by 12:00 o'clock noon Tuesday, April 7, 1942." The evacuees were told to report for internment with bedrolls and only as much baggage as could be carried by hand. (A postwar survey showed that 80 percent of the privately stored goods belonging to the interned Japanese were "rifled, stolen or sold during absence.")

    The 23,000 Japanese living on the West Coast of Canada, three-fourths of whom were Canadian citizens, were also rounded up. They were not permitted back into British Columbia until March 1949, seven years after the evacuation and three and a half years after the end of the war.

    The State Department told the Latin American countries to round up their Japanese. The United States paid for the cost of the hemispheric evacuation. Over 2000 Japanese were shipped from more than a dozen Latin American countries to detention camps in the United States. Most were sent by Peru, which wanted to permanently eliminate all Japanese and refused to allow re-entry of those held in the U.S. after the end of the war.

    Brazil, Uruguay and Paraguay set up their own internment camp programs. To their credit, Argentina and Chile did not break diplomatic relations with the Axis until late in the war, and only then under tremendous U.S. pressure. As a result, their Japanese were not rounded up. The rationale for the West Coast evacuation was "military necessity." But that claim was inconsistent with the fact that the Japanese living on Hawaii were not subject to mass incarceration. Hawaii was in far greater danger of invasion than the West Coast. The population of Hawaii was 38 percent Japanese, as compared to only about one percent in California. All except a small percentage of the Hawaiian Japanese remained free to keep the important island economy functioning.

    The evacuation, ostensibly to protect against possible sabotage and espionage, moreover included babies, orphans, adopted children, and the infirm or bedridden elderly. Children of mixed blood, even from orphanages, were included if they had any Japanese ancestry at all. Colonel Karl Bendetsen, who directly administered the program, declared: "I am determined that if they have one drop of Japanese blood in them, they must go to camp."

    It should be noted that throughout the war, members of the Communist Party actively worked to promote the interests of a foreign power and an international organization committed to the overthrow of the constitutional government of the United States. But the Communists in America were not only not restricted, they were openly encouraged and supported.

    The U.S. government told Americans that our detention centers had nothing in common with the horrible concentration camps established by the enemy in Europe. The Army public relations agency continually referred to the centers as "resettlement camps" and "havens of refuge." The State Department denied that the centers were concentration camps, " but are on the contrary areas where communities are being established in which the Japanese may organize their social and economic life in safety and security under the protection of the central authorities of the United States." In a public relations piece which appeared in the September 1942 issue of Harper's, a military official writing under a false name told Americans that "In the long run the Japanese will probably profit by this painful and distressing experience."

    A total of 120,000 were ultimately detained in the ten permanent mass detention camps built by the government. Were these internment centers really concentration camps? Chief Judge William Denman of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals described the Tule Lake camp this way:

    The barbed-wire stockade surrounding the 18 000 people there was like that of the prison camps of the Germans. There were the same turrets for the soldiers and the same machine guns for those who might attempt to climb the high wiring


    The buildings were covered with tarred paper over green and shrinking shiplap-this for the low winter temperatures of the high elevation of Tule Lake. No federal penitentiary so treats its adult prisoners. Here were the children and babies as well.

    To reach the unheated latrines, which were in the center of the blocks of fourteen buildings, meant leaving the residential shacks and walking through the rain and snow- again a lower than penitentiary treatment, even disregarding the sick and the children.

    So also was the crowding of the 18 000 people in the one storey shacks. In the cells of a federal penitentiary there is no such crowding. (Weglyn, p156)

    The Army used six tanks and a battalion of military police (899 men and 31 officers) to guard the Japanese at Tule Lake, California. Several camps had electrically charged fencing, which made little sense since all the camps were invariably located in deserts or other remote and desolate areas. Every camp had searchlights which played over the living quarters at night.

    Dozens of inmates were shot and wounded. Eight were killed by guards. Japanese were sometimes brutally beaten and seriously injured without reason. At Tule Lake, guards beat inmates with baseball bats.

    When Japanese organized a protest demonstration at Manzanar camp in California, soldiers threw tear gas grenades on the crowd and fired into it. One inmate was killed instantly and another died later. Nine were injured.

    Some Japanese committed suicide out of despair and many more died prematurely due to harsh conditions.

    Three generations often lived in a single bare room, 20 by 24 feet. which comprised a "family apartment." Sometimes two or three families were crowded into a single such room. The only fixture was a hanging light bulb, except for whatever furniture the inmates could construct for themselves. In some assembly areas, families were assigned to rudely converted horse stables where the stench became oppressive in the summer heat.


    The inmates were forced to salute the flag, sing patriotic songs, and declare their allegiance to "one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

    One of the most significant aspects of this act of racist repression is the fact that it was not the work of a clique of fascists and right-wing militarists, who according to liberal dogma are invariably behind such deeds. Rather, it was advocated, justified and administered by men well known for their support of liberalism and democracy.

    Given the almost universal condemnation of the Japanese internment program today, it is hard to realize just how solid support was for it at the time. The vast operation, as one writer points out, was "initiated by the generals, advised, ordered and supervised by the civilian heads of the War Department, authorized by the President, implemented by Congress, approved by the Supreme Court, and supported by the people." (Ten Broek, p325)

    The first public call to intern the Japanese seems to have been made at the beginning of January 1942 by John B. Hughes, a prominent radio commentator of the Mutual Broadcasting Company. Shortly thereafter, Henry McLemore, syndicated columnist of the Hearst newspapers told his readers:

    I am for immediate removal of every Japanese on the West Coast to a point deep in the interior. I don't mean a nice part of the interior either. Herd 'em up, pack 'em off and give 'em the inside room in the badlands. Let 'em be pinched, hurt, hungry and dead up against it ...

    Personally, I hate the Japanese. And that goes for all of them. (Ten Broek, p75)

    Popular movie actor Leo Carillo telegrammed his Congressman:

    Why wait until (the Japanese) pull something before we act ... Let's get them off the coast and into the interior ... May I urge you in behalf of the safety of the people of California to start action at once. (Ten Broek, p77)

    In February a delegation of West Coast Congressmen sent a letter to the President calling for the "immediate evacuation of all persons of Japanese lineage ... aliens and citizens alike" from the Pacific coast.

    Speaking to southern California on a Lincoln's birthday radio broadcast, Fletcher Bowron, reform Mayor of Los Angeles, denounced the "sickly sentimentality" of those who worried about injustices to the Japanese living in the United States. He told his radio audience that if Abraham Lincoln were alive, he would round up "the people born on American soil who have secret loyalty to the Japanese Emperor."

    "There isn't a shadow of a doubt," Bowron told his listeners, "but that Lincoln, the mild-mannered man whose memory we regard with almost saint-like reverence, would make short work of rounding up the Japanese and putting them where they could do no harm."

    Walter Lippmann, probably the country's most influential liberal columnist, strongly supported mass evacuation in a February syndicated piece entitled "The Fifth Column on the Coast." Conservative counterpart Westbrook Pegler followed suit a few days later.

    Only a week after Pearl Harbor, Mississippi Congressman John Rankin told the House of Representatives:

    I'm for catching every Japanese in America, Alaska and Hawaii now and putting them in concentration camps and shipping them back to Asia as soon as possible ... This is a race war, as far as the Pacific side of the conflict is concerned ... The White man's civilization has come into conflict with Japanese barbarism ... One of them must be destroyed ... Damn them! Let's get rid of them now! (Ten Broek, p87)

    Another member of Congress proposed mandatory sterilization of the Japanese.

    All of these statements were quite in keeping with popular sentiment. Immediately after Pearl Harbor, Japanese were excluded from various labor unions. Between 8 December and 31 March, anti-Japanese rage resulted in 36 cases of vigilantism, including seven murders. And a March 1942 national public opinion poll showed 93 percent in favor of evacuating alien Japanese. While 59 percent wanted to evacuate U.S. citizens of Japanese origin, only 25 percent disapproved.

    A great deal was made of the fact that immigrants born in Japan, but living for decades in the United States (the Issei), had not become U.S. citizens - proof of their continued loyalty to the Emperor. But no mention was made of the fact that long-standing American law forbade them from taking out U.S. citizenship - a ban that was not lifted until 1952!

    Since the war, the myth has been that powerful racist anti-Japanese groups engineered the evacuation to remove their economic competitors. But the truth is something quite different. While many White small-businessmen urged evacuation, big business interests did not. More importantly, the Japanese were evacuated at a moment when the country was willing to support whatever measures the Federal government authorized in the name of winning the war.


    Before the President promulgated Executive Order 9066, Attorney General Francis Biddle told Roosevelt that security interests did not justify evacuating the Japanese. The Attorney General's office also determined that the proposed evacuation would be a violation of the Constitution.

    The dean of American Revisionist historians, Prof. James J. Martin, called the incarceration program "a breach of the Bill of Rights on a scale so large as to beggar the sum total of all such violations from the beginning of the United States down to that time." (Weglyn, p67)

    Roosevelt authorized, supported and maintained an action which he knew to be racist and blatantly unconstitutional. But this was only one more sterling example of the gross hypocrisy which characterized his entire regime.

    The man responsible for implementing the evacuation, Lt. Gen. DeWitt, declared:

    In the war in which we are now engaged, racial affinities are not severed by migration. The Japanese race is an enemy race and while many second and third generation Japanese born on United States soil, possessed of United States citizenship, have become "Americanized," the racial strains are undiluted ... It therefore follows that along the vital Pacific Coast over 112 000 potential enemies of Japanese extraction are at large today. (Ten Broek, pp4, 110, 337 n.6)

    Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson was more succinct: "Their racial characteristics are such that we cannot understand or trust even the citizen Japanese."

    Another man, well known for his liberal outlook, who helped implement the evacuation and internment was Assistant Secretary of War John J. McCloy. For four years he served as War Department liaison with the War Relocation Authority, the agency which ran the camps. After the war, McCloy was named High Commissioner for Germany. As the highest civilian allied occupation official, McCloy worked to impose democratic rule on the defeated German people.

    Perhaps the most surprising advocate of evacuation was Earl Warren. Considering his later career as a vociferous liberal, it is at least ironic that, more than any other person, Warren led the popular sentiment to uproot and incarcerate the Japanese. As Attorney General of California, Warren cultivated popular racist feeling in an apparent effort to further his political career. He was an outstanding member of the xenophobia "Native Sons of the Golden West," an organization dedicated to keeping California "as it has always been and God Himself intended it shall always be-the White Man's Paradise." The "Native Sons" worked "to save California from the yellow-Jap peaceful invaders and their White-Jap co-conspirators."

    In February 1942, Warren testified before a special Congressional committee on the Japanese question. He would be running for Governor of the state that year, and would be elected. Warren testified, falsely, that the Japanese had "infiltrated themselves into every strategic spot in our coastal and valley counties." In one of the most amazing feats of logic ever performed by a lawyer, Warren next claimed that the very fact that no Japanese had so far committed any disloyal act was proof that they intended to do so in the future!

    After the Japanese had been evacuated, very few wanted them back. Newspaper columnist Elsie Robinson threatened to "cut the throat" of any evacuee who dared return. U.S. Representative Clair Engle of California declared: "We don't want those Japs back in California and the more we can get rid of the better." A poll conducted by a Los Angeles newspaper in late 1943 showed that Californians would vote ten to one against letting citizens of Japanese origin ever return to normal life from the camps.

    Perhaps the only honest personality in this whole story was Norman Thomas, the American socialist leader. He was at least non-hypocritical, if not actually heroic. Thomas had been an outspoken and effective leader in the movement to keep America out of the Second World War. He was the only personality of national stature to vehemently oppose the evacuation program. Thomas denounced the policy of the American Civil Liberties Union, which he had cofounded. The ACLU decided that the evacuation fell within the proper limits of the President's power. "What is perhaps as ominous as the evacuation of the Japanese," Thomas retorted, "is the general acceptance of this procedure by those who are proud to call themselves liberals."

    This rare "honest liberal" was dismayed at the general toleration of the program. "In an experience of nearly three decades," Thomas wrote,

    I have never found it harder to arouse the American public on any important issue than on this. Men and women who know nothing of the facts (except possibly the rose-colored version which appears in the public press) hotly deny that there are concentration camps. Apparently that is a term to be used only if the guards speak German and carry a whip as well as a rifle. (Weglyn, pp111-12)

    Comparisons have often been made between the Second World War concentration camps in America with those in Germany, although Topaz, Poston, and Gila River have never become as well known as Buchenwald, Bergen-Belsen and Dachau. Starvation and disease epidemics never ravaged the camps in this country as they did in Germany.

    In America, economic and social life remained basically intact throughout the war. The great cities here were spared annihilation under showers of bombs. No hordes of foreign invaders poured across the American frontiers. The U.S. government could run its concentration camps on a virtual peace-time basis.

    The German situation was completely different. In the final months of the war, Germany was waging a losing struggle for naked existence. The social-economic system collapsed completely in the face of total military defeat. The horrendous scenes photographed in the German camps by the Allied conquerors and distributed as propaganda around the world resulted from the starvation and disease that reigned unchecked throughout Europe as a consequence of the military catastrophe.

    At the Nuremberg show trials, the German defendants compared the evacuation of the Jews of Europe and the deportation of the West Coast Japanese. In both cases, the programs were allegedly based upon "military necessity."



    The Germans, moreover, had greater legal justification for their policy. The great majority of the Japanese internees were U.S. citizens and legally entitled to equal protection under the law. The Jews of Germany had not been full citizens for several years before the war began. Elsewhere in Europe, the Jews were evacuated from militarily occupied territories or by countries allied with Germany.

    The post-war mass media has spent years hammering away at the "guilt" of the German people for generally doing nothing while the Jews were being evacuated to the East. How does the German experience compare with the American record of popular enthusiasm for evacuating the West Coast Japanese?

    Since the war, the Germans have paid over tens of billions of dollars (Ed: more than 100 billion Deutschmarks) in restitution to Jewish organizations, the state of Israel and to individual Jews around the world for "those who suffered in mind and body, or had been deprived unjustly of their freedom." But no American concentration camp inmate has ever received a penny for hardship, humiliation or income lost during the years of internment.

    The German defendants at Nuremberg were declared guilty of "crimes against humanity" for, among other things, victimizing members of a group on the basis of ancestry. What responsibility did the countries, including the United States, which set up the International Military Tribunal have in upholding that principle in their own territories? Why have no Americans ever been called to account for committing the same "crimes" for which Germans were put to death in Nuremberg?"

    (Full references for the summary above may be obtained by contacting the Institute for Historical Review)

    So much for the United States and Canada sitting in judgment of Germany on the question of "internment on the basis of race." A jingle comes to mind:

    "He blamed and protested,
    but joined in the plan.
    He shared in the plunder,
    but pitied the man."


    Bosworth, Allan R., America's Concentration Camps, New York, 1967.

    Japanese American Citizens League, The Japanese American Incarceration: A Case for Redress, San Francisco, 1978.

    Myer, Dillon S., Uprooted Americans (The Japanese Americans and the War Relocation Authority During World War II) Tucson, AZ, 1971.

    Petersen, William, "The Incarceration of the Japanese-Americans," National Review, 8 December 1972, pp1349ff.

    Spicer, Edward H., A.T. Hansen, K. Luomala, M.K. Opler, Impounded People (Japanese-Americans in the Relocation Centers), Tucson, AZ, 1969.

    Ten Broek, Jacobus, E.H. Barnhart, F.W. Matson, Prejudice, War and the Constitution, Berkeley, 1968.

    Weglyn, Michi, Years of Infamy (The Untold Story of America's Concentration Camps), New York, 1976.


    May 4, 1996

  • 9. Why did the Germans intern Jews in concentration camps?

    9. Why did the Germans intern Jews in concentration camps?

    Ernst Zündel Replies:
    Rebuttal # 9

    In an article entitled "Zionism versus Bolshevism" that appeared in the British Sunday Herald on February 8, 1920 (p 5) Winston Churchill wrote, while first addressing what he called "National Jews" whom he described as ". . . helpful and hopefull in a very high degree to humanity":

    1918 - The first People's Commissariat -Allmost all Jews
    For a more complete list of Jews beside Stalin, see our Jews Beside Stalin page

    "International Jews"

    In violent opposition to all this sphere of Jewish effort rise the schemes of International Jews. The adherents of this sinister confederacy are mostly men reared up among the unhappy populations ofcountries where Jews are persecuted on account of their race. Most, if not all of them, have forsaken the faith of their forefathers and divorced from their minds all spiritual hopes of the next world. This movement among the Jews is not new. From the days of Spartacus_Weishaupt to the days of Karl Marx, and down to Trotzky (Russia), Bela Kan (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (United States), this world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization and for the re-constitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence and impossible equality, has been steadily growing. It played, as a modern writer, Mrs. Webster, has so ably shown, a definitely recognizable part in the tragedy of the French Revolution. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century, and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire.

    Jews in Stalin's murderous regime
    See a more complete list of Jews beside Stalin - click here

    "Terrorist Jews"

    There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution by these international and for the most part atheistic Jews. It is certainly a very great one; it probably outweighs all others. With the notable exception of Lenin, the majority of the leading figures are Jews. Moreover, the principal inspiration and driving power comes from the Jewish leaders. Thus Tchitcherin, a pure Russian, is eclipsed by his nominal subordinate, Litvinoff, and the influence of Russians like Bukharin or Lunacharski cannot be compared with the power of Trotzky, or of Zinovieff, the dictator of the Red Citadel (Patrograd) or of Krassin or Radek - all Jews. In the Soviet institutions the predominance of Jews is even more astounding. And the prominent, if not indeed the principal, part in the system of terrorism applied by the Extraordinary Commissions for Combating Counter-Revolution has been taken by Jews, and in some notable cases by Jewesses. The same evil prominence was obtained by Jews in the brief period of terror during which Bela Kan ruled in Hungary. The same phenomenon has been presented in Germany (especially in Bavaria) as far as this madness has been allowed to prey upon the temporary prostration of the German people. Although in all these countries there are many non-Jews every whit as bad as the worst of the Jewish revolutionaries, the part played by the latter in proportion to their numbers in the population is astounding."

    How many in America - or the entire world, for that matter - know this? The "Russian" Revolution was an imported revolution that threatened to engulf the world when Hitler came to power. He saw his country in the path of such destruction as the human mind can barely accommodate - and at the core of this destruction Hitler saw, just as Winston Churchill had earlier, a preponderance of Jewish revolutionaries.

    Ian Macdonald, a former Canadian career diplomat, now living in retirement in Ottawa, Canada, has commented:

    "It is a measure of the virtually iron-clad control over the media by a small, wealthy, influential, devious, self-serving, duplicitous, racist, alien pressure group that the obvious truths about the origins and nature of WW II are still considered beyond discussion.

    And in a recent Letter to Time Magazine, (rejected!) this former soldier, having fought on the Allied side, wrote further:

    "Some day, if there is indeed a God in Heaven, the truth about the origin and events of World War II will emerge. It will not be a happy day for the diabolical schemers who defamed the German nation and contrived the fratricide among Christians so serve their own selfish purposes.

    It will however be a happy day for mankind, and Germans will no longer need to apologize for doing the right thing."

    The "right thing," as far as pre-World War II Germany was concerned, was not to fight a racial war or to engage in an illegal expansion conquest, as has so often falsely been alleged, but to fight Stalin's Communism - the Evil Empire, as President Reagan called it belatedly only in the 1980s. And Communism was known to be the brain child of largely Jewish thinkers and writers like Karl Marx, Trotzki-Bronstein, Apfelbaum and his disciples Bela Kon, Rosa Luxemburg, Kurt Eisner, Ilja Ehrenburg, Karl Radek and others.

    As every school child knows, less than two years after the war broke out in 1939, Germany found itself at war with Russia. Contrary to what we have all been spoon-fed to believe, that war against the Soviet Government was in fact a preventive war, as recently made clear by Russian researchers and writers on that topic and by hitherto secret but now-released Soviet documents.

    These revelations also confirm what is even more important and timely to know: that that which threatens the survival of the Christian world today, as many people now believe, is indeed identical to what was threatening Germany back then. We call it now the New World Order - it is nothing more than Communism repackaged.

    What was that threat? Stalin himself made it clear in a well-known speech in 1938:

    "The revival of revolutionary action on any scale sufficiently vast will not be possible unless we succeed in utilizing the existing disagreements between the capitalistic countries so as to precipitate them against each other into armed conflict. . .


    And in Red Dusk and the Morrow (page 303) by Sir Paul Dukes, formerly Chief of the British Secret Service in Russia, we read that a Lithuanian asked a prominent Bolshevik how the Soviet regime was maintained. His answer was:

    "Our power is based on three things: first, on Jewish brains, secondly, on Lettish and Chinese bayonets, and thirdly, on the crass stupidity of the Russian people."

    And it was not just Soviet Russia, harboring Jews in power who did not view Germany kindly. Even prior to the "Russian" Revolution, Hitler knew full well who had financed and manipulated the ideological struggle - namely the banking houses and armaments industries, many of which were owned by Jews, and who were still arming and protecting the Reds when World War II broke out in America and England.

    According to the Reverend George A. Simmons, Superintendent of the Methodist Episcopal Church in Petrograd,

    "In December 1918,. . . under the presidency of a man named Apfelbaum (Zinovieff). . . out of 388 members, only 16 happened to be real Russians, and all the rest Jews, with the exception of one man who is a negro from North America . . . and 265 of these Jews belonging to this Northern Commune Government that is sitting in the old Smolny Institute come from the Lower East Side of New York - 265 of them". (The Rulers of Russia, Third Edition (Rev. Denis Fahey, Professor of Philosophy and Church History, 1984, p 28)

    This must be understood: Hitler's war was largely a war against Jewish International Communism in which Jewish and other Western capitalists joined in on Communism's side. Jews were evident everywhere in the global Marxist movement and in the Soviet Hierarchy. The source of that bloody World War II conflict can very easily be traced to the source of the World War I conflict - and that source was the cabal of viciously determined, utterly unscrupulous, largely Jewish Communists, revolutionaries and cold-hearted, money-hungry, calculating New York banking interests.

    Here are a few examples of this Communist/Jewish threat, according to The Rulers of Russia, page 8)

    • "The 62 members of the (Central) Committee were composed of 5 Russians, 1 Ukrainian, 6 Letts, 2 Germans, 1 Czech, 2 Armenians, 3 Georgians, 1 Karaim (Jewish sect) and 41 Jews.
    • The Extraordinary Commission of Moscow was composed of 36 members, including 1 German, 1 Pole, 1 Armenian, 2 Russians, 8 letts, 23 Jews.
    • The Council of the People's Commissars numbered 2 Armenians, 3 Russians, 17 Jews.
    • According to the data furnished by the Soviet Press, out of 556 important functionaries of the Bolshevik State, there were in 1918-1919 17 Russians, 2 Ukrainians, 11 Armenians, 35 Letts, 15 Germans, 1 Hungarian, 10 Georgians, 3 Poles, 3 Finns, 1 Czech, 1 Karaim, 457 Jews. (Rulers of Russia, p. 32)

    So it was not as though Jews were not legitimately and easily identified as enemies of Germany agitating the world against Hitler's government - from Samuel Undermeyer (he was the one who declared war on Germany!) to Rabbi Stephen Wise (an unelected but powerful warmongering "special advisor" to FDR) to Henry Morgenthau (author of post-war plan to starve millions of Germans to death) and on and on and on. As an identifiable group, Jews were the self declared enemies of Germany, from Untermeir to Wise, from Nathan Theodore Kaufman to Chaim Weizman and some of those, but by no means all, who were still inside the Reich were incarcerated as enemies and were treated as enemies of the Reich quite legitimately so!

    It bears repeating that incarceration of people believed to be harmful to the war effort is nothing new and nothing unusual. Countries at war did then (and still do today) adopt virtually similar policies. War time "enemies" were and still are incarcerated to neutralize their potential for sabotage on behalf of the enemy. In England, Englishmen like Mosley, the Mitfords and Admiral Sir Barry Dormille, etc, France, Canada people like Adrien Arcand and Camilien Houd Mayor of Montreal and the USA, Japanese and many Germans and Italians were interned for precisely those reasons.

    Therefore, the Germans - after the Jewish "Declaration of War" on Germany on March 24, 1933, broadcast all over the world by Samuel Undermeyer - had plenty of justification for incarcerating suspect Jews. Unlike the Japanese who had no documented history in the United States or Canada of terrorism, sabotage and revolutionary activity, the Jews were massively implicated in what Germany prior to World War II perceived as the main threat to her existence - namely Communism and revolution, Soviet style, all over Germany and the rest of Europe.

    Now, given the fact of Jews as self-identified and self-declared enemies of Germany, just how did National Socialist Hitler Germany treat the danger to its national security - compared to America, let's say, which interned the Japanese?

    As already pointed out exhaustively in Reply # 8, after Pearl Harbor, all Japanese-Americans had to sell or simply abandon their homes and belongings - at a great loss, to be sure - to be interned as 'public enemies' or possible 'sympathizers with Japan'. A similar fate befell many Germans. These groups included children, all of whom were innocent, many of whom suffered, and some of whom died in countries that were not being bombed into the stone age, as was the case with Germany.

    The so-called "horrors of Naziism" could not have been all that horrible for the Jews after all. According to Sol Littman, the Simon Wiesenthal Center's representative of Canada, close to 50,000 still lived and worked in Berlin alone in 1942. The Allies found over 5,000 Jews in Berlin in 1945, none of whom had been incarcerated but lived like the Germans.

    Contrary to popular lore - and even given the horrendous history of Jewish involvement in all the atrocities of the Bolshevik Revolution and Communism's plans for a global take-over - the treatment of Jews in Germany was much more humane than the 'American measures' against the innocent Japanese-American population.

    A mass-incarceration, American-style, did not take place in Germany until well into the war. Incarcerations of Jews in Germany did take place according to a selective, largely ideological criterion for quite some time after the beginning of WW2 hostilities, until resettlement in the East became feasible due to the defeat of Poland and the near-collapse of Russia when national security became a primary concern, as the war dragged on.

    Until then, Jews lived - despite their 'declaration of war' from London - among the Germans much as they had done for hundreds of years and before the outbreak of the shooting war. They were constrained only by the Nuremberg-Laws, which many have compared to the Israeli Laws of Return and policies adopted against Palestinians in Israel since 1948.

    Let's just compare:

    • Jews could not teach in German public schools - there are no Christian teachers today in Israels Jewish schools.
    • Jews could not marry Christians - as is true today, according to orthodox Jewish laws, in Israel.
    • Jews could not hold sensitive high-level government positions - just like Christians cannot hold these types of government positions in Israel today.
    • In schools and institutions of higher learning, German Jews were retired early with pay. Those who could not find employment in the Jewish educational system were encouraged to emigrate to friendly nations, as long as those nations were willing to welcome Jews - and not all of them were eager to accept German Jews.
    • So what was the real "Zeitgeist" in the Third Reich? Let's look at one example:
    • There is the case of Dr. Leo Baeck, Chief Rabbi of Berlin until 1943. If the Germans wanted to massacre all Jews in Europe on an "unprecedented scale", why was Rabbi Leo Baeck not put away, gassed or burned? Why was he exempt from that treatment, meted out wholesale to Jews, as we have been brainwashed to believe for the past 50 plus years? If one wants to exterminate an entire race by "industrial method", one would start with the leaders, the intelligentsia - The way Stalin did with the Poles at Katyn and everywhere else in the territories he occupied - and not with the little people, such as cobblers and candlestick makers.
    • Leo Baeck was a prominent Jewish leader who did not pack his suitcase, emigrating to friendlier shores, when the London DAILY EXPRESS carried the headline: "Judea declares War on Germany" on March 24, 1933. He chose to stay in Germany.
    • Rabbi Leo Baeck must have been also quite unconcerned about his safety when the "book-burning" took place on May 10, 1933. Since most of the books burned by an angry populace were from Jewish authors, every genuinely fearful Jew should have said; ". . .I've had enough now, I am leaving."
    • Well, Rabbi Baeck did not think so. He remained in Berlin.
    • Then war broke out. First England, then France, Canada, Australia and other nations declared war on Germany - not the other way around as Allied propagandists frequenty and falsley claim. Two years later the United States of America entered the war against Germany. By then, the enemy had been identified - what had been to this point a localized European war only now turned into a world war!
    • But Rabbi Leo Baeck remained unmoved by it all. He stayed in Berlin and suffered under the same allied bombing-terror as the German people did. There, in the hail of bombs he could have been killed and buried in the rubble, thus becoming a statistic of "German cruelties".
    • However, he survived.
    • Even after war broke out and more and more Jews were arrested and interned, Dr. Baeck collaborated with the Germans in dispersing Jews from the ghettos to the camps, when encampment was thought necessary for even tighter security reasons. His organization compiled the 'selection-lists' of Jews, in accordance with the "Haavara Transfer Agreement". This list showed Jews either destined for emigration or deportation (after emigration was no longer possible, due to the outbreak of hostilities) to other nations in the East or overseas.
    • By all accounts, Rabbi Dr. Leo Baeck must have had a very comfortable existence quite deep into the war under the National Socialist Government in Germany. He maintained his position as Rabbi in Berlin from 1912 until 1943, when he was interned at the Theresienstadt camp, a camp where most of the prominent Jews and anti-government activists were housed and where Jews had their own administration, their own camp currencies with the Star of David on it, and their own postage stamps.
    • After the war Leo Baeck, having comfortably survived the concentration camp, emigrated to England. He died in the fifties, and his wish was to be returned to Germany (the alleged "Holocaust-territory") where he was buried in the (still existing!) Jewish cemetery in Berlin Weissensee, the land and nation of Hitler's "willing executionetrs" if one believes Daniel Goldhagen.
    • There he lies, leaving us with a riddle to solve: why did Rabbi Leo Baeck, one of the most visible, foremost leaders of the Jewish community - a man who would have been a natural target for genocidal vengeance, had that been the plan - never leave "The Third Reich", the land of "concentration camps" and alleged "gas chambers" - while all the other 300 000 German Jews he issued exit permit to were leaving for more lucrative grounds, greater freedoms and the blessings of democracy?
    • He must have felt relatively safe - that's why.
    • Similarly, consider Max Nussbaum, chief Rabbi of Berlin until 1940, who emigrated that year to New York on the advice of Rabbi Stephen Wise. (Did Rabbi Wise already know of the coming war between the US and Germany in 1940 . . . ?) Nussbaum survived, as so many other prominent Jews seem to have survived the alleged "Holocaust" - Simon Wiesenthal, Eli Wiesel, Henry Kissinger who graduated from a Jewish high school in Nuremberg and many, many more like them.
    • As a matter of fact, millions of Jews have survived to collect pensions and indemnities from Germany! And not a few of them, if we believe the patriotic movement press, now formulate the New World Order policies.
    • Contrast that with the treatment Germans and, especially, Japanese living in the US and Canada received - reread, if necessary, QA # 8!
    • One final note from the astounding, only recently available research on Nuremberg by Carlos Porter, a former US citizen and interpeter now living in exile in Belgium. I quote here from his research entitled "Not Guilty at Nuremberg":
    • ". . . there were 13 central concentration camps or "Stammlager" during the war . . . the (Nuremberg) prosecution total of 300 concentration camps was achieved by including perfectly normal work camps. The 13th camp, Matzgau, near Danzig, was a special camp whose prisoners were SS guards and police who had been sentenced to imprisonment for offenses against prisoners in their charge: physical mistreatment, embezzlement, theft of personal property, etc. . . . Kaltenbrunner claimed that sentences passed by SS and police courts were far more severe than sentences passed by other courts for the same offenses. The SS carried out frequent trials of their own men for offenses against inmates and violations of discipline."
    • In summary, when we are dealing with something as serious as the treatment of the enemy living within one's own precinct in a time of desperate war, and knowing full well the practices adopted by all belligerents for such cases, it is consummate hypocrisy on the part of Nizkor to point an accusing finger at Germany and roll their eyes heavenward in mock horror, in order to score cheap debating points.
    • The stark reality of World War II was that the Jews as an identifiable group were deemed a threat or at least suspect. Not all individual Jews were guilty, of course - but as a group they were thought to be a threat to the country at war. Honest and scholarly work has shown that many Jews indeed were spies, guerillas, partisans, saboteurs and revolutionary cutthroats and got dealt with in the way countries and armies at war traditionally deal with such people.
    • One final note: Nizkor confuses two groups of people:
    • The "Suspected Terrorist Gangs" Nizkor refers to (the Germans called them Partisans - which means guerillas) were, for the most part, Khazar Jews who were guilty of horrendous atrocities- such as killing 700,000 Germans through guerrilla action behind the front lines, blowing up trains, bridges, barracks, hospitals, etc. These were the saboteurs who did horrendous damage via the underground - such as strapping mines to dogs and chasing them under parked tanks, trucks and into the lodgings of civilians, stringing invisible wire across roads to behead or unseat German Army motorcyclists, capturing and executing civilians as a means of undermining German war morale, poisoning water supplies and food crops. Many, many of these were drawn from local Jewish sources.
    • How do we know? Thousands were decorated in the East and West after the war for these activities.
    • Revisionists have never denied that such people were treated harshly. It is true that they were ruthlessly eradicated by what was called Sonderkommandos. (Also called Einsatzgruppen - police anti-guerilla units.) US soldiers employed similar measures in Viet Nam, the French did it to the Algerians and Viet Minh, and the British did it to the Malay-Communists. The Greek Cyriots in Cyprus and the Zionists-Jewish terorists in Palestine under British mandate. The Communists did it to the Ukrainian Underground Army in the Ukraine in the 1950's. The Israelis do it today to the Hezbollah or the Palestinian Freedom Fighters, whom they call "terrorists". Truly it may be said that one man's terrorist is another's hero, or Freedom Fighter.
    • These people who, when caught, were executed, had nothing to do with the regular internees of concentration camps who were moved there as a preventive measure, because of suspected dual loyalties or outright allegiance to the cause of the enemy; there to be assembled into a war time work force so as to be more productive. These concentration camps also contained a fair number of genuine social undesirables such as common criminals, prostitutes, pimps of all nationalities, check forgers, rapists and arsonists - including many of German nationality. To have been in a concentration camp - Jew or non-Jew! - does not automatically bestow on one the halo of "victim", "hero" or "martyr". Many so imprisoned and held in check during the war as Germany was struggling for survival BELONGED THERE and were, in fact, clearly guilty for harming Germany and its German people.

    The Allies released all these inmates indiscriminately when the war ended and found that over half of them were re-arrested and incarcerated for new criminal activities under Allied military rule in the months and years that followed.

  • 10. What extensive measures did world Jewry undertake against Germany as early as 1933?


    10 and 11 are treated in this section together


    Ernst Zündel Replies:
    Rebuttal # 10-11

    Since Nizkor complains that Questions 10 and 11 are essentially the same - even insinuating that ". . . something fishy is going on here" - I will be glad to smooth that little wrinkle and deal with them together.

    I agree that #10 and #11 cover the same territory - namely the legitimacy of the new National Socialist government treating Jews as enemies intent on ruining Germany when Hitler came to power after January 30, 1933.

    There is no question that atrocity propaganda was indeed still in full swing against Germany as a remnant of WWI propaganda - just as it is today, 50 years after the war! - but that was NOT the only reason for Hitler's energetic Jewish policy.

    The utterly compelling reason for his measures was an economic one. Germany was on the verge of bankruptcy when Hitler took charge of his country. The fact was that incredibly powerful international banking concerns, allied with a controlled press and controlled industrial concerns, all intricately related and topped off with voracious public relations/propaganda measures, were effectively strangling Germany.

    As quoted from The Transfer Agreement by Edwin Black, a Jew, (MacMillan, 1984, p. 21):

    "The deterioration of the once powerful German economy really began in World War I. . . . The Allied blockade cut off Germany's borders and most of her land trade routes. Trade was decimated. Industry couldn't export. War material and civilian necessities, including food, could not be imported.

    Before the blockade was lifted, 800,000 malnourished German civilians perished.. . . The popular perception among Germans was that they had been starved into submission, defeated not on the battlefield but by political and economic warfare and connivance.

    . . . Some Germans, such as the Nazis, blamed a Jewish conspiracy. In their minds it was Jewish bankers who would prosper from Germany's economic tragedy, since massive loans would be necessary both to recovery from the war and to pay war indemnity.

    . . . it was Jewish Bolshevism that would gain by undermining the German Empire and replacing it with a Weimar Republic where Marxism could flourish. . . . it was Jews who at the Treaty of Versailles gained rights of minority citizenship throughout war-reconstructed Europe.

    And in Hitler's own words, (p. 23, same source)

    "Not so long ago, Germany was prosperous, strong and respected by all. It is not your fault Germany was defeated in the war and has suffered so much since. You were betrayed in 1918 by Marxists, international Jewish bankers, and corrupt politicians."

    So anti-Jewish sentiment was strong, but it was strong within the context of a decimated, horribly humiliated people. The populace of Germany at that time was blinded and practically clubbed into submission by Marxism, a revolutionary ideology of class warfare that was widely interpreted as having sprung from malevolent Jewish brains. (See Q/A # 9)

    Since 1918, Marxism had spread politically motivated strikes, revolution and disorder throughout Germany. Conditions could not have been worse, and chaos, violence, anarchy and destruction reigned wherever these Marxists were active.

    One of Hitler's long-term strategies, therefore, was to detach his nation from the current monetary system that bred such destruction - a monetary system which he correctly perceived as a deliberate, foretellable results of the provisions of the Treaty of Versailles.

    This point has been brilliantly summarized in "The 1930s Economic Boycott of Germany - Prelude" by Udo Walendy (pp 15-19) in the April 1996 issue of The Barnes Review, and I am quoting from this essay:

    ". . . Simultaneous with Adolf Hitler's rise to power in Germany, an international (Jewish) boycott was organized with the intention of destroying the National Socialists and keeping Germany subservient to the Treaty of Versailles.

    One reads of the "violation of Jewish rights" in Germany in 1933 in the context of the international boycott orchestrated against the beleaguered nation. For a historian, however, this approach is not satisfactory, because events must be seen in the light of the fact that "the others, too" - in this case, the Germans - had the same right to fight for their existence. If one wishes to be objective, it just will not do to speak only about Jewish rights having been violated without mentioning in this context that the whole German nation had been deprived of its rights by the Treaty of Versailles.

    Countless Germans were unemployed; many had their property expropriated or were otherwise economically ruined. In fact, between 1919 and 1933, poverty, civil war and chaos reigned, with little hope of survival for many. Nor can it be passed over in silence that the conditions prevailing in Germany during that period had been largely influenced by victorious political and economic forces abroad, in particular those who took advantage of multi-national citizenship and who exploited their contacts with international authorities.

    Germany's surrender in 1918, the subsequent economic blockade, occupation of the Ruhr, the payment of massive reparations and its consequences (inflation and large-scale unemployment) the communist riots etc., all enabled these forces to bring about terrible conditions either from outside of Germany or from within by way of immigration, naturalization and financing with hard foreign currencies (predominantly dollars). Instituted concurrently was a management policy for essential political, judicial, economic and journalistic positions which favored primarily not German, but internationally interwoven interests. They were, of course, not always Jewish. But it can't be ignored that at least one of these pressure groups identified itself either as a coherent race, an internationally dispersed people, or a religious community of one stock and family, and that this group had common obligations and targets, from which it was considered treason to deviate.

    Dr. Nahum Goldman, Jewish, for many years president of the World Jewish Congress and the World Zionist Organization, wrote in The Jewish Paradox, (Grosset & Dunlap, page 109):

    "Over the years I have personally had a certain amount of power; as president of the biggest Jewish organizations I have had hundreds of millions of dollars in funds under my control; and thousands of employees, though let me say again that this was within the framework of international Jewry, not of a state."

    And Walendy goes on to say by quoting Goldman: ...

    (Jews) were involved in large-scale banking, a situation unparalleled elsewhere, and, by way of high finance, they had also penetrated German industry. A considerable portion of the wholesale trade was Jewish. ...

    "The theater was largely in their hands. The daily press, above all its internationally influential sector, was essentially owned by Jews or controlled by them . . .

    "The majority of the German Jews were never fully assimilated and were much more Jewish than the Jews in other West European countries."

    Comments Walendy by making his main point - which is that history must not be judged by double standards:

    May it be noted in this connection that the state of Israel, after its founding in 1948, never granted equal rights of co-determination or even equal nationality rights to foreigners, certainly not to Germans, living in Israel. But the 70 million nation of Germany which, in 1933, was fighting for its bare existence, its survival, its right of self-determination, was also entitled to think of its own strength, to bring about a change of leadership and, in doing so, to eliminate those people from decisive positions who, Germans believed, were responsible or co-responsible for the nationwide chaos. . . .

    The fighting slogans proclaimed by Stephen Wise, president of the American Jewish Congress, at the Second Preparative Jewish Conference on September 5, 1933 in Geneva, was neither consistent with the facts, nor with a policy to maintain peace. He spoke of a "common enemy of mankind having no other aim than to conquer and destroy." He added: "We stand in the front line; in the first row of trenches."

    What most historians don't bother to mention is that the Committee of Jewish Delegates, composed of a large number of Jewish organizations, as well as the Zionist World Organization and the B'nai B'rith, participated in the Versailles Peace Conference which had brought on the disastrous economic conditions which Germany faced in 1933 and which had a direct connection to the rise of the National Socialists.

    The Jewish organizations participating at Versailles represented over 10 million Jews from a large number of countries. One of their targets, "crowned with success," was "not to allow any absolute national sovereignty." The primary object of the peace conference had been the distribution of the spoils of war. . . Who was it, then, who first started to meddle in foreign affairs? ...

    Jews of the world living outside of Germany proclaimed a war against Hitler, as the London Daily Express, March 24, 1933 headlined it. ("Judea Declares War on Germany") and no national Jewish group has ever dissociated itself from the declaration.

    All these activities and organizations operating across (borders and even continents) provided a real background for using such an effective power politically on a world-wide basis at a time when Hitler was not even master in his own house. . . . (emphasis added)

    Writes Edwin Black, in The Transfer Agreement, mentioned above, on pages 20-21:

    The movement (to stop Hitler) was spreading spontaneously along interreligious lines. Spurred on by the (American) Jewish War Veterans, the nation's emotions were mobilized. Boycott was finally a word lifted out of the whispers and into the headlines.

    March 23 was a success for the Jewish War Veterans. Their boycott kickoff generated maximum publicity. One radio station covered the day with updates every 15 minutes. Extensive support was offered by those in prominence and power - as well as by the anonymous faces in the crowd. . .

    German legations around the United States reported the anti-Nazi developments to the fifty-one-day old Reich. Jewish protest was not merely a nuisance, it preyed upon the minds of the Nazis as they braced for their first big fight against their avowed enemies, the Jews.

    . . Could mere popular protest in Europe and America influence the Third Reich? Could a boycott - an economic war - topple the Hitler regime. . . ?

    At the time, some Jewish leaders either doubted the power of the anti-Nazi movement or were unwilling to participate. The failure to participate worked to Hitler's advantage, because the Jewish-led, world-wide anti-nazi boycott was indeed the one weapon Hitler feared.

    So a world-wide boycott was indeed launched, particularly in the United States and Great Britain, but also in other countries like Poland. Jewish pressure groups with their worldwide connections were responsible for the gradual escalation of a policy of confrontation on an international basis.

    Continues Walendy:

    One of the leaders of these pressure groups was Samuel Untermyer, (sometimes spelled Untermeyer) one of the most powerful and influential Jewish leaders in America and a most successful attorney, government advisor and president of the non-sectarian Anti-Nazi League.

    From 1933 to 1939, Untermyer devoted all of his time and energy to a world-wide boycott of German goods, insisting on rigorous and immediate implementation, wherever and however this could be done. He began his efforts immediately after Hitler's assumption of power and without any mandate from German Jews.

    Wise, founder of the American Jewish Congress, made similar efforts to get this boycott going, but he preferred to have it coordinated with government measures and full powers being given to him by a board of international Jewry operating on a world-wide basis.

    All this against the backdrop of an American President, Roosevelt, who, again in Black's words, ". . . was attuned to the pulse of the Jewish constituency." (p. 15)

    It can be said without qualification, therefore, that during Hitler's rise to power in Germany, the American media were leftist in the extreme, Marxist-infiltrated, either blind or deceived, and kow-towing to that mass murderer, Joseph Stalin. And the London Times article, so often quoted as the signal that Jews had, indeed, declared war on Germany, was by no means the only indication that economic war was on - world-wide!

    In The Nation, Aug. 2, 1933, J.J. Martin wrote:

    "Enthusiasm for the boycott, led in America by the well-known New York attorney Samuel Untermyer, and pressed elsewhere by an international Jewish congress held in Amsterdam and by the National Joint Council of the labor unions in England, was one of the ways in which liberal energies were mobilized against Hitler Germany in the summer of 1933 , in addition to the wide publicity given to atrocity stories, too often based on hearsay." ( p. 223)

    Further down, he mentions that

    ". . . in no case did [a] German minority as small as the Jews gain the support the latter did in the American liberal press. It [i.e., the boycott and attendant hoopla] was probably the most remarkable campaign ever conducted in the interests of such a small minority group of citizens of a foreign state by any segment of American public opinion-making media in the nation's history".

    And in the New Republic, Sept. 20, 1933, Martin further reports that

    "Late in September, 1933 . . . 'The world-wide boycott of German goods, shipping and services of all kinds which is being organized by prominent Jewish bodies seems to us the only way of impressing upon those responsible for the present regime in Germany the detestation with which its persecutions are regarded'. It . . . admitted that private boycotts were a type of war measure . . .

    So it is not as though Revisionists always cite only that one orphan article in the British paper when they write about this boycott that so enraged and cornered Germany. There is plenty of evidence for anyone who cares to look that US media were fairly abuzz during the entire summer of 1933 about this - as well as other anti-German agitation. This bit of valuable information shouldn't be allowed to disappear down the memory hole - for otherwise, the kind of nonsense Nizkor has written about, claiming that "only" one newspaper is cited in evidence of a declaration of war on the part of powerful Jewish interests, will become "the historical record" of that sinister, Jewish-led boycott campaign.

    To summarize the first point, then: Jewish propaganda was systematically trying to disable Germany before it could even begin to rebuild itself economically from the ravages and unfair treatment of WWI. The boycott was not only "planned" by Jewish individuals and groups, it was implemented by Jewish individuals and groups.

    Boycotts or blockades are instruments of war just like guns, tanks and planes, with the intent of disrupting the enemy's economy (e.g., in the American Civil War, the North blockaded the South; the blockade of Germany by Great Britain in 1919; the boycott of South Africa in the 1980's; and the current blockade of Iraq). The intent was, and is, the same everywhere - to cripple the enemy and bring it to heel, and then to extort from it a change of behavior and/or policy - the aim of any war.

    We are seeing it these days practiced against benign little coutries like Switzerland by the World Jewish Congress and the Simon Wiesenthal Center among others.

    The next question then, becomes: How was this done?

    Quite simply, with influence by people in strategically placed areas of society - such as the press, government and business - with money and with propaganda. Toward this end, largely international family fortunes in Jewish hands were used to buy massive media.

    Below, I am citing some facts and statistics taken from The Rothschild Money Trust, (George Armstrong, Omni Publications) written by an American patriot during the Roosevelt Administration. Please keep in mind that this was written long before America decided foolishly to "reply with the guns of America" on behalf of Jewish interests: Remember, this is information from the 1930s:

    It is estimated that the Jews have absorbed four-fifth of the wealth of Germany, Austria, Poland and Czech-Slovakia, and more than one-half of that of England, France and Italy. They practically own the banks, railways, steel and munitions plants of these countries, to say nothing of the press and other minor industries.

    They undoubtedly own one-half of the wealth of America. With one or two possible exceptions, they own the huge New York banks (which implies the control of the New York Federal Reserve Bank) the insurance companies, 80% of the metropolitan press, the news and advertising agencies, the cinema, and 80% of the radio broadcasting companies.

    They are reputed to own 100% of the metropolitan newspapers of both England and France, and likewise 100% of the news and advertising agencies and the cinema of these two countries.

    "Think of it. This alien race comprising less than 1% of the population owned 80% of the wealth of the country. The worst of it is that they stole it by the manipulation of the German currency system - in the same way that they have stolen the wealth of our country.

    The wonder is that Hitler has been so patient and forbearing. (p 78)

    And, finally, we have the Forrestal Diaries, (edited by Walter Millis, (The Viking Press, 1951, page 121 ) where Joseph Kennedy, then Ambassador to Britain, is stating that the Jews were responsible for WWII.

    Specifically, we find the following:

    Played golf today with Joe Kennedy (Joseph P. Kennedy) who was Roosevelt's Ambassador to Great Britain in the years immediately before the war). I asked him about his conversations with Roosevelt and Neville Chamberlain from 1938 on.

    He said Chamberlain's position in 1938 was that England had nothing with which to fight and that she could not risk going to war with Hitler. Kennedy's view: That Hitler would have fought Russia without any later conflict with England if it had not been for Bullitt's (William C., Bullet, then US Ambassador to France) urging on Roosevelt in the summer of 1939 that the Germans must be faced down about Poland; neither the French nor the British would have made Poland a cause of war if it had not been for the constant needling from Washington.

    Bullitt, he said, kept telling Roosevelt that the Germans wouldn't fight, Kennedy said that they would, and that they would overrun Europe. Chamberlain, he says, stated that America and the world Jews had forced England into the war. (Emphasis added).

    In summary it can be said that, in response to Hitler's meteoric rise, the immensely rich international banking concerns, largely in Jewish hands, meant business - and that "business" meant, sadly, hate propaganda, agitation for a war to stop Hitler.

    More about that in QA # 12.

  • 12. Was this before or after the rumors of the "death camps" began?


    Ernst Zündel Replies:
    Rebuttal # 12

    The purpose of this pamphlet item was to state that atrocity propaganda preceded the WWII by 6 years. Nizkor turns this emphasis around, babbling on and on (here and elsewhere) about "internal inconsistencies" by "documenting" that anti-Semitism existed in Germany many years before the war and even before Hitler came to power.

    Nobody argues that - but that is not the point.

    As already amplified in previous segments of this rebuttal, international Jewry - which included Jews still living relatively undisturbed in Germany when Hitler came to power and long after he was in power - were seen as a corroding influence, and as the fledgling Hitler regime tried to rebuild its culture and its economic base, both of which had been so viciously and wantonly destroyed, it was only natural that heated rhetoric picked up.

    Let us re-focus # 12, however:

    Did atrocity propaganda - what the Germans called Greuelpropaganda - precede the concentration camps - and if so, according to whose writings?

    In point of fact, it started during World War I and hasn't stopped as yet, with Nizkor's frantic efforts one prime source of evidence. Fifty years after the Second World War, has anything or anybody changed? Aren't you still at it yourself - prattling on and on about the "Six million", the "gas chambers", the "soap", the "lamp shades" - despite all evidence to the contrary?

    Aren't largely Jewish writers, authors, film makers and TV producers from William Shirier, to Goldhagen, to Kaufmann to Green and Speilberg etc., responsible for what is being forced down our throats - day after day, and hour after hour? Not even over 100 billion DM in hush money the Germans paid to Jewish individuals, groups and to the State of Israel since WWII has satisfied Jewish interests and stopped this hate and vilification against the German people and the German nation. When will it ever end?

    Now Nizkor can and, no doubt, will make the argument that it is in the German interest to highlight evidence in support of unfair and excessive atrocity propaganda. It will be a bit harder, however, to argue that same point against the Jewish pen.

    Probably the strongest admission of the real dimensions and corrosive influence of this systematic hate propaganda many years prior to World War II came from Edwin Black, a Jew, in The Transfer Agreement, page 23:

    "Hitler attributed the stories of Germany's wartime atrocities to an international Jewish conspiracy, using newspapers Jews secretly controlled. And so the Nazis held a special fear of what they called "Greuelpropaganda" or atrocity tales.

    In Nazi thought, it was Greuelpropaganda that distorted Germany's valor into Hun-like savagery. Greuelpropaganda was a mighty weapon the Jews knew how to use to harness the German nation into bondage."

    And on page 25:

    "The Nazis . . . believed in the legendary, almost supernatural economic power of the Jews. When they promulgated the motto: .The Jews are our bad luck,' they meant it. . . . in the Nazi mind, the Jewish-led, anti-nazi boycott would reduce exports and foreign currency below the viable threshold. By Nazi thinking, a second prong of the Jewish offensive would be publicizing German atrocities to undermine confidence in the new regime and turn the non-Jewish world against Germany."

    In this instance, Nazi fears approximated the reality. (emphasis added)

    As an overindustrialized nation dependent upon exports, Germany was especially prone to boycott. Therefore, as the American Jewish War Veterans escalated their anti-Reich agitation in late March 1933, a primary order of Nazi business would now be to end the atrocity claims and stop the boycott. (emphasis added)

    On March 28, 1933, the German-based Berliner Tageblatt, still Jewish-edited, said this:

    Firstly, the new hate propaganda is employed by a foreign economic element that has always fought German exports. It believes it has now found a convenient means which, with some popular trimming or other, will enable it to pursue its self-serving ends.

    Secondly, as we have already pointed out, the atrocity propaganda is the last hope of the anti-Revisionists in Europe. There is still an indiscriminate hunt for means by which to thwart the dawning restoration of Europe to health, and it is precisely the irreconcilable foes of a just integration of Germany into post-war Europe who make use of the new hate-propaganda for purposes that have nothing at all to do with the ostensible aims of this propaganda, which is directed against Germany itself.

    On March 30, 1933, the Central Verein Zeitung of Berlin, the newspaper of the Central Union of German Citizens of the Jewish Faith, carried the following editorial:

    "An unbridled atrocity-propaganda campaign against Germany is raging about the world. By every word that is spoken or written against our Fatherland, by every call for an anti-German boycott, we German Jews are wounded just as deeply as is every other German.

    Not under duress nor out of fear, but because certain foreign elements are slandering the honor of the German name, harming the land of our fathers and the land of our children, we have risen at once to protest that, before the country and before the outside world, we have branded the reports about Germany and the new German government as lies.

    Against these monstrous accusations, we 565,000 German Jews protest solemnly before all Germany and before the world."

    The next day, March 31, 1933, Dr. Max Naumann, Honorary Chairman of the Association of National German Jews, in the Neues Wiener Journalof Vienna wrote:

    "I need not first tell you that I oppose absolutely the atrocity campaign against Germany. I see in this campaign nothing but a new edition of the war time hate campaign against Germany and its former allies.

    Even the methods and the details are exactly the same as at that time, when the stories were of children's hands hacked off, eyes put out, even of the rendering of cadavers, obtaining fatty substances from human corpses.

    The leading authorities of the NSDAP, and the entire government of the Reich, have declared, constantly, and with the greatest energy, that in any such case that comes to their knowledge they would intervene ruthlessly.

    It is also known to me that in such cases the intervention really was ruthless.

    At all events, we German Jews, regardless of any differences of emotional inclination, are thoroughly convinced that the government, and the leadership of the NSDAP, are earnestly resolved to maintain calm and order.

    We have therefore been protesting this foreign atrocity propaganda very energetically for quite some time - not, as I wish explicitly to emphasize, because of being under any kind of compulsion, but because we were convinced that our Germany is being hurt, and is intended to be hurt badly, by this hate-campaign.

    Once more, the Berliner Tageblatt of April 1, 1933:

    A horrendous wave of filth surges around Germany. The beneficiaries of the Versailles Diktat, who unwillingly had begun to acknowledge the collapse of their policy of force against Germany, draw new hope. In reply to the manifest will to freedom of the German people, they unleashed an atrocity propaganda campaign that lags only slightly behind their lying stories during the last war.

    It cannot be denied that German Jews with well-known names also have a leading part in that atrocity hate campaign which in an irresponsible manner defames the German people.

    Please note that these quotes come precisely six years before the War, as stated in the original pamphlet.

    For comparison's sake, let's now ask this: What did the situation look like, once war had broken out? Fast-forward six years! On 5 September 1939, two days after England's and France's declaration of war against Germany - Mr. Chaim Weizmann, President of the Jewish Agency, wrote a letter to Mr. Chamberlain, First Minister of His Majesty the King of England, in which he informed him that

    ". . . we Jews stand shoulder to shoulder with Great Britain and will fight for Democracy" and further stipulating that "the mandatories of the Jews were ready immediately to sign an agreement allowing the employment of all their manpower, their technology, their material aid and all their capabilities".

    Published in the Jewish Chronicle of 8 September 1939, this letter constituted an authentic declaration of war by world Jewry against Germany. As pointed out by many writers, the most recent one being Roger Garaudy of France, this declaration of war legitimized the problem of the internment of all German Jews in concentration camps as 'representatives of a people in a state of war with Germany' in the same way as the Americans justified the internment of their own citizens of Japanese origin, as soon as the USA entered into war against Japan.

    Ian Macdonald, a former Canadian diplomat now in retirement, has summarized a similar point in a "Time Magazine Letters" submission of May 20, 1996 in response to the recent prime sample of atrocity propaganda that can be found in the unsavory Goldhagen book, Hitler's Willing Executioners, the latest in some 70 years of systematic ethnic smears.

    Here are Macdonald's thoughts:

    Vilification of a Nation

    During World War I, in order to bolster support for the war effort, the British public was inundated with stories of atrocities allegedly committed by the "barbarous Hun". There were "eye witness" reports of the bayoneting of Belgian babies, the crucifixion of Allied prisoners and the boiling of soldiers' corpses to make soap.

    Several years after the war, a commission was established by the British Government to investigate the charges. The commission found the stories to be untrue.

    After World War II, there was no such impartial investigation. Instead, the anti-German propaganda was further embellished and intensified. Far from being exposed as fraudulent, the atrocity stories were given credence through repetition and the Nuremberg Trials (described by one prominent American jurist at the time as "nothing more than a high class lynching party"). In order to conceal the truth, hearsay was accepted as "evidence", confessions were obtained through brutal torture and trickery, critical documents were withheld from the defense, effective cross-examination was not permitted and the basic principles of Western justice violated in order to gain convictions.

    The Jewish-orchestrated Trials became an instrument of vengeance for the viciously unscrupulous refugees from Nazism who constituted most of the staff. The judges were all drawn from the ranks of the victors, prompting a prominent anti-Nazi German to comment that "only God can save him who is judged by his accusers".


    There is a lesson there it would behoove Nizkor to learn. There has to come a time when atrocity propaganda against the people and nation of Germany must stop. A fine time would be now. In the interest of international good will, Nizkor could even lead the way.

  • 13. What nation is credited with being the first to practice mass civilian bombing?


    Ernst Zündel
    replies to QA # 13.

    The question is poorly phrased. It should have read: "What nation is credited with being guilty of the first acts of bombing civilian targets during World War II?"

    This item was included in the IHR pamphlet because it refers to the widely popularized version that Hitler massively unleashed the "London Blitz" and thus caused many civilian casualties - a "London Holocaust" of sorts. This myth is part of the overall atrocity lore about the disregard with which the Führer is supposed to have treated civilians, particularly British civilians.

    Hitler did not want war with England. This has been documented many times. Moreover, the Allies knew from reading the German Air Force signals, which they had broken on May 26, 1940, that Hitler had given orders that NO British civilian towns and cities were to be bombed. Hitler was very clear on insisting that London was to be off-limits to German bombers. The German Air Force was allowed to bomb ports, harbors and dock yards, but NOT the civilian population as such.

    This order stayed in force for almost a year; we know this from the Allied captured German documents and the German archives.

    However, on August 25, 1940, Churchill gave the order to the British Air Force to go and bomb Berlin. Although the Chief of Staff of the British Air Force warned him that if he bombed Berlin, Hitler would lift the order about not bombing British towns, Churchill disregarded that warning; the idea was to provoke Hitler to strike back.

    At 9:15 that morning Churchill personally ordered the bombing of Berlin. That night, Berlin was bombed by 100 bombers - yet Hitler didn't make a counter-move.

    Churchill ordered another raid on Berlin.

    And another. And another.

    There were also raids on Freiburg and Wilhelmshaven.

    These bombing raids went on until finally on September 4, 1940 Hitler lost his patience and made that famous speech in the Sports Palace in Berlin during which he is supposed to have made the comment:

    "I shall wipe out their cities." ("Ich werde ihre Städte ausradieren.")

    School children are now told, both here and overseas, about the Hitler speech. They are not told, however, how this speech came about and who was bombing first - and why. They are not told how Churchill set out deliberately to provoke the bombing of his own capital in order to get the German (and English) war spirit aroused.

    After the Churchill provocation, Hitler was no longer in a position to hold back his forces indefinitely without losing political and military credibility and advantage. Therefore, he ordered the bombing of London's industrial area where, unfortunately, five German bombers went astray over the blacked-out city and dropped, by navigational mistake, some bombs in a civilian populated area.

    In order to gain some perspective on who did what and why in the entire war, I suggest J. J. Martin's book, Revisionist Viewpoints. On page 100, we find the following:

    "As for the total damage achieved in England by the Germans, as compared to that achieved in Germany, the summary by Allen A. Michie, a one-time Time-Life reporter, in the Reader's Digest in the summer of 1945, is particularly dramatic and succinct:

    'The combined damaged areas of London, Bristol, and Coventry and all the blitzed cities of Britain could be dumped in the ruins of just one medium-sized German city and hardly be noticed."

    Coventry was many times cited in the popular propaganda as the excuse for an obliteration strategy applied later on in Germany. Michie estimated that by comparison Berlin suffered 363 Coventrys; Cologne, 269; Hamburg, 200; and Bremen, 137.

    (The original reference can be found in the Michie essay, Germany Was Bombed to Defeat, Reader's Digest, August 1945, pp. 77-78.)

    Here is a definitive answer for Nizkor to the implied question "Who started the bombing of civilians targets?"

    I refer to J.J. Martin's book, page 103:

    "A book which appeared in early 1944, by J.M. Spaight, principal assistant secretary of the [British] Air Ministry, _Bombing_Vindicated_, was the first inkling for many that such a policy [of terror bombing] was of English origin.

    Mr. Spaight, who launched the incredible slogan, 'The bomber is the savior of civilization', dated the decision to engage in such warfare from May, 1940, and bluntly declared, 'We began to bomb objectives on the German mainland before the Germans began to bomb objectives on the British mainland'.

    This is a historical fact which has been publicly admitted. Spaight went on to explain why it had been suppressed from general news so long:

    '. . . because we were doubtful about the psychological effect of propagandist distortion of the truth that it was we who started the strategic offensive, we have shrunk from giving our great decision [of May, 1940] the publicity which it deserved.

    That surely was a mistake. It was a splendid decision'".

    (Bombing_Vindicated_ London: Geoffrey Bles, 1944, pp. 68 and 74.)

    Re-read this carefully: ". . . it was WE who started the strategic offensive." A "splendid decision" to boot? Over 50,000 people killed in Hamburg. More than 300,000 killed in Dresden. Millions killed in many other towns - would such mass murder count as a "war crime"?

    For the sake of further enlightenment, I would suggest that Nizkor read the entire Spaight text, Bombing_Vindicated_ or the US Air Forces analysis on Allied bombing in Germany. The way to find these books is to request them from the public library.

  • 14. How many gas chambers to kill people were there at Auschwitz?


    Ernst Zündel
    replies to Q/A # 14:

    Nizkor begins by standing the argument on its head. Nizkor writes: "Wrong, as usual; no evidence, as usual. . ."

    Let's call a pause here and focus in on this matter of evidence. Revisionists are UNDER NO OBLIGATION to produce any evidence whatsoever. If you call somebody a thief, or a drug pusher, or a murderer, it is YOU who must bring proof. Anybody can make accusations. Accusations must be backed by facts that can be verified.

    It is the Holocaust Hucksters, with their obstinate promotion of this outlandish propaganda claim that there were homicidal gassings in places like Auschwitz who are under strict obligation to produce the evidence in support of their fantastic yarns.

    Höss utterly terrified of British interrigators
    who obtained a "confession" out of him
    Click here for full story of this picture

    The fact is that, even 50 years after the alleged events, the Holocaust Hucksters have consistently and miserably failed to provide even minimal evidence in support of what they are claiming. This, despite the virtually limitless resources at their disposal. All they have is so-called "victim testimonials" and the "Hoess Confession" tortured out of a defenseless man.

    And now, as the structure of lies and deceit is crumbling right around their ankles, instead of truth and logic, they fall back on brutally punitive, coercive laws to sustain their discredited and unsupported atrocity propaganda (e.g., I have in mind the recent disgraceful event in Germany, mentioned below, where a scientist gets sentenced to prison for writing an impeccable forensic report refuting the Holocaust Hoax, or the sleazy recent tactic of knocking out CODOH - the Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust - from the Internet, without rhyme, reason, or warning).

    The challenges and questions, put to the Holocaust Hucksters by Revisionists and others, stand unaddressed. Their latest "star" performer, Pressac, financed by the aggressively hucksterish Klarsfeld Foundation, fell flat on his face in providing answers and is now being quietly sidelined, as one can observe from Nizkor's text: they prefer to recommend as reference for their pretensions a source more aligned to the Politburo Party Line.

    This is really getting tiresome.

    Since the Zündel Trial in 1988 the world has been informed - and, by this time, many millions already know! - that there exists not one small shred of forensic evidence that there were ever any homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz - except disinfestation chambers to exterminate vermin.

    The plain truth is that the Allies manufactured the "gas chamber" story as atrocity propaganda to "stoke up" their own people against the "Nazis" and to distract their people from their own war crimes - such as the terror bombing of civilians and the mass rapes, robberies and brutalities of the Red Army.

    There have now been four independent forensic and scientific investigations of Auschwitz's so-called "gas chambers" since 1988. Here is what needs to sink into the hardest skull of the most obsessive Holocaust Huckster: There were no "gas chambers" for killing people at Auschwitz or anywhere else in Germany! The Holocaust Promotion Lobby has no scientific evidence whatsoever for the existence of such homicidal "gas chambers" - only "witness testimony" and propaganda claims!

    Four experts have now looked into this thoroughly and left us their reports:

    • The Leuchter Report - Fred A. Leuchter, Jr. was, and is, an expert specializing in gas chambers and executions and was so certified by a Toronto Court during the Second Zündel Trial. He was described by Missouri State Penitentiary Warden Bill M. Armontrout as "well versed in all areas and. . . the only consultant in the United States [in gas chambers] that I know of."
    • Leuchter examined the alleged gas chambers at Auschwitz, Birkenau and Majdanek in 1988 and of Dachau, Hartheim and Mauthausen in 1989, and took samples from the walls and floors for forensic testing for cyanide residue to be done in the United States. He concluded that the rooms were not and could not have been used as homicidal gas chambers based on their construction and the fact that either no or only extremely small traces of cyanide residue were found in the brick and mortar samples of these alleged "killing sites".
    • In contrast, a room where Zyklon B - the alleged killing gas - was used for disinfection purposes by the Germans, the brick and mortar had 1000 times more (!) cyanide residue in the samples than the alleged "gas chambers" which supposedly were used to kill millions around the clock. [Click here to see chart]
    • Leuchter did not conduct these laboratory tests. Professor Dr. James Roth, a ten-year veteran of Princeton and a court-approved expert, analyzed and tested the rock soil and wall scrapings from the alleged gas chambers of Auschwitz at the prestigious Alpha Labs in the USA and testified to the negative results in 1988 under oath in Toronto. The entire record can be found in the chapter titled "James Roth" in "Did Six Million Really Die", by attorney Barbara Kulaszka - court records cited many times before. His testimony, and that of Fred Leuchter in a chapter by that name, is well worth re-reading. "Did Six Million Really Die? Report of the Evidence in the Canadian "False News" Trial of Ernst Zündel - 1988."
    • The Krakow Institute Report - Alarmed by the Leuchter Report, the Auschwitz State Museum itself commissioned in 1990 the Krakow Forensic Institute to carry out an investigation of the alleged gassing sites. The Krakow Report fully corroborated the cyanide readings found by Leuchter, although it interpreting the results differently.
    • The Auschwitz Museum maintains, not too surprisingly, that Poland's acid rain had eliminated the cyanide. This flies in the face of the scientific fact that the "Prussian blue", the compound formed by cyanide and iron in the bricks and mortar, is one of the most stable and enduring compounds (discoloratation is perhaps a better word) known to man. The late Dr. William Lindsey, Chief Research Chemist for Dupont of America stated that this combination of Zyklon B with iron could last thousands of years in rain, sleet and open air. This telling blue stain is clearly seen today in disinfection chambers, but not in the so-called "gas chambers" at Auschwitz.
    • We are now asked by the Holocaust Hucksters to believe that the rain selectively washed out the evidence of the so-called "gas chambers" but left the evidence where vermin had been killed. Believable? So is the Easter Bunny.
    • The Lüftl Report - Walter Lüftl is a professional engineer with a large engineering firm in Vienna. He is a former president of the Austrian Association of Engineers.
    • Over a period of 25 years, Lüftl was regularly called in court cases as an expert witness involving engineering and construction matters. In 1992 Lüftl wrote a report calling the alleged extermination of millions of Jews in gas chambers during WWII "technically impossible."
    • Lüftl also pointed out that the design and numbers of the crematories showed that they were incapable of handling the number of "gassed" victims routinely alleged by the Holocaust Lobby. "Corpses are not flammable material," wrote Lüftl. "to cremate them requires much time and energy. . . " none of which the Germans had in limitless abundance.
    • Lüftl was criminally charged in Austria - where "Holocaut Denial" is a criminal offense - for writing this report "denying the Holocaust." but all charges against him were quietly dropped.
    • The Rudolf Report - Germar Rudolf, a diplom chemist in Germany trained at the Max Planck Institute, a famous German facility, investigated the sites of the alleged homicidal gas chambers of Auschwitz and took samples for the purpose of determining cyanide levels. Rudolf's report concluded, like Leuchter's, that the alleged gas chambers could never have been used for the claimed mass gassings on an industrial scale. Tests on samples showed no or minimal traces of cyanide.
    • Germar Rudolf is a special case and illustrates that when it comes to the so-called "gas chambers" of places such as Auschwitz, society no longer deals in rationality and reason. Here is a young, profoundly apolitical young man with a new family and no links whatsoever to any political, much less "extremist" group - like "Holocaust Deniers." He wrote a treatise on his findings that is impeccable. He submitted his report to more than 300 experts for their critique before he published it.
    • Not one of them found even the smallest error!
    • Germar Rudolf was criminally charged under Germany's repressive "Holocaust-is-a-dogma" law. Just a few weeks ago, Germar Rudolf has been sentenced to a prison term of 18 months for his scientific finding. The book he wrote has been banned in Germany, and many people connected to its publication have been punished with jail terms and/or fines. The report has been ordered to be destroyed.
    • This brilliant scientist, with a young, pregnant wife and a baby already born, has been evicted twice from his apartment for his "sin." He is now in political exile - his career ruined and his life in shreds.
    • It is a monumental sham! It's Shoah business at its sleaziest. The so-called "Holocaust" has now degenerated into a voodoo-like Holocaust Promotion Cult with its operators doing their desperate best, by hook or by crook, to avoid being exposed to the light of day. (Lesser, but none-theless perfect examples are the recent website cancellations such as CODOH International, based in the United States, The Adelaide Institute in Australia, and The Freedom-Site in Canada.)
    • Cannot intelligent people settle this matter once and for all? Why doesn't the scientific community - world-wide! - get together and appoint a Grand Jury type investigation? We are not living in the Middle Ages any more where Galileo Galilei must recant his "heresies" - or else!
    • In March of 1993, I wrote:
    • "We have to start a letter writing campaign to . . . international bodies to put pressure on the German government to stop persecuting and harassing people just because they have a different viewpoint on history when it concerns the Holocaust.
    • We also have to ask that the UN Human Rights Organizations force Germany to allow civilized trials, where experts can be heard - experts like Leuchter, Faurisson, and Irving - and not just some Kangaroo Court proceedings in which the accused basically gets called to the bar to be convicted, and has no chance to present his viewpoints buttressed by expert witnesses and documents.
    • In my own case in Munich, Fred Leuchter, the gas chamber expert, was not allowed to testify because he was considered "not qualified" . . . Dr. Faurisson was not allowed to testify - "not qualified". I had asked Germar Rudolf, a qualified, university trained Diplom Chemist to testify - he too was disqualified.
    • Not a single witness was allowed to testify in my defense, to make clear my reasons for saying that no six million people were gassed in places like Auschwitz, Birkenau and Majdanek.
    • This situation must be changed. I believe that if all of us work together, we can make the necessary changes inside the courts and in the media in Germany.
    • We are the new 'Freedom Fighters'! Our weapons are our pens, typewriters, computers, or just our telephones, fax machines and telegrams. Thousands of letters should flood their offices. We must act, not just talk."
    • Will Nizkor act - not just talk? Will Nizkor stop confabulating by simply relabeling morgues into "gas chambers" and crematories into killing centers and get to the crux of the matter?

    I challenge the world to appoint a Blue Ribbon Commission to investigate this hoax once and for all. Revisionists have nothing to fear.

  • 15. How many Jews were in areas that came to be controlled by the Germans before the war?


    17. How many Jews fled to deep within the Soviet Union?

    18. How many Jews emigrated prior to the war, thus being outside of German Reach?

    15, 16, 17 and 18 are treated in this section together


    Ernst Zündel
    replies to Q/A # 15-18:

    A childish argument put forth by many unsophisticated people goes as follows:

    "Since there were X number of Jews in Germany and Eastern Europe prior to the Hitler years, and only Y could be accounted for after the Hitler years, it follows that X-Y equals the number of Jews killed wantonly in genocidal ways by Hitler and his henchmen."

    Nizkor takes this simplistic argument one step beyond by saying:

    "You monsters! Not only do you deny X-Y, you claim that X-Y equals Z today and ABC tomorrow. Get your own act together."

    This kind of "reasoning" was comprehensively addressed as early as 1958 by Frank H. Hankins. at the suggestion of Professor Harry Elmer Barnes, the Father of Revisionism.

    Professor Hankins was not just anybody citing statistics and democraphics wildly. He was a renowned sociologist and historian (at one time president of the American Sociological Society and editor of the American Sociological Review), and an expert demographer with a world-wide reputation.

    According to a precis preceding this article, which appeared in Journal of Historical Review (ISBN 0-939484-11-0, published in 1990) with this side bar,

    ". . . (t)he appearance after so many years of "How Many Jews Were Eliminated by the Nazis?" is especially noteworthy in view of the publication by the IHR in June 1983 of "The Dissolution of Eastern European Jewry" by Walter N. Sanning, with an Introduction by Dr. Arthur R. Butz.

    Sanning's book is the result of years of intensive study utilizing the latest in technological research methods. It was actually written, its figures compiled and cross-checked, on a computer. It will be, in a word, the definitive study of the demographics of the Jewish population of Europe during World War Two, rendering all other studies of the particular question "Whatever happened to the 'Six Million'?" obsolete or superfluous.

    Its conclusions will not comfort the "Holocaust" Establishment. It is fitting that the publication of what promises to be the "final word" for years to come on this subject from the revisionist point of view should be immediately preceded by the publication at last of Frank Hankins's first foreshadowing of that word.

    (Ed. comment: Please note that this commentary was written in anticipation of the book's being published.)

    Hankins brought to the study of Jewish population movements in the mid-twentieth century an expertise sorely needed in a field noted -- then and now -- for the inherent malleability of its base-data, the extreme ease with which that data might be obtained or interpreted in entirely different ways by different persons, professional or amateur, who would wish to have any advance-conclusion "confirmed." No twentieth century subject within the study of population movements has seen more varied conclusions arrived at, nor more varied ways of arriving at those conclusions, than the subject of what happened to the Jews of Europe during World War Two . . .

    The author was concerned with, first, showing how conjectural in 1958 was any approach to the problem of determining how many Jews were "missing" by the end of the war and, second, demonstrating the factors that would have to be considered in finding the answer to another problem, namely, that of determining how many Jews, whatever their number "missing" -- actually died, and of these how many died as a result of deliberate Nazi extermination (as opposed to a host of other causes).

    Hankins was the first demographer to raise seriously these issues in a way which tended to cast doubt on the commonly-cited demographic bases of the "Six Million (exterminated)" thesis."

    Below are some gems that can be found in this article:

    The usual estimates, generally based on Jewish figures or charges, range from about 4 million to 6 or even a possible 7 million. Every estimate is, however, little more than an informed guess. The extensive variations in estimates show that all include a wide margin of probable error. The more one studies the matter, the clearer it becomes that the larger the estimate the greater the probable error. In most of these there is the tacit but gratuitous assumption that any decrease in the numbers of Jews in a given area after 1939, some allowance being made for the shiftings of territories from one jurisdiction to another, gives an approximation to the number of Jews deliberately eliminated. Such decreases, however, actually included large numbers who escaped by various routes and devices. Large numbers were lost behind the Iron Curtain; thousands died from the same conditions that caused the abnormal increase in the wartime mortality of the civilian populations of all central Europe. There would seem to be no reasonable way to give the Jews special exemption from the general hardships of wartime, especially in occupied areas.

    Addressing himself to the difficulties in getting reliable figures, Hankins wrote furthermore:

    The most obvious and troublesome difficulty is the scarcity of census materials. In some areas, the last prewar census was made in 1930, 1931, or 1933. For areas of special Jewish concentration there were: for Poland, a census, 9 December 1931 and an "official estimate," 1 January 1939; for Russia, a census in 1926, and January 1939, but neither included a question as to religion; for Rumania, a census of December 1930 and an "official estimate" of December 1938; also a "census" in April 1941; and for Hungary, a census of 31 December 1930 and an "official estimate" of December 1938. To these may be added the immediate postwar census of Poland of February 1946 which, like most of the other population countings of the immediate postwar years, was largely only a sampling and an estimate computation. This was made inevitable by the vast movements of population still going on to the end of 1946, and even later.


    It should be obvious that this situation makes all estimates of the numbers, both of total populations and especially of the numbers of Jews, at the best only informed guesses . . .

    These are some of the problems which face even the most honest and competent persons who seek to obtain reliable figures about the number of the Jews in Europe in 1939, the number who perished in some way during the war, how they perished, how many that remain unaccounted for really perished, and how many may now be living behind the Iron Curtain, in Israel, in the United States, and elsewhere. It is obvious that all these uncertainties which confront honest and objective students of the subject also provide almost unlimited opportunities for those who wish to juggle the figures, whether they seek to minimize or exaggerate the number of Jews who perished during the war.

    Addressing what he calls the various "avenues of escape for the Jews," Hankins stated:

    Several studies make passing reference to the numerous Jews who escaped the Nazi round-ups by: (a) being secreted by non-Jewish friends; (b) using false identification papers; and (c) baptism into a Christian religious community. . . . .

    In census taking the individual classifies himself as of a certain nationality. This somewhat ambiguous term covers such alternatives as race, country of birth, country of residence, and country of citizenship. Jews could thus classify themselves as of Jewish or of some other nationality, according to their background, physical traits or language proficiency. Those born in Poland, but speaking German fluently and living in Germany, could classify themselves as Jewish, Polish or German, the latter on occasion requiring a new set of identification papers. A Jew born in Germany, living in Poland, and speaking Polish, had similar choices. . . .

    "thousands of Jews in Poland went through the occupation masquerading as Poles"; at the war's end some 20,000 Jews were estimated still to possess forged identification papers . . .

    These avenues of escape may account for a considerable part of the reduction in the number of Jews reported as still in Europe. Official Jewish statistics, which are almost the only ones now available for postwar calculations, are likely to reflect the numbers living in organized communities or congregations. Many of these, as stable groups, were disorganized by various causes, and the members scattered more or less widely. If they have adopted a protective coloring (classification), they may not reappear until another day. Other statistics are based on the numbers of "professing" Jews, and these would at any time be only a part of the total number. It does not seem likely that we shall have clear guides to the number of "escapees" for a long time to come.

    As if this were not sufficient to show how unreliable the numbers are, Hankins then goes on to say:

    Some thousands of Jews were killed in the fighting forces of the various nations, notably Poland and Russia. Just how many is conjectural. Jews in the Soviet Satellites (p242) says that thousands of young Jewish males were drafted into the Russian army and labor battalions. Also (p229), some 250,000 to 300,000 Jews were sent by the Russians to forced labor camps and settlements in northern and Asiatic Russia in the early 1940's. And again (p226), 68,000 Jewish officers and enlisted men were in the Polish army. Lestschinsky (p9) estimates that 200,000 Jewish soldiers in the Red armies fell during the war. Also "About half a million Jews died in the Asiatic provinces where twice that number were deported after evacuation from previous Polish and Rumanian regions as well as from the Soviet Ukraine and Soviet White Russia." It is to be noted that some of the computations class all missing Jews as "killed" or "murdered" . . . making no allowance for those who died either in the fighting forces, or in air raids, or as a result of the increased hardships and special mortality of wartime.

    Many Jews were either evacuated, as by the Russians, to safer areas, or migrated to refugee territory such as Switzerland, England, Turkey, Palestine, the United States and elsewhere. The numbers are uncertain, but that they were very large is evident from the scant data available. Hitler's Ten-Year War on the Jews (p300) says: "Some 1,800,000 have been evacuated into the interior of the Soviet Union." . . .

    Jews in the Soviet Satellites (pl82) found in 1945 no less than 21,000 refugees, mostly from Germany, in the ghetto of Japanese Shanghai. It also notes (pl83) that Spain and Portugal harbor about 8,000 refugees; (pl83) 163,423 Jews entered the U.S., 1933-42; (ppl83 and 190) there are 27,000 refugees in Switzerland, mostly from France and Italy; (ppl90-1) 6,000 Jewish refugees are in Sweden, mainly Danish; 150,000 Rumanian Jews were living in Transnistria, behind the Dniester. The numbers migrating to Great Britain 1938-45 are placed at 300,000 with a similar number migrating to Palestine between 1933 and 1947. It should not be overlooked that even those who migrated from 1933 to 1939 might appear among the "losses," since most calculations necessarily begin with censuses dating from the early 1930s. . . .

    Of the millions of Jews uprooted by the war, he finds (p264) that only "about 1.5 million escaped Nazi rule, some 300,000 by emigration overseas and to the neutral countries, and the remainder through evacuation to interior USSR." The figure here is crucial to any estimate of what happened to the 3.1 million Jews estimated for prewar Poland and the probable even larger number that lived in the Soviet Union. As the quote above from the Census Bureau study of Poland indicates, the "probable error" of estimates relating to the Polish population is colossal. An additional million Jews behind the Iron Curtain alters the picture for all Europe.

    Hankins even factors in what he calls "excess mortality and decreased fertility", adding:

    "There was no way for the Jews here to escape the usual hazards of war, such as deaths from air raids and other military attacks on the towns and cities. Nor could they escape the reduction in vitality and, hence, of resistance to usual diseases, due to the increased hardships which affected all other elements in the civilian populations. Their infant mortality also went up along with that of their fellow citizens.

    Now, curious as it may seem, this "excess mortality" item is usually given separate computation for Jews and non-Jews. For the Jews it is quite unfairly added to the numbers "killed" or "murdered." . . .

    The "excess mortality" cannot be charged to Nazi "murders." (Researchers) thus, quite dishonestly, lists all Jews lost or unaccounted for during the war as "killed," implying that they were deliberately exterminated by the Nazis, which is nonsense . . .

    Secondly: the vast upheaval, with its migrations, deportations and evacuations, made some duplication in the count of those "lost" or "killed" quite easy. The evacuees behind the Iron Curtain, e.g., are considered among the latter, unless they returned, at least in large part. Those sent to the camps of Poland by the Germans could easily be counted as among the "losses" of the countries from which deported and charged again among those killed in Poland.

    Hankins ends his essay by posing the question:

    How Many Jews Were Eliminated In Europe By The War?

    This is the leading question and one now impossible to answer with any assurance. There are many . . . estimates made by Jews or based on Jewish figures, but most of these are either copied from statements of the Institute of Jewish Affairs or the World Jewish Congress or, like Fay's statement in Current History of 6 million, round numbers loosely used without any investigation of the facts and reflecting the prevailing mood of the day. To quote them adds nothing to the picture . . .

    The foregoing pages should have made it clear that the answer to our title question is, for the time being, unanswerable in terms that satisfy any scientific standards. There are so many loopholes amid so few relatively sound figures that the calculator can set his own figure in advance and arrive there by estimates and guesses, all of which can be given a certain plausibility. Even the best studies, therefore, are little more than crazy quilts of conjectures made somewhat more substantial than a tissue of lies by scattered bits of fact. . . .

    (M)ost of the figures which have to be used are those of Jewish students of the problem or are based on figures given out by Jews and Jewish organizations. . .

    My aim has not been to seek a more decisive estimate than those made by others, who may have spent many months and consulted thousands of original documents. Rather it has been to show the transparently conjectural nature of the current estimates and to point out some of the probable sources of error, which are mainly lack of adequate and up-to-date population statistics, the manufacture of statistics where they are actually lacking, the manipulation and juggling of such statistics (both reliable and manufactured) as are used, to exaggerate the number of Jews in Europe and the world in 1939 and decrease the number known . . .

    (E)ven if it could be proved that vast numbers of Jews died in the Nazi concentration, euthanasia, and death camps, it would not follow that all, or possibly even a majority of these, were deliberately exterminated by the Nazis. There was a huge death rate in all of these camps due to disease. In one camp, at least, there was a serious typhus epidemic. Lack of drugs and medical treatment, coupled with general low vitality and lowered physical resistance to disease, made the death rate abnormally high. Many died from exposure, and others from hard labor. Starvation was common, especially toward the end of the war, when supplies ran low even for soldiers and civilians.

    And, best if all, Hankins offers an alternative way of looking at this question:

    The soundest basis for skepticism regarding any such figure as 6 or even 4 million Jews exterminated by Hitler and the Nazis is that contributed by logistics rather than statistics. As you have seen, the latter are inadequate, manufactured, garbled, and consciously manipulated to establish a thesis and figure assumed in advance. Logistics is a well-established science, knows no political, racial or religious bias, and in this case relies upon a vast body of materials accumulated during the Second World War. Evidence in this field is as copious and precise for the years between 1939 and 1945 as it is sparse and fugitive for population changes and shifts during the same period.

    Students of logistics who have given some attention to the charge that the Nazis, however evil-minded and however much they wished to do so, actually exterminated 4 to 7 million Jews in less than two years during a desperate two-front war which turned against Hitler at the very moment he is alleged to have set up his extermination program, contend that it would have been utterly impossible for them to have achieved anything like such a result. Itwould have required so much more effort and manpower and would have brought such confusion and added strain to the already overtaxed transportation facilities that the Nazis could not have waged even a reduced one-front conflict . . .

    By 1944, Allied bombing in the West and Russian victories in the East rendered the German situation much more desperate and placed ever greater strains on German war material, plant, manpower, and transportation. Hitler could not have diverted enough effort to the extermination of the Jews between November 1943, and May 1945, to have disposed of 6 million Jews without producing a virtual collapse of his whole war effort. . . .

    The 6 million theme was picked up by President Truman early in his first administration, without anything but hearsay on his part, and has been so frequently repeated during the last decade that it is used almost automatically by journalists who have never made the slightest study of the subject. It has now become commonplace in journalistic lore.

    All the above was summarized in 1958. (!) Since then, there have been two more major sources that it behooves researchers with an interest in this question to consult. These sources are:

    • 1) The Walter Sanning book, "The Dissolution of European Jewry", Published 1983, 1985, 1990 by IHR under license from Grabert-Verlag, Tuebingen, ISBN 0-939484-11-0. and

    • 2) The Second Zundel Trial in 1988, as summarized and indexed in the Kulaszka book ("Did Six Million Really Die?") - a landmark which, by itself, contains some 30 different references, all given in a court of law and under oath!

    There IS no stronger evidence that the "Six Million" is a myth.

  • 19. If Auschwitz was not an extermination camp, why did the commandant, Rudolf Hoess, confess that it was?

    20. Is there any evidence that it was American, British, French and Soviet policy to torture German prisoners in order to extract confessions before the trials at Nuremberg and elsewhere?

    19 - 20 are treated in this section together



    Ernst Zündel
    replies to Nizkor # 19 - 20

    These two points address the question of alleged Allied torture to obtain confessions of war crimes.

    Part of this content was already covered extensively in QA #1. Please re-read that material to get a good overview. Specifically, re-read "Nuremberg: The Crime That Will Not Die" to appreciate how Auschwitz Commander Rudolf Hoess was tortured.

    The content below is, therefore, only meant to round out the record of Allied-inflicted torture so as to strengthen their political stance.

    Probably the one question most frequently asked by people who express an interest in Revisionism is: "Do you have any proof that Germans were tortured in order to extract confessions?"

    It must be clearly understood that the entire Holocaust-gassing myths stands and falls with the "confession" of Rudolf Hoess, one-time commandant of Auschwitz - an Allied prisoner who was sadistically tortured. The bulk of this rebuttal offered below will address itself to the nature of the Nuremberg Trials in general, and Hoess's "confession" in particular, since these trials were the bench mark on which the entire extortion "reparations" scheme was constructed, and in which Hoess was a key figure.

    However, it behooves the reader to understand that torture - either to obtain confessions or simply for sadistic purpose - was a fact of life in post-war Germany. It went on for many years.

    A number of able historians have done an admirable job in exposing the facts relating to the shocking use of torture by the Allies. Admittedly, documentation is often difficult to obtain, due to the fact that the Allied "interrogators" generally covered their tracks well, yet the persistence of historians and researchers interested in the truth has begun to pay off.

    If I were to point to one particular event which signaled the allies policy in regard to treatment of the vanquished, I would designate the meeting of the so-called "Big Three" at Teheran in 1943. It was a telling episode forecasting what was yet to come and illustrating the cavalier attitude against a soon-to-be-vanquished foe.

    As described by both Churchill and Elliott Roosevelt in their memoirs,


    Quick as a flash, Churchill sprang to his feet - his face and neck were red, says Elliott Roosevelt, who was present - and announced, quite hypocritically, as it turned out, that British conceptions of law and justice would never tolerate such butchery.


    Instead of executing fifty thousand, perhaps

    ". . . we should settle on a smaller number. Shall we say, 49,500?"


    Higgins described a visit to a GI "Interrogation Center":




    The episodes recounted below are only a small fraction among thousands and thousands of documented cases. The SS were particularly targeted.

    Long before the Nuremberg Trials even began, the Allies looked upon the SS as a criminal organization. There was ample reason for that, for the SS happened to be the most determined adversaries of the Allied forces, and offered the most resistance. Allied casualties were generally much higher whenever they were thrown into combat opposite seasoned SS troops. The SS were both feared and admired for their military prowess. Consequently, the members of the SS received the most brutal treatment at the hands of the allied forces. The Allies sought to expunge the very memory of this elite Nazi formation.

    Yet the truth of the matter is that the Waffen SS was no more criminal than any other fighting unit, Allied OR axis. The treatment its members received at the hands of the Allies was unjust and often criminal. Particularly since SS members were often stationed at concentration camps as guards, the Allies took advantage of this fact and used it to condemn the members of the SS as a whole. Yet it should go without saying that simply because someone was a guard at a camp does not mean he or she was a criminal.

    What follows is a series of reports concerning the treatment Waffen SS soldiers received at the hands of the Allies. All documentation is taken from the book "Alliierte Kriegsverbrechen und Verbrechen gegen die Menschlichkeit." Published by Dürer Verlag, Buenos Aires, Argentina ,1953.

      April 1945

    • Paderborn. An SS officer is ordered by his interrogators to take off his shirt and undershirt. He is then beaten about the face and back with a whip. An MP extinguishes his lit cigarette on the man's back. He is then ordered to stand with his face against a wall, while his interrogators press the muzzle of a gun against his neck. A chain is placed around his wrist and twisted until the man collapses from the pain.
    • Bavaria. A Police General is taken prisoner and led to a cell, where an American soldier holds a pistol to his head and then urinates all over his body.
    • At a special camp run by the Americans for captured SS and Nazi Party members, a sadistic American Sergeant, Paul Doyle, brutally torments the men in his charge. Daily he beats men into unconsciousness, often breaking their ribs. The men are beaten so frequently and so badly that they have to be hospitalized. One night he enters a cell and beats a man for an exceptionally long period of time. When the victim becomes unconscious, water is thrown into his face to revive him. He is then beaten again. Finally, he is dragged from his cell unconscious. The man is later hospitalized for severe injuries, internal and external. Another SS officer is so badly beaten by Doyle that he later dies of his injuries. Another victim has his head pushed under water for long periods of time and his buttocks so severely whipped that the skin is torn and hanging.
    • An SS man is beaten repeatedly on the soles of his naked feet.
    • Two SS men are forced to smear each other's face with human vomit.
    • Two SS men are shot to death after they surrender their arms to Americans.
    • A deputy Ortsgruppenleiter is beaten bloody by Americans with rubber truncheons and fists about the head. He is then compelled to eat lit cigarettes. In a garden the form of a grave is measured out, then the man is bound hand and foot and is left lying on the floor all night long in a room lit by candle light. The next day the man is ordered to dig a grave and then stand in it, while an American soldier has his picture taken defecating and urinating in the pit.
    • Two SS men are spat at by an American Sergeant and then kicked in the genitalia until they collapse.

    May 1945

    • An SS member is burned repeatedly with cigarette butts all over his body.
    • An SS man is chained by his legs and hung up over a latrine with his head in the toilet.
    • Altenburg. SS members are forced to completely disrobe. Americans then whip them so badly that they lose consciousness. In that condition they are left lying on the floor.
    • Herford. A severely wounded SS officer is compelled by the Americans to carry heavy rolls of barbed wire on his naked shoulders, running at double time. The man soon collapses when the skin from his back is ripped from his body.

    June 1945

    • A group of SS leaders are laden down with heavy stones and then commanded to exercise barefoot over broken stones and gravel, until they collapse and have to be carried away.
    • Two amputees are bound together with cords and forced to remain standing without any nourishment for 48 hours. Whereupon the "interrogator" Sergeant Wertheim quips: "Now you have two legs."
    • Cage 22: Prisoners are forced to clean the latrines night after night - with their bare hands.
    • Cage 23: The American camp Sergeant whiles away the hours by sticking needles into the stomachs of helpless prisoners. Note: The above occurred in camps in France.

    July 1945

    • Stuttgart. A man was dragged out of his bed in the middle of the night by American soldiers because he was accused of being a member of the Allgemeine SS. He was dragged into the street and cudgeled. One half hour later, he was again dragged out of his bed by 2 Americans and driven to an open field and ordered to get out. The man refused, fearing he would be shot in the back. Consequently he was beaten with rifle butts and fists until he was unconscious. Water was thrown on his face and he regained consciousness, whereby he was again beaten unconscious for a second time. As a result of the attack he suffered broken ribs, gaping head wounds, brain damage, and loss of teeth.
    • In the vicinity of Munich, Waffen SS members were forced to eat their uniform insignias.

    August 1945

    • In the POW camp Wolfhagen, a severely wounded SS corporal is tortured by Americans in order to extract a confession. He is kicked in the genitals and burned over and over again with lighted cigarettes. The young man is 20 years old.
    • Weiden. POW camp. Two SS men are handcuffed to each other while interrogators beat them. They are repeatedly struck in the kidneys.
    • Special mention should be made of the Ziegenhain camp, where we have the identities of the American inquisitors. The methods of torture used were even worse than the above mentioned cases. The chief interrogators at this camp were Inspector Simon, Watson, and Lieutenant Goodman. One of their favorite games was to play "Autobahn', whereby a victim had the hair of his eyebrows and eyelashes cut or ripped out. Later the hair was shoved into the victims mouth or nostrils for long periods of time.
    • A machine technician had his head banged into a wall so many times that blood spurted out of his nostrils.
    • A man was brought in for "interrogation'. He was beaten extensively on the hands, face, neck and ears with a rubber truncheon festooned with barbed wire. Afterwards he was struck in the face repeatedly with bare fists. He was forced to stare in blinding lights for hours on end and threatened with hanging or shooting. He had swastikas painted on his neck and forehead.
    • A victim is forced to swallow a postcard with Hitler's photo, along with a burning cigarette.
    • A man is led into one of the torture chambers. There he is compelled to undress and lie in vomit, urine, and filth. He is then compelled to perform acts so disgusting that they shall not be recited here.
    • "Inspector Simon" forces a man to swallow lit cigarettes and then knocks his teeth out.

    So it went, day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year. The dungeons of the Spanish Inquisition could hardly have appeared more sinister than these "centers for interrogation'. It even appears that the Spanish Inquisition served as a model for the Allied Torquemadas.

    One curious fact concerning these trials is that most of them were held by "Americans", as is evidenced by the following excerpt:

    "The British, French, and the Russians withdrew from Nuremberg after the first and only "International Military Tribunal' . . . the other twelve trials which subsequently took place at Nuremberg and only came to an end in 1948, were all-American shows. The judges and prosecutors were all American citizens; the trials were held under the American flag; the proceedings began each morning by the Marshal of the Court asking God's blessing on the United States of America, plaintiff versus the defendants. Nevertheless the tribunals were supposed to be "international" and to derive their authority from the Allied Control Council even after the latter ceased to exist."

    Needless to say, not one of the interrogators employed by these modern day inquisitors was ever charged with a crime or brought to justice. The dark deeds of their crimes might never have seen the light of day had it not been for the persistence and courage of the few who documented their offenses.

    How absurd and ignorant it is for Nizkor to claims that confession were never extracted from the Germans by coercion or torture! Whoever needs further proof of the kangaroo court called "Nuremberg Trials" is referred to the Carlos Porter trial transcript summaries. They are available on the Zundelsite in 5 languages (English, German, French, Portuguese and Spanish) and can be accessed by anyone who values truth in history.

    September 10, 1996

    This summary was compiled with the able assistance of Roger Bartlett.

  • 21. How does the "Holocaust" story benefit the Jews today?


    Ernst Zündel
    replies to Q/A # 21:

    In one plain phrase - by brainwash cycle after brainwash cycle!

    For a start, we will let a former diplomat, Ian MacDonald, now in retirement in Canada, summarize a few thoughts for Nizkor that will shed light on how colossally useful the Holocaust has been for the politically organized, largely Zionist-dominated Jewry planet-wide.

    These thoughts were summarized in two Letters to the Editor at the Globe & Mail. These letters were, of course, not published, since the thoughts expressed run counter to what special interests will have us believe.

    They were written five years apart and with regard to Canada, but they apply to many other countries, including Germany and the United States:

    In July of 1990 Mr. MacDonald wrote:

    "For the past 45 years the 'Holocaust' and other alleged Nazi war crimes have been the subject of countless news reports, editorials, articles, radio programs, TV docudramas, movies, books and what have you.

    So intense has been the media campaign that the alleged extermination of European Jewry and suffering of the (paradoxically plentiful) 'survivors' have become, ex post facto, the perceived central issue of World War II, overshadowing all other aspects of the conflict, including even victory itself.

    The claim that Six Million Jews had perished in Nazi Gas Ovens surfaced only after the war had ended but soon gained acceptance as historical fact. Though unproven and demographically implausible, the figure was cited often as the 'most documented' statistic of the Second World War, if not of all time. Canadian school children all learned that Six Million Jews had died-but were told little about Canadian casualties or about Canada's role in the conflict.

    Now comes the really startling news: it wasn't Six Million after all, or anything near it. Prof. Yehuda Bauer, the leading Israeli historian, as well as researchers from the Auschwitz Museum now say that Jewish deaths at Auschwitz were closer to 1 million than to 4 million, with Rabbi Bauer cautioning that exaggeration played into the hands of the Revisionists and could place the whole Holocaust story in jeopardy.

    As fate would have it, the Russians recently made public the original Auschwitz camp records which show the number of deaths during the war years to be 74,000, not all of whom were Jews.

    So, how does the Globe & Mail (Ed: Canada's newspaper of record on July 24, 1990) react to this iconoclastic recantation of the (journalistically) most important single feature of World War II and presumably happy reincarnation of 3 million Jews? With exactly 3 column inches buried discreetly on page 8, that's how.

    The mind boggles at the implications!"

    In 1990, MacDonald only hinted at the implications. But in May of 1995 Macdonald wrote this:

    ". . . to the insightful Gentile observer it is outrageous to claim that WW II was 'a good war for Canada' or anyone else, with the notable exception of Stalinism and Zionism. It is equally outrageous to suggest that war with Germany was necessary to avoid a 'world-wide nightmare.'

    It was war with Germany that precipitated the slaughter and subsequent multiplicity of postwar problems that now plague humanity and are becoming increasingly intractable. It is self-evident (at least to historians who have not sold their souls to the politically correct Establishment) that WW II was an abomination contrived by special interest groups to weaken the Christian nations and to set the stage for the foundation of a Jewish state in Palestine.

    A secondary objective was the aggrandizement of the Soviet Union to create a balance of power which could be exploited by Zionists on both sides of the Iron Curtain.

    As it strives to keep pace with, if not profit from, the increasing Holocaustization of Canadian society, the Globe & Mail editorial policy is becoming virtually indistinguishable from that of the Canadian Jewish News.

    The 'Books' page, April 29, 1995, exemplifies the trend. Two full columns are devoted to the musings of the self-conscious Judeophiliac Stan Persky, and the remainder of the page is either totally kosher (Jewish books reviewed by Jewish reviewer) or almost so (pro-Jewish reviewer quoting Jewish or pro-Jewish books and sources).

    A few days later there appeared on the front page a tribute by opportunist politicians to the Holocaust, although the event was hardly 'news' except perhaps as an expose of the venality of the participants. Inside is a large picture of Dachau, and an article about Hitler as the 'very incarnation of evil.'

    This editorial bias reflects a distorted Jewish propaganda version of WW II and would have the unwary Gentile reader believe that 'in the whole, (WW II) was a good war for Canada' and 'If ever a war had to be won, it was the Second World War'. (Morton and Granatstein).

    The reviewer (ethnicity unknown) then gratuitously opines that 'defeat would have meant a world-wide nightmare', then reveals even more clearly his true colors by dwelling on the alleged 'shameful (Canadian) treatment of Jewish refugees from Nazism' whom an 'escorting officer called the scum of Europe', condemning the author of a pejorative observation on the grounds that at least three of the thousands of survivors of Canadian internment were demonstrably not in the scum category.

    The paradoxically smegmatic Granastein review of Martin Gilbert's 'Day the War Ended' heightens the deception by resurrecting the Allied propaganda canard of 'Germany's dreams of global conquest' and the 'horrors and carnage', 'death factory. . . genocide' etc. while ignoring Allied war crimes altogether.

    The Globe & Mail drops not the slightest hint, far from issuing a disclaimer, that the opinions expressed are simply a regurgitation of the Israeli 'party line' and are thus not bona fide historical analyses.

    Surely even the Editor of the Globe & Mail, however commercially compelling the inclination to conform, must acknowledge (to himself at least) that WW II was not a worthy cause, nor served any plausible interests of Western civilization. If war were inevitable, and perhaps it was for reasons other than those postulated by Granastein & Co., the only logical alliance, from the standpoint of Western Gentile interests, would have been with Christian Germany against atheistic, tyrannical Communism.

    Instead, thanks to the machinations and money power of Germany's vengeful enemies and the treachery of venal political leaders, we were hoodwinked into declaring war on Germany. We thus enabled Zionism to prosper and ensured the survival of the cruel Stalin dictatorship ironically facilitating the conquest of Poland, the preservation of whose independence we had used as a pretext for declaring War on Germany!"

    Indeed the aftermath of World War II was that we managed to allow Zionism to prosper handsomely. By trotting out the bogeyman of the "Holocaust" and the guilt associated with it, over and over and over, more than 100 billion dollars and Deutsch Marks have been manipulated out of the German government over the past 50 years. That is a lot of "benefit"!

    Perversely, even the Americans, who basically went to war for Jewish interests and ought to be rewarded, are being browbeaten into loans, grants, military aid and special treatment for Israel and Jewish organizations as though they had been on the side of the losers. Additionally, the tax deductions granted to private individuals and corporations for financial support under whatever guise stagger the imagination. They amount to more billions of dollars. According to a Washington Report article of October 1996, p. 44, the annual US aid to Israel is double the entire United Nations budget, a staggering $15 million PER DAY, seven days a week, 365 days a year!

    The benefits of "Holocaust" victimhood benefit every Jewish person alive on earth from 1945 til today in one way or another - be it in direct payments from Germany, deductions and tax breaks to others, or "moral superiority" - permitting silence in the face of massive stock market swindles, insider trading, real estate con games etc., stretching all the way to safe havens for French, German, Russian and American Jewish gangsters like Flatto-Sharons, Manmings, Meyer Landsky's, Masewells et. al, who flee to Israel where they can launder their money and live like kings.

    Macdonald finishes by saying:

    "It is a measure of the virtually iron-clad control over the media by a small, wealthy, influential, devious, self-serving, duplicitous, racist, alien pressure group that the obvious truths about the origins and nature of WW II are still considered beyond discussion. Unfortunately for the co-opted media figures and their sinister paymasters the edifice of deception is about to crumble. The threatened emergence of truth has prompted increasingly intensive media subversion and, as predicted by David Irving, increasingly desperate measures to discredit and muzzle the sources of enlightenment. The measures are doomed to failure because the media control is no longer sufficient. It has been broken by the Internet.

    It is the beginning of the end of the Zionist subversion, and Zionist hegemony."

    November 16, 1996

  • 22. How does the "Holocaust" benefit the state of Israel?


    Ernst Zündel Replies:
    Rebuttal # 22:

    Quite simply:

    No brainwash cycle - no Holocaust.

    No Holocaust - no Reparations or Guilt money.

    No money - chances are, no Israel!

    A bit of background history, paraphrased here from the various segments of the "Transfer Agreement":

    Diplomats from around the world were told in June 1937 that a Jewish state in Palestine would not be in Germany's best interest because it would not be able to absorb all the Jews from around the world. Such a state would only serve as an additional power base for international Jewry, in much the same way that Moscow served as a base for international Communism.

    A German Foreign Office circular bulletin of June 22, 1937, further cautioned that, in spite of support for Jewish settlement in Palestine,


    Furthermore, an internal memorandum by the Jewish affairs section of the SS warned that the proclamation of a Jewish state or a Jewish-administrated Palestine would create for Germany a new enemy, one that would have a deep influence on developments in the Near East.

    Yet another SS agency predicted that a Jewish state

    ". . . would work to bring special minority protection to Jews in every country, therefore giving legal protection to the exploitation activity of world Jewry."

    In January 1939, Hitler's new Foreign Minister, Joachim von Ribbentrop, likewise warned in yet another circular bulletin that

    "Germany must regard the formation of a Jewish state as dangerous" because it 'would bring an international increase in power to world Jewry.'"

    For those unfortunately borne-out dire warnings, and other policies and actions, the top leaders of the Third Reich were hanged, thanks to the largely fabricated story of a genocidal 'Holocaust'. Shortly afterwards, and to the detriment of many, Israel was formed and achieved statehood in 1948.


    It has been a parasite among nations ever since. It has been feeding off World War II's victors as well as its losers. The origins of this parasitic enterprise can be found in several books: "The Transfer Agreement" by Edwin Black, "The Jewish Paradox" by Nahum Goldman, "Germany's Path to Israel and West-German Reparations to Israel" by Nicholas Balabkins, "The German Path to Israel" by Rolf Vogel, and a very recently published volume that only a Jew would have dared to have written, entitled "The Seventh Million" by Tom Segev.

    These publications show how the State of Israel came about - by hook and crook, by cunning, conniving and scheming - that is, by peddling fabricated atrocities, inflated numbers of victims, lies about "genocide" etc. This is why the Holocaust is so enormously useful in that it turns two praiseworthy, productive countries, the USA and Germany, into virtual cash cows for Israel's self-indulgent rulers and its spoiled citizenry.

    Take just the budget for "Fiscal Year 1997 - U.S. Aid to Israel" as reported in The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, March 1997, p 39:

    Economic Aid

    Economic support funds $1.2 billion
    Bank charges incurred by US
    governments for lump sum
    withdrawal at beginning of
    fiscal year (not deducted from
    aid) $60 million

    Interest earned by Israel in
    1997 on ESF aid money reinvested
    in U.S. Treasury Notes $90 million

    Soviet Refugee Resettlement
    Program $80 million

    U.S.-Israel Science and Technology
    Cooperation (funded by the U.S.
    Department of Commerce) $2.5 million

    Economic Aid Subtotal $1.4325 billion

    Military Aid

    Foreign Military Sales Grant
    (from foreign aid budget) $1.8 billion

    Additional military aid from
    Pentagon Budget

    Arrow Missile $200 million
    Anti-Terrorist Assistance $50 million
    Nautilus Laser System $50 million
    50 AGM-142 HAVE NAP
    Missiles $39 million
    Pioneer Unmanned Aerial Vehicle $30 million
    Boost-Phase-Intercept Program $24.3 million

    Military Aid Subtotal $2.2433 billion

    Loan Guarantees
    U.S.-Backed Loans for Israel to
    resettle Soviet Jews $2 billion

    Total of Grants and Loan Guarantees: 5.6758 billion

    Israel has already received over $120 BILLION DM from Germany for crimes Germans never committed - Who will pay reparations to the poor Arab victims of Israeli militarism and terrorism?

    According to an article by Donald Neff, (Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, Jan-Feb. 1997, p. 74)

    ". . . the (US) aid program to Israel has amounted to the largest voluntary transfer of wealth and technology in history, far more than all American aid given to rehabilitate Western Europe under the Marshall Plan after World War II."

    The total of outright grants and loan guarantees amounts to $5.6758 billion for 1996 alone! That translates to more than $15,6 million, every day, 365 days a year!

    Add to that the reparations already paid by Germany - more than $120 billion Deutsche Mark, and no end yet in sight! - and you can see how valuable a tool the Holocaust has become to Israel.

    According to the Canadian Jewish News,

    ". . . thousands of Jews across Canada, and in other countries as well, receive monthly cheques in varying amounts from the Federal Republic of Germany. These restitution payments - or Wiedergutmachung - are designed to compensate the victims of Nazi persecution.

    According to data supplied by the German Information Centre in New York, 99.8% of all claims have been settled by Jan. 1, 1981. The number of successful claimants is 4,344,378. About 40% of the victims live in Israel; 20% in West Germany, and 40% elsewhere.

    The funds these people receive are the result of laws enacted in the 1950s. Further legislation providing compensation has been passed by the Bundestag. In 1979, 400 million marks were allocated to Jews whose health was damaged but who, because they were unable to comply with deadline or residency requirements, had not been able to obtain restitution. This year, the Bundestag granted an amount of up 100 million marks for non-Jewish victims of Nazism.

    West Germany regards restitution as a "most important and urgent" moral obligation. But it has no illusions that compensation payments can atone for Nazi crimes against humanity. As a government bulletin puts it: "No matter how large the sum, no amount of money will ever suffice to compensate for National Socialist persecution."

    Seen from the United States' perspective alone, Washington's interests are constantly downplayed alongside Tel Aviv's. The United States can never find anything wrong in Israel's actions. The massacre at Qana, the shooting by trigger-happy Zionist settlers of six- and seven-year-old children, the burning of Muslim places of worship, the brutal beating of innocent Palestinians condoned by Israeli courts, prisoners held for years without not only a trial but even a charge-all this counts for nothing in the eyes of the US government and its beholden media. Israel's treatment of Arab prisoners as well as of mentally handicapped Arabs would shock Americans, if only they knew. Since Israel's inception, no military court has pronounced a death sentence, or even a life time sentence against a Jew who murdered an Arab!

    The bias can also be seen in the new appointments in the governments of many countries, particularly Germany and the United States, of those who put Israel first and their own country second. These countries are oblivious to the abuses committed by Israelis because there was, supposedly, a "Jewish Holocaust."

    This is crucial for the world to understand: The Holocaust removes the Zionists from any criticism as a group. It provides a backdrop of victimhood and, hence, a common bond. It is instrumental in huge, world-wide money-raising campaigns supporting Israel.

    Much more importantly, for your children and mine, it justifies and even makes obligatory continued, never-ending aid to Israel and keeps key people locked in power in governments and media around the world to make sure that this river of aid keeps on flowing.

    And here is the irony of it all: Up until W.W.II, Zionism was pretty much a failure. Besides a tiny core of zealots, Jews were not interested in a Jewish state except on a theoretical, conceptual level. The idea of going to Palestine and actually having to work and plowing the ground as a member of a commune was not very appealing to the sissified merchants and money changers.

    The reality is that most Jews who are now in Israel settled there because they had to - not because they really wanted to. When Israel declared its independence in 1948, the reason given for the founding of the Jewish state was the Holocaust; because of the recent persecutions in Europe, Jews needed a "place of refuge". It justified the aid then, and the massive aid that has been funneled into Israel ever since.

    Because of its location in a sea of Muslims, practically all of whom hate Israel, its decades of sponging off Europe and the U.S., and its repeated and brutal abuses of human rights against people they consider "inferior', makes their existence very tenuous. Since Israel cannot survive on its own, Israel needs a compelling reason to continue to exist. Otherwise, why should outsiders continue to support and subsidize this parasitic, brutal, dictatorial country?

    At the heart of the matter lies the question "Why is there an Israel at all?" and the answer is a ringing "Because of the Holocaust!" Israel is a state sustained by parasitism, yet it hawks itself as a perpetual state of "victimhood."

    Therefore, questioning the Holocaust becomes questioning the foundation of Israel. Without the Holocaust there is no reason for Israel.

    Zionists know this; this is how Zionists view the matter. Beyond the scams and the gravy train and shake-down of European countries over the Holocaust (remember "Nazi gold"?) this myth is the basis for the Jewish power structure today.

    It is at the core of how Jews view each other and outsiders. Taking away the Holocaust for Jews would be like someone coming forward with proof Jesus did not die on the cross for mankind's sins and rise from the dead, but instead was given a light fine and put on probation.

    Globally, this needs to sink in big time: The tactic of smearing the Germans and, now ever more broadly, Western Christian civilization as a whole is a coldly calculated one. It has very little to do with "defamation of the dead." The concept of "defamation" is an extremely useful political tool. Israel is a non-viable state if left to its own devices. It could not have survived without German reparations extorted out of a spineless Allied vassal government by the military occupiers of Germany after WWII. The same is true for the United States. "Israel's" senators and congressman have over the years acted as a virtual fifth column against the US best interests - in the Middle East, for example.

    Now, many people are wondering if it is indeed in the interest of the US to keep on with the reckless policy of supporting Israel. There is a time bomb called the "Holocaust" that can be heard ticking globally. The Holocaust is first, last and always about modern politics - and above all else, money obtained without labor, extorted under duress for largely non-existent "crimes".

    Part of the Revisionist task is to set the record straight and to tell Israel to justify itself through its own self-sufficiency - like every other respected and respectable country does and should.

  • 23. How does the "Holocaust" benefit many Christian clergymen?


    Ernst Zündel
    replies to Q/A # 23:

    There is a very selfish reason why Christian churches have traditionally supported the Holocaust. It's called self-interest and territoriality.

    Many Christian leaders saw National Socialism as a competing religion. As a coherent and internally consistent value system, National Socialisms was enormously appealing to many decent people because it offered many things the Churches had traditionally proffered: A deep belief in a higher Being and one's own role in Destiny, a strong value system that clearly delineated right from wrong, a sense of community and belonging, emphasis on clean living and, hence, rejection of foul sex and art, rejection of alcohol, nicotin and drugs, respect for unborn life (abortions were outlawed) a sense of mission and purpose for the greater good, the worship of martyrs in powerful, torch-lit or candle-lit rituals, quasi-religious holidays etc.

    The spiritual character of National Socialism is largely unknown in the Western world, but those who experienced it will tell you that it was seductive and powerful stuff. It had a much wider scope than people realize - it wasn't just political. It was both a theology of liberation and a theology of ecology. "Volk" is a religious value in Germany, as is the concept "Heimat" - meaning homeland but having a much deeper emotional resonance than the English term conveys.

    Additionally, National Socialism gave the people something that the churches had never offered: rewards on earth on behalf of the earth by tying the "Volk" to the soil. Hitler might well have invented the drive for pure air and healthy bodies through properly grown food, which has led many who understand National Socialism to use the phrase: "The first Greens were the Browns".

    Take this Hitler statement, for example:

    "A god should take a mighty hammer and smash all the industrial centers, and with them the musty living quarters in the large cities. Only then would it be possible to undo the wrong that has been done; only then would we be in a position to build for the German Volk, for the working man, for German youth the homes they need, the homes they have the right to demand and we have a duty to give them. . .

    I see a flourishing land before me more beautiful than it has ever been. A coming century will see the plow of forgiveness and a new life over the ugly sites of black factory chimneys and narrow mass living quarters. . .

    I am convinced that, if we pursue new avenues with persistence and consistency - to speed up, for example, the length of time it takes for vegetables to grow, to double the fruit harvests and increase the size of fruits, our efforts will succeed. . . we must pull the sun down from the heavens!" (Hitler: Memoirs of a Confidant, Edited by Ashby Turner, p 111)

    It is one thing to be virtuous in hopes of going to Heaven; it is far more immediate and convincing to know that it is possible through selfless dedication to a higher cause to create a near-Heaven on earth. That is what the Germans believed. Personal honor was everything. Loyalty counted for something - as did diligence, selflessness, honesty. Between business partners who exchanged "Ehrenwort", a handshake was customarily enough.

    The National Socialist ideology was not "otherwordly"; it was enormously rewarding and soul-fulfilling in the here-and-now. There were immediate, tangible benefits. It paid to have strong, clean and healthy families. It paid to pull good grades in school. It paid not just for people who applied themselves - it paid dividends for the state in money saved on welfare cases; it spared families the trauma and cost of illness; and it empowered healthy and capable individuals to rise to their fullest potential, while providing role models for those less endowed.

    Otto Wagener, one of Hitler's early confidants, recalls that Hitler said:

    ". . . the introduction of a socialist economy is more than a decree. It requires a moral understanding, an ethical conviction, a religious profession of faith.

    For in its innermost essence, it is a turning away from the idolatry of previous millenia, the overcoming of a monetary system already attacked by Moses and Christ, which could be maintained to the present day only by keeping people stupid and terrorizing them, and by a mendacious sanctimoniousness. To bring about this powerful revolution is our mission. . . "

    (Hitler: Memoirs of a Confidant, edited by Henry Ashby Turner, Jr. p. 263)

    Hitler put the finger on the sore of what ailed many churches today, and what makes people turn away from traditional and often empty dogma. These days, "Judeo-Christianity" is one of the favorite liberal shibbolets that the liberal churches pursue. Not so in Hitler's time.

    According to a recent theological essay by Thomas Schirrmacher (National Socialism, Christian Reconstruction and the Future of Germany, Calvinism Today, 1991) one of the first actions of Hitler's was to insist that the churches purge themselves of "Jewish-Christian" members. This meant that all the members of all churches from a Jewish background were disciplined - and this in churches where church discipline had nearly totally faded! This gigantic church discipline, claims Schirrmacher, a theologian himself, took place quietly and without big protests. Another spirit had taken over the churches.

    Schirrmacher explains how the liberal churches in Germany in our era

    ". . . more or less equate(s) religion and culture. The sociology of religion in Germany is run by very strong and convinced atheists who work with the illusion that they can study religions from a neutral standpoint. But they understand that you can only define religion if you define its function in society."

    Conventional pietism, writes Schirrmacher,

    ". . . started its message with claiming a bad conscience and Jesus as the solution to get rid of it. Sin was what produced a bad conscience. This made sin a subjective feeling. There was no discussion about the objective law which must rule and guide the conscience. . . . Jesus only dealt with part of the inner life, not with the thought and work of the whole person - not to speak about the family, the church or the state."

    Hitler embraced all aspects the way the churches in his time did not - the inner life, the family, the church, the state, the channeling of money where it would do most good. He had, essentiallly, the Christian view of marriage and family - that is, uncompromising monogamy. The protection of the family meant that abortion, homosexuality, incest, pornography and other things were strictly forbidden by law and incarceration and sentences at concentration camps like Dachau, Auschwitz, Buchenwald etc. were imposed on the transgressors. (This means that not all inmates in these camps were the "noble" anti-Nazis the way they pose today. . . )

    In summary, the German leader Adolf Hitler managed to convince the people that there was a natural moral code of benefit to individuals as well as to the state - and that that natural moral code would do away with decadence.

    A second, powerful reason why there was resistance and resentment in the traditional churches to a "rival religion" was that National Socialism infringed on previous church authority that charged for controlling society. For instance, everybody had to marry at a state office, so that the Christian or religious marriage inside a stale and boring church became an optional ceremony with no legal value.

    Also, there was a constant interplay with words used as efficient tools of social shaping. For instance, take the word "Heil!" The German word for Saviour is "Heiland" - He Who Heals the Land. The word had strong religious overtones. Writes Schirrmacher:

    It is impossible to count how many billion times the Germans said "Heil Hitler" during the Third Reich. . . only a few non-Germans realize that "Heil" is the German word for 'salvation' which is extensively used in the German Bible translations. "Salvation Hitler" or "Salvation through Hitler" was the daily message; every German, including nearly all the Christians . . . Although some tried to explain "Heil Hitler" was wishing salvation for Hitler, the official meaning was clear: Hitler is the salvation for Germany and for the world.

    These religious overtones were present in practically all state functions. The chief of the united trade unions, for instance, proclaimed in a speech:

    "We believe that National Socialism is the alone saving faith for our people. We believe that there is a Lord-God in heaven, who created us, who leads us, who directs us and who blesses us visibly.

    And we believe that this Lord-God sent Adolf Hitler to us, so that Germany becomes a foundation for all eternity."

    It is easy to see how intellectually stodgy church leaders saw themselves replaced and made obsolete. Their perks and power were waning. Their idle life was soon replaced by the necessity of having to work for a living. For that reason alone - along with many others - the church ideologues feared National Socialism as a new religion as the Devil fears the holy water.

    This explained and still explains the traditional churches' willingness to cooperate with Jews, Freemasonry and even atheistic Bolsheviks - who were killing millions of Christians at the time in Soviet Russia, Spain, Hungary and China to help them get rid of Hitler by sabotaging and betraying his regime.

    It still explains the churches' disgusting role today in Holocaust Promotion - making saints out of people like Kolbe, the Jewish-nun Stein etc. who are being canonized for having been in concentration camps by a politicized church under a politically active and astute Polish Pope once an Anti-Nazi guerilla fighter - a man who is believed by many be at least partly of Jewish origin.

    Again, to quote Schirrmacher:

    "We could discuss the parallels between the salvation history of orthodox Christianity and of National Socialism. But surely the most impressive argument is the everyday songs, the poems, official rituals and lectures of the Third Reich. The Nazis never hid the religious character of their actions.

    Take, for example, the following statement:

    'National Socialism is a religion, born out of blood and race, not a political world view. It is the new, alone true religion, born out of a nordic spirit and an aric soul.'

    (Quoted from an anti-Nazi postwar occupation publication, Johann Neuhäuser, Kreuz und Hakenkreuz, part 1, München: Verlag Katholische Kirche Bayerns, 1946, p. 261)

    No wonder the churches felt threatened. They were becoming irrelevant and marginal in their influence and, hence, desperate to hang onto their power perks and control over the German people. No surprise that this is true in Germany even today.

    With Hitler Germany's demise, the German churches have become the wealthiest churches in the world - and some of the most stagnant. Hundreds of thousands of church members have resigned in recent years because the existing church dogma is hollow, and no longer addresses the spiritual needs of the German people!

    November 16, 1996

  • 24. How does the "Holocaust" benefit the Communists?

    24. How does the "Holocaust" benefit the Communists?

    Ernst Zündel
    replies to Q/A # 24:

    Nizkor - which supposedly means "we will remember" in Hebrew - declares these Marxist-caused atrocities to be "irrelevant"?

    Probably in no other area does Nizkor reveal its callousness and its total ignorance of World War II history - why World War II was fought by Germany not just for Germany but on behalf of Western Man and on behalf of Western Man's imperiled culture and even his existence - as much as in this smug reply. Parroted after true-blue Holocaust Promotion Lobby Pharisees - which the staffers, handlers and behind-the-scenes deep pocket financeers of yet another hired gun called "Nizkor" actually are! With their Shabbas Goy McVay fronting for them!

    Tens of millions of people of all nationalities and races were murdered in the name of the Jewish ideology of Marxism in almost every country in Europe, Russia, China, even places as far away as Cuba, South Africa, Angola and Vietnam. These dead are not irrelevant - not in our book they aren't!

    These victims of Marxism have never had a "Holocaust Museum" erected to them. Spielberg and Jewish-Hollywood have not ground out hundreds of emotional tear jerkers to win sympathies for them. This one bombastic word alone - "irrelevant" - betrays the racist-ethnocentric view of Shoah Business-as-usual As if we didn't know the truth just why the Jewish Holocaust is useful - and other Holocausts are not!

    See our picture collection of Jews beside Stalin!

    In "All These Things", A.N. Fields wrote many years ago:

    "Stalin's every move is made under Jewish eyes." (p 276)

    Robert Wilton (as quoted in "The Rulers of Russia", Fahey, page 15) wrote in "The Last Days of the Romanovs":

    The Jewish domination in Russia is supported by certain Russians . . . (the Jews), having wrecked and plundered Russia by appealing to the ignorance of the working folk, are now using their dupes to set up a new tyranny worse than any the world has known."

    And the Reverend Dennis Fahey in "The Rulers of Russia" on page 24:

    "Should international communism ever complete its plan of bringing civilization to naught, it is conceivable that some form of world government in the hands of a few men could emerge, which would not be communism.

    It would be the domination of barbarous tyrants over a world of slaves, and communism would have been used as a means to an end."

    What do these writers mean? A systematic and satanic program of World Revolution, outlined by Stalin in 1938, that current American presidents have merely re-christened and palmed off on a gullible citizenry as "the New World Order".

    That's what. Nothing could be more relevant.

    The 66 Q/A pamphlet was written prior to the collapse of the Communist states in the East of Europe; therefore, on the surface the question itself seems a bit out of place today. However, while Communist states and regimes collapsed, the ideology did not. It is alive and thriving.

    There are still millions and millions of Communist adherants in the world and many in high and influential places. And not a few are in the global media or placed in strategic positions in various agencies for scheming power brokering world-wide - some even in the White House. They keep on hammering away with story after story about the so-called "Holocaust" - always assumed to be the genocidal "Holocaust" meant to finish off the Jews.

    Therefore, it is profoundly relevant to illustrate just how a trumped-up "crime" - such as the "gassing of the Jews" - or the Katyn murders many Jewish writers in the East and West had blamed for decades on the Nazis - can hide real crimes of truly staggering and satanic proportions.

    World War II was, quite simply, a war to stop the spread of Communism, which was properly perceived by the Third Reich leadership as having sprung from Jewish brains and paid for out of Jewish pockets. The Jewish International Banking House of Kuhn, Loeb & Company, according to well-known American Official Intelligence Service documents, financed the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917. That is well known. And that was neither the beginning nor the end.

    In Hitler Germany, Communism was clearly seen for what it was - and what is now re-christened, re-packaged and re-sanitized. It was known as an atheistic system of immeasurable brutality and totality. It had been first unleashed on Western man with the French Commune in 1871-72 and in the first abortive "Russian Revolution" in 1905. It was rekindled in earnest with the Bolshevik Revolution, causing an ideological firestorm of horrid force and destruction. It is still going on.

    Whole libraries could be devoted to this topic - suffice it here to give a glimpse how the so-called "Holocaust" - that is, the Great Taboo that no one dares to touch - can hide satanic schemes.

    See our section on Jews Beside Stalin for more pictures!

    Below is an exerpt by Mark Weber, published in the Journal of Historical Review, entitled "The Jewish Role in the Bolshevik Revolution and Russia's Early Soviet Regime: Assessing the Grim Legacy of Soviet Communism." (Jan-Feb. 1994, Vol. 14, # 1, p.4 )



    A Taboo Subject


    With the notable exception of Lenin (Vladimir Ulyanov), most of the leading Communists who took control of Russia in 1917-20 were Jews. (Ed. note: Lenin has since been discovered by a former Soviet general, who had access to the KGB archives, in archives within archives that Lenin was a Jew also!) Leon Trotsky (Lev Bronstein) headed the Red Army and, for a time, was chief of Soviet foreign affairs. Yakov Sverdlov (Solomon) was both the Bolshevik party's executive secretary and - as chairman of the Central Executive Committee - head of the Soviet government. Grigori Zinoviev (Radomyslsky) headed the Communist International (Comintern), the central agency for spreading revolution in foreign countries. Other prominent Jews included press commissar Karl Radek (Sobelsohn), foreign affairs commissar Maxim Litvinov (Wallach), Lev Kamenev (Rosenfeld) and Moisei Uritsky.



    Critical Meetings




    Contemporary Voices of Warning








    Historians' Views





    "Anyone who had the misfortune to fall into the hands of the Cheka," wrote Jewish historian Leonard Schapiro, "stood a very good chance of finding himself confronted with, and possibly shot by, a Jewish investigator." In (the) Ukraine, "Jews made up nearly 80 percent of the rank-and-file Cheka agents," reports W. Bruce Lincoln, an American professor of Russian history. . . "

    This is merely the tip of the iceberg. The so-called "Holocaust" has hidden from the eyes of people entitled to this information that, starting as the CHEKA, the Soviet secret police was later known as the GPU, OGPU, NKVD, MVD and KGB.

    All these were major agencies of terror. All teemed with Marxist, revolutionary Jews.

    November 16, 1996

  • 25. How does the "Holocaust" benefit Britain?

    25. How does the "Holocaust" benefit Britain?

    Ernst Zündel
    replies to Q/A # 25:

    Great Britain did not and does not benefit from the status quo pertaining to the Holocaust Myth, but certain sectors of the elite of the United Kingdom did - and do.

    British involvement in World War II and subsequent gain, such as it was, must be seen in the historical context of the last two wars.

    Britain was not much different from the rest of the countries that did the bidding of International Finance and took up arms against their Aryan brothers. This country has excused and camouflaged its action ever since.

    Every year for more than half a century, Britain has observed anniversaries of the war's major events with many media stories, and ringing speeches by dignitaries within the context of elaborate commemorative ceremonies. Cable TV stations run documentaries on the war - week after week in endless "military victory" self-congratulations. If the stations broadcasting this ancient propaganda were operated directly by the government, these documentaries would probably more readily be recognized for what they are - propaganda writ large - but since they are not, they are often mistaken for "objective" reporting of history.

    Three generations after the end of W.W.II, almost all of the people who led the world into the most destructive war in history are dead. Winston Churchill was one of them. In a few years, those old enough to remember the war will follow them. One has to ask oneself: What was the point? What IS the point? Why such relentless media assault when hardly anybody cares? Why are the British people exposed to this continuous slop when other historical events, much more important to the welfare of the British populace, remain largely ignored? Surely there is as much film footage on the "police action" in Vietnam, or Korea, or any number of conflicts of this century? Yet these don't get the constant air play and attention W.W.II does - with all of its sickening "Holocaust" stories.

    The easy explanation for this phenomenon is that W.W.II is regarded by many in Britain as a "good war"--maybe the best war ever. It is a tactic to bind up some very serious sores.

    Before Germany began its recovery from the Versailles treaty in the 1930's, Britain was considered a great power, especially a sea power, because her empire stretched around the world. When all was said and done, England was broke and her colonies began leaving the empire at a rapid rate.

    Then why was it "worth it" to Britain?

    The benefits to the U.S., to Israel and organized Jewry, and to the former U.S.S.R are pretty obvious. These Allied powers emerged from the blood bath as global superpowers leaving those who considered themselves ten years earlier to be "great powers" to fall into the political pull of either the Russians or the Americans (and to the covert control of organized Jewry) and began to orbit around either of these giants--all the while hoping the two overt giants, confronting each other in the Cold War, would not collide and start a hot war after all.

    So where is the good in all that?

    There isn't any - but the English elite have established a W.W.II fantasy world that serves its interests, which is to keep itself in power. Skeletons need to be hidden. That, for the English elite, is what matters. There is emotional, financial and political coinage to be mined. The "good" names of old families need to be protected at any cost, no matter how hurtful for Britain. (That's why, incidentally, the Rudolf Hess file will only be opened in 2017 - if ever!)

    But why?

    World War II was certainly the bloodiest and most destructive of all wars. Why would anyone consider it "good"? In order to answer this question the war must be examined from the perspective of the beneficiaries of W.W.II. Certainly someone had to benefit for a war to be considered "good".

    The obvious place to look for likely beneficiaries is among the victorious Allies whose major partners were the British, the Soviets, the Americans and, to a smaller extent, China and France. In order to understand the lie the British power structure is living, one has to go back to Neville Chamberlain's Prime Ministership in the 1930's.

    The outcome of W.W. I had left the European continent a politically unstable place. The borders which were drawn in the formation of the Treaty of Versailles left many ethnic minorities stranded and unhappy in countries now dominated by newly nationalistic majorities. After Hitler came to spectacular power in Germany, the unstable structure set up twenty years before began crumbling. The German chancellor took this opportunity to acquire or recover territory containing German-speaking majorities that had once belonged to Germany, including the Sudetenland. He incorporated them back into Germany.

    England at this point was in no position to stop this revision of European borders on its own, and France was reluctant to put its neck out for Czechoslovakia, for instance, which was not a politically viable entity anyway. Chamberlain, who could see that the traditional balance of power strategy England pursued on the continent was no longer viable either, agreed to the German annexation of the Sudetenland, a region which had a German majority.

    Winston Churchill opposed Chamberlain's agreement with Hitler and accused him of following a policy of appeasement. The situation England found itself in was one in which she could not fight Germany alone and had no ally willing to fight Germany with her. The balance of power strategy in Europe, which had sought to prevent the creation of a single politically dominant state, was now obsolete with the rise of Germany under Adolf Hitler.

    The closest ally Britain could hope to find to successfully oppose Germany in Europe in the 1930's was Communist Russia - but such an alliance would have to be on Russia's, not England's terms. England's days as an independent power, prepared to throw its weight behind any country in Europe in order to prevent any other country from becoming dominant, were now behind her.

    Chamberlain understood the situation. Churchill did not.

    Once Germany started with the invasion of Poland, England replaced Chamberlain with Churchill as prime minister. After the defeat of France, Churchill looked to the United States to save his "valiant little England" from Germany.

    One of the outcomes of this move was that Winston Churchill succeeded in bringing the U.S. officially into the war on England's side in 1941. Four years later, England was "victorious" over Germany once more.

    That was a heady moment. But at what price?

    England had expended all of its wealth and prestige in the process. Its "victory" was purely nominal. Though Germany was defeated, Stalin controlled all of eastern Europe, including Poland, for which England had ostensibly gone to war in the first place. Stalin controlled all that, save Greece, and even there British influence was being challenged by Marxists, taking their cues from Moscow. Churchill had fought Germany to defend the balance of power in Europe, but now Russia had replaced Germany in domination and England had no ally on the continent to oppose a total Communist takeover of Europe.

    Churchill's cagey new strategy at that point was to form a "special relationship" with the U.S. In blunter words, he rode on America's coat tails. His belief was that Britain with all of her ancient prestige and experience in international affairs could get the United States to act as the brawn behind England's brains. England would be America's "mentor and guide" in the complicated world of international relations.

    It was the myth of this new relationship with which England consoled itself as a "has-been" great power - and has consoled itself ever since. It was, and is, a pyrrhic victory at best.

    But what alternatives did Britain have to the suicidal course it took?

    Several recent books on British policy have examined this question and have suggested that it would have been much better to have come to terms with Germany after the defeat of France, or even before, and to have tried to salvage the Empire. America - with all its shady forces behind America - now calls the shots, and Britain is little more than a "has-been" and knows it. Since Russia replaced Germany as the dominant force on the continent and England had lost everything anyway and now depended on America, just what had England gained?

    For one, it had gained NATO.

    To meet the new threat to Europe, NATO was formed - designed, according to one English official, to "keep the Americans in, the Russians out, and the Germans down."

    The first had to be done in order to accomplish the other two. Though Germany was literally dead as a political entity, the need for American forces in Europe did not go away. So Churchill's "special alliance" with the U.S. was, and is, clung to by the English who could not face the new challenges alone.

    When discerning people look at England now, it's question piled on question. Why couldn't England have come to terms with Hitler? Nearly any argument against dealing with Hitler could also be made against dealing with either Stalin or Roosevelt.

    In dealing with Hitler, the Empire might have been spared.

    Britain MUST argue today that dealing with Hitler was out of the question on moral grounds because the Nazi regime was "intolerably evil". By arguing this line, one easily bypasses the question as to just precisely what it was that made Hitler and the Nazis more evil than that mass murderer, Josef Stalin, and who was England's Soviet ally.

    The answer is, of course, the "Holocaust".

    Watch late night cable TV re-broadcasts of the BBC-produced "The World At War" long enough and it becomes pretty obvious. According to the wartime propaganda, Nazi Germany was "out to conquer to world" and was a threat to everyone. In addition, the Nazis were aiming to kill everyone they didn't like in concentration camps equipped with gas chambers. Reams of gruesome footage of dead bodies in concentration camps are shown over and over to demonstrate that charges of the unparalleled evil of the Germans is true and was well worth an empire.

    So the Holocaust story props up British foreign policy which was responsible for England's disastrous fratricidal war on the continent and ushered in its decline. It protects its policies and policy makers from critical examination and analysis. The "death camps" put Hitler post-humously beyond the pale and the British power elite beyond very justified criticism.

    This is one view, and it is well worth pondering. A more truthful and tragic view advanced by historians like David Irving is that Churchill himself was a victim of blackmail whose gambling and stock market debts were canceled by Jewish money lenders and bankers like Stoakosh and Baruch. Winston Churchill was therefore beholden to the Shadow Government and flushed the interests of his country and his people down into the sewers of International Finance, to save his own miserable self from bankruptcy and exposed as an international forger of famous painters.

    Understanding the saga of World War II is important. The roles major powers play today are embedded in that war. The justification for the roles and policies of the powers in the postwar era is rooted in the war and how the war is viewed.


    Two good books about British society and foreign policy are "Churchill's Grand Alliance" by John Charmley (1995) Harcourt Brace & Co. and "Brain Wash: The Cover-up Society" by Guy Arnold (1992) Virgin Books.

    "Churchill's War Volume I" by David Irving (1987) and "Churchill: The End of Glory" by John Charmley (1993) are also very good works which cover the formation of the Anglo-American "special relationship."


    November 16, 1996

  • 26. Is there any evidence that Hitler ordered a mass extermination of Jews?


    Ernst Zündel
    replies to Q/A # 26:

    To come back to an earlier illustration, let's say there are two families who argue. Let's say that someone claims he overheard that so-and-so has said that he would like to "kill" somebody. Does this "prove" that he actually went out and killed this opponent? Would an investigation not be in order first?

    One might start an investigation first by 1) checking if anyone is missing, 2) if so, where the body might be, 3) what the cause of death was, given that there is a body, and 4) the hypothesized murder weapon.

    One might then proceed to question the alleged "killer" 5) for an alibi, 6) test the alibi, 7) check dates, places, orders, etc.

    In other words, check up on verbal claims!

    What Nizkor is doing, instead, is to rely on hearsay - the weakest kind of evidence there is. Worse yet, Nizkor is confusing two entirely separate issues that have nothing to do with each other.

    One is: Did Adolf Hitler order genocide of people based on race? The second is: Were orders given for mass executions during the war for reasons other than race?

    The answer to the first question is a simple and straightforward "No." No order for the extermination of the Jews written or authorized by Adolf Hitler has ever been discovered.

    Consider these sources, as summarized by CODOH in a paper called The Missing Hitler "Orders":

    • "There does not exist, then, anything like a written order signed by [Hitler] for the extermination of the Jews in Europe." Colin Cross, Adolf Hitler, (Milan, 1977), p.313.
    • "Despite the great harvest of Nazi documents captured by the Allies at the end of the war, it is precisely the documents concerning the process of the formation of the idea of the final solution of the Jewish question that are missing, to the point that up until the present it is difficult to say how, when, and exactly by whom the order to exterminate the Jews was given." Lilliano Picciotto Fargion, La congiura del silenzio (The Conspiracy of Silence), La Rassegna mensile d'Israel, May-August 1984, p.226.
    • "For in the table talk, the speeches, the documents or the recollections of participants from all those years not a single concrete reference of [Hitler's] to the practice of annihilation has come down to us. No one can say how Hitler reacted to the reports of the Einsatzgruppen, whether he asked for or saw films or photos of their work, and whether he intervened with suggestions, praise, or blame. When we consider that he ordinarily transformed everything that preoccupied him into rampant speechmaking, that he never concealed his radicalism, his vulgarity, his readiness to go to extremes, this silence about the central concern of his life- involving, as it did in his mind, the salvation of the world - seems all the stranger." Joachim C. Fest, Hitler (New York: Vintage Books, 1975), p.681.
    • "Insofar as no one has yet discovered a written trace of this order [to liquidate the Jews under German control] in the sources which have been exploited up to the present, and insofar as it seems unlikely, it is incumbent on the historian to date it as precisely as possible by appealing to interpretation. Since the methods and the hypotheses on this subject are very numerous, we find ourselves confronted with very diverse opinions." Saul Friedländer, L'Allemagne nazie et le genocide juif, Gallimard, Le Seuil, 1985, pp. 177-178.
    • "For the want of hard evidence -- and in 1977 I offered, around the world, a thousand pounds to any person who could produce even one wartime document showing explicitly that Hitler knew, for example, of Auschwitz -- my critics resorted to arguments ranging from the subtle to the sledgehammer (in one instance, literally). They postulated the existence of Fuehrer orders without the slightest written evidence of their existence. ...Of explicit, written, wartime evidence, the kind of evidence that could hang a man, they have produced not one line." David Irving, Hitler's War (London: Focal Point, 1991), pp.19-20.
    • "To the present day a written order by Hitler regarding the destruction of the European Jewish community has not been found, and, in all probability, this order was never given." Walter Laqueur, "Was niemand wissen wollte: Die Unterdrückung der Nachrichten über Hitlers Endlösung" (What Nobody Wanted to Know: The Suppression of News About Hitler's "Final Solution"), (Berlin-Vienna, 1981), p.190.
    • " The New York Times' ... editorial (December 2, 1942) claimed that 'Of Germany's 200,000 Jews in 1939 all but 40,000 have been deported or have perished,' while going on to assert that 'according to evidence in the hands of the [U.S.] State Department, an order of Adolf Hitler demanding the extermination of all Jews in all territories controlled by Germany' was known to exist. Researchers nearly 40 years later were still searching for that order, or information leading to anyone who might have ever seen it at any time." James J. Martin, The Man who invented 'Genocide': The Public Career and Consequences of Raphael Lemkin (Torrance: Institute for Historical Review, 1984), p.40.
    • "No written document containing or reporting an explicit command to exterminate the Jews has come to light thus far. This does not of course mean that such direct evidence will not appear in the future. In the meantime, the presumption must be that the order or informal injunction to mass-murder Jews was transmitted orally." Arno J. Mayer, Why did the Heavens not Darken?: The 'Final Solution' in History (New York: Pantheon Books, 1990), pp.235-36.
    • "The process by which total extermination replaced resettlement in Madagascar or 'the East' as the so-called final solution of the Jewish question remains unclear. No written order by Hitler for the extermination of the Jews has been discovered and the evidence of an oral order is only indirect. The chronology of the development of the extermination programme is also confused." J. Noakes and G. Pridham, eds., Nazism: A History in Documents and Eyewitness accounts 1919-1945 - Vol. 2, (New York: Schocken Books, 1988), p.1136.
    • "What became known in high Nazi circles as the Fuehrer Order on the Final Solution apparently was never committed to paper -- at least no copy of it has yet been unearthed in the captured Nazi documents. " William Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (New York: Fawcett Crest, 1960), p.1256.
    • "One cannot fix the exact moment when Hitler gave the order- without doubt never drawn up in writing - to exterminate the Jews." Christian Zentner, Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf. An edition with commentary by Christian Zentner, Munich, 1974, p. 168.

    So, then. What does that mean? It means there is NO EVIDENCE. It means that someone was mistaken to claim there was a Hitler Order that led to the Final Solution.

    That someone is one Dr. Raul Hilberg, commonly known as the Holocaust Pope.

    Hilberg had made such a claim in a tome he published in the very early 1960s. (The Destruction of the European Jews, Quadrangle, 1961) It was an irresponsible claim. That claim was demolished once and for all in the First (1985) and Second (1988) Great Holocaust Trial of Ernst Zündel in Toronto, Canada. It died not with a bang but with a whimper.

    The demise of that claim, chronologically, is as follows: [Click here for most of Hilbergs Testimony]

    • In the 1961 edition of the Hilberg book, "The Destruction of the European Jews," on page 177, you find the statement that there were two Hitler orders.
    • At the 1985 trial of Ernst Zündel, Hilberg continued to insist that the order existed, stating under oath that he would not be correcting in his revised edition what he has previously claimed (Trial transcript, p. 851-852).
    • As a matter of fact, shortly after this trial, Hilberg deleted all references to a Hitler order in the body of his work published in the same year (The Destruction of the European Jews, Revised and definitive ed. Holmes & Meier, 1985). Check that edition, page 402! Holocaust historian Christopher Browning noted this as a major interpretational change in Hilberg's work and adding that there was only one reference to a "Hitler order" buried in a footnote in the new edition. ("The Revised Hilberg, Simon Wiesenthal Annual, Vol 3, 1986)
    • As a matter of fact, Prof. Hilberg had already admitted two years before the 1985 Zundel-Holocaust Trial in a Newsday, February 23, 1983 article that there was no plan, no blueprint and no budget for the alleged genocidal action known as the Final Solution, yet he was willing to perjure himself in the 1985 trial!
    • In this new edition, the reference to a "Hitler Order" is buried in a footnote that now reads as follows:
    • "Thus came about not so much a plan being carried out, but an incredible meeting of minds, a consensus, mind-reading by a far-flung bureaucracy." (Did Six Million Really Die? Report of the Evidence in the Canadian "False News" Trial of Ernst Zündel - 1988, Edited by Barbara Kulaszka, pp 112-113)
    • "Did this include nods and winks?" asked Zündel defense attorney, Douglas Christie, in the 1988 Zundel Trial. Let's let the reader guess. Did the Nazis whisper in each others ears how to exterminate millions and millions of Jews? Believable? Maybe so is the Easter bunny!

    In summary, the "Final Solution" claim has now been put to rest. For details and nuances, some of them quite hilarious, read what was read in 1988 to the jury as Ernst Zundel and his defense team wound themselves through the Second Great Holocaust Trial.

    Why was it read? Because the Honorable Raul Hilberg did not choose to show his face, although he was asked by the Crown Prosecutor to re-appear as a witness. (He would have been paid $150 an hour, as Browning was paid who made more than $20,000 out of his "guest appearance" at the Zundel Trial after Hilberg bowed out, for reasons best known to himself. )

    Professor Hilberg wrote as his excuse:

    "Were I to be in the witness box for a second time, the defense would be asking not merely the relevant and irrelevant questions put to me during the first trial, but it would also make every attempt to entrap me by pointing to any seeming contradiction, however trivial the subject may be, between my earlier testimony and and an answer that I might give in 1988."

    The demolition of the claim of the "Final Solution" order is hardly a trivial matter. It is central to the whole issue of the Holocaust. For details, read the "Hilberg" Chapter in Barbara Kulaszka's book, mentioned throughout this rebuttal!


    Now to the second question: Did mass executions occur, some of which might have been on highest orders?

    An honest answer must be: Yes. These things are known to have taken place during World War II. They happen during war. See Bosnia today. Check on the American conduct in Viet Nam. Check Israeli executions of Egyptian prisoners in the 1972 War.

    Check any war, and you will find that executions for reprisal reasons happen.

    These executions during World War II had to do with controlling a guerilla war that was being fought behind the front, both in the East and West, but especially in Soviet Russia. More than 700,000 German soldiers were killed by "partisans" or guerillas in the East alone - in other words, plain terrorists.

    As has been previously pointed out, these "commissars", most of them Marxist Jews, operated in the back of the desperately fighting German forces. No serious Revisionist has challenged the Einsatzgruppen role in war-related executions in the East.

    We quote here from "Manstein: His Campaign and His Trial" by R. T. Paget:

    "At the very onset of the Russian war Hitler issued a highly secret order to the effect that the political commissars employed by the Russians to keep their soldiers at the right pitch of communist frenzy were upon capture to be summarily executed. What were these commissars? The prosecution said that they were part of the Soviet Armed Forces. They did not say that they were soldiers, and indeed of course they were not. They were in fact part of an organization quite unknown in any other nation, although it was one not by any means new to the Russians themselves." (P. 94)

    In other words, there existed a largely Jewish underground terrorist system. And given that, one should define what counts as "evidence" and carefully analyze and examine each claim. The judicial expert literature doesn't agree completely that eyewitness accounts or confessions should count as evidence at all. Some expert authors state that there is only circumstantial evidence (cp. e.g. R. Bender, S. Räder, A. Nack, "Tatsachenfeststellung vor Gericht", 2 Bände, Beck, München 1981, Band 1, S. 173; see also: M. Köhler, in: Ernst Gauss (ed.) "Grundlagen zur Zeitgeschichte", Grabert, Tübingen 1994).

    The weak "witness-evidences" Nizkor quotes as "proofs" for the mass extermination of Jews - simply because they were Jews - are flimsy in the extreme. The so-called "Einsatzgruppenberichte" are absolutely not reliable.

    Here is just one example, again quoted from "Manstein: His Campaigns and his Trial", page 170:

    "Single companies of about 100 with about 8 vehicles were reporting the killing of up to 10,000 and 12,000 Jews in two or three days. They could not have got more than about 20 or 30 Jews who, be it remembered, thought they were being resettled and had their traps with them, into a single truck. Loading, traveling at least 10 kilometers, unloading and returning trucks would have taken nearer two hours than one. The Russian winter day is short, and there is no traveling by night. Killing 10,000 Jew would have taken at least three weeks . . .

    By a series of cross checks we were able to establish that the execution of the Jews in Simferopol had taken place on a single day, 16th November. . . The place of execution was 15 kilometres from the town. The numbers involved could not have been more than 300.

    These 300 were probably not exclusively Jews, but a miscellaneous collection of people who were being held on suspicion of resistance activity. The Simferopol incident received a good deal of publicity because it was spoken of (in the Manstein trial) by only live witness, an Austrian corporal called Gaffa who said that he heard anti-Jewish activities mentioned in an engineers' mess. . . "

    So here you have a claim of 10,000 to 12,000 Jews "executed", based on a comment heard in passing!

    Most historians and experts would agree that it is necessary to find more reliable evidences than mere accounts or "confessions" frequently tortured out of prisoners, as proven in the case of Auschwitz Kommandant Hoess in the book "Legions of Death" by Rupert Butler.. Documents and physical forensic proofs are in fact the only kind of real "hard" evidence there is.

    Instead, let's look at some Nizkor examples:

    • The "documents" Nizkor cites are copies of certified copies. They were written by an unknown person on normal paper without letter head and without signature.
    • These strangely untraceable originals were allegedly "found" by the Soviets in a salt mine. (Cp. IMT vol. IV p. 245, vol. VIII p. 293-301, vol. II p. 157; C. Porter, "Nicht schuldig in Nürnberg", Nineteen Eighty Four Press, Brighton 1996, p. 59) The truthfulness of the figures of victims recorded in the Einsatzgruppenberichte has never been "verified", except in the case mentioned above - during the trial of the Feldmarschall Erich von Manstein. This issue, too, was examined at length during the Zundel Trials, which put an entirely different light on the story.
    • For instance, in that Manstein trial:
    • "It was the prosecution's case that the practice of executing hostages, whatever the circumstances may be, is contrary to international law. It was conceded that this view of the law had not been accepted by all the war crimes courts. It was, however, the view taken by the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg and for this reason the prosecution urged the court to accept it . . . The prosecution's case was that even if your opponents indulge in illegal guerrilla warfare that does not entitle you to adopt reprisals as countermeasure. (p 98)
    • Interesting, isn't it? Although the partisans caused 700,000 German soldiers to be killed, the Germans were not allowed to retaliate?
    • The Einsatzgruppenberichte documents report in detail of exactly 33,771 Jews killed at the 29th and 30th September 1941 near Kiev at the famous valley of Babi Yar. Many "eyewitness accounts" state that in September 1943 the German excavated the bodies (imagine what a massive undertaking this would have been for the hard-pressed, manpower-short Germans!) - the sum varying between 100,000 and 300,000 cadavers, depending on the source - to burn them, leaving no trace.
    • For years, the Germans were blamed for this massacre. Yet wartime aerial photos prove conclusively that this valley was never touched by any German activity, especially at the time of allegedly excavation and cremation of the bodies in open air pits in end of September 1943, when German planes took photos of this valley.
    • Here we quote from a recent press release by the Ukrainian and Lithuanian communities:
    • "Svoboda, the largest Ukrainian Daily. . . dispelled this major myth of the Jewish WWII martyrology. . . .
    • Babi Yar, a semi-desolite ravine at the outskirts of Kyiv (Kiev) had been considered as the site of the greatest massacre of mankind, where in 48 hours on September 28th and 29th in 1941, at least 33,771 Jews were executed by a small unit of SS and two batallions of Ukrainian policemen. . . however, during the last five years, the mounting body of historical evidence and, especially the high resolution wartime aereal reconnaissance photos of Kyiv, discovered in 1990 at the US National Archives, revealed that the myth of the mass killing of Jews at the Babi Yar was developed by the Soviet propaganda in the summer of 1943 . . .
    • For the last five years, Ukraininan scholars were aware of the fictitiousness of the Soviet, WWII Babi Yar story, but remained silent, worried about the tenuousness of the just-gained Ukrainian independence, perceived as dependent on the political goodwill of the influential Jewry.. .
    • Svoboda . . reported that the Jewish martyrology at the Babi Yar is a hoax of the Soviet wartime propaganda, led by Solomon Lozovsky, member of the ruling Central Committee and leader of the Sovinform press agency and the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee along with its major propagandist/poet/writer Ilia Ehrenburg. . . . ' not a single bush or a blade of grass was disturbed in the ravine during the German occupation of Kyiv' according to Svoboda."
    • So what do we have here? Surprise. Another hoax straight from a Jewish pen. Hereby it has been definitively established that at least the "Einsatzgruppenbericht" regarding Babi Yar is false - in all likelihood faked. (cp. J.C. Ball, "Air Photo Evidence, Auschwitz, Treblinka, Majdanek, Sobibor, Bergen Belsen, Belzec, Babi Yar, Katyn Forest", Ball Resource Service Ltd., Delta, B.C., Canada 1992.; same author in: E. Gauss (ed.), op. cit.; H. Tiedemann, ibid.)
    • Nizkor states, arguing itself into an even tighter corner:
    • "Or consider a phone log from Hitler to Himmler, in which Hitler ordered "no liquidation" of a particular trainload of Jews, because they wanted one suspected passenger questioned."
    • The fact that Hitler ordered "no liquidations" in that particular case does not prove that, on other occasions, he did order to liquidate the Jews. This order, assuming it is genuine, could have meant that there were certain circumstances where executions might have been the consequence - for example, when captured partisan Jews tried to flee or when they didn't cooperate, but that permission for execution was denied in this special case. Nizkors interpretation that this order "proves" the existence of a comprehensive order of Hitler to liquidate the Jews generally is typical for the Nizkor mindset but is completely unfounded.
    • And for the umptieth time:
    • It is astonishing that Nizkor insists on minimizing the role of the Rudolf Hoess "confession", a man who was tortured unmercifully by his captors, both at the time of capture and later on in prison (R. Butler, "Legions of Death", Arrows Books Ltd., London 1986, S. 236 f.). Does Nizkor remember that Hoess signed his "confession" in English, a language he did not understand? In Anglo-Saxon legal tradition, coerced testimony is inadmissible evidence. From a purely legalistic, historical and scientific point of view, such documents are worthless!
    • Or take the case of Eichmann, on death row in an Israeli prison. It is not inconceivable that Eichmann was tortured as well; often, he could not distinguish between what he had read, heard or seen in films. He appeared utterly confused in his testimony. The Israelis controlled what he ate, drank, how much sleep (or how little) he had, what he could or could not read and study etc. That is total body and mind control of a person.
    • Desperately trying to save his life, he could have tried to defend himself by pushing all responsibility for a so-called "Hitler Order" by blaming people who were already dead. If Eichmann would have stated that there existed no policy of extermination, he would have had no chance to defend himself, because in trials such as the Eichmann trial it was impossible to question the mass murder of the Jews in front of a court whose only mandate was to reinforce the "self-evidence" of this so-called "mass murder". Such a strategy of defence would have been as disastrous as it was for defendants in the medieval witch trials to question the existence of God or the Devil. (cp. The Journal of Historical Review, Fall 1983, p. 265; W. Köhler, op. cit.)
    • And finally, the weakest Nizkor argument. The so-called "written record" of "masseur therapists", "confidants" etc. ? Give me a break! All that needs to be said here is that there is lots of money to be made by self-serving memoirs of underlings who can quote anything once their superiors are dead. Has Nizkor ever heard of "Schindler's List"? - an atrocity rag that was discredited even by the widow of the so-called "war time hero", Oskar Schindler, an unsavioury scoundrel and opportunistic turncoat if ever there lived one? This seems all to Jewish movie producer like Speilberg and his Holocaust lobby friends to make a hero our of such a man.
    • It does not take a rocket scientist to know that people have a need to decorate themselves with stories of meetings with famous historical persons, talking with them about important events in a morally superior way. See, for example, the completely faked "Gespräche mit Hitler". (Cp. W. Hänel, "Hermann Rauschnings 'Gespräche mit Hitler' - Eine Geschichtsfälschung", Veröffentlichungen der Zeitgeschichtlichen Forschungsstelle Ingolstadt, Band 7, Ingolstadt 1984) They, too, belong in the "realm of a literary afternoon," as pointed out already. Check also the falsified testimony of Rudolf Vrba, again in the Kulaszka book (hint: check the index!), as well as the Jewish Social Studies essay by Samuel Gringauz entitled "Some Methodological Problems in the Study of the Ghetto (1950, XII.1, pp 65-72)

    October 1, 1996

  • 27. What kind of gas was used by the Nazis in concentration camps?


    Ernst Zündel
    replies to Q/A # 27:

    It is indeed ironic, and glaringly exposes the ignorance of Nizkor about the ample, very basic literature that has already dealt with this question, that they would state this answer is "correct."

    In order to be consistent in their claims, the exterminationsts' point of view should have been that the "genocidal gas" used was different from camp to camp, for that had been their claim for years. Zyklon-B was claimed to have been used in some camps but not in others.

    Specifically, the exterminationist claim had been for years that HCN (Zyklon-B) had been used at Auschwitz, Majdanek, Natzweiler and Mauthausen. On the other hand, camps such as Belzec, Treblinka, Sobibor allegedly used CO from Diesel engine exhaust or - even more illogically in energy-starved wartime Germany - from gasoline engine exhausts (Sobibor, Chelmno). (cp. R. Kammerer, A. Solms, "Das Rudolf Gutachten", Cromwell Press, London 1993)

    Of course, none of these silly, unscientific claims are based on fact. The fact is that there is not one small shred of scientific evidence that genocidal gassings were ever carried out in any German concentration camp!

    Nizkor must have reasoned sloppily that Zyklon-B based HCN was genocidally used in all the camps because it was indeed available in all the camps and in all German Army and SS installations to fumigate the barracks, as invoices attest - FOR DELOUSING to save lives, not to kill people!

    Zyklon-B was a widely used commercial pesticide throughout all of Europe where hygienic conditions deteriorated for friend and foe alike, and invoices prove nothing. Zyklon-B was used to control pests feasting on refugees fleeing from the Soviets, on Greater Reich civilians huddling in their cities' ruins that had no longer running water, on soldiers spending weeks in their mud trenches, on the SS who came in contact with the lice-infected partisans etc.

    Adds our researcher, a specialist and university graduate in chemistry whom we consulted to get an update on this question, referring to the Nizkor claim: "These chaps need our help defending their own theory!"

    October 1, 1996

  • 28. For what purpose was, and is, this gas manufactured?


    Ernst Zündel
    replies to Q/A # 28:

    This is a straightforward question.

    Zyklon-B, the alleged mass murder weapon, was manufactured for the extermination of the typhus-bearing louse and other pests. It was used for that purpose by the German Army in its installations, namely as an insecticide - and it is used to this day for that purpose all over the world by other Army installations.

    It is likewise used in prisons, hospitals etc. to fumigate clothing and quarters and all kinds of goods which can be attacked by pests. It is, and has been, used in food storages, cattle stables, barracks, wooden artwork in buildings, POW camps, forced labour camps, concentration camps - even ships, railroad cars, freight devices and vehicles like buses or trucks. It is readily available today.

    It bears repeating that in all of European history there has not been one country that has ever used "homicidal gas chambers" as a method of executing condemned criminals. Execution by the elaborate, cumbersome, expensive and dangeous gas chamber method is a uniquely American idea and method. One of the last people executed by gas in America, ironically, was the Jew Caryl Chessman, a convicted sex offender and murderer, before there was a halt in the 1960s of gassing murderers in the USA.

    The allegation that Zyklon B was ever used to kill people on a massive scale by the Germans in their concentration camps, especially in Auschwitz, is a claim without hard, scientific, forensic evidence. It is based ONLY on eyewitness accounts and on outrageous and contradictory claims which were never put to the scientific test until Ernst Zundel stood in front of a judge in Toronto in 1988 - such as by soil or tissue analyses, by cross examination, or by support from other, "harder" evidence, documentary as well as physical.


    The Leuchter Report that came out of that trial was an historical First - and the world will never be the same! It was the beginning of the end of the Mendacious Lie that masterminded and subverted politics world-wide throughout the second half of our century.

    October 1, 1996

  • 29. Why did they use this instead of a gas more suitable for mass extermination?


    Ernst Zündel
    replies to Q/A # 29:

    Good question. Food for thought. Here we are offering a very technical answer, of interest only to those with a solid scientific background. We include this elaborate response to round out the picture of the absurdity of the Zyklon-B claim, with the understanding that the lay person might not have the background to judge the text below.

    This answer comes from Germar Rudolf, a German scientist born after the war, now forced into political exile because he claimed that science does not lie. Rudolf is as fine a scientist as Europe can produce. Here is what Rudolf had to say:

    The SS in Auschwitz did not use ANY gas for mass extermination. The question: ". . . which gas would have been more suitable for mass executions, other than Zyklon-B, is not one to be answered scientifically since there are no experiences with mass executions by poison gas.

    Theoretically the Germans could have chosen between N2, CO2, CO, COCl2 (phosgene), Cl2, HCN, Tabun, Sarin, Diesel engine exhausts, gasoline engine exhausts, producer gas, coke gas, process gas and others.

    As an intellectual exercise, let's look at some of these:

    1. N2, Nitrogen

    Nitrogen kills painlessly by asphyxiation (apart from the possibly psychologically painful effects of panic), for which it is necessary to replace at least 75% of the air in the hypothetical execution chamber, so that the required amount of gas per execution would be enormous. N2 is available in pressure bottles. For bottled gases it is relatively cheap, but in comparison with, for example, exhaust gases or producer gas, it is extremely expensive. Nobody would have used it, therefore, for mass executions.

    An exception to this might have been if an air liquefaction plant had been nearby as a potential mass killing site, since 78% of the air is N2 and the latter is automatically separated from oxygen by the liquefaction process. This was, in fact, the case near the alleged mass killing site of the concentration camp of Auschwitz, where the I.G.-Farbenindustrie AG built such a plant to gain basic chemicals for their coal processing plants.

    Theoretically, the SS would have had the opportunity of killing Jews by N2-suffocation simply by installing a N2-pipe from the I.G.-Farbenindustrie AG plant to the next camp, which was situated in Monowitz. This was not done, however. According to exterminationist theory, they foolishly chose a more clumsy and slow method. Does that make any sense?

    2. CO2, Carbondioxid

    Carbondioxid works like N2 by suffocation, but the physiological effect of high CO2-contents in air on the mucous membranes is very painful. CO2 would have been suitable only if delivered in a pressure bottled form like N2.

    Similar to N2, huge amounts of CO2 would have been necessary to replace at least 20% of the air to get some lethal effects. Hence this gas would not have been chosen by the SS for mass executions.

    3. CO, Carbonmonoxid

    CO blocks the iron atom in haemoglobin so that the latter can no longer carry oxygen to the body cells. Pure CO is available in pressure bottles, but it is extremely expensive. It is certainly lethal in concentrations above 0,1 vol.-%, so that only a small amount of CO suffices to kill people.

    Because there are other, extremely cheap, methods to gain CO in high concentrations, nobody would have used CO out of pressure bottles for mass executions. Allegations that CO out of pressure bottles was used for mass executions in Majdanek must therefore be dismissed as nonsensical.

    The allegedly original bottle presented today to visitors is, in fact, a CO2 bottle, as the engraving at the bottle shows. It is a simple fraud perpetrated by the directors of the museum. (With credits to Carlos Mattagno of Italy to whom I owe thanks for this item.)

    CO is easy to vent, since it does not adhere to surfaces and is not delivered on carriers like HCN.

    4. COCl2, phosgene

    Phosgene was a poison gas used by both sides in the First World War. It is available in pressure bottles, is extremely difficult to handle and is very poisonous and expensive. The SS guards would have been in great danger of life, had they tried to apply it. Therefore, nobody would have chosen to attempt mass murder with this gas.

    5. Cl2, Chlorine

    Chlorine is an irritant rather than a poison. In big concentrations it destroys the lungs and, therefore, can lead to suffocation. For this reason, it is not suitable for mass murder.

    6. HCN, hydrogen cyanide

    Hydrogen cyanide cuts off the oxygen supply of the body cells by blocking an oxygen transport enzyme in the cell membranes. HCN is available as a fluid adsorbed on different types of carriers so that it evaporates from the carrier in between some minutes up to a few hours, depending on the temperature and the convection of the surrounding air.

    In the 30ies and 40ies it was produced in huge amounts and delivered throughout Europe and was therefore relatively cheap. (In the 40ies it consisted only partly of diatomaceous earth; the rest was mainly gypsum), HCN is certainly lethal to humans in concentrations above 0,03 vol.-%, so that only a small amount of HCN is enough to kill people.

    For the SS Guards or for the Sonderkommandos allegedly working in the gas chambers, danger would have arisen by the remaining HCN in the air after the execution, depending on the capacity of the ventilation facility and time period between the end of the execution and when the crews entered the gas chamber. This is largely due to the long time the HCN needs to completely evaporate from the carrier and because HCN strongly adheres to all surfaces, especially to wet ones.

    Only gas masks with special filters and especially designed protective clothing would have protected against these gas remainders.

    7. Tabun, Sarin

    These poison gases were invented by German chemists between WWI and WWII. They work extremely fast by blocking the synapsis of nerves. Even today there doesn't exist any effective protective measure against these gases, which are lethal in concentrations of 0,001 vol.-% or less.

    Because every SS man, who would have tried to commit mass murder with this gas, would have been immediately killed as well, and probably the whole camp along with him, nobody would have dared to make even an attempt.

    8. Diesel engine exhausts

    Diesel engine exhausts are a very poor source of CO. Only with extensive technical knowledge and some engineering equipment would it have been possible to commit mass murder with this extremely slowly working weapon: the SS men would have had to wait at least two hours for the last victim to die.

    Since the SS was well aware of the fact that much better, faster-working sources of CO were easily available, eyewitness accounts of Diesel engine exhausts for mass killings in the concentration camps of Treblinka, Belsec or Sobibor are fraudulent. (Cp. F.P. Berg, in: Ernst Gauss (ed.), op. cit.; Germar Rudolf, "Zur Kritik an 'Wahrheit und Auschwitzlüge'" in: Vrij Historisch Onderzoek (ed.), "Kardinalfragen zur Zeitgeschichte", Vrij Historisch Onderzoek, Berchem 1996).

    9. gasoline engine exhausts

    Gasoline engines produce gases in their exhaust, which can easily reach up to 7 vol.-% CO so that they would have been suitable to commit mass murder. Nevertheless, only a very small minority of "witnesses" mentions the use of gasoline.

    10. producer gas

    Producer gas devices produce a gas mixture out of wood or coke, air and water which has a CO content of up to 35 vol.-%. These devices were installed in some hundred thousand vehicles throughout the German occupied Europe because of general lack of fuel due to the petrol blockade of the Allies.

    As F.P Berg has shown (op. cit.), everybody in the German government was well aware of these extremely easy-to-handle, extraordinary cheap devices producing highly lethal poison gas, especially the transport experts, whose duty it was to replace all their Diesel and gasoline fuel devices step by step by producer gas devices. These are the very same persons allegedly in charge of the deportation and execution of the Jews. And these slide rule "murderers", it is alleged, chose Diesel engine exhausts for the mass murder of Jews, the least cost- and time-efficient killing method avaiable to them? Nonsense.

    11. coke gas

    By making coke out of coal, a gas evolves called coke gas. It consists mainly out of CO (up to 30%), Hydrogen, CO2 and H2O. Until the 50ies and 60ies it was delivered to the households for cooking and heating purpose (German: Stadtgas). It was extremely cheap and poisonous.

    The KZ Majdanek for example, situated near the city of Lublin, was connected to the Lublin coke gas delivery system. Hence, the SS could have used this gas rather than anything else, had they wanted, or had they been ordered, to mass-murder Jews. But oddly, none of the allegations of mass executions by poison gas mentions this method. (Cp. Germar Rudolf and Ernst Gauss, in: E. Gauss (ed.), op. cit.)

    12. process gas

    Only a few kilometres from the concentration camp of Auschwitz, the German I.G.-Farbenindustrie AG had in the early 1940s built a coal gasification or liquefaction plant. In this plant, coal was modified by several chemical conversion steps into basic chemical compounds out of which oil, fuels and rubber could be produced. The first step of this process is the formation of process gas, which has a similar consistency as coke gas.

    The I.G.-Farbenindustrie AG had in its direct neighbourhood a concentration camp called Monowitz which was attached to the Auschwitz concentration camp system, covering some 30 camps in the region of Upper Silesia and south-west Poland. If the SS would have searched for an easy way to kill millions of Jews, the "extermination centre" surely would have been built in or near Monowitz, with a direct access pipe to the process gas of the I.G. Farbenindustrie AG plant.

    This was not done. Instead, the Germans foolishly chose Zyklon-B, the expensive, more difficult-to-handle killing method. Is that believable or likely?

    After this review it should be clear that, had genocide been planned or carried out by the Germans as a matter of policy during WWII, CO would have been the gas of choice, either out of producer gas devices, coke gas or process gas productions, depending on which of the sources was the most easily available at the time and given the location because it was the cheapest and least dangerous for the alleged "gassers".

    Naturally, CO would not have accelerated the execution process, since CO is not as poisonous as HCN. But regarding the fact that the alleged HCN gas chambers in Auschwitz had no device to accelerate the evaporation of the HCN from the carrier (e.g. by a hot air ventilation system like in the famous German "Kreislaufanlage"), an execution by pumping CO containing producer gas into a gas chamber would have killed the alleged victims surely equally as fast as Zyklon B - but safer for the handlers, less complicated and certainly cheaper. Surely, "the bottleneck in the extermination process" would have been the incineration of the bodies, not the gassing itself. A thousand people could have been killed in a matter of minutes, or an hour or two at the most, counting the entire operation from arrival at the camp to the final ventilation of the gas chamber.

    Yet to burn the bodies of those thousand people would have taken "quite a long while." (quotations: part of Nizkor's answer to this question). And as C. Mattogno and F. Deana have shown, the furnaces actually installed in Auschwitz were never able to maintain the alleged amount of bodies produced by the alleged mass killings (cp. E. Gauss (ed.), op. cit.) - so here we have another proof that genocidal stories in places such as Auschwitz are nothing more than propaganda and fiction.

    But even if it could be proven that genocidal maniacs plotted to kill the Jews en masse, CO would have been - for several sound reasons, six of which we list below - a FAR BETTER choice than the clumsy Zyklon-B:

    • A. CO in producer, coke or process gas was always less expensive than Zyklon-B
    • B. There would have been no need to order, store or take care of the expiration date, as is the case for Zyklon B, because once the cheap devices were installed, CO would have been permanently and very inexpensively available.
    • C. The handling of the CO for the executioner would have been much easier: Turning the valve on and off would have been nearly everything he would have had to worry about. Zyklon B requires a remarkable amount of security measures for the executioner: wearing gas masks with special filters and other protective clothing like gloves, aprons, suits etc., opening the tin carefully with the appropriate tool, pouring the carrier carefully into the openings, disposing of the Zyklon B remainders safely, etc. etc.
    • D. A licence after special training was required and had to be granted by the Germans for the handling Zyklon-B, even during wartime. This licence could be obtained only after special expert courses.
    • E. In the case of CO, ventilation of the mass killing sites would have been much easier compared with HCN/Zyklon-B, since the CO supply could have been stopped by turning a valve and because CO doesn't adhere anywhere and is nearly insoluble in water - contrary to HCN.
    • F. In war-torn Germany, Zyklon B was rare and urgently needed for fighting huge epidemics like typhus among the civilian and military personnel. Any avoidable waste for other purposes would have been avoided - even and especially in Auschwitz! - where typhus threatened not only the lives of the internees but also those of the guards and of all the many civilians who entered the camp or lived and worked in the neighbourhood.

    In plain English and once and for all: the typhus epidemics of the Auschwitz camps endangered the extremely important production of the war industries of Upper Silesia - after the Ruhr area the second most important industrial area of wartime Germany. Therefore, the struggle against this permanent threat of an epidemic was of the highest importance, and for this reason, Zyklon-B was desperately needed in bigger amounts than the producing companies (DEGESCH, KORI) were ever able to deliver. When the Allies bombed one of the Zyklon-B producing factories, temporarily slowing down the Zyklon-B deliveries, urgent requests were sent to the concentration camp administration in Berlin with the dire warning that lack of sufficient Zyklon-B could CAUSE deaths to inmates by epidemics caused by lice.

    Yet for trying to save lives - their own, their comrades', and their enemies - the Allies hanged people at Nuremberg!

    October 1, 1996

  • 30. How long does it take to ventilate fully an area fumigated by Zyklon-B?


    Ernst Zündel
    replies to Q/A # 30:

    Just think for a minute, Nizkor! Think of the precautions used in American gas chambers - with their tiled floors, stainless steel construction, exhausters etc. See for yourself what it takes in America and would have taken in Germany to prepare for an efficient mass gassing and to remove the bodies afterwards, and then clean up the facilities if they had wanted uninterrupted mass gassings for another batch of victims.

    What a REAL gas chamber looks like

    From Mississippi State Penitentiary
    Notice air tight construction, riveted and steel construction, large exhaust systems, etc.

    Would the highly technically efficient Germans have wanted to constantly train new sets of "Gasmeisters"? That is plain utter nonsense! To run the gassing operations at peak performance would have taken skilled "gassers" to avoid breakdown, mishaps or even glitches. Even if there were no other evidence that the entire hoax of the so-called "gassings" is just that - a hoax! - this question alone should have settled the matter years ago.

    Noneless, to get an update on this question, we have consulted with Germar Rudolf, author of the splendid "Das Rudolf Gutachten" (Cromwell Press, 1993) , and here is what he said:

    "There is neither a law nor a rule, not even a rough guess that can be used to answer this question. It depends on the architectural properties of the room to be fumigated, on its content, the temperature, the ventilation system etc.

    Cold, large rooms completely decorated with furniture and all kinds of cloth (curtains, carpets, mattresses, clothes), without ventilation systems and only a few small windows and doors may need several days to vent. A small, especially designed room with heating and a strong ventilation system (German "Kreislaufanlage") might need not more than an hour.

    The alleged Nazi gas chambers were concrete (Krema II & III) or plastered rooms (Krema IV & V) allegedly filled up with heaps of corpses - with only one door in two cases (II & III) or, additionally, some small vents in the two others.

    The first two rooms mentioned had a very poorly designed ventilation system, originally planned for a morgue. Following the calculations of experts correcting the wrong ones of the amateur J.-C. Pressac, on which the exterminationists rely (J.-C. Pressac, "Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers", Beate Klarsfeld Foundation, New York 1989), it would have taken some two hours to reduce the initial HCN content of these rooms down to a level of 10%. (cp. R. Kammerer, op. cit.).

    The other alleged "gas chambers" did not have forced-ventilation systems. A sudorific work like pulling corpses out of them would have been possible only until many hours had passed, since HCN adheres strongly on wet skin in body cavities like ears, mouth, nostrils etc. and is able to kill operators or corpse handlers that way. Even after a couple of hours of natural venting, gas masks with special filters, protective clothing etc. would have been necessary for the hard-working members of the Sonderkommando.

    Eyewitness accounts, which tell us about immediate emptying of the chambers or of the absence of gas masks, are false. Wild stories about crews carrying out cadavers and working with cleaning the bodies while smoking, eating and drinking, are untrue.

    October 1, 1996

  • 31. Auschwitz commandant Hoess said that his men would enter the gas chamber ten minutes after the Jews had died and remove them. How can you explain this?


    Ernst Zündel
    replies to Q/A # 31:

    It does not need to be explained. It did not happen that way. Due to the poorly designed ventilation systems installed in two of the gas chambers and the absence of any ventilation system in the others (see Q. 30), this scenario is simply impossible. Be sure to double-check the testimony of Kenneth Wilson at the Second (1988) Zündel Trial, to be perused at the aforementioned and oft-repeated ("Did Six Million Really Die?" summary, page 353. (Click on the Kenneth Wilson chapter!)

    However, I will concede that this question needs further investigation, if for no other reason than to dispell the last whiff of doubt. I personally stand by my belief that the preponderance of the evidence suggests that the absence of physical evidence such as missing exhauster units etc. is significant.

    Researchers who have climbed all over the Auschwitz ruins have not discovered any studs, bolts or any mountings that can be seen for these alleged "exhauster units" in any of these camps. Aereal photographs taken by the US and South African Air Force during the war don't reveal the tell-tale tall exhaust stacks, such as can be found in US gassing installations such as the Parchmount Mississippi Death House, installed to avoid gassing non-death row inmates, guards or camp administrators, both civilian and military.

    (The Leuchter Report # 3, available on the Zundelsite, will answer additional questions regarding instructions for gassing procedures.)

    Additionally, even the allegation that in the alleged gas chambers of Krema II and III ". . . wire-mesh devices to remove the Zyklon-B from the chambers, improving the efficiency of the ventilation process", had been installed, is frankly invented, since there are still today no holes in the roof through which a wire mesh device could have been placed and removed - not to mention the impossibility of filling Zyklon-B through a massive concrete ceiling without holes in it! (Quotation: part of Nizkor's answer to this question; cp. R. Kammerer, op. cit.)

    Take an eraser and wipe the image of "eating, drinking, smoking corpse handlers" out of your memory! Kommandant Hoess, who was beaten nearly to a pulp and whose family was threatened with being sent to a Siberian concentration camp, would have said anything.

    Höss utterly terrified of British interrigators
    who obtained a "confession" out of him
    Click here for full story of this picture

    However, I will concede that other researchers feel that the question is extraneous to the argument of whether or not gassings took place - simply because stronger evidence than the absence of studs, bolts and mountings is available.

    For instance, Germar Rudolf of the brilliant "Rudolf Report" wrote:

    "There is simply no possibility to check if in the former buildings there have been "studs, bolts or mountings" . . . which would have to include a complete excavation of the crematoria ruins and a massive research for such devices or their remainders in them. The drawings of the buildings give us no clue, but this may be simply due to the fact that such small and very special devices would probably not have been drawn into them.

    A quick look into the ruins of Krema II and III, such as Felderer, Faurisson, Mattogno, Leuchter and I did, is absolutely not enough to settle this question. And the reconstruction of Krema I and the nearly completely disappeared Kremas IV and V are not "researchable".

    I think that Robert Faurisson is exaggerating the danger which would have arisen from the alleged mass gassings. Fact is that in a couple of delousing facilities in Birkenau a massive daily use of Zyklon B didn't affect the security of either the prisoners or the guards - WITHOUT any tall airing/exhauster stacks. . . "

    As Nizkor can see, Revisionists are living up to their name, even if they revise each other in light of the need to investigate further!



    Ernst Zündel
    replies to Q/A # 32:

    Höss had no scientific background. We have already established that he gave his torturers the testimony they obviously needed to hear so they could weave a pattern of genocide they required as a basis to demonize the Hitler regime, hang Germany's wartime leadership, and lay the groundwork for the massive and unconsciounable reparations racket, the "guilt payments" first induced by this propaganda, then extracted from the postwar German generations. See Nahum Goldmans "The Jewish Paradox" and Tom Segev's book "The Seventh Million" on how the Reparation Scheme was pulled off.


    To answer the question, here is the scientific answer as of today:

    HCN is explosive in a range between 6 and 41 vol.-%. Since the concentration normally used for disinfestation as well as - according to eyewitness accounts - allegedly used for mass killings never exceded 2 vol.-%, a danger of explosion exists only in the neighbourhood of the carrier where the concentration can rise occasionally up to 60 vol.-%.

    Had an explosion from a glowing cigarette resulted, the smoker would already have consumed an extremely lethal amount of HCN due to the high, explosive HCN concentration. So he would have died by two causes: poisoning and explosion.

    October 1, 1996

  • 33. What was the exact procedure the Nazis allegedly used to exterminate Jews?


    Ernst Zündel
    replies to Q/A # 33:





    Here is what he had to say:


    In response to a journalist asking him:


    Professor Bouard answered:










    Repeatedly you say: "The Nuremberg trials. . . "




    My God! Is Nizkor serious?




    One final point needs to be made:





  • 34. How could such a mass program have been kept secret from Jews who were scheduled for extermination?

    35. If Jews scheduled for execution knew the fate in store for them, why did they go to their death without fight or protest?

    34 - 35 are treated together in this section



    Ernst Zündel Replies:
    Rebuttal # 34 and 35:

    These two questions are two sides of the same coin and will be treated together. The question posed is this: Did Jews know that they were slated for "extermination" - or didn't they? Did they fight, or didn't they?

    It is a cop-out on Nizkor's side to say that some did, and some didn't. In order to answer that question intelligently, the premise has to be one or the other. A logical alternative position to take, of course, is to argue that since no "Final Solution" took place, the questions themselves are entirely moot and redundant to begin with.

    Nonetheless, in the spirit of historical accuracy and good will for the as-yet-uninformed, let's go over some old ground again already covered in sundry ways in previous parts of this lengthy rebuttal.

    Of course some Jews did resist the Third Reich Germans, but not because they fought against perceived "genocide". It was war, and the Germans were on one side, while the Jews were on the other. Therefore, it was logical that the Jews would "resist the Nazis." Many fought, and some fought very hard. The ghetto fighters of Warsaw and other cities have been lionized by Zionism, explicitly or implicitly, as having been engaged in resistance to genocide, but the two are not at all related - the Warsaw uprising was about creating a "front behind the front", a danger in the rear for the hard-pressed Germans on the Eastern front lines, and NOT a reaction against the danger of "being gassed".

    And it is patently not true that there was no contact between inmates and the resistance forces outside. That there was contact, for instance, can be seen in this revealing passage, as per Krzysztof Dunin-Wasowicz in "Resistance in the Nazi Concentration Camps 1933-1945":

    "A letter smuggled from the camp and dated August 1944 read: 'The Camp Military Council considers the action aimed at liberating the camp, be it partly or entirely, to have tremendous moral significance because of the international importance of Auschwitz as one of the blackest symbols of Nazi Germany. The Camp Military Council would not wish the action aimed at liberating Auschwitz to be treated as a matter of help to the prisoners exclusively. The Camp Military Council regards Auschwitz - from a military point of view - to be an immense potential source of manpower." (p 262)"

    It's telling, isn't it? Even then Auschwitz was seen as a political tool - by the very ones whose own people were supposedly mistreated inside! Even supposedly exterminate by gassing on mass! Daily! All the while the Military Council was keenly aware that the inmates were an immense potential source of manpower!

    The author continues, shedding more light:

    "In Mauthausen, too, many inmates, belonging to the resistance movement, were able to listen to the radio. In September of 1941 a radio set was constructed by Esteban Balough, a Spanish Civil War veteran who was employed as an electrician. Other inmates who also managed to listen to the radio included (Poles, Czechs, and Austrians).

    In the Mauthausen sub-camp at Gusen, a French inmate, Pierre Serge Coumoff, also employed as an electrician, listened to and reported on broadcasts; the Frenchman Lean Lafitte, the German socialist Konrad Wegner, and the Yugoslav Hrvoje Macanovic listened to the radio in the sub-camp at Ebensee. . . In the SS garages of the Ravensbruck camp, a Polish mechanic listened to the radio in the car of the camp commandant. In Kaiserwald a Czech Jew, Josef Gertner, employed by the SS as a mechanic, started to monitor broadcasts in the autumn of 1942. In Natzweiler-Struthof prisoners were listening to the radio from 1942 onwards." (p 176 - 177)

    There is much more in this source regarding not just awareness of outside resistance but actual limited participation in resistance activities from the inside. Surely word would have gotten out, had there been "gassings" going on, after all the very important letter above smuggled out! Extermination of milions would have been much bigger news then who listened to a radio broadcast. Additional information about these topics can be found by checking the Kulaszka reference. Check on Faurisson, Irving, Felderer etc. These witnesses in the Great Holocaust Trial II cover important aspects, and the book is superbly indexed.

    Praise has been heaped from Zionist quarters - and never mind the argument is now a switcheroo! - on the Jewish partisan guerrillas for having tried to forestall "genocide" by horribly destructive sabotage against the German war effort - killing between 700,00 and 1 million German soldiers and civilian personnel. How? By machine-gunning them from behind trees and ruins, by blowing up trains and truck convoys, hospitals and sleeping quarters etc. Here, too, guerrilla activities in resisting the German army in undercover ways were unrelated to the "extermination" of the Jews and had as often as not to do with such "heroic acts" as chasing mine-laden dogs under the treks of fleeing women and children escaping the Red Terror - a brutal ruthless Stalinist terror that had the same ideological godfathers as the "partisan" or guerilla, idea of non-uniformed combat, which was against the Geneva Convention and the Hague Rules of Warfare.

    Let's use a little common sense to argue this through to conclusion. During wartime the flow of information and people is generally restricted for security reasons. Such restrictions are routinely practiced by all countries involved in a war. Therefore, had a massive program of extermination been going on, one might have made the argument that, for that reason, the Jews in the concentration camps did not know, and neither did the outside world.

    However, reams and reams of so-called "witness" testimony claim just the opposite. The entire Nizkor reply reeks of such "testimony" - replete with silly claims about "the stench of burning flesh" - and never mind that every reputable reference on cremation will state that there has been NO smell associated with cremation since the 1860s! If in doubt, see any good Encyclopedia from 1870s on. It would have helped if Nizkor had consulted some basic references such as the Encyclopedia Britannica on cremation techniques over the past 140 years!

    But no - Nizkor blithely ignores common sense, science, economics, command structure and hierarchy and simply hauls to the fore yet one more helping of soggy "survivor testimony" - hoping that, yet one more time, massive bull will baffle unsuspecting brains.

    In that regard, the Eichmann "testimony" regularly comes up. How much that testimony is worth has to be judged against the known fact that Eichmann was kept in total isolation under the mind- and information control of his Israeli captors. He is supposed to have indicated that Jews living under German occupation "heard" the stories of the extermination, but did not believe they were true. The Germans were allegedly so clever, according to this version, that they fooled the Jews into a false sense of security.

    Therefore, even the assumption behind the question - that the Jews were, in fact, aware of the fate planned for them--is full of holes.

    As unlikely as it sounds, let us assume, however, for the sake of the argument that Jewish passivity and even cooperation with the Germans even up to the end of the war was simply because they were ". . . unaware they were being exterminated . . . "

    It does not, of course, then fit into the thousands of "witness" confabulations of people having smelled burned flesh, having seen huge flames shooting out of crematory chimneys, of children being thrown alive into open pits (as reported by Vrba) or onto open air burning pyres etc.

    More specifically, those Jews who were working for the Germans in the concentration camps making munitions for the German Army in the shadow of the crematories at Auschwitz would have had no excuse for not having spoken up. If an extermination had, in fact, been taking place under their noses, surely they would have known and spread the word to those back in the ghettos. (Check David Irving's testimony, specifically, on page 376 in the Kulaszka book!)

    But no credible effort to do this was made. This indicates clearly that Jews who spent as much as two years at Auschwitz were as unaware of an "extermination program" as those still in the ghettos. There were rumors, as the Red Cross delegate visiting Auschwitz stated, but when they checked, the Red Cross could not find any evidence either.

    There is not even consistency or agreement within the Holocaust Promotion camp itself. Up until the Eichmann trial, Palestine's Zionists derisively referred to Jewish survivors of the war who settled in Palestine after the war as "sheep" or "soap" because of their notorious lack of resistance to the Holocaust. The non-reaction of Europe's Jews to the alleged news of the "extermination" has been criticized elsewhere by the Jewish community living outside Nazi control for its passivity. Leaders of various organizations as well as Holocaust history writers have disparaged the inaction of the Western Allies with regard to the fate of Europe's Jews on many occasions, but they seldom attempt to explain the cooperation the Nazis received from the Jews through the "Judenräte in the ghettos and elsewhere themselves in implementing the alleged "Final Solution". Though this passivity is conveniently blamed on ignorance, most common-sense readers will not find this a credible explanation.

    After all, despite the war, secrets were very hard to keep. Zionist leaders outside Europe were supposedly aware of the extermination; Jewish organizations outside Europe should have been making an effort to warn them about it. Did it happen? No, if you discout the propaganda leaflets concocted by the Psychological Warfare Directorate in England!

    After the war, Jewish sources have tried to lay huge guilt trips on all sorts of individuals and organizations - from the Pope to the Catholic Church to US President Roosevelt to the Allied military. Even the Red Cross was blamed for a "conspiracy of silence" and being deaf and dumb to the desperate plight of the Jews.

    All these people could not have been in collusion with the enemy - but since nothing much out of the ordinary was going on, and since all Allied nations, for their part, interned people in concentration camps, German policy was nothing to get excited about. Everybody had camps for prisoners for aliens, for security risks etc. There is plenty of documentation that there were anti-Nazi resistance organizations in a wide range of political hues operating in occupied Poland and Russia - many composed of a large percentage of Jews - who could have gathered the needed proof and alerted ghetto leaders to the gas chamber threat. Nothing of the sort happened - because there was nothing to report except standard public health measures adopted by the Germans as was done by America, England and Russia - namely mass delousings.

    Finally, Zionist spokesmen in Monday Morning Quarterback fashion have frequently criticized the Western Allies for not bombing the gas chambers or the rail lines leading to them ". . . in order to stop the extermination of the Jews." Yet the guerrillas on the ground in Poland, much closer to the action and much better informed through smuggled messages out of the camps, also did nothing to destroy the rail lines or the "gas chambers" either.

    It does not appear they felt any alarm or saw the need to do anything to warn the Jews who were supposedly shipped to be "gassed". They did not do so even for their own Poles or Soviet soldiers, who, it is claimed, were the first "experimental gassing victims". It would have been easy to do. There was certainly a line of communication to the USSR from German-occupied territory, for a network of communist agents and hundreds of thousands of armed guerrillas were left behind as the Soviet army retreated in 1941.

    No warnings of the gas chambers came from them either to alert the ghettos, much less to save the Jews - even though Stalin's Army and political apparatus was packed with powerful Jews.

    In short, there were many clandestine avenues for news during the war to travel to the Jews outside the camps or in other countries, but it seems no credible effort was ever made to warn the Jews of their impending doom. It therefore stands to reason that there WAS no reason to do so. You cannot address yourself to a problem if the problem does not exist. There have been many unsatisfactory attempts to "explain" this behavior, but all of them ring hollow.

    There IS no satisfactory explanation for Jewish inaction if they were, indeed, aware of their planned fate. There is no satisfactory explanation how this fate could have been kept from them. What you have, instead, is yet more soggy, so-called "witness stories." Cremation science defeats these liars. It defeats their facile lies on every front.

    Nizkor can't have it both ways. Either "genocide" was a well-kept secret or it was not a well-kept secret.

    Which was it?

    Perhaps an answer for Jews' "inexplicable behavior" will be found in the next fifty years, since it has not been found in the last fifty.

  • 36. About how many Jews died in the concentration camps?

    36. About how many Jews died in the concentration camps?

    Ernst Zündel Replies:
    Rebuttal # 36:

    It all depends on how you figure things - and there is such a thing as "Holocaust Arithmetic" annulling what you learned in First Grade.

    Here is one "for instance":

    When the Auschwitz death toll was reduced by the Poles from 4 million to 1.1 million, then increased to the present 1.6 million, articles appeared in the press at about the same time that the figure of Jewish deaths had now risen to nearly 7 million. (Frankfurter Rundschau, 13.11.1996).

    2.4 million fewer deaths make for the overall increase! Weird mathematics indeed!

    We have been over this ground several times in various ways before, and there is no need to rehash it. Based on the work of Walter Sanning (The Dissolution of the Eastern European Jewry, IHR, Torrance 1983) and others, it seems reasonable to believe that between 500,000 and 1,500,000 Jews died OF ALL CAUSES during the war. In the European slaughterhouse that was World War II that took its victims from most countries and races, the number of Jews who died in the camps was fairly small.

    How many? That we may never know for sure.

    What we do know is that the concentration camp "victimhood" is greatly and irresponsibly exaggerated.

    Take another look at Dr. Faurisson's chart of various fraudulent claims regarding just one concentration camp, Auschwitz!

    Have there been "revisions" to the original 66 Questions and Answers? Indeed there have been. That is what Revisionists do - they revise their data in light of new evidence. They chip away at lies so as to come closer to the kernel of truth.

    By contrast, the "6 million" myth stays the same in quarters such as Nizkor - sometimes it even swells a bit! - no matter how much is subtracted by logic, science, statistics and serious historical research.

    Here is another "Holocaust" Promotion Lobby computation:

    1) Until 1990, 6 million Jews had died in genocidal fashion, being

    4 million in Auschwitz
    2 million elsewhere (non-Auschwitz)

    From 1990 on, the Auschwitz "count" was reduced from 4 million to 1.5 million - in other words, 2.5 million less.


    1.5 million in Auschwitz
    2 million elsewhere (non-Auschwitz)

    Holocaust Promotion Lobby "adjustment"
    1.5 million + 2 millon = 6 million!

    Amazing, isn't it? Put on your thinking caps!

  • 37. How did they die?

    38. What is typhus?

    37 - 38 are treated together in this section

    37. How did they die?
    38. What is typhus?

    Ernst Zündel Replies:
    Rebuttal # 37-38:

    This topic, too, has been covered previously and will merely be reviewed in synopsis. A comprehensive source is given in Typhus and the Jews by Friedrich Paul Berg, Liberty Bell Publications, 1989. We recommend that Nizkor not only read it but post it.

    Here is a very brief excerpt, starting on page 4:

    "A standard feature of the Holocaust story is the reliance upon photographs of thousands of dead bodies found in some of the German concentration camps at the end of World War 2. For people who are unfamiliar with the horrors of war, which includes most of us fortunately, those photographs are more than sufficient proof of a genocidal policy on the part of the German regime. . . The claims of the revisionists that the bodies were the result of catastrophic epidemics of typhus, typhoid, tuberculosis, dysentery, etc., are readily scoffed at as the foolish rantings of Nazi apologists . . .

    Perhaps the best discussion of conditions at the end of World War 2 in Germany is by John E. Gordon, M.D., Ph.D., Professor of Preventive Medicine and Epidemiology at the Harvard University of Public Health. . . (T)he excepts which follow are not from someone who can be easily branded as another pro-German revisionist. The following passages by Gordon were published in 1948 by the American Association for the Advancement of Science:

    "The whole area seethed with foreign peoples, conscript laborers moving this way and that and in all directions, hoping to reach their homes, in search of food, seeking shelter. Most of the typhus was within this group and they carried the disease with them. They moved along the highways and in country lanes - they moved mostly on foot, halted, then gathered in great camps of sometimes 15,000 or more, extemporized, of primitive sanitation, crowded, and with all too little sense of order and cleanliness.. . wearied with the war, undernourished, poorly clothed and long inured to sanitary underprivilege and low level hygiene, Add to this shifting population the hundreds of released political prisoners, often heavily infested with typhus . . rarely has a situation existed so conducive to the spread of typhus.

    Typhus fever in a stable population is bad enough. It has demonstrated its potentialities in both war and peace. The Rhineland in those days of March, 1945 could scarcely be believed by those who saw it - it is beyond the appreciation of those who did not. It was Wild West, the hordes of Genghis Khan, the Klondike gold rush, and Napoleon's retreat all rolled up into one. Such was the typhus problem in the Rhineland . . ."

    Revisionists have always maintained that Jews died by the same means and causes as practically ALL civilians died during that horrible war - by starvation, bombings, hardships due to destroyed housing and lack of fuel, and rampant diseases caused by lack of medicine as a result of bombing and overcrowding. An inordinate number of those who were in concentration camps died from typhus. Typhus is spread by body lice. The Germans had no DDT. Zyklon B was used instead to control the spread of disease. The idea was, believe it or not, to SAVE lives.

    According to Webster's Dictionary, typhus is an acute infectious disease carried by lice. There are three types of louse that infest humans. There is the head louse, the pubic louse (i.e. crabs), and the body louse. Typhus is transmitted to humans through the body louse. It transmits more easily where conditions are unsanitary and bodies are dirty.

    That is the short answer. A longer answer can be found by reading up on just how war played out so horribly at the end of 1945.

    The reason it is important to be aware of typhus in relation to the Holocaust story is that it played a devastating role in creating the scenes of human devastation recorded by the Allied armies after they captured German labor-, prison-, and concentration camps, particularly Dachau. It puts the Allied war-propaganda newsreels of the concentration camps into their proper context. This topic can only be properly understood and studied in depth if one studies the official US Bombing Survey, conducted by the USA after Germany's defeat.

    This massive study details the numbers of hospitals, universities, laboratories, vitamin-producing chemical factories, hospital and surgical supply companies destroyed in Germany, leading to the widespread use of toilet paper as a substitute for cotton gauze or bandages. With hygienic conditions at such a low point, typhus via lice spread like wildfire. Typhus was nothing new; it had long been a scourge in eastern Europe even during times of peace. During times of war, however, it became a scourge beyond description.

    Lice spread rapidly in unsanitary, overcrowded situations and were difficult to control due to the vast movement of troops, due to dislocation of civilians, destruction by war, streams of refugees etc. Let's take just one example, Auschwitz.

    During the Summer of 1942, a typhus epidemic broke out at the German concentration and labor camp at Auschwitz. Auschwitz was equipped with extensive hospital facilities, but the extent of the epidemic quickly outstripped the resources available to combat it. Large sections of the camp were put into quarantine. The staff of the camp implemented a complex set of procedures to control the spread of lice and to stop the epidemic. At its peak, the typhus epidemic at Auschwitz killed several hundred prisoners every day and forced the SS, who operated the camp, to take drastic action, since they themselves were in danger.

    The regimen implemented to fight the spread of typhus included the building of extensive delousing facilities, particularly at the huge Auschwitz satellite camp called Birkenau. In addition to the sauna building where incoming prisoners were showered and had their heads shaved to remove nits (louse eggs), fumigation chambers were built to delouse clothing and luggage with either steam or a chemical fumigant called Zyklon-B. In addition to delousing personal items, Zyklon-B was also used to systematically fumigate entire buildings at the camp in a process that took several days to complete.

    Even with these procedures in place, the constant flow of thousands of prisoners and internee laborers through Auschwitz and its sub-camps, the Germans had only limited success in controlling the spread of typhus. Testifying to their inability to control the disease, the SS build four crematory facilities at Birkenau during 1943 to dispose of the camp's dead, after it was discovered that dead and conventionally buried typhus-infected cadavers poisoned the ground water and spread the epidemic via the drinking water.

    As Germany began to lose the war, prison camps were evacuated ahead of the advancing Red Army and Allied Armies in the West in late 1944 up to the end of the war in the spring of 1945. (They could have left them to be "liberated" by the Reds, which would have solved one problem! Ask Mr. Elie Wiesel why he decided to run with the "exterminators" instead of waiting for the "liberators"!)

    All of these concentration camp inmates were crammed into the remaining German Altreich camps such as Dachau, Bergen-Belsen etc. These concentration camps became extremely overcrowded with yet more typhus brought by the new arrivals and causing yet more dead. Berg has described these conditions:

    ". . . the clock had been turned back - in some respects, as far back as the middle ages. By the winter and early spring of 1945, tens of millions of people were fleeing into an area so small that, even in the best of times, enough food could not be produced to sustain the normal population. Casualties were in the millions. All major cities were in ruins. The fact that Germans facing extinction in these circumstances neglected the health and nutrition of many of their most bitter enemies in concentration camps should not be at all surprising." (p. 10)

    In addition, the German transport and production infrastructure was severely damaged by Allied bombers and strafing fighters. The transport of supplies became at first difficult and at the end impossible. It is worth mentioning also that the Allies bombed the chemical factories producing Zyklon B, which was one reason why more people died of typhus than might otherwise have been the case. There is, in fact, correspondence from one camp commander in the archives complaining that people died from a LACK of Zyklon B. There were also shortages of railroad, cars, trucks, fuel, food and medicine for all of Germany, including civilians and naturally also the concentration camps, as that country was overrun by its enemies, who were closing in on all sides.

    One unavoidable result of Germany's desperate situation was the ever more rapid spread of typhus and other diseases in the overcrowded and under-supplied German prison camps. Fuel and capacity for the crematories ran out and the dead began to accumulate in sheds, makeshift morgues, ultimately yards etc.. Even more increased contagion was the result.

    Add to that a passage from a recent best-selling pilot book, Yeager: An Autobiography". The author described that his fighter group was

    ". . . assigned an area of fifty miles by fifty miles and ordered to strafe anything that moved . . . we weren't asked how we felt zapping people. It was a miserable, dirty mission, but we all took off on time and did it...We were ordered to commit an atrocity, pure and simple, but the brass who approved this action probably felt justified because wartime Germany wasn't easily divided between innocent civilians and its military machine. The farmer tilling his potato field might have been feeding German troops."

    He might also have been feeding detainees at Dachau, including Anne Frank and her family! So what was the end result? The photographs you see in every news reel describing the horrors of the camp. They were horrors all right! Here is a graphic description:

    "The Dachau camp, located in Bavaria about 5 kilometers north of Munich, was one of the largest and certainly one of the most notorious of the Nazi installations housing political prisoners. It was liberated by units of the U.S. Seventh Army on May 1, 1945.

    An estimated 35,000 - 40,000 prisoners were found in the camp, living under conditions bad even for a German camp of this kind and worse than any other that came into American hands. Extreme filthiness, louse infestation and overcrowding prevailed throughout the camp buildings. Several car loads of human bodies were found packed in box cars in the railroad yards adjacent to the camp, the vestiges of a shipment of prisoners from camps farther north who were transferred to Dachau in the late days of the war. . .

    The number of patients with typhus fever at the time the camp was first occupied will never be known. Days passed before a census of patients could be accomplished. Several hundreds were found in the prison hospital, but their number was small compared with the patients who continued to live with their comrades in the camp barracks, bedridden and unattended, lying in bunks four tiers high with two and sometimes three men to a narrow shelf-like bed . . . crowded beyond all description, reeking with filth and neglect - and everywhere the smell of death.

    During the first few days little more could be done with the limited staff that was available than make the rounds of the barracks, pulling out the dead and the dying..."

    That's where the pictures come from. As the Americans and the British wrestled control of the concentration camps from the SS, they took films of the chaotic and appalling conditions in these camps and circulated them around the world as "evidence of Nazi barbarity" - in large part to deflect public criticism of their own war crimes of genocidal bombing.

    The implication to this day is that these piles of dead were victims of gassings. Not infrequently it is stated that Anne Frank and her family were gassed in the last days of the war.

    Nothing could be farther from the truth. She, along with many others, died of typhus

  • 39. What is the difference if six million or 300,000 Jews died during this awesome period?


    Ernst Zündel Replies:
    Rebuttal # 39:

    As I recall it, the original item read:

    Question: "What is the difference between 6 million and 300,000?"

    Answer: "5,700,000."

    That was as good an answer as any. For Nizkor to haul in additional rhetoric or even claim an "audio tape" - there were few audio tapes in those years, mostly shellac records! - IS belaboring the obvious.

    It's very simple, really: It PAYS to keep the numbers high. Repeat: It has to do with compensation for politically convenient "victimhood" - with numbers in the millions, there is more to collect.

    That there was rhetoric, sometimes of a threatening nature, against the Jews during the war is true. So what of it?

    How about Churchill's wartime rhetoric against the Germans? How about all the "Kill the Hun" hate calls American media put out by the reams? How about Ilya Ehrenburg's bloodthirsty, vicious agitation to "maim, rape, rob and kill the Nazi beast" emanating out of Russia?

    Do the Israelis not threaten their enemies with mayhem and murder to this day? Closer to home, on our peacetime continent, that kind of rhetoric exists today against those individuals who are described as "Nazis."

    International Jewry were seen as prime causes of World War II, and many Jews were suspected of sabotaging and undermining the effort of war. There was a lot of rhetoric, since most but not all Jews were believed to be potential security threats engaged in underground guerrilla war efforts.

    The Zundelsite receives death threats from various Holocaust Promotion Lobby sources practically every week. Some of these threats, such as the parcel bomb and arson against me, Ernst Zundel, are actually realized - as I found out to my sorrow.


    Are death threats evidence of genocide or of impending genocide? Nonsense!



    Ernst Zündel Replies:
    Rebuttal # 40:

    First thing that needs to be mentioned with this regard is that the aerial photographs of Auschwitz made by the US Air Force in 1943 and '44 do not reveal any signs of any pits, no mounds of earth that would have to be excavated from those pits, nothing that might indicate mass homicidal activity, no smoke from crematoria, no signs of bodies being burned in the open, no piles of coal - nothing! Those overflights were taking place at random, at the time when the "extermination program" at Auschwitz was allegedly in full swing.

    Those aerial photographs were extensively studied by researchers. German historian Udo Walendy, who as a court-recognized expert was a witness at the Zundel trial, devoted his entire "Historical Facts" magazine (#9, 1981) to the subject.

    Other expert witnesses at Zundel trials were also giving their evidence on the subject. There is simply nothing on those photographs to give the slightest amount of ammunition to the holocaust writers.

    The major source for the stories about "cremation pits", as well as other ones of the same "quality", seems to be a former Auschwitz inmate, Filip Muller, but stories of burning bodies in pits can also be found in Auschwitz commandants' Rudolf Hoess "confessions" and "memoirs". The stories of burning in pits usually involve Auschwitz-Birkenau camp, but some pit burning is also alleged at Treblinka.

    The type of fuel in case of Birkenau was supposed to have been wood, not gasoline. At Treblinka rubbish was supposedly used, which is simply preposterous, as the rubbish of a camp is not nearly the same as that of an average American or Canadian household.

    The camps sure did not have plenty of fancy wrappings made of paper and plastic. They probably did not have many cardboard boxes either. Every wartime scrap of material was saved and recycled - even then! And in "paper-poor" wartime Germany, there certainly were no newspapers with some hundred or even twice that many pages every day, no magazines, no clothing to throw out. It is simply inconceivable that someone would be suggesting that the camp garbage was just as combustible as our garbage today!

    As for the claims with regard to gasoline, everybody must have seen corpses of Goebbels and Hitler. They were still far from the stage when the body is reduced to ashes, even after a considerable amount of gasoline poured on them. In his testimony Ivan Lagace said that he had seen the remains of victims of crime, after the murderers had attempted to burn the corpse with gasoline in an open area and set them on fire. They utterly failed in that.

    Human bodies are very difficult to burn, and in the open it is pretty much impossible. Skin can be charred quite easily; limbs can also be burned; but it is extremely difficult to cremate the torso.

    The recent case in Britain involving "mad cow" disease is a case in point. It was a real disaster of national proportions - not just for the purely economic impact due to the loss of so much livestock, but also for the expense associated with disposing of so many carcasses.

    Somehow nobody suggested to pile those carcasses in the open and douse them with gasoline!

    And yet, according to the holocaust historiography, those "evil nazis" in fuel-starved wartimes somehow were able to do essentially the same with no apparent problem.

    Gasoline was a very precious commodity in Germany during the war, it is simply inconceivable that it would have been wasted on cremations of bodies, especially for such inefficient process as burning in the open - or worse yet, in pits! Here we do not even need to mention the fact that there is no record of any large quantity gasoline deliveries to Auschwitz.
  • 41. Can bodies be burned in pits?

    41. Can bodies be burned in pits?

    Ernst Zündel Replies:
    Rebuttal # 41:

    This is an extension of QA #40 which I have already answered. It is akin to asking whether screws can be driven in with a hammer. Perhaps it is possible, but why would anyone want to do it?

    There are problems with burning in pits that make it impractical. Traditionally, open air cremations are done on a pyre, with wood most frequently used as fuel. In India, where open air cremations are still widely practiced for religious reasons, it takes approximately 480 kg of good quality, dry wood to cremate a body. It should also be indicated that after massive civilian casualties caused by the Allied bombings, the Germans also used pyres to incinerate corpses. They did not do so in pits.

    A pit adds nothing but unnecessary work. It actually complicates the combustion process by severely restricting the flow of air to the bottom, which is essential for combustion. Holocaust propagandists should take a good look at a barbecue set. There are always holes at the bottom of the pan that holds the charcoal to allow air to come in.

    It is often claimed that burning of bodies in pits in concentration camps was allegedly done throughout the year, which included winter months. In the warm climate of India it takes almost half a ton of dry wood to cremate a body, but in subzero temperatures of Poland in the winter months it would only be natural to assume that cremation would require even more energy than in India, to account for the fact that the rate of heat loss into the atmosphere would be considerably greater. It would take plenty of energy just to melt the ice on and in the bodies! Human bodies, as is well known, contain at least 60 percent of water.

    Worse yet, the bulk of "cremations in the pits" has allegedly been performed at Birkenau, but that is simply impossible because of the high level of the ground water table, where it is often just a foot or two from the surface of the earth and the entire area is practically flooded when the snow begins to melt in the spring.

    As stated in #40, Filip Muller, a Jew who claims to have been a member of the Auschwitz prisoner working brigade and whose task included disposal of the dead, insists the pit cremations were done in spite of the water. In the movie Shoah, Muller presents an even more absurd story in that a fire truck had to be used to pump the water out of a pit near Birkenau, so that the dead bodies could be cremated in it! How absurd can the stories get?

    They do get pretty crazy. The subject of burning pits have been dealt with extensively during the first Zundel trial. An "eyewitness", Rudolph Vrba, claimed he saw them, so I am treating you with an excerpt from his testimony under cross-examination by defense attorney, Doug Christie:

    Q: Mm-hmmm. Would you say, sir, that you told us yesterday about burning pits?

    A. Yes.

    Q: Would you say that yesterday you told us there were pits that were six meters wide, six meters long and six meters deep?

    A. I also made the remark that I didn't make a measurement with a tape, but it was my judgment of that measure.

    Q. You gave us an example by referring to the panels on the wall, and you pointed up to, I think, the top of the first panel; didn't you?

    A. Yes, that would be it.

    Q. Mm-hmmm. Well, how do you explain the method by which the Germans could burn bodies under water in this marshy ground where the water level was about - well, you described it as marshy ground. Tell us how they did that.

    A. Well, they didn't invite me for technical consultations. And if you accept that I'm not speaking only as a witness, I saw only when it was finished; but if you want my technical advice, I would think, without having seen how they have done it and without me having consulted how they have done it, that I could have to do it myself given three, four hundred slave laborers. There's no problem.

    Q. Well, tell me how - you agree you described the ground all around there as marshy ground, or do you say otherwise?

    A. The ground all around was marshy. This means as a countryside.

    Q. Because it was between two rivers.

    A. It was between two rivers, but as you probably have been in your life in a marshy countryside, you know that even in marshy countryside there are occasional visitors around and fishermen. So in marshy land I would say that there are some quite dried out, well-prepared pieces of land by the administration of the Auschwitz-Birkenau camp which were not marshy or which were not to be considered too marshy especially when (it) was in winter 1942 it was heavy frost, and you know it was sort of solid earth.

    Q. Mm-hmmm. It was frozen earth?

    A. Frozen earth.

    Q. Well, how does the fire keep the water from melting?

    A. How does fire. . .

    Q. How is the fire arranged so that the water in this marshy ground did not melt and fill up the pit that was as high as that top panel on the wall over there? That's a long way down, isn't it?

    A. Yes. Well, you are asking me again something which I do not know, neither from eye witness acount, nor have I consulted on technical problem, and I suppose that anybody with a slight technical education will explain to you that if you are in a marshy land and dry out that marsh on, say, one kilometer square, then you get completely different conditions within that kilometer square than in the rest of the marsh. I would think so. . . .

    Q: Six meters.

    A. Yes. At the bottom of the pit.

    Q: Six meters down?

    A. Yes. But it was only four meters and not six meters. because I didn't have a tape, and my measures would be very sort of lost, and perhaps in view of the awesome situation it might have appeared to me bigger than it was, you see, within a meter or two.

    Q. Within ---

    A. I know you will blame me that I didn't use a yardstick, but it wasn't technically possible.

    Q. No, I don't blame you at all. I am just asking you questions, and perhaps if you will answer them, that will be a good idea.

    A. I will be pleased.

    Q. So, if I understand you correctly, the six by six by six metters might be out by one or two meters?

    A. Might be out by one or two meters.

    Q. Mm-hmmm. You don't understand or know any reason why there would be no water in the bottom of this pit; you have no explanation for this at all.

    A. Of course I have an explanation. If the pit was heated up, and if there was a lot of bodies burning, everything - and if it was not used once but many times, then the water from around would have long dried out.

    Q: I see. Is it true that what you said earlier was the case that it was marshy ground?

    A. The marshy ground was general around Auschwitz. In other words --

    Q: Not around Birkenau?

    A. Around Birkenau. In other words, how marshy Birkenau was, I, the first time realized only after I left Birkenau and had to cross the common camp area. In other words, Birkenau was built up in a marshy area, but Birkenau itself was not marshy any more.

    Q. Oh, you say that it was built up above the level of the land.

    A. I do not say that it was built above the level of the land, but proper and simple ameliorative measures were taken so that Birkenau and the Birkenau installations will not be succumbed by the swamps. The swamps were there, otherwise you will have to ask for the technical administration of Auschwitz camp house. I am not a builder, but I knew how to build things.

    Q: What ameliorative measures do you say were taken?

    A. Yes, ameliorative measures, which translated means measures to regulate unexpected flood of water. It is used quite frequently by great agricultural enterprises when they want a piece of their agricultural dry, and a piece wet. This is achieved by amelioration.

    Q. What ameliorative measures do you say were taken to prevent water from being a problem in Auschwitz? Do you say that they raised the level of the land. . . ?"

    Now, class. Compose yourselves!

    Back to more serious matters. When a body is cremated in a furnace, the heat of combustion is contained within the retort and the burning continues all the way to the smoke stack, making it the most economical method of cremation. But when a body is cremated in the open, plenty of heat escapes without coming into contact with the body, which, obviously, makes it an extremely wasteful method of cremation. And the pit would not improve things at all, even if dug on a high ground, with no water seeping in. Just look at what it takes to prevent losses of energy in a normal furnace - special high-temperature resistant bricks, afterburners with multiple baffles to create turbulence in the flue gas and thus to facilitate combustion of small particles, forced draft, very high smoke stacks! Why in the name of plain common sense, burning pits?

    And finally, a few gems from Nizkor.

    Nizkor: "A high-energy, refined fuel like gasoline was not required. Cheap and relatively plentiful inflammables like motor oil and methanol were used instead."

    It is not clear what they mean by "motor oil". If they mean lubricating oil, then it was just as precious as gasoline. Theoretically those "evil nazis" could, of course, have been using the old motor oil. All they had to do was to issue an order to the frontline and other troops to save the old motor oil each time they did an oil change and to send it to Auschwitz. Tanks, trucks, ships, submarines, airplanes, steam engines do consume plenty of lubricants, and the Germans, being so frugal, would, no doubt, have found a way to collect it from the Afrika Corps, from the Eastern and Western fronts, from Italy, Norway, Finland, the shipyards, ports and airfields - just to make sure that all those hundreds of thousands of bodies would be disposed of.

    As for the methanol, it is not cheap; it takes a rather involved technological process to produce it in industrial quantities, and that kind of a plant cannot be hidden in an underground factory. Whatever facilities to produce methanol Germany had were busy supplying the needs of the underground Dora factories producing V-2 rockets.

    Nizkor would be well advised to talk to the car racing aficionados and to find out the main reason why alcohol and not gasoline is used as fuel in formula car racing. It is done for safety sakes, as alcohol fires, which can take place during a crash or a spill in a pit, are not as "hot", since methanol releases less heat during combustion. Such fires, obviously, are easier to contain. They do not burn as well.

    Nizkor again: "Hoess describes the open air burning process..."

    It is common knowledge that Hoess was severely tortured in order to obtain his "confession" and to make him write his "memoirs". I have discussed this elsewhere. As a result of the torture, Hoess came up with amazing details, such as a nonexistent camp "Wolzek", as well as other things which could not have possibly been taking place. He also gave an absurdly high number of victims in Auschwitz-Birkenau which is not taken at value even by the most hard-core Holocaust researchers.

    Nizkor: "It was only toward the end of the summer of 1942 that cremation began to be used - first by means of a wood pyre of about two thousand corpses..."

    Come on. Take your calculator. If it takes about 480 kg of dry wood per corpse to accomplish a cremation in the hot climate of India, can you imagine how much wood it would take to process the number of bodies mentioned by Nizkor? In the winter it would have taken even more.

    To sum up the above, I would like to quote Carlo Mattogno.

    "... exterminationist historiography, which predominates in this field, is rooted in dogmatism. The virtually theological nature of this dogmatism is pointed up in a declaration by 34 French "scholars" published in the French daily newspaper Le Monde on February 21, 1979, in which they stated:

    "The question of how technically such a mass murder was possible should not be raised. It was technically possible because it occurred. This is the necessary starting point for all historical investigation on the subject."

    ("My Banned Holocaust Interview")

    In the traditions of our civilization we examine physical evidence. We call for expert analysis. Even in a case of a simple break-in, not to mention a murder, police forensic experts would be all over the scene of the crime, scouring it for evidence. But in the case of this so-called "Holocaust", six million people have allegedly been murdered and yet the side that is making that claim does everything possible to obstruct the introduction of the forensic evidence into the "proceedings"!

    Their eye-witnesses make absurd claims, which are completely removed from reality, but anyone who points that out becomes a "neo-nazi", a "Hitler apologist" and so on.

    It's very simple, really: To know that milk is sour, you do not have to drink a quart. It is enough to take a sip. You do not have to eat a lamb to know what mutton tasts like. It's quite enough that you consume a cutlet.

  • 42 "Holocaust" authors claim that the Nazis were able to cremate bodies in about 10 minutes. How long does it take to incinerate one body, according to professional crematory operators?


    Ernst Zündel Replies:
    Rebuttal # 42:

    I have done extensive research to inform myself first-hand on that question. Have you?

    I started my research by consulting one of Toronto's most modern crematories, then went on to study the entire history of cremation through the ages. I consulted especially the Encyclopedia Brittanica, going back over 120 years relating to the evolution of cremation.

    I next obtained copies of all the German patents of crematory equipment and ovens - pre-war, wartime and post-war - in preparation for my trials.

    Here is the story of the concentration crematories:

    Most crematories, even today, still require 2 1/2 to 3 hours for the entire process. The size of the body, the type of container that holds the body, and the type of crematory affect the cremation time, depending on the efficiency of the furnace, moisture content, bulk, weight and size of the cadaver to be cremated.

    Additionally, speed of cremation depends on such things as necessary cooling-down periods for the actual oven, called a retort, between individual cremations, rebuilding and re-bricking of crematoria, breaking-in periods of new crematoria etc.

    One important point is that if a corpse is prematurely inserted into an improperly cooled-down retort, the body will literally explode from the intense heat and damage the very fragile, special refractory brick, causing the shut-down of the entire crematorium.

    In other words, the entire crematoria story stands and falls on technology. And here it is important to note that the cremation technology in the 1940s was virtually the same as it is today.

    Nizkor claims that ". . . more recently, the Holocaust-deniers have begun to rely on the testimony of Ivan Lagace, who apparently said at the Zundel trial and later in print that it takes six to eight hours per body. . . "

    Lagace said no such thing. Lagace gave highly expert testimony. Lagace had overseen the burial or cremation of 10,000 corpses in his career as the director of the Calgary, Alberta crematorium. Nizkor should have started with Lagace, whose testimony, summarized precisely, can be found at http://www.webcom.com/ezunde/english/dsmrd/dsmrd26lagace.html

    As stated before, Carlo Mattagno of Italy has compiled an extensive bibliography which is available to anybody serious about finding answers to highly technical questions pertaining to cremation. Additionally, anybody interested in this macabre topic should go to the trouble of consulting any good Encyclopedia or the local crematory in their city or region. They will be in for an awakening and be shocked how they have been lied to by the Holocaust propagandists.

    This rebuttal is not the place to cite such information extensively, but it is available and can be checked and double-checked for all those truly interested. Write to Granata Publishing, P.O. Box 2145, Palos Verdes, CA 90274.

    Below, I will just quote a few passages to give Nizkor a feel for the core and substance of the argument, as taken from "The Crematories of Auschwitz" by Carlo Mattagno, a 1995 copyrighted Granata publication.

    Here is Mattagno, in his own words, speaking of Auschwitz-Birkenau in his rebuttal of the Pressac claims:

    ". . . if, at Auschwitz-Birkenau, there really had been a mass extermination of Jews and others whose bodies were cremated, then the weapon of the crime, the homicidal gas chamber, must have had an indispensable accessory, namely the crematory oven.

    After long years of research in German libraries, we have collected an extensive bibliography comprising practically all of the technical articles concerning cremation that appeared in Germany from the 1920s through the 1940s.

    Moreover, in the archives of the Auschwitz State Museum in Poland, we examined photocopies of unpublished documents from the Moscow archives concerning the crematory ovens manufactured during the war by the Topf Company of Erfurt, Germany.

    In addition, we made on-site studies of the Topf crematory ovens still in existence at the concentration camps of Dachau, Mauthausen, Gussen and Buchenwald.

    We also studied the crematory ovens made by the Kori company of Berlin at the concentration camps at Dachau, Mauthausen and Majdanek . . .

    The demonstrative procedures and conclusions of this work have been examined by a group of German engineers who have confirmed their scientific value.

    A scientific study. . . must confront and resolve two fundamental thermal-technical problems: cremation capacity and coke consumption.

    The Topf ovens at Auschwitz-Birkenau, which were designed and constructed to hold one corpse at a time, required an average of approximately one hour to cremate each corpse. In fact, because of their limited heat potential, it was not economically feasible to cremate two or more bodies together, from the point of view both of duration and of coke consumption.

    A simultaneous cremation . . . was therefore thermo-technically impossible."


    ". . . practical considerations significantly lower the actual cremation capacity. First, proper functioning of the ovens requires a break of at least four hours each day to clean coke slag from the furnace grilles.

    Second, the ovens were programmed to function for twelve hours per day.

    Moreover, past experience with the two-chambered ovens at the Auschwitz main camp crematory had shown that these installations wore out rapidly and were subject to frequent breakdowns.

    Therefore, they could not have been expected to function continuously, or to be better than other ovens of that era."

    Additionally, to come back to the claim made in previous Q/As regarding burning of bodies in pits,

    ". . . the aerial photographs. . . do not show the least indication of this alleged mass extermination. No smoke, no cremation pits (burning or not), no traces of the earth that would have to have been dug out of the pits; no piles of wood to fuel the pits; no traces of vehicles, or of any activity in the critical zone . . . These photographs provide irrefutable proof that the story (is) historically unfounded."

    Mattagno concludes:




    Here is the story of the concentration crematories:



























    Mattagno concludes:

    ". . . in case of discrepancy between testimony and physical evidence, it is physical evidence that should prevail. . . technical reality and physical evidence show the material impossibility of a mass extermination at Auschwitz-Birkenau."

    In summary, what Nizkor so glibly and irresponsibly believes is technically possible to prop up the faltering "Nazi Holocaust Mass Murder" claims is simply not borne out by knowledge about the functioning of crematoria - then or now.


  • 43. Why did the concentration camps have crematory ovens?

    43. Why did the concentration camps have crematory ovens?

    Ernst Zündel Replies:
    Rebuttal # 43:

    Quite simply, to dispose of the casualties of war in a sanitary, sensible manner, especially in view of the many contagious diseases that were rampant in some of the camps such as typhus.

    Burial meant contamination of the ground water which endangered everybody, not just the inmates of the concentration camps. Therefore, people were cremated.

    Small crematory in Auschwitz

    There is nothing sinister about crematories found in concentration camps. They protected the living from dying - the concentration camp guards and the administrators as well as the inmates.

    The situation would have been far worse, in terms of casualties, had there been no crematory ovens.

    Nizkor's reply is both shoddy and snotty. Very little else needs to be said.



    Ernst Zündel Replies:
    Rebuttal # 44:

    Since this is a strictly theoretical question, the answer here is also theoretical. As we all know, in theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is.

    Theoretically, given a three hour cycle time, each crematory retort, or oven, could reduce eight bodies in a day to ashes. In practice, however, the number of functioning retorts in operation at any one place in German cities or German-run concentration camps during the war was not constant.

    Crematories in the concentration camps were generally built during 1942 and 1943, often by inmate labor, and were of hasty, often shoddy construction. Some of these crematories did not operate for very long and broke down soon after they were completed. Some were never repaired. Those remaining can be assumed to have been in operation at most for about 18 months to two years.

    These crematoria incinerated corpses that were the result of rampant epidemics of massive infectious diseases, caused by overcrowding, lice-bearing typhus etc. as well as all the vagaries of war such as hunger, lack of hygiene, cold, lack of medical supplies for chronic medical conditions etc. This type of condition was experienced by all warring countries to various degrees - during and after the war!

    Of the six so-called (by the Allies) "death camps", only Auschwitz and Majdanek had crematories, but other regular German concentration camps, such as Dachau, Buchenwald, and Bergen-Belsen also had crematories, thus immediately disarming the false and sinister Allied propaganda claims that the mere presence of a crematory installation "proved" mass murder.

    Get out your pen and pencil - or better yet, your calculator.

    The total number of retorts for Auschwitz is 52. Total for Majdanek is 6.

    To simplify this question, Auschwitz will be examined first.

    Six retorts operated at Auschwitz for the first sixteen months of the period under examination (i.e. 12/41-3/43). That allows enough time and is enough equipment for about 23,328 theoretical cremations if one allows for 24 hour, total utilization of the facilities without breakdowns, maintenance etc. As we have learned, such was not the case.

    In March 1943, Birkenau crematory Number Two was completed. After a short period of service, it was discovered the lining of the chimney had been botched, and it had to be redone.

    Crematory number four was completed at the end of the same month. It contained eight retorts. It operated for two months and was abandoned in May of 1943.

    In April, 1943, crematory number five was also finished.

    Therefore, in April 1943, sixteen more retorts were operational for a total of 22 retorts. Auschwitz, then, had 22 retorts operational for about the next six weeks. This is resources for an additional theoretical 7,392 cremations - again, if one allows for a 100% flawless functioning.

    In May crematory number four was abandoned. Crematory number three was not started up until the fourth week of June 1943. There was then a period of about five weeks where only 14 retorts were working and another 3,920 additional cremations were theoretically possible.

    After crematory number three became operational on June 25th, crematory number one was shut down for a net gain of nine retorts.

    This situation lasted for about 18 days for 3,312 theoretical possible cremations for this period. Then on the twelfth of July the rework on crematory two was completed.

    Crematory five was mothballed at about the same time for a net increase of seven retorts.

    Thankfully for this discussion, things stabilized for the next sixteen months with 30 retorts operating at Birkenau. The time and equipment available would have allowed for an additional 116,400 theoretical cremations. It can be seen, then, that roughly 154,352 theoretical cremations could have been performed at Auschwitz between December 1941 and November 1944.

    It is still claimed today by the Auschwitz authorities that about one and half million people died or were murdered at Auschwitz during this time. This number is down from the previous Polish and Soviet claim of four million "Nazi victims" - with the Zionists claiming all along at least two and a half million of those were Jews.

    Against that claim, there is documentation for fewer than 80,000 deaths at the camp. This information came from the Auschwitz death registries, held in moth balls for decades but finally released by the Soviets, thanks in some measure to a world wide write in campaign to Gorbachev in 1989 by thousands of Zündel suporters.

    These death registries were analyzed by people who know Jewish names, replete with diverse spellings in various Slavic languages, These analyses indicate less than 30% of those who died there were Jews, and the bulk of those deaths were due to epidemics and common diseases.

    These numbers of corpses could have been disposed of, given the crematoria capacity at that time. The "four million" previously claimed, or even 1 1/2 million "revised" simply could not have been incinerated. The numbers don't check out.

    Majdanek's crematory had six retorts and operated for nine months. These resources would provide for another 12,960 theoretical cremations.

    Nizkor seems to be relying on the French pharmacist Pressac's writings. What will Nizkor do as Pressac ruduces the number of victims in his calculations downward more ever closer to Revisionist figures and positions? It is known to have happened before.

  • 45. Can a crematory oven be operated 100 % of the time?


    Ernst Zündel Replies:
    Rebuttal # 45:

    A bit of background information first.

    Cremation of the dead is not a new concept. It has been practiced by many cultures for many centuries. In Europe it is a relatively recent practice, since it was frowned upon by the Catholic Church, which relaxed its opposition only in the late 18th century.

    There are many practical reasons for the use of creation. Cremation allows a more effective control of infectious diseases. It does not take up the much-needed land for ever expanding graveyards, which is very important in overcrowded areas. It also eliminates the need to store corpses in the winter when the ground is frozen. There is nothing sinister about cremation per se.

    Europe's early crematories were coal- or coke-fired furnaces. The oven or furnace which is used to cremate corpses is properly termed a retort.

    Early retorts were simply baking kilns which cooked all the moisture out of the corpse. Modern retorts actually blow fire from a nozzle into the remains, causing combustion. Modern retorts also have an extended combustion chamber (afterburner) with a set of baffles to introduce turbulence into the fuel gases and to facilitate the complete burning of particles that did not burn in the main chamber.

    The modern furnaces operate at a temperature of 1100 C (2000 F) or just above, with the temperature falling along the length of the afterburner. Bones cannot be burned and must be crushed by mechanical means, which nowadays is done by putting them in a high-speed rotating drum containing steel balls. In the old days it was done with a mortar and pestle.

    Modern retorts are mostly gas fired, even though there are still some using oil. There are no more coke- or coal-fired crematoria in the US or Canada.

    During the second Zündel Trial in 1998 in Toronto, the court heard testimony of Ivan Lagace, who was at that time crematory manager at the Bow Valley Crematorium in Calgary, Alberta. He was recognized by the court as an expert in the practical aspects of crematorium practices.

    Mr. Lagace testified that an average time to cremate a human body in a modern gas-fired furnace at the temperature of just over 1000 degrees C (about 2000 F) is two hours. Smaller bodies could be cremated in about 1.5 hours. The time of 1.5 hours was given in a Toronto Star article for 17 September 1996; the article mentioned a temperature of 1000 C, which can only be achieved in modern gas or oil-fired crematory furnaces with a direct application of flames to the corpse.

    Heat energy required to cremate a corpse, according to that same Star article, ranges from 800,000 to 1.2 million BTU. As mentioned above, older furnaces were fired by coal or coke. Coke produces very short flames which means there is no flame contact with the corpse in those furnaces.

    This mode of operation produces an average temperature of about 800 C (1470 F) in the immediate vicinity of the corpse, which extends cremation time to 3.5 to 4 hours for each corpse. The coal and coke furnaces do not burn uniformly and combustion has to be continuously monitored, with the operator adding more coal, if necessary, poking it, and controlling the introduction of air by dampers.

    The crematories utilized in German camps were of the older type. All of the ovens had multiple retorts and all were coke fired. None of the retorts in German camps were designed for multiple corpse incineration, as claimed in exterminationist literature.

    In view of all this, one can see how preposterous is the claim that it took a half-hour to 45 minutes to incinerate a corpse in a W.W. II type German crematoria. But still, it is a considerable "progress" from 5 (five) to 9 (nine) minutes, that it took to incinerate a body according to the report by the Soviet State Commission, which investigated Auschwitz in 1945.

    Can a crematory oven be operated nonstop - "nonstop" meaning that you start the next cremation immediately after completing the previous one?

    Factory recommendations for normal operation and sustained use of crematoria furnaces allow for three or less cremations per day. Any attempt to exceed that would put a great stress on refractory specialty brick lining, which will result in a faster wear and the need for replacement.

    The crematory furnace consist of a shell, constructed of a hard brick, which is lined with a refractory brick from the inside. The main quality of the refractory bricks is their ability to withstand high temperature. Another important quality is their low heat conductivity, which helps to protect the structural bricks of the crema wall from excessive heat for which they are not designed.

    A brick of refractory lining is very soft and fragile. You can easily scratch it with your fingernail, which also means it can be easily damaged - for example, with a poking iron.

    According to Ivan Lagace, an average life expectancy of refractory bricks is about 1500 cremations. Refractory bricks can also be severely damaged when a corpse is introduced into a hot furnace that was not allowed to cool down fully following a previous cremation. This happens because water in body tissues is instantly brought to boiling temperature and the tissues quite literally explode, splattering body fluids and wet tissues all around.

    One can imagine what will happen to a red-hot brick if you splatter water on it! There will be plenty of spalling and flaking; it may even crack! That is why it is very important to either allow a cooling-down period after a cremation or to reduce the rate of combustion by the end of cremation, thus allowing the temperature to gradually come down.

    Either of these options, obviously, reduce the number of cremations that can be performed in a day. And let's not forget that in order to cool down a gas-fired furnace you simply shut off the flow of gas, but it is much more cumbersome with coal, since even after no more coal is fed to the furnace, it will take some time for the coal still in the furnace to burn up.

    We also have to keep in mind that coke slag had to be removed from the furnaces, possibly more than once a day. The ash which was settling in the flue ducts and chimneys also had to be removed manually on a regular basis. Those are very labor-intensive operations. The Holocaust writers keep insisting that cremations were being done "around the clock", "nonstop", "with hundred per cent duty cycle"; that the crematory ovens were operating "100% of the time"; and so on, claiming the numbers of bodies that were being incinerated daily in each oven in the hundreds. That is nonsense for technical reasons.

    Here is an excerpt from the operating instructions for the crematory operators of an American-manufactured crematory. For the sake of brevity we skip some paragraphs, leaving only those which reveal the duration of various operations involved in the cremation process, as well as those items which indicate a possibility of excessive wear of the furnace components. The copied paragraphs retain the exact wording of the manual. For that reason, conversions to degrees C are not provided. In order to do that simply divide Farenheit by 1.8, subtracting 32 at those levels will not improve accuracy.

    (note to paragr. 3) A. "Your Retort has a timer which has to be set for length of time to be allotted for entire cycle of Cremation. Rotate center knob on the timer counterclockwise until indicator pointer is set at two (2) hours and thirty (30) minutes. [...]

    5. Upon the start of the blower, the timer has now began to run towards completing the two (2) hours and thirty (30) minute cycle.

    [...] 7. Now close the door by pressing the door "Down" button. You are now starting your Preheat Cycle. This will take twenty (20) minutes.

    NOTE: This time of PREHEAT for the after compartment is important to prevent any smoke and odor coming out of the hot air duct. [...]

    After the Preheat Cycle has been completed, open the door. Now place a wooden roller approximately 1.5" to 2" in diameter by 12 to 14 inches long on the floor center tile 18 inches in from the front of the Retort.


    Use of any metal type roller will cause excessive wear on the floor tile and shorten the life period of the floor tile. [...]

    12. (after positioning the casket) Now start the main burner by pressing the main burner "Start" button. The Cremation will take approximately two (2) hours to be completed.

    A. It should be noted that the "Fuel Saver Device" will begin operation at that point in time when the temperature reaches 1450 F. The main burner will automatically be positioned to the low-fire position and remain there until temperature drops below the 1600 F level.

    13. At the end of the two (2) hour cremation cycle, the timer will automatically turn-off the Retort.

    14. Open the door upon completion of the two (2) hour time to check cremains (sic). If the case is complete, close the door. Now start the blower and leave it run for a minimum of (1) One Hour. (one (1) hour 15 min. preferred) to cool the retort down on the cooling cycle. However, if the case is not complete, close the door.

    Now initiate steps 5,6 and 12.

    Allow cremation cycle to continue until case is complete. [...] Always check the cremains (sic) before continuing.

    15. The cooling cycle is now completed. Now check the ash tray for any residual fluids etc., that might not have been consumed during the Cremation Cycle.


    The ash tray is "HOT". Asbestos gloves should be used to pull out the ash tray. Serious injury (burns) could happen to the operator's hands by failure to use the proper equipment. [...]

    16. Turn off the blower.

    17. Open the door.

    18. Brush the cremains into the ash pit hole. [...]


    Radiant heat will be coming out the door. Asbestos gloves should be worn to prevent injury (burns) to the hands when using the brushes.

    19. Close the door.


    Always close the door when the Retort is hot, and when it is not necessary to have it open to perform a function.

    20. Remove the ash tray from the ash pit. Place the second ash tray in the ash pit.

    21. When doing more than one case per day, the cooling cycle must be (1) One Hour... (one hour 15 min preferred) between the first and second case minimum. The cooling cycle time between the second and third case of the day must be two (2) hours... (two (2) 15 min preferred).

    A. When running more than one case in the same day with not more than the cooling cycle described above being used. "The Preheat Cycle is five (5) minutes approximately or 800 F on temperature indicator between the first and the second case or second and third case of the same day.

    22. Your Retort is designed and constructed in such a manner that a "BREAK-IN PERIOD" is required. The "BREAK-IN CYCLE" is one case per day for the first twenty-five (25) cases to be processed. At the completion of the "BREAK-IN CYCLE", your Crematory Retort has been cured out. (refractory is dried out).


    Failure to conform to the "BREAK-IN CYCLE" will void the Warranty! It could cause damage to your retort, requiring repairs that would be the responsibility of the owner for the costs.

    23. Factory recommendations for normal operation to your Crematory Retort is a maximum of three (3) cases per day in a normal eight (8) hour work day. No more than 50-60 cases should be processed in any month so that the refractory life is prolonged.

    24. When processing more than one case per day, the above procedures will be followed for the first case, with particular attention paid to paragraph 21.


    Failure to follow procedures outlined in paragraph 21 could result in improper combustion.

    25. Should time lapse of more than four (4) hours occur between the first case and the second case, the Preheat Cycle of fifteen (15) minutes must be performed prior to the starting of the second case.


    Failure to perform the Preheat Cycle could result in odor and smoke coming out the hot air duct. [...]

    (The note to par. 12 is not a misprint. It simply means that the temperature will still be going up even in the Fuel Saver mode, only it will be rising at a slower rate. For an efficient control you have to introduce hysteresis, which means that the different control modes are turned on or off not simply upon reaching a certain threshold, but depending on a direction of the parameter change through a threshold. In other words, it will turn into a low-fire mode at 1450 F when the temperature is rising, but it will go back to normal mode at 1600 F when temperature was going down through that threshold. This is done to prevent the controller from changing the mode of operation several times a minute.)

    From that manual for the crematorium furnace operation we can begin to appreciate the technical difficulties associated with cremation! You simply cannot exceed the capacity of the furnace if you plan to keep it in a good working order. Repairs of this kind of equipment are very labor-intensive and take a long time to properly accomplish. Just imagine what it means to replace the refractory lining!

    You would have to cool the furnace down to the temperature which would allow people to work inside. According to Ivan Lagace, cooling would take a minimum of 48 hours. Replacing the lining is a very involved operation. The entire surface of the furnace has to be covered with those fire-resistant bricks; you cannot leave even a tiny spot of the oven structure without protection from the furnace heat!

    The manual also mentions a break-in cycle for the newly built furnace. According to the testimony of Ivan Lagace, you have to go through the same procedure after every repair of the refractory.

    This involves running the oven at a very low combustion rate for a while. Only then can you resume cremations, according to Lagace. For the next 25 days, you can only perform one cremation a day, exactly what we saw in those excerpts from the manual. And no matter whether a whole lining had to be replaced or just a few bricks, you still have to shut down the furnace, let it cool down to the temperature that would allow people to work inside and then go through the entire break-in process.

    Considering all this, it is inconceivable that the Germans would be trying to perform more cremations than the ovens could realistically withstand. As mentioned by Lagace, there is always some flaking of the lining, even during normal operation. The brick may even crack if overheated, and the crack may be very large, to the entire depth of the brick. In that case the fire would not be contained within the retort and the exterior structure would be exposed to temperatures exceeding those it can safely withstand. That would cause a serious emergency which could lead to the collapse of the entire furnace structure if not promptly discovered and corrected.

    That is why it is very important to perform regular inspections of furnaces. In order to inspect the lining, an engineer had to crawl inside the furnace and closely examine every brick. It may take two days for the furnace to get cool enough to allow people to work inside. Failure to perform inspections would entail a considerable risk of severe damage to the oven structure, which would result in an even greater down time.

    It must also be stressed that the number of 1500 cremations per life of a refractory lining, given by Ivan Lagace, refers to an average time, which means that one lining could have survived 1700 cremations, while the other had to be replaced after 1300. Considering the fact that, with the exception of two furnaces in Majdanek I, which had one retort each, all other furnaces had multiple retorts, which means several furnaces on the same foundation and with the flue channels merging into the same smoke stack.

    Auschwitz-Birkenau had furnaces with 2 retorts, 3 retorts and even 4 retorts each, adjacent retorts sharing a wall. This means that the entire group of retorts had to be shut down in order to make repairs in just one retort. So if the lining in one retort had to be replaced, say, after a "mere" 1300 cremations, what should be done next? Do we then restart the furnace, while there is only 200 cremations left in the average capacity of the other retort(s)? Or would it make more sense to strip the old lining from the other one, two or three retorts, whatever the case might be, and put a new one in? One option would take more time and effort for repair, while the other would allow to avoid an extra period of reduced capacity due to break-in period.

    Multiple-retort furnaces are more economical from the purely thermal point of view. They allow a considerable reduction in coke consumption. For example, a three-retort furnace required only 20 kg of coke for the cremation of each emaciated adult corpse. However, their maintenance and repair involve a greater loss in cremation capacity during a down time. That could be another reason why the Germans provided such a considerable reserve cremation capacity in Auschwitz-Birkenau.

    Even if we imagine that, during the typhus epidemics in the camps, the furnaces had to be operated "around the clock", it is inconceivable that the Germans would be operating the ovens in excess of their capacity, thus causing so much "wear and tear" on the refractory lining that it would require more frequent repairs than could be achieved under proper operating conditions.

    Fred Leuchter, in his report (which is available from Samisdat 206 Carlton Street, Toronto, Ontario, M5A 2L1 CANADA, as is the testimony of Ivan Lagace), gives a set of numbers with regards to cremations that were realistically possible in German camps. He puts an average theoretical capacity of 6.8 corpses per retort per 24-hour period, while the realistic, practical capacity is even lower, just 3 (three) corpses in 24-hours. This gives a "theoretical average" for Auschwitz-Birkenau of just over 350 corpses a day, while the realistic value, given by Leuchter, is 156.

    In light of these numbers, and the above technology involved, you can appreciate how absurd are the numbers thrown around by Holocaust propagandists, according to which thousands of bodies were being incinerated each day in Auschwitz-Birkenau crematoria. It is important to emphasize that even these numbers are too high, since they do not take into account the down time due to inspections, maintenance, repair and periods of drastically reduced cremation capacity during the break-in periods following repairs. It also does not take into account the fact that after the completion of Krema installations at Birkenau, those at Auschwitz were no longer used and the Krema I building was converted into a bomb shelter.

    There is no room to go into those details here, but Samisdat has books in its catalog which extensively describe such things, for example, a report by Germar Rudolf who conducted forensic examination of several camps soon after Leuchter.

    The same can be said about the claims that the Germans were supposedly putting three bodies at a time in each retort. It should be obvious to anybody that in a properly designed crematory oven the combustion chamber should be big enough to allow adequate circulation of flames and flue gases around the body. However, making the chamber too large would, obviously, mean that plenty of flue gases would escape through the smokestack without giving away their energy to the corpse, which, of course, is wasteful.

    On the other hand, a chamber that is too small would not allow adequate volumes of hot flue gases to pass by and circulate around the body, thus slowing down the cremation process. It might simply be impossible to maintain a combustion process of adequate volume and intensity, since an obstructed combustion chamber would plug the escape route for flue gases.

    It is, of course, possible to design a furnace that would be able to burn three or even ten bodies at a time, but the German crematoria were not of that type, as is manifestly obvious from examination of either existing furnaces that are being shown to tourists in the camps or from the old engineering blueprints.

    In summary:

    According to the Holocaust propagandists, the mere presence of crematoria in the camps means the proof of the program of mass extermination. But these days, not even the hard-core exterminationists claim that Buchenwald or Dachau were extermination camps, and yet each of those had a crematory.

    The exterminationists like to point at the total number of 52 retorts at Auschwitz-Birkenau and claim that as a proof of the extermination program. It is a known fact that after completion of crematoria in Birkenau, Krema I in Auschwitz was no longer used and was later converted into a bomb shelter. So we only need to consider 46 retorts at Birkenau. And if we look at the death statistics in Auschwitz, we can appreciate the rationale for this considerable reserve capacity.

    During the first 20 days of August 1942, in the male sector alone, there were 4,113 deaths - an average of 216 deaths per day. During the remaining part of that year more than 20 thousand inmates died of typhus. Taking this into consideration, it is reasonable to assume that the Auschwitz administration would have ordered the construction of 46 retorts on the basis of the projected worst case.

    By comparison, in 1939 some 102 thousand people died in Germany, with an average of 280 per day. At that time there were 131 crematoriums with approximately 200 ovens. We can see that on average there were 1.4 cremations per oven per day.

    This considerable reserve capacity existed in Germany even in peace time and even considering the fact that most people were dying of causes other than infectious diseases, mostly old age. But in camps during the war the main cause of death was typhus, so it was very important to dispose of those bodies as fast as possible, which explains this reason for that reserve capacity.

    Between the period of December '41 to March '43 there were six operational retorts at Auschwitz. If we assume 6.8 theoretical cremations a day, then during that period of time there could be approximately 6.8x480=3264 cremations. The more realistic number of three bodies per retort per day would come up to 3x480=1440. Again, this is disregarding the down time and the periods of reduced capacity.

    In March 1943 Birkenau Krema II was completed, but after a short period of service it had to be shut down and the refractory lining redone. Krema IV, containing two furnaces, four retorts each, was completed at the end of March. It operated for just two months and was abandoned in May '43. In April Krema V, containing two furnaces, four retorts each, was finished. Therefore, in April '43 sixteen more retorts were operational for a total of 22. This number of operational retorts stayed the same for the next six weeks. Krema III started operating on 25 June '43, after which Krema I was shut down. On 12 July the rework on Krema II was completed. Krema V was mothballed at about the same time.

    We will not bore the reader with calculations of the "theoretical" and realistic cremation capacities. Those who are interested can work it out with a calculator. All we want to show here is that ovens were often being repaired, and the claims of the holocaust writers to some smooth, trouble-free operation every single day, around the clock, twelve months a year, for years in a row, is simply preposterous.

    It is now claimed today that 1.5 million people perished in Auschwitz. Originally it was claimed that 4 million were killed. There was even a commemorative plaque, claiming 4 million. In 1989, under the pressure of evidence, to which the revelations of the Zündel Trials contributed a great deal, that plaque was removed, and after that, the most often quoted number moved into the range of 750 to 850 thousand.

    Then it was raised again!

    Somehow the "conductors" of this show do not see anything wrong with all these manipulations with millions. But the most "suspicious" flaw in their "arithmetic" is the simple fact that if six million was the alleged total of the Jewish dead, with four million originally "allocated" to Auschwitz. How is it conceivably possible, then, to hold on to those six million in the light of the fact that the Auschwitz total was eventually considerably reduced - by more than three million, according to some exterminationists?!

    As mentioned in QA # 1, the "death books" of Auschwitz - more than forty volumes! - have been released in 1989 by Mr. Gorbachev. Out of 74 thousand entries, only about 30 percent have names that could be attributed to Jews!


    This is a lie. The average time, required for cremation of a body in a modern, gas-fired furnace, even according to Lagace is 2 (two) hours, with larger bodies taking as long as 2.5 hours. Lagace specifically said that the fat bodies are easier to burn, but the lean ones are very "stubborn fuel", because they have a greater percentage of "wet tissues".

    Samisdat has an entire set of trial transcripts and also a book that includes all witness testimonies of the second Zundel trial, including that of Lagace. The entire Lagace testimony can be found at http://www.webcom.com/ezundel/english/dsmrd/dsmrd26lagace.html

    Anybody interested in this subject but without the patience for detail may consult any good Encyclopedia or the local crematory in their area. They will be shocked to discover how they have been lied to by the Holocaust propagandists all along.

  • 46. How much ash is left from a cremated corpse?

    46. How much ash is left from a cremated corpse?

    Ernst Zündel Replies:
    Rebuttal # 46:

    No comment needed since we seem to agree.

  • 47. If six million people had been incinerated by the Nazis, what happened to the ashes?


    Ernst Zündel Replies:
    Rebuttal # 47:

    Even the premise to this question is inaccurate: the number of people supposedly "murdered by the Nazis" has been quoted in various publications as ten million and more. Broken down, this inaccurate claim has been for years and years that this meant "six million Jews and four million others . . . " which were supposed to include, but were not limited to, Poles, Gypsies, Russians, homosexuals, criminals, the handicapped, and others.

    Not all of these could have been or would have been cremated. A sizable percentage must have been buried in mass graves or eliminated in some other way.

    But strangely enough, no mass graves of victims of the Nazis of a size that would rival the ones discovered at Katyn (a series of mass graves of Stalin's victims) have ever been located - though the deaths due to disease at the Bergen-Belsen concentration camp at the end of the war and the collection of mass graves in which these bodies were buried, is bigger.

    All of them are supposed to have been incinerated - at a time when the shortage of fuel was so serious in war-torn Germany that not even kindergarten classes and nurseries for orphaned toddlers were heated.

    As Revisionists have said, and proven before, the number of bodies cremated at "the Nazi death camps" is officially shrinking and - in the case of Auschwitz - at a rate that makes some Holocaust historians highly uncomfortable. Consequently, as the body count shrinks, so should the "amount" of "missing ashes."

    Look at it this way: According to repeated calculations, the human ash left from cremation weighs about 5.8 pounds for a woman and 7.4 pounds for a man. Depending on the number of victims claimed to have been cremated, something on the order of fifteen million pounds of ash would have to have been produced-occupying about 3.7 million cubic feet of space!

    The stories about the ashes are wild. According to the postwar testimony of Hoess and others-prisoners who had been tortured to come up with some answers-the ashes at Auschwitz were pounded into a powder and dumped into rivers and ponds. That kind of amount of ash would have clogged even a strong-flowing river.

    At Treblinka, the ash is supposed to have been mixed in with the sandy soil there, but this has never been shown to be true.

    At Belzec and the other locations, the ash was supposedly buried on site. It should be simple enough to prove that the ashes are buried at these locations. Why has this not ever been done?

    Since archeologists are recovering stone age cremains from around Stone Henge, it is safe to assume these fifty-year-old cremains are still there somewhere. For some unexplained reason, no forensic excavations of these sites were ever done.

    Specific claims that Nizkor makes about human ash having been used as fertilizer does not have respectable documentation ever presented to anyone, to my knowledge. If such photos of piles and mountains of human ashes exist, Nizkor ought to have cited the source.

    When were those photos taken, if they exist? By whom?

    The Zundelsite recently posted a ZGram that makes my argument as well as anything. Here it is, paraphrased, as taken from a conversation with a British citizen:

    "In Britain, we have a supposed danger from BSE infected cattle. It has been proposed to kill and incinerate 180,000 of the animals.

    Guess what? There is a logistical problem.

    There are not enough slaughter houses, and the cremation is a formidable problem. It is thought by the Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food that it will take up to three years to dispose of the cattle.

    This, in a modern country-with no secrecy, lots of money, no war, no disruptions, and the very latest equipment to be used!

    Would you think it reasonable to suppose that a cow would equal four or five people? If so, that means 180,000 X 4 = 720,000 human equivalents. The cows will not attempt to escape, or attack their captors. In other words: docile, the perfect prey.

    Remember, the slaughter of cattle happens every day, always has. So, there is no need for new killing techniques, new types of disposal. Yet, it will still take a modern country 3 YEARS!!

    In 1967 there was an outbreak of Foot and Mouth disease in the British Midlands. At every infected farm, the cattle were killed and incinerated on the spot. There were "only" a few thousand cattle affected, but the lime pits were of enormous proportions, as were the bonfires.

    It was not thought necessary to transport cattle from one part of the country to another for slaughter and disposal. Yes, the pit locations are known to this day, and I am sure that farmers would be willing for "deniers" to take core samples from these areas.

    It is next to impossible to "lose" a burial pit within half a century - otherwise, what would happen to the science of archeology (in particular the technique of finding "worked" land by aerial photography)?

    Yet, the pits of the "death camps" are not accurately located. Why not?

    The whole story of the Holocaust replete with "human ashes" is full of holes. It might be reasonable to hypothesize that a large number of Jews, let's say several hundred thousand, were killed by the most diabolical methods by the Germans. But no, we're not allowed to believe that! We have a huge number thrust onto us time after time with nothing sensible, nothing scientific to back it up.

    Who does this?

    Those with an interest in the myth continuing."

    The summary point to be made is this: Finding an excuse for not having proof does not in any way replace having such a proof.

    There have been NO mountains of ashes. None. Had there been, you may be sure we would have heard of it. Ad nauseam. The one socalled symbolic mountain of ash under the Mausoleum in Majdanek is a pile of ordinary sand covered with about 1/4 to 1/8 wood ashes! Another deception of a gullibble public who emotions are being exploited by these Holocaust conmen.

  • 48. Do Allied wartime photos of Auschwitz (during the time when the "gas chambers" and crematoria were supposed to be in full operation) reveal gas chambers?


    Ernst Zündel Replies:
    Rebuttal # 48:

    Air Photo Expert John Ball has a website at www.air-photo.com. His full reply is as follows:

    Extending from the rear of each Birkenau cremation building (CREMAS 2 and 3) was a below-ground level room designed as a cold storage morgue without vents or windows. Auschwitz 'eye-witnesses' say these 2 rooms were 'gas chambers with protruding roof vents' through which cyanide gas pellets were dropped, and the gas was expelled.

    ( http://www.air-photo.com/english/index.html)

    CREMA 2 evidence from 1944 air photos is as follows:

    On May 31 there is one long line east of the roof's centerline. On July 8 again there is one line east of the roof's centerline. On August 25 there are 4 marks in a staggered pattern east of roof centerline. And on Sept. 13 all the marks have disappeared.


    The May, 1993, inspection of CREMA 2 collapsed roof by John Ball shows there are NO HOLES EAST OF THE CENTERLINE WHERE MARKS EXIST ON THE 1944 AIR PHOTOS, whereas west of the centerline there are 2 irregular shaped holes that have been CUT THROUGH THE ROOF AT LOCATIONS WHERE NO MARKS EXIST ON ANY 1944 AIR PHOTO.

    The 2 holes were therefore CUT THROUGH THE 15 CENTIMETER (6 INCH) THICK CEMENT ROOF AFTER 1944, which means that in 1944 the roof was SOLID CEMENT WITH NO VENTS OR OPENINGS.

    ( http://www.air-photo.com/english/index.html),

    CREMA 3 evidence from 1944 air photos is as follows:

    On May 31, there are 4 marks in a staggered pattern. On July 8 there are 3 marks in different locations from May 31. On August 25 the 4 marks are also in different locations from July 8. And on Sept. 13 the marks are very faint and in different locations again.

    The marks have therefore changed locations from May to July to August to Sept., 1944 - proving they were movable objects and could not therefore have been holes cut through the cement roof.


    In May, 1993 the CREMA 3 roof could not be inspected as it was destroyed in 1945.

    In summary on CREMA 2 roof, the 1944 air photos and John Ball's 1993 roof inspection show conclusively that no holes existed in 1944. 2 holes were added after 1944. And on CREMA 3 roof, 1944 air photo roof marks change locations from May to July to August to September, 1944, showing they were moveable objects, and could not therefore have been holes cut through the cement roof.

    1944 air photos and 1993 Cremation Building inspection proves that in 1944 there were NO VENTS HOLES IN ROOFS OF EITHER CREMA 2 OR 3 ALLEGED 'GAS CHAMBERS' that would have been necesssary to drop cyanide gas pellets, and expell the resulting gas - which proves it would have been impossible for people to have been murdered by gas as described by alleged 'eye witnesses'.

    And one specific, important point:

    Nizkor writes that in a shrill, specious argument that ". . . all this means is that corpses were not being burned on those particular days." What happened to the often-claimed "around-the-clock gassings and cremations" claims?

  • 49. What was the main provision of the German "Nuremberg laws" of 1935?


    Ernst Zündel Replies:
    Rebuttal # 49:

    It is supremely ironic that Adolf Hitler was elected by an instrument, the Weimar Constitution, that was created and promulgated by a Jew called Preuß after Germany's defeat in World War I. Before that time, democratic elections were unknown in Germany, since Germany was a country ruled by monarchy.

    Adolf Hitler's National Socialists were legitimately elected to power, together with other nationalist parties, on January 30, 1933.

    Readers of the Zundelsite must understand that after World War I, the German nation tried for 13 long years to solve its pressing economic problems by electing political parties of the Leftist (Social Democrat), Centrist (Zentrum Party) and various other nationalist movements caused by the lost war and the crippling sanctions imposed by the Treaty of Versailles. None of these attempts showed any success.

    None of the post-WWI regimes were able to stop the dangerous drift toward anarchy and a potential Bolshevik revolution in Germany - with all the bloodshed and destruction caused by that Marxist nightmare.

    In an act of supreme collective will, born out of fear for the future and exasperation at the failure of the other political parties and the Weimar Republic itself, the Germans opted for Adolf Hitler's radical reforms and solutions in democratic elections.

    The Jewish-Marxist-Liberal oligarchy, who had usurped power in Germany after the country's defeat in 1918 by fair means and foul, slowly lost the power struggle. They lost it only 15 years later because they failed miserably and had nothing to offer - except more national humiliation, more unemployment, more corruption, more vice, more degeneration, and ultimately more hopelessness.

    Hitler offered hope and identified the source of the problem. He pointed out to the German electorate the devastating political, economic and cultural dominance many Jews had acquired in the Weimar Republic - and promised his desperate people sweeping and lasting solutions to the "Jewish Problem."

    He promised them, in speech after speech, in numerous articles, booklets and broadcasts, as far back as the early 1920s, in "Mein Kampf", and in his 25 point Party Program, that he would take Germany back for the Germans, once he was elected.

    The German people spoke decisively through the ballot box, and Hitler soon delivered on his election promises of work, peace and honor in careful but decisive legislative initiatives and decrees.

    The Communists, many of whom were Jewish, at first tried to undermine and then overthrow Hitler in a desperate clandestine but violent revolution - and failed. They were crushed by the "Enabling Act" - an emergency decree which allowed Hitler to suspend some civil rights and adopt sweeping powers to dissolve political parties etc.

    This Act was passed by a majority of the German Reichstag or Parliament. It was perfectly legal and legitimate under the Weimar Constitution. Similar actions had been taken previously by other chancellors of different ideological outlook. Nothing ever came of it. The world did not care. Only Hitler cleaned house - more resolutely and thoroughly than his predecessors.

    The International Jewish organizations next tried to achieve the overthrow of Hitler from the outside by a worldwide economic smear-and-vilification campaign and by a brutal global economic boycott against National Socialist Germany, ably described in detail by Edwin Black, a Jewish author, in his book "The Transfer Agreement" and several other books. One potential instrument of this planned overthrow was the Jewish community of approximately 500,000, which had acquired great influence during the Weimar Republic.

    It is against this historical background that one must see the provisions of the "Nuremberg Laws." The Jews had determined that Germany was to be crushed! The "Nuremberg Laws" were, in part, a desperate act by a regime not yet firmly in power to forestall this possibility - beset as it was internally and externally by enemies who had stated for almost 15 years that they were going to crush the German Liberation Movement of Adolf Hitler - by any means necessary! The German people, who had toiled and suffered under the Weimar conditions and corruption for so long, believed in Hitler. They reaffirmed their belief in his government by an overwhelming electoral show of approval and confidence in 1933.

    Thus, Hitler survived the various challenges to his regime and went on to become the most loved and adored leader in German history. The rest is history! He promulgated the Nuremberg Laws without worrying about being politically incorrect and without apologies to his enemies. He knew that, given the nature of the enemy and what was at stake for Germany and the world, drastic problems called for drastic measures and remedies. He wanted the Jews out of Germany - and preferably out of Europe.

    He tried to take the sting out of economic hardships by arranging for paid early retirement, relocation allowances, retraining programs etc. The Jews emigrated in an orderly fashion in great numbers - to Palestine, England and America.

    Once the Jews were neutralized, Germany recovered under Hitler. It prospered economically. It healed itself socially. It ended the class war. It made spectacular technological advances and blossomed culturally. It recovered its pride and honor among nations.

    These were astounding changes in a very short period of time. A policy of physical fitness training and positive outlook on life soon led to a healthier mental outlook. Once-alarming suicide rates plunged. The crime rate nose-dived. Scientific discoveries showed great stride.

    Never forget: Hitler was a democratically elected leader. He and his government had to be bombed out of office in the most vicious, barbaric war ever foisted on a people and a whole planet by his opponents. And for what?

  • 50.



    Ernst Zündel Replies:
    Rebuttal # 51:

    Let's get some perspective here. How many Red Cross delegates did Stalin, America's ally, allow in to investigate rumors about Katyn? None.

    See the testimony of Biedermann in Barbara Kulaszka's book at http://www.webcom.com/ezundel/english/dsmrd/dsmrd10biedermann.html It is a chapter well worth reading.

    The Germans invited British, Canadian and other officers and forensic experts from other European nations to investigate the mass killings of Katyn where 14,000 of the Polish elite had been murdered by the Soviets. The Red Cross declined. Nothing was investigated. The Germans continued to be blamed for over half a century for something the Soviets had done.

    The German authorities had invited the International Red Cross to send forensic experts and observers to the mass grave-exhumation site in Katyn. But for political reasons, in order not to offend the Allies - and, they said, because Stalin did not invite them, since the murder site was on Soviet territory - some half-hearted compromise was found by the Red Cross authorities by allowing some non-official Red Cross members of other European nations to go to the murder scene.

    There were over 4,000 obviously false and perjured affidavits and testimonies produced by a Soviet Katyn Commission in 1944, blaming Germans for this mass murder in the most minute detail. So much for this supposed truthfulness of "witness testimony"!

    In April of 1990 the Polish President Wojciech Jaruselski received from Soviet President Michail Gorbachev two containers of Soviet documents about what really happened at Katyn. Silence was the result. Only Boris Yeltsin put an end to the lie - by finally admitting Soviet responsibility for the attempted genocide against the Polish elite, after he took over from Gorbachev.

    Yet seven German officers and soldiers were tried in show trials in the Soviet Union for their alleged role in the murders of Katyn and hanged in a public ceremony, watched by thousands of spectators, filmed and shown in newsreels all over the Soviet Union and the East Bloc - for decades! These men have not been rehabilitated to this day - not even by the so-called "German government!"


    The IHR answer is essentially correct. The 1944 Red Cross Report is clear. By that time, the Allies were dropping millions of leaflets in Polish and German over the Auschwitz area, claiming extermination by all sorts of means. The rumor mills at Auschwitz, as in other camps of the era both Allied and German and even as happens in prison facilities of today, have always been very active and scary and have been and are often just that - false! False claims - based on embellished stories and rumors!

    To this day, the International Committee of the Red Cross, an organization that runs Arolson (the International Tracing Service) is playing a corrupt role by lending its name and prestige to a thinly disguised cover-up by preventing research in those millions of documents they hold under lock and key in that Arolson facility.

    If you really want to know about the so-called "humanitarian" function of the International Red Cross, study the ZGram of March 6, 1999 at http://www.webcom.com/ezundel/english/zgrams/zg1999/zg9903/990306.html

    The Holocaust riddle could be solved in a matter of months if the Red Cross were ever to turn honest. The role and record of the International Red Cross in the Second World War and especially after the war in the years from 1945-1950 is one of partiality and dismal failure when it comes to investigating and, above all, publishing the crimes of Stalin and of the Western Allies. This chapter of history has yet to be written.

    RE: Münch - the Allies favorite "witness": Here is what Germar Rudolf found out about him when he interviewed him in June of 1995:

    Dr. Münch (also known as "Moench" or "Mönch") was not a regular physician employed at Auschwitz, as he claims, but apparently a hygienist. His is not a name that appears frequently in the traditional Holocaust literature; he is, however, highly sought after by tabloid type media.

    In other words, he is a "media-witness" who willingly bolsters the traditional version of a Hollywood-type "Holocaust." He likes the accolades accorded him, since he is willing to toe the politically correct line. He repeats tabloid-type stories.

    He very willingly talks about "gassings" and "cremations" and is the kind that has actually "seen" flames shoot out of crematoria and has "smelled" the stench of burnt human bodies - stories that do not check out with what is known of cremations. (No flames. No smoke. No stench). Even a cursory knowledge of physics makes clear to a discerning reader that this is a man with a vivid but sieve-like imagination whose stories don't square with science.

    His "testimony" is full of contradictions and mistakes of the most elementary kind that are easy to check out. A tape and a full analyzed transcript exists of his interview with Germar Rudolf; unfortunately, it is only in German.



    Ernst Zündel Replies:
    Rebuttal # 52:

    The IHR position is correct. Half of Germany's population was Catholic, as was the majority of the National Socialist hierarchy and some of the leadership - including Hitler and Goebbels.

    Every German Army unit and military base of any size, including Hitler's headquarters, "Die Wolfschanze", had chapels and rooms for worship, along with Catholic and Protestant "Feldgeistliche" or army chaplains.

    The same was true of concentration camps like Auschwitz, Dachau and others. Time-Life books have photos of the esthetically well-appointed chapels in some of the German camps.

    German concentration camp guards, soldiers, officers, generals, camp commandants, nurses, doctors etc. all went to church and confession. Some of these devoted Catholics, who did not know whether or not they were going to meet their Maker through a bomb, a grenade, or a bullet - in an hour, a day or a week! - would certainly have unburdened their troubled consciences about horrific events such as gassings to some priests. If they had gassed people or seen someone gassed, they would have confessed to these crimes.

    Thus, the Vatican knew exactly what was going on. Church officials in the Vatican, better than anyone else, could separate facts from rumors. That they did not speak out then - and have not spoken out since - simply means that there was nothing to speak out about.

    The Holocaust Lobby and its Enforcers have lately tried very hard to corner and browbeat an ailing and aging Pope into some sort of confession about "complicity." We will have to see how far a politicized Catholic hierarchy is willing to bend to Jewish entreaties, threats and blackmail.

    For Nizkor to quote Lochner's 1948 version of the Goebbels diaries is typical. To find out what the US Government has to say about these diaries and their origin,read some of the testimony at the Zundel Trial, go to the Index of the Barbara Kulaszka transcript summaries, to be found at http://www.webcom.com/ezundel/english/dsmrd/ and read up on the Walendy, Faurisson and Browning testimonies.

    The letter attributed by Nizkor to the Catholic Bishop of Limburg is of such polemical and childishly nonsensical nature that it is not worthy of comment. It is an idiotic letter. God knows who wrote it. It repeats the non-scientific, thus non-existent propaganda tale of billowing crematory chimneys and the foul smell associated with cremation. That nonsense has been dealt with exhaustively in previous posts by people like Ivan Lagace. Use the Zundelsite search engine by typing in some key words - and then forever hold your peace!

    The dig re mercy killings or euthanasia is a red herring thrown in to distract and divert. Here, too, the Nizkorites cannot have it both ways.

    The Allied propagandists made and still make the claim that the Hitler regime killed tens of thousands of insane and retarded people in some secret operation and only stopped the campaign after the Church authorities agitated against it.

    1. This presupposes knowledge of a top secret plan and operation.

    2. It presupposes the freedom to speak out publicly against it from the pulpit in a supposedly murderous dictatorship.

    3. It implies that Hitler was so intimidated by the church's actions that he stopped it. Can Nizkor really say that with a straight face - after having made the claim, over and over, that Hitler ran a cruel dictatorship that nobody dared to oppose?

    4. Either the Germans knew, or they didn't. Either they spoke out, or they didn't.

    If the church spoke out against the so-called "mercy killing" of the handicapped, why would the church not have done likewise when not just tens of thousands but "six million" Jews plus an additional "five million" Catholics and Protestants were allegedly murdered in an equally clandestine way?

    Do the Nizkorites not see their own illogic nature of this argument?

  • 53. What evidence is there that Hitler knew of the ongoing Jewish extermination?


    Ernst Zündel Replies:
    Rebuttal # 53:

    The IHR is right! No evidence, no documentary proof that could stand close scrutiny and forensic analysis has ever been produced in Nuremberg or any subsequent political trial!

    The one all-important piece of crucial evidence that nails Germany as having had a genocidal policy against the Jews - or anyone else - is missing!

    One should think that in the tons and tons of evidence captured and sifted by the Allies after the defeat and collapse of Hitler's regime, Hitler's enemies would have come up with at least one piece of paper proving their blood libel against the people of Germany.

    They have no such evidence. Period.

  • 54. Did the Nazis and the Zionists collaborate?

    54. Did the Nazis and the Zionists collaborate?

    Ernst Zündel Replies:
    Rebuttal # 54:

    Nizkorites show their willingness to twist, turn and deflect because they do not like the content of the more than abundant evidence of the Hitler regime's willingness - in fact, eagerness! - to cooperate with Jewish groups, domestic and overseas, to solve what even Theodore Herzl, the founder of modern Zionism, had called "The Jewish Problem" in his groundbreaking work.

    There are all kinds of documents in the archives of the world proving German/"Nazi"-Zionist collaboration. There is more than a bushelful available for anyone who cares to look.

    Edwin Black, a young American Jew from Chicago, was the first English-speaking popular writer to illuminate this close and intimate working relationship in his book, The Transfer Agreement.

    Here is one passage that shows how relations were at that time:

    The Nazi recognition of Zionism that began in April of 1933 was apparent because the Zionists enjoyed a visibly protected political status in Germany. Immediately after the Reichstag fire of February 27, the Nazis crushed virtually all political opposition. Through emergency decrees, most non-Nazi political organizations and suspect newspapers were dissolved. In fact, about 600 newspapers were officially banned during 1933. . . The exception included Jüdische Rundschau, the ZVfD's weekly, and several other Jewish publications. German Zionism's weekly was hawked on street corners and displayed at newsstands. When Chaim Arlosoroff visited Zionist headquarters in London on June 1, he emphasized, "The Rundschau is of crucial importance today for the Zionists. Every day it gets fifty to sixty subscribers." By the end of 1933, Jüdische Rundschau's circulation had in fact jumped to more than 38,000 - four to five times its 1932 circulation. Although many influential Aryan publications were forced to restrict their page size to conserve newsprint, Jüdische Rundschau was not affected until mandatory newsprint rationing in 1937. (p. 174)

    Tom Segev, the best-known Israeli historian of this generation, expanded on that topic in his sensational book, "The Seventh Million," published by Hill and Wang, 1993

    Here is what he has to say:

    Nazi Germany's ties with Palestine proceeded normally through the prewar years. There were mail, telephone and financial links; many German Jews who had been forced out of their jobs continued to receive their monthly social security pensions in Palestine. Palestine exported to Germany and Germany to Palestine. People traveled back and forth by sea and occasionally by air. Some came from Germany to scout out conditions in Palestine before deciding to settle there. Others arrived as businessmen, and still others as vacationers and tourists. German government officials also visited, including Wilhelm Frick, Hitler's minister of the interior, who passed through Jerusalem on his honeymoon. (p. 16)

    I was informed about this "Nazi-Zionist" cooperation by my Jewish mentor, Joseph Ginsburg, who wrote a book about it, entitled "Schuld und Schicksal: Europas Juden zwischen Henkern und Heuchlern." I visited "Burg", as he is known, in Europe and corresponded with him at length on these topics. I invited him to Toronto to interview him and film his answers to my questions. He stayed with me at my house for three weeks, where we had days and days of in-depth, extensive discussions about this topic. These films survived the Zundel-Haus arson!

    Burg later, at age 84, would return to Toronto to testify on my behalf in the 1988 trial. The prosecution was so shocked by Burg's appearance that they did not ask him a single question - for fear of the answers that they might get that would become part of the public record.

    You may check the Burg testimony by going to the Index of the Barbara Kulaszka transcript summaries, to be found at http://www.webcom.com/ezundel/english/dsmrd/ You will realize why the prosecution did not want this honest Jewish writer to testify.

    Joseph Burg has since died but has left a legacy of booklets, books, papers and unpublished manuscripts that will be published when the time is right. For Nizkor to dismiss the idea that even bitter enemies might cooperate with one another in matters of vital interest, either in public or behind-the-scenes, is either so stupid or callous that it staggers the imagination!

    Here's to refresh Nizkor's selective memory a bit:

    1. America under Presidents Carter and Reagan negotiated with the Iranians behind-the-scenes for the release of the hostages. They were not fond of each other -

    2. Hitler negotiated with Stalin - certainly two ideological enemies if ever there were any -

    3. Churchill and Roosevelt negotiated with Stalin when Communists were under surveillance in their respective countries for being potential enemies of both states -

    4. Anwar Sadat and Menachim Begin negotiated a deal that was sealed with a handshake on the White House lawn -

    5. Rabin and other Israeli leaders had contact with the PLO and negotiated a deal in Oslo - all the while calling Yassir Arafat a "terrorist" and "killer" -

    The list could go on endlessly. The answer is simple, logical and reasonable:

    The Germans/"Nazis" wanted the Jews out of their country - and later out of Europe. The sooner the better! They were not fond of them and considered them culture destroyers who were intent on undermining what was dear to the German nation and people.

    The growing Zionist movement had a dream of a nation of Jews - a state for the Jews - for which they needed skilled, well-trained, educated, healthy people with assets to help them build such a state.

    The two interests complemented one another. The Germans wanted the Jews out. The Zionists wanted the Jews in. The Havarra Agreement satisfied both people's aspirations - and thus the "Nazi"-Zionist collaboration became a fact.

    That the organized political leadership of the Jews wants to hide this fact of history is clear. If they acknowledged it, they would have little basis for their reparations racket and would certainly look much less like Hitler's victims. That's why Nizkorites make light of the facts of history. Ken McVay, specifically, is covering up for his financial benefactors.

  • 55. What caused Anne Frank's death just several weeks before the end of the war?


    Ernst Zündel Replies:
    Rebuttal # 55:

    The answer given by the IHR is short, succinct, and to the point. Anne Frank died of typhus, like tens of thousands of concentration camp inmates and civilians did in World War II - Jews and Gentiles! Typhus, the scourge of all wars, knows no race, religion or nationality. It kills old and young, men, women and children.

    The typhus question has already been answered extensively in previous questions - and readers are invited to check by using a site-specific search engine installed at the bottom of every Zundelsite page. Additionally, other Revisionist sites have ample information on typhus. Usually the disease is carried by lice, or is airborne when kicked up by dust. That's why the Germans built and installed all these high-tech delousing facilities for their soldiers, German civilians, Poles, Czechs, Hungarians etc. - both in camps and at ports, harbors, railroad yards, hospital areas, municipalities etc.

    Zyklon B was the great life saver! Zyklon B was used to combat vermin and thus control the epidemic caused by typhus. That Germany's enemies have turned this responsible German public health policy upside down by declaring it a "genocidal" policy is itself an act of unprecedented callousness and immorality unequaled in the annals of history!

    Let's now look at Nizkor's revealing and totally off-the-mark answers about the family of Anne Frank.

    What is implied here? That they all died? Yes, they did. Chances are most died of typhus.

    Look at the detailed dossiers available from the Dutch Red Cross - with dates and neat dossier numbers! The International Commission of the Red Cross and the Geneva-administered Arolson Tracing Service have the selfsame detailed information available on virtually every single person who ever was incarcerated in a German facility, prison, prison camp, labor camp or concentration camp - even prisoner-of-war camp.

    They released this helpful information in the case of Anne Frank and her relatives. Why not release the same information on all the other former inmates? We could settle the "gassing" question right on the spot.

    There are two basic answers as to why these dossiers are under lock and key:

    1. The records would reveal that most, if not all, the people who passed through these German camps were interned after a lawful process was followed. Not all of them were put in concentration camps because of race, religion or national origin, as people are led to believe. Many of the internees were in those camps for activities that were deemed crimes in their respective countries in Europe at the time. Were the Allies to release those dossiers, they would take sainthood and victim status away from hundreds of thousands if not millions of sexual perverts, rapists, thieves, con-men, racketeers, swindlers, abortionists, saboteurs, check forgers, pimps, whores etc. The list could go on for the endless dregs of society that have plagued mankind since times immemorial. These concentration camp inmates - especially the "non-political" ones the Allies released in their naive or cruel stupidity at the end of the war, just as the Bolsheviks did after the Red Revolution - were back in Allied custody en masse within months or a few years after their undeserved "liberation"!

    That is something the Allies simply cannot and will not admit - not yet anyway! They hope they can wait with opening these archives till the last sexual deviate, murderer and crook has died - as "saint" and "victim" of Nazism.

    2. A second reason why the Allies won't permit a look at those all-important archives is simply that it would reveal and document in millions of instances that there was no German policy and no "gassing" of Jews - or anyone else.

    This would make the International Committee of the Red Cross and its staff an accessory to a crime of unprecedented proportions, and would lead to the withdrawal of public and international support for what was once an organization beyond reproach. The whole international framework of cooperation in Red Cross related areas - like care for battle field casualties, emergency rescue, and relief operations - would be called into question. It would be a public relations nightmare that the Red Cross could never afford.

    The day will come, however, when the lid will be blown off this disgusting cover-up. There are cracks in the dam already! They can run - but they cannot forever hide and keep from public scrutiny what is still kept at Arolson.

  • 56. Is the Anne Frank Diary genuine?

    56. Is the Anne Frank Diary genuine?

    Ernst Zündel Replies:
    Rebuttal # 56:

    I, too, have been chagrined and horrified by some of the sarcastic cartoons Ditlieb Felderer has circulated. I don't approve of this tactic. I pointed out to Ditlieb the negative repercussions this would have - on his work specifically and on Revisionism generally.

    Ditlieb Felderer is not a man to whom one can dictate or who is easily deterred, by friend or by foe. He simply claims that Germans don't have a sense of humor.

    My answer to Nizkor is simply this:

    I acknowledge human frailties and strange characteristics. After all, who keeps rabbit pictures on his website and refers to them as "Jamie's buns"? Some people draw conclusions.

    Who claims that "Nazis" tickled Jews to death as Nizkor has done? Some people have odd tastes.

    Regarding Revisionism, Felderer did superb investigative work. He found out many facts and details that poked the Holocaust story as full of holes as a Swiss cheese.

    He found the Auschwitz swimming pool for inmates. He found the musical scores for the Auschwitz Waltz and other compositions, composed and performed by inmates. He photographed the large theater building. He found the records of the sculpture classes. He researched documents and forced the Jehovah's Witnesses sect leadership to drastically revise downward the inflated number of victims falsely claimed by the sect. He exposed the duplicitous role of the Jehovah Witnesses' sect's collaboration with the camp administrators. Felderer's list of Revisionist achievements is endless. I am not embarrassed by his work, even though I am embarrassed by his silly and immature cartoons.

    I agree with Nizkor that some of his cartoons and writings are offensive. Some of Elie Wiesel's lies are also offensive.

    alt.revisionism posts by zealous Nizkorite aficionados, where practically every third post deals with human excrement or sexual perversion, are extremely offensive.

    I have tried to have Felderer stop the distribution of these cartoons. I think his pranks are way beyond humor - German or Swedish. I am, however, not his parent - or his baby sitter. I repeat: His Revisionist work is first-class.

    Now to the real question: Is the Diary of Anne Frank genuine?

    In my opinion, it is not. In spite of Nizkor's obfuscation and trying to baffle brains with dazzling verbiage and elegant footwork, I have my serious doubts about this young girl's having been the author.

    I believe - along with Ditlieb Felderer, Dr. Robert Faurisson, and the experts at the German forensic lab of the Bundeskriminalamt, as reported in Der Spiegel and in the US press - that someone other than Anne Frank wrote that final diary.

    Otto Frank, her father, knew who wrote, compiled and edited it. The cagey old man refused to talk. Dr. Faurisson spent two days with him trying to get him to give him a handwriting sample. It was a futile endeavor.

    Now Otto Frank is dead. The memory of Anne Frank is today exploited by unscrupulous people championing their own causes and agendas the world over - for blatant political and financial profit. The spectacle is disgusting! The only German word that comes to mind is "Leichenfledderei" - loosely translated, shredding a coropse. There is no precise English translation for that term that I can think of.



    Ernst Zündel Replies:
    Rebuttal # 57:

    Regarding photographs of the emaciated dead and dying in German concentration camps - again, it is cruel exploitation by the Holocaust Enforcers of an admitted but explainable human tragedy on an enormous scale. That tragedy was typhus and other contagious diseases.

    The IHR answer is, of course, correct - but some aspects must be expanded upon. The basic and brutally frank facts are - human sensibilities aside - that corpses are corpses. Even the dead and dying can document important facts of history.

    The Allied propaganda film, "Nazi Concentration Camps", that was shown to the jury in my 1985 Great Holocaust Trial, and was subsequently declared unfair and impermissible by the Ontario Court of Appeal, shows lots of dead bodies - mainly emaciated from diarrhea caused by typhus. It also shows perfectly healthy, well-fed inmates being filmed after the Allied takeover, washing the naked, still alive typhus victims who had soiled themselves because they were too weak to make it to the toilet. Dr. Butz shows a photo of inmates squatting by the hundreds in a field in Bergen Belsen camp, pants pulled down, all defecating. The camp ground is littered with paper - sheets of paper used by the typhus victims to wipe themselves in those fields. Body fluids are highly contagious. Additionally, the camp toilets were, by then, totally plugged up and no longer usable. (See the entire testimony of Dr. Russell Barton who was a witness for me in both the 1985 and 1988 Great Holocaust Trials at <http://www.webcom.com/ezundel/english/dsmrd/dsmrd15barton.html>

    Here is what Dr. Barton says, to give you a glimpse from the Kulaszka book:





    The incredibly naive answer by Nizkor - that there were tons of food locked up just a few miles away from where thousands starved - is staggering. All over Canada and America, there are thousands of starving people, hungrily looking at the full shelves of supermarkets. Can they just decide to help themselves? Of course not.

    In war times, when food was scarce and tightly rationed, do the Nizkorites really think that without proper authorization orders, ration coupons, transportation etc., people could simply drive up to a warehouse and clean it out? Only simpletons raised in a society of peace and plenty, far removed from bombing and war, could make such an argument.

    It is irresponsible in the extreme!

    To come back to the photographs: Yes, many are faked. Yes, photos can be staged, were staged, were faked, were retouched, had false captions put on them. The evidence for that Allied policy is overwhelming.

    How the Allies manufactured evidence and faked photographs and passed off dead Gentiles as "Jews" can be seen by the frequently uncircumcised penises of the "Jewish victims" displayed.

  • 58. Who originated the term "genocide"?

    58. Who originated the term "genocide"?

    Ernst Zündel Replies:
    Rebuttal # 58:

    The answer of the IHR is essentially correct. Every Jewish "survivor" from Einstein to Elie Wiesel is living proof that there was no genocide. There are hundreds of thousands of Jewish "survivors" - many of them belonging to the Jewish elite of the day - who left Germany and Europe in good health with some of their wealth intact.

    To quote Tom Segev, the Israeli historian:

    "They brought their belongings with them in huge wooden crates...The crates contained heavy mahogany furniture, grand pianos, and electric refrigerators...They brought their crystal and china and bedspreads and pillows and lace napkins, the tailored suits they had worn in Germany, and innumerable other items that made life there pleasant - the gadget that sliced off the tip of one's cigar, another that pitted cherries, little scales to weigh letters before taking them to the post office, special wick-snipping scissors to keep candles from smoking, a miniature brush and dustpan to sweep crumbs from the table after a meal. Doctors and craftsmen brought sophisticated equipment and professional tools that were rare, even unheard of, in Palestine, all in the hope of maintaining the way of life that they had known in the old country, of picking it up and transplanting it to Palestine. In planning their move, they assumed they would have housemaids; many brought private cars with them. And they shipped over entire libraries, including classics and work of modern German literature. (pp 46-47 of The Seventh Million by Tom Segev)

    If this is evidence of "genocide" - by definition the deliberate plan to exterminate a race or people - I really don't really know how to reply to Nizkor.

  • 59. Were films such as "Holocaust" and "The Winds of War" documentary films?


    Ernst Zündel Replies:
    Rebuttal # 59:

    The IHR is right. Take, for instance, the film "Winds of War", which at the very opening starts with a well-known frozen image of a famous black-and-white photograph - the Polish theatre of war in 1939. The photograph then, as if by magic, turns into color - becomes alive in color movement and sound and turns into a film.

    Clever camera work. Clever production. Very deceptive.

    The same can be said for Spielberg's "Schindler's List" where sometimes hand-held cameras were used to give the film the effect of jiggling news reels of the day. It was deliberately filmed in black and white to make the public think they are seeing a documentary news reel type World War II film. Such an effect is used for political purposes and is, therefore, cunning and dishonest.

    How dishonest Spielberg's bunch is can best be illustrated by how Kenneally's novel ("Schindler's Arc"), the book on which the film was based, has changed within a very few years in successive printings from a novel in which any "similarities to real people and characters are merely coincidental" to a "work of history" in the next few editions.

    Most people swallow that. Already teachers are taking high school classes to this semi-pornographic and highly immoral film to "teach them history." Judges in courts in America are condemning skinheads as part of their sentence to watch the film - "to learn something about history."

  • 60. About how many books have been published which refute some aspect of the standard claims made about the "Holocaust"?


    Ernst Zündel Replies:
    Rebuttal # 60:

    This IHR answer is outdated and no longer true.

    There now exist hundreds of booklets, books, technical reports, and newsletters in two dozen languages about revisionist topics. I alone have produced millions of words about this topic of the "gas chambers" and related topics in newsletters in German, English, and French.

    I have produced and broadcast over 400 radio shows, 200 half-hour TV shows, 100 one-hour TV shows and documentaries.

    The Revisionist press is flourishing and very vigorous in spite of reprisals. Websites in many languages are quickly replacing or complementing relatively small underground-run books as an effective means of reaching the masses.

    There are almost 3,000 documents on the Zundelsite alone in eight languages, and more are added daily. There are approximately 20 Zündel mirrors with a potential combined staggering 30 million documents inspected or downloaded annually.

    Here's where I do agree with Nizkor: "Repeating deplorable lies does not make them come true."

    Why wouldn't Nizkorites, when dishing out such sound advise, take some of it to heart?

  • 61. What happened when a historical institute offered $50,000 to anyone who could prove that Jews were gassed at Auschwitz?


    Ernst Zündel Replies:
    Rebuttal # 61:

    I can't fathom myself why the IHR answered this question in this fashion. For those who are unfamiliar with the whole sordid story, here is what happened in the Mermelstein case, as later summarized in an IHR article - long but well worth reading:

    Best Witness': Mel Mermelstein, Auschwitz and the IHR

    by Theodore J. O'Keefe

    Fourteen years ago, over Labor Day weekend in 1979, the Institute for Historical Review held its very first conference at Northrop University in Los Angeles. At that time, the Institute announced its offer of a reward of 50,000 to the first person to prove that Jews were gassed at Auschwitz.

    A little over a year later, in the spring of 1981, Mel Mermelstein, a southern California businessman and self-described Holocaust survivor, claimed that reward, and then sued the Institute for 17 million.

    On October 9, 1981, in response to a motion by Mermelstein, Judge Thomas Johnson of the Superior Court of California in Los Angeles declared:

    Under Evidence Code Section 452(h), this court does take judicial notice of the fact that Jews were gassed to death at the Auschwitz Concentration Camp in Poland during the summer of 1944.... It is not reasonably subject to dispute, and it is capable of immediate and accurate determination by resort to sources of reasonably indisputable accuracy. It is simply a fact.

    Because of the prejudicial effect of this action, the IHR decided not to proceed with the suit, and instead settled the matter by signing a formal letter of apology to Mermelstein on July 24, 1985, for the pain, anguish, and suffering he sustained relating to the

    50,000 reward offer, and agreeing to pay him 90,000 to settle the case. (For details on the settlement, see "About the IHR/Mermelstein Settlement," below.)

    Encouraged by this success, Mermelstein later brought yet another suit for 11 million against the Institute charging malicious prosecution, defamation, conspiracy to inflict emotional distress, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Yet on Thursday, September 19, 1991, in the Superior Court at Los Angeles, Mermelstein voluntarily dismissed most of his complaints. (Earlier that day, Judge Stephen Lachs had dismissed Mermelstein's complaint of "malicious prosecution.") This victory not only saved the Institute for Historical Review, but also substantially overturned the negative effects of the both the 1981 judicial notice and the 1985 settlement. (For more on this sweeping legal victory, see the October 1991 IHR Newsletter.)

    The First Case

    To appreciate the ramifications of this stunning reversal of fortunes, one must review the convoluted connection between Mermelstein and the IHR.

    In the first ("reward") case -- and despite absurdities in his reward claim obvious to any knowledgeable student of Auschwitz -- Mermelstein was able to mount an aggressive attack against the IHR in the courts. He was well armed with first-rate legal assistance, much of it donated, not to mention overwhelming approval and support from the political establishment, the mass media, and southern California's influential Jewish community.

    Meanwhile, the Institute had difficulty getting any legal counsel whatsoever, let alone the kind of skilled, dedicated, and fearless attorneys needed to withstand Mermelstein's publicity juggernaut and his blitz in the courtrooms. Recall the hurricane of libel and slander from the press, coming at a time when what Alfred Lilienthal has called Holocaustomania was at high tide in America. In an atmosphere of constant smears against the IHR and Revisionism, every survivor hallucination ("Nazi 'smiled' as dog ate Jew," to cite one headline of the day) gained instant currency in a corrupt media willing to accept such stories unquestionably and spread them as gospel.

    Then recall the constant physical attacks that the enemies of truth and freedom aimed at IHR, its staff, and its supporters. In addition to harassment, including telephone threats, there was vandalism of IHR staff cars and homes, a physical beating of IHR founder Willis Carto, and attacks by gunfire and Molotov cocktail against the IHR office. Three separate firebombings culminated in the arson of July 4, 1984, which resulted in the total destruction of the IHR's office and warehouse. Let us also not forget the role of local Zionist thugs in carrying out much of this intimidation: I refer to the goonwork of that gang led by the revolting Irving Rubin, the so-called national chairman of the Jewish Defense League -- but whom I prefer to regard as the Grand Wizard, or, better, the Grand Dullard, of the Kosher Ku Klux Klan.

    Judicial Notice









    Contradictions and absurdities -- Lou Rollins compiled 33 of them on a list that ran to eleven pages. But because of the judicial notice, all of this research went to naught. How, then, did it prove important in the second case?

    The IHR Fights Back

    It happened like this: In 1984 an independent writer and journalist by the name of Bradley Smith approached the Institute seeking funding for a newsletter; Smith had decided to take on the thankless task of alerting America's journalists to the falsehood and fraud they were accepting and disseminating uncritically under the rubric of the Holocaust. Smith went on to publish some of the most flagrant instances of these claims in his newsletter Prima Facie, and not surprisingly, among the ripest contradictions and absurdities in the lore of the Holocaust were the testimony and statements of Mel Mermelstein, as researched by Lou Rollins and studied, with due diligence -- remember that phrase, due diligence -- by Bradley Smith.

    Alas, Smith's trumpet calls in Prima Facie went unheeded by our nation's press corps. In July 1985 came the settlement and the triumph of Mermelstein, followed by his false gloating about how he had collected the reward, and his false claim, made during a radio broadcast from New York that August, that the IHR had signed the 1981 judicial notice, and thus accepted the "fact" of homicidal gassings of Jews at Auschwitz.

    As had happened after the 1981 judicial notice, tributes and congratulations flowed in to the "survivor" from around the globe. How galling it was for Revisionists to see Mermelstein vaunt himself to the nation and the world as the man who proved the Holocaust, who had humbled IHR and the Revisionists!


    In the wake of this bitter defeat, IHR had two tasks:

    First, to explain the settlement to its subscribers and supporters around the world, to reassure them that IHR had accepted a compromise to avoid the expense and uncertainty of trial but -- and in spite of what Mel Mermelstein and our other enemies were saying -- had not abandoned its skepticism on the gas chambers, and had not accepted the judicial notice. Second, to show the flag, to proclaim our defiance, to fight back.

    In the September 1986 issue of the IHR Newsletter (then editor) Bradley Smith took direct aim, not at the so-called Holocaust, not at every one of its survivors, but at that minority he firmly believed, on the basis of a reasonably careful (or "duly diligent") study of the evidence, was actively engaged in spreading falsehoods about their experiences. Smith wrote of "the vainglorious prevaricators," "the false-tale spinners who claim to speak for the survivor community," and "such demonstrable frauds as Melvin Mermelstein and Elie Wiesel." Smith's good faith assertion that Mermelstein was a fraud was based on the previously mentioned list that Rollins had compiled for the first trial.

    The sweet taste of victory had done nothing to mellow Mermelstein's disposition, and when he learned of Smith's short IHR Newsletter article, he sued for defamation.

    The Second Case

    After Mermelstein launched his second suit, the Institute, learning of his misrepresentation of the settlement of the reward case, filed a defamation suit of its own against Mermelstein in August 1986. The IHR never served this suit, and later voluntarily dismissed it. Thereupon Mermelstein sued the IHR for malicious prosecution, and with the help of his attorney, Jeffrey N. Mausner (formerly of the federal government's "Nazi-hunting" Office of Special Investigations), concocted an 11 million suit for four causes of action: libel, malicious prosecution, conspiracy to inflict emotional distress, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

    This suit was brought against four defendants: the Legion for the Survival of Freedom, the non-profit corporation through which IHR functions; Liberty Lobby, the nationalist and populist institution based in Washington, DC; Willis Carto, founder of both IHR and the Liberty Lobby; and the southern California law firm of Robert Von Esch, Jr., which had defended Liberty Lobby in the reward case, and had filed the IHR's defamation suit against Mermelstein in 1986.

    Pre-trial Shenanigans

    The lead-up to trial was both protracted and eventful. After hearing of the defamation suit against him, Mermelstein demanded that the Hartford Insurance Company, where he had his homeowner's insurance, pay his legal costs. When Hartford refused, pointing out (reasonably enough) that Mermelstein had never been served, attorney Mausner represented the IHR's suit as a big threat to Mermelstein. Mausner was able to intimidate Hartford with his client's Holocaust-survivor status to the extent of securing

    60 thousand for Mermelstein in a settlement, as well as obtaining very generous legal fees for himself. Apparently, Hartford was unaware that at this same time Mausner was maintaining in a California court that IHR's suit was entirely groundless and frivolous.

    In February 1989, a process server seeking Willis Carto on behalf of Mermelstein mistook the IHR's former accountant, Robert Fenchel, for Carto at the Ninth Revisionist Conference at the Old World Shopping Center. That November, Judge John Zebrowski found that, in spite of the non-service, the IHR was delinquent in not notifying Mermelstein of his mistake: Zebrowski imposed sanctions of 3,000, which the Institute was obliged to pay before it could begin to defend itself.

    This was followed by a number of unfavorable pretrial rulings: Mermelstein was allowed to add new legal theories to his libel suit, four years after it had been filed. The IHR was not allowed to make use of a California law which allows a newspaper to retract offending statements and thus avoid suit. The Institute's motion for summary judgment on whether the Institute had probable cause to sue Mermelstein for libel (and thus defeat his malicious prosecution complaint) was rejected. Finally, in January 1991 Mermelstein succeeded in obtaining a second judicial notice of gassing at Auschwitz.

    Nevertheless, not everything went Mermelstein's way: two judges, both Jewish, who believed they might not be able to be impartial, did the decent thing and disqualified themselves.

    The Best Defense

    After nearly five years of pre-trial maneuvering and legal jousting, the trial at last loomed before us. The IHR was represented by William Hulsy of Irvine. Liberty Lobby's attorney was Mark Lane, an experienced trial lawyer, a long-time fighter for civil rights, noted critic of the Warren Report, bestselling author, movie scriptwriter, and anti-Zionist Jew. Lane served as the defendants' lead attorney, dealing primarily with the conspiracy complaint. Hulsy was responsible for combating the defamation charges, and for formulating the overall trial strategy.

    They were assisted by Charles Purdy of San Diego, who also represented Liberty Lobby, and by Willis Carto, who defended himself. Finally, the Von Esches (primarily Mark Von Esch, son of Robert, Jr.) defended their firm, and were to concentrate on dealing with the malicious prosecution complaint.

    William Hulsy had been recommended to us by John Schmitz, the former US Congressman and very good friend of Revisionism and IHR. A successful attorney with experience in more than 200 jury trials, Hulsy finally agreed to take our case in spite of warnings from friends and colleagues, and his own apprehensions about possible damage to his career.

    Hulsy firmly believed that the case could be fought and won on its legal merits, and that to make the main issue the Holocaust -- as Mermelstein's attorneys were seeking to do -- might very well result in an annihilating defeat. He decided to oppose the libel complaint by convincingly demonstrating to a jury, if possible, that everything Smith had written about Mermelstein was true. Failing that, he would show that Mermelstein was "a public figure," who had thrust himself to the forefront of participation in a public controversy in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved (his constitutional privilege, according to the ruling of the Supreme Court under Earl Warren, in the famous New York Times vs. Sullivan ruling of 1964). Hulsy would also seek to show that the question of Mermelstein's credibility as an eyewitness to the gassings and the Holocaust was a matter of public concern; that Brad Smith had exercised "due diligence," not reckless disregard for the truth, in his research for the offending article; that Brad's description of Mel was not based on personal malice; and that the IHR's Newsletter was not (as Mermelstein sought to argue) disseminated to the public at large, but was instead a periodical circulated to a limited readership that shared a specific interest in Revisionism. Establishing any or all of these things might suffice to defeat the libel complaint; failing that, to minimize damages.

    Thanks to the evidence carefully compiled by Lou Rollins and others, we could show that what had appeared in the IHR Newsletter about Mermelstein was true. This alone should have been enough to defeat the libel complaint, but Hulsy believed that it might not be enough to convince a Los Angeles jury.

    My Assignment

    My first assignment was to demonstrate to Bill Hulsy that the IHR and revisionists were not "neo-Nazis" or cranky flat-earthers, but responsible researchers with a different viewpoint on modern history. After winning his confidence, he set me to work gathering, compiling and evaluating evidence to defend against Mermelstein's libel complaint, based on Hulsy's research and understanding of the law. Again and again, Hulsy stressed that he wanted evidence to win the trial, not to disprove the Holocaust. But I must confess that I cheated: I sought every bit of evidence I could lay my hands on about Mermelstein's actual experiences during the Second World War, and what he'd said about them over the years.




    As this mass of paper and audiotape accumulated, I had to read and re-read, to analyze and evaluate, to extract and collate and tabulate the evidence that would serve our defense against Mermelstein's complaint that he was libeled by the IHR's description of him as "a vainglorious prevaricator," "a false-tale spinner," and "a demonstrable fraud."

    Contradictions and Absurdities


    I began my compilation of contradictions and absurdities in Mermelstein's Holocaust claims with the list that Lou Rollins had put together. With much more evidence and a great deal more time than was available to Rollins, I compiled a new list, longer and more thorough than his original, but including many of the discrepancies and exaggerations that he had caught years earlier.




    Among the absurdities were the nonexistent subterranean tunnel to the above-ground crematory, the soap made from Jewish bodies, a claim that Auschwitz camp "kapos" were rewarded for every prisoner they killed, and that there was a railroad track leading from the crematory to a pond for dumping ashes.









    The evidence we were able to collect about Mermelstein's credibility not only persuaded our attorneys that this was a very unreliable witness, to say the least; it also, I believe, gave them additional confidence to challenge Mermelstein directly.

    New Evidence


    Forewarned and Forearmed




    Similarly, there is no mention whatsoever of Mermelstein having witnessed the entry of his mother and sisters into a gas chamber, or anything like that, in any of the several detailed press accounts about his industrious activity as a lecturer, exhibitor of artifacts, and museum proprietor published prior to the 1979 reward offer.

    The Trial

    After several postponements in the first half of 1991, the trial was upon us. It followed a new Mermelstein media propaganda blitz, the centerpiece of which was the made-for-television movie Never Forget. This lurid and false account of the "reward case" was broadcast nationwide over the Turner cable television network in April 1991 (or just before the original trial date).

    To make things more interesting, shortly before trial the Von Esches, on whose shoulders virtually our entire defense of the malicious prosecution complaint rested, threw in the towel and capitulated. After already enduring years of vituperation as agents of a worldwide Nazi cabal, they gave in to fear that their law practice would be ruined.

    The Von Esches settled with a payment to Mermelstein of 100,000, and a craven -- I'm sorry to say -- apology agreeing that, yes, Jews had been gassed at Auschwitz, and that millions more had perished in Auschwitz and other camps at the hands of the Germans.

    Then we got a break. We learned that the trial judge, Stephen Lachs, was Jewish, a member of the liberal American Civil Liberties Union, and the first avowed homosexual to serve as a judge in California history. As it happened, Lachs turned out to be a conscientious and impartial judge, despite the sensitive nature of the case and the blatant attempts by Mermelstein's attorneys to appeal to his Jewish background.

    The combination of Mark Lane's trial savvy and Bill Hulsy's careful strategy brought about, against all expectations (ours as well as theirs), an annihilating victory for the forces of historical truth and freedom of inquiry. The 49 pretrial motions crafted by Hulsy to withstand and counter Mermelstein's case were like a mighty fortress protecting us and blocking the enemy's advance. Thus, even to get to a jury trial, Mermelstein's three lawyers -- lead attorney Lawrence Heller, Peter Bersin, and Jeff Mausner -- were forced to attack across legal mine fields, negotiate factual tank traps and concertina wire, dare procedural pill boxes and machine gun nests. The plaintiff's legal assault was contained at the outset, suffering heavy casualties during the close-in combat over the pre-trial motions. When Mermelstein's lawyers attempted a retreat it quickly turned into a rout. In the end, a downcast plaintiff and his (somewhat bedraggled) lawyers slunk from the courtroom, seemingly dazed by defeat.

    Mermelstein Takes the Stand

    This is not to say that Mel Mermelstein didn't have his day in court. He and his counsel had unwisely declined to stipulate that he was a "public figure," as we had tried to establish (mindful of the added protection against defamation suits by public figures provided by the Supreme Court in a landmark 1964 decision). He also contested our motion to sever the determination of that issue from the matters to be decided by the jury. (We had wanted Judge Lachs to rule on this.)

    As a result, Mermelstein took the stand, allowing Mark Lane to examine him on the question of whether his activities qualified him as a public figure according to the standards of the court. Mermelstein attempted to argue that he was not a public figure, in spite of his admission on the stand that he is: a published author; the founder of the "Auschwitz Study Foundation"; the curator of a Holocaust museum (that was first a traveling Holocaust exhibition); the willing subject of scores of newspaper and magazine stories, radio and television interviews; an eager accumulator of plaudits and testimonials from state and local governments, and laurels from the likes of Israel's late Prime Minister Menachem Begin; and a lecturer who has spoken, over nearly two decades, at numerous colleges, high schools, synagogues, and so forth, across the United States.

    Lane led him carefully through each of these damaging admissions. Evidently Mermelstein had believed that he could represent himself as someone who had been dragged unwillingly into the public arena by the IHR (even though most of his various public activities started before he'd ever heard of the Institute).

    After establishing Mermelstein as an author, curator, founder of a non-profit educational organization, political honoree, and media star over the airwaves and in print, Lane zeroed on Mermelstein's activities as a lecturer. About how many lectures had he given on Auschwitz prior to 1985, Lane wanted to know. Here Mermelstein, uncommonly forthcoming so far, began to prevaricate. Despite ample testimony out of his own mouth and pen as to his numerous lectures over the years, testimony of which the defendants were very well aware, Mermelstein claimed that he had given only about as many talks as "the fingers on my hands."

    Thereupon Lane flourished a typed list, signed by Mermelstein, of more than 30 lectures given by him in a period of just 18 months in 1981-1982. Mermelstein tried to be crafty: he allowed that he might have lectured more than once at the same place -- not the most effective answer, but one that later might defuse the issue for an inattentive jury.

    At this point I recalled that in one of his depositions Mermelstein had estimated giving an average of 20 lectures a year on Auschwitz since 1967. I quickly found the statement in a deposition given in 1985. After a break for lunch, Mark Lane confronted Mermelstein with his own words, and then, using a pencil and pad to multiply 18 by 20 (a calculation equalling 360), Lane asked Mermelstein if he hadn't just told the court that he had only given as many lectures as there are fingers on his hands. A vexed Mermelstein then blurted out, "I meant the fingers of my hands and feet!"

    At that point, Judge Lachs was seen to roll his eyes heavenward. A few minutes later, Bersin rose to concede his client's status as a public figure.

    Judge Lachs Rules

    Several days later, after carefully considering the text of Mermelstein's characterization of the IHR's 1985 settlement (which the plaintiff had made on a New York City radio broadcast shortly after that settlement), Judge Lachs declared that Mermelstein's claim that IHR had "signed" the 1981 judicial notice of gassing at Auschwitz could indeed be interpreted by a reasonable man as defamatory. This meant, he ruled, that IHR had had probable cause to sue Mermelstein in 1986, and that thus he had no alternative but to grant the IHR's motion for dismissal of Mermelstein's malicious prosecution complaint.



    Ernst Zündel Replies:
    Rebuttal # 62:

    Are all Revisionist "Nazis" or "Hitler apologists" - or is it acceptable and legitimate to question alleged facts of history without character assassination? Nizkor engages in the usual negative stereotyping and smear mongering method: guilt by innuendo and guilt by association.

    Let's look at some of the claims - and then let's look at some of the unsavory characters who promote and have exploited the "Holocaust" and their possible motives.

    For instance, in "The Seventh Million", Israeli journalist tells in a footnote (page 183) that

    "The Holocaust memorial in Jerusalem, Yad Vashem, has received many letters from people asking about bars of soap left over from the war years. Some offered to contribute the soap to the museum, while others asked whether the soap ought to be properly buried. Yad Vashem always officially replies that the Nazis did not make soap out of Jews. . . Yad Vashem has concluded that Jews were not murdered for this purpose. Here, then, is the history of a myth."

    And yet, even as we write this, the Zundelsite is under attack by the Jewish Holocaust Lobby for having posted a "Jewish soap" debunking article on the Net!

    Or take the story of Menahem Begin who got things commingled in his lying mind. I quote here again from Segev's "Seventh Million":

    "Begin liked to say that his father had led a procession of five hundred {of Jewish resisters} and that the river had turned red with their blood. In fact, he did not know this for certain. His sister, Rachel Halperin, told his biographer, Eric Silver, that her brother's version of the event was a "tall tale." She believed that their father had been shot to death by a soldier. Their mother was murdered while being treated at a hospital. Begin claimed that both his parents had been murdered "before his eyes," but in fact, he was no longer in the city when they were killed. He had made his escape in time."

    There are many other such stories - for instance, the person who claimed to have been "gassed" six times and lived to tell about it. <http://members.aol.com/ihrgreg/nonsense/930805sixgassings.htm> Or the woman who recently surfaced in the Seattle, Washington area who claimed that, in order to escape from "Nazis", she had been befriended and subsequently nurtured by a pack of wolves. Not to mention the "33 Mermelstein lies" documented by the IHR and posted on their website.

    Now let's analyze the association of the Revisionists with Right Wing causes - and by the same token let us not overlook all the Holocaust Promoters, Inventors and Enforcers who have been, and still are, Israel Apologists, Israel Boosters and Israel Defenders. By their support, these people unapologetically endorse the theft, seizure, occupation and confiscation of the land of Palestine, dispossess the Palestinian people and, in operation after operation of ethnic cleansing, drive out the native Palestinians from their homesteads, bulldoze their houses, pave over their graveyards, wipe out refugee camps with massive artillery barrages, and destroy entire towns and cities by carpet bombing - such as was done to Beirut.

    B'nai Brith-supported Nizkor is in no moral position to give other people moralistic finger-wagging lectures as to what they can think and with whom the can or may associate. Does Nizkor claim with a straight face that the unwashed, unkempt nose-and-earring equipped spiked-rooster-hair crowd with whom B'nai Brith claims a "close working relationship" is any more moral? Are the space cadets, the burned-out druggies of the ARA of better caliber than those right wingers mentioned with such gloating? Does Nizkor think that the violent enforcers of the gun-toting, gun smuggling, dope-trafficking, bomb building arsonists and convicted murderers and jail birds of the JDL and Tagar bunch - which Holocaust Enforcers have used repeatedly to terrorize people like myself, David Irving, Robert Faurisson and others - anything to write home about?

    I do not know of a single Revisionist - or what Nizkor likes to call "Holocaust Denier" - who was ever convicted of a bombing and arson, or even a beating. That some Revisionists don't like Jews, or even dislike and despise them, is in the light of the behavior of terrorists such as the JDL, TAGAR, and ARA not surprising. To take this even further - Israel is a pariah among nations with its organized, Israeli Supreme Court approved use of beatings, bone breakings, hoodings and other inhuman tortures. Israel's behavior toward its Palestinian and Arab neighbors makes it hardly a role model decent people can aspire and look up to.

    So what if Carto, Greg Raven and Ernst Zündel have something positive to say about Hitler and his regime? Are Nizkorites not fond of Communism? Has anybody ever fainted from studying some Hitler policies? What does Nizkor know of the man?

    Nizkor and B'nai Brith have not yet been appointed or elevated to the position of official censor and judge as to what people may think or write, or with whom they may choose to associate.

    Now to Chomsky:

    Noam Chomsky is too clear a thinker with far too sound powers of deduction and reasoning not to see through the Holocaust scam. That Chomsky does not have the intellectual integrity or courage to call a spade a spade when it comes to the Holocaust topic is his problem.

    Having read all kinds of stuff by Chomsky, I for one simply do not believe that the quotes Nizkor attributes to him are Chomsky's honest opinions. A man of Chomsky's intellect does not suddenly accept at face value and as gospel truth the most bizarre and obvious nonsense as fact. No man is that brilliant and that dumb at the same time.

    We have a good word for that in German: "Zwecklügen." Lies born of necessity.

    In summary, the Holocaust is an accumulation of World War II propaganda lies whose end has finally come. You have seen it demolished right here in the answers to the 66 questions. The free ride of the parasites on the backs of the productive Germans is about to come to an end. The world is throwing the Zionist monkey off its back. The Arab countries are adopting Revisionist arguments as part of their foreign policy - and the handwriting for the Zionists is clearly on the wall! Nahum Goldman, that old fox and self-admitted prevaricator, warned the Jews about the misuse of the Holocaust way back in the 1970s and once again in 1981. Many writers have done so since. The latest I have seen was penned by Eliahu Salpeter in Ha'aretz, March 24, 1999:

    "What is Jewish property? Who are its legitimate heirs? Is it advisable to keep extending the deadline for making these claims, thus adding on new claimants? Or are we approaching the point beyond which it is better to be wise than to be right? (...) The vast sums added every year to Jewish claims also expand the ranks of anti-Semites and Holocaust deniers. (...) It is hard to explain to non-Jews why the property of a Polish Christian who dies with no heirs belongs to his country, while the property of a Polish Jew in a similar situation should be handed over to some New York organization."

    I could not have said it better myself.

  • 63. What happened to the historians who have questioned the "Holocaust" material?


    Ernst Zündel Replies:
    Rebuttal # 63:

    Take a look at one Revisionist victim who dared to examine the Holocaust and had the courage to publish his findings:

    That's Dr. Faurisson! Here is what happened to him:


    Background and contribution: Known as the "Dean of the world-wide Revisionist movement" and principal teacher of Ernst Zündel, Dr. Faurisson first discovered the technical and architectural drawings of the Auschwitz morgues, the crematories and other installations. He was also the first to insist that only a U.S. gas chamber expert could unravel the technical impossibility of the Auschwitz "homicidal gassing" story - as falsely told to the public for over half a century.

    Dr. Faurisson was Zündel's mentor, advisor and trial witness in the 1984 preliminary hearings and in the 1985 and 1988 Great Holocaust Trials. He was slated as expert witness for the 1991 Munich trial of Ernst Zündel. (The prosecution dropped the Anne Frank Diary part of the charge in mid-trial after they learned that Dr. Faurisson was going to testify to that point.)

    He was also slated as expert witness in the 1997 (and ongoing) Human Rights Tribunal hearings, but was disqualified on a whim.

    Now take a look at the list of victims who have met with various degrees of physical and psychological violence as Revisionist victims of Zion!

    Are these people dummies? Did Christ have a doctorate in Christianity? Marx in Marxism? Hitler in National Socialism? Who cares that Stäglich was "only" a judge, and Butz "only" an electrical engineer - that Dr. Faurisson was "only" a professor of literature and of ancient texts and documents, or that O'Keefe dropped out of Harvard! Can their research stand the acid test of truth or not? That's the criterion. Nothing else matters.

    Is a degree necessary to have a right to one's opinions - or that one can't think without one, putting two and two together?

    Does Ken McVay, the burned-out rock musician, variety store restocking clerk and gas station attendant have more credentials than the men and women who are listed above and who have paid the price for having unpopular, politically incorrect opinions? Is the art dealer Reitlinger, or the liar Mermelstein, or the picture falsifier Wiesenthal, more qualified than Revisionist researchers who have put their very lives on the line - and who are doing it daily?

    It is true I, Ernst Zundel, was "only" a lowly photo retoucher - but that's how I can tell when an Auschwitz photo is faked!

    What is this nonsense about only state-, society-, institution- or Jewish-approved people being allowed to comment or to publish and proselytize their views and findings? What kind of degree has Jamie McCarthy?

    The Revisionist collection of historical amateurs and auto-didacts have investigated, analyzed, dissected, evaluated and looked with just ordinary common sense at the wild claims and fanciful tales of the Holocaust Inventors. They found it, crudely put. a crock of absolute doodoo - no more than the collective hallucinations of feverish minds and warped, overly fertile Zionist, agenda-driven brains who have massively lied for vast profit - for more than half a century!

    The Jewish writer Samuel Gringanz had this to say already in the 1950s in his magazine "Jewish Social Studies" when he spoke of survivors' memoirs and reports:

    ". . . most of the memoirs and reports are full of preposterous verbosity, graphomanic exaggeration, dramatic effects, overestimated self-inflation, dilletante philosophizing, would-be lyricism, unchecked rumors, bias, partisan attacks and apologies. (page 65)

    I rest my case. I could not have said it better myself.


    Perhaps the odd affinity between the ARA and the Holocaust Lobby is best summarized in an excerpt from an Ernst Zundel affidavit subtitled "B'nai Brith's Condoning and Support of Violence":

    25. In 1993, posters from a new, radical, violent group called "Anti-Racist Action" (hereinafter referred to as "ARA") began appearing around downtown Toronto. These posters featured a photograph of my face in the cross-hairs of a rifle with the words: "Guru of hate - Ernst Zundel - Your days are numbered..." A second poster featured a smaller version of my face with the rifle cross-hairs superimposed over it with the words: "The one that got away...Not!...Stop Zundel." A further poster titled "BORED?" gave directions to my home and directions on how to build a molotov cocktail. The ARA spray-painted slogans in the back of my property such as "Zundel Watch Your Back ARA". Attached to this my affidavit as Exhibit A, pages 23-26, are copies of the posters which were posted by the hundreds in downtown Toronto in 1993 and 1994 at various times and a photograph of the spray-painted slogans.

    26. A violent demonstration by ARA took place at my home during November, 1993 when my house was pelted with paint, eggs, chain links and excrement bombs. Only the presence and protection of massive numbers of Toronto police and a large plastic covering over the house prevented serious damage. Karen Mock of B'nai Brith excused the violence as being a result of the "frustration felt by many young people because of perceived law enforcement and government inaction." This was reported in an article the Canadian Jewish News, Dec. 2, 1993, a copy of which I attach to this my affidavit as Exhibit A, pages 27 and 28, together with a copy of an article from the Globe & Mail, Nov. 25, 1993 covering the demonstration.

    27. In 1994, B'nai Brith again entered the media with calls for my extradition to Germany after it became public that I had applied for Canadian citizenship. B'nai Brith took the position in a statement that I did not deserve to be a Canadian citizen. Attached to this my affidavit and marked Exhibit A, page 29, is a copy of an article from the Montreal Gazette dated July 28, 1994 referring to B'nai Brith's statement.

    28. In 1994, B'nai Brith called for "Holocaust denial" to be made a unique criminal offence. Attached to this my affidavit and marked Exhibit A, page 30, is a copy of an article from the Canadian Jewish News, October 27, 1994.

    29. In a 1995 press conference announcing their annual audit of anti-Semitic incidents, B'nai Brith again severely criticized Canadian governments for failing to charge me with hate and again called for me to be charged. Attached to this my affidavit and marked Exhibit A, page 31, is a copy of articles from the Toronto Star and the Saturday Sun of March 4, 1995.

    30. On May 7, 1995, an arsonist set fire to my home and caused massive damage to the front half of the house. The entire third floor was destroyed together with thousands of invaluable books and documents. I have no doubt that the hysteria whipped up by B'nai Brith contributed to the lynch-mob atmosphere of vigilantism and violence which permeated this period of time. Police were given a surveillance tape of the arsonist in action, but so far no arrests have been made. Attached to this my affidavit as Exhibit A, pages 32-34, is a copy of an article from the Toronto Star, May 8, 1995 reporting the fire and showing Toronto Mayor Barbara Hall watching it.

    31. Shortly after the arson, on May 12, 1995, two ARA leaders, one of whom I identified as Ajith Aluthwatta, appeared outside of my house with two leaders of the Jewish Defence League (JDL): Meir Halevi, from the Canadian JDL and Irv Rubin from the United States JDL. The JDL has been classified by the FBI in the United States as a terrorist organization. The two men attempted to break into the boarding I had put up around the burnt-out house. I called the police who questioned them, checked their identities and let them go because they had caused only a "minor" mischief. Attached to this my affidavit as Exhibit A, pages 35, 36, are photographs of the police questioning the ARA and JDL leaders and a copy of an article describing the incident in NOW magazine, May 18-24, 1995.

    32. Two weeks after the arson a pipe bomb was sent to my address in a suspicious package which I did not open. Police exploded the bomb later in a safe area and informed me that had the bomb exploded, it would have killed the person who opened the package and anyone within a 90 meter radius. Other groups were also targetted with pipe bombs during this period. Attached to this my affidavit and marked Exhibit A, pages 37, 38, is a copy of articles from the Toronto Sun, July 21, 27 1995 on the pipe bombs.

    33. On March 14, 1996, B'nai Brith again called for me to be charged under the hate laws at a major press conference where it released its annual audit of anti-semitic activities. These comments were given nation-wide media coverage. I was again called a hate monger. Attached to this my affidavit and marked Exhibit A, page 39, is a copy of an article from the Toronto Star, March 15, 1996.

    34. In November of1995, Sabina Citron, laid two further private criminal charges against me of conspiracy to incite hatred and defamatory libel of named Jewish individuals. Again, after a four month investigation by Hate Crimes unit investigators and senior Crown Attorneys expert in hate propaganda, the Crown intervened in the case and withdrew the charges on March 15, 1996.. On the steps of the courthouse after the charges were withdrawn Karen Mock of B'nai Brith angrily demanded some four feet from where I stood that new charges should be laid against me under the hate laws. I attempted to ask her if she had not heard what had happened inside the courtroom, where she had sat during the entire proceedings within two rows of me. She ignored me and continued shouting at the assembled press that I was a hate monger. Attached to this my affidavit and marked Exhibit B is a videotape of the Mock comments.

    35. In June and July1996, B'nai Brith played a major role supporting an application by the violent ARA for a grant from Toronto's Metro Council. Karen Mock of B'nai Brith made an impassioned speech to Metro Council for the grant to ARA which was carried on local cable TV. Both Mock and Kurz wrote letters to the Metro Council supporting the grant. Kurz wrote in his capacity as member of the Toronto Mayor's Committee on Community and Race Relations. Attached to this my affidavit and marked Exhibit A, pages 40-42, are copies of the letters from Mock and Kurz to Metro Council supporting the ARA grant and the covering letter of Charles Smith, Metro Council Access and Equity Centre.

    36. In fact, the Metro Toronto Hate Crimes unit sent information to Metro Council about ARA's Internet Website which contained such words as "Fuck Authority" and "Fuck Hierarchy. Organize Horizontally Not Vertically. Fight and resist fascist asskissers of the corporate state - remember, Hitler was also elected to office - and who groomed Hitler? Racist anti-Semites..." Attached to this my affidavit and marked Exhibit A is a copy of the fax to Metro Council's administrative office from the Metro Toronto Police Hate Crimes Unit. Attached to this my affidavit and marked Exhibit A, pages 43-47, is a copy of the five page fax from the Police Hate Crimes Unit to Metro Council.

    37. In a fax to Toronto Metro Councillor Norm Gardner's office, Sam Title of B'nai Brith wrote:

    "Here's the info you requested on ARA. Just so you are aware we have have (sic) worked with them before, and we presently have a very workable and amiable relationship with ARA...despite their 'tactics.'"

    Attached to this my affidavit and marked Exhibit A, page 48, is a copy of the fax from B'nai Brith to George Berger of Councillor Norm Gardner's office.

    38. B'nai Brith supported and participated in the conference held by the ARA in June of 1996 called "Youth Against Hate." Karen Mock appeared as a panelist in a seminar entitled "Anti-Fascist Strategies" along with B'nai Brith's prominent member and counsel, Marvin Kurz, who in this instance represented the Toronto Mayor's Committee on Race Relations, one of the complainants in this case. Sabina Citron, the other complainant in this case, also appeared as a panelist in a seminar entitled "Holocaust Survivors Speak Out." Attached to this my affidavit and marked Exhibit A, pages 49-52, is a copy of the ARA "Youth Against Hate" program identifying Mock, Kurz and Citron as panelists.

    39. In ARA's magazine "On the Prowl" from the fall of 1996, Karen Mock of B'nai Brith is pictured at the conference sitting under the logo of ARA which has been banned as a hate group logo from at least one Toronto school board. The article referred to me and Toronto Sun columnist Christie Blatchford as follows: "Racist media grandmongers, like Christie Blackbutt from the ill reputed Toronto Sun to Ernie 'no neck' Zunie, had to stop scratching their white asses and start lobbying to keep us from getting this money." The article gave a "special fuck to that right wing shit-head Christie Blatchford of the Toronto Sun, who predicted that the conference would never happen!" The ARA article endorsed violence as a political means in its references to Mandela and Rabin. Attached to this my affidavit and marked Exhibit A, page 53, is a copy of the "On the Prowl" article.

    40. ARA has been banned as a violent hate group by some school boards in Ontario. The Scarborough Board of Education banned the group from school property after consultation with Metro Toronto Police Hate Crimes Unit officers. The Board of Education described the group as a violent group known to the Toronto police. The Durham Board of Education has banned the ARA from its schools as a group whose tactics involve physical confrontation and extreme violence. The Wellington County Board of Education has banned the ARA from school property as a group whose "tactics involve physical confrontation and extreme violence that has lead to bodily injury and police intervention." Attached to this my affidavit and marked Exhibit A, pages 54-57, is a letter from the Scarborough Board of Education regarding ARA and the Durham Board of Education and Wellington Board of Education directives to all principals regarding the ARA.

    41. Apart from the threatening posters and violent demonstrations in front of my house by the ARA, this organization has been implicated by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) in the arson of my house in 1995. A Kitchener electronics businessman, Michael Rothe, was interviewed by two CSIS agents who identified themselves as such and showed identification badges. Their names were given as Angela and Peter. The interview was taped on a security camera in the store on February 7, 1996. The following transcript is as close as I have been able to come having listened to the tape closely:

    ANGELA: Have you heard of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service? ...

    PETER: You can bet it's real!...I'll explain to you what we are first....We're the political police. Angela and I are from the counter-terrorism branch...We are interested in the Heritage Front. ...

    PETER: In Toronto, Wolfgang has much trouble with a group that calls itself Anti-Racist Action, ARA. This is a collection of anarchists, Trotskyists, Stalinists.

    ANGELA: One of the problems that we've also had with the ARA as Peter was describing is that they bomb and they firebombed, you know, Ernst Zundel, I'm sure you've heard about the problems he has and the various leaders of the so-called right wing groups have received firebombs.

    PETER: So, we're interested to know...were there threats ever made to you.

    Attached to this my affidavit and marked Exhibit B is a copy of the videotape which was given to me by Mr. Rothe.

    42. On October 25, 1996, the ARA held a seven hour demonstration in front of my house after advertising the demonstration in posters plastered all over downtown Toronto which invited people to come to a "kosher barbecue" at my house. On the day of the demonstration, members of the ARA wore ski masks and held signs saying: "Burn Zundel down!". They shouted: "Lock the Nazis in - burn the house down!". Given the ARA's Molotov cocktail poster and the arson of my home in 1995 and the comments of CSIS, these threats were not taken lightly by me. Attached to this my affidavit and marked Exhibit A, page 58, is a copy of the ARA poster.

    43. Marvin Kurz, a professed supporter of the ARA and their conference, a member of and counsel for B'nai Brith and chair of its legal committee, is presently a member of the Toronto Mayor's Committee on Community and Race Relations which is one of the complainants in this case. Kurz was the person who instigated the complaint and brought the matter on to the Mayor's Committee agenda. It is highly improper that B'nai Brith be allowed to intervene in this case in these circumstances. Attached to this my affidavit and marked Exhibit A, page 59-60, is a copy of the Kurz memo to the Mayor's Committee concerning bringing the present complaint against me before the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

    44. B'nai Brith has continued their vendetta against me and used its close and amiable relationsihp with the ARA even though it knows that publication of my views does not incite any hatred towards Jews. This was proven by a book financed by B'nai Brith entitled Hate on Trial which was published by Mosaic Press in 1986. In fact the book found that people became more sympathetic to the Jewish community as a result of the massive media coverage of my 1985 trial. Attached to this my affidavit and marked Exhibit A, pages 61-64, is a copy of the title page of Hate on Trial and relevant pages.

    B'nai Brith's Karen Mock and Marvin Kurz have hobnobbed with ARA leaders in broad daylight and attended their gatherings, even advised them on their website, sponsored them and endorsed them for grants of public money. They like those thugs a lot!

    Whenever Karen Mock, Marvin Kurz, Sabina Citron or Sol Litman appear at court hearings, ARA gatherings, or Human Rights Tribunals, the ARA ruffians and JDL goons are never far behind. B'nai Brith, which helps underwrite Nizkor through one of its many tax-deductible fronts, is basically merely the Holocaust Enforcer without the clubs and gas cans. Instead of uzzis, they carry law degrees in their violin cases.

    Moralizing by B'nai Brith and Nizkor is no substitute for moral conduct or behavior. So is the pot calling the kettle black?


    And finally: Regarding my supposed "advocating" of censorship:




  • 64. Has the Institute for Historical Review suffered any retaliation for its efforts to uphold the right of freedom of speech and academic freedom?


    Ernst Zündel Replies:
    Rebuttal # 64:

    What hypocrites these people are at Nizkor!

    As stated many times before in documents and ZGrams on the Zundelsite, B'nai Brith admitted in writing to a public official, Norm Gardner of Toronto, that they have "a close working relationship" with the violent Marxist Anti Racist Action bunch. There are plenty of references on the Zundelsite that document this fact. Think of a few appropriate key words - ARA, B'nai Brith and others come to mind - and activate the Zundelsite's search engine.

  • 65. Why is there so little publicity for your point of view?


    Ernst Zündel Replies:
    Rebuttal # 65:

    I have already answered this question at length. Let me reply to Nizkor's glib and arrogant assertion that Holocaust Denial - as they like to call it - is "absurd."

    It is not absurd at all to deny that which did not exist and did not take place. It is absurd to uphold that which did not exist and did not take place.

    The Flat Earth argument applied by Nizkor to Revisionists is really rich - but typical. If Holocaust Revisionist claims were as absurd as those advanced by Flat Earth proponents, why would it not be necessary to pass stringent laws in almost all countries of the world against the claims of Flat Earth proponents?

    When was the last time you have seen a law against Flat Earth Deniers?

    The panic-stricken Zionist Lobby and beneficiaries of the Holocaust Free-Lunch Program are working hard around the globe to have ever stricter laws passed against anyone who dares to question their claims - and who dares to question the legitimacy of their lucrative extortion racket. Why do they find it necessary to charge people criminally, drag them before criminal courts and tribunals, fine them tens of thousands of dollars, or jail them for years - for not believing in a story that is so patently absurd?


    Only people with a definite political financial agenda based on a monumental lie - composed of a series of collections of lies - have to be so afraid of truth coming out that when court decisions, fines and jail terms don't deter the truth teller, they have to escalate the cost or price - and beat, bomb or burn the truth-telling Revisionist researcher out! What kind of people are these? Who would stoop so low and adopt such criminal tactics for merely not liking somebody else's viewpoints?

    These Holocaust Enforcers are afraid of the truth coming out because the historical truth will put an end to their undeserved fame and public esteem, unearned wealth and lofty positions in society with all the perks of power that have accrued to them.

    That's why they fight with the resolve and desperation of cornered criminals and con-men about to be "outed"!

  • 66. Where can I get more information about the "other side" of the "Holocaust" story as well as facts concerning other areas of WWII Historical Revisionism?


    Ernst Zündel Replies:
    Rebuttal # 66:

    The answer to this question is simple. Go judge for yourself. There are now half a dozen wellrounded quality Revisionist websites available on the Net, along with hundreds of partial and overlapping ones. There is enough information out there to read up on for anybody with a curious and open mind. As long as the Internet exists in its present form, the time of censored information is over.

    Revisionist truth needs no coercion. Revisionists do not go around beating up professors who disagree with them - as Jewish Tagar terrorists did to Professor Faurisson and others in France, or as has happened to my attorney in Germany, Jürgen Rieger.

    Revisionists don't send parcel bombs to people, as was done to me, or blow up cars, as was done to my young colleague, Francois Duprat, in France - killing him and crippling his wife for life.

    Revisionists don't burn the homes of Zionists and Communists down. They do not set bookstores on fire, as was done in France, or burn printing plants, as was done in England.

    Revisionists do not destroy a life time's worth of work by fire, as was done to me on May 7, 1995, when $400,000 damage was done to my house in the still unsolved arson attack in Toronto - where my files and library burned.

    What, instead, do Revisionists do?

    Revisionists offer to the world a new look at history. They simply ask good people to exercise their common sense - and decide for themselves what sounds true, plausible and right.

    It has been a privilege to have been part of what Dr. Faurisson has called "...the great intellectual adventure at the end of the century."

    I herewith close what should have been a "debate" that turned into the first cyber war in history. That war is not yet over. It will take more than Revisionist searching to bring it to an end. Our duty is done, and we say we have won. We have searched far and wide, and we are satisfied that we have solved the Holocaust riddle.

    We found that we were brainwashed, manipulated, used and abused by ruthless exploiters and deceivers. Our truth needs no coercion, no thought cops, no court verdicts. We have no need for Truth Enforcers!

    To the extent we can, we will share freely what we have discovered. Whether you want to change your mind after studying our facts will be entirely up to you.