[In yet another interesting interview Jim Rizoli talks with a well-known figure in the Revisionist movement, Hadding Scott. We learn about Hadding’s earlier years and how he first learnt from his mother the old saying, “Don’t believe everything that you hear!”

Then, we learn how he became aware of some of the character traits of jews from listening to the Larry King radio show. Hadding recounts it was in 1992 that he became finally convinced that the “Holocaust” was a myth after listening to a Dr. Willian Pierce radio show.

Further on, the matter of the “revisionists” who have moved away from revisionism, like Irving, Weber, Cole and now Eric Hunt, is discussed.

— KATANA]

_______________________

YouTube Description

Jim Rizoli interviews Hadding Scott, Feb 2017, discussing Hadding’s ‘awakening’ concerning revisionism of Iraq and then, of course, WWII.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_553gsl07TQ&feature=youtu.be

[No longer available on Youtube]

UPDATE: Jul 2, 2022 – BitChute Video available here:

https://www.bitchute.com/video/rQwBYc2s8vHJ/

Jim Rizoli

Interviews

Hadding Scott

TRANSCRIPT

(47:40)

[00:00]

Jim: Hi everyone, Jim Rizoli here. And I have another special guest for the show today, it’s Hadding Scott. And we’re going to be discussing a little bit about his life and some of the things that he’s been doing. So let’s get started.

So Hadding again, welcome to the program.

Hadding: Well, hello!

Jim: First of all, the only, really thing I know about you is just in e-mails, I see coming here and there. And the biggest thing I know about you, I should say is, because my brother Joe. He was very much involved listening to your discussion about Henry Ford with Carolyn Yeager.

Hadding: Oh yeah, “The International Jew Study Hour”.

Jim: Right, right! So, maybe you can tell us a little bit, … I’ll tell you what, before we get into that, why don’t we, you know, find out a little bit about you. So, what would you consider yourself?

Hadding: Well, I really hate to see somebody prevail through lying! This is something that you could notice in various things that I’ve done. But, you know, I really came to “Holocaust” revisionism through other things.

Jim: Yup.

Hadding: My origin has a lot to do with, … My parents were about a generation older than people my age. I just born in the ninety sixties. My parents were born in the nineteen twenties. And my mother was raised by her grandparents who were born not very long aft the War Between the States. So I got a very old perspective from my mother. And my mother always used to say, “Don’t believe everything that you hear!” And she gave me another perspective, when I brought home what I learned about Abraham Lincoln in school. And she also told me that all the stories about the cruelty of slavery in the South were not true. That this was exaggeration. And that slaves generally, were treated very well. And that the war was not about slavery, right?

So this really is a nice analogy to Holocaust revisionist. And I grew up with that.

Jim: Are you a teacher or anything like that? Are you an academic person?

Hadding: I have been a teacher.

Jim: OK.

Hadding: Not presently.

Jim: OK. Well, basically you, you know, you’re like me. I mean, I, you know, I got into this, because I didn’t like lying! [laughing] So, you know, I didn’t like people saying things that were just completely absurd and they’re lying and I’m trying to figure out what, why are they saying this if it’s not true? So I could understand that. So what were the first things that you took up within your travel through life, here? What were some of the topics? I mean, you mentioned Abraham Lincoln. But I mean, what other things did you do?

Hadding: Well, I can tell you how I arrived at Holocaust revisionist, all right? From this dissident perspective that was inherent in my parentage and my upbringing, I was already accustomed to the idea that much of what we hear in mass media is not true. I grew up with that! Right? But I had other things still that I needed to learn. I needed to learn that there was lying also about the Second World War, because my parents didn’t really have any inkling of that. My mother was very well informed about how there was lying against the South, but not about lying against Germany. But it was not a big leap to think that there might have been lying against Germany. But a lot of this depends on what you think about the character of the jews. Right?

I grew up with this idea that the jews were pretty much like everybody else, except they had a different religion, and the [???] jews were victimized by some mass psychosis that swept over Germany. And you have to learn about the jews to understand that this is not really how it was. And the way that I became acquainted with the real character of the jews was by listening to the Larry King Radio Show on the Mutual Broadcasting Network, beginning around 1978 and into the early 1980s.

[05:01]

I used to, actually I dropped out of high school at a very early age, actually. I got away with that. And I would stay up all night listening to Larry King radio show. And this was a big eye opener for me, because Larry King from my perspective was insane! [Jim laughing]

This was a man who professed to believe in racial equality, whereas I as a Southerner, knew first hand that this was clearly not true! And I noticed other things about Larry King. Well for one thing he made no secret of being a jew. He talked about it often and he would have guests on his show all the time the he identified as jews and many of them were buddies from the old neighborhood in Brooklyn. You could learn from listening to the Larry King Show the character of New York City jews and the fact that jews were very prevalent in the mass media and had no shame about using their positions in mass media to promote specifically jewish interests.

And Larry King was also extremely unfair to callers that disagreed with him on these particular issues, like race, and, … Well, especially race. If you disagreed with racial equality, he was very likely to badger you until you became incoherent and then hang up on you and then play the Looney Tunes thing. Right? [Mimicking the Looney Tunes music]

This was extremely unfair and this was really how I learned about jews. I mean, it’s sort of like seeing the platonic form of something, you know, you see the platonic form and then you see how that form exists in it’s imperfect form and the others. So, Larry King was sort of “concentrated jew”. And I saw that there was a little bit of Larry King in a lot of jews!

Jim: Did you ever call into the show?

Hadding: I did a couple of times.

Jim: And what happened?

Hadding: It was a long time ago, … I managed to get some stuff out and got hung up on.

Jim: [Laughing] Yeah! So that was your bad introduction to jews. And he’s such a wack job anyway, that guy!

Hadding: The thing about Larry King is he’s completely different on television, compared to how he was on the radio.

Jim: Really?

Hadding: On television he’s very toned down. You don’t, you don’t get the shameless promotion of jewish interests on his television shows, that he used to do on the radio.

Jim: Did he ever talk about the “Holocaust” or anything like [it]?

Hadding: I’m sure that he had Simon Wiesenthal on there and Eli Weasel. But at that point I wasn’t really suspicious about the Holocaust. I believed in the Holocaust until the late nineteen eighties. I started to have some questions about it in the late nineteen eighties. All right? Before I started to question the Holocaust. I had become interested in psychology. And I read a lot of psychology books, and one of the books I read was by a Scottish psychiatrist named R. D. Laing. And R. D. Laing labeled and demonized, obviously Adolf Hitler and the National Socialists.

So, because of R. D. Laing I was open to the idea that Adolf Hitler and the National Socialists might have their own story. That what they did does not seem crazy, right? What they supposedly did, right?

So, before I arrived at questioning the Holocaust, I arrived at the position of trying to understand why this happened. What did the jews do to bring this on them? Right? That seemed to me a logical question. Now, I did know from having been exposed to Larry King and also some other experiences with jews, that it was entirely possible that there was exaggeration and distortion. But I still believed the “Holocaust” must have had at least some truth in it.

It was not until about 1992 that I was convinced that the Holocaust was false. I had started listening to short wave and the alternative media on short wave. Like Radio Free America with Tom Valentine, and I stumbled across also the American Dissident Voices radio program, which was usually Kevin Strong. But once a month Dr Pierce would make a broadcast. And I wrote to them because I was very interested in the fact that the way Dr Pierce talked about racial problems was very similar to the way that I talked about these things. And he presented a rational discussion of these things.

[10:16]

And I was certainly already open to the, … I knew from listening to Larry King that jews had a lot to do with these problems. That jews in the media push for racial equality! And I ordered books and magazines from them, and one of the magazines that I ordered was an issue of National Vanguard magazine from 1989. It had Adolf Hitler on the cover, it was the one hundredth birthday of Adolf Hitler issue of National Vanguard magazine. And that magazine had an article in it called, “The Evidence of the Prussian Blue”. I had heard and read before that before the Zundel Trial. I heard Ernst Zundel interviewed on Radio Free America with Tom Valentine.

I had read an article by Professor Robert Faurisson that somebody that reproduced. But, I wasn’t sure about how much of what they said I should believe! I didn’t know who Robert Faurisson was. He could have been a crazy man, for all I knew. He said that there was no chemical residue in the gas chambers and there should have been chemical residue in the gas chambers. Well, that’s a valid argument, but, it seems to be a valid argument, but I don’t know who is Robert Faurisson, what is his expertise? How can I be sure that there really should have been residue there. He just says that there should have been. How do I know it?

But with Dr Pierce, when I read it from him, I believed him, because he had a lot of credibility with me, because he spoke my language. I mean, in terms of how he talked about race and racial issues. And he also was a physicist, you know, he would know things like whether there should be cyanide residue in the bricks. You couldn’t fool him on these things and I knew he was a man who consistently told the truth. Therefore, when I read this very concise presentation about the Leuchter Report, from Dr Pierce, I was convinced. And he presented it very concisely. He talked about the blue staining in the bricks which was in the delousing chamber at Birkenau but not in Krema one in Auschwitz [I] nor in any other Krema’s [crematoria]. And this convinced me!

Jim: So that was a good awakening for you, to see that. Now how did you pursue it after that?

Hadding: I didn’t do very much was Holocaust revisionism after that until about 2002, 2003. During the propaganda for, war against Iraq. Because it was very clear at that time that Hitler comparisons and the invocation of the “Holocaust” played a very large role in this anti-Saddam Hussein propaganda. Saddam Hussein was supposed to have gassed the Kurdish, the Kurds, he’s supposed of gassed Kurds, Kurdish civilians, for no reason! It was just an unprovoked gassing of these poor Kurdish civilians! That Saddam Hussein was supposed to have done for no reason. And this was supposed to make Saddam Hussein like Hitler. And he wanted to conquer the whole world like Hitler, right? So they were all these comparisons of Saddam Hussein legend, which I knew to be false by that point about Adolf Hitler.

And I wrote some articles, in early 2003, before the US invasion, in which I debunked the propaganda about Saddam Hussein. It was not true that Saddam Hussein had gassed any Kurdish civilians! This was a story that originally had been put out by the Iranians. Because what happened was that the Iranians were attacking this town in northern Iraq called Fallujah and there was nobody in the town. But then some Kurdish rebels went into Fallujah and the Iranians thought they were Iraqi soldiers and shelled them with cyanide canisters. And the Iranians accidentally killed these Kurds in Fallujah. What happened aft the Iranians went Fallujah and saw the dead Kurds is that they blamed it on the Iraqis. And they called in journalists to see what happened there and they said, “Look what the Iraqis did!”

[14:48]

If you read the early reports about this incident you can tell that they’re somewhat skeptical. The reports are somewhat skeptical what the Iranians say. The Iranians said there were five thousand dead Kurds killed by the Iraqis. The reporters said that they saw one hundred or so, bodies. This is the kind of initial reporting on Fallujah. But what happened after, Iraq came out of the war much stronger, as a sort of a regional superpower. jews started in with their anti-Saddam Hussein propaganda. It happened on September first, 1988.

There was an article, a news article and also an editorial by William Safire in the New York Times. In which William Safire mentions that this cyanide gas had been used to kill the Kurds at Fallujah was the same gas used at Auschwitz! George Herbert Walker Bush also made an explicit Hitler comparison. Compared Saddam Hussein to Hitler. And Saddam Hussein also returned the comparison, comparing George Herbert Walker Bush to Hitler! Everybody that you want to motivate people to attack apparently is just like Hitler.

So we have this war in 1991, but I’m perfectly willing to believe the Iraqi side of the story that April Glaspie, that the Kuwaitis provoked the Iraqis and that April Glaspie told them that the USA wouldn’t care if they invaded Iraq.

Also I found out the CIA had made a fake satellite photograph showing Iraqi tanks on the Saudi border to try to get the Saudis to support the whole project of invading Iraq, attacking Iraq. Which echoes, of course, the fake CIA photograph that was published in Life magazine of the fake aerial photograph of Auschwitz that was published in Life magazine, I think in 1977. That showed doctored photographs of Auschwitz with people lined up for the gas chamber.

Jim: I’d like to see that picture.

Hadding: Yeah! Well that’s online. You just do a search, “Life magazine Auschwitz”. You’ll find it. Actually, it had people standing on the corner of buildings in these lines that were lined up, to go into the gas chamber. It was a kind of sloppy alteration. And they also put in a wall to hide people, so that they could pretend these people going to be gassed were not seen by people outside of the camp. There was there was no such wall.

Jim: Right.

Hadding: Anyway, so this anti-Saddam Hussein propaganda about the gassed Kurds went on for fifteen years, until we had the invasion and overthrow of the Iraqi government in 2003. Really the gassed Kurds story was the basis of the whole propaganda. Because this is an observation that I’ve made about how propaganda works. Most people are so overwhelmed with information that they can’t bother to check everything that they hear, or even very much of what they hear.

So what people will do, is that they will take a few bits of information that they’ve heard and that they believe and they’ll construct a picture based on assumptions. So basically they try to see a pattern and fill out a picture based on that. In Gestalt psychology this is called “reifications” where you have a few, a few hints about what a shape might be and you can imagine that the shape is there. That’s called “reification”. It literally means “making the thing”, “thing making”.

So this tendency of people to fill out their knowledge gaps with imagination is exploited in propaganda. And the biggest way that they do this, is by misinforming people about somebody’s character. Once it was spread that Saddam Hussein had gassed the poor Kurds and had done it with no cause, people would believe that he could do anything! All right, this is a crazy man! A man who might very well have been involved in the 9/11 attacks!

You couldn’t really convince people that he wasn’t involved in the 9/11 attacks, because that would that would require checking the evidence and most people will never do that. But it would fit, … If people implied that he might have been involved in the 9/11 attacks they were very ready to believe it, because of what they had been told about Saddam Hussein’s character. And this is something that has to be addressed is also in regard to the Holocaust.

One thing that a lot of people in Revisionism seem to do, they seem to focus on these details about gas chambers and crematoria and they don’t really look at questions like, “What kinds of people were these that were accused of doing these things?” “What is the character of the people making the accusations?” That’s extremely important!

[20:12]

Now, since 9/11 and actually since the late 1970s when people started becoming critical of the state of Israel, but especially since 9/11, there’s a lot less trust of jews, because a lot of people noticed after 9/11 that there was a lot of dishonesty.

I just had a conversation yesterday with a leftist. I asked him privately if you believed in the Holocaust. And he said he wasn’t sure, but he doesn’t trust jews. This guy’s a leftist! He says he doesn’t trust jews! Right? Because he doesn’t trust jews, he’s open to the possibility that the whole cause could be a big lie. Right? That’s very important! And this is something that has to be addressed if you’re trying to say that there was no Holocaust, while maintaining, “Oh yes! The Nazis were these horrible people!” you’re not going to be very convincing.

Jim: The big thing for you to understand how a lie could be propagated upon us and not be true, and I understand that too, … And I do I do believe you, what you say there about this psychology of this all too. There’s a lot more involved than that. That a lot of people don’t get into. I mean, I don’t get into it, because it’s hard, it’s hard to deal with that aspect of it, unless you show pictures [laughing] ., you know, what I mean?

I mean, you know, people, you could talk psychology all you wanted but it seems like it only resonates with a certain type of people, the psychology aspect of it. I mean, I think it’s a good aspect of it. Just like, what’s her name, Elizabeth Loftus. Is that her name? She’s the one that talks about the false memory syndrome. Have you ever hear of her?

Hadding: Yeah.

Jim: So I mean, she was saying, …

Hadding: I’ve heard of False Memory Syndrome.

Jim: Yeah. Well anyway, that’s, I think that’s who she is. And she’s the one that, you know, she went at it from that aspect. But she didn’t get into the “Holocaust”. She just gets into it from other people in life, but being a jew, she didn’t want to deal with that topic of the Holocaust, because obviously, you know, the tribes she belongs to, the tribe and that’s not going to be too good for her. So that’s why she never, … But that is an interesting topic if you ever wanted to find out about her. I think it’s Elizabeth Loftus.

Hadding: Well I’ll tell you another psychologist who wrote something that casts a lot of doubt on the Holocaust is Leon Festinger. He wrote “A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance”. This was published in 1957. And you really have to wonder what Festinger had in mind.

It’s irresistible to make the analogy, jews hearing the rumors in Auschwitz, or someplace like that. If they were, … If they had a bad conscience, if they really hated the Germans, if they were communists and had bad intentions and had been locked up in this camp. But were being treated way better than they expected, or way better than seem justified. They would be disposed to believe the same kind of rumors that these Japanese interned in these American camps believed. They had this rumor that they were being secretly killed and it was the same rumors that the jews had.

Jim: Can I ask you this about your relationship with Carolyn Yeager doing that real, you know, I guess it want on for what, months? Your thing about Henry Ford.

Hadding: Yeah, it was some 50 chapters.

Jim: Wow! So how long did that go on for?

Hadding: It was about a year, I guess.

Jim: Yeah, my brother, … I mean, the reason I know about that, is my brother Joe, he takes the mp3s and he listens to them when he drive. So he told me all about it and, you know, it’s a great way of understanding, or actually getting the book in without reading it, you know. Because sometimes people, they can’t read. My brother he, … And I do too. When I get on the plane I take mp3s and listen to them as I fly. You know, right now I’m listening to “The Myth of German Villainy”. Are you familiar with that book?

Hadding: No. Who wrote that?

Jim: Oh my goodness! Ben Bradberry. You have to get that book! If you want to understand World War Two, and prior to World War Two, World War One, and even prior to that from the 1850s on, what happened with Germany and the whole ten yards, you have to, … You have to read that book. Because you’ll get the best education on what really happened. And I think of all the books I’ve ever read, that probably has been the best one.

[25:14]

I interviewed him actually, Ben Bradberry. You could probably do a search for it on You Tube “Ben Bradberry Jim Rizoli interview” But he’s been he’s been interviewed by Red Ice and Rense and all these other people, too. So he’s a phenomenal writer and the book, … I don’t even know how he wrote his book. There’s so much in this book. It’s like how does anybody get into so much information and put it into a book? I just can’t even comprehend it. But he did it.

So, yeah, if you ever get a chance definitely read that. I actually have it all online as a mp3 that I downloaded on the site, the archive site [https://archive.org/details/MRTAPMAN_gmail_MGV] that people can download it and listen to it, like I’m listening to it. But it’s like, how many hours, my goodness, I think it’s fourteen hours just audio. So it’s pretty long. But, I do recommend that.

But anyway, getting back to Carol Yeager. Have you done any more stuff with her, or what?

Hadding: She’s not doing very much these days, so she just posts articles on our blog, occasionally. She has this website called, January 27 [http: //jan27.org], you know, the “Holocaust” Revisionist Commemoration on International “Holocaust” Remembrance Day. I just wrote an essay for that.

Jim: Yeah, I saw that. It’s not Jan27.org is it? Is that it? Oh, that’s her site, then OK, all right

Hadding: “jan27.org”

Jim: Right. That’s a real good site there. So she basically, she hasn’t been doing much with, you know, online interviews and stuff anymore?

Hadding: I haven’t heard her do an interview in months.

Jim: Oh, OK. I mean, I know I was on her show some years ago. But I haven’t really heard much about her since, you know.

What do you think about, … Here’s something that we’ve been discussing here, Diane and I. We’ve been discussing what’s happening in the revisionist movement. A lot of people, well not a lot, but some pretty high ranking people in the movement are kind of recanting! They have [moved??] now. Like for instance Eric Hunt. You know, what do you think about what’s going on there?

Hadding: Well, Eric Hunt, I don’t know if it’s really “high ranking”. He’s got notoriety because he makes videos in which, I mean, he’s prominent, because he makes videos, …

Jim: Right.

Hadding: I think mostly, … Honestly I don’t pay a lot of attention to what other people do, but I’m sure mostly in his videos he summarizes other people’s findings.

Jim: Right.

Hadding: With Cole, he had an argument, …

Jim: Oh! David Cole, yeah, yeah, …

Hadding: And apparently he felt badly about his performance in the argument with Cole. And he felt he had been defeated, I guess. He said, “We really need to prove that those jews weren’t killed in the Action Reinhardt Camps!” Well, wait a second. The burden of proof is on the accuser, you know. That’s one of the reasons why I wrote this essay called, “Semi-revisionism is Dead” [https://jan27.org/semi-revisionism-is-dead] .

Jim: Yeah, I read it and it was excellent. I thought it was very good, but I think, … You know what’s happening with this conversation, OK, what I’m noticing anyway, is these, … I call them the “Holocaust”-hucksters and what they do is they turn the conversation on us, to prove something that didn’t happen!

Hadding: To prove it didn’t happen!

Jim: I mean, it’s like, how do you do that!? How do I prove something didn’t happen!? And their biggest thing is [laughing] if you ever get in the conversation is, “Where did the jews go if they weren’t executed?” and I’m saying to myself, “Who cares? I don’t care where they went!” they weren’t killed, that’s all I care about, you know. So that’s my, you know, my take on that. But, you know, now he in his last article I just saw, he writes all about, you know, the Reinhardt Camps and that people were killed in those camps, because, you know, “Where did they go if they want were killed?” And the thing that really bothers me is they make all these assumptions that, you know, the jews had to go somewhere if they weren’t killed, but they forget all the other information showing how ridiculous the hoax is!

Hadding: That’s right.

Jim: I mean, I don’t get it! I don’t understand how this guy can even look at himself in the mirror and think, “Well gee! Let’s talk about those Reinhardt Camps and, you know, find out where they get all that wood?” You know, how they do all this, you know, those, … How they burnt all these bodies just with lighting a match to a body and the whole body just incinerates, you know, “puff” and the whole pile goes up [laughing] just, you know, just like that! Yeah, I don’t know. I just get so aggravated when I hear it.

[30:12]

But then, you know, I hear David Irving, he’s kind of capitulated not??? . Mark Weber, you know, he’s the same way, you know, he basically says, “While I think that millions of jews were killed, …” but he doesn’t get into how it happened. He just said it happened.

Hadding: I thought you humiliated Mark Weber by asking him, “How were they killed?” and he couldn’t answer that.

Jim: I mean, how do these guys show their face!? I mean, how do you, how do you make, … I mean, you know, I use a lot of IHR [Institute of Historical Review] material and, you know, the old stuff. And, you know, I’m always using it and then I talk to a guy that can’t even give me two facts that show that it happened! And that, you know, David Cole is the same way, you know. So yeah you got David Irving, David Cole and obviously, you know, Mark Webber and now we get Eric Hunt. You know, who’s next? You know, that goes, …

Hadding: Irving, Weber and Cole all have different motives. David Irving, he wants to have his career back, right. I don’t think he’s going to get it, but that seems to be, … I mean, that’s what somebody opined, somebody very well informed and prominent and famous, opined to me in 1996 when the “Goebbels: Mastermind of the Third Reich” came out. David Irving wants his career back.

So that is why David Irving is espousing this semi-revisionism the continues the demonization of Goring and Goebbels and Himmler, .. But not Goring, but Himmler and Goebbels. But it’s really a reversion to the position that he had in the 1970s. That was always his position. That he constructed this drama where Hitler was doing good things and he had these evil men around him that were harming jews behind his back.

Jim: Right.

Hadding: But this is the kind of drama that David Irving has constructed. And really he’s just gone back to that. Mark Weber has a different motive, I think he just wants to avoid Holocaust revisionism and not discuss it to the extent that he can avoid it.

In the case of David Cole, … David Cole got involved in Holocaust revisionism only after the 1988 False News Trial when the Leuchter Report appeared and Leuchter testified and David Irving testified on behalf of Ernst Zundel. The holocaust industry was, in general, was in retreat at that point. And you could see this for example in Yehuda Bauer, his letter to The New York Times. An article about Yehuda Bauer to The New York Times followed by a letter from Yehuda Bauer, talking about the need to lower the death toll at Auschwitz, because those neo Nazi holocaust deniers, “They can count, you know!”

They realized that they were under a lot of scrutiny and criticism and that they needed to make revisions themselves to try to save their holy myth. And this is when David got involved! By his own account it was 1989 when he got involved. And the first time that the world heard anything about David Cole wasn’t until 1992. David Cole as a “Holocaust” revisionist.

By that time it was the period when Holocaust revisionism appeared to be this great chariot leading to victory, right? And, you know, that’s what David Irving clearly believed in 1988. He believed that revisionism would prevail within, he said, five to ten years. And then the history books could be rewritten. Well it didn’t turn out that way.

Jim: Right.

Hadding: But during that time David Cole got involved. He endorsed the findings to the Leuchter Report. And he made this video at Auschwitz, where he basically duplicated what other revisionists had already done. There’s really no new information, I don’t think, in Cole’s Auschwitz video. It is very well done, you know, it has a nice tempo to it and has good audio and it’s watchable. All right? But David Cole was basically just putting a jewish face on what others had already discovered.

Jim: Right.

Hadding: That’s what he was doing. It’s jewish damage control!

Jim: Right. I know Mark Weber, you know, I don’t know, maybe, you know, this, or not. I don’t know, but he inherited a lot of money, you know, in a settlement he got, you know, he actually inherited like, for the IHR.

Hadding: Carto.

Jim: Yeah and all that. He got several million dollars out of that. I mean, did, you know, that?

[35:12]

Hadding: Well, I knew that there was this woman, I think, left a lot of money to the IHR.

Jim: Yes, she was part, …

Hadding: ??? And Carto had embezzled it and, …

Jim: Yeah, there’s a whole story there. But the bottom line was, the end result, was he inherited seven, I think seven and a half million dollars that went to IHR and that’s the reason why you don’t hear Mark Weber saying anything anymore. Because he’s got so much money that he’s just sitting on it and just waiting to retire and live happily ever after. So, and he’s not doing anything! No new books, no new writings, nothing! Because he’s pretty well set for life, now. I mean, that’s what I get out.

Hadding: Well, from what I see apparently he’s perfectly happy to travel and give a speech against the Zionist jewish power!

Jim: Right.

Hadding: He’s apparently happy to talks about Palestinians, but he doesn’t want to talk about the “Holocaust”.

Jim: Right. Well, that’s the point, you know, why, because he’s still, he’s still reaping money. He’s getting money that’s coming in from people that still donate to his cause and, you know, he, like I said, he doesn’t want to upset the apple cart with the, you know, maybe some of the jews even contribute to his cause that want him to keep quiet, you know, what I mean? [laughing].

Hadding: Who knows?

Jim: So I think, oh yes, I think, you know, I think that’s part of the issue there with him. But that’s sad because, you know, Germar Rudolf, he wrote a really good article about that. About what happened with all that. I just read that, I think the other day, you know, the whole relationship about revisionism and how money corrupts. And it sure has, because it keeps revisionism from doing more. Because, you know, if they have a lot of money they don’t have to do anything. And Germar, I think Germar out of all the revisionists, he’s the one I think is the top one now, you know, that’s really doing something and, you know, trying to make this work. Germar. I mean, he’s, that’s my opinion anyway, you know. I don’t know any other one that’s that’s doing anything as much as Germar.

Hadding: Oh sure. Faurisson some years ago referred to the amazing energy of Germar Rudolf, or something to that effect.

Jim: Yes, it’s phenomenal what he’s doing. And, you know, we interviewed, we went down to Pennsylvania and interviewed Germar and he was really a good man. I really like him and I just hope he can, … I mean, what really bothers me is you get these inheritances that come in to these organizations and you think the IHR would throw some money his way, you know, because of all the work that Germar has done, you know. But no, he doesn’t get anything from anybody. You know, he’s just poking along. It’s just sad! I hate to see that happen but, you know, it’s happening, you know. Anyway, but that’s, …

Hadding: Well, I don’t think. I just want to clarify. I don’t think that receiving money is what’s wrong with Mark Weber, all right. Mark Weber, I mean, this is according to Faurisson’s account. Mark Weber is a weak man! He’s a weak man. He’s not very brave. When they were in, I think, in Germany and police had detained Ernst Zundel. They were going to have, … I don’t remember the story now, but they were in Germany and they are in danger of being arrested and Mark Weber’s teeth were chattering!

Jim: Right.

Hadding: But, you know, Mark Weber he’s not a, just look at him. He does not convey strength.

Jim: Yeah, he at that point that you are talking about, I’m going to use a term that, there’s no other way I could use it any differently, … He was ready to shit his pants! OK! Because [laughing] he was so afraid of getting arrested and that’s what happened with him. So yeah. But, you know, I look at Fred Luechter and, you know, hey Fred, you know, he took it. I mean, he, you know, he was going to go to jail too and he hung in there. He eventually got out of there which was the smartest thing to do too.

But if he goes back there, they’re going to put him in jail [laughing] So, you know, Fred hung in there and he’s, you know, he’s not going back on any of his views about how things were done in the, you know, the Luechter Report and all that. And he suffered more than anybody, you know. So, you know, when I see these people talking about suffering like Eric Hunt, you know, my whole life has been topsy turvy by this and that. I just say, please!

Hadding: So you think that’s why he’s backing away from this?

Jim: Well, that’s what I think. I think even Germar said that too. But you got to understand too with David Cole, you know, they threatened David Cole. They had a hit on him, to kill him. You know, he was supposed to, he was going to be killed.

[40:11]

Hadding: Yeah, it’s an interesting thing, they didn’t kill him, did they?

Jim: No, no, I know, yeah, because he talked to, what was his name?

Hadding: Irv, …

Jim: OK, OK. Irv Ruben, at the time anyway. He went to jail. He actually end up going to jail, but he actually end up talking to him and as far as I understand, the story what Cole said, he ended up paying him money or something, not to do anything to him. That’s the story that I heard. I thought I heard from Cole, when I was listening to one of Cole’s audios, videos, like we are doing now.

So, the point is it seems like a lot of these people might have been threatened, you know, I can understand that would cause a problem with you, but, you know, we’ve all suffered. I mean, I lost a business, because of the jews. So I mean, that’s life. You just get on and, you know, I know I didn’t stop. I actually got more, I got more involved with it. I didn’t get less involved in it, because now I have the time to put to it! You know, that’s that’s what I feel is important, you know, use your time wisely. And I think that’s what we all have to do you know.

Hadding: Well Irv Ruben has been dead for years now. I don’t think that Irv Ruben is the reason for what David Cole is doing now. I presented in my essay, “Semi-Revisionism is Dead” background that would support the interest that David Cole was never really interested in debunking the Holocaust, as such. That is never what he wanted to do. He tried, like Yehuda Bauer, he wanted to revise it to keep it alive.

Jim: Right.

Hadding: That’s my thesis.

Jim: Well, he got [???] too. After all that he ended up working for the “Holocaust” museum, or whatever. Somebody involved with that and he was doing videos for them. According to what David Cole says now. I’m telling you what David Cole said. After he went into hiding, he ended up doing stuff for the opposite cause, here. And doing videos and research for the pro-holocaust people.

Hadding: As Stein?

Jim: Yeah as Stein.

Hadding: OK.

Jim: Yeah, he changed his name. And then, you know, that’s what happened there. I mean, well, you know, what are you going to do? I really don’t care about him. I have no interest. I would like to interview him though and really hit him with, you know, some really tough questions, but I don’t know if that’s ever going to happen, you know. I’m not really worry about it.

So what, … Do you have like a website, do you like, have a blog site or anything like that?

Hadding: Yes, my main blog is The National Socialist Worldview. Its National hyphen Socialist hyphen Worldview dot blogspot dot com [http://national-socialist-worldview.blogspot.com].

Jim: Oh OK. That’s good. So we can go to that and see what’s going on with you. Like you post things there all the time, or something, or keep it up?

Hadding: Yeah. I try to post at least one thing a week but, you know, sometimes it’s only one thing a month. If I get working on something for CODOH it might keep me from posting on my blog for a while.

Jim: Yeah. So explain to me a little bit about CODOH. So you do stuff with them and who is running CODOH now?

Hadding: Germar Rudolf!

Jim: OK. So Germar is running it and how’s that going?

Hadding: It’s a good gig., you know, I wasn’t really, … It pays a little less than the Occidental Observer, but the Occidental Observer won’t publish my stuff anymore. And I get published much more regularly on CODOH than I could on the Occidental Observer. I use this to pay my bills.

Jim: Right, right. Who runs the Occidental Observer?

Hadding: That’s Kevin MacDonald. MacDonald is afraid of, seems to be afraid of, that subject.

Jim: Well, you got to understand that if he takes that topic on he’s going to be dead, just like Irving!

Hadding: Well, he’s retired, so what does he have to lose?

Jim: Oh, is that what it is. OK, well I can understand that. So, well that’s good. So, I mean, I just started going to the CODOH site looking up more things. I mean, that’s a great site. I mean, a lot of information there, you know. We, you know, we’re revisionists, I mean, we have a tremendous amount of information out there, you know, the “Holocaust” handbooks. I mean, my goodness. I mean, there’s so much stuff there. The problem is the majority of people out there don’t get to see it because, you know, you can’t get it out there. I mean, you know, you have to look for it deep down in the Internet to find it. But it’s there if people, you know, want to look at it, you know. We can we can definitely look at it.

[44:51]

So, basically, you know, you’re just biding your time. Just, you know, writing things as they come. I mean again we, you know, we enjoy what you write. I mean, you know, you’re a good writer. You know, you have a nice, you know, style and insight. I would say about things and I think that’s important that people, you know, see that stuff. I mean, that article you wrote about, you know, the three revisionist, what was it, three revisionist you took up?

Hadding: Yes, “Semi-Revisionism is Dead” is the name of it.

Jim: Yes, that was a super article! That was a great article, you know. So anytime you get something, you know, a new, .. Well you send them my way anyway, so we get what you’re doing now. So that’s important.

Well, anything else you have you like to, … What do you think, what do you think the future is for us? You know, the movement, you know, revisionism, the truth movement and all that?

Hadding: I think that we have some people falling away from Holocaust revisionist right now that maybe hadn’t really thought through their position very well initially. Maybe their commitment wasn’t very deep to begin with. So I wouldn’t worry about that too much. I just worry about what I’m doing and trying to make sure what I’m doing the right thing. And keep doing it. And as long as I can get by and pay my bills and have enough to eat while I’m doing the right thing that is what I keep doing.

Jim: Right, right. Well, I agree. I’m the same way. You know, I was saying to Diane, I was saying I don’t, I really don’t care what anybody even the revisionist views are! I know common sense! You know, me I can read and I can understand common sense and if someone wants to go back on common sense and go to stupidity and believe things that just can’t happen I mean, that’s that’s up to them! I just feel sorry for them that they can’t stick it out and do what’s right.

But, well look, I really appreciate that you came on with us today. Again you contribute a lot to the cause! I just want to let, you know, that, OK!

Hadding: Thank you very much.

Jim: Yeah, I mean, you’re a good man and, you know, keep continuing on and don’t let anybody discourage you. I know financially, you know, things could be better, but it could be like that for all of us to, I suppose. But the truth is the truth! And no matter what the topic is you’ve got to let people know about it. I don’t care what the consequences are, you’ve got to just let everybody, you know, deal with it and go along with it, you know.

Well look, Hadding, thank you very much for our interview. Good luck with what you’re doing and, you know, another time we’ll probably try to talk to you again when something else comes up that, we know, we can talk about too.

Hadding: All right. Well, thank you very much.

Jim: All right. Bye now!

[47:40]

END

[In this new book, by a well-known “Holocaust” Revisionist, Jurgen Graf, the planned “slow-motion” extermination of the White race by the globalists (aka, Organized jewry) using the socially engineered below replacement birth rates, mass Third World immigration and various other methods is described. In the introduction Graf talks about how he became involved in “Holocaust” revisionism and how the “Holocaust” is used to demoralize and guilt Whites into passively accepting their racial and cultural destruction — KATANA.]

[NOTE: The following excepts are provided to encourage readers to purchase the book. Please support the author and his work by purchasing the book at Barnes Review or as an e-book at Amazon.]

_______________________

White World Awake!

Stopping the Planned Extermination

of Our Volk

By JURGEN GRAF

TRANSLATED by DR. FREDRICK TOBEN

EDITED by JOHN R TIFFANY

Copyright 2016 by Jurgen Graf &

THE BARNES REVIEW

ISBN 978-1-937787-32-5

FIRST US EDITION, 2016

Published by:

THE BARNES REVIEW

16000 Trade Zone Avenue #406 Upper Marlboro, MD 20774 PEACE BOOKS P. O. Box 3300

Norwood SA 5067 Australia

Ordering more copies:

Order more copies of White World Awake! Stopping the Planned Extermination of Our Volk (softcover, 540 pages, $35 plus $5 S&H) from THE BARNES REVIEW 16000 Trade Zone Avenue, Unit 406, Upper Marlboro, MD 20774.

TBR subscribers may take 10% off the list price. Call 1-877-773-9077 toll free to charge copies to Visa, MasterCard, or Discover.

See more books and videos online at www.barnesreview.com.

Subscriptions:

A subscription to THE BARNES REVIEW historical magazine is $46 for one year (six issues) and $78 for two years (12 issues) inside the US. Outside the U.S: Canada/Mexico: $65 per year. All other nations: $80 per year sent via air mail. Send payment with request to TBR, 16000 Trade Zone Avenue, Unit 406, Upper Marlboro, MD 20774. Call TBR toll free at 1- 877-773-9077 to charge. Order online at www.barnesreview.com. See a special subscription offer at the back of this volume, or call toll free number above and ask for best current subscription offer.

Reproduction Policy:

Portions of this publication may be reproduced without prior permission in critical reviews and other papers if credit is given to author, book title is listed and full contact information and subscription information are given for publishers as shown above.

Original Australian ISBN 978-0-994198-30-3

WHITE WORLD WORLD Awake!

Stopping the Planned Extermination of Our Volk

BY JURGEN GRAF

THE BARNES REVIEW 2016

AUTHOR’S DEDICATION

To my mother Valentina Ivanova, dedicated with love and gratitude.

— JORGEN GRAF

September 2016

PUBLISHER’S DEDICATION

This book is dedicated to the White race, whose very existence is on the brink of extinction. It is our hope that this book’s contents in some way can help to make more people aware this disturbing situation and work together to make it a prominent public issue. Certainly the loss of any individual race on this planet is a great tragedy, but the extinction of a race with such a noble and prolific history such as ours would be globally catastrophic.

— THE BARNES REVIEW

September 2016

From the Publisher

White World Awake!

Stopping the Planned Extermination of Our Volk.

Western civilization is in desperate peril. White people — our volk — are in trouble. The question of the day — and very likely the question of the millennium — is whether Europe will survive—and with it its American, Canadian, Australian and South African cousins — and, if so, how?

Seeking to answer those questions is a very important new book, White World Awake! Stopping the Planned Extermination of Our Volk. Those who seek the truth will find the truth in the pages of this book, and those looking for a practical plan of action will find that as well.

For too long, observes the author, White people have fought among themselves. The European Union and NATO are failed efforts to correct that situation. Europe faces an existential threat with tsunamis of unassimilable Africans, Middle Easterners and Asians swarming in. Russians, Britons, Frenchmen, Germans and Poles, Serbs and Croats, Romanians, Finns and Greeks, Spaniards and Hungarians are all in the same rickety boat.

The time has come for Europe to speak with one nationalist voice on military and foreign policy matters, while it is equally necessary for each nation and ethnic group to preserve its distinctive language and culture, and for historical injustices to be discussed openly.

A Eurasian Federation is proposed, which, like Old America, will not interfere in other parts of the world except to provide humanitarian aid and ensure the safety of such places as Armenia and Georgia against any immigration threat.

Traitor politicians who see no problem in allowing Europe and other White nations to be transformed into mixed-race caliphates — a dream of the mysterious Richard von Coudenhove-Kalergi — will be voted out of office.

Many of the solutions apply equally to the rest of the White World. “Close the borders! Stop the flood!” is key not only for Europe, but America and all other White areas of the world. Thus Graf lays out a practical 10-step program to stop the genocide of the West starting with Europe, the cradle of White Western civilization.

This is a book that needs and deserves to be in the hands of every concerned person who cares about the future of the Western world.

__________________

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction: How to Become a Dissident ……………… 7

1 The Red Bird from the Danube Delta ………………… 39

2 Conspiracy Theories? …………………………………….. 55

3 The Plan ……………………………………………………………………….. 71

4 Intelligence and Development ……………………………………… 93

5 The Blessings of Multiculturalism ………………………………….. 109

6 Battle of Ethnicities and Cultures ………………………………….. 133

7 The Cost of Suicide ………………………………………………………. 159

8 The Plan to Destroy Sweden …………………………………………. 171

9 The Decline of the U.S.A. ………………………………………………. 185

10 Two Types of Weights and Double Standards ………………. 199

11 The Destructive Principle ……………………………………………… 211

12 The Foundation of the New World Order ……………………… 237

13 Homosexual Propaganda & Gender Mainstreaming ……… 319

14 Infanticide in the Mother’s Womb ……………………………….. 337

15 The Locusts by Thomas Brookes …………………………………… 345

16 The Battering Ram of the New World Order ………………….. 365

17 The Ukrainian Scenario ………………………………………………… 401

18 The Henchmen ……………………………………………………………. 445

19 What to Do? …………………………………………………………………. 473

20 After the Storm ………………………………………………………….… 489

21 Afterword: Coloring the White World ……………………………. 505

Bibliography ……………………………………………………………………….. 522

Name Index ………………………………………………………………………. 531

Jurgen Graf

INTRODUCTION

How To Become a Dissident

“C’est quily a de terrible quand on cherche la verite, c’est qu’on la trouve.”

“The terrible thing is that those who seek the truth will find the truth.”

— French biologist and scientist FELIX LE DENTEC (1869-1917)

When, at age 62, I reflect on my life, it appears to me that the first 35 years were nothing, but a preparation for future tasks. I still thank my teachers at the Basel Humanist High School, who gave me a general education. In my following education I obtained language qualifications that became indispensable to me. Since my 9th, or 10th year, I have always had a passionate interest in politics and history, and this interest was to determine my life’s journey. Early in life, in matters of national defense and foreign affairs, I was right wing, where “‘right wing” was essentially “‘anti-communist.” I had not quite consciously experienced the 1956 Hungarian uprising, but the construction of the Berlin Wall and the Cuban crisis were indelibly imprinted on my consciousness. The Soviet tanks in Prague and Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s Gulag Archipelago, which I devoured, convinced me that the current battle was against eastern totalitarianism. Until the beginning of perestroika, I was firmly convinced of a …, perestroika, I was firmly convinced of a possibly inevitable Soviet occupation of Western Europe. Inevitably. my favorite politician was Franz Josef Strauss, the baroque Bavarian ancient colossus who incessantly warned Western civil society of the impending Red danger. Only sometime later was I able to revise my undifferentiated anti-communism and anti-Soviet Unionism- and as before in other matters — to correct my historical and world views.

At the same time, from the beginning I always stood left of center in social justice matters, and my anti-communism did not, for example, prevent me in the least from supporting the 1972 submitted Communist Party of Work initiative to grant a Volks pension, which was massively rejected at the referendum. The fact that on some points I could unhesitatingly support a right-wing and a left-wing position was proof for me that we lived in a dynamic democracy. I believed that there was no alternative to democratic capitalism; the deficiencies within the system would step-by-step be solved. All in all, I believed I was living in the best of all possible worlds.

However, quite early in my life that I realized that even this best of all possible political words could not do without a taboo, or two, of which the strongest concerned the topic of “the Third Reich and the Jews.” Just as in most European countries, in Switzerland during my childhood a pervasive anti-German climate was propagated by most of the media. During that time there were two daily newspapers in Basel: The left-wing National Zeitung was most noted for venomously inciting against Germans, while the right-wing Basler Nachrichten remained more reserved in its diatribe against Germans.

My father, Friedrich Graf, was a Swiss citizen born in the Ruhr Valley, and we had numerous relatives there whom we visited regularly. This is why from childhood I had a friendly disposition toward Germans, and I could not understand why the German people collectively were held responsible for crimes committed by the National Socialist government. However, not for a second did I question the historical reality of the crimes, especially that of the industrialized extermination of the Jewish people. After all, I had never come across a book, or a newspaper article in which the conventional version of events had been questioned, much less have someone cross my path who disputed the Nazi atrocities. Even my father, who had spent the entire war years in Germany, accepted the conventional version of events, except to insist that only since 1945 had he heard about the gas chambers.

It thus became quite clear to me: In a deceptive blinding ideological fit of madness, the National Socialist regime committed horrendous crimes of which its people were totally unaware, and for which they collectively stood accused. This offended my early childhood sense of justice.

That the government of Germany constantly and abjectly apologized for its Nazi past, and threw Israel ever new reparations down its insatiable throat, was disconcerting for me as much as the German media’s seeming obsession with dragging its own people into the dirt. Likewise, I found the Nazi war crime trials, 10 or more years after war’s end, repulsive.

A key event was the murky drama of the Majdanek Trial, which began in Dusseldorf in Nov. 1975 and dragged out until June 1981. Charged before the court stood former wardens of the Majdanek concentration camp, among them a number of women, who were accused of having participated in the gassing and shooting of Jewish prisoners. The trial forced the Federal Republic of Germany to renewed submissive penance rituals and offered the media a welcomed opportunity to redouble its hate campaign against its own people.

I could not then foresee that decades later I, together with Italian researcher Carlo Mattogno, would publish a book about Majdanek, [1] but I followed the proceedings with growing irritation. Although I had not the slightest sympathy for these accused individuals, I saw no sense in bringing to court three decades later a handful of scapegoats who had participated in this murderous struggle between nations that produced over 50 million casualties. This was all the more worrisome, because it was always Germans who had been accused of committing crimes: not a single individual of the victors was tried, for example, for the senseless destruction of militarily insignificant Dresden, the dropping of the atomic bombs on a capitulating Japan, the brutal ethnic cleansing of the old east Germany and Sudetenland, nor the Katyn Massacre. It seemed to me that I was the only one who saw the futility of holding such trials. After the Majdanek trial began, I attended the reading room of the University of Basel in order to follow the reporting of this trial by the national and international press. There seemed no differentiated evaluation of the procedures, which were clearly stated as being necessary; the only criticism was made of the West German judiciary for having unnecessarily delayed the opening of the trial.

In order to obtain a different view of things to that offered by the anti-German Basler Blattes, I had to read Munich’s much maligned “right-wing” National Zeitung, which I could buy at the Basel Railway Station.

Biting criticism in this newspaper was leveled against the Germans coming to terms with their past and with their Nazi trials, but even this newspaper did not question the reality of mass extermination at Majdanek and other camps. It only objected to having such trials against Germans only, and pointed out the inherent danger of witnesses not recalling exactly what they had experienced and so perjuring themselves, which increased the risk of a flawed judgment. That only an extreme “right wing” non-mainstream newspaper had the courage to state such fundamental truths irritated me no end. I comforted myself by hoping that the whipped up hysteria would die down as the events of World War II would, with each passing year, inevitably slip further into the past. How was I to know then that the mystery play of German executioners and Jewish victims, who in their millions marched into gas chambers disguised as showers, was created for eternity? [Note: there are two National Zeitungs, the German one and a Swiss paper of the same name, but different politics. — Ed.]

At the end of Dec. 1978 I first became acquainted with the Revisionist thesis that radically questioned the usual version of the Jewish fate during World War II. At that time, I regularly read Le Monde, because this paper reported in detail about the state of affairs in Indochina. Vietnam had marched into Cambodia, and the Khmer Rouge was about to collapse. The genocide of the Pol Pot regime perpetrated on his own people was often compared to the extermination of the Jews by the Nazis. And now in Le Monde I came upon an article by a French professor of literature, Robert Faurisson, who made the assertion that the Nazi gas chambers were a myth, a fiction of propaganda. [2]

This article almost caused me physical discomfort, which lasted for some days. It was obvious that this professor was no fool; he offered factual arguments. The significant paragraph was the following:

“Anyone who today visits Auschwitz, or Majdanek will find places designated as ‘gas chambers,’ in wherein each gassing would have led to a catastrophe for the perpetrator and for the environment. A mass killing by gas must not be confused with a suicide, or accidental death through gas. To gas a single prisoner, the Americans use a volatile gas, in a small room, in which the gas is extracted and neutralized after the completed execution. How then could, for example, at Auschwitz, 2,000, yes, 3,000 people be piled into 210 (!) square meters, then insert granules of the commonly used and highly toxic insecticide Zyklon B, and then, immediately after the death of the victims, send a group of workers, who do not wear gas masks, into the room saturated with hydrogen cyanide in order to pull out the cyanide saturated corpses?”

Later I asked myself why I had not then contacted Faurisson. Essentially, I had the ideal prerequisites to become a Revisionist: I was friendly toward Germans, the self flagellation of the Federal Republic’s elite was abhorrent to me, and I had not the slightest guilt feelings toward Jews. Had I taken that compelling step then, my life would have taken a different course. But for that step I simply did not yet have the maturity. I was not prepared to dare to approach such a touchy subject and to possibly realize that the system in which I lived was a monstrous lie that was defended by a perfectly functioning censorship. And so I comforted myself with Christian Morgenstern’s Palmstrom, wherein it is stated, “that which cannot be, must not be,” [3] and I decided to forget the matter.

On Jan. 16, 1979 in Le Monde, and in reply to some articles of his opponents, Faurisson was able to publish an opposing view, which I apparently did not read, at least I cannot recall reading it. Likewise, I cannot recall the Feb. 21, 1979 declaration in Le Monde of 34 French historians, which produced the following disarming argument into the field:

“One must not ask oneself how, technically, such a mass murder was possible. It was technically possible, since it happened. That is the requisite starting point for any historical enquiry into the subject It is incumbent upon us to state this truth simply: there is not, there cannot be any debate on the existence of the gas chambers.”

Only 12 years later did I receive this prime example of intellectual brilliance. But let us not get ahead of the events.

In July 1982 I embarked on a trip to East Asia. A year later I found a position as a lecturer in German in Taiwan where I remained until May 1988. After my return to Switzerland, I immediately noticed that my country had changed. This was in connection with the increasing number of immigrants that had come into Switzerland during my six-year absence. These new immigrants were not the familiar Italians and Spaniards of my childhood. Most immigrants came from foreign continents. The countless house facades smeared with Turkish slogans attests to that.

Obviously, non-European immigrants have always been a part of our society. During 1980 and 1981, I supported Vietnamese refugees and never once regretted doing so. The Vietnamese behaved as one would expect of them: they respected our laws and endeavored as quickly as possible to find a job so as not to become a burden upon the host nation.

Now, only less than a decade later, things looked different in Switzerland. By abusing our asylum laws, which enabled politically persecuted foreigners to seek refuge in Switzerland, a stream of economic immigrants flooded across the borders. The absolute majority was Turkish citizens of Kurdish background; the second largest group were the Tamils from Sri Lanka, where the rebel organization the Tamil Tigers had been fighting an underground war against the majority Singhalese government. The remainder of the asylum seekers came from Yugoslavia (where ever-increasing ominous warning signals of impending atrocities arose), Lebanon, the Indian subcontinent outside of Sri Lanka (India, Pakistan and Bangladesh), as well as three African countries (Ghana, Zaire and Angola). A few Iranians and Afghans as well as some individual from diverse East European countries rounded out the picture.

After my return home to Switzerland, it seemed that fate gave me the first job, the role of an asylum adviser. Switzerland had established various reception centers for asylum seekers, one being located on the Rhine steamer Basilea, where on Aug. 8, 1988 I began my work. Very early into my job I had the feeling that I was in a typical Franz Kafka novel wherein the laws of logic had been suspended.

In order to apply for asylum in Switzerland two avenues were offered to foreigners: Either they applied at a Swiss embassy, or consulate in their home country, or they applied at a reception center in Switzerland. Few made use of the first possibility: It was implausible to enter a Swiss embassy freely, then claim political persecution. Thus the second avenue was to register at a reception center that — with the exception of Yugoslavia — required asylum seekers from all other countries to possess a Swiss entry visa, without which they could not legally cross into Switzerland. And so they entered Switzerland illegally and thus began their residence with a legal infraction.

After their registration, the asylum seekers remained from 7 to 10 days on the ship. After their interrogation they had to await instructions as to which canton they would be sent. Each canton was required to take asylum seekers according to their population number. The questioning of asylum seekers, often done through interpreters, focused on three points: personal information, travel route and flight reasons.

Problems already began at the first point. While Turkish and Yugoslavian asylum seekers could usually produce parts of a passport, or identity card, on the Basilea I do not recall ever having seen a Sri Lankan, Indian, Pakistani, or Ghanaian passport. Upon crossing to Switzerland, these applicants had lost their papers, or their handler had taken the documents from them. So it was impossible for the interviewer to ascertain whether the statements made were true, or not. Such statements were most likely not true in 99% of the cases.

The reason why these illegal immigrants had “lost” their papers was, because most of them had crossed to Switzerland from Germany where they had already applied for political asylum, and had been rejected. Others did not even wait for their application to be assessed in Germany, but secretly entered Switzerland where the work prospects were greater and the social security payments were higher. This negated their right to apply for Swiss asylum. Hence, without exception, the Sri Lankans, Indians, Ghanaians etc., asserted that they had entered Switzerland via Italy.

That this was not true became obvious because-again the exception being the Turks who crossed over to Switzerland via Italy — they could not describe the places where they allegedly crossed to Switzerland. I vividly recall a refugee from Bangladesh, who answered my question as to how he could possibly have swum across the huge river at, possibly have swum across the huge river at the Italian-Swiss border, which I had made up. He claimed his passport had become so wet that he had to throw it away. In a normally functioning state such a person would have been placed on the first available flight back to his country — but our asylum-seeking procedures could not be called normal. How was it possible that a large Gypsy family from Serbia — whose patriarch gave as a reason for his “flight” that his children were constantly teased at school — obtained the right to an extensive and expensive asylum procedure!?

The most absurd aspect of such procedures was the following: Our borders were manned by officers whose task it was to apprehend and to return illegal immigrants. Those who carried with them passports, or identity cards had these stamped with an “R,” for “refused.” However, if an illegal immigrant succeeded in tricking the officers, then he had won the game: Without hindrance he could travel by train to the next reception center where he could submit his asylum request which enabled him automatically to gain a residence permit until a decision on his application had been made. Once a Lebanese came to the Basilea who had more than half a dozen “R’s” stamped in his document. Six times he had been caught attempting to cross the Italian-Swiss border, but the seventh time he was lucky in convincing the Swiss officer to let him in. In such cases these border guards were sentenced to the “work of Sisyphus.”

Officially, the Swiss state behaved like a schizophrenic who constructs a fence around his house, but then loudly proclaims that anyone who can get over the fence is rewarded by unhindered entry to the home.

The real politically persecuted were found amongst the Turks who could show you physical evidence of torture on their bodies. At a point in time I conducted my own private statistics, which enabled me to conclude that in view of the asylum laws about 5% – 9% of Turkish asylum seekers were indeed political refugees. These private statistics were later confirmed through 1988 official figures: 5 – 4% of Turkish asylum seekers had obtained asylum. The remainder were economic refugees who had fled their own country’s harsh economic problems. As they could not gain entry in normal ways, they had to lie and invent persecution stories. The police were after them, because they had belonged to prohibited left-wing parties and had painted slogans on walls, or distributed leaflets.

I did not harbor any antagonistic feelings toward these Anatolian farmers and shepherds, with whose situation I could quite easily empathize. A certain antipathy was aroused in me by asylum seekers from Africa and the Indian subcontinent: First, such asylum seekers obviously belonged to the middle class (for a representative of this class from Angola, or Pakistan, even the cheapest flight was out of their reach) and, second, the detailed, but easily discerned fabricated stories that these gentlemen had made up stories about their persecution irritated me to no end. The success rates among these nationals were practically zero. Slightly different was the case with the Tamils and their claim to political persecution through the partisan activity of the Tamil Tigers, as well as the government’s reprisals. This was a ground for them not to be sent back to their home whenever an application was rejected. That these Tamils could resettle 30 km north of Sri Lanka, in the Indian state of Tamii Nadu, never crossed the minds of our asylum politicians.

After their first interview on the Basilea, each asylum seeker was assigned to a place of residence, where, after a while, he was subjected to a second and more in-depth interview as to his flight motives. This, together with the first interview, then became the basis on which a decision was made on his asylum application. As a result of the number of applications and the lack of qualified personnel, the procedure could take up to a year before a decision was made. Throughout this time the asylum seeker was supported by the Swiss state. After a rejection of his application, the applicant usually appealed; naturally, this did not occur without a Swiss lawyer, whose fees were paid by Swiss refugee organizations. Quite a few lawyers became rich through this procedure. Besides the social workers and the full-time Turkish, Arabic, Urdu and Tamil translators, the lawyers were also among those who profited from the misery Swiss asylum politics had become.

Generally, while the asylum seeker’s application was afoot, it was common for those with families to have their wives and children follow them, and to have their children enrolled in schools immediately. Then, after a “final” rejection of an asylum seeker’s application had been processed, the lawyers would object on the grounds that the children were already attending school and to return an applicant to their home country was a “callous” act. The argument usually succeeded in quashing the deportation order. And so the asylum law had become a de facto avenue for uncontrolled Third World migrants to enter Switzerland.

After two, or three months’ work on the Basilea, I wrote a long letter to the then-refugee commissioner, Peter Arbenz, and made specific suggestions how the procedure could be expedited. I received a polite, but non-committal reply.

At this time, I was still under the impression that those responsible for Swiss asylum politics were honest, but weak and timid individuals who, on grounds of their fearful panic of the left-leaning aggressive asylum lobby and the media, did not have the character strength to adopt effective measures to control the influx of refugees. That this Third World migration would have a terrible effect on Switzerland was inevitable, but the media behaved like the three famous monkeys: the first didn’t say anything, the second didn’t see anything and the third didn’t hear anything.

Constantly we heard that our “humanitarian principles” and “human rights” demanded we take in as many asylum seekers as possible and any question about the limits of our capacity to absorb more asylum seekers was not raised in the media. Quite early on I noticed that journalists writing for the various newspapers loudly advocated “humanitarian principles” and “human rights”, but applied them only to the immigrants, not to the indigenous Swiss. That the once effective class instruction in our school system was breaking down on account of large numbers of students not speaking the required language did not in the least interest our “free press”; not a single journalist regarded such a state of affairs as a violation of our students’ human rights. Protests were even organized against the deportation of drug dealers, on the ground that upon their return to their home country they could be politically persecuted. And when our drug-dependent youngsters died miserably in railway station toilets, those working in the media extended no empathetic understanding toward such individuals. Such individuals did not have any human rights, because they were just Swiss native citizens.

Just as I had followed the media reports on the Majdanek Trial in disbelief 13 years earlier, I now had to take note that, except for a few non-establishment papers, all media outlets specifically offered disinformation. except now it was a fundamental question concerning the future of our country. Again, I recognized quite early that there was a connection between these seemingly completely different questions — the Nazi crimes against the Jews and the mass migration to Switzerland — because it was stressed again and again in justifying a generous Swiss asylum program that Jewish refugees, who had been refused entry at the Swiss border during World War II, were sent to their certain death.

I felt growing anger at the asylum lobby, the journalists and the politicians who drew unjustified parallels with what happened then and now in order to torpedo a reform of our asylum policies. For me it was absurd and a sign of moral bankruptcy to bring into the discussion about foreigners and our asylum politics the Third Reich, which had disappeared 43 years ago, as a justification for implementing institutionalized censorship.

At the end of January 1989, I resigned from my position on the Basilea and began writing a book, which appeared a year later with the title Das Narrenschiff: Als Asylantenbefrager auf der Basilea. Naturally, without mentioning names, I clearly exposed and cited from questionnaires, and made the following suggestion:

Each asylum seeker is to be questioned by a group of three experts on the reasons for fleeing from his home country. A decision is then made on the spot whether to accept, or reject the asylum seeker’s application. If the three individuals unanimously agree that with reference to the Swiss asylum law there are really no valid refugee grounds, the applicant is immediately returned to their home country. Otherwise the matter is referred for further, closer inspection.

Introducing tightened procedures such as this would have enabled us to repatriate about 90% of asylum seekers, which would ever so quickly filter through to the countries of origin that Switzerland would not accept economic refugees anymore. Within a few weeks this would have stopped the flow of refugees and we would have become masters of the problem. That this was not the desired outcome became clear to me. I had finally understood that our asylum seeker policy had nothing to do with lack of courage, or stupidity on the responsible politicians’ behalf, because so much lack of courage and stupidity was not what it could be about. Also, the parallel development of policies in neighboring countries excluded such a coincidence. It soon became clear to me why the elites of Western Europe were interested in receiving an influx of asylum seekers from foreign cultures and races.

Thanks in large measure to a massive advertising campaign by Dr. Ulrich Schluer, the publisher of the right-wing conservative newspaper Schweizerzeit, the book Das Narrenschiff sold quite well, and in 1990 a second edition appeared. If I recall, around 6,000 copies were sold. I became known in patriotic circles. It was through the publication of this book that a number of Swiss Democrats — previously known as National Action for People and Homeland — invited me to address them.

In March 1991, at such an evening’s event, I met the retired secondary teacher Arthur Vogt, with whom I had earlier exchanged some correspondence. At one time, while reading through a number of newspapers, I had come upon a letter written by Vogt wherein he bitterly complained about the “suicidal asylum politics.” Vogt was not unknown to me, because in 1970 he had made headlines when, after supporting the James Schwarzenbach initiative that pressed for a citizen initiated referendum on “Being Swamped by Foreigners,” he was expelled from the Social Democratic Party. I had sent him a copy of my book and then invited him to attend my address at the Swiss Democrats in Zurich. At this conference we arranged to meet again in the middle of April, in Zurich, Vogt introduced himself as a Revisionist and handed me a copy of The Leuchter Report about the alleged gas chambers at Auschwitz, Birkenau and Majdanek, as well as a cassette and text titled The Holocaust — Legend or Reality? which also later appeared in printed form and today is available on the Internet.

That very evening I listened to this tape, and although Vogt’s deliberations had not quite convinced me, and countless questions remained unanswered, I experienced a serious shock. My somewhat critical attitude toward the system in which I lived did not now permit me — as I had done 12 and a half years earlier after reading the Faurisson article in Le Monde — to shield myself with an armor of slovenly thinking against undesirable truths. Vogt’s text contained an abundance of verifiable facts that caused any thinking person to be amazed. I was especially perplexed that the founder of Revisionism was not a German, but a Frenchman, who was also a resistance fighter — Paul Rassinier, a former prisoner of the Buchenwald and Dora-Mittelbau concentration camps. How was that even possible?

The next day I began reading The Leuchter Report. The author, the American execution expert Fred Leuchter, had been responsible for the construction and servicing of gas chambers in various U.S. states where executions were still being carried out with cyanide gas. He had moved into the spotlight in 1988 when the second Toronto Revisionist Holocaust trial of German citizen Ernst Zundel took place. Three years earlier Zundel had been sentenced to 18 months in prison under an antiquated law against “spreading false news.” Zundel had republished a booklet by English Revisionist Richard Harwood called Did Six Million Really Die? During the appeal Zundel and Faurisson contacted Fred Leuchter and commissioned him to forensically investigate and write a report about the alleged mass gassings at Auschwitz I, Auschwitz-Birkenau and Majdanek through the use of the insecticide Zyklon B. With a small group of helpers, Leuchter flew to Poland, examined the alleged gas chambers, then wrote his report that concluded it was technically impossible to gas people in such facilities. The most significant part of his report was the chemical analysis. Leuchter had taken samples from the walls of the alleged “homicidal chambers” at Auschwitz I and Auschwitz-Birkenau, and a similar number of samples from the delousing chamber at Auschwitz-Birkenau, where the undisputed fact existed that clothes had been fumigated there using Zyklon B. He sent the samples for analysis to an American chemist, Dr. James Roth, who did not have any idea where these samples had come from.

The laboratory results confirmed that the samples from the delousing chamber, even after four decades, still contained a high percentage of cyanide residue, while the samples from the “homicidal gas chambers” revealed no cyanide residue, or at most only a trace amount. Leuchter hypothesized that this small amount was due to cyanide having occasionally been used to delouse these facilities.

Although Leuchter was able to present his findings at the Toronto Appeal, the appeal court sentenced Zundel to 15 months in prison, which he did not have to serve, because in 1992 Canada’s Supreme Court declared the law about “spreading false news” to be unconstitutional.

Now the question about the gas chambers did not let me rest. I phoned Vogt and requested more Revisionist literature so that I could acquaint myself with the arguments, whose advocates the media of the free world had endearingly labeled “extreme right-wing deniers”, or “neo-Nazi nut cases.” At our next meeting, Vogt presented me with three of the then-important Revisionist texts: Serge Thion’s Verite Historique ou Verite politique?, Arthur Butz’s The Hoax of the Twentieth Century and Wilhelm Staglich’s Der Auschwitz-Mythos. Even before I read these books I turned to an article that Vogt had also given to me. It had appeared in Pravda on Feb. 2, 1945 titled “The Death Kombinat at Auschwitz,” and was translated by the eminent German historian Udo Walendy, who published it in his Historische Tatsachen. Let us place this article within its historical context.

On Jan. 27, 1945 the Red Army liberated the Auschwitz concentration camp. The SS had left shortly before and had evacuated the prisoners to the west. About 4,299 inmates, mainly Jewish, remained behind, because they could not be evacuated: the sick, invalid, children and old people. Accompanying the Soviet army was a contingent of war correspondents, who immediately began the task of inspecting the camp and interviewing those inmates who had been left behind. One of the correspondents was the Soviet Jew Boris Polevoi, who penned the article that Pravda published seven days later.

This quite undisputed factual report must give rise to serious reflection by any critical thinker who is conversant with the official version of events at Auschwitz. It does not make sense, for example, if we follow the Holocaustian historians, that at Auschwitz between Feb. 1942 and Nov. 1944 about a million Jews were murdered, but 4,299 Gypsies were left behind, instead of these undesirable witnesses being liquidated. After having killed a million, it would not have mattered to also kill another 4,299 victims. Second, the so called “facts” contradict the official historical account that sick Jews, invalids, children and old people actually survived. According to the mass media version of events, it was these who, upon arrival at the camp, were immediately gassed and were not even registered. Establishment historians claim that Jewish prisoners who became sick were killed immediately either by gas, or injection. Most of the preserved documentation about Auschwitz places such claims in the sphere of fables.

Here is a single example. When the Red Army moved into Auschwitz it found among those prisoners left behind by the Germans 205 almost exclusively Jewish children in an age range between a few months and 15 years. [4] I was then not aware of this, but Walendy’s translation of the Pravda article speaks for itself. Four years later both Carlo Mattogno and I obtained a copy of the original Russian copy in Moscow. Here is an extract:

When last year the Red Army revealed to the international public the terrible and disgusting secrets of Majdanek, the Germans began to eliminate the traces of their crimes at Auschwitz. They leveled the hills surrounding the ancient tombs in the eastern part of the camp, removed and destroyed the traces of the electrical assembly line system where hundreds of people were killed simultaneously with electricity. The bodies fell onto a slow-moving conveyor belt that transported them into a blast furnace … The special mobile equipment for the killing of children [was] brought into the hinterland. The stationary gas chambers in the eastern part of the camp had been rebuilt. They had even attached to them turrets and ornamental architectural features so that they looked like harmless garages.

All this stands in contradiction to what the Holocaustian literature asserts about Auschwitz. If we believe what the Holocaust historians write, the mass murder of Jews began in February 1942. The place where this occurred is said to have been the chamber of Crematorium I, Stammlager Auschwitz. After a few months the gassings were said to have been transferred to two farm houses about 2 km outside the perimeters of Auschwitz.

From March 1943 onward, four crematories were commissioned at Birkenau, where it has been alleged specific rooms were used as gas chambers. The main place where exterminations occurred was Mortuary I of Krematoria II. Orthodox historians claim that those who were murdered at Auschwitz, or who died through sickness and weakness were burnt in the crematory, or, if capacity was exceeded by demand, were burnt on pyres, or in open pits. It is now impossible to locate in Holocaustian literature any reference to the “electric conveyor belt that simultaneously killed hundreds of people through electric current.” This conveyor belt was mentioned for the first and last time on Feb. 2, 1945. Holocaustian historians also know nothing about a slowly moving conveyor belt that dropped corpses into a furnace, or mobile contraptions that killed children. Finally, according to the Holocaust literature, the gas chambers were located not in the eastern part of the camp, but at Birkenau, west of the Stammlager, and thanks to the appended miniature towers and architectural ornamentation they looked like “harmless garages,” which not a single witness could confirm. In other words: Polevoi’s report was a total fabrication without any truth content.

Why? Why would comrade Polevoi serve up to his Pravda readers such fictitious horror stories if for days he had access to thousands of witnesses who could have reported on the real horror that occurred at Auschwitz?

The answer was obvious.

On this day, April 29, 1991, I understood that the recounting of the events at Auschwitz was not done historically, but propagandistically, and the system in which I grew up had lied to me from childhood. In 1958, or 1959, when I was about seven, or eight years old, I had for the first time heard about the gas chambers and had unshakably believed in them as I did in the existence of a continent called Africa, or a planet called Mercury. Now I knew better.

Later I learned how the official Auschwitz version had been created. On April 7, 1944, two young Czechoslovakian Jews, Rudolf Vrba and Alfred Wetzler, escaped from Auschwitz and had made their way to Pressburg (Slovenian Bratislava), where they wrote a report on Auschwitz and Birkenau. [5] This document was distributed by the Geneva-based Jewish organization “World Headquarters of Hechaluz.” According to the then still anonymous authors an unbelievably large number of Jews had been murdered in the Birkenau crematories with the insecticide Zyklon B. (To date such an assertion had not appeared in any earlier reports from Jewish, or Polish resistance organizations. In a later chapter I shall focus on their stories.) In Nov. 1944 this “authentic report” written by these two Czechoslovakian Jews was published in an English translation by the War Refugees Board, an organization headed by the Jewish US finance minister, Henry Morgenthau Jr. As the Morgenthau people did not get their document to their contacts in Moscow on time it was not in the possession of the Pravda reporter Polevoi by the end of Jan 1945, and so he gave his imagination free rein when he wrote the “historical truths” about Auschwitz. However, his errors were corrected some months later.

Three former Jewish Auschwitz inmates — Henryk Tauber, Szlama Dragon and Henryk Mandelstam — appeared before a Polish commission, where they testified they had witnessed mass gassings in the Birkenau crematoria. On May 24, 1945 Tauber stated that the total number of deaths in the camp was 4 million. [6] This just so happened to be the figure a Soviet commission had just obtained two and a half weeks previously.

Until the beginning of the 1990s the Polish historical record clung to this grotesque figure. Western Holocaust historians never accepted this figure and were satisfied in adopting a lower figure — 1.25 million, which included 1.1 million Jews, said Raul Hilberg. [7]

The Nazi gas chambers were thus a gigantic historical lie, as was also the “industrial extermination of Jews,” which it was alleged had happened in these chambers. It was quite obvious that Jews were the main profiteers of this swindle: The Holocaust myth of their victimization made them practicably unassailable. This lie was also of importance to those whose aim it was to exterminate through interbreeding the Europeans and European-related peoples. (I do not doubt anymore that this has been the aim of the Western elites.) The relentless Holocaustian propaganda served the purpose of inculcating not only the Germans, but all White people with a poisonous guilt complex and a revulsion against “racism.”

Under such circumstances the exposure of the lie of the extermination camps and their gas chambers had assumed existential proportions for Europe and beyond for the whole White race. I understood this to be my duty, no matter what personal disadvantage this would bring me by being part of this battle. Remaining neutral would have been like a cowardly capitulation.

After long conversations with Arthur Vogt, who also repeatedly supported me financially, I decided to fill a gap in the Revisionist literature and write a book mentioning all the important Revisionist arguments. Such a work was then not available. At the same time as working as a teacher of French and Latin at the Progymnasium Therwil I began on my project and, during the next two years, read over 100 books on the topic. Obviously among them were the standard texts of the orthodox Holocaust historiography. Until this time, l had filled most of my free time by learning more languages, but now that had to stop. Still, in 1992, I began to learn Polish, whose sound appealed to me. Later in my research the knowledge of Polish was invaluable when reading primary sources.

In March 1992, I traveled to Vichy so as to catch up with that visit, which had never eventuated 13 years earlier, to Prof. Robert Faurisson. In the meantime, I had sent him the first draft of my manuscript for evaluation. This extraordinary man had become the primary hate object of one of France’s Jewish organizations. He had been convicted by a capricious judiciary and heavily fined. In 1989 a pack of criminals, who called themselves “Sons of the Jewish Memory,” had set upon him in a park and brutally beaten him. Faurisson impressed me with his sharp mind and his detailed knowledge of the topic that had brought this together. But especially I was impressed by his love for truth. Here I had before me a man who would never compromise with a lie. Since our first meeting we have remained in constant contact and I have translated many of his works into German.

In September 1992, Faurisson and I traveled to Badenweiler to visit the former judge Wilhelm Staglich, the author of Ver Auschwitz Mythos (1979). In the late summer of 1944 Staglich was for a brief time stationed at Auschwitz as a lieutenant of the German antiaircraft gun defense. During the early 1970s, he published in a right-wing magazine a report of his experiences, wherein he stated that at Auschwitz he had not seen any evidence of crimes committed. For this heresy he was punished by having his doctorate revoked on the ground that his book was unworthy of an academic distinction. Ironically, the law that enabled this to occur was personally signed by Adolf Hitler.

This gave rise to a commitment within Staglich to find out what really happened at Auschwitz. The research resulted in his producing a standard Revisionist work whose chapter — a magnificent analysis of the Frankfurt Auschwitz Trial of 1963-65. During our discussion, Staglich commented pessimistically about a Revisionist breakthrough in Germany. The incessant brainwashing that already began in primary schools and the open attacks on Revisionists made such a development most unlikely.

Meanwhile, my manuscript had grown to a few hundred pages. Arthur Vogt and I agreed that a shorter version was needed wherein the Revisionist arguments were presented in compressed form. Anyone interested in more details could then read the longer version of the book. In March 1993 the abridged version was published as Der Holocaust auf dem Prufstand [8] and led to my immediate dismissal from the Progymnasium Therwil. Two months later the full version with an introduction by Robert Faurisson was published as Der Holocaust-Schwindel. [9]

After my dismissal I had a lot of time to myself, which I thought of using productively as long as I could write without fear of legal persecution. In December 1992, both houses of the Swiss Parliament had passed an “antiracism” law — Section 261 of the Criminal Code. It stated that “justification, trivializing and denying of genocide and other crimes against humanity” be punished by a maximum of three years in prison and an unlimited fine. The actual purpose of this law was to suppress Holocaust Revisionism. That in autumn 1993 a small group of Swiss citizens was able to collect enough signatures for a referendum prevented this legal muzzle from becoming active. The referendum was set for Sept. 25, 1994, which meant I could continue my work peacefully.

A week after my dismissal as a teacher, I became acquainted with Swiss engineer Gerhard Forster, a pensioner of German descent, who asked me to collect and critically analyze eyewitness reports about the alleged gassings at Auschwitz. Soon I was to meet the two men who were then to shape the profile of Revisionism. In June 1993, the 27-year-old German chemist Germar Rudolf visited me in Basel. He had just confirmed the results of his Rudolf Report in an exacting scientific paper, which he had published under the pseudonym “Ernst Gauss,” Vorlesungenl uber Zeitgeschichte. Rudolf appeared to be extremely self-confident. He was convinced that Revisionism would soon experience a breakthrough. He felt that there were no arguments against facts. Soon this brilliant scientist would experience firsthand the methods employed by the “most free state in Germany’s history,” without any argument, in order to suppress uncomfortable facts.

In September 1993, I traveled to Rome, where I visited the Italian Prof. Carlo Mattogno, who possessed numerous difficult-to-find texts, which were vital for my own book that I was writing about Auschwitz. For over a decade Mattogno had been writing books about National Socialist politics on the Jewish question, especially a brilliant analysis of the Gerstein Report, which served as the primary piece of evidence of the claim that Jews were gassed at the Belzec concentration camp, as well as a book titled Il Mito dello Sterminio (“The Myth of Jewish Extermination”). My visit, the first of about 15, was the impetus of a developing deep personal and productive relationship that extended to five extensive research trips as well as the production of a number of books.

My book, Tatergestandnisse und Augenzeugen des Holocaust (Perpetrator Confessions and Eyewitnesses of the Holocaust), was published by Gerhard Forster’s Neue Vision in May 1994. Four months later, Arthur Vogt and I traveled to California to attend the 12th International Revisionist Conference. Mattogno was one of the invited speakers at that conference. His text had been translated into English by an Italian-American citizen, Russell Granata, who was then to accompany us in the following year on our Moscow trip. At this conference I met the already then-legendary Ernst Zundel as well as his future wife, Ingrid Rimland, a German-American psychologist and author, who had only recently been convinced by Zundel of the correctness of the Revisionist thesis.

At that time the director of the Institute for Historical Review (IHR) was Mark Weber, who, through a putsch, had replaced his boss, Willis Carto. Weber had a charming personality, which impressed me greatly. In subsequent years I wondered, though, why the IHR’s Journal of Historical Review lost its quality. This caused the magazine to lose subscribers and so Weber ceased publishing it. What surprised me was how Weber refused to translate and to publish Germar Rudolf’s fundamental volume, Grundlagen zur Zeitgeschichte. Only in A.D. 2000 did I meet the disempowered former IHR publisher Willis Carto and his wife Elisabeth and learned their side of the conflict. The Carto couple was convinced that Weber had deposed them on the urgings of Zionists in whose interest it was to neutralize the dangerous IHR. At first I was skeptical of such a view, but later I gradually became convinced that the Cartos may just have been right.

Soon after my return from California to Switzerland, on Sept. 25, 1994, we had the citizen-initiated referendum on the anti-racism law, which had been preceded by a malicious campaign conducted by the larger newspapers and media outlets. This new law was needed, it was argued by politicians and media scribblers, to protect foreigners from the threats of vile racists. They also lied unbelievably about the Revisionists, the so- called “Holocaust deniers” and “Auschwitz deniers.” Again and again it was asserted that we Revisionists deny the existence of the Auschwitz concentration camp. This propaganda of lies succeeded in persuading the Swiss citizens to vote in favor of their own disfranchisement by a 54% vote.

Meanwhile, Arthur Vogt and I, together with two other former teachers — Andreas Studer and Bernhard Schaub — founded the “Arbeitsgemeinschaft zur Enttabuisierung der Zeitgeschichte” where we later changed the word “Enttabuisierung” — “get rid of taboo” to “Erforschung” — “research.” In the year following the publication of his book, Adler und Rose, in 1992, Schaub had lost his position as a German and history teacher at the Rudolf Steiner School. His book had contained a number of Revisionist arguments, and so he found himself in a similar position to me. We decided to continue our work after the muzzling law had come into effect. Vogt continued to publish his Aurora magazine of about 100 copies wherein he expressed his ideas about contemporary history and current affairs, as well as publishing some of my articles. Unfortunately, it was not possible to persuade Vogt not to send his magazine to judges and state prosecutors, because he fatally and erroneously believed these people were interested in historical facts. For this error he paid a heavy price. He was sentenced and convicted to heavy fines and only his advancing years in age prevented his being imprisoned.

In 1995 Carlo Mattogno and I undertook the already mentioned trip to Moscow, where we conducted extensive studies in two archives — the Center for Conserving of Historical Documents, which today is called the Russian Military Archive, and the Archive of the Russian Federation. We copied thousands of documents on which Mattogno was to base his future in-depth research about Auschwitz.

At the end of May 1997, Mattogno and I conducted a research trip that took us to Poland, Belarus and Lithuania, and from which we returned only in August. We returned with countless documents from the various archives on which the Majdanek book as well as the study about the Stutthof camp are based. Then in the historical archives of the Belarus capital city Minsk I met my future wife, the historian Olga Stepanowna, who had assisted researchers with their requests.

In May 1998, Mattogno and I undertook a trip to Belgium, where we met the indefatigable Revisionist publisher Siegfried Verbeke, then traveled to Holland, where we copied important documents held at the Amsterdam Imperial Archive for War Documents. Eleven years later these documents were to prove invaluable as we, together with the Swedish Revisionist Thomas Kues, published our book about the Sobibor camp.

In July 1998 Gerhard Forster and I appeared before court in Baden in Aargau for having distributed our Revisionist literature. As a witness for the defense I had invited Faurisson and the Austrian engineer, Wolfgang Frohlich, who was an expert in pest control as well as the killing of microbes through gas. The presiding judge refused Faurisson as a witness, but permitted Frohlich to make a statement. Frohlich had proposed to state the technical and chemical impossibility of the gassing scenario at Auschwitz, but was interrupted after a few sentences by state prosecutor Dominik Aufdenblatten, and threatened with prosecution were he to continue. This is how corrupt the Swiss judiciary had become. I was sentenced to 15 months in prison without parole as well as costs and fines totaling up to 40,000 francs. My barrister, Dr. Urs Oswald, who had mounted a competent defense, filed an appeal against this sentence.

Gerhard Forster, who was suffering from osteoporosis and other illnesses, appeared in court in a wheelchair. He was sentenced to 12 months in prison and received a fine almost as high as mine. He died two months after the trial.

Thanks to the German-Australian Dr. Fredrick Toben, who held a Revisionist conference in Adelaide, the capital of South Australia, two months after my trial it was possible for me to get to know the “Land Down Under”. Soon after my collaboration began with two Swiss comrades, Philippe Brennenstuhl and Rene-Louis Berclaz, the latter of whom had in September 1998 received a suspended sentence for translating the Rudolf Report into French. Together we founded the association Verite et Justice which then published numerous brochures. Among others, we also produced a response to the Bundesrat-produced Bergier Report which contained the usual lies about the role the Swiss played during World War II and lies about the ??? 82 year-old publicist Gaston Armand Amaudruz.

Soon after the Amaudruz trial, Mattogno and I undertook another trip to Moscow. There I learned that the Swiss Federal Court had confirmed my prison sentence. After our research in the Russian capital, I traveled to Minsk to visit Olga. At that time, we were not yet decided on whether I should serve my sentence, or whether I should move to Minsk, and so we postponed that decision to a later point.

Upon my return to Switzerland I was advised to begin my sentence on Oct. 2, 2000. As I could not pay the 40,000-franc fine imposed on me, my prison time would have been increased by about a year, and this would have meant a total of two and a half years of my freedom. So I left Switzerland on Aug. 15, my 49th birthday, and traveled, after a brief stop in Poland and Lemberg in west Ukraine, to Moscow, where Olga visited me. Instead of turning up on Oct. 2 at a Swiss prison, a day later I celebrated my engagement. Olga and I were not prepared to be separated for two and a half years. In any case, I did not see why I should spend time in prison for a crime I did not commit — “racial discrimination.” Our wedding took place in the following summer, because in November 2000 the Iranian Foreign Ministry had invited me to come to Tehran to assist in the preparation of an end of March/beginning of April 2001 conference on the topic of “Revisionism and Zionism.” The Iranian government did not wish to hold this conference in Iran, and so it was decided that it should be held in Beirut, the capital of Lebanon.

In Tehran, I was looked after by three helpful and kind Foreign Ministry functionaries named Mohamed, Hasan and Nasir. I pointed out to my new Persian friends that a small and weak country like Lebanon, that bordered on Israel and was financially dependent on US financial support, could not, without difficulties, withstand the expected pressure coming from America and the Zionists. And so it came to pass. After the US State Department became involved, two weeks before it was to take place, the government in Beirut canceled the planned conference. In April 2001 I flew to Moscow, and from there traveled to Minsk. On July 26, Olga and I married in a civil ceremony in the White Russian capital. On Aug. 8 we had the wedding in a Roman Catholic church in Moscow.

In June 2002, my parents visited us in Moscow, which was the last time I saw my father: he died on June 7, 2008 at the age of 87. After my parents left us, Olga and I began our tour of the U.S., which we remember fondly. First we spent a few days as guests of Willis and Elisabeth Carto in Washington, where I also attended one of Carto’s Barnes Review conferences. There I was able to draw upon the book’s conclusions that Mattogno and I had written about Treblinka, which was to be published a few months later. We then flew to California, where we enjoyed the hospitality of our friend Russell Granata and his wife, Doris, and from there we journeyed to Germar Rudolf, who was then living in Alabama.

As a result of his Revisionist work, in 1995 Rudolf was sentenced to 18 months in prison, but he fled to England and from there to the US. Leaving aside the difficulties such moving about creates, Rudolf focused on Revisionism with extraordinary energy. He was then publishing the magazine Vierteljahreshefte fur freie Geschichtsforschung, and as well he became a publisher of German and English Revisionist books. Three and a half years after our visit, and in spite of his marriage to a U.S. citizen and having just become a father, he was extradited to Germany where he remained imprisoned until July 2009. After some difficult legal negotiations, the US immigration bureaucracy permitted his return to the U.S., where he now resides with his family. In his book Widerstand ist Pflicht [10] Rudolf recounts and documents his persecution by “the freest state in Germany’s history.”

One of the nicest individuals Olga and I met in America was a Protestant professor of theology and Greek, Robert Countess, and his wife Elma. In July we drove with him to Tennessee, where we spent some unforgettable days, with Ernst Zundel and his wife Ingrid. At that time, we did not anticipate the dark clouds that were forming over this couple. Half a year after our visit, and under an immigration pretext of not having attended a parole meeting, Zundel was extradited to Canada. Without being charged and without a trial, he spent two years in a maximum security immigration facility under a security certificate warrant before being extradited to Germany, where he was convicted and sentenced to five years in prison — which he had to serve to the day. Since March 2010, he is again free, but US immigration officials have denied him a return to his wife in Tennessee.

After our America trip, Olga and I settled in Moscow, and I will probably return to the years spent in Russia at another time. Suffice it to say that most of my time was taken up with translation work, and I did not do enough for Revisionism. Still, in 2008 I was able to publish a book for our Russian readers, which my publisher titled Der Zusammenbruch der neuen Ordnung. Together, with Thomas Kues and Carlo Mattogno I wrote the above-mentioned study of Sobibor. As well, I wrote a number of articles that can be viewed on my website www.juergen-graf.vho.org.

Of those mentioned Revisionists some are no longer with us. My friend and mentor Arthur Vogt died on Oct. 30, 2003, two weeks before his 86th birthday. Russell Granata left us in 2004, Robert Countess in 2005 and Wilhelm Staglich in 2006. Andreas Studer, who had been totally blind for some years, died in autumn 2013.

On numerous occasions I have been asked whether I would have become a Revisionist had I not met Arthur Vogt. The answer to this question can only be, “Yes.” At the latest, however, since the enacting of the “anti racism law,” I would have certainly asked the political class, which I now deeply distrust, why our politicians want to deny a free and open investigation of the Holocaust. I would have followed up this matter, and I would have met Faurisson, Rudolf, Mattagna and the other Revisionists, albeit a little later. Whether I would have ever met Olga is difficult to say. Such thoughts are superfluous, because fate would have it that I became acquainted with Revisionism under the circumstances related above and during a Revisionist trip I met my wife. That she came from the former Soviet Union, which I so feared as a child and adolescent, was a fateful irony.

Now that my Russian exile is nearing its end I would like to return to the topic of my first book, which encapsulates what I observed decades ago, how Europe began its “long day’s journey into the night” through mass immigration of people from foreign cultures and races. After I had clarified in Narrenschiff the specific problem of asylum abuse in Switzerland, I have now set myself the goal of reflecting on this problem in a much broader context.

My earlier predicted apocalyptical conditions did not eventuate in my homeland. Although Switzerland belongs to those European countries with the highest number of foreigners, these foreigners are easily integrated Europeans — Italians, Germans and Portuguese. That we did not experience the horrendous catastrophe facing France, Belgium, Holland, or England is a result of two factors. First, thanks to a constitutional right the Swiss citizen can bring about a citizen-initiated referendum on factual questions by obtaining a minimum number of signatures. This is the fundamental difference between us and our neighbor state, the Federal Republic of Germany, which calls itself “democratic”, but refuses to grant its citizens the right to comment directly on factual matters, and which, in its long history, has never granted its citizens a single citizen-initiated referendum. Second, the largest political party in our government, the Swiss Volkspartei, does represent the interests of the majority of the indigenous peoples, while the German, French, British and so on do not have any representation in their governing parties.

Why is it that the peoples of the old continent have not resisted their ruling elites’ aim of killing their souls and bringing about their biological extinction? Ernst Junger provides an answer to this question in his marvelous novel Auf den Marmorklippen, wherein the tyranny of the head ranger at the Grossen Marina is vividly described:

There were other signs wherein the decline expressed itself. It is like a rash that appears, disappears and returns. In between there were also joyous days where everything seemed as before this was the head ranger’s — Oberforster’s — brilliant strategy; he injected fear in small doses, then increased them with the aim of paralyzing any resistance. [11]

If, during the 1960s, a European government had flooded its country with African and Asian immigrants, legalized the obscenely blasphemous same-sex “marriage” and introduced the criminal madness of “gender mainstreaming,” then the people would soon have had enough and voted them out. Thus the destruction of the social order needed to be done in small doses, as with Ernst Junger’s head ranger. Besides indoctrinating the younger generation, politicians and the media imbued the parent generation with fear in small doses and increased the pressure on those who contumaciously refused to march along toward the abyss and who were then labeled bigoted rednecks and screwed-up anti-progressives. And so those who still retained their independence of thought and whose instincts remained uncorrupted fled into silent resignation. For recalcitrant dissidents specific “anti-racism laws” were enacted throughout Europe.

According to the will of those who have written on their banners the extermination of the Europeans and the destruction of European culture, there is to be no tomorrow for the vanquished. But while I write these lines there is already a strong resistant wind blowing in the faces of those who are set on destroying our culture.

The last battle for Europe has not yet been fought.

Moscow, June 12, 2014

Notes to the Introduction:

1. Jurgen Graf and Carlo Mattogno, KL Majdanck, Eine historische und technische Studie, Castle Hill Publishers, Hastings, 1998.

2. Robert Faurisson, “Le probleme des chambres a gaz ou la rumeur d’Auschwitz,” Le Monde, Dec. 29, 1978.

3. Christian Morgenstern, “Die unmogliche Tatasche,” in Palmstrom: All Galgenlieder, Diogenes Verlag, Zurich, 1987.

4. State Archive of the Russian Federation, Moscow, 7021-108-23, p. 179-198 and 200-217.

5. Franklin Delano Roosevelt Library, New York, WRB Box n 61.

6. Akten des Hoss-Prozesses, Band 11, P.130.

7. Raul Hilberg, Die Vernichtung der euroaischen Juden, Frankfurt a. M., 1997, P. 946.

8. Jurgen Graf, Ver Holocaust auf dem Priufstand, Gideon Burg Verlag, Basel, 1993.

9. Jurgen Graf, Ver Holocaust Schwindel, Gideon Burg Verlag, Basel, 1993.

10. Germar Rudolf, Widerstand ist Pflicht, Castle Hill Publishers, Uckfield, 2012.

11. Ernst Junger, Auf den Marmorklippen, 19. Auflage, Klett-Cotta 2008, p. 46. The first edition appeared in Hamburg in 1938.

Jean Raspail

CHAPTER ONE

THE RED BIRD

FROM THE DANUBE DELTA

When I think of the developments in Europe, I often recount with pain and sadness this mythical red bird of which the Romanian author Marin Preda metaphorically reports:

Romanian ornithologists have discovered a red-feathered bird that displays an inexplicable behavior. Each year foxes steal eggs from its nest and replace them with pebbles, which the bird incubates during summer, not realizing they are pebbles. In order to save the endangered species, the ornithologists chased away the foxes. To the scientists’ amazement, who watched with binoculars from a distance, the bird in an inexplicable hysterical rage broke the eggs with its beak, flapping its wings and dancing around in a mad fashion. What was wrong? Which dark instincts drove it to self- destruction? Why did it no longer wish to live? Who could know? Nature has condemned the red bird to death, and no one had the power to change the verdict. [1]

Just like this hapless red bird, it appears the European peoples are driven by a gloomy instinct to their self-destruction. This demographic winter already entered decades ago and should a spring not follow, then, according to the immutable laws of mathematics, it must lead to the aging and extinction of the peoples of the continent. In his 2002 book The Death of the West, the American author Patrick Buchanan described in a sober fashion the development as follows:

The prognosis is grim. Between 2000 and 2050, the world population will grow by more than 3 billion to over 9 billion people, but this 50% increase in global population will come entirely in Asia, Africa and Latin America, as one hundred million people of European stock vanish from the Earth. In 1960 people of European ancestry were one-fourth of the world’s population; in 2000, they were ones sixth; in 2050, they will be one-tenth. These are the statistics of a vanishing race. In 2000 the total population of Europe, from Iceland to Russia, was 728 million. At present birthrates, however, without new immigration, her population will crash to 600 million by 2050 … Europe dies. How bleak is the situation? Of the 20 nations with the lowest birthrates in the world, 18 are in Europe. The average fertility rate of a European woman has fallen to 1.4 children, with 2.1 needed just to replace the existing population … If the present fertility rates hold, Europe’s population will decline to 207 million by the end of the 21st century, less than 30% of today’s. The cradle of Western civilization will have become its grave … For 10 years Germany’s birthrate has stood at 1.3 children per woman, far below the 2.1 needed to replace the present population. Here is the future that is now hard upon the German nation. By 2050:

• 23 million Germans will have disappeared;

• Germany’s 82 million people will have fallen to 59 million;

• A third of Germany’s population will be over 65 years old. These seniors will outnumber German children more than two to one …

Prospects for the Italian race, which gave us Rome and all its glory, St. Peter’s and the Sistine Chapel, Dante and Michelangelo, Columbus and Galileo, are even more dire.

Italy’s birthrate has been below replacement levels for 25 years and is down to 1.2 children per woman. At this rate, Italy’s 57 million people will fall to 41 million by 2050 … Cardinal Giacomo Biffi of Bologna has called on Rome to restrict immigration to Catholics to “save the nation’s identity.” But where does his eminence propose to find these Catholics? Certainly not in Spain, where in the days of the Caudillo, Gen. Francisco Franco, big families were sacred and received medals and gifts from the state. In Spain, the birthrate is down to 1.07 children per woman, and the population is projected to fall by 25% in 50 years … What does the future hold for our British cousins?

Ethnic minorities already constitute 40% of London’s population. The fertility rate fell to 1.66 births per woman. [2]

But as Europe is dying;

“the Third World adds 100 million people — one new Mexico every 15 months. Forty new Mexicos in the Third World by 2050, while Europe will have lost the equivalent of the entire population of Belgium, Holland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway — and Germany!”

It lies in the nature of things that the gradually aging, but still wealthy Western half of Europe attracts like a magnet the exploding population of the Third World. Already some decades ago, visionaries saw the writing on the wall. One of them was the author Jean Raspail. In his brilliant 1973 novel Le camp des saints (“The Camp of the Saints”) [3] he outlined a vision of the end of Europe which is heralded with the landing, on the French Mediterranean coast, of a giant fleet of I million refugees. For compelling literary reasons, Raspail let this armada arrive not from nearby north and west Africa, as would have been expected, but from faraway India. Several weeks would elapse from the time of the fleet’s departure to its landing at the French Mediterranean coast, as all of Africa had to be circumnavigated, due to the closure of the Suez Canal. This gave the author the opportunity to slowly increase the suspense.

Raspail depicts with terrifying realism the helplessness and inaction of the government in Paris. The agitation of the left-leaning intellectuals and journalists demanding self-righteously, in the name of human rights, the hospitable reception of the refugees. The happy excitement of the black and Arab population living in France, feverishly expectant of the impending Big Redistribution, as well as the final betrayal by the Catholic dignitaries of their true believers and indigenous population. Immediately after the landing of the armada, the French church leaders called and gathered for a hunger strike in support of the invaders, and the Cardinal of Paris offered the Muslims 30 churches to be converted into mosques. At that time the sitting Pope in the Vatican was Benedict XVI.

Pure Coincidence, or Clairvoyant Abilities?

Jean Raspail’s oppressive vision became reality long ago. Day after day boats navigate with refugees into European coastal waters. However, they do not arrive from India, but Africa. For most the first point of call is the Italian island of Lampedusa. A constant now of unseaworthy and overcrowded vessels arrives, with African passengers who, will then be transported to the mainland with the aim to “migrate” them to the north, where higher social service benefits are on offer and where a fanatic migrant lobby fights for the permanent stay of these illegal immigrants.

For this lobby — to which in Germany belong the Green Party, SPD (Social Democratic Party) and the left, but also increasingly the CDU —these Africans are “the poorest of the poor” and Europe is duty bound, for humanitarian reasons, to give the invaders a permanent stay. The publication Zuerst proves with naked facts that this view in no way coincides with reality:

To reach the EU from Africa and Asia without assistance works only in rare cases. In most circumstances the services of professional “people smugglers” are engaged, and they cost money, lots of money. This applies especially for the so-called professional people smugglers, who repeat failed illegal crossings until successful…. Often large families, or whole communities join together to finance organized people smugglers to transport a chosen person. His mission is: He must reach his destination, establish himself and obtain as much money as possible to enable other members of their community, or family to follow.

An Austrian member of Parliament, Dr. Johann Huebner, points out:

“Among the refugees are also numerous people who already were criminals in their country, among them street gangs from major black African cities, drug dealers and other criminals who have access to cash and foreign currencies which normally does not apply to the majority of black Africans.”

There is no question, but that there are many reasons for emigration. In all corners of the planet exist political, ethnic and religious conflicts, hostile clans fight for power and bully the population, natural disasters, misery and hunger rage. However, there are not only pushing, but also pulling forces: the allure of a life of plenty in faraway Europe transported by the rumor mill and the modern media. Television and Internet can today be found in every bamboo hut. [4]

Such logical arguments are naturally not amenable to the immigration lobby, as logic is a foreign word to them. Their actions are based purely on emotion, and the actual motives, mainly from the German advocates of this lobby, appear to be seldom genuine concern for the economic refugees. To most it serves as a battering ram for the destruction of their own country. Their real motive is the hatred for their own people which must quickly disappear in a racial melting pot. The system itself has cultivated this self-hate through the mindless Auschwitz and Holocaust propaganda. Therefore, the German immigration lobby is a waste product of this re-education.

So it is that almost daily boats continue to anchor in Lampedusa. And tragedies continue to happen such as the one of October 2013 when almost 400 Africans drowned. The politicians dutifully sprinkled ash on their heads and asked themselves how such catastrophes could be avoided in the future. The only right answer to this question was issued by a lone voice in the wilderness, Thilo Sarrazin:

Where lie the limits for the European conscience? A yearly number of 100,000 economic refugees from Africa, or 500,000, or perhaps 1 million? And what if even more should arrive? Even 2 million refugees would not bring lasting relief to conditions in Africa …

The sociologist Max Weber, in a presentation, distinguished between the ethics of thinking and the ethics of responsibility. He said:

“There is a profound difference whether someone acts under the maxim of thinking ethics — speaking in a religious sense: A Christian does the right thing and credits God for the successful outcome — or, under the ethics of responsibility, one has to accept the (foreseeable) consequences of one’s actions …” 

Let’s look at Africa in this context: The population on this continent has in the last 50 years quadrupled and rests now at a billion people … Europe can assist by way of assuring that those who leave are not the ones who are needed to improve the conditions. It is not the poorest who are fleeing. It is the middle class, those who are relatively well educated and in a better financial situation and whose families are able to scrape together the $1,000, or $2,000 needed for a tug to Europe, so that a member of the family can go to Europe as a bridgehead. Those who are fleeing the African countries are needed most [in Africa] to help overcome their underdevelopment. Europe would do a service to these countries by preventing this exodus. Europe can best avoid deaths in the Mediterranean by not allowing refugees to reach the Maghreb coast …

“The only way to win the fight against people smuggle/os is by stopping the demand for their services. This can only be achieved when it is made clew ‘that all refugees picked up in the Mediterranean are returned to their coastal point of departures.” [5]

The following measures would dry up the influx to Lampedusa within days:

If Italy enacted a law which would make the commercial “people smuggling,” independent of the number of people smuggled, punishable with a five-year prison sentence. The captains of the refugee boats, or tugs could be made to face a court immediately after their arrival, convicted and the same day sent to prison for five years. This news would travel at speed to the Maghreb states and the potential immigrants would overnight have no more tugs available.

No attempt is made to check the identity and country of origin of the illegal immigrants on arrival. The latter is only seldom possible with black Africans, also due to language problems. Close to 2,000 dialects are spoken on the African continent, of which most Europeans have no knowledge, and apart from that, language and state borders in black Africa, states that were created by previous colonial powers and are arbitrary structures, do not correspond. Each arrival receives a shower and a warm meal, and he is handed a food package. Immediately following, the illegal immigrants will be returned by boat commanded by a European captain to the original departure point on the Libyan, or Tunisian coast from which they started their journey to the north. These points can easily be located from satellite pictures. The Libyan and Tunisian authorities will be responsible for the repatriation of the refugees.

Within days the “demand for people smuggler services” would sink to zero, to use Thilo Sarrazin’s phrasing. The stream of migrants over the Mediterranean would end, and no more refugees would drown.

Of course, as long as no radical political change occurs, no government in Rome will resort to such measures, as with nearly all governments in other European countries, so too are the Italians prisoners of their mad, liberal and international ideology.

Let us assume the impossible should occur and an Italian government decided to take up the steps above. In that scenario a deafening howl of protest would arise throughout the “free world,” and the do-gooders of all countries would cry out for sanctions against Rome. The loudest shouts would without doubt emanate from the Social Democratic Party in Germany, of which Sarrazin, for inexplicable reasons, is to this day a member. The SPD minister for social services in Lower Saxony, Cornelia Rundt, at the end of 2013, expressed the view that in future integration would no longer be demanded from immigrants, but to appreciate the growing diversity. She demanded the Germans develop a “culture of welcome.” How does a mentally sound human being such as Mr. Sarrazin feel in such a society? [6] 

Lampedusa is not the only destination illegal immigrants from the Third World strive to reach by sea. In the autumn of 2012 Greece constructed a nine-foot-high fence bordering Turkey to stop economic and war refugees from countries such as Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria using Greece as a thoroughfare on their march to Europe. Now many migrants reach Greece over the Aegean Sea, others cross the River Evros with the use of tugs.

“[For] whoever has made it to Turkey, from there the journey is child’s play. Every day more than 100 planes land in Istanbul from Asia and Africa. It is not hard to find someone who for payment would organize a trip over the Evros.” [7]

In the economically prostrate country of the Hellenes, by now 10% of the population originate from the Third World. Only a small number of the newcomers remain. Most move on to comfortably settle in middle, west and northern Europe. An especially attractive destination is Germany. The reason being, Athens has no functioning asylum system, and the German authorities do not send back illegal immigrants who reach Germany via Greece. However, this still does not satisfy the immigration lobby:

In order not to be deported, refugees must first make it to Germany on their own accord. Welfare organizations such as Pro Asyl are not content with this passive stance.

“It would be a sign of humanity, especially people in need of protection, such as families with children, or children traveling alone, to distribute according to humanitarian criteria to other EU states. This would also be a sign of solidarity with Greece,” said Karl Kopp, European speaker for Pro Asyl. [8]

Although illegal immigration from the Third World is often based on and takes place under dramatic circumstances, and takes center stage, this should not detract from the fact that legal immigration procedures to enable family reunion also take place. From the moment a migrant has obtained permanent residency status, his wife and children may follow. If he is single, there are two possibilities open to him. Either he returns for a holiday to his home country, marries and returns with his wife, who through the marriage gains also residency in the particular European country where he now resides. Should this be too costly for him, he can send for a bride from his home country, who with the help of people smugglers crosses the border illegally, and then legalizes her stay through marriage.

In April 2013 the highest court in France, the Court of Cassation, made a significant judgment. It decided that Algerian and Turkish migrants working in France, whose children are born in their respective home countries, have the right to claim child support payments from the French government, as long as they settle in France. This also applies if those children are from various marriages. In the case of Turkey, which forbids polygamy, the latter clause has no practical meaning. However, it applies in the case of Algeria where polygamy is legal. In other words:

An Algerian man with four wives, who bore him 15 children, may bring these 15 children to France, and claim money for child support.

The same country that allows, with these measures, north African Muslims in droves into France permits year after year around 200,000 French children to be legally killed in their mother’s womb. Since the lifting of the abortion ban in 1975, on the initiative of the Jewish “health minister” Simone Veil, till the end of 2013 approximately 7.6 million children were pierced, dismembered and cauterized with the state’s blessing. Only in a disappearing and small number of cases were the abortions for legitimate reasons (danger to the life, or health of the mother; pregnancy resulting from rape, or incest). The others were the result of “social reasons.”

As a youth I came across this Quote during a lecture about the New Testament: “Der Tod ist der Suende Soll,” — “Death is payment for our sins” (Romans 6:23). This made no sense to me, as death comes to all of us, the righteous and sinners. However, if you apply this quote not to the individual, but to people and nations, then with fearsome clarity the sense of this comes to light. A people which with in 38 years kills off over 7 minion of its children for “social reasons” but, at the same time, entices millions of people of other religions, cultures and race to their country, is guilty of a sin, whose payment is their death.

The excuse that the responsibility for this policy lies with the politicians and their appointed judges and not with the French citizens does not help. The French people have voted for these politicians. In May 2002 the incumbent President Jacques Chirac, an advocate of multiculturalism and African migration, took up his post after the second round of the presidential elections against Marine Le Pen from the National Front, who wanted to stop immigration. More than 81% of the French decided for Chirac and thereby agreed to their own displacement. As a mitigating circumstance one could allow the fact that their judgment was clouded due to the mendacious media propaganda. However, no mitigating circumstance can save the French people from their displacement if they do not wake up in time.

Dmitri Kisseljow’s Russian television program Vesti Nedli (“News of the Week”) of February 2013 conveys an unembellished picture of the situation in French cities. We quote here a few passages from the program with the title “The unrecognizable France.” [9] The documentary begins with scenes from an underground Koran school:

It is not permitted to speak French here, only Arabic. Every day the first lesson studied is the Koran. Every genuine Muslim must learn by heart the 114 surahs of the holy book … Aysche and her eight sisters from Morocco have been wearing the burka since the age of two. Aysche’s family has never attempted to learn French … In this school exist no worldly laws. “Worldly” is translated in Arabic as “anti-religious.”

[A female student speaks:] “I respect my religion. This is the reason I wear the burka. If France wishes to ban it, then it can ban it for the French women. For me, only Allah can ban it.”

Last year three Islamic underground schools were closed. This school has therefore taken measures. It does not exist on the Internet nor in the city’s address book.

In the Belleville area are practically no non-Muslims left.

[A Russian migrant speaks:] “Myself and my children have been attacked by [Muslim] youths several times.”

How many are here, no one knows. Between 6 and 8 million. That’s a European record. [About] 200,000 people enter legally year after year. Add to that another 200,000 who cross the border without papers.

[Marine Le Pen speaks:] “If we don’t want that, France has to hide behind a veil, then we have to stop the stream of migrants.”

Forty-three percent of the migrants have never tried to work [and] 18% live below the poverty line, on the street.

[A Russian-speaking Arab:] “Netu raboty, netu nitsu evo.” [“There is no work, there is nothing.”]

The improvised city of the homeless lies directly under the windows of the Benedictine cathedral St. Denis. In the Basilica of St. Denis, you find the largest burial vault in France. There lie 25 kings, 10 queens and 80 princes. The grave of King Clovis is also there. He was the first of the Frank’s rulers to convert to Christianity. Charles Martel, who has entered history as savior of Europe from the Arabs, also rests in this cathedral … Now this suburb of Paris is the poorest and most criminal of all. Nine kilometers from the Champs Elysees, it is considered not necessary to speak French.

In 2004 an ethnic French woman bore 1.7 children. The fertility rate of migrants from north Africa, black Africa and Turkey living in France are as follows:

• Algeria 2.57 children per woman

• Black Africa 2.86 children per woman

• Tunisia 2.90 children per woman

• Morocco 2.97 children per woman

• Turkey 3.21 children per woman.

In view of the much higher birth rates of the migrant women compared to those of ethnic French women, and that 400,000 overwhelmingly Muslim migrants stream into France annually, partly legally, partly illegally, the ethnic French will, with mathematical certainty. within a few decades, be the minority in their own country if there is no timely change in direction.

France’s present is intended for the rest of Europe’s future: as an example, nearly two decades ago Finland had a nearly 100% White population.

In contrast to many other European states, Finland had virtually no immigration to speak of. However, then a rapid increase began … Today, Somalis represent the largest African group in Finland. There are over 10,000 Somali-speaking people … The number of people with Somali background will, due to family reunion, increase in the near future … Immigration from other African countries to Finland has increased considerably since the 1990s.

Jean Raspail, the prophet of 1973, has long given up the belief of the survival of the Europeans. Thirty-one years after the publication of his masterpiece, Raspail called out in despair:

“The whole of Europe marches to its death.”

This shattering conclusion in no way applies only to the western half of the Old Continent.

Russia’s demographic statistics also allow little hope for the future. In 2002 Patrick Buchanan stated:

 

“With a birthrate of 1.35 children per woman, Russia’s 147 million people fall to 114 million by 2050.” [10]

Nevertheless, since 2010, Russia’s population has been on the increase. It stood at 146.1 minion at the end of 2014. So the situation is not hopeless.

Gloomier is the picture for a large part of Eastern Europe. As the social conditions in some Eastern European countries descend more and more to Third World standards, although these states do not attract masses of migrants from Africa, or Asia, they bleed following a decline in the birthrate and massive migration of their own population to Western Europe, or America. Bulgaria’s population sank from 8.981 million in 1988 to 7.246 million in 2013. The communist dictatorship, which restricted the rights of its citizens, but guaranteed the continuation of the Bulgarian population, was replaced by a democratic system that admittedly brought the Bulgarians various rights, including the right for gay parades. Their biological survival, however, was thereby threatened. The migrants who search for their luck in Western Europe and America belong naturally to the younger generation, and this decline runs parallel with a quickly aging population. Should this development continue, then a diminishing Bulgarian population inevitably will awaken a desire in their Turkish neighbors; just as the 1.355 billion today. and perhaps 1.7 billion Chinese tomorrow, continue to look with ever more covetous glances at a diminishing population in Siberia. Only a fool would rebuke the Turks and Chinese for that. On their side would be the right of the stronger, just as the right of the Americas was on the side of the European colonists and not the Indians.

The gloomy picture is balanced by the White population outside of the European continent being on retreat. In 2002 Patrick Buchanan believed that around the middle of the 21st century only every second U.S. citizen would belong to the White race. [11] Statistics today indicate this could happen much sooner. Also, in Canada and Australia the majority of their European origin population is on the defensive in light of continued migration — from Asia mainly.

What is the Reason for This Development?

In his monumental work Der Untergang des Abendlandes (“The Decline of the West”), Oswald Spengler presented his view that each culture is allotted a certain lifespan. If that is correct, and should the life of the Occident and its bearer, the White race, according to immutable laws, have expired, one can lament, just as we can lament the imminent death of an old man whose organs are failing, but we are unable to prevent it. Important facts speak against the idea that Europeans, decades after World War II, entered old age and their announced death was the logical result of this development.

It is helpful here to use as a comparison the decline of Classical culture. The parallels to our situation today — turning away from religion, turning toward materialism, the emergence of the entertainment industry (then chariot races, gladiator fights; today Hollywood), decline of art and morals — is obvious. However, crucial differences come to mind. While the decline of ancient culture was a lengthy process extending over centuries, the abdication of Europe (including its outposts of North America and Australia) is happening at an unnatural pace. This can be recognized by the clear examples of Great Britain and France. They still owned mighty colonial empires after the end of World War II, but a few decades later were themselves colonized by their previous black and brown subjects.

Even more incomprehensible than the fast pace at which the abdication of White humanity from the historical world stage has taken place is the fact that this process is actively supported and even controlled by the elite in European countries. Certainly, traitors who collaborated with foreign intruders have always existed in all countries and at all times. However, the total elite of a great number of states encourage the displacement of their own population and citizens who oppose this development are exposed to ridicule and where possible hauled before courts and accused of “racism.” This is a phenomenon which finds no parallel in the past. It is also worth taking a closer look at these extraordinary elites.

Notes to Chapter 1:

1. Marin Prcda. Delirul, Editura, Cartea Romaneasca, Bucharest. 1975, p. 311.

2. Patrick Buchanan, Death of the West. St. Martin’s Press, New York. 2002, pp. 12-19 ff.

3. Jean Raspail, Le Camp des Saints, Robert Laffont, Paris, 1973.

4. “Asylmssbrauch,” ~ in Zuerst, Dee. 2013. p. 8 ff.

5. “Integration gestrichen,” Zuerst. Dee. 2013. p. 7.

6. “Fluchpunkt Athen,” Die Zeit. 23 Sept. 2012.

7. Internet.

8. Ibid.

9. www.YouTube.com/watch?y=WYh124a8E

10. Buchanan, Death of the West, p. 17.

11. Death of the West, p. 19.

Oswald Spengler

CHAPTER TWO

CONSPIRACY THEORIES?

In The Decline of the West, Oswald Spengler stressed that not all cultures die a natural death. He reminded us that the Aztec and Inca cultures did not die of old age, but were brutally destroyed by invaders. The same fate is now threatening the Europeans. [Note, however, that both the Aztecs and Incas were actually overthrown by the racially identical neighboring tribes of peoples they had enslaved and abused for generations, which were organized by racially different invaders, i.e., the Spaniards. — Ed.]

Initially, this parallel may not be fitting, because the Aztecs and the Incas had no chance of defending themselves against the superior weapons of the Spanish conquistadors. In addition, there were the introduced epidemics against which they had no effective defense and thus could not prevent their own mass extermination. In contrast to this state of affairs, it is easily possible for the Europeans to stop this influx of immigrants overnight. How this can be achieved was indicated in the previous chapter. If the political will is there, then it is quite possible to remove from Europe the culturally foreign and racially different immigrants, and the way to do it will be discussed in the final chapter of this book.

But it is exactly the will of the ruling elites of Western and Central Europe that is missing. Not only this, but they also desire this influx of foreigners and support any program that facilitates such developments, just as the US elites for decades have been encouraging the immigration of Mexicans and non-Whites.

In other words, the real enemy of the Europeans is their own elites. The innocent migrants from Africa and Asia merely serve as instruments in the process of destroying the traditional society and European culture together with its creators and carriers, the White peoples of the old continent. They are, in effect, the foot soldiers, the infantry, without whom officers cannot conduct a war.

To take the analogy further, the officers’ corps, with one, or two exceptions, has members from most ruling parties of Western and Central Europe, the gurus of the entertainment industry, the leading intellectuals as well as from the publishers and journalists of the controlled media. Any differences existing between the various parties, newspapers and television channels are today only microscopic. Whether the CDU/CSU governs alone in Germany, or with an SPD coalition, or whether the SPD forms a government with the Greens makes no marked difference. This also applies in Great Britain, France and other European countries where the electors can choose between conservatives, liberals, socialists, or Greens — all have adopted the same anti-nationalist policies of increasing poverty, cultural destruction and national death as well as the subjugation to the world hegemony of the U.S.A. The freedom to vote for any of these parties is like the choice between Coca-Cola and Pepsi Cola.

This is especially applicable to migration politics. The Left and the Greens on the one hand and the centralists and the Right on the other may only disagree about the rate at which indigenous people are to be brought into a multicultural, mixed race society. The Left and the Greens wish to accomplish this process as quickly as possible while the centralists and the Right are quite happy with the speed at which this is progressing. For example, in Germany the Greens, the Left and the SPD would like to see the German people disappear overnight, while for the CDU-CSU it suffices if this process occurs tomorrow.

Parties that are not enthusiastic about “multicultural” blessings will not participate in governments. They are despised and defamed by the establishment media.

That not all European countries are marching to the same tune into the abyss is self-evident. As mentioned in the Introduction, Switzerland is in a far better position than, for example, Germany, France, or Britain. First, this is, because it has a citizen initiated referendum mechanism that can be activated through a large number of signatures. Second, the second largest Swiss party does at least nominally represent Swiss interests. In Hungary the party in power, Fidesz, has committed itself to representing traditional Christian values, and thereby is condemned in other countries. Unfortunately, such hopeful signs do not produce an optimistic picture for the European continent as such.

The Basic Thesis of this Book

The ruling elites of Western and Central Europe — as well as in the U.S.A. — aim to extinguish the White people through racial mixing. In order to achieve this, they actively encourage migration from Third World countries. As well, they encourage the birth rate of indigenous Europeans to fall. This is achieved through legalized abortions, as well as implementing financial policies that are detrimental to large families, but assist couples without children. Likewise, the propagation of homosexuality and the implementation of the obscenity of “gender mainstreaming” serve to achieve the goal.

Anyone who propounds such views is immediately attacked as a “conspiracy theorist.” Before we elaborate on this accusation, let us first focus on the question of how the ruling system in Europe handles critics who dare challenge the prevailing dogma.

Like Tibetan prayer wheels, the politicians of the West repeat the same mantra: the first thing is human rights, which can only be realized within a democracy, to which is added tolerance and free expression. For example, on May 15, 1995, then-German President Roman Herzog, when awarding the German Book Publishers Peace Prize to Islamic scholar Annemarie Schimmel, stated:

 

“When we begin a dialogue with others we bring into it some non-negotiable essentials. Free expression is one of these, and this means no one is to suffer, because of held convictions. A long and often bloody and cruel history has taught us Europeans that these rights must never become negotiable again … A dialogue is only possible when no one needs to fear that, because of an expressed opinion there is a possibility of imprisonment, torture, or murder. I repeat, for us human rights are non-negotiable, the dignity of the individual … freedom of expression, of religion and ideological conviction.”

Herzog’s hypocrisy was abhorrent. Only shortly before this had the television and press broadcast their sensationalized reports on former teacher and NPD chairman Gunter Deckert, who had been sentenced to two years in prison for “inciting racial hatred.”

In November 1991, Deckert had invited the US execution engineer Fred Leuchter — who in his report concluded that on technical grounds the gas chambers at Auschwitz could not have operated — to address the NPD, which address Deckert translated. For this, the Mannheim District Court sentenced him to a one year prison sentence, suspended. He appealed. The Federal Court quashed the sentence and ordered a retrial. In 1994 a new sentence was handed down. Presiding Judge Rainer Orlet, Judge Dr. Mueller and Mrs. Folkerts confirmed the original sentence, but gave the accused an excellent character reference — “strong character, responsible personality with clear principles.”

A storm of protest fell over Germany as if Heinrich Himmler had posthumously received the Nobel Peace Prize. In a new trial the federal judgment was vacated and, in April 1994, Gunter Deckert was sentenced to two years in prison without parole. This did not prevent this courageous man from continuing to air his Revisionist views openly. To date he has spent more than five years in prison.

Exactly three weeks before the quoted address by President Herzog wherein he sang the praises of free expression, the magazine Focus reported:

Rainer Voss, chairman of the German Association of Judges, stated the decision of the Regional Court of Karlsruhe was appropriate, which had sentenced the NPD national chairman Gunter Deckert to two years in prison without parole on Friday. The decision of the court that by denying the gas chamber murders Deckert had committed a dangerous intellectual arson, filled the Judges’ Association chairman with satisfaction…. The chairman of the Central Council of Jews, Ignatz Bubis, stated that the Karlsruhe court thus drew the correct conclusions … given the damage thus incurred, so the Secretary General of the FDP, Guido Westerwelle, the penalty imposed against Deckert is justifiable. Party colleague and Bundestag Vice President Burkhard Hirsch [said]:

“I welcome the judgment.”

[This chapter finishes off with a discussion on how 9/11 was clearly an “inside job” perpetrated by the same forces pushing for a “New [Jew] World Order” — KATANA]

[End of this sample Kindle book. Enjoyed the preview? Buy with 1-Click, or See details for this book in the Kindle Store]

============================================

Click to download a PDF of this post (1.4 MB):

White World Awake — Stopping the Planned Extermination of Our Volk – Intro Ch 1 and 2

Version History

Version 5: Sep 17, 2023  — Improved formatting.

Version 4: Mar 5, 2020  — Re-uploaded images and PDF for katana17.com/wp/ version.

Version 3: Feb 10, 2017  — Added PDF of post for download.

Version 2: Feb 7, 2017  — Added chapter 1 and part of 2.

Version 1: Feb 6, 2017  — Published post.

[In this article, written for the Dec. 1979 edition of the revisionist journal, Instauration, an interesting account is given of the first ever, “Anti-Holocaust” convention, with speakers including: Robert Faurisson from France; John Bennett from Australia; Udo Walendy from Germany; Louis FitzGibbon from Britain; Arthur Butz and James Martin from the US. This was held in Los Angeles and organized by the Institute for Historical Review  —  KATANA.]

Instauration – Dec, 1979

The World’s First

Anti-Holocaust Convention

Holocaust Revisionism

Frequently Asked Questions

By

Joe Belling and Joe Roberts

Sources

The Website of Carlos Whitlock Porter

http://www.cwporter.com/faq.htm

Question 69 partially re-written by C. Porter

Holocaust Revisionism Frequently Asked Questions: Version 105.a

Contents

I. List of Questions [105]

II. Questions and Answers

III. Bibliography — Suggested titles for more detailed answers to the questions.

I

LIST OF QUESTIONS

1) What is historical revisionism?

2) What is the Holocaust?

3) Do revisionists ‘deny the Holocaust?’

4) What aspects of the Holocaust do revisionists believe to be supported by evidence?

5) What aspects of the Holocaust do revisionists believe to be unsupported by evidence?

6) Wasn’t the Holocaust proven at the war crimes trials?

7) Didn’t the Nazis themselves admit there was a program to exterminate the Jews?

8) Do the photographs taken at the Nazi concentration camps at the end of the war prove the Nazis were exterminating people?

9) Do captured German documents prove the Nazi regime was exterminating people?

10) What was ‘the Jewish question?’

11) What was ‘the final solution to the Jewish question’ if it was not extermination?

12) What is the origin of the six million figure?

13) Where did the six million Jews go if they were not killed?

14) Why would concentration camp survivors lie?

15) Why do revisionists not find the eyewitness testimony credible?

16) Why does the U.S. government endorse the Holocaust story?

17) Why does the current German government endorse the Holocaust story?

18) What was the purpose of Nazi concentration camps like Auschwitz, Treblinka, Belzec, Sobibor, and so forth?

19) Why was the Wannsee conference held?

20) What did Himmler refer to in his Posnan speech if not a policy to exterminate the Jews?

21) Weren’t gas chambers for killing people found at some of the Nazi concentration camps when they were captured by the Allied armies?

22) How many Jews died during the war if the 6 million is not the correct number?

23) What did the term ‘selection’ refer to?

24) What did the term ‘special treatment’ refer to?

25) What did the term ‘special action’ refer to?

26) What was Zyklon-B used for?

27) Why would German documents designate Zyklon-B as material for Jewish resettlement?

28) Why did the Nazis equip some of their camps with crematories?

29) Why were Jews required to wear a yellow hexagram on their clothing in Nazi Germany?

30) What role did the Einsatzgruppen play in the German war effort?

31) Why were so many dead bodies found in the Nazi camps when they were captured by Allied troops?

32) Why is the Holocaust story important to Israel?

33) What was Babi Yar?

34) What evidence exists for the massacre at Babi Yar?

35) Why were Jews put into concentration camps by the Nazis?

36) What was the function of Treblinka camp?

37) What evidence is used to support the Treblinka death camp story?

38) Why were Gypsies put into concentration camps?

39) Why is the question of the “gas chambers” important?

40) How did the Holocaust story originate?

41) Are there precedents to what happened to the Jews?

42) What escape routes were available to Jews during the war?

43) Did resistance to German occupation affect Nazi treatment of Jews in territory under their control?

44) How were Jewish ghettos in Nazi territory administered?

45) What role did the Judenratt play in providing labor for the concentration camps?

46) Why did Otto Frank, father of diarist Anne Frank, leave Germany?

47) What was the ‘transfer agreement?’

48) Why did the Nazis initiate a boycott of Jewish shops in Germany?

49) How long did the Nazi boycott last?

50) What events led up to the Kristalnacht pogrom?

51) Why was German Jewry fined to pay for the damage done?

52) What was Hitler’s reaction to news of the pogrom?

53) How many gas chambers were there at Treblinka?

54) What agent was used to kill people in the gas chambers at Treblinka?

55) What evidence is there that Jews were being ‘resettled’ by the Nazis?

56) What consequences have revisionists suffered for their views?

57) What evidence exists for mass murder at Belzec?

58) What evidence exists for mass murder at Chelmno?

59) Where did the bodies of the dead at Treblinka go?

60) How many are claimed to have been killed at Treblinka?

61) What evidence exists for mass murder at Sobibor?

62) How good is testimony as a form of evidence?

63) What was the War Refugee Board?

64) What was the WRB Report?

65) How accurate was the information contained in the WRB Report?

66) What did the Auschwitz camp commander Rudolf Hoess confess about the Auschwitz camp?

67) How was Hoess’ confession obtained?

68) Is torture a way to get a reliable confession?

69) What did a U.S. Senate commission find about the use of torture to obtain confessions for the Malmedy Massacre case?

70) Was the use of torture and threats only used in isolated cases?

71) Why is it nobody protested the use of torture on German prisoners?

72) Where did concentrations of Jews exist in Europe before 1939?

73) What is the origin of the Einsatzgruppe Gas van charge?

74) Why haven’t Germans and others in a position to know come forward to repudiate the extermination story?

75) Why were Jews in Nazi Germany forced to wear a star of David on their clothes?

76) What sources of information did the Western Allies have during the war that failed to verify the extermination story or provide warnings about it?

77) What evidence is there that Zionist leaders did not believe their own propaganda?

78) Do Dr. Robert Faurisson and Fred Leuchter claim Zyklon-B was used as a germicidal antiseptic at Auschwitz?

79) Are accounts of cremation pits at Auschwitz-Birkenau credible?

80) How does the crematory capacity of Auschwitz-Birkenau compare to other Nazi concentration camps where exterminations were not taking place?

81) Why did Jews not return to their homes at the end of the war if they were not killed?

82) What evidence exists for the charge the Nazis used the bodies of Jews to make, among other things, soap, fertilizer, lampshades, gloves, book covers, etc., ad nauseum?

83) What is the explanation for all the hair, shoes, eyeglasses, and other personal items found at Auschwitz?

84) What have forensic examinations of the alleged extermination sites revealed?

85) Why have there not been extensive forensic examinations of the killing centers up to now by the Allied or Soviet governments?

86) Doesn’t the verdict in the Max Taeubner trial indicate the Nazi Einsatzgruppe were killing Jews?

87) What is the Leuchter Report?

88) Is the Leuchter Report flawed? If so, how?

89) Have others corroborated Leuchter’s findings?

90) Why would the Allies have been interested in Auschwitz long before the charges of Jew extermination were leveled?

91) What do Himmler’s diaries reveal about the final solution to the Jewish problem?

92) What do the Auschwitz coke shipment records reveal?

93) How long does it take to cremate a human body?

94) Where are the original Allied Auschwitz air photo negatives?

95) What was the ‘Madagascar Plan’?

96) Who was Kurt Gerstein?

97) How reliable are Gerstein’s confessions?

98) How much ash remains after a body is cremated?

99) What does Dr. Kremer’s diary reveal about his time at Auschwitz?

100) Are the stories of strange Nazi medical experiments true?

101) Did Hitler order the Jews be exterminated?

102) Did Himmler order the gas chambers be destroyed?

103) How many people survived being imprisoned at Auschwitz?

104) What is the Mueller document?

105) Do Holocaust revisionists wish to incite racial hatred?

___________________________

II

Answers

1) What is historical revisionism?

Ans: As more facts about past events come to light, it becomes necessary to re-evaluate them taking the new information into account. All history is constantly being reviewed. It is a natural process. It is an important process. The only way to judge the future is to accurately compare current trends and events to those of earlier times. It has been said that the good thing about experience is that one can recognize a mistake when it is made again. So it is with history, the sum of recorded human experience. Historical revisionism is the process of changing the human record so that it more accurately represents events as they actually occurred. Often there is resistance to the process of bringing history in accord with the facts. The reason for this is history is not simply a record of events, but is also a resource from which a world view is drawn. A re-examination or re-evaluation of important historical events can be viewed as a threat to the political status quo and to interests upon whose power partially rests the established view of these events. It has also been said that historians have the power to upset everything. Vested interests take a dim view of having everything upset.

Ref: “A few facts about the INSTITUTE FOR HISTORICAL REVIEW.” pamphlet / IHR

2) What is the Holocaust?

Ans: The Holocaust, or Shoah, is the term used to label the fate of the Jews of Europe at the hands of the Nazis during World War Two. It is a broad term used to cover all events involving Europe’s Jews usually between 1933 and 1945, and especially during the six year period between November 1938 (Kristallnacht) and November 1944 (alleged Himmler order to stop the Final Solution program). Six extermination centers are said to have been established between 1941 and 1943 by the Nazis in Poland for the purpose of killing Jews and “other minorities.” The number of Jews killed by the Nazis during this period is generally estimated to have been six million.

Ans: “The Holocaust” : An all-encompassing neologism used in reference to the (alleged) extermination of European Jews by the Nazis during World War Two. Use of the term in this context presumes the following:

(1) The Nazis implemented and succeeded in a premeditated plan to destroy (not resettle) European Jewry,

(2) Approximately six million or more Jews perished as a result, and

(3) A majority of these were killed by use of poison gas (Zyklon B) [and internal combustion engine exhaust] in gas chambers built for the purpose of taking human life. […]

Ref: “Worldwide Growth and Impact of ‘Holocaust’ Revisionism” — IHR Special Report 1985

3) Do revisionists ‘deny the Holocaust’?

Ans: The phrase “Holocaust denial” was invented by a Holoscribe named Deborah Lipstadt who occupies the Dorot Chair in Modern Jewish and Holocaust Studies at Emory University. Its purpose is to imply Holocaust revisionists are not rational in their opinions. Dr. Lipstadt believes the current view of the Holocaust cannot be questioned and debate on the topic cannot be tolerated. To this end she created the epithet “Holocaust denier.”

Revisionists are skeptical of postwar testimony of gas chambers at the Nazi concentration camps and are of the opinion the six million figure is a baseless exaggeration. It is not a matter of denying anything. The issue is whether this emotionally charged and politically important event can be examined critically. Researchers — some professional, some amateur — have been questioning aspects of the Nazi extermination story since the war ended fifty years ago.

The evidence has been difficult to obtain, but in the last twenty-five years enough has been gathered to conclude the gas chamber story is definitely false and the Nazi program to kill the Jews is a myth. The problem that has arisen is established political interests have done their best to suppress this research and prevent the evidence to support these startling conclusions from being presented to the general public.

Ref: Lipstadt; Irving; Butz; Faurisson; Mattogno; Others.

4) What aspects of the Holocaust do revisionists believe to be supported by evidence?

Ans: Here is a summary of what happened to the Jews: Before the war, the Nazis encouraged emigration of German Jewry. Laws were instituted and governmental pressures were brought to bear to make life more difficult for Jews in many professions which Jews came to dominate in the Weimar Republic. The “Ha’avara” or transfer agreement was reached with Zionist leaders to facilitate the emigration of German Jews to Palestine. Emigrating Jews very often were forced to abandon much of their wealth when they left Germany.

After the defeat of France, a plan was discussed by the Nazis to remove the Jews from Europe to the French colony on Madagascar. This plan was soon dropped in favor of a resettlement plan which transferred Jews into ghettos and work camps inside Soviet territory following the invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941. This was to be the first stage toward the ultimate creation of a Jewish homeland after the war. As the Germans invaded and the Russians retreated, large shifts in population occurred in eastern Europe. This shift went from west to east. Tens of millions of people were involved. Many were forcibly deported into the Russian interior. Others willingly accompanied the Communists as the Red Army retreated eastward.

General Gehlen estimated in his memoirs that a third of the population in the areas the German army was to occupy was evacuated eastward ahead of the German invasion. Since Jews were viewed by many eastern Europeans as willing accomplices of the Communists who had occupied the area in the years and months preceding the German assault, pogroms occurred after the retreat of the Red Army and prior to arrival of the German army. Many of these assaults on local Jews were in reaction to the murdering of political prisoners by the Soviet police as they prepared to retreat. These events left areas of eastern Europe, now occupied by the German Wehrmacht and under Nazi administration depopulated. The Nazis took the situation as an opportunity to remove Jews eastward into the areas abandoned during the Soviet retreat. Jews were assembled at train terminals and deported to ghettos and concentration camps established for them in the east. Some Jews were not deported, however, due to the fact their work was considered too important to the German war effort.

A result of the tremendous movement of people is many families and communities were scattered and people lost contact with one another. Many of these contacts were not reestablished after the war due to a multitude of reasons the greatest of which were the splitting of Europe in two after the war and the establishment of the state of Israel. Guerrilla groups were formed to fight the Nazi occupation. A campaign of sabotage and assassination by these groups was countered by repression on the part of the occupiers in the form of the Einsatz groups. The Einsatzgruppe fought the partisans in ways which included reprisal shooting of civilians. Jews were believed to make up the majority of partisans. They were also the people targeted for reprisals. These reprisals took several forms which included the shooting of hostages or their deportation to ghettos and concentration camps.

During the summer of 1942 a major typhus epidemic swept the Nazi concentration camp system. The most severely affected camp was Auschwitz camp in Poland. The epidemic continued for many months. Crematories were built in some of the concentration camps as part of hygienic measures established to fight the epidemics. The fumigant Zyklon B was used to exterminate the typhus-bearing body louse which spread the disease. The total number of Jews and others who died in the camps is not known, but the total is probably in the hundreds of thousands.

As the Germans suffered military reversals in 1944 and 1945, the Nazis took many who were in labor camps with them as they retreated westward. Others were left behind. As this happened, tens of millions of people were again uprooted as civilians abandoned almost everything in an effort to escape the approaching Red Army. The migration in 1941-42 was eastward. In 1944-45 it was westward. In the beginning, Europe’s Jewish communities were concentrated in eastern Europe.

By the end of the war, Europe’s Jews were still in eastern Europe, but the communities were shattered. Tens of millions of people, particularly Germans and Jews were left homeless by the war. As a result, millions of Jews emigrated. Many settled in Palestine. Many more moved to North America. Others settled in Australia, South America, and South Africa. The war was a boon for the Zionist movement. The Holocaust become the founding myth of modern day Israel. As such it became an excuse for behavior of the Israelis which would have been inexcusable. It also became the excuse for billions of dollars in aid and “reparations” being sent to Israel from Germany and the United States even though Israel did not exist during the war and its citizens were not subject to Nazi repression. Much of the aid the new Zionist state was to receive was for the purpose of resettling European refugees who did not want to go there, but had little alternative at the time.

Ref: A.R. Butz 1976; Solzhenitsyn 1973; Walter N.Sanning 1983; Dr. Wilhelm Staeglich 1986; Peter Calvocoressi & Guy Wint 1972; Ernst Klee, Willi Dressen, and Volker Riess 1991; Alfred M. De Zayas 1989; Carlo Mattogno 1994; George W. Robnett 1968; Segev 1994

5) What aspects of the Holocaust do revisionists believe to be unsupported by evidence?

Ans: While there is no universal agreement on many aspects of WWII and the Holocaust, but one might be classified as a Holocaust revisionist if one is skeptical of the following:

* Hitler ordered the extermination of the Jews in writing, orally, or through mental telepathy.

* The Nazis cremated 1,500,000 to 4,000,000 bodies at Auschwitz/Birkenau in less than two years using between 30 and 52 single-body crematory ovens and were able to keep it all a secret until late 1944 despite the fact Auschwitz was a major bombing target photographed by American planes throughout that year.

* The Nazis were able to destroy all documentation of the extermination program before the total German surrender in mid 1945. This despite the fact all German secret codes had been broken by the British and many SS communications had been intercepted by them.

6) Wasn’t the Holocaust proven at the war crimes trials?

Ans: No.

The Nuremberg Military Trials (NMT) and International Military Trials (IMT) set out to prove nothing. The crimes themselves were never an issue. The courts took judicial notice of the crimes. This means the crimes were assumed to be true based purely on the allegations. No proof was needed. The war crimes tribunals also suspended the normal rules of evidence. They accepted into evidence documents, hearsay testimony, and other material which would never be accepted in anything other than a sham court. The point of the tribunals was to demonstrate the moral authority of the new world powers.

In demonizing the Nazi regime through these trials England, France, The United States, and the U.S.S.R secured their positions as the occupiers of Germany and justified the annexation of German territory along with the expulsions of millions of Germans into the dismembered rump Germany. Allied plans for the future of Germany at that time included the de- industrialization of Germany. The standard of living was to be the lowest in Europe. The economy was to be agrarian despite the fact it being the most densely populated nation on the continent. In this context, it had to be shown to the world and the Germans themselves that they were evil and deserved the horrendous treatment they were to receive. The country was to be “de-Nazified” and reduced to the point where Germany could “never threaten world peace again.” Since the nature of the war crimes trials was purely political, nothing that went into them or came out of them should be taken at face value.

Ref: A.R. Butz 1976; Alfred M. De Zayas 1989; Dr. Wilhelm Staeglich 1986; Carlos Whitlock Porter 1988

7) Didn’t the Nazis themselves admit there was a program to exterminate the Jews?

Ans: Since the war crimes courts took judicial notice of the crimes, pleading innocent on the basis the crime did not occur was not an option. The strategy of many defendants was demonstrate non-involvement or distance themselves from the alleged crime. Backbiting and finger- pointing were also common. In order to save their lives, the accused placed blame on others- particularly people who were either dead, or had evaded capture by the Allies. The jailers of the Nazis used torture and threats of torture to obtain many confessions. Sometimes threats against the prisoners’ families were made. For some, like Rudolf Hoess, sleep deprivation was used to get them to sign confessions. The contents of confessions such as those by Hoess and Kurt Gerstein are enough to simply throw them out as evidence. They contain internal contradictions, absurdities, and facts that are verifiably false. Nevertheless most high Nazi officials who survived to be tried disputed the charge that the final solution to the Jewish question involved their elimination though mass murder. Julius Streicher stated he believed it was technically impossible to kill that many people and simply did not believe it was true or even attempted.

Ref: A.R. Butz 1976; Henri Roques 1989; Dr. Wilhelm Staeglich 1986; Carlos Whitlock Porter 1988; Dietrich Ziemssen 1952; John Sack 1993; Adrian Priessinger 1994; Dr. Robert Faurisson JHR Vol.7 No.4 1986-87 Mark Weber JHR Vol. 12 No.2 1992.

8) Do the photographs taken at the Nazi concentration camps at the end of the war prove the Nazis were exterminating people?

Ans: How often have we heard the phrase “bodies stacked like cordwood”? Certainly the photos of the sickening conditions in some of the Nazi concentration camps in the spring of 1945 were not faked, but they were taken out of context. Many concentration camp prisoners survived the war in very good physical condition. Others died for a variety of reasons. As World War Two approached its conclusion in Europe, Germany was a chaotic mess. The Allies controlled the sky all over Germany. One of the missions of the Allied pilots was to disrupt German communications as much as possible. This meant they shot at just about anything that moved. Trains with supplies bound to concentration camps were attacked just like any other train. Rail lines, roads, bridges, and airstrips were bombed and destroyed to prevent the supply and movement of the German army. As Germany collapsed upon itself, it suffered from many shortages. This included medicine, food and fuel. Not being the highest priority, concentration camps were affected as well. Some camps had not received supplies for days before the British or American troops arrived. Add to this the Germans retreat.

Prisoners were evacuated from labor camps near the fronts and moved to other camps. As a result, the remaining camps became extremely overcrowded. Combine the overcrowding with the lack of food and medicine. Conditions became perfect for the outbreak of epidemics. This is what happened. Bergen Belsen which had been designed by the SS as a sick camp in the waning days of the war became the destination of many prisoners who were already sick from other camps. A typhus epidemic was raging there when the British captured the camp where an uncounted number — usually estimated to be between 10,000 and 30,000 — of prisoners died primarily from disease.

Similar circumstances contributed to the awful conditions discovered at Dachau, Buchenwald, and several other concentration camps. Germany’s enemies used the scenes of dead and dying prisoners as documentary evidence of German malevolence. While the pictures are authentic, the films of bodies being bulldozed into trench graves do not tell the whole story. There was a war going on. It is in this context that these pictures need to be viewed. There are several reasons the Germans didn’t simply release those in the camps. Many of the inmates were common criminals. Many were politically anti-German or anti-Nazi. Those infected with disease posed the threat of spreading the epidemics into the countryside if allowed to roam Germany. The healthy prisoners had nowhere to go. There was a war raging all around. Their homes were on the other side of the battle lines. Additionally, the likelihood that freed prisoners would form criminal gangs was too high for them to be released. Many were imprisoned because they were considered risks to security to begin with. Releasing them to roam the countryside was out of the question.

Ref: A.R. Butz; Staeglich; Porter; John Cobden 1991

9) Do captured German documents prove the Nazi regime was exterminating people?

Ans: No.

Quite the opposite is true. Documents such as Wannsee Protocol state quite clearly that the final solution to the Jewish question was a program of evacuation and resettlement in the East. The conditions under which this population transfer took place were not ideal and were in some cases inhumane or even cruel. Executions took place. Many families and communities were shattered in the process. It is shameful, but something very different from an intentional mass murder of the Jews.

Other documents which are erroneously presented to support the thesis extermination was the intent of the resettlement program generally depend on postwar interpretation of supposed “code words” the SS used. The interpretation of these code words as indicating there was a policy to murder the Jews depend on postwar testimony. This means the proof is not in the documents but in the testimony. In addition to the resettlement program documents, Einsatzgruppe records are also offered as proof of an extermination program which targeted Jews. The aim of the Einsatzgruppe was to fight communist guerrillas inside captured Soviet territory. Some partisan groups were largely ethnically Jewish. The Einsatzgruppe targeted Jewish civilians for reprisals when partisans committed acts of sabotage or murder.

The Einsatzgruppe documents indicate hundreds of thousands of Jews were killed. Some historians, however, question the accuracy and even the authenticity of many of these records since the source of these is Stalin’s Soviet Union. There is definitely a subset of documents offered as proof of an extermination program that are forgeries produced for the war crimes trials. These exist in the form of “certified copies” of documents the originals of which are nowhere to be found. One of the most notable examples of this type of document is the Franke-Gricksch “Resettlement-Action Report”.

A final category of suspicious documents are those which appear damning but for some odd reason the signer of the documents was not prosecuted even though he was in Allied custody. Dr. Butz discusses a case concerning documents relating to the deportation of Hungary’s Jews where the signer was simply let go. The implication here is the Allies agreed to let the Nazi official go in exchange for him signing some bogus documents. The documents could then be used as evidence against a “bigger” Nazi.

Ref: Renk; Butz; Staeglich; Porter; Lenski

10) What was ‘the Jewish question?’

Ans: The Jewish question was:

‘What was to be done with an ethnic minority with no homeland of its own which refuses to assimilate into the dominant German culture?’.

Ref: Irving; Staeglich; Butz

11) What was ‘the final solution to the Jewish question’ if it was not extermination?

Ans: The Wannsee Protocol states the following:

II […] The primary responsibility for the administrative handling of the Final Solution of the Jewish Problem will rest with the Reich Leader SS and the Chief of the German Police […] — regardless of geographic boundaries. […] The most important aspects are:

a. Forcing the Jews out of the various fields of the community life of the German people.

b. Forcing the Jews out of the living space of the German people. In execution of these efforts there was undertaken — as the only possible provisional solution — the acceleration of the emigration of the Jews from Reich territory on an intensified and methodical scale.[…]

III The emigration program has now been replaced by the evacuation of the Jews to the East as a further solution possibility, in accordance with previous authorization by the Fuehrer. […]

Because the retreating Soviets had depopulated areas later captured by the advancing Nazis in 1941 by as much as a third, or twenty-two million people, the Nazis leadership decided to expel the Jews under their control to ghettos and labor camps in the east as a step toward a final expulsion to a Jewish homeland/reservation/ghetto-nation which was to be set up outside Europe after the war. The final solution was the expulsion of all Jews from Europe, not their murder. Even so, it did not matter to the Nazis if people died in the process. The Nazis believed such a move was needed because Jews were viewed as a threat to national morale and security during the war.

Ref: Butz; Staeglich;

12) What is the origin of the six million figure?

Ans: The six million figure is not based on any body count, records, or census. The number came into use during the war in Zionist propaganda and appears to have symbolic numerological significance. When the digits in six million are summed they add up to six. Six million is six times ten raised to the sixth power. In numerology the number six is considered ‘perfect’. Six is the number of days God used to create the earth in the story of creation in the book of Genesis. It holds a special significance for the Jews who use the hexagram as their symbol. In the Holocaust itself, the six million figure was used in propaganda emanating from Zionist and Jewish organizations as early as 1941. Before the Russian Bolshevic revolution, anti-Czarist propaganda generated by Jews used the six million figure in describing the magnitude of the plight of Russian Jews under the Czar. The chief rabbi of Britain recently called for the re-examination of the six million figure which he considered totally arbitrary in nature.

Ref: Butz;

13) Where did the six million Jews go if they were not killed?

Ans: Since the six million number is not based on a census or survey or any other type of documentation, this question cannot be answered in an accounting ‘balance sheet’ type manner. However, a general explanation is possible. There are several circumstances one has to keep in mind when considering what happened to the Jews of Europe between 1939 and 1948. Before the outbreak of the war, the Jews of Europe were concentrated in the east. Poland, The Soviet Union, Hungary, and other countries that fell into the Soviet sphere of influence after the war contained the bulk of the population in question. Since the very definition of Jew changed with the governments, no accounting of how many Jews remained in these areas after the defeat of Nazi Germany is possible, but everything indicates a large Jewish population remained after the end of the war.

During the war, populations in eastern Europe shifted several times. In 1939, Nazi Germany invaded Poland and occupied the western half. Stalin’s U.S.S.R. occupied the eastern half. During the period that followed, many Jews shifted to the Soviet half. The Russians deported millions of people into the Russian interior ahead of the German invasion. When Nazi Germany attacked The U.S.S.R. in 1941, the German army found that the areas they were to occupied had been depopulated by the Soviets of a third of its people. The Germans estimate 22 million people were moved eastward into the Soviet interior from Poland, Ukraine, White Russia, the Baltic States and other regions the Germans were to temporarily take from the Soviets. As the Communists retreated, the Soviet secret police, known under the acronyms NKVD and OGPU, murdered thousands of political prisoners in Poland, the Baltic states, and Ukraine. In reaction to these murders the local populations killed many Jews because the Jews were viewed as collaborators in the Communist occupation and the suppression of nationalist organizations.

In late 1941, the Nazis began deporting Jews from central and eastern Europe into the areas captured from the Soviets. These were generally concentrated into Ghettos and labor camps. The conditions under which these expulsions took place were far from ideal and many thousands died in the process. In addition, over one million Jews are believed to be serving in the Red Army during the time with over one hundred thousand dying while in uniform. As the Germans retreated in 1944 and 1945, millions of people from the east came with them. Some came willingly in order to avoid the Red Army. Others, mostly conscripted for labor, were forcibly evacuated. Millions of people, mostly ethnic Germans, died during this collapse of Nazi Germany through expulsions that came during and after the defeat as part of the brutal occupation of the Allies.

Germany lost a fourth of its territory. Poland was shifted westward. The Baltic countries would not regain their independence for decades. After Germany’s surrender, Europe was a chaotic mess with millions of refugees from scattered communities wandering in all directions. There was no way to determine how many Jews had died at that point despite the fact that the six million figure had been part of the anti-German propaganda long before the war was over. During the war years and the first years after the war, millions of people — Jews included — left Europe for other parts of the world including the U.S., the Middle East, Australia, Canada, South America, and South Africa. In the case of the Jews, there were organizations assisting their relocation, particularly to British- controlled Palestine. It is very easy to claim a European Jewish population on eleven million in 1939 and a Jewish population of five million in 1945, but there is no way to verify either number. Nevertheless, simply due the fact that there were massive shifts in population in the areas where Jews were most concentrated and much of the most ruthless and destructive warfare was practiced in eastern Europe, it is very likely Jewish casualties were heavy and may have exceeded one million dead. The remainder of the ‘missing’ were absorbed into the U.S.S.R. or moved to The U.S., Palestine/Israel, Argentina, South Africa and other countries.

Ref: Sanning; Butz; Wint

14) Why would concentration camp survivors lie about their treatment?

Ans: There are a variety of reasons former prisoners of the Nazis would lie about their treatment.

A. Many concentration camp inmates were imprisoned not simply for ethnic reasons. They were there because they were common criminals. Some of these people were not honest to begin with and used this opportunity to turn the tables on their former captors. It is a way to take revenge and to distract attention away from their own crimes.

B. Many concentration camp inmates were there for political reasons — particularly communists. They might lie for ideological reasons. Alleging atrocities and abuse would help to discredit the Nazi regime and system that imprisoned them. On a more personal level, communists and Jews who spent the war in a camp working for the Nazis need to justify their actions while in custody. This usually entailed working in German shops and factories for the Germans. Claiming heavy abuse, or involvement in sabotage are ways of satisfying questions of personal political hygiene.

C. Some former prisoners testified to abuse after their liberation from the Nazis simply because that was what was expected of them from their liberators. In the postwar trials some people became paid professional prosecution witnesses who were willing to testify to just about anything. Perjury by prosecution witnesses was not something that was punished-instead it was often encouraged.

Ref: Segev; Butz; Staeglich

15) Why do revisionists not find the eyewitness testimony credible?

Ans: Eyewitness testimony, even when it is not politically motivated, is the lowest quality of evidence. Memory is a very malleable thing even under normal circumstances. In the highly charged atmosphere of the ideological conflict that destroyed a major part of Europe, the testimony of people who have good reason to hold a grudge should be highly suspect and examined carefully.

When inspected critically, many of the cornerstone testimonies regarding the Holocaust contain many factual errors and absurdities. Another important point to consider is the circumstances under which the testimonies — particularly those of the Nazis — were obtained.

Torture was used in some cases to obtain “confessions.” In others, threats were made against the lives and health of members of the “war criminal’s” family. Under the conditions that prevailed at the end of the war, the Allied governments could obtain any sort of testimony they wanted to get. And they did. It is not just the revisionists who view the supposed eyewitness testimony with caution; authors like Arno Mayer, J.C. Pressac, and Tom Segev also are aware of just how unreliable “survivor” and other postwar testimony is. Despite this, these authors regard this testimony to be, in a general sense, true even though they are exaggerated, or contain hearsay information.

Ref: Butz; Mayer; Pressac; Porter; Lenski

16) Why does the U.S. government endorse the Holocaust story?

Ans: World War Two was the event which drew the United States back onto the global political scene after following a politically neutral foreign policy since the end of World War I. It defined the United States as the world’s economic and military superpower, with only the Stalinist U.S.S.R. as a major competitor. The U.S. began to follow an ideologically messianic foreign policy under Roosevelt which sought to internationalize the New Deal. This political messianism solidified and became more sharply defined under Truman and the development of the Cold War. Part of the justification for the international role the U.S. has played has been its new obligation to fight ‘evil’ regimes and protect ‘democratic’ ones. The paradigm for the U.S. role in international politics is its involvement in W.W.II and the paradigm for the ‘evil’ it is fighting is Hitler and Nazi Germany — particularly as it has become defined in its attempt to exterminate the Jews.

Since Stalin, our ally, could be argued to be every bit as evil as Hitler, a reason had to found to define what made Nazi Germany so much more evil than Soviet Russia. The idea that we fought Germany because Hitler declared war after extensive U.S. provocation does not serve an active interventionist policy. The Holocaust serves the purpose of justifying U.S. political messianism which insisted on the unconditional surrender of Germany, bombed German cities into ruins, suppressed German economic recovery for three years after the surrender, and put the country under U.S. military occupation for nearly fifty more. Questioning the Holocaust therefore would also be a round-about threat to messianic myth which drives U.S. interventionist foreign policy.

There are other factors involved in the U.S. endorsement of the Holocaust which involve its prosecution of ‘Nazi war criminals’ at the show trials that followed the war; Except for the alleged attempt to exterminate the Jews, the U.S., British, and the Soviets committed all of the same crimes they accused and hanged the Nazis for. Of course, not least of all, the political power wielded by the ‘AIPAC’ and other branches of the ‘Jewish lobby’ work to ride herd on the U.S. government when it feels its interests are threatened. The Holocaust is Zionism’s most important political tool and weapon.

Ref: Charmley; Arnold; Butz; Lipstadt; Segev

17) Why does the current German government endorse the Holocaust story?

Ans: The postwar German government of West Germany, based in Bonn, which has become the government of a reunified Germany has endorsed and protects the Holocaust story by law because West Germany wished to rejoin the community of nations that had rejected it during the war years. In order to do that West Germany had to demonstrate its rejection of its Nazi past.

Part of this act of contrition is its recognition and support of the Zionist state of Israel which states in its declaration of independence that the reason for its foundation was the Holocaust. Any rejection of the Holocaust story by the German government would be regarded as a sign of backsliding by the United States, Israel, the international Jewish lobby organizations, such as the World Jewish Congress, and other interested parties. In exchange Germany has again been allowed to become a major political and economic force in Europe.

The myth that the Nazi regime was composed of a few thugs who intimidated the German nation and that therefore Germans are not collectively guilty for the sins of Nazi Germany has been promulgated as part of the new German political order. A re- examination of the twelve years of Nazi rule is viewed by the German establishment as potentially having only negative results. It prefers the status quo where it pretends to be a new Germany which has rejected its past rather than a creature of the Allied occupying powers.

Ref: Segev

18) What was the purpose of Nazi concentration camps like Auschwitz, Treblinka, Belzec, Sobibor, and so forth?

Ans: The Nazi concentration camp system served as a source of labor and income for the SS which rented prison labor to private industry. It was a prison system for common criminals and political enemies. Auschwitz and Birkenau held many unemployed prisoners, many of them with no job skills or too sick to work. These included inmates with chronic illnesses such as tuberculosis. Some camps were designated transit camps where Jews being resettled in ghettos in the East were deloused before being sent on to their final destinations. In some cases Jews were placed in quarantine before being sent to their final destinations to prevent the introduction of diseases like typhus into the Eastern ghettos. This is not to say many Poles, Gypsies, and others did not die in the Nazi concentration camps. They did, but the context of their deaths is quite different than the one usually portrayed.

Ref: Butz; Staeglich; Ball; Levi

19) Why was the Wannsee conference held?

Ans: Because of the rapid acquisition of huge amounts of territory which had been depopulated by the retreating communists, the Nazi leadership saw this as an opportunity to expel the Jews. Germany now had control of an area into which to put them until the end of the war. Because of the war, an international boycott of German goods and limits on immigration in Palestine and other areas, Germany had difficulty getting the Jews to emigrate. In addition, the defeat of Poland in 1939, and the annexation of Austria, and parts of Czechoslovakia before that brought millions of additional Jews under German control.

The Wannsee conference was where Germany’s new policy toward the Jews was outlined. The Nazis believed the Jews constituted a security risk due to the ‘stab in the back’ of World War One in which they blamed the Jews for Germany’s defeat. By expelling and isolating the Jews the Nazis hoped, among other things, to keep the Jews from agitating inside Germany and detrimentally affecting the morale of the country. They also believed Jews could not be assimilated and were a negative cultural influence. In the process of expulsion, many of the Jews being relocated would also be put to work on various projects related to the war effort in the east and according to the Wannsee protocol many were expected die in the process. After the war, it was planned that a homeland for the Jews would be created outside of Europe through an international agreement. The Jews resettled in Russia, would be relocated once again to this new, remote homeland once this expected agreement was reached.

Ref: Staeglich; Butz.

20) What did Himmler refer to in his Posnan speech if not a policy of killing the Jews?

Ans: The quote from the October 4, 1943 Himmler Posnan speech usually cited as evidence that the Nazis were attempting to exterminate the Jews is this:

‘I am referring to the evacuation of the Jew, the annihilation of the Jewish people. This is one of these things that are easily said. “The Jewish people is going to be annihilated,” says every party member. “Sure, it is our program, elimination of the Jews, annihilation — we’ll take care of it.” And then they all come trudging, 80 million worthy Germans, and every one has one decent Jew. Sure, the others are swine, but this one is an A-1 Jew. Of all those who talk this way, not one has been through it. Most of you must know what it means to see a hundred corpses lie side by side, or five hundred, or a thousand. To have stuck this out and — excepting cases of human weakness — to have kept our integrity, that is what has made us hard. In our history, this is an unwritten and never-to- be-written page of glory, for we know how difficult we would have made ourselves if today — amid the bombing raids, the hardships and the deprivations of war — we still had the Jews in every city as secret saboteurs, agitators, and demagogues. If the Jews still ensconced in the body of the German nation, we probably would have reached the 1916-17 stage by now.’

Some revisionists question the authenticity of the Posnan speech, while others believe it to be authentic. In any case, the meaning of this one paragraph taken from a long, rambling speech by Himmler to SS officials is ambiguous. Himmler does not mention gas chambers, or death camps, or specifically to mass killings. The meaning of this passage is unclear. Himmler speaks of large numbers of corpses and the “annihilation” of the Jews, but he also makes reference to “bombing raids, the hardships and the deprivations of war” which would also produce large numbers of corpses. Himmler does not say whose corpses are lying side by side.

In 1943 Nazi Germany had suffered a major reversal of fortune on the Russian front. The SS was involved in fighting the Red Army and partisan guerrillas behind the front. To say Himmler is talking about killing large numbers of Jews in gas chambers is reading a lot into the text of this one paragraph. The point Himmler appears to be making in this quote is though expelling the Jews is a difficult, thankless task, but if it had not been done German morale would be low and Germany would have be suing for peace with the Russians because of internal disorder caused by the Jews. This quote should be taken in the context of the Nazi myth of the Jews stabbing Germany in the back and causing its defeat in World War I.

Ref: Butz; Lipstadt; Steiner; Staeglich; Mattogno

21) Weren’t gas chambers for killing people found at some of the Nazi concentration camps when they were captured by the Allied armies?

Ans: No.

The ‘gas chambers’ on display at Dachau and Auschwitz were originally crematory morgues. The Dachau crematory morgue was altered by the U.S. Army into a mock up ‘gas chamber disguised as a shower’ for ‘educational’ purposes. The one at Majdanek was a delousing chamber for the fumigation of mattresses and other material. Several forensic examinations of these rooms and others which are now in ruins conclude none of these facilities could have been used as execution chambers for the killing of large numbers of people. Their designs are all wrong. Despite the fact that these ‘reconstructions’ are displayed to hundreds of thousands of tourists every year, Holocaust historians such as Arno Mayer and Hugh Trevor-Roper admit nobody knows what the gas chambers looked like or how they operated. This is no reason not to believe the gas chambers are a myth according to these two authors, but others take a more skeptical view.

Ref: Luetcher; Lueftl; Rudolf; Gauss; Pressac; Mayer; Klee

22) How many Jews died during the war if the 6 million is not the correct number?

Ans: This is not known, but several demographic studies indicate the number of Jews who lost their lives in the war from all causes is somewhere around one million persons. There are several difficulties in determining what the Jewish population is at any point in time. First, a definition has to be agreed upon. If the definition is religious, then a population decrease might be attributable to conversions to other faiths. Are those who no longer practice any religion to be counted? Once a definition is determined, how does one go about counting the population? Between 1939 when the Germans invaded Poland and the German surrender in 1945 uncounted millions of people were displaced by the war. People who lived in Poland in 1939 were in the U.S.S.R in 1945 and they didn’t have to move at all.

National borders were redrawn all over eastern Europe. In any case, taking a Jewish census was not a top priority in 1945 and none was taken. Most estimates of Jewish losses in Europe are baseless, or at least flawed in that they do not include Jewish population increases due to immigration in areas outside Europe during the 1930’s through the 1950’s. Even today in a world without the restrictions in communication that existed in the preceding five decades estimates in world Jewish population vary by several million persons depending on who is doing the estimating and how and why the guesses are being made.

Ref: Butz; Sanning; Nordling

23) What did the term ‘selection’ refer to?

Ans: Holocaust literature often uses ‘selection’ as meaning a process in which prisoners were segregated into a group that would be put to work and a group that would be put to death. Of course, the process of sorting prisoners by sex and age before the delousing procedure was a standard and implied nothing sinister since the prisoners had to strip in order to take a shower. The Nazi concentration camps generally segregated prisoners by sex with children under 14 staying with their mothers if an entire family was put into the camp. Prisoners were also selected and organized by the type of work that was assigned to them. Selections also took place when prisoners were to be reassigned to other camps, or were to be released.

Many who spent time in Auschwitz served sentences of less than a year and went home after completing their sentence. In addition sick prisoners were triaged and sent to hospital blocks. Many of these procedures required a quick visual examination by an SS doctor who to part in the camp selections. The ‘selection’ process was part of routine camp procedures and has since been given an evil meaning in survivor testimony and Holocaust literature.

Ref: Butz; Staeglich

24) What did the term ‘special treatment’ refer to?

Ans: Several German words with the ‘Sonder’ or ‘special’ prefix have been designated as code words in the Holocaust lexicon. ‘Sonderbehandlung’ can mean many different things in German depending on the context. In many documents in the Auschwitz files, the ‘Sonder’ prefix designated something that had to do with the hygienic regimen that was instituted in the camps after the epidemics of the summer of 1942. There was ‘special action’, ‘special treatment’, ‘baths for special purpose’ and other terms which referred specifically to procedures put in place to control body lice and the spread of typhus.

Ref: Mattogno; Butz

25) What did the term ‘special action’ refer to?

Ans: The diary of SS doctor Josef Kremer makes repeated references to his taking part in ‘special actions’ while he was assigned to duty at Auschwitz during the Fall of 1942. This was during the worst time of the typhus epidemic at that camp. While his diary does not make clear what he was doing during one of these special actions, it appears his duty was one of giving clinical (i.e. visual) examinations to groups of prisoners being transferred from other camps and sub-camps of Auschwitz (e.g. Birkenau.) Because of the typhus epidemic many of prisoners were in very bad shape and prompted Kremer to record the horrible conditions that prevailed in the camp at the time. In his private diary he referred to Auschwitz as the butt hole of the world and compared it to Dante’s Inferno. A ‘special action’ could refer to any number of activities at the camp. The use of this term in German refers to any unscheduled activities or duties performed that were outside the norm.

Ref: Mattogno; Butz; Faurisson; Gilbert; Klee

26) What is Zyklon-B used for?

Ans: Zykon-B is a commercially made fumigant designed to rid man-made structures, such as buildings, ships, silos, etc. of destructive pests including moths, rodents, termites, and — most importantly during World War II — the typhus-bearing body louse. Many of the Nazi concentration camps suffered from typhus epidemics which killed hundreds of thousands of prisoners. Camp staff members also became sick and died from typhus. To control the epidemics, a hygienic regimen was instituted which included the periodic fumigation of camp buildings with Zyklon-B. Decontamination facilities were also built to delouse clothing, luggage, etc. Some of these facilities used steam, others used Zyklon-B.

The hygienic practices also included shaving the hair of incoming prisoners and forcing them to take a shower as part of a delousing procedure. Large shipments of the fumigant was sent to many of the Nazi concentration camps and not just to the alleged ‘death camps.’ So the presence of Zyklon-B in a camp is not an indication that it was there to be used to gas prisoners. Zyklon-B is a fumigant. There was a hygienic need for a fumigant in the camps. It’s use in the camps is not evidence of a genocide program. In fact, it is just the opposite. Zykon-B was used in an effort to save the lives and health of camp inmates and staff.

Ref: Gauss; Butz; Faurisson; Lipstadt; Pressac; Leuchter; Mattogno

27) Why would German documents designate Zyklon-B as material for Jewish resettlement?

Ans: The resettlement of Jews by the Nazis meant they would have to be moved to housing in the east. This housing in some cases needed to be fumigated before it was turned over the resettled Jews. Transit camps were also set up where Jews, and their luggage, being transported eastward, would be deloused before being sent to their final destinations. Since the delousing of Jews and their belongings and the fumigation of buildings was part of the resettlement process, there is nothing unusual in the fact in some documents the fumigant Zyklon-B would be labeled ‘material for Jewish resettlement.’

Ref: Butz; Staeglich; Sanning

28) Why did the Nazis equip some of their camps with crematories?

Ans: From 1942 until the end of the War in 1945, the SS fought epidemics of typhus and other diseases in the concentration camps. One of the largest camps and the one hardest hit by the epidemic was Auschwitz and its satellite camps. An average of about one hundred prisoners, out of population of around fifty thousand, died there every day. The crematories were built as a sanitary measure to dispose of the bodies of the dead. Auschwitz/Birkenau’s crematories were completed during the first half of 1943 after it was decided to expand the camp to hold two hundred thousand prisoners. This decision and the already high death rate at the camp is why the four crematory facilities were built there.

Many of the concentration camps had crematories and many did not. Included in those that did not is Treblinka which is alleged to have been an extermination camp. The conclusion that has to be drawn is the presence of crematories is not an indication of the existence of gas chambers or an extermination program. Several studies of the crematories conclude these facilities were designed to handle the camp disease mortality rate and little more.

Ref: Mattogno; Butz

29) Why were Jews required to wear a yellow hexagram on their clothing in Nazi Germany?

Ans: From the time the Hitler became Chancellor, the policy of the Nazi regime was to institute laws which would politically, socially, and economically isolate the Jews of Germany and encourage their emigration. The yellow Star of David was only one of many harassing laws applied to the Jews to get them to leave Germany.

Ref: Staeglich; Butz;

30) What role did the Einsatzgruppen play in the German war effort?

Ans: Because the fight between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany was a largely ideological one, and the Soviet Union was not a signatory of Geneva Convention agreements on the conduct of war, it was rightly assumed by Hitler that the Soviets would not fight by the rules. The Einsatzgruppen were police units assigned to the pacification of occupied territories in the east. Their duties included fighting anti-German partisan guerrillas, shooting captured communist ‘commissars’ and executing civilians in reprisal for acts of murder and sabotage committed by the guerrillas.

Ref: Butz; Staeglich; Klee

31) Why were so many dead bodies found in the Nazi camps when they were captured by Allied troops?

Ans: By the early spring of 1945, when the British and American troops began occupying German territory containing Nazi prison and labor camps, Germany was in a state of economic chaos. Allied bombers and fighter planes made the communication of goods very difficult and many of the concentration camps had not received enough supplies for weeks or months to feed the camps, or to provide the sick in the camps with medicine.

In addition, as German military forces retreated from the advancing Red army in 1944 and 1945 many prisoners retreated with them; most did so voluntarily. More and more people were crowded into fewer and fewer camps. The overcrowding and lack of supplies combined to contribute to the spread of disease in the camps in the final months of the war. The death rate in the camps outstripped the capacity of the crematoria in the camps to dispose of them. In some cases there was no fuel to run the crematoria even if death rates were at ‘normal’ levels.

This increase in camp population, and breakdown in support services to the camps led to an increased death rate. The bodies piled up in the days and weeks before the surrender of the camps to the advancing Allied armies in the spring of 1945.

Ref: Butz; Staeglich; Sack; Cobden

32) Why is the Holocaust story important to Israel?

Ans: Israel’s 1948 declaration of independence states the reason that state was being founded was the Holocaust had shown there was a need for a Jewish state as a place of refuge for Jews suffering persecution. Without the Holocaust, there is no demonstrated need for a Jewish state. The Israeli government therefore considers any questioning of the Holocaust to be a questioning of Israel’s right to exist. It passed a law in the early 1980’s making questioning, or minimizing the Holocaust a crime punishable by a sentence of five years in prison — a sentence more severe than the one in Israeli law for questioning God’s existence.

Ref: Segev; Butz; Sack; Lipstadt

33) What was Babi Yar?

Ans: Babi Ravine [Yar] is a ravine in Ukraine where over 100,000 Jews are said to have been shot by the Nazis and buried in a mass grave. The bodies were later exhumed and the evidence destroyed.

Ref: Ball

34) What evidence exists for the massacre at Babi Yar?

Ans: The basis of the Babi Yar allegation is Soviet wartime propaganda, some documents purporting to be Nazi reports of the massacre, and post war testimony. According to these claims the bodies of the victims were exhumed and destroyed by the Nazis before the Soviets recaptured the territory. There is no physical evidence of the massacre. Air photographs taken of the area soon after the mass exhumation is supposed to have occurred show no evidence of it.

Ref: Ball

35) Why were Jews put into concentration camps by the Nazis?

Ans: Jews were put into concentration and labor camps for a wide variety of reasons. Some were imprisoned because of criminal activities or anti-Nazi political activities. Others, particularly after 1943 and the reversal of Germany’s fortunes on the eastern front, were taken from ghettos for the purpose of working in factories and on farms and housed in concentration camps to keep them socially isolated from the surrounding community.

The war produced a shortage of labor and Jews were exploited to fill that need. This situation put Jews in the position of working for the Nazis and the German war effort which was socially and politically embarrassing for them once Germany surrendered and Nazism defeated. Since Jewish inmates could therefore be seen as collaborating with the German war effort, there was pressure upon them to explain why they had worked for the Nazis.

The explanation, like that used by Germans who were accused of participating in the extermination of the Jews, was the only alternative was death. If the inmate did not work, he or she was murdered The excuse then was they had to cooperate to save their lives. Some have added to this reason the self-inflated “in order to bear witness” reason for their working for the Nazis, if saving their own skins was not reason enough. If the need to bear witness overrides any reason not to cooperate with the Nazis, then what was witnessed needs to be extraordinary. In this may be a core reason for the wild tales told by some former concentration camp inmates because after the war they were viewed with scorn by other Jews and wished to rehabilitate their standing in the community.

The Zionists living outside Europe referred to the Jews who survived Nazi occupation as “soap” because of their lack of resistance to the Nazi occupation and the extermination program.

Ref: Sack; Butz; Staeglich; Mayer; Segev; Lanzmann; Porter

36) What was the function of Treblinka camp?

Ans: Records indicate there were two Treblinkas.

Treblinka I was a labor camp that included a gravel quarry.

Treblinka II was a smaller camp and was probably a delousing station for Jews being resettled in the east. Train loads of Jews would arrive at T-II to be deloused. Their luggage would also be deloused. Once the procedure was completed, the Jews would board a new train that would take them to their final destination which was either a labor camp or ghetto somewhere in occupied Soviet territory. German documents indicate Jews were being funneled through Treblinka which was designated a transit camp. T-II played a major role in the deportation of Jews from the Warsaw ghetto to labor camps and ghettos farther east.

Ref: Mayer; Ball; Butz; Sanning; Lanzmann; Steiner

37) What evidence is used to support the Treblinka death camp story?

Ans: There are wartime news reports that Jews were being killed in large numbers at Treblinka and there are also the postwar recollections of about 70 people who claim to have worked as prisoners at the camp. There are also the ‘confessions’ of Nazis who were either assigned to the camp or claim to have visited it during the year or so that it was operational. The content of the testimonies is largely contradictory and in some cases very funny. Read about Treblinka from three or more sources and compare what they say about the method used to kill Jews there and you will understand why I say that. There is no physical evidence that hundreds of thousands of people were killed at Treblinka. The camp was totally dismantled by the Nazis and the site today contains an elaborate memorial that was built long after the war was over.

Ref: Ball; Mayer; Steiner; Porter; Butz

38) Why were Gypsies put into concentration camps?

Ans: Some groups of Gypsies were put into Nazi concentration camps for several reasons. The German government considered them a security risk, but more importantly the Romany led a wandering lifestyle and did not occupy themselves in what the Nazis considered productive employment. Because they refused to abandon their traditional lifestyle, they were put to work in labor camps.

Ref: Butz; Staeglich

39) Why is the question of the gas chambers important?

Ans: The gas chambers are supposed to be the end result of a long chain of events that evolved into a genocide program. They then constitute the physical application of Nazi policy toward the Jews. Whether the policy the exterminate the Jews was the intention from the start, or whether it evolved into it over time because of circumstance, the gas chambers are unambiguous signs the extermination program existed. So, if the silly gas chamber allegation is abandoned in favor of shootings, or starvation, or clubbings the whole fabric of the Holocaust story begins to unravel. If the gas chamber story is false, why has it been pushed for half a century by those who insist it is true? If the extermination of the Jews is true, why falsely allege gas chambers were used when another method of murder was applied?

The gas chamber story and the extermination story are twins joined at the heart. If one dies, so does the other. On another level, men were hanged because of the gas chambers. The German nation has spent half a century apologizing over the gas chambers. The orientation of European and Middle Eastern politics revolves around the gas chamber story as justification for many actions taken by various governments.

The question of the gas chambers is important because outcome of W.W.II is the basis on which the world has rested for the last half century and how that war is viewed has a lot to do with how many countries view their current role in the political world.

Ref: Butz; Faurisson; Staeglich; Segev; Lipstadt

40) How did the Holocaust story originate?

Ans: The Holocaust story of German extermination of the Jews originated during the war. The charge of gassings of Jews in concentration camps was leveled by the Zionist and Jewish organizations appear around 1942 and were picked up and given lip service by the American and British governments at about the same time. Some Zionists were looking to leverage the British into opening Palestine up to more Jewish immigrants.

By pleading a refuge in Palestine was needed due to the crisis of Nazi Germany’s mass murder of the Jews, these groups hoped to embarrass the British to life immigration restrictions and to pressure the U.S. government to use its influence to get Great Britain to make the changes to its policies regarding the Jews and Palestine they desired. Other Jewish organizations wished to stop the Germans who were deporting entire Jewish communities east. Many of these deportations were taking place under inhumane circumstances. Various plans were floated to purchase groups of Jews from the Nazi regime to get them out of Europe or to terminate the deportations and though the Nazis appear to have been willing to negotiate, none of them were implemented.

The Soviets also began accusing the Germans of murdering civilians soon after the mass graves containing the bodies of executed Polish Army officers were discovered in the forests near Katyn by the German Army. Stalin accused the Germans of the Katyn forest massacre as well. Katyn was one of the crimes for which Germans were prosecuted after the war. The Russians finally admitted responsibility for that crime only a few years ago. As a propaganda story among many meant to discredit the Axis war effort and overshadow Soviet atrocities, the genocide charge took on a similar role during the IMT and NMT war crimes trials and the post war de- Nazification programs. The point to it was and is to discredit the NS regime and place it beyond the political pale. The Holocaust became the paradigm which demonstrated the evil of the Nazi regime and therefore justified the amount of destruction inflicted on Europe to defeat it. The evil of Germany revealed in the Holocaust became the reason Germany and Europe remained divided for so long and why the United States needed to become western Europe’s guardian.

Since Europe could not be trusted to protect itself after the defeat of Nazism from the new menace of Russian Communism which had recently swallowed eastern Europe, the United States had an excuse to remain engaged in European politics and retard Germany’s political and economic recovery. As an indication the status quo established by World War Two is still in place, recent commemorations of the Nuremberg trials have lionized them as a dispensation of justice rather than repudiating them for the show-trials they were.

Ref: Butz; Berg; Segev; Gauss

41) Are there precedents to what happened to the Jews?

Ans: The forced transfer of populations is something that has happened as long as history has been recorded. In more recent times, the Turks and the Greeks exchanged populations when borders were redrawn at the end of W.W.I. At the end of W.W.II millions of Germans were relocated under horrible conditions. In the United States, Indian tribes were resettled multiple times as the country expanded westward. Stalin uprooted millions of various ethnic minorities in Russia and forcibly resettled them in Siberia. The forcible expulsion of ethnic groups is not a unique occurrence and definitely not rare even in the last one hundred years.

Ref:

42) What escape routes were available to Jews during the war?

Ans: Many Jews were able to leave Europe during the war through a variety of paths. Over 100,000 are claimed by Yad Vashem to have crossed Soviet territory to Shanghai, China which had liberal immigration policies. From there almost all of them proceeded to other destinations which included the United States, Canada, and Australia. Fashion designer John Weitz is said to have taken this emigration route through China. Others traveled south from the Soviet Union into Iran and then west to Palestine. Menachem Begin supposedly left his native Poland during the war using this route. Another pathway out of Europe used by Jews during and after the war was a southerly course through the Balkans and Greece to Turkey and then on to Palestine.

Ref: Segev; Butz; Sanning

43) Did resistance to German occupation affect Nazi treatment of Jews in territory under their control?

Ans: Soviet propaganda agitated for civilians to fight the Germans in occupied Soviet territory. Many partisan guerrilla groups remained active in these areas committing acts of sabotage and murder throughout the time the Nazis occupied them. The Nazis viewed communism as a creature of the Jews and in reprisal for the war being waged by the partisans, many Jews were shot. Jews were viewed by many in the Baltic states, occupied by the Communists in 1940, as collaborators in that occupation. As the Red army retreated in 1941, the Soviet secret police known as the NKVD murdered as many of the political prisoners as they could before abandoning their prisons to the advancing Germans. Many Jews who did not retreat with the Russians were rounded up and murdered by local anti-Communist militias and German units in reaction to the NKVD murders of members of nationalist groups they held in their prisons.

Ref: Butz; Segev; Klee; Mayer; Da Zayas

44) How were Jewish ghettos in Nazi territory administered?

Ans: Ghettos set up by the Nazis were administered by a Jewish council called the Judenratt. The Judenratt was the point of contact between the Nazis and the Jews of the ghetto. It acted as the official ghetto government.

Ref: Sanning; Butz; Arendt; Segev; Mayer

45) What role did the Judenratt play in providing labor for the concentration camps?

Ans: The Judenratt would provide lists of names of people in the ghetto that could be conscripted for work in the concentration camps. This was a compromise the Judenratt made with the Nazi SS which was known to send press gangs into the ghetto and kidnap Jews off the street.

Ref: Arendt; Sanning; Staeglich; Butz

46) Why did Otto Frank, father of diarist Anne Frank, leave Germany?

Ans: Otto Frank was wanted in Germany on charges of embezzlement of money from his employer.

Ref: Faurisson

47) What was the ‘transfer agreement?’

Ans: An international boycott of German goods organized by some American Jews cut Germany’s foreign exchange. It also cut the value of German currency outside the country. The Nazis wanted Germany’s Jews to emigrate, but it was difficult for them to do so for several reasons. One of the most prominent reasons was they did not want to leave all their assets behind when they left the country. The transfer agreement was made between Nazi Germany and the Zionist leadership in British-controlled Palestine by which German goods would be purchased in Germany using the assets of the Jews wishing to emigrate to Palestine. The German goods would be shipped to Palestine with the emigrating Jews. The goods would then be sold in Palestine and the proceeds would go to the émigré’s. About 50,000 Jews are said to have taken advantage of the program which was implemented by the German government, the Zionist leadership and several Jewish financial institutions inside and outside of Germany. One of the most notable of these was the Warburg bank in Hamburg.

Ref: Segev; Chernow

48) Why did the Nazis initiate a boycott of Jewish shops in Germany?

Ans: The Nazis proclaimed a boycott of German shops owned by Jews in response to an international boycott of German goods declared by international Jewish groups on March 24th, 1933 that was to last more than twelve years.

Ref: Irving; Segev; Chernow

49) How long did the Nazi boycott last?

Ans: The Nazi boycott of German Jewish shops lasted one day: April 1st, 1933. It was a Saturday — when religious Jews would not be doing business because of religious obligations.

Ref: Irving; Butz; Segev

50) What events led up to the Kristallnacht pogrom?

Ans: Poland passed a law which required Polish Jews living outside the country return to Poland to have their passports stamped. If these stamps were not obtained by a particular date, the passports would become invalid and the bearer would no longer be recognized by Poland as a citizen of that country. Nazi Germany, fearing that it would suddenly have a large population of ‘stateless’ Jews, forced thousands of Polish Jews living in Nazi Germany back to Poland to obtain the required stamp. After the stamp was obtained, the Jews were free to return to Germany, which is what most of them did.

Among those deported were the parents of Hershel Grynspan, a young Polish Jew living in Paris. While several stories exist about his motivation, including anger over what he considered the mistreatment of his family, it is not certain why he went to the German embassy to kill the German ambassador. Because he was not allowed to see the ambassador, the assassin shot another German diplomat instead who died a few days later from his wound. Goebbels is generally blamed for instigating the pogrom against German Jews that took place thereafter.

Ref: Irving; Wickert; Butz

51) Why was German Jewry fined to pay for the damage done during the Kristallnacht pogrom?

Ans: The Nazis fined the German Jewish community for the damage from the pogrom because much of the material needed for repairs had to be imported. Because of the Jewish boycott of German goods, Germany lacked foreign exchange. The fine was a direct punishment for the Jewish boycott of Germany.

Ref: Wickert; Irving

52) What was Hitler’s reaction to news of the pogrom?

Ans: He was shocked and angry. He ordered that it be stopped immediately.

Ref: Irving

53) How many gas chambers were there at Treblinka?

Ans: One, three, five or six, seven, eight, ten, or thirteen depending on which source you use.

In some accounts of Treblinka there were no gas chambers, but steam chambers that boiled Jews to death like lobsters. Other stories allege Jews were crowded into sealed buildings and large pumps were used to evacuate the air causing the victims to suffocate. The gas chambers of Treblinka are a mystery both in their number and their design. There is no real evidence the gas chambers at Treblinka numbered any more than zero.

Hannah Arendt quotes Eichmann as recalling seeing one large hall and being told the killing agent was cyanide. Steiner states there were originally three gas chambers and ten more larger structures were added later and that the gas used was engine exhaust. An ex-SS member remembers there being five or six large gas chambers and an unspecified number of smaller ones while another states he believes there were eight. Hoess, the Auschwitz commandant, says in his confession that there were ten gas chambers at Treblinka, but claims to have visited the camp on a date before it existed.

The IMT trials accepted an official Polish government report into evidence that claims ten chambers were built at Treblinka and the killing agent was steam. Most books on the death camps contain very little about Treblinka and the other four lesser-known “death camps” because evidence about them is so scarce and confused. Even simple questions like ‘how many gas chambers?’ cannot be answered authoritatively because the evidence is contradictory and of similar quality.

Ref: Butz; Mayer; Porter; Arendt; Steiner; Berg; Klee; Lanzmann

54) What agent was used to kill people in the gas chambers at Treblinka?

Ans: It might have been cyanide, or steam, or diesel engine exhaust, or gasoline engine exhaust, or some delayed-action mystery gas. It depends on the source consulted. Since the camp was dismantled long before the war ended, it is entirely speculation that gas chambers existed at Treblinka at all. The official version of events appears based on the reports of Gerstein and confessions of others who were either stationed at the camp, or survived it as inmates. This version centers around the use of engine exhaust.

Diesel engine exhaust is most frequently alleged.

Ref: Steiner; Butz; Berg; Roque; Porter; Lanzmann; Klee

55) What evidence is there that Jews were being resettled in the east by the Nazis?

Ans: First, there are Nazi documents that mention ghettos of resettled Jews in White Russia and other areas of occupied Soviet territory. Second, thousands of Jews survived their relocation by the Nazis and either returned to their former homes after the war or emigrated from Europe after the defeat of Germany testifying to the fact they had been relocated. Third, during the war, many resettled Jews continued to correspond with people back in their home countries.

Ref: Butz; Klee; Sanning; Staeglich; Mattogno; Porter

56) What consequences have revisionists suffered for their conclusions?

Ans: Since at least the 1970’s revisionist authors and researchers have met with not only with derision from other historians and authors, but also with court fines, imprisonment, assault, arson attacks against their homes and offices, loss of employment, of pensions, revocation of academic degrees, exclusion from entering some countries, expulsion from other countries.

A popular magazine [Marco Polo] in Japan was shut down after printing a revisionist article.

[In early 1995 a major Japanese magazine, Marco Polo, was forced to shut down because it had published a ten-page article disputing the orthodox Holocaust extermination story. Jewish organizations responded with an international boycott campaign, promptly pressuring major corporations into cancelling advertising. Even Japan’s Foreign Ministry intervened. Under this pressure, the large Bungei Shunju publishing company quickly caved in. News of the unprecedented surrender received worldwide media coverage.]

A revisionist book published in Germany was ordered destroyed by a German court — every copy was to be burned!

Revisionist WWWeb sites have been shut down without warning for their content.

Discussions of revisionist findings on various online services have been cut off by the services.

Ref: Watch the news wires.

57) What evidence exists for mass murder at Belzec?

Ans: Like the evidence of it at the other camps, it consists of testimony. Belzec is supposed have been similar to Treblinka according to some stories, but a fantastic report about the camp filed with the IMT alleges Belzec had a subterranean facility where Jews were marched into a pool of water where they were electrocuted. Once they were dead, a grillwork on the bottom of the pool lifted the mass of corpses up and out of the water. Then current sent through the grillwork caused it to heat up and incinerate the bodies. It’s laughable, but certainly as true as any of the stories about Belzec.

Ref: Ball; Butz; Mayer; Klee; Lanzmann; Porter

58) What evidence exists for mass murder at Chelmno?

Ans: Testimony.

Ref: Butz; Mayer; Klee; Lanzmann

59) Where did the bodies of the dead at Treblinka go?

Ans: It is alleged by those who claim to be survivors of Treblinka camp that some 800,000 bodies were first buried in mass graves and that these were later exhumed and burned on iron rails set over wood fires. Treblinka was not equipped with crematories. Aerial photography of the site taken in 1944 shows no indication of mass graves or locations where continuous burning of bodies had taken place.

Ref: Ball; Butz; Roques; Steiner; Lanzmann; Klee; Porter

60) How many are claimed to have been killed at Treblinka?

Ans: The figure most often given for Treblinka is 800,000 or more Jews gassed or otherwise killed in less than a year. The bodies are said to have been buried in mass graves and later exhumed and burned. There is no evidence to support these allegation or that for the other five so-called death camps.

One of several versions of the Treblinka gas chamber story alleges Diesel engines were used to pump exhaust into some rooms and everyone inside died within 32 minutes. Animal tests performed in England forty years ago indicate animals can survive three and one half hours on up to 14 or more hours breathing exhaust from Diesel engines.

John Ball has demonstrated the area in which the bodies were buried was not large enough to hold even one tenth the number that are claimed to have been buried there prior to exhumation and cremation.

Ref: Butz; Ball; Steiner; Klee; Lanzmann; Mayer; Berg

61) What evidence exists for mass murder at Sobibor?

Ans: Testimony.

Ref: Ball; Mayer; Butz; Lanzmann

62) How good is testimony as a form of evidence?

Ans: Testimony is the poorest form of evidence. The human mind is very malleable, and memory can be affected by a wide variety of factors. Very normal people can sincerely remember things that never happened. Add to this the interest of many of the witnesses in getting attention, influencing how they are themselves perceived by those around them, ameliorating their punishment, or exacting vengeance on their enemies. Testimony alone should be used only with extreme caution.

Ref: Butz; Mayer; Segev

63) What was the War Refugee Board (WRB)?

Ans: The WRB was set up in 1944 by the Roosevelt administration and was head by Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau who was the one who proposed the destruction of Germany’s industrial base at the end of the war. This plan was the basis of U.S. occupation policy for over two years after the German surrender. The WRB was involved in projects to get Jews out of Europe and served as a tool of the World Jewish Congress and other Zionist organizations.

Ref: Butz

64) What was the WRB Report?

Ans: The WRB report is supposed to be based on the testimonies of three escaped prisoners from Auschwitz who claimed Jews were being gassed at Auschwitz on a large scale. It has now been largely forgotten, even though it is one of the founding sources for the Auschwitz legend. The reason it has been forgotten is that it is so obviously inaccurate in its descriptions of the gas chambers and the numbers of Jews being killed. In effect, it was inaccurate about everything that had to do with the extermination of Jews at the camp.

Ref: Butz; Gilbert; Pressac

65) How accurate was the information contained in the WRB Report?

Ans: There is very little in the report which can verified as accurate. The bulk of the information in the report is verifiably untrue or inaccurate by a wide margin. Though the report is supposed to be the first detailed account of the extermination of Jews at Auschwitz to reach the West, it is wrong in almost all of its details.

Ref: Butz; Pressac; Staeglich; Gilbert

66) What did the Auschwitz camp commander Rudolf Hoess confess about the Auschwitz camp?

Ans: Auschwitz camp commander Rudolf Hoess signed two confessions. The first confession was while a captive of the British. This confession was read to him at one of the Nuremberg trials at which time he testified the content of the confession to be true. A thorough examination of the confession shows it is filled with lies and contradictions.

Hoess signed another confession while in Polish custody. The contents of the second confession are much like that of the first, but in his second confession he accuses the British of beating him and forcing him to sign the first confession though he had no idea what was in it. Hoess also wrote a memoir while in Polish custody. This memoir is considered by many to be a fraud which Hoess transcribed from a prepared text given to him by the Polish communists. Even so, this fake is still in print and widely available. The former camp commander also testified at other trials before he was ultimately hanged at the Auschwitz camp that he used to run by the Polish Communists.

In his oral and written accounts of his time as commander at Auschwitz, Hoess describes being ordered to established facilities for the killing of large numbers of people and the disposal of their bodies. To fulfill this task assigned to him, Hoess built one or more gas chambers at Auschwitz and Birkenau concentration camps. The fumigant Zyklon-B was used as the killing agent in these gas chambers. The bodies of the victims were burned in the crematories and in open pits. The ashes were then collected. Bones were pounded into a powder. All of the remains were then dumped into the river. Hoess provided several estimates as to the number of people killed at his camp which range from 1.2 million to 2.5 million.

Ref: Faurisson; Staeglich; Pressac, Butz

67) How was Hoess’ confession obtained?

Ans: Among the techniques used by the British to get Hoess to sign his confession included sleep deprivation, threats against his family, beatings, and forced consumption of alcohol.

Ref: Butz; Faurisson; Pressac.

68) Is torture a way to get a reliable confession?

Ans: No.

The torture victim will usually agree to do anything in order to get the pain or torture stopped. It is however, a good way to get the kind of confession that is desired by the torturers.

Ref: Butz; Faurisson; Porter; Pressac; Mayer; Sack; Preissinger

69) What did a U.S. Senate commission find about the use of torture to obtain confessions for the Malmedy Massacre case?

Ans: The commission investigated nearly 140 former members of the Waffen SS involved as potential or actual defendants in the Malmedy case. The commission, headed by Judge Edward L Van Roden of the Texas Supreme Court, found that:

“All but two of the Germans in the 139 cases we investigated, had been kicked in the testicles beyond repair. This was Standard Operating Procedure with our ‘American’ investigators’”.

One result of all the confusion caused by improper interrogation procedures is that nobody knows what really happened at Malmedy; another was that none of the death sentences was ever carried out. At any rate, there are 86 names on the monument although only 22 men were killed in the “massacre”: the names of other men killed elsewhere in Belgium, even on other days, were simply added for propaganda purposes.

Ref: Ziemssen; Butz; Cuppens; for the text of the Van Roden Report, see: http://www.fpp.co.uk/Auschwitz/Dachau/VanRoden1948.html

For a fairly objective discussion of the Van Roden Report from the exterminationist point of view, see:

http://www.scrapbookpages.com/DachauScrapbook/DachauTrials/MalmedyMassacre03.html

and

http://www.scrapbookpages.com/DachauScrapbook/DachauTrials/MalmedyMassacre04.html

Note that nobody claims that the Van Roden Report was substantially untrue. The only controversy relates to the exact number of permanently damaged testicles and the exact extent to which they were permanently damaged. — C.P.

70) Was the use of torture and threats only used in isolated cases?

Ans: There appears to be a wide range in how Nazi’s in Allied custody were treated. It is pretty clear from various sources that threats against prisoners were common. The use of torture was not rare either. Torture was used to break a prisoner’s spirit to gain cooperation, as in the case of Hoess. It was also administered out of what appears to be pure sadism.

Ref: Butz; Pressac; Ziemssen; Bacque; Sack; Preissinger; Weber

71) Why is it nobody protested the use of torture on German prisoners?

Ans: There were some protests, and there was a U.S. Senate investigation, but these have been largely ignored or forgotten. The attitude of the time, much of which continues to this day in certain circles, saw the Germans as deserving of any abuse they received. The press and many public officials were still under the influence of war propaganda. Voicing concern over the torture of an enemy would be regarded as disloyal.

Ref: Butz; Ziemssen; Bacque; Sack

72) Where did concentrations of Jews exist in Europe before 1939?

Ans: The bulk of Europe’s Ashkenazi Jews was located in Poland and parts of the Soviet Union. Hungary also was the home of a large population of Jews. The areas where most of the Jewish losses during the war occurred were areas which underwent massive shifts in population and borders between 1939 and 1945. Though a large percentage of Jews in the Netherlands, Germany, Austria and Czechoslovakia were deported eastward by the Nazis, the Jewish population of these countries were relatively small to begin with.

Ref: Sanning; Koestler

73) What is the origin of the Einsatzgruppe gas van charge?

Ans: Soon after the mass graves in which the NKVD buried thousands murdered Polish officers at Katyn were opened to international inspection by the Germans, the Russians, hurting from the bad publicity, put several Germans on trial for murdering prisoners with the exhaust from truck engines. These charges were later carried over to the postwar war crimes trials.

Ref: Berg; Butz

74) Why haven’t Germans and others in a position to know come forward to repudiate the extermination story?

Ans: Besides the danger of social ostracism for questioning the extermination story, anyone in a position of authority during the war in a position to know, in detail, what the final solution program involved is in danger of being prosecuted for war crimes. There is no statute of limitations on Nazi war crimes. Since the early 1980’s laws have been passed in several European countries which make it a crime to question the Holocaust or to offer an opinion which is not in line with the official dogma on the topic. There is no interest in what would be viewed as an attempt to rehabilitate the Nazi regime since postwar German politics is based on the repudiation of Hitler and the Nazi years.

Ref: Segev; Butz

75) Why were Jews in Nazi Germany forced to wear a star of David on their clothes?

Ans: This Nazi edict, which copied laws from the Middle Ages was one of many harassing measures instituted to isolate Jews in Germany and exclude them from German culture and society. The objective of this and other laws was to get Jews to leave Germany.

Ref: Irving; Segev; Staeglich; Butz

76) What sources of information did the Western Allies have during the war that failed to verify the extermination story or provide warnings about it?

Ans:

The Catholic church;

The Polish government in exile;

Aerial photography of Auschwitz;

The Polish underground resistance movement;

The International Red Cross;

Spies in the German government;

Intercepted German government cipher communications coming from and going to concentration camp administration personnel.

There was a process in place in which governments at war could register complaints and war crimes charges against their enemies. Each combatant country had a neutral country which would pass these complaints on to their enemy to investigate and explain. The Allies did not even ask the Germans to investigate the extermination story in a formal complaint even though the channel to do so was in place. This is an indication that the Allies did not take the charge of Jewish exterminations seriously enough even to as for an investigation or explanation.

Ref: Butz; Staeglich; Segev; Mayer, Ball; Irving; Da Zayas; Brugioni

77) What evidence is there that Zionist leaders did not believe their own propaganda?

Ans: There was no effort on the part of the Jewish leaders outside of Nazi occupied Europe to warn the Jews threatened with extermination about the danger. In fact, the Jewish council at a ghetto near Budapest turned British paratroopers from Palestine over to the Germans for fear harboring them would result in punishment. Arendt and Segev relate that testimony at the Eichmann trial indicate Jews in occupied Europe were unaware of the extermination at the time.

In 1944 Zionist leaders requested the British government stop running news stories concerning Jewish scientific contributions to the war effort for fear of reprisals being inflicted upon Jews in occupied Europe. That indicates they did not believe Jews were being exterminated since a reprisal against a population that was being killed in any case is meaningless particularly in 1944 when nearly all of the Jews were supposed to be already dead.

Additionally, Allied leaders, while giving lip service to Zionist complaints about the exterminations, did nothing because they did not believe and could not confirm them despite the fact they had excellent sources for information in Germany and Eastern Europe.

Ref: Butz; Segev; Arendt; Gilbert; Ball; Brugioni

78) Do Dr. Robert Faurisson and Fred Leuchter claim Zyklon-B was used as a germicidal antiseptic at Auschwitz?

Ans: J. C. Pressac, the author of AUSCHWITZ: THE TECHNIQUE AND OPERATION OF THE GAS CHAMBERS accused Leuchter and Faurisson of this because Faurisson used the verb ‘disinfect’ in describing what the fumigant did when it was used to fumigate a building. This interpretation of Dr. Faurisson’s loose use of the word when referring to delousing is a false one.

Deborah Lipstadt also picked up Pressac’s straw man in her attack on Leuchter and Faurisson in her book DENYING THE HOLOCAUST.

Fred Leuchter explained that the morgues of the crematories at Auschwitz were probably deloused with Zyklon-B and that this is why minute traces of a byproduct of the gas were detected in the samples of brick and plaster taken from the ruins at the former Nazi concentration camp. In interpreting the term ‘disinfect’ as meaning a process in which germs are killed rather than meaning a delousing or fumigation process, Pressac countered an explanation Faurisson and Leuchter never made by derisively pointing out washing surfaces with chlorinated water would be a much safer way to disinfect a building.

Deborah Lipstadt, who probably never read the Leuchter Report, picked up Pressac’s transparent argument and incorporated it into her book as well.

Ref: Pressac; Leuchter; Lipstadt; Faurisson

79) Are accounts of cremation pits at Auschwitz-Birkenau credible?

Ans: No.

Various accounts from former prisoners who spent time detained at Birkenau and staff who worked there include claims that a large number of corpses was burned in open pits up to three meters deep because the crematories there, despite a fabulous cremation capacity of 10,000 bodies per day, were not fast enough to dispose of all of the gas chamber victims. There are several problems with this allegation. Birkenau was built in a marsh. The camp was crisscrossed with drainage ditches to help deal with the high water table. Any pit dug into the ground there would fill with water making the burning of bodies impossible.

Even in a case where striking water is not a problem, burning anything in a deep pit is difficult since the fire consumes all of the oxygen available for combustion and puts itself out. There is no point in digging a pit for cremating bodies and is entirely counterproductive to the effort. Open air cremation is done on pyres, not in pits.

After Dresden was bombed, the Germans needed to dispose of a large number of bodies in a small amount of time. In this case, besides digging mass graves, bodies were burned on pyres, not in pits. If burning bodies in pits was such an effective means for their disposal, pits would have been dug in this case as well. They were not despite the fact pre-dug bomb craters in Dresden would have suited this requirement. This fact alone indicates the story of large scale pit cremation is pure whimsy.

Ref: Butz; Muller; Lanzmann; Ball; Leuchter; Mattogno; Irving

80) How does the crematory capacity of Auschwitz-Birkenau compare to other Nazi concentration camps where exterminations were not taking place?

Ans: In comparing the number of retorts, or cremation chambers, installed at Auschwitz-Birkenau where large numbers of people are said to have been gassed to death and other camps, like Dachau and Buchenwald, that had crematory facilities, but in which gassing are not claimed, and the prison registered death rates for each camp, it can be concluded Auschwitz-Birkenau was not suspiciously over-equipped with crematory ovens.

Ref: Butz; Mattogno

81) Why did Jews not return to their homes at the end of the war if they were not killed?

Ans: Some did, but most could not return home because it either no longer existed or someone else had moved in after they were deported and would not be willing to relinquish their homes to former owners and occupants. The war set tens of millions of refugees on the move. Housing, much of it destroyed during the war, was in short supply; There was no home to which to return. Others, still living in Soviet occupied areas, had entered a new era of their lives. National borders had been redrawn. Their prewar communities no longer existed and many did the best they could to get on with their lives in whatever area they found themselves. It should also be remember that the bulk of Europe’s Jews lived in the eastern part of the continent before the war and continued to live there after the war behind the Iron Curtain.

Ref: Sanning; Butz; Porter; Chernow; Segev; Arendt

82) What evidence exists for the charge the Nazis used the bodies of Jews to make, among other things, soap, fertilizer, lampshades, gloves, book covers, etc., ad nauseum?

Ans: During the war, many rumors circulated about the Nazis exploiting dead bodies for industrial, commercial and other uses. Some of these stories were merely reworked versions of stories spread by the British about the Germans during World War I. For instance, an article in a German newspaper during the First World War dealing with the rendering of horse corpses to make soap was changed by the British into a report that the bodies of dead German soldiers were being used by the Germans to make soap.

The British also spread the story that German soldiers were cutting off the hands of Belgian children. All sorts of these horrible stories were spread as part of the war effort. Similarly, during the Second World War, atrocity stories were spread about the activities of the enemy by both sides. The soap from dead bodies story came to life once more in the form of German-manufactured RIF soap. A rumor was spread that RIF stood for ‘pure Jewish fat’ and the bodies of dead Jews were used in its manufacture.

Though this and many stories like it are now considered to be ‘rumor’ by Holocaust historians, Germans were tried at war crimes trials on charges they had participated in the manufacture of soap from human bodies and the Soviets produced photographs of what they claimed was a laboratory near Danzig where it was made. Several men were tried and went to jail for taking part in activities Deborah Lipstadt, Tom Segev, and other Jewish Holocaust writers now claim was only a wartime rumor. Nevertheless many Jews still take the story seriously. ‘Soap’ became a derogatory term for survivors of the Holocaust used by Israelis after the war.

The American television comedy ‘Soap’ was renamed ‘Bubbles’ when it aired in Israel for that reason. The Yad Vashem museum in Israel still displays RIF soap in one of its exhibits. There are several graves in which German soap is buried on the belief that it was made from human bodies. The ‘human skin’ lamps were the property of Ilse Koch who was the wife of a concentration camp commander. Her husband had been executed by the Nazis over financial irregularities at the camp under his command. When brought to trial, Frau Koch was accused of, among other things, picking prisoners with tattoos she liked to be killed so she could make use of the art. As it turns out the lamps were made of leather from goat hide and not human skin. Frau Koch committed suicide while serving a prison sentence.

These and the other stories about the Nazis extracting material from dead bodies for the manufacture of products are untrue and indicative of people’s willingness to accept any story concerning an enemy as fact. During wartime, dehumanizing an enemy bolsters morale at home and justifies any vicious act of war committed against it. This is not to say all atrocity stories are false, but great care should be taken before giving credence to such horror stories. Even so, five decades after the war ended, many people are willing to swallow any charge of evildoing leveled at Nazi Germany as true.

Ref: Butz; Porter; Segev; Lipstadt; Smith

83) What is the explanation for all the hair, shoes, eyeglasses, and other personal items found at Auschwitz?

Ans: As prisoners were processed into the concentration camp, their hair was shaved to prevent the introduction of more typhus-bearing lice into the camp. Their personal belongings were taken away and put into storage. Uniforms and shoes were issued to the prisoners after they were deloused. Hundreds of thousand of people passed through Auschwitz camp and survived. The best evidence available points to a total of around 130,000 deaths that took place during the time the Nazis operated the camp. Nearly all of these were due to epidemics of typhus and other diseases. The separation of a person from their belongings in and of itself does not cause death, however, those that not survive their time at Auschwitz did not claim their belongings, so these remained in storage.

In addition much of this prisoner private property was left behind when the camp was evacuated and abandoned to the advancing Red Army in January of 1945. There was very real possibility of having one’s belongings stolen while in the camp by other prisoners. Storing the goods prevented that. Leather goods are a haven for lice. Many items like shoes and suitcases were stored as part of camp hygienic measures. Other items, such as shaving razors, were potential weapons and were confiscated and stored for that reason.

Ref: Porter; Butz; Staeglich

84) What have forensic examinations of the alleged extermination sites revealed?

Ans: Several examinations have been made by scientists and amateurs of the crematoria, and alleged gas chamber sites at several of the former Nazi camps. While they generally agree on what the buildings look like, the conclusions as to their nature diverge in some cases. Fred Leuchter, an execution equipment engineer; Walter Lueftl, an Austrian engineer; Germar Rudolf, a German chemist; and two revisionist researchers — David Cole of the United States and Ditlieb Felderer of Sweden, among others, have all concluded the gas chambers and ruins of gas chambers on display at the various concentration camp sites were not and could not be used as gas chambers as described by eyewitness.

A French pharmacist, J.C. Pressac, and the Polish government authority that administers the Auschwitz museum draw the opposite conclusion based on the same evidence. What they discovered were extremely small traces of prussian blue, a byproduct of the use of the fumigant Zyklon-B, (i.e. the chemical HCN), in the mortar at the some of the sites, particularly at Auschwitz and Birkenau. Revisionists point out that the by product should be found in much higher quantity. The traces were found at levels consistent with the building being fumigated at some point. A gas chamber would contain a much larger amount of the prussian blue because of the repeated exposure to HCN as in the camp fumigation facilities where prussian blue has permeated deeply into the walls and can be found in high concentrations. Pressac and others on the opposite side of the issue argue finding any trace at all supports their position of gassings in the buildings.

Ref: Pressac; Leuchter; Gauss; Lenski; Lipstadt; Lueftl

85) Why have there not been extensive forensic examinations of the killing centers up to now by the Allied governments?

Ans: There are probably several reasons for it and since these governments don’t even address the issue any reply to this question would be speculative. The most obvious reason is the Soviets and her allies saw no need for them. The war crimes tribunals simply took judicial notice of the crimes themselves and therefore it was not required that proof be produced. The question addressed by the IMT and NMT was not what happened, but who was to be punished. A thorough examination of the death camps would more likely than not produce evidence which would damage their case since they knew many of the charges were untrue. Therefore such an action by them would be counterproductive to the larger goal of discrediting the Nazi regime.

Ref: Faurisson; Mayer; Butz; Leuchter; Gauss

86) Doesn’t the verdict in the Max Taeubner trial indicate the Nazi Einsatzgruppen were killing Jews?

Ans: Max Taeubner was a member of an SS Einsatzgruppen who was convicted by an SS court for his part in the massacre of Jews in the occupied territories in the East. The court was particularly disturbed by his photographing the bodies and sharing the pictures with family and friends. It appears from the verdict the reason he was punished for his activities in the case was for his acting in this regard without orders, the cruelty with which the executions were carried out, and for taking photographs which he shared with others.

Certainly the Einsatzgruppen killed people, particularly Jews. These executions were part of security measures instituted in the eastern territories occupied by the Nazis. The point to them was to suppress anti-Nazi guerrilla activities in these areas. Taeubner was a loose cannon acting out of his own personal hatred for Jews. He was sentenced to several years in prison for his crimes, but was pardoned in January 1945 — when the situation for Germany was beyond desperate — and put back on duty at the front. Taeubner apparently survived the war and there were several unsuccessful attempts to prosecute him in the 1960s and 1970s in Germany for his crimes, but the courts cited his prior conviction by an SS court and dismissed the case.

Ref: Klee

87) What is the Leuchter Report?

Ans: During the mid-1980’s a German-Canadian publisher named Ernst Zuendel commissioned an American execution equipment engineer and consultant named Fred Leuchter to examine the sites of alleged Nazi gas chambers at Auschwitz and Majdanek and render his opinion as to whether these buildings were used to kill millions of people. The report then, is Leuchter’s opinion based on the evidence he gathered and analyzed.

Ref: Leuchter; Lenski

88) Is the Leuchter Report flawed? If so, how?

Ans: The Leuchter Report is adequate for the purpose for which it was intended, which was to fulfill the commission of Ernst Zuendel to examine the sites of alleged German gas chambers, report on what he found, and draw conclusions from his findings.

The samples of plaster and mortar Leuchter had tested left a question as to how much prussian blue residue from Zyklon-B would be found in a room that had been fumigated one or more times, but not used as a gas chamber. The answer to this question was left open because plaster samples from the so-called undressing rooms at crematory II and III were not analyzed for comparison to those taken from the alleged gas chambers.

Ref: Leuchter; Pressac; Lenski; Lipstadt

89) Have others corroborated Leuchter’s findings?

Ans: German chemist, Germar Rudolf has analyzed samples of plaster taken from prisoner sleeping barracks and found that the amount of residue left behind from fumigation with Zyklon-B is comparable with that found in the alleged gas chambers. Rudolf also concludes the gas chamber story is false. The Austrian engineer Walter Lueftl has also examined the allegations and came to the same conclusion; As did DuPont chemist William L. Lindsey when he examined the problem of the gas chambers.

Ref: Lenski; Lueftl; Leutcher; Gauss

90) Why would the Allies have been interested in Auschwitz long before the charges of extermination there were leveled?

Ans: Auschwitz was located next to a Buna rubber factory that the Nazis were building to convert coal to gasoline. ‘Operation Frantic’ targeted German fuel production facilities for bombing missions. As early as 1943 Auschwitz and Monowitz, the Buna plant, were flown over by Allied photo reconnaissance airplanes in preparation for it being targeted by American bomber planes. The entire area had been photographed over a dozen times by the American army by the end of 1944. Yet, despite this interest in the area, the U.S. government was unable to confirm an extermination of the Jews was taking place.

Ref: Butz; Ball; Gilbert; Brugioni

91) What do Himmler’s diaries reveal about the final solution to the Jewish problem?

Ans: That is unknown, since these have never been published and are not available to researchers though they are known to exist in Israel.

Ref: Irving; Weber

92) What do the Auschwitz-Birkenau coke shipment records reveal?

Ans: Receipts for shipments of coke to fuel the crematories for some of 1942 and ten months of 1943 are in the Auschwitz archives in Poland. They indicate an amount of fuel available to cremate corpses compatible with the registered deaths in the camp for that period. The death rate was about 100 per day and the amount of coke available for each cremation works out to a little more than 21 kilograms (46 lb.) of fuel per registered death. This amount of fuel is compatible with the requirements of the crematory machinery.

Ref: Pressac; Mattogno

93) How long does it take to cremate a human body?

Ans: It varies with the equipment used, but the cremation time for the equipment installed at Birkenau appears to have required an incineration time of about an hour per body. The entire cremation cycle took longer and each oven, or retort, could reduce three or four bodies per day under normal operating circumstances. Birkenau had a total of 46 ovens so the capacity would have been 184 bodies per day if all of the facilities were operating at once.

This, however, was not the case. Crematories IV and V had 8 ovens each and operated for only a few months before they broke down and were mothballed in 1943. The other two at Birkenau, numbered II and III, contained a total of 30 retorts which would have put the normal daily capacity at 90 to 120 bodies per day which is the rate indicted for the camp by the death registries.

In 1942, when the crematory facilities for Birkenau were planned by the SS, it was also planned that the camp be greatly expanded and the inmate population increased to two hundred thousand. The camp population never reached that number and the typhus epidemic was partially brought under control, so the two smaller facilities were not repaired and put back into operation since they were not needed.

Ref: Mattogno, Butz; Iserson; Pressc

94) Where are the original Allied Auschwitz air photo negatives?

Ans: In the CIA archives and unavailable to researchers. Copies of the films can be studied by researchers at the National Archives in Washington, D.C. but it is believed these films have been altered and contain imagery different from the originals.

Ref: Lenski; Ball; Brugioni

95) What was the ‘Madagascar Plan’?

Ans: After France was defeated by Germany in 1940, the Nazi leadership researched the practicality of resettling Europe’s Jewry on the remote French colony of Madagascar. It was decided Germany did not have the resources to transport them there while the war was still being fought, so Madagascar was abandoned in favor of occupied Soviet territory in late 1941. It was hoped at the time by the Nazis the final expulsion of the Jews from the continent of Europe would then be addressed once the war was won.

Ref: Butz; Irving

96) Who was Kurt Gerstein?

Ans: Kurt Gerstein was a low-ranking SS officer with a degree in mining engineering who served as a sanitation officer for the SS during the war. Near the end of the war, he deserted his assignment and surrendered to the French. While a captive of the French, he wrote several reports or confessions having to do with what he claimed to have witnessed with regard to the gassing of Jews at various Nazi concentration camps. He was found hanged in his cell soon thereafter.

Ref: Roques; Butz

97) How reliable are Gerstein’s confessions?

Ans: The reports left by Gerstein are full of exaggerations and absurdities, but since the source is an SS officer, they are frequently used by Holoscribes as source material in their writings. A reading of the entire text of these confessions can only make one wonder how anyone can seriously quote from them.

Ref: Roques; Butz; Lenski

98) How much ash remains after a body is cremated?

Ans: The Cremation Association of North America says that adult remains weigh between three and nine pounds. Others have found they average 7.4 pounds for men and 5.8 pounds for women.

Ref: Iserson

99) What does Dr. Kremer’s diary reveal about his time at Auschwitz?

Ans: Dr. Kremer’s diary does not mention the gas chambers at all and only refers to the use of Zyklon-B once in relation to the fumigation of a barracks infested with lice. Dr. Kremer discusses the epidemic of typhus raging through Auschwitz during the second half of 1942 and the quarantine the camp was under to get control of the spread of the disease.

There are several references to having witnessed horrible scenes while assigned to special actions, but these references are so vague, only a very loose interpretation would allow the reader to conclude he is referring to gassings in these entries. More than likely the references are related to examining prisoners with typhus.

Other gruesome entries deal with the pathologist’s work in collecting human organs from dying patients for his studies; attending trials and executions of prisoners. These were all duties he performed while assigned to the camp.

The key reason Kremer’s diary is cited by the Holoscribes as proof of mass murder of Jews at Auschwitz is his use of an ambiguous phrase in one of the entries. The phrase in question refers to Auschwitz camp as “das Lager der Vernichtung” which they translate as “an extermination camp.” As Faurisson points out, however, the Nazis did not refer to any of their camps as such and placing this postwar interpretation on this 1942 diary entry is erroneous. Moreover when the diary of SS-Dr. Kremer is used as evidence of gassings at Auschwitz, it is required that his more explicit post-war testimony be used in conjunction with the diary to make it support the Auschwitz gas chamber legend. Kremer testified to being assign duty at gassings. He claimed his function was to stand by in case an SS member accidentally succumbed to the gas and render assistance in such cases. The problem with interpreting the diary based on Kremer’s postwar testimony is the diary is no longer the evidence. The evidence is the postwar testimony which was subject to all of the postwar pressures of the other testimony given by former Nazis.

Ref: Klee; Faurisson; Staeglich

100) Are the stories of strange Nazi medical experiments true?

Ans: Medical experiments were performed on some concentration camp prisoners, but those experiments which were life-threatening were performed on inmates who had been sentenced to death by the German government for crimes they had committed. However, many stories concerning medical experiments, like those of Dr. Mengele at Auschwitz, are more likely exaggerations and fabrications because they appear to be scientifically pointless and even silly. The evidence for most of these stories too is post-war testimony. The Nazis do not have a monopoly on performing medical experiments on prison inmates, however. In fact, some of the experimental research started by SS doctors was continued and completed by American military doctors after the German defeat.

Ref: Butz; Porter; Klee

101) Did Hitler order the Jews be exterminated?

Ans: Though that is alleged by those wishing to discredit Hitler and others who wished to shift blame to a dead man. No extermination order has ever been located, and there is no evidence Hitler even knew such a program existed.

Ref: Irving; Butz; Mayer; Klee; Staeglich

102) Did Himmler order the gas chambers be destroyed?

Ans: It is claimed Himmler, the head of the SS, ordered the destruction of the gas chambers in October or November of 1944 and the extermination of the Jews ended. No proof of this has ever been produced. The story of the Himmler order, like the story of the Hitler order to kill the Jews is based largely on postwar testimony, particularly that of Eichmann and Hoess. The gas chamber facilities at Auschwitz were supposed to have been destroyed soon after this order was issued, but aerial photographs taken as late as January 1945 show at least one of the crematory buildings still intact several months after they were allegedly destroyed.

Ref: Butz; Brugioni; Pressac; Ball

103) How many people survived being imprisoned at Auschwitz?

Ans: Recent (1996) press articles estimate the number of people to have survived imprisonment at Auschwitz to be 200,000. The real number is unknown, but many people were imprisoned at Auschwitz and its satellite camps for very short times and were then released after they had served their sentences. The real number, depending on the definition of ‘survived’, therefore may be higher. This huge number of survivors is interesting in that the extermination program was supposed to have been a state secret. Witnesses to it were supposedly killed as part of the effort to destroy the evidence of the crime. Yet the crematories were built in plain sight of everyone arriving at camp and most of the barracks buildings. An athletic field was situated next to Crematory III. There was no effort to hide the facilities, and the people imprisoned at Auschwitz could see everything.

Ref: Associated Press/Reuter; Ball; Brugioni; Mattogno

104) What is the Mueller document?

Ans: The Mueller document, published in 1980’s, is purported to be an Austrian police memorandum from the postwar 1940’s which lists Nazi concentration camps where gassing claims had been investigated and proved to be false. An Austrian, Emil Lauchout, claims the document to be genuine, but it is most likely a forgery. It appears the gassing claims were never investigated, but simply accepted by the Allied governments as fact.

Ref: Faurisson; Lenski

105) Do Holocaust revisionists incite racial hatred?

Ans: No. As far as I know, there is no evidence of that. What the revisionists want to incite is skepticism and an objective examination of major contemporary historical issues that affect us all. Or to quote the revisionist researcher and writer Carlo Mattogno:

“If official historiography reached the clear conclusion that their ‘Holocaust’ version was historically flawed, would it be necessary to hush it up out of fear of providing justification for neo-Nazi resurgency?”

In other words, if it is true, it is unintentional and beside the point.

Ref: Mattogno

____________________________

III

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Suggested titles for more detailed answers to the questions.

Arendt, Hannah (1964) Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil, The Viking Press

Bacque, James (1991) Other Losses, St. Martin’s Press

Ball, John C. (1992) Air Photo Evidence, Ball Resource Services Limited

Brugioni, Dino A.; Poirier, Robert G. (1979) The Holocaust Revisited: A Retrospective Analysis of the Auschwitz-Birkenau Extermination Complex, Central Intelligence Agency

Butz, Arthur R. (1976) The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, Institute for Historical Review

Calvocoressi, Peter; Wint, Guy (1972) Total War Volume 1: The War in the West, Ballantine Books

Chernow, Ron (1993) The Warburgs, Random House

Cobden, John (1994) Dachau: Reality and Myth, Institute for Historical Review

Cockburn, Andrew (198?) The Threat: Inside the Soviet Military Machine ???

Cuppens, Gerd. J. August, Massacre at Malmedy? [See Letter 14]

De Zayas, Alfred M. (1989) Nemesis at Potsdam: The Expulsion of the Germans from the East, University of Nebraska Press

De Zayas, Alfred M. (1989) The Wehrmacht War Crimes Bureau, 1939-1945, University of Nebraska Press

Gauss, Ernst (1994) Grundlagen Zur Zeitgeschichte, Grabert

Gehlen, Reinhard (1972) The Service: the Memoirs of General Reinhard Gehlen, World Publishing

Gilbert, Martin (1981) Auschwitz and the Allies, Holt Rinehart & Winston

Hoggan, David L. (1989) The Forced War: When Peaceful Revision Failed, Institute for Historical Review

Irving, David (1991) Hitler’s War, Focal Point

Irving, David (1996) Goebbels: Mastermind of the Third Reich, Focal Point

Iserson, Kenneth V. (1994) Death to Dust: What Happens to Dead Bodies? Galen Press

Kammerer, Solms (1993) A Scientific Sensation: the Rudolf Report, Cromwell Press

Klee, Ernst; Dressen, Willi; Riess, Volker (1988) “The Good Old Days:” The Holocaust as Seen by Its Perpetrators and Bystanders, Free Press

Lanzmann, Claude (1985) Shoah: an Oral History of the Holocaust, Pantheon Books

Lenski, Robert (1989) The Holocaust on Trial: the Case of Ernst Zundel, Reporter Press

Leuchter, Fred A. (1988) The Leutcher Report: the End of a Myth, Samisdat Publishers Limited

Lipstadt, Deborah (1993) Denying the Holocaust: the Growing Assault on Truth and Memory, Free Press

Mattogno, Carlo (1994) Auschwitz: the End of a Legend, Institute for Historical Review

Mattogno, Carlo (1996) My Banned Holocaust Interview, Granata

Mayer, Arno J. (1988) Why Did the Skies Not Darken? Pantheon Press

Muller, Filip (1979) Eyewitness Auschwitz, Stein & Day Porter

Carlos Whitlock (1988) Made in Russia: the Holocaust, Historical Review Press

Pressac, Jean-Claude (1989) Auschwitz: The Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers

Robnett, Geoge W. (1968) Conquest Through Immigration: How Zionism Turned Palestine in a Jewish State, Omni Publications

Roques, Henri (1989) The ‘Confessions’of Kurt Gerstein, Institute for Historical Review

Sanning, Walter N. (1983) The Dissolution of Eastern European Jewry, Institute for Historical Review

Segev, Tom (1993) The Seventh Million, Hill & Wang

Smith, Bradley (1988) Confessions of a Holocaust Revisionist, Prima Facie

Solzhenitsyn, Aleksandr I (1973) The Gulag Archipelago, Harper & Row

Staeglich, Wilhelm (1986) The Auschwitz Myth, Institute for Historical Review

Steiner, Jean-Frangois (1979) Treblinka New American Library

Ziemssen, Dietrich (1981) The Malmedy Trial, Institute for Historical Review

Articles / Pamphlets:

“Diesel Gas Chambers: The Myth Within the Myth” by Friedrich P. Berg JHR Vol 5 No. 1. Spring 1984

“The Franke-Gricksch ‘Resettlement-Action Report’ Anatomy of a Fabrication” by Brian A. Renk JHR Vol. Eleven, No. Three. Fall 1991

“My Confrontation with Deborah Lipstadt” by David Irving

THE JOURNAL OF HISTORICAL REVIEW Volume 15, Number 1 January / February 1995. Pages 28-30.

“What is ‘Holocaust Denial’?” IHR pamphlet 1992

“A few facts about the INSTITUTE FOR HISTORICAL REVIEW.”

pamphlet / IHR “Confessions of SS Men who were at Auschwitz” by Dr. Robert Faurisson. JHR Vol. 2 No. 2 1981

“How the British Obtained the Confessions of Rudolf Hoess” by Dr. Robert Faurisson JHR Vol.7 No.4 1986-87

“The Mueller Document” by Dr. Robert Faurisson JHR Vol.8 No. 1 1988

“The Lueftl Report” by Walter Lueftl JHR Vol. 12 No. 4 Winter 1992-93

—————————————————————-

PDF of this post. Click to view or download (0.6 MB) >> Holocaust Revisionism Frequently Asked Questions Ver 2

Version History

Version 3: Feb 9, 2025 — Updated Cover image.

Version 2: Jan 28, 2015 — modified cover image.
Version 1: Published Jan 28, 2015.

Lothrop Stoddard

Into the Darkness:

An Uncensored Report from

Inside the Third Reich at War

INSTITUTE FOR HISTORICAL REVIEW

Veteran American Journalist Provides Valuable Inside Look at Third Reich Germany

Into the Darkness: A Sympathetic Report from Hitler’s Wartime Reich, by Lothrop Stoddard. Newport Beach, Calif.: Noontide Press, 2000. (Facsimile reprint of the original 1940 edition, with new introduction.) 312 pages. Softcover. Index.

Reviewed by Theodore J. O’Keefe

After 60 years of oblivion, Lothrop Stoddard’s Into the Darkness, based on the author’s journey to central Europe from October 1939 to early 1940, has, thanks to the Noontide Press, re-emerged into the light of day. This is a welcome event, for this book is a rare even-handed account of the Third Reich – its leaders, its people, its politics and society – at the outset of the Second World War.

Lothrop Stoddard was not just any journalist, but perhaps the foremost popular American writer on race of the 20th century. Stoddard’s Harvard Ph.D. in history (his dissertation on the slave revolt in Haiti was published in 1914 as The French Revolution in San Domingo) and his languages and wide travel set him apart from most scribblers of his day, and ours. His Rising Tide of Color was a best-seller in the 1920s, when Stoddard’s notions on race, immigration, and eugenics were in national vogue, but that and his other books were banished not long afterward to a shadowy existence of reprinting by obscure houses and availability almost entirely by mail.

Traveling to Europe in late 1939 as a correspondent for the North American Newspaper Alliance, the 56-year-old Stoddard was given generous entree to Germany ‘s leaders, from Hitler on down. Maneuvering his way around the blacked-out country (whence the book’s title), whether shepherded by officials or on his own, Stoddard was aided not merely by his intimacy with Germany, dating from before the First World War, and his fluency in the language, but also by his keen reportorial eye and ear. The result is a highly readable account of Germany in the months between the victorious Polish campaign and the conquest of Denmark, Norway, France and the Lowlands. Read today, Into the Darkness resembles a time capsule from a forgotten age, an age before the atrocity mills were working to capacity and before the Nuremberg Tribunal had stamped its falsehoods with the seal of authenticity.

Most American journalists’ books on Third Reich Germany have focused on politics, nearly always from the standpoint of Hitler’s opponents. Stoddard, while hardly neglecting the Party, the Wehrmacht, the SS, and the police, is largely concerned with describing Germany ‘s economic and social life and institutions. He was able not merely to get access to Joseph Goebbels, Heinrich Himmler, Robert Ley, Wilhelm Frick, Walter Darré, Gertrud Scholz-Klink and many other leaders, but to talk directly and knowledgeably with them about their achievements, problems, and goals. Stoddard then went off to observe what the Nazis were doing – on the farm, in the workplace, with the Labor Service, through the Winterhilfe aid campaign, and in the eugenics court. ( Before visiting the last, he talked with such figures of the Reich’s racial and genetics programs as Eugen Fischer, Fritz Lenz, and Hans F. K. Günther.) What Party officials and government ministers wouldn’t tell him, he was often able to learn from taxi drivers, letter carriers, and cleaning women – and still found time to travel to Slovakia, where he interviewed the country’s president, Monsignor Josef Tiso, and to Hungary, where he celebrated New Year’s eve with his many friends among the Magyars.

Readers of Into the Darkness, whether they share Stoddard’s racial views or not, may be surprised to discover how objectively he described what he saw. The fact that his views on racial hierarchy and the preponderant influence of inheritance over that of environment largely jibed with those of the Nazis did not make the American Yankee a starry-eyed sympathizer, let alone a propagandist for, the National Socialist experiment. The old-stock Yankee from Brookline, Massachusetts, was acutely aware of the regime’s all-encompassing propaganda techniques, and part of the appeal of his narrative lies in his canny observations on how German officialdom did its best to micromanage appearances (though not necessarily in a heavy-handed way) from the Reichskanzlei to the Gasthaus.

For Stoddard, unlike William Shirer, Dorothy Day, and the other “crusading” US journalists who covered Germany under Hitler, the Third Reich limitations on freedoms guaranteed by the American Constitution were sufficient grounds for distaste, if not censure, of the regime. While Into the Darkness doesn’t gloss over the pervasive censorship, the concealed presence of the Gestapo, the ring tightening around the Jews, and the first rumors (some all too true) of German outrages in Poland, Stoddard was disinclined to bandy, let alone manufacture, atrocity tales. Thus his picture of Germany, even under the heightened censorship, rationing, and other wartime measures, accurately describes a far freer, safer place, for the great majority of its people, than was the Soviet Union. (That the Moscow treaty of August 1939 continued in force during Stoddard’s visit afforded the author opportunity to make a public show of defiance to his hosts’ foreign policy when, together with other journalists, Stoddard toasted the Finnish resistance to the late-1939 Soviet invasion.)

In 1940, however, accuracy and objectivity on Hitler’s Germany was not what was wanted by America’s intellectual and policy establishment. Even before Into the Darkness was published, Time magazine sniped at Stoddard as “persona grata to Nazis,” running a grotesquely truncated version of his interview with Goebbels (already published through the North American Newspaper Alliance). By the time his book appeared, Germany ‘s armed forces had conquered Denmark and Norway, overrun the Lowlands and conquered France, and driven British troops back across the Channel. While the United States, in accord with the wishes of the great majority of Americans, would stay officially neutral for a further a year and half, the climate in the publishing world, the academy, and government was such that Stoddard felt constrained to include an apologetic “Statement” on the book jacket. It begins:

“Personally repellent and depressing though Nazi Germany was to me, as it must be to any normally-minded American.”

And continues in the same mode for two paragraphs. Stoddard’s aim then was to salvage himself and his book by advertising Into the Darkness as a clarion call to preparedness against the German:

“New Sparta with its cult of ruthless efficiency.”

Today, Stoddard’s apology for Into the Darkness stands more as a sad tribute to the intimidating power, even then, of America’s Orwellian media combine. One can’t help noting that none of Stalin ‘s many apologists among American journalists seems to have felt compelled to write a similar disclaimer.

Sixty years after it was written, the text of Into the Darkness is both a refutation of its author’s apologia and a rebuke to his detractors. This is a journalistic account that still lives and breathes, that informs and entertains.

Part of this is due to Stoddard’s sympathy for so many of his subjects, and his empathy for all of them. Part is due to the book’s dynamic objectivity, which arises from Stoddard’s efforts to get at the facts behind the German propaganda rather than devise his own counter-propaganda.

And part of the continued vitality of Into the Darkness is certainly owing to our knowledge of how things will end, five years hence, for Hitler, Himmler, Goebbels and Tiso, and so many of their countrymen.

This reviewer has no evidence that Lothrop Stoddard actively opposed American entry into either the First or the Second World War. His Into the Darkness, nevertheless, is a vivid reminder that Germany under Hitler, as late as 1940, was not the inferno of persecution alleged by its detractors. Reading it today, armed with a hindsight unavailable to Stoddard, one may profitably wonder whether the (actual, as opposed to invented) Nazi excesses over the following five years owed more to the war and its conduct by the Allies than to the evil of the Nazis or the Germans.

Noontide’s new edition of Into the Darkness includes an up-to-date and informative introduction on Stoddard’s career by Rachel Dixon, and a new cover design which easily excels that of any of the author’s earlier books. Neither revisionists nor connoisseurs of Stoddard’s various writings on race will want to be without this highly readable, and most informative, re-issue.

From The Journal of Historical Review, March/April 2000 (Vol. 19, No. 2), page 69.

About the author:

Theodore J. O’Keefe is book editor for the Institute for Historical Review, and an associate editor of the IHR’s Journal of Historical Review. He previously worked at the IHR from 1986 until 1994, serving as chief editor of this Journal from 1988 until April 1992. He also addressed the IHR Conferences of 1986, 1987, 1989, 1990 and 1992. Educated at Harvard College, he is the author of numerous articles on historical and political subjects that have appeared in a range of periodicals.

———————

Book Reviews

Chapter 1: The Shadow   Chapter 2: Berlin Blackout  Chapter 3: Getting on with the Job   Chapter 4: Junketing Through Germany Chapter 5: This Detested War  Chapter 6: Vienna and Bratislava  Chapter 7: Iron Rations   Chapter 8: A Berlin Lady Goes to Market  Chapter 9: The Battle of the Land  Chapter 10: The Labor Front   Chapter 11: The Army of the Spade   Chapter 12: Hitler Youth   Chapter 13: Women of the Third Reich   Chapter 14: Behind the Winter­Help   Chapter 15: Socialized Health   Chapter 16: In a Eugenics Court   Chapter 17: I See Hitler   Chapter 18: Mid­Winter Berlin   Chapter 19: Berlin to Budapest   Chapter 20: The Party   Chapter 21: The Totalitarian State   Chapter 22: Closed Doors   Chapter 23: Out of the Shadow

———————————-

Version History

Version 5: Jul 26, 2022. Added Institute for Historical Review’s review.

Version 4: Apr 28, 2022. Re-uploaded images for katana17.com.

Version 3: Wed, Feb 5, 2014. Added Chapter links.