ZGram - 9/24/2004 - "Look what I found on Pravda.ru"

[zgrams at zgrams.zundelsite.org]

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

September 24, 2004

Good Morning from the Zundelsite:

The book described below is without question one of the most 
important texts that have come out of the Revisionist movement.  I 
understand that the hardcover version is out of print - here at 
Zundel-Haus Tennessee we still have all of 13 copies left, $55 plus 
postage per copy - but it is available in paperback.  Check with 
www.vho.org

Following the description of the book is a Preface written by Dr. 
Robert Faurisson, Europe's foremost Revisionist.  It is absolutely 
excellent and should run in every mainstream publication even 
remotely interested in the spiritual struggle more than 20 years 
already described in a Canadian legal dispute and judgment involving 
Ernst Zundel as "a struggle between the Germans and the Jews." 

Even though the Preface was written exactly ten years and a day ago 
today, it is still relevant. [Dr. Faurisson will forgive me that I am 
not running the footnotes;  I simply copied what was on Pravda.ru]

Enjoy and pass this on!

[START]

Dissecting the Holocaust: The Growing Critique of 'Truth' and 'Memory'
Edited by Ernst Gauss

````` HOLOCAUST Handbook Series
Volume One
Thesis & Dissertation Press


````` {from inside front book jacket}

The book 'Dissecting the Holocaust' by Ernst Gauss (Germar Rudolf) 
applies state-of-the-art scientific technique and classic methods of 
detection to investigate the alleged murder of millions of Jews by 
Germans during World War II. Among the questions raised and 
considered by the authors, each a specialist in a historical, 
scientific, technological, or legal discipline:

*     How reliable are the claims of the eyewitnesses - or the 
confessions of the alleged perpetrators?

*     What do population statistics reveal about the probable number 
of Jewish casualties under Nazi rule?

*     How strong is the evidence for murder in "gas vans"?

*     Do photographs that seem to show Nazi crimes actually document them?

*     What do wartime Allied aerial photographs of the camps reveal 
about the alleged massacres?

*     Why are Bergen-Belsen and Buchenwald no longer classified as 
extermination camps, even by Holocaust true believers?

*     What do long suppressed Auschwitz camp records, recently 
unearthed in the Moscow state archives, disclose about murder by gas 
at the most notorious "death camps"?

*     Did the technology to gas millions, then incinerate the corpses 
with scarcely a trace, exist during World War II?

*     Did German soldiers shoot thousands of innocents behind the 
Russian front?

*     Most important of all, dare one doubt what society has declared 
self-evident?

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

Preface

Robert Faurisson

Historical Revisionism is the great adventure of the end of this century.

Despite its size, the present handbook offers only a glimpse of that 
adventure; and so it seems necessary here first to specify the 
precise historical problem upon which the Revisionists have 
concentrated their research, then how revisionism arose in the 1940s 
and how it developed in the years 1950 to 1978; and finally how it 
really took off in the years 1978 to 1979, to experience such an 
increase in the present day that nothing seems likely to halt its 
onward march.

In the Nuremberg Trial (1945-6), Germany had been judged and 
condemned for "crimes against peace", for "war crimes" and for 
"crimes against humanity". The Revisionists had been led in a way by 
their successive discoveries concerning these three points to call 
for a revision of the Nuremberg Trial. Regarding the first two 
points, the Revisionists have been able to present their arguments 
without too much difficulty, and it is probable that no serious 
historian today would contend that anyone is in a position to lecture 
Germany concerning "crimes against peace" and "war crimes": as a 
matter of fact, it has become evident that the Allies bear their 
share of responsibility in the starting the war, and they themselves 
committed innumerable "war crimes" (if that expression has any 
meaning, given that war itself may be held a crime). On the other 
hand, concerning the third point, that is with regard to "crimes 
against humanity", they keep on dinning into our ears that Germany 
attained a peak of horror all her own with the 'genocide' of the 
Jews. It is on the study of this precise point that the Revisionists 
have specifically concentrated their efforts. And so, by degrees, 
historical revisionism has become what the Americans now call 
'Holocaust revisionism'.

According to the accusers, Germany was not content to persecute the 
Jews, to deport them and put them into concentration camps or forced 
labor camps; those 'crimes' - as every historian knows - are 
unfortunately frequent in the history of mankind, and we have only to 
turn on our TV sets today to note that all kinds of human societies 
continue to suffer such 'crimes'. Germany, her accusers still 
contend, went far beyond that. Taking a giant leap in horror, in 
1941-1942 she allegedly decided on the total extermination of the 
European Jews, and in order to perpetrate this specific crime, 
supposedly devised and utilized a specific weapon: the homicidal gas 
chamber (or gas van). Making use of abominable chemical 
slaughterhouses, she allegedly began a collective assassination of 
industrial proportions. That crime (the genocide) and that weapon 
used in the crime (the homicidal gas chamber) are in that sense 
inseparable, and it is consequently impossible to maintain, as some 
do, "that whether or not there was a gas chamber makes no 
difference". Germany thus presumably committed an intrinsically evil 
crime against the Jews. The Jews say further that the whole world 
'knowingly' allowed the Germans to perpetrate that crime. The 
paradoxical result of so enormous an accusation is that today in the 
dock of the accused, 'criminals' Hitler, Himmler, and Goering are 
joined by their 'accomplices', Roosevelt, Churchill, Stalin, Pope 
Pius XII, and the International Committee of the Red Cross, as well 
as the representatives of many other countries and organizations.

Things are such that in the United States, for instance, from Los 
Angeles to Washington, they hammer away at it in the 'Holocaust 
Museums', where today's Jews have set themselves up as accusers of 
the whole world; they go so far as to incriminate the Jews in 
positions of responsibility who were living in Europe, in America, or 
in Palestine during the war; they have the effrontery to reproach 
them for their collaboration or their indifference, or for the 
spinelessness of their reaction to the 'systematic extermination' of 
their co-religionists.

The earliest rumors of a gassing of Jews by the Germans apparently 
circulated in December of 1941 in the Warsaw ghetto. But throughout 
the war such rumors found only a feeble echo in circles hostile to 
Germany. One only has to read a book such as that of Walter Laqueur's 
'The Terrible Secret' to realize that the skepticism was general. 
People still held long-lived memories during the Second World War of 
the inventions of atrocities during the First World War, when stories 
were already being spread about the gassing of civilians (in churches 
or elsewhere), as well as stories about corpse factories. The Foreign 
Office saw the new rumors of the Second World War only as Jewish 
inventions and many in American circles shared that conviction. 
Edward Benes, President of Czechoslovkia (in exile in London), 
announced in November 1942, after inquiry by his staff, that the 
Germans, contrary to what had been reported to him, were not 
exterminating the Jews: The American Jew, Felix Frankfurter, a 
Supreme Court judge, stated to Jan Karski on the subject: "I can't 
believe you." In August of 1943, Cordell Hull, Secretary of State, 
warned the U.S. Ambassador to Moscow by telegram that in planning a 
joint Allied statement on "the German crimes in Poland", it would be 
advisable to eliminate any mention of the gas chambers, since, as the 
British pointed out, there was "insufficient evidence" in the matter.

Even after the war, high ranking Allied officials such as Eisenhower, 
Churchill and De Gaulle, in their respective memoirs, would refrain 
from mentioning the existence and operation of 'Nazi gas chambers'. 
In a manner of speaking, all these skeptics were in their own way 
Revisionists. Neither the Vatican, or the International Committee of 
the Red Cross, nor the anti-German Resistance acted as if they put 
any faith in the rumors which, moreover, took the most fantastic 
forms: invariably the Germans were said to be exterminating the Jews, 
but as to the methods of extermination they were most varied: steam, 
gas, electricity, fire, acid, an injection of air, drowning, vacuum 
pump, etc. Why gas wound up the winner in the 'Greuelpropaganda' 
competition is not exactly known.

The Frenchman Paul Rassinier was the first true Revisionist of the 
postwar period. In 1950, this former deportee began to denounce the 
"myth of the gas chambers" in 'Le Mensonge d' Ulysse' and in a whole 
series of works. In 1976, the American engineer Arthur Robert Butz 
published 'The Hoax of the Twentieth Century' which is the most 
profound revisionist work written to date on the subject of the 
alleged genocide and the gas chambers. In 1979, a German judge, Dr. 
Wilhelm Staglich, in turn published 'Der Auschwitz Myhos', a study 
devoted principally to the manner in which the German courts of law 
were able to collaborate in the fabrication of a myth, somewhat in 
the same way that the judges of the witchcraft trials in the past, 
above all between 1450 to 1650, lent their support to even the most 
preposterous stories told about the stake, the grill and Satan's 
ovens.

Without wishing to diminish the great importance of Paul Rassinier, 
of Arthur Butz, and of Wilhelm Staglich, I hope I may be permitted to 
say, at the end of the seventies, revisionism would for once become 
materialistic and scientific with the research being conducted on the 
ground by Ditlieb Feldner, the Swedish Revisionist, as well as my own 
discoveries at Auschwitz proper, my observations on the use of Zyklon 
B for disinfestation (delousing), and my reflections on the 
utilization of hydrogen cyanide gas in the gas chambers of 
US-American penitentiaries for the execution of men condemned to 
death. Neither Rassinier, nor Butz, nor Staglich had gone to Poland 
to the supposed sites of the crime, and none of them, moreover, had 
really utilized to their fullest extent the arguments of a physical, 
chemical, topographical, and architectural nature which today, 
following the investigations of D. Feldner and my own inquiries, are 
currently employed by the younger generation of revisionist 
researchers. As for Jewish researchers, who defend the theory of the 
extermination of the Jews, they have resolutely remained what I call 
'paper historians': Leon Poliakov and Raul Hilberg have stayed with 
paper and words and in the realm of speculation.

It is surprisingly that this vast field of properly scientific 
argument was not seen by Germany, which has so many chemists and 
engineers, and by the USA, itself with no lack of scientific minds 
who even had the examples right there before them of their own gas 
chambers using hydrogen cyanide. In 1976 at Auschwitz, I discovered 
both the exact configuration of the crematories that were supposed to 
contain homicidal gas chambers, of the delousing gas chambers 
(Entlausungsgaskammern), and the plans (hidden until then) of certain 
crematories. In 1978/1979, at the first conference of the Institute 
for Historical Review, in Los Angeles, I presented those discoveries 
in detail. Among those present in the audience was one Ernst Zundel, 
a German now living in Toronto. From 1985 on, this man would prove to 
be the most ardent, the most effective, and also - though many seem 
not to know it - one of the most innovative minds among all the 
Revisionists. He was the first to understand why I so insisted on the 
chemical argument and, in particular, on the importance of the 
technology of the American gas chambers in the thirties and forties 
had for us. He understood why I wanted a specialist in these American 
gas chambers to go and examine the alleged execution gas chambers on 
the spot, in Poland. Thanks to my correspondence with American 
penitentiaries in the seventies, I had already discovered such a 
specialist in the person of Fred Leuchter, but it was Ernst Zundel, 
and he alone, who had the brilliant idea of asking him not only to 
make an examination of the buildings, but to take constituent samples 
of material from the disinfestation gas chambers on the one hand and 
from the alleged execution gas chambers on the other. In February of 
1988, he took the risk of sending Fred Leuchter and an entire team to 
Poland at his own expense to study the alleged gas chambers of 
Auschwitz, Birkenau and Majdanek. The results of the study of the 
buildings and of the analysis of the samples taken proved spectacular 
and totally in favor of the revisionist thesis. In the following 
years, other reports would confirm the basic accuracy of the 
'Leuchter Report' : first the very learned report of Germar Rudolf, 
then the involved and secret specialist-s report of the Poles, and 
finally the study of the Austrian Walter Luftl.

It only remains to be said that if Germany's accusers are not 
satisfied with these studies, they are at liberty to initiate their 
own specialist's report. What has kept them from doing it publicly, 
in broad daylight, these past fifty years?

We must understand the disarray of Germany's accusers in the face of 
revisionism's successes. For half a century they have sincerely 
believed that the tragedy undergone by the Jews during the Second 
World War was of exceptional seriousness and magnitude, whereas, when 
reduced to its proper proportions - that is, without genocide and 
without gas chambers - their tragedy was just one of many tragedies 
of that terrible conflict. Under the thrust of revisionist inquiries 
their historians have had to admit

*     that there was neither an order, nor a plan, nor a budget for 
the alleged genocide of the Jews;

*     that 'Wannsee' was at best only a 'silly story';

*     that there existed no specialist's report on the weapon of the 
crime concluding that 'the building (whether intact, "reconstructed", 
or in ruins) served as a homicidal gas chamber'

*     that there is no autopsy that would allow us to conclude: This 
is the corpse of a deportee killed by poison gas-;

*     that the confession of Rudolf H. was no longer of any value 
("[Rudolf H] was always a very weak and confused witness")

*     that their alleged witnesses had probably never seen gas 
chambers or gassings inasmuch as the best of them, the famous Rudolf 
Vrba, in 1988, had been obliged to admit before a Canadian judge and 
jury that in his famous book on the subject he had made use of 
'poetic license' or 'licentia poetarum';

*     that the 'Jewish soap' had never existed;

*     that the figure of four million victims at Auschwitz was only fiction;

and that the

*     "sources for the study of the gas chambers are at once rare and 
unreliable [-]. Besides, from 1942 to 1945, certainly at Auschwitz, 
but probably overall, more Jews were killed by so-called 'natural' 
causes [starvation, disease, sickness and overwork] than by 
'unnatural' ones"

Since 2 July 1982, at the end of an international symposium the 
exterminationists had organized at the Sorbonne (Paris) to attempt to 
answer me, they had shown themselves incapable of producing the 
slightest proof of the existence and the operation of a single gas 
chamber. In March of 1992, I hurled my challenge:

"Show me or draw me a Nazi gas chamber!"
Jean-Claude Pressac, on whom the exterminationists so counted, had 
proven himself incapable of bringing forth anything but what he 
called "traces of the crime", and he had taken great care not to 
provide us with a total physical representation of the weapon used in 
the crime.

On 30 August 1994, I had a meeting with Michael Berenbaum, the 
scientific director of the Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, 
in his office and in the presence of four witnesses (two on his side 
and two on mine) I forced him to admit that, paradoxically, his 
museum contained no actual representation of a 'Nazi gas 
chamber-'(the model of Krema II being only an artistic creation 
bearing no relation to reality). I asked him why. He finally replied:

"The decision had been made [by us] not to give any physical 
representation of the nazi gas chambers"

His response was equivalent to a Catholic priest - Mr. Berenbaum is a 
Jewish theologian - who decided to eliminate any representation of 
the cross from his church. To be driven to such extremities, one must 
surely feel that he has his back to the wall.

I think that the co-religionists of Mr. Berenbaum will at last 
abandon the gas chamber as they have abandoned the Jewish soap and 
the Auschwitz 4 million. They will go farther than that. As in the 
two previous cases, they will present themselves as the discoverers 
of the myth and accuse the Germans, the Poles, or the Communists of 
having fabricating the "myth of the gas chambers". In support of 
their impudent thesis, they will invoke the names of Jews who are 
Revisionists totally or in part (J.G. Burg, Jean-Gabriel Cohn-Bendit, 
Roger-Guy Dommergue, Arno Mayer, David Cole, Christopher Hitchins, 
Joel Hayward...). They will then assign themselves the starring roles.

At the same time, however, transforming the 'Holocaust' of the Jews 
into a religious belief, this time divested of all material content, 
they will be only the more inflexible in denouncing authentic 
Revisionists as 'deniers', or 'negationists', as being intolerant, 
heartless, basely materialistic and hostile to free expression of 
religious sentiments. For those Jews, the true Revisionists will thus 
continue to be diabolical in spirit even as they must be acknowledged 
to be in the right from a factual point of view.

The Revisionists are neither diabolical nor negative. By no means are 
they 'naysayers'. They are positive in outlook. At the conclusion of 
their research - which is positive in character - they affirm that 
certain beliefs are just myths. Such myths are harmful in that they 
feed hatred. The Revisionists strive to describe what has taken place 
and not what has not taken place. In sum and substance, what they 
proclaim to be a wretched humanity is good news. Seeking only 
historical accuracy, they find themselves fighting against calumny 
and for justice. They have suffered and they will continue to suffer, 
but I believe, that history will declare them right and render them 
justice.


ROBERT FAURISSON, September 23, 1994

[END]