( Part 9 of 9 )
The first accusation of mass murder of the Jews was made on December 17, 1942 by the Allies in a Joint Declaration. Lemkin, as far as Browning knew, never used the 6 million figure in his book. Weber pointed out this mistake made no difference to the substance of the thesis of the pamphlet.
12. Gerstein’s sister was congenitally insane and died by euthanasia, which may well suggest a streak of mental instability in Gerstein himself. Gerstein’s fantastic exaggerations have done little but discredit the whole notion of mass extermination. Indeed, Evangelical Bishop Wilhelm Dibelius of Berlin denounced his memoranda as “Untrustworthy” (p. 9)
It was not Gerstein’s sister, but his sister-in-law, who was killed in the euthanasia program. Dibelius in fact stated that he was convinced of the trustworthiness of Gerstein, the opposite of what Harwood had written. However, Hilberg admitted that he would not characterize Gerstein as being totally rational and that there was no question that he was capable of adding imagination to fact. Browning acknowledged there were “problems” with Gerstein’s testimony; his obvious exaggerations resulted because he was “traumatized” by his experiences, said Browning.
13. It should be emphasised straight away that there is not a single document in existence which proves that the Germans intended to, or carried out, the deliberate murder of Jews. (p. 10)
In Browning’s opinion, there were such documents, including the Hans Frank diary, the Wannsee Conference protocol, and the 1943 Posen speech of Himmler. Historian Robert Faurisson pointed out that if these documents “proved” the existence of a deliberate plan to murder the Jews, there would be no debate between the “functionalists” and “intentionalists” in the Holocaust academic circles. This debate in and of itself showed that no proof of a deliberate plan existed. Hilberg had testified in the 1985 Zündel trial that there were two oral orders from Hitler for the extermination of the Jews. He denied that he had changed this view in his then forthcoming second edition of his book The Destruction of the European Jews, which was to be published shortly thereafter. In 1988, Hilberg refused to testify at the second Zündel trial, citing in a confidential letter to the prosecutor that he had “grave doubts” about testifying again; ‘the defence,’ he wrote, “... would ... make every attempt to entrap me by pointing to any seeming contradiction, however trivial the subject might be, between my earlier testimony and an answer that I might give in 1988.” Browning admitted in his testimony that Hilberg had made a “significant” change regarding the role of Hitler in the decision-making process between his first edition and the second edition, published in 1985. In an article entitled “The Revised Hilberg”, Browning wrote that in his second edition, Hilberg had “systematically excised” all references in the text to a Hitler decision or a Hitler order for the “Final Solution”. In the new edition, wrote Browning, “decisions were not made and orders were not given”.
14. Attempts to find “veiled allusions” to genocide in speeches like that of Himmler’s to his S.S. Obergruppenführers at Posen in 1943 are likewise quite hopeless. (p. 11)
Browning testified that the Posen speech contained explicit references to exterminating the Jews. Historian David Irving testified, however, that those portions of the original manuscript of the Posen speech which dealt with “extermination” had been tampered with; they were written in a different typescript using different carbon paper and were numbered in pencil. Irving also pointed out that the Israelis had Himmler’s private diary but refused to allow any historians to have access to it. If Himmler’s diary supported the “Holocaust”, Irving said, the Israelis would be the first to release it.
15. Most incredible of all, perhaps, was the fact that defence lawyers at Nuremberg were not permitted to cross-examine prosecution witnesses.(p. 12)
Hilberg testified that defense lawyers were allowed to cross-examine witnesses at Nuremberg. Weber testified that many affidavits were entered into evidence, however, upon which no cross-examination was possible.
16. The Soviet charge that the Action Groups had wantonly exterminated a million Jews during their operations has been shown subsequently to be a massive falsification. In fact, there had never been the slightest statistical basis for the figure. (p. 14)
Browning testified that on the basis of the Einsatzgruppen reports and the works of other historians that at least 1 million Jews were killed by the Einsatztruppen. Historian Weber testified, however, that in the major work on the Einsatztruppen, Die Truppe des Weltanschauungskrieges, the two authors calculated that if all the figures in the Einsatztruppen reports were added up, there would be a total of 2.2 million Jewish dead. The authors admitted this was impossible and conceded that the Einsatztruppen report figures were exaggerated. In Weber’s opinion, the figure of about 1 million was not believable because it was known that the great majority of Jews fled or were evacuated from the eastern territories before the German invasion in 1941.
17. Thus between July and October 1942, over three quarters of the Warsaw Ghetto’s inhabitants were peacefully evacuated and transported, supervised by the Jewish police themselves. . . A total, however, of 56,065 inhabitants were captured and peacefully resettled in the area of the Government-General.(p. 19)
Browning stated that reports of the Warsaw Ghetto clearing indicated it was done brutally and not “peacefully” as alleged by Harwood. In Browning’s opinion, they were not resettled but taken to Treblinka and Majdanek and either gassed or shot. Historian Mark Weber testified that the record as to what happened to these Jews was still unclear. In Weber’s opinion, Treblinka and Majdanek were simply concentration and/or transit camps.
18. Of course, no Jew would ever be found who claimed to have been a member of this gruesome “special detachment”, so that the whole issue is left conveniently unprovable. It is worth repeating that no living, authentic eye-witness to these events has ever been produced. (p. 20)
One of Browning’s main differences with the pamphlet was that it denied the existence of the homicidal gas chambers for the purpose of killing Jews. He testified Jews had come forward claiming to be members of the Sonderkommando, such as Filip Mueller, whose accounts he found to be “moving”. Browning admitted under cross-examination, however, that he had never seen a technical plan that purported to be either a gas chamber or gas van. He had never enquired about cremation processes or how much heat or how long it took to cremate a human body. Browning had not looked at the aereal photographs taken by the Allies of Auschwitz during the war except for one on the wall of Yad Vashem. Neither Browning nor Hilberg knew of any autopsy report showing that any camp inmate was killed by Zyklon B. Hilberg and Browning visited the concentration camps only for the purpose of looking at memorials or as members of Holocaust Commissions. Witnesses Leuchter and Roth gave evidence which showed that samples taken from the walls and floor of the alleged “gas chambers” at Auschwitz and Birkenau showed either no traces or only minute traces of cyanide, while the walls of a known fumigation chamber at Birkenau which had used Zyklon B had over 1000 times as much traceable cyanide. In Leuchter’s opinion, as an expert in gas chamber technology, the alleged homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz, Birkenau and Majdanek were incapable of being used as gas chambers for the killing of human beings because of their structure, including such factors as lack of exhaust systems, stacking and sealants. Ivan Lagace, a cremation expert, testified that in modern crematories it took a minimum of 1 1/2 hours to cremate a human body in one retort; he termed “ludicrous” the extermination claim that over 4,400 bodies were cremated in 46 retorts at Birkenau per day. With respect to the veracity of “eyewitness” testimony, Weber testified that Yad Vashem had admitted that over half of the “survivor” accounts on record there were unreliable as many had “let their imagination run away with them.” Historian Faurisson quoted from the Jewish writer Michel de Bouard, who admitted in 1986 that “the record is rotten to the core” with obstinately repeated “fantasies” and inaccuracies.
19. Of course, no Jew would ever be found who claimed to have been a member of this gruesome “special detachment”, so that the whole issue is left conveniently unprovable. It is worth repeating that no living, authentic eye-witness to these events has ever been produced. (p. 20)
Browning believed Eichmann to be the highest central figure in the plan to exterminate the Jews who survived the war and testified. Eichmann testified that Heydrich told him that Hitler had ordered the extermination of the Jews of Europe. Browning admitted, however, that Eichmann had “more than a little trouble” in sorting out events in his mind. In historian Irving’s opinion Eichmann was on trial and under considerable physical and mental coercion; such testimony did not advance historical knowledge but polluted it.
20. . . . only seven years after its initial publication, a New York Supreme Court case established that the book was a hoax. . . It established that the Jewish novelist Meyer Levin had written the dialogue of the “diary” and was demanding payment for his work in a court action against Otto Frank.(p. 21)
This was not true; in fact Levin had sued for payment for writing a play based on the diary itself. Faurisson and Irving testified that other proof existed, however, that the diary’s authenticity was suspect. Expert examinations of the original diary by graphologists and West German criminal laboratories showed that one person had written the diary and part of it was written in ball-point pen ink, which only came into use in the 1950s. Faurisson believed the diary was written by Otto Frank, the father of Anne Frank.
21. As a result, eastern camps in the Russian zone of occupation such as Auschwitz and Treblinka gradually came to the fore as horrific centres of extermination (though no one was permitted to see them), and this tendency has lasted to the present day. (p. 23)
Browning testified that it was false to say no one was permitted to see the camps in the Soviet zone. He cited a New York Times article by journalist W. Lawrence of a tour of Majdanek given to journalists by the Soviets in 1944. Browning admitted that the article had significant errors regarding the numbers of people who allegedly died there and how Zyklon B worked. Historian Weber testified that Western Allied investigators were not allowed to investigate concentration camps in the Soviet zone of occupation after the war. The visit to Majdanek by newspaper reporters was a guided tour by the Soviets for propaganda purposes; it was not an investigation by any specialized person.
22. Finally, Professor Rassinier draws attention to an important admission by Dr. Kubovy, director of the World Centre of Contemporary Jewish Documentation at Tel-Aviv, made in La Terre Retrouvée, December 15th, 1960. Dr. Kubovy recognised that not a single order for extermination exists from Hitler, Himmler, Heydrich or Goering (Le Drame des Juifs européen, p. 31, 39).(p. 29)
Browning had never heard of Kubovy or the World Centre of Contemporary Jewish Documentation. But both Faurisson and Irving knew of Kubovy and Irving had cited Kubovy’s quote from La Terre Retrouvee in his book, Hitler’s War.
23. However, Rassinier regards such a figure as a maximum limit, and refers to the lower estimate of 896,892 casualties in a study of the same problem by the Jewish statistician Raul Hilberg. (p. 29)
Hilberg testified that he was not a statistician and had never given an estimate of 896,892. His own calculation in fact was over 5 million. Weber testified that Harwood had taken this information from Paul Rassinier’s boos; the original mistake was therefore Rassinier’s and not Harwood’s.
24. ... Professor Rassinier concludes . . . that the number of Jewish casualties during the Second World War could not have exceeded 1,200,000, and he notes that this has finally been accepted as valid by the World Centre of Contemporary Jewish Documentation at Paris. (p. 29)
Hilberg testified he had never heard of this Centre or the figure cited by Harwood.
25. RICHARD HARWOOD is a writer and specialist in political and diplomatic aspects of the Second World War. At present he is with the University of London. (p. 30)
Historian Weber testified that the author of the pamphlet was a man named Richard Verrall, who had used the pseudonym “Richard Harwood”. Verrall was a graduate of the University of London with High Honours; he was a writer and had a specialized interest in political and diplomatic aspects of the Second World War. Verrall relied upon secondary sources published in the 1950s and 1960s in writing the pamphlet, which was published in 1974. Most errors made by the author were errors originally made by Paul Rassinier, the pioneer revisionist historian, whose works Verrall had relied upon heavily.
(The text below consisted of the last two pages of the revised booklet and read as follows:)
The above article which casts aspersions on my publishing firm of Samisdat appeared
in the Toronto Sun on November 22, 1979. Similar articles appeared in other
major daily newspapers across Canada. The article attributes statements allegedly
made by Mr. Garde Gardom, Attorney General of British Columbia, to the effect
that literature, pamphlets or other material was received from Samisdat Publishers
which promoted “hatred against an identifiable group.” The only
material which Mr. Gardom could have received from Samisdat was sent to all
Attorneys General of Canada, all members of Federal and Provincial Parliaments,
all media representatives, all clergymen and to some 8,000 Canadians in all
walks of life. The result of this mailing has been worthwhile in terms of
fruitful correspondence with numerous members of Parliament of the three
major parties as well as several news media interviews. If thousands of responsible
Canadian citizens, clergymen, media representatives and members of Parliament
have not objected to my materials, I would like to know what Mr. Gardom has
found to be so objectionable and “hateful” in the enclosed material.
In the interests of Freedom of Speech and Human Rights, I now ask you to
evaluate this information for yourself, before your right to be informed
is denied you through official action.
HAVE WE GERMANS NO RIGHT TO DEFEND OURSELVES?
My name is Ernst Zündel. I am a Toronto businessman of German descent and
I earn my living as a commercial artist. By avocation I write books and give
lectures on general topics of historical interest. In the political field
I have been involved with the issues of civil and human rights on behalf
of German-Canadians for over 20 years. In 1968, on this basis, I ran for
the post of Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada (which meant the post of
Prime Minister) as the youngest candidate and only immigrant ever to attempt
such a feat.
Since that time I have devoted increasing research, study and effort into illuminating
the events of German and world history, particularly in the 1933–45 period,
with the view toward defending Germans and German-Canadians against the hateful
lies surrounding the alleged gassing of six million Jews by the Nazi Government
of Germany. In order to satisfy my own curiosity and to resolve my own doubts
on the subject, I have travelled throughout the world, interviewed surviving
inmates, guards, officials, etc., in the connection with the “six million”
story. I have studied the many relevant documents, books, eyewitness accounts
of both sides. My conclusion, after I had originally believed the dogma of
the “holocaust,” is that no such extermination programme ever existed
and that it is war time hate propaganda masquerading as history. This viewpoint
is shared by such notable experts, historians and researchers from around
the world as:
Prof. Faurisson – an expert historical analyst of ancient documents
and artifacts at Lyon University in France. His 4-year study at the Jewish
Documentation Centre in Paris drew him to conclude thusly;
J. G. Burg – German-Jewish author and former inmate of several
German concentration camps;
Dr. Bernhard Katusky – Noted Austrian-Jewish man of letters;
Dr. W. Stäglich – Retired judge and author of several books
on the subject. Dr. Stäglich is a German of Hamburg;
Mr. David Irving – English historian and author of many well-known
books about the 2nd World War. He offers a sizeable reward for any document
signed by Hitler which orders the extermination of the Jews;
Dr. David Hoggan – American professor of history and author of
several extensive volumes on World War II history;
Professor Arthur Butz – American researcher and author of the
controversial book, The Hoax of the 20th Century;
Prof. A. J. App – Well-known American writer and lecturer on
the topic of Hitler and the Jews;
Prof. Rassinier – Former inmate of several German concentration camps
and member of the French National Assembly, the author of several books about
the Jews in wartime Europe;
Prof. Udo Walendy – German political science lecturer and historian;
Thies Christopersen – German poet and journalist who worked at
Auschwitz and who has written several books and articles about Auschwitz and
the gas chamber myth;
(Ditlib) Felderer – Swede who personally visited postwar Auschwitz
in order to prove that “gas chambers” had been constructed by the
Communists after the war;
Attorney Bennett – Australian whose research was prompted by
his work in the Civil Rights Section of the Australian Attorney General’s Office.
There are hundreds of names of authorities on this topic, all of whom I have
met, interviewed, corresponded with or whose works I have read. Most of these
persons are willing to attend any trial or court proceedings on this subject
in the capacity of witnesses.
ZIONISTS DOMINATE MEDIA. GERMANS ARE DENIED EQUAL TIME.
As I see it, this matter is one of Freedom of Thought and Expression on the
one hand and the Suppression of Freedom and Enquiry on the other. To seek
officially to quell legitimate controversy through the use of smear-words like
“hate” and “racism” is neither just nor relevant to the
issue. Zionism is a political movement, not a racial movement. Zionists like
Elizabeth Taylor, Sammy Davis Jr., Pat Boone, Billy Graham and Attorney General
of Ontario McMurthy are not Jews nor Semites; therefore, any criticism of
Zionist policy cannot be “racism.” When Jews disagree as I do with
the official Zionist version of Auschwitz, are they accused of “racism” or
“hate”?
Many Jews are totally opposed to political, that is worldly, Zionism and I
am proud to number such outstanding figures as these among my friends and
supporters: Rabbi Elmer Berger, former president of the American Council of
Judaism; Haviv Schieber, former mayor of Beer Scheeba and comrade-in-arms of
Menachem Begin and Moise Dayan who is now living as a refugee from Israeli persecution
in Washington, D.C., Benjamin Friedman, former secretary to Henry Morgenthau
Sr. who witnessed first hand the Zionist machinations of the First and
Second World Wars. In addition to these individual Jewish authorities, there
are the thousands of Hasidic Jews who protest against Zionism and the State
of Israel as being “the work of the Devil.” There are the Jews
who demonstrated against Menachem Begin as a leading proponent of Zionism.
In brief, not all Zionists are Jews and not all Jews are Zionists. Once again,
how can any criticism of Zionist tenets be construed as “racism”?
Because no Zionist is “a member of an identifiable group” under
the criminal code, any more than Liberals or Conservatives. Can such criticism
constitute “hate” under the Criminal Code?
I believe that Zionists and their sympathizers are using the letter of the law
to defy the spirit of the law; that they are using words like “hate” and
“racism” to conceal their very real attempt to suppress the truth.
I do not believe that the so-called “Hate Law” section of the Criminal
Code was intended to be an instrument for the suppression of free enquiry
and discussion. The “Hate Law” was adopted by the Canadian Parliament
as a result of almost exclusively Jewish-Zionist agitation. Now it appears
that it is being invoked to prevent the exposure of the biggest money-raising
racket of all time, namely the Holocaust lie. The real issues in this matter
are not “anti-Semitism,” “racism,” or “hate,”
but Truth, Freedom of Speech and Press, Freedom of Enquiry and, ultimately,
Justice. Help us safeguard these precious freedoms now!
EXERCISE YOUR RIGHTS AND DUTIES AS FREE CITIZENS WHILE THERE IS STILL
TIME BY GIVING THIS ISSUE MAXIMUM ATTENTION AND PUBLICITY! CONTACT ME FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION, INTERVIEWS AND ARRANGEMENTS FOR PUBLIC SPEAKING APPEARANCES.
Ernst Zündel
206 Carlton Street
Toronto, Ontario M5A 2L1
Tel. (416) 922-9850/
HELP WITH DONATIONS TO THE SAMISDAT LEGAL DEFENSE FUND