A homage to Ernst Zündel
July 5, 2017
As the reader will have heard, in France, the person in charge of “Bocage” has taken a final bow with the 6,000th newsletter under that name. Thus ends an endeavour remarkable for its range and for the mass of work devoted, since 1979, to informing us on developments in historical revisionism.
This newsletter no. 6,000 salutes a prestigious hero of revisionism, Ernst Zündel, born in Germany in 1939. Those who, given their relatively young age, do not know just who this amazing figure is can ask us for a brief biography.
- Zündel has shown such energy, such inventiveness and such disinterestedness that one may rightly assert that, without him, revisionism would never have been able toamass so many victories, victories that have resounded throughout the world.
When finally the collapse of the “Jewish Holocaust” myth comes about, the tribunal of History will have to render justice to a sizeable number of revisionists and, to begin with,the Frenchman Paul Rassinier and the German Ernst Zündel, who never met but who, united in heart and spirit in one and the same truly heroic venture, haveindeed fought not only for the honour of their respective homelands but also for the honour of Europe as a whole.
Bocage, July 1, 2017
Our final message will be a tribute to Ernst Zündel, the German-Canadian revisionist to whom revisionism owes so much!
For revisionists, Ernst Zündel has played an unparalleled role: with his leaflets, his periodicals – always punctual – in English and German, his help in disseminating so many books in various languages, his radio and television broadcasts, his videos, he has been everywhere, and always present to inspire the movement. In 1990, thanks to a formidable undertaking organised as he knows how, our cause achieved a particularly fine victory: the elimination from the plaques at Auschwitz of the figure of four million dead,replaced later by that of a million and a half.
And it is above all he who, in the manner of anorchestral conductor, masterfully coordinated his two trials in Toronto (1985 and 1988), bringing revisionists and opponents of revisionism from all over the world there,especially in the 1985 trial, in order finally to organise a courtroom confrontation between the two camps (needless to say, when subjected to the inflexible cross-examination of barrister Douglas Christie, advised by Professor Faurisson, the opponents bit the dust so hard that a man like, for instance, Raul Hilberg, the “Pope of exterminationism”, would refuse to return for the 1988 trial!). We think anyone wishing to be informed about revisionism should begin by reading Michael Hoffman’sThe Great Holocaust Trial, published by Independent History & Research
Therefore an end had to be put to Ernst Zündel’sexuberant and iconoclastic activity and it was on February 5, 2003 that this “hero” (the word is Professor Faurisson’s) was literally abducted at his Tennessee home; from that date, i.e. for the past 14 years, this manwas to find himself gagged, completelyunable to express himself on the subject thatwas his life’s work: to cleanse Germany, his country of origin, of the false accusations by which she is overwhelmed. After 7 years in prison, amongst which 2 in Canada in conditions close to torture and the rest in Germany, he would have to pass a probationperiod of 3 years, but the 10 years of silence were not to stop there: in order to maximise his chances of obtaining the right to return to his house in Tennessee, he would carry onmaintaining anear-complete silence for 4 years… and our readers will indeed have noted that at our end wedidour best to respect that silence.
Alas, on March 31of this year the dreaded final decision was issued: while the door stays open to so many migrants, the United States, through the voice of a certain Ron Rosenberg, chief of the Administrative Appeals Officeof the US Citizen and Immigration Services, which acts by delegation of theDepartment of Homeland Security, refusedthe eminent revisionist entry to its territory for all time, thus forbidding him foreverfrom returning to his own home there,beside his wife! However, the law is clear: a person convicted abroad who seeks entry to the United States is to be barred only if the conducthaving led to conviction is “deemed criminal by United States standards”; but “denying the Holocaust and expressing anti-Semitic sentiments [which in fact E. Zündelhas never done – Bocage] is just not a crime underAmerican law”, noted UCLA law professor Eugene Volokhin a Washington Post column published, cynically, on April 24, Ernst Zündel’s birthday!
It was only onMay 9 that we received a copy of thatiniquitousruling signed “Rosenberg”:readers who wishto have their own copy mayrequest itfrom us.
On May 17 we asked E. Zündel for his reaction, and he replied as follows:
Hi! I have read and reread that US ruling by Ron Rosenberg and am ever more disgusted.
I am so disgusted by this hypocritical charade that I find it nearly impossible to force myself to write something about it!
So here goes:
I had engaged a top immigration lawyer with over thirty years of practicalexperience with immigration law in the USA. This lawyer handled my casefrom the beginning!
I followed all his advice and US rules and regulations to the letter.
All things progressed well, I already lived with my wife in the USA at our own property, running our publishing business; I had been granted a work permit, a social security number, had a comprehensive health check-up, including x-rays, aids test,in short, I was fingerprinted by the FBI, even interrogated by a special agent of theFBI, passing all tests required, with flying colours. There was only one more visit to be undertaken with an immigration official beforeI would be granted permanent residence and could live and work in the USAfor the rest of my life!
We were able to obtain my FBI file after my arrest and deportation!The special agent of the FBI, called Scott Nowinski, recommended to his headquartersthat they close the Zündel file, assuming that I would be given residency status!
Ingrid and I carried on with our lives, being reassured by the attorneys that all
was only a matter of time and routine!
We were totally taken by surprise, when out of the clear blue sky I wasarrestedduring a workday without warning, while framing paintings for my soon to be opened art gallery! The US officials did not allow me to call my attorney, and they did not have an Arrest Warrant!
Instead they claimed that I had overstayed my visa, an obvious and blatant concocted lie, their cover story! In order to deport me from the USA.
Due to this deportation, which came after the events of 9/11 (the attacks onthe World Trade Center and the Pentagon),I was imprisoned in Canada, todetermine my status for two years! Then I was declared a security threat to the nation of Canada, where I had lived peacefully and productively for 42 years, and was declared persona non grata by Canada.
I was deported to Germany, arrested on the steps of the plane which had flown meacross the ocean in handcuffs from Canada and immediately imprisoned in Mannheim!
There I was tried in Court for my writings and broadcasts done in the USA, whichwere perfectly legal in America.
After a lengthy and grotesque trial in Mannheim I was convicted and sentenced to the maximum term of five years under Germany’s controversial holocaust-related post war laws!
I lost all appeals, served every minute of the five-year sentence, plus another three years of “probation”, and was finally released on March 1, 2010!
We, my wife Ingrid and I, fought in the US courts for 14 years, trying to return to the USA. Virtually always lost, also lost all appeals.We spent untoldsums on legal fees and court proceedings!
The end result is the ruling by Homeland Security, signed by one Ron Rosenberg, which follows! There is also a critical review of this decision, by a US law professor from Los Angeles University by the name of Volkovh (?),whichclarifies matters somewhat!
The Zündel case reveals a great deal about the state of justice and human rights in America today!
There is a vast gap in the USA between their “reality” and American propaganda!
* * *
Ernst Zündel continues to describe himself as unvanquished and defiant,and he will not bend!
Colour photo above: Ernst Zündel, in Toronto in the 1980s, displaying before Robert Faurisson, Fred Leuchter, Robert Miller and DitliebFelderer the building plans of the five Auschwitz and Birkenau crematoria, discovered by R. Faurisson in Poland on March 19, 1976. Those plans, kept hidden until then, enabledthe creation of scalemodels making it obvious thatthe alleged gigantic homicidal gassingoperations were physically impossible. See, in this regard, 1) An Engineering Report on the Alleged Execution Gas Chambers at Auschwitz, Birkenau and Majdanek (Poland) prepared by Fred A. Leuchter on April 5, 1988, 193 p.; 2) Did Six Million Really Die? Report of the Evidence in the Canadian “False News” Trial of Ernst Zündel– 1988, edited by Barbara Kulaszka, 1992, viii-564 p.
The Rizoli Rebellion: Tenacious brothers battle immigration epidemic and Holocaust hoax
. (March 2016) Their motto: Exercise the courage of your convictions By John Kaminski – email@example.com.
I know a lot of keyboard warriors. Heck, I’m one myself, trying to convince people of the dangers we face without actually confronting them in the real world. Though my advice might be authentic, my actions are not, because I’m not out there in public battling the tyrants and swindlers who are busy ripping us off and killing those who oppose them.
Am I afraid of suffering the harsh penalties incurred by so many who have challenged the powers that be? You bet I am. Do I know the day will come when I will be forced into open warfare with the people who run our country and have turned it into a giant prison system? Absolutely I do. It could happen any day now. And each day this unpleasant but vital task inevitably draws closer.
Though I am definitely a member of an exclusive club that has tried for decades to alert my fellow citizens to the lethal danger we face living in a society governed by ruthless bankers who have no real point to their lives other than stealing from others and murdering those who stand in their way, my admiration really goes out to my compatriots who step out from behind their keyboards and wade out into the public chaos to defend the courage of their convictions and expose the constant and profound crimes that are being perpetrated by our owners against ordinary people who don’t ever quite seem to grasp the danger of their own predicament and how near they are to losing everything, including their own lives.
I’ve observed Jim Rizoli stepping out into the public spotlight for ten years now, first as a courageous protester of this strange and mysterious epidemic of foreign born illegal aliens being inserted into towns all across America, seriously diminishing the lives of native-born Americans who have worked all their lives for their modest piece of the pie. They have been constantly betrayed by their own leaders.
Some might consider what Rizoli is doing as tilting at windmills, but others of a more intelligent nature realize he is a 21st century patriot running at top speed to try and prevent the descent of the United States into a thoughtless prison camp dominated by aliens from the Third World and the Warsaw ghetto.
This surreptitious sabotage of American culture has grown to epidemic proportions with a deliberate but secret program of importing Third World aliens into the U.S. that has wracked big cities and small towns with ungrateful non-English speaking migrants who overload social systems and steal jobs from unemployed locals who need them.
And more lately, Rizoli has become the chronicler of one of the great hoaxes of the 20th century, a lucrative scam that has persisted into the 21st century as disingenuous Jews continue to swindle governments around the world with their heinous heist known as Holocaust reparations.
“The Holocaust is like a wheel with spokes that extend out from the center and poison all areas of human activity,” Rizoli likes to say.
He, like so many of us, has seen far too much of it. But he, like so few of us, has been slugging away at the corrupt basis of it for more than a decade, going nose to nose with the Jews who control the political cobwebs of every town in America.
Oddly, it was his resistance to the sudden appearance of hundreds of Brazilian immigrants in his hometown of Framingham, Mass. that eventually led him to correlate this social disease to Jewish power and more specifically to the lies that have been told about the Holocaust.
“It all goes back to immigration,” Jim says. “My brother Joe got into it first.” Joe still writes commentaries and passes on links to his brother, but it is Jim, accompanied by his new sidekick Diane King, who are constantly updating a remarkably thorough website (ccfiile.com — note the extra “i”, standing for Concerned Citizens and Friends of Illegal Immigration Law Enforcement) that contains both the story of their immigration battles with the corrupt town fathers as well as a unique and thorough set of files about the Jewish manipulation of reality.
“We held a meeting at the library, and right off the bat they jumped on us,” Jim explained. “They pegged us as racists and wouldn’t let us even talk about it.
“It made us more determined to go at it.”
It was the Rizolis’ stand against the barrage of immigrants overwhelming Framingham that initially got them in trouble with their community, repeatedly banned from their local cable TV channel, and on the Jewish Anti Defamation League’s target list as Holocaust denying anti-Semites. Its description of the Rizolis’ activities is absolutely heroic.
During an October 2009 segment of his public access television show, which was aired during a primetime slot, Jim delivered a lengthy diatribe promoting Holocaust denial. He defended Holocaust denier and Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, instructed viewers to conduct their own research on the Holocaust to discover the “truth,” and directed people to visit Web sites that advance Holocaust denial.
Jim Rizoli has attempted to defend his statements about the Holocaust to the Boston Globe, which reported in November 2009 that he “believes…only around 300,000 people died, not six million, and that the majority were not killed but ‘died of sickness and disease.'”
During the same segment of his public access television show, Jim Rizoli alleged the existence of a “Zionist controlled government,” implying that Jews manipulate national and global institutions.
Rizoli also claimed during the show that “a lot of the Jewish people are not going to be happy to hear this [referring to his recommendation to view videos that advance Holocaust denial] because this whole thing all stems upon Judaism [sic] and what happened with them.” This is an anti-Semitic implication that Jews fabricate the Holocaust to advance their own agenda.
Joe Rizoli has questioned the severity of the Holocaust on the Jews. During an interview with the MetroWest Daily News in February 2004, he argued, “What happened to the Jews was atrocious, but you know what? Nine million people in Germany died in Dresden and related incidents. They say 13 to 20 million people died in Russia.” Rizoli went on to question, “Did the Holocaust happen? You define to me what the Holocaust is. I don’t know. There’s no letter or whatever that pinpoints Hitler saying it.”
In 2004, Joe Rizoli signed an Internet petition supporting Ernst Zundel, who was fighting deportation to his home in Canada from the U.S., which he entered illegally. Reportedly, Rizoli became interested in Zundel after receiving a “ZGram,” an E-mail that Zundel’s wife, also a Holocaust denier, sent to subscribers. Ironically for a xenophobe, Rizoli spoke out against Zundel’s deportation, which was the result of Zundel’s illegal entry into the U.S.
As they say, one man’s meat is another man’s poison. To those onto the Jewish scam of the Holocaust, these are all admirable achievements. But to Jews, ever the promoters of lies and false stories, Rizoli’s unflinching achievements are anathema.
“We had a good following,” Jim remembers. “We became like celebrities because we had the balls enough to talk about illegal immigrants. It opened up the door to talk about it in the whole state. Even the governor came and talked to us. And a Brazilian station put us on down there.”
“Then I started getting into the Holocaust and even the immigration people were scared off,” he remembers.
“We took the most heat from then on. In 2010 we were banned by our cable station for a year for false allegations. We came back in 2011 with four shows. We were on 12 times a week.
“We were pounding away at the Jews. It’s a wonder that they didn’t kill us.”
The cable company shut them down again in 2014.
“Nobody would dare come on a show dealing with the Holocaust issue.”
Good fortune came Rizoli’s way about this time when he hooked up with Diane on Facebook and the pair have become teammates in a game most Americans are afraid to play — Holocaust revisionism.
What has gained Rizoli new found attention after years of battling the Jews in a beat up suburb of Boston now dominated by Brazilians is a series of YouTubes sketching the lives of famous historians who can tell the real story of World War II, which is not the one told in movies and on TV by paid shills who spout the bogus Jewish version of reality.
League of Extraordinary Revisionists
Be sure and check out the real heroes of the revisionist movement captured on film by JIm Rizoli.
These include, among many other luminaries, Fred Leuchter, author of the Leuchter Report that proved there were no gas chambers at Auschwitz; Robert Faurisson, the dean of Holocaust Revisionists who for more than a half century has been challenging the Jewish liars “to show me or draw me a picture of the gas chamber at Auschwitz”; Germar Rudolf, the German chemist jailed for his efforts at refining and reinforcing the evidence for the Holocaust hoax; and the late Bradley Smith, interviewed in the final months of his life after selfless decades of preaching historical sanity on college campuses with his Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust.
In addition, there are many other controversial topics covered in ccfiile.com — Holocaust Liars and Holocaust Truthers, Auschwitz and Treblinka, AIPAC and the Slave Trade, witch trials and Rizoli Uncensored.
Among the many highlights are a riveting account of the fake Boston Marathon bombing and a Police file that explains how public officials are allowed to commit crimes and get away with them.
“We’re not letting up,” says Joe, then making this writer not mention an event they’re in the process of unleashing on the public.
“It’s going to be a struggle forever,” says JIm. “I don’t know how we’re going to do it (“it” being to get the public to accept the real story of what happened in World War II in Germany).
“We just have to hang in there. We’re not looking to convert the world we’re just trying to get the word out.”
Rizoli is constantly emphasizing that “the Holocaust is the hub of what has gone wrong with the world.
“But I love the fight. I’m not going down on my knees. If I go down I’m going to be standing up. You have to do what you know is right.”
Support JIm Rizoli’s important work by mail at: Jim Rizoli (LOER), 94 Pond St., Framingham MA 01702, 508-872-7292.
John Kaminski is a writer who lives on the Gulf Coast of Florida, constantly trying to figure out why we are destroying ourselves, and pinpointing a corrupt belief system as the engine of our demise. Solely dependent on contributions from readers, please support his work by mail: 6871 Willow Creek Circle #103, North Port FL 34287 USA.
Hundreds of important books on the Holocaust by revisionist scholars have suddenly been been banned by Amazon on instructions from angry rabbis in Israel (see video at the end of this article) and from Yad Vashem, the World Holocaust Remembrance Center in Jerusalem.
Even books not directly relating to the Holocaust, but pertaining to Jewish affairs during WWII, have been included in the mass ban. Revisionist scholar Germar Rudolf has given a complete list of these books (see below) and it’s highly likely more volumes will be added to this growing list of “forbidden books” in the days ahead.
Meanwhile, in an apparent attempt to muddy the waters, The Times of Israelpublished an article a few days ago in which it stated that only three books have been banned by Amazon in the UK — without referring to Amazon in the US or the long list of banned books mentioned by Germar Rudolf on CODOH. (See Amazon Mass-bans Dissident Materials, Hundreds of Titles Erased within a Day)
A reliable source informs me that several thousand volumes have been shredded or put through incinerators at Amazon, but this is hard to verify. This has to be one of the greatest acts of cultural vandalism perpetrated within recent times. In characteristic Orwellian fashion, many historical facts are being “flushed down the memory hole” and false factoids put in their place — like the fairy tales spun by Elie Wiesel, e.g., Jewish blood gushing from the ground in geysers (picture).
The Cultural Vandals dare not debate these matters in public, preferring the Stalinesque weapons of censorship and intimidation, followed in many cases by fines and imprisonment.
— § —
Only a few months ago, I was lucky enough to buy from Amazon a copy of M.S. King’s The Bad War: The Truth Never Taught About World War 2. Mike King is the owner of the Tomato Bubble website. His lavishly illustrated 246-page book sits on my bedside table. I am one of the lucky ones who bought the book just in time. Because it has now been banned by Amazon.
Apparently Mike received a frosty note from Amazon the other day informing him that his book was no longer fit for human consumption. “We’re contacting you,” the email told him coldly, “regarding the following book: The Bad War: The Truth NEVER Taught About World War II. During our review process, we found that this content is in violation of our content guidelines. As a result, we cannot offer this book for sale.”
What exactly are these mysterious “guidelines”? Amazon refuses to give details. Apparently the head honchos at Amazon don’t like Mike’s ideas. For example, in writing about World War Two, Mike expresses a sneaking sympathy for the German side, hinting it might have been better all round if the Germans had won the war. Mike mixes up the good guys with the bad guys. Let’s face it, that’s not acceptable.
It’s also possible that Mike, at some time or other, had expressed doubts that six million Jews had died in gas chambers during the Holocaust. That was a big mistake. In fact, it’s the biggest mistake anyone can make nowadays. It can get you slung into prison in at least sixteen countries: Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Hungary, Israel, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, and Switzerland. Mike’s shockingly incorrect views on the Holocaust obviously jangled a few nerves at Amazon and consequently violated their “guidelines”. So Mike had to go.
And so Mike’s book was banned.
— § —
Before I go any further, a few words on Amazon would perhaps be in order.
Amazon is now the largest internet retailer in the world, valued at $240 billion. It is owned by Jeff Bezos, worth $45.2 billion. Jeff happens to be the fifth richest billionaire in the world, the first four being Bill Gates ($75 billion), Amancio Ortega ($67 billion), Warren Buffett ($60.8 billion), and Carlos Slim Helu ($50 billion).
Is Jeff Bezos a Jew? I don’t think so, though he has “crypto-Jew status” among the more wild-eyed conspiracy theorists who people the internet. It’s possible that many of Jeff’s closest associates are Jewish, however, such as Tom Alberg, Jon Rubenstein and David Zapolsky.
It’s obviously relevant to enquire into Amazon’s Jewish connections, since there is more than enough evidence to support the view that Jewish rabbis have had an enormous input in dictating Amazon’s famous “guidelines” (see video below). While investigating Amazon’s possible Jewish links, I was amused to find myself on a website that gave a link to an article called “Is Jeff Bezos Evil?” I decided to click on this to find out, but lost interest once I was told I had to log in and give my password. So the question of whether Jeff is evil or not remains unanswered.
A few further clicks, however, provided me with some clues as to whether Jeff was “evil” or not. It tuns out that Jeff is the ultimate ruthless capitalist who exploits his workers to the bone, getting the last drop of blood out of them — like a vampire running amok in a blood storage factory. He has 180,000 employees working for him full time, and 380,000 people working for him part time in various foreign countries, and boy! he really does drive them like a slavemaster! If “ruthless capitalist vampiric slavemaster” equates to evil, then I guess the word “evil” has to apply to Jeff Bezos.
JEFF BEZOS, OWNER OF AMAZON.COM
Does this man look Evil? YOU decide!
Here’s what the Daily Mail has to say about working conditions at Amazon. An undercover reporter for the newspaper managed to infiltrate the company by getting a job there, and seeing what it was like working 12-hour shifts for a company on the minimum wage.
— Amazombies: Seven seconds to find an item, every move filmed and blistering 12-hours shifts with timed toilet breaks.
— Workers faced relentless time targets for every task they were given. Staff had to work ‘compulsory’ extra days and hours and were given short notice of shift changes. There was an atmosphere of mistrust and suspicion, with handheld scanners tracking workers’ whereabouts, plus CCTV cameras monitoring the warehouse, and airport-style security checks.
— Staff were left with blistered feet after walking up to 14 miles a day. One employee said: “You just leave your brains behind when you start working here. You’re just a zombie. On our induction day, training staff told us we could expect to walk ten to 14 miles a day [collecting items from distant shelves]. By comparison, Royal Mail postmen normally walk no more than eight miles a day.
— The most common complaint among staff on the warehouse floor was about their sore feet. One told us: “I have such bad blisters on my feet. I am so exhausted. I never knew it would be this tough. My boots are falling apart, and it’s only been four days.”
— Staff are also disciplined for taking too long to walk back from breaks and time spent in the bathroom. One employee explained how he was given a warning in his second week for taking seven minutes during an unscheduled break to go to the bathroom. (Seehere)
— § —
According to Kevin Barrett, the best book he has read on the Holocaust is Thomas Dalton’s Debating the Holocaust: A New Look at Both Sides. Barrett writes:
“The book is thorough, precise, well-documented, and lays out a convincing prima facie case that holocaust revisionism needs to be taken seriously. Scholarly, dispassionate, and utterly lacking in anything that could remotely be called “hate” or bigotry, Debating the Holocaust is no longer available on Amazon. And that is an outrage.”
To my regret, this is one book I don’t own. And now it’s too late to buy it from Amazon. Barrett goes on to name other books Amazon has tossed on the bonfire. Nick Kollerstrom’s Breaking the Spell is one of them.
With academic qualifications in Chemistry and a doctorate in the philosophy and history of science, Dr Kollerstrom had been under the impression that he was qualified to say something about Zyklon B, the gas allegedly utilized to kill Jews in gas chambers. The results of Kollerstrom’s painstaking research into Nazi “death camps” were set out in his controversial book Breaking the Spell. In this he reached conclusions which were obviously in conflict with the unstated “guidelines” set by his employer, University College, London.
Dr Kollerstrom had discovered that Zyklon B gas, purportedly used to exterminate Jews in large quantities, was actually used to kill lice in order to prevent Jews (and others in the camps) from dying of typhus. Zyklon B was a pesticide, not a murder weapon for thinning Jewish world population. Such a view, of course, could not be tolerated by Dr Kollerstrom’s prestigious university, especially by its Jewish staff. So Dr Kollerstrom was given the chop. Sacked by his college and then given the cold shoulder by Amazon.
Another revisionist scholar who has been affected by the ban on Holocaust revisionism is Dr. Robert Faurisson. We learn from Kevin Barrett:
A convert to Islam, Faurisson is wildly popular in Morocco, where his books were recommended to me by academic colleagues there during my year of Fulbright-sponsored Ph.D. research in 1999-2000.
Has Faurisson’s Amazon catalogue been tampered with? I can’t tell; but there certainly is a shocking paucity of affordable Faurisson offerings there. The bulk of his work is “currently unavailable.”
ROBERT FAURISSON, FRENCH REVISIONIST,
his face badly disfigured by three Jewish thugs
You will find full details of this savage attack on the CODOH site. Similar facial disfigurement of political dissidents who dare to question the Jewish version of the Holocaust has been promised by the same Jewish organization that carried out the attack on Faurisson. “Faurisson is the first, but will not be the last,” they threatened.
Dr. Robert Faurisson, was severely injured in a nearly fatal attack on September 16, 1989. After spraying a stinging gas into his face, temporarily blinding him, three assailants punched Dr. Faurisson to the ground and then repeatedly kicked him in the face and chest. “He was conscious, but he couldn’t speak,” said a fire fighter who gave Faurisson first aid. “His jaw was smashed. They destroyed his face.”
The 60-year-old scholar, who had been out walking his poodle in a park in his home town of Vichy, suffered a broken jaw and severe head injuries. Physicians operated for four and a half hours to repair his jaw and treat a broken rib and badly swollen face.
A group calling itself, “The Sons of the Memory of the Jews” claimed responsibility for the savage attack. In a statement, the group threatened: “Professor Faurisson is the first, but will not be the last. Let those who deny the Shoah [Holocaust] beware.”
Another casualty of this Jewish witch hunt is Germar Rudolf.
Like Faurisson, Rudolf too has paid dearly for discovering unpalatable truths and transmitting them to others via the printed word. He has been thrown into prison. His books and papers have been stolen. His savings have also been plundered.
As you might expect, Germar Rudolf has been another victim of Amazon’s witch hunt. He is now too dangerous to be read. It would be highly toxic if thousands, if not millions of people, should begin to suspect that they had been bamboozled by the Holocaust merchants. That they had been the victims of a well-organized hoax.
Kevin Barret publishes a letter written to him by Germar Rudolf which I should now like to quote in full. It’s an important letter because it not only reveals the huge extent of Amazon’s censorship but also of Amazon’s complete capitulation to Jewish demands. If entire governments — like that of the United States, Britain, France and Germany — can fall so easily under the Jewish heel and take orders from the likes of the Rothschilds and the Soroses, what hope is there for mere international corporations like Amazon?
Dear Dr. Barrett:
In your latest article, which I read with interest and gratitude, you write about a handful of revisionist books. Well, what an understatement. While Castle Hill Publishers might be the biggest fish in the revisionist teapot, we’re by far not the only ones publishing books in that field. But from our program alone, the following 68 titles were banned on March 6. Use the links provided to see for yourself.Interestingly, if you look at the list of banned books, you might be astonished to find among them books which aren’t even dealing with “the Holocaust” as such:
Non-Denial Books by Castle Hill Publishers, also banned Title ISBN Amazon USA Amazon UK Auswanderung der Juden… 1591480841 Amazon USA Amazon UK Jewish Emigration from the Third… 1591481252 Amazon USA Amazon UK The First Holocaust 1591481163 Amazon USA Amazon UK The Central Construction Office… 1591481120 Amazon USA Amazon UK Die Zentralbauleitung… 1591480507 Amazon USA Amazon UK
The sweeping mass ban enforced within hours, and the senseless aimlessness and random nature with which it was implemented, clearly show that these books were not pulled because their content was checked and found impermissible, but because someone (probably Yad Vashem) had sent them a list of items to ban, and Amazon simply complied by checking off all the items on that list.
Castle Hill Publishers & CODOH Book Shop,
Customer Service PO Box 243 Uckfield,
TN22 9AW, UK
— § —
This 2-minute video was posted on YouTube on July 6, 2015. It shows an angry rabbi demanding that Amazon stop selling books “denying the Holocaust”. He describes this exercise in historical updating as “blatant anti-Semitism.” It took Amazon little over a year to cave in to this man’s hysterical demands.
It hardly needs pointing out that it is only through the hard work of revisionist scholars like Faurisson that the world was to learn that no Jews were ever turned into lampshades and soap. If this rabbi had had his way, important facts like these would have been suppressed.
Lady Michèle Renouf – ‘Professor Robert Faurisson’
View on www.youtube.com
Last month Professor Robert Faurisson faced a landmark trial in Paris, where Lady Michèle Renouf appeared as the sole defence witness. France is one of many countries where normal historical research is criminalised: this latest trial related to Prof. Faurisson’s speech at the Teheran International Conference 2006, (more than 3,000 miles from Paris and ten years ago!). Then French President Jacques Chirac insisted that a way must be found to prosecute the half-Scot, half-French Professor for his heretical investigation of the alleged mass murder of 6 million European Jews in presumed homicidal gas chambers. In her defence testimony, Lady Renouf undermined key aspects of the prosecution case by explaining the true circumstances of the Teheran conference, (in which she too participated). She then revealed to a packed courtroom the astonishing “Guidelines for Teaching about the Holocaust” issued to teachers worldwide by the Stockholm International Forum 2000 – a conference set up at the instigation of Tony Blair, Bill Clinton and the Government of Israel
Richard Edmonds – ‘Report on Robert Faurisson’
PROFESSOR ROBERT FAURISSON (video):
One of the patriarchs of the revisionist movement, residing in France.
PROFESSOR ROBERT FAURISSON (video): One of the patriarchs of the revisionist movement, residing in France.For more than 30 years Robert Faurisson has been Europe’s foremost historical revisionist scholar. Dr Faurisson was professor of modern and contemporary French literature at the Sorbonne in Paris and the University of Lyon 2, where he specialised in the “critical appraisal of texts and documents (literature, history, media).” In 1979 he was permanently banned, de facto, from teaching.In the course of his independent research into “the Holocaust” Faurisson discovered, on March 19, 1976 in the Auschwitz State Museum archives, the building plans of the camp complex’s morgues, crematoria and other installations. He was the first to make known those documents, which had been kept hidden since the war, and to point out their vital significance. It was in two pieces printed by the prestigious French daily Le Monde in December 1978 and January 1979 that he succeeded in revealing his findings on “the problem of the gas chambers” to the general public. Faurisson played an important role in both of the Ernst Zündel “Holocaust trials” in Toronto, Canada (1985 and 1988); his most noteworthy contribution to Zündel’s defence in 1988 may well have been his securing of the participation of Fred Leuchter, an American gas chamber specialist. He was also instrumental in arranging for Leuchter’s forensic examination of alleged homicidal gas chambers in Poland, and in publishing the American’s remarkable conclusions.For years French government agencies and influential private bodies have waged a concerted campaign to silence him. He has had to defend himself many times in court for his candid and uncompromising writings and statements, being convicted on numerous occasions under a despotic law specially drafted against him. He has suffered at least ten physical assaults, one of which was a nearly successful attempt at murder. He has seen his bank account frozen and had visits to his home from court officials threatening him and his wife with seizure of their belongings to cover damages imposed by civil judgments against his “heretical” publications. His family life has been repeatedly disrupted and thrown into turmoil by such harassment. His health has suffered terribly. In a December 1980 interview with the French radio network Europe No. 1, Faurisson summed up the results of his study of “the Holocaust” in a sentence of about 60 French words. In English it reads: “The alleged Hitlerite gas chambers and the alleged genocide of the Jews form one and the same historical lie, which has permitted a gigantic political and financial swindle whose main beneficiaries are the State of Israel and international Zionism and whose main victims are the German people – but not their leaders – and the Palestinian people in their entirety.” “That sentence,” he declares 33 years on, “needs no changes.”
JIM RIZOLI, Producer/Interviewer (Assistant, Diane King) of the Series, LEAGUE OF EXTRAORDINARY REVISIONISTS: Hard core historical revisionist. Jim and his brother, Joe moved from combating the illegal immigrant hordes in their cable shows to dealing with the fundamental and pervading issue of the holocaust. Their immigrant battles led them to the plight of Ernst Zundel in Canada, being prosecuted for having reprinted *Did 6 Million Really Die*! Thus Jim and Joe’s efforts and cable shows also turned toward the issue of the holocaust. That’s when their troubles accelerated. In 2002 – 2003 they began producing numerous videos dealing with the issues surrounding the Holocaust. Thousands of videos, 100s of videos about the holocaust. YouTube videos (700) under the name of Jim Rizoli were banned. His name was banned on Facebook. In 2010, their cable shows were suspended. They returned and then were permanently removed in 2014. They are back to provide a venue of freedom of, telling the story for tried-and-true revisionists and Germans throughout North America, Europe and Australia.By the rude lie that arched the world,His flag to Toronto’s breeze unfurled,Here once the embattled Faurisson stood,And fired the shot heard round the world.Recomposed by Fred LeuchterLeagueofExtraordinaryRevisionists(LOER)We are in the process of setting up the site and paypal;if you are interested in helping us defray costs, send a check to:Jim Rizoli (LOER)94 Pond St.Framingham, MA 01702
On May 13, 1988, Ernst Zündel was sentenced by Judge Ronald Thomas of the District Court of Ontario, in Toronto, to nine months in prison for having distributed a Revisionist booklet that is now 14 years old: Did Six Million Really Die?
Ernst Zündel lives in Toronto where, up until a few years ago, he worked as a graphic artist and advertising man. He is now 49 years old. A native of Germany, he has kept his German citizenship. His life has known serious upsets from the day when, in about 1981, he began to distribute Did Six Million Really Die?, a Revisionist booklet by Richard Harwood. The booklet was first published in 1974 in Great Britain where, a year later, it was the focus of a lengthy controversy in the literary journal Books and Bookmen. At the instigation of the Jewish community of South Africa, it was later banned in that country.
In Canada, during an earlier trial in 1985, Zündel had been sentenced to 15 months in prison. That sentence was thrown out in 1987. A new trial began on January 18, 1988. I participated in the preparations for it and in the unfolding of those judicial proceedings. I devoted thousands of hours to the defense of Ernst Zündel.
François Duprat: A Precursor
In 1967, François Duprat published an article on “The Mystery of the Gas Chambers” (Défense de l’Occident, June 1967, pp. 30-33). He later became interested in the Harwood booklet and became actively involved in its distribution. On March 18, 1978, he was killed by assassins armed with weapons too complex not to belong to an intelligence service. Responsibility for the assassination was claimed by a “Remembrance Commando” and by a “Jewish Revolutionary Group” (Le Monde, March 23, 1978, p. 7). Patrice Chairoff had published Duprat’s home address in the Dossier Néo-Nazisme. He justified the assassination in the pages of Le Monde (April 26, 1978, p. 9) by citing the victim’s Revisionism: “François Duprat is responsible. There are some responsibilities that kill.” In Le Droit de vivre, the publication of the LICRA (International League Against Racism and Anti-Semitism), Jean Pierre-Bloch expressed an ambiguous position: he criticized the crime but, at the same time, he let it be understood that he had no pity for those who, inspired by the victim, would start out on the Revisionist path (Le Monde, May 7-8, 1978).
Eight months before Duprat’s assassination, journalist Pierre Viansson-Ponté had launched a virulent attack against the Harwood pamphlet. His chronicle was entitled: “Le Mensonge” (The Lie), (Le Monde, July 17-18, 1978, p. 13). It was reprinted with an approving commentary in Le Droit de vivre. Six months after the assassination, Viansson-Ponté took up the attack once more in “Le Mensonge” (suite) (The Lie-Continued) (Le Monde, September 34, 1978, p.9). He passed over the assassination of Duprat in silence, made public the names and home towns of three Revisionist readers, and called for legal repression against Revisionism.
Sabina Citron Versus Ernst Zündel
In 1984, Sabina Citron, head of the Holocaust Remembrance Association, stirred up violent demonstrations against Ernst Zündel in Canada. An attack was made on Zündel’s home. The Canadian postal service, treating Revisionism the way it treats pornography, refused him all service and all right to receive mail. Zündel only recovered his postal rights after a year of judicial procedures. In the meantime, his business has failed. At the instigation of Sabina Citron, the Attorney General of Ontario filed a complaint against Zündel for publishing a “false statement, tale or news.” The charge was based on the following reasoning: the defendant had abused his right to freedom of expression; by distributing the Harwood pamphlet, he was spreading information that he knew was false; in fact, he could not fail to be aware that the “genocide of the Jews” and the “gas chambers” were an established fact. Zündel was also charged with publishing an allegedly “false” letter, which he had written himself.
The First Trial (1985)
The first trial lasted seven weeks. The jury found Zündel not guilty regarding the letter he had himself written but guilty of distributing the Harwood booklet. He was sentenced by Judge Hugh Locke to 15 months in prison. The German consulate in Toronto confiscated his passport and the West German government prepared a deportation action against him. In Germany itself, West German authorities had already carried out a series of large-scale police raids on the houses of all his German correspondents. In 1987, the United States forbade him entry to its territory. But in spite of all that, Zündel had won a media victory: day after day, for seven weeks, the entire English- speaking Canadian media covered the trial, with its spectacular revelations. The public learned that the Revisionists had first class documentation and arguments, while the exterminationists were in desperate straits.
Their Expert: Raul Hilberg
The prosecution expert in the first trial was Raul Hilberg, an American professor of Jewish descent and author of the standard reference work, The Destruction of the European Jews (1961), which Paul Rassinier discussed in Le Drame des Juifs européens (The Drama of the European Jews). Hilberg began his testimony by explaining, without interruption, his theory about the extermination of the Jews. He was then cross-examined by Zündel’s lawyer, Douglas Christie, who was assisted by Keltie Zubko and myself. Right from the start it was clear that Hilberg, who was the world’s leading authority on the Holocaust, had never examined a single concentration camp, not even Auschwitz. He had still not examined any camp in 1985 when he announced the imminent appearance of a new edition of his main work in three volumes, revised, corrected and augmented. Although he did visit Auschwitz in 1979 for a single day as part of a ceremonial appearance, he did not bother to examine either the buildings or the archives. In his entire life he has never seen a “gas chamber,” either in its original condition or in ruins. (For a historian, even ruins can tell tales). On the stand he was forced to admit that there had never been a plan, a central organization, a budget or supervision for what he called the policy of the extermination of the Jews. He also had to admit that since 1945 the Allies have never carried out an expert study of “the weapon of the crime,” that is to say of a homicidal gas chamber. No autopsy report has established that even one inmate was ever killed by poison gas.
Hilberg said that Hitler gave orders for the extermination of the Jews, and that Himmler gave an order to halt the extermination on November 25, 1944 (such detail!). But Hilberg could not produce these orders. The defense asked him if he still maintained the existence of the Hitler orders in the new edition of his book. He dared to answer yes. He thereby lied and even committed perjury. In the new edition of his work (with a preface dated September 1984), Hilberg systematically deleted any mention of an order by Hitler. (In this regard, see the review by Christopher Browning, “The Revised Hilberg,”Simon Wiesenthal Center Annual, 1986, p. 294). When he was asked by the defense to explain how the Germans had been able to carry out an undertaking as enormous as the extermination of millions of Jews without any kind of plan, without any central agency, without any blueprint or budget, Hilberg replied that in the various Nazi agencies there had been “an incredible meeting of minds, a consensus mind-reading by a far-flung bureaucracy”.
Witness Arnold Friedman
The prosecution counted on the testimony of “survivors.” These “survivors” were chosen with care. They were supposed to testify that they had seen, with their own eyes, preparations for and the carrying out of homicidal gassings. Since the war, in a series of trials like those at Nuremberg (1945-1946), Jerusalem (1961), or Frankfurt (1963-65), such witnesses have never been lacking. However, as I have often noted, no lawyer for the defense had ever had the courage or the competence necessary to cross-examine these witnesses on the gassings themselves.
For the first time, in Toronto in 1985, one lawyer, Douglas Christie, dared to ask for explanations. He did it with the help of topographical maps and building plans as well as scholarly documentation on both the properties of the gases supposedly used and also on the capacities for cremation, whether carried out in crematory ovens or on pyres. Not one of these witnesses stood the test, and especially not Arnold Friedman. Despairing of his case, he ended by confessing that he had indeed been at Auschwitz-Birkenau (where he never had to work except once, unloading potatoes), but that, as regards gassings, he had relied on what others had told him.
Witness Rudolf Vrba
Witness Rudolf Vrba was internationally known. A Slovak Jew imprisoned at Auschwitz and at Birkenau, he said that he had escaped from the camp in April 1944 with Fred Wetzler. After getting back to Slovakia, he dictated a report about Auschwitz and Birkenau, and on their crematories and “gas chambers”.
With help from Jewish organizations in Slovakia, Hungary and Switzerland, his report reached Washington, where it served as the basis for the U.S. Government’s famous “War Refugee Board Report“, published in November 1944. Since then every Allied organization charged with the prosecution of “war crimes” and every Allied prosecutor in a trial of “war criminals” has had available this official version of the history of those camps.
Vrba later became a British citizen and published his autobiography under the title of I Cannot Forgive. This book published in 1964, was actually written by Alan Bestic, who, in his preface, testified to the “considerable care [by Rudolf Vrba] for each detail” and to the “meticulous and almost fanatic respect he revealed for accuracy.” On November 30, 1964, Vrba testified at the Frankfurt Auschwitz trial. Then he settled in Canada and became a Canadian citizen. He has been featured in various films about Auschwitz, particularly Shoah by Claude Lanzmann. Everything went well for him until the day at the Zündel trial in 1985 when he was cross-examined mercilessly. He was then shown to be an impostor. It was revealed that he had completely made up the number and location of the “gas chambers” and the crematories in his famous 1944 report. His 1964 book opened with a purported January 1943 visit by Himmler to Birkenau to inaugurate a new crematorium with “gas chamber.” Actually, the last visit by Himmler to Auschwitz took place in July of 1942, and in January 1943 the first of the new crematories was still far from finished. Thanks, apparently, to some special gift of memory (that he called “special mnemonic principles” or “special mnemonical method”) and to a real talent for being everywhere at once, Vrba had calculated that in the space of 25 months (April 1942 to April 1944) the Germans had “gassed” 1,765,000 Jews at Birkenau alone, including 150,000 Jews from France. But in 1978, Serge Klarsfeld, in his Memorial to the Deportation of the Jews from France, had been forced to conclude that, for the entire length of the war, the Germans had deported a total of 75,721 Jews from France to all their concentration camps. The gravest aspect of this is that the figure of 1,765,000 Jews “gassed” at Birkenau had also been used in a document (L-022) at the main Nuremberg trial. Attacked on all sides by Zündel’s lawyer, the impostor had no other recourse than to invoke, in Latin, the “licentia poetarum,” or “poetic license,” in other words, the right to engage in fiction. His book has just been published in France (1987); this edition is presented as a book by “Rudolf Vrba with Alan Bestic.” It no longer includes the enthusiastic preface by Alan Bestic, and the short introduction by Emile Copfermann notes that “with the approval of Rudolf Vrba the two appendices from the English edition have been removed.” Nothing is said about the fact that those two appendices had also caused Vrba serious problems in 1985 at the Toronto trial.
The Second Zündel Trial (1988)
In January 1987, a five-judge appeals court decided to throw out the 1985 verdict against Ernst Zündel for some very basic reasons: Judge Hugh Locke had not allowed the defense any influence in the jury selection process and the jury had been misled by the judge on the very meaning of the trial. As for me, I have attended many trials in my life, including some carried out in France during the period of the “Purge” at the end of and after World War II. Never have I encountered a judge so partial, autocratic and violent as Judge Hugh Locke. Anglo-Saxon law offers many more guarantees than French law but it only takes one man to pervert the best of systems. Judge Locke was such a man.
The second trial began on January 18, 1988, under the direction of Judge Ronald Thomas, who is a friend, it seems, of Judge Locke. Judge Thomas was often angry and was frankly hostile to the defense, but he had more finesse than his predecessor. The ruling by the five-judge appeal court also inhibited him somewhat. Judge Hugh Locke had imposed numerous restrictions on free expression by the witnesses and experts for the defense. For example, he forbade me to use any of the photos I had taken at Auschwitz. I had no right to use arguments of a chemical, cartographical, or architectural nature (even though I had been the first person in the world to publish the plans for the Auschwitz and Birkenau crematories). I was not allowed to talk about either the American gas chambers or the aerial reconnaissance photos of Auschwitz and Birkenau. Even the testimony of the eminent chemist William Lindsey was cut short. Judge Ronald Thomas did allow the defense more freedom, but at the outset of the trial, he made a decision, at the request of the prosecution, that would tie the hands of the jury.
Judge Thomas‘s Judicial Notice
In Anglo-Saxon law, everything must be proved except for certain absolutely indisputable evidence (“The capital of Great Britain is London,” “day follows night”… ) The judge can take “judicial notice” of that kind of evidence at the request of one or the other of the contending parties; Prosecuting Attorney John Pearson asked the judge to take judicial notice of the Holocaust. That term then has to be defined. It is likely that, had it not been for the intervention of the defense, the judge could have defined the Holocaust as it might have been defined in 1945-1946. At that time, the “genocide of the Jews” (the word “Holocaust” was not used) could have been defined as “the ordered and planned destruction of six million Jews, in particular by the use of gas chambers”.
The problem for the prosecution was that the defense advised the judge that, since 1945-1946, there have been profound changes in the understanding of exterminationist historians about the extermination of the Jews. First of all, they no longer talk about an extermination but about an attempted extermination. They have also finally admitted that “in spite of the most erudite [sic] research” (Raymond Aron, Sorbonne colloquium, July 2, 1982), no one has found any trace of an order to exterminate the Jews. More recently, there has been a dispute between the “intentionalists” and the “functionalists.” Both agree that they have no proof of any intent to exterminate, but “intentionalist” historians nevertheless believe that one must assume the existence of that intent, while “functionalist” historians believe that the extermination was the result of individual initiatives, localized and anarchic: in a sense, the activity created the organization! Finally, the figure of six million was declared to be “symbolic” and there have been many disagreements about the “problem of the gas chambers”.
Obviously surprised by this flood of information, Judge Ronald Thomas decided to be prudent and, after a delay for reflection, decided on the following definition; the Holocaust, he said, was “the extermination and/or mass-murder of Jews” by National Socialism. His definition is remarkable for more than one reason. We no longer find any trace of an extermination order, or a plan, or “gas chambers,” or six million Jews or even millions of Jews. This definition is so void of all substance that it no longer corresponds to anything real. One cannot understand the meaning of “mass-murder of Jews.” (The judge carefully avoided saying “of the Jews”.) This strange definition is itself a sign of the progress achieved by historical revisionism since 1945.
Raul Hilberg Refuses to Appear Again
One misfortune awaited Prosecutor John Pearson: Raul Hilberg, in spite of repeated requests, refused to appear again. The defense, having heard rumors of an exchange of correspondence between Pearson and Hilberg, demanded and got the publication of the letters they exchanged and in particular of a “confidential” letter by Hilberg which did not hide the fact that he had some bitter memories of his cross-examination in 1985. He feared being questioned again by Douglas Christie on the same points. To quote the exact words of his confidential letter, Hilberg wrote that he feared “every attempt to entrap me by pointing out any seeming contradiction, however trivial the subject might be, between my earlier testimony and an answer that I might give in 1988.” In fact as I have already mentioned, Hilberg had committed perjury and he may have feared being charged with that crime.
Christopher Browning, Prosecution Witness
In place of Hilberg there came his friend Christopher Browning, an American professor who specializes in the Holocaust. Admitted as an expert witness (and paid for several days at the rate of $150 per hour by the Canadian taxpayer), Browning tried to prove that the Harwood pamphlet was a tissue of lies and that the attempt to exterminate the Jews was a scientifically established fact He had cause to regret the experience. During cross-examination, the defense used his own arguments to destroy him. In the course of those days, people saw the tall and naive professor, who had strutted while he stood testifying, seated, shrunken in size, behind the witness stand like a schoolboy caught in a mistake. With a faint and submissive voice, he ended up acknowledging that the trial had definitely taught him something about historical research.
Following the example of Raul Hilberg, Browning had not examined any concentration camps. He had not visited any facility with “gas chambers.” He had never thought of asking for an expert study of the “weapon of the crime.” In his writings he had made much of homicidal “gas vans,” but he was not able to refer to any authentic photograph, any plan, any technical study, or any expert study. He was not aware that German words like “Gaswagen,” “Spezialwagen,” “Entlausungswagen” (delousing van) could have perfectly innocent meanings. His technical understanding was nil. He had never examined the wartime aerial reconnaissance photos of Auschwitz. He was unaware of all the tortures undergone by Germans, such as Rudolf Hoss, who had spoken of gassings. He knew nothing of the doubts expressed about some of Himmler’s speeches or about the Goebbels diary.
A great follower of the trials of war criminals, Browning had only questioned the prosecutors, never the defense lawyers. His ignorance of the transcript of the Nuremberg trial was disconcerting. He had not even read what Hans Frank, former Governor General of Poland, had said before the Nuremberg tribunal about his “diary” and about “the extermination of the Jews.” That was inexcusable! As a matter of fact, Browning claimed to have found irrefutable proof of the existence of a policy of exterminating the Jews in the Frank diary. He had discovered one incriminating sentence. He did not know that Frank had given the Tribunal an explanation of that kind of sentence, chosen beforehand from the hundreds of thousands of sentences in a personnel and administrative journal of 11,560 pages. Furthermore, Frank had spontaneously turned over his “diary” to the Americans when they came to arrest him. The sincerity of the former Governor General is so obvious to anyone who reads his deposition that Christopher Browning, invited to hear the content, did not raise the least objection. One last humiliation awaited him.
For the sake of his thesis, he invoked a passage from the well-known “protocol” of the Wannsee conference (20 January 1942). He had made his own translation of the passage, a translation that was seriously in error. At that point, his thesis collapsed. Finally, his own personal explanation of a “policy of the extermination of the Jews” was the same as Hilberg’s. Everything was explained by the “nod” of Adolf Hitler. In other words, the Fuhrer of the German people did not need to give any written or even spoken order for the extermination of the Jews. It was enough for him to give a “nod” at the beginning of the operation and, for the rest, a series of “signals”. And that was understood!
The other expert called by the prosecution (who had taken the stand before Browning) was Charles Biedermann, a Swiss citizen, a delegate of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and, most importantly, the director of the International Tracing Service (ITS) in Arolsen, West Germany. The ITS has an unbelievable wealth of information about the fate of individual victims of National Socialism and, in particular, of former concentration camp inmates. I believe that it is at Arolsen that one could determine the real number of Jews who died during the war. The prosecution did not benefit from this experts testimony. On the contrary, the defense scored numerous points on cross-examination. Biedermann recognized that the ICRC had never found any proof of the existence of homicidal gas chambers in the German camps. The visit by one of its delegates to Auschwitz in September 1944 had done no more than conclude the existence of a rumor on that subject. To his embarrassment, the expert was obliged to admit that he was wrong in attributing to the National Socialists the expression “extermination camps”. He had not noticed that this was a term coined by the Allies.
Biedermann said that he was not familiar with the ICRC reports on the atrocities undergone by the Germans just before and just after the end of the war. In particular, he knew nothing about the terrible treatment of many German prisoners. It would seem that the ICRC had nothing about the massive deportations of German minorities from the east, nothing on the horrors of the total collapse of Germany at the very end of the war, nothing about summary executions and, in particular, the massacre by rifle, machine gun, shovels and pickaxes, of 520 German soldiers and officers who had surrendered to the Americans at Dachau on April 29, 1945 (even though Victor Maurer, ICRC delegate, was apparently there).
The International Tracing Service included among those “persecuted” by the Nazis even indisputably criminal prisoners in the concentration camps. He relied on the information supplied by a Communist organization, the “Auschwitz State Museum.” Beginning in 1978, in order to prevent all Revisionist research, the International Tracing Service closed its doors to historians and researchers, except for those bearing a special authorization from one of the ten governments (including that of Israel) which oversee the activity of the International Tracing Service. Henceforth the Tracing Service was forbidden to calculate and publish, as it had done until then, statistical evaluations of the number of dead in the various camps. The annual activity reports could no longer be made available to the public, except for their first third, which had been of no interest to researchers.
Biedermann confirmed a news story that had filtered out in 1964 at the Frankfurt trial: at the time of liberation of Auschwitz, the Soviets and the Poles had discovered the death register of that complex of 39 camps and sub-camps. The register consisted of 38 or 39 volumes. The Soviets keep 36 or 37 of those volumes in Moscow while the Poles keep two or three other volumes at the “Auschwitz State Museum,” a copy of which they have furnished to the International Tracing Service in Arolsen. But neither the Soviets nor the Poles nor the International Tracing Service authorize research in these volumes. Biedermann did not even want to reveal the number of dead counted in the two or three volumes of which the ITS has a copy. It is clear that, if the content of the death register of Auschwitz were made public, it would be the end of the myth of the millions of deaths in the camp.
No “Survivor” Witnesses for the Prosecution
The judge asked the prosecutor whether he would call any “survivors” to the witness stand. The prosecutor answered no. The experience of 1985 had been too embarrassing. The cross examination had been devastating. It is regrettable that at the trial of Klaus Barbie in France in 1987 and at the trial of John Demjanjuk in Israel in 1987-1988, no defense lawyer has followed Douglas Christie’s example in the first Zündel trial (1985): Christie had shown that by carefully questioning witnesses about the gassing process itself, one could destroy the very foundation of the “extermination camp” myth.
The Witnesses and Experts for the Defense
Most of the witnesses and experts for the defense were as precise and concrete as people like Hilberg or Browning had been imprecise and metaphysical. The Swede Ditlieb Felderer showed about 380 slides of Auschwitz and of the other camps in Poland. The American, Mark Weber, whose knowledge of the documents is impressive, engaged in clarifications of several aspects of the Holocaust, in particular the Einsatzgruppen.* The German Tjudar Rudolph dealt with the Lodz ghetto and visits by the ICRC delegates at the end of 1941 to Auschwitz, Majdanek and other camps.
Thies Christophersen had been in charge of an agricultural research enterprise in the Auschwitz region in 1944. He visited the Birkenau camp several times to requisition personnel there and never noticed the horrors usually described. On the witness stand he repeated point by point what he had written about the camp, starting in 1973 with a 19-page report (Kritik, No. 23, p. 14-32). The Austrian-born Canadian Maria Van Herwaarden was interned at Birkenau starting in 1942. She saw nothing, either close up or from a distance, that resembled mass murder, although she confirmed that many of the inmates had died of typhus. The American Bradley Smith, a member of a “Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust,” spoke about his experience in more than 100 question-and-answer interviews on American radio and television on the Holocaust issue.
The Austrian Emil Lachout commented on the famous “Muller Document,” which, since December 1987, has thrown the Austrian authorities into disarray. The document, dated October 1, 1948, revealed that even then, Allied commissions of inquiry had already rejected the stories of homicidal “gassings” in a whole series of camps, including Dachau, Ravensbrück, Struthof (Natzweiler), Stutthof (Danzig), Sachsenhausen, and Mauthausen (Austria). The document specifically confirms that confessions of Germans had been extorted by torture and that testimonies by former inmates were false.
Dr. Russell Barton recounted his horrified discovery of the camp at Bergen-Belsen at the time of liberation. Until that moment he had believed in a deliberate program of extermination. Then he noted the fact that, in an apocalyptic Germany, the piles of corpses and the walking skeletons were the result of the frightful conditions of an overcrowded camp, ravaged by epidemics, and almost entirely deprived of medicine, food, and water because of Allied bombings.
The German Udo Walendy outlined the many forgeries he had discovered, in wartime atrocity photographs and other documents, either altered or forged by a team headed by a British propagandist called Sefton Delmer. J.G. Burg, a Jew who lives in Munich, told of his experiences in the war and confirmed that there had never been any policy for the extermination of the Jews by the Nazis.
Academics like the Chinese professor Dr. K.T. Fann, a Marxist, and Dr. Gary Botting, who lost his teaching position at Red Deer College (Alberta) as a result of testifying at the Zündel trial in 1985, testified that the Harwood booklet was essentially a work of opinion, and hence not subject to legal prohibition. Jürgen Neumann, a close associate and friend of Zündel, testified as to Zündel’s state of minds when the booklet first was published. Ernst Neilsen testified on the obstacles he encountered at the University of Toronto to open research on the Holocaust. Ivan Lagacé, director of the crematory at Calgary, demonstrated the practical impossibility of the numbers alleged by Hilberg to have been cremated at Auschwitz.
For my part, I appeared as an expert witness for nearly six days. I concentrated particularly on my investigations of the American gas chambers. I recalled that Zyklon B is essentially hydrocyanic acid and that it is with this gas that certain American penitentiaries execute those who have been condemned to death.
In 1945 the Allies should have asked specialists on American gas chambers to examine the buildings, at Auschwitz and elsewhere, which were supposed to have been used to gas millions of people. Since 1977, I have had the following idea: when one deals with a vast historical problem like that of the reality or the legend of the Holocaust, one must strive to get to the core of the problem; in this case the central problem is Auschwitz and the core of that problem is a space of 275 square meters: the 65 square meters of the “gas chamber” of crematorium I at Auschwitz and, at Birkenau, the 210 square meters of the “gas chamber” of crematorium II. In 1988, my idea remained the same: let us have expert studies of those 275 square meters and we will have an answer to the vast problem of the Holocaust! I showed the jury my photos of the gas chamber at the Maryland State Penitentiary in Baltimore as well as my plans for the Auschwitz gas chambers and I underlined the physical and chemical impossibilities of the latter ones.
A Sensational Turn of Events: The Leuchter Report
Ernst Zündel, in possession of the correspondence I had exchanged in 1977-78 with the six American penitentiaries outfitted with gas chambers, gave attorney Barbara Kulaszka the job of getting in touch with the chief wardens of those penitentiaries in order to see if one of them would agree to appear in court to explain how a real gas chamber operates. Bill Armontrout, chief warden of the penitentiary at Jefferson City (Missouri), agreed to testify and in doing so pointed out that no one in the USA was more knowledgeable about the functioning of gas chambers than Fred A. Leuchter, an engineer from Boston. I went to visit Leuchter on February 3 and 4, 1988. I found that he had never asked himself any questions about the “gas chambers” in the German camps. He had simply believed in their existence. After I began to show him my files, he became aware of the chemical and physical impossibility of the German “gassings” and he agreed to examine our documents in Toronto.
After that, at Zündel’s expense, he left for Poland with a secretary (his wife), a draftsman, a video-cameraman and an interpreter. He came back and drew up a 192-page report (including appendices). He also brought back 32 samples taken, on the one hand, from the crematories of Auschwitz and Birkenau at the site of the homicidal “gassings” and, on the other hand, in a disinfection gas chamber at Birkenau. His conclusion was simple: there had never been any homicidal gassings at Auschwitz, Birkenau, or Majdanek.
On April 20 and 21, 1988, Fred Leuchter appeared on the witness stand in the Toronto courtroom. He told the story of his investigation and presented his conclusions. I am convinced that during those two days I was an eyewitness to the death of the gas chamber myth, a myth which, in my opinion, had entered its dead throes at the Sorbonne colloquium on “Nazi Germany and the Extermination of the Jews” (June 29 to July 2, 1982), where the organizers themselves began to grasp that there was no proof of the existence of the gas chambers.
In the Toronto courtroom emotions were intense, in particular among the friends of Sabina Citron. Ernst Zündel’s friends were also moved, but for a different reason: they were witnessing the veil of the great swindle being torn away. As for me, I felt both relief and melancholy: relief because a thesis that I had defended for so many years was at last fully confirmed, and melancholy because I had fathered the idea in the first place. I had even, with the clumsiness of a man of letters, presented physical, chemical, topographical and architectural arguments which I now saw summed up by a scientist who was astonishingly precise and thorough.
Would people one day remember the skepticism I had encountered, even from other revisionists? Just before Fred Leuchter, Bill Armontrout had been on the witness stand, where he confirmed, in every detail, what I had said to the jury about the extreme difficulties of a homicidal gassing (not to be confused with a suicidal or accidental gassing). Ken Wilson, a specialist in aerial photographs, had shown that the homicidal “gas chambers” of Auschwitz and Birkenau did not have gas evacuation chimneys, which would have been indispensible. He also showed that I had been right in accusing Serge Klarsfeld and Jean-Claude Pressac of falsifying the map of Birkenau in the Auschwitz Album (Seuil Publishers, 1983, p. 42). Those authors, in order to make the reader believe that groups of Jewish women and children surprised by the photographer between crematories II and III could not go any farther and were thus going to end up in the “gas chambers” and those crematories, had simply eliminated from the map the path which. in reality. let up to the “Zentralsauna,” a large shower facility (located beyond the zone of the crematories), where those women and children were actually going.
James Roth, director of a laboratory in Massachusetts, then testified on the analysis of the 32 samples, the origin of which he was unaware of: all the samples taken in the homicidal “gas chambers” contained a quantity of cyanide which was either unmeasurable or infinitesimal, while the sample from the disinfection gas chamber, taken for comparison’s sake, contained an enormous amount of cyanide (the infinitesimal quantity detected in the former case can be explained by the fact that the supposed homicidal gas chambers were in fact morgues for preserving bodies; such morgues could have been occasionally disinfected with Zyklon B).
The British historian David Irving enjoys great prestige. Zündel thought of asking him to testify, but there was a problem: Irving was only partly a Revisionist. The thesis that he defended, for example, inHitler’s War (New York, The Viking Press, 1977) can be summed up as follows: Hitler never gave an order for the extermination of the Jews; at least up to the end of 1943 he was kept in ignorance of that extermination; only Himmler and a group of about 70 or so persons were aware of it; in October 1944 Himmler, who wanted to get into the good graces of the Allies, gave an order to cease the extermination of the Jews.
I had met Irving in Los Angeles in September of 1983 at the annual convention of the Institute for Historical Review, where I challenged him by asking several questions about proof to support his thesis. Then I published an article entitled “A Challenge to David Irving” in The Journal of Historical Review(Winter 1984, p. 289-305, and Spring 1985, p. 8 and 122). I tried to convince this brilliant historian that logically he could no longer be satisfied with a semi-Revisionist position. To begin with, I challenged him to produce Himmler’s order to stop the extermination, an order which never actually existed. Later on, I learned from various sources that Irving was undergoing a change that moved him in the direction of Revisionism.
In 1988, Zündel became convinced that the British historian was only waiting for a decisive event to take a final step in our direction. After arriving in Toronto, David Irving discovered in rapid succession the Leuchter report and an impressive number of documents that Zündel, his friends and I had accumulated over the course of several years. The last reservations or the last misunderstandings melted away in the course of a meeting. He agreed to testify on the stand. In the opinion of those who were present at the two trials (1985 and 1988), no single testimony, except that of Fred Leuchter, caused such a sensation. For more than three days, David Irving, engaging in a sort of public confession, took back all that he had said about the extermination of the Jews and without reservation adopted the Revisionist position. With courage and honesty, he showed how an historian can be brought to revise profoundly his views on the history of the Second World War.
The Zündel Story
Ernst Zündel had promised that his trial would be “the trial of the Nuremberg Trial” or “the Stalingrad of the ‘exterminationists'”. The unfolding of those two long trials proved him right, even though the jury, “instructed” by the judge to consider the Holocaust as an established fact “which no reasonable person can doubt,” finally found him guilty. Zündel has already won. It remains for him to make it known to Canada and to the entire world. The media black-out of the 1988 trial was almost complete. Jewish organizations campaigned vigorously for such a blackout, and even went so far as to say that they did not want an impartial account of the trial. They did not want any account of it at all. The paradox is that the only publication which reported relatively honestly about the trial was The Canadian Jewish News. Ernst Zündel and the Leuchter report have left a profound mark on history; both will be remembered for many years to come.
December 1, 1988
* Weber also clarified the meaning of the term “Final Solution” (emigration or deportation, but never extermination of Jews): the testimony of Judge Konrad Morgen; the tortures of Rudolf Höss and Oswald Pohl; the true history of revisionism; and the concessions made year after year by the exterminationists to the Revisionist viewpoint.
First published in The Journal of Historical Review, Winter 1988-89 (Vol. 8, No. 4), pages 417-431.
Posted by N N
Labels: “Did Six Million Really Die?”, Arnold Friedman, David Irving, Douglas Christie, Ernst Zündel, François Duprat, Fred Leuchter, Hilberg, Hugh Locke, Pierre Viansson-Ponté, Ronald Thomas, Sabina Citron, Vrba