From http://www.thebirdman.org/
Holocaust Revisionism in One Easy Lesson
By John "Birdman" Bryant
From the book Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Jews But Were
Afraid to Ask Because You Thought You'd Be Called 'Antisemitic'
The term historical revisionism was first used to apply to the work of
historian Harry Elmer Barnes and his associates, whose earliest
historical work was motivated by the belief that the
generally-accepted versions of events of the First World War not only
harbored serious errors, but were heavily influenced by the biases of
the institutions which underwrote the "Court Historians" responsible
for these versions. Barnes, however, noted that historical revisionism
-- "The effort to correct the historical record in the light of a more
complete collection of historical facts, a more calm political
atmosphere, and a more objective attitude" in his words (Barnes Review
Oct 94: 3) -- was itself an activity with a very long history, going
back at least as far as the exposure of the forgery of the "Donation
of Constantine" by Lorenzo Valla (1407-57).
In the present day the activity of historical revisionism,
particularly as it applies to the events of WWII and especially the
Jewish Holocaust ("Holocaust revisionism"), has been most closely
connected with the Institute for Historical Review (IHR), a California
organization founded by Willis Carto, a man who was also instrumental
in founding a widely-read "right-wing"/"populist" national newspaper,
The Spotlight (300 Independence Ave SE, Washington DC). Because Carto
and those associated with him have frequently criticized Israel and
the actions of various Jews and Jewish organizations, they have often
been called "anti-semitic" (the term is actually a misnomer, since
Arabs are a Semitic people), particularly by the Anti-Defamation
League and the Simon Wiesenthal Center who directly profit from
stirring up fears of the hatred of Jews among their contributors. In
my view the matter of Carto & Company's "anti-semitism" is a
non-issue, since it is impossible to tell the difference between
criticizing x and being "anti-x": The only real issue is whether the
criticisms are valid. And having read The Spotlight for many years, as
well as a number of publications from the IHR, it is clear that the
criticisms are well-done and highly convincing. This is not, of
course, to say that they are "true": I have not, for the most part,
made any independent investigation of the issues except to try to
compare the Cartonian view with the views of those critical of it, and
thus in this sense I am limited in any judgment I can make about
Cartonian claims; but in making such comparisons I have discovered
that those who attempt to debunk the Cartonian view usually end up
looking not merely wrong, but quite often foolish and mendacious as
well.
It may interest the reader to know that there has recently been a
split in the IHR which has involved several issues, including a
multi-million-dollar trust fund from the Thomas Edison fortune and the
desire of Carto to re- orient the IHR's work away from WWII and
Holocaust revisionism toward treating a more general racial/cultural
subject matter, and has involved armed confrontations, lawsuits, and
accusations of Nazism and infiltration of the IHR by Scientology and
the Jewish Anti-Defamation League. The result is that Carto and "his"
IHR have launched a new journal, The Barnes Review (130 Third St SE,
Washington DC 20003), while the "renegade" IHR (1822 1/2 Newport Blvd
#191, Costa Mesa CA 92627) remains in possession of the book
inventory, the mailing list and, apparently, the loyalty of an
important segment of the contributing scholars.
For those who are inclined to suppose that revisionism (by which I
shall mean Holocaust revisionism) is worthless or worse, permit me to
call the following points to your attention:
While the IHR has been instrumental in spreading revisionist ideas
worldwide, the first book on this subject (The Drama of the European
Jews) was written by a concentration-camp survivor, Frenchman Paul
Rassinier (who was probably Jewish, tho I do not know this for
certain), who was troubled by the fact that the horror portrait
painted of concentration-camp life at the Nuremberg Trials was
completely contrary to his own experiences (He had been an inmate at
more than one camp). Another book which has been pivotal in spreading
revisionist ideas is Northwestern University Prof. Arthur Butz' The
Hoax of the 20th Century.
Britisher David Irving, who is probably the world's best-known and
most formidable historian, is a revisionist. Irving, you may recall,
is the man who demonstrated that the so-called Hitler Diaries which
were "discovered" a few years ago and certified by several
Establishment historians as genuine, were actually a fake. In addition
to Irving, there are also several prominent Jews involved with the
Carto organizations (If this be antisemitism, then make the most of
it). One of these is author/lawyer Mark Lane, who is well-known for
his ("historical revisionist") books on the JFK assassination (Rush to
Judgment, etc) and was the person responsible for the IHR's court
victory over professional Holocaust survivor Mel Mermelstein, who sued
the IHR in order to claim the reward it had offered for anyone who
could prove that the Nazis gassed Jews or had an extermination policy
(The case was heard in front of a Jewish judge, incidentally, and was
also treated in a movie starring Leonard Nimoy. Unfortunately, the
movie portrayed Mermelstein as the winner. Is Hollywood Jewish, or is
it Jewish?). Another Jew associated with IHR is David Cole, who is
well-known in revisionist circles for obtaining on film some rather
revolutionary "revisionist" admissions from the curator of the
Auschwitz museum. In addition, my friend and fellow-libertarian
Bradley Smith, who at one time edited the IHR Journal and who has
gained considerable notoriety from the "revisionist" ads he has been
running in college newspapers around the country, was once married to
a Jew, and thus, by the matrilineal Law of Return, his daughter and
principal assistant constitutes yet another "Jew in the woodpile" of
Holocaust revisionism.
Revisionists have been responsible for the debunking of a number of
well-known claims of the Official Jewish Version of the Holocaust
(OJV), including the charge that Germans made soap from Jewish body
fat and lampshades from Jewish skin (The soap story was actually a
slight variation of a propaganda lie used against the Germans by the
Allies in the First World War. (Old lies never die?)). Revisionists
were also responsible for the fact that the plaque at Auschwitz which
previously had claimed 4 million killed there by the Nazis now reads
1.1 million. (This, I might add, downsizes the famous Six Million by
about 50% if my subtraction isn't off by too much. And while we're on
the subject, it is notable that "New York Governor Martin Glynn, in a
major Albany speech in October 1919 [that's 20 years before the start
of World War Two, for all you who are a tad weak on dates], reported
at length on the 'holocaust [of] six million Jewish men and women' who
were dying due to the 'awful tyranny of war and a bigoted lust for
Jewish blood' during the 'Great War'" (Irena Zdiarska, "Holocaust Is
Undeniable -- But Should Be Debated", Barnes Review Oct 94: 27)) But
the fact is that the number of Jewish deaths during the war from all
causes including disease was probably not much over one million, this
being known from examination of the camp "death books" which since the
war's end have been in the hands of the Russians -- and out of reach
of Western scholars -- until just recently (The exact number of Jewish
deaths is not known because a few of the books are missing.)
As revisionists have noted, the story that Jews were put to death in
"gas chambers" is highly questionable on several accounts. For one
thing, the Nazis were using Jews as slave labor (Auschwitz was a huge
industrial complex), so it made absolutely no sense for them to kill
Jews. In fact, at least one memo has been uncovered from Nazi archives
in which the central Nazi administration demanded in no uncertain
terms that camp commandants reduce the death rate. The death rate in
question was caused primarily by typhus -- always a big killer in wars
-- which was being carried by the inmates' lice and fleas (lousy
Jews?). In fact, the "gas chambers" story undoubtedly originated from
the fact that the Nazis used delousing gas chambers to expose the
clothing of new inmates to cyanide gas in order to kill the vermin in
order to prevent Jewish deaths, an irony of epic proportions which I
trust will not be lost upon the reader. It should be noted, however,
that the delousing gas chambers were far too small for killing people
in the numbers posited by the OJV. It should also be noted that Zyklon
B, the form of cyanide supposedly used to kill Jews, was in fact a
special form of slow-release cyanide which was appropriate for de-
lousing clothing, but inappropriate for the instantaneous killing that
was supposedly done in the Jew-killing "gas chambers". In addition, as
revisionists have noted, such killings would have been impossible on
the scale claimed by the OJV because cyanide is so dangerous that the
bodies would have had to lie for hours before they could be safely
removed, even by those wearing protective clothing and gas masks. And
on top of all this, no "extermination order" has ever been found
ordering the killing of Jews, in spite of the German propensity for
documentation-up-the-tush (Note: It is believed by revisionists that
the "final solution of the Jewish question" which was referred to at
the Wansee conference and elsewhere was intended to mean, not the
killing of Jews, but rather their deportation from German soil.) And
incidentally, even the term Holocaust originated in stories -- now
known to be false -- that the Germans were burning Jews in open pits,
not gassing them in "gas chambers".
Fred Leuchter, an American expert on executions, actually went to
several concentration camps, including Auschwitz, and took samples
from the walls of the supposed "gas chambers". An independent
laboratory analysis of the samples showed virtually no traces of
cyanide, which would have been present in large quantities if the "gas
chambers" story were true. The account of his work is found in
Leuchter's book, The Leuchter Report, whose publication in England was
sponsored by David Irving. Leuchter, incidentally, did not begin as a
"revisionist", but merely was hired by a Canadian revisionist, Ernst
Zundel, to do an investigation for his trial on charges of publishing
a revisionist book (Revisionism is outlawed in Canada, Germany,
Austria, France and several other European countries, thanks to the
international you-know-who.) [Update: The accuracy of The Leuchter
Report has been called into question due to the fact that the samples
which Leuchter took were merely ground up for analysis, rather than
having the surface content alone checked for cyanide. However,
Leuchter's basic findings have been confirmed by Max Planck Institute
chemist Gemar Rudolph, whose Rudolf Report concluded that mass
gassings at Auschwitz were 'irreconcilable with the laws of physical
science'. The result of these findings was that Rudolf was denied his
PhD, was fired from his job, and had to leave Germany in order to
avoid a 14-month prison sentence. Details on Rudolf can be found at
www.codoh.com/rudolf/rudolf.html.]
The one thing which has done most to convince people that the
allegations of German atrocities are true is the film clips we have
all seen of the liberation of the concentration camps, in which bodies
are shown piled high, and surviving inmates are seen to be little more
than walking skeletons. But in fact these admittedly-shocking films do
not make a case for German atrocities, to say nothing of "gas
chambers": If Germans were gassing Jews by the hundreds or thousands,
as the OJV alleges, then Jews simply would not be around long enuf to
starve, as the "walking skeletons" obviously were doing (And besides,
how can you make soap from skeletons?). But more than this, the
starvation was simply a reflection of the fact that, toward the end of
the war, the German supply lines had broken down, and food was not
getting to the camps. And above all, one should not think that there
is anything unique to Germany about "walking skeletons" in
"concentration camps": Exactly the same thing happened at the
Andersonville prison during the American Civil War (You can look up
the pictures in any good pictorial history book, eg, Butterfield.)
If anyone was guilty of "war crimes" during WWII, it was the Allies.
The RAF's General "Bomber" Harris' terror firebombing of Dresden, a
city of no military importance, caused the deaths of some
quarter-million civilians; the treatment of Germans after the end of
the war by the Allies was truly inhuman (see the recent book Other
Losses by James Baque; revised title Final Losses: The Shocking
Truth); and the torture of alleged German "war criminals" at Nuremberg
in order to extract "confessions" (see The Confessions of Kurt
Gerstein), to say nothing of the use of ex post facto laws under which
these people were "tried", were all outrageous and insupportable acts.
And guess what: The death rate for Allied prisoners in German POW
camps was lower than for the Allied civilian population as a whole.
But if, as the revisionists allege, the OJV is wrong in important
respects, we should ask why this came about. The general answer, I
think, is that, as the old saw goes, "Truth is the first casualty of
war." In particular, we have already explained that the probable
origin of the "gas chambers" story was that clothing was gassed in
order to kill vermin. Another part was surely propaganda: Just as in
WWI, the Germans ("Huns") were falsely accused of atrocities by the
Allies ("Bayonetting babies" was one of the more memorable lies). A
third element was the obvious animosity of Jews toward Hitler and his
regime (The international Jewish community "declared war" on Germany
when Hitler came to power in 1933 (primarily as a boycott of German
goods) long before the advent of concentration camps or any of
Hitler's military adventures), which gave them the motive to paint him
as a devil incarnate. (It may be pointed out, however, that some have
suggested that Hitler's hatred of the Jews was the result of his being
denied admission to the Vienna Academy of Art by certain persons of
the Jewish persuasion (He was an artist, you remember), a fact which
just might suggest that Jews -- if I may be so bold as to say so --
were, in some sense at least, responsible for Hitler's hatred of them.
Eye for an eye?) But there may be an even more important reason for
the falsities of the OJV, namely, that Jews, who are overwhelmingly of
the political Left, were looking for a devil to take attention away
from Leftist atrocities which had been going on since the Russian
Revolution of 1917, particularly those of Stalin, who deliberately
starved millions to death, and sent other millions to the Gulag (Note:
Russian communism used to be popularly known as "Jewish Bolshevism",
since most of the leaders of the Russian Revolution were Jews). In
fact, we now know that the deaths under the communist regime in the
Soviet Union totalled some 50 million, and in China some 80 million,
both of which far outnumber anything Hitler was ever accused of. And
yet we hear little or nothing about "communist atrocities", in spite
of being deluged on an almost-daily basis with Holocaust mythology.
But there is yet another force which has significantly catalyzed the
Holocaustomania of the OJV. It is the fact that the Holocaust is very
big business, a fact which one might profitably recall when one next
thinks of taking in a Hollywood movie (remember Schindler's List?), or
buying a book (Elie Wiesel, anyone?), or visiting a museum (The
Washington Holocaust Museum has been paid for in large measure with
tax dollars). Hell, even the IHR benefits. In fact, the business is so
big that the Jews have a special phrase for it: "There's no business
like Shoah [Holocaust] business."
As a personal note, let me say that my interest in Holocaust
revisionism stems in part from my natural skepticism,
anti-establishment attitudes and other negative qualities which I
value so positively, but it stems even more from my interest in the
fact that there has been so much effort on the part of various Jewish
organizations to suppress revisionist findings. For example, Fred
Leuchter has been hounded unmercifully (He had to fight an artificial
charge in Massachusetts of "practicing engineering without a license",
for instance); Ernst Zundel was charged with "hate crimes" in Canada
for publishing revisionist writings, but, after a protracted battle
which went all the way to the Canadian Supreme Court, and with the
able assistance of my friend and brilliant trial lawyer Douglas
Christie, won a stunning victory; David Irving was banned from
speaking in Australia, Austria and Canada, tho courts have now
reversed two of these exclusion orders; French revisionist scholar and
"Shoah Constrictor" Robert Faurisson, author of Are the Diaries of Ann
Frank Genuine? (It turns out parts of the diary were written with a
ball-point pen which was manufactured after 1945) was beaten almost to
death by a bunch of Jewish thugs; and some group -- most probably the
Mossad (the Israeli equivalent of the CIA) -- burned down the IHR on
July 4, 1984 -- to no avail, of course. Some might say that the Jews
and their friends are trying to suppress revisionism because they
think it is false; but my guess is that they are trying to suppress it
because they fear it is true.
And by the way, as David Duke once pointed out, if the Holocaust
killed so many people, then how come there are so many "survivors"?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Incredible Shrinking Holocaust
Top: This was the plaque on display at the Auschwitz camp until 1989:
note the "4 million" victims. Bottom: This is the plaque currently on
display at Auschwitz (2002) - note the suddenly reduced number of
victims to 1.5 million - a casual reduction in the number of deaths by
2.5 million. Question: Does 'Six Million' minus 2.5 million still
equal 'Six Million'? Answer: Probably.
.
|
