Multi-lingua: This document below was prepared and posted on the Zundelsite as an “Introduction to Revisionist Thought” during the first week of January, 1996. It was meant to be a lead-in to an Internet debate with another website, Nizkor, a “Holocaust Promotion Lobby” website.
This debate was aborted after the Simon Wiesenthal Center was notified of this debate and immediately went into an all-out offensive, starting with an article in the New York Times January 10, 1996, followed by 2000 letters to ISP’s and university presidents in an attempt to prevent Revisionist material from being published on the Web.
In response to this censorship move, “computer kids” and cyberspace journalists worldwide took up the “sheltering” of the Zundelsite by creating Zundelsite Mirrors. From mid-January to mid-February, it was high electronic drama as in the most prestigous universities, “Zündel-Mirrors” sprang up spontaneously. We know of Zündel-Mirrors as far away as Australia.
The eventual outcome of this “first ever” Internet Cyberspace Stand-off and similar battles for Freedom of Speech on the Net was the US Communications Decency Act, rammed through the US Congress by special interest groups but recently dismissed as unconstitutional by three Philadelphia judges.
This judgment, presently, is on appeal.
The struggle for Freedom of Speech on the Net continues.
Ernst Zündel Replies:
Before I get into the actual rebuttal, I would just like to call attention to a few important points in (Nizkor’s) detailed, elaborate summary:
1. I am described by Nizkor, citing Canada’s Security Intelligence Review Committee, as a “. . . prolific publisher of hate literature.” That is not quite correct.
In Canada, the distribution of hate literature is a criminal offense, as is bank robbery and child molestation. If you call me a bank robber in print and I am not a bank robber, that is called libel. If you call me a child molester and I am not a child molester, that is called libel also.
You called me in electronic print a “. . . prolific publisher of hate literature.” You have just libeled me.
I have lived and worked in Canada for almost 40 years and have never been convicted of having published and/or distributed hate literature in that country. I have never even been charged with having published and/or distributed hate literature in Canada, although in Canada there are such things as “hate laws.”
In point of fact, various judicial and police bodies, after extensive study, have specifically cleared me of that charge. Had there been proof, my enemies would have made sure I would have been charged and convicted.
I have been charged with “. . . spreading false news,” a frivolous charge a malcontent, multi-millionaire Jewess brought against me. It cost Canadians approximately $6 million . . . and all, for what? The Supreme Court of Canada decided in the end that society may be enriched by cultural and intellectual diversity, which does include unpopular views on history and other matters of discomfort to certain minorities.
Below I summarize 8 points to serve as “Holocaust” Revisionism 101. Before I do so, I would like to state what I mean when I refer to certain individuals and groups collectively as the “Holocaust Promotion Lobby.”
I use the phrase as a generic term to describe those people who have a vested interest in keeping the Holocaust Myth alive and who will act politically to make sure that this happens.
The Holocaust Promotion Lobby is a summarizing construct meant as a shortcut to describe a subset of the human race, most but not all of whom are Jews, with unique and identifying social and political characteristics and dedicated to the maintenance and enhancement of a dogma called the “Holocaust.”
I use this phrase for summarizing purposes, as in “The Flower Generation” describing a hedonistic youth culture or “The Jet Set” describing the rich.
I will leave it up to each individual, Gentile or Jew, to decide for himself whether or not he belongs in that group.
What Revisionists are offering below is the state of the art on Revisionism as of right now. The final word is not yet in; it will come when more people in all kinds and sorts of disciplines will kneel into the murky matter of the “Holocaust” and find out for themselves was is and isn’t true.
To capture the essence of what follows below, readers will need to understand that, after years of insisting that “. . . the Revisionists don’t MERIT a response!” and refusing to engage in debate, at the beginning of the year a serious debate was actually planned – or so, at least, we thought.
A world-wide censorship move was unleashed to stop this debate from happening. Part of this effort by our opposition apparently caused Nizkor to back out of the debate, insisting that they merely talked of “linking.” It is unfortunate that a debate didn’t happen, but that is now water under the bridge.
The Nizkor folks now say that they prefer to “link,” so we will let them “link.” We would have liked a real debate with mutual and respectful cooperation. However, that was not to be, but since we promised we would answer a rebuttal, that is what we are doing now.
By way of introduction, Revisionism has taken hold as an intellectual revival movement all over the world. People are beginning to ask questions about the Holocaust. These questions are uncomfortable. No longer can the Holocaust Promotion Lobby ignore the global interest in the TRUE facts surrounding very murky claims pertaining to the “Holocaust” by shouting “Anti-Semitism!”
In essence, Revisionism claims can be grouped into eight fairly distinct topics. They are, as elaborated below:
1. The Revisionist claim: The Holocaust is useful postwar propaganda that started as a systematic, insidious campaign during World War II as one of the tactics employed by moneyed interests to rally the troops and engage the world, specifically America, in what turned out to be, essentially, a fratricidal war.
The principle behind this propaganda was: “Let’s get an enemy to kill an enemy.”
How was this done? In old-fashioned, time-tested ways.
Sophisticated war-time propaganda about an enemy’s alleged “atrocities” is nothing new. It is an effective psychological weapon, routinely employed to keep the home-grown troops fired up so that they believe that they are fighting for a righteous, patriotic cause. The enemy is demonized with systematic atrocity stories. The media repeats over and over and over again how cruel and demonic he is.
This tactic was used by the Allies – extensively. Here is one piece of evidence:
On February 29, 1944 the British Ministry of Information sent the following note to the higher British clergy and to the BBC:
I am directed by the Ministry to send you the following circular letter:
It is often the duty of the good citizens and of the pious Christians to turn a blind eye on the peculiarities of those associated with us.
But the time comes when such peculiarities, while still denied in public, must be taken into account when action by us is called for.
We know the methods of rule employed by the Bolshevik dictator in Russia itself from, for example, the writing and speeches of the Prime Minister himself during the last twenty years. We know how the Red Army behaved in Poland in 1920 and in Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Galicia, and Bessarabia only recently.
We must, therefore, take into account how the Red Army will certainly behave when it overruns Central Europe. Unless precautions are taken, the obviously inevitable horrors which will result will throw an undue strain on public opinion in this country.
We cannot reform the Bolsheviks but we can do our best to save them – and ourselves – from the consequences of their acts. The disclosures of the past quarter of the past quarter of a century will render mere denials unconvincing. The only alternative to denial is to distract public attention from the whole subject.
Experience has shown that the best distraction is atrocity propaganda directed against the enemy. Unfortunately the public is no longer so susceptible as in the days of “Corpse Factory.” the Mutilated Belgian Babies,” and the “Crucified Canadians.”
Your cooperation is therefore earnestly sought to distract public attention from the doings of the Red Army by your wholehearted support of various charges against the Germans and Japanese which have been and will be put into circulation by the Ministry.
Your expression of belief in such may convince others.
I am, sir, Your obedient servant
H. Hewet, Assistant Secretary
There was even a postscript, as follows:
The Ministry can enter into no correspondence of any kind with regard to the communication which should only be disclosed to responsible persons. (Rozek, Edward J., Allied Wartime Diplomacy: A Pattern in Poland, John Wiley and Sons, NY. page 209-210)
This is quite an astounding document. This letter is ample evidence that during World War II, the Allies used atrocity propaganda against Hitler Germany to distract their own people from the atrocities being committed primarily but not exclusively by the Red Army – their “comrades”! – in the invasion of Europe as Hitler’s war drew to an end.
Note, though, that there was nothing in this letter that talked of gassing people.
Why not? Because foolish atrocity propaganda is something else again. The gas chamber claim was floated briefly as a propaganda test kite but was quickly abandoned as too “unbelievable.” If atrocity fiction is found to be so gross, outlandish and implausible that thinking, feeling people simply cannot swallow it, it is not in an army leader’s interest to peddle such a “crime.”
This was the case originally with the “gas chamber” claim.
In point of fact, the British Ministry of Information at first requested British clergy to help spread the “gas chamber” story which was planned to be put in circulation by the Ministry. (Rozek, Edward J., Allied Wartime Diplomacy, pp 108-110. John Wiley and Sons, New York ) However, from the start, it was judged to be too problematic and bizarre and, therefore, it was quickly withdrawn as a potential strategic embarrassment.
Some of the “lesser” so-called “crimes” that people were willing to swallow did survive and thrive for a while, both during World War I and World War II – some of them for longer periods than others.
For example, many of the older generation, both in Europe and America, still vividly remember the macabre World War I Allied propaganda claims of the German “. . . cadavers-into-soap factories,” the “. . . chopped-off hands of Belgian babies,” the “. . . crucified Canadian soldier” stories – all of which proved to be lies, and for some of which post WWI Allied statesmen even apologized to the Germans.
Some even remember the incredible, hysterical claim made by the then-Governor of New York State, even in 1917-18, (!) that the Germans had been “. . . exterminating millions of Jews.”
Even more telling was the claim about the “. . . six million”! (Glynn, Martin, The Crucifixion of the Jews Must Stop The American Hebrew, October 31, 1920.)
So you see – the “six million” story is old. Very old.
It had been peddled before. In a recent book entitled “Keystone of the New World Order: The Holocaust Dogma of Judaism,” the author, Ben Weintraub makes the point that the number has, in fact, mythical significance because it is based on cabalistic sources. (Weintraub, Ben, The Holocaust Dogma: Keystone of the New World Order, Cosmos Publishers, 1994)
Unfortunately, it took a gullible, systematically miseducated populace such as we have today, coupled with relentless brainwashing by a corruptible lap dog media, to peddle the lie for decades the way it has been peddled. In World War I, there was no electronic media. After WWII, this handy tale was dusted off and heaved once more against the German people.
The massive psychological onslaught really only started, however, with the fictitious television series, “Holocaust,” shown worldwide to an estimated 100 million people. Next there was “Schindler’s List.” There were thousands of other production not nearly as vicious in impact, but cumulatively destructive.
Let us be very clear on one point: There would have been no hesitation to use the story of the “gassings” even during the war – had it been plausible. However, even during the war, the leadership of the Allied Nations – such as Churchill and Roosevelt as well as those of the Catholic hierarchy, including the then-Pope Pius XI – knew from their various intelligence agencies, spies on the ground, inmates with radio transmitters inside various camps (including inmate soldiers, inmate priests, even those who took confessions of local military, police and guard personnel) that no organized mass exterminations by gassing or any other means were going on inside these camps.
How did they know?
The Allied leaders had detailed aerial photos, none of which corroborated the hysterical claims then made by Zionist agitators like Rabbi Stephen Wise and others around the world. It simply wasn’t true. There were no gassings of people going on – only of lice! The story was a cheese with many, many holes. And it was judged as problematic.
As a consequence, the Allied leadership specifically removed any reference to “gas chambers” in their wartime atrocity propaganda, even in their diplomatic dispatches, because there was no proof. (Allied Diplomacy in Wartime, Samisdat Resource Book, pp 108-110)
In August of 1943, the Allies decided officially not to make this specific allegation of “gas chambers” against the Nazis in a published declaration on the grounds of “insufficient evidence to justify the statement regarding execution in gas chambers.” ( Foreign Relations of the United States Diplomatic Papers, 1943. Samisdat Resource Book)
The Allies and the Pope thus did not need to deny what did not take place – except in the feverish brains of the Zionists who were jockeying through unique “victimhood” for the creation of the State of Israel and postwar political advantage (including massive reparations payments from Germany) which needed the accusation of genocide against the Jews.
And, as we will explain in more detail, the trials at Nuremberg were based on those accusations. The Zionists needed a conviction, in order to leverage the guilt money out of a craven government created by the Allies.