Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Dissecting the Holocaust’ Category

Photobucket
Oliver Stone apologized for Telling the Truth
By Gilad Atzmon
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Source: gilad.squarespace.com

There you go… Oliver Stone apologized for suggesting that the Jewish lobby controls Washington’s foreign policy and that Hitler’s actions should be put into context.

In fact, Stone’s apology confirms Stone’s argument. We are subject to constant assault by Jewish and Israeli gatekeepers who insist on controlling the political and historical discourse and defy any possible criticism of Jewish national affairs.

“In trying to make a broader historical point about the range of atrocities the Germans committed against many people, I made a clumsy association about the Holocaust, for which I am sorry and I regret,” Stone said in a statement released late Monday, the day after his remarks were published in a British newspaper.

JTA reported today that Elan Steinberg, vice president of the American Gathering of Holocaust Survivors and their Descendants, was among the Jewish organizations and Israeli officials to condemn the remarks.

Steinberg in a statement said Stone’s apology “was necessary and we accept it. But whether he acted out of sincerity or as a desperate response to the moral outcry at his comments is an open question,” he added. “He must be judged by his future words and deeds.”

Steinberg demands “sincerity” and future subservience. I would actually expect him to join Stone and be slightly more enthusiastic about historical research and contextual thinking.

Israel’s propaganda minister’, Yuli Edelstein, was also among those who had condemned Stone’s remarks early Monday. “They are nauseating, anti-Semitic and racist. Not only is he showing ignorance, he is demonizing Jews for no reason and returning to the ‘Protocols of the Elders of Zion.’ [Never mind the fact that Stone’s father is Jewish, or that what he said (prior to his recantation) was factually sound, irrespective of who it offended.]

Interesting indeed. Stone doesn’t refer to race. There is nothing anti-Semitic in his remark whatsoever unless telling the truth is a form of anti-Semitism. Moreover, Stone didn’t demonize Jews for being Jews, he described some actions committed by Jewish institutional lobbies, actions that are now academically documented and studied. He did it for a good reason. Stone is probably patriotic or pragmatic enough to gather that peace is important.

“When a man of Stone’s stature speaks in this way”, said Edelstein, “it can bring waves of anti-Semitism and anti-Israel sentiment, and may even damage Jewish communities and individuals.” Edelstein is almost correct. Stone was brave enough to tell the truth about Jewish power, though he probably wasn’t courageous enough to stand for it, which is understandable. However, Edelstein and other Jewish leaders had better realise that Stone is far from being mad, anti-Semitic or racist. Stone told the truth as we all see it.

Instead of silencing criticism, Edelstein, Steinberg and others had better face the mirror because the time is running out for Israel and its supporters.

Update: Haim Saban to CBS: Cancel Oliver Stone’s Showtime Series

http://www.thewrap.com/media/column-post/exclusive-haim-saban-stone-should-join-mel-gibson-retirement-19614

The New Yorker reported last month that at a conference last fall, Saban described his pro-Israeli formula, outlining “three ways to be influential in American politics: make donations to political parties, establish think tanks, and control media outlets.”

Read Full Post »

Photobucket
An ‘Unknown Holocaust’ and the Hijacking of History
by Mark Weber
July 25, 2009
Source: Archives, Institute for Historical Review

We hear a lot about terrible crimes committed by Germans during World War II, but we hear very little about crimes committed against Germans. Germany’s defeat in May 1945, and the end of World War II in Europe, did not bring an end to death and suffering for the vanquished German people. Instead the victorious Allies ushered in a horrible new era of destruction, looting, starvation, rape, “ethnic cleansing,” and mass killing — one that Time magazine called “history’s most terrifying peace.” / 1

Even though this “unknown holocaust” is ignored in our motion pictures and classrooms, and by our political leaders, the facts are well established. Historians are in basic agreement about the scale of the human catastrophe, which has been laid out in a number of detailed books. For example, American historian and jurist Alfred de Zayas, along with other scholars, has established that in the years 1945 to 1950, more than 14 million Germans were expelled or forced to flee from large regions of eastern and central Europe, of whom more than two million were killed or otherwise lost their lives. / 2

One recent and particularly useful overview is a 615-page book, published in 2007, entitled After the Reich: The Brutal History of the Allied Occupation. / 3 In it, British historian Giles MacDonogh details how the ruined and prostrate German Reich (including Austria) was systematically raped and robbed, and how many Germans who survived the war were either killed in cold blood or deliberately left to die of disease, cold, malnutrition or starvation. He explains how some three million Germans died unnecessarily after the official end of hostilities — about two million civilians, mostly women, children and elderly, and about one million prisoners of war.

Some people take the view that, given the wartime misdeeds of the Nazis, some degree of vengeful violence against the defeated Germans was inevitable and perhaps justified. A common response to reports of Allied atrocities is to say that the Germans “deserved what they got.” But however valid that argument might be, the appalling cruelties inflicted on the totally prostrate German people went far beyond any understandable retribution.

Although I’m focusing here on the treatment of Germans, it’s worth keeping in mind that they were not the only victims of postwar Allied brutality. Across central and eastern Europe, the heavy hand of Soviet rule continued to take lives of Poles, Hungarians, Ukrainians, and people of other nationalities.

As Soviet troops advanced into central and eastern Europe during the war’s final months, they imposed a reign of terror, pillage and killing without compare in modern history. The horrors were summarized by George F. Kennan, the acclaimed historian who also served as US ambassador to the Soviet Union. He wrote: / 4

“The disaster that befell this area with the entry of the Soviet forces has no parallel in modern European experience. There were considerable sections of it where, to judge by all existing evidence, scarcely a man, woman or child of the indigenous population was left alive after the initial passage of Soviet forces; and one cannot believe that they all succeeded in fleeing to the West … The Russians … swept the native population clean in a manner that had no parallel since the days of the Asiatic hordes.”

During the last months of the war, the ancient German city of Königsberg in East Prussia held out as a strongly defended urban fortress. After repeated attack and siege by the Red Army, it finally surrendered in early April 1945. Soviet troops then ravished the civilian population. The people were beaten, robbed, killed and, if female, raped. The rape victims included nuns. Even hospital patients were robbed of their possessions. Bunkers and shelters, packed with terrified people huddling inside, were torched with flame-throwers. About 40,000 of the city’s population were killed, or took their own lives to escape the horrors, and the remaining 73,000 Germans were brutally deported. / 5

In a report that appeared in August 1945 in the Washington DC Times-Herald, / 6 an American journalist wrote of what he described as “the state of terror in which women in Russian-occupied eastern Germany were living. All these women, Germans, Polish, Jewish and even Russian girls `freed’ from Nazi slave camps, were consumed by one desperate desire — to escape from the Red zone “

“In the district around our internment camp … Red soldiers during the first weeks of their occupation raped every women and girl between the ages of 12 and 60 [some reports say 8 and 80]. That sounds exaggerated, but it is the simple truth. The only exceptions were girls who managed to remain in hiding in the woods or who had the presence of mind to feign illness – typhoid, dyptheria or some other infectious disease … Husbands and fathers who attempted to protect their women folk were shot, and girls offering extreme resistance were murdered.”

In accord with policy set by the “Big Three” Allied leaders of the US, Britain and the Soviet Union — Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin — millions of Germans were expunged from their ancient homelands in central and eastern Europe.

In October 1945, a New York Daily News report from occupied Berlin told readers: / 7

“In the windswept courtyard of the Stettiner Bahnof [rail station], a cohort of German refugees, part of 12 million to 19 million dispossessed in East Prussia and Silesia, sat in groups under a driving rain and told the story of their miserable pilgrimage, during which more than 25 percent died by the roadside, and the remainder were so starved they scarcely had strength to walk …

“A nurse from Stettin, a young, good-looking blond, told how her father had been stabbed to death by Russian soldiers who, after raping her mother and sister, tried to break into her own room. She escaped and hid in a haystack with four other women for four days …

“On the train to Berlin she was pillaged once by Russian troops and twice by Poles. Women who resisted were shot dead, she said, and on one occasion she saw a guard take an infant by the legs and crush its skull against a post because the child cried while the guard was raping its mother.

“An old peasant from Silesia said … victims were robbed of everything they had, even their shoes. Infants were robbed of their swaddling clothes so that they froze to death. All the healthy girls and women, even those 65 years of age, were raped in the train and then robbed, the peasant said.”

In November 1945 an item in the Chicago Tribune told readers: / 8

“Nine hundred and nine men, women and children dragged themselves and their luggage from a Russian railway train at Lehrter station [in Berlin] today, after eleven days traveling in boxcars from Poland. Red Army soldiers lifted 91 corpses from the train, while relatives shrieked and sobbed as their bodies were piled in American lend-lease trucks and driven off for interment in a pit near a concentration camp.

“The refugee train was like a macabre Noah’s ark. Every car was packed with Germans … the families carry all their earthly belongings in sacks, bags and tin trunks … Nursing infants suffer the most, as their mothers are unable to feed them, and frequently go insane as they watch offspring slowly die before their eyes. Today four screaming, violently insane mothers were bound with rope to prevent them from clawing other passengers.”

Although most of the millions of German girls and women who were ravished by Allied soldiers were raped by Red Army troops, Soviet soldiers were not the only perpetrators. During the French occupation of Stuttgart, a large city in southwest Germany, police records show that 1,198 women and eight men were raped, mostly by French troops from Morocco in north Africa, although the prelate of the Lutheran Evangelical church estimated the number at 5,000. / 9

During World War II, the United States, Britain and Germany generally complied with the international regulations on the treatment of prisoners of war, as required by the Geneva accord of 1929. But at the end of the fighting in Europe, the US and British authorities scrapped the Geneva convention. In violation of solemn international obligations and Red Cross rules, the American and British authorities stripped millions of captured German soldiers of their status, and their rights, as prisoners of war by reclassifying them as so-called “Disarmed Enemy Forces” or “Surrendered Enemy Personnel.” / 10

Accordingly, British and American authorities denied access by International Red Cross representatives to camps holding German prisoners of war. Moreover, any attempt by German civilians to feed the prisoners was punishable by death. / 11 Many thousands of German POWs died in American custody, most infamously in the so-called “Rhine meadow camps,” where prisoners were held under appalling conditions, with no shelter and very little food. / 12

In April 1946, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) protested that the United States, Britain and France, nearly a year after the end of fighting, were violating International Red Cross agreements they had solemnly pledged to uphold. The Red Cross pointed out, for example, that the American transfer of German prisoners of war to French and British authorities for forced labor was contrary to International Red Cross statutes. / 13

Another report by the International Committee of the Red Cross in August 1946 stated that the US government, through its military branch in the US zone of occupation in Germany, was exacting forced labor from 284,000 captives, of whom 140,000 were in the US occupation zone, 100,000 in France, 30,000 in Italy, and 14,000 in Belgium. Holdings of German prisoners or slave laborers by other countries, the Red Cross reported, included 80,000 in Yugoslavia, and 45,000 in Czechoslovakia. / 14

Both during and after the war, the Allies tortured German prisoners. In one British center in England, called “the London Cage,” German prisoners were subjected to systematic ill-treatment, including starvation and beatings. The brutality continued for several years after the end of the war. Treatment of German prisoners by the British was even more harsh in the British occupation zone of Germany. / 15 At the US internment center at Schwäbisch Hall in southwest Germany, prisoners awaiting trial by American military courts were subjected to severe and systematic torture, including long stretches in solitary confinement, extremes of heat and cold, deprivation of sleep and food, and severe beatings, including kicks to the groin. / 16

Most of the German prisoners of war who died in Allied captivity were held by the Soviets, and a much higher portion of German POWs died in Soviet custody than perished in British and American captivity. (For example, of the 90,000 Germans who surrendered at Stalingrad, only 5,000 ever returned to their homeland.) More than five years after the end of the war, hundreds of thousands of German prisoners were still being held in the Soviet Union. Other German prisoners perished after the end of the war in Yugoslavia, Poland and other countries. In Yugoslavia alone, authorities of the Communist regime killed as many as 80,000 Germans. German prisoners toiled as slave labor in other Allied countries, often for years.

At the Yalta conference in early 1945, the “Big Three” Allied leaders agreed that the Soviets could take Germans as forced laborers, or “slave labor.” It is estimated that 874,000 German civilians were abducted to the Soviet Union. These were in addition to the millions of prisoners of war who were held by the Soviets as forced laborers. Of these so-called reparations deportees, nearly half — 45 percent — perished. / 17

For two years after the end of the fighting, Germans were victims of a cruel and vindictive occupation policy, one that meant slow starvation of the defeated population. To sustain life, a normal adult needs a minimum of about 2,000 calories per day. But in March and February 1946, the daily intake per person in the British and American occupation zones of Germany was between one thousand and fifteen hundred calories. / 18

In the winter of 1945-46, the Allies forbid anyone outside the country to send food parcels to the starving Germans. The Allied authorities also rejected requests by the International Red Cross to bring in provisions to alleviate the suffering. / 19

Very few persons in Britain or the United States spoke out against the Allied policy. Victor Gollancz, an English-Jewish writer and publisher, toured the British occupation zone of northern Germany for six weeks in late 1946. He publicized the death and malnutrition he found there, which he said was a consequence of Allied policy. He wrote: “The plain fact is … we are starving the Germans. And we are starving them, not deliberately in the sense that we definitely want them to die, but willfully, in the sense that we prefer their death to our own inconvenience.” / 20

Another person who protested was Bertrand Russell, the noted philosopher and Nobel Prize recipient. In a letter published in a London newspaper in October 1945, he wrote: “In eastern Europe now mass deportations are being carried out by our allies on an unprecedented scale, and an apparently deliberate attempt is being made to exterminate many millions of Germans, not by gas, but by depriving them of their homes and of food, leaving them to die by slow and agonizing starvation. This is not done as an act of war, but as a part of a deliberate policy of ‘peace‘.” / 21

As the war was ending in what is now the Czech Republic, hysterical mobs brutally assaulted ethnic Germans, members of a minority group whose ancestors had lived there for centuries. In Prague, German soldiers were rounded up, disarmed, tied to stakes, doused with gasoline, and set on fire as living torches. / 22 In some cities and towns in what is now the Czech Republic, every German over the age of six was forced to wear on his clothing, sewn on his left breast, a large white circle six inches in diameter with the black letter N, which is the first letter of the Czech word for German. Germans were also banned from all parks, places of public entertainment, and public transportation, and not allowed to leave their homes after eight in the evening. Later all these people were expelled, along with the entire ethnic German population of what is now the Czech Republic. / 23 In the territory of what is now the Czech Republic, a quarter of a million ethnic Germans were killed.

In Poland, the so-called “Office of State Security,” an agency of the country’s new Soviet-controlled government, imposed its own brutal form of “de-Nazification.” Its agents raided German homes, rounding up some 200,000 men, women, children and infants — 99 percent of them non-combatant, innocent civilians. They were incarcerated in cellars, pris­ons, and 1,255 concentration camps where typhus was rampant and torture was commonplace. Between 60,000 and 80,000 Germans perished at the hands of the “Office of State Security.” / 24

We are ceaselessly reminded of the Third Reich’s wartime concentration camps. But few Americans are aware that such infamous camps as Dachau, Buchenwald, Sachsenhausen and Auschwitz were kept in operation after the end of the war, only now packed with German captives, many of whom perished miserably.

For many years we’ve heard a lot about so-called Nazi art theft. But however large the scale of confiscation of art by Germans in World War II, it was dwarfed by the massive theft of art works and other objects of cultural value by the Allies. The Soviets alone looted some two and half million art objects, including 800,000 paintings. In addition, many paintings, statues, and other priceless art works were destroyed by the Allies. / 25

In the war’s aftermath, the victors put many German military and political leaders to death or sentenced them to lengthy prison terms after much-publicized trials in which the Allies were both prosecutor and judge. The best-known of these trials was before the so-called “International Military Tribunal” at Nuremberg, where officials of the four Allied powers were both the prosecutors and the judges.

Justice — as opposed to vengeance — is a standard that is applied impartially. But in the aftermath of World War II, the victorious powers imposed standards of “justice” that applied only to the vanquished. The governments of the United States, the Soviet Union, and other member states of the so-called “United Nations,” held Germans to a standard that they categorically refused to respect themselves.

Robert Jackson, the chief US prosecutor at the Nuremberg Tribunal of 1945-46, privately acknowledged in a letter to President Truman, that the Allies “have done or are doing some of the very things we are prosecuting the Germans for. The French are so violating the Geneva Convention in the treatment of [German] prisoners of war that our command is taking back prisoners sent to them [for forced labor in France]. We are prosecuting plunder and our Allies are practicing it. We say aggressive war is a crime and one of our allies asserts sovereignty over the Baltic States based on no title except conquest.” / 26

Germans were executed or imprisoned for policies that the Allies themselves were carrying out, sometimes on a far greater scale. German military and political leaders were put to death on the basis of a hypocritical double standard, which means that these executions were essentially acts of judicial murder dressed up with the trappings and forms of legality. If the standards of the Nuremberg Tribunal had been applied impartially, many American, Soviet and other Allied military and political leaders would have been hanged.

An awareness of how the defeated Germans were treated by the victors helps in understanding why Germans continued to fight during the final months of the war with a determination, tenacity and willingness to sacrifice that has few parallels in history, even as their cities were being smashed into ruins under relentless bombing, and even as defeat against numerically superior enemy forces seemed inevitable.

Two years after the end of the war, American and British policy toward the defeated Germans changed. The US and British governments began to treat the Germans as potential allies, rather than as vanquished subjects, and to appeal for their support. This shift in policy was not prompted by an awakening of humanitarian spirit. Instead, it was motivated by American and British fear of Soviet Russian expansion, and by the realization that the economic recovery of Europe as a whole required a prosperous and productive Germany.

Oswald Spenger, the great German historian and philosopher, once observed that how a people learns history is its form of political education. In every society, including our own, how people learn and come to understand history is determined by those who control political and cultural life, including the educational system and the mass media. How people understand the past — and how they view the world and themselves as members of society — is set by the agenda of those who hold power.

That’s why, in our society, death and suffering during and after World War II of non-Jews — Poles, Russians and others, and especially Germans — is all but ignored, and why, instead, more than six decades after the end of the war, Jewish death and suffering — above all, what is known as “the Holocaust” — is given such prominent attention, year after year, in our classrooms and motion pictures, and by our political leaders.

What I’m calling here an “unknown holocaust” of non-Jews is essentially ignored not because the facts are disputed or unknown [though it is certainly peculiar that those who are unfamiliar with these facts often choose to dispute them], but rather because this reality does not fit well with the Judeo-centric view of history that is all but obligatory in our society, a view of the past that reflects the Jewish-Zionist hold on our cultural and educational life.

This means that it is not enough simply to “establish the facts.” It is important to understand, identify, and counter the power that controls what we see, hear and read — in our classrooms, our periodicals, and in our motion pictures — and which determines how we view history, our world and ourselves — not just the history of what is called “the Holocaust,” but the history and background of World War II, the Israel-Palestine conflict, the Middle East turmoil, and much, much more.

History, as the old saying goes, is written by the victors. In our society, the “victors,” that is, the most important single group that sets our perspective on the past through its grip on the media, and on our cultural life, is the organized Jewish community .

This reality is hardly a secret. Michael Medved, a well-known Jewish author and film critic, has acknowledged: “It makes no sense at all to try to deny the reality of Jewish power and prominence in popular culture … Any list of the most influential production executives at each of the major movie stu­dios will produce a heavy majority of recognizably Jewish names.” / 27

One person who has carefully studied this subject is Jonathan J. Goldberg, editor of the influential Jewish community weekly Forward. In his 1996 book, Jewish Power, Goldberg wrote: / 28

“In a few key sectors of the media, notably among Hollywood stu­dio executives, Jews are so numerically dominant that calling these businesses Jewish-controlled is little more than a sta­tistical observation …

“Hollywood at the end of the twentieth century is still an industry with a pronounced ethnic tinge. Virtually all the senior executives at the major studios are Jews. Writers, pro­ducers, and to a lesser degree directors are disproportionately Jewish — one recent study showed the figure as high as 59 per­cent among top-grossing films.

“The combined weight of so many Jews in one of America’s most lucrative and important industries gives the Jews of Hollywood a great deal of political power. They are a major source of money for Democratic candidates.”

A writer for the Los Angeles Times, Joel Stein, boldly declared in December 2008, in a column for the influential daily paper: “As a proud Jew, I want America to know about our accomplishment. Yes, we control Hollywood … I don’t care if Americans think we’re running the news media, Hollywood, Wall Street or the government. I just care that we get to keep running them.” / 29

Thirty seven years ago, two of the most powerful men in our country, indeed, in the world, frankly discussed this matter in a private conversation that should be much better known. It was in 1972, in the oval office of the White House. President Richard Nixon and the Rev. Billy Graham — the nation’s best-known and most influential Christian evangelist — were alone. These were not just prominent and influential men. They were shrewd and astute individuals who had accomplished much in their lives, and who had thought a lot about what they had observed and experienced over the years.

We know about this one-on-one conversation, and exactly what the two men said to each other, because Nixon had arranged for all conversations in his office to be secretly recorded. He regarded these recordings as his personal property, but he was later forced by court order to give them up. It wasn’t until thirty years later — in 2002 — that this conversation was finally made public. / 30

Here’s how their talk went. Graham said: “This stranglehold has got to be broken or the country’s going down the drain.” The President responded by saying: “You believe that?,” “Yes, sir,” said Graham. “Oh, boy,” Nixon replied, “So do I. I can’t ever say that, but I believe it.”

Now consider for a moment what this means, for America and the world, and for us today. Here’s the most powerful political personality in the United States at that time, indeed the most powerful man in the world, and the most influential religious figure in the US, in agreement about the Jewish hold on our media. They didn’t talk about the Jewish role in the media, or even Jewish domination of the media. They spoke about a Jewish “stranglehold” on our media.

For everyone who cares about our nation and the world, it’s worth asking and answering two questions. First, were Nixon and Graham right? Were they correct in what they said that day about what they called the Jewish “stranglehold” on the media? And, second, if they were right, what does that say about America and our society?

Two of the most influential men in our country were so afraid of the intimidating power of the organized Jewish community that they felt unable to even mention this “stranglehold” publicly — that’s the term Graham used — on our media, a “stranglehold” that they regarded as so harmful that unless it is broken, America, again, their words, is “going down the drain.” What a telling commentary on the corruption and perversion of our national life! If Nixon and Graham were right, is it not important, indeed, imperative, to clearly and forthrightly address the reality of this hold on our media?

What has brought us together here this evening is, first and foremost, our interest in real history — our passion for a clearer understanding of the past, free of “politically correct” orthodoxy and stricture. But an awareness of real history is not enough. It is important to understand the how and why of the systematic distortion of history in our society, and the power behind that distortion. Understanding and countering that power is a critically important task, not merely for the sake of historical truth in the abstract, but for the sake of our nation and humankind.

Notes

1. Time magazine issue of Oct. 15, 1945.
2. Alfred-Maurice de Zayas, The German Expellees: Victims in War and Peace (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1993). See also: Alfred-Maurice de Zayas, A Terrible Revenge: The Ethnic Cleansing of the Eastern European Germans, 1944-1950 (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1994); Alfred-Maurice de Zayas, Nemesis at Potsdam: The Expulsion of the Germans From the East (Lincoln: Univ. of Nebraska, 1989. 3rd rev. ed.)
3. Giles MacDonogh, After the Reich: The Brutal History of the Allied Occupation (New York: Basic Books, 2007). See also the review of this book by Mark Weber, “New Book Details Mass Killings and Brutal Mistreatment of Germans at the End of World War Two.” (IHR: 2007).
( http://www.ihr.org/other/afterthereich072007.html )
On this subject, see also: Douglas Botting, From the Ruins of the Reich: Germany 1945-1949 (New York: Crown, 1985); Richard Bessel, Germany 1945: From War to Peace (New York: Harper, 2009); Freda Utley, The High Cost of Vengeance (Chicago: H. Regnery, 1949); James Bacque, Crimes and Mercies: The Fate of German Civilians Under Allied Occupation 1944-1950 (Little, Brown: 1997).
4. George F. Kennan, Memoirs 1925-1950 (Boston: 1967), p. 265. Also quoted in: A.-M. de Zayas, The German Expellees (1993), p. 62.
5. G. MacDonogh, After the Reich (2007), pp. 47-50.
6. Ralph Franklin Keeling, Gruesome Harvest: The Allies’ Postwar War Against the German People (IHR, 1992), pp. 59-60. (In the original edition, published in Chicago in 1947, pp. 55-56.). Also mentioned, in part, in: Max Hastings, Armageddon: The Battle for Germany 1944-1945 (New York: Alfred Knopf, 2004), p. 479.
7. R. Keeling, Gruesome Harvest (1992), pp.15-16.
8. R. Keeling, Gruesome Harvest (1992), p. 15.
9. R. Keeling, Gruesome Harvest (1992), p. 61. See also: R. Bessel, Germany 1945 (2009), pp. 116-117; Max Hastings, Armageddon (2004), pp. 428-431; G. MacDonogh, After the Reich (2007), pp. 78-79.
10. Günter Bischoff and Stephen Ambrose, Eisenhower and the German POWs (Louisiana State University Press, 1992), pp. 9-10 (incl. n. 24), 58-64, 147 (n. 33), 178.
11. G. MacDonogh, After the Reich (2007), pp. 392-395. See also: James Bacque, Crimes and Mercies (1997), pp. 41-45.
12. G. MacDonogh, After the Reich (2007), pp. 396-399; G. Bischoff and S. Ambrose, Eisenhower and the German POWs (1992), pp. 165, 169, 170
13. R. Keeling, Gruesome Harvest (1992), pp. 27-28 (or pp. 26-27 of the 1947 edition)
14. R. Keeling, Gruesome Harvest (1992), p. 26.
15. “Secrets of the London Cage,” The Guardian (London), Nov. 12, 2005
( http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/nov/12/secondworldwar.world ); G. MacDonogh, After the Reich (2007), pp. 412- 413. F. Utley, The High Cost of Vengeance (1949), pp. 185-201.
16. G. MacDonogh, After the Reich (2007), pp. 400, 406.
17. A.-M. de Zayas, The German Expellees (1993), p. 113.
18. G. MacDonogh, After the Reich (2007), pp. 362-363; G. Bischoff and S. Ambrose, Eisenhower and the German POWs (1992), pp. 12, 106, 109.
19. G. MacDonogh, After the Reich (2007), p. 362.
20. G. MacDonogh, After the Reich (2007), pp. 362-365.
21. A.-M. de Zayas, The German Expellees (1993), p. 108.
22. A.-M. de Zayas, The German Expellees (1993), p. 85.
23. A.-M. de Zayas, The German Expellees (1993), pp. 86-92.
24. John Sack, An Eye For An Eye (2000. Fourth, revised and updated edition);
See also: “Behind An Eye for an Eye, an IHR Conference address by John Sack, May 2000. ( http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v20/v20n1p-9_Sack.html )
25. G. MacDonogh, After the Reich (2007), pp. 38, 382, 386 , 389.
26. Jackson letter to Truman, Oct. 12, 1945. State Department files. Quoted in: R. Conot, Justice at Nuremberg (1983), p. 68. Also quoted in: M. Weber, “The Nuremberg Trials and the Holocaust,” The Journal of Historical Review (Vol. 12, No. 2), Summer 1992. ( http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v12/v12p167_Webera.html )
27. M. Medved, “Is Hollywood Too Jewish?,” Moment, Vol. 21, No. 4 (1996), p. 37. Also quoted in: M. Weber, “A Straight Look at the Jewish Lobby”
( http://www.ihr.org/leaflets/jewishlobby.shtml )
28. Jonathan Jeremy Goldberg, Jewish Power: Inside the American Jewish Establishment (Addison-Wesley, 1996), pp. 280, 287-288. See also pp. 39-40, 290-291.
29. J. Stein, “How Jewish Is Hollywood?,” Los Angeles Times, Dec. 19, 2008.
( http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-stein19-2008dec19,0,4676183.column )
30. “Nixon, Billy Graham Make Derogatory Comments About Jews on Tapes,” Chicago Tribune, March 1, 2002 (or Feb. 28, 2002)
( http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/02/02/Graham_Nixon.html ); “Billy Graham Apologizes for ’72 Remarks,” Associated Press, Los Angeles Times, March 2, 2002. “Graham Regrets Jewish Slur,” BBC News, March 2, 2002. ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1850077.stm ). The conversation apparently took place on Feb. 1, 1972.

Read Full Post »

In spite of its faults, I commend the Iranian free thinkers and revisionists for producing this documentary film, Merchants of the Myth, and I look forward to what comes next.

Minor translation errors: “Robert Murdoch” is Rupert Murdoch, and “Fred Schuster” is Fred Leuchter.

Concerning the “Big Lie” tactic mentioned briefly in association with the National Socialist regime, I would like to mention that the National Socialists did not embrace the tactic, but rather fervently denounced it. In Mein Kampf, Hitler echoed the German philosopher, Schopenhauer, in condemning “The Great Master[s] of Deception.” As for Goebbels, he said, “Do not let yourself be disconcerted by the worldwide clamor that will now begin. There will come a day, when all the lies will collapse under their own weight, and truth will again triumph.” It is ironic that these men would fall victim to the tactic, both living and dead.

Lastly, with regard to the limited and regretted National Socialist cooperation with the Zionist regime of the 1930’s, the basis of their cooperation was, quite simply: the German National Socialists and the Jewish Zionists agreed that they were distinctly different peoples with irreconcilable differences, and that the Jews did not belong in Germany. The Jewish Zionists desired to establish a homeland outside of Germany, and the Germans were more than happy to see them off. That is, it was an agreement to part ways. I appreciate that the documentary does, however, offer counterpoint by mentioning National Socialist friendship and collaboration right through the end of the Second World War with Palestinian, Mohammad Amin al-Husayni, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, and that, had the Second World War not broken out, the Jews would have likely been re-settled in Madagascar, instead of Palestine. While the National Socialist regime did what it could to expedite Jewish departure and re-settlement (let us keep in mind that “Judea Declare[d] War on Germany” as early as 1933!) international Jewry had continued to incite hostility against Germany around the world, and, in the end, got the catastrophic war it desired as well as the “Promised Land.” -W.

Read Full Post »

Photobucket
The Leaders of the Arab States should Quit their Silence on the Imposture of the “Holocaust”
by Robert Faurisson
Source: Archives, Institute for Historical Review

* Written 22 March for presentation March 31, 2001 at the Beirut Conference on Revisionism and Zionism.

Five introductory remarks:

1. I do mean “the leaders”, and not: “the intellectuals, the academics, the journalists”, some of whom have already expressed themselves on the matter;

2. The word “Holocaust” (always to be placed in quotation marks) designates the triple myth of the alleged genocide of the Jews, the alleged Nazi gas chambers and the alleged number of six million Jewish victims of the Second World War. In the course of a history full of fury, blood and fire, humanity has known a hundred holocausts, that is, appalling losses of human life or bloody catastrophes (presented, at the origin of the word’s use in this manner, as a sort of offering demanded by some superior forces); but our contemporaries have been conditioned to keep in mind only one holocaust, that of the Jews; it is written today with a capital letter, and has become unique: there is no longer the need to add “of the Jews”. None of the other previous holocausts has given rise to any financial indemnity, reparation or compensation to match those which the Jews have claimed and obtained for a catastrophe or “Shoah” which they describe as unique and unprecedented, and which would, in effect, be so if its three components (genocide, Nazi gas chambers and six million victims) had been real. If many European Jews had suffered and died during the war in question, without that suffering’s amounting to what today’s Jews mean by the term “Holocaust”, many other peoples and communities, in particular the Germans, the Japanese, the Russians and the Chinese, suffered, in reality, a fate far worse than that of the Jews; let us but think of the phosphorous or nuclear-fueled firestorms in which at least a million Germans and Japanese met an atrocious death (and what of the wounded and mutilated?). It is, moreover, fitting to add that millions of European Jews survived this alleged policy of physical extermination to go on to enjoy, after the war, a power and a prosperity without precedent in their history. To privilege, as is thus done, the alleged “Holocaust” is to inflate Jewish suffering beyond all measure in both quality and quantity and to reduce, in direct proportion, the suffering of all others, none of whose ordeals receives even so much as a specific name;

3. Imposture is an imposed lie; here it is a question of a historical lie, meaning that, forged by liars or fabricators of outlandish tales, it has subsequently been adopted by an ever-expanding number of people who, in good faith or bad, have peddled it; in this event, we are thus dealing with a tiny number of liars and a plethora of peddlers;

4. The opposite of such a lie, fabricated or peddled, is the factual truth. Still, as the word “truth” is vague and overused, I prefer exactitude. Revisionism consists in trying to examine and correct what is generally accepted with a view to establishing with exactitude the nature of an object, the reality of a fact, the worth of a figure, the authenticity, the veracity and the import of a text or document;

5. Zionism is an ideology whilst revisionism is a method. As a revisionist I shall be making a judgment less of Zionism itself (at the dawn of the 21st century) than on the use which it makes of the “Holocaust” imposture.

If the leaders of the Muslim states planned to quit their silence on this imposture and if, in so doing, they put a challenge to the Jewish and Zionist lobby, they would obviously need first a) to make a proper sizing up of the adversary, then b) to decide on an appropriate strategy and, finally, c) to determine the exact area on which to concentrate their [counter]attacks. To discuss these three points, I shall divide my talk into three parts.

In a first part, in order to avoid any mistakes as to the opponents’ identity and to ensure that they are correctly sized up, I shall expound on what are, in my view, the seeming weak points of the Jews and Zionists, then on their true weak points. In a second part, concerning the strategy to adopt, I shall sum up certain conclusions that I reached, in November 2000, during my visit to Tehran, in the company of representatives of the Centre of Strategic Studies of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Finally, in a third part, I shall designate the precise target to strike: “the magic Nazi gas chamber” (as Louis-Ferdinand Céline put it).

I. The Jewish and Zionist adversary

A deceitful adversary may display fears that he does not really feel. He may expose to the view of all certain weak points which, in fact, are not such, and try to hide what it is that causes him real disquiet. In so doing he will be attacked where it does not bother him in the least and be spared an attack that would truly do him harm. Here, the adversary is almost indifferently Jewish or Zionist. The Jews are undeniably diverse (“Two Jews, three synagogues”, says the Yiddish proverb) and, politically speaking, they have never formed a single bloc, not even against Hitler; but, without Jews, there is no Zionism (“Zionism is to the Jew what the hammer is to the carpenter”, as Ahmed Rami has said) and, except for some rare instances, the Jew will feel solidarity with the Zionist and the Zionist with the Jew if both notice that their common “Holocaust” myth is in peril; this is why the distinction that usually deserves to be made between the two hardly belongs here.

a) The adversary’s false fears and seeming weak points:

1. Despite their display of fear of a military attack on the state of Israel, the Zionists who rule that state and the Diaspora Jews who support them do not really dread the enemy’s military strength, for they know that the enemy in question will always be outclassed by the Israeli army, thanks to the technology and economic aid supplied from abroad, especially by the Americans and the Germans;

2. They do not really fear the variety of anti-Judaism improperly called anti-semitism; on the contrary, they feed on it; they need to be able to cry out against anti-semitism, if only to collect more money in the Diaspora; in general, moaning is of vital necessity to them: “The more I sob, the more I get; the more I get, the more I sob”;

3. Jews and Zionists are not really afraid of the Jewish denunciations of “Shoah Business” and the “Holocaust Industry” made by the Peter Novicks, Tim Coles or Norman Finkelsteins, for there it is a matter, paradoxically, of more or less kosher denunciations in which care is taken to show reverence for the “Holocaust” itself; it will be noted, moreover, that if the industrial or commercial exploitation of the real or supposed sufferings of the Jews constitutes a lucrative line of business, criticism of this exploitation has over the last few years become another such line; but, these two lines of business, especially the latter, happen to be strictly reserved to the Jews; they are “off limits“, and a Gentile who ventured to imitate N. Finkelstein in his denunciation of the “Holocaust” mafia would immediately be set upon by a pack of its watchful henchmen;

4. They do not really fear anti-Zionism as such; at times they even authorise its expression;

5. In particular, they have not much cause to worry about a now commonplace form of anti-semitism which consists in attacking all of the founding myths of Israel except that which has become essential for them: the “Holocaust”;

6. They need not be anxious about accusations of racism, imperialism and Judeo-nazism since such accusations, even if at times founded, resemble ritual, mechanically uttered slogans, coined in outdated language. To see the Jews being compared to Hitler, then hear it said that the Zionists are, like the Nazis, carrying out a policy of “genocide”, is not altogether disagreeable to the Jews and Zionists, for it serves to reinforce the images of Hitler and the Nazis that they themselves have succeeded in fabricating; this helps them to fix firmly in all minds the illusion, first and foremost, of a “genocide” of the Jews. In reality, Hitler was no more a monster, as his Jewish enemies claim, than was Napoleon an “ogre”, as English propaganda used to have it. Although a racialist, and hostile to internationalist Jews (but not necessarily to Zionists early on), Hitler never ordered or allowed the killing of anyone on account of his or her race or religion; moreover, his military tribunals or courts martial meted out sentences — sometimes the death sentence — to German soldiers, officers or civil servants who had been found guilty of killing a single Jewish man or woman (even in regard to acts committed, during the war, in Poland, Russia or Hungary); here is a point of history that has been shrouded by the exterminationist historians and regrettably overlooked by revisionist authors. If Hitler had been such a monstrous racist as described, never would such a prestigious Arab and Muslim personality as the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem (the Palestinian Hadj Amin Al-Husseini) have remained on his side until the end. Despite the episode of the Germano-Soviet pact (August 1939-June 1941), Hitler was essentially hostile to Stalinism and to what he called, because of the Jews’ decisive contribution to Bolshevism, “Judeo-Bolshevism”. The German soldier, like the European, Russian, Asian or Muslim volunteer who fought beside him, had but Moscow-style Communism as his essential enemy;

7. Although they pretend the contrary, the Jews and Zionists laugh — not without reason — at those who talk of a “Jewish plot” or a “conspiracy of Auschwitz”, since there is no “Jewish plot” (any more than a Masonic, Jesuit, Papal, American or Communist plot) but a Jewish power or influence; in the same manner, there is no “Auschwitz conspiracy” but rather an Auschwitz lie; incidentally, ideas of plot or conspiracy, dear to the Jewish tradition, ought to remain the privilege of the latter; we should be wrong to turn to them.

b) The adversary’s true fears and veritable weak points:

1. In Israel-Palestine, Jews and Zionists truly fear the weapons of the poor (children’s stones, their slingshots like that of David against the giant Goliath, the suicide attacks) and all that may endanger persons and business; they fear a demeaning of their brand image; they dread having to choose one day between the suitcase and the coffin;

2. But they are above all apprehensive of “the poor man’s atomic bomb“, that is, the disintegration, by historical revisionism, of the lie of the gas chambers, the genocide and the six million; they dread this weapon that kills no-one but that would not fail, if properly used, to explode their Big Lie like a bag of hot air;

3. They fear seeing revealed before the eyes of the world that it is the imposture of the “Holocaust” that permitted, in the wake of the Second World War, the creation in the land of Palestine of a Jewish colony called Israel, and this at a time when, throughout the globe (except in the Communist empire), a gigantic decolonisation movement was well under way;

4. They know that to lose the “Holocaust” is to lose the sword and the shield of Israel as well as a formidable instrument of political and financial blackmail; Yad Vashem, which, in Jerusalem, is a “Holocaust” memorial and museum all in one (now undergoing expansion work), is still more precious to them than the Wailing Wall; every foreign personality on visit to Israel for political or financial dealings is, before all other business, obliged to call at this museum of horrors so as to be well imbued with a feeling of guilt which will render him more malleable; sometimes there is a dispensation from this formality for representatives of those rare nations which the Jews and Zionists, try as they might, cannot rebuke for an active or passive role in the alleged “Holocaust”; it is then amusing to notice the Israeli officials complaining about the difficulty in dealing with partners whom they have not been able to condition beforehand;

5. They are aware that “were the Holocaust shown to be a hoax, the number one weapon in Israel’s propaganda armoury disappears (sic)” (letter of W. D. Rubinstein, Professor at Deakin University, Melbourne, Australia, in Nation Review, 21 June 1979, p. 639);

6. They know only too well of “the fact that, if the Holocaust can be shown to be a Zionist myth, the strongest of all weapons in Israel’s propaganda armoury collapses” (the same academic in “The Left, the Right and the Jews”, Quadrant, September 1979, p. 27);

7. They nearly faint at the thought that the general public might finally learn of the sum of iniquities represented by all the purges, the cases brought in the style of the judicial masquerades of Nuremberg, the confessions extorted on the subject of gas chambers or gas vans which had, in fact, never existed or the further confessions about implausible killings imputed to the Einsatzgruppen, the hunting down of old men, be they patients in homes for the aged, more than half a century after their alleged crimes, the indoctrination of all minds, from primary school to university, in books, newspapers, on radio and television, on every continent, morning, noon, afternoon, evening, night; all this is accompanied by a fierce repression of the revisionists, carried on especially in a Germany subjugated to its conquerors (and with which no peace treaty has yet been signed); these revisionists have committed the awful crime of simply demanding the right to verify either staggering accusations devoid of proof or testimonies received as truthful, albeit in the absence of examination and cross-examination, concerning the material nature of the purported facts and without, beforehand, a single investigation of the alleged weapon of the alleged crime;

8. To sum up, the nightmare of these Jews and Zionists would be to have to hear repeated all over a certain sixty-word sentence pronounced on the air more than twenty years ago on Radio Europe 1, before the journalist Yvan Levaï, by a French revisionist, disciple of Paul Rassinier. Here is that sentence which, at the time, was to earn me a heavy fine in court:

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, the main beneficiaries of which 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.

II. How to wage the fight to quit this silence

1. In November 2000, I spent a week in Iran at the invitation of the Centre of Strategic Studies, a body directly attached to the office of the President of the Islamic Republic, Mr Mohammed Khatami. I had no contact with the country’s press, radio or television but only with a few personalities who were well-informed about revisionism. I held no public conference but enjoyed an interview of several hours with the head of the Institute for Scientific Political Research, Professor Soroush-Nejad and a few of his colleagues. There again, I was struck by the knowledge of revisionism that certain Iranians could have. At about that time, the Swiss revisionist Jürgen Graf made his appearance in Iran and I am indeed pleased that, some months later, thanks to his intense activity and to the contacts which I, at my end, had maintained with the Iranian authorities after returning to France, the Tehran Times undertook the publication of a series of revisionist articles, the first of which was to bear the signature of Professor Soroush-Nejad.

2. In exchange for the information with which I had been able to provide him, I asked my main partner in discussion within the said body why, up to the present, revisionism seemed not to have found much of an echo in the Arab and Muslim countries. He willingly listed eight reasons. Some of these, in light of the quite recent events in Palestine, appeared to each of us, by and by, to be no longer valid; others seemed to be imputable to misunderstandings; other reasons, in the end, unhappily retained all of their force, in particular the following: in the Western countries, who ought to preach by example before complaining of the silence of others, there were but a laughably small number of revisionists who had resolutely committed themselves, in their own names and without any reservations or skillful manoeuvring, to following the road opened up by P. Rassinier;

3. I attempted to explain that this deplorable record was largely due to what one must call the fear (metus Judaeorum) inspired everywhere by the groaning and threatening Jew (which Cicero felt in 59 BC). I added that no political figure of today, be he Iranian, Lebanese, Chinese or Japanese, could avoid feeling this fear in the face of a community so rich and powerful in the Western world that its leaders have the means with which, at any moment, to invade the media with their grievances and recriminations in order to demand, in the end, the economic boycott of whatever nation’s leaders failed to make a rapid enough act of “repentance” or resisted Jewish demands;

4. I then went over the reasons why the leaders of the Muslim states must nonetheless, as a proper policy, quit their silence and how, in my opinion, they could do so. I shall not expound on those reasons here but shall in the following words sum up my feelings as to the path to follow: one or more of these leaders should cross the Rubicon resolutely and, above all, without the least thought of turning back. My long experience (with) the Jews or Zionists in this regard has convinced me that the hoaxers are disconcerted by the hardiness of anyone who dares to confront them in the open. Just as the false witness, if one can catch his glance, must be questioned eye to eye, so must the Edgar Bronfmans, the Elie Wiesels, the Simon Wiesenthals (the latter two hate and envy one another more Judaico), or the rabbis Marvin Hier and Abraham Cooper be defied in direct proportion to their habitual threats;

5. I warned my hosts against the temptation to resort, be it only at the first stages, to a form of bastardised revisionism; here again, experience has proved that wet-dog revisionism leads to whipping. One must also, in order to take a firmly revisionist stand, be well acquainted with the physical, chemical, documentary and historical argumentation of revisionism. I reminded them, for example, that the myth of the alleged Nazi gas chambers had already died on 21 February 1979 when, in the daily Le Monde, thirty-four French historians showed themselves to be unable to take up my challenge concerning the technical impossibilities of those absurd chemical slaughterhouses. The general public are unaware of that event, just as they are unaware of the succession of defeats and debacles suffered by the holocaustic historians’ lobby since 1985 (the date of the first Zündel trial in Toronto). It is now up to the leaders of the Muslim states to bring out into the light of day information like this, which is still being kept under a bushel;

6. In these different countries, institutes of history, sociology or political studies ought to equip themselves with a section specialising in historical revisionism. Research resources and archives would enable scholars from around the world who have been chased out of their respective countries’ universities, centres of research or libraries, because of their revisionist opinions or tendencies, to come to work at the side of their colleagues of the Muslim lands. The various ministries of education, research, culture, foreign affairs and information would collaborate on this project of international scope;

7. If one takes into account the fact that the “Holocaust” religionists harbour and maintain not only lies but also hatred, it will seem appropriate to plan the establishment on an international level of a “Movement against the imposture of the ‘Holocaust’ and for friendship among peoples“;

8. It would be fitting to try to bring some equilibrium to the balance of forces in international relations by inviting the political or diplomatic personnel of the great powers to show more modesty; these people, who never spare the rest of the world their morality lessons, should be reminded that they themselves bow a bit too low before an international mafia specialising in lies, swindles and contempt for human rights; the so-called international community, which constantly invokes those rights, should re-establish them in the cases of revisionists before rebuking those Arab or Muslim countries for intolerance or obscurantism. Such accusations could easily be turned against the states which, not tolerating the calling into question of a legend turned official history and now protected by special laws, forbid their inhabitants from casting light on certain historical subjects;

9. A new and powerful medium of information, the Internet, allows an accelerated spreading of revisionism (see, in particular, the sites attributed to Ahmed Rami, with their sections in Arabic); here is a chance for the Arab and Muslim intellectuals, overly influenced by the dominant ideology in the Western universities where they have often been educated, to get detoxified from the holocaustic drug;

10. In sum, the feeling of grave disquiet shown by the Jewish and Zionist leaders in the face both of the Intifada of young Palestinians living in destitution and of the activities of revisionists possessing nothing at all like the economic or financial resources at the disposal of the great holocaustic mafia reminds one of the ancestral fear that the rich feel in the face of the poor, the colonisers before the colonised and the masters at the sight of their slaves. The Jewish and Zionist leaders groan, threaten and strike. They see themselves as rich (never rich enough, of course), in possession of all sorts of weapons (those of brute force as well as those of blackmail and racketeering) and they know how to make themselves feared by all the leaders of the most privileged nations; they are, in particular, aware that the German leaders are devoted to them, willing to provide even the blood of German soldiers against the foes of Israel and ready to strengthen still more unmercifully their repression of revisionism. And yet, Jews and Zionists are haunted by the thought of having to confront the courage of those who no longer have anything to lose in the double Intifada, Palestinian or revisionist. The rich and mighty are enraged to see that they can be defied as they are by the Palestinians, bare-fisted with stones, and by the revisionists, barehanded with only their pens.

III. The main target: “the magical gas chamber” (Céline)

Let us learn to take aim. Let us not scatter our efforts. Let us apply ourselves to setting our attention on the centre of the adversary’s operation. But, the centre of the huge edifice forming the religion of the “Holocaust” is none other than the Auschwitz lie. And the heart of the Auschwitz lie is, in its turn, made up of the prodigious “gas chamber”. That is where we must aim. Placards waved by Palestinian or other Arab demonstrators bearing the words “The ‘Holocaust’ of the Jews is a lie”, or “The six million are a lie” would of course worry the “extor-Zionists” but those formulations remain still too vague; they are less vivid, less precise and less striking than “The gas chambers are a lie“.

No-one is able to show us, at Auschwitz or anywhere else, a single specimen of these chemical slaughterhouses. No-one is capable of describing to us their exact appearance and workings. Neither a vestige nor a hint of their existence is to be found. Not one document, not one study, not one drawing. Nothing. Nothing but some occasional, pitiful “evidence”, which, like a mirage, vanishes as soon as one draws near and which the Jewish historians themselves, in recent years, have finally been obliged to repudiate. Sometimes, as at Auschwitz, tourists are shown around an alleged “reconstituted” gas chamber but the historians, and the Auschwitz museum authorities too, know quite well that, in the words of the French ant-irevisionist historian Eric Conan, “EVERYTHING IN IT IS FALSE” (“Auschwitz: la mémoire du mal”, L’Express, 19-25 January 1995, p. 68). Still, the Jews are lucky. They are believed on their word. Practically no-one asks to see the technological prodigy that a Nazi gas chamber would have been, a veritable large-scale chemical slaughterhouse. Imagine that someone has told you about an aeroplane capable of transporting two or three thousand passengers from Paris to New York in one half hour (according to the exterminationist vulgate, in a single alleged gas chamber at Auschwitz, a batch of two or three thousand Jews could be killed in half an hour). Would you not, in order to begin to believe it, demand to see at least an image of a thing which would constitute a technological leap forward such as science has never known? Are we not in the age of exact sciences and the audio-visual? Why this sudden shyness when it comes to our gas chamber? The peddlers have an easy game. They show you the equivalent of either your garage or your shower and tell you: “Here is the place where the Germans gassed the Jews in groups of a hundred or a thousand”. And you lend credence to this. You are shown human hair like that which you could see at a barber’s or a wig maker’s and told, without the least proof, that it is the hair of gassing victims. You are offered shoes and they are stamped “shoes of gassing victims”. You are presented with photographs of dead bodies and you believe that you see bodies of the slain. You are made to shudder at the sight of crematory ovens which are, in fact, perfectly unexceptional. There exists a very simple means by which to show that we are being fooled as concerns the prodigious yields of German crematory ovens in the 1940s: this is simply to set them against the present-day yield of the most modern crematoria of our cities for comparison. I also know an unanswerable way to prove that the alleged gas chambers for the killing of Jews with hydrogen cyanide gas could not have existed: it entails visiting today, as I myself did in 1979, the execution gas chamber of an American penitentiary, or otherwise acquainting oneself with the so complex nature of the gas chamber, its so-complicated structure and its so-draconian procedure of an execution by gassing, in the 1940s or 50s, in the prisons of Carson City (Nevada), Baltimore (Maryland) or Parchmann (Mississippi); precisely, those executions were, and are, still carried out with hydrogen cyanide gas. They are so dreadfully dangerous for the executioners that the putting to death of one individual requires drastic precautions and a most complex technology (setting aside the recently achieved sophistication due either to scientific progress or to a multitude of safety measures).

On the subject, let us listen to Céline!

I hold Louis-Ferdinand Céline (1894-1961) to be the loftiest genius of French literature in the 20th century. His force, his finesse, his clear-sightedness were incomparable. His existence, unhappily, was largely one of hardship. From the day in 1937 when he began to display the fear of seeing a new world war flare up, he brought on his own doom. He had been seriously wounded during the First World War and felt the apprehension of a new butchery with all his body and soul. The Jews, from their end, did not see things that way. Most of their leaders clamoured for a crusade against Hitler. Céline then condemned this feverish desire to punish Germany, this frantic warmongering. He foresaw the catastrophe, and later, when Great Britain and France had taken it upon themselves to go to war with Germany, he could only remark in what “fine bed-sheets” France was lying. In 1944, he narrowly escaped the summary justice then being administered by, in particular, the Jews and the Communists. He fled to Germany in its agony of the final months of the war, then to Denmark, where for nearly a year and a half he was imprisoned in the worst conditions. When he eventually returned to France, it was to live the life of an outcast. France is a particularly cruel land for its great writers. It is still the case today, sixty years after their respective publication in 1937, 1938 and 1941, that three of his works, masterly satires covered in scorn by the Jews, remain prohibited de facto. No law, in principle, prevents their republication, but everyone knows that the Jewish organisations would drum up the scalp dance should Céline’s widow, still living, authorise their appearance. Such is the unwritten law of the modern Talmud.

Other examples of this Jewish privilege are well known; it is thus, to cite the case of an academic guilty of having once written a revisionist sentence, that Bernard Notin has, since 1990, not been allowed to give any lectures at his Lyon faculty. No law, no judicial or administrative decision, has been made to serve notice of such a prohibition. Today, in the same university, it is the turn of Professor Jean-Paul Allard to be marked with the brand of Cain for having, more than fifteen years ago, presided at the viva of a revisionist thesis. A veritable manhunt has been mounted against him. Formerly, if one remarked to the Jews that they tracked down the revisionists like wild animals, they would protest. They would dare claim that nothing of the sort was done. But times have changed. The Jews no longer conceal this practice of theirs and proudly assert responsibility for such violent actions. On 1 March 2001, the weekly Actualité Juive headed one of its articles: “La chasse à Jean-Paul Allard est ouverte” (“The hunt for Jean-Paul Allard is on”), and the contents of the piece amounted to an incitement to kill. The Jewish organisations cynically intend to make themselves feared and it is correct to say, today more than ever, “metus regnat Judaeorum“. In J.-P. Allard’s case they seem to be reaching their goal: just recently, this professor, exhausted by the chase, has been hospitalised for a stroke and has lost the ability to speak normally. On another score, the Jews and their friends have succeeded in attempts to have the revisionist Serge Thion, sociologist and historian of merit, removed from his post at the Centre national de la recherche scientifique (CNRS), and this by means of a procedure so openly arbitrary in nature that the most arrogant of employers would not use it against his humblest employee lest he have to pay heavy damages. And I shall say nothing of the suffering endured by the revisionists who have fought openly, in their own name, the most admirable for his intelligence and his heart being, in my view, the German Ernst Zündel. Having been settled in Canada for forty years, he has waged a titanic struggle against the international “Holocaust” lobby, aiming particularly to obtain justice for his maligned homeland. Without him revisionism would have continued to live in semidarkness. But one cannot swim up the Niagara and, in the face of an almighty coalition of political, financial and judicial forces, he has recently been obliged, in spite of some brilliant victories, to leave Canada. In his new exile, he continues, with the aid of his German-American wife, Ingrid Rimland, to fight for a just cause. [He has since served seven years behind bars in the U.S., Canada, and Germany, for no other crime than debating the imposture of the “Holocaust.”]

If, towards the end of this talk, I have called to mind the lofty figure of the author of Journey to the End of Night, it is because Céline, by one of his customary strokes of genius, had already suspected, just five years after the war, that the alleged physical extermination of the Jews might be but a fable, a work of trickery. It must be said that from 1945, floods of Jews from Central Europe, who were thought to have been exterminated, had headed for France, when they had not headed for other Western countries or for Palestine; in France, they had just added their number to a Jewish community of which four fifths were spared by the wartime deportation measures. In November 1950, upon a reading of P. Rassinier’s first sizeable work, Le Mensonge d’Ulysse, Céline wrote to his friend Albert Paraz:

Rassinier is certainly an honest man […]. His book, admirable, is going to cause quite a stir — AFTER ALL, it tends to cast doubt on the magical gas chamber! No small matter! A whole world of hatreds is going to be compelled to yelp at the Iconoclast! It was everything, the gas chamber! It permitted EVERYTHING!

In our turn, let us admire this lucid and scintillating vision of things, this foresight.

Yes, the gas chamber is really “magical”. As I have said, no-one, in the end, has proved capable of showing or even of drawing one for us in reply to my challenge “Show me or draw me a Nazi gas chamber!” No-one has been able to explain its operation to us. No-one has been able to tell us how, at Auschwitz, the Germans could pour pellets of Zyklon B, a powerful hydrogen cyanide-based insecticide, into alleged orifices made in the roof of the “gas chamber”, considering that this alleged gas chamber (in reality, a cold room for the storage of corpses awaiting cremation) has, as a careful eye may note amidst the ruins, never possessed even a single one of those orifices, a fact which has permitted me to state the four-word conclusion “No holes, no ‘Holocaust’!” No one has been able to reveal to us the mystery, implied by the standard version, which allowed the squads of Jews under the orders of the Germans (the Sonderkommando) to enter that great gas chamber with impunity, so soon after the alleged mass killings, to remove energetically, day after day, the thousands of corpses lying in tangled heaps. Hydrogen cyanide gas is difficult to remove by ventilation, a time-consuming process; it penetrates and lingers within plaster, brick, concrete, wood, paint and, above all, the skin and the mucous of humans; thus one could not enter, move about and work in such a manner in what would effectively be an ocean of deadly poison, handling corpses which, infused with that poison, would poison whoever touched them. It is, furthermore, well known to specialists in the field of disinfection (or disinfestation) that it is essential, in such an atmosphere, to avoid physical effort for, if such effort is made, the breathing quickens and the gasmask filter will then allow the poison to pass through, killing the wearer. Finally, no-one has been able to instruct us as to how those amazing Jews of the Sonderkommando, ever dragging out the corpses of their co-religionists, could perform such exploits whilst eating and smoking (in the version of the “confession” ascribed to Rudolf Höss, the best known of the successive Auschwitz commandants); for, if one understands correctly, they did not even wear gasmasks and smoked amidst the noxious fumes of an explosive gas. Like the imaginary flower dreamt of by the French symbolist poet Stéphane Mallarmé (1842-1898), who wrote of “the one missing from every bouquet”, the Nazi gas chamber, capable of astounding works, is “missing from all reality”; it remains truly magical, but of a sinister and nauseating magic; it is nothing other than a nightmare that dwells in Jewish brains whilst, for their part, the high priests of the “Holocaust” work to make this gruesome illusion come to haunt the world for eternity, and to hold it in a state of near-hypnosis; their livelihood depends on it.

Céline is right again to add, on the subject of the magical gas chamber, that it is “no small matter!” In reality, as he says further on, it is everything and it permits everything. Without it, the holocaustic edifice would collapse totally. Pierre Vidal-Naquet, sorry herald of the anti-revisionist struggle, has himself acknowledged as much when, remarking that some of his friends, grown weary of the campaign, were decidedly tempted to dump these cumbersome gas chambers without further ado, he entreated them not to do so and voiced this cry of alarm: “I beg their pardon: that would be to surrender in open country” (“Le Secret partagé”, Le Nouvel Observateur, 21 September 1984, p. 80). The Nazi gas chamber is said to be the only tangible — but, in fact, impossible to find — evidence of a physical extermination that never took place and that is, moreover, brazenly described to us as being concerted, planned, and of a monstrously industrial nature, with production yields worthy of veritable “death factories”.

Céline, finally, is right to conclude “A whole world of hatreds is going to be compelled to yelp at the Iconoclast!” For my part, I should add, more than half a century after that prognosis or prophecy, that the yelps, now more and more deafening, have not ceased for an instant against the iconoclasts who are the revisionists. In France, the latter are today christened with the barbarous term “négationnistes” whereas they “negate” or deny nothing but, at the end of their research, affirm that a gigantic historical imposture holds sway.

Conclusion

The revisionists haunt the days and nights of the upholders of Jewish law and of those who Céline — again — called “the martyrs’ trust”. Against the revisionists who seek to protect themselves from it, the said trust is merciless. It drives some to suicide, causes physical injury and disfigurement, it kills or forces others into exile. It sets fire to houses and burns books. It has the police, the judges, the prison authorities, do its bidding. It applies pressure, it extorts and steals. It sets the dogs of the press on us, it throws us out of our jobs, it heaps insults upon us. On our side, not one amongst us, to my knowledge, has ever struck one of these perpetual “law enforcers”. On 25 April 1995, in Munich, a German revisionist ended up killing himself, burning himself alive. He meant this act to be a protest against “the Niagara of lies” showered upon his people. In his suicide letter, he stated his hope that the flames which consumed his body would burn as a beacon for the generations to come. The German police proceeded to arrest the persons who soon afterwards came to leave a bouquet at the spot where Reinhold Elstner had immolated himself. On 13 May 2000, the German political science professor Werner Pfeiffenberger, aged 58, ended his own life after having long endured a legal persecution launched against him by a Jewish journalist in Vienna, one Karl Pfeifer, who had detected a whiff of revisionism (called, of course, neo-Nazism) in the academic’s writings.

The revisionists live a life of hardship and the Palestinians are living a tragedy. In particular, many Palestinian children are destined for a sorrowful fate. Their Israeli killers are, on a modest scale, the worthy successors of the US Air Force, the military corps which, in all of a cruel human history, has contributed to killing, mutilating, disfiguring or starving more children than any other, first in Germany and elsewhere in Europe, then in Japan, in Vietnam and in much of the rest of Asia, then in the Near and Middle East and, finally, in still many other places in the world whenever the American soldier receives from his masters the order to hunt down a new “Hitler” and to prevent a new “genocide”.

May the leaders of the Muslim states hear the Palestinians’ — and the revisionists’ — appeals! Our ordeals are similar and our Intifadas identical.

May those leaders finally quit their silence on the biggest imposture of modern times: that of the “Holocaust”!

May they, especially, denounce the lie of the alleged Nazi gas chambers! After all, not one of the leaders on the winning side of the Second World War, despite their hatred of Hitler’s Germany, stooped so low as to claim that such gas chambers had existed. During that war, in their speeches, as afterwards, in their memoirs, never did Churchill, or de Gaulle, or Eisenhower once mention this demonic horror which they well saw to have been laboriously peddled during the war by propaganda agencies. Already a quarter of a century ago, in a masterly book, the American professor Arthur Robert Butz called the grand imposture “The Hoax of the Twentieth Century.” That century is over and as for its hoax, it must vanish into the rubbish bins of history.

The tragedy of the Palestinians demands it, the ordeal of the revisionists makes it essential and the cause of humanity, as a whole, makes it our historical, political and moral duty: the Grand Imposture must be denounced. It is a fomenter of hatred and war. It is in the interest of all that the leaders of the Muslim states quit their silence on the imposture of the “Holocaust”.

Read Full Post »

Photobucket
The Franke-Gricksch ‘Resettlement Action Report’: Anatomy of a Fabrication
By Brian A. Renk
Source: Institute for Historical Review

It was long presumed that the alleged German policy to exterminate the Jews of Europe was set in motion by a direct, if not a written order, from Adolf Hitler. This purported order was cited in the main Nuremberg trial a 1945-46 and in subsequent trials of “Nazi war criminals.” Although documentary evidence for the “Führer Order” has remained elusive, its existence was taken for granted by exterminationist historians until 1977.

In that year the British historian David Irving provoked considerable discussion in the historical establishment with the publication of his Hitler’s War. Irving argued, on the basis of a painstaking study of the documentary record as well as exhaustive interviews with surviving members of Hitler’s entourage, that the German leader did not order mass killings of Jews, and that he did not learn about an extermination policy until, perhaps, 1943.[1]

Anglo-Jewish historian Gerald Fleming, now reader emeritus at the University of Surrey (England), decided to deal with this problem–and specifically to respond to Irving’s provocative 1977 thesis–by setting to work on a book that would prove conclusively that Hitler did indeed order the extermination of European Jewry. After several years of research and writing, he presented his case in Hitler and the Final Solution (German edition 1982, published in America 1984), a work that was widely hailed as a definitive response to Irving and other Revisionists.

A key document cited by Fleming in his book is a two-page report entitled “Umsiedlungs-Aktion der Juden” (“Resettlement Action of the Jews,” although Fleming calls it “Resettlement of the Jews”), which describes mass killings of Jews in gas chambers at Auschwitz and makes explicit reference to the “Führer Order.” This document, said to be part of a longer report, is alleged by Fleming to have been composed by SS Sturmbannführer (Major) Alfred Franke-Gricksch, a highranking official in the SS personnel main office in Berlin, shortly after an inspection tour of Auschwitz-Birkenau in May 1943.

The “Resettlement Action” document was apparently first cited by the American historian Charles W. Sydnor (in his book Soldiers of Destruction (Princeton Univ., 1977, p. 3371). More recently, it was published-both in facsimile and in English translation-by the French anti-Revisionist historian Jean-Claude Pressac in his Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers (The Beate Klarsfeld Foundation, New York, 1989 [pages 236-239]).

The importance Fleming attaches to this report is indicated by the fact that he devotes an entire chapter of Hitler and the Final Solution to it. He gives this chapter the title “An Official Report from Auschwitz-Birkenau.”

If authentic, the “Resettlement Action” report would seem to confirm several key points of the Exterminationist thesis:

* The phrase “resettlement of the Jews” was a euphemism for a policy of mass extermination, particularly by “gassing.”
* Mass killings at Auschwitz were part of a secret program ordered by Hitler to exterminate the Jews.
* Homicidal gas chambers in the crematorium complex of Auschwitz-Birkenau were used to kill Jews during the spring of 1943.

But is the “Resettlement Action” report authentic? In this paper, we shall establish that it is almost certainly not. A careful examination of the text, as well as Fleming and Pressac’s analysis of that text, will reveal the following:

* The “Resettlement Action” report is almost certainly a postwar forgery. No original, carbon copy or facsimile of the document, let alone the longer report from which it is supposed to have been excerpted, has ever been produced or is even known to exist.
* Orthographic peculiarities in the German of the “Resettlement Action” report suggest that the man who is supposed to have transcribed it did not have a German original before him.
* Specific details about Auschwitz-Birkenau given in this report are demonstrably false.
* Fleming and Pressac have ignored or glossed over numerous factual “errors” and gross implausibilities in this “report,” indicating shoddy and perhaps even unethical scholarship.

The ‘Resettlement Action’ Document

The following is a translation of the complete text of the “Resettlement Action” report:

[English-language heading:]

Part of a report rendered by SS Sturmbannführer Franke-Gricksch on a trip through the General Gouvernement on 4 to 16 May 1943.

Resettlement Action of the Jews

The Auschwitz camp has a special role in the settlement of the Jewish question. The most up-to-date methods make it possible to implement the Führer Order here very quickly and discreetly.

The so-called “resettlement action” for the Jews proceeds as follows:

The Jews arrive in special trains (freight cars) toward evening and are taken by a special rail track into an area of the camp specifically set aside for this purpose. There they are unloaded and are then examined for their fitness for work by a medical team in the presence of the camp commandant and several SS officers. Here every person who can somehow be integrated into the labor program is taken to a special camp. Temporarily sick persons are immediately taken to the recuperation camp and are restored to health with a special diet. The basic principle is: Conserve all manpower for work. The earlier “resettlement action” policy is now completely rejected, because no one can afford to systematically destroy valuable labor energy.

The unfit are taken into the basement rooms of a large building, which can be entered from the outside. They go down five or six steps and come into a long, well-built and ventilated basement room, which is fitted with benches on the right and left. It is brightly lit and above the benches are numbers. The prisoners are told they are to be disinfected and washed in preparation for their new tasks. They must therefore undress completely in order to be bathed. In order to avoid any panic and disorder, they are told to arrange their clothes neatly and leave them under a number so they can find their things again after the bath. Everything proceeds in complete calm. They then go through a small corridor and come into a large basement room that resembles a shower room. In this room there are three big pillars. Into these it is possible to introduce certain materials from above, outside the basement room. After 300-400 people have gathered in this room, the doors are closed and from above the containers with the materials are let down into the pillars. When the containers reach the base of the pillars, they produce certain substances that put people to sleep in one minute. A few minutes later, the door on the other side, which leads to an elevator, is opened. The hair of the corpses is cut off, and the teeth (gold teeth) are broken out by specialists (Jews). It has been observed that Jews have hidden jewelry objects, gold, platinum, etc., in hollow teeth. The corpses are then loaded into the elevators and are taken to the first floor. There are located ten large crematory ovens, in which the corpses are burned. (Because fresh corpses burn particularly well, the entire process requires only one-half to one Zentner [50 to 100 pounds] of coke). The work itself is carried out by Jewish prisoners who will never leave this camp.

The result so far of this “resettlement action”: 500,000 Jews.

The present capacity of the “resettlement action” ovens: 10,000 in 24 hours.

[Handwritten notation in English:]

I affirm that this is a true copy of the original report. Eric M. Lipman.

(Note also the accompanying facsimile reproduction of the report, entitled “Umsiedlungs-Aktion der Juden.”: page 1, page 2)

Origins of the Document

As he worked on Hitler and the Final Solution, Fleming searched for proof that Franke-Gricksch had actually written the “Resettlement Action” report attributed to him. In a private letter to Alfred Franke-Gricksch’s widow dated July 18, 1978, Fleming wrote:

I am writing these lines to you today because ten months ago the British Academy [of Arts and Sciences] officially granted me the research assignment to clear up once and for all, that is, to thoroughly research the following important topic, because this has not yet been done by any contemporary historian: [To find proof for] Adolf Hitler’s personal, direct orders for mass liquidation [of Jews] as issued by Hitler during the Second World War … I would like to quote an excerpt from the report of May 15, 1943, signed by your husband, as it pertains directly to my topic: Hitler’s personal orders for liquidation …

A preliminary comment: Fleming’s reference to Franke-Gricksch’s signature is not correct. In fact, the “Resettlement Action” report bears only the signature of the purported copyist, Lipman. And whereas Fleming asserts in this letter that Franke-Gricksch’s report was written on May 15, 1943, in his book he vaguely dates it “sometime between 4 and 16 May.”

According to Pressac (pp. 238-39), a carbon copy of a report by Franke-Gricksch on an inspection tour of the General Government, the German occupation regime in Poland, was discovered after the end of the Second World War “somewhere in Bavaria” by Eric M. Lipman (whom Pressac mistakenly calls “Lippmann”, an officer with the War Crimes Branch of the U.S. Third Army. After finding the full report in Franke-Gricksch’s “career file,” Lipman is supposed to have made a typescript copy of that portion of the report describing Auschwitz, i.e. the “Resettlement Action” report. Pressac writes that the carbon copy of the full report was turned over to the American prosecution team at Nuremberg, and is now “thought to be preserved in the National Archives Collection reference NA RG 238.” Charles Sydnor, however, who first wrote of the document, writes that “the original of this document evidently is lost amid the still unindexed collection of Nuremberg prosecution documents.”[2]

If the carbon copy of the full report was in fact turned over to the American prosecution team at Nuremberg, however, the question arises as to why this explosive document was never introduced into evidence. And why is Eric Lipman the only person who seems to have known anything about it until the 1970s?

I wrote to Mr. Lipman, who now resides in Richmond, Virginia, to ask him about the “Resettlement Action” document. In a letter dated January 23, 1991, he informed me:

[I] have disposed of most of my Nazi documents to various institutions, including Yad Vashem, Jerusalem, the Tauber Institute at Brandeis University, and the archives of Temple Beth Ababa in Richmond.

Consistent with this, Pressac writes (p. 238) that the two-page report typed by Lipman is “now preserved in the Tauber Institute at Brandeis University, with other documents from the Third Reich.”[3]

It is therefore quite likely that Sydnor, who teaches at Hampden-Sydney College in Virginia, either learned of the Lipman’s typescript from Lipman himself, or discovered it at Brandeis, while he was researching his book Soldiers of Destruction.

In a footnote following his presentation of the “report” in Hitler and the Final Solution (p. 143), Fleming characterizes the existing “Resettlement-Action” document as follows:

Typewritten copy, deposited by Charles W. Sydnor in the U.S. National Archives; one of three carbon copies from [sic] Alfred Franke-Gricksch’s report, written on a service mission through the Generalgouvernement between 14 and 16 May 1943, is in author’s possession.

In a letter to Fleming dated February 19, 1991, 1 wrote:

I have been trying to locate the carbon copy from which the typewritten report was culled, and as a result, have been directed to you, as I have discerned that Brandeis and the US National Archives do not possess the carbon.

Upon reading Fleming’s reply of March 1, in which he wrote, “I am sending you the requested photocopy,” I rather understandably expected to receive a photocopy of the carbon copy of the full report ascribed to Franke-Gricksch. Instead, Fleming merely sent me a photocopy of the same typescript “copy”, complete with English-language heading, that is reproduced in facsimile by Pressac.[4]

Thus, Fleming’s statement that “one of three carbon copies from Alfred Franke-Gricksch’s report … is in author’s possession” is apparently not true.

To sum up: There is no evidence that a carbon copy of the original report was ever “found” in the SS officer’s career file. Nor is there any evidence that this elusive “carbon copy” is in the National Archives, or even that such a document ever existed. The only version of this report that seems to exist anywhere is Lipman’s typescript “copy” of an alleged extract from the missing report.

Analysis of the Document

The document itself, Lipman’s alleged typed copy of a carbon of the original, bears no reference to a letterhead or classification number, which were routine on authentic official reports, and would have been present on the original. Oddly enough, instead of supplying the date of the report at the top of page 1, Lipman has given the dates of Franke-Gricksch’s supposed trip through the “General Gouvernement” (sic – the correct German designation is “Generalgouvernement”), although he stumbled over the year and had to handwrite “3” over the last digit, indecipherable in the copy available to this writer, in the year.

An analysis of the text of the “Resettlement-Action” report points toward a fabrication. Although it is represented that Lipman merely typed the “Umsiedlungs-Aktion der Juden” from the German original, the document contains tell-tale anglicisms, some of them uncorrected, some of them typed over with the equivalent German words. Thus, on the first line of the purported report, “had” for “hat”; “der,” the second word of line 2, typed over “the”; and on line 3, “hier” typed over “here.” On line 8 of the second page of the report, the alleged copyist typed “had,” but corrected that to “hat,” only to begin the following word with “t” (evidently for “the”) before catching that and typing the correct German definite article, “die”. Furthermore, in the final paragraph of page 1, the English participial ending “d” is twice typed for the German “t”, i.e. “ausgestatted” “ausgestattet” on line 5, which has been corrected, and “gebaded” for “gebadet” on line 9. And last, but not least, the verb “kommt” is used twice with the same subject in the sentence beginning on line 6 of the third paragraph of page 1.

These are certainly remarkable characteristics for what Fleming and Pressac advance as a simple transcription of a German original. A less trusting (or perhaps more scrupulous) interpreter might well be within his rights to suggest that this document was based on an English-language, not a German, source.

Fleming’s Analysis

Fleming avoids dwelling on, or even mentioning, the textual peculiarities of the document. Instead, he limits himself to carping about the accuracy of one portion of the “report.” He writes (p. 144):

Franke-Gricksch’s account of “the execution of the Führerorder,” namely, the lowering of “certain materials” into a large cellar room resembling a “shower bath” and activation and release of “particular substances that put people to sleep in one minute” is a fraudulent and cynical white-washing of death by gassing.

Grasping to confirm the orthodox extermination story, Fleming regards the absurd statements which immediately follow as completely accurate. He accepts that specially chosen Jews extracted gold-filled teeth from the corpses, which were then loaded into elevators. He believes that the corpses burned very quickly in the “ten large crematoria.” Fleming credulously accepts that half a million Jews had already been killed as part of this “Resettlement Action” by mid-May 1943, and that the camp’s crematory ovens could “process” as many as ten thousand corpses every twenty-four hours. In support of this, he cites the incredible, and indeed fantastic, “testimony” of former “Sonderkommando” member Filip Müller, who made much the same claim.[5]

As for whom the report was intended, Fleming’s viewpoint is no less unsatisfactory. He cites a letter written by Franke-Gricksch’s superior, SS-Obergruppenführer Maximilian von Herff, who headed the SS Personnel Office and reported directly to Reichsführer-SS Heinrich Himmler, in which von Herff stated his intention to inspect the Auschwitz camp on May 4, 1943. Fleming goes on to argue, without advancing any evidence, that von Herff may not have visited Auschwitz after all, although he accepts that von Herff carried out the rest of the inspection tour. The reasoning for Fleming’s contention here becomes evident on the next page of his book, where the Exterminationist scholar claims that Franke-Gricksch wrote the “Resettlement Action” report for von Herff. Fleming’s shaky facts and logic provide, of course, the only possible rationale for Franke-Gricksch’s composing such a report.[6]

In short, Fleming ignores the basic elements of historical source criticism, passing over the manifest defects and incongruities of the text of the alleged “transcript,” and straining to manufacture a reason for its existence.

In any case Fleming’s real authority for the authenticity of the “Umsiedlungs-Aktion” report is another, postwar, document, also allegedly composed by Alfred Franke-Gricksch, which bears the title “From the Diary of a Fallen SS Leader.” We shall analyze this document in the light of Franke-Gricksch’s remarkable political affinities and activities from the last years of the Weimar Republic to the postwar occupation, further on in this paper.

Pressac’s Analysis

In contrast to Fleming’s rather superficial appraisal of the document, French researcher Jean-Claude Pressac, the leading Exterminationist expert on the crematoria of Auschwitz-Birkenau, has wrestled with the “Resettlement-Action” report at length in his 1990 Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers, not always to the advantage of the report’s authenticity and veracity.[7]

Pressac reproduces a facsimile of a “typed copy of the carbon copy” of the alleged Franke-Gricksch report which is identical to the one provided to this author by Gerald Fleming, except that Fleming’s version does not include Lipman’s handwritten sentence and signature.

Pressac acknowledges a number of serious factual errors in the “Resettlement Action” report, which he accepts as authentic. He tries to discount their importance by explaining them away as understandable mistakes. As we shall see, Pressac’s apologetic explanations are woefully inadequate.

Pressac assigns the site of the mass murders described in the report to Krematorium No. II at Birkenau. Whereas the “Resettlement Action ” report describes “three big pillars” in the alleged death chamber, Pressac points out (p. 239) that there were actually four pillars in this room (which was actually a mortuary cellar, or Leichenkeller). He also acknowledges as erroneous the report’s assertion that there were ten large crematory furnaces in this building. In fact, there were five three-muffle crematory ovens in Krema II. Pressac’s “explanation” that perhaps Franke-Gricksch was referring to the total number of ovens in Kremas II and III together cannot be valid because the document specifically asserts that these ten crematory ovens were in a single building.

Pressac also admits that the figure of ten thousand daily cremations given in the “Resettlement Action” report is a physical impossibility (p. 239, n. 8). His lame “explanation” for this absurd figure is that it must have been a product of SS propaganda. He does not explain, though, why there should be propaganda falsehoods in a confidential, internal SS report. Pressac also fails to note that this figure, which he concedes is ridiculous, has also been cited by supposedly authoritative “eyewitnesses” such as Rudolf Höss, Miklos Nyiszli and Filip Müller, as well as in the Soviet War Crimes Commission Report of May 1945 (Nuremberg document USSR-008).[8]

Pressac concedes that the “Resettlement Action” reports claim that 500,000 Jews had already been killed by May 1943 is not true. The real figure, he asserts without evidence, was “probably somewhere between 200,000 and 250,000.” Pressac fails to convincingly explain just why the killers would want to exaggerate their grisly toll by at least two-fold. Furthermore, even this lower estimate is difficult to accept, given the fact that the four Birkenau crematory facilities were not completed until between March and June 1943.[9]

The “most striking and serious error” in the “Resettlement Action” report, Pressac writes (p. 239), is the assertion that the “gas chamber” had a door at each end. In fact, this room had only one door (“through which the victims entered and from which the corpses were removed,” Pressac adds). Pressac’s lame explanation for Franke-Gricksch’s “confusion” is that he must have taken “some kind of break in his visit to the crematorium that caused him to lose his bearings somewhat.”

In addition to the errors that he willingly acknowledges, Pressac silently passes over other problematic assertions in the document. For example, Pressac does not even try to explain how Jewish “Sonderkommando” members could have begun their gruesome work of hauling bodies from the “gas chamber” only “a few minutes” after the killings without themselves promptly falling victim to the residual poisonous vapors.[10]

Contrary to the claim in the “Resettlement Action” report (and by various “eyewitness”) that the lethal substance (supposedly Zyklon) was lowered or dropped into the chamber through hollow pillars, anyone visiting the site of the extant ruins of this chamber (Leichenkeller I) can easily verify that the pillars there are not hollow, but are made of solid, steel-reinforced concrete.[11]

Further, Pressac offers no explanation for the document’s silly assertion that “fresh corpses burn particularly well.”

Nor does he attempt to account for the report’s mention of a “special rail track into an area of the camp specifically set aside for this purpose.” This can only refer to a rail spur from the main Auschwitz (Vienna-Krakow) rail line into the Birkenau camp. In fact, work on this Birkenau rail spur did not even begin until January 1944.[12]

This false reference to a “special rail track” would by itself be enough to show that the “Resettlement Action” report is fraudulent, and almost certainly a postwar fabrication. Fleming’s credulity not merely in accepting the “Resettlement Action” report but in making it a centerpiece of his defense of the thesis that Hitler did give an explicit order to exterminate the Jews of Europe, and Pressac’s ineffectual lucubrations to validate it, tell a good deal about the substance of contemporary Exterminationist scholarship.

Franke-Gricksch’s Dubious Diary Entry

There remains the enigma of a postwar writing attributed to Alfred Franke-Gricksch, on which Fleming bases much of his credence in the “Resettlement Action” report.

Several months after his release from British captivity in 1948, Franke-Gricksch is said to have dictated a statement to his wife entitled “From the Diary of a Fallen SS Leader” (“Aus dem Tagebuch eines gefallenen SS-Führers”). This statement, which is quoted at some length by Fleming in Hitler and the Final Solution (pp. 146-151), would seem to corroborate the extermination thesis, including an order by Hitler to “blot out once and for all the biological bases of Judaism.”

The purported diary entry (Franke-Gricksch’s actual diary of the wartime years, if it ever existed, seems to be missing), concerns an alleged meeting between Himmler, von Herff, and Franke-Gricksch shortly before the May 1943 “Generalgouvernement” inspection tour. (For reasons of space, the document is not reproduced here.)

As Gerald Fleming readily concedes, even the title of this document is misleading: Franke-Gricksch did not “fall” during the war. Fleming also accepts that this “diary” entry is not a contemporary record, but was indeed written after the war.[13] In his 1978 letter to Franke-Gricksch’s widow, Fleming wrote:

The text “From the Diary of an SS Leader [sic]” can only be understood if it is read together with, and compared with, the report your husband drew up for Maximilian von Herff in mid May 1943.

Franke-Gricksch’s son Ekkehard begs to differ. In a November 4, 1990, letter to this author, he explained:

By war’s end, my father was manager of the office of Maximilian von Herff, head of the SS Personnel Main Office, and a member of Himmler’s inner staff. As a member of this inner staff, he was involved, above all, with the questions of socio-political, economic, and financial-political policy that the SS had to put into effect …

Through his work with von Herff, my father gained a keen insight into the morale among the SS leaders. As indicated in the “Diary of a Fallen SS Leader,” no SS man wanted to serve in the concentration camps. The supervision of labor camps seemed pointless. This matter was repeatedly raised in discussions with Himmler, as a result of the increasing discontent among the SS men.

It was in this context that Himmler spoke of the assigned task of the SS to administer and supervise these camps. This [he said] was a Führer Order. Fleming turned this into the [so-called] Führer Order for the extermination of the Jews. The diary was dictated by my father after the war. From many letters, I recognize his typewriter [script] with which the diary was written … As a consequence of his position in the SS Personnel Office, my father visited the concentration camps, but this was only out of concern for the SS men who worked there. It was out of this that the falsification was produced.

While Ekkehard’s interpretation seems plausible, he fails to explain why his father would have entitled it “From the Diary of a Fallen SS Leader,” or why this odd document was submitted in evidence at the 1965 Treblinka Trial.

Assuming that Alfred Franke-Gricksch wrote “From the Diary of a Fallen Soldier,” what was his motive in writing it? Fleming, who recognizes that the document is enigmatic enough to require the help of the “Resettlement Action” “report” for elucidation, provides a speculative explanation that simply defies belief (pp. 152-153):

… In autumn 1948, when the above account [the “Diary”] was written, von Herff was no longer alive to testify (having died in British captivity in 1945); Alfred Franke-Gricksch therefore saw himself with no choice but to supply, in as convincing and plausible a form as possible, the background circumstances of the report he made on the liquidation machinery at Auschwitz-Birkenau. He did not know at the time whether the Auschwitz [“Resettlement Action”] report had already been found and registered, but he had to reckon with the possibility that sooner or later this compromising document would indeed be found.

As we have demonstrated, though, the “Resettlement Action” document is not what it purports to be. It could not possibly have been written as an authentic first-person contemporary report. Franke-Gricksch therefore would not have had any reason to “cover himself” by writing this “Diary.” In fact, it is obvious from even a casual reading of the “Diary” document that it more tended to incriminate than to exonerate Franke-Gricksch, particularly if one takes into account that the “Resettlement-Action” document has all the earmarks of a clumsy postwar forgery.

Fortunately, a look at Franke-Gricksch’s ideology and background, and especially his political activities between late 1948 and late 1953, provides the most likely explanation of why this ‘Diary” was fabricated.

During the early 1930’s, Franke-Gricksch was a leading activist in the political movement of Otto Strasser, who like his brother Gregor was a one-time comrade and later a bitter enemy of Hitler.

In his letter to the author of November 4, 1990, Ekkehard Franke-Gricksch wrote about his father’s prewar activities:

My father, my mother, the Strassers, and Himmler had known each other since about 1927. They were dedicated National Socialists, and thus followed Hitler. My father joined the party in 1928 and left it in 1930. Gregor Strasser was the witness at my parents’ wedding …

When Hitler took control of the government in 1933, and distanced himself from his original National Socialist goals … my father fled the country with Gregor [meant is Otto] Strasser … The Reich Supreme Court sentenced my father to death in absentia for treason — that is, because he was a member of the Strasser organization … [However] my father came to an understanding with Himmler about the Party’s betrayal of the National Socialist revolution. Himmler and my father came to an agreement, and my father [returned to Germany and] joined the Waffen SS under the name of Alfred Franke — behind the back of the Party. Himmler only asked that he refrain from political activity for the time being, until the time was right for that.

In a short autobiographical statement (“Mein Lebenslauf in Stichworten”) composed while in British captivity, Alfred Franke-Gricksch recalled his activist days with the Strasser organization in Prague:

Separation from Otto Strasser due to fundamental differences of opinion in political matters. Strasser wanted his newspaper to oppose the return [to the Reich] of the Saar and Memel [territories] … I was of a different opinion: the Saar and Memel territories belong to Germany, and if we did not want to lose the trust of our fighters in Germany, the fight against Hitler must not be permitted to become a fight against Germany.[14]

Despite his break with Otto Strasser’s “Black Front” and his enlistment in the SS, Franke-Gricksch maintained an open, indeed critical, mind. In February 1941 Franke-Gricksch sent Himmler a memorandum from Dachau, where he was serving as an officer responsible for ideological training of SS Totenkopf recruits, who guarded the concentration camps. The memorandum was, as Charles Sydnor summarizes (pp. 315-16):

… subtly critical of the crude and harsh emphasis upon hatred of racial enemies and obedience to orders that Franke-Gricksch describes as the staple of political indoctrination in the SSTK The document concludes with an appeal that Himmler revise the ideological training in the SS to include an emphasis upon what Franke-Gricksch calls the great political, economic, and geographical issues the SS soldier needed to know to be a convinced National Socialist.

After his release from British captivity in 1948, Franke-Gricksch played a major role in organizing the “German Brotherhood” (“Deutsche Bruderschaft”), a semi-clandestine group largely made up of former Wehrmacht officers, Hitler Youth leaders, and SS men. Franke-Gricksch became the group’s spokesman and “chancellor.”[15]

The ideology of the “Brotherhood” reflected Franke-Gricksch’s own past as a leader in the “Red-Brown” Strasser organization. The “Brotherhood” aligned itself with the Communist “National Front” and supported cooperation with the Soviet Union. A Munich newspaper reported in 1950 that the “Brotherhood” even offered to transfer its organization to the Soviet army.

By all accounts, Franke-Gricksch opposed Hitler (and “Hitlerism”) before, during, and after the war. Given this record, it is reasonable to conclude that he was capable of working together with Allied intelligence personnel to furnish background information that would provide credibility for the “Resettlement Action” report. Such cooperation would also explain why an SS officer of Franke-Gricksch’s standing might have been released by the British rather than being tried as a “war criminal.” It may also provide a plausible motive for Franke-Gricksch to compose his back-dated, damningly anti-Hitler “diary” entry. In any case, Franke-Gricksch’s political activities and aspirations indicate that he might well be willing to accept, and even help bolster for some conceivable reason of Realpolitik, the Allied propaganda claims about “gas chambers” and the like.[16]

But Franke-Gricksch’s political activity was short-lived. Fleming reports (p. 141):

In October 1951, he [Franke-Gricksch] went to visit his mother in Potsdam, where he and his wife were subsequently charged. For his activities with the SS Police division in Russia between August and the winter of 1942, Franke-Gricksch was condemned to death by the Russians in October 1951, in Karlshorst [a Berlin suburb], while his wife was sentenced to twenty-five years in a labor camp. In October 1955, his wife left Vorkuta and returned to West Germany.

With regard to his father’s arrest and deportation, Ekkehard writes in his letter to the author (see above, p. 273):

As a leader of the Brotherhood, my father was lured to East Berlin in late September 1951 where he was arrested by Soviet secret service agents. One or two days later his wife [Ekkehard’s stepmother] was lured into the Soviet Zone with a fabricated letter containing the message that her husband had suffered a severe colic and was laid up at his mother’s in Potsdam.

He died on August 18, 1953, in the Vorkuta camp in the Soviet Union. My stepmother was sentenced to 25 years forced labor, but was released in 1956.

Why Franke-Gricksch was arrested, convicted, and sent off to death in the Gulag at precisely that time remains, no less than the motivation for his writing his fake diary entry, speculative. Could Franke-Gricksch have been playing some complicated intelligence game between East and West, Britain’s SIS and its Soviet counterpart, while all the while striving to resurrect a neutral Germany following a “third way” beyond capitalism and communism?

As already indicated, Frau Liselotte Franke-Gricksch submitted the “Diary” entry as evidence for the prosecution in the 1965 West German Treblinka Trial. Interestingly, Frau Franke-Gricksch asked about her husband’s fate and whereabouts in a letter of February 3, 1969, sent to the Tracing Service of the German Red Cross. Apparently she believed, or at least hoped, that her husband might still be alive in Soviet captivity. This provides a possible explanation for her decision to submit the “Diary” as evidence in the Treblinka. trial. She may have believed that this act of cooperation might help procure her husband’s release.

Conclusion

As we have shown, a careful examination of the available evidence shows that the “Resettlement Action” report attributed to Franke-Gricksch (“Umsiedlungs Aktion der Juden”) is a postwar fabrication, most likely by Eric Lipman.

Even though this “report” is worthless as a document of historical importance, the way it has been handled and exploited by Exterminationist historians Gerald Fleming and Jean-Claude Pressac is revealing. In their frantic search for evidence to prove the Holocaust story, these historians have misrepresented, ignored or white-washed the clearly false assertions in the document’s text, and ignored other evidence, including the suspiciously defective text itself, that indicates its fraudulent character.

Instead of calmly evaluating evidence, subjecting it to critical analysis, and then drawing conclusions from it, Fleming and Pressac have instead tried to portray the bogus “Resettlement Action” report as an authentic and credible document, exploiting it as “evidence” to “prove” a preconceived view. This technique, which by the most charitable interpretation might be called wish fulfillment, is precisely the opposite of how open-minded historians should go about their work.

Notes

1. Eleven years after the publication of Hitler’s War, Irving further modified his stand on this issue. On the basis of his own further research, and impressed with the results of execution expert Fred Leuchter’s investigation of the alleged extermination gas chambers in Auschwitz, Irving joined Holocaust Revisionists such as Dr. Arthur Butz and Prof. Robert Faurisson, who maintain that there was no German wartime policy of extermination. For a more detailed discussion of the lack of documentary evidence for an extermination program, see: Carlo Mattogno, “The Myth of the Extermination of the Jews,” The Journal of Historical Review, Summer 1988 (Vol. 8, No. 2), pp. 133-140.
2. C. Sydnor, Soldiers of Destruction (1977), p. 337, footnote.
3. In a January 1991 telephone conversation, Lipman informed me that he could not recall the Franke-Gricksch “Resettlement” document.
4. However, Lipman’s handwritten sentence and signature at the end appears possibly to have been blanked out on the photocopy sent to me by Fleming.
5. Supposedly corroborating the “Resettlement” report, Fleming also cites Müller’s description of the alleged gassing procedure. However, this is a description of gassings in Krema I (in the Auschwitz main camp), and not in Krema II in Birkenau, the supposed setting of gassings in the “Resettlement” report. Fleming also ignores differences between Müller’s description of the gassing procedure, and the description given in the “report.”
6. G. Fleming, pp. 144-145.
7. J.-C. Pressac, pp. 236-239.
8. Pressac provides no plausible explanation for his assertion (p. 239, n. 8 ) that “the maximum daily throughput of the four Birkenau Krematorien was in the order of 3,000 incinerations,” since the coke consumption (25 to 50 kg per body) would have required 75,000-150,000 kg per day (!), and the retorts themselves could not possibly have operated at such a rate.
9. J.-C. Pressac, pp. 246, 348.
10. Whereas the “gas chamber” could hold 300 to 400 persons, according to the “Resettlement” report, both Fleming and Pressac fail to note that Filip Müller and other “eyewitnesses” have insisted that as many as 3,000 persons at a time were herded into the room.
11. Still another description of the alleged gassing procedure is given in the 1944 Vrba-Wetzler WRB report.
12. Martin Gilbert, Auschwitz and the Allies (1981), p. 34 (fn 3), p. 175.
13. G. Fleming, pp. 152, 153.
14. From p. 1 of a two-page typed copy provided the author by Ekkehard Franke-Gricksch.
15. Various German press accounts from the year 1950, including Der Tagesspiegel (Berlin), Nov. 17, 1950. Copies in author’s possession, provided by Ekkehard Franke-Gricksch.
16. The case of Alfred Franke-Gricksch resembles in some respects that of Kurt Gerstein. See: Henri Roques, The “Confessions” of Kurt Gerstein (IHR, 1989).

From The Journal of Historical Review, Fall 1991 (Vol. 11, No. 3), pp. 261-279

About the Author

Brian A. Renk was born in British Columbia in 1964. He studied at Selkirk College and the University of British Columbia (Vancouver), with a special interest in history and philosophy. At the time this article was published (1991), he was living in Ottawa, where he was studying toward a degree in history.

Read Full Post »

Photobucket
A Case for Letting Nature Take Back Auschwitz
This Leading Holocaust Scholar Argues That There Would Be Dignity in Death Camp’s Neglect

Published December 27th, 2009
Brett Popplewell, Staff Reporter
Source: The Toronto Star

The recent theft and retrieval of the infamous “Arbeit Macht Frei” (“Work Sets You Free”) sign that marks the gateway into Auschwitz has reignited debate over what should be done with the sombre monument to one of humanity’s darkest hours.

Last week Poland’s culture minister promised the equivalent of $137,000 for improving security at the site where more than one million people died during the Holocaust. [Ironlight: Heightened security means inquisitive sorts are unlikely to trespass to conduct their research after-hours. Might this “theft” have been artificial/orchestrated from within?]

But Robert Jan Van Pelt, an architectural historian and a leading expert on Auschwitz, says it may be time to consider other strategies for the site, which is split into two camps, Auschwitz and Birkenau. They sprawl over nearly 500 acres.

Van Pelt, a professor at the University of Waterloo, suggests the museum consider sealing off the Birkenau death camp, where 95 per cent of the murders took place, and letting nature take over. We asked him to explain.

Why have you posited that Birkenau should be closed up and reclaimed by nature? Robert Jan Van Pelt responds:

There is a present problem of preservation in Auschwitz. The place that is actually well-preserved – that’s where the museum is. But the site of Birkenau, a couple kilometres away, where the murders happened, is falling apart. That camp was very hastily constructed. The buildings were built to have a lifespan of two to three years. They were built from recycled bricks. When they ran out of recycled bricks, the SS bought from the German army prefab horse stables. In 1945, when the war came to an end, these horse stables were very valuable because they were kind of instant housing for someone who needed it. So people had the idea that the best thing that they could do was to pick up all of these horse stables – and there’s like 500 of them – take them apart, put them on the train and send them to Warsaw. By 1948 all of the brick barracks in Birkenau were already falling apart. Each of the old horse stables had two stoves inside with two brick chimneys that were not taken to Warsaw.

So you had this very weird landscape – and you still have that – where you get these small, primitive brick chimneys rising three metres out of the ground. They don’t have any other bracing and if you have a storm they blow over. But of course the chimneys themselves – altogether there are hundreds of them – create a very powerful symbolic landscape because we associate Birkenau with the chimneys of the crematoria. Those crematoria aren’t there anymore, they were blown up by the Germans and one of them was blown up by the prisoners in 1944. So because there are only these ruins of the crematoria and because people expect to see chimneys in some way, that field of small chimneys that are the leftovers of the barracks creates a kind of landscape that people in some way associate with the killing and the burning of the bodies of the victims.

By allowing nature to take over the site, do we run the risk of allowing humanity to forget what happened and set the stage for future questioning of the Holocaust?

Ninety-nine per cent of what we know we do not actually have the physical evidence to prove . . . it has become part of our inherited knowledge. [Ironlight: “Knowledge” without “physical evidence to prove,” you say?]

I don’t think that the Holocaust is an exceptional case in that sense. We in the future – remembering the Holocaust – will operate in the same way that we remember most things from the past. We will know about it from literature and eyewitness testimony. . . . We are very successful in remembering the past in that manner. That’s how we know that Cesar was killed on the Ides of March. To put the holocaust in some separate category and to demand that it be there – to demand that we have more material evidence – is actually us somehow giving in to the Holocaust deniers by providing some sort of special evidence.

Why has the site not been closed off already?

In 1959, a proposal was made to let nature take over the camp. The museum wanted to seal the gates and let everything fall into disrepair. The idea was that this spot represented a place where humanity failed in such a monumental way that we really have no business maintaining it. [Ironlight: this makes little sense, especially coming from an architectural historian. The only way one might begin to rationalize this counter-preservationist mentality is to interpret Van Pelt’s suggestion to “seal off” and usher the deterioration of this site — what Robert Jan van Pelt has himself termed “the Holy of Holies” — as the deliberate barring of investigation and the systematic destruction of all remaining physical evidence. If Auschwitz-Birkenau represents, as Van Pelt describes in the documentary Mr. Death, “the absolute center” of the “map of human suffering” in the “geography of atrocity,” then one would assume this architectural historian would wish to safeguard this alleged crime-scene from the forces of disintegration. In truth, Van pelt serves the forces of disintegration, and it should be increasingly obvious to critical-thinkers around the world that this man, and millions just like him, have something to hide.]

At that time the survivors opposed that proposal. They said `You cannot lock us out of our own experience. We suffered here; we need to be able to return to the site where we suffered.’

Fifty years later, we are facing the end of the age of the survivors – the age of the witnesses – and I think when the last survivor of the Holocaust has died, when that almost silent passing happens, we as a civilization or as a species should mark this.

And (what) if no one was going to provide the funds to preserve this site? My response to that challenge is `So what? Maybe it’s not so bad if this site is erased.’ But if indeed there is a moment when we can surrender this site to nature, we cannot do that before the last survivor dies. [Ironlight: concerning the option of “erasure,” the never again crowd has long employed this strategy in order to secure their myth. This is not terribly dissimilar to 70,000 tons of steel being whisked away from the World Trade Center site before a thorough investigation had been conducted. Tall tales are continually reinforced. Inconvenient truths are increasingly erased.]

The chairman of the international Auschwitz council says the decision should be left to those who died at Auschwitz. Do we have any insight – recorded statements from victims before they died – on what they wanted to be done with the site?

No. So when you call on the victims to some way indicate what happened at the site we can only talk about the survivors. But can survivors really represent those who died? The survivors can do that to a degree, but once they are dead I don’t think it’s our place to interpret. This is a decision that we have to take as the living. The earth belongs to the living. It is the living that have to make the tough decisions.

It is fine with me if we the living decide that this site should be preserved and . . . we are willing to spend the money to maintain the site in a proper way . . . that somehow leaves the dignity of the place intact. I’m not going to quarrel with that. But that means we as a worldwide society are actually accepting responsibility for the site – and putting resources toward that.

[Ironlight: “Truth does not fear investigation!“]

Read Full Post »

Earlier versions of Mr. Death were nixed, as viewers left the theater with a fair if not favorable estimation of Fred Leuchter and his peculiar field of research. Jewish director Errol Morris, unable to tolerate this unintended response, reworked the documentary until the desired effect was achieved: Fred Leuchter was to be “cast” as the unmistakable villain, not the unconventional hero. Knowing just how hard the director toiled to prevent a favorable view of his subject speaks volumes, I believe, and makes this documentary worth viewing — not buying. -W.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »