That the Third Reich possessed the technological and
administrative means to carry out such a vast amount of killing there is
little doubt. The Soviet Union with significantly inferior assets in these
areas was able to kill far greater numbers of human beings. Furthermore, the
armies of the Third Reich succeeded in killing at least ten million of its
heavily armed military opponents in the course of World War II. Hence the
killing of six million unarmed civilians should not have presented any
unique problems to such an industrially advanced and bureaucratically
efficient state as Nazi Germany, on the contrary, it would have been far
easier.
My doubts about the Holocaust are not centered around
whether it could have happened but whether it did happen. In fact many of
the doubts that I have are a direct consequence of the fact that I have no
doubt that it actually could have happened...but certainly not in the ways
that have been described thus far in the ''official'' literature.
It is part of the Western tradition in legal, scientific and
intellectual matters that those asserting something have the burden of proof
and that those who disagree are not required to provide evidence. This
tradition however has been turned on its head regarding the Holocaust since
the ''historical truth'' of the Holocaust has been posited in advance.
Furthermore, even to express doubts can result in criminal penalties in at
least 11 so-called democratic countries and the ruining of lives and careers
in numerous others.
Listed below are some of the ''problems '' I have with the
Holocaust. Should these be cleared up, it would go a long way toward my
accepting it Šthey are in no particular order.
1) Why did Elie Wiesel and countless other Jews survive
the Holocaust if it was the intention of the Third Reich to eliminate
every Jew they got their hands on? Elie was a prisoner for several years;
other Jews survived even longer. Most of these ''survivors'' were ordinary
people who did not have any unique expertise that the Germans could have
exploited for their war effort. There was no logical reason for them to be
kept alive. The very existence of more than a million survivors even
today, some sixty years later, contradicts one of the basic components of
the Holocaust i.e. that the Germans had a policy to eliminate every Jew
they got their hands on.
2) Why is there no mention of the Holocaust in Churchill's
six volume History of the Second World War or the wartime memoirs of
either De Gaulle or Eisenhower or any of the other lesser luminaries who
wrote about the Second World War. Keep in mind all these were written
years after the war ended and thus after the Holocaust had been allegedly
proven by the Nuremburg Trials? With regard to the Holocaust, the silence
of these " conoscenti " is deafening!
3) What was an inmate infirmary (and a brothel) doing in
Auschwitz if in fact it was a death camp?
4) Why would the Germans round up Jews from their far
flung empire, thereby tying up large numbers of personnel and rolling
stock, while fighting a world war on two fronts to deliver people to
''death camps'' hundreds of miles away who were then executed upon
arrivalŠwouldn't a bullet on the spot have appealed to legendary German
sense of efficiency?
5) Why after sixty years have historians been unable to
come up with a single German document that points to a Holocaust? Should
we believe the likes of Raul Hilburg that in the place of written orders
there was an "incredible meeting of the minds" by the literally
tens of thousands of people who would have had to coordinate their actions
in order to carry out an undertaking of this magnitude?
6) How come it is still insisted upon that six million
Jews were killed when the official Jewish death toll at Auschwitz, the
flagship of the Holocaust gulag, has been reduced from a immediate post
war figure of 3 [?] million, to a figure of somewhat less than one
million? Why do many respond to this observation by saying, " what's
the difference whether it's six million or one million''. The answer is
that the difference is five million. Another difference is that saying so
can get you three years in an Austrian jail...just ask David Irving!
7) All of Germany's wartime codes were compromised
including the one used to send daily reports from Auschwitz to Berlin. The
transcripts of these messages make no mention of mass executions or even
remotely suggest a genocidal program in progress. Furthermore it has been
insisted that the Germans used a kind of euphemistic code when discussing
their extermination program of the Jews e.g. final solution, special
treatment, resettlement etc. Why was it necessary for them to use such
coded euphemisms when talking to one another unless they thought their
codes had been cracked by the Allies?
8) The water table at Auschwitz lies a mere 18 inches
below the surface which makes claims of huge burning pits for the disposal
of tens of thousands of victims untenable.
9) Initially, claims were made that mass executions in
homicidal gas chambers had taken place in camps located within the
boundaries of the old Reich e.g. Dachau, Bergun-Belsen. ''Evidence'' to
that effect was every bit as compelling as what was offered for other
camps, located in occupied Poland, yet without explanation in the early
sixties we were told that this was not the case and that all the ''death
camps'' were located in the East i.e. Poland outside (some would say
conveniently) of the probing eyes of western scholars.
10) No one has been able to reconcile the eyewitness
accounts that personnel entered the gas chambers after twenty minutes
without any protective gear and the fact that Zyclon B was a "time
release" fumigant that would have had a lethal capability for at
least another twenty four hours. And that even after twenty four hours the
corpses would have themselves remained sufficiently contaminated by the
hydrogen cyanide gas that they would have had the capacity to kill anyone
who touched them who were not wearing protective gear.
11) Why do we no longer hear claims that the Germans
manufactured soap, lamp shades and riding britches from the bodies of dead
JewsŠcould it be that in the light of modern forensics and DNA knowledge
these claims are totally untenable?
12) Why do we no longer hear claims that huge numbers of
Jews were exterminated in massive steam chambers or electrocuted on
special gridsŠ''evidence'' of this was presented at NuremburgŠevidence
that sent men to the gallows.
14) Elie Wiesel has been described as " the Apostle
of Remembrance" yet in his memoir, ''Night'' which deals with his
stay at Auschwitz he makes no mention of the now infamous homicidal gas
chambers. Isn't this a bit like one of the Gospels making no mention of
the Cross?
15) Virtually every survivor who was examined at Auschwitz
says that he or she was examined by the infamous Dr. Mengele.
16) According to survivor testimony, hundreds of thousands
of Jews were executed at Treblinka and then buried in mass graves in the
surrounding area. Why is it that extensive sonar probing of these burial
grounds reveals that this alleged final resting place for Holocaust
victims has remained undisturbed since at least the last ice age?
17) ''Proof'' of the Holocaust rest primarily on survivor
testimony; there little if any hard evidence. The best of this has been
described by Jean Claude Pressac as merely ''criminal traces''. Even Judge
Grey who presided at the Irving-Lipstadt Trial commented that he was
surprised the evidence pointing to the Holocaust was ''extremely thin''.
To paraphrase Arthur Butz, ''a crime of this magnitude would have left a
mountain of evidence''Šwhere is it? There was more hard evidence against
OJ Simpson at his trial and he was FOUND INNOCENT!
18) Why has Holocaust Revisionism been criminalized in at
least eleven counties Šwhat other historic truth needs the threat of
prison or the destruction of one's career to maintain itself. Should
someone be sent to prison for expressing skepticism about the official
Chinese claim that they suffered thirty five million dead in World War II
?
19) Why do the court historians insist that "denying
the Holocaust" is like denying slavery or saying the earth is flat
when it is nothing of the sort. The leading Revisionists are first rate
scholars who hold advanced degrees from the world's leading universities.
Is there anyone comparable among those who say the world is flat or that
slavery never existed?
20) Promoters of the Holocaust have expressed concerns
about the remembering the Holocaust once the last survivors die. Why
haven't Civil War historians expressed similar concerns since the last
survivor of that conflict died in 1959.
21) Survivors of the Holocaust have testified that smoke
billowed from the crematoriums as they consumed the bodies of murdered
victimsŠsome eyewitnesses even claimed they could detect national origins
by the color of the smoke. How can this be reconciled with the fact that
properly operating crematoriums do not produce smoke of any color?
22) According to the official version of the Holocaust
hundreds of thousands of Hungarian Jews were rounded up in mid 1944 and
sent to Auschwitz where most were gassed immediately upon arrival and
their bodies were disposed of by burning in huge open air pits using
railroad ties and gasoline. Why is that there is no evidence of these huge
funerary pyres in the high resolution surveillance photos taken by Allied
aircraft who were overflying the camp on a daily basis during this time
period. Furthermore, why have no remains been found, since open pit
burning, even when gasoline is used, generates insufficient heat to
totally consume a body?
23) All of the liberated camps were littered with corpses;
is there a single autopsy report or any other forensic evidence that shows
that even a single one of these deaths was a consequence of poison gas?
24) The death toll for the Holocaust relies exclusively on
population statistics provided by Jewish sources; has any independent
demographic study been produced that shows that approximately six million
Jews were "missing" at the end of the war?
25) Why do the wartime inspection reports of camps made by
the International Red Cross contain no references to mass executionsŠit
strains credulity that such monumental crimes could be hidden. The only
explanations are that either these crimes were not occurring or that the
Red Cross was complicit in a cover up.
26) Why has there been no effort to respond to the
Leuchter Report?
27) " The Holocaust was technologically possible
because it happened ". Why is this intellectually bankrupt argument,
which turns scholarship on its head, considered by the promoters of the
Holocaust as historical truth, considered a sufficient response to the
mounting Revisionist evidence to the contrary?
28) What other historical truths rely to the extent that
the Holocaust does on so-called "eye witness" testimonyŠand why
have none of these witnesses ever been cross examined? ***
29) According to the official version of the Holocaust,
the Jews remained ignorant of their fate until the very end so skillful
were their Nazis murderers in deceiving their victims. How can this
ignorance be reconciled with the fact that the Jews have historically been
as a group, the most literate and highly informed people on the planet
with legendary access to the highest echelons of government.
*** They have been cross-examined and found wanting in the
two Zundel Holocaust Trials in 1985 and 1988.
