Why The Holocaust
Must Be Questioned
"The first casualty of war is the truth."

Mr. Holland:
Normally, I would have ignored this rant but a lot of people on my list are asking why anyone would question the holocaust. First, let's deal with some of your allegations. Your comparison of the Lipstadt v. Irving litigation to a debate is just wrong. In her book "Denying the Holocaust" Lipstadt called Irving just about everything but a child molester. Specifically, she accused him of being a nazi, consorting with known terrorists, and someone who loved Adolph Hitler. Irving sued ipstadt for libel in the British courts. This case had little to do with the holocaust, but it had a lot to do with Irving's softball treatment of Adolph Hitler. Thus Mr. Irving now carries the derisive title of "revisionist." Nevertheless, Lipstadt made the holocaust an issue in the trial.
Lipstadt spent over $6,000,000.00 and over twenty man years in her defense. Hmmmm... I wonder who paid all those bills? Do you think maybe that Lipstadt, as chief scribbler for the holocaust, was determined to make a statement? Incidentally, she never testified in her own defense, and thus has never been subject to cross examination. Hmmmm... Irving, on the other hand represented himself. Do you think maybe the outcome of this trial was a forgone conclusion? In plain English, Irving was run over by a zionist bulldozer---sort of like Rachel Corrie. Mr. Irving clearly understood this was going to happen? More importantly, the factual issues in a trial for libel are very distinct from the issues that would be raised in a debate concerning the nature and extent of the holocaust. (We will get to that later.) So, the trial resolved nothing.
You mention other debates. What other debates? Where are they? Where were they held? Who participated? More generalities unsupported by facts? I am certain these so-called debates you talk about could not have been held in a University forum. The wailing and screaming from coast to coast would have been deafening. The jack booted "thought police" at the ADL would surely have been called in to crush this heresy. You claim that Mr. Butz declined to debate. I don't know if this is true, but if it is what does that prove? Not a thing. You seem to infer that he has conceded the issues. Based on his recent public statements, I think he has conceded nothing. If he declined to debate it could have been for any number of reasons not the least of which he wanted to save his life. More likely it was because he did not want to lose his lucrative job as a tenured professor at Northwestern University. In any event I doubt if any serious debate on this hot button subject has ever occurred.
Your assertion that those who would deny the holocaust have the burden of proving that it did not happen is just nonsense. Under English common law (and thus American) the one making a factual allegation has the burden of going forward and proving the truth of the matter. Your assertion that "holocaust deniers" have the burden of proving that the holocaust did not occur is the same as demanding that someone prove a negative. This is not only contrary to established procedural law, it is a logical impossibility.
Just recently a friend asked "do you believe in the holocaust?" Frankly, It is not important what I believe. I am not interested in articles of faith and I am not impressed by those who are. I am only interested in facts, and what someone can prove by a preponderance of the evidence. And therein lies the philosophical dissonance for this very important issue. The holocaust has become an article of faith never to be either questioned or doubted. Yet, the global community grows both weary and suspicious of the incessant chattering from the prostitute news media. (It is not just those pesky Iranians.)
A day cannot pass that the masses are not reminded of the holocaust and the unbearable suffering of the Jews during WWII. Yehuda Bauer, a professor at Hebrew University, and another oracle of the holocaust, was quoted recently to wit: "Whether presented authentically or unauthentically, in accordance with historical facts or in contradiction to them, with empathy and understanding, or as monumental kitsch, the holocaust has become a ruling symbol of our culture. Hardly a month passes without a new TV production, film, a number of new books of prose or poetry dealing with the subject, and the flood is increasing not abating." That pretty much sums it up. And, of course, we cannot forget all the holocaust museums that seem to pop like mushrooms---built at the taxpayers expense, of course.
This "noise" seems to reach a crescendo when the Israelis need another "inoculation" or "special absolution" for the latest atrocity committed against the Arabs. But, to be brutally frank, the screaming from the "amen lobby" is beginning to wear thin, and people throughout the world think it is time to put up or shut up. That includes the so-called revisionists. That is why It is time for an international debate.
In your rant to Mr. Carlotti, you demand that the facts of the holocaust cannot be questioned. Nevertheless, the benighted all over the world are waking up and they are starting to ask lots of questions. Sorry, your demands to the contrary will not change that. You also assert, ipse dixit, that the evidence for the murder of 6 million people is overwhelming. Well, again, the nature and extent of the holocaust is being questioned. (Except, of course, in most of Europe where such inquiry can land you in prison.)
So, let's define what is meant by the holocaust. Then let's see the evidence, and let's test it under cross examination with the application of the traditional rules of evidence. And, please don't embarrass yourself and insult me by reminding me that the Yad Vashem memorial has collected over three million names of the victims. The idiocy of such a statement is self evident. And, in your dialogue with Mr. Carlotti, your reference to the tape recording of Himmler as proof of the holocaust was just as embarrassing. Himmler admitted that the SS was killing Jews!!!! Wow! Now that is a shocker. Accusing the SS of committing murder is sort of like accusing a baker of using flour to make bread. Everyone knows that the SS killed Jews and anyone else that got in their way. But, I digress. Which brings me to the next subject....How do you define what is meant by "the holocaust?"
Let me identify what I think are the parameters of this debate. We can stipulate as true what is obvious. There is not a single historian in the world who would deny that the Germans, under Hitler, constructed concentration camps where Hitler incarcerated Jews, gypsies, communists, homosexuals, and just about anyone else that was considered an enemy of the German State. ( By the way, we also have detention camps in the U.S.A.) And there is not a single historian in the world that would deny that thousands of people died in these camps from exhaustion, starvation, and disease. Is there anyone in the world who has not seen the horrific photos of the piles of corpses and the cadaverous near dead camp inmates? And, yes, it is undeniable that thousands more were in fact executed---some were executed in the camps and some in the ditches of Russia.
Nobody denies that. But you know that what I just described is not the definition of the holocaust. And, this is where the so-called revisionists sharply part ways with Lipstadt, and all the zionist spear carriers. It is not enough that the Jews were murdered in the same manner as all the other victims of the third Reich. Jewish death must be the subject of special veneration. Thus, the high priests of the holocaust insist that the holocaust theology rests on a tripod of three specific allegations. Those allegations, (premises,) are as follows:
First, the German government, in World War II, established a national policy to deliberately, and intentionally exterminate a race of people known as the Jews. In other words, the German government formally established a policy of genocide toward the Jews. The end result of this government policy was allegedly the extermination of six million people.
Second, to accomplish this monstrous task the German government used mass execution facilities in the form of cyanide gas chambers.
Third, to dispose of the bodies, and thus the evidence of the crime, the German government cremated the victims.
In essence, the theology of the holocaust demands that the world accept unconditionally that the Germans constructed nothing less than "Death Factories" which they used to both murder and incinerate millions of people.
The first premise, I admit, raises issues that are very problematic. I have never seen any evidence, real or circumstantial, of a conscious decision by any German official to initiate a program of genocide against the Jews. This was allegedly to have occurred at the "Wansee" Conference, but that is all that I have "heard." I have, on the other hand, heard of documents like the "Schlegelberger Memo" which appears to be exculpatory and thus supports an opposite conclusion. But I would be the first to agree that this issue is hardly resolved. An easy answer is that there is nothing in writing and no evidence, either incriminatory or exculpatory.
The argument from the holocaust lobby is that the Germans did not want to leave any written evidence of their crimes. I consider this unlikely knowing the German proclivity for following procedure. They are compulsive record keepers and pathologically "followed orders."
The Russians can attest to this since they recently released the records they captured intact at Auschwitz. They are very detailed records and very thorough. According to the Russians, about seventy thousand people died, from all causes, at Auschwitz. According to the International Red Cross about 300,000 people died in ALL the camps combined. Seems to be a difference of opinion here. However, I would be the first to agree that arguing over the numbers of victims is, in my view, both a diversion and a false issue----an issue that can never be resolved. And, the results of such an argument are both outrageous and ludicrous. If you prove that the Germans only murdered one million people, is it any less of a holocaust? Obviously not.
The second premise is where things get difficult for me, because the second premise is about what the Germans actually did rather than what everyone says they did. When I was a little boy I was taught the litany of horrors. I learned in the most solemn tones of the ashtrays made from Jewish skulls, lampshades from Jewish skin, and soap from Jewish fat. I remember vividly, my Grandmother telling me, with absolute seriousness, that the Germans had built a soap factory at Buchenwald. And, then there was the medical experiments and the bayonet practice etc. etc. I could go on, but you get the idea. I once asked how do we know these horrific things actually happened. "Well, it was in the newspapers." Oh!! Okay. But of course, all of these "truths" were later found to be monstrous lies. Wow! Is it any wonder why people have stopped reading newspapers. I mean what can you believe? Not even Elie Weisel mentions these whoppers. (You have got to love that name.) Speaking of Elie, in his book "NIGHT" ( Kind of a dramatic title for a book don't you think?) he implied very strongly that the preferred method of execution was burning people alive in ditches. You have to admit that is pretty special. Of course that particular horror was also proven to be "an exaggeration."
Then, in high school I was taught, again in the most solemn tones, of the massacre of thousands of Polish army officers in the Katyn Forrest. Again, it was those evil Germans who did it. Admittedly, this is not part of the Jewish holocaust, but I mention it here because it is part of the pantheon of great lies that have come out of WWII. There seems to be a pattern here. And I hasten to add that men, German officers, were actually put to death at Nuremberg for this crime. But, I digress. The truth? Well, the Russians, Mr. Gorbachev himself, confessed to this crime. It was the Bolsheviks that actually murdered over 25,000 Polish officers in the Katyn Forrest. The Bolsheviks did it the old fashioned way--- a bullet in the back of the head. The Bolsheviks were pretty good at that sort of thing. (While we are on the subject of genocide have you ever noticed that the prostitute media never mentions the 13 million people murdered in Russia by the Bolsheviks?) Of course, Gorby had no choice but to admit this crime, since the forensic pathologists and ballistic experts had already figured this out. Can you believe it? There is a difference between German bullets and Russian bullets.
And the gas chambers? I think you would agree that the so-called gas chambers are the sine qua non of the holocaust. Without them, there is NO holocaust. This is where Fred Leuchter comes into the picture. As you know, he was a consultant and expert witness in the Zundel trial. (Held in Canada.)
Mr. Leuchter is supposed to be an expert in executions by toxic gas and has actually built gas chambers. I guess it takes all kinds. Mr. Leuchter went over to Auschwitz and examined the so-called gas chambers and testified at the Zundel trial that not only was there no cyanide gas ever used in these buildings, but it would have been fatal to everyone concerned, including the executioners, if cyanide gas were ever used in these facilities.
Apparently, that hydrocyanic gas is pretty nasty stuff. It leaves indelible stains on everything it comes in contact with. The chemists call it "Prussian Blue." Go figure. And then it is so corrosive that it will eat through just about anything. Believe me, when that stuffs leak out of your gas chamber it can ruin your whole day---and most of next week. I would have never guessed it, but just building a gas chamber to safely contain cyanide gas is a daunting task. It requires extensive engineering and expertise. I know you disparage the credibility of Mr. Leuchter, but his findings have been corroborated by others more than once. (Yes, I admit this is not the kind of revelation you will ever see either on CBS or read in the evening newspaper. )
Mr. Germar Rudolf comes to mind. He is a chemist, and graduate of the Max Planck Institute. But, we can't talk to Mr. Rudolf. Because of his heresy, he is now in solitary confinement in a German jail....hmmmmm. Something about "disparaging the dead!" My God, not even George Orwell could have made this up.
There may be a very logical explanation why Leuchter, Rudolf and others could not find the telltale chemical stains in the Auschwitz "gas chamber."
According to the recent admission by one of the curators at Auschwitz, the gas chamber at Auschwitz was built AFTER WWII. (This is not the first time this hapened.) It was built by the Russians. I wonder why the Russians would do that? Do you think it might have something to do with the fact that Jewish Bolsheviks were in control of Poland and Russia at the end of WWII??? Then again, maybe Mr. Leuchter had the wrong gas chamber.
Regarding the third premise, there is no doubt that there were crematoriums at the camps. People died and the bodies had to be disposed of. I never thought much about this allegation until I learned that it takes anywhere from three to six hours at two and half thousand degrees Fahrenheit to incinerate a human body. And that process only consumes the flesh. The bones are left and have to be crushed. Whew!!!! Those bodies are really tough to get rid of. But, according to the theology of the holocaust, we are told that millions of bodies went up in smoke at Auschwitz, Treblinka, Dachau etc.
Now consider this: Germany was so desperate for gasoline and diesel fuel in WWII they had to synthesize fuels out of coal and natural gas. Coal was more precious than gold. Possessing it was the difference between life and death. And yet, we are asked to believe that the Germans, fighting for their national existence, consumed billions of cubic feet of gas to incinerate literally millions of people. I know that this is argument. And, I realize that this point is simply impossible to prove one way or another. What I am saying is that the premise on its face is logically absurd and casts considerable doubt on the whole story.
So, at least one of the legs of the tripod (the second) has been severely damaged, and the other two are showing signs of severe stress. I think you would agree, that If either one of these legs collapses, (especially the part about gas chambers,) then the holocaust becomes myth to be relegated to the dustbin of history. So much of the holocaust story has been shown to be lies. I think you can understand why people all over the world are beginning to suspect that maybe the holocaust is really just another wartime lie created for political and economic advantage. I, of course, have serious doubts.
As a student of history I have read Churchill's six volume tome "The Second World War." (I have the set in my library.) The last volume "Triumph and Tragedy" was copyrighted in 1951, and published in 1953----eight years after the end of WWII and almost eleven years after the so-called Wansee conference, which establishment historians claim was the formal commencement of the Holocaust. This publication is considered to be a definitive history of WWII. It was, of course, written by Winston Churchill, the prime minister of England during WWII. He was not only one of the most prominent historical figures of the twentieth century, but was clearly "on the inside "of every major event in WWII.
Now, keep that thought in mind. Can there be any doubt that the holocaust, according to establishment historians, is the defining moment in the history of WWII? Yet, there is not one single word about this crime against humanity in any of the six volumes written by Winston Churchill.
I have not read General Eisenhower's book "Crusade for Europe," but, I have spoken with people who have read it. And again, I am told, not one word about the holocaust. Charles Degaulle, in his works, neglected to do the same thing. Very strange.
Then we have a subject that is very near and dear to my heart ---- the prisoners of conscience. Men have been beaten nearly to death, some in fact murdered, and quite a few others incarcerated in European jails for committing the heresy of either doubting or questioning the theology of the holocaust. This not only offends me deeply but it raises my suspicions. Only liars, tyrants, and people who have something to hide, would do such a thing. If the truth of the holocaust is so well established then the controversy over the holocaust WOULD HAVE BEEN PUT TO REST A LONG TIME AGO. You do not attack ideas that offend you with violence. You attack them with other ideas, facts, and evidence. This is an Hegelian process and, I assure you, ultimately the truth will come out. If history has taught us anything it is this: There is nothing more powerful than an idea whose time has come.
You and I both know why this issue has become so important at this time in world history. But, in case you don't let me spell it out for you.
This is about LIES. Is there any doubt that the history of the twentieth century rests upon a foundation of one monstrous lie after another? All the great lies of WWII are slowly being revealed one by one for what they are and people all over the world are learning the real reasons for fighting that awful global war.
In fact, lies are at the root cause of every war fought by the USA in the last 100 years. Is the current "Gulf War"in Iraq any different? Would it serve any useful purpose to list the sea of lies propagated by the prostitute media? Today, once again, the world stares into the abyss. We are on the cusp of World War Three, and this war will undoubtedly go thermal-nuclear.
Of course, if you are, as I suspect, one of those people who call themselves Christian-Zionist, then you probably think it would be just peachy to have a thermal nuclear war in which millions of people will die -- preferably Arabs and Muslims, of course. How does it go? After we have Armageddon, (that is the best part) then we have the antichrist, then the tribulation, then the rapture etc.,etc. Is that about right? After all, who would Jesus bomb?
So, let me get to the point. It is the international Zionists and their goal of creating "greater Israel" that are driving the world into an expanding war in the middle east. This point is not debatable. So don't bother to try. It is the existence of the holocaust that provided the so-called "moral imperative" for the establishment of the State of Israel.
It is the belief in the holocaust, that provides the "moral cover," the "automatic absolution," for zionist atrocities committed against whoever happens to get in their way. And when the bombs start falling on Iran, the zionists, and their allies, the christian nutcase dispensationalists, those people who accept the holocaust as an article of faith, will undoubtedly seek cover under the protective mythology of the holocaust.
The message, which will emanate throughout the world from the prostitute media, will be as predictable as a broken record: "To save Israel from an Iranian thermal nuclear attack Israel had to attack first. We cannot afford another holocaust. Never Again!!!"
That, Mr. Holland, is why we MUST ask the question: what if the holocaust is just another great wartime lie conjured up for power, profit and political advantage by people who had the means, the method and the opportunity to do so?
Before millions die for more lies, the world must know the answer.
----- Original Message -----
From: Doug Holland
To: Thomas R. Ascher; William C. Carlotti
Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 3:47 PM
Subject: Re: statement by University President
What you "folks" don't seem to understand...or want to that these "debates" have occurred...David Irving had his day in court..and was humiliated. The IHR had the opportunity to present their "case" in court...and they were exposed as a fraud. Artie Butz has been challenged to debates in the past - Walter Peltz for example - and he has meekly declined.
The comparison to the "debate" between "intelligent design" and evolution shows a glaring lack of understanding of the issue. There's a world of difference between questioning HOW something happened versus, despite voluminous evidence - source documentation, audio and video (including Himmler himself, ON TAPE, discussing the deliberate slaughter of the Jews), testimony from victim, liberator AND perpetrator, claiming something DIDN'T happen.
The ADL and JDL aren't the problem for the frauds who make up the dwindling ranks fo Holocaust "deniers." The problem is that they accept a premise that's akin to saying that the sky is blue because God colored it with food coloring. The problem is that the burden of proof is on THEM to prove that the Holocaust DIDN'T occur. Unlike Evolution, the Holocaust is not a "theory"'s a fact. There is infinitely more evidence of the Holocaust than of other facts of history - including the horrific atrocities committed by Stalin and Mao.
It's not just that you're fighting a losing battle. You're fighting an infinitely stupid one.
Subject: Fw: Statement by University President
I was wondering how long it would take for this fight to get to this point. Mr. Martin has made an excellent and reasonable proposal. If the holocaust is a "well documented fact" then a debate makes perfectly good sense. After all, what is there to fear? It would give both sides the opportunity to either put up or shut up. They must prove up their case. Of course you would first have to get Mr. Irving, Mr. Rudolf, and Mr. Zundel out of jail. I am sure they would want to testify.
I would really like to hear what both sides have to say. And I would like to see their evidence. That way we can get this ugliness behind us. Better yet, why not format the debate in the form of a trial, and televise it. Each side would get opening statements. Each side could present its evidence. And then each side would be cross examined by the other side. How exciting. Imagine the TV ratings. And really, is this not what a university is all about? The FREE interchange of ideas.......
Oh yeah, if this is going to be done it should be done soon. Because the day will probably come when just discussing this subject (never mind arguing the issue) will be a felony----like it is in Europe.
Think this is going to happen???? Pigs will fly to the moon before this ever occurs.
----- Original Message -----
From: Deirdre
To: Deirdre
Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 4:52 PM
Subject: Re: statement by University President
To: jack.martin1@xxxxxx
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2006 16:04:17 -0700
Subject: Re: statement by University President
From: jack.martin1@xxxxxx
The recent fuss over Professor Arthur Butz's comments to the effect that the "Holocaust" is a hoax seems to have excited much weeping and gnashing of teeth.
Students at Northwestern University have circulated a petition of protest and the university's president, Henry S. Bienen has issued a statement in which he declares, inter alia, that "there is no question that the Holocaust is a well-documented historical fact." The issue seems to have greatly upset certain people at the university, repeatedly, ever since Professor Butz's book, "The Hoax of the Twentieth Century," was published some thirty years ago. And yet the solution to the problem should be obvious to all. University President Bienen averred that "there is no question that the Holocaust is a well-documented historical fact."
There certainly can be no question that an enterprise of such magnitude as the alleged "Holocaust" would, perforce, have left such an abundance of documentation and other evidence as to leave absolutely no doubt whatsoever concerning its reality. Since the matter is so disturbing to some and since these persons are so confident of the correctness of their position on the question they should be more than willing to agree to a proposal that should make the problem go away once and for all. Shortly after Professor Butz's book first appeared, an alumnus of the university made an offer to sponsor, at his expense, a debate to take place at the university to consider the questions raised in that book. A spokesman for the university promptly and adamantly declared that no debate of that kind would be permitted. Perhaps that seemed a reasonable response at the time. But since the problem has not gone away and has, in fact, grown larger over the years, maybe it is now time to reconsider such a proposition.
Certainly those who have the truth on their side have nothing to fear from such a debate and, in any case, no one of integrity should have any objection to the truth of this or any other matter being put under the light of scrutiny. If the truth is as University President Bienen represents it, there should be no difficulty in finding people on his faculty having sufficient competence to defend that position - after all, the university does provide holocaust courses so numerous as would leave any propoganda minister green with envy. Professor Butz and/or other competent proponents of the contrary point of view should be given a free hand to defend their position. If they are wrong, an open debate will prove that conclusively, since, according to University President Bienen, "there is no question that the Holocaust is a well-documented historical fact".
The revisionist position will, in such case, be shown to be ridiculous and the matter will have been permanently disposed of. Failure to conduct a debate of this kind either at Northwestern or elsewhere will only result in the furtherance of the controversy which will continue to grow and upset many until such time as it is decisively dealt with through honest inquiry.
Jack Martin




This Site Served by TheHostPros