A critical view of the article on Holocaust Denial [on Wikipedia] I
Zulu
[This essay does not advocate, or even discuss to any extent the content of, Holocaust revisionism. It
addresses the right to investigate, and accuses the Holocaust Denial article of condoning denial of free
thought and—unique to this topic—suppression of the normal process of open historical inquiry. That article
at best fails to address the issue and at worst supports suppression of free speech and fair comment using
the straw man of "Denial".]
The rationalist approach
Most rationalists will reject the majority of fringe theories such as 911 “troof”, flying saucers, aliens
secretly on Earth among us, moon-landing “hoax”, etc. not because they are “evil” but because we have looked
at the evidence and do not find it convincing. We do not try to forbid the expression of such views. We also
reject conventional religion, although in this case we find ourselves in the minority and we fight hard for
our right to dissent.
As rationalists we support open scientific investigation and condemn the imposition of dogma. We form
opinions and theories to which we hold only as long and as far as they appear to us to offer the best
available model for reality, and we are happy to refine, modify or even abandon them if we are convinced
that more appropriate models have been developed. We encourage research and investigation in any area in
order to advance knowledge. If anyone tells us that we must not hold a position because it is “evil” or
“against God”, we rightly laugh at them. If they try to browbeat us by physical or moral force such as
exerted by the Catholic Church, the fundamentalist Christian Right, fundamentalist Islam, Hinduism, Judaism,
Communism, Fascism or any other -ism, we rightly combat them. We do not want to suppress their right to
express their views, even though they try to suppress ours. We will even fight for their rights if they are
suppressed or attacked by a different -ism. We believe in tolerance and, above all, openness. It is an
essential component of a rationalist view that we are always open to evidence that our opponents may be
right on some, or even all, points. In general, we recognize that real life is complex and that a black and
white portrayal is rarely accurate. We do not accept a position simply because some authority tells us we
should.
Holocaust exceptionalism
Yet there is one sacrosanct exception: the Holocaust. I do not use the word “sacrosanct” sarcastically nor
to give offence, but to point to the way that a particular attitude of unquestioning reverence to an event
of history, combined with a dogmatic fixation on precise numbers and events, has gradually, since about
1980, become established as a simplistic and quasi-religious dogma that may not be subject to any enquiry.
(The word holocaust, itself a religious term, was not used in earlier decades. It was then more likely to be
found in the context of a “nuclear holocaust”.) It is promoted by a well-budgeted media blitz, by emotive
educational programmes forced upon schools, by museums and memorials, and by both moral and physical
intimidation. Far from situating events in the global picture of the most horrific war in history, you
almost get the impression that WW2 was a side issue to the main event of the Holocaust. You do not have to
be a dissenter yourself to see the undesirability of this emotion-laden imposition of “memory”, with its
suppression of enquiry, or to suspect its motives.
Norman Finkelstein and the "Holocaust Industry"
Norman Finkelstein[1], an American Jewish University professor, whose parents both survived camps, who lost
the rest of his family in the Second World War and who has not questioned the events of the Holocaust, has
written The Holocaust Industry in which he exposes self-appointed representatives of the Jewish community
who, in his view, have exploited the Holocaust to obtain large amounts of money for themselves (Elie Wiesel
charges many thousands of dollars for one lecture) and from the German government and the Swiss banks: money
which has gone not to aid the now-limited number of needy camp survivors but to finance museums and
propaganda and to support the State of Israel (which Finkelstein opposes). He considers it has become a
religious dogma which you must believe in and worship or be declared a heretic.
Interestingly, Finkelstein had the active support of Raul Hilberg, probably the most respected mainstream
Holocaust historian, until the latter's death in 2007. Hilberg had also expressed doubts as to whether the
Holocaust was centrally organised by Hitler: doubts which if expressed by a revisionist today in Germany
could well lead to years in prison. Hilberg, like a number of mainstream Holocaust historians, pointed out
the unreliability of eye-witness testimony. Another, Jean-Claude Pressac, has been quite scathing about the
poor quality of Holocaust testimony, stating "The record is rotten to the core".
Denialism v. Revisionism
People who are usually called Holocaust deniers mostly reject this label and prefer Revisionist. I would
like to avoid name-calling and look at the proper use of these two terms.
I would think that, as normally used, "denier" is a pejorative term which implies one or more of three things:
- dishonesty: arguing for something you do not actually believe, because it suits your purpose, or
- obstinate argumentation from a preconceived position ignoring or rejecting by reflex all contrary evidence, or
- total rejection, which may be honestly held.
Revisionism, on the other hand, simply means deviating from the commonly held view. The term is ethically
neutral. In the context of WW2 it usually means an interpretation more sympathetic to the German or Japanese
position. AJP Taylor [2] and, more recently, Patrick Buchanan [3] have written revisionist histories of the
origins of the war, where they argue that it arose more from failures of communication than from German
expansionism, and that a minor border dispute was turned into a world catastrophe. They also question
Churchill's role. Other recent revisionist discussion suggests that Stalin, who had already occupied the
Baltic states, Bessarabia and Eastern Poland, was planning in 1941 to move against Germany and possibly the
rest of Europe, and that Barbarossa was at least partially preemptive.
In the context of the Holocaust anyone doubting any aspect of the conventional story may be classed as a
revisionist, but those who identify themselves as Revisionists (with a capital R) usually question:
- the six million figure
- intent to exterminate
- the existence of gas chambers
This generalisation does not always hold. David Irving, for example, thinks that large scale killings of the
order of two to three million took place on Eastern front and in the Reinhardt camps. While pointing out his
differences he still appears to class himself as a Revisionist. Irving's views have changed a lot over time,
he says in the light of new evidence, in particular the Eichmann papers he uncovered.
Criminalisation of dissent
In Germany, France, Austria, Spain, Poland, and a number of other countries, you will be jailed for several
years simply for expressing a dissenting opinion. You take major risks even by just looking at a website.
The most famous dissenter of recent years, David Irving, is not even a Holocaust denier. He has expressed
doubts about the Auschwitz gas chambers and considers the six million number too high, but he says that
several million were killed, mainly on the Eastern front and in the Reinhardt camps of Northern Poland. He
places the responsibility with Himmler rather than Hitler.
Germar Rudolf and Ernst Zundel have been jailed in Germany. Jurgen Graf was forced into exile from
Switzerland to escape prosecution. None of them were demonstrated to be inciting hatred; simply writing or
publishing material which questioned aspects of the Holocaust was enough. No defence is possible: the court
“takes judicial notice” of the established view. (Irony of ironies: Rudolf's books, which are not polemic,
but studies of chemical analyses, were ordered to be burned.) In France the law ridiculously requires you to
accept everything decreed at Nuremberg, despite the fact that much of what was “established” at Nuremberg is
no longer accepted by mainstream historians either. For example none of them any longer believe there were
extermination facilities on any camp in Germany itself, or that people were killed in steam chambers or on
electric floors, or that the Germans were responsible for the Katyn massacres.
David Irving was fined 30,000 DM by a German court for saying the gas chamber shown to tourists in Auschwitz
1 is a post-war partial reconstruction by the Soviets and Polish Communists of what is alleged to have
previously existed. Later the Auschwitz Museum authorities admitted he was right. [4] (Last word on the last
line but two, and the only recognition on the entire site as far as I am aware.) Irving's conviction was not
rescinded.
There have been moves to force all EU countries to accept such legislation. In the mid nineties they were
stopped by the United Kingdom, led by Home Secretary Michael Howard (who, incidentally, is Jewish); he was
supported by the EU Commissioner Leon Brittan (also a British Jew). Later efforts have also been stopped by
the United Kingdom and the Scandinavian countries. There have been moves in the UN to get a worldwide ban.
Physical intimidation, taboo and moral pressure
Even in countries where there is no such legislation, intense moral pressure, destruction of careers and
serious physical violence are used to silence dissent and to discourage others from investigating the
heretical view. Robert Faurisson has been beaten up on ten occasions; on one of them his life was in
danger.[5] The American Jewish revisionist, David Cole, aroused particular bile. He was threatened with
violence by the JDL [6] and the ADL to the point where he was forced to sign a recantation and has
disappeared from public view. His recantation has all the sincerity of confessions in a Stalinist show
trial. [7] Fred Leuchter, the American execution-chamber specialist who investigated cyanide residues in
Auschwitz, had his career destroyed. Norman Finkelstein, who is not even a revisionist, was refused tenure
at his university as a result of a massive campaign against him by the Holocaust establishment.
Ernst Zundel had his house burned down and a pipe bomb which would have killed anyone who opened it sent to
him through the post. The Institute of Historical Review had their premises burned down and David Irving had
his home burgled and his printing premises burned. Their meetings and talks are systematically and violently
disrupted. Bradley Smith, an American who is in no way racist, whose political position is liberal, has
sought to get universities to allow open debates where differing views on the Holocaust may be expressed. He
is vilified and on the rare occasions when his advertisements in student newspapers were accepted by a paper
they were banned by the institution.
Joel Hayward [8] was not a revisionist but chose to make a study of revisionism in an MA history thesis at
Canterbury University in New Zealand. Although the University rated his thesis very highly, awarding it
first-class honours, several years later it was put under heavy pressure by the New Zealand Jewish Council
to revoke his degree and Hayward was unable to pursue his career in New Zealand. Big guns, in the form of
Richard Evans [9], who had appeared in the Lipstadt-Irving case, were employed against him. Evans launched a
vituperative personal attack on him. He had a nervous breakdown, was forced to repudiate his thesis, and was
only able to make a career by emigrating to the UK and completely abandoning any further Holocaust-related
work. This, like the beatings received by Faurisson, illustrates very clearly why historians in academic
institutions stay well away from the Holocaust unless they are prepared to accept it uncritically.
There are many further examples, too numerous to list here. We are entitled to ask why, if the orthodox
Holocaust position is so firmly based, there is so great a fear of any divergent view that such measures of
brutal suppression, which exist in no other context, are necessary. Stalin and Mao were tyrants probably
each responsible for more deaths than Hitler, but there is no taboo on investigating the extent and the
context of their atrocities.
.../
to follow
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Essay:A_critical_view_of_the_article_on_Holocaust_Denial
RJ11
(snip "Holocaust revisionism" drivel)
Deal with the facts, nazi kook.
A document which mentions a "gassing cellar" in an Auschwitz-Birkenau
crematorium:
http://www.holocaust-history.org/~dkeren/documents/auschwitz/Vergasungkeller.shtml
A document which mentions a "gas chamber" in an Auschwitz-Birkenau
crematorium:
http://www.mazal.org/Pressac/Pressac0499.htm
A document requesting cyanide gas detectors for an Auschwitz-Birkenau
crematorium:
http://www.holocaust-history.org/~dkeren/documents/auschwitz/Gas-Detector.shtml
SS labor deployment report, listing 870 workers in the Auschwitz-
Birkenau crematoriums:
http://www.holocaust-history.org/~dkeren/documents/auschwitz/aug2-3.shtml
A study of the cyanide compounds in the Auschwitz gas chambers:
http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/chemistry/iffr/report.shtml
In a memo written on September 8 1942, Kurt Prufer of the
firm "Topf and Sons" stated that Auschwitz officials are not
satisfied with a cremation capacity of 2,650 corpses per day,
and "we should deliver more ovens as quickly as possible".
Source: http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/topf/
A very elaborate study of the mass graves in the Belzec death camp was
conducted a few years ago by a team of Polish archaeologists, headed by
Prof. Andrzej Kola from the University of Torun in Poland, who is the
author of more than 130 papers on archaeology. The team studied the site
of the death camp, drilling 1,700 bore holes and investigating the core
samples. The results are summarized in an 84 page report (ANDRZEJ KOLA:
"BELZEC. THE NAZI CAMP FOR JEWS IN THE LIGHT OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL SOURCES.
Excavations 1997-1999". ISBN 83-905590-6-4). The study has recovered
human remains over a very large area, to a depth of up to six meters.
The minimal estimate to the volume of the graves is 21,000 cubic meters.
"The accused shall not be punished because of the actions
against the Jews as such. The Jews have to be exterminated
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
and none of the Jews that were killed is any great loss. Although
the accused should have recognized that the extermination of
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
the Jews was the duty of Kommandos which were set up especially
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
for this purpose, he should be excused for considering himself
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
to have the authority to take part in the extermination of Jewry
himself." -- from the verdict of the Supreme SS and Police Court,
in the case of SS-Untersturmfuehrer Max Taubner, 24 of May 1943.
Quoted from "The Good Old Days", E. Klee, W. Dressen, V. Riess,
The Free Press, NY, 1988, pages 196-207.
http://www.holocaust-history.org/works/jaeger-report/htm/intro001.htm
RJ.
Zulu
>
> A document which mentions a "gassing cellar" in an Auschwitz-Birkenau
> crematorium:
> http://www.holocaust-history.org/~dkeren/documents/auschwitz/Vergasungkeller.shtml
Please do your homework on it and send it to us.
<list Zulu v2-02>
- Why dis SS planed and started to built 4 no criminal "normal crematoriums"
(Pressac p.264, 284, 368, etc. & Van Pelt) in 1942, whereas most of historians date the start of the
"extermination plan" in the summer 1941 while Hoess confessed that Himmler transmitted the "extermination
order" in May 1941 (Affidavit from April 5th, 1946)) ?
Why did not Hoess ordered the construction and SS designed "4 industrial death factories" from the scratch
in 1941?
- Do you know Zentral Sauna (Pressac p 51, p. 65 etc.) ? Are the construction and
location of such installation compatible with the stories of "gassings" at the 4 Kremas? How?
- Check the location of the 4 Kremas at Birkenau and their protection
from the sights of the inmates.
Were these location and protection properly designed to guarantee
"secrecy" on their operation? How?
- A package of original drawings corresponding to the construction of
Krema II and III was still on hands of the civilian firm Huta until 19th
December 44 (list of originals plans returned to the Zentral Bauleitug,
Pressac p.318) thus after the supposed end of the murder gassing. No
particular policy of protection and confidentiality existed between that
firm and the SS authorities of the camp concerning documents which
circulated then freely out of the camp (Pressac p.315) Is that fact
compatible with the absolute secret involving the SS criminal activities
at that camp?
- Why did SS planed underground "gas chambers" at Krema II and III?
Did you check cost vs advantages of such location in case of massive
gassings?
- Do you think that a little elevator (1.35 x 2.15) was an appropriated system to move upstairs batches of
2000-3000 corpses? Is it compatible with the industrial expertize of Germans at that time?
- Check the use of Zyclon B to gas people at Krema II and III. If we believe the testimonies about the
gassing operation, we observe that it must have been an absurd waste - about 7 to 40 more quantity of Zyclon
than necessary - due to a deliberately uncontrolled temperature of evaporation. According with the room
temperature, an appreciable proportion of HCN was remaining in the pellets of Zyklon after 15m minutes (>50%
at 15ºC) although they were pulled out and supposedly thrown away by the SS.
Do you think that such modus operandi was compatible with the chemical expertize of German and their
official standard procedures to use Zyclon (see document NI-9912, Pressac p.18)? Why?
-Check the number of openings (about 100 holes of ventilation and drainage) existing in the rooms labeled
Leichenkeller 1 (morgue 1 or "gas chamber") at Krema II and III. No testimony told that such openings were
sealed before each murder gassing and then after unsealed to ventilate the rooms. Why did SS break
systematically on those numerously repeated gassing operations mandatory standard procedures in vigor to
carry out any fumigation performed with the same Zyclon B? (see document NI-9912, Pressac p.18).
- Check the ventilation system at Krema II and III especially the
particular location of the exhaustion outlets. How could it work if we
consider the piles of cadavers on the floor after each murder gassing?.
In case of "industrial gassings" at those places, why didn't SS fix
that issue after the first gassing failure?
- At Krema II and III, Morgue 2 (Undressing room) had a volume of 900 m3 (columns's volume not discounted)
and was ventilated by a 7,5 HP (5.59 kW) powered fan while Morgue 1 (Gas chamber) had a volume 504 m3 and
was equipped with a 3.5 HP (2.61 kW) powered fan ([BW 30/34, p. 84 and BW 30/27 p. 61] Pressac p. 374).
Do you consider that an allocation of 6,21 W per m3 to ventilate an
undressing room and of 5,17 W per m3 for a gas chamber was a rational
industrial choice?
Is it technically justified to ventilate an undressing room with 20%
more power than a gas chamber? Why?
- Check the arrangement of the 3 "gas chambers" at KIV and V. Try to
imagine the flux of 2,500 victims and corpses through several 1 meter
width doors. Do you you think that it was compatible with the industrial
knowledge of German at that time if you allege they were "industrially
gassing" thousands of people there? How and why?
At KIV and V we are told that the SS climbed on little ladders
introduced the pellets of Zyklon B into the gas chambers by pouring them
through little windows. We are told also that after 30 minutes maximum
the Sonderkommandos penetrated into the rooms in order to proceed with
the transport of the bodies to the oven's room.
What happened with the pellets of Zyklon B on the floor which contained
at least 50% of HCN after 30 mn at 15ºC? Considering the poor
ventilation which consisted in opening the 6 little windows, must we
believe that all the people working there were wearing gas masks,
including SS and stokers at the oven's room?
Have we some testimony which mentions that fact?
- Check the supposed 1 meter width of the "gas chamber" gas tight door (to
2000-3000 people). Is that width convenient to facilitate the alleged
movement of the thousands of victims and the removing of cadavers?
- Check the Pressac's story about 14 "false shower heads". Is credible
the use of 14 "false"shower heads to deceive 2000-3000 people supposedly
packed into a room with a density of 9 to 14 per square meter?
- Supposing the first 1000 victims entered into the gas chamber equipped
with 14 dummy showers - 1 shower per 71 people - don't you think that
the people was able to realize soon enough that it was something wrong
in it and entered in panic immediately?
In such case, how were supposed to react the 1000 remaining people at
the door outside?
Then, how could it be possible for the SS to make enter through a 1
meter width door 1000 people in panic outside while 1000 were in panic
inside?
Please, show on a plan of the building, where were supposed to be placed
the SS to control such situation.
- Which document do allow to assume that the 14 shower heads mentioned
by Pressac were "false"? Which document indicates where they were mounted?
- What do you think about the plan to install 100 showers with hot
water at Krema III mentioned on a correspondence to the firm Topf on 15th
May 1943 (Pressac p. 241), thus 3 months after the start of mass gassing
at that place ?
- Where are the "4 holes of introduction" on the ceiling of KII? Do
you think that 4 were necessary in case of "industrial gassings"? Why?
- Why no hole on the ceiling of the rooms labeled Leichenkeller 1 (gas
chamber) appears on all plans of Crematorium II and III dated on 29th
September 1943 - thus 6 months after the beginning of the murder
gassings - and whose originals, supposedly approved as conform with the
building actually constructed, were remitted by the civilian firm Huta
on on 19th December 44 (Pressac p.318) ?
- Pressac gives a list on page 317 concerning the pack of drawings whose
originals were remitted further by the civilian firm Huta to the Zentral
Bauleitung of Auschwitz on 19th December 44 (p.318). However Pressac
doesn't explain why he doesn't show one of those plans of Krema II while
he doesn't tell it is missing. The "missing drawing" reference is
22/10/42...109/6...015/IV...Bew. der Decke über dem Keller I /
Reinforcement for the ceiling over Leichenkeller 1.
Does that plan exist? Can you show it?
- If the SS used "Leichenkeller" (morgue) instead of "Gaskammer" (gas
chamber) on the plans of the Kremas II and III, in an attempt of
"camouflage", why didn't they hesitate in using that same word
"Gaskammer" on the plans of the installation labeled BW5
ENTLAUSUNGSANLAGE FOR KGL / delousing installation for prisoner of war camp? (Pressac p. 55, 56, 57 etc,,)
According with Pressac, documents which correspond to "criminal
transformations" of the Krema II and III were emitted end of 1942.
Can we consider then, that end 1942, the Leichenkeller 1 and 2 (gas
chamber and undressing room according with exterminationists) didn't
exist as functional Leichenkeller (morgues)?
In that case, why did Bischoff wrote his letter to the SS General
Kammler, on January 29, 1943 to explain that due to the delay of the
construction of the Leichekeller, the corpses had to be stored in
another place before their cremation. Isn't that letter a clear evidence
that Bischoff was actually needing morgues? Why so if they were inexistent?
Must we believe from that Bischoff's letter that, after solving the
issue of the delay of construction and the Leichenkeller are finally
completed, the corpses will be stored before their cremation at the
rooms designed to that function?
In that case, where would be the "gas chamber" and the "undressing room"
at Krema II and III?
- Why, since 1946, no investigation was done on the floor of the ruins
of the so called "gas chamber" at Krema II in order to check whether the
traces of the embedding of the alleged 4 "wire mesh columns of
introduction" are visible there?
- What is the quantity of coke necessary to cremate 1 body in the
model of Topf ovens installed at Birkenau?
- What is the total of coke necessary to burn all the alleged victims
at Birkenau according with the official numbers?
- Where are the documentary traces of the amount of coke which should
have burned all the alleged victims especially those among 437,000
Hungarians in few months of 1944. Compare with official records.
- Why do you think that the cremation capacity of Auschwitz was
extraordinary? Compared with what? With the cremation capacity at other
camps?
What was the ratio [number of inmates] per muffle installed at other camps?
Considering that same ratio, at which camp was installed the most
"extraordinary" capacity of cremation?
- Supposing a plan to eliminate millions of people at Birkenau, Do you
think that - from the scratch - the election of 4 cremation
installations constituted by several intermittent ovens with multiple
individual muffles unable to work continuously was an advantageous
industrial choice considering that SS had the possibility to built large
industrial incinerators able to work continuously for burning many
bodies at a time to that purpose?
- Which "criminal intention" can you detect on the plans of Kremas and
attached documents?
- Which are the plans or technical documents which could imply that
morgues (Leichenkeller) were not morgues at the Krema II and III?
- Where were supposed to be stored before their cremation those
thousands of inmates registered on the official nazi death books at
Auschwitz. To resume: where were the morgues usually located near the
ovens at Birkenau?
- Which known specific equipment could differentiate a concentration from an
"extermination camp"?
</list Zulu v2-02>
to be continued...
All references given to pages "Pressac" can be checked on 2 sites which
offer freely on line the book
"AUSCHWITZ: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers" ©
by Jean-Claude Pressac © 1989, The Beate Klarsfeld Foundation
http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/pressac/technique-and-operation/pressac0011.shtml
http://www.mazal.org/Pressac/Pressac0011.htm
Beside the indispensable Pressac's book, another well documented work is essential for understanding the
construction of the crematories of Birkenau.
"The Rudolf Report, Expert Report on Chemical and Technical Aspects of the ‘Gas Chambers’ of Auschwitz",
by PhD Germar Rudolf.
http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/trr/index.html