Introduction
to Revisionist Thought
By Ernst
Zündel
2.
The Revisionist
claim:
There is no proof that
the Holocaust, as depicted by the Holocaust Promotion Lobby and the
highly politicized Hollywood industry, actually occurred.
Revisionists don't claim that Jews didn't suffer. They don't argue
the fact that Jews were, in fact, unwanted in Germany, and that there
was a state policy to remove them as a "parasitic people" harmful to
the country.
It is absolutely true that Jews were incarcerated and often treated
cruelly. They were seen as the enemy, just as in our times the
"Nazis" are seen as the enemy of entrenched oligarchies.
Revisionists do claim and argue that there was no state policy that
called for the "mass extermination of the Jews" or any other unwanted
minorities. The Allies, independently and singly, interrogated 26,000
functionaries of the National Socialist regime immediately after
Germany's defeat, all based on the same set of questions. Some people
might have thought of lying for their own benefit by implicating
others.
Not one German official reported knowing of such a program. They all
said that the first time they heard about it was from the Allies
after the war.
This really gets down to the nitty-gritty of where the story of the
mass extermination came from - which is the Rudolf Hoess
"confession."
The Rudolf Hoess Confession is an incredibly "incriminating"
document. All evil stems from it. Here is the background story.
Rudolf Hoess, the former wartime commandant of Auschwitz "confessed"
to the most incredible things during the Nuremberg Trials in this
widely used and much-quoted "document." A good overview from a human
interest story point of view of how that was accomplished is given in
the Zundelsite Internet editorial: "Nuremberg: The Crime that Will
Not Die" It is a summary worth reading.
Many Germans, at Nuremberg and elsewhere where they were made to
stand trial for "war crimes." have "confessed" to brutalities under
"duress" or inducements. Documents, testimony and confessions as well
as affidavits presented at Nuremberg and elsewhere were frequently
produced and signed after psychological and physical torture of its
authors.
For proof of torture of captured Germans by the Allies, read Legions
of Death, a book by Rupert Butler, an English writer, who gives a
vivid description of how the wartime, one-time Concentration Camp
Commandant, Rudolf Hoess, was beaten mercilessly and drugged with
alcohol for several days before he signed his famous "confession"
admitting to two-and-a-half million of people gassed in gas chambers
in Auschwitz.
Suffice it to say here that this so-called
"confession" was written in English, and that Hoess did not speak
or even understand English. (2Butler, Rupert, Legions of Death,
Hamlyn Paperbacks, Great Britain, 1983, pp 10-12)
Julius Streicher, to name another German official who was savagely
tortured by American interrogators to extract a "confession,"
reported that he was beaten so badly that he lost 40% of his hearing.
He was kept naked in an unheated cell and was made to drink from the
latrine. Guards forced his teeth open with a stick so as to spit in
his mouth. ("Streicher Opens His Case,", London Times, April 27.
1946)
This information was later expunged from the Nuremberg Trial
transcripts, with the consent of the president of the Tribunal and
even the "defense" lawyer.
Yet another source is the Simpson van Rhoden Commission of
Enquiry into the conduct of US interrogators during the
Malmedy-Dachau trials. This commission reported mistreatment and
tortures, including mock trials, the administering of fake
confessions by equally fake "priests," beatings, hoodings etc. to get
forced confessions out of prisoners. (The Progressive, written by
Judge Edward L. Van Rhoden in February of 1949 entitled
American Atrocities in Germany)
Here is a sample of how such "confessions" were routinely
obtained:
"American investigators at the U.S. Court in Dachau, Germany, used
the following methods to obtain confessions:
Beatings and brutal kickings. Knocking out teeth
and breaking jaws. Mock trials. Solitary confinement. Posturing as
priests. Very limited rations. Spiritual deprivation. Promises of
acquittal (ed. expl: if the victim implicated fellow prisoners to
corroborate the Allied trial scenarios) . . . All but two of the
Germans, in the 139 cases we investigated, had been kicked in the
testicles beyond repair." (Did Six Million Really Die? Report of
the Evidence in the Canadian "False News" Trial of Ernst
Zündel - 1988, Edited by Barbara Kulaszka, pp 44-45)
U.S. Chief Justice Harlan Fiske Stone, referring to the Nuremberg
trials and speaking of the American Chief Prosecutor, Jackson, had
this to say, as quoted in a Viking Press hard cover, "Harlan
Fiske Stone: Pillar of the Law:"
"Jackson is away conducting his high grade
lynching party in Nuremberg," he remarked. "I don't mind what he
does to the Nazis, but I hate to see the pretense that he is
running a court and proceeding according to common law.
This is a little too sanctimonious a fraud to meet my
old-fashioned ideas." (Mason, Thomas, Harlan Fiske Stone: Pillar
of the Law, Alpheus The Viking Press, page 746)
An accusation does not make a fact. A headline does not make a
fact. A tortured prisoner making a "confession" cannot make his words
a fact.
Here is another good example of a "well-documented" crime:
The Germans were accused at Nuremberg of having killed 15,000 Polish
officers and members of the Polish elite at Katyn. Seven German
military officers and soldiers were executed by the Soviets after a
trial in which more than 4,000 (!) sworn affidavits and dozens of
"experts" and "witnesses" were proffered by the Stalinist
prosecutors.
In 1989, Soviet leader Gorbachev admitted publicly that the Stalin
regime was responsible for these mass murders of the Poles. Not the
Germans. America's ally - Joseph Stalin! - had ordered the
killings!
So if Judge Thomas T. Johnson of the California Superior Court, and
Judge Thomas of the Toronto District Court took smug "Judicial
Notice" of the Holocaust, they based it on "readily available"
documentation tortured and coerced out of the victims of Allied
torture masters.
What kind of "documented evidence" is that? It would not be
permissible in any U.S. or Canadian Court.
In Nuremberg and in many subsequent trials against so-called "Nazi
war crimes" these methods were routinely accepted and "acceptable" as
a matter of policy and "the rules."
Introduction to Revisionist Thought
By Ernst
Zündel
Index
Introduction
The Revisionist
claim:
PART I - The Holocaust is
useful postwar propaganda that started as a systematic, insidious
campaign during World War II as one of the tactics employed by
moneyed interests to rally the troops and engage the world,
specifically America, in what turned out to be, essentially, a
fratricidal war.
PART II - There is no proof
that the Holocaust, as depicted by the Holocaust Promotion Lobby and
the highly politicized Hollywood industry, actually occurred.
PART III - The numbers of "Holocaust"
victims are irresponsibly exaggerated.
PART IV - Official state policy
towards the Jews in the Third Reich was emigration, not
extermination.
PART V - Not a single document
has been found with Hitler's signature ordering the extermination of
the Jews.
PART VI - Zyklon B was a
fumigant. It wasn't a practical agent for mass murder.
PART VII - Zyklon B was highly toxic.
This being so, it would have been foolish and counterproductive to
endanger Third Reich personnel engaged in allegedly pulling bodies
from the execution chambers shortly after they were "gassed."
PART VIII - American execution
expert, Fred Leuchter, delivered a scientific break-through in
proving that the so-called gas chambers at Auschwitz could not have
been used for their alleged purpose."
