Ernst Zundel, one of the great fighters against the
Holocaust establishment in the Western world, has recently
passed away. His wife put me in contact with him at the end
of last month, and we had a very brief correspondence. But I
never knew that he was dying.
Zundel stirred the ideological pot throughout his life. Long
before Zundel passed away, Michael Shermer repeatedly said
that Zundel was a very nice guy. But then Shermer ended up
writing a book mischaracterizing and misconstruing virtually
everything Zundel has said.[1]
Zundel was called “a
threat to national security.” Canada once declared that
“Zündel is inadmissible on security grounds for being a
danger to the security of Canada.” Zundel was “a threat to
national security,” but no one could judiciously pronounce
the nature of his crime. Since Zundel was “a threat to
national security,” his house was burned to the ground
because he challenged the Khazaran Bansker Cult, the
ideological force that has progressively become, in the
words of Yuri Slezkine, “The Jewish Century.”[2]
“On May 8, 1995, his Toronto residence at Carlton Street was
the target of an arson attack resulting in $400,000 in
damage. A group calling itself the ‘Jewish Armed Resistance
Movement’ claimed responsibility for the arson attack;
according to the Toronto Sun, the group had ties to the
Jewish Defense League and to the extremist group Kahane
Chai.
“The leader of the Toronto wing of the Jewish Defense
League, Meir Weinstein, (known then as Meir Halevi) denied
involvement in the attack; however, five days later,
Weinstein and US JDL leader Irv Rubin were caught trying to
break into the Zündel property, where he was apprehended by
police.
“No charges have ever been laid in the incident. Later the
same month Zündel was the recipient of a parcel bomb that
was detonated by the Toronto Police bomb squad. The
investigation into the parcel bomb attack led to charges
being laid against David Barbarash, an animal rights
activist based in British Columbia, but they were eventually
stayed.”
You burn someone’s house to the ground and try to kill him,
but “no charges have ever been laid in the incident.” This
could only happen again in “the Jewish Century,” where no
one is allowed to question or challenge the central aspect
of what is now known as “the Holocaust.”
The media faulted Zundel because Samisdat Publishers, which
was then owned by Zundel, released a pamphlet back in 1977
entitled, “The Hitler We Love and Why.” Zundel, we were
told, was an anti-Semite for doing so.
Yet in 2011, noted military historian R. H. S. Stolfi of the
U.S. Naval Post-graduate School published his studyHitler:
Beyond Evil and Tyranny, in which cogently argued that
Hitler was rational in making many of his decisions and that
the Holocaust establishment has irresponsibly demonized him
for ideological purposes.
Stolfi declares that he has “weighted the great biographies
[of Hitler] on the scales of historical reality and found
them wanting…”[3]According
to Stolfi, the great biographies do not ask deep questions
and fail to address the serious issues surrounding the
evolution of Hitler and Nazi Germany. He writes,
“Virtually every literary piece written about Adolf Hitler
in the more than half century since 1945 has been based on
antipathy. In a seemingly boundless corpus of writing, every
work from the mighty to the insignificant is fundamentally
similar in its common revulsion for the man and his national
movement.
“In the most recent great biography, Professor Ian Kershaw
begins and ends with detestation. His work is skilled and
often brilliant, but he fails to inform the reader of
certain characteristics indispensable for true comprehension
of the man, and he underestimates the importance of the
postwar conditions inflicted by the Allies on Germany, which
contributed to Hitler’s rise.
“Bullock, Fest, and Kershaw ascribe criminal features to
Hitler’s foreign policy from 1933 through 1939, but they
fail to correlate it realistically with the Allied
imposition of the Versailles Treaty—the ultimate
manifestation of German defeat and Allied victory following
World War I.
“In the present situation, the reading public has been
served only half a portrait of the great tyrant of the
twentieth century….half a portrait of Hitler tells us little
about the man as a human being and presents a distorted and
incredible interpretation of his actions as creator of
National Socialism and leader of Germany.
“The great biographies take excessive liberties in
denigrating his person, and, in doing so, they make it
difficult to comprehend him…Every single one falls short of
producing an adequate understanding of Hitler as a
historical person. To this point in time, the biographers
have lost the biographical war.”[4]
In a review of Stolfi’s work, biographer Carl Rollyson
writes in the Star
Tribune,
“Stolfi is no apologist for Hitler in the sense of
minimizing his culpability for the Holocaust and the war,
but the biographer wants to understand, even empathize, with
the man.
“He portrays Hitler’s great personal courage during World
War I as an intrepid combat soldier, and afterward as a man
who personally waged war in the streets of Germany against
Marxist street gangs. Stolfi quotes Thomas Mann’s reluctant
admission that Hitler was an artist, and shows, in detail,
Hitler’s consummate understanding of opera and architecture
and how those arts shaped his view of history and modern
Germany.
“Most important, however, Stolfi analyzes Hitler as a world
leader of astonishing capability, a leader unlike any other
politician of his time. Hitler was a messiah, wishing to
create a new Germany unencumbered by the restrictions of the
Versailles Treaty that crippled German politics and the
country’s economy.”[5]
I shook my head in dismay largely because David Irving has
been saying almost the same thing in Hitler’s
War. Zundel has also been punished for saying the same
thing. Yet to this very day the Holocaust establishment
charges both Irving and Zundel of being vicious
anti-Semites!
I was even appalled by a statement made by Mimi Frank of theJewish
Book Council:
“I personally found it difficult to read Hitler:
Beyond Evil and Tyranny, because I, like the other
biographers, have a hard time overlooking the evil deeds of
Hitler and concentrating instead upon his supposed genius.
Stolfi characterizes Hitler as a rare world historical
figure, compared with the likes of Alexander the Great,
Napoleon, and Julius Caesar. He clearly presents an
alternate view from all the other major biographers of Adolf
Hitler, but not a view that I can share.”[6]
What we are seeing here is that the so-called Holocaust has
never been about establishing historically rigorous
scholarship and criteria. At least for Frank, it boils down
to personal opinion. Frank cannot share Stolfi’s views
not because he has rigorous evidence to the contrary, but
because Stolfi’s analysis does not line up with Frank’s
ideological premises.
In any event, Stolfi’s study, like Irving’s Hitler’s
War, is an important book and it will more than likely
stand the test of time.
If
Zundel was evil, what about Benjamin Netanyahu?
Let us assume for a moment that Zundel was wrong, that his
then publisher should not have written the pamphlet praising
Hitler. Let us further assume that Zundel was a vicious
anti-Semite for doing so. Are we going to apply the same
logic to Benjamin Netanyahu, who praised the Red Army which
ended up killing more than twenty million innocent men,
women, and children?[7]Is
Netanyahu’s palace going to be razed to the ground any time
soon for praising Bolshevism? Why the double standard?
Moreover, organized Jewry will not ban Hollywood, despite
the fact that Hollywood collaborated with Hitler![8] David
Mikics of Tablet
Magazine calls this a “creepy love affair.”[9]Mikics
says that “some of the Hollywood studio heads, nearly all of
whom were Jewish, cast their lot with Hitler almost from the
moment he took power, and that they did so eagerly—not
reluctantly.”[10]
Since Hollywood has largely and progressively become a
Jewish town,[11] and
since Zundel does not ally with that particular town, Zundel
was ontologically an anti-Semite who deserved to be
punished.
The simple fact is that Zundel never denied that Jews
suffered and died at the hands of Nazi Germany. What he
questioned was “did six million really die?” If we take a
number of Jewish historians seriously (Bauer and
Reitlinger), the answer is no.
The 1985 Trial
The late Douglas Christie
The gas chamber controversy again became an issue that
refused to go away in 1985 when Raul Hilberg was summoned to
testify at the trial of Zundel, who was also accused of
“spreading false news.” (Keep in mind that Hilberg was the
first Holocaust historian and many Holocaust historians and
scholars had relied on his voluminous work,The
Destruction of the European Jews, which was first
published in 1961. It was reprinted intact in 1967 and
1979.)
All of that changed in 1985. Zundel’s attorney, Douglas
Christie, pressed Hilberg to give historical evidence of an
Hitler order to exterminate all Jews in Germany, a claim
which Hilberg made in The Destruction of the European Jews.
Hilberg eventually confessed that no such order existed.
Then Christie on moved on to his next point: evidence for
the gas chamber theory.
“What do you mean by a scientific report?,” asked Hilberg.
“I don’t usually have to define simple words,” said
Christie, “but by ‘scientific report’ I mean a report
conducted by anyone who purported to be a scientist and who
examined physical evidence. Name one report of such a kind
that showed the existence of gas chambers anywhere in
Nazioccupied territory.”
“I
still don’t quite understand the import of your question,”
said Hilberg.
“Are you referring to a German, or a post-war—”
“I
don’t care who—German, post-war, Allied, Soviet—any source
at all. Name one,” said Christie.
“To prove what?,” asked Hilberg.
“To conclude that they have physically seen a gas chamber.
One scientific report,” repeated Christie.
“I
am really at loss. I am very seldom at such a loss, but…”
Judge Locke interrupted: “Doctor…do you know of such a
report?”
The debate became interesting when Christie asked Hilberg
about some of his sources, particularly Kurt Gerstein, who
allegedly witnessed the gassing of some 3,000 Jews in camps
such as Belzec and Treblinka.[13]Gerstein
maintained that there were between 28 and 32 people per
square meter in a room 1.8 meter high.
Moreover, he maintained before he committed suicide in a
French prison that at least 20 million people were gassed.
Hilberg used Gerstein as a testimony six times in his book.[14]Christie
told Hilberg that a person like that would be either crazy
or a liar, to which Hilberg responded:
“Well, on this particular datum I would be very careful
because Gerstein, apparently, was a very excitable person.
He was capable of all kinds of statements…”
Christie produced the Gerstein statement and proceeded to
ask Hilberg whether certain statements appeared in the
statement. Hilberg agreed that in his statement, Gerstein
alleged that 700-800 persons were crushed together in 25
square metres in 45 cubic metres; he also agreed that he had
ignored this part of Gerstein’s statement in his book…
“And he refers to Hitler and Himmler witnessing gassings,
right?,” asked Christie.
Hilberg agreed that Gerstein had made this statement and
that it was ‘absolutely’ and ‘totally’ false…
Christie asked Hilberg whether he considered Gerstein’s
statement—that at Belzec and Treblinka nobody bothered to
make a count and that in fact about 25 million people, not
only Jews, were actually killed—was credible?
“Well, parts of it are true, and other parts of it are sheer
exaggeration, manifest and obvious exaggeration. To me, the
important point made in this statement is that there were no
counting at the point at which people entered the gas
chamber,” said Hilberg.[15]
Raul Hilberg
Hilberg eventually admitted that the evidence for mass
murder in the eastern camps came directly from the Soviets.
“The whole site,” suggested Christie, “was within the Soviet
sphere of control, and nobody from the west was allowed into
those camps to investigate, isn’t that right?”
“Well, I don’t know of any requests made to investigate…When
you say no one was allowed, it implies some request,” said
Hilberg…“All I could say is, I know of no Western
investigators early on in Auschwitz, or any of…”
“Treblinka?,” asked Christie.
“Well, there was no more Treblinka in 1945.”
“Sobibor?”
“That was no more.”
“Majdanek?”
“Majdanek is another matter.”
“Was there anybody from the West that went to Majdaneck?,”
asked
Christie.
“Not to my knowledge.”
“Belzec?”
“Belzec was the first camp to have been obliterated.”
Finally, Christie confronted Hilberg with another source
which he had quoted as a witness for mass murder—Rudolf
Franz Ferdinand Hoss, who was an SS lieutenant colonel from
1940 to 1943, and was one of the first commandants of
Auschwitz. Hilberg cites Hoss as one of his authorities, but
Christie asked Hilberg why he mentioned Wolzek, a
non-existent camp, in his book:
“Yes, I have seen that garbled reference,’ said Hilberg. ‘It
may have been Belzec. It’s very hard, if the man did not
write anything, if he said things, if he was tired, if he
was misunderstood, if he misspoke himself…”
Christie pointed out that Hoss referred to Belzec as well as
Wolzek.
“I suggested to you,” he said to Hilberg, “that there is a
reason to believe that this man was not only being obliged
to sign a confession in a language he didn’t understand, but
things were being put into a statement for him that were
patently absurd, like Gerstein.”
“There was obvious confusion in this one statement,” said
Hilberg.
Christie produced Nuremberg document 3868-PS, the Hoss
affidavit. Hilberg agreed he had seen the document before
and agreed he had seen the Wolzek reference. “Yes, I’ve seen
that reference. It’s terrible.”
“It’s obvious that something wasn’t quite right about that
individual, would you agree?,” asked Christie.
“No, I wouldn’t say that something wasn’t quite right about
the individual,” said Hilberg. “I would say that something
wasn’t quite right about the circumstances under which this
was made as an affidavit.”[17]
Hilberg’s second edition of his voluminous work was ready to
go to press that same year. Within weeks after the trial,
Hilberg made sure thata Hitler order for the “Final
Solution,” a point which he argued in the first edition, was
removed completely, without an explanation.
Historian Christopher Browning, who believes that Hitler’s
1941 speech to the Gauleiters may have alluded to a Hitler
order and who also believes that “the argument over whether
Hitler gave an order or not is not commonly part of the
issue of Holocaust denial” because enough reputable
historians like Hans Mommsen and Martin Broszat do not
believe in it,[18]was
quite surprised that Hilberg would make such a decision.[19]
Yet in an interview with journalist D. D. Guttenplan,
Hilberg said that he made the change “in the interest of
precision about the evidence,”[20]and
never mentioned the trial during which he was asked to
provide evidence for the assertion and could not. Deep down
Hilberg believed a Hitler order still existed, even though
he had no evidence.[21]
In 1988, Hilberg was asked to testify against Zundel by
prosecutor John Pearson, but this time he refused. Here is a
“confidential” letter, which Hilberg sent to Pearson, in
which he laid the whole issue out:
“I have grave doubts about testifying in the Zündel case
again. Last time, I testified for a day under direct
examination and for three days under cross-examination. Were
I to be in the witness box for a second time, the defense
would be asking not merely the relevant and irrelevant
questions put to me during the first trial, but it would
also make every attempt to entrap me by pointing to any
seeming contradiction, however trivial the subject might be,
between my earlier testimony and an answer that I might give
in 1988.
“The time and energy required to ward off such an assault
would be great, and I am afraid that the investment of time
alone would be too much, given all the commitments and
deadlines I am facing now.”[22]
The interesting thing is that Michael Shermer never even
remotely mentioned the Zundel trial in his entire book!
It is now obvious that the Holocaust establishment is a
package deal, and that package deal is riddled with
unanswered questions. Once again we are forced to ask: how
was the establishment able to persecute Zundel when he was
simply asking for serious evidence for extraordinary claims?
Well, J. J. Goldberg and other Jewish writers and scholars
have always had the freedom to brag about “Jewish Power.”[23]It’s
only the Goyim who can’t talk about these issues without
being called disgusting names.
[1]See Michael Shermer and Alex Grubman,Denying
History:Who
Says the Holocaust Never Happened and Why Do They Say It?(Berkeley:
University of California Press, 2002).
[2]Yuri Slezkine,The
Jewish Century(Princeton: Princeton
University Press, 2004).
[3]R. H. S. Stolfi, Hitler:
Beyond Evil and Tyranny (New York: Prometheus Books,
2011), 11.
[7]For similar studies, see for example
Jean-Louis Panné and Andrzej Paczkowski,The
Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression(Cambridge:
Harvard University Press, 1999); Norman M. Naimark,Stalin’s
Genocide(Princeton: Princeton University
Press, 2010); Steven Rosefielde,Red
Holocaust(New York: Routledge, 2010);
Robert Conquest,The
Harvest of Sorrow: Soviet Collectivization and the
Terror-Famine(New York: Oxford University
Press, 1987).
[8]See for example Ben Urwand,The
Collaboration: Hollywood’s Pact with Hitler(Cambridge:
Harvard University Press, 2013); Thomas Doherty, Hollywood
and Hitler, 1933-1939 (New York: Columbia University
Press, 2013).
[9]David Mikics, “Hollywood’s Creepy Love
Affair With Adolf Hitler, in Explosive New Detail,” Tablet
Magazine, June 10, 2013.
[22]“The ‘False News’ Trial of Ernst
Zundel—1988,”Institute
for Historical Review.
[23]J. J. Goldberg,Jewish
Power: Inside the American Establishment(New
York: Perseus Book, 1997); Benjamin Ginsberg,Fatal
Embrace: Jews and the State(Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1993).
*
Zundel also speaks about the 10 charges placed against him
about 9/11 at the 3:30 minute mark:
Jonas E. Alexis has degrees in mathematics and
philosophy.He studied
education at the graduate level. His main
interests include U.S. foreign policy, the
history of the Israel/Palestine conflict, and
the history of ideas. He is the author of the
new book Zionism vs. the West: How Talmudic
Ideology is Undermining Western Culture. He
teaches mathematics in South Korea.
